... has won the war of nerves. When urged to modify the inscription so as to state only that kingship was Jesus’ claim, Pilate mocks the Jews’ traditional and well-known reverence for the written word with the terse reply: What I have ... a dry and weary land, where there is no water. (Ps. 63:1) First of all, there is surely an irony in the fact that he who claimed to satisfy all thirst (4:13–14) himself became thirsty for the sake of those in need (cf. 4:6–7). Yet however great Jesus’ physical experience ...
... lips of Mary Magdalene in v. 13), and second, that he now understood his beloved teacher to be none other than God himself (cf. Jesus’ prophetic words in 8:28, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be”). Jesus’ response to this last great confession of John’s Gospel is much like his response to all the other confessions. He accepts it, but with no special words of commendation (cf., e.g., 1:50; 6:70; 16:31–32). Instead of pronouncing a beatitude ...
... when “the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.” With this confidence, he says, we “would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” He claims no revelation as authority for this assurance, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 with regard to the resurrection or in 1 Corinthians 15:51 with regard to the bestowal of immortality on believers who are still alive; but he affirms his hope with a positiveness (“we ...
... had left the community, 1 John 2:19; 4:1; 2 John 7) which the Elder had sent them to deliver. “It was a signal feature of Gaius’ hospitality that he was prepared to extend it to people who were otherwise unknown to him and had no claims on him except that they formed part of the company of those who like him had come to know the truth” (Marshall, Epistles, p. 85). These traveling representatives of the Elder may well have been refused hospitality by the nearby house church of Diotrephes (v. 10). Note ...
... son Isaac. The sign of circumcision and the birth of the promised son go hand in hand, for Isaac, the first heir of the covenant, will be the first seed of Abraham to be circumcised on the eighth day, as commanded. Many critics have claimed that this account merely echoes the earlier covenant ceremony of chapter 15. However, God’s augmentation of the covenant with new elements assumes a preexisting covenant. An elaborate sacrifice sealed the initial covenant (15:9–11, 17), but there is no reference to a ...
... to offer up Isaac. For Abraham, Isaac was the firstborn son, a specific fulfillment of the promises God gave him at the outset of his journey with God (12:1–3). This point is crucial. Paramount to God’s lordship over all earthly life is his absolute claim on every firstborn. The law required Israel to present all the firstborn of animals and the firstfruits to God (Exod. 13:2; 23:16, 19; 34:26; Deut. 26:1–11). By giving the first to God, the people recognized God’s ownership of all their produce ...
... Code of Hammurabi (§171), if sons of a concubine had not been acknowledged by their father to be on the level of his children by his primary wife during his life, they had no claim on the inheritance. Abraham then sent these children away . . . to the land of the east to make sure that they would not interfere with Isaac’s claim to any of the promised heritage. 25:7–10 The obituary reports that Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years. Abraham died with a strong sense that he had pleased God. His ...
... :8, 10). Throughout this story “face” (panim) is a key term (32:19–20, 30; 33:10; also used in a preposition in 32:17; 33:3, 14). It conveys Jacob’s deep anxiety as he anticipates seeing Esau’s face. After the wrestling match Jacob claims to have seen God face to face; therefore he names that place Peniel (“face of God,” 32:30). Then, seeking to appease Esau (lit. “soothe his countenance” [face]), he gives him an enormous gift so that Esau might receive him honorably (lit. “lift his face ...
... and changed his clothes. After proper introductions, Pharaoh informed Joseph that no one had been able to interpret his dreams. Joseph assured Pharaoh that though he could not interpret dreams in his own power, God would give Pharaoh the answer. In making this claim Joseph was speaking boldly, for in Egypt Pharaoh was a god. His confidence before Pharaoh testifies to his communion with God during his years in prison. He was ready to face the challenge before him, assured of God’s help. Since Joseph had ...
... migrations and conquests to Yahweh’s sovereignty. Secondly, it seems designed to explain why some nations along Israel’s route remained unmolested while others were conquered and dispossessed. The claims of brotherhood (an important ethical motivation later in the book) protected Edom (2:4, 8; cf. 23:7a). Moab and Ammon have a similar claim, being distantly related to Israel in the Genesis family archives (Gen. 19:30–38), but in their case the reason they are protected is explicitly told: Yahweh had ...
... produce in the way of wealth is for me. That is, it is mine to enjoy, to exploit as I wish. My abilities, my strength, my hard work, my cleverness, and my professional skills, produced it, ergo, it is mine. Self-exaltation and self-interest underlie the claim. Now the OT certainly praises hard work and the achievements that flow from it (Prov., passim). But the rest of the law (as we shall see in later sections) undercuts any idea that “what’s mine is mine because I produced it,” by subjecting it to ...
... , she is to leave as a free woman. He can take no further advantage over her by selling her as a slave. Thus, the physical and emotional needs of the woman in her utter vulnerability are given moral and legal priority over the desires and claims of the man in his victorious strength. The case could be written up as a matter of human rights. Deuteronomy characteristically prefers to express it as a matter of responsibilities. As such, its relevance is clearly applicable beyond the realm of war to all kinds ...
... their support for Adonijah represents at least in part a commitment to history and tradition and to the continuing influence of Judeans at the centers of power. By contrast, only Benaiah the son of Jehoiada of the individuals named in the opposing group has any claim to such a longstanding association with David (cf. 2 Sam. 20:23; 23:20–23), although we must include here also the men who made up David’s special guard (the “mighty men” of 2 Sam. 23:8–39). Aside from these men and Rei (otherwise ...
... to this argument, it has usually been maintained that all Israel does not necessarily imply “all twelve tribes” in Kings, but can refer simply to the northern tribes, “Israel.” For all its popularity, however, the position is not strong. We shall return to the general claim about the meaning of all Israel in Kings when we discuss 1 Kings 12. So far as 1 Kings 4:7 in particular is concerned, the phrase is unlikely to be referring to the northern tribes alone. Its scope is sufficiently defined by the ...
... in Kings is not clear (except perhaps in 1 Kgs. 9:21, which is equally problematic in terms of a postexilic context); caution is therefore required in the interpretation of such texts. Sometimes the phrase may not be intended by the final producers of Kings so much to make a claim about their present, as to make a claim about the trustworthiness of the earlier traditions that they are presenting to their readers—“the people who passed these stories on had evidence of their truth before them.”
... see that they are indeed brothers (v. 24; cf. 1 Kgs. 22, esp. v. 44) and should live in peace. There is much to happen in 1 Kings, however, before we get to that point. Additional Notes 12:4 Your father put a heavy yoke on us: It is the claim of “all Israel” that Solomon’s regime in part or as a whole has been unduly harsh. The authors do not commit themselves on the point. They do want us to think differently about the mas (forced labor) that the Canaanite population carried out and the sēḇel that ...
... and that he did not in fact initiate idolatrous worship in Israel at all but, in effect, only substituted calves for ark and cherubim, in a slightly different version of the worship of the LORD in Jerusalem. He is not so much wicked, it is claimed, as misunderstood, even misrepresented; what he really wanted was for Israel to worship the LORD through the medium of the calves. Such is the dogmatism with which this position is sometimes asserted that it is difficult to keep clearly in view the extent to which ...
... , resisting the king’s invitation and setting out on another road (v. 10) so as not to return by the way he had come. Later, however, when he is overtaken on his journey, he is persuaded by the old prophet to accept hospitality in his house by the (false) claim that he too has had a prophecy from God (vv. 11–19). While sitting at table, the Bethel prophet then receives a true prophecy condemning the man of God because he has defied the word of the LORD (v. 21) that he first received. The Judean will not ...
... ʿḵr, “to trouble,” is also found in 1 Sam. 14:24–46. Here, too, there is a dispute about who is really the troubler of Israel—is it Saul, who has bound the people under a foolish oath (cf. Judg. 11:29–40, esp. ʿkr in v. 35), as Jonathan claims (1 Sam. 14:29); or is it Jonathan himself? This is not the only time we shall detect the Saul story influencing the telling of the Ahab story (cf., for example, 1 Kgs. 20:35–43; 22:29–38). 18:19 The four hundred prophets of Asherah: Elijah’s hope ...
... (1 Kgs. 21:23; cf. 2 Kgs. 9:10). Yet the end of the chapter throws up a particularly difficult problem, even as it is claiming such fulfillment. The majority of Hebrew MSS at 1 Kings 21:23 have Elijah saying that Jezebel would be eaten by dogs “by the wall ( ... necessarily by Jehu, as having been fulfilled in 1 Kgs. 22:38) or as referring to another incident entirely. Certainly he claims prophetic justification for his actions. 9:29 The eleventh year of Joram: The conflict between this date for Ahaziah’s ...
... , and not Amaziah, who has just been described as “resting with his fathers” (Hb. šḵḇ ʿim-ʾaḇōṯāyw, v. 16). It is after the passing of Jehoash—the real power in the land—that Azariah is able to consolidate Amaziah’s gains in Edom by claiming the port of Elath (cf. 1 Kgs. 9:26). The fact that he is called simply “the king,” with no further indentification made, bears out our interpretation of the whole passage. The “humbling” of the house of David thus continues (cf. 1 Kgs. 11 ...
... a difficult one for us. It is certainly a dangerous one. Most wars are fought in the name of holiness. The collocation of ideas has consistently been appropriated ideologically. Leaders and peoples fight wars that are at least partly designed to fulfill their own desires while they claim to be fighting in the name of God. The OT’s implication is that God takes the risk of being involved in that process, in which nations use God’s name as they seek to pursue their own ends. In this way God is involved in ...
... to seek to get it changed. It also assumes that there ought to be a link between the lives we live and the destiny that unfolds for us. In the light of what we know of Hezekiah we may feel that there is some irony in his claim for himself, and it is noticeable that Yahweh’s response (vv. 4–6) does not include an explicit acknowledgment that he has spoken truly. Conversely, of course, many faithful people who pray for deliverance from a fatal illness do not receive it. Perhaps the additional promise of ...
... city to another (Nebo’s actually resided in Borsippa, ten miles down river from Babylon). The prophet’s vision is a mockery of such a procession, a procession that this time leads into exile. It is a bold image. After all, some people doubtless claimed that Yahweh had been just as unable to prevent Jerusalem’s fall and the destruction or removal of the objects that stood for the divine presence in the temple. The prophet has provided an explanation for Jerusalem’s fall that makes it an expression ...
... from God on waking every day, in which case the vast bulk of these messages were not put into this book. More likely, the picture of being awoken every morning to learn is part of the metaphor of teacher and pupil. But it does function to make the claim that the teacher has consistently instructed the pupil. It also prepares the way for the further use of the “awakening” motif in chapters 51–52. The God who is in the awakening business also issues wake-up calls via the one who has been awoken. We have ...