Results 141 - 156 of 156 for responds (0.000 seconds)
(0.12)(Joh 12:35)

sn The warning <i>Walk while you have the light, so that the darkness may not overtake youi> operates on at least two different levels: (1) To the Jewish people in Jerusalem to whom Jesus spoke, the warning was a reminder that there was only a little time left for them to accept him as their Messiah. (2) To those later individuals to whom the Fourth Gospel was written, and to every person since, the words of Jesus are also a warning: There is a finite, limited time in which each individual has opportunity to respond to the Light of the world (i.e., Jesus); after that comes darkness. One&#8217;s response to the Light decisively determines one&#8217;s judgment for eternity.

(0.12)(Exo 2:24)

sn The two verbs &#8220;heard&#8221; and &#8220;remembered,&#8221; both preterites, say far more than they seem to say. The verb <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1506;font> (<font face="Scholar">shamafont>&#8217;, &#8220;to hear&#8221;) ordinarily includes responding to what is heard. It can even be found in idiomatic constructions meaning &#8220;to obey.&#8221; To say God heard their complaint means that God responded to it. Likewise, the verb <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1494;&#1464;&#1499;&#1463;&#1512;font> (<font face="Scholar">zakharfont>, &#8220;to remember&#8221;) means to begin to act on the basis of what is remembered. A prayer to God that says, &#8220;Remember me,&#8221; is asking for more than mere recollection (see B. S. Childs, <i>Memory and Tradition in Israeli> [SBT], 1-8). The structure of this section at the end of the chapter is powerful. There are four descriptions of the Israelites, with a fourfold reaction from God. On the Israelites&#8217; side, they groaned (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1488;&#1464;&#1504;&#1463;&#1495;font> [&#8217;<font face="Scholar">anakhfont>], <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1504;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1511;&#1464;&#1492;font> [<font face="Scholar">n&#255;font>&#8217;<font face="Scholar">aqahfont>]) and cried out (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1494;&#1464;&#1506;&#1463;&#1511;font> [<font face="Scholar">zafont>&#8217;<font face="Scholar">aqfont>], <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1513;&#1473;&#1463;&#1493;&#1456;&#1506;&#1464;&#1492;font> [<font face="Scholar">shavfont>&#8217;<font face="Scholar">ahfont>]) to God. On the divine side God heard (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1506;font>, <font face="Scholar">shamafont>&#8217;) their groaning, remembered (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1494;&#1464;&#1499;&#1463;&#1512;font>, <font face="Scholar">zakharfont>) his covenant, looked (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1492;font>, <font face="Scholar">rafont>&#8217;<font face="Scholar">ahfont>) at the Israelites, and took notice (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1497;&#1464;&#1491;&#1463;&#1506;font>, <font face="Scholar">yadafont>&#8217;) of them. These verbs emphasize God&#8217;s sympathy and compassion for the people. God is near to those in need; in fact, the deliverer had already been chosen. It is important to note at this point the repetition of the word &#8220;God.&#8221; The text is waiting to introduce the name &#8220;Yahweh&#8221; in a special way. Meanwhile, the fourfold repetition of &#8220;God&#8221; in vv. 24-25 is unusual and draws attention to the statements about his attention to Israel&#8217;s plight.

(0.10)(Gen 2:4)

sn Advocates of the so-called documentary hypothesis of pentateuchal authorship argue that the introduction of the name Yahweh (<sc>Lordsc>) here indicates that a new source (designated J), a parallel account of creation, begins here. In this scheme Gen 1:1-2:3 is understood as the priestly source (designated P) of creation. Critics of this approach often respond that the names, rather than indicating separate sources, were chosen to reflect the subject matter (see U. Cassuto, <i>The Documentary Hypothesisi>). Gen 1:1&#8211;2:3 is the grand prologue of the book, showing the sovereign God creating by decree. The narrative beginning in 2:4 is the account of what this God invested in his creation. Since it deals with the close, personal involvement of the covenant God, the narrative uses the covenantal name Yahweh (<sc>Lordsc>) in combination with the name God. For a recent discussion of the documentary hypothesis from a theologically conservative perspective, see D. A. Garrett, <i>Rethinking Genesisi>. For an attempt by source critics to demonstrate the legitimacy of the source critical method on the basis of ancient Near Eastern parallels, see J. H. Tigay, ed., <i>Empirical Models for Biblical Criticismi>. For reaction to the source critical method by literary critics, see I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, <i>Before Abraham Wasi>; R. Alter, <i>The Art of Biblical Narrativei>, 131-54; and Adele Berlin, <i>Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrativei>, 111-34.

(0.10)(Exo 3:22)

sn It is clear that God intended the Israelites to plunder the Egyptians, as they might a defeated enemy in war. They will not go out &#8220;empty.&#8221; They will &#8220;plunder&#8221; Egypt. This verb (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1493;&#1456;&#1504;&#1460;&#1510;&#1468;&#1463;&#1500;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1462;&#1501;font> [<font face="Scholar">v&#255;nitsaltemfont>] from <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1504;&#1464;&#1510;&#1463;&#1500;font> [<font face="Scholar">natsalfont>]) usually means &#8220;rescue, deliver,&#8221; as if plucking out of danger. But in this stem it carries the idea of plunder. So when the text says that they will ask (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1493;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492;font>, <font face="Scholar">v&#255;shafont>&#8217;<font face="Scholar">alahfont>) their neighbors for things, it implies that they will be making many demands, and the Egyptians will respond like a defeated nation before victors. The spoils that Israel takes are to be regarded as back wages or compensation for the oppression (see also Deut 15:13). See further B. Jacob, &#8220;The Gifts of the Egyptians, a Critical Commentary,&#8221; <i>Journal of Reformed Judaismi> 27 (1980): 59-69; and T. C. Vriezen, &#8220;A Reinterpretation of Exodus 3:21-22 and Related Texts,&#8221; <i>Ex Oriente Luxi> 23 (1975): 389-401.

(0.10)(Jdg 2:22)

tn The words &#8220;Joshua left those nations&#8221; are interpretive. The Hebrew text of v. 22 simply begins with &#8220;to test.&#8221; Some subordinate this phrase to &#8220;I will no longer remove&#8221; (v. 21). In this case the <sc>Lordsc> announces that he has <i>nowi> decided to leave these nations as a test for Israel. Another possibility is to subordinate &#8220;to test&#8221; to &#8220;He said&#8221; (v. 20; see B. Lindars, <i>Judges 1-5i>, 111). In this case the statement recorded in vv. 20b-21 is the test in that it forces Israel to respond either positively (through repentance) or negatively to the <sc>Lordsc>&#8217;s declaration. A third possibility (the one reflected in the present translation) is to subordinate &#8220;to test&#8221; to &#8220;left unconquered&#8221; (v. 21). In this case the <sc>Lordsc> recalls that <i>Joshuai> left these nations as a test. Israel has failed the test (v. 20), so the <sc>Lordsc> announces that the punishment threatened earlier (Josh 23:12-13; see also Judg 2:3) will now be implemented. As B. G. Webb (<i>Judgesi> [JSOTSup], 115) observes, &#8220;The nations which were originally left as a test are now left as a punishment.&#8221; This view best harmonizes v. 23, which explains that the <sc>Lordsc> did not give all the nations to Joshua, with v. 22. (For a grammatical parallel, where the infinitive construct of <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1504;&#1464;&#1505;&#1464;&#1492;font> [<font face="Scholar">nasahfont>] is subordinated to the perfect of <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1506;&#1464;&#1494;&#1463;&#1489;font> [&#8217;<font face="Scholar">azavfont>], see 2 Chr 32:31.)

(0.10)(Psa 3:7)

tn Elsewhere in the psalms the particle <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;font> (<font face="Scholar">kifont>), when collocated with a perfect verbal form and subordinated to a preceding imperative directed to God, almost always has an explanatory or causal force (&#8220;for, because&#8221;) and introduces a motivating argument for why God should respond positively to the request (see Pss 5:10; 6:2; 12:1; 16:1; 41:4; 55:9; 56:1; 57:1; 60:2; 69:1; 74:20; 119:94; 123:3; 142:6; 143:8). (On three occasions the <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;font> is recitative after a verb of perception [&#8220;see/know that,&#8221; see Pss 4:3; 25:19; 119:159]). If <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;font> is taken as explanatory here, then the psalmist is arguing that God should deliver him now because that is what God characteristically does. However, such a motivating argument is not used in the passages cited above. The motivating argument usually focuses on the nature of the psalmist&#8217;s dilemma or the fact that he trusts in the Lord. For this reason it is unlikely that <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;font> has its normal force here. Most scholars understand the particle <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;font> as having an asseverative (emphasizing) function here (&#8220;indeed, yes&#8221;; NEB leaves the particle untranslated).

(0.10)(Jer 15:6)

tn There is a difference of opinion on how the verbs here and in the following verses are to be rendered, whether past or future. KJV, NASB, NIV for example render them as future. ASV, RSV, TEV render them as past. NJPS has past here and future in vv. 7-9. This is perhaps the best solution. The imperfect + <i>vavi> consecutive here responds to the perfect in the first line. The imperfects + <i>vavi> consecutives followed by perfects in vv. 7-9 and concluded by an imperfect in v. 9 pick up the perfects + <i>vavi> (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1493;font>) consecutives in vv. 3-4. Verses 7-9 are further development of the theme in vv. 1-4. Verses 5-6 have been an apostrophe or a turning aside to address Jerusalem directly. For a somewhat similar alternation of the tenses see Isa 5:14-17 and consult GKC 329-30 &#167;111.<i>wi>. One could of course argue that the imperfects + <i>vavi> consecutive in vv. 7-9 continue the imperfect + <i>vavi> consecutive here. In this case, vv. 7-9 are not a continuation of the oracle of doom but another lament by God (cf. 14:1-6, 17-18).

(0.10)(Jer 18:7)

tn The word &#8220;Jeremiah&#8221; is not in the text but it is implicit from the introduction in v. 5 that he is being addressed. It is important to see how the rhetoric of this passage is structured. The words of vv. 7-10 lead up to the conclusion &#8220;So now&#8221; in v. 11 which in turns leads to the conclusion &#8220;Therefore&#8221; in v. 13. The tense of the verb in v. 12 is very important. It is a <i>vavi> consecutive perfect indicating the future (cf. GKC 333 &#167;112.<i>pi>, <i>ri>); their response is predictable. The words of vv. 7-10 are addressed to Jeremiah (v. 5) in fulfillment of the <sc>Lordsc>&#8217;s promise to speak to him (v. 2) and furnish the basis for the <sc>Lordsc>&#8217;s words of conditional threat to a people who show no promise of responding positively (vv. 11-12). Verse six then must be seen as another example of the figure of apostrophe (the turning aside from description about someone to addressing them directly; cf., e.g., Ps 6:8-9 (6:9-10 HT). Earlier examples of this figure have been seen in 6:20; 9:4; 11:13; 12:13; 15:6.

(0.10)(Jer 45:1)

sn It is unclear whether this refers to the first scroll (36:4) or the second (36:32). Perhaps from the reactions of Baruch this refers to the second scroll which was written after he had seen how the leaders had responded to the first (36:19). Baruch was from a well-placed family; his grandfather, Mahseiah (32:12) had been governor of Jerusalem under Josiah (2 Chr 34:8) and his brother was a high-ranking official in Zedekiah&#8217;s court (Jer 51:59). He himself appears to have had some personal aspirations that he could see were being or going to be jeopardized (v. 5). The passage is both a rebuke to Baruch and an encouragement that his life will be spared wherever he goes. This latter promise is perhaps the reason that the passage is placed where it is, i.e., after the seemingly universal threat of destruction of all who have gone to Egypt in Jer 44.

(0.10)(Joe 2:18)

tn The time-frame entertained by the verbs of v.18 constitutes a <i>crux interpretumi> in this chapter. The Hebrew verb forms used here are preterites with <i>vavi> consecutive and are most naturally understood as describing a <i>pasti> situation. However, some modern English versions render these verbs as futures (e.g., NIV, NASV), apparently concluding that the context requires a future reference. According to Jo&#252;on 2:363 &#167;112.h, n.1 Ibn Ezra explained the verbs of Joel 2:18 as an extension of the so-called prophetic perfect; as such, a future fulfillment was described with a past tense as a rhetorical device lending certainty to the fulfillment. But this lacks adequate precedent and is very unlikely from a syntactical standpoint. It seems better to take the verbs in the normal past sense of the preterite. This would require a vantage point for the prophet at some time <i>afteri> the people had responded favorably to the Lord&#8217;s call for repentance and <i>afteri> the Lord had shown compassion and forgiveness toward his people, but <i>beforei> the full realization of God&#8217;s promises to restore productivity to the land. In other words, it appears from the verbs of vv. 18-19 that at the time of Joel&#8217;s writing this book the events of successive waves of locust invasion and conditions of drought had almost run their course and the people had now begun to turn to the Lord.

(0.10)(Joh 5:19)

sn What works does the <i>Soni> do <i>likewisei>? The same that the Father does &#8211; and the same that the rabbis recognized as legitimate works of God on the Sabbath (see note on <i>workingi> in v. 17). (1) Jesus grants life (just as the Father grants life) on the Sabbath. But as the Father gives physical life on the Sabbath, so the Son grants spiritual life (John 5:21; note the &#8220;greater things&#8221; mentioned in v. 20). (2) Jesus judges (determines the destiny of people) on the Sabbath, just as the Father judges those who die on the Sabbath, because the Father has granted authority to the Son to judge (John 5:22-23). But this is not all. Not only has this power been granted to Jesus in the present; it will be his in the future as well. In v. 28 there is a reference not to spiritually dead (only) but also physically dead. At their resurrection they respond to the Son as well.

(0.10)(Joh 16:11)

sn The world is proven wrong <i>concerning judgmenti>, because the ruler of this world has been judged. Jesus&#8217; righteousness before the Father, as proven by his return to the Father, his glorification, constitutes a judgment against Satan. This is parallel to the judgment of the world which Jesus provokes in 3:19-21: Jesus&#8217; presence in the world as the Light of the world provokes the judgment of those in the world, because as they respond to the light (either coming to Jesus or rejecting him) so are they judged. That judgment is in a sense already realized. So it is here, where the judgment of Satan is already realized in Jesus&#8217; glorification. This does not mean that Satan does not continue to be active in the world, and to exercise some power over it, just as in 3:19-21 the people in the world who have rejected Jesus and thus incurred judgment continue on in their opposition to Jesus for a time. In both cases the judgment is not immediately executed. But it is certain.

(0.09)(Est 10:3)

sn A number of additions to the Book of Esther appear in the apocryphal (or deuterocanonical) writings. These additions supply further information about various scenes described in the canonical book and are interesting in their own right. However, they were never a part of the Hebrew Bible. The placement of this additional material in certain Greek manuscripts of the Book of Esther may be described as follows. At the beginning of Esther there is an account (= chapter 11) of a dream in which Mordecai is warned by God of a coming danger for the Jews. In this account two great dragons, representing Mordecai and Haman, prepare for conflict. But God responds to the prayers of his people, and the crisis is resolved. This account is followed by another one (= chapter 12) in which Mordecai is rewarded for disclosing a plot against the king&#8217;s life. After Esth 3:13 there is a copy of a letter from King Artaxerxes authorizing annihilation of the Jews (= chapter 13). After Esth 4:17 the account continues with a prayer of Mordecai (= part of chapter 13), followed by a prayer of Esther (= chapter 14), and an account which provides details about Esther&#8217;s appeal to the king in behalf of her people (= chapter 15). After Esth 8:12 there is a copy of a letter from King Artaxerxes in which he denounces Haman and his plot and authorizes his subjects to assist the Jews (= chapter 16). At the end of the book, following Esth 10:3, there is an addition which provides an interpretation to Mordecai&#8217;s dream, followed by a brief ascription of genuineness to the entire book (= chapter 11).

(0.09)(Jer 17:16)

tc <i>Hebi> &#8220;I have not run after you for the sake of disaster.&#8221; The translation follows the suggestion of some ancient versions. The Hebrew text reads &#8220;I have not run from being a shepherd after you.&#8221; The translation follows two Greek versions (Aquila and Symmachus) and the Syriac in reading the word &#8220;evil&#8221; or &#8220;disaster&#8221; here in place of the word &#8220;shepherd&#8221; in the Hebrew text. The issue is mainly one of vocalization. The versions mentioned are reading a form <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1502;&#1461;&#1512;&#1464;&#1506;&#1464;&#1492;font> (<font face="Scholar">merafont>&#8217;<font face="Scholar">ahfont>) instead of <font face="Galaxie Unicode Hebrew">&#1502;&#1461;&#1512;&#1465;&#1506;&#1462;&#1492;font> (<font face="Scholar">merofont>&#8217;<font face="Scholar">ehfont>). There does not appear to be any clear case of a prophet being called a shepherd, especially in Jeremiah where it is invariably used of the wicked leaders/rulers of Judah, the leaders/rulers of the enemy that he brings to punish them, or the righteous ruler that he will bring in the future. Moreover, there are no cases where the preposition &#8220;after&#8221; is used with the verb &#8220;shepherd.&#8221; Parallelism also argues for the appropriateness of this reading; &#8220;disaster&#8221; parallels the &#8220;incurable day.&#8221; The thought also parallels the argument thus far. Other than 11:20; 12:3; 15:15 where he has prayed for vindication by the <sc>Lordsc> punishing his persecutors as they deserve, he has invariably responded to the <sc>Lordsc>&#8217;s word of disaster with laments and prayers for his people (see 4:19-21; 6:24; 8:18; 10:19-25; 14:7-9, 19-22).

(0.07)(Joh 20:28)

sn Should Thomas&#8217; exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (&#8220;<i>My Lord and my Godi> has truly risen from the dead&#8221;), as predicate nominatives (&#8220;You are <i>my Lord and my Godi>&#8221;), or as vocatives (&#8220;<i>My Lord and my God!i>&#8221;)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas&#8217; statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas&#8217; statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus&#8217; person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, &#8220;My Lord and my God,&#8221; and the reader has come full circle from 1:1, where the author had introduced him to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in John 8:28 had come to pass: &#8220;When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he&#8221; (<i>Grki> &#8220;I am&#8221;). By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to his death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both Lord (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Greek">&#954;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962;font> [<font face="Greektl">kuriosfont>], used by the LXX to translate <i>Yahwehi>) and God (<font face="Galaxie Unicode Greek">&#952;&#949;&#972;&#962;font> [<font face="Greektl">qeosfont>], used by the LXX to translate <i>Elohimi>).

(0.05)(Isa 6:10)

sn Do we take this commission at face value? Does the Lord really want to prevent his people from understanding, repenting, and being healed? Verse 9, which ostensibly records the content of Isaiah&#8217;s message, is clearly ironic. As far as we know, Isaiah did not literally proclaim these exact words. The Hebrew imperatival forms are employed rhetorically and anticipate the response Isaiah will receive. When all is said and done, Isaiah might as well preface and conclude every message with these ironic words, which, though imperatival in form, might be paraphrased as follows: &#8220;You continually hear, but don&#8217;t understand; you continually see, but don&#8217;t perceive.&#8221; Isaiah might as well command them to be spiritually insensitive, because, as the preceding and following chapters make clear, the people are bent on that anyway. (This ironic command is comparable to saying to a particularly recalcitrant individual, &#8220;Go ahead, be stubborn!&#8221;) Verse 10b is also clearly sarcastic. On the surface it seems to indicate Isaiah&#8217;s hardening ministry will prevent genuine repentance. But, as the surrounding chapters clearly reveal, the people were hardly ready or willing to repent. Therefore, Isaiah&#8217;s preaching was not needed to prevent repentance! Verse 10b reflects the people&#8217;s attitude and might be paraphrased accordingly: &#8220;Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their mind, repent, and be restored, and they certainly wouldn&#8217;t want that, would they?&#8221; Of course, this sarcastic statement may also reveal that the Lord himself is now bent on judgment, not reconciliation. Just as Pharaoh&#8217;s rejection of Yahweh&#8217;s ultimatum ignited judgment and foreclosed, at least temporarily, any opportunity for repentance, so the Lord may have come to the point where he has decreed to bring judgment before opening the door for repentance once more. The sarcastic statement in verse 10b would be an emphatic way of making this clear. (Perhaps we could expand our paraphrase: &#8220;Otherwise they might&#8230;repent, and be restored, and they certainly wouldn&#8217;t want that, would they? Besides, it&#8217;s too late for that!&#8221;) Within this sarcastic framework, verse 10a must also be seen as ironic. As in verse 9 the imperatival forms should be taken as rhetorical and as anticipating the people&#8217;s response. One might paraphrase: &#8220;Your preaching will desensitize the minds of these people, make their hearing dull, and blind their eyes.&#8221; From the outset the Lord might as well command Isaiah to harden the people, because his preaching will end up having that effect. Despite the use of irony, we should still view this as a genuine, albeit indirect, act of divine hardening. After all, God did not have to send Isaiah. By sending him, he drives the sinful people further from him, for Isaiah&#8217;s preaching, which focuses on the Lord&#8217;s covenantal demands and impending judgment upon covenantal rebellion, forces the people to confront their sin and then continues to desensitize them as they respond negatively to the message. As in the case of Pharaoh, Yahweh&#8217;s hardening is not arbitrarily imposed on a righteous or even morally neutral object. Rather his hardening is an element of his righteous judgment on recalcitrant sinners. Ironically, Israel&#8217;s rejection of prophetic preaching in turn expedites disciplinary punishment, and brings the battered people to a point where they might be ready for reconciliation. The prophesied judgment (cf. 6:11-13) was fulfilled by 701 <sc>> when the Assyrians devastated the land (a situation presupposed by Isa 1:2-20; see especially vv. 4-9). At that time the divine hardening had run its course and Isaiah is able to issue an ultimatum (1:19-20), one which Hezekiah apparently took to heart, resulting in the sparing of Jerusalem (see Isa 36-39 and cf. Jer 26:18-19 with Mic 3:12).This interpretation, which holds in balance both Israel&#8217;s moral responsibility and the Lord&#8217;s sovereign work among his people, is consistent with other pertinent texts both within and outside the Book of Isaiah. Isa 3:9 declares that the people of Judah &#8220;have brought disaster upon themselves,&#8221; but Isa 29:9-10 indicates that the Lord was involved to some degree in desensitizing the people. Zech 7:11-12 looks back to the pre-exilic era (cf. v. 7) and observes that the earlier generations stubbornly hardened their hearts, but Ps 81:11-12, recalling this same period, states that the Lord &#8220;gave them over to their stubborn hearts.&#8221;