... , God restores that son to Abraham once he passes the test (Gen. 22:1–18). So here the restoration of Job’s family and possessions are part of the test story formula. In a sense, the epilogue simply sets the clock back to the pret-est circumstances. Thus, in my opinion, the epilogue events have nothing to say about retribution theology. The author has already set forth full commentary on retribution in the poetic sections of the book.
... of teaching and the narrative that follows (11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1) but nowhere else in his Gospel. When Jesus finished his teaching, the crowds (see commentary at 5:1) were amazed at the authority with which he taught. Unlike the scribes, who based their opinions on the explanations offered by all the rabbis who preceded them, Jesus had a self-authenticating ring of authority to his words. It was the same authority that led him to forgive the sins of the paralyzed man (Matt. 9:6) and that he gave to his ...
... and Herod’s reluctance to carry out the execution is pictured by Matthew as well (v. 9). There is no question that both Herod and Herodias wanted to be rid of the prophet, although Herod is the one who is a bit reluctant. Green’s opinion that Mark’s version (adapted by Matthew) “rests on popular tradition, not to say bazaar gossip” and is therefore “no more reliable in its details than such sources generally are” (p. 139) is unnecessarily harsh. 14:13–17 When Jesus heard everything that had ...
... 8), and Herod’s reluctance to carry out the execution is pictured by Matthew as well (v. 9). There is no question that both Herod and Herodias wanted to be rid of the prophet, although Herod is the one who is a bit reluctant. Green’s opinion that Mark’s version (adapted by Matthew) “rests on popular tradition, not to say bazaar gossip” and is therefore “no more reliable in its details than such sources generally are” (p. 139) is unnecessarily harsh. 14:22–27 As soon as the five thousand had ...
... . It came in response to direct revelation from God himself. It is important at this point to draw attention to the fact that many critical scholars do not accept the response of Jesus in verses 17–19 as genuine. Beare is of the opinion that “this group of sayings does not commend itself as a genuine utterance of Jesus” but “originated in some debate with the Palestinian community” (pp. 353–54). The most common arguments supporting this contention are (a) elsewhere in the Gospels Jesus does not ...
... . To that extent it would be “misleading and wicked.” A good biblical example of this is when the four hundred prophets of King Ahab of Israel all agree that he will succeed in battle. But King Jehoshaphat of Judah is skeptical and asks for another opinion, so they summon the independent prophet Micaiah. When he arrives, the leader of the royal prophets tries to pressure Micaiah to say the same thing as the others; but he alone brings a negative word, and his is the true word of God, as confirmed by ...
... a failure to realize that Sadducean practice in New Testament times may not have corresponded to later Pharisaic rules for procedure (cf. Marshall, NIDNTT, vol. 1, p. 364). This same attitude toward the reliability of the biblical text surfaces in the opinion that Matthew was influenced by theological considerations that led him to minimize the Roman government’s involvement in the death of Jesus and emphasize the culpability of the Jewish leaders. When Jesus arrived at the house of Caiaphas, the group ...
... of three predictions of Jesus’ death, which triggers the rebuke of Peter, revealing that his acclamation of Jesus was not based on a full understanding of Jesus’ purpose and activity. The answers given to Jesus’ first question remind us of the list of the same opinions given in 6:14–15, and this repetition of these varying labels for Jesus intensifies the sense that the question about who Jesus really is must be seen as central for Mark. (On the significance of each of the labels mentioned in 8:28 ...
... the only thing that stood between him and Jesus was the man’s love for his possessions (v. 22). That is, the description of the man’s otherwise commendable life reveals that wealth was the problem. In ancient times and into the present, popular opinion argues that riches in themselves are no problem, and that only when the wealthy man engages in evil practices is he in spiritual danger. But the force of this passage is precisely that riches in themselves are a hindrance to a person’s participation ...
... to understand the logic of Jesus’ response, it will be necessary to examine it more carefully. Jesus’ definition of the resurrection as bestowing a life like that of the angels (v. 25) is significant for two reasons. First, there was a difference of opinion among ancient Jews as to the nature of resurrection life, with some holding a view like Jesus’ and some expecting that the resurrected dead would have their earthly relationships restored to them. Jesus’ saying in verse 25 does not mean that the ...
... below). If this is the case, then Caiaphas would hold the dubious distinction of being the first high priest to authorize this business activity in the temple. (The custom of exchanging money within the temple’s precincts had apparently been established earlier.) Opinion over the appropriateness of such a new policy would have been sharply divided. It may be (and here we are only guessing) that many priests, Levites, and temple guards were looking on sheepishly when Jesus strode boldly into the temple and ...
... . 110:1, a psalm attributed to David and therefore cited by Jesus as potentially having messianic significance: “The Lord [God] said to my Lord [the Christ] …” That is, Jesus asks, “How can the Messiah [or Christ] be both David’s Son [as held in popular opinion and suggested in certain prophetic passages] and lord [as David himself states in Ps. 110:1]?” (Marshall, p. 745). Jesus’ question in v. 44 is based on the assumption that to be a descendant of someone is to be lesser. For example, the ...
... promises God’s people that they too will follow in his destiny from death into life for ever and ever. The grammar of this commissioning statement is notoriously difficult and makes any definitive interpretation of this crucial text impossible. In our opinion, the statement is most naturally divided into two parts. The first phrase is best understood as a generic formula of commission: write what you have seen. John is to compose a book consisting of all the visions the angel of Christ delivers ...
... ’s descendant at the beginning of the chapter (v. 3) prefaces this discussion. 14:24–30 The first incident is Jonathan’s unwitting breaking of an oath instituted by his father. The reference to the distress of the army indicates the writers’ low opinion about the value of this oath, but the words of Jonathan illustrate how foolish it was. Saul again attempts to ensure that God is behind their action, but his understanding of what God requires (and presumably therefore of who God is) is limited. His ...
... of his faith remains in doubt. His remark (v. 51) is no ringing confession, but merely a plea for fairness. He appears in the narrative more to demonstrate the Pharisees’ intransigence than to mark a stage in his own spiritual development. When their opinions are gently questioned even by one of their own, they are quick to brand the questioner, half in mockery, as a Galilean (v. 52). The intent is not to probe seriously Nicodemus’ family background but to rebuke his apparent sympathies with Jesus the ...
... that which counts in God’s eyes as being of real value in setting forward his work—in this instance, of winning unbelieving husbands to faith in Christ. 3:5–6 The advice to wives on how to be truly beautiful is not just some man’s well-meaning opinion. Scripture itself reveals that this is the way it was achieved by the holy women of the past, that is, by those who demonstrated by their lives that they truly belonged to the holy people of God. Such women put their hope in God, and women believing in ...
... his brothers not to quarrel on the way. His gentle admonition reminded them that his living in Egypt was a result of their quarreling in the past. Certainly Joseph did not want them to delay in bringing his father to Egypt because of a difference of opinion. It is also possible to read the line, “do not be agitated on the way” (Wenham, Genesis 16–50, p. 430); that is, they were not to become apprehensive about returning to Egypt. 45:25–28 On reaching Canaan, the brothers reported to Jacob that ...
... rebellion (vv. 26–27). The theme of Israel’s murmurings and discontents chimes dolefully all through the narrative of their movements ever since the immediate aftermath of the exodus itself. “Stiff-necked” had become Moses’ favorite term for them, echoing God’s own opinion (Exod. 32:9; 33:3; 34:9; Deut. 9:6). But this time there is something of a climax. Of all their rebellions this was surely the most serious and the most costly. The bitterness of their disobedience is expressed in their words ...
... is ill and more concerned to gain a prognosis about his future than to get revenge for the past. There is evident irony in the fact that a foreign king knows well enough to consult the LORD (v. 8) in such circumstances, whereas the Israelite Ahaziah had sought the opinion of Baal-Zebub (2 Kgs. 1:2). Hazael is sent with an extravagant gift (forty camel-loads of wares) to smooth his way. His approach is respectful, like a son to his father (v. 9; cf. 2 Kgs. 6:21). The answer he receives is puzzling (see the ...
... is ill and more concerned to gain a prognosis about his future than to get revenge for the past. There is evident irony in the fact that a foreign king knows well enough to consult the LORD (v. 8) in such circumstances, whereas the Israelite Ahaziah had sought the opinion of Baal-Zebub (2 Kgs. 1:2). Hazael is sent with an extravagant gift (forty camel-loads of wares) to smooth his way. His approach is respectful, like a son to his father (v. 9; cf. 2 Kgs. 6:21). The answer he receives is puzzling (see the ...
... is ill and more concerned to gain a prognosis about his future than to get revenge for the past. There is evident irony in the fact that a foreign king knows well enough to consult the LORD (v. 8) in such circumstances, whereas the Israelite Ahaziah had sought the opinion of Baal-Zebub (2 Kgs. 1:2). Hazael is sent with an extravagant gift (forty camel-loads of wares) to smooth his way. His approach is respectful, like a son to his father (v. 9; cf. 2 Kgs. 6:21). The answer he receives is puzzling (see the ...
... 18:3; contrast 15:3, 34). There seems to be some doubt in the authors’ minds about the wholeheartedness of the Davidic kings’ commitment to the LORD throughout the period from Joash to Jotham, but they have not revealed to us their reasons for holding this opinion. 14:7–14 Amaziah’s military exploits included a successful campaign against the Edomites in northern Edom (v. 7; cf. the Valley of Salt in 2 Sam. 8:13 and the link back to 2 Kgs. 13:7 provided by the number ten thousand; cf. the additional ...
... 18:3; contrast 15:3, 34). There seems to be some doubt in the authors’ minds about the wholeheartedness of the Davidic kings’ commitment to the LORD throughout the period from Joash to Jotham, but they have not revealed to us their reasons for holding this opinion. 14:7–14 Amaziah’s military exploits included a successful campaign against the Edomites in northern Edom (v. 7; cf. the Valley of Salt in 2 Sam. 8:13 and the link back to 2 Kgs. 13:7 provided by the number ten thousand; cf. the additional ...
... ” (1 Chronicles 10–29, p. 545). Since the Chronicler reorganized his source material from 2 Sam. 5:7–23:7, he has also brought the capturing of Jebus and the lists of mighty men following in 1 Chron. 11:10 together. Dirksen is of the opinion that this is done to establish a direct link between David’s kingship and the capture of Jerusalem (1 Chronicles, p. 159). Manfred Oeming offers an interesting explanation for why the Chronicler omitted the reference to the blind and the lame here. Second Sam. 5 ...
... ” (1 Chronicles 10–29, p. 545). Since the Chronicler reorganized his source material from 2 Sam. 5:7–23:7, he has also brought the capturing of Jebus and the lists of mighty men following in 1 Chron. 11:10 together. Dirksen is of the opinion that this is done to establish a direct link between David’s kingship and the capture of Jerusalem (1 Chronicles, p. 159). Manfred Oeming offers an interesting explanation for why the Chronicler omitted the reference to the blind and the lame here. Second Sam. 5 ...