... First, God takes Moses’ objections seriously (3:1–4:17), as well as his later intervention to save the people (chs. 33–34). Secondly, God and Moses were not locked into the exact strategy against Pharaoh stated in 3:16–22. Although the plan originally stated by God had predictive elements, it was not unchangeably predictive. The plan was contingent on God’s interaction with human anxiety, fear, and even resistance. God’s stated plan changed with events on the ground. The elders did not go to the ...
... did not know what they needed. Second, they assumed that if the Lord tested, or “trained” them, they also were free to test the Lord. This is what one did with other kinds of gods. If the god did not produce results, one changed gods. This was the original form of conceiving and creating a god that is one’s personal “water boy.” They challenged the Lord as if the Lord were a false god, suggesting that if they were still thirsty, then the Lord was not really there (v. 7). The quarrel degenerated to ...
... “an alien there”) at his birth in 2:22 when Moses had been a resident alien in Egypt and had found a natural home in Midian. This serves as a paradigm for God’s people as well. At Sinai, the Lord would continually remind Israel of their origins as resident aliens. This heritage would influence their laws concerning the treatment of resident aliens among them (e.g., 22:21; 23:9; see also 20:2). Moses’ and Zipporah’s second son was named Eliezer, for he said, “My father’s God was my helper; he ...
... Exodus. Nowhere do we find a fuller revelation of God in relation to the people. In the preceding chapters Israel had been “let go” from serving the pharaoh so that they might serve/worship the Lord. Here they serve/worship at the place of Moses’ original calling and receive their own call to be God’s “kingdom of priests” to the world (chs. 25–31; 35–40). The larger literary structure of Exodus 19–24 comprises a chiasm (see below) and gives a context for the meeting between the people and ...
... Moses in the tent of meeting became the new paradigm for the Lord’s friendship toward all Israel. When the people completed the tabernacle, the new “tent of meeting” became a place for the presence of God to remain among them. Moses’ original tent, and the relationship it represented, rescued them in this crisis through the conversation it afforded. The tabernacle tent, made after this crisis, would sustain the people throughout their history, even when they sinned, by its existence at the center of ...
... compassion of a mother for her child in the womb. The relationship of compassion is based on the Creator-created relationship: the Lord remembers that we are made of flesh and fade easily (Ps. 78:38–39). The Creator bases this compassion on an original love for the creation (Gen. 1:31). The NT uses the corresponding Greek word, splanchnizomai, to describe how Jesus was moved to “compassion” when healing the crowds (Mark 1:41). God is gracious (khannun). God’s grace means that the Lord often acts ...
... the eighth day after birth (Gen. 21:4). Flint knives used for the ceremony indicate that the rite (Exod. 4:25; Josh. 2–3) existed before metal knives (R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Social Institutions [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961], 1:46–48). The origin of the custom is obscure and unclear. Priests in Egypt were circumcised, but the extent of circumcision in Egypt is unknown. Israel used circumcision as a sign of the covenant with its God and the necessary preparation for observing the Passover (Exod. 12 ...
... days around a city would devastate its morale, and a breached wall would provide easy access to the heart of Jericho. The victory is summarized: the people will go up, every man straight in (6:5). As noted in earlier chapters, Joshua transforms the original operations plans into his orders. The ark of the covenant becomes the focus of his orders. An honor guard (the armed guard) leads the processional. Next come priests blowing the shophar and then the ark. Priests sound the horns continually. The ark of ...
... who were never able to secure their allotment of territory in the land of Israel. Judges 1 describes their containment by the Amorites (1:34; cf. Josh. 19:40–46) and the Joseph tribe’s encroachment into their territory. The story of their migration from the area originally allotted to them to a new place of their own choosing reveals a degree of social and moral chaos that we have not met before in Judges. 18:1–2a The story begins with the refrain that appeared in 17:6, although the second part is ...
... On Kilion, the proper name Ki-li-ya-nu is attested at Ugarit and listed in the glossary of C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Roma: Pontificium Institum Biblicum, 1965) no. 1238. On the Ephrathites, H. Cazelles argues (“Bethlehem,” ABD 1:712) for an origin in an Ephraimite clan who eventually settled in Judah. Should this be so, this perhaps would illuminate why so much of the activity in the context takes place in or around Ephraim. 1:3a Elimelech . . . died: J. Sasson downplays the impact of Elimelech ...
... .: University of Texas Press, 1968) to designate Ruth as the hero of the story. C. Bremond has a good critique of Propp in “The Narrative Message,” Semeia 10 (1978), pp. 5–55. 4:17a Obed: Sasson (Ruth, pp. 175–78) lists several theories on the origin of this name. 4:17b He was the father: K. Nielsen (Ruth, pp. 21–28) argues the intriguing hypothesis that, far from being an appendix or an afterthought or an introduction to a now lost Book of Obed (the hypothesis of Sasson), the Davidic genealogy in ...
... are the genealogies of the most famous of Judah’s descendents, namely, David (3:1–9) and Solomon (3:10–24), the latter containing a list of all Judah’s kings and leaders beyond the exile. The final construction of the genealogies (whether they originally formed part of Chronicles or were later added to form an integral part of Chronicles) already paves the way for the focal point in the narrative parts of the book, namely, the ideal historical period under David (1 Chron. 10–29) and Solomon (2 ...
... than there are parallels” (p. 510). Some scholars presuppose that both Neh. 11 and 1 Chron. 9 made use (in different ways) of a common source. Others see 1 Chron. 9 as a later addition to Chronicles. Still others regard 1 Chron. 9 as an original part of Chronicles, but one that depends on Neh. 11—a situation that is also reversed by some, so that Neh. 11 is made dependent on 1 Chron. 9. Knoppers indicates that all these theories have largely overlooked the Septuagint version of Neh. 11. After comparing ...
... Chronicler’s hand. However, the Septuagint, the Old Latin version, and Josephus all contain this indication. This therefore confirms that the Chronicler must have had another source text available in addition to the Masoretic Text and that these words are not his original statements (see Klein, 1 Chronicles, p. 394). 18:12 It remains unclear who led the battle against the Edomites. Whereas 2 Sam. 8:13 credits David, the Chronicler gives the glory to Abishai son of Zeruiah. The reason for the difference ...
... was argued by E. Bickerman, “The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1,” Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part One (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 72–108, and followed in principle by Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 5, 14. The latter uses it as an argument for the independent origin of the edict of vv. 2–4, since it conflicts with v. 6, although he grants that “of Persia” in v. 2 was added by the narrator. For the dependence of the edict on 6:3–5, see B. Halpern, “A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1 ...
... Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), pp. 113, 263–65. 7:7 In Ezra’s own introduction the text would have read “We came up,” referring to both himself and his fellow exiles (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 90, 93). This gave a smooth continuation between the original first sg. references of vv. 6 and 8–9. The editor replaced “We” with a definition of Ezra’s companions, taken from v. 13 and amplified with the vocabulary of v. 24. This added a greater specificity than that of 8:1–20, by ...
... name Bani has already occurred in v. 29, where its placement in a cluster of clan names is in agreement with Ezra 2:7–11. By the same token, since Hashum is followed by “Bezai” in Neh. 7:22–23, that may have been the original name here, though no textual evidence for it has survived (Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, vol. 1, pp. 528f.). 10:38 From the descendants of Binnui: The MT, retained in the NJPS, has “and Bani and Binnui.” The NIV, together with other modern versions, has reconstructed ...
... 1 Chr. 9:2–17. 11:6 The NRSV has “valiant warriors” for able men here and in v. 14, clarifying the military connotation. This military language, also found in “chief officer” in vv. 9 and 14 (compare 2 Kgs. 25:19), suggests that the list was originally compiled to record the militia that could be mobilized to defend the city. 11:9 The Heb. for over the Second District of the city must grammatically mean “second in command of the city” (NJB and NJPS; compare the NRSV and REB). 11:10 The related ...
... that went back to David and Solomon, founders of the temple. So two traditions could be honored—that of the Torah and that of the first temple. The editor expands the latter theme in verse 46, with the same pride in religious origins that traced Zechariah’s origins back to Asaph in verse 35 (compare 7:44). Members of each generation were stewards responsible for keeping up this spiritual heritage. The survival of temple worship in the editor’s day was taken as evidence that the postexilic generations ...
... that went back to David and Solomon, founders of the temple. So two traditions could be honored—that of the Torah and that of the first temple. The editor expands the latter theme in verse 46, with the same pride in religious origins that traced Zechariah’s origins back to Asaph in verse 35 (compare 7:44). Members of each generation were stewards responsible for keeping up this spiritual heritage. The survival of temple worship in the editor’s day was taken as evidence that the postexilic generations ...
... feet high) on which to hang his enemy. This was certainly an attempt to make a public spectacle of Mordecai’s private insurrection (see also Esth. 2:23). The fact that Haman is delighted (v. 14) with this idea is as premature and presumptuous as his gloating over the original plan in 3:15. This sort of sadistic joy in the downfall of an enemy is the joy of triumph often feared in the psalms of lament (Ps. 35:19, 24, 26). Haman has now twice concocted plans that will backfire on him. The date that was set ...
... next), about the victory the Jews achieved over those who hated them, and about the rest that followed. These events provide the etiology of the Jewish festival of Purim. Much of chapter 9 is devoted to explaining, in annalistic fashion, the origin of the two days that constitute the holiday and the authorization to continue its observance. It is apparent that this material has been edited. The perspective now betrays some temporal distance; the narrator relates a condensed version of the story to varying ...
... in Jerusalem. By this time, they had heard many of Jeremiah’s divinely inspired oracles, since, as he tells them, he started his prophetic preaching in the thirteenth year of Josiah. Since the latter began his relatively long reign in 640, this would place the origin of Jeremiah’s preaching in 627/26 B.C. This information conforms to that which we have in the superscription in 1:1–3. 25:4–7 The people had been warned repeatedly concerning the coming judgment. God had sent the prophets who are his ...
... rarely observed this law of release. It was not only the present generation that did not properly release slaves, but also the fathers, that is, previous generations. The oracle then recounts the events already described in verses 8–11. Here it describes their original action as a result of repentance and as doing what was right in God’s sight. It also adds the additional information that the covenant that Zedekiah made with the people to release the slaves was ratified in the temple (the house that ...
... end to both sower and reaper. Finally, everyone should return to their own land. After the Persians asserted dominance over the Babylonian empire, they did issue a decree right away allowing all the people the Babylonians had exiled to return to their original homeland (see Additional Notes). 50:17–20 The first verse here returns to the sheep metaphor of verses 6–7. The bad shepherds are complicit in making Israel a scattered flock. Here we have a specific historical identification of those who devoured ...