... old order of things has passed away. Following the return of the Lamb, after his last battle and millennial reign, after the destruction of Satan, of his evil kingdom, and finally of death itself, the vision of the eschatological city of God “may be viewed as the climax not only of the book of Revelation, but of the whole story of salvation embodied in the Bible” (Beasley-Murray, Revelation, p. 305). With typical eloquence, Caird adds that “Here is the real source of John’s prophetic certainty, for ...
... God of the spirits who alone inspires seers to speak words that are “trustworthy and true” (cf. 19:10). Further, by more specifically mentioning the angel, which brought him visions from Christ (cf. 1:1), John keeps his own inspired revelation in view. His real interest is not to offer an apologia for Christian prophecy, or even to argue that his God has fulfilled OT prophecy through Christ Jesus. Rather, by bracketing his entire composition off by parallel statements about his own inspiration, the seer ...
... these remaining parts of the animal are not sacrificed because they are polluted by the sin of the one offering sacrifice (Leviticus 1–16, pp. 239–40), but the destruction of these remaining parts of the animal in a place ceremonially clean does not support that view. The mixing of clean and unclean is not desirable. The parts of the animal are destroyed as a further symbol of the removal of the effects of sin and uncleanness, and to show that no one could benefit from the effects of sin. Perhaps the ...
... or demon in the early practice of this ritual. By the time the Priestly tradition was collected, the term would have lost that connotation. The goat is being returned to an “evil one,” in keeping with the sin it bears. Some interpreters reject that view because of the fierce aversion to idolatry in the OT, which is reflected in the very next chapter of Leviticus. Some of these interpreters connect the word with the verb meaning “to depart” and thus think of “the goat of removal” or “the goat ...
... issues are noticeable in this chapter. The first is the application of the Priestly perspective to both native-born and alien. Aliens are not Israelites but are living with this community. The equal application of these instructions to them reflects an equalitarian view and the inclusion in the Priestly community of non-Israelites who conform to the Priestly perspective. The second matter is that this first chapter of the Holiness Code highlights some of the core tenets of those who put together the Code ...
... the wasting of semen; wasting the life force in semen in such relations threatens the future security of the family. The final prohibition, in verse 23, is against bestiality, and the same factors of confusing boundaries and wasting semen may be in view, as well as contrast with other ancient cultures. Bestiality brings defilement or uncleanness. It is prohibited to both men and women. For the woman, that is a perversion. The term (tebel) indicates a mixing or confusing of boundaries, which the Priestly ...
... 11, 19, and 20, father and mother, uncle and aunt, and “close relative” have become one flesh. The incestuous relationship in view is a serious violation of the Priestly order for life. Childlessness results in verse 20, a serious loss in ancient Israel ... emphasizes distinctiveness for ancient Israelites. They are not to live as the other nations God is expelling from Canaan. The view that God abhorred these other nations is not surprising, but verse 23 states this idea for the first time. Holiness ...
... reading is that Moses is weary of the task and says, “Do Aaron and I have to do one more thing for you?” That view would fit God’s complaint in verse 12 that Moses and Aaron did not trust God. In any case, Moses has already deviated from the ... (the staff from the LORD’s presence in v. 9). The latter seems more likely. 20:12 See Milgrom, Numbers, pp. 448–56, for various views on the sin of Moses: e.g., that Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it or struck it twice rather than once, or Moses ...
... ,” is a comprehensive term indicating gifts given to God, here with the pronominal suffix. The offerings’ tie to God is strong in the language of this verse. Food (lekhem) is an ancient term for sacrifice, probably a vestige of the view that sacrifice was food for the gods. That view does not seem to be present in the OT, but the language remains. As we have seen, offerings made by fire may refer to a more general “gift.” The sacrifice as an aroma pleasing to me is also ancient language describing ...
... to proceed. When in spite of Samuel’s clear warnings the desire for a king remained, the request was duly authorized. The monarchy then was seen as a gift from God. 8:21–22 It is usually taken for granted that Samuel continued to view kingship in a negative light, but this chapter, after recording his initial displeasure, gives no indication of his personal feelings. He puts forward all the negative arguments in obedience to God’s will and then with equal obedience acquiesces to God’s command to ...
... with and could, properly exercised, enhance the kingly rule of God. The ambiguity of Samuel’s position is very well expressed within this speech. 12:20–25 If verse 19 is meant to indicate that the Lord was viewed as particularly Samuel’s God, then these verses speak strongly against that view. They all are chosen by God. Whatever evil they have done, the important thing is to wholeheartedly serve the LORD from this point on. They have not yet reached the situation where God is about to reject his ...
... to confirm that David was not a threat to Saul and that it was ridiculous for the king of Israel, which was how David viewed Saul, to bother about a flea on a dog’s carcass, which is how unimportant David portrayed himself to be. The point is that ... writers’ purpose is not served by providing details concerning pursuit of the Philistines. However, incidental references like this support the view that the positive summary of Saul’s reign (14:47–48) was not an unrealistic eulogy. He was able to take ...
... take could now be seen only as revenge. Her knowledge of David seems enough to assure her that he will consider revenge as God’s prerogative, not his, and that causing needless death is not his intention. She makes it clear that her political views are diametrically opposed to those of her husband. She is fully aware of what is involved in David’s dispute with Saul, and she associates herself with David, accepting unquestioningly his innocence, the rightness of his claim to the throne of Israel, and the ...
... openly proclaiming that this was never his intention, makes a far more effective declaration of his acceptance of Saul’s right to rule than not taking the spear in the first place. David’s second speech to Saul makes it apparent that he views Saul’s response with extreme skepticism, which is unsurprising given the short-lived nature of Saul’s previous repentance. He picks up Abishai’s assurance that God had given this opportunity but sees it as an opportunity to proclaim his innocence rather than ...
... Abner was shocked horror. Joab saw Abner as his enemy. The rivalry of two skilled generals had been exacerbated by Abner’s having killed Joab’s brother Asahel. Joab could not envisage that anyone whom he viewed with such enmity could be seeking peace (v. 25). Joab appears to have viewed conquest in war as the only secure way of obtaining or reclaiming territory. He was extremely suspicious of any kind of diplomatic compromise, although he was a skilled negotiator or at least a skilled manipulator of ...
... –15 This account is sometimes taken not as describing a particular event taking the ark to Jerusalem but as a description of a regular ceremony taking place each year at new year, when the ark was brought anew into the temple. Some of those who take this view assume that sacrifices took place after every six steps and see this as a confirmation of a regular ritual. However, there had to be a time when the ark was first taken to Jerusalem, and nothing in the text as we have it precludes this from being an ...
... king, may indicate his fear that some informant would let the king know but more probably indicates a popular superstitious view of David as having access to supernatural knowledge (cf. chs. 19–20). 18:14 The significance of the three javelins (� ... Ittai the Gittite. However, it is more probable that he was a slave. 18:28–29 Brueggemann (First and Second Samuel, p. 322) views Ahimaaz as “blurting out” the news of victory and then exhibiting cowardice as he fails to give David the news of Absalom’s ...
... —whoever was involved (cf. Amos 1:9). Throughout the ancient Near East such action would have been seen as instituting a bloodguilt in which the whole nation could be involved. As is still common in some Middle Eastern countries, the victims were asked for their views on how the offense could be atoned for or what should be done to those who might be held responsible (vv. 3–4). The Gibeonites are initially wary of offending David and aware of their own subservient position within the nation. They had no ...
... , fortress, a refuge, and a stronghold—all providing a hiding place and a barrier to protect against enemy weapons. Actively he was the deliverer who dealt with violent men of all kinds. 22:5–7 These verses tell of the awful desperation with which David at times viewed his situation. Death felt as close as a rope coiled around him. Even in his distress in the midst of that awfulness he was able to reach out to God with confidence that he would at least be heard. 22:8–16 Here the discussion focuses on ...
... , particularly in the light of the parallel in Chronicles, where Satan incites David. Are we to understand that God causes David to take action that is against God’s will and for which David and the nation will be punished? If so, then God is to be viewed as the tempter, something that James 1:13 suggests is not possible. One way of reconciling this is to see God as allowing and overruling while Satan tempts. Another approach is to see David as God’s tool used to punish Israel. This would explain why ...
... twice as much space as each of the other two friends. Eliphaz, whose name means something like “my God (is) pure gold,” begins a bit hesitantly, as if concerned how Job will respond, but he builds rather quickly to an assured presentation of his views. His major assertion in this chapter seems to be that because all humans are less than righteous before God (4:17), Job ought to trust that God will respond mercifully to Job’s consistent demonstration of diligent piety. His first point seems to be that ...
... of sages, gathered over the ages, were thought to provide ever greater understanding of the divine ordering of the world and the appropriate way to relate to it. Bildad calls Job to affirm the traditional teaching of wisdom (which, in Bildad’s view, affirms retribution). The Hebrew verb konen means “to establish firmly,” as in the foundation of a building. Bildad is encouraging Job not simply to find out about the teachings of past sages, but also to “buy into” the prevailing ideology instead of ...
... rebuke, Job’s many words will reduce men to silence, and it will seem like he has won. This is, in fact, exactly what happens at the end of the third cycle of dialogue. Bildad’s third (and last) speech is severely truncated, while Zophar (ironically, in view of his comments here) fails to speak at all. The effect is to suggest that Job’s friends are unable to counter his argument—a conclusion buttressed by the opening comments regarding Elihu in 32:4–5, and by Elihu’s own comments in 32:10–22 ...
... Job anticipates seeing his advocate. In this life? Or in some resurrection life after his death? Commentators have defended both views, and the data are far from certain. The reference in verse 25 to the goʾel appearing in the end ... other hand, ʾakharon in verse 25 may mean nothing more than “later,” or “afterwards,” with no eschatological significance. In this view, the destruction of Job’s “skin” is a reference to his extreme suffering and physical deterioration (boils, etc.) so that Job’ ...
... edge to it, rejecting the purposes of God—thus the fool is culpable for failure to fear God rightly and follow his path. It seems here, therefore, that the friends fall under the judgment of sin because they promulgate a distorted worldview and use that view to condemn innocent sufferers as sinful persons. This is an instructive warning for us all! You have not spoken . . . what is right. The rebuke of the friends in verse 7 opened with this same phrase. Its reappearance here emphasizes the failing of the ...