... describing the washing of the church and its subsequent results. At first glance, 5:26, 27 appear as an interpolation, because the thoughts of 5:25 and 5:28 join so nicely together. Yet, there is no textual evidence that these verses are of questionable origin; nor is there any suggestion that they do not fit into the context of the writer’s discussion on Christ and the church. It appears that the mention of Christ’s death for the church (5:25) triggered thoughts the author had about baptism. Perhaps ...
... specific reference to the gospel that the Colossians heard and had come to know as the truth of God (1:6). Paul is on the verge of exposing the heresy, and he wants his readers to know that their growth in Christ depends upon following the gospel as originally delivered to them (1:5–8; 2:6), not some secondary traditions of the false teachers (2:8). And overflowing with thankfulness: Paul has already mentioned thanksgiving (1:3, 12) and will do so again in 3:15 and 4:2. This phrase surely ties in with his ...
... of Christ had every right to be a burden to their hosts (cf. 1 Thess. 2:6), but they had foregone that right in order to make ourselves a model (typos, “example,” cf. Phil. 3:17) for you to follow (“to mimic,” see disc. on 3:7). Exousia meant originally the freedom to do as one pleased but came to mean right in the legal sense, the right of authority. Paul discusses this right more fully in 1 Corinthians 9:13f., where he shows that it rests on dominical authority (cf. Matt. 10:5–10; see also 2 Cor ...
... with a connective gar (“for,” untranslated in the NIV), some have argued that the saying is actually verse 8 or 10 or that logos does not mean saying here but refers back to God’s word in verse 9 or that the “for” was an original part of a borrowed saying that was thus incorporated by Paul, but without meaning for the present context. However, the rhythmic balance of the four lines that follow gives them the clear character of a “saying” (perhaps an early Christian poem or hymn, more likely ...
... but simply that God looks upon them favorably and is eagerly willing to sustain them in their time of need. 6:11–12 For diligence (spoudē), which occurs only here in Hebrews, see W. Bauder, NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 1168–70. The emphasis in the original is more on the full assurance (or possibly, fullness) of hope than on the actual experiencing of the things hoped for, although the latter is implied in the words to the very end. On the word for “full assurance,” (plērophoria), see R. Schippers, NIDNTT ...
... At the same time, the masculine participle may simply be formal; or if Priscilla left the book anonymous, she may also have been wise enough to change the gender of the participle she otherwise would have used so as not to reveal its feminine origin. Samuel’s name may be put after David’s because of his natural association with the prophets (cf. Acts 3:24). This is the only occurrence in the NT of the names Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah. The phrase administered justice (or “wrought righteousness ...
... the God of peace is a formula common in the Pauline epistles (e.g., Rom. 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 3:16). God is further addressed as the one who raised Jesus from the dead, although in the original the phrase our Lord Jesus does not occur until the end of the address (i.e., the last words of v. 20), just prior to the first petition, in a climactic position. This passing reference, in the midst of a calling upon God in prayer, surprisingly constitutes the only explicit ...
... 9. The desires is a different term from the “evil desire” of 1:14, but it means the same. It also occurs in Luke 8:14; 2 Pet. 2:13; and Titus 3:3. The different terminology with the same meaning is evidence that the book was originally independent sermons joined together into an edited unity. See further G. Stahlin, “Hēdonē,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 909–26. Within you is literally “in your members.” Though some, e.g., J. H. Ropes, James, p. 253, believe these are the members of the church, the use ...
... the public courtroom and private deceit contexts: “Do not lie. Do not deceive one another. Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD” (see also Lev. 19:15–16). The command reflects the original context of courtroom law and translates literally as, “You will not answer against your neighbor with a false testimony.” In Egypt God’s people had been victims of exactly this crime. Pharaoh’s false testimony against them was that they wanted to worship God ...
... in more detail (see 32:34a): “Leave this place . . . go up to the land . . . I will send an angel before you.” The Lord reminded them of the oath to Abraham and the land of the Canaanites flowing with milk and honey, taking Moses back to the words of the original promise God made at Sinai (3:6–8, 16–17). At this point, God had partially answered Moses’ petition to restore the people (32:13) so the second half of 33:3 comes as a shock: “But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked ...
... sources underlie these chapters? and What redaction processes can be detected in this literature? formed the focus of main interest of many Chronicles scholars. Following Klein’s summary (1 Chronicles, pp. 445–47), we may distinguish three basic positions in the debate on the origin of these texts. First, some scholars consider all of the lists in 1 Chron. 23–27 to be secondary. This group of scholars argues, on the basis of the repetition of 23:2 in 28:1, that the five chapters in between them form ...
... agreement of Mithredath” (REB), a Persian official. The ancient versions variously found in the first Aramaic term a name or a common noun. The final sentence could be interpreted in a number of different ways. The last phrase, “in Aramaic” (NRSV) is widely regarded as originating in a copyist’s comment that what follows in 4:8–6:18 is not in Hebrew but in Aramaic, which was used for correspondence by and with the Persian authorities. The NRSV footnote takes it this way, as in Daniel 2:4, while ...
... an early stage. 8:10 Bani has correctly been restored with the LXX and 1 Esd. 8:36. This clan name is found in the form “Binnui” in Neh. 7:15 (= “Bani” in Ezra 2:10). 8:14 The pattern of the list suggests that and Zaccur was originally “the son of Zaccur” (NJB), as 1 Esd. 8:40 attests (see BHS), and as the following “with him” in the MT implies. The NIV has changed this to with them with some ancient support, which looks like a correction made to cope with the textual alteration. There was ...
... read: In this condensed account of the service, the general subject “they” refers to the people who stood to listen, as in 8:5b, and to the Levites who read. 9:4 Standing on the stairs were the Levites: The NIV has misconstrued or heavily paraphrased the original, which means “(Jeshua . . .) stood on the stairs of the Levites” (NRSV). The overlap of names with v. 5, 8:7, and 10:9–13 indicates that Levites are in view. We are not told where the stairs were. Perhaps they led up to the portico of the ...
... builders in ch. 3. Three or four are also found in 8:4, while three or four towns listed in ch. 7 reappear here as personal names. Myers’ lists in Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 234–41, are useful for comparing all the evidence. Much of it favors a literary origin for the present list. However, we must also take unique names into account. Zedekiah (v. 1), who does not seem to have been a priest (see the NRSV), is not known elsewhere. He may have been a civil leader or the official who wrote out the document, like ...
... own meditations, convictions, and musings; they came from God. Amos is set under the command of God to travel from his home in Judah to the northern kingdom of Israel, there to speak to the heirs of the old northern tribal league, the possessors of the original Mosaic covenant (cf. 7:15). It is a fateful journey, under an awful command. Introduction to the Oracles (1:2): 1:2 This verse forms a summary statement that sets the tone of the whole Amos corpus. The editors have joined it to the superscription by ...
... his inner filling with the Spirit of God. This superscription, on the other hand, says that Micah saw (ḥāzāh) the words of the Lord, and, by emending the text, the NIV has taken that to mean that Micah had a supernatural vision of some sort. The original Hebrew reads simply, “The word of the LORD that came to Micah . . . which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.” As is evident in Numbers 24:4, 16, ḥāzāh can refer to an auditory revelation as well as a visual one. Thus, there is no reason to ...
... the singular “shiggaion” comes in the heading to Psalm 7. Scholars have thought that this heading, along with the similar footnote with which the chapter closes (v. 19b), indicate that this is a poem by Habakkuk that came to be used in worship although it was originally part of the prophetic book. The notes concerning its use in worship then came to be part of the prophetic text, just as the headings about using psalms came to be part of the Psalms’ text. It is indeed a plausible idea that such a poem ...
... saves and advocates for sinners. He is our paraklētos, translated in the NIV as one who speaks … in our defense. The Spirit is the paraklētos in John 15:26 and “another paraklētos” in 14:16–17, in which it is implied that Jesus himself is the original. Before God, or in the presence of the Father (pros ton patera; cf. 1:2), Jesus intercedes for sinners and speaks on their behalf. The same function is attributed to him in Rom. 8:34 and Heb. 7:25. 2:2 The second part of the Elder’s christological ...
... 2 John 7 may be influenced by Ps. 118:26, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (cf. John 12:13). See also John 1:15, 27. On the christological views of the opponents, see the Introduction to this commentary and Brown, “Origin of I and II John in a Struggle with Adversaries,” Epistles, pp. 47–68. On the term antichrist, see E. Kauder, “Antichrist,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 124–26, and J. E. H. Thomson, “Antichrist,” ISBE, vol. 1, pp. 139–41. For a comparison of the eschatology ...
... of chapters 6–13 is the foundation on which the socio-ethical compassion of chapter 15 and related laws can be built. 15:1–3 In characteristic fashion, Deuteronomy here recalls an ancient law, adds some modification, and reinforces it with motivational preaching. The original law (Exod. 23:10f.) prescribed a sabbatical fallow year on the land. The similarity of the two laws is not easy to see in the NIV, but the Hebrew phrase translated you must cancel debts in Deuteronomy 15:1 uses the same word as ...
... ], p. 45, and Gowan, Ezekiel, p. 41), or Lev. 18:6–19 and Ezek. 22:10–11. 1:4–28 The Heb. text of Ezek. 1 is awkward, repetitive, and problematic. But attempts to clean up the text by proposing multiple, conflicting expansions to the original vision report (see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, pp. 101–6) miss the point. This is a “vision,” after all; its images and ideas need not correspond to our sense of logic (see R. R. Wilson, “Prophecy in Crisis: The Call of Ezekiel,” in Interpreting the Prophets ...
... the nose:” that is, they treat God with contempt. The Masoretes, the Jewish scribes responsible for preserving the MT, regarded this as one of 18 changes that had been made in the earlier transmission of the text to avoid disrespect to God; the original, they claimed, had been “Look at them putting the branch to my nose.” To be sure, either of these ancient readings fits the Lord’s response to the priests’ action. The Lord has been insulted, perhaps even metaphorically assaulted, by the actions of ...
... of Judah has become like all the other nations” (v. 8). The words “and Seir” are missing from the LXX and Old Latin texts. It is far more likely that those texts have eliminated this curious reference, however, than that the Hebrew text has added it. Seir originally referred to the wooded highlands southeast of Judah (E. Knauf, “Seir,” in ABD 5, pp. 1072–73). However, it can also be used as a synonym for Edom, the kingdom to the south of Moab (Gen. 32:3; Num. 24:18)—as Ezekiel himself does (35 ...
... . First, they routinely followed lineage through the male, firstborn family members. Thus, the inclusion of some women (1:3, 5–6) and a few nonfirst sons (e.g., Judah in 1:2; Solomon in 1:6) would have caught the attention of Matthew’s original audience. Second, since the form of a genealogy is quite patterned (the repeated “the father of . . .”), additional commentary within the genealogy is a clear way of introducing a theme (e.g., “and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon” [1:11 ...