... Hiram of Tyre to perform these duties. In 4:11 the name Huram occurs twice (in both variations: Huram and Hiram). It is thus clear that he was the designer of all the artful decorations mentioned in the next verses. In 4:18 Solomon becomes the explicit subject of the verb again in accordance with the source text in 1 Kings 7:47. At this point it becomes clear that, although the Sidonian artisan Huram was responsible for the creation of many of the objects in the temple, Solomon is credited with building the ...
... picture, quite devoid of historical probability, in lurid hues from the palette of ethnic prejudice. A recent caravan of returning Judeans is said, presumably correctly, to have energized the rebuilding of the walls of the capital (v. 12). The loyal subjects sending the letter deprecate this activity, interpreting it as a threat to the empire, a flexing of muscles for independence. The imperial court is advised to verify the charge that Jerusalem is rebellious and wicked by ascertaining its sinister history ...
... were offending members from the four priestly clans mentioned in the oldest provincial list in Nehemiah 7:39–42 (= Ezra 2:36–39), including the high priestly clan, here traced through the well-known Jeshua. Seventeen priests were offenders; in fact, they were subject to a separate, strict law concerning marriage (Lev. 21:7, 13–14, see also Ezek. 44:22). Since numbers of male clan members are attached to the Nehemiah 7/Ezra 2 lists, we can roughly ascertain how comparatively small the proportion of ...
... expect a voc. “O my God,” as in v. 14, like “O our God” in 4:4. The objection that this verb does not occur elsewhere in Nehemiah’s prayers is less compelling than the fact that nowhere else in the OT is it used with a divine subject. The alternative is to construe the verb as an inf. absolute, here equivalent to a first-person sg. perf., as the ancient versions took it (see BHS). Then the sense is, “But my morale rose even higher” (NJB). It is difficult to make a clear-cut decision. It is ...
... forever of the NIV is better rendered “continually.” In verse 22, the NIV glosses over the third feminine singular, “she will guide you,” by assuming that commands and teaching are understood as a collective. Another possibility is that personified wisdom is assumed as the subject, or that the verse has been misplaced and should follow 5:19; so the NAB. The three lines in verse 22 call for another line. Awake is the opposite parallel of sleep, but what would be the opposite of walk? In verse 23, the ...
... royal status. A king may be an old fool, come from nothing, or lose power. The world at large, viewed in historical terms, does not care about a king. Additional Notes 4:14 The youth: Hb. is unclear, simply using “he” rather than an explicit subject. It is also possible that this verse refers to the king. May have . . . or may have: NIV here understands Hb. kî . . . kî as offering alternatives. This is a possibility and makes sense of a verse which is otherwise difficult. May have been born in poverty ...
... and belief in the house of David as Yahweh’s regent there. Yahweh was committed to Zion and committed to David (see Ps. 132). Strikingly, the two are not brought into explicit relationship elsewhere in Isaiah, perhaps precisely because they were so easily subject to ideological annexing in Jerusalem. The way Moab speaks of David in verse 5 guards against that danger. Counsel (v. 3) is their first affirmation of the Davidic vision (see, e.g., 11:2). The expectation that Moab might find protection in the ...
... but withering (vv. 5–10). Yahweh will bring a repetition of the natural disasters of which Israel read in the story of the plagues in Exodus. Instead of the Israelites being divided against each other, the Egyptians will be (v. 2). Instead of the Israelites being subject to a cruel overlord, the Egyptians will be (v. 4). As in the poem about Moab, this poem about Egypt contains a number of elements that we may be able to link to actual historical events. Assyria under Sargon defeated Egypt about 720 B.C ...
... Egypt itself at the end of the eighth century, so this poem about Cush is as much a poem about Egypt (cf. 20:1–6). 20:1–6 This final section of chapters 18–20 brings together Egypt and Cush, the two peoples who have been the subject of chapters 18–19, and completes the calamity-promise-calamity pattern that parallels chapters 15–16. It also makes explicit the direct implication that runs through these prophecies: do not trust in these peoples or boast in them or you will end up afraid and put to ...
21:11–12 After hearing the prophet’s vision in verses 1–10, the prophet’s hearers might immediately be struck by verse 11a as having a double reference. Dumah is an oasis near Babylon which, like Babylon, was subject to Assyrian attack in the eighth century and would itself be concerned about Babylon’s fate. The region also experienced Babylonian invasion and withdrawal in the sixth century, not long before Babylon fell. But oracles can be allusive and symbolic, and dumah is also a Hebrew word ...
... trampling and terror nicely reproduces an assonance in the Hebrew, where the words also rhyme. This will be a different kind of tumult from the one the people indulged in after the city’s relief (v. 2). In verse 8a it becomes clear that in this poem the subject and the audience are one and the same. Not only Babylon is a victim of Elam, but also Jerusalem (cf. 21:2). Kir is another city somewhere to the northeast and part of the Assyrian empire. Kir was a destination of deportation in 2 Kings 16:9–10 ...
... :1b The words read literally “a city of strength for us deliverance [someone] will appoint walls and rampart.” “City” and “deliverance” are feminine nouns and “walls” is plural so it is difficult (though not impossible) for them to be subject of the masculine singular verb, but adding “God” seems arbitrary. More likely the verb is implicitly passive, which is a possible Hb. usage. Further, “(its) deliverance will be appointed (as its) walls and rampart” makes less sense than “(its ...
... Jacob-Israel which goes far beyond 41:8–16. The book called Isaiah never uses the word covenant in anything like its usual sense until chapter 54 (the previous occurrences were 24:5; 28:15, 18; and “treaty,” 33:8). Perhaps the word had been subject to too much ideological appropriation by people who relied on it too much, as is the case in our own time. And perhaps it was then too painful a word when its underlying theology collapsed with the collapse of Jerusalem itself, which showed that “covenant ...
... of the idea of being a “witness” for God and of giving one’s “testimony,” but the expressions have lost their legal significance. This language presupposes that there is a case to be argued and evidence to be presented. The evidence lies not in subjective experience, which is not a law court’s concern, but in objective fact. There are events in the world that may seem to make little sense. Indeed, world history as a whole may seem to make little sense. But the Jewish people, and then the ...
... of the critique in Isaiah 40–48 is on the way images are made. Indeed, it is actually scorning the image-makers themselves. NIV rightly lays out the passage as poetry. It is actually doggerel verse, poetry whose down-to-earth-ness matches the feebleness of its subject. It is a mystery to the Poet that the image-makers cannot see the point (v. 9). Yet there is also a fierce bite to the polemic. Although images do not deserve to be taken seriously, they have to be taken very seriously indeed, because they ...
... confine ourselves to reading it in the light of its reapplication in the NT. The Prayer That Needs to Be Prayed (59:9-15a): 59:9–15a The section continues the theme of verses 1–8 which the opening words of chapter 56 first introduced, but the subjects are no longer “you” or “they” but we. The community itself speaks. Whom is it addressing? Is it simply reflecting to itself? Is this an expression of lostness like the one the Poet reports in 40:27? Not until verse 12 is there an indication that ...
... is to be radical renewal on earth, then, there needs to be radical renewal in heaven. Only then can the vision of verses 18–25 be fulfilled. Only then can Yahweh rejoice (v. 19). Yahweh’s rejoicing (it is rare for this verb to have God as subject) goes along with Yahweh’s forgetting (v. 17). If a battle must be won in heaven before there can be fulfillment of Yahweh’s vision on earth, this may provide a theological clue as to why the promises in chapters 40–66 never came about for some centuries ...
... would provide tremendous obstacles to walking, not to speak of running. God Abandons His People (12:7-13): Though the NIV treats this section as part of Yahweh’s answer to Jeremiah’s complaint (along with 12:5–6), it is necessary to see a change of subject in these verses. God turns from Jeremiah’s situation with his own family to God’s own situation with the people. Just like those who should love and trust Jeremiah have determined to hurt him, so the same is true of Yahweh’s people. 12:7–13 ...
... around the neck of Jeremiah, God will now place an iron yoke, one not as easily removed or broken. The oracle reaffirms the message that Jeremiah had been giving in the previous chapter. All the nations and even the wild animals will be subject to Nebuchadnezzar. The reference to wild animals is best to be understood as prophetic hyperbole. Wild animals, after all, are wild and thus virtually impossible to subjugate. If he can control the wild animals, he will easily control the inhabitants of these nations ...
... does condemn Shemaiah. Because he has falsely prophesied, God will punish him and his descendants. He will not live to see the future day of salvation, the good things God will do for his people. Precisely what those good things are is the subject of the next section of the book of Jeremiah, the so-called Book of Consolation (chs. 30–33). Additional Notes 29:26 Shemaiah berates Zephaniah the priest by implying that perhaps the job of policing wayward prophets should have been given instead to Jehoiada ...
... that Jeremiah 39:4–13 is not found in the Septuagint. It seems that the Masoretic Text places these verses here to bring the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning Judah (which ends here) to a fitting climax. 40:1–6 We now return to the subject of Jeremiah’s fate after the fall of Jerusalem (39:11–14). However, what is the relationship between these two narratives? In the earlier account, Nebuzaradan found Jeremiah imprisoned in the courtyard of the guard and released him into the care of Gedaliah. Here ...
... the judgment announcement in 7:9 and is bound to the third vision by the use of “sword” in both 7:9 and 7:11 and by the reference to “sanctuaries” in both 7:9 and 7:13. Thus the whole unit holds together by its common subject matter of visions and the reaction to them. Visions were frequent means of God’s communication with the prophets. In an ecstatic state of heightened consciousness, the prophet was granted to see and to hear God’s voice and actions, of which others were unaware. For example ...
... most important, all are to renounce their evil ways and the violence for which Nineveh and the Assyrian Empire have been so noted. As in Isaiah 58:3–7, the king is calling not merely for ritual observance, but for a transformation of life. The king and his subjects are therefore later made a model of repentance in the preaching of Jesus (Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:32). Fasts of repentance are mentioned throughout the OT and could be acts of individuals (2 Sam. 12:16) or of the community as a whole (Jer. 36:9 ...
... the Christ, the Son of the living God!” It was one of the most dramatic moments in their time together. Jesus was so pleased with Peter’s answer, he said he would give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Then . . . somewhat abruptly . . . Jesus changed the subject. He began to tell his disciples that the crowds would soon turn against him, and that he would be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Evidently, his disciples had not a clue what he was saying. Peter took him aside and began to ...
... Mike said, “That’s tomorrow’s page! Don’t throw away tomorrow.” “Wow!” said Robert Schuller, “A light went on. I discovered a universal principle: Don’t throw away tomorrow. That’s so easy to do. Crumple the paper. Throw it away. Move to the next subject. “We throw away tomorrow when ideas come and we are not ready for them, so we move on. ‘I’ll pass on this one,’ we say, not really knowing what doors to opportunity we’re closing. We don’t even give the idea serious attention ...