... Egyptian dignitaries, traveled to Canaan with their father’s mummy. A military guard of chariots and horsemen accompanied them, both to assist and to provide security. It was a grand procession. The young children and the flocks of Jacob’s family, however, stayed behind in Goshen. Their remaining in Egypt guaranteed the return of Joseph and his brothers. 50:10–14 When they arrived at the threshing floor of Atad, located beyond the Jordan, the entourage held a great public memorial ceremony for Jacob ...
... , Deuteronomy is a book “on the boundary,” speaking powerfully through the ages to every generation of God’s people called to move across the ever shifting boundary from past experience of God into future unknown circumstances (cf. Miller, Deuteronomy, pp. 20f.). 1:6 You have stayed long enough at this mountain was God’s way of saying that the purpose for which Israel had been brought to Mt. Sinai was then complete. It was time to move on. The phrase is repeated in 2:3 as a signal that the time of ...
... (2:1–23); memories of past victories that inspired future courage (2:24–3:11, 21f.); memories of commitments to unity and solidarity in the struggles of God’s people (3:12–20). It is time now to move forward and cross that boundary, because you have stayed long enough on this side of it (1:6; cf. 2:2). Additional Note 3:26 A stark contrast between the Deuteronomic explanation for God’s denial of Moses’ desire to enter the promised land and the one given in Num. 20 is argued by Mann, “Denial ...
... much say that Yahweh would put his name in only one place as that Israel should seek only the place where Yahweh would put his name, wherever that might in future be. Such a place would be “central,” even if temporary, as long as the ark stayed there. (c) While the natural reading of the text certainly points to a specific central sanctuary, it is not necessarily implying a sole sanctuary for all Israel. There is an emphasis on the unity of Israel’s faith and worship, but that unity is to be founded ...
... . 41:45) and fathering a son, Genubath. We do not need the hint from his son’s name (cf. Hb. gnḇ, “to steal”) to realize, however, that this is a man likely to be very angry indeed about the “stolen” lives of his countrymen and unlikely to want to stay forever in Egypt. It is therefore no surprise to find him later pleading with Pharaoh to Let him go (Hb. šlḥ, vv. 21–22). The plea is well-remembered from Israel’s past (cf. Exod. 5:1; 7:16; 8:1 etc.), but on this occasion Pharaoh fails to ...
... . He has always claimed to “stand before the LORD” (Hb. ʿmḏ lipnê YHWH; cf. the NIV’s “whom I serve” in 17:1; 18:15). Yet now, in spite of the command of verse 11 (“Go out and stand . . . in the presence of the LORD,” ʿmḏ lipnê YHWH), he apparently stays in the cave until the storm is over (v. 13). When he does go out it is with his cloak over his face. He seems as committed to “not seeing” as Jezebel was in 19:1–2. And so his perspective is still the one that she has inspired in ...
... is after (vv. 31–33). Ahab, however—playing the commoner—is struck down. An arrow shot at random flies unerringly to its divinely ordained target (v. 34)—to a single figure in the vast crowd, to one of the few undefended spots on his body. He stays on the battlefield all day long, perhaps to encourage his troops, but at sunset he dies and the army withdraws leaderless (vv. 35–36, cf. v. 17). The LORD’s deception of Ahab has succeeded; Ahab’s attempted deception of the LORD has failed. It was ...
... the LORD. 7:3–11 A leper had first brought the Arameans to Samaria during Jehoram’s reign (2 Kgs. 5:1–7), and four men with leprosy (see the additional note on 5:1) now drive them away. Faced with certain death if they go into the city or stay where they are (v. 4), these men instead choose possible death in the camp of the Arameans. They are only four lepers; but seen in the half-light of dusk, with the sound of chariots and horses and a great army in the background (v. 6; cf. 6:17), they ...
... as the advocacy on her behalf that Elisha had had in mind in 4:13; and the king takes steps to ensure the return, not only of everything that belonged to her, but also of all the income from her land that she would have received had she stayed in the country. God looks after those who look after his prophets (Matt. 10:40–42). 8:7–15 Elisha first became involved with Aram when an Aramean ventured into Samaria. His dealings with them now come to an end, as he himself ventures into the Aramean capital ...
... the city as early as verse 8, as the field commander “hears” (Hb. šmʿ) that Sennacherib has left Lachish and “returns” (Hb. šwḇ; the NIV’s withdrew) to find him, now fighting against Libnah. Nothing comes of this, however. Sennacherib stays firmly rooted in the land, and the “great army” evidently remains outside Jerusalem, under the supreme commander (18:17). A second false dawn follows close behind. The Assyrian king “hears” (Hb. šmʿ) about the advance of Tirhakah, king of Cush ...
... name’s sake, for the sake of my praise (v. 9), for my own sake (v. 11, repeated): How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another. It would be superficially more comforting for the community to be told that Yahweh will stay with it because of love, but it is at least as sure an argument when Yahweh remembers the logic that Moses had pressed at Sinai (see Exod. 32:11–13). The reference to the circumstances of Israel’s forming in Egypt (v. 10) fits with that link. Additional Notes ...
... inclined to the Yahwism of the prophets than were their parents and grandparents. But the portrait here may suggest different issues from those that images in chapters 40–55 raised about worship. It may be that the prophet is attacking people who had stayed in Judah, not people who had returned from Babylon. Such people acknowledged Yahweh but did not accept the prophet’s understanding of what this involved. The prophet may be trying to warn people who have returned from Babylon not to become attracted ...
... a conversation. There are two positive implications in the prophet’s extraordinary charge. The first is that more hope lies in Yahweh’s responsibility than in human responsibility. If we wander from Yahweh’s ways simply because we are inclined to wander, then trying to stay in Yahweh’s ways involves trying to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. However, if our being the way we are is in some sense the result of Yahweh’s action, or even of Yahweh’s inaction (the verb might be rendered “let ...
... —approximately the number of years from the fall of the northern kingdom to the time of Ezekiel’s exile (Block, Ezekiel 1–24, pp. 175–76). The LXX translators, then, assumed that “house of Israel” meant the northern kingdom. However, if we stay with the 390 days/years of the Hebrew text, and with Ezekiel’s typical rendering of Israel as referring to all Israel, then we arrive at another, more probable interpretation. Approximately 390 years before the Babylonian exile, Solomon became king and ...
... on principle, rightly weighing the actions of each individual in the present moment. What is unprincipled is the community’s desire to avoid present responsibility by blaming their circumstances upon their ancestors. Can we ever really be good enough, and stay good enough, to deserve God’s favor? Christian readers will certainly fault this approach as works-righteousness, in direct contrast to the gospel of salvation by God’s grace; indeed, some may find validation here for drawing a line between ...
... headdress that Aaron wore. It seems unlikely that Ezekiel would refer to the royal turban in this way. This probably represents a later insertion by his priestly editors. 22:16 When you have been defiled. The NIV has, with the NJPS, chosen to stay with the MT here, which reads wenikhalt bak (mechanically, “you [feminine in form, with reference to Jerusalem] will be defiled in you”). The LXX, Syr., and Vulg. all assume instead the Heb. wenakhalti bak (“I will inherit [?] in you”), while Tg. Jonathan ...
... :1–12) was probably a leader of this group. If Saba is indeed intended here, then the point would be that Jerusalem allied itself with that kingdom. However, given that Ezek. does not mention an alliance with Saba elsewhere, it is probably best to read with the NIV footnote and stay with “drunkards.”
... the pot as well, the NIV translation is preferable. The LXX reading “rust” may derive from 24:11, which suggests an impurity in the metal itself that could presumably be smelted away. However, keeping in mind that this is a parable, and staying with the imagery of pots and cooking fires rather than ore and smelting furnaces, it is likely that Ezekiel intends this verse ironically rather than realistically (see the discussion above). Similarly, any farmer reading the parable of the weeds among the wheat ...
... , the following section, vv. 17–24, will deal with God judging the sheep and siding with the weak and injured over against the fat and strong. The shocking introduction of this idea in v. 16 is in keeping with Ezekiel’s style elsewhere. The NIV is right to stay with the Heb. here. 34:31 “You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people, and I am your God.” The awkward Eng. of the NIV translation is a faithful representation of the awkward Heb. in the MT. The initial “you” is feminine, not the ...
... . 287–88) proposes that the MT is a textual corruption for rokeleha, “her traders” (the pairing of Heb. sakhar and rakal is found repeatedly in the trade list in 27:12–25; see 27:12–13, 15–16, 17–18, 20–21, 21–22). The NRSV stays with the MT but interprets wekolkepireha as “all its young warriors,” which clashes too much with the mercantile context. The Tg. reads “and all her kings,” an interpretation of the MT based perhaps on 32:2, where kepir also refers to a king. This reading ...
... ” where the MT has “east.” Here, it is not clear how an error could have occurred; the words for east and south are not that similar. On the other hand, the shift from east to south for symmetry’s sake is readily understandable. With the NJPS, one should stay with the MT here—the chamber for the Zadokite priests is part of the east gate complex, though its door faces north. 40:46 These are the sons of Zadok, who are the only Levites who may draw near to the LORD to minister before him. Gustav H ...
... of the Temple contains. Perhaps there is no mention of administrative structures because the priestly editors of chapters 40–48 have no interest in them. The prince matters, from their perspective, only in his roles as patron and participant in the liturgy. The focus stays where the title places it: “This is the law of the temple” (43:12). It is not difficult to identify multiple sources in verses 9–17. The prophetic critique of the prince in direct address that opens this section (vv. 9–10), the ...
... wait, now, where she was, and die—it would not be long. She told Tom to go . . . and explore if he chose; but she implored him to come back every little while and speak to her; and she made him promise that when the awful time came, he would stay by her and hold her hand until all was over.2 Jesus, the one true light, came into a world that was covered in darkness. To “the people living in darkness . . . a light has dawned” (Matt. 4:16). God’s salvation in Jesus will reach to the Gentiles. Mission ...
... that the two characters in Matthew’s story who are described (by Jesus) as having “great faith” are precisely the two clearly identified Gentiles in the story (here and 15:21–28). Prior to his death and resurrection, Jesus is portrayed as staying within the missional parameters set for him (15:24; cf. 10:5–6). After Jesus’ resurrection, Matthew affirms the universal scope of the mission: to “all nations,” which includes both Jew and Gentile (28:19). 8:11–12 many will come from ...
... but does not guarantee acceptance and reception. Literature: The Last Battle, by C. S. Lewis. In this children’s novel, Lewis weaves the theme of testing through his portrayals of the characters. Who will prove faithful? Who can be trusted? Some characters stay true to the end, even to death. Others betray. One group simply refuses to place its faith in anyone or anything, deciding that all reality is deceptive. The dwarves, who make this decision, enter “the next world,” a beautiful paradise. But ...