... ; meals of fellowship and thanksgiving in the Lord’s presence; and a means to express worship and adoration. The elaborate sacrificial system was a means of conversing and living with a holy God. It may still serve a pedagogical function for understanding aspects of human relationships with the Lord. In Aaron’s consecration, 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 ...
... in the former tent of meeting vv. 12–17: Moses intercedes again; Yahweh will go with you vv. 18–23: God promises to reveal divine glory and goodness 33:7–11 These verses establish the depth of God’s friendship with Moses. They are key to understanding the transformation of the Lord’s relationship with the people described in verses 12–23 and 34:1–10. The repeated expressions “I know you by name,” “I am pleased with you,” and “you have found favor with me” (vv. 12–13, 16–17; see ...
... Lord, as on the mountain (24:15–16). God gives this invitation in the first verse of Leviticus: “The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting” (Lev. 1:1; Cassuto, Exodus, p. 484). The conclusion to Exodus is key to understanding the context of the books of Leviticus and Numbers. They set up the tabernacle in the first month of the second year (vv. 2, 17). The Lord’s “call” to Moses from the tent, which comes promptly in Leviticus 1:1, is the beginning of further Sinaitic ...
... sacred to the LORD and must go into his treasury (6:19). Items that would be useful to worship of the Lord go directly into the Lord’s treasury. Valuable items are to be stored for the future worship center. This guideline also will be important for understanding the enormity of Achan’s violation. 6:20–25 Jericho is ripe for taking. The tribal forces know what to do and how to do it. The narrative resumes where it left off with the sound of the shophar and the war whoop. Will God provide the victory ...
... verses. But a narrative intrusion into the story (v. 2) introduces a completely different idea—that the Lord left the nations only to teach warfare to the descendants of the Israelites who had not had previous battle experience. How are we to understand this “hairraising explanation”(Boling, Judges, p. 77)? Surely this is a case in which we clearly see the hand of a later editor commenting from his own particular ideology or agenda. Possibly he plays upon two meanings for “test” in Hebrew—either ...
... and fled on foot (v. 15). Even though Sisera’s army was completely destroyed (v. 16), Deborah’s prophecy had not yet been fulfilled. And so we focus upon Sisera, trailing his movement from the battlefield. 4:17–21 There is some question, understandably, about whether verse 17 more appropriately falls within the previous division or within this one. The Hebrew text, however, is clear. The word order indicates that it belongs with this section and that the author wants to keep us focused on Sisera. The ...
... strength. The fate of enemies is contrasted with that of allies; the word “enemies” is contrasted with the phrase “those who love the LORD.” How are these contrasting categories? And what does it mean to “love the LORD”? The modern western understanding of love is fraught with sentimental drivel that has nothing to do with the biblical idea of loving the Lord. The expression must be interpreted against the backdrop of covenant: To “love the LORD” means to be faithful to covenant commitment(s ...
... thereby fulfilling his promise to Abraham and Sarah, and also the faith or faithfulness of their forefathers and foremothers (Gen. 15:6). 6:14 The LORD turned to him and said: There is interplay between “the LORD” and “the angel of the LORD,” which is understandable since the “angel of the LORD” often referred to the Lord in theophanic contexts. The LXX here reads “the angel of the LORD.” 6:15 But Lord, . . . How can I save Israel? How many of us can see ourselves here and in Moses’ story ...
... came from within the covenant community rather than from outside. Many commentators treat the Abimelech story as an interruption or an aside. But we must take seriously the fact that structurally it stands at the center of the book and seek to understand its important function in the overall story, particularly what it reveals about Israel’s wickedness and Israel’s leadership, two points the author clearly seeks to communicate through this tragic story. 9:1–6 Abimelech is first identified as a son of ...
... ’s revenge was, to say the least, peculiar. He captured three hundred foxes, tied their tails together in pairs, . . . fastened torches to them, lit the torches and let them loose into the Philistines’ fields of ready-to-be-harvested wheat. It is easy to understand why he wanted to burn their crops at harvest time, but why by tying burning torches to foxes’ tails? Besides the fact that he could thereby inflict a much greater harm, not to mention the sheer entertainment factor, the theme of fire is one ...
... the doing. It recalls the process of the first sin in the garden of Eden, where Eve saw the fruit and then took it and ate it (Gen. 3:6). 16:3 He . . . carried them to the top of the hill that faces Hebron: Some commentators, understandably, have been reluctant to accept the text as it stands, for Hebron is about forty miles from Gaza—uphill! Consequently it has been suggested that there was another Hebron (which no one has identified) in the vicinity of Gaza or that the preposition “to” (“to the ...
... Ephraimite (cf. Judg. 12:5–6; Luke 22:59). The Danites fired off three questions that underscored their surprise that the Levite was at Micah’s house. Levites were supposed to serve at communal places of worship, not private residences. The Levite’s answer, understandably devoid of any reference to the Lord, was that he was there because Micah paid him well. This response sets up the later development described in verses 19–20. The spies next asked him to inquire of God about the success of their ...
... the disturbing comment, Only don’t spend the night in the square. There is real irony in the wording of his invitation. Besides the hint that it might not be safe in the square, the invitation literally states, “Shalom to you” (sing.). While it is understandable that the old man would make the agreement with the other male in the scene, the wording still ominously foreshadows the events that would transpire that night. As it turned out, the woman was not included in the offer of shalom. 19:22–24 The ...
... that the line runs from Abraham to Isaac, and not through Ishmael and Keturah. The Chronicler uses “Israel” for “Jacob” throughout. Since the Chronicler’s great concern is to help negotiate the social identity of All-Israel in the late Persian era, this is understandable. He wanted to emphasize that the origin of this people goes back to the covenant bearer, whose name was changed from Jacob to Israel. 1:35–54 The genealogy of Esau starts in 1:35. It is clear that this list is an abridged ...
... “settlements”) suggest that the Simeonites were settled in this area. The source used by the Chronicler, namely, Joshua 19:1–9, mentions that Simeon had their “inheritance” in the area of Judah. This is in line with the Deuteronomistic understanding of the promised land being legally allotted to the different tribes. The Chronicler does not use the term “inheritance,” however. He was probably insinuating that the Simeonites were settled on Judahite land but the land still belonged to Judah ...
... Levitical descent. The prominence of this genealogy, therefore, from the start signals the reader that the Chronicler is working from a cultic perspective. The cult forms a central notion in the identity construction he is negotiating here. Whoever wants to understand himself or herself as part of All-Israel should also be embedded in the cultic community. The Levitical genealogy is closely related in the literary structure to the genealogies of Judah and Benjamin. The community identity that the Chronicler ...
... that God’s salvation of his people could also be realized in their own time under Persian rule. A messianic interpretation also overlooks that the Chronicler wrote primarily for the cultic community in Jerusalem during the Persian period to assist them to understand who they were now that the exile was over. He wanted to open their eyes to their being Yahweh’s covenant people and their very existence being the result of Yahweh’s loyalty to the covenant. Although Christian interpreters may in hindsight ...
... under Solomon, but also into his theological concept of Yahweh taking the initiative in these battles. The reader gets the impression from these battle accounts that they are probably programmatic in the sense that they reflect something of Israel’s self-understanding in the Chronicler’s time, rather than being historical accounts of real events. The point the Chronicler wants to drive home here is that All-Israel can count on Yahweh’s guidance and protection and that their Davidic royal tradition of ...
... dualism. We know from the Christian writings in the New Testament that the personification of evil was adopted in Christianity and was already well established during the time when the New Testament writings developed. For further discussion on the development of the understanding of Satan, see C. Breytenbach and P. L. Day, “Satan,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. K. van der Toorn et al.; 2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 726–32. 21:6–7 Japhet sees the connection with ...
... . Rather than surpass the glory of Solomon’s temple, as Haggai promised it would one day, this second temple showed signs that, initially at least, it was to be decidedly inferior. The congregation’s varied vocal responses reflect a generation gap. We may understand the shout of praise in general terms as Hallelujah or Amen (1 Chr. 16:36; Rev. 19:4). However, the narrator might have been thinking more precisely of the foundation ceremony envisioned in Zechariah 4:7 and the cry “Grace, grace to it ...
... verse 1. The second letter is not quoted but is mentioned in verse 7. We are told that it is sent to Artaxerxes. The third letter is also to Artaxerxes, but this list of senders differs from that of the second letter (vv. 8–16). We are meant to understand that it was as negative as the others. The fourth letter (vv. 17–22) is a response from Artaxerxes to the third letter. 4:8–16 The text of the next letter is found in these verses. It was from two officials, evidently based in the province of Samaria ...
... (OBO 104; Freiburg Schweitz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 191–218. Nebuchadnezzar belonged to the group of tribes living in southern Babylonia called Chaldean. His father inaugurated a new dynasty, distinct from the line of old Babylonian kings. 5:15 Take . . . site: The order is illogical but understandable. The temple had to be rebuilt before the vessels could be installed.
... large (Eph. 2:21–22), the local church (1 Cor. 3:16), and the individual Christian (1 Cor. 6:19). The concept of the temple radiates through NT theology and spirituality. In passages such as Ezra 6 we find the literal basis that helps us understand such metaphors, the hearth of meaning from which later fires were lit. 6:1–2 This narrative and the memorandum set out in verses 3–5 were evidently derived from Darius’ reply to Tattenai’s query. The narrator accordingly omitted the address and opening ...
... faith in the homeland. There could be no better qualifications for such a task than Ezra’s. 7:11–20 The editor used the announcement of Artaxerxes’ letter to reemphasize Ezra’s double role as priest and “scribe” (NRSV), explaining the latter in terms of an understanding of the Torah as the revelation of the divine will for the life of Israel. The reader can sense by now the editor’s spiritual devotion to the Torah, as ardent as that of Psalms 19 and 119 and of the aged Elizabeth and Zechariah ...
... Esd. 9:16 (see BHS). 10:19 As a guilt offering: The vocalization in the MT as an adj., ʾashemim, “(being) guilty,” does not fit very well. The REB, implicitly following the LXX, has revocalized it as a plural noun, “(as) guilt offerings,” understanding a carryover of the verb in the preceding clause. The NRSV and NJB (“their guilt offering”) have revocalized to ʾshamam, which nicely accords with the style of the underlying Lev. 5:15. The sin was unintentional (Lev. 5:15) in that the marriages ...