... this disjuncture gives emphasis. The Lord reminded them that they were not exempt from the washing and abstaining instructions: “Even the priests, who approach the LORD, must consecrate themselves.” They, too, were to prepare to meet the Lord, lest they view themselves as inherently consecrated. The Lord was also concerned that the priests would force their way through (v. 24). In approaching the boundary in worship, Aaron’s sons would have led the people forward to the foot of the mountain (rabbinic ...
... one third of the book) have seemed tedious to some interpreters. In addition to the extensive detail, Exodus 25–31 and 35–39 essentially repeat much of the same material. This intimate attention to detail, however, is exactly the point. If readers view this minutia only as a “problem,” they will miss the value of its rhetorical impact. When God broke into history to deliver a specific people, the details were the story. Exodus gives great detail concerning Moses’ call, the oppression, the plagues ...
... v. 9b). What remained was to hang down at the rear on the ground (v. 12). The two woven goat hair sections were joined together in the same way as the inner linen tent, with fifty loops. The clasps were bronze instead of gold and were hidden from view, since this curtain was sandwiched between the others. The descriptions of the third and fourth coverings for the tent are very brief. We know only that both were leather: “Make for the tent a covering of ram skins dyed red, and over that a covering of hides ...
... , God called for three blood sacrifices with three different purposes: forgiveness, praise, and a fellowship meal with God. Why did God ask for the sacrifice of animals from the flock as an offering for sin? The Lord established sacrifice on a view of reality that included four facts of human experience. First, the world was created as a place of goodness and well-being (Gen. 1–2). Whole relationships were the Lord’s intention from the beginning. Second, intentional and unintentional decisions and ...
... them. Moses interceded for the first time and the Lord “relented” concerning the threatened “disaster” (32:9–14). This decision was limited only to not destroying the people. Repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, and renewal of the covenant were not yet in view. The people were still celebrating their calf-god. The question was simply what the Lord would do about it. God ruled out annihilation. The Lord’s second decision after the golden calf incident concerned whether or not God’s presence ...
... assistant (lit. “minister,” lieutenant, aide), faces the assignment of following the premier servant of the LORD. The rest of the book answers the question of whether Joshua will lead the tribes to their promised rest. 1:2–9 God’s point of view dominates these verses, in which the Lord, speaking directly to Joshua rather than through Moses’ report (Deut. 31:7–8), addresses him about matters summarized in Deuteronomy 31:23. As if grieving the loss, the Lord states the obvious: Moses my servant ...
... renewal. Soggin interprets the ceremony at Mount Ebal as a doublet of the renewal ceremony at Shechem (Josh. 24; Soggin, Joshua, pp. 222ff.; LXX inserts this section after 9:2). However, considering the unique roles of both passages in the book, I do not view the ceremonies as doublets. Joshua followed the teachings of Moses by building an altar at Mount Ebal and renewing the covenant early in the campaign (Deut. 27:4). The ceremony at the altar on Mount Ebal celebrated victories at Jericho and Ai and ...
... 23 A summary report on the campaign for possessing the land begins with the statement that Joshua took this entire land (11:16) and ends with the result: Then the land had rest from war (11:23). As is the case with Joshua 9–11, the point of view remains that of the narrator. The point of the report is that the tribal forces have possessed the land as the Lord had instructed Moses. God has given the land as an inheritance, and as a result the land could enjoy a period of time without warfare. The narrator ...
... doing what God wanted them to do, while continuing to do what they want to do (cf. 1 Sam. 15), a condition that extends beyond the borders of biblical Israel to the wider circle of humankind, even today. Certainly God demands absolute obedience and views failure to obey him absolutely as idolatry, a violation of the first, and most important, commandment (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut. 5:6–7). No matter how much people try to rationalize their compromise, God is not fooled. Also illustrated is the principle that ...
... in all areas of life. Of course, the Lord promised his people that he would supply all of their needs and even more. But they wanted to make sure that all their bases were covered, as it were, and so worshiped Baal along with the Lord. The Lord viewed this not as an expedient business move on their part but as the gravest offense they could commit against him, on a par with the sin of worshiping the golden calf (Exod. 32). He demanded exclusive worship (Deut. 6:13–15) or none at all. The result of ...
... obeyed and went down to the outposts of the camp (v. 11). The use of the verb “go down” (Hb. yrd) subtly insinuates that a reversal was surely coming. The Midianites were already below the Israelites; they were as good as conquered. The same is in view in verses 12 (in the valley) and 13 (tumbling). 7:12–14 The Lord allowed Gideon and his servant to eavesdrop just as one Midianite told another about his dream. Dreams were thought to be messages from God and thus would have been significant to anyone ...
... at Mount Sinai; they existed as a people solely because of that covenant agreement. So to claim any king other than the Lord would be to deny their very existence. True, the Lord did give them flesh-and-blood leaders, but they were viewed as representatives of the heavenly king, who worked through them by special charisms imparted by the Spirit of the Lord. Many of these leaders were prophets. But ideally Israel had never confused these representatives with the true King. Thus the request signaled a serious ...
... (kelil) of the city was rising toward heaven” (my translation). The message communicated through this clear analogy would not have been lost on a Hebrew audience. Second, the sight of smoke rising from “all the towns” of Benjamin recalls a similar scene viewed by Abraham after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:28). The tragic irony of all this, that the destruction of the towns of Benjamin, a tribe of Israel, corresponded to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, cannot be overstated ...
... called ’elohim (18:24), The magicoreligious specialists who use them are called kohanim and ’abot (“priests” and “fathers,” 18:19). Recent research on these ’elohim-icons affirms that the best way to understand their cultural role is to view them holistically, as part of a much larger socioreligious network involving kinship, cult, land, and afterlife beliefs. That varying beliefs about the ’elohim are anchored deep in Syro-Palestinian culture well explains why so many Israelites, in spite ...
... be easier to accept were Nielsen to offer a few concrete examples of other “dueling-genealogies” representing other socio-political factions, biblical or extrabiblical; make more of an effort to engage, explain and refute the dominant literary theorists who view the genealogy, with good reason, as secondary (e.g., Rudolph, Joüon, Bertman, Campbell, Sasson); and give more attention to the book’s canonical-historical context (see the too-facile discussion on pp. 19–21, particularly the claims for ...
... the Simeonite character of the southern region extended into the monarchic period. This temporal remark is, however, not attested in the Joshua 19 list and could be considered to come from the Chronicler’s hand. Should that be the case, it confirms the Chronicler’s view on how influential a watershed the reign of David was in history. 4:33b–38 The last phrase in 4:33 introduces another name list with the words and they kept a genealogical record. This list concludes in 4:38 with the indication that ...
... 9:33, although no specific names are mentioned there. Ezra 2:41 and Nehemiah 7:44 make a clear distinction between Levites and singers, but 1 Chronicles 9:15 presents the musician lineage as part of the general Levitical lineage. These different views might be attributed to the history of development of the Levitical families, which indicates that the Asaphites were not originally considered Levites. Chronicles would then reflect a later stage than Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. Second, although the inhabitants of ...
... as possible. For that reason he skips over some events that are considered important in the Deuteronomistic History (see 2 Sam. 1–4), for example, the interim reign of Ish-Bosheth. Some commentators see a ring structure in this section. According to this view, 1 Chronicles 11:1–9, which tells that All-Israel came to Hebron to crown David, and 12:38–40, which narrates the actual coronation and celebration of David, form the outer circle of this narrative. Included in this circle then are subsections ...
... 1999], p. 59) and Klein (1 Chronicles, p. 455), subordination would have been indicated with the Hebrew expression ʿal yad (instead of leyad, used here), a term that is used in quite a few instances in Chronicles. Dirksen does not agree with this view. He is of the opinion that the expression indeed denotes subordination. But he adds: “Of course this does not mean less respect. The writer holds that priests and Levites both have their indispensable function within the order of the cult, while emphasizing ...
... be offered on behalf of the royal family (6:10), as well as the concern of Artaxerxes to avoid the wrath of Israel’s God falling on them (7:23), indicates this concern. Of course, the monotheistic narrator and readers (including us as Christians) must view the issue from a different perspective. The ironic truth is that the God of Israel, and this God alone, was the real power behind the Persian throne and Cyrus’ Judean policy, and verse 1 has already used an argument from prophecy to support this claim ...
... feasible. 4:3 For the literary setting of this incident in the reign of Cyrus, see Halpern, “Historiographic Commentary,” pp. 103–16. 4:5 Counselors: The Persian royal “advisers” (NIV) or “counselors” (NRSV) mentioned in 7:14–15, 28; 8:25 may be in view. 4:6 The beginning of his reign: The precise reference is to his “accession year” (NRSV), the period from the end of 486 to April 485, when the first full regnal year began. Xerxes inherited an Egyptian revolt, which would have made him ...
... time Sheshbazzar, whom the reader met in 1:8, 11, had been authorized to do the rebuilding and install the vessels, and he had actually begun the project. Their claim that the project had been progressing ever since conflicts with the narrator’s own view, expressed in 4:5, 24 and based on the evidence of Haggai’s text (Hag. 1:2, 4, 9). The discrepancy is a small indication that he was citing an independent document. It was clearly an exaggerated, diplomatic attempt to claim that the original decree ...
... was destroyed. The narrator recapitulated the opening of his story, the proclamation of Cyrus at God’s behest (1:1), speaking of Cyrus’ decree in line with 5:17; 6:3. He could now refer to the extra decree of Darius, with verses 8 and 11–12 in view. He even referred to the future king Artaxerxes, assuring his readers that he was not always as hostile as he was in 4:7–23. He could be thinking of the next phase in the ongoing story, Artaxerxes’ embellishment of the temple mentioned in 7:27. But we ...
... for the safety of the journey. It is a religious counterpart to the literary tribute paid to divine help earlier in the text. The sin offering got rid of the uncleanness of exile, as was suggested in 6:17, and it is even more obviously in view here. The last clause in verse 35 draws attention to the quality of the other sacrifices in that they took the form of a burnt offering. As thank offerings, they might have been partial sacrifices in which the meat was returned to the sacrificer for a sacred ...
... –90). It may represent a deliberate approximation of the order in Exod. 34:11 and so constitute an appeal to Exod. 34:11–16—a further Torah passage opposed to mixed marriages. Amorites: 1 Esdras 8:69 reads “Edomites” with Deut. 23:7 in view, but this is an easier and therefore secondary reading that ignores the difference in order. There is evidence that Amorites was used to mean Arabs in the postexilic period (Ishida, “Structure,” p. 488). The term was displaced from its position in Deut. 7:1 ...