Background For Bible Quotes

The Bible NEVER flatters its heroes. It tells us the truth about each one of them in order that against the background of human breakdown and failure we may magnify the grace of God and recognize that it is the delight of the Spirit of God to work upon the platform of human impossibilities.

The teachings of a religion should influence the personality and daily conduct of each believer. Thus, each person's conduct will normally be a reflection, to a greater or lesser degree, of that one's religious background. What effect does your religion have on you? Does your religion produce a kinder person? More generous, honest, humble, tolerant, and compassionate?

Arno Penzias, the Nobel Prize–winning scientist who codiscovered the cosmic microwave background radiation that provided strong support for the Big Bang in the first place, states, “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five Books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.

As I have said, the Bible consistently changes the questions we bring to the problem of pain. It rarely, or ambiguously, answers the backward-looking question “Why?” Instead, it raises the very different, forward-looking question, “To what end?”We are not put on earth merely to satisfy our desires, to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.We are here to be changed, to be made more like God in order to prepare us for a lifetime with him. And that process may be served by the mysterious pattern of all creation: pleasure sometimes emerges against a background of pain, evil may be transformed into good, and suffering may produce something of value.

My wife Ruth once said, “If our children have the background of a godly, happy home and this unshakeable faith that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, they will have a foundation that the forces of hell cannot shake.

To many, "The Bible is a form of verbal wallpaper, pleasant enough in the background, but he stop thinking about it after you have lived in the house for a few weeks.

Bible consists of sixty-six books written by some forty different authors over a period of about 1,500 years. The authors came from every imaginable background—“kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen and scholars. It was written on at least three different continents in three different languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—yet, there is a thread of continuity from Genesis to Revelation.

Jesus would be another wise man or philosopher like Socrates if it were not for three words. With the declaration of these words the message of the good news of Jesus Christ changed from "fanatical audacity", to the fantastic reality of a reconciled relationship and eternal hope. "HE IS RISEN!

The essence of what the Bible calls sin is the exaltation of self. God has designed us to put him first in our lives, others next, and ourselves last. Yet sin reverses that order: we put ourselves first, others next (many times in an attempt to use them for ourselves), and God somewhere (if anywhere) in the distant background. We turn from worshiping God to worshiping self.

From the Bible we can surmise that God will ask us two crucial questions: First, “What did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?” God won’t ask about your religious background or doctrinal views. The only thing that will matter is, did you accept what Jesus did for you and did you learn to love and trust him? Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”17 Second, “What did you do with what I gave you?” What did you do with your life — all the gifts, talents, opportunities, energy, relationships, and resources God gave you? Did you spend them on yourself, or did you use them for the purposes God made you for?

I am quite sure that (bar one) I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices nor caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. Indeed, I know it. I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being-that is enough for me; he can't be any worse. I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but the evidence for the prosecution, and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English; it is un-American; it is French. Without

The Bourbaki were Puritans, and Puritans are strongly opposed to pictorial representations of their faith. The number of Protestants and Jews in the Bourbaki group was overwhelming. And you know that the French Protestants especially are very close to Jews in spirit. I have some Jewish background and I was raised as a Huguenot. We are people of the Bible, of the Old Testament, and many Huguenots in France are more enamoured of the Old Testament than of the New Testament. We worship Jahweh more than Jesus sometimes.

These simple words reveal Rahab’s amazing destiny: Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab (Matthew 1:5). In other words, Salmone and Rahab were married and had a son. The Bible gives us a glimpse into Salmone’s background through several genealogies (1 Chronicles 2:11; Ruth 4:20–21). Clearly, he comes from a highly distinguished family in the house of Judah; his father Nahshon is the leader of the people of Judah, and his father’s sister is wife to Aaron (Numbers 2:3–4). Of Salmone’s own specific accomplishments and activities nothing is known. But the verse in Matthew is still shocking. How could a man who is practically a Jewish aristocrat, significant enough to get his name recorded in the Scriptures, marry a Canaanite woman who has earned her living entertaining gentlemen? Much of this novel deals with that question. Needless to say, this aspect of the story is purely fictional. We only know that Salmone married Rahab and had a son by her, and that Jesus Himself counts this Canaanite harlot as one of His ancestors. On how such a marriage came about or what obstacles it faced, the Bible is silent.

After high school, he’d passed two relatively laid-back years as a student at Occidental College in Los Angeles before transferring to Columbia, where by his own account he’d behaved nothing like a college boy set loose in 1980s Manhattan and instead lived like a sixteenth-century mountain hermit, reading lofty works of literature and philosophy in a grimy apartment on 109th Street, writing bad poetry, and fasting on Sundays. We laughed about all of it, swapping stories about our backgrounds and what led us to the law. Barack was serious without being self-serious. He was breezy in his manner but powerful in his mind. It was a strange, stirring combination. Surprising to me, too, was how well he knew Chicago. Barack was the first person I’d met at Sidley who had spent time in the barbershops, barbecue joints, and Bible-thumping black parishes of the Far South Side. Before going to law school, he’d worked in Chicago for three years as a community organizer, earning $12,000 a year from a nonprofit that bound together a coalition of churches. His task was to help rebuild neighborhoods and bring back jobs. As he described it, it had been two parts frustration to one part reward: He’d spend weeks planning a community meeting, only to have a dozen people show up. His efforts were scoffed at by union leaders and picked apart by black folks and white folks alike. Yet over time, he’d won a few incremental victories, and this seemed to encourage him. He was in law school, he explained, because grassroots organizing had shown him that meaningful societal change required not just the work of the people on the ground but stronger policies and governmental action as well. Despite my resistance to the hype that had preceded him, I found myself admiring Barack for both his self-assuredness and his earnest demeanor. He was refreshing, unconventional, and weirdly elegant.

To really understand it, you'll need to know a lot," he said. "To understand the stories of the Prophets in it, you need to know your Bible stories." I gulped. My knowledge of the Bible was cobbled together from Renaissance paintings and reading Paradise Lost in sophomore English. To understand the text, you need to understand the context, the Sheikh continued. To make sense of the rules it sets down, you need to understand Arab society during the age it was revealed: "So if you don't know the customs and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad's time, you can't make sense of it." My background in seventh-century Arabia was rudimentary, and my Arabic nonexistent. The Sheikh beamed as he reached for his coat. "And of course, if you're lazy, you can't make sense of it.

Fear and desire for pleasure. Aggressiveness comes out of fear, predominantly, and sexuality predominantly out of the other. But they mix in the middle. Anyway, both of these impulses can destroy order, which comes out of both drives, and which is another human need I haven't yet fit into my scheme. So both have to be controlled. But in fact, despite religious commands to the contrary, aggressiveness has never really been condemned. It's been exalted, from the Bible through Homer and Virgil right down to Humbert Hemingway. Have you ever heard of a John Wayne movie being censored? did you ever see them take war books off the bookstands? They leave the genitals off Barbie and Ken, but they manufacture every kind of war toy. Because sex is more threatening to us than aggression. There have been strict rules about sex since the beginning of written rules, and even before, if we can believe myth. I think that's because it's in sex that men feel most vulnerable. In war they can hype themselves up, or they have a weapon. Sex means being literally naked and exposing your feelings. And that's more terrifying to most men than the risk of dying while fighting a bear or a soldier. Look at the rules! You can have sex if you're married, and you have to marry a person of the opposite gender, the same color and religion, an age close to your own, of the right social and economic background, even the right height, for God's sake, or else everybody gets up in arms, they disinherit you or threaten not to come to the wedding or they make nasty cracks behind your back. Or worse, if you cross color or gender lines. And once you're married, you're supposed to do only certain things when you make love: the others all have nasty names. When after all, sex itself, in itself, is harmless, and aggression is harmful. Sex never hurt anyone.

Many would have excommunicated her as well, for in Christian circles the reigning consensus over the years has been that one cannot be simultaneously a Christian and a Muslim. This consensus has been recently unsettled, however. Now a spirited debate rages around it, especially in evangelical circles. It centers primarily on Muslims who insist that they can be followers of Christ without abandoning Islam. In an article on Muslim-background believers, Joseph Cumming tells of such a person: Ibrahim was a well-respected scholar of the Qur’an, a hafiz [a person who has memorized the entire Qur’an]. When he decided to follow Jesus, he closely examined the Qur’anic verses commonly understood as denying the Trinity, denying Jesus’ divine Sonship, denying Jesus’ atoning death, and denying the textual integrity of the Bible. He concluded that each of these verses was open to alternate interpretations, and that he could therefore follow Jesus as a Muslim.18 Again, 100 percent Muslim and 100 percent Christian—or so Ibrahim would claim.

In every generation, the embrace of Calvinism by a faction of students and faculty placed schools and administrators in a difficult position. Since the 1920s, Calvinism had acquired a reputation among fundamentalist institutions of higher education as both compelling and disruptive. Calvinists often demanded greater theological consistency than school leaders wanted to endorse. And they sometimes disparaged important elements of American evangelicalism, including the emotional revivalism and dispensational Bible-reading methods beloved by so many evangelicals. In addition, school administrators remained painfully aware of the fact that their interdenominational schools needed to remain friendly to a relatively wide variety of denominational backgrounds. The big tent of American evangelicalism often included groups that considered Calvinism a foreign imposition. As in all things, school administrators balked at the idea of embracing any idea that would drive away students and their tuition dollars. In effect, Calvinism served as a perennial reminder of the unresolvable tension in fundamentalist and evangelical institutions between the demands of theological purity, interdenominational viability, and institutional pragmatism.

By becoming the aggressor in sharing the good news of Christ with everyone in earshot, I became the one doing the influencing for good rather than the one being influenced for evil. I deduced that my Christianity is not about me but about Christ living through me. Jesus Christ represents everything that is truly good about me. Oddly enough, it started with a prank telephone call when I was seventeen. As I was studying the Bible one night, I had just said a prayer in which I asked God for the strength to be more vocal about my faith. All of a sudden, the phone rang and I answered. “Hello?” I asked. No one answered. “Hello?” I asked again. There was still silence on the other end. I started to hang up the phone, but then it hit me. “I’m glad you called,” I said. “You’re just the person I’m looking for.” Much to my surprise, the person on the other end didn’t hang up. “I want to share something with you that I’m really excited about,” I said. “It’s what I put my faith in. You’re the perfect person to hear it.” So then I started sharing the Gospel, and whoever was on the other end never said a word. Every few minutes, I’d hear a little sound, so I knew the person was still listening. After several minutes, I told the person, “I’m going to ask you a few questions. Why don’t you do one beep for no and two beeps for yes? We can play that game.” The person on the other end didn’t say anything. Undaunted by the person’s silence, I took out my Bible and started reading scripture. After a few minutes, I heard pages rustling on the other end of the phone. I knew the person was reading along with me! After a while, every noise I heard got me more excited! At one point, I heard a baby crying in the background. I guessed that the person on the phone was a mother or perhaps a babysitter. I asked her if she needed to go care for her child. She set the phone down and came back a few minutes later. I figured that once I started preaching, she would hang up the phone. But the fact that she didn’t got my adrenaline flowing. For three consecutive hours, I shared the message of God I’d heard from my little church in Luna, Louisiana, and what I’d learned by studying the Bible and listening to others talk about their faith over the last two years. By the time our telephone call ended, I was out of material! “Hey, will you call back tomorrow night?” I asked her. She didn’t say anything and hung up the phone. I wasn’t sure she would call me back the next night. But I hoped she would, and I prepared for what I was going to share with her next. I came across a medical account of Jesus’ death and decided to use it. It was a very graphic account of Jesus dying on a cross. Around ten o’clock the next night, the phone rang. I answered it and there was silence on the other end. My blood and adrenaline started pumping once again! Our second conversation didn’t last as long because I came out firing bullets! I worried my account of Jesus’ death was too graphic and might offend her. But as I told her the story of Jesus’ crucifixion--how He was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate, beaten with leather-thonged whips, required to strip naked, forced to wear a crown of thorns on His head, and then crucified with nails staked through His wrists and ankles--I started to hear sobs on the other end of the phone. Then I heard her cry and she hung up the phone. She never called back. Although I never talked to the woman again or learned her identity, my conversations with her empowered me to share the Lord’s message with my friends and even strangers. I came to truly realize it was not about me but about the power in the message of Christ.

The Nashes pushed Johnny as hard socially as they did academically. At first, it was Boy Scout camp and Sunday Bible classes; later on, lessons at the Floyd Ward dancing school and membership in the John Aldens Society, a youth organization devoted to improving the manners of its members.

By defining slaveholding as a basic evil, whatever the Bible might have to say about it, radical abolitionists frightened away from antislavery many moderates who had also grown troubled about America's system of chattel bondage, but who were not willing to give up loyalty to Scripture... It was the background that permitted the Southern Methodist minister J.W. Tucker to tell a Confederate audience in 1862 that "your cause is the cause of God, the cause of Christ, of humanity. It is a conflict of truth with error—of Bible with Northern infidelity—of pure Christianity with Northern fanaticism.

The Babylonians called it Tiamat, the Canaanites called it Lotan, the Ugaritic translation for “Leviathan.” Hebrews called it Leviathan and sometimes Rahab.[12]

his enemies in chapter 19 as the “great supper of God” where the birds of prey eat the flesh of his defeated foes (19:17). While Leviathan is not included in this Revelation passage, it is the same kind of nature banquet motif as described in Psalm 74: creatures feasting on the flesh of the enemies of God. The “banquet of flesh” was a common way of symbolizing deliverance from and victory

pierce. The understanding of this Hebrew verb is problematic. Traditionally translated “pierce,” this Hebrew verb occurs only here, and can only be translated here as “pierce” if it is emended. As it stands, it indicates that the psalmist’s hands and feet are “like a lion” (see NIV text note), which some commentators have interpreted to mean that the psalmist’s hands and feet were trussed up on a stick as a captured lion would be. Unfortunately, despite all the lion hunting scenes that are preserved and described, no lion is shown being transported this way. If a verb is desirable here, a suitable candidate must be found among the related Semitic languages. The most likely one is similar to Akkadian and Syriac cognates that have the meaning “shrink” or “shrivel.” Akkadian medical texts speak of a symptom in which the hands and feet are shrunken. Although Mt 27 uses several other lines from this psalm (e.g., Mt 27:35, 39, 43, 46), Mt 27 is of no help here, because it does not refer to this verse. Since Matthew omits it, he likely did not read the psalm as referring to the piercing of hands and feet.

Who was the author? What was his background? When did he write? What was the nature of his ministry? What kind of relationship did he have with the audience? Why was he writing? Who was the biblical audience? What were their circumstances? How was their relationship to God? What kind of relationship did they have with each other? What was happening at the time the book was written? Are there any other historical-cultural factors that might shed light on the book?

Here he grew up speaking Aramaic in a culture where the customs, manners, and idioms, as well as the language of the Bible had been preserved throughout the centuries. That background gave Lamsa a unique perspective and understanding of both the native language and culture of the Bible.

Commenting on Genesis 1:19–20, Henri Blocher notes, “The French philosopher Condillac (1715–80) held that science was simply an advanced state of language. Language in any case is the form and condition of science, and in language the act of naming is the first and indispensable operation.”52 To name something is to call it out from the flux of the world as a figure, not just a background; it is to recognize in it the dignity of identity. This is the task and the privilege that God sets before Adam.

Before saying 'I do', make sure you know who you're saying it to. Never marry a man without uncovering his background, for he could be hiding a criminal past, struggling with mental or health issues, or even concealing his true identity. Remember, 'wisdom is better than strength' (Proverbs 24:5), so seek wisdom and knowledge before entrusting your life to another." Quote: "Uncover the truth before you uncover your heart." Additional Bible Verses: - Proverbs 13:20 - "Walk with the wise and become wise, for a companion of fools suffers harm." - 1 Timothy 5:24-25 - "The sins of some people are obvious, leading them to judgment, while the sins of others will follow them to judgment. Similarly, good works are also obvious, and those that are not cannot remain hidden.

Being full of both grace and truth is part of his glory revealed. It’s not a balancing act. The goal is to max out both, neglecting neither. This fullness defined Jesus, yet our pendulum tends to swing a mile to the left or a mile to the right, depending on what our formative faith environment emphasized. Very few of us have been nurtured toward both. Some of us grew up in a truth-focused faith environment or church. Typically, these environments value doctrine over method or, at the bare minimum, focus more on Scripture, study, and obedience than on understanding freedom and grace. While this environment may result in a more developed view of a doctrinal gospel, it often lacks the ability to empathize appropriately during a situational or social issue. Our default becomes a form of legalism, and our confidence is often misinterpreted as arrogance or even judgment. Conversely, some of us grew up in a grace-focused faith environment or church. Typically, it is these “it’s the heart that matters” environments that often value the how over the what. The life that accompanies this focus is often expressed outside the walls of a church service or Bible study. Our default is grace, at times seemingly at the expense of truth, and our freedom is often misinterpreted as being too compromising. Those of us who grew up in truth-focused environments most likely struggle with extending grace to ourselves and others. Those of us who grew up in grace-focused environments most likely struggle with applying truth to ourselves and others. And so we clash when we come together to pursue gospel living, not always realizing the reason we see things so differently. What can we do about this? Knowing where our roots lie is a great place to start. From there we can ask the questions, Do I need to apply more truth to this situation, issue, or relationship, or do I need to extend more grace? and, How is my perspective perhaps skewed by my faith environment background?

God’s process of revelation required that he condescend to us, that he accommodate our humanity, that he express himself in familiar language and metaphors. It should be no surprise then that many of the common elements of the culture of the day were adopted, at times adapted, at times totally converted or transformed, but nevertheless used to accomplish God’s purposes.

The heroine of this chapter, Rahab, the pagan prostitute, becomes a favorite figure in Jewish stories and is esteemed by Bible writers as well. She offers proof that God honors true faith from anyone, regardless of race or religious background. In fact, Rahab, survivor of Jericho, becomes a direct ancestor of Jesus.

Nineveh was destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians in 612. (The fall of Nineveh provides the background to the Book of Nahum.) Ashuruballit assumed control over what remained of Assyria in Haran, but Haran too was captured by the Medes and Babylonians in 610 and the might of Assyria was ended.

If our children have the background of a godly, happy home and this unshakeable faith that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, they will have a foundation that the forces of hell cannot shake.

Some knowledge of the Septuagint is very important for Christian studies. Eighty percent of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint. As Christianity moved out of a strictly Jewish environment, the Septuagint became the Bible

In 2 Macc. 2:14-15 it is stated that, after the devastating war waged against the Jews by Antiochus IV (called Epiphanes) of Syria, Judas Maccabaeus, who led a Jewish revolt against the Syrians, collected together all the books scattered in the war. This activity, about 164 B.C., probably had a decisive role in the canonization of the Hebrew Bible, including an official listing of its canonical books.

Live the New Life 1:13. Men wore long robes and would tuck them into their belt, and thus “gird up their loins,” so they could move more freely and quickly. Although the image also occurs elsewhere in the *Old Testament, here Peter may specifically allude to the Passover (Ex 12:11): once God’s people had been redeemed by the blood of the lamb (1 Pet 1:19), they were to be ready to follow God forth until he had brought them safely into their inheritance (cf. 1:4), the Promised Land. Thus they were to be dressed and ready to flee. “Sobriety” in ancient usage meant not only literal abstinence from drink but also behaving as a nonintoxicated person should, hence with dignified self-control. 1:14

Classical education was only half the old system of European education--below it and above it there was the religious education that was common to the whole people, and the higher theological education that was peculiar to the clergy, who provided the majority of the teachers in both the other departments of education. Now the lowest level of this structure, which has been least studied and least regarded, was the most important of them all. It is true that it differed considerably in different parts of Europe, but for the religious rather than material reasons. In Protestant Europe it was founded on the Bible and the catechism, whereas in Catholic Europe it was based on the liturgy and on religious art and drama and mime, which made the Church the school of the people. But in either case it provided a system of common beliefs and moral standards, as well as the archetypal patterns of world history and sacred story which formed the background of their spiritual world.

Parables In Greek, parabolē, i.e., “parable,” can mean “comparison” or “analogy.” Many scholars, however, argue that Jesus’ parables especially fit the range of forms referred to by the Hebrew term mashal, which is sometimes translated parabolē, or parable, in the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT. A mashal could be a proverb, riddle, similitude, or other saying of the wise; the Greek version uses parabolē similarly (e.g., Ps 78:2; Pr 1:6). The Greek term appears nine times in Sirach, a pre-Christian book of Jewish wisdom.

Most of Jesus’ parables are story parables, a distinctively Jewish form. Fables (cf. the plant fable in Jdg 9:8–15) existed in a range of cultures, including Greek culture, but most of Jesus’ parables are closer to the human story parables that appear in rabbinic sources, sources that sometimes reflect earlier traditions. In earlier sources, both prophets (2Sa 12:1–7; Isa 5:1–7) and Jewish apocalyptic writers (e.g., 1 Enoch 1:2–3; 37–71) used some parables. Although later rabbinic parables are more stereotypical, they share with Jesus’ parables even some standard figures (e.g., a king representing God, sometimes throwing a banquet for his son, and the like). Because most of Jesus’ hearers were rural Galileans, Jesus’ stories tend to be more agrarian and less addressed to the elite than were later rabbinic parables. Jesus’ parables, unlike those of the rabbis, also tend to subvert traditional values, sometimes in shocking ways. Like later rabbis, Jesus apparently sometimes recycled or reapplied more traditional story lines, as Jesus’ parables sometimes resemble other ancient Jewish stories.

Because later Christians such as Paul do not develop story parables, they are distinctive to Jesus in the NT. Most scholars of all persuasions thus usually deem the Gospels’ parables authentic to Jesus, not the sort of sayings that some scholars believe later Christians would have invented for him. By contrast, some more skeptical scholars have doubted that the interpretations of parables offered by Jesus in the Gospels were really uttered by Jesus. More recent scholarship has challenged such skepticism, however. Other Jewish parables frequently have interpretations, as Jewish scholarship on parables recognizes. It is in fact parables that lack interpretations that appear more unusual in antiquity. Parables were like sermon illustrations, but they often made little sense without being connected to a sermon. Because Jesus often offered the illustrations independently, interpreting the parables only privately to his disciples afterward (Mk 4:10–12), they served as riddles to the crowds, inviting the hearers to consider Jesus’ point. Some scholars have questioned Jesus’ interpretations particularly in cases such as the parable of the sower, where his interpretation identifies meanings for multiple points in the parable (in this case, the four soils, the birds, and so forth). This objection arose because some interpreters, reacting against the overinterpretation of parables by earlier writers, insisted on each parable having only a single point. Often Jesus’ parables do have a single main point, and many details merely contribute to the story. Comparison with other ancient Jewish parables, however, demonstrates that parables could include multiple figurative points of contact, just like the interpretations the Gospels provide for Jesus’ parables. There is no historical reason, then, to question their authenticity. ◆

tax collector’s booth. Most people in the Roman Empire did not like tax collectors; Jewish people viewed them as traitors. Their job affected the poor most dramatically. In fact, when harvests were bad in Egypt, it was not unheard of for the population of an entire village to leave town and start a village somewhere else when they heard that a tax collector was coming. Some consider Matthew a customs officer charging tariffs on goods passing through. Like other tax collectors, customs officers could search possessions; customs income normally went to local governments run by elites who were cooperative with Rome. See note on Mk 2:14. Follow me. See note on 4:19.

one like a son of man. In Aramaic and Hebrew the phrase “son of man” is simply a common expression to describe someone or something as human or humanlike. In Ezekiel, God often addresses the prophet as “son of man” to emphasize his humanness (e.g., Eze 2:6). coming with the clouds of heaven. In ancient Near Eastern literature clouds are often associated with the appearances of deities. In the OT it is Yahweh, the God of Israel, who rides on the clouds as his chariot (Ps 104:3; Isa 19:1). In Canaanite mythology Baal, the son of El, is described as “rider/charioteer of the clouds.” After doing battle with, and defeating, Yamm/Sea, Baal is promised an everlasting kingdom and eternal dominion. Some scholars see echoes of this story in Da 7:9–14. Others argue for a background in Mesopotamian cosmic conflict myths (such as the creation epic Enuma Elish and the Myth of Anzu), which depict a deity (Marduk and Ninurta, respectively) defeating the representative of chaos (Tiamat and Anzu, respectively) and regaining authority and dominion for the gods and for himself. Daniel’s vision has no conflict between the “one like a son of man” and the beasts. The interpretation in vv. 17–27, however, makes it clear that the “one like a son of man” in some way represents “the holy people of the Most High” (vv. 18, 22), who are in conflict with the “little horn” that arises out of the fourth beast (v. 8).

tax collector’s booth. Most people in the Roman Empire did not like tax collectors; Jewish people viewed them as traitors. For assessment purposes, tax collectors were allowed to search anything except the person of a Roman lady; any property not properly declared was subject to seizure. In Egypt, tax collectors were sometimes so brutal that they were known to beat up aged women in an attempt to learn where their tax-owing relatives were hiding. Ancient documents reveal that when harvests were bad, on occasion an entire village, hearing that a tax collector was coming, would leave town and start a village somewhere else. People sometimes paid tax collectors bribes to prevent even higher fees being extorted. Some scholars consider Levi a customs officer who would charge tariffs on goods passing through Capernaum. Such tariffs were small by themselves (often less than 3 percent) but drove up the cost of goods because they were multiplied by all the borders they passed through. Customs officers could search possessions; customs income normally went to local governments run by elites who were cooperative with Rome. Others regard Levi as collecting taxes from local residents, likely working especially for agents of Galilee’s ruler, Herod Antipas.

May refer to Jesus’ Jewish tassels (note the Greek translation in the Septuagint [the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT]of Nu 15:38–39; Dt 22:12; see note on Mt 23:5).

tassels . . . long. Jewish sources associate this practice with the Biblical requirement to wear blue and white tassels, or fringes (called tzitzith), on the corners of their garments to remind them of God’s commandments (Nu 15:38–39; Dt 22:12). (Some later rabbis felt that God would punish more strictly the person who in prayer neglected the white threads more than someone who neglected the blue ones.) The issue here is not wearing phylacteries or tassels (cf. 9:20; 14:36), but seeking to draw honor to oneself rather than God (cf. 6:2).

Beelzebul. Because Jesus’ first hearers spoke Aramaic, they may have caught a wordplay: Beelzebul literally means “master of the house”; it probably plays on Baal-Zebub, a pagan deity (2Ki 1:2–3, 6, 16). Beelzebul was also used with reference to Satan; cf. 12:24–28.

stumble. The law forbade placing stumbling blocks in front of those who might be hurt by them (Lev 19:14); by Jesus’ day, many used the expression figuratively for what would cause someone to sin or turn from God.

As a Gospel, Matthew is an ancient biography, and the information treated in the introduction to the Gospels in general also applies to Matthew. But just as other ancient biographies differed from one another even when they described the same person, so do the four Gospels. Of the four Gospels, Matthew is the most carefully arranged by topic and therefore lends itself most easily to a hierarchical outline. Along with John, Matthew is also an emphatically Jewish Gospel; Matthew moves in a thought world resembling that of the emerging rabbinic movement (the circle of Jewish sages and law-teachers) more than do the other Synoptic Gospels. (Our sources for rabbinic Judaism are later than the NT, but later rabbis avoided early Christian writings, so the frequent parallels—sometimes even in sayings and expressions, for which see, e.g., Mt 7:2; 18:20; 19:3, 24; 21:21; 22:2; 23:25—presumably stem from concepts, customs and figures of speech already circulating among sages in the first century.)

Besides knowing which sacrifices, incantations or magical rituals to perform in order to appease deities or otherwise turn away evil (which could originate from the gods themselves or from demons), priests often practiced divination to sort out the variables, such as why the gods reacted as they did and what would placate them.

The historical background of the Book of Daniel must embrace a narrative of the events, actual or assumed, that form the setting of those related in the book itself. It must also contain the fulfilment of those portions which are, or at all events purport to be, prophecies.

Kingdom of heaven” was an accepted Jewish way of speaking about God’s reign (cf. Da 2:44; 4:26

ax is already at the root of the trees. Cutting down or burning a tree could symbolize a nation’s judgment (Ps 80:14–16; Jer 11:16; Eze 31:10–18; Da 4:23). The image here probably involves dead trees or small trees, the kind that could be felled easily by most farmers’ axes. Fruit trees that yielded no fruit typically served best as firewood.

baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Biblically only God could pour out his own Spirit, as he promised to do at the time of the coming restoration (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Eze 39:29; Joel 2:28). In contrast to the Spirit, the “fire” here presumably signals end-time judgment (see notes on vv. 10, 12).

Events surrounding Jesus’ baptism reveal the intense religious excitement and social ferment of the early days of John the Baptist’s ministry. Herod had been cruel and rapacious; Roman military occupation was harsh. Some agitation centered around the change of governors from Gratus to Pilate in AD 26. Most of the people hoped for a religious solution to their intolerable political situation, and when they heard of a new prophet, they flocked out into the desert to hear him. The religious sect (Essenes) from Qumran professed similar doctrines of repentance and baptism. Jesus was baptized at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan (see Jn 1:28). John also baptized at “Aenon near Salim” (Jn 3:23).

Many interpreters place John’s baptismal ministry at a point on the middle reaches of the Jordan River, where trade routes converge at a natural ford not far from the modern site of Tel Shalem.

Indeed, “Elijah’s” mission (see note on 3:4) was to prevent the nation from becoming like burned chaff (Mal 4:1, 5).

the chaff here, however, burns with “unquenchable” fire (cf. Isa 66:24). Jewish people had various views of Gehinnom (or Gehenna), or hell: the wicked would burn up instantly; they would be tortured for a year and then either released or destroyed; or they would burn forever. In his message to the religious elite (v. 7) John sides with the harshest option articulated by his contemporaries.

Doves had various symbolic functions in ancient sources; perhaps the most widespread and relevant for Jewish hearers would be the dove’s role as a harbinger of a new world in Ge 8:8–12.

This period of fasting before Jesus’ ministry recalls Moses fasting 40 days and nights before receiving the law (Ex 24:18; 34:28; cf. 2:20); Elijah also followed the same example (1Ki 19:8). Jesus being tested in the wilderness 40 days also likely recalls Israel being tested in the wilderness for 40 years

Jesus quotes three texts given to Israel when they were tempted in the wilderness. Here he quotes from Dt 8:3, which in context addressed Israel as God’s “son” (Dt 8:5

Kingdom In Biblical languages, the term translated into English as “kingdom” usually meant “reign,” “rule,” or “authority.” Jewish people recognized that God reigned as king over the world he created (Ps 22:28; 145:12–13; Da 4:3, 34). Some believed that they affirmed this whenever they recited the Shema, acknowledging that there was just one true God (Dt 6:4). But while Jewish people acknowledged God’s present rule, most looked for God’s unchallenged reign in the age to come (Da 2:44–45; 7:14, 27). Many prayed regularly for God’s future kingdom—for him to reign unopposed, to fulfill his purposes of justice and peace for the world. One familiar prayer that came to be prayed daily was the Kaddish, which in its ancient form began: “Exalted and hallowed be his great name . . . May he cause his kingdom to reign.

Disciples were usually in their teens, and many of Jesus’ disciples may have been in this range.

By Jesus’ day, many were familiar with Daniel’s prophecy about four kingdoms and believed the fourth and final kingdom to be the current Roman Empire (Da 2:37–43). Daniel prophesied that in the time of that fourth kingdom, God would establish an eternal kingdom, overthrowing the other ones (Da 2:44). This kingdom belonged to a “Son of man,” a human one, whose rule was associated with the deliverance of God’s people and contrasted with the preceding empires that were compared with beasts (Da 7:12–14, 17–18, 21–22). Daniel spoke of these truths as “mysteries” (Da 2:28–29; cf. 2:47). Thus it is not surprising that the Gospels speak of the “secret” or “secrets” of the kingdom (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11; Lk 8:10).

Jesus’ first followers in the New Testament, who believed that the coming Messianic king had already come once and that the first fruits of the future resurrection had occurred, often treated the future kingdom as also present. We recognize that just as the king has both come and will come again, his kingdom has already invaded this world but remains to be consummated. Where the other Gospels use “kingdom of God,” Matthew uses “kingdom of heaven” with just four or five exceptions. This Jewish expression appears elsewhere and reflects the Jewish use of “heaven” at times as a respectful and roundabout way of saying “God.” ◆

Jesus demanded, “You shall not want to commit adultery.” Many ancient Jewish moralists condemned lust; some later rabbis even compared extreme lust to adultery. Jesus’ warning here develops the context of the prohibition against adultery in the law: the seventh commandment prohibited adultery, but the tenth commandment warned that one should not even covet one’s neighbor’s wife (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). Jesus uses here the same verb as in the standard Greek translation of the tenth commandment. He refers, then, to wanting to have one’s neighbor’s wife.

If John the Baptist and Jesus’ early followers drew on this background, they were requiring even their fellow Jews to come to God on the same terms as Gentiles. That is, everyone needed a mark of conversion, regardless of ethnic or religious background.

Blessed. Biblical and ancient Jewish beatitudes, or blessings, declared that it was well with a person who behaved in a particular way (e.g., Ps 1:1; 32:1–2; 119:1). poor. Many Jewish traditions associated piety with the “poor,” which was also often associated with being poor in spirit (Mt 5:3; some scholars suggest that the same Aramaic word stands behind both of these expressions).

God would bless the “pure in heart” (Ps 73:1). God’s people in the end time would “see” him. 5:9 the peacemakers. Some Judeans and Galileans believed that God would help them wage war against the Romans to establish God’s kingdom, but Jesus assigns the kingdom instead to the meek (v. 5), those who show mercy (v. 7), those who are persecuted (v. 10), and those who make peace (v. 9). 5:10 theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Ancient writers sometimes bracketed off a special section of material by starting and finishing it with the same point—here, that “the kingdom of heaven” (cf. v. 3, see also the article “Kingdom”) will be given to the righteous and humble.

how can true salt stop being salt? When asked what to do with unsalty salt, a later rabbi advised, “Salt it with the afterbirth of a mule.” Mules are sterile and thus lack afterbirth; his point was that the question was stupid. If salt could lose its saltiness, what would it be useful for? Jesus compares a disciple who does not live out the values of the kingdom with unsalty salt—salt that cannot fulfill its purpose.

light of the world. God had called his people to be a light to the nations (Isa 42:6; 49:6), so his salvation would reach the ends of the earth (Isa 49:6). town built on a hill. Many ancient cities were built on hills; their lights could also make them visible against the horizon at night.

truly I tell you. Lit. “Amen, I tell you”; “amen” normally concluded a prayer, and most scholars believe that beginning a saying this way implied distinctive authority. smallest letter. The smallest Hebrew letter was a yod, formed by a single stroke of the pen. One Jewish story recounted that the yod removed from Sarai’s name (when it was changed to Sarah, Ge 17:15) protested to God from one generation to another, lamenting its removal from Scripture, until finally God put the yod back in the Bible. When Hoshea’s name was changed to Joshua (Nu 13:16), a yod was reinserted in Scripture. “So you see,” remarked Jewish teachers, “not a single yod can pass from God’s Word.” In a similar Jewish story, a yod protested that King Solomon was trying to remove it from Scripture; “A thousand Solomons shall be uprooted,” God declared, “but not a single yod will pass from my Word.” Such illustrations were merely graphic ways of emphasizing that all of God’s Word must be respected; no part was too small to matter.

Some thinkers related physical purifications to spiritual or intellectual ones. Writing for a largely Gentile audience, Josephus noted that John the Baptist required inward purification by righteousness (what the Gospel writers call repentance) before the outward purification he administered (Antiquities 18.117).

7But whatever were gains to me I now consider lossm for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowingn Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christo 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law,p but that which is through faith in1 Christ—the righteousnessq that comes from God on the basis of faith.r 10I want to knows Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings,t becoming like him in his death,u 11and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrectionv from the dead. 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal,w but I press on to take holdx of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.y 13Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behindz and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press ona toward the goal to win the prizeb for which God has calledc me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

pit. For the prevalence of pits, see note on 12:11; for falling into a pit as a metaphor of judgment, see, e.g., Ps 7:15; Pr 26:27; Isa 24:18; Jer 48:43–44; Eze 19:4. 15:15 Disciples could ask teachers

contrast to many other Jewish thinkers, he identifies the events listed here as merely “the beginning of birth pains” (v. 8) and not yet the end (v. 6), in contrast to one activity—evangelizing all nations—that precedes the end (v. 14).

With the above parable (vv. 1–15) some scholars compare a later rabbinic parable: a king paid a worker representing Israel, who worked particularly diligently, much more than he paid the other workers, who represented Gentiles. The parable’s point was that in this world God paid Gentiles back in full for any good they did, but that Israel would be blessed forever in the world to come (Sipra Behuqotai 2.262.1.9). Jesus’ point was quite different: God is gracious to bless all who serve him, including those who seem the most unexpected to enter his kingdom.

ancient audiences interpreted the epic event to reflect their own particular worldview.

go to the land of Israel . . . those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead. The angel’s promise here evokes Ex 4:19: Moses can return to Egypt because those who sought his life have died. Jesus here is thus like Moses, Israel’s deliverer—and, ominously, Judea has become like Egypt in Moses’ day.

Matthew quotes from Jer 31:15; Matthew undoubtedly knew that the context calls Israel God’s “son” (Jer 31:20) and goes on to promise a new covenant (Jer 31:31–34). Jer 31:15 depicts Rachel weeping as her descendants are carried into captivity in the exile. Matthew would have known that Rachel’s tomb was near Bethlehem (Ge 35:19); like Israel’s exile, the slaughter of Bethlehem’s infants is a tragedy, but one that could not prevent the ultimate promise of God’s restoration in the new covenant.

Because Matthew, more than any other NT document, addresses Jewish concepts closely paralleled in the emerging rabbinic movement, the common scholarly view that he wrote from the Roman province of Syria (which included Judea and Galilee) makes good sense. Some scholars also find similarities between Matthew and other documents from early Syrian Christianity.

Because Matthew wrote in Greek, which dominated in Syria’s urban centers, rather than Aramaic, which dominated in rural areas, Matthew’s core audience might have been located in an urban setting. Many scholars thus suggest that Matthew writes especially for Antioch in Syria. Antioch had a large Jewish community, one of the few Jewish communities not devastated by the Judean war; it also was an early Christian center of mission to Gentiles (Ac 11:20; 13:1–3; Gal 2:11–12).

Ultimately, what we can be sure of is that Matthew wrote especially to Jewish believers in Jesus in the eastern Mediterranean world. Whatever specific “core” audience he may have envisioned, as the author of a major literary work Matthew probably hoped that his Gospel would circulate as widely as possible.

Matthew addresses an audience comfortable with traditional Jewish forms of speech. For example, one need only compare Mark’s pervasive “kingdom of God” with Matthew’s usual “kingdom of heaven” to see that Matthew prefers traditional (and emphatically) Jewish formulations.

Because Jewish thinking took many forms in different parts of the ancient world, it is valuable to be more precise in this case. Whereas Jewish people who liked apocalyptic literature would particularly appreciate Revelation, Jews in the Diaspora would appreciate Hebrews, and groups such as the Essenes might appreciate John’s Gospel, Matthew often moves in a more “rabbinic” world. That is, the views and arguments of teachers and interpreters of the law, who came to be called rabbis, are very relevant to Matthew’s Gospel. Most of the sources from which we know rabbinic thought are later, but they offer numerous parallels to Matthew’s ways of handling Scripture and intimate understanding of Pharisaic debates with Jesus (e.g., see notes on 19:3; 23:25–26). Because Jesus was himself a sage and engaged in discussion, and often debate, with Pharisaic teachers, Matthew continues to engage a world within which Jesus himself moved. ◆

In Genesis, the phrase is followed by a list of the person’s descendants, who depend on their ancestor for their meaning. Matthew, by contrast, lists not Jesus’ descendants but his ancestors. Jesus is so pivotal for Israel’s history that even his ancestors depend on him for their purpose and meaning.

pledged to be married. The betrothal period was often a year, and Jewish tradition suggests that couples in Galilee were not left unchaperoned during that time. Betrothal involved a financial agreement between families, and it could be ended only by divorce or death. It concluded with the wedding night, at which point the marriage could finally be consummated sexually.

the character of Herod

Those who compare Jesus’ virgin birth to Greek stories about gods impregnating women, however, appeal to a milieu quite foreign to this account. In the Greek stories, the gods are many, are immoral, and impregnate women who are thus not virgins. Much more relevant are Biblical accounts of God empowering supernatural births in the OT (Ge 21:1–2; 25:21; 30:22; Jdg 13:3). Even among miraculous births, however, God does something new: Jesus is born not merely from someone previously unable to bear, but from a virgin.

Greek men, on average, were more than ten years older than their brides, because Greeks had a shortage of marriageable women (sources suggest that girl babies were discarded more often than boys). Jewish men, however, were usually only a few years older than their wives; both genders assumed some adult responsibilities at puberty, but men would often work a few years so they could provide financial stability for marriage. Betrothal involved a financial agreement between families. It often lasted about a year; in conservative Galilean families the couple could not be together alone before the wedding, so Joseph may not have known Mary very well.

Ethnically Herod was an Idumean (an Edomite); his ancestors had been forcibly converted to Judaism, and he built for Jerusalem’s God the ancient world’s largest and most magnificent temple. Politically astute, however, Herod also built temples honoring the divine emperor Augustus and made lavish contributions to Gentile cities in or near his territory. Among his other reported politically savvy acts was the execution of members of the old Sanhedrin who opposed him; he replaced those council members instead with his own political supporters. He did not usually tolerate dissent. When some young disciples of religious teachers took down the golden eagle that Herod had erected on the temple, he had them executed.

Biblical birth announcements sometimes included these elements: a woman “will bear a son” (Ge 16:11; 17:19, 21; Jdg 13:3, 5) “and you will call his name” (Ge 16:11; 17:19; Isa 7:14; 8:3). Jesus is the same name in Greek as Joshua, which in its earliest form (Yehoshua) means “God is salvation” (eventually contracted to Yeshua).

In context, the son of Isa 7:14 was a sign to King Ahaz, and was probably Isaiah’s own son (Isa 7:10–17; 8:3–4). Isaiah’s children’s names were for “signs” to Israel (Isa 8:18). Nevertheless, Isaiah’s son signified not only immediate deliverance in their own time, but pointed to the ultimate deliverance with the future birth of the ultimate Davidic ruler (Isa 9:6–7; cf. Isa 11:1–5). That would be the ultimate fulfillment of the promise of “Immanuel” (Isa 7:14), “God with us”: the king would himself be the “Mighty God” (Isa 9:6), a title for God elsewhere in Isaiah (Isa 10:21). Matthew has in mind the context of the entire section of Isaiah, which he again cites soon afterward (see Isa 9:1–2 in Mt 4:15–16).

Herod the Great achieved power in Judea with Roman backing; he brutally suppressed all opposition. Herod was a friend of Marc Antony but, unfortunately, an enemy of Antony’s mistress Cleopatra. When Octavian (Augustus) Caesar defeated Antony and Cleopatra, Herod submitted to him. Noting that he had been a loyal friend to Antony until the end, Herod promised that he would now be no less loyal to Caesar, and Caesar accepted this promise. Herod named cities for Caesar and built temples in his honor.

6:1 Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others. Ancient speakers and writers would sometimes state a thesis and then develop it with illustrations; Jesus illustrates this thesis with examples from charity (vv. 2–4), prayer (vv. 5–15), and fasting (vv. 16–18). Because sages offered riddles and statements meant to provoke thought rather than systematic outlines of their beliefs, some of a sage’s statements could appear to be in tension with some of his other statements. Jesus provokes thought in the tension between 5:16 and the command here in v. 1: the difference is whom one seeks to honor. (Note that the Greek term translated “honored” in v. 2 is the same Greek term translated “glorify” in 5:16.) 6:2 Truly I tell you. See note on 5:18. Givers did not

Demons and the Bible Many readers assume that the belief in demons attested in Scripture the superstitious beliefs of all ancient peoples. Yet anthropologists witness possession trances in most cultures today. Demons’ reality, of course, cannot be decided by archaeology. Researchers can demonstrate, however, that the notion that the New Testament writers simply reflect the prescientific views of their contemporaries is simplistic and misleading. Demons in the Ancient Near East Ancient Near Eastern society was awash in texts containing magical incantations and amulets intended to protect people from evil spirits (spells for defense against demons are called “apotropaic spells”).

Demons in Non-Biblical Jewish Literature Ancient Jewish literature was also fascinated with magic as a means of dealing with demons. The Apocryphal book of Tobit tells the story of one “Sarah, daughter of Raguel,

The Testament of Solomon, a work from the third century AD, further illustrates the widespread belief in apotropaic magic. This is a pseudepigraphical work (one that falsely claims to have been written by a famous person of the Old Testament) attributed to Solomon.

Demons in the Old Testament The Old Testament is remarkably reticent about evil spirits, so much so that it seems to have no developed demonology. Even so, three facts stand out: • There are no incantations, rituals or amulets prescribed for giving an individual protection from spirits. Considering how much of the Torah is devoted to ritual and to sacred objects, this is a remarkable omission. • God is said to have complete authority over the spirits, which cannot operate in the world without his approval. If a “lying spirit” goes out it is only with divine consent (1Ki 22:23; cf. Job 1–2). • The main concern of the Old Testament writers was that people avoid seeking to avail themselves of magical powers through contact with spirits (e.g., Dt 18:10–12).

Demons in the New Testament The New Testament demonstrates two realities about evil spirits: • Jesus has absolute power over them; this was a matter of divine authority, not magic or sorcery. • The New Testament mocks the claims of magicians by describing their inability to deal with real spirits. The failed efforts of Simon the sorcerer (Ac 8:9–24) and the sons of Sceva (Ac 19:13–16) to obtain apostolic authority illustrate the point that the miracles of the New Testament had nothing in common with ancient magic. Jesus had no use for demonic spirits and did not seek to employ them to do his bidding. ◆

8:16 with a word. Gentile exorcists often used incantations or invoked a higher spirit to drive out a lower one. Jewish exorcists sometimes used magic associated with Solomon or used smelly roots to gag spirits out. By simply expelling demons by his command, Jesus demonstrates special authority.