Parable of the Minas (2)
Is it a matter for debate whether the coming of the kingdom is present or future? No, for it is clearly both, it different senses: it is present (as in 17:20–21) from the first coming of Jesus onwards; it is yet ‘to appear’ in its fullness (19:11), and will do so only at his second coming.
The story was founded on fact. At the death of Herod the Great, his son Archelaus had (like the nobleman) to undertake a long journey ‘to receive kingly power’ (19:12). He could not be king in Judea until his claims had been ratified by the imperial government in Rome. And there was a deputation of his subjects, like the one in 19:14, which went to Rome to lodge a petition against his claims; the reason in his case was a deserved unpopularity.
and the smallness of the amount corresponds to what is so carefully emphasized in our parable, viz., the relation of faithfulness in the least to its great recompense (ver. 17)
of what our Lord went away for and received, “sitting down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
27:17 As a file sharpens an ax or a sharpening steel a carving knife, good friends encourage one another to grow in wisdom and godliness, even if it requires painful criticism (v. 6).
This thought is resumed in 27:21 under the image of the crucible and furnace.
tn Heb “sharpens the face of his friend.” The use of the word “face” (cf. KJV, ASV “countenance”) would here emphasize that it is the personality or character that is being sharpened. Constructive criticism sharpens character. Use of the wits in interaction that makes two people sharp as a razor (W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL], 615); another example, from the Talmud, is that of two students sharpening each other in the study of the Torah (b. Ta’anit 7a).
Notes for 27:17
tn The term “as” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation to clarify the comparison.
Within this section there are two subsections, 25:2–27:27 and 28:1–29:27
Countenance (AV, RV) almost equals ‘personality’ here. Like ‘soul’, it can stand for the man himself (cf. RSV). See subject-study: The friend, 1 (b) 3, p. 42.
What he is concerned to demonstrate is that the Christian position, unlike the era of the Mosaic law, leads to a state of absolute stability
The word translated assembly (ekklēsia) is elsewhere rendered as ‘church’, and some association with this more normal meaning must be intended here.
(Exod. 19:12–22; 20:18–21).
The fear which Moses and the people experienced in the presence of God at Sinai was motivated by their awareness of the infinite gap between their humanity and God’s divinity
The implication is they were not rejecting God’s word, only begging that nothing more be said directly to them.
Their religious externalism prevented them from seeing the significance of the coming of Jesus
You do not learn to fly an airplane by following the instructions for making a crash landing; you will not be successful in war if you train by the rules for beating a retreat. The same is true of marriage and divorce. The exceptional measures necessary when a marriage fails are of no help in discovering the meaning and intention of marriage. Jesus endeavors to recover God’s will for marriage, not to argue about possible exceptions to it. His opponents ask what is permissible; he points to what is commanded. Deut 24:1–3, he argues, is not a pretext for divorce but an attempt to limit its worst consequences for women. The divine intention for marriage cannot be determined from a text about divorce.
It is misleading to translate pneumatikos (here rendered supernatural) by the word ‘spiritual’, because Paul is not denying that the manna and the water were anything but very physical. He seems to be indicating that, as well as being necessary for physical sustenance, they were also of spiritual value, nourishing their whole relationship with God.
“When Paul says, ‘The rock was Christ,’ he is not thinking of a material rock or of a transportable well, “but of the divine source of the water that journeyed with them. He understands the replenishing rock in a spiritual sense, not a physical sense.
That spiritual rock. For that read a. Paul appears to recall a rabbinic tradition that there was a well formed out of the spring in Horeb, which gathered itself up into a rock like a swarm of bees, and followed the people for forty years; sometimes rolling itself, sometimes carried by Miriam, and always addressed by the elders, when they encamped, with the words, “Spring up, O well!” Num. 21:17. Stanley says: “In accordance with this notion, the Rock of Moses, as pointed out by the local tradition of Mt. Sinai, is not a cleft in the mountain, but a detached fragment of rock about fifteen feet high, with twelve or more fissures in its surface, from which the water is said to have gushed out for the twelve tribes. This local tradition is as old as the Koran, which mentions this very stone.” *
Was Christ. Showing that he does not believe the legend, but only uses it allegorically. The important point is that Christ the Word was with His people under the old covenant.
Paul’s verb katastrōnnymi adds a picturesque touch; he sees the wilderness as strewn with bodies (‘their corpses littered the desert’, JB). This is not simply natural death. It is God’s sentence against the rebels.
He refers to Christ and sees him as following the Israelites and continually giving them drink. He transfers to Christ the title, ‘the Rock’, used of Yahweh (Deut. 32:15; Ps. 18:2, etc.), a transfer that is significant for Christology, as of course is the clear implication of Christ’s pre-existence
Moses got water from a rock at the beginning and end of the wilderness wanderings (Exod. 17:1–7; Num. 20:2–13), and this apparently was the origin of a Jewish legend that a rock travelled with the people.
The adjective does not mean that Paul doubts the physical reality of the manna. It is his way of directing attention to the heavenly origin of this food (cf. Ps. 78:24); RSV has ‘supernatural
It is interesting that in writing to a Gentile church he speaks of our forefathers. Clearly he sees the church as the true Israel.
All Pharisees agreed that this Old Testament passage permitted divorce, that only the husband could initiate it, and that divorce implied the right to remarry. But they disagreed on the grounds of divorce. The strict view of Rabbi Shammai allowed divorce only if a wife were guilty of immorality; the lenient view of Rabbi Hillel allowed a husband to divorce his wife for almost any reason
The greatest difference between Jesus and the rabbis, however, is this: by giving a husband principal control over his wife, the Jewish divorce policy made the man the lord of the marital relationship. According to Jesus, however, it is neither man nor woman who controls marriage, but rather God, who is the lord of marriage: “ ‘what God has joined together, let man not separate
In the Torah the commandment to honor one’s parents is one of the Ten Commandments of God and second only to the commandment to honor God (Exod 20:12). But the effect of v. 7 is to declare that a husband’s allegiance to his wife in the union of marriage surpasses his allegiance to father and mother, making marriage second only to obedience to God in sacredness.
In this pronouncement Jesus again presumes a divine authority resident in himself, for he does not deduce a conclusion from Scripture (as do the scribes), but he declares the will of God as set forth in a creation text over against a legal text from Moses.
You do not learn to fly an airplane by following the instructions for making a crash landing; you will not be successful in war if you train by the rules for beating a retreat
It is, in other words, a text of concession, not a text of intention
The Pharisees reflect the view that marriage is a disposable contractual arrangement
That is, first-century Jews would supply the phrase “for any matter” into the question, which had been omitted for convenience, but apart from which the question made no sense
According to Jewish law, a wife could commit adultery against her husband by having relations with another man; and a man, whether or not married, could commit adultery against another man by having relations with that man’s wife. But a husband could not commit adultery against his own wife by being unfaithful to her. By insisting that a husband could commit adultery against his own wife, Jesus greatly elevated the status of wives and women in general.
Moses did not command or encourage divorce. He merely permitted it.
The fact that the question was asked in Perea, part of the territory of Herod Antipas, may be significant
As distinguished from other words in the New Testament meaning servant, this represents the servant in his activity; while δοῦλος, slave, represents him in his condition or relation as a bondman.
He sat down: this implies more than a wearied traveller composing himself. It means that the teaching rabbi is once more about to give instruction to his disciples.
a hint of rebuke in his use of the verb dialogizomai (discuss), which often implies argument as well as reasoning
“How can a man be happy when he has to serve someone?” (Plato, Gorgias 491e)
The challenge is to be great in things that matter to God.
New Testament. First, it must be understood that the Jericho of NT times was built by Herod more than a mile to the south of the OT site, at the mouth of the Wadi Qilt. It is possible to sort out the healing of the blind men episodes in the synoptic Gospels by understanding that Jesus was passing from the site of ancient Jericho (Mt 20:29; Mk 10:46) and approaching Herodian Jericho (Lk 18:35). The modern city of Jericho includes both these sites
Probably the best reason for questioning this particular typological association is that the word for “scarlet” here (šānî) is used exclusively in connection with thread or fabrics, primarily referring to the tabernacle curtains and priestly robes (see throughout Exodus 28 and 35–39), not to blood.
As the head administrator of the region, he got a cut of everyone’s tax profits (contrast Matthew, a local tax collector
Here and now I give. “Here and now” is not found in the Greek text. The verbs “give” and “pay back” in this verse are in the present tense in Greek and may be translated “I am in the habit of giving” or “I shall now give.” The latter is far more likely (see “Context”), but the NIV is somewhat misleading here in that it gives the impression that “here and now” is part of the Greek text. The RSV (“behold”) is a more literal translation at this point.
19:4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree. Such undignified behavior, according to that culture, indicates that more than curiosity was at play here
The latter interpretation fits the context best for several reasons: (1) if the two verbs in 19:8 are not interpreted as futuristic presents, they then tend to portray Zacchaeus as boasting (cf. 18:11–12; 15:29; note also 18:21). (2) “My goods” (tōn hyparchontōn) is better interpreted “what I have had all along” rather than “my income.” (3) “I pay back” is best understood as “I shall restore” than “I have always been restoring what I have been defrauding.” (4) What wealthy man in Luke was not lost and in need of salvation when he met Jesus? (5) The statement “Today, salvation has come to this house” when taken at face value suggests that something had just happened to Zacchaeus that had brought him salvation that day. If the verbs are futuristic presents, they serve as signs of Zacchaeus’s repentance and conversion. If they are customary presents, there is no reason to understand why “today” salvation had come
Its conclusion (19:10) functions as a summary of Jesus’ ministry in the travel narrative. Jesus came to seek and save the lost. And, despite the difficulty (18:24), he can save even a rich man (19:9).
Closely associated with the healing of the blind beggar (Luke 18:35–43) is one of Jesus’ most famous pronouncement stories—the story of Zacchaeus. Found only in Luke, it, along with the healing of the blind and lepers, illustrates the reception of the good news of the gospel by the outcasts (cf. 4:18; 7:22; 15:1–32).
He wanted to see who Jesus was. We are not explicitly told why. It was not for the sake of curiosity (cf. 9:9; 23:8) or to see him perform a sign (11:16, 29; 23:8). Luke revealed to his readers what Zacchaeus sought by describing what he received in 19:9. Zacchaeus sought the salvation Jesus spoke of in 19:9–10. “Who Jesus was” is literally who he is. For this same thought in question form, see comments on 9:9.
A chief tax collector. This term (architelōnēs) is found nowhere else in contemporary literature. Jericho was a well-known toll place in Palestine, especially for goods passing east and west between Judea and Perea.
There is an analogy that can be drawn from the Old Testament that conveys a deep truth; this building grows into a holy temple. We see the truth as we note the actual word used. It is not the general word (hieron) that described the whole of the temple precincts, but that used for the inner shrine (naos). The temple in Old Testament days, and especially considered as naos, was above all else the special meeting-place between God and his people. It was the place on which the glory of God descended, the place of his presence. When Christ came, he made obsolete the tabernacle or temple made with hands. He himself was the place of the divine dwelling among men, a truth that is expressed particularly in John 1:14 and 2:19–21. That temple is no longer among us, but now God seeks as his dwelling place the lives of men and women who will allow him to enter by his Spirit.
The personal Spirit of God is obviously intended here, and the form of the phrase should be noted. As Paul repeatedly uses the words ‘in Christ’ in this letter, so a number of times he says ‘in the Spirit’, to emphasize that for the new life of the Christian ‘the Spirit is, as it were, the surrounding, sustaining power’ (Westcott).
The Greek says literally that ‘he has made both things into one thing’ (later, in v. 15, the personal is used). The organization of Judaism and that of the Gentile world no longer stand apart as before. Divisions and distinctions no longer exist as far as the standing of any before God is concerned. God has made a way for the divided to become one (cf. John 10:16; 17:11; 1 Cor. 10:17; 12:13).
In fact they were not only without the hope that Israel had, but they were without any real hope at all. This was a very evident characteristic of the Gentile world of the time when Jesus came. People had no prospect for the future, no assurance of life beyond this. The Greeks, for example, looked back on a golden age in the past rather than to a future glory; or more philosophically they took a cyclic view of history. There was in consequence no concept of a goal to which all things were moving, and this lack of hope was seen most notably in their view of death.
Paul did not disparage circumcision as an institution. It was to him the God-given sign of the covenant; but if the outward sign was not matched by an inward faith and an obedience of life to the covenant, it became worthless and just a work of the flesh (1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6; 6:15). The circumcision that mattered, whether or not there was any outward sign, was spiritual circumcision, a putting off of sin and an obedience to Christ
Elsewhere in the Pauline letters we find this contrast between the circumcision which is of the Spirit and that which is merely of the flesh, a work of human hands; and we may compare the way the same term is used in the New Testament to describe the tabernacle and temple (Mark 14:58; Acts 7:48; Heb. 9:11, 24) when contrasted with the spiritual temple as Paul speaks of it here in verse 21.
Then in A.D. 39 Herodias, jealous that her brother Herod Agrippa I had been given part of Palestine and the title of king, persuaded her husband to ask for that title. Instead the emperor Gaius Caligula deposed and exiled him for supposedly plotting to secure independence. To her credit Herodias followed him into exile.
Herod’s hesitation anticipates that of Pilate (15:6–14).
The report of their return, which one would expect after v. 13, has been placed following the death of John, producing an A-B-A sandwich construction. What does Mark intend by bracketing the martyrdom of the Baptizer by the mission of the Twelve? The sandwich structure draws mission and martyrdom, discipleship and death, into an inseparable relationship. This is precisely what Jesus will teach in 8:34, “ ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.’ ” There, as here, both words are addressed to disciples.
Josephus also provides an account of John’s death at the hand of Antipas, though a somewhat more political version, reporting that Antipas, fearing John’s influence on the people, “decided to strike first and be rid of him before his work led to an uprising” (Ant. 18.116–19). The two accounts of Mark and Josephus look like two sides of the same coin, both attesting to John’s righteousness and piety and Herod’s paranoia and ruthlessness.
Herod’s hearing of Jesus follows immediately on the mission of the Twelve and may have been the result of it.
John’s martyrdom prefigures more than Jesus’ crucifixion, however. It also exemplifies the consequences of following Jesus in a world of greed, decadence, power, and wealth. Mark sandwiches the brutal and moving account of the martyrdom of the Baptist between the sending of the Twelve (6:7–13) and their return (6:30) in order to impress upon his readers the cost of discipleship.
Both John and Jesus are executed by political tyrants who fear them but vacillate and finally succumb to social pressure. In John’s case Antipas acquiesces to Herodias, and in Jesus’ case Pilate acquiesces to the mob. Both John and Jesus die silently as victims of political intrigue and corruption, “as sheep silent before their shearers” (Isa 53:7). And, most obviously, both die as righteous and innocent victims.
Paul’s account of his rapture differs markedly from other such accounts from the ancient world both in its brevity and the absence of any descriptions of what he saw. Paul refers only to what he heard.
The word skolops, found only here in the New Testament, was used for anything pointed, e.g. a stake, the pointed end of a fish-hook, a splinter or a thorn.
God’s grace transformed Paul’s perspective. Experiences in his ministry he would naturally abhor, he could welcome supernaturally because the evidence of Christ’s power in the midst of them brought glory to Him, not Paul.
Fascination with visions and heavenly journeys are unimportant: it is how God works through his human weakness that is more significant and confirms his legitimacy as an apostle. Paul’s whole apostolic ministry may be summed up in weakness. It does not denote God’s disfavor, but quite the reverse.
Fascination with visions and heavenly journeys are unimportant: it is how God works through his human weakness that is more significant and confirms his legitimacy as an apostle. Paul’s whole apostolic ministry may be summed up in weakness. It does not denote God’s disfavor, but quite the reverse.
What is important are not the transcendent moments when he has become spiritually airborne, but his obedience in the daily chore of preaching the gospel faithfully despite “weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and difficulties”
no ‘nature miracles’ are recorded in Mark as having been performed by the apostles,