... ). The reference to wine reads like a typical wisdom saying. “New wine” refers to grape juice freshly squeezed at the harvest; “old wine” is that which has been fermented. But Hosea is not criticizing drinking as such. Rather, his reference is to the wild bacchanalian rites that Israel is participating in at the baalistic cult sites, and the passage goes on to give us a description of those rites. First the prophet scornfully mentions the oracles that the Israelites seek from a wooden idol, verse 12 ...
... , and in 722–721 BC, the ten northern tribes were exiled to Mesopotamia and the population replaced by foreigners. To our way of thinking, Israel’s actions on the international scene might seem logical and necessary, but God compares those frantic actions to the wild flying back and forth of a silly dove that has no sense, verse 11. Why? Because Israel was God’s elected nation, intended to be set apart and different from every other nation on the face of the earth. Israel was Yahweh’s “holy nation ...
... 6), looking only to God for protection and sustenance (cf. 7:10; Isa. 30:1–5; 31:1). Instead, Israel had sought out Assyria’s aid on its own initiative: For they is emphasized in the Hebrew. Verse 9c then changes the metaphor from that of a wild ass, wandering the desert alone, to that of a harlot who is so desperate for lovers that she herself seeks them out and pays them. (Jer. 2:23–25 implies the same combination of metaphors, although there the reference is to foreign gods, rather than to foreign ...
... —a reference to Hoshea’s vassal treaty with Shalmaneser, son of Tiglath-pileser III, in 733 BC (2 Kgs. 17:3), which Hoshea promptly breaks by turning to Egypt for aid and paying it a tribute of oil (2 Kgs. 17:4; cf. Hos. 7:11; 8:9: “a wild ass wandering alone” RSV). Thus, this passage probably dates from early in the reign of Shalmaneser V. 12:2–6 The result is that God takes Israel to court, 12:2, and the deceitfulness of Ephraim is spelled out in three charges, 12:2–14. Most commentators emend ...
... all of nature. 1:19–20 The beasts of the field know, however, to whom to cry. As Isaiah had said, “The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner’s manger” (Isa. 1:3; cf. their presence in every Christmas crèche), and so the beasts of the field (wild animals) pant or “long for” God, verse 20. Joel wants the priests to learn a lesson from the beasts and to cry to God as the animals of the field cry to their Lord. The prophet therefore composes a prayer for the priests to pray on the day of ...
... be restored to them, and the hardships that Judah has experienced in the past will be reversed by God’s great acts, verse 21. The promises of 2:21–27 overcome the sufferings specifically mentioned in chapter 1: The ground will be restored (cf. 2:21 with 1:10); the wild animals will be fed (cf. 2:22 with 1:20); joy will return to Judah’s harvests and worship (cf. 2:23 with 1:16); the drought will be a thing of the past (cf. 2:23 with 1:10, 12, 18–20); the fruit trees will bear (cf. 2 ...
... , one goat was sacrificed to atone for the people’s sin, and another was sent off, likewise to atone for sin. The scapegoat was released into the desert, where it would encounter certain death, either by succumbing to the climate or through wild animals. On the other hand, it is precisely in this uninhabited land that God also showed his faithfulness to his people, despite their prolonged punishment. He miraculously supplied bread (manna) and meat (quail) (Exod. 16; Num. 11), as well as water (Exod ...
... original text here (cf. the RSV), it has correctly interpreted the meaning of the original and made verses 1–2 considerably easier to understand. The time of this vision of locusts is late spring, when the second planting of seeded crops, as well as wild growth, are just appearing—all vegetation is meant. Apparently the royal house had first claim on what was planted, although the evidence for this is scanty. (First Kings 18:5 is usually mentioned but has no bearing on the practice.) The produce from ...
... and BDB assumes there are two separate words. 1:2 In the last line, there is no Heb. word for “his wrath”; the NIV plausibly assumes that “his wrath” carries over from the earlier line. But Akkadian has a verb nadaru which means “be wild, go on the rampage” that is especially associated with the activity of supernatural figures. The NJPS seems to assume that natar (NIV “maintains”) here is cognate with that verb, and the TNIV “vents his wrath” may make the same assumption. See also HALOT ...
... “Oh!”s are a means of protesting the superpower’s action and of declaring that consequences will follow. The superpower is guilty of wrongdoing against humanity and against the land, or earth, against cities and their inhabitants, against forests and their wild creatures, and ultimately against God. It has appropriated resources from all over the world (vv. 6b–8), used them to build itself up (vv. 9–11), built a magnificent capital city through the exercise of its tyranny (vv. 12–14), attacked ...
... all continually thanked God for the change God had made in his life. “I can’t express,” he said, “the gratitude I feel that God has changed my life.” The talk show hostess knew where he was coming from--for she, too, had walked on life’s wild side before coming to Jesus. She said, “I know what you mean. Every day that I live I thank him for [changing my life].” Then she added a very profound statement: “You know what I’ve noticed though? People who have always been in the church, always ...
... if you have one. Some parents do mind. Too much sugar is not healthy for us. Some people have a difficult time resisting a candy bar, though. Why is that? That's right, most of us think they taste good. The sugar tastes good. Some of us are wild about chocolate. Candy bars, then, are very tempting for some people for some people, aren't they? That is what temptation is all about. We are attracted to something that is not good for us. I also have this barbell with me. Let me ask the fellows something, though ...
... him to the danger of not doing what was right, saying that if he did not do what was right, sin was crouching at his door. While “lie or crouch” (rabats) usually has a restful connotation (29:21; Ps. 23:2), it also describes the lurking of a wild animal poised to pounce on its prey. “At the door “ means that sin was so close that Cain had to deal with it; its desire was for him. “Desire” or “urge” (teshuqah) means strong attraction or drive such as a woman feels for a man (3:16). Cain ...
... boy was an assuring word to Hagar. The messenger then spoke about the character of the child. Hagar was to name the child Ishmael, meaning “God has heard,” for indeed Yahweh had heard of her misery. Ishmael’s character would be comparable to that of a wild donkey or an onager. The onager, a sturdy animal of the desert, is impossible to domesticate. In exchange for its fierce love of freedom, it has to endure the sparse food supply of the desert (Job 39:5–8). Ishmael was to have such a love of ...
... himself in the open country, Esau became a skillful hunter. Jacob, however, being quiet, preferred to dwell in tents. He was a shepherd. Each parent gravitated toward the boy closer to his or her own interests. Isaac loved Esau, for he brought Isaac the wild game that he relished, while Rebekah loved Jacob, who was her companion at chores. 25:29–31 The narrator presents an episode at the center of the twins’ rivalry. It probably took place toward the end of their teens. The results of this incident ...
... . The fact that Isaac lived many years after this episode suggests that fear of death motivated him more than imminence of his dying. Isaac summoned his elder son and instructed him to take his quiver and bow and go out to the open country to hunt some wild game in order that he might prepare for Isaac the tasty food he liked. Then they would share a festive meal, and Isaac would give his son his blessing. Receiving his father’s request with a glad heart, Esau left at once to go hunting. Rebekah overheard ...
... demand. 32:6–8 These messengers returned much sooner than Jacob anticipated. They reported that Esau was approaching with four hundred men. This report caught Jacob by surprise and raised his fears. Having no clue as to Esau’s intent, Jacob was troubled by wild thoughts of what his brother intended to do. Therefore, he divided his company—people . . . , and the flocks and herds and camels—into two groups. His action was in accord with what he saw at Mahanaim (v. 2). Jacob sought to make it possible ...
... brothers rid themselves of their troublesome brother and his annoying dreams by selling him to traveling merchants. They in turn sell him to an important Egyptian official. The brothers conceal their hideous deed from their father by leading him to believe that a wild animal has killed Joseph. This passage gives accounts of Jacob’s family (vv. 1–2), Jacob’s love for Joseph and Joseph’s dreams (vv. 3–11), the sale of Joseph into bondage (vv. 12–28), the brothers’ concealing the sale of Joseph ...
... God are therefore those who disobey and reject God’s word and hinder the fulfillment of God’s covenant purposes. The verse allows no middle ground, no apathetic shrug. You either love God or hate God. But the consequences of each choice are wildly disproportionate (a thousand generations to one), showing where the overwhelming balance of God’s own desires lies: Yahweh is the God who simply loves to love. The combination in these verses of the definitive nature of Yahweh in his covenant love, with the ...
... animal that were sacrificial (oxen, lambs, and goats) should be killed and eaten as meat only after proper sacrificial rituals at the tabernacle. The intention was to prevent their use in idolatrous rituals away from the tabernacle (Lev. 17:7). However, wild animals caught by hunting could be freely eaten (though with the blood properly drained, Lev. 17:13) since they were nonsacrificial anyway (Lev. 1:2). Deuteronomy looks ahead to the Israelites living throughout the land in scattered settlements (in any ...
... –35), although there is much interest in the splendor of the decoration in general. The predominant word is gold (vv. 20–22, 28, 30, 32, 35), and there is reference to carvings of more cherubim (vv. 29, 32, 35) and to carvings of gourds (vv. 18, a wild fruit; cf. 2 Kgs. 4:39), open flowers (vv. 18, 29, 32, 35), and palm trees (vv. 29, 32, 35)—symbols, perhaps, of God’s gift of fertility. 6:36–38 Having quickly toured the interior of the temple and passed through the “two pine doors” that stand ...
... will be reduced to subsistence farming. But they at least will be able to keep themselves alive with abundance of milk, curds, and honey (vv. 21–22). The fourth and final picture of calamity describes the best vineyards and hill terraces given over to briers and thorns, to wild animals, and to casual grazing (cf. 5:1–7). As in chapter 5, the sequence closes with deepest gloom such as might drive the people to turn. There is no gleam of hope for the sake of survivors, as we saw in chapters 1; 2–4, and ...
... animals for sacrifice. The soil in Bozrah (known from archaeological work to have been a big city, perhaps the capital) and the rest of the country is thus pictured as soaked in blood and fat in the way the soil of the temple altar area would be. But wild oxen and great bulls are not sacrificial animals, and such animals are used as figures for powerful human beings (e.g., Ps. 22:12; Lam. 1:15), so verse 7a pictures the fall of the Edomite leadership and military. 34:9–17 Once again the images of judgment ...
... again Yahweh promises to be one who answers such laments, with an abundance that far exceeds what they asked for or needed. There is enough water not merely to quench their thirst but to transform their environment. Yahweh’s action is characterized by a wild extravagance that will once again bring all people to recognize that this sovereign creativity reflects the work of the Holy One of Israel. Servant and Covenant (41:21–29): Again Yahweh challenges opponents to come to court to argue out who is God ...
... Ezekiel speaks against the princes (see the Additional Note on this text), described as being like a roaring lion tearing its prey (v. 25; Zeph. 3:3 describes the officials [Heb. sarim] in this way rather than the princes [nesiʾim]). The image of a savage wild lion immediately calls to mind Ezekiel 19:1–9 and, indeed, the following terms make the allusion explicit: the princes devour people (compare v. 25 and 19:3, 8) and despoil their property (compare v. 25 and 19:7; for a likely parallel to the widows ...