... 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 ...
... 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 ...
... the tradition attached to him and his family, far from being righteous in himself had stood under the anger of God and in danger of destruction but for Moses’ intercession, what possible grounds could there be for the rest of the people to claim their own righteousness? Notice the double dose of neardestruction, angry enough . . . to destroy you; angry enough . . . to destroy him (vv. 19f.). 9:22–24 Still the life-saving words of intercession are held in suspense as Moses throws into his argument a few ...
... falsehood are defined. First, anyone who spoke in the name of other gods (v. 20b) would be easily recognizable as a serious violator of the covenant and would be severely punished (cf. 13:1–5). But second, and this threat is much more insidious, the person who claimed to speak in the name of Yahweh but whose words were his own, not the Lord’s (v. 20a), was a false prophet. Verse 22 sets up a single criterion: fulfillment. A prophet whose words did not come true had not spoken God’s message. This shows ...
... falsehood are defined. First, anyone who spoke in the name of other gods (v. 20b) would be easily recognizable as a serious violator of the covenant and would be severely punished (cf. 13:1–5). But second, and this threat is much more insidious, the person who claimed to speak in the name of Yahweh but whose words were his own, not the Lord’s (v. 20a), was a false prophet. Verse 22 sets up a single criterion: fulfillment. A prophet whose words did not come true had not spoken God’s message. This shows ...
... arise from the natural assumption that ordinary people can indeed live in a way that is broadly pleasing to God and faithful to God’s law, and that they can do so as a matter of joy and delight. This is neither self-righteousness nor a claim to sinless perfection, for the same psalmists are equally quick to confess their sin and failings, fully realizing that only the grace that could forgive and cleanse them would likewise enable them to live again in covenant obedience. Obedience to the law in the OT ...
... 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 ...
... 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 ...
... (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 ...
... , 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 ...
... this is nowhere made explicit. A reference in Ps. 83:6 creates an association between “Edom and the Ishmaelites” and “Moab and the Hagrites.” One would have expected to find the Hagrites in Ishmael’s genealogy. However, 1 Chron. 5:10 does not claim that they were part of the Reubenites. The Reubenites “waged war against the Hagrites” (5:19). 5:17 Here we get the second occurrence of the technical term translated by the NIV as entered in the genealogical records (see Additional Note on 4:33b ...
... this is nowhere made explicit. A reference in Ps. 83:6 creates an association between “Edom and the Ishmaelites” and “Moab and the Hagrites.” One would have expected to find the Hagrites in Ishmael’s genealogy. However, 1 Chron. 5:10 does not claim that they were part of the Reubenites. The Reubenites “waged war against the Hagrites” (5:19). 5:17 Here we get the second occurrence of the technical term translated by the NIV as entered in the genealogical records (see Additional Note on 4:33b ...
... religious systems. A concern with labor and material prosperity connects this section with the rest of the book. The development of thought is difficult to follow, though, and interpreters disagree not only about the logic of the argument but even about the claims that Qohelet is making. Acknowledging these difficulties, the reader can find in the section an overall movement from despair (“the dead” are to be praised more than “the living,” and the unborn above either, 4:2–3) to acceptance (it is ...
... the attributes of the Counselor and Mighty God of 9:6. It was true of Judah’s lack of knowledge (5:13) and its misdirected fear (7:4; 8:12–13; 10:24). All these attributes have been referred to as belonging to God and/or as mis-claimed by human beings. Now they become real in a human figure. The doubling of the reference to the fear of (reverence or awe before) Yahweh corresponds to that extra stress earlier on misdirected fear (8:12–15). It also emphasizes that this is the feature that explicitly ...
... 18–20) and ends with God’s judgment against those who are plotting against him (11:21–23). Then the text continues with another complaint (12:1–4), followed by a divine response (12:5–6). Jeremiah was an unpopular person because while other prophets were claiming that God would bring peace, Jeremiah was saying that defeat was inevitable and the result of the people’s sin (see Jer. 27–28). Jeremiah 18, 26, and 36 provide other accounts of the people’s desire to get rid of this prophet of doom ...
... , though typically it is reported that there are short term signs of the veracity of a prophet’s message. In any case, we should keep these deuteronomic laws in mind as we read chapters 27 and 28. 28:1–4 Like Jeremiah in the previous chapter, Hananiah claims to speak in the name of Yahweh, here described as the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel. His oracle picks up on the yoke theme that was integral to Jeremiah’s prophetic message. Indeed, we will soon see that Jeremiah is still wearing the yoke as he ...
... their success to the permission or active involvement of the conquered people’s deity. Within the Bible, we can see the language used by the representatives of the Assyrian army before the walls of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah (Isa. 36). While here they falsely claimed to be speaking in the name of Yahweh, we are also reminded of the fact that Josiah later died because he did not heed the word of Yahweh as it was spoken through the mouth of Neco, pharaoh of Egypt (2 Chr. 35:20–22). Outside ...
... years back when so many homes were being foreclosed on. The story is set in Naples, Florida. In 2011, Warren and Maureen Nyerges paid $165,000 in cash to buy a home. Imagine their surprise when a few months later, Bank of America, in an obvious mistake, filed a foreclosure claim against them. How could that be? They had paid cash for their house--and yet the bank had filed foreclosure papers on it. Warren and Maureen took the bank to court. Fortunately, they won. The judge not only dismissed the foreclosure ...
... I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’” Those are mysterious and somewhat disturbing words, but let’s begin here: “About that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father . . .” Every once in a while someone will come along who claims to know when the day of the Lord’s coming, the end of everything as we know it, will be. Don’t listen to him . . . or her. No teaching of our Lord is clearer than this one: nobody knows when that day will be. Nobody knows what ...
... in advance for us to do.” Think of that--we are God’s handiwork . . . or as one scholar has translated it, “We are God’s work of art . . .” When Paul says we are God’s handiwork, he is not saying we are perfect. He doesn’t even claim that we are better than other people. In fact he begins this passage describing in detail what rascals we’ve been. He writes, “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins . . .” But then he writes, “But because of His great love for us, God ...
... a little misplaced ego out of them. Just kidding, of course. But naturally you and I could never be guilty of such misguided estimations of our own abilities, could we? Did you know that national surveys show that most of us claim to feel nine years younger than we actually are, and we also claim that we look five years younger than other people our age? (2) Well, a little bit of pride is not necessarily a bad thing. It certainly does a person no good to be down on themselves, to think themselves of no ...
... resurrection power of God. This is the same power that Jesus demonstrates by raising Lazarus from the dead, the same power that Jesus claims for himself in John 11:25 as he says, "I am the resurrection and the life," the same power that raises Jesus to ... 8:12 and 9:5. "[B]efore Abraham was, I am," he said in John 8:58. Right away, the religious people recognized that Jesus was claiming God's name for himself, and they became so angry that they wanted to stone him. But Jesus kept on saying "I am." John 10:9 ...
... intelligent designer is the one whom I call God. Yes, it is in the chaos of creation and the unfolding randomness of adaptation and change that God is bringing this world into the fullness of its design. This faith claim that I feel in my bones is exactly that — a faith claim. Evolution is science. The wonder that leads to trust in a benevolent intelligent designer is faith. Science belongs in the classroom. Faith does not because no curriculum can — or should — define the mystery of the soul. It is ...