Die bibel gute nachricht online dating
Verhoef offers a thorough exegesis and exposition of Haggai and Malachi — two important books of Scripture that, unfortunately, are little studied — and stresses the relevance of these prophets' messages in terms of continuity and discontinuity for the Christian church. (3) The manner in which the prophecies are presented suggests that somebody other than the prophet was the author of the book (cf. Winton Thomas, et al.), especially in the arrangement of the material, so that those oracles which refer to the future come last (D. From these he may have obtained his information as to the dates in which Haggai’s utterances were delivered. The essence of his argument rests on the identification of similarities between Haggai and the Chronicler. Verhoef's introduction to each book elucidates questions of authorship, style, text, structure, historical background, and message. Scholars are also agreed that the could not have presented the contents of the prophecies long after the demise of the prophet.⁵ It is obvious that he had no knowledge of Darius II, and that he was well acquainted with the dates of the prophecies. This point of view, shared by some scholars,⁹ is contested by others. This view is also endorsed by other features of the book: (1) The addition of the title to the name Haggai (1:1, 3, 12; ) is more easily explicable on the supposition that the prophet himself was not responsible for it.⁴ (2) The point of view that the prophet had been the instrument of the divine revelation, as is evident from the use of ) the prophet. It may well be that the editor who drew up the report had in his possession some of the prophet’s personal notes. The length of that period cannot be determined, but in view of the similarities already indicated between the dates in Haggai and those of the Chronicler, we can estimate that it was not much less than a century, and possibly as much as two centuries.⁸ Ackroyd’s theory is too speculative to be acceptable. This would suggest that the prophet himself could not have been the author of the book in its present form. Winton Thomas, Keil, and others that though Haggai cannot be regarded as the author of the book in its present form, there can be no doubt that the book contains genuine utterances of the prophet. According to Rudolph, Haggai is a , that is, an apology by Haggai’s friends or disciples, with the purpose of proclaiming Haggai’s priority over Zechariah with regard to the rebuilding of the temple, because they were afraid that Zechariah’s ministry would eclipse that of Haggai. That Haggai did not refer to Zechariah in his third prophecy (–19), notwithstanding that Zechariah had already started with his ministry,⁶ belongs to the general mystery in the OT of people not referring to their predecessors or compatriots,⁷ and is a precarious Nowhere in the book of Haggai is there any reference or suggestion that these two prophets acted as rivals or that the one needed to be vindicated over against the other. In the case of Haggai, we may assume that the oracles were transmitted for a period, probably orally, though possibly committed to writing, before they came into their present form.Making extensive use of structural analysis, Verhoef argues convincingly for the authenticity, unity, and integrity of both books. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U. He recounted without any remark the divine promise that Zerubbabel would be a messianic king (–23). According to Van der Woude, the style especially of the is more Deuteronomistic than Chronistic.¹⁰ If, therefore, the very base of an argument is susceptible to doubt, then the theory itself cannot be convincing. Klostermann, shared and revised by other scholars, that the book of Haggai and Zech. Verhoef also brings his knowledge of the ancient Near East, the Old Testament, and biblical scholarship to bear in the commentary proper, and he displays theological acumen and pastoral sensitivity in tailoring his exposition for the student and pastor as well as for the scholar. Especially the last considerations led to the conclusion that the book in its present form was completed either during the rebuilding of the temple or soon afterward, in any case before Zerubbabel (figuratively) vanished from the scene. 1–8 originally belonged to an account of the rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Darius, chronologically arranged and probably edited by Zechariah.¹¹ Koole rightly raised two main objections against this theory: We know very little about this supposed because all evidence, with the exception of Haggai (! This verdict is in accordance with a widely held view that the OT must be interpreted entirely on its own, without a perspective on the realities of the NT dispensation. With Zechariah, Haggai appears on the titles of Pss. In fact, I completed this manuscript just about the time that the New Afrikaans Translation was published on December 3, 1983. The books of Haggai and Malachi belong to the Minor Prophets, so-called—according to Augustine—not because they are of less importance than the Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) but because The significance of both pbrophets has been variously assessed. Rudolph concludes that the message of this prophet has no relevance whatsoever for the Christian faith. Some scholars draw attention to the fact that in the versions certain Psalms are attributed to Haggai and Zechariah, a fact which seems to add support to Haggai’s priestly descent.
To enhance this conclusion Rudolph alters the text of 1:3, and asserts that the prophecy of 1:1–11 was addressed solely to the leaders. In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who have shared with me the exhilarating experience of writing, typing, and editing this commentary. In spite of the short duration of his ministry and the fact that his book is the second smallest in the OT, he may be considered one of the great figures in Israel.²¹ In a time of deep decline and discouragement, his single-minded and ardent preaching again gave the people of God new perspectives on their relationship with God and on the promised blessings. The present commentary deviates from its Dutch counterpart in two major respects: it introduces structural analysis as an exegetical method, and it emphasizes the message rather than technical detail. Rudolph rightly distinguishes between the two possibilities.²⁰ We agree with Van der Woude’s evaluation of Haggai’s prophetic ministry. Partly on this tradition and partly on inference from Hag. that this theory may be probable, but it is not conclusive. Beuken, according to which Haggai was originally one of the Judean farmers who were left behind in Palestine.¹⁶ The motivation for this theory is that his name does not appear on the lists of returned exiles (Ezra 2; Neh. According to Jewish tradition he had lived the greater part of his life in the Babylonian captivity.
Special thanks also to my daughter-in-law Elza not only for typing the manuscript but also for her keen interest in the project itself,¹ and to my wife Rita for her constant support and encouragement. Scholars of every persuasion agree on one point with regard to the authorship: the series of four comparatively brief prophecies were delivered by the prophet Haggai.¹ This conclusion is incontestable in view of the precise dates and the remarkable way in which Haggai was accredited as the mediator ) of the divine revelation.