... the book (20:22–23:33 in its final form). Previously the people had heard his oral report and affirmed it (v. 3). In a similar way, the people publicly and unanimously approved the formal document, now named the Book of the Covenant, as the fifth response. The people added the words “we will obey” (shamaʿ, or “we will listen”). The most dramatic action was the sixth: Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of [the book of] the covenant.” The people ...
... up to when Joshua gave his farewell address. The phrase in this setting does not refer to a later time when the material was edited or written, as other uses of the phrase might suggest. The reported speech suggests that the tribes should love God in response to God’s saving power during the battles and continue a close relationship with God that began under the pressure of taking the land. It addresses human nature, which tends to lose its need to depend on God when a crisis subsides. The people should ...
... commitment from them. In the end, the people commit themselves to worship and obey their God. That is the ultimate witness to a vow. 24:25–27 A epilogue concludes the covenant making. A narrative reports that Joshua cut a covenant with the people, writing down their responsibilities to God in decrees and laws. He did three things to formalize the agreement. He wrote the covenant in the Book of the Law of God and set up a large stone under a sacred oak tree, near the holy place of the Lord. Then he turned ...
... Barak in his trophy cases of heroes of the faith. But Barak is not the only one in history who has chosen to focus upon the flesh and blood that he can see rather than the one whom he cannot physically see. And the Lord was not pleased with his response. Deborah agreed to accompany Barak but added a note of rebuke: The honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman. These words must have stung Barak; to not receive the honor for the victory would have been bad enough, but for a woman ...
... of Gibeah was to kill him, and he conveniently forgot to mention that he gave them his concubine, whom they raped. After presenting his case, he called for a verdict from the assembly. 20:8–13a The theme of unity continues to be highlighted in the Israelites’ response: All the people rose as one man, pledged, not to go home until they had given the Gibeahites what they deserved for all . . . the vileness done in Israel (v. 10). All the men of Israel got together and united as one man against the city (v ...
... the dead over his inheritance” (lehaqim shem hammat ’al nakhalot; note the same phrase, lehaqim shem, “to raise up the name,” in Deut. 25:7). Not bad for a day’s work! 4:11–13 We are witnesses. The single word ’edim is the antiphonal response of the elders and all those at the gate. Perhaps the best way to catch the flavor of this is to imagine Boaz’s repetitive ’edim . . . ’edim as the “Hip, Hip . . . ,” and the ’edim of the council as the answering “Hooray!” Everyone loves a ...
... sent to Artaxerxes. The third letter is also to Artaxerxes, but this list of senders differs from that of the second letter (vv. 8–16). We are meant to understand that it was as negative as the others. The fourth letter (vv. 17–22) is a response from Artaxerxes to the third letter. 4:8–16 The text of the next letter is found in these verses. It was from two officials, evidently based in the province of Samaria. They did not write on behalf of the provincial governor. Rather, they claimed to represent ...
... with 1 Kgs. 6:36; 7:12, although it applies only to the walls of the temple court there; it may have been an earthquake precaution. Knowledge of the first temple presupposes Cyrus’ access to local information. Possibly his decree was drawn up in response to a Jewish petition, as Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 80, suggests. Inside knowledge depending on a Jewish informant in Darius’ case is reflected in the technical details of v. 11, the pleasing sacrifices in v. 10 (compare Lev. 1:9), and the reference ...
... . 8:35–36 We hear an echo of the religious celebrations that followed the completion of the two phases of the first mission in chapters 3 and 6. It was time to celebrate again. A switch to third-person narrative appears to indicate that the editor was responsible for bringing the episode to a close. These verses were a natural deduction from the royal mandates in 7:17, 21–23, with a side-glance at Nehemiah 2:9. The sacrificing is also an act of thanksgiving for the safety of the journey. It is a ...
... back. It is likely that the editor took it that way, in line with Ezra 9:8, 13–15. The Nehemiah memoirs generally do not discriminate between returnees from exile and nonexiled Judeans. As governor of the province of Judah (5:14), he would have been responsible for all Judeans there. It is probable that the original reference was to all Judeans descended from survivors of the exile of 587, whether returnees or not, as Vogt, Studie, pp. 44f., has argued. 1:3 Here and in 2:17 disgrace is an objective term ...
... established. In another emergency situation Nehemiah ordered Levites to guard certain city gates (13:22), although in that case it was to resolve a religious problem. Laypeople were to be coopted at the end of verse 3. It was also necessary to appoint officials responsible for overall security. Nehemiah chose as executive mayor his brother Hanani, who had been associated with the project since it was a gleam in Nehemiah’s eye (1:2). The military officer in charge of the citadel near the temple (2:8) was ...
... were in relationship with the king. The party she gave in verse 9 was held in “the royal palace of King Xerxes,” literally, “the royal house that belonged to King Xerxes.” She forgot the source and owner of her possessions and status. In response, the king strips her of these prerogatives (v. 19). Chapter 1 is full of references to royal honor, a concern central to the plot. Rank and status are highlighted throughout the banquets and the Vashti ordeal. The king indulges himself in self-honoring ...
... 1:6 is strong. There the woman acknowledged that she did not keep her vineyard; here she claims that she does keep herself. 8:11–12 It is not clear who is speaking here. Most likely, this is a continuation of the woman’s response to her brothers. Especially when her response is read in counterpoint to 1:6, the use of vineyard imagery is appropriate for the woman speaking to or about her brothers. My own vineyard is mine expresses a claim over against the brothers, who think they own the woman as they ...
... quoted statement that questions God’s presence in Zion. Zion is the hill where the temple was located, but sometimes it refers to the entire city of Jerusalem. Their present suffering leads them to question God’s presence in Zion. God asks a question in response, “Why have they provoked me to anger with their images, with their worthless foreign idols?” Here is the answer to their question. Of course God is not going to make his redemptive presence known to his people in the light of the fact that ...
... and tear down, to destroy and overthrow.” On the other hand, and again reverting to the language of Jeremiah 1:10, God can also choose that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted. However, these decisions are conditional upon the response of the nations and kingdoms. If those announced for judgment repent or those who are established sin, then all bets are off. 18:11–12 Germane to Judah and Jerusalem in this oracle is the former condition, namely repentance. Because of their sins, they are ...
... translation is palace, then this would be a similar type of hope as that expressed in 30:9. However, as far as we know, if it is palace, this prophecy remains unfulfilled. It is more likely to be taken in the sense offered by the NRSV. The response from the people will be songs of thanksgiving and joy. In terms of the latter, one thinks immediately of Psalm 126, a psalm that even uses the restoration formula (shub ʾet-shebut, “restore the fortune,” see note to 30:3 and note v. 18): When the LORD ...
... a rhetorical question that disguises a protest or reproach. It implies, “stop doing what you are doing.” Yet Habakkuk never makes such an actual plea. In a psalm one characteristically asks for two things—for Yahweh to listen to one’s prayer and then in response to take action to rescue from trouble. Habakkuk’s words make clear that these have indeed been his two pleas, but Yahweh has ignored both, and he wants to know how long Yahweh will carry on doing that—or rather, he wants Yahweh to stop ...
... but with the order reversed. In 7:2–3 (A) a delegation arrives in Jerusalem to “entreat the LORD” and to ask a question about religious practice. God promises in 8:20–23 (A′) that many peoples will come to Jerusalem to “entreat the LORD.” God gives one response to the question about the fast in 7:5–7 (B) and another in 8:18–19 (B′). Both 7:8–10 (C) and 8:16–17 (C′) give summaries of God’s requirements for faithful living. God’s judgment on the Israelite ancestors is the subject ...
... we don’t know about this man. Had his father just died? Certainly, if so, he did need to see to this immediately. Or did his father have a lingering illness that would claim him sometime in the near future? Or was he simply saying that he had responsibility for his father and that some day, some time his father would die, so he had better stay home until that day came? Whatever the answer, Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Still another ...
... of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21); “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt. 7:24; cf. 7:26). The scope of the disciples’ responsibility is not specified. Clearly, they have an obligation to one another (v. 14), but the reference in verse 16 to being sent hints at a wider mission as well. Strictly speaking, verse 16a (no servant is greater than his master) is sufficient to make the point that ...
... a natural question, because Jesus’ destination has not yet been established, but it is not a mere request for information. Behind it is the plaintive cry, Why are you going? or Why must you go? The discourse that follows (13:36–14:31) is Jesus’ response to that cry as well as his formal answer to the question explicitly asked. Jesus’ initial assertion that he was going away had pointed back explicitly to similar statements made earlier to the Jewish authorities (7:33–36; 8:21). It is the common NT ...
... a natural question, because Jesus’ destination has not yet been established, but it is not a mere request for information. Behind it is the plaintive cry, Why are you going? or Why must you go? The discourse that follows (13:36–14:31) is Jesus’ response to that cry as well as his formal answer to the question explicitly asked. Jesus’ initial assertion that he was going away had pointed back explicitly to similar statements made earlier to the Jewish authorities (7:33–36; 8:21). It is the common NT ...
... done on certain other occasions after their first expression of faith (cf. 6:69; 16:30). The narrator intends that this should happen to his readers as well. To him, faith is no static thing that comes once to a person, only to lie dormant, but a response to God that comes to expression again and again as one is confronted afresh with the story of Jesus (cf. 4:50, 53). It is therefore likely that the resurrection narrative—like the rest of John’s Gospel—is directed at those who already believe, so as ...
... and be of service to him, as he had been instructed to do. But Paul knew that the sooner Epaphroditus returned to Philippi, the happier Epaphroditus himself and his friends there would be, so he sent him back, exonerating him in their eyes from all responsibility for returning so soon. 2:27 He was certainly ill, Paul adds; indeed, his illness nearly proved fatal. Until they received the letter, the Philippians may not have known how serious Epaphroditus’s illness was. It did not matter if they knew it now ...
... to the church. Was it 1 John? While it is impossible to know the order of the three letters of John, 3 John 9 may be a reference to 1 John. 1 John was intended to circulate among all the churches for which the Elder felt a pastoral responsibility. Otherwise, it refers to a lost letter, probably destroyed by Diotrephes. It is unlikely that 3 John 9 refers to 2 John, since the thrust of 2 John is against the teaching of the schismatics, while 3 John, despite its sixfold criticism of Diotrephes, never mentions ...