... of the story creates a sense of anticipation for the most unlikely thing to become irresistibly likely: “Many girls were brought to the citadel of Susa . . . [and] Esther also was taken . . .” (v. 8). 2:8–11 The serendipity continues as Esther attracts substantial support from Hegai: The girl pleased him and won his favor. Immediately he provided her with her beauty treatments and special food. He assigned to her seven maids selected from the king’s palace and moved her and her maids into the best ...
... will surely come to ruin!” (v. 13). There is little doubt that an ethnic rivalry was at the root of Haman’s enmity with Mordecai; now it is clear to those closest to Haman that the Jewish side will win. What capricious superstition had once supported (with the casting of the pur), it now denies. Zeresh speaks with the wisdom perceived by Gentiles when God is present among his people (Num. 22–24; Dan. 2:46–47; 3:28–29). Haman’s friends are referred to ironically as “wise men” (NIV advisers ...
... shoveh) means “to be commensurate with.” The word “disturbing” (nzq) typically implies (financial) loss (Fox, Character, p. 282). Levenson (Esther, pp. 99–100) rightly translates the first term personally: “the adversary would not have been worth the king’s loss.” Support for this translation comes from the king’s question, “Who is he? Where is the man . . .” (v. 5) and the use of tsar in Esther’s answer: “The adversary . . . is this vile Haman” (v. 6). The “loss” is perhaps ...
... was also delivered with a sense of urgency. The effect of the decree was to publicize the right of the Jews to defend (v. 11; avenge, v. 13) themselves and take plunder. Everyone in the empire is hereby alerted to the shift in royal support to the Jewish side in a scheduled civil war. This is the formal legitimization of a state-sponsored, Jewish military response—a sanctioned reaction to unwarranted aggression. Thus Haman’s decree is overruled. 8:15–17 Mordecai’s position of honor, destabilized in ...
... but the substitution of fingers for neck is striking. The intended meaning of verse 4a is a marriage with wisdom (sister means also bride; cf. Song 4:9–5:2). The parallelism calls for “kinswoman” (cf. NJPS). However, “kinsman” of the NIV is supported by the MT. Verse 5 again designates the woman as stranger. It is prejudgment and also misleading to speak of adulteress and wayward wife (see the discussion above on 2:17). The woman whose activities are about to be highlighted is described as dressed ...
... theme (Roots of Wisdom: A Survey of Modern Study [Leiden: Brill, 1995], pp. 75–81). Proverbs 10:1–32 10:1 The opening verse highlights a frequent theme; cf. 13:1; 17:21, 25; 23:24–25, and verse 1a is identical to 15:20a. These sayings provide support for home and family as a setting, if not the origin, for wisdom teaching in Israel. It is noteworthy that the first saying deals with the son after so many references to “my son” in chapters 1–9. As C. R. Fontaine remarks, “the proverbs of chap ...
... verse. In context, it could have a bearing on the “king” sayings that precede it. The events it presupposes would have occurred often enough to give rise to the saying. 16:19 A “better” saying, which forms an antithesis to verse 18. It gives strong support to the lowly (cf. also v. 8) against the haughty who have (probably unjust) spoil to divide. See Additional Notes. 16:20 Synonymous. One can recognize a block of sayings in verses 20–24 dealing with speech. The NIV translates the Hebrew word, d ...
... he brought back (returned) a wheel upon them.” This can hardly mean torture (cf. Amos 1:3), but it may continue the idea of winnowing. Some emend the MT on the basis of Ps. 94:23: “and brings upon them their iniquity”; but none of the versions support this. 20:27 If one follows the NIV text rather than the marginal footnote, the lamp of the LORD is left undefined. Does this mean merely that the Lord searches (this word seems to be supplied from v. 27b) the “life-breath” (so the meaning of Hb. n ...
24:23a Verse 23a is really a title to the collection of sayings in verses 23b–34. See 25:1 and the title at 22:17. 24:23b–25 The impartiality urged by these verses is supported by Leviticus 19:15 and Deuteronomy 16:19. There is a contrast between those who judge unjustly and those who reprove (NIV, convict). The former will be accused and the latter will prosper. 24:26 This seems to be an independent saying that says literally: “lips he kisses—the one ...
... Notes. The NIV understands verse 16a as a kind of continuation of verse 15. On verse 16b see 10:2. 28:17 Synthetic. The NIV supposes that a murderer will be driven on by a sense of guilt till the end of his life. A command is issued that no support be given him (lit. “do not lay hold of him”—thus one is not to prevent the Lord’s vengeance from fulfilling its purpose?). 28:18 Antithetic. The NIV silently reads the plural for the dual (v. 18b in the MT: “two ways”; cf. v. 6). 28:19 Antithetic ...
... –8). Unlike the other exhortation, this one is expressly directed to the young (11:9) and cognizant of the meaninglessness (or brevity) of life (11:10) and the certainty of divine judgment (11:9). Additional Notes 9:15 And he saved the city: The Hb. supports the possibility that the protagonist saved the city and was later forgotten, as NIV implies. The context suggests another reading: that no one thought to consult the poor sage who could have saved the city but did not have the opportunity. 9:16 If the ...
... for its proper time or they are not to disturb the lovers until they have finished their lovemaking. The NIV translation follows the former understanding of the verse. At least in isolation, this is the most natural understanding of the Hebrew. In support of the alternate reading, one might observe that this sense of warning sounds a bit out of character coming from the central woman, and that the adjuration always occurs after references to the lovers together and touching, often embracing. It is almost ...
... :7; 8:13; 9:10; 10:27; 14:2, 26, 27; 15:6, 33; 16:6; 19:23; 22:4; 23:17; 24:21; Eccl. 12:13). Jeremiah denounces the people since they do not treat the Lord with the proper awe. Jeremiah now invokes creation themes in order to support this idea. God is the one who bounded the sea with the sand in order to make the dry land. The sea represents the power of chaos, but God firmly pushes back chaos to allow the order of creation to exist. Further, God is the provider of the life-giving ...
... their fields. This is an indirect reference to the coming exile, when the Babylonians will displace the people of Judah and Jerusalem from their land. Jeremiah certainly recognized that not all scribes had betrayed the Lord. Indeed, his closest allies and supporters were from among the scribal class (Baruch, Shaphan and his family; see in particular chapter 36). 8:10b–12 After focusing on the wisdom teachers, Jeremiah’s oracle now expands to include everyone (from the least to the greatest), at least ...
... the covenant as God commissioned them to accuse his people of breaking the covenant by disobeying the laws of the covenant. Here Jeremiah is acting as a lawyer; elsewhere in the prophets we actually see the use of specifically legal or courtroom terminology in support of their task (e.g., Mic. 1:2; 6:1–8). The covenant that is specifically in mind here is the Mosaic covenant established on the occasion of the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 19–24) and renewed before entering the promised land (Deuteronomy). On ...
... third year of this Judean king and Nebuchadnezzar’s first year in Daniel 1:1. In addition, it is claimed that the Babylonians did not come to Jerusalem until the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:9). A surface reading of the Babylonian Chronicle appears to support this opinion. According to Hartman and Di Lella (The Book of Daniel [New York: Doubleday, 1978], p. 48), the second-century author of Daniel was confused and misled by his understanding of 2 Chronicles 36:6–7 in connection with 2 Kings 24:1. D ...
... a human perspective. Ahikam son of Shaphan interceded for Jeremiah. Ahikam is mentioned in 2 Kings 22:12, 14, 22, as is his father Shaphan (2 Kgs. 22:3, 8, 9, 10, etc.), as officials during the reforms of Josiah. We might presume that their support for Josiah would make them favorably disposed toward Jeremiah. They likely walked a political tightrope with Josiah’s son, Jehoiakim, but had enough power to do so. Of further interest is the fact that Ahikam is later mentioned as the son of Gedaliah (Jer. 40 ...
... by a number of years, the MT is unlikely to be correct. Perhaps a scribe was thrown off by the beginning of chapter 26. There are some Hebrew manuscripts, along with Arabic and Syriac references, which do attest the name Zedekiah, though the Dead Sea scrolls support the MT. 27:6 This oracle shocks because God calls Nebuchadnezzar my servant. How could a pagan king be the servant of Yahweh? The answer is that the king is a servant without being aware of it. God is using Nebuchadnezzar for his purposes. In ...
... only here, but Shaphan, his father, is well known from his role as the king’s secretary in the reforms of Josiah as recorded in 2 Kings 22. In Jeremiah, he is mentioned in relationship to his sons. Besides Elasah, we hear about Shaphan’s other son Ahikam who supported and protected Jeremiah (26:24; 39:14, see also 2 Kgs. 22:12). Gedaliah the future governor of Judah after 586 B.C. is the son of Ahikam and the grandson of Shaphan (40:5, 9, 11; 41:2; 43:6). In Jeremiah 36, we read about Shaphan’s ...
... Jehoiachin not Jehoiakim who is on the throne. Jehoiakim has been deposed, even though he appears to have been alive when the Babylonians arrive (2 Chr. 36:6–7). The texts are unclear as to what happened next, though Kings (2 Kgs. 24:6) supports the idea that he was killed in Jerusalem (and buried there) rather than deported to Babylon. His son Jehoiachin, though, was deported to Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar put his uncle Zedekiah (who was also Jehoiakim’s brother) on the throne. Additional Notes 36:12 ...
... because Ahikam son of Shaphan interceded for him. 2 Kings 22 mentions both Ahikam (vv. 12, 14, 22) and his father, Shaphan (2 Kgs. 22:3, 8, 9, 10, etc.), as officials during the reforms of Josiah. We might presume then that their support for Josiah made them favorably disposed toward Jeremiah. They likely walked a political tightrope with Josiah’s son, Jehoiakim, but had enough power to do so. In short, Gedaliah’s father and grandfather were godly men who managed to retain important positions during ...
... and without warning when Gedaliah would have had his guard down. The repetition of Gedaliah’s parentage (son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan) may have been a way of reminding the reader that the governor came from a line of godly men who supported the prophet. But the fact that Gedaliah is also described as the one whom the king of Babylon had appointed as governor over the land. Because of this brutal act, there likely will be consequences to pay. Ishmael’s murderous treachery extended even beyond ...
... covenant with its Lord and turned aside to its own willful way, it must now be put to a yoke. And that yoke is the disciplining war (cf. 3:3–4) that is already coming upon Israel at the hands of the Assyrians. Two other lines in the text support such an interpretation. In verse 10c, Yahweh says that he will put them in bonds (Hebrew: “I will bind them”). The reference is not to bondage to the Assyrians, but to the Lord’s binding yoke that will be laid on Israel’s neck. Similarly, in verse 13d, the ...
... an animal, with a yoke, as in 4:16 and 10:11, or whether the Hebrew ʿōl should be read as ʿûl, “baby.” The emendation would then read, “And I was to them as those who lift a baby to their cheek, and I bent down to feed him.” To support such a translation, many have pointed out that 10:11 says Yahweh left Israel unyoked, and that the yoke on a heifer did not rest on the heifer’s jaws, but on its neck, as the NIV has emended. There is no way to decide definitively between these two readings ...
... God’s final judgment and is instead a description of the invasion of the locusts of chapter 1. In such a view, the locust plague would be not a past event, but a present one. Several features of this passage would, on the face of it, seem to support such a position. It describes a large and mighty army, verse 2 (cf. v. 11), and that would seem to fit in with the characterization of the locusts as a “nation,” “powerful and without number,” in 1:6. The reference to clouds and blackness in 2:2 fits ...