A Severe Mercy - Sin and Its Rem - Mark J. Boda

00-Boda-SevMercy.
book Page i Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
A Severe Mercy
00-Boda-SevMercy.book Page ii Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
Siphrut
Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures
Editorial Board
Stephen B. Chapman Duke University
Tremper Longman Westmont College
Nathan MacDonald Universität Göttingen
and University of St. Andrews
1. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, by Mark J. Boda
2. Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and
Jewish-Christian Interpretation, by Joel N. Lohr
3. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible,
by Konrad Schmid
00-Boda-SevMercy.book Page iii Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
A Severe Mercy
Sin and Its Remedy in
the Old Testament
Mark J. Boda
Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2009
00-Boda-SevMercy.book Page iv Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
ç Copyright 2009 by Eisenbrauns.

All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
www.eisenbrauns.com
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Boda, Mark J.
A severe mercy : sin and its remedy in the Old Testament / Mark J.
Boda.
p. cm. — (Siphrut, literature and theology of the Hebrew
scriptures ; v. 1)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-57506-164-1 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Sin—Biblical teaching. 2. Atonement—Biblical teaching.
3. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Bible. O.T.—
Theology. I. Title.
BS1199.S54B63 2009
234u.5—dc22
2009032336
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the
American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper
for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.†‰
00-Boda-SevMercy.book Page v Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
Ad majorem Dei gloriam
To Tremper Longman III

Teacher, Mentor, Friend
00-Boda-SevMercy.book Page vi Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
00-Boda-SevMercy.book Page vii Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Part One
Torah
2. Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3. Exodus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4. Leviticus (Part 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5. Leviticus (Part 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6. Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7. Deuteronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
8. Torah: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Part Two
Prophets
9. Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
10. Former Prophets: Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
11. Former Prophets: Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
12. Isaiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
13. Jeremiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
14. Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
15. The Twelve (Part 1): Hosea–Micah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
16. The Twelve (Part 2): Nahum–Malachi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
17. Prophets: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Part Three
The Writings
18. Proverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
19. Job. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
20. Psalms (Part 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
21. Psalms (Part 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
22. Lamentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
23. Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
- vii -
00-Boda-SevMercy.book Page viii Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
viii Contents
24. Ezra–Nehemiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472

25. Chronicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
26. Writings: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
27. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
00-Boda-SevMercy.book Page ix Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
Preface
The introduction to this volume explains the genesis of the present

project, so I will not repeat that information here. I will deal with some little
technical issues before taking this opportunity to express my thanks to those
who made this volume possible.
Because of the number of texts under consideration in this volume, I have
decided to use a base modern English translation for citations of Scripture, the
New American Standard Bible (nasb). Unless stated explicitly, the translation
used will be from the nasb. At times, I will slightly modify the nasb (“nasb,
modified”), usually to render it in a more gender-inclusive way. At others, I
will use my own translation (“my translation”) or other modern translations
(for example, tniv, nrsv) that reflect my reading of the original text.
All abbreviations in this book conform to the SBL Handbook of Style for An-
cient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (ed. Patrick H. Alexander
et al.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999). Versification follows the Hebrew tra-
dition (see BHS), although the versification used in most non-Jewish English
translations is also provided in square brackets [ ].
I want to express my gratitude first to Jim Eisenbraun for accepting this
large tome for publication by his esteemed publishing house. I am thankful
also to his editorial team at Eisenbrauns, especially Amy Becker, who spent
countless hours conforming a large manuscript to the house style and making
many helpful suggestions and revisions that have made this a better book in
terms of quality of expression and accuracy of information.
My host institution, McMaster Divinity College, provided research time
and support that made this project possible. I am grateful to the Senate and
Board at the Divinity College for providing a research leave during the fall se-
mester of 2006, which freed me to write this book. I am thankful to the Senate
and Board for their affirmation of research and writing and provision of re-
search assistance and professional funds to test my research among my peers
in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible guild. I am also grateful for my superb
research assistant, Ms. Mary Conway, who pored over later drafts of this book.
Her partnership is exemplary of the kind of academic collegiality that I have
enjoyed with my students, who have studied with me over the past six years
here at McMaster. Throughout the book, I make reference to rich conversa-
tion with several of my graduate students. I have found their fellowship an in-
credible encouragement and have appreciated the times they had the courage
to advance a counterproposal and so forced me to rethink and, at times, to re-
vise my own position.
- ix -
00-Boda-SevMercy.book Page x Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
x Preface
It is the gift of academic friendship and collegiality that has been the most
satisfying dimension of life within the academy. One of my desires has been
to create an environment of academic hospitality within my own learning
communities, one in which people are free to share with one another new in-
sights within a safe space where ideas will be affirmed and challenged, so that
we might together advance toward greater clarity and precision in our theo-
logical reflection. I learned this kind of academic hospitality early on in my
academic journey from one who began as my teacher, exciting me about the
study of the Old Testament, and then became a key mentor, taking the time
to help me make the transition first to doctoral studies and then to full par-
ticipation in the guild and to publishing my work. Along the way, he became
a dear friend, always with a word of encouragement and interest in my life. So
I am dedicating this book to my teacher, mentor, and friend Tremper Long-
man III, whose encouragement has made a volume of this character possible.
Mark J. Boda
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
9 May 2009
Ego ex eorum numero me esse profiteor qui scribunt proficiendo,

et scribendo proficient
Augustinus Epistle cxliii.2 via Ioannes Calvinus
00-Boda-SevMercy.book Page 1 Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM
Chapter 1
Introduction
Biblical Theology as a Discipline

It is often noted in introductions to biblical theology that the discipline
owes its genesis to a lecture delivered by Johann Philipp Gabler in 1787 enti-
tled Oratio de justo discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque recte
utriusque finibus (“Address about the Correct Distinction of Biblical and Dog-
matic Theology and the Right Definition of Their Goals”). 1 In this lecture,
Gabler distinguished between biblical and systematic theology in the follow-
ing way:
There is truly a biblical theology of historical origin, conveying what the
holy writers felt about divine matters; on the other hand there is a dogmatic
theology of didactic origin, teaching what each theologian philosophises ra-
tionally about divine things, according to the measure of his ability or of
the times, age, place, sect, school, and other similar factors.2
For Gabler, biblical theology was an analytical task describing the thought of
the biblical writers, whereas systematic theology was a constructive task of in-
terpretation tracing how the church had appropriated the Bible. This division
of theological labor was necessary to ensure that the Bible was studied as a
document rooted in and conditioned by history before it was employed for
the abstract and ahistorical enterprise of dogmatic theology.
Though Gabler’s lecture was certainly a key milestone in the history of the
development of biblical theology as a discipline, it must be admitted that he
was building on a foundation that others had laid in the previous century
1. Sandys-Wunsch and Eldridge (1980); Gabler (1992); Sæbø (1998); Stuckenbruck (1999).
For the history of the discipline, see Hasel (1991); Ollenburger, Martens, and Hasel (1991); Al-
exander and Rosner (2000); Ollenburger (2004); Helmer (2005); Martens (2007). For debate
over the agenda of biblical theology and its relationship to other disciplines of theology and
religious studies, see Hasel (1984); Ollenburger (1985, 1991); B. Long (1997); Murphy (1997);
Vanhoozer (2000); Green and Turner (2000); McConville (2001); Martens (2001); Sun and
Eades (1997); Scobie (2003); Bartholomew et al. (2004); Marshall (2004); Helmer and Petrey
(2005); Welker and Schweitzer (2005); Boda (2006b). See also two journals devoted to this dis-
cussion: Journal of Religion 76 (1996): 167–289; and Biblical Interpretation 6 (1998): 131–257.
2. Translation from Sandys-Wunsch and Eldridge (1980: 137).
-1-
2 Chapter 1
in two very different interpretive circles. 3 On the one hand, Spener had
launched the pietistic movement in 1675 with his work Pia Desideria, in
which he outlined his desire “to separate biblical theology from dogmatic the-
ology in order to access the plain truth of a godly life described in the Bible
and to avoid the ‘scholastic’ theological controversies” (Helmer 2005). On the
other hand, in the decades before Gabler’s lecture, Semler had called for a dis-
tinction between dogmatic and rationalistic approaches to the study of Scrip-
ture, so that rationalists could engage in “free investigation.” 4 Although these
two movements had radically different religious commitments, both affirmed
biblical theology in order to encourage access to a Bible freed from the con-
fessional controversies and constraints of the church. The pietists approached
the Bible devotionally, whereas the rationalists approached it rationalistically.
These two approaches can be discerned in the era that followed Gabler. 5
Some biblical interpreters fused an orthodox view of Scripture with a histori-
cal approach to the Scriptures to write biblical theology. Others rejected the
divine origin of the Scriptures and wrote instead the history of religion (Reli-
gionsgeschichte), accounting for the development of Israelite religion from
primitive animism through prophetic monotheism to priestly ritualism. By
the end of the 19th century, it was this history of religion that dominated the
agenda of biblical studies.
After World War I, however, there emerged renewed interest in biblical
theology, 6 attributed by Dentan (1963) to three key factors: a loss of faith in
evolutionary naturalism, a reaction against objectivity in historical research,
and a return to the idea of revelation in theology. In the wake of the devas-
tation of Europe, there was disillusionment with the “modern” project in
general. Rather than looking for meaning solely in an often inaccessible his-
torical world that lies behind the text, biblical interpreters gave increasing at-
tention to the theological message of the text rooted in history. This shift
toward the “theological” was encouraged by a broader shift in literary studies
to more synchronic approaches (such as New Criticism and Structuralism) in
the middle part of the 20th century. Thus, as the century progressed, biblical
theology began to be written less on the basis of historical development and
more on the basis of the canonical text, showcased especially in the work of
3. For this section, see Helmer (2005).

4. His work was entitled Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canon (“Treatment Con-
cerning the Free Investigation of the Canon”).
5. See a succinct summary of this in House (1998: 13–52). Especially note two early 19th-
century biblical theological works that reflect the two approaches: G. P. C. Kaiser’s Die biblische
Theologie (1813), which treated the Old Testament as “history of religion” and Wilhelm M. L.
de Wette’s Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmatik (1813), which “attempted to chart a path be-
tween traditional orthodoxy and committed rationalism.”
6. Key Old Testament theologies included, for example, Eichrodt (1961); von Rad (1962);
Vriezen (1970); and Zimmerli (1978).
Introduction 3
Childs (1985: 9), who encouraged scholars “to avoid dogmatism on the right
and historicism on the left.”
The discipline continued to develop through the latter decades of the 20th
century. The enduring critique of modernity soon resulted in more significant
hermeneutical shifts in the final quarter of the century, which have impacted
the discipline of biblical theology (see Vanhoozer 1998). Some, continuing
trends evident in earlier eras of biblical theology, have accentuated the com-
peting theologies in the Bible defined by sociopolitical settings (e.g., Perdue
1994; Knierim 1995; Brueggemann 1997; Gerstenberger 2002). The result
was an accentuation of the diversity of theologies in the biblical canon with
greater attention to synchronic dialogue between these theologies, rather than
diachronic development. Others, truly embracing the emerging postfoun-
dational agenda, recognized biblical theology as a constructive rather than
descriptive exercise. In their view, because all interpretation is ideologically
driven, biblical theology is merely an expression of the interests of particular
interpretive communities, defined by tradition, ethnicity, gender, and so on
(see Trible 1992). In these emerging models of biblical theology, the imagina-
tion is key to the writing of biblical theology as the interpreter creates a world
in dialogue with the text.
This simplistic review reveals several key hermeneutical shifts that have oc-
curred in the writing of biblical theology over the past three centuries. Biblical
theology began as a movement concerned to interpret the Bible as a text
rooted in its original historical context, rather than as a text read through the
lens of contemporary creeds. Disillusionment with the Enlightenment led to
a shift to a biblical theology focused on the literary world of the text in its
canonical form rooted in history. Ultimately, however, there was a shift to a
biblical theology driven by the agenda (admitted and embraced) of the con-
temporary world of the reader. This shift to the perspectival is ironically remi-
niscent of the concerns that gave rise to the discipline of biblical theology in
the 18th century.
Works that were created throughout the 20th century reveal a variety of
ways of expressing biblical theology, each of which reflects the kinds of
hermeneutical approaches highlighted above. 7 There were those who used
categories already in use in systematic theology (theology, anthropology, so-
teriology; e.g., Jacob 1958; Vriezen 1970). Others, noticing the dominance of
historical progression rather than abstract systematization in the biblical text,
focused on development in the theology of the Bible, whether this meant the
growth of traditions (e.g., von Rad 1962) or the history of redemption (e.g.,
Vos 1966; Barth and Bromiley 1991). Still others adopted a thematic ap-
proach, whether this meant identifying (a) core themes that ran like a scarlet
thread throughout the Bible (e.g., Eichrodt 1961: covenant; Westermann
7. For some of these categories, see Hasel (1991).

4 Chapter 1
1982: creation/salvation) or a multitude of themes that consistently arose

from the biblical texts (e.g., Hasel 1991). Some have adopted intertextual ap-
proaches that involve the structuring of biblical theology according to the
multitude of intertextual links (allusions to characters, episodes, vocabulary)
found throughout the Bible (see Martens 2001). Dialogical approaches have
stressed the competing voices within the biblical corpus (e.g., Brueggemann
1997; Mandolfo 2007). Canonical approaches gave closer attention to the
shape of the message of the biblical books in their final form and at times
the shape of the canon (e.g., Childs 1985). Ideological approaches focused
on the interpretive agenda of a particular group (e.g., Trible 1992). In light
of the history of the discipline, the influence of one’s hermeneutical ap-
proach, and the variety of ways of writing biblical theology, it is important
at the outset to articulate clearly the approach pursued in this book.
The Present Approach

The biblical theological approach taken in the present work is canonical-
thematic, tracing the presentation of the theology of sin and its remedy in the
canonical form and shape of the Old Testament. Admittedly, this theme has
been chosen because it is an area of personal interest, but most would agree
that it is also a major feature in the textual world of the Old Testament. 8 Past
study and experience have prepared me for and attracted me to exploring this
theme within the imaginative world of the Old Testament canon. My focus on
the Old Testament is related to my Christian theological convictions, based on
the New Testament and Christian tradition, that the Old Testament is indeed
Christian Scripture and speaks authoritatively in inscripturated form (“it is
written,” see 2 Tim 3:15–17). 9
The hermeneutical foundations for this present enterprise have been laid
by others in past decades. The ground-breaking work of Brevard Childs is key,
reflected in the following quotation: 10
the object of theological reflection is the canonical writing of the OT, that is,
the Hebrew scriptures which are the received traditions of Israel. The mate-
rials for theological reflection are not the events or experiences behind the
8. As Cover says in ABD 6:31: “The plethora of Hebrew terms and their ubiquitous pres-
ence in the Hebrew Bible testify to the fact that sin was a dominant concern of the Israelite
theologians. Indeed, their highlighting of human failure, deficiency, or offense in the cultic,
ethical, and moral spheres constitutes a central theme of OT theology.”
9. In this way, I follow Childs (1964: 438), who writes: “The genuine theological task can
be carried on successfully only when it begins from within an explicit framework of faith.
Only from this starting point can there be carried on the exegetical task which has as its goal
the penetration of the theological dimension of the Old Testament. Approaches which start
from a neutral ground never can do full justice to the theological substance because there is
no way to build a bridge from the neutral, descriptive content to the theological reality.”
10. Though I am also indebted to the reflection of Sanders (1972; 1984) and Rendtorff
(1993: esp. pp. 46–56; 2000a; 2005), among others.
Introduction 5
text, or apart from the construal in scripture by a community of faith and

practice. However, because the biblical text continually bears witness to
events and reactions in the life of Israel, the literature cannot be isolated
from its ostensive reference. (Childs 1985: 6)
It is the canonical form and shape of the Old Testament that will structure
this study. This means, first of all, that it will focus on the canonical form of
the various books of the Old Testament, rather than on critically determined
precanonical levels. For instance, the Torah will be investigated not in terms
of differences between Priestly and Deuteronomistic redactions but rather in
terms of the message of its canonical units, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Num-
bers, and Deuteronomy. Second, it will focus on the canonical shape of the
books of the Old Testament, which means the canonical placement of books
will be taken into account in the study of the theme of sin and its remedy. For
instance, because the Torah is placed first in the Old Testament, it will be
treated as an introduction to the canonical collection.
This identifies a limited corpus and a particular shape for this corpus. But,
as Childs notes, this focus on the canonical text does not mean that the his-
torical context in which the text arose is irrelevant to the present enterprise. 11
The text is read not as an English work popular among secular reading groups
this month in eastern Canada but rather as a Hebrew/Aramaic work read by
Jewish religious communities in the first millennium b.c. in western Asia. At
the same time, however, the contemporary world in which I am reading the
text is not irrelevant to biblical theology. My theological interests are essential
to this enterprise in theological imagination. At times, they grant me “privi-
leged cognitive access” to the text; 12 at others, they blind me to foreign per-
spectives in the text. To overcome the challenge of blindness, I have sought
out interpretive communities during my reflection, both past and present,
both divine and human. The text in its canonical form is what mediates a tex-
tual world that allows for the contemporary reader to enter the world of the
ancient reader and there experience the text anew. 13 In this way, this enter-
prise is not merely descriptive but also normative. On the one side, it involves
description of the breadth of imaginative experiences that will occur in the
world of the text. On the other side, because these experiences take place
within canonical boundaries affirmed by an ancient community and em-
braced by the present reader, this description is by nature normative, even in
its diversity. As normative description, the focus is then on the articulation of
the theology of the Old Testament rather than on the description of the reli-
gion of ancient Israel.
11. See Watson’s (1994: 22–24, 44–59, 133–36) critique of Childs, Frei, and Lindbeck on
this matter. Thanks to Patrick Franklin for pointing this out to me.
12. Wolterstorff (1995; 1997).
13. For this, see especially the work of Paul Ricœur; e.g., Ricœur (1976). Thanks to Mabi-
ala Kenzo and David Beldman for this insight.
6 Chapter 1
In light of this, Vanhoozer’s proposal for the biblical theological enterprise

is helpful:
biblical theology is that approach which describes the “word views” and lit-
erary shapes of the Bible, and especially that “thick” description of the
canon as a divine communicative act. Biblical theology is a description of
the biblical texts on levels that display their theological significance. Accord-
ingly, biblical theology is nothing less than a theological hermeneutic: an in-
terpretative approach to the Bible informed by Christian doctrine. The
biblical theologian reads for the theological message communicated by the
texts taken individually and as a whole collection. (Vanhoozer 2000: 63)
The present work will enter the imaginative space of the ancient canon of the
Old Testament in order to highlight the “word views” and “literary shapes” of
the “texts taken individually and as a whole collection.”
Earlier biblical theological reflection often relied on word studies to inves-
tigate theological themes in the biblical corpus. 14 This was based on the legit-
imate hermeneutical impulse to listen to the biblical text according to its own
idiom and allow the theological themes to arise from the expression of the
text rather than from a theological framework determined by contemporary
perspectives and questions. The problem with this was not only the fallacious
practice of etymologizing and the unhealthy consideration of words apart
from their linguistic context but, more importantly, the inappropriate equa-
tion of biblical word and theological theme (see Barr 1961, 1972, 1987; Car-
son 1996). 15 Surely, the work of Louw and Nida (1989) has provided a helpful
resource for considering a broad lexical range for biblical theological reflec-
tion. 16 However, sometimes a theological theme is described through nega-
tion of a lexical range, and often a theological theme is expressed through
collocations and images, not individual words. Furthermore, words occur in
contexts, and, although there are dominant glosses for words, the precise nu-
ance of even a single gloss is dependent on specific contexts. It is these con-
14. See, for instance, ABD 6:31–32, which claims that a “survey of major Hebrew words
for sin will illustrate how the Israelite writers conceived of sin in terms of their own lan-
guage.” Fortunately, the article is not limited only to a review of individual lexemes.
15. One example is the way the subtheme of repentance has been treated in the past. Past
studies have placed inordinate focus on the Hebrew root bwv, based especially on Holladay
(1958). However, the theme of repentance is expressed throughout the Old Testament in a va-
riety of ways that do not use the root bwv, expressing this theme, for instance, through an im-
age (the two ways of wisdom) or contrastive language (do not seek x, but instead seek
Yahweh).
16. Thus, a search of Swanson (1997) returns 54 lexemes (some of these collocations) re-
lated to the Louw and Nida (1989) semantic range of “Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt” (§§88.289–
88.318). Key in this list are the dominant roots afj, ˆw[, [vp, [vr, μv[. Whereas these alert
the reader to key passages related to the topic of sin, occurrences of these words are not the
sole indicators that the passage is relevant or that they are even the most important passages
for study.
Introduction 7
texts that are most important to the present work, and so the best way to
study this theme is to investigate specific passages and books to see how the
theme in all its lexical and imagistic diversity is developed. Thus, a theologi-
cal theme will be investigated as it is expressed through the variety of lexical,
imagistic, and conceptual frameworks, what I call “word views” of the many
Old Testament books. 17
The present work will also look at the literary shape of the texts taken in-
dividually. For this, it will place the “word views” of the dominant expres-
sions and various passages in the larger context of the biblical books in which
they are found. For instance, Proverbs 1–9 expresses a certain retribution the-
ology often associated with the wisdom tradition; however, this expression
will be placed in the larger context of the book of Proverbs as a whole, which
tempers the common caricature of the wisdom world view. In this, there is
concern for the works in their ultimate canonical shape rather than in earlier
forms.
Finally, the present work will look at the literary shape of the texts taken
as a collection. Canonical shape will be important to this theological reflec-
tion. To look to canon as a structuring principle for biblical theological reflec-
tion necessitates the identification of the canonical corpus that is in view. In
the present work, the Jewish Hebrew rather than Jewish Greek textual and ca-
nonical tradition will be followed. 18 The translation from Hebrew into Greek
17. Thus, while being sensitive to the concerns of Barr and devoting much space to the
message and rhetorical shape of larger pericopae and books, I will still give some exposure to
the lexical stock (and images and conceptual frameworks) employed in the biblical texts to
express sin and its remedy. Description of texts by necessity involves sensitivity to words,
and at times I will provide an overview of the linguistic framework within particular textual
units in the Old Testament. In this I am sympathetic to Watson’s (1997: 17–28) careful re-
sponse to Barr, especially in defense of biblical theology. After citing Barr’s (1969: 49) critique
of Cullman (“The whole case being argued is that the Bible has, and normally and constantly
displays, a particular conception of time, which can be traced in its lexical stock and which
forms an essential background or presupposition for the understanding of its theology. It is
therefore naturally impossible to except any example of usage from full consideration on the
grounds that it is ‘merely temporal’ and not of theological significance”), Watson (1997: 22)
retorts: “the conclusion is non sequitur: the claim that the New Testament has a distinctive
understanding of time that is reflected in its use of time-words in no way entails the further
claim that every occurrence of a time-word must express that distinctive understanding of
time. The fact that the latter thesis is obviously untenable tells us nothing about the truth or
falsehood of the former.”
18. Here I speak of “tradition” rather than a specific manuscript, looking for consistent
early patterns. By using the nomenclature Jewish Hebrew and Jewish Greek, I am trying to re-
flect the reality that the two textual traditions were originally both Jewish (not one Jewish
and the other Christian). Whereas the Hebrew tripartite tradition (Law, Prophets, Writings) is
clearly originally Jewish, the origin of the Greek canonical order(s) is not clear. Sir 39:1 does
speak of law, wisdom, and prophecy, which may reflect an early Jewish attestation of the
Greek canonical order, as per Di Lella (1987: 452). However, there is no reason to suppose
this reference has canonical order in view; see Dempster (2003: 35 n. 41). Sweeney (1997c)
emphasizes the Christian origins of the Greek canonical order, but this is based on the fact
8 Chapter 1
created for the Old Testament a different text, not only in terms of the text it-
self but possibly also in terms of the books that were included and in which
order they were arranged. This is not to disparage the Greek tradition, nor is
it only a matter of personal preference. It appears that the Jewish Hebrew
canon dominated the Jewish world of the 1st century a.d. and that evidence
of its canonical shape can be discerned within the New Testament. 19 It is true
that New Testament authors often drew from the Jewish Greek text when cit-
ing the Old Testament, but this is understandable because they were writing
in Greek, and it does not mean they affirmed the Jewish Greek text or order
as canon. 20
This Jewish Hebrew tradition divides the Old Testament canon into three
sections: Law (hrwt), Prophets (μyaybn), and Writings (μybwtk). The membership
of books within each of these sections was stabilized at an early stage: 21
Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings (these first four designated at a later
point as the Former Prophets), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve
(these last four designated at a later point as the Latter Prophets, with the
Twelve including Hosea to Malachi)
Writings: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Qoheleth, Lamenta-
tions, Esther, Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah, Chronicles
The names of the first two divisions (Law and Prophets) appear regularly in
the New Testament (Matt 5:17, 7:12, 22:40; Luke 16:16, 29, 31; John 13:15,
24:14; Rom 3:21). Although the title of the third section is not attested early,
the books of the third division are attested and linked to the first two divi-
that our only evidence of this sort of order is available from Christian sources; cf. McDonald
(2007: 100–103). It may indeed have later Christian origins, and possibly the Greek tradition
originally followed a tripartite order, but this is far from certain. In any case, any indications
of canonical order in the New Testament suggest the Jewish Hebrew tradition; see House
(1998: 55–56).
19. For fuller argumentation on this point, see the works of Childs (1970; 1979); Demp-
ster (2003); Seitz (2002, 2006). In this, I am following Childs, as opposed to Sanders (1987:
esp. 167), who highlights that the key difference between his approach and Childs’s lies in
the fact that “when Childs says ‘context,’ he means literary context; when I say it I most of-
ten mean historical context” (cf. Davies 1998: 48–53). This is a bit of a caricature by Sanders,
because Childs (1979: 73) does see his canonical approach as a study of the Hebrew Bible “as
historically and theologically conditioned writings which were accorded a normative func-
tion in the life of this community.” There is plenty of criticism of Childs’s approach; see, e.g.,
Brett (1991; 2000); Barr (1999: 378–451); Davies (1998: 51–53); Gerstenberger (2002: 12–17);
Brueggemann (2003: 393–94); McDonald (2007: 465–75). For defenses, see Bartholomew et
al. (2006).
20. For the diversity of sources for New Testament citations of the Old Testament, see
Jobes and Silva (2000).
21. For this evidence, see the superb charts in Beckwith (1985: 450–64); cf. Leiman
(1976); Ellis (1991); McDonald (1995).
spread is 6 points long

Introduction 9
sions in Sir 39:1, 2 Macc 2:13–14, and Luke 24:44. 22 The order of the books
in the Law and the first part of the Prophets (the Former Prophets) was also
stable at an early stage. Variable, however, was the order of the Latter Prophets
and the Writings.
Among the Latter Prophets, the Twelve is placed in the final position in
nearly every tradition, and Ezekiel is never placed in the first position. Among
the Writings, the earliest attestations place Chronicles in final position, with
Ruth taking the first position, followed by the group Psalms/Job/Proverbs (in
different orders), then the group Qoheleth/Song of Songs/Lamentations (in
different orders, but Lamentations usually in the final position), and ending
with the group Daniel/Esther/Ezra–Nehemiah (in different orders but with
Ezra–Nehemiah always in the final position). As time progresses, another tra-
dition comes to dominate, one related to a rearrangement of the Writings to
reflect the use of the five scrolls for the five annual Jewish feasts. In this
tradition, Chronicles is moved to first position before the group Psalms/Prov-
erbs/Job (in different orders), then the five scrolls (Ruth, Song of Songs, Qo-
heleth, Lamentations, Esther), followed by the group Daniel/Ezra–Nehemiah.
Thus, the order of the Torah and the Former Prophets is stable, as is the
fact that these are followed by the Latter Prophets, which are arranged in
various orders. There are also stable groupings within the Writings: Ruth in
first position, followed by three groups—Psalms/Job/Proverbs, Qoheleth/Song
of Songs/Lamentations, Daniel/Esther/Ezra–Nehemiah—and concluding with
Chronicles.
Sanders has warned,
Clearly one has to be cautious in constructing theories about “the shape” of
the Jewish canon beyond the very secure (hi)story line beginning with the
Torah and ending in 2 Kings, and the fact that the books of the three Major
Prophets and the Twelve Minor Prophets always followed the record of that
(hi)story; but even the order of these within the two categories may have
been due as much to lengths of the books as to chronological order or any
other factor. (ABD 1:841)
However, there is stability beyond the Torah and Former Prophets, with con-
sistent groupings of books creating subcanonical collections within the Lat-
ter Prophets and Writings as well. This has led a series of scholars in recent
years to look more carefully at the overall shape of the Jewish Hebrew
canon in order to discern evidence of what has been described as “canon-
consciousness.” 23 Most energy has been devoted to the relationship between
22. See also 4Q398 f14–17i:2–3 (= 4Q397 14–17 i; 4QMMT C 9–16): “we [have written
that you must understand the bo]ok of Moses [and the books of the prophets and David and
the annals of each] generation [and in] the book is written”; Martínez and Tigchelaar (1997–
98: 2:803); cf. Ulrich (1999: 22).
23. Childs (1979: 60) takes this terminology from Seeligmann (1953), who called it
Kanonbewusstsein and modified it to refer not to the editors but to the literary shape of the
canon. See also Sheppard (1982).
10 Chapter 1
the Law and the Prophets, but also some has been devoted to the relation-
ship between the Writings and the first two sections. 24
New Testament
The present volume will focus on the theology of sin and its remedy within
the Old Testament without sustained reference to the New Testament. I have
showcased elsewhere my own approach to a biblical theology that embraces
the New Testament (Boda 2004b), but in the present volume am seeking an op-
portunity to express the “discrete voice” (Childs 1993: 76; Seitz 2006: 80–81)
and the “wild and untamed” theological witness (Brueggemann 1997: 107) of
the Old Testament.
It is often claimed that early (and later) Christian readings of the Old Tes-
tament were focused on its eschatological rather than ethical role. 25 However,
a close look at the way Old Testament prophetic literature (the Old Testament
literature one would expect to be used eschatologically) is used in the New
Testament does not bear this out (see Boda 2004b: 49–50). Indeed, citations
from Old Testament prophecy are regularly used to show Jesus Christ’s fulfill-
ment of Old Testament expectation. 26 However, Jesus saw his ethical teaching
as a summary of the prophets’ moral teaching (Matt 7:12, 22:40), and the
early church regularly employed prophetic material as the basis for calls to
repentance, faithfulness, and faith, as well as for their foundational theology
of human sin, divine sovereignty, and divine omniscience. 27 The underly-
ing hermeneutic is suggested by 2 Tim 3:15–17, which claims that the Old
Testament is not only “able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (thus, the Old Testament testifies to a
salvation history) but also is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correc-
tion, for training in righteousness so that the person of God may be adequate,
equipped for every good work” (thus, the Old Testament continues to operate
as Scripture with an ethical force). In this way, my goal is to read the Old Tes-
tament as Christian Scripture, which here means highlighting its unique and
positive contribution to the task of Christian theology without limiting this
24. Law and Prophets: Blenkinsopp (1977); Childs (1978); Brueggemann (1982a); Goldin-
gay (1995: 134); Barrera (2002); Dempster (2006). Writings and Law/Prophets: Sarna (1987);
Morgan (1990); Freedman (1991; 1992); Rendtorff (1993: 65); Childs (1993: 97); Steins (1995);
Sailhamer (1995: 239–52); Sweeney (1997c); Dempster (1997; 2003); Chapman (2000; 2003).
25. See, for instance, Sweeney (1997c).
26. E.g., Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23; Mic 5:2 in Matt 2:6; Jer 31:15 in Matt 2:18.
27. Repentance: Hab 1:5 in Acts 13:40. Faithfulness: Isa 52:11; Ezek 20:34 in 2 Cor 6:17; Jer
9:24 in 1 Cor 1:29–30. Faith: Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17; Isa 28:16 in Rom 10:11; Joel 3:5[2:32] in
Rom 10:13; Isa 49:8 in 2 Chr 6:2; Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38; Isa 8:12 in 1 Pet 3:13–16. Hu-
man Sin: Isa 59:7–8 in Rom 3:15–17. Sovereignty: Isa 29:16, 49:9 in Rom 9:19–21; Mal 1:2–3 in
Rom 9:13. Omniscience: Isa 40:13 in Rom 11:34, 1 Cor 2:16.
Introduction 11
contribution to what the New Testament makes of it (see Seitz 2006: 81; cf.
Goldingay 2003). 28
The Present Work

This book began as an exploration of the more limited theme of repen-
tance. In order to encourage and enrich my consideration of this theme, I
joined three communities of reflection. One was a group of Christian scholars
with whom I dialogued over the theme of repentance in the Bible (Old and
New Testaments), Christian history, and Christian theology (in various tradi-
tions; see now Boda and Smith 2006). The other was a group of scholars with
whom I reflected on the development of penitential prayer from the Hebrew
Bible through the Second Temple period and beyond (see Boda, Falk, and
Werline 2006; 2007; 2008). These rich experiences of interaction with com-
munities of scholars soon brought me to the realization that the theme of re-
pentance within the Old Testament could not be investigated in isolation
from the much larger and pervasive theme of sin and its remedy.
Defining this theme is something that occurs in dialogue with the textual
world of the Old Testament and so, in one way, develops through the progres-
sive interpretation of the text practiced in this volume. However, at the out-
set, a preliminary definition will help delimit the semantic range of the
theological topic in view. This work will look at the phenomenon of sin as an
offense against a divinely ordered norm. This does not mean that sin is only
related to the relationship between humanity and God, for clearly sin is iden-
tified as something committed against humanity and even creation. However,
what is in view is not merely the offense of a human against another human
(violation of a cultural norm, for instance) but rather a violation in thought,
word, or deed against another party (divine, human, creation) that breaks a
divinely ordered norm. For example, “impurity” is a violation of a divinely or-
dered norm and so it will be considered in the study of Leviticus. I will make
a distinction between inadvertent, deliberate, and defiant violations and be-
tween moral and ritual violations, but I will show how the moral and ritual
are combined in a larger conceptual framework. Furthermore, the study of
Proverbs below will reveal that “folly” is not “amoral” in the wisdom tradi-
tion but rather often associated with the moral and identified as a violation
of a divinely ordered norm.
Many have investigated the various aspects of this broader theme within
larger projects on Old Testament and biblical theology (e.g., Eichrodt 1961:
28. In this, I will disappoint some, such as Watson (1997: 13), who might see in the
present work an unhealthy limitation to the canon without attention to our contemporary
context. However, there are limitations to what I can accomplish within this work, which is
but the first phase of a larger project.
spread one pica short

12 Chapter 1
2:380–495; Westermann 1982: 118–25; Dyrness 1979: 99–110; Goldingay

2006: 254–349). Others have examined it in more limited ways either by in-
vestigating a restricted corpus of the Old Testament (e.g., Raitt 1977; Unter-
man 1987; Matties 1990; Kelly 1996; Klawans 2000; Wong 2001; Mein 2001),
limited lexical data (e.g., Holladay 1958), or a narrow subtopic (e.g., Koch
1983; Kaminsky 1995a).
The two recent works closest to the present investigation are by Krasovec
and Biddle. Biddle (2005) has provided an insightful yet concise treatment of
sin, focusing particularly on Christian interpretation of sin and its conse-
quences. The short length of this volume (190 pages) as well as its broader tex-
tual base (biblical and systematic theology) means that there is not as much
focus on the various details of the Old Testament texts. Biddle does not adopt
a canonical approach but rather a thematic one with considerable interaction
with Christian systematics. A key concern is to challenge the dominance of
juridical notions of sin in Christian theology as well as the traditional view of
original sin. His agenda to challenge the dominance of certain aspects of the
biblical theology of sin or certain interpretations of the biblical texts leads to
an unbalanced (in terms of coverage, not quality) treatment of the subject.
In his massive volume, Krasovec (1999) also admits to initially setting out
to investigate a more limited subtopic (“retribution”), ending up with a 957-
page tome on reward, punishment, and forgiveness. Krasovec adopts what he
calls a canonical approach, dealing with the text largely in the order of the
Hebrew Bible (TaNaK). There are significant differences, however, between
that volume and this one. As is understandable when dealing with a topic of
this size, Krasovec is sometimes selective, focusing on the canonical text of
key passages within the various sections of the canon and at times treating
themes that arise in these sections. In most cases, however, this work is done
without engagement with the canonical form of the individual books or the
canonical shape of the various sections. 29 The present work will try as much
as possible to investigate the theme of sin and its remedy within the biblical
books as individual literary units and as literary units that contribute to the
various canonical divisions and the message of the entire Hebrew Bible. Be-
cause of his concluding comparison with Hellenistic philosophy, Krasovec’s
analysis ends up with abstract timeless principles. Though any thematic study
cannot avoid abstraction, this canonical-thematic study will seek to highlight
key subthemes and how they are developed within the canon as a whole.
The book will proceed in the order of the Hebrew Bible. Each canonical
section will begin with an orientation to and end with a reflection on its in-
ternal shape and thematic contribution to the theme of sin and its remedy.
The discussion of each book will also begin with a basic orientation to its ca-
29. See, for instance, the much broader discussion of collective retribution in chap. 5,
holy war in chap. 12, and confession of sin in chap. 13, all placed in particular canonical sec-
tions but moving further afield.
Introduction 13
nonical literary shape, then consider particular passages and general lexical
and thematic trends, ending with a reflection on its contribution to the
theme. I have largely avoided academic debate in the main text of this vol-
ume, placing much of this in the footnotes, and have instead sought to bring
forward the results of my own imaginative theological experience in the Old
Testament. 30
30. See Anderson and Bishop (1999: 36): “The task of the biblical theologian is to enter
and understand the biblical world(s) construed by imagination. When the symbolism finds
an echo in our poetic response, as ‘deep calls to deep’ (cf. Ps 42:7), the Bible may speak today
with the power of the Word of God.”
Part One
Torah
Although past analysis of the Torah has often focused on its various under-
lying layers (e.g., J, E, D, P), the present work is concerned with the theolog-
ical message of the Torah in its present canonical form and shape. 1 Undoubt-
edly, the Torah as a whole displays literary cohesion. Some have noted the
way in which the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham not only constitutes
its core theme (Whybray 1995: 136) but also explains its division into smaller
units, with Genesis focusing on the provision of a people, Exodus–Leviticus
on the provision of a covenant, and Numbers–Deuteronomy on the provision
of a land (Clines 1978; cf. Alexander 1995: 98). 2
Interestingly, both traditional critical attempts to trace source layers across
the Pentateuch as a whole and more recent literary attempts to highlight the
rhetorical cohesion of the Torah have often ignored the divisions between the
books. 3 However, the books themselves substantiate the ancient divisions 4
with key transitions occurring between the death of Joseph in Genesis 50 and
the much later new generation in Exodus 1, between the descent of Yahweh
into the tabernacle in Exodus 40 and the beginning of Priestly legislation in
Leviticus 1, between the key subscription of Lev 27:34 and the census of
Numbers 1, 5 and finally between the end of Numbers and the beginning of
Deuteronomy with its radically different genre, sermon. The book of Deuter-
onomy comes to an appropriate close with the death of Moses.
1. On the history of this research, see especially Alexander (1995: 1–94); Nicholson (1998).
2. I am not convinced by the narrative description of Sailhamer (1992: 59–78), which fol-
lows Schmitt (1982) in seeing a final faith-redaction (Glaubens-Thematik) in the Torah, in-
tended to contrast Abraham and Moses as faith versus works. In the final paragraph of Deu-
teronomy, Moses is presented as the quintessential prophet, not as a tragic figure.
3. For the tracing of source layers, see the discussion in M. Smith (1996); for an attempt
to highlight rhetorical cohesion, see Sailhamer (1992), who, although acknowledging the an-
tiquity of the fivefold division, still claims that the division into five books is not original.
4. With Childs (1979: 128–31).
5. See especially M. Smith (1996: 31–35) for the integrity of Exodus as a book and espe-
cially the key narrative breaks at Exodus 1 and 40; cf. Sarna (1992: 690). For the integrity of
Leviticus, see Bibb (2008). On Numbers as a literary unit, see especially Olson (1985) and the
chapter on Numbers below (pp. 86–96).
- 14 -
Torah Introduction 15
It is the way the book of Deuteronomy ends that causes some difficulty for
the view that the Torah as a whole was designed as an independent literary
unit. If the promises to Abraham drive the plot of the Torah, then the book
ends short of this goal, with Israel having received the promised people and
covenant, but not the land. For this reason, some have suggested that the To-
rah must be part of a larger literary complex that includes all or some of the
books that follow ( Joshua–Kings), whether this means that the Torah was part
of a broader unit called “the Primary History” (Genesis–Kings) or the “Hexa-
teuch” (Genesis–Joshua) or that Deuteronomy should be separated from the
Torah and considered part of a larger “Deuteronomistic History” (Deuter-
onomy–Kings; see Fretheim 1996: 55). Although there is merit to aspects of
these various proposals (see further the introduction to the Prophets below,
pp. 122–125), the conclusion of Deuteronomy functions as an important ca-
nonical divider, with its reference to Moses as the prophet with no equal who
received the revelation on Sinai to which the prophets who follow will
point. 6 The Torah ends with the final sermon of this quintessential prophet,
who interprets the entire Torah for a community poised to enter the land.
Throughout their experience in that land, the people continue to hear the
voices of the prophets reminding them of the words revealed to Moses (Mann
1988: 157). For later generations for whom the Old Testament was finally
drawn together into canonical form, the Torah’s ending with a community
poised to possess the promised land would be an appropriate ending point. 7
With this in mind, the focus of this section of the book will be to investi-
gate more closely the contribution of the Torah to the theology of sin and its
remedy. Attention will be given to the various books within the Torah and
their unique contributions, but in the end these unique perspectives are seen
not as the diverse interests of competing sociological groups but rather as
brightly colored strands in a rich tapestry.
6. Although Blenkinsopp (1992: 35) has little doubt that the Pentateuch and Former
Prophets “at some point were intended to be read as one consecutive history,” he also ad-
mits that “the Pentateuch ending as it does with the death of Moses outside of the land
came to be seen as a coherent narrative in its own right, with its own distinctive structure
and meaning.”
7. So Fretheim (1996: 56): “The ending is rhetorically designed for a community that is in
a situation comparable to the original community on the eve of entry into the land of prom-
ise. As such, Deuteronomy’s ending is not rhetorically crafted to bring the story to a close;
there is a decided open-endedness to the future. But it is still an ending.”
1.5 pica long on top
Chapter 2
Genesis
The book of Genesis functions as the introduction to the Torah, which in

turn lays the foundation for the entire Old Testament, in terms of both its
story and its theology. It is not surprising then that Genesis orients the reader
to the theme of sin and its remedy.
Although the book is often divided into two sections, with the “call” of
Abraham in Genesis 12 signaling the transition between the primeval history
of the world (Genesis 1–11) and the patriarchal history of Israel (Genesis 12–
50), the book in its final form actually contains another structure, one estab-
lished through the regular appearance of the Hebrew word t/dl}/t often trans-
lated as “account” or “generations”: 1
The Account of the Heavens and the Earth 2:4–4:26
The Account of Adam 5:1–6:8
The Account of Noah 6:9–9:28
The Account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth 10:1–11:9 (repeated in 10:32)
The Account of Shem 11:10–26
The Account of Terah 11:27–25:11
The Account of Ishmael 25:12–18 (repeated in 25:13)
The Account of Isaac 25:19–35:29
The Account of Esau 36:1–43 (repeated in 36:9)
The Account of Jacob 37:2–50:26
The superscriptions in which this word appears “serve to divide the text into
blocks” (Turner 2003: 350). 2 Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the term refers
1. The twofold division of Genesis has been justified, for instance, on the basis of the ge-
nealogies that lie at the end of the primeval history (in 11:10–26) and the beginning of the
ancestral history (in 11:27–30) or on the basis of two sets of five accounts; see Turner (2003:
350); Blenkinsopp (1992: 58). However, it is not certain that either of these were important
to the one who created the structure. Mann (1988: 12) notes: “At neither point [Gen 11:27 or
12:1] do the redactors indicate a major break in the narrative that warrants a division of
Genesis into two independent units.” On t/dl}/t, see Alexander (1995: 101–2); Turner (2003:
350). The superscription in which it appears is usually “these are the generations” (t/dl}/T hL<a,E
my translation), although in one case (5:1) the superscription reads: “this is the book of the
generations” (t/dl}/T rp,sE hz,). On the function of the first superscription in 2:4 and its relation
to Genesis 1, see Turner (1990). For an extended discussion on the literary unity of Genesis,
see Brodie (2001: 1–25).
2. Contra Mann (1988: 12) who sees the formula as either introducing or concluding a
section, and Wenham (1987: 19), who differentiates between superscriptions that introduce
genealogies and those that introduce stories.
- 16 -
Genesis 17
to genealogical lists, that is, lists of people who were born within a family,
clan, or tribal unit (Exod 6:16, 19; 28:10; Num 1:20–42; 3:1; Ruth 4:18; 1 Chr
1:29; 5:7; 7:2, 4, 9; 8:28; 9:9, 34; 26:31). This superscription, first of all, func-
tions as a regular reminder of one—if not the—major theme in the book.
Genesis is about God’s fulfillment of the first command given to humanity in
Gen 1:28 (be fruitful and multiply; see also 9:7) and the first promise made to
Abraham in Gen 12:2 (I will make you a great nation; see Genesis 17). 3 In this
way, it provides “reminders of the genealogical succession essential to the
continuation of the plot of the book as a whole” (Turner 2003: 350). The fact
that the “generations” structure begins long before the appearance of Abra-
ham suggests that the story and family of Israel is embedded within and sig-
nificant for the larger story of the nations of the world as well as creation
itself. This is bolstered by the observation that the promise of seed is not
unique to Abraham but rather is mentioned prior to his introduction into the
story. It can be discerned in God’s command to humanity in Gen 1:28 when
God calls them to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” This same
command is repeated again to Noah and his sons in Gen 9:1, 7.
Second, the superscriptions do not signal the appearance of the individ-
ual named within them; rather, each superscription appears well after the
first mention of that individual but before his death. The focus of the narra-
tive section is thus more on the family of the individual named than on the
individual himself. This emphasizes the enduring fulfillment of the promise
of people, because the focus is on the offspring (see Waltke and Fredricks
2001: 18).
Third, the superscriptions appear to focus in on a certain line that emerges
in each case out of the previous “account/generations.” Thus, out of all the
“heavens and the earth” emerges Adam, and from Adam’s line, Noah, and
from Noah’s line (which includes Shem, Ham, and Japheth), Shem, and from
Shem’s line, Terah. Interestingly, Terah is mentioned in the superscription
with no mention of Abraham himself, but after the generations of Terah a
new pattern appears as two lines issue from the former line. From Terah’s line
emerge first Ishmael and then Isaac. The relative size of these two accounts re-
veals that, although Ishmael was the first to emerge, it was Isaac’s line that
was the chosen line. The same pattern recurs with the two lines of Esau and
Jacob, which emerge from Isaac’s line. Esau’s short account is provided first,
but it is the account of Jacob, the second born, that is chosen.
The “generations” superscriptions dissuade any attempt to separate the
story of Israel from that of creation and the nations. This is significant for all
3. Westermann (1984: 17) makes the connection between the various genealogies in
Genesis and Gen 1:28. See further Clines (1978), who sees in Genesis 17 the three founda-
tional promises for Israel that structure the Pentateuch as a whole: the promise of people
(Genesis), the promise of relationship (Exodus–Leviticus), and the promise of land (Num-
bers–Deuteronomy).
18 Chapter 2
the theological themes developed in the book of Genesis, but particularly so

for the theme of sin and its remedy.
The Account of the Heavens and the Earth

(2:4–4:26)
It is in the first “account” that sin enters into the world, typified as disobe-
dience to the command of God given in 2:16–17. 4 In this command, Yahweh
invited humanity to eat from any tree in the garden but prohibited them
from eating from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Accompany-
ing this commandment was the threat of punishment: “In the day that you
eat from it you will surely die.” Questions about the meaning of this com-
mand and the certainty of divine judgment for its violation are introduced by
the crafty serpent at the outset of Genesis 3. The serpent reveals that eating
this fruit would make the humans “like God, knowing ([dy) good and evil”
(3:5), a truth supported by Yahweh in 3:22. 5 In listening to a “beast of the
field which the Lord God had made” (μyhIløa” hw;hy] hc…[: rv≤a“ hd,C…h" tY'j;" 3:1; cf.
2:19), humans not only disobeyed God’s command in chap. 2 and sought to
exceed their bounds as created beings 6 but also failed to exercise their God-
given commission to rule over every living creature given in 1:28.
Having eaten of the forbidden fruit, the human couple’s “eyes were
opened” and they realized their nakedness (3:7). According to 2:25, this real-
ization is equated with “shame” (vwb Hithpael), and this shame, 7 according to
Yahweh, has been caused by their disobedience to his command not to eat
from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (3:11). God responds to this
new condition of shame with his gracious act of clothing (3:21; Westermann
and Green 1987: 27), 8 but not before he first delivers his judgment (3:14–19).
This divine judgment is related to the three offending characters in order,
each receiving a judgment that concerns him or her alone: the serpent, who
4. It will be obvious that I am not following the recent challenges of Barr (1993) and
Biddle (2005) to play down Genesis 2–3 as a narrative about sin that affects the human fam-
ily. Although there are certainly other themes that could be drawn out in these passages, one
cannot ignore that disobedience took place and that this affected humanity significantly, a
point made clear by the larger literary context of Genesis 1–11. Barr (1993) makes this state-
ment: “Far from taking the universal sinfulness of humanity as an obvious and ineluctable
fact, the Old Testament seems to assume the possibility of avoiding sin.” As will be argued in
this book, the struggle with sin lies at the heart of the Old Testament message, and one key
conclusion is that Israel needs divine initiative to avoid sin.
5. The woman interprets this as “giving insight” (lkc Hiphil; 3:6).
6. As per von Rad (1961: 89), who notes here the temptation of “an extension of human
existence beyond the limits set for it by God at creation, an increase of life not only in the
sense of pure intellectual enrichment but also familiarity with and power over, mysteries that
lie beyond man.”
7. The word used in Genesis 3 is μrøy[E , whereas in Gen 2:25 it is μ/r[:. Notice also the play
on the adjective μWr[: (cunning), which describes the serpent in Gen 3:1; cf. Blenkinsopp
(1992: 95 n. 95).
8. This replaces the attempt of the humans in 3:7.
Genesis 19
is banished to slither along the ground; the woman, who will experience
increased pain in childbirth; and the man, who will struggle to produce a
harvest.
Embedded within each of the first two judgments, however, is a pro-
nouncement of a struggle between two of the figures in this “fall” narrative,
revealing the way that sin has introduced discord into creation. The judgment
on the woman includes a struggle between male and female (3:16b), and the
judgment on the serpent includes a struggle between the seed of the serpent
and the seed of the woman (3:15). Much has been written about this latter
struggle and its relationship to the Christian gospel (Hamilton 1990: 200), but
this mention of “seed” suggests the beginning of the development of a theme
of opposing “seed” evident throughout Genesis and foreshadows the two
lines of seed that will appear in Genesis after humanity is banished from the
garden. That there is hope related to birth is made clear in Adam’s naming of
the woman as hW;j" in 3:20 (see von Rad 1961: 96; Westermann 1974: 104). 9
However, this hope should not obscure the fact that God is judging humanity,
which now faces “death” because humans are barred from eating of the tree
of life, which would enable them to live forever (3:22).
The fact that sin is introduced into the account of Genesis at such an early
point reveals its importance to the development of this book, the Torah, and
the Old Testament as a whole. Here sin is identified as the violation of God’s
command and results in an immediate punishment from God that introduces
difficulty into humanity’s ability to fulfill the creation mandate of Gen 1:28.
From this point on, humans will face impediments related to being fruitful
and multiplying and filling the earth (the curse on woman) and to subduing
the earth (the curse on man). Furthermore, they are barred from the garden,
where they had experienced close fellowship with Yahweh and where they
would have enjoyed eternal life.
Following on the heels of the account of the first sin in chap. 3, Genesis 4
shows its implications for the next generation. The incident arises when Yah-
weh looks favorably (h[v) on the sacrifice of “firstlings of the flock and of
their fat portions” (Abel’s contribution) but not so on the offering of “fruit of
the ground” (Cain’s contribution). 10 Cain’s rejection leads to his anger not
toward Yahweh but rather toward his brother Abel.
Yahweh’s words to Cain in 4:7 are important. They juxtapose Cain’s two
possible actions—to do well or not to do well—and then contrast the two re-
sults—forgiveness (acn) of Cain or sin’s destructive mastery over him. 11 The
9. The name is related to the noun yj" (“life, living”) by the narrator of Genesis: awhI yKI
yj:AlK: μaE ht:y]h: (3:20b).
10. The reason for God’s response is not clear. It may be related to the fact that Abel
brought the best and choicest of his offering or that Abel brought an offering of an animal,
as opposed to part of the harvest; see Hamilton (1990: 223–24).
11. For this translation, see Wenham (1987: 105); Hamilton (1990: 227); cf. Gen 50:17.
Many have translated acn here as “lifting up the countenance,” especially in light of its con-
trast in 4:5: μynp lpn (“his countenance fell”); cf. Westermann (1984: 299).
spread one pica long

20 Chapter 2
text pictures sin (taF:j)" as an animal lying down (≈br), possibly as a lion rest-
ing, before arising with the desire to consume and destroy Cain (Gen 49:9, Isa
11:6–7, Ezek 19:2, Ps 104:22). Yahweh warns Cain to master (lvm) this beastly
sin, but instead he is consumed by it and murders his brother Abel. This re-
sults once again in a divine judgment, one more severe than the judgment
Adam had received: the ground will no longer yield any produce, leaving
Cain to a nomadic existence. Yahweh does provide an element of grace, mark-
ing Cain to protect him from anyone who might slay him.
Cain voices another aspect of the divine judgment: “from your face I will
be hidden” (4:14), which is echoed by the narrator in 4:16: “Then Cain went
out from the presence of the Lord.” What follows is the short account of
Cain’s line, which begins with the birth of Enoch and proceeds through Irad,
Mehujael, and Methushael and ends with Lamech, his two wives (Adah and
Zillah), and his children ( Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-cain, and Naamah). Lamech’s
speech to his wives in 4:23 reveals the depths of sin to which the line of Cain
has fallen, as Lamech pronounces his own vengeful curse on those who
would endanger him. Unlike his ancestor Cain, this vengeance would fall on
any who would merely injure (not kill) Lamech and would be carried out by
Lamech himself, thus justifying his murderous ways.
Gen 4:25–26 provides an important literary contrast to the account of Cain
that precedes it, with the birth of Seth as a replacement for the murdered Abel
(see Wenham 1987: 115). The reference to Seth as “seed” echoes the earlier
promise to Eve in 3:15 of her seed’s victory over the seed of the serpent (Wen-
ham 1987: 115; Hamilton 1990: 242). In connection with this, the narrator
then makes this important note to the reader: “Then (was) the beginning of
calling on the name of the Lord” (my translation). Whereas the line of Cain
begins with the description of the murderer leaving the presence of Yahweh
(4:16), the line of Seth is introduced with the notation that people were call-
ing on Yahweh’s name, an activity that will also typify Israel’s ancestors later
in Genesis (12:8, 13:4, 21:33, 26:25; Wenham 1987: 116).
The Account of Adam (5:1–6:8)

The contrast between the lines of Cain and Seth is made clear in the ac-
count of Adam. First, it is interesting to note that the only two names shared
between the two lines are the only two that are accompanied by narrative de-
scription in both accounts. 12 From the line of Cain, there are Enoch, for
whom Cain named his city (4:17), and Lamech, who pledged to murder any
12. These connections are noted by Hamilton (1990: 250), but in seeking to prove that
they refer to different people he does not capitalize on the potential of these connections for
the contrast between the genealogies. See Blenkinsopp (1992: 68–69) for other names in the
two lists that are closely associated and yet variant. This also helps to bind the two lists to-
gether for contrastive purposes. For the importance of this genealogical technique, see my in-
troduction to the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–9 in Boda (forthcoming a).
Genesis 21
who injure him (4:19–24), and from the line of Seth there are Enoch, who
“walked (˚lh Hithpael) with God” (5:22, 24), and Lamech, who named Noah
with the hope that he would provide comfort from Yahweh’s curse on the
ground (5:29). These descriptions highlight a stark contrast between these
two lines. A second contrast is seen in the size of the two lists. It is clear that
the long line of descendants attributed to Seth in chap. 5 overshadows the
line of Cain in chap. 4.
This contrast appears to be a narrative technique that sets up the final sec-
tion of the account of Adam in 6:1–8. Clearly, the line of Seth, associated with
the final individual named, Noah, “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8),
in contrast to the rest of humanity, associated with the line of Cain, whose ex-
ploits are described in 6:1–7. Although the meaning of this passage, especially
the mixing between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of humanity” is
controversial, 13 the presentation of the human condition and the divine re-
sponse is clear. Human wickedness (h[: r): was deemed great (br') on earth, to
the point that “every intent of the thoughts of their heart was only evil ([r')
continually” (6:5). This condition of humanity is described in the account of
Noah (6:11–13) as being corruption (tjv Niphal) in the sight of God and fill-
ing (alm) the earth with violence (sm:j): . According to both narrator and God,
sin had reached its climax, ruling from the depths of the human soul and fill-
ing the breadth of the earth.
God’s first response is to warn, in this case announcing the removal of his
spirit in 120 years (6:3). 14 But the second is far more severe. Expressing sorrow
(μjn Niphal) and grief (bx[ Hithpael) for creating humanity, he decides to
eliminate (hjm) them from the face of the earth along with the land animals
and birds (6:7). However, the narrator makes clear in the closing verse of the
account of Adam that Noah will be spared.
The Account of Noah (6:9–9:28)

Having noted that Noah found favor in the eyes of Yahweh at the end of
the account of Adam, the account of Noah begins by focusing on the charac-
ter of Noah (6:9), suggesting a link between the favor of Yahweh and this
character. Noah is described as “righteous” (qyDix)" and “blameless” (μymIT): , em-
phasizing the contrast between his character and that of others in his genera-
tion (wyt:rdø Bø )} . Linked to this character is the fact that he “walked with God,”
expressed using the same verb and stem (˚lh Hithpael) that was used for
Enoch in 5:22, 24.
13. See further Wenham (1987: 138–41); and Hamilton (1990: 261–65).
14. For this, see Speiser (1964: 46); and Hamilton (1990: 269); however, also see Scullion
(1992: 62); Westermann and Green (1987: 44); and Wenham (1987: 141–42) for the view that
this was a limiting of human life span, which seems to be contradicted by the length of life
spans later in Genesis.
22 Chapter 2
Noah’s righteous and blameless character and relationship with Yahweh

qualifies him as the one who would facilitate God’s grace for his creation.
Although Yahweh expresses his intention to destroy all breathing beings
through a reversal of his creative activity in Genesis 1, 15 a remnant will be pre-
served on the ark. Once creation has been renewed, 16 this remnant will
receive once again the creation mandate and blessing given to humanity in
the beginning (9:1–3; cf. 1:28–30). 17 This renewal of the mandate is accom-
panied by the first explicit reference to covenant in the Old Testament, a cove-
nant that God establishes with all humanity and animals through Noah and
that is sealed with the sign of the rainbow. With this covenant and its accom-
panying sign, Yahweh promises never again to destroy all life with the waters
of a flood (9:15).
Another divine promise is provided after Yahweh receives favorably the
burnt offering that Noah makes after exiting the ark (8:20–22). This promise
is a reversal of the curse given to Adam in Genesis 3 as God promises never to
curse the ground because of human beings. This promise, however, contains
a startling revelation. God says that “the intent of the human heart is evil
from youth” (8:21, wyr;[UN]mI [r' μd;a:h: blE rx<y,e my translation), a statement strikingly
similar to his evaluation in 6:5: “Every intent of the thoughts of their heart
was only evil continually” (μ/Yh"AlK: [r' qr' /BlI tbøv‘j}m" rx<ye Alk:). It is apparent that
the flood was not effective in eradicating sin, for it came with Noah’s family
onto the ark and would be an enduring reality after their exit. It is for this rea-
son that Yahweh speaks of an accounting for the blood of humanity in 9:4–
6, establishing the lex talionis, the retaliation law, applied here to murder. The
enduring reality of sin is also evident in the closing narrative of the account
of Noah in 9:18–27, which leads to the curse of Ham’s son Canaan.
The Accounts of Shem, Ham, and Japheth

(10:1–11:9) and Shem (11:10–26)
The next account is consumed by an extensive list of the descendants of
Noah’s sons, who are linked to the nations of the known world. The reversal
of the birth order of Noah’s sons in the list in chap. 10 places “Shem’s line
last, thereby focusing attention on his line” and suggests that “the primaeval
blessing will advance in his line in particular” (Kaminski 2004: 141). The
15. Cf. G. Smith (1977). Whereas the creation pattern involves the creation of form (the
basic structure of the earth) and fill (animals and humans that live on it) from the watery
chaos with the hovering wind/spirit/breath (jwr) of God, the flood narrative depicts the re-
versal of form (7:11) and fill (7:21–23) and ends with the wind/spirit/breath (jwr) of God hov-
ering over the watery chaos (8:1).
16. See the renewal of form (8:2–5) and fill (8:15–19).
17. On this connection, see Kaminski (2004: 1): “The renewal of the commands after the
flood serves as a confirmation that, in spite of the divine judgment against humankind,
God’s intention for his creation will not be thwarted.”
Genesis 23
short narrative that takes places on the plain of Shinar (Tower of Babel) in
11:1–9 unpacks narratively the statement at the end of chap. 10 as to how the
nations spread out over the earth. Much has been made of the Tower of Babel
incident as one of the quintessential stories of wickedness in the Bible, espe-
cially related to the hubris of humanity; however, it appears that the sin in
this passage is not pride but rather humanity’s failure to obey the creation
mandate in Gen 1:28. 18 There humanity was commanded to fill the earth and
subdue it rather than settle down in one concentrated place. In this way, the
building of the city resonates with the practices of the line of Cain, who also
built cities (4:17). 19
There is a particular pattern in the way God deals with sin in the first five
accounts in Genesis (Gen 1:1–11:26; Westermann 1980: 50–54). These “crime
and punishment” stories (Gen 2–3; 4:1–16; 6:1–4, 6–9; 9:20–27; 11:1–9) all
contain the basic pattern of transgression (3:6; 4:8b; 6:1–2, 5–7; 11:4; cf. 9:22),
verbal expression (3:14–19; 4:11–12; 6:3, 5–7; 11:6–7; cf. 9:24–25), and act of
punishment (3:22–24, 4:16b, 7:6–24, 11:8–9). God does indeed speak before
he judges, but in most of the accounts one fails to see evidence of divine for-
giveness or human repentance. The one exception is Genesis 4, where Cain is
challenged to “do well” and so find forgiveness. 20 In this, there is a call for
humanity to turn from its intended course, master sin, and so find forgive-
ness. God’s grace is not as evident in Genesis 1–11, although one can discern
evidence of God mitigating punishment (see Westermann 1980: 54) and pro-
viding a line of hope (see Gen 4:25–26).
The Account of Terah (11:27–25:11)

The account of Noah’s three sons is followed by the short account of
Shem, which functions merely as a bridge to the account of Terah. Terah’s ac-
count is focused not on Terah himself but rather on his son Abram (soon to
be Abraham).
To this point, the story of humanity has been focused largely on the intro-
duction and enduring presence of sin on earth. Certain divine initiatives have
18. See especially Hiebert (2007). Based on this story as an account of the Yahwist, Hiebert
sees no connection to Genesis 1 by the one who created this story, but he does consider pos-
sible a connection to the creation mandate in Genesis 1. For this connection, see Mann
(1988: 26–27); van Wolde (1994: 102–4); Harland (1998); Waltke and Fredricks (2001: 161);
contra Kaminski (2004: 22–29).
19. See further Kaminski (2004: 142), who notes connections between the Shemite gene-
alogy in chap. 11 and the Sethite genealogy in chap. 5.
20. Thus, Milgrom (1990a: 397) goes too far when he writes, “Wherever repentance oc-
curs in the early narratives, it is a human virtue. God does not call upon man to repent or
upon his prophet to rouse him to repentance” (cf. Exod 32:11–13, 31–34; 34:9; Num 12:11–
13; 14:13–19; Deut 9:16–29); “other intercessors turn to God for pardon but do not urge man
to repent” (cf. Gen 18:23–33; 1 Sam 7:5–9, 12:25; 1 Kgs 17:17–23; 2 Kgs 4:33, 6:15–20; Job
42:7–9). Genesis 4 is certainly one of the exceptions to this rule.
24 Chapter 2
been introduced to deal with sin, including cursing basic human activities
(childbirth and food production), prohibiting humans from eternal life, ban-
ishing them from the garden, warning them to control sin, marking them to
protect them from death, limiting the length of their lives, eliminating nearly
all of them, establishing a covenant with commands, and throwing human
efforts at disobedience into confusion. Alongside these divine judgments,
however, God has been providing his grace, seen in the birth of Seth, in the
fellowship Yahweh shared with Seth’s line, in the preservation of the line
through Noah, and in the provision of a new creation with renewed mandate.
The account of Terah continues this stream of grace that has been observed
to this point, identifying now a particular individual and family that also will
commune with God like Enoch, Lamech, and Noah. The account announces
at the outset that God will bless all peoples on earth through Abram and the
great nation that will arise from him. It is Yahweh’s revelation to Abram in
12:1–3 that identifies the function of the earlier accounts in the book of Gene-
sis. To this point, humanity has been offered blessing by God, but through
disobedience has consistently received his curse and punishment. Gen 12:1–
3 makes it clear that humanity’s hope for blessing is to be found through
Abram and the nation of Israel. 21
This blessing is established on the basis of a series of covenant encounters
between Yahweh and Abram 22 that establish links between Abram and his an-
cestor Noah. Abram’s belief in Yahweh’s promise of a great nation results in
his being credited (bvj; Gen 15:6) with righteousness (hq:d;x;} see Gen 6:9,
qyDix)" . This has implications for Abram’s behavior: he is invited in the cove-
nant ratification in Gen 17:1 to “walk (˚lh Hithpael) before me, and be blame-
less (μymIT): ,” both terms used earlier of Noah (Gen 6:9). Abram, now Abraham,
reveals his faithful and blameless walk in the experience of Genesis 22 as he
obediently offers his son on the altar, and it is because of this obedience
(22:16) that God promises to bless him by multiplying his seed (22:17) and
blessing all nations on earth (22:18). That Abraham’s faithfulness is key to the
21. Wenham (2000: 23) chides Clines for omitting the promise of blessing to the nations
as key to the Pentateuch. This is truly a subtheme within the promise of seed. On the key role
played by “blessing” in Genesis and especially the connection between the primeval and
Abrahamic blessings, see Kaminski (2004); cf. Weimar (1974). Harland (1996: 104) notes that
“Genesis is a book of the fulfillment of divine blessing: 1.28, 9.1, 17.16, 20, 28.3, 48.4 . . .
41.52”; cf. Alexander (1995: 114–27). Kaminski (2004: 142) argues that the primeval blessing
is not fulfilled in Genesis 1–11 but rather is “taken up by Abraham’s progeny” so that the “Pa-
triarchs are, therefore, bearers of the creation theme.” For a more skeptical approach to the
role of the primeval blessing in Genesis, see Turner (1990), although he does admit that the
“‘multiplication’ motif” does receive “Yahweh’s solicitous attention” more than other ele-
ments in the blessing.
22. For the relationship between Genesis 12 and the covenant ceremonies in Genesis 15
and 17, see P. Williamson (2000), who especially notes how Genesis 15 focuses on the prom-
ise of a great nation and Genesis 17 on the promise of blessing to other nations. For William-
son, Genesis 15 and 17 represent two distinct covenants between Yahweh and Abraham.
Genesis 25
future promise is also articulated in God’s appearance and promise to his son
Isaac, during which God declares that the promise of descendants, land, and
blessing of all nations on earth through his offspring is secured because “Abra-
ham obeyed (lqøb} [mv) me and kept (rmv) my charge (tr,m<v‘m)I , my command-
ments (hw;x}m)I , my statutes (hQ:j)U , and my laws (hr;/T)” (26:5). The progressive
development of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham reveals that
Yahweh takes the initiative and is the superior covenant partner. However, it
also shows that this is not a unilateral covenant, in that Abraham’s response
in faith and faithfulness is essential and stipulations are articulated. 23
As the covenant with Noah involved a command (9:4–7), so also the Abra-
hamic covenant involves the law of circumcision, which functions as both
covenant command and sign (17:12–14). As the consequence of failure to
obey the Noahic command involved death, so also the consequence of not
circumcising a male is that he would be cut off from the people (17:14).
Two incidents at the heart of the Abrahamic narratives reveal Abraham’s
role as a conduit of blessing to the nations, and both of these develop the the-
ology of sin and its remedy in Genesis. First and foremost is Abraham’s medi-
atorial role on behalf of Sodom in 18:16–33. 24 Yahweh’s private words to his
companions in 18:17–19 are very important for understanding the Abraha-
mic covenant. At the heart of this short speech is Yahweh’s statement “I have
known ([dy) him” (my translation), a reference to God’s covenantal choice of
Abraham (see Jer 1:5, Amos 3:2). Following this statement, Yahweh reveals
that Abraham must command his descendants to keep (rmv) the way of the
Lord by doing (hc[) righteousness (hq:d;x)} and justice (fP:v‘m)I , so that the Lord
may bring on Abraham what he has spoken about him (18:19). What Yahweh
has spoken about Abraham is what is reviewed in 18:18: “Abraham will surely
become a great and mighty nation and in him all the nations of the earth will
be blessed.” Abraham’s faith and obedience, exemplified at various points in
the account of Terah (15:6, 22:16–18; cf. 17:1), is demanded also of his de-
scendants in order that they may not only become the great nation promised
but also bless the nations. Yahweh’s mention of the blessing of the nations
suggests that part of this obedience of his descendants involves the mediato-
rial role in which Abraham is about to function.
Yahweh prompts Abraham’s righteous mediatorial response by announc-
ing his intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because “their sin is ex-
ceedingly grave” (18:20). 25 In a style reminiscent of the earlier pre-flood and
23. On the debate over conditionality in the Abrahamic covenant, see Hahn (2005: 274).
Note especially Rendtorff (1998b); Milgrom (2004a); Wright (2006: 205–8); contra Freedman
(1964); Van Seters (1975: 288–89); Cross (1998b: 14–15); Lohfink (2000).
24. See also Wolff (1966: 148).
25. The motif of Yahweh prompting a response from his mediatorial figure by announc-
ing judgment can also be discerned in Exodus 32–34 (see below on Exodus, pp. 35–48). On
the precise character of this sin, see Fields (1997), who in an analysis of the Sodom tradition
in the Old Testament noted that the primary recurring theme was “stranger in your gates,”
26 Chapter 2
Tower of Babel narratives (chaps. 6, 11), Yahweh reveals that he has been
prompted by the “outcry” (hq:[:z], vv. 20, 21) 26 of the city to investigate the va-
lidity of the reports. Knowing his nephew Lot (ancestor of the Ammonites
and Moabites) lives in Sodom, Abraham takes the bait.
The discussion revolves around the justice of destroying a wicked ([v…r); city
in which “righteous” (qyDix)" people are found. 27 Unlike the judgment of the
flood, in which Yahweh saves the righteous remnant (Noah and his family)
and destroys the thoroughly wicked world, in the case of Sodom Yahweh
agrees to spare/forgive (acn) the entire place on account of righteous inhabi-
tants (18:26, 29–32). Throughout the account, Abraham carefully introduces
requests with a phrase communicating deference:
Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust
and ashes . . . (v. 27)
Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak . . . (v. 30)
Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord . . . (v. 31)
Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once . . . (v. 32)
Abraham’s debate moves progressively to a smaller and smaller number of
righteous for which God would spare the city: from 50, to 40, to 30, to 20, and
finally to 10, after which he stops his plea. The magnitude of the sin depicted
in chap. 19 explains why in the end Yahweh brings judgment on Sodom, re-
vealing that the city did not even have 10 “righteous” in its midst. However,
4 escape: Lot, his wife, and his two daughters. This is grace extended to the
nations that would emerge from Lot because “God remembered Abraham”
(19:29), an allusion to Abraham’s mediation in chap. 18.
The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah provides insight into
the theology of sin and its remedy. First, it reveals that Yahweh responds to
the outcry against the wicked but does so only after careful investigation. 28
Second, it teaches that Yahweh brings judgment upon the sin of humanity
(19:12–13), even though this judgment can be held back by the presence of
righteous people in its midst (18:16–33). Even when there is only a handful
of the “righteous,” God extends his mercy (19:16) by giving an opportunity
but related to this were several key submotifs including hospitality, two guests in a city, in-
imical townspeople, protection outside the city, night evoking danger, sexual harassment of
strangers, and destruction of a city by fire. The picture is certainly one of sin (including vio-
lation of hospitality and sexual mores) and punishment (by fire).
26. Most likely, this is the cries for help from those who have been abused.
27. Bruckner (2001: 124–70) highlights the “legal referents” within this story. The terms
here suggest that Abraham’s mediation is understood in a legal context, in which guilt and
innocence are established. The purpose is “securing a just judging of the innocent, that they
not be condemned with the guilty who may be found, and to seek a stay of sentence for any
guilty who may be found” (p. 125).
28. Again, this is strikingly similar to the sacral legal proceedings that were used at the
temple in Jerusalem, evidence for which can be seen in the Psalter (see the chapter on Psalms
below, pp. 395–451); cf. Bruckner (2001).
Genesis 27
for the righteous to leave (19:12). 29 Third, it shows that Abraham (and
through him the nation of Israel) plays a mediatorial role in securing forgive-
ness for the righteous among the nations.
Abraham’s mediatorial role is also seen in Genesis 20, but, unlike his inter-
cession for Sodom and Lot, this time he is called on to intercede in a sinful sit-
uation caused by his own folly. 30 A crisis is created when Abimelech takes
Sarah as his wife, having been led to believe she is only Abraham’s sister
(20:1–2). God warns Abimelech that he is as good as dead (20:3), that his en-
tire household will die (20:7). Later in 20:17–18, the focus of judgment is
placed on the closing of the wombs of his household, suggesting that the
death in view is the death of his line. Interestingly, although God knew that
Abimelech took Sarah with a clear conscience (Gen 20:6, Úb}b:l}Aμt:b,} “in the in-
tegrity of your heart”) 31 and so restrained (˚cj) him from sinning (afj) by
“touching” her, divine judgment still rested on Abimelech’s family (20:3). In
the words of Abimelech in 20:9, his naive act was “a great sin” (hl:døg] ha:f:j)“ .
Although causing the predicament in the first place, Abraham is then sin-
gled out by Yahweh as a “prophet,” that is, someone with access to God’s di-
vine council who can intercede (llp Hithpael) before Yahweh on behalf of
another (see Boda 2001). Yahweh lays out the process: Abimelech must first
restore Sarah to Abraham, after which Abraham will intercede on his behalf,
so that the judgment of God will cease (20:7, 17). Abimelech reveals in 20:16
that there was also a payment of silver, which was designed to reconcile the
parties. 32
This story emphasizes once again Abraham’s role as mediator of Yahweh’s
forgiveness, even if his imperfections are clear to all. 33 Here, judgment falls
29. Of course, the appellation “righteous” here is a status that Lot was afforded by his
connection to Abraham. Lot’s attraction to the Canaanites and their cities suggests that he
lacks the integrity of Abraham and explains why he is constantly in need of Abraham’s inter-
vention (see also Genesis 14).
30. Again, see Bruckner (2001: 171–98) for reflection on the legal referents behind this
narrative. He notes the oddity of this passage in that first God arraigns Abimelech, who
claims his innocence (20:8–10), and then Abimelech arraigns Abraham, who admits and jus-
tifies his guilt (20:11–13).
31. Abimelech extends the vocabulary slightly, claiming he was “innocent/righteous”
(qyDix)" , it was “in the integrity of my heart” (ybIb:l}Aμt:B)} and “the innocence of my hands” (ˆyoqinib}
yP"K;" 20:5).
32. Bruckner (2001: 182) notes the legal terminology in 20:14, in particular the combina-
tion of the verbs “return” (bwv Hiphil) and “give” (ˆtn) (cf. Gen 40:13; Lev 6:4, 25:27; Num
35:25; Deut 22:22; Judg 11:13, 17:3). Many questions have been raised about the purpose of
Abimelech’s payment, because he is exonerated in the story. For various solutions to this, see
Bruckner (2001: 187–92). However, it appears that, whether he liked it or not, Abimelech had
become mixed up in an affair that rendered him vulnerable before God, and so this kind of
payment may have been intended to clear him of this guilt.
33. The contrast between the innocent Abimelech and guilty Abraham is stark in this pas-
sage, reminding the reader, as Brueggemann (1982b: 178) has so aptly noted, that Abraham
is chosen and used by God’s grace.
28 Chapter 2
on a family because of an unknown sin, caused by the folly of another. In this

story, Yahweh is depicted as prohibiting an individual from engaging in un-
known sinful behavior, but Yahweh still holds his family responsible for the
sin. A clear process for obtaining forgiveness is articulated, however, a process
that includes practical change of behavior, which entails restitution (return-
ing Sarah and paying silver) followed by intercession by a prophet to secure
the forgiveness of God.
Abraham’s folly in Genesis 20 is evidence that the narrator is concerned to
show the reality of his humanity. This is typical throughout the Old Testa-
ment, where the narrators show that the “characters are adamantly earthly
creatures” who are “far from being cardboard stereotypes of moral virtue—or
vice.” 34 In the story of Abimelech and in other like stories (Gen 12:10–20),
Abraham’s fear “jeopardizes the divine promise and brings misfortune upon
his host” (Moberly 1992: 26). A similar pattern will reappear in the story of
Isaac in Genesis 26. Abraham’s lack of faith leads to the Hagar-Ishmael deba-
cle in Genesis 16 that again threatens the divine promise. There is divine
grace in these events, but they nevertheless result in painful consequences for
the family and complicate the fulfillment of Yahweh’s plan for Abraham and
the nations.
The Account of Isaac (25:19–35:29)

The account of Terah ends in 25:11 and, after the inclusion of the short ac-
count of Ishmael (25:12–18), the book shifts to the much longer account of
Isaac. As has been the trend throughout the book, the account is focused
more on the offspring of the one named, in this case, on Esau and Jacob.
There is little need to rehearse the famous stories of sibling rivalry between
Esau and Jacob. It is sufficient to say that Esau is depicted as a foolish charac-
ter who despises (hzb) his birthright for pottage and brings great grief to his
parents by marrying Canaanite women (Gen 26:34–35, 27:46, 28:6–9, 36:1–
8). Jacob fares little better than his brother Esau throughout most of the ac-
count of Isaac. 35 According to his twin, Jacob fulfils the potential of his name
given at birth (bqø[“ y)' because he grasped (zja) his brother’s heel (bqE[;: 25:26).
Esau exclaims that Jacob betrayed (bq[; cf. Jer 9:3) him twice, first by taking
away the birthright and then by stealing his father’s blessing (27:36). Al-
though at first betrayed (hmr Piel) by his father-in-law Laban (29:25; cf. 31:7,
llt Hiphil), true to form, Jacob is able to turn the tables on him, devising a
cunning plan to build his own flocks at Laban’s expense (30:25–43, 31:43)
and eventually leaving without informing his father-in-law. 36 Jacob’s final act
34. Mann (1988: 8). See further Wenham (2000: 109).

35. See Moberly (1992: 26), who notes, “If there is a sense of moral ambiguity about Abra-
ham, it must readily be admitted that it is as nothing compared to that which surrounds the
figure of Jacob.” Cf. Wenham (2000: 109).
36. An act of deception according to 31:20, 27: blE bng, “steal the heart of” = “deceived.”

Genesis 29
of deception is evidenced in his interactions with his brother Esau in chaps.

32–33. Not only does he send ahead gifts to pacify his brother (32:13–21), but
he blatantly lies to his brother, telling Esau that he would meet him in Seir
(33:14), while journeying instead to Shechem in Canaan (33:18).
In the midst of these final episodes of deception, Jacob is given a new name
by Yahweh, but this name is no more flattering than the first. This naming
follows his nocturnal struggle with a heavenly being in which the being real-
ized that “he had not prevailed” (lky) and so dislocated Jacob’s thigh to get
the upper hand (32:25). Jacob would not release the being, demanding that
he bless (˚rb) him (32:26). At this point, the heavenly being first asks for Ja-
cob’s name (32:27) and then changes it:
Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel (laEr;c‘y)i ; for you have striven
(hrc) with God and with humanity and have prevailed (lky). (Gen 32:28;
nasb, modified)
Jacob asks the being for his name but is answered with a question: “Why is it
that you ask my name?” Then the nameless figure blesses Jacob. 37 Jacob, the
one who grasps the heel and betrays, has now been renamed Israel, the one
who struggles with God (and humanity). More than Abraham, it is Jacob who
embodies Israel as a nation. His names reflect the struggle that is to come for
this nation chosen to bring blessing to all nations.
The story of Dinah’s rape in Genesis 34 continues the theme of the danger
of liaisons with the Canaanites who inhabit the land. After Shechem had “de-
filed” this daughter of Jacob, her brothers set out to deceive Shechem and his
father Hamor by promising them their sister if they and their men would be
circumcised. With the men in pain from their circumcision, two of Jacob’s
sons, Simeon and Levi, attacked the city and killed every male, retrieving
their sister Dinah. Jacob held this retribution against his two sons, giving
them curse instead of blessing in his final days (chap. 49). This story, as do the
earlier stories of Lot in Sodom and Abraham and Isaac with Abimelech, re-
minds the reader of the clear distinction that was to be maintained between
Israel and the surrounding nations. 38
The final depictions of Jacob, however, reveal the eventual fruit of his ear-
lier encounter with Yahweh. Gen 35:1–15 presents a Jacob who accepts God’s
invitation to go to Bethel and build an altar (35:1). The patriarch exhorts his
family to put away (rws Hiphil) their foreign gods, purify themselves (rhf
Hiphil), and change (πlj Hiphil) their garments (35:2) so that they may go to
Bethel and worship God (35:3). Though this is a positive episode, it does
nevertheless foreshadow the temptation of idolatry that Israel will face as a
nation. Here, Jacob/Israel exemplifies the penitential response that will be
37. It is important not to conflate the renaming and the blessing as do Coats (1968: 230)
and Hamilton (1995: 336). The renaming precedes the blessing.
38. See Wenham (2000: 109–19) for an extended examination of the Dinah story and the
way in which it highlights the grace of God.
30 Chapter 2
demanded of the nation in later generations. The fact that this episode is fol-
lowed immediately by an encounter between God and Jacob that echoes the
covenant ratification between God and Abraham in Genesis 17 affirms Jacob’s
behavior in Gen 35:1–8. 39 The language of “be fruitful and multiply” in 35:11
echoes the larger creational mandate and reminds us of Israel’s role to facili-
tate the fulfillment of God’s intentions for all nations.
The Account of Jacob (37:2–50:26)

After a quick review of the account of Esau (36:1–43), the narrative shifts
to the final account, that of Jacob, a section dominated by the Joseph novella.
Sibling rivalry is evident from the outset of the account, echoing similar ri-
valry between Esau and Jacob and even Rachel and Leah in the account of
Isaac (Boda 1997). In Jacob’s family, it is Joseph who is hated by his brothers
(37:4), who ultimately seek to kill him (37:18–20). Although this sin is never
carried out, they are able to rid themselves of the young brother, selling him
into slavery (37:12–36).
It is following this incident that the narrator introduces into the account
an important story about Judah. 40 Although it was bad enough that Jacob lost
his favorite son, Joseph, according to Genesis 38 Judah leaves his father’s
house and marries a Canaanite woman. The earlier experience of Esau reveals
the inappropriateness of this move, and events in the chapter confirm this
evaluation. Things go from bad to worse as Judah’s firstborn son (Er) is judged
to be “evil in the sight of the Lord” (hw;hy] yney[EB} [r', v. 7) and his second, in re-
fusing to bear offspring for his brother, is judged to be “displeasing in the
sight of the Lord” (hw;hy] yney[EB} [[r, v. 10). Both are put to death by Yahweh. This
leads to the debacle of the rest of the story, one in which Judah’s refusal to
give Tamar to his thirdborn, Shelah, leads her in desperation to sleep with her
father-in-law and so continue his line through her. Judah’s handling of the af-
fair reveals the kind of justice that exists within the clan unit, as he calls for
her to be burnt to death (38:24) but then ultimately exonerates her with this
declaration: “She is more righteous (qdx) than I” (38:26). This account reveals
divine displeasure with sin and the severity of judgment against those who
39. This event appears to be distinct from the name change that occurred in conjunction
with the nocturnal struggle in Genesis 32; see Hamilton (1995: 380). For the connections to
Genesis 17, see especially Westermann (1985: 552).
40. Even though Genesis 38 has been considered by many to be a later redactional inser-
tion, one can discern in it the narrative technique of resumptive repetition, which allows a
story simultaneous to the main storyline to be told. By inserting similar terminology imme-
diately before and after the simultaneous story (see 37:36 and 39:1), the narrator is able to
bring another event that is related to the main storyline into the foreground. This technique
highlights the way in which Joseph functions with a divine purpose to save the rest of the
family from the disaster, exemplified by Judah. I thank Marina Hofman for conversations
over this important episode in Genesis; see Hofman (2007).
Genesis 31
are deemed evil in the sight of Yahweh. Embedded within the story of Joseph,
these events reveal the way in which Joseph’s suffering will ultimately work
out for good, to deliver Israel ( Jacob and his family) from being sucked into
Canaanite culture, destined for destruction. This story continues the leit-
motif, developed in the earlier accounts of Terah and Isaac, of the danger of
liaisons between Israel and the Canaanites.
The Joseph novella traces the ebb and flow of the fortunes of Joseph, re-
vealing how God’s presence accompanied him (39:2, 21, 23), giving him suc-
cess (jlx Hiphil; 39:2, 23) and blessing (˚rb Piel) those for whom he worked
(39:5), as he slowly made his way to the Pharaoh’s court. Joseph is put for-
ward as an exemplary character, eschewing the advances of Potiphar’s wife. In
Joseph’s eyes, to sleep with her would be to commit a great evil (hl:døG]h" h[:r;h):
and to sin (afj) against God. This interconnection between sin against hu-
manity and sin against God will find expression elsewhere in the Old Testa-
ment (see Psalm 51).
As they ignorantly face Joseph’s trickery, the brothers consistently voice a
theology of retribution. When imprisoned as spies during their visit to Egypt,
they declare that this is linked to their guilt (μv´á): over their treatment of their
brother, whose distress has now come upon them (42:21). Reuben scolds them
in 42:22: “Did I not tell you, ‘Do not sin (afj) against the boy,’ and you would
not listen? Now comes the reckoning (vrd Niphal) for his blood.” Later, when
they find money in their sacks, they ask “What is this that God has done to
us?” (42:28). When a cup is found among their sacks in a later visit, Judah rec-
ognizes divine retribution when he declares, “God has found out the iniquity
of your servants” (44:16).
The Joseph novella concludes with the powerful scene of remorse by
Joseph’s brothers after the death of their father (Gen 50:15–21). Fearful that
Joseph will repay them for their earlier abuse (50:15), they send a message ut-
tered by their father on his deathbed that encourages Joseph to forgive (acn)
the transgression ([væp<) and sin (taF:j") of his brothers (50:16–17). Joseph’s
reply in 50:20 echoes his earlier statement to them in 45:5, this time noting
that, although they meant evil (h[:r;) against him, God meant it for good
(hb:/f), in order to “preserve many people alive” (50:20), expressed in 45:7–8
as “to preserve for you a remnant in the earth and to keep you alive by a great
deliverance.” Joseph sees, even in human sin, the opportunity for divine
providence. On the surface, this preservation of a remnant is related to the
famine that ravaged Canaan and threatened the survival of vulnerable
“Israel,” but, in the broader context of the Joseph novella and the story of
Judah’s disastrous liaison with the Canaanites in Genesis 38, this preservation
of a remnant is related to the provision of a haven for Israel outside the land
of Canaan. It is not surprising that twice in the Joseph novella one finds the
principle that Hebrew shepherds were loathsome to the Egyptians (43:32,
46:34). In the land of Egypt, they found provision for their physical needs and
a place to preserve the purity of their family line.
32 Chapter 2
Although Joseph’s perspective on the incident is healthy, there are legiti-

mate reasons for questioning the authenticity of the brother’s remorse, as well
as the authenticity of their quotation of the instructions of their father
(50:16–17). 41 Although appearing to highlight the importance of confession
for receiving forgiveness for sin, the narrator rejects a pattern of human retri-
bution for sinful behavior and places the accent on the grace of the offended
party.
Summary
The book of Genesis provides a description of the fundamental cause and
universal extent of human sinfulness and links the remedy of this dilemma to
the emergence of Israel within the world. Sin spoils the idyllic conditions of
the garden created by God for fellowship with humanity. 42 Having broken
God’s command, humans experience shame, divine judgment, and estrange-
ment as they are banished from the garden. Throughout Genesis 1–11, sin is
described as violating God’s command (chaps. 2–3), disobeying God’s creation
mandate to fill the earth (Genesis 11) and exercise dominion (Genesis 3), seek-
ing to become like God (Genesis 3), and murdering (Genesis 4, 9:46). At first,
sin is described as an external condition that must be mastered (Genesis 4),
but soon it invades humanity’s inner being resulting in an earth filled with
violence (Genesis 6). Although humanity is eliminated, this internal condi-
tion is not eradicated according to Gen 8:21. This depravity is illustrated in
the actions of Ham immediately after the flood (Genesis 9) as well as in the
inhabitants of the plain of Shinar (Genesis 11). Sin brings shame (Genesis 2–
3), discord between human and animal as well as male and female (Genesis 3),
and the death of fellow humanity (Genesis 4).
God regularly remedies sin throughout Genesis 1–11 through judgment
first declared through his word and then delivered through his action. This
judgment is in the form of estrangement from God’s presence (Genesis 3, 4),
prohibition of eternal life (Genesis 3), difficulty in fulfilling the creation man-
date (Genesis 3, 4), death (Genesis 6–7), and frustration of human plans
(Genesis 11).
Forgiveness is largely absent from Genesis 1–11. In some cases, one can dis-
cern mitigation of punishment, whether this is in delaying a sentence (Gene-
sis 3, 6), protecting the guilty (Genesis 4), or preserving a remnant (Genesis 6–
9). God treats the human couple mercifully by providing clothing to cover
their shame, even though he does announce a curse against them. Forgiveness
41. The narrator could have provided the appropriate citation in his account of the death
of Jacob in Gen 49:29–33 to back up the brothers’ story, but does not do this. Their lack of
sincerity is evident in the words of Judah to Joseph in 44:20 and, according to Coats (1983:
291, 312), is a regular motif in the Joseph novella (see 37:31–32, 43:3–5); cf. Alter (2004: 294).
42. In this, I am contrasting Barr (1993), who reads the story of the garden of Eden in
terms of the loss of immortality, rather than in terms of the loss of innocence.
Genesis 33
is offered in one case, to Cain who is told to “do well” and master sin, but this
command is promptly rejected (Genesis 4). God originally blesses humans
and commands them to multiply on the earth and rule over it (Genesis 1), and
after the flood this command is enshrined in a covenant that articulates the
relationship between God and humans and protects the blood of both animal
and human by instituting the lex talionis.
Hope is related to God’s promise and provision of a seed to the woman, a
seed that would defeat the seed of the serpent, and this seed is soon revealed
as the line of Seth, which calls on the name of the Lord (Genesis 4), walks
with God (Genesis 5, 6), and is righteous and blameless (Genesis 6). After
Noah, this line continues through his son Shem (Genesis 10–11).
These principles of sin, judgment, forgiveness, and hope lay the founda-
tion for the rest of the book of Genesis. As hope has been attached to the pro-
vision of the seed of a woman, so the book traces this line through Noah to
Shem and ultimately to Terah. It is Terah’s son Abram/Abraham, one who also
is righteous, blameless, and walks with God (Genesis 15, 17), who will receive
a revelation that God will bless the nations through him and his descendants
(Genesis 12).
If the primaeval blessing is interpreted in its narrative context, then it shows
that God’s particular blessing to Israel is the means through which his inten-
tion for creation—thwarted by sin and divine judgment in the primaeval his-
tory, but preserved by grace—will be restored to the world. When the
blessing to the nations is fully carried out, then they, like Abraham’s prog-
eny, will receive divine grace instead of judgment. The particular blessing
progresses by means of a divine promise, from Noah to Israel, but it is not
for Israel’s sake alone, but for the sake of the world. (Kaminski 2004: 145–46)
Abraham foreshadows the mediation of God’s blessing, including grace and
forgiveness, in the events of Genesis 18–20, as he pleads for Sodom and inter-
cedes for Abimelech. Key principles related to sin and its remedy are devel-
oped in these chapters, revealing that God may pardon a wicked city because
of the presence of the righteous, the first sign of an intragenerational prin-
ciple related to sin and righteousness in the Old Testament. Abraham is called
upon to play a mediatorial role in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as well
as in the story of Abimelech. This latter story identifies the importance of re-
pentance, intercession, and restitution for dealing with guilt.
As does Noah, Abraham enters into covenant with God, which is an ex-
pression of God’s grace but which also entails the response of the cove-
nant partner, including faith (Genesis 15) and faithfulness (Genesis 17, 22).
This promise and covenant is repeated to his son Isaac (Genesis 26) and then
to his grandson Jacob (Genesis 35). Jacob’s call to his family to put away
their idols and worship at Bethel (Genesis 35) reveals the normative response
of this line, which was to bring blessing to the world.
These characters, however, are not sinless, illustrating the enduring reality
of the human condition announced by God in Genesis 6 and 8. At times,
34 Chapter 2
Abraham and Isaac fail to believe and even lie, threatening the divine prom-
ises. Even worse is Jacob, namesake of the nation, whose birth ( Jacob) and
given (Israel) names reflect the reality of human rebellion against God.
Abraham’s and Isaac’s endangerment of Sarah and Rebekah in the harems
of Pharaoh and Abimelech (Genesis 12, 20, 26), Esau’s marriage to Canaanite
women (Genesis 26, 27, 28, 36), Simeon’s and Levi’s vengeful destruction of
Shechem for the violation of Dinah (Genesis 34), and Judah’s foolish liaison
with the Canaanites (Genesis 38), reveal the presence of another line that
threatens to destroy the redemptive seed of Israel. Preservation of this seed is
fostered by finding wives outside Canaan and ultimately secured through a
sojourn in Egypt (Genesis 43, 46).
Genesis is thus an essential introduction to the Torah in particular and the
Old Testament in general. One of its key strategies is “to catch the reader up
into a universal frame of reference” (Fretheim 1996: 44). The book links Israel’s
identity and destiny to the human condition of sin and human need for a
remedy. Through Israel, God will bring blessing to all nations, which includes
the return to fellowship with God, enjoyment of his creational blessings, and
fulfillment of his creational mandate. The rest of the Old Testament is thus a
revelation of God’s plan for forgiveness and Israel’s response, a response on
which the fate of the nations depends.
Chapter 3
Exodus
The covenant ratification in Genesis 17 highlights the three key promises

that Yahweh made to Abram: seed (nation), relationship (covenant), and land
(see Clines 1978). The books of Exodus–Deuteronomy provide the initial evi-
dence of God’s fulfillment of these promises. At the outset of Exodus, it is
clear that the promise of seed has been fulfilled, for Abraham’s seed had be-
come “exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them” (Exod 1:7).
In the latter part of Exodus through Leviticus, the focus shifts to the promise
that Yahweh would establish a covenant with this nation. The census at the
outset of the book of Numbers signals the beginning of a transition to the
third promise, as the people prepare to leave Sinai to possess the land. Num-
bers, however, depicts the failed fulfillment of the third promise, as they turn
back at Kadesh (Numbers 13–14). The book of Deuteronomy is set on the bor-
der of the land as Moses commissions the nation to enter it.
The book of Exodus can be divided into three basic sections. 1 The first 15
chapters are focused on God’s deliverance of Israel from slavery in Egypt as he
raises up Moses, battles Pharaoh, and finally miraculously saves Israel by part-
ing the sea. 2 Exod 15:22–18:27 is a transitional section as the people begin
their journey in the wilderness from Egypt to Sinai (see further on this in the
discussion of Numbers below, pp. 86–96). The remainder of the book (Exodus
19–40) is focused on Israel’s experience at Sinai as they make covenant with
1. For the literary integrity of Exodus, see Sarna (1992: 2:690); see M. Smith (1996: 31) for
1:1–7 and 40:36–38 as prologue and epilogue of Exodus. See Hauge (2001: 22) for spatial con-
trast between Exodus 19–40 “from the mountain” and Lev 1:1 “from the tent.” There has
been much discussion on the overall structure of Exodus (see esp. M. Smith 1996: 29–31;
Propp 1999: 37–38). Many see Exod 15:21 as the key turning point in the book and some in-
clude all of Exod 15:1–20 in this transition; cf. Watts (1992a: 48–49); M. Smith (1996: 30, 39);
W. Propp (1999). Others see Exodus 19 as the key transition point, e.g., Greenberg (1969: 3).
It appears that 19:1–2 is a key literary signal in the book (and in the Torah as a whole) and
so also is 15:21, but any scheme that divides the book at these points ignores the transitional
role of 15:22–18:27; see Fokkelman (1987: 57–58). Notice also the double commissions of
Moses in chaps. 1–15 (2:23–6:1, 6:2–7:7) and the double covenants of Israel in chaps. 19–40
(19:1–24:18; chap. 34); cf. Clifford (1990: 45); M. Smith (1996).
2. See W. Propp (1999: 32–34) for the presence of a modified form of the basic narrative
template in Exodus 1–15, “the heroic adventure story,” as per V. Propp (1968). After chap. 15,
this template comes to an end.
- 35 -
36 Chapter 3
Yahweh (Exodus 19–24) and prepare for Yahweh’s entrance into the camp
(Exodus 25–40), a goal that is reached by the end of the book (Exodus 40). 3
Exodus 1–15
The initial section of the book of Exodus focuses on the evil of the Egyp-
tian pharaoh as he oppresses the Israelites and opposes their release. The
account of the plagues not only functions within the broader salvation tradi-
tion of the exodus but also provides initial insights into Moses’ role within
the Torah. Throughout the account of the plagues, Moses functions as a pro-
phetic figure, delivering the word of Yahweh to Pharaoh (“let my people go”)
accompanied by signs and wonders (plagues). As a prophetic figure, he also
delivers the word of Pharaoh to Yahweh, acting as an intercessor who asks
Yahweh to remove the plagues (Exod 8:8–9, 28–31; 9:28; 10:16–17). 4 It is in
this battle between Yahweh’s command and Pharaoh’s disobedience that one
finds the most explicit language connected to sin and its remedy, interest-
ingly, on the lips of Pharaoh. After the plague of hail, Pharaoh summons
Moses and admits, “I have sinned,” that is, “the Lord is the righteous one,
and I and my people are the wicked ones” (9:27). Pharaoh declares his will-
ingness to let the people go (9:28), even though Moses denies that Pharaoh
and his court fear Yahweh (9:30). Clearly, the genuineness of Pharaoh’s con-
fession is explicitly questioned in the narrative itself. Here, we see an admis-
sion of culpability by Pharaoh, suggesting a rhythm that is key to the restora-
tion of relationship with an offended party, but discover that this is not
equated with true renewal.
This encounter between Pharaoh and Yahweh is typical of the depiction of
the Egyptian monarch throughout this section of Exodus. The narrative con-
sistently describes Pharaoh as one whose heart was hardened (qzj, dbk). The
subjects of this hardening are both Yahweh (4:21; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10;
14:4, 8, 17) and Pharaoh (7:13, 14, 22; 8:11[15], 15[19], 28[32]; 9:7, 34, 35).
Although Exod 3:19 appears to describe only the future stubbornness of
Pharaoh (“I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except un-
der compulsion”), passages such as 4:21 explicitly state that Yahweh will
harden Pharaoh’s heart. This appears then to be not merely divine foreknowl-
edge but rather divine control of future realities. 5 The development of this
larger theme suggests not only a lack of optimism over human ability to re-
3. See Hauge (2001) for the pattern of theophanic encounter episodes as indications of a
formal structure for Exodus 19–40.
4. On this prophetic role, see Miller (1994: 263) and Boda (2001: 186–97).
5. On the motif of hardening in Exodus 1–15, see especially Isbell (2002: 27–45), who
notes, “The point being emphasized throughout the narrative is that Yhwh has been in con-
trol from the outset, for even references supposedly attributing to Pharaoh the freedom to
have chosen his own hardening are quickly explained via appeal to the creating prediction
of Yhwh. In other words all references to hardening in the story agree on causality.”
Exodus 37
spond but, even more striking, an emphasis on divine superintendence over

human response. 6
The one key example regarding the covenant community in Exodus 1–15
is the odd event in 4:24–26 of Yahweh’s near execution of Moses for having
disobeyed the circumcision commandment. Interestingly, it is Moses’ wife
Zipporah who performs the rite and then touches Moses’ feet with the fore-
skin, emphasizing again the importance of mediation as a remedy for sin.
Exodus 19–40
Exodus 1–15 consistently links the exodus deliverance with the experience
of Israel at Sinai. Already in Moses’ call in Exodus 3, Yahweh informs the re-
luctant leader that “when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you
shall worship (db[) God at this mountain” (3:12). 7 This informs the demands
Moses relays from Yahweh to Pharaoh throughout the plague account: “Let
my people go, that they may serve (db[) me” (e.g., Exod 7:26[8:1], 16[20]; 9:1,
13; 10:3, 8, 11). That this “service” involves worship is suggested by 8:8,
where Pharaoh rephrases this as “I will let the people go that they may sacri-
fice (jbz) to the Lord.” This evidence shows the inseparable link between Yah-
weh’s salvific act at the Sea (exodus) and Yahweh’s revelatory covenantal act
on the Mountain (Sinai) and in the process throws considerable rhetorical
weight onto the experience described at Sinai in chaps. 19–40. This is the goal
of Exodus. 8
Exodus 19:1–24:11
Chapter 19 signals the beginning of a new section in the book of Exodus
by noting Israel’s arrival at the base of Mount Sinai (19:1–2). At this point in
the Torah, horizontal movement ceases until Numbers 10, when Israel leaves
Sinai (see below on Numbers, pp. 86–96). For the remainder of the book of Ex-
odus, all movement shifts to the vertical as Moses moves between Yahweh
and the people, until finally Yahweh descends into the camp in chap. 40. In
this introductory phase of the revelation at Sinai, Yahweh initiates the cove-
nant ceremony that was promised to Abraham in Gen 17:7 with the words “I
will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after
you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God, to
you, and to your descendants after you.” 9
6. One must be careful, however, of deriving too much from the example of Pharaoh.
This may be a special case because of the facts that Pharaoh is a non-Israelite and that these
events are linked to Yahweh’s release of his people from brutal slavery in Egypt. The harden-
ing of Pharaoh’s heart may be Yahweh’s judgment on this abusive overlord.
7. The mountain is identified in 3:1 as “Horeb, the mountain of God,” that is, Sinai.
8. On Exod 15:22–18:27, see below, pp. 86–96, on Numbers.
9. See Clines (1978). This is made most clear in Exod 6:1–8, which shows the inseparabil-
ity of the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants. Key to the Sinai covenant is the greater revelation
of the name of Yahweh, which becomes a reality in the crisis of Exodus 32–34.
spread 6 points long

38 Chapter 3
The way this covenant is to be understood, however, has been a point of

great debate. 10 Studies from the 1950s to the 1980s interpreted the concept of
covenant in light of treaties established between ancient Near Eastern elites,
whether this meant between a suzerain and his vassal or between a king and
his loyal subject. 11 More recent work on covenant in the Old Testament, how-
ever, has argued that the best context for understanding the covenant concept
is the more restricted social environment of the clan in the ancient Near East,
especially in terms of the integration of unrelated individuals into the family
unit. 12 It must be admitted that the examples of human-human covenants
in the Old Testament showcase the establishment of relationships between
clans (Gen 14:13, 31:44–55; 1 Sam 18:3, 20:8, 23:18), nations ( Joshua 9), royal
houses through marriage (1 Kgs 9:16), and a king and his people (2 Sam 3:21,
5:3; 1 Chr 11:3). Connections between the ancient Near Eastern covenant
models and covenant in the Old Testament are probably best explained by the
fact that both find their origins in clan customs in the ancient world.
Covenant is best understood as “an elected as opposed to natural, relation-
ship of obligation established under divine sanction” (Hugenberger 1994:
171). At Sinai, Yahweh takes the initiative and is clearly the superior partner.
The covenant is bilateral, however, because Israel’s response is necessary. Es-
sential to this response is ritual ceremony, which accompanies the establish-
ment of covenant throughout the Old Testament and the ancient world. The
agreements of the covenant (whether oral or written) were certainly impor-
tant, but these were not in force without a ritual ceremony in which the cove-
nant was declared and accepted by the parties in the presence of witnesses
(see Haran 1997). Exodus 19–24 thus reflects a covenant ceremony the ritual
of which brought into force the covenant between Yahweh and the nation as
promised to Abraham. 13
Through their representative, Moses, God first invites the people into cove-
nant relationship in 19:4–6. The invitation begins with reference to Yahweh’s
redemptive act of releasing Israel from Egypt and bringing them to himself.
With the phrase “now then” (hT:["w)] , Yahweh invites them into covenant rela-
tionship: “If you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant,” followed
10. For a review of recent trends in scholarship, see Hahn (2005), and see recent reflec-
tions in the volume of Mayes and Salters (2003).
11. Mendenhall (1955); Kline (1963); McCarthy (1963; 1978); Weinfeld (1970); Hyatt
(1971: 197–98); Kalluveettil (1982); W. Propp (2006: 301–2). There were those who rejected
this approach to covenant; see especially Patrick (1985); and Nicholson (1986).
12. See Hugenberger (1994); Cross (1998b); Sohn (1999); McKenzie (2000a).
13. See Polak (2004), who notes a pattern in ancient Near Eastern covenant ratifications
and Exod 19:1–24:11 (1) terms given by the superior covenant partner are announced, often
by a mediator (see Exod 19:3–7; 20:1–23:33; 24:3a, 7a); (2) the consent of the other party is
expressed (19:8; 24:3b, 7b; and (3) a bilocal ratification process ensues: covenant-making rit-
uals are performed, first in one person’s territory, then in the other’s (see Exod 24:4–8, 9–11);
cf. Hahn (2005).
Exodus 39
by the promise that they will then “be my own possession among all the
peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests
and a holy nation.” Yahweh’s act of grace (the exodus) is the foundation for
his invitation to obedience (obey my voice and keep my covenant), which is
the basis for Israel’s status as God’s possession and role as “a kingdom of
priests” and “a holy nation.” Israel is to be set apart for Yahweh’s purposes
and is to play a priestly role among the nations. 14
Moses relays these words to the people (19:7) and their response is eager
compliance: “All that the Lord has spoken we will do!” (19:8). The people,
however, are given careful instructions that will make possible this encounter
between holy God and unholy nation (19:9–13), and these instructions are
carried out by Moses (19:14–15). When Yahweh appears at the promised time,
the text consistently emphasizes the danger of God’s fearful and dangerous
presence (19:16–25).
What follows represents the heart of the Sinai covenant between Yahweh
and Israel. Exod 20:1–17 (the Decalogue) echoes the speech already given to
the people through Moses in 19:4–6, beginning with the reminder that Yah-
weh had saved them from Egypt (20:2) followed by the invitation to obedi-
ence (20:3–17), traditionally called the Ten Commandments. 15 The majority
of these commands are constructed in negative form, warning the people to
avoid violation of the covenant relationship, whether in matters related to
Yahweh (20:3–7) or in matters related to fellow humanity (20:12–17), with the
Sabbath command lying at the juncture between these two realms (20:8–11).
So overwhelmed are the people by the experience of hearing God’s voice
from the mountain (20:18) that they urge Moses to act as their mediator, re-
laying the words of God to them lest they die (20:19). Moses, however, re-
minds them that the experience of hearing God’s voice directly was designed
to create in them “the fear of God” in order “that you may not sin” (20:20).
Here it is human experience of the awesome voice of Yahweh that is identified
as a remedy for sin, but the people are reticent, and so Moses assumes the role
of mediator, entering into God’s presence (20:21).
14. See Dozeman (1989: 141–42) who notes, “Israel’s unique status is redefined hierarchi-
cally, so that their promised exclusive relationship with Yahweh as his ‘personal possession’
becomes the qualitatively different relationship that the people will have with God in con-
trast to the other nations—as a priest would have in the role of mediation.” This “priestly vi-
sion of Israel” is “within the larger context of Yahweh’s universal rule.” Notice Yahweh’s
reference to this broader context of the nations: “among all the peoples” and “all the earth
is mine.” See further Wright (2006).
15. At the end of the golden calf incident in chaps. 32–34, Yahweh renews covenant with
Israel. At that time, according to 34:1, 28b, the Decalogue was rewritten on stone tablets to
replace the tablets Moses had smashed in chap. 32. See especially Moberly (1983: 101–5),
who shows that the list of laws in 34:11–26 is not what is written on the stone tablets in
34:28b.
40 Chapter 3
What follows in 20:22–23:33 is an initial installment of laws, the Book of

the Covenant, the bulk of which are moral laws (21:1–23:9) but around and
within which are placed laws related to worship (20:22–26, 23:10–19). 16
These function “as a commentary on the Decalog” (W. Propp 2006: 305) and
establish various penalties for violation of the laws that range from death
(21:12–17) to punishment (21:20) to compensation (21:18–19, 33–34). Exod
21:23–25 articulates the core principle of lex talionis: “life for life, eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for
wound, bruise for bruise.” Penalties of this sort attached to the legal code are
designed to deal with the sin of the people through a system of justice. 17
Chapter 24 marks the end of the foundational covenant ceremony that be-
gan with Exodus 19, as the people declare their acceptance of the covenant
twice (“All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do,” 24:3; “All that
the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient,” 24:7) with words
reminiscent of their response to God’s initial invitation in 19:8: “All that the
Lord has spoken we will do!” The people are then sprinkled with the blood
of the covenant (24:8), an act that symbolizes the seriousness of the covenant
agreement and the fate of those who would break it but also foreshadows the
role of the mitigated punishment of sacrifice. 18 The pact is sealed through a
meal as the leaders dine in God’s presence on the mountain (24:9–11).
Exodus 24:12–40:38
It is after these ceremonies that Moses is invited up onto the mountain to
receive revelation from Yahweh related to the tabernacle. 19 This is signaled by
the statement in 25:8: “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will
dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like
16. At its heart is a series of casuistic laws; see W. Propp (2006: 304–5).
17. I am well aware of the recent shift away from treating the various legal codes within
the Torah as evidence of the development of ancient Israel’s legal practices having legislative
force to treating them as scribal-literary compositions having ideological purposes, possibly
related to theological expression (Douglas 1999: 18), religious reform (Levinson 1997: 16, 27,
93, 124), and/or moral wisdom (Weinfeld 1972: 244–319; Fitzpatrick-McKinley 1999; Jackson
2006). See further Westbrook (1985, 1994); Patrick (1989); Levinson (1994, 2008); Stackert
(2007). Because the present work adopts a canonical hermeneutic, I am most interested in
the world created by the text itself, which presupposes that the various legal codes have leg-
islative force (e.g., Exod 21:1, 24:3; Lev 26:46, 27:34; Deut 4:1–14), as is, for example, Fish-
bane (1985), who notes that “the internal traditions of the Hebrew Bible present and regard
the covenantal laws as legislative texts” (p. 96), even if he later admits that legal exegesis
“may also have been stimulated by a developing legal scholasticism, one which studied the
received laws independently of practical cases” (p. 165). Thanks to Jonathan Vroom for re-
search and rich conversation on this topic; see Vroom (2009) and Vroom and Boda (2009).
18. See W. Propp (2006: 308–9), who notes the use of a ritual involving the severing of
animals (Genesis 15; Jer 34:12–22) to signify the fate of the covenant violator. “Initiation rit-
uals generally feature an inflicted trauma, real or symbolic, that symbolizes the candidate’s
death. . . . In Exodus 24, the people are literally bloodied, thus symbolically injured.”
19. M. Smith (1996: 48) cautions against separating chaps. 19–24 from what follows, but
there is clearly a transition at this point in the larger scheme of chaps. 19–40.

Exodus 41
the pattern I will show you” (tniv). The remainder of the book comprises the
revelation of the pattern for the tabernacle (chaps. 25–31) and then the ac-
count of the construction of the tabernacle (chaps. 35–40). The fulfillment of
this work is indicated in 40:34–38 when the glory of Yahweh fills the taber-
nacle. 20 The God who saved Israel from Egypt and whose presence so over-
whelmed the people at the outset of the Sinai experience is able to dwell
among the people at the center of the camp through the tabernacle. From this
tabernacle, Yahweh will reveal the bulk of the Levitical law found in Lev 1:1–
Num 10:10.
At the center of this tabernacle literary complex, however, one finds an
event that nearly brings an end to the nation and any hope of God’s pres-
ence in its midst (chaps. 32–34). While Moses is on the mountain receiving
the plans for a sanctuary that will make possible God’s presence among Is-
rael, the people in the valley below are abandoning Moses and Yahweh
through false worship. 21 Although the people twice confirmed their willing-
ness to obey Yahweh in chap. 24, Moses’ 40-day-and-night sojourn outlasted
their patience. Yahweh reveals to Moses that “they have been quick to turn
away (rws) from the way which I have commanded them” (32:8, my transla-
tion) and that “they are an obstinate people” (32:9).
Yahweh’s designation of Israel to Moses as “your people, whom you
brought up from the land of Egypt” (32:7) is the first indication of Yahweh’s
rejection of the people for their behavior (Moberly 1983: 49). This becomes
clear in 32:10 as Yahweh announces his intention to destroy them and build
a nation through Moses (32:10). 22 Moses’ response, however, is to intercede
20. Propp (1999: 36) suggests that dwbb/dbk is a key motif throughout Exodus beginning
with Moses’ “heavy” mouth (4:10) and arms (17:12), Pharaoh’s “firmness” of heart (7:14;
8:11, 28; 9:7, 34; 10:1), Israel’s “heavy” labor (5:9), moving to God’s judgment with “heavy”
plagues (8:20; 9:3, 18, 24; 10:14) in order to “glorify” himself over Pharaoh (14:4, 7, 18) and
culminating in the descent of God’s “glory” on Sinai and the tabernacle (19:16; 24:16–17;
29:43; 33:18, 22; 40:34–38; cf. 16:7, 10). With 24:12–18, Dozeman (1989: 127–33, here 132–
33) notes a progression in the passages that speak of the glory of God in Exod 19:18, 20–25;
24:15b–18a; 29:43; 40:34–35 (cf. Lev 9:6, 23). “Thus, the appearance of the Kabod Yahweh
throughout the priestly legislation is a gradual process of descent from the summit of Mount
Sinai through the Tabernacle into the midst of the people of Israel.” The function of the
glory then shifts “from providing a boundary between Yahweh and the people to represent-
ing the presence of God in the midst of the people.” Cf. Polak (1996) for the key role of “the-
ophany” throughout the book.
21. Moberly (1983: 46) notes evidence that the “gods” were to replace Moses and mediate
Yahweh’s presence. The parallel structure of 32:1, 4 reveals how the “gods” were in contrast
to Moses, “a rival means of mediating Yahweh’s presence to the people.” The naming of
them as “gods” and reference to a “festival of Yahweh” (v. 5) shows that they were to be “a
real embodiment of the divine presence.” Cf. Polak (1996): “The people opt for the perma-
nent presence of an artifact that has nothing divine, and a mediator who translates their
wish into cultic terms.”
22. Moberly (1983: 50) wisely notes the affinity between Yahweh’s promise to build a na-
tion through Moses in v. 10 and his promise to Abraham in Gen 12:1–3. Yahweh’s announce-
ment of judgment here is akin to his judgment addressed to Abraham in Gen 18:16–33,
42 Chapter 3
on the people’s behalf, telling Yahweh that they are rather “your people
whom you have brought out from the land of Egypt” (32:11; Moberly 1983:
50). In what follows, Moses functions as “a shield of prayer seeking to avert
divine wrath” by uttering the first of four key prayers that punctuate chaps.
32–34 (Miller 1994: 270).
In his first prayer (32:11–13), Moses appeals to God’s honor among the na-
tions (32:11–12) and to his longstanding relationship with the nation of Israel
(32:13). This intercession prompts God to relent (μjn; 32:14). Moses descends
(32:15–19), regains control over the camp, and initiates judgment (32:20–29)
before returning to the presence of God to intercede on behalf of the people
in order to “make atonement” (rpk Piel) for their sin (32:30).
This second plea in 32:31–32 includes admission of the gravity of the sin
(“Alas, this people has committed a great sin, and they have made a god of
gold for themselves”) followed by the plea for mercy (“But now, if you will,
forgive [avn] their sin”) strengthened by Moses’ willingness to be blotted out
of the book. Yahweh responds by indicating that the people will indeed be led
into the promised land (v. 34a), but this “forgiveness” does not eliminate the
punishment of the offending generation (“whoever has sinned against me, I
will blot out of my book,” v. 33). Yahweh’s judgment breaks out in 32:35 as a
plague strikes the people, but the people are not destroyed completely. God’s
forgiveness involves what is called “mitigated punishment,” 23 that is, the
people are given less than their sins deserve but are still punished. The nation
will survive and will enter the land, but there will be punishment for those
who have violated God’s first commandment.
It is clear that Yahweh has a plan for the people to continue to the prom-
ised land, one that will involve his “angel” going before him (cf. 33:1–3). This
substitution of the “angel” for Yahweh for the journey deeply disturbs the
people, who, along with Moses, “mourn” (lba Hithpael) 24 when they hear
inciting a mediatorial figure to intercede on behalf of others (see the discussion of Genesis
above, pp. 25–28, 33).
23. Sklar (2005: 84–100, 184). Moberly (1983: 58) wisely warns, “It is important not to
impose an alien or anachronistic understanding of forgiveness upon the text.”
24. This kind of mourning is often related to the death of someone (1 Sam 6:19, 15:35,
16:1; 2 Sam 14:2, 19:2; 1 Chr 7:22; 2 Chr 35:24), thus it is over a severe loss: a seller’s loss
(Ezek 7:12), a king’s defeat (Ezek 7:27); or a defeat of Jerusalem (Isa 66:10, Neh 1:4; the latter
also relates to fasting and repentance). It is also used for seeking understanding humbly (Dan
10:2); response to disobedience to words of the Law (Neh 8:9); and unfaithfulness of exiles
(Ezra 10:6, related to repentance prayer). The mourning in Exod 33:4 is mourning not over
their sin but rather over God’s refusal to go with them (cf. Num 14:39), and the removal of
their ornaments is an expression of this grief and/or a sign of God’s judgment as Israel who
despoiled (lxn) the Egyptians (Exod 3:22, 12:36) is now despoiled (lxn, 33:6). See especially
Moberly (1983: 60-61); Durham (1987: 437); contra Hauge (2001: 77 n. 121); Widmer (2004:
144); Propp (2006: 598).
Exodus 43
these words (33:4, 12–17). 25 It is once again Moses’ intercession, now in an

extended dialogue with Yahweh in 33:12–23, that restores the relationship be-
tween Israel and God as Moses secures Yahweh’s personal presence on the
journey (33:17) and a renewal of covenant (33:18–34:35). 26
At the heart of this renewal of covenant is the revelation of Yahweh’s name
to Moses, and it is this name that explains Yahweh’s response to sin through-
out Exodus 32–33 and beyond. Exod 34:5 depicts Yahweh descending in the
cloud to a place where Moses was standing with him and could call upon Yah-
weh’s name, a phrase often associated with worshiping or praying to Yahweh
(Gen 4:26, 21:33, 26:25; 2 Kgs 5:11). 27 What follows then in 34:6–7 is in re-
sponse to the prayer of this chosen mediator.
It is interesting how the character creed found in Exod 34:6–7 revises and
reverses the order of the attributes proclaimed by Yahweh in the Decalogue in
Exod 20:5–6, as table 3.1 illustrates. 28
Table 3.1. The Character of Yahweh

Exod 20:5–6 Exod 34:6–7
I, the Lord your God, The Lord, the Lord God,
am a jealous God, visiting the compassionate and gracious, slow to
iniquity of parents on the anger and abounding in covenant
children, on the third and the loyalty and faithfulness; who keeps
fourth generations of those who covenant loyalty for thousands,
hate me, who forgives iniquity, transgression
and sin;
but showing covenant loyalty to yet he will by no means leave the guilty
thousands, to those who love me unpunished, visiting the iniquity of
and keep my commandments. parents on the children and on the
grandchildren to the third and
fourth generations.
One key revision is the loss of the phrase “to those who love me and keep my
commandments,” a change that takes the emphasis off of Israel’s ability to
25. Widmer (2004: 140) suggests that the mention of the angel of Yahweh is here related
to a replacement for Moses, not Yahweh. However, it appears from the context that Moses is
more concerned with the presence of Yahweh, not with his own status.
26. The renewal of covenant is clearly signaled by Yahweh’s instruction for Moses to cre-
ate two stone tablets in 34:1 and confirmed by Yahweh’s declaration in 34:10: “I am going to
make a covenant with you”; cf. Widmer (2004: 169).
27. Widmer (2004: 170–71) notes that the instruction of Yahweh to Moses in 33:21 and
34:2 was to “place himself with Yhwh,” using the root bxn Niphal. In 34:5, an ambiguous
subject “stands” (bxy Hithpael) and then “calls upon the name of the Lord.”
28. See on this Moberly (1983: 87–88) and Widmer (2004: 185).
44 Chapter 3
respond to God’s covenant demands (Moberly 1983: 88). Even more signifi-
cant is the reversal in the presentation of God’s character. In this “there is a
radical shift from an emphasis on divine jealousy to an emphasis on divine
mercy, grace, and loyalty without denying justice” (Widmer 2004: 185). Yah-
weh’s declaration in Exodus 34 emphasizes the first order of his character as
mercy and grace: “the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger,
abounding in covenant loyalty and faithfulness, maintaining love to thou-
sands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.” Within this first order,
the characteristics listed in 34:6 express “his rudimentary nature,” while the
four participles in 34:7 “unfold more concretely how His nature bears upon
His relationship with Israel,” so that “verse 6 contains attributes of Yhwh’s na-
ture (Wesenseigenschaften), whereas verse 7 explains the divine acts resulting
from His nature (Handlungsweisen)” (Widmer 2004: 189).
The merciful grace of God (“compassionate” and “gracious”) is expressed
through the Hebrew terms μWjr' and ˆWnj", terms that nearly always occur to-
gether and in reference to God’s character. In Ps 78:38 and Neh 9:17, 31, μWjr'
and ˆWnj" contrast forsaking, destroying, and expressing anger and wrath and
are closely linked to forgiving iniquity, as seen in Exod 34:6–7. 29 The third
core aspect of God’s character is that he is “slow to anger,” or better, “long of
anger” (μyiP"a" Ër,a)< , which means that it takes a long time for him to get to the
point of anger, emphasizing his patience with his people. The final aspect is
also a phrase: “abounding in covenant loyalty and faithfulness.” Here we find
the key Hebrew term “covenant loyalty” (ds<j)< and its related term “faithful-
ness” (tm<a)< , which refer to the loyal and enduring relationship of those who
enter into covenant relationship (Sakenfeld 1978, 1985). An act described as
ds<j< in the Old Testament is “a beneficent action performed, in the context of
a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties, by one
who is able to help him- or herself” (Clark 1993: 267). God as divine partici-
29. One of the challenges of past studies on these words is that there has been a blurring
of the semantic boundaries between various words supposedly related to a common root. For
instance, nuances of nouns such as μj<r, (“womb”) or μymIj“r' (“compassion,” esp. its use in
1 Kgs 3:26 and Gen 43:30) or the adjective ynim:j“r' (“compassionate”; see Lam 4:10) or the verb
μjr have been leveraged for understanding the adjective μWjr'. It is similar for ˆWnj". Although
it is challenging to work with these adjectives because they nearly always occur in the creedal
formula found here, this does not justify committing this lexical (root) fallacy (see Barr 1961;
Carson 1996; Baxter 2008). Trible suggested, based on an examination of the supposed root
and cognates of μWjr' (esp. μj<r), , that the term is related to “the maternal love of the deity”
(1978: 56; cf. Brueggemann 1997: 216). However, even apart from the violation of basic lexi-
cal semantic principles (notwithstanding her denial of this violation: Trible 1978: 56 n. 4),
this is not valid in light of the evidence of the use of the words. For instance, the term μymIj“r'
is used to refer to the pity of a mother for her threatened child in 1 Kgs 3:26, and it is also
used (as Trible 1978: 33–34 acknowledges) to describe Joseph’s fraternal love in Gen 43:30,
for paternal love in Ps 103:13, and for a conqueror’s change of heart toward a captive in 1 Kgs
8:50; Jer 42:11–12 (see also the lack of this mercy in Isa 13:18; Jer 6:23, 21:7, 50:42). For simi-
lar problems with ˆWnj", see Trible (1978: 57 n. 18) and literature cited there.
Exodus 45
pant in covenant abounds (br') in this quality. The first two terms in v. 6 refer
to God’s merciful and gracious character toward his people, and the last two
terms in v. 6 refer to God’s loyal and faithful character toward his people. The
first two emphasize his merciful openness to his people, and the last two his
enduring commitment to them. In between these two sets (mercy and loy-
alty) lies Yahweh’s patience, motivated by his merciful attachment to his
people and expressive of his faithful commitment.
The first two participles in 34:7 reveal the impact of these characteristics
on the action of God. Yahweh is a God who will be loyal to the enduring
covenant relationship he has established with Israel (“keeping covenant loy-
alty for thousands”). Even when his covenant partner fails him through iniq-
uity, transgression, and sin, terms built up to indicate the totality of their sin
(Widmer 2004: 189), he will forgive the community and not abandon the
covenant with his people. That this is the first order is confirmed by the fact
that, when this creed is employed elsewhere in the Hebrew tradition, it is this
initial section of Exod 34:6–7 that is repeated (2 Chr 30:9; Neh 9:17; Pss 86:15,
103:8, 111:4, 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; contrast Nah 1:3).
Although second order, his justice is not ignored: “Yet he will by no means
leave the guilty unpunished; visiting the iniquity of parents on the children
and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” Yahweh is
committed to disciplining those who rebel against him, and this sort of disci-
pline extends through the family unit, which was typically comprised of four
generations, until the death of the offender. 30
The relationship between this punishment and the immediately preceding
statement that God is one who forgives guilt, rebellion, and sin has been a
matter of debate. One may say that it is claiming that, although God does for-
give the guilt, rebellion, and sin of a particular generation, this sin does have
negative implications for future generations. Another option is that there is a
difference between those forgiven of guilt, rebellion, and sin and others who
will not be cleared of guilt. This latter approach can be discerned in one
30. I am not certain that the appeal of Widmer (2004: 199–201) to the view of Scharbert
(1959: 130–50) on dqp (that is, “visit with a view to examining”) is really necessary. Discipline
on one generation had serious ramifications for the next three because they were all part of
the same family unit. Better is how Widmer (2004: 328) explains it later: “The judgment en-
compasses all succeeding generations as long as the rebellious age group remains alive.” This
is demonstrated in Israel’s experience in the wilderness: “While they are alive, the innocent
youth are to remain with their parents in the wilderness as shepherds and are to partake in
the punishment (14:33).” The two wilderness generations show this principle in action. The
judgment that befell the generation that came out of Egypt was experienced for 40 years by
successive generations as they wandered around the wilderness. And yet, when that rebel-
lious generation died, the new generation was given the opportunity to respond to Yahweh
with obedience. Although the character creed in Exod 34:6–7 and Num 14:18 speaks of vis-
iting the punishment on successive generations without the qualification found in the Dec-
alogue (“for those who hate me”), the narratives that surround these citations of the
character creed assume the Decalogue’s qualification.
46 Chapter 3
stream of later Jewish tradition, as seen in Yoma 61a, which “interprets the
sentence to mean ‘He remits punishment for the penitent, but not for the im-
penitent’” (Sarna 1991: 216). However, as we have already seen, there is noth-
ing in this context that suggests a motivation for forgiveness linked to human
response. Furthermore, in the foreshadowing of the declaration of the name
in Exod 33:19, the mercy is rooted entirely in the mysterious character of Yah-
weh: “I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious and
show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” 31
The character creed offers a theological foundation for the study of sin and
its remedy in the Torah. Sin’s seriousness is rooted in God’s careful attention
to justice; he will not let the guilty go unpunished, meting out mitigated pun-
ishment for rebellion. 32 At the same time, the only hope for a nation with
such sinful tendencies is Yahweh’s character of mercy, which dissuades him
from destroying the community for their rebellion. “The point is not that the
people experience either wrath or mercy, but that both wrath and mercy are
in the character of God though it is his mercy which is ultimately predomi-
nant in his dealings with his people” (Moberly 1983: 87).
It is Yahweh’s mercy and grace that motivate Moses to immediately re-
spond in 34:9 with his fourth and final mediatorial supplication: “If now I
have found favor in your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go along in our
midst, even though the people are obstinate, and pardon our iniquity and our
sin, and take us as your own possession.” There is no hiding of the sin, be-
cause the mediator freely admits they are “obstinate” and have committed
“iniquity and sin,” but, based on Yahweh’s character and Moses’ status as me-
diator (“if now I have found favor in your sight”), Moses requests not only
God’s presence (“let the Lord go along in our midst”) and pardon but also the
assurance that Israel remained Yahweh’s treasured possession among the na-
tions (see hL:gus} in 19:5, 33:16). 33
The paradox is striking. Superficially, it would seem to mean either that Yah-
weh is inconsistent or that one should “sin in order that grace might
abound.” Closer consideration, in the light of the context and theological
31. Although it is possible that this is actually not filling out the proclamation of Yah-
weh’s name (33:19a) but rather indicating that Moses will be able to survive this divine en-
counter where the name is proclaimed (33:20).
32. Brueggemann (1997: 268) speaks of “profound disjunction at the core” of Yahweh
and of both convergence and unsettled tension or acute imbalance between Yahweh’s sover-
eignty and solidarity. Miller (1994: 278) expresses it better when describing God’s shift in re-
sponse to Moses’ prayer based on God’s character: “a shift that it is fully consistent with who
and what God has chosen to be and the way God has demonstrated throughout the biblical
story.”
33. That Moses requests God’s forgiveness is contra Krasovec (1999: 117), who relies on
Milgrom (1981: 11) to claim that forgiveness is not in view here. The language could not be
clearer. Widmer (2004: 211) notes how hL:gus} and hl:j“n' are frequently used as synonyms; cf.
Weinfeld (1972: 207).
Exodus 47
emphases discerned thus far, shows this phrase to contain a theology of the
grace of God unsurpassed in the OT. A central concern of Ex. 32–34 is sin
and forgiveness. When Israel sins, can this mean the end of the covenant?
If not, then on what terms can the covenant be renewed and continue? The
answer of 34:9 is that the terms lie entirely in the character of God . . . The
people remain sinful; yet not only do they receive from God the judgment
they deserve, but also they receive the grace and mercy they do not deserve.
(Moberly 1983: 90)
Summary
The book of Exodus provides key insights into the theology of sin and its
remedy in the Old Testament. At the heart of the book of Exodus lies Exodus
19–24, the majority of which is comprised of the Ten Commandments and
the Book of the Covenant, key legal codes designed to guide Israel away from
sin and toward righteousness. However, these legal codes are carefully placed
within a covenantal and redemptive framework, evident through the brackets
that surround them in Exodus 19 and 24 (see Hyatt 1971: 207). Yahweh de-
clares that the Torah is to guide their covenantal response to his redemptive
act in delivering them from slavery in Egypt. This redemptive act was not just
a deliverance from Egypt but a deliverance to himself (19:4). By responding to
this gracious act through obedience (19:5), they accept their status as a “king-
dom of priests and a holy nation” (19:6). The covenant is sealed with the re-
sponse of the people in 24:3, 7 and the sprinkling of the “blood of the
covenant” in 24:8. Covenant is thus Yahweh’s means of setting apart Israel as
his kingdom of priests and his holy nation among the nations of the world.
This covenant is based on grace but demands the response of the people.
The various laws define sin for Israel, with the core Decalogue in Exodus
20 revealing that sin is first and foremost linked to Israel’s relationship with
God, especially related to exclusive worship of Yahweh. But sin is also viola-
tions against Yahweh’s will for human-human relationships as seen in the
second part of the Decalogue. The Sabbath law at the center of the Decalogue
reminds the reader that sin is not just against God and fellow humans but
also against one’s animals (creation). This broad definition of sin is confirmed
in the larger Book of the Covenant that follows in Exodus 20–23. It must be
remembered that, while the various laws define sin for Israel, the penalties at-
tached to these laws in the Book of the Covenant are designed to remedy sin,
not only by discouraging commitment of sinful acts through the threat of
penalty, but also by enacting justice through the application of punishment
for deliberate sin.
Israel’s experience of the manifest presence of Yahweh in this covenant cere-
mony in Exodus 19–20 is designed to keep them from sinning by producing
the fear of Yahweh within them. This prompts the people to beg Moses to act
as their mediator, a role foreshadowed already by his wife Zipporah’s brave
act on his behalf in Exodus 4 and his own confrontations with Pharaoh in
48 Chapter 3
Exodus 1–15. Little do the people know how soon they will need the media-
tion of Moses.
The tragic irony is that, at the heart of the tabernacle legislation, the legis-
lation that was designed to make possible the unthinkable act of the holy Cre-
ator dwelling in the midst of his kingdom of priests and his holy nation, one
finds the community falling into the most deplorable sinful behavior: idolatry
(chaps. 32–34). 34 Their awe before the appearance of God in chap. 19 and
twofold commitment to obedience in chap. 24 have been revealed as hollow
promises as they quickly break the first and second commandments. 35 Inter-
estingly, the answer to this dilemma is not the repentance of the people but
rather the faithful intercession of a mediator, “the one figure who has experi-
enced both worlds, the top of the mountain with God and the valley below
with the people.” 36 Here one sees a demonstration of what Balentine calls
“loyal opposition” to God through intercessory prayer. 37 This rebellion
and intercession establishes a key pattern that will continue throughout Is-
rael’s wilderness experience as the story progresses (see on Numbers below,
pp. 86–96). 38
As Yahweh’s revelation in Exod 34:6–7 makes clear, Yahweh is a God of
both grace and justice. Although the mediator secures forgiveness from Yah-
weh for the people’s rebellion, they do experience mitigated punishment. The
people are not rejected and destroyed by their holy God but rather preserved
because of God’s gracious character and action. The golden calf incident re-
veals that it is only this grace that will make possible a relationship between
Yahweh and this people. The “covenant is renewed precisely because it de-
pends upon the character of Yahweh as gracious and merciful and not on the
people who continue to be stiff-necked and unrepentant” (Moberly 1983:
183). The remedy for sin is thus complex, involving the just punishment of a
holy God, the passionate intercession of a mediator, and the merciful forgive-
ness of a gracious God. 39 What is striking is the lack of emphasis on the re-
sponse of the sinful community (see Moberly 1983: 90).
34. See Knierim (1985: 393–415).

35. See Whybray (1995: 79) for the characterization of the people in the Torah (“mainly
negative”).
36. Childs (1974: 563). Childs (1974: 610) notes how chap. 33 with its focus on Moses as
mediator bridges the breach of the covenant in chap. 32 and the renewal of covenant in
chap. 34.
37. Balentine (1993: 120); cf. Balentine (1989: 597–616).
38. Sweeney (1989: 292). See also Childs (1974: 258, 260), who notes that “insufficient at-
tention has been paid to the larger framework in which the murmuring language functions.”
Furthermore, “Israel’s rebellion and disobedience increased and intensified following the
disaster with the calf.”
39. See Moberly (1983: 52), who seeks to redress the underemphasis on Moses’ role in Ex-
odus 32–34. “In the last resort it is Yahweh alone upon whom salvation depends. Yet this
should not overrule but rather heighten the significance of those narratives in which both di-
vine and human action play an integral role.”
Chapter 4
Leviticus (Part 1)
Exodus 19–40 represents the first major phase of Yahweh’s revelation to

Israel at Sinai. At the outset, in Exodus 19–24 Yahweh establishes covenant
with Israel by revealing his foundational law code (Exodus 20, the Decalogue)
to Israel along with its attendant Book of the Covenant (Exod 20:23–23:19;
see Patrick 1985: 35–96) and sealing this covenant with the responses of
people and leaders in chap. 24. The remainder of the book of Exodus (chaps.
25–40) relates God’s instructions for and Israel’s construction of the taber-
nacle. This section is interrupted briefly by the golden calf incident in chaps.
32–34 and ends with Yahweh descending from Sinai to the tabernacle at the
center of Israel’s camp (chap. 40).
This latter half of the book of Exodus establishes the place from which Yah-
weh will reveal the central core of legislation now found in the book of Le-
viticus (Knierim 1985: 393–415). This book contains the legislation that will
make possible the enduring presence of Yahweh in the camp (Exodus 40) and
nurture the covenant relationship established with Yahweh in Exodus 19–24.
It begins by providing detailed instructions on the various sacrifices through
which Israel’s worship is expressed and its sin atoned (chaps. 1–7). This is fol-
lowed by Leviticus 8–10, narratives that describe the ordination of the priests
(chap. 8) and the beginning of their ministry (chap. 9). These narratives reach
a climax at the end of 9:22–24 with the following description:
Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he
stepped down after making the sin offering and the burnt offering and the
peace offerings. Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting. When they
came out and blessed the people, the glory of the Lord appeared to all the
people. Then fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt
offering and the portions of fat on the altar; and when all the people saw it,
they shouted and fell on their faces.
This idyllic scene with Yahweh’s presence at the center of the camp, however,
is immediately shattered in chap. 10 with the bungling of priestly duties by
Aaron’s sons, which leads to the death of Nadab and Abihu. This chapter is a
stark reminder of the seriousness of having the presence of Yahweh in the
midst of the camp. The tragedy of chap. 10 sets the tone for the legislation in
Leviticus 11–27, which will regulate the life of a community among whom
Yahweh dwells.
- 49 -
50 Chapter 4
The first section of this legislation (chaps. 11–15) is related to ceremonial

uncleanness, a series of laws concerned with diet (chap. 11), childbirth (chap.
12), contamination (chaps. 13–14), and discharges (chap. 15). A passage at the
beginning and end of this legislation provides theological insight into these
laws:
For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy,
for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the
swarming things that swarm on the earth. For I am the Lord who brought
you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I
am holy. (Lev 11:44–45)
Thus you shall keep the sons of Israel separated from their uncleanness, so
that they will not die in their uncleanness by their defiling my tabernacle
that is among them. (Lev 15:31)
This ceremonial legislation is linked to the holiness of their savior, Yahweh,
who dwells among them in the tabernacle. This sort of legislation regarding
the common activities of life described throughout chaps. 11–15 (for ex-
ample, eating, childbirth, intercourse) was a constant reminder of God’s pres-
ence in their midst.
Following this ceremonial legislation, Leviticus 16 provides prescriptions
for the Day of Atonement, the key day once a year that removed expiable sins
and uncleanness from the camp and so purified the tabernacle, altar, priests,
and community (16:33–34). After the Day of Atonement legislation and the
note in 16:34b that Moses followed the command of Yahweh, the book pro-
vides its final section of legislation, which is often identified by scholars as the
Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–27). This chapter will begin with a general orien-
tation to the priestly legislation and world view before giving closer attention
to the key sacrificial rituals related to sin in Leviticus 1–16. This will be fol-
lowed in the next chapter by attention to the perspective of the Holiness
Code in Leviticus 17–27.
Priestly Legislation
Conceptual Framework
The fact that the core of this priestly legislation is placed immediately after
the account of Yahweh’s descent from the mountain into the newly con-
structed tabernacle suggests a close connection between this priestly legisla-
tion and the maintenance of God’s presence. Thus,
the Priestly conception of Israel centers on the dwelling of God in the midst
of the people. God’s presence created spheres of extreme holiness and a ho-
liness which declined gradually from its epicenter. . . . A ritual pattern facil-
itated interaction between the divine center of the community and its human
members and preserved it from catastrophic breakdown. (Patrick 1985: 151)
This priestly legislation constructs a ritual world, designed to foster the cove-
nant established between Yahweh and his people. The danger of having the
Leviticus (Part 1) 51
presence of the Creator in the midst of the created is that creaturely imperfec-
tion endangers the community’s survival before the Creator and the Creator’s
presence among the community. The focus of the present chapter is thus how
the priestly legislation defines and deals with the imperfection that threatens
God’s presence among the community.
The priestly conception of sin differs radically from the other major canon-
ical traditions (prophetic, wisdom, deuteronomic). And so, before investigat-
ing the priestly remedy, one must first describe what is meant by sin in this
unique corpus. To understand this, one must first grasp an important concep-
tual framework that underlies much of the priestly system. 1 This is best un-
derstood by reference to the exhortation given to Aaron and the priests in Lev
10:10, 11 (cf. Ezek 22:26, 44:23). There, the priests were exhorted to distin-
guish (ldb Hiphil) between the holy (vd,q)ø and the common (ljø), the unclean
(amEf:) and the clean (r/hf:). While at first sight this may appear to be setting up
four categories, in actuality the “common” is merely an opposite of “holy”
(that is, “not holy”), a category that is then further subdivided into “unclean
and clean.” 2 Thus, there are three basic gradations in priestly legislation: the
holy (v/dq:), the clean (r/hf:), and the unclean (amEf:). 3
Priestly legislation is concerned with the movement between these various
categories and gradations. Priestly rituals (sacrifice, anointing with blood/oil/
water, shaving, laundering, bathing) facilitate movement from unclean to
clean (called cleansing, rh"f)I or from clean to holy (called sanctifying, vDeq)i ;
sin and impurity cause movement from holy to clean (called profaning, lLEh)I
or from clean to unclean (called defiling, aMEfI). Table 4.1 4 provides a helpful
visual for this conceptual framework.
The term holy is often linked to the semantic range of separateness, that is,
it communicates that God is totally other, just as holy things are “set apart”
for God’s use. Fundamentally, however, the term holy refers to what is divine
and not created, 5 and what is holy is defined as “that which belongs to the
sphere of God’s being or activity” (Jenson 1992: 48). The “common” (see
1. For this section, see especially Wenham (1979: 26); Jenson (1992: 43–55); Klawans
(2000); and Sklar (2005: 105–36), though remaining aware of the nuances of Wong (2001:
121–32).
2. With Wenham (1979: 19); contra Barr (1972: 15) and Nelson (1993: 19), who argue for
four categories.
3. It appears that the two extremes (holy and unclean) have gradations. This is suggested
for the holy by the use of terminology such as “very holy” (μyv¥d;q : vd,q;ø objects/spaces closest
to deity) and “holy-holy-holy” (v/dq: v/dq: v/dq:; God) and for the unclean by the varying se-
verity of penalty related to different forms of uncleanness. The latter gradation has been
noted from early times in rabbinic literature, which distinguished between unclean (amf),
very unclean (hamwfh ba = “father of impurity,” for major impurity), and most unclean (ba
hamwfh twba = “father of fathers of impurity,” for contact with a corpse); see Jenson (1992: 45).
4. Reproduced from Jenson (1992: 47) with some modifications based on Sklar (2005).
5. Levine (1989: 257); Jenson (1992: 48); Brueggemann (1997: 208); Goldingay (2006: 23).
Indeed, anything in creation that can come in contact with or relate to this divine one must
be set apart for divine use alone, but this is a subsidiary meaning, not the primary meaning.

52 Chapter 4
Table 4.1. Gradations of Cleanliness in Priestly Legislation
Cause of
Priestly rituals: sacrifice, anointing, shaving, washing
Movement
To sanctify To cleanse
Positive
Movement
vDe qi rh"fI
Holy Clean Unclean

Category
v/dq: r/hf: amEf:
To profane To defile
Negative
Movement
lLEhI aMEfI
Cause of
Human sin and impurity
Movement
Lev 10:10, 11), then, is the created. The common must be sanctified to be in
the presence of the holy one, and, in so being, it is then identified with the
one to whom it is dedicated (“holy”).
Categories of Sin
Ritual versus Morality

In light of the conceptual framework above, it appears that, in priestly leg-
islation, there is a fuzzy line between physical ritual impurity and moral sin. 6
For instance, not only is the remedy for the misdemeanors described in Lev
5:1–4 identified in 5:5–13 as a sin-purification (“purification from sin”; taF:j")
offering, 7 but the misdemeanors themselves are identified as “his sin which
See Levine (1989: 257): “When speaking of God, it is recognized that holiness is inextricable
from His being; it is a constant, divine attribute”; cf. Nelson (1993: 26).
6. See Gane (2005: 200); cf. D. Wright (1988: 191; 1991: 165), who notes how moral faults
generate a kind of ritual impurity (Lev 16:26; cf. 16:21–22); and Kiuchi (1987: 65), who
claims “sin is a kind of uncleanness”; see now Cothey (2005). Contra Klawans (2000: 22–31),
who tries to drive a wedge between ritual and moral impurity; cf. Büchler (1928). I do agree
with Klawans (2000: 34–35) that moral impurity is not just a “metaphorical” use of ritual im-
purity (contra Milgrom 2000: 1326), although impurity in general is part of a larger “sym-
bolic” system, see Harrington (2003).
7. See Sklar (2005: 187), who shows, in his analysis of rP<KI and rp<K,ø “The ultimate results
of major impurities and inadvertent sins are the same, namely, that each requires both ransom
(rp<K)ø and cleansing (purgation). Stated differently, impurity not only pollutes, it also endangers,
while sin not only endangers, it also pollutes. In either case, therefore, the person presenting
he has sinned” (af:j:Arv≤a“ /taF:j"). What is interesting is that the list of misde-
meanors includes not only moral violations (5:1, 4), but also accidental
breaches of the ritual purity code (5:2–3). 8 Furthermore, the sin-purification
(taF:j") offering is legislated to deal with uncleanness in cases such as Lev 12:8
and 14:19 (cf. 14:22, 31; 15:15, 30). It becomes clear in rituals related to the
sin-purification offering and the Day of Atonement that the errors and sins of
the people have an impact on the ritual purity of the tabernacle and its
vessels, necessitating atoning purification. Thus, moral violations have an
impact on ritual purity. Defiant disregard for ritual purity laws is considered
a moral violation with serious consequences (Lev 7:20–21; 20:18; 22:3; Num
19:13, 20). 9 Even when ritual impurity is not directly related to moral viola-
tion, there is a moral rationale that underlies the ritual purity law (for ex-
ample, the principle of life).
Commission versus Omission

Sin in the priestly conception includes both action (commission) and in-
action (omission). Lev 6:2–3 lists a series of sins in which the person willingly
deceives or steals from someone. In contrast, Lev 5:1 describes a sin in which
the person neglects his duty to testify on someone’s behalf. In the priestly
conception, sin can have both an active and a passive character, and either
will render the person culpable.
Inadvertence versus Defiance

Sins are categorized according to intent. The sins cited in connection
with the sin-purification and guilt-reparation offerings in Leviticus 4–6 are
predominantly sins of inadvertence (hg;g;v‘BI). Sins of this sort are contrasted
in Num 35:11–34 with sins that are committed with malicious deliberation
(contrast manslaughter and murder), with the former treated with grace (cit-
ies of refuge) and the latter with judgment (death). Similarly, Num 15:22–31
distinguishes between sins of inadvertence (hg;g;v‘BI) and sins of defiance (dy;B}
hm:r;). Again, for the former there is grace (sin-purification offering), whereas
for the latter there is judgment (being cut off, vp<N,h" treK:TI treK:hI). However,
certain deliberate sins can be remedied through sacrifice, as is evident from
the cases mentioned in Lev 5:1 and 5:20–26[6:1–7]. In light of this, one
should think in terms of three types of sins: inadvertent errors that can be
the sacrifice needs to effect both rp<Kø and purgation. The verb used to describe this dual event
is rP<K.I ”
8. Whether these breaches in 5:2–3 are inadvertent is debatable and turns on the mean-
ing of the phrase WNM<mI μl"[}n,w,] which appears in 5:2–4. This phrase is traditionally translated as
“it is hidden from him” (contra Milgrom [1991]), a translation that appears to be supported
by other uses, e.g., Num 5:13 (where an adulterous affair is hidden from a husband); 1 Kgs
10:3; and Job 28:21. If Milgrom is correct, this could then be a deliberate sin such as the one
in Lev 5:1 and thus functions as a moral violation, that is, deliberate violation of the law.
9. Gane (2005: 204; cf. 198).
54 Chapter 4
forgiven/purified, deliberate errors that can be forgiven, and defiant sin that
cannot be forgiven. 10
Deity versus Humanity

In priestly literature, the term l[m appears regularly, denoting “a sin
against God,” in contrast to a sin against humanity. 11 This kind of sin is cat-
egorized in two ways, the sancta trespass, which involved inappropriate con-
tact with the holy (Lev 5:14–19; 14:10–14, 21–24; 22:14–16; Num 6:12; cf. Jer
2:3; Ezra 10:19), and the violation of an oath taken in God’s name (Lev 5:20–
26, Num 5:6–8). Thus, committing l[m “means trespassing upon the divine
realm either by poaching on his sancta or breaking his covenant oath; it is a
lethal sin which can destroy both the offender and his community.” 12
Communal versus Individual

Finally, sins are categorized according to their impact. The list of rites asso-
ciated with the sin–purification offering in Leviticus 4 shows that sins com-
mitted by the high priest or the whole community required blood to be
sprinkled on the veil within the sanctuary as well as on the altars of incense
and burnt offering (Lev 4:6–7, 16–18), whereas sins committed by a leader or
commoner only required that the blood be applied to the altar of burnt offer-
ing (4:25, 30). It appears that sins by the high priest or whole community had
a greater impact on the purity of the sacred precincts.
Effect
Sins are not private affairs in priestly conception. As was already men-
tioned, they have an effect on the corporate institutions of the community,
defiling the sanctuary and its sacred vessels. Because these institutions are
shared by Yahweh and his people, these sins endanger the role played by the
sacred precincts of ensuring the presence of a holy God among his people
and allowing the people to meet with this God. In this way,
Yahweh’s presence in the midst of the people was both beneficial and dan-
gerous. It gave the people a sacred value and made Yahweh accessible to the
community for personal and social needs. However, his holiness could
“break out” and destroy persons who profaned the sanctuary by ritual im-
proprieties (e.g., Leviticus 10) or anyone who sinned flagrantly (e.g., Num.
16). . . . An opposite danger was that physical or moral impurity would
drive Yahweh from the community. P understands sin to generate an impu-
rity that gravitates toward the sanctuary, where it must be removed before it
drives Yahweh away. (Patrick 1985: 150)
10. Gane (2005: 202–10); so also Jay Sklar (personal communication); cf. Saydon (1946:
393–98); Biddle (2005: 98–99).
11. Milgrom (1976: 21); cf. Boda (2006a).
12. Milgrom (1976: 21).
While sin clearly endangered the relationship between Israel and Yahweh, it
also affected relationships among the Israelites, threatening the solidarity of
the community as a whole. The priestly legislation was designed to protect
the basic social structure of the nation, and so any “sin is thus detrimental to
the community’s welfare and solidarity” (Hartley 1992: lxxi).
Truly, “a sin committed produced a web of complications, personal, social,
and spiritual” (Hartley 1992: lxxi). And it is because of these threats that the
priestly legislation lays out intricate rituals for restoring these vertical and
horizontal covenant relationships.
Remedies for Sin

Priestly legislation remedies sin and impurity in a variety of ways, ranging
from punishment and destruction to sacrifice and ritual.
Punishment, Death, and Destruction

The most severe responses to violations of priestly legislation were punish-
ment for living beings and destruction for inanimate objects.
Death (twm). There are three key terms or phrases that are often associated
with the more severe responses to violations by living beings. First, in many
cases the penalty is described using various forms of the root twm (“to die”),
explicitly describing capital punishment. People of the priestly-levitical caste
within Israel risked death if they failed to follow Yahweh’s explicit legislation,
whether it was the high priest (Lev 8:35) or his priestly assistants (Lev 22:9),
a punishment illustrated by the death of Nadab and Abihu for their use of in-
appropriate rituals of “strange fire,” which “he had not commanded them”
(Lev 10:1–2). Similarly, the Levitical Kohathites, responsible for transporting
the tabernacle and its furnishings, risked death if they touched or looked at
these sacred items before they had been safely disassembled and stored by the
priests (Num 4:15–20). This concern over inappropriate incursion into the sa-
cred precincts also extended to the entire community of Israelites, who were
prohibited from venturing near the tent of meeting (Num 18:22). Death was
also prescribed for failure to observe Sabbath legislation, whether it was the
weekly Sabbath (Num 15:32–36) or the requirement to deny oneself and cease
from work on the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:29–30). The worship of a foreign
god, such as sacrificing children to Molek, was to result in death (20:2–5).
These violations of worship rituals required capital punishment, but so
also did a series of moral violations, including cursing one’s parents (Lev
20:9), various sexual sins (20:10–16), blasphemy (24:10–16), and murder
(24:17, 21, 23). The death of the murderer reflects the principle of lex talionis,
a principle that is extended to cases of lesser injury: “fracture for fracture, eye
for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on
him” (Lev 24:20). In some cases, the specific form of capital punishment is
prescribed. For instance, Nadab and Abihu are punished by fire from the
56 Chapter 4
Table 4.2. trk in the Priestly Legislation

trk +
h:yM<["m/E wyM:["mE from his people Exod 30:33, 38; Lev 7:20,
21, 25, 27; 17:9; 19:8;
23:29; Num 9:13; cf. Gen
17:14
/M["/μM:[/" h:yM<[" br,Qm< I from among his/their people Exod 31:14; Lev 17:4,
18:29, 20:18; Num 15:30
laEr;c‘YimI from Israel Exod 12:15, Num 19:13
laEr;c‘y i td'[“mE from the congregation of Israel Exod 12:19
yn'p:L}mI from before me Lev 22:3
lh:Q:h" Ë/TmI from the midst of the assembly Num 19:20
no phrase follows the verb Lev 17:14, 20:17; Num
15:31
presence of the Lord (Lev 10:1–2); those caught sacrificing their children to
Molek are to be stoned (Lev 20:2–5). In other cases, although the root twm is
not employed, the punishment prescribed clearly results in death. For in-
stance, the man who marries both a woman and her mother is to be burned
in fire (Lev 20:14), the same fate that awaits the priest’s daughter who be-
comes a prostitute (Lev 21:9).
Cutting off (trk). A second term often associated with capital punishment
is the verb trk (“to cut off”), which appears regularly in the priestly legislation
followed by various constructions, as table 4.2 illustrates. 13 Although the ma-
jority of these passages employs these phrases without explicit reference to
death, passages such as Lev 20:2–5, with its command for the community to
stone the idolater, and 23:29–30, with the warning that God will destroy
(dmv) the one who neglects the Day of Atonement ritual, explicitly link these
phrases to the death penalty. Lev 18:29 relates “cutting off” to the removal of
the former inhabitants (Canaanites) from the land. A penalty of this sort ex-
plicitly refers not to death but rather to merely the loss of land; however, this
“spewing” did mean the death of that community (as per Joshua). More dif-
ficult, however, is Lev 20:18, which prescribes the penalty of “cutting off from
among their people” for both man and woman who have had sexual inter-
course during the woman’s menstrual period. In Leviticus 15, this action leads
only to a state of uncleanness and isolation from the assembly but not to
13. See BDB and, recently, Janzen (2004: 108); Sklar (2005: 15–20).
death. 14 In light of this evidence, some have argued that the term trk refers
merely to the excommunication of a person from the worshiping commu-
nity. 15 Possibly, the case of the person with an enduring defiling disease pro-
vides an example of this sort of existence. Lev 13:45–46 legislates that they
must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of
their face and cry out “Unclean! Unclean!” As long as they have the disease
they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the
camp. (tniv)
Here we have someone who is clearly “cut off” from the community but is
not put to death. Thus, the evidence suggests that the term trk does not spec-
ify the punishment (death or excommunication) but rather signals estrange-
ment from the assembly or Yahweh, an estrangement that may constitute
temporary or permanent isolation, even to the point of death. In most pas-
sages, the precise penalty is unclear.
Bearing Sin (ˆ/[:/af}j" avn). A third verb that has been associated with capi-
tal punishment is the verb ac…n,; which appears regularly in a collocation with
words for sin and guilt (ˆ/[:/af}jE) and is translated traditionally as “to bear sin/
guilt.” 16 At times, it is associated only with being cut off (trk), such as with
the penalty for those who eat the remains of a fellowship offering beyond the
second day in Lev 19:5–8 or for those who sin defiantly in Num 15:30–31. In
Lev 22:9, this phrase is linked directly to death (twm) in the case of priests who
desecrate the sacred offerings in Lev 22:9, in the case of the blasphemer in Lev
24:15–16, and in the case of Israelites who venture near the tent of meeting
in Num 18:22. Death, however, is not the only punishment associated with
this phrase, because in Lev 20:20 the penalty of committing incest with one’s
aunt is that the couple will die childless. It has been suggested that, because
terms for sin and guilt often have a “consequential” meaning in Hebrew (they
can mean a sin or the consequence of that sin, that is, punishment), this
phrase should be translated as “to bear punishment” (Sklar 2005: 20–23).
However, the fact that this phrase appears in Lev 5:1, 17 in contexts that pro-
vide a sacrificial means to obtain forgiveness rather than punishment suggests
14. So also Num 19:11–13 (cf. 19:20) legislates that the person who touches a corpse and
does not purify himself defiles the tabernacle and shall be “cut off from Israel,” noting that,
because the water for impurity was not sprinkled on him, his uncleanness remains on him.
Such an impure state is not usually deserving of death in the priestly system.
15. E.g., HALOT, s.v.; Balentine (2002b).
16. E.g., with ˆ/[: : Exod 28:43; Lev 5:1, 17; 7:18; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17, 19; 22:16 (with μva);
Num 5:31; 18:1, 23; 30:16[15]; with af}j:E Lev 19:17, 20:20, 22:9, 24:15; Num 9:13; 18:22, 32.
This phrase is also used to refer to the bearing away of guilt in the act of atonement (Exod
28:38; Lev 10:17, 16:22; cf. Isa 53:12) or, in symbolic actions (Ezek 4:4–6), to the forgiveness
of guilt by Yahweh or humans (Gen 18:24, 26; 50:17; Exod 10:17; 23:21; 32:32; 34:7; Num
14:18, 19; Josh 24:19; 1 Sam 15:25; 25:28; Isa 2:9; 33:24; Hos 1:6; 14:3; Mic 7:18; Pss 25:18,
28; 32:1, 5; 99:8; Job 7:21).
58 Chapter 4
that this phrase is merely describing the guilt that weighs on the one who vi-
olates the law. It is true that this guilt may result in punishment, but the
phrase itself is only related to the guilt that lies on the sinner.
Punishment. These three Hebrew verbs and the passages in which they ap-
pear suggest then a range of interrelated consequences for the violation of the
priestly code by living beings. Violations result in estrangement from the
covenant God and community and a weight of guilt on the violator. This sort
of estrangement and guilt may result in punishments including death, injury
(lex talionis), physical ailment, miscarriage, childlessness, and isolation from
the community.
Destruction. Inanimate objects were also endangered when the priestly

code was violated. Moldy fabric or leather was to be burned (13:52) or a piece
of the fabric torn out (13:56). Moldy stones and surfaces in a home were to
be removed (14:40–41) and, if the mold spread, the entire house destroyed
(14:43–45). A clay pot touched by any bodily discharge causing uncleanness
was to be destroyed (15:12). These various cases of ritual impurity, which
may also have had a sanitary purpose, demanded the most severe remedy,
destruction.
Ritual, Sacrifice, and Reparation

Though certain violations clearly resulted in punishment and destruction,
much attention is paid in the priestly legislation to the restoration of the of-
fending party. This restoration is accomplished by various combinations of
priestly rituals. It is not possible to draw a clear line between punishment and
restoration, because some of the priestly rituals (sacrifice, reparation) were de-
signed as forms of mitigated punishment and/or reparation to the offended
party.
Some rituals were only used to rectify physical impurity. For instance, in
some cases, violations of the priestly ritual legislation were rectified by wait-
ing for a period of time, whether until the end of a day (evening: e.g., Lev
11:24–40, 15:5–27), the end of a week (7 days: e.g., Lev 15:13), or even for a
longer period (33/66 days after the birth of a son/daughter: Lev 12:1–8). Iso-
lation often accompanied this waiting period (Lev 13:4, Num 5:1–4), and the
length of this isolation could become indefinite in severe cases of skin dis-
eases (Num 13:45–46). In addition, various oil and water rituals were per-
formed (Lev 14:10–29, Num 19:14–22) for ritual impurity. Water was also
used for cleansing articles and people after ritual impurity. Fabric and cloth-
ing were to be washed (Lev 11:32, 39–40; 13:6, 34, 54, 58; 15:17; Num 19:14–
22) and bodies were to be bathed (Lev 14:8, 9; 15:5–27; 16:24–28; 17:15–16;
22:6; Num 19:7–8, 19). Shaving off hair was another purifying ritual, associ-
ated with the Nazirite law in Numbers 6 (vv. 9, 18, 19) and with ritual purifi-
cation of sores (Lev 13:33, 14:8–9).
Whereas time and isolation as well as oil, water, and shaving rituals were
used only in connection with physical impurity, many rituals were associated
with both physical ritual impurity and moral sin. At the top of the list of these
rituals are sacrifices. The sin-purification offering in Lev 4:1–5:13 (cf. 6:24–30)
and the guilt-reparation offering in Lev 5:14–6:7 (cf. 7:1–10) were used to deal
with both physical ritual impurity and moral sin. 17 Sacrificial offerings on the
altar were required also on the Day of Atonement (burnt, sin-purification
offerings: Lev 16:1–19), were required to cleanse a person from the impurity
of skin diseases (guilt-reparation offering, sin-purification offering: Lev 14:10–
31) and discharges causing uncleanness (sin-purification, burnt offerings: Lev
15:13–15), were demanded when a man slept with an engaged female slave
(guilt-reparation offering: Lev 19:20–22), and were legislated when a Nazirite
accidentally touched impurity (burnt, sin-purification, fellowship, grain,
drink offerings: Numbers 6).
Various blood rituals were performed in conjunction with the offerings, in-
volving sprinkling, splashing, rubbing, placing, and pouring blood on various
objects and people (Lev 4:5–7, 16–18, 25, 30, 34; 5:9; 14:6–7, 10–29, 51–52;
16:14, 15, 19). These were performed for both impurity and sin.
Within the sacrificial rituals there were elements other than the offering of
an animal on an altar. The violator often laid a single hand on the head of the
animal to be slaughtered (Lev 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33), 18 signaling not only iden-
tification with the sacrificial act about to be performed (cf. Lev 1:4) but also
the “legal transfer of ownership from the offerer to Yhwh.” 19 By using only
one hand in connection with a sacrifice, this ritual contrasts the two-handed
ritual involving the nonsacrificial goat on the Day of Atonement in Lev 16:21,
a ritual that denotes transfer of defilement and guilt from the person to the
17. Lev 14:12–14, 17, 21, 24, 25, 28 show that a guilt-reparation offering was demanded
for physical ritual purity, and Lev 5:20–25[6:1–6] shows that it was demanded for deliberate
moral sin. Likewise, Lev 4:1–35 shows that the sin-purification offering was demanded for de-
liberate moral sin, and Lev 5:2–3 shows that the sin-purification offering was demanded for
unintentional physical ritual impurity.
18. The one-handed ritual is only related to the sin-purification offerings of Leviticus 4
and is not mentioned in Lev 5:1–13 or elsewhere. The scenarios in Leviticus 4 speak explicitly
of sinning and of forgiveness and elsewhere (esp. 5:1–13) concern (at least in part) physical
ritual impurity. This suggests that the hand ritual is related only to those scenarios involving
moral sin, rather than physical ritual impurity.
19. The quotation in the text is from Gane (2005: 56); cf. Gorman (1990: 121–22). Gane
(2005: 53): “In the Israelite sacrificial system, the cases in which the biblical text specifies
placing one hand on the head of a victim are those in which the identity of the offerer, to
whom ownership of the victim is attributed and therefore to whom the benefits of the sacri-
fice accrue, needs to be indicated.” For individuals: Lev 1:4 (burnt offering); 3:2, 8, 13 (well-
being offering); 4:4, 24, 29, 33 (purification offering); a group in the community: Exod 29:14/
Lev 8:18/Num 8:12 (burnt offering); Exod 29:10/Lev 8:14/Num 8:12 (purification offering);
the community as a whole: Lev 4:15 (purification offering).
60 Chapter 4
animal. 20 This two-handed ritual on the Day of Atonement is also related to

rituals in which two identical animals were involved. 21 Leviticus 14 describes
a bird ritual in which one bird is killed and its blood sprinkled to cleanse
physical ritual impurity, while the other bird is released. In Leviticus 16, the
one goat is sacrificed as a sin offering, while the other is sent off into the wil-
derness with the defilement and guilt of the people.
As we can see, various rituals are used for dealing with sin and impurity in
the priestly legislation. The key is, however, the ways in which these various
rituals are combined into a theological-symbolic system, each with a purpose.
Because of the present focus on sin, the following will deal with two key texts
in Leviticus 1–16 that deal with a complex of priestly instructions related to
remedying sin and its guilt in the community.
Leviticus 1–16
Sin-Purification and Guilt-Reparation Offerings

(Leviticus 4:1–6:7[5:26])
Leviticus 1–7 provides legislation on the key sacrificial rites that were to
take place at the tabernacle. The first three sacrifices (burnt, grain, peace) were
all voluntary, functioning as expressions of praise and homage to God (Leviti-
cus 1–3; Balentine 2002b: 19). These offerings were designed to foster the cove-
nant relationship between Israel and Yahweh, a dimension illustrated most
poignantly in the burnt offering.
Although primarily an expression of praise and homage, the burnt offering
does have some connection to sin, because Lev 1:4 speaks of this sacrifice pro-
viding “atonement” (rpk) for the offerer. 22 This witnesses to Israel’s constant
20. See Gane (2005: 57 n. 47); cf. Péter (1977: 48–55). The significance of this ritual is not
stated explicitly, but the fact that, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest confesses the
sins of the people while laying hands on the goat to be freed and the fact that the person
who escorts the goat into the wilderness must be ritually cleansed before returning to the
camp suggest that the freed animal is bearing the impurity/sins of the people away from the
community.
21. See D. Wright (1987: 15–86) and his study of these two as elimination rites against the
backdrop of ancient Near Eastern rites. For the goat ritual, D. Wright (1987: 73) concludes,
“The animal merely receives the community’s sins and bears them to a harmless locale”; for
the bird ritual, “The bird rites simply use a pair of birds, one to provide blood as a detergent
for removing impurity, the other to carry away the impurity” (p. 86).
22. Wenham (1995: 84–85) claims that all three (burnt, grain, and peace offerings) had an
“atoning aspect at their core,” because each creates a “soothing aroma” (Lev 1:9, 13; 3:5, 16;
4:31) that appeases God’s wrath. However, the link between the soothing aroma and atone-
ment is unclear, and the legislation for the grain offering explicitly states that it “shall not as-
cend for a soothing aroma on the altar” (2:12). Hartley (1992: 21, 24) suggests that the burnt
offering was “for human sinfulness in general” whereas the purification and reparation offer-
ings were for specific acts of sinfulness. Levine (1989: 6–7) argues that, because the burnt of-
fering was not occasioned by any offense, this is a rite not of expiation but rather of protec-
tion from God’s wrath. Probably the reason for this atoning dimension to the burnt offering
need for forgiveness from sin, a concern that becomes the dominant focus of
the two required offerings described in Leviticus 4–6: the sin-purification of-
fering (4:1–5:13) and the guilt-reparation offering (5:14–26[6:7]). 23
Sin
The sin-purification offering is used primarily for cases when a “person sins
unintentionally (hg:g:v‘B)I in any of the things which the Lord has commanded
not to be done” (4:2), while the guilt-reparation offering is used primarily
when a person “acts unfaithfully (l[m) and sins unintentionally (hg:g:v‘B)I
against the Lord’s holy things” (5:15). The association with “unintentional”
sin, however, is not exclusive because Lev 5:1 and 5:20–23[6:1–4] neither use
the term hg:g:v‘BI (unintentional) nor describe unintentional violations. Viola-
tions covered by these sacrifices include moral sin and physical ritual impu-
rity, commission and omission, and inadvertent and some deliberate sin.
Sacrifice, Blood Ritual, and Reparation

The requirements for sacrifice associated with the sin-purification offering
in Lev 4:1–5:13 depend on the impact of the sin on the community as a
whole. 24 A sin committed by the anointed priest or the whole community re-
quires a young bull without defect, on which the priest or elders lay their
hands before it is slaughtered. Then the priest is to apply its blood in the outer
sanctum (veil and incense altar horns) and on the base of the outer altar be-
fore burning the fat on the altar and disposing of the carcass outside the camp
(4:1–21). In contrast, whereas a sin committed by a leader or member of the
community follows the same basic ritual, this ritual only requires a goat or
lamb: the blood is applied only to the outer altar, and the remaining meat
functions both as a commission for the priest and as a further step in the
atoning process (4:22–35; 6:24–30). 25 Lev 5:1–13 provides a slightly modified
sin-purification ritual, one with a variety of acceptable offerings according to
the means of the offerer, ranging from a lamb or goat to two doves or pigeons
to finally a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour without oil or incense in it.
The guilt-reparation offering in Lev 5:14–26[6:7] demands a ram without
defect as well as restitution that includes a penalty of one-fifth value. This of-
fering is used for situations in which God’s holy things have been violated
is the role this burnt offering played when multiple sacrifices were offered. The burnt offering
initiated the sacrificial acts. So, Levine (1989: 7) writes, “The favourable acceptance of the
ºolah signaled God’s willingness to be approached and served as a kind of ransom, or redemp-
tion, from divine wrath.”
23. The precise differences between these two types of offerings is not always clear in the
priestly legislation; cf. de Vaux (1964: 100–102).
24. Also notice the legislation in Num 15:22–31. Gane (2005: 83–86) sees this as a “dia-
chronic modification” in the legislation.
25. See Gane (2005: 91–105): “Chapter 5—Purification Offering Flesh: Prebend or Expia-
tion?” His answer is “both.”
62 Chapter 4
(5:14–19) and situations in which a neighbor has been violated (5:20–26[6:1–

7]). According to the legislation in Lev 5:14–19, 5:20–26[6:1–7]; and Num 5:5–
9, violators were required to make full restitution (/varøB} /mv…a“Ata< byv¥h)E and
add to it one-fifth (ˆt"n;w] wyl:[: πsEyo /tv¥ymIj“w)' . 26 This appears to go beyond the lex
talionis of Lev 24:17–22, where not only life for life and injury for injury but
also animal for animal were required (24:18, 21).
Recognizing Guilt (μva)

The rituals of sacrifice, blood, and reparation all take place once guilt has
been established and admitted. The priestly rituals, however, also describe the
process that precedes these rituals and yet follows the violation.
Throughout the description of the two required sacrifices for sins (sin-
purification and guilt-reparation offerings), one regularly encounters the verb
μva (Lev 4:13, 22, 27; 5:2–5, 17, 19, 23[6:4]; Num 5:6, 7; cf. Lev 4:1). 27 Tradi-
tionally, this verb has been translated as “be guilty,” describing the guilt that
the violator assumes for having broken the priestly law. This translation has
been challenged in recent years because it makes little sense in passages such
as Lev 4:22–23, 27–28 and 5:23[6:4].
Lev 4:22–23 describes rituals demanded when a leader sins unintentionally:
When a leader sins and unintentionally does any one of all the things
which the Lord his God has commanded not to be done, and he becomes
guilty [μva] or [/a] his sin which he has committed is made known [[dy Hophal]
to him, he shall bring for his offering a goat, a male without defect. (nasb,
modified)
The particle “or” (/a) makes it impossible for μva to mean “becomes guilty” in
the sense of “comes into a state of guilt,” because this is not appropriate as an
option alongside “his sin . . . is made known to him.” The same is true for the
description of the sinner in Lev 4:27–28, where the same phrases appear,
joined again by the word or.
Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of
the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and becomes
guilty [μva] or [/a] his sin which he has committed is made known [[dy Hophal]
to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without defect,
for his sin which he has committed. (nasb, modified)
The case in Lev 5:23[6:4] is different. This verse refers to a person who has
sinned intentionally by deception, lying, robbery, or extortion in matters
related to another person’s property. There, the traditional translation reads:
26. For the one-fifth rule in priestly legislation, see further Lev 22:14; 27:13, 15, 19, 27, 31.
27. Holladay (1958: 78–81, 127); Weinfeld (1972: 334–35). However, we are careful to
note with Holladay (1958: 126–27) the presence of the Priestly idiom yrjam bwv (“turn away
from”; Num 14:43; 32:15; Josh 22:16, 18, 23, 29; 1 Sam 15:11). This, however, is an idiom of
apostasy, not of repentance.
When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the Lord, and deceives his
companion in regard to a deposit or a security entrusted to him or through
robbery, or if he has extorted from his companion . . . then it shall be, when
he sins and becomes guilty [μva], then he shall restore what he took by robbery or
what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him or the
lost thing which he found. (Lev 5:21, 23[6:4], nasb, modified)
Here one can see that between the sin and the restoration of the property lies
the verb μva. With the traditional rendering of μva, no reason is given for
what prompted the person to restore the property that was stolen. This, along
with the two earlier examples in Leviticus 4, has forced scholars to consider
other options for translating the verb μva.
One option is to argue that this verb, when used without a personal ob-
ject, should be translated not as (traditionally) “be guilty” but rather as “feel
guilty,” that is, “the self-punishment of conscience, the torment of guilt.” 28
According to this approach, this verbal form highlights the subjective dimen-
sion of the sacrificial system. 29 A slight revision of this approach is to argue
that μva has both objective and subjective aspects and thus could mean “re-
alize guilt” rather than “feel guilt.” 30
A recent proposal, based on the fact that μva has a consequential meaning
in several nonpriestly texts (Isa 24:6; Jer 2:3; Hos 10:2, 13:16[14:1]; Ps
34:22[21]), is to define this verb as “to suffer guilt’s consequences,” a meaning
that would be appropriate in the priestly texts (thus, when a person experi-
ences suffering). 31 Nevertheless, the argument for this meaning is weakened
by three factors. First, it is based on a comparison of Lev 4:3 and 13 and the
demand for “consistency of translation” (Sklar 2005: 41). However, 4:3 uses
the nominal form hm:v‘a," while 4:13 uses the verbal form μvá,: and one should
not assume an identity of meaning between a verbal and nominal form, even
if they are “based” on the same root. Second, while it is true that this sugges-
tion makes some sense of the various difficult passages, it is not clear why it
is better than Milgrom and Kiuchi. Third, and most importantly, the examples
28. Milgrom (1976: 11). See Milgrom (1996: 511–14; 2001: 2446–52) as he meets the chal-
lenge of Schenker (1994). Milgrom (1996: 514) notes especially that the “distinction between
intentional and presumptuous sins is nonexistent. All deliberate sins are presumed presump-
tuous unless they are tempered by subsequent acts of repentance.”
29. So Milgrom (1990a), who contrasts the prophetic tradition, where repentance was
identified as sufficient.
30. Kiuchi (1987: 31–34). See Milgrom’s response (1991: 338).
31. Sklar (2005: 38–39). Although Sklar affirms Milgrom’s observation that this term can-
not mean “be guilty,” he correctly criticizes the statement of Milgrom (1991: 343): “Thus it
is logical to expect that a language that, as observed, will express the consequential syn-
drome of sin-punishment by a single word will also have at least one root in its lexicon to ex-
press another consequential relationship, that which exists between sin-punishment and
guilt feelings.” Sklar calls Milgrom’s bluff: Milgrom is merely arguing from an expectation he
has about the Hebrew language rather than from evidence.
64 Chapter 4
used for the consequential meaning of μva as the suffering brought on by

guilt are all taken from non-Priestly texts.
It is the difficult cases of Lev 4:22–23, 27–28 that provide insight into the
meaning of μva and in the process affirm the second approach above. It is
clear from the evidence that μva is a phase distinct from yet intermediate be-
tween the sinful/impure act and the sacrificial act. The use of the conjunction
/a (“or”) in 4:22–23, 27–28 suggests some kind of relationship between μva
and the phrase HB: af:j: rv≤a“ /taF:j" wyl:aE [d"/h (“his sin which he has committed
is made known to him,” 4:23, 28). These two instances show that between
committing and sacrificing for sin there are two possible actions.
The one possible scenario is clear: someone makes known to the sinner the
infraction. This suggests that the other option is correlate but not identical,
the simplest option being that the sinner comes to know his/her guilt on his/
her own, that is, he/she recognizes his/her own guilt. Whether this involves
“feeling guilty” (Milgrom) 32 or it is prompted by consequences of the sin
(Sklar) is unclear and probably not in view. In the priestly legislation, μva sig-
nals the recognition of guilt.
Knowledge ([dy)
A correlate to recognition of guilt (μva) has been seen above as the knowl-
edge ([dy) of the sin. In the two previous examples, the use of the particle /a
ensures that recognition of guilt and knowledge of the sin committed are two
separate actions. Besides the two examples given above (4:22–23, 27–28),
however, one also finds references to knowledge ([dy) alongside recognition of
guilt (μva) in 4:14; 5:3, 4:
4:13–14. Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error and the
matter escapes the notice of the assembly, and they commit any of the
things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and they recognize
guilt, and/or [w]] the sin which they have committed becomes known [[dy Niphal]
...
5:3. Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort his uncleanness
may be with which he becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, and
then he comes to know it [[dy Qal] and/or [w]] he recognizes his guilt [μva] . . .
5:4. Or if a person swears thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do
good, in whatever matter a man may speak thoughtlessly with an oath, and
it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it [[dy Qal] and/or [w]] he rec-
ognizes his guilt [μva].
As can be seen in these examples, the phrases concerning knowledge of sin
([dy) and recognition of guilt (μva) are joined not by the conjunction /a (“or”)
32. See Biddle (2005: 101–2), who straddles Kiuchi and Milgrom: “It is safe to assert for
now that the verb μva (ªshm) denotes the perception of guilt, either as an act of recognition
or of the conscience.”
but rather by the conjunction w]. Although most introductory Hebrew students
are taught that this latter conjunction should be translated as “and,” it is un-
questionably the most versatile particle in the Hebrew language. One of the
options for this particle is “or,” 33 and, in light of the use of /a to connect these
phrases in Lev 4:23, 28, it is most likely that this is the sense of w] in 4:14; 5:3,
4. Thus, if the person or community does not recognize guilt when the law is
violated, there is the hope that the violation will be brought into the open.
What is important to notice is the key role that “knowing” plays in the
priestly ritual. The use of [dy reveals that, although each member of the com-
munity needed to be vigilant in recognizing guilt, there was a role for the
broader community to play in the identification of sin.
The text does not specify who makes the disclosure or how it is made, but it
clearly recognizes the need for someone to be attentive to transgressions of
God’s commandments. It is instructive to imagine that in a community of
faith the burden of addressing sin would be a shared responsibility. 34
Confession (hdy Hithpael)

Whereas recognition of guilt and knowledge of violation are consistent
components of the sin-purification and guilt-reparation offerings, at times an-
other element appears: “confession of sin.” The verb hdy (Hithpael) follows
the verb μva (“recognize guilt”) in Lev 5:5 and Num 5:6–7. This same verb
also appears in the Day of Atonement rituals (Lev 16:21), where it describes
the confession of “all the iniquities [ˆw[] of the children of Israel and all their
transgressions [[vp] in regard to all their sins [afj]” (nasb, modified). Finally,
hdy (Hithpael) also appears in Lev 26:40 to refer to confession of the iniquity
(ˆw[) of the future community exiled for unfaithfulness to Yahweh (see chap.
5, pp. 77–85 below).
The dominant view on the role of this confession is based on the observa-
tion that confession of deliberate sins is in view in all of these contexts,
prompting the conclusion that, for “involuntary sin, ªsm or remorse alone
suffices; it renders confession superfluous. But for deliberate sin there is the
added requirement that remorse be verbalized; the sin must be articulated
and responsibility assumed.” 35 Thus, remorse (μva) and confession (hdy Hith-
pael) reduce “intentional sin” to “an inadvertence,” rendering it “eligible for
33. Joüon 175 compares 2 Sam 2:19, 21, which communicates the same concept, with
v. 19 using /a (Úl<amøc‘Al[" /a Ún]ymIy]Al[" Úl} hf"n] “turn aside to your right or to your left”) and v. 21 using
w] (lamøV‘h"Al["w] ˆymIY;h"Al[" tk<l<l: hf:n;Aalø “he did not turn aside right or left”).
34. Balentine (2002b: 55), citing also Gal 6:1–2.
35. Milgrom (1976: 109–10). This contradicts a longstanding interpretation of Num
15:30b, that there was no forgiveness for those who brazenly violated God’s law: “A more cor-
rect understanding of this Priestly postulate would be that sacrificial atonement is barred to
the unrepentant sinner, to the one who ‘acts defiantly’ (byd rmh: to brys gly, ‘publicly’; byd rmh
ªw brmyh, ‘brazenly or deceitfully’, 1QS8:23), reviles (mgdp) the Lord . . .’ (Num. 15:30), but
not to the deliberate sinner who has mitigated his offense by his repentance”; see further
66 Chapter 4
sacrificial expiation.” 36 In this view, confession plays a key role in priestly

legislation:
Confession is the cotter pin that joins contrition to reparation and repara-
tion to a public commitment to change. Without confession, sin seeks the
camouflage of secrecy, the status remains quo, and brokenness continues to
diminish the “very good” world God has created. (Balentine 2002b: 57)
Confession such as this provides a way for Israelites to deal with deliberate and
even “high handed” sins, which according to Num 15:30–31 resulted in the
violator being “cut off” and “bearing their guilt.” The sins referred to in Num
15:30–31 were those of the unrepentant defiant sinner, that is, the sin they
had committed could have been remedied through confession, but their stub-
bornness has led to the dire circumstances of “being cut off.”
There are a couple of problems with this view, however. 37 First of all, pro-
ponents of the view recognize a close relationship between Lev 5:20–26[6:1–
7] and Num 5:5–10, showing how both are concerned with deliberate sin, in-
volve feeling guilty (μva), and demand reparations (one-fifth). However, the
verb hdy Hithpael (“to confess sins”) appears only in Num 5:5–10 and not in
Lev 5:20–26[6:1–7], which also speaks of deliberate sins. Therefore, Lev 5:20–
26[6:1–7] shows us that the priestly legislation did not always require confes-
sion of sins along with recognition of guilt to render deliberate sin expiable.
Second, the description of sins in Num 15:30–31 is that they are committed
hm:r; dy;B} (“with a high hand”), a phrase that parallels hg:g;v‘BI (“unintentionally”)
in Num 15:27, 29 (cf. 15:22 [WGv‘t]I , 24 [hg:g;v‘l]I ). Both of these adverbial phrases
relate to the committing of the act, not as is suggested in the view to a re-
sponse (such as repentance) subsequent to the committing of an act. That an
Milgrom (1990b: 34), who claims there that, actually, God compromises his justice. Levine
(1989: 28) takes the focus entirely off the confession: “The requirement of making confession
is not the main thrust of this statement. The verb hitvaddah, ‘to confess’ is more likely indica-
tive rather than subjunctive; it is conveying a fact rather than expressing a statement.” The
reason that confession is introduced at this point is that it is “material to the judicial pro-
cess,” for here “we are dealing with private acts and the failure to act, which might never
have come to light had the offender himself not come forth to confess.” Wenham (1979:
100) characterizes the sins in Lev 5:1–6 as sins of omission, those that slipped one’s memory:
“In each case, when conscience smites the forgetful person, he must confess his sin and bring
a purification offering” (p. 93).
36. Milgrom (1975: 117). Milgrom (1975: 119–20) makes an interesting note that repen-
tance in these early narratives is not the same as repentance in the prophets: it is ineffectual
prior to judgment . . . it can mitigate or postpone it, and in the case of exile it can termi-
nate the punishment but not prevent its onset. He also notes that repentance is a human
virtue, not a divine imperative, that is, people interceded for others (such as Moses) to an-
nul judgment, but not once are they expected to bring their people to repentance; against
this backdrop, one can see the innovation of P. This view was recently adopted by Janzen
(2004: 115–16).
37. See also Gane (2005).
approach such as this is incorrect is confirmed by the laws on killing in Num

35:11, 16–34, in which manslaughter (accidental killing, for which the same
term, hg;g;v,‘ is used) is contrasted with murder (killing with malicious deliber-
ation, jxr). The difference between the two is based not on a later response to
the act (remorse and repentance) but rather on an intention in the act.
It appears then that there are three categories of sin in the priestly legisla-
tion. Inadvertent violations (hg;g;v‘B)I and defiant violations (hm:r; dy;B)} lie at the
two extremes of a continuum, and between them is the category of deliberate
yet not defiant violations (Lev 5:1, 5:20–23[6:1–4]). Provision appears to be
made in the regular sin-purification and guilt-reparation offerings for inad-
vertent and at least some deliberate violations. But what about the defiant
violations?
Sacrifice, Confession, Humiliation, and Sabbath:

Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16)
Some have looked to the regulations for the yearly Day of Atonement for
the answer. This day required that Israelites humiliate themselves (Ata< WN["T}
μk<ytEvøp}n') and cease from work (Wc[“t" alø hk:al:m}Alk:) through a Sabbath of solemn
rest (ˆ/tB:væ tB"væ). 38 This “humiliation” is not defined clearly, although in Isa
58:3, 5 and Ps 35:13 this term is closely related to fasting rituals. It is argued
by some that this humbling on the Day of Atonement parallels the subjective
recognition (feeling) of guilt (μva) that was part of the regular sin-purification
and guilt-reparation offerings. Proponents of this view have focused particu-
lar attention on the sins of the people that are confessed on this day in Lev
16:21: “all the iniquities (ˆw[) of the children of Israel and all their transgres-
sions ([vp) in regard to all their sins (tafj).” 39 It is especially the term [vp
(often translated as “rebellion”) that is seen as indicating that the sins in view
include intentional sin, thus “because intentional sinners are prohibited from
bringing offerings to the sanctuary (cf. Num 15:27–31), their transgressions
must await the special rites of the high priest on the annual Day of Purifica-
tion.” 40 In this view, although the regular sin-purification and guilt-repara-
tion offerings possibly provided expiation for a group of deliberate but not
defiant sins, the yearly Day of Atonement rituals provided an opportunity for
even defiant sins. 41
38. Cf. Lev 16:29, 31; 23:27, 29, 32; Num 29:7.
39. Balentine (2002b: 132).
40. Balentine (2002b: 129); cf. Milgrom (1991: 1034, 1042–44; 1976: 109 n. 406).
41. Gane (2005: 233) traces this to an early interpretation of the Day of Atonement: “As
early as the Second Temple period, it has been thought that the opulent rites of the Day of
Atonement, combined with the people’s repentance expressed through self-denial, provide
forgiveness on a grand scale from various kinds of moral faults” (cf. m. Yoma 8:8–9; b. Yoma
86a).
68 Chapter 4
This view has been seriously challenged by the counter argument that the
Day of Atonement rituals lack any reference to forgiveness for sin for deliber-
ate rebellion. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that, although the verb
jls (“forgive”) is key to the sin-purification offerings throughout the year, it
is completely absent from the Day of Atonement legislation in Leviticus 16;
23:26–32; Num 29:7–11. 42 Instead, the Day of Atonement speaks only of rhf
(“cleansing”; Lev 16:30). Thus,
the laws of the Torah did not permit Israelites to expiate intentional or pre-
meditated offenses by means of sacrifice. There was no vicarious, ritual rem-
edy—substitution of one’s property or wealth—for such violations, whether
they were perpetrated against other individuals or against God Himself. In
those cases, the law dealt directly with the offender, imposing real punish-
ments and acting to prevent recurrences. The entire expiatory system or-
dained in the Torah must be understood in this light. Ritual expiation was
restricted to situations where a reasonable doubt existed as to willfulness of
the offense. Even then, restitution was always required where loss or injury
to another person had occurred. The mistaken notion that ritual worship
could atone for criminality or intentional religious desecration was persis-
tently attacked by the prophets of Israel, who considered it a major threat to
the entire covenantal relationship between Israel and God.43
The function, then, of the Day of Atonement rituals was to purify the sanctu-
ary and its sancta of impurities and sins (Lev 16:16, 18, 19, 33) and as a result
purify the people (Lev 16:30). Defiant sins could not be remedied for the in-
dividual by the sacrificial system, but because these sins defile the sanctuary
and the community as a whole, a remedy for this impurity was provided once
a year on the Day of Atonement.
All other faults (severe physical ritual impurities and nondefiant sins) were
remedied in two phases in the sacrificial system. The first phase is the regular
sin-purification offerings already described in Leviticus 4–5. Severe physical
impurities were remedied through an outer-altar offering, and nondefiant sins
were dealt with through either an outer-altar (if leader or individual lay per-
son) or an outer-sanctum (if priest or whole community) purification offer-
ing. The effect of this first phase for physical ritual impurity is purity (rhf)
and for nondefiant sin is forgiveness (jls).
The second phase is accomplished by the yearly Day of Atonement ritu-
als. On this day, corporate, inner-sanctum purification offerings remove
(rpk) physical ritual impurities (taøm}fU) and tafj sins of the Israelites (Lev
16:16, 19), that is, the same categories of violation that are removed from
offerers through the sin-purification offerings at the sanctuary throughout
the year. The result according to Lev 16:30 is that the community is
cleansed (rhf) from the impurity caused by sins. This is not an act of for-
giveness (jls) but rather an act of ritual cleansing (rhf) that rectifies the
42. Gane (2005: 233).

43. Levine (1989: 3), echoed by Gane.
impurity caused by all violations of the moral code of the community dur-
ing the previous year. Table 4.3 illustrates the differences between phase-
one and phase-two rituals.
Table 4.3. Regular versus Day of Atonement Rituals a
Types of Sin/Impurity and Phase 1 (Leviticus 4–15) Phase 2 (Leviticus 16)

Related Rituals for Regular Day of Atonement
Atoning-Purification, Sin-Purification Offering Sin-Purification Rituals
Cleansing, Forgiveness
Major physical ritual rhf (cleansing) for rpk (atoning
impurity (hamf) person purification) from
Lev 12:7; 14:19; 15:15, sanctuary
30; cf. Num 8:21
Impure person purified (rhf) by ritual during year.
Minor: various nonsacrificial rituals, including
isolation
Major: sin-purification offering for atoning
purification (rpk) of impurity (Lev 12:7; 14:19;
15:15, 30; cf. Num 8:21)
Atoning purification (rpk) from sanctuary on Day of
Atonement, presumably by destroying tafj carcass
outside camp (Lev 16:27). Not banished on goat.
Nondefiant sin (tafj) jls (forgiveness) for rpk (atoning
person purification) from
sanctuary
Lev 4:26; 5:6, 10 rhf (cleansing) for
person (Lev 16:30)
Sinner forgiven (jls) by atoning purification (rpk)
through noncalendric (outer-altar or outer-sanctum)
tafj (sin-purification) sacrifice (Lev 4:26; 5:6, 10).
Sinner cleansed (rhf) by atoning purification (rpk)
from sanctuary through inner-sanctum sin-
purification offering and banishing sin from camp
on Azazel’s goat.
Defiant sin ([vp) No provision for person rpk (atoning purifica-
tion) from sanctuary
No provision for person
Cleansed from sanctuary and banished from camp
on Day of Atonement but not removed or cleansed
from sinner at any time.
a. This table is based on Gane (2005: 276).

70 Chapter 4
Effect
The priestly legislation provides a way to remedy all forms of sin. In cases
of deliberate and defiant sin, this meant various forms of punishment, includ-
ing but not restricted to death for the sinner. For nondefiant sin and ritual
impurity, however, the rituals provided a way to rectify the breach in relation-
ship and bring the community, person, or object back into a condition of
orientation with Yahweh. These rituals effected atonement for both ritual im-
purity and moral violations, and this atonement was essential for the forgive-
ness and cleansing of the offending party. In certain cases, the rituals entailed
reparation of damages and change in behavior.
Atonement (rpk)
Many of the priestly rituals, especially those considered in detail above, are
seen as providing atonement (rP<K)I for the person or group that had violated
the priestly legislation. This verb, rpk, appears in priestly rituals dealing with
both major physical ritual impurity and nondefiant sins and thus is an essen-
tial goal for both conditions. A recent focused study on priestly vocabulary
concludes that “the verb rP<KI in sin contexts refers to the effecting of a rp<Kø on
behalf of the guilty party” (Sklar 2005: 101); Sklar (2005: 78) defines a rp<Kø as
a legally or ethically legitimate payment which delivers a guilty party from
a just punishment that is the right of the offended party to execute or to
have executed. The acceptance of this payment is entirely dependent upon
the choice of the offended party, it is a lesser punishment than was originally
expected, and its acceptance serves both to rescue the life of the guilty as well
as to appease the offended party, thus restoring peace to the relationship. 44
In contrast, when rP<KI appears in contexts of impurity (namely, in purification
and consecration contexts), it “refers to a sacrificial rite, carried out by the
priest on behalf of the person or object in need of cleansing, that results in
that person or object becoming pure,” suggesting the translation “to effect
purgation” (Sklar 2005: 135). This is supplemented with the note that “an ele-
ment of rp<Kø was probably also involved in the use of rP<KI in these contexts,”
because a major impurity put one in the same position as one who had com-
mitted an inadvertent sin (which is in need of a rp<K)ø and because those being
consecrated for service (Aaron and sons) were in danger as they approached
Yahweh (thus also in need of a rp<K)ø . Thus, “In short, the rP<K-I rite in these con-
texts accomplished both purgation and ransoming” (Sklar 2005: 135–36).
This analysis of the significance of rP<KI and rp<Kø is superb and the applica-
tion to contexts where this “ransom” rescues one from the consequences of
sin is the best explanation of the evidence. However, when analyzing the use
of this word in contexts related to impurity and consecration, one finds some
44. For this term, see Exod 21:30, 30:12; Num 35:31–32; Ps 49:8; Prov 13:8, 21:18; Job
33:24, 36:18; Isa 53:3; it is used as a term for a bribe in 1 Sam 12:3; Amos 5:12; Prov 6:35.
confusion between its effect (purification) and its function (to provide a ran-
som). When it came to contexts of sin, rP<KI was translated not as “to effect for-
giveness” but rather “to effect rP<KI (ransom),” as a prerequisite to forgiveness.
So also with impurity and consecration, it should be translated “to effect rP<KI
(ransom),” as a prerequisite to cleansing. 45
The function of the priestly rituals for impurity and sin is to provide a ran-
som payment. This has two effects: forgiveness and cleansing, to which we
now turn.
Forgiveness (jls)
One purpose of the priestly rituals in relation to sin is clearly forgiveness
(jls) of the sinner (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 5:26[6:7]; 19:22; Num
15:25–26, 28: all Niphal). The nature of jls, however, is slightly different from
the Western conception of forgiveness. Numbers 14 shows that jls involves
not necessarily the eradication of the penalty by the offended party (Yahweh)
but rather “the substitution of a mitigated penalty (non-entry into the land)
for a much more severe penalty (immediate destruction by plague).” 46 This
suggests that the sacrificial animal functioned in a similar way to modern-day
fines. Instead of the harsher penalty of incarceration, a mitigated financial
penalty is demanded. With a modern fine, the money is paid to the offended
party, often society in general represented by the Crown or State. Likewise, be-
cause in priestly legislation the party offended is Yahweh, whose law has been
violated, the fine is paid to Yahweh at the sanctuary.
Yahweh is the one who forgives, because when jls has a subject it is always
God in the Old Testament, and in the context of Leviticus 4–6 it is God’s com-
mands that have been offended. However, recently it has been argued that,
because jls is in the Niphal stem, rendered as a passive with no explicit sub-
ject (“it will be forgiven him” or “he will be forgiven it”), and thus contrasts
with the preceding verb, which has the priest as its subject, forgiveness is not
necessarily linked to the ritual.
By providing for forgiveness through sacrifice, Yhwh mercifully opened the
way for pardon even before the sinner recognized his offense. However, un-
like the purity that inevitably results from acceptable (i.e., properly per-
formed) rites provided for by Yhwh to remedy physical ritual impurities (e.g.,
Lev 12:7, 8), forgiveness for moral faults did not automatically result from
the priest’s activities; “only God determines their efficacy.” [citing Milgrom
45. Hartley (1992: lxviii–lxix) defines rpk as expiation in the following way: “to purge the
impurity released by a sin, to remove the sinner’s guilt with the granting of forgiveness, and
to restore the relationship between sinner and God.” As can be seen from the definition, his
focus is on purification/removal, which is indeed the effect of this process, but the focus of
rpk appears to be on the ransom/appeasement payment.
46. See Sklar (2005: 84–85) on atonement as mitigated punishment. Sklar notes how acn
ˆw[ (in the sense of forgiveness) and jls are used interchangeably in Num 14:18–19; cf. Exod
32:31–32; 34:7, 9.
72 Chapter 4
1991: 245] Therefore, it is implied that forgiveness was “conditional, as we

may suppose would be understood by the more spiritual Israelites, on the
penitence of the offerer” [citing Driver 1911]. 47
There is, however, no reason to deny this ritual its automatic efficacy on the
basis of the prescriptions in Leviticus 4–6.
The fact that forgiveness lies in the hand of the Lord and not of the priest,
however, does not imply that the sinner who brought the sacrifice was left
to wonder whether or not it had achieved its goal. Indeed, the emphasis of
the priestly literature is that the Lord Himself has provided these means so
that the sinner could gain forgiveness. 48
Forgiveness through the mitigated punishment of payment of rp<Kø is the dom-
inant effect of the priestly rituals related to sin.
Cleansing (afj rhf)

If the problem was physical ritual impurity, however, the person needed
to experience not forgiveness but rather purification, and this is expressed in
priestly legislation through verbs related to either the root rhf (Qal/Piel/
Hithpael, “to make clean”) or the root afj (Piel/Hithpael, “to de-sin/remove
sin”). 49 For instance, Lev 14:52–53:
He shall thus cleanse (afj Piel) the house with the blood of the bird and
with the running water, along with the live bird and with the cedar wood
and with the hyssop and with the scarlet string. However, he shall let the
live bird go free outside the city into the open field. So he shall make atone-
ment (rpk Piel) for the house, and it will be clean (rhf Qal).
Through the blood of the bird and the running (μyYij"h" = “living”) water, the
priest atones (rP<K)I for the house, an act equated with decontaminating (afj)
and resulting in the state of cleanness (rhf). The precise difference between
these two roots is difficult to identify, as Sklar concludes:
If there is any difference between them, it may simply be that the factitive
use of rhf [i.e., Piel] describes purification from a more positive perspective
(“to make pure”) whereas the privative use of afj describes the same from a
more negative perspective (“to de-sin,” that is, “to cleanse”). (Sklar 2005: 112)
In only one case is cleansing related directly to moral sin: the Day of Atone-
ment ritual in Lev 16:30. As already noted above, this shows that the moral
violations of the Israelites introduced impurity to the sanctuary precincts, and
the rituals on the Day of Atonement were designed to remove these impuri-
ties from the sanctuary and, by extension, the people.
47. Gane (2005: 51–52).

48. Janowski (2000: 252), cited and translated in Sklar (2005: 82 n. 87).
49. See Sklar (2005: 106–9), who concludes that the two words are synonymous; cf. Gane
(2005: 50).
Once something was made clean, it was then eligible for consecration (vdq;
see Exod 29:33, 36–37; Lev 16:18–19), a process that also may have included
sacrificial atonement (rpk). 50
Reparation and Behavior

The fact that restitution of property with penalty was important to the
Guilt-Reparation offering rituals (5:14–19, 20–26[6:1–7]) suggests that an-
other effect of these ritual procedures was the restoration of relationship with
and conditions of those injured by their sin. Thus, at least in this case, the
priestly rituals not only involved forgiveness for the violator but also im-
pacted the behavior of the violator. Balentine observes,
In ancient Israel as in the modern world, ritual is vulnerable to the criticism
that it is only ceremonial piety substituting for concrete acts of justice [cf.
Amos 5:21–24]. . . . Whenever persons break faith with God by violating an-
other human being, they must first make restitution to the person they
wronged, then bring their offering to the priest (6:5–6; MT: 5:24–25). The
entire process—the enactment of justice and the presentation of the repara-
tion offering—is part of the ritual. Justice is first enacted then ritualized in
ceremonial observance. (Balentine 2002b: 59)
Summary
The priestly legislation defines sin as something that threatens the purity
and holiness norms established by Yahweh in order to enable his enduring
presence among the people. Threats such as these may occur through com-
mission or omission. The seriousness of sin is determined by the intention of
the sinner (whether inadvertent, deliberate, or defiant) and the impact of the
sin on the community.
What is the priestly legislation’s vision for remedying these sorts of sins? In
his book Cult and Character, Roy Gane asks a fundamental question: “Why
should Yhwh deal with sin through sacrifices at the sanctuary when he could
do it without such procedures?” For him, one possible answer is: “The cult
was meant to teach moral values” (Gane 2005: 316).
This intersection between ritual and ethics, between cult and character,
helps orient the reader theologically for deciphering the intricacies of the
priestly legislation. 51 This intersection is highlighted by analyzing another
detailed body of priestly law: the biblical dietary laws. Such mundane priestly
50. See the chart in Sklar (2005: 126), after which Sklar concludes: “In short, the difference
between purification and consecration is one of degree more than substance—that is, both re-
fer to cleansing, with consecration being a more intense form of cleansing than purification.”
51. See also Jenson (2003: 121): “Different parts of the priestly tradition show stronger
and weaker developments of the moral dimension, but the affirmation of both moral and
cultic aspects of holiness in the final form of the canonical text warns against a sharp sepa-
ration of these aspects.”
74 Chapter 4
legislation is designed to ensure the success of the Torah, for “the Decalogue
would fail were it not rooted in a regularly observed ritual, central to the
home and table, and impinging on both senses and intellect, thus condition-
ing the reflexes into patterns of ethical behavior” (Milgrom 1989: 191). Thus,
by regulating a myriad of daily matters, these laws on ritual purity sought to
ingrain the concept of the holy into the social consciousness of the people.
The clean, i.e., the pure, the whole, the just, coincided with the holy while
that which was unclean corresponded to that which was imperfect, con-
fused, and false. By the daily observance of the ritual laws, a person sancti-
fies himself, developing a noble character that is in accord with the moral
law. (Milgrom 1989: 188)
The inspiration and goal of the holiness of Israel is nothing short of God’s
character (“you shall be holy, for I am holy”): “Holiness means imatitio dei—
the life of godliness.” However, although the Godhead is the foundation for
ethics in Israel, “the ethical is bound up with an[d] inseparable from the ritual,
and the pentateuchal codes make no distinction between them” (Milgrom
1989: 188).
The system of purities then had a didactic purpose:
to teach Israelites the difference between categories such as holy, profane,
pure and impure, which they would need to understand in order to relate to
the resident deity. . . . As they focus on these lesser impurities, this Penta-
teuchal tradition really had the larger moral issues and goals of religion as a
major concern. 52
The fact that major ritual impurities and nondefiant moral sins were recti-
fied through similar rituals prohibited the Israelites from bifurcating the rit-
uals. This meant that, even when they were seeking to rectify something as
mundane as a moldy house or bodily discharge, they were reminded of a
theological-symbolic world that was threatened by sin.
Likewise, the fact that impurity takes one phase but sin takes two phases
(sin-purification offering followed by the Day of Atonement) suggests that,
because sin involves disloyalty to Yahweh, full restoration and demonstration
of loyalty takes time (Gane 2005: 318). Those who acknowledged their guilt
in the sin-purification offering and then denied themselves on the Day of
Atonement expressed their commitment to God. Thus, these two events to-
gether form a system that “simultaneously recognizes the frailty of human
nature, with its penchant for fleeting repentance, provides assurance that the
moral equilibrium is restored, and encourages long-term moral rehabilita-
52. D. Wright (1991: 180). Further: “The moral order is also sustained by an individual’s
participation in ritual which creates a bond with society and expresses solidarity with the
community. The opposite is true: a lack of full participation or participation with lack of
proper intent or cynicism weakens solidarity” (D. Wright 1991: 177–78).
tion” (Gane 2005: 317). The rituals are thus designed to “teach moral values”
by forcing the Israelites to name and reflect on their sin.
Some have taken this even a step further:
Cultic penitence through sacrifices and related practices in Leviticus 4–5
and 16 is not yet the repentance found later in Leviticus, which is effective
even in exile apart from animal sacrifice (26:40–45). Nor is it the fuller re-
pentance of the prophets, which stresses reformation of behavior in daily
life along with change of attitude. However, by making confession (5:5) and
restitution (5:16, 23–24[6:4–5]) conditions for divine forgiveness in some
cases expiable by purification or reparation offerings and by requiring a
demonstration of penitence through self-denial on the part of those whose
expiable sins (twafj) have already been forgiven through sacrifice (16:29–
31), Leviticus points beyond mere freedom from condemnation to moral re-
habilitation and restoration of the whole divine-human shared life experi-
ence. The fact that forgiveness (jls) is granted by the divine will alone
(4:20, 26, 31, 35) closes the door to hypocritical rituals performed by those
who presume upon Yhwh’s clemency while persisting in their sins. 53
This conclusion, however, exceeds the evidence. First, the present study has
challenged the view that forgiveness is granted only by the divine will. Le-
viticus 4 creates the expectation that if the rituals are followed they will re-
sult in forgiveness. Second, and more importantly, terms such as penitence
and repentance are inappropriate based on these texts. Our study has been
able to confirm only that the priestly legislation speaks of recognition of
guilt and confession of sin, rather than anything as significant as remorse
over sin or repentance. Certainly, the demand of restitution plus penalty in
the guilt-reparation offering suggests an impact on the behavior of the of-
ferer, but this stands alone among the rituals. The imprecise nature of the hu-
miliation on the Day of Atonement makes it difficult to know if this involved
remorse. 54
53. Gane (2005: 380). Here Gane clearly echoes his former supervisor, Milgrom.
54. Gane does not stand alone in this sort of overstatement. For instance, Wenham (1995:
83) has written, “In every sacrifice the worshipper gave himself back to God in penitence and
commitment.” Lucas (1995: 72) claims: “Sacrifice, at its best, was an expression of homage
and obedience to Yahweh. It was an expression which he ordained. Such homage and dedi-
cation, if genuine, would be shown by a life lived in daily obedience to his moral require-
ments as well as the ritual ones. In other words, it was the way of life of the person who
offered the sacrifice that Yahweh looked at, not merely the sacrifice itself.” Furthermore,
Hartley (1992: lxxi) has written, in regard to the laying of the hand on the head of the ani-
mal in the sin-purification offering ritual, that “it is assumed that at this step the offerer
made a confession of sin or a word of praise or a statement of intent concerning the offering.
The prophets, selected psalms, and the rabbinic tradition forcefully teach that personal re-
morse and contrition were essential for an expiating sacrifice to be effectual.” These claims
are common among commentators working with the priestly texts and are probably endur-
ing testimony to the impact of Milgrom’s “Priestly Doctrine of Repentance.” However, the
present reappraisal has found that the “Priestly Doctrine of Repentance” can only be identi-
fied clearly in the nonritual text of Leviticus 26 (see below, pp. 82–85).
76 Chapter 4
This does not mean that the priestly rituals are irrelevant to the study of
sin and its remedy, especially in relation to repentance and forgiveness. These
many priestly rituals for dealing with sin reveal the importance of several key
principles.
First, the rituals involving various animals and their blood suggest the
costly character of sin. Not only does one’s sin demand the loss of a life but
it means the economic loss of that animal from one’s herd. Forgiveness meant
mitigated punishment: one avoided death, but it cost something.
Second, knowledge, recognition, and confession of guilt are important to rem-
edying sin. Recognition may come from the violator, but at times the com-
munity was to play a role in bringing violations to the attention of its
members. The constant reference to “recognition of guilt” suggests that the
sacrificial system was designed to foster the formation of conscience within
the community, but the constant references to “knowing” suggest that it was
designed also to foster accountability. Demanding verbal confession in cases
of certain deliberate sins brought these two aspects together, forcing the wor-
shiper to recognize guilt and expose sin before covenant God and community.
Third, the need for purification of the sanctuary and its altars shows that
sin endangered the community’s relationship with their God. The Creator of
the universe, the covenant God who had spoken with such power from Sinai,
was the same God who had descended in Exodus 40 into the tabernacle at the
center of their camp. The people were shown on a regular basis that they
should not take their sin lightly, lest this God abandon a defiled and unworthy
tabernacle. Unfortunately, this very thing eventually happened, recorded by
the prophet Ezekiel, who shared the priestly world view (see Ezekiel, pp. 253–
293 below).
Fourth, the need for reparation and restitution in the priestly legislation
showed that sin had an impact on others and demanded that a person change
his or her behavior practically in light of the grace that was afforded through the
sacrificial rite.
What the priestly legislation provided then was an intricate theological-
symbolic world designed to preserve God’s presence in the midst of his
people. The people were constantly reminded of his holy character through
their failure to follow his commands but at the same time experienced his gra-
cious character as they received atonement for both cleansing and forgive-
ness. Through these priestly encounters with God’s holiness and grace, they
were reminded of their need to “be holy as he is holy.”
chapter high
Chapter 5
Leviticus (Part 2)
The theological perspective evident in the priestly legislation in Leviticus

1–16 needs to be supplemented by the legislative section found at the end of
the book in chaps. 17–27. 1 This section, at the core of which lies what is often
called the Holiness Code (H), begins with the superscription in 17:1–2 and
ends with the subscriptions in 26:46 and 27:34: 2
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron and to his sons and
to all the children of Israel and say to them, ‘This is what the Lord has com-
manded, saying. . . .’” (17:1–2)
These are the statutes and ordinances and laws which the Lord established
between himself and the children of Israel through Moses at Mount Sinai.
(26:46, nasb, modified)
These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the
children of Israel at Mount Sinai. (27:34, nasb, modified)
In this section, the priestly legislation extends beyond ritual matters.
Though many have contrasted this section of Leviticus with the earlier
priestly texts, 3 the canonical form of Leviticus integrates this code with the
ritual law of Leviticus 1–16, which is not surprising because both operate on
the same theological principles. 4
1. On the overall structure of Leviticus and the overall priestly world view reflected in
Leviticus see the introduction to chap. 4, pp. 49–50.
2. What Balentine (2002b: 13) called the “fulcrum” of the Sinai legislation. For recent
work on the role of H in the latest stages of the development of the Pentateuch, see Davies
(2003: 82–83).
3. See Milgrom (2004b: 175), who notes that at chap. 17 “the verbal and ideological scen-
ery of Leviticus changes.” Knohl (1995) has probably argued the most strongly for the deep
contrast between his PT (Priestly Torah) and HS (Holiness School). He sees these as represent-
ing two different priestly groups, with PT advocating “total separation between the ethical
realm and the cultic” (p. 226) and HS as “a reaction to the prophetic critique of cultic insti-
tutions” (p. 229), “a moral refinement of the purely cultic conception, stemming from
Priestly circles themselves, under the influence of the prophetic critique” (p. 216). However,
note Milgrom (2001: 2330) and Balentine (2002b: 202), who argue that the prophetic doc-
trine of repentance is possibly influenced by the priestly. See also Milgrom (1991: 21–26) and
Jenson (2003: 110–15) for a critique of Knohl.
4. So Jenson (2003: 112): “The interspersing of Holiness Code texts through the Priestly
Torah suggests that the early editors saw substantial continuity; see also Olyan (2000: 122).
For recent research on the Holiness Code and other texts that are attributed to it, see Stackert
(2007).
- 77 -
78 Chapter 5
This is demonstrated best by comparing the theological basis for the cere-
monial laws of chaps. 11–15 in Lev 11:44–45 with the theological basis for the
holiness laws of chaps. 17–27 in Lev 20:7–8, 26.
For I am the Lord your God (μk<yhEløa” hw;hy] ynia“ yKI). Consecrate yourselves (vdq
Hithpael) therefore, and be (hyh) holy (v/dq:), for I am holy (ynia: v/dq: yKI). And
you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things
that swarm on the earth. For I am the Lord who brought you up from the
land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be (hyh) holy (v/dq:), for I am
holy (ynia: v/dq: yKI). (11:44–45)
You shall consecrate yourselves (vdq Hithpael) therefore and be (hyh) holy
(v/dq:), for I am the Lord your God (μk<yhEløa” hw;hy] ynia“ yKI). You shall keep my
statutes and practice them; I am the Lord who sanctifies (vdq Piel) you.
. . . Thus you are to be (hyh) holy (v/dq:) to me, for I the Lord am holy (v/dq:
hw;hy] ynia)“ ; and I have set you apart (ldb Hiphil) from the peoples to be mine.
(20:7–8, 26)
Both the purity laws of chaps. 11–15 and the Holiness Code with its mixture
of purity, worship, and moral law are based on Yahweh’s holiness and Israel’s
holy status in relation to Yahweh.
Leviticus 17–25
Because of the presence of this saving, holy, and sanctifying God in their
midst, the people must remain on guard lest they defile (amf Piel/Hithpael)
themselves, the land, or the sanctuary, or profane (llh Piel) God’s name, sa-
cred things, or the sanctuary. 5 Failure to do so endangers their enduring pres-
ence in the land, which will spew them out (ayq), just as it did the nations that
preceded them. 6 Because the implications of these infractions are so serious,
severe punishment is legislated for those who offend the code, as noted in our
previous chapter. They will be “cut off” (trk) from among the people, put to
death (twm), stoned (μgr), and destroyed (dba). 7 Because they deserve punish-
ments such as these, their blood is on their own heads. 8
While the vocabulary just reviewed emphasizes the negative behavior to be
avoided, 9 other vocabulary calls the community to positive behavior. They
are exhorted to consecrate themselves (vdq Hithpael) and to show reverence
5. Defile themselves: Lev 18:30; 19:31; 21:1, 4, 11; 22:5, 6, 8; cf. 11:44. Defile the land: Lev
18:25, 27, 28. Defile the sanctuary: Lev 20:3. Profane God’s name: Lev 18:21; 19:12; 20:3; 21:6;
22:2, 32–33. Profane sacred things: Lev 19:8, 22:15. Profane the sanctuary: Lev 21:12, 23.
6. Lev 18:28, 20:22; cf. Lev 18:25; cf. also Leviticus 26.
7. Cut off: Lev 17:4, 9, 10, 14; 18:29; 19:8, 10; 20:5, 6, 17, 18; 22:3; 23:29. Put to death: Lev
20:2, 10–13, 15–16, 27; 24:16–17, 21. Stoned: Lev 20:2, 27; 24:14, 16. Destroyed: Lev 23:30.
8. Lev 17:4; 20:9, 11–13, 16, 27.
9. Milgrom (2004b: 178) says that this “negative holiness” is “equally important and even
more operative in daily life.”
(ary) for God and his sanctuary. 10 Furthermore, the detailed legislation in Le-
viticus 17–27 is peppered with general exhortations calling the people and
priests to perform (hv[), keep (rmv), and live out (˚lh) Yahweh’s judgments
(fpvm), statutes (qj), charge (trmvm), and commands (hwxm). 11
The content of the legislation found throughout chaps. 17–27 broadens the
priestly legislation beyond the sacrificial and ceremonial law of chaps. 1–16.
Holiness is not primarily a moral term, but neither is it inherently amoral.
The chief concern in the priestly legislation is that holiness be kept apart
from the impure. However, it is also clear that the holy God will not tolerate
sin and injustice among his holy people, an emphasis found particularly in
the Holiness Code. Different parts of the priestly tradition show stronger
and weaker developments of the moral dimension, but the affirmation of
both moral and cultic aspects of holiness in the final form of the canonical
text warns us against a sharp separation of these aspects. (Jenson 2003: 121)
Indeed, Leviticus 17–27 “expands the realm of holiness” so that “the concept
of holiness also encompasses the realm of social justice” and “includes all
areas of life and applies to the entire community of Israel and the land they
inhabit” (Knohl 1995: 180). Therefore, this section “imbues the daily life of
every Israelite with something of the atmosphere of the Temple service,” mak-
ing the entire land of Israel a holy place (Knohl 1995: 190). Certainly, this ex-
tension into “daily life” can already be discerned in the ceremonial law of
chaps. 11–15 (see discussion on Leviticus 1–16), but in chapters 17–27 there
is a “fusing of the realms of cult and morality” (Knohl 1995: 176).
Key to this broader vision is the commandment not only to “love your
neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18) but also to “love [the foreigner] as yourself”
(Lev 19:34). This core principle is “explicated by repeating exhortations to
work for justice and righteousness in and for the sake of the land, which Israel
holds in trust as a gift from God (18:24–30, 20:22–26, 25:18–24, 26:3–45).” 12
Thus, although the legislation in these chapters does provide ritual instruc-
tion (chaps. 17, 21–25), preserving “the centrality of cultic institutions,” it is
also concerned with moral matters related to the treatment of others (chaps.
18–20; 24:1–23), including sexual and economic practices and family and so-
cial relationships (Knohl 1995: 216–18). In these chapters of Leviticus, holi-
ness involves both keeping the Sabbath (Lev 19:3) and using honest weights
(Lev 19:35–36). Even the Sabbath legislation, expressed through the Jubilee
law in Leviticus 25, promotes social justice.
10. Consecrate themselves: Lev 20:7; cf. 11:44. Show reverence for God: Lev 19:14, 32; 25:17,
36, 43. Show reverence for his sanctuary: Lev 19:30, 26:2; cf. 19:3.
11. What Patrick (1985: 154) calls the “hortatory sections within the code.” Lev 18:3–5,
26, 30; 19:19, 37; 20:8, 22; 22:9, 31; 25:18; 26:3, 14–15, 43–44, 46.
12. Balentine (2002b: 13). Milgrom (2004b: 175) argues that the editor of Leviticus has
placed chap. 19 at the center of the book, bracketing it with chaps. 18 and 20, which both
deal with sexual prohibitions.
80 Chapter 5
As noted in the introduction to the priestly legislation (see previous chap-

ter, pp. 50–52), the canonical form of Leviticus reveals that “the priests nei-
ther envisioned nor sanctioned any disjunction between the summons to
ritual purity and the summons to ethical conduct,” so that “the rituals of holy
worship are not only inextricably wedded to the ethics of holy living; they are
also fundamentally generative of the community’s motivation to obedience
. . . fidelity to ritual has the capacity to create ethical sensitivity.” 13 The list of
laws in the Holiness Code, along with their attendant punishments, were de-
signed to discourage and deal with sin within the community.
Ubiquitous in this section is the phrase “I am Yahweh (your God),” 14 a
constant reminder of the theological foundation for this code. It is because
Yahweh is holy (vdq) that not only the priests but also the people as a whole
are to be holy. 15 Whereas, in the priestly system, various rituals are essential
to making something or someone holy (vdq Piel), Yahweh can make someone
holy by his own redemptive action and divine election. 16 Thus, Yahweh has
rescued Israel from Egypt (awb), subsequently separating (ldb Hiphil) them
from the nations and consecrating/sanctifying (vdq Piel) them. 17 Further-
more, not only does Yahweh consecrate/sanctify Israel in chaps. 17–27 but, as
was true for the purity laws in chaps. 11–15 (see 11:44), they are to sanctify
themselves (20:7–8). 18
These divine and human dimensions of the “consecration/sanctification”
of Israel are brought together in Leviticus 20. 19 In this chapter, the people are
13. Balentine (2002b: 142–43). Cf. Patrick (1985: 152), who speaks of the “intellectual
and artistic design” of the “final form of the text.” Contra Knohl (1995: 216), who says that
his Holiness School “eliminates the barrier, set up by PT [Priestly Torah], between morality
and the cult, incorporating both under the broadened rubric of holiness.”
14. Lev 18:2, 4–6, 21, 30; 19:3–4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 30–32, 34, 36–37; 20:7; 21:12;
22:2, 3, 8, 30–31, 33; 23:8, 22, 30–31, 43; 24:22; 25:17, 55; 26:1, 2, 44–45.
15. Lev 19:2; 20:26; 21:7–8, 23; cf. 20:7; 21:6–7. Milgrom (2004b: 219) emphasizes this
expansion in the Holiness Code: “Holiness is not just for priests, but for priests, Levites and
Israelites.”
16. With the intricacy of priestly ritual, one can easily loose sight of the fact that it is Yah-
weh who provided this legislation and, through it, consecrates. Jenson (1992: 48) reminds us
that consecration is ultimately an act of God, not of the priests: “Since the normal state of
earthly things is purity, it requires a special act of God to make a thing or person holy. God
ultimately consecrates or sanctifies (piel or hiphil of vdq), although he may make use of per-
sons and material means.”
17. Rescue from Egypt: Lev 19:36; 22:33; 23:43; 25:38, 55; 26:13–14. Separate: Lev 20:24, 26.
Consecrate/Sanctify: Lev 20:8; 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32.
18. Milgrom (2004b: 179) dismisses Yahweh’s claim as sanctifier, even though this is so
dominant in the text. “In sum, though the text speaks of the Yhwh who sanctifies Israel, the
reality is that Israel sanctifies itself through Yhwh. If it obeys Yhwh’s commandments, its
sanctification is automatic, a built-in result of the commandments.”
19. Levine (1989: 257) shows how the divine and human elements of consecration are
demonstrated in the Sabbath laws of Exod 20:8–11. God had consecrated Sabbath as holy
(Exod 20:11, vdq Piel), and yet the Israelites were also to consecrate it (Exod 20:8, vdq Piel).
told to “consecrate” themselves (vdq Hithpael), an act that is linked to “being

holy” (v/dq: hyh) and to keeping (rmv) God’s statutes (hQ:j)U and practicing (hc[)
them (20:7–8a). The surrounding statutes are related to inappropriate cult
(Molech cult, mediums, spiritists) and moral (cursing parents, sexual infrac-
tions) and purity practices. As in Lev 11:44–45, to “consecrate” oneself is re-
lated not to priestly rituals but rather to obedience to the law.
This call to self-consecration and holiness is intricately related to Yahweh.
First, it is connected to Yahweh’s act of consecration of the people (“I am the
Lord who sanctifies you,” Lev 20:8b). This refers to Yahweh’s designation of
Israel as a community “set apart” from the other nations, as Lev 20:26 (“I
have set you apart [ldb Hiphil] from the peoples to be mine”) makes clear. In
this, the Holiness Code echoes the designation of Israel as “a kingdom of
priests” and “a holy nation” in Exodus 19. It is Yahweh’s covenant declaration
that Israel is consecrated to him that is the basis for Israel’s response of self-
consecration through obedience. Second, this call to self-consecration is re-
lated to Yahweh’s character of holiness in Lev 20:26: “for I the Lord am holy.”
“The way to holiness, in other words, was for Israelites, individually and col-
lectively, to emulate God’s attributes. In theological terms this principle is
known as imitatio dei, ‘the imitation of God’” (Levine 1989: 256). Therefore,
it is Yahweh’s act of consecration and his character of holiness that is to
prompt Israel to respond with self-consecration.
In the Holiness Code, holiness is a dynamic force that can increase as the
people are faithful to Yahweh. Thus, Lev 22:31–32 says,
So you shall keep my commandments, and do them; I am the Lord. You
shall not profane my holy name, but I will be sanctified among the sons of
Israel; I am the Lord who sanctifies you, who brought you out from the
land of Egypt, to be your God; I am the Lord.
This reveals that
there is no one-time act in which God endows Israel with permanent holi-
ness; there is, rather, a constant process of sanctification, which is realized
through God’s activities in the Temple and through the fulfillment of the
commandments. The commandments not only endow Israel with holiness
but also increase the holiness of God. 20
This concern with holiness highlights the close relationship between the Ho-
liness Code and the priestly world view seen in Leviticus 1–16. Although at
times the Holiness Code is concerned with ritual matters, it addresses areas of
sin that cannot be remedied through the sacrificial system and for which
there was a need for constant vigilance and obedience. These sorts of sins
were remedied through the constant call to holiness that is linked to the char-
acter of their holy Creator, who “sanctifies them” even as they “sanctify
themselves.” The punishments for the various sins were also designed to
20. Knohl (1995: 182–83).

82 Chapter 5
dissuade violations and to remove sinners from the community. Leviticus 17–
25, however, does not address the issue of forgiveness for defiant sin, and, for
this, a closer look at Leviticus 26 is in order.
Leviticus 26
The examination of Leviticus 1–16 and the priestly system in general (see
chap. 4, pp. 60–73) revealed that there is no forgiveness for the defiant sinner
in the priestly legislation. This does not mean, however, that God was unable
or unwilling to forgive sinners outside the ritual system, as illustrated in the
larger context that surrounds the book of Leviticus (see Exod 34:7, Num
14:18). Thus,
the ritual system was inadequate to provide even a token cost of composition
[= ransom/appeasement] in cases of rebellious sin, which were all too fre-
quent in Israel’s history. Nevertheless, Yhwh forgave repeatedly. So Yhwh’s
grace was not limited by cultic constraints. (Gane 2005: 298)
Although this shows the constraints of the priestly ritual system, the exami-
nation of Leviticus 17–25 has highlighted the way in which the Holiness Code
did address defiant sin, calling Israel to replicate the holiness of the God who
had saved and consecrated them. The passage that follows the core Holiness
Code legislation, however, represents a key piece of priestly legislation that
did provide a way forward for a nation whose failures would violate the Ho-
liness Code and exceed all the provisions found in the priestly ritual system.
Leviticus 26:1–39
Leviticus 26 stands out from the preceding material in the Holiness Code,
with its long list of blessings that would accompany obedience (26:3–13) and
curses that would accompany disobedience (26:14–39). Blessings and curses
such as these are typical of ancient covenantal forms, usually appearing near
the end of the covenant document (see discussion on Exodus 19–24 above,
pp. 37–41). 21 Leviticus 26 thus signals the end of a major section of the Torah,
one that began with the covenantal encounter between Yahweh and Israel on
Sinai in Exodus 19–20. 22
These blessings and curses are designed not merely as rewards for good be-
havior and punishments for bad behavior. The blessings in vv. 3–13 are in-
centives to encourage obedience to the priestly legislation in particular
(Leviticus 1–25) and the covenant (Exodus 20–Leviticus 25) in general. Simi-
21. Kline (1963); Baltzer (1971); McCarthy (1978). Whether one accepts the connections
often made between ancient treaty forms and the Old Testament, the Old Testament law
codes do appear to include blessings and curses (see also Deuteronomy 28–30). See further
the debate over covenant in the discussion of Exodus 19–24 above, pp. 37–41. Also note
Davies (2003) and Milgrom (2004b) on the covenant motif in Leviticus 26.
22. On the connection between Leviticus 26 and the Sinai covenant, especially the con-
nection back to Exodus 19–20, see Milgrom (2004b).
Table 5.1. Introductions to Curses in Leviticus 26
ylI W[m}v‘tI alø hL<aEAd["AμaIw] 26:18 If also after these things you do not
obey me
ylI ['møv‘lI Wbatø aløw] yriq < yMI[I Wkl}TEAμaIw] 26:21 If then, you act with hostility against
me and are unwilling to obey me
yriq, yMI[I μT<k}l"h“w' ylI Wrs}W;tI alø hL<aEB}AμaIw] 26:23 And if by these things you are not
turned to me, but act with hostility
against me
yriqB< } yMI[I μT<k}l"h“w' ylI W[m}v‘tI alø tazoB}AμaIw] 26:27 Yet if in spite of this you do not obey
me, but act with hostility against me
larly, the curses in vv. 14–39 are designed to dissuade the people from even
considering disobedience, but also to encourage them to turn from their dis-
obedience. As the introduction to each successive curse group reveals (see
table 5.1), these curses provided an opportunity for repentance and renewal.
The blessings and curses of Leviticus 26 thus reveal another way for dealing
with sin according to the Holiness Code. Yahweh would use a system of cove-
nant blessings and curses to encourage obedience and discourage sin. The dis-
cipline of curse was designed to turn the people from sin and save them from
more severe discipline.
Leviticus 26:40–41
With the final curse group (26:27–39), Yahweh signals that the relationship
has reached the point of no return by declaring for the third and final time
that he will “punish you seven times for your sins” (Al[" [b"v≤ ynia:Aπa" μk<t}a< yTIr]S"yiw ]
μk<ytEaFøj," Lev 26:28). This section of curses reaches its climax with a description
of the destruction of the land and exile of the people. But it is at the nadir of
curse that Leviticus 26 provides hope, describing that it will be then, while they
are in the land of their enemies, that the remnant (μyria:v‘Nih"w,] 26:39) will confess
(hdy Hithpael) their sins (ˆw[) and the sins (ˆw[) of their ancestors (26:40). In this,
we see what is often articulated as the theology of intergenerational culpability,
the belief that sins committed by one generation have implications for future
generations. The sins here are described with the strong priestly term l[m, a
term reserved for violations against God’s sanctity (26:40). This confession of
sin is associated in 26:41 with the humbling ([nk Niphal) of their uncircumcised
hearts and making amends (hxr) for their iniquity (ˆw[). 23
23. There is no conditional particle at the beginning of Lev 26:40. The Hebrew text reads
“and they will confess” (WDw't}hIw)] . It is possible that this waw introduces a protasis, the apodosis
of which is introduced by the two uses of za: in 26:41b and continued by the waw in 26:42.
Waltke and O’Connor (§38.2d, pp. 636–38) note that the protasis can be introduced asyndet-
ically (cf. §32.2.3, pp. 530–34) and notice examples of asyndetic protasis followed by za: in
84 Chapter 5
It is fascinating that here one finds an echo of two elements found in the
Day of Atonement rituals of Leviticus 16: confessing sins (hdy Hithpael) and
humbling oneself ([nk Niphal). 24 Many have noted the emphasis on repen-
tance and the odd lack of sacrifice in this Priestly vision of future renewal. “It
is most instructive that in the midst of a Priestly text [Leviticus] so focused on
the importance of sacrifice as a means of expiating sin, that there is here no
requirement of sacrifice at all” (Balentine 2002b: 202). Some have suggested
that the absence of reference to sacrifice can be linked to the fact that the text
envisions renewal during the exilic period when the temple was unavailable
(Milgrom 2001). However, the long list of curses envisions a period leading up
to exile when the temple was available but during which repentance was con-
sistently expected with no mention of sacrifice. Furthermore, the description
of sin throughout the chapter does not appear to be merely inadvertent sin
but rather enduring deliberate and defiant violation of the commands for
which forgiveness was not available through the priestly rituals anyway.
A clue to understanding this passage is found in the way the punishment
of exile is described. The precise character of the “payment” that is key to the
restoration is articulated in 26:43 (cf. 26:34), where it refers to the period of
the Exile when the land would lie fallow. That this is described using the root
hxr, a root used consistently throughout the Priestly corpus for acceptable sac-
rifice, 25 suggests that the Exile itself is functioning in the role of sacrifice, cre-
ating a close conceptual link between punishment and sacrifice. We have
already noted positively above the argument that sacrifice can be understood
as a form of mitigated punishment. In the same way, the covenant curses
throughout Leviticus 26, including exile itself, although the most severe, are
short of what Israel deserved, which is complete annihilation for their defiant
wickedness. Thus, although Israel’s defiant sins were not eligible for the two
phases of sin-purification offerings in the priestly system (Leviticus 4–5, 16),
they could be remedied through the mitigated punishment of the covenant
curses, punishments designed to encourage repentance.
2 Kgs 13:19 and Job 3:13. However, the use of /a immediately before za: in Lev 26:41 suggests
that this is considered a situation parallel to the confession of sin. Contra Balentine (2002b:
201–2), who notes on Lev 26:40–46, “The rhetoric of the announcement employs an impor-
tant combination of active and passive verbal forms. Israel must take responsibility for the
confession of sin; the rest of the activity it need only accept as the work God does on its be-
half. God will effect the change of heart, and God will enact the punishment the people
must receive.”
24. See further Boda (1999: 47–55; 2001).
25. Lev 1:4; 7:18; 19:7; 22:23, 25, 27; Deut 33:11; 2 Sam 24:23; Jer 14:10, 12; Ezek 20:40,
41; 43:27; Hos 8:13; Amos 5:22; Mic 6:7; Mal 1:10, 13; Pss 51:18; 119:108. See HALOT, which
identifies hxr in Leviticus 26, Isa 40:2, Job 20:10, and 2 Chr 36:21 as a root distinct from hxrI,
which is usually glossed as “to take pleasure in, be favourable to someone, be well disposed
. . . to accept with pleasure . . . to become friends with” in the Qal, “to be regarded as pleas-
ing” in the Niphal, and “to make oneself favourable to” in the Hithpael; cf. Davies (2003: 85).
Alongside the endurance of this mitigated punishment, one finds confess-

ing sin and humbling hearts, and together these provide a way forward for an
Israel whose defiant sin had offended its holy God. The references throughout
Leviticus 26 to listening to Yahweh and carrying out his commands as essen-
tial to bringing an end to covenant curses, along with the special focus on
confession and humility, provide a penitential vision for emerging from exile
and restoring relationship after committing defiant sin.
Leviticus 26 therefore reveals that within the priestly legislation there was
room for dealing with deliberate and what appears to be defiant sin. Al-
though this sort of sin brought punishment, once the punishment was en-
acted it was possible then to “obey/listen to Yahweh” and “carry out all his
commandments.”
However, the expectation created by this list of curses and the careful at-
tention to strategies for renewal for a people in exile introduces a pessimistic
tone into the priestly legislation. It is expected that the people will struggle to
fully realize the vision of purity and holiness outlined in this legislation and
will only turn to God in the extremity of exile.
Summary
Leviticus 17–27 adds another layer to the rich theology of sin and its rem-
edy within the book of Leviticus. The categories of sin are expanded beyond
the ritual to the moral, and the remedy for sin is multifaceted. It is theologi-
cally grounded in Yahweh’s character of holiness and in Yahweh’s consecrative act
of separating Israel from the nations when he rescued them from Egypt. Israel
was called to consecrate itself in light of this redemptive act and in light of Yah-
weh’s character. The intricate legal code, with attendant punishments, identified
for Israel the areas of concern, discouraged behavior of this sort, and punished
and even removed offenders within the community. Although the adminis-
tration of the legal code was designed to deal with offenses, Yahweh provided
his own direct covenant blessings to encourage obedience and direct covenant
curses to discourage and bring an end to disobedience. These curses appear to
replace sacrifice with the suffering connected with the curse. This is made
clear in the ultimate curse of exile, which promotes listening to Yahweh, adher-
ing to commands, confessing sins, humbling the heart, and providing sacrifice
through suffering. Through this, there is an opportunity for renewal of cove-
nant with Yahweh.
Chapter 6
Numbers
The book of Numbers brings closure to the experience of Israel at Sinai be-
fore tracing its failure to enter the land from the south at Kadesh. This failure
leads to a 40-year sojourn in the wilderness because of the banning of an en-
tire generation from entrance into the land. Although a major rhetorical
break in the book of Numbers comes at 10:11 as Israel leaves Sinai, the census
at the outset of the book signals the beginning of a new literary corpus in two
ways. First, this census begins a shift in focus from the fulfillment of the
promise of covenant to Abraham, which has been in view in Exodus and Le-
viticus, to the fulfillment of the promise of land to Abraham (Clines 1978).
This is seen in the purpose identified with this census in Num 1:3: “Whoever
is able to go out to war in Israel, you and Aaron shall number them by their
armies” (see also 1:20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45). Israel’s at-
tention was now to shift from the establishment of covenant to preparation
for the conquest of the land. Second, this census of the generation that came
out of Egypt (1:1) plays an important role in this book, which will focus con-
siderable attention on the rebellion and rejection of this generation in the
wilderness. It provides evidence at the outset of the guilty who will be re-
placed by another generation listed in a second census near the end of the
book (Numbers 26). 1
The census introduces the first major section, Num 1:1–10:10, in which Is-
rael begins preparations to leave Sinai. Throughout this section, however, ap-
pear passing references to “dangerous and deadly divine power” (3:4, 10; 4:15,
18, 20; 5:2; 6:6–7; 8:19; 9:6–11), foreshadowing the approaching crisis of dis-
obedience that dominates the remainder of the book (Olson 1997: 230).
After the text stalls in its horizontal movement at the arrival at Sinai in Ex-
odus 19, Num 10:11 signals the resumption of the wilderness journey. This
“wilderness wandering” tradition in the Torah is focused largely in two sec-
tions: Exod 15:22–18:27 and Num 10:11–25:18. 2 The first section traces the
1. Olson (1985), notwithstanding the critique of W. Lee (2003) and Knierim and Coats
(2005); see further below, especially the similarity between Num 26:2 and 1:1–3 and see the
important note in Num 26:63–65.
2. I thank my graduate assistant, Joel Barker, for rich conversation and superb research on
the wilderness traditions.
- 86 -
Numbers 87
journey of Israel after the exodus experience (Exod 12:31–15:21) until their ar-
rival at Sinai in Exod 19:1. The second section traces the journey of Israel after
the Sinai experience (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10) until the census in Numbers 26,
which confirmed that the fated exodus generation had indeed passed away
(Num 26:64–65) and the community was ready to enter the promised land. 3
Even a cursory comparison of Exod 15:22–18:27 and Num 10:11–25:18 re-
veals striking similarities between these wilderness narrative blocks. Common
to many of these accounts is the grumbling of the people against Moses and
Aaron, demanding that they provide water or food to satisfy their hunger or
thirst. 4 Narratives about God’s supply of manna and quail and provision of
water from a rock are found in both narrative blocks (compare Exodus 16
with Numbers 11 and Exodus 17 with Numbers 20). 5 This tradition of com-
plaint dominates the wilderness wandering narratives in the Torah. Through-
out these accounts, Moses consistently reminds the people that the true ob-
ject of their grumbling is Yahweh. In these cases, Moses functions regularly as
a mediatorial figure, crying out to Yahweh to provide for or forgive the people
and often expressing his frustration in leading the community. 6
There are, however, striking contrasts between these two sections of the To-
rah, in terms of both the focus of the grumbling and the response of Yahweh. 7
3. See W. Lee (2003) for the argument that Num 10:11–12 introduces a major new section
within the book of Numbers. Knierim and Coats (2005: 17) explain the function of Num 1:1–
10:10 within both the Sinai pericope (Exodus 19–Leviticus 27) and the book of Numbers.
Knierim (1985) argues that the tabernacle account in Exodus 25–40 is the first phase of reve-
lation that establishes the place (tabernacle) for the revelation of the central core of legislation
in Lev 1:1–Num 10:10. M. Smith (1996: 33) notes the relationship between Exodus 25–31, 35–
40, which deals with the construction of the divine sanctuary, and Numbers 1–10, which
deals with arrangements for travel with this sanctuary. While there is certainly a relationship
between the material now found in Exodus 19–Numbers 10, it is clear that Numbers 1 repre-
sents a key transition, as preparations are made to leave the mountain. This transition is sig-
naled by the census in Numbers, which is designed to encourage a reading with the book of
Numbers in view; cf. Olson (1985).
4. On the common vocabulary throughout these accounts, see especially Coats (1968).
5. The presence of doublets such as these has prompted much speculation on the source
and form-critical development of these narrative blocks, with Exodus 16 and Numbers 20
from P and Numbers 11 and Exodus 17 from J (although Van Seters sees the Yahwist as re-
sponsible for most of these stories). Scholars focused on the development of these narrative
blocks include Coats (1968), De Vries (1968: 51–58), Noth (1972: 49–62), Childs (1974), Van
Seters (1994), and Frankel (2002). The present work will focus on the form and function of
these texts in the Torah as a completed entity. One wonders if the claim of Frankel (2002: 49)
that the final form of the tradition in the Torah distorts the tradition should be applied to his
own diachronic speculation.
6. In this, we see the triangulation of complaint, with the people complaining about
Moses and Yahweh, Moses complaining about the people to Yahweh, and Yahweh complain-
ing to Moses about the people; cf. Goldingay (2003: 454).
7. M. Smith (1996: 32) calls the Numbers narratives “the negative image of the material
before Sinai in Exodus.” Coats (1968: 15–16) speaks of two underlying original streams, one
more positive, describing God’s provision of genuine needs, and the other more negative,
88 Chapter 6
In the Exodus accounts, the grumbling against Moses, Aaron, and Yahweh is
concerned with only the people’s need for water and food, whereas in the
Numbers accounts the grumbling extends beyond physical needs to include
the right to lead the community. Even more striking is the fact that in the Ex-
odus accounts Yahweh responds to the people’s complaints with patient pro-
vision, whereas in the Numbers accounts Yahweh responds with severe disci-
pline. 8 A closer look at these various accounts reveals some key insights into
patterns of sin and its remedy in the wilderness traditions. A preliminary look
at the accounts in Exodus will highlight the distinct character of the accounts
in Numbers.
Exodus 15:22–18:27
From the heights of praise in Exod 15:1–21, with the Songs of the Sea led
by Moses at the outset (15:1–18) and Miriam at the end (15:20–21), the nar-
rative in Exodus plunges immediately to the depths of complaint in Exod
15:22–27. 9 This complaint is foreshadowed earlier in the book of Exodus as
the people turn on Moses and Aaron after Pharaoh forces them to make bricks
without straw (Exod 5:21–23). Even though God gives them special revelation
in 6:1–8, the people do not listen to Moses because of their discouragement
(6:9, 12). Again, fearing the impending attack of an angered Pharaoh and
trapped by the waters of the Reed Sea, they complain against Moses, alluding
back to their resistance in 6:9.
The surprising character of the complaint in Exod 15:22–27 is that it takes
place after the miraculous rescue at the Reed Sea. The location is Marah, where
there was a lack of drinking water, 10 but Yahweh responds by providing Moses
with a piece of wood that makes the bitter water sweet. This act of grace in-
troduces a teaching opportunity, as Yahweh reveals to them the blessings as-
sociated with obedience (“give earnest heed . . . do what is right . . . give ear
. . . keep”), promising to preserve them from the diseases the Egyptians expe-
rienced. This “teaching opportunity” suggests that the people’s grumbling is
describing Yahweh’s punishment for murmuring. See more recently Frankel (2002: 30–31).
Childs (1974: 258–59) speaks of two story patterns, with Pattern I comprising (1) initial need,
(2) complaint, (3) intercession on the part of Moses, and (4) need being met by God’s mirac-
ulous intervention and Pattern II comprising (1) initial complaint, (2) God’s anger and pun-
ishment, (3) intercession from Moses, and (4) reprieve of the punishment. Childs identified
Exod 15:22–27, 17:1–7, and Num 20:1–3 with Pattern I and Num 11:1–13, 17:6–15, and 21:4–
10 with Pattern II. W. Lee (2003: 214 n. 189) questions Childs’s inclusion of Num 20:1–13
with Pattern I because it also describes Yahweh’s anger and punishment of Moses and Aaron.
Van Seters (1994: 168) sees Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 also as hybrids.
8. Noted by many; see recently W. Lee (2003: 213–14).
9. See the introduction to Exodus above, pp. 35–36, for the structure of Exodus and role
of Exodus 15.
10. This initial presentation of the murmuring tradition provides the basic elements that
will appear repeatedly throughout Exodus and Numbers; see Lohfink (1994: 41).
Numbers 89
related to the issue of obedience and introduces the wilderness experiences as

a phase of testing and trial for Yahweh and Israel. 11 This is the first indication
that Israel’s complaints are not merely against Moses and Aaron but are
against Yahweh himself, a truth made explicit in Exod 16:7.
Rather than the end, this is just the beginning of the grumbling of the
people. In the Desert of Sin in Exodus 16, Yahweh approaches Moses to reveal
that he has heard the grumbling of the Israelites and will provide both meat
(quail) in the evening and bread (manna) in the morning. This is to result in
them knowing “that I am the Lord your God” (16:12). Again, at Rephidim in
Exod 17:1–7, when the people grumble over lack of water and Moses cries out
to Yahweh, Yahweh instructs Moses to provide water by striking the rock. In
none of these cases does Yahweh discipline any of the people, but he merci-
fully provides their needs even when Moses makes it clear that their grum-
bling is against Yahweh (16:7–8, 17:2; cf. 17:7).
Numbers 10:11–26:65
Numbers 11–20: The Exodus Generation

In Numbers, however, the people’s grumbling prompts severe discipline
from Yahweh. No sooner does the cloud lift from the tabernacle and lead the
Israelites out into the desert than the people complain at Taberah about their
“hardships” (11:1–3). In contrast to the Exodus accounts, now Yahweh sends
fire that destroys some of the outskirts of the camp. Moses must act as a me-
diator, but this mediation has a purpose radically different from the Exodus ac-
counts in which Moses intercedes to request provision of their physical needs.
In this account in Numbers, Moses intercedes to bring an end to the punish-
ment of Yahweh. Yahweh grants Moses’ request, stopping his punishment.
The account of grumbling over food at Kibroth Hattaavah (11:4–35) fol-
lows some of the pattern of the Exodus accounts in that Moses approaches
Yahweh in response to the Israelites’ complaint and Yahweh provides meat
(quail) for the “rabble” (11:31–32). However, in contrast to the Exodus ac-
counts, “while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed,
the anger of the Lord was kindled against the people and the Lord struck the
people with a very severe plague” (11:33). It appears, according to 11:34, that
this judgment fell upon those who had “craved other food” (tniv).
The same trend can be discerned in the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron
against Moses in Numbers 12. In this account, Miriam and Aaron turn against
their brother, questioning his role as Yahweh’s special prophet (12:1–2).
Yahweh is angered and expresses his displeasure to the three siblings in 12:4–
10, striking Miriam with a devastating skin disease. First, Aaron intercedes for
Miriam before Moses, asking for forgiveness (“I ask you not to hold against
us the sin”) and admitting their culpability (“the sin we have so foolishly
11. See Whybray (1995: 78).

90 Chapter 6
committed,” 12:11–12, tniv). It is Moses, however, who mediates between

them and Yahweh (12:13), an act to which Yahweh responds, providing a
priestly ritual for Miriam to experience healing (12:14–15).
We will skip over Numbers 13–14 for the moment; Numbers 16 focuses first
on the rebellion of the Levitical clan of Korah and the Reubenite clans of
Dathan and Abiram against the leadership of Moses and Aaron and second on
the rebellion of the people who respond negatively to the punishment that
falls on these clans. In the first rebellion, Yahweh threatens to destroy the en-
tire congregation of Israel on account of their rebellion (16:20–21), but Moses
and Aaron intercede, arguing that the entire assembly should not be held ac-
countable for the sin of these three families (16:22); consequently, Yahweh’s
judgment falls on these clans alone (16:23–35). The second rebellion is the
people’s response to this judgment (16:41). Again, Yahweh intends to destroy
the entire assembly (16:42–45a), sending a plague among the people (16:46b,
47b, 49). Moses and Aaron intercede for the people, with Moses sending Aaron
to make atonement by offering incense among them. This action brings an
end to the plague, but not until 14,700 people die.
Numbers 20 stands out among the murmuring stories in the book of Num-
bers in that it replicates the pattern seen in Exod 15:22–18:27. Elsewhere in
Numbers, the people’s complaints are met with immediate and severe disci-
pline from Yahweh, but in Numbers 20 the people’s complaints (20:2–5)
prompt the mediation of Moses and Aaron (20:6), in response to which Yah-
weh promises provision (20:7–8). In keeping with the theme of Numbers,
however, the story ends tragically with Yahweh’s severe discipline, not on the
people, but rather on Moses and Aaron (20:9–13).
Numbers 20 represents a key transition point in the book of Numbers
(W. Lee 2003: 261–62). The narrative marks a return to Kadesh, where the re-
bellion of the exodus generation took place (Numbers 13–14) and takes
place in the 40th year after this rebellion (see Num 33:36–39), 40 years being
the length of the judgment. The death notices at the beginning and end of
the chapter (Miriam in 20:1 and Aaron in 20:22–29) and the account of the
disqualification of Moses and Aaron at its core (20:2–13) signal the end of
the exodus generation.
From the vantage point of Yahweh’s response to Israel’s failure, chapter 20

marks the completion of Yahweh’s punishments on the Exodus generation.
Verse 20:1 reports the death of Miriam, one of the three high-ranking leaders
within the hierarchical organization of the Israelites’ sanctuary camp. Pas-
sage 20:2–13 recounts Yahweh’s denial of the prophetic leadership of Moses
and Aaron. Yahweh’s characterization of the sin of Moses and Aaron as dis-
trust of Yahweh which led them not to sanctify Yahweh in the eyes of the
Israelites . . . (v. 12a), is connected to Israel’s distrust of Yahweh’s plan for
them in chapters 13–14. As punishment for their sin, Yahweh denies them
the responsibility of leading the people into the promised land (v. 12b).
Since the denial of Moses’ and Aaron’s leadership implies their exclusion
Numbers 91
from inheriting the promised land and their death in the wilderness, Yah-
weh’s punishment of them in essence is the same as Yahweh’s punishment
of the Exodus generation. This punishment has already been foreshadowed
in their response to the people’s rebellion in the spies incident (14:5). Thus,
20:2–13 rationalizes the inclusion of Moses and Aaron in the doomed fate of
the Exodus generation. 12
The tragic irony here stings. The ones who intercede for this rebellious com-
munity are ultimately caught up in their judgment.
Numbers 21–26: The Wilderness Generation

Numbers 20 marks the end of the rebellious exodus generation, identifying
Numbers 21–25 as narratives focused on the new generation, with Numbers
26 providing the evidence that the old generation has passed and the new
generation has emerged. 13 The difference in character of this new generation
is highlighted at the outset in Num 21:1–3, as they display great confidence
in Yahweh to bring them victory against their foe. However, the remainder of
the account (Num 21:4–25:16) is bracketed by two accounts of divine punish-
ment that reveal that “the people behave similarly to the Exodus generation
by complaining of the hardships of the wilderness and falling into the lure of
paganism.” 14
The first, Num 21:4–9, depicts the complaint of the new generation over
food and water. This complaint prompts the punishment of Yahweh through
venomous snakes that cause the death of many people. Approaching Moses,
the people admit their sin (Wnaf:j): and ask for Moses to intercede (Ala< lLEP"t}hI
hw;hy]) on their behalf. It is Moses’ intercession that prompts Yahweh to provide
a bronze serpent to bring healing to the people.
The second rebellion is recounted in Numbers 25 at the end of the Balaam
sequence (Numbers 22–24). 15 In this rebellion, the people are drawn into the
worship of foreign gods through sexual immorality. Yahweh’s anger is ex-
pressed through a plague upon the people (25:3b, 9). Yahweh instructs the
mediator, Moses, that the only remedy is to put to death the offenders, an ac-
tion carried out first by the judges (25:5) and then climactically by the priestly
12. W. Lee (2003: 261–62); affirmed by Knierim and Coats (2005). Contrast Olson (1985;
1997: 229–40), who structures the book (chaps. 1–25, 26–36) based on the thematic aspect of
transition from the exodus generation to the wilderness-conquest generation and according
to the two genealogies in chaps. 1 and 25. See especially the critique of Knierim and Coats
(2005: 10–11).
13. For this rhetorical structure, see W. Lee (2003); cf. Knierim and Coats (2005).
14. W. Lee (2003: 274). Olson (1997: 232–33) notes striking similarity between the golden
calf and the Baal Peor incidents here: they are “the only two instances of Israel worshiping
another god during the exodus and wilderness sojourn.” Both incidents also follow prophetic
intercession with Yahweh (Exodus 19–31, Numbers 22–24). This shows that the wilderness
generation was susceptible to the same temptations as the exodus generation.
15. Olson (1997: 231) sees this passage as describing the “death of the remaining members
of the old, rebellious wilderness generation.” However, see W. Lee (2003: 261–62).
92 Chapter 6
Phinehas (25:7–8). Through this act of capital punishment, Phinehas is con-

sidered to have “made atonement” for Israel (25:13).
In both of these accounts, the rebellion of the people provokes deadly
punishment by Yahweh. In chap. 21, the termination of this punishment is
initiated by the people’s oral confession of their sin and is accomplished by
the mediation of Moses before Yahweh. In chap. 25, the process for ending
the punishment is initiated by Yahweh and accomplished by the mediation
of the judges and Phinehas, prompted by Moses’ instruction.
Numbers 13–14: The Turning Point

At the center of the accounts of rebellion in the book of Numbers one finds
what has been described as “the climax of Israel’s rebellions that began right
after they were liberated from Egypt” (W. Lee 2003: 214). The events in Num-
bers 13–14 transpire at Kadesh in the Desert of Paran, the location to the
south of the promised land from which the conquest is to be launched (Num-
bers 13–14). It is this event that constitutes the crucial turning point in the
narrative and that marks the distinction between the exodus generation,
which will die in the wilderness, and the wilderness generation, which will
enter the promised land.
According to Numbers 13, Yahweh instructs Moses to send 12 spies, one
from each of the tribes. On returning, their report highlights both the poten-
tial of the land (“it certainly does flow with milk and honey,” 13:27) and the
power of its inhabitants (“the people who live in the land are strong, and the
cities are fortified and very large,” 13:28). As is well known, the counsel of
the group of 12 is also mixed, with the minority (Caleb, later Joshua) urging
the people to take the land (13:30, 14:6–9) but the majority (10) discouraging
this action (13:31–33, 14:36–38). Whereas in the other rebellions the people
turned against only Moses and Aaron, in this rebellion they turn on Joshua
and Caleb as well, seeking to stone them (14:10b). However, the appearance
of Yahweh’s glory at the tent of meeting brings an end to the congregation’s
threats (14:10b).
Yahweh’s impatience with the people shows through clearly in Num
14:11–12 as he echoes his earlier intention, expressed at Exod 32:9–10 after
the golden calf debacle, to dispossess the people and build a greater nation
through Moses. 16 As in Exod 32:11–14, once again Moses intercedes in Num
14:13–19 on behalf of the nation. In light of the challenge of Miriam and
Aaron in Numbers 12 over Moses’ role as mouthpiece of God, some have ar-
16. The “strong innerbiblical relations” between Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 are
brilliantly mined by Widmer (2004). He sees Num 14:11–35 “as a kind of commentary on Ex-
odus 34:6–7” (Widmer 2004: 7). Contrast Sweeney (1989: 291–99), who argues that Exodus
32–34 is reliant on Numbers 13–14. Even if this can be proven, the rhetorical placement of
Exodus 32–34 prior to Numbers 13–14 in the present narrative shape of the Torah highlights
the influential role of Exodus 34 on Numbers 14.
Numbers 93
gued that Moses is being portrayed here as the “archetypal prophet,” one who
represents not only God before the people but also the people before God. 17
Though the connection to prophecy is not to be denied, it is important to
note how the emphasis in Num 12:6–8 is on Moses’ unique prophetic func-
tion within Israel:
Hear now my words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, shall make myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream.
Not so, with my servant Moses,
He is faithful in all my household;
With him I speak mouth to mouth,
Even openly, and not in dark sayings,
And he beholds the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against my servant, against Moses?
Although functioning in a way that will be typical throughout Israel’s history,
Moses is unique in terms of the intimacy (“mouth to mouth”) and clarity
(“openly, and not in dark sayings”) of the revelation he received. 18
Moses begins by appealing to Yahweh’s fame among the nations (cf. Exod
32:12). He then repeats Yahweh’s self-revelatory creed, essential to the renewal
of covenant after the golden calf incident (Num 14:17–18; cf. Exod 34:6–7), 19
before requesting Yahweh’s pardon (Num 14:19, jls, acn; cf. Exod 32:32, acn;
34:9, jls).
Moses’ mediation is successful because Yahweh declares his pardon (Num
14:20, jls), clearly linking it to Moses’ word (Úr,b:d]K)I . As was seen in Exodus
32, this forgiveness involves mitigated punishment, that is, the deserved an-
nihilation or rejection of the community is exchanged for a lighter punish-
ment (compare Num 14:22–23, 29–38 with Exod 32:33–35). 20
17. Widmer (2004: 330, 341–42); so also J. Miller (1994: 262–80); cf. Boda (2001: 186–97).
Widmer (2004: 330) traces throughout the canon how “the proclamation of threat and judg-
ment often go hand in hand with prophetic intercessory prayer. Ultimately, both aspects
have the same goal, the well-being of the people and the realization of Yhwh’s will and pur-
poses.” He traces this to the role of prophet: “It is only when the intercessor has insight into
the divine will and council that he can, on the one hand, participate and influence the di-
vine decision-making process, and on the other hand, instruct or rebuke the people with di-
vine authority. It is for this reason that the Old Testament ascribes intercession primarily to
people with prophet-like prerogatives.”
18. This suggests that Moses is being depicted as the archetypal “Levitical prophet,” a role
evidenced especially in the book of Chronicles. See Boda (forthcoming a).
19. Miller (1994: 277) argues that either Exod 34:6–7 or “the tradition that produced it”
is quoted. Widmer (2004: 309–11) sees significance in the shortened form of the character
creed here.
20. See Sklar (2005) and the discussion on Leviticus above, pp. 71–72.
94 Chapter 6
When the people hear Yahweh’s discipline, they mourn (lba Hithpael)
and even admit their sin (Wnaf:j): , the former term merely expressing their dis-
appointment over the judgment but the latter a final desperate attempt at
penitence (14:39–40). 21 Nevertheless, this is ineffective. Yahweh’s judgment
has been delivered and, although warned by Moses (14:41–43), they stub-
bornly proceed to try and take the land and are soundly defeated (14:44–45).
This key event in the wilderness tradition shows the ineffectiveness of hu-
man repentance to deal with the kind of sin described in this chapter. There
appears to be no remedy to remove the guilt of the present generation save
their death in the wilderness. Yahweh’s merciful forgiveness, however, is
available to preserve the nation. The only effective function available for a
human figure is Moses’ mediation before Yahweh. He secures the forgiveness
of mitigated punishment through an appeal to the glory Yahweh enjoyed
among the nations and the mercy Yahweh promised to his people.
It is important not to miss that Numbers 15 follows immediately after the
rebellion at Kadesh in Numbers 13–14. In it, Yahweh highlights the provision
of mercy through the sacrificial system for those who sin unintentionally
(15:22–29) but the lack of this kind of mercy for those who sin defiantly
(15:30–31). The sin of the wilderness generation in not taking the promised
land is subtly linked to defiant sin, for which there was no remedy. 22
Summary
Sin is defined in Numbers especially as rebellion against Yahweh, expressed
through the people’s complaint and defiance in the wilderness and especially
their rejection of the invitation to enter the promised land at Kadesh.
Some have attributed the contrast between Yahweh’s response to the
people’s complaint and rebellion prior to (Exod 15:22–18:27) and following
(Num 10:11–25:18) Sinai to the golden calf incident in Exodus 32–34, after
which “Israel’s rebellion and disobedience increased and intensified.” 23 How-
ever, since the golden calf incident itself represents the beginning of the con-
trast with the earlier Exodus section, it appears that it is better explained by
the fact that the covenant between Yahweh and the people was established and
then renewed at Sinai between these two narrative sequences. This covenant
articulated clearly to Israel the terms of relationship between Yahweh and his
people. Before Sinai, the people had not yet reached “the age of accountabil-
ity,” so to speak, but once they had made covenant with Yahweh and had
heard and accepted the responsibilities that accompany the privilege of rela-
21. See the comments in n. 23 on p. 42 above.

22. Contra Olson (1997: 231), who sees Numbers 15 as “a word of hope.”
23. E.g., Childs (1974: 260). Childs also distinguishes between the J and P sources, noting
that P used a Pattern I story in Numbers 20. However, see critique of this by W. Lee (2003:
214 n. 189).
Numbers 95
tionship, they had to face the consequences stipulated in the covenant (Le-
viticus 26). Defiant sin would automatically bring on the people the punish-
ment of Yahweh. “Before Sinai, Israel migrated as the liberated community.
Now, it is organized and supposed to march as a sacral congregation, an
ªedâ.” 24
The only hope once defiant sin was committed was found in mediatorial
figures who could stand before Yahweh and seek pardon for the people. The
most common figure is Moses, but at times priestly figures such as Aaron and
his son Phinehas are able to secure forgiveness and atonement, bringing an
end to the punishment. This forgiveness and atonement often involves miti-
gated punishment, that is, the people still suffer, but they do not receive the full
measure of judgment that they deserve. Death is often the outcome of rebel-
lions such as these against Yahweh, at least for a portion of the community
(11:33–34, 14:28–38, 16:31–35), but at times Yahweh provides a way beyond
death or even in place of death. This way is often secured by a mediatorial fig-
ure, the most common mediatorial act being the verbal cry or request of the
mediator (Exod 15:25; 17:4; Num 11:2, 11; 12:13; 14:13–19; 16:22; 20:6;
21:7). In only one case does Yahweh approach the people without being
prompted by the mediator (Exodus 16). Two cases speak explicitly of the ac-
complishment of atonement for the sin of the people. In Num 16:46–50, this
atonement results from Aaron offering incense among the people and in Num
25:4–13 from the judges and especially Phinehas killing the guilty party. Look-
ing at the bronze serpent provides healing for those bitten by snakes in Num
21:8–9, and following ritual isolation rules cleanses Miriam from her skin dis-
ease in Num 12:14–15.
These accounts are dominated by the role of the mediator, with little role
to be played by the people. 25 In only three cases is there any sign of an ad-
mission of culpability. In Num 12:11–12, Aaron confesses his sin and that of his
sister Miriam as he intercedes on her behalf. In Num 21:7, the people intro-
duce their request for help from the venomous snakes by admitting their sin-
fulness. In both of these cases, these confessions are not addressed to Yahweh
but rather to the mediator who secures forgiveness for them. One final con-
fession of sin is found in Num 14:39–40, as the people mourn and admit their
sin. However, this confession is completely ineffective: Moses informs them
that Yahweh’s decision on their destiny is final (14:41–43).
The key account of Numbers 13–14 emphasizes the importance of the me-
diator’s appeal to Yahweh’s fame among the nations and his mercy to his
people. The focus on the character creed with its fixation on Yahweh’s grace
24. Knierim and Coats (2005: 17).

25. This led Coats (1968: 19) to see in the murmuring tradition a defense of Moses as Is-
rael’s intercessor; cf. Coats (1988: 124–25).

96 Chapter 6
and justice, first encountered in Exodus 34, matches the balance between
Yahweh’s mercy and discipline seen in the narrative accounts themselves.
These accounts in Numbers reveal that deliberate sin is not remedied
through confession of sin or repentance but rather exclusively through me-
diation by priestly figures approaching Yahweh with verbal intercession. At
times, priestly rituals follow verbal intercession. In most cases, the deserved
penalty is capital punishment, suggesting that the grumbling and rebellion
is considered presumptuous sin. In most cases, the mediation results in
mitigated punishment in which a limited group dies, but the community
as a whole is preserved.
Chapter 7
Deuteronomy
Depicting Moses’ sermon on the plains of Moab to a wilderness generation

poised to enter the promised land, Deuteronomy represents an important
rhetorical juncture in the Old Testament canon. First of all, it brings closure
to the Torah, focusing attention on the core values of the covenant at Sinai by
exhorting the people to follow Yahweh and by warning them not to reject the
covenant. “Readers are led through the first four books and brought to this
point, where the parenetic language now catches them up in the fundamental
import of what God has been about in their lives, with intense and urgent ap-
peals for present response” (Fretheim 1996: 53). In addition, the book is de-
signed to prepare the people for life after Moses, legislating the various figures
who will lead the nation once he has passed from the scene: judges, kings,
priests/Levites, and prophets (16:18–18:22).
Deuteronomy represents a different ideological matrix from that which
dominated Exodus–Numbers, especially as communicated through the priest-
ly codes. With Deuteronomy, there is a shift in emphasis from the “sacred”
to the “secular,” from “theocentricity” to “anthropocentricity.” 1 The book
espouses
a deep and pervasive awareness that it is not physical objects, or even holy
places and ritual actions, which in themselves make possible human com-
munion with God. Such communion is conceived as altogether too inward,
spiritual and personal for this to be the case. . . . Communion with God
must embrace thought, feeling and will if it is to be an effective contact be-
tween the divine and human realms. Without this personal turning, seeking
and loving God there can be no genuine relationship with him.2
Following then the key priestly legislation found in Exodus 25–Numbers 36,
Deuteronomy emphasizes the heart of the covenant, reminding the reader of
Torah of the covenant foundation in Exodus 19–24 to show that ritual was
1. Weinfeld (1972: 188). Especially seen in the expression of reward in “eudaemonistic”

terms (long life, blessed offspring, material influence) and in transference of sin and punish-
ment from the divine to the human sphere (p. 239). The term secular must not be taken in
its modern sense but rather as referring to the nonsacral, noncultic sphere.
2. Clements (1989: 52). Clements notes the absence of focus in Deuteronomy on “viola-
tions of sacral law . . . those grave sacro-cultic offences, which according to P, incur the penalty
of kareth.”
- 97 -
98 Chapter 7
only effective “when it became a vehicle of the worshipper’s own love and re-
sponsive attitude toward God,” because the “true altar where a transaction
with God can take place is the human heart, so that the physical sanctuary
with its rituals can be no more than an aid towards facilitating this more
inward contact with God.” 3
While Deuteronomy is neither averse to nor ignorant of ritual law (14:1–
21, 23:1–14), the book is dominated by other concerns, central to which is
worship. Worshiping wherever and whenever one desires will only lead to
idolatry. Thus, the legislation found in Deuteronomy 12–14 directs the com-
munity to worship Yahweh alone (Deuteronomy 13) at the place of his choice
(Deuteronomy 12) according to the festal schedule (Deut 14:22–16:17, 26:1–
15). 4 There is also concern about moral sin, expressed especially in laws reg-
ulating economic and family relationships (e.g., 21:15–22:39, 23:15–24:22),
murder (chap. 19; 21:1–9), and war (chap. 20; 21:10–14).
Because Deuteronomy directs the reading community back to its covenant
foundation in Exodus 19–24, it is important to read the book against the
backdrop of the earlier “Book of the Covenant” found in Exod 20:22–23:19. 5
The difference between the two has been explained in two ways. First, Deu-
teronomy takes into account broader considerations, representing then a sup-
plementation to and application of the earlier Book of the Covenant in a new
context. 6 Second, “Deuteronomy is not divine law in codified form, but
preaching about the commandments.” 7 So significant is this sermonic supple-
mentation and application that it is followed by a covenant ratification that
rivals Sinai itself:
These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to
make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant
which he had made with them at Horeb. (Deut 28:69[29:1])
3. Clements (1989: 63). In this, Clements saw “a radical break with a vast and complex
ancient world of ritual and sacral understanding of the universe. The great struggle between
forces of life and death, in which the worshipper can participate by re-enacting the victory
of ‘Life’ over ‘Death,’ is replaced by an altogether more moral and spiritual doctrine of wor-
ship which centres upon its value as an occasion for remembering the greatness of God’s ac-
tions in the past.”
4. As Nelson (2002: 73) has noted, according to the Deuteronomistic History there are
two fundamental ways Israel transgresses against God: worship of other gods and sacrifice to
Yahweh at any site other than Jerusalem. These two infractions, however, should be linked to
the festal requirements and their intricate relationship recognized.
5. See the chart in Patrick (1985: 97); cf. Clements (1989: 24); Goldingay (1995: 122). Nel-
son (2002: 5) is careful to note that “Deuteronomy was not intended to supersede the Cove-
nant Code completely or abrogate it.”
6. Clements (1989: 25). Nelson (2002: 9) observes how it “reinterprets laws (the Covenant
Code, the Decalogue, and pre-Deuteronomic laws in chaps. 12–26), applying them to a new
situation faced by the audience.”
7. Von Rad (1953: 15).
spread is 12 points short

Deuteronomy 99
In the wake of his miraculous rescue of Israel from Egypt, Yahweh made cove-
nant with his people at Sinai. So now on the verge of the miracle of the con-
quest of Canaan, Moses prompts Israel to make covenant with Yahweh in
Moab (Nelson 2002: 11).
While providing the “final word” on the Torah, 8 the book of Deuteronomy
also serves as an introduction to the Former Prophets, the corpus stretching
from Joshua to Kings. In this way, Deuteronomy “functions as a ‘prism,’ fil-
tering the old traditions of the Tetrateuch (Genesis to Numbers) to give them
the Deuteronomic aspect under which they appear in the succeeding books”
(Römer 2000: 113). Therefore, the Former Prophets in the Old Testament
canon are often called the “Deuteronomistic History” because of the clear im-
pact of Deuteronomy on their vocabulary and theology. This canonical func-
tion is evident within the book of Deuteronomy itself, which consistently
looks not just back to the past but also to the future. In this, the “book of Deu-
teronomy, in its ideological and surface composition, offers the reader a
bird’s-eye view of the entire history of Israel shortly to be recounted in detail
in Joshua–2 Kings. This book is the history’s opening frame and panoramic
synopsis.” 9
Deuteronomy and Covenant

That the book of Deuteronomy is to be understood as a covenant document
is clear from the simple fact that it contains the most appearances of the term
“covenant” (tyrb) in the Torah (Deut 4:13, 23, 31; 5:2, 3; 7:2, 9, 12; 8:18; 9:9,
11, 15; 10:8; 17:2; 28:69; 29:8, 11, 13, 20, 24; 31:9, 16, 20, 25, 26; 33:9). As I
have already noted in the discussion of Exodus 19–24 (see above, pp. 37–41),
researchers on covenant in the Old Testament have often noted close affinities
with agreements struck between ancient Near Eastern elites. The implications
for Deuteronomy were significant, with various proposals for the way in which
the book as a whole was shaped by ancient treaty forms, complete with pre-
amble (1:1–5), historical prologue (1:6–3:29), stipulations (chaps. 4–26),
curses, blessings, and ratification (chaps. 27–30), and succession arrangements
including invocation of witnesses and provision of public reading (chaps. 31–
34). 10 Although this work has been challenged by those who look to the
more limited sociological context of the family clan, it is clear to most that
8. Childs (1979: 131) speaks of its role as “commentary to the preceding law.”
9. Polzin (1980: 72). Polzin notes the striking similarity between the audiences of Deu-
teronomy and the Former Prophets (Moab, Exile), both being outside the land hoping to pos-
sess it with God’s power and mercy.
10. For this, see Kline (1963), who linked it to Hittite treaties of the 2nd millennium b.c.
Cf. Weinfeld (1972); Craigie (1976); McCarthy (1978, 1981); McConville (1984); P. Miller
(1990: 13). Millar (1999: 51) admits this “was in the air” but does not lay much emphasis on
this aspect.
100 Chapter 7
the various elements found in the book of Deuteronomy are reflective of basic
covenant agreements within the ancient world.
In the Old Testament, a covenant is best defined as “an elected, as opposed
to natural, relationship of obligation established under divine sanction”
(Hugenberger 1994: 171). This is seen most clearly in Deut 26:16–19, which
“summarizes this covenant as a mutual agreement in which Yahweh assumes
the role of being Israel’s God and Israel takes on the obligation to obey ‘the
statutes and ordinances’ of Deuteronomy as Yahweh’s people” (Nelson 2002:
11). The covenantal character of Deuteronomy again stresses how important
the establishment of a “relationship of obligation” is to the Torah’s theology
of sin and its remedy. Israel is invited one final time (as in Genesis 9, 15/17,
Exodus 19–24, and Leviticus 26) into a relationship and given careful instruc-
tions as to what this relationship means for the nation. This covenant docu-
ment reminds the community that this relationship is based on God’s gra-
cious initiative and unilateral invitation and demands the nation’s response
to the stipulations outlined at the core of the book. This covenant “is pro-
tected by a catalog of blessings and curses (chap. 28)” (Nelson 2002: 11).
Whereas in Leviticus 26 the curses are designed to cause the people to obey
by turning to Yahweh (repentance), the curses in Deuteronomy 28 are ex-
pressed more as punishments for disobedient behavior. Repentance is only
envisioned after the climactic punishment of exile in Deut 30:1–2.
Deuteronomy and Decision

While one cannot deny strong links between Deuteronomy and broader an-
cient Near Eastern covenantal ideals, the book is presented in sermonic form. 11
These features distinguish Deuteronomy as a corpus that calls for decision:
Deuteronomy confronts every serious reader with a moment of existential
decision, the choice of whether to accept or reject its claim over one’s life.
(Nelson 2002: 11)
The whole book of Deuteronomy is packed with appeals to make the proper
response to Yahweh’s initiatives in the life of the nation. In fact, this preoc-
cupation with exhortation is the most striking feature of the book’s lan-
guage. (Millar 1999: 47)
At the core of the book lies the central law code (12:1–26:15), around which
has been placed material designed to elicit this response from the people by
depicting the past (1:1–4:43), exhorting obedience by explaining the theolog-
ical significance of the law (4:44–11:32), reciting and describing future curses
and blessings (26:16–28:68), and inviting the community to a renewal of
covenant (29:1–32:52). 12
11. For these covenantal ideals, see the superb list of features in P. Miller (1990: 12).
12. See Clements (1989: 14). Millar (1999: 46) structures the book according to his theme
of “decision,” with chaps. 1–11 as “Israel at the place of decision,” chaps. 12–26 as “the
Deuteronomy 101
This focus on decision is evident in the rich vocabulary for human re-
sponse found throughout Deuteronomy, a vocabulary that will make a signif-
icant impact on the rest of the Old Testament. 13 This vocabulary describes
this response both positively and negatively. The people are to respond to
what are called commandments (hw;x}m)I , statutes (qjø), and judgments (fP:v‘m;I
e.g., 6:1). Though at times these are considered to be in written form (“written
in this book of the law,” e.g., 30:10), the book consistently invites the people
to respond to an oral presentation of these from the mouth of the preacher,
Moses, as the very voice of Yahweh to them (e.g., 4:2). These commandments,
statues, and judgments, therefore, are presented not as an objectified written
code but rather as the subjective words of their covenant partner, Yahweh,
who invites them to life rather than death.
Responding Positively to Yahweh

The relational character of this invitation is made clear in the consistent
invitation to “love” (bha) Yahweh their God (6:5; 7:9; 10:12; 11:13, 22;
13:4[3]; 30:6, 16, 20). Calls to “cling” (qbd) to Yahweh (10:20, 11:22, 13:5[4],
30:20; cf. 4:4) suggest the kind of intimacy enjoyed within the family unit be-
tween husband and wife (Gen 2:24, 34:3; cf. Josh 23:12, 1 Kgs 11:2) or mother
and daughter (Ruth 1:14) and possibly also the loyalty of a people for their
king (2 Sam 20:2). This language points to the covenantal character of the ex-
hortations to obedience throughout Deuteronomy. Because of this, the laws
at the core of the book are defined not as abstract legal requirements but
rather as demands of a loyal covenant partner.
In Deuteronomy, this sort of affection and loyalty arises from the heart
(blE, bb"l)E . The words that are commanded to the people are to “be” (hyh) or to
“be set” (μyc) “on the heart” (Úb<b:l}Al["; 6:6, 11:18, 32:46). Their hearts are to
be “circumcised” (lwm; 10:16, 30:6), a metaphor for the removal of the dead-
ened skin of the heart, which hindered the internal passion for obedience.
The phrase “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your
might” (Úd<aøm}Alk:b}W Úv‘p}n'Alk:b}W Úb}b:l} Alk:B)} , in whole or in part, is ubiquitous in
Deuteronomy (4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:4; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10), appearing es-
pecially with words for action. This reminds the people that all responses
must flow from internal affections rather than from external coercion. This
involves passionately seeking Yahweh their God (4:29; vqb, vrd). It was a lack
decision spelled out,” and chaps. 27–34 as “the outcome of the decision.” Nelson (2002: 3–
4) notes evidence of framing techniques in Deuteronomy: chaps. 1–3 // 31 (“in order to locate
[the discourse of Moses] within Israel’s ongoing history”); 4:25–28 // 29:21–28[22–29] (warn
of destruction and exile); 4:29–31 // 30:1–10 (“forecast an optimistic outcome for exile”);
11:26–28 // 30:15–20 (“conceive of law as choice set before Israel”); 11:29–30 // chap. 27
(“frame the law code with a ritual of blessings and curses to be performed at Shechem”); 11:32–
12:1 // 26:16–19 (with shared language: “today,” “statutes and ordinances,” “be careful to do”).
13. See especially Millar (1999: 47–51).
102 Chapter 7
of willingness (bha; 1:26) and trust (ˆma Hiphil; 1:32, 9:23) in Yahweh that led
to the loss of the gift of the land for the exodus generation (1:26). In light of
this past failure, the people are called to give careful attention (rmv Niphal) to
themselves (4:9, 23; 6:12; 8:11; 11:16).
The intimate and internal relationship suggested by this vocabulary, how-
ever, does not eliminate a respectful distance between Yahweh and his people.
To love Yahweh and cling to him demands a response of worshipful service
(db[; 10:12, 20; cf. 6:13, 11:13, 13:5[4], 28:47), expressed also as swearing by
Yahweh’s name ([bv Niphal; 6:13, 10:20) and following after him (yrja ˚lh;
13:5[4]). Alongside this love and worship one finds the consistent call to
“fear” Yahweh (ary; 10:12, 20; cf. 4:10; 5:2; 6:2, 13, 24; 8:6; 13:5[4]; 28:58;
31:12, 13). While this “fear” reflects Israel’s response to the awesome presence
of their holy God (see Exod 20:20), it comes to designate more generally the
submissive response of the human covenant partner to Yahweh. Thus, “the
basic connotation of ‘fear of God’ in Deuteronomy is covenantal loyalty”
(Weinfeld 1972: 274).
Because humans respond in Deuteronomy to the oral and written com-
mand of Yahweh through Moses, there is a strong emphasis on didactic pro-
cesses. The people are constantly called to listen ([mv; 1:43; 6:4; 9:1; 30:17;
31:12, 13) to the statues of the law (4:1; 5:1; 6:3; 7:12; 11:3, 27, 28; 28:13) as
well as to the voice of Yahweh (4:30; 8:20; 9:23; 13:5[4]; 26:17; 27:10; 28:1, 2,
26; 30:2, 8, 10, 20), the latter designating obedience. Listening is to lead to
“knowing” ([dy; 4:39, 7:9), especially that Yahweh is God. Knowledge of this
sort is to be made known ([dy Hiphil; 4:9) and to be taught to the next gen-
eration (dml Piel; 4:10, 11:19) by repeating (ˆnv Piel; 6:7) the words com-
manded, talking (rbd Piel; 6:7, 11:20) about the law at all times, even writing
(btk; 6:9, 11:20) them on the doorposts and gates and tying them (rvq; 6:8,
11:18) as signs on their hands. In this way, the next generation will “learn”
(dml; 4:10; 5:1; 31:12, 13).
The book of Deuteronomy maintains that this human response must im-
pact one’s behavior. According to 10:12–13, the one who loves, worships, and
fears is the one who walks in God’s ways (˚lh; 10:12; cf. 5:33, 8:6, 11:22, 26:17,
28:9, 30:16) and keeps God’s commandments, statutes and judgments (rmv;
10:13; cf. 4:2, 6, 40; 5:2; 6:3; 6:17; 7:9; 8:2, 6, 11; 11:1, 8; 11:22; 13:5; 26:17,
18; 28:9, 45; 30:10, 16; see also 29:8). This behavioral focus is also evident in
the constant exhortation to “observe/do” (hc[) Yahweh’s commandments,
statutes, and judgments (4:1, 5, 14; 5:1, 31; 6:1, 24; 11:22; 26:16; 27:10; 28:13;
30:8), the words of Yahweh’s covenant/law (29:8, 28[9, 29]), and that which
is right and good in Yahweh’s sight (6:18, 12:28). Often these two verbs
(“keep,” rmv; “do,” hc[) are combined to express careful observance of the
verbal declarations of Yahweh (5:32, 12:28, 13:1[12:32], 32:46), the statutes,
commandments, and judgments (4:6; 6:3, 25; 7:11, 12; 8:1; 11:32; 12:1; 26:16;
28:1, 15), as well as all the words of the written corpus (28:58, 31:12, 32:46).
That many of these positive exhortations are treated not in isolation but
rather in an integrative way is suggested by verses such as Deut 10:12–13:
Deuteronomy 103
Now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require from you, but to fear the
Lord your God, to walk in all his ways and love him, and to serve the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the Lord’s
commandments and his statutes which I am commanding you today for
your good?
This statement, which summarizes Yahweh’s fundamental requirements for
his people, intertwines the responses of fearing (ary), walking (˚lh), loving
(bha), serving (db[), and keeping (rmv). Responses such as these are directed at
Yahweh himself as well as at his ways and commandments. They engage the
entirety of one’s inner affections (“all your heart . . . all your soul”) as well as
put demands on one’s practical outer behavior (“walk in . . . ways”).
Responding Negatively to Yahweh

Though the accent in Deuteronomy is clearly on encouraging the positive
response of the people as they enter into the promised land, one cannot miss
consistent warnings against inappropriate responses to the covenantal invita-
tion of Yahweh. These are found in three types of passages: those that describe
the disobedience of the people in the past (e.g., chaps. 1, 9), those that proph-
esy the rebellion of the people in the future (e.g., 31:16–21), and those that
prohibit such behavior in the present (e.g., 11:16).
Disobedience is characterized especially by idolatry. They are not to wor-
ship/serve (db[) other gods (7:4, 8:19, 11:16, 28:14, 29:17[18], 29:25[26],
30:17, 31:20) or bow down to them (hjv Hithpael/hwj Hishtaphel; 8:19, 11:16,
29:25[26], 30:17). They are not to follow (˚lh) after other gods (6:14; 8:19;
11:28; 28:14; 29:17, 25[18, 26]) or be drawn away (jdn; 30:17) by them. This
sort of behavior is deplored as “acting corruptly” (tjv Piel; 9:12; Hiphil, 4:25,
31:29; Niphal, 4:16), sinning (afj; 9:16, 18; 20:18) and “breaking” (rrp; 31:16,
20) Yahweh’s covenant.
The negative correlate of covenantal “remembering” is forgetting (jkv).
Most often, the people are warned against forgetting Yahweh their God (6:12;
8:11, 14, 19) and also the covenant (4:23) and past experiences, both positive
(“the things your eyes have seen,” that is, God’s appearance on Sinai, 4:9) and
negative (“how you provoked Yahweh to wrath,” 9:7).
The negative correlate of loving Yahweh is hating (anv; 7:10) him. Disobe-
dience is described also as “acting presumptuously” (dyz Hiphil; 1:43), “treat-
ing contemptuously” (≈an; 31:20), and “forsaking” (bz[) Yahweh (28:20, 31:16)
or his covenant (29:24[25]) and very commonly as “rebelling” (hrm Hiphil)
against Yahweh (1:26, 43; 9:7, 23, 24). This language reveals how this sort of
behavior represents an active rejection of Yahweh and his commands and ex-
plains why it “provokes Yahweh to anger/wrath” (s[k Hiphil; 4:25; 9:18, 22;
31:29; πxq Hiphil; 9:7–8).
At times, the heart is emphasized. The people are not to allow their expe-
rience of Yahweh at Sinai to “turn aside” (rws) from their heart (4:9). Their
hearts must not “turn away” (hnp) to serve other gods (29:17[18], 30:17), a be-
havior that reveals “stubbornness of heart” (yBIlI tWrriv‘B;I 29:18[19]). It is a proud

104 Chapter 7
heart (μwr) that leads one to covenant forgetfulness (8:14) and a gullible heart
(htp) that leads to idolatry (11:16).
Movement between Positive and Negative

At times, the speeches in Deuteronomy describe movement between posi-
tive and negative behavior. The people are warned against “turning aside”
(rws) to the right or left (5:32, 28:14), to idolatry (11:16), from the way (9:12,
16; 11:28; 31:29), from the decisions of judges (17:11), and from following
Yahweh (7:4). Similarly, they are cautioned against turning away (hnp) to other
gods (29:17[18], 30:17, 31:20).
While the movement from the positive to the negative is described using
rws and hnp, the movement from negative to positive is expressed through the
verb bwv (return). This vocabulary is limited to two key passages in Deuter-
onomy, 4:26–31 and 30:1–10, and a closer look at these two pericopes is in
order. 14
Deuteronomy 4:26–31
According to Deut 4:26–27, it was inevitable that the people would violate
the core stipulations of the covenant relationship by worshiping idols, and
this violation would result in the people’s expulsion from the land and dis-
persion among the nations. It is Yahweh’s character as “a consuming fire, a
jealous God” described in 4:24 that explains his discipline of the people. In an
ironic twist, however, it is precisely in the midst of discipline that one finds
the first sign of hope, as the text shapes the people’s response from their po-
sition “among the peoples . . . among the nations” (4:27, 29). 15
Deut 4:29–30 makes explicit the exilic response in these “later days” as
“seeking (vqb Piel) Yahweh your God,” a seeking (vrd) that engages “all your
heart” and “all your soul,” that is, the inner affections of the penitential com-
munity. “To do something with all the heart and soul means to do it with the
totality of one’s thoughts, feelings, intentions and desires” (Tigay 1996: 77).
Verse 30 defines this depth of seeking using the vocabulary of repentance: “Re-
turn (bwv) to Yahweh your God and obey (lwqb [mv) him.” 16 This “turning” is
explicitly stated as a returning “unto” (d[") God, without any explicit mention
14. See further Boda (2006a). Wolff (1975: 98) attributes Deut 4:29–31 and 30:1–10 to a
second writer in deuteronomic circles. The present work focuses on its role within the book
of Deuteronomy in its canonical form.
15. It is this that has led many to distinguish Deuteronomy 4 from the preceding three
chapters, which for many represent the introduction to the Deuteronomistic History as a
whole; however, as we shall soon see, repentance is only envisioned after expulsion from the
land.
16. Werline (1998: 12–18) sees here phases in the penitential process (self-examination,
repentance, and pledge of obedience), but it is better to see these as various dimensions of
penitence. The last dimension appears to be more than just pledge but proof in action of a
change in behavior.
Deuteronomy 105
of turning “from” unfaithful covenant relationship, an aspect that is restricted

to passages outside the Torah. 17 This “turning” has been described as “cove-
nantal” bwv, which is “expressing a change of loyalty on the part of Israel or
God, each for the other.” 18 This sort of “turning” must involve obedience ([mv
lwqb), that is, this seeking and turning is expressed in changed action.
The subject of these verbs is always the “you” of the humbled exilic com-
munity, and the mood of the verbs is indicative, merely stating future actions
of this exilic community. However, there appears to be a conditional nuance
in the phrase: “when/because/if you search for him with all your heart and all
your soul” (4:29), showing that this repentance will not be mere lip service.
Deut 4:31 makes clear that this response is made possible because Yahweh is
“a compassionate (μwjr) God” who “will not fail you nor destroy you nor for-
get the covenant with your ancestors which he swore to them” (Deut 4:31), a
declaration that contrasts the earlier description of Yahweh in 4:24. 19 How-
ever, no indication is given of an involvement of God in this exilic penitential
response other than the general appeal to his mercy. A more substantial in-
volvement is described in the other passage in Deuteronomy that speaks of re-
pentance, to which we now turn.
Deuteronomy 30
An echo of the motifs found in Deuteronomy 4 appears near the close of
Deuteronomy in chap. 30. 20 Deuteronomy 27 and 28 focus attention on the
blessings and curses connected with Israel’s covenant with Yahweh. Chapter
29 initiates a literary complex that extends to the following chapter and in
which Moses is cast as an agent of covenant renewal. 21 In this renewal he re-
minds them again of the dire consequences of idolatry, a sin that will lead to
17. For collocations of prepositions with bwv, see Holladay (1958: 78–80), who lists, for
“turning to”: la< (25x), d[" (13x), l[" (2x), and l} (1x). Deut 4:30 and 30:2 use d[", and 30:10 uses
la<. “Turning from” is implicit in a context that has been preceded by covenant infidelity.
18. Holladay (1958: 2). Although he considers this instance as covenantal, Holladay con-
cludes that the “idea [of repentance] never seems to come into focus” (p. 156). This fails on
two fronts. First, it appears to inappropriately limit “idea” to “vocabulary.” Second, it presup-
poses a definition of repentance, rather than allowing the biblical vocabulary and texts to
shape this definition.
19. Cf. Mayes (1979: 157); Nelson (2002: 68).
20. See Christensen (1991: 95), who notes the close relationship between Deut 4:29–31
and 30:1–10 and their rhetorical function to introduce and conclude the two brackets sur-
rounding the inner frame of the book (chaps. 4–11 and 27–30). It is interesting that the term
bwv (in its religious sense) is only used in Deuteronomy in these two passages. For Mayes
(1979: 156, 367–69), this is evidence of later Deuteronomistic editing rather than the work of
the preexilic deuteronomic editor; see also Mayes (1981: 23–51); Lohfink (1993: 36–61, here
48 n. 57).
21. Many see chap. 29 as a later insertion separating chaps. 27–28 from its continuation
in chap. 30; cf. Wolff (1975: 83–100, here 194–95); Rofé (1993: 269–80, here 272); Nelson
(2002: 348).
106 Chapter 7
their expulsion from the land (Deut 29:25–29). As in Deuteronomy 4, this in-
troduces a discussion of penitence.
According to Deuteronomy 30, penitence begins with deep reflection. The
collocation used, bbl/bl la bwv (Hiphil), usually appears without a direct ob-
ject. On the one occasion in which it does have an object (Lam 3:21), the ac-
cusative is the thing upon which the person is to reflect. On another occa-
sion, this object of reflection is introduced by the word yk (Deut 4:39). In most
cases, however, the object is omitted but appears to be implied in the sur-
rounding context: in Isa 44:19, the object of reflection is the folly of bowing
down to an idol made from wood used for other mundane purposes (cf. Isa
46:8), and in 1 Kgs 8:47 // 2 Chr 6:37, the object of reflection is the discipline
of God that resulted from sin. So in Deut 30:1, the object of reflection appears
to be not only the circumstances that have befallen the community but in
particular the divinely promised blessing and curse. 22 Thus, deep reflection is
demanded at the outset of the deuteronomic penitential response according
to Deut 30:1, and this deep reflection is to fix the penitent community on the
promises of both blessing and curse that are essential to the covenant arrange-
ment. Here, one can discern an echo of the quality of seeking that is encour-
aged in Deuteronomy 4, a seeking with all one’s inner affections, but this
seeking is now defined more carefully as a reflection on the grace and disci-
pline of God exemplified in the covenant agreement and experienced by the
community.
This depth of reflection is linked in Deut 30:2 to turning (bwv) and obeying
(lwqb [mv), echoing chap. 4. This echo is confirmed by the use of the same
declaration that began the treatment in Deuteronomy 4: “with all your heart
and soul” (Úv‘p}n'Alk:bIW Úb}b:l}Alk:B)} . Turning and obeying are repeated again in
30:8–10, arranged in chiastic fashion: turn (bwv) . . . obey (lwqb [mv) . . . obey
(lwqb [mv) . . . turn (bwv), and again ending with the phrase “with all your
heart and soul.” This shows that they lie at the core of the deuteronomic the-
ology of penitence. 23
Clearly, one can discern echoes of the penitential rhythms and vocabulary
of Deuteronomy 4, but Deuteronomy 30 is not identical. First, in both 30:8
and 30:10, obedience is defined specifically as doing (hc[) and keeping (rmv)
commands (twxm) linked to the direct revelation of Yahweh (v. 8) now encased
in the book of the law (v. 10). This aspect is not completely absent from Deu-
teronomy 4 but is also not emphasized in the immediate context of the de-
scription of repentance and obedience (see 4:30; cf. Polzin 1980: 70).
22. See also Nelson (2002: 348), who links this reflection to the blessings and curses; con-
tra Craigie (1976: 363), who translates this as “return to your senses.”
23. Nelson (2002: 347) notes two interlaced concentric structures in Deut 30:1–10, one
based on bwv (“return/turn”) and the other on Úv‘p}n'Alk:b}W Úb}b:l} Alk:B} (“with all your heart and
with all your soul”). See Weinfeld (1991: 216), who emphasizes the continuity between the
two passages.
Deuteronomy 107
Second, whereas Deuteronomy 4 expressed a future hope that the exilic

community would repent, focusing on the necessity of seeking with all one’s
affections, Deuteronomy 30 brings greater focus on divine activity. This is
seen initially in the fact that the human penitential response, at the core of
which is the term bwv, will be met with the reciprocal divine action of bwv as
Yahweh restores (bwv) them (30:3) 24 and returns (bwv Hiphil) them to the land
(30:5). 25 Returning to God opens the way to one’s return to the promised land
lost through disobedience. This divine activity is also seen in the greater em-
phasis in Deuteronomy 30 on the role played by Yahweh in the penitential
process. 26 Whereas in Deut 10:16 Israel is called to circumcise their hearts, in
Deuteronomy 30 it is Yahweh who will perform this on the people and their
descendants (Craigie 1976: 364). This image is a metaphor for “radical, inte-
rior renewal that makes love and obedience fully possible.” 27 In Deuter-
onomy 30, we thus see an important development in the penitential theology
of Deuteronomy. The future penitential response of the people described in
Deuteronomy 4 is based on a work initiated and facilitated by Yahweh. These
passages
pose the requirement of ethical responsibility with utmost seriousness, yet
they are not willing ultimately to leave human beings to suffer the full con-
sequences of their own irresponsibility. . . . Thus at times it is not clear
whether hope is based on an act of human repentance or repentance itself
is based on trust in the assurance of mercy. 28
Deuteronomy thus envisions repentance as something that follows serious
disciplinary action of a jealous Yahweh in response to idolatry and that results
in exile. What should not be missed, however, is that penitence is seen not as
a regular rhythm within the life of the community but rather as an important
phase in the history of salvation, a phase that will bring an end to the exile
of the community. 29
24. For the idiom twbv ta bwv, see Tigay (1996: 284, 399 n. 283), who notes Ezek 16:53,
55: hmdq bwv (former state). For a review of this issue and especially the versional evidence,
see Holladay (1958: 110–15).
25. Rofé (1993: 269–80, here 270). Nelson (2002: 348) considers 30:1–10 a progression be-
yond 4:29–31. For turn/return (bwv) as leitmotif in Deut 30:1–10, see Mayes (1979: 368).
26. Cf. Brettler (1999: 171–88); Millar (1999: 174–76). Brettler (1999: 185–86) exceeds the
evidence when he says of 30:1–10: “This passage, which looks Dtr, is really pseudo-Deutero-
nomic, while being anti-Dtr.” A major plank of Brettler’s argument is that vv. 1b, 2, and 10
need not be taken as conditional clauses (although he does admit they can be taken this
way). However, even if they are not, they do set out an agenda of repentance that is an es-
sential component of the transition from exile to restoration, even if Yahweh enables this
repentance.
27. Nelson (2002: 348–49), who also notes the similarity to Jer 31:31–34 and 32:37–41.
28. Mann (1995: 19). Although he sees this as related to the allusion to God’s grace in
4:31, clearly 30:6 takes this divine grace to a level unanticipated in chap. 4.
29. Tigay (1996: 54) distinguishes between the approaches to repentance in the Torah and
the Prophets: “In the Torah [repentance] is mentioned only as something that occurs after
108 Chapter 7
This repentance, based on the merciful character of Yahweh and ultimately

enabled by this merciful God, begins with sincere reflection on God’s gracious
promises and stern warnings, followed by turning back to God in obedient
covenant relationship, displayed through observance of Torah.
Summarizing the contribution of Deut 4:29–31 and 30:1–10 to the theol-
ogy of repentance in Deuteronomy, one may consider
the return to be less a human deed and more a psychological event, prom-
ised by Yahweh, that will follow after his judgment upon them. The return
is thus promised in 4:29f. for the time of affliction, in close parallel with Ho-
sea’s and Jeremiah’s words of promise. In 30:8 too, the return is plainly part
of the promise. The presupposition in 4:30f. as in 30:2f. is Yahweh’s watch-
ful compassion—he, for his part, will never forget the covenant affirmed by
oath with the fathers (4:31). To be sure, since the time is close when Yah-
weh’s compassion will break through, 30:1f. and 10 put more emphasis on
the conditional character of the return; but it nevertheless maintained that
“Yahweh will circumcise the heart” (v. 6; Wolff 1975: 98).
Theological Basis for Responding Positively

Deuteronomy does not merely exhort the people to obey Yahweh but con-
sistently provides a theological basis for covenantal faithfulness. First of all, in
many cases this theological basis focuses on God’s character and acts of love.
Obedience was motivated by Yahweh’s election of Israel (7:6, 7; 10:15; 14:2;
cf. 4:37), an election described as Yahweh “setting his affection” (qvj) on Is-
rael (7:7, 8; 10:15). Yahweh’s character of compassion (μWjr') lies behind his
promise not to fail or destroy his people or forget the covenant with their an-
cestors (4:31), and it is this theology of Yahweh’s love for Israel that provides
a basis for the ultimate repentance of Israel (4:30). The people were to avoid
false worship because Yahweh shows covenant loyalty (ds<j< hc[) to thousands
(5:10). At many points, the sermon in Deuteronomy points to Yahweh’s past
miraculous actions for and among Israel as the basis for obedience, referred to
in 10:21 more generally as the “great and awesome things . . . which your
eyes have seen” but elsewhere as God making them numerous (10:22) and re-
deeming them from slavery in Egypt (5:15; 7:8; 11:2–4; 15:15; 24:18, 22).
This divine affection for Israel is most often expressed as a positive moti-
vation for Israel’s obedience. However, this passion for his covenant partner
at times expresses itself as divine “jealousy” (3:24, 5:9, 6:15, 20:20, 32:16), a
zealous passion for the exclusive love of his people. In this, one can discern a
second type of motivation for obedience in Deuteronomy, one that points to
punishment has taken place: if the people take their punishment to heart and return to God,
He will terminate their punishment . . . [the prophets] called upon people to repent before it
was too late, and to thereby avert punishment altogether.” This should be carefully nuanced
because this description of Torah relates to the deuteronomic stream only and does not take
into account the “penitential” in Leviticus. As for the prophets, there are also cases in which
opportunity for repentance has clearly passed; cf. Boda (2001: 186–97).
Deuteronomy 109
Yahweh’s disciplinary character and actions. While reflection on Yahweh’s

past miraculous actions often provides positive motivation for Israel’s obedi-
ence, reflection such as this can also provide negative motivation, as in Deut
11:5–6, which focuses on Yahweh’s discipline of Israel in the wilderness. In
Deuteronomy, Yahweh is described as “God of gods, Lord of lords, the great,
the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a
bribe . . . executes justice for orphan and widow” (10:17–18). He is a just God
who will visit iniquity on the guilty (5:9) and not leave them unpunished
(5:11). He repays those who hate him (7:10) and hates evil (12:31, 16:22). It
is this hatred of sin that explains why the book of Deuteronomy speaks often
of God’s anger/wrath being provoked (s[k Hiphil/πxq Hiphil; 4:25; 9:7, 8, 18,
22; 31:29; 32:16), being kindled (hrj; 6:15, 7:4, 11:17, 29:26[27], 31:17), burn-
ing (ˆv[, 29:20; πxq, 9:19, 20), and generally being directed against them
(13:17; 29:23, 24, 28). This strong reaction is not only to the sin but also to
the sinner, as Yahweh is described as “turning away” (bwv) from them (23:14),
“hiding his face” (yn'P: rts Hiphil) from them (31:18), being “unwilling to for-
give” (29:20; jls hba al), and even “destroying” (dmv Hiphil; 9:19, 20) and
causing the people to perish (dba; 8:19–20).
Underlying this disciplinary aspect of Yahweh’s character and action is the
holiness of Yahweh. In several passages, it is Israel’s status as a people holy to
Yahweh their God that provides motivation for their obedience (7:6; 14:2, 21;
26:19; cf. 28:9). Deut 23:15[14] makes clear that this status is related to the
holy presence of Yahweh in their midst:
Since the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you
and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy;
and he must not see anything indecent among you or he will turn away
from you.
The danger of this holy presence for an unholy people is made clear in the im-
age of Yahweh as “a consuming fire” in 4:24.
The vocabulary associated with motivations for obedience in Deuteronomy
links Israel’s response to Yahweh’s severe mercy. He is a God whose love is so
passionate that it demands fidelity. He is a God whose holiness demands a
holy people.
Practical Outcomes for Responding to Yahweh

The two ways depicted throughout Deuteronomy have radically different
results. At two points in the book, Moses says that he sets before them two out-
comes: blessing and curse (11:26–28; 30:1, 19), life and death (30:15, 19), pros-
perity and adversity (30:15). Blessing such as life and prosperity are most often
described in terms of taking (4:1; 6:18–19; 11:8, 23) and sustaining possession
of the land (4:1, 40; 5:16, 33; 6:2; 8:1; 11:9; 16:20; 32:47). 30 In addition, they
30. See Weinfeld (1972: 317–18).

110 Chapter 7
are described more generally as God’s blessings (hk:r;B,} ˚rb; 7:13; 14:29; 15:4, 6,
10, 18; 24:19; 26:15; 28:2) and more specifically as rain (11:14), vegetation
(11:15), abundant food (11:15), prosperity (29:9), or progeny (6:3, 7:13, 8:1). 31
Those who choose Yahweh’s path experience the fullness of love and affection.
In contrast, however, those who reject Yahweh and his ways have already
chosen curse, death, and adversity. Yahweh’s discipline is described as curse
(rWra:, hl:l:q;} 27:15–26, 28:15–68), examples of which throughout chaps. 27 and
28 represent the opposite of the blessings described above.
There has been some debate over the relationship between these outcomes
articulated throughout Deuteronomy and future generations. Some have ar-
gued that Deuteronomy incorporates an intergenerational theology of collec-
tive responsibility found in the Decalogue and other key pentateuchal
traditions (see Exod 20:5–6, 34:6–7; Num 14:18; Deut 5:9–10). 32 And yet it is
clear that in the present form of the Decalogue in both Exodus 20 and Deu-
teronomy 5 the punishment on successive generations is carefully qualified as
“for those who hate me” (yancl). This qualification shows that
God exacts punishment only from those children who “reject” him, that is,
those who propagate the evil ways of their fathers. He also adds the words
“to those who love me and keep my commandments” to the phrase “but
showing kindness to thousands” to make the passage state the converse idea
that the descendants of the righteous will enjoy divine grace only if they
themselves will observe God’s precepts. 33
A faithful generation sets the tone for successive generations, especially for a
society structured sociologically around a family-clan unit that typically in-
corporated multiple generations (see further the conclusion to the section on
Torah, pp. 115–121). 34
The qualification found in the Decalogue is in line with Deuteronomy’s de-
velopment of its retributive principle elsewhere. Deut 24:16 explicitly restricts
punishment and culpability to the offending generation alone. Deut 7:9–10 is
more implicit, contrasting God’s faithfulness to a thousand obedient genera-
tions, with God’s retribution “to the face” of those who hate him. 35
Therefore, in Deuteronomy the outcomes of positive and negative human
response impact three to four generations, but each generation has the oppor-
31. See Weinfeld (1972: 311).

32. Milgrom (2001: 2328); Kaminsky (1995b); cf. Kaminsky (1995a: 315–46; 1997: 319–
32). Halpern (1991: 11–107) traces this transition from corporate to individual ideology to
the social forces set in motion by the renewals under Hezekiah and Josiah, monarchs who
sought to break clan social power by creating individual links to the crown.
33. Weinfeld (1972: 318). Weinfeld argues that although the Decalogue in Exodus 20 con-
tains “for those who hate me,” it “was at first revised by the author of Deuteronomy alone
and . . . in later times the Exodus version was corrected in accordance with the deuteronomic
one.”
34. Bendor (1996); Perdue (1997).
35. Weinfeld (1972: 317) overstates his case when he claims that Deut 7:9–10 “clearly and
unequivocally expresses the principle of individual retribution.”
Deuteronomy 111
tunity to “choose life” (30:15–20), something experienced through attention

to the oral and written commands of Yahweh, which are not “idle words” but
literally their “life” because through them the people will prolong their days
in the land (32:46–47).
Hope and Pessimism

In Deut 5:27, the people express their verbal agreement to listen to and
obey Yahweh, and it is this commitment on their lips that explains the con-
stant appeals in the book for their response. The ubiquity of these appeals,
however, may suggest pessimism over Israel’s ability to obey Yahweh’s word. 36
That this is the case is intimated by the fact that the beginning of the book
is dominated by rehearsals of their rebellions in the past, focusing on the in-
cidents with the golden calf and the Baal of Peor and those at Taberah, Mas-
sah, Kibroth Hattavah, and Kadesh Barnea (1:19–46, 2:14–16, 4:3, 9:7–29). As
does Numbers 13–14, Deuteronomy describes the people’s mournful response
to God’s judgment after their refusal to enter the land at Kadesh Barnea and
accentuates even more so than the book of Numbers how God refused to ac-
cept their weeping, repentance, and admission of sin as a means to avoid pun-
ishment (cf. Deut 1:41–46 with Num 14:39–45). Furthermore, it is explicitly
stated that the land was given to them not because of their righteous charac-
ter (9:1–6) or their great size (7:7–10) but rather because of the merciful and
faithful character of Yahweh and the wickedness of the Canaanites (7:7–10).
Near the end of the book, Yahweh reveals to Moses that after his death the
people will forsake Yahweh and break the covenant, provoking his anger so
that he will forsake and hide his face from them (31:16–17). Moses echoes this
in his speech to the community in 31:27, 29:
For I know your rebellion and your stubbornness; behold, while I am still
alive with you today, you have been rebellious against the Lord; how much
more, then, after my death? . . . For I know that after my death you will act
corruptly and turn from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will
befall you in the latter days, for you will do that which is evil in the sight of
the Lord, provoking him to anger with the work of your hands.
Although repentance to Yahweh is envisioned in the book of Deuteronomy,

it is instructive that this sort of repentance only refers to the community that
will experience the drastic discipline of the Exile (4:25–31, 30:1–10). Note-
worthy also is the dominance of curse over blessing in the final chapters of
the book. Millar’s (1999: 170) conclusion for chaps. 4–11 really typifies the
entire book:
Deuteronomy displays an ambivalent attitude to the possibility of Israel’s

being willing or able to fulfil her covenantal obligations. Resounding calls to
36. See Millar (1999: 161–80) for a superb review of the pessimism over human nature in
the book of Deuteronomy.

112 Chapter 7
obedience sit alongside dismissive skepticism which denies that such revo-
lutionary obedience will ever become reality.
In contrast to Leviticus 26 with its constant repetition of the phrase “if also
after these things you do not obey me” (e.g., 26:18), revealing the function of
covenant curses to elicit a penitential response from the people, Deuter-
onomy merely provides a long list of curses that will befall the people (Deu-
teronomy 27–28) with no mention of repentance until after exile has taken
place (Deuteronomy 30).
Alongside this absence of hope for repentance in the land is the striking
lack of emphasis on sacrifice within the book. It is true that sacrifice is men-
tioned in passing in relation to legislation on the central place of worship
(Deuteronomy 12), the festal schedule (Deut 15:19–16:8), and pronunciation
of covenant curses on Mt. Ebal (Deut 27:5–7), but few details are offered as to
its ritual or significance. Deuteronomy makes no mention of the Day of
Atonement or sin offerings. Some details on a ritual related to forgiveness of
guilt are provided in Deut 21:1–9. There atonement (rpk) for guilt is secured
through ritual washing of hands, a declaration of innocence, and prayer for
forgiveness, but no blood is shed as the neck of a heifer is broken.
In light of these two absences in the book, one may conclude that
Deuteronomy appears to move in an environment that has largely been
purged of repentance and forgiveness. Repentance occurs before Israel
reaches Moab and after expulsion from the land. Forgiveness, accordingly, is
seen in the wake of the failures in the wilderness, but plays little part in the
Deuteronomic presentation of life in the land. Even in the laws, the concern
is to avoid defiling the land and ruining Israel’s relationship with Yahweh,
and forgiveness does not feature prominent. (But see perhaps 21:8; Millar
1999: 165)
Although Yahweh’s covenant with Israel is based solely on God’s grace, the
book of Deuteronomy expresses little hope in Israel’s ability to maintain this
covenant. The deuteronomic theology of the two ways and their outcomes
suggests that sin will ultimately be remedied through the disciplinary action
of Yahweh by covenant curses ending in exile. But the penitential theology of
Deuteronomy expressed in chaps. 4, 10, and 30 reveals that Yahweh will effect
directly an inner transformation of Israel’s heart, circumcising hearts and pro-
ducing repentance to bring an end to exile. No hope is placed in the people’s
ability to use the sacrificial system to avert sin or to repent from their sin. This
does not place Deuteronomy at odds with the priestly legislation, however,
because it also sees no sacrificial remedy for the kind of deliberate sin in view
in Deuteronomy. As was seen in Leviticus 26, exile is also envisioned as the
context that would give rise to a penitential response. Deuteronomy reveals
that the people need a transformation by Yahweh to make this possible.
Summary
The deuteronomic law codes echo the definition of sin found in the Cov-
enant Code. Sin includes offenses against divine norms related to the commu-

Deuteronomy 113
nity’s relationship with God, fellow humans, and creation. Of central

concern, however, is the community’s relationship with God, with concern
expressed about the worship of gods other than Yahweh and worship at sites
other than the central place of God’s choosing. Sin is understood within the
larger theological complex of covenant and signifies forgetting Yahweh and
his past grace and discipline, hating him, acting presumptuously, treating
others presumptuously, forsaking, and rebelling. Sin is not restricted to viola-
tions in terms of behavior but includes also the affections, with concern ex-
pressed about turning aside or turning away in the heart and possessing a
proud or gullible heart.
What remedy is there for sin of this sort in Deuteronomy? The many ex-
hortations show that sin should be avoided by positive covenantal relationship
with Yahweh, which arises from the heart and results in practical obedience.
Thus, “Deuteronomy is not ‘legalistic’ in the sense of focusing only on the
performance of required actions, but speaks to the heart, arguing from con-
crete laws and Yahweh’s gracious deeds to generalized ethical principles and
faithful attitudes.” The motivations for this sort of covenant relationship are
typically theological, either focusing on God’s character and actions of grace
(compassion, love, election, miracles) or his character and actions of justice
(jealousy, discipline, anger, holiness).
Violation of this covenant relationship through sin brings divine discipline.
This is seen not only in the long list of curses in Deuteronomy 28 but also in
the penalties recorded throughout the core legal corpus (Deuteronomy 12–
26). The injunction to “purge” (r[b Piel) covenant violators from the commu-
nity (13:6; 17:7, 12; 19:13, 19; 21:9, 21; 22:21–22, 24; 24:7) and to show no
pity (Ún,y[E s/jt: alø; 19:13, 19, 21; 25:12) 37 is expressed with the hope that this
discipline will have an effect on the people as a whole who will hear, be
afraid, and not replicate this kind of behavior (19:20).
This evidence shows that Deuteronomy teaches that sin is to be dealt with
severely. There is, however, little teaching on forgiveness or atonement for vio-
lating God’s covenant. According to 4:41–43 and 19:1–13, provision was
made in the cities of refuge for the safety of someone who killed another ac-
cidentally. This, however, is not related to forgiveness of a guilty party be-
cause this kind of death was not a crime. A ritual of forgiveness is provided in
21:1–9 in a case in which the guilty party cannot be identified. In this case, a
heifer’s neck is broken (v. 4) and a priest leads the elders of the nearest town
in a ritual in which they wash their hands over the heifer while declaring,
our hands did not shed blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Accept this atone-
ment for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, Lord, and do not hold
your people guilty of the blood of an innocent person. (Deut 21:7–8, tniv)
In a case such as this, according to v. 8b, “the bloodshed will be atoned for”
(rpk; tniv). This rite does not pertain to the party who committed the crime
37. See especially Ezekiel for this idiom: 5:11; 7:9; 8:18; 9:5, 10.
114 Chapter 7
but does represent provision for those who may experience “guilt by associa-
tion,” much as seen in the story of Abimelech in Genesis 20 (see above on
Genesis, pp. 27–28).
Deuteronomy restricts forgiveness of intentional sin to the past and the fu-
ture. Deut 9:25–29 looks to past forgiveness, linking this to Moses’ mediatorial
role on behalf of Israel before Yahweh after their rebellion in the wilderness.
This passage is bracketed by statements focusing on the status Yahweh had af-
forded the people through the exodus from Egypt (vv. 26, 29: “God’s people/
inheritance”). Between these two statements, the intercessory cry of Moses
points to the special relationship Yahweh had shared with Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob (v. 27), as well as Yahweh’s reputation among the nations (v. 28).
According to 10:10, the forgiveness afforded Israel at this time was based on
this intercession of Moses.
Deut 4:31 and 30:3 look to future forgiveness, emphasizing the grace of
Yahweh as essential to the forgiveness the people will experience after the ex-
ile. Because Yahweh their God is a compassionate (μWjr') God, he will not fail
or destroy and will not forget his covenant with their ancestors (4:31). Their
rescue from the nations will be based on Yahweh’s compassion (μjr Piel) for
them (30:3).
In both of these passages it is a penitential exilic community that receives
this compassion. This penitence begins with deep reflection over the past dis-
cipline, followed by turning, obeying, doing, and keeping the commands of
the law with all one’s heart. Deut 30:6 carefully qualifies this description by
explaining that this penitence will be the result of an internal work of God in
circumcising the people’s hearts.
Though there is clear evidence of a theology of forgiveness in the past and
future, both of which provide insight into the theological basis for this for-
giveness, the emphasis is on the call to obedience in the present. Acceptance
of this call will bring blessing and life, and rejection will bring curse and
death. 38
38. See Millar (1999: 51–60) for past scholarship on what has often been considered con-
tradictory in Deuteronomy. Others have used diachronic arguments to explain this tension
in the book (esp. Von Rad, Noth, Perlitt). However, recent work by Mayes (1979: 78–79);
Polzin (1980: 39); Wright (1990: 15); Diepold (1972: 76–104), and Millar shows that these
two dimensions are appropriate within a cohesive book, by appealing to literary technique
(Polzin’s “plurality of viewpoints”) or theological context (Mayes’s “covenantal atmosphere”
or Wright’s “sonship”). As Millar (1999: 60) concludes, “The ‘indicatives’ and ‘imperatives’
concerning the land . . . dovetail in a way which gives a graphic exposition of the decision
which Israel faces.”
Chapter 8
Torah: Conclusion
Torah and Canon

In the narrative flow of the Torah, Genesis 3, with its depiction of human-
ity’s first sin, identifies the inciting incident responsible for the tension in the
story. 1 The book of Genesis as a whole reveals that the ultimate remedy for
that sin is the provision of a nation through the line of Seth–Noah–Shem–
Terah–Abraham–Isaac–Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. This remedy
is revealed through a series of covenants associated with this line, first with
Noah in Genesis 9, then with Abraham in Genesis 15–22, then with the exo-
dus generation of Israel at Sinai in Exodus 19–24, and finally with the wilder-
ness generation of Israel on the plains of Moab in Deuteronomy. 2 While the
Torah begins by identifying the problem and providing the means for its res-
olution, it ends without that resolution, providing in Deuteronomy an invi-
tation to Israel to fully embrace their destiny laid out in Genesis–Numbers.
The means for resolving the tension and realizing Israel’s destiny is laid
out in detail in the covenant established between Yahweh and Israel and
promised to Abraham. This community, which had been chosen by Yahweh
and saved from bondage in Egypt, is called into covenant relationship with
Yahweh (Exodus 19–24) to function as a “kingdom of priests and a holy na-
tion” (Exod 19:4–6) through whom, as promised in Gen 12:1–3, the blessing
of Yahweh would flow to the nations. 3 This covenant, established by Yah-
weh’s gracious initiative, demanded that Israel respond through obedience to
1. With Dempster (2003: 23), who notes that Genesis at the outset of the Old Testament
signifies “that Israel’s national history is subordinated to that of world history.” Cf. Childs
(1979: 130).
2. See especially Rendtorff (1993: 125–34) for covenant as key principle in Genesis–
Exodus and Davies (2003) for the integration of the patriarchal and Sinai covenants in late
redaction of the Torah (esp. Leviticus 26). Deuteronomy shows its significance throughout
the Torah. Barton (2003: 31) considers that “the covenant is central to the Old Testament
considered as a unified Scripture, even though it may not have been central in certain par-
ticular periods considered historically.”
3. So Dozeman (1989: 142), who argues that Exod 19:4–6 demonstrates Israel’s role as a
“channel of the presence of God” to the nations and Exodus 19–24 shows that the “necessary
prerequisite for Israel to fulfil its priestly mission to the nations is the revelation of the
priestly legislation on Mount Sinai.”
- 115 -
116 Chapter 8
the laws set out in Exodus 20–23. It is within a community of obedience such
as this that Yahweh promises to presence himself, providing a means to do so
through the tabernacle (Exodus 25–40). Having consecrated Israel from the
nations by his gracious choice, Yahweh exhorts the people of Israel to re-
spond by consecrating themselves and so to make Israel a place free from the
impurity and sin that would threaten the enduring presence of Yahweh in
their midst and on earth (Leviticus). Obedience of this sort is to be seen not
as mere external ritual or obedience but rather as covenantal response from
the heart (Deuteronomy). Just as the initial covenant making in Exodus 19–
24 is related to Israel’s role among the nations, so the book of Deuteronomy
reminds Israel that their response to the covenant invitation will have an im-
pact on the nations:
So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the
sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, “Surely this great
nation is a wise and understanding people.” For what great nation is there
that has a god so near to it as is the Lord our God whenever we call on him?
Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as
this whole law which I am setting before you today? (Deut 4:6–8) 4
However, Deuteronomy does not resolve the tension created by human
sin in Genesis 3 because it represents an invitation to an Israel poised for
conquest to embrace their destiny among the nations. Unfortunately, there
have been indications along the way that the anticipated narrative resolution
through Israel’s positive response will not be forthcoming. These indications
come early in the story. The characterization of Jacob/Israel in Genesis re-
veals one who deceives and strives, not only with humanity but more impor-
tantly with God. Exodus highlights Israel’s apostasy from Yahweh immedi-
ately following their positive response to Yahweh’s invitation to covenant
relationship (Exodus 32–34). The long list of covenant curses in Leviticus 26
that ends with exile suggests that Israel will struggle to obey Yahweh’s com-
mands. This sort of disobedience is described in painstaking detail in the re-
bellions in the wilderness in Numbers. Deuteronomy, finally, is bracketed
with serious questions over Israel’s ability to embrace the covenant (Deuter-
onomy 1–4, 28–33).
Alongside this pessimism, however, one can discern a thread of hope. In
Genesis, this is seen in the transformation of Jacob after being “exiled” from
the land, returning, and wrestling with God. In Exodus, this is demonstrated
in the undeserved grace of Yahweh after the people’s idolatry with the golden
calf. Leviticus expresses this in the hope of Lev 26:40–46, which envisions a
penitential response of the people in exile that will result in renewal of cove-
nant and return to the land. In Numbers, this hope is expressed through the
4. That the nations are in view is also seen in Deut 26:19, 28:9–10. See McConville (2002:
404–5); Wright (2006: 227).
Torah: Conclusion 117
opportunity afforded to the new generation after the wilderness punishment.

Finally, Deuteronomy expresses hope in the revelation that in exile there will
be repentance and a circumcision of the heart by Yahweh (Deut 4:29–31,
30:1–10).
The incompleteness of the narrative of the Torah in Deuteronomy and the
invitation found in this book highlight two of its functions canonically. First,
this incompleteness propels the reader forward to discover how Israel re-
sponds in the Prophets and then in the Writings. In this way, the Torah func-
tions as the foundational chapter of a story that will be filled out in the rest
of the Old Testament. The theology of sin and its remedy that is articulated
in the Torah shapes the reader’s understanding of the development of these
themes in the rest of the Old Testament canon. Second, this incompleteness
and invitation calls the reader backward to fully embrace the destiny of Israel
articulated throughout the Torah in light of the promised circumcision of the
heart in Deuteronomy 30.
Torah and Sin

Our analysis of the Torah has laid a foundation for the Old Testament the-
ology of sin and its remedy. According to Genesis 1–11, sin spoils the idyllic
conditions of the garden that were created by God for fellowship with human-
ity and introduces discord among the members of creation (human-animal,
human-human). Though at first sin is presented as an external condition that
must be mastered (Genesis 4), by Genesis 6 it is presented as a dynamic force
that has invaded humanity’s inner being and produces an earth filled with
violence (Genesis 6). Even when nearly all of humanity is eliminated through
the flood, this internal condition of sin remains (Gen 8:21).
This dynamic force moves within and between generations. In Genesis,
this is introduced in the depictions first of the line of Cain and then of the
line of Ham, especially in contrast to the lines of Seth and Shem respectively.
Whereas Cain’s line falls into progressively worse sin, producing Lamech and
possibly the evil generation of Genesis 6, Seth’s line calls on God and pro-
duces Noah. Ham’s sin leads to the future condemnation of his son Canaan,
whereas Shem’s righteousness leads to the future exaltation of his descen-
dants (Israel) over Ham’s. Concerns over mixing between these two lines are
consistently expressed throughout the patriarchal narratives of Genesis, and
this is echoed in the legislation throughout Exodus–Deuteronomy, which
prohibits intermarriage with the Canaanites. This principle of sin’s dynamic
force between generations may also lie behind the repetition of sinful acts in
the stories of Abraham and Isaac (deception related to their wives).
The principle of intergenerational culpability is clearly articulated in the
covenant curses of Lev 26:39–40, where the cause of the punishment of exile
is linked to both the sins of the final generation and the sins of the former
generation(s), and the remedy for this predicament is confession of one’s sins
118 Chapter 8
and those of the earlier generation(s). 5 It is important to note that although

the experience of punishment is connected to the sin of a former generation,
the culpability of the later generation is also clear. Other passages in the Torah
such as Exod 20:5–6, 34:6–7, Num 14:18, and Deut 5:9–10 appear to echo this
theological perspective. All of these passages describe a punishment that
would fall not only on those who violate God’s commands but also on later
generations of their progeny. However, Exod 20:5–6 and Deut 5:9–10 carefully
qualify these later generations as “those who hate me,” suggesting that this
punishment only falls on those who continue in the sin of a former generation
(cf. Weinfeld 1972: 311). Even though no such qualification appears in Exod
34:6–7 and Num 14:18, these passages are embedded within a larger narrative
that reveals that the punishment was not applicable to the second generation
of people who, although they suffered through the elongated wilderness wan-
derings, were permitted to enter the land. 6 What this suggests is that punish-
ment of the third and fourth generation refers to the reality that punishment
would be experienced by the entire ancient family unit, in which three or four
generations lived together, until the death of the offending generation. 7 Later
generations may continue to experience punishment if they persist in this sin,
but this punishment is only inevitable if the later generations replicate the evil
patterns of the former generation. These qualifications, that the punishment
did have implications for later generations that lived in close proximity and
who continued in sinful patterns, may help to make sense of Deut 24:16,
which explicitly restricts culpability to the offending generation (cf. Deut 7:9–
10). 8 Lev 26:39–40, however, still maintains that, although a guilty generation
is punished for its own sin, this punishment (or possibly its severity) may also
have some relationship to the sin of an earlier generation. 9
5. Milgrom (2001: 2331) sees intergenerational ideology as “a cardinal plank in the struc-
ture of Priestly theology,” while Halpern (1991: 14) argues that P limits and possibly even
eliminates intergenerational (Num 26:10–11; cf. Num 16:31–33, Deut 11:6) and intragenera-
tional (Lev 4:3, 13) identity. See the refutation of Halpern by Kaminsky (1995a: 120 n.110) in
light of Lev 4, 20:5, 26:39.
6. See especially Widmer (2004: 328).
7. Notice how the same principle is operative for righteousness in Gen 18:23–25, in
which the presence of a few righteous brings pardon for a wicked city.
8. So also Weinfeld (1972: 311, 319), who claims that “the conception that God only re-
quites the sins of the fathers is, in effect, the underlying view of the concept of retribution in
the Deuteronomic History.” In this then I disagree with Tigay (1996: 436–37), who describes
Exod 34:6–7, Num 14:18 as “cross-generation retribution,” which involves the transfer of an
ancestor’s sins to another generation, and Exod 20:5–6, Deut 5:9–10 as “compound retribu-
tion,” which involves the addition of an ancestor’s sins to the children sins. What all of these
look to is the punishment of an entire family or community, which consists of three to four
generations.
9. Tigay’s category of “compound retribution” (see n. 8) may be helpful for understanding
Lev 26:39–40, although Milgrom (2001: 2327) doubts this. See also Kaminsky (1995a: 44),
who defines transgenerational retribution as “a form of corporate retribution in which the
Sin is also seen as a dynamic force that causes impurity and threatens the
presence of Yahweh among the people. The elaborate priestly system pre-
sented in Exodus–Numbers shows the constant concern to protect and pre-
serve the tabernacle from the impurity caused by imperfection and sin within
the created order. This system was concerned not just with the sacred pre-
cincts but also with the entire camp that surrounded it. This demanded the
vigilance of all Israel to ensure that the divine presence would remain within
the camp.
Sin, however, is not just a dynamic force but also a violation of basic justice
that brings on the violator a response in kind, as seen in the lex talionis (eye
for eye, tooth for tooth) of the legal code. These violations of basic justice are
all placed in covenant frameworks, and thus sin of this sort is fundamentally
a betrayal of covenant relationship, not a violation of an abstract legal code.
Punishment was brought under the rubric of covenant curse, which was foun-
dational to the covenant relationship from its inception.
At the core of the covenant is the Decalogue, which defines sin first and
foremost in terms of humanity’s relationship with Yahweh, then in terms of
relationships among fellow humans, and finally in terms of humans’ relation-
ships to nonhumans.
The Torah does not just describe sin but also presents its remedy. The strat-
egy of creating a faithful community among whom Yahweh would dwell and
through whom he would bless the nations runs parallel to the remedy of di-
vine punishment. This way of dealing with sin is evident throughout the foun-
dational narratives in Genesis 1–11 (chaps. 3–4, 6–9). In these early accounts
of Genesis, however, there are indications that Yahweh does not punish hu-
manity as they fully deserve, mitigating the punishment to preserve humanity.
As the faithful community is revealed through Abraham, it is evident that
this faithful community will play a mediatorial role to mitigate punishment
for humanity.
guilt of a sinful generation and its consequent punishment are stored for a generation or
more and then released against a later generation. It does not exclude the idea that the recip-
ient may also be somewhat deserving of punishment.” Halpern (1991: 12) notes that, at least
for the Torah material, views of corporate responsibility were never universal but existed
alongside legal material that “stipulat[ed] individual punishments for infractions.” He con-
sidered these views to be in tension (pp. 14–15). Typically, these tensions have been ex-
plained through appeal to various tradition streams that were progressively incorporated to-
gether into the present text; cf. Kaminsky (1995a: 117). Kaminsky (1995a: 178), however,
sees this as oversimplifying the relationship between the two ideas (individual versus corpo-
rate), encouraging us to read the two conceptions as “complementary” rather than “contra-
dictory”; cf. Kaminsky (1995b; 1997), contra Matties (1990: esp. 145–46). Though “comple-
mentary” may be too strong a word, it appears that these concepts were not considered
“contradictory” by those responsible for the final shape of many biblical books. Less convinc-
ing is Krasovec (1999: 152–55), who argues that collective punishment is related to a “natu-
ral” consequence of guilt, much like the impersonal retribution theology that Koch and von
Rad argued for in the wisdom literature (see Proverbs, pp. 359–376 below).
120 Chapter 8
It is then not surprising to also find this principle of divine punishment and
mitigation expressed within the covenant, which was designed to create a
faithful community. Legal penalties and covenant curses in Exodus–Deuter-
onomy show the severity with which Yahweh deals with sin. But there is a
role to be played by mediators to find an alternative remedy for sin. In Exo-
dus–Deuteronomy this is seen in the role played by priests, whose rituals
would ensure Israel’s holiness and purity in the case of violations related to
impurity and inadvertent sin and especially in the role of Moses, who must
plead with Yahweh to grant Israel grace in response to her flagrant violations.
Even the covenant curses are a form of mitigated punishment, after which a
rebellious Israel that deserved death would be given the opportunity to return
to Yahweh and renew covenant. Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 reveal
that any hope for the grace of mitigated punishment was linked by Israel to
Yahweh’s dual character of grace and justice. The dispensing of this grace for de-
fiant sin, however, is always an exercise of Yahweh’s sovereignty, as he himself
declares in the lead up to his forgiveness of a rebellious Israel: “I will be gra-
cious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will
show compassion” (Exod 33:19). Yahweh’s revelation in Exod 34:6–7 reveals
his character of mercy and justice, and his actions throughout the Torah re-
veal typical patterns, but he clearly will not be reduced to an impersonal sys-
tem that dispenses grace based on human manipulation.
Sin is also remedied through warnings provided by the word of God, both
oral and written. At times, God warns a potential violator either directly, as he
does with Cain in Genesis 4 and the people of Israel in Exodus 20, or through
a messenger, as in the prophetic sermon of Deuteronomy. Israel’s encounter
with the direct voice of Yahweh in Exodus 20 was intended to keep the people
from sinning and instill the fear of God in them. At other times, God warns
through the law, defining sin so that the people will know what to avoid. In
the Torah, laws of this sort are placed within a broader covenantal context that
identifies law as response to the gracious initiative (the exodus) of the law-
giver and establishes accountability between the covenant partners. The vio-
lations are then to be seen not as breaches of an abstract legal code but rather
as rejections of the people’s divine covenant partner.
Although not dominant, at times penitence is offered as a remedy for sin.
Yahweh offers Cain forgiveness if he will but “do well” and master his sin, but
Cain rejects the offer (Genesis 4). Abimelech, who surprisingly is innocent of
any sinful act but guilty by association with Abraham’s folly, is showcased as
a model of repentance in Genesis 20 with his behavioral change, compensa-
tion, and intercession by a prophet. Jacob also calls his family to penitence by
demanding that they put away their idols and worship at Bethel (Genesis 35).
In the priestly sacrificial legislation in Leviticus 4–6 and 16, some attention is
given to recognition and confession of sin and at times restitution for dam-
ages. Repentance is a principle implicit throughout the covenant curse series
in Leviticus 26, which becomes explicit in 26:40 and is mentioned in Deuter-
onomy 4 and 30 as the posture of the community that would return from ex-
ile. In contrast, it is surprising how often admission of sin and possibly also
repentance is not offered as a solution (Exodus 32–34) or is depicted as insin-
cere ( Joseph’s brothers in Genesis 50; Pharaoh in Exodus 1–15) or ineffective
(the Israelites in Numbers 14). Throughout the rebellion accounts in Num-
bers, admission of culpability is only uttered on three occasions, and these are
uttered not to God but to a mediatorial figure. In one case, this admission
does not secure forgiveness. This evidence contributes to the pessimism over
Israel’s ability to respond to the demands of Yahweh, and yet the Torah ends
with its invitation to obedience in the present and expectation of a great di-
vine work after future discipline.
1 pica short on top
Part Two
Prophets
The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings trace the story of Israel
from the conquest of the land after the death of Moses ( Joshua) through the
tumultuous period of the judges ( Judges) and kings (Samuel–Kings) to the Ex-
ile of the Northern (2 Kings 17) and Southern (2 Kings 25) Kingdoms. For over
half a century, a form of these four “books” has been considered a single lit-
erary work which, though based on previously existing sources, was con-
structed during the final period of the Kingdom of Judah and its demise, most
likely in a few phases. 1
The basis for this view is rooted in the observation that Deuteronomy is
distinct in structure, theme, and style from much of the rest of the Torah and
shares more affinity with the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. As
already noted, the book of Deuteronomy represents a sermon on the Book of
the Covenant, interpreting the law anew for a new generation poised to enter
the promised land (see Deuteronomy, pp. 97–114 above). The book of Joshua
begins by repeating events and vocabulary used in the closing events of the
book of Deuteronomy. It assumes that the reader has prior knowledge of what
has already taken place.
In light of this evidence, it has been suggested that the book of Deuter-
onomy represented the introduction to a much larger literary complex that
stretched from Deuteronomy to Kings. 2 This literary complex was united in
1. Key to this critical development is, of course, Martin Noth. His seminal work is Über-
lieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (1943), translated into English as The Deuteronomistic History
(1981). His innovation was not the recognition of a “Deuteronomistic” redaction of these
four books but rather the identification of the Deuteronomistic History as a carefully crafted
literary work; cf. Soggin (1972: 3). For Noth’s impact, see McKenzie and Graham (1994). For
reviews of the history of research on the Deuteronomistic History, see Provan (1988: 1–31);
McKenzie (1991: 1–19); Knoppers (1994: 16–43); Schniedewind (1996); and especially now
Römer and de Pury (2000: 24–141); Römer (2005: 13–44); Fretheim (2006). For opposition to
the conception of DtrH, see Block (1999); Rösel (1999); Knauf (2000: 388–98).
2. For many, the core of the DtrH included Deuteronomy, Joshua 1–12 and 23, Judges 2–
16, 1 Samuel 1–2 Samuel 20, and 1–2 Kings; cf. Nelson (1981; 1998: 68).
- 122 -
Prophets Introduction 123
various ways. First, throughout the History and especially at transitions be-
tween eras, the writers have placed summarizing reflections on the story, com-
municated sometimes through dramatic narrative (speeches, prayers) spoken
by main characters (e.g., Joshua 1, 23; 1 Samuel 12; 2 Samuel 7; 1 Kings 8; cf.
Deuteronomy 1–3) and at other times through direct or declarative narrative
provided by the narrator (e.g., Joshua 12; Judg 2:11–23; 2 Kgs 17:7–20). Sec-
ond, the History emphasizes a limited complex of themes, focusing on (dis)-
obedience to Yahweh’s verbal demands on human behavior and Yahweh’s re-
tributive activity in response to Israel’s behavior. Emphasis is placed on a cen-
tralized Jerusalem cultus with little interest in priestly practices, and concern
is expressed over adopting the idolatrous practices of the nations. The fulfill-
ment of the prophetic word in the history of Israel is important. 3 The book of
Joshua presents the conquest as an example of the results of obedience (re-
ceiving the blessings of Deuteronomy 28), whereas the books of Judges, Sam-
uel, and Kings present the results of disobedience (receiving the curses of
Deuteronomy 28).
Although it appears that the four “books” are closely related to one an-
other in terms of both narrative techniques and theological viewpoint, there
are sound reasons for the division into the four literary blocks, Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings. 4 The divisions come at key transitions in the story of Is-
rael, with Judges at the transition between the era of the conquest and the era
of the initial experience in the land, Samuel at the transition between the pe-
riods of the judges and of monarchy, and finally Kings at the transition be-
tween David and Solomon. Within each of these literary units, there appears
to be narrative and structural integrity (see the introduction to each book be-
low; Webb 1987: 210). However, each is essential to prepare the reader for the
one that follows. Joshua expresses deep concern over the ability of Israel to re-
main faithful to Yahweh and reject idolatry ( Joshua 24), precisely the chal-
lenges they face in the book of Judges. Judges reveals the fundamental
problem with leadership by nonhereditary judges and points to kingship as
the answer (Samuel). Samuel reveals that the problems evident in the judges
phase are only accentuated in the era of kingship, even though David arises,
at least initially, as an ideal model, only to fail and foreshadow the disastrous
slide that is presented in the book of Kings.
The close affinity between the book of Deuteronomy and the reforms of
King Josiah in 2 Kings 22–23 has suggested to many that an initial edition of
3. See Noth (1981: 4–25); Fretheim (1983); Nelson (1998: 70–74).

4. In the classic view, Joshua 13–22 and 24, Judges 1 and 17–21, and 2 Samuel 21–24 were
added later after the division into individual books; Nelson (1998: 179 n. 172). This element
in the argument reveals how the present canonical divisions do represent major transitions
in the Former Prophets. On this, see especially Jobling (2000), who contrasts the canonical
divisions with Noth’s divisions of the Deuteronomistic History, based on speeches; cf. Wong’s
(2006: 12 n. 65) evaluation of Polzin (1980).
124 Prophets Introduction
this work was compiled during the reign of this Southern king. But the con-
tinuation of the history into the exilic period (see 2 Kings 25) reveals that the
work was completed in its present form during the Exile. 5
This rather “late” development in the history of critical scholarship partly
affirms an established tradition in the canonical organization of the Old Tes-
tament by Jewish communities. Though the Hebrew Bible presents the Old
Testament in three sections called Torah (hrwt), Prophets (μyaybn), and Writings
(μybwtk), the second section is traditionally subdivided further into the Former
Prophets ( Joshua–Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah–Malachi). 6 The “dis-
covery” of a consistent narrative and theological agenda in Joshua–Kings af-
firms then the canonical shape of the Hebrew Bible. This canonical shape,
however, creates a division between Deuteronomy and Joshua. 7 This high-
lights the foundational character not only of Deuteronomy, which without
doubt dominates the Torah’s impact on the Former Prophets, but also of the
entire Old Testament. 8
Within the Torah, Deuteronomy is key to the Former Prophets because it
represents Moses’ vision for life in the land, complete with its opportunities
and challenges. His final speeches prepare for the success of conquest at the
outset but also the failures of obedience that will lead to exile. The final pe-
ricope in Deuteronomy 34 is especially important at the canonical juncture
between the Torah and the Prophets.
Now Joshua the son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses
had laid his hands on him; and the sons of Israel listened to him and did as
the Lord had commanded Moses. Since that time no prophet has risen in
Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, for all the signs and
wonders which the Lord sent him to perform in the land of Egypt against
Pharaoh, all his servants, and all his land, and for all the mighty power and
5. For this theory, see especially Cross (1973: 274–89); Nelson (1981). Also note the Gött-
ingen school, with its more complex approach: Smend (1981: 110–25); Dietrich (1987; 2000);
Würthwein (1994); cf. Person (2002: 3).
6. This designation is not attested before the 8th century a.d. (see So†ah 48b). However,
the place of these books as a unit following the Torah and as the first section of the prophets
is early; cf. Childs (1979: 230); Dempster (2006: 294 n. 293).
7. In Noth’s theory, Deuteronomy was drawn into the larger Deuteronomistic History
through the creation of the introductory Deut 1:1–4:49 as well as 31:1–13.
8. See Blenkinsopp (1992: 35), who says there “is little doubt that the Pentateuch and
Former Prophets may be and at some point were intended to be read as one consecutive his-
tory.” On what is often called the “Primary History” (Genesis–Kings), see Freedman (1963;
1991) and Brodie (2001: 35–50), though note Brueggemann (2003: 264–65). The Torah’s im-
pact on the Former Prophets is dominated by but not restricted to Deuteronomy. At times,
one can discern the impact of other traditions within the Torah. See, for instance, Boda
(1999: 47–61) for the priestly impact on what are often considered key episodes in the Deu-
teronomistic History: Joshua 7 (cf. chap. 22) and 1 Kings 8. It is interesting that the intergen-
erational sin principle that dominates the end of Kings has more in common with the
priestly (Lev 26:39–40) than with the deuteronomic (Deut 24:16) tradition.
Prophets Introduction 125
for all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel. (Deut
34:9–12)
This conclusion to Deuteronomy signals the transition to the new phase, the
time of Joshua, but at the same time offers a retrospect and prospect concern-
ing Moses’ role as prophet. Here, Moses is identified as the quintessential
prophet, the one against whom all subsequent prophets would be judged and
the one from whom all subsequent prophets would take their lead. Moses’
role and words presented throughout the Torah, therefore, are “in fact the
source from which all the ‘prophetic’ books derive, much as Moses’ prophetic
spirit was the source of communal prophecy in the wilderness (Num 11:25).” 9
Deuteronomy 34 thus signals the end of a canonical phase, the Torah,
which now attains status as the foundation canonical collection within the
Old Testament as a whole. At the same time, it signals the beginning of a new
canonical phase, the Prophets, the first scene of which focuses on the key role
of the Torah for experiencing success in the new land ( Joshua 1). 10 The ca-
nonical division Prophets begins with the Former Prophets ( Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings), and it concludes with the Latter Prophets arranged in
four collections (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve). 11 The final pericope in
the prophets (Mal 3:22–24[4:4–6]) brings closure to this canonical division by
alluding back to the quintessential prophet of Torah (Moses) and the key
prophet in the Former Prophets (Elijah). 12
This study will present the theology of sin and its remedy within the five
basic subunits within the prophets, giving attention first to what are consid-
ered the Former Prophets ( Joshua–Kings) and then turning to the four pro-
phetic collections that follow it (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve).
9. Mann (1988: 157). On the importance of Deut 34:10–12, see Chapman (2000: 112,
146); Dempster (1997; 2006).
10. See especially Dempster (1997; 2006).
11. On reading the Former and Latter Prophets together, see Collins (1993); Conrad
(2003).
12. See Jones (1995: 236–37); cf. Nogalski (1993b: 185); Dempster (1997; 2006); Schart
(1998a: 302–3); Chapman (2000: 112); Curtis (2000: 166–84); Redditt (2003b: 323); Boda
(2007b; 2007d).
Chapter 9
Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges
It has already been noted above how the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
and Kings cohere as a narrative that traces the story of Israel from conquest
to exile and constitute what is called the “Former Prophets.” This chapter will
focus on the presentation of the theology of sin and its remedy in the first two
subunits in this literary complex, Joshua and Judges.
Joshua
The book of Joshua is an account of the conquest and distribution of the
land by the Israelites under the leadership of Joshua. The first half of the book
depicts the conquest of the land in three stages, as Joshua leads the people
into the heart of the land by conquering Jericho and Ai (chaps. 5–8) before
moving to the south (chaps. 9–10) and then the north (chap. 11). The second
half of the book traces the subsequent division and allotment of the land by
Joshua (chaps. 13–21). Although the book of Joshua begins with vivid depic-
tions of battle and conquest, the latter half of the book often frustrates readers
with its monotonous employment of lists of kings, tribes, families, and loca-
tions. It is easy to lose sight of the bigger perspective of this book and the
foundation it lays for interpreting the story of Israel in the rest of the Former
Prophets. A key component of this foundation is the theology expressed in
the key speeches and covenant renewals that structure the book as a whole,
as well as in the tragedy of Achan’s sin (Gray 1986: 48).
Joshua 1:1–9: God’s Speech to Joshua

As we already discovered in treatment of the Torah above, Deuteronomy
stands slightly apart from the rest of the Torah, constituting Moses’ final re-
reading of the covenant in light of the impending realities of life in the prom-
ised land. It is evident that the vocabulary and theology expressed in this
rereading constitutes the dominant world view through which the story of Is-
rael is interpreted in the Former Prophets.
At the head of the Former Prophets, Joshua thus functions with Deuter-
onomy as the key canonical transition between the Torah and the rest of the
Former Prophets. This is evident from the initial sentences of the book, which
describe Moses’ death and include Yahweh’s speech to his successor, Joshua
son of Nun, who was anointed in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy (Deut
- 126 -
Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges 127
Just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake
you. (v. 5b)
Be strong and courageous, for you shall give this people possession of
the land which I swore to their fathers to give them. Only be strong
and very courageous; (vv. 6–7a)
be careful to do according to all the law which Moses my
servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or
to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go.
(v. 7b)
This book of the law shall not depart
from your mouth, but you shall
meditate on it day and night, (v. 8a)
so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written
in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then
you will have success. (vv. 8b)
Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous! Do not
tremble or be dismayed (v. 9a)
for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go. (v. 9b)
Figure 1. Chiastic Structure of Joshua 1:5b–9b.
31:23–29). 1 The speech begins with the call to Joshua to lead the people into
the land with the declaration that the land promised to Moses and their an-
cestors was God’s gift to them ( Josh 1:3–5a). Following this general calling to
the conquest, the speech provides insight into how this conquest will be ac-
complished, arranging the particulars in chiastic fashion (fig. 1). 2 First, sur-
rounding this entire section (1:5b, 9b) is Yahweh’s assurance of his presence,
emphasizing that only with his presence will the leader and his people
1. Römer (2000: 113) speaks of the “pivotal position” of Deuteronomy (between the To-
rah and the historical books), adopting Herrmann’s image of Deuteronomy as a prism that
filters “the old traditions of the Tetrateuch (Genesis to Numbers) to give them the Deutero-
nomic aspect under which they appear in the succeeding books.” Pressler (2002: 9) notes
how Joshua 1 “looks both backwards and forwards,” backward by incorporating quotations
and paraphrases from Deuteronomy and forward “by introducing the main characters, struc-
ture, themes, and even tensions that are found throughout Joshua.” However, contrast Wen-
ham (2000: 194–203), who sees the close affinity between Joshua and Deuteronomy but is
less certain of its relationship to the Deuteronomistic History, especially the book of Kings.
2. See Stone (1991: 25–36) for the way in which conquest of the land and obedience to
the Torah are intertwined in the book of Joshua and the suggestion that the military lan-
guage of the book becomes a metaphor for the observance of Torah. The speech in Joshua 1
certainly would represent a superb foreshadowing of this literary development, because in it
land and Torah are inseparable.
128 Chapter 9
succeed in conquering the land. Second, Joshua is exhorted to be strong and

courageous (1:6–7a, 9a), a typical component in texts related to the installa-
tion of a leader 3 and emphasizing how Yahweh’s presence is directly related
to the provision of courage and strength and the absence of fear. Third, Joshua
is called to carefully enact (hv[ rmv) the law delivered by Moses and now ac-
cessible in written form, not turning (rws) from it to the right or the left. Vig-
ilance of this sort will bring success (lkc Hiphil) as Yahweh makes his way
prosperous (jlx Hiphil + ˚rd; 1:7b, 8b). 4 At the heart of this section of the
speech is the exhortation to Joshua to keep the written form of the Torah as
the subject of his outer voice (vwm + ÚyPIm)I and his inner meditation (hgj; 1:8a).
Placed at the outset of the story of life in the land in the Former Prophets,
this speech to the new leader sets the tone for the story as a whole. It identifies
obedience to Torah as key not only to the people’s initial conquest of the land
but also to their enduring possession of the land and ultimately their repos-
session of the land.
Joshua 2–20: Conquest and the Ban
Canaanites and the Ban

The approach to the conquest of Canaan that drives the account of Joshua
is the troubling policy of the “ban,” seen in the constant employment of ver-
bal (μrj) and nominal (μr,j)E forms throughout the book. This root first appears
on the lips of Rahab in Josh 2:10, in reference to Israel’s defeat of Sihon and
Og (Num 21:21–35; cf. 21:2–3), as the spies investigate Jericho, and then
again as the Israelites prepare to attack (6:17, 18) and then conquer (6:21) the
city. The term refers to the total destruction of people (10:28, 35, 39–41;
11:11, 20) and their material possessions (6:18–19; 17:1, 11), as well as entire
cities (6:21; 8:26; 10:1, 37; 11:12, 21).
The theological justification for the ban 5 is provided in passages such as
Deut 9:4–5, which states,
Do not say in your heart when the Lord your God has driven them out be-
fore you, “Because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to pos-
sess this land,” but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the
Lord is dispossessing them before you. It is not for your righteousness or for
the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it
is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driv-
ing them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the Lord
swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
3. On this installation genre, see McCarthy (1971), though Mason (1990: 24–25, 30–31,
193–94) is probably correct in treating it more generally as an “Encouragement for a Task.”
Cf. Williamson (1976); Braun (1976).
4. Soggin (1972: 31–32) notes the connections between the vocabulary here and Deuter-
onomy; cf. Deut 31:6–8, 23 and 29:8.
5. See on this the elongated discussion by Fretheim (1983: 68–75, esp. 72).
According to Deuteronomy, the sinful worship patterns of the Canaanites

have aroused the judgment of God. 6 This in turn is related to a second reason
for the ban, provided in Deut 7:1–26 (cf. 13:12–15, 20:10–18), which links the
elimination of these peoples (v. 2, μrj Hiphil) to the necessary protection of
Israel from intermarriage (v. 3), which would lead to idolatry (v. 4) and subse-
quently to Israel’s destruction (v. 4). The goal was not just the judgment of the
people because of their sin but also the elimination of their cultic sites, which
would lead Israel into sin (v. 5). In this way, the elimination of the Canaanites
is directly related to the two sins of most concern in Joshua: inappropriate
objects and sites of worship.
According to Josh 11:20, Yahweh takes measures to ensure the elimination
of these sins:
For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order
that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but
that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
As with Pharaoh (Exod 14:17), so Yahweh hardens the hearts of the Canaan-
ites so that they would enter into battle rather than sue for peace and thus
“receive mercy” (hN;jIT)} . Yahweh’s design was to destroy (dmv Hiphil) them in
order to protect the Israelites from their temptations.
This policy reveals the severe character of Yahweh’s solution for sin in the
book of Joshua. The Canaanites are eliminated because of their idolatry. No
opportunity is given for “repentance,” as Yahweh even hardens the hearts of
those judged. The purpose given for this policy is not to provide room for Is-
rael but rather to preserve Israel from the sinful practices of those in the land.
The focus then is on the preservation of the faithful.
Achan and the Ban: Joshua 7

The concern expressed through the policy of the ban is seen in the key
event that follows the conquest of Jericho. The constant repetition of the
term “ban” (μr,j)E throughout Joshua 7 (vv. 1, 11–13, 15; cf. 6:17, 18; 22:20)
highlights the poetic justice of the passage, that is, that the ones who dare to
take what was put under the ban and was thus devoted to God for destruc-
tion 7 will come under the ban themselves.
6. This connection between the Canaanites and sin is foreshadowed in Gen 15:16, which
says that the iniquity of the Amorites would reach its climax at the time of the conquest of
the land.
7. See Lev 27:28, which shows the priestly understanding of this term as related to what
has been devoted to God alone and thus is considered “most holy” (cf. Num 18:14, Ezek
44:29). One can see here a close relationship to the root vdq, which is the more common term
for setting apart something as holy in a positive way; μrj (Hiphil) more commonly denotes
setting apart something as holy in a negative way (ABD 3:244). This use of “holy” is not moral
but rather ritual in character, referring to what has entered into the sphere of the holy, that
is, the sphere of the divine. It is for God alone: in the case of Joshua, for God’s destruction
alone.
130 Chapter 9
It is ironic that the great victory at Jericho, that miraculous triumph that
gave Israel its beachhead in the promised land, led Israel to defeat and despair.
These depths are foreshadowed in the warning Joshua gives to the people on
that climactic seventh circuit of Jericho’s walls:
But as for you, only keep (rmv) yourselves from the things under the ban
(μr,j)E , so that you do not covet (μrj Hiphil) them and take (jql) some of the
things under the ban (μr,jEh"AˆmI), and make the camp of Israel accursed (μr,j)E
and bring trouble (rk[) on it. ( Josh 6:18)
The warning is that the city is under the ban (μr,j,E i.e., devoted to Yahweh for
destruction) and taking what belongs to him (μr,j)E will render Israel accursed
(μr,j,E i.e., devoted to Yahweh for destruction), bringing disaster on the nation.
Here, one can discern the intragenerational quality of this violation of Yah-
weh’s command. The actions of any one will have implications for the entire
community.
This principle is illustrated immediately in chap. 7, the first verse echo-
ing the words of Joshua’s warning by informing the reader that Achan took
(jql) some of the things under the ban (μr,jEh"AˆmI). “The solidarity of the
community, assumed throughout the account, is already suggested by the
first verse. Achan commits the offense, yet the narrator asserts that ‘the Is-
raelites broke faith,’ that God’s anger burned ‘against the Israelites’” (Press-
ler 2002: 57).
This offense leads to the defeat of the Israelites at Ai, the death of 36 fight-
ers, and the discouragement of the entire community (“the hearts of the
people melted and became as water,” 7:5). The leadership of the community
is devastated at this loss, crying to Yahweh with the words and actions of clas-
sic lament (7:6–9; Butler 1983: 80). The divine response is severe, turning
Joshua’s “why” of lament (“why did you ever bring this people over the
Jordan . . . ?” 7:7) into the “why” of accusation (“why is it that you have fallen
on your face?” 7:10; cf. Boda 2005b; 2006c). Yahweh informs Joshua that “Is-
rael has sinned” by taking things under the ban, repeating this accusation at
the beginning and end of his speech (7:11, 15; Pressler 2002: 58). This evil has
rendered them accursed and in danger of losing God’s presence, promised to
Joshua at the outset of the book (7:11–12; cf. 1:5, 9). The only way to deal with
this sin is to remove (rws Hiphil) the things under the ban from their midst
(7:13). A process is outlined in which the guilty party will be identified and,
together with the things under the ban, burned with fire (7:14–15). The pro-
cess is carried out and the culpable one discovered (7:16–18).
Joshua implores guilty Achan to do two things (7:19). First, he is to give
praise to Yahweh (“give glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and give praise
to him”) and, second, he is to confess his sin (“tell me now what you have
done. Do not hide it from me”). The account of Achan’s response focuses on
the second of these two required actions as he confesses: “Truly, I have sinned
against the Lord, the God of Israel and this is what I did” (7:20–21). 8 The ac-
count relates how Joshua took Achan, his family and belongings, and the
items he had stolen to the valley of Achor and there stoned and burned them
with fire (7:24–25). 9
Joshua 7 shows that sin can have an intragenerational dimension, impli-
cating and affecting the entire community (cf. Josh 22:20; Soggin 1972: 97).
Not only is identification of the guilty party important, but confession by the
offender is essential. The confession here is closely linked with praise to Yah-
weh, suggesting that confession of culpability and thus acceptance of punish-
ment such as this brings greater glory to Yahweh, recognizing through
submission the glorious power of this judge. 10 This confession, however, is
not a means to individual forgiveness for this sin, which was committed
against items dedicated to Yahweh. The confession appears to function as the
final stage in the process of identifying the guilty party from among the
tribes, clans, and families of Israel. So serious is this sin that the offending
party is eradicated from the community. The fact that his family and posses-
sions are included in the judgment does create some tension with the asser-
tion in the book of Kings that children will not be held responsible for the
sins of their fathers. The uniqueness of this judgment may be related to the
fact that this offense was against Yahweh’s presence/property (μrj). 11
Joshua 22: Joshua and the Transjordan Tribes
The book of Joshua ends with a series of key speeches that set the tone for
the story of Israel in the land that follows in Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The
first is found in chap. 22, which focuses on speeches addressed by Joshua and
the entire congregation of Israel to the Transjordanian tribes. These speeches
8. Pressler (2002: 58) notes the striking similarity between Achan’s confession and Eve’s
actions in Genesis 3: “saw, coveted, took”: “The parallels underscore the primal significance
of Achan’s offense: the first Israelite sin in the promised land.”
9. There is some confusion in 7:25 over who was stoned and burned, because it is noted
twice: “And all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire, and they
stoned them with stones.” Some have suggested that only Achan was stoned and his family
spared, but this does not appear to be in view in light of 7:24 in which “his sons, his daugh-
ters” are listed along with Achan’s property; with Butler (1983: 75); contra Soggin (1972).
10. Cf. Boda (1995). The combination of praise and penitence here was long ago related
by Horst (1929) to a Gattung called Gerichtsdoxologie (Doxology of Judgment), which appears
elsewhere in Job 4–5; Isa 6:5; Jer 13:15; Amos 4:13, 5:8–9, 9:5–6; Ps 118:17–21; 2 Chr 30:8; cf.
von Rad (1962: 357–58; 1971); Crenshaw (1975). Whereas Crenshaw linked this to prophetic
lawsuits, Horst and von Rad linked it to sacral law. Here the two probably should not be dis-
tinguished. Sacral legal procedure may have included a prophetic dimension through temple
prophets. Contra Soggin (1972: 104), who sees this as “necessary in order that no one should
believe that the method employed was arbitrary.”
11. So Butler (1983: 86). In this one can see the priestly character of this key event in the
Former Prophets; see also 1 Kings 8, pp. 166–172 below; cf. Boda (1999: 55–61).

132 Chapter 9
create a literary bracket with Joshua’s first interaction with the same tribes at
the outset of the book in Josh 1:12–18. 12 There, after Joshua had reminded
these tribes who would live east of the River Jordan of their responsibility to
the rest of Israel, the people respond with their willingness to do (hc[) what-
ever Joshua commanded (hwx Piel), go (˚lh) wherever he sent (jlv) them, and
obey (hc[) him as they did Moses (1:16–17). Anyone who would not act in
this way, rebelling (hrm) against his command (ÚyPI) and disobeying ([mv al)
his words, would be put to death (twm Hophal).
Here in chap. 22, Joshua’s initial charge to them expresses once again clas-
sic deuteronomic vocabulary for obedience: 13
Only be very careful to observe (hc[ rmv) the commandment and the law
(hrwt hwxm) which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded (hwx Piel) you,
to love (bha) the Lord your God and walk (˚lh) in all his ways (˚rd) and
keep (rmv) his commandments (hwxm) and hold fast (qbd) to him and serve
(db[) him with all your heart and with all your soul (μk<v‘p}n'Alk:b}W μk<b}b"l}Alk:B)} .
( Josh 22:5)
When the rest of Israel, however, discovers that the Transjordanian tribes
have erected an altar near the Jordan River, they prepare for war, but not be-
fore sending a party to investigate. Interestingly, this group is led by the priest
Phinehas, not Joshua, and the investigation and resulting speech reflects
priestly vocabulary. At its core, though, is the deuteronomic vocabulary for
disobedience, speaking of turning away from following Yahweh (bwv + yrej“a"mE
hw;hy]) and rebelling (drm) against Yahweh (22:16–19; cf. 22:22–23, 29). 14 The
concern of the rest of the congregation is that this altar appears to rival the
exclusive and central altar at the tabernacle (22:29) and that an offense such
as this against the clear instruction of Moses in Deuteronomy 12 would
prompt the anger of Yahweh against the entire congregation ( Josh 22:18; But-
ler 1983: 246). This dialogue between the Cisjordan and Transjordan tribes is
designed to remind the entire community of the intragenerational implica-
tions of the sin of even a limited portion of the community, whether a group
of tribes (22:18) or even a single individual (Achan, 22:20). Although the
Transjordanian tribes deny any wrongdoing in this matter, the concerns ex-
pressed here foreshadow offenses against the central shrine (that is, Jerusa-
lem), which will drive the story of Israel in the Former Prophets.
12. Gray (1986: 137); cf. Deut 3:18–20.

13. Butler (1983: 245), who notes Deut 6:4–15; 10:12–13, 20; 11:1; 13:3–4; 30:15–20; cf.
Josh 1:7. According to Pressler (2002: 108), it contains the first appearance of the verb “to
love” (bha) in the book of Joshua, a term that is so important in the book of Deuteronomy
(see Deuteronomy, pp. 97–114 above).
14. For this, see Butler (1983: 243), who notes, “The cultic nature of the material suggests
its origin within priestly circles of Israel,” cf. Noth (1971: 11, 133); Soggin (1972: 215); Gray
(1986: 172).
Joshua 23: Joshua and the Cisjordan Tribes

Chapter 23 focuses on a speech of Joshua, apparently to the Cisjordan
tribes (see 23:4). The speech is closely connected to covenant forms, contain-
ing the typical elements: antecedent history (vv. 3–5), statement of substance
(vv. 6–8), blessing (vv. 9–10), restatement of basic principle (v. 11), and curse
(vv. 12–13, 15–16). 15
The introduction to this speech is reminiscent of the opening speech of the
book, confirming that the instructions given to Joshua are relevant to the
community as a whole. 16 Once again, key deuteronomic vocabulary is ex-
pressed, encouraging the community to carefully observe (hc[ rmv) all that is
written in the book of the law of Moses (23:6), to cling (qbd) to Yahweh (23:8),
to take diligent heed (rmv Niphal + daøm)} to themselves (μk<ytEvøp}n'l)} and to love
(bha) Yahweh (23:11). 17 Vocabulary of this sort shows that relationship (cling,
love) is not contrasted with careful observance (carefully observe, take dili-
gent heed to themselves), nor is written code (“book of the Law of Moses”)
treated apart from personal deity (Yahweh). 18
Alongside these calls to obedience, however, the people are warned to avoid
temptations to disobey. They are cautioned not to turn aside (rws) to the right
hand or the left (lwamøc‘W ˆymIy); from what is written in the book of the law of
Moses (23:6b). Great concern is expressed over Israel associating (awb) with,
turning (bwv), or clinging (qbd) to the nations that remain. Examples of asso-
ciations of this sort include intermarrying with them or worshiping their gods
(which are interrelated activities), whether this is mentioning the name (rkz
Hiphil + μv) of their gods, making anyone swear ([bv Hiphil) by them, serving
(db[) them, or bowing down (hwj Hishtaphel) to them (23:7, 12). This sort of
association with the nations and this sort of service and worship of other gods
will transgress (rb[) the covenant (tyrb) and so bring the burning anger of Yah-
weh against them so that they will perish from the land (23:13, 16).
Chapter 23 shows the importance of covenant to dealing with sin. Israel
had entered into covenant with Yahweh and so was held accountable to this
covenant. This demanded obedience to law as the expression of their cove-
nant partnership with Yahweh. It warned the people about the temptation to
break covenant, defining this in terms of idolatry. The remedy for sin is de-
picted as covenant curse, that is, perishing quickly from the land. In this way,
15. See Butler (1983: 253); cf. Baltzer (1960) and McCarthy (1978) for the basic forms.
16. So also Gray (1986: 141); Pressler (2002: 9, 112–13).
17. So Butler (1983: 253), who notes, “Every verse of the chapter displays Deuteronomis-
tic theology and vocabulary.” See the lists in Weinfeld (1972: 320–59).
18. In this, one can discern again the larger Deuteronomistic historiographic technique of
using “a leader’s parting words in their narrative to guide their audience’s interpretation at
critical junctions,” Pressler (2002: 112). Cf. Joshua 1, 1 Samuel 12, 1 Kings 2. Gray (1986: 141)
notes the similarity to the function of Moses’ speeches in Deuteronomy 1–11 and 29–30.
134 Chapter 9
it introduces a “somber, even menacing” mood into the narrative (cf. Josh
21:45; Pressler 2002: 115).
Joshua 24: Covenant Renewal at Shechem

Within the book of Joshua there are three key communal events that punc-
tuate the account. The first is the circumcision of the nation at Gilgal in 5:1–
12, an event that marks the end of the phase of preparation for conquest that
began with the commission of Joshua (1:1–9) and ended with the people
crossing the Jordan River (3:1–4:24). 19 The circumcision is linked specifically
to the new generation that had replaced the old rebellious generation in the
wilderness (5:4–7), and so with this action the community entered into faith-
ful covenantal relationship with Yahweh.
The second event is the covenant renewal that occurs in 8:30–35 at Mt.
Ebal and Mt. Gerizim, a fulfillment of the command of Moses in Deuter-
onomy (11:26–32, 27:11–14). This covenant renewal marks the end of the
eastern conquest of the land, the key victories at the outset that gave Israel a
beachhead in the land of Israel, from which they would spread to the north
(9:1–10:43) and south (11:1–23). In the valley between these two mountains
lay the town of Shechem, an appropriate location for the people to affirm
their covenant relationship with Yahweh because Shechem was the first place
in Canaan that Yahweh repeated his promise of the land of Canaan to Abra-
ham’s seed (Gen 12:6–7). 20 As did Abraham, the people in Joshua also build
an altar at Shechem. Also, it was at Shechem that Jacob bought a piece of land
from the sons of Hamor (Gen 33:19, Josh 24:32). Now, as this seed is begin-
ning to receive this land, they return full circle to this location, linked so in-
timately to the promise of land.
The third event comes at the very end of the book in 24:1–27, with the
covenant renewal once again at Shechem. 21 Joshua’s speech begins in classic
covenantal form by identifying the covenant giver (“thus says the Lord, the
God of Israel,” v. 2) and rehearsing the story of Yahweh’s relationship with
Israel (vv. 2–13). 22 In addition, it ends with the provision for deposit of the
written code (vv. 25–26) and identification of witnesses (v. 27; cf. v. 22). At the
heart of this covenant renewal, in the place where the stipulations of the cove-
nant are outlined, one finds a dialogue between Joshua and the community,
in which the leader exhorts the people to covenant faithfulness, and the
people respond positively (24:14–24).
19. See Fretheim (1983: 41–42). Notice how this crossing is linked to the Exodus crossing
(4:19–24), thus fusing the two core redemptive events of Israel: bring out (axy Hiphil) of
Egypt and bring into (awb Hiphil) the promised land.
20. The phrase “oaks of Moreh” (hrEmø yne/laE) occurs only in Gen 12:6 and Deut 11:30.
21. Pressler (2002: 119) notes the close relationship between Josh 8:30–35 and Joshua 24.
22. One can discern further elements of ancient treaty forms in Joshua 24 (identification
of the covenant giver, historical prologue, stipulations, provision of deposit/period public
reading, list of witnesses to the treaty, blessing, and curses); cf. McCarthy (1978: 241); Butler
(1983: 266); Gray (1986: 33–35); although see concerns of Koopmans (1990: 146–54).
Joshua’s initial exhortation (24:14–15) employs classic deuteronomic vo-

cabulary 23 calling the people to obey Yahweh by positively pursuing him
(fearing, ary; serving, db[) with sincerity (tm<a”b<W μymIt:B)} while negatively reject-
ing (putting away, rws Hiphil) the rival gods that enticed their ancestors in
Mesopotamia and Egypt and would entice them in Canaan. These positive
and negative dimensions are made explicit in v. 15 as Joshua exhorts them to
“choose (rjb) for yourselves today whom you will serve (db[),” clarifying that
the choice of his own house was Yahweh rather than the rival gods.
The response of the people is not surprising: they pledge themselves not to
forsake (bz[) Yahweh by serving (db[) other gods but rather to serve (db[) Yah-
weh. This kind of obedience is linked by the people to the fact that Yahweh
had rescued them from Egypt (v. 17) and that he was “our God” (v. 18b). This
response, however, is not the end of the covenant renewal: Joshua challenges
the sincerity of the people, questioning their ability to serve (db[) Yahweh be-
cause of his character (vv. 19–20). Joshua identifies Yahweh as both holy and
jealous. Yahweh’s demands are in keeping with his holy character (v/dq:),
meaning that any rebellion ([cp) or sin (afj), exemplified in forsaking (bz[)
and serving (db[) other gods, will arouse the jealousy of this God (a/Nq'), ex-
pressed in his turning (bwc), doing harm ([[r), and bringing an end (hlk Piel)
to the community. Joshua’s warning is clear: “He will not forgive (acn).”
The people, however, are not dissuaded but confidently repeat their com-
mitment: “No, but we will serve (db[) the Lord” (v. 21). Joshua’s final re-
sponse suggests that rebellion is not merely something in the community’s
past, because he calls them to put away (rws Hiphil) their foreign gods “which
are in your midst” and incline (hfn Hiphil) their hearts (bbl) to Yahweh (v. 23).
Here, obedience has both an external and an internal dimension, involving
the physical eradication of their idols as well as the internal affection of their
hearts. One final time, the people respond (v. 24) with their commitment to
serve Yahweh.
This final encounter between Joshua and the people makes clear the choice
that lies before Israel as a nation and “brings the reader to the point toward
which the whole of Joshua aims: the need to decide to worship Yahweh ex-
clusively” (Pressler 2002: 116). The dialogue between Joshua and people
swings back and forth, repeating the verb “serve” (db[) seven times. Echoing
the pessimism that dominates the final speeches of Yahweh and Moses in
Deuteronomy (see esp. 31:16–21, 27–29), Joshua 24 implies that the people’s
past was, present is, and future will be dominated by idolatrous infidelity. 24
As in Deuteronomy, Yahweh’s approach to sin of this sort is severe, here
linked to his holy and jealous character, with the clear statement that he will
23. With Perlitt (1969: 239–84) and Van Seters (1984: 139–58); contra Sperling (2000:
240–58).
24. Pressler (2002: 121) explains this surprising development in Joshua’s speech not as
teaching the impossibility of serving God but rather as teaching “the seriousness of the
choice.” However, this is not the plain meaning of this text.

136 Chapter 9
not forgive their sin but rather reverse his blessing, doing them harm and
bringing an end to them.
The book ends with the account of the burial of Joseph’s bones on the first
parcel of ground at Shechem that Jacob (Israel) had bought in the promised
land (Gen 33:19–22). This action links Joshua back to the end of Genesis (Gen
50:22–26) and serves as a poignant reminder that the promises given and de-
veloped throughout the Torah had been fulfilled. The speeches that precede
this event, however, cast a dark shadow over Israel’s ability to retain this land.
Summary
Joshua functions as an introduction to the Former Prophets as a whole,
providing a picture of the blessing of land that Israel can expect to enjoy if
they follow the example of their leader Joshua. 25 The book, however, suggests
an uncertain future, one that will be dominated by disobedience on the part
of the people.
The key to avoiding sin and embracing obedience that will bring blessing
and success is close attention to Torah. This Torah, which at the beginning of
Joshua is identified as a written collection, must be carried out in action. This
will be made possible by constant oral repetition or teaching of the Torah ac-
companied by deep inner meditation.
The severe policy of the ban throughout the book highlights a harsh method
for dealing with the sins that violate the proper object of and location for Is-
rael’s worship. This policy, enacted by Israel at its inception, reminds them of
the severity with which they also will be treated if they fail to obey Yahweh.
The concern over any Canaanite intrusion into the camp of Israel is made
clear in Joshua 7. Achan’s violation of Yahweh’s clear instructions reveals that
the source of sin is not just outside the camp but exists inside it. Here, one can
see the intragenerational implications of sin and the seriousness with which Yah-
weh deals with it, especially sin that is committed against items dedicated to
him. In an event dominated by priestly sacral legal language, the guilty party
is identified by sacred lot, required to give praise to Yahweh by confessing his
culpability, and then eradicated by the community.
This event in Joshua 7 foreshadows the speeches that conclude the book,
all of which are dominated by a pessimism over Israel’s ability to obey Yah-
weh fully, especially in relation to two offenses: the centralization of worship
at one shrine in Israel (chap. 22) and intermarrying with the Canaanites and
adopting their worship practices (chaps. 23–24). These offenses will arouse
the anger of Yahweh, who, due to his jealous and holy character, will not for-
give and instead will remove them from the land.
25. Pressler (2002: 3) sees in Joshua this paradigm: “When Israel is faithful, God is faith-
ful. Divine wrath and judgment are not the result of Yahweh’s caprice, but of Israel’s sin.
Joshua illustrates the first part of that statement: Israel is obedient; its leader, Joshua, is faith-
ful; and God fulfils God’s promises, giving Israel the land.” Judges, however, “depicts the
other side of the equation.”

The close attention to Torah at the outset of Joshua and the two communal
gatherings at Shechem for covenant renewal in chaps. 8, 23, and 24 highlight
the importance of covenant to the deuteronomic strategy for dealing with sin.
The community is invited into covenantal relationship with the God whose
gracious acts are reviewed in the covenant renewal speeches in Joshua 23 and
24. In response to this grace, however, he demands obedience. Torah then
functions as a covenant document that holds the community accountable,
identifying the appropriate patterns for behavior along with both blessings
that reward obedience and curses that discipline disobedience. A curse of this
sort has already been evidenced in the example of Achan, but Joshua’s
speeches reveal that the curse of expulsion from the land is already a distinct
possibility.
In Joshua, the solution to sin is traced to Torah and covenant renewal but
also to the judgment of God, whether through expulsion of an offending party
within Israel (see chaps. 8, 22) or the expulsion of Israel as a nation.
Judges
Even a cursory reading of the first two chapters of the book of Judges re-
veals its awkward chronological flow. 26 Similar to the opening of the book of
Joshua, Judges 1 begins “after the death of Joshua” (1:1) and relates the story
of how the Israelites first sought to finish the incomplete conquest of the land
(1:1–36). This story ends with a prophetic message from the “angel/messenger
of Yahweh” that explains why nations will be left in the land by linking this
to the violation of the covenant (2:1–5). 27 Judg 2:6, however, takes the reader
back in time to the period when Joshua was still alive. It reviews the rebellion
of the people and ends with a prophetic message from Yahweh explaining
why nations will be left in the land and linking this again to the violation of
the covenant (2:20–3:6).
These two “introductions” serve a few purposes. 28 First, they transition the
reader from the book of Joshua to the book of Judges. Second, they set the
tone for the book as a whole, preparing the way for stories of disobedience
26. Several recent scholars have argued for a unified literary structure to the book of Judges;
e.g., Gooding (1982: 70–79), who sees Gideon at its rhetorical centre; O’Connell (1996), who
sees it focused on the Davidic dynasty; Webb (1987), who sees the tragedy of Samson at its
rhetorical center. The use of terms such as “coda” (Webb) and “epilogue” (Gooding) to de-
scribe chaps. 17–21 reveals some frustration in their unifying strategies. See Block (1999: 49–
50) for a refutation of the theory that Judges is part of a larger Deuteronomistic History and
for the argument that connections between the books in Joshua–2 Kings are related to “the
common Mosaic theological and literary tradition in which the Yahwistic authors of all these
books were schooled.” For more details on issues raised in this section on Judges, see Boda
(forthcoming d).
27. See Pressler (2002: 134) for the role of 2:1–5 as “theological key” to the introduction
in chap. 1.
28. See Gray (1986: 153).
138 Chapter 9
that will confirm the accuracy of Joshua’s challenge to the people in his clos-
ing speech in Joshua 24. Third, they identify the two literary collections that
dominate the book of Judges with the first introduction (1:1–2:5) related to
the concluding narratives of the book (chaps. 17–21) and the second intro-
duction (2:6–3:6) related to the stories of the Judges at the center of the book
(chaps. 3–16). 29 The first introduction and concluding narratives thus form
an inclusion around the book as a whole. Although the relationship between
the inner core (2:6–3:6, 3:7–16:31) and outer frame (1:1–2:5; chaps. 17–21) is
key to the message of the book as a whole, these two sections express unique
approaches to sin.
Judges 3:7–16:31: The Judges Cycles

The core of the book of Judges (most of 3:7–16:31) is dominated by a series
of narratives describing the exploits of six key “judges” 30 who arose in Israel
after the death of Joshua: Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, and
Samson. 31 Although the core of each of these stories is developed in a unique
way, a basic common structure can be discerned among all of them, one that
is established in the introduction to this section in 2:6–3:6. 32 The common
structure contains the following elements: Israel’s sin, Yahweh’s judgment, Is-
rael’s cry, Yahweh’s deliverance through a deliverer, Israel’s rest, and the deliv-
erer’s death (see table 9.1 below, pp. 146–147). 33
The accounts of the “judges” always begin with the citation that “Israel did
evil ([r' hc[) in the sight of Yahweh (hw;hy] yney[EB)} .” Although three of the stories
(Ehud, Deborah, Samson) provide no details on this “evil,” the others identify
it as following after (˚lh + yrej“a)" , serving (db[), and bowing down (hwj Hish-
taphel) to other gods, naming the Canaanite deities of Baal, Astarte, and
29. Dumbrell (1983: 25) sees a geographical pattern in the judges stories as they move
from Judah (3:9) to Benjamin (3:15) to Ephraim (4:5) to Manasseh (6:15) to Gilead (11:1) to
Dan (13:2). The Abimelech section (chap. 9, possibly including parts of 8:22–35) has echoes
of the Judges pattern but develops the theme of the kingship section (see pp. 141–144 below,
1:1–2:5 . . . 17:1–21:25).
30. The English translation “judge” is probably not accurate for the Hebrew root fpv. See
Block (1999: 24), who argues persuasively that the root refers to ruling/governing/exercising
leadership. “To lead in internal affairs” involves rendering judgments among the people,
while “to lead in external affairs” means to deliver through military exploits.
31. The six minor judges do not fit this pattern: Shamgar (3:31), Tola (10:1–2), Jair (10:3–
5), Ibzan (12:8–10), Elon (12:11–12), and Abdon (12:13–15). They appear to have been in-
cluded for completeness, bringing the number of judges to twelve. That they were added at
a later point may be suggested by the ignoring of Shamgar in the transition between Ehud
and Deborah in 3:30–4:1.
32. See Greenspahn (1986: 385–96) for the development of this structure, which he does
not consider originally deuteronomic.
33. See also Block (1999: 146–49) for his seven formulas: the negative evaluation, divine
committal, cry of distress, divine provision of leadership, subjugation, tranquility, death.
Asherah (2:12–13, 19; 3:7; 6:25–27; 10:6). This sort of evil is identified as for-
saking (bz[; 2:12, 13; 10:6) and forgetting (jkv; 3:7) Yahweh.
As the pattern develops, the narrator signals the repetitive and inevitable
behavior of the people. In 2:19, the narrator notes that after the death of the
judge the people will turn back (bwv) and act even more corruptly (tjv
Hiphil) than the previous generation. The hope that the people would aban-
don (lpn Hiphil) their evil behavior is consistently dashed (2:19). The only re-
pentance here is a repentance from good to evil. The repetitive nature of their
behavior is also seen in the regular employment of the verb πsy (Hiphil, often
translated as “again”: “Israel again did evil”) at the beginning of the accounts
of Ehud, Deborah, Jephthah, and Samson (3:12, 4:1, 10:6, 13:1).
After a description of Israel’s sin, the accounts of the judges then recount
Yahweh’s judgment. Israel’s sin arouses (hrj) the anger of Yahweh (2:14, 20;
3:8; 10:7), who then gives (ˆtn; 2:14, 22; 6:1; 13:1) or sells (rkm; 3:8, 4:2, 10:7)
them into the hands of (dyb) an enemy whom they serve (db[; 3:8, 12) for a
set number of years (3:8, 14; 4:3; 6:1; 10:8; 13:1). The result is an Israel op-
pressed (≈jl; 4:3), distressed (daøm} μh<l: rx<Yew;' 2:15, 10:9), and brought low (lld;
6:6) by the prevailing power (zz[; 6:2) of an enemy strengthened (qzj Piel;
3:12) by Yahweh.
It is from the depths of this condition that the narrator recounts Israel’s cry,
in most cases simply stating that Israel cried out (q[z) to Yahweh (3:9, 15; 4:3;
6:6, 7; 10:10). In the introduction, this is described simply as Israel’s groaning
(hq:a:n;] 2:18), a term used elsewhere for the pained sighs (jna Niphal) and cries
(q[z) of Israel under the oppressive power of Egypt (Exod 2:24, 6:5). 34 In Ezek
30:24, the only other case this noun (hq:a:n)] is used in the Old Testament, it re-
fers to the groan of a wounded man whose arms had been broken. Groanings
such as this are verbal expressions to God of Israel’s predicament.
The terminology used for Israel’s cry provides few insights into its actual
content. In the only case that provides a description of this sort, the people
voice an admission of sin and cry for help, 35
saying, “We have sinned against you (Ël: Wnaf:j): , for indeed, we have forsaken
our God and served the Baals. . . . We have sinned (Wnaf:j): , do to us whatever
seems good to you; only please deliver us this day.” ( Judg 10:10, 15)
This confession and cry is followed in 10:16 with penitential actions by the
people as they put away (rws Hiphil) their foreign gods and serve (db[) Yahweh.
It is the cries of Israel that prompt the gracious intervention of Yahweh,
linked in 2:18 to Yahweh being moved to pity (μjn Niphal) and in 10:16 to
Yahweh being unable to bear their misery any longer (rxq + vp<n, + lm"[}B" = “his
34. jna (Niphal) is used in Jer 22:23 for the groans of a woman bearing a child.
35. Block (1999) observes that the different accounts of the judges focus in on and elabo-
rate different elements within the formula and that, in the account of Jephthah, the element
is Israel’s cry of distress.
140 Chapter 9
soul became impatient with the trouble of Israel”). 36 In the early accounts in
Judges, the narrator explicitly notes that Yahweh raises up (μwq Hiphil) deliv-
erers/judges (2:16, 18; 3:9, 12), but as the section progresses the deliverer is
simply introduced into the narrative and is commissioned (˚lh) and/or is de-
scribed as a “valiant warrior” (lyij:h< r/BGi) who will deliver ([vy Hiphil) Israel
from the hand of (πK"m)I the enemy (2:18; 4:4; 6:12, 14; 11:1). This deliverer ex-
periences the presence of Yahweh (2:18, 6:12), often described as the spirit of
Yahweh (hw;hy] j'Wr) being on (hyh + l[; 3:10, 10:29), clothing (vbl; 6:34), or
forcefully entering (jlx; 14:6, 19; 15:14) the deliverer. As Yahweh has given
(ˆtn) Israel into the hand of (dyb) their enemy in discipline, likewise, Yahweh
now gives (ˆtn) the enemy into the hand of (dyb) the deliverer (3:10, 28; 4:14;
7:2, 9; 10:30). Other verbs used to describe this victory include prevailing
over (zz[ + dy; 3:10), pressing more and more heavily (˚lh with infinitive ab-
solute of ˚lh and adjective hv…q;: 4:24), and, especially, subduing ([nk; 3:30,
4:23, 8:28).
Yahweh’s deliverance through his appointed deliverer/judge results in Is-
rael’s land having rest (fqv) for a period designated by years (3:11, 30; 4:31;
8:28). At times, the term rest is omitted and replaced with a description of the
period of the judge’s rule (12:7; 16:20, 31). The sequence ends with the death
of the deliverer (twm; 2:19, 3:11, 4:1, 8:33, 12:7), accompanied at times by a
reference to his burial (rbq; 12:7, 16:31).
This repeating pattern throughout the core of the book of Judges provides
insight into the motif of sin. The pattern is based on the assumption that Is-
rael’s basic inclination is to sin against Yahweh, especially by worshiping the
gods of Canaan. Sin of this sort is unacceptable to Yahweh, arousing him in
wrath to give success to their enemies as a form of discipline of his people.
This discipline leads to the cry of the people to Yahweh that may be accom-
36. Soggin (1981: 202). Haak (1982: 161–67) suggests that Judg 10:16 is either expressing
“Yahweh’s impatience with the misery of the people” or that he “was personally involved
and in some way weakened because of the suffering of the people.” If the latter is true, we are
thus given a window into the “suffering of God”; see Fretheim (1984: 129); McCann (2002:
78–79). In contrast, Block (1999: 349) sees in 10:16b a reference not to God’s inability to bear
their misery but rather God’s impatience with their efforts at a repentance of convenience:
“The Israelites’ present efforts are intolerable, and the attempts to wrest deliverance from
him are an affront. The repentance is external only; theirs is a conversion of convenience.”
According to Block, this construction is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to express “frus-
tration, exasperation, and anger in the face of an intolerable situation” (Num 21:4; Judg
16:16; Zech 11:8; Job 21:4). See also the similar phrase rxq + jwr in Exod 6:9, Mic 2:7, Prov
14:29, Job 21:4; cf. uses of rxq in 2 Kgs 19:26, Isa 37:37, Prov 14:17, Job 4:1. The problem
with Block’s view is that it is difficult to see how the term lm[ could refer to the people’s pen-
itential acts. More likely in view is the affliction (≈[r, ≈xr) of foreigners that caused the dis-
tress (rrx) of Israel ( Judg 10:8–9), especially in light of the use of lm[ as affliction/trouble in
Deut 26:7, a passage that relates this to the people’s cry to God and God’s deliverance, paral-
leling the literary context of Judg 10:16.
panied by penitence in word and deed (10:10–16) but rarely does. 37 It is the
cry of his people that consistently arouses the compassion of Yahweh, who
raises up a deliverer to rescue his people and grant peace for the land.
Judges 1:1–2:5 . . . 17:1–21:25

Surrounding this core judges section with its recurring pattern of sin and
salvation are two sections that share much in common. After the death of
Samson, the reader hears nothing more about the judges of Israel and their ac-
companying pattern. While the judges section reveals a world without tribal
distinctions, referring to the people predominantly as the “children of Israel”
(laEr;c‘yiAyneB)} , the sections that surround this core describe a world in which
tribal identity is emphasized. 38
The final five chapters of Judges (17:1–21:25) describe some of the most
horrid events within the Old Testament. In the first episode (chaps. 17–18),
the narrator describes the story of Micah, a man from the hill country of
Ephraim. The story begins with Micah’s theft of his mother’s money. He con-
fesses to the crime and then his mother uses the silver to create a household
idol (17:1–4). Micah places the idol in a shrine, and he commissions first his
own son (17:5) and later a Levite displaced from Bethlehem (17:7–13) to be its
officiating priest. Subsequently, the tribe of Dan, unable to dislodge the Ca-
naanites from its tribal territory, decides to find more peaceful territory, and
its reconnaissance team happens upon Micah’s shrine, where it inquires of
Yahweh and receives a good report from the newly installed Levite (18:1–6).
After identifying the area around Laish as ideal, the spies return and lead the
tribe to their new tribal territory in the north (18:7–11). Along the journey
they return to Micah’s shrine, but this time to take the Levite, the ephod, and
the idols from the shrine by force (18:12–27a). After taking possession of
Laish (18:27b–29), they set up the Levite and his idols, rivaling the central
tabernacle located at Shiloh (18:30–31).
The second episode (chaps. 19–20) also involves a Levite in the hill country
of Ephraim with a connection to Bethlehem. This time, the Levite must jour-
ney to Bethlehem to convince his unfaithful concubine to return home (19:1–
3). Finally, released from the stalling hospitality of the Levite’s father-in-law
(19:4–10) and with the central shrine as their destination (see 19:18), the
37. See Greenspahn (1986: 385–96) for the dominance of the suffering/salvation over the
sin/atonement structure in the Judges cycles. One difficulty with Greenspahn’s view is that
the cycle does begin each time with sin as the cause of the suffering.
38. This is not to deny connections between the brackets (1:1–2:5 and 17:1–21:25) and
the core (2:6–16:31). Block (1999: 59) highlights the correspondence between the order of
the tribes in chap. 1 and the order of the deliverers in chaps. 3–16. Pressler (2002) notes the
way in which the pattern of downward spiraling in the core continues to even lower levels
in the conclusion (chaps. 17–21). Sweeney (1997a: 517–29) shows links between the Micah
story in chaps. 17–18 and the Samson story in chaps. 13–16. However, one cannot eliminate
the bracketing structure of the book as does Sweeney.
142 Chapter 9
Levite and his concubine enter the Benjaminite town of Gibeah to spend the
night, bypassing Jebus ( Jerusalem) for fear of non-Israelites (19:11–15). The
overnight stay turns into a nightmare as the Benjaminites first demand sex
with the Levite and then are given the concubine, whom they rape to death
(19:16–28). On returning home, the Levite cuts the woman into twelve pieces
and uses them to rally the tribes of Israel to action (19:29–30). The assembly
that meets in Mizpah and hears the testimony of the Levite determines that
these men of Gibeah must be purged from the nation (20:1–11). When the
Benjaminites refuse to hand them over, the rest of Israel mobilizes for war
against this stubborn tribe. In a series of attacks informed by inquiries of Yah-
weh, the rest of the nation finally defeats Benjamin (20:12–48).
The horrific events in these two episodes reveal that Israel’s experience is
not normative (to say the least). Throughout the section, one encounters a
repeated refrain that offers some initial insight into the perspective of the
narrator.
In those days there was no king in Israel;
Everyone did what was right in their own eyes (17:6, nasb, modified)
In those days there was no king in Israel (18:1)
In those days there was no king in Israel (19:1)
In those days there was no king in Israel;
Everyone did what was right in their own eyes (21:25, nasb, modified)
These refrains are designed to have a subtle effect on the reader of this section
of the book, suggesting at regular intervals that these events are closely linked
with the absence of kingship. On two occasions, this lack is linked to the fact
that “everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” This phrase is found in
one other place in the Old Testament, that is, in Deuteronomy 12. There, in
the middle of the depiction of Moses’ final sermon to Israel on the plains of
Moab, the Israelites are told to eliminate all Canaanite places of worship and
replace them with a central location of God’s choosing (12:1–7). This directive
is followed by further instruction:
You shall not do at all what we are doing here today,
everyone doing whatever is right in their own eyes. (Deut 12:8,
nasb, modified)
By using this phrase in the refrain, the narrator of Judges is linking the prob-
lems of Israel to the legislation of a central sanctuary in Deuteronomy. In
both episodes in Judges, Levites are unconnected to a central sanctuary and in
their wanderings end up in horrendous predicaments. 39 The first episode ex-
plicitly traces the roots of a rival sanctuary in the far north (the shrine in
39. It is interesting that in the deuteronomic central sanctuary legislation (Deut 12:19),
the Israelites are instructed, “Be careful that you do not forsake the Levite as long as you live
in your land.”
Dan), a sanctuary with dubious origins. The resolution of the second episode
is only possible as the Israelite tribes seek Yahweh at the central sanctuary at
Bethel (20:18, 23, 26–28; 21:2–5).
This sort of concern over centralized worship is also communicated in the
first introduction to the book of Judges (1:1–2:5), which shares so much in
common with Judges 17–21. Judges 1 depicts Israel’s inability to dispossess
the Canaanites from the land, an inability that increases as the chapter pro-
gresses and is more pronounced among the northern tribes. 40 The conclusion
to this section (2:1–5) presents an encounter between the angel/messenger of
Yahweh and the people of Israel. After citing Yahweh’s promise never to break
(rrp Hiphil) his covenant (tyrb) with them and the corresponding demand
laid upon the Israelites to make no covenant (tyrb) with the Canaanites in the
land and to tear down their altars (2:1b–2a), this messenger accuses them of
not obeying ([mv) Yahweh (2:2b). The response of Yahweh is judgment, de-
claring to the people that he would now not drive out the inhabitants of the
land but instead leave them as traps and their gods as snares for the people
(2:3). The people respond by lifting up their voices (acn + lwq), weeping (hkb),
and sacrificing to Yahweh (2:4–5). 41
This initial confrontation between Yahweh and his people sets a dark and
pessimistic tone for the book of Judges as a whole. The sin of Israel here ap-
pears to be a violation of the centralized worship legislation in Deuteronomy
12: the Israelites follow the worship patterns of the inhabitants of the land at
the existing altars. God deals with this sin by refusing to remove these inhabi-
tants. The people respond with remorse and sacrifice, but there is no indica-
tion that this has any impact on Yahweh.
The first introduction in Judg 1:1–2:5 and the refrain in Judges 17–21 link
the crisis of this era to the lack of attention to a central sanctuary, and this
lack of attention is linked to another lack, that is, the lack of a king in Israel.
Whereas some have suggested that this lack of kingship is related to Yahweh’s
kingship, several pieces of evidence suggest that Davidic kingship is in view
and that it is being contrasted here with Saulide kingship. 42
40. Pressler (2002: 127) observes that the text says not that they “could not” but rather
that they “did not.” It is this failure that leads to Israel embracing the illicit worship practices
of Canaan.
41. No reference is made here to repentance on the part of the people; merely weeping
and sacrifice are mentioned; contra Block (1999: 117).
42. See Brettler (1989a); Weinfeld (1993: 388–400); O’Connell (1996); Sweeney (1997a:
517–29); Pressler (2002: 238); Boda (forthcoming d). Dumbrell (1983: 23–33) and Jobling
(1986: 44–87) see in this no preference for a royal model, whether human or divine, but
merely a statement of fact, and Block (1999: 57–59) highlights the antimonarchical rhetoric
in the stories of Gideon and Abimelech (chaps. 8–9). The Gideon-Abimelech episode in
Judges 8–9 speaks about kingship as the people approach Gideon to establish a dynasty (Judg
8:22–23) but are rebuffed with Gideon’s statement: “The Lord will rule over you.” The Abi-
melech story does show the disaster of an experiment in kingship. While this may be seen as
a rejection of kingship (and thus as being in tension with Judges 17–21; cf. Dumbrell 1983:
144 Chapter 9
First, the story of Micah is related to the establishment of the Northern cult
center, which split away from the Southern Davidic kingdom (18:28–31). Sec-
ond, the stories consistently revolve around towns and tribes related to David
and Saul, especially the Judahite Bethlehem (David) and the Benjaminite Gi-
beah (Saul), the latter committing a horrendous act that nearly leads to the
eradication of the tribe of Benjamin from Israel (chaps. 19–21). Third, when
the tribes of Israel ask Yahweh in Judg 1:1–2 which tribe should lead the at-
tack against the Canaanites, and in Judg 20:18 which tribe should lead the at-
tack against the Benjaminites, the answer in both cases is David’s tribe of
Judah. Considering that the power base of the Saulide dynasty was among the
Benjaminite tribe (1 Sam 9:1–2), as well as among the tribes that would com-
prise the Northern Kingdom (2 Sam 2:1–5:5), it appears that the narrator of
Judges is favoring Davidic kingship.
The central judges section reveals how charismatic leadership can be raised
up to restrain sin within Israel. However, the fact that, when these leaders
died, the people immediately returned to their sinful patterns suggests that
the system was inadequate. 43 Furthermore, as the judges cycles progress in
the book, the normativity of each judge decreases (really a downward spiral),
ending with the tragic episodes of Gideon’s ephod, Jephthath’s child sacrifice,
and especially Samson’s death. 44 The way forward is provided in the brackets
that surround this judges core: 45 a royal house with enduring dynastic succes-
sion that had the potential to ensure consistent obedience for Israel. This
royal house is identified as Davidic rather than Saulide, which arises from the
Southern rather than the Northern tribes and which would ensure the cen-
tralization of worship at one place in Israel, that is, Jerusalem.
Summary
Whereas Joshua presented the blessing that accompanies the obedience of
a nation led by faithful leaders, Judges depicts the curse that accompanies the
28; Block 1999: 57–59), it should be noticed how Judg 8:22 reveals that the people viewed
kingship in the same inappropriate way as the people later in 1 Samuel would view kingship,
requesting the king for military protection (“because you have saved us out of the hand of
Midian,” 8:22; cf. 1 Sam 8:19–20, 12:12). See Murray (1998: 281–301), who notes the differ-
ence between Yahweh’s royal vision (dygn) and Israel’s royal vision (˚lm); similarly, Linville
(1998: 139–49) sees dygn as “the solution Yahweh proposes to a leadership crisis” (p. 149). The
royal vision in Judges 17–21 is centralization of worship, precisely what David does in the
books of Samuel.
43. Pressler (2002: 5): “The Deuteronomistic editors find charismatic, ad hoc leadership
inadequate.”
44. See Block (1999: 58, 350, 395); Pressler (2002: 206–11) noting especially the limited
role that God plays in the Jephthah narrative and the absence of a cry of the people to God
in the Samson narrative.
45. Pressler (2002: 226) notes that chaps. 17–21 continue the downward spiral: “There are
no more charismatic leaders. God ceases to deliver the people.”
disobedience of a leaderless nation. 46 While sin in the core judges section in

Judg 2:6–16:31 is identified with inappropriate objects of worship (Canaanite
deities), sin in the bracketing introductory (1:1–2:5) and concluding (chaps.
16–21) stories of Judges is identified with inappropriate locations of worship.
In these sections, Yahweh takes severe measures to deal with sin, disciplining
Israel by allowing its enemies to subjugate them, and the people see the need
to purge evil from their midst. Hope for maintaining obedience among the
people is linked to God providing charismatic leadership, at first through the
judges but ultimately through Davidic kingship.
The pessimism over Israel’s ability to obey endures throughout the book of
Judges, fulfilling the pessimism expressed at the end of the books of Deuter-
onomy and Joshua. When disciplined, the people cry out to Yahweh for help,
and their only hope is in the mercy of Yahweh, who acts on their behalf. At one
place, in the story of Jephthah in Judg 10:10–16, the cry of the people is de-
scribed as penitential, as the people confess their culpability verbally (we have
sinned) and change their behavior by negatively putting away (rws) their gods
and positively serving (db[) Yahweh. Judg 10:16b explicitly links these peni-
tential rites to Yahweh’s inability to bear their misery any longer. Although
there is much skepticism over Israel’s ability to deal with sin, Judges 10 does
provide a model for human response, one that involves repentance in word and
deed. However, this does not dominate the account in Judges, 47 even though
in 1 Samuel 12 it will be identified as the norm for the period of the judges.
Instead, the focus is on God’s responses, which hold in tension his anger and
pity, his judgment and mercy. 48 In most cases, God responds merely to Israel’s
pain. 49 Thus, reading the book of Judges, “one becomes increasingly aware
that far from responding to his people’s conduct on the basis of some mech-
anistic deuteronomistic formula (obedience brings blessing, disobedience
yields the curse), Yahweh deals in grace” (Block 1999: 118).
46. Pressler (2002: 3–4) draws this contrast between the first two “chapters” ( Joshua,
Judges) of the DtrH.
47. However, see McCann (2002: 25), who says of Judges, “It serves, therefore, at least im-
plicitly, as a call to repentence” by “warning the people of God in every age of the deadening
and deadly results of unfaithfulness.”
48. Pressler (2002: 138–39). Thus, “the Deuteronomists’ tenet that God rewards obedience
and curses disobedience is tempered by the belief that Israelite sin is nonetheless met by
God’s mercy” (Pressler 2002: 5).
49. As Block (1999: 128) notes on Judg 2:16, “The narrator begins to speak of divine
mercy without any hint of prior repentance. In this book Yahweh’s actions will not be bound
to any mechanical formula of blessing and or retribution, based upon what human beings
earn by their actions. Rather he intervenes on Israel’s behalf solely on the basis of his com-
passion; the scene of Israelite distress moves the divine patron to action.”
146 Chapter 9
Table 9.1
Israel did evil ([r' hc[) in the sight of the Lord 2:11, 3:7, 3:12 (2x), 4:1,
(hw;hy] yney[EB)} 6:1, 10:6, 13:1
They forsook (bz[) the Lord 2:12, 13; 10:6
Israel’s Sin
They followed (˚lh) after (yrej“a)" other gods . . . bowed 2:12, 19

themselves down (hwj Hishtaphel)
They served Baal(s) and Ashtaroth/Asheroth 2:13, 3:7, 10:6; cf.
6:25–27
They forgot (jkv) the Lord 3:7
The anger of the Lord burned (hrj) against Israel 2:14, 20; 3:8; 10:7
He gave (ˆtn) . . . into the hands (dyb) of 2:14; cf. 2:22, 6:1, 13:1
He sold (rkm) them into the hands (dyb) of 3:8, 4:2, 10:7
. . . years (period of oppression) 3:8, 14; 4:3; 6:1; 10:8;
Yahweh’s Judgment
13:1
The Lord strengthened (qzj Piel) . . . against (l[) 3:12
Israel,
The power of . . . prevailed (zz[) against (l[) Israel. 6:2
And he oppressed (≈jl) the sons of Israel 4:3
severely (hq:z]j:B)}
The sons of Israel served (db[) 3:8, 12
They were severely distressed (daøm} μh<l: rx<Ye w' = “it was 2:15, 10:9
distressful to them greatly”).
Israel was brought very low (lld) because of . . . 6:6
Israel cried (q[z) to the Lord 3:9, 15; 6:6, 7; 10:10
Cry (q[x) 4:3, 10:12
The Lord was moved to pity (μjn Niphal) by their 2:18
Israel’s Cry
groaning (hq:a:n)] because of those who oppressed and

afflicted them.
saying, “We have sinned against you, for indeed, we 10:10, 15
have forsaken our God and served the Baals. . . . We
have sinned, do to us whatever seems good to you;
only please deliver us this day.”
They put away (rws Hiphil) the foreign gods from 10:16
among them and served (db[) the Lord.
Table 9.1 (cont.)

The Lord raised up (μwq Hiphil) . . .
judges who delivered ([vy Hiphil) them 2:16, 18
a deliverer ([vy Hiphil participle) for the sons of 3:9
Israel to deliver ([vy Hiphil) them
a deliverer ([vy Hiphil participle) for them 3:12
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, 4:4
was judging Israel at that time . . . and said to [Barak],
“Behold, the Lord, the God of Israel, has
commanded, ‘Go (˚lh) and march to Mount
Tabor . . .’”
The angel of the Lord . . . said to him, “The Lord is 6:12, 14
with you, O valiant warrior.” . . . The Lord looked at
him and said, “Go (˚lh) in this your strength and
deliver ([vy Hiphil) Israel from the hand of (πK"m)I . . .”
Yahweh’s Deliverance
Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a valiant warrior 11:1

The Lord was moved to pity (μjn Niphal) by their 2:18
groaning (hq:a:n)] because of those who oppressed and
afflicted them.
He could bear the misery of Israel no longer. 10:16
The Lord was with the judge and delivered ([vy) 2:18; cf. 6:36
them from the hand (rY'm)I of their enemies all the days
of the judge;
The spirit of the Lord (hw;hy] h'Wr) came (hyh, vbl, jlx) 3:10 (hyh); 6:34 (vbl);
upon (l[) . . . 11:29 (hyh); 14:6, 19;
15:14 (jlx)
The Lord gave (ˆtn) . . . his hand (dyb), 3:10, 28; 4:14; 7:2, 9;
10:30; 11:32
The Lord gives (ˆtn) them up (ynpl) to 10:9
He judged (fpv) Israel 3:18
He prevailed over (zz[ + dy) 3:10
Subdued ([nk)
. . . was subdued ([nk Niphal) that day under the hand 3:30
of (dy' tj"T)" Israel
God subdued ([nk) on that day . . . before (ynpl) Israel 4:23
. . . was subdued ([nk Niphal) before (ynpl) Israel 8:28
The hand (dy) of Israel pressed heavier (˚lh with 4:24
infinitive absolute of ˚lh and adjective hv…q): and
heavier upon . . . until they had destroyed (trk
Hiphil) . . .
Deliverer’s Israel’s
The land had rest (fqv) . . . years. 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28
Rest
. . . judged (fpv) Israel . . . years. 12:7, 15:20, 16:31
. . . died (twm) 2:19, 3:11, 4:1, 8:33,

12:7
Death
. . . buried (rbq) 12:7, 16:31

1 pica long on top
Chapter 10
Former Prophets: Samuel
In the larger literary complex of the Former Prophets, the book of Samuel
transitions the reader from the period of the judges to the period of the mon-
archy. The narrator creatively employs a series of characters to carry the story,
and it is the interaction between these figures that often brings out their true
character. Clearly, the two dominant normative characters in these stories are
Samuel and David, but in both cases they are introduced into the story only
after another contrasting and ultimately tragic figure has been developed. In
the case of Samuel, it is Eli who is present first, and it is into Eli’s home that
the boy Samuel is brought to serve Yahweh. It is through the young Samuel
that Yahweh delivers his prophetic judgment against Eli and his house, and it
is against the backdrop of Eli’s wicked sons that one sees Samuel’s brilliance.
Similarly, in the case of David it is Saul who is anointed first and into whose
court the boy David is brought to serve the king. As David runs for his life from
the wicked Saul, one sees David’s brilliance. There is also a close connection
established in the story between the two figures, Samuel and Saul, who link
these two character pairs. The narrator consistently reveals Samuel’s displea-
sure with the Israelites’ desire to choose a king (1 Samuel 8, 12) and yet at the
same time demonstrates Samuel’s deep compassion for Saul (1 Sam 15:11b, 35;
16:1). To study the theology of sin and its remedy in the book of Samuel en-
tails close attention to these four characters. It is as readers pay attention to
their words and actions that they will find the book’s theological richness.
1 Samuel 2–4: Eli, His Sons, and the

Judgment of Yahweh
The reader’s first encounter with the character of Eli in the book of Samuel
occurs as the old priest observes the barren Hannah praying to Yahweh in
1 Sam 1:12–18. Eli’s misinterpretation of Hannah’s cry to God as the behavior
of a drunken woman suggests from the outset a spiritual insensitivity in this
priestly character.
With Samuel dedicated by his mother to Eli’s sacred shrine at Shiloh (1:28,
2:11), the narrator introduces the sons of Eli into the account, suggestive al-
ready of the approaching transfer of leadership from Eli to Samuel. 1 They are
1. As McCarter (1980: 85) sensitively notes, “The evil in the house of Eli is set in greater
relief by the contrasting example of young Samuel, who also resides at Shiloh as he grows in
- 148 -
Former Prophets: Samuel 149
described from the outset as “worthless men” (l["Y;lIb} yneB)} 2 who did not know
([dy) the Lord (2:12), demonstrated in their “very great” (daøm} hl:/dG}) sins before
Yahweh (2:17), which included sexual encounters with women who served at
the tabernacle (2:22) and theft of the choicest parts of the offerings (2:29).
There is some confusion over Eli’s participation in the sin of his sons.
1 Sam 2:23–25 reveals that at some point Eli clearly rebuked his sons for their
behavior and that the sons refused to listen to their father. However, in 2:29
Yahweh’s man of God attacks Eli for honoring his sons over Yahweh by “mak-
ing yourselves fat with the choicest of every offering of my people Israel.” 3
Furthermore, in Yahweh’s word to Samuel concerning Eli in 3:13, it is clear
that at some point Eli knew of his sons’ iniquity and did not rebuke them. It
appears then that in an early phase Eli knew and participated in his sons’ of-
fenses, but as knowledge of this spread (2:22–24) he was forced to confront
them for their sin. 4
The seriousness of their sin is articulated by their father Eli, who tells them
that God will mediate for sins committed against another person, but no such
mediation is available for those who sin against Yahweh. These words are
“ominous portents” (2:25; Eslinger 1985: 125). The offenses committed by
these sons were so serious because they were related to Yahweh’s sacred pres-
ence at the tabernacle. Such serious offenses demand commensurate judg-
ment, and so Yahweh first appears to harden their heart (2:25b) 5 and then
announces that “the iniquity (ˆw[) of Eli’s house” shall never “be atoned for
(rpk Hithpael) by sacrifice (jb"z), or offering (hj:n]m)I ” (3:14). This punishment is
not restricted to the two sons of Eli but is extended to the entire family and
line of Eli. Although some from Eli’s family will survive and participate in a
minor, shameful way in priestly service (2:36), 6 the promise of enduring lead-
ership over Israel is withdrawn (2:30) and given to one called a “faithful priest
who will do according to what is in my heart and in my soul” (2:35). 7 Eli does
favor with God and men.” This is accentuated further by the description of Samuel in priestly
garments (2:11, 18, 19).
2. There is irony here in Eli’s accusation of his sons as “worthless men” (l["Y;lIb} yneB)} , because
after he accuses Hannah of being drunk in 1:15, she takes this accusation as a claim that she
is a “worthless woman” (l["Y;lIB}AtB"; 1:16); cf. Eslinger (1985: 115–16). This worthless woman
will provide a worthy priest to replace Eli and his worthless sons.
3. On the significance of their sin and the importance of the burning rites of God’s share,
see Eberhart (2002: 88–96). Cf. Leviticus 3.
4. On Eli’s culpability and responsibility, see Willis (1971: 292); contra Eslinger (1985: 123).
5. See Eslinger (1985: 126): “Here in 1 Sam 2.25, however, the failure of Eli’s sons to listen
to him, that is, to repent, is directly attributed to Yahweh’s pleasure (˙pß) in killing them. Eli’s
efforts to turn his sons from their path to destruction is a predetermined failure. Try as he
might his words fall on ears closed by Yahweh himself.”
6. Here one finds allusions to the priest-versus-Levite distinction within the tribe of Levi;
see Klein (1983: 28); cf. Deut 18:6–8, 2 Kgs 23:9.
7. Eslinger (1985: 140) sees this as “an anticipation of the monarchy established in chaps.
9–12”; however, this can hardly be correct because it speaks of a priest and his walking before
God’s anointed, the king. Zadok is in view; cf. McCarter (1980: 91); Klein (1983: 27).
150 Chapter 10
not even try to dissuade Yahweh from this but merely declares, “It is the
Lord; let him do what seems good to him” (3:18). The battle in 1 Samuel 4
shows the fulfillment of this prophetic judgment on the house of Eli.
The demise of Eli’s line highlights important principles related to sin and
its remedy. First, echoing the concerns expressed in the priestly legislation,
sin against the sacred precincts has most serious consequences. Second, such
direct sin against the deity is inexpiable—that is, no sacrifice or offering is
adequate to make atonement for this sin. Third, there are intergenerational
implications for sin, and thus patriarchal figures must pay close attention to
the behavior of those within their family units.
1 Samuel 7:2–17: Samuel Leads Israel

to Repentance and Victory
After the crisis that accompanied the end of Eli’s life, including the defeat
of Israel by the Philistines and the loss and then recovery of the ark (1 Sam
4:1–7:1), the narrator brings Samuel to the fore. Samuel’s initial action as
judge/prophet/priest of Israel is to facilitate the return of Israel to Yahweh.
Interestingly, this return is initiated by the people who are described in
7:2b as “lamenting” (hhn Niphal) after (rja) Yahweh. 8 Samuel interprets this
lament as at least signaling the desire of the people to return to Yahweh and
so challenges them with his speech:
If you are returning (bwv) to the Lord with all your heart (μk<b}b"l}Alk:B)} , re-
move (rws Hiphil) the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth from among you and
direct (ˆwk Hiphil) your hearts to the Lord and serve (db[) him alone (/Db"l)} ;
and he will deliver (lxn Hiphil) you from the hand of (dY'm)I the Philistines.
(1 Sam 7:3; nasb, modified)
Here Samuel voices the core deuteronomic theology of repentance, 9 which
places the accent on repentance in both affections (turning [bwv] with one’s
whole heart [μk<b}b"l}Alk:B]} , directing one’s heart [ˆwk Hiphil + bbl]) and behavior
(removing [rws Hiphil] the foreign gods). A return of this sort emphasizes the
exclusivity of the people’s devotion in affection and action, described as
“serving” (db[) Yahweh alone (/Db"l)} .
When Israel responds positively to Samuel’s exhortation (7:4), Samuel in-
troduces a further element into the penitential process. He invites Israel to
gather (≈bq Qal) at Mizpah for an assembly (≈bq Niphal) that, according to 7:6,
involved ritual pouring of water before Yahweh (cf. 2 Sam 23:16), fasting (μwx),
8. The root employed here (hhn) is used in Mic 2:4 to describe a pained cry of one who is
completely destroyed and in Ezek 32:18 for the hordes of Egypt who die. It may be that these
letters also reflect an unrelated homonym, reflected also in the Akkadian nêªu, which means
to “turn away” (in another direction) or possibly one reflected in the Arabic naha y/nuhiya and
Jewish Aramaic, which is used for information “reaching” its destination and possibly signi-
fying “to stick to” (see HALOT 675; cf. Jastrow 2003: 881b; Barr 1968: 264–65). However, there
is no other evidence of this root (either verbal or nominal) elsewhere in the Old Testament.
9. On the Dtr connections, see McCarter (1980: 142–43); Klein (1983: 66).

and the verbal confession, “We have sinned against Yahweh” (hw;hyl" Wnaf:j): . 10
Samuel assures the people also that he would “pray” (llp Hithpael) to Yahweh
for them. In the verses that follow, this intercession is linked exclusively to
Samuel crying out (q[z) for Yahweh to grant Israel victory over the Philistines
in battle, a cry that is accompanied by a burnt offering (1 Sam 7:8–10). The
Philistines’ defeat in vv. 10–14 confirms the success of this penitential model
in 1 Samuel 7.
In this key passage at the outset of Samuel’s leadership of Israel, the narrator
presents a robust pattern for remedying sin. It shows the key role that the
prophet plays to move the people from lament to penitence. It encourages a
response that involves repentance in heart and deed with attendant verbal,
sacrificial, and fasting rituals and the intercession of a sacred mediator. This ac-
count provides a normative picture of the role that proper leadership can play
within the nation, especially helpful in the wake of the warnings of Joshua
and the initial depictions of Israel in Judges and the first part of Samuel.
1 Samuel 8 and 12:

Samuel and Kingship
After 1 Samuel 7, Samuel’s focus shifts from concern over idolatry to con-
cern over the Israelites’ demand for a king. It is ironic that the people’s request
for a king is depicted as a direct response to the disobedience of Samuel’s sons,
who did not walk (˚lh) in Samuel’s ways (˚rd) but rather turned aside (hfn) after
dishonest gain and injustice (8:3, 5). In this way, Samuel’s family is replicating
the patterns of Eli’s family, which preceded him (2:11–36, 3:11–14, 4:11).
In any case, the sin that now takes center stage in the account of the book
of Samuel is Israel’s request for a king, a request that is considered a rejection
(sam) of Yahweh (8:7) and placed on the same level as their forsaking (bz[) of
Yahweh and serving (db[) of other gods (8:8). Samuel looks to a time when the
people will cry out (q[z) to Yahweh because of abuses by their king and warns
that Yahweh will refuse to answer (hn[) them on that day (8:18). 11
10. McCarter (1980: 144) sees this water rite as “almost certainly a ritual of community
purification,” though Klein (1983: 67) is not as convinced, and Eslinger (1985: 237) links it
to covenant renewal ceremonies.
11. As already discussed in the treatment of Judges above, royalty is not considered evil in
and of itself, but rather Israel’s conception of royalty (as kingship versus vice-regency under
Yahweh) is the problem; see Gerbrandt (1986: 143–54). McKenzie (2000b) brilliantly critiques
Noth’s view (which relies on Wellhausen) that 1 Samuel 8–12 is antimonarchical: “There is
no indication that monarchy per se is evil or else Yhwh would surely not allow it” (p. 305).
See Dietrich (2000: 315–42) for a recent review of tensions between pro- and antimonarchical
redactions. An important link is created in 1 Samuel 8 between idolatry and Israel’s choice of
a king (see v. 8). In both cases, they are seen as abandoning Yahweh, by trusting other gods
or by trusting a human king. Their desire to be like the other nations with kingship is strik-
ingly similar to their desire for their practice of worship to be like the other nations; cf. Mc-
Kenzie (2000b: 303).
152 Chapter 10
This concern over the people’s request for a king reemerges in Samuel’s
farewell speech in 1 Samuel 12. 12 After forcing the people to affirm publicly
that he had executed his responsibilities as leader of Israel and that he had
done so with integrity (12:1–5), Samuel rehearses the story of the relation-
ship between Israel and Yahweh before his final call for the people to obey
(12:6–25).
The rehearsal of the relationship in vv. 8–11 echoes the pattern established
and vocabulary used in the book of Judges. The pattern begins with the first
scenario, the cry (q[z) of Israel in Egypt, to which Yahweh responds by send-
ing (jlv) Moses and Aaron to bring them out of Egypt and settle them in Ca-
naan (v. 8). Apostasy is described in the second scenario (v. 9) as “forgetting”
(jkv) Yahweh, and this forgetting results (as it does in Judges) in Yahweh’s
selling (rkm) them into the hand of (dyb) their enemies (Philistia, Moab). As in
the first scenario (Israel in Egypt) in 12:8 as well as throughout the book of
Judges, this second predicament prompts the cry (q[z) of Israel to Yahweh.
Unlike the first scenario in 12:8 and most of the accounts in Judges, the cry
of the people is cited in full. 13
We have sinned (Wnaf:j): because we have forsaken (bz[) the Lord and have
served (db[) the Baals and the Ashtaroth; but now deliver (lxn Hiphil) us from
the hands of (dY'm)I our enemies, and we will serve (db[) you. (1 Sam 12:10)
The pattern established here is that a verbal admission of disobedience, using

the general confession formula “we have sinned” (afj) followed by an artic-
ulation of the precise offenses that involved rejecting Yahweh (bz[) and em-
bracing other gods (db[), will prompt Yahweh to deliver (lxn Hiphil) the
people from the enemy and, after rescue, will lead to the people serving (db[)
Yahweh. Nothing is said here explicitly about a change in behavior as the pre-
requisite to deliverance.
As in 12:8, deliverance is described as Yahweh sending (jlv) named fig-
ures, in this case Jerubbaal (Gideon), Bedan (Barak), Jephthah, and Samuel. It
is interesting that this cry as confession of sin is associated with all of these
figures, because a confession of this sort is only explicitly described in connec-
tion with Jephthah ( Judg 10:10–16) and Samuel (1 Sam 7:6), but not with
Gideon ( Judg 6:6, 7) or Barak ( Judg 4:3). The narrator at this point assumes
that a cry for mercy such as this involved a confession of sin.
12. Noth (1981) identified 1 Samuel 12 as a structural pillar in his DtrH, bringing to a
close the period of the judges and introducing the period of the kings. As Pressler (2002: 112)
points out, this is another example of a technique used by the Deuteronomistic Historians,
in which a leader’s final speech shapes the reading audience’s interpretation at critical junc-
tures in the story (cf. Deuteronomy 29–31, Joshua 23, and 1 Kings 2).
13. However, see the striking similarity to the one case in which confession accompanies
the cry: Judg 10:10; cf. Klein (1983: 116).
After reviewing the pattern of leadership, deliverance, and renewal that

Yahweh had set up for Israel, Samuel then highlights the kind of leadership
that the people had demanded in place of Yahweh, that is, kingship (12:12–
13). Samuel’s exhortations in 12:14–15 reveal that, in spite of their disobedi-
ence, there is a way ahead for a nation with human monarchy. “This implies
that the earthly kingship can be good and that Yahweh’s kingship over Israel
can continue” (Klein 1983: 117). Employing classic deuteronomic vocabulary
(Klein 1983: 117), Samuel lays out two ways for this nation with a king. They
can follow Yahweh (hyh + rj"a)" by fearing (ary), serving (db[), obeying ([mv +
lwq), and not rebelling (hrm al Hiphil) against him, or they can experience the
discipline of Yahweh by not obeying (lwq [mv al) him and rebelling (hrm
Hiphil) against his verbal command (hw;hy] yPI).
Samuel makes clear that their request for a king was a great (hB:r)' wicked-
ness (h[:r); , and this is confirmed by Yahweh through a divine display of power
in thunder and rain that would have had dangerous potential during the pe-
riod of the wheat harvest (12:16–18; Klein 1983: 118). This display strikes fear
in the hearts of the people, who ask Samuel to pray (llp Hithpael) for them
so that they will not receive the penalty for their sin (12:19). Here the people
voice the importance of mediation for dealing with sin. Samuel’s response is
to call them to not turn aside (rws) from following Yahweh and to serve (db[)
Yahweh with their whole hearts (μk<b}b"l} Alk:B;} 12:20–21). Samuel commits him-
self to pray (llp Hithpael) and to instruct (hry Hiphil) them in the “good and
right way” (12:23). The closing instruction again highlights the two ways: on
the one side, fearing (ary) and serving (db[) in truth (tm<a”B)< with all one’s heart
(μk<b}b"l}Alk:B)} and, on the other, acting wickedly ([[r Hiphil; 12:24–25a). The
outcome of the latter is the elimination of both people and king (12:25b).
1 Samuel 13 and 15:

Yahweh’s Rejection of Saul
In the narrative of the book of Samuel, no sooner is Samuel finished his
speech to the people with its warning about kingship than the prophet is pro-
nouncing judgment on the people’s chosen royal, Saul. In the first key battle
of his reign against the Philistines, Saul is greatly outmatched by their forces
(1 Samuel 13). He has been instructed by Samuel (1 Sam 10:8) to wait at Gilgal
for seven days, at which time Samuel will offer burnt and peace offerings to
Yahweh. However, with his army anxious over the impending Philistine at-
tack and fearing that they will scatter, Saul takes the initiative and offers the
burnt offering (13:8–9). It is at this time that Samuel appears, confronting
Saul for his impatient disobedience (13:13). 14 The divine plan had been to
14. Contra Noth, Soggin, Blenkinsopp, Hayes, and Jobling, cited by V. Long (1989: 87–
88). Long properly concludes that Saul’s failure here is not a breach of cultic protocol but “a
violation of the specific ‘charge’ associated with his nagîd appointment.”
154 Chapter 10
establish an enduring dynasty for Saul, but instead he is told that this oppor-
tunity has been transferred to another (13:14). 15
This encounter between Samuel and Saul develops further the negative
portrayal of Israelite kingship in the book of Samuel. At its heart, the foolish
(lks Niphal) sin of Saul is his inability to keep (rmv) the commandment (hwxm)
that Yahweh commanded (hwx Piel; 13:13, 14). Samuel contrasts Saul’s inabil-
ity with another person whom Yahweh had personally desired and chosen to
rule the nation, that is, one “according to his [Yahweh’s] heart” (/bb:l}K)I , rather
than the people’s heart. 16 Further, in the wake of Saul’s disobedience to God’s
command (hwx Piel), God now appoints (hwx Piel) another as ruler. 17 This
“rather subtle play on words in Samuel’s final speech . . . unobtrusively and
effectively directs our attention toward one central theme, viz. the relation-
ship between kingship and obedience to Yahweh” (McCarter 1980: 229).
While the prophetic message in 1 Samuel 13 announces Yahweh’s denial of
a dynasty for Saul, it is the encounter in 1 Samuel 15 that seals the fate of his
own rule. 18 Once again, the confrontation involves Saul’s inappropriate be-
havior in relation to war, which is not surprising because at the heart of an-
cient kingship, especially Yahweh’s kingship, was the responsibility of waging
war on behalf of the nation (see Boda 2007a).
Saul is commanded by Samuel to attack the Amalekites in retribution for
their opposition to Yahweh when Israel came out of Egypt (Exod 17:8–16,
Num 24:20, Deut 25:17–19). Saul is instructed to practice μrj on the Amale-
kites, the same punishment exacted on the Canaanites when Israel conquered
the land. Saul shows signs that he will obey the command once he has de-
feated the Amalekites, putting to death the people. But in the end he and the
people spare the king (Agag) and the best of the livestock (15:9).
This sets up one of the most powerful encounters between a prophet and
king in the Old Testament. Samuel is told directly by Yahweh that Saul has
“turned back” (bwv) from following him (yr'j“a"m)E by not carrying out (μwq
15. Yahweh is not to be faulted with malevolence, as argued by Gunn (1980: 39–40), es-
pecially in light of Saul’s own words in 13:12; cf. Long (1989: 88).
16. For this phrase, “according to the heart,” see Jer 3:15 and 2 Sam 7:21 and note espe-
cially Ps 20:5[4], where the phrase is paralleled with one’s purpose; cf. McCarter (1980: 229);
Klein (1983: 127).
17. For this play on the root hwx in Samuel’s speech, see McCarter (1980: 228).
18. See Long (1989: 167) for the close relationship between Saul’s two failures (1 Samuel
13, 15), both of which are “religio-political” in nature, rather than cultic. McCarter (1980:
269) notes that, whereas the events of 1 Samuel 13 result in the loss of dynastic succession
for Saul, the events of 1 Samuel 15 result in the rejection of his own kingship. Although Saul
continues as king, McCarter does note the crucial role of 1 Samuel 15–16 to mark a major
shift in the narrative of Samuel: “Heretofore Samuel and Saul have occupied center stage;
hereafter, except in the strange tale of the séance at En-dor (28:3–25) and in the account of
Saul’s death (31:1–13), David will be the constant focus of attention.” With 16:14, this shift
is complete, “after which David will be the protagonist, Saul at most the antagonist.” Thus,
although politically Saul’s kingship endures, narratively it is finished.
Hiphil) God’s command (rbd; 15:11), information that fills Samuel with anger
(hrj), 19 prompting him to cry out (q[z) to Yahweh throughout the night.
Therefore, when Saul takes the initiative in the conversation by calling Sam-
uel blessed and claiming that he has carried out (μwq Hiphil) the command in
15:13, the prophet is well aware of the truth. He makes clear to the king that
he did not “obey” ([mv + lwq) Yahweh but rather did “evil ([r') in the sight of
the Lord” (hw;hy] yney[EB;} 15:19), the same evaluation that appeared regularly
throughout the book of Judges for the people’s rebellion and will appear reg-
ularly throughout the book of Kings for the sin of the royal houses of Judah
and Israel. Saul answers the charge in vv. 20–21 by claiming that he did obey
([mv + lwqb) Yahweh by destroying the Amalekites and that “the people” took
the best of the spoil “to sacrifice to the Lord your God at Gilgal.”
This final statement prompts the poetic articulation of principles in 15:22–
23 that will resonate throughout the prophetic witness.
Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
As in obeying ([mv) the voice of (lwq) the Lord?
Behold, to obey ([mv) is better than sacrifice,
And to heed (bvq Hiphil) than the fat of rams.
For rebellion (yrim<) is as the sin of divination,
And insubordination (rxp Hiphil infinitive absolute) is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected (sam) the word of the Lord,
He has also rejected (sam) you from being king.
This poem creates an important contrast between sacrifice and obedience.

The sacrifice in view here is not focused on the elimination of sin but rather
functions as a gift to God signifying one’s entire devotion to Yahweh. A gift
such as this to Yahweh, however, is no substitute for obedience to Yahweh
([mv + lwqb), and when the worshiper does this he or she is using the sacrifice
to manipulate the deity and as a result reveals the hypocrisy of the act. This
statement does not represent a rejection of the priestly sacrificial system 20 but
does reflect the broader deuteronomic agenda, already discerned in the book
of Deuteronomy, to place a premium on practical obedience from the heart
over ritual fulfillment.
In addition, this poem reminds the reader that any disobedience against
Yahweh’s word is considered rebellion (yrim)< against and rejection (sam) of Yah-
weh. Whereas Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets to this point have fo-
cused primarily on sins related to idolatry and centralized worship, this poem
19. This same construction (hrj + l) reads “there was anger to” and is used of Cain’s anger
over Yahweh’s rejection of his offering in Gen 4:5–6, David’s anger over Yahweh’s outburst
against Uzzah in 2 Sam 6:8, and Jonah’s anger over Yahweh’s grace to the Ninevites ( Jonah
4:4) and over the death of the plant (Jonah 4:9).
20. So McCarter (1980: 267): “What Yahweh requires is diligent obedience, without
which the prescribed acts of the cult, ordinarily good and proper in themselves, become vain
deeds of hypocrisy.”
156 Chapter 10
now considers any disobedience of Yahweh’s word to be on par with divina-

tion, iniquity, and idolatry. 21
This prophetic judgment shows the severity of God’s response to the sin of
Saul. Saul’s rejection (sam) of Yahweh is met with Yahweh’s rejection (sam) of
Saul. Saul responds with a confession (“I have sinned,” ytIaf:j): , admitting that
he had feared the people and so listened to their voice (15:24), the latter eerily
reminiscent of Samuel’s exhortation in 12:14–15. 22 When he pleads for for-
giveness (“please pardon [acn] my sin,” 15:25) hoping that he might worship
(hwj Hishtaphel) Yahweh, Samuel refuses, declaring instead that Yahweh
would not “change” (μjn Niphal; 15:29). Saul’s desperate second confession
(“I have sinned,” ytIaf:j): in 15:30 prompts Samuel to give in to Saul’s request
for honor before the elders, but Saul’s fate is sealed. 23
These powerful interactions between Samuel and Saul at the outset of the
monarchical phase of Israel’s history set the tone for the rest of the story. The
prophet is given the key role of confronting the royal house with their sin and
announcing Yahweh’s judgment. The definition of sin is broadened beyond
exclusive worship of Yahweh at the central shrine to include meticulous obe-
dience to all of Yahweh’s commands. These interactions also reveal a severity
in divine response to confession of sin. This confession is clearly inadequate
to secure the forgiveness of Yahweh, for Yahweh appears to prefer obedience
not only over sacrificial ritual but also over verbal confession.
David and Innocence

A motif that is developed throughout the account of the transition of the
monarchy between the houses of Saul and David is the need for innocence.
When presented opportunities in 1 Samuel 24 and 26 to kill a sleeping Saul,
David rejects this. In 1 Samuel 25, an enraged David set on killing the foolish
Nabal is intercepted by the man’s wife, Abigail, and spared having blood on
his hands (25:31). So concerned is David over the innocence of his line that
21. Long (1989: 167) notes the rhetorical development of the admonishment of Saul,
which identifies Saul’s “not listening” as “the moral equivalent of rebellion, which in turn is
likened to divination and idolatry. By means of this progressive generalizing of Saul’s offence,
the narrator is able to drive home his point that Saul’s specific misdeed in chap. 15 is but a
symptom of a more deep-seated ill.”
22. Long (1989: 156). In 1 Sam 12:14–15 Samuel lays out the basis for the people’s exper-
iment with kingship. They can follow Yahweh (hyh + rj"a)" by fearing (ary), serving (db[), lis-
tening to his voice/obeying ([mv + lwq), and not rebelling (hrm al Hiphil) against him, or they
can experience the discipline of Yahweh by not listening to his voice or obeying (lwq [mv al)
and rebelling (hrm Hiphil) against his command (hw;hy] yPI).
23. One might ask why Saul is treated so severely, especially in light of Yahweh’s treat-
ment of David later in the book of Samuel. Long (1989: 156–57) suggests that the answer lies
in the “qualitative difference between his repentance and that of David.” Saul’s repentance
only comes after seeking to manipulate the prophet Samuel and appears to have as its goal
saving face before the elders. David’s follows immediately after the confrontation by the
prophet Nathan.
even those who connect with him must remain innocent. David puts to death
those who are responsible for the murder of his rivals (2 Sam 1:14–16, 4:10–
12). When Joab murders his rival, the Saulide general Abner (fresh from mak-
ing amends with David), David lays responsibility for Abner’s blood on Joab
alone (2 Sam 3:28–29), and ultimately Solomon executes Joab in order to “re-
move (rws Hiphil) from me and from my father’s house the blood which Joab
shed without cause” and to “return (bwv Hiphil) his blood on his own head,
because he fell upon two men more righteous and better than he and killed
them with the sword, while my father David did not know” (1 Kgs 2:31–33).
A similar incident can be discerned at a later point in the reign of David in
2 Samuel 21. After a three-year famine, David inquires about it of Yahweh and
is told the reason: “It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the
Gibeonites to death” (21:1). The problem with Saul’s action was that, al-
though tricked by the Gibeonites, Israel had made a covenant of peace with
them when they first entered the land ( Joshua 9). 24 According to 2 Samuel 21,
Saul’s murder of the Gibeonites had left a bloody stain on the entire nation. 25
David takes the responsibility to approach the Gibeonites and ask how he may
“make atonement” (rpk Piel) for Saul’s offense (21:3), and the answer is the
hanging of seven of his descendants in Saul’s hometown of Gibeah (21:6).
This did indeed remove the stain, because according to 21:14b, “after that
God was moved by prayer for the land.” 26
These depictions reveal an underlying theology that guilt is not merely an
individual affair but rather is often “by association.” This echoes the theme of
the Achan incident in Joshua 7, which showed the effect of a past sin by one
within a group on the entire community.
In the Samuel and Kings narratives, this concern is related at points to a
retribution principle by which Yahweh repays people according to their
deeds. On two occasions, this is articulated by David very clearly in connec-
tion with this sort of guilt by association. After David spares Saul’s life in
1 Samuel 26, he says,
The Lord will repay each person for their righteousness and their faithful-
ness; for the Lord delivered you into my hand today, but I refused to stretch
out my hand against the Lord’s anointed. (26:23, nasb, modified)
24. On the covenant/treaty background to this passage, see McCarter (1984: 444–45),
who notes how “exposure of the dead body of a transgressor was part of the punishment for
treaty violations elsewhere in the ancient Near East.”
25. Saul’s action against the Gibeonites is never described in Samuel, although some have
suggested that the slaughter of the priests at Nob in 1 Samuel 22 is the event, since Gibeo-
nites served there ( Josh 9:23, 27); Hertzberg (1964: 382–83), although see concerns of Mc-
Carter (1984: 441).
26. See Malamat (1955), who notes both ANE and biblical examples of the transmitting of
guilt between generations, and McCarter (1984: 444–45), who shows the striking similarity
between the Hittite “plague prayer” of Mursilis II and 2 Samuel 21 (ANET 394–96). In this,
one sees the covenantal background to the violation of Saul.
158 Chapter 10
And after Joab murders Abner in 2 Samuel 3, he says:

May the Lord repay the evildoer according to their evil deeds. (3:39, nasb,
modified)
So also Solomon declares that through his execution of Joab
shall their [Abner, Amasa] blood return (bwv) on the head of Joab and on the
head of his descendants forever. (1 Kgs 2:33)
These two underlying theological principles explain the concern of David and
Solomon to avoid any connection to evil practices. On the one side is the the-
ology of intra- and intergenerational culpability. On the other side is the the-
ology of retribution. These two principles leave those who are associated by
blood or task vulnerable to the judgment that will attend sin of this sort.
2 Samuel 7: David and Dynasty

At the heart of the story of David lies the account of the establishment of
the enduring covenant between the house of David and Yahweh. The estab-
lishment of the covenant arises out of David’s desire to build a house in
which Yahweh would dwell. 27 Having constructed his own house (tyb, “pal-
ace”) of cedar (7:1–2a), David expresses concern that Yahweh is dwelling in
nothing more than a tent (tabernacle, 7:2b). Yahweh informs the king, how-
ever, that instead he (Yahweh) will build a house (tyb, “dynasty”) for David
(7:12, 16) and that this house (Solomon) would build the house (tyb,
“temple”) for Yahweh (7:13).
Speaking in particular of Solomon, but most likely having the entire dy-
nasty of David in mind, Yahweh promises to establish his royal throne forever
(μlw[; 7:13). This sort of establishment, however, does not preclude this future
king(s) from discipline. As a father treats a son, so Yahweh will correct (jky
Hiphil) the king with physical discipline when he commits iniquity (ˆw[
Hiphil). 28 Unlike the case of Saul, however, Yahweh’s covenant loyalty (ds<j)<
will not be taken away from this king/dynasty. “Solomon’s apostasy may be
punished but he is not rejected as king.” 29
The Davidic covenant provides the theological foundation for the entire
Davidic dynasty, which follows in the Former Prophets. In this covenant,
Yahweh reveals that he takes sin seriously and will discipline the kings as a
27. This play on the word house is noted by McCarter (1984: 195).
28. For “rod,” fb<v,´ see Prov 13:24, 29:15, where it is related to parental discipline; cf. Ps
89:33; for “strokes,” [g' n,, see Deut 17:8, 21:5, and Prov 6:33, where it is related to violent
wounding. Possibly, this wounding became associated with divine chastisement as in Gen
12:17 and Exod 11:1.
29. Campbell (2005: 78). Note the contrast that Weinfeld (1970) made between two types
of treaties in the ancient Near East, the Suzerainty Treaty and the Royal Land Grant. In the
second, there is an enduring promise based on past loyalty, even though later generations
may be punished. However, contrast Knoppers (1996).
father does a son. However, his commitment is one of enduring covenant

loyalty.
2 Samuel 11–20: David and Sin

2 Samuel 11 constitutes a key turning point in the account of David within
the book of Samuel. 30 David’s rule over all Israel (2 Samuel 5–10) has only
been marred by the tragedy of Uzzah’s death when David attempted to move
the ark in 2 Sam 6:1–11. The rest of the account has portrayed David posi-
tively as a king accepted by his people, triumphant against his enemies, and
blessed by Yahweh. This idyllic tone, however, shifts dramatically from 2 Sam-
uel 11 on, as the mood changes from comedy to tragedy.
This shift is signaled by the infamous events in 2 Samuel 11, which inter-
weave the characters of David, Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite. 31 With his
army off at war, David “takes” a woman (Bathsheba) married to another man
and murders her husband (Uriah). 32 Tricked by the prophet Nathan into an-
nouncing his own sentence (“As the Lord lives, surely the man who has done
this deserves to die,” 2 Sam 12:5), David is told: “You are the man!” (12:7).
His actions are identified as despising (hzb) the word of Yahweh (hw;hy] rb"D)]
by doing evil ([r' hc[) in his sight (hw;hy] yney[EB)} , “in the sight of Yahweh” being
an echo of the phrase used at the outset of the cycle in the book of Judges, as
well as in Samuel’s rejection of Saul in 1 Sam 15:19. 33 However, rather than
rejecting David as he did Saul, Yahweh announces a punishment that will
affect his entire family:
“Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you
have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your
wife.” Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I will raise up evil against you from
your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give
them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under
the sun.” (2 Sam 12:10–12)
In response to this judgment, David confesses his sin: “I have sinned against
Yahweh (hwhyl" ytIaf:j): ” (12:13a). Yahweh assures David through Nathan that
30. See Campbell (2005: 214–20) for justification for dealing with 2 Samuel 11–20 as an
integrated corpus, one that according to Campbell deals with David’s “middle years.”
31. See Keys (1996), who attacks the hypothesis of Rost (1982) that 2 Samuel 10–20 is
dominated by the theme of succession. Instead, she sees the main theme that explains the
motivating force behind the narrative as “sin and punishment” and the key event that domi-
nates the work and around which the work revolves as the sin of the key character, David, in
2 Samuel 11–12.
32. McCarter (1984: 290) notes the regular use of the verb “take” (jql) in Samuel’s speech
about the dangers of a human king (1 Sam 8:11–17). There is no suggestion in the text that
Bathsheba deliberately tempted David; she is innocent. Cf. Garsiel (1993: 244–62). Campbell
(2005: 127) goes as far as to call it a rape.
33. For the latter connection, note McCarter (1984: 290).
160 Chapter 10
he will not die, for Yahweh has taken away (rb[ Niphal) his sin (12:13b). How-
ever, 12:14 makes clear that this “taking away” of sin does not eliminate the
deserved punishment of death (see 12:5) but rather only mitigates it. 34 Be-
sides the punishments listed in 12:10–12, the child conceived through his
folly will die (12:14), this extra punishment apparently related to the blas-
phemy that will be aroused against Yahweh due to David’s sin.
Signs that the prophetic judgment would come true appear immediately.
The child becomes sick (12:15), but David seeks Yahweh on behalf of the
child, fasting, weeping, and lying on the ground throughout the night
(12:16). David offers insight into his intention in 12:22: “for I said, ‘Who
knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’” This re-
minds the reader that Yahweh’s grace is not always predictable and that even
in the most unpromising circumstances Yahweh may display his mercy in re-
sponse to the cry of his people.
The judgment uttered against David, however, does indeed come true, be-
cause 2 Samuel 11–12 is just the beginning of a tragic tale of calamity that
dominates the rest of David’s reign. 35 As already mentioned, the child born to
Bathsheba dies. Amnon rapes Tamar (2 Samuel 13), and, in revenge, Absalom
murders Amnon (2 Samuel 13) before plunging the nation into a violent civil
war that kills him (2 Samuel 14–19). 36 Then, Sheba the Benjaminite leads the
northern tribes in rebellion against David (2 Samuel 20).
2 Samuel 11–20 reveals the impact of the sin of David on his entire family
and kingdom. 37 According to 12:13, it appears that there is some relationship
between David confessing his sin and Yahweh taking away his sin, thus en-
suring that David will not die as he deserves. David’s attempts to conceal sin
in chap. 11 only complicate matters for the king, whereas his penitential con-
fession of sin provides a way forward (Garsiel 1993: 244–62). However, there
are still severe punishments for sin, and these punishments have serious im-
plications for his family and kingdom. Although David seeks to eliminate the
first of these punishments by appealing to Yahweh’s grace through fasting,
weeping, and lying before Yahweh (12:16), these have no impact on Yahweh.
34. See especially Sklar (2005) and the discussion on Leviticus above, pp. 49–85. McCarter
(1984: 301) and Nutkowicz (2004) see here the transference of sin from the source (David) to
the result (child); thus, sin passes from David to child, much as it does to an expiatory victim.
35. This does not mean there are not positive elements to this phase of the Davidic ac-
count, as pointed out by Campbell (2005: 214). However, the account is now dominated by
the darkness brought on by the sin of 2 Samuel 11–12.
36. Campbell (2005: 127) highlights the “remarkable similarity” between chaps. 11–12 and
13–14, both of which contain a rape and a murder that are connected. This literary connection
supports the theological connection between the two events; cf. M. Gray (1998: 39–54).
37. See also the close similarity between David’s sin with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 and
Ahab’s sin against Naboth in 1 Kings 21, suggesting that David’s sin may even set a precedent
for the notorious Northern royal apostate whose sins will ultimately stain the Southern King-
dom (see Kings, pp. 165–189 below); cf. Chinitz (1997: 108–13).
2 Samuel 24:
David, Sin, Confession, and Sacrifice
One final story near the end of the Davidic account provides further in-
sight into the theology of sin in the books of Samuel. 38 2 Samuel 24 recounts
the story of the census David takes of his army, an action that is considered
an offense against Yahweh. 39 In contrast to the Bathsheba incident in 2 Sam-
uel 11, David is stricken in conscience (“David’s heart troubled [hkn Hiphil]
him,” 24:10) and so approaches Yahweh with the following confession and
request:
I have sinned greatly (daøm} ytIaf: j): in what I have done. But now, O Lord,
please take away (rb[ Hiphil) the iniquity (ˆw[) of your servant, for I have
acted very foolishly (lks Niphal). (2 Sam 24:10)
This prayer echoes David’s interaction with Yahweh’s prophet in the earlier
incident in 2 Sam 12:13–14. Both incidents begin with David’s confession of
sin (“I have sinned,” ytIaf:j): . In 2 Sam 12:13, it is Nathan who then declares
that Yahweh has taken away (rb[ Hiphil) David’s sin (ˆw[), whereas in 2 Sam
24:10 David asks Yahweh to do this. 40
Yahweh responds through the prophet Gad to David’s request with the of-
fer of three forms of discipline (24:11–13), 41 from which David chooses the
one that will place him directly in the hands of Yahweh, whose “mercies are
great” (24:14). 42 This three-day plague strikes the extent of the land before
moving finally to ravage the city of Jerusalem. However, it is at this point that
Yahweh “relents” (μjn Niphal), instructing his destroying angel to “relax (hpr
Hiphil) your hand,” precisely as the angel approaches “the threshing floor of
Araunah the Jebusite” (24:16).
38. In light of the argument of Brueggemann (1988: 383–97), one may consider 2 Samuel
21–24 as not merely an addendum to 2 Samuel (9)11–20 but rather as a continuation of the
negative portrayal in the wake of David’s sin in chap. 11. 2 Samuel 24 plays an important
role in his argument, for in it David is stripped of any royal pretensions. His link to the
prayer of Hannah in 1 Samuel 1 reveals the key role of 2 Samuel 24 in the overall rhetorical
structure of the book of Samuel.
39. The precise sin in view here is not clear, although McCarter (1984: 512–13) argues
that it is the lack of payment of atonement money, as per the instructions in Exod 30:11–16.
See Num 8:19, where atonement is related to protecting Israel from plagues.
40. The request to “take away” is sometimes interpreted, as in 2 Sam 12:13 as “transfer-
ring” the guilt to someone else; cf. McCarter (1984: 511). However, we once again have an
example of forgiveness that entails mitigated punishment; cf. Sklar (2005).
41. Whereas Hertzberg (1964) sees here David eliminating one of the three and allowing
God to choose between the other two, McCarter (1984: 511) notes how the phrase used here,
“the hand of Yahweh,” is regularly associated with plague in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Sam 5:6).
42. Campbell (2005: 210) sees the emphasis in this passage on “David’s wisdom in relying
on God’s mercy, the goodness of God in selecting the shortest punishment, and the favor of
God in sparing Jerusalem.” In the midst of this failure, the focus shifts to the grace of God.
162 Chapter 10
The account in 24:17–25 appears to provide the reason for Yahweh’s “re-
lenting” in 24:16. 43 As David watches the angel exacting punishment on the
people, he utters once again his confession: “it is I who have sinned, and it is
I who have done wrong” (ytIywe[”h< ykInoa:w] ytIaf:j: ykInoa): . However, this time this
merely introduces a request that Yahweh strike David and his father’s house
instead of his innocent people (24:17). Yahweh, however, does not strike Da-
vid but rather instructs him to erect an altar on the threshing floor of
Araunah the Jebusite (24:18), an act that David immediately accomplishes
(24:19–25a). The final note in the story is that Yahweh “was moved by prayer
(rt[ Niphal) for the land, and the plague was held back from Israel.” Else-
where, this term, rt[, is most often associated with verbal supplication to
Yahweh (Gen 25:21; Ezra 8:23; 1 Chr 5:20; 2 Chr 33:13, 19; cf. 2 Sam 21:14).
In this case, it is clearly the verbal confession and request accompanied by
sacrifice that moves Yahweh and brings an end to punishment.
This story of David brings together several key motifs observed elsewhere
in the book of Samuel. First, confession of sin once again appears as a key ini-
tial step in dealing with sin. In this case, this confession is preceded by the
“troubling” (hkn Hiphil) of the heart. Second, the prophet has a role to play in
dealing with sin, not only in identifying sin as seen in 2 Samuel 12 but also
in announcing God’s judgment. Third, there is an expectation that Yahweh
can and will take away (rb[ Hiphil) iniquity (ˆw[). Fourth, a request of this sort
does not eliminate divine discipline but only mitigates the punishment. Fifth,
the sin of one, especially in this case of the king, has implications for the en-
tire nation. Sixth, great hope is placed in the gracious character of Yahweh,
who can withdraw punishment at any time. Seventh, Yahweh responds to the
intercessory cry of his mediator in conjunction with sacrificial offerings at the
altar in Jerusalem. 44
This account prepares the way for developments in the book of Kings. This
close connection between sin and prayer at Jerusalem’s sacrificial altar lies at
the core of the theology of the temple in Kings.
43. There is some confusion over the flow of this account, especially at 24:15–25. For
many, Yahweh sends the plague and strikes down 70,000 throughout Israel (v. 15), but when
he moves against Jerusalem he relents (v. 16), opening an opportunity for David to cry out
and build the altar (vv. 17–25); cf. Hertzberg (1964: 413). The problem with this approach is
that 24:17 clearly says that David approached Yahweh when the angel was “striking down”
the people, and 24:25 concludes that the plague was stopped because Yahweh “was moved
by prayer.” Diachronic analysis of this text has resulted in the supposition of various layers
in this passage, for instance, a later addition in 2 Sam 24:16a in which Yahweh relents prior
to David’s mediatorial role; cf. McCarter (1984: 511). Another approach is to see 24:16a as a
proleptic summary of the results of the scene described in 24:16b–25. This may explain the
offline statement that seems to be a non sequitur in 24:16b, “Now the angel of the Lord was
by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.”
44. Even if one does not accept my argument based on the character of 24:16b–25 and its
relationship to averting the plague, 24:25 makes the connection between prayer, sacrifice,
and forgiveness clear.
Summary
The book of Samuel provides the foundation for the story of monarchy in
Israel. At several key points, it establishes important theological principles for
sin and its remedy. Sin in Samuel continues to be associated with violation of
the exclusive worship of Yahweh, but, with the introduction of the monarchy,
sin is expanded to include violations of Yahweh’s written commands and oral
instructions, especially seen in the failures of Saul. Although David does vio-
late ritual legislation (2 Samuel 24), his narratives focus more on violations of
moral law, showcased in his adulterous and murderous affair in 2 Samuel 11
and its reverberations within his own family. This example, along with the
case of Eli and Saul, reveals that in the book of Samuel sin has an intra- and
intergenerational character. The actions of one person can affect all within a
generation, and the actions of one generation can affect a later generation. A
theology of retribution is expressed regularly, that is, those who commit a
crime will experience justice in turn. Priority is certainly placed on obedience
over sacrifice, on pleasing God through following him rather than appeasing
God through gifts.
The judgment of God is an important means for remedying sin in Samuel.
In the case of the Davidic monarchy with its eternal covenant, this means the
discipline of individual kings in the line by Yahweh (2 Samuel 7), a principle
exemplified in the account of David in 2 Samuel 11–20 with the death of his
baby and subsequent fratricide and civil war. In the case of Eli and Saul, it
means the loss of appointment and eternal covenant (1 Samuel 2–3). In the
case of Israel, it means defeat at the hands of its enemies (1 Samuel 4–6) or
natural disaster (1 Sam 12:16–18).
This sort of judgment, however, is rarely the end of the matter. The pattern
established in the book of Judges reappears at 1 Sam 12:8, showing how God’s
judgment is really discipline to prompt the cry of Israel, to which God will re-
spond by sending salvation. An important clarification is made in 1 Sam 12:8,
as Judg 10:10 is used to interpret the pattern of judges, emphasizing the im-
portance of a penitential verbal response to secure salvation.
Yahweh consistently raises up prophetic voices to confront Israel with its sin
or to announce his judgment, whether this is Samuel confronting the people
or its leaders (Eli, Saul) or Nathan and Gad confronting David. In this then,
prophecy is established early in the history of the monarchy as the conscience
of the royal house and the conduit of Yahweh’s revelation to it. These pro-
phetic confrontations often encourage or result in a penitential response from
their hearers, expressly described at times as verbal admission of sin (1 Sam
7:3–9; 12:1–25; 15:24–25, 30; 2 Sam 12:13; 24:10, 14, 17) and accompanying
rites, sometimes with a description of change in behavior (1 Sam 7:4). In the
case of David in 2 Samuel 24, it is the “troubling” of the heart that leads to
admission of sin. Yahweh’s response is sometimes to forgive completely
164 Chapter 10
(1 Samuel 7), at others to mitigate the punishment (1 Samuel 12; 2 Samuel 12,
24), and still others to reject the individual outright (1 Samuel 13, 15).
Mediation is an important theme in Samuel. Samuel serves in this role in
the penitential liturgy of 1 Samuel 7, interceding on behalf of Israel. Similarly,
in 1 Samuel 12 the people cry for Samuel’s intercession (v. 19). He is willing
to do so, but he also teaches them so that his intercession is not necessary (v.
23). David plays this role on his own and his people’s behalf in the closing
chapter of Samuel. His prayer and sacrifice related to the temple site in Jeru-
salem are essential to securing the grace of God for the nation.
The book of Samuel does not hide the reality of sin, as Israel becomes a mo-
narchical state. Already in Samuel, dysfunctions that will ultimately bring
down the state can be discerned, but alongside them also the basic principles
for remedying the sin that plagues the nation.

Chapter 11
Former Prophets: Kings
In the larger literary complex of the Former Prophets, the beginning of the
book of Kings marks a key juncture in the story of Israel, as David passes a
united kingdom to his son Solomon. Solomon receives inordinate attention
in a description that stretches from 1 Kings 1 to 1 Kings 11. His reign ends in
tragedy as the kingdom is torn in two. The remainder of Kings (1 Kings 12–
2 Kings 25) constitutes the story of the divided kingdom, a story that also will
end in disaster, with the exiles of first the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 17) and
then the Southern Kingdom (2 Kings 25). The theme of sin and its remedy
drives the agenda and structure of this book. 1
1 Kings 1–11: The Account of Solomon
1 Kings 2:1–9: David’s Final Charge to Solomon

David’s final charge to Solomon provides key principles for the obedience
of monarchs in particular and for the obedience of the people in general at
the outset of the book of Kings. It echoes vocabulary and themes found at ear-
lier points in the Former Prophets, especially the final exhortation of Joshua
in Joshua 23. 2 Reminiscent of Joshua’s exhortation, 1 Kgs 2:2–4 calls Solomon
to embrace Yahweh’s agenda with courage (be strong). This agenda, described
as “the charge (tr,m<v‘m)I of the Lord your God,” involves faithful walking (˚lh)
and observing (rmv). The standard is identified as Yahweh’s ways (˚rd), stat-
utes (hQ:j)U , commandments (hw;x}m)I , ordinances (fP:v‘m)I , and testimonies (tWd[E),
a standard that is linked to a written code (“what is written in the Law of
Moses”). Verse 4 reveals that this agenda is not mere external observance but
rather a faithfulness that engages the inner affections (μv…p}n'Alk:b}W μb:b:l}Alk:B)} . As
with Joshua, this sort of faithfulness will bring success (lkc Hiphil) in all of
the leader’s activity (“in all that you do,” “wherever you turn”) and will en-
sure the endurance of Yahweh’s dynastic promise to David that he would not
lack a man on the throne of Israel.
1. Fretheim (1999: 10) identifies “apostasy” as one of the three major themes in Kings
that shape Israel’s history.
2. As Pressler (2002: 112) points out, the “Deuteronomistic Historians frequently use a
leader’s parting words in their narrative to guide their audience’s interpretation at critical
junctions,” noting Deuteronomy (esp. chaps. 29–31), Joshua 23, 1 Samuel 12, and 1 Kings 2.
- 165 -
166 Chapter 11
1 Kings 6–9: Solomon’s Temple Building and Dedication

The story of the building and dedication of the temple lies at the center of
the account of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kings. In the midst of the construction
account, Yahweh appears to Solomon and affirms this work (1 Kgs 6:11–13),
pledging to fulfill his promise to David of an enduring dynasty (1 Kgs 6:12b;
cf. 1 Sam 7:12, 13, 16) and to dwell among the people (1 Kgs 6:13). As in Da-
vid’s charge to Solomon in 1 Kings 2, this promise is contingent on the obe-
dience of the king, who must walk in (˚lh), execute (hc[), and keep (rmv)
Yahweh’s statutes (hQ:j)U , ordinances (fP:v‘m)I , and commandments (hw;x}m)I . Obe-
dience to Yahweh’s law, not the temple, secures Yahweh’s enduring blessing
and presence. These themes will reappear in the passages describing the dedi-
cation of the temple in 1 Kings 8–9. However, it is clear from Solomon’s
prayer at this dedication (1 Kings 8) that future generations (both royal and
communal) will struggle with this obedience.
1 Kings 8:23–53: Solomon’s Prayer to Yahweh

Solomon’s prayer to Yahweh at the dedication of the temple in 1 Kings 8
provides helpful insight into the theology of sin and its remedy in Kings. 3 The
prayer is divided into two main sections. 4 The first focuses on the Davidic dy-
nasty (1 Kgs 8:23–26), which throughout the books of Samuel and Kings is in-
extricably linked with the building of the temple (see 1 Samuel 7). A key
principle is introduced in v. 23, that is, that Yahweh keeps covenant and faith-
fulness (ds<j<h"w] tyriB}h" rmv) to his servants, who walk (˚lh) before him with all
their hearts (μB:lIAlk:B)} . This principle, applicable to all “servants,” is then ap-
plied to the royal line through the “servant” David (8:24). Through this intro-
ductory section, the reader is reminded that Solomon’s obedience to God in
this project is important to the fulfillment of the promise of an enduring dy-
nasty for David in Israel, a theme already introduced in David’s charge to Solo-
mon in 1 Kings 2 and in Yahweh’s charge to Solomon in 1 Kings 6.
The second section of the prayer (8:27–53) focuses on the role of the
temple as a place of prayer, beginning with a general plea to God to listen to
the prayers of Solomon and his people (8:27–30), continuing with a series of
seven scenarios that would prompt the people to pray toward the temple for
3. The deuteronomic character of the prayer has often been noted; cf. Weinfeld (1972:
36–37, 36 n. 32, 195–97); McConville (1992). However, this has been challenged by Talstra
(1993: 105–6, 169), even though he does admit that 1 Kgs 8:44–51 is the closest to deutero-
nomic idiom and ideology. McConville (1992) argues for a contrast between Deuteronomy
30 and 1 Kgs 8:46–53, although noting reliance of the latter on the former. The distinctive
character of 1 Kings 8 may suggest that the Former Prophets has been shaped not only by
Deuteronomy but also the Priestly traditions in the Torah. See Liedke (1971: 25, 30), Long
(1984: 103), and Boda (1999: 53–54) for evidence of Priestly structures in 1 Kings 8.
4. See Knoppers (2000: 370–96) for argument for the literary unity of the prayer and the
larger context of 1 Kings 8.
Former Prophets: Kings 167
help (8:31–50), 5 and concluding with another general plea for God to listen
to prayers to him in the temple (8:51–53). The second section provides a way
for both king and nation to secure Yahweh’s grace after disobedience (see
table 11.1 below, pp. 168–169). Its categories of calamity are closely related
to the curse materials found in Deuteronomy 28–30 and Leviticus 26, sug-
gesting that the prayer is being conceptualized within the framework of the
covenant. 6
The introductory plea (8:27–30) reveals a basic rhythm between human
action (for example, prayer, repentance) and divine response (for example,
hearing, forgiving), setting the tone for the seven scenarios that follow. The
end of the introductory plea offers the first sign that the purpose of the
prayers to be offered at the temple is related to the people’s need for forgive-
ness for sin (“hear and forgive [jls],” 8:30). 7 Though this prayer is clearly ad-
dressed to God, it provides guidance to readers for renewing relationship with
Yahweh, identifying the temple as a place of renewal for the people. Here, the
temple is treated primarily not as a place of sacrifice but more importantly as
a locus of prayer. 8
Nevertheless, not all the scenarios in 8:31–50 are related to sin. 9 The fifth
scenario describes a foreigner coming to pray and speaks only of Yahweh
granting this request, with no reference to forgiveness. Similarly, scenario #6
describes Israel going into battle and God hearing and upholding its cause in
combat. Scenarios #1, #2, #3, and #7 all explicitly refer to the sin of a person
or the people and request Yahweh’s forgiveness (jls). Scenario #4 is ambigu-
ous, saying nothing explicitly about the sin of the people while nevertheless
requesting Yahweh’s forgiveness.
The first scenario (8:31–32) is drawn from Israelite jurisprudence (see Exod
22:7–14, Lev 6:1–7, Num 5:11–31), which lays out the procedure for the as-
certainment of guilt. These cases all concern offenses against human beings,
involve the taking of an oath, and require attendance at a sacred shrine. The
5. See Balentine (1993: 83) for evidence of the rhetorical unity of vv. 31–53, no matter the
redactional history that lies behind it.
6. On covenantal character, see Gray (1970: 219–20). On the connection between 1 Kings
8, Deuteronomy 28–30, and Leviticus 26, see Wolff (1977: 212–18) and Talstra (1993: 118–
19, 186).
7. See O’Brien (1989: 152) and Talstra (1993: 102) for the bracketing effect of 8:29–30 and
8:52–53 around the prayer.
8. So Balentine (1993: 85): “In contrast to the view that the temple is the center for sacri-
fice, here it is described as the center for prayer. What Solomon offers before the altar of the
Lord (v. 22: mizbea˙), the heart of the sacrificial area, is ‘prayer and supplication’ (v. 54). Not
once in all his address does he mention sacrifice.” However, there is not a complete rejection
of sacrifice, as 1 Kgs 8:62–64 makes clear.
9. Contra Balentine (1993: 83), who claims that “the primary emphasis throughout these
verses [vv. 31–53] is constant: when one sins the temple provides a means of addressing God
and securing a hearing.”
168 Chapter 11
Table 11.1. Human Repentance and Divine Response

in the Prayer of 1 Kings 8 (nasb, modified)
Scenario #1: 1 Kings 8:31–32

Scenario If a person sins against their neighbor and is made to take an
oath,
Human action required and the person comes and takes an oath before your altar in
this house,
Divine response requested then hear in heaven and act and judge your servants, con-
demning the wicked by bringing their way on their own head
and justifying the righteous by giving them according to his
righteousness.

Scenario When your people Israel are defeated before an enemy, be-
cause they have sinned (afj) against you,
Human action required if they turn (bwv) to (la) you again and give thanks (hdy
Hiphil) to your name and pray (llp Hithpael) and make sup-
plication (ˆnj Hithpael) to you in this house,
Divine response requested then hear ([mv) in heaven, and forgive (jls) the sin of your
people Israel, and bring them back to the land which you
gave to their ancestors.

Scenario When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain, because
they have sinned (afj) against you,
Human action required and they pray (llp Hithpael) toward this place and give
thanks (hdy Hiphil) to your name and turn (bwv) from (ˆmI)
their sin when you afflict them,
Divine response requested then hear ([mv) in heaven and forgive (jls) the sin of your
servants and of your people Israel, indeed, teach (hry Hiphil)
them the good way (˚rd) in which they should walk (˚lh).
And send rain on your land, which you have given your
people for an inheritance.

Scenario If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence, if there is
blight or mildew, locust or grasshopper, if their enemy be-
sieges them in the land of their cities, whatever plague, what-
ever sickness there is,
Human action required whatever prayer or supplication is made by any person or by
all your people Israel, each knowing the affliction of their
own heart (/bb:l} [g' n), , and spreading (crp) their hands (wyP:K)" to-
ward (la) this house;
Divine response requested then hear ([mv) in heaven your dwelling place, and forgive
(jls) and act (hc[) and render (ˆtn) to each according to all
their ways (wyk:r;D]Alk:K} vyaIl): , whose heart you know, for you
alone know the hearts of all the children of humanity
Human reaction expected that they may fear you all the days that they live in the land
which you have given to our ancestors.
Table 11.1. Human Repentance and Divine Response

in the Prayer of 1 Kings 8 (nasb, modified)

Scenario Also concerning the foreigner who is not of your people Is-
rael, when they come from a far country for your name’s sake
Human action required (for they will hear of your great name and your mighty hand,
and of your outstretched arm); when they come and pray to-
ward this house,
Divine response requested hear in heaven your dwelling place, and do according to all
for which the foreigner calls to you,
Human reaction expected in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your
name, to fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may
know that this house which I have built is called by your
name.

Scenario When your people go out to battle against their enemy, by
whatever way you shall send them,
Human action required and they pray to the Lord toward the city which you have
chosen and the house which I have built for your name,
Divine response requested then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and
maintain their cause.

Scenario When they sin against you (for there is no one who does not
sin) and you are angry with them and deliver them to an en-
emy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the
enemy, far off or near;
Human action required if they take thought (bwv Hiphil + μB:lIAla<) in the land where
they have been taken captive, and repent (bwv) and make sup-
plication (ˆnj Hithpael) to you in the land of those who have
taken them captive, saying, “We have sinned and have com-
mitted iniquity, we have acted wickedly” (Wn[}v…r; Wnywi[”h<w ] Wnaf:j): ;
if they return (bwv) to (la) you with all their heart and with all
their soul (μv…p}n'Alk:b}W μb:b:l}Alk:B)} in the land of their enemies
who have taken them captive, and pray (llp Hithpael) to you
toward their land which you have given to their ancestors,
the city which you have chosen, and the house which I have
built for your name;
Divine response requested then hear ([mv) their prayer and their supplication in heaven
your dwelling place, and maintain (hc[) their cause (fP:v‘m)I ,
and forgive (jls) your people who have sinned (afj) against
you and all their transgressions ([vp) which they have trans-
gressed against you, and make (ˆtn) them objects of compas-
sion (μymIh“r)' before those who have taken them captive, that
they may have compassion (μjr Piel) on them.
170 Chapter 11
phrase “before your altar” (1 Kgs 8:31) suggests that a sacrifice was involved,
and yet the focus in 1 Kings 8 is on prayer. Sin here is remedied through
prayer before Yahweh, who can and will ascertain guilt in matters of law.
The second scenario (8:33–34) depicts a sinful nation, which has been dis-
ciplined through military defeat and national exile. They are called to turn
(bwv) to (la) Yahweh and give thanks (hdy Hiphil) to Yahweh’s name and pray
(llp Hithpael) and make supplication (ˆnj Hithpael) to Yahweh in the temple.
Because the prayer is offered “in” the temple, it is assumed that these people
are praying on behalf of their exiled compatriots. The expected divine re-
sponse is hearing, forgiving, and returning the people to the land.
The third scenario (8:35–36) depicts a sinful people disciplined through
natural disaster (drought). The human action is nearly identical to the preced-
ing scenario, but this time they are to pray (llp Hithpael) “toward” this place
and give thanks (hdy Hiphil) to Yahweh’s name and turn (bwv) from (ˆmI) their
sin. The divine response is expanded slightly, involving not only hearing and
forgiving and an action that rectifies their predicament (sending rain) but also
teaching (hry Hiphil) them “the good way (˚rd) in which they should walk
(˚lh).” God is asked not only to transform their situation but also to instruct
the people how to walk in holiness so as to avert disasters such as this in the
future.
The fourth scenario (8:37–40) amalgamates the kinds of disasters found in
the second and third scenarios (both natural disasters and human attacks).
Though not explicitly mentioning sin, it does request God’s forgiveness, sug-
gesting some connection to the sin of the people. This scenario shares more
in common with the first scenario in that Solomon requests that God “act
(hc[) and render (ˆtn) to each according to all their ways (wyk:r;D]Alk:K} vyaIl): ,” be-
cause Yahweh knows their hearts. Similarly to the third scenario, this scenario
envisions an expected human reaction, articulated in this case as fearing Yah-
weh and walking in his ways. The first of these two reactions represents the
internal disposition toward Yahweh of awe and respect, and the second rep-
resents the external evidence of faithfulness to Yahweh.
The fifth and sixth scenarios (8:41–45) shift the focus completely away
from the culpability of the people, an emphasis that returns only in the sev-
enth scenario (8:46–50). The opening phrase in this final scenario, “when
they sin against you (for there is no one who does not sin),” admits that sin
is an expected reality that must be addressed. This case echoes the second sce-
nario but is more extensive in its description. Here, for the first time in the
prayer, God’s anger is explicitly identified as the cause of disaster. The human
action that is required shifts considerable rhetorical weight onto this scenario.
This action begins with thought (“turn/return to their heart,” bwv Hiphil +
μB:lIAla<), which is to lead to a repentance (bwv) with one’s entire being (Alk:B}
μv…p}n'Alk:b}W μb:b:l)} and prayer (ˆnj, llp Hithpael). For the first time, the content
of the prayer is actually cited, revealing a penitential cry that employs the
three dominant words for sin in the Old Testament: “We have sinned and
have committed iniquity, we have acted wickedly” (Wn[}v…r; Wnywi[”h<w] Wnaf:j): . 10 Un-
like the second scenario, the divine response requested is not a return to the
land but rather that Yahweh would maintain the cause of the captives and
give them compassion before their captors. 11 The prayer concludes by echo-
ing the general plea of 8:27–30 in 8:52 and surrounding this plea with the rea-
sons that God should listen: his deliverance of Israel (8:51) and his separation
of them from the nations of the earth (8:53).
Solomon’s prayer reveals that Yahweh deals with the sin of the people
through disciplinary circumstances that prompt prayer and penitence at the
temple. 12 The second, third, fourth, and seventh scenarios all assume that
Yahweh sends discipline into the lives of his people because of their sin. Thus,
instances of human attack or natural disasters are related directly to the sin of
the people. The temple is the locus of honesty and accountability. From there,
Yahweh dispenses justice in the land by identifying the realities of the human
heart that stands near God’s presence (the first scenario). The temple is also
the locus of grace and hope. From there, Yahweh hears and forgives the
people’s sin and gives them rescue from their predicaments. However, divine
responses such as these demand a human response to divine discipline, which
includes repentance (bwv), giving thanks (hdy Hiphil), and prayer (llp, ˆnj
Hithpael). The basis for all of this divine response is rooted deeply in Yah-
weh’s redemptive commitments to Israel. One scenario recognizes the need
for Yahweh to “teach them the good way in which they should walk,” a vision
for transformation beyond forgiveness.
1 Kings 8:56–61: Solomon’s Blessing of the People
After completing the description of Solomon’s prayer to Yahweh on his
knees with hands lifted toward heaven, 1 Kings 8 depicts the king standing
and blessing the assembly of Israel. This blessing begins with Solomon prais-
ing Yahweh (8:56) before praying for (8:57–60) and charging (8:61) the people.
10. Notice the tripartite confession of sin on the Day of Atonement in Lev 16:21, al-
though there [vr is replaced with [vp (see Leviticus, pp. 49–85 above). The combination that
occurs here in 1 Kgs 8:47 occurs also in Ps 106:6 and Dan 9:5, both of which are connected
to the tradition of penitential prayer, which relies heavily on the theology of 1 Kings 8; cf.
Greenberg (1983a: 63 n. 61); Baltzer (1991); Talstra (1993: 219), Werline (1998); Boda (1999).
11. McConville (2000) argues that this final scenario in 1 Kings 8 relies on Deuteronomy
29 and 30:1–10 but does not reflect its theology. Whereas Deuteronomy 30 is like the new
covenant theology of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (“essence of that idea is Yahweh’s initiative in
producing Israel’s repentance” and a “return to the land,” p. 368), 1 Kgs 8:46–53 does not
look for return to land, nor does it speak of divine initiative, but rather it seeks human pen-
itential response. In my opinion, it is probably too strong to say that 1 Kgs 8:46–53 “stands
consciously over against” or “deliberately distances itself from” Deut 30:1–10 (pp. 362–63).
Rather, it provides the posture for those who may remain in exile. Divine initiative is not in
view in this scenario, but it appears from the Solomonic benediction in 1 Kgs 8:58 that some
form of divine enablement, similar to Deuteronomy 30, was in view. See Fretheim (2006).
12. As Balentine (1993: 81) notes, 1 Kings 8 “is a prayer about the temple as the preemi-
nent place of prayer” (emphasis his).
172 Chapter 11
In his prayer of blessing, Solomon asks first for God’s enduring presence
with the people (8:57). Second, he asks Yahweh to enable the people to walk
in faithfulness by inclining (hfn Hiphil) their hearts (bbl) to himself in order
that they may walk (˚lh) in all his ways (˚rd) and keep (rmv) his command-
ments (hw;x}m)I , his statutes (qjø ), and his ordinances (fP:v‘m;I 8:58). This request is
foreshadowed by the words of Solomon in 8:36 that God would not just for-
give his people but also “teach them the good way in which they should
walk.” 1 Kings 8:58 expands this further by emphasizing direct divine inter-
vention into Israel’s inner affections. Third, he asks for his own words of
prayer, uttered in 8:23–53 and in the immediately preceding verses, to be near
Yahweh continually (day and night) so that Yahweh might maintain the
cause of both the king and the people and so increase the knowledge of him-
self on the earth (8:59–60).
The charge that follows this prayer in 8:61 echoes Solomon’s request for
God’s enablement in 8:58, calling now on the people to set their inner affec-
tions on Yahweh (“Let your heart [bbl] therefore be wholly devoted [hyh + adj.
μlEv]… to [μ[I] the Lord our God”) in order that they may walk in faithfulness
(“to walk [˚lh] in his statutes [qjø] and to keep [rmv] his commandments
[hwxm]”). Solomon’s prayer reveals that this will be made possible by Yahweh’s
inner work on the heart (8:58) but involves the cooperation of the people.
1 Kings 9:3–9: God’s Response to Solomon

After Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8, Yahweh appears and responds to the
king. God declares that he has not only heard the prayer but also accepted
the temple (9:3). This is followed, however, by a speech that lays out clearly
the choice that the dynasty faces and the radically different divine responses
that can be expected.
The normative response (9:4) entails righteous action (“walking,” ˚lh; “do-
ing,” hc[; “keeping,” rmv) that arises from the inner affections (“integrity of
heart,” bb:lEAμt:B;} “uprightness,” rv≤ybo }W) and responds to Yahweh (“before me”)
as well as his code (“statutes,” qjø; “ordinances,” fP:v‘m)I . The opposite response
(9:6), however, involves turning away (bwv with infinitive absolute bwv) from
following (yrej“a"m)E Yahweh by failing to keep (rmv) Yahweh’s commandments
(hw;x}m)I and statutes (hQ:j)U and by going (˚lh) after, serving (db[) and worshiping
(hwj Hishtaphel) other gods (see further 9:9).
Yahweh’s response to obedience is to establish the dynasty forever (9:5),
but his response to disobedience is ominous: he will exile the nation from the
land, reject and destroy the temple, and defame Israel among the nations. The
rhetorical weight (seen in the amount of text) is clearly on an expected nega-
tive response from the people, a description of which is repeated by future
“peoples,” and on Yahweh’s future treatment of the temple. 13
13. See Sweeney (2001: 172), who notes this foreshadowing role for his exilic DtrH.
1 Kings 3:1–3 . . . 11:1–8: Solomon’s Sin

The texts studied to this point in the account of Solomon have highlighted
the high standard to which Yahweh called the king and his people. However,
throughout there have been consistent indications that this standard is be-
yond human ability and that there is an expectation of disobedience. This is
especially prominent in the various scenarios presented in Solomon’s prayer
in 1 Kings 8 and in Yahweh’s response to Solomon in 1 Kings 9.
That obedience was a challenge for Solomon is made clear in the overall
narrative shape of the account in 1 Kings 1–11. It has already been noted in
the study of the book of Samuel how the sin of David functions rhetorically
within the overall shape of the account of David. The first phase of that ac-
count presents David as the royal ideal, supported by his people, feared by his
enemies, and blessed by Yahweh (2 Samuel 5–10). However, with his sin with
Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11, the narrative begins a downward spiral in which
his children are raped and murdered, his kingdom is torn asunder, and his
people suffer divine judgment (2 Samuel 11–24). The motif of sin thus has a
significant impact on the structure and development of the account of David.
In a similar way, the royal account of Solomon in 1 Kings 1–11 is also
shaped by the motif of sin. 14 At the core of this account is the idyllic presen-
tation of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kgs 3:4–10:29. 15 In this core, the narrator de-
scribes Solomon’s wise justice, administrative prowess, daily provisions, con-
struction activities, worship leadership, international fame, and economic
splendor. At the center of this account lies Solomon’s construction and dedi-
cation of the temple along with his prayer and Yahweh’s response.
Surrounding this idyllic core, however, the reader finds a small bracket that
suggests at the outset (3:1–3) and confirms (11:1–8) at the close the fatal flaws
in Solomon that would spell disaster for his own kingdom as well as the future
Davidic dynasty. These two passages contain significant links in vocabulary
(see the texts on the top of p. 174). 16 Both passages begin by describing Solo-
mon’s marriages to foreign women, with 3:1–3 focusing exclusively on his
marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter and then 11:1–8 picking up with Pharaoh’s
daughter and listing the many other wives he acquired throughout his reign.
Both passages mention activity at high places and inappropriate burning of
14. Sweeney (2001: 174) argues that David’s affair with Bathsheba provides the back-
ground to Solomon’s birth. This may be a foreshadowing of Solomon’s ultimate failure.
15. See Knoppers (1993: 59), who (against Noth) argues that “the Deuteronomist self-
consciously depicts the first period of Solomon’s reign as the apex of Israelite history.” How-
ever, as I will argue, there is foreshadowing of the approaching nadir. One also should not
miss the striking similarity between the depiction of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kings 10–11 and
the royal prohibitions listed in Deut 17:16–17; cf. Walsh and Cotter (1996: 137–38); Sweeney
(2001: 176).
16. See especially Walsh and Cotter (1996: 138); cf. Walsh (1993: 11–27). Knoppers (1993:
137) notes the Dtr style of this vocabulary and similarities shared with earlier Dtr speeches in
Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
174 Chapter 11
Then Solomon formed a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and
took Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her to the city of David until he had fin-
ished building his own house and the house of the Lord and the wall around
Jerusalem.The people were still sacrificing on the high places, because there
was no house built for the name of the Lord until those days. Now Solomon
loved (bha) the Lord, walking (˚lh) in the statutes of his father David, except
he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. (1 Kgs 3:1–3)
Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of
Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from
the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the sons of Israel, “You
shall not associate (awb) with them, nor shall they associate (awb) with you, for
they will surely turn (hfn Hiphil) your heart (bbl) away after their gods.” Solo-
mon held fast (qbd) to these in love (bha). He had seven hundred wives, prin-
cesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away
(hfn Hiphil). For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away (hfn
Hiphil) after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted (hyh + adjective
μlEv)… to (μ[I) the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. For
Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom
the detestable idol of the Ammonites. Solomon did (hc[) what was evil ([r') in
the sight of the Lord (hw;hy] yney[EB)} , and did not follow the Lord fully (alm Piel),
as David his father had done. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh
the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and
for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon. Thus also he did for all
his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. (1 Kgs
11:1–8)
incense and sacrificing. 17 The contrasts, however, are also striking. Whereas
3:1–3 maintains that Solomon loved (bha) Yahweh and walked in the statues
of his father David, 11:1–8 makes clear that Solomon’s love (bha) had shifted
to his foreign wives who turned (hfn Hiphil) his heart away after gods. In con-
trast to 3:1–3, which describes Solomon walking (˚lh) in the statutes of his fa-
ther, David, 11:1–8 informs the reader that Solomon’s heart was not wholly
devoted to Yahweh as was the heart of his father David, nor did Solomon fol-
low Yahweh as did David his father. These contrasts reveal a development be-
tween the two brackets and explain a further contrast.
While the first bracket (3:1–3) is preceded by the short note in 1 Kgs 2:46b,
“Thus the kingdom was established in the hands of Solomon,” the second
bracket (11:1–8) is followed by a prophetic speech in which is embedded the
reversal of 2:46b: “I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it
to your servant” (1 Kgs 11:11b). The narrator makes clear through the
summary note in 11:9–10 as well as the divine speech in 11:11–13 the rea-
17. Knoppers (1993: 146) highlights how these “charges levied against Solomon plainly
associate him with Israel and Judah’s worst kings” (Ahab, 1 Kgs 16:31; Ahaziah, 1 Kgs 22:54;
people of the Northern Kingdom, 2 Kgs 17:15; Manasseh, 2 Kgs 21:3; Amon, 2 Kgs 21:21).
Sweeney (2001: 174) notes that the depiction of Solomon identifies him “as the cause of
most of the problems that Josiah must resolve.”
spread 15 pts. long

sons for Yahweh’s displeasure with Solomon, reasons that echo the vocabu-
lary in the brackets in 3:1–3 and 11:1–8. Yet, although Solomon did not
follow the example of his father in heart and deed, it was for the sake of Da-
vid and Jerusalem that Yahweh mitigates the punishment, deferring the
“tearing away” of the kingdom until the next generation (11:12; cf. 11:34–
35) and ameliorating this punishment by leaving one tribe for the dynasty to
rule (11:13; cf. 11:35).
After the second bracket in 11:1–8 and the accompanying divine judgment
(11:9–13), 18 the story of Solomon is dominated by a negative tone. From this
point on, Solomon faces a series of enemies raised by Yahweh: Hadad the
Edomite (11:14–22), Rezon son of Eliada (11:23–25), and Jeroboam son of
Nebat (11:26–40). The prophetic speech to Jeroboam echoes much of the vo-
cabulary and themes found in Yahweh’s speech to Solomon earlier in the
chapter (11:33–35).
The brackets surrounding the account of Solomon express key elements in
the theology of sin in the book of Kings. 19 First, as in Joshua, Judges, and the
first part of Samuel, disobedience is linked to idolatry and noncentralized
worship. Second, obedience and disobedience are matters of the inner affec-
tions (heart) as well as outer deeds. Third, sin is remedied by divine discipline
expressed through enemies. Fourth, the expected punishment is mitigated, so
that the tearing away of the kingdom is deferred and less severe because of the
faithful character of David. Fifth, sin and righteousness are intergenerational
in character. On the one hand, Solomon’s punishment falls on the later gen-
eration of his son, whereas, on the other, it is mitigated due to the righteous-
ness of an earlier generation.
1 Kings 12–2 Kings 25:

The Accounts of the Divided Kingdom
Royal Biography
The narrative in the book of Kings after the reign of Solomon is structured
by a basic literary pattern that frames each reign. 20 At the outset of nearly
18. McCarthy (1974: 97–110) and Knoppers (1993: 148–49) note the function of anger
formula clusters at key transitions in the Deuteronomistic presentation of the history of Is-
rael: Deut 31:16; Josh 23:16; Judg 2:14, 20; 2 Kgs 17:18, 22:17, 23:26). According to Knop-
pers, “1 Kings 11 marks the transition from the united kingdom under Solomon to the
northern and southern kingdoms under Jeroboam and Rehoboam respectively. Hence, the
sequence of Solomon’s sins, divine wrath, and punishment fits the typical pattern well.” See
also Knoppers (1987: 159–72).
19. Knoppers (1993: 137) highlights the “critical role” that 1 Kings 11 plays in the DtrH
as a whole, preparing the way for the division of the kingdom, which is “a decisive turning
point in the history of Israel.”
20. Fretheim (1983: 43–44); Long (1984: 22). Long argues that the pattern extends to Da-
vid’s reign (2 Sam 5:4–5, 1 Kgs 2:10–12a). See Provan (1988) and Wilson (2000: 293–310) for
how variations in these formulas have been used to trace the redaction history of Kings. This
is not the focus of the present treatment.
176 Chapter 11
every reign in the Northern (Israel) and Southern ( Judah) Kingdoms appears
an introductory framework that provides the royal name and accession date,
the length and place of reign, and a theological appraisal of the reign. For the
Southern kings ( Judah), the king’s age at accession and the name of the
queen mother is also included. At the end of nearly every reign appears a con-
cluding framework that provides a list of the sources for regnal information,
notices of death and burial, and the identity of the king’s successor.
The theological appraisal of the reign provides further insight into the the-
ology of sin in the book of Kings. Dominating these appraisals are two
phrases: the negative evaluation “did evil in the sight of the Lord (hc[ + [r'
+ hw;hy] yney[EB)} ,” a phrase linked earlier to the people ( Judg 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1;
10:6; 13:1), Saul (1 Sam 15:19), David (2 Sam 12:9), and Solomon (1 Kgs 11:6),
and the positive evaluation “did right in the sight of the Lord (hc[ + rv…Y;h" +
hw;hy] yney[EB)} ,” a phrase regularly linked to David (1 Kgs 11:33, 38; 14:8; 15:5, 11;
2 Kgs 16:2, 18:3, 22:2).
Northern Kingdom
The positive appraisal (“did right in the sight of the Lord,” hc[ + rv…Y;h" +
hw;hy] yney[EB)} is never used in connection with a Northern king; instead, the nega-
tive appraisal (“did evil in the sight of the Lord,” hc[ + [r' + hw;hy] yney[EB)} is used
in connection with nearly all the kings of the Northern Kingdom (1 Kgs
15:26: Nadab; 15:33: Baasha; 16:19: Zimri; 16:25: Omri; 16:30: Ahab; 22:52:
Ahaziah; 2 Kgs 3:2: Joram; 13:2: Jehoahaz; 13:11: Jehoash; 14:24: Jeroboam II;
15:9: Zechariah; 15:18: Menahem; 15:24: Pekahiah; 15:28: Pekah; 15:34:
Hoshea). Elah and Shallum are spared this appraisal only because they reign
for such a brief period of time. Two from the list have their appraisal muted
by comparison with former generations: Joram, who is described as less
wicked than his father and mother (2 Kgs 3:2), and Hoshea, who was not as
evil as the kings who preceded him (17:2). Although evaluated negatively, the
fact that Jehoahaz’s entreaty (hlj + hw;hy] yneP)} moved Yahweh highlights his
reign as one of the few hopeful moments in the history of the North. The
highest hope, however, is reserved for Jehoahaz’s father, Jehu. He receives the
most positive evaluation, as one who “did well” (bwf Hiphil) in “executing
(hc[) what is right in my eyes (yn'y[EB} rv…Y;h)" ” by carrying out Elisha’s commis-
sion to bring an end to the idolatrous Omride line (2 Kings 9). He is promised
a dynasty for four generations, but even praise for Jehu is muted by the re-
minder that he was not “careful (rmv) to walk (˚lh) in the law of the Lord, the
God of Israel, with all his heart (/bb:l}Alk:B)} .”
It may be surprising that Jeroboam I receives the negative appraisal (“did
evil in the sight of the Lord,” hc[ + [r' + hw;hy] yney[EB)} only indirectly in the eval-
uation of his son Nadab (1 Kgs 15:26). It is his sin, however, that receives the
greatest exposure. 21 According to the book of Kings, Jeroboam set up two
21. Cogan (2001: 97), picking up on Cross (2000: 79–94), argues for the sin of Jeroboam
and promises to David as “pervasive” themes in the book of Kings and shows how they “find

golden calves at shrines within his Northern Kingdom, one in the far north
at Dan and the other in the far south at Bethel. His political motivation is ex-
pressed in 1 Kgs 12:25–33: he wanted to ensure that the 10 Northern tribes
did not make pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship Yahweh and in the process
renew allegiance to the Davidic dynasty. Of the subsequent Northern kings,
13 out of 19 would be connected with this sin of Jeroboam, being evaluated
by the writer of Kings as “walking (˚lh) in/clinging qbd) to/not departing (rws)
from the way (˚rd)/sin (taF:j)" of Jeroboam . . . which he made Israel sin (afj
Hiphil)” (1 Kgs 15:26, 34; 16:2, 7, 26, 31; 22:52; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2, 6,
11, 21; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). Thus, “Jeroboam’s transgression is the
crucial event in the history of the Northern Kingdom, rendering the succes-
sion of monarchs into a cursed procession of apostates” (Long 1984: 28).
The prophecies of the unnamed man of God (1 Kgs 13:1–3) and the
prophet Ahijah (1 Kgs 14:1–20), both of which condemn Jeroboam, his family
line, and his religious innovations (1 Kgs 14:1–20), are presented as fulfilled in
the remainder of the history. The first installment comes with the predicted
death of Jeroboam’s son (1 Kgs 14:17–18; cf. 14:12–13), which foreshadows
Baasha’s assassination of Jeroboam’s entire family (1 Kgs 15:30; cf. 14:10–11,
14), the second with the exile of the Northern Kingdom (2 Kgs 17:21–23; cf.
1 Kgs 14:15–16), and the third with Josiah’s destruction of the altar at Bethel
(2 Kgs 23:15; cf. 1 Kgs 13:3).
Southern Kingdom
Of the 19 kings of the Southern Kingdom ( Judah), 9 are appraised as doing
evil in the sight of Yahweh, 22 1 king is appraised as not doing right in the sight
of Yahweh (2 Kgs 16:2: Ahaz), and 1 of not having a heart wholly devoted
(hyh + μlEv… adjective) to Yahweh (1 Kgs 15:3: Abijah). Only 8 of the Southern
kings are evaluated as doing right in the sight of Yahweh, 23 but this is quali-
fied for 6 of these during whose reigns sacrifices and incense were offered at
the high places. 24 In the end, only Hezekiah and Josiah receive exclusively
positive appraisals.
The evil behavior of many of the kings is linked to former generations. Abi-
jah, for instance, “walked (˚lh) in all the sins of his father (wybIa: twaFø j"Alk:B)}
which he had committed (hc[) before him / the way (˚rd) that his father had
walked (˚lh)” (1 Kgs 15:3), and the generation of Rehoboam is accused of
committing more sins than all that their fathers had done (14:22). Amon is
their culmination in the actions of Josiah.” It is Josiah who will destroy the altar at Bethel
(set up by Jeroboam); cf. 1 Kgs 13:2, 2 Kings 23.
22. 1 Kgs 14:22: Rehoboam; 2 Kgs 18:18: Jehoram; 18:27: Ahaziah; 21:2: Manasseh; 21:20:
Amon; 23:32: Jehoahaz; 23:37: Jehoiakim; 24:9: Jehoiachin; 24:19: Zedekiah.
23. 1 Kgs 15:11: Asa; 22:43: Jehoshaphat; 2 Kgs 12:2: Joash; 14:3: Amaziah; 15:3: Azariah;
15:34: Jotham; 18:3: Hezekiah; and 22:2: Josiah.
24. 1 Kgs 15:14: Asa; 22:43: Jehoshaphat; 2 Kgs 12:3: Joash; 14:4: Amaziah; 15:4: Azariah;
15:35: Jotham; 16:3–4: Ahaz. See Provan (1988), who highlights the importance to the royal
biographical formulas of the failure to remove the high places.
178 Chapter 11
closely linked with the sin of his father Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:21–22). Jehoram,
Ahaziah, and Ahaz all walk (˚lh) in the way of the kings of Israel / house of
Ahab (2 Kgs 8:18, 27; 16:3), and the last four kings of Judah all act according
to all that their predecessors had done (hc[; 2 Kgs 23:32, 37; 24:9, 19). Three
Southern kings are linked to the nations that preceded Israel in the land
through the phrase: “did (hc[) according to all the abominations (hb:[E/T) of
the nations which the Lord dispossessed before Israel” (1 Kgs 14:24; 2 Kgs
16:3; 21:2, 9; nasb, modified). The impact of a king’s sin on later generations
is vividly displayed in Hezekiah’s folly with the Babylonian envoys, which has
negative implications for his future descendants, even while he is spared pun-
ishment in his own generation (20:16–18).
As is evil behavior, so also good behavior is linked to former generations.
Several kings are described as “walking (˚lh) in all the way (˚rd) of his father/
doing according to all that his father had done (hc[)” (1 Kgs 22:43: Jehosha-
phat; 2 Kgs 14:3: Amaziah; 15:3: Azariah; 15:34: Jotham). Others are com-
pared or linked to the dynastic founder David with phrases such as “like (the
heart of) David his father” or “according to all that his father David had
done.” 25 At times, Yahweh acts mercifully or delays or mitigates punishment
for the sake of faithful David (1 Kgs 3:6; 8:25–26; 9:5; 11:12–13, 32, 34, 36;
15:4–5; 2 Kgs 8:19, 19:34, 20:6). 26
The greatest variety of negative language is reserved for Manasseh, who not
only is accused twice of “doing evil in the sight of Yahweh (hc[ + [r' + yney[EB}
hw;hy])” (2 Kgs 21:2, 6) but also receives the longest section of negative descrip-
tion (21:2–9, 16–17) by the narrator, followed by a citation of the negative
evaluation of Yahweh (21:10–15). 27 The focus of this negative evaluation is on
Manasseh’s illicit cult and divination practices. Even the reference in 21:16 to
the shedding of “innocent blood” most likely has in view the inappropriate
25. 1 Kgs 3:3, 14; 9:4; 11:33: Solomon; 11:38: Jeroboam; 15:11: Asa; 2 Kgs 18:3: Hezekiah;
22:2: Josiah. Negatively contrasted: 1 Kgs 11:4, 6: Solomon; 14:8: Jeroboam; 15:3: Abijah;
2 Kgs 14:3: Amaziah; 16:2: Ahaz. As Long (1984: 29) notes: “David was the ultimate standard
of righteousness for all of them (cf. 1 Kgs 15:9ff.; 2 Kgs 18:1–3, 22:2),” even Jeroboam (1 Kgs
11:38, 14:8).
26. Wilson (2000: 306) notes the importance of this theme to the Southern kings, espe-
cially as it contrasts with the parallel accounts of the Northern kings. Notice 1 Kgs 11:13,
where it is for the sake of Yahweh’s chosen Jerusalem as well. See Long (1984: 28–29), who
speaks of the “intrinsic merit of David . . . the faithfulness of the dynastic founder was more
important in principle than the disobedience of the successors.”
27. Sweeney (2001: 172) highlights the way the narrator creates a parallel between Ma-
nasseh and Ahab, interesting because, beginning with Ahaziah, the Southern kings are all
descendants of the houses of David and Omri (Ahab’s father). Long (1984: 28) makes the fas-
cinating point that “Jeroboam’s guilt, through Ahab, is transferred to the south, through Ma-
nasseh. Thus, Jeroboam’s defection from Jerusalem-centered Yahwism carries within itself the
seeds of destruction for both the northern and southern dynasties.” See also Schniedewind
(1993: 649–61), who notes the close affinities between the condemnations of the Northern
Kingdom in 2 Kings 17 and Manasseh in 2 Kings 21, as well as the way in which the sins of
Ahab were key to the falls of both North and South.
cult activity of passing his son through the fire (21:6). 28 2 Kings 21 is a key
turning point in the history of Judah in the book of Kings, because it is the
sin of Manasseh that mostly explains the Exile of the Kingdom of Judah. 29
2 Kgs 21:12–14 first makes this link between the sin of Manasseh and the Ex-
ile, but this link is affirmed again in later passages. 2 Kgs 23:26–27 is surprising
to most readers because it follows the great covenant renewal of Josiah. 30
However, the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath with
which his anger burned against Judah, because of all the provocations with
which Manasseh had provoked him. The Lord said, “I will remove Judah
also from my sight, as I have removed Israel. And I will cast off Jerusalem,
this city which I have chosen, and the temple of which I said, ‘My name
shall be there.’”
Similarly, Jehoiakim’s defeat at the hands of raiders is linked not only to his
own sin but also to that of Manasseh (2 Kgs 24:2–4).
The Lord sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands
of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So he sent them against Judah to de-
stroy it, according to the word of the Lord which he had spoken through
his servants the prophets. Surely at the command of the Lord it came upon
Judah, to remove them from his sight because of the sins of Manasseh, ac-
cording to all that he had done, and also for the innocent blood which he
shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; and the Lord would not
forgive.
The sin of Manasseh so stained the city that nothing short of exile would deal
with this sin. So horrible was his sin that, according to 2 Kgs 24:4, Yahweh
was not willing (hba) to forgive (jls).
The Prophetic Word and Action

The royal frames that structure many of the accounts within the book of
Kings confirm the obvious fact that this book is dominated by the kings of Ju-
dah and Israel. This is clear from the beginning of the book with the account
focused on the character of Solomon. However, by 1 Kings 17, royal charac-
ters recede into the background, and prophetic figures, first Elijah and then
Elisha, dominate the narrative until 2 Kings 10. These shifts between royal
and prophetic figures highlight the fact that this book is appropriately placed
in the Greek tradition among the books of Kingdoms as well as in the Hebrew
tradition among the books of the Former Prophets. Not only in the Elijah-
Elisha narratives but also throughout the book of Kings, Yahweh consistently
28. G. Jones (1984: 534); Hobbs (1985: 213).

29. There are other explanations for the Exile, and these are identified already with the
persistent sin of the people in 2 Kgs 17:13–20 and the folly of Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 20:12–19.
However, the sin of Manasseh dominates; cf. Wilson (2000: 306).
30. Wilson (2000: 309) notes the theme “repentance may postpone judgment but cannot
eliminate it” as a unifying motif in the book of Kings.
180 Chapter 11
breaks into the royal accounts, sometimes directly and other times through
prophetic figures. 31
At the heart of the Elijah-Elisha narrative complex lies the encounter be-
tween Elijah and the Baal prophets, and in this one can discern the key role
that prophets play in dealing with sin in the book of Kings. In the third year
of Yahweh’s drought against the Northern Kingdom, Elijah is instructed to
show himself to King Ahab. Ahab calls the prophet the “troubler of Israel”
(1 Kgs 18:17), to which Elijah responds that it is Ahab who has troubled Israel
by forsaking (bz[) Yahweh’s commandments (hwxm) and following (˚lh) the
Baal religion. In his address to the people, the prophet identifies their present
dilemma as a decision between two options: whether to follow (˚lh + rj"a)"
Yahweh or to follow Baal (18:21). These two encounters reveal that, at times,
the prophet verbally accuses people and calls them to choose between two
options.
There is, however, another dimension to this prophetic role, one that in-
volves miraculous deeds. Elijah’s prayer to Yahweh during his battle with the
Baal prophets in 1 Kgs 18:37 suggests that divine miracles not only prove to
the people that Yahweh is God but also are a way that Yahweh turns (bbs
Hiphil) their hearts (bbl) back again (tyNir'jøa)“ . When the fire of Yahweh con-
sumes the offering and evaporates even the water in the surrounding trenches,
the people “fall on their faces” and declare that “Yahweh is God” (18:38–39).
The greater emphasis within the book of Kings, however, is placed on the
prophetic word. This is expressed most poignantly in the key review of the
reasons behind the Exile of the kingdoms in 2 Kgs 17:7–23. 32 The Exile is
linked first of all to the consistent disobedience of the people against God, de-
scribed as sinning (afj) against Yahweh by fearing (ary) other gods, walking
(˚lh) in the illicit worship customs practiced by the Canaanites who preceded
them and introduced by the kings who led them (17:7–8). As we have already
seen in the royal frames, these customs include worship at illicit locations
(high places, every high hill, every green tree) with illicit objects (pillars, Ash-
erim) through illicit practices (burning incense).
31. So also Long (1984: 29): “The Dtr author involves the various monarchs continually
with prophets.” Prophecy is used to “push and motivate the actors in the drama, announce
the turns, and shape the tale. . . . Prophecy is a history-creating force. . . . Indeed, prophets
are ciphers at dramatic turning points, harbingers of crisis; they ‘warn’ Israel and issue a sum-
mons to ‘turn back’ to Yahweh (2 Kgs 17:13; 1 Kgs 11:11–13, 38–39; 18:21).” Cf. Fretheim
(1999: 3–6).
32. See Becking (2000: 215–32) for the debate over the development of 2 Kgs 17:7–20 and
his view on its unity. This review expresses the “belief system” of Kings that the sin of the na-
tions was what caused Yahweh to turn from initial blessing to prophetic warning and ulti-
mately to punishment for them both. Contrast Brettler (1989b: 268–82), who argues for a
complex redactional development that reflects multiple answers to the question of the rea-
son for the Exile of the Northern Kingdom.
Practices such as these are not judged immediately by God. According to

2 Kgs 17:13, Yahweh’s first action to deal with this sin is to warn (dw[ Hiphil)
Israel and Judah through prophets and seers. Their message is to repent, in-
volving both the negative turning (bwv) from evil ways and the positive keep-
ing (rmv) of Yahweh’s commandments (hw;x}m)I and statutes (hQ:j)U . The prophets
are not innovative in terms of content, pointing merely to the law that Yah-
weh had already commanded to former generations.
These appeals from Yahweh are clearly ignored as the people refuse to lis-
ten ([mv), stiffening (hvq) their necks (μP:r][): , not believing (ˆma Hiphil) Yah-
weh, rejecting (sam) his statutes (qjø) and covenant (tyriB)} , becoming vain (lbh
Qal), and forsaking (bz[) all Yahweh’s commandments (hw;x}m)I through inap-
propriate cultic practices. They are described as selling themselves (rkm Hith-
pael) to do (hc[) evil in the sight of Yahweh (hw;hy] yney[EB} [r'h;: 17:14–17).
This kind of behavior provokes (s[k Hiphil) Yahweh, arousing his anger so
that he removes the Northern Kingdom from his presence (17:18), sending
them into exile to Assyria (17:20–23). This is described in terms reminiscent
of the book of Judges: Yahweh afflicts (hm[ Piel) them by giving (ˆtn) them into
the hand of (dy'B)} of plunderers. The passing reference to the similarity be-
tween Judah and the Northern Kingdom, Israel, in 17:19 foreshadows the ul-
timate fate of the Southern Kingdom at the end of the book. 33
According to 2 Kings 17, Yahweh remedies sin first by warning his people
to repent and second by punishing them for their rebellion. Little insight
into the way for Israel and Judah to be restored to the land is provided in this
passage.
Summary: Kings
The sins that dominate the book of Kings are related to purity of worship,
concerning inappropriate practices or locations. 34 The Northern Kingdom’s
alternative shrines at Bethel and Dan are blatant offenses against the deuter-
onomic legislation that Jerusalem was to be Yahweh’s central and exclusive
place of worship (Deut 12). The Southern kings also flaunt this regulation
when they allow worship to continue at high places. Great concern is ex-
pressed over the worship of other gods (2 Kgs 17:7–18). 35
Both sin and obedience are regularly depicted as having intergenerational
implications. Patterns of evil and good established by earlier generations are
replicated by later generations. Earlier generations can establish a legacy that
33. See Becking (2000: 215–32), who shows how the vocabulary used throughout this pas-
sage is elsewhere in Kings directed to both Israel and Judah, suggesting that the unit has both
kingdoms in view and always had so.
34. Pakkala (2002: 86–94) argues that the focus in Kings is on the challenge Jeroboam’s
shrines represented to Jerusalem and its temple; cf. Zevit (1985: 57–73).
35. Fretheim (1999: 10–11) notes that all specific sins listed in 2 Kgs 17:7–18 have to do
with the service of other gods (cf. 1 Kgs 11:4–11, 2 Kgs 23:4–25).
182 Chapter 11
will have implications for later generations, whether this is faithfulness that
establishes a foundation for God’s enduring commitment to the nation (e.g.,
David: 1 Kgs 3:6; the patriarchs: 2 Kgs 13:23) or infidelity that affects or
stains a family or dynasty with a guilt that endures (e.g., Jeroboam: passim;
Baasha: 1 Kgs 17:12–13; Hezekiah: 2 Kgs 20:16–18; Manasseh: see above, pp.
178–179). 36
This theology of the intergenerationality of sin and obedience does create
some tension with the principle expressed in 2 Kgs 14:5–6 (cf. Jer 31:30, Ezek
18:2). 37 In this context, once the Davidic king Amaziah had taken firm con-
trol of the Kingdom of Judah, he killed the royal servants who had assassi-
nated his father but did not touch their sons. This is linked by the narrator to
the principle articulated in the book of the Law of Moses (Deut 24:16):
The fathers shall not be put to death for the sons, nor the sons be put to
death for the fathers; but each shall be put to death for his own sin. (2 Kgs
14:6)
It is important to observe, however, that the examples of punishment related
to intergenerationality in the book of Kings never depict punishment of an
innocent later generation. In each case, the generation that experiences the
punishment is deserving in its own right. 38
Yahweh remedies sin through a variety of means in the book of Kings.
First, he sends his prophets to warn the people, pointing the king and/or com-
munity back to the stipulations of the law. Second, he brings discipline on the
king and/or community through military attacks from enemies, natural disas-
ters that threaten the livelihood of the community, and even the rejection or
extinction of a royal line. 39 The ultimate form of discipline is identified in
2 Kings 17 and 25 as the Exile of the community from the land.
Discipline of this sort does function as a form of punishment for sin but of-
ten is designed to prompt a response from the people. According to 1 Kings
8, this response can be prompted by divine discipline and is expressed through
36. On this, see Wilson (2000: 309), who sees this as a unifying theme in Kings.
37. It is interesting that the strongest statement on the intergenerationality of sin and
culpability is found in Lev 26:39–40 and then in the penitential prayer tradition (Ezra 9; Ne-
hemiah 1, 9; Daniel 9; Psalm 106; cf. Lamentations 5), which has been influenced by Leviti-
cus 26 (see Boda 1999, 2006a). This may suggest strong Priestly influence on the shape of the
“Deuteronomistic” History.
38. As per Weinfeld (1972: 319), who writes, “The conception that God requites the sins
of the fathers on the children only if the latter propagate the evil ways of their fathers is, in
effect, the underlying view of the concept of retribution in the deuteronomic history.” Thus,
the monarchs in Kings who experience the retribution “do not perish as a consequence of
their fathers’ sins but because they have adopted and propagated the evil ways of their
fathers.”
39. Fretheim (1999: 11) speaks of the people’s apostasy carrying with itself the very seeds
of disaster but then admits that “God mediates the move from sin to disastrous effect.”
It would be better to describe this simply as God’s direct intervention rather than as act-
consequence.

penitential prayer at or toward the temple in Jerusalem. 40 At one point in Solo-

mon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8, a vision for transformation beyond forgiveness is ar-
ticulated in the request for God to teach the people the good way (8:36). This
is developed further in Solomon’s blessing of the people in 1 Kgs 8:58, which
suggests that any penitential response or resulting obedience is possible only
through a divine work. Human response can also be prompted by the prophetic
word, which may point to recent discipline or even threaten future discipline.
At times the Torah can take the place of the prophetic word or work in tandem
with prophecy to prompt repentance.
Certainly, the most powerful example of this kind of repentance is repre-
sented by Josiah, who responds to the reading of the book of the law by tear-
ing his clothes and weeping before Yahweh (2 Kgs 22:19). According to the
prophetic message of Huldah, underlying these rituals is a tender (˚kr) heart
and humility ([nk Niphal) before Yahweh. A response of this sort involves
leading the people in a covenant renewal, which results in the removal of il-
licit cult practices in the Kingdom of Judah and the former Kingdom of Israel
and the celebration of Passover in Jerusalem. Josiah’s responses to the written
(law) and oral (prophetic) word of Yahweh are described in 23:25 as turning
(bwv) to the Lord with all his heart, soul, and might (Alk:b}W /vp}n'Alk:b}W /bb:l}Alk:B}
/daøm)} . Repentance here is presented as a complex that involves the internal af-
fections, as well as ritual actions and practical response.
Prayer and repentance, however, are not the only ways to avert or bring an
end to punishment. This is illustrated poignantly in the story of Ahab, whose
wickedness alongside his wife Jezebel dominates the core of the book of Kings
(see 1 Kgs 21:25). And yet when Elijah declares God’s judgment on Ahab and
Jezebel and Ahab responds with rites of humility (tearing clothes, wearing sack-
cloth, fasting, going about despondently), Yahweh sees his humility ([nk
Niphal) and spares Ahab’s generation, delaying the punishment to his son’s
generation (1 Kgs 21:27–29). 41 The text emphasizes Ahab’s acts of humility
but says nothing about a change in behavior (see 1 Kings 22). In the depiction
of the reign of the Northern king Jehoahaz, Yahweh responds to this king,
who “entreats the favor of Yahweh” (hlj + hw;hy] yneP)} . This divine response is
based on Yahweh seeing the oppression the people were experiencing and re-
membering “his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (2 Kgs 13:3–5, 22–
23). The text makes explicit that the people did not repent (rws; 13:6). Simi-
larly, in the account of Jeroboam II in 2 Kgs 14:26–27, an account reminiscent
of the cycle in the book of Judges, the narrator reveals that Yahweh raised up
Jeroboam II because he was moved by the suffering of the people and their
leaderless situation and acted because of his past promise not to blot out the
40. See Wolff (1961: 171–86); Wilson (2000: 306).

41. As I have already mentioned, Sweeney (2001: 172–73) notes that, beginning with
Ahaziah, all Southern kings are descendants of both the houses of Omri (Ahab) and David.
Although Ahab is closely linked with Manasseh in his sin, he is also linked to Josiah in his
repentance, which delays punishment until after his death.
184 Chapter 11
name of Israel from under heaven. The account says nothing about any re-
pentance or prayer on the part of the people.
Summary:
Former Prophets
There is a reason that the Former Prophets has often been called the Deu-
teronomistic History. Obedience in the Former Prophets echoes the vocabu-
lary and theology of the book of Deuteronomy, with regular encouragements
to obedience in heart and deed. The characters of these books are called to
obey Yahweh and his oral word (given directly and through prophets), as well
as to obey Yahweh’s written code in the Torah. 42 Saul’s rejection reveals the
priority placed on obedience rather than the manipulation of the sacrificial
cult to appease God.
Such consistent calls to obedience throughout these books, however, sug-
gest that obedience was and would be a struggle for the nation. What is sug-
gested by their regular appearance is confirmed by the explicit pessimism that
is expressed early on in the Former Prophets, especially in the closing speeches
of the book of Joshua, the disappointing results of the conquest in Judges 1,
the relentless cycle of disobedience in Judges, and the depths to which Israel
has sunken as the book of Samuel begins. The Former Prophets are not sani-
tized to promote the glory of Israel. They instead reveal its tendency to fall
into sin.
The sins that are depicted most frequently and that affect the plot of the
story of Israel most dramatically are the sins that violate the demand for exclu-
sive worship of Yahweh alone at the central shrine. They who worship foreign
gods or idols and worship at centers other than the one designated by Yah-
weh are judged. Violations of this sort explain the extermination of the Ca-
naanites and drive the concluding speeches in the book of Joshua. The
central core of the book of Judges focuses on the worship of idols, whereas
the outer brackets focus on worship at dispersed shrines. Samuel’s initial con-
cern with the people relates to idolatry, and Solomon’s fall in 1 Kings is attrib-
uted to the worship of foreign gods at the high places. The history of the
divided kingdom is filled with examples of both. The sin of Jeroboam, which
results in the Exile of the North, involves alternative shrines for golden
calves, whereas the sin of Manasseh, which results in the Exile of the South,
involves the shedding of innocent blood in illicit cultic rites. At times, how-
ever, other sins are depicted. Interestingly, violation of these core worship
laws is absent from the Davidic narrative in 2 Samuel, which is filled with
42. Fretheim’s (2006) claim that the focus in the DtrH on obeying the first and second
commandments is “not a matter of obedience, but of faith” does not match the clear lan-
guage of obedience used throughout Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets. Of course, faith
is key to faithfulness, and obedience is consistently set in a covenantal framework in these
books, but obedience in terms of practical behavior is still in view.
other moral failures, including adultery, murder, and rape. 43 1 Samuel speaks
of violations of ritual practice by Eli and his sons, and Kings does contain ex-
amples of murder, exemplified best in the bloody reigns of the Northern Je-
zebel and her Southern counterpart, Athaliah.
Three key principles appear to underlie the understanding of sin and its
remedy throughout the Former Prophets. The first is covenant. The depictions
of covenant ceremonies in the book of Joshua (esp. Joshua 8, 23, 24) reveal
that the covenantal framework of the Torah in general and Deuteronomy in
particular are key to its conception of sin. Foundational to this is the under-
standing of sin in relational terms, which explains why exclusive worship of
Yahweh dominates the agenda of the Former Prophets. Key to this covenant
principle is the establishment of a relationship between Israel and Yahweh
through past miracles of grace on their behalf. Obedience is thus a response
to and sin a rejection of the gracious initiative of a redemptive God. Obedi-
ence is guided by the Torah revealed on Sinai. Covenant is relevant not only
for premonarchic Israel but also for Israel as a monarchic state. Whereas the
covenant with the Davidic line underlies the relationship with the royal
house in Judah, establishing accountability, the Sinai covenant, with its stipu-
lations, blessings, and curses has continued relevance for Israel and Judah as
nations. This is demonstrated, for instance, in the echo of the curses that one
can discern in the scenarios of prayer in 1 Kings 8 and in the covenant re-
newal of Josiah in 2 Kings 22–23.
The second principle is retribution, that is, the principle that Yahweh is a
God of justice who will repay people according to their deeds. This principle
is clearly articulated in passages such as 1 Sam 26:23, 2 Sam 3:39, and 1 Kgs
2:33. At times, this is closely related to the covenant principle through cove-
nant curses, but not exclusively. David is especially concerned with avoiding
committing a crime, lest the crime return on him, whether this means killing
Saul (1 Samuel 24, 26) or Nabal (1 Samuel 25) or his rivals (2 Samuel 1, 3, 4;
cf. 1 Kings 2). This retribution principle does mean that the one who sins is
the one who will be punished (2 Kgs 14:5–6). Throughout the Former Proph-
ets, calamity befalls those who sin.
While one can see a relationship between the first two principles above,
one finds some tension between the second principle and another in the
Former Prophets, that is, the intra- and intergenerational dimension of sin. In
these books, the sin of a person or group cannot always be treated as an “in-
dependent” or “isolated” case. At times, the sin of one affects an entire family
or nation in the same generation. Thus, Achan sins, but the nation is de-
feated and many others die ( Joshua 7, 22). The transjordanian tribes build an
altar, and Benjamin harbors a rebellious clan (Gibeah), and the rest of Israel
43. In the cases of 2 Samuel 6 and 24, when David does offend ritual law (undue care in
moving the ark and lack of atonement payment for the census), the narrative ends positively
in spite and even because of his folly, resulting in centralization of worship at Jerusalem.
186 Chapter 11
is concerned because of the implications of these sins for the entire nation
( Joshua 22, Judges 19–21). Sin has implications not only for present but also
for future generations. The judgments on Eli and Saul have implications for
their families in perpetuity (1 Samuel 1–3). David’s sins threaten the life of his
family as well as the nation (2 Samuel 11–20). Saul’s mistreatment of the
Gibeonites stains Israel even during David’s reign (2 Samuel 21). Solomon’s
sin brings disaster on his son’s reign (1 Kings 11–12). Similar patterns can be
seen throughout the divided kingdom, for example, in Baasha (1 Kgs 16:12–
13), Ahab (1 Kgs 21:27–29), Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:16–18), and especially in Jero-
boam (1 Kings 14–15; 2 Kgs 17:21–23) and Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:12–14, 23:26–
27, 24:2–4). At times, the goodness of an earlier generation has implications
for a future generation, seen in the consistent allusions to David (see 1 Kgs
3:6) and even the patriarchs (2 Kgs 13:23). As I have already noted, this does
at times create tension with statements such as 2 Kgs 14:5–6, which echoes
the Deuteronomic principle articulated in Deut 24:16 (cf. Jer 31:30, Ezek
18:2) that sons and fathers should not be culpable for each other’s sins. The
resolution of these tensions, however, is to be found in the conception of the
cumulative character of sin. This means that a generation that receives pun-
ishment does so because it is truly guilty, but the severity of the punishment
may be heightened due to the accumulation of guilt from past generations.
How then is the problem of sin remedied in the Former Prophets? The first
solution to the sin of the people of Israel is seen from the very first pericope:
the provision of faithful leadership. 44 Joshua is presented as the normative
leader, one who experiences the presence of God and successfully possesses
the land through close attention to Torah ( Joshua 1). Joshua plays a powerful
role within the nation, keeping them faithful to Yahweh and challenging
them to faithfulness at the close of the book ( Joshua 22–24). With Joshua’s
passing, however, the book of Judges plunges into chaos ( Judges 2). Yahweh’s
answer is constantly to raise up deliverers who possess the spirit of God, and
these are able (at least at the outset) to restrain sin in Israel. However, the book
of Judges shows the inadequacy of this approach and looks to the Davidic
dynasty as the answer. On the way to this answer, however, Eli and Saul are
presented as examples of inadequate leadership, while Samuel faithfully
transitions the nation and establishes an enduring role for prophecy within
the emerging royal state. On two occasions, Samuel fulfils the role of medi-
ation between the people and God, interceding and sacrificing on their be-
half (1 Samuel 7, 12). David then emerges and fulfils the hope of the book
of Judges. He fails, not in violating the worship rules but rather in moral con-
duct. In his failure, however, he echoes the mediatorial role seen in Samuel,
interceding for his own sin to save his people (2 Samuel 24). With Solomon,
there is once again hope for faithful leadership, especially in the charges to
44. See Knoppers (1993: 149), who notes the consistent occasions of divine intervention
in providing a new leader (Deut 1:37–38; Judg 2:16, 18; 1 Kgs 11:9–10).
him (1 Kgs 2:1–9, 6:11–13) and his provision of a temple to foster repentance,
but this hope is dashed by Solomon’s violations of the worship stipulations.
The nation spirals downward through the many subsequent reigns of kings in
the Southern and especially Northern Kingdoms. The power of faithful lead-
ership is exemplified by the prophetic figures Elijah and Elisha in the North
and the royal figures Hezekiah and Josiah in the South, but in the end un-
faithful leadership and insensitivity to the prophetic voice leads to the loss of
the land that Joshua had possessed at the outset of the Former Prophets. The
final paragraph of 2 Kings 25, however, fosters hope that the Davidic promise
is still alive and that the faithful leadership envisioned in 2 Samuel 7 may
once again arise (Brueggemann 1968: 397–401).
The second remedy for sin is the provision of God’s word throughout the
Former Prophets. 45 Again, the first pericope of the Former Prophets sets the
tone for this solution. This word is communicated through the Torah revealed
to Moses and now written in a book ( Joshua 1). This word is to be ever present
with Joshua, filling his mind and mouth. It is this book that sparks the renewal
in the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 22–23), allowing Judah to remain in the land.
According to 2 Kings 17, it is rejection of the commandments given to the an-
cestors that resulted in the Exile. God’s word, however, is not restricted to the
written Torah but also comes directly through the voice of God. This again is
seen from the beginning of the Former Prophets as God commissions the new
leader in Joshua 1 and confronts him in Joshua 7. Likewise, Solomon will ex-
perience direct revelation in 1 Kings 6 and 9. Though these avenues for the
word of God can be discerned throughout the Former Prophets, the dominant
vehicle of God’s word is the prophets, who are raised up to interpret past and
announce future judgment, encourage obedience and repentance through
word (prophecy) and deed (miracle), and promise salvation. 2 Kings 17 is clear
that the Exile was the result of the people’s rejection of the prophetic message.
The third remedy for sin is the judgment and discipline of God. In the book
of Joshua, the Canaanites are eliminated because of their sinful idolatry, and
Achan joins their fate by taking from their spoil. The Canaanites become an
example of the potential judgment that will befall Israel if they fail to obey
the covenant. The cycles in Judges reveal God’s constant discipline of Israel
for their sin, often allowing their enemies to subjugate them. In Samuel,
God’s judgment falls on Eli and Saul, leading ultimately to their deaths, and
even David experiences the painful discipline of God for his sin (2 Samuel 11–
20). In the story of monarchical Israel, unfaithful Israel and its kings are dis-
ciplined through military defeat as well as natural disasters. The ultimate exile
of Israel and Judah is explained as the severe judgment that fell on two guilty
kingdoms because of the accumulated sins of former generations (sin of Jero-
boam, sin of Manasseh). This consistent emphasis on the judgment of God
45. See especially von Rad (1966) and note his oft-quoted statement about the DtrH:
“Yahweh’s word is active in the history of Judah, creating that history” (von Rad 1953: 89).
188 Chapter 11
has suggested to some that the Former Prophets was assembled for the pur-
pose of theodicy, justifying God’s severe judgment of exile. 46 However, these
divine acts of judgment serve a purpose beyond punishment for disobedi-
ence. According to Judges 10, 1 Sam 7:2–17, 12:8–11, and 1 Kings 8, these acts
function as divine discipline to prompt the penitence of the people. 47
At times, this judgment is mitigated by God’s grace, the fourth remedy for
sin. In some cases, Yahweh intervenes on behalf of the guilty. This interven-
tion may come in response to their miserable state, to their desperate cries to
him, to their admission of sin, and/or to their behavioral change. It is to this
grace that David appeals in 2 Sam 12:22 when he says “Who knows? The Lord
may be gracious to me, that the child may live” and in 2 Sam 24:14 when he
places his fate in the hands of Yahweh, whose “mercy is great.” It is Yahweh’s
promise to David that provides hope at various points throughout the account
(1 Kgs 3:6; 8:25–26; 9:5; 11:12–13, 32, 34, 36; 15:4–5; 2 Kgs 8:19, 19:34,
20:6). 48 Also, calls for repentance and cries of repentance are consistently
based on the grace of God so that, in a sense, “the articulation of this uncon-
ditional promise enables Israel’s response, human repentance is possible only
because the divine promise is fully in view” (Fretheim 2006, emphasis his).
Furthermore, it is the “graciousness of Yahweh which stands as the foundation
of Dtr theology” and “it is this graciousness that supports the call for repen-
tance” (Brueggemann 1968: 388, emphasis his). In some cases, the offender is
granted grace by Yahweh, and yet some form of discipline falls on the king or
nation, supposedly less than what was deserved (1 Samuel 12, 24; 1 Kings 11).
This sort of mitigation of punishment is also evident in some of the cycles in
Judges in which God cuts short his discipline because of the desperation of his
people ( Judg 2:18).
These different divine remedies reveal that those responsible for the
Former Prophets were concerned to guide its readers to a penitential response
to Yahweh. 49 The patterns for renewal found throughout the Former Prophets
show how the various divine strategies functioned together to encourage hu-
man covenantal response. 50 Though the discipline of God may lead the guilty
46. Noth (1981) stressed this role as theodicy, highlighting the pessimistic aspects of his
DtrH. Few have taken this view exclusively, but most see its validity. See Knoppers (1993:
149), who argues that anger formulas are clustered at key transitions throughout the DtrH
(Deut 31:16; Josh 23:16; Judg 2:14, 20; 2 Kgs 17:18, 22:17, 23:26) and are tied to the procla-
mation of divine judgment until human repentance or divine intervention brings salvation.
47. See especially von Rad (1962: 339, 346) and Wolff (1961) = Wolff (2000).
48. Von Rad (1953: 89) emphasized the role of the Davidic promise as the “gospel” in the
DtrH, which balanced the “law” (prophetic warning and judgment); however, see Wolff
(2000), who called into question the enduring validity of the Davidic covenant due to its
conditionality in DtrH.
49. Some have even considered the Former Prophets a confession of sin; cf. von Rad
(1962: 337); Klein (1979: 23); Rose (2000); with thanks to Fretheim (2006).
50. Wolff (2000: 76) notes how this return is “non-cultic” in character and more focused
on prayer. However, at times sacrifice is incorporated, as 1 Samuel 7, 2 Samuel 24, 1 Kings 8,
and 2 Kings 22–23 reveal.

to repentance and so to find the grace of God ( Judg 10:10–16; 1 Kings 8), of-
ten the prophetic word intervenes either to announce approaching discipline
or to interpret recent discipline and so prompt repentance. The grace of God
may come to an Israel that responds to divine discipline (Philistine hege-
mony) and prophetic exhortation with repentance in word and deed (1 Sam-
uel 7) or to a Josiah who responds to the word of God, written (Torah) and
oral (prophet), with penitence in heart and behavior (2 Kings 22–23).
This principle, however, is not mechanistic but is always dependent on the
mysterious and sovereign grace of Yahweh (see especially Fretheim 2006).
Saul, who admits his sin in the wake of prophetic confrontation in 1 Samuel
15, is rejected by Yahweh, whereas David’s admission is accepted. At times,
Yahweh may even extend grace without repentance in deed, as is evident in
some of the cycles in Judges, in Ahab’s contrition in 1 Kgs 21:27–29, in Jehoa-
haz’s seeking of God in 2 Kgs 13:3–5, 22–23, and in the provision of Jeroboam
II in 2 Kgs 14:26–27. These expressions of divine grace serve as an important
reminder that the Former Prophets treat the divine response to sin not as an
impersonal retribution principle but rather as a gracious covenantal response
to the failure of Israel.
Nevertheless, there is no question that the human posture of penitence is
consistently identified as a normative response to Yahweh’s disciplinary cove-
nant word and action. 51 Drawing from the theological pool of Deuteronomy,
the Former Prophets encourages a repentance that involves word (admission
of sin), deed (change in behavior), and heart (inner affections) and at one
point (1 Kgs 8:58) reveals the role that Yahweh must play in making repen-
tance of this sort possible. 52 The Former Prophets certainly bases hope on
God’s gracious acts in the past, often in spite of the people’s disobedience, but
at the same time encourages a repentance that will see a new day dawn for an
Israel languishing in exile for their sins.
51. Fretheim (2006) cautions, with Klein (1978: 43), that the extent of the role repentance
played in Israel’s history in 2 Kgs 17:13, which cites the prophets’ message “Turn from your
evil ways,” should not be exaggerated. However, in this passage, the narrator seeks to shape
our reading of the entire corpus. In a similar way, when 1 Sam 12:10 reviews the book of
Judges, it is interesting that it highlights the admission of sin and commitment to repen-
tance as the normative pattern for the cycles. Similarly, when Solomon lays out the agenda
for the temple in 1 Kings 8, it is again repentance that is accentuated. The rhetorical power
of these key passages suggests that “exaggerating” repentance is a characteristic of the
writer(s) of the Former Prophets themselves.
52. See especially Wolff (2000: 76), who notes that unqualified turning to Yahweh in-
cluded confession of guilt, plea for deliverance, and willingness to renew obedience. Wolff’s
views have been championed of late by Rose (2000). McConville (2000) highlights contrasts
between the agendas of Deuteronomy 30 and 1 Kings 8, the former emphasizing a divine in-
ner work that will ensure repentance and the latter making no mention of this work. Fret-
heim (2006), however, has argued that 1 Kgs 8:58 shows that Yahweh’s intervention to make
this possible was also in view.
Chapter 12
Isaiah
The book of Isaiah is one of the literary masterpieces of the Old Testa-
ment. 1 The book begins with a message addressed to a Judah led by Davidic
kings (particularly Ahaz and Hezekiah) in the shadow of the Assyrian Empire
(Isaiah 1–39), shifts to a Judah suffering as exiles at the heart of the Babylo-
nian Empire (Isaiah 40–55), and ends with addresses to a Judean colony at the
fringes of the Persian Empire (Isaiah 56–66). Evidence of address to all three
of these audiences can be discerned in the final form of the book, which is the
focus of the present study. 2
The book begins with an introduction that identifies Zion’s interaction
with the Holy One of Israel as its main theme (Isaiah 1–5). 3 This is followed
by the first commission of the prophet in Isaiah 6, which introduces a series
of prophecies that compare and contrast two Davidic kings (Ahaz and Heze-
kiah) and reveal the folly of trusting the nations (Isaiah 7–39). Isaiah 39 func-
tions as an important segue to a new prophetic commission in Isa 40:1–11
that shifts the tone from judgment to comfort. This introduces a new section
of prophecies subdivided into two parts, each introduced by a lament of the
exiles (40:27, 49:14) that offers comfort to the community (see Boda forth-
coming g). The book ends with a final vision of hope, which is linked to the
ministry of the servant and yet is presently frustrated by the need for peni-
tence among the community (Isaiah 56–66). The book functions as a key ori-
entation to the prophetic vision of sin and its remedy.
1. For more detail on Isaiah, see Boda (forthcoming f).

2. In this, I am talking about the audience rather than the author(s) or editor(s) of Isaiah.
For detailed presentation of the history of scholarship on this, see Sweeney (1988: 4–54); Wil-
liamson (1994). The present treatment investigates the book as a canonical unit addressed to
the implied audience(s) throughout the book. Other recent study in this direction includes
Childs (1979: 325–34); Clements (1982: 117–29); Brueggemann (1984b: 89–107); Evans
(1988: 129–47); Seitz (1988: 105–26); Davies (1989: 93–120); Webb (1990: 65–84); and Oswalt
(2006: 41–51); although, see cautions in Carr (1993: 164–83; 1996: 188–218); Sawyer (1996);
Coggins (1998: 77–92).
3. For Zion as the key leitmotif of Isaiah, see Seitz (1988: 122), who claims that the book
could be called “The Drama of God and Zion.” Seitz (1991: 146) shows how Zion theology is
“responsible for the extension of Isaiah’s oracles beyond their original eighth-century set-
ting.” Cf. Roberts (1982: 136); Dumbrell (1985: 111–28); Davies (1989: 105); Williamson
(1994: 241–42); Clements (1997: 3–17); Hoppe (2000); Oswalt (2006: 42, 51).
- 190 -
Isaiah 191
Isaiah 1–5
The opening chapters of Isaiah (1–5) orient the reader to the book as a
whole, preparing for the presentation of the prophetic material. At the begin-
ning and end of this section, the reader is introduced to Isaiah’s dominant de-
scription of God as the “Holy One of Israel” (1:4; 5:19, 24), a description that
flows out of his initial calling in Isaiah 6 and that will become the hallmark
of his message (30:10–11) and that of the book as a whole. This opening sec-
tion also introduces the reader to Isaiah’s fixation with “Zion,” the poetic
name for Jerusalem, the city of God. Chapters 1–5 vacillate back and forth be-
tween two visions of Zion. The majority of the sections depict Zion the Bad,
a city under the control of sinful humanity lying under the impending judg-
ment of God. However, at points in Isaiah 1–5 the reader is offered glimpses
of a radically different city. Isaiah 2:1–5 and 4:2–6 depict Zion the Good, in
which a holy remnant enjoys Yahweh’s presence as the law goes forth from it
and the nations are drawn to it.
A careful examination of these opening five chapters reveals that there are
two superscriptions in the material:
The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, concerning Judah and Jerusalem
which he saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,
kings of Judah. (1:1)
The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusa-
lem. (2:1)
The placement of these two superscriptions separates out the first chapter
from the rest of this introductory section. 4
Isaiah 1:2–20
Isaiah 1 presents two prophetic pieces that typify the message of Isaiah and
are helpful for understanding the approach of this prophetic corpus to sin
(Fohrer 1962). At the end of the first prophetic piece in 1:2–20 and following
an address that compares the residents of Jerusalem with those of Sodom and
Gomorrah (v. 10), the message focuses in on God’s displeasure with his people
and the proposed solution. God takes no pleasure in (v. 11), hates (v. 14), and
hides his face from their sacrifices (vv. 11–13), festivals (vv. 13–14), and prayer
(v. 15), terms encompassing the various worship activities that accompanied
their festal schedule. The reason for this displeasure is identified in v. 15. As
they spread out their palms (πK") in prayer, God sees hands (dy;) “filled with
blood,” a reference to the death of the innocent through social injustice (v.
17b). Verses 16–19 offer a way ahead. They are to “wash themselves” (≈jr), a
term related to bathing and cleansing with water, obviously appropriate for
people with “bloody” hands. Furthermore, they are to “make themselves
4. Goldingay (1998) sees 1:1 as a superscription and 2:1 as a colophon for chap. 1; though
contrast Watts (2005: 6). In this view, chap. 1 is still isolated as a key introductory pericope.
192 Chapter 12
clean” (hkz Hithpael), a root (in Qal and Piel) regularly associated with the
term “wash” (≈jr; Job 15:14–15, 25:4–5; Ps 73:13) but also with terms related
to purity (rhf; Prov 20:9) and being declared righteous (qdx; Job 15:14, 25:4;
Ps 51:6; cf. Mic 6:11). Whether this continues the metaphor of washing the
stained hands is unclear, but the use of the reflexive Hithpael emphasizes that
these actions are to be performed by the guilty people. The third exhortation
is for them to remove (rws Hiphil) their evil deeds from God’s sight. That this
command does not merely ask them to hide their sins from public view but
rather encourages a “radical reversal” in their wicked behavior (Childs 2001:
20) is clear from the commands that follow: “Cease to do evil; Learn to do
good.” This call has both a negative and a positive aspect, not only demand-
ing a turning from certain negative behaviors but also a turning to certain
positive behaviors. The arena of this evil and good is spelled out clearly in v.
17: it is the court of justice where cases are being manipulated to take advan-
tage of the most vulnerable within the society (the fatherless, the widow).
Verse 18 introduces the closing section of 1:2–20 and here seeks to bring
the speech to resolution. 5 Hope is expressed for the removal from the hands
of the bloody stains of injustice (v. 18). This removal will result in the people
“eating” (lka) the best of the land (v. 19b), while failure to remove will result
in the people “being eaten” (lka) by the sword (v. 20b). As already declared in
vv. 16–17, removal occurs by a change in desire (hba, “be willing”) as well as
behavior ([mv, “obey”); failure to do this involves both passive (âm, “refuse”)
and active (hrm, “rebel”) disobedience.
What this passage emphasizes is that the removal of sin and guilt from the
people is not accomplished through sacrifice or prayer. Only a change of be-
havior will wipe these bloody hands clean before Yahweh. This change of be-
havior is based on a shift in the affections (“be willing”) that results in
obedience (“obey”).
Isaiah 1:21–31
The approach to sin in 1:2–20, however, contrasts the approach taken in
the immediately following pericope. 6 Here, the prophet laments the sorry
5. Isa 1:2–20 represents a covenant lawsuit, and v. 18 introduces the “terms of restitu-
tion” at the end of the trial. Although Sweeney (1996b: 66) sees a mixture of genres in this
first chapter, he does admit that the “trial genre” is key to its final form. The invitation here,
“let us reason together,” is the Niphal of jky. Although one cannot be certain of the relation-
ship between stems, the Hiphil of this root is found elsewhere in Isaiah (2:4, 11:4), in 11:4
connected with a court setting. The Niphal is used in Job 23:1–7, a passage in which we can
discern allusions to the progression of a court case, v. 7a (where this term appears) being
connected with the juncture in a case when the court is moving toward resolution (v. 6b:
“press charges”; v. 7b: “delivered forever”). See also the use of this term in Gen 20:16 in the
exchange between Abimelech and Abraham, where it comes at the point of resolution (“you
are completely vindicated”).
6. For the unity of 1:21–31, see Watts (2005: 36–37). However, there does appear to be some
distinction between vv. 21–26 and 27–31; cf. Oswalt (1986: 103–4); Childs (2001: 20–22).
Isaiah 193
state of the city. Once filled with “justice” and inhabited by “righteousness,”
murderers who manipulate the law courts and abuse the helpless now dwell
within it and give it the reputation of a prostitute. The prophetic vision for
dealing with this sin, however, is different. The message is dominated by God’s
personal and direct action against Israel (“I will also turn my hand against
you,” v. 25a), an action that is described with imagery drawn from metallurgy,
in which dross is purged and alloy removed from metals (v. 25b). This image
is used to emphasize the discipline of God, which has as its goal the transfor-
mation of the “faithful city” from prostitute filled with murderers (v. 21) to the
city of righteousness (v. 26b). It is this discipline that will create a remnant in
Zion (vv. 26–27) 7 and rid it of rebels and sinners (vv. 28–31).
This passage offers a different approach to the removal of sin and guilt
from the people in vv. 2–20. Whereas in the first passage sin is removed
through human repentance, in this second passage sin is removed through
divine discipline.
Isaiah 2–5
These two fundamental approaches to sin in Isaiah 1 can be discerned
within Isaiah’s initial visions of Zion that encompass chaps. 2–5. 8 Within this
section, one finds two visions of Zion the Good: Isa 2:2–4 and 4:2–6 (see fur-
ther Childs 2001: 28). The first envisions Zion’s role among the nations, pic-
turing it as the mountain of God’s dwelling, towering above all mountains on
earth, to which all the nations stream to learn the ways of God and from
which the law goes forth to bring justice to all nations. 9 The vision of Zion re-
veals the impact of the cleansing discipline announced in 1:21–31, and the
prophetic invitation that follows in 2:5 (“Come, house of Jacob, and let us
walk in the light of the Lord”) reflects the prophetic hope for repentance al-
ready introduced in 1:2–20.
The second vision of Zion the Good (4:2–6), however, pictures Zion as a
place of safety for Israel. It looks to a Zion filled with survivors following
God’s cleansing of the “bloodshed of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit
7. Verse 27 refers to h:yb<v.… This could refer to “her penitent ones” or “her returning ones”
and has raised many questions related to its textual history; see Childs (2001: 21). The refer-
ence to “rebels and sinners . . . those who forsake” in the following verse may suggest “pen-
itent ones,” but this is far from certain. If this is the “remnant,” it assumes that this group
does not contain “rebels . . . sinners . . . those who forsake,” but this may not be related to
repentance.
8. Although many see this unit as encompassing chaps. 2–4, with the vision of Zion func-
tioning as brackets around the section (see Childs 2001: 28; Sweeney 1996b: 112–21), the su-
perscription in chap. 6 and the lack of a superscription in chap. 5 suggest that it is part of the
modulation between Zion the Good and Zion the Bad that typifies chaps. 2–5. That it plays
a function (as do all of chaps. 1–5) for the chapters that follow (chaps. 6 and on) is without
doubt; see Oswalt (1986: 173).
9. Note the resonances between Isa 2:1–5 and Isaiah 66 pointed out by Davies (1989: 93).
See Sweeney (1996a: 50–67) for the role of this vision of Torah in the book as a whole.
194 Chapter 12
of judgment and the spirit of burning” (v. 4). This vision echoes the themes
introduced in 1:21–31. The remedy for sin is the cleansing that comes
through fiery discipline.
Isaiah 6
Isaiah 6 signals the end of the introduction to the book as a whole and the
beginning of the first major phase. 10 It represents the initial calling of the
prophet, resonating with the call of the ideal prophet, Moses, in Exodus 3–4,
echoes of which can also be found in Jeremiah 1 and Ezekiel 1–3 (cf. Judges
6). 11 Citation of the death of the Davidic king Uzziah casts a shadow on this
section of Isaiah from the outset and suggests that the two kings who will be
the focus of Isaiah’s prophecies (Ahaz, Hezekiah) have much to fear. What is
implicit in the superscription becomes clear as the divine commission is an-
nounced in Isaiah 6.
As I have already noted, the dominant descriptor used for Yahweh within
Isaiah is “Holy One of Israel,” and, according to Isa 30:10–11, this phrase was
constantly on the lips of the prophet as he confronted the people. According
to Isaiah 6, the reason for the dominance of this phrase can be traced to the
initial calling of the prophet. In an experience (whether real or visionary) that
took place in the temple, the prophet encounters the manifest presence of
Yahweh seated on a throne and surrounded by heavenly winged beings. Ref-
erences to Yahweh’s throne, winged heavenly beings, the temple, thresholds,
and a live coal from an altar suggest that the prophet is in close proximity to
the Holy of Holies in the temple structure. The winged beings set the tone for
the prophet’s ministry as they cry “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the
whole earth is full of his glory” (6:3). Hebrew expresses the superlative
through repetition, and here is the lone case of a threefold repetition, accen-
tuating the utter holiness of Yahweh. 12
As the smoke fills the temple and obscures the sight of God from the
prophet’s vision, the prophet cries out, “Woe is me. For I am ruined! Because
I am a man of unclean lips and I live among a people of unclean lips for my
10. See Oswalt (1986: 173). Clements (1980: 70–72) is typical of many in finding a role for
Isaiah 6 within an earlier prophetic memoir, but this does not grapple with its role within the
present form of Isaiah. It is key to the development of the entire corpus; cf. Williamson
(1994: 30–56).
11. Habel (1965); Sweeney (1996b: 134–36). Also note striking similarities to the experi-
ence of Micaiah in 1 Kgs 22:19–21. Some suggest that Isaiah 6 was merely a commissioning
for a task and not his initial call. Cf. Kaplan (1926: 251–59); Milgrom (1964: 164–82); see also
bibliography in Williamson (1994: 33 n. 37). However, the similarities to the other call nar-
ratives are striking. Furthermore, this suggestion has been closely linked to the view that Isa-
iah 1–5 is somehow historically prior to Isaiah 6. Instead, the chapters appear to function as
literary introduction.
12. See 2 Kgs 25:15 “gold, gold” and Gen 14:10 “pits, pits.” Here we see an example of gra-
dations of holiness; cf. Jenson (1992: 45) and discussion on Leviticus (Part 1) above, pp. 49–76.
Isaiah 195
eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (v. 5). As I articulated in the con-
sideration of priestly legislation (see Leviticus, pp. 49–85 above), the priestly
tradition envisioned the world according to a scale of categories, from un-
clean to clean to holy. Even what was clean needed to be specially “sanctified”
(vDEq)i in order to qualify for contact with God (who is the realm of the holy).
For the unclean to attain the status of clean, it needed to be “cleansed” (rh"f)I
first. The unclean is never envisioned to be in the presence of the holy, that
is, the divine. 13
With this in mind, the declaration of Isaiah is significant. Although the
mention of lips may be related to his prophetic calling, 14 the prophet imme-
diately highlights his close bond with the people: “I live among a people of
unclean lips.” The prophet, stained by his own and his people’s uncleanness,
has encountered the “holy” presence of God, and the expectation is that he
will die.
The divine response is interesting. Instead of destroying the prophet, one
of the heavenly beings brings a live coal from an altar, 15 touching Isaiah’s lips
and declaring his iniquity (ˆ/[:) taken away (rWs) and his sin (taF:j)" atoned (rpK
Pual). Although this action probably relates to qualifying Isaiah for entrance
into the presence and council of Yahweh, it does show that atonement and re-
moval of sin can be accomplished by means other than sacrifice, here a glow-
ing coal from the altar.
This encounter with the holy God (vv. 1–4) leads to a crisis of uncleanness
(v. 5) and provision of holiness for the prophet (vv. 6–7). This scene now sets
up the calling of Isaiah in vv. 8–13, signaled by the use of the key terms “send”
(jlv) and “go” (˚lh) in v. 8. 16 The ultimate goal of this prophetic ministry is
identified in the final verse of this chapter (13b). It is the production of a “holy
seed” (vd,qø [r'z), . The overall movement of this chapter then is clear: a vision
of a holy God leads to the cleansing of an unclean prophet embedded within
an unclean people, and the goal of this prophet’s ministry is the production
of a holy seed. The passage moves then from the thrice-holy God (v. 3) to the
holy seed (v. 13).
What is surprising, however, is the character of Isaiah’s calling. It is de-
scribed in vv. 9–10:
13. See especially Leviticus (Part 1), pp. 49–85 above, and Wenham (1979: 19–20), Mil-
grom (1991: 732), and Hartley (1992: 141), noting the qualifications and challenges of Wong
(2001: 130).
14. It is interesting that, often in prophetic call narratives, there is a focus on the lips of
the prophet (see Exodus 3, Jeremiah 1, Ezekiel 1–3), probably related to the importance of
speaking to the prophet’s role.
15. This is most likely the altar of incense that would be in the holy place near the pres-
ence of God in the Holy of Holies. This is probably a play on the mention of Uzziah in v. 1,
whose death was the culmination of divine punishment for entering into the temple and
burning incense on this very altar (the tradition of which is recorded in 2 Chr 26:16–23).
16. See Exod 3:10; Jer 1:5b; Ezek 2:3–5, 3:4–5; cf. Isa 40:3–6a.
196 Chapter 12
Table 12.1. Prophetic Process Envisioned in Isaiah 6:9–10
Image in the Text Represents . . . Which Is . . .

Step #1 seeing (har) and hearing ([mv) prophetic vision revelation
with eyes (ˆy[) and ears (ˆza) and word
Step #2 understanding and perceiving people’s internaliza- reception
with hearts (bbl) tion of message
Step #3 turning (bWv) people’s repentance response
Step #4 being healed (apr) God’s salvation restoration
Go and tell this people: “Keep on listening, but do not perceive. Keep on
looking, but do not understand.” Render the hearts of this people insensi-
tive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their
eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be
healed.
This speech presupposes a prophetic process that was designed to work in the
way that table 12.1 illustrates. The ears and eyes are considered avenues
through which revelation comes to the people. 17 The heart’s action signifies
the reception (understanding and perceiving) of this revelation. Without these
two steps in the process, there can be no true response from the people (turn-
ing) and certainly then no restoration (being healed).
God’s commission for Isaiah, however, actually undermines this pro-
phetic process. 18 Instead of calling the prophet to invite the people to see,
listen, understand, perceive, and turn and so receive healing, the prophet is
called to dull all of the “organs” necessary for repentance. This begins in v. 9
with the dulling of the heart so that, although the people always listen with
their ears and always see with their eyes, they never understand or perceive
with their hearts. It worsens in v. 10, as not only is the heart made fat (in-
sensitive), but the ears are made dull and the eyes blind, extinguishing any
hope for repentance. 19
17. These match the two avenues of prophetic revelation (vision and word).
18. For a superb review of this issue, see Wong (2009: 213–33), even though I remain un-
convinced of his argument, especially in light of Isa 44:18, 63:17, and Isaiah’s shocked re-
sponse in 6:11, followed by Yahweh’s severe answer. The tension observed in Isaiah is also
seen in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (see below, pp. 252, 258–259, 354–355).
19. Due to its inclusion in this list with eyes and ears, in the case of the heart, the “mak-
ing fat” is most likely related to the sense of touch (thus, the more fat on one’s body, the less
sensitive one is to external touch). However, this verb in the Hiphil, “to make fat/put on fat”
(Isa 6:10, Neh 9:25), or in the Qal, “to become fat” (Deut 32:15, Jer 5:28), elsewhere does refer
to Israel’s positive state of having been blessed that leads to rebellion. Maybe, then, there is
some double entendre going on here. In this case, one would have expected a heart hardened
like Pharaoh’s (Exod 8:11, 28; 9:34; 10:1); but instead, “harden” is used with ears, and the
verb referring to the heart is “make fat.” On the surface, the meaning is probably related to
Isaiah 197
This message for the people then is a message of God’s judgment on this
people of unclean lips. The prophet has received atonement, but no atone-
ment such as this is forthcoming for the people. The prophet is well aware of
the devastating nature of his message for them and so cries in lament in v. 11:
“How long Lord?” The answer from the divine council is no more encourag-
ing, envisioning a destruction that literally decimates the land (“cities are
devastated . . . the land is utterly desolate”) and the people (“without inhabi-
tant . . . without people . . . removed people far away”).
Even the “tenth” that remains from this decimation will face total destruc-
tion. There is some confusion in the modern translations over the precise im-
agery used in v. 13. Both of the trees here (terebinth and oak) are long-living
trees that tower over human heads, images that suggest the length of history
and heights of glory attained by Israel and Judah. But, according to Isaiah 6,
these mighty trees would be destroyed by burning (r[B). Reference is made
here to a “memorial” (tb<X<m)" , a Hebrew term not used elsewhere for “stump.” 20
Instead, this term is used elsewhere for a memorial pillar (2 Sam 18:18), sug-
gesting that it refers to a physical object that signifies a memory, that is, an
earlier event or place. Interestingly, this memory is identified at the end of
the verse as “the holy seed.” The use of seed suggests that the botanical image
is still in play (see Gen 1:11 for seed with trees). Therefore, the image here is
not of a residual stump that sprouts but of total destruction through burning.
The only memory of a tree totally burned by a great forest fire is the seed that
sprouts when the fire is out; likewise, the holy seed will be the memory of the
people in the land. This image of total destruction is thus supplemented in
the final verse with the revelation that a remnant will be preserved from the
“seed” of the original tree.
Although this prophetic calling is largely negative, calling down judgment
on a recalcitrant nation, it ends with hope that this purification process will
produce a new growth, a holy seed. 21 The present tree, however, is destined
for destruction. The only hope is starting over again. The intention of this
prophetic word is to foresee not only destruction (which it obviously does)
but eventually “a holy remnant” in the land.
lack of feeling due to excessive fat, but underlying it may be an allusion to the fat condition
of “success” that leads to rebellion or, in this case, ensures rebellion among the people.
It is fascinating that Isaiah’s calling in chap. 6 begins with an accentuated sensory expe-
rience of Yahweh (seeing, hearing), which contrasts with the dulling of the people’s senses
(seeing, hearing) with regard to Yahweh’s voice (thanks to Eric Williams).
20. Many modern translations use “stump,” but this is certainly not the same term as is
found in Isa 11:1 for the stump of Jesse.
21. Sweeney (1996b: 140–41) attempts to identify 6:1–11 with Isaiah’s message against
Israel (Northern Kingdom) and 6:12–13 (a later addition) as ultimate judgment on Judah.
However, Isaiah’s critique in what follows is hardly restricted to the Northern Kingdom, and
his association with Judah is hard to deny, especially because the passage opens with a refer-
ence to the death of a Judean king.
198 Chapter 12
Isaiah 6 then provides evidence of the two approaches to dealing with sin
that were encountered in Isaiah 1. First, it assumes the prophetic pattern seen
in Isa 1:2–20 with its proclamation (hear, listen) that leads to reception (un-
derstand, perceive) by the people and a return (turn) to God, which results in
God’s salvation (heal). Second, the calling here in Isaiah 6 matches the pro-
phetic pattern seen in Isa 1:21–31, that is, severe discipline of the people with
the purpose of producing a holy seed. A third approach, however, is suggested
in the cleansing of the prophet by the hot coal from the altar. Guilt and sin
can be removed by the direct action of the divine court.
Isaiah 7–39
Isaiah 7–39 is bracketed by two key encounters between Isaiah and the
royal house, the first related to Ahaz in chaps. 7–12 and the second to Ahaz’s
son Hezekiah in chaps. 36–39. 22 At the heart of these encounters is the call of
Yahweh for the royal house to trust him in the face of the attack of powerful
foreign nations. Ahaz is tempted to trust in Assyria in order to thwart pres-
sure from the kingdoms immediately to the north (Israel and Aram), and
Hezekiah, now facing Assyria, is tempted to trust in Egyptian allies. Chapters
13–35, which are positioned between these two encounters with the royal
house, present a series of descriptions of God’s dealings with the nations, re-
vealing why Judah should not trust in them: because they stand under God’s
judgment.
The final form of this section is written with a later community (exilic and
beyond) in mind, because it traces the ultimate failure of the royal house. Isa-
iah 6 depicts a two-stage discipline from God. By trusting in Assyria, Ahaz
will invite a national disaster in the time of his son Hezekiah. Although Heze-
kiah will initially trust in Yahweh to rescue him from Assyria and to heal him
from his sickness (chaps. 36–38), ultimately his penchant for foreign alliances
will cause the downfall of the kingdom, even if not in his lifetime. In this
way, even the remnant represented by Hezekiah and his generation will be
destroyed.
Although the main contours of this section of Isaiah do affirm the theol-
ogy of Isaiah 6 that only the discipline of exile will produce a holy seed that
matches the character of this holy God, Isaiah 7–39 does depict prophetic
invitations to the people to deal with their sin.
Repentance and Trust in Isaiah 28–33

The problem (sin) in Isaiah 7–39 is largely cast in terms of lack of trust in
Yahweh, and the solution to this sin is most often identified as returning to
God in terms of trust. No section in Isaiah 7–39 highlights this better than Isa-
22. See Conrad (1991: 34–51); Seitz (1991: 195–96); cf. Oswalt (1986: 55, 629–30).
Isaiah 199
iah 28–33. 23 The people and their kings are being enticed to trust in human
religious, economic, and political resources. Judah is tempted to rely on reli-
gious resources, to enter into covenant with the Canaanite god of death (tw,m;:
28:15, 18) and so violate their covenant with Yahweh. God, however, makes
it clear that he will undermine any trust of this sort (28:18–19). Judah is
tempted to rely on economic resources, that is, to rely on their oppressive and
deceitful economic systems to sustain their life and community (30:12). This
also will be undermined by God (30:13–14). Finally, Judah is tempted to rely
on political resources in the international sphere, to trust in Egypt and its
military prowess (30:1, 31:1–3). Alliances of this sort “add sin upon sin”
(30:1), and those who make them are called the house of “evildoers” and
“workers of iniquity” (31:2). Isaiah warns again, however, that God will un-
dermine even the great resources of Egypt, which are but mortals “and not
God; and their horses are flesh and not spirit” (31:3).
Having highlighted the folly of trusting in these human resources, it is ob-
vious that the only option is to trust in Yahweh. This call to trust is seen at
regular intervals throughout this section of Isaiah:
Isaiah 28:16 (nasb, modified)

Therefore thus says the Lord God,
Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone,
A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed.
The one who believes in it will not be disturbed.
Isaiah 30:15
For thus the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has said,
“In repentance and rest you will be saved,
In quietness and trust is your strength.”
But you were not willing.
Isaiah 30:18
Therefore the Lord longs to be gracious to you,
And therefore he waits on high to have compassion on you.
For the Lord is a God of justice;
How blessed are all those who long for him.
Isaiah 31:1
Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help
And rely on horses,
And trust in chariots because they are many
And in horsemen because they are very strong,
But they do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the Lord!
The qualities of one who trusts appear at various points throughout this sec-
tion. First, 29:19 makes clear that it is the humble who will rejoice, that is,
23. On the key role that chaps. 28–33 play in the book of Isaiah as a whole, see Stansell
(1996: 68–103). For their role within chaps. 36–39, see Bostock (2006).
200 Chapter 12
they will be rescued by the Holy One of Israel. The inability of Judah and its
king to trust in God can be traced back to their pride, a theme evident even
in the introductory chapters in Isaiah 1–5. The people of Judah want to trust
in their own human power and ability and must humbly accept their limita-
tions and need for Yahweh. Second, 30:15 and 18 reveal that salvation and
strength come from “turning,” which is then defined as “rest,” “quietness,”
and waiting. 24 These qualities highlight the passive nature of this penitential
trust, that is, allowing God to work and God to speak. Third, in Isa 31:6–7,
the prophet calls the people to “return” (bwv) to the one from whom they
turned aside (hr;s): , but this return is described as rejecting (sam) their idols
made with sinful (af}jE) hands. It is a matter of switching allegiance from the
idols to Yahweh.
According to Isa 29:13, however, there is a form of returning to God in
trust that involves empty words: “Because this people draw near with their
words, and honor me with their lip service, but they remove their hearts far
from me, and their reverence for me consists of tradition learned by rote.”
They “draw near” (vgn) with mouth (hP<) and lip (hp:c)… using human traditions
(μyv¥n;a“ tw'x}m)I they have learned (dml Pual), but yet their hearts are distant (qjr
Piel) from God. God will respond to this kind of penitence by “dealing mar-
velously” with them (v. 14). Here is a stern warning against a penitential re-
sponse to God in word but not in heart.
Repentance and Behavior in Isaiah 28–33

Repentance as a solution to dealing with sin, however, involves more than
just a switch of internal allegiance but rather also a change in behavior. This
can be illustrated from two passages in Isaiah 28–33. Following a section that
has described the people’s rejection of trust in Yahweh, a rejection that led to
fearful flight (vv. 15–17), 30:18–26 addresses the people of Zion/Jerusalem,
looking to a day when Yahweh will be gracious and show compassion to
those who wait for him (v. 18; cf. v. 15). This kind of grace is afforded to those
in affliction who cry out to Yahweh for help, defining then this “waiting” as
the cry to God in the time of need (v. 19). Not only will God surely be gra-
cious and answer them at the very sound of their cry and as soon as he hears
it (v. 19) but he will reveal himself to them as their teacher (v. 20) who will
guide them on their way (v. 21). His guidance will lead the people to remove
from their midst the idolatry, on which they were relying (v. 22), and to ex-
pect immeasurable blessing from Yahweh as he heals the wounds of disci-
pline he had inflicted (vv. 23–26). Here then, we see the way that out of the
discipline of God comes a transformed people. Afflicted by God, they cry to
him, receive his gracious answer, and then are given guidance for where to
walk, repenting from their idolatrous ways and receiving blessing from Yah-
24. The term hb:Wv only occurs here. HALOT (p. 1435) sees here a reference to repentance,
although BDB (p. 1000) argues for “retirement/withdrawl” from war, because it is in the con-
text of waiting. For a defense of the sense of repentance, see Wong (1997).

Isaiah 201
weh. This resonates with the agenda of both parts of Isaiah 1, showing that
sin is remedied through the penitential response of a people who have expe-
rienced the judgment of God. This penitential response is in word (“the
sound of your cry,” v. 19) and deed (“the way,” v. 21). The basis for this re-
sponse is the grace (ˆnj), mercy (μjr), and justice (fP:v‘m)I of Yahweh (v. 18, 19).
A second example from Isaiah 28–33 that accentuates the need for a
change in behavior to accompany the change in allegiance is Isa 33:13–16,
which calls to those “far away” and “near” and asks who may enter into God’s
presence. The answer is that it is not the sinners and godless but rather the
one who walks (˚lh) righteously (hq:d:x)} , speaks (rbd) with sincerity (μyriv…ymE),
and rejects (sam) injustice.
Isaiah 7–39, Repentance, Trust, and Behavior

In its key rhetorical position between the vision of doom for the nations in
Isaiah 13–27 and Hezekiah’s crisis of faith in Isaiah 36–39, Isaiah 28–33 fo-
cuses the reader’s attention on the key theme of trust. In the end, Yahweh
emerges as the true king of Judah, who alone is worthy of trust and who will
be trustworthy if Judah will turn from its schemes and alliances both inside
and outside the nation.
What is true of Isaiah 28–33 is true of the rest of Isaiah 7–39: sin and re-
pentance are depicted first as issues of trust and rest and then as issues of
practice and ethics, thereby placing the priority on the inner orientation of
life without losing sight of its practical implications. Isa 9:8–10:4 contains a
prophetic message directed against the Northern Kingdom of Israel, a mes-
sage that has implications for Judah (10:5–34). At four points in 9:8–10:4
there appears a refrain announcing the enduring wrath of God against the
disobedient people:
In spite of all this his anger does not turn away
and his hand is still stretched out.
9:12b, 17b, 21b; 10:4 (cf. 5:25)
As the prophetic warnings and descriptions are presented throughout 9:8–
10:4, each scenario is followed by this refrain, noting that the judgment de-
picted in the preceding section had not exhausted the wrath of God. Isaiah
9:13, however, suggests that the endurance of divine discipline is related to a
lack of repentance by the people:
But the people do not return (bWv) to the one who struck them,
nor do they seek (vrd) Yahweh of hosts. (my translation)
Here “returning” is linked to Yahweh and parallel to “seeking.” The emphasis
here is on a return to Yahweh in relationship without specific reference to
change in behavior. That behavior cannot be ignored is clear from the fact
that following the second and third refrains one finds references to “wicked-
ness” (h[:v‘r;i 9:17[18]) and to those involved in acts of social injustice (10:1–
2), but the specific remedy that will bring an end to God’s wrath is identified
explicitly as returning and seeking Yahweh.
202 Chapter 12
Although 10:5–34 envisions discipline for Judah similar to what its North-
ern neighbor, Israel, received, the section also looks to a day when Assyria will
be judged and “a remnant will return.” Obviously playing on the name of Isa-
iah’s son Shear-jashub (“a remnant will return,” Isa 7:3; cf. 8:18), in 10:20–21
the discipline anticipated for Israel/Jacob will produce a remnant that will
rely (ˆ[v Niphal) on Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, a reliance described as a
“return (bWv) to the Mighty God.” The expected return is not merely a physi-
cal return to the land, nor is it described as a change in action. Rather this re-
turn is a return to trusting in Yahweh rather than the nations. 25
The remnant will “gaze (h[v; steadily with interest)” upon their Maker
and their eyes will “look (har) to the Holy One of Israel,” rather than gazing
(h[v) at “the altars” (17:7–8). The issue is trusting in God rather than pagan
cults. Even the renewal depicted among the Egyptians, one reminiscent of
the biblical disciplinary pattern of divine discipline (oppression/plague), hu-
man penitential-cry, and divine response (rescue/healing), involves a “turn-
ing (bWv) to Yahweh” (19:19–22). Truly, repentance of this sort has an impact
on practice, as the references to worship (sacrifice, offering, vow) in 19:21 in-
dicate, but repentance is first described as a return to Yahweh. In the song of
praise of Isaiah 26, it is trust that is highlighted as the key quality of the “righ-
teous nation” that “remains faithful” (26:2–4). This trust, or “waiting,” how-
ever, cannot be separated from “walking in the ways of your laws,” but
walking such as this flows from the inner orientation of the “desire of our
hearts” (26:8).
Finally, the prophetic message in 27:9 is helpful, for it speaks of atonement
(rpk Pual) for iniquity/guilt (ˆ/[:) and the full fruit of the removal (rWs Hiphil)
of sin (taF:j)" . Key to understanding these verses is the identification of the ref-
erent of tazoB} (“in this”) at the outset of the verse: whether it is the “warfare
and exile” of v. 8 or the destruction envisioned in vv. 9b–11. Looking at the
use of this phrase elsewhere in the Old Testament reveals only one sure case
in which it refers to what precedes. 26 The weight of the evidence, therefore,
25. So Webb (1997: 72), who sees this as “turn back to the Lord” in the sense of repen-
tance. John Watts (1985: 154) sees ambiguity here; it could be turning as in a “change of
mind or policy” or returning physically from exile. Clements (1980: 115) sees here a return-
ing to God that is different from the original Shear Jashub tradition, which was returning as
a remnant.
26. The phrase tazoB} (“in this”) appears 17 times in the Old Testament and in 12 cases it
refers to what follows (Gen 34:15, 22; 42:15, 33; Exod 7:17; Lev 16:3; Num 16:28; Josh 3:10;
1 Sam 11:2; Ps 41:12[11]; Jer 9:23[24]; Mal 3:10). Among the other occurrences, Lev 26:27 is
different in that tazoB} (“in this”) is combined with the conditional particle μaI (“if”), 1 Chr
27:24 in that it is narrative rather than speech, and 2 Chr 20:17 in that the demonstrative is
referring to the “battle” into which Jerusalem and Judah were about to go. Ps 27:3 is a diffi-
cult case, because it may mean “in spite of this,” referring to the army encamped against the
psalmist, the scenario that precedes, or “in this,” referring to the confidence presented in
what follows (vv. 4–6). Because B} is the most common preposition, used with the verb in Ps
27:3 (jfb), to introduce the thing in which one is confident or has trust (Deut 28:52, Judg

Isaiah 203
suggests that tazoB} (“in this”) in Isa 27:9a refers to the destruction envisioned
in 27:9b–11.
What this means is that the “atoning” of Jacob’s iniquity/guilt, also re-
ferred to as “the full fruit (result) of the removal of his sin” is realized when
“he makes all the stones of (the) altar as pulverized stones of chalk,” with the
“he” referring to “Jacob” in v. 9. Thus, “repentance and works of righteous-
ness cover past sin. When the idol altars are smashed, the former works are no
longer remembered against us” (Oswalt 1986: 1:498). 27 This then matches the
vision of dealing with sin found in Isa 1:2–20, involving the eradication of in-
appropriate practices. In Isaiah 1, it was social injustice, and here it is illicit
worship.
Isaiah 40–55
The identity and context of the audience addressed after Isaiah 39 is not
explicitly articulated in the text. Isaiah 1–39 regularly employs historical su-
perscriptions associating the material with a particular time period (1:1, 2:1,
6:1, 7:1, 14:28, 36:1). This practice is abandoned with Isaiah 40. The conclu-
sion of Isaiah 1–39 in 39:5–7 is designed to identify the audience of Isaiah 40
as the community in the Babylonian period, functioning as “an important ed-
itorial ‘bridge’ between the threat to Jerusalem posed by the Assyrians and
that which was later posed by the armies of Babylon.” 28 This “bridge” looks
then to a community needing comfort, situated in Babylon, nearing the end
of its “hard service.” 29 It was Cyrus the Persian, who arose in the latter phase
of the Babylonian period, who would be singled out as its expected deliverer.
Isaiah 40–55 addresses the very community that Isaiah was commissioned
to create in his initial call in Isaiah 6 (the holy seed of v. 13), the community
that faced the discipline brought on by the folly of Ahaz and Hezekiah in
chaps. 6–39. Ultimately, it was their trust in foreign powers (Ahaz with As-
syria, Hezekiah with Babylon) that facilitated Judah’s banishment to exile in
the heart of Mesopotamia.
9:26, Isa 30:12), it very likely refers to what follows. The only sure case in which tazoB} (“in
this”) refers to what precedes in a speech is Ezek 16:29.
27. So also Childs (2001: 196): “Israel has been rightly punished in just measure, but full
atonement awaits its obedient response”; cf. Clements (1980: 222); contra Sweeney (1996b:
348, 352), who considers the punishment (exile) to be expiation for sin in that it will remove
the altars. Webb (1987: 113–14) seems to straddle the two views: “The sense of verse 9b seems
be that the full fruitage of the Lord’s cleansing judgment would be seen when, and only
when, such objects were totally removed.”
28. Clements (1985: 132); cf. Clements (1982: 120–21); Begg (1989: 121–25). In some
ways, chaps. 36–39 and even chaps. 34–39 function in this way; see Clements (1982: 120–
21); Conrad (1991: 50–51); Seitz (1991). Webb (1990: 69–70) makes an important distinction
between chaps. 36–37 and chaps. 38–39, the former looking backward and the latter looking
forward to the new material.
29. Contra Seitz (1991: 206), who argues against focusing too much on an exilic context,
which is odd in light of 48:20, which explicitly calls the audience to “Leave Babylon, flee
from the Babylonians!”
204 Chapter 12
Introduced by a second prophetic commission in Isa 40:1–11 and a chal-

lenge to the empire and its deities (40:12–26), this section of Isaiah is divided
into two basic subsections, 40:27–49:13 and 49:14–54:17, each introduced by
a cry of the people, identified as Jacob/Israel in 40:27 and Zion/Jerusalem in
49:14. 30 The prophecies function as responses to these cries of the exilic com-
munity, calling for trust in God’s grace and ridiculing those who trust in idols
or nations.
Isaiah 40:1–11
Appearing as it does at the juncture between Isaiah 7–39 and 40–66, Isa
40:1–11 sets the tone for a new era of prophetic activity, as well as a new era
of Judah’s history. Addressed to a community that has endured exile at the
hands of Babylon and longs for salvation, the message is dominated by com-
fort and salvation. God is the first speaker, setting the tone for all voices that
will follow, declaring that this is the time of comfort, for the punishment is
over (v. 1). The former age of harsh prophetic indictment is over and now is
the time for prophetic tenderness. This salvation is clearly linked to Yahweh,
who will act as powerful warrior (40:10) and gentle shepherd (40:11). But
what has occasioned this new era of comfort for this community?
This question is answered at the outset of the prophetic commission as the
prophet eavesdrops in on the divine council. The first two of the four lines in
v. 2 contain three commands from God, and the second two lines provide the
reason that these commands are to be delivered. First, Jerusalem is told that
its service (ab:x:) is completed (alm). The “service” here refers to “a period of en-
listment in burdensome work” (Oswalt 1997: 43 n. 43; cf. Job 7:1, 14:4), thus,
it is an image from the world of hard labor. The second phrase (“her iniquity/
guilt/punishment [ˆ/[:] has been accepted [hxr]”) is taken from the world of
priestly ritual, as can be seen in its regular use to designate God’s acceptance
of sacrifice. 31 The final image (“received double account of all her sins”) is re-
lated to a legal penalty that “requires a guilty one to restore double for a
crime” (Exod 22:3[4]; Childs 2001: 297). Thus, the images are derived from
30. On this rhetorical structure, see Boda (forthcoming g). Many have noted the connec-
tion between Isaiah’s prophetic commission in Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 40; see Cross (1953: 274–
77); Rendtorff (1989: 73–82); Carr (1993: 61–80); Williamson (1994: 37–38, esp. n. 21). Cf.
Seitz (1991: 197). On the identification of the people in 40:27 and 49:14, compare Wester-
mann (1969). On contrasts between these two sections of Isaiah 40–55, see especially Blen-
kinsopp (1988: 83–103).
31. See further discussion on Leviticus 26, pp. 82–85 above. The verb in the Niphal (as it
is here) refers in Lev 1:4, 7:18, 19:7, and 22:23, 25, 27 to the acceptance or nonacceptance of
a sacrifice and in the Qal in Deut 33:11, 2 Sam 24:23, Hos 8:13, Jer 14:10, 12, Ezek 20:40, 51,
43:27, Mic 6:7, Mal 1:10, 13, Pss 51:18, and 119:108 to God’s acceptance of sacrifices. Inter-
estingly, in half the cases in Leviticus (Niphal) and most of the cases in the Qal (especially in
the prophets), God is not pleased with the sacrifices. The cognate ˆ/xr; (“pleasure, delight, fa-
vor”) is used to signify God’s acceptance of sacrifices in many places in the Old Testament
(Exod 28:38; Lev 1:3; 19:5; 22:19–21, 29; 23:11; Isa 56:7; 60:7; Jer 6:20; Mal 2:13; Ps 19:15).
Isaiah 205
employment custom, priestly ritual, and restitution law. The message con-
veyed through all these metaphors is that their punishment has reached its
end. The references to “iniquity” (ˆ/[:) and “sin” (taF:j)" identify the people’s
guilt as the cause of the punishment.
Isaiah 40 then echoes the message of Isa 1:21–31 and Isaiah 6 that the dis-
cipline and judgment of God through exile has remedied the sins of the
people. The use of the vocabulary of hxr suggests that this view is based on the
perspective of Leviticus 26, which argues that the Exile is what provides a new
start to the community of God. Here then the only human involvement is
that of enduring the pain of exile.
God’s New Work of Grace after Exile: Isaiah 40–55

In response to the discouraged cry of the exilic community, Isaiah 40–55
announces a new day for the people of God made possible by the fact that the
Exile atoned for the people’s sin (which builds off 40:1–2). This does not
mean, however, that sin has been eradicated from among the people. Playing
on the earlier call of Isaiah (Isaiah 6), Isa 42:18–43:8 identifies the exilic com-
munity as a deaf and blind servant (vv. 18–19) who must listen to the pro-
phetic voice (v. 23). 32 Although the people had been punished for sinning
(afj) against Yahweh, not walking (˚lh) in his ways, and not listening ([mv)
to his law (v. 24), the prophet tells them that they did not recognize ([dy) or
take to heart (blAl[ μyc; 42:25) this punishment. However, the prophet’s so-
lution is the announcement of a new era of grace, introduced by “but now”
(hT:["w)] in 43:1. In this era, God will rescue this people, even though they are
blind and deaf (v. 8). This emphasis on God’s grace is developed further in
43:14–25, which highlights the mercy of God even though the people have
not called on Yahweh (v. 22) or sacrificed to him (vv. 23–24) but rather have
burdened him with their sins and wearied him with their iniquities (v. 24). Yet
for “his own sake,” God says that he blots out (hjm) their transgressions and
remembers (rkz al) sins no more (v. 25). Furthermore, in 43:26–44:5, the
prophet turns his speech on the “but now” (hT:["w)] in 44:1 to highlight that
even these exilic sinners may now find God’s grace. There is a cycle in the text
that highlights the seriousness of Israel’s sin and God’s gracious redemption:
sin brought exile and discipline but also elicited the comfort of God, who
does a new thing in bringing Israel out of exile.
In light of this new day of grace, God invites servant Jacob/Israel to repent
(see Goldingay 2001: 256). In 44:21–22, God promises that he has wiped out
(hjm) the people’s transgressions ([væP)< and sins (taF:j)" like a thick cloud or
heavy mist and by this has redeemed (lag) them. This gives them the oppor-
tunity to “return (bwv) to me.” No details are offered as to the character of this
returning, although this message comes immediately after a prophetic attack
32. On the image of blind and deaf in Isaiah, see Quinn-Miscall (2001: 89–93). For its role
in shaping the final form of the book of Isaiah, see Gärtner (2006).
206 Chapter 12
on idolatry in 44:9–20. 33 God’s offer of grace does not follow the people’s re-
pentance but rather precedes it. Repentance is encouraged by God’s grace.
The Servant: Isaiah 40–55
Development of the Servant

Though early on in Isaiah 40–55 the servant is identified as Jacob/Israel in
exile (41:8; cf. 44:1), as this section progresses, so does the identity of this ser-
vant. By 49:1–13, one can discern the beginning of a transition in the devel-
opment of the image of the servant, who, although called Israel in 49:3, will
be used to “raise up the tribes of Jacob,” “restore the preserved ones of Israel,”
and bring light to the Gentiles (49:6). In this, the servant is identified as one
within Israel who will minister to Israel and on Israel’s behalf. 34
This progression in the revelation of a servant figure who is Israel/Jacob to
a figure who will do something for Israel/Jacob may be related to the concerns
expressed in chaps. 41–48 that exilic Israel’s trust in idols (42:17) proves they
are but deaf and blind (42:18–20; cf. 6:9–10). However, the transition in the
development of the role of the servant is marked in Isa 50:4–9 by the servant
figure testifying that Yahweh has opened his once deaf ear so that he might
no longer rebel (hrm) and not turn back (gws Niphal; v. 5). The servant speaks
of suffering at the hands of others before the prophetic voice breaks in to call
those who fear Yahweh and obey the voice of the servant to trust and rely on
Yahweh (v. 10).
This enigmatic role for the servant, which involves suffering and then pro-
claims obedience, is revealed in more detail in the conclusion to Isaiah 40–55,
which is chaps. 52–55.
The Servant and Arm of the Lord

Alongside the progressive revelation of the servant figure in Isaiah 40–55 is
the progressive revelation of the “arm of the Lord,” a synecdoche for the mili-
tary power of Yahweh. It is introduced from the outset in 40:10 in the message
that was to be delivered to the cities of Judah: “with his arm ruling for him.”
It reappears in the “attention series” (51:1–8) as God promises “my arm will
bring justice to the nations” (51:5) and finally at the outset of the “Awake se-
ries” (51:9–52:6), as the prophet arouses Yahweh to enact salvation for captive
Israel: “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord” (51:9). 35
33. Throughout Isaiah 40–55, there appears to be a growing division within the servant
(Israel) between those who are enticed by idolatry to trust in the nations and their gods and
those who will remain pure before Yahweh.
34. This issue is admittedly controversial, but this is no place to fully debate it. For the de-
velopment in the servant motif, see especially Oswalt (1997).
35. See the related image of the “hand” in 50:2 in the “disputation series” (49:15–50:11)
as God reassures exilic Israel, “is my arm too short to save?”
Isaiah 207
Just before the climactic revelation of the servant in 52:13–53:12, one finds
another reference to the arm of the Lord. In 52:7–10, prophetic voices an-
nounce the victory of Yahweh, speaking as messengers returning from a battle
they have observed. As the message comes to Zion (the same Zion who felt
forsaken and forgotten in 49:14), the message is simply “Your God reigns,”
transformed from and yet related to the earlier “Here is your God” (40:9; cf.
52:8, “When the Lord restores Zion”). This declaration is backed up by the
description of battle in 52:10: Yahweh will bare “his holy arm.”
The arm of the Lord in 52:10 functions, therefore, as the climax of a series
of references to “arm” in chaps. 40–55. Interestingly, the recipient of this arm’s
destructive power is mentioned not in Isa 49:14–54:17 but rather near the con-
clusion to Isa 40:27–49:13, where, in chaps. 47–48, we are told that Yahweh
will carry out whatever he pleases on Babylon, “his arm will be against the
Chaldeans” (48:14).
It is in 52:13–53:12 that we see the dovetailing of the images of the servant
and of the arm of the Lord. 36 We are not surprised that the initial verse in-
troduces the servant as “high and lifted up and greatly exalted.” The servant
has been included all along the way as integral to redemption and salvation,
and now his role will be clarified. However, the immediate reference to a dis-
figured appearance prompts the prophet to query, “Who has believed our
message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” Here the
prophet is given a glimpse of the identity of the “arm of Yahweh,” of the glo-
rious and powerful return of the sovereign Lord, who will conquer all through
his servant, but all he sees is one who is suffering beyond description.
Isaiah 52:13–53:12
The prophetic piece in Isa 52:13–53:12 is structured according to shifting
voices throughout the section. Surrounding the entire complex are two
speeches by someone who speaks as “I/my” in reference to the servant. In the
pericope in 49:1–7, the “I” who addressed the servant was none other than
Yahweh (49:6), as it is in 52:13–53:12. At the center of this complex is a speech
given by someone who speaks as “we/our/us” in reference to the servant. This
is either the prophetic community or the prophet speaking on behalf of the
people as a whole (see table 12.2, p. 208). Both speeches by God in 52:13–15
and 53:11–12 focus on the triumph and success of the servant of Yahweh.
There is a building up of terms related to greatness (μwr, hbg, dam, br), both
quantitatively and qualitatively. This reveals that the triumph of the servant
will have an unprecedented effect on both Israel and the nations. The tri-
umph is emphasized by the reversal that occurs between the first mention of
the word μybr (the many of rejection in 52:14) and the final (the many whose
sin is carried in 53:12).
36. Cf. Childs (2001: 418); see Boda (forthcoming f) for the way Daughter Zion/Jerusalem
is intricately linked as well.
208 Chapter 12
Table 12.2. Isaiah 52:13–53:12

52:13–15 God’s speech: “my servant” (speaker uses 1st person singular,
referring to servant in 3rd person)
Prophetic messenger’s
speech (speaker uses
53:1 Prophetic shock at the paradox
referring to Yahweh
1st person plural,
and servant in
3rd person)
53:2–3 Despised in life
53:4–6 Purpose of this life
53:7–9 Abused in death
53:10 Defining the paradox: life from death
53:11–12 God’s speech: “my servant” (speaker uses 1st person singular,
referring to servant in 3rd person)
The first speech of God in 52:13–15, therefore, introduces the paradox, pre-
senting the anomaly that a despised one will become exalted. After 52:13–15,
the reader is left with a question: how can this be so? It is the prophetic voices
in v. 1 that express this implicit question as they ask “who will ever believe
this?” The goal of this passage as a whole is to resolve this basic paradox, and
by 53:11–12 the resolution has been provided.
The prophets (or the prophet for the people) now trace the life of this ser-
vant. This depiction begins with the birth and life of the servant in vv. 2–3
and then continues with his death and burial in vv. 7–9. Here, the focus is on
the servant’s rejection, with attention on the anomaly presented in the previ-
ous two sections. Finally, in v. 10 reference is made to a final stage that entails
prolonged days and prosperity, which somehow arise out of this suffering and
death. The one who dies and is buried is the one who rises to life (v. 10c) and
ascends to power (v. 10d). The one about whom it was said in v. 8 “who can
speak of his descendants?” is now the one who sees “offspring.” The paradox
questioned at the outset by the prophet in v. 1 is now defined: how can life
and prosperity come forth from death and suffering?
The answer to this is provided in the central section of the poem (vv. 4–6)
in interaction with the bracketing divine speeches (52:13–15, 53:11–12).
Images and conditions associated with the servant figure, such as sorrows
(t/baøk}m)" and suffering (ylIj)’ in v. 3 and sheep in v. 7, are connected in the cen-
terpiece, vv. 4–6, with the condition of the people (“our infirmities,” Wnyel:j;:
“our sorrows,” WnybEaøk}m;" “we all like sheep”). This suggests that in the servant’s
life (v. 3) and death (vv. 7–8) something true of the people becomes true of the
servant. This central section then explains how the servant’s rejection be-
comes the path to triumph. He becomes a sacrifice, taking on the people’s
pain and sin in order that he might bring peace and healing. The irony

Isaiah 209
throughout is that the community thinks that the suffering of the servant is
related to his own offenses against God. Instead, the servant was suffering
under the curse of their offenses against God. Here at the center of this poem
are further paradoxes: punishment brings peace and wounds bring healing as
one suffers for the others.
In God’s two speeches that surround this poem (52:13–15, 53:11–12), the
one servant touches “many.” In the central section, “all” iniquity is laid on
the one, and it is this that ultimately leads to the impact on the many (“Yah-
weh has laid on him the iniquity of us all”). This then provides the first part
of the resolution of the paradox of the divine speeches: the servant suffers as
a substitute for the people. 37
A comparison of this central section (53:4–6) and the final divine speech in
53:11–12 reveals several key word connections, as table 12.3 (p. 210) illus-
trates. These connections force the reader to return to where this section be-
gan in 52:13–15: the paradoxical servant’s triumph has now been explained.
The suffering servant will triumph and influence the many through death/
burial (becoming a sacrifice for all) and through resurrection/ascension (estab-
lishing a new line). The language in this section resonates with the priestly
world of sacrifice (“sprinkle,” hzn; 52:15; Exod 29:2; Lev 4:6, 17; 5:9; 6:20; 8:11,
30; 14:7, 16, 27, 51; 16:4, 15, 19; Num 8:7; 19:4, 18, 19, 21; “bear,” acn; 53:6;
Exod 28:38; Num 14:34, 18:1; Ezek 4:4–6, 44:13; Lev 16:21–22; “guilt offer-
ing,” μva; 53:10; cf. Leviticus 5), linking the function of the servant even
more strongly to the substitutionary sacrificial motif. The uniqueness of this
sacrifice, however, is that the sacrificial system was not designed to cover the
kind of sin the people here had committed (see Leviticus, pp. 49–85 above).
This sacrifice is then unique, and understandably so, in light of its use of the
servant as its victim. 38
At the foundation of this triumph is thus the suffering and death of the
servant, which qualifies him for his place of honor and triumph. This is seen
in the closing lines of v. 12, especially in the phrase rv≤a“ tj"T" (“because”),
which is one of the strongest causal connectors in Hebrew. It is because “he
poured out himself to death,” defined as identification (“he was numbered
with the transgressors”), substitution (“he himself bore the sin of many”), and
37. Cf. Oswalt (1997: 377). Childs (2001: 418) speaks of “the servant’s vicarious role.” The
substitutionary theme has been rejected by many; see, for instance, Orlinsky and Snaith
(1967: 55); Whybray (1975: 171–73). However, even if counter arguments were accepted, it is
clear that the servant is “suffering undeservedly because of human sin” (Oswalt 1997: 377).
38. See Goldingay (2001: 306); contra Whybray (1975: 179), who dismisses this meaning
of the image because of its uniqueness. Use of priestly imagery in innovative ways is clear in
other places in Isaiah, for instance, Isaiah 6 and 40, two passages that are key to the structure
and meaning of the book as a whole. Although the Isaianic tradition does criticize dead
priestly rituals (see Isaiah 1, pp. 191–193 above, and Isaiah 57–58, pp. 213–215 below), this
does not mean priestly terminology could not be leveraged in positive ways, possibly to show
a way beyond the limitations of the priestly system.
210 Chapter 12
Table 12.3. Key Word Connections in Isaiah 53:4–12

Isaiah 53:4–6 Isaiah 53:11–12
Wnj}n'a“w' μl:b:s} WnybEaøk}m"W ac…n; aWh Wnyel:j’ ˆkea: yDib}[" qyDix" qyDix}y' /T[}d'B} [B:c‘yi ha<r]yi /vp}n' lm"[“mE
:hN,[Um}W μyhIløa” hKEmU ['Wgn; Whnub}væj“ :lBøs}yi aWh μt:no/[“w' μyBIr'l:
rs"Wm WnytEno/[“mE aK:dUm} Wn[Ev…P}mI ll:jøm} aWhw] tj"T" ll:v… qLEj"y] μymIWx[“Ata<w] μyBIr'b: /lAqL<j"a“ ˆkEl:
:Wnl:AaP:r]ni /tr;bUj“b"W wyl:[: WnmE/lv‘ aWhw] hn;m}ni μy[Iv‘PAta<w] /vp}n' tw,M:l" hr;[”h: rv≤a“
hw;hyw' WnyniP: /Kr]d"l} vyaI Wny[IT: âXøK" WnL:KU :["yGIp}y' μy[Iv‘Pøl"w] ac…n; μyBIr'Aaf}jE
:WnL:KU ˆ/[“ taE /B ['yGip}hI
4 Surely our griefs he himself bore, 11 As a result of the anguish of his soul,
And our sorrows he carried; He will see and be satisfied;
Yet we ourselves esteemed him By his knowledge the Righteous One,
stricken, My Servant, will justify the many,
Smitten of God, and afflicted. As he will bear their iniquities.
5 But he was pierced through for 12 Therefore, I will allot him a portion
our transgressions, with the great,
He was crushed for our iniquities; And he will divide the booty with the
The chastening for our well-being strong;
fell upon him, Because he poured out himself to death,
And by his scourging we are healed. And was numbered with the
6 All of us like sheep have gone transgressors;
astray, Yet he himself bore the sin of many,
Each of us has turned to his own And interceded for the transgressors.
way;
But the Lord has caused the
iniquity of us all
To fall on him.
intercession (“interceded for the transgressors”). These are all key functions of
mediation.
The comforting message of the community is that out of the depth of suf-
fering would come atonement for sin and salvation from exile. Within suffer-
ing exilic Israel, the prophet sees one who suffers on the people’s behalf and
through whom would come a restoration to the nation that would have an
impact on all the nations. Who would believe this? To whom has an arm such
as this ever been revealed? This is the shocking character of this prophetic
witness (53:1).
In summary, this vision provides further insight into the Isaianic view of
the removal of sin. Here, someone within the community will make atone-
ment for the community as a whole.
Isaiah 211
Responding to the Servant

In all this, however, there is an expectation that the exilic community will
now repent in response. Chapters 52–53 reveal how the arm of the Lord tri-
umphs ironically through the suffering of the servant on behalf of the rest of
the community and, according to 52:13–15, even those outside the Jewish
community. In Isaiah 54, Zion is called to burst into song and shout for joy,
the same response demanded when the arm of the Lord worked salvation in
52:7–10. With chap. 55, however, “the segment culminates in the great invi-
tation to participate in a renewal covenant,” that is, to respond to God’s sal-
vation of the servant who has borne the sin of the people (Oswalt 1997: 10).
The prophet begins his speech in Isaiah 55 by inviting the people to listen
to his message, a message associated with a delicious and satisfying banquet
meal offered without cost. This meal contrasts sharply with the meal the hear-
ers are presently consuming, one that is not even bread and does not satisfy.
The message is unpacked in vv. 4–13, where the audience is told that God is
entering into “an everlasting covenant” with them, one based on the Davidic
covenant with all of its honor and privileges (vv. 3–5). 39 As in all covenants,
God’s initiative to make covenant is followed by an invitation for the partner
to respond to his initiative, and this is the thrust of vv. 6–7. Here it becomes
clear that those to whom the prophet speaks are “the wicked” and “the un-
righteous” and that their present diet is their ways and their thoughts (v. 7).
To eat the satisfying banquet meal means to seek (vrd) and call on (arq) Yah-
weh, which is identified as forsaking (bz[) their present behavior (Ër,D,, “way”)
and thoughts (hb:v…j“m)" and turning (bWv) to Yahweh. The result is God’s mer-
ciful (μjr) and forgiving (jls) response. Phrases in v. 6 (“while he may be
found . . . while he is near”) remind the audience that an invitation of this
sort is not always available, and thus it is urgent to respond to the prophetic
call to repentance. Verses 8–13 remind the audience that God’s promises are
effective, accomplishing what he desires and the purposes for which he gave
them. His promise of redemption of the community from exile (v. 12, “you
will go out with joy and be led forth with peace”) is not to be questioned but
requires the penitential response of the community.
In the broader context of Isaiah 40–55, this invitation is based on the gra-
cious work of God in saving his people through the servant figure of Isaiah 52–
53. God’s grace extended to the people opens the opportunity for a penitential
39. This connection between the Davidic covenant and the people appears to reflect a
more general shift in focus in Isaiah away from the royal house and to Yahweh’s kingship di-
rectly over the people (see the reference to Cyrus as anointed in 45:1 and Yahweh as king in
41:21, 43:15, 44:6); see Roberts (1982: 140–41); Williamson (1998: 122–25); and especially
Sweeney (1997b: 41–61); Clements (2003). This may also be signaled by the disappearance of
superscriptions related to Judean kings in chaps. 40–66. A shift away from Davidic kingship
such as this (at least for a time) also can be discerned at the end of Chronicles; see Boda
(2009).
212 Chapter 12
response of seeking and calling on God by forsaking wicked and unrighteous

ways and turning to Yahweh.
Isaiah 56–66
Isaiah 40–55 prophesies a day when the community will be released from
exile in Babylon. Although Cyrus is identified in Isa 40:27–49:13 as the one
who would initiate this release (44:28; 45:1, 13), the absence of any mention
of Cyrus after the depiction of the fall of Babylon in chap. 47, the release of
Israel/Jacob in chap. 48, and the clear shift to the servant as the agent of hope
in Isa 49:14–55:13 suggest an audience disappointed by the new Persian con-
text. 40 More important is Isa 56:8:
The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, “Yet others I
will gather to them, to those already gathered.”
This prophecy declares the fulfillment of the instruction of Moses in Deut
30:4 that after the Exile a penitent community would be gathered from the
nations. The audience in view is thus a community restored from the Exile
that entertains hopes of the gathering of others. 41 This suggests the context
of the early Persian-period community in the province of Yehud that was be-
ginning the long and arduous process of rebuilding Jerusalem and Judah. This
final section of Isaiah envisions life as the exilic nightmare continues after the
first signs of restoration hope, providing an explanation for the present reali-
ties while prophesying hope for the future of the community and Zion. 42
Whereas Isaiah 7–39 was structured around the bracketing narratives of
Ahaz and Hezekiah, and Isaiah 40–55 was structured according to the two la-
ments found in Isaiah 40 and 49, Isaiah 56–66 is structured chiastically (see
fig. 2). 43 Bracketing the entire prophetic collection in Isaiah 56–66 are Isa
56:2–8 and 66:18–24 (A/Au), two passages that express a universal vision in
which the nations enter into relationship with Yahweh. This universal vision
can also be discerned in “the nucleus of the collection,” 44 that is, in chaps.
60–62 (D), where the servant figure speaks of salvation and restoration for Is-
rael, renewal of covenant, and fulfillment of the people’s role as priests among
the nations and Jerusalem’s role as a magnet for the nations. Surrounding this
“nucleus,” however, are two passages (C/Cu) that picture Yahweh donning the
40. Cf. Blenkinsopp (1993: 186–206).

41. Westermann (1969: 297).
42. Clements (1982: 128) notes the focus on Jerusalem in Isaiah 56–66.
43. For this, see Polan (1986) and Emmerson (1992: 20). See also proposals of chiasm by
Bonnard (1972: 318) and Lack (1973: 125–32), and note the cautions of Oswalt (1997: 461–
63) and Boda (1996). See Westermann (1969: 296–308) for a redactional theory that explains
how chaps. 56–66 developed around the nucleus of chaps. 60–62.
44. Blenkinsopp (1988: 198); Westermann (1969: 296). In this, one sees the closest affin-
ities with Isaiah 40–55. The mention of “anointing” in chap. 61 suggests the nucleus is func-
tioning similarly to the two earlier prophetic “call” pieces in chap. 6 and chap. 40.
Isaiah 213
garments of a warrior to battle the nations (59:18, 63:6) and bringing salva-
tion to Zion (59:20). 45 Important is the fact that Yahweh does this only for
those who repent (59:20) and enter into an eternal covenant with him
through the Spirit (59:21).
Isa 56:1 Introduction

A. Isa 56:2–8: Universal vision
B. Isa 56:9–59:15a: Problems
C. Isa 59:15b–21: Divine warrior
D. Isaiah 60–62: Nucleus (servant, Israel, Zion)
Cu. Isa 63:1–6: Divine warrior
Bu. Isa 63:7–66:17: Problems
Au. Isa 66:18–24: Universal vision
Figure 2. Chiastic Structure of Isaiah 56:1–66:24.
This qualification in 59:20, that salvation is afforded only to those who re-
pent (bwv) from transgression ([vp) and who receive his spirit (59:21), sug-
gests that sin was an enduring reality within the community. The remaining
pericopes in Isaiah 56–66 (B/Bu) highlight the serious challenges faced by the
audience that needed to be resolved in order to experience the glorious resto-
ration envisioned in the brackets around and nucleus within Isaiah 56–66. 46
In these sections, one hears the cry of the people, echoing the cries key to the
structure of Isaiah 40–55 (cf. 40:27, 49:14), but in these cases the answer of
God is no longer one of comfort (see Boda forthcoming g).
Isaiah 57:14–21
The claim of Isa 57:15 is quite radical, especially for a community focused
on the temple in Jerusalem. First, God declares that he dwells (ˆkv) in a “high
and holy place,” most likely a reference to the heavens (see Job 16:19) rather
than to the temple. But second, he adds to this that he dwells “also with the
oppressed (aK:D') and lowly in spirit (j'WrAlp"v)‘ .” The former term, “oppressed”
(aK;D'), refers to those who are crushed under the weight of the attack of the
enemy (Pss 89:11, 143:3; Job 19:2), often related to social injustice (Isa 3:15;
Pss 72:4, 94:5; Job 22:9; Prov 22:22; Lam 3:34) and at times to the discipline
45. For this motif elsewhere in Old Testament see P. Miller (1973); Kang (1989); Sherlock
(1993); Longman and Reid (1995).
46. That renewal was needed was suggested in 56:1–2, where Yahweh calls the commu-
nity to preserve (rmv) justice (fP:v‘m)I and do (hc[) righteousness (hq:d;x)} , to keep (rmv) from
profaning Sabbath and keep (rmv) the hand from doing (hc[) evil ([r').
214 Chapter 12
of God (Isa 53:10). It may involve words ( Job 19:2) but also oppressive ac-
tions and even death ( Job 6:9). This word does appear in the phrase “crushed
in spirit” (j'WrAyaEK}D)' alongside the “broken (rbv) of heart” in Ps 34:19 and thus
may not refer to oppressive circumstances in Isa 57:15 but rather to those
with oppressed or crushed hearts. The second term is clearly related to the in-
ner disposition, “lowly of spirit” (j'WrAlpv), a phrase that is contrasted with
the proud in Prov 16:19 and 29:23, and thus refers to humility. God’s purpose
in “dwelling with” these broken-hearted people is identified in Isa 57:15b: “to
revive the spirit (j'Wr) of the lowly and to revive the heart (bl) of the crushed.”
That these inner dispositions are related to the discipline of God (as in Isa
53:10) is clear from v. 16, in which God offers hope that his accusation (byr,
a legal term) and wrath (πxq) will not endure forever, lest the people’s spirit
(jwr) and breath (hmvn) grow faint (πf[; cf. Pss 61:3, 102:1). God disciplines,
but he sustains those who will humble themselves in this discipline.
The depth of human sin and divine discipline is filled out further in v. 17.
It was sinful and unlawful gain (e.g., Gen 37:26, Exod 18:21) that precipitated
God’s anger (πxq) and caused him to punish (hkn) and withdraw (rts) from
them. In spite of (or possibly because of) this discipline, however, the disci-
plined continued in apostasy/turning away (bbE/v) “in the way of the heart.” 47
Although God has seen “the ways” (v. 18a), he promises in vv. 18–19 heal-
ing (apr), guidance (hjn), comfort (μjn), and peace (μ/lv…). This is truly grace ex-
tended to those who are rebellious (v. 17b). The reference to “the lips of the
mourners in Israel” reflects the pain of those who are crushed under the
weight of oppressive circumstances. These circumstances throughout repre-
sent God’s discipline on human rebellion, but those who are lowly of spirit
are told to expect God’s salvation. For the wicked ([vr), however, according
to vv. 20–21, there is neither rest (fq<v≤) nor peace (μ/lv…).
Isaiah 57 highlights the importance of humility for bringing an end to the
discipline of God due to sin. 48 This suggests that the “wicked” are the proud
who refuse to be humbled by divine discipline.
Isaiah 58
Isaiah 58 assumes that the audience has participated in fasts, the purpose
of which in their own words was to catch the eye and mind of God (58:3a).
These practices appear to reflect God’s agenda for his people, as v. 2 suggests
with its description of these people’s “seeking” (vrd) God, “delighting”
(≈pj) in the knowledge of God’s ways, “doing righteousness” (hc…[: hq:d:x}), not
47. Gärtner (2006: 159) notes that here God’s wrath, seen in his punishment and hiding
his face in anger because of their sin, leads them to sin further: “They turn away in the ways
of his heart.”
48. Similarly, in 66:1–2 the humble and contrite of spirit who tremble at his word are the
ones to whom God looks, again speaking of God’s presence in the temple.
Isaiah 215
“forsaking” (bz[) God’s judgments, asking (lav) God for just decisions in the
courts, and “delighting” (≈pj) in God’s nearness.
However, God sees through this seeking and delighting, responding to the
questions of the people with a series of accusations. While fasting, they con-
tinue in their exploitation and wickedness, and it is this behavior that makes
it impossible for them to “make your voice heard on high” (3b–4). The re-
mainder of this chapter defines God’s vision for fasting by describing the fast
that is not of God’s choosing (v. 5), the fast of his choosing (vv. 6–7, 9b–10a,
13), and the blessing one should expect (vv. 8–9a, 10b–12, 14) when the latter
type of fast is practiced.
The kind of fasting God has chosen does not consist merely of acts of formal
contrition such as bowing the head and lying on sackcloth and ashes (v. 5) but
rather of acts of justice including freeing the oppressed (v. 6) and feeding, shel-
tering, and clothing the needy (v. 7). This kind of fasting will bring the salva-
tion for which they long (v. 8) and answers to their calls and cries (v. 9).
The fasting in Isaiah 58 does not specifically link these mourning rites to
repentance, and this fasting may refer to days when the people sought Yah-
weh for relief from their present predicament. What the passage does empha-
size is the need for a change of behavior for God to hear the cry of his people.
One’s “seeking” of God, “desiring to know” God, even one’s pious acts of
contrition, must be accompanied by obedient behavior in life. The pattern
here is clear: repentance in behavior (vv. 6b–7), call/cry for help (v. 9), answer
(v. 9), and appearance of God (v. 9).
Isaiah 59:1–15a
Isaiah 59 contains echoes of the themes already developed in chap. 58, as-
suming a people in need of God’s intervention who are confronted with their
sin and promised God’s salvation. By paying attention to the person (first, sec-
ond, third) of pronouns and verbs, one can discern a structure that suggests a
prophetic liturgy, which included the response of the people.
59:1: Confidence in God’s ability to save/hear in the present predicament

59:2–3: Accusation of sin (2nd person)
59:4–8: Description of sin (3rd person)
59:9–11: Depiction of predicament (1st person)
59:12–13: Confession of sin (1st person)
59:14–15a: Description of sin (3rd person)
59:15b–19: Depiction of salvation (3rd person)
59:20–21: Divine declaration (1st person)
As in chap. 58, the present predicament of the people is clearly linked to their
sins, which separate the people from God and hide his face from them, so that
he refuses to respond to their cries for help. The sins are identified as social in-
justice, including violence and murder, resulting in hands stained with blood
(cf. Isa 1:15). Rather than denying these accusations, the people respond by
216 Chapter 12
first describing their present predicament (vv. 9–11) 49 and second confessing
freely their sins (vv. 12–13; cf. vv. 14–15a). This honest confession is followed
immediately by the appearance of the divine warrior.
Whereas 59:12–13 depicts the people freely admitting that their sin was
the cause behind their present predicament, v. 20 states that redemption is re-
stricted among Israel to “those who repent (bWv) of rebellion ([væP)< .” The spe-
cific details of what it means to repent are not provided. It may be that the
confession of vv. 12–13 is being defined here as an act of repentance, or it may
mean that confession such as this must be accompanied by a turning from sin
in actual behavior as was urged by Isaiah 58. Isaiah 58 focused on the need for
change in behavior, and Isaiah 59 encourages honest confession of one’s cul-
pability before Yahweh (vv. 12–13).
Isaiah 63:7–64:11[12]
This passage represents a communal prayer to God. The prayer begins with
a focus on the covenant faithfulness of Yahweh (63:7–11a) as the supplicant
declares that he will “mention” or “bring to remembrance” (rkz Hiphil) all
that is worthy of praise in Yahweh, with special focus on his gracious acts
based on his gracious character (v. 7). The supplicant cites Yahweh’s words in
choosing Israel, words that reveal God’s expectation that they would be faith-
ful to him (v. 8) and then depict Yahweh’s saving actions in “days of antiq-
uity” (v. 9; μl:/[). However, the supplicant reveals that in response to this grace
the people “rebelled” (hrm) and “grieved” (bx[) his holy spirit (v. 10a), acts
that resulted in God’s discipline (v. 10b). However, this condition did not en-
dure. The prayer declares that the God whose covenant faithfulness he is “re-
membering” (63:7; rkz Hiphil) is also the God who, after discipline, “remem-
bered” (63:11; rkz): “Then he remembered, in days of old (μl:/[), Moses, his
people.” 50 This initial section then brings into view from the outset of the
prayer the gracious pattern in “days of old” (μl:/[) of God’s rescue of his
people, even in the wake of their rebellion and his discipline. 51
Based on this theological foundation (63:7–11a), the supplicant now
moves to the present predicament, shifting the mood from praise to lament,
49. The imagery here is darkness, blindness, and death (vv. 9–10). Blindness is a regular
condition of the people in Isaiah, seen in Isaiah 6 as a judgment from God.
50. Verse 11 is traditionally translated “they [his people] remembered” even though the
Hebrew here reads rKøz]Yiw,' a waw-consecutive imperfect, third masculine singular. In vv. 9–10,
waw-consecutive imperfects are used only in relation to the action of God (“he lifted them
and he carried them,” v. 9; “he turned himself,” v. 10). The people’s actions are depicted with
perfects and always in the third common plural. This evidence suggests that the subject of
v. 11 is Yahweh and the act of remembering is God’s grace in spite of their sin. The object of
this remembering is Moses and his people, and “the day of old” is an adverbial phrase, iden-
tifying the time when the remembering took place.
51. If v. 11a is not included in this initial section, it is difficult to see how it functions as
a recitation of his covenant faithfulness.
Isaiah 217
especially with his questions (63:11b–64:11[12]). 52 In the first section of this

lament, he continues to leverage the history of God’s treatment in the forma-
tive experience of the exodus, highlighting how God guided them at the Red
Sea through his holy spirit and powerful arm, performing miraculous acts de-
signed to make for himself an everlasting (μl:/[) and glorious (tr,a<p}T)I name
(63:12, 14). However, the repeated use of the question “where” (hYea)" in 63:11
and 15 reveals that God is no longer present in the supplicant’s time as he was
in those formative years.
It is God’s absence that prompts the request of the supplicant, first in 63:15
asking God to look down (fbn) from heaven and see (har), then in 63:17b im-
ploring God to return (bWv), and in 63:19b[64:1] to rip apart ([rq) the heavens
and come down (dry). God’s silence, equated elsewhere in Isaiah with God’s
lack of redemptive activity (hvj; Isa 42:14; 57:11; 62:1, 6; 65:6), is what frus-
trates these supplicants (64:11[12]). Very clearly, God’s absence and silence is
linked by the supplicant to the sins of the people, which are honestly admit-
ted throughout the prayer (64:4b, 6, 8[5b, 7, 9]). However, although the sup-
plicant declares that from “days of old” (μl:/[) God has had the reputation of
aiding those who “wait” for him and “rejoice in doing righteousness” (64:3–
4[4–5]), he asks that God not be angry beyond measure or remember iniquity
forever (64:8[9]). 53
This request is based on several key reasons in the prayer. First, the prayer
twice calls Yahweh “our Father” (63:16, 64:7[8]), relying on ancient familial
loyalty and the protection of the patriarch for redemption (laEG;o 63:16). 54 This
redemptive role for Father Yahweh is said to have been “from days of old”
(μl:/[). Second, the prayer focuses on the supplicants’ status as God’s servants
(63:17) and God’s people (63:18, 64:7[8]), a status they have enjoyed with
Yahweh from “days of old” (μl:/[; 63:19). Third, the enemy is brought into
view at two points in the prayer (63:18, 64:1[2]), linked in one case to the de-
struction of God’s sanctuary. Fourth, this destruction of the temple as well as
the destruction of the sacred cities including Jerusalem are also key motiva-
tions for Yahweh to act (63:18, 64:9–10[10–11]).
Fifth, through the question “why,” which is so common in the laments of
the Psalter, the supplicants claim that Yahweh is the one who has caused
them to wander and has hardened their hearts (63:17a). It is Yahweh then
who needs to “repent” or “return” because the people have no hope now with
52. See the questions “where” (hYea;" 63:11, 15), “why” (hM:l;: 63:17), and the interrogatives
in 64:11[12].
53. Notice also the use of “beyond measure” (daøm}Ad[") in 64:8[9] and 11[12], much as one
finds at the end of Lamentations 5.
54. In the context, the supplicant also talks about disconnection from Abraham and Israel
(63:16). This may be a reference to groups within Israel that had rejected those responsible
for this prayer, or may indicate that due to their disobedience they had been disowned by
Abraham and Israel.
218 Chapter 12
hardened hearts (63:17b). This claim most likely also underlies the confession
of 64:4b–6[5b–7]. There, the supplicant declares
Behold, you were angry, for we sinned, we continued in them a long time;
and shall we be saved? For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither
like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one
who calls on your name, who arouses himself to take hold of you; for you
have hidden your face from us and have delivered us into the power of our
iniquities.
The sin of the people is not covered up but rather is traced to an act of God’s
judgment on them. Although not an assertion of “innocence” by the people,
whose sins underlie God’s anger against them, it does remind God that the
only hope is for him to forgive their sins and remember them in their distress.
Finally, the historical recital at the outset of the prayer (63:7–11a) functions
(implicitly) as a motivation for God to act in ways consonant with the “days
of old.” As he redeemed (lag; 63:9) and remembered (rkz; 63:11) his people in
days of old (μl:/[; 63:9), so may the redeemer (lag; 63:16) of old (μl:/[ 63:16)
not remember (rkz; 64:8[9]) their sins forever. 55
This prayer represents a lament to God admitting sinful ways but linking
these sinful ways to God’s judgment on them, a judgment that can be traced
back to Isaiah 6, where God commands Isaiah to harden the hearts of the
people. There is no denying the fact that the people have sinned from “days
of old,” but these days of old are leveraged by the supplicants to show prece-
dents for God’s salvation even for those who are still rebellious.
Here we see a serious challenge to repentance as the way forward. This ob-
viously raises a serious question in Isaiah about the nature of repentance and
the necessity of God’s grace to save humanity in its thoroughly sinful state. It
appears that Isaiah 65–66, however, confronts the theology found in this
prayer, possibly highlighting its role as a foil in the book, similar to the cita-
tion in 58:3a from those who had fasted but whom God had not noticed.
Isaiah 65–66
Isaiah 65–66 functions as a response to the lament of 63:7–64:11[12]. Its
opening section (65:1–7) offers Yahweh’s perspective on the present predica-
ment, reminding the audience that he was the covenant party that had been
doing the seeking, revealing himself and spreading out (crp Piel; cf. 1:15) his
hands constantly to a stubborn/rebellious (rrs) people who had provoked
him with their illicit worship and unclean practices. This is filled out further
in the two refrains later in chaps. 65–66 (65:12b, 66:4b) in which he explains
55. Ironically, as the supplicant is one who remembers (rkz; 63:7), so God acts on behalf
of those who remember (rkz; 64:4[5]).

Isaiah 219
how “I called, but no one answered; I spoke but they did not listen. And they
did evil in my sight and chose that in which I did not delight.” In answer to
their cry for an end to the present silence (hvj) in 64:11[12], Yahweh re-
sponds now by breaking his silence with severe judgment on their sins (65:6–
7). 56 Having linked themselves with their ancestors (from days of old), he
now brings judgment for their sins and the sins of their ancestors (65:7a).
Even in the midst of this discipline for sin, however, there is hope because
Yahweh distinguishes between a godly remnant called “my servants . . . my
chosen ones . . . my people who seek me” (65:8–10) and those destined for
the sword, who “forsake the Lord, who forget my holy mountain,” displayed
in their inattention to his call evidenced by evil deeds (65:11–12). The con-
trast between these two groups is detailed and heightened through the con-
trasts of 65:13–16.
This judgment will lead to the creation of a new cosmos where there is no
remembrance of former things and where Jerusalem will be a delight (65:17–
25). In a statement designed to create a stark contrast between this new ideal
state and the former rebellious one, Yahweh promises “before they call, I will
answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear” (65:24; cf. 65:12b,
66:4b). There was no answer for those who had not answered God, but “my
servants . . . my chosen ones . . . my people who seek me” (65:9–10) will have
immediate answers.
That the conflict is related to those presently in charge of the temple is sug-
gested by 66:1–6, which echoes the favor of God toward those humble and
contrite in spirit found in Isaiah 57. God rejects the sacrifices at the temple
and brings judgment on those people because the people have not listened or
answered his voice but have done evil. However, 66:7–13 reminds the audi-
ence of the promised new day, this time picturing Zion giving birth to chil-
dren. That this new day will entail a division between “my servants” and “his
foes” is clear from the closing verses of the book (66:14–17, 18–24).
Isaiah 65–66 represents a response to the communal lament of Isa 63:7–
64:12. The communal lament had leveraged the theology of Isaiah 6 in a way
similar to those who had leveraged the Dtr theology of corporate guilt to use
it to argue for refusing to repent by blaming their ancestors (see Ezekiel 18
and discussion on Ezekiel, pp. 253–293 below). Isa 63:7–64:11[12] also sees
their predicament related to the sin of “days of old” but more importantly to
the hardening work of God on their hearts, which made it impossible for
them to repent. Isaiah 65 reminds them that God had continued to cry out to
them and that they had not answered.
56. Reading hvj here as per the BHS apparatus.

220 Chapter 12
Summary
Isaiah grants us the first perspective on the prophetic theology of sin and
its remedy. At the heart of the book lies a vision for Zion to become the place
from which the law would go to the nations and to which the nations would
flow to submit to the Holy One of Israel; however, the Zion of Isaiah’s day
does not even approximate this vision. Filled with unjust acts and meaning-
less sacrificial and festal ritual, the city required some major changes. Isaiah 1
offers two fundamental perspectives for remedying sin that set the agenda for
the rest of the book of Isaiah and are echoed throughout the prophetic litera-
ture. The first (1:2–20) demands a human response and is the call for the
people to repent in their (inner) affections and (outer) behavior by (negatively)
ceasing to do evil and (positively) learning to do good. The second involves a
divine response (1:21–31). Faced with the reality of rebels and sinners who
will not be willing and obedient, the only solution will be the purging and
refining work of discipline, which will remove the impurities of rebellion. These
two perspectives can be discerned in the two visions of Zion that dominate
chaps. 2–5. The vision of Zion in chap. 2 ends with Isaiah calling the house
of Jacob to walk in the light of the Lord, that is, to respond in obedient ac-
tion as in the penitential perspective of 1:2–20. The vision of Zion in chap. 4
reveals a Zion that has been cleansed of bloodstains by the spirit of judgment
and fire, similar to the refining envisioned in 1:21–31.
The first prophetic call narrative in Isaiah 6 provides a vision of God’s plan
to remedy sin in Israel. The prophet who stands among his generation is
stained by their uncleanness, yet his iniquity and sin is atoned for and re-
moved by the heavenly touch of a burning coal. This approach to remedying
sin, however, will not be experienced by the people. Although this passage
provides superb insight into the classic prophetic process that brings the repen-
tance exhorted in Isa 1:2–20 (hearing, seeing, perceiving, turning, healing), in
the end God announces that the time for repentance such as this has passed.
Instead, the Holy One of Israel will bring a severe discipline on the nation and
through this discipline produce a holy seed in the land. In the end, according
to Isaiah 6, dealing with sin demands the purging work of God on the commu-
nity, akin to 1:21–31.
And yet in Isaiah 7–39, the prophet is still called to declare God’s message
of repentance to the people. Repentance is described in Isaiah 7–39 first as an
issue of trust in Yahweh rather than in religious, economic, or political re-
sources. This trust demands humility (29:19). Turning to Yahweh involves si-
multaneously the rejection of idols and the embrace of God, defined as rest,
quietness, and waiting (30:15, 18), seeking (vrd; 9:13), relying on (10:20–21),
gazing on (17:7–8), and trusting in Yahweh (26:2–4). When disciplined, a
penitential cry (see bwv in v. 22) prompts a divine response (19:19–22).
Repentance also involves a change in behavior, walking righteously, speak-
ing with integrity, and rejecting injustice. It should be noted, however, that
Isaiah 221
this repentance is based on the grace and mercy of God. The people are encour-
aged that when they cry to him he will hear and reveal himself to them as
their teacher in order to guide them to repentance and so receive blessing and
healing (30:18–26). It is the practical act of repentance in destroying altars
that brings atonement and removal of iniquity and sin (27:9).
Although it is clear from Isaiah’s call in Isaiah 6 that the time for repen-
tance is over, the dominant way to deal with sin in Isaiah 7–39 is repentance.
This suggests that Isaiah 6–39 has been preserved in the end to speak to a
later audience. That later audience, suggested by the reference to holy seed in
Isaiah 6, now comes into view as Isaiah 39 transitions the reader to a new
context, exile.
With this new context comes a new prophetic calling in 40:1–11, which
shifts the mood from the judgment of the first calling in Isaiah 6 to hope of
salvation. Isaiah 40 declares that guilt has been dealt with according to the
agenda of 1:21–31. God’s disciplinary exile has removed the guilt: the burden-
some work is complete, the punishment accepted as sacrifice and double pay-
ment for sin. Isaiah 40–55 reveals, however, that sin has not been eradicated
from among the people, because the people continue to sin. God’s remedy is
first and foremost the announcement of a new work of grace: for his own sake
he will blot out (hjm) and not remember (rkz) their sins (chap. 44), an action
that precedes the invitation to “return” (bwv) to God. In Isaiah 44, the people
are called to respond in repentance based on this grace. A new dimension of this
grace is introduced through the revelation of a servant figure who will serve
as the arm of the Lord for servant Israel/Jacob. This servant figure will be-
come a vicarious sacrifice for the people, taking its suffering and sin as a guilt
offering and establishing a new community (chap. 52–53). This may suggest
some of the tone of the refining agenda of 1:21–31 but does so with new nu-
ances. The penitential agenda of 1:2–20 is seen in the invitation of chap. 55.
God’s grace experienced through the suffering servant is to lead to repentance:
seeking and calling on God while forsaking wicked ways. Isaiah 40–55 thus
identifies grace as the prerequisite to repentance.
Isaiah 56–66 takes the reader to the final phase of the prophecy of Isaiah.
Alongside great hope is placed deep concern over enduring sin in the com-
munity. The penitential agenda of 1:2–20 is evident throughout. Salvation by
the divine warrior of chap. 59 is afforded to those who repent (bwv), who in
turn are promised God’s Spirit (59:20–21). This repentance demands humility,
a trait that distinguishes them from the “wicked” who will be rejected (57:14–
20). This humility, however, consists not of fasting rituals with the appear-
ance of seeking (vrd) and delighting (≈pj) in God but rather of fasting rituals
accompanied by change in behavior, that is, justice (chap. 58). Repentance
does involve the verbal confession of sin, but as seen above salvation is offered
to those who repent (chap. 59). Confession of sin is evident in the prayer of
63:7–64:11[12], but in the end the supplicants blame God for hardening
their hearts, hiding his face, and delivering them into the power of their sin.
222 Chapter 12
According to Isaiah 65, this is hardly the penitential response for which God
was looking, and this precipitates a shift from the penitential agenda of 1:2–
20 to the refining agenda of 1:21–31. God will judge in order to finally distin-
guish between a godly remnant called his servants and chosen people, who
seek him and are humble, and the ungodly, who forsake God and forget his
holy mountain and are destined for the sword.
In Isaiah, sin is remedied through the means articulated in the opening
chapter: the call to human repentance and the act of divine refining. In the wake
of the period of diving refining, it is the announcement and act of divine grace
that is introduced as essential to human repentance. The rejection of this
grace, however, brings the threat once again of a divine refining that will in
the end produce the holy seed of Isaiah 6.
Chapter 13
Jeremiah
The book of Jeremiah provides some of the most concentrated reflections

on sin and its remedy within the Old Testament. The book has been the ob-
ject of considerable scholarship, focused heavily on its development (see es-
pecially Carroll 1989). The present form of the book in the Hebrew text is
introduced by a superscription in 1:1–3 that ushers its readers into Jeremiah’s
historical situation in the closing phase of the kingdom of Judah, beginning
in the 13th year of Josiah’s reign (1:2). 1 This is followed by a report of the call-
ing of the prophet in chap. 1, which commissions Jeremiah to speak to a re-
calcitrant people (1:7–10, 17–19) and identifies his audience as Judah and the
nations. 2 The prophet’s role is identified as more negative, “to pluck up (vtn)
and to break down (≈tn), to destroy (dba Hiphil) and to overthrow (srh),” than
positive, “to build (hnb) and to plant ([fn),” something borne out by the ratio
of warning/judgment to promise/blessing in the book. That his ministry will
be dominated by the negative is also apparent from the vision he receives as
part of this commission: a boiling pot tilting toward Judah from the north,
which represents the coming judgment of God for the wickedness of the
people (1:16). Ominous also are God’s regular assurances to Jeremiah not to
fear (1:8) or be dismayed before (1:17) his audience, his promise to make Jere-
miah a fortified city, a pillar of iron, and walls of bronze against the land and
its people (1:18), and the revelation that they will fight against him (1:19).
Negative evidence such as this not only heightens the urgency of Jeremiah’s
commission but also casts doubt over the potential for success.
Echoes of this initial calling can be discerned at the heart of the book in
chaps. 24–25, which functions as a hinge point between the two parts of the
1. It is important to note at the outset that the present work follows the Hebrew textual
tradition, which appears to represent the latest ancient edition of the book of Jeremiah. The
textual form in the Septuagint (LXX) is often identified as earlier than that found in the He-
brew (MT) tradition; see G. Janzen (1973); Tov (1981: 145–67). In the LXX, the section now
found in MT chaps. 46–51 follows Jer 25:13 (25:14 in Hebrew is not found in the LXX). In
the LXX, MT 25:35–38 closes off the oracles against the nations and MT 50 is placed at LXX
27. See Watts (1992b: 432–47); Carroll (1999: 73–86); and Aejmelaeus (2002: 459–82), who
argue that Jer 25:1–13 was originally an introduction to the oracles against the nations sec-
tion; contra Kessler (1999: 64–72); Haran (2003: 699–706); cf. Gosse (1998: 75–80).
2. On prophetic calls, see Isaiah 6, pp. 194–198 above.
- 223 -
224 Chapter 13
book. 3 First, in chap. 24, the prophet is given a vision of the destruction that
will come on Judah under the leadership of Zedekiah, its last king. However,
at the same time, the vision provides hope for a future for the recently de-
parted exiles when God promises to return them to the land and “build them
up (hnb) and not overthrow (srh) them . . . plant ([fn) them and not pluck
them up (vtn)” (24:6), vocabulary identical to that used in Jeremiah’s call in
1:10. Jeremiah 25 continues this trend by reflecting back on his prophetic
ministry, noting the year of his calling in 1:1: “From the thirteenth year of Jo-
siah the son of Amon, king of Judah, even to this day, these twenty-three
years the word of the Lord has come to me, and I have spoken to you again
and again” (25:3). 4
This hinge in chaps. 24–25 functions as an important juncture in the book,
separating it into two major sections, Jeremiah 2–23 and 26–52. 5 This literary
hinge does more than just divide the book; it functions as both a proleptic
and reflective literary transition. On the one hand, it foreshadows key themes
that will be introduced in the second half of the book, in particular, the final
destruction of Judah (24:8–10, 25:9–11; cf. chap. 52), the punishment of the
nations (25:12–38; cf. chaps. 46–51), the new covenant (24:7, chaps. 30–33),
and restoration (24:5–6, chaps. 30–33, 52). On the other hand, it reflects on
the past frustrating experience of the prophet with his recalcitrant people in
the speech in 25:3–11.
This speech (25:3–11) provides important orientation to the reader for un-
derstanding the book of Jeremiah. Here, as he traces the history of his pro-
phetic ministry, one that he shares with a long line of prophets who had
declared God’s word to the people in the past (25:4), Jeremiah provides the
“heart” of the prophetic message:
Turn (bWv) now everyone from their evil way and from the evil of your deeds,
and dwell on the land which the Lord has given to you and your ancestors
forever and ever; and do not go (˚lh) after other gods to serve (db[) them and
to worship (hwj Hishtaphel) them, and do not provoke me to anger (s[k) with
the work of your hands, and I will do you no harm. (25:5–6, nasb, modified)
The term that leads Jeremiah’s summary of the prophetic message is what lies
at its heart: “turn” (bwv; cf. Zech 1:3). Jeremiah is clear in this description,
3. Most have seen chap. 25 as the key juncture in the book; see recently Stulman (2005:
14–15). See Kessler (1999) and Fretheim (2002: 18), who focus on the role of chap. 25 as a
hinge. On Jeremiah 25 and especially its relationship to chaps. 46–51, see G. Janzen (1973);
Tov (1981: 145–67); Watts (1992b: 432–47); Carroll (1999: 73–86); Aejmelaeus (2002: 459–
82); Haran (2003: 699–706); cf. Gosse (1998: 75–80).
4. The reference to “this book” in 25:13 also suggests the key role of this passage in the
structure of the book. Interestingly, it speaks of the content of this book including “all . . .
which Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations,” suggesting that it has in view the en-
tire book, including chaps. 46–51.
5. Some consider chap. 52 to be an epilogue and others chaps. 46–51 to be an addition,
but the hinge in chaps. 24–25 is connected to both.
Jeremiah 225
however, that the people have not responded to him or any other prophet,
repeating three times that they had not listened ([mv), and so the prophet de-
clares the consequences of their refusal: God will bring Babylon against Judah
(25:9–11).
This reflective speech at the key hinge in the book is the point of departure
for the present consideration of the theology of sin and its remedy in Jere-
miah. It identifies the premium placed on a prophetic process that was in-
tended to deal with the sin of the people.
Prophetic Process and Human Response

Before turning to a consideration of the message communicated in the
flow of the book, a closer look at how the book of Jeremiah envisions the pro-
phetic process is in order.
Jeremiah 18:1–17
Jer 18:1–17 provides important insights into the penitential process that is
assumed throughout much of Jeremiah. The prophetic message is occasioned
by Jeremiah’s observation of a potter at work (18:1–4). The vessel that the pot-
ter is forming is ruined and so he simply reworks the clay into a vessel that is
“right in his eyes” (yny[b rvy). This is then related by Yahweh to the situation
of Israel. 6
Two hypothetical scenarios are then offered based on these observations
(18:5–10). In the initial scenario, Yahweh first warns of coming destruction
(“uprooted,” “torn down,” “destroyed”), the people then turn from their evil
(wt[rm bwv), and then Yahweh promises to turn/refrain (μjn) from sending the
promised disaster. In the second scenario, Yahweh first promises blessing
(“built up, planted”), the people then do evil and refuse to obey, and so Yah-
weh warns he will turn/refrain (μjn) from sending the promised blessing.
These two scenarios fill out the foundational theology of sin and its rem-
edy that is assumed in much of the book of Jeremiah, identifying the key role
played by the prophet, but also the interplay between human change (from
evil [h[r], to evil [h[r]) and divine change (from bringing disaster [h[r] to
bringing good [bfy] and from bringing good [bfy] to bringing disaster [h[r]).
Simply put, turning from evil is the key for avoiding calamity and experienc-
ing blessing from God; turning to evil is the sure way to experience calamity
and avoid blessing from God.
This penitential process is then applied directly to Judah as Yahweh warns
of coming destruction (v. 11a) and calls them to “turn from your evil ways”
and “make right your ways and your actions” (v. 11b). The expected response
of the people is rejection of this message (v. 12), and this will then result in
6. This suggests that God’s intention in all that follows is redemptive, that is, that cer-
tainly in his prophetic warnings but also in his discipline he is seeking to form a useful
vessel.
226 Chapter 13
the judgment outlined in vv. 13–17. The theology of repentance is filled out
even further in this application to Judah. Repentance has both negative (turn-
ing from) and positive (making right) dimensions. Furthermore, repentance
involves a change in behavior (evil ways, ways and action).
Prophetic Process
The pattern that can be discerned in Jer 18:1–17 and 25:3–11 appears at
regular intervals throughout the book of Jeremiah (7:13–15, 21–29; 11:6–8;
17:18–27; 26:2–6, 12–13; 29:17–19; 34:12–22; 35:14; cf. 34:18–19; 35:14b–17;
36:3, 6–7; 44:1–14). In its basic form, the pattern includes the following three
elements.
1. Divine Word
Divine word usually involves the word of the prophets or Jeremiah but can
be God’s commandments on Sinai. When the word is delivered by a prophet
it is usually delivered into the context of human disobedience, except if it re-
fers to God’s commandments on Sinai. The book of Jeremiah places greatest
emphasis on the prophetic word as the means by which God had hoped to
deal with the sin of his people. One of the best images of the role of the pro-
phetic word is offered in 6:27–30, where the prophet is identified as “a tester
of metals.” What soon becomes obvious in the chapters that follow is that al-
though the “bellows blow fiercely to burn away the lead with fire . . . the re-
fining goes on in vain” (6:29). This lack of success leads to the declaration that
Israel is “rejected silver” that cannot be refined by the prophetic word. It is
this that will lead to the new way offered by Jeremiah 30–33.
2. Human Response
Human response can be either positive (turn away from evil and to God)
or negative (continue in evil, turn to do evil), although negative is the norm
in Jeremiah. This response can be cast in the indicative mood (depiction of
the past) or imperative mood (command for the present).
3. Divine Response
As with the human response, divine response can be either positive (res-
cue, bless) or negative (abandon, discipline), depicted as a past event or a
warning for the future. If it is past, it is usually negative, whereas a future
warning can be either positive or negative. Negative divine response is often
cast in the language of judgment, that is, punishment for lack of human re-
sponse. However, at times the book of Jeremiah teaches that judgment of this
sort was designed as discipline to deal with sin. Both 2:30 and 5:3 reveal that
God’s purpose in striking (hkn Hiphil) the children was that they might ac-
cept correction and turn from their sin. This may also be in view in 9:7 as the
refining and testing image reemerges when calls to repentance are no longer
effective.

Jeremiah 227
Vocabulary of Human Response

This pattern shows the premium placed on human response in Jeremiah.
Broadening the scope of the study to include all references to human re-
sponse throughout the book, one notices some important trends. Dominating
the vocabulary of positive human response (the kind of response that is
hoped for but is rarely given by the people) is the vocabulary of listening,
which occurs 40 times in the book of Jeremiah ([mv, lwqb [mv, ˆza hfn, bvq
Hiphil). This is not surprising because emphasis of this sort is placed in the
penitential pattern on the delivery of the divine word, often through the
prophets, which demands attentive ears to hear the message (cf. Isaiah 6). Be-
cause “listening” is the first step of response to the prophetic message, it is fa-
vored in the penitential pattern, and those who do not listen are those who
continue to do the evil at which the prophetic word is directed.
Not surprisingly, the second most common group of vocabulary terms re-
lated to positive human response is the domain of change, occurring 30 times
in the book of Jeremiah (bwv, bfy Hiphil; μjn Niphal; hnp). 7 In many cases, the
verb is used alone without qualification, but in several cases it is qualified by
“from one’s evil way,” “from one’s ways,” “from the evil of one’s deeds,” or
“to me [God].” Showcased here is what was already discerned in Jeremiah 18,
that is, that “repentance” involves two phases: turning from evil and turning
to Yahweh. The idiom bfy Hiphil + μk<ylEl}["m"W μk<ykEr]d' (“make good one’s ways
and deeds”) refers to a change in the character of one’s behavior and is paired
with the phrase h[: r;h: /Kr]D'mI vyaI bWv (“each one turn from their evil way”) in
18:11; 26:3, 13; and 35:15, suggesting that it is its opposite, serving the same
role as la< bWv (“return to”) while emphasizing more the change in behavior
than the change in relationship or affections. Far less common are the terms
μjn Niphal (“repent,” 8:6, 31:19) and hnp (la< hn,P: hnp, “turn the face to,” 2:27)
to denote the change essential in human response.
Although these first two groups of vocabulary terms dominate the book,
there is other important vocabulary. In 15 instances, human response involves
mourning and shame, with the most common vocabulary being from the
roots μlk (“be ashamed,” 3:3, 25; 6:15; 8:12; 31:19) and vwb (“be ashamed,”
3:25, 6:15 [2x], 8:12, 31:19). 8 In 10 instances, the vocabulary of speech is em-
ployed, including arq (“call,” 3:19, 10:25, 29:12), hn[ (“answer,” 7:13, 27;
35:17), rbd (“speak,” 8:6), llp Hithpael (“pray,” 29:12), lav (“ask,” 50:5), and
the idiom ynep}lI hN;jIT} lpn (“make fall a petition before,” 36:7). In 9 instances, the
7. Shields (1995: 41). See especially Holladay (1958), who focuses on the root bwv but does
show the key role that Jeremiah plays in the “covenantal use” of this word. Of the 164 oc-
currences of this verb in the Old Testament, 48 of them are in Jeremiah. See the superb ex-
cursus in Thompson (1980: 76–81): “No other book in the OT has this concentration of the
verb” (p. 77).
8. See also hkb (“to weep,” 50:4); akd Pual (“to become crushed,” 44:10); hlj (“to grow
weak,” 5:3); tP"r]j< acn (“bear reproach,” 31:19); ˚ry l[ qps (“to smite on the thigh,” 31:19); cf.
Ezek 21:17[12].
228 Chapter 13
vocabulary of action or movement occurs, including ˚lh (“walk/follow,” 9:13,

26:4, 29:12, 44:10), hc[ (“do,” 11:4), awb (“come/go,” 2:31, 50:5), and hta
(“come,” 3:22).
Less common are the 5 references to reverence (ary, “show reverence,”
5:22, 24; 44:10; lyj, “tremble,” 5:22; Ëyil"aE ytID:j}p," “the dread of me in you,”
2:19), 5 references to seeking/finding (axm, “find,” 29:12, 13; vqb Piel, “seek,”
29:13, 50:4; vrd, “seek,” 29:13), 3 references to rebellion/submission (rs:Wm jql,
“take/receive discipline,” 5:3, 17:23; db[, “serve,” 2:20), and 3 references to
knowledge ([dy, “know,” 2:19, 9:3, 10:25; [dy, “be instructed,” 31:19; ˆw[ [dy,
“acknowledge iniquity/guilt,” 3:13).
Dominating the vocabulary of negative human response (the kind of re-
sponse that is discouraged but is usually given by the people) is the vocabu-
lary of change. Although the roots rws (5:23, 17:5, 17:13), rmy (2:11, 2x), and
hnv Piel (2:36) are employed, this domain is dominated (as with the positive
human response) by the root bwv, not only in the verbal forms bwv (“turn,”
3:10, 19; 4:15; 8:4; 11:9; 31:19; 34:11, 16) and bwv Polel (8:5) but also the
nominal forms hb:Wvm} (“apostate/faithless,” 2:19; 3:6, 8, 11, 12, 22; 5:6; 8:5;
14:7) and bb:/v (“rebellious,” 3:14, 22; 31:22; 49:4; 50:6). 9 As with bwv for the
positive human response, this turning can be either turning away from some-
thing (such as God in 3:19, 17:5) or turning to something (such as “the sins
of the fathers” in 11:9). The use of rmy in 2:11 describes the “exchange” of
gods, and hnv Piel in 2:36 refers to changing one’s way.
Other key vocabulary for negative human response includes the domains
of action and movement, especially doing (hc[; 2:13; 3:5; 16:12; 18:10, 10;
44:4) and walking/following (˚lh; 2:5; 5:23; 7:24; 11:8, 10; 13:10; 18:12). 10
The vocabulary of rebellion is seen in the use of the roots rrs (“stubborn,”
5:23, 6:28), hrm (“rebel,” 5:23), [vp (“rebel,” 3:13, 5:6), âm (“refuse,” 3:3, 5:3,
8:5, 11:9, 13:10) and the idioms πr,[ø hvq Hiphil (“to stiffen the neck,” 7:26,
17:23, 19:15), μyniP: qzj Piel (“to make the face hard,” 5:3), and la πr,[ø hnp (“turn
the back to,” 2:27). The vocabulary of forsaking and rejection appears in the
roots dgb (“treacherous,” 3:7, 8, 10, 11, 20; 5:11; 12:6; cf. 9:1; 12:1), bz[ (“for-
sake,” 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7, 19; 9:13; 16:11 [2x]; 17:13 [2x]; 19:4; 22:9), sam (“re-
ject,” 6:19) and vfn (“reject,” 15:6).
Clearly, throughout the book of Jeremiah negative turning (apostasy) is de-
scribed in terms of behaviors (especially practices related to idolatry, injustice,
adultery, murder) but also at times in terms of the affections of the heart,
appearing for instance in the idiom [r;h:A/BlI tWrriv‘ ˚lh/hc[ (“acting/walking
according to the stubbornness of one’s evil heart,” 7:24, 11:8, 13:10, 16:12,
9. See especially Thompson (1980: 77), who identifies Jer 8:4–5 as a great passage for
showing the double nuance of the verb bwv.
10. See also μynip:l} aløw] r/ja:l} hyh (“to be to the back [go backward] and not to the front [go
forward],” 7:24); h[:r:Ala< h[:r:mE axy (“they go from sin to sin,” 9:3); l[m qjr (“going far from
me,” 2:5).
Jeremiah 229
18:12). 11 That evil ushers forth from the heart is evident in statements such
as 17:1, which claims that Judah’s sin is “written down with an iron stylus;
with a diamond point . . . engraved upon the tablet of their heart,” and 17:9–
10, where the heart is identified as “deceitful” above all things and sickly.
These same two dimensions can be discerned also for positive turning (re-
pentance). Although in many cases the precise nature of repentance is not de-
fined, there are instances in Jeremiah that fill out the meaning of repentance.
The dominant understanding is that the requisite human response to the pro-
phetic word involves a change on the behavioral level. This was consistently
seen in the review of vocabulary above, as key verbs such as bwv, bfy, and hnv
were linked to the nouns Ër,D, (“way”) and ll:[“m" (“deed”). Verbs such as hc[
and ˚lh also focus on the behavioral dimension of human response. In some
cases, the context makes clear that the human response (or lack thereof) was
on the behavioral level. So in 4:1–2 “to return” (bwv) means more than just
the declaration of an intention to come to God (3:22b) and an admission of
sin (3:24–25) but demands changes in the specific actions outlined in 4:1b–2,
that is, putting away idolatry and acting justly. Jer 7:3 emphasizes “making
good” one’s “ways” and “actions,” defined in vv. 5b–6 as avoiding injustice
and idolatry. To forsake (bz[) the covenant in 22:9 is to “worship and serve
other gods,” and to turn (bwv) in 23:14 is to stop committing adultery and liv-
ing a lie.
But repentance is not just change on the behavioral level. As with apostasy,
there is emphasis at times on the affections of the heart. Jer 3:10 and 24:7 em-
ploy the idiom blEAlk:B} bWv, denoting the importance of an internal change to
true repentance. This is expressed in 32:40 as putting (ˆtn) the “fear (ha:r]y)i of
me [God] in their hearts (μb:b:l}B)I so that they will not turn away (rWs) from
me.” The appearance of “heart” (blE) in the vocabulary of positive human re-
sponse is seen also in the idioms bb"l}Alk:B} çrd (“seek with all one’s heart,”
29:13) and μk<b}b"l} t/lr][: rWs (“remove the foreskin of one’s heart,” 4:4). God
looks to an idyllic future when worship and obedience of him comes from the
heart (31:33, 32:39–40). The importance of the heart is seen in the concern
expressed in 3:10, which talks about a “return” to God that was only in “de-
ception” (rq,v)≤ .
Although this is a minor emphasis, positive human response at times in-
cludes speech, whether it is calling and praying to God (29:12–13), bringing
one’s petition before God (36:7), or admitting one’s culpability (3:13, 8:6). It
also involves contrition and humiliation (μlk, vwb; 3:3, 25; 6:15; 8:12; 31:19).
It is apparent from these data that the book of Jeremiah draws from a broad
vocabulary pool to describe human response in the penitential process. Dom-
inating this vocabulary is clearly change, with special focus on the root bwv.
The root lies most often at the intersection of embracing and rejecting God,
11. See also the idiom hx:[E/m ˚lh (“to walk in counsel,” 7:24).
230 Chapter 13
describing either the movement from sin to God or from God to sin, but there
are other ways to speak about repentance and its opposite, apostasy, which
suggests that there is a breadth to what repentance and apostasy entail. The
vocabulary of seeking/finding and forsaking/rejecting suggests a relational
dimension; rebellion/submission and fear/trembling suggest a hierarchical di-
mension. References to mourning and shame suggest an emotional and social
dimension; references to speech and hearing suggest a verbal dimension, that
is, attention to prophetic speech and expression in prayer. Whereas the vo-
cabulary of action and movement emphasizes the pragmatic dimension of
human response, the vocabulary of the heart stresses the affective dimension.
This review of the vocabulary of human response, both positive and negative,
reveals the wealth of expression and also the height of expectation for the re-
pentance of the people within the book of Jeremiah.
Motivation for Repentance

As is typical of prophetic literature in general, the dominant motivation
for repentance is future judgment (e.g., 4:4, 11:11, 26:6). This is expressed
most succinctly in God’s instruction to Jeremiah in 36:3, where he says: “Per-
haps the house of Judah will hear all the calamity which I plan to bring on
them, in order that every person will turn from their evil way; then I will for-
give their iniquity and their sin.” At times, though, there is allusion to past
judgment, such as the regular citation of the destruction of the tabernacle at
Shiloh in Jer 7:12, 14; 26:6.
In some cases, however, the call for human response is to be motivated by
something other than judgment. At times, it is the hope of God’s blessing and
salvation, such as the promise of life in the land that God gave to Israel’s an-
cestors on oath (e.g., 11:4, 35:15). In other cases, the call emphasizes the op-
portunity for renewal of covenant relationship, as seen in the citation of the
covenant formula “I will be your God and you will be my people” (7:23, 11:4)
and which probably lies behind the declaration in 31:18b–19 that “you are
the Lord my God” (cf. 3:22b). Although it is often the anger and wrath of
God as well as his terrible presence and dominating lordship that motivates
repentance (e.g., 3:14, 5:22, 36:7), in some instances it is his faithfulness
(3:12), fatherly care (3:19), providential care through creation (5:22, 24), and
future reward (17:10).
Summary
It is clear from the reflective speech in the hinge of Jeremiah 24–25 that the
prophet was to play a key role in a penitential process designed to turn away
God’s wrath and bring instead his blessing. Key to this process was the re-
sponse of the people described through a rich range of vocabulary throughout
Jeremiah, vocabulary that is dominated by repentance. The initial example of
Jeremiah 18 provides a succinct description of the two types of repentance
that are possible for Israel: turning from evil and turning to evil. The repen-
Jeremiah 231
tance that God demands to avert disaster is two-dimensional: it involves turn-

ing from evil ways and making good one’s actions. Nevertheless, one can
discern a strong tone of skepticism in 18:8 as Yahweh expects the people to
continue in their present sinful patterns. This skepticism is confirmed in the
reflective speech in 25:3–9, and it is this skepticism that is increasingly evi-
dent in the progression of the book of Jeremiah, to which we now turn.
Jeremiah 2:1–4:4:
Showcasing the Penitential Process
While the initial thematic consideration of the book of Jeremiah has high-
lighted the basic penitential process and breadth of human responses, it is the
structure of the book that provides its core message. As I have already men-
tioned, Jeremiah’s call in the opening chapter does not provide much hope for
this prophetic mission; although he receives the twofold call “to build and to
plant,” this is overshadowed by the fourfold call “to uproot and tear down, to
destroy and overthrow” (1:10). The negative tone of his ministry is made clear
in his vision of the tilting pot in 1:13–16, where God predicts disaster from
Mesopotamia (the north) and announces judgment on Judah’s sin (v. 16). Ad-
ditionally, God’s statements in 1:17–19 are hardly indicative of a prophet who
will face a responsive audience:
“Now, gird up your loins and arise, and speak to them all which I command
you. Do not be dismayed before them, or I will dismay you before them.
Now behold, I have made you today as a fortified city and as a pillar of iron
and as walls of bronze against the whole land, to the kings of Judah, to its
princes, to its priests and to the people of the land. They will fight against
you, but they will not overcome you, for I am with you to deliver you,” de-
clares the Lord.
But, according to the penitential process found throughout Jeremiah, the pro-
phetic word was essential, if for nothing else than to exonerate God from ex-
acting judgment without warning. The first section of messages in 2:1–4:4
showcases the penitential process and reveals the challenges that the prophet
faced in his generation. 12
Jeremiah 2:1–37
The first section allows the reader to listen in on a dispute between God
and his people, with God bringing charges against the people (2:9) in response
12. For the distinct character of 2:1–4:4, see Shields (1995: 3–4), and see Thompson (1980:
216) for the close connections between chaps. 2 and 3. Lundbom (1999: 251) calls 2:1–4:4
the apostasy-repentance collection; cf. Carroll (1986: 141–42). Carroll (1986: 118) sees hints
in chap. 2 of a “liturgical structure to the discourse.” Although focused mostly on diachronic
developments, Biddle (1990) reveals how this section, which in his view began as an intro-
duction to chaps. 4–6, was shaped into an introduction to the entire book.
232 Chapter 13
to charges they had brought against him (2:29). 13 Their contention is that
they are innocent (2:23, 35), so Yahweh amasses the evidence against them to
show without doubt that they are the ones who are guilty and not he. Not
only have they “rebelled” against him (2:29), but his efforts through disci-
pline and prophets (2:30) to turn them from their sin and its consequences
have also been in vain. No amount of washing with soap and cleansing pow-
der will remove the stain of their guilt before Yahweh (2:22; cf. Ps 51:5, 9; Isa
1:15–20). The solution to this predicament is not provided explicitly in this
first section, because at this point Yahweh is merely establishing the case for
their guilt.
The citation of the voice of the people in 2:27 (“Arise and save us”), along
with the assertions of innocence in vv. 23, 35, suggest that Yahweh’s indict-
ment comes as a response to a communal prayer for help. The praying voice
of the people will come increasingly into view as this section of Jeremiah pro-
gresses. 14
Jeremiah 3:1–4:4
The second section begins with legal wrangling over a failed marriage,
made clear by the allusions to Deut 24:1–4 in 3:1, as well as the references
to prostitution (3:2–3), adultery (3:6, 9, 13, 20), and a certificate of divorce
(3:8). 15 At times, a second image of the parent-child relationship appears
in conjunction with the marital image (3:4, 14, 19, 22). Emphasis is placed
on idolatry as the key sin (3:6, 9, 13, 24; 4:1), but there is also reference to
injustice (4:2).
Jer 3:1–4:4 begins in similar fashion to 2:1–37, as God questions the claims
of the people in 3:4 who call God “My Father, you are the friend of my
youth” and ask “will he be angry forever? Will he be indignant to the end?”
This citation of the people’s lament continues the assumption of chap. 2 that
13. Elements of a covenant lawsuit have often been noted in this chapter, especially with
references to charges that are brought against two parties (vv. 9, 29), the appeal to the heav-
ens (v. 12), and the claims of innocence (vv. 24, 35); see further Thompson (1980: 159–60).
However, some have questioned the validity of seeing anything as formal as a lawsuit here
(Carroll 1986: 117), seeing rather merely a dispute (see Carroll 1986: 117 and especially
Roche 1983: 563–74, here 569–70); others question the validity of a lawsuit form in Hebrew
literature (see Daniels 1987: 339–60). Diamond (1987: 24) shows for the confessions (better:
laments) of Jeremiah, especially Jer 11:18–23, that the presence of legal terminology does not
make something a lawsuit: “The presence of a few legal terms does nothing to invalidate the
associations with cultic poetry already observed, since the Psalms also make extensive use of
legal imagery. It seems best to regard the legal terms as directly mediated from cultic psalm
practice with the original legal sphere as remote.” In the case of Jeremiah 2, pressing
“charges” against Yahweh may be related to the lament genre as much as the lawsuit genre;
for this chapter as lament, see Carroll (1986: 137).
14. See Boda (forthcoming g) for a review of the role of the lamenting voices of both
people and prophet in Jeremiah.
15. See further Carroll (1986: 134).
Jeremiah 233
the people are innocent and that the present predicament (in this case,
drought, v. 3a) has been caused by God’s enduring anger and wrath, inappro-
priate for a God who is their “father” and “friend.” God calls them on this by
highlighting their guilt as the cause of this anger, that even as they blame
God and call him father and friend, they do “evil things” (v. 5b).
For God to help Israel assumes that he is related to them, but 3:1 declares
that, once God has divorced his wife, 16 it is unlawful according to the Torah
(Deut 24:1–4) for this wife to return to him (cry for help). Yahweh, however,
may be creating a loophole here for his grace. As will become clear in 3:6–10,
there is a period between the promiscuous activity of the wife and the certifi-
cation of divorce in which there is an opportunity for return. The Northern
Kingdom, according to 3:8, had already been given her certificate of divorce,
but Judah is never said to have received one. In 3:1b, God merely makes this
statement: “But you are a harlot with many lovers; yet you turn to me.” God
is setting here the ground rules for the return of his people, and he begins by
revealing his displeasure with their present approach in 3:2–5. The “bare
heights” (ypIv)‘ , the location of their present shameful idolatrous actions, is
most likely the place where they have voiced the lament of vv. 4–5 (cf. 3:21)
and the place where God will call them to repent (3:22) and then, when they
ignore his call, send them to lament his judgment (7:27–29). These verses
show that Israel is presently expressing no shame for its actions (v. 3b), acting
as though nothing has changed in their relationship (v. 4), and even blaming
Yahweh’s anger for its predicament (v. 5).
To this initial prophetic address is attached a prophetic passage linked to
the reign of Josiah (3:6). Here, the motif of marital estrangement, return, and
divorce continues. Yahweh is depicted as married to two sisters (Israel and Ju-
dah). Israel committed adultery, an action that ultimately led to Yahweh
sending “faithless Israel” away with a certificate of divorce (3:8). In 3:7, Yah-
weh claims that he “thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will re-
turn to me,” suggesting that there was a window of opportunity after the
adultery and prior to the divorce during which the offending party would be
allowed to return to the marriage.
This scenario is designed to set up the failure of Yahweh’s marriage to his
second wife, Judah, whose observation of her sister’s behavior and punish-
ment did not instill fear in her but rather incited desire to commit the same
indecent acts. In the case of Judah, there appears to be some form of a “return”
to Yahweh, but this return was not “with all her heart” but rather “in decep-
tion” (v. 10), echoing the problem Yahweh had with the cry of the people in
3:5. 17 According to 3:11, Yahweh sees faithless Israel as more righteous than
16. The legal diction here is similar to the torah ruling found in Hag 2:10–14; cf. Boda
(2004b: 142–46).
17. So Shields (1995: 42), who speaks about “the issue of true as opposed to false ‘turn-
ing,’ which is here portrayed in the metaphorical context of the husband-wife relationship.”
234 Chapter 13
unfaithful Judah because she was at least consistent in her faithlessness and
did not seek to deceive him by returning in word and not deed.
This lays the foundation for the message of the prophet in 3:12–4:4, which
is structured around four calls by the prophet to “return” (bwv), followed by a
vocative addressed to his audience (3:12, 14, 22; 4:1). The call in 3:12–13 con-
tinues the imagery of the estranged wife, as God calls “faithless Israel” (hbvm
larcy; cf. 3:6, 8, 11) to return. Addressing this to Israel is directly related to the
claim in v. 11 that Israel is more righteous than Judah. This message, deliv-
ered to an Israel in exile, is designed with Judah in mind. As Judah observed
Israel’s apostasy and replicated it, so Judah now hears Israel’s repentance so
that she may mimic it. This return is based on God’s character as “faithful”
(dysIj)" , suggesting that he is setting aside the legal technicalities of divorce law
and inviting the people back under his marital protection. God’s anger will
not last forever, but as evidence of their return they must “acknowledge” ([dy)
the guilt of their rebellion and disobedience through idolatry (3:13). In light
of the claims of innocence that appear in chap. 2 and continue in the lament
of 3:5 (to which allusion is made here in 3:12), admission and acceptance of
Israel’s culpability is a key sign of its repentance.
The second call to “return” (bwv) follows in 3:14 and opens a section
(3:14–18) dominated by God’s promise of blessing if the people respond to
his call. Whereas the first call to return was addressed to the people as es-
tranged wife, this second call is addressed to the people as rebellious sons
(μybbwv μynb). 18 In contrast to the first call, which was based on God’s faithful
character (3:12), this second call to return is based on God’s rulership over
Israel (3:14; ytl[b ykna). 19 This return will lead to renewed blessing for the
community, including a return to the land, restoration of godly leadership,
increase in numbers, and realization of Jerusalem’s role as the universal
throne of God. Along with this list of future blessings is this statement: “No
Carroll (1986: 146) finds the combination of bwv and rqv as “most strange,” because for him
the turning motif is generally a positive term, whereas rqv is negative. But this does not
really get to the heart of the issue: that turning must be with all the heart and must be in ac-
tion. This helps to shape the view of repentance from the outset, especially beginning with
a liturgical expression that is merely on the lips and not in the heart.
18. Shields (1995: 1) argues that, when accusing, female metaphors are used, but when
the possibility of repentance is expressed, there is a shift to male metaphors. This appears to
have validity in general, but there are still questions about 3:12, where there is a mixture of
a masculine singular imperative (hb:Wv) and a feminine singular addressee (hb:v¨m)} .
19. Although the noun l[b is used for a husband (Gen 20:3; Exod 21:3, 22; Deut 22:22,
24:4; 2 Sam 11:26; Hos 2:18; Joel 1:8; Prov 12:4; 31:11, 23, 28; Esth 1:17, 20), and the present
verb l[b is used for a man marrying a woman (Gen 20:3; Deut 21:13, 22:22, 24:1; Isa 62:5,
54:1; Mal 2:11), this noun and verb are also used for lordship and exercising rule (for this
verb, see Isa 26:13, 1 Chr 4:22). This phrase could also be preparing the way for the reference
to “Shame” (bosheth), a substitute for Baal, whose name is comprised of the same letters as
the verb here. The verb is also used in Jer 31:32, which does not use the marriage metaphor.

Jeremiah 235
longer will they follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts” (v. 17b). Its
place among these blessings suggests that this is part of that future blessing,
a motif that will be developed later in the book of Jeremiah as a key compo-
nent of the restoration age.
Verse 19, however, begins the next major section, which stretches to v. 25.
Verses 19–20 meld the two metaphorical worlds of the first (faithless wives)
and second (rebellious children) calls to return. First, these verses declare the
blessings that daughter Israel would have received among the sons (nations)
in a surprising twist on the father-son relationship 20 but then depict the
dashed expectations of God as father. Second, they return to the marital
metaphor to fill out further the realities of God’s experience with Israel (v.
20). This melding of the two image worlds along with the return to the pain
of the past serves as a fitting transition to the dialogue between the people
and Yahweh in 3:21–25.
In this section (3:21–25), one can discern a “liturgy of penitence,” which
involves dialogue between the cry of the people and the word of God, here in
two phases: (1) depiction of the cry of the people in idolatrous lament (3:21),
followed by a prophetic message to return (3:22a), and (2) citation of the cry
of the people in confession of sin (3:22b–25), followed by a second prophetic
message to return (4:1–2). 21 Verse 21 describes the cry of the people, possibly
depicting a communal cry to other gods in their time of need. Into this com-
motion comes the third call to return (bwv; 3:22), addressed again to rebellious
sons (μybbwv μynb) and followed now by the assurance that God will heal (apr)
them of their faithlessness (hbwvm). As in vv. 19–20, by using both “rebellious”
(μybbwv) and “faithlessness” (hbwvm), this third call melds the two earlier calls
to return and their respective image worlds. What follows is the voice of the
people, which appears to follow the instructions given in 3:13, 22 that is, to re-
turn to God by acknowledging their idolatrous guilt (3:22b–25). They admit
the damage that their reliance on idols has wreaked on their lives and the
lives of their ancestors from their youth (3:23–24) and confess their sin and
20. Verse 19 appeals to the inheritance right custom that the chosen son is favored. Here,
however, the address is to a feminine-singular audience: “How I would set you (fs) among
sons, and give you (fs) a pleasant land, the inheritance of honor among the hosts of na-
tions.” This use of “daughter” imagery assists in the melding of the female and male imagery
in this section. See especially Shields (1995: 117–19).
21. The location of the idolatrous lament is on the barren heights (ypIv)‘ , the same term
found in 3:2, which preceded the citation of the people’s lament in 3:4–5. When God’s judg-
ment is declared in 7:27–29 because of the lack of response of the people, it is to these same
barren heights that Yahweh sends them to lament. On a prophetic liturgy such as this, see
Thompson (1980: 208); Westermann (1981: 59–64); Boda (2001); Shields (2004: 126).
22. See Carroll (1986: 154), who, although seeing 3:22–25 as a later addition to the text
because he views the main level of the text as presenting an Israel beyond hope, sees 3:22b–
25 as a response to 3:13 (he also sees 3:12–13 as later).
236 Chapter 13
the sins of their ancestors against God from their youth (3:25b). 23 Between
these two admissions, they accept their shame (3:25a; cf. 3:3b). 24
This penitential prayer, however, is not enough for Yahweh, who then de-
clares, “If you will return, O Israel . . . Then you should return to me” (4:1), a
statement that identifies the second necessary step in the prophetic return
(bwv). A return such as this begins with an acknowledgment of guilt (3:13), ex-
pressed through a prayer such as the one showcased in 3:22b–25, but must
lead to a change in behavior. The kind of “return” in mind is then delineated
in 4:1b–2 in terms of practical action to stop idolatry and injustice, that is, as
the central statement declares, “no longer go astray.” 25 That this sort of re-
pentance is not merely external action without internal motivation is made
clear in 4:3–4, which describes “repentance at a deep level lest Yahweh’s burn-
ing and unquenchable wrath be poured out on them” (Thompson 1980: 206).
Summary
What we see in 2:1–4:4 is a prophetic response to various cries of the
people as they “return” to God (3:1). Their approach to God for help when
their idols have failed them is inappropriate, especially as they lament God’s
judgment, claim innocence, and act as though their relationship with God is
in good standing. According to the law, they were on the cusp of irreparable
damage to their relationship with Yahweh, which would disqualify them
from returning to Yahweh. Not only is it the husband who approaches the
wife, but a wife who has been divorced is disqualified from remarrying her
first husband after he has divorced her. In a surprise development, Yahweh ex-
presses his desire to take back his divorced wife (Israel), an act that is designed
to give his estranged wife ( Judah) motivation to return. Any hope of return
(which would mean a setting aside of the law) would require Israel to ac-
knowledge its culpability for its predicament, and this is exactly what is pre-
sented in 3:22b–25. However, verbal acknowledgement is not the full extent
of “repentance” but rather an actual change in behavior that reflects the in-
ward reality of a heart softened, as plowed ground is for seed and as a heart
circumcised of its calloused flesh. Of concern throughout this section, then,
is “true as opposed to false ‘turning’” (Shields 1995: 42). There is a “returning”
to Yahweh that is represented by the cry for help of those claiming innocence
and there is a “returning” to Yahweh that is represented by the cry for help of
those confessing guilt. For Israel, however, the first is inappropriate and the
23. Carroll (1986: 154) sees here “affinities with the post-exilic liturgies of confession and
repentance (cf. Ezra 9.5–15; Neh 9.6–37; Dan 9.3–19), but [3:25b] is clearly not nearly as de-
veloped or prolix as they are.” See also Biddle (1990: 226–27), who notes these links and the
important influence of Lev 26:40–46.
24. On shame, see further Ezekiel, pp. 253–293 below.
25. It is possible that the reference to “swearing” is related to idolatry, as in swearing in
the name of other gods, rather than to injustice.
Jeremiah 237
second is only the first step in a penitential response that demands a funda-
mental change in behavior and affection. 26
Jeremiah 4–23:
The Demise of the Penitential Process
As one can see from the penitential process reviewed above and exempli-
fied in Jer 2:1–4:4, the prophet had a key role to play in delivering the divine
word and shaping the human response. Jeremiah the prophet was given ac-
cess to the council room of God ( Jer 15:19), first of all to hear God’s message
(23:18, 22) so that the prophet could take this message to turn the people
from their sin (23:14, 22). There was a second role, however, that the prophet
played in the divine council and that was to take a request of the people (e.g.,
Jer 21:2, 37:3, 42:1–6) to the divine council for an answer (e.g., Jer 21:3–14,
37:6–10, 42:7–43:1). 27 Part of this role was merely to obtain an answer from
God for the inquiry that was being made; however, 18:20 shows us that ap-
proaches to God such as these also included a dimension of intercessory me-
diation as the prophet sought to “turn away (bwv Hiphil) wrath (hm:j)E from (ˆmI)
them,” which echoes the role of the foundational prophet, Moses (see Num-
bers, pp. 86–96 above).
In light of the penitential process and the role of prophecy within Jere-
miah, one finds it shocking to see the developments in Jeremiah 4–23. This is
demonstrated most poignantly by close attention to the role of lament and
prayer within these chapters.
Jeremiah 4:5–6:30
The tone of the first part of chaps. 4–23 reflects a considerable shift in
mood from the hope for repentance that concluded 2:1–4:4 to the despair that
dominates 4:5–6:30. 28 Bracketing the entire section are the two pericopes 4:5–
26. Biddle (1990: 228) notes in his closing comments about this section of Jeremiah that
the resulting complex is meant to be read as a theological paradigm of sin and forgiveness,
universally applicable to the people of God in all its manifestations. As such a theological
treatise, it shows the influence of “orthodox” post-exilic prayers of confession and seems de-
signed to motivate such a confession response on the part of its readership. Furthermore, as
such a theological treatise, it functions to introduce the book of Jeremiah, as a whole, with
paradigmatic depiction of the dialectic of sin and punishment under which Israel has always
lived and will always live.
Though I agree that the final section does provide a theological paradigm, this paradigm in-
cludes a repentance in affection, word, and deed. Thus, this section of Jeremiah is not just
promoting the prayers of confession (on which, see further Daniel and Ezra–Nehemiah,
pp. 460–489 below) but rather showing the people’s inadequacy apart from affection and
deed; cf. Boda (2001).
27. See further Boda (2001).
28. For this unit, see Bright (1965: 33), who sees it playing on the warning in 4:3–4. For
the shift in mood, see Stulman (2005: 63): “Yahweh no longer invites Israel or Judah to
return.” Carroll (1986: 147, 154, 156) notes tension between the calls to return in 3:12–13,
238 Chapter 13
8 and 6:24–26, that set the tone for the entire section. Here, heralds are called
to announce the approach of an army, calling the people to leave the vulner-
able countryside to find safety in the fortified cities. In a context such as this,
one is not surprised to find the refrains calling the people to “put on sack-
cloth, lament and wail” (4:8) and “put on sackcloth and roll in ashes, mourn”
(6:26), because a predicament of this sort would normally occasion sincere
communal seeking of God for protection (see 2 Kings 18–19, Joel 2). These rit-
uals are intended not to change the situation, however, but rather to wail over
the coming devastation, because God’s anger has not been dissuaded (4:7b,
8b; 6:26b). The repentance hoped for in 2:1–4:4 will not be realized by this
community.
The certainty of God’s punishment is indicated in the refrain, which ap-
pears in vv. 9 and 29 of chap. 5:
“Should I not punish these people,” declares the Lord, “and on a nation
such as thing shall I not avenge myself?”
The only solution possible is voiced in the refrains that appear in 4:5–6 and
6:1:
Declare in Judah and proclaim in Jerusalem, and say,
“Blow the trumpet in the land;
Cry aloud and say,
‘Assemble yourselves, and let us go
Into the fortified cities.’
“Lift up a standard toward Zion!
Seek refuge, do not stand still,
For I am bringing evil from the north,
And great destruction.” (4:5-6)
“Flee for safety, O sons of Benjamin,
From the midst of Jerusalem!
Now blow a trumpet in Tekoa
And raise a signal over Beth-haccerem;
For evil looks down from the north,
And a great destruction.” (6:1)
According to these refrains, the people’s response can be nothing but lament
and wailing or sounding the trumpet and fleeing from the coming disaster,
because Yahweh’s punishment is sure.
Such dire circumstances prompt the lament of the prophet himself, first in
4:10 as the prophet accuses God of deceiving the people by offering peace,
even though he will soon come to understand that the message of “peace” was
from false prophets (cf. 6:14, 14:13, 23:16–17; Bright 1965: 32). Again in 4:19–
22–25, and 4:1–2 and the rest of the material, which sees no hope for Israel. For him, this is
evidence of later additions in chaps. 2–4, but instead it should be seen as evidence of phases
of Jeremiah’s ministry.
Jeremiah 239
21, the prophet cries out in his anguish over the growing devastation in the
land. In these two cries, the prophet takes up his role as representative sufferer
for the people, a role that will continue to develop as the book progresses.
Jeremiah 7–10
A call for communal lament is found again at the outset of the next major
section of Jeremiah. Here, after the prophet has delivered his call to turn (7:1–
26), God makes it clear that the people will not respond (7:27), that God will
judge (7:14, 20, 29b), and that the prophet is forbidden from interceding
(7:16). This precipitates another prophetic call to the people to lament, not in
order to change the present circumstances but rather to respond to God’s re-
jection and abandonment (7:29).
Cut off your hair and cast it away,
And take up a lamentation on the bare heights;
For the Lord has rejected and forsaken
The generation of his wrath.
The fact that they are sent to “the bare heights” is further evidence of God’s
rejection, because this was the location of their idolatrous laments in the first
place (3:2).
The voice of the people does break in at 8:14–16 with words reminiscent of
the earlier calls to flee to the fortified cities (esp. 4:5–8), but no reference is
made to mourning rituals. Here they accept their fate (“the Lord our God has
doomed us”) and admit their culpability (“for we have sinned against the
Lord”). 29
When the people’s lament has been silenced for the moment, the
prophet’s lament breaks forth in 8:18–9:1[2], continuing the trend already
seen in 4:10, 19–21. In this lament, the prophet reveals the basis for his tor-
ment while being caught as mediator between two parties. With creative rhet-
oric, he cites the tense dialogue between people and God, using two snippets
from the “cry of the daughter of my people from a distant land” (8:19a) to
bracket the questioning cry of Yahweh:
People: Is the Lord not in Zion?

Is her King not within her?
Yahweh: Why have they provoked me with their graven images,
With foreign idols?
People: Harvest is past,
Summer is ended,
And we are not saved.
29. Fretheim (2002: 151) notes that this “is not necessarily an act of repentance,” and if
it is, “it comes too late to stop the judgment.” See Brueggemann (1998: 92–94) and Fretheim
(2002: 151–56) for the rhythm of laments and responses here.
240 Chapter 13
The two closing verses then reveal the dilemma and torment of the prophet,
who is broken over the devastation of his people (9:1) from which he cannot
separate himself (8:21) and for whom he cries for healing (8:22), and yet he
is as repulsed (9:2) as the God to whom he cries for comfort (8:18).
It is uncertain who weeps and wails in 9:10, whether God or the prophet, 30
but in either case there is weeping and lament, not for the people directly but
rather for the land that has been left without life. It is God then who must
prompt lament in 9:17–21, as he calls the wailing women to perform their du-
ties. This lament is not to change the heart of God but to express the pain of
God’s certain judgment.
Jeremiah 11–23
Jeremiah 14:1–15:4
At the heart of chaps. 11–23 is the prophetic liturgy of 14:1–15:4. This lit-
urgy is reminiscent of Jer 3:21–4:2, where the people, responding to the call
in 3:12–13 to return by acknowledging their guilt, confess their sins and those
of their ancestors in language reminiscent of Leviticus 26 and the Persian-
period penitential-prayer tradition. 31 The same trend can be seen in the pro-
phetic liturgy of Jer 14:1–15:4, especially evident in the communal prayers of
14:7–9 and 14:19–22, which rely on the vocabulary of Leviticus 26 as well. 32
In these two communal prayers, the people again acknowledge their guilt and
that of their ancestors and cry for help from God. In contrast to the commu-
nal prayer of Jeremiah 3, the people’s questions of lament can be heard with
the characteristic “why” (vv. 9, 19) and Yahweh is asked not to “forsake” (v. 9)
or to “break” the covenant (v. 21). In this, we see a partial return to the tone
of communal prayer that gave rise to 2:1–4:2, that is, the accusation of Yah-
weh. Furthermore, the initial words of the divine response in v. 10 reveal that
the people have continued to “wander” (cf. 15:6–7). Comparing the prophetic
liturgy of 14:1–15:4 with the agenda laid out in 2:1–4:2 reveals that the
people have hardly repented in word, let alone in deed. It is not surprising
then to hear the judgmental pronouncement of Yahweh, as well as the final
and climactic prohibition of the people’s (14:12) and prophet’s intercession
(14:11, 15:1).
The insincerity of the communal prayers in this central pericope (14:1–
15:4) is accentuated by the citations of the people’s questions that surround
it. In 13:22, the people query, “Why have these things happened to me?” and
in 16:10, “For what reason has the Lord declared all this great calamity
against us? And what is our iniquity, or what is our sin which we have com-
mitted against the Lord our God?” Questions such as these, however, only
30. Cf. Fretheim (2002: 159); Stulman (2005: 102) who say God, and Brueggemann (1998:
97) who says the poet.
31. See Biddle (1990: 227).
32. Boda (2001); cf. Biddle (1990: 227).

Jeremiah 241
serve to justify Yahweh’s discipline. The people could not even sincerely ac-
knowledge their sinful ways, let alone turn from them.
The Laments of Jeremiah and the People

While Jer 14:1–15:4 lies at the center of chaps. 11–23, scattered throughout
this section are the laments (traditionally, “confessions”; 11:18–23; 12:1–6;
15:10–14, 15–21; 17:14–18; 18:18–23; 20:7–13, 14–18) of Jeremiah. 33 Through
these laments, the reader is given insight into the difficulty of performing a
prophetic role among unrepentant people.
As has been demonstrated above, these laments are foreshadowed by ear-
lier prophetic cries in 4:10, 19–21, and 8:18–9:1[2], which offer initial insights
into the complexity of the prophetic role. As mediator between Yahweh and
the people, the prophet hears the voices of both people and deity: the people
ask why God does not respond to their cries and God asks why the people
have abandoned him.
On the one side, the laments of Jeremiah contribute to the judgmental
tone of chaps. 11–23, further evidence that the time for repentance has passed
because the prophet abandons his intercessory role and turns against the
people.
Rather than accept prophetic mediation as atonement before Yahweh, Jere-
miah asks for the opposite, that Yahweh keep in mind their sin and act
upon it in accordance with divine justice. The prophetic role here is not me-
diation for the people; it is judgment against them. This lament inverts the
function of prophetic speech; the role of mediation is stood on its head. The
laments are anti-prophetic in the sense that they violate the norms of pro-
phetic speech. 34
An abandonment of this sort is the natural outgrowth of Yahweh’s disallow-
ing Jeremiah to intercede on behalf of the people, a prohibition that is first
presented in Jer 7:16 and repeated at the outset of chaps. 11–23 (11:14) and
then climactically in the double prohibitions in 14:1–15:4 (14:11, 15:1). 35
What is clear is that an avenue of discourse is cut off for the prophet. He can
no longer intercede on behalf of the people. This fact, and the restriction of
the prophetic word to judgment (20,8), gives rise to persecution and chal-
lenge on the horizontal plane. The loss of the intercessory role, in its social
dimension, gives rise to the intercessions of the prophet, as individual, on
his own behalf. 36
33. So Diamond (1987); although, see O’Connor (1988) and M. Smith (1990), who do not
include the two curse pericopes of 15:10–14 and 20:14–18.
34. M. Smith (1990: 21). This prohibition of prophetic intercession signals that God’s
judgment is assured, that is, that the time for repentance has now passed.
35. There appears to be a close relationship between this prohibition and sacrificial rites,
because the prohibitions in 7:16, 11:14, and 14:11 are all followed by negative responses to
sacrifice (7:21–23, 11:15, 14:12). The prophetic liturgy appears to have included sacrifice.
36. Seitz (1989: 10); M. Smith (1990: 21).
242 Chapter 13
Though these laments do continue the trend of distancing the prophet from
the people already discerned in the prophetic prayer of 8:18–9:1[2] (see 9:1),
one can discern at the same time a tragic intertwining of prophet and people
through the progression of the laments in the section.
One can see how Jeremiah’s laments in chaps. 11–15 follow the pattern of
the prophetic liturgy, a form that combines the elements of lament and di-
vine oracle into one structure. 37 Thus, each of the prophetic laments in
11:18–23, 12:1–6, 15:10–14, and 15:15–21 is followed by a divine oracle that
responds to the lament, a fact that creates a contrast between this first set of
laments and those that follow, which lack a divine response (17:14–18, 18:18–
23, 20:7–13, and 20:14–18).
There is a development in the tone of the laments in chaps. 11–15. 38 The
first, in 11:18–23, expresses the prophet’s confidence in Yahweh’s justice as he
calls for vengeance on his enemies (11:20), a confidence that is rewarded with
a divine oracle that announces judgment on those who plotted his death
(11:21–23). The second, in 12:1–6, although still requesting vengeance on the
enemy (12:3b), reveals a shift to a more negative posture toward Yahweh as the
prophet questions Yahweh’s justice. In this challenge, the questions of lament
are clearly evident (Why? How long? 12:1, 4), and this, along with the use of
the term byr, connects the prophet with the earlier laments of the people in
2:1–3:5 (2:29, 3:4–5). Yahweh’s response, in 12:5–6, provides little comfort to
the frustrated prophet, contrasting the first divine oracle, in 11:21–23.
Although there is some debate over whether 15:10–14 is part of the “la-
ments of Jeremiah,” its opening cry (15:10) reveals the pain of the prophet,
who is left to the attacks (byr) and curse (llq) of the people and is beginning
to doubt the value of having been born. This strong declaration foreshadows
the intensity of lament that is expressed to Yahweh in 15:15–18. The pro-
phetic voice continues to ask for vengeance on his enemies and at the same
time attests innocence. It is this innocence that elicits the strong lament in v.
18 with first its question, “why?” related to suffering, and then a direct accu-
sation that God has been deceptive. In this lament, one again discerns the di-
lemma of the prophet, caught between people and deity, a dilemma first
37. Diamond (1987: 24), citing Hos 6:1–6, 14:2–9; Habakkuk 1–2; Isaiah 33; 51:9–16;
Micah 7; Joel 1:1–2:27; cf. Gunkel and Begrich (1933: 408–11); Begrich (1934: 81–92);
Schoors (1973: 1–31); Westermann (1981a: 59–64); Boda (2001).
38. In general, recent work has been cold toward seeing development among the laments
of Jeremiah, although von Rad and Skinner argued for this in an earlier era; von Rad (1936:
265–76 = 1983: 88–99; 1962: 2.201–6); Skinner (1951: 208–14); see Diamond (1987). Von Rad
noticed the disappearance of the divine oracle in the laments of chaps. 16–20 and the dark-
ness of the final lament-curse sequence of chap. 20. Skinner saw 15:15–21 as the “turning-
point in [Jeremiah’s] life” (p. 214). Although one must avoid psychologizing this develop-
ment, there is much to be affirmed in seeing it on a literary level, so that the fate of people
and prophet become intertwined. Thus, von Rad’s notion of the “I” of the confessions taking
on a communal persona should not be ignored.
Jeremiah 243
introduced in the prayer of 8:18–9:1[2]. By calling for vengeance against his

enemies, the prophet is clearly against the people, but, by implicitly accusing
Yahweh of his enduring pain (15:18a) and explicitly accusing Yahweh of de-
ception (15:18b), he is also against the deity. 39
Yahweh’s response in 15:19–21 reveals his displeasure with the prophet. By
declaring “thus says the Lord” at the outset of v. 19, Yahweh is introducing
a divine message of warning against the prophet. 40 The prophet has delivered
messages of this sort to his people, but now Yahweh will deliver one to him.
“What Jeremiah experiences of Yahweh is exactly how Judah must face Yah-
weh. The expected assurance for Judah is also rigorous demand” (Bruegge-
mann 1998: 148). Yahweh calls the prophet to repent, and this repentance is
related to what God calls his uttering of “worthless” words, further defined
as the prophet “turning to” the people. 41 Instead, he is to utter “precious”
words, and the people are to turn to him. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that these “worthless words” are somehow related to the lament that the
prophet has just completed in v. 18. 42 One should not miss the close relation-
ship between the laments of Jeremiah and of the people in the prophetic lit-
urgy of 14:1–15:4, not only in the use of the questions of lament (14:9, 19)
but also in the identical motivation clauses in 14:9 (ar;q}ni WnylE[: Úm}v¥w]) and 15:16
(yl"[: Úm}v¥ ar;q}n)I and the references to the “wound” (hK:m;" 14:17, 15:18) and healing
(apr; 14:19, 15:18). 43 This suggests a close association between the prophetic
lament and the lament of the people and thus a close association between the
fates of the people and the prophet. As the lament of the people is rejected by
God, and along with it the intercessory role of the prophet, so the lament of
the prophet is rejected by God and along with it he loses his access to the divine
council. Nothing short of repentance will lead to reinstatement:
39. See Baumgartner (1988: 50), who argues that v. 18b “carries a severe reproach against
Yahweh, which should not be tempered by changing the text into a question. . . . For Yah-
weh’s sake he has done without so much, has accepted so much hardship; but Yahweh’s help
had failed to materialize, he has not kept his word: he cannot be relied upon!”
40. O’Connor (1988: 43) claims that this formula “certifies Jeremiah’s claims that his call-
ing is genuine and that Yahweh is indeed with him” and then goes on to say that the call to
repent is “puzzling.” In the earlier prophetic liturgy of 11:18–23, the divine oracle announcing
judgment against Jeremiah’s enemies at Anathoth is introduced by this same phrase (11:21).
41. As Baumgartner (1988: 50) has written, “Here, at the point when the lament has
reached its climax, on the brink of utter despair, comes Yahweh’s answer. But, as in 12.5f.,
this turns out to be quite different from what one might have expected. Not a word of recog-
nition and comfort. If Jeremiah ‘returns’, he too will ‘return’ him (the same word-play as in
31.18b). . . . Jeremiah’s last words thus meant a falling-away from Yahweh, a revolt against
his service.”
42. As Baumgartner (1988: 50) notes, “The mouth that proclaims the divine words must
not, alongside what is ‘precious’, also utter the ‘worthless’, human laments and petitions!”
(He also sees this as “strongly reminiscent of 12.5f”.)
43. See further M. Smith (1990). Interestingly, the three verbs rkz, dqp, and [dy are all re-
lated to the people’s guilt in 14:1–15:4 (14:10, 20), but all are used in the prophetic lament
in 15:15–18 (15:15) to call for God to remember the prophet.
244 Chapter 13
The dialogue between the prophet and Yahweh reaches the sharpest tone of
agitation and conflict encountered in the confessional units so far. The
prophet stands against both Yahweh and the nation. The biting, negative
tone of the complaint is emphatically underlined by the exclusion of nor-
mal confidence motifs and the employment of poetic irony. The latter draws
attention to the heart of the complaint, a crisis in the prophetic mission. . . .
Yahweh’s commission has set him at odds with his community and prohib-
ited any solidarity with it. As such it constitutes a violent frustration of the
legitimate expectations of any loyal member of the covenant community.
Coupled with the factor of Yahweh’s delayed succour, the prophetic mission
is shown to be a divine pestilence or curse and challenges Yahweh’s reliabil-
ity. The virulent attack of the prophet is countered by an equally sharp di-
vine response. Though it is similar to previous answers with the mixture of
rebuke and promise, the summons to repent upon which the promise is
contingent implies a stinging charge of blasphemy and infidelity to the mis-
sion on the prophet’s part. 44
The message of repentance that has been directed at the people by the
prophet is now directed at the prophet by Yahweh. Thus, while the prophetic
calls for vengeance in the lament distances the prophet from the people, the
divine oracle here dissolves that distance and reveals that the prophet has
now “turned to the people” by uttering “worthless words.” The facts that after
this point no other prophetic lament receives a divine response and that the
sequence ends in chap. 20 with such a strong attack on Yahweh mixed with
praise and then followed immediately by self-malediction create a tragic end-
ing to the portrayal of the prophet. 45
In the flow of Jeremiah 11–23, it is precisely at the point when the pro-
phetic liturgies among the people are rejected that the prophetic liturgies for
the prophet come to an end. 46 This bolsters the case for the rejection of la-
44. Diamond (1987: 77–78). O’Connor (1988: 43–44) and Fretheim (2002: 241) both play
down the penitential tone in this divine oracle with O’Connor “puzzled” by it and Fretheim
interpreting it as simply “Get on with it!” or “Face up to it!” The agenda behind these ap-
proaches may be an assumption that lament is always legitimate (so Fretheim’s citation of Ps
22:1–2), an assumption that should not be assumed within the Jeremianic tradition.
45. Diamond (1987: 136–37) sees 17:14–18 as the conclusion to the first cycle of laments
and the laments in chaps. 18 and 20 constituting a second cycle. The lament in chap. 17 thus
shows the prophet’s resolution of the dilemma created by chap. 15. This view has much to
commend itself, especially the narrative introduction to the laments in 11:20–23 and 18:18,
although the lack of divine response in chaps. 17–20 does suggest divine censure. Even if not,
it is instructive that, when lament reaches its height, it is followed by a divine rebuke in chap.
15, and when similar lament reemerges in chap. 20, it is followed by the despair of self-male-
diction, reminiscent of 15:10–14. It is interesting that, in the analysis of Diamond (1987:
135), six of the “lament sections” are interconnected through verbal echoes and redactional
links (11:18–23 // 12:1–6; 15:10–14 // 15:15–21; 20:7–13 // 20:14–18), 20:7–13 evinces a “syn-
optic quality,” and 11:20 and 20:12 represent a doublet. This may suggest that the original
core of the laments was comprised of these six units, beginning with 11:20 and ending with
20:12, and did not originally include 20:13.
46. See Gerstenberger (1963: 393–408) and Brueggemann (1998: 150) on the way in
which the divine oracle echoes Jer 4:1–2 and is addressed ultimately to the exilic community

Jeremiah 245
ment as a means to gain the ear of Yahweh. Even confession of sin among the
people is inadequate. The only hope had been a repentance in heart, word,
and deed, and when the people prove unable to do this, Yahweh eventually
brings an end to the penitential and prophetic process by cutting off even the
prophet and announcing his judgment.
Summary
The review of Jeremiah’s ministry in the reflection in Jer 25:3–11 is an ac-
curate description of the progression of Jeremiah 2–23 (see above, pp. 223–
225). The message of repentance is evident throughout the section, in the
early phase anticipating the penitential response of the people but, as the sec-
tion progresses, denouncing their lack of penitential response. The section is
dominated by dialogue involving God, the people, and the prophet. The
people’s cries are evident throughout, but cries that claim innocence are
deemed inappropriate and cries that confess guilt are considered inadequate.
Rather, in the first section (2:1–4:4) God calls through the prophet for a re-
pentance that involves inner affections including shame and devotion, verbal
expression including confession of sin, and practical action including turning
from evil and turning to good.
The fact that chaps. 4–6 encourage the people to lament over their predic-
ament and flee for safety, along with the citation of refrains that announce
God’s judgment on the people, suggests that the anticipated penitence was
not forthcoming. This prompts the prophet himself to lament, first complain-
ing to God for deceiving the people (4:10) and then lamenting over the de-
struction (4:19–21). Though in chap. 7 the prophet continues to call the
people to repent, God makes it clear that they will not respond and that the
prophet is no longer allowed to intercede for them. Not surprisingly, chaps. 7–
10 are filled with lament: the prophet calls the people to grieve over their re-
jection by God; the prophet expresses torment over having to mediate be-
tween these irreconcilable parties (8:18–9:1[2]); and the prophet or God
weeps over the land (9:10) and invites wailing women to mourn over the
coming judgment (9:17–21).
The laments of the people and prophet intertwine in the final section
(chaps. 11–23). At its heart is the attempted penitential liturgy of 14:1–15:4,
in which God clearly shuts down the penitential process, commanding the
prophet one final time not to intercede for this people. Whether God’s judg-
ment here is related to their lack of sincerity (as their questions in 13:22 and
16:10 suggest) or whether it is related to the fact that time has finally run out,
to encourage repentance. As Brueggemann states, “Thus the prayers of the prophet are taken
up into the canonical memory of Israel because the isolation and alienation of the prophet
bespeak the status of exilic Israel . . . the conversation Jeremiah has with Yahweh comes to be
a conversation for the entire community. What Jeremiah comes to know in his prophetic vo-
cation, Israel comes to know in its exile, where it also senses abandonment.” In contrast to
Brueggemann, this passage does not appear to be encouraging lament: “As Jeremiah can ad-
dress God abrasively, so can Israel in exile.”
246 Chapter 13
it is clear that the people’s fate is sealed. In this same context, the prophet’s
interaction with God also reaches an impasse. The laments of the prophet,
which throughout chaps. 11–15 have become progressively tense, reach their
climax with the call of God to the prophet himself to “repent” (15:19) be-
cause the prophet has adopted the people’s “worthless words,” a reference to
the people’s lamenting that Jeremiah took up in 15:18. It is instructive that,
after this point, God no longer responds to Jeremiah’s lament, paralleling the
lack of response afforded the people as well.
The developing flow of lament and prophetic liturgy throughout Jeremiah
2–23 suggests that the fate of Judah is ultimately sealed and that there comes
a time when there is no more hope for repentance. As with Isaiah 6, the great-
est tragedy of judgment is the loss of the prophetic process itself, that mo-
ment when, because of the people’s lack of response, the ear of God is no
longer open to their cry.
Jeremiah 26–33:
The New Way: God’s Penitential Transformation
The book of Jeremiah, however, does not end with Jeremiah 2–23 but
rather looks to a future hope. This future hope is not absent from the first half
of the book (e.g., 3:14–18) but is certainly muted by the dominating mood of
impending doom. As I noted above, the literary hinge in chaps. 24–25 alludes
to some of the key elements of the hope for the community after the disaster
of judgment that are provided in Jeremiah 26–52. Key to this hope is the vi-
sion of a way forward for dealing with sin among the people of God. While
the prophet does not lose sight of the need for obedience, hope is linked to a
new way for this to become a reality in the lives of the people of God.
Lament in the Book of Consolation

Jeremiah 30–33 is often called the Book of Consolation or the Book of
Comfort. This shift in tone is signaled by the opening verses of chap. 30,
where Yahweh instructs the prophet to “write in a book” and then gives these
words: “days are coming . . . when I will restore the fortunes of my people Is-
rael and Judah. . . . I will also bring them back to the land that I gave to their
ancestors” (30:3, nasb, modified).
In this presentation of the future, however, the pain experienced in the de-
struction of the kingdom and the exile of the community is not ignored, as
Yahweh draws attention to their cries (30:5, dj"P" . . . hd;r;j“ l/q; 30:15, q["z]T)I . This
pain is rehearsed in the first two sections, first using the image of a woman
writhing in childbirth (30:5–7) and second employing the image of an incur-
able wound (30:12–15). These images and their distinct vocabulary bring back
into view the cries of the first half of Jeremiah. 47
47. For hd;lE/y, see 6:24, 22:23; see 13:21 for a slightly different formation of the image, and
49:24 and 50:43 for its use with the nations; vWna: (“incurable”): Jer 15:18, 30:12, 30:15; rb<v≤

Jeremiah 247
This book of “comfort” does not avoid mentioning the divine justification
for the punishment. Although treating Israel more favorably than he will the
other nations by disciplining (rsy) Israel “justly” (fpvml) rather than destroy-
ing them completely (hlk), Yahweh will not leave them unpunished (al hqn
˚qna; cf. Exod 34:7, hqny al hqn). 48 God takes full responsibility for their incur-
able wounds (“I have wounded you with the wound of an enemy, with the
punishment of a cruel one,” v. 14a), but links this punishment directly to the
greatness of their guilt and sin (Ëyit:aFøj" Wmx}[: Ëne/[“ brø l[", v. 14b). For the same
reason (l[" Ëyit"aFøj" Wmx}[: Ëne/[“ brø, v. 15b), their right to lament is questioned
(q["z]TIAhm").
A lament of this sort, however, is legitimate for Rachel ( Jer 31:15). The
wife of Israel ( Jacob), whose struggle to conceive dominates Genesis 30, is
the obvious choice for one to mourn over the loss of the “children” of Israel
(“they are no more”). But there is a divine reply ( Jer 31:16–17) to this la-
ment in which Rachel is rewarded with the good news that her children had
not died but had only been exiled to another land and would soon return
(bwv; v. 16, 17). 49
From the lamenting cries of Rachel (ykIB} yhIn] . . . l/q), the text moves to the
grieving (ddE/nt}m)I prayer of Ephraim her (grand)son (31:18–19), 50 a fulfillment
of the expectation of 31:9 (“with weeping they will come, and by supplication
I will lead them”). Ephraim voices the teaching of 30:11, recognizing the hor-
ror of exile as Yahweh’s discipline (rsy) for his youthful folly (dM:lU alø lg,[<K,} “an
untrained calf”; yr;W[n], “my youth”). His cry to God recognizes both divine and
human dimensions to “returning,” employing both the Hiphil of bwv (“cause
me to return”) and the Qal of bwv (“and I will return”). “God’s action is rec-
ognized as primary here; if he is to come back, God must bring him back. . . .
At the same time, the second action has human energy and will in the formu-
lation” (Fretheim 2002: 447). The term return here picks up on the divine or-
acle of vv. 16–17, where “return” clearly refers to return to the land, but v. 19
suggests double entendre as it builds up terms related to turning and sorrow.
This is expressed well in the following translation of v. 19:
After Ephraim had turned away into exile, he repented; after he was brought
to realize what he had done, he struck his thigh (a gesture of remorse). He
(“wound/breaking”): Jer 6:14; 8:11; 10:19; 14:17; 30:12, 15; hlj Niphal (“to be overcome by
sickness”): Jer 10:19, 14:17, 30:12; hK:m" (“injury”): Jer 10:19; 14:17; 15:18; 30:12, 17.
48. See these same phrases in the oracle against Egypt in Jer 46:28.
49. Clearly, the account in Genesis records Rachel’s death at the birth of Benjamin (35:19)
and thus long before Joseph’s “exile” to Egypt. However, the Joseph tradition cannot be ig-
nored as an influence behind this passage, because the child whose death was mourned was
found later to be exiled to a foreign land. The fact that Ephraim, ancestral head of the most
influential of the Joseph tribes and a child born in the exile in Egypt, testifies in Jer 31:18–20
suggests that the Joseph tradition is also in view.
50. Compare ddE/nt}mI in Jer 15:5, 16:5, 18:16, 22:10, 48:27. See the connection between
Rachel and Ephraim in Gen 30:22–24, 35:24, 46:19–20, 48:1–22.
248 Chapter 13
was ashamed and dismayed because he bore the disgrace (being exiled) of
his sin (what he had done as a youth). (Fretheim 2002: 448)
Double entendre can also be discerned in the verses that follow as “Virgin Is-
rael” is called to “return (bwv) . . . return (bwv) to your towns” (v. 21), a clear
reference to a physical return from exile, even as God identifies Israel as
“apostate (hb:bE/Vh", ‘turning away one’) Daughter Israel” in v. 22.
The use of these images suggests that the poet wants to voice not just a
changed venue for Israel (homeland rather than exile), but also a genuine
transformation that alters the very character of Israel and the modes of rela-
tionships in the community. . . . Thus it is both a changed venue and a
genuine transformation that matter for the ending of Israel’s exile. (Brueg-
gemann 1998: 288)
As God answered the weeping Rachel, so he answers her mourning grandson

Ephraim in v. 20. The divine response sends signals of acceptance as he speaks
of delighting, remembering, yearning, and showing compassion. With Rachel
as mother figure, Yahweh fulfils the role of father (“my dear son”), who then
also invites his daughter Zion home (v. 21).
In summary, chaps. 30–31 describe the lament of the people in their suf-
fering in exile. As the introductory sections in Jer 2:1–4:4 made clear, these la-
menting cries are deemed illegitimate if they do not recognize the justice of
God (30:11) and the culpability of the people (30:14–15) in this discipline.
The exemplary cry here is Ephraim’s, whose cries for restoration involve re-
pentance, recognition, and remorse over his sins. But is there any hope that
this “return” will be any more successful than the one articulated in 3:21–25?
What will ensure that they will truly repent in deed as well as word? The an-
swers to these questions are suggested in the mournful words of Ephraim:
“Cause me to return and I will return” (31:18b).
The New Way

One of the first clear glimmers of hope comes in Jeremiah’s letter to the ex-
iles in chap. 29. In this letter, he encourages the exiles to settle down in Baby-
lon for an elongated exile, which will last 70 years. The advice soon shifts to
the future, that is, to life after this exile. Verse 10 offers a summary statement
on the future restoration, identifying its timing (70 years) and its result (return
to the land). Verses 12–14 then unpack the process that precedes this restora-
tion. This structure is made clear by the presence of the summarizing state-
ment in v. 11 and the repetition at the end of v. 14 (μ/qM:h"Ala< μk<t}a< ytIbøv¥h“w)' of
the language used at the end of v. 10 (hZ,h" μ/qM:h"Ala< μk<t}a< byv¥h:l)} . Key to this re-
turn are the human activities described in vv. 12–13: “You will call (arq) upon
me and come (˚lh) and pray (llp Hithpael) to me . . . you will seek (vqb Piel)
me and find (axm) me, when you search (vrd) for me with all your heart.” Be-
cause this is an announcement of the future, it is not technically a prescrip-
tion for, but rather a description of, the future. However, if the yKI that begins
the final phrase in v. 13 is conditional (“when/if”) rather than causal (“be-

Jeremiah 249
cause”), there is a prescriptive tone to this description. Whether it is prescrip-

tive or descriptive, this prophetic piece introduces the human activity of seek-
ing with all the heart through prayer as an essential component of the future
restoration. Here, this human activity clearly precedes the restoring work of
Yahweh. 51
But what will ensure human response of this sort in the future? This issue
is addressed in its most concentrated form in the Book of Consolation and
sets it apart from much of the rest of the book of Jeremiah. Nevertheless, there
is foreshadowing of this teaching already in 3:14–18, which looks to a time
after exile when the people will not “walk anymore after the stubbornness of
their evil heart.” 52 The reason for this is identified in the book’s hinge in 24:7.
There, in a prophetic sign act involving two baskets of figs, the prophet is
shown that the future lies not with King Zedekiah and his “survivors,” who
remained in the land, but rather with Jehoiachin and his “exiles,” who had
been taken to Babylon. Promising to watch carefully over these exiles and to
ultimately bring them back to the land (v. 6), Yahweh then reveals his vision
for renewal in 24:7:
I will give them a heart to know me, for I am the Lord; and they will be my
people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with their whole
heart.
As with 29:10, human response “with all the heart” is essential to the future
restoration, now replacing “seek” (vrd) with “return” (bwv). 53 This focus on
the heart is foreshadowed in the prophetic message of 3:10 and is the only an-
swer for a people whose actions are motivated by “stubbornness of an evil
heart” ([rhAbl twrrv; 7:24, 11:8, 13:10, 16:12, 18:12) that is deceitful and un-
healthy in character (17:9–10; cf. 17:1). This sort of return “with all their
heart” is now, for the first time in the book, linked to a divine action: “I will
give them a heart to know me.” The cry of Ephraim that God would “cause
him to return” is now answered: God will give the people the new heart that
makes possible this return to God.
The result of this gift of a new heart is restoration of covenantal relation-
ship (Raitt 1977: 194–206). The phrase “they will be my people, and I will be
their God” in 24:6 is the dominant idiom of covenant throughout the Old
Testament. 54 What is envisioned is a relationship of reciprocal faithfulness
51. Unterman (1987: 177) places 29:10–14 in his second stage of development in the
thought of Jeremiah (see n. 60 below, p. 252).
52. Unterman (1987: 177) sees this as evidence that 3:14–18 emanates from a later period
than the rest of chap. 3 and belongs to the second stage of the development in the thought
of Jeremiah (see n. 60 below, p. 252).
53. Unterman (1987: 177) considers 24:4–7 in his second stage of the development in the
54. Abraham (God/people: Gen 17:7–8); Sinai (God/people: Exod 6:7; Lev 11:45, 22:33,
25:38, 26:12; Num 15:41; Deut 29:12); cf. Davidic (Father/son: 2 Sam 7:14; cf. Ps 89:27–28;
1 Chr 17:13, 22:10).
250 Chapter 13
between Yahweh and Israel in which Israel enjoys the status of “people” and
Yahweh of “God.” This is most likely the meaning of the phrase that precedes
this in 24:7: “to know me, for I am the Lord.” In Exod 6:1–8, Moses is given
insight into the new era of covenant relationship represented by the exodus
and Sinai. Exod 6:7 shows clearly that the goal of the exodus is that “I will
take you for my people, and I will be your God.” This is followed immediately
by this statement: “and you shall know that I am the Lord your God,” using
the same vocabulary as 24:7. 55 This is followed by this promise: “I will bring
you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and I will
give it to you for a possession; I am the Lord” (Exod 6:8). Thus, as Jeremiah
24 looks to a new era of return to the land, it identifies this as a repeat of the
exodus experience, which will result in the renewal of the covenant between
Yahweh and his people. This renewal, though, is made possible by the divine
gift of a new heart.
The themes introduced in 24:7 are filled out in chaps. 30–33 (31:27–40,
32:37–41). 56 The emphasis on renewal of covenant relationship is seen in the
citation of the covenant idiom “I will be their God, they will be my people”
(31:33, 32:38; cf. 30:22) and the reference to the new (31:31) and everlasting
(32:40) covenant. The covenant in view is the Sinai covenant, because the
entire “people” is in view and reference is made to the “law.” This character
(“new,” “everlasting”) is made possible by the radically new means by which
it is administered, which, as already seen in 24:7, involves divine transforma-
tion of the heart, articulated in 31:33 as “I will put my law within them and
on their heart I will write it.” The use of the image of writing (btk) on (l[)
the heart (bl) plays on the earlier statement of Jer 17:1, which described how
“sin” was written (btk) and engraved (vrj) on (l[) the tablet of the heart
(bl). It is this new mode of writing that will make possible faithful covenant
relationship, the “knowing” ([dy; 31:34) that was the goal of the exodus and
Sinai (Exod 6:7). 57 In 32:39, this new means is described as “I will give them
one heart and one way, that they may fear me always” and in 32:40 as “I will
put the fear of me in their hearts.” It is the divine work of implanting the
new heart that brings enduring reverence for Yahweh from the inner affec-
tions and enables them to “not turn away (bwv) from” Yahweh (32:40).
Repentance and the enduring avoidance of apostasy is therefore secured
only by a radical, internal work of Yahweh, which the community in exile will
55. See Fishbane (1984: 149–50).

56. Within this section, Unterman (1987: 177) finds several of the key passages (31:27–37,
32:37–41, 33:1–26, 50:17–20) for his third stage of the development of the penitential
57. Contra Brueggemann (1998: 293–94), who sees this as “knowing the identity-giving
story” and “readiness to obey the commands.” Although these may be derivative, it is expe-
riencing Yahweh as covenant God that is in view here according to Exod 6:7; cf. Carroll
(1986: 612): “awareness and experience of the deity” (citing 5:4–5, 9:24).
Jeremiah 251
experience (Raitt 1977: 175–84). The mournful cry of Ephraim suggests that
this will involve prayer and humility but will rely on Yahweh for its success.
This new era is also at least marked, if not made possible, by God’s new
stance toward the past sin that has been highlighted from the beginning of
the book of Jeremiah. 58 Yahweh promises in 31:34 that he will forgive (jls)
their guilt/iniquity (ˆw[) and no longer remember (rkz) their sins (tafj) and in
33:8 that he will cleanse (rhf Piel) them and forgive (jls) them of all their
guilt/iniquity (ˆw[) by which they sinned (afj) and rebelled ([vp) against him.
This building up of the vocabulary of sin, using all three standard words in
Hebrew (Brueggemann 1998: 314), emphasizes the comprehensiveness of this
divine act. No basis for this forgiveness and cleansing is given besides the
merciful action of Yahweh. Jer 33:8 “seems almost overloaded with its empha-
sis on this work of God” (Fretheim 2002: 475).
Freedom from the past stain of sin is also seen in God’s declaration that the
popular proverb “the parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth
are set on edge” (31:29, nasb, modified) will no longer be quoted (see also Deut
24:16, Ezek 18:2). 59 Instead, those who eat the sour grapes (sin, become guilty)
are the ones whose teeth will be set on edge (punishment). Although cast in
a way that sounds judgmental, its function in the larger context of 31:27–34
is to emphasize that in this new era the people will not be weighed down by
the sins of the past, especially because obedience will be a divine work.
This new era of forgiveness and renewal will be marked by the return of
the people to the land, renewal of leadership, reconstruction of the cities, and
restoration of prosperity (30:8–11, 18–21; 31:4–14, 16–17, 21–24, 27–28, 38–
40; 32:41–44; 33:6–26). Jer 33:6 returns to the image of “healing,” tapping
into the motif of the incurable wounds that Yahweh promises to heal in
30:17 (cf. 30:12).
58. Raitt (1977: 184–94). The question of the relationship between forgiveness and the
new era is related to the function of the ykI at the end of Jer 31:34. If it is causal, it then pro-
vides the entire foundation for this new “knowing” (or experience) of God in 31:33–34. So
Brueggemann (1998: 294): “All the newness is possible because Yahweh has forgiven.”
59. Carroll (1986: 608) blames the development of this proverb on the preaching of ser-
mons such as Jeremiah 7, 11; 25:1–7; 26:2–6; Ezekiel 16, 20, 23 (cf. 2:5, 9). These passages do
describe the regular pattern of sin that plagued Israel’s experience and led to the discipline of
exile. However, this did not leave the present generation blameless. For instance, see Jer
16:10–13, where the prophet is to respond to the people’s claims of innocence (“why has the
Lord decreed such a great disaster against us? What wrong have we done? What sin have we
committed against the Lord our God?” v. 10) with the message “It is because your ancestors
forsook (bz[) me . . . and followed (yrja ˚lh) other gods and served (db[) and worshipped
(hwjtvh) them . . . forsook (bz[) me and did not keep (rmv) my law. . . . but you have behaved
more wickedly than your ancestors . . . following stubbornness of your evil hearts instead of
obeying me” (vv. 11–12, tniv). There is indeed a stain that comes from a former generation,
but the later generation has passionately pursued the same behavior and is deserving of judg-
ment. See, though, Jeremiah’s prayer in Jer 32:18, where he cites the Exodus 34 creed about
God bringing punishment for the parent’s sin into the laps of their children after them.
252 Chapter 13
Summary
Underlying the theology of sin and its remedy in the book of Jeremiah is
clearly a penitential agenda based on the severe mercy of God. Yahweh offers
rescue and forgiveness to the community that will turn to him but discipline and
judgment to those who will not. The first half of the book reveals an intense
struggle between the people, prophet, and God over this agenda, exemplified
in a multitude of laments that punctuate the text. Ultimately, the lament of
both people and prophet is rejected by a God who demands a penitential re-
sponse among the people that involves affection, word, and deed. The physical
judgment that comes is preceded by a spiritual judgment in which Yahweh no
longer responds to their cries.
It is obvious nearly from the outset that Jeremiah’s audience will be unable
to respond to the prophetic message, suggesting that sin will not be remedied
through the penitential response found in the process assumed by the first
half of the book of Jeremiah. In the second half, a new process is adopted, one
that relies on a new work of divine grace, which offers forgiveness and freedom
from past sin (their own and of earlier generations) and transformation of the
inner affections. This transformation is related to a new covenant in which the
people would be enabled to repent, would receive a new heart, and would
have the law written on their hearts.
There is something deeply ironic in the shift observed in the book of Jere-
miah. The prophecies of hope in chaps. 24–33 provide a radically different vi-
sion for dealing with the problem of sin, in which the prophet, who is mostly
responsible for the development of the vocabulary and theology of repen-
tance, now “abandons the principle of free will and the attendant demand for
repentance. Redemption would be solely the work of God, who would estab-
lish a new covenant with Israel, as permanent and unshakable as creation it-
self” (Unterman 1987: 177). 60
60. One can see similarities and contrasts between this analysis and Unterman’s (1987).
Unterman argues for three stages in the development of the theology of repentance and re-
demption in the Jeremianic tradition: the first stage (3:6–13, 19–4:2; 31:2–9, 15–22) during Jo-
siah’s reign, the second stage (3:14–18, 24:4–7, 29:10–14, 50:4–7) between 597 and 587 b.c.,
and the third stage (31:27–37, 32:37–41, 33:1–26, 50:17–20; cf. 23:1–8, 42:9–12) during the
period of the destruction of Jerusalem. The first stage stresses human repentance and divine
mercy as determinative for redemption. In the second (when calls went unheeded), divine
mercy outweighs human repentance. In the third (based on tragedy), divine mercy stands
alone. See also Raitt (1977: 36), who traces a beginning phase (combination of strong words
of judgment with words of hope or calls to repentance), a transitional phase (failure of people
to repent is given as grounds for punishment), and then, after a break, “there bursts forth a
radical and unqualified message of salvation.” He sees this in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Chapter 14
Ezekiel
Whereas Jeremiah offers a perspective on Jerusalem and Judah from a

prophet within the land, Ezekiel offers a perspective from life in exile. In the
very year (30th year, 1:1) that he would have assumed temple service if not in
exile (cf. Num 4:30), 1 this priest-turned-prophet is called instead to speak to
“a rebellious nation/house, . . . the house of Israel.”
The identity of this audience, however, has been a point of controversy. 2
The exilic context is obvious from the outset (1:1–3; 3:15, 23), but at times
there are glimpses of experiences in Jerusalem (8:1–11:25). 3 The sign act in
chap. 12 refers to “the prince in Jerusalem as well as all the house of Israel
who are in it” (12:10) who “will go into exile, into captivity” (12:11). The use
of the third person and the reference to “in it” suggests Ezekiel is not “in it,”
that is, in Jerusalem. Ezek 14:22 speaks of “survivors” who will “be brought
out” (of Jerusalem) and who will “come forth to you,” suggesting that Ezekiel
is not there (in Jerusalem). Finally, in 24:26 Ezekiel is told that one “who es-
capes will come to you with information” (about the fall of Jerusalem), reveal-
ing that he is not in Jerusalem, a fact made clear in 33:21 when he receives the
news in exile.
That Jerusalem and its community is constantly in view in the book is not
surprising, because the fate of the exiles is so closely associated with the fates
of Jerusalem and Judah and their inhabitants. This is demonstrated in Ezek-
iel’s speech in 24:21–23 in which he speaks about the desecration of the
temple in destruction and speaks of Jerusalem as “the pride of your power, the
desire of your eyes and the delight of your soul; and your sons and your
daughters whom you have left behind.” The exilic community was intimately
tied to Jerusalem because it was a symbol of their Jewish identity, but also be-
cause many of the exiles’ family members remained there. Thus, while the
majority of the messages are directed to the exiles (see 8:1, 20:1, 14:1), there
1. Block (1997: 83). Betts (2005) goes too far in connecting Ezekiel to the priestly tradition
at the expense of the prophetic.
2. Zimmerli (1979: 1:1–8). See further Zimmerli (1979: 1:59); Greenberg (1983b: 15–17);
Block (1997: 54); Mein (2001: 237–38). Some have suggested that Ezekiel had two phases of
ministry, one in Judah and one in exile.
3. Even if it is clear that the prophet remains in an exilic context and experiences a vi-
sionary transport (8:1, 11:25).
- 253 -
254 Chapter 14
are concerns over those who remained in the land (11:13, 15), and the judg-
ment of the land and city dominates the messages. That there was interaction
between communities is not impossible, but the messages were primarily for
the community in Babylon, exiled Jerusalem and Judah, the focus of the fu-
ture hope for Israel.
The date of this initial encounter with God, however, is linked not only to
the years of Ezekiel’s life but in 1:2 also to the time that had elapsed since the
exile of the former Judean king Jehoiachin. It is this latter dating scheme that
is used throughout the book, appearing at regular intervals (8:1; 20:1; 24:1;
26:1; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; 40:1). One may observe how these
superscriptions “show in the overall compass of the work a regular advance in
time” (Zimmerli 1979: 2). However, though the superscriptions are surpris-
ingly consistent in their formulation, 4 there are deviations in their chrono-
logical order, in particular at 26:1, 29:17, and 33:21, which is illustrated by
table 14.1 (p. 255). For this reason, it is apparent that the book is not struc-
tured strictly according to chronology. It is interesting, however, that the
chronological flow of the book is disrupted precisely in a section devoted to
the oracles against “foreign nations” in chaps. 25–32. This section appears to
be focused on those who gloated over or caused trouble for Judah during its
final demise. These oracles separate two passages that are closely related and
contain identical vocabulary, that is, 24:15–27 and 33:21–33.
As for you, son of man, will it not be on the day when I take from them
their stronghold, the joy of their pride, the desire of their eyes and their
heart’s delight, their sons and their daughters, that on that day he who es-
capes (fylIP): will come (awb) to you with information for your ears? On that
day your mouth (hP<) will be opened (jtp) to him who escaped (fylIP): , and
you will speak and be mute (μla) no longer (d/[). Thus you will be a sign to
them, and they will know that I am the Lord. (24:25–27)
Now in the twelfth year of our exile, on the fifth of the tenth month, the
refugees (fylIP): from Jerusalem came (awb) to me, saying, “The city has been
taken.” Now the hand of the Lord had been upon me in the evening, before
the refugees (fylIP): came (awb). And he opened (jtp) my mouth (hP<) at the
time they came (awb) to me in the morning; so my mouth (hP<) was opened
(jtp) and I was no longer (d/[) speechless (μla). (33:21–22)
The first passage (24:15–27) instructs Ezekiel that after he receives a visit from
someone who escapes the destruction of Jerusalem, his mouth will be opened
and he will no longer be “mute.” The second (33:21–33) relates the fulfillment
of the first.
However, between the prophecy (chap. 24) and its fulfillment (chap. 33),
the reader encounters an elongated tirade against the nations that might be
4. Contrast the dating schemes used in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. For a reason
for the appearance of such precise dating schemes in this period of Israel’s history, see Curtis
(2006).
Ezekiel 255
Table 14.1. Superscriptions in Ezekiela
Now it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month,
1:1 while I was by the river Chebar among the exiles, the heavens were opened and
I saw visions of God.
1:2 On the fifth of the month in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile,
It came about in the sixth year, on the fifth day of the sixth month, as I was sit-
8:1 ting in my house with the elders of Judah sitting before me, that the hand of the
Lord God fell on me there.
Now in the seventh year, in the fifth month, on the tenth of the month, certain
20:1
of the elders of Israel came to inquire of the Lord, and sat before me.
And the word of the Lord came to me in the ninth year, in the tenth month,
24:1
on the tenth of the month, saying,
Now in the eleventh year, on the first of the month,

26:1 the word of the Lord came to me saying,
In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the twelfth

29:1 of the month, the word of the Lord came to me saying,
Oracles against the Nations
Now in the twenty-seventh year, in the first month,

29:17 on the first of the month, the word of the Lord came
Chapters 25–32
to me saying,
In the eleventh year, in the first month, on the sev-

30:20 enth of the month, the word of the Lord came to me
saying,
In the eleventh year, in the third month, on the first

In the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, on the first

In the twelfth year, on the fifteenth of the month,

32:17 the word of the Lord came to me saying,
Now in the twelfth year of our exile, on the fifth of the tenth month, the ref-
33:21
ugees from Jerusalem came to me, saying, “The city has been taken.”
In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the
40:1 tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was taken, on that same
day the hand of the Lord was upon me and he brought me there.
a. Shaded cells denote superscriptions that break the chronological flow.
tempted to gloat over the fate of Jerusalem (chaps. 25–32). These prophecies
do not follow the basic chronological flow of the rest of the book, not because
of sloppy editing work, but rather because they are being used for a literary
purpose, which is to remind the readers in the literary interval between the fi-
nal prophecy of Jerusalem’s fall and its actual fall that, although Jerusalem
256 Chapter 14
will fall, this should not be taken as a sign of God’s pleasure in this act or his
favor for the surrounding nations, which will also be judged. 5
These observations provide some insight into the structure of the book of
Ezekiel, the literary architecture in which the theology of sin and its remedy
is developed. In the same way that Jeremiah 24–25 function as a key transi-
tion in the book of Jeremiah, serving as a hinge between the first (chaps. 2–
23) and second (chaps. 26–52) halves of the book, so Ezekiel 33 functions as
a hinge within the book. 6 As does Jeremiah 24–25, so Ezekiel 33 signals a shift
in the dominant mood of the book from judgment in chaps. 4–32 to hope in
chaps. 34–48. This does not mean that elements of hope are absent from Ezek-
iel 4–32 or that judgment is missing from Ezekiel 34–48. Rather, there is a rec-
ognizable shift in the prophetic mood after this point, as the prophet looks to
the ultimate restoration of the people. It is instructive that the fall of Jerusa-
lem marks this shift. 7 Rather than being a sign of hopelessness, it is identified
as the first sign of hope (explained in Ezekiel 20).
As with the “hinge” of Jeremiah 24–25, Ezekiel 33 not only introduces the
hope of chaps. 34–48 but also brings closure to the first half of the book. Ezek
33:1–20 echoes both the calling of the prophet in Ezekiel 1–3 and his key
speech in Ezekiel 18, both focusing on repentance. 8 Although Ezek 33:1–20
has been interpreted by some as a “second calling” of the prophet (much like
Isaiah 40) and thus as key to the shift from judgment to hope in the book
(Zimmerli 1979: 2:183), it is better to see here a public summary of the calling
of the prophet and the content of his preaching at this crucial transition (just
prior to the fall of Jerusalem; Block 1997: 2:234–35).
Therefore, after the calling of Ezekiel in chaps. 1–3, the book of Ezekiel is
structured in two basic sections, which are divided at chap. 33. Chapters 4–32
are dominated by the theme of judgment both for Judah and the nations, and
chaps. 34–48 are dominated by the theme of salvation.
Two core motifs bolster the shift that has been highlighted at chap. 33, and
both of these motifs are introduced in Ezekiel’s calling at the outset of the
book. The first is the motif of God’s glory, which Ezekiel experiences at the
River Chebar in exile. This is essential to his calling in chaps. 1–3, paralleling
Isaiah’s vision of God in Isaiah 6 and confirming Ezekiel’s access to the divine
council to receive God’s word. A vision of this same glory, however, appears
5. Renz (1999: 101), Joyce (1989: 102–3), and Mein (2001: 159) note the importance of
Yahweh’s reputation in Ezekiel, especially in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem in view
of the nations (cf. 20:9, 14, 22; 36:20).
6. Renz (1999: 105): “In summarizing the first part of the book and in presenting the sit-
uation just after the collapse of the nation in 587 b.c., chap. 33 gives the readers the perspec-
tive from which the following chapters are to be read.” Cf. Mein (2001: 216–17).
7. So Joyce (1989: 56): “The fall of Jerusalem constitutes the fulcrum of the book of Ezekiel;
the year 587 ushers in the time of new beginnings.”
8. Renz (1999: 162) notes how Ezek 33:1–20 forms an inclusio with Ezekiel’s call that
surrounds the first half of the book.
Ezekiel 257
two other times in the book of Ezekiel. The first occurs in chap. 10 as the
prophet sees the glory depart from the temple through the east gate. The sec-
ond occurs in 43:1–5 as the prophet sees the return of this glory into the
temple through the east gate. The first occurs in the midst of chaps. 4–32, the
second in chaps. 34–48, each passage matching the dominant tone of its re-
spective section. 9
The second motif is Ezekiel’s inability to speak, a condition that is intro-
duced from the outset in Ezekiel’s call narrative. The traditional translation of
the end of Ezekiel’s call in Ezek 3:24–27 reads like this:
The Spirit then entered me and made me stand on my feet, and he spoke
with me and said to me, “Go, shut yourself up in your house. As for you, son
of man, they will put ropes on you and bind you with them so that you can-
not go out among them. Moreover, I will make your tongue stick to the roof of
your mouth so that you will be mute and cannot be a man who rebukes them, for
they are a rebellious house. But when I speak to you, I will open your mouth and
you will say to them, “Thus says the Lord God.” He who hears, let him hear;
and he who refuses, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house.
The other passages in Ezekiel in which this motif occurs have already been
cited above. It appears first in Ezek 24:26–27, where Ezekiel is told that on the
day a fugitive comes to inform him of the fall of Jerusalem, his mouth will be
opened so that he can speak and no longer be silent. This comes to fulfillment
in 33:21–22 on the day an escapee from Jerusalem arrives and tells him of the
fall of Jerusalem, whereupon his mouth is opened and he is no longer silent.
Some have argued that this suggests that Ezekiel was not able to speak to
the people during the interval between 3:26–27 and 33:21–22, but this is
contradicted by the many speeches of Ezekiel in the interval material,
which are dated to the period between his call and the fall of Jerusalem (see
Block 1997: 156).
This tension is overcome by some who see this as intrusive material added
by a later editor. 10 Others have argued that this silence is related to Ezekiel’s
everyday conversations with the people. He would only be able to speak
when God opened his mouth, but at other times would remain silent. 11 The
best explanation, however, looks to the important phrase j'ykI/m vyaI in 3:26,
which immediately follows the phrase “so that you will be mute,” and is often
translated as “you will not be [= function] for them as a man of rebuke.” If
one translates this phrase (j'ykI/m vyaI) as “man of rebuke,” then it clearly pro-
9. See Tuell (1992: 35–37, 175–76) for the role of Isa 43:1–9 in chaps. 40–48 and in the
book of Ezekiel.
10. See Greenberg (1983b: 102–3), who identifies 3:26–27 as secondary “and not to be
taken entirely seriously.”
11. Greenberg (1983b: 102–3) writes that this reference to silence must have meant that
“in the intervals between God’s addresses and the consequent empowerment of the prophet
to transmit them onward, he remained dumb.”
258 Chapter 14
hibits much of what Ezekiel proclaimed to the people in the chapters that fol-
low (Wilson 1972). However, j"ykI/m (“rebuke”) is the Hiphil participle of the
root jky, and although this stem is used in relation to rebuke or correction, it
is also used in relation to mediation between two parties ( Job 13:3, 6:25,
13:15, 16:21; Isa 2:4; 11:3, 4; Mic 4:3). Therefore,
when the verb is used in legal contexts it refers to the process of conducting
a trial or arbitrating a dispute between two parties. This process may have
involved assuring a fair trial and perhaps even arguing the case for one of
the parties. The verb thus involves promoting dialogue between two parties,
a fact which is illustrated by the frequent equation of yk˙ and rîb. 12
What this means is that Ezekiel was being forbidden the prophetic interces-
sory role of bringing the people’s dispute into the divine court (1 Sam 7:9,
12:19–25; Amos 7:1–9; Jer 13:1–6, 18:20, 21:1–2, 26:18, 37:1–10), a prohibi-
tion also given to Jeremiah (7:16, 11:14, 14:11–12, 15:1; see discussion on
Jeremiah, pp. 223–248). 13 Therefore,
Ezekiel’s commission permits him to speak only when God speaks to him; he
is not permitted to relay the complaints of the people to God (Ezek 3.25–27).
Only after the fall of Jerusalem is Ezekiel’s mouth opened to address the com-
plaints of the exiles (24.26–27; 33.21–22; 37.11–14; cf. 29.21). Throughout
the book, Ezekiel’s dumbness and renewed speech indicate modifications of
his role; more specifically, what is modified is his role as the mediator of the
complaints of the people to God. (Odell 2006: 106)
Therefore, the liberation of Ezekiel’s tongue in 33:21–22
would signal a dramatic shift in his ministry. He could finally assume the
normal role of a prophet, interceding on the people’s behalf before Yahweh
and offering messages of hope for the future. So long as the temple and the
city had stood, these basic functions had been denied him. But hereafter,
though he would continue to issue diatribes (cf., e.g., 33:24–29; 34:1–10), he
could begin to focus on a new day when the corrupt tenets of official theol-
ogy would be replaced by authentic spirituality and Yahweh would reconsti-
tute the nation as his covenant people. But this does not result from the
people’s greater receptivity. (Block 1998: 255)
Chapter 14 confirms this restriction on Ezekiel, as the people are not allowed
to inquire of Yahweh through the prophet, nor is the prophet allowed to en-
tertain any inquiry at the risk of his life (Wilson 1972: 103; Joyce 1989: 69).
As with Jeremiah, the time of turning away the judgment of God is past and
hope is transferred to the remnant, which will emerge from this disaster
(chap. 14). Similarly, the long recital of the history of Israel in chap. 20 is
12. R. Wilson (1972: 100); cf. R. Wilson (1984: 129–30), affirmed by Joyce (1989: 59);
Block (1997: 157).
13. R. Wilson (1972: 101 n. 101). On this process, see Jeremiah, pp. 223–248 above, and
Boda (2001).
Ezekiel 259
occasioned by the elders’ approaching the prophet to make inquiry of Yah-

weh, and God refuses: “I will not let you inquire of me” (20:3). Yahweh’s re-
sponse is a long review of the people’s rebellious history, one that shows that
God will bring judgment but will show his grace by preserving a remnant as
he has done in the past. At the end of this long recital of history, Yahweh
again tells them that they cannot inquire of him because they are just like
their ancestors (20:27; cf. 20:30). Although there is hope for a remnant and
assurance that repentance will secure survival of the righteous through the
destruction, the present time is not for inquiry or mediation to avert the di-
saster for the nation. 14
It is clear that the prophet Ezekiel would be allowed to bring the word of
God to the people but would not be allowed to take the word of the people
to God. A prohibition of this sort suggests that the coming judgment is inev-
itable and inescapable. It is instructive that the prohibition on intercession is
operative within the first half of the book (chaps. 4–32), the precise section
that is dominated by judgment, whereas the prohibition is released with the
fall of Jerusalem in chap. 33, just before the section dominated by salvation
(chaps. 34–48).
These two motifs confirm that Ezekiel is structured into two basic sections.
This key shift will help us to understand the theology of sin and its remedy
within this book, which develops the important prophetic themes of repen-
tance and judgment but also shifts to hope for a great future work of God’s
grace.
Ezekiel 1–3
As was observed in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the account of a
prophet’s call helps to shape the development of the theme of sin and its rem-
edy within the book as a whole. 15 Ezekiel’s call, which comprises three chap-
ters, begins with an overpowering vision of the divine council, which the
priest-prophet experienced in exile by the Chebar River in the land of Baby-
lon. The intricate description of this vision in 1:1–28 introduces the first of
three phases of the prophet’s divine commission in 2:1–3:11. This is followed
by another brief description of the glory of the Lord as the prophet is trans-
ported to sit, deeply distressed, among the exiles in Tel Aviv near the Chebar
River (3:12–15), which in turn introduces the second phase of the commis-
sion in 3:16–21. A third brief description is found in 3:22–23 as the prophet
14. This resonates with Fishbane (1984: 147–48): “His primary concern was not to call the
people of Jerusalem to repentance but to expound in various ways upon the justice of Yhwh
to the exiles. For it is manifestly for their sake that almost all of the actions and visions in
chapters 4–24 are unfolded.” I would add to this, however, that there is a minor emphasis
even in these chapters on the repentance of the exiles, who will emerge as the purified rem-
nant. Thus, he was concerned with more than just the “religious psychology of the Judeans
in exile.”
15. For the prophetic call, see Isaiah 6, pp. 194–198 above.
260 Chapter 14
is instructed to “go out to the plain,” where he is given the third and final
phase of the commission in 3:24–27.
Ezekiel 2:1–3:11
The first phase of the commission (2:1–3:11) is introduced by the key word
“send” (jlv), so typical of prophetic calls (2:3; cf. Isa 6:8; Jer 1:7; Exod 3:10,
12) and followed by the command to “say to them: 16 ‘Thus says the Sovereign
Yahweh,’” this being shorthand for any future message that God will give the
prophet. Ezekiel is informed that there are two options for those who will
hear his message: “listen” ([mv) or “fail” (ldj) to listen (2:5, 7; 3:6, 11). The
prospects for “listening” do not appear to be very bright because, even in the
opening words (2:3–4), the people both past and present are described as a
“rebellious nation” (μydir]/Mh" μyi/G) that has “rebelled” (drm, [vp) against Yahweh
and “children hard of face and hard of heart” (blEAyqEz]jIw] μynip: yv´q)} . These open-
ing words set the tone for other depictions of “the house of Israel” through-
out this first phase of the commission, in which the prophet’s potential
audience is called rebellious (yrim,} 2:7; yrim} tyBE, 2:5, 6, 8; 3:9) and “hard of fore-
head and hard of heart” (blEAyv´q}W jx"mEAyqez]jI 3:7), conditions rendering them
“not willing (hba) to listen” (3:7). Such a dismal outlook necessitates that the
prophet be granted corresponding hardness: “face as hard as their faces
. . . forehead as hard as their foreheads,” as “diamond is harder than flint”
(3:8–9). Although throughout the section the options of listening or refrain-
ing suggest the possibility of repentance, 3:7–9 is skeptical about success.
Ezekiel 3:16–21
The second phase of Ezekiel’s calling (3:16–21) comes after seven days of
sitting, deeply distressed, among the exiles in Tel Aviv near the Chebar River
(3:12–15). Key motifs from the first phase (listening, refraining, hardness) are
missing in the second, replaced now by the dominant motif of the watchman
(hpx), a term used often for military outlooks (e.g., 1 Sam 14:16, 2 Sam 13:14)
but also, as a metaphorical extension of this meaning, for prophets (Isa 52:8,
56:10; Jer 6:17; Hos 9:8). This imagery is explained in far more detail in Ezek
33:1–7 (see p. 283 below), where the key role is to warn (rhz Hiphil) the people
of approaching doom. This shift in motif is probably related to a concern
raised by the first phase. Although according to the first phase of the commis-
sion the prophet was to play an important role in calling the people to repen-
tance, and two possible options were cited for his audience, Yahweh expresses
skepticism over the people’s willingness to listen. His skepticism questions the
purpose of even sending a prophet at all into such a hopeless situation.
16. Here the verb is rma. In Exod 3:14 and Isa 6:9 it is rma; in Jer 1:7 it is rbd.
Ezekiel 261
Table 14.2. Scenarios: A Wicked Person

“When I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die’” (3:18a)
Scenario 1a Scenario 1b
3:18b Elements 3:19
and you do not warn (rhz Hiphil) Prophet’s speech but if you do warn (rhz
them or speak out (rbd Piel) to Hiphil) the wicked and
warn (rhz Hiphil) the wicked
([v…r);
from their wicked way (/Kr]D'mI People’s response they do not turn (bWv) from
h[: v…r]h): in order that they may their wickedness or from
live (/tYoj"l)} their wicked way (/[v‘rmi E
] : /Kr]D"mIW)
h[: v…rh
those wicked ([v…r); will die for People’s consequences they shall die in their
their sins iniquity
and I will hold you accountable Prophet’s consequences but you have delivered
for (i.e., “I will seek your hand,” yourself (lxn Hiphil)
vqb Piel) their blood
The answer to this dilemma is provided through the presentation of four

scenarios arranged into two groups. 17 These scenarios provide a basic tem-
plate for the role of the prophet in the penitential process. The elements of
the penitential process are provided in the first group of scenarios (3:18–19,
table 14.2), which are focused on the judgment of the “wicked.” Here we see
the key role that the prophet’s speech plays in the ideal penitential process:
when God’s verdict is handed out to the wicked, the prophet is to relay this
message to the wicked, who are given an opportunity to “turn” (bwv) and
“live” (hyj). In both scenarios, the wicked die on account of their sins, even
though clearly there was the possibility that through turning from their wick-
edness they could have lived. What distinguishes the two scenarios is the
focus of this phase of the commission. In scenario 1a, the prophet is held ac-
countable for this death, whereas in scenario 1b the prophet will have deliv-
ered himself from any liability.
The second set of scenarios (see table 14.3, p. 262) shifts the focus from the
wicked to the righteous, here the righteous who are about to sin. The same
message of God introduced in v. 18a is operative for these scenarios as well,
and so no new message is provided at the beginning of v. 20. As with scenar-
ios 1a and 1b, the possible consequences for the prophet are the same: either
he carries bloodguilt or he delivers himself. In contrast, however, there are
17. Block (1997: 423) notes that the style of vv. 16–21 has “a pronounced quasi-legal fla-
vor, several of its features being derived from casuistic sacral law. The form typically involves
a protasis describing a case, introduced by kî, followed by an apodosis describing the conse-
quences.” See these forms in Exod 20:22–23:33 and throughout Leviticus.
262 Chapter 14
Table 14.3. Scenarios: A Righteous Person

Scenario 2a Scenario 2b
3:20 Elements 3:21
. . . since (yKI) you have not Prophet’s speech but if you do warn (rhz) the
warned them (rhz) . . . righteous not to sin (afj
infinitive construct)
When the righteous (qyDix)" People’s response and they do not sin (afj)
turn (bWc) from their
righteousness (qd,x)< and do
(hc[) injustice/
unrighteousness (lw,[): and I
place a stumbling block
before them
then they shall die . . . People’s consequences they shall surely live because
[prophet’s speech assumed they took warning
to have already taken place]
. . . they shall die in their sin
and their righteous deeds
which they have done shall
not be remembered
but their blood I will require Prophet’s consequences and you have delivered
at your hand yourself (lxn Hiphil)
two possible consequences for the people: either they will die or they will live.
Key again is the prophet’s speech, which is considered to have taken place at
the outset of each scenario. 18 Interestingly, for the righteous, the warning is
assumed to have taken place prior to the sinful act, and this sinful act eradi-
cates all the righteous deeds that the person had done prior to that point. 19
These scenarios first highlight the possibility of repentance to change the
consequences of people. Second, they continue the skeptical tone over the
ability of the people to respond, considering only one possible scenario out of
four as involving a positive response and only one in which an already righ-
teous person does not turn to sin (thus, “nonrepenting”). Third, they show
that a key element of the prophetic commission is penitential in character, ei-
ther warning the wicked to turn back or warning the righteous not to turn
away. Fourth, they reveal the seriousness of faithfulness in delivering the pro-
phetic message. Failure to do so places bloodguilt on the prophet.
18. The description of the prophet’s speech is placed at the outset in scenario 2b (3:21),
but in scenario 2a it is placed in the midst of the people’s consequences, although it is as-
sumed to have (not) taken place at an earlier point in the process (yKI, “since/because”).
19. The odd phrase “and I place a stumbling block before him” suggests that, once the
righteous engage in wicked behavior, God’s judgment will begin by causing them to stumble
further into sin.
Ezekiel 263
Ezekiel 3:24–27
The third and final phase of the prophetic commission takes place on the
plain (3:22–23) and is recounted in 3:24–27. Here, the motifs of the first phase
of the commission (“listen,” [mv; “refrain from listening,” ldj; “rebellious,”
yrim)} reemerge as the prophet is given specific instructions for the first steps of
his prophetic ministry.
Ezekiel is told to “go” (˚lh), a word most often paired with “send” (jlv; see
2:3–4) in prophetic commissions (cf. Exod 3:11, Isa 6:8, Jer 1:7). 20 Odd here
is that the prophet is told to “go, shut yourself up in your house” (3:24), thus
restricting his ability to move among the people (“they will put ropes on you
and bind you with them,” 3:25) and even to speak to them (“I will make your
tongue stick to the roof of your mouth, so that you will be mute,” 3:26). The
reason for this is that they are “a rebellious house.” However, according to
3:27, when God speaks to the prophet, he will open the prophet’s mouth to
declare Yahweh’s word to the people, extending the invitation first intro-
duced at the beginning of his commission: “Whoever will listen let them lis-
ten and whoever will refuse let them refuse.”
It is in this phase, as already explained above, that Ezekiel is forbidden to
intercede on the people’s behalf for Jerusalem, revealing that the judgment of
God is assured for the city. Nevertheless, the prophet will still speak as God
enables him. He will call the exiles to repentance, not with the agenda of
changing the fate of Jerusalem, but rather with the agenda of changing the
fate of those who escape and will have the opportunity to join the remnant.
Summary
Although these three phases of Ezekiel’s prophetic commission indicate
the necessity of repentance for averting judgment, it is interesting that the
dominant tone of each is skepticism over the people’s ability to stop the judg-
ment through a penitential response. This tone has been observed in the pro-
phetic calls of Isaiah and Jeremiah above. For Ezekiel, repentance is
important, but God has placed a stumbling block before the people to seal
their fate and has shut down even the mediatorial role of the prophet to avert
the judgment. In the end, the focus of his penitential message will be the ex-
ilic community among which God was preparing a purified remnant.
Ezekiel 4–32
Ezekiel: Warning Disaster and Encouraging Repentance

The content of the book of Ezekiel that follows the commission-initiation
is dominated by sign-acts and announcements of judgment against Jerusa-
lem, further evidence that the fate of Jerusalem is sealed. In this, the prophet
20. See pp. 194–195 above on prophetic calls in Isaiah 6.

264 Chapter 14
is fulfilling his calling as watchman, seeing the impending judgment and

warning the people. There are no indications that a human response will
avert the coming judgment. Instead, the focus is on the survival of a godly
remnant, those who will hear the warning of doom and, if wicked, turn from
wickedness and, if righteous, not turn to wickedness and so survive the disas-
ter (“live”).
This is suggested by the vision of the man with the writing kit who was to
go throughout Jerusalem and mark on the foreheads of those “who sigh and
groan over all the abominations which are being committed in its midst”
(9:4). This leaves room for hope that a godly remnant will emerge from the
destruction, even if the prophet’s cry in 9:8 (“Alas, Lord God! Are you destroy-
ing the whole remnant of Israel by pouring out your wrath on Jerusalem?” cf.
11:13) does not suggest large numbers. 21 Similarly, 14:12–23 clearly declares
that, when God begins his judgment (sword, famine, wild beasts, plague),
even great past figures such as Noah, Daniel/Danel, and Job would be only
able to save themselves, not even their children, because of their righteous-
ness. 22 While foreshadowing the fuller presentation of generational responsi-
bility in chap. 18, this passage shows that the city’s fate is sealed and offers
hope only to the righteous who will survive.
The rest of the material in between Ezekiel’s call (chaps. 1–3) and the fall
of Jerusalem (chap. 33), except for the oracles against the nations in chaps.
25–32, is largely focused on the impending judgment of the city and state. 23
Any hope for renewal that can be discerned is either placed on the remnant
that was emerging from the disaster in exile or transferred to a future ideal res-
toration period.
The issue of the role of repentance in Ezekiel has been very controversial.
In some ways, this is related to the difficulty of identifying Ezekiel’s audience,
for, if he was called to address the community in Jerusalem/Judah, then his
few calls to repentance seem contradictory, because he seems to indicate that
the city’s fate is sealed. For a prophet to announce or envision a punishment
(as Ezekiel does) does not necessarily mean the fate is sure, because prophecies
of this sort are often designed to elicit repentance (see Jonah for instance).
However, Ezekiel’s audience is not the community in Jerusalem/Judah but the
exilic community, and he is denied any intercessory role to plead for the sit-
uation to change. His calls for repentance in chaps. 1–32 (esp. chaps. 2–3, 14,
18) are not later pieces that have been inserted editorially into the early phase
of Ezekiel (Zimmerli 1979: 1:205) or “an interesting and authentic interlude
21. Similarly, in 14:22–23 when survivors show up in exile, their “conduct and actions”
will console the prophet, not because they are godly, but more likely because their evil char-
acter justifies God’s judgment (“you will know that I have not done in vain whatever I did
to it”).
22. On the identity of Daniel/Danel, see Eichrodt (1970: 188–89) and Davidson (2001).
23. With the exception, of course, of the prophecies against the nations in chaps. 25–32.
Ezekiel 265
between the end point of Ezekiel’s radicalized judgment preaching, and the
development later of his salvation preaching” (Raitt 1977: 49) or rhetorical
flourishes to justify God’s punishment (Joyce 1989: 50–60) 24 or a “carrot” to
help the people admit their guilt (Kaminsky 1995a: 166). Rather, they are gen-
uine calls to repentance that are directed to the exilic community emerging
from Jerusalem and from which, in turn, a purified remnant (cf. Matties 1990:
186, 195; 2001: 202–13) will emerge. 25
Several have challenged the earlier view (based especially on chap. 18) that
Ezekiel emphasized the individual, arguing that Ezekiel’s use of a metaphor
drawn from individual legal protocol does not mean he has lost focus on the
nation as a whole (see especially Joyce 1989; Kaminsky 1995a; Mein 2001). 26
However, it is interesting that the penitential calls in chaps. 3, 18, and 33 do
speak of individuals and that individualistic motifs are found in chaps. 9 and
14. 27 It may be that, although a community is what the prophet addresses
and a community is what the prophet hopes to produce, the use of individu-
alistic metaphors may be linked to Ezekiel’s role in forming a faithful remnant
among the exilic community, one that is ready for the great divine initiative
that is to come. Probably, it is too much to argue that the call to repentance
in chap. 18 is “an exhortation to the people in exile to qualify for the return”
(Matties 1990: 186), because no direct correlation is ever made between this
repentance and a restoration, which will rely on divine initiative alone (see
Mein 2001: 211–12). However, it is also an overstatement to say that “Ezekiel’s
concerns centre neither upon individualism nor even upon repentance” but
rather on “the impending judgment and Israel’s absolute responsibility for it”
(Joyce 1989: 77). Ezekiel is concerned about his exilic compatriots to whom
he was called (chap. 3), and until the future restoration happens the commu-
nity is still responsible to remain faithful: “Ezekiel enables the exiles, in their
existing situation, not to wait idly for the fulfillment of the great promises to
24. See the criticisms by Matties (1990: 109 n. 200).

25. I would be remiss not to mention that, although Joyce (1989: 57, 70) emphasizes the
rhetorical role of repentance “to underline Israel’s responsibility for the inevitable punish-
ment,” he does note that the calls to repentance do reflect “the yearning of Yahweh for the
obedience of his people.”
26. However, Mein (2001: 213) does note that the list of sins in chap. 18 suggests a “do-
mestication” of ethics, in that the sins listed (and thus the repentance demanded) are more
on “the domestic day-to-day life of the exiles than on the national-political level.”
27. Raitt (1977: 49) oddly treats chap. 14 as suggesting “a possibility of national repen-
tance” but sees the penitential calls in chaps. 3, 18, and 33 as referring to individuals, and,
through this, “Ezekiel opens up this substantially new teaching of repentance for the individ-
ual to show that there is hope for those who accepted the Exile with faith in God’s abiding
Lordship and justice.” The individualistic motifs in chaps. 9 and 14 are noted by Joyce (1989:
76–77), who sees them as subordinate to a more collective primary theme. Overall, however,
he “does not deny altogether an individualistic element in the statement of Israel’s responsi-
bility in Ezekiel,” even if he seeks “to show that this is less prominent than has generally
been claimed.”
266 Chapter 14
the house of Israel. He shows them how to face up to this future in immediate
decisions about the specific affairs of everyday life” (Zimmerli 1979: 67).
Thus, the calls to repentance that are commissioned in chaps. 2–3 and 33
and are expressed in 14:6 and 18:30–32 are addressed to Ezekiel’s exilic com-
munity. The call to repentance in 14:6 (“Repent and turn away from your
idols and turn your faces away from all your abominations”) is addressed to
“some elders of Israel,” who had approached the prophet to inquire of Yah-
weh. This idolatry among the people will result in Yahweh “removing” (trk
Hiphil) them from among the people and “destroying” them (dmv Hiphil)
(14:8, 9). The audience here, however, is Ezekiel’s exilic community, among
which have arisen idolatrous practices (see 14:22–23). 28 Similarly, the call to
repent in 18:30–32 is also addressed to Ezekiel’s compatriots in exile, espe-
cially in light of the emphasis at the outset on intergenerational guilt. Those
who lived in exile continued to experience the consequences of the sin of
former generations whose disobedient behavior had weakened the security of
Judah and Jerusalem.
These two calls to repentance reveal that Ezekiel’s mission was to warn the
people of certain approaching disaster and call them to repentance. This re-
pentance, however, will not bring an end to the doom but rather will ensure
the survival of a purified remnant that is emerging out of the fall of Jerusalem
and Judah. Among Ezekiel’s exilic community are prophets and people who
continue evil practices learned in Judah, and in light of this the prophet fo-
cuses his calls to repentance on this community and even envisions another
purging before the creation of a restoration community from those who are
in exile (Ezek 20:27–44). Therefore, the book of Ezekiel intertwines the two
fundamental prophetic approaches to remedying sin: repentance and refining.
Ezekiel’s Vocabulary of Human Response and Divine Judgment
Human Response
Although the book of Ezekiel is not dominated by exhortations to the
people to repent, in the few exhortations as well as the many descriptions of
the present and past of the community, one discovers a semantic range of vo-
cabulary used to describe both normative and nonnormative human re-
sponse. The vocabulary of human response in the book of Ezekiel continues
trends observed in the other biblical materials while providing new combina-
tions and vocabulary. It will become obvious that Ezekiel’s view of repen-
tance and apostasy was multifaceted and was not restricted to the root bwv
(“turn”).
Listening. In the deuteronomic, Jeremianic, and wisdom literature, the
call to “listen” ([mv) is emphasized. This invitation is restricted in Ezekiel to
28. Notice here that the punishment is not the destruction of the land or Jerusalem but
rather the removal of those who practice idolatry from the community.
Ezekiel 267
the first and third phases of the prophet’s call/initiation (2:5, 7; 3:6, 7, 11, 27)
and is paired (in contrast to Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and wisdom) with the
term “refrain” (ldj).
Turning. Vocabulary of “turning” is found at several points in the book,
with the root bwv dominating. Occurrences of this root are concentrated in
chaps. 3, 18, and 33, passages that all focus on the issue of responsibility for
sin (Holladay 1958: 140). This turning is always associated with turning
“from” some form of wickedness, which is always seen as a practice. It is this
call to “turn away” that is identified as the preferred outcome of the prophetic
warning in 3:18–19 and 33:7–9, 11–12, 14–16, 19. The promise is that this sort
of turning will result in life. Because of this, false prophets in 13:22 are at-
tacked for not turning the wicked from their way in order that they might ex-
perience life. This emphasis on turning in the prophetic vocation explains
why the term is showcased at the two places in chaps. 4–24, where the prophet
calls for human response, first in the short call to repentance in 14:6 and then
in the key fourth and fifth scenarios in chap. 18 (18:21, 23, 27, 28, 30). In these
two passages, Ezekiel employs a combination unique in the use of this root,
in which the Qal of bwv is followed immediately by the Hiphil of the same
root, a collocation that functions as a “reinforced Qal” and means “turn back
and let yourself be turned backed” (14:6; 18:30, 32; Holladay 1958: 103).
Straying. Although not used for movement back to God from evil, the vo-
cabulary of wandering or straying is used to speak of movement away from
God. This is expressed through the root h[t in 14:11 and 44:10, a root that is
used to speak of animals that stray from their appropriate confines (Exod
23:4, Isa 53:6, Ps 119:176), of a person wandering aimlessly (Gen 21:14, 37:15;
Ps 107:4), and of someone staggering from strong drink (Isa 28:7). Ezek 44:10
pairs this root with qjr, which refers to movement far away.
Rejecting. Whereas the root bwv suggests a person turning away and releas-
ing old patterns of affection and especially living, other roots are employed in
Ezekiel to express more aggressive and active rejection of evil. In the midst of
a section dominated by the root bwv, one finds in 18:31 the parallel exhorta-
tion to “cast away from you (˚lv Hiphil + μk<ylE[“m)E all your transgressions
which you have committed.” According to the rehearsal of Israel’s history in
chap. 20, this was the human response that characterized Yahweh’s initial
words to the rebellious exodus generation even before they left Egypt (20:7).
This more active rejection of evil can also be discerned in the call to the
princes of Israel in 45:9 to “put away (rws Hiphil) violence and destruction . . .
stop (μwr Hiphil) your expropriations from my people.” The root μwr means to
“remove, lift up, take away.”
This depiction of the aggressive character of repentance from evil is
matched by the equally aggressive character of Israel’s turning away from
God. Although 23:35 does depict the people as “throwing” (˚lv Hiphil) Yah-
weh behind their backs (ËWeg' yrej“a)" , more common is the vocabulary of rebel-
lion. In the first and last phases of the prophetic call/initiation of chaps. 1–3
268 Chapter 14
(2:5–8, 3:26–27) and in chap. 12 (vv. 2, 9, 25; cf. 44:6), the adjective “rebel-
lious,” yrim,} is connected to Israel, often in the phrase “rebellious house” (tyBE
yrim)} . In 5:6, Jerusalem, placed in the center of the nations of the world, is ac-
cused of having rebelled (hrm Hiphil) against God’s judgments and statutes,
and throughout the historical recital of chap. 20 the same root (hrm) is used
to describe how Israel rebelled against Yahweh himself (20:8, 13, 21). In both
of these instances (5:6, 20:13), rebellion is specifically linked to rejection
(sam). This active rebellion against God is expressed also through the roots
drm (2:3, 20:38) and [vp 29 (20:38, 33:12, 39:24) and through the root tjv
Hiphil in 16:47, which means “to act corruptly” and is often related to the
abomination of idolatry (cf. Deut 4:16, 25; 31:29; Isa 1:4, 11:9, 65:25; Jer 6:28;
2 Chr 26:16).
Acting. Normative human response, however, is not just a matter of
turning and rejecting but rather demands active obedience (cf. Block 1997:
582), seen most clearly in the regular use of the roots rmv, hc[, and ˚lh, which
often appear together and are connected to practicing “statutes” (hQ:j/U qjø) and
“judgments/justice” (fpvm): 18:5, 9, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27; 20:19, 21; 33:14–16,
19; 45:9. Lists of doing or refraining from specific actions in the first three sce-
narios in chap. 18 show there is no disjuncture between affection and action
(18:5–9, 11–13, 15–17). The righteous one (18:5) is one who acts righteously
and rejects wicked behavior (18:5b–9), whereas the wicked one (18:10a) is one
who acts wickedly and rejects righteous behavior (18:10b–13).
As action is key to positive human response, so is it key to the negative. The
one who turns from righteousness is one who then acts in unrighteous ways.
Here, the same verbs employed for pursuing righteousness are used for pursu-
ing unrighteousness (rmv, hc[, ˚lh; 3:20; 6:9; 11:12, 21; 18:24, 26; 20:18–20;
33:13, 15–16, 18; 43:8). Their activity is focused on the pursuit of unrighteous-
ness (lw,[;; 3:20; 18:24, 26; 33:13, 15, 18), evil (h[: r;: 6:9), abominations (hb:[E/T;
6:9, 11:21, 18:24, 43:8), and the practices of former generations (20:18) or
other nations (11:12).
Priestly. At times, human response is described with priestly vocabulary, es-
pecially employing the key categories of holy/profane (common) and clean/
unclean (see Lev 10:10, 11; cf. Ezek 22:26, 44:23 and discussion on Leviticus,
pp. 49–85 above). 30 “This ‘ritualization’ of sin and ethics in Ezekiel’s prophecies
sets him at some distance from earlier prophets, whose criticisms of the cult
leave little room for a positive assessment of ritual” (Mein 2001: 146).
29. See Block (1998: 246), who draws on Knierim in THAT 2:488–95, who considers this
as deriving from suzerainty treaty contexts and meaning rebellion and revolt against one’s
covenant overlord.
30. The priestly character of Ezekiel’s vocabulary and world view is reviewed thoroughly
in Raitt (1977: 68–70); Zimmerli (1979: 1:46–52); McKeating (1993: 45); Mein (2001: 137–
76); Wong (2001: 120–95). Zimmerli (1979: 1:46) also notes the lack of deuteronomic idiom
in Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 269
For instance, in the recital of Israel’s history in chap. 20, the command to
the second generation in the wilderness is not only the more generic call to
follow (˚lh) God’s decrees and keep (rmv) and do (hc[) laws but also the very
specific command to keep holy (vdq Piel) God’s Sabbaths (20:20). This vo-
cabulary is reminiscent of the Decalogue (Exod 29:8, 11; Deut 5:12), as well as
the conclusion to the first account of creation in Gen 2:3. To keep/make/de-
clare holy is key to the priestly rituals in the Torah (Exod 19:10, 14; 28:3, 41;
29:1, 27, 33, 36–37, 44; 30:29, 30; 31:13; 40:9–11, 13; Lev 8:10–12, 15, 30;
16:19; 20:8; 21:8, 15; 22:32; Num 6:11, 7:1). In light of God’s command to
keep/make holy the Sabbath, it is not surprising that, when the people fail to
obey, their evil response is described as the opposite, that is, profaning (llj
Piel) the Sabbaths (20:13, 16, 21, 24; cf. 22:8, 23:38), God himself (13:19,
22:26), God’s holy name (20:9, 14, 22, 39; cf. 36:20–23; 39:7), and God’s sanc-
tuary (23:38; cf. 24:21, 44:7). 31
The categories of clean and unclean are also important to Ezekiel’s depic-
tion of human response. Ritual impurity is not featured as much in Ezekiel as
is moral impurity, and this is linked most often to idolatry and bloodshed
(23:37–39). 32 Ezek 24:13 uses the priestly terminology of cleansing (rhf) from
uncleanness (amf) to speak of the desire God had for the people: “In your un-
cleanness (ha:m}f)U is lewdness (hM:z)i , because I would have cleansed (rhf Piel)
you, but you were not cleansed (rhf Qal) from your uncleanness (ha:m}f)U , you
will not be cleansed (rhf Qal) again until I have spent my wrath against you.”
Here God is depicted as a priestly figure trying to cleanse the people of their
uncleanness, but they were not cleansed, suggesting that their behavior made
this sort of cleansing impossible. Far more prominent in Ezekiel is the oppo-
site category (see Lev 10:10, 11), that is, “unclean” (amf): the people are de-
scribed as or exhorted to refrain from defiling the sanctuary, land, and even
God’s name (amf Piel; 5:11, 36:17, 43:7–8) or defiling themselves (amf Hith-
pael; 14:11; 20:7, 18, 30). Defiling behavior of this sort has led to a state of de-
filement (ha:m}f;U 24:13, 36:17, 39:24). 33
The use of the root rzn in 14:7 to refer to those who separate themselves
from Yahweh by pursuing idolatry probably also reflects a priestly back-
ground (Lev 15:31, 22:2; Zech 7:3; cf. Hos 9:10). Lev 15:31 highlights the im-
portance of separating uncleanness (ha:m}f)U from Israel, so as to avoid death by
defiling (amf) the tabernacle. For Ezekiel, their idolatry separates the people
from Yahweh and will lead to their permanent “separation” (death) from the
community (14:8).
31. See Mein (2001: 154–60); Wong (2001: 153).

32. For ritual impurity, see Ezek 4:12–15; 6:1–7; 7:19, 20; 9:7; 18:6; 22:10; 36:17; 39:11–
16; cf. Wong (2001: 132); Mein (2001: 147–53). See Wong (2001: 154–55); Mein (2001: 148–
52). These two categories would have been related in the Molech cult in which children were
sacrificed to another god.
33. Again, see the discussion on the priestly world view in Leviticus, pp. 49–85 above.
270 Chapter 14
On three occasions, the book of Ezekiel employs the priestly root l[m to
describe the sin of the people (14:13, 18:24, 39:23). This root associates the
sin of Israel with the most hideous of priestly offenses, that is, using some-
thing holy for unholy purposes. Ezekiel is not merely using the priestly vo-
cabulary on a metaphorical level but is drawing on the views of impurity
related to moral infractions found in the Priestly Code. “With language like
this Ezekiel has moved beyond the metaphorical: sin causes its own kind of
moral impurity which, like physical impurity, can taint Yhwh’s possession”
(Mein 2001: 152). This explains why their impure behavior leads to Yahweh
leaving the temple (Ezekiel 10), because the holiness and purity of his sanc-
tuary are under threat, and their behavior leads to their expulsion from the
land (cf. Lev 18:24–25).
Divine Judgment
Just as human response is described using priestly vocabulary and concep-
tions, so also is divine judgment (see Wong 2001). The prescriptions of death
and burning, important for disposing of moral impurity in the priestly legis-
lation, are reflected in the slaughter of Ezekiel 9 and burning of Jerusalem in
Ezekiel 10. Exile is described consistently as the removal of impurity (see Ezek
11:18, 22:15, 36:16–38, 37:21–23, 39:23–24), the action of God to cleanse the
land, as in 24:13, “you will not be cleansed (rhf Qal) again until I have spent
my wrath against you.” Thus, “the removal from the land to other nations is
a reaction to the defilement of the land. The exile serves as a removal of the
source of defilement from the land so that the land will not be polluted any
more” (Wong 2001: 193).
Divine judgment also operates according to the principles of covenant
curse and blessing established in the Holiness Code in the book of Leviticus
(Leviticus 26; cf. Wong 2001: 31–119). God’s covenant at Sinai provided for
blessing when the stipulations were followed and curse when they were not.
Evidence of divine curse based on this Covenant Code can be seen in Ezekiel
4–6 and 14:12–23. Similarly, the divine blessing of 34:23–31 and 37:24–28 re-
flects this code.
The principle of poetic justice is also evident in the book of Ezekiel; that is,
“punishment is related to the offence in that punishment is like the sin by in-
corporating some elements of the offence.” 34 This is not an impersonal the-
ology of act-consequence, for God is directly involved in the judgment. The
principle is “like for like” and echoes the lex talionis (Exod 21:24, Lev 24:19–
20, Deut 19:21) as well as the “mirror punishments” of the Torah (Deut 25:11;
Wong 2001: 226).
Key to this is the basic concept articulated at the outset of chap. 18: “The
one who sins is the one who will die” (18:4b), a concept that is illustrated first
34. So Wong (2001: 226), who cites Ezek 5:5–17; 6:1–14; 7:20–21; 11:1–13; 12:17–20, 21–
25, 26–28; 13:10–16, 17–23; 16:1–43; 34:7–10.
Ezekiel 271
in the scenarios that follow and repeated in the transition between the first
three scenarios and the final two at 18:20. The foundational principle in this
chapter is that each one is held responsible for his or her actions. Each gen-
eration has an opportunity to turn to or from God, to break away from pat-
terns established by a former generation or even patterns established in the
early phase of its own life.
At the close of the final two scenarios in chap. 18, this basic concept is ex-
pressed differently: “I will judge each of you according to your own ways”
(18:30, tniv), echoed in 33:20. 35 This standard for judgment is echoed in Yah-
weh’s explanation for the exile in 36:18–19. After describing how the people
had defiled (amf Piel) the land by their ways (˚rd) and their deeds (hlyl[), Yah-
weh explains how he poured out his wrath on them and scattered them
among the nations. This is then described thus: “According to their ways (˚rd)
and their deeds (hlyl[) I judged them.” With this terminology, not only is the
one who has committed a sin held responsible but the judgment is closely re-
lated to the deed itself.
Chapter 7 uses this vocabulary at several points in its presentation of the
judgment of Israel, with some important expansions. In 7:27, the verb hc[
parallels fpv, and the noun fpvm parallels ˚rd: “According to their conduct
(˚rd) I will deal (hc[) with them, and by their judgments (fpvm) I will judge
(fpv) them.” At two earlier points in the chapter, the phrase “judging (fpv)
according to your ways (˚rd)” is linked to “giving (ˆtn) all your abominations
(t/b[“/T) on (l[) you” (7:3, 8). This latter expression is slightly modified in 7:9,
where the verb “judge” (fpv) drops out and the verb ˆtn is linked with the
noun ˚rd. This suggests that the phrase ˆtn + l[ is equivalent to fpv (“judge”).
This is confirmed by passages such as Jonah 1:4, where the sailors pray that
God will not wnyl[ ˆtt (“place on us”) innocent blood, that is, hold us account-
able for and so judge us on account of the death of Jonah. 36 By linking the
verbs fpv and ˆtn here, Ezekiel shows that to “place on” the people their
“abominations” and “ways” is more than just placing on them the guilt of
this evil behavior but also bringing on them the punishment that is due for
behavior of this sort.
A common phrase in Ezekiel is “to place (ˆtn) on (B}) the head (varø)” some
form of sin, usually sinful ways (˚rd; Ezek 9:10, 16:43, 22:31) but at one place
the covenant/oath (17:19). In 9:10, “placing on the head” parallels God not
showing pity or compassion toward the people, which in chap. 9 means their
death by the sword. In 16:43, this is related to God’s intention to judge (16:38,
35. This evidence contradicts Fishbane (1984: 148–49), who questions the correlation be-
tween sin and judgment. There is some variability in the correlation (see discussion of Ezekiel
20, pp. 279–283 below), but not as much as he suggests.
36. Another phrase that is probably similar is the prayer in Deut 21:8: “Do not place (ˆhn)
innocent blood in the midst of (brqb) your people Israel,” which is linked there to the aton-
ing forgiveness of Yahweh (rpk Piel).
272 Chapter 14
fpv) and in 22:31 to God pouring out his indignation on them and consum-
ing them in the fire of his wrath. Lev 16:21 does use similar vocabulary to de-
scribe the ritual of transferring sin and its attendant guilt from the people to
the scapegoat, speaking of placing (ˆtn) on the head (var) sin. There, however,
the preposition is l[ rather than b. 1 Kgs 8:32 // 2 Chr 6:23 is identical to Ezek-
iel with its cry to God to hear from heaven and act and judge (fpv) by con-
demning as guilty (Hiphil [vr) the wicked ([vr), by placing (ˆtn) their way
(˚rd) on (b) their head (var), and by declaring righteous (Hiphil qdx) the righ-
teous (qydx), giving (ˆtn) to (l) them according to their righteousness (hqdx). In
this verse, the verb ˆtn must be referring to the judgment that falls on the per-
son after guilt or innocence is declared. What is in view then in this phrase
in Ezekiel is not just accountability for sin (that is, guilt) but also the resultant
punishment.
From the perspective of the judge, guilt and its attendant judgment is
placed on the person or head of the person. From the perspective of the per-
son, this guilt and its attendant judgment is “borne” (acn). The relationship
between placing (ˆtn) and bearing (açn) guilt and its attendant punishment
can be seen in Lev 16:21–22, in which first the confession of sin places the
sin/guilt of the people on the scapegoat (v. 21), and then the scapegoat is de-
scribed as “bearing on (l[ acn) itself all the iniquities” (v. 22). Similarly, in
Ezekiel the rebellious people are often called to merely bear (acn) the punish-
ment of sin (16:58; 23:35; 36:15; 44:10, 12). This vocabulary is reminiscent
not only of the scapegoat ritual but also of the declaration of guilt in sacral-
legal procedure. For instance, in Num 5:31 one party (the adulterous woman)
is declared guilty and another is declared innocent (the husband), 37 with the
guilty party seen as bearing (acn) guilt (ˆw[). Interestingly, this language be-
comes the foundation for the regularly occurring call to bear disgrace (acn +
hM:lIK)} that is linked to calls to be ashamed (v/b or μlk Niphal) as the only op-
tion for a people who will not repent (16:52–54; cf. 32:24–25, 30; 34:29; 36:6–
7; 39:26). The first phrase (bear disgrace), which is unique to Ezekiel, is depen-
dent on the legal formula for the declaration of guilt and “brings to expres-
sion the idea that guilt (through its punishment by Yahweh) is also a disgrace
in the eyes of the people” (Zimmerli 1979: 1:351). This appeal to bear disgrace
then “demands the recognition of guilt and the acceptance of the disgrace at-
tached to it by those who are guilty and under judgment” (Zimmerli 1979:
1:305). In Ezekiel, one can discern an intermixing of vocabulary of punish-
ment due to guilt and sin with vocabulary of shame and disgrace. This con-
nection reemerges in the view of future restoration in the book.
Ezekiel 14
Ezekiel 14 is preceded by two key passages that prepare for its message. In
12:21–28, God responds to two sayings among the people of that time: “The
37. Zimmerli (1979: 1:305). Thus, “to bear (acn) your lewdness (hM:z)i and your abominations
(hb:[E/T)” means to bear the consequences of your lewdness and abominations (16:58, 23:35).

Ezekiel 273
days are long and every vision fails” (12:22) and “The vision that he sees is for
many years from now, and he prophesies of times far off” (12:27). The first say-
ing questions the authenticity of Ezekiel’s prophetic message, which, accord-
ing to 12:24, must have been in conflict with the “flattering divination” of
Ezekiel’s prophetic contemporaries. Although the second saying accepts Ezek-
iel’s message as genuine, it pushes its fulfillment into the distant future.
Chapter 13 then continues the theme of prophecy by focusing on false
prophets in two distinct sections (13:1–16, 17–23). As in Ezekiel, the message
of the prophets in 13:1–16 was focused on the future of Jerusalem (13:16), and
Ezekiel reveals that they have not fulfilled the function of a prophet. The lo-
cation of these prophets is uncertain. Although they prophesy concerning Je-
rusalem (13:16), according to Ezekiel’s judgment in 13:9 they will not “enter”
the land of Israel, suggesting that they are functioning among the remnant in
exile with Ezekiel.
The image that defined Ezekiel’s ministry was military in nature (sentinel;
see chaps. 3, 33); similarly, the image used for the proper function of these
prophets is military personnel assigned to repairing breaches in the wall in or-
der to keep the city safe from destruction (13:5). Holes (≈r,P)< of this sort in the
city wall resulted “either from neglect or from assault by the enemy’s batter-
ing rams. Unless the gap was quickly repaired or armed men were stationed in
the gap, the invader would have easy access to the city” (Block 1997: 727–28).
Instead of repairing these breaches in the wall properly with stone and mor-
tar, they have built a “flimsy wall” and covered it with whitewash (13:10–12,
14–15). God will only have to use violent forces of nature (rain, hailstones,
wind) to bring down the wall to its foundations (13:11–14). This “whitewash-
ing” is identified as prophetic messages that proclaim peace when there is no
peace (13:10, 16). 38 Whereas Ezekiel was called to warn the people of ap-
proaching war, these false prophets have promised peace (chap. 3).
Beginning with 13:17, the prophet turns to attack a group of female proph-
ets who prophesy for food (cf. Bowen 1999). Their prophecies are lies, and by
their lies these women have ensnared the people like one captures a bird
(13:20). In doing this, they have discouraged the righteous and encouraged
the wicked not to turn from their evil and save their lives (13:22), and so they
stand in direct contrast to Ezekiel, whose commission was to call the wicked
to turn from their wickedness and the righteous to remain fixed on Yahweh’s
path (chap. 3).
38. In Ezek 22:30, this motif is expanded to include all the leadership groups within Is-
rael, as vv. 25–29 make clear: princes (v. 25), priests (v. 26), officials (v. 27), prophets (v. 28),
and people of the land (v. 29); cf. Hals (1988: 162). In 22:30, reference is made to standing in
the gap “before me.” While the image in chap. 13 is repairing the wall, the image in chap. 22
is stationing soldiers in the gap to ensure the enemy does not get through the narrow open-
ing. In Ps 106:23, this refers to Moses standing in the gap between God and the people to
turn back his wrath. Thus, in 22:30 the inclusion of the phrase “before me” suggests that
these leadership figures could have played a role in securing the breach by holding back the
wrath of Yahweh.
274 Chapter 14
Ezek 12:21–13:23 thus prepares the way for the people to inquire of Ezekiel
in 14:1–11. God makes it clear that these “elders of Israel” are not allowed to
inquire of Yahweh because of their involvement in idolatry. Anyone who par-
ticipates in idolatry and then approaches Yahweh to inquire of him will be
“removed” from his people (14:4–5, 7–8). Furthermore, any prophet who par-
ticipates in an inquiry of this sort will also be “destroyed” from his people
(14:9–11). Such drastic measures are undertaken in order to “lay hold of the
hearts of the house of Israel who are estranged from me through their idols”
(14:5).
In the middle of this section, which shuts down all inquiry by the prophet
to Yahweh, something foreshadowed in Ezekiel’s commission in 3:24–27,
comes the first call to repentance in chaps. 4–32 when Ezekiel is instructed to
say (14:6) “Repent (bwv) and turn away (bwv Hiphil) from your idols, and turn
(bwv Hiphil) your faces away from all your abominations.” Here, repentance is
directly related to an abandonment of idolatry, both internally (“their
hearts,” 14:3–5) and externally (“their faces,” 14:3–4, 6–7), that is, this repen-
tance is related to both the affections as well as the actions of the people.
Against the backdrop of the false prophecy of his time, which promised peace
and discouraged repentance, Ezekiel 14 depicts Ezekiel fulfilling his commis-
sion to prophesy approaching doom and encourage repentance.
This invitation to repentance is not addressed to those in Jerusalem, nor is
its purpose the averting of the city’s judgment. 39 It is addressed to the exilic
community, highlighting the penitential posture that will typify the remnant
community.
Ezekiel 18
Ezekiel 18 is one of the most important expressions of the theology of sin
and its remedy among the prophets. It bears a resemblance to the “watch-
man” section in Ezekiel’s call in 3:16–21 with a common structure (people’s
response followed by consequences) and common vocabulary (“he will die/
live,” “his blood will be on his own head,” 18:13). The “watchman” section
in 3:16–21 establishes the principle that the actions of people are related to
whether they are punished or blessed, but the focus is clearly on the role and
responsibility of the prophet. In chap. 18, the responsibility of the prophet
fades into the background and the focus shifts entirely onto the responses of
and consequences for the people. It is then not surprising that elements from
both 3:16–21 and chap. 18 are fused together in chap. 33, in that 33:1–9 fo-
39. For some reason, Block (1997: 428) finds this call to repentance “surprising,” noting
the suggestion of Joyce (1989: 69–70) that it “highlights Israel’s responsibility for its own
fate” and his own that it does “reflect Yahweh’s deepest desire: the willing obedience of his
people (cf. v. 11), and in so doing it opens the door just a crack to a new future for the im-
mediate audience.” The latter is certainly in view here. Ezekiel reveals to the exiles the appro-
priate posture of the remnant; cf. Zimmerli (1979: 1:66); Block (1997: 54).

Ezekiel 275
cuses on the “watchman” theme of 3:16–21 and 33:10–20 on the theme de-
veloped in chap. 18.
At the highest level, chap. 18 is structured as a dispute between God and
the people, as evident in the regular citation of the voice of the people (18:2,
19, 25, 29) at key intervals in the speech and each of the people’s expres-
sions receiving a response from God (this structure is illustrated in table 14.4,
pp. 276–277). The dispute is precipitated originally by a saying circulating
among the people and cited in 18:2: “The fathers eat the sour grapes, and the
children’s teeth are set on edge.” The issue at the outset then is one relevant
to those who lived in and through the final days of the Kingdom of Judah and
experienced the pain of exile. Here, the biblical principle of intergenerational
consequences for sin (Exod 20:5–6, Deut 6:9–10) is being leveraged among the
people of Ezekiel’s day to argue that the present circumstances can be ex-
plained as the result of the sins of the previous generation.
The divine speech answers the voice of the people at the outset by first es-
tablishing the basic principle that “the soul who sins will die” (18:3–4) and
then providing three scenarios, each tracing a successive generation in a fam-
ily (18:5–9, 10–13, 14–18). 40 This presentation of various scenarios through-
out this chapter is expected from a priestly figure such as Ezekiel and is helpful
for understanding the principle. These scenarios establish the principle that
generations are not restricted by the responses or burdened with the guilt of
a former generation. This principle can have both positive and negative out-
comes, that is, a wicked generation can be followed by a righteous generation,
but so also can a righteous generation be followed by a wicked generation.
This initial principle and these first three scenarios, however, lay a founda-
tion for the core message that is the focus of the rest of the chapter. The
people’s response in v. 19a helps to focus the issue when they ask “Why
should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?” The an-
swer focuses on the practical response of the son, who turns from the patterns
of his father and “practices justice and righteousness” (v. 19b), after which
one finds an echo of the original principle: “The person who sins will die.”
After this, the divine answer provides two further scenarios that are more
distant from the intergenerational theme of the first three scenarios. These
two scenarios focus on human response and consequence within a single per-
son’s lifetime. Whereas the first three scenarios described people who were ei-
ther righteous or wicked, these two additional scenarios now describe people
who had phases of righteousness and wickedness in their lives.
The first of these (vv. 21–23) describes a wicked person who turns away
from sin later in life and does righteousness. The scenario shows that the
40. Odell (2006: 224) notes that the style of these scenarios is “reminiscent of priestly-
legal case law, wherein a hypothetical situation is proposed and a verdict is announced (cf.
Ezek 14:4–8, 12).”
Table 14.4. Ezekiel 18: Rhetorical Structure
18:2 People’s Voice The fathers eat the sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.
People’s Response The soul who sins
276
Basic Principle (vv. 3–4)

Consequence for People will die. . . .
Scenario #1: People’s Response if a man is righteous . . .
Righteous man (vv. 5–9) Consequence for People will surely live.
God’s Answer
18:3–18 (Guilt between Scenario #2: People’s Response The righteous man’s violent son . . .
generations) Wicked son (vv. 10–13) Consequence for People will not live! . . . he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on
his own head.
People’s Response [The violent son] has a son who . . . does not do likewise.
Scenario #3:
Righteous grandson (vv. 14–18) Consequence for People . . . he will not die for his father’s sin, he will surely live. As for his
father . . . he will die for his own sin.
18:19a People’s Voice Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?
People’s Response When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has
observed all my statutes and done them
Consequence for People he shall surely live.
People’s Response The person who sins
Consequence for People is the one who will die. The son will not bear the punishment of the
Basic Principle (vv. 19b–20) father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the
son’s iniquity;
People’s Response the righteousness of the righteous
Chapter 14
Consequence for People will be upon himself

People’s Response and the wickedness of the wicked

Consequence for People will be upon himself.
People’s Response If the wicked man turns from all his sins . . .
God’s Answer Consequence for People he shall surely live; he shall not die.
(Guilt within a People’s Response All his transgressions which he has committed
18:19b–24
single person’s Consequence for People will not be remembered against him;
lifetime) Scenario #4:
Wicked person who turns away People’s Response because of his righteousness which he has practiced
from sin (vv. 21–23) Consequence for People he will live.
Consequence for People Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked . . .
People’s Response rather than that he should turn from his ways
Consequence for People and live?
People’s Response But when a righteous man turns from his righteousness, commits
iniquity . . .
Scenario #5: Consequence for People will he live?
Righteous person who turns away People’s Response All his righteous deeds which he has done
from righteousness (v. 24)
Consequence for people will not be remembered
People’s Response for his treachery which he has committed . . .
Consequence for People for them he will die.
Table 14.4. Ezekiel 18: Rhetorical Structure (cont.)
18:25a People’s Voice The way of the Lord is not right.
Call to attention and rhetorical Hear now, O House of Israel. Is my way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?
questions (v. 25b)
People’s Response When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits
iniquity
Scenario #5 again (v. 26) Consequence for People and dies because of it
God’s Answer People’s Response for his iniquity which he has committed
(Guilt within
18:25b–28 Consequence for People he will die.
a single person’s
lifetime) People’s Response When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has
committed and practices justice and righteousness
Consequence for People he will save his life
Scenario #4 again (vv. 27–28)
People’s Response Because he considered and turned away from all his
transgressions
Consequence for People he shall surely live; he shall not die.
18:29a People’s Voice The way of the Lord is not right.
Rhetorical questions (v. 29b) Are my ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?
Consequence for People Therefore, I will judge you, O House of Israel
Ezekiel
God’s Answer Basic Principle (v. 30a)

People’s Response each according to his conduct. . . .
(Call to the
18:29b–32 People’s Response Repent and turn away from all your transgressions. . . .
present
generation) Consequence for People For why will you die, O House of Israel?
Call to Repentance (vv. 30b–32)
Consequence for People For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies. . . .
People’s Response Repent and live.
277
278 Chapter 14
former wickedness will not be held against this penitent person (“not remem-
bered,” rkz al) and will not result in death but rather that the person’s righ-
teousness will lead to life. Here, emphasis is placed on repentance as the
scenario begins by describing one who “turns from all their sins” (AlK:mI bWvy;
wyt:aFøj)" and ends with God’s rhetorical question: “Do I have any pleasure in the
death of the wicked . . . rather than that they should turn from their ways
(wyk:r;D]mI /bWv) and live?”
The final scenario (v. 24) describes the opposite of vv. 21–23: a righteous
person who turns away from righteousness (/tq:d]XImI qyDix" bWv) and commits in-
iquity (lw,[: hc…[): . Here again, repentance is in view, that is, repentance from
God to wickedness, and this leads to the consequence of death.
In summary, in the first set of three scenarios (vv. 5–18) the divine answer
undermines the principle of wickedness or righteousness being carried from
generation to generation and with this prohibits a current generation from
blaming a former generation for its behavior or predicament. Each generation
stands on its own. In the two additional scenarios (vv. 21–24), the divine an-
swer focuses in on the opportunity even within a generation for repentance
to change its consequences, the implication being that, for those who have
begun as either the “wicked” generation (vv. 10–13) or the “righteous” gen-
eration (vv. 5–9, 14–18), there is the possibility of a “repentance” for good or
ill that will change its consequences of death or life.
Though the people may have been satisfied with the divine answer to their
question in 18:19a (“Why should the son not bear the punishment for the
father’s iniquity?”), the fifth scenario, which denies any accumulation of righ-
teous credits and instead teaches active and enduring righteousness through-
out a lifetime, moves them to question God’s integrity with the statement
“The way of the Lord is not right” (18:25a). Up to this point, the discussion
has been about scenarios abstracted from the present situation of the audi-
ence, but with the call to attention in v. 25b (“Hear now, O house of Israel”)
followed by the rhetorical questions that speak of “your ways,” there is a clear
shift to a direct address to the audience’s present situation. This statement
from God prepares the way for the call to repentance in vv. 30b–32, but before
arriving there the two later scenarios are repeated in reverse order in vv. 26–
28, followed again by the declaration of the people (“the way of the Lord is
not right,” v. 29a), and again God’s rhetorical questions already provided in
v. 25b (v. 29b). The principle that has been noted throughout this chapter, that
the “one who sins is the one who will die” and “the one who is righteous is
the one who will live” is then summed up in v. 30a with the statement “I will
judge you . . . each according to their conduct.” With this, the speech finally
reaches the point of application for the present audience (30b–31a):
Repent (bwv) and turn away from (ˆmI bwv Hiphil) all your transgressions, so
that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. Cast away (˚lv
Hiphil) from you all your transgressions which you have committed and
make (hc[) yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!
Ezekiel 279
These verses reveal the purpose of the entire speech, 41 and this purpose lies in
repentance. Repentance of this sort involves a fundamental turning from evil
patterns, one that is described both as “casting away” sin and “making oneself
a new heart and a new spirit.” Here we see that repentance has both a nega-
tive and a positive dimension: turning from sin and creating a new orienta-
tion. In addition, repentance involves both behavior (“your transgressions
which you have committed”) and the internal affections of heart and spirit.
Ezekiel 20
The setting of Ezekiel 20 is once again an inquiry of the prophet by “el-
ders” (cf. chaps. 8, 14), and, as in chap. 14, the elders’ request for the prophet
to inquire of God for them is rejected (cf. 20:3, 31 with 14:3, 7, 14). This re-
jection is related to the prohibition laid out in Ezekiel’s call (3:24–27), in
which Ezekiel was prohibited from bringing the people’s inquiry to God, but
God would still open Ezekiel’s mouth to declare God’s warning to his people.
The prophet is told in 20:4 to confront the inquiring people with “the abomi-
nations of their ancestors” (nasb, modified). The foundation for this confron-
tation is the recitation of the story of Israel that comprises 20:5–26, which
becomes the foundation for the direct confrontations found in 20:27–44.
The story of Israel told in 20:5–26 is structured in recurring cycles that di-
vide the narrative into three basic phases or generations of Israel, each follow-
ing this pattern: God’s speech, the people’s response, and finally the people’s
consequences. 42 This structure is illustrated in table 14.5, p. 281. In this story,
one can discern the basic rhythm of response and consequences that has ap-
peared in the rhetorical structures of both 3:24–27 and chap. 18, even though
chap. 20 resonates more with the structure of 3:24–27 with its inclusion of the
divine speech, which takes the place of the prophet’s speech. Contrasting
with both of these two earlier patterns, however, are the consequences re-
ceived by the people. The people consistently rebel against God’s command
(20:8a, 13a, 21a) by disobeying the laws and decrees (especially Sabbaths) and
worshiping idols. In each case, God resolves to punish the nation (20:8b, 13b,
21b), as one would expect in light of the earlier patterns. However, instead of
bringing an end to the nation, Yahweh relents for his name’s sake, so that his
name will not be profaned among the nations (20:9, 14, 22). At this point,
41. Notice how vv. 31b–32 repeat a phrase used only in connection with the fourth sce-
nario (vv. 21–23), that is, the scenario concerned with a wicked person who turns away from
sin. It is this scenario that matches the audience Ezekiel is addressing. Unfortunately, they
are more fixated on issues related to the other four scenarios (see vv. 19a, 25a) than on the
one that relates to them personally. Interestingly, when themes from chap. 18 reemerge in
chap. 33 (vv. 10–20), no mention is made of the intergenerational theme. Instead, only the
fourth and fifth scenarios are repeated from chap. 18.
42. This contrasts with the proposals of chiasm by Allen (1992). Because cycle passages
such as this contain so much repetition, it is easy to find “chiasms”; cf. Boda (1996), which
looks at the case study of Nehemiah 9, a passage similar to Ezekiel 20.
280 Chapter 14
God’s treatment of the generation in Egypt is different from his treatment of

this same generation and then its children in the wilderness. In Egypt, God re-
lents and brings the people out of Egypt and into the wilderness; in the wil-
derness, however, God’s pattern shifts as he enacts a mitigated punishment by
disciplining but not destroying them completely as a nation. For the first gen-
eration in the wilderness (those who had enjoyed God’s complete relenting in
Egypt), this punishment involves exclusion from the promised land and death
in the wilderness. For the second generation in the wilderness, this punish-
ment means that they will eventually be dispersed and scattered among the
nations (20:23). Thus, even for the second generation, “Life in the land can
now only be a temporary sojourn, since the generation born in the wilderness
has already provoked the divine decree of expulsion” (Odell 2006: 252). In ad-
dition, their punishment means that the statutes and laws will no longer
bring goodness and life and that they will be defiled through their sacrifices
(20:25–26). 43
One can discern an increasing severity to the story, with the first genera-
tion receiving divine grace followed by no punishment, the second generation
receiving divine grace followed by a punishment (20:15, no land), with a re-
peated emphasis on grace (20:17) in the text at this point, and the third gen-
eration receiving divine grace followed by punishment (20:23, exile; 20:25–26,
laws not good/life giving, defilement).
Having related these three generations, the discourse returns in 20:27
(“therefore, son of man, speak to the house of Israel and say to them”) to the
original address to the present generation, which began in 20:1–4 with the
call to confront the people with the detestable practices of their ancestors.
Verses 27–29 sum up the behavior of this second wilderness generation,
which entered into the land and continued its idolatrous practices. 44 Then,
with vv. 30–32 Yahweh addresses the present generation and links its prac-
tices with the idolatrous practices of its “ancestors.” With this comes again
God’s refusal to receive an inquiry from the people (v. 31), the issue in v. 3
that gave rise to the historical recital in vv. 5–26.
That the present generation being addressed is the generation in exile
becomes clear in vv. 33–44 as God provides the people with a vision of the
43. The precise meaning of this last punishment has eluded interpreters. For a review of
the many attempts, see Block (1997: 1:638–40). There is no reason to assume (with Patton
1996) that the child sacrifices of v. 26 are equal to the problem with the laws in v. 25, though
Odell (2006: 253) argues that what is in view here is a misinterpretation of a law related to
child sacrifice (which is consistently criticized in Ezekiel: 16:17–21, 20:30–31, 23:37–39). It
may be that Hahn and Bergsma (2004) are correct, and these “not good” laws are the deuter-
onomic law code, which sets up the choice for Israel that leads to their failure. It is possible
that it just means that the law, designed to bring goodness and life, will bring instead curse
and death, something built into the legal code in the blessing and curse lists in Leviticus 26
and Deuteronomy 28–30.
44. See Allen (1992) for views on the redactional history of vv. 27–29.
Ezekiel 281
Table 14.5. Ezekiel 20:5–26

God promises exodus (vv. 5–6)
God’s speech (20:5–7)
God commands against idolatry (v. 7)
20:5–10 People’s response (20:8a) Rebellion

Generation in Egypt
God resolves to punish (v. 8b)
People’s consequences
(20:8b–10) God relents and saves so that his name is not
profaned among the nations (v. 9)
God commands decrees/laws and Sabbath

God’s speech (20:11–12)
God promises life
People’s response (20:13a) Rebellion

20:11–17 God resolves to punish (v. 13b)
Generation 1
in the wilderness People’s consequences God relents and saves so that his name is not
(same as generation in (20:13b–15) profaned among the nations (v. 14)
Egypt)
God punishes less than they deserve (v. 15)
Reject laws, do not follow decrees, desecrate

People’s response (20:16)
Sabbaths, hearts devoted to idols
People’s consequences (20:17) God relents and does not put an end to them
God’s speech (20:18–20) God commands decrees/laws and Sabbath
People’s response (20:21a) Rebellion
God resolves to punish (v. 21b)
God relents so that his name is not profaned

People’s consequences
among the nations (v. 22)
20:18–26 (20:21b–26)
Generation 2 God punishes less than they deserve
in the wilderness (vv. 23–26)
(“their children”)
Do not obey laws, reject decrees, desecrate
People’s response (20:24)
Sabbaths, eyes lust after idols
God punishes by giving statutes that were

People’s consequences not good and ordinances by which they
(20:25–26) could not live and pronouncing them un-
clean because of their sacrifices.
future. Employing language associated with the great miracle of God at the
Red Sea, which brought salvation (“with a mighty hand and with an out-
stretched arm,” v. 33), the divine message envisions a future for the exilic com-
munity in two phases. The first phase will see the exiles rescued from the
nations but not granted immediate possession of the land. Instead, they will
experience “wrath poured out” (v. 33, 34) in the wilderness, where God will
judge (vv. 35–36) and purge (v. 38a) the nation through judgment, just as he
did in the wilderness after the exodus (v. 36). Those who are purged will come
out of exile but will not enter the promised land (v. 38b). Although the present
generation in exile is in bondage to its idols (v. 39a), there will come a day
282 Chapter 14
when all idolatry will be eradicated and the people will once again worship
Yahweh in the land (vv. 39b–44). This vision of the future thus parallels God’s
treatment of earlier generations: although the people deserve complete de-
struction, God will save a remnant, even though he will purify the nation of
those who rebelled. Thus, the story of Israel is directly applicable to Ezekiel’s
audience and explains the function of the exile:
The contrasting fortunes of the first and second generation of exiles provide
a key to unlocking the complex structure of this chapter, the rhetorical im-
pact of which depends on the correspondence between the two generations
of exiles and the two generations of the archetypal ancestors. The rhetoric
of the chapter works on two levels: it is addressed to the characters in the
book, the elders who come to inquire of Ezekiel in 591, but also the readers,
the children of those elders, for whom the destruction of Jerusalem lies in
the past. Like the generation that had been brought out of Egypt, the elders
can expect to die in the wilderness (20:38). The second exilic generation,
meanwhile, is exhorted to see itself as the generation born in the wilderness.
Like that earlier generation, they are not excused from the divine require-
ment of obedience to the statutes and requirements of Yahweh. Whereas the
ancient wilderness generation failed to turn from the ways of their parents,
the current generation is yet again offered the possibility of entering the
land—but only as a holy and cleansed people. (Renz 1999: 83–84)
Ezekiel 20 emphasizes the refining function of the Exile while showing the
relevance of repentance to this function. It is designed to motivate the wicked
among the exilic community to repent in light of the warning of judgment
and to encourage the righteous to remain faithful in light of the promise of
restoration.
Some of the features of the consequences of the people in this chapter con-
trast those found in chaps. 3 and 18. In the earlier passages, the consequence
was to be consistent: rebellion is met with punishment (death); obedience is
met with blessing (life). Here, God relents and does not bring an end to the
community as he intends, even if in two of the three cases he still brings some
form of punishment on the people. 45 This is an important reminder that, al-
though one can discern patterns for remedying sin, there is often mystery in
application. Here, God’s grace disrupts the expected judgment. This sort of
45. More difficult is the tension between the teaching in Ezekiel 3 and 18 that a later gen-
eration was not responsible for a former generation’s sin and the explicit claim in Ezekiel 20
that God’s punishment of exile among the nations can be traced back to the second wilder-
ness generation, which entered the land. The contrast between Ezekiel 18 and 20 is high-
lighted especially by Fishbane (1984: 143). However, see Block (1997: 1:617). Odell (2006:
247) argues that this reference to God’s oath concerning the Exile is related to the Jerusale-
mite claim that the exiles had gone far from Yahweh through their expulsion from the land.
By showing the roots of the exile in the wilderness period, the “exile does not indicate that
the promise of the ancestors was broken; rather, it marks the beginning of Yahweh’s attempt
to fulfil that promise once and for all.”
Ezekiel 283
trend is not unique to Ezekiel but can be discerned elsewhere in the Old Tes-
tament (see, for instance, Exodus 32–34, pp. 40–48; Numbers 13–14, pp. 92–
94; Nehemiah 9, pp. 483–488 below).
Ezekiel 33
The focusing of hope on the community that emerges from the ashes of Je-
rusalem and Judah is also suggested by the repetition of themes from 3:16–21
and chap. 18 in 33:1–20. Ezek 33:1–20 is structured by four uses of the voca-
tive “son of man” (μda ˆb) in 33:1, 7, 10, and 12, the first two structuring a sec-
tion that repeats the watchman motif of 3:16–21 (33:1–9) and the second two
structuring a section that repeats the penitential motifs and vocabulary of
chap. 18 (33:10–20).
The first section, 33:1–9, begins with a full explanation of the imagery that
lies behind the prophet’s designation as watchman (33:1–6). In the ancient
world, an individual was designated as watchman to warn the people of ap-
proaching danger. This role involved great responsibility and, because of this,
a watchman was held accountable for the lives of those in the city. This ex-
planation, however, is not completely abstracted from the role of the prophet,
for even in explaining the imagery, it is clear that the approaching doom is
under the control of Yahweh (33:2, “If I bring a sword upon a land”) and
caused by the sin of the people (33:6). Heeding the warning (v. 5), thus, indi-
cates not simply preparing for battle or fleeing to safety but rather a human
penitential response that will dissuade Yahweh’s judgment.
That this is the case is made explicit as the watchman image is applied to
Ezekiel (33:7–9). In contrast to Ezekiel’s call/initiation in chap. 3, only two sce-
narios are provided, both focused on warning the wicked who die because of
a lack of repentance and largely echoing the language of the first two scenarios
in 3:18–19. 46 Missing are the two additional scenarios in 3:20–21, which in-
volve warning the righteous against turning away from the righteous path.
Signaling a new section (33:10–20) with its employment of the phrase “son
of man” (μda ˆb) in v. 10, the text shifts to vocabulary and motifs drawn from
chap. 18 as the prophet’s role fades into the background. Echoing the style of
chap. 18, 33:10–20 employs the style of disputation so that the section is
46. Whereas Zimmerli (1979: 2:183) says that Ezek 33:1–20 “has something of the weight
of a second call to the prophet” in the present form of the book, Block (1998: 243) sees in
chap. 33 not a “second calling” but rather a public revelation of what formerly (chap. 3) was
private. Its “aim is to clarify once and for all Ezekiel’s prophetic self-consciousness before his
people . . .he has taken his charge seriously; now let them do the same.” Ezek 33:7–9 is very
similar to 3:18–19, and in at least one case the difference is probably related to a text-critical
issue (loss of the direct object marker in 3:19b; cf. 33:9b). In general, it appears that the text
in 33:8–9 is drawing on 3:18–19 and at times removing redundancy (such as the removal of
the phrase /Tr]h"z]hI aløw ] in 3:18, the modifier h[:v…r]h: on Ër,D, in 3:18 and 19, and the phrase /[v‘rmi E
in 3:19) and in other cases adding phrases to make things clear (such as the addition of the
phrase hN;M<mI bWvl: /Kr]D'mI in 33:9).
284 Chapter 14
driven along by the citation of the voice of the people at key intervals. Verses
17a and 20a are identical to the people’s responses in chap. 18, while the
opening citation in 33:10 is unique.
The answer from the prophet contains clear echoes of 18:21–32, although
the order of material at times is switched. Whereas chap. 18 begins with the
people’s complaint over the sins of past generations for which they feel they
are paying (18:1: “The fathers eat the sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are
set on edge”), 33:10–20 begins with a complaint over the effect of the people’s
sins on their lives: “On account of them we are rotting/wasting away” (my
translation). 47 This phrase plays on Lev 26:39, which speaks of those who will
experience the final punishment of Yahweh and be sent into exile, where they
will “rot/waste” away. It is not clear in Ezek 33:10 who is responsible for “our
offenses and sins,” but if Lev 26:39–40 is in view then it is the sins of both the
present and past generations that have caused the present wasting. 48 The con-
nection to Leviticus 26 shows that this is addressed to the remnant among the
nations. 49
The response to this burden and question of the people is a summary of
Ezekiel’s speech in chap. 18. Whereas the call to repentance there was left un-
til the very end of the speech, in chap. 33 that call is moved to the beginning.
In addition, chap. 33 ignores completely the intergenerational scenarios (1–3)
that introduced chap. 18 and instead focuses on the scenarios that depict re-
pentance within a person’s own lifetime and that in chap. 18 were the focus
of the repentance. As in chap. 18, by shifting the focus to these two scenarios,
the prophet is showing that a response will deal with the predicament that
has been caused by past sin, whether it was caused by the present generation
or not.
47. See Block (1998: 245, 559), who considers both of these to be statements circulating
among the exiles. Zimmerli (1979: 2:189) considers the statement of the exiles here in 33:10
to reflect their despair after the judgment has taken place.
48. Odell (2006: 415) interprets this complaint as evidence that “for the first time in the
book” the people “have taken Ezekiel’s warnings to heart.” Similarly, she notes that in con-
trast to chap. 18, which “sought to persuade the present generation that they were being
punished for their own sins, not the sins of the ancestors,” in chap. 33 “the house of Israel
no longer needs to be convinced of that fact. Now they despair of their future.” However, the
people here may not have moved any further than those who first cited the proverb in 18:1,
because in Israelite sociology there is little distinction between past and present generations,
especially in relation to sins (see further Boda 2006a). The passage is thus not using these mo-
tifs to “comfort” here, and is also using them differently from chap. 18, which intended to
“convict”; rather, both passages provide an opportunity for the people to be freed from the
weight of past sin by repentance in the present remnant generation. See especially Block
(1998: 246), who sees here admission of guilt but asks “Is this confession repentance? In view
of the prophet’s response, it seems to be little more than a cry of pain. As in Judg 10:10, 15,
this is an appeal for relief; a plea for the release of pressure.”
49. So also Block (1998: 246): “Ezekiel’s compatriots have apparently finally recognized
their fate to be a fulfillment of this covenant curse.”
Ezekiel 285
It is not by accident that motifs from chaps. 3 and 18 reappear at this point
in the book of Ezekiel. At this juncture in the book, immediately before the
depiction of Ezekiel receiving the news of the fall of Jerusalem, news that will
cause his mouth to be opened again in order to intercede for the people, pro-
phetic mediatorial and penitential motifs emerge once again. This confirms
that Ezekiel’s calling was to warn the people of the disaster about to befall the
city and people of Jerusalem; this warning was designed to lead people to re-
pentance so that they might survive. Although the city was doomed, there
was still hope for the remnant community if they would turn away from their
wicked ways and not turn away from their righteous ways. “By bringing up
these elements from chaps. 3 and 18 just prior to the fall of Jerusalem, chap.
33 indicates that the oracles in the first half of the book are to guide the exiles
to repentance” (Renz 1999: 161).
On the verge of the event that will enable Ezekiel to intercede once again
for the people, the prophet is reminded of his role within the community. Be-
cause his mediatorial mouth will not be opened until after the fall of Jerusa-
lem, it is clear that all hope is being placed on the community that arises from
the destruction of Jerusalem. They are the ones who must repent, and they
are the ones for whom the prophet will intercede. The function of the calls for
repentance that have appeared throughout chaps. 4–32 and the continuing
validity of these calls after the fall of Jerusalem are made evident in the fol-
lowing words.
The present generation stands under the threat of covenant curses. In fact,
the fate of Judah and Jerusalem has been irrevocably sealed. Yahweh has
summoned his agent of destruction. . . . At the same time, Yahweh has not
abandoned his promises or his people absolutely. On the contrary, ironi-
cally, the future lies with the exiles, those who have been presently removed
from the land and prevented access to the temple. . . . But individual exiles
may not deduce from this that they have an automatic right to participation
in the new work of God. Like their compatriots in Jerusalem, they also stand
under divine condemnation, inasmuch as they have not altered their con-
duct since their deportation (Ezek 14:1–11). The same sentence of death
that hung over their ancestors, and that hangs over their kinsfolk back
home, hangs over them, unless they repent of their ways and redirect their
devotion to Yahweh (18:1–32). Participation in the future hope depends on
their spiritual transformation. (Block 1997: 54)
Ezekiel 34–48
Ezekiel’s calling in chaps. 1–3 ends with a focus on his role as “watchman”
for Israel. Not only does the watchman image, creating expectancy of impend-
ing disaster (see Ezek 33:1–6), suggest the inevitability of judgment, but the fact
that three of the four scenarios described in 3:18–21 depict a negative response
from the people suggests that success for this prophetic mission is unlikely.
As the book progresses, hope for remedying the sin of the people is shifted
286 Chapter 14
increasingly to the future (6:8–10; 11:16–21; 12:15–16; 14:22–23; 16:60–63;

20:39b–44; 28:25–26; 34:11–31; 36:24–38; 37:1–14, 15–28; 39:21–29; 43:1–12).
Repentance is clearly part of the prophetic role in chaps. 1–32, emphasized
in the prophet’s calling in chaps. 2–3 and in his speeches in chaps. 14 and 18.
In the transitional chapter, chap. 33, the penitential agenda is again ex-
pressed. As I already noted above, these calls to repentance are not designed
to avert the judgment on Jerusalem, which appears to be assured. Instead,
they have the exilic community in view, calling those who emerge from the
judgment to turn away from the patterns that brought judgment and turn to
God in faithfulness. As we will soon see, however, this repentance was not a
precondition of the restoration, even if the restoration community that is en-
visioned must be drawn from those who have escaped the destruction and is
linked to those who respond to the prophetic message. 50
With the fall of Jerusalem, the tone of the book of Ezekiel shifts consider-
ably. Chapters 34–48 are dominated by the theme of salvation and restoration,
traced through the future expectation of the physical return, political revival,
spiritual renewal, and temple reconstruction. As I have already noted in the
orientation to this chapter, these positive elements are not absent from chaps.
4–32, appearing as the only hope in the face of a recalcitrant community.
Exile Producing a Remnant

The future in which a remnant is produced is placed after a period during
which the people will be disciplined by being forced out of the land, described
variously as being scattered (hrz Piel/Niphal; 6:8, 12:15; ≈wp Niphal/Hiphil;
11:16, 12:15, 28:25, 34:12), exiled (hbv Niphal/Hiphil; 6:9; hlg Qal/Hiphil;
39:23, 28), and removed far away (qjt Hiphil; 11:16), as well as having gone
(awB; 34:12; ˚lh; 37:21) or come out (axy; 14:22). This discipline will produce
a group few in number (rP:s}mI yvń]a;" 12:16), 51 which is left over (rty Niphal/
Hiphil; 6:8, 12:16, 14:22) and called “the escaped” (fylIP;: 6:8, 9; 14:22) or “the
remaining ones” (tyriaEv;‘ 5:10, 9:8, 11:13). But it is to this humble group that
Yahweh promises a bright future. Here, the refining principle of Isa 1:21–31
comes to the fore.
Physical Restoration
A future physical restoration will involve restoration of the community to
an ideal physical state in the land. They will be gathered (≈bq Piel; 11:17;
20:34, 41; 28:25; 34:13; 36:24; 37:21; 38:8; 39:27; snk Piel; 39:28), assembled
50. For this, see especially Mein (2001: 239, 246); contra Matties (1990: 186), who claims
that the call to repentance in chap. 18 is “an exhortation to the people in exile to qualify for
the return.”
51. The two nouns in this phrase, “men of number,” are a variation on the more common
rP:s}mI ytEm,} which can be placed in apposition or, as here, in construct to refer to a few (Job
16:22, Gen 34:30). When used with the verb hyh, it can mean “to become few” (Deut 33:6, Isa
10:19). This phrase contrasts the phrase rP:s}mI ˆyaE (“without number”); cf. Block (1997: 379
n. 79).

Ezekiel 287
(πsa; 11:17, 38:12), brought out (axy Hiphil; 20:34, 41–42; 34:13), taken (jql;
36:24, 37:21), delivered (lxn Hiphil; 34:27), and returned (bwv Polel; 39:27; cf.
16:53, 55) by Yahweh from the land of their exile. They will be brought into
(awB Hiphil; 20:42, 34:13, 36:24, 37:21), be given (ˆtn; 11:16), and dwell in (bvy
Qal/Hiphil; 36:28, 33; 37:25; 39:26) the land of Israel. And there they will en-
joy a reconstructed land, agricultural bounty, preservation from famine, and
protection from war (28:26; 34:22–31; 36:29–30, 33; 39:26). Davidic leader-
ship will be restored over a reunited kingdom (34:17–31, 37:22–25), and a
temple filled with God’s presence will be rebuilt (37:26–28; chaps. 40–48, esp.
chap. 43).
Causes of the Restoration

The causes of the restoration are nearly all expressed in priestly vocabulary
and linked to the unilateral work of Yahweh himself. 52 Chapter 16 speaks of
God remembering (rkz; 16:60) the covenant he had made with Israel “in the
day of your youth” and of making atonement (rpk Piel; 16:63) “for all that
you have done.” The first reveals that the restoration is based on the commit-
ment God made to Israel at Sinai, whereas the second reveals that there is
atonement even if no specific sacrificial rite is mentioned. 53 Chapter 20 uses
the priestly terminology of acceptance (hxr; 20:40, 41) through the soothing
odor of sacrifices (j'jøyni j'yre). 54 Ezek 36:25 refers to God “sprinkling” (qrz), a
term used elsewhere nearly always to refer to sprinkling blood on an altar. 55
Similarly to Exod 24:8, here the sprinkling is on the people; however, the me-
dium used is not blood as in Exod 24:8 but rather “clean” (r/hf:) water. This
act results in their being rendered ceremonially clean (rhf) from the unclean-
ness (ha:m}f)U caused by their former idolatry. 56 So also in 36:29, Yahweh prom-
ises to save ([vy Hiphil) them from all their uncleanness (ha:m}f)U and in 36:33
to cleanse (rhf Piel) them from all their iniquities (ˆw[). Ceremonial cleansing
of this sort is also noted in 37:23 and 43:26 as an act initiated and accom-
plished by Yahweh himself. Finally, Yahweh identifies himself as the one who
“sanctifies (vdq Piel) Israel” in 37:28, a reference to his election of them as a
52. For the priestly vocabulary, see especially Mein (2001: 137–76) and Wong (2001: 120–
95). For the unilateral work of Yahweh, see especially Raitt (1977: 176–222); Mein (2001:
216–56).
53. Cf. Ezek 43:20, 26 and 45:20, where rites such as this are mentioned, but the phrase
there is rpk Piel + accusative; here, the preposition l introduces what is atoned for, as in Deut
21:8. In Deut 21:8, there are nonblood rituals including washing the hands, declaring inno-
cence, and praying for forgiveness.
54. E.g., Gen 8:21; Exod 29:18, 25, 41; Lev 1:9 (+ 16x); Num 15:3 (+ 17x). Interestingly,
this phrase elsewhere in Ezekiel is always used negatively of pagan rites (6:13, 16:19, 20:28);
cf. Block (1997: 656).
55. Exod 24:6; 29:16, 20; Lev 1:5, 11; 3:2, 8, 13; 7:2; 8:19, 24; 9:12, 18; 17:6; Num 18:17;
2 Kgs 16:13, 15; Ezek 43:18; 2 Chr 29:22; 30:16; 35:11; cf. Lev 7:14.
56. Heb. rhf: Lev 11:32; 17:7–8; 13:6, 34, 58; 14:8–9, 20, 53; 15:13, 28; 16:30; 17:15; 22:4,
7; Num 19:12, 19; 31:23–24; Ezek 24:13; Ps 51:9; Prov 20:9. As Block (1998: 354) notes, Ezek-
iel “mixes the metaphors of priestly cleansing rituals and blood sprinkling ceremonies.”
288 Chapter 14
priestly community to serve Yahweh. 57 It is not surprising in Ezekiel to find

this abundance of priestly vocabulary to describe the new day of Israel’s res-
toration, but it is important to notice that it is Yahweh’s own initiative that
secures this restoration, with little if any reference to the involvement of sac-
rificial rites. 58 Yahweh here is depicted as a priestly figure who provides the
ritual cleansing necessary for Israel to begin anew.
Though the reason for God’s judgment on the people is regularly linked to
their “ways . . . abominations . . . judgments” (Ezek 7:3, 8, 27; 18:30; 24:14;
33:20; 36:19; cf. 20:4, 22:2, 23:36, 35:11), Ezek 20:44 links God’s restoration
of the people to “my name’s sake.” 59 This concluding comment on the hope
for the exilic community builds on declarations appearing regularly through-
out chap. 20. In 20:9, 14, and 22, the reason for the shift in Yahweh’s wrathful
intention to bring an end to Israel at earlier points in their history is precisely
“my name’s sake.” In each case, this reason is related directly to God’s fame
among the nations, identifying the reason for his shift as his desire to avoid
“profaning” (llj) his name in the sight of the nations (20:9, 14, 22).
How this would profane Yahweh’s name is filled out in 36:20 with its cita-
tion of this declaration by the nations: “These are the people of the Lord; yet
they have come out of his land”; that is, the Exile risks dishonoring Yahweh
among the nations because he is Israel’s patron. 60 Chapter 36 makes explicit
Yahweh’s motivation for this act of salvation, dissociating it completely from
“the people’s sake” (36:22, 32) and instead linking it to God’s name among
the nations (36:21–23). By saving his people, Yahweh intends to reverse this
“profaning” by “making holy” (vdq Piel) his great name (36:23), a term that
is also linked to his salvation of Israel in 28:25 and 39:27 (vdq Niphal).
Though 39:25 makes it clear that restoration is based on the mercy (μjr) of
God toward his people (“whole house of Israel”), Yahweh’s passionate zeal
(anq) for his holy name dominates the book of Ezekiel. 61 The only hope for
the remnant that will emerge from exile is the sovereign, gracious, glorious,
and holy character of Yahweh as priest.
57. Odell (2006: 457) notes how Ezek 20:12 is the only other place in Ezekiel where Yah-
weh sanctifies the people; usually it is Yahweh’s holy name that is sanctified (cf. 36:23). In
20:12, the Sabbath is a sign of this sanctifying.
58. See Block (1997: 520), who notes, “No ritual acts, no priestly mediation, no acts of
penance are able to accomplish this purging; it may occur only through the gracious inter-
vention of Yahweh himself.”
59. In contrast to μk<ytE/lylI[“k"w] μy[Ir;h: μk<ykEr]d'k.}
60. This may explain the odd assignment of the remnant in 12:16, who are to “make
known (rps Piel) all their detestable practices in the nations to which they go.” Yahweh is not
celebrating the people’s evil but rather explaining to the nations why the people have been
judged.
61. Schwartz (2000: 65) goes too far then when he claims “Ezekiel thus sees Yhwh’s res-
toration of Israel’s fortunes as the act of a raging God of zealous justice (hanq) who acts out of
self-interest and a consuming concern for his reputation.”
Ezekiel 289
Spiritual Renewal
While these restoration texts do focus considerable attention on the physi-
cal restoration of Israel from exile to its homeland, one cannot miss the ex-
pectation of a restoration in the relationship between Yahweh and his people
and a renewal in the hearts of the people. This renewal of relationship has al-
ready been highlighted above in the use of priestly terminology to indicate
the atonement (rpk) and cleansing (rhf) of the people from the stain of their
past sins and their acceptance (hxr) before Yahweh. These priestly signals of
forgiveness and restitution of relationship are paralleled in the restoration
passages by the language of covenant renewal (see esp. 36:25–28, 37:23–27),
which is found regularly both in direct references to the establishment of an
everlasting covenant of peace (16:60, 72; 34:25; 37:26) 62 and in citations of
the covenant formulary (“I will be their God, they will be my people,” 11:20;
34:30; 36:28; 37:23, 27). Most likely, the regularly occurring phrase “they/you
will know that I am Yahweh” is also covenantal terminology. 63 In this new era,
God promises to no longer “hide his face from them” (39:29; cf. vv. 23, 24). 64
However, there is more to this new era than restoration of covenant rela-
tionship with Yahweh. Ezekiel also looks for changes in affection and action.
In the vision in chap. 9, the “man with the writing case” (9:4) is instructed to
go throughout the city and mark any who “sigh (jna Niphal) and groan (qna
Niphal) 65 over all the abominations which are being committed.” Although
small, this group is not only being identified as the remnant but also their re-
sponse is designated as normative. Three of the restoration passages (6:9,
20:43, 36:31) emphasize the importance of the linked actions of “remember-
ing” (rkz) and “loathing” (fwq Niphal). 66 The root fwq is used in the Qal in Ps
95:10 for God’s revulsion for the rebellious wilderness generation. Job 10:1
62. See Mein (2001: 247) for connections to Lev 26:3–6; here, there is clearly a transfor-
mation from conditional to unconditional covenant.
63. See discussion on Jeremiah (pp. 248–249) and esp. Exod 6:7; cf. Fishbane (1984: 149–
50). This phrase is ubiquitous in Ezekiel but appears regularly in the restoration passages:
Ezek 6:10; 12:16; 16:62; 20:42, 44; 28:26; 34:30; 36:23; 37:13, 14, 28; 39:22, 28.
64. Related to God withdrawing his presence because of sin: Deut 31:17–18, 32:20; Isa
8:17, 54:8, 57:17, 64:6; Jer 33:5; Mic 3:4; related to God withdrawing his presence, protec-
tion, and favor from a person with specific mention of sin: Pss 10:11, 13:2, 22:25, 27:9, 30:8,
44:25, 51:11, 69:18, 88:15, 102:3, 143:7; Job 13:24, 34:29.
65. The term hna Niphal is used for the groaning of Israel in Egypt in Exod 2:23; the groan
of pain like a woman in childbirth in Jer 22:23; Ezekiel’s groan over the people in their sight
in Ezek 21:11–12; groaning after the fall of Jerusalem in Lam 1:4, 8, 11, 21; groaning of beasts
in Joel 1:18. The term qna Niphal is used also in Ezek 24:17 for mourning for the dead and in
Ezek 26:15 for the groaning of the wounded.
66. See especially Block (1997: 232). Lapsley (2000b: 144) unpacks the connection be-
tween remembering and shame: “The recovery of memory and/or a sense of shame are thus
announced after a divine action. This arrival at self-knowledge is equivalent to the acquisi-
tion of a new moral self, which is now capable of seeing behavior as it really is, and conse-
quently feeling ashamed.”
290 Chapter 14
uses the Niphal to describe Job’s loathing of his life, a statement that he uses
just prior to giving “full vent to my complaint” and speaking “in the bitter-
ness of my soul.” In Ezekiel, this kind of loathing is always over their past sin,
with 6:9 referring to “the evils (h[:r); which they have committed (hc[) . . . all
their abominations (hb:[E/T),” 20:43 to “all the evil things (h[:r); that you have
done,” and 36:31 to “your iniquities (ˆw[) and your abominations (hb:[E/T).” Re-
membering is related in 6:9 to remembering God, whereas in 20:43 and 36:31
it is again their past sin. 67 This violent response to their past is connected in
36:32 to a call to exilic Israel to “be ashamed” (vwB) and “be humiliated” (μlk
Niphal) “for your ways.” Interestingly, it is this sort of shame (μlk Niphal)
over their sin (ˆw[) and acts (hc[) that is a prerequisite for the revelation of the
design of the new temple in 43:10–11.
In the restoration text of 16:60–63, “remembering” (rkz) “your ways” (˚rd)
is linked with being “ashamed” (μlk Niphal) two times (vv. 61, 63). In the sec-
ond instance, this remembrance and shame is then followed by the phrase
ËtEM:lIK} yneP}mI hP< ˆ/jt}PI d/[ ËL:Ahy,h}y,i which could be translated “there will not be to
you again an opening of the mouth because of your shame” but is better ex-
pressed in English as “you will not open your mouth again because of your
shame.” 68 This represents the cessation of complaints against God, possibly
related to accusations that God has been the cause of the shame of the
people. 69 This shame, however, is not something that precedes the divine act
of grace to the people, but rather it follows Yahweh remembering his cove-
nant (v. 60) and making atonement for their sins (v. 62). As is typical of the
pattern in the new age of grace, human response is prompted and facilitated
by God’s grace. 70 Thus, “the very capacity to experience shame constitutes a
salvific act by Yahweh—it is a gift from God . . . because it strips the people of
their delusions about themselves.” 71 In this way, “shame and disgrace over
the past bespeak the new, impressionable, contrite heart that will animate the
future Israel” (Greenberg 1983b: 1:306).
67. Ezek 20:43: “your ways (˚rd) and all your deeds (hl:ylI[)“ , with which you defiled your-
selves (amf Niphal)”; 36:31: “your evil ways (μy[Ir:h: μk<ykEr]D)' and your deeds which were not
good (μybI/fAalø rv≤a“ μk<ylEl}["m)" .”
68. Here yneP}mI is causal (Arnold and Choi 2003: 119–20; see Gen 7:7, Num 22:3, Judg 9:21).
69. Odell (1992: 101–12); cf. Odell (1991: 217–34; 2006). Contra Stiebert (2000: 269), who
sees here sexual overtones.
70. This would answer the concern that prompted the article by Odell (1992) on Ezek
16:59–63: “These verses raise a theological problem, since they reverse the sequence of con-
sciousness of sin and forgiveness.” Lapsley (2000b: 145 n. 144) wisely notes that this “moral
theologically normative sequence” is “from a modern standpoint.”
71. Lapsley (2000b: 159). Cf. Block (1997: 518); note Zimmerli (1979: 1:66): “The asser-
tion that the receiving of the divine message and acts of salvation leads to an even deeper
sense of shame belongs in a special way to the book of Ezekiel.” Others have sought to disso-
ciate shame from guilt feelings and connect it rather to an honor-shame nexus. See Odell
(1991: 217–34; 1992: 101–12; 2006), and note criticism of Lapsley (2000b) and Stiebert
(2000; 2002) both of whom seek to recapture internal self-awareness as part of the equation.
Ezekiel 291
In addition to remembering, loathing/shame, and silence in the restoration

era, there is also an emphasis within these passages on changes in behavior.
Ezek 11:18–20 and 37:23–24 emphasize removal of (rws Hiphil) or ceasing
from defilement by (amf Hithpael) evil activity (“detestable things,” ≈WQv¥;
“abominations,” hb:[E/T; “idols,” lWLGi; “rebellious acts,” [vp), as well as walking
(˚lh), keeping (rmv), and doing (hc[) the statutes (qjø) and judgments (fpvm).
References of this sort to both negative activity (refraining from evil actions)
and positive activity (embracing righteous actions) can be discerned elsewhere
in the restoration texts and include, negatively, no longer profaning through
idolatry (20:39), defiling Yahweh’s holy name (43:7), and putting far away
(qjr) their harlotry (43:9) and, positively, walking (˚lh) in the statutes (qjø) and
keeping (rmv) and doing (hc[) the judgments (fpvm) (36:27) and “serving”
(db[) (20:40).
These two aspects of the restoration vision in Ezekiel thus reveal the neces-
sity of both internal contrition and external behavioral change to the resto-
ration era. This era is occasioned by a restitution of relationship because of
Yahweh’s glory and grace. This sort of vision for real change, however, re-
minds one of the frustrated attempts of Ezekiel’s generation to respond to the
covenantal demands of God. Is there any hope that, even in this new era of
restoration occasioned by God’s grace and glory, a human response of contri-
tion and penitence such as this will ever be realized?
The answer to this question is provided by this prophetic book, which en-
visions a deep inner transformation of the people accomplished by God him-
self. After taking away (rws Hiphil) their heart of stone (ˆb<a<h: blE; 11:19, 36:26),
Yahweh promises to give (ˆtn) the people a “single heart” (dj:a< blE; 11:19), a
“new heart” (vd;j: blE; 36:26), a “new spirit” (hv…d;j“ j'Wr; 11:19, 36:26), a “heart
of flesh” (rc…B: blE; 11:19, 36:26), and “my spirit” (yjIWr; 36:27, 37:14, 39:29). 72
An inner transformation of this sort, according to 11:20, is what makes pos-
sible future obedience, “so that (ˆ["m"l)} in my statutes (twqj) they may walk
(˚lh) and my judgments (fpvm) they may keep (rmv) and may do (hc[) them”
(my translation), as well as an enduring covenant relationship, “They will be
my people, and I shall be their God.” Similarly in 36:27, this infusion of the
new divine spirit is linked to God’s “causing to walk” (hvp + ˚lh) in his “stat-
utes” (twqj) and “judgments” (fpvm). In 37:14, the infusion of “my spirit”
causes dead Israel to “come to life,” here an image for the whole new experi-
ence of Israel in restoration after the Exile.
This vision of the restoration stands in contrast to the call to repentance in
Ezek 18:30b–32. There, the call is to the people to repent and to make them-
selves a new heart and a new spirit. The restoration passages no longer trust
the people to accomplish this but rather envision a divine transformation that
will create an internal orientation that will fulfill these external patterns. This
72. In 39:29, Yahweh “pours out” (˚pv) “my spirit” (yjIWr).

292 Chapter 14
is strikingly similar to the pattern seen in the book of Deuteronomy, which at

first calls Israel to “circumcise your hearts” (10:16) but ultimately looks to a
restoration age when Yahweh will “circumcise your hearts” (30:6). It also res-
onates with the progression in the book of Jeremiah, which begins with the
call to repentance but ends with the hope for the new covenant heart. 73
Summary
In Ezekiel, sin is described in various ways. It is what threatens the purity and
holiness that is laid out in the priestly legislation and is essential to the endur-
ing presence of Yahweh. It is what violates the covenant relationship established
with Yahweh and structured by the blessings and curses articulated in Leviti-
cus 26. Sin is also a violation of basic justice. Although in Ezekiel 20 sin does ap-
pear to have intergenerational implications, Ezekiel 18 and 33 emphasize the
principle that each generation has control of its own destiny. The former may be
related to the explanation for the severity of the exile, whereas the latter is
clearly addressed to Ezekiel’s exilic community, which is encouraged to repent
and so become the purified remnant of Israel.
Although using its own vocabulary and literary patterns, the book of Ezek-
iel echoes many of the motifs for remedying sin already encountered in the
prophetic books. The penitential process identified in Isaiah 6 and evident
throughout the book of Jeremiah is also showcased in Ezekiel. In the articula-
tions of this penitential process (chaps. 2–3, 18, 33), clearly the response of
the people remains at the core of the prophetic vision for remedying sin. A
penitential response had the power of changing destiny, whether it had been
set by a generation’s own behavior or that of its ancestors. Although the
prophet was charged to deliver the message, it was the responsibility of the
one addressed to respond to it. This is Ezekiel’s message to his exilic audience.
Alongside this theology of penitence, however, one can discern a theology
of punishment for sin as the fate of Jerusalem is set from the beginning. This
theology of punishment is founded on the principles of covenant found in the
Holiness Code, the principles of ritual found in the priestly legislation, and the
principles of poetic justice found throughout the Hebrew tradition. These prin-
ciples provide justification for God’s actions against Jerusalem and reveal that
the future lies with the exilic community, 74 but they are not restricted to this.
The principles of covenant and ritual provide hope for the future because,
73. On the connection between Ezekiel and Jeremiah on this inner renewal, see Leene
(2000). Odell (2006: 443) stresses the distinction between Ezekiel and Jeremiah regarding the
notion of the inner transformation, seeing Ezekiel’s notion as a heart transplant and Jere-
miah’s notion as torah written on the heart. On one hand, Jer 32:39 does speak of giving a
heart to the people. On the other hand, however, there is a heightening in Ezekiel of the
“heart transplant” aspect as well as the focus on the Spirit.
74. It is instructive that the superscriptions in Ezekiel are dated to the exile of Jehoiachin
and not to the reign of Zedekiah, the puppet king who replaced him in Jerusalem.
Ezekiel 293
according to Leviticus 26, the ultimate covenant curse of exile was to lead to
a renewal among the people and in ritual law, and expulsion from the land
was to lead to purification. Judgment was not the end but actually the begin-
ning of a new day for Israel, seen in the way the fall of Jerusalem in chap. 33
signals a shift in the tone of the book.
It is in Ezekiel’s vision for restoration, which dominates the latter half of
the book, that the earlier penitential message is actually heightened, not dis-
carded. 75 In this new day, God will do a transformative work within the hearts
of the survivors, giving them a new heart and granting them his spirit in or-
der that they may recognize their guilt and return to God. 76 The community
that emerges, refined, out of the Exile will be the community that experiences
this divine “heart transplant” and responds in word and deed to the peniten-
tial cry of the prophets.
75. Joyce (1989) highlights the way in which, in the book, divine initiative comes to dom-
inate human response. This is true and necessary in light of Israel’s track record, but human
response is not entirely eradicated in the process. Note Lapsley (2000a), who expresses this
differently as a shift from “virtuous moral selfhood” (because humans are capable of moral
response, repentance is possible) to “neutral moral selfhood” (because humans are incapable
of moral response, divine determinism is essential) and a parallel shift from an action-
centered to a knowledge-centered view of moral self. She notes in (2000b) that the “figure of
Yahweh so fills the book that by the end, little room is available for human beings to occupy.”
See also Raitt (1977).
76. See on this especially Zimmerli (1979: 1:66).
Chapter 15
The Twelve (Part 1):

Hosea–Micah
Past study of what has often been called the “Minor Prophets” of the Old
Testament has largely been focused on the analysis of each of these works as
a distinct prophetic book. Study of this sort has been justified by the distinct
character of each of these books. In the Hebrew canonical tradition, however,
these “books” are gathered into a larger literary unit called “the Twelve.” In
recent years, many have taken this canonical grouping more seriously and
have sought to trace the editorial processes by which the twelve smaller pro-
phetic “books” were assembled into their present form and position. 1
Several have noted the coherence and message of the final form of the
Book of the Twelve, using various strategies ranging from overarching struc-
tural development, to thematic cohesion 2 to superscription patterns (Watts
2000b). Although analysis of this final form is still in its formative stages, a
strong foundation has been laid for further reflection on the message of this
prophetic corpus, which rivals the scrolls of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel in
size and provides a window into the development of Hebrew prophecy over
centuries. The following two chapters will give close attention to the theology
of sin and its remedy within the various prophetic units of Hosea–Malachi in
1. For reviews of research, see Redditt (2001; 2003a); Schart (1998b); see especially Schart
and Redditt (2003). Important works include House (1990); Steck (1991); Nogalski (1993a;
1993b); Jones (1995); Schart (1998); Sweeney (2000); Conrad (2003); and the various essays
in Watts and House (1996); Nogalski and Sweeney (2000); Schart and Redditt (2003). Of
course, see the concerns of Ben Zvi (1996b) and Barton (2001a: 117) and note Petersen
(2000), who prefers to call it a “thematized anthology.”
2. Structural development: House (1990), whether in terms of theme (sin-punishment-resto-
ration), plot (introduction-complications-crisis-climax-falling action-resolution), character-
ization (God, Israel, Nations), or point of view (author, narrators, audience). See Watts (2000a)
for Hosea and Malachi as a frame around the Twelve, Redditt (2003b) for Zechariah 9–14 as
its capstone, and Ego (2003) for the interaction between Jonah and Nahum in the Twelve.
Thematic cohesion: Collins (1993); Rendtorff (1998a); Nogalski and Sweeney (2000); Schart
and Redditt (2003). Themes that have been developed include covenant-election, fidelity-
infidelity, fertility-infertility, turning-returning, justice-mercy, kingship of God, dwelling
place of God, nations as enemies-allies, day of the Lord, Israel/Jacob, Zion, and theodicy.
- 294 -
The Twelve (Part 1): Hosea–Micah 295
their final form as distinct sections (traditionally, “books”), before reflecting

on the message of the corpus of the Twelve as a whole.
Hosea
The book of Hosea is linked to a prophet named Hosea son of Beeri, who
was active during the reigns of the Southern kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and
Hezekiah as well as the Northern king Jeroboam II, that is, during the 8th cen-
tury b.c. The book is structured into three basic sections, beginning with
chaps. 1–3, which employ the image of the prophet’s love for his wayward
wife to highlight Yahweh’s love for Israel. This section establishes the rhetori-
cal rhythm of judgment/confrontation followed by salvation/hope, a pattern
that is echoed in the rest of the book, which follows this rhythm in two cycles
(chaps. 4–11 and 12–14). 3 It is instructive that the root bha (“to love”) appears
many times in the book of Hosea with both Yahweh and Israel as subject. This
term is used for Yahweh’s love for Israel as his wife (3:1) and as his son (11:1,
4). This use contrasts with instances depicting Israel’s love, the object of
which is never Yahweh (2:5, 7, 10, 12, 13; 3:1; 4:18; 9:1, 10; 12:7). This con-
trast between Yahweh and his people reveals that the burning issue of the
book of Hosea is the contrast between the passionate love of Yahweh for his
people and the lack of response from those people.
Hosea 1–3
Hos 1:1–2:1 introduces the imagery that will dominate chaps. 2–3. The
prophet is commanded to marry a promiscuous woman and to bear children
with her, prophetic sign-acts that are used to illustrate the breakdown in rela-
tionship between Israel and God. The marriage to Gomer illustrates Israel’s
unfaithfulness to Yahweh in spite of Yahweh’s condescending love, and the
names of the children signify Yahweh’s rejection of Israel because of her un-
faithfulness. 4 The passage ends, however, on a note of hope as it looks to a
day when Israel and Judah will be restored as God’s people and the object of
his love (1:10–2:1). This opening section sets the tone for the entire book, re-
vealing God’s present exasperation with the people’s unfaithfulness as well as
God’s ultimate purpose to renew relationship with his people.
Hos 2:2–23 offers an overview of various strategies used by Yahweh to
bring the people back to himself, beginning with warning, then corrective
measures, punishment, and finally renewal. 5 The first phase (2:2–4) consists
3. On the divisions of chaps. 1–3, 4–11, 12–14, see Wolff (1974: xxix–xxxii), who calls
these “transmission complexes”; cf. Longman and Dillard (2006: 403–4).
4. Jezreel represents Yahweh’s punishment of Jehu for his massacre at Jezreel, Lo-Ruhamah
represents the end of Yahweh’s love and forgiveness of Israel, and Lo-Ammi represents the end
of Israel’s covenant status with Yahweh.
5. See Davies (1992: 65), who views this more in terms of the diachronic development of
2:2–15.
296 Chapter 15
of a call to repentance expressed in v. 2b, demanding that Israel abandon her

adulterous behavior. The second phase (2:5–8) describes an adulterous Israel
verbally expressing her intention to “go after my lovers” (2:5), but Yahweh’s
strategy is to restrict her movements (2:6), cutting her off from her lovers (2:7;
cf. Song 3:1–4) to whom she had incorrectly attributed her material provi-
sions (2:8; cf. 2:5). Israel’s statement in 2:7b, “I will go back (bwv) to my first
husband, for it was better for me then than now” creates an expectation of re-
pentance, 6 but 2:8 makes clear that her affections remain with her lovers
(“she does not know/has not acknowledged [[dy] that it was I who gave her”).
The third phase (2:9–13) consists of the punishment of Yahweh because she
“followed her lovers, so that she forgot me” (2:13).
This, however, is not the end of the message. The only hope remaining for
Israel is found in the fourth phase (2:14–23), which highlights the unilateral
initiative of Yahweh. Here, Yahweh speaks of a future day when he will lead
his spouse, Israel, back into the wilderness, the place where their covenant re-
lationship was consummated (Sinai). The language used here is that of a man
seducing a woman (Exod 22:15) with tender words and lavish gifts that elicit
a positive response from the woman (2:14–15). In a clear attack on the idola-
try (Baalism) that had captivated the religious affections of the people in Ho-
sea’s day (2:16–17), Yahweh invites Israel to call him “husband” (vya) rather
than “master” (l[b), as he betroths Israel to himself in righteousness, justice,
covenant loyalty, compassion, and faithfulness (2:19–20). In contrast to Is-
rael’s failed return in 2:7–8 (“she did not acknowledge [[dy],” my translation),
the people in 2:20b respond to God by “acknowledging ([dy) Yahweh” (2:20b,
my translation). That this image of betrothal points to the covenant relation-
ship between Israel and Yahweh is made explicit in 2:23 with the citation of
the covenant formula “You are my people . . . You are my God.” This entire
section (2:14–23) emphasizes the passionate loving initiative of Yahweh to-
ward his people that follows his discipline.
This presentation in Hosea 2, therefore, does not provide much hope for a
penitential response from the people. Clearly, repentance is the desire of Yah-
weh (2:2b), but Israel fails to respond (2:7–8) and thus must be punished (2:9–
13). It is only after this that Yahweh takes the initiative and by his unilateral
love returns Israel to himself in covenant relationship (2:14–23).
Hosea 3 continues the theme developed in Hosea 2. Here, the prophet is
instructed to go and love his wayward wife, buying her as other men had
bought her services and reestablishing an exclusive relationship (3:1–3). 7 This
6. The image here is of the wayward wife, who, after divorcing a husband and marrying
another, wishes to return to the first husband, a situation that is prohibited by the Torah
(Deuteronomy 24). See pp. 232–237 above on Jeremiah 3. Stuart (1987: 49) says this “ex-
presses repentance, hence conversion”; similarly, Wolff (1974: 96).
7. There is some debate over the relationship between the women in Hosea 1, 2, and 3
and the woman named Gomer. See the excellent review of debate on this issue in Davies
is related in 3:4–5 to the future expectation (afterward, in the last days) of a

penitential response of Israel, one that involves both returning to (bwv) and
seeking (vqb Piel) Yahweh and their Davidic king. This return involves “trem-
bling” before Yahweh and his goodness. Here, we see that repentance typifies
Israel’s experience after its rebellion, but this is only made possible by the uni-
lateral and gracious initiative of Yahweh.
Hosea 4–14
It is clear from the rest of the book of Hosea that Israel’s apostasy from Yah-
weh, presented in chaps. 1–3 through the image of the wayward wife, domi-
nates the prophet’s imagination. In chaps. 4–14, apostasy is presented
through other images including the stubborn animal (4:16), the hot oven
(7:6–7), the flat loaf (7:8), the farmer (8:7), the wild donkey (8:9), the spread-
ing vine (10:1), the trained heifer (10:11–13), and the wayward child (11:1–
11). In addition, the book possesses a breadth of vocabulary to express this
apostasy. Forgetting (jkv) Yahweh or his law appears on four occasions (2:13,
4:6, 8:13, 13:6), stumbling (lvk) on account of iniquity or guilt on two occa-
sions (5:5, 14:1), and sinning (afj) on two occasions (4:7, 10:9; cf. 4:8, 13:12).
Beyond these, the sin of Israel is described as abandoning (bz[) Yahweh (4:10),
turning (hnp) to other gods (3:1), rejecting (sam) knowledge (4:6), dealing
treacherously (dgb; 5:7), straying (ddn) or roaming (dwr) from Yahweh (7:13,
11:12), devising (bvj Piel) evil (7:15), breaking (rb[) covenant (8:1), rebelling
([vp) against the law (8:1), refusing (âm Piel) to repent (11:5), and clinging
(alt) to apostasy (11:7). Concern is expressed at various points over the
people’s sin (afj, tafj; 4:8, 13:12), guilt/iniquity (ˆw[; 5:5, 13:12, 14:1), evil
([r, h[r; 7:15, 9:15, 10:13), wickedness ([vr; 10:13), injustice (htlw[; 10:13),
apostasy (hbvm; 11:7, 14:3), and lies (μybzk, 7:13; vjk, 10:13).
In contrast to these images and terms for apostasy, the prophet longs for
the penitential response of the people. This is obvious from the regular em-
ployment of the verb bwv, both when describing the inadequacy of the people
(5:4; 7:10, 16; 11:5; cf. 2:7) and when exhorting them to respond to Yahweh
(6:1; 12:6; 14:1, 2) or describing their future response (14:7). 8 In Hos 7:10, bwv
(1992: 105–9; 1993). Davies concludes that Hosea never married Gomer but only became one
of her clients, and children were born from this relationship. Furthermore, the woman in
chap. 3 is not Gomer but a second prostitute he hired. Stuart (1987: 64) sees Gomer as the
referent in chap. 1, an allegorical woman in chap. 2, and an unnamed adulteress (possibly
prostitute) in chap. 3. In chap. 3, the woman is described merely as “a woman who is loved
by a lover, but is one who commits adultery.” However, the particle dw[ (“again”) suggests a
connection to the original act in 1:2, where Hosea took Gomer. Furthermore, the citation of
the woman’s desire in 2:7 to return to her first husband after pursuing other lovers develops
the theme of a return to a relationship, first desired by the woman in 2:7 out of desperation,
then desired by the man in 3:1 out of love.
8. The use of bwv in 3:5 is probably related to the return of Israel from exile. See Hos 6:11,
where it is used for the restoration of the fortunes of the people.
298 Chapter 15
is used alongside the term “seek” (vqb Piel). So also in 5:15, this seeking fol-
lows Yahweh’s discipline of the people and there is accompanied by the term
rjv Piel, “earnestly seek.” 9 In chaps. 1–3, the term vqb Piel was used nega-
tively to describe Israel’s pursuit of their illicit lovers (2:7), and in chaps. 4–14
it is used for Israel’s ineffective approach to Yahweh, who has withdrawn
(5:6). Whereas in 2:2 repentance is described as putting away (rws Hiphil)
adulterous practices, in 12:6 repentance (bwv) is linked to both observing
(rmv) covenant loyalty (dsj)/justice (fpvm) and continually (dymt) waiting (hwq
Piel) on God.
In 5:4 and 6:1–3, the root [dy (“to know, acknowledge”) is placed alongside
the root bwv, and most likely this “knowing” is similar to the knowing seen in
the books of Jeremiah (see pp. 249–250) and Ezekiel (see p. 289), which is
drawn from the semantic range of covenantal relationship as articulated in
Exod 6:1–8. It is this sort of knowing of Yahweh that is lacking among (4:1,
6; 5:4; cf. ˆyb in 4:14) or rejected by (4:6) the people and that is claimed by the
people (8:2) and desired by Yahweh (2:20, 6:6, 13:4). This knowing is listed in
conjunction with covenant loyalty (dsj; 4:1, 6:6; cf. 2:19, 6:4, 10:12, 12:6)
and faithfulness (tma; 4:1). It is to this sort of knowing ([dy) and discerning
(ˆyb) that the concluding wisdom exhortation of the book calls the readers
(14:9). 10 Here, the editor emphasizes the two ways so typical of the wisdom
tradition by indirectly exhorting his hearers to join the company of the
“righteous” (μyqdx) in “walking” (˚lh) in Yahweh’s straight ways rather than
the gang of “rebels” ([vp) who will only “stumble” (lvk). The vocabulary of
this verse suggests close familiarity with the rest of the book of Hosea (“stum-
ble,” lvk, see 4:5, 5:5, 14:2; “rebels,” [vp, see 7:13, 8:1) and the Deuterono-
mistic tradition (“to walk in the way of Yahweh”; see Judg 2:22; cf. Deut 8:6;
10:12; 11:22, 28; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16; 31:29). 11
Through both image and vocabulary, the remainder of the book of Hosea
focuses much attention on the human response appropriate for remedying
sin. However, the regular references to apostasy highlight the need for other
responses to sin, those that originate with Yahweh. This is evident in the ar-
gument of chaps. 4–14.
9. See also the use of vrd in 10:12.

10. Wolff (1974: 239) notes that 14:10[9] is similar to conclusions such as Qoh 8:1, Ps
107:43, and Jer 9:11, which “belong to a period when the prophetic traditions had long since
been preserved as literature and their interpretation had become problematic.” Sweeney
(2000: 1:141) concludes that “the language derives from the sphere of wisdom, and it is de-
signed to encourage the discerning reader to find Yhwh’s wisdom and righteousness in the
work of Hosea.” Sweeney sees this as raising the question of theodicy, but in light of the
strong emphasis on repentance, especially in the closing section, it is more likely it consti-
tutes a Dtr wisdom call to the reader to repentance. Seow (1982: 212–24) argues that 14:10[9]
is authentic.
11. Wolff (1974: 239); see also Weinfeld (1972).
Hosea 4–11
After the heights of the future hope described in chap. 3, Hosea 4 returns
the reader to the depths of Israel’s present struggle to repent. In this chapter,
the prophet highlights Israel’s lack of qualities necessary for covenant rela-
tionship (e.g., 4:1, tma, dsj), repeatedly referring to the absence of knowledge
(t[d; 4:1, 6a, 6b) and understanding (ˆyb; 4:14b). This is evidenced in their
abusive behavior toward one another (4:2), as well as their idolatrous behav-
ior toward God (4:7–14), behavior only encouraged by their leaders (prophets
in 4:5, priests in 4:6–9, rulers in 4:18).
This emphasis on Israel’s struggle with repentance continues into Hosea 5.
According to 5:4, Israel is not allowed to return (bwv) to God (5:4), because of
both their behavioral patterns (“their deeds”) and their inner affections (“a
spirit of harlotry is within them”). 12 Although they may “seek” (vqb Piel)
Yahweh (5:6), most likely a reference to festal celebrations (5:7b), their un-
faithfulness (dgb; 5:7a) has caused Yahweh to remove himself (5:6b). This re-
moval has dire consequences for Israel as their offended God now turns on
them in judgment (5:7b).
The sounding of the trumpet in 5:8 identifies the serious and imminent
character of Yahweh’s judgment (“the day of rebuke,” 5:9). This judgment is
described by Yahweh with the image of a lion who tears Ephraim and Judah
to pieces and carries them off (5:14), an allusion to the discipline of destruc-
tion and exile. After this judgment, Yahweh speaks of returning to “my place”
(his heavenly abode), awaiting the time when in their suffering the people
will have “borne/acknowledged their guilt” (μva) and “seek/search for” (vqb
Piel/rjv Piel) Yahweh (5:15). 13
There has been considerable debate over the character of 6:1–3 and its re-
lationship to the broader literary context of Hosea. 14 It is clearly not a prayer,
because it speaks about God rather than to God. The fact that it is written in
the cohortative mood reveals that it is addressed to humans. 15 In light of this,
6:1–3 functions as an invitation by the prophet to repentance, and this invi-
12. Notice also Hos 4:12 where a “spirit of harlotry has led them astray.”
13. Sweeney (2000: 68) notes that “my place” is ambiguous but frequently is used as a
technical term for Yahweh’s temple (Deut 12:5, 14; 14:23, 25; 1 Kgs 8:29, 30; Isa 18:7; Ezek
43:7). There is some debate over the meaning of the Qal of μva here. Typically it has been seen
as “pay/suffer for guilt” (BDB), but some suggest “pleading/acknowledging guilt” (HALOT,
nasb). Sweeney (2000: 1:68–69) argues that the language of 5:15 (“my place,” μ/qm…; “guilt of-
fering?” μva; “seek,” vqb; “seek earnestly,” rjv; cf. Ps 78:34) “indicates a situation of cultic la-
ment in which the people beseech Yhwh in the temple (see Psalms 6, 7).”
14. See the superb review of the issues by Davies (1992: 150–51). Wolff suggests that 6:1–
3 represents words of Hosea’s rivals (perhaps the priests) who are suggesting that 5:15 has
been fulfilled in the present day.
15. As Davies (1992: 151) argues, “Hos 6:1–3 is not itself a song of repentance but an ex-
hortation designed to call one forth, a variant form of the Aufruf zur Volksklage.” Contra Wolff
(1974: 116–17), who considers these verses “a penitential song the priests sang during these
very times of danger.” His attempt to distinguish between the cohortatives (vv. 1aa, 3aa, with
300 Chapter 15
tation is delivered after a significant punishment by Yahweh (“he has torn . . .

he has wounded,” 6:1). 16 In light of the literary connections between 5:15
and these verses, it appears that 6:1–3 invites the community to verbalize the
search described in 5:15, which follows the punishment of 5:8–15. 17 This
seeking of Yahweh involves “returning” (bwv) to (6:1) and “knowing” ([dy)
Yahweh (6:3). Hos 6:1–3 is then a description of the call to penitentially seek
Yahweh after a serious punishment.
The response from God that follows in 6:4–7:16, however, suggests that the
invitation to repentance after discipline was either ignored by the people or
that the people’s response was insincere. 18 Here, Yahweh highlights the
ephemeral character of Israel’s love, likening it to morning mist and early
dew, which soon dissipate (6:4). 19 God’s desire is for covenantal loyalty (dsj)
and covenantal knowledge (t[d) rather than sacrifice (6:6). As the section pro-
gresses, ultimately, this points, as in 5:4, to Israel’s inability to return (bwv) to
Yahweh or seek (vqb Piel) him (7:10). Although they “wail” in cultic assem-
blies, looking for God’s blessing, their cries are not “from their heart” (7:14),
because they turn away from Yahweh (rws; 7:14) and not to him (bwv; 7:16).
Lying behind 6:4–7:16 appears to be some form of response from God’s
people, one that involved sacrifice (6:6) and considerable wailing (7:14) but
that was expressed without sincerity (7:14), directed even toward other gods
(7:14), and was certainly not true repentance (7:10).
There are some similarities between the pattern in Hosea 4–7 and what was
discerned in 2:2–23 and 3:1–5. Although repentance is desired by God in the
their lament, confession of guilt, avowal, and penitence) and the remainder (vv. 1ab–2, 3ab,
with their longer expressions of confidence and trust) appears to be splitting hairs.
16. Davies (1992: 149) suggests that there is a time lapse between 5:12–15 and 6:1–3 (“the
former looks forward to a future time of suffering while the latter assumes that the suffering
has already occurred”), possibly 6:1–3 comprising the prophet’s reflection on 5:12–15.
17. For the literary connections, see Wolff (1974: 109), who shows how catchword con-
nections between 5:13–15 and 6:1–3 (apr πrf) forge the two sections together; so also Davies
(1992: 149). See the superb review of Davies (1992: 150) on the various views on the charac-
ter of 6:1–3. Many are influenced by the fact that 6:4 appears to reject this repentance and
thus see 6:1–3 as an inappropriate penitential liturgy. Davies counters this by arguing that
this message of repentance and knowledge of Yahweh “correspond to two central demands
of Hosea’s message” and that 6:4 is unrelated to 6:1–3. I agree with the first of these argu-
ments but am not convinced by the second, because 6:4 is rejecting not the invitation to re-
pentance in 6:1–3 but rather the people’s inappropriate response to it.
18. Stuart (1987: 107) and Davies (1992: 149–50) argue that 6:4 initiates a new section in
Hosea and should not be related to 6:1–3. Most see here a connection between the sections.
See Wolff (1974), who considers 5:8–7:17 a coherent unit. There is a striking similarity be-
tween 6:4 and 11:8, the first the expression of Yahweh after a call to repentance (bwv) and the
second the expression of Yahweh after he notes their refusal to repent (bwv, hbwvm). This sug-
gests that 6:4, as 11:8, is God’s response to the penitence or lack thereof of the people.
19. See, similarly, how in 8:2–3 Israel’s cry to Yahweh (“My God, we of Israel know you”)
is met with Yahweh’s indictment (“Israel has rejected the good”) and judgment (“the enemy
will pursue him”).
present, it will not be realized until after discipline. In contrast to chaps. 2–3,
however, chaps. 4–7 provide an invitation for the people to repent after dis-
cipline in 6:1–3, and their response appears to be inadequate. This may ex-
plain why chaps. 4–7 say nothing about Yahweh’s initiative in facilitating this
return, suggesting that this remains the only hope for Israel’s repentance.
The lack of sincerity in the people’s cries continues into chap. 8. 20 The
mention of the “trumpet” (rpwv) in 8:1 suggests a warning of an approaching
enemy (see Joel, pp. 304–309 below). It is not surprising then to find in 8:2
the citation of a cry to Yahweh in 8:2 (“they cry out to me: ‘my God, we of
Israel, know/acknowledge [[dy] you’”). 21 While the use of the root [dy rectifies
the failure of Israel in 2:8 and echoes the invitation of 6:3, Yahweh’s response
in 8:3 (“Israel has rejected the good”) reveals either that it is too late for a re-
sponse of this sort or that the response is insincere. The remainder of chaps.
8–10 provides a catalogue of Israel’s rejection of the good, justifying God’s
judgment. 22
However, this judgment does not materialize, at least not yet according to
Hosea 11. This chapter recites the history of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel
as his child. Although Yahweh loved Israel, calling it out of Egypt, teaching it
to walk, leading it tenderly and feeding it, Israel responded by pursuing other
gods and not acknowledging Yahweh’s kindness (11:1–4). Behavior of this
sort is described in 11:5 as refusing (âm Piel) to repent (bwv) and in 11:7 as
hanging (alt) onto its apostasy (hbvm). Similarly to earlier material in Hosea,
reference is made to Israel’s communal assemblies, where they would “call”
(arq) to Yahweh. 23 This cry is ignored by Yahweh 24 because of the persistence
of their apostasy. The only option appears to be discipline through military
invasion, which will result in foreign exile and subjugation (11:5–6). In con-
trast to the voice of Yahweh in 6:4, however, which appears to respond to the
absence or insincerity of the people’s response to God’s invitation to repent
and introduces a speech highlighting God’s judgment on faithless Israel (6:4–
7:16), the voice of Yahweh in 11:8 introduces a speech that highlights God’s
gracious change of disposition toward Israel (11:8–11). Yahweh declares that
his heart is overturned (˚pj Niphal) and his compassions (μymjn) are aroused
(rmk Niphal), so he will not bring a complete end to Israel as he did to Admah
20. See Stuart (1987: 131), who connects this cry to the wailing in 7:14. “Israel appealed
formally to its national God while still flirting with other gods (vv 3, 4–6) and heterodox
practices (v 11).”
21. Wolff (1974: 138) translates this as a cry against Yahweh because the preposition l in-
troduces the reason for the lament, as in Isa 15:5 and Jer 48:31.
22. Although this section is comprised of many originally independent units, the men-
tion of kingship at the beginning (8:3) and end (10:3, 7, 15) suggests an overall unity.
23. The text reads “together they call to him.”
24. I am translating the last phrase “he does not exalt,” the final verb being μwr Polel,
which is used for rescue from a predicament; see 1 Sam 2:7, 2 Sam 22:49 // Ps 18:40, Pss 9:14,
37:34, 118:16.
302 Chapter 15
and Zeboiim, two cities who, according to Deut 29:23, shared the fate of So-
dom and Gomorrah (11:8–9). Whereas 5:14 presented Yahweh as a lion tear-
ing to pieces his people as they go into exile, 11:10–11 presents Yahweh again
as a lion but now the people “follow” (˚lh + rja) this lion, trembling as they
return from Egypt and Assyria.
Hosea 11 thus resonates with the emphasis in chaps. 2–3 on God’s endur-
ing love for Israel after punishment. He will not bring an end to his people as
he did to Admah and Zeboiim but will have compassion on a people that will
then respond with trembling after exile. Hosea 11 contrasts chaps. 4–7, where
Israel’s inappropriate response to the invitation in 6:1–3 prompted God’s
questions in 6:4 (cf. 11:8), which introduced a series of accusations against Is-
rael. In Hosea 11, after rehearsing the reality that Israel is unable to repent
even though they call out in prayer to him, and after threatening punish-
ment, Yahweh lays bare his soul, revealing that his compassion is aroused and
that he will not bring an end to his people. According to Hosea 11, hope
therefore ultimately lies not with Israel’s ability to repent but rather with Yah-
weh’s grace in spite of Israel’s apostasy.
Hosea 12–14
Hosea 12 draws on the Jacob tradition well known from the book of Gene-
sis, highlighting Jacob’s birth (12:3a), wrestling with God (12:3b–4), flight to
Aram (12:12a), and acquisition of a wife (12:12b). This is applied to Israel as
a nation that was brought out of Egypt in the past (12:13), and to Ephraim as
a nation that has rebelled in the present (12:1, 8, 14). The tradition of Jacob
shows his struggle with God and humanity from birth to maturity (12:3), a
struggle that leads to punishment “according to his ways” and repayment
(bwv) “according to his deeds” (12:2). “Hosea says that he who acts decep-
tively, who cunningly fights against God and man, will encounter his Lord
and victor in Yahweh . . . Jacob wept and made supplication because Yahweh
had defeated him” (Wolff 1974: 213). Thus, the struggle of Jacob with God at
Bethel provides an example for Israel’s penitential response to God in the
present. As Jacob’s weeping (hkb) and seeking favor (ˆnj Hithpael) at Bethel led
to his discovery (axm) of and revelation from Yahweh (12:4–5), so 12:6 ex-
horts the people to turn (bwv) to (b) God in just action (“observe covenant
loyalty and justice,” nasb, modified) and enduring faith (“wait for your God
continually”).
Hos 12:7–13:16, however, reveals that repentance of this sort is not forth-
coming. Yahweh will not remove Ephraim’s bloodguilt (12:14). Ephraim’s
guilt and sin have been stored up (13:12), and so the people of Samaria will
be held guilty because of their rebellion against God (13:16). The people will
thus bear their deserved punishment.
In the wake of this judgment, 14:1 calls stumbling (lvk) Israel to return
(bwv) to (d[) Yahweh. According to 14:2, this return (bwv) to (la) Yahweh in-
volves the declaration of words (“take words with you”), suggesting that this
repentance will be expressed through prayer. The content of the prayer to

Yahweh is provided in vv. 2b–3 and directs the people to ask for the removal
of guilt and provision of goodness (jql + bwf as in Gen 27:9; 1 Kgs 17:10; 2 Kgs
2:20, 4:41) and to renounce all reliance on foreign nations and gods. In con-
trast to his response to Israel’s “return” at earlier points in the book (2:7, 6:1–
3, 8:2), here Yahweh promises internal transformation (“I will heal [apr] their
apostasy [hbvm]”), 25 relational repair (“I will love them freely for my anger has
turned away from them”), and blessed restoration (14:4–7).
Wolff argues that these divine promises in vv. 4–7 are the basis of the re-
sponse of the people commanded in vv. 1–3. In his view, Israel can only hope
to “return to Yahweh” because of Yahweh’s promise that he will turn away his
anger, love them, and even heal their apostasy. As Wolff puts it,
The exhortation is formulated completely in the light of the oracle of salva-
tion (Erhörungszusage). The announcement of healing (v 5) is actually the
central point of the text. It is the presupposition for the entire passage, as is
also made evident by Jeremiah’s version of it in 3:22 and 4:1. (Weinfeld
1972: 233)
For Wolff, Hosea 14 presents a “completely new kind of invitation to return”
that
has nothing in common with the earlier ultimatumlike admonitions (2:5;
4:15; 8:5 [cj.]) in which the prophet vainly attempted to snatch his people
away from their guilty path at the last moment. Hence the call to return to
Yahweh is an invitation entirely founded upon the certainty that Yahweh
will cure Israel’s apostasy and liberate the people from their guilt. (Wolff
1974: 237)
However, it must also be noted that the proclamation of salvation that begins
in v. 4 is “conditional upon the penitence called for in vv. 1–3” even if “Yah-
weh’s declared readiness to heal their faithfulness plays an important part in
encouraging the people to take seriously the invitation to repentance.” 26
Hosea 14 is further evidence of the importance of repentance within the
Hosean tradition. It shows the key role that not only repentance but also pen-
itential prayer will play in the future renewal of the people. A cry of the
people to God such as this will be met with Yahweh’s passionate love (“I will
love them freely”) and inner transformation (“I will heal their apostasy”), ac-
companied by blessed bounty in the land.
Summary
The burning issue in the book is how to deal with apostasy, and Hosea
looks to ways also discerned in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, that is, human
25. Notice how the earlier penitential cry of 6:1 sought healing (apr) from Yahweh; cf.
5:13, 7:1. Davies suggests that this healing of the “apostasy” resonates with the promises of
inner renewal that are found in Jer 31:33–34 and Ezek 36:25–27.
26. Davies (1992: 299), who also notes that that this is the traditional view, citing the tar-
gums, Vulgate, Rashi, and Kim˙i.
304 Chapter 15
repentance and divine discipline. As we have seen above, at various stages in

the book the prophet longs for the penitential response of the people. 27 The
people were called to repent before discipline (2:2–4, 12:1–6) and after disci-
pline (6:1–3, 14:1–3). In Hosea 11, however, the divine threat of judgment re-
sults not in the people repenting but rather in Yahweh, overwhelmed by his
passion for his people, withholding his discipline. The consistent lack of re-
sponse from the people in this book, however, creates the expectation that
the obedience of the people would be ultimately possible only through the
initiative (2:24–23, 3:1–5, 11:8–11) and transforming work (14:4) of Yahweh.
Hosea, therefore, envisions a role for the prophetic call to repentance as well
as the discipline of God to deal with sin, but in the end the greatest hope for
remedying sin is placed on the passionate grace, unilateral initiative, and
transforming work of Yahweh to create penitence that is both authentic and
enduring.
Joel
The book of Joel provides no superscription linking it to a particular period
in the history of Israel, although it is often linked by scholarship to the early
Persian period (late 6th–early 5th century b.c.). 28 The book is dominated by
calls to lament, suggesting that it is based on liturgies typically employed on
a day of lament in ancient Israel. 29 Stuart describes it in this way:
A typical one-day fast is probably envisioned (Judg 20:26; 1 Sam 14:24; Isa
58:3–5; Jer 36:6–9), involving cessation of routine activity, no eating, and
27. The issue of the role of repentance in Hosea is controversial. Stuart (1987: 7, 8, 19,
107, 192, 212) sees repentance “as part of the blessing of the future restoration promises,” as
“eschatological, not immediate” (cf. Deut 4:30; 30:6, 8). Wolff (1974: 234–35) distinguishes
between earlier (2:4–5, 4:15, 8:5a; cf. 10:12, 12:7) and later (chap. 14) exhortations to repen-
tance, the former having the purpose to avert judgment, but the latter taking place after
judgment has occurred. Sweeney (2000), however, sees repentance as key to the whole book
and argues that even chap. 14 is delivered prior to the destruction of Israel. Part of the issue
here is the interpretation of Hosea’s strong announcements of judgment on the nation at the
outset of the book. Announcements of this sort in the prophets are not always to be taken as
inevitable but are sometimes contingent on response. Thus, it appears that Hosea does
present an authentic invitation to repent, even if the people are shown to consistently reject
this until after judgment has taken place and God has performed a new work.
28. See Barton (2001a: 14–18); although, see Mason (1994: 113–16).
29. See especially Wolff (1977: 9); Stuart (1987: 239). Ahlström (1971: 131) identifies 1:2–
2:17 as “not a lamentation” but “an actual situation in which a lamentation should be heard
and performed.” Ogden (1983: 97) is careful to make an important distinction between a
“formal lament liturgy and Joel as a literary work arising from such a liturgical background.”
Plöger (1968) and Wolff (1977) considered Joel as an eschatological prophet who was against
the temple establishment (theocracy), whereas Cook (1995: 167–209) and Sweeney (2000:
1:151) have argued that his use of liturgical forms and his view of Jerusalem’s protection sug-
gest that he is situated within priestly circles. Of course, a vision for Jerusalem was not a con-
cern limited to theocratic circles, and the prophet could be using the liturgical forms as an
ironic play on the priests’ own forms.
special prayer. Fasting is a form of self-denial which, like wearing sackcloth,

is intended to heighten the seriousness of one’s appeal to God. 30
In the book, a day of fasting such as this becomes an opportunity for the
prophet to encourage repentance rather than merely appeal to God for relief
from the present predicament. In the first part of the book (1:2–2:17), the
prophet calls the people to a day of national lament due to an “invasion” and
subsequently calls the priests and people to repentance. The second part of
the book (2:18–3:21[4:21]) begins with a narrative description of the response
of Yahweh (2:18) to this penitential expression of the community. Yahweh’s
response continues with a series of promises for the people (2:19–3:21[4:21]).
Joel 1:2–2:17
The book begins with a speech based on an invitation to a national day of
lament (1:2–14). The initial section creatively addresses the two audiences
identified in 1:2–4, that is, the elders and those who live in the land (1:2).
Both groups are called to lament over the present national disaster, first the el-
ders, who are addressed as “drunkards” (1:5–10), and then those who live in
the land, who are addressed as “farmers” (1:11–12). A variety of imperatives
punctuates this section of the book, with those in 1:2–4 calling the parties to
listen ([mv, 1:2; ˆza Hiphil, 1:2) in order to relate (rps Piel; 1:3) the severity of
the present predicament to the next generation. The addresses to the “drunk-
ards” and “farmers” subtly shift to the vocabulary of grief (“awake,” ≈wq
Hiphil, 1:5; “weep,” hkb, 1:5; “wail,” lly Hiphil, 1:5, 11; “mourn,” hla, 1:8; “be
ashamed,” vwb, Hiphil, 1:11).
It is only in 1:13–14 that the prophet technically initiates the call for a na-
tional fast. The prophet exhorts the priests, who would be responsible for im-
plementation of the fast, to gird themselves (rgj; 1:13), lament (dps; 1:13),
and come to spend the night in sackcloth (μyQICæb" ˆwl; 1:13). This activity by the
priests within the sacred precincts should be accompanied by activity among
the general populace and so the prophet continues with an exhortation for
the priests to consecrate a fast (μwx vdq; 1:14), proclaim a solemn assembly
(hrx[ arq; 1:14), and gather (πsa; 1:14) together the audience that has been
addressed throughout 1:2–12 (“elders . . . all the inhabitants of the land,” cf.
1:2, 14). They are to be gathered to cry out (q[z; 1:14) to Yahweh for help in
their crisis. What follows in 1:15–20 is a citation of a lament to God on such
a day. 31 Spoken in the first person (“our,” 1:16; “I,” 1:19), it voices to God the
predicament that has been described throughout chap. 1.
30. Stuart (1987: 244); Sweeney (2000: 1:153) notes other evidence from 2 Sam 3:31;
1 Kgs 21:9, 12; Isa 23:1–14; Jer 4:8, 6:26, 14:2–22; Amos 5:16b; Jonah 3:7–8; Ezra 8:21; Psalms
44, 60, 79, 89; 2 Chr 20:3.
31. According to Sweeney (2000: 1:160), the lament is uttered by the prophet, but in light
of the citation of a prayer in 2:17b, it may be the priests. It is possible that 1:15 is a prophetic
interjection, preparing the way for the revelation of the approaching “day of the Lord” in
306 Chapter 15
The lament of 1:15–20 is then followed in chap. 2 by the warning of an im-

pending invasion of an army that is led by Yahweh on what is called “the day
of Yahweh.” The exhortation to “blow a trumpet” (rpwv [qt) and “sound an
alarm” ([wr Hiphil) represents vocabulary more at home within a military
context. 32 This passage reveals that the national disaster described in chap. 1
is more than just an attack by locusts or an invasion of a foreign army; 33 it is
nothing less than the onset of the “day of Yahweh.” This spells disaster for
any who dare oppose God, hence the ominous response of 2:11: “The day of
the Lord is indeed great and very awesome, and who can endure it?”
Invited to a day of national lament, the people are informed that the
present disaster is the beginning of a catastrophe that will lead to the total de-
struction of Israel by the heavenly army of Yahweh. In response to this search-
ing question in 2:11 (“who can endure it?”) comes the speech in 2:12–17 that
combines elements from both the invitation to national lament in 1:2–20 and
the alarm raised over the approaching army in 2:1–11. 34
This prophetic speech calls the community to make repentance the domi-
nant emphasis of its day of fasting. 35 At the heart of this call is the twofold
2:1. However, Sweeney (2000: 1:160) has argued that the opening word in 1:15 (hha, “alas”)
is standard in contexts expressing mourning/lamentation (Josh 7:7; Jer 4:10, 14:13; Ezek
4:14, 9:8) or shock/surprise ( Judg 6:22, 11:35; 2 Kgs 3:10) and thus is appropriate to a lament.
32. There is some debate over the character of 2:1. Wolff (1977: 39–40) sees this as at
home in a military context (as per Hos 5:8, 8:1; Jer 4:5, 6:1) and especially in the announce-
ment of the approaching Day of Yahweh, which is called the Day of the Shophar and Battle
Cry in Zeph 1:16. Sweeney (2000: 1:162), aware that it can be used to announce war or ap-
proaching danger (Hos 8:1; Judg 3:27; 6:34; 7:8, 16), notes that it also can be used as a call to
cultic observance (Lev 25:9; Pss 47:6, 81:3, 98:6, 150:3; 2 Chr 15:14). Sweeney suggests that
both are in view here.
33. There is considerable debate over whether chap. 1 envisions a locust attack (1:4, 2:25)
or an invading army (1:6, 2:25). The descriptions of the result of the disaster in Joel could fit
either scenario.
34. See Sweeney (2000: 1:166–67) and compare 2:1 with 2:15; 1:2 with 2:16; 1:14 with
2:15; cf. Stuart (1987: 249), who compares those addressed in 2:16, 17 with those addressed
in chap. 1 (vv. 2, 3, 9, 13, 14).
35. It is interesting that Joel is silent on the particular sins committed by the people; cf.
Sweeney (2000: 1:147, 159), who sees this as typical of human experience “in which catas-
trophe frequently comes upon people without moral reason.” Ahlström (1971: 26) spends
much time arguing that the issue here must be idolatry, but the term bwv is not restricted to
this. Stuart (1987: 231) suggests that it “is probably the strong eschatological perspective of
Joel that accounts most for its silence on covenant violations per se.” However, because of
the absence of a reference to sin, Ogden (1983: 104–5) argues against Joel 2:12–14 as a “call
to repentance,” suggesting that this book concerns innocent suffering and “call to lament
serves to alert Judah to its utter dependence on Yhwh the faithful and compassionate deliv-
erer. Joel does not regard repentance as necessary.” If this were true, then Joel would be en-
tirely unique in the history of prophetism, and his speech (especially to the “drunkards” in
1:5) would be inappropriate to innocent sufferers. Furthermore, the character creed attached
to the call to repentance in 2:12–14 is nearly always associated with forgiveness of sin (Exod
34:6–7; Num 14:17–18; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Pss 86:15, 103:8, 111:4, 145:8; Neh 9:17; 2 Chr
use of the verb bwv (2:12, 13). The first use identifies the kind of return that is
necessary, that is, one that arises from “all one’s heart” (cf. Deut 4:29, 30;
30:2) even as it is expressed in “fasting, weeping and mourning” (2:12; cf.
Jonah 3:5–9; Esth 4:3; Ezra 10:1–6; Neh 8:9, 10). 36 This concern for an inter-
nal transformation is continued in 2:13a through the call to “rend” (arq) the
“heart” (bbl) rather than “garments” (dgb), garments often being the object of
tearing, this action associated with lament (Gen 37:29; 2 Sam 1:2, 13:31; 2 Kgs
2:12; 18:37 // Isa 36:22; Jer 41:5; Ezra 9:3). 37
The second use of bwv (2:13b) identifies the basis of the return. A return
such as this is only possible because of Yahweh’s gracious character revealed
to Israel on Sinai (Exod 34:6–7): “for he is gracious and compassionate, slow
to anger, abounding in covenant loyalty” (nasb, modified). To this is added an
additional phrase, “and relenting from disaster” (my translation), a phrase
that echoes the dialogue between God and Moses in Exod 32:12–14, which
precedes the revelation of his character in Exod 34:6–7 (cf. Watts 2000a). As
is typical of citations of the Exodus 34 creedal formula outside the Pentateuch
( Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah 1:3; Pss 86:15, 103:8, 111:4, 145:8; Neh 9:17; 2 Chr
30:9), the sections of the creed dealing with God’s disciplinary character are
excised, bringing the focus entirely onto God’s mercy. Because of Yahweh’s
gracious character, there is hope that the return (bwv) of the people will
prompt Yahweh to turn (bwv) and change (μjn) his threatened course of calam-
ity (h[: r): and instead “leave a blessing” (hk:r:B)} , which will be celebrated with
grain and drink offerings before Yahweh (2:13–14). 38 The phrase “who
knows” introduces conditionality, reminding the reader of God’s sovereign
freedom even in dispensing his grace (cf. 2 Sam 12:22, Jonah 3:9; cf. Esth
4:14; Ps 90:11; Prov 24:22; Qoh 2:19, 3:21, 6:12, 8:1). 39
This focus on repentance answers then the question of 2:11. Those who
will endure the Day of Yahweh are those who truly repent. Thus, “Only a
complete ‘return’ can change the Day of Yahweh from a day of judgment into
a day of salvation (2:12–13)” (Wolff 1977: 13). In the face of the dreadful judg-
ment of Yahweh on the earth, however, it is the grace of God that prevails,
and because of this grace he will “turn (bwv) and relent (μjn Niphal)” from
sending calamity upon the people (2:14a).
30:9; although, see Nah 1:3). Especially of interest is the connection of 2:12–14 to Jonah (3:9,
4:2), where emphasis is placed on Nineveh’s wickedness (1:1; 3:8, 10).
36. See Stuart (1987: 252).
37. Other objects include: hl:m}c¥ in Gen 37:34, 44:13; ly[Im‘ in Job 1:20, 2:12, and Ezra 9:3;
and tn,TøKU in 2 Sam 13:19, 15:32. The call to “fasting, weeping, mourning” in 2:12 shows that
“Joel has no objection to the customary rituals,” Wolff (1977: 49).
38. Notice how things such as these are withheld from the temple because of the disaster
(1:9–13).
39. See Wolff (1977: 13): “The return which Joel proclaims leaves room for the freedom of
Yahweh (2:14).”
308 Chapter 15
The reference to “a grain offering and a drink offering” (2:14b) suggests

that the priests are still being addressed (cf. 1:13). Thus, they are called once
again to alert the people, blowing the trumpet (a sign of the approaching
army of Yahweh), consecrating a holy fast, and calling a sacred assembly with
the purpose of penitence (2:15–16). 40 The priests are called to take the lead in
this assembly, weeping in the temple courtyard between the porch at the en-
trance to the Holy Place and the altar (2:17a) 41 and crying out for God’s
mercy (2:17b):
Spare your people, O Lord,
And do not make your inheritance a reproach,
A byword among the nations.
Why should they among the peoples say,
“Where is their God?”
This fragment from their prayer provides motivation for God’s response by
appeal to his honor among the nations.
Joel 2:18–3:21[4:21]
What follows in 2:18–19a is a description of the response of Yahweh to the
penitential posture and cry of people and priests.
Then Yahweh became zealous for his land
and he had pity on his people.
and Yahweh answered and said to his people:
Behold, I am going to send you grain, new wine and oil,
And you will be satiated with it,
And I will never again make you a disgrace among the nations.
(2:18–19, my translation)
Joel 2:18 describes God’s passionate zeal (anq) for his land and compassionate
pity (lmj) on his people. 42 Furthermore, Joel 2:19 introduces a speech (“then
Yahweh answered and said to his people”) of promise that stretches at least to
3:9[4:9], if not to the end of the book (3:21[4:21]). 43 In this speech, Yahweh
promises to restore the losses described in chap. 1 (2:19–27), to pour out his
Spirit on all his people and deliver his remnant (2:28–32[3:1–5]), and to bring
the judgment at first destined for Israel upon the nations (3:1–21[4:1–21]).
40. Oddly, Sweeney (2000: 1:166) treats vv. 15–16 as part of a much larger unit in 2:15–
3:21[4:21]. It cannot be separated from 2:12–14, which define the character of this fast and
distinguish it from that described in chap. 1.
41. It is unclear which altar is in view here, whether the altar of incense, which lay within
the Holy Place (1 Kgs 6:20, 22; 7:48), or the bronze altar of sacrifice, which lay in the court-
yard (1 Kgs 8:14, 64). More likely it is the latter.
42. The verbal formations in vv. 18–19 are waw-relatives with imperfects, the dominant
construction for narrative; so Wolff (1977: 54) and nrsv, contra nasb and niv.
43. See Sweeney (2000: 1:167). Cf. Ogden (1983: 97–106), who argues that Joel 3[4] con-
tains four oracles that constitute responses to the lament rituals earlier in Joel.
Summary
The book of Joel thus resonates with other prophetic passages such as Isa-
iah 58 and Zechariah 7–8 that use the occasion of national days of fasting to
exhort the people to repent. 44 Joel thus focuses attention on the role that
penitential response plays in remedying sin. However, Joel’s call also shows
how hardship (whether agricultural failure or invasion of an army) functions
as God’s discipline to prompt repentance.
Though divine discipline and human repentance are key to Joel’s vision of
remedying sin, it is ultimately an appeal to God’s favor that encourages the
people to repent. It is this appeal to God’s character that shows that the call
to repentance is distinct from the call to communal lamentation: “It is moti-
vated not by a reference to the calamity, but first by a reference to Yahweh’s
character and will (v 13b), and second by the prospect of his future action (v
14)” (Wolff 1977: 40). God’s response is true to form as his zeal is aroused to
spare his people from their present predicament and proclaim his plan to
pour forth his Spirit on his people and bring judgment on the nations. Joel
presents the proper function of the prophetic process.
Amos
The book of Amos is identified as the words of a prophet from the Judean
town of Tekoa during the reigns of Uzziah ( Judah) and Jeroboam II (Israel) in
the first half of the 8th century b.c. It begins on an ominous note, announc-
ing in 1:2 that Yahweh roars and thunders from Zion. His roar is directed to-
ward eight nations in a complex of prophetic oracles united rhetorically
(chaps. 1–2). 45 Common to each of these prophetic oracles is not only the
opening indictment, “for three transgressions of [city/nation], even for four”
(y[Ev‘PI h[:B:r]a"Al[" . . . hv… løv‘Al["), but also the following surety of judgment, “I will
not revoke it” (WNb<yv¥a“ alø), with “it” (third masculine singular suffix) most likely
referring to the punishment described in the latter half of each oracle. 46 This
phrase, “I will not revoke it,” may at first seem to suggest that the punishment
44. See Wolff (1977: 13), who notes that the call in Joel resonates with the deuteronomic
tradition, which called for a return with the whole heart, which meant “to reorient oneself
in a genuinely new way towards the coming of Yahweh and not merely to perform a ritual
of lamentation anticipating no more than restoration.”
45. On this, see Andersen and Freedman (1989: 30–32, 206–22); Stuart (1989: 308–9); and
Paul (1991: 7–30).
46. For the pattern in the opening indictment and the lack of an actual list of “four”
crimes, see Chisholm (1990) and the connection to Deut 32:30, Isa 17:6, Hos 6:2, Job 40:5;
cf. Prov 30:15, 18, 21, 24, 29. See, in particular, the rhetorical analysis of Möller (2003: 172),
who sees two patterns used throughout, both of which draw on the basic pattern. Common
to both (slightly modified from Möller) are (e.g., 1:3–5) divine speech formula (1:3a, “thus
says Yahweh”), cause of punishment (1:3a, “for three transgressions of Damascus, even for
four”), surety of punishment (1:3b, “I will not revoke it”), cause of punishment introduced
by l[ (1:3c, “because they threshed Gilead with implements of sharp iron”), and punishment
310 Chapter 15
is inevitable and thus human response irrelevant, but threats of this sort are
typical in prophetic literature and may signify merely that apart from a change
on the people’s part the judgment is assured (see Jonah 3).
Although reference is made to six foreign nations and Judah in this open-
ing series of oracles (1:3–2:5), these seven are used primarily as a foil to set up
the final and eighth oracle against Israel (2:6–16), which is nearly four times
longer than the others. 47 This reveals that Amos’ greatest concern is not with
foreign nations but with rebellious Israel. It is to them that his message con-
cerning sin is directed.
Amos 4:4–5:17
It is in Amos 4:4–5:17 that one finds a concentrated focus on human re-
sponse and divine discipline as ways of remedying sin. Although this section
comprises two distinct parts (4:4–13 and 5:1–17), the two are united in their
concern over those worshiping at shrines at Bethel and Gilgal (4:4, 5:4–6). In
4:4–13, the prophet begins with an ironic invitation for the people to rebel
([vp) against God by performing their cultic rituals at Bethel and Gilgal (sac-
rifices every morning, tithes every three years, thank offering, freewill offer-
ing). This is followed (4:6–11) by the presentation of a series of five covenant
curses that Yahweh had already sent against the people in order to turn them
back to God (d[ bwv). 48 This section establishes the important role that curses
of this sort, found in Leviticus 26 (cf. Deuteronomy 28–30), 49 were to play in
prompting penitence among the people in the Old Testament. “The aim of
disciplinary punishment was not meant to be merely retributive and deter-
rent but also, and primarily, to lead to reform” (Paul 1991: 143). Repentance
is certainly one of the goals of the prophetic word, but Yahweh can also mo-
tivate the people to repentance by bringing adversity into the experience of
his people.
(1:4–5, “So I will send fire upon the house of Hazael”). See Paul (1991: 14–15) for a catchword
pattern that links the various oracles.
47. It is the surprising and unexpected “eighth” oracle that sets a “rhetorical trap” for Is-
rael. With thanks to Joel Barker for this and other insights into Amos and past research; cf.
Chisholm (1990: 197); Möller (2003: 195).
48. Wolff (1977: 220) thinks returning to God here refers to “the return from foreign dei-
ties to Yahweh” (evidence to Wolff of a Dtr innovation; see Hos 14:1; Deut 4:30, 30:2; Isa
9:13; cf. Stuart 1987: 338). The focus in Amos, however, appears to be on the return to God
in general without reference to specific sin.
49. On connections to the curse list in Leviticus 26 more so than Deuteronomy 28, see
Wolff (1977: 214); contra Stuart (1987: 338). Interestingly, Leviticus 26 rather than Deuter-
onomy 28 is far more focused on curse as cause of repentance. For some reason, Wolff claims
that Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 identify “obedience” rather than “repentance” as the
purpose of covenant curses. However, in this Wolff is fixated on vocabulary rather than
theme. When Leviticus 26 speaks of people obeying, it assumes that they were disobeying
before.
However, these appeals through covenant curses have not been effective
since the people “have not returned” to Yahweh. Therefore, the prophet de-
clares, “prepare to meet your God” (4:12). Though some see in this declara-
tion a signal that the time for repentance has passed, terms such as these are
indicative of preparation for renewal of covenant (cf. Exod 19:11, 15; 34:2). 50
Clearly, there is a climactic quality to v. 12 in the sequence of Amos 4:6–12.
Rather than facing the indirect discipline of Yahweh through manipulation
of creation (hunger, drought, blight/mildew, plague) and humanity (war),
the people will face Creator Yahweh (4:13). There is potential indeed that, if
they do not properly “prepare to meet” Yahweh, they will be destroyed, but
there is still room for renewal of covenant, which means here “returning to”
Yahweh.
The second section within Amos 4:4–5:17, 5:1–17, plays on the ancient
form of an elegy over the deceased (see Stuart 1987: 344). Although the la-
ment taken up in 5:2 presupposes the completed death of “Virgin Israel,” the
following verse makes clear that the disaster still lies in the future. The power
of taking up a “lament” such as this is that it forces the audience to take note
of the seriousness of the predicament and the eventual outcome if their
present behavior persists. These two depictions of approaching disaster are
then followed by the first of two appeals for the audience to change (5:4–6).
Instead of seeking (vrd), coming to (awb), and crossing over (rb[) to their wor-
ship shrines at Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba, they should seek (vrd) Yahweh
and thus live (hyj). It is clear that these shrines and those who attend them are
heading toward the disaster foreshadowed in 5:2–3, and the only way to
avoid this death and live is to “seek” Yahweh. 51
The invitation here to seek Yahweh rather than shrines plays on the term
“seek” (vrd). 52 This term is used for attending to worship rituals in ancient Is-
rael (Deut 12:5, 2 Chr 1:5) and is thus appropriate for their present activity of
making pilgrimage (“come,” awb; “cross over,” rb[) to the shrines at Bethel,
50. For the latter perspective, see Brueggemann (1965: 1–15). For the former, see Paul
(1991: 143, 150, 151 n. 119). Oddly, Wolff (1977: 218) sees here that the one responsible for
4:6–13 “tries to motivate repentance by enumerating Yahweh’s acts of judgment.” So also
Paul (1991: 161–62) must admit that here Amos is not being ironic or addressing a different
audience, but his “imperative call is serious and is emphatically repeated three times (vv 4, 6,
14).” Sweeney (2000: 230) sees here a parody of worship form, that is, as in preparation for a
sacrifice (Zeph 1:7) and to meet or call on Yahweh (e.g., Gen 4:26) or be invited to a sacrifice
(Zeph 1:7, 1 Sam 9:13).
51. See Sweeney (2000: 1:194). Note Wolff (1977: 103), who writes concerning the call to
“seek me and live” in 5:4–5: “Amos probably expected this to be realized as little as he did the
precept in 5:24.” However, at one place he paraphrases this verse as “If you listen to my word
which my messenger proclaims to you, then you will stay alive,” yet must then quickly add:
“As a response to a retort contradicting the prophet, this exhortation hardly reckons on
prompting obedient response. At the most, it intends to recall a venerable but long since dis-
regarded word of Yahweh”; cf. Wolff (1977: 239).
52. See Wolff (1977: 238); Paul (1991: 162).
312 Chapter 15
Gilgal, and Beersheba. It is, however, also used for inquiring of a prophet for
the will of God (Gen 25:22, 1 Kgs 22:5, 2 Kgs 22:13). The people’s “seeking”
of God through sacrifices and tithes (see 4:4–5) is inappropriate in light of
their present behavior, which is described in 5:7, 10–13 as injustice against
the poor. As a result, to “seek” (vrd) God according to the prophetic way is de-
fined very clearly in 5:14–15 as not only seeking “good” rather than “evil” but
truly “hating” (anv) evil and “loving” (bha) good, internal affections that are
proven by appropriate behavior (“establishing [gxy] justice [fpvm] in the
gates”). “One finds the Lord, according to the prophet, not in the observance
of ritual, but in one’s undivided devotion to the moral dimension of human
relations (compare Mic 6:8)” (Paul 1991: 176).
As in Joel 2:14, although repentance precedes the anticipated mercy of
God (Amos 5:15b), the link between the two remains tentative. Whereas Joel
2:14 has the phrase “who knows?” (['de/y ymI; cf. Jonah 3:9), Amos 5:15 has “per-
haps” (yl"Wa), both phrases reminding the audience that mercy is contingent
on the free sovereignty of God and cannot be demanded by the offending
party. “Repentance in and of itself is a sine qua non, but it does not operate
absolutely or automatically. . . . Salvation is conditional upon God’s will,
even after repentance” (Paul 1991: 178). Apart from this seeking and subse-
quent grace of God, the people will be left to take up the lament described in
5:2 as Yahweh “passes through the midst of you” (5:16–17).
Although the time of disaster is approaching when Yahweh will appear to
judge his people, Amos declares that there have been and still remain oppor-
tunities for repentance, which will result in life rather than death. Amos es-
tablishes that the call to repent has come to the people through two avenues.
First, it has come through a series of covenantal curses with increasing sever-
ity, each designed to motivate the people to turn back to Yahweh. Second, it
has come through the prophetic voice that speaks God’s message directly and
unambiguously to the people. The kind of repentance that is demanded is
fundamentally a return to (4:6, 8–11) and a seeking of Yahweh (5:4, 6), high-
lighting the goal as a covenantal encounter (4:12) with their Creator (4:13,
5:8–9). An encounter of this sort cannot be divorced from behavioral patterns,
with the focus clearly on the ethical (5:7, 10–15) in contrast to the cultic (4:4–
5, 5:5). The outcome of repentance of this sort is nothing short of “life” (5:4,
6, 14) in Yahweh’s gracious presence (5:14) rather than “death” (5:2–3, 5–6,
16–17) from Yahweh’s terrible presence (5:6, 9, 17b).
Amos 7:1–8:2
Whereas Amos 4:4–5:17 emphasizes the role of repentance prompted
through covenant curse and prophetic call for securing the grace of God,
Amos 7:1–8:2 emphasizes the role that prophetic intercession can play in ac-
quiring Yahweh’s forgiveness. This section of Amos comprises four vision re-
ports (7:1–3, 4–6, 7–8; 8:1–2) with a poem and narrative account inserted
between the third and fourth vision reports to illustrate their efficacy. Though
all four are vision reports, these sections can be divided into two basic sets due
to elements shared in common by the first two and the last two.
The first two vision reports (7:1–3, 4–6) both begin with the phrase “Sov-
ereign Yahweh showed me and behold” (hNehIw ] hw;hy] yn;døa“ ynia"rh] I hKø), followed by a
depiction of what the prophet saw, each beginning with a participle describ-
ing the action of Yahweh (“forming,” rxE yo; “calling,” are q)ø . In both cases, at the
end of the description the prophet breaks in and exhorts Yahweh (“and I said,
Sovereign Yahweh,” hw;hy] yn;døa“ rm"aøw); with an imperative (“pardon,” an;Ajl"s;}
“stop,” an;Ald"j)“ followed by the phrase “How can Jacob stand, for he is small?”
(aWh ˆføq: yKI bqø[“y' μWqy; ymI). In both cases, it is reported that “the Lord changed his
mind about this” (tazoAl[" hw;hy] μj"n)i , declaring “it shall not be” (hy,h}tI alø).
Although the second two vision reports (7:7–8, 8:1–2) begin similarly, with
the report of Yahweh showing the prophet something, the initial short de-
scription of what the prophet was shown is followed by a question of Yahweh
to the prophet, rather than an imperative followed by a question of the
prophet to Yahweh, as in the first two vision reports. In both cases, after the
prophet answers Yahweh’s question, Yahweh responds with a message of de-
struction, which the prophet does not question.
This shift in form between the first two and last two vision reports suggests
a shift in Amos’s hope for the people during his ministry. The narrative sec-
tion inserted between the third and fourth vision reports describing the chal-
lenge against Amos by Amaziah, the priest at Bethel (7:10–17), may explain
the reason for this shift in rhetoric. 53 In any case, these vision reports offer
another perspective on the issue of repentance and its remedy in Amos. It ap-
pears from the first two vision reports that prophetic intercession (“the role of
covenant mediator”) was also a means of securing the forgiveness of God, or
at least what may be better considered a stalling of the discipline of God on
the people, here without any reference to a penitential response on the part
of the people (Brueggemann 1969).
Amos 9
In the end Yahweh does appear (Amos 9:1) as he had warned and brings
judgment on the people (9:2–8a), but this is not the end. God promises to
“not totally destroy the house of Jacob” (9:8b), even though he scatters them
among the nations (9:9) where “all the sinners” will be destroyed (9:10). Only
then (“in that day,” “days are coming”) will restoration to the land be possible
when Yahweh says, “I will bring my people Israel back from exile” (9:14a,
tniv). 54
53. Stuart (1987: 368) sees 7:1–8:3 as key, providing a progression that results in “the in-
escapable conclusion that Israel must be destroyed and must be exiled.”
54. Not surprisingly, Wolff (1977: 113) considers this a postexilic addition, because it con-
tains hope.
314 Chapter 15
Summary
From the outset it is clear that the dominant mood of the book of Amos is
divine judgment as a way to remedy sin. Chapters 4–5 promote repentance
as the key human response, a response that is linked both to divine disci-
plines (creation curses) and to prophetic calls. Some do not take seriously the
calls to repentance in the book because of the reigning mood of impending
judgment, seeing in them but “a faint reminiscence of something nearly for-
gotten or otherwise hard to place,” which are soon “swallowed up by the
dark threats” (Wolff 1977: 251). 55 However, conclusions of this sort do not
take seriously the nature of the prophetic word of judgment. Rather, accord-
ing “to the prophets, the decision of God is very often subject to change, but
the change is dependent and contingent upon the people’s return” (Paul
1991: 162). Prophetic depictions of judgment (whether through announce-
ments of judgment, woes, or laments) are just typical prophetic warnings of
the consequences if the message is not heeded.
Chapter 7 reveals other ways to remedy sin, focusing attention on pro-
phetic intercession as a means by which Israel can avert God’s punishment
and even be restored in covenant relationship. The final chapter of Amos,
however, reveals that ultimately it will take a total destruction and exile to
purge sinners from among the people.
Obadiah
Although brief, the book of Obadiah provides insight into the theology of
sin and its remedy. It is an oracle condemning the Edomites for their partici-
pation in spirit and deed in the destruction of Judah in the early 6th century
b.c. (see further especially Jer 49:7–22, Ps 137:7; cf. Ezek 25:12–14, 35:1–15;
Lam 4:21–22). 56 They are accused of “standing aloof” (v. 11), “gloating,” and
“boasting” over Judah’s calamity (vv. 12–13), entering the city and looting its
wealth (v. 13), and even killing and imprisoning its survivors (v. 14).
This behavior is summed up with the term “violence” (sm:j;: v. 10), and, in
return for this treatment by Edom (Esau) for his brother ( Jacob/Israel), the
prophet promises “shame” (hv…WB; v. 10). This foreshadows the key principle of
the book in relation to sin, a principle that has implications for “all nations”
and is articulated in v. 15: “as you have done, it will be done to you. Your
55. Once again, Wolff (1977: 104) concludes, “The relationship between reproach and
threat is distorted if one interprets the message of judgment with its motivations as a veiled
form of the call to repentance. That which Amos expects of his hearers is no longer a turn-
about, but at best a readiness to listen to the charge as just motivation for the announced
dark Day of Yahweh.”
56. For the connection to this time period, see Stuart (1987: 403–4); Barton (2001a: 120–
23); cf. Sweeney (2000: 279–85) for a more elaborate scheme that combines an earlier 9th-
century b.c. setting with the later context. See Wolff (1986: 38–40) for literary dependence
between Jeremiah 49 and Obadiah.
dealings will return on your own head.” 57 This principle is seen elsewhere in
the lex talionis retaliation laws of Exod 21:24, Lev 24:19–20, and Deut 19:21,
in mirror punishments of the Torah (e.g., Deut 25:11), and in various depic-
tions of poetic justice throughout the prophets (see Ezekiel, pp. 253–293
above and Wong 2001: 226). Interestingly, according to the law this principle
of justice applied to both Israelite and non-Israelite alike (Lev 24:17–24; cf.
Wolff 1986: 56). This announcement of poetic justice echoes the demand for
it in Ps 137:7–8 (Barton 2001a: 150):
Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom
The day of Jerusalem,
Who said, “Raze it, raze it
To its very foundation.”
O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
It is clear that Yahweh will carry out this vengeance, for it is his “day” (v.
15), 58 but Yahweh will accomplish this through “the house of Jacob” and
“the house of Joseph,” which will act as fire and flame on the dry stubble of
Esau (Edom, v. 18). In the end, the exiles of Israel and Jerusalem will possess
the territories of Edom, which will be included in the kingdom of Yahweh
(vv. 19–21).
Summary
Though it is focused on a foreign nation (Edom), the book of Obadiah pro-
vides insight into the prophetic theology of sin. Yahweh is concerned with
the sin of the nations and deals with it in Obadiah through punishment,
which falls on those who have committed the sin and does so in a way that
echoes the sin that was committed.
Jonah
The book of Jonah clearly stands apart from the other works in the Book
of the Twelve, being a narrative about a mid-8th-century prophet and his God
(2 Kgs 14:25). The book provides important insights into the theology of sin,
especially in relation to the character of God and his relationship to the na-
tions. The first two chapters focus on the flight and discipline of the prophet,
episodes that set up the second half, which focuses on prophet’s “successful”
57. For Edom as cipher for all nations, see Ben Zvi (1996a). Notice here the introductory
ykI in vv. 15 and 16, which according to Sweeney (2000: 293) “establish[es] the role of verses
15–21 in spelling out the consequences of the actions delineated in verses 10–14.”
58. Though, unfortunately, when Wolff (1986: 56) and Barton (2001a: 147) excise v. 15a
as a later addition (“Deutero-Obadiah”), this connection is lost, and the principle is more
easily connected to some impersonal force of fate (see discussion on Proverbs, pp. 359–376
below).
316 Chapter 15
mission to Nineveh (chap. 3), followed by the resulting dialogue between the
prophet and Yahweh (chap. 4).
Jonah 1–2
In this book, it is the prophet who struggles with obedience to the word of
Yahweh, responding initially with flight from his calling in 1:3 and, only after
his brush with death and merciful rescue (1:17–2:10), responding with obedi-
ence (3:2). The prayer of chap. 2, offering thanksgiving for Yahweh’s rescue
from the deep by the “great fish,” contains little if any evidence of a peniten-
tial response. 59 As a result, Jonah 1:1–3:3a establishes a pattern for remedying
sin that includes disobedience, discipline, rescue, thanksgiving, and only
then a new opportunity for obedience. The negative characterization of Jonah
throughout the book, however, indicates that this pattern is not the ideal.
The response of foreign characters to God stands in stark contrast to the
response of Jonah the Hebrew prophet (see Sweeney 2000: 326). As the rebel-
lious prophet slept below deck, oblivious to the judgment of God being in-
flicted on the ship due to his disobedience, the foreign sailors were crying out
to their deities (1:5). It is the captain of the ship who must awaken the
prophet and instruct him to “call on your God” (1:6). When instructed by the
prophet to throw him overboard, the sailors display their moral fortitude by
attempting to row through the storm (1:13). Finally, even when forced to
throw Jonah overboard they cry out to Yahweh in a prayer for mercy, and
when Yahweh answers they “fear” this god, offering sacrifices and vows
(1:14–16). The piety of these sailors, especially their concern for Jonah’s well-
being, contrasts with the prophet’s lack of care for the foreigners in Nineveh
(chap. 4).
Jonah 3–4
Again in the second half of the book, foreigners contrast the rebellious
prophet. Whereas the prophet needed to go through a near-death experience
in order to turn and obey a very specific divine message, the Ninevites were
merely told of God’s impending judgment and they immediately “believed”
God (believing his threat rather than ignoring it), called a fast, and put on
sackcloth (3:5). So responsive was this pagan city that, on hearing the news,
even the king immediately responded (3:6) and furthermore officially decreed
a fast among the entire population (3:7–9). The narrator provides details on
the penitential rites of Nineveh, which included the most severe fasting in the
Old Testament (food and drink), covering in sackcloth, sitting on ashes, call-
ing (arq) on God in earnest (hqzjb), and turning (bwv) from one’s wicked way
and from the violence in one’s hands. Repentance here involves penitential
59. The psalm speaks of a cry for mercy in the midst of distress (2:1, 4, 7, 8) with no direct
admission of guilt. The clause “those who cling to worthless idols forfeit God’s love for
them” ( Jonah 2:8, tniv) does not have much connection to Jonah and, in any case, is used
to contrast Jonah’s promised todah (thanksgiving) sacrifice.

rituals, ardent prayer, and change in behavior. This response is based on the
hope that “God may turn (bwv) and relent (μjn Niphal) and turn (bwv) from
the burning of his anger (/Pa" ˆ/rj“m)E ” (3:9, my translation). This hope is strik-
ingly similar to the cry of Moses to Yahweh in the wake of the golden calf in-
cident (Exod 32:12):
Turn (bwv) from your burning anger (ÚP<a" ˆ/rj“m)E
and change your mind (μjn) about doing harm to your people.
As in Joel 2:14, 60 the freedom for God to sovereignly dispense his grace is pro-
tected with the phrase “who knows” (['de/yAymI; Jonah 3:9; cf. perhaps yl"Wa in 1:6).
God’s response in 3:10 makes clear that his relenting (μjn Niphal) was directly
related to “their deeds,” suggestive of their penitential rites and prayers and
how “they turned from their wicked way,” that is, their change in behavior.
Jonah’s prayer to Yahweh in 4:2 confirms that God’s response to the peni-
tent Ninevites is consistent with his character. What the Assyrians hoped
about God had already been revealed by Yahweh to Israel following the great
rebellion at Sinai in Exodus 32 (see 34:6–7) and was echoed by Moses back to
Yahweh at Kadesh in Numbers 14 (see 14:18–19). In contrast to these two in-
cidents, however, Jonah focuses on the first half of Yahweh’s characteristics,
those involving his grace, using an additional phrase from Moses’ dialogue
with Yahweh in Exod 32:12–14 (“who relents from disaster,” h[:r;h:Al[" μj:n;i cf.
Jonah 3:9). Jonah reveals in his prayer that it was his understanding of God’s
gracious character that lay behind his flight to Tarshish. Although the Assyr-
ian supplicants did not presume on Yahweh’s grace (“who knows?” 3:9), Jo-
nah reveals a God eager to extend grace to responsive people.
This final encounter between God and the prophet highlights the theodicy
within the book.
Jonah thereby points to Yhwh as a god who will forgive, but who is not
willing to carry out punishment when it is due. In this manner, he ques-
tions Yhwh’s character and capacity for justice, and thereby concludes that
it is better to die than to live. If a prophet cannot depend upon Yhwh to
make a just decision, then there is little reason for him to live. (Sweeney
2000: 1:329)
What is interesting is that, for the prophets, it is the priority of grace in God’s
character that underlies their fundamental message of repentance, and it is on
this priority that Israel has had to rely throughout its history.
When confronted with genuine repentance, which Yhwh constantly calls
for in the prophetic tradition, how could Yhwh deny mercy? . . . By point-
ing to the principle of Yhwh’s mercy as the basis for Yhwh’s decision, the
narrative holds out some hope that Yhwh’s mercy might also be shown to
Israel. (Sweeney 2000: 1:305–6)
60. On connections between Jonah 3–4 and Joel 2:11–14, see summary of the Twelve,
pp. 346–350 below.
318 Chapter 15
Summary
The book of Jonah therefore provides various perspectives on sin and its
remedy. First, sin is dealt with through divine discipline, exemplified in Yah-
weh’s judgment on the prophet, which leads to his repentance. The prophet’s
obedience appears to be linked to vows he has made in his prayer of thanks-
giving in the fish. God’s gracious rescue from this discipline prompts repen-
tance. It is interesting that this is linked to the only Israelite in the story,
suggesting that Israel may need to experience severe discipline before they
will truly obey. However, the negative characterization of the prophet in the
final chapter of Jonah suggests that repentance of this sort may not reflect
depth of change.
Second, sin is to be dealt with through divine warning, here identified as
the prophetic word announced to the people of Nineveh. Although this mes-
sage is merely an announcement of judgment, the normative response of the
people is clearly a penitential one. 61 The book teaches that repentance is de-
sired by God prior to his judgment. The fact that Ninevites are the ones used
to display this principle does not disqualify its applicability to an Israelite au-
dience but rather heightens it. If Yahweh would do this for the Assyrians, he
would certainly do it for Israel. The piety of all the foreigners throughout this
book, especially in contrast to the impiety of the Israelite prophet, and Yah-
weh’s consistently positive response to their overtures, especially in contrast
to his negative response to the Israelite prophet’s actions, in the end shames
Israel into following their example. The book of Jonah presents a repentance
that involves penitential rites (fasting, sackcloth, dust), prayer (calling ur-
gently on God), and behavioral change (turning from evil ways and violence).
This repentance is based on an appeal to the gracious character of Yahweh.
Repentance is key to remedying sin in the book of Jonah, and this repen-
tance is prompted by divine threat as well as divine discipline. Underlying
this is the gracious character of Yahweh announced and experienced on Sinai.
Micah
The book of Micah is set within the reigns of the Judean kings Jotham,
Ahaz, and Hezekiah (1:1), that is, the second half of the 8th century b.c. (cf.
Jer 26:17–19), and its prophecies concern both Northern (Israel/capital Sa-
maria) and Southern ( Judah/capital Jerusalem) Kingdoms. The book is divided
61. This principle is very important to Old Testament prophecy, as noted by Sweeney
(2000: 1:332): “This helps to define the purpose of a prophetic announcement of judgment
in the Hebrew Bible. It does not announce irrevocable judgment; that would be a pointless
waste of human beings who are created by G-d and have the capacity to discern right from
wrong (cf. Gen 3). . . . By pointing to the potential consequences of wrongdoing, prophets
point to potential punishment, but they also call upon their audience to change its ways and
thereby to avert punishment. The book of Jonah is designed to teach this fundamental facet
of prophecy to its readers.”
into two major sections, with 1:2 and 6:1 introducing each with a summons
to hear (Mays 1976).
Micah 1–5
The initial section of the book (chaps. 1–5) speaks only of the judgment of
God’s people (chaps. 1–3) and its restoration (2:12–13; chaps. 4–5). 62 God’s
appearance in judgment is linked to “the rebellion ([væP)< of Jacob” and “the
sins (taF:j)" of the house of Israel” (1:5), wickedness that has spread even to Ju-
dah (1:9). This sin involved idolatry (e.g., 1:7) and social injustice (e.g., 2:1–
2), perpetuated especially by the leaders of the people (3:1–3, 9–11) and left
unconfronted by the prophets (2:6–7, 3:5). The prophet identifies his role in
3:8 as declaring to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin, but no specific
call to repentance is recorded. Future restoration is expected when the nations
are drawn to Zion and “walk in his paths” (4:2) and Israel “will walk in the
name of the Lord our God forever and ever” (4:5). Besides these two state-
ments, the focus in Micah 1–5 is on God’s work against or for Israel, rather
than on the behavior of his people.
Micah 6–7
It is in the second half of Micah that one finds focused attention on repen-
tance. Mays has argued cogently that Micah 6–7 in its final form represents
“an antiphonal alternation of voices” (Mays 1976: 9) vacillating back and
forth between various speakers. The section begins with a voice in the style of
a prophetic lawsuit launched by Yahweh against his people (6:1–5). To this di-
vine charge comes the response of a male figure 63 in vv. 6–7, which is drawn
from the world of worship ritual in ancient Israel, with striking similarities to
the request for a priestly torah ruling (cf. Mays 1976: 137; Wolff 1990: 167).
The speaker admits freely his guilt (“my rebellious acts,” [væP;< “the sin of my
soul,” yv¥p}n' taF"j;" v. 7b) and assumes that the solution to his present estrange-
ment from God 64 is to be found in the sacrificial system. His questions pro-
vide an escalating list of proposed sacrificial acts, beginning with burnt
62. In chaps. 1–5, the two pericopes 3:9–12 and 4:1–5 function as the main transition be-
tween the promise of destruction in chaps. 1–3 and the promise of restoration in chaps. 4–5.
However, one should not miss the promise of restoration in 2:12–13. Sweeney (2000: 2:342)
shows how chap. 1 provides an indictment of the North as a paradigm applied to the South
in chaps. 2–5.
63. See v. 8, μd;a: (“O man”). Hillers (1984: 77) argues that vv. 6–8 are essential to this pas-
sage in light of the lawsuit genre, which “at some point calls for a specific charge, indict-
ment, or sentence comparable to Ps 50:14–15; Isa 1:2–3; Jer 2:10, 11, 13; and Deut 32:15–18,
stating what the defendant ought to do or what he has failed to do, or both,” contra Wolff
(1990: 167–68).
64. Notice the priestly phrase “Will Yhwh be pleased (hxr) with . . .”; as Wolff (1990: 178)
has commented on this verb, it is the “act of (pleasingly) accepting the sacrifice according to
the regulations for approval and reckoning in the cult; this is expressed by the priest in the
name of Yahweh, on the basis of his special knowledge of such matters. When the priest
320 Chapter 15
offerings and yearling calves (v. 6b), then proceeding to thousands of rams
and ten thousand rivers of oil (v. 7a) and finally to the unthinkable sacrifice
of his own firstborn son (v. 7b), that precious child who was protected by the
sacrificial system itself (see Exodus 14; cf. Genesis 22). With v. 8 comes the an-
swer to his query, but surprisingly the solution does not lie in the sacrificial
system. What Yahweh seeks 65 is a change in lifestyle and affection: doing jus-
tice (hc[ + fpvm), loving covenant loyalty (bha + dsj), and walking (˚lh) hum-
bly ([nx Hiphil) with God. Doing justice means both avoiding injustice and
promoting justice. Loving covenant loyalty identifies the importance of the
internal affections, that is, the passionate pursuit of the values of covenant
loyalty from within. Underlying all of this, however, is the third quality,
which is a lifestyle (“walking,” ˚lh) marked by a humble ([nx Hiphil) covenant
relationship (“your God”) with Yahweh. “It is not sacrifice of something out-
side of a person which can be objectified as a means to deal with God. It is
rather a yielding of life itself to God and his way, ‘repentance’ of the most rad-
ical sort. What Yhwh requires is not the life of some thing, but the living of
the [person] who stands before him.” 66
The voice that then emerges in 6:9–16 reveals that this advice was not
heeded. There, Yahweh addresses the city, tribe, and house, warning that their
“sins” will cause Yahweh, according to 6:13, to make them sick (hlj Hiphil),
strike them down (hkn Hiphil), leave them desolate (ˆmh Hiphil), and, accord-
ing to 6:16, give them up for destruction (hM:væ ˆtn) and humiliation (hq:rev)‘ as
they bear reproach (hP:r]j< avn).
Following this harsh speech from Yahweh, the audience encounters the
sober cry of the city, which comprises 7:1–10. 67 This cry begins as a lament
over the lack of harvest, here symbolic of those who are faithful and upright
(vv. 1–2). Instead, all the city finds is injustice (vv. 3–4a, 5–6), and it is this
that is hastening the wrathful “visitation” of God (v. 4b). As is typical of the
lament form, the enemy is addressed directly, and a malediction is delivered
against the one who would gloat over the city’s downfall (vv. 8, 10). But the
accepts the sacrifice, God at the same time accepts the person offering the sacrifice”; cf. Lev
1:4; 7:18; 19:7; 22:23, 25, 27; Jer 14:10, 12; Ezek 20:40–41; Hos 8:13; Amos 5:22; Ps 51:19.
65. The verb here (vrd) is used often for the act of seeking God after apostasy in the pro-
phetic literature. Interestingly, in Ezek 20:40 God both “accepts” (hxr) and “seeks” (vrd) “on
my holy mountain,” accepting the whole house of Israel and seeking “your contributions”
(hm:WrT}) and “the choicest of your gifts (taEc‘m)" , with all your holy things,” terms used for ma-
terial contributions to the worship.
66. Mays (1976: 142). One can discern the struggle that Wolff (1990: 180, 183) has with
this statement that what God requires is appropriate behavior. Here one finds not the teach-
ing of “grace alone” but that “response to grace is essential.”
67. Mays (1976: 11). The response to this cry in 7:11–13 speaks to a feminine singular
“you” with “walls,” suggesting a city. Wolff sees vv. 1–7 as prophet. See Wolff (1990: 158,
219), who finds in chap. 7 evidence that the book was used on days of fasting during the Ex-
ile (see Zechariah 7–8).
city knows well the culpability of its inhabitants. The experience of Yahweh’s
wrathful discipline is directly linked through the admission “I have sinned
against him” (v. 9a). Hope lies only in adopting the posture of submissive
waiting on Yahweh (v. 7) until he takes up the city’s case and rescues it (v. 9b,
“He will bring me out to the light, and I will see his righteousness”).
Micah 7:11–13 then shifts the voice back to Yahweh for his response to this
painful yet trusting confession. He promises a day of restoration, when the
city will be rebuilt (7:11) and repopulated (7:12). Mic 7:14 switches back to
the people as they request that Yahweh shepherd “your people . . . your pos-
session” (Deut 4:20; 9:26, 29; 1 Kgs 8:51, 53; 2 Kgs 21:14), 68 and immediately
Yahweh responds with the promise of miracles as in the time of the Exodus
(Mic 7:15).
The voice that brings closure to the book (7:16–20) is that of the people, 69
looking with confidence to the future. This prayer echoes the themes at the
conclusion of the prayer of the city in 7:1–10. It focuses first on the effect of
God’s salvation on the nations (7:16–17; cf. the enemy in 7:8, 10) before fo-
cusing on sin, pardon, and salvation (7:18–20; cp. 7:9). There is no hiding the
culpability of the people as mention is made of each of the key words for sin
in the Old Testament (ˆw[, [vp, tafj). There is a focus, however, on the in-
comparability of God in light of his treatment of their sin, that is, the fact that
he “bears” or “pardons” (avn) guilt, “passes over” or “forgives” (rb[) rebellion,
does not “keep strengthening” or “retain” (qzj Hiphil) his anger forever,
treads sins underfoot, and hurls iniquities into the depths of the sea. This
treatment of sin is linked at the end of v. 18 (through the causal particle yKI)
and through v. 20 to the key gracious characteristics of God: covenant loyalty
(vv. 18c, 20b; dsj), compassion (v. 19a; μjr), and faithfulness (tma). The rea-
son for the people’s confidence in God’s forgiveness of their sin is that Yah-
weh swore an oath to the patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob) and the exodus
generation (“our ancestors”) at the beginning of their history.
This final prayer (7:18–20) looks to the future when nations are defeated
and when God will look on the “remnant of his possession” (v. 18; see v. 14).
This remnant will readily admit its sins and its utter need for God’s mercy and
forgiveness. There is, however, no mention of repentance, only admission of
sin in prayer to Yahweh.
Summary
Micah 1–5 deals with sin through divine judgment, identifying the
prophet as one who announces the people’s sin, the coming judgment, and
ultimate salvation. Other prophetic books (esp. Jonah) have revealed that the
prophetic announcement of judgment was designed to prompt repentance.
68. Sweeney (2000: 2:412).

69. See the first-common-plural pronouns in 7:17 (“our God”), 19 (“on us . . . our sins . . .
our iniquities”), 20 (“our ancestors”).
322 Chapter 15
Announcing their sin (Mic 3:8) would be relevant then to highlight not only
the culpability of the people for the coming judgment but also the patterns
that would need to be rejected to avoid this judgment.
This sort of change is envisioned in Micah 6–7. Renewal of relationship
with Yahweh is possible not through even the greatest sacrificial rites but only
through the just actions and loyal affections of a people walking humbly with
their God. The book envisions judgment for a recalcitrant people who will
bear their punishment and ultimately admit their sin. “The purpose of the op-
pression and disaster is not to destroy the transgressor but to bring about this
dedication to a new life” (Wolff 1990: 222). Ultimately, this renewed commu-
nity shows their reliance on the grace and mercy of God, so that this “book,
which begins with a portrayal of Yhwh’s advent in wrath, concludes with
praise of his mercy” (Mays 1976: 166).
Summary: The Twelve (Part 1)

With Micah, the Book of the Twelve reaches its midpoint. Historical super-
scriptions introducing Hosea, Amos, and Micah anchor the first half in the 8th
century b.c., but with Nahum there is a chronological transition to the 7th
century, and after Habakkuk to the late 6th century. The opening of Nahum
will also mark a key literary-theological transition in the Twelve, one that will
be noted in the summary of the theology of sin and its remedy for the Twelve
which will be reserved until the end of the next chapter, pp. 346–350.
Chapter 16
The Twelve (Part 2):

Nahum–Malachi
The previous chapter introduced the analysis of what is called, in the

Hebrew canonical tradition, the Book of the Twelve Prophets. With Nahum,
the collection moves forward from the 8th century (Hosea, Amos, Micah) to
the 7th century (Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah) and finally to the 6th–5th
centuries (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). This chapter considers the various lit-
erary subunits within the second half of the Book of the Twelve before pro-
viding reflection on the entire complex of the Twelve as a unit.
Nahum
Nahum focuses attention on the judgment of the foreign nation Assyria,
the imperial force that, in the 8th century b.c., had engineered the demise
and Exile of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17) and had overrun and
threatened the demise of the Southern Kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 18–19; Isa-
iah 36–37). 1 Assyria would fall to a Median-Babylonian coalition in the late
7th century b.c., its capital, Nineveh, falling in 612 b.c.
The book does not mention Assyria’s role as agent of Yahweh’s wrath on Is-
rael and Judah. Instead, it focuses on the sinfulness of this foreign power and
its leadership, which is called Yahweh’s enemy (1:8), “one who plotted evil”
(1:11), “a wicked counselor” (1:11), and “the wicked one” (1:15). Nineveh is
called “the bloody city, completely full of lies and pillage” (3:1). For this rea-
son, Yahweh twice declares, “‘Behold, I am against you,’ declares the Lord of
hosts” (t/ab:x} hw;hy] μaUn] Ëyil"aE ynin]h;I 2:13, 3:5). The description of the demise of this
once great imperial power includes the defeat of its army and the destruction
of its capital city.
Although the book is focused on the judgment of Assyria and at times ad-
dresses this imperial foe, it is clearly designed to address a Judean audience
1. The superscription calls this book “the oracle of Nineveh” (1:1). Explicit reference is
made to Assyria’s capital, Nineveh, and its king (2:8; 3:7, 18). The term “oracle” here (aC…m)"
has been taken by some as a genre tag; cf. Weis (1986; 1992); Sweeney (1991); Floyd (2002).
However, see Boda (2006d). See further Sweeney (1992; 2000: 2:421–22), who discovers in
Nahum “an argumentative speech form in which the speaker challenges a contention for the
audience and attempts to persuade them to adopt a counter-thesis”; cf. Graffy (1984).
- 323 -
324 Chapter 16
(e.g., Nah 1:12–13). This is suggested by the name of the prophet himself,
Nahum (meaning “comfort”), a hope appropriate for an audience who had
lived under the domination of Assyria. This audience has questioned God’s
ability to deal with the sinful oppression experienced under the foreign hege-
mony of the Assyrians. To them the prophet addresses his question in 1:9a,
which is best translated “What do you reckon unto Yhwh?” “The question es-
sentially asks, ‘what do you think about Yhwh?’ or ‘how do you evaluate
Yhwh?’ and appears to be designed to challenge doubts about Yhwh’s power
and justice in the aftermath of the assertions made by the partial acrostic
hymn.” 2
The foundation of this opening hymn (1:2–8) and thus the key to the
prophet’s answer to his doubting audience is the recitation of the character of
Yahweh (1:2–3a): 3
A jealous (a/Nq) and avenging (μqn) God is the Lord;
The Lord is avenging (μqn) and wrathful (hm:jE l["b)" .
The Lord takes vengeance (μqn) on his adversaries,
And he reserves wrath for his enemies.
The Lord is slow to anger (μyiP"a" Ër,a)< and great in power (j'KøAl/dG] ),
And the Lord will by no means leave the guilty unpunished (hQ, n'y ] alø hQEn)' .
(nasb, emphasis added)
This can be compared to the reviews of God’s character expressed in Exod
20:5b–6 and Exod 34:6–7:
for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous (aN;q)" God, visiting (dqp) the iniquity
of the parents on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of
those who hate me, but showing (hc[) covenant loyalty (ds<j)< to thousands,
to those who love me and keep my commandments. (nasb, modified)
The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate (μWjr') and gracious (ˆWNj"), slow to
anger (μyiP"a" Ër,a)< , and abounding in covenant loyalty (ds<j<Abr') and truth (tm<a)” ;
who keeps covenant loyalty (ds<j)< for thousands, who forgives iniquity,
transgression and sin (ha:F:j"w] [væp<w; ˆ/[: acń)o ; yet he will by no means leave the
guilty unpunished (hQ<n'y ] alø hQEn)' , visiting (dqp) the iniquity of parents on the
children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.
(nasb, modified)
Typically, when the creedal formula of Exod 34:6–7 (cf. Exod 20:5b–6, Num
14:17–18) appears outside the Pentateuch (2 Chr 30:9; Neh 9:17; Pss 86:15,
103:8, 111:4, 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2), the section of the creed dealing with
God’s disciplinary character is excised, bringing the focus exclusively on
God’s mercy. The very opposite is the case, however, in Nahum. The phrase
2. Sweeney (2000: 2:431). See also Roberts (1991: 37): “The prophet uses this hymn to
challenge the Judeans’ lack of confidence in Yahweh’s ability to deliver them from their un-
named Assyrian oppressor.”
3. For the structure of the book, see Sweeney (2000: 2:426). This opening hymn is a par-
tial acrostic in form (alep to kap).
The Twelve (Part 2): Nahum–Malachi 325
“slow to anger” (μyiP"a" Ër,a)< , which in the character creed is embedded in the
section on Yahweh’s grace and emphasizes God’s patience, now takes on a
more negative tone. 4 Though it normally focuses on the length of God’s pa-
tience in holding back his anger, in Nahum this patience has come to an end
and the anger is now being released. In Exod 34:6–7, “slow to anger” is asso-
ciated with the greatness of God’s covenant loyalty and truth (tm<a”w , ds<j<Abr'),
but in Nahum it is now associated with his greatness of power (j'KøAl/dg}) and
with Yahweh’s warning in the second half of Exod 34:6–7 to not leave unpun-
ished the guilty (hQ<n'y] alø hQEn)' . The negative tone is supplemented by an allu-
sion to the earlier and shorter character creed in Exod 20:5b–6, in which God
is identified as jealous (aN;q)" , a term that refers to the zealous passion of God
(see Boda 2004b: 199–200). In Exod 20:5b–6, this zealous passion is for his
people’s loyalty to him alone. In Nah 1:2–3 Yahweh’s zeal is directed toward
the sin of Assyria. Three times Yahweh is described as vengeful (μqn), a term
that is regularly associated in the Old Testament with God’s commitment to
retribution. “While the root does not imply an illegal punitive abuse of
power, it does imply harsh punitive retribution in retaliation for wrongs com-
mitted against one” (Roberts 1991: 49). This is expressed succinctly in Deut
32:41 (“I will render vengeance. . . . I will repay those who hate me”; cf. Deut
32:35) and found in the prophetic expectation of a coming day of vengeance
(μq:n; μ/y; Isa 34:2, 61:2, 63:4).
Summary
Nahum emphasizes that God remedies sin through retributive judgment
and that this principle is rooted in his very character revealed to Israel at Sinai.
One cannot eliminate this sort of retribution “without discarding the concern
for justice as well” (Roberts 1991: 49). Whereas Jonah has revealed that the
“gracious” half of the character creed is the foundation for the repentance and
forgiveness of the nation of Assyria, Nahum reveals that the same Yahweh is
also a God who takes sin seriously and deals with it through punishment. 5
Habakkuk
Although the book of Habakkuk lacks a historical superscription (1:1), the
mention of the rise of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) in 1:6 places it in the late
7th or early 6th century b.c. The book revolves around a prophet’s frustration
with sin in his generation. Unlike other prophetic books, which are domi-
nated by the words of prophets to various human audiences, Habakkuk is a
description of the dialogue of a prophet with God. There is a precedent for
4. Sweeney (2000: 2:428) notes that “the Nahum version of this statement is clearly short-
ened, and represents an attempt to interpret the statement in relation to the rhetorical needs
of Nahum, i.e., it emphasizes Yhwh’s power and capacity for justice against an enemy but it
does not include the statements concerning Yhwh’s mercy.”
5. For this connection to Jonah, see Sweeney (2000: 2:428).
326 Chapter 16
this in the Old Testament prophetic literature, especially in the book of Jere-
miah, in which at regular intervals in chaps. 4–20 the cries of the prophet to
God break in (see Jeremiah, pp. 223–252 above). 6
The book is structured dialogically, occasioned by a complaint of the
prophet in 1:2–4, which prompts a divine response in 1:5–10. A short narra-
tive piece in 1:11 7 transitions the reader to a second prophetic complaint in
1:12–17. This complaint is followed by another short narrative transition in
2:1–3, which compares the prophet to a city watchman looking for any sign
of movement from the walls of a city (see Ezekiel). The prophet describes how
he waited for God’s reply to his blatant challenge in 1:12–17 (2:1). The answer
comes in 2:2–3 as the Lord calls him to “record the vision and inscribe it on
tablets” (2:2).
This “vision” begins with an introductory message contrasting the wicked
(who are proud, haughty) with the righteous (who will live by faithfulness)
followed by the “taunt-song” recorded in and consisting of a series of woe or-
acles (2:4–20). 8 Chapter 3 represents a prophetic response of prayer to this
message. It includes a description of Yahweh’s appearance on earth as divine
warrior (3:1–15), possibly part of the vision noted in 2:2. The book comes to
an end with 3:16–19, which voices the prophet’s final response of trust to
Yahweh.
Habakkuk’s opening words are the words of lament (“how long”), the cry
of one who has had his fill of watching violence (sm:j): , iniquity (ˆw,a): , wicked-
ness (lm:[): , destruction (dvø ), strife (byri), and contention (ˆ/dm:; 1:2–3). In his
world, the wicked ([v…r): “surround” the righteous (qyDix)" , abusing the proper
administration of justice (fP:v‘m;I 1:4).
Following this opening cry is a divine response in Hab 1:5–11 in which
Yahweh announces his intention to raise up the Chaldeans (Babylonians).
6. Many have suggested some form of liturgy either in or underlying the book of Ha-
bakkuk; see Mason (1994: 65–79). Sweeney (2000: 2:456) calls him “a Temple-based oracle di-
viner or prophet much like Isaiah . . . Jeremiah . . . or Ezekiel. . . . As a Temple prophet,
Habakkuk would be expected to present his oracles in a liturgical setting.” The modulation
between the voice of the prophet to God and from God to the prophet may suggest this, es-
pecially with the psalmic character of chap. 3. However, the rhythm of the speeches does
have a dialogical style that borders on debate at times, something more akin to the laments
of Jeremiah. Some see the reference to “oracle” (aC…m)" in 1:1 as a genre tag for chaps. 1–2,
identifying it as a particular type of prophecy; cf. Weis (1986; 1992); Sweeney (1991); Floyd
(2002). However, see Boda (2006d).
7. Some see 1:11 as suggesting that even in Yahweh’s oracle mention is made of Yahweh’s
punishment of Babylon. However, it is better to translate 1:11 with Roberts (1991: 91): “Then
the spirit passed on, it departed, and I was astonished: ‘This one (takes) his might as his
god!’” This narrative piece matches a similar narrative piece in 2:1–3. Here it transitions the
reader from Yahweh’s revelation in 1:5–10 to the prophet’s second speech in 1:12–17.
8. With Sweeney (2000: 2:455), contra Roberts (1991: 81), who sees the record of the vi-
sion in 2:5–20 and chap. 3 as describing the life of someone who does follow Habakkuk’s ex-
ample (“grasping arrogant man who trusts in his amassed wealth rather than in God’s vision
for life”).
They also are linked to violence (sm:j: 1:9) and are described as having a justice
(fP:v‘m;I 1:7) that is “from themselves” (cf. 1:4). In the prophet’s response in
1:12–17 they are linked to wickedness (lm:[;: 1:13), are called the wicked ([v…r;:
1:13), and “swallow up” the righteous (qyDix;" 1:13). It is apparent from this evi-
dence that the same terminology is used for both the wicked in 1:2–4 and the
Babylonians in 1:5–17.
Whether this common vocabulary is evidence that the Babylonians are the
wicked throughout the book (Sweeney 1991; 2000: 2:455) or that the Babylo-
nians are being compared to (and contrasted with) the wicked in 1:2–4 (Rob-
erts 1991), it is clear that evil is rampant in the land. The question here is not
over undeserved suffering, because 1:12 states plainly that God has raised up
these wicked agents for justice (fP:v‘m;I 1:12) and correction (jky Hiphil, 1:12). 9
It is God’s use of unjust means in remedying the sin of the people that lies at
the heart of the theodicy of Habakkuk.
Among the woes provided in the “taunt-song” of chap. 2, one hears of the
violence (2:8, 17a, 17b) that was linked to the wicked in 1:2–4 and the Baby-
lonians in 1:9. Mention is made of gathering/collecting all nations/peoples
(2:5), looting the nations (2:8), cutting off many peoples (2:10), building a
city with bloodshed and founding a town with injustice (2:12), violence done
to Lebanon and the land together with devastation of beasts and human
bloodshed (2:17), and idolatry (2:18). It is clear that the message of God is one
of doom for the wicked Babylonians. The one who will bring judgment on the
Babylonians is identified as Yahweh in 2:16 (“The cup in the Lord’s right
hand will come around to you”). His approach is announced in 2:20 (“But the
Lord is in his holy temple. Let all the earth be silent before him”) and his ap-
pearance in 3:3–15.
The book ends with the prophet voicing faithful trust identified as the pos-
ture of the righteous at the outset of the vision report in 2:4. He awaits the
appearance of the wicked Babylonians (3:16) and commits himself to wait
quietly, exult, and rejoice in Yahweh (3:17–19). The righteous shall indeed
live by faith.
The book of Habakkuk focuses on the issue of divine discipline as the way
Yahweh remedies sin. The fact that Yahweh uses wicked agents to express his
discipline is troubling, but the answer to this dilemma is that Yahweh will
bring discipline on agents such as these in turn. He also encourages those who
are righteous to endure the discipline by living faithfully, waiting quietly, and
rejoicing in Yahweh. This accentuates the remnant theme that is so important
to the overall theme of divine discipline.
9. Contra Sweeney (2000: 465, 467–68) who speaks of this as unjust suffering based on
Yahweh’s speech but then notes the prophet’s admission of “Yhwh as a just G-d who ap-
points the Babylonians for justice and punishment, i.e., Habakkuk claims that such a terrible
army must have been brought by Yhwh to punish the people for some wrongdoing.”
328 Chapter 16
Zephaniah
After its superscription in 1:1, which provides an extensive genealogy of the
prophet as well as links him to the reign of Josiah (late 7th century b.c.), the
book of Zephaniah is divided into two major sections. 10 Both of these (1:2–
2:3 and 2:4–3:20) picture a divine punishment that involves not only Judah/
Jerusalem (1:4–16; 3:1–5, 7) but also the nations of the world (1:2–3, 17–18;
2:4–15; 3:6, 8). 11
These two sections on divine punishment make clear that the judgment of
God has been aroused by Israel’s active apostasy against Yahweh, as well as its
failure to maintain relationship with Yahweh. 12 These two sections both end
with an exhortation (2:1–3; 3:8, 14) to the audience to respond to God in
light of the preceding announcement of judgment.
Zephaniah 2:1–3
The exhortation in 2:1–3 contains two sets of imperatives, the first calling
the “nation without shame” to “gather yourselves together, yes, gather” (vvq
Hithpolel, Qal) and the second calling “all the humble of the earth (land?)
who have carried out” his justice to “seek the Lord . . . seek righteousness,
seek humility” (all verbs vqb Piel). 13 One key issue is whether these exhorta-
tions are addressed to the same audience. The term used here for “gather” is
never associated elsewhere in the Old Testament with the assembling of a
group of humans, but rather for gathering stubble (Exod 5:7, 12) or sticks
(Num 15:32, 33; 1 Kgs 17:10, 12; Sweeney 2003: 114). The function of this
verb within the broader context of 1:2–2:3 is best seen by understanding the
10. Usually the book is divided into the sections 1:1, 1:2–2:3, 2:4–3:8, and 3:9–20; see Ben
Zvi (1991: 325–46). Floyd (2000: 166) divides it into 1:1, 1:2–18, 2:1–3:13, and 3:14–20.
Sweeney divides the sections into 1:2–18 and 2:1–3:20, highlighting the initial particle yKI in
2:4 that he claims joins 2:3 and 4. This particle may be causal but also may be emphatic. Even
if it is causal, it could serve to join the two major sections together. The approach of House
(1989) has been attacked in recent work, e.g., Roberts (1991: 161) and Floyd (2000: 166–67).
11. Mason (1994: 20) points out how the judgment against Judah and Jerusalem in 1:4–
16 is “set in a framework (vv. 2–3, 17–18) which describes the judgment as not only directed
against God’s own people but as universal, even cosmic, in scope.” At times, oracles against
nations were probably used to offer encouragement to Israel (probably the only audience
that heard oracles of this sort). However, there are other functions for oracles such as these.
For instance, Isaiah 13–23 appears to be using oracles against the nations to reveal the folly
of trusting in the nations instead of Yahweh, whereas Amos 1–2 reveals how these oracles can
be used to set up a judgment of Israel. Mason (1994: 23) is probably correct to note a simi-
larity between the function of the oracles here in Zephaniah and those in Amos.
12. Apostasy: 1:6: turning back, gws Niphal; 3:1: rebelling, arm (bi-form of hrm); defiling, lag
Niphal (bi-form of l[g; cf. Isa 59:3, Lam 4:14); oppressing, hny; 3:7: eager to corrupt deeds,
hlyl[ tjv μkv (both verbs Hiphil). Failure to maintain relationship: 1:6: seeking, vqb Piel/vrd;
3:2: obeying, lwqb [mv; accepting instruction, rswm jql; trusting, jfb; drawing near, brq; 3:5:
knowing shame, tvb [dy; 3:7: fearing, ary; accepting instruction, rswm jql.
13. The word “land” here (≈ra) may also be translated “earth” and in this case would take
on a more global nuance, which is possible in light of 1:2–4, 17–18, and 3:9–10.
metaphorical and ironic role that sacrifice plays in 1:7–18, especially since
the people are invited to a sacrifice in which they expect to participate as
worshipers, but in fact they are intended to serve as sacrificial victims
and also in how the
gathering of sticks or wood is an essential element of the preparation of the
sacrificial altar, and the prophet’s use of these verbs in the command to
gather builds on this metaphorical and ironic strategy by portraying the
gathering of the people as the gathering of the very sticks that are to be
burned up as part of the sacrifice on the Day of Yhwh. 14
As a result, the “Judeans would not eat the sacrificial meal Yahweh was pre-
paring, however, for the implications of Zephaniah’s words is that Judah
would be the sacrifice (cf. Isa 34:6–7; Jer 46:10)!” 15 The series of temporal
phrases in 2:2 identifies the event for which the gathering is commanded; it
is the day of Yahweh when his anger will burn. This makes sense of the nega-
tive description of those addressed by these two imperatives: “the nation
without shame” in 2:1.
The tone of 2:1–2 starkly contrasts that of 2:3. 16 There the prophet ad-
dresses his audience as “all the humble (wn;[): of the earth (land?) who have
carried out” his justice, terminology associated with the obedient. He sum-
mons this group to normative actions: to seek Yahweh, righteousness (qd,x)< ,
and humility (hw;n;[)“ . Here the prophet speaks of “a religious devotion to Yah-
weh that involves the serious attempt to live righteously and humbly before
him, and that is neither careless about obedience nor haughty in human self-
sufficiency” (Roberts 1991: 190). This seeking thus begins with relationship
with Yahweh and extends into righteous action and humble attitude. The
hope is expressed that “seeking” such as this will hide (rts Niphal) this group
“in the day of Yahweh’s anger,” that is, protect them from destruction.
The contrasting terminology between 2:1–2 and 2:3 reveals that these im-
peratives are addressed to two different groups. The “nation without shame” 17
can only expect destruction, but “all the humble of the earth who have en-
acted his justice” and continue to humbly seek Yahweh and his values have
the hope of protection from Yahweh’s burning anger. Thus, the prophet “may
14. Sweeney (2003: 114–15). Sweeney’s view is to be preferred to Roberts’s (1991: 189),
that these verbs are merely indicating that “the people of Judah and Jerusalem are about as
precious in God’s eyes as a lot of loose straw left lying scattered in an already harvested field.”
15. Roberts (1991: 177–78); Sweeney (2003: 115): “The people are not summoned to con-
sume the sacrifice; they are summoned to constitute the sacrifice.”
16. Thus, contra Mason (1994: 21), who sees 2:1–3 as a whole as “a call to repent.” Actu-
ally, only 2:3 approaches a call of this sort, and this appears to be better described as a call to
continue in faithfulness. If this is seen as an encouragement to the godly remnant, it is not
“strange after the threat of apparently total judgment in chap. 1” (Mason 1994: 21).
17. This translation is slightly disputed; the term without shame is translated by Rob-
erts (1991: 189) as “undesired.” In every case, however, the translation carries negative
connotations.
330 Chapter 16
offer some hope, but Zephaniah does not extend that hope to everyone” (Rob-
erts 1991: 190). What is clear in both of these scenarios is that the day of Yah-
weh’s wrath is inevitable. There is no hint that any human response will stop
its arrival. It is not clear, however, whether there is any room for repentance, 18
because those who are offered hope are those who are already identified as the
humble who have enacted his justice. 19 The only explicit mention of hope is
for those already identified as faithful who continue in faithfulness. As has
been the case in previous passages in the Book of the Twelve ( Joel 2:14, Amos
5:15, Jonah 3:9), certainty of salvation is not expressed (yl"Wa, “perhaps”), sug-
gesting that, as in the other passages, salvation is based on the sovereign grace
of Yahweh. 20
Zephaniah 3:8–20
At the end of the second major section of Zephaniah (2:4–3:20) there ap-
pear again exhortations to be followed by the audience. The first of these is a
call merely to “wait” (hkj Piel) for Yahweh (3:8). This verb is employed usually
“to express the expectation of positive events rather than judgment” (Swee-
ney 2003: 180; cf. Isa 30:18, 64:3; Hab 2:3; Pss 33:20, 106:13). This is not,
therefore, a call to wait for God’s judgment against those addressed. 21 Whom
then does this address? It is important to take into account the fact that this
is directed to a masculine plural audience rather than the feminine singular
audience ( Jerusalem) of 3:7. For this reason, it is best to identify the audience
as the same one that was addressed in 2:3 and will be addressed in 3:12–13 as
the “remnant of Israel” which is left in the midst of Jerusalem. 22 According to
3:11–13, there will be a removal from Jerusalem of the shame caused by all her
“rebellion” ([vp), but this removal will be accomplished by (za: yKI, “because
then”) Yahweh removing (rws Hiphil) from her midst (ËBEr]QmI )I the haughty and
leaving (rav Hiphil) in her midst (ËBEr]qIb)} the humble who will trust in Yahweh
rather than commit injustice or speak with lies or deceit.
The second exhortation at the end of 2:4–3:20 is addressed to Jerusalem in
the form of a “Call to Joy” (Aufruf zur Freude), which has three basic elements:
(a) imperative address to an audience (city, land) personified as a woman, (b)
18. This is assumed, for instance, by Floyd (2000: 170), who concludes that in 2:1–3 “the
addressees are urged to return to Yahweh before this disaster is fully realized and humbly to
seek to understand what he is doing, so that in meeting their doom they might not be
wholly destroyed.”
19. In this, I differ from Sweeney (2003: 118), who suggests a progression from the audi-
ence in vv. 1–2, which is warned of doom, to the audience in v. 3 that has responded to this
warning and now adopts the prophet’s viewpoint.
20. Roberts (1991: 190) notes that it is “only a vague possibility,” but this tradition of
conditionality may be merely a style of speech that avoids presumption.
21. So, for instance, Rudolph and Jepsen (1975: 290).
22. For the connection to 2:3, see Roberts (1991: 215), and to 3:12–13, see Sweeney (2003:
179–80); cf. Smith (1990: 24). Floyd (2000: 203) notes that 3:8 “has an affinity in both form
and content with 2:1–3.”
vocabulary drawn from the semantic range of celebratory shouts ([wr, ˆnr, lyg),
and (c) a clause that delineates the reason for rejoicing (following the style of
oracle of salvation rather than psalms). 23 This exhortation calls Jerusalem to
rejoice over God’s victory over her enemy, which has brought an end to her
punishment (2:14–15). The rest of the account in Zeph 3:16–20 focuses on the
future hope of restoration for Jerusalem (addressing Jerusalem as “you,” sec-
ond feminine singular), except for 3:20, which then addresses the remnant
that will return to the city (addressing them as “you,” third masculine plural).
This depiction of both Jerusalem and the remnant continues the trend al-
ready seen in 3:11–13.
Summary
Although the book of Zephaniah has a vision for human response to God,
this human response is not seen as able to stop the approaching judgment of
God. The day of Yahweh is inevitable and will consume both Judah/Jerusalem
and the nations, purging the ungodly from the world. Nevertheless, human
response, in particular seeking and waiting, is necessary for those who will
form the godly remnant that will emerge from this judgment. This remnant
displays the qualities of humility, obedience, trust, and avoidance of wrong.
No details are offered as to what motivates or enables this godly remnant to
walk in obedience.
Haggai
With its fixation on the reconstruction of the temple in the early Persian
period (late 6th century b.c.), the book of Haggai is one of the most focused
books among the Twelve. The book was most likely composed for ceremonies
related to the foundation laying of the temple (see Hag 2:18). 24 It presents
the key prophetic messages that exhorted and encouraged the early Persian-
period community in Yehud to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
Haggai 1:1–15
The book of Haggai begins with a clear call for a change in behavior by the
people. 25 Hag 1:1 identifies the audience of this speech as the two key leaders
who emerged within the Persian province of Yehud in the initial phase of the
reign of Darius: Zerubbabel, a descendant of David (1 Chronicles 3) and gov-
ernor of the province (Hag 1:1), and Jeshua, a descendant of Zadok, high priest
at the temple site in Jerusalem (Zechariah 3; 6:9–15). Although the speech is
addressed to the two leaders, its focus is on the attitudes and actions of the
23. Cf. Isa 12:4–6, 54:1; Hos 9:1; Joel 2:21–24; Zeph 3:14; Zech 2:14, 9:9; Lam 4:21; Crüse-
mann (1969: 55–65).
24. See Boda (2006e; 2007c). Contra Meyers and Meyers (1987), who see Haggai/Zecha-
riah 1–8 as a document composed for the dedication of the temple.
25. On this section on Haggai, see more fully in Boda (2004b, 2007c).
332 Chapter 16
people whom they lead and thus “tattles” on the people’s behavior to the
newly arrived leadership.
The prophet begins by summarizing for Zerubbabel and Jeshua the
people’s attitude toward rebuilding the temple: “The time has not come, even
the time for the house of Yahweh to be built” (1:2). The prophetic response to
the people’s approach to the project is expressed in a question: “Is it time for
you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses while this house lies deso-
late?” (1:4), a question that contrasts the people’s care for their own houses
with their care for the house of God. With this question still ringing in their
ears, the speech moves on to a second topic, calling now the people to con-
sider their recent experience (“set your hearts on your ways” in 1:5, 7, my
translation), which is expressed through a series of couplets that describe ac-
tions (planting, eating, drinking, clothing, earning) that never reach their ex-
pected goal (harvest, fullness, satiety, quenched, warmth, wealth). To this
point in the message, the prophet has introduced two key issues, the first re-
lated to the people’s priorities for the reconstruction of the temple (1:2–4) and
the second related to the people’s experience of hardship (1:5–7). These two
issues, however, are not explicitly linked until the second half of the pas-
sage. 26 Haggai 1:9a begins with the second issue (the people’s experience of
hardship) and now, for the first time, discloses that Yahweh was responsible
for the hardship (“I blew away”). Then an explicit link is created between this
second issue and the first through the interrogative particle “why?” (hm< ˆ["y)'
and the corresponding causal particle “because” (ˆ["y)' : “my house which lies
desolate, while each of you runs to their own house” (1:9b, nasb, modified).
The speech ends in 1:10–11 with further elaboration of God’s judgment on
the people.
In Haggai 1, a direct link is created between the recent hardship of the
people and their lack of attention to the reconstruction of the temple. At the
very center of the rhetorical structure of this passage, at that point just prior
to the explicit link between the people’s hardship and their misplaced pri-
orities, one finds a series of imperatives calling the people to specific actions
(1:8): go up (to the hills), bring down (wood), and build (the temple). Whereas
the motivation for response provided in 1:5–7, 9–11 is negative (their experi-
ence of hardship), the motivation provided in 1:8b shifts to the positive: “so
that I may be pleased with it and be glorified.”
The narrative description in 1:12–15 depicts the response of the people in
more traditional terminology as leaders (Zerubbabel, Jeshua) and the people
obey ([mv) the voice of Yahweh and the words of Haggai the prophet as well
as “show reverence” (yneP}mI ary) for Yahweh (1:12). This is described in 1:14 as
coming (awb) and doing work (hk:al:m} hc[) on the house of Yahweh. Obedience
to and fear of Yahweh is thus equated with the practical work of reconstruc-
26. On this rhetoric, see Boda (2000).

tion. The people are identified as “the remnant,” a term used in earlier
prophetic literature of the faithful community that would emerge from the
discipline of exile (Isa 10:20–22; 11:11, 16; 28:5; 37:4, 31, 32; 46:3; Jer 23:3,
31:7; Mic 2:12; 5:6, 7; 7:18; Zeph 2:7, 9; 3:13; cf. Zech 8:11, Ezra 9:14). 27 Hag
1:13–14 reminds the reader that obedience of this sort is accompanied by di-
vine presence and enablement. Between the descriptions of the people’s gen-
eral response in 1:12 (“obey . . . show reverence”) and the people’s practical
response in 1:14 (“came . . . worked”), Haggai delivers the simple yet essential
promise of 1:13: “I am with you.” Furthermore, this positive response from
the people in 1:12 now leads to God “stirring up their spirits,” a verb associ-
ated in other Old Testament literature with Yahweh’s initiative to motivate
not only emperors (Isa 41:2, 25; 45:13; Ezra 1:1; 2 Chr 36:22–23) but also the
people of God (Ezra 1:5) to undertake the restoration of God’s people and
land after the Exile.
Hag 1:1–11 stresses divine discipline through the natural realm as an en-
during principle for remedying sin in the early Persian-period community.
Also, the prophetic word continues to play a role in interpreting discipline of
this sort and calling the people to change. Here, this change is to be moti-
vated by a desire not only to avoid the endurance of covenant curses but also
to promote the pleasure and glory of God. Interestingly, whereas several pro-
phetic texts in the Book of the Twelve have taken a negative stance toward
the cult, here repentance is defined by attention to the reconstruction of the
temple. 28 The narrative description in Hag 1:12–15 reveals that the commu-
nity’s response to Haggai’s call is evidence of their status as the “remnant” ex-
pected in the restoration period, and because of this they are promised God’s
presence and animated in their spirits by God. Here the pattern emerges of di-
vine discipline, prophetic word, human penitential response, divine presence,
and empowerment.
Haggai 2:1–9
The remainder of Haggai continues the focus on the reconstruction of the
temple. Hag 2:1–9, a speech delivered just under a month into the building
project (cf. 1:15 and 2:1), also contains an exhortation, calling the leaders and
remnant to “take courage . . . and work” (2:4). This represents encouragement
for the people to continue to walk in obedience as they prepare the temple
site for the new structure. Again, the people are given the promise of God’s
presence with them (“I am with you,” 2:4), an assurance now linked to God’s
promise to remain with them even after their worship of the golden calf while
at Mount Sinai (2:5; cf. Exodus 32–34). This section is a reminder that those
who change their behavior and pursue the priorities of the temple must en-
dure even through hardship. The promise of God’s presence and Spirit, as well
27. See Hasel (1980).

28. See especially Boda (2006e; 2007c).
334 Chapter 16
as the promise of future glory (2:6–9), are designed to encourage the people to
persevere.
Haggai 2:10–23
The final section of Haggai (2:10–23) contains the words of Haggai on the
day the foundation of the temple was laid, now three months into the build-
ing project (cf. 1:15). The speech begins with a reflection on the state of the
people prior to their obedience to God, using language drawn from priestly
ritual (2:10–14). It assumes that, prior to the commencement of the building
project, a rudimentary altar had been built at the temple site (see Ezra 3).
Through a priestly form (the torah ruling) that provided people with answers
to their questions on worship rituals, the prophet argues that the disobedi-
ence of the people (not building the temple) rendered them ritually defiled
and that this defilement had been passed on to the altar and then to the sac-
rifices offered on it.
This view of the past through priestly terminology is then supplemented in
2:15–19 with a second perspective on the past, one informed by the language
already encountered in chap. 1. The past was marked not just by defilement
but by covenant curse as the people’s agricultural expectations were consis-
tently dashed. In a passage resonating with Amos 4:6–13, God says that, al-
though he struck all the work of their hands, “there was not you to me” (2:17).
This awkward final phrase may be a textual error for the phrase in Amos 4:6–
13 “you did not return to me,” but even if not, it appears to speak of a lack of
response to God’s discipline. This echoes a key theme in chap. 1, that is, that
the hardship of the people was designed to lead them to repentance.
But these are descriptions of the past (2:15, “but now”) and the goal of this
speech and its accompanying ceremony is to celebrate the new disposition of
the people and the resulting actions that have led to this day of foundation
laying. Hag 2:19 expresses it best when it declares “From this day on I will
bless you.” In the immediate future this blessing means a reversal of the
curses on their agricultural harvest, but 2:20–23 reveals that this blessing
means nothing short of global upheaval ending with the appointment of the
Davidic line over the nations of the world. 29
Summary
The theology of sin in the book of Haggai resonates with that of the book
of Ezekiel, which also focused on the temple, gave attention to covenant
curses (see Leviticus 26), and described sin in terms of priestly terminology. In
this, one can discern the endurance of the “ritualization of ethics” (see Ezek-
iel). It is apparent that divine discipline is important to remedying sin, alert-
ing the people to their need for change. In addition, the prophetic voice is
used not only to interpret recent divine discipline but also to call the people
29. See especially Boda (2006e).

to repentance. Repentance is motivated not only by past divine discipline

and future divine blessing but also by the desire to promote the greater plea-
sure and glory of God. Those who respond are designated as the remnant that
the earlier prophets prophesied would emerge from exile. This remnant is
given the presence of God and his Spirit; they are “stirred up” in their spirits
by Yahweh.
Zechariah
The book of Zechariah comprises a series of prophecies that were delivered
during the early Persian period (late 6th century b.c.) by a prophet from a
priestly family, Zechariah (see Neh 12:16). 30 The book contains five major sec-
tions. The first three are connected together through the use of prophetic su-
perscriptions, which appear at 1:1, 1:7, and 7:1, whereas the final two are
connected together through the use of a common prophetic superscription
(9:1, 12:1) and a series of short units sharing the common motif of the judg-
ment of “shepherds” (10:1–3; 11:1–3, 4–16, 17; 13:7–9). The resulting five
units (1:1–6, 1:7–6:15, 7:1–8:23; chaps. 9–10, 12–14) reveal a progression from
repentance (1:1–6) to promise of restoration (1:7–6:15) to concerns over re-
pentance (7:1–8:23) to promise of restoration (chaps. 9–10) to finally restora-
tion through cosmic renewal (chaps. 12–14). 31
Zechariah 1:1–6
Repentance figures prominently in the first section of the book of Zecha-
riah. The prophet delivers a sermon at the outset of the book (1:1–6), which
has at its heart the call to repentance: “Return (bwv) to me . . . that I may re-
turn (bwv) to you” (1:3). This message is linked to the message of the “former
prophets,” which is summarized in 1:4 as turn (bwv) “from your evil ways and
from your evil deeds” (1:4), language reminiscent especially of Jeremiah. A
further echo of the book of Jeremiah can be discerned in Zechariah’s descrip-
tion of the response of that earlier generation, which “did not listen ([mv) or
give heed” (bvq Hiphil) to Yahweh. As a result, God’s warnings “overtook”
(gcn Hiphil) the “fathers” (1:6a). Similar to Haggai 1, this initial pericope in
Zechariah concludes with a narrative describing the response of the people
30. I have written extensively on Zechariah; thus, refer to those works for further bibliog-
raphy and deeper interaction on specific issues (2003a; 2003b; 2003d; 2003e; 2004b; 2005c;
2006d; 2006e; 2006f; 2007b; 2007c; 2007d; 2008a; 2008b); Boda and Porter (2005).
31. Although it is possible that Zechariah 9–14 comes from a later period, see Floyd (2000);
I have argued for its provenance possibly before the end of the 6th century b.c.; see Boda
(2003d; 2004b). It has often been assumed that the shift in genre between Zechariah 1–8 and
9–14 represents a major shift in the social location of those responsible; cf. Plöger (1968);
Hanson (1975). However, see Curtis (2006), who shows how prophetic groups can shift social
locations within a generation. Even if the two parts have arisen in different periods, there is
justification for reading them as a unified corpus; see Sweeney (2000); Floyd (2000).
336 Chapter 16
who repented (bwv), declaring in words reminiscent of the penitential prayer

tradition that God had dealt justly with the nation (1:6b).
This opening pericope reveals that repentance is an enduring theme of
prophetism in the restoration era. For the community to start afresh meant
not ignoring the prophetic call to an earlier generation but rather responding
to it in order to inaugurate a new day. Zechariah reveals that repentance is
first and foremost a covenantal category, involving a “return to me” followed
by God’s “return to you.” It is about Yahweh’s relationship with his people,
and only then is it described in terms of patterns of behavior (“return from
you evil ways and from your evil deeds”). Yahweh’s word through the proph-
ets (not even the prophets themselves) as well as his action are seen as essen-
tial to penitence.
Zechariah 1:7–6:15
Zechariah promises in 1:3 that, if the people return to Yahweh, he will re-
turn to them, and with 1:6b we are told that the people do indeed return to
Yahweh, raising the expectation that he will now indeed return and inaugu-
rate the new era of restoration. This is precisely the role that the night visions
(1:7–6:15) play in Zechariah 1–8. The opening night vision (1:7–17) contains
vocabulary that echoes that of the penitential sermon of 1:1–6 (cf. arq in 1:4,
14; πxq in 1:2, 15; bwv in 1:3, 4, 6, 16), suggesting that it is now being pre-
sented as the divine response to the people’s “return” in 1:6b. Hearing the dis-
heartening news that the earth remains at rest and thus the predicament of
Israel remains static, the “angel of Yahweh” in 1:12 approaches Yahweh to re-
quest an end to the 70 years of exile. Yahweh’s response is positive, promising
punishment on the nations and, most importantly, his return (1:16) to a re-
built temple and city and prosperous land (1:17). The next two night visions
reveal details of God’s punishment of the nations (2:1–4[1:18–21]) and re-
building of the city (2:5–9[1–5]). These night visions are followed by a pro-
phetic oracle that calls the exilic community to return to the land and rejoice
at God’s return:
I am coming and I will dwell in your midst. . . . I will dwell in your midst.
. . . the Lord will possess Judah as his portion in the holy land and will
again choose Jerusalem. Be silent, all flesh before the Lord; for he is aroused
from his holy habitation.” (2:14–17[10–13])
Here the prophet not only promises God’s presence among the people but
suggests that this is about to happen.
The night vision in Zechariah 3 is a reminder that the reemergence of the
worshiping community in Jerusalem after the Exile is made possible only be-
cause of the grace of Yahweh. Here, the focus is especially on Jeshua the high
priest who is identified as a piece of wood that Yahweh has plucked from the
fire. In 3:4, Yahweh’s reclothing of this priestly figure signals Yahweh’s re-
moval (rb[ Hiphil) of Jeshua’s guilt (ˆw[), opening the way for the priest to re-
sume once again the priestly duties that make possible a functioning temple
where God may dwell. This will in turn make possible the removal (vwm) of the
guilt (ˆw[) of the land in “one day,” possibly a reference to the Day of Atone-
ment (Leviticus 16). The speech that the prophet delivers in 3:7 makes clear,
however, that the priest must respond to God’s initiative of grace by walking
(˚lh) in God’s ways (˚rd) and keeping (rmv) God’s requirements (tr,m<v‘m)I . It is
not certain whether executing judgment (ˆyd) in God’s house and watching
over (rmv) God’s courts are part of the response required or the privileges re-
ceived as a result of obedience, but clearly the priest is called to obedience.
As the night vision in Zechariah 3 reminded the community that God’s
grace created a context for the restoration of worship, so Zechariah 4 reminds
the community that God’s power through his Spirit will make possible the
completion of the temple. It is the Spirit’s power flowing through the proph-
ets that brings God’s enabling to the royal figure Zerubbabel to rebuild the
place of God’s presence on earth, that is, the temple. In the same way, oil
flows from these prophetic olive trees to feed the lamps of God’s presence in
the temple.
The night visions in Zechariah 5 reveal, however, that the community has
not completed its struggle with sin. The first vision in 5:1–4 reveals a curse
hovering over the land because of unjust manipulation of the law courts,
whereas the second vision in 5:5–11 highlights idolatrous practices that had
accompanied the community returning from exile. In the first case, the solu-
tion is a punishment described as the destruction of the house of the offender.
Here, “house” is probably used as a synecdoche for the entire lifestyle of the
offender. Whether it means the offender’s death is uncertain. In the second
case, the solution is the removal of the idolatry from the land and its return
to the land of Babylon. In neither of these cases is repentance clearly stated as
the solution.
The final night vision in Zech 6:1–8 pictures the fulfillment of God’s prom-
ise in the first night vision to bring punishment on the nations who had
abused Israel in exile. It is not surprising then that this punishment of the
“land of the north” would be followed immediately by a prophetic pericope
related to the return of a group of priests from exile. Promises related to the
arrival of a royal Davidic figure named Zemah and his collegial relationship
with the high priest Jeshua in order to build the temple are conditioned in the
final sentence on whether “you completely obey (lwqb [mv) the Lord your
God” (6:15b). The precise nature of this obedience is not specified, although
it may refer back to the conditions stipulated in 3:7.
Therefore, the night visions represent God’s response to his people’s initial
repentance. They signal that God has fulfilled his promise to judge the na-
tions who abused Israel in exile (2:1–4[1:18–21], 2:10–17[6–13], 6:1–8) and
that he is about to return to the temple when it is completed (2:14–17[10–
13]). The restoration is enabled by God’s grace and empowered by God’s Spirit
(Zech 1:13, 3:1–5, 4:6). Nevertheless, obedient response is still required (3:7,
338 Chapter 16
6:15), and concern is expressed over the enduring presence of sin within the
community (5:1–11), sin that will be punished (5:1–4) or eradicated (5:5–11)
by God.
Zechariah 7:1–8:23
It is especially chap. 5 that suggests that sin is an enduring problem within
the Yehudite community and that prepares the way for the sobering passage
in Zechariah 7–8. This passage is strikingly similar to the opening pericope in
Zech 1:1–6 with common vocabulary and style. The date is nearly two years
after the proclamation of the night visions (see 1:7), and the occasion is an in-
quiry by a delegation (from Bethel?) concerning whether they should con-
tinue their exilic practice of fasting and mourning over the fall of Jerusalem
and the destruction of the temple. With the temple now arising on the land-
scape of Yehud, the delegation wants to know if they should continue lament-
ing its demise and praying for its reconstruction.
Zechariah responds with a message that questions the authenticity of their
fasting rituals, proclaiming to them as in Zech 1:1–6 the message and experi-
ence of the “former prophets,” that is, those prophets who proclaimed prior
to the exilic nightmare. Whereas the summarized message of these prophets
in 1:4 was generic in character, here the message is very specific, focusing on
unjust practices (7:9–10). Zechariah’s rehearsal of the lack of response of the
earlier community to these prophets’ cries, as well as the disastrous outcome
of their stubbornness, provides key motivation for his own call for just prac-
tices in the present generation (8:16–17). However, just before he declares this
message of repentance, he reminds them of the new opportunity made pos-
sible by the grace of God: “So I have again purposed in these days to do good
to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Do not fear!” (8:15). Furthermore,
when the people respond to his prophetic message, he promises an end to the
present mourning and fasts and the institution of joyous feasting throughout
the land (8:19).
Zechariah echoes the penitential strategies of the “former prophets” with
his reminder of the dire consequences of lack of obedience and also with his
focus on the opportunity to experience the grace of God. For Zechariah, the
reconstruction of the temple and city is essential to the return of God’s pres-
ence, but unless this reconstruction is accompanied by a return of the people
to God and his law, Yahweh will not return. Zech 8:20–23 identifies the po-
tential of a penitent community in which God presences himself. The impact
is nothing short of global attraction to Jerusalem.
Zechariah 9–10
Zechariah 7–8 functions as a literary transition within the book of Zecha-
riah, revealing that the hoped-for restoration is threatened by patterns of be-
havior strikingly similar to the behavior that led to the Exile in the first place.
The material that follows in Zechariah 9–10, however, is dominated by high
hopes of a return of Yahweh to his temple (9:1–8), installation of a Davidic

king in Jerusalem (9:9–10), and a return of both Judah and Israel to blessed
life in the land (9:11–17, 10:4–12).
The Shepherd Units (10:1–3, 11:1–3, 11:4–16, 11:17, 13:7–9)

Nevertheless, already in 10:1–3 there is an indication that all is not well
within the restoration community. This passage (10:1–3) along with others
(11:1–3, 11:4–16, 11:17, and 13:7–9) that appear at transition points between
the major oracles all share in common the motif of shepherding and a nega-
tive disposition toward members of the community. The various shepherd
units display a progression in divine discipline against the offending party,
from his anger and threat to punish (10:1–3) to the destruction of their pas-
tures (11:1–3) to the maiming of the shepherd (11:17) to the death of the
shepherd (13:7–9). The final shepherd unit in this series (13:7–9) reveals that
the only hope for this community is for it to experience once again the refin-
ing process of destruction. Zech 13:8 speaks of two-thirds of the community
perishing and even the remaining one-third experiencing fiery refining (13:9).
The end result, however, is extremely positive, producing a community de-
scribed as “gold” that will experience renewed and intimate covenant rela-
tionship with God: “I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘The
Lord is my God.’”
The shepherd prophetic sign-act at the center of Zechariah 9–14 (11:4–16)
depicts the frustration of a Davidic shepherd figure, which leads to his resig-
nation and the appointment of a foolish shepherd in his place, who abuses the
community. It is this passage that explains the clear shift from positive oracles
prophesying the restoration of Judah and Israel in Zechariah 9–10 to the
darker eschatological oracles concerning only Judah and Jerusalem in Zecha-
riah 12–14. This shift in focus to “that day” in these final chapters of Zechariah
shows that hope is now limited to a cataclysmic and cosmic work of Yahweh
that will produce an obedient people and global submission to Yahweh.
Zechariah 12–14
Interestingly, it is in these latter chapters with their theocentric focus that
one finds the greatest emphasis on future renewal of the people. First, in
12:10–13:1 Yahweh speaks of a future renewal among his people that will be
initiated by Yahweh as he pours out a spirit of grace and supplication on the
house of David and inhabitants of Jerusalem (12:10). The combination of the
verb “pour out” (˚pv) and the noun “spirit” (jwr) is reminiscent of earlier pro-
phetic promises of God’s renewal among his people through “my spirit” in
the restoration age (Ezek 39:29, Joel 3:1–2[2:28–29]). Yahweh’s spirit here is
defined as the spirit of grace (ˆj), a term denoting the favor one enjoys with
another (e.g., Gen 30:27), and supplication (μynwnjt), a term denoting the act
of seeking favor from God (e.g., Ps 28:2, 6), which in Israel’s later history was
closely associated with the penitential response of the people (Dan 9:3, 17,
18, 23; 2 Chr 6:21, 31:9). These then point to a renewal that grants the people
favor with God while motivating them to respond in penitence.
340 Chapter 16
It is this work of God that then explains the verses that follow in 12:10b–
13:1. Beginning with the “supplication” (μynwnjt) dimension of the spirit, the
people are depicted as deeply mourning over the pain they have inflicted on
Yahweh (12:10b–14). This description of the depth of mourning is followed
immediately by a description of the breadth of mourning. This mourning is
universal among the people of God, including not only royal (David, Nathan)
and priestly (Levi, Shimei) clans but also the rest of the clans in the land. In
13:1, the prophet introduces the “grace” (ˆj) dimension of the spirit, describ-
ing how the sin and impurity of the house of David and the inhabitants of Je-
rusalem (see 12:10) will be cleansed through a fountain provided in that day.
Further measures by God to cleanse the land from sin are provided in 13:2–
6. The focus of this section is on false prophecy that accompanies idolatry in
the land, the problem that lies behind the condemnation of the evil shep-
herds throughout Zechariah 9–14 (see 10:1–3). God first promises to eradicate
idolatry (“I will cut off the names of the idols from the land”) as well as false
prophecy and the unclean spirit (“I will also remove the prophets and the
unclean spirit from the land”). While it is the pouring out of the spirit of
grace and supplication that makes possible this renewal, there is also a need
for the removal of the spirit of uncleanness that has stained the land through
false religion and prophecy. As God pouring out his spirit has an effect on the
people in 12:10b–13:1, so also God removing the spirit of uncleanness has an
effect on the people in 13:3–6. Parents will even initiate judgment against
their own children who participate in these sorts of activities (13:3), and false
prophets will be ashamed to continue their vocation (13:4–6).
The final chapter of Zechariah begins by depicting God’s discipline of Jeru-
salem through the nations (14:1–2), but this soon transitions into the domi-
nant concern of the chapter: God’s discipline of the nations (14:3–15). In
defeat, the nations submit to cosmic king Yahweh, journeying yearly to Jeru-
salem for the Feast of Tabernacles to pay homage (14:16–19). Jerusalem is de-
scribed in the final verse (14:20–21) in terms usually associated with the
temple precincts, revealing an expanded vision of ritual purity and holiness.
Summary
Zechariah begins with a strong reminder that God deals with sin through
his discipline announced beforehand through his prophets. Repentance is
God’s preferred method for remedying sin, and it is this option that Zecha-
riah’s audience chooses at the outset, a choice that prompts the comforting
revelation of the night visions in 1:7–6:15. It is apparent in the commission-
ing of the priest Joshua in chap. 3 that sin is dealt with through the declara-
tion of God, exemplified through the removal of his filthy garments and
provision of new robes. This foreshadows a coming day associated with the
arrival of Zemah in which iniquity will be removed from the land in one day,
possibly a reference to the reinstitution of the Day of Atonement at the re-
stored temple. It is clear from chap. 5, however, that sin (injustice, idolatry)
has not been removed, and the solution is divine discipline through the
enactment of the covenant oath curse (loss of property) and removal of idol-
atry. Though penitential fasting rituals were considered a way to remedy sin
in the exilic period, chaps. 7–8 reveal that these rituals were not effective be-
cause the people fasted but did not change their behavior. The call is for the
people to obey so that the fasts can turn to feasts. Such repentance will have
a global impact as the nations will be drawn to Jerusalem.
Zechariah 9–14 brings Zechariah to a conclusion similar to other books in
the prophetic collection. The failure of the community to fully embrace the
restoration and return to Yahweh leads to an expectation of further refining.
Restoration is now transferred more completely into the hands of Yahweh
alone, who will do battle at times against his people as well as the nations of
the world. A refined community will ultimately emerge from these circum-
stances, enjoying renewed covenant with Yahweh. Key to this idyllic future is
the work of God to pour out his spirit on his people and to remove the unclean
spirit from their midst. This new age will be typified by penitential supplica-
tion and gracious cleansing, as well as passionate embrace of the values of God
throughout the land. As with other prophets, hope ultimately is transferred to
a work of God on (refining) and within (spirit) his recalcitrant people.
Malachi
Although closely connected with the book of Zechariah through the em-
ployment of a superscription similar to Zech 9:1, 12:1, the book of Malachi is
a distinct book with its own structure and concerns. Its superscription pro-
vides no historical information, even though there are indications in the
book that it arose in an early-to-mid-5th-century b.c. context in the Persian
province of Yehud.
The book of Malachi is dominated by its concern over sin. Through its di-
alogical disputations, this book confronts practices and conceptions among a
people now worshiping in the recently reconstructed Second Temple. Calls
for change in behavior and outlook can be found in nearly every pericope in
the book. Key is Mal 3:6–12, which begins with the traditional penitential vo-
cabulary of Hebrew prophecy (see Zech 1:1–6), 32 reminding the audience that
throughout its history (“from the days of your ancestors”) the nation has con-
sistently “turned away” (rws) from Yahweh. This sets up the call for them to
“Return (bwv) to me, and I will return (bwv) to you.” The definition of this “re-
turn,” prompted by their question, “how shall we return (bwv)?” is that they
stop robbing God of his tithe and bring it into the temple. As is readily seen,
in contrast to many earlier prophetic books, the book of Malachi does not
32. So Glazier-McDonald (1987: 183): “the essence of the prophetic concept of repen-
tance and the culmination of the Deuteronomistic history”; citing Joel 2:12–14; Zeph 2:3; Jer
3:22, 4:1, 5:3, 8:4–5, 18:7–10; Ezek 3:17–21, 14:7, 17:21–32.
342 Chapter 16
juxtapose priestly rituals and repentance, a trend also seen in 1:6–14, where
the priests are confronted for defiling the altar by permitting the use of unac-
ceptable sacrifices. 33 This more favorable approach to the temple and its ser-
vices is also evident in Ezekiel, Haggai, and at least Zechariah 1–6 (see above
on Ezekiel, pp. 253–293, Haggai, pp. 331–335, and Zechariah, pp. 335–341).
At two points, the book confronts inappropriate moral patterns, the first
among the priests who are showing partiality by favoring the powerful in
their torah rulings at the temple (2:1–9) 34 and the second among the people
who are divorcing their wives for foreign women (2:10–16). By relaxing the
strict torah rules over appropriate animals for sacrifice and by divorcing Jew-
ish wives in favor of women from the foreign elite, priests and people alike
were compromising principles of the Law for the purpose of gaining social
status. Mal 2:1–9 describes the priesthood as apostate. They have “turned
aside” (rws) from the way (˚rd) and as a result have “caused many to stumble”
(lvk Hiphil) in matters related to the Law. They have failed to keep (rmv)
God’s ways (˚rd). 35 On five occasions, Mal 2:10–16 calls the people “unfaith-
ful” (dgb; 2:10–11, 14–16).
Two of the disputations confront inappropriate views of God within the
community. Mal 2:17 cites the words of the people “everyone who does evil
is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delights in them” and the question
of theodicy: “Where is the God of justice?” Mal 3:15 echoes this with the
words “So now we call the arrogant blessed; not only are the doers of wicked-
ness built up but they also test God and escape.” In the other disputations fo-
cusing on inappropriate ritual and moral behavior, the response from God
expressed displeasure, threatened approaching or highlighted present disci-
33. Glazier-McDonald (1987: 52) notes that “what Malachi decries is the service of Yah-
weh that consists of improper offerings and the irreverent priestly service that simply goes
through the motions without the proper interior disposition (cf. 1:7–8, 12–13).” And further-
more,
[Malachi] does not regard ritual as an end in itself or an opus operatum; it is but the
outer and visible expression of faith in and devotion to Yahweh. It is this devotion to
God that Malachi seeks to instill in his people. His prophecy is a call to return to
(la bwv) Yahweh and the right cult, and his promise is that [human] repentance will
lead to a responsive turning on God’s part; he will pour out upon his people the bless-
ings they so ardently seek. (p. 275)
34. The phrase here acn with hnp (“lift up the face”) is an idiom for showing partiality; see
Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17, 28:50; Job 13:8, 10; 32:21; 34:19; in Lev 19:15, it is placed alongside
“honoring the great” and in Deut 10:17 with taking bribes; in Deut 28:50 it refers to showing
proper respect to the elderly and is placed alongside showing favor (to the young); in 2 Sam
2:22, Job 11:15, 22:26, and 42:9, this phrase is used to speak of facing someone with dignity.
Because there is no new dialogue at 2:1, probably 2:1–9 should be treated as a continuation
of 1:6–14, focusing in on the priests’ compromise over sacrificial rules for the sake of the elite
(notice the reference to “the governor” in 1:8).
35. The terms rws and rmv appear together in Deut 5:32, 11:16; Josh 1:7, 23:6; 2 Kgs 18:6;
Hos 7:14; cf. Mal 2:6, 8; Taylor and Clendenen (2004: 412).
pline, and called the audience to change. In these two disputations, however,
the response from God focuses on distinguishing between the godly and un-
godly among the people and purging the ungodly through severe judgment
on a “coming day” (3:2, 19[4:1]) related to the arrival of Yahweh and his mes-
senger (3:1–2, 17, 21, 23[4:3, 5]). 36 Imagery used for the purging of the com-
munity is drawn from various image worlds, including refining metals (3:2–
3), cleaning clothes (3:3), judging lawbreakers (3:5), baking ovens (3:19[4:1]),
and burning fields (3:20[4:2]). This purging has as its goal not the destruction
of the priests and people as a group but rather the removal of the ungodly and
the preservation of the godly within the community. The ungodly are de-
scribed in general terms as “those who do not fear (ary) me” (3:5), “the wicked
([v…r): ” (3:18), “those who do not serve (db[)” God (3:18), “the arrogant (dze)”
(3:19[4:1]), and “those who do evil (h[:v‘ri hc´[)ø ” (3:19[4:1]). The long list in 3:5
identifies the specific behavior that has earned them this status. The godly
who will be preserved are called “the righteous (qyDix)" ” (3:18), “those who
serve (db[) God” (3:18), and “those who fear my name (ymIv‘ ary)” (3:20[4:2]).
The Levites who survive this cleansing will facilitate temple service that is
“pleasing (br[) to the Lord” (3:4), whereas the community that survives will
experience joy in blessing and victory over their enemies (3:20–21[4:2–3]).
Yahweh’s confrontation of these inappropriate views among the people in-
cludes very strong language against those who had expressed them, noting
that they had “wearied” (Hiphil [gy) Yahweh (2:17) and their words “had been
strong” (qzj) against him (3:13). However, a short narrative piece in 3:16 iden-
tifies a group within the community that had responded to God’s displeasure.
This narrative describes them twice as “those who fear (ary) Yahweh” and
“those who revered (bvj) his name.” It is when they talk to one another that
God pays attention (bvq) and hears ([mv) their commitment and so records
(btk) their response before him. 37 Yahweh’s response is made clear in 3:17 as
he calls them his “own possession” (hL:gus)} , the term used for Israel’s special
status as God’s people in Exod 19:5, Deut 7:6, 14:2, 26:18, and Ps 135:4, prom-
ising to spare them as a father spares a son.
The two disputations, then, that focus on theodicy in the book of Malachi
prompt a strong divine response that focuses on the purging of the ungodly
from the community through severe divine judgment. Although this is the fo-
cus of these two sections, the narrative response recorded in 3:16 shows that
there is still room for human response and that this response will be rewarded
36. This distinction between groups is highlighted by Berquist (1989: 121–26).

37. This recording in a book of remembrance is most likely akin to the recording of a pos-
itive deed in the annals of a king; see Taylor and Clendenen (2004: 443–44) and especially
Deuel (1996: 107–11). As Clendenen writes, “The point in Malachi is that God has instructed
that a record be made of the righteous speech of ‘those who feared the Lord and honored
[˙asab] his name.’” This memorandum will ensure that “on the future day described in the
following verses they will be rewarded” (p. 444). This memorandum may have included parts
of the discourse which follows, especially 3:17.
344 Chapter 16
with God’s gracious salvation. Furthermore, the final three verses of Malachi
(3:22–24[4:4–6]) also seek to motivate the people to respond in repentance. 38
Mal 3:22[4:4] clearly calls the people to “remember” (rkz) the law of Moses,
here using “remember” in the relational and covenantal sense rather than
merely the cognitive (see pp. 223–252 above on Jeremiah). This focus on the
Torah and its “decrees and laws,” which were given “at Horeb” (Sinai), is im-
portant in light of the lack of attention to its demands in the community de-
picted in the book of Malachi. Although the meaning of Mal 3:23–24[4:5–6]
is hotly debated, it is interesting that prior to the coming “great and dreadful
day of Yahweh,” the day that has been described in previous sections as the
time of purging the ungodly from among the people, the prophet Elijah will
be sent. The purpose of this visitation is described with the verb bwv (turn),
echoing the traditional role of the prophet as preacher of repentance to the
people. The warning that failure to respond to this prophet will lead to God’s
arrival and destruction of the land bolsters the view that this turning is related
to a repentance that will stop the approaching judgment. Many, however,
have seen this turning not as a turning to God but rather as a healing of gen-
erational friction (parent with child and child with parent). 39 It must be ad-
mitted that the preposition used in this phrase (“he will restore the hearts of
the fathers to [l[] their children and the hearts of the children to [l[] their fa-
thers”) is normally translated “upon, against, concerning” and at times even
can mean “with.” Because of this, some have suggested that this should be
translated “to turn the hearts of the fathers together with that of the children
to Yahweh (implied).” 40 A better solution, however, is based on the intergen-
erational character of guilt and punishment in Old Testament theology (Exod
20:5–6).
If one links this understanding to Israel’s experience in the late sixth and
early fifth centuries b.c.e., namely, of living a disrupted existence because of
the “sins” of the fathers, one can imagine that the issue involves nothing less
than Judean Yahwists’ relationship to their ancestors (see also Pss. 78 and
106). . . . Now the author reports that it will be possible for the fathers to be
related in a positive way with their sons through the actions of Elijah.41
This solution is bolstered by striking similarities between Mal 3:23–24[4:5–6]
and Deut 30:1–2. There one finds references to a “returning to one’s heart”
(bblAla bwv) and to a “returning” (bwv) in a future day of “you and your
children.” It is possible that the “point is that fathers and sons would no
38. Cf. O’Brien (1990); Floyd (2000); Sweeney (2000) for evidence that Mal 3:22–24[4:4–
6] was original to Malachi and not a later addition(s).
39. Sweeney (2000: 2:750). This is often linked to friction between generations in the Hel-
lenistic period when the younger generation began to appropriate Greek culture; see Ru-
dolph (1976: 292); Mason (1977: 160–61).
40. Here, Glazier-McDonald (1987: 256).
41. Petersen (1995: 231); Floyd (2000: 624) identifies Elijah’s role as promoting “intergen-
erational fidelity to covenant traditions.”

longer live self-serving lives, but fathers will take their sons to heart and sons
will take to heart their fathers, considering the effects of their actions on one
another in the course of their lives” (Clendenen in Taylor and Clendenen
2004: 462). In this solution, the fathers and sons are living in the same gen-
eration and possibly even household. But in light of references in Malachi to
earlier ancestral figures ( Jacob, 1:2, 3:6; Levi, 2:4–6, 3:3; the fathers, 2:10, 3:7),
it is better to interpret these verses in light of the connection between the
present generation and the earlier generation that made covenant with Yah-
weh (2:10) and broke it (3:7). 42 It is especially interesting that the verb bwv is
used in Mal 3:7 alongside a reference to “fathers.” The call for the present gen-
eration to return is thus intricately tied to a history of apostasy from which
they cannot extricate themselves. It is probably better to see here the promise
that, in responding to Elijah’s call to repentance, the generation can remove
God’s curse, which has endured through generations. 43
The fact that Elijah arrives “before the coming of the great and terrible day
of the Lord,” suggests that he is being identified as the one called “my mes-
senger” in 3:1 whose role is to “prepare the way before me.” This preparation
is thus penitential in character, not surprising for a prophetic figure. It is in-
teresting, however, that in Malachi another figure is called “messenger,” that
is, the priest whose lips preserve knowledge and from whose mouth people
seek instruction (2:7). This role is introduced by appeal to the ancestral figure
Levi, with whom God made a covenant offering life and peace to Levi while
demanding fear (ary) and reverence (ttj Niphal) of his name (cf. 3:16). Levi
was to instruct the people and walk with integrity and finally “turn (bwv
Hiphil) many from iniquity” (2:6). Here, Malachi envisions a penitential role
for the priests, a role that was part of their covenant and calling from the be-
ginning and yet that, in the present day, was not a reality.
The book of Malachi thus brings the prophetic corpus to a close by repeat-
ing themes from the past. Sin is remedied through the prophetic voice that
identifies sin and calls the people to change their behavior while warning of
coming disaster. The key value to be pursued is certainly fear and reverence of
God, and, rather than disqualifying priestly rituals as worthless, Malachi
stresses more careful attention to the demands of these rituals. Divine disci-
pline is expected through the appearance of Yahweh heralded by a messenger
figure. This divine appearance will refine the Levites as well as render judg-
ment on the wicked in the community, but a remnant who fears Yahweh will
be preserved.
42. Glazier-McDonald (1987: 181–82) argues based on 2:10 and 3:7 that “Malachi is at
great pains to point out that apostasy had its roots in the wilderness with the very generation
that contracted the covenant.”
43. It is interesting that although translating Mal 3:23–24[4:5–6] as the hearts of the fa-
thers turning to the sons, Luke 1:16–17 understands that Mal 3:23–24[4:5–6] refers to repen-
tance to God.
346 Chapter 16
Summary: The Twelve

Through the incorporation of historical superscriptions at regular inter-
vals, the Twelve as a book takes the reader on a journey through the history
of Israelite prophecy, beginning in the 8th century b.c. with the prophecies of
Hosea, Amos and Micah, moving into the 7th century b.c. with the prophe-
cies of Zephaniah, and finally into the 6th century b.c. with those of Haggai
and Zechariah. 44 Although not possessing historical superscriptions, informa-
tion in Jonah, Nahum, and Habakkuk match this general flow, with Jonah
placed among the 8th-century prophets (as per 2 Kings) and Nahum and Ha-
bakkuk before the 7th-century prophet Zephaniah. The contexts assumed in
the remaining books of Joel, Obadiah, and Malachi are not as clear, however.
They are usually connected with the period after the fall of Jerusalem and
thus with the later phase of Hebrew prophecy. Their incorporation into the
Twelve is clearly for thematic rather than chronological reasons.
It is in the final phase of this prophetic collection (Haggai–Malachi) that
one finds passages reflecting over the message of the prophets as a whole. 45
Zech 1:4 reveals that the message of the “former prophets” was “Thus says the
Lord of hosts, ‘Return (bwv) now from your evil ways and from your evil
deeds.’” The lack of response of the people, however, is related (“‘But they did
not listen or give heed to me,’ declares the Lord”) followed by a description
of God’s discipline in 1:6. 46 A similar focus on the “former prophets” appears
in Zechariah 7–8. Again, the prophet declares the words of these prophets
(7:7–10) before providing a narrative description of the people’s lack of
response (7:11–13) followed by divine discipline (7:14). 47 A final reference to
this story can be found in Mal 3:7, where the prophet, having already proph-
44. In this, I am following the order of the Twelve found in Hebrew manuscripts of the
Old Testament. Greek manuscripts (LXX) follow the order Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Oba-
diah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Although I am fol-
lowing the Hebrew manuscript tradition, the comments and conclusions are not affected
significantly by this slight rearrangement of the first half of the Twelve. One can see in the
arrangement of the LXX the penchant of the Greek order for arrangement of like material
with like; thus, the prophecies dated to the 8th century are placed first (Hosea, Amos, Micah),
followed by the undated Joel, then by the three prophecies related to foreign nations (Oba-
diah, Jonah, Nahum), then by the books with 7th-century and finally 6th–5th-century prov-
enance. For these orders, see Sweeney (2000: 1:xv–xix).
45. On the formation of this final collection and its incorporation into the Twelve, see
Boda (2007d).
46. See Collins (1993: 78–80) on Zech 1:1–6: “It provides a reason why the book should
be read and its message taken to heart. The model response is given in Zech 1.6b, ‘So they re-
pented and said, As the Lord of hosts purported to deal with us for our ways and deeds, so
he has dealt with us.’ This represents a total acceptance of the Deuteronomist view of the
story of Israel. These ideas inspire the rest of Zechariah (especially the series of visions in
Zech 1–6), and because of the summarizing role of Zechariah at the end of the book they are
also meant to influence our reading of The Twelve.”
47. For this pattern, see Boda (2003a).
esied the coming Day of Yahweh and prior to echoing the message of Zech 1:4
(“return to me”) reminds the people of past rebellion: “‘From the days of your
ancestors you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Re-
turn to me, and I will return to you,’ says the Lord of hosts.” These reviews
of the prophets’ message, the people’s response, and Yahweh’s response iden-
tify some of the key trajectories for the theology of sin and its solution which
are found in the Twelve. 48
It is clear throughout the Twelve that human penitential response is the pre-
ferred remedy for sin. 49 All of the 8th-century prophets call the people to re-
pentance even as they announce God’s judgment. Whereas these three books
(Hosea, Amos, Micah) reveal a negative response to calls of this sort, mixed
among them are two books, Joel and Jonah, that showcase positive responses.
Connections between these two books and their vision for repentance are evi-
dent in the striking similarities between the rituals associated with the people’s
repentance (fasting, sackcloth; cf. Joel 1:13–14, 2:15–16; Jonah 3:5–8). 50 That
these connections are not merely related to common settings of repentance is
clear from the details of their message on repentance found in Joel 2:11–14
and Jonah 3:8–10, 4:2.
Foundational to the penitential response in Joel and Jonah is the initial
section of the character creed found in Exod 34:6–7, that is, that Yahweh “is
gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding covenant faithfulness”
( Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:2). 51 In both cases, attached to the end of this recitation
is the additional phrase “and one who relents concerning calamity” (Al[" μj:ni
h[:r:h;: Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:2). This phrase is not found in Exod 34:6–7 but rather
echoes the interaction between Moses and God that precedes Exod 34:6–7:
Turn from your burning anger and change your mind about doing harm
(h[:r:h:Al[" μjEN;h)I to your people. . . . So the Lord changed his mind about the
harm (h[:r:h:Al[" hw;hy] μj<N;Yiw)' which he said he would do to his people. (Exod
32:12, 14)
In both Joel (2:14) and Jonah (3:9), repentance is accompanied by the phrase
“who knows, he may turn and relent” (μj"niw] bWvy; ["dE/yAymI), a reminder that divine
forgiveness and grace is an act of Yahweh’s sovereign will. Both of these books,
Joel and Jonah, provide models for a penitential response that changes the ex-
pected judgment. This is founded on the character of Yahweh.
Whereas the call to repentance in Joel and Jonah may be founded on the
prophet’s articulation of the gracious character of Yahweh, it is also motivated
48. For the following, see especially Collins (1993: 59–87); Van Leeuwen (1993); Rendtorff
(1998a; 2000b); Watts (2000a); House (2003). House notes (p. 318) that there is no debate
that “sin is the problem the prophets address in the most detail.”
49. See especially House (2003).
50. See Collins (1993: 72), who also notes that even animals are involved in both cases
( Jonah 3:7–8, Joel 1:20).
51. See especially Van Leeuwen (1993) and Watts (2000a).
348 Chapter 16
by the prophet’s announcement of approaching judgment. For the Ninevites in

Jonah, this approaching judgment is declared through Jonah’s short sermon:
“Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown” (3:4), whereas for Joel’s au-
dience it is described as the approaching “Day of the Lord.” Joel’s searching
question just prior to his call to repentance and recitation of the character
creed is “The day of the Lord is indeed great and very awesome, and who
can endure (lwk) it?” ( Joel 2:11). This question is a stark reminder that there
is another way to remedy sin, one that entails the appearance of Yahweh in
discipline.
It is this other way that can be regularly discerned within the Twelve. In
contrast to Joel and Jonah, the prophets Hosea, Amos, and Micah receive little
response to their calls to repentance, and Amos 4 shows that the people have
not even responded to the divine discipline they have experienced so far. This
lack of response leads to his call for them to prepare to meet their God, a call
with double entendre, suggesting a final hope for repentance along with an
expectation of climactic divine discipline. Thus, while holding out hope for
repentance alongside the announcement of judgment, Hosea, Amos, and
Micah all look to a severe divine discipline from which will emerge a penitent and
faithful community, often associated with the Day of the Lord. 52 Though Joel
and Jonah have provided some hope for the validity of human response in
the first half of the Twelve based on the gracious character of Yahweh, it is
ironically the recitation of the character creed of Exodus in the seventh book
(Nahum) that signals a shift in the Twelve away from human penitence and
to divine discipline. 53
At the outset of Nahum (Nah 1:2–3a), a corpus reflective of a shift in time
from the 8th to the 7th centuries b.c., one finds the employment of the nega-
tive side of the character creeds found in Exod 20:5–6 and 34:6–7, which be-
comes the foundation for Nahum’s irreversible announcement of judgment
against Assyria and Nineveh. Whereas Jonah showcased Yahweh’s grace to the
Ninevites as the ultimate example of penitential response, Nahum reveals
Yahweh’s response of judgment to a later wicked generation. This contrast is
accentuated by the fact that Jonah and Nahum both end with questions, the
one in Jonah (4:11) focusing on God’s grace to the “great city” (“should I not
have compassion on Nineveh, the great city?”) and the one in Nahum (3:19)
52. See Rendtorff (1997; 1998a; 2000b); Nogalski (2003).

53. Notice that this also echoes the character creed on the lips of the faithful remnant
that will emerge from divine discipline at the end of the book of Micah: “Who is a God like
you, who pardons iniquity (ˆ/[: acń)o and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of his
possession? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in covenant loyalty
(ds<j)< ” (7:18). Compare Exod 34:7, which links “pardoning iniquity” (ˆ/[: acń)o with keeping
covenant loyalty (rs<j)< . The phrase “retain his anger forever” (/Pa" d["l: qyzij”h<Aalø) resonates with
the phrase “slow to anger” (μyiP"a" Ër,a)< in Exod 34:6. The difference is that Exod 34:6 describes
Yahweh’s character prior to discipline and Mic 7:18, Yahweh’s character after discipline.

focusing on God’s judgment of the “bloody city” (“on whom has not your
evil passed continually?”).
Nahum signals the beginning of a new tone in the Twelve, one evident in
the other 7th-century prophets Habakkuk and Zephaniah. These books do
not look for penitential response in the present generation but rather speak of
God’s inevitable judgment and the formation of a faithful remnant that will
live through the approaching discipline of Yahweh through the Babylonians.
With Haggai, the Twelve not only shifts to a new century (6th century) but
addresses this remnant that emerges from the judgment. The message of re-
pentance is renewed throughout Haggai–Malachi, which is not surprising be-
cause the early prophets had created expectations of a remnant that would
respond penitentially. However, it is clear that, although there are signs of
hope in Haggai and Zechariah 1–6, sin remains an enduring problem even
within this remnant. This prompts responses in Zechariah 7–14 and Malachi
similar to those found in the earlier prophets of the Twelve: repentance in re-
sponse to the prophetic call at this time or refining as a result of divine disci-
pline on the approaching day of the Lord.
Malachi 3 brings these themes together at the end of the collection. One
can hear the echoes of the penitential cry of Joel in Joel 2:11–14, so key to the
hope for human response in the first half of the Twelve. There, just after de-
scribing the coming Day of the Lord (2:1) and prior to his call to a repentance
(“Return [bwv] to Me . . . return [bwv] to the Lord your God”), which he hopes
will lead to Yahweh turning (bwv), Joel offers this question about the Day of
the Lord: “Who (ymI) can endure (lwk) it?” The same elements reappear in
Malachi 3, a passage that also looks to the coming Day of the Lord (3:1) and
asks “who (ymI) can endure (lwk) the day of his coming?” (3:2) before calling the
people to “return (bwv) to me, and I will return (bwv) to you” (3:7). Although
not abandoning the call for human response, Malachi 3 ultimately looks to a
refined community that will emerge from the Day of the Lord.
As a book, the Twelve provides important insights into the prophetic vi-
sion for remedying sin, reminding its audience from the outset (Hosea 1–3) of
Yahweh’s passionate pursuit of his people. 54 Key to this relationship is the re-
moval of the sin that repels this loving God. The two dominant strategies for
this removal are both based on Yahweh’s character. The one strategy accentu-
ates his gracious character in order to lead the people to a repentance in af-
fection, word, and deed. Although the question “who knows” (["dE/y ymI; Joel
2:14, Jonah 3:9) and the particle “perhaps” (yl"Wa; Amos 5:15, Jonah 1:6, Zeph
3:3) remind the reader that God retains his sovereignty in dispensing grace,
his present invitation and past pattern suggest that grace would be forthcom-
ing to the penitent. The other strategy accentuates his just character, showing
54. On the role of Hosea 1–3 and Malachi as a frame accentuating God’s love around the
Twelve, see Watts (2000a).
350 Chapter 16
how sin is dealt with through the disciplinary process of coming judgment. At
times, the justice of Yahweh is withheld because he is overwhelmed by his
passion for his people (Hosea 11), evidence of his patience, but in the end it
is the discipline of Yahweh that appears inevitable according to the Twelve.
But “even judgment itself occurs so that renewal may be forged out of its
fiery embers” (House 2003: 337). This discipline is essential to the creation of
a remnant that has had its sin forgiven and removed (Hos 14:1–4), that re-
pents in word and deed (Hos 14:2, Mic 7:9, Zechariah 1–8), that waits in faith
and joy on Yahweh (Mic 7:7, Habakkuk 2–3), that displays the qualities of hu-
mility, obedience, trust, and avoidance of wrong (Zephaniah 3), that mourns
over its sin and pursues righteousness (Zechariah 12–13), and that fears Yah-
weh (Malachi 3). The only hope for this remnant is that it is not only purified
through discipline but also healed by Yahweh (Hos 14:1) and motivated by
him from within (Hag 1:12–15, Zech 12:10–13:1). It is the love of God, even
in his just discipline, that drives the Twelve as a whole:
In short, the Twelve presents a God whose pursuit of new beginnings will
not be denied. This God loves Israel, and will not let them go (see Hos 11:1–
9). Likewise, he loves the nations, and is concerned when they do not know
their left hand from their right because of their sins (see Jonah 4:1–11).
Thus, the Lord will bring Israel and the nations to his holy mountain, where
sin is no longer relevant (Mic 4:1–5, Zech 14:20–21). (House 2003: 337)
Chapter 17
Prophets: Conclusion
Prophets and Canon

This present section of the study has investigated the second major part of
the ancient Hebrew canon, the Prophets (μyaybn). 1 This canonical arrangement
is further subdivided into what are called the “Former Prophets” ( Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, Kings) and the “Latter Prophets” (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
the Twelve). It is not surprising that the books of Joshua–Kings were included
in the prophetic corpus. Although presented in narrative form, their plot is
punctuated with the prophetic revelation of the word of God, and at times
prophetic figures become its dominant characters (especially Samuel and Eli-
jah/Elisha). These narrative books in which prophecy plays such a key role
then laid the foundation for the four prophetic collections that follow in the
Latter Prophets. The first and last of these prophetic collections grant a pan-
oramic view of the prophetic message to audiences ranging from the 8th to
the 6/5th centuries b.c., the era of Israel’s history that brought Israel face to
face with the world’s empires (Assyria, Babylon, Persia) and during which Is-
rael (both Northern and Southern Kingdoms) met its demise. Between these
two broader outer collections are two more focused ones that bring attention
to the role of the prophetic word within the communities that experienced
the demise of Judah and Jerusalem, with Jeremiah offering a perspective from
the homeland in the closing moments of the Kingdom of Judah and Ezekiel
offering a perspective at the same time from the exilic community.
The Prophets is introduced by the conclusion to the book of Deuteronomy,
which shows the foundational role of Moses as the prophet who casts his im-
posing shadow on all the prophets who follow. The intricate canonical rela-
tionship between the Law and the Prophets is emphasized from the outset in
the Prophets through the commission of Joshua, which identifies the Law as
the key to God’s presence and Israel’s possession of the land ( Joshua 1). 2 This
1. I am especially thankful to Terry Fretheim and Carol Dempsey for graciously helping
me reflect more deeply on this prophetic corpus. See especially Fretheim (2006) and Demp-
sey (2006).
2. Childs (1979: 233). Chapman (2000; 2003) and Dempster (2006) draw together much
of this evidence. See the superb review of the variety of views on how the Prophets relate to
- 351 -
352 Chapter 17
canonical connection is again emphasized as the Former Prophets come to a

close. First, in the deuteronomic retrospect of 2 Kings 17, the narrator notes,
Yet the Lord warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets, and every
seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments, my
statutes according to all the law which I commanded your ancestors, and
which I sent to you through my servants the prophets.” (2 Kgs 17:13, nasb,
modified)
Important is that the “law” commanded to “your ancestors” has been sent
through “my servants the prophets.” The Prophets are inextricably linked
with the Law. Similarly, in the climactic narrative of the Former Prophets, Jo-
siah’s renewal in 2 Kings 22–23 in which the book of the Law is discovered
and read to the king, it is a prophetic figure who interprets its significance for
Josiah. So also, in the initial positive vision of Zion in the Latter Prophets in
Isa 2:1–4, the Law is depicted as going forth to the nations (Isa 2:1–4), and in
the divine initiative of Jeremiah 31 this law is written on the hearts of a re-
newed people of God. As already noted, the final pericope of the Latter Proph-
ets brings canonical closure to the Prophets as a whole with an allusion to
Moses and Elijah (Mal 3:22–24[4:4–6]).
The Torah ended with Moses’ invitation to an Israel poised for conquest,
and the Prophets have echoed this invitation to Israel throughout its history.
The pessimism expressed in the closing chapters of the Torah has now been
demonstrated from the story and prophecies of Israel, but alongside this is the
hope expressed at the end of the Torah for a new day of restoration accompa-
nied by a divine transformation of the heart. With this hopeful vision, the
prophets hold to the expectation that Israel will fully realize its destiny as
Yahweh’s “kingdom of priests” and “holy nation” that will serve as a conduit
of his presence and blessing to the nations.
Prophets and Sin

The lexical and conceptual worlds of these five prophetic sections are di-
verse, with the Former Prophets and Jeremiah dominated by deuteronomic
idiom, Ezekiel with priestly idiom, and Isaiah and the Twelve expressing a
mixture of these and others. In this variety, however, the prophetic corpus
does focus on consistent themes in its consideration of sin and its remedy.
The depiction of sin in the Former Prophets is dominated by violations of
the deuteronomic emphasis on the exclusive worship of Yahweh at the
the Law in Dempster (2006: 303–9)—whether subordinately: Sheppard (1992: 153); Rendtorff
(2005: 6); equally: Brueggemann (1982); Goldingay (1995: 134); Childs (1993: 175); Chap-
man (2000: 275–76); or superiorly: Gunneweg (1978: 178). Dempster (2006: 305, 309) bridges
all these views by seeing the Law and the Prophets as “complements not competitors,” the
prophets as “authoritative hermeneutical guides for the Torah,” and the prophets as over-
flowing “the container of Torah.”
Prophets: Conclusion 353
central shrine. At times, however, other sins are in view. Achan’s sin is iden-
tified as taking what was devoted to Yahweh alone, Eli’s sons abused the
priestly rituals at Shiloh, and Saul disobeyed Yahweh’s explicit instructions.
Also, during David’s reign emphasis is placed on moral violations in regard to
sexuality (adultery, rape) and human life (murder). The depiction of sin in the
Latter Prophets is much broader:
The two kingdoms are guilty of excessive land appropriation (Isa. 5:8), the
perversion of justice (Isa. 5:20), self-centeredness (Isa. 58:3a), oppression of
laborers (Isa. 58:3b), infidelity and disloyalty (Hos. 4:1), swearing, lying,
murder, stealing, adultery (Hos. 4:2), false prophecy (Mic. 3:3–5), political
and religious depravity and arrogance (Mic. 3:9–11), social injustices of ev-
ery sort (Amos 8:4–6), idolatry (Mic. 1:7; Ezek 6:4, etc.), apostasy (Jer. 2:19),
among other transgressions. (Dempsey 2006: 49)
Principles related to sin include covenant and retribution schemes that are
designed to ensure sin is punished. One interesting principle is the intra-/
intergenerational sin and judgment principle that was discerned earlier
within the Law. The effect of a person’s sins on his or her entire family and
nation is evident throughout the Former ( Joshua 7, 22; Judges 19–21; 2 Sam-
uel 11–20; 1 Kings–2 Kings passim) and Latter (Isa 14:21; Jer 11:22–23, 18:21,
29:32; Amos 7:17) Prophets. This extends at times to future generations
(1 Sam 2:31–33, 15:2–3; 2 Sam 12:14; 21:1, 14; 1 Kgs 11:11–12; 14:10; 15:28–
30; 21:20–21, 28–29; 2 Kgs 10:10, 17; chap. 20), showcased most poignantly
in the sins of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:16, 2 Kgs 17:21–23) and Manasseh (21:11–
14, 22:16–17, 23:26–27, 24:2–4; cf. Jer 15:4), which are blamed for the Exile of
the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. So also Ezek 20:21–24 asserts that the
exilic punishment has its roots in the rebellions in the wilderness, and some
prophetic announcements link judgment to more than one generation (Isa
65:6–7; Jer 2:9, 16:10–13). The Former Prophets, however, also express the
principle that judgment only falls on a guilty generation (2 Kgs 14:5–6), and
this principle is echoed by Jeremiah (31:30) and Ezekiel (18:2) in the Latter
Prophets. 3 This same tension was already observed within the Torah. There it
was suggested that the tension may be resolved, first, by understanding that
punishment of one person or a smaller group within a social unit (family, na-
tion) in the ancient world automatically involved the entire social unit and,
second, that, even though guilt may accumulate through generations, pun-
ishment only falls on a generation that embraces sinful patterns. This may be
helpful for most of the instances in the Former Prophets, although 2 Samuel
21 is especially problematic.
Across the prophetic corpus one can discern a basic rhythm of divine and
human interplay which is prompted by human sin. In the Former Prophets it
3. On the variety in the Prophets, see Milgrom (2001: 2327–31); Halpern (1991: 12). Mil-
grom claims that Ezekiel is the first to find individual generational retribution alone, but
Ezekiel 20 reveals diversity in this corpus as well.
354 Chapter 17
is seen in the cycles of Judges, the pattern of 1 Samuel 7, the scenarios of

1 Kings 8, the retrospect of 2 Kings 17, and the renewal of 2 Kings 22–23. In
Isaiah it underlies the prophetic process in Isaiah 6. In Jeremiah it appears at
regular intervals in the book and is showcased in Jeremiah 18 and 25. In Ezek-
iel it can be discerned in the watchman scenarios in Ezekiel 2–3 and 33 and
in the review of Israel’s history in Ezekiel 20. In the Twelve it is evident
throughout the corpus, but especially in the scenarios in Amos 4 and the ex-
amples of (especially) Joel, Jonah and Zechariah. This basic rhythm shows
how God remedies human sin either through acts of discipline (judgment) or
threats of discipline (prophecy). The goal of this judgment or prophecy is to
lead the people to respond to the grace and justice of Yahweh in repentance.
If human response of this sort is not forthcoming, then further discipline or
the promised discipline will come. These various components of the basic
rhythm express the variety of remedies for sin: divine discipline, prophetic call,
human penitence, divine grace.
This large collection, however, is diverse, and although this rhythm ap-
pears to be foundational to the prophetic corpus, it cannot be placed as a for-
mal straightjacket on the various passages, even if it must be admitted that
the passages that carry the greatest rhetorical weight (key speeches and sum-
maries in the Former Prophets, prophetic call narratives and transitional pas-
sages in the Prophets) express this basic rhythm. 4 The prophetic books
describe a God who remains free in relation to this process. Yahweh sover-
eignly responds as he chooses within this rhythm. Although the normative
pattern is for him to respond to the penitent, at times he may reject what ap-
pears to be a penitent cry and at others respond with grace where there is no
penitence. This explains the “who knows” or “perhaps” that is expressed by
David in 2 Samuel 24, the sailors and Ninevites in Jonah, and the prophet in
Joel 2:14, Amos 5:15, and Zeph 3:3. 5 This is not then an impersonal retribu-
tion principle and procedure but rather a rhythm based on covenantal rela-
tionship between Yahweh and Israel.
While God retains his sovereignty, it is apparent throughout the prophetic
process that humans exercise their God-given freedom by consistently reject-
ing divine discipline. It is this freedom that ultimately threatens the basic
rhythm itself. Rather than being hidden, this threat is readily admitted within
the prophetic corpus and lays the foundation for the revelation of a radically
new remedy for sin. The Former Prophets make it clear in the key retrospect
in 2 Kings 17 that the prophetic process was unsuccessful because of the
people’s rejection of the prophets’ message. Isaiah’s call burdens the prophet
4. Thus, Dempster (2006: 299) is correct that repentance is “one of the central themes of
the Prophets,” but this needs to be carefully nuanced in light of the larger message of the
prophetic corpus.
5. See also the review of these phrases by Reimer (2003) and their implications for divine
sovereignty and openness.
Prophets: Conclusion 355
with the task of shutting down the prophetic process that was designed to
bring response. After early calls to repentance are met with indifference, Jere-
miah shows how the prophetic process is ultimately denied by Yahweh as
judgment becomes inevitable. So also Ezekiel, who is forbidden from the out-
set to intercede for a Jerusalem whose fate is sealed, experiences the frustra-
tion of preaching repentance to a stubborn remnant. Although there are
positive examples of the basic rhythm working in the Twelve, it is clear from
Hosea, Amos, and Micah that the process is frustrated by an intractable
people.
These consistent descriptions of the frustration of the basic rhythm by the
people certainly reveal the role of the prophetic corpus as theodicy within the
canon. Through the prophets, the reader is able to see clearly the passionate
pursuit of Yahweh for his people and the constant rejection of this God by the
people. The punishment of the nation is truly justified. However, this depic-
tion of the foiling of the basic rhythm by a recalcitrant people does not only
justify God’s punishment; it actually prompts the prophets’ greatest contribu-
tion to the theology of sin and its remedy.
In each prophetic collection the ultimate hope is shifted from human re-
sponse to a divine gracious and transformative initiative. 6 It is Ephraim in Jer
31:18–19 who voices this in his cry for God to cause him to return. The
prophet shows how God will do this in the latter part of Jeremiah as he speaks
of the unilateral gracious initiative of Yahweh to forgive his people (24:6;
31:34; 32:37–38, 41–44) and give them a new heart on which will be written
the law (24:7, 31:33, 32:39–40). Whereas Ezekiel talked about repentance in
18:30–32 as making for oneself a new heart and spirit, Ezek 11:19, 36:26–27,
37:14, and 39:26 make clear God’s promise that he would forgive them and
give them a new heart and new spirit. While this shift is most evident in Jere-
miah and Ezekiel it can also be discerned in the other collections. In Isaiah, it
is the divine initiative of a new work of grace, expressed most vividly in the
suffering of the servant, that is the basis for a renewed call to repentance. In
the Twelve, Hosea places hope on the future divine initiative of Yahweh to
pursue (Hosea 2–3) and heal his people (Hosea 14). Haggai depicts Yahweh
“stirring up” the faithful remnant, and Zechariah promises that Yahweh will
provide a fountain to cleanse from sin (13:1), pour out the spirit of grace and
supplication (Zech 12:10–14), and provide a fountain to cleanse the people
from sin (13:1).
6. Sweeney’s (1997) argument that the Jewish Greek (what he calls “Christian”) canon
presents the prophets in terms of eschatology, whereas the Jewish Hebrew (what he calls
“TANAK”) canon presents the prophets in terms of ethics, needs nuancing. The Jewish He-
brew canonical presentation of the prophets (at least) is eschatological-ethical; as also is its
presentation of the Torah. The final books of the Writings are either eschatological (Daniel),
future oriented (Chronicles), or end with a clear signal that utopia has not been reached
(Ezra, Nehemiah); cf. Boda (forthcoming e).
356 Chapter 17
Although not prominently, even the Former Prophets express that God’s
grace is essential to any future hope for Israel when 1 Kgs 8:58 articulates the
need for Yahweh to incline the heart of the people to obedience. This expec-
tation of a divine initiative of grace and transformation in 1 Kgs 8:58 can be
seen in the book of Deuteronomy when the call to circumcise the heart in
10:16 becomes the divine promise to circumcise the heart in 30:6. In this way,
Deuteronomy, as foundation for the Former Prophets in particular and the
prophetic corpus in general, foreshadows the theological development that
occurs in the Prophets. 7 In one way, the call to repent is never abandoned but
rather enabled by the gracious initiative of the God who passionately pursues
his people.
7. Thus, the claim of Dempster (2006: 309) that the prophets also “overflowed the con-
tainer of Torah” is not entirely accurate, at least in relation to the theme of inner renewal, be-
cause the Torah did envision (though in a limited way) the internal renovation of the heart.
Part Three
The Writings
The final canonical division of the Hebrew Bible is that of the Writings
(μybwtk), a collection that contains the books of Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs,
Song of Songs, Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra–
Nehemiah, and Chronicles. For many who have grown up with the order
found in modern Christian translations, this particular grouping seems rather
haphazard. However, a closer look reveals that this section of the canon is
dominated by two types of literature: books associated with the wisdom tra-
ditions of the Old Testament (Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes, Song of
Songs, possibly Psalms) and books associated with the later period of Israel’s
history (Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah, Chronicles). Ruth ap-
pears to be an anomaly (though see the conclusion to Writings, pp. 506–514
below), prompting some to relate the inclusion of Ruth to its use, along with
Song of Songs, Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Esther, in the yearly
Jewish festivals. This is possible, but it is interesting that the grouping of
these five works together in one place within the Writings appears only in the
latest manuscripts, whereas the oldest evidence places Ruth at the beginning
of the Writings.
An examination of the various canonical orders from antiquity (cited in
secondary works of antiquity or found in manuscripts) reveals that, whereas
the books that appear in each of the three canonical divisions of the Hebrew
Bible are consistent, as one moves through the Hebrew canon from Genesis to
Chronicles, the order of books becomes increasingly fluid. 1 Of all the canon-
ical divisions, the Writings is the most variable. However, certain groupings
appear to dominate in antiquity. For instance, Ruth is often in the first posi-
tion and Chronicles in the final position. Between these brackets there are
three consistent groups: Psalms/Job/Proverbs, Qoheleth/Song of Songs/Lam-
entations (with Lamentations commonly in the final position), and Daniel/Es-
ther/Ezra–Nehemiah (with Ezra–Nehemiah commonly in the final position).
Not all the books in the Writings are relevant to the theological theme un-
der review and so the following section will focus on the books of Proverbs,
1. See the charts in Beckwith (1985: 450–64).
- 357 -
358 Writings Introduction
Job, Psalms, Lamentations, Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles. This sec-

tion consists mainly of a presentation of the theology of sin and its remedy
within each of these books in its canonical form. A closing summary will re-
flect on the interaction between the theology found in the various books, es-
pecially comparing and contrasting those in closest proximity.
Chapter 18
Proverbs
The book of Proverbs represents a key source of the wisdom accumulated

throughout the history of Israel. Underlying its written form is most certainly
the oral pool of wisdom that circulated within clan, community, and court. 1
These sayings fill the majority of this book, concentrated in the series of col-
lections now found in Proverbs 10–31. 2 However, the book begins with a
nine-chapter discourse on wisdom (Proverbs 1–9) that orients the reader to
the broader enterprise of wisdom while providing a theological foundation
for the multitude of wisdom sayings recorded in the chapters that follow. 3
While the focus of this chapter will be on Proverbs 1–9, insights from Prov-
erbs 10–31 will be drawn into the discussion and in the end provide impor-
tant nuances for understanding the viewpoint of Proverbs on sin and its
remedy.
Proverbs 1:1–7: Prologue

The initial pericope of the book is a prologue disclosing the purpose of at
least 1:8–22:16 and possibly the entire book. 4 Here, the reader is introduced
to one of the most important distinctions in wisdom: the way of wisdom
versus the way of folly. In the prologue it is the characters who reveal these
two ways, with the “wise (μk:j:)/discerning (ˆyb)” (1:5) representing the way of
1. See Garrett (1993: 25–27). Of course, recovering the particular setting is “practically im-
possible,” Murphy (1998: xxix). It is foolish to identify certain wisdom sayings as “secular,”
because the world view of the ancient world in general and ancient Israel in particular is de-
cidedly religious; contra McKane (1970); cf. Boda (2004a).
2. There is no question that the book evidences the accumulation of collections of wis-
dom material over time, not only in the repetition of proverbs in different sections but more
importantly in the assertions of the superscriptions that are found successively throughout
the book; cf. Murphy (1981: 50).
3. Murphy (1981: 49) voices the dominant position that Proverbs 1–9 functions as an in-
troduction to the collections that follow; cf. Waltke (2004: 11). However, also see Kitchen
(1977) who, on the basis of genre connections to other ancient Near Eastern wisdom collec-
tions, argues that Prov 1:1–7 represents the introduction and the remainder of Proverbs 1–9
represents a wisdom collection in the discursive style, followed by a second superscription
and wisdom collection in proverbial style. According to Kitchen, this suggests a unified book
for from at least 1:1 to 22:16. For other connections to Egyptian wisdom forms, see Harris
(1995) and the literature cited there.
4. McKane (1970: 262) sees it as introducing Proverbs 1–9, but see Kitchen (1977).
- 359 -
360 Chapter 18
wisdom and “fools (lywia)” ” (1:7) representing the way of folly. Positioned be-
tween these two groups are the “naive (ytIP)< ” and “youth (r["n)' ” of v. 4, whose
imagination the wisdom teachers seek to capture.
The prologue is filled with words describing the curriculum of the wise
way, ranging from wisdom (hm:k}j): to instruction (rs:Wm) to prudence (hm:r][): to
knowledge (t["D)" to discretion (hM:zim)} to learning (jq"l)< to wise counsel (t/lBUj}T)" .
The intellectual dimension of this curriculum is made clear in v. 6, which
shows that the guidance of wisdom will help the disciple understand proverbs
(lv…m): , parables (hx: ylIm)} , sayings (rb:D): , and riddles (hd:yjI) of the wise. But wis-
dom is far more than development of the intellect. It is also concerned with
moral and ethical development, as v. 3 articulates: “righteousness (qd,x)< , jus-
tice (fP:v‘m)I , and equity (μyriv…ymE).” 5 There are two ways. The way of folly is the
way of ignorance and evil, and the way of wisdom is the way of understand-
ing and righteousness.
Those among the “naive” and “youth” who aspire to the status of the
“wise” and “discerning” must, according to v. 5, “hear ([mv) . . . increase (πsy)
. . . acquire (hnq).” 6 The first term (hear) depicts the wise in the passive and re-
ceptive posture of listening as they receive instruction for living. The second
and third terms (increase, acquire) depict them actively enlarging their store-
house of wisdom. Wisdom thus demands both submission to and pursuit of
its way.
Foundational for wisdom is what v. 7 calls the “fear of the Lord” (ta"r]yi
hw;hy]). 7 Phrases similar to v. 7 are common throughout the wisdom tradition in
the Old Testament, a fact that confirms its importance. 8 The term fear de-
scribes the human reaction to God’s awesome presence and glory, a response
that is recorded in Exod 20:20, where, at the foot of Sinai and after the decla-
ration of the Decalogue, Moses declares, “Do not be afraid; for God has come
in order to test you, and in order that the fear of [God] may remain with you,
so that you may not sin.” The body of literature that develops this concept of
fear more than any other corpus is the deuteronomic literary tradition in the
Old Testament, where it is mentioned 25 times (see Deuteronomy, pp. 97–114
above). 9 Deut 10:12–13, 20 is exemplary of this body of literature:
5. Although McKane (1970: 265) sees this as the “prophetic reinterpretation of old wis-
dom,” he is correct in describing this vocabulary as moral.
6. These terms should be translated in the jussive: “Let the wise listen and add learning,
let the one who understands acquire wise counsel.” Although the first and third verbs are in
a form that could be either imperfect or jussive, the second verb is in jussive form.
7. For this consideration of fear of the Lord, see Boda (2004a).
8. See especially Prov 1:7; Qoh 12:13; Job 28:28; cf. Prov 1:29, 2:5, 15:33; cf. 10:27; 14:26,
27; 15:16; 16:6; 19:23; 22:4; 31:30; Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; Qoh 3:14; 5:7; 7:18; 8:12, 13.
9. See the extensive list in Weinfeld (1972): Deut 4:10; 5:26; 6:2, 13, 24; 8:6; 10:12, 20;
13:5[4]; 14:23; 17:19; 28:58; 31:12, 13; Josh 4:24, 24:14; Judg 6:10; 1 Sam 12:14, 24; 1 Kgs
8:40, 43 // 2 Chr 6:31, 33; 2 Kgs 17:7, 25; chaps. 28, 37–39, 41; Jer 32:39. The object always
is Yahweh.
Proverbs 361
Now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require from you, but to fear (ary)
the Lord your God, to walk (˚lh) in all his ways and love (bha) him, and to
serve (db[) the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul,
and to keep (rmv) the Lord’s commandments and his statutes which I am
commanding you today for your good? . . . You shall fear (ary) the Lord
your God; you shall serve (db[) him and cling (qbd) to him, and you shall
swear ([bv Niphal) by his name.
As is evident from this quotation, fear is included among a complex of words
used to describe (along with “walking . . . loving . . . serving . . . clinging to
God”) submissive and faithful worship. Similarly, Deut 6:1–5 reveals that to
love the Lord their God with all the heart, soul, and mind is the same as the
fear of the Lord. Thus, the “fear of the Lord” is a relational term that signifies
Israel’s reverential response to God’s gracious salvation. Walter Brueggemann
gets to the heart of this response when he writes that this kind of fear is
to take God with utmost seriousness as the premise and perspective from
which life is to be discerned and lived. That “utmost seriousness” requires
attentiveness to some things rather than others, to spend one’s energies in
response to this God who has initiated our life.10
In Prov 1:7, fear of the Lord such as this contrasts starkly with the fool’s
scornful posture toward wisdom and instruction. This connection to the “fear
of the Lord” is a reminder that wisdom is not a secular quest for knowledge
(as though this were possible in any ancient context), but rather had at its
heart a theological dimension that involved submission to Yahweh in cove-
nant relationship.
The prologue thus identifies two fundamental paths for living: the ways of
wisdom and folly. These ways have intellectual, ethical, and theological di-
mensions: to choose the way of wisdom is to choose the way of understand-
ing, righteousness, and fear of Yahweh, and to choose the way of folly is to
choose the way of ignorance, wickedness, and scorn of Yahweh. The simple
and young are invited to choose the way of wisdom, but the presence of fools
is a reminder that not all have chosen or will choose this path.
Proverbs 1:8–33: Two Voices of Wisdom

The rest of Proverbs 1 presents two key voices that will expound the way
of wisdom throughout the first nine chapters of Proverbs, the voice of the par-
ent and the voice of Wisdom herself. 11 The mood of these voices is consis-
tently appeal, echoing the earlier call in 1:5 to the simple and young audience
10. Brueggemann (1989: 30). Emphasis is in the original.

11. See Van Leeuwen (1990: 111–44) for a superb review of approaches to the “root meta-
phor” in Proverbs 1–9, including Habel (1972: 131–57) and Camp (1987: 45–76). The ques-
tion is whether it is necessary to locate a root metaphor, rather than understand the material
in all its diversity. The search for a root metaphor appears similar to the search for root lexical
meaning for ancient words, as criticized by Barr (1968).
362 Chapter 18
to pursue the way of wisdom. Wisdom is well aware of the enticing power of
sin and the need for ardent attention to her way.
In 1:8–19, the parental voice warns “my son” to resist “sinners” who “en-
tice.” The behavior of people of this sort is defined as thievery and bloodshed
(1:11–14), and the warning is that this path ultimately “takes away the lives
of those who get [ill-gotten gain]” (1:19, niv). This initial warning reveals the
strong ethical dimension of wisdom and the need for one to make a choice in
order to resist evil.
Throughout Proverbs 1–9, the parental voice dominates the discourse.
However, at times this voice describes or introduces various characters (both
positive and negative) into the discourse, and one of the most important is
wisdom personified as a woman. 12 In 1:20–33, Lady Wisdom is introduced
and addresses the “naive (ytIP)< . . . scoffers (≈lE) . . . fools (lysIK)} ” whose error is
identified in v. 22 as loving simple ways, delighting in mockery, and hating
knowledge. Later in v. 32 their error is described as “waywardness” (hb:Wvm}), a
term used regularly elsewhere in the Old Testament for wickedness ( Jer 2:19;
3:6, 8, 11–12, 22; 5:6; 8:5; 14:7; Ezek 37:23; Hos 11:7, 14:5), and “compla-
cency” (hw;l}v)æ , a term used in Ezek 16:49 to describe the careless security of
wicked Sodom. Wisdom’s call is to “turn (bwv) to my reproof (tj"k"/T)” (v. 23),
the latter term used regularly in Proverbs to refer to the reproach and blame
assigned to another in instruction 13 and the former term associated with the
penitential traditions of the Old Testament (see especially Jeremiah, pp. 223–
252 above). To those who will “turn,” Wisdom promises to “pour out” ([bn
Hiphil) her spirit (j'Wr) and so “make known” ([dy Hiphil) her words (rb:D): to
the hearer. Through this image, “Wisdom likens herself to a copious gushing
spring” (McKane 1970: 274). In this image, one can discern echoes of the pro-
phetic image of the pouring out of Yahweh’s spirit in Isa 44:3 (qxy), Ezek 39:29
(˚pv), Joel 3:1–2[2:28–29] (˚pv) and Zech 12:10 (˚pv). 14 This pouring out of
her spirit is what must precede the hearing of her words.
Penitential response to Wisdom’s rebuke and invitation, however, is not
forthcoming from these foolish characters, and their lack of response is de-
scribed in vv. 24–25, 29–30 as refusing to listen or to pay attention, disregard-
ing advice, not accepting rebuke, hating knowledge, not choosing the fear of
12. For the effect of engendering wisdom as a woman, see Webster (1998: 63–79); Camp
(1985; 1987: 45–76). On this image, also see Habel (1972: 131–57). Some see here an allusion
to a bride (e.g., Webster), and others (e.g., Habel) argue that the imagery is rather one who
guards the traveler and exalts and crowns her devotees.
13. Prov 1:23, 25, 30; 3:11; 5:12; 6:23; 10:17; 12:1; 13:18; 15:5, 10, 31–32; 27:5; 29:1, 15.
14. With thanks to Victor Hurowitz, who offered advanced insights from his forthcoming
commentary; see Hurowitz (forthcoming). See further Harris (1995), who notes how the wis-
dom teachers in Prov 1:20–33 draw especially on Jeremiah 7, 20, and Zechariah 7 for their
portrayal of wisdom, suggesting strong affinities with the prophetic tradition. See also McK-
ane (1970: 265), who sees in Proverbs 1–9 the “prophetic interpretation of old wisdom.” Of
course, the direction of influence is a matter of debate.
Proverbs 363
the Lord, not accepting advice, and spurning rebuke. The punishment for re-
jection of this sort is the loss of Wisdom’s thoughts and teaching (v. 23), a loss
that is described vividly in Wisdom’s taunt in v. 28: “they will call on me, but
I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but they will not find me.” The
contrast between the way of wisdom and the way of folly is made clear in the
descriptions of their opposing results with the simple and fools facing death
and destruction and those who listen to wisdom experiencing safety and ease
so that they are unafraid of harm (vv. 32–33).
These two initial voices make a clear distinction between the two ways by
focusing on the need for one to avoid (1:8–19) and turn from (1:20–33) the
way of folly. This way of folly is defined in ethical terms. In the speech of the
parent, sinful folly is always disastrous, and the only remedy is to avoid it.
The speech of wisdom offers an opportunity for the foolish to repent from
their wayward behavior, but when rejected the opportunity is lost. Wisdom is
thus deeply concerned with sin and repentance but has little to say about
forgiveness.
Proverbs 2
Having introduced the voice of Lady Wisdom, the parent’s voice assumes
control of the discourse once again. While the prologue in 1:7 declared that
the fear of the Lord is foundational for wisdom and the search for it, here the
wise parent teaches that fear of the Lord is also the end result of the passion-
ate search for wisdom (2:1–5). This close relationship between wisdom and
Yahweh is important to biblical wisdom, and the reason for this is made clear
in vv. 6–8: wisdom finds its source in Yahweh, who will prosper and protect
those who pursue wisdom. Verses 7–8 employ vocabulary that again reminds
the audience of the ethical character of wisdom (“upright [rv…y]; . . . integrity
[μTø] . . . justice [fP:v‘m]I . . . godly ones [dysIj]: ”), as also does v. 9, which states
that wisdom involves discerning (ˆyb) “righteousness (qd,x)< , justice (fP:v‘m)I , and
equity (μyriv…ymE),” the same terms used earlier in the prologue at 1:3. This wis-
dom is regarded not as a duty to be resented but rather as both an internal dis-
position that is pleasant to the soul (“wisdom will enter your heart and
knowledge will be pleasant to your soul,” v. 10) and an external defense that
protects one from danger (“discretion will guard you, understanding will
watch over you,” v. 11).
It is this external defense that is taken up in more detail in vv. 12–19 as the
parent moves from this foundational teaching on the acquisition of wisdom
to the function of wisdom in the practical arena of life. Wisdom will protect
one from the ways of two unsavory characters: the wicked (vv. 12–15, who
speak perverse things, leave the paths of uprightness, walk in the ways of
darkness, delight in doing evil, rejoice in the perversity of evil, whose paths
are crooked, who are devious in their ways) and the adulterous woman
(vv. 16–19). Wisdom saves one from the temptation of the way of these two
364 Chapter 18
characters, enabling one to walk instead in “the ways of good ones” and “the
paths of the righteous” (v. 20). The fate of these two ways is made clear in the
final two verses as the upright (rv…y); and blameless (μymIT): remain in the land
(v. 21) while the wicked ([v…r): and unfaithful (dgb) are removed from it (v. 22).
Proverbs 2 again contrasts the two ways and accentuates their ethical char-
acter. It also highlights the theological character of the way of wisdom, re-
minding the audience that Yahweh is the source of wisdom and promises to
prosper and protect those who pursue its upright ways. Wisdom is an internal
disposition that is regarded as pleasant to the soul, and it is this internal dis-
position that not only renders any enticement from the wicked ineffective
but enables the wise to pursue justice and righteousness and enjoy the bless-
ing of long life in the land. Proverbs 2 has much to say about sin and repen-
tance, but little about forgiveness.
Proverbs 3–8
These initial two chapters of Proverbs 1–9 both invite the reader into the
remainder of Proverbs 1–9 and introduce key themes that will be encountered
throughout.
Ethical Character of Wisdom and Folly

In the Old Testament, wisdom was designed to teach people the most pru-
dent path of living. Some aspects of this path were amoral, that is, following
this wise advice or rejecting it did not follow or break an ethical code, but
rather it was merely the way to live the abundant life. For instance, Prov 12:24
wisely observes that “the hand of the diligent will rule, but the slack hand will
be put to forced labor,” and this observation suggests to the disciple of wis-
dom that it is best to work hard so as to ultimately rule rather than be ruled.
Prov 12:25 notes, “Anxiety in one’s heart weighs it down, but a good word
makes it glad,” again offering an observation about the effect of anxiety ver-
sus a kind word, suggesting what should be the tenor of one’s life and of one’s
advisors. This is the kind of wisdom that permeates much of the Western
world with its popular encouragements for living a successful or avoiding a
miserable life.
Nevertheless, the vast majority of wisdom is concerned with the ethical,
identifying wickedness with folly and righteousness with wisdom. Wisdom is
associated with righteous actions (“righteousness, justice and equity,” 1:3,
2:9) and righteous qualities (“walk in the way of righteousness, in the midst
of the paths of justice,” 8:20). Categories of people connected to wisdom in-
clude “the good” (2:20), “the righteous” (2:20, 3:33, 4:18), “the upright”
(2:21, 3:32), and “the blameless” (2:21), all terms with an ethical dimension.
Those who reject wisdom and represent folly include “the wicked” (2:12,
22; 3:25, 33; 4:14, 19; 5:22; 9:7), “the strange woman/adulteress” (2:16; 5:3, 6;
6:24; 7:5), “the treacherous” (2:22), “the violent” (3:31), “the devious” (3:32),
Proverbs 365
and “the evil” (4:14). Characters such as these speak “perverse things” (2:12),
“walk in the ways of darkness” (2:13), “delight in doing evil” (2:14), “rejoice
in the perversity of evil” (2:14), walk on “crooked” paths (2:15), are “devious”
(2:15), “do evil” (4:16, 27; 5:22–23; cf. 3:7), and commit adultery (2:16; 5:3,
6, 15–20; 7:5). These sorts of people are associated with evil qualities includ-
ing wickedness (4:17), violence (4:17), perversity (4:24; 8:7, 13), corruption
(4:24), crookedness (8:7), pride (8:13), and arrogance (8:13).
Nearly every practical scenario introduced in Proverbs 1–9 has an ethical
tone, whether this is joining thieves who shed innocent blood (1:10–19), fol-
lowing wicked men who delight in doing wrong (1:12–15), pursuing the adul-
terous woman (1:16–18; chap. 5; 6:25–35; 7:6–27), plotting harm against
one’s neighbor (3:29), or falsely accusing someone (3:30). The seven things
Yahweh hates in 6:16–19 are all moral in character: “haughty eyes, a lying
tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies and one who
spreads strife” among the community.
This ethical vision for wisdom distinguishes clearly between the two ways:
the way of wisdom and the way of folly.
Internal Character of Wisdom and Folly

As is evident from these lists, wisdom is a lifestyle to be lived rather than
merely content to be mastered. This “skilled” living encompasses both one’s
actions and one’s speech, so that wisdom is demonstrated in how one acts
and what one says. However, wisdom is more than only pragmatic in charac-
ter, although practice is the evidence of wisdom’s influence in one’s life.
Rather than merely an external pattern to be emulated, wisdom is a principle
permeating one’s inner life, and through this is designed to influence all of
one’s outer life. It is for this reason that the sage throughout Proverbs 1–9 con-
sistently reminds the audience that wisdom is a matter of the heart. It is the
heart that the sage says (“with all diligence”) must be guarded “for from it
flow the springs of life” (4:23). Wisdom must then “enter your heart” and
knowledge must be “pleasant to your soul” (2:10). It is in the heart that com-
mands must be kept and stored (3:1, 4:21; cf. 2:1; 7:1), with the heart that one
trusts in Yahweh (3:5–6) and takes hold of wise words (4:4), and on the heart
that commands and teachings as well as love and faithfulness are written and
bound (3:3, 6:21, 7:3). Wisdom demands that people set their hearts on pru-
dence (8:5) and apply their hearts to understanding (2:2). 15
Thus, the wisdom tradition had a vision for renewal that emphasized the
internal affections; wisdom was to be lived from the inside out and, as al-
ready seen in 1:23, wisdom even promises to pour out “her spirit,” in a way
reminiscent of the prophetic tradition. A vision such as this for renewal was
15. Cf. the wise parent in Prov 23:26 who sees the importance of the son’s heart and eye’s
delight.
366 Chapter 18
necessitated by the fact that sages knew that folly had permeated the internal
affections of humanity, for it is the heart that spurns correction (5:12) and de-
vises wicked schemes (6:18) and in the heart that one plots evil with deceit
(6:14) and lusts after the wife of one’s neighbor (6:25).
Theological Character of Wisdom

One must be careful not to associate Old Testament wisdom with modern
quests for knowledge and understanding, especially in their secularity. 16 For
Old Testament sages, Yahweh was intimately involved in the task of wisdom.
This is evident from the recurring appearance of the phrase “the fear of the
Lord” throughout Proverbs 1–9. The fear of the Lord is considered the begin-
ning and end of the pursuit of knowledge/wisdom (1:7, 2:5, 9:10). Wisdom it-
self is associated with knowledge of God/the Holy One (2:5, 9:10). Wisdom
claims to be Yahweh’s first creation and faithful companion in the activity of
creation (8:22–31). Yahweh is the source of all wisdom (2:6) and the guarantor
of its blessings (2:7, 8; 3:5; 8:35). It is trust in Yahweh that contrasts trusting
one’s own understanding (3:5), and it is Yahweh who guards and protects the
just and faithful (2:8).
Protective Character of Wisdom

That Yahweh offers this kind of protection is true also of Wisdom. Those
who listen to her “live securely” (1:33, 3:23) and “without fear of harm” (1:33,
niv). One can expect Wisdom to protect (2:11, 4:6; cf. 2:8), guard (2:11; cf.
2:8), watch over (4:6, 6:22), and preserve (6:24, 7:5) the faithful from the en-
ticement of unsavory characters (2:12, 16; 6:24; 7:5).
Pursuing Wisdom and Folly

Proverbs 1–9 describes the activities typical of the pursuit of wisdom and
folly with a breadth of vocabulary. The voices of wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 reg-
ularly call their disciples to “hear” ([mv; 1:5, 8, 33; 4:1, 10; 5:7, 13; 7:24; 8:32,
34; cf. 22:17; 23:19, 22) and to “pay attention” to their words (bvq Hiphil;
1:24; 2:2; 4:1, 20; 5:1; 7:24). The wise are those who adopt a passive posture
to receive instruction and concentrate entirely on wise guidance. This passiv-
ity, however, does not mean inactivity, for regularly the wisdom teachers call
their audience to “extend, incline, stretch out” (hfn Hiphil) their ears (4:20,
5:1; cf. 22:17) and even their hearts (2:2) to gain understanding. 17 Listening
of this sort must lead to obedience ([mv + B} + l/q; 5:13).
This active nuance is expressed in many ways in Proverbs 1–9. Those who
pursue wisdom call out for it (arq; 1:28, 2:3) and raise their voices (ˆtn + l/q;
2:3). They ardently look (rjv Piel; 1:28, 8:17) and search (vqb Piel, cpj; 2:4)
for wisdom, the latter terms associated in 2:4 with humanity’s passionate
pursuit of silver or treasures. This pursuit means that one is committed to
16. Contra McKane (1970); cf. Boda (2004a).

17. See Prov 22:17, where the heart is to be “set” or “applied” (tyv).

Proverbs 367
watching (dqv) daily (μ/y μ/y) and keeping watch at wisdom’s doors (8:34). The
goal of this search is described as finding (axm; 1:28; 2:5; 4:22; 8:9, 35).
Pursuers of wisdom are never satisfied with the quantity of their wisdom
and actively protect it from loss. Wisdom is acquired (jql; 2:1, 4:10), it is
bought (hnq; 1:5; 4:5, 7; cf. 23:23), and it is grasped with all one’s heart (˚mT;
4:4). 18 One is constantly to add to learning (πsy; 1:5, 9:9). Once possessed, wis-
dom as well as the heart must be carefully guarded (rxn; 3:1, 21; 4:13, 23;
6:20), preserved (rmv; 4:4, 21; 7:1, 2), 19 treasured (ˆpx; 2:1), and gripped firmly
(qzj Hiphil; 4:13).
The life of wisdom involves the will that chooses (rjB; 1:29, 8:10) and the
mind that understands (ˆyB Hiphil, 2:5, 9; 8:5; [dy, 4:1) 20 but also the affec-
tions that love (bha; 4:6; 8:17, 21; 9:8), cherish (lls Pilpel; 4:8), embrace (qbj
Piel; 4:8), and desire (hba; 1:25, 30).
Wisdom is regularly portrayed as a journey on a path. The pursuit of wis-
dom demands a single-minded fixation (fbn Hiphil, rvy Hiphil; 4:25), careful
observation (slp, 4:26; cf. 5:6), and continual walking on the way (rb[, 4:15;
˚lh, 9:6). 21 To remain on the way of wisdom will mean active avoidance of
wrong paths (qjr Hiphil, “keep far from,” 5:8; cf. 4:24; [nm, “keep from, re-
strain,” 1:15). 22 At times it will mean “turning aside” (rWs Hiphil; 3:7; 4:24, 27;
cf. 13:14), “turning away” (hfc; 4:15), and “returning” (bWv; 1:23). This vo-
cabulary suggests that the disciples may slip onto the evil way but that there
is an opportunity to return or repent (clearly in 1:23, although it is eschewed
by the hearers). 23
On three occasions, the audience is exhorted to “bind” (rvq) or “tie” (dn[)
wise commands, teaching, and qualities on the neck, heart, or fingers (3:3,
6:21, 7:3). The first term here is used for tying string. 24 As in the instruction
in Deut 6:8 and 11:18 to bind the Torah’s commands as a sign on one’s hand,
18. Heb. jql: This is often translated as “receive” or “accept,” which is one gloss for this
word in Hebrew (cf. Ps 6:10 where God accepts prayers). For this word as “acquire,” see Prov
31:16. Heb. ˚mT: Here, see Gen 48:17, where Joseph grasps his father’s hand to forcibly move
it onto his other son for blessing.
19. Heb. rxn: See Job 27:18 and Isa 27:3, where it is used for guarding a vineyard, and
2 Kgs 17:9, 18:8 for watchmen in a city tower. Heb. rmv: While often this verb is associated
with observing, especially when used in conjunction with commandments, this is not the
case in Proverbs 1–9. For instance, in 7:2 commands and teaching are kept “as the apple of
your eye,” here speaking about safeguarding something precious. Similarly, in 7:1 this “keep-
ing” is parallel with treasuring. In 4:21, wise words are kept “within the heart,” obviously not
a reference to observance. Prov 4:4 may be a reference to observance, but even there the first
line speaks of grasping (˚mt) the commandments with the heart.
20. The use of [dy in Prov 3:6 is similar to Jer 50:24, which means “to be aware” of some-
thing. In Jeremiah it is used to refer to one who is not aware of the snare into which he walks.
21. Cf. rva in Prov 23:19: “lead your heart in the way.”
22. Regularly, the wisdom teachers speak in prohibitions, many of which are discussed
below under the way of folly.
23. Cf. Prov 13:14: teaching of the wise turns away (rws) a person from the snares of death.
24. E.g., when the midwife ties the scarlet thread to the hand of the firstborn in Gen
38:28 or when a stone is tied to a scroll to ensure it will sink in Jer 51:63.
368 Chapter 18
wisdom must also be bound, suggesting its conspicuous presence in the dis-
ciple’s life in both external activities and internal affections. This active inter-
nalization of the qualities and teaching of wisdom is developed further by the
use of the image of writing (btk) on the heart as one would on a tablet (j'Wl;
3:3, 7:3). Interestingly, the term tablet is most commonly used for the tablets
of stone of the Decalogue (Exod 24:12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1, 4, 29; Deut 4:13;
5:22; 9:9–11, 15; 10:1, 3; 2 Chr 5:10). 25 Jer 17:1 speaks about sin, which is
written on the tablets of the Israelites’ hearts. Jer 31:33–34 speaks of “my law,”
which is written (btk) on their hearts. Here then, we see a close association be-
tween the Law and Wisdom. In Wisdom, however, the writing is accom-
plished by the disciple; it is Yahweh who writes on the tablet in the Torah (of
stone) and Jeremiah (of the human heart).
The way of folly involves the affections, with the accent on the negative af-
fection of hate (anc) toward knowledge (1:22), discipline (5:12), wisdom
(8:36) and rebuke (9:8). The way of folly does involve the positive affection of
love (bha) in 1:22, but this love is directed toward “simplemindedness” and
clarified as “delight” (dmj) in mockery in the next line. 26 Furthermore, the
foolish give in to enticing desires (hba; 1:10). 27
Dominating the vocabulary of foolish action in Proverbs 1–9 is the seman-
tic range related to neglect and rejection of wisdom. This ranges from neglect-
ing ([rp; 1:25), forgetting (jkv; 3:1, 4:5) and letting wisdom’s teaching out of
one’s sight (zWl; 3:21, 4:21) to resisting/refusing (âm; 1:24) to even abandoning
(vfn; 1:8, 6:20), forsaking (bz[; 4:2, 6), spurning (≈an; 1:30, 5:12), despising
(zWB; 1:7; cf. 23:9, 22), resenting (≈Wq; 3:11), and rejecting (sam; 3:11). 28
As wisdom, folly is also described as a path. So dangerous is this path that
one should not even pass by it (rb[; 4:15), for one can easily be enticed to
turn aside (rWs Hiphil; 5:7; cf. 22:6) and turn away (hfn; 4:5, 27) from the path
25. In Hab 2:2 and Isa 30:8, it refers to a tablet for recording a prophecy.
26. Notice the use of dmj in Josh 7:21 to describe Achan’s lust for the forbidden loot, in
Exod 20:17 for coveting one’s neighbor’s possessions, and in Prov 6:25 for lust for the adul-
terous woman.
27. Prov 22:19 calls for trust (jfb); Prov 23:12 calls for one to apply one’s heart (awb
Hiphil); Prov 23:17; 24:1, 19 prohibits one to “envy” (anq Piel) sinners; Prov 21:10 and 24:1
(cf. 23:3, 6; 31:4) speak of “desire” (hwa Piel/Hithpael); 24:19 speaks of not “fretting” (hrj
Hithpael).
28. The word âm is used in Gen 39:8 for Joseph’s refusal to go to bed with Potiphar’s wife,
in Gen 48:19 of Jacob’s refusal to bless the older one before the younger, in Neh 9:17 for re-
fusing to listen. It may have this latter nuance here, but it also could be to refuse to follow a
code (Ps 78:10, law) or to refuse to pay attention (Zech 7:11). General stubbornness to do
what is asked is in view here. The word vfn is used for Yahweh’s abandonment of Shiloh in
1 Samuel. The word ≈an is used for God’s violence and destruction against the tabernacle in
his anger. The word zwB is used in 2 Kgs 19:21 for the taunt against an enemy. The word ≈wq is
used in Gen 27:46 for Rebekkah’s revulsion at the thought of Hittite women for her son Ja-
cob, a thought so disgusting that she says her life is not worth living, in Lev 20:23 for God’s
abhorrence of idolatrous practices, and in Num 21:5 of the people’s disgust with their food
in the wilderness.
Proverbs 369
of wisdom and turn (hfc) and stray (h[t) into the path of the wicked (7:25). 29
Once on the path, they join the sinful, walking (˚lh; 1:15), going (a/B), and
traveling (rva; 4:14) on a path that leads to destruction.
For the sages of Israel, being wise (μkj; 6:6; 8:33; 9:12; 13:20; 19:20; 20:1;
21:11; 23:15, 19; 27:11), the term that typifies the goal of wisdom, meant both
the pursuit and preservation of wisdom and the rejection of folly. This twofold
task reveals the penitential character of wisdom: it is a constant turning from
folly to wisdom in one’s outer actions and speech and one’s inner affections.
Outcome of Wisdom and Folly: Life/Death, Blessing/Judgment

Proverbs 1–9 makes much of the outcomes of wisdom and folly, employing
these consequences to motivate its audience to embrace the way of wisdom
and reject the way of folly. For the wisdom teachers, wisdom brings life and
blessing. Wisdom’s reward is life (4:4, 6:23–24, 8:35, 9:6) in the land (2:21) de-
fined as abundance both qualitatively (4:22) and quantitatively (9:11). At
times, wisdom itself is identified as “life” (4:13, 22). Wisdom is that primeval
“tree of life,” an image that transports the audience back to the innocence of
the garden where humanity enjoyed blessing (Genesis 1–2).
In contrast, folly brings death and judgment. The shedding of innocent
blood in robbery robs the perpetrators of their own lives (1:18–19). The sim-
pleton’s waywardness and fool’s complacency kill and destroy them (1:32).
The lack of discipline that typifies the wicked will lead to their death (5:22–
23). The way of the adulterous woman is consistently traced to death (2:18–
19; 5:4–5; 6:26, 32; 7:22–23, 26–27), as well as to judgment (6:27–29). The
choice is clear in the final two chapters of Proverbs 1–9. Lady Wisdom de-
clares in 8:36 that “those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate
me love death” (tniv). To reject Lady Wisdom is to embrace death. Of Woman
Folly’s victims we are told in 9:18, “But little do they know that the dead are
there, that her guests are deep in the realm of the dead” (tniv). Folly means
the loss of one’s life in the land (2:22), both in terms of quantity (shortened)
and quality (6:32–33, “wounds and disgrace”).
While sin and repentance are emphasized strongly in the wisdom teaching
of Israel, forgiveness is largely ignored. Prov 8:35 declares that the one “who
finds me [Wisdom] finds life and obtains favor from the Lord.” Here the “fa-
vor” of God is defined very clearly as the blessed life described above.
29. Similarly to 4:15, one should not even approach (brq, 4:14) the door of the adulterous
woman’s house (5:8). See Prov 20:19, 24:21, “do not associate with . . .” (br[ Hithpael). In
Num 22:3 Balaam’s donkey turns away out of fear of the angel of Yahweh; in 2 Sam 2:19 in
Asahel’s pursuit of Abner, he did not turn away to the right or to the left from the activity of
the pursuit. The word h[t is used in Exod 23:4 and Isa 53:6 of an animal wandering from its
pen or owner’s land, in Job 38:41 of raven’s young looking desperately for food, in Gen 21:14
of Hagar wandering desperately in the wilderness, and in Gen 37:15 of Joseph wandering
about lost looking for his brothers. The nuance is clear: the person acting in this way is not
in an appropriate place and possibly in a place of danger.
370 Chapter 18
Proverbs 9
The parental voice has already introduced the personified voice of wisdom
in 1:20–33, where she calls aloud in the street and raises her voice in the pub-
lic squares, at the head of the noisy streets, and in the gateways of the city, re-
minding the audience that to listen to her will mean safety, no fear of harm
(1:33). 30 This voice continues to develop this motif at various points in the
discourse from chaps. 2–7 (cf. 3:13–20):
Acquire wisdom; and with all your acquiring, get understanding. Prize her,
and she will exalt you; she will honor you if you embrace her. She will place
on your head a garland of grace; she will present you with a crown of
beauty. (Prov 4:7b–9)
Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” and call understanding your intimate
friend. (Prov 7:4)
She appears again in the closing chapters of Proverbs 1–9, in chap. 8, 31 where
again she cries out, “On top of the heights, beside the way, where the paths
meet . . . beside the gates, at the opening to the city, at the entrance of the
doors” (8:2). In this, the longest speech of Lady Wisdom, she extols her own
virtues as better than silver, gold, and jewels for “all desirable things cannot
compare with her” (8:11). She then testifies to her role in culture, providing
guidance for kings, rulers, and nobles, and reveals her existence before cre-
ation and her role in creation as God’s “master worker” (8:30). 32 There she de-
clares, “I was beside him, like a master worker; and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting
in the human race” (8:30, nrsv).
This intimate self-exposure of her role, past and present, prepares the dis-
course for the final chapter before the presentation of verse after verse of short,
pithy proverbial wisdom that comprises the bulk of the book of Proverbs.
As in both previous encounters with Lady Wisdom, we are greeted initially
with her cry, her call. Proverbs 9 is constructed in chiastic form, that is, the
second half of the chapter is a mirror image of the first, an inversion, with
similar elements presented in reverse order. 33 One sees immediately how the
30. This section draws heavily on Boda (2004a). Interestingly, “wisdom” in Prov 1:20–33
and in Prov 9:1 is in the plural (although not in Proverbs 8). The plural has been explained
as a plural of intensity or abstract; cf. Murphy (1998: 8). See also Murphy (1987: 456–60).
31. For claims for ancient origins of this metaphor, contrast Whybray (1965: 504–14) and
Dahood (1968: 512–21). For this passage also see Aletti (1976: 25–37); Gilbert (1981: 202–18);
Yee (1982: 58–66); Williams (1994: 275–79).
32. Language of this sort led many Christians to see here a reference to the second or
third persons of the Trinity. See various views and problems in Williams (1994: 277–78).
33. I am well aware of the danger of finding chiastic structures behind every bush; Boda
(1996: 55–70). However, there is no question that one finds this rhetorical technique here.
See also Byargeon (1997: 367–75). The effect of chiastic structuring of this sort is explained
by Byargeon as first to call into question previous claims of misplaced text, second (citing

Proverbs 371
first stanza (9:1–6) and the last stanza (9:13–18) of this chapter are focused on
two female figures who share much in common, Lady Wisdom and Woman
Folly. 34 Both possess a house and call “from the tops of the heights of the city”
to invite the “naive” to dine, spreading a meal with both drink and food. 35
These points of contact, which draw these two figures together simulta-
neously serve as points of contrast. Whereas we are only told in passing that
Woman Folly has a house, we are told that Wisdom has built her own house,
hewing her seven pillars, 36 an allusion most likely to a grand house, a man-
sion the construction of which has been superintended by Wisdom herself. 37
Wisdom is portrayed as the quintessential banquet director: slaughtering ani-
mals, mixing wine, setting tables, and organizing a workforce of servant-girls
who blanket the city to invite guests to enjoy a rich meal of both meat and
wine. 38 What a contrast to Folly, who merely “sits at the doorway of her
house, on a seat by the high places of the city” offering a simple meal of bread
and water the origins of which are in question. The greatest contrast, however,
appears in the final verse of each section. While Lady Wisdom honestly offers
her guests life, Woman Folly deceitfully leads her simpletons into the pit of
death. Although on the surface there are many similarities between these two
women, a closer look reveals the stark contrast. 39
What lies between these two depictions of Wisdom and Folly is a section
that for many years was considered a later addition to Proverbs 9. 40 However,
vv. 7–12 are essential to the message of this chapter, for they highlight further
the contrast between Wisdom and Folly, now exemplified in the lives of those
Watson), to “link the components of a strophe,” and, third (especially 9:10), “to be a hinge
between the two proximal parts of Proverbs 9 (vv. 1–6, 13–18)” (p. 371). The LXX (followed
by Syriac) text of Proverbs 9 is extremely expansionistic; cf. Clifford (1999: 102).
34. Interestingly, Woman Folly is closely associated with the “strange woman” who ap-
pears regularly in Proverbs 1–9; see Williams (1994: 278–79); Byargeon (1997: 373); Webster
(1998: 65–69). Webster also notes a similar relationship between Lady Wisdom and the
“good wife” (cf. 31:10–31). Further on the “strange woman,” see Yee (2003).
35. Placing wisdom “at the highest point in the city” suggests that this decision has a re-
ligious dimension, because this is the location of temples in the ancient world; cf. Longman
(2006a: 222). If this can be sustained, wisdom stands for Yahweh and folly for false gods; cf.
McKinlay (1996: 57; 1999: 73–84). There may be double entendre at play (both food and sex-
uality) in the invitation of Woman Folly.
36. On the seven pillars, see Skehan (1947: 190–98); Lang (1983: 488–91); Greenfield
(1985: 13–20); and the superb review of various theories by Whybray (1994: 142–43).
37. See Clifford (1999: 105–6).
38. See McKinlay (1999: 77–79) for comparison and contrast of the meals of Wisdom and
Folly. The attempts of Clifford and Lichtenstein to link these meals to Ugaritic texts merely
catalogue the semantic range of meal language rather than establish literary or religious de-
pendence; cf. Lichtenstein (1968: 19–31); Clifford (1999: 103–4).
39. These thoughts are echoed in Byargeon (1997: 373–74).
40. See a review of this in Murphy and Huwiler (1999: 43); Whybray (1994: 141–42); Clif-
ford (1999: 102, 106–7).
372 Chapter 18
who accept the invitations of the two women. 41 The one who accepts wis-
dom’s invitation is called “the wise”; the one who accepts folly’s invitation is
called “the scoffer.” The first connection is obvious: to dine with wisdom
means to attain the title of wise. The second, the scoffer, is often depicted as
the worst of the many characters of folly in the Hebrew wisdom literature, for
while the others portray foolish behavior, the scoffer goes on the offensive
and mocks the very system of wisdom itself. The ethical character of these fig-
ures should not be missed. The scoffer is associated with the “wicked” (v. 7),
and the wise are associated with the “righteous” (v. 9). Verses 7–9 identify the
posture of the two ways: whereas the scoffer resists any instruction, hating
and abusing those who would dare to correct, the wise gladly accept it, loving
those who add to their learning. While the posture of the wise is humble pur-
suit, the posture of the scoffer is arrogant rejection of wisdom.
Verses 11–12 highlight the rewards of the two ways. Wisdom offers long
and abundant life to those who pursue her way. The reverse is implicit: those
who reject her and so embrace Folly set themselves up for misery and, as v. 18
says, “death.”
In the first and last sections of this chapter, we observe contrasting femi-
nine figures, and in the second and second-to-last sections we observe the
contrasting ways. What lies at the center of this passage, however, is a state-
ment that provides an orientation essential to the acquisition of wisdom. 42
There the sages write, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and
the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (9:10). Here at the center
of Proverbs 9 is an echo of Prov 1:7, which also claimed that the fear of the
Lord was the beginning point to all pursuits of wisdom, while reminding the
audience of Prov 2:5, which revealed that this fear was the ending point of
any pursuit of wisdom. This fear of the Lord is associated here with the
knowledge of the Holy One, reminding one of the holy character of the one
who is “feared” and thus also the appropriate response of holy character in
those who fear.
This powerful conclusion to Proverbs 1–9 presents a portrait of the two
ways: the way of wisdom and the way of folly. These two ways have ethical
and theological dimensions: the ways involve two different moral codes
and are defined in terms of one’s covenant relationship with Yahweh. The
depiction of these two women calling out to “the naive . . . to those who
41. For the contrast, see Byargeon (1997: 367–75). The appearance of the first person sin-
gular suffix (“by me”) in 9:11 suggests that the center section is spoken by Lady Wisdom her-
self. This link between wisdom and folly and the behavior of their followers is also noted by
Byargeon (1997: 373–74).
42. For the key role of this phrase in Proverbs 9, see Byargeon (1997: 375), who notes “the
emphasis on the ‘fear of Yahweh’ is at the center of the chiasm in 9:7–12 and also in the cen-
ter of Proverbs 9, for the decision between Wisdom and Folly ultimately rests on whether one
fears Yahweh.” On the definition of the “fear of the Lord,” see Waltke (1979: 302–17); cf.
Brueggemann (1989: 30–40).
Proverbs 373
lack understanding” (9:4, 16) highlights the decision that every Israelite
needed to make. 43
It appears that the sages are well aware that Woman Folly has an advantage.
Not only are the potential feasters described in ways that suggest the potential
for folly rather than wisdom (naive, those who lack understanding), but
Woman Folly’s invitation is merely to “let him turn in here” (9:16), whereas
Lady Wisdom’s is to “forsake your folly and live, and proceed in the way of un-
derstanding” (9:6). Here, then, Lady Wisdom calls the simple to repentance,
motivating them by the promise of life and insight but calling them to aban-
don their present patterns of life. In contrast, Woman Folly demands nothing
but that one enter.
Proverbs 9 thus represents the climax of Proverbs 1–9, and in this serves a
key role “at the transitional moment in the book,” functioning as a segue to
the collections of wisdom sayings that follow in Proverbs 10–31 (Longman
2006b: 357). To follow and wisely appropriate the multitude of wisdom say-
ings, the audience will need wisdom.
Summary
Proverbs 1–9 provides important insights into the Old Testament theology
of sin. Here one finds a clear articulation of the two ways that face humanity:
the ways of wisdom and folly. The surface metaphors in Proverbs 1–9 include
“two women, two houses, two roads,” which highlight the contrasts: “wis-
dom versus folly, life and death” (Bartholomew 2002).
The way of wisdom is one that demands the patient acquisition of not only
understanding but also righteousness, and the one who acquires this will ex-
perience blessing and life. This stands in contrast to the way of folly, which
entails the pursuit of evil and leads to curse and death. At times, the sages pic-
ture a person as neutral, with the potential to choose the paths of wisdom or
folly, but the constant need for the exhortations of wisdom throughout Prov-
erbs 1–9 and the advantages afforded Woman Folly in Proverbs 9 suggest that
folly is humanity’s natural bent.
The rewards and punishments associated with these two ways suggest a
theology of retribution in which righteous wisdom is blessed and wicked folly is
cursed. Clearly, this conception dominates Proverbs 1–9 and is important to
wisdom theology; 44 however, two qualifications are in order.
First, the wisdom tradition (even in Proverbs) does not promote an imper-
sonal principle of retribution set within creation and unrelated to Yahweh’s per-
sonal involvement. “The sages believed in and taught a harmonious world
43. See Longman (2006a: 222), who describes how Proverbs 9 “presents the need for a
decision. . . . Both Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly issue invitations to the reader, who is
supposed to identify with the son.”
44. See especially Koch (1955) = Koch (1983), followed by von Rad (1972: 124–37), for an
act-consequence principle espoused by wisdom that was “self-operative.”
374 Chapter 18
order created and sustained by the Lord, but not an impersonal one. In that
world order justice will finally be meted out, but they assign that justice to the
Lord without specifying the time or the manner.” 45
Second, the larger message of the book of Proverbs as a whole suggests that
the sages had a more nuanced view of retribution. This is especially evident in the
proverbial material in the rest of Proverbs, which assumes at times that the
righteous experience trouble (11:8, 21, 31; 20:22), that the wicked become
wealthy (10:2, 13:22), that riches (a reward for wisdom) can be vain and
ephemeral (23:4, 5; 27:24), and that wisdom itself is limited (16:9, 19:21). 46
Proverbs 1–9 thus speaks of ideal and general principles of wisdom, but the
book as a whole is well aware of the danger of imposing a rigid retribution the-
ology that will not hold up in the realities of life.
Wisdom promotes not an external behaviorism but rather an ethical lifestyle
motivated by a wise interior life dominated by the fear of Yahweh and the spirit of
wisdom. This entails turning away and rejecting evil and turning to and em-
bracing righteousness, both in the affections as well as in practice. Thus, not
only the ethical but also the penitential lies at the heart of the way of wisdom.
However, forgiveness is strikingly absent from this vision of wisdom in Prov-
erbs 1–9. Although the wisdom teachers constantly exhort the audience to
move from folly to wisdom, the wise in Proverbs 1–9 never speak about rem-
edying past folly and failure. Clearly, the accent is placed on the present and
future, calling the foolish to embrace wisdom and so experience blessing and
life and avoid curse and death.
For many, this absence is an indication of wisdom’s aversion to other tra-
ditions within Israel that emphasize forgiveness, especially the priestly cult.
Relying on Proverbs 1–9 for this view would be merely an insecure argument
from silence, but is there evidence elsewhere in the book? Two examples are
in order. 47
First, Prov 21:3 and 27 seem at first to suggest an aversion to the priestly
cult:
45. Waltke (2004: 1:75). Cf. Murphy (1978; 2002: 116–18); Blenkinsopp (1983: 46–51);
Boström (1990); Whybray (1994: 11). For evidence, Waltke notes how world order sayings are
combined with Yahweh sayings (10:2, 3; 10:23–27; 12:1–14; 14:1–14; 15:2–7), how Proverbs
1–9 with its focus on the fear of Yahweh sets a theological context for the proverbs, and how
many proverbs in the book assert Yahweh’s involvement: 10:2–3; 11:1; 12:22; 15:8, 26; 16:5;
17:15; 20:10, 23; 21:30; 22:19, 22–23; 23:10–11; 31:30. See especially Boström (1990).
46. With thanks to Beldman (2007) for his insight and conversation. See further on
Psalms and especially Job, pp. 377–451 below. See also Longman (2006b), who not only
speaks of Qoheleth and Job as “a canonical corrective” to an “over-reading of Proverbs” but
highlights this “canonical corrective” already embedded in Proverbs itself; cf. Van Leeuwen
(1992); Waltke (1996).
47. See further the discussion under Psalms, pp. 395–451 below and especially von Rad
(1972: 186–89); Kuntz (1974); Perdue (1977); Morgan (1981: 125–28); and Terrien (1993).

Proverbs 375
To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord more than sacrifice.

(21:3)
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, how much more when he
brings it with evil intent! (21:27)
These statements, which echo similar pronouncements within the prophetic
tradition, place the accent on obedience and warn about manipulation of the
sacrificial system by the wicked. However, “neither . . . amounts to a repudia-
tion of sacrifice . . . but both subordinate it to morality” (McKane 1970: 560).
These statements therefore remind the audience of God’s priority for his
people. 48 Poignant is the identification of the sacrifice of the wicked as an
“abomination” (hb:[</T).
A second example is Prov 16:6, which reads: “By covenant loyalty (ds<j<)
and truth (tm<a”) iniquity (ˆ/[:) is atoned for (rpk Pual), and by the fear of the
Lord one keeps away from evil ([r")” (nasb, modified). Some consider this
“anti-cultic in tone and that in assigning priority to loyalty and steadfastness,
i.e., to a complete inward and outward assent to Yahweh’s word and de-
mands, it approximates to the prophetic polemic against mere externalism”
(McKane 1970: 498). This is based largely on the lack of reference to sacrifice
and the link between atonement and “covenant loyalty and truth,” the latter
interpreted as human qualities. This phrase (“covenant loyalty and truth”),
however, is reminiscent of the character creed in Exodus 34, which encapsu-
lates the core gracious qualities of Yahweh, which are essential there for the
forgiveness of the people after their rebellion with the golden calf (see Exo-
dus, pp. 35–48 above). All forgiveness, whether attained through the sacrifi-
cial system (Leviticus 1–7) or directly through God’s declaration (Exodus 34,
Numbers 14), is based on Yahweh’s character of “covenant loyalty and truth.”
This wisdom saying is thus linking atonement of past sin (whether through
sacrifice or not) to the grace of Yahweh but is then articulating the way to
avoid such sin in the future, that is, to adopt the posture of wisdom, the fear
of the Lord. This verse, which has been used as evidence of tension between
wisdom and cult, is actually evidence of the opposite. Wisdom appears to see
its role as helping people to avoid the need for sacrifice through obedience to
Yahweh and his commands.
Proverbs 10–31 thus provides important nuances to the vision laid out in
the “foundation” of Proverbs 1–9. 49 When these collections of wisdom say-
ings, arising as the ideal wisdom principles articulated in Proverbs 1–9, are
48. So Perdue (1977: 161): “One should also recognize that a ‘Better’ saying does not nec-
essarily judge what is less valued as intrinsically bad, but that with which it is compared is of
more value.”
49. In this way, then, Proverbs 10–31 is not only to be read in light of Proverbs 1–9 as
“hermeneutical guide,” as do Childs (1979: 552–54) and Longman (2006b: 356), but Proverbs
1–9 needs to be read in light of the reality of Proverbs 10–31.
376 Chapter 18
lived out in everyday life, one can discern an important nuancing of the foun-
dational ideal. Interestingly, both of these nuances in Proverbs 10–31, which
explores the relationship between sin and righteous suffering as well as sin
and forgiveness come to greater prominence in the two other books within
the wisdom complex of the Writings: Job and Psalms, to which the present
study now turns.
Chapter 19
Job
The book of Job provides an important vantage point from which to ob-
serve debate within the wisdom tradition over the theology of sin and its rem-
edy. 1 At its core the reader encounters a series of voices at times presented as
dialogues ( Job and his three friends: chaps. 4–26), at others as monologues
( Job, Elihu, God: chaps. 27–41), all encased within two cries of Job to Yahweh
(3:1–26, 42:1–6) and a narrative framework (1:1–2:13, 42:7–17).
The dialogues between Job and his three friends are arranged in three tri-
partite cycles in this sequence: Eliphaz/Job—Bildad/Job—Zophar/Job (chaps.
4–14, 15–21, 22–26). 2 The final cycle, however, is broken, with the conclud-
ing Zophar/Job exchange eliminated. The missing exchange, along with the
abbreviated challenges of the friends in the final cycle (see especially Bildad’s
in chap. 25), suggests that the friends’ arguments have lost their force and
that Job has emerged the winner.
This victory opens the way for Job’s final speech to the friends as a collec-
tive (chap. 27), which also represents the first of three monologues by Job
(chaps. 27–31), 3 Elihu (chaps. 32–37), and God (chaps. 38–41). 4 Short narra-
tive introductions appear at the outset of the Elihu monologue (32:1–5) as
well as the beginnings of the first (38:1) and second (40:6) phases of God’s
speech. Although Elihu distances himself from the arguments of Job’s friends
(32:14), at times he appears to agree with their arguments, even if he intro-
duces new insights and in the end hints at the answer of God to Job (cf.
37:21–24). Elihu’s speech receives no response from anyone, a feature that has
led some to see this section as a later addition. Nevertheless, in the final form
of the book, even as it delays the response of God, Elihu’s speech prepares for
1. With thanks to David Beldman and Edward Ho for provocative and insightful research
and conversation on Job.
2. Some see a four-part structure, but this does not do justice to the book. Cf. Steinmann
(1996); J. Patrick (2005).
3. One can distinguish between chaps. 27–28 and chaps. 29–31 in Job’s speeches, with the
former the final reply to all the friends and the latter (referring to the friends in third person)
an address that demands a hearing from God.
4. Notice the shift from 2nd-person-singular addresses in chap. 26 (e.g., 26:2) to 2nd-
person-plural addresses in chap. 27 (e.g., 27:5), and contrast the superscription in 26:1 (hn[),
typical of those in the other exchanges with the three friends (e.g., 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 8:1, 9:1), and
the superscription in 27:1 (πsy Hiphil), which is also used in 29:1 for the rest of Job’s mono-
logue, and in 36:1 for the continuation of Elihu’s monologue.
- 377 -
378 Chapter 19
it by defending God against Job (37:2, 14, 23). 5 God appears in a climactic
theophany in a whirlwind in chaps. 38–41, but unlike Elihu, God does receive
a reply. At the end of both phases of God’s speech, Job formulates short but
key responses (40:2–5, 42:1–6).
The rhetorical design of the narrative framework that surrounds the book
of Job ( Job 1:1–2:13) accentuates his blessing, loss, and renewed blessing, as
fig. 3 (p. 379) shows. 6 This narrative framework plays an important role in the
book by setting the context for the dialogues and monologues at its heart. In
them, the reader is given essential information for evaluating the speeches
(see Hartley 1988: 23). First of all, the narrative framework introduces Job to
the reader as a person of impeccable character who rigorously follows reli-
gious practices (sacrifice). Second, the framework makes clear that Job’s suffer-
ing is unrelated to any sinful action or attitude on his part, even after the first
phase of testing. This is accentuated by the regular appearance of the phrase
“through all this Job did not sin” (1:22; 2:3, 10) as well as God’s statement to
the Adversary in 2:3 that Job’s suffering has been “without cause” (μN;j)I . With
this information, the reader is able to sympathize with Job as he faces the ac-
cusations of his friends and seeks to understand the purposes of God in the
midst of his suffering. It also helps the reader see the folly of the friends’ ap-
plication of traditional wisdom to Job’s predicament. Job’s lament in chap. 3,
to which the friends then respond, matches the concluding speech of Job in
42:1–6.
The book of Job thus represents a literary masterpiece with a clearly defin-
able structure. 7 Although employing various genres, ranging from its narra-
tive inclusion to the lament of Job, the poem to wisdom, the disputation
dialogues, and climactic monologues, 8 the book has an obvious structure and
flow that invites the reader to consider its overall message. The following
analysis will therefore look at its theology of sin and its remedy.
Retribution Theology
Common to both the narrative framework and the speeches of Job and his
three friends is a consistent retribution theology. According to this theology,
5. See Kidner (1985: 88). For various views on the Elihu speeches and their relationship to
the book of Job, see Hartley (1988: 28–30). He concludes that “the Elihu speeches are an in-
tegral part of the final edition of the work” and that it is “improper to judge them as a
clumsy later addition or a sanctification of the heretical ideas that Job has entertained” (pp.
29–30). Contra Clines (2004), who relocates the Elihu speeches between chaps. 27 and 28
(see Clines 2006).
6. See Cooper (1982: 39–40); Dorsey (1999: 170). This rhetorical design brings into ques-
tion arguments for a much smaller original core to the narrative inclusion; cf. Alt (1937).
7. See Hartley (1988: 20–50) for a superb review and defense of the integrity of Job. Cf.
Pope (1965: xxiii–xxx), who, though not seeing the present form “as a consistent and unified
composition by a single author,” admits that “there is a considerable degree of organic
unity,” even in the Elihu speeches, which “are blended into the whole with such skill that
some scholars have seen Elihu as a reflex of the author of the Dialogue.”
8. On these, see Hartley (1988: 37–40).

Job 379
A. Job lived (1:1)

B. Job had 7 sons and 3 daughters (1:2)
C. Job had livestock: 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yokes of
oxen, 500 donkeys (1:3)
D. Job’s family feasted (1:4)
E. Job offered a burnt offering (1:5)
C1. Job’s livestock destroyed (1:13–17)
B1. Job’s sons/daughters destroyed (1:18–19)
1
A . Job attacked (2:1–10)
F. Job’s friends arrive (2:11–13)
F2. Job’s friends are judged (42:7)
E2. Job offered a burnt offering (42:8–9)
D2. Job’s family feasts (42:10–11)
C2. Job is given livestock: 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yokes
of oxen, 1,000 donkeys (42:12)
B2. Job had 7 sons and 3 daughters (42:13–15)
A2. Job lived 140 years (42:16–17)
Figure 3. Rhetorical Structure of Job.
God showers blessing on those who walk faithfully but sends curse on those
who disobey.
The Righteous and Wicked

Foundational to this theology is the identification of two categories of hu-
man beings, that is, those who are righteous and deserving of blessing and
those who are wicked and thus deserving of curse. Not surprisingly, the vo-
cabulary of the friends, Job, and Elihu expresses these two categories well.
On the one side lie the righteous, exemplified best in Job himself (1:1, 8;
2:3), who is described as one who is blameless (μT:) and upright (rv…y); , fears
God (μyhIløa” ary), and turns away from evil ([r:mE rws). Blameless (μT:), used as well
by Bildad in 8:20 and Job himself in 9:20, 21, 22 (cf. μTø by Eliphaz in 4:6),
identifies Job as “a man of integrity having no moral blemish, totally devoted
to what is godly and good. In Gen 17:1, being ‘blameless’ is used in connec-
tion with walking before God—that is, a life defined by close fellowship with
the Lord” (Estes 2005: 29). Upright (rv…y); , an adjective also found on the lips
of Eliphaz (4:7), Bildad (17:8, 23:7), and Job (17:8, 23:7), is used for “faithful
adherence to God’s statutes” (Hartley 1988: 67), “ethical propriety in the
broadest sense” (Clines 1989: 12), exemplified in compassion and honesty in
one’s relationships with others. It is not surprising to find righteous Job de-
scribed as fearing God (μyhIløa” ary) in light of the foundational role played by
this posture throughout the wisdom tradition (see Prov 1:7, 9:10, 31:30; Qoh
380 Chapter 19
12:13). 9 Reverence of this sort is a key theme in the speeches of Eliphaz (4:6,
15:4, 22:4) and also appears on the lips of Job ( Job 6:14, 28:28). The fear of
God is the human posture of reverence and respect due to the creator, an in-
ner orientation that informs one’s perspective on all of life. In this way, it is
naturally connected in the narrator’s description of Job with the phrase “turn
away from evil” ([r;mE rws), a connection that reappears in Job’s poem concern-
ing wisdom in 28:28. Those who fear God have an internal orientation that
turns away from evil. According to Elihu in 33:17, God himself turns a person
away (rws Hiphil) from evil conduct.
Through this initial vocabulary, Job is depicted as “the peak of moral per-
fection” (Pope 1965: 6). “He is not Everyman; he is unique” (Andersen 1976:
79), as God declares in 1:8 and 2:3. One should not be sidetracked, then, by
debates over whether Job was sinless. Although at one point Job suggests that
some sin from his youth may underlie his present suffering (13:26), the em-
phasis of this book is on Job as the paragon of virtue in whom there was no
reason for divine discipline. 10
The narrator’s vocabulary describing Job, however, does not exhaust the
description of the righteous within the speeches. In them, the righteous are
also identified as pure (Ëz'), innocent (yqIn;), clean (πj"), and without guilt (ˆw[). 11
The righteous are those who are established as righteous, that is, declared in-
nocent (qdx), and who display righteousness (hqdx). 12 According to Job him-
self, this righteousness is demonstrated in a pattern of life, referred to as
keeping (rmv), holding fast (zja) to, and not turning aside (jfn Hiphil) from
God’s path (rvä): and way (˚rd; 23:11; cf. 17:9). According to Job, an external
pattern of life of this sort is made possible by not departing (vwm Hiphil) from
the command (hwxm) of God’s lips (hpv) and by treasuring (ˆpx) the words of
God’s mouth more than one’s food (23:12).
In contrast, the wicked (or the wicked lifestyle rejected by the righteous)
are described using the dominant roots for sin in the Hebrew tradition:
• Sin (afj): 1:5, 22; 2:10 (narrator); 7:20; 10:14 (Job); 8:4 (Bildad); 24:19;
31:30; 33:27; 35:6 (Elihu)
• Sin (tafj): 10:6; 13:23 (2x) (Job); 14:16; 34:37; 35:3 (Elihu)
9. See Boda (2004a) and discussion on Proverbs, pp. 359–376 above.

10. See Clines (1989: 12): “There is no doubt that from the viewpoint of the author and
the hero himself, Job is ‘righteous.’ That the righteous are imperfect is sometimes suggested
(cf. on 4:17), but in Job’s case the issue is never whether his sins are serious or slight but sim-
ply whether he is a sinner or not.”
11. Pure: 8:6, Bildad; 11:4, Zophar citing Job; 16:17, Job; 33:9, Elihu citing Job; hkz: 15:14,
Eliphaz; 25:4, Bildad. Innocent: 4:7; 22:19, 30, Eliphaz; 9:23, 17:8, 27:17, Job. Clean: 33:9,
Elihu citing Job. Without guilt: 33:9, Elihu citing Job.
12. Declared innocent: 4:17; 9:2, 15, 20; 10:15; 13:18, Job; 11:2, Zophar; 15:14, Eliphaz;
22:3, 25:4, Bildad; 32:2, narrator; 33:12, 32; 35:7, Elihu; 34:5, Elihu citing Job; 40:8, God. Dis-
play righteousness: 27:6, Job; 33:26, 35:8, 37:23, Elihu.
Job 381
• Rebel/rebellion ([vp): 7:21; 13:23; 14:17; 31:33 (Job); 33:9; 34:6 (Elihu cit-
ing Job); 8:4 (Bildad); 34:37; 35:6; 36:9 (Elihu)
• Iniquity/guilt (ˆw[): 7:21; 10:6, 14; 13:23, 26; 31:33 (Job); 22:5 (Eliphaz)
• Do evil ([[r Hiphil): 8:20 (Bildad)
• Wickedness (h[:r,; adjective): 22:5 (Eliphaz)
• Guilty/wicked ([vr): 10:7, 15 (Job); 15:5, 20 (Eliphaz); 18:5 (Bildad); 20:5
(Zophar); 34:26; 35:8 (Elihu)
• Wicked/criminal (lW;[)" : Job 18:21 (Bildad); 27:7; 29:17; 31:3 (Job)
• Iniquity/trouble (ˆwa): 4:8 (Eliphaz); 11:11 (Zophar); 36:21 (Elihu)
The wicked are deceptive (aw]v)… , ruthless (≈yri[): , violent (smj), and godless
(πnej): . 13 According to Bildad, they do not know God (laEA[d'yA; alø), and they for-
get God (laE yjEk}vø; 8:31, 18:21). Elihu claims they have no regard (lkc al
Hiphil) for any of God’s ways (˚rd), turning aside (rws) from following (wyr;j“a"m)E
God (34:27) while turning (hnp) to evil (ˆw,a;: 36:21). According to Eliphaz, they
do away (rrp Hiphil) with reverence (ha:r]y)i and hinder ([rg) meditation (hj:yc¥)
before God (15:4).
Through this vocabulary, the various speakers establish the two categories
of people key to traditional retribution theology: the righteous and the
wicked. Emphasis is placed on their external behavior but not without some
attention to the internal dispositions that motivate this behavior. These cate-
gories are religious in character, both being defined in terms of God and his
ways, either following or rejecting him. Whereas the righteous remain fixed
on God’s path, rejecting the temptation to turn aside, the wicked turn aside
from God and to evil.
God’s Response
Key to traditional retribution theology, however, is not just human iden-
tity (righteous, wicked) but also divine response. It is the pattern of God’s
treatment of these two types of individuals that lies at the heart of this ap-
proach to sin and its remedy.
Narrative Bracket
One can discern the positive aspect (God showers blessing on those who
walk faithfully) of retribution theology in the narrative bracket that sur-
rounds the book. There Job is presented as an exemplary figure (1:1, 8) who,
as a result, has been blessed by God. In the end, it is because Job has “spoken
of [Yahweh] what is right” (42:8) and prays for his friends (42:9–10) that Yah-
weh “restored the fortunes of Job” and “increased all that Job had twofold”
(42:10).
13. Deceptive: Job 11:11, Zophar; 31:5, Job; cf. Prov 30:8. Ruthless: 15:20, Eliphaz. Violent:
16:17, Job. Godless: 8:13, Bildad; 20:5, Zophar.
382 Chapter 19
The Three Friends

Throughout chaps. 4–26, this retribution theology consistently appears on
the lips of Job’s three friends, who claim to be representing the voice of tradi-
tional wisdom (5:27; 8:8–10; 15:7–10, 17–18; 20:4–5; cf. 32:1–14). 14 “What
the friends have in common is their unquestioning belief that suffering is the
result of sin” (Clines 1989: xl). Eliphaz tells Job in 4:6–9 that the qualities of
fear (ha:r]y)i and integrity (μTø) should give him confidence and hope, because
those who are innocent (yqin); and upright (rv…y); will not be destroyed. In con-
trast, those who practice iniquity and bring trouble will perish from God’s an-
ger, a principle accentuated in his later speech in 15:20, where he reminds Job
that “the wicked ([vr) writhes in pain all his days, and numbered are the
years stored up for the ruthless.” In light of these principles, Eliphaz must ac-
cuse Job of wrongdoing in 22:4–5: “Is it because of your reverence (ha:r]y)i that
he reproves you, that he enters into judgment against you? Is not your wick-
edness (h[:r); great, and your iniquities (ˆw[) without end?”
According to Bildad in 8:20, God does not reject integrity (μT:), nor does he
support evildoers ([[r Hiphil). As with Eliphaz, Bildad’s speech in chap. 18
hones in on the latter principle, reminding Job that “the light of the wicked
goes out, and the flame of their fire gives no light” (18:5, nasb, modified). In
this chapter, Bildad lists the many curses that will befall the wicked, conclud-
ing with the reminder that “such are the dwellings of the wicked, and this is
the place of the one who does not know God” (18:21, nasb, modified).
Zophar echoes the theological convictions of the other friends. He assumes
that Job has sinned (11:14). He reminds Job that, although the wicked may
experience what appears to be blessing, it is only momentary (20:4–5), for
God will send his fierce anger on them (20:23), stripping the wicked of their
increase (20:27–29).
Job
This theological framework is also evident in Job’s thinking. Although con-
sistently claming his innocence (6:10, 10:6–7, 13:19, 23:11–12, 27:4–6; cf.
32:1, 33:8–10, 34:5–6), Job asks whether some sin (afj, [vp, ˆw[) that God has
14. Perdue (1977: 171) and Hartley (1988: 48) (among others) place greater emphasis on
the connection between wisdom and the cult:
As becomes obvious throughout the speeches of the opponents, their viewpoint is a tradi-
tionally cultic one, indicating that in this regard traditional wisdom, which is represented by
the three opponents, is the handmaiden of the Israelite cult. Suffering to the opponents is an
omen that the wrath or at the very least the displeasure of the deity has been incurred by
some inadvertent or conscious action or negligence on the part of the one afflicted. This tra-
ditional explanation for suffering includes, therefore, the belief that the sufferer has sinned
and is being punished by the deity.
See further W. Green (2002); Balentine (2002a; 2006a; 2006b: 15). It is true that sacrifice is
encouraged by the example of Job in 1:5 and 42:8–9 and that the language of clean (rwhf)
and unclean (amfm) in Job 14:4 does echo the cult, but this vocabulary does not dominate.
See further Knohl (1995: 165–67). With thanks to David Beldman.
Job 383
not pardoned (avn Niphal) or taken away (rb[ Hiphil) has caused God to “set
me as your target” (7:19–21). Similarly, in 13:23–26 Job identifies his suffering
as God hiding his face and treating him as an enemy and links this to some
unknown sin or youthful sin, crying to God: “How many are my iniquities
(ˆw[) and sins (tafj)? Make known to me my rebellion ([vp) and my sin
(tafj).” Knowing his own innocence, however, early on Job expresses key in-
sights that should help him transcend traditional retribution theology. He un-
derstands that Yahweh is free to give and take away (1:21) and believes that
one should be open to God sending both good and adversity (2:10). Although
his speeches at times reflect classic retribution theology and his confusion
and pain suggest that he expected blessing to accompany obedience, as his
speeches progress he increasingly voices concern over the validity of his suf-
fering. By chap. 21, Job questions the traditional position that “the wicked is
reserved for the day of calamity” (21:29–30), as he watches the success that of-
ten accompanies their lives (21:7). Aware of the traditional rebuttal that “God
stores up the punishment of the wicked for their children,” he demands,
Let him repay the wicked, so that they themselves will experience it! Let
their own eyes see their destruction; let them drink of the wrath of the Al-
mighty. For what do they care about the families they leave behind when
their allotted months come to an end? (21:19–21, tniv)
Job thus leverages traditional retribution theology to call God to action
against the wicked. However, in his final speech to the friends he calls their
fixation with retribution theology nothing but vanity (WlB:h}T< lb<j;< 27:12), a
statement that introduces his summary of this theology in 27:13–23 and the
recitation of the poem about wisdom in chap. 28.
Elihu
So also Elihu, who responds to Job and his three friends and transitions the
reader to Yahweh’s speeches, 15 reflects this retribution theology. He defends
God from Job’s accusations of injustice, reminding him that God “pays people
according to their work, and makes them find it according to their way”
(34:11, nasb, modified). He grants justice to the afflicted, not withdrawing his
eyes from the righteous (36:6–7), while striking the wicked (34:26) and not
keeping them alive (36:6).
15. Elihu plays an important role in the flow of Job and should not be devalued as a later
intrusive source. Elihu provides another perspective of wisdom, a wisdom that is acquired
not through the traditional avenue of experience accumulated through years but rather
through the “spirit” (j'Wr) in humanity, the “breath” (hm:v…n)] of the Almighty (32:8, 33:3–4),
even through dream and vision (33:14–15), thus direct and inner divine revelation. This
kind of revelation is necessary, in light of the hiddenness of wisdom taught in the poem to
wisdom in Job 28, and is available even to youth (32:6–7, 9). That Elihu emerges just prior
to Yahweh’s appearance is important, as he prepares the way for Yahweh’s speeches. Whereas
the friends and Job find wisdom through the avenues of experience and tradition, and Elihu
through direct revelation, God grants wisdom through personal encounter in chaps. 38–41.
384 Chapter 19
Summary
This evidence highlights the dominance of retribution theology within the
book of Job, a theology already seen in detail in the analysis above of the book
of Proverbs (pp. 359–376). In this theological framework, human sin prompts
divine discipline, but human faithfulness prompts divine blessing. Of course,
from beginning to end it is clear that the rigid application of this theology to
Job’s experience is suspect. Nevertheless, the book does not completely reject
this retribution theology. Rather, it straddles the line between undermining
and upholding the traditional values that dominated the wisdom tradition. 16
Clearly, it holds the speeches of the friends up for ridicule by tracing Job’s suf-
fering to actions within the heavenly court rather than to Job’s behavior and,
in the end, by depicting Yahweh as attacking the friends’ folly. And yet, at the
same time, the book implicitly affirms retribution theology by presenting Job
as a paragon of virtue whose endurance is blessed twofold. 17
The problem, then, appears not to be the basic retribution theology itself.
Rather, it lies in wisdom’s tendency to limit human experience and divine ac-
tion to this theological model, a critique made clear in Yahweh’s speeches and
Job’s final response. Related to this is wisdom’s tendency to take this founda-
tional theological concept (those who obey are blessed and those who dis-
obey are cursed) and reverse its logic (those who are blessed have obeyed and
those who are cursed have disobeyed).
Remedy for Sin

Bildad expresses a searching question in 25:4 that will receive much atten-
tion throughout the speeches: “How then can a person be just (qdx) with
God? Or how can one be clean (hkz) who is born of woman?” (nasb, modi-
fied). Assuming that sin underlies Job’s suffering, each of the sages provides
advice to Job for remedying his sin. 18
16. Although aware that Prov 1–9 on its own may encourage a rigid retribution theology,
Beldman (2007) cites a series of proverbs from the rest of the book that nuance the founda-
tional chapters (see further under Proverbs, pp. 359–376 above). He concludes, “Through
these proverbs the sages recognize that following wisdom’s way may at times involve pov-
erty and hardship. In this light, it is legitimate to regard the books of Job and Ecclesiastes as
identifying and developing tenets of traditional Israelite wisdom which already exist within
Proverbs” (p. 65).
17. As Clines (1989: xlvii) notes, “What this concluding episode does for these issues is,
surprisingly, to reinstate the dogma of retribution as the principle according to which the
world operates.”
18. In this, I depart from Clines (1989: 203), who claims that “Forgiveness . . . generally
lies outside the ambit of the friends’ theologies,” though he does note the evidence of
22:21–26.
Job 385
Eliphaz
Eliphaz is the first to offer Job advice, encouraging the suffering man to
seek (vrd) God and place his cause (μyc + rbd) before God (5:8). According to
Eliphaz, Job should understand that he is blessed (yrev‘a)" to be reproved (jky
Hiphil) and disciplined (rs:Wm) by God (5:17). By his final speech, however,
Eliphaz’s advice is much more detailed (22:21–27). There he will call Job to be
reconciled (ˆks Hiphil) and at peace (μlv) with God, to receive (jql) instruc-
tion (hr;/T) from God’s mouth and place (μyc) God’s words in his heart (bbl).
To be restored (hnb Niphal), he must return (bwv) to God, removing (qjr
Hiphil) unrighteousness (hl:w][)" far from his tent. The reference to placing gold
in the dust and among the stones of the brooks in v. 24 most likely refers to
removing gold acquired through unjust means. This functions, then, as a
practical sign of repentance that involves discharging the unjust gain and
turning to God as one’s gold and silver in v. 25. Repentance such as this is the
prerequisite to finding his delight (gn[ Hithpael) in God alone, so that he may
lift up his face (acn Niphal + hnp) to God, pray (rt[ Hiphil) to him, be heard,
and then pay (μlv Piel) his vows (rdn). The result will bring God’s goodness
(b/f; 22:21), success, and light shining on his way (22:28–29).
Bildad
In 8:4–6, Bildad uses the death of Job’s children as motivation for Job to
remedy his own sin. 19 The way ahead is for Job to seek (rjv Piel) God and im-
plore the compassion (ˆnj Hithpael) of the Almighty. Although punishment
has befallen Job, when God sees that he is pure (Ëz') and upright (rvy) he will
restore Job to his “righteous state.”
Zophar
Zophar also has advice for Job. After reminding Job that he has not re-
ceived all that he deserved because God has “forgotten” (hvn) a portion of his
iniquity (ˆw[; 11:6), Zophar exhorts Job to direct (ˆwk Hiphil) his heart (bl),
spread out (crp) his hand (πk) to God, and put iniquity (ˆwa) far away (qjr
Hiphil) from his hand, not allowing wickedness (hl:w][)" to dwell (ˆkv Hiphil) in
his tents. This sort of turning to God and turning from wickedness makes it
possible for him to lift up (acn Niphal) his face (hnp) without defect, to be
steadfast and without fear in God’s presence.
Elihu
In 33:23–30, Elihu looks for a “messenger” (Ëa:l}m)" to function as a “scorner”
(≈yl Hiphil) 20 for the one who is being disciplined. This attack is identified as
19. It is possible that Bildad is linking Job’s suffering to the sin of his children, although
this is rejected by most commentators, e.g., Hartley (1988: 156); Clines (1989: 203–4).
20. This is sometimes translated as “mediator,” but in wisdom literature this is the typical
term for the scorner or mocker, that is, someone who derides another in negative ways. The
386 Chapter 19
“announcing” (dgn Hiphil) to that person what is right (rvy) for him, that is,
functioning as a prophetic voice (see Isa 41:22, 23, 26; 42:9, 12; 43:9; 44:7;
45:21; 48:20). 21 Following this call to what is right, the mediator will show the
person grace (ˆnj) by saying “Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have
found a ransom; Let his flesh become fresher than in youth, Let him return
to the days of his youthful vigor” (33:24b–25). This “showing grace” appears
to be the mediatorial request of a prophetic figure to God for deliverance for
the one being disciplined. The basis for the request is an unspecified “ransom”
(rp<K)ø that has been found by the mediator. The one disciplined is required to
pray (rt[) to God, who will accept (hxr) him, evidenced in the person seeing
God’s face and God returning to the person a righteous status (hq:d:x;} 33:26).
The person will also give a public confession, first of the disciplined one’s sin
(“I have sinned [afj] and perverted [hw[ Hiphil] what is right [rvy], it is not
proper for me,” 33:27) and second of Yahweh’s promised deliverance (“he has
redeemed my soul from going to the pit, and my life shall see the light,”
33:28). The precise order of these actions is unclear, and they appear to be all
interrelated. Elihu’s invitation to Job in 33:31 (“pay attention, O Job, listen to
me; keep silent, and let me speak”) is an attempt to begin this process, which
would lead through Job’s confession (“if you have anything to say, answer me;
speak”) to his being declared righteous (qdx; 33:32) or, if no confession is nec-
essary, then to Job learning wisdom (33:33).
Clearly, Elihu is seeking a confession of sin from Job, describing in 34:31–
33 a scenario in which one has borne punishment (acn) and expresses a
commitment to no longer act corruptly (lbj; cf. Neh 1:7) or act (l[p) unjustly
(lw,[): again (πsy Hiphil). This person invites God to teach (hry Hiphil) him
what he does not see, that is, his hidden sins.
In 36:5–12, Elihu takes a third and final opportunity to provide Job with
guidance for remedying his sin. This time, he speaks of kings who have expe-
rienced God’s discipline (36:8). The process of emerging from this discipline
begins with God declaring (dbn Hiphil) their deeds (l[p), identified as their
transgression ([vp) of exalting themselves (rbg Hithpael; 36:9). This confron-
tation involves God opening their ears for instruction (rs:Wm), at the core of
precise meaning here is made clear by the following phrase, which reveals that it is declaring
what is right, and also by Elihu’s example in vv. 31–33, where he calls Job to listen to him so
he may speak. There may be some irony here in the fact that Elihu is identifying himself with
the foolish mocker.
21. This interpretation flies in the face of the traditional view, seen in Pope (1965: 251),
Andersen (1976: 250), Habel (1985: 469–70), Hartley (1988: 446), and Clines (2006: 735–36),
who argue for a special angelic being. This does not make sense in light of Elihu’s application
of this role to himself later in this passage. For the use of Ëa:l}m" to describe prophets in later
biblical material, see Hag 1:13, Isa 44:26, 2 Chr 36:15, Mal 3:1; cf. Boda (2007d). Earlier in the
chapter (33:15–18), Elihu speaks of the role of dreams “to warn people against committing
sins they are contemplating” (Clines 1989: xli; cf. Habel 1975: 468). Dreams of this sort are
another means of divine revelation alongside prophecy (33:23–33) and suffering (33:19–22).
Job 387
which is the call to turn (bwv) from evil (ˆw,a:m;E 36:10). The desired response is
hearing ([mv) and serving (db[), which will lead to prosperity (b/f) and de-
light (μy[In;; 36:11). The opposite response, however, will lead to death (36:12).
Job
With their presupposition that Job has sinned, Job’s friends exhort him to
seek God’s forgiveness through a process that involves confession, repen-
tance, and praise. The description of Job at the beginning and end of the book
reveals that he affirms such a theology. He is typified as one who consistently
turns away from sin and in the end will repent of his misguided perspective
on Yahweh’s responsibility to humanity. In addition, Job is used to affirm the
validity of priestly rhythms for remedying sin, that is, the sacrifice of burnt of-
ferings for his children at the outset and his friends and himself at the con-
clusion of the book.
Job, however, seems to have a sense that something unjust is afoot, some-
thing that is not connected with his own sin but rather with the heavenly
realms. He is consistent in linking the cause of his suffering to the heavenlies,
at the outset claiming it has come from God (e.g., 1:21, 2:10) and eventually
accusing God of injustice in the matter. Because of this conviction, Job ex-
presses his desire for a very different process from what is suggested by his
friends. This process involves a hearing in court through which he would
surely be exonerated. 22
Job’s Request for a Hearing

Legal language appears consistently throughout Job’s speeches as he envi-
sions a legal dispute (byr), hearing ([mv), and argument (jky Hiphil, j'k"/T). 23 The
parties go (awb/˚lh) to court (fP:v‘m)I , present their cases (fP:v‘mI ˚r[), call witnesses
(d[E), and answer (hn[) one another. 24 Legal cases of this sort discern whether
someone is righteous (qdx, that is, innocent) or evil ([vr, that is, guilty), re-
ferred to also as guiltless (μT:), acquitted (hqn Piel), and clean (r/hf:), or crooked
(vq[ Hiphil) and unclean (amEF:m)I . 25
From the first time Job introduces this solution, he is skeptical about its ef-
ficacy, because it would involve arguing a legal case against Yahweh, who is
both defendant and judge. Thus, Job’s searching question, “How can a person
22. See 9:2–3, 15, 19–21, 28–33; 10:2–3, 6–7, 14–17; 13:3, 6–12, 15–19; 14:3–4; 16:8, 18–
22; 17:3; 19:6–7, 23–29; 23:3–7; 31:35; 33:13; cf. 33:13; 34:12, 23; 40:2. See further Richter
(1959); Gemser (1960); Habel (1975: 54–57); Dick (1979); Hartley (1988: 44); Clines (1989:
xliii); Roberts (2002).
23. For byr, see 9:3; 10:2; 13:6, 8, 19; 23:6; cf. 33:13, 40:2. For [mv, see 13:6, 31:35. For jky,
see 9:33; 13:3, 6, 15; 16:21; 23:4, 7; cf. 40:2.
24. For fP:v‘m,I see 9:32, 14:4; cf. 34:23. For fP:v‘mI ˚r[, see 13:18, 23:4. For d[E, see 10:17;
16:8, 19. For hn[, see 9:3, 15, 16, 32; 16:17; 19:7; 23:5; cf. 33:13, 40:2.
25. For qdx, see 9:2, 15, 20; 10:15; 13:18. For [vr, see 9:20, 29; 10:2, 7, 15; cf. 34:12. For
μT:, see 9:20, 21. For hqn, see 9:28, 10:14. For r/hf:, see 14:4. For vq[, see 9:20. For amEF:m,I see 14:4.
388 Chapter 19
be in the right (qdx) before God?” (9:2, nasb, modified), is answered pessimis-
tically: “Though I were right (qdx), I could not answer (hn[); I would have to
implore the mercy (ˆnj Hithpael) of my judge (fpv Poel)” (9:15). Also, in
9:19–21,
If it is a matter of power, behold, he is the strong one! And if it is a matter of
justice (fP:v‘m)I , who can summon (d[y) him? Though I am righteous (qdx),
my mouth will condemn ([vr) me; Though I am guiltless (μT:), he will de-
clare me guilty (vq[ Hiphil). I am guiltless (μT:); I do not take notice of my-
self; I despise my life,
and finally in 9:28–33,
I know that you will not acquit (hqn Piel) me. I am accounted wicked ([vr),
Why then should I toil in vain? If I should wash myself with snow and
cleanse my hands with lye, yet you would plunge me into the pit, and my
own clothes would abhor me. For he is not a human as I am that I may an-
swer (hn[) him, that we may go (awb) to court (fP:v‘m)I together. There is no um-
pire (jky Hiphil participle) between us, who may lay his hand upon us both.
Nevertheless, Job continues to advocate a hearing against and before God,
and as his speeches progress he desires a trial not only to prove his own inno-
cence but also to question God’s justice, especially in relation to the apparent
lack of divine retribution on the wicked (cf. 10:3).
Faced with the difficulty of appearing before a God who is both defendant
and judge, Job longs for someone in the heavenly realms who may act as his
advocate (djEc;… 16:19) and redeemer (lag; 19:25). The advocate in 16:19 is one
who acts as a witness (d[E) on his behalf. So also the redeemer in 19:25 func-
tions as a witness, seen in the technical phrase “he will take his stand (μwq)”
(cf. Deut 19:15–16; Pss 27:12, 35:11; Hartley 1988: 294). Job considers the ad-
vocate of 16:19 as someone other than God, while the redeemer of 19:25 is
most likely God himself. 26
Elihu rebuffs Job’s request, asking him why he disputes (byr) against Yah-
weh for not answering (hn[) with an account of his (Yahweh’s) actions
(33:13). For Elihu, because Yahweh is never guilty ([vr) and never perverts
(tw[) justice (fP:v‘mI), there is no need for him to consider a case against himself
(34:12, 23). In this, Elihu foreshadows God’s response to Job in chaps. 38–41,
couched by God in legal language in 40:2: “Will the faultfinder (byr Qal par-
26. Contra Clines (1989: xliv), who sees the “advocate” in 16:19 as a reference to some-
thing “written into the heavenly record” and the advocate in 19:25 as none other than Job
himself. Good (1991: 60) sees this as an avenger of blood (μdh lag; Num 35:12, 19–27) who
will avenge Job’s murder at the hands of God. However, this appears to be a heavenly figure
in both cases and in the second is closely associated with God (19:26). See Hartley (1988:
292–93), who identifies this as God who is called “redeemer” throughout the Old Testament
(Exod 6:6, 15:13; Pss 74:2, 77:16[15]). Curtis (1983) goes too far in positing a lower god as
Job’s advocate. In chap. 19, Job is claiming not resurrection but rather that he will be rescued
by God himself in the end and vindicated.
Job 389
ticiple) contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves (jky Hiphil partici-
ple) God answer (hn[) it.”
Job’s Response
For Job, the way to deal with this “accusation of sin” is to contend with
Yahweh in court. This solution, however, is rejected by Yahweh, who, as his
creator, is not accountable to Job. Nevertheless, Job does get at least his de-
sired audience with his “judge,” even if, when faced with the prospect of an-
swering Yahweh’s barrage of questions, he cannot (hn[ al; 40:4–5) respond.
This is strikingly reminiscent of Job’s initial premonition in chap. 9, that if he
were granted a hearing “he could not answer (hn[) him once in a thousand
times” and in the end would need to “implore the mercy (ˆnj Hithpael) of my
judge” (9:3, 15; cf. Hartley 1988: 517).
In his final response in 42:1–6, Job answers (hn[) God, not by presenting his
own case, but rather by adopting God’s. 27 Job begins by admitting the free
sovereignty of Yahweh: “I know that you can do all things and that no pur-
pose of yours can be thwarted” (42:2). This verse echoes the words of Gen
11:6, where God says of humanity, “Nothing they plan to do will be impos-
sible for them.” Here, the human Job must admit the same for Yahweh as cre-
ator and accept God’s freedom to act as he wishes. What follows are two
quotations from God’s speeches in 40:7 and 38:2 (“Who is this that hides
counsel without knowledge?” 42:3a; “Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask
you, and you instruct me,” 42:4), both prompting Job to humbly admit the
limits of human wisdom because God’s thoughts and ways are greater quali-
tatively (“too wonderful”) for human comprehension (42:3b) and only acces-
sible through the awesome experience of God’s manifest presence. 28 The
“hearing of the ear” in 42:5 is a subtle reference to traditional wisdom, which
is challenged here by the direct manifestation and revelation of God (“my eye
sees you”) that he has just experienced in the whirlwind of chaps. 38–41. 29 At
their core, vv. 2–5 express that “Yahweh is free and beyond human compre-
hension” (Estes 2005: 23).
27. J. Janzen (1985: 258): “On the basis of 42:1–6 as a whole, however, that self-under-
standing apparently is now affirmed confessionally in agreement with God.”
28. Hartley (1988: 536) argues that these two quotations from 42:3a and 42:4 are showing
that Job has agreed with Yahweh’s first (42:4) and second (42:3) speeches. Hartley (1988: 536)
notes that “Job does not confess any sin here. But Yahweh has made him aware of the danger
of his self-confidence turning into pride . . . he humbles himself before God, conceding he
has misstated his case by speaking about things beyond his ability to know.”
29. See Muenchow (1989), who identifies two types of understanding, namely, “that ac-
quired by traditional learning and that which results from divine revelation.” Elihu’s form of
understanding may be a third category or part of the second. Shelley (1992) makes a distinc-
tion between the distant deity discussed in the dialogues and Yahweh who is revealed in
chaps. 38–41, arguing that in this revelation Job has come to know Yahweh. Contra Pope
(1965: 347–49), who claims that “seeing” here means that Job no longer doubts God’s prov-
idential care.
390 Chapter 19
Job 42:6 completes Job’s response and expresses his concluding posture in
light of his discoveries expressed above in 42:2–5. The translation of this
verse, however, is probably the most highly debated in the book of Job. Here
are several recent examples:
nasb: Therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes.
niv/nrsv: Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.
njpsv: Therefore I recant and relent, being but dust and ashes.
Janzen (1985: 256): Therefore I recant and change my mind concerning
dust and ashes.
Habel (1985: 575): Therefore, I retract and repent of dust and ashes.
Hartley (1988: 535): Therefore I abase myself and recant in dust and ashes.
Clines (1989: xlvi): Therefore I melt in reverence before you, and I have
received my comfort, even while sitting in dust and ashes.
Wolters (1990: 116–17): Therefore I recant and repent, a child of dust and
ashes.
Good (1991: 68): Therefore, I despise and repent of dust and ashes.
Brown (1996: 108): I hereby reject [my life], and am comforted concerning
dust and ashes.
Clifford (1998: 95): Therefore I retract and give up my dust and ashes.
Perdue (2007: 126): I protest, but feel sorry for dust and ashes.
The first verb (sam) typically refers to rejecting or despising something or
someone else and can have either a human (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:15) or divine (e.g.,
2 Kgs 17:20) subject. The object of the verb, what is rejected or despised, can
be a simple direct object or can be introduced by the preposition b. 30 Even
though this verb is transitive in nearly all its instances in the Old Testament,
on five occasions it is intransitive, lacking an object (Ps 89:39[38]; Job 7:16,
34:33, 36:5, 42:6). 31 Without an object, it is unclear what Job is despising or
rejecting. A clue may be drawn from the only other instance in which the verb
is used intransitively on the lips of Job. 32 In Job 7:15–16, the verb is preceded
by the statement “my soul would choose suffocation, death rather than my
pains” and followed by the statement “I will not live forever. Leave me alone,
for my days are but a breath.” This despising appears to be related in some way
to Job’s stance toward his earthly existence, a recognition of his impending
doom and the ephemeral character of his life. Interestingly, this same sense
30. In a simple direct object, the Qal stem is in view: sam + object: Num 11:20; 1 Sam 8:7,
10:19, 15:23; 2 Kgs 17:15, 23:27; Isa 5:24, 8:6, 31:7, 33:8; Jer 7:29, 14:19, 33:26; Ezek 20:13,
24; 21:15; Amos 2:4, 5:21; Pss 36:5, 118:22; Job 5:17, 8:20, 9:21, 10:3, 30:1, 31:13; Prov 3:11,
15:32. sam + object suffix: Lev 26:44; 1 Sam 15:26; 16:1, 7; Isa 41:9; Jer 2:37, 33:24; Hos 4:6,
9:17; Ps 53:6; Lam 5:22. sam + b + object: Lev 26:15, 43; Num 14:31; Judg 9:38; 2 Kgs 17:20;
Isa 6:15, 16; 30:12; 33:15; Jer 4:30, 6:19, 8:9, 31:37; Ezek 5:6, 20:16; Pss 78:59, 67; 106:24; Job
19:18. The Qal in Ezek 21:18 appears in a participial phrase without object. The Niphal, of
course, does not take a preposition (Isa 54:6, Jer 6:30, Ps 15:4).
31. In the case of Ps 89:39, the object is clearly “your anointed” in the second line, but
this object is related syntactically to the closest verb, rb[ Hithpael, using the preposition μ[I.
32. Contra Balentine (2006b: 694), who argues that “the immediate context suggests that
the best option is ‘my words’.” See his fine overview of positions (p. 695).

Job 391
occurs in the transitive use of the verb in Job 9:21, where Job declares, “I do
not take notice of myself; I despise my life.” As I have noted already above, in
chap. 9 Job reveals his premonitions about his desired experience in court
with Yahweh, and, in his initial response after his audience with Yahweh in
Job 40:4–5, his words play off earlier premonitions in chap. 9. In this case, his
earlier premonition was that his only option would be to despise his life. In
these three instances (7:16, 9:21, 42:6), Job thus recognizes his finitude and
mortality before this mysterious Creator God.
The second phrase in 42:6 (rp<aEw; rp:[:Al[" yTIm}j"niw)] has been variously translated
in the past, with differences based largely on the definition of the main verb,
μjn (Niphal), and the meaning of the phrase “dust and ashes” (rp<aEw; rp:[): . 33 The
main verb is used in the Old Testament to refer to “changing one’s mind” as
well as to “being comforted.” When followed, as here, by the preposition l[,
it can have the following nuances (emphasis added):
Be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion for others

with l[": the l[" introduces the one(s) “on whom” one has compassion
Psalm 90:13
Return, O Yahweh! How long?
Have compassion on your servants. (my translation)
Be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent of one’s own doings

with l[": the l[" introduces that “concerning which” one changes a stance/
approach/action
Jonah 3:10
when God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then
God relented concerning the calamity which he had declared he would
bring upon them. And he did not do it.
Jeremiah 8:6
I have listened and heard, They have spoken what is not right; No one
repented of their wickedness, saying, “What have I done?” Everyone
turned to their course, Like a horse charging into the battle. (nasb,
modified)
Comfort oneself, be comforted

with l[": the l[" introduces what “concerning which” one is comforted
2 Samuel 13:39
King David longed to go out to Absalom; for he was comforted concerning
Amnon, since he was dead. (nasb, modified)
33. Morrow (1986) argues that the author of Job has built in deliberate ambiguities. He
thus encourages polysemous translation that takes into account the “wider context of Joban
response” and promotes “vagueness” (similarly, Newsom 1996: 629). Although possible, this
approach does appear to offend Barr’s (1961) principles on the use of language. Also fascinat-
ing is Muenchow (1989), who applies the social dynamics of shame to the encounter be-
tween Yahweh and Job.
392 Chapter 19
Be relieved, ease oneself by taking vengeance

with l[": the l[" introduces what “concerning which” one is relieved/appeased
Isaiah 57:6
Among the smooth stones of the valley is your portion;
they, they, are your lot; to them you have poured out a drink offering,
you have brought a grain offering. Shall I be appeased for these things?
(nasb, modified)
The phrase “dust and ashes” (rp<aEw; rp:[): is used elsewhere in the Old Testament
on only two other occasions. It is found on the lips of Abraham in Gen 18:27
as he disputes with Yahweh over the fate of Sodom: “Now behold, I have ven-
tured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.” In this in-
stance, Abraham appears to be referring to his status as a human speaking to
the divine, that is, the created to the creator, the mortal to the eternal. This
is also suggested by the use of this phrase in Job 30:19, where Job declares,
“He has cast me into the mire, and I have become like dust and ashes,” a con-
dition that precedes death (30:23). 34
These words, however, are also used together one other time in the Old
Testament. In Ezek 27:30, they refer to mourning rites related to the death of
Tyre. The first term, “dust” (rp[), is used on its own elsewhere with this con-
notation, often to express humiliation (1 Sam 2:8; 1 Kgs 16:2; Isa 47:1; Pss 7:6,
44:26, 119:25; Lam 3:16). The second word, “ashes” (rpa), regularly appears in
contexts of mourning (2 Sam 13:19, Job 2:8, Isa 61:3, Jer 6:26), as well as fast-
ing (Isa 58:5; Esth 4:1, 3), and is sometimes associated with repentance (Dan
9:3, Jonah 3:6).
This evidence on dust and ashes helps us evaluate the possible definitions
among the four listed for the main verb (μjn Niphal) above. It is clear that one
cannot “have compassion” on “dust and ashes” (first example above), nor can
one “take vengeance” on “dust and ashes” (fourth example above). This limits
the meaning of this verb to either “repent/change one’s stance” concerning
“dust and ashes” (second example above) or “be comforted” concerning “dust
and ashes” (third example above). What is clear is that Job is not here repent-
ing with the penitential rites of dust and ashes, because this preposition does
not function this way with this verb. 35 However, he could be changing his
34. See Job 17:16, where dust appears alongside the grave (laøv;‘ cf. Isa 26:19; Ps 22:16, 30),
and Job 7:21, 20:11, and 21:26, where it refers to a person’s despicable condition.
35. As Westermann (1981b: 126) concludes, “The usual interpretation to the effect that
Job here adopts the behaviour of a penitent is quite uncertain”; also, Andersen (1976: 292)
claims that this “does not go so far as the abject self-loathing of that radical repentance that
requires admitting known sins. . . . Job could be expressing regret at his foolish words, uttered
hastily and in ignorance”; cf. Habel (1985: 579); Hartley (1988); Whybray (1998: 171). Contra
Delitzsch (1956: 2:382), who speaks of “penitential sorrow for his sin toward God.” Konkel
(Konkel and Longman 2005: 238) straddles these two views. Also contrast the radical inter-
pretation of J. Curtis (1979), whose unorthodox translation results in a speech that “totally
Job 393
stance concerning his mortality 36 or he could be comforted concerning his

mortality. That the former is in view is suggested by the following evidence.
First, the preceding verses have focused exclusively on Yahweh’s free sover-
eignty and the limitations of humanity’s wisdom. Second, the immediately
preceding verb declares that Job despises life. 37 Third, because the preceding
verb plays on Job’s premonition in Job 9:21, it is interesting that Job 9:20 de-
clares “Though I am righteous, my mouth will condemn me; though I am
guiltless, he will declare me guilty.” This suggests that, while Job is guiltless in
regard to sin that caused this suffering, it is his mouth that has condemned
him, that is, his verbal assault on God’s justice that would constitute his
speech. Job does indeed “repent,” that is, he is forced to retract his comments
about God’s justice and his presupposition that humanity deserves an expla-
nation from God. 38 The translation of 42:6, then, would be “Therefore, I
despise [life], and I retract my comments concerning mortality.”
By doing this, Job ironically confesses the arrogance of the wisdom tradi-
tion to which he once subscribed and from which he has received such ruth-
less attacks. According to the narrator in 42:7, servant Job has indeed “spoken
of [Yahweh] what is right.” 39 His priestly act on behalf of his friends is per-
formed on behalf of the entire wisdom tradition, including himself, as the fi-
nal statement of 42:9 declares: “and Yahweh accepted (hxr) Job.” Only then
does Yahweh restore his fortunes (42:10), increasing Job’s possession twofold.
Summary
The book of Job provides one of the most detailed explications of the the-
ology of retribution in the Old Testament. Through the speeches of the
friends the book offers a vision for renewal from the discipline caused by sin. Ac-
cording to Eliphaz, this involves being taught of God, placing his words in the
heart, repenting by removing unrighteousness, embracing God, and praying
to him. According to Bildad, it will mean seeking God and imploring his
and unequivocally rejects Yahweh.” For a superb critique of Curtis, see Porter (1991: 299),
who notes the disjuncture this proposal would create between Job’s final speech and God’s
commendation in Job 42:7: “The question is raised about why such a dense redactor would
append a statement of commendation upon a series of speeches by Job which are so clearly
out of harmony.”
36. Another option is offered by D. Patrick (1976), who suggests that the object of his re-
pentance is his “wallowing in dust and ashes,” with “dust and ashes” signifying his posture
of lamentation and mourning.
37. Contra Clines (1989: xlvi), who translates this as “Therefore I melt in reverence before
you, and I have received my comfort, even while sitting in dust and ashes.”
38. So Pope (1965: 348), who says the object of sgm (“retract”) is Job’s “former attitude and
utterances” (i.e., about God’s justice).
39. In light of Job’s change of perspective in the previous verse, Yahweh appears to be
pointing to Job’s final responses in 40:4–5 and especially 42:1–6. For a full discussion of this
issue, see Porter (1991), although he concludes that Yahweh’s words are ambiguous, leaving
“the interpreter with the begrudging inference that all of what Job has said is correct” (p. 303).
394 Chapter 19
grace. For Zophar, renewal entails directing one’s heart and spreading one’s
hands to God, removing wickedness and lifting up one’s face to God. Elihu
emphasizes the importance of a prophetic mediatorial figure who will identify
the sin and intercede for the sinner through atonement, so that the person
can pray, confess sin, and give thanks to God. This retribution theology empha-
sizes the need for human response, especially represented through penitence,
confession, and prayer (Hartley 1988: 48). Although Job in the end does not ad-
mit that sin caused his suffering, his final response surprisingly does represent
a penitence of perspective, one that was essential to freeing traditional wisdom
from its demand for repentance in the face of suffering. 40
It is ironic that the book of Job has left such a robust record of the Old Tes-
tament theology of retribution. Although the book does not reject this theol-
ogy, it warns the reader that while there are typical and dominant ways that
Yahweh acts in relation to obedience and disobedience, in the end he pos-
sesses sovereign freedom. 41 Put succinctly, “God’s rule of the world cannot be
reduced to the tidy formula of rigid retribution theology” (Estes 2005: 23). 42
The wager by Satan appears to be an extraordinary incident at the outset
of the book, suggesting that God’s dominant mode is to bless faithfulness and
curse wickedness. However, God retains the right to grant his grace and even his
discipline according to his sovereignty. It is this truth that should have been com-
forting for Israel, because, if Yahweh were to follow a strict retribution model,
they would never have survived. It was his extraordinary displays of mercy in
the face of their wicked rebellion that ensured their continued existence.
40. As Good (1991) argues, Job “repents of repentance.”

41. For retribution theology in Job, see Hartley (1988: 22); Murphy (2002: 34). The lack of
mention of the retribution principle in God’s speeches shows Clines (1989: xlv) that “it is not
so fundamental to understanding the world as all the previous characters of the book have
thought. But it must also mean that is not entirely wrong, either.” Later, he notes that God’s
speeches “marginalize” the doctrine of retribution. The main issue is instead “whether God
can be trusted to run his world” (xlvi). For sovereign freedom in Job, see Estes (2005: 25–26):
“Although the book of Job upholds the general truth that Yahweh blesses those who are righ-
teous and punishes those who are evil, especially in the restoration of blessing to Job in the
epilogue . . . it also supplements that typical pattern with the divine freedom to work in ways
that to the finite human mind appear in conflict with the principle of retribution.”
42. Truly, the book of Job reminds its audience that repentance should not be the auto-
matic response to suffering. See Bautch (2003: 161–65), who argues that penitential prayers
and Job 29–31 drew from the same theological resources, with the former moving toward pen-
itence and the latter to protest. Building on this, Balentine (2006a: 20) finds in Job “a missing
link to what may have been an internal debate concerning the appropriateness and/or re-
quirement of repentance. . . . Perhaps the priestly tradition also knew and valued the legacy
of Job’s refusal to relinquish lament for rituals of penitence that may be too inflexible to coun-
tenance a legitimate protest of innocence.” However, the book hardly encourages lament,
ending as it does with Job’s silence before the awesome presence and voice of God. It appears
that both retribution theology and the book of Job ultimately squelch even “legitimate
protest of innocence.”
Chapter 20
Psalms (Part 1)
Nearly all the books of the Old Testament evidence some signs of dia-
chronic development, but this development is particularly obvious in the
book of Psalms. With their many voices of piety and liturgy, most of the
psalms suggest an oral context within the worship and experience of Israel
both individually and corporately. Typical patterns have been identified as
genres, and in turn these have been associated with certain settings in life that
gave rise to and fostered the various types of speech. Understandably, then, in
the past the psalms have often been studied in isolation from one another,
with the book considered an anthology of (mostly) oral compositions used in
the worship of Israel.
There has been an increasing trend in recent years, however, to treat the
Psalter more as a book than an anthology. 1 Drawing on evidence ranging
from the presence of strikingly similar short doxological fragments at the end
of each of the first four books of the Psalter to patterns in the superscriptions
to the similarities in content between the psalms employed at the beginning
and end of each book, many have argued for treating the Psalter as a book
with an overall literary shape and meaning.
Both of these trends in Old Testament study of the Psalter are legitimate
and reflect sensitivity to the content of the book of Psalms. Tracing the theme
of sin and its remedy within the Psalter will mean attending to the meaning
of the psalms as they arose from the experience of Israel, but it also means
looking at the overall literary shape of the book to trace its implications for
our theme. The next two chapters will consider this theme as it is developed
in the various genres and particular psalms within the Psalter, as well as in the
overall structure of the Psalter as a book. In this, we will need to deal with the
reality that “the psalms reflect different stages of biblical thought” (Sabourin
1974: 104) and through this discover the diverse theological expression found
1. The most extensive work undertaken over the past two decades includes Wilson
(1985; 1986: 85–94; 1993a: 72–82; 1993b: 42–51); McCann (1993a: 93–107; 1993b); Mc-
Cann and McCann (1993); Mays (1987: 3–12; 1994); M. Smith (1992: 408–12); Miller (1993:
83–92); Anderson (1994: 219–41); Lohfink and Zenger (1994; 2000); Bergant (1997: 53–66);
Kuntz (2000); DeClaissé-Walford (1997; 2000; 2004); Wenham (2006); cf. review of scholar-
ship in Howard (1989: 274–85) and critique in Nasuti (1999); Whybray (1996). See Boda
(forthcoming c).
- 395 -
396 Chapter 20
within the book. This diversity, however, will be considered ultimately in

light of the overall structure of the Psalter in order to identify the theological
viewpoint of the editors who shaped the Psalter into its final form. In many
ways, studying the theology of the Psalter parallels the study of the theology
of the Old Testament. The psalms reflect diversity as independent literary
units that originated and were used in a variety of historical contexts and yet
that have been drawn together into a canonical unity to provide a theological
perspective that transcends the sum of its parts.
The Righteous and the Wicked
The Psalms and Retribution Theology

Psalm 1, clearly arising from the wisdom tradition, distinguishes between
two radically different paths: the way of the righteous and the way of the
wicked (v. 6). The way of the wicked is accompanied by various sinful charac-
ters, including the wicked ([v…r): , the sinner (aF:j"), and the scoffer (≈lE; vv. 1, 5)
and leads to a judgment (fP:v‘m)I , 2 which involves expulsion from the worship-
ing community (v. 5) and destruction by Yahweh (v. 6b). In contrast, the way
of the righteous is guided by the Torah (v. 2) and leads to enduring life and
prosperity (v. 3) under the watchful eye of Yahweh (v. 6a).
Truly, the psalm is descriptive of the two ways that one can take in life,
ways that are portrayed as stark contrasts. However, the psalm is more than
merely descriptive, for it favors one way over the other, a preference suggested
by the pejorative terms and negative outcomes associated with the way of the
wicked alongside the encouraging images and positive outcomes associated
with the way of the righteous. The psalm begins by requiring negative action,
rejection of the way of the wicked, but then blessing those who instead posi-
tively embrace the way of Torah righteousness. By doing this, the psalm serves
as a penitential signpost at the entrance to the Psalter, reminding all that read-
ing this book demands the rejection of one way and the embrace of another.
This vision of the two ways permeates much of the Psalter. In Psalms 9–10,
the psalmist cries to God to respond to the plight of the innocent and help-
less who are abused by the “wicked” (10:12). The request is for God to break
the power of the “wicked and evildoers,” calling them to account for their
evil deeds, for it is only God who sees evil such as this and who has sovereign
jurisdiction over the wicked (10:13–15). Psalm 34 begins with thanksgiving to
2. The phrase “to stand (μwq) in (b) the judgment (fpvm)” is unique in the Old Testament.
It is possible that fP:v‘mI here could refer to court as in Job 9:32, 14:4; cf. 34:23, where parties
go (awb/˚lh) to court (fP:v‘m)I . The verb μwq (“to stand”) can signify serving as a witness in a
court (cf. Deut 19:15–16; Pss 27:12, 35:11; Job 19:25; Hartley 1988: 294). Evidence from Ps
76:10[9], “in the arising (μwq) to (l) judgement (fpvm) of God” (when God arose for judg-
ment), and Isa 54:17, “and every tongue which arises (μwq) against you for (l) judgement
(fpvm), you will condemn,” suggests that this may mean that attempts by the wicked to ma-
nipulate justice inappropriately will not be allowed.
Psalms (Part 1) 397
God for deliverance, with an accompanying invitation to the community to

participate. This communal context sets up a teaching moment with many
wisdom sayings that focus on the distinction between the righteous and the
wicked. 3 The retribution theology of Psalm 1 is also evident in Psalm 34 with
Yahweh’s eyes and ears open to the righteous but Yahweh’s face directed
against evildoers (vv. 16–23[15–22]). The basic posture of the righteous is de-
scribed in the invitation to children (μynib): to listen and learn the fear of Yah-
weh in vv. 12–15[11–14] and includes keeping (rxn) the tongue from evil ([r)
and lips from deceit, departing (rws) from evil ([r) and doing (hc[) good (bwf),
seeking (vqb Piel) and pursuing (πdr) peace. Here again is the emphasis on the
rejection of sin and pursuit of good as key for the righteous.
Similar vocabulary is found in the wisdom composition (Craigie 1983:
296), Psalm 37, which again teaches a clear distinction between the wicked
and righteous and their respective fates. The psalmist exhorts the righteous to
pursue Yahweh and his path, trusting in (vv. 3, 5), taking delight in (v. 4),
committing one’s way to (v. 5), being still before (v. 7), waiting patiently for
(v. 7), and hoping in him (v. 34). This will involve actively pursuing righteous-
ness by doing good (vv. 3, 27) and keeping Yahweh’s way (v. 34) but also ac-
tively rejecting wickedness by refraining from anger (v. 8), turning from wrath
(v. 8), and turning from evil (v. 27). As we have seen in Psalm 1, the way of
the righteous involves both active rejection of wickedness and active pursuit
of righteousness.
Echoes of this fundamental retribution theology laid out at the outset of
the Psalter can be heard in many other places. On the one hand, according to
Psalm 56 God must attack the psalmist’s enemies “because of wickedness”
(v. 8[7]), and according to Ps 68:22[21] God will “shatter the head of his ene-
mies, the hairy crown of him who goes on (˚lh Hithpael) in his guilty deeds.”
Furthermore, Psalm 94 reminds the reader that although the wicked think
God does not see (v. 7), God does indeed see (vv. 9–10) and will repay the
wicked for their sins and destroy them for their wickedness (v. 23). On the
other hand, Ps 84:12[11] claims that “no good thing does he withhold from
those who walk uprightly (μymIT): . 4 O Lord of hosts, How blessed (yrev‘a)" is the
one who trusts (jfb) in you” (nasb, modified). Both the negative and positive
dimensions of this retribution theology can be discerned in Psalm 125 when
it expresses the basic principle that Yahweh does good to those who are good
and upright in heart but banishes those who turn to crooked ways and are
evildoers (vv. 4–5). In addition, after warning the hearers to avoid extortion,
3. Craigie (1983: 278) notes that vv. 10–23[9–22] have “the general characteristics of wis-
dom or didactic poetry,” whereas Kraus (1988: 383) describes it as “a didactic poem which is
conceived under the influence of wisdom traditions.”
4. The term μymIT: is used often in the wisdom tradition: Job 12:4; Ps 119:1, 80; Prov 2:21;
11:5, 20; 28:10, 18; cf. Gen 6:9, 17:1; Deut 18:13; Josh 24:14; Pss 18:25[24], 34[33]; 19:9[8];
37:18; 101:6.
398 Chapter 20
stolen goods, and setting their hearts on riches, the psalmist in Psalm 62 ends
with the principle that God does indeed “reward everyone according to what
they have done” (v. 13[12], tniv), the fundamental premise of retribution
theology. 5
It is the strong presence of this theology in the piety of Israel expressed
throughout the Psalter that explains the dilemma faced by the psalmist in
Psalm 73. 6 The psalmist confidently declares at the outset the belief that
God’s goodness is extended to those in Israel who are “pure in heart” (bb:lE yreb;:
v. 1), and yet the crisis described in this psalm is one precipitated by the lack
of congruity between this principle and the reality of life, especially as the
psalmist observes “the prosperity of the wicked ([v…r): ” (v. 3). The declaration
in v. 13 showcases the psalmist’s view of the relationship between sin and af-
fliction: “Surely in vain I have kept my heart (bbl) pure (hkz Piel), and washed
(≈jr) my hands in innocence (ˆ/yQ:n)i .” Based on the same theology that intro-
duces the Psalter in Psalm 1, this psalmist believes that the way of the righ-
teous is to be the way of blessing and protection from Yahweh (Hossfeld and
Zenger 2005: 224). In the end, the answer in Psalm 73 parallels that of Psalm
1, because it reveals that Yahweh will ultimately punish the wicked (vv. 17–
20, 27). However, the psalm is an important reminder that although Psalm 1
does speak of God’s retribution and reward, principles such as these cannot be
rigidly applied because the righteous often suffer and the wicked prosper, if
only for a time (see discussion on Job, pp. 377–394). 7
A similar dilemma is faced by the one(s) who composed Psalm 44. This
communal psalm of disorientation is focused on the Exile of the community
(vv. 12–13[11–12]), which follows a loss in battle (vv. 10–11[9–10]). 8 The
5. For the connection between Psalm 62 and the wisdom tradition, see Tate (1990: 119–
20). Kraus (1989: 15) notes how the beginning of v. 12[11] “corresponds to the enumerative
statement of wisdom teaching (cf. Prov. 6:16; 30:15).” This is not surprising in light of the
content of vv. 11–12, which look to wisdom’s retribution principle.
6. For connections between this psalm and wisdom, see Gunkel and Begrich (1933: 312);
A. Anderson (1972b); Luyten (1979); Kraus (1989: 84–85); Tate (1990: 231–32); Hossfeld and
Zenger (2005: 224). Anderson and Hossfeld and Zenger note an association with Job and Tate
with “reflections” like Qoheleth; cf. Murphy (1981: 130).
7. According to Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 225), the way out of the dilemma is provided
by “revelation wisdom,” which transcends traditional wisdom through “an experience of
God that is reflected through linguistic tools with cultic connotations.”
8. In this work on Psalms, I have adopted with modification the categories used by Brueg-
gemann (1984a) and Brueggemann and Miller (1995). Cf. Boda (2005b; 2006c). In general,
praise is called orientation, request is called disorientation, and thanksgiving is called reori-
entation. Requests (disorientation) are divided into two phases, with phase one consisting of
the classic laments with their questions of “why, how long” expressing their disillusionment
in the midst of their predicament and phase two consisting of two types: the songs of confi-
dence in which the bitterness of lament is not evident and the songs of penitence in which
the bitterness of lament has been turned to confession of sin. Matching these two types of
phase-two requests are two fundamental types of thanksgiving (reorientation), that is, thanks-
giving for God’s rescue from a predicament and thanksgiving for God’s forgiveness from sin.
This does not exhaust the kinds of psalms, and one can see both liturgical and wisdom streams
Psalms (Part 1) 399
psalmist is shocked at these developments, because the people had not of-
fended God by forgetting him (v. 18[17]), being false to his covenant (v. 18[17]),
turning back their hearts (v. 19[18]), straying with their feet (v. 19[18]), for-
getting the name of their God (v. 21[20]), or spreading out their hands to a for-
eign god (v. 21[20]). Key to the motivation for God to act is the incongruity
between the actions and circumstances of the people. They are innocent and
yet have experienced this crushing defeat. This strong request is based firmly
on the community’s implicit trust in the theology expressed in Psalm 1.
Entrance Liturgies
A line between the righteous and the wicked is also drawn in a second type
of psalm, that is, compositions such as Psalms 15 and 24 that reflect ancient
liturgies used to invite worshipers into God’s presence and to invoke God’s
presence in worship. 9
At the time of the entrance into the sanctuary in Jerusalem, a liturgical act
took place. . . . The participants in the worship stand at the portals of the
worship area and ask the question: “O Yahweh, who may sojourn in your
tent, who may dwell on your holy hill?” From the inside a priestly speaker
answers them with the declaration of the conditions of entrance. . . . Only
then does the entry begin. 10
These psalms make clear that those who enter the sacred precincts must have
ethical purity, walking (˚lh) “with integrity (μymIT): ” (Ps 15:2), doing (l[p) “righ-
teousness (qd,x)< ” (Ps 15:2), possessing “clean (yqIn); hands and a pure (rB") heart”
(24:4), and despising the “reprobate” (15:4) and rejecting idolatry (24:4).
These two psalms function in the liturgical experience of Israel in the same
way that Psalm 1 functions within the literary flow of the Psalter. They remind
the worshiper that to be in the presence of a holy God demands that one dis-
play God’s character in life. Once again, there is a clear dividing line between
the righteous and the wicked.
Psalms of the Accused

The distinction between the wicked and righteous is key to psalms express-
ing the retribution tradition, which often arise from the wisdom tradition in
Israel, and the entrance liturgies so important to the worship tradition of Is-
rael. It also permeates another type of psalm in the Old Testament, one that
within the Psalter related to this basic cycle. Kraus (1988: 445–46) reveals the difficulty of
dating Psalm 44.
9. See Craigie (1983: 211–12); Kraus (1988: 227, 311–12); Gerstenberger (1988: 86–88,
117–19). Kraus (1986: 156) probably goes too far in calling these “guides to confession” in
which “concrete offenses are confessed,” even though the only confession here is possibly
the declaration that the worshiper has walked in righteousness rather than wickedness.
10. Kraus (1988: 227; see also 260–62); cf. Gunkel (1967: 22). See Kraus also for ancient
Near Eastern evidence of similar entrance liturgies.
400 Chapter 20
is often called the “prayer of the accused.” 11 The context for the use of the
form is most likely provided in 1 Kgs 8:31–32 (cf. Deut 17:8–13):
If a person sins against their neighbor and is made to take an oath, and
comes and takes an oath before your altar in this house, then hear from
heaven and act and judge your servants, condemning the wicked by bring-
ing their way on their own head and justifying the righteous by giving them
according to their righteousness. (nasb, modified)
This sacral legal institution was reserved for difficult cases that could not be
resolved on the local level, probably cases in which witnesses were not avail-
able and thus needed divine revelation for resolution. Through psalms such
as 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 17, 23, 26, 27, 57, 63, and possibly also 9/10, 12, 25, 42/43,
54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 62, 64, 70, 86, 94, 109, 140, 142, and 143, one can discern
a juridical process likely comprised of the following elements (Kraus 1988:
53–55):
• The accused seeks protection in the temple area: “to you do I flee,” “I take
refuge with you.”
• The accused undergoes a preliminary investigation of the case, possibly
entering the temple area for “proskynesis,” where the accused expresses
trust in the protective presence of God (Pss 17:8, 27:5, 57:2[1], etc.).
• The accused takes an oath of purification and self-malediction (1 Kgs
8:31, Ps 7:4[3]ff.), asking God to judge or vindicate the accused.
• The accused remains overnight for the rendering of the decision “in the
morning.” Remaining in the temple courts at night exposes the accused
to examination and testing in the presence of God (Ps 17:3). Possibly, a
sacrifice is offered in the morning prior to the decision.
• The process is complete when the parties accept the divine decision.
• If acquitted, the person is to give thanks to Yahweh, possibly in the pres-
ence of the accuser (see Ps 23:5).
This setting is helpful for understanding the roots of the attestation of inno-
cence that is ubiquitous within the Psalter. In Psalm 5, it is the “righteous”
(qyDix)" , that is, those “who take refuge in you,” who are blessed and protected
by entering the temple, praying and being heard (5:3[2], 8[7], 12–13[11–12]).
On the other hand, it is the “wicked” ([vær), , described as the boastful (llh),
those who do iniquity (ˆw,,a): , who speak falsehood (bz;k): , and commit bloodshed
(μymID:AvyaI) and deceit (hm:r]m)I , who cannot stand in God’s presence (5:6[5]), who
are destroyed (5:7[6]) and declared guilty (5:11[10]). Again in Psalm 7, the
“righteous” (v. 10[9]) are those who “have taken refuge” in Yahweh (v. 2[1])
and they dare to ask for vindication according to their righteousness/integrity
(v. 8b[7b]), admitting that if they have guilt they deserve the attack of their
enemy (vv. 4–6[3–5]) and expressing confidence that they are not guilty but
11. For this, see Kraus (1988: 53–55). This genre was investigated originally by Schmidt
(1928) and later by Delekat (1967) and Beyerlin (1970).

Psalms (Part 1) 401
rather the enemy deserves the guilty verdict because of sin. In this sacral legal
setting, the attestation of innocence is key: the person is falsely accused in a
particular matter and is seeking exoneration. The person is not claiming per-
fection but is focused on a particular matter of which one is being accused. In
Psalm 11, when the psalmist is encouraged to flee like a bird away from his
enemies, it is because “the wicked” ([v…r); threaten to kill “the upright (rv…y); in
the heart” (v. 2). The searching question of v. 3, “What can the righteous do?”
is answered by confident assurance in vv. 4–7 that Yahweh tests (ˆjb) both
“righteous” (qyDix)" and “wicked” ([v…r); , the former to exonerate them so that
the “upright” (rv…y); may “behold his face” and the latter to punish them.
This focus on testing in the psalms of the accused is also evident in Psalms
17 and 26. In Psalm 17, the psalmist cries for God to hear this prayer because
it does not come from deceitful lips (v. 1). The supplicant encourages God’s
judgment (fP:v‘m)I , which will involve trying (ˆjb) the psalmist’s heart and test-
ing (πrx) the psalmist through the divine ordeal of the night (v. 3). Psalm 26
begins in similar fashion, inviting Yahweh to judge (fpv) the psalmist, confi-
dent in the fact that the psalmist has “walked (˚lh) in integrity (μTø)” and
“trusted (jfb) without wavering (d[m)” (v. 1; cf. v. 11). This divine judgment
involves Yahweh examining (ˆjb), trying (hsn Piel), and testing (πrx) 12 the
psalmist and the psalmist’s inner thoughts (v. 2). The supplicant then offers a
list of actions (vv. 4–6) which confirm that the psalmist has indeed “walked
in your truth” (v. 3) and will at the end of this ordeal wash the hands in “in-
nocence” (ˆ/yQ:n)i and offer thanksgiving at the altar (v. 7). It is clear that, for
this psalmist, “integrity” and “innocence” are key to God’s redemption and
grace in the face of false accusation.
Protestations of human innocence and invitations for divine testing such
as these, however, cannot be restricted to psalms with clear ties to sacral legal
procedures. In the thanksgiving psalm, Psalm 18, the psalmist declares that
Yahweh heard the cry because of “my righteousness (qd,x)< . . . the cleanness
(rBø) of my hands” (vv. 21[20], 25[24]), because the psalmist had “been blame-
less (μymIT): before him” and had “kept myself (rmv Hithpael) from my iniq-
uity” (v. 24[23]). In contrast, the enemies received no help from Yahweh and
so were defeated by the psalmist (v. 42[41]). Similarly, in the individual prayer
of thanksgiving of Psalm 66, the psalmist declares, “If I regard wickedness in
my heart, the Lord will not hear, but certainly God has heard; he has given
heed to the voice of my prayer” (vv. 18–19). The psalmist’s innocence of
“wickedness in the heart” is key to his salvation. In Psalm 101, the psalmist
cries for God’s help very subtly and simply through the question “When will
you come to me?” (v. 2). The remainder of the psalm unpacks the psalmist’s
commitment stated at the outset of the psalm: “I will give heed (lkc Hiphil)
12. The latter term, which is often translated as refining (as in metal), is used with the
sense of testing, that is, as metals are tested for their purity through refining, so the divine or-
deal will test the truth of the psalmist (cf. Jer 9:6; Isa 48:10; Zech 13:9; Pss 17:3, 66:10).
402 Chapter 20
to the blameless (μymIT): way. . . . I will walk within my house in the integrity
(μTø) of my heart” (v. 2). It is possible that this is a reference to a new commit-
ment that the psalmist is now undertaking, but more likely this is an expres-
sion of innocence as the basis for God to act.
The testing that is important to the psalms of the accused is evident as well
in Psalm 139, a disorientation psalm that looks to the destruction of the
wicked who appear to be attacking the psalmist (vv. 19–22). The psalm is
dominated by a theological review of God’s omniscience and omnipresence
(vv. 1–18) and this lays the foundation for the supplicant’s invitation for God
to search (rqj) and try (ˆjb) the psalmist in order to know ([dy) the psalmist’s
heart and anxious thoughts, whether there be any idol (bx[; cf. Isa 48:5) in
the supplicant. The psalmist appears to be confident that this is not the case
but invites God’s close examination as the suppliant cries for divine rescue.
Underlying this is the concern that sin would be an impediment to salvation
from the enemies.
Summary
These various types of psalms highlight the fact that the Psalter makes a
clear distinction between the righteous and the wicked, 13 placing priority on
the need for innocence from guilt for God to accept worship, hear prayer, and
provide blessing. These various psalms reveal an important theological stream
that God acts according to one’s righteousness. One can discern within many
of these psalms the influence of the wisdom tradition with its “two ways” the-
ology, which makes clear distinctions between two lifestyles. Evidence from
the liturgical tradition, especially the entrance liturgies used for festal proces-
sions, and the sacral legal tradition, especially the prayer of the accused, sug-
gest an association with the temple and its services (both liturgical and legal).
Possibly these three streams should not be distinguished from one another in
terms of the development of tradition, 14 and certainly they cannot be distin-
guished from one another in terms of the final form of the Psalter, in which
they have been fused together as a united theological expression.
The premium placed on righteousness rather than wickedness and the con-
sequences of choosing one over the other is a clear sign that sin is taken very
seriously in the Psalter. The discipline of God is regularly associated with the
wicked and the blessing of God with the righteous. The Psalter expresses the
theology that sin will be discouraged through punishment, and righteousness
will be encouraged through blessing. Implicit in the pervasive appeals to
13. See Weiser (1962: 78–79) for earlier approaches to this distinction, which included op-
posing parties in the Second Temple period, sorcerers, and even political opponents of the
royal house. Weiser opts for the sacral legal understanding, but even this is too constricting.
14. See Perdue (1977). Notice also how Craigie (1983: 150) treats Psalm 15 as “a wisdom
poem, based perhaps upon the form of the entrance liturgy; its didactic role would have been
in the instruction of young people concerning the moral implications of participating in
worship.” Similarly, Gerstenberger (1988: 87) notes “wisdom features” in Psalm 15.
Psalms (Part 1) 403
these two categories is the call to penitence, that is, for those tempted to pur-
sue sin to choose the way of the righteous with its benefits and to eschew the
way of wickedness with its consequences.
Nevertheless, the Psalter also offers another perspective on sin and its rem-
edy, one that makes more explicit the path from the wicked to the righteous
through admitting guilt and seeking forgiveness.
Admission of Guilt, Forgiveness,

and Transformation
The clear distinction between the identity and fate of the righteous and
wicked accentuates God’s character of justice, which is essential to the main-
tenance of a good world. The psalms considered in the following section,
however, are dominated by the grace of this just God, which provides a path
from the way of the wicked to the way of the righteous.
Humans and Sin

It has been shown to this point that many psalms express a clear distinction
between the righteous and wicked, either in the service of retribution theology
associated with the wisdom tradition, in liturgical experiences related to festal
worship, or in legal processes related to sacral law. Because of the clear lines
drawn between these two human identities, to this point sin has been re-
stricted to the wicked, whereas the righteous have been depicted consistently
as pure and innocent. This is expressed poignantly in Psalm 36, a psalm of dis-
orientation with wisdom themes (see v. 4[3]) that describes the sinfulness of
the wicked. The psalmist traces this sinfulness at the outset to their lack of the
fear of God (v. 2[1]). As a result, the wicked will receive the judgment of God
(vv. 12–13[11–12]), but those who know God and are upright in heart will ex-
perience God’s covenant loyalty (ds<j)< and righteousness (hq:d;x;} v. 11[10]). The
nearly identical psalms, Psalms 14 and 53, however, take this understanding
of sin into the international arena. 15 This psalm of disorientation, with its cry
in 14:7 (= 53:7[6]) “that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion!” is
dominated by an evaluation of the state of foolish (lb:n;; v. 1) humanity (μd;a: yneB;}
v. 2). 16 Humanity as a whole is described as having turned aside to corruption
and injustice (v. 1, 3), leaving none who do good, understand, or seek after God
(v. 2). The referent of this evaluation appears, however, to be non-Israelite hu-
manity, because they are described in v. 4 as those who “devour my people.” 17
15. See Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 36–39) for a superb review of the similarities and dif-
ferences between these two psalms.
16. Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 40) speak of the “wisdom theology inherited by this
psalm.”
17. So Tate (1990: 41). Kraus (1988: 514) considers the petitioner as one of the “uninflu-
ential, poor members of the OT people of God,” based on 14:6, which is left out in Psalm 53.
However, both psalms speak in more general terms about humanity, and both look for the
salvation of “my people” and “Israel.”
404 Chapter 20
It is in Psalm 90 that the universal stain of sin, one that extends even to Is-
raelites, is articulated. This psalm of disorientation with wisdom themes (see
especially v. 12) 18 asks for God to save the psalmist from impending death.
Verses 7–8 state that this threat to life and probably the shortness of life in gen-
eral is to be traced back to God’s anger and indignation (vv. 7, 9, 11), which
are in turn prompted by human iniquities (ˆ/[:) and “secrets” (μl[), which are
set before God (v. 8). 19 The psalmist’s only hope is in Yahweh’s covenant faith-
fulness (ds<j)< and favor (μ["n)o , even though the psalmist expresses a desire to be
taught to number his days in order that one may present to Yahweh a heart
of wisdom (v. 12). Psalm 90 sees Yahweh’s grace as the only hope for survival,
expresses a vision for renewal beyond God’s forgiveness, and, importantly for
our discussion, links the universal affliction of death to the sins of humanity
before God, both known and unknown.
Psalm 143, with its undertones of the psalm of the accused, 20 takes this
theology of human culpability even one step further. This psalm of disorien-
tation cries for God’s help from enemies (vv. 3, 12) that appear to be threat-
ening the psalmist’s life (vv. 4, 7, 11). The call for divine rescue includes a
request for God not to bring the psalmist into judgment “for in your sight no
one living is righteous” (v. 2). This expresses a theology of universal culpabil-
ity that renders all people guilty before God and deserving of judgment and
stands in stark contrast to the protestations of innocence already seen in the
psalms of the accused. “Whereas it was otherwise customary for the accused
and persecuted to affirm their innocence . . . and to insist on their hqdx [righ-
teousness/ innocence] . . . the petitioner of Psalm 143 now recognizes that he
cannot stand before Yahweh’s judgment” (Kraus 1989: 536). This recognition
explains why the prayer looks to God’s faithfulness (hn;Wma”; v. 1), righteousness
(hq:d:x;} vv. 1, 12), covenant loyalty (ds<j;< v. 8), and fame (v. 11) as the basis for
rescue. “The relativity of human morality over against divine absolutes means
that he can make no demands upon God. He must throw himself upon cove-
nant grace” (Allen 1983: 284). In addition, this recognition of culpability
prompts the supplicant to ask God to “cause him to know ([dy Hiphil)” the
way he should walk and to teach (dml Piel) the psalmist God’s will (vv. 8, 10).
The need for divine intervention to enable obedience is also seen in the
psalmist’s request for God’s “good Spirit” (hb:/f Új“Wr) to lead (hjn Hiphil) the
psalmist on level ground (v. 10).
18. For the “strong Wisdom infusion” in this psalm, see Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 418).
19. Most likely, these are secret sins, as suggested by the phrase blE t/mlU[“T" in Ps 44:21,
which refers back to the list of disobedience in the previous verses. See also the use of rts
Niphal, hidden sins, in Ps 19:13[12] to refer to nonpresumptuous sins.
20. See Allen (1983: 282–84); though Beyerlin (1970: 36–37) distances the psalm from
this setting because of the absence of the protestation of innocence. On this development,
see Kraus (1989: 537–37) and the discussion below, p. 405.
Psalms (Part 1) 405
These various psalms offer insight into the articulation of the theology of
sin within the Hebrew Psalter. As has been shown, many of the psalms draw
clear lines between the righteous and wicked, at times based on a retribution
theology that linked blessing with obedience and curse with disobedience
and at other times based on a sacral legal procedure that evaluated the inno-
cence of the falsely accused. However, in certain psalms one can discern the
exposition of a theology of sin that ultimately encompassed all humanity,
whether righteous or wicked.
One might see in this a development that led to the demise of the sacral
legal category of innocence:
Ancient institutions of sacral law here suffer an incalculable decline and are
at the point of vanishing (Heb. 8:13). The “justification of the sinner” (ius-
tificatio impii) announces itself here. The sacral ascertainment of the hqdx
[righteousness] itself becomes doubtful and strives toward a final defeat.
(Kraus 1989: 536–37)
However, it is uncertain whether such theological developments (or streams
at least) explain fully the psalms that incorporate admission of guilt as a mi-
nor and/or dominant element. This element, though not as evident as the
protestation of innocence, is important and widespread in the Psalter. It may
be that the roots of both protestation of innocence and admission of guilt are
equally ancient within the history of Israel’s cry to God.
Psalms with Admission of Guilt as a Minor Element

In some psalms, the admission of guilt appears as a minor element. Not
surprisingly, in these psalms the attack on the enemy continues to dominate.
Psalms of the Individual

Whereas Psalm 19 is often considered a fusion of two originally distinct
psalms, the first praising the glory of God in creation and the second the glory
of the Torah, nevertheless, the final form of this psalm not only combines
these two into a larger literary complex but uses them as a foundation for a
request in prayer. 21 The psalm highlights the importance of the law for avoid-
ing sin and distinguishes between two types of sin.
The psalm begins with teaching on the glory and work of God proclaimed
constantly and universally through creation, ending with the sun, which
makes its circuit over the entire earth (19:2–7[1–6]). It then teaches about the
perfections of the law of God and its impact on the one who embraces it
(19:8–12[7–11]). The law both warns and rewards (19:12[11]).
21. Two distinct psalms: see Kraus (1988: 268–69). Craigie (1983: 179) sees the resulting
unity as a wisdom hymn, though he admits that it has some features of prayer. Kraus (1988:
269) identifies vv. 8–15[7–14] as “didactic poetry” that belongs to his category of Torah
psalms (cf. Psalm 1).
406 Chapter 20
This teaching lays the foundation for the requests that arise at the end of
the psalm in vv. 13–15[12–14]. God’s universal presence in the world through
creation and God’s particular revelation through the Torah lead to the search-
ing question in v. 13a[12a], “Who can discern their own errors?” 22 After view-
ing the heavens and the law, the psalmist “becomes aware of his own
insignificance and unworthiness in so glorious a context and can only pray.
He prays for acquittal, or forgiveness” (Craigie 1983: 182). Although the term
for “errors” only occurs here in the Old Testament, the likely corresponding
verbal root hgv is used in Lev 4:13, Num 15:22, and Ezek 45:20 to refer to a
sin of ignorance or inadvertence (Anderson 1972a: 172; see discussion on Le-
viticus, pp. 49–85). The term that follows this, “hidden faults” (rts Niphal),
refers to errors that are concealed from the psalmist’s view (see esp. Lev 4:13)
and that can only be revealed through God’s searching presence or by reading
the Torah. The request of the psalmist is that he be acquitted (hqn Piel) of these
sorts of inadvertences.
Errors of this sort, however, stand in contrast to the “presumptuous sins”
(dze) mentioned in v. 14[13], sins done arrogantly and knowingly and for which
there is severe judgment (see the possibly related term, ˆ/dz; “presumptuously,”
in Deut 17:12, 18:22). It is certain that lying behind the distinction between
vv. 13[12] and 14[13] is the distinction in Num 15:22–31 between sinning un-
intentionally (hgv), for which the sin offering was designed (Lev 4:2), and sin-
ning defiantly (hm:r: dy;B} = “with a raised hand”), for which there was no ritual
redemption (Num 15:30–31). This explains why the psalmist asks for acquittal
of hidden sins but asks God to keep him back (˚vj) from defiant sins and not
let them rule (lvm) over him. The suppliant identifies this as being in the state
of “blamelessness” (μmt), a state that allows acquittal (hqn Niphal) of even
“great transgression,” that is, the psalmist will be declared innocent of this be-
cause he has not committed it. These final requests contain the style already
encountered in the prayers of the accused above, especially with the request
for protection from the wicked and the declaration of blamelessness. There-
fore, Psalm 19 identifies the remedy for sin in God’s grace for forgiveness of
inadvertent sin and in God’s work for avoidance of presumptuous sin. Verse
12[11] reveals the role that the Law plays in this work of warning, but the
psalmist is well aware of the need for a work of God alongside that law.
As does Psalm 19, Psalm 119 also takes up the Torah as a theme but in the
end uses this as the basis for a request to God. 23 It becomes clear that the
psalmist is experiencing some kind of suffering that threatens the psalmist’s
22. So Craigie (1983: 183): “Just as the sun dominates the daytime sky, so too does Torah
dominate human life.”
23. A. Anderson (1972b: 806) considers Psalm 119 to be a “Wisdom poem in the widest
sense of the word, without imitating any particular psalm-type.” Kraus (1989: 411–12) con-
siders it, like Psalm 19, close to the category of “didactic poem” and a Torah psalm. This di-
dactic character points to the wisdom school. Allen (1983: 139) considers it “most obviously
a wisdom psalm”: “that branch of wisdom literature concerned with Torah”; cf. Psalms 1, 19.
See also Kuntz (1974: 204); Perdue (1977: 305); van der Ploeg (1979).

Psalms (Part 1) 407
life (e.g., 119:25) and involves the attacks of others (e.g., 119:84–85). The
psalmist expresses longing for release from this predicament, asking in v. 82
“When will you comfort me?” Although the psalmist expresses concern over
the attacks of enemies and protests innocence (vv. 97–106), he does admit
past sin. For instance, in v. 67 he declares, “Before I was afflicted I went astray,
but now I keep your word,” and in the closing verse (v. 176), “I have gone
astray like a lost sheep.” In a style “reminiscent of Wisdom writings,” 24 Ps
119:9–16 echoes Psalm 19 in identifying the Torah as the key to living righ-
teously before Yahweh. The psalmist advocates hiding it (ˆpx) within one’s
heart by meditating (jyc; cf. vv. 15, 23, 27, 48, 78) and delighting ([[v Hith-
pael; cf. v. 47) in God’s word. Attention to Torah is thus seen as not merely ex-
ternal behavioral change but rather as obedience that arises from the heart
(see on Proverbs, pp. 359–376 above). To make this possible, the supplicant
implores Yahweh to play a role in this process, protecting him from wander-
ing from the commands (v. 10) and teaching him (v. 12). This role is filled out
even further in the series of causative verbs in vv. 33–37, where the psalmist
pleads with God to teach (hry Hiphil), give understanding (ˆyb Hiphil), make
him walk (˚rd Hiphil) in the path, incline (hfn Hiphil) the heart to the law,
turn away (rb[ Hiphil) the eyes from vanity, and revive (hyj Piel) him in God’s
ways. In 119:133, the suppliant asks God not to let sin rule over him.
Psalm 119 reveals a psalmist who, though protesting that he is innocent
before the accusations of enemies, is well aware of past sinfulness and admits
this before God. Sin is dealt with by closer attention to the Torah, placing it
within one’s heart and experiencing it within one’s life. This is only possible
through the direct intervention of Yahweh.
Psalm 38 is a psalm of disorientation, crying out to God for deliverance
from a predicament that involved sickness (38:4–12[3–11]) as well as enemies
(38:13[12], 17[16], 20–21[19–20]). 25 From the outset, it is clear that the
psalmist links his problems, especially his sickness, to the anger and wrath of
God (38:2–4[1–3]). Although the psalmist does claim, “I follow what is good”
(38:21[20]), to contrast himself with enemies who repay good with evil, the
psalmist readily admits guilt before God. 26 Verse 5[4] describes the psalmist’s
24. A. Anderson (1972b: 811), who notes the question and answer style (cf. Prov 23:29–
30; Sir 1:6–7, 10:19, 22:14; also Pss 25:12–13, 34:13–14[12–13], 107:43) and address to youth.
25. Kraus (1988: 410–11) identifies this as a psalm of the sick, as per Seybold (1973: 19);
cf. Craigie (1983: 302). But he does also note its affinity to the psalms of the accused, as per
Schmidt (1928), though he is not convinced that the latter “clearly asserts itself.” Clear cate-
gories are difficult to determine at times, because sickness could be seen as a sign of guilt.
26. Kraus (1988: 413) voices his struggle with this tension in Psalm 38: “How can the
psalmsinger in v. 18[Heb. 19] declare that he confesses his transgression, while he in v. 19
[Heb. 20] asserts that the enemies have no cause for any accusation at all?” He opts for two
conceptions of guilt here, the one “the disclosure of transgressions that are not discernible by
any enemy” which have caused separation from Yahweh (vv. 2[1], 4[3], 6[5], 10[9]) and the
other a “presupposition of guilt which, in the form of serious slander, seeks to separate the
sufferer from Yahweh” (vv. 12–13[11–12], 20[19]. A. Anderson (1972a: 307) notes similarly,
408 Chapter 20
iniquities (ˆw[) as passing over his head 27 and weighing as a crushing burden
on him. In v. 6[5], sin is called “my folly” (tl<W,a)I , a term that appears 22 times
in Proverbs (cf. Ps 69:6[5]). This guilt is directly linked to sickness in v. 6[5]
(“because of,” yneP}m)I . Near the end of the psalm in v. 19[18], the psalmist again
admits sin: “I confess (dgn Hiphil) my iniquity (ˆw[), I am full of anxiety (gad)
because of (ˆmI) my sin (taF:j)" .” The first phrase echoes the earlier verbalization
of culpability, but the second phrase reveals the deep anguish that the psalm-
ist is experiencing because of the predicament caused by sin. 28 Psalm 38, with
its link to the wisdom tradition (38:6[5]), retains the attack on the enemy that
is typical in the psalms of disorientation but places alongside it a confession
of culpability. Although the psalmist emphasizes at the outset of the prayer
the anger and wrath of God, cries for God’s rescue are based on the magnitude
of his predicament and the fact that Yahweh is “my God” (38:16[15], 22[21])
who is “my salvation” (38:23[22]).
A disorientation psalm, Psalm 39 prays for deliverance from God’s wrath.
Its wisdom tone is evident in its consideration of fools (39:9[8]), emphasis on
the tongue (39:2[1], 3[2], 10[9]), and description of humanity as breath
(39:6[5]) and as vainly rushing after wealth (39:7[6]). 29 The psalmist recognizes
that one’s lot is linked to God’s discipline and rebuke “for sins” (39:12[11]) and
such discipline threatens one’s very life (39:6–7[5–6], 11–12[10–11]) and
wealth (39:7[6], 12[11]). The series of requests in vv. 9–14[8–13], which in-
clude the typical cry for divine attention (39:13[12]) as well as protection from
the scorn of fools (39:9[8]), removal of plague (39:11[10]), and an end to God’s
destructive gaze (39:14[13]), begins with a cry for deliverance (lxn Hiphil) from
transgressions ([vp). The use of the verb lxn (“to deliver”) makes it unclear
whether the psalmist is looking for deliverance from sins or from the punish-
ment experienced because of sins. 30 Of course, even if the latter is the case,
“Although the Psalmist is aware that he is not sinless, he is equally certain that his enemies
are wrong in the things they attribute to him.”
27. Based on the imagery of Pss 69:3[2], 16[15] and 124:4, Kraus (1988: 412) suggests that
this refers to someone overtaken by flood waters. The language in these psalms does not
match, although rb[ is used for flooding in Isa 8:8 (although with the preposition d[). The
collocation rb[ + l[ + var is used for “cutting one’s hair” in Num 6:5, Isa 7:20, and Ezek 5:1,
but Ps 38:5[4] does not use the preposition. Possibly, this expression is an equivalent of Ezra’s
cry in Ezra 9:6: “Our iniquities (ˆw[) have risen (hbr) above (l[ml) our heads (var) and our
guilt (μva) has grown (ldg) even to the heavens.”
28. The word is gad Qal (for “to be anxious”; see Jer 17:8; 1 Sam 9:5, 10:2; Jer 42:16; in Isa
57:11 and Jer 38:19 it is “to be afraid of”), thus “to be worried about or anxious about some-
thing, concerned about a potential disaster.” Here probably the word for “sin” is rather “pun-
ishment of my sin” as in Exod 32:34 and Hos 9:9; cf. Zech 14:19.
29. Craigie (1983: 308) notes how the “sentiment of the psalm is mixed; while parts
would be fully at home in the cultic tradition of Israel’s worship, other parts are more typical
of the reflective tradition of wisdom.” He suggests: “The psalm was the private composition
of a poet in the wisdom tradition,” noting especially the similarity to Qoheleth. Cf. A. Ander-
son (1972a: 308).
30. This is common for Hebrew words for sin and is called the “consequential” meaning;
see Milgrom (1976); Sklar (2005); and the section above on Leviticus, pp. 49–85. However,

Psalms (Part 1) 409
this still represents an implicit admission of sin, even if the accent is placed
on God’s rescue from the discipline brought on by sin.
Psalm 40 begins with the psalmist’s expressing a prayer of thanksgiving for
God’s rescue (vv. 2–11[1–10]), but this is used as a foundation for a disorien-
tation psalm in the latter half (vv. 12–18[11–17]). 31 Key to the past rescue in
vv. 2–11[1–10] is the blessing (yrev‘a)" reserved for those who trust in Yahweh
and do not turn (hnp) to the proud or apostate. After describing a divine rescue
(vv. 2–4[1–3]), the psalmist teaches that, rather than desiring sacrifice and of-
fering, God longs for those who delight in doing his will, those identified as
having God’s law, which is “within the heart” (vv. 7–9[6–8]). In the request
(vv. 12–18[11–17]), the psalmist asks for mercy. Clearly, there are enemies
(vv. 15–16[14–15]) who threaten the psalmist’s life, but the psalmist also ad-
mits that “evils” (h[r) and “iniquities” (ˆw[) “more numerous than the hairs of
my head” surround (πpa) and overtake (gcn Hiphil) him. Though one cannot
deny that this is an admission of sin, it may function in the psalm more as de-
scription of the predicament, that is, the psalmist is most likely talking about
the punishments for sins that have surrounded and overtaken him. 32 Accord-
ing to 40:12[11] the only hope is Yahweh’s compassion (μymIj“r)' , covenant
faithfulness (ds<j)< and truth (tm<a)” .
Psalm 41 is a psalm of disorientation “with didactic poetry reminiscent of
the wisdom tradition” by one who is experiencing severe sickness (vv. 4[3],
9[8]) as well as the attack of enemies who hope for the suppliant’s demise
(vv. 3[2], 6–10[5–9]). 33 The psalmist explicitly admits sin in v. 5[4]: “O Lord,
be gracious to me; heal (apr) my soul, for I have sinned (afj) against you.”
The psalmist clings to the hope that God blesses and rescues the one “who
citing Ps 79:9 (“deliver us and forgive our sins”), Anderson (1972a: 311) argues that this de-
liverance means “to forgive his sin and to deal with its consequences. . . . In this case pardon
would result in healing, since the source of disease would have been removed.” Contra Kraus
(1988: 415–16), who repoints this phrase and translates it “rescue me from all those who rise
up against me.”
31. Ps 40:14–18[13–17] appears in Psalm 70 which, unfortunately, leads Kraus (1988: 423)
to divide Psalm 40 into “two different songs” which have been drawn together for no appar-
ent reason. It is important to treat Psalm 40 as a new and different entity, especially with the
new tone of admission of guilt in vv. 12–13[11–12]. For a convincing argument for the unity
of Psalm 40 see Craigie (1983: 313–14).
32. Craigie (1983: 316) sees this declaration of sin not as reflecting the burden of uncon-
fessed sin but rather as an awareness that “former evil acts, albeit forgiven by God, may
nevertheless have contributed to the present crisis.” Whether this is correct is not clear, but
what is clear is the presence of an admission of guilt rather than protestation of innocence.
Anderson (1972a: 319) views this as referring to punishment, a recognition that his predica-
ment is a “chastisement for sin.”
33. Craigie (1983: 319). Kraus (1988: 430) notes the didactic features in this psalm, espe-
cially the similarity to the yrva-sentence in Psalm 1. Seeing this psalm as originally spoken in
the sanctuary, he highlights how in the psalmist’s testimony “he refers to the didactic state-
ments of the wisdom poetry and didactic poetry of Israel” (pp. 430–31). Again, as in other
psalms examined above, one finds a psalm of sickness that speaks of the attack of an enemy;
cf. Kraus (1988: 431).
410 Chapter 20
considers the helpless,” showing that the psalmist is relying on past righteous
behavior, described in v. 12 as “my integrity” (μTø), a term found throughout
wisdom literature ( Job 1:1, 8; 8:20; 9:20–22; Prov 29:10, 2:3; cf. Pss 37:37,
50:23, 64:6[5]) which signifies the righteous who walk wisely (see Job, pp.
377–394 above). Though this psalmist is convinced that a sinful act underlies
the present sickness, appeal is made to the dominance of integrity within the
psalmist’s life for God’s rescue in the time of need. 34
Psalm 69 is a psalm of disorientation by one who has been falsely accused
(see v. 5[4]) and faces the scorn and shame of the community. Yet in v. 6[5],
there is a clear admission of guilt: “O God, it is you who know my folly (tl<W,a)I ,
and my guilt (hm:v‘a)" is not hidden from you.” 35 This psalm unites the protest
of innocence with the admission of guilt.
In Psalm 86, an individual cries out to God for salvation from the “arro-
gant” and “violent” enemies who seek the suppliant’s life (vv. 14–17). This re-
quest is based firmly on the character of Yahweh, especially as expressed in
the character creed in Exodus 34, cited in 86:15: 36
But you, O Lord (yn;døa“ hT:a"w)] , are a God merciful (μWjr') and gracious (ˆWNj"),
Slow to anger (μyiP"a" Ër,a)< and abundant in covenant loyalty and truth
(tm<a”w, ds<j<Abr')
An echo of this creed is provided near the beginning of the psalm in 86:5:
For you, Lord (yn;døa“ hT:a)" , are good (b/f), and ready to forgive (jL:s)" ,
And abundant in covenant loyalty (ds<j<Abr') to all who call on you.
Exodus 34 also makes this connection between God’s gracious character and
his forgiving action, when in 34:9 Moses cries for Yahweh to “pardon (jls)
our iniquity and our sin.” This is not lost on the composer of Psalm 86, who
highlights Yahweh’s forgiving character, suggesting that the psalmist assumes
some personal guilt. Another possible allusion to guilt can be discerned in
v. 11, where Yahweh is asked to teach the psalmist his [Yahweh’s] way and
34. As with Psalm 38, Kraus (1988: 433) argues for “the double concept of guilt,” one in
which he is innocent of the guilt charged by his enemy but is aware of other transgressions
unknown to the enemies. Craigie (1983: 321) recognizes that sin and sickness are related in
the psalmist’s mind but is not convinced there is a necessary relationship. Anderson (1972a:
323) sees the psalmist voicing what was typical of his contemporaries, that is, that sin was
the cause of suffering. For Anderson, his confession was “proof he did not side with the god-
less and wicked” and that he was aware of “unwitting offences which required cleansing [cf.
Leviticus 4–6]. . . . Therefore his enemies may have been wide of the mark if they accused
him of some particular moral offence.” In commenting on the claim of integrity in 41:13[12],
Anderson (1972a: 326) sees no contradiction with the confession in 41:5[4], because “integ-
rity is not synonymous with sinlessness.”
35. See Anderson (1972a: 301), who again argues that this confession of sin that arises
from the supposition that illness results from sin (possibly sins of inadvertence and igno-
rance) “does not suggest that the charge of the enemies is true.”
36. For the link to Exodus 34, see Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 375).
Psalms (Part 1) 411
unite the psalmist’s heart so he may walk in the truth and fear Yahweh’s
name.
Although beginning with a great thanksgiving to God for his faithfulness
and focusing on the Davidic covenant, Psalm 89 soon shifts to an individual
prayer of request that expresses a considerable depth of pain (“how long?”
v. 47[46]). The psalmist addresses and questions God’s love to the Davidic dy-
nasty and, with an echo of God’s words to David in 1 Sam 7:14, vv. 31–35[30–
34] review God’s pattern for disciplining the Davidic line:
If his sons forsake my law
And do not walk in my judgments,
If they violate my statutes
And do not keep my commandments,
Then I will punish their transgression with the rod
And their iniquity with stripes.
But I will not break off my lovingkindness from him,
Nor deal falsely in my faithfulness.
My covenant I will not violate,
Nor will I alter the utterance of my lips.
Once I have sworn by my holiness;
I will not lie to David.
His descendants shall endure forever
And his throne as the sun before me.
It shall be established forever like the moon,
And the witness in the sky is faithful.
If royal figures disobey, God will punish their sin, but this will not affect the
endurance of God’s promise to David that the line will endure. Here sin is
dealt with through discipline. The cry of the psalmist is that punishment of
this sort should not last forever, his request for help founded on God’s “former
covenant faithfulness (ds<j)< ” sworn to David in “faithfulness” (hn;Wma”; v. 49).
Psalms of the Community

The admission of guilt as a minor element, however, is not restricted to the
psalms of the individual in the Psalter but is also evident in the corporate
psalms.
Among the many praiseworthy deeds of Yahweh listed in the communal
song of orientation in Psalm 65, one finds praise for God’s atonement (rpk Piel)
for iniquities (ˆw[) and transgressions ([vp; 65:4[3]). Ps 65:3–4[2–3] should be
translated
O you who hear prayer,
To you all flesh comes with words of iniquities
Our rebellions prevail against me/us
You atone for them 37
37. See Kraus (1988: 26).

412 Chapter 20
These “words of iniquities” represent most likely the confession to God of sin,
the prevailing power of which is broken by God’s provision in atoning sacri-
fice. This atonement is closely associated with the performance of a vow (rdn;
65:2[1]), prayer (hL:hIT;} 65:3[2]), and the courts of the temple (65:5[4]), suggest-
ing that this is related to some form of offering for sin, which is followed by
a peace offering at the temple in response to God’s forgiveness.
A communal psalm of disorientation, Psalm 79 expresses an early response
to the fall of Jerusalem. 38 The complaint is bitter with the employment of the
classic questions of “how long” (v. 5) and “why” (v. 10) and prompts a call for
God’s judgment on the nations for their reckless ways, especially in their
treatment of the temple (vv. 1–4, 6–7, 10, 12). Nevertheless, in the midst of
this bitter lament there is a clear admission of guilt and request for forgiveness
by the community (contrast Psalm 74). This guilt is linked to former (v. 8;
μynivøari tno/[“) and present (v. 9; WnytEaFøj)" generations (cf. Hossfeld 2005: 306).
Among the requests for God’s help is included the cry for God not to remem-
ber (rkz la; v. 8) and to atone (rpk Piel; v. 9) for their sins. This is based on
God’s identity as “God of our salvation,” as well as on God’s fame among the
nations (vv. 9–10).
Admission of guilt can also be discerned in Psalm 85, a communal prayer
of disorientation that implores God to restore the people, put away his anger,
and show them his unfailing love by granting them salvation (vv. 5[4], 8[7])
in a way consonant with past redemption, most likely in the return from ex-
ile. 39 The precise predicament is not certain, although a reference to the land
yielding harvest in v. 13[12] may suggest some natural disaster such as
drought. Whatever disaster is in mind, its cause is identified at the outset of
the psalm as the iniquity (ˆw[) and sin (tafj) of the people, which needs to be
forgiven (acn) and covered (hsk Piel) as it was in the past (vv. 3[2], 5[4]; cf.
Psalm 32).
Summary
The various examples above, which incorporate the admission of guilt as a
minor element, provide greater nuance to the Psalter’s presentation of the dis-
tinction between the righteous and wicked. In these, rather than arguing for
their innocence, the psalmists actually highlight their culpability, even if in
38. See Anderson (1972b: 577) and Kraus (1989: 133–34), with some reservations; al-
though Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 305) distance it from the event, placing it in the 5th–4th
centuries b.c. Their recognition of the many intertextual connections to the Jeremianic tra-
dition may be taken as evidence of a much closer association with at least the tradition of the
fall of Jerusalem in 587, if not its reality.
39. The phrase bqø[“y' twbIv‘ T:b}væ in 85:2[1] is often linked to similar phrases in Psalm 126.
Kraus (1989: 175) sees here most likely the return from exile, in light of Psalm 126; cf. Isa
40:2. See also Anderson (1972b: 607–8). Tate (1990: 367–68) entertains this view but is not
certain and says, if so, it would be a reference to the later returns (e.g., Ezra, Nehemiah).
Goulder (1982: 98–111) and Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 364) identify the earlier redemption
as that related in Exodus 32–34.
Psalms (Part 1) 413
limited ways. One can discern the continuing influence of the wisdom tradi-
tion in many of the psalms of the individual (see wisdom style and vocabu-
lary in Psalms 19, 38, 39, 40, 41, 69, 119, and possibly 86). The enemy motif
appears in many of these psalms, continuing the trend seen in the psalms of
the accused above. A new development is the reference to illness (esp. Psalms
38, 41), suggesting that the presence of sickness was considered evidence of
culpability by some and thus demanded a confession of sin. Thus, alongside
the protestation of innocence over a particular charge by an accuser, there
arose the necessity of an admission of guilt. Most have explained this by a
“double concept of guilt,” that is, the supplicant is not guilty of the charge
brought forth by accusers but is aware of (possibly) having committed other
transgressions unknown to the enemies and even to himself (Kraus 1988:
433). This understanding of culpability may be traced to a belief that suffer-
ing, and in particular sickness, was automatically linked to a sinful cause
(Craigie 1983: 321). It may have been linked to a priestly awareness of the
danger of inadvertent offenses (Leviticus 4–6; Anderson 1972a: 301, 323,
326), or it may have meant that the psalmist knows of an offense that is un-
known to the accusers (Kraus 1988: 433). In some cases, it may also be that
the psalmist is claiming that righteousness or integrity has dominated his life
and overshadows any sin that has been committed (possibly Psalm 41).
The admission of guilt, thus, can be traced to similar traditions of prayer
that were evident for the protestation of innocence. However, psalms related
to the Exile also incorporate the admission of guilt, such as the individual
psalm 89 and the corporate psalms 79 and 85. There are clearly psalms that
continue the protestation of innocence in the face of the destruction of Jeru-
salem and the fall of the state (e.g., Psalm 74), but Psalm 79 stands as a clear
contrast and showcases a mode of prayer that would ultimately dominate the
expression of prayer in Second Temple Judaism (see Ezra–Nehemiah, pp. 472–
489, and Psalm 106, pp. 437–441 below).
These compositions clearly establish the principle that not only the inno-
cent but even those who are guilty of sin can seek the grace of Yahweh in time
of need. Concern is expressed over both inadvertent and presumptuous sins
(Psalm 19). These psalms place greater emphasis on the gracious character of
Yahweh, who will look with compassion on the predicament of both individ-
ual and the community. One can discern a link between suffering and sin in
many of these psalms, whether the suffering of illness or the fall of the state
and exile. According to these psalms, Yahweh deals with sin through disci-
pline. The prayers reveal, however, the belief that God will look favorably on
those who seek him in prayer. Thus, after discipline, the psalmists envision
Yahweh delivering them from (lxn Hiphil; 39:8[7]), atoning for (rpk Piel;
65:4[3], 79:9), not remembering (rkz; 79:8), forgiving (avn, 85:3[2]; jls, 86:5),
and covering (hsk Piel; 85:5[4]) their sin.
Finally, several of these psalms see a remedy beyond forgiveness. Psalm 40
teaches that God desires those who delight in doing his will by having God’s
414 Chapter 20
law on their hearts. The suppliant in Ps 86:11 asks Yahweh to teach him his
way and to unite his heart so that he may walk in the truth and fear Yahweh’s
name. The psalmists in Psalms 19 and 119 highlight the key role that the Law
plays in this teaching, revealing sin and guiding the righteous in godly pat-
terns; however, they move beyond this, crying out to God to do a work within
them, imploring him to keep them back from willful sins and not to let sin
rule over them (Psalm 19) and to teach, give understanding, cause to walk, in-
cline the heart to the law, turn away eyes from vanity, and revive them in
God’s ways (Psalm 119). These psalmists are aware of something beyond for-
giveness, a righteousness that arises from the heart and that is enabled by
Yahweh, who both teaches and transforms the heart.
Chapter 21
Psalms (Part 2)
The previous chapter provided initial reflection on the theme of sin and its
remedy within the Psalter and revealed that the Psalter contains a tradition of
prayers in which the righteous claim innocence in their struggle with the
wicked and another tradition in which the righteous admit guilt and seek for-
giveness even as they at times struggle with the wicked. The present chapter
continues the investigation of the Psalter with detailed reflection on psalms
dominated by the admission of guilt, followed by a reflection on the Psalter
as a book.
Psalms with Admission of Guilt as a

Dominant Theme
Whereas the admission of sin is a minor element in the examples at the
end of the previous chapter, Psalms (Part 1), in certain psalms this element
dominates. 1 These psalms are particularly important for the development of
the theology of sin and its remedy in the Psalter.
Psalm 25
Psalm 25 clearly falls among the disorientation psalms. Pleading with God
for rescue from a predicament that involves enemies (vv. 2, 3, 19), the psalm-
ist is left lonely, afflicted, troubled, anguished, and vulnerable to death and
shame (vv. 16–20). 2 The requests at the beginning and end of the psalm are
typical of disorientation psalms, crying for God’s attention (vv. 16, 18–19) and
action (vv. 2, 17, 20–21). A strong tone of confidence is evident throughout
1. See Bautch (2006), who makes a similar distinction between, for instance, Psalm 39, in
which “sin . . . is one element in a scenario of suffering, but is rarely identified as the occa-
sion for confession,” and Psalm 51, “which is decidedly penitential.”
2. For this reason, Kraus (1988: 319) highlights connections to the psalms of the accused
but also notes similarities to the Torah psalms (Psalms 1, 19, 119) and concludes that “the-
matically Psalm 25 is determined largely by hmkj [wisdom].” This connection to wisdom can
be discerned in the emphasis on instruction and teaching, the reference to the fear of Yah-
weh, the proverbial tone of v. 3, and the acrostic literary structure. Kraus (1988: 319) notes
that “vv. 12 and 13 show statements which are very close to the wisdom type of didactic po-
ems.” See also Craigie (1983: 218), who sees wisdom as the “more dominant characteristic of
the psalm”; cf. Sabourin (1974: 230).
- 415 -
416 Chapter 21
the psalm as the psalmist expresses implicit trust in Yahweh (vv. 1–3, 20–21).
Confidence such as this is typical of stage-two disorientation psalms. 3
Verses 4–15, however, distinguish this Psalm from the typical psalm of dis-
orientation. Here, one finds a series of requests that ask for God to “make
known ([dy Hiphil) . . . teach (dml Piel) . . . lead (˚rd Hiphil)” the psalmist so
that he may discover God’s “ways . . . paths . . . truth” (vv. 4–5a). These re-
quests are not directly related to the present predicament and instead are de-
signed to set up the appeals that follow in vv. 6–7a: “Remember (rkz), O Lord,
your compassion (μymIj“r)' and your covenant faithfulness (ds<j)< , for they have
been from of old. Do not remember (rkz al) the sins of my youth or my trans-
gressions. According to your covenant faithfulness (ds<j)< remember (rkz) me”
(nasb, modified). These three requests are structured around the word “re-
member” (rkz), a term with strong covenantal connotations. The central ap-
peal is for Yahweh to “not remember” the psalmist’s sins, those from both the
distant past (“my youth”) and the present. 4 This central appeal is surrounded
by two appeals for Yahweh to “remember”: first, his merciful character and,
second, the psalmist in light of this merciful character. Surrounding all of
these references to “remember” are the theological declarations of vv. 5b and
7b, which focus attention on God as the savior who is good.
The intricacy of this literary complex in vv. 4–7 suggests that the psalmist
is greatly concerned about the impact of personal sin on the present predica-
ment. By emphasizing God’s character, the psalmist places hope in the mercy
of God to deal with past failures. This, however, is not sufficient. By beginning
with a series of requests for Yahweh to guide the psalmist on a godly path, the
psalmist is implicitly committing to this sort of path. This suggests that, for
this psalmist, the way forward involves not only the reception of divine
mercy but also the acceptance of divine supervision.
This divine supervision comes to the fore in vv. 8–15. In this section, only
v. 11 is directly addressed to Yahweh, with the rest speaking merely “about”
Yahweh. This suggests that either this is a voice other than the psalmist or it
is that of a psalmist who addresses the community as a whole (see v. 22). It is
possible that vv. 8–10 represent the voice of a priest or wisdom teacher, with
its revelation that God’s good and upright character leads the psalmist to in-
struct humble sinners to keep his covenant and so experience “covenant
faithfulness (ds<j)< and truth (tm<a)” .” This declaration prompts the response of
vv. 11–12a, which is a request for forgiveness (jls), 5 based on the greatness
3. On this and other genre categories, see p. 398 n. 8 and Boda (2005b; 2006c).
4. The sins of youth are those long forgotten (see Job 13:26). Youth is typified as the time
when one is susceptible to sin, a truth evident in the concerns of Proverbs 1–9 and in the ex-
hortation to youth in Qoh 12:1.
5. The request for forgiveness follows the description of those who keep the covenant in
v. 10. The mention of God’s gracious character at the beginning of v. 10, the same terms used
in Exodus 34 for God’s grace after the golden calf, provides the basis for a request such as this.
Psalms (Part 2) 417
of God’s name and the magnitude of the psalmist’s sin. This response contin-
ues with the question “Who is the one who fears the Lord?” 6 Verses 12b–14
represent the answer from the priest or wisdom teacher to this question, ac-
centuating again God’s commitment to instruct the penitent who fears Yah-
weh. This in turn prompts the declaration of the psalmist in v. 15, which
introduces the many requests for God’s grace, forgiveness, and protection in
vv. 16–22.
Clearly, vv. 8–15 showcase the importance of an appeal for forgiveness for
rescue from the present crisis and the utter need for one to rely on Yahweh,
who must act in order to protect his reputation of mercy (“for your name’s
sake, O Lord,” v. 11). 7 At the same time, however, it reminds the audience
that the same goodness that ensures forgiveness (v. 7b) is also a goodness that
is upright and just (vv. 8–9) and that the God who forgives (vv. 7, 11) is the
God who instructs, leads, and teaches (vv. 8–9, 12). Never does this wisdom
teaching lose sight of the grace of God (“all the paths of Yahweh are covenant
faithfulness [ds<j]< and truth [tm<a]” ”), but this grace is extended to those “who
keep (rmv) his covenant and his testimonies” (v. 10).
There are startling benefits for those who fear Yahweh. As expected in wis-
dom literature, not only will they experience prosperity themselves but their
family lines will continue to inherit the land. Startling, however, is the claim
in v. 14a that they will have access to the “secret of the Lord” (hw;hy] d/s), a
phrase associated elsewhere with the confidential circle and/or discussion
that occurs within God’s heavenly court ( Jer 23:18, 22; Job 15:8; Amos 3:7; cf.
Ps 89:9[8]). This is usually a privilege associated with the prophets but is ex-
tended also in Prov 3:32 to those who walk uprightly. The second half of v. 14
shows that God’s instruction is not merely external but is an internal work of
“causing them to know” ([dy Hiphil) his covenant, possibly an allusion to the
internalization of the covenant taught in Jer 24:7, 31:33–34, 32:40.
Psalm 25 highlights the role that sin and its remedy play in the prayer tra-
dition of Israel. Here we see a confession of sin with the verbalization in v. 7
of “the sins of my youth or my transgressions” and in v. 11 of “my iniquity,”
which is admittedly “great.” There is a request for God to forget (v. 7) as well
as to forgive sin (v. 11), and this request is carefully and relentlessly linked to
the merciful character of Yahweh. But this is not cheap grace. Surrounding
these requests is the expectation that this kind of forgiveness comes to those
who have placed themselves under the loving and demanding mentorship of
Yahweh. 8 Psalm 1 at the outset of the Psalter “directs the wise to the choice
6. It is possible that this question is rhetorical and functions to invite the penitent who
has just spoken in v. 11 to come under Yahweh’s instruction, which is the focus of v. 12.
7. As Kraus (1988: 321) writes, this phrase is “to be applied to Yahweh’s work of revela-
tion. But this work aims at the glory of God.”
8. Kraus (1988: 323) sees the dominance in the psalm of a prayer “for a new orientation
of his life on Yahweh’s ‘ways’ (vv. 4, 5, 9, 12, 21).”
418 Chapter 21
of the right road; Psalm 25 is a companion for use along the way” (Craigie
1983: 222). In this way, there is an admission of the challenge of remaining
on the path laid out in Psalm 1: “The essence of the road of the righteous is
this: it is a road too difficult to walk without the companionship and friend-
ship of God” (Craigie 1983: 222).
Psalm 32
Throughout the Psalter, blessing is connected with different types of
people. Regularly, the psalmists speak of the blessing that accompanies those
who reject the way of wickedness and injustice and embrace the way of righ-
teousness and justice in the fear of the Lord as articulated in the Law (1:1,
41:2[1], 94:12, 106:3, 112:1, 119:1–2, 128:1). Blessing also falls on those who
associate themselves with Yahweh, whether this is taking refuge in (2:12,
34:9[8]), finding strength in (84:6[5]), trusting in (40:5[4], 84:13[12]), praising
(84:5[4], 89:16[15]), finding help and hope in (146:5), or embracing him as
their God (33:12, 144:15). In addition, those who serve in God’s courts are
blessed (65:5[4], 84:5[4]), as are those who exact vengeance on Israel’s enemy
(137:8–9). Signs of this blessing include abundant progeny (127:5) and agri-
cultural bounty (128:2, 144:15). Evident from this review of the Psalter, bless-
ing is usually reserved for those with exemplary and normative character and
behavior, whether this is faithfulness or faith. In one case, however, blessing
is linked to those who have walked contrary to the will of God, that is, to
those who after transgressing God’s ways have experienced the forgiveness of
Yahweh.
This exception is found in Psalm 32, a wisdom composition expressed in
the form of a thanksgiving psalm. 9 The psalm functions in two ways. First, as
v. 11 suggests, it functions as an expression of thanksgiving to Yahweh for par-
don of sin, possibly declared in the midst of the worshipping congregation (ac-
companying or replacing the vow or thanksgiving offering described in
Leviticus 7; cf. Jonah 2:9, Ps 65:2[1]). Second, it functions as a teaching com-
position, suggested by the wisdom vocabulary (“blessed,” vv. 1–2; “under-
standing,” v. 9; “wicked,” v. 10; “righteous,” v. 11), the illustration from nature
(v. 9), and the message of instruction (v. 8). The psalm provides perspective on
the role of confession for remedying the problem of sin in Israel as well as the
expectation for repentance in the wake of this confession.
Confession as Path to Forgiveness and Transformation (32:1–5)

Blessedness is mentioned twice at the outset of Psalm 32 (vv. 1, 2). The first
two verses make clear that the present perspective of the psalmist is one of re-
flection back over a past predicament caused by sin. The psalmist thus begins
with the outcome of a process that is about to be described in vv. 3–5. This
9. According to Craigie (1983: 265) wisdom is most evident in vv. 1–2 and 9–10; cf.
Murphy (1963: 161; 2002: 103); Anderson (1972a: 254); Kraus (1988: 368); Gerstenberger
(1988: 140).

Psalms (Part 2) 419
outcome juxtaposes the psalmist’s sin with the forgiveness of God, by em-
ploying three words for human sin ([væP,< ha:f:j,“ ˆ/[:: “transgression,” “sin,” “in-
iquity”) alongside three words for divine pardon (acn, hsk, bvj al: “forgive/
take away,” “cover,” “not impute”). By using three words for sin, the psalmist
accentuates the magnitude of human need, which then is met by the three
words for forgiveness that follow (cf. Anderson 1972a: 255).
The first of these terms for forgiveness, acn, is commonly used for carrying
away a physical object (2 Sam 5:21, Mic 2:2, Song 5:7) but is regularly associ-
ated with terms for sin to refer to the removal of sin and its stain from a per-
son. Whereas people are often described as bearing their own guilt and sin
(Gen 4:13; Lev 5:1, 17; 7:18; Num 5:31, 14:34), the Torah describes processes
for one to bear or carry away the guilt of another (Lev 10:17, 16:22). By ex-
tension then, “to carry away” can be equated with the forgiveness or lack of
forgiveness proffered by humans (Gen 50:17; Exod 10:17; 1 Sam 15:25, 25:28)
and God (Exod 32:32, Num 14:19, Josh 24:19). 10
The second term, hsk, refers to “covering.” In Ps 32:1, it appears in the Qal
stem, and elsewhere it appears in this stem only in Prov 12:16, 23, where it re-
fers to something concealed, which contrasts what is publicly known (v. 16)
or proclaimed (v. 23). 11
The term bvj (here in the Qal) in this context means “to count, reckon to”
(BDB). The phrase here (l} ˆ/[: bvj) is also found in 2 Sam 19:20, where it ap-
pears parallel to the phrase “nor remember what your servant did wrong.” In
the Niphal, the phrase (sometimes with the preposition k rather than l) is
used in Lev 7:18, 17:4, Num 18:27, and Ps 106:31 for reckoning something to
a person, either for benefit or ill. This root in other contexts appears to be
dominated by conceptions of thinking/devising/making plans and so is often
seen as reflecting the process of making a judgment about something or
someone.
In Psalm 32, the psalmist proclaims the blessedness of the present state in
which sin and guilt has been forgiven, concealed in a hidden place, and no
longer accounted to the psalmist. The final phrase in v. 2 (“and in whose spirit
there is no deceit”), however, moves beyond the status of forgiveness. The
term “deceit” (hY;mIr)] is one usually associated with lying speech (Mic 6:12; Pss
52:5[4]; 101:7; 120:2, 3; Job 13:7, 27:4; Hos 7:16), and sometimes also with
treacherous behavior (Hos 7:16, Ps 78:57). The phrase in Psalm 32 suggests
not only that the sin of the psalmist was somehow related to deceitful speech
or behavior but also that the psalmist has experienced more than just forgive-
ness but also a transformation in the removal of the internal impulses of this
deceit (“in whose spirit there is no deceit”). This statement foreshadows the
10. See TWOT §1421.

11. The Piel is the more common stem and refers to covering something physically (Exod
29:13, 22; 15:5; Ps 104:6) or to concealing something from others (Gen 37:26), often sin (Ps
32:5; Job 31:33; Prov 28:13; 10:11, 18). It appears that there is little difference between the
Qal and Piel in light of its use in Ps 32:1, 5.
420 Chapter 21
second half of the psalm, which will look to the obedience that will follow
God’s forgiveness.
This blessed state, however, was the endpoint of a painful process that is
described by the psalmist in vv. 3–5. The predicament is described in the om-
inous language of an unceasing (“all day long . . . day and night”) physical
ailment (“bones wasted away . . . groaning . . . vitality was drained away”).
The divine source of this ailment is made clear (“your hand was heavy on
me”), but the cause of this discipline is linked to the psalmist’s silence (“when
I kept silent”).
The meaning of this silence is unclear until v. 5, where the psalmist then
declares what brought relief: “The silence in context is specifically the absence
of confession” (Craigie 1983: 266). Just as vv. 1–2 listed three terms for human
sin ([væP,< ha:f:j,“ ˆ/[:) in connection with three terms for divine pardon (acn, hsk,
bvj al), so now the same three terms for human sin (ha:f:j,“ ˆ/[:, [væP)< are listed
in conjunction with three terms for human confession ([dy Hiphil, hsk al Piel,
hdy Hiphil). The first of these terms for confession ([dy Hiphil) is used regularly
in the Old Testament to refer to causing someone to know something (often
but not always this information was previously unknown, e.g., Joseph with
Pharaoh in Gen 41:39 or God with Moses in Exod 33:12–13, but at times it
was probably known and thus is merely being articulated or announced, e.g.,
Ezek 16:2). In Ps 32:5, clearly Yahweh knows about the sin, for he is disciplin-
ing the psalmist; however, the psalmist here is articulating and bringing the
sin to light. The second term (hsk Piel) is the common term for covering or
concealing something. It is used with the concealing of sin in Job 31:33,
where Job defends himself against accusations of secret sins, and in Prov
10:11, 18; 26:26 in reference to the hidden motives of the wicked tongue. In
Prov 28:13, it is juxtaposed with confessing and forsaking one’s transgres-
sions. The third term (hdy Hiphil) is one that is nearly always used to refer to
the expression of giving thanks to Yahweh (e.g., Ps 7:18[17]). In two places,
however, it appears in connection with confession of sin, here in Ps 32:5 and
in Prov 28:13, where it is contrasted with concealing sin (using the same term
as the second term above) and associated with forsaking (bz[) one’s transgres-
sions. 12 Here then, the psalmist builds up terms for the honest revelation of
one’s transgressions before Yahweh.
That this section provides the answer to the predicament of vv. 3–4 that
leads to the blessed state of vv. 1–2 is seen in the repetition in the closing
phrase of v. 5 of the language encountered in the description of blessing at the
outset of the psalm:
12. The Hithpael stem of this same root also is used for confessing sin (Lev 5:5, 16:21,
26:40; Num 5:7; Dan 9:4, 20; Ezra 10:1; Neh 1:6, 9:2–3; cf. 2 Chr 30:22), suggesting that these
root letters represent two originally separate roots, one related to praise and the other to
confession.
Psalms (Part 2) 421
32:1–2 Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven (acn), whose sin
(ha:f:j)“ . . . whose iniquity (ˆ/[:) Yahweh does not count to him.
32:5 And you forgave (acn) the guilt (ˆ/[:) of my sin (taF:j)" .
This repetition in v. 5 shows that the blessed state in vv. 1–2 was reached first
through the human admission and confession in v. 5, that is, “the turn of
events begins when he who is breaking apart makes known his transgression
and no longer conceals his guilt in silence before Yahweh” (Kraus 1988: 369).
In addition, there is an ironic play in the repetition of the verb hsk in both
sections:
32:1 whose sin is covered (hsk)
32:5 did not cover up (hsk al) my iniquity
Through this repetition, the psalmist demonstrates that “concealing” one’s
sin robs one of the “concealing” pardon of Yahweh.
In this thanksgiving for forgiveness, the psalmist emphasizes the impor-
tance of “confession” for experiencing the gracious pardon of Yahweh. It is
interesting that the focus of the predicament is not placed on the sinful ac-
tion itself, although this is assumed in the background. Instead, it is the lack
of confession that causes the predicament, the answer for which is identified
in v. 5.
Application: Accepting the Mentorship of Yahweh (32:6–11)

The end of v. 5, however, represents only the midpoint of this psalm, and
the word “therefore” (tazo Al[") at the beginning of v. 6 signals to the reader
that the remainder of the psalm will now apply the truth of vv. 1–5. 13 In the
overall structure of the psalm, v. 6 thus functions as a transition between the
descriptive mode of vv. 1–5 (with its implicit teaching through the reference
to “blessing” and forgiveness) and the prescriptive mode of vv. 6–11 (with its
imperatives).
The intimate conversation between the psalmist and Yahweh (utilizing the
“I” of the psalmist with the “you” of Yahweh), which began in v. 3, continues
into the second half of Psalm 32 in vv. 6–7 as the psalmist tells Yahweh of the
hope that “all the faithful” would “pray to you in a time when you may be
found,” that is, before “a flood of great waters.” The psalmist thus appeals to
the community to replicate this sort of confession of sins in order to experi-
ence not only the forgiveness of Yahweh but also the protective presence of
Yahweh, who is called “my hiding place,” a term that denotes a place of se-
crecy (see esp. 1 Sam 19:2) and thus protection from trouble. The surrounding
songs of deliverance complete the confident picture of salvation.
Although continuing in the “I-you” address that typifies vv. 3–7, the ad-
dress in vv. 8–9 cannot be an address of the psalmist to Yahweh, for the
13. What Kraus (1988: 370) calls a “didactic conclusion.”

422 Chapter 21
psalmist is in no place to teach Yahweh. This may be addressed to “the faith-

ful” of v. 6 or to the psalmist, and it may be spoken by either the psalmist or
Yahweh. Most likely, what we have here is a divine message that now re-
sponds to the prayer of the psalmist, inviting the supplicant to come under
Yahweh’s mentoring influence. 14 In this, we see that the confession and
mercy emphasized in 32:1–5 are not the ultimate goal of the psalmist. The fi-
nal words of v. 2, which declared the blessing of the one “in whose spirit there
is no deceit,” foreshadow the hope of the psalmist that mercy should lead to
a new disposition and as a result a new walk (“the way which you should go”)
as the psalmist comes under the mentorship of Yahweh (“I will instruct . . .
teach . . . counsel,” v. 8). A mentorship of this sort is enticing because of the
careful attention of this mentor (“my eye upon you”), under whom no exter-
nal coercion (“bit and bridle”) is necessary.
With vv. 10–11, the style changes from “I-you” speech to speech about
Yahweh, which is addressed to “you righteous ones/upright in heart.” On the
one hand, vv. 10–11 match the style of vv. 1–2, which is also addressed to the
community and speaks about Yahweh, a connection that brings closure to
the psalm as a whole. On the other hand, however, the use of the term sur-
round in both vv. 7 and 10 and the hoped response of the community in vv.
6 and 11 (all the faithful, righteous, upright in heart) indicate that the role of
these verses is also to bring literary closure to the second half of the psalm
(vv. 6–11).
Verse 10 reminds the audience of the stark choice that was presented to
them in v. 6. To continue in sin is to associate oneself with the wicked and
their woes. To pray to Yahweh and to submit to his mentorship is to be sur-
rounded by his “unfailing love,” which was highlighted in the pardon of vv.
1–5 and the testimony of v. 7, where again the psalmist was “surrounded” by
songs testifying to this “unfailing love.” Those who experience the enfolding
grace of Yahweh through submission such as this are called the “righteous”
and the “upright in heart,” who cannot help but respond with rejoicing, glad-
ness, and song, the very songs of deliverance that v. 7 says surround the
psalmist.
Summary
Psalm 32 thus accentuates the importance of confession for finding for-
giveness with Yahweh. For the psalmist, failure to confess is more of a concern
than even the sin that needs to be confessed. In this, one can discern a height-
ening of transparency with Yahweh that is necessary to realize the ultimate vi-
sion of the wisdom teacher in Psalm 32, that is, the willing and trusting
submission of the disciple to the mentorship of Yahweh.
The second half of the Psalm reminds the audience that the ultimate goal
of Yahweh’s mercy is not forgiveness but rather a transformation of one’s
14. Divine utterances of this sort in the Psalter are not uncommon: see Psalm 2; Pss 12:5–
6[4–5], 95:7b–11.

Psalms (Part 2) 423
inner disposition (“spirit,” v. 2; “understanding,” v. 9) and a fundamental

change in behavior (“way,” v. 8). God’s merciful forgiveness is an invitation to
submit to his loving mentorship, to avoid the “sorrows of the wicked,” and to
enjoy the protection and status of the “righteous” and “upright in heart.”
Psalm 32 reveals that there is indeed a path from the status of wicked to the
status of righteous and that this path is through the forgiveness that comes in
response to confession of sin and the mentorship that comes through seek-
ing, trusting, and following God.
Psalm 51
Psalms of disorientation are those prayed to Yahweh in times of distress,
seeking relief from a predicament. Typical predicaments are related to human
strife (on the individual level: false accusations, threats on life; on the com-
munal level: war) or natural disaster (on the individual level: sickness and
death; on the communal level: famine, drought, plague). A review of these
many psalms, which comprise the majority of psalms in the Psalter, reveals a
variety of expression, ranging from the cry of a lament such as Psalm 88 to
the inner turmoil of the psalmist in Psalms 42–43 to the assured confidence
of Psalm 27. All of these psalms share a common setting in the life of an in-
dividual or community that was undergoing suffering and a common inten-
tion for God to relieve them of their misery. 15 All are included in the Psalter
as testimony to the variety of normative human responses to the vicissitudes
of life.
One additional type of psalm that shares this setting is psalms of confes-
sion of sin. 16 As we have seen above, admission of sin does arise as an element
in many of the prayers of disorientation, but in several psalms this element
dominates. 17 Psalm 51 is the best example of this type of psalm on the indi-
vidual level, with Psalm 106 as the best example on the communal level.
15. See Boda (2006c) for this common Sitz im Leben yet varying Ausblick aufs Lebens (Out-
look/Perspective on Life). These various psalms represent a common setting of suffering, but
a shift in theological and personal outlook causes a shift in the form of the psalm.
16. There is much debate over the relationship between lament and penitential prayer.
For this, see Werline (1998); Boda (1999); Bautch (2003); Boda, Falk, and Werline (2006;
2007). B. Anderson (1983: 93–102) treats what he calls “Psalms of Penitence” (6, 32, 38, 51,
102, 130, 143) as a subcategory of individual laments with the confession functioning as the
complaint element of the lament; cf. Tate (1990: 8). As is clear in the present work, peniten-
tial elements are evident in the Psalter and can be discerned on both individual (Psalm 51)
and communal (Psalm 106) levels. As penitence dominates a composition, complaint be-
comes muted and even disappears. This is why I have identified psalms of penitence as phase-
two disorientation psalms running parallel to the psalms of trust in which the complaint is
also muted or eliminated; cf. Boda (2005b; 2006c).
17. Tate (1990: 8) notices that “the paucity in the Psalms of the confession of sin and
pleading for forgiveness is striking,” even though he does note Pss 32:5, 38:19[18], 41:5[4],
69:6[5], 130:1–8, as well as Num 14:13–23, Isa 6:1–13, Job 42:1–6 and the penitential prayers
of Ezra 9, Nehemiah 1, 9, and Daniel 9.
424 Chapter 21
The superscription of Psalm 51 associates this psalm with David’s adulter-

ous act with Bathsheba. Superscriptions of this sort are not necessarily evi-
dence of the historical setting of the composition of the prayer but rather may
be reading guides from the ancient editors. In either case, they prompt an as-
sociation with one of the great stories of guilt and forgiveness in the Old Tes-
tament, so that this psalm is not abstracted from the realities of human
experience.
Important is the role that Nathan played in the confrontation of David.
One can discern among the various psalms of disorientation a clear distinc-
tion between psalms that ask questions of Yahweh such as “why?” and “how
long?” and psalms from which these questions are absent. The first type is a
phase of disorientation that asks God some hard questions about the present
misery of the psalmist, and questions such as these are implicit accusations;
to ask someone “why?” and “how long?” assumes that he or she is responsible
for the genesis and endurance of the crisis. Other psalms, however, share a
similar context, that is, the person is in the midst of great pain, and yet there
are no questions and God is not blamed for the predicament. Some of these
psalms express a deep confidence in Yahweh that he will save; others admit
the culpability of the psalmist and proclaim the innocence of Yahweh. Inter-
estingly, these two moods match the two fundamental moods of prophetic
literature, promise and warning, and for this reason many have suggested that
prophetic figures were involved in the worship of Israel to provide resolution
to those in the midst of disorientation. 18 One can see the importance of a
word from God for his people to help them discern whether their situation is
one in which God must act and bring salvation or one in which the human
must act and repent from patterns that violate his or her relationship with
God. Examples of God’s voice breaking into the midst of his people’s disori-
entation can be seen in Old Testament narratives such as Joshua 7, where
Joshua and the elders cry out in the bitterness of lament after their defeat at
Ai only to discover by God’s voice to them that there was sin in the camp that
needed confession and eradication, or narratives such as 2 Kings 19–20, where
Hezekiah, after crying to God as the Assyrians overrun his nation, is given a
promise of salvation from Isaiah that prompts him to pray with confidence to
Yahweh in the temple. At times, God’s voice breaks into the midst of the bit-
ter lament of his people and reveals his promise to save or their need to re-
pent (Boda 2005b).
Initial Request: Mercy (51:3–4[1–2])

Psalm 51, truly “one of the most moving prayers in the OT” (A. Anderson
1972a: 389), begins with an initial request for God’s mercy (ˆnj). At the center
of v. 3[1]is the psalmist’s only hope: the character of God. It is God’s “cove-
18. Johnson (1962; 1979); Ahlström (1971); R. Murray (1982); Bellinger (1984); Tournay
(1988; 1991); cf. Boda (2001).
Psalms (Part 2) 425
nant faithfulness” (ds<j)< , “the obligation assumed by one person to act on be-
half of another” (Tate 1990: 13), and his “great compassion” (μymIj“r)' , a term
associated with the maternal cry of the prostitute for the protection of her
child (1 Kgs 3:26) and with pity for those who are in captivity (1 Kgs 8:50, Ps
106:46). It is the character of God that is revealed to Moses (Exod 34:6–7) in
the wake of the great sin of the golden calf (Exodus 32), and among the initial
characteristics that God cites are not only the term ds<j< and the closely related
term μWjr' (synonym of μymIj“r)' but also the term ˆWNj" (“gracious”).
It is not surprising, then, that the initial request of the psalmist is for God
to “be gracious” (ˆnj, the root with which ˆWNj" is most closely related). This
more general term for God’s mercy introduces a series of four imperatives that
form the initial request to God. Whereas the other three imperatives are ac-
tions that deal with the sin of the psalmist, this first imperative focuses on the
psalmist, the covenant partner who has offended his God. This initial request
then places the relationship between the psalmist and God at the forefront of
the prayer and the predicament, foreshadowing his declaration in v. 6[4].
The second request is that God would “blot out” (hjm) the psalmist’s sin.
This verb is used in contexts that speak of cleaning off a mouth (Prov 30:20),
wiping away tears (Isa 25:8), and wiping out a dish (2 Kgs 21:13), all contexts
that describe the removal of all evidence of something. This term is used of-
ten in connection with blotting out someone’s name from a book (see Ps
69:29[28]; cf. Exod 32:32, 33; Isa 4:3; Mal 3:16; Neh 13:13; Dan 7:10; Tate
1990: 14). This connotation is also relevant to the regular use of this term to
denote the complete annihilation of someone from the face of the earth (Gen
7:22–23, Exod 32:32–33, Deut 9:14). It is used in connection with the re-
moval of sins in Isa 43:25, 44:22 and Jer 18:23 and denotes the eradication of
any trace of one’s sin. Isa 44:22 uses the image of a thick cloud or heavy mist
that leaves no trace. 19
The third request (“wash”) uses a term (sbk Piel) that is associated with the
domestic cleaning of garments (Gen 49:11, 2 Sam 19:25), especially in con-
nection with priestly rituals (Exod 19:10, 14; Lev 6:20; 11:25, 28; 13:6, 34;
14:8, 9; 15:5–8, 10, 11; Num 8:7, 21; 19:7–21; 31:24). It is extended to refer to
cleansing from guilt/sin in Jer 2:22, 4:14; Mic 7:19; Mal 3:2, the first and last
of these references showing the preservation of the connotation of the cleans-
ing of garments. The fourth request is “cleanse” (rhf), which appears regu-
larly with the third term, “wash” (sbk Piel), in priestly rituals to pronounce a
person clean after defilement by infections (Lev 13:6, 34, 58; 14:8, 9), bodily
discharges (Lev 15:13), and contact with death (Lev 17:15; Num 19:19, 31:24),
the last reference being to soldiers and their booty returning from war. The
terminology also appears in the rituals for setting apart the Levites for service
in the tent of meeting (Num 8:7, 21). The same two terms reappear in the
19. See the use of this image for ephemerality in Hos 6:4, Job 30:15; see Whybray
(1975: 98).
426 Chapter 21
present psalm in v. 9[7], with the term hyssop, which was used in rituals re-
lated to the cleansing from infections (Lev 14:4, 6, 49, 51, 52) and from con-
tact with death (Num 19:18), and with the term “purify/cleanse from sin”
(afj Piel), which also appears in the cleansing rituals of Lev 14:49, 52, and
Num 19:19.
Therefore, whereas the first request (“be gracious”) is a general request for
God’s mercy on the psalmist, the other requests (“blot out,” “wash,” “cleanse”)
are focused on the psalmist’s sins. One (“blot out”) asks for God to obliterate
all evidence of sin, whereas the others (“wash,” “cleanse”) look for ritual
cleansing, especially the pronouncement that the psalmist would be rein-
stated to the worshiping community.
While the ability to make requests of this sort is only possible because of
the gracious character of Yahweh (“according to your covenant faithfulness,
according to your great compassion,” v. 3[1]), requests of this sort are at the
same time only necessary because of the sin of the psalmist, for which the
three main Hebrew roots for sin are used to build up the magnitude of guilt
and remind the audience that “sin is not a passing shadow but a deeply in-
grained stain” ([væP,< v. 4[2]; ˆ/[:, v. 5a[3a]; taF:j," v. 5b[3b]; A. Anderson 1972a:
392). The precise character of this sin is not clear at first in the Psalm. Verse
6[4] speaks about sinning only against God, which may suggest some ritual
offense against God’s sacred space. However, the reference to “bloodguilt”
(Exod 22:1[2]; Ezek 18:13; 1 Sam 25:26, 33) suggests that the sin was murder
of an innocent person. 20
Admission of Human Guilt and Justification of Divine Innocence (51:5–8[3–6])

It is sin that plagues the mind of the psalmist in v. 5[3], and the path that
leads to freedom from this sin is outlined in vv. 6–14[4–12]. The first step
(vv. 5–8[3–6]) is the recognition of the offense and declaration of God’s inno-
cence. It seems odd to some that the psalmist who has sinned by shedding in-
nocent blood (v. 16[14]) speaks about sinning against God alone. One might
explain this by appealing to the fact that sins, even when not directly against
God, always impact one’s covenant relationship with Yahweh. The Ten Com-
mandments make clear that foundational to the prohibitions that protect re-
lationships between human beings (commands 5–10) are the prohibitions
that protect the relationship between God and human beings (commands 1–
3). 21 However, the vocabulary reviewed when considering vv. 3–4[1–2] and
that will be reviewed in vv. 9–11[7–9] below points to the importance of Num
20. Kraus (1988: 505) suggests that this is similar to Ps 30:9, which refers to the innocent
death of the petitioner, but here in Psalm 51 there is no reference to enemies who would slay
the psalmist.
21. Cf. Tate (1990: 17), who notes 2 Sam 12:9, 10, 13; Prov 14:31, and 17:5, and Kraus
(1988: 502), who notes Gen 39:9, where Joseph equates potential adultery with Potiphar’s
wife as a “sin against God,” and 2 Sam 12:13, in which David responds to Nathan: “I have
sinned against Yahweh.”
Psalms (Part 2) 427
19:18–20 for the psalmist’s prayer. There, the Torah stipulates that one who
has come in contact with a dead body and who is not sprinkled with hyssop,
washed his clothes, or been pronounced clean risks being “cut off” from the
midst of the assembly (a term that is linked to capital punishment; see Leviti-
cus, pp. 56–57 above, and cf. Exod 31:14), because of the potential of his state
to defile God’s sanctuary. In the priestly value system, this sort of violation of
the sacred space is considered among the most egregious of sins, and so the
psalmist declares with horror: “Against you, you only, I have sinned.” The act
of shedding innocent blood has threatened the very presence of God in the
sanctuary. Such sin, as admitted in v. 7[5], is not an aberration but rather an
enduring reality from the beginning of a human’s existence, possibly referring
to a sinful act that caused conception, to the uncleanness associated with
birth, or, most likely, to the essential human condition. 22
If the psalmist is the guilty party, God is the innocent one. Unlike the
psalms of the accused studied above, in which the psalmist protests that he is
innocent in the face of a falsely accusing enemy, the psalmist here makes clear
that God was justified in rendering a guilty verdict against him (v. 6b[4b]). God
was also at work even from the psalmist’s conception, providing the potential
for faithfulness and wisdom in the secrecy of the womb (v. 8[6]).
Request for Mercy (51:9–11[7–9])

Whereas the first step for experiencing God’s grace taken in this Psalm is
admission of human guilt and affirmation of divine innocence, the second is
the request for God’s mercy (vv. 9–11[7–9]). In vv. 9–11[7–9], the psalmist re-
peats vocabulary already employed in the introduction to the psalm in vv. 3–
4[1–2]. The cleansing with hyssop and washing echoes the vocabulary of the
priestly rituals in Leviticus and Numbers that reinstated defiled Israelites to
the worshiping community after contact with the principles of death. In par-
ticular, all of this vocabulary is found in the rituals of Num 19:18–19, which
speak of ritual cleansing from one who has had contact with a dead body. 23
As already noted above, to disobey these rituals is to risk defiling God’s sanc-
tuary and so to be “cut off” from the midst of the assembly (Num 19:20), a
term that suggests capital punishment (Exod 31:14). The washed robes of the
ritually clean were to shine as the white snow that remained on Mt. Hermon
and that fell infrequently in the hill country of Judah.
22. Kraus (1988: 503) sees here that “total depravity that is determinative for humans
from the beginning is here acknowledged,” noting also Gen 8:21; Job 14:4, 15:14–15, 25:4;
and Ps 143:2; see further Tate (1990: 18–19); Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 20). These authors
see this as a reference not to original sin but rather to general human depravity, although cf.
Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 25).
23. See Gunkel and Begrich (1933: 179), translated by Kraus (1988: 502): “The penitent let
himself be bathed or he himself washed himself and his clothes, while at the same time for-
giveness of sins was pronounced over him.”
428 Chapter 21
In v. 10[8], the psalmist longs to hear the sounds of joy and gladness to re-
place the turmoil of an inner life plagued by the knowledge of his guilt
(v. 5[3]). The reference to “bones” suggests physical suffering (Pss 6:3[2];
22:15[14], 18[17]; 34:21[20]; 38:4[3]; 42:11[10]; 102:4[3], 6[5]; 141:7), which
is related to the sins, a form of discipline to alert the psalmist to the need for
restitution (Ps 38:4[3]). 24 Similarly to Ps 35:10, where previously suffering
“bones” are given a voice to praise, God’s merciful restoration of the sinner’s
health will prompt praise from the physical body.
The action of “blotting out” sins, which occurs in v. 11b[9b], has already
been encountered earlier in v. 3b[1b], where it refers to the complete obliter-
ation of the sin of the psalmist. Outside the Psalter, the first action, “hide your
face,” is usually associated with God abandoning or forgetting his people be-
cause of their disobedience (Deut 31:17–18, 32:20; Job 13:23–24, 34:26–30; Isa
8:17, 54:8, 57:17, 59:2, 64:6[7]; Jer 33:5; Ezek 39:23–24; Mic 3:4; cf. Ezek 39:29),
a condition that, when experienced by many psalmists, brings confusion. 25
Ps 51:11[9], however, invites this “hiding of the face,” asking God to transfer
the object of his action from the suppliant to the sins and to shift his stance
from anger to grace.
In summary, vv. 9–11[7–9] ask for God’s mercy, which will enable the
psalmist to reenter the worshiping community of Israel without stain or
record before Yahweh.
Request for Transformation (51:12–14[10–12])

Whereas vv. 9–11[7–9] largely echoed the initial request in vv. 3–4[1–2] for
mercy, vv. 12–14[10–12] move the request to a new level as the psalmist ex-
presses the desire for a transformation of inner character and preservation of
relationship with God. Thus, “it is not simply a question of removing guilt in
the sense of the restoration of a previous state, but rather of transformation
and change of the human being ‘attacked’ by sin.” 26 Words in this section,
such as heart (blE; v. 12[10]) and spirit (j'Wr; vv. 12[10], 14[12]), make clear that
the psalmist is moving from a focus on the merciful restoration of one’s status
within the community before God by removal of guilt (vv. 9–11[7–9]) to a fo-
cus on the transformation of one’s inner being. All of this must be a work of
God, who is the subject of “create” (arb) and “renew” (vdj Piel), “restore” (bwv
24. The reference to rites including hyssop in v. 9[7] has suggested to some that the physi-
cal ailment was related to a cleansing from some skin disease, as the rituals in Lev 14:4–5 out-
line. However, the vocabulary is probably more closely related to someone who has had
contact with a dead body in Num 19:18–19; see also Kraus (1988: 504).
25. See Balentine (1983). Within the Psalter, this is rarely articulated (Pss 13:2[1], 27:9,
30:8[7], 44:25[24], 69:18[17], 88:15[14], 102:3[2], 143:7; cf. Ps 22:25[24]), although see
69:18[17] and 143:7. It is this hiding of the face that is confusing for most psalmists, for it is
seen as a condition afforded only to those who have broken covenant relationship with
Yahweh.
26. So Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 19); this is something that they see foreshadowed al-
ready in the language of vv. 5–6[3–4].

Psalms (Part 2) 429
Hiphil) and “sustain” (˚ms), the first of these restricted to divine action. The
“clean heart” (r/jf: blE) here is not a ceremonially clean heart but rather an
ethically clean heart, because it is created, not declared (see the “steadfast
heart” in Prov 22:11). The “steadfast spirit” (ˆ/kn; j'Wr) is a spirit that is resolute,
with a foundation that is unshakable (see Pss 57:8[7], 108:2[1], 112:6–8). Ps
112:7 speaks of a steadfast heart that can face bad news and not crumble. A
“willing spirit” (hb:ydin] j'Wr) is one that does things without compulsion or re-
quirement, similar to the willing contributors to the tabernacle construction
in Exod 35:5, 22, the willing skilled workers in the temple project in 1 Chr
28:21, and the willing contributors to the festal sacrifices in 2 Chr 29:31. This
willing spirit is to “sustain” the psalmist, a term that speaks of what supports
someone who is unsteady on the feet (Pss 37:24, 119:116, 145:14) and of the
inner motivations that sustain someone going into battle (Isa 59:16, 63:5). 27
The psalmist expects far more than forgiveness; he expects an inner transfor-
mation of the heart in order to pursue righteousness rather than sin. The vo-
cabulary used throughout this section suggests that the psalmist is requesting
the kind of inner transformation prophesied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel in Jer
24:7, 31:33, 32:39, and Ezek 36:24–33, which
proclaim that Yahweh himself will put his hrwt [law] into the heart of [hu-
manity] and thus create joyous, willing obedience through his jwr [Spirit].
. . .With his petitions he therefore appeals to the great prophetic promises
which in Jeremiah and Ezekiel go beyond the “old covenant.” There lies the
unique significance of the psalm. (Kraus 1988: 505)
In the midst of this hope for transformation, the psalmist never loses sight of
the relationship enjoyed with God (v. 13[11]). To be “cast from God’s pres-
ence” is an idiom that expresses a strong sense of rejection, used elsewhere
nearly exclusively to refer to the exile of Israel from the land (1 Kgs 9:7, 2 Kgs
17:20, 2 Kgs 24:20 // Jer 52:3, Jer 7:13, 2 Chr 7:20; cf. 2 Kgs 13:23). The fear of
losing “your Holy Spirit” most likely refers to the concern that the king would
lose the royal spirit that came on him at his anointing and set him apart as
the king (see 1 Sam 16:13–14; cf. Eaton 1976: 71–72). The loss of access to
God’s presence and the loss of the spirit’s anointing would be severe signs of
relational rejection. Finally, as in vv. 9–11[7–9], the restoration of joy is a key
sign of God’s mercy in the psalmist’s life. The psalmist longs to express joy to
the God who saves (v. 14a[12a]).
Verses 12–14[10–12] take the psalmist’s request to a new level. Having asked
for the mercy of God, the psalmist implores God for nothing short of an inner
renewal of the affections so as to avoid replicating the sinful patterns of the
past. In addition, the psalmist emphasizes that the goal of mercy and trans-
formation is ultimately relationship with God, whose presence the psalmist
craves and before whom the psalmist longs to rejoice with thanksgiving.
27. See also Ezek 30:6, where Egypt is propped up.

430 Chapter 21
Communal Impact (51:15–21[13–19])

The supplicant, however, is not finished at the end of the requests for
mercy, transformation, relationship, and joy. The final stanza of the poem
looks to the broader social context in which the suppliant is located. Here,
the psalmist showcases the impact that confession can have on the commu-
nity as a whole. First of all, it has a pedagogical function within the commu-
nity, teaching the disobedient about God’s ways and even motivating them
to replicate the pattern of the psalmist by turning back to God (v. 15[13]). 28
This reveals that this psalm is considered by the psalmist as an expression of
penitence to God, vocalizing remorse over sin and a desire for a change in be-
havior. Second, penitential confession has a doxological function within the
community, as the psalmist looks to future verbal (vv. 16–17[14–15]) and sac-
rificial worship (vv. 18–21[16–19]). This verbal worship is typified as a re-
sponse of the psalmist to the deliverance of God (v. 16[14]), but also as a
divine work as God is implored to open the psalmist’s lips to declare God’s
praise. The function of sacrifice is carefully defined in vv. 18–21[16–19]. As
v. 9[7] spoke positively about the priestly ritual of cleansing, so v. 21[19]
makes clear that God continues to take delight in sacrifices. The psalmist is
not against priestly ritual but rather encourages authentic ritual by “the righ-
teous.” 29 Verses 18–19[16–17] reveal that the priority is on the humble inter-
nal disposition of the worshiper, using terminology often related to those
downtrodden and beaten (“broken spirit,” “broken and contrite heart”; see
Jer 23:9, Isa 61:1, Ps 34:19[18]), rather than on the external rituals of burnt
offering. 30
Confession and repentance here are not confined to the private sphere,
even for a sin as despicable as the “bloodguilt” of Psalm 51. Instead, the
thanksgiving that results from penitential confession is an opportunity for
the community to hear the warning as well as the promise of God and be led
in worship by one who has known the pain of discipline. The parting hope of
the psalmist is for the prosperity and restoration of Jerusalem, where the
people worship their God through sacrifice offered in spirit and truth.
This psalm was written by someone well versed in priestly terminology and
rituals (see our discussion of vv. 3–4[1–2], 9–11[7–9]), and although not elim-
inating priestly ritual from the worship of Israel, the psalmist is reminding the
audience of the necessity of contrition, repentance, and confession rather
than ritual for the cleansing from sin’s stain. 31
28. This section fits the vows that often appear in psalms of disorientation.
29. It has long been noted that vv. 20–21[18–19] represent a later addition to the psalm
that seeks to correct the claims of vv. 18–19[16–17]; see Kraus (1988: 500); Tate (1990: 9).
30. A typical critique of the prophetic tradition in Israel (Amos 5:22, Isa 1:11, Jer 6:20); cf.
Kraus (1988: 506).
31. It is probably the severity of sin here (bloodguilt) that demands penitence, rather than
ritual, because sins of this sort were capital offenses and unavailable for atonement (Ander-
son 1972a: 401).

Psalms (Part 2) 431
Psalm 78
Scholars have identified Psalm 78 with two main types of psalms. First, it
has been placed by some in a category called “historical psalms,” that is,
psalms such as 105, 106, 135, and 136, which rehearse the history of Israel. 32
The difficulty with this designation is that recitation of the history of Israel is
a regular element in various types of psalms. As Gunkel noted long ago and
Kühlewein more recently, rehearsals of this sort are employed in hymns
(Psalm 105), laments (Psalm 106, Isaiah 63–64) and didactic compositions
(Deuteronomy 32). 33 In light of this critique, the second category with which
Psalm 78 has been associated is that of wisdom or didactic psalms. 34
Introduction (78:1–2)
That the acquisition of wisdom is the intention of the psalm is clear from
its introduction, which invites the community to listen to the psalmist’s wise
teaching and words. 35 This teaching is characterized in v. 2 as a wise saying
(lv…m): and a riddle (hd;yjI), the first word used regularly for a saying or truism
among the people (Ezek 18:2–3, 1 Sam 10:12) and within wisdom literature
for a wisdom saying (Prov 1:1, 6; 10:1; 25:1; Qoh 12:9) or an extended wis-
dom speech ( Job 27:1, 29:1). The second word is used of Samson’s riddle in
Judg 14:12–19, but also of the allegory of Ezekiel 17 (see v. 2). It describes a
presentation with a hidden or enigmatic meaning. These two words appear
together in Ps 78:2 as well as Prov 1:6, Ps 49:5[4], and Ezek 17:2. They are at
home in the wisdom sphere of Israel, although Ezekiel 17 shows that they are
not limited to it.
Teaching the Mysteries of Yahweh (78:3–8)

These words set the tone for Psalm 78 and are the first indications that for
the psalmist the key to life lies in understanding mysteries. These mysteries
are immediately revealed in vv. 4b–5a and involve both the miraculous deeds
of Yahweh (v. 4b) and the revelatory words of Yahweh (v. 5a). As one com-
mentator has noted,
Israel has been able to know Yahweh in two ways. One way is through his
words, the law that he has established for her. Even before the law, however,
was the divine action: exodus preceded covenant. Both are necessary for an
understanding of Yahweh and the way to live in relationship with him. . . .
32. E.g., Sabourin (1974: 391); Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 286). See this discussion in
Boda (1999: 24).
33. Gunkel and Begrich (1933: 323–27); see also Kühlewein (1973).
34. See Westermann (1981a: 141); Kraus (1989: 122–23); Tate (1990: 284).
35. Teaching: The word hr;/T is used here in its more generic sense of “teaching” rather
than its technical sense of “law.” This suggests the worldview of wisdom. However, it proba-
bly foreshadows the importance of the hr;/T as the revealed body of laws to Israel, which is in-
troduced in v. 5 and important to the psalm as a whole. Words: So also Kraus (1989: 123),
who notes Job 15:17–18 and sees here a “formula for opening a teaching session.”
432 Chapter 21
Torah is a combination of story and commandments; the commandments

are understood in the context of the story and the story is incomplete with-
out the commandments. Only by understanding the old traditions can the
present generation avoid repeating the sins of the previous ones. (Tate 1990:
288–89)
It is these that will not be hidden from the next generation (vv. 4a, 5b–6). The
purpose of teaching of this sort is articulated in vv. 7–8; it will lead future gen-
erations, on the one hand, to trust God, to remember his deeds, and to keep
his commands (v. 7) and, on the other, to avoid the patterns of their ancestors
who were obstinate, rebellious, disloyal, and unfaithful (v. 8).
Ephraim’s Failure and Judah’s Election (78:9–11, 59–72)

The story of Israel is told against the dark backdrop of the serious failure of
the northern tribes at the time when Shiloh fell (see 1 Samuel 31). 36 The
events of this fall and the subsequent transfer of the sacred shrine to Zion and
the leadership from Ephraim to Judah with David (vv. 9–11, 56–72) create an
envelope around the entire rehearsal found in vv. 12–58. The final description
of David as one with “skillful palms” uses a term for understanding popular
in wisdom literature that was often placed in parallel with “wisdom” (hmkj;
Prov 2:2, 6; 3:13, 19; 5:1; 8:1; 10:23; 21:30; 24:3; cf. 2:3, 11; 11:12; 14:29;
15:21; 17:27; 18:2; 19:8; 20:5; 28:16). For the psalmist, David appears as the
wise one who will fulfill the teaching role key to Israel’s future.
The Story of Israel (78:12–58)

At the core of this psalm is a rehearsal of the story of Israel that picks up
in v. 12 where v. 8 left off (“their ancestors”). 37 The story begins with a re-
hearsal of God’s miraculous deeds: parting the sea, guiding them in the fiery
cloud, and providing water for the journey (vv. 12–16). The response of the
people to these gracious miracles is rebellion, as they test God first by de-
manding meat and then by questioning his ability to provide it (vv. 17–20). 38
God’s response is twofold (vv. 21–31). On the one hand, vv. 21–22 and 30–31
describe Yahweh’s judgment on the people, but, on the other, vv. 23–29 de-
scribe his miraculous provision of their request. Nevertheless, v. 32 reveals
that the people continued to sin and did not trust Yahweh. The divine re-
sponse this time is exclusively negative (v. 33) and it is this that finally leads
the people to respond: seeking, returning diligently, searching, and remem-
bering God (vv. 34–35). Verses 36–37, however, show that this was only a
36. With Weiser (1962: 540).

37. Verse 5 reveals that these “ancestors” were those who had received the law.
38. The indication in v. 17 that “they continued still to sin” probably refers back to v. 8.
Kraus (1989: 127) notes that “‘to tempt God’ therefore means to subject to doubt his good-
ness and his perfect power through challenging, greedy wishes” (cf. Exod 17:2; Pss 95:9,
106:14).
Psalms (Part 2) 433
sham, as the declaration of the mouth (v. 36) 39 did not lead to a true change
in heart or deed (v. 37). When one might expect God to finally bring an end
to the nation, the psalmist reveals the mercy of God, who forgives repeatedly
throughout the wilderness period and brings the people safely into the holy
land (vv. 38–55). The people’s actions are described as rebellion against Yah-
weh, which grieved him (v. 40), and testing, which pained him (v. 41). This
rebellion and testing, however, is traced back to their refusal to “remember”
(v. 42) the miraculous deeds of Yahweh when he brought them out of Egypt
(vv. 43–53). The reason God preserved and did not bring an end to the nation
is traced first to God’s character of mercy (“compassionate,” v. 38) and second
to God’s sensitivity to the people’s mortal frailty (“they were but flesh, a wind
that passes and does not return,” v. 39).
Once in the land, however, the patience of God reaches an end. Although
described in terms similar to their rebellion in the wilderness (compare 78:56–
57 with 78:8, 17, 40–41), the idolatry described in v. 58 leads to divine aban-
donment of Shiloh, the Israelite army, and the tribe of Ephraim. God would
begin anew with Zion, Judah, and David.
Summary
What does this psalm say about sin and its remedy? First of all, it is clear
that the story of Israel is one of consistent rebellion in the face of the mirac-
ulous works of Yahweh. Second, whether God’s actions were positive or nega-
tive, salvific or disciplinary makes no difference to Israel. The pattern of the
chapter moves from purely salvific divine actions (vv. 12–16) to a mixture of
salvific and disciplinary (vv. 21–31) to purely disciplinary divine actions (vv.
33–34a). In the first two cases, the psalmist uses identical terms to describe the
people’s response: “They still continued to sin . . . they did not believe” (cf.
vv. 17, 22 with v. 32). In the third case, finally, the psalmist reports what ap-
pears to be the necessary response (vv. 34–35: seeking, turning, diligently
searching, remembering), only to qualify this in vv. 36–37 by revealing that it
was all a deception. God’s response is finally to show mercy in the wilderness,
a response that is linked to his character and sensitivity to his people’s condi-
tion (vv. 38–39).
What these scenarios show is the twofold riddle of the relationship be-
tween God and Israel. On the one side, whether God shows mercy or disci-
pline, Israel does not obey, and even what looks like repentance ends up being
a lie. Certainly, the psalmist highlights the guilt and despair of humanity. On
39. The term for “searching” is rjv Piel and is used for ardent search in wisdom literature
( Job 7:21; Prov 1:28, 7:15, 8:17), prophetic literature (Isa 26:9, Hos 5:15) and the Psalter (Ps
63:2[1]). The term usually suggests an engaged rather than dispassionate activity. The term
for deception here is the same one used in Prov 1:10 and 16:29 and seen in HALOT as “to per-
suade someone, by offering a tempting allurement” (see also Exod 22:15; Judg 14:15, 16:5;
2 Sam 3:25; Prov 24:28), although this can be positive (Hos 2:16).
434 Chapter 21
the other side, there is no established pattern with God. When one expects
the full venting of his wrath, he responds with mercy and forgives his people,
realizing their frailty. Though in this lies the only hope for a human race un-
able to respond appropriately to God’s grace or discipline, it does resist any
neat schematization. The reference to the wise saying and riddle in v. 2 iden-
tifies this as the
secret . . . which lies hidden in the historical presentation in question, but
which now is to be revealed in the manner of a teaching of wisdom. A hint
of its meaning can now already be given: the mystery of the history of Israel
with its God is the unceasing salvific activity of Yahweh on the one hand
and the similarly incessant defection of the people on the other. 40
Although highlighting this riddle, the psalmist does not lose sight of certain
core values. Great hope is placed in teaching the next generation about the
miraculous deeds of Yahweh in Egypt and the wilderness and the revelatory
words of Yahweh in the Law. Key to this teaching is the sanctuary of God in
Jerusalem established by David, the wise leader. Psalm 78 thus points to wise
teaching as the solution for the sin of Israel, while clinging to the mysterious
mercy of God, whose patience has endured through all generations.
Psalm 103
The development of the theology of sin and its remedy has been drawn
mostly from the psalms of disorientation. Psalm 103, however, has the tone
of psalms of orientation, removed from a specific case of disorientation 41 as
is typical of the psalms of new orientation, and speaking instead generically
about the ways of God in this world, which are praiseworthy. The use of the
root ˚rb at the beginning (vv. 1–2) and end (vv. 20–23), the employment of a
series of participles in vv. 3–5 (“who pardons . . . heals . . . redeems . . . crowns
. . . satisfies”), and the sweeping statements about God’s treatment of human-
ity suggest a psalm of orientation in which the psalmist reflects on the good-
ness of God removed from the present or recent darkness of a particular
predicament. 42
Opening Praise of Yahweh for His Regular Benefits (103:1–6)

The psalm begins with the internal address typical of the Psalter, as the
psalmist invites “my soul” to praise Yahweh and not to “forget” any of his
40. Kraus (1989: 123). See also Tate (1990: 295): “The ‘riddle’ is the mystery of God’s sav-
ing work in Israel’s history and of Israel’s behavior.”
41. Although Kraus (1989: 290) does note that it shows affinity with the psalms of sick-
ness and healing with reference to sickness and forgiveness.
42. See also Kraus (1989: 290), who although calling this a “song of thanksgiving,” notes
that in vv. 6–22, “hymnic motifs are heard that go beyond personal experience and in a most
comprehensive way glorify Yahweh’s wonderful rule in the history of his chosen people” (he
ends by calling this “a song of thanksgiving that tends to rise to hymn status”). Interestingly,
Kraus (p. 291) also calls the participles in vv. 3–5: “hymnic participles.”
Psalms (Part 2) 435
benefits. Throughout the Old Testament and especially in Deuteronomy, for-

getting and remembering often have covenantal overtones (Deut 8:18–20),
and the object of this remembering is regularly the saving acts of Yahweh (cf.
Deut 4:9, 23; 6:12; 32:18). 43 To remember Yahweh is to hold fast to him, to
forget is to abandon him and often to serve other gods. The psalmist’s “re-
membering” is focused on Yahweh’s “benefits,” a term used in 2 Chr 32:25 for
Yahweh’s gracious healing of Hezekiah (see 2 Chr 32:24). 44 The fact that in
both cases “benefits” of this sort are related to the healing work of Yahweh is
the first indication that the psalmist’s focus is on Yahweh’s work in physically
healing his people. This is confirmed not only by the references to “healing
diseases,” redeeming “life from the pit,” 45 and renewing “youth” in vv. 3–5
but also by the references to the earthly (v. 14, “dust”) and ephemeral (v. 16,
“it is no more”) character of humanity in vv. 13–16.
The healing of humanity’s physical ailments is linked directly in this psalm
to the forgiving character of Yahweh, a feature that is also discerned in some
of the psalms of sickness studied above. 46 The series of participles in vv. 3–5
that focus on Yahweh’s gracious acts toward humanity are constructed as a
continuous sequence of actions that begins with the diseased state at the brink
of death and ends with abundant life satisfied with good things. That which
precedes all of this, however, is the forgiveness that Yahweh grants for “all
your iniquities” (v. 3). This makes explicit what has been suggested in many
of the psalms that mention sin throughout the Psalter: sickness is linked to sin.
Praise of Yahweh’s Forgiveness Based on His Revelation at Sinai (103:7–12)

For the psalmist, the only hope lies in the forgiving character of Yahweh,
whose character dominates the middle part of this psalm in vv. 7–12. There,
the psalmist draws on the foundational theology of the Israelites, which was
revealed in deed and word through Moses in the wilderness, where rebellious
Israel both tested and experienced God’s grace (vv. 7–8). Probably the two
deepest points of their rebellion in this period were the events described in
Exodus 32 (golden calf) and Numbers 14 (Kadesh Barnea), and in both cases
one finds the recitation of part or all of the phrase that the psalmist employs
in v. 8: “The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abound-
ing in covenant loyalty” (see Exod 34:6–7, Num 14:18–19). 47
43. Kraus (1989: 291).

44. Elsewhere, this term (lWmG:) is used for “accomplishments” ( Judg 9:16; Isa 3:11, 59:18;
Prov 12:14) or retribution (Isa 35:4, 66:6; Jer 51:6; Joel 3:4[4:4], 7; Obadiah 15; Pss 28:4, 94:2,
137:8; Prov 19:17; Lam 3:64).
45. For “diseases,” see Deut 29:21, Jer 14:18, 2 Chr 21:19. For the pit as grave, see Isa 38:17,
51:14; Ezek 28:8; Jonah 2:7; Pss 16:10, 30:10[9], 49:10[9], 55:24[23]; Job 17:14; 33:18–30.
46. Kraus (1989: 291) sees this as a general principle in the Old Testament: “Illness in the
OT is thought of as the result of some offense. In physical suffering a sinful deed is manifest.”
47. In Exodus, it is Yahweh who recites this; in Numbers, it is Moses who reminds Yahweh
of what he had recited.
436 Chapter 21
Based on this theological foundation, the psalmist draws three conclu-

sions. First, although Yahweh does discipline (“strive . . . keep [anger],” v. 9), 48
because of his primary character of compassion, this discipline is not an en-
during condition (“not always . . . nor . . . forever”). Second, because of his
grace, the deserved penalty is not demanded for the sinner (“he has not dealt
with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities”). 49
And third, because of his immeasurable (“as high as the heavens above the
earth”) covenant faithfulness (ds<j)< , Yahweh has immeasurably (“as far as the
east is from the west”) distanced (qjr Hiphil) sins from the sinner.
Praise of Yahweh for His Fatherly Everlasting Compassion (103:13–18)

This love of Yahweh is compared in v. 13 to the compassion of a father for
his children and is linked to Yahweh’s knowledge (as the father of humanity)
of our human frailty (vv. 14–16). The psalmist does not play up human po-
tential in this psalm but rather readily admits the spiritual and physical frailty
of human beings in order to accentuate their dependence on the grace of Yah-
weh. Physical suffering is linked to sin, and the only solution is the healing
touch of a gracious God who begins by forgiving sin. 50 Forgiveness of this sort
involves a merciful inequity, disproportionate to the deserved punishment, as
well as a compassionate removal, proportionate to the immeasurable size of
his love.
While there is a clear emphasis on the grace of God as the only hope for
forgiveness, one should not miss the fact that the psalmist mentions “those
who fear Yahweh”:
For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his covenant faith-
fulness towards those who fear him. (v. 11, nasb, modified)
As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on
those who fear him. (v. 13)
But the covenant faithfulness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting
on those who fear him. (v. 17, nasb, modified).
This sort of forgiveness is thus afforded only to those who “fear Yahweh,” and
this is defined more carefully in v. 18 as “those who keep (rmv) his covenant
and remember (rkz) his precepts to do (hc[) them.” The psalmist is not pro-
moting here divine grace without human response. Therefore, “this love is
not to be willfully abused. Its recipients must respond with respectful awe. . . .
The activity of God, v 6, must find an echo of obedient activity in their lives”
(Allen 1983: 22). For the psalmist, sin is a reality in this world, and God’s
48. The term for “contend” is byr, which is drawn from legal terminology, reflecting an ac-
cusatory lawsuit against someone. The term for “bear a grudge” is also used in Lev 19:18 in
relationship to exacting vengeance; see also Jer 3:5, 12.
49. As Allen (1983: 22) writes, “Judge of sins though Yahweh must be, yet his charitable-
ness toward his own predominates and eventually bids him drop the charges he might have
pressed” (see also Isa 54:7–8).
50. This connection is also made clear in James 5.
spread 6 points long

Psalms (Part 2) 437
grace makes it possible for humanity to experience forgiveness. However, this

comes only to those whose hearts are devoted to Yahweh and committed to
following his ways.
Concluding Praise of Yahweh as King (103:20–22)

This psalm, which began with the psalmist alone (vv. 1–5) and expanded
to the community as a whole (vv. 6–18), 51 ends with the entire cosmos in
view (vv. 20–22). This forgiving father is none other than the emperor of both
heaven and earth. His acts of grace toward humanity and their reverential re-
sponse serves to prompt praise from both the heavenly court that serves this
king and the works he has created.
Summary
Psalm 103 confesses the general sinful frailty and reality of humanity in
general, and this sinfulness is related to sickness. The psalmist celebrates the
grace of God that brings forgiveness for this sin and makes no explicit men-
tion of repentance from sin. There is an assumption, however, that forgive-
ness comes to those who “fear Yahweh,” a posture described as keeping his
commandments and remembering his precepts.
Psalm 106
The initial verse of Psalm 106 may lead one to expect a hymn of praise
(“Praise the Lord”) or song of thanks (“give thanks to the Lord, for he is
good, for his covenant loyalty endures forever”), but it is clear by v. 4, which
forms a bracket with v. 47 around the entire rehearsal of the story of Israel,
that the psalmist is presenting a prayer of disorientation to Yahweh. 52 The
psalmist ultimately asks for Yahweh to “save us . . . and gather us from among
the nations” (v. 47), revealing the experience of exilic discipline. In the re-
quest in v. 4, the psalmist is clearly embedded within the people of Israel, de-
sirous for Yahweh to show favor when the favor of v. 47 is finally shown to
the people as a whole. 53 The response of both individual and nation to this
hoped-for deliverance will be praise (vv. 5b, 47b).
51. At first addressed to “my soul” which continues with the second person feminine sin-
gular possessives (“your,” referring to soul) in vv. 3–4. Notice the first common plural (“our,”
“we,” “us”) in this section after the mention of “Israel” in v. 7.
52. Ps 106:48 is not part of the psalm proper but is rather part of the editorial frame-
work of the fourth “book” of the Psalter, which ends with this psalm; see further below,
pp. 448–450; and Boda (forthcoming c).
53. It is difficult to identify the psalmist who created this psalm. Most see the influence
of deuteronomic ideology, but I have argued elsewhere for additional influence from priestly
circles, especially those associated with Ezekiel; see Boda (1999: 66–68). Some kind of literary
relationship can be discerned between Ezekiel 20 and Psalm 106, although the direction is not
clear. The composer is one who has great respect for mediatorial figures and focuses especially
on Moses’ and Phinehas’ roles on behalf of the nation, both figures with priestly roots. Addi-
tionally, Korah is not mentioned in the rebellion of Numbers 16 (cf. Ps 106:16–18), possibly
438 Chapter 21
The psalm, however, is not simply comprised of these requests but rather
contains a long rehearsal of the story of Israel (vv. 7–46). It is this rehearsal
that explains the initial emphasis on the praise of Yahweh, for whenever this
story is told the great acts of Yahweh are highlighted, and this cannot help
but prompt praise and thanks. 54
Introduction (106:1–6)
Verses 2–3 voice two key principles at the outset of the psalm. First, the
psalm is about the rehearsal of God’s mighty deeds (hr;WbG}), a term often asso-
ciated with the might and valor of warriors (e.g., Judg 8:21, Prov 8:14, Isa
3:25). The same term appears later in the psalm at v. 8 as God saves Israel in
order to “make his power (hrWbG}) known.” At times, these acts are performed
for Israel’s benefit and, at others, in order to discipline Israel’s disobedience,
but they are all mighty acts of power. Second, the psalmist poses a question
in v. 2, asking who is able to declare these acts and praises and answering in
v. 3 that it is those “who keep (rmv) justice (fpvm), who practice (hc[) righ-
teousness (hqdx) at all times.” It is this, then, that introduces the request of
vv. 4–5, suggesting that the psalmist is to be counted among a company such
as this, a suggestion confirmed by the fact that the prayer proceeds to re-
hearse God’s mighty acts in vv. 7–46.
The “blessed” state, reserved for those whose lives are characterized by jus-
tice and righteousness, is certainly not experienced by Israel throughout its
history. Because of this, the psalmist, although described as one who walks
blamelessly, confesses the sin of the nation in v. 6: “We have sinned (afj)
with our ancestors, we have committed iniquity (ˆw[ Hiphil), we have behaved
wickedly ([vr Hiphil)” (nasb, modified). Here, one finds the three dominant
roots for sin in Hebrew, declared together to build up a picture of complete-
ness of offense and of confession to God. The psalmist is embedded within
the community in hopes of being delivered with them, so he joins the com-
munity, both past and present, to confess the sins that have led to the present
predicament of exile. This shows that the
lamenting community knows it is solidly allied to the fathers, who in the
years of origin sinned against Yahweh (cf. Exod 34:7, Deut 7:9). The present
judgment finds its cause in the first encounter between Yahweh and the fa-
thers. From the very beginning the chosen people scorned God’s dsj and
did what was wrong. (Kraus 1989: 318)
This view of the intergenerational character of sin that must be confessed
draws on the priestly vision for restoration after the Exile in Lev 26:39–40, in
to shield this Levitical family from shame. Some vocabulary outside the historical rehearsal
suggests a wisdom context as well: “proclaim” (llm Piel) in v. 2 and “blessed” (yrev‘a)" in v. 3.
54. So Allen (1983: 50) describes it as “a communal complaint strongly marked by hym-
nic features.”
Psalms (Part 2) 439
which the community in exile is to confess their sins and the sins of their an-
cestors (Boda 2006a; see discussion above on Leviticus 26, pp. 82–85, and be-
low on Ezra–Nehemiah, pp. 472–489). This statement is the clearest indica-
tion that the rehearsal that follows is not presented merely as an expression
of praise and thanks, but as a confession of the sin of rebellious Israel.
Reciting and Confessing Israel’s Story (106:7–46)

From the very beginning of the rehearsal, Israel’s response to God is rebel-
lious, and this response is what dominates the entire account. 55 The only pos-
itive response of Israel to God is given in v. 12 as they express their trust and
praise in Yahweh after the exodus experience, only to forget this immediately
and put God to the test (vv. 13–14). Every other mention of the nation in this
account highlights their rebellious response to God’s grace. The sequence of
the account is structured in the following way:
Israel’s sin (v. 7, rebellion at Red Sea)

Yahweh’s grace (vv. 8–11, exodus)
Israel’s trust/praise (v. 12)
Israel’s sin (vv. 13–14, put God to test)
Yahweh’s grace (v. 15a, gave them request)
Yahweh’s discipline (v. 15b, wasting disease)
Israel’s sin (v. 16, envied Moses and Aaron)
Yahweh’s discipline (vv. 17–18, judgment of Dathan, Abiram, followers)
Israel’s sin (vv. 19–22, golden calf)
Yahweh’s threat (v. 23a, promises to destroy them)
Yahweh’s grace (v. 23b, Moses stands in breach)
Israel’s sin (vv. 24–25, despise land at Kadesh Barnea)
Yahweh’s threat (vv. 26–27, promises to destroy in wilderness, scatter
descendants among the nations)
Israel’s sin (v. 28, Baal of Peor)
Yahweh’s discipline (v. 29, plague)
Yahweh’s grace (vv. 30–31, Phinehas intervenes)
Israel’s sin (vv. 32–33, waters of Meribah, Moses’ rash words)
Yahweh’s discipline (v. 32b, trouble on Moses)
Israel’s sin (vv. 34–39, did not destroy Canaanites, adopted idolatry and child
sacrifice)
Yahweh’s discipline (vv. 40–42, God’s anger, gives in to power of nations)
Yahweh’s grace (v. 43a, many times he delivered them)
Israel’s sin (v. 43b, they were rebellious)
Yahweh’s discipline (v. 43c, sank in their iniquity)
Yahweh’s grace (vv. 44–46, he looked on their distress, when he heard their
cry)
55. This rehearsal is certainly based on the Pentateuch in its present form; cf. Kraus (1989:
316); Boda (1999: 66).
440 Chapter 21
The focus of this account is almost entirely on the sin of Israel and God’s dis-
ciplinary response to this sin. God’s grace is mentioned at four places in the
account. First, it appears at the outset of the account, showing that the foun-
dational event of Israel’s history, the exodus, was a pure act of God’s grace in
the face of human rebellion. Second, it is found at the end of the account as
the psalmist rehearses the “many times” that God took note of the cry of his
disciplined people. Whereas in the exodus God’s mighty act was done “for his
name’s sake” (v. 8), in v. 45 it is done “for their sake” because “he remembered
his covenant” and because of the greatness of his covenant faithfulness (ds<j)< .
Third, God’s grace is mentioned at two other places in the rehearsal of this his-
tory, both times in response to a mediatorial figure intervening when Yahweh
was about to destroy the people: Moses in v. 23b and Phinehas in vv. 30–31. 56
These three instances of God’s grace are important to the psalmist’s confes-
sion, for in them is found the basis for grace in the present time. First, the
exodus experience is a key reminder of Yahweh’s commitment to create and
preserve this people “for his name’s sake.” The psalmist bases hope for God’s
grace to reconstitute the nation in the present generation on the fact that
Yahweh did not abandon them when he created the nation at its outset. Sec-
ond, the rehearsal ends with a clear pattern that sets up the final request of
the psalmist in v. 47. 57 God’s discipline came because of the rebellion of the
people, but his deliverance is tied to the cry of the people. As Yahweh took
note of the cry of a disciplined people in the past, so the hope is that he will
take note of the cry of the psalmist in the present and so relent and free them
from captivity. Third, the references to the mediatorial figures in vv. 23b and
vv. 30–31 and their role in securing grace from Yahweh is important for the
role that the psalmist is playing in the present age. The psalmist is a mediator
embedded within a nation pleading with God to graciously deliver them from
their predicament of exile.
One other section of the psalm also shows the impact of the past on the
present of the psalmist, but this time it is the impact of past human sin on the
present predicament. 58 Following his description of the rebellion at Kadesh
Barnea, which is depicted as “despising the pleasant land” (v. 24), the psalmist
notes that God not only would bring an end (“to cause them to fall”) to that
generation in the wilderness (v. 26) but would do the same to their descen-
dants (“to cause them to fall”) among the nations by scattering them in for-
eign lands. This term, “scattering” (hrz Piel), when used in reference to a
nation is always used for the exile of that nation (Lev 26:33; 1 Kgs 14:15; Jer
31:10; 49:32, 36; 51:2; Ezek 5:10, 12; 12:14; 20:23; 22:15; 29:12; 30:23, 26; Ze-
56. Even Moses’ behavior at Meribah is mentioned in vv. 32–33; it is subtly blamed on the
people’s rebellion, thus excusing Moses. Notice how Phinehas attains the status of Abraham.
To both characters was reckoned righteousness (hq:d;x}lI /l bvj; cf. Gen 15:6).
57. This is based on patterns from the book of Judges (see especially Judges 2) and,
through the reference to “many times,” takes the story down to the Exile of Judah.
58. See also Kraus (1989: 317).

Psalms (Part 2) 441
chariah 2, 4; Ps 44:12). Here then, the psalmist is linking the Exile to the wil-
derness generation that despised the land by grumbling and did not believe
God’s promise or listen to his voice (see similarly Ezekiel 20, pp. 279–283
above). 59 On the one side, this shows why the psalmist is confessing the sin
of the ancestors, rebellious acts that had implications for the present genera-
tion. On the other side, it may also reflect a call to the community to despise
neither the land nor God’s promise of a return to that land.
Summary
Psalm 106 thus grants a perspective on sin and its remedy. It reveals the
importance of confession of the sin of the past, the sins of former generations
that have stained the present generation. It plays down the ability of the na-
tion to change its ways and places all hope on the fame and mercy of God and
the role of mediatorial figures. Though the nation as a whole cannot change
its ways, these mediatorial figures are called to be righteous, securing the grace
of God for their generations. Finally, it also shows the importance of close at-
tention to the inscripturated story for informing prayer in the present. Pat-
terns of sin, discipline, and grace established in the past are seen as relevant
for the present.
Psalm 107
Psalm 107 picks up where Psalm 106 left off. Psalm 106 began with that
oft-repeated proclamation of thanks, “Give thanks to Yahweh, for he is good,
his covenant faithfulness endures forever” (v. 1), rehearsed the story of Yah-
weh’s mighty acts and Israel’s rebellious response (vv. 7–46), and ended with
a cry to Yahweh to “gather (≈bq Piel) us from the nations” (v. 47a) with the
promise “that we may give thanks to your holy name and glory in your
praise” (v. 47b). Psalm 107 begins with the same proclamation of thanks
(v. 1), inviting those whom “he gathered (≈bq Piel) from the lands” (vv. 2–3)
to give their testimony. What follows in the psalm is a rehearsal of the story
of Yahweh’s mighty acts on behalf of various types of individuals, including
those who wandered hungry and thirsty in the wilderness (vv. 4–9), those
who were imprisoned (vv. 10–16), those who suffered sickness (vv. 17–22),
and those who nearly sank on the stormy sea (vv. 23–32). In each case, the
psalmist invites that category of “the redeemed” to respond in thanksgiving
to Yahweh (vv. 8, 15, 21–22, 31–32).
God’s Discipline and Blessing (107:33–43)

The psalm ends with a description of the pattern of God’s discipline on hu-
mans: disciplining due to sin (vv. 33–34, 39–40) followed by blessing (vv. 35–
38, 41). The discipline in vv. 33–34 is clearly linked to sin in v. 34b, and in the
59. In this, as Kraus (1989: 320) has noted, “the psalmsinger here surpasses the view of
the Deuteronomic history, which in its exhibit of righteous judgment refers to the failures
between the taking of the land ( Josh 1) and the loss of the land (2 Kings 25).”
442 Chapter 21
second case it is assumed in the fact that “nobles” are juxtaposed with “the
needy,” suggesting a case of social injustice. The two closing verses reveal that
this psalm arises from wisdom circles. 60 These verses contrast the “upright”
and the “wicked” and invite the wise in the audience (“who is wise?”) to con-
sider these patterns and embrace the “covenant faithfulness” of Yahweh,
which brings blessing rather than discipline. Other wisdom influences can be
discerned in the refrain that occurs within each of the scenarios (vv. 8, 15, 21,
31), with its reference to God’s wondrous acts toward “the children of human-
kind,” which is not only a popular phrase within wisdom literature 61 but re-
flects wisdom’s penchant for creational and universal categories. An addi-
tional influence is the reference to “fools” in v. 17, who contrast with the
“wise” in v. 43. 62 This psalm then represents the close association between
wisdom and temple circles. Here, the voice of wisdom (vv. 42–43) encourages
a thankful response to Yahweh, which, according to v. 22, involved sacrificial
(“let them sacrifice thank offerings”) and verbal (“let them tell of his works
with songs of joy”) expressions.
Israel’s Predicament and God’s Deliverance (107:4–32)

The four scenarios at the core of this psalm (vv. 4–32) display a basic nar-
rative sequence:
1. Predicament: (desert: vv. 4–5; prison: vv. 10–12; sickness: vv. 17–18; sea:
vv. 23–27)
2. Cry: “They cried to Yahweh in their trouble” (vv. 6a, 13a, 19a, 28a)
3. Rescue: “He delivered/saved/brought them out of their distresses”
(vv. 6b–7, 13b–14, 19b–20, 28b–30)
4. Invitation: “Let them give thanks” (vv. 8–9, 15–16, 21–22, 31–32)
There are slight variations, however, between the scenarios. Scenarios 2 and 3
explicitly state that the cause of the predicament is human rebellion against
Yahweh (vv. 11, 17). No human cause is given for the predicaments in scenar-
ios 1 and 4, although a divine cause is offered in the latter in v. 25 when the
psalmist divulges that it was Yahweh who caused the tempest. Scenarios 2 and
3 also share in common the same verb for God’s rescue (vv. 13b, 19b). There
60. At least its final form does. For these wisdom elements, see Anderson (1972b: 749);
Allen (1983: 62–63); Kraus (1989: 330). The closing stanzas (vv. 33–43) are often considered
“supplementary poetry,” but the sheer size of this section and its placement at the close
shapes the reading of the psalm in its present form.
61. The phrase μd;a: yneB} (“sons of humanity”) appears in: Deut 32:8, all humans on earth;
2 Sam 7:14, discipline by the strokes of humans; Pss 11:4; 12:2[1], 9[8]; 14:2; 21:11[10];
31:20[19]; 33:13; 36:8[7]; 45:3[2]; 49:3[2]; 53:3[2]; 57:5[4]; 58:2[1]; 62:10[9]; 66:5; 89:48[47];
90:3; 107:8, 15, 21, 31; 115:16; 145:12; Prov 8:4, 8:31, 15:11; Isa 52:14; Jer 32:19; Ezek 31:14;
Dan 10:16; Joel 1:12; Mic 5:6; μd;a:h: yneB} (“sons of humanity”): 1 Sam 26:19, sense of divine ver-
sus human; 1 Kgs 8:39 // 2 Chr 6:30, “you know the hearts of all humans”; Qoh 1:13; 2:3, 8;
3:10, 18, 21; 8:11; 9:3, 12.
62. Here, the term lywia” (“foolish”) is used, a term used 19 times in Proverbs and also in Job
5:2–3; Isa 19:11, 35:8; Jer 5:22; Hos 9:7.

Psalms (Part 2) 443
is also a point of connection, however, that binds scenario 1 with scenario 2

and then scenario 3 with scenario 4, and this is found in the second half of
the invitation to give thanks. Scenarios 1 and 2 both explicitly state the rea-
son that the rescued should give thanks: “For he has satisfied the thirsty soul
and the hungry soul he has filled with goodness . . . for he has shattered gates
of bronze, and cut bars of iron asunder” (vv. 9, 16). In contrast, scenarios 3
and 4 provide in the same place more explicit exhortations to give thanks to
Yahweh, with scenario 3 identifying the various means for this thanksgiving
(sacrificial, verbal) and scenario 4 identifying the various contexts for this
thanksgiving (assembly of the people, in the seat of the elders).
Tracking these patterns reveals that the psalmist does not trace all suffering
to sin, although at least in some cases this is a cause. Key in every case to the
resolution of the predicament is the “cry” to Yahweh, suggesting that a pre-
mium is placed on prayer in the midst of crisis. No mention is made of repen-
tance. The strongest emphasis in the psalm is on giving thanks for God’s
deliverance in the midst of the community as a whole. This is the burden of
the psalm from the outset (v. 2) and facilitates the learning so essential at the
close of the psalm (vv. 42–43).
Summary
Through thanksgiving, Psalm 107 provides insight into sin and its remedy.
Although it does not link all suffering to sin, it celebrates those cases in which
God listened to the cry of the sinner who had been disciplined. Here disci-
pline for sin is seen as pedagogical in character, forcing the sinner to cry out
to Yahweh for help. However, no mention is made of repentance that accom-
panied this cry, only of the cry for help. Thus, although Psalm 107 does ac-
knowledge God’s disciplinary character, it also is a key reminder of God’s
“loving deeds” on which the wise should reflect.
Psalm 130
From the outset of Psalm 130, the poet expresses clearly a present distress,
for the opening word in the Hebrew text positions the cry “from the depths”
(μyQIm"[“M"m)I . The term here for “depths” is used elsewhere in the OT always for
the watery deep (Isa 51:10; Ezek 27:34; Pss 69:3[2], 15[14]), an image shared
with the broader ancient Near Eastern world, which pictured the water as a
place of chaos that threatens human life. This chaos is linked to enemies in
Psalm 69, but Psalm 130 does not provide any clarity on the predicament of
the psalmist. Psalm 130 is a stage-two disorientation psalm, combining ele-
ments of both the psalms of confidence and of psalms of penitence. 63 The
63. There is considerable debate over whether this is a psalm of thanksgiving that looks
back over the situation, thus functioning as a testimony to the congregation in vv. 7–8, or a
psalm of individual complaint. Its lack of report of the resolution of his predicament and par-
allels of perfect verbs in Pss 17:6, 141:1, however, suggest it is a request rather than a report.
See Allen (1983: 192–93).
444 Chapter 21
psalm is expressed by an individual (vv. 1–6) who does so with a view to the
community as a whole (vv. 7–8).
Addressing Yahweh (130:1–4)

Although the request is presented in vv. 1–4, only the first two verses pro-
vide explicit imperatives of request, limiting the direct appeal to obtaining
God’s attention: “Hear my voice. . . . Let your ears be attentive to the voice of
my supplications” (v. 2). Implicit in the final word, “pleadings” (μyniWnj“T)" , is
that the psalmist is in need of God’s merciful intervention (Pss 28:2, 6;
31:24[23]; 86:6; 116:1; 140:7[6]; 143:1; cf. Job 40:27, Prov 18:23), and in some
texts this intervention involves forgiveness (Dan 9:3, 17–18, 23; 2 Chr 6:21;
Jer 3:21; Zech 12:10). It is then not surprising that the focus of vv. 3–4 is on
sin and forgiveness. Here, however, there is no explicit confession of sin but
rather the declaration that all are sinful and that Yahweh does not keep a
record of sins but forgives, statements that implicitly admit the sinfulness of
the suppliant and appeal for God to expunge any record of sin and forgive the
psalmist. 64 The term for “forgiveness” here (hj:ylIs)} appears elsewhere only in
the penitential prayers of Nehemiah 9 (v. 17) and Daniel 9 (v. 9) and, along
with its related verbal root (jls; e.g., Num 14:20; 1 Kgs 8:30, 39; Isa 55:7;
Amos 7:2; Dan 9:19), is always associated with God’s pardon for sin. Yahweh
is a forgiving God and this is Israel’s only hope in light of their sinfulness.
These statements in vv. 3–4 also serve as motivations for God to act, here
presenting arguments based first on the universal sinfulness of humanity, 65
second on the forgiving character of God, and third on the reverence that re-
sults from forgiveness such as this.
This final motivation is an important reminder for the audience. Yahweh’s
forgiveness is based on his “covenant faithfulness” (see v. 7) but is given out
with the expectation of a reverent response from the recipients of this mercy.
Addressing the Nation (130:5–8)

Whereas the first half of Psalm 130 is addressed to Yahweh (vv. 1–4), the
second half speaks about him and appears to be addressed (at least by vv. 7–
8) to the nation as a whole. This reveals the didactic character of the psalm,
which is to function pedagogically to encourage the nation living under the
burden of sins to put its hope in Yahweh. The psalmist is presented as a nor-
mative example of the appropriate posture of those who place their hope in
Yahweh (notice the repetition of “hope” in v. 5b and 7a). The psalmist isolates
the theme of “waiting” (hwq), repeating the root twice in v. 5 before providing
a vivid illustration of the city watchmen who must endure the night watch
64. So also Allen (1983: 193): “an indirect confession of sin and implicit prayer for for-
giveness in vv 3–4.”
65. Cf. Kraus (1989: 466). Unless God forgives, there will be no one who can “stand”
(here with the sense of “endure”) in this world; see Isa 66:22; Mal 3:2; Pss 33:11, 102:27[26];
Job 8:15; Qoh 1:4; cf. Exod 21:21, Esth 3:4.

Psalms (Part 2) 445
(Isa 21:11, 12; 62:5; Song 3:3, 5:7; Ps 127:1). To “wait” is regularly used in the
Old Testament for hope in God and highlights the endurance required for
faith in Yahweh.
The objects of this kind of hope are both Yahweh (vv. 5–7: “for Yahweh . . .
for the Lord . . . in Yahweh”) and “his word” (v. 5). The content of the latter
(“his word”) is not specified, although possibly it refers to an oral word deliv-
ered to the psalmist personally or to the written promises of the Torah. 66 The
qualities of the former (“Yahweh”) are clearly the basis of his hope, as v. 7
makes clear (“with Yahweh is”) by focusing especially on his covenant faith-
fulness (ds<j)< and redemptive acts (tWdP}). This same covenant faithfulness (ds<j)<
was the basis of the psalmist’s plea in 32:10 and 51:3[1]. The term tWdP} and its
related root (hdp) are often associated with the payment of a price in order to
transfer ownership. 67 The root is regularly used to speak of Israel’s release
from slavery in Egypt and, because this root was related to the release of slaves
in Levitical legislation (Lev 19:20), it is very likely that the redemption-price
connotation was understood when the verb and possibly also the noun were
used. Nevertheless, this connotation cannot be applied to all OT occurrences
of this verbal root or related nouns, for in many places it is not clear that it
means anything more than merely the “salvation” of the object of redemp-
tion. God’s redemption of Abraham did not require a payment (Isa 29:22), nor
did the release of the exiles (Isa 35:10, 50:2, 51:11; Zech 10:8). References to
“redemption” elsewhere in the OT (2 Sam 4:9; 1 Kgs 1:29; Pss 25:22, 26:11,
31:5, 34:23[22], 44:27[26], 55:19[18], 69:19[18], 71:23) merely speak of God’s
deliverance in the generic sense. Surprisingly, in the Old Testament outside
Psalm 130, “redemption” is never associated with sin and so here one should
think not of the payment of a redemption price or substitute for the sins of
Israel, but rather a request for God to deliver Israel from all the consequences
of their sins. 68
Summary
In Psalm 130, we do not encounter the depth of remorse that was so evi-
dent in Psalms 32 and 51. Here, there is an assumption that sin is an ever-
present reality for humanity that underlies the suffering experienced. Re-
morse over specific sins or even the universal condition is not even expressed.
Instead, one finds a theology confident in God’s forgiveness, which is based
on God’s faithful character, and a resolution to hope in and wait on God for
forgiveness, mercy, and salvation. Forgiveness is to make an impact on one’s
66. So Kraus (1989: 466), who sees here “the oracle of salvation”; cf. Begrich (1934: 81–
92). Kraus: “The proclamation of salvation authoritatively transmitted through the mouth of
the priest would bring the hjls to him who has hope (cf. 2 Sam 12:13; Matt 9:2).”
67. See esp. Lev 19:20; TWOT 1734. This definition makes sense of the regular association
with the root lag and legislation that stipulates the payment of a price or provision of a sub-
stitute animal.
68. Here it is not the sins from which they are redeemed but the conditions or punish-
ments that have resulted from the sin (e.g., Gen 4:13; Jer 51:6; Ezek 21:30, 34; HALOT 800).
446 Chapter 21
life, for it results in the fear of God, the fundamental orientation to life con-
sumed by submission to God.
Summary
The psalms in which admission of sin becomes a dominant element have
developed further many of the elements already observed in the psalms in
which it is a minor element. In these psalms, the protestation of innocence
has disappeared. Instead, confession of sin dominates both on the individual
and communal levels. Psalm 32 emphasizes verbal confession of this sort as
key to remedying sin, contrasting silence with the vocabulary of confession:
([dy Hiphil, hsk al Piel, hdy Hiphil). On the communal level, this confession of
sin can take the form of an extensive retelling of the story of Israel, catalogu-
ing the many sins of the community and God’s disciplinary and gracious re-
sponses. The basic vocabulary of sin is usually employed for the confession of
sin ([væP,< ha:f:j,“ ˆ/[:), often building up terms to express the totality and im-
mensity of culpability. The accent is placed on the recent sinful acts of the
suppliant(s) that have been committed or forgiven, but the psalmists also
speak of the sins of ancestors (Ps 106:6), the sinful condition of humanity
from birth (Psalm 51), and the sinful acts of youth (Psalm 25).
These psalms reveal that God disciplines through suffering to cause people
to cry to him (Psalms 51, 103, 107). The accent, however, is on God’s grace as
these psalmists consistently look to the forgiveness of God, using a breadth of
vocabulary to describe it. They ask God to forgive (jls, 25:11, 103:3; hj:ylIs,}
130:4; acn, 32:1, 5), to acquit (hqn Piel, 19:13[12], 14[13]), to cover (hsk, 32:1),
not to account (bvj al, 32:2), to be gracious (ˆnj, 51:3[1]), to blot out (hjm,
51:3[1]), to ritually wash (sbk Piel, 51:4[2]) and cleanse (rhf, 51:4[2]), to hide
the face (hn,P: rts, 51:11[9]), and to distance (qjr Hiphil) sins from the sinner
(103:12). This request is consistently linked to the merciful character of God,
with special focus on the characteristics outlined in the character creed in
Exod 34:6–7. Psalm 106 reveals the role played by mediatorial figures such as
Moses and Phinehas, who secured the grace of God on behalf of the people.
The admission of sin highlighted above reveals that this mercy and grace
does come to the guilty, but only when they confess their culpability. This
confession, however, is not merely an external verbal articulation but involves
a real change in disposition and behavior. This is suggested by the way in
which Ps 103:11, 13, and 17 play on the character creed in Exod 34:6–7, not-
ing that God’s mercy is afforded to those who fear him. It is made explicit in
the way in which these psalms accentuate the fact that forgiveness is not the
ultimate goal of God’s mercy but rather the transformation of one’s inner dis-
position and a fundamental change in behavior. According to Ps 130:4, there
is forgiveness so that Yahweh may be feared. In Psalm 32, forgiveness is what
leads to a new lifestyle (vv. 6–11). Psalm 51 places the priority on a broken
spirit and a broken and contrite heart. Transformation of this sort is not left
to humans. Rather, the psalmists regularly cry for God to do a work within
Psalms (Part 2) 447
them, asking him to reveal, teach, and lead them in his ways (Psalm 25), to
create in them a clean heart, renew a steadfast spirit, and sustain a willing
spirit (Psalm 51).
Forgiveness is to have an impact not only on those who are forgiven but
also on the community as a whole. Psalm 32 cites the psalmist addressing the
community, calling them to follow his example of confession and repentance.
Psalm 51 shows how the forgiven individual is to play a pedagogical function
in the community, teaching the disobedient God’s ways and turning them
back to God. The forgiven are to praise God in word and sacrifice. The recita-
tion of the sinful story of Israel in Psalm 78 is designed to teach the next gen-
eration and lead them to trust God and keep his commands, remember his
deeds, and avoid the patterns of their ancestors.
These basic principles resonate with many of the principles already estab-
lished in this study of the Psalms. While the protestation of innocence was
something that arose in relationship to wisdom teaching on retribution, litur-
gical practice, and especially sacral legal procedures (psalms of the accused),
the admission of guilt was also an important element in the prayer tradition
of Israel. Many of the psalms in which admission of guilt has played a domi-
nant role have revealed links to the wisdom tradition (Psalms 19, 25, 32, 78,
107). 69 One of them displayed affinity with the psalms of sickness (Psalm
103), a tradition of prayer that appeared regularly in our section on admission
of sin as a minor element. Finally, Psalm 106, with its focus on the Exile, is
further evidence that not only the wisdom tradition and illness prayer tradi-
tion, but also the exilic discipline fostered the admission of guilt as a key com-
ponent in Israel’s search for the forgiving mercy of Yahweh.
While one commentator speaks of the “paucity in the Psalms of the con-
fession of sin and pleading for forgiveness” (Tate 1990: 8), this review of the
psalms reveals its ubiquity. As another commentator concludes,
That the confession of sins was firmly established in the festival cult is
shown by the statement made in Ps 65.2, 3 in a festal hymn of praise (!),
having in view the rite observed in public worship: “To thee all flesh bring
the confession of their sins; when our transgressions prevail over us, thou
wilt forgive them!” (Weiser 1962: 77)
69. This consistent link to the wisdom tradition in relation to psalms related to admission
of guilt strengthens the connection established in the past between worship, psalms, and
wisdom. Von Rad (1972: 186–89) raised this important issue in his short excursus on the re-
lationship between wisdom and cult. His initial queries have been investigated further in
Kuntz (1974); Perdue (1977); Luyten (1979); Morgan (1981: 125–28); and Terrien (1993). Al-
though Crenshaw (1998: 171–75) is careful in what he identifies as wisdom psalms, he finds
“sufficient evidence to suggest that Israel’s sages eventually participated in, or directly influ-
enced, the cultic life that finds expression in the Psalter.” The evidence in this chapter reveals
that wisdom has played a major role in the development of the penitential within Israel,
something that is borne out by the work on Job, pp. 377–394 above.
448 Chapter 21
Sin and Its Remedy in the

Structure of the Psalter
As I have already noted in the introduction to the previous chapter

(pp. 395–396), recent study has laid bare the rhetorical structure of the Psalter
as a whole and has provided insight into the overall flow and meaning of the
psalms as a collection (cf. Boda forthcoming c). This Psalter is divided into five
“books” or sections (Psalms 1–41, 42–72, 73–89, 90–106, 107–50), the end of
each being marked by a doxology (41:14[13], 72:18–19, 89:53[52], 106:48). 70
Past research has often identified the five “Hallelujah” psalms (Psalms 146–50)
at the end of the Psalter as the final doxology, but a close look at Psalm 145
and its concluding verse (v. 21) reveals the missing doxology (Wilson 1985:
189). This doxology opens the way for the final five psalms, which reach their
climax with “everything that has breath” praising Yahweh (150:6). These dox-
ologies are important rhetorical signals throughout the book, reminding the
reader at the end of each book that the ultimate destination of the Psalter is
the praise of Yahweh. Even though the book is dominated by the darkness of
the songs of disorientation, often uttered in desperation as the psalmists faced
the attack of the wicked, the reader is reminded at regular intervals that ulti-
mately “everything that has breath” will ultimately praise Yahweh.
These doxologies mark the seams between the books of the Psalter and
identify the key psalms that constitute the editorial frame on which the
Psalms have been placed. The psalms that are in view include Psalms 1–2, 41–
42/43, 72–73, 89–90, 106–7, 144–50. 71 Most scholars have noted the fact that
Psalms 1–2 function together as an introduction to the Psalter as a whole. As
the only two psalms in Book One that lack superscriptions, they are inter-
twined through common vocabulary, 72 beginning and ending with a blessing
(1:1//2:12). The two psalms, however, introduce different themes. Psalm 1 lays
out the basic worldview of retribution with a clear distinction between the
righteous and wicked. Psalm 2 depicts Yahweh and his anointed king on Zion
battling against defiant nations.
70. The elements the doxologies share in common include: (1) “Blessed be” (˚rb): Pss
41:14[13]; 72:18, 19; 89:53[52]; 106:48; (2) “Yhwh, God of Israel” (larcy yhla hwhy): 41:14[13],
72:18, 106:48; (3) “Forever/everlasting” (μlw[): 41:14[13], 72:19, 89:53[52], 106:48; (4) “Amen”
(ˆma): Pss 41:14[13], 72:19, 89:53[52], 106:48.
71. There are those who go into much more detail, tracing the flow of each psalm within
each book of the Psalter; cf. DeClaissé-Walford (1997); Hossfeld and Zenger (2005). The
present work will focus on parts of the editorial skeleton.
72. Psalm 10 lacks a superscription, but it is actually combined with Psalm 9 (as per the
LXX). Psalm 33 also lacks a superscription, but a comparison of the final verse of Psalm 32
(v. 11) with the first of Psalm 33 reveals that Psalm 33 is likely a continuation of Psalm 32.
See Wilson (1985); Creach (1996: 77–80); Sheppard (1980: 139–40); Mays (1987: 3–12). Com-
mon vocabulary includes bvy (“sit, dwell,” 1:1 // 2:4), hgh (“meditate, conspire,” 1:2 // 2:1), ˚rd
(“path,” 1:6 // 2:12), dba (“destroy,” 1:6 // 2:12), and especially yrva (“blessed,” 1:1 // 2:12);
cf. Sheppard (1980: 139–40) and Creach (1996: 78).
Psalms (Part 2) 449
This dual emphasis on wisdom and royal themes emerges again at the end
of the Psalter. 73 Psalm 145, in which is found the final doxology, reveals af-
finities with the wisdom tradition (Wilson 1985: 189). Written in a careful
acrostic pattern, it ends on the same note as Psalm 1 begins, reminding the
readers in 145:20 that “The Lord keeps all who love him, but all the wicked
he will destroy.” There are also connections between Psalm 144 and Psalm 2,
both focusing on a royal figure who is rescued and given authority over the
nations, and together these two psalms create, with Psalms 1 and 145, a wis-
dom/royal–royal/wisdom bracket around the Psalter as a whole.
A similar trend can be seen in the psalms that lie at the seams between the
books. All of the psalms that appear at the end their respective books of the
Psalter (Psalms 41, 72, 89, and 106) combine to trace the story of the royal
house in Judah. Psalms 41 and 72, at the end of Books 1 and 2, respectively,
picture the ideal of a royal figure maintaining justice, ruling a universal em-
pire, and bringing blessing to the nations. By the end of Book 3, however,
Psalm 89 dashes this ideal, voicing the pain of a royal “anointed one” in exile
who is experiencing the discipline of Yahweh. Book 4 represents a shift away
from the royal house, focusing more intently on the kingship of Yahweh and
on Israel’s premonarchic phase under Moses (see Psalm 90 and Psalms 104–6).
This book ends with the cry of a community in exile in Psalm 106, with no
mention of a royal figure. 74 Book 5 witnesses the reemergence of a royal fig-
ure, foreshadowed in the royal Zion psalm, 110, and then becoming reality in
the inclusion of the long Davidic collection in Psalms 138–45. The royal fig-
ure reemerges in this book to call all of creation to the praise of Yahweh in
Psalms 144–45. Psalm 146 is a strong reminder that Yahweh’s kingship is su-
preme, and Psalm 150 represents the fulfillment of the invitation of the royal
figure by all of creation.
While the psalms that lie at the end of each of the books develop the royal
theme introduced by the introductory Psalm 2, the psalms that lie at the be-
ginning of Books 3, 4, and 5 develop the theme introduced in Psalm 1. 75 At
the beginning of Book 3, Psalm 73 functions as a key turning point in the
73. While I do resonate with the arguments of Wilson (1985) and J. McCann and N. Mc-
Cann (1993: 41–50), I agree with Whybray (1996) that they fail to see the development of an
enduring role for the monarchy in the final books of the Psalter, transferring the prerogatives
of the royal house to the people of Israel as a whole; cf. Zenger (2000a: 161), who argues for
a theocratic program in Books 3–5.
74. Though this does not mean that hope for the royal house has been extinguished as,
for instance, Zenger (2000a), who argues that Psalm 106 democratizes the Davidic covenant,
especially in light of the reemergence of the Davidic voice in Book 5.
75. For the importance of wisdom to the final shaping of the Psalter see Reindl (1981);
J. McCann and N. McCann (1993); J. McCann (1993a; 1993b); Terrien (1993); Kuntz (2000);
DeClaissé-Walford (2000). Bergant (1997: 53) calls this the “sapiential resignification of the
entire Psalter.”
450 Chapter 21
Psalter. 76 This wisdom psalm reveals the struggle of one who does not see the
retribution principles of Psalm 1 functioning within personal experience. The
prosperity of the wicked leads the psalmist to believe that it is useless to keep
one’s heart pure. The answer for the psalmist is to enter into the sanctuary of
God, where, near God’s presence, the supplicant is given insight into the ul-
timate destiny of the wicked. In a similar way, Psalm 90, which begins Book
4, expresses the struggle of one who faces mortality in the face of God’s wrath
on account of sins. The cry of this disillusioned soul is for God to “teach us
to number our days that we may present to you a heart of wisdom” (90:12).
Finally, the psalm that begins Book 5, Psalm 107, takes the reader to the ex-
periences of those who were released from exile and calls the upright and wise
to give heed to God’s covenant loyalty to his people (107:42–43). The initial
psalms of Books 3–5 incorporate wisdom themes and vocabulary and in the
process continue to develop the theme introduced at the outset of the book
in Psalm 1.
The rhetorical skeleton of the Psalter as a whole then combines the wis-
dom and royal themes introduced at the outset of the Psalter. Psalms 1–2 as a
literary unity lay the foundation for this combination of themes, with Psalm
1 expressing the ways of the righteous and wicked and Psalm 2 revealing the
role of Yahweh and his anointed one in establishing justice against the wicked
nations of the world. As one traces the history of this anointed one through
the rest of the Psalter’s skeleton, one is constantly reminded of the struggle of
the righteous to fully experience the theology expressed in Psalm 1 as they
struggle with the prosperity of the wicked (Psalm 73) and even with the mor-
tality and sinfulness of the righteous (Psalm 90). The upright and wise are
identified in Psalm 107 as those who rejoice at and recognize God’s gracious
care even for those punished in exile. The royal figure in Psalm 145 returns
once again to the theological perspective of Psalm 1, promising that those
who fear Yahweh will have their desires fulfilled and their cries heard because
“the Lord keeps all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy”
(145:19–20). The reemergence of the royal figure coincides here with the ful-
fillment of the promised theology of Psalm 1, and it is this that prompts “all
flesh” to “bless his holy name forever and ever” (145:21).
The rhetorical shape of the Psalter then points to the key role played by the
fate of the royal house for the ultimate remedy of sin laid out in Psalm 1.
Though God will ultimately judge the wicked, he offers a pathway for all who
suffer or sin to experience his blessing. That pathway is through the cry of the
soul for his grace as seen in Psalms 73, 90, and 107. Those who accept the in-
vitation by the anointed one at the end of Psalm 145 to praise Yahweh are the
same as those who accept the invitation to take refuge in him at the end of
Psalm 2. Through this, they identify themselves with the righteous, whose
ways Yahweh knows and blesses (Psalm 1).
76. See especially Brueggemann (1991: 82–83); Bergant (1997: 60). Terrien (1993: 72)
speaks of Psalms 73 and 90.
Psalms (Part 2) 451
Summary: Psalms
The Psalter has provided a multifaceted perspective on the theology of sin
and its remedy within the piety and prayer of Israel. The presence in the
Psalter of wisdom compositions espousing the two ways of the righteous and
wicked, entrance liturgies demanding worshipers with clean hands and pure
heart, and sacral legal compositions claiming innocence before the guilty,
places a premium on righteousness over wickedness, the former encouraged
through blessing and reward and the latter discouraged through curse and
punishment. In this, one can discern an implicit penitential impulse: calling
those who would worship in Israel to abandon the way of the wicked to em-
brace the way of the righteous.
While these wisdom, liturgical, and sacral legal compositions create clear
lines between the righteous and wicked, other psalms supplement this by
showing that sin is a universal reality. Into these psalms, among which one
finds sacral legal compositions sometimes with reference to illness, wisdom
psalms, and exilic psalms, is incorporated admission of guilt in a minor way. In
these psalms, God’s discipline, evidenced in loss of personal health and na-
tional state, is directed at the guilty. According to these compositions, not
only the innocent but also the guilty can seek Yahweh’s favor through prayer.
These psalms look not only to forgiveness of sins but also to a fundamental
change in behavior, enabled by Yahweh’s teaching the psalmist his way and
transforming the psalmist’s heart.
The admission of guilt dominates nine psalms in the Psalter, and these
psalms reflect much of the same theology of sin and its remedy as found in
those psalms in which admission of guilt is a minor element. In these psalms,
protestation of innocence is silenced and confession of sin dominates. This
confession is usually related to the recent sin of the psalmist but also can in-
clude the wicked acts of the psalmist from youth, the sinful condition of the
psalmist since birth, and even the failures of former generations. It is clear
from these psalms that God disciplines through suffering in order that people
might admit their sin and cry for his forgiveness and cleansing based on his mer-
ciful character. As seen in the earlier psalms, there is a vision for renewal be-
yond forgiveness and cleansing as the psalmists cry for a divine work within
them in order to create in them a new heart and spirit and to impact the com-
munity as a whole through their example.
The wisdom tradition and exilic experience had a major impact on the
shaping of the Psalter into its final form. The hope for sinful humanity is sub-
tly linked in the book’s final structure to the emergence of a righteous anointed
royal figure whose passion will be the establishment of the rule, justice, and
praise of Yahweh on earth. The fulfillment of Psalm 1, with its call to embrace
the way of the righteous rather than the path of the wicked, is only possible
through the emergence of a Davidic messiah.
Chapter 22
Lamentations
The book of Lamentations records the response of the people of God to the
demise of the Kingdom of Judah and the destruction of its royal city Jerusa-
lem. Through a series of five poems, the first four of which are structured in
acrostic style and all of which draw from a rich pool of Hebrew language, im-
agery, forms, and theology, the community attempts to express the fullness of
its grief. 1
The five poems in the book of Lamentations have been connected with a
variety of literary forms related to mourning in the Old Testament and the an-
cient Near East, in particular the funeral dirges found within Old Testament
narrative and prophetic materials (e.g., 2 Sam 1:17–27, Jer 9:16–21), individ-
ual and communal laments found among the Old Testament psalms, and city
dirges used in Mesopotamia. 2 The last form was employed in ceremonies
marking the refoundation of destroyed sanctuaries. These dirges often employ
the voice of the city’s patron goddess to challenge the decision of the divine
assembly to abandon the city’s sanctuary.
Possibly all three of these forms have influenced the book of Lamentations
(cf. O’Connor 2002: 10–11), but it is more likely that both the city dirges and
the book of Lamentations reflect the ubiquitous ancient Near Eastern phe-
nomenon of females mourning over loss. 3 Furthermore, the absence of any
reference to the rebuilding of the sanctuary and return of the deity suggests
that the poems arose in a context other than temple rebuilding. 4 The other
two forms, however, can be discerned in the book of Lamentations: elements
of the funeral dirge appear in Lam 1:1–11, 17; 2:1–12; 3:48–51; 4:1–6. Elements
1. For more detail on introductory issues, see Boda (2003c; 2008b). With thanks to Mary
Conway for helpful conversations on Lamentations; see Conway (2008).
2. For narrative and prophetic appearances, see Gunkel and Begrich (1933); Jahnow
(1923); Lee (2002). For Old Testament psalms appearances, see Westermann (1994). For city
dirges from Mesopotamia, see more recently Dobbs-Allsopp (1993; 2002); Bouzard (1997).
3. In the ancient world, premature death was associated more commonly with males, es-
pecially because men were usually considerably older than their wives and were involved in
war. It is therefore women who were most affected by death, and thus dirges and laments
were often chanted by women, some of whom engaged in mourning rites as a vocation
(2 Chr 35:25; Isa 22:12; Jer 7:9, 9:16[17]; Ezek 32:16); cf. Block (1998: 210).
4. See Dobbs-Allsopp (2002); contra Gwaltney (1983: 191–211).
- 452 -
Lamentations 453
of the individual lament appear in Lam 1:12–16, 18–22, and 2:20–22 and the
communal lament in Lam 3:40–47 and chap. 5.
The fixation of these poems with the destruction of the city suggests that
they arose in the series of days of fasting in the wake of the fall of Jerusalem. 5
Evidence for these days can be discerned in passages such as Jer 41:4–9, in
which, after the fall of Jerusalem, 80 men displaying mourning rites (shaved
beards, torn clothes, self-inflicted wounds, weeping) 6 are described as jour-
neying to the temple site. Zech 7:5 and 8:19 speak of four yearly exilic fasts
associated with the temple. The months in which these fasts occurred coin-
cide with key events related to the fall of the Judean kingdom. 7 Other com-
positions that may have arisen in this liturgical setting include some of the
laments in the Psalter (Psalms 44, 60, 74, 79, 83, 106, 123, 137) and the pen-
itential prayers that are now found in Ezra 9, Nehemiah 1, 9, and Daniel 9.
The fact that both laments and penitential prayers share the same original set-
ting is not surprising because the roots for the latter are often traced to the
former. Evidence for this transformation from lament to penitence can be dis-
cerned in the book of Lamentations itself (see Boda 2003c).
Form critical observations are helpful for discerning the context in which
these poems were used and for highlighting liturgical and theological connec-
tions to other passages in the Old Testament, but rhetorical observations are
most helpful for discerning the message of this book. 8 A consistent feature in
the book of Lamentations is the modulation of voices. 9 The two dominant
voices in Lamentations are strikingly similar to two voices that can be dis-
cerned in the book of Jeremiah: the prophet and a female poet voicing Jeru-
salem’s pain (see Lee 2002). The dialogue between these two voices can be
discerned especially in Lamentations 1, 2, and 4, and it has been suggested
that Lamentations 5 is the voice of personified Jerusalem (Lee 2002: 196). In
Lamentations 3, the inner turmoil is expressed not by the city personified as
5. Contra Provan (1990; 1991: 11–12).

6. Gunkel and Begrich (1933: 117–39) linked these rites to communal lament, but they
also appear with penitential prayers; cf. Renkema (1998: 42 n. 30).
7. See Wellhausen (1905: 103–7); Ackroyd (1968: 207 n. 122); Boda (2004b): 10th month
(588 b.c.), the siege of Jerusalem began (2 Kgs 25:1, Jer 39:1); 4th month (587 b.c.), Jerusa-
lem’s walls were breached and leadership fled (2 Kgs 25:3–7; Jer 39:1–10, 52:6–11); 5th
month, Jerusalem was destroyed (2 Kgs 25:8–12, Jer 52:12–16); 7th month, Gedaliah was as-
sassinated (2 Kgs 25:25–26, Jer 41:1–3).
8. See Moore (1983) for review of scholarship on the unity and disunity of Lamentations.
Attempts to forge unity based on corresponding cantos (Renkema 1988) or meter (Shea 1979)
or chiasmus (Dorsey 1988) are not convincing. B. Johnson (1985) and Heater (1992) identify
the center stanzas of the poems as rhetorical turning points. Westermann’s (1994: 100–101)
argument that originally oral compositions were transformed into written acrostic poems has
little justification, because there is no reason that trained liturgists could not have composed
these as authentic expressions of pain for the community.
9. See especially Lee (2002), who builds on the earlier work of Lanahan (1974) and Man-
dolfo (2002); cf. Kaiser (1982: 44); Mandolfo (2007).
454 Chapter 22
a woman but rather by the prophet himself (see Boda 2003c). It is clear that
the interplay of voices provides various perspectives on and solutions to the
pain of the crisis.
These observations on form, setting and rhetoric provide initial orienta-
tion to the five poems, but a closer look at each poem will provide insight into
their theology of sin and its remedy.
Lamentations 1
By beginning with an external vantage point in vv. 1–11 (third person), the
poem grants the reader a first glimpse of the pain of personified Zion. No at-
tribution of guilt is voiced until vv. 5, 8, and 9 to allow the reader to sympa-
thize with the city, which lies deserted (v. 1) and for whom there is “none to
comfort her” (vv. 2, 9). The voice of the suffering city breaks out twice in
vv. 1–11 (vv. 9, 11) with cries for God to look on her suffering. With vv. 12–
16, the initial detachment is abandoned, as the voice shifts into first person
with the elongated cry of Zion, who admits her sins and repeats again the ee-
rie refrain already heard in vv. 2 and 10: “Because far from me is a comforter.”
Verse 17 shifts the perspective for a moment to a third-person description of
Zion, now echoing back Zion’s words to her: “There is no one to comfort her.”
However, the bitter pain of Zion continues in vv. 18–22 with a speech that
first admits to the nations (“Hear now, all peoples,” vv. 18–19) that she is
guilty and Yahweh innocent. It ends with an address to Yahweh (vv. 20–22)
that expresses distress (“There is no one to comfort me”), admits culpability,
and highlights the brutality of the nations. Zion looks for vengeance on these
nations, suggesting that, although discipline was deserved, God’s justice has
been violated by them.
Lamentations 2
As with the first poem, the second poem begins by describing the pain of
Daughter Zion (city) and Daughter Judah (kingdom) in vv. 1–10, ending in
v. 10 with a description of rites associated with mourning/lament (sitting on
the ground in silence, sprinkling dust on the head, putting on sackcloth, bow-
ing heads to the ground). This signals the beginning of a first-person cry of
one who weeps over the pain of the people (vv. 11–12). It is unclear whether
the voice in vv. 13–19 is the same voice as vv. 11–12, but the second voice ad-
dresses Daughter Zion, highlighting her suffering, attacking false prophets,
and revealing that her defeat was the judgment of Yahweh. Again in vv. 18–
19, the rites of mourning/lament are depicted along with an exhortation to
the “walls of Daughter Zion” to engage in rites of this sort. The poem con-
cludes in vv. 20–22 with a voice that addresses Yahweh directly. In the first
poem, Daughter Zion asked a question of onlookers (“Is it nothing to all you
who pass this way? Look and see if there is any pain like my pain which was
severely dealt out to me, which the Lord inflicted on the day of his fierce
Lamentations 455
anger,” 1:12), but now she implores Yahweh directly to “see . . . and look,”
and asks, “With whom have you dealt thus?” (2:20).
Lamentations 3
The central poem of the collection presents the cry of a man (rbg; v. 1) 10
who, having experienced severe discipline from God (vv. 1–17), traces his
journey from despair (vv. 18–20) to hope (vv. 21–24). His experience is then
applied to all who undergo similar discipline (vv. 25–39), after which the
community is called to examine its ways and return to God (v. 40). 11 At this
point, however, the voice of the community breaks in and rejects the asser-
tion in v. 39 that they have no right to complain to God (vv. 41–47). Accord-
ing to them, they have admitted their sin, but God has not responded to
them (cf. Isaiah 64). In vv. 48–51, a first-person-singular voice breaks in, weep-
ing over the deplorable state of the city, before the poem ends with a prayer
of thanksgiving and request in vv. 52–66.
It is clear that the source of hope for the “man” in vv. 1–20 comes from his
reflection on the gracious character of Yahweh in vv. 21–33. 12 Throughout
this section of the poem, the composer nearly exhausts the lexical stock for
grace in the Old Testament: covenant loyalty (dsj; 3:22, 32), compassions
(μymjr; 3:22, 32), faithfulness (hnwma; 3:23), goodness (bwf; 3:25, 26, 27), and
salvation (h[wvt; 3:26). The response of one to this grace is laid out in vv. 25–
30 and includes waiting (hwq; 3:25), seeking (vrd; 3:25), waiting silently (ljy
Hiphil + μmwd; 3:26), bearing the yoke (l[ acn; 3:27), sitting alone (bvy ddb;
3:28), being silent (μmd; 3:28), putting the mouth in the dust (hp rp[b ˆtn;
3:29), giving the cheek to the smiter (hkml yjl ˆtn; 3:30), and being filled with
reproach ([bc hprjb; 3:30). These all encourage passive acceptance of the dis-
cipline of God and patient waiting for the deliverance of God.
This focus on grace and call to patience leads to the articulation of theod-
icy in vv. 33–38. There, the speaker declares that God does not afflict “from
the heart” (v. 33), that is, with delight. Rather, he disciplines because of sin
(vv. 37–38). Therefore, there is no justification for complaint when one is
punished for sins (v. 39). At the heart of the central poem (Lamentations 3) is
a focus on the grace of God designed to encourage patient acceptance of
God’s present discipline in light of one’s culpability. This then prompts the
key invitation to self-examination and repentance in v. 40.
10. The identity of this man is uncertain, although Lanahan (1974: 41–49) links him to
“a soldier, a veteran who has endured hard use in the war.” I have connected this voice to
Jeremiah the prophet in Boda (2003c); cf. Boda (2001).
11. See Dobbs-Allsopp (1997: 41): “It is only at 3.40 that the poet rhetorically draws his
audience to a closer identity with the geber by breaking into a communal voice, as if to say,
‘My experience is your experience!’”
12. See especially Krasovec (1992: 230–32), who links the hope in Lamentations to “the
superiority of God’s benevolence and mercy,” expressed especially in Lamentations 3, even
though he does not note the contrast between Lamentations 3 and the rest of the book.
456 Chapter 22
The people, however, respond by voicing their frustration in vv. 41–47, de-
claring that the problem lies not with them (they have indeed admitted their
sins, v. 41) but rather with God, who has refused to pardon, abandoning them
to their suffering. 13 The term “destruction” (rbv) is repeated in both v. 47 and
v. 48, revealing that the voice in vv. 48–51 feels the people’s frustration (v. 48,
51) and will intercede on their behalf (v. 49) until Yahweh looks on their suf-
fering (v. 50). 14 The poem closes with this same voice calling for God’s justice
and vengeance on his enemies (vv. 59–66), based on his own past experience
of God’s salvation (vv. 52–58).
Lamentations 4
The fourth poem begins as the third, with a first person voice (see 4:3, 6,
10) describing the deplorable circumstances of the people. The crisis has been
no respecter of persons, delivering the same fate to those most and least vul-
nerable (children, princes). In the second part of the poem (vv. 11–16), the
voice shifts into third person as now for the first time the cause of the calam-
ity is linked to Yahweh’s anger against the sins of prophets and priests (v. 13).
This is followed by a first-person-plural voice in vv. 17–20, most likely the
prophets and priests who “wandered, blind in the streets” (v. 14). They con-
fess the failure of the nation’s allies (v. 17) and leadership (v. 20) to save them
in their time of need. The poem ends with an ironic use of the prophetic form
called the “call to joy,” a form that probably reflects the joy that arose from
women in antiquity when the men returned victorious from war. 15 Instead of
the joy commanded, the speaker tells Edom they should expect punishment,
whereas Daughter Zion, over whom the Daughter of Edom rejoices, will see
an end to her punishment.
Lamentations 5
The final poem in the book is distinguished from the first four poems in that
it is not an alphabetic acrostic (although it consists of 22 units, the number
of letters in the Hebrew alphabet) and represents the shortest and most con-
sistent of the poems (using a first-person-plural voice throughout). 16 Elements
13. Cf. Provan (1991); Heater (1992: 309); Dobbs-Allsopp (1997); Salters (2003: 366).
14. Contra Klein (1979: 14), who sees here the voice of the enemies. Dobbs-Allsopp
(1997: 41) notes that with v. 48 “the audience is allowed to retreat to their role as onlookers.”
At this point, in my opinion, the voice of the prophet breaks in.
15. See Crüsemann (1969: 55–65), who calls this the Aufruf zur Freude, which had three
basic elements: (1) imperative address to an audience (city, land) personified as a woman;
(2) vocabulary drawn from the semantic range of celebratory shouts ([wr, ˆnr, lyg); (3) a
clause that delineates the reason for rejoicing (following the style of oracle of salvation
rather than psalms). See also Isa 12:4–6, 54:1; Hos 9:1; Joel 2:21–24; Zech 2:14, 9:9; cf. Boda
(forthcoming b).

Lamentations 457
typical of the communal laments of the Psalter are evident throughout Lam-
entations 5 (Salter 2003: 362):
• Depiction of the predicament (vv. 2–5, 8a, 9–16a, 17–18)
• Assignment of the cause of the predicament (vv. 6–7, 8b, 16b, 20, 22)
• Motivations for help (vv. 19, 21)
• Request for help (vv. 1, 21)
The cause of the predicament is linked to the sin of the people: of both the
previous generation (vv. 6–7) and (most likely) the present generation (v.
16b). The concluding verses, however, imply that the enduring nature of the
predicament is the responsibility of God: “Why do you forget us forever?
Why do you forsake us so long?” (v. 20) and “unless you have utterly rejected
us and are exceedingly angry with us” (v. 22). Missing is blame directed at
enemies, a motif that often appears in laments and that has dominated the
earlier poems in Lamentations.
The request in this prayer brackets the poem with three imperatives im-
ploring God’s attention in v. 1 (“remember . . . look . . . see”) and two imper-
atives imploring God’s action in v. 21. The community longs for God to cause
them to return to him (bwv Hiphil) in covenant relationship, a return that has
both physical and spiritual dimensions, and to restore their experience to the
glory days of the past. The final stanza of Lamentations 5 concludes the book
with an awkward vacillation between hope (vv. 19, 21) and frustration (vv. 20,
22). The concluding poem, with its break in the acrostic style and declaration
of frustration, is not surprising for a community living in the darkness of the
exile. “The book is left opening out into the emptiness of God’s nonresponse.
By leaving a conditional statement dangling, the final verse leaves open the
future of the ones lamenting” (Linafelt 2000: 60).
Summary
Attention to the modulation of voices has been helpful for tracing the
meaning of each individual poem, and sensitivity to the larger rhetorical pat-
tern of the book provides insight into the interplay between these voices and
the various poems. Lamentations employs alphabetic acrostics in four of the
five poems (Lamentations 1–4). Many purposes have been suggested for the
acrostic, but most likely it has been used to express through literary artifice
the totality of the destruction experienced and the pain expressed by the
16. The view of Bergler (1977) that Lamentations 5 contains a sentence acrostic is un-
likely and, even if true, still represents a break in the earlier pattern; cf. B. Johnson (1985).
Gordis (1967) claimed that chap. 5 was “placed at the end in order to make the collection
suitable for liturgical use.” Johnson (1985: 73) considered Lamentations 5 as the response to
the call to penitence in Lamentations 3, but the final verses of Lamentations 5 do not appear
to accept the theodicy expressed in Lamentations 3.
458 Chapter 22
community. The fact that Lamentations 3 is the longest poem and most com-
plicated acrostic draws considerable rhetorical focus onto this central poem,
which has been described as “the book’s most important chapter, the book’s
theological heart” (O’Connor 2002: 13). 17 This poem does identify a theolog-
ical solution to the present suffering, one that includes Yahweh’s gracious jus-
tice and Israel’s honest confession (3:1–40), but this solution is challenged in
the remainder of the poem (3:41–66) and the book (chaps. 4–5). The aban-
donment of the acrostic pattern in Lamentations 5, which contains 22 units
as does the Hebrew alphabet, suggests that this final poem signals the end of
orderly grief, something made clear in its painful conclusion. In light of this,
the overall structure of the collection of poems reveals an honest struggle of
faith during the exilic period, one that foreshadows yet resists a solution that
will be adopted by the Persian-period community (cf. Ezra 9; Nehemiah 1, 9;
Daniel 9; cf. Boda 2003c).
As a collection, the poems express the cause behind the pain in diverse
ways. The dominant reason for the suffering is clearly the sin of the people (1:5,
8–9, 14, 18, 20; 2:14; 3:39–42; 4:13; 5:6–7, 16), linked at times to the leader-
ship (e.g., 4:13) and even past generations (5:6–7). 18 Enemies are often iden-
tified as the cause of the pain (1:21–22; 2:16; 3:52–66; 4:21–22; 5:2, 8) and
often considered to be instruments of Yahweh’s judgment (1:21–22; 2:16;
3:52–66; 4:21–22; 5:2, 8). At times, however, certain voices suggest that the di-
vine discipline has been out of proportion to the people’s sin (1:12; 2:20) and imply
that there is no purpose to this suffering at the hands of a wrathful God (5:20,
22). According to Lam 3:40, this suffering purifies the people from sin.
The poems ask Yahweh for many things, especially to give attention to the
people’s need (1:11, 20; 2:20–21) and to punish their enemies (1:22, 3:64–66,
4:21–22). Voices in Lamentations 3 encourage the people to wait on Yahweh
by submitting to the suffering (3:19–38) and to confess and repent from their sin
(3:39–40), even though concern is expressed that God has rejected these cries
(3:41–47). The final cry of the book (5:21) asks for Yahweh to restore their rela-
tionship and renew their lives.
One can discern a strong emphasis in the book of Lamentations on the Zion
tradition, 19 understandable as the people struggle with the promises related to
17. See also Renkema (1998: 38), who speaks of “its unique style and content”; cf. Gordis
(1974: 170); Johnson (1985: 60, 66–68); Childs (1979: 594); Westermann (1994: 88). Unlike
Lamentations 1, 2, and 4, it does not begin with hk:yaE (“how”). In recent years, some have
questioned the interpretive privilege afforded to Lamentations 3; cf. Westermann (1994: 81);
Provan (1991: 22–23, 84); and especially Linafelt (2000: 1–18).
18. Provan (1991: 23) sees confessions of this sort as inauthentic; Dobbs-Allsopp (1997:
36–40) sees them as relatively infrequent and ambiguous; cf. Gottwald (1954: 68). Both Pro-
van and Dobbs-Allsopp argue that the confessions are undermined in their contexts. Though
they are infrequent, our analysis has not shown that they are undermined in their contexts,
and there is no reason to doubt their authenticity.
19. Albrektson (1963: 219–30); Ackroyd (1968: 46); Renkema (1998: 44–45).
Lamentations 459
the city of Jerusalem and its sanctuary. The bitterest lament in the book is
found in sections where the Zion tradition is strongest. Fused with this Zion
theology, however, is the retribution theology informed by deuteronomic and
prophetic traditions, which recognized in the fall of Jerusalem God’s discipline
for the rebellion of the people. 20 Whereas the emphasis on Zion theology high-
lights the reason for the bitter lament and the deuteronomic-prophetic theol-
ogy explains why admission of sin is evident in the book, the greatest hope in
the book is associated with a third Old Testament theological tradition, the
“character creed” tradition found in Exod 34:6–7, which underlies the poem in
Lam 3:21–33 (see discussion of Exod 34:6–7, pp. 43–46 above). 21 Close atten-
tion to this grace tradition in these verses lays the foundation for the presen-
tation of divine discipline closely allied with deuteronomic and possibly
wisdom theology in Lam 3:33–39. 22 This section reminds the reader that Yah-
weh takes delight in neither affliction (v. 33) nor injustice (vv. 34–36) but in-
stead dispenses discipline because of sin (vv. 37–38). Based on his gracious
intentions and actions, the people are encouraged to examine their ways, turn
back to God, and confess their sins (v. 40), rather than to complain (v. 39). Clearly,
not all in the community found this answer sufficient, as the voices that fol-
low 3:40 adequately express. 23 In this way, the book of Lamentations expresses
the real theological struggle of a community living in the wake of the greatest
crisis in its history. It is in the intersection of these theological streams and
communal responses that one finds the theological mysteries and tensions related
to the theology of sin and its remedy in the Old Testament. As the central and con-
cluding poems make clear, this theological struggle would remain unresolved
in the short term.
20. See Gottwald (1954: 66, 70); Albrektson (1963: 230–37); Ackroyd (1968: 46); Brand-
scheidt (1983); Hawtrey (1993: 78).
21. So Childs (1979: 594); Klein (1979: 15).
22. Cf. Gottwald (1954: 71–72). Salters (2003: 365) notes how “the names Judah, Jerusa-
lem, Zion, or Israel are never actually mentioned” in this third poem. As the focus on Zion
theology dissipates, a different grace tradition arises; cf. Boda (2008b).
23. See Provan (1991: 22–23), whose identification of 3:19–39 as a “foil” to be read “iron-
ically” goes too far. Dobbs-Allsopp (1997: 49–50) calls 3:19–39 an “ethical vision . . . sand-
wiched in between passages . . . that depict radical suffering” and thus should be given a
hopeful meaning; it plays down one voice in the book to give attention to another. Wester-
mann (1994: 180–81) denigrates 3:26–41 by calling it a “secondary expansion” that does not
provide “the key to the understanding of the other songs.”
Chapter 23
Daniel
The book of Daniel begins with a depiction of the experience of exemplary

figures living through the exilic nightmare from the Babylonian to the Medo-
Persian era. To one of these figures, Daniel, Yahweh grants a mysterious vision
of future empires. These visions reveal that the enduring suffering of the
people is linked both to the cosmic evil represented by empires and to the
continuing sin of the people. A future is envisioned in which a holy and wise
remnant will emerge, purified from suffering, even if only through death.
The book of Daniel is divided into two basic sections, the first comprising
a series of narratives (chaps. 1–6) and the second a series of visionary reports
(chaps. 7–12). 1 These two sections, however, cannot be easily separated from
one another, the stories in chaps. 1–6 providing the narrative context for the
visions in chaps. 7–12. 2
In chaps. 1–6, Daniel (along with three friends) is cast as the ideal exile.
He remains pure from foreign influences (whether food or worship; cf. 6:4–
5), and as a result he is blessed with positions of influence as well as preser-
vation from harm by hostile forces within the empire. Daniel is presented as
an example of piety and prayer as well as a conduit of revelation (1:17, 20–
23). He is depicted as special among the wisdom class, charged with mantic
duties in the imperial court and possessing heightened access to divine reve-
lation because of the presence of the spirit of the gods/God within him. 3
1. On the place of Daniel within the Old Testament canons, see Koch (1985). Koch high-
lights the difference between Daniel’s place among the prophets (first stage) and its place
among the “devotional narratives” in the Writings (second stage).
2. Knibb (2001: 17) and see Goldingay (1989: xxv), who notes especially the role of chap.
2 in introducing the book’s two main themes: “the exploits of Daniel and his friends as mem-
bers of the royal court (chaps. 3–6) and the revelations regarding future events given to
Daniel (chaps. 7–12).” It is interesting that the book is bilingual, with Hebrew in 1:1–2:4a
and 8:1–12:13 and Aramaic in 2:4b–7:28. Collins (1984: 29) sees the use of Aramaic as evi-
dence of sources, Snell (1980) as a technique to lend authenticity to the book, Goldingay
(1989: 325) as a structural device to bind “the book where distinction of language might di-
vide it” (cf. Collins 1984: 30), but Arnold (1996) explores its role “as an integral part of the
narrator’s literary art in Daniel,” especially for the creation of point of view.
3. Smith-Christopher (2001: 289) states that in Daniel “the survival of Jews as a diaspora
people partially involves the conviction of superior knowledge in the face of superior strength
(cf. Prov 16:32, 20:18, 21:22).” Thus, the stories in chaps. 1–6 “teach that knowledge of Jewish
- 460 -
Daniel 461
These same features are all important to the presentation of Daniel in chaps.
7–12, where he functions as a mediator of revelation, at times even praying
to Yahweh on behalf of the exilic community. He receives a vision of a faith-
ful and wise remnant that will endure the violent attacks of foreign imperial
forces. 4
The initial narratives are set within the reigns of various Babylonian, Me-
dian, and Persian kings. A dating scheme that first appears in chaps. 1–6 (2:1,
5:31, 6:28) becomes fixed in chaps. 7–12 (7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1, 11:1). In the ini-
tial narratives, these kings are depicted in conflict with the rule of Yahweh at
times, a feature also evident in the visions of chaps. 7–12. In several cases, an
imperial figure is portrayed as submitting to Yahweh and proclaiming Yah-
weh’s supremacy (2:46–47, 3:28–29, chap. 4, 5:21), a theme similar to the con-
frontation between Yahweh and imperial figures in chaps. 7–12. In chaps. 1–
6 Daniel is the “mediator of interpretation” to the various emperors (chaps. 2,
4, 5; cf. 1:17, 5:12), whereas in chaps. 7–12 he is “its recipient” (Goldingay
1989: 322). The imagery provided in the dreams of chaps. 1–6 is at times strik-
ingly similar to imagery used of kingdoms in chaps. 7–12, and the style of
Nebuchadnezzar’s report in chap. 4 foreshadows that of Daniel’s report in
chaps. 7–12. Events described in the dreams and visions in chaps. 2, 4, and 5,
especially the judgment that will fall on Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, are
fixed, a feature akin to the vision of future kingdoms in chaps. 7–12.
No matter how one views the development of the book of Daniel, it is clear
that the book should be treated as “a well-composed literary unity” (Wesselius
2001) with the opening narratives setting the context and shaping the
reader’s response to the visions found in the second half of the book. 5 The
book has much to say about sin and its remedy.
Daniel 1–6
As was already noted, Daniel and his three friends are presented as para-
gons of exilic obedience in chaps. 1–6 (cf. R. A. Anderson 1984: xv; Barton
2001b). Although taken captive to serve in the Babylonian court and given
new names to replace their Yahwistic ones, these four refuse to be defiled by
the royal food and wine (1:8, 12, 16), eating vegetables and water (1:12, 16)
identity as the people of Yahweh’s light and wisdom is the key not only to survival, but also
to the eventual defeat of the Imperial rule of the ‘nations’ on earth.”
4. See Werline (2007: 25), who highlights the connection between the wise in both nar-
rative and visions, connecting the description of Daniel and his companions in 1:4 “as pos-
sessing ‘insight (μylykçm) into all wisdom’ and ‘knowledge and understanding’ (1:4),” with
the μylykcm (“wise”) of 11:33, 12:3.
5. See, for example, the diachronic theories of Collins (1984) and Kratz (2001). Cf. Collins
(1984: 33–34). One must be careful to take into account the caution of Goldingay (1989: 321)
that the “space the stories occupy, however, warns against interpreting them as wholly sub-
ordinate to the visions.”
462 Chapter 23
in order to be faithful to Yahweh, and refuse to participate in the imperial cult

in order to worship Yahweh (chaps. 3, 6).
In light of this, sin is associated in chaps. 1–6 with emperors, their officials,
and their practices. Devious officials are mentioned in passing in 3:8–12 as
those who brought accusation against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and
in 6:4–15 as those who brought accusation against Daniel. In both cases,
these groups are denounced and punished by the emperor (3:29, 6:24). Their
curse returns on their own heads.
Great rhetorical weight is placed on the sin of the emperors themselves in
chaps. 1–6. In Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation in chap. 4, this sin is identified
as hubris (4:34[37]), expressed through his claim to have built Babylon by his
own power and majesty (4:27[30]), and lack of acknowledgement that the
Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms, granting rule to whomever he
wishes (4:29[32]). 6 The Most High’s response to the emperor’s pride is what
appears to be the punishment of insanity for a set period of time (4:21–22[24–
25], 30–31a[33–34a]).
Daniel provides a way for the king to avoid this punishment by redeeming
or destroying (qrp) his sins through charitable (hq:d]x)I and merciful treatment
(ˆnj) of the poor (4:24[27]). 7 Daniel’s exhortation is thus to turn away from
sinful behavior and toward just actions; but although there is a way to escape
punishment, the punishment appears to be inevitable. Even so, Daniel does
reveal the way the emperor can be restored after the punishment. In 4:23[26],
29[32] he is instructed to acknowledge ([dy) that the Most High is sovereign,
the content of which is provided in 4:31b–34[34b–37].
Nebuchadnezzar showcases an important pattern of sin and its remedy
within the book of Daniel. Yahweh punishes sin, even when committed by
the most powerful ruler in the ancient Near East. Although not expected,
avoiding punishment is possible through turning from sin and turning to
righteousness. The more likely outcome is punishment for sin, presented as
discipline that will break the sinful pattern within the sinner and prompt the
required righteous response.
The example of Nebuchadnezzar reemerges in the other punishment of a
king in chaps. 1–6, that is, the judgment that falls on Belshazzar in chap. 5.
Belshazzar’s sin is identified in 5:1–4 as drinking from the vessels taken by
Nebuchadnezzar from the temple in Jerusalem, while praising gods made from
various materials. This act is considered by the Most High God as arrogant,
6. Barton (2001b: 666) uses the emphasis on hubris and submission to argue that “all in
all we may say that the book of Daniel works with an idea of submission to God: that is its
theological ethic” (emphasis his). He sees this as relevant for chaps. 7–12 as well.
7. Based on chap. 4, the relationship between this preemptive repentance (just treatment
of the poor) and the post-punishment repentance (acknowledgement of Yahweh’s sover-
eignty) is not very clear. However, chap. 5 provides this insight, by noting how his treatment
of people according to his wishes was intricately linked with his arrogance and pride.
Daniel 463
dishonoring of the “God in whose hand are your life-breath and all your ways”
(5:23), committed with the full knowledge of the earlier example of Nebu-
chadnezzar (5:18–22).
Unlike Nebuchadnezzar, however, Belshazzar is not given an opportunity
for a change in behavior that would save his kingship. Instead, the handwrit-
ing was indeed on the wall as an unchangeable decree that would see the
Babylonian Empire handed over to the Medes. 8 It is uncertain whether this
absence of an opportunity for change may be attributed to the severity of his
sin, which involved an offense against Yahweh’s consecrated materials, or to
the fact that he had acted in full knowledge of his predecessor’s offense.
The examples of sin in chaps. 1–6 reveal that God punishes the sinful,
whether they are officials within the court or kings over the empire. The ex-
ample of Nebuchadnezzar reveals that there may be opportunity for repen-
tance, both before and after punishment, whereas the example of Belshazzar
reveals that there are cases in which repentance is not possible, due either to
the severity of the sin or to the level of knowledge possessed by the sinner or
possibly even due to the sovereign plans of God.
Daniel 7–12
Beginning with 7:1, the book of Daniel adopts a dating scheme that links
the dreams and visions to a particular year of an emperor (7:1, 8:1, 9:1–2,
10:1–2a). 9 This dating scheme divides chaps. 7–12 into four units. The first
unit (chap. 7) is called a dream (μl<jE) with visions (Wzj”) given as Daniel lies in
bed at night (7:1–2). The second (chap. 8) is only called a vision (ˆ/zj:; 8:1).
In the third unit (chap. 9), Daniel has a visionary encounter with Gabriel
while praying toward Jerusalem (9:3, 20–21). In the longer final unit (chaps.
10–12), Daniel receives a revealed message (hl:g]ni rb:D:; 10:1) and vision (ha<r]m";
10:1, 7, 8, 14, 16).
These four visions all provide insights into the future political environ-
ment of the Jewish community living after Daniel’s lifetime. 10 All but the
third unit provide a periodization of history by tracing the rise of a series of
kings and kingdoms over the ancient world. The rise of a very powerful king
is depicted near the end of each of the units, and in each case this mighty fig-
ure is defeated (7:8–14, 23–27; 8:9–12, 23–25; 9:26–27; 11:36–45).
8. The inevitability of this judgment is apparent from the beginning, as Daniel for the
first time in the book refuses to accept an emperor’s offer of a position in the kingdom in
5:17. Daniel is depicted as knowing the emptiness of the offer.
9. The dating schema in 11:1 (“In the first year of Darius the Mede, I arose to be an en-
couragement and a protection for him”) appears to be part of the speech of the “one with hu-
man appearance” introduced in 10:18.
10. On Daniel as apocalypse and apocalyptic, see Collins (1984). See the superb chart in
Goldingay (1989: 326) for a comparison of the various visions and their common referents of
Babylon, Media/Persia, Greece-Alexander, Greece-Hellenistic empires, and Greece-Antiochus.
464 Chapter 23
Allied with the Most High throughout chaps. 7–12 is a community that is
referred to as the “saints of the Highest One” (ˆyni/yl}[< yvýDiq;" 7:18, 21, 22, 25, 27),
the “host” (ab:x:; 8:12, 13), “the holy people” (μyv¥ døq}Aμ[", 8:24; vd<qøAμ[", 12:7),
“the people who know their God” (wyh:løa” y[Ed]yo μ["; 11:32), “those who have in-
sight” (μ[: ylEyKIc‘m;" 11:33, 35; 12:3, 10), and “your people, everyone who is
found written in the book” (rp<SEB" bWtK: ax:m}Nih"AlK: ÚM}[" 12:1). These visions distin-
guish this community from others by the fact that they are holy and possess
insight, the same traits possessed by Daniel (and his friends) in the midst of
the empire. 11
According to chap. 7, this community will receive the kingdom by the sov-
ereign edict of Yahweh (7:18, 22, 27), but not before it has been oppressed for
a period (7:13–14, 21, 25). The source of this oppression is clearly the various
kingdoms that will arise. The association of these kingdoms (beasts) with the
“sea” at the outset of the vision sequence (7:3) suggests that these kingdoms
are of evil origin, and yet the fact that the four winds of heaven stir up the sea
when they arise (7:2) suggests that Yahweh controls their appearance in his-
tory. 12 According to chap. 8, the oppression perpetrated by the evil empire in-
volves the elimination of daily sacrifice and overthrow (˚lv Hophal) of the
sanctuary (8:11–12). In chap. 9, this oppression involves the destruction of the
city and sanctuary (9:26) and setting up of the “abomination of desolation”
(9:27). Chapters 10–12 include most of these oppressive measures (11:31, 33;
12:11).
Between the oppressive imperial enemies (who may also be the wicked of
12:10) and the people of the Most High lies a group of hypocritical people
(ql"q}l"j;“ 11:34) who “forsake (bz[)” and “act wickedly” ([vr Hiphil) toward the
covenant (11:30, 32). Whereas, in the stories of Daniel and his friends, this
category does not exist, Daniel’s visions create an expectation of those who
will succumb to the power of the empire. It is the presence of this medial cate-
gory that most likely explains the role of the oppression experienced by the
community. This oppression provides the refining (πrx), purging (rrb Piel),
and purifying (ˆbl Hiphil; 11:35, 12:10) that ensure the formation of the
“holy” and “wise” people of the Most High. 13
11. Werline (2007: 25). The accent in chaps. 7–12 is on the opposition between non-
Jewish imperial forces and a faithful remnant, but there are indications in the visions of ten-
sion within the Jewish community; as Werline notes, “The maskilim distinguish themselves
in speech, practice and theology from other Jewish parties and the Jerusalem leadership.”
12. Lacocque (2001: 128–30) argues that the beasts recall Behemoth and Leviathan, the
enemies of Baal and allies of Yam (“sea”) in the Ugaritic myth, which are used in Hebrew lit-
erature to describe opponents of Yahweh ( Job 40:15–41:26). Goldingay (1989: 332): “In the
visions the origins of human empires are more ambiguous: they arise out of the world itself,
rather than by the gift of God, and resemble strange animals emerging from the sea—even if
it is a supernatural wind that stirs up the sea.”
13. See Collins (1985: 140). During this purification process, the “wise” are involved in
teaching; however, they do not teach primarily the Torah but rather “the apocalyptic world
view of the Book of Daniel itself.”
Daniel 465
The visions of chaps. 7–12 describe sin largely in terms of the oppressive ac-
tions of foreign kingdoms against Yahweh, his community, city, and sanctuary.
These sinful forces are defeated only by Yahweh’s direct intervention in the his-
tory of his people. Another dimension of sin is its presence in individuals
among “the holy people.” This sin will be dealt with through the purification
that comes through the oppression of the foreign kingdoms, leaving in the end
only the holy community that will be given insight. Goodness is thus associ-
ated not only with holiness but also with wisdom, the same values displayed
by Daniel in the opening narratives.
Daniel 9
Daniel 9 stands out among the literary units in chaps. 7–12 by the way it
is introduced. 14 Before presenting his experience of a heavenly vision of the
messenger Gabriel in 9:21–27, Daniel recounts one of his experiences of
prayer (cf. 6:10).
The Prayer
On this particular day, Daniel had been studying Jeremiah the prophet,
from whom he learned that the desolation of Jerusalem would last 70 years
( Jer 25:11–12, 29:10). 15 Discerning that the present time marked the end of
this period of destruction, 16 Daniel did what exilic Jews were instructed to do
during the Exile. He set his face toward God (μyhIløa”h: yn;døa“Ala< yn'P:Ata< ˆtn; v. 3),
seeking (vqb Piel; v. 3) him by praying (llp Hithpael; vv. 4, 20) and confessing
(hdy Hithpael; vv. 4, 20) his sin and that of his people (v. 20) through prayer
(hL:pIT;} v. 3) and supplication (ˆWnj“T," v. 3; hN;jIT,} v. 20) accompanied by external
rites such as fasting and wearing sackcloth and ashes (9:3). This reflects the
practice of penitential prayer that arose in the wake of the exile as the people
longed for restoration and responded to the instructions found in Leviticus 26,
Deuteronomy 30, and 1 Kings 8 (see also discussion of Ezra 9 and Nehemiah
1, 9, pp. 475–479, 483–487, and Psalm 106, pp. 437–441). 17 The narrative
14. See Werline (2007: 24). However, Knibb (2001: 17) argues that Daniel 9 is “a very ob-
vious example” of mantological exegesis in which
the meaning of the prophecy is unclear, and . . . it requires decoding or explanation in
the same way that visions and omens also require explanation. The reason for this
may be that the prophecy was regarded as failed or unfulfilled, or that it was thought
to have relevance in any case to an age later than that of the original prophecy, and
the effect of such exegesis was to reapply the original prophecy to a new situation.
Cf. Fishbane (1985: 441–524) and Larkin (1994).
15. Wilson (1990: 91–99); Werline (2007: 26–28); Venter (2007: 33).
16. See Boda (2005c) for how the period of Darius (see Dan 9:1) could be linked to the end
of the 70 years. If the Darius in 9:1 refers to a Persian official serving in the transition be-
tween Babylonian and Persian rule, the link to Jeremiah is still valid, because the 70 years is
linked in Jeremiah to the demise of the Babylonians and the beginning of the restoration.
17. See Werline (1998); Boda (1999; 2008c); Boda, Falk, and Werline (2006); Venter (2007).
466 Chapter 23
bracket that surrounds the prayer (vv. 2–3, 20) makes clear that the prayer is
focused on the restoration of Jerusalem and its sanctuary, and this focus
matches the prayer itself, which mourns the great calamity and reproach ex-
perienced by Jerusalem and its sanctuary (9:12–13, 16–18), asks God to turn
away his wrath from the city (9:16b), and bases this on the fact that the city
is called by his name (9:19). 18
The prayer creatively interweaves several components key to this prayer
tradition: confession of Israel’s sin, praise of God’s character and action, artic-
ulation of Israel’s predicament, and request for God’s intervention. 19
Confession of Israel’s Sin (9:5–6, 7c, 8b, 9b–11a, 11c, 13b, 14c, 15b, 16c)
In this penitential prayer, the confession of sin appears at regular intervals
(9:5–6, 7c, 8b, 9b–11a, 11c, 13b, 14c, 15b, 16c). The threefold confession em-
ploying the most common words for sin (afj, ˆw[, [vr Hiphil) is present in
9:5, with the first two words also appearing elsewhere in the prayer (afj,
9:11c, 15b, 16c; ˆw[, 9:13b, 15b, 16c). Other words are also used to confess Is-
rael’s sinful behavior. They have rebelled (drm; 9:5, 9), turned aside (rws; 9:5,
11), and not listened ([mv) to Yahweh or his prophets (9:6, 9, 14). They have
committed (l[m) unfaithful deeds (l[m) against Yahweh (9:7c). They have
transgressed (rb[) the law (9:11). They have not sought (hlj Piel) the face of
the Lord their God (WnyjEløa” hw;hy] yneP)} by turning (bwv) from their iniquity (ˆw[)
and giving attention (lkc Hiphil) to Yahweh’s truth (tma; 9:13b). The rejec-
tion of the prophets appears at two points in the prayer (9:6, 10). Employing
lists of various groups within the community (9:6, 8) expresses the culpability
of “all Israel” (9:11) for the predicament. Typical of penitential prayer due to
its reliance on the exhortation found in Lev 26:39–40, confession is made for
the sins of present and past generations (9:6, 16). The prayer shows how the
present predicament can be traced to the sins of past generations that did not
listen to the law or the prophets (9:5–6), but it also points out the failure of
subsequent generations that had experienced the great calamity that befell Je-
rusalem and yet did not seek God’s favor by turning from their iniquity (9:12–
13). This confession is thus seen as part of this required penitential response
to God.
Praise of God’s Character and Action (9:4, 7a, 9a, 14b, 15a, 16a, 18b)
As with the confession of sin, praise of God appears at regular intervals
throughout the prayer. 20 The prayer begins (9:4) with the succinct statement
that pervades the penitential prayer tradition (see Neh 1:5, 9:32) and focuses
18. Cf. Venter (2007: 39). Other penitential prayers in the Old Testament are more fo-
cused on the return of the people to the land (Nehemiah 1, Psalm 106), freedom from foreign
political interference (Nehemiah 9), and retention of the small gains in terms of demo-
graphic and physical restoration.
19. On the possible prehistory of this prayer, see Boda (1999); Venter (2007: 33).
20. Venter (2007: 36) notes, “As the prayer progresses, a shift occurs from an extended
emphasis on Israel’s sin to an extensive elaboration on Yahweh’s mercy and his forgiveness.”

Daniel 467
attention on Yahweh as the great (lwdg) and awesome (ary Niphal) God who
keeps (rmv) covenant (tyrb) and covenant loyalty (dsj). Great and awesome
Yahweh is the transcendent God who works wonders and is able to rescue his
people in their time of need. As the God who keeps covenant and covenant
loyalty, he is committed to his people and will extend mercy in their time of
need. The prayer attributes to Yahweh the qualities of compassion (μymIj“r;' vv. 9,
18) and forgiveness (hj:ylIs:} v. 9) and emphasizes Yahweh’s grace expressed in
the foundational gracious act of the exodus from Egypt (v. 15). Several times,
the prayer points to Yahweh’s righteousness (hq:d;x;} 9:7, 16) or righteous (qyDix;"
9:14) behavior. This aspect of the character of Yahweh justifies his discipline
of Israel for their sin (9:7, 14), while at the same time it provides the founda-
tion for the turning of Yahweh’s anger and wrath away from the city (9:16).
The ubiquitous praise of God’s character and action throughout the prayer
thus is designed to provide a theological basis for the granting of the request.
Articulation of Israel’s Predicament (9:7b, 8a, 11b, 12–13a, 14a, 16d)

At several points, the prayer describes the situation of distress that has ne-
cessitated this cry. As the law of Moses warned (9:13), the people and the city
of Jerusalem have experienced desolations (9:18) and great calamity unprece-
dented “under the whole heaven” (9:12–13). This calamity has caused the
people to experience shame (tv≤B;ø 9:7, 8), whether they remained in the land
or were exiled among the nations (9:7). They have become a reproach (hP:r]j)<
to those surrounding them (9:16).
Request for God’s Intervention (9:17–19)

The prayer ends with a series of requests designed to prompt God’s inter-
vention. The requests are dominated by calls for attention, asking God to lis-
ten ([mv, bvq Hiphil), incline the ear (hfn Hiphil), open (jqp) the eye, and see
(har). The supplicant, however, wants more than just attention, imploring
Yahweh to change his disposition toward the sanctuary by “causing his face
to shine” (hn,P: rwa Hiphil; v. 17) on it and forgiving (jls) his people (v. 19). Fur-
thermore, the prayer cries for God to act (hc[) and not delay (v. 19).
Because the requests are all placed at the end of the prayer, the first part of
the prayer provides the basis for these requests. It is the gracious and righ-
teous character of Yahweh, the sincerity of contrition of the supplicant, and
the depth of distress of the people and city that form the basis for Yahweh to
listen, forgive, and act. However, the final verses add one further basis, asking
God to answer for his own sake because this city and people are called by his
name (9:17, 19). This is a subtle reminder that nothing short of Yahweh’s
fame among the nations is at stake.
Summary
The penitential prayer in Daniel 9 provides important insights into the the-
ology of sin and its remedy. It justifies God for punishing Israel and destroying
Jerusalem and its sanctuary but also provides the theological foundation for
468 Chapter 23
the restoration of the community and its city. Israel is culpable, having sinned
consistently against God, ignoring the law and the prophets. The guilt of
former generations as well as that of the present generation, which has
weighed on Israel in exile, is articulated before Yahweh. The cry is for God to
give attention to Israel and especially its city Jerusalem and to forgive and act.
The only hope for this lies in Yahweh, in his concern to protect his fame
among the nations and, more importantly, in his gracious and righteous char-
acter. 21 However, this grace is only available, according to 9:4–5, to “those
who love (bha) him and keep (rmv) his commandments.” This is filled out fur-
ther in 9:13, which requires that the people seek God’s face by turning (bwv)
from their iniquity and giving attention (lkc Hiphil) to God’s truth (tma). This
last phrase is important to Daniel 7–12, highlighting a new priority for peni-
tence: the gaining of insight. Prayer is obviously part of this agenda, but so
also is practical change, which involves negatively turning from sin and pos-
itively gaining insight into God’s mysterious truth.
The Message of Gabriel

The narrative introduction in Dan 9:1–2 reveals that this prayer was
prompted by Daniel’s realization that the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy
about the end of the desolation of Jerusalem was at hand. Daniel’s response
of a penitential prayer based on Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 30, and 1 Kings 8
is a fitting response because these passages reveal that the end of the Exile will
be accompanied, if not caused, by penitential prayer. The expectation created
by these passages explains, then, the interaction that follows the prayer. The
heavenly messenger Gabriel recognizes that Daniel has indeed turned from
his iniquity to give attention to the insight that Gabriel will provide.
According to Gabriel, the symbol of 70 in Jeremiah is to be understood now
as 70 sevens. It may be that the messenger is providing insight into the true
original meaning of the symbol in Jeremiah or new insight into an elongation
of the timing due to mitigating circumstances. That the latter is more likely
the case is suggested by the purpose of this extended period provided in 9:24:
to finish (alk Piel) the transgression ([væP)< ,

to make an end (μmt) of sin (taF:j)" ,
to make atonement (rpk Piel) for iniquity (ˆ/[:),
to bring in everlasting righteousness (qd,x)< ,
21. Venter (2007: 37) makes the important point that, although Daniel understood that
the time was ripe for the restoration, his prayer assumes that this must be a free act of God’s
grace: “When he prays for the fulfillment of those words, Daniel understands that such ful-
fillment is fully dependent upon Yahweh’s own decision to bring to fruition his words to the
prophet. He can only be persuaded by his own mercy and act for his own sake.” However, I
think he goes too far when he says “Not even Israel’s penitence can act as a persuasive
power,” because this is precisely the reason that penitential prayer was used (as per Leviticus
26, Deuteronomy 30, and 1 Kings 8).
spread 9 pts. long

Daniel 469
to seal up vision and prophecy and

to anoint the most holy place. 22
As we can see, half of the list is focused on remedying sin, the concern ex-
pressed throughout the prayer. The first two purposes look to a period when
sin will come to an end, with the third purpose suggesting (much as does Isa-
iah 40) that the period of suffering is what makes atonement (rpk Piel) for
sin. 23 These first three purposes reveal that there is an enduring problem with
sin related to “your people and your holy city” (9:24) and that this will mean
enduring exile. The multiplication by seven strengthens this conclusion. Le-
viticus 26, which provides the theological foundation for the penitential
prayer tradition that underlies Daniel 9, employs a sevenfold motif for pun-
ishment when the people refuse to repent after they have experienced the dis-
cipline of Yahweh (Lev 26:18, 21, 24, 28; cf. Goldingay 1989: 266).
Therefore, Daniel 9 reveals another reason behind the suffering of the
community that is described throughout the visionary complex in chaps. 7–
12. 24 Not only is this suffering due to the wickedness of the kingdoms that are
to come (7:3) and to the mysterious sovereignty of Yahweh (7:2), but it is also
due to the enduring struggle of Israel with its sin. 25 “The course of history is
as it is because Israel is still in a state of sin, and because the judgment of 587
b.c. is still being executed. The history of the empires is the continuation of
the destruction of Jerusalem and her sanctuary and thus God’s penalty for the
committed sins of his people.” 26 When Daniel expresses his concern that the
people had not sought God’s face by turning from their iniquity and giving
attention to God’s truth in the prayer at 9:13, he is articulating the reason for
the elongated exile. The hope expressed by Gabriel is that this period will in-
deed finally remedy transgression, sin, and iniquity. But this will not happen
until an “anointed one” is put to death (9:26), the city and sanctuary experi-
ence destruction (9:26), and an inappropriate ruler who is to come experi-
ences his end (9:27).
22. With Porteous (1965: 140); this is most likely a reference to a holy object (altar, holy
of holies) rather than to a holy person (Messiah).
23. See Werline (2007: 27).
24. For the connection to the desolation of the temple in Jerusalem in 167 b.c. and the
function of the prayer to gain understanding into dissonance between prophecy and reality
see Werline (2007: 23). However, I do not agree that the prayer is designed to get interpreta-
tion; rather, it functions as a legitimate response to the passage that provides the context for
further heavenly revelation. On the relationship of Daniel 9 to chaps. 7–12, see van Deventer
(2000: 62–75); Werline (2007: 24, 26).
25. Contra Collins (1993: 360). Collins sees the prayer in tension with the message of the
angel in chap. 9, whereas van Deventer (2000: 62–75) treats the prayer as a Dtr correction (in-
troducing conditionality) to the determinism developed in chaps. 7–12. Werline (2007: 30)
argues that the author of Daniel 9 “seems to have been able to hold both apocalyptic deter-
minism and conditional covenant theology at the same time,” what Venter (2007: 43) calls
“a typical montage technique where two ideas are put in synchronic relationship with each
other to form a semantic frame for a new meaning.” Cf. Redditt (2000: 236).
26. Kratz (2001: 112).
470 Chapter 23
Daniel 9 plays a crucial role within the literary complex of chaps. 7–12 by
explaining the reasons behind the enduring suffering of the city and commu-
nity. Its goal is ultimately the eradication of sin. Daniel 9 also provides a model
for the penitential posture required of the holy community (ˆyni/yl}[< yvýDiq," 7:18,
21, 22, 25, 27; μyv¥ dqø }Aμ[", 8:24; vd,qøAμ[", 12:7) that will emerge from this suffer-
ing refined (πrx), purged (rrb Piel), and purified (ˆbl Hiphil; 11:35, 12:10). They
are, according to 9:13, to turn (bwv) from their sin. In addition, for a commu-
nity that would be called “those who have insight” (μ[: ylEyKIc‘m;" 11:33, 35; 12:3,
10), it is through this kind of prayer posture that one is given insight with un-
derstanding (hnyb lkc Hiphil; cf. Dan 1:20, 8:15, 10:1). 27 According to 9:13,
this is the positive response (lkc Hiphil) that follows repentance. 28
Though some have considered the determinism found in chaps. 7–12 as
counterproductive to human activity, chap. 9 presents the posture of those
who will comprise the holy and wise remnant. 29 Indeed, the inevitable suf-
fering will be key to purification from sin, but this will produce a community
displaying the posture of penitence. 30
Summary
Sin within the book of Daniel is associated first and foremost with the evil
empire. In chaps. 1–6, this is depicted subtly in the actions of minor imperial
officials and most vividly in the hubris of two emperors. In chaps. 7–12, this
is depicted in the oppressive actions of evil kingdoms that arise against Yah-
weh, his people, and his sanctuary. Imperial evil of this sort is dealt with
through Yahweh’s direct and punishing intervention in history foreshadowed by
revelation to his holy people. Sin is associated at times with God’s people. It is
identified as a reason for the elongation of exilic suffering and associated with
some within God’s community. Sin is dealt with through the suffering of
27. On this, see Werline (1998; 2007: 25).

28. See Werline (2007: 25).
29. So Collins (1985: 141–42):
We must emphasize that neither determinism nor belief in supernatural powers de-
tracts in any way from the seriousness of human action. While the course of events is
predetermined, the fate of individuals is not. The certainty with which the crisis
comes to a head sharpens the context for a human decision. The rabbîm are called on
to take their stand on one side or another. While the battle is in the hands of Michael,
his victory will not benefit all Jews indiscriminately. The judgment is still based on the
actions of human individuals.
30. Thus, with Venter (2007: 44):
The idea in the penitential prayers used by their fellow (non-apocalyptic) priests that
God acts in relation to those who offer penitence and humble themselves before God
complemented their idea that one has to wait upon God to change history and to live
a life of sanctification, teaching, and suffering, if need be. Continuous fasting and re-
pentance, offering penitential prayers to God, was totally in line with their rather ped-
agogically orientated style of life.
Daniel 471
God’s people and the refining that accompanies this suffering. The posture of
the remnant that will survive is penitential, expressed through prayer, repen-
tance from evil, and pursuit of insight and wisdom.
The book of Daniel highlights the stark contrast between good and evil,
holy and wicked, God’s kingdom and human empire. This provides one of the
few glimpses into the heavenly realms and into a future reality in which sin
will be dealt with once and for all.
Chapter 24
Ezra–Nehemiah
Although Ezra and Nehemiah are often divided into two books in modern
Bibles, in most ancient scribal traditions they were treated as a single work. 1
This combined work is comprised of two major sections (Ezra, Nehemiah),
each of which is divided into two subsections. 2
Ezra 1–6 focuses on the story of the construction of the temple by the re-
turned exilic community during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, activity fore-
shadowed by Cyrus’s proclamation in 1:2–4, “let him go up (hl[) . . . and
rebuild (hnb),” which is repeated in the response narrated in 1:5: “everyone
whose spirit God had stirred to go up (hl[) and rebuild (hnb).” 3 Fused to this
account in Ezra 1–6 is the narrative of Ezra’s return and reform in Ezra 7–10.
Although these events take place nearly 60 years after those in Ezra 6, the nar-
ratives are linked by the generic temporal phrase “after these things” (rj"a"w]
hL<aEh: μyrib:D]h)" , which plays down the passage of time and accentuates the con-
nection between the eras. 4 As with the early Persian-period community in
1. For example, the Masoretes placed their notes for both Ezra and Nehemiah at the end
of Nehemiah and identified Neh 3:22 as the center verse of the book; cf. Williamson (1985).
For recent work on the integrity of Ezra–Nehemiah, see Boda and Redditt (2008); cf. Boda
(2008d; forthcoming e). Contra those who consider Nehemiah separate from Ezra, see Van-
derKam (1992: 55–75); Kraemer (1993: 73–92); Becking (1998: 40–61); Grabbe (1998). Grabbe
argues that the Nehemiah tradition had independence at one point, but was ultimately
drawn together with Ezra into one corpus.
2. In this, I differ from the proposals set out by Eskenazi (1988) and Throntveit (1992).
For both, the second section of Nehemiah (for Eskenazi, chaps. 8–13, and for Throntveit,
chaps. 7–13) brings closure to a project that began in Ezra 1, and in both proposals Nehe-
miah 13 is understood as a “Coda.” Although Nehemiah may be related to Ezra in terms of
its redaction, I am not convinced that one should treat Nehemiah 7–13 merely as a conclu-
sion to Ezra 1–Nehemiah 6. Rather, there appears to be an inner rhetorical logic to the book
of Nehemiah as a subsection within Ezra–Nehemiah. This does not mean that the present
Nehemiah is somehow independent from Ezra, because Nehemiah 1 assumes literary conti-
nuity with the book of Ezra, as does Nehemiah 8; see Boda (2008d).
3. With thanks to Chris Lortie for this insight and many others on Ezra 1–6; see Lortie
(2007).
4. Ezra 6:15—6th year of Darius = 515 b.c.; 7:7—7th year of Artaxerxes I = 458 b.c. Notice
also how the precise year of Artaxerxes is not mentioned until later in the passage rather
than at the outset as expected (7:7, 8). The reference to Artaxerxes in 6:14 may also contrib-
ute to this fusion of the two literary corpora. The strategy of subtly fusing two distinct eras
- 472 -
Ezra–Nehemiah 473
Ezra 1–6, Ezra’s mission is also articulated by a Persian emperor in Artaxerxes’

rescript in 7:14–26. Ezra’s mission also concerns the temple and its services as
he facilitates the return of priestly/Levitical personnel and donations for the
temple (7:15–24, 8:15–36). In addition to this, however, Ezra is to focus his at-
tention on the promulgation of the law within the province (7:14, 25–26; 9:1–
10:44; cf. Nehemiah 8).
Neh 1:1 signals a new section within the Ezra–Nehemiah complex through
a superscription that identifies the new main character, Nehemiah son of
Hacaliah. Similar to the transition between Ezra 6 and 7, this transition plays
down the temporal difference between Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 1, mentioning
only vaguely a “20th year” while leaving the full historical citation until 2:1.
As with the two previous sections in Ezra, the focus of the action is foreshad-
owed at the outset in the interchange between Nehemiah and his “brothers”
and then in Nehemiah’s prayer. In the interchange (1:2–3), Nehemiah asks
“concerning the Jews who had escaped and had survived the captivity and
about Jerusalem” and is told that “the remnant there in the province who sur-
vived the captivity are in great distress and reproach, and the wall of Jerusa-
lem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire.” His prayer matches
this dual focus on the remnant and city when he cites Yahweh’s promise
through Moses in 1:9: “I will gather them from there and will bring them to
the place where I have chosen to cause my name to dwell.”
One difference between the Ezra and Nehemiah sections is that the open-
ing chapter in Nehemiah sets the agenda for the entire literary complex, and
this agenda is then subdivided through the repetition of a programmatic
statement at 2:12 and 7:5. 5 Both statements use the construction “God put
into my heart (yBIlIAla< ˆtn),” followed by a verb that describes the action that
was to be the focus of the section. In 2:12, this is identified as doing (hc[) for
Jerusalem the actions that are laid out in 2:17: “Come, let us rebuild the wall
of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach.” In 7:5, this action is
identified as “gathering” (≈bq) the people. The first programmatic statement
focuses on the restoration of the wall and gates of Jerusalem, the second on
the gathering of the people in the city, and both fulfilling the dual concerns
and promises articulated in chap. 1. As with the Ezra section, the temporal
shift between the two sections in Nehemiah is played down, and it is only
near the end of Nehemiah 7–13 (13:6) that one discovers that the shift has
taken place.
This structural introduction highlights an overall narrative resonance be-
tween the Ezra and Nehemiah sections of the Ezra–Nehemiah complex. Both
can also be discerned in Ezra 1–6, where the switch between the eras of Cyrus and Darius is
uncertain (a strategy also evident in the Jews’ letter to Darius in Ezra 5). One can discern this
strategy in the internal structure of the Nehemiah section of Ezra–Nehemiah because the
shift from Nehemiah’s first governorship to his second is subtle.
5. See further Boda (2008d; forthcoming e).
474 Chapter 24
sections focus on the activities of Jewish figures returning from the heartland
of the Persian Empire with imperial authorization. The first subsections of
both Ezra and Nehemiah focus attention on the restoration of physical struc-
tures in Persian-period Jerusalem. Ezra 1–6 depicts the restoration of the
temple in Jerusalem, and Nehemiah 1–6 depicts the restoration of the wall
around Jerusalem. The second subsections of both Ezra and Nehemiah shift
attention to the renewal of the community in Jerusalem and the province.
Both Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 7–13 depict the renewal of the people around
the principles of the Torah.
Ezra 1–6
The opening section of Ezra–Nehemiah gives little attention to the themes
of sin and its remedy, and yet its narrative shapes the presentation of these
themes in the remainder of the book. The narrative begins with the reminder
that the proclamation of Cyrus, which makes possible restoration after exile,
is but a fulfillment of Yahweh’s words through Jeremiah (Ezra 1:1). This refer-
ence to Jeremiah may be a subtle reminder of the exile that preceded this res-
toration. Similarly, the reference to the temple articles that had been carried
away by Nebuchadnezzar (1:6) may also serve as a subtle reminder of the past
discipline.
Even if these elements are designed to remind the reader of past discipline
due to sin, Ezra 1–6 is still dominated by hope as it depicts the obedience of
the returned community, defined largely by Cyrus’s opening call to return
and build the temple. It is this reconstruction project that defines obedience
in this early phase of restoration. This is seen most vividly in the fact that
prophets are raised up not to call the people to moral renewal but rather to
encourage the reconstruction efforts (5:1–2).
Almost all negativity is restricted to those considered outsiders who op-
pose the community and especially the temple reconstruction. These include
the “peoples of the lands” (t/xr:a“h: yME[") who instilled fear in the returnees
(3:3) at the outset of the project and “the enemies of Judah and Benjamin”
in 4:1–5, who were also called “the people of the land” (≈r,a:h:Aμ[") and who
discouraged, frightened, and opposed the temple builders (4:1–5). The
names and letters of various figures most likely serving within the Persian
political structure who opposed the Jews during the reigns of Xerxes and
Artaxerxes are provided as exemplars of the kind of opposition faced by the
earlier community (4:6–24). 6
The only figures outside the community who are described positively are
the emperors themselves. To be sure, Artaxerxes is cited for stopping work
on the city (4:17–23), but Cyrus and Darius both assist the Jews. Their role
is affirmed in the summarizing statement in 6:14, which attributes the
6. On this, see Williamson (1985).

Ezra–Nehemiah 475
completion of the temple to the command of Yahweh and the decrees of

the Persian emperors. 7
The only negative reference to those within the community is found in
Ezra 2:61–63 and concerns the ancestry of some priests who were “ritually ex-
cluded” (lag Pual) from the priesthood, unable to eat the most holy portions
until a priest with Urim and Thummim could be consulted. This vision of rit-
ual purity reemerges at the close of Ezra 1–6. In the celebration of the Pass-
over in 6:19–22, it is explicitly stated that the priests and Levites “purified
themselves” (rhf Hithpael), so that “all of them were pure” (μyri/hf} μL:KU dj:a<K)} .
These purified priests then prepared the Passover for the group called “the ex-
iles” (hl:/Gh"), defined in 6:21 as “the children of Israel who returned from
exile” (hl:/Gh"mE μybIV…h" laEr;c‘yiAyneb)} together with “all those who had separated
themselves from the impurity of the nations of the land to them, to seek the
Lord God of Israel” (laEr;c‘yi yhEløa” hw;hyl" vrød]lI μh<lEa“ ≈r,a:h: ye/G ta"m}FUmI lD;b}Nih" lKø). This
second category emphasizes the necessity of separation from foreigners, in
particular because of foreign uncleanness. It also reveals that separation such
as this is not just from but is also to something, that is, to the returned com-
munity in order to seek (vrd) Yahweh.
The mission of this early phase of restoration was the reconstitution of the
community of God around his holy sanctuary. Having lost political control of
the land meant that the community would need to ensure that uncleanness
would not threaten this holy sanctuary. Sin is thus associated with outsiders
who oppose the construction of Yahweh’s holy space and those who are con-
sidered unclean and impure. To repent in Ezra 1–6 means separating oneself
from the impurity of the nations of the land and separating oneself to the re-
turned community in order to seek Yahweh. It is this vision for ritual purity
because of the creation of the holy space of the sanctuary in Jerusalem that
pervades the rest of Ezra–Nehemiah.
Ezra 7–10
As I have already mentioned, the agenda for Ezra 7–10 is outlined in the
Artaxerxes’ rescript in 7:14–26, and this agenda shapes the literary structure of
the section as a whole, with chaps. 7–8 focused on Ezra’s return to Yehud with
his entourage and gifts for the temple service and chaps. 9–10 focused on his
teaching of the law and arrangements for justice. 8 Chapters 9–10 provide
significant insight into the theology of sin and its remedy. These chapters
7. In light of Ezra 1:1, Yahweh’s command precedes and supersedes the imperial decree.
8. See Boda (2005a: 277–84) for arguments in favor of the authenticity of the sources in
Ezra 7–10. Underlying this narrative section are most likely first-person memoirs by Ezra that
break through at certain points (Ezra 7:27–9:15). This first-person account plays an important
role in the narrative, drawing the reader into the internal perspective of Ezra, which is placed
alongside the internal perspective of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:14–26), both of which are bracketed
and controlled by the narrator’s perspective (Ezra 7:1–13, 10:1–44). The shift in chap. 10
476 Chapter 24
revolve around the issue of intermarriage with foreigners in the province of

Yehud and can be divided into four parts.
Accusation (9:1–2)
In the first part (9:1–2), Ezra relates how a group of leaders approached
him with the accusation that priests and Levites (v. 1), leaders and officials (v.
2) had not separated themselves (ldb Niphal, v. 1) but rather had intermin-
gled (br[ Hithpael, v. 2) the “holy race” (vd,Qøh" [r'z), with “the peoples of the
lands” by taking their foreign daughters as wives. This sin is identified as un-
faithfulness, a priestly term usually associated with the violation of sacred
space (l[m; vv. 2, 4).
Ezra’s Response (9:3–15)

Ezra then rehearses the response to this news (9:3–15), which included
rites of humiliation (9:3–5, 10:1) 9 and penitential prayer (9:6–15), both per-
formed in the midst of “everyone who trembled (drej): at the words of the God
of Israel on account of the unfaithfulness (l[m) of the exiles.” This reference
to those who gathered around Ezra not only foreshadows the response of the
people in Ezra 10 but also identifies the “words of the God of Israel” as the ba-
sis for Ezra’s response, a fact that will become clear in the prayer that follows
(9:10–12, 14). 10
Confession of Sin (Past to Present)

Ezra begins his prayer (9:6–7a) with confession by expressing his shame be-
fore God (vwb, μlk Niphal) because of the magnitude of sin (ˆw[) and guilt
(hmva) that weighs on the community. The fact that this weight has risen
(hbr) and grown (ldg) and can be traced from “the days of our ancestors to
this day” reveals a theology of sin informed by key passages such as Lev
26:39–40 that guilt is intergenerational and cumulative, a feature typical of
penitential prayers such as Ezra 9 (cf. Nehemiah 1, 9; Daniel 9).
Discipline of God
This confession of sin is followed by a rehearsal of God’s disciplinary re-
sponse to this sin (9:7b), which included death, exile, plunder, and the shame
that accompanies these events. From Ezra’s perspective, this condition was
not a past but a present reality (“as it is this day”).
from Ezra to the narrator parallels the transition of the action from Ezra to the people who
must take up his concerns and deal with the issues.
9. Tearing clothes, pulling hair, sitting down, standing up, falling to the knees, stretch-
ing out the hands, weeping, prostrating himself.
10. This prayer is a key example of the penitential prayer genre that emerges late in the
kingdom period of Judah. See further Werline (1998); Boda (1999; 2001); Boda, Falk, and
Werline (2006).
Ezra–Nehemiah 477
Grace of God
And yet even in the midst of the present discipline, described as slavery
(tWdb}[," db<[)< , Ezra discerns signs of God’s grace (hN;jIT)} and covenant loyalty
(dsj) in the preservation of a remnant and the restoration of the temple and
wall (9:8–9).
Confession of Sin (Present)

Nevertheless, even these small signs of grace are threatened by the present
sin of the people, described here as forsaking (bz[) God’s commandments
(hwxm), which were delivered by God’s servants the prophets (9:10–11a). 11 The
specific commandments are then cited, emphasizing the uncleanness (hD:n)i of
both land and people because of the people’s abominations (hb:[E/T) and im-
purity (ha:m}fU). 12 Avoiding this uncleanness is accomplished by not intermar-
rying with these peoples. Obedience will ensure that the people are strong
(qzj), eat (lka) the harvest of the land, and possess it forever (9:11b–12).
Recapitulation
The prayer closes with a recapitulation of all the elements of 9:6–12 in
9:13–15. Because God’s past discipline (9:13a; cf. 9:7b) has come because of Is-
rael’s past sin (9:13b; cf. 9:6–7a), God’s recent grace (9:13c; cf. 9:8–9) is surely
threatened by Israel’s present sin (9:14a; cf. 9:10–12), which will inevitably lead
to complete destruction (9:14b). The prayer ends by juxtaposing God’s gracious
character of righteousness, which has preserved a remnant (9:15a), and the
depth of Israel’s present guilt, which disqualifies them from standing in his
presence (9:15b).
Summary
This prayer expresses the theology that the sin of the people, which is in-
tergenerational and cumulative in character, prompts the discipline of Yah-
weh, even if this discipline is not as severe as is deserved. The sin in this case
is intermarriage with the foreign nations, which, because it has been commit-
ted, threatens the very life of the community. The only hope for the commu-
nity is full admission of their culpability before Yahweh, along with an appeal
to the grace of God, who has shown mercy in the past after rebellion by leav-
ing a remnant. The depiction of sin is highly influenced by both deutero-
nomic and priestly vocabulary with reference to forsaking (bz[) God’s
commandments (hwxm) and to uncleanness (hdn, hamf). 13
11. The construction hT:["w] is often employed in prayer to mark the rhetorical move to the
present context, often to introduce the request in the present. This construction appears in
both 9:8 and 9:10 and serves to bring the recent grace of God and present sin of the people
into conflict, the latter threatening the former.
12. Cf. Lev 18:24–30; Deut 7:1–3, 11:8, 23:6. See Boda (1999: 70) for debate over the pre-
cise commandments in view.
13. See Boda (1999: 69–70).
478 Chapter 24
The People’s Response (10:1–44)

With the end of Ezra’s prayer, the account switches back to a depiction of
the group that had gathered around Ezra in 9:4, those called “everyone who
trembled (drj) at the words of the God of Israel on account of the unfaithful-
ness of the exiles.” Ezra 10:1 informs the reader that this group had now
grown into “a very large assembly,” which, like Ezra, was weeping (hkb) bit-
terly. That Ezra’s prayer had this kind of effect is not surprising because at
points its style is as closely associated with prophetic speech as it is with
prayer. 14 Ezra was thus using a prayer to God to indict the people and high-
light the seriousness of their infractions.
That this prayer/prophecy has the desired effect is seen not only in the
people’s weeping but also in Shecaniah’s declaration in 10:2, which echoes
Ezra’s earlier confession of sin as well as Ezra’s articulation of God’s hope: “We
have been unfaithful (l[m) to our God and have married foreign women from
the peoples of the lands; yet now there is hope for Israel in spite of this.” She-
caniah calls the community to make a covenant to follow the counsel of Ezra
and those who had gathered around him (“those who tremble [drj] at the
commandment of our God”; cf. 9:4) by putting away both foreign wives and
children (10:3). His invitation to Ezra to lead this effort (10:4) prompts Ezra to
put the leading priests, Levites, and all Israel under oath ([bv Niphal) to fol-
low this course of action (10:5). As Ezra continues to fast and mourn in pri-
vate over the “unfaithfulness” (l[m) of the returned community (10:6), a
proclamation is made to this community to assemble at Jerusalem (10:7–8).
This gathering took place within three days when they met before the tem-
ple. 15 The assembly began with Ezra announcing to the people their guilt in
terms similar to Shecaniah in 10:2: “You have been unfaithful (l[m) and have
married foreign wives, adding to the guilt (hm:v‘a)" of Israel” (10:10). This is fol-
lowed by Ezra inviting the people to repentance: give praise (hd:/T ˆtn) to Yah-
weh, 16 do (hc[) his will, separate yourselves (ldb Niphal) from the peoples of
the land and from the foreign wives (10:11). The assembly responds by ac-
knowledging their agreement with Ezra’s address (ˆKE). They acknowledge their
guilt (10:13b: “we have transgressed [[vp] greatly”), express their willingness
to do (hc[) what he has suggested by laying out a detailed procedure (10:12b,
13a, 14), 17 with the hope that God’s fierce anger will turn away from them
(10:14b). The assembly then acts in line with their commitment (10:16–17),
recording in detail the names of those who had responded (10:18–44).
14. See Boda (1999: 37). This is made more obvious when one changes the first person
plurals into second person plurals.
15. See Boda (1999: 57–59) for close parallels between Joshua 7 and Ezra 10.
16. See Boda (1995) for discussion of this phrase and the connection between praise and
admission of guilt in Hebrew theology (cf. Joshua 7).
17. This is typical of “covenants” in the Persian period; see Boda (1999).
Ezra–Nehemiah 479
Summary
Ezra 9–10 thus describes sin in terminology more common in priestly con-
texts. The sin, however, is identified as intermarriage, which is given a priestly
understanding by the fact that it has involved intermingling uncleanness and
impurity (hD:n,i ha:m}f,U “of foreign people”) with the holy (“holy race,” vd,Qøh" [r'z), .
This view of sin continues the theme presented in Ezra 1–6. Discipline is con-
sidered the divine response to sin, but even in and after this discipline God
does show his mercy. It is the mercy of God that provides hope for the people,
but this mercy does demand full admission of culpability. Penitential rites are
thus key to remedying this sin and involve physical humiliation, penitential
prayer, which focuses on confession of sin and the grace of God, and a re-
newal of covenant in which the leader announces guilt and invites the people
to repent, and the people acknowledge their agreement with this announce-
ment and act in line with this commitment.
Nehemiah 1–6
Nehemiah 1
Nehemiah 1 introduces the second major section of the Ezra–Nehemiah
corpus and does so with a prayer that continues the focus on sin already seen
at the end of Ezra. Ezra’s prayer in Ezra 9 displays the perspective of one who
is in Yehud who believes that the people’s situation is still dominated by the
conditions brought on by the fall of Jerusalem, even though there are initial
signs of restoration. Nehemiah 1 reflects a similar belief because it speaks of
“the Jews who had escaped and survived the captivity” (Neh 1:2), while ac-
centuating devastating conditions akin to those at the fall of Jerusalem (“the
wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire,” 1:3).
However, the perspective in the prayer is of one who is in exile. Nehemiah is
depicted as responding to these enduring hardships in a way informed by pas-
sages such as Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 30, and 1 Kings 8, that is, through a
penitential prayer (cf. Ezra 9; Nehemiah 9; Daniel 9; Psalm 106). 18 This prayer
is accompanied by mourning rites, which included sitting down, weeping,
mourning, and fasting (cf. Ezra 9:3–5, 10:1; Neh 9:1–3; Dan 9:3).
The prayer proper is the shortest of the penitential prayers in the Old Tes-
tament. At the core of the prayer (vv. 8–9), Nehemiah cites Moses’ instruction
in Deut 30:2–4, which provides the theological framework for his supplica-
tion and action. According to this instruction, when the people sin (l[m) Yah-
weh will discipline them through exile (≈wp Hiphil), but if they repent (bwv)
and keep (rmv) and do (hc[) Yahweh’s commandments, Yahweh will display
his grace by gathering (≈bq) them from the nations to “the place where I
have chosen to cause my name to dwell” ( Jerusalem). It is this last piece that
18. See Werline (1998); Boda (1999); Boda, Falk, and Werline (2006).
480 Chapter 24
is important for the rest of the Nehemiah section because it identifies Jerusa-
lem as the destination of the return of the people. According to Neh 1:1–3, Je-
rusalem fell far short of this ideal.
This theological framework provides insight into the function of the rest of
the prayer. Verses 6b–7 express Nehemiah’s penitential posture by confessing
(hdy Hithpael) sin, a feature that regularly appears in penitential prayer (Dan
9:4, 20; Ezra 10:1; Neh 9:2–3). As in other penitential prayers, this confession
expresses the sin of the entire community both present and past (cf. Lev
26:39–40). The confession is uttered in v. 7 and speaks of acting very corruptly
(lbj) by not keeping (rmv) the commandments (hwxm), statutes (qwj), and or-
dinances (fpvm) revealed through Moses.
Surrounding the prayer as a whole are matching sections that both cry for
God’s attention and accentuate his grace (vv. 5–6a, 10–11). The vocabulary of
the calls for God’s attention is strikingly similar to that found in 1 Kings 8, one
of the passages that provide the theological foundation for this and other pen-
itential prayers. 19 It is the grace of God, however, that grants hope that God
will give attention to the cry. This is expressed at the outset of the prayer in
v. 5 by rehearsing God’s character as “the great and awesome God, who pre-
serves (rmv) the covenant (tyrb) and covenant loyalty (dsj)” (see Neh 9:32,
Dan 9:4). This phrase accentuates Yahweh’s transcendent greatness and power
together with his gracious commitment to his people, both important for a
people in desperate need of deliverance. This grace is extended, however, to
“those who love (bha) him and keep (rmv) his commandments (hwxm),” a re-
minder that necessitates the penitence declared in vv. 6b–9. The prayer re-
turns to this theme of grace at its close (vv. 10–11) by rehearsing Yahweh’s core
redemptive action, the deliverance through the exodus, which granted Israel
the status of “servant” and “people.” As God’s gracious character is linked to
those who love Yahweh and keep his commandments, so this gracious status
is extended to those who delight (jlx Hiphil) in fearing (ary) Yahweh’s name.
This prayer at the outset of Nehemiah provides deep insight into the the-
ology of sin and its remedy. The sin of Israel prompts the discipline of Yah-
weh, here identified as exile, but the repentance of Israel through prayer and
action prompts the grace of Yahweh, here identified as gathering from exile to
Jerusalem. Emphasis is placed in Nehemiah 1 on the role of prayer in securing
God’s love and forgiveness, but the prayer itself makes clear that this grace is
extended only to those who love and fear Yahweh by keeping his command-
ments. Repentance, thus, is expressed through prayer but engages the inter-
nal affections (love, fear) and external practice (keep his commandments) of
the people.
19. See Boda (1999: 209–13).

Ezra–Nehemiah 481
Nehemiah 5
The tension in the plot in Nehemiah 1–6 is created largely by the opposi-
tion that Nehemiah faces from his external enemies Sanballat, Tobiah, and
Geshem (Neh 2:10, 19; 4:1, 3, 7; 6:1, 2, 5, 12, 14, 17, 19; 13:4, 7, 8, 28). How-
ever, Nehemiah 5 presents an incident that threatens Nehemiah’s mission be-
cause of internal division. The chapter begins with the outcry of poorer
members of the community whose financial bondage to richer members had
led to the loss of land and children (5:1–5). This social injustice is then con-
fronted by Nehemiah, who presents his accusation and then calls an assembly
(5:7). The assembly proceeds through a series of accusations (5:8, 9) followed
by a specific call to change in behavior, one that involves their continuing to
lend money but returning both interest and land that had been taken (5:10–
11). The people respond positively (5:12a), are put under oath (5:12b–13a),
and then act accordingly (5:13b).
Sin in Nehemiah 5 is defined as social injustice. The process for remedying
sin here shares some elements in common with the “covenant” enacted in
Ezra 9. Confrontation through accusation is essential to the process as is the
call to behavioral change. The people publicly accept this call through an act
of praise and are put under oath.
Summary
The two passages studied above dominate the theology of sin and its rem-
edy in Nehemiah 1–6, and their lexical stock used in expressing this theology
is considerably different from that expressed in Ezra, as well as Nehemiah 7–
13. However, one can discern points of contact in the use of similar rituals, es-
pecially the employment of penitential prayer in Nehemiah 1 (cf. Ezra 9, Ne-
hemiah 9) and public confrontation and oath taking in Nehemiah 5 (cf. Ezra
10, Nehemiah 10). Not mentioned above is the continuing emphasis on
maintaining clear distinctions between the community and outsiders, with
the outsiders identified in Nehemiah 1–6 as Nehemiah’s enemies, especially
Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arab. Nehe-
miah not only claims they have no “portion, right, or memorial” in Jerusalem
(Neh 2:20), thematically akin to Zerubbabel’s speech to earlier enemies in Ezra
4:3, but in Neh 4:4–5 he calls God to bring curse on them because of their in-
iquity (ˆw[) and sin (taF:j)" . Therefore, although having a different vocabulary
from the rest of Ezra–Nehemiah, Nehemiah 1–6 does continue to develop the
picture of a community remaining separate from hostile people and groups
that surround them. Although there is certainly a need for sin’s removal from
those inside the community, sin is also a threat from outside.
Nehemiah 7–13
Nehemiah 7 marks a significant shift in the Nehemiah section of Ezra–
Nehemiah as “God puts into the heart of” Nehemiah the new plan to assemble
482 Chapter 24
the people in Jerusalem (7:5; cf. 2:12). The remaining chapters of Nehemiah
comprise a series of documents that either list or assemble people in Jerusalem.
This fulfils the promise of Yahweh through Moses, which was rehearsed in Ne-
hemiah’s initial prayer in 1:9: “I will gather them from there and will bring
them to the place where I have chosen to cause my name to dwell.” 20
The documents describing the gathering of people in Jerusalem in Nehe-
miah 8–10 are the climax of the entire Ezra–Nehemiah corpus. 21 The Torah
has already played a significant role in earlier parts of Ezra–Nehemiah, func-
tioning predominantly in the lives of individual leaders, prompting them to
take actions related to sin in the community (Ezra 9, Nehemiah 1). Nehemiah
8–10, however, describes the role of the Torah within the community as a
whole, showing its potential for remedying sin and promoting righteous be-
havior in the community.
Nehemiah 8–10 can be divided into three basic sections, each beginning
with a reference to the people’s “gathering” (πsa Niphal). 22 In each case, this
gathering focuses initially on the reading of the book of the law of Moses,
which prompts a specific change in behavior. In each case, priests and/or Le-
vites read the text and serve as important guides for the subsequent action.
Nehemiah 8:1–12
In the first assembly (8:1–12), the people gather spontaneously in Jerusa-
lem and ask Ezra to read them the law (8:1). 23 This reading extends through-
out the morning hours and takes place on an elevated wooden stage with Ezra
surrounded by groups of Levites (8:2–4). The book is treated with respect as it
is opened (“all the people stood up,” 8:5); before reading it, Ezra praises Yah-
weh, and the people respond with words (“Amen, Amen”), lift their hands,
and then bow down in worship with their faces to the ground (8:6). These
rites reveal the inseparable link between this book and Yahweh, who deliv-
ered it.
The reading of the book was accomplished by the priest Ezra and his Le-
vitical assistants, who were also required to lend the people their interpretive
guidance (8:7–12). 24 The people’s response was initially mourning and weep-
ing over their failure to fulfill the festal demands, but the interpreters called
them instead to obey the law through joyous celebration.
20. See Boda (2008d; forthcoming e).

21. See Duggan (2001).
22. Although I am aware of the various origins of these documents in Nehemiah 8–10, I
am highlighting here their function in the final form of Ezra–Nehemiah; cf. Boda (2008d;
forthcoming e).
23. This depiction of Ezra as one who responds to the people’s lead is also evident in Ezra
10; cf. Boda (2005a: 277–84).
24. There is some debate over the meaning of vrp (Pual) here, whether it is “translation”
(possibly to Aramaic?) or “interpretation.” In either case, whatever they did, it proved “to
give the sense (lk<c)≤ so that they understood (ˆyb) the reading” (Neh 8:8).
Ezra–Nehemiah 483
Nehemiah 8:13–18
The second assembly (8:13–18) is more limited in scope, involving only
the lay leaders, priests, and Levites, who gain insight (lkc; cf. 8:8) into the
words of the law from Ezra (8:13). Again, the teaching is related to festal cele-
bration, and the entire province is called to obey the stipulations for the Feast
of Tabernacles (8:14–17). The focus of the resulting festival is, not surpris-
ingly, on Ezra’s reading of the book of the law (8:18). Here again, the reading
and interpretation of the law is considered essential to the obedience of the
people, and the application is related to a festal requirement.
Nehemiah 9:1–10:39
The third assembly (9:1–10:39) is dated two days after the close of the Feast
of Tabernacles at the end of Nehemiah 8. 25 Ezra is now absent from the
scene 26 and the Levites take his place, but it is the people as a whole who
drive the agenda. The agenda for this gathering is the establishment of an
agreement to care for the temple and its services (10:1–39). The foundation
for this agreement, however, is a penitential rite that involves the reading of
the law (9:1–38).
Penitential Rites and Prayer (Nehemiah 9)

The rites involve fasting, wearing sackcloth, rubbing dirt on the body, sep-
arating oneself from all foreigners, standing, reading Torah for a quarter of a
day, and then confessing sin and worshiping for another quarter (9:1–3).
These rites are similar to those found in Ezra 9–10, Nehemiah 1, and Daniel
9. As in those contexts, a penitential prayer dominates the depiction, the
one in Nehemiah 9 being the longest of those recorded in the narratives of
the Old Testament. As noted above in the evaluations of Ezra 9 and Nehe-
miah 1, this tradition of prayer arose in the closing phase of the Kingdom of
Judah and represents a response to the theological agenda laid out in pas-
sages such as Lev 26:39–40, Deut 30:1–10, and 1 Kings 8, that is, that when
the people experienced exile they were to repent, cry to God in prayer, and
confess their sins.
Whereas the prayers in Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 1 both suggest that some ini-
tial signs of restoration had already taken place, even if the deplorable circum-
stances established at the fall of Jerusalem dominated, Nehemiah 9 does not
recognize any such signs. It shares with Ezra 9 the perspective of people who
are in the land, rather than in exile (cf. Nehemiah 1, Daniel 9). The prayer in
Nehemiah 9 moves methodically through the story of Israel, beginning with
25. On views of the origins of Nehemiah 9 and its relationship to Nehemiah 8–10, see
Boda (2008d).
26. The LXX does have the prayer recited by Ezra, but this is considered by most a textual
intrusion to bring it into line with the previous assemblies.
484 Chapter 24
creation (9:6), then proceeding to the traditions of Abraham (9:7–8), exodus

(9:9–11), wilderness-Sinai (9:12–23), and life in the land (9:24–31). 27
The first part of the prayer is dominated by praise, beginning with the
short exclamation of praise in 9:5b before praising Yahweh as the one who
created the cosmos (9:6) and chose Abram (9:7). Both of these traditions are
introduced by the declaration of praise: “You are Yahweh” (hw;hy] aWhAhT:a;" cf.
2 Kgs 19:15, 19). The remainder of the prayer contains elements of worship,
as the supplicants praise God for his redemptive character and acts through-
out their history. In this, the prayer fulfils the expectation created in the nar-
rative introduction that the people worshiped (hwj Hishtaphel) Yahweh (9:3).
However, as the prayer progresses, the traditions are increasingly domi-
nated by Israel’s disobedience of Yahweh, first in the wilderness (9:16–18) and
then in the land (9:26–31). Through this, the prayer functions as a confession
of sin as the narrative introduction indicated (9:2, 3, hdy Hithpael). Confes-
sion such as this is typical of the penitential prayer tradition in the Old Tes-
tament (cf. Dan 9:4, 20; Ezra 10:1; Neh 1:6) and, as in those other cases,
involves confession not only of one’s own sins but also of the sins of one’s an-
cestors (Neh 9:2). The recitation of the past rebellion of Israel throughout the
prayer voices this intergenerational confession.
These two aspects of Nehemiah, the praise of Yahweh and the confession
of sin, however, transcend their respective purposes as they function together
in the prayer. The prayer establishes two patterns for the relationship between
Yahweh and his people, both patterns occasioned by the sin of the people. 28
The first pattern is a development of the well-known “discipline model” ex-
emplified in the book of Judges:
a. Divine mercy
b. Human rebellion
c. Divine punishment
d. Human cry
e. Divine mercy
This model dominates the majority of the life-in-the-land tradition (Neh
9:24–28). The children of the rebellious wilderness generation were given the
land through Yahweh’s mercy (9:24–25), but they became disobedient (hrm),
rebelled (drm), cast the law behind the back (μwg yrja hrwt ˚lv), and committed
blasphemy (hx:a:n;, 9:26). Although God warned them to repent (bwv) through
his prophets (9:26), they killed his messengers. God met this human rebellion
with his punishment, delivering them into the hand of (dyb ˆtn) their enemies
(9:27a). When they cried (q[x) to Yahweh (9:27b), he granted them mercy by
providing deliverers (9:27c), who granted them rest (9:28a). The end of 9:28
27. For the literary boundaries of these traditions, see Boda (1999: 75–81).
28. For this, see Boda (1999: 81–87).
Ezra–Nehemiah 485
indicates that this pattern was repeated “many times” (μyTI[I t/Br'). The vocabu-
lary of this pattern is predominantly deuteronomic.
The first part of the prayer, while describing human sin, displays a different
pattern, one best described as the “patience model” and best exemplified in
Ezekiel 20 (see pp. 279–283 above, on Ezekiel):
a. Divine mercy
b. Divine command
c. Human rebellion
d. Divine mercy 29
The wilderness-Sinai tradition in Nehemiah 9 employs this pattern to describe
Yahweh’s interactions with Israel prior to entering the land. Yahweh’s mercy is
evident from the outset in his rescue through the exodus and guidance by pil-
lars of cloud and fire (9:9–12), and on the basis of this mercy Yahweh delivered
his commands on Mount Sinai (9:13–14). He continued to display his mercy by
providing food and water (9:15a), but it was when he commanded them to take
possession of the land sworn to their ancestors (9:15b) that the people rebelled
against Yahweh (9:16–17): acting arrogantly (dyz Hiphil), stiffening the neck
(πr[ hvq Hiphil), not listening ([mv) to his commands (hwxm), refusing (âm
Piel) to listen ([mv), not remembering (rkz) his miracles, and becoming stub-
born (hvq Hiphil). Unlike the discipline model in Neh 9:24–28, in which re-
bellion is greeted with discipline, this rebellion was met with God’s patience
as he does not forsake (bz[) them, a response based on that foundational rec-
itation of God’s character found in Exod 34:6–7 and Num 14:18: “You are a
God of forgiveness (hj:ylIs)} , gracious (ˆWNj") and compassionate (μWjr'), slow to
anger (μyiP"a"AËr,a)< , and abounding in lovingkindness (ds<j<w Abr'w,] Neh 9:17). This
rebellion-patience pattern is repeated again in 9:18–22 when Israel’s blasphe-
mous (hx:a:n), worship of the golden calf does not cause Yahweh to forsake (bz[)
them because of his great compassion (μymIj“r)' . Instead, he continues to care for
them through the 40 years in the wilderness with guidance, instruction, food,
water, clothing, and even the firstfruits of possession of the land.
These two different models for how Yahweh remedies sin in the history of
Israel are then blended in the final phase of the historical recitation in the
prayer (9:28–31). While the discipline model dominates this final section, it is
infused with allusions to the patience model typical of the wilderness tradi-
tion, displayed most vividly in the description of Yahweh bearing (˚vm) with
them for many years in 9:30 and then in the final verse, which declares God’s
great compassion (μyBIr'h: Úym<j“r)' , grace, and mercy (μWjr'w ] ˆWNj") in not forsaking
(bz[) them, vocabulary echoing Neh 9:17, 19.
It is interesting to see how these models have been employed in the rhet-
oric of the prayer in Nehemiah 9 to shape the response of both people and
God in the crisis following the destruction of Judah. The prayer identifies cre-
29. At times, this relenting is preceded by a divine threat.

486 Chapter 24
ation and the election of Abra(ha)m as the two foundational events of Israel’s
history. Because God considered Abraham’s heart faithful (ˆma Niphal), 30 he
made with him a covenant that promised the land to his descendants (9:8).
It is then not surprising that the patience model dominates the prayer up to
the point when the promise of the land has been fulfilled (9:9–23). Once they
enter the land, however, the discipline model is employed to explain why the
people have lost the land and to set up a cyclical pattern that ends prema-
turely at 9:30–31 with divine punishment, thus identifying the request in Neh
9:32–37 as the human cry with the hope of divine mercy. At the same time,
9:29–31 contains clear allusions to the patience model suggesting that, for the
composer(s), both models were crucial for restoration. The patience model
identified Abraham’s faithfulness as the reason for their hope. The promise
had been given and confirmed and so had enduring validity. Because the di-
vine punishment was the reality of the supplicant, the discipline model (in
which the human cry was essential) dominates the patience model (in which
human penitential response is irrelevant). The interlinking of the two models,
however, shows the importance of both grace and repentance to the vision for
remedying sin in this prayer.
The interweaving of the story of Israel as both praise of Yahweh and con-
fession of Israel’s sin to produce two patterns for Yahweh’s interaction with Is-
rael sets up the final request of the prayer, the section that bears closest resem-
blance to the other penitential prayers in the Old Testament (Neh 9:32–37). 31
As in the other penitential prayers, as well as the story just completed, the rec-
itation interweaves a presentation of Yahweh’s grace and discipline with a
confession of Israel’s sin. God’s grace is foundational from the outset with the
declaration in 9:32, familiar from Neh 1:5 and Dan 9:4, that Yahweh is “the
great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who keeps (rmv) covenant (tyrb)
and lovingkindness (dsj).” It is the power and grace of Yahweh, celebrated es-
pecially in the patience model in Neh 9:9–23, that gives the community
hope. Assuredly, God’s discipline has fallen on the community, stretching
from the period of the Assyrians until the present day, but this discipline is no
fault of Yahweh, who has acted righteously (qydx; 9:33), dealing faithfully
(tm<a)” with Israel. Instead, it is Israel that is culpable, expressed in the confes-
sions articulated in 9:33b–35: they have acted wickedly ([vr Hiphil), not
keeping (hc[) the law (hrwt), not paying attention (bvq Hiphil) to the com-
mandments (hwxm) or admonitions (tWd[E), not serving (db[) Yahweh, not turn-
ing (bwv) from their evil deeds. All this sin was committed against a God who
had offered them the gift of their own kingdom and bountiful land (9:35, 36).
The discipline of God is seen in the hardship (9:32) they have experienced
in becoming slaves on their own land, losing control of the land, its produce,
30. See Holmgren (1992: 249–54), who sees this as key to the unity of Nehemiah 9–10.
31. Introduced, as is typical, with the phrase “and now” (hT:["w)] .

Ezra–Nehemiah 487
its livestock, and even their own bodies (9:36–37). So great is this sin that the
sole request is found in 9:32: “Do not let all the hardship seem insignificant
before you.”
Covenant Agreement (Nehemiah 10)

As the two earlier Torah reading experiences in Nehemiah 8 resulted in spe-
cific actions related to temple worship, so the Torah reading in Neh 9:1–3 re-
sults in an agreement signed by Nehemiah’s community to care for the
temple. The prayer in Nehemiah 9 provides the foundation for this agree-
ment, which is now articulated in Nehemiah 10. 32 This agreement required
the signatures and oath of the leaders of the community (9:38–10:29) and
thus displays similar elements to the covenant in Ezra 10, which followed
Ezra’s penitential prayer. 33
As already indicated at the outset of Nehemiah 9, those who entered into
this agreement were those who had separated themselves (ldb Niphal), in Neh
9:2 from all foreigners (rk:ne yneB} lKøm)I and in Neh 10:28 from the peoples of the
lands (t/xr;a“h: yME[)" . Interestingly, in 10:28 this separation is not only from for-
eigners but also to the law of God (μyhIløa”h: tr'/TAla<), which entails walking (˚lh)
according to the law and keeping (rmv) and observing (hc[) all the command-
ments (hwxm), ordinances (fpvm), and statutes (qwj). These final three terms are
merely generic terms for the written code, but specific legal requirements are
identified in the remainder of the agreement. Whereas this list begins with
the prohibition of intermarriage (10:30), which is not surprising in light of
the emphasis on this in Neh 9:2 and 10:28, the remainder of the list is focused
on issues related to the worship of Yahweh at the temple, an observation con-
firmed by the summarizing note at the conclusion: “Thus we will not neglect
the house of our God” (10:39b). Separation from unclean foreigners must be
followed by separation to the worship of Yahweh at his holy sanctuary.
Nehemiah 9–10 provides a window into the theology of sin and its rem-
edy. Prompted by the reading of the Torah, the people affirm the justice of
God in disciplining them, while clinging to his grace to hear their cry for
mercy. The people have confessed their culpability in all of its detail and
have followed up their penitential prayer with a sworn commitment to obey
Yahweh. Their vision of repentance is one of separation from the unclean-
ness of the surrounding nations to the worship of the holy God at his sanc-
tuary in Jerusalem.
32. See Holmgren (1992: 249–54), who argues that the faithfulness (ˆm:a”n), of Abraham is
foundational to this agreement, called hn;m:a.“ It appears that the term hn;m:a“ (“agreement”) is a
later term equivalent to the earlier tyrb (“covenant”); see Boda (1999: 32–34); cf. Duggan
(2001).
33. Boda (1999: 35–37).
488 Chapter 24
This covenant agreement in Nehemiah 9–10 is based firmly on the belief

that God does punish sin but also that he forgives because of his mercy and
grace when his people cry to him in contrition. Sin is understood largely in
priestly terms, as separation from uncleanness and attention to the temple
and its services. This focus on the temple is clearly the emphasis in Nehemiah
8, which presents two incidents that result in attention to the festal obser-
vance. In all of these assemblies, the reading of the Torah with the interpre-
tive guidance of priest and Levite is essential for dealing with wrong behaviors
among the people and turning them to the right way.
Nehemiah 13
As has already been seen in the consideration of Nehemiah 8–10, the sec-
ond part of the book of Nehemiah shifts the depiction of Nehemiah from a
Persian official focused on the building of the wall (Neh 2:1–6:19) with little
concern for religious affairs to a Jewish leader preoccupied with the proclama-
tion of the law and proper maintenance of worship (Neh 7:1–13:31). 34 It is
not then surprising to find striking similarities between the items in the agree-
ment in Nehemiah 10 and those found in the closing narrative of the book of
Nehemiah. 35 Nehemiah’s name appears at the top of the agreement in Nehe-
miah 10, and in Nehemiah 13 he is involved in confronting and enacting
much of the same legislation. In the final form of the book, Nehemiah is thus
depicted as religious reformer who at the close of his work must personally
confront abuses of the communal agreement. 36
Nehemiah remedies sin in chap. 13 with severity:
• evicting the foreign Tobiah from the temple courts (13:4–9; cf. 10:28) 37
• reprimanding the officials for forsaking the temple by not collecting
tithes (13:10–14; cf. 10:37b–39a) and the nobles for breaking the Sabbath
(13:15–22; cf. 10:31) before reinstituting these regulations
• cursing and correcting those who intermarried with other people groups,
especially the priestly and Levitical orders (13:23–30; cf. 10:30)
• and finally arranging for the provision of the wood offering and firstfruits
(13:31; cf. 10:34–35).
As with chaps. 8–10, so here great concern is expressed over repentance, but
this repentance is related to protection of the purity of the Jewish community
and provision for the temple.
34. See more fully Boda (2008d; forthcoming e).

35. See Williamson (1987).
36. If narrative chronology is not important, it is also possible to read Nehemiah 10 as the
community’s affirmation of Nehemiah’s reforms, much as Nehemiah 3 represents a priestly
list of the community’s participation in Nehemiah’s earlier efforts.
37. After the people separate (ldb Hiphil) all foreigners from Israel (Neh 13:1–3).
Ezra–Nehemiah 489
Summary
Ezra–Nehemiah is dominated by a priestly vision of sin and its remedy. 38
The vocabulary employed focuses on ritual purity and ceremonial cleanness and
applies this especially to intermarriage with foreigners. 39 Separation from for-
eigners and their practices and to the pure returned community takes on the nu-
ance of repentance as the people are told that by this they will then seek
Yahweh. Obedience entails giving attention to the construction and mainte-
nance of sacred space (sanctuary, holy city 40) as well as observance of festal re-
quirements. The Torah and priestly interpretation are important for the life of the
community, providing insight for festal obedience. Important as well to rem-
edying sin are public ceremonies that expose sin, involve public admission of
sin, make people accountable through oath, and specify practical responses.
The employment of penitential prayer at three points in the book (Ezra 9, Ne-
hemiah 1, 9) suggests its importance to its theology of sin. These prayers,
which follow a priestly-deuteronomic agenda drawn from Leviticus 26, Deu-
teronomy 30, and 1 Kings 8, intertwine appeals to the grace of God and con-
fession of the sin of the people (both past and present) to request forgiveness
from Yahweh. None of these prayers, however, claim that the prayer alone is
sufficient, but rather it must be prayer followed by practical obedience.
38. See especially Harrington (2008), who sees this vision as even more strict than the ear-
lier priestly corpora. She uses her observations on the ubiquity of holiness and purity to ar-
gue for a unified corpus, Ezra–Nehemiah.
39. See Harrington (2008). Citing Ezra 9:1 and 10:11; Neh 9:2, 10:9–31, and 13:3, she con-
cludes: “Ezra–Nehemiah applies ldb, a term which carries cultic connotations, separating
pure and impure foods and parts of sacrifices, exclusively to the holy people of Israel, which
must themselves be separated or they will become desecrated” (p. 115).
40. See Eskenazi (1988).
Chapter 25
Chronicles
The book of Chronicles was written to a community that lived in the wake
of the fall of Jerusalem, the exile of the community, and the renewal of a com-
munity around a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. 1 It speaks a word of hope to this
community by looking to the past. This is accomplished first by tracing the
genealogical roots of Israel, from its first emergence from the nations of the
world with the patriarchs until its reemergence from the nations with the ex-
ilic returnees (1 Chronicles 1–9). These genealogies lay the foundation for the
second method of treating the past, that is, by tracing the story of Israel from
the death of Saul until the fall and Exile of the Kingdom of Judah and the sub-
sequent return to the land at the outset of the Persian period (1 Chronicles
10–2 Chronicles 36).
1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 9

Throughout the rehearsal of this story, the Chronicler depicts the failures
and successes of the kings through a theological paradigm often described as
“immediate retribution,” that is, the belief that “God’s rule of his people is ex-
pressed by his constant, direct and immediate intervention in their history”
(Japhet 1993: 44) or that “reward and punishment are not deferred, but rather
follow immediately on the heels of the precipitating events” (Dillard 1987:
76). Although this theological viewpoint is not absent from the Chronicler’s
source in Samuel–Kings, the author(s) of Samuel–Kings emphasized another
theological paradigm often referred to as “cumulative guilt” (see pp. 165–189
above on Kings). 2
1. On these introductory issues as well as detailed commentary on Chronicles, see Boda

(forthcoming a).
2. Recent criticism of the view that the Chronicler espouses a doctrine of “immediate ret-
ribution” has been voiced by Kelly and Ben Zvi. For Kelly (1996: 108), the Chronicler’s retri-
bution theology is placed within the context of the covenant relationship between Yahweh
and his people, so that the focus is on “Yahweh’s mercy and restorative will towards his sinful
people.” Although Ben Zvi (2002: 263) admits “there is no doubt whatsoever that the (hi)s-
tory of Israel as presented in Chronicles includes numerous instances that exemplify again
and again the actual implementation of coherence between human actions and divine re-
sponses,” he nevertheless proceeds to argue that “the same (hi)story contains a very substan-
tial number of instances that unequivocally show a lack of this coherence.” It may be that
- 490 -
Chronicles 491
Three passages unique to Chronicles (not found in its major source,

Samuel–Kings) within the foundational section on the United Monarchy in
1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 9 serve as programmatic summaries of this the-
ology of immediate retribution. These include the Chronicler’s evaluation of
Saul’s reign in 1 Chr 10:13–14, David’s commissioning of Solomon in 1 Chron-
icles 22, 28–29, and Yahweh’s speech to Solomon in 2 Chronicles 7 (cf. Dillard
1984: 164–72; 1987: 76–81).
Saul’s Demise: 1 Chronicles 10:13–14

The Chronicler’s story of Israel begins with the final event of Saul’s life, his
defeat by the Philistines and subsequent suicide. This odd beginning shows
that, for the Chronicler, Saul functions merely as a foil for David, that is, a
dark backdrop against which the reader will see the figure of David more bril-
liantly. At the end of this account (1 Chr 10:13–14), however, the Chronicler
provides an evaluation of Saul’s reign that introduces vocabulary that is key
to the Chronicler’s presentation.
The Chronicler makes it clear through his evaluative note that the death of
Saul (twm; v. 13a) was not a mere accident but rather a direct work of Yahweh
(twm Hiphil; v. 14b). Between these two appearances of the root twm, the
Chronicler identifies Saul’s trespass (l[m) against Yahweh as the reason for this
severe judgment. This term (l[m) is used in priestly literature to denote “a sin
against God,” in contrast to a sin against humanity (see Leviticus [Part 1],
pp. 49–76 above). It is categorized either as the Sancta Trespass, inappropriate
contact with something holy (Lev 5:14–19; 14:10–14, 21–24; 22:14–16; Num
6:12; cf. Jer 2:3, Ezra 10:19) or violation of an oath taken in God’s name (Lev
5:20–26, Num 5:6–8). Committing l[m “means trespassing upon the divine
realm either by poaching on his sancta or breaking his covenant oath; it is a
lethal sin which can destroy both the offender and his community” (Milgrom
1976: 21). Although at times it appears that the Chronicler’s use of l[m carries
slightly broader connotations (cf. Japhet 1993: 229–30), in the foundational
case of Saul, it involves the violation of the sacred realm through contact with
illicit means of revelation.
parts of this statement are overstated (“numerous instances” versus “very substantial num-
ber”), but more problematic is the assumption that the Chronicler considered all events “di-
vinely-caused.” The Chronicler’s account is dominated by the call to careful obedience, and
this was designed to give hope to his Persian-period audience. Nevertheless, Ben Zvi is correct
in echoing Kelly’s concerns by reminding us that the Chronicler does not possess a mechan-
ical view of God’s grace and discipline, that is, an impersonal retribution theology. At times,
the faithful face difficult circumstances, whether prophets (e.g., 2 Chr 24:21–22) or kings
(2 Chronicles 32). This, however, does not negate the dominant call in Chronicles to faith-
fulness in each generation or God’s commitment to discipline those who are unfaithful. Cf.
Wilkinson (2000) for abuses of the Chronicler’s theology of retribution; see especially Clapp
and Wright (2002: 29–31).
492 Chapter 25
In 1 Chr 10:13b–14a, three acts are associated with Saul’s offense. First,
Saul did not keep (rmv) Yahweh’s word, most likely an allusion to his failure
to await Samuel’s arrival in 1 Samuel 13 and/or to his failure to obey Yahweh’s
command to eliminate the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15. Paying attention to
God’s word (both oral and written) is key to the success or failure of Israelite
generations throughout Chronicles (2 Chr 12:1, 14; 13:11; 14:4–5; 33:8; 34:2;
36:16; Williamson 1982: 95). Second, the Chronicler explicitly mentions
Saul’s use of the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28), an act forbidden in the Torah
(Deut 18:9–14). Third, the Chronicler attacks Saul for not seeking (vrd) Yah-
weh, a favorite term of the Chronicler that appears constantly throughout his
narrative. In Chronicles, seeking such as this usually refers to the more gen-
eral orientation of faithfulness toward God, but in Saul’s case it also bears its
more technical meaning of seeking Yahweh for a decision, often through a
spiritual intermediary (1 Kgs 22:5 // 2 Chr 18:4; 2 Kgs 3:11, 8:8).
Through this initial negative example of Saul, the Chronicler introduces
the reader to the vocabulary of obedience and disobedience. This is developed
even further in David’s commissions to Solomon.
David’s Commissioning of Solomon (1 Chronicles 22, 28–29)

For the Chronicler, the building of the temple represents the climax of the
combined account of David and Solomon. This event dominates the presen-
tation of David, evident especially in the unique material provided by the
Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 22–29. This section is bracketed by depictions of
David’s provision of the raw materials for the temple project and his commis-
sioning of Solomon and the leaders of Israel (1 Chronicles 22, 28–29). At its
core are the many lists of personnel who will serve in the temple (1 Chron-
icles 23–27).
It is the commissions that bracket 1 Chronicles 22–29 that express key vo-
cabulary of obedience. 3 In the first commission in 1 Chr 22:11–13, after re-
hearsing his encounter with God, David identifies the key priorities for
Solomon’s reign. The core activity is clearly the construction of the temple (v.
11), but any success is carefully linked, on the one side, to Yahweh’s presence
with Solomon (v. 11) and provision of discretion and understanding (v. 12)
and, on the other side, to Solomon’s careful observance (hc[ rmv) of the stat-
utes (qjø) and ordinances (fpvm) that Yahweh commanded to Moses (v. 13). In
the same scene, David also commissions the leaders of Israel who would help
Solomon to set (ˆtn) their hearts (bbl) and souls (vpn) to seek (vrd) Yahweh
3. Many have noted striking similarities between David’s commissioning speech to Solo-
mon here in 1 Chronicles 22 and the speeches of Moses to Joshua in Deuteronomy and the
book of Joshua (Deut 1:6–3:29 [cf. 1:37–38], 31:2–8, and Josh 1:1–9), a technique called “re-
capitulative historiography.” Williamson (1976: 351–61); see also Braun (1976: 581–90), Dil-
lard (1987: 3–4), Mason (1990: 25), and Japhet (1993: 498–99). Knoppers (2004: 784) adds
Num 27:15–23.
Chronicles 493
and then arise and build (hnb) the temple (v. 19). In both of these speeches,
David links together the building of the temple and careful observance of the
Torah.
In the second commission in 1 Chronicles 28–29, David echoes language
and priorities found in the first. David’s initial speech to the assembled lead-
ership of Israel rehearses again his encounter with God that precipitated the
building of the temple and the promise of an enduring dynasty. This initial
speech to the entire assembly ends in 28:8 with David’s call to them to ob-
serve (rmv) and seek (vrd) after all the commandments (hwxm) of Yahweh and
so enjoy long life in the land.
The focus of this day, however, was to be on Solomon. This is made clear
even in the speech to the entire assembly, near the end of which David re-
minds them of the conditional character of this promise, noting that the es-
tablishment of the enduring kingdom is dependent on whether Solomon
“resolutely (qzj) performs (hc[) my commandments (hwxm) and my ordi-
nances (fpvm)” (28:7). On Solomon’s shoulders falls a great responsibility; he
must confirm the promises given to David (Williamson 1976: 351–61; 1977:
115–54; 1983: 305–18).
Speaking directly to Solomon in 28:9–10, David calls him to know ([dy)
Yahweh, to serve (db[) him with a whole heart (μlv bl) and a willing soul
(hxpj vpn), and to seek (vrd) him. The young monarch is warned against for-
saking (bz[) Yahweh. David lays out the clear contrast between the destinies
of seeking and of forsaking. Yahweh will reward seeking by allowing Solomon
to be found by him, but will punish forsaking by rejecting Solomon forever
(jnz Hiphil).
Whereas in the earlier commission in 1 Chronicles 22 David’s call was to
obey the law, in the second commission in 1 Chronicles 28–29 the emphasis
is placed on the involvement of the internal affections: knowing, serving with
heart and soul, and seeking Yahweh. Similar to the earlier commission, how-
ever, is the immediate connection between the commission to covenant fidel-
ity and the charge to build the temple (28:10).
Having charged both the assembly and the crown prince, David then ad-
dresses Yahweh in prayer (29:10–19). The conclusion to this prayer in vv. 18–
19 asks for God to ensure the fulfillment of the charges that have been placed
on the people and crown prince. First, David requests two things for his
people. He asks God to “preserve (rmv) this forever in the intentions (rxy) of
the thoughts (hbvjm) of the heart (bbl) of your people.” Through this phrase,
David builds up a series of terms that describe the inner affections of the hu-
man being, using vocabulary first addressed to Solomon in David’s charge in
28:9. David also asks God to “direct their heart to you” (29:18), that is, he is
requesting not only purity of motives but also endurance of commitment.
Second, Solomon also has many needs, and David returns to the two main
emphases of his charge to Solomon in 28:9–10, 19–21. He asks God to give
Solomon the “whole heart” (μlv bbl, 29:19) that was key to his charge in
494 Chapter 25
5:1. Summary note

5:2–10. Transferring the Ark accompanied by sacrifice at the Feast of Tabernacles
5:11–13a. The Levites and priests worship
5:13b–14. God’s presence fills the temple, priests cannot enter
6:1–42. Solomon’s speeches and prayers
7:1–2. God’s presence fills the temple, priests cannot enter
7:3. The Levites and priests worship
7:4–10. Dedicating the temple accompanied by sacrifice at the Feast of Tabernacles
7:11. Summary note
Figure 4. Chiastic Structure of 2 Chronicles 5–7.
28:9. This whole heart is to be focused on two activities: keeping (rmv)/doing

(hv[) God’s law and building (hnb) God’s temple.
The conclusion to the prayer invites Yahweh to enable these human par-
ticipants to fulfill the commission they have received. Human decision and
human action are made possible by divine decision and divine action. 4
God’s Speech to Solomon: 2 Chronicles 7

The building of the temple dominates the Chronicler’s account of David,
and it also dominates his presentation of Solomon in 2 Chronicles 1–9. The
oracle to David promising a dynasty as well as a son who would build the
temple is delivered in 1 Chronicles 17. The tension builds throughout the re-
mainder of 1 Chronicles, with repetitions of that oracle in chaps. 22 and 28.
The Chronicler links Solomon’s divine gift of wisdom to the construction of
the temple by moving immediately to Solomon’s construction projects in Je-
rusalem (cf. 1 Kgs 3:16–4:34) and by citing Hiram’s praise for Solomon as “a
wise son, endowed with discretion and understanding, who will build a house
for the Lord” (2 Chr 2:12). At regular intervals throughout the Chronicler’s
account of Solomon, one finds summarizing notes about the progress of the
temple project (2:1; 3:1–2; 5:1; 7:11; 8:1, 16), reminding the reader that the
focus of his reign is on this task.
The climax of this account comes in chaps. 5–7 as Solomon transfers the
ark to the temple, God’s presence fills the temple, the Levites and priests wor-
ship, and the temple is dedicated. The majority of this section is arranged ch-
iastically (see fig. 4). 5 At the center of the dedication account lies the complex
of Solomon’s speeches and prayers to Yahweh. The prayers repeat the material
found in 1 Kings 8 and have been dealt with in detail already (see Former
Prophets, pp. 126–189 above).
4. See Japhet (1993: 511), who notes this theme elsewhere in Chronicles (“in order to
reach perfection in the service of God, man needs divine help”; see 1 Chr 22:12, 2 Chr 30:12,
and probably also 29:36); cf. Japhet (1989: 254–55).
5. See Boda (forthcoming a).
Chronicles 495
Yahweh responds to the dedication, speeches, and prayers of Solomon, not

only by filling the temple with his holy presence but also by proclaiming his
climactic speech in 7:12–22. This speech consists of two major sections, the
first focusing on God’s eternal choice of the temple (7:12b–16) and the second
on God’s eternal election of the Davidic dynasty and nation (7:17–22). Exten-
sive expansions in the first section (cf. 1 Kgs 9:3) focus attention on the func-
tion of the temple as the tabernacle’s replacement for offering sacrifices
(7:12). 6 Even more so, additions in 7:13–15 emphasize that this temple will
provide a place for the oral expression of Israel, that is, it will function as a
place of prayer. These additions express the theological core of the Chroni-
cler’s retribution theology.
If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust
to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people, and my people
who are called by my name humble themselves ([nk) and pray (llp Hithpael)
and seek (vqb) my face and turn (bwv) from their wicked ways, then I will
hear ([mv) from heaven, will forgive (jls) their sin and will heal (apr) their
land. Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer offered
in this place. (2 Chr 7:13–15)
Reminiscent of the various scenarios presented in Solomon’s prayer in 2 Chr
6:18–40 (see discussion of 1 Kings 8, pp. 166–172) with their tripartite struc-
ture (scenario, human action, divine response), 2 Chr 7:13 assumes that God
will manipulate nature against a sinful people. In foundational Old Testament
covenant theology (expressed, for example, in Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28–
30, and Amos 4:6–13), natural disasters such as these are treated as means of
discipline, intended to draw the people of God back to faithful relationship
with Yahweh.
Prompted by discipline of this sort and desirous that Yahweh would hear,
forgive, and heal, the people are instructed to respond in four ways: humbling
themselves ([nk), praying (llp Hithpael), seeking God’s face (vrd, vqb), and
turning (bwv) from their wicked ways (v. 14a).
Humility ([nk) points to the inner disposition that is the essential starting
point for all repentance. The call to prayer (llp Hithpael) shifts the focus to
an external expression, in this case the verbal dimension of repentance, de-
picted most vividly in the threefold confession already provided in 2 Chr
6:37. Like humility, seeking God’s face highlights a key inner disposition, as
the people are invited to a passionate pursuit of God. To seek after the “face
of God” is a radical statement in light of God’s prohibition of this in Exod
33:23. Finally, turning from their wicked ways shifts the focus again to an ex-
ternal expression, in this case the active dimension of repentance, that is, the
6. Japhet notes an important shift in this addition by the Chronicler. Whereas in Solo-
mon’s prayer in 2 Chronicles 6 (// 1 Kings 8), election (“choosing,” rjb) is associated with Je-
rusalem and David (2 Chr 6:5–6, 34, 38 // 1 Kgs 8:16, 44, 48), for the Chronicler election of
the “place” is more carefully defined as the temple; cf. Japhet (1993: 614–15).
496 Chapter 25
practical change of behavior. Throughout Chronicles, exemplary characters

are not those who attain perfection but rather who exemplify these character-
istics. These verses in 2 Chronicles 7 are
programmatic for the [Chronicler’s] presentation of the divided kingdoms

(2 Chronicles 10–36). . . . specifically enunciates the literary program for his
“theology of immediate retribution.” In the remainder of his record, the au-
thor virtually without fail recasts the accounts in his Vorlage to demonstrate
his conviction that both obedience and transgression have immediate con-
sequences of blessings and punishment. (Dillard 1987: 58; cf. Dillard 1984:
164–72)
Verses 14 and 16 provide two reasons why human responses to God of this
sort make forgiveness possible. First of all, it is because the supplicants are
“my people who are called by my name” (v. 14). Here one finds the covenan-
tal language of “my people,” seen regularly in the covenantal formula: “I will
be your God and you will be my people” (Exod 6:7, Lev 26:12, Deut 29:12, Jer
31:33). Further, these people are called by Yahweh’s name in an ancient con-
text in which “name” is intimately associated with the very essence of the
one who bears it. Thus, “to be called by my name” is to be intricately associ-
ated with this deity, that is, to be the people of Yahweh in covenant relation-
ship. Covenantal language of this sort thus assumes the entire foundation of
grace that undergirds this relationship. Divine grace thus propels the people
of God to respond when he enacts the kind of discipline rehearsed in v. 13.
The second reason that the process described in vv. 13–14 is possible is given
in v. 16. God’s attentiveness to his people is linked to his election of and pas-
sion for the temple.
The first phase of Yahweh’s speech concludes with the divine response ex-
pected if there is repentance: he promises to hear ([mv) their prayer, forgive
(jls) their sin, and heal (apr) their land (v. 14b). Yahweh echoes the conclu-
sion to Solomon’s prayer in 6:40 by promising open eyes and attentive ears to
prayer offered at the temple (7:15). Foundational to Yahweh’s response is the
fact that these human responses occur at the temple, which is both “chosen”
(rjb) and “consecrated” (vdq Hiphil) by him. Verses 15 and 16 reveal how im-
portant the temple is to Yahweh’s program for forgiveness.
While the first part of the prayer (7:12–16) focuses attention on the Lord’s
eternal acceptance and choice of the temple, outlining the key human re-
sponses that are to take place at the temple in order for the people to experi-
ence forgiveness from their sin, the second part (7:17–22) of the prayer shifts
the attention to the enduring character of the dynasty, introduced by the
phrase “as for you” (Hebrew, “but you”) at the outset of v. 17. The promise of
an enduring dynasty was first delivered in 1 Chronicles 17, but now greater
emphasis is placed on the obedience of the dynasty. For this promise to be ful-
filled, the monarch must obey all God’s “statutes” (qjø) and “ordinances”
Chronicles 497
(fpvm), terms that signify the Torah. Failure to do this, described by the Chron-
icler in his favorite idiom as “forsaking” (bz[), 7 will result in serious conse-
quences for dynasty, people, and temple.
2 Chronicles 10–36
The agenda and vocabulary articulated in these foundational passages in
1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 9 continuously appear in the accounts of the
southern kings in 2 Chronicles 10–36. The positive vocabulary identified in
these foundational passages is ubiquitous:
• Seeking (vqb, vrd): 2 Chr 11:16; 12:14; 14:4, 7; 15:2, 4, 12, 13, 15; 16:12;
17:4; 18:4; 19:3; 20:4; 22:9; 25:20; 26:5; 30:19; 31:21; 33:12; 34:3 (cf.
1 Chr 10:13–14, 22:19, 28:9)
• Humbling ([nk): 2 Chr 12:6, 7, 12; 28:19; 30:11; 33:12, 19, 23; 34:27;
36:12
• Praying (llp Hithpael): 2 Chr 13:12–15; 14:11; 18:31; 20:9; 30:18, 27;
32:20, 24; 33:13, 18–19 (cf. 1 Chr 4:10, 5:20, 21:26)
• Turning (bwv): 2 Chr 15:4; 30:6, 9; 36:13
In contrast, the negative vocabulary of abandoning (bz[) and being unfaithful/
rebellious (l[m) appears in descriptions of a disobedient person or generation:
• Abandoning (bz[): 2 Chr 12:1, 5; 13:10–11; 15:2; 21:10; 24:18, 20, 24;
28:6; 29:7; 34:25 (cf. 1 Chr 28:9, 20; 2 Chr 7:19, 22)
• Being unfaithful/rebellious (l[m): 2 Chr 12:2; 26:16, 18; 28:19, 22; 29:6;
30:7; 36:14 (cf. 1 Chr 2:7, 5:25, 10:13)
This abandonment and rebellion against Yahweh is most often linked in
Chronicles, as in its source, the Former Prophets, to the violation of the ex-
clusive worship of Yahweh at the central shrine in Jerusalem. Evil in the eyes
of Yahweh are those kings who allow or encourage the worship of other gods
(including Asherim, Baals, gods of other nations) at inappropriate sites (for-
eign altars, high places, sacred pillars, incense altars) through illicit practices
(burning sons in the fire, sacrifice). At the same time, evil kings also neglect
the worship of Yahweh in the temple in Jerusalem. Other sins include alli-
ances with foreigners (e.g., 2 Chr 18:1–19:3, 20:35–37), pride (e.g., 2 Chr
26:16–23; 32:25, 31), murder (2 Chr 21:13), and divination (2 Chr 33:6).
The divine response to these examples of human actions is predictable in
the Chronicler’s account. On the one hand, obedience results in success and
prosperity (1 Chr 22:11, 13; 29:23; 2 Chr 14:7, 26:5, 31:21, 32:27–30), exem-
plified by abundance in the areas of:
7. Notice how the Chronicler’s source in 1 Kgs 9:6 uses “do not keep” (rmv al).
498 Chapter 25
• Construction: 2 Chr 11:5; 14:6–7; 16:6; 17:12; 24:13; 26:2, 6, 9–10; 27:3–
4; 32:3–5, 29–30; 33:14; 34:10–13
• Military: 2 Chr 11:1; 13:13–18; 14:8–15; 17:12–19; 20:2–30; 25:5, 14;
26:10–15; 27:5–7; 32:20–22
• Progeny: 1 Chr 3:1–9, 14:2–7, 25:5, 26:4–5; 2 Chr 11:18–22, 13:21, 21:1–3
• Popularity: 2 Chr 11:13–17, 15:10–15, 17:5, 19:4–11, 20:27–30, 23:1–17,
30:1–26, 34:29–32, 35:24–25
• Length of life/reign: e.g., 2 Chr 9:30, 20:31, 24:1, 25:1
On the other hand, disobedience brings the absence or opposite of these

blessings:
• Military: 2 Chr 12:1–9; 16:1–9; 21:8–11, 16–17; 24:23–24; 25:15–24; 28:4–

8, 16–25; 33:10; 35:20–24; 36:15–20
• Popularity: 2 Chr 16:10, 21:19, 24:25–26, 25:27–28, 28:27, 33:24–25
• Length of life/reign: e.g., 2 Chr 13:1; 16:12; 21:5, 16–20; 22:2; 26:16–23
The Chronicler designed this message for his generation, which was seeking
to live beyond the failures of past generations. This retribution theology func-
tions as both warning and promise: warning the people that Yahweh’s pun-
ishment will not be deferred to a future generation and promising the people
Yahweh’s presence and blessing for penitential response.
Although with David and Solomon God speaks this promise and warning
directly to leaders, after Solomon a variety of figures relate this promise and
warning. While the promise of salvation is delivered at times (2 Chr 20:1), the
narratives are dominated by messages of warning as the prophetic figures call
the king or people to repentance in order to avoid judgment. In some cases,
they are successful (e.g., 2 Chr 15:1, 19:2, 25:7, 28:9), but in others they are
not (2 Chr 16:7–10, 18:12–27, 24:19–22, 36:15–16).
As can be seen in the lists above, the agenda laid out in the key passages
in 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 9 shapes the vocabulary that appears through-
out the accounts of the post-Solomonic kings in 2 Chronicles 10–36. Four ac-
counts are insightful examples of this theological agenda within Chronicles,
two in which negative figures show signs of renewal (Rehoboam and Manas-
seh) and two in which positive figures exemplify the rhythms of renewal
within their reigns (Hezekiah and Josiah).
Rehoboam: 2 Chronicles 10–12

With 2 Chronicles 10, the ideal picture of the United Monarchy created by
the Chronicler throughout 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 9 is shattered. The
dominant tone for the remainder of the work is negative as the Chronicler
traces the demise of the Kingdom of Judah (2 Chronicles 10–36).
The Chronicler begins this new section of his story by following his source
in 2 Kings 12, tracing the division of the kingdom into North (Israel) and
Chronicles 499
South ( Judah) due to the rebellion of Jeroboam and the folly of Rehoboam
(10:1–11:4). With 2 Chr 11:5, however, the Chronicler takes leave of his
source, presenting Rehoboam at the outset of his depiction of the post-
Solomonic kings as a vivid example of the principles presented in the divine
speech in 7:13–15. 8
The successes enjoyed by Rehoboam in 11:5–23 are linked to the fact that
“they walked in the way of David and Solomon for three years” (11:17). The
failure of 12:1–11, however, is linked to the fact that Rehoboam “and all Israel
with him forsook the law of the Lord” (12:1). Finally, the renewal of 12:10–
14 is tied to the fact that he humbled himself (12:12).
2 Chr 11:5–23 presents successes experienced by Rehoboam, including his
fortification of the defenses of the kingdom (11:5–12) and abundant progeny
to carry on the dynasty (11:18–23). What lies between these two sections
identifies the key to this success (11:13–17). The Chronicler links it first to the
infusion of Levites from the North who had been rejected by Jeroboam’s new
cult (see 1 Kgs 12:25–33) and second to the infusion of people from the
Northern tribes who “set their hearts on seeking (vqb Piel) the Lord God of
Israel” and “walked (˚lh) in the way (˚rd) of David and Solomon” (11:16–17).
Rehoboam enjoys success because of the faithful actions of this Northern
remnant within his kingdom.
This period of success in 2 Chr 11:5–23, however, soon comes to an end.
Rehoboam’s strong position (12:1; cf. 2 Chr 11:11, 12, 17; 12:13) leads to his
downfall (cf. Japhet 1993: 676) as the king “forsakes” (bz[; 12:1) the Torah (cf.
12:5), leading “all Israel” into this act of unfaithfulness (l[m; 12:2). The Chron-
icler provides no details on the precise sins involved, although 1 Kgs 14:21–
24 lists illicit worship.
In line with the Chronicler’s theology of immediate retribution, an impos-
ing Egyptian army wipes out Rehoboam’s earlier military preparations (2 Chr
12:3–4; cf. 11:5–12) and approaches the walls of Jerusalem. It is at this point
that Yahweh sends the prophet Shemaiah to deliver a message to Rehoboam
and the leaders of Judah. The message of God declares Yahweh’s judgment in
vocabulary typical of the Chronicler: “You have forsaken (bz[) me, so I also
have forsaken (bz[) you to Shishak” (v. 5). In addition, the leaders and king
respond in line with the agenda laid out in 2 Chr 7:13–15, humbling them-
selves ([nk) and declaring “Yahweh is righteous” (2 Chr 12:6). A declaration of
this sort represents an admission of guilt, typical of the penitential prayer tra-
dition that dominates the liturgical rhythms of Israel after the fall of Jerusa-
lem (Zech 1:6b, Ezra 9:15, Neh 9:33; see Boda 1999; 2003e). Recognizing
their humility ([nk Niphal; v. 7), Yahweh offers a message of muted hope by
8. The contrast between the accounts in Kings and Chronicles is highlighted in the way
the Chronicler shapes his new material on Rehoboam in chap. 11 by following the structure
of the account of Jeroboam in Kings, a technique that Japhet has called “literary counter-
point”; cf. Japhet (1993: 663).
500 Chapter 25
promising to spare Jerusalem’s destruction, while warning of servitude to Shi-

shak in order to learn the distinction between serving Yahweh and serving
foreign nations (v. 8). Shishak does attack Jerusalem, despoiling temple and
palace (v. 9).
Through the account of Rehoboam, the Chronicler offers an example of his
program of retribution. Forsaking (bz[) Yahweh will bring punishment from
Yahweh. Prophetic figures are raised up to explain Yahweh’s actions, either
real or threatened. The people are to respond through humility ([nk Niphal)
and a declaration of Yahweh’s innocence. Yahweh responds to this humility
by granting deliverance, in this case, a mitigated punishment. This punish-
ment can have a didactic function (that they may know, [dy).
Manasseh: 2 Chronicles 33
As was already noted in the section on Kings (see Kings and the rest of
Former Prophets, pp. 126–189 above), the Chronicler’s source in Kings pre-
sented Manasseh’s reign as the lowest point in the history of the Southern
Kingdom with the “sin of Manasseh” identified as the cause of the defeat, de-
struction, and Exile of Judah and Jerusalem (2 Kgs 21:12–15, 23:26–27, 24:3–
4; cf. 24:20). Even Josiah, Manasseh’s ideal son, who represents the highest
point in the post-Solomonic kingdom in Samuel–Kings, is only able to secure
a delay in God’s judgment on Judah (2 Kgs 23:26–27).
As does his source in Samuel–Kings, so the Chronicler presents Manasseh’s
reign as among the lowest points in the history of post-Solomonic Judah
(2 Chr 33:2). In contrast to his source, however, the Chronicler uses Manasseh
as an example of his theology of immediate retribution. 9 Whereas in Kings
the sin of Manasseh seals the fate of the Southern Kingdom, in Chronicles the
sin of Manasseh is followed immediately by divine word (33:10), punishment
(33:11), humble prayer (33:12; [nk, llp Hithpael), restoration (33:13), blessing
(33:14), and reforms (33:15) of the king. “Manasseh furnishes the most ex-
plicit and dramatic example of the efficacy of repentance in the whole of the
Chronicler’s work” (Williamson 1982: 389). Through Manasseh, the Chroni-
cler reveals that, even if a generation had sinned greatly (and one could not
imagine any generation worse than Manasseh’s), it would have a hearing be-
fore Yahweh. 10
9. The Chronicler appears to try to explain why Manasseh enjoyed the longest reign in
the Chronicler’s history (the closest rival being Uzziah, who reigned 52 years according to
2 Chr 26:3. Dillard (1987: 267) argues that “the Chronicler does show awareness of length of
reign as an indicator of divine blessing in one context (1 Chr 29:28; 2 Chr 24:15–16 . . .);
length of life is simply an extension of the health/illness motif of which the Chronicler does
make repeated use.”
10. Manasseh is being used as a role model not just for the community as a whole (so,
e.g., Schniedewind 1991: 450) but also for the Davidic line in particular in the wake of the
Exile; see Boda (2009).
Chronicles 501
Hezekiah: 2 Chronicles 29–32

The Chronicler presents both Rehoboam and Manasseh as exemplifying a
pattern for renewal from sin, but this pattern is also seen in the two kings who
receive the most positive depiction in the post-Solomonic era: Hezekiah and
Josiah. Both of these kings serve in the wake of fathers whose failures neces-
sitate significant renewal.
Hezekiah served in the wake of his father, Ahaz, who “brings Judah to its
darkest hour” (Lowery 1991: 128–29), representing “a climax of evil.” 11 In
Samuel–Kings, the key contrastive father-son pair is Manasseh-Josiah; in
Chronicles this role is played by Ahaz-Hezekiah. Hezekiah is the exemplary
figure who leads the people from the sinful depths of Ahaz’s reign to the
faithful heights of reform. 12
In vocabulary typical of his theological agenda, the Chronicler explains
that the despicable state of affairs that Hezekiah inherited is related to the
“unfaithfulness” (l[m) to and “abandonment” (bz[) of Yahweh by past genera-
tions (2 Chr 29:6), evaluations that are linked by the Chronicler to the ab-
sence of legitimate worship practice at the temple (29:7). As a result, Yahweh’s
anger has fallen on the people and resulted in their exile (29:8–9). In order to
turn away God’s wrath, Hezekiah declares his intention to “make a covenant”
with Yahweh (29:10), and the account that follows reveals that this covenant
involves the purification and reconsecration of the temple for worship (29:11,
15, 16, 18, 19), followed by an elaborate service of sacrifice (29:20–36). With
this, however, Hezekiah’s renewal is not complete. In the chapter that follows
(2 Chronicles 30), the king invites “all Israel and Judah” (30:1) to unify
around a common Passover feast in Jerusalem. The invitation is communi-
cated throughout the land by couriers, who deliver a letter that expresses the
key theological agenda of the book of Chronicles.
The cause of the challenges faced by the communities in the North and
South is linked to their unfaithfulness (bz[) to Yahweh (30:7). As a result, they
are called to “return (bwv) to Yahweh” (30:6, 8, 9). This return is carefully de-
fined in the directive of v. 8: “Enter his sanctuary which he has consecrated
forever, and serve the Lord your God.” Hezekiah’s letter bases hope firmly on
the merciful character of Yahweh, who is “gracious and compassionate” (ˆWNj"
μWjr'w;] 30:9).
There were those who did respond to this call to repent, humbling them-
selves ([nk, 30:11) and coming to Jerusalem. The Chronicler notes that “the
hand of God” was on Judah, giving them unity of heart to carry out the com-
mand of Yahweh given by the king and his leaders (30:12). This involved the
removal of illicit worship sites from Jerusalem (30:14) and consecration and
11. Japhet (1993: 897). Cf. Ben Zvi (1993: 229), who calls him “the worst king of Judah in
Chronicles.”
12. Dillard (1987: 228); see also Japhet (1993: 936); Raney (2003: 159); Mitchell (2006:
429).
502 Chapter 25
purification of themselves for proper worship at the temple (30:15–20). Heze-

kiah’s reforms provide another example of the Chronicler’s theological agenda
for remedying sin.
Although Hezekiah is portrayed in exclusively positive terms throughout
much of his reign, in the closing section of his account of Hezekiah the
Chronicler does include a negative element. In 32:25, the Chronicler reveals
Hezekiah’s pride and God’s subsequent wrath that fell on him, Judah, and Je-
rusalem. However, even in this fleeting moment of unfaithfulness, Hezekiah
and his generation function normatively, humbling themselves ([nk) and thus
turning away God’s wrath to be replaced by his blessing (see 32:27–30).
Josiah: 2 Chronicles 34
Although Hezekiah is presented as the height of the Chronicler’s history of
the kingdom after Solomon, Josiah ranks a close second. In a renovation of the
temple sponsored by Josiah in his 18th year (2 Chr 34:8), the high priest
Hilkiah finds the book of the law and delivers it to Josiah. Josiah is exemplary
because he immediately and passionately responds with actions typical of la-
ment and penitence, tearing his clothes (34:19). He gives orders to inquire at
the temple for a word from Yahweh (34:21). This word is provided by a woman
named Huldah (34:22), who confirms Josiah’s worst fears, that is, that the
curses mentioned in the scroll will indeed fall on the city because the people
have forsaken (bz[) Yahweh (34:23–25). However, the penitential response of
Josiah, described in 34:27 as being tender (˚kr) in heart (bbl), humbling one-
self ([nk), tearing one’s clothes, and weeping (hkb), results in Yahweh’s staying
the execution of the nation to a later era (34:28).
2 Chronicles 36
Josiah’s death marks the end of the independent Kingdom of Judah in the
Chronicler’s history. Throughout the final chapter, the Egyptian king Necho,
the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, and the Persian king Cyrus all act and
speak for Yahweh, often in close connection with prophetic figures (2 Chr
36:12–13, 15–21, 22–23).
The final chapter accomplishes at least two purposes. First, it provides in-
sight into the demise of the Kingdom of Judah. Second, it traces the return of
the exilic community to the land. The first purpose is given particular atten-
tion in the account of Zedekiah and the fall of Jerusalem in 36:11–20. In this
section, the Chronicler provides details on how Zedekiah “did evil in the eyes
of Yahweh,” noting how he did not humble himself ([nk Niphal) before the
prophet Jeremiah (36:12), becoming stiff-necked (πr,[ø hvq) and hard of heart
(bbl ≈ma Piel) in not turning (bwv) to Yahweh (36:13).
Zedekiah was not alone in this rebellion against Yahweh but was joined by
both priests and people who multiplied (hbr Hiphil) unfaithfulness (l[m) in
line with the abominations (hb:[E/T) of the Gentile nations, defiling (amf Piel)
the temple, which God had consecrated (vdq Hiphil). According to 36:15–16
Chronicles 503
Yahweh expressed his compassion (lmj) for his people and dwelling place by
repeatedly 13 sending his messengers (Ëa:l}m)" /prophets (aybIn); to warn the people.
However, the people’s response was only to mock and scoff at these prophets,
ultimately arousing the wrath of Yahweh so that there was no remedy but to
bring the judgment of destruction on the people, city, and temple and exile
them to the land of Babylon (36:17–20). 2 Chr 36:21 notes that the Exile of
70 years allowed the land to enjoy the Sabbaths that had been commanded
through Moses in the Torah (see Leviticus 25; cf. Exod 23:11, Deut 15:2–18,
Neh 10:31, Jer 34:14–22). 14 In this way, the Exile of the people from the land
cleansed the land through careful observance of Sabbath practice and pre-
pared it for the new day of restoration in which the Chronicler’s audience now
lived. Yahweh must remedy sin ultimately by pouring out his destructive
wrath on community, city, and temple and by removing the people from the
land. However, these acts are not seen as mere judgment but rather function
redemptively to make possible a new start in the land for a later generation.
The Chronicler ends his history on a hopeful note, one that links his story
with his Persian-period audience (36:22–23). 15 When the 70 years were over,
Yahweh kept his promise to return the people to the land, moving the heart
of another emperor (Cyrus) to express divine mercy to the exilic community.
Cyrus makes a proclamation, inviting the community to “go up” to the new
temple that he had been appointed by Yahweh to build in Jerusalem. This
new phase of restoration is not inaugurated by any action on the part of the
people but rather is considered a gracious work of Yahweh following a period
of discipline that fulfilled his prophetic promise through Jeremiah. Neverthe-
less, the people must respond to the invitation by returning to the land.
The final chapter of Chronicles highlights the important role that the
prophets played in Yahweh’s gracious strategy to remedy sin in Judah, a role
that can be discerned at earlier points in the Chronicler’s account (e.g., 2 Chr
11:2–4; 15:1–8, 7–10; 18:9–27; 20:14–19; 21:12–15; 24:20–22; 25:7–10, 15–16;
28:9–15). 16 Here one can discern a pattern that sin is first met with prophecy,
and only after repeated warnings (expressions of God’s grace) does God act in
judgment. Even this judgment has redemptive purposes because it has as its
goal the rest of the land and the return of the people.
13. The collocation here j'/lv…w ] μKEv‘h" means to “do again and again, do eagerly”; see its use
in Jer 7:25, 25:4, 26:5, 29:19, 35:15, and 44:4 and its negative connotation in Zeph 3:7; cf.
HALOT 1493.
14. Johnstone (1997: 2:260) argues that the Chronicler has a precise 70 years in mind, a
period that began with the death of Josiah (609 b.c.) and ends with the rise of Cyrus (539
b.c.). In the Chronicler’s work, Josiah’s death represents a key transition in the late history of
Judah. It signals the permanent loss of independent kingdom status and thus a movement
from kingdom to exilic status; cf. Boda (2009).
15. For the authenticity of this section, see Boda (forthcoming a); cf. Kalimi (2005: 148–
55); contrast Williamson (1982: 419).
16. See Petersen (1977: 55–87). Cf. prophetic role of Levitical and priestly figures in
1 Chronicles 25, 2 Chronicles 29.
504 Chapter 25
Hope
Clearly, the book ends on a hopeful note, with the invitation to “go up”
addressed to the exilic community (2 Chr 36:22–23). With the shift from the
Davidic royal line to emperors beginning with the death of Josiah and the fo-
cus in the final paragraph on an invitation to the exilic community as a
whole, many have argued that the hope in the book is focused entirely on the
community and the Davidic promises are now “democratized.” However,
throughout the book of Chronicles there are indications that the divine
promise of a royal line is not set aside. 17 First, the structure of the Davidic ge-
nealogy in 1 Chronicles 3 not only traces the Davidic line to the time of the
writer but it identifies a line of succession and the potential for heirs within
that line. 18 Second, David and Solomon are presented in ideal form, with Da-
vid’s sins largely eliminated (except those related to the temple in Jerusalem)
and Solomon’s completely ignored. 19 Third, the eternal character of the Da-
vidic covenant is mentioned at several points in the book (1 Chr 17:11–14,
23, 27; 22:10; 28:7–8; 2 Chr 13:5, 21:7).
Finally, Davidic kings are constantly put forward as models of obedience
and repentance throughout the book. Interestingly, the closing chapter of
Chronicles contains intertextual links back to earlier normative examples of
Davidic kings. The vocabulary of 2 Chr 36:20–23 with its call to the remnant
(travnh) to “go up” (hl[) in response to a proclamation (lwq rb[ Hiphil), is
found also in connection with Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20; 30:5, 6), who envisions
that a return of this sort will prompt the return of others who are in exile to
the land (30:9). Also, the vocabulary used to describe Jehoiakim bound in
chains (μyiT"v‘jUn]B" rsa) and being taken to Babylon (hl:b<B: ˚lh) is the same vo-
cabulary used for Manasseh’s temporary exile in 2 Chr 33:11. These two key
links in the final chapter are designed to remind the reader of earlier positive
renewals by Davidic kings who restored true worship in Jerusalem in line with
the priorities of David and Solomon.
Chronicles ends with a hopeful invitation to the community to return in
response to God’s work on their behalf and gather around God’s presence at
the temple. At the same time, it reminds the reader that there is yet hope for
the return of a Davidic ruler who, through repentance, will emerge from the
divine discipline that fell on the royal line in the closing chapter of Chron-
icles to serve as vice-regent on the throne of Yahweh’s kingdom. The fact that
this Davidic hope is communicated through the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3
is a reminder that Israel will ultimately fulfill its destiny to bless all the na-
tions from which it emerged at the beginning (1 Chronicles 1) and in the re-
cent past (1 Chronicles 9, 2 Chronicles 36).
17. See Williamson (1977) and Knoppers (2001); for a fuller argument of what appears in
this section, see Boda (2009).
18. See Knoppers (2001).
19. See further Dillard (1981).
Chronicles 505
Summary
The Chronicler provides an important theological perspective on sin and
its remedy. As in his source in Samuel–Kings, the Chronicler is certainly con-
cerned about cultic matters, consistently describing the evil of the kings as il-
licit worship, defined as practices akin to the abominations of the preceding or
surrounding nations or practices taking place outside the central shrine. In
addition, however, the Chronicler is deeply concerned with the care of the
temple, whether this means the physical structure of the temple or the person-
nel who provide the services at the temple. Often obedience to Torah is so
closely linked to this care for the temple that one cannot discern between
them. Other sins are in view at times, including alliances with foreigners, pride,
murder, and divination.
Through his theology of retribution, the Chronicler reveals Yahweh’s atti-
tude toward sin. Sin is dealt with through divine discipline often evidenced in
the curse of military defeat, lack of popular support, or brevity of reign. Sometimes
prior to discipline of this sort and as an act of grace, Yahweh warns the people
through his divine word, often expressed through prophetic figures. Whether
through Yahweh’s action in discipline or Yahweh’s word in prophecy, the
people who respond penitentially to Yahweh through humility, prayer, seeking,
and repentance experience deliverance, restoration, and blessing. The required
human response involves the inner affections, but also prayer and change of be-
havior. The temple plays a key role throughout the account. It is designated as
a place of prayer such as this in 2 Chronicles 6 and functions this way
throughout the history of the post-Solomonic kings.
It is to this temple that Yahweh brings the Persian-period community who
experience the new opportunity of restoration. As this community rallies
around the temple, Chronicles subtly expresses the hope for a renewal of the
Davidic line that will enable Israel to fulfill its destiny to bring blessing to the
nations from which it has emerged.
Chapter 26
Writings: Conclusion
Writings and Canon

As was noted in the introduction to the Writings, the canonical shape of
this final section of the Hebrew canon is the most inconsistent in the early
sources. However, there is consistency regarding which books were placed in
the first and second halves of the Writings. After Ruth, the canonical order
proceeded to the three books: Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. 1 Later Jewish tradi-
tion, using the first letter from the title of each of these books, would refer to
this grouping with the acronym “Truth” (tma), a name that reflected the early
perception of their wisdom provenance (Harrison 1977: 965). What followed
the Psalms/Proverbs/Job group was usually Qoheleth/Song of Songs/Lamenta-
tions, with Lamentations typically in the final position. The fact that Qo-
heleth and Song of Songs followed the initial wisdom collection is not surpris-
ing because they also arise from that tradition. The theodicy found at the
center of Lamentations (Lam 3:33–38), as well as the regular use of the acrostic
style, may suggest a wisdom provenance for this book, but other traditions
dominate. After this group comes the third inner group, Daniel/Esther/Ezra–
Nehemiah, with Ezra–Nehemiah typically in the final position. This grouping
is understandable because each of these books contains narratives from the
Persian period related to Jews exiled to Mesopotamia. The final book of the
Writings is Chronicles, a book whose introductory genealogies and conclud-
ing paragraph reveal that it was written in the Persian period. This book may
1. See Dempster (1997); Dempster (2006: 294) identifies Psalm 1 as key to canonical cohe-
sion, echoing the emphasis on Torah that was also found at the outset of the Prophets in
Joshua 1. Though this psalm does make an important link to Torah for at least the book of
Psalms and possibly the entire Wisdom grouping, it is Ruth that possesses first position in the
Writings in the earliest witnesses, not Psalms. Some see in this the role of Ruth as introduc-
tion to the Psalter, with Ruth tracing the origins of David and the Psalter representing a wit-
ness to revelation through David; cf. Briggs and Briggs (1910: 1:xix). It is interesting,
however, that this short book provides an example of a person who truly modeled Torah
(Boaz) and, in conjunction with a devastated family that returned from “exile,” provided Is-
rael with a royal house. In this way, Ruth may function canonically, anchoring the Writings
to the Torah. In this, it reveals the importance of the Davidic covenant for the Writings, pro-
viding a segue to the royal collection of praise and wisdom that follows and introducing fu-
ture expectation for the reemergence of the Davidic house, one that will occur through a
community faithful to Torah as Boaz was.
- 506 -
Writings: Conclusion 507
be related to the previous grouping, but its overall structure and its final po-
sition suggest that it brings closure to the Writings and most likely the entire
Old Testament.
This canonical collection provides considerable theological reflection on
sin and its remedy, expressed especially through its two main collections, the
wisdom group at the outset and the Persian period group at its close. 2
Writings and Sin
Psalms/Proverbs/Job
As the first key group in the Writings, Psalms, Proverbs, and Job provide in-
sight into the theology of sin and its remedy within the wisdom and worship
traditions of Israel. Proverbs distinguishes clearly between two ways: righ-
teous wisdom and wicked folly. The first is described as an ethical lifestyle
arising from a wise interior life that is dominated by the fear of Yahweh and
the spirit of wisdom. A life such as this will be rewarded with God’s blessing,
but wicked folly will be remedied through divine curse. In this, then, sin is
remedied through the constant call of the sages to embrace righteousness and
reject wickedness through an appeal to the reward of blessing and the punish-
ment of curse. This basic principle is not made absolute, however, in Proverbs
but is carefully nuanced, especially in the second half of the book. First, the
book teaches that this retribution principle is not an impersonal force built
into creation but rather the personal action of Yahweh within creation. Sec-
ond, Proverbs does not hide the reality that the righteous suffer, even at the
hands of the prosperous wicked. Strikingly absent from Proverbs, however, is
a vision of forgiveness for past sin and failure. Like the book of Deuteronomy,
the focus is on the present and future. 3
The two issues that are often troubling to readers of Proverbs 1–9 (a rigid
retribution theology and the absence of forgiveness) are discussed in consid-
erable detail in two other books in this wisdom collection: Job and Psalms.
The interactions between God and the Satan at the outset of the book of Job
and God’s reward of Job at its end affirm the retribution principles that dom-
inate Proverbs 1–9. Divine discipline is indeed the dominant remedy for sin.
Job’s friends and Elihu echo this principle of divine discipline and stress as
well the importance of prayer and repentance as a remedy for sin in response to
discipline. Job’s problem is not with these remedies for sin but rather with the
absolutizing of the world view that assumes all suffering is directly related to
sin and thus demands repentance. It is interesting, however, that in the end
Job does repent, not of sin, but rather of his expectation that Yahweh is
2. I am especially thankful to Richard Bautch for graciously helping me reflect deeply on

this corpus. See especially Bautch (2006). Gratitude is also due to Rodney Werline and Daniel
Falk; see now Boda, Falk, and Werline (2006; 2007; 2008).
3. For the relationship between Wisdom and Deuteronomy, see Weinfeld (1972).
508 Chapter 26
accountable to him for his administration of his retribution principles. The

book of Job, then, refines further wisdom’s view of retribution, but it does not
reject it. It also reveals that forgiveness is not foreign to wisdom but can be se-
cured through prayer and repentance.
As does Job, so the Psalter provides insights into wisdom’s view of sin and
its remedy, especially in relation to retribution and forgiveness. The opening
psalm of the Psalter echoes the retribution theology of Proverbs 1–9, that is,
that sin is remedied and discouraged through divine punishment, whereas
righteousness is encouraged through divine blessing. This theme can be dis-
cerned in other psalms throughout the Psalter that reflect the influence of the
wisdom tradition (e.g., Psalms 9–10, 37, 56, 73, 84, 94, 125), but also in the
entrance liturgies (Psalms 15, 24), the prayers of the falsely accused (e.g.,
Psalms 5, 7, 11, 17, 26, 27, 57, 63), and beyond (Psalms 18, 139). In these
psalms, emphasis is placed on the innocence of the righteous and guilt of the
wicked, with the former receiving God’s blessing and the latter his curse. In
this theological framework, the remedy for sin is divine punishment.
Certain psalms (Psalms 14 // 53, 90, 143), however, express the theological
conviction that sin is a struggle for all humanity and not just the wicked. In
light of this, many psalms, among which one can discern the influence of the
wisdom tradition as well as the impact of exile, incorporate in a minor way an
admission of guilt (Psalms 19, 38, 39, 40, 41, 65, 69, 79, 85, 86, 89, 119). In
some psalms, this admission is a minor element and appears alongside attacks
on the wicked enemy and even claims of innocence against accusation. How-
ever, the confession of culpability reveals a theological conviction that the
remedy for sin is not just divine discipline but rather grace obtained through
prayerful admission of sin. This forgiveness, however, is not the final remedy,
because the psalmists also look for a righteousness that arises from the heart
and that is enabled by Yahweh, who teaches as well as transforms the heart.
These remedies for sin are accentuated further in psalms that incorporate
admission as a major theme (Psalms 25, 32, 51, 78, 103, 106, 107, 130). In
these psalms, the protestation of innocence disappears, and confession of sin
does not just dominate but is essential to finding mercy. Divine discipline as
a remedy for sin now prompts the remedy of the penitential cry of the people,
who cling to God’s gracious character and past action. Again, the psalmists of-
ten look beyond forgiveness to the transformation of one’s inner disposition
and external behavior, something that will be made possible by a divine inner
work of God. These various psalms reveal the breadth of remedies for sin that
have been encountered elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Sin is remedied
through divine discipline, human penitential response, divine grace, and divine in-
ner transformation, all often working together in sequence.
These psalms, which consistently reveal a distinction between the righteous
and the wicked and strategies for moving from the wicked to the righteous,
have been placed within a larger canonical framework that looks ultimately

to the eradication of the wicked. As a book, the Psalter links the enduring
struggle with sin to the co-regency of divine and human kings at Zion. The final
shape of the Psalter looks to a Davidic king who will proclaim the universal
rule of Yahweh in which the wicked will no longer triumph but will rather sub-
mit to the righteous rule of Yahweh.
This wisdom collection within the Writings focuses considerable attention
on sin and its remedy. According to the wisdom tradition, divine discipline is not
merely punishment for sin but functions to awaken humanity to repentance so that
they may receive grace and experience inner transformation. Though the Writings
uses different vocabulary from the material found in the Prophets, the con-
ceptual framework is strikingly similar. Also, wisdom has a future expectation,
and this expectation is provided in the wisdom-royal framework found in the
Psalter. There, the wisdom collection expresses the hope for the ideal world
set out at the beginning of the Psalter, one in which Yahweh’s righteous prin-
ciples predominate so that sin is finally remedied. A world such as this is con-
nected to the reemergence of an ideal Davidic ruler in Zion.
Lamentations/Daniel/Ezra–Nehemiah
At places, the Psalter highlights the role that the demise of the Kingdoms
of Israel and Judah played in the development of the theology of sin and its
remedy. This development dominates the group of books that appear in the
latter half of the Writings.
Lamentations provides a perspective on the struggle of the community liv-
ing in the aftermath of the discipline of God on Jerusalem and Judah due to
their sin. Throughout the poems, there is a consistent admission that the sin
of the people, both present and past, lies behind the divine punishment. At
times, however, the poems complain that the punishment far outweighs the
sin. The book ends with the modulating voices of trust and frustration, echo-
ing the tone of the book as a whole. In the midst of the diversity and frustra-
tion of the book, there is agreement, however, that sin is remedied by divine
discipline and by prayer that seeks God’s favor and admits sin. Chapter 3 ex-
pands this further, emphasizing the gracious character of Yahweh and a hu-
man response that involves enduring one’s discipline, silencing one’s lament,
examining one’s ways, and repenting from and confessing one’s sin. This vi-
sion is questioned by a community that claims that God has rejected their
cries. The support of the prophet through the offer to intercede on the
people’s behalf suggests that Yahweh’s continuing discipline is an act of his
sovereignty and that it is not time yet for mercy.
Daniel shifts the perspective to the struggle of the community living in ex-
ile in the aftermath of the demise of Judah and Jerusalem. In this context, sin
is initially identified with the empire, and its remedy is direct divine disci-
pline. Opportunity is given to one imperial figure to remedy the sin through
repentance, but this opportunity is rejected. The second half of the book
510 Chapter 26
provides an eschatological vision of divine discipline that will eradicate sin

from the world. In this second half, sin is connected not only with the em-
pire but also with the Jewish community itself. The sin of past generations
was the reason for God’s discipline through the destruction of Jerusalem but
the sin of the present generation is identified as the reason for the elongation
of the predicament. Ironically, Yahweh will use the evil empire to remedy sin
within his people, refining the people and producing a righteous and wise
remnant that will respond in prayer, penitence, and obedience to Yahweh. In
the end, however, Yahweh’s direct intervention in history will defeat the em-
pire and eliminate the wicked. While clearly making a distinction between
wicked and righteous and often identifying the wicked with the empire and
the righteous with the Jewish remnant, Daniel provides a vision for the re-
newal of even a wicked emperor. Daniel’s involvement in the court in the first
six chapters indicates God’s enduring commitment to bless the nations
through the seed of Abraham.
Ezra–Nehemiah provides the perspective of the returned exilic Jewish com-
munity in the land after exile as Jerusalem is rebuilt in the early Persian pe-
riod. Although radically different from the apocalyptic vision of Daniel, the
priestly vision of Ezra–Nehemiah shares a common vision for clear distinc-
tions, in this case pictured in terms of clean and unclean, with the Jewish
remnant identified as clean and the surrounding peoples as unclean. Central
to the remedy for sin is the creation and maintenance of holy space, whether
this is the building and maintenance of physical space (holy temple and city),
full participation in festal space (Passover, Tabernacles), or the careful delimi-
tation of social space (no intermarriage). As with Daniel, emphasis is placed
on rites that involve penitential prayer and practical commitment, often ex-
pressed publicly. These prayers make clear that Yahweh remedies sin through
discipline but that he also looks with favor on those who cling to his grace,
show remorse, admit sin, and change their ways. Although the second half of
the prayer in Nehemiah 9 is dominated by a penitential vision for renewal,
the first half is a reminder that at times Yahweh responds mercifully to even
a recalcitrant community. As Yahweh sovereignly withholds his mercy from a
community that claims to have confessed its sin in Lamentations 3, so in Ne-
hemiah 9 Yahweh provides his mercy to a community that responded with
disobedience. Ezra–Nehemiah ends by emphasizing the enduring need for ref-
ormation among the people, an admission that sin has not been fully elimi-
nated from this holy community.
These three books in the latter section of the Writings reveal a variety of
perspectives on sin and its remedy in the wake of the fall of Jerusalem,
whether within the Jewish community immediately afterward in the land
(Lamentations), the Jewish community in Exile (Daniel), 4 or the Jewish exilic
4. In this, I am talking about not the date of authorship but rather the literary perspective
of the books.
community that had returned to the land after Exile (Ezra–Nehemiah). Pick-
ing up from the narrative that broke off at the end of the Former Prophets, 5
these books all contain evidence of a community deeply affected by the exilic
disaster foretold by the prophets. In Lamentations, sin is described in very
general terms, only in 4:13 offering the insight that prophets and priests had
shed the blood of the righteous. Sin in Daniel is connected with the empire
and its lack of purity and humility. However, sin is also a problem for Israel,
having caused the destruction of Jerusalem because of lack of attention to the
Law and prophetic warnings. Sin in Ezra–Nehemiah is expressed through the
lens of the priestly agenda of the Torah, stressing the impurity that endangers
the holy precincts and people of the restoration community, especially
through intermarriage. All three books echo the view of intergenerational sin
expressed in Lev 26:39–40, either complaining about the weight of the sins of
past generations (Lam 5:7) or confessing them as instructed in Lev 26:40 (Dan
9:6, 8; Ezra 9:7; Neh 1:6; 9:2, 33–34; cf. Ps 106:6). In all cases, however, this
culpability is not limited to past generations but is traced also to the present
generation (Lam 5:16; Dan 9:5, 15, 20; Ezra 9:10, 13, 15; Neh 1:6; 9:2). The
prayer in Ezra 9 explicitly states that the sins of the past have accumulated
above the heads of the present guilty generation. 6
All three books are clear that Yahweh remedies sin through his discipline,
expressed especially in the demise of the state and the resulting conditions in
the land and in exile. Lamentations reveals the honest struggle of the com-
munity in the wake of the disaster and looks at one point to the grace of God
and the resulting human response of patience and repentance as the way ahead
for the community. Serious questions are asked about this agenda, in light of
the seeming inaction of Yahweh on the community’s behalf. Both patience
and repentance are qualities reflected in the prayers that dominate the books
of Daniel and Ezra–Nehemiah. Though possessing radically different (and
some would say opposing!) world views, with one focusing more on the “al-
ready” of restoration (Ezra–Nehemiah) and the other more on the “not yet”
(Daniel), the two share in common a radical distinction between the righ-
teous/clean and wicked/unclean and encourage penitence and prayer as key
to the purification of the community. Although the books of Ezra–Nehemiah
do celebrate the achievements of the early Persian period exilic returnees,
the books are not triumphalistic, clearly admitting disappointment with the
progress (see Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9) and highlighting the constant challenges
to purify the community (see Ezra 9–10, Nehemiah 5, 13). Daniel looks to a
5. See Dempster (2003).

6. In this, one can see the truth of Tigay (1996: 436–37), who speaks of “compound retri-
bution,” or of Kaminsky (1995a: 44), who defines transgenerational retribution as “a form of
corporate retribution in which the guilt of a sinful generation and its consequent punish-
ment are stored for a generation or more and then released against a later generation. It does
not exclude the idea that the recipient may also be somewhat deserving of punishment.”
512 Chapter 26
climactic refining of the community in a clash with empire that will bring an
end to the struggle against sin. Both Daniel and Ezra–Nehemiah provide ways
ahead for a community still engaged in a struggle against sin (both inside and
outside their communities) and who encourage obedience as they patiently
look for divine gracious intervention.
The various prayers found in Lamentations, Daniel, and Ezra–Nehemiah
reveal the enduring role of mediators who intercede on behalf of Israel as it
suffers or faces the threat of suffering God’s discipline due to its sin. The in-
tercessors are more diverse than those in the Prophets, including a sage
(Daniel 9), a priest (Ezra 9), a governor (Nehemiah 1), a group of Levites (Ne-
hemiah 9), and possibly a prophet (Lamentations 3). In two cases, this inter-
cession leads to a penitential response by the people (Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9), in
another to action taken by the supplicant to rectify the suffering (Nehemiah
1), in another to a revelation of continuing divine discipline and refining of
the community (Daniel 9), and in another to an uncertain resolution (Lam-
entations 3). These then reveal a broadening of mediatorial figures but also
questions over their efficacy apart from human response.
While the key role of penitence is emphasized at various points in these
books, at two points it is made clear that Yahweh retains sovereignty, not sub-
ordinating himself to human response for remedying sin. Lamentations 3
shows that although the people may respond penitentially, this does not
guarantee that Yahweh’s discipline will come to an end. Much like examples
in the prophetic literature where communal or prophetic intercession is re-
sisted because the discipline of Yahweh has become inevitable, so Yahweh is
free to reject the cries of a guilty people. Nehemiah 9 depicts the opposite ex-
treme, revealing how Yahweh responded to a rebellious generation in his sov-
ereign grace even though they deserved his judgment.
Chronicles
Chronicles brings closure to the Writings as well as the canon as a whole.
By beginning with Adam and moving through to Cyrus’s invitation to the ex-
iles to return to Jerusalem, Chronicles offers the longest sustained overview of
the story of Israel in the Old Testament, taking the reader beyond the dismal
conclusion of the Former Prophets with its depiction of the Exile. By ending
with Cyrus’s invitation to return to the land, the book echoes the kerygmatic
tone of the conclusion to the Torah. There in Deuteronomy 30, the people of
Israel, poised to enter the land and with the prediction of Exile and Restora-
tion still ringing in their ears (Deut 10), are called to embrace their destiny laid
out in the Torah. By ending in the early Persian period with a citation of the
fulfillment of Jeremiah’s word, Chronicles affirms the words of the Latter
Prophets, which also ends in this same period.
The genealogies that dominate the first nine chapters of the book remind
the canonical community that their destiny is inextricably linked with the na-
tions from which they have been chosen and among whom they have lived

during Exile. The clear affirmation of Gentile leaders as instruments of God (in
word and deed) in the final chapters of the book affirms this close connection
between Israel and the nations. Like Israel’s emergence from the nations with
Abraham, Israel’s reemergence from the nations with the exiles is designed to
mediate the presence of God on earth (2 Chr 36:23).
Sin in Chronicles is dominated by violations of the exclusive worship of
Yahweh at the central shrine in Jerusalem, including the introduction of for-
eign practices as well as lack of attention to the practices demanded by Yah-
weh. Chronicles is deeply concerned with the care of the temple, whether this
means the physical structure of the temple or the personnel who will provide
the services at the temple. Other sins in view include alliances with foreign-
ers, pride, murder, and divination.
Chronicles offers hope for this new generation through a covenantal retri-
bution theology that does not waver from the belief that God disciplines sin
and blesses obedience within each generation. According to this theology, the
people are no longer weighed down by the sins of the past but rather are of-
fered an opportunity for Yahweh to express his grace to them, a principle ex-
plicitly cited in Chronicles in 2 Chr 25:4 (cf. Deut 24:16). Divine discipline is
clearly a remedy for sin, designed to discourage sin and encourage people to
repent and experience Yahweh’s grace through blessing. 2 Chronicles 6, echo-
ing 1 Kings 8, identifies the role that prayer at the temple plays in this peniten-
tial process, this time bolstered by the new divine agenda and promise of
2 Chr 7:12–16. Prophets are also key to the penitential process, often calling
those who had abandoned Yahweh to return to him.
Although Chronicles is concerned with the spiritual and physical renewal
of this community after the Exile, it also looks beyond this to an even more
glorious future, one that will see the return of an ideal Davidic figure who will
enable the community to fully realize its potential as a kingdom of priests
and a holy nation in which is found Yahweh’s manifest presence. 7 The peni-
tential models of Hezekiah and Manasseh at its close suggest an agenda for
how this may be experienced, encouraging the community to return to Jeru-
salem even as they return to God with the hope of fulfilling their destiny
among the nations.
7. Sarna (1987: 12) contrasts “Hebrew Scripture,” which pictures the “consummation of
history” as “the ideal of the Jewish people to its land, of the restoration of Jewish sovereignty
and of spiritual renewal,” with the “Old Testament,” which ends with Malachi “as proleptic
of the New Testament.” This suggests that the Hebrew order does not have future expecta-
tion. This is similar to Sweeney (1997c), who identifies the contrast as ethics (emphasizing
completion) versus eschatology (emphasizing fulfillment), and Scobie (2003: 68), who speaks
of the “absence (or de-emphasis) of eschatology in the Writings” with the main focus “on the
ongoing life and worship of the Jewish community with its twin foundations of Torah and
Temple,” echoing Dempster (1997). The Writings, however, are not devoid of future expecta-
tion, as noted above regarding Ruth, as argued in the structure of the Psalter, and as demon-
strated in Daniel and Chronicles. There is a balance in these books between the realized and
unrealized, between the call to faithfulness and the call to faithful expectation.
514 Chapter 26
Summary
The “wisdom” and “exile” collections showcase a community struggling
with sin, suffering, and its relationship. Along the way, honest questions are
asked about why the righteous struggle and why the penitent or righteous are
not heard, whether in Job, Psalms, or Lamentations. In the end, however,
through the confessions in the Psalter, the closing words of Job, and the
prayers in Daniel and Ezra–Nehemiah, Yahweh is declared righteous, lament
is silenced, and the penitential dominates the community, whether for past
sins or demands for answers. In the wake of the Exile, Israel’s posture is sub-
mission and repentance, and to the community that will adopt this posture
and return to the land Yahweh promises in Chronicles abundant blessing and
the hope of a new day.
page 3 pts long on top
Chapter 27
Conclusion
Sin and the Old Testament Canon

The canonical shape of the Old Testament reveals that sin introduces the
fundamental narrative tension into the canon as a collection. Its introduction
and development throughout Genesis 1–11 provides the foundation for the
destiny of Israel as a community that will function as a kingdom of priests
and a holy nation among the peoples of the world. Restoration of covenant
relationship between God and humanity lies at the core of this destiny, which
explains the importance of the Abrahamic-Sinaitic covenant complex in the
Torah. Sin is identified as something that threatens the covenant relationship
between Yahweh and Israel, prompting Yahweh to abandon the tabernacle
and/or discipline his people. The Torah communicates both pessimism and
hope over whether Israel will be able to fully realize its destiny. Israel is por-
trayed as consistently rebellious, and the legal codes and covenant documents
carefully record penalties for offenses. Deuteronomy ends with Moses’ con-
cern over the ability of Israel to remain faithful (Deuteronomy 31). However,
Israel is also offered the unmerited grace of Yahweh and, at least after exile, a
penitential response is expected (Lev 26:40–46; Deut 4:29–31, 30:1–10), en-
abled by Yahweh’s divine initiative. The ending of the Torah thus functions as
both an invitation for the canonical community to fully embrace the destiny
laid out in the Torah itself and an introduction to other canonical units to dis-
cover Israel’s response to this invitation.
The Prophets (Former and Latter) showcase the struggle of Israel with sin
foreshadowed in the Torah. In these books, God pursues Israel patiently as
they emerge as a tribal unity and later a monarchy, but the rebellion of the
people is consistent from the start to the end of the Prophets. It is in the
midst of Israel’s struggle with sin that the way forward is revealed. Expanding
the insight first voiced in Deut 30:6, the prophets ultimately look beyond Is-
rael’s ability to a new day in which Yahweh will enable them to remain faith-
ful and avoid sin. What was only a passing comment in the Torah expands
and dominates hope, especially in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Initial signs of ful-
fillment of this promise can be discerned in Hag 1:12–15 as God stirs up the
spirits of the faithful remnant. Only through a divine transformation such as
this will Israel be able to fully realize its destiny as the conduit of divine pres-
ence and blessing to the nations. The Prophets as a collection ends as does
- 515 -
516 Chapter 27
the Torah with the tension of Genesis 3 still unresolved. There remains hope
in a remnant that fears the Lord, but there is an expectation that the Day of
the Lord is essential to refining and purifying a people for God (Mal 3:1–7,
3:16–3:24[4:6]).
The Writings orient the reader to life lived in the wake of the destruction
of the kingdoms. Here, one listens to the principles of wisdom and the expres-
sions of worship inherited from earlier generations that voice the enduring
struggle against sin and provide insight into its remedies (Proverbs, Job,
Psalms). Here, one finds the responses of various communities living after the
fall of the state that not only describe the problem of sin but identify its rem-
edy (Lamentations, Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah). One theme that grows progres-
sively stronger throughout the Writings is the muting of lament and the
embrace of penitence, not only in cases of justified discipline (e.g., Lamenta-
tions 3; Psalms 51, 106; Ezra 9; Nehemiah 1, 9; Daniel 9), but even in what is
unwarranted suffering ( Job). Clear distinctions are made in the Writings be-
tween the righteous and the wicked, between the wise and the foolish, and
between the pure and the impure. Careful boundaries are drawn for a com-
munity without a national identity living in the shadow of empire. These
communities are well aware of discipline as remedy for sin, but they regularly
emphasize penitential prayer as the way to move forward practically to fulfill
their destiny. The closing book of Chronicles highlights the temple in Jerusa-
lem as a place that will foster the life of the community after exile. By begin-
ning with Adam and ending with the invitation to the exilic community to
return to Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem, this final book serves as both retro-
spect and prospect, reminding Israel that its story is embedded in the larger
narrative of the nations of the world while at the same time pointing to a
faithful community gathered around the temple in Jerusalem filled with the
presence of Yahweh as the way to fulfill their destiny. Psalms near the outset
of the Writings and Chronicles at its close exhibit hope for a future glory that
will see the reemergence of the Davidic royal line. Daniel at its center looks to
cosmic acts of Yahweh to defeat empire and eliminate sin from Israel and
from the world. Therefore, the Writings are concerned not only to establish
rhythms to foster faithfulness and remedy sin in the present but also to pro-
mote hope for Israel to fully realize its destiny in the future. As do the Torah
and the Prophets, so the Writings (and thus the canon as a whole) ends on a
note of expectation. The resolution to Genesis 3 has not been realized, but the
resolution has been revealed and the invitation is given to all within the ca-
nonical community who will respond.
Sin in the Old Testament Canon

It is within this broader structure of the canon that the theme of sin and
its remedy has constantly come to the fore. The variety of perspectives and
expressions of this theme highlight the rich character of the Old Testament.
Conclusion 517
While looking for elements of continuity between these varied witnesses, it is

important to remain sensitive to the discontinuity that exists.
Sin
From the outset of the Old Testament, sin is pictured as a violation of God’s
command. This betrayal of the relationship between God and humans in the
garden foreshadows the understanding of sin in the covenants established be-
tween God and Israel at Sinai (Exodus–Numbers) and on the plains of Moab
(Deuteronomy). Similarly, sin as violation against God and fellow humanity
at the outset of Genesis foreshadows the definition of sin in the Decalogue
and the Torah’s various legal codes. Sins against God dominate Deuteronomy,
the Former Prophets, and Chronicles, with particular focus on violations of
the demand for exclusive worship of Yahweh at the central shrine in Jerusa-
lem. In the Latter Prophets, sins against humanity receive greater attention,
with emphasis not only on violations of commands regarding worship (espe-
cially idolatry) and revelation (false prophecy) but also on acts of social injus-
tice, swearing, lying, murder, theft, and adultery.
In Proverbs, sin is depicted as wicked folly with great concern expressed
over improper treatment of fellow humanity, without losing sight of the rela-
tionship with Yahweh (that is, the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wis-
dom). Job’s friends imagine sins that may have caused his suffering, and in
the end the book focuses on the arrogance of human pursuit of divine knowl-
edge. The psalms offer fewer details on specific sins, placing greater focus on
the sinfulness of humanity, first seen in attacks on the wicked but then ex-
tended to all people. This echoes the view encountered in the foundational
narratives of Genesis 1–11, in which sin invades humanity’s inner being and
dominates its actions both before (Genesis 6) and after (Genesis 8) the flood.
The narratives about Jacob (Genesis), the legal codes with their lists of sins
and penalties (Exodus–Deuteronomy), the covenant curses with their lists of
punishments for disobedience (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), the consistent
depictions of the rebellion of Israel (Exodus 32–34, Numbers), and the pessi-
mistic tone at the end of Deuteronomy suggest that sinfulness dominated Is-
rael’s inner and outer life. The prophets, with their many warnings and
threats, confirm this expectation created by the Torah and seen in the Writ-
ings (cf. 1 Kgs 8:46 // 2 Chr 6:36).
In the priestly traditions, sin is viewed as impurity that threatens the en-
during presence of holy Yahweh. This approach is echoed in the book of Ezek-
iel in order to explain God’s abandonment of the temple and in Ezra–
Nehemiah as the basis for denying intermarriage within colonial Yehud. The
priestly tradition distinguishes carefully between inadvertent, deliberate, and
defiant sins, providing special rites for the first category and various penalties
for the second. The third category would be dealt with through death and di-
vine curse, although God was free to forgive these sins.
518 Chapter 27
The concern over unconscious or inadvertent sin is not limited to the

priestly Torah traditions but is expressed at several places in the Old Testa-
ment, in particular in Abimelech’s unintentional “sin” first against Sarah and
then against Rebekah (Gen 20:3–5, 26:10) and in David’s concern over unin-
tentional sin against Saul (1 Sam 26:18–19). So also the psalmists express con-
cern over hidden or inadvertent sins they have committed (Pss 19:12, 90:8),
possibly even one committed in the distant past during youthful folly (Pss
25:7; cf. Job 13:26).
The fact that individual intention was not always the reason for one’s sins
or the cause of one’s guilt is apparent in passages that depict sin’s impact on
an entire generation or between generations. This is first encountered in the
family lines set out at the beginning of Genesis, which juxtapose the lines of
Cain and Seth, with the former falling progressively into worse sin and the
latter preserving a righteous remnant that calls on Yahweh. In this, one can
discern the dynamic movement of sin (and righteousness) between genera-
tions. A second juxtaposition of lines in Genesis, those of Ham and Shem, re-
veals the implications of actions of an earlier generation for a later genera-
tion. Ham’s sin leads to a curse on Canaan, whereas Shem’s faithfulness leads
to the ascendancy of his line over Ham’s. Abraham’s trust and faithfulness in
turn will benefit all his descendants, as God promises to produce seed, make
covenant with them, and give them a land.
The intergenerational impact of sin is noted at regular intervals throughout
the Torah (Exod 20:5–6, 34:6–7; Num 14:18; Deut 5:9–10; cf. Jer 32:18) in pas-
sages that state how a person’s sin affects a family to the third or fourth gen-
eration. Exod 20:5–6 and Deut 5:9–10 carefully qualify these later generations
as “those who hate me,” suggesting that punishment will only endure if the
later generations continue in the patterns of the offending generation.
Though no such qualification is offered in Exod 34:6–7 and Num 14:18, the
broader narratives reveal that the second generation was given a new oppor-
tunity to enter the land after the death of the offending generation (Numbers–
Deuteronomy). This evidence suggests that although the sin of one may affect
the others within a household (in which three or four generations lived), once
this person died the next generation was freed to chart a new path. This elim-
inates tension between “intergenerational” punishment and passages such as
Deut 24:16, 2 Kgs 14:5–6, Jer 31:30, Ezek 18:2, and the book of Chronicles,
which restrict culpability for sin to the offending generation. This may also
explain why the sin of one or a limited group may affect an entire genera-
tion, as seen in passages such as Lev 20:2–5; Num 16:31–35; Josh 7:1, 24–25;
22:17–20; Judg 20:48, 21:10–11; 1 Sam 22:16; 2 Sam 11–20; 24:15; 1–2 Kings
(passim); Isa 14:21; Jer 11:22–23, 18:21, 29:32; Amos 7:17; Esth 9:24–25; Dan
6:21–24.
This view of the intragenerational character of sin and punishment, how-
ever, does not completely eliminate tension created by a passage such as Lev
26:39–40, which speaks of suffering in exile because of one’s own sin and the
Conclusion 519
sins of former generations and offers restoration by confessing both the

present and past generations’ offenses. Similar tensions can be discerned at
regular intervals throughout the Former Prophets: in David’s experiencing
judgment because of Saul’s sin (2 Sam 21:1, 14), in the descendants of Eli,
Amalek, David, Solomon, Baasha, Jeroboam, Ahab, and Hezekiah experienc-
ing judgment because of their ancestor’s sin (1 Sam 2:31–33, 15:2–3; 2 Sam
12:14; 1 Kgs 11:11–12; 14:10; 15:28–30; 21:20–21, 28–29; 2 Kgs 10:10, 17; 20),
and in the indelible stains left by the sins of Jeroboam and Manasseh, which
caused the Exile of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (1 Kgs 14:16; 2 Kgs
17:21–23, 21:11–14, 22:16–17, 23:26–27, 24:2–4; Jer 15:4). It is seen in Ezek
20:21–24, with its assertion that the exilic punishment has its roots in the re-
bellions in the wilderness, but also in prophetic announcements that link
judgment to more than one generation (Isa 65:6–7; Jer 2:9, 16:10–13). The en-
dangerment of a later generation by an earlier generation’s sins underlies the
cry for vengeance in Ps 109:13–15, and it is foundational for the penitential
prayers found in Jer 14:20; Ps 106:6; Lam 5:7; Dan 9:5–6, 8, 11, 20; Ezra 9:6–
7; Neh 1:6, and 9:2, 32–34, which confess the sins of former generations. For
most of these instances, however, the generation on whom the punishment
falls is considered culpable as well. Therefore, these cases may suggest that sin
that is passed on from generation to generation may cause an accumulation
of guilt, which may affect the severity of the judgment, but this guilt is not
immediately responsible for the judgment itself. This, however, does not ex-
plain all the cases listed above, especially the odd case of 2 Samuel 21, in
which David’s kingdom experienced famine because of the sinful actions of
Saul against the Gibeonites. It is interesting that passages that offer different
perspectives on intergenerational culpability often appear within the same
corpus in the Torah, the Former Prophets, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. For the an-
cient mind, such contrasts of this sort were not as deeply troubling as they are
to the modern mind.
Sin’s Remedy
While the Old Testament has much to say about the presence and charac-
ter of sin in this world, it is also a book that presents remedies. A basic pattern
for the divine-human interplay in relation to sin runs the breadth of the Old
Testament from Genesis to Chronicles. The normative form of this pattern be-
gins with human sin, which prompts divine discipline. This discipline leads to
a human response expressed as a cry to God, often but not always with peni-
tence, which then results in divine grace. This pattern can be discerned in the
covenant curses of Leviticus 26, in which human sin (26:39; cf. 26:27)
prompts divine discipline (26:39; cf. 26:28–38), which in turn prompts a hu-
man penitential response (26:40), which then leads to divine grace (26:42,
44–45). This pattern is evident throughout Deuteronomy and the Former
Prophets: in the description of future exilic repentance in Deuteronomy
(chaps. 4, 30), in the cycles of Judges (chaps. 2–16), in Samuel’s interactions
520 Chapter 27
with Israel (1 Samuel 7 and 12), and in Solomon’s prayer for the function of
the temple (1 Kings 8). It also appears in Wisdom literature on the lips of Job’s
friends (5:8, 8:4–6, 11:6, 22:21–27). The pattern is evident in the psalms that
look for or testify to God’s mercy for sin (e.g., Psalms 32, 51, 107), as well as
in the penitential prayers in Lamentations, Daniel, and Ezra–Nehemiah (Lam-
entations 3; Daniel 9; Ezra 9; Nehemiah 1, 9). Finally, the pattern is key to the
retribution theology of Chronicles, showcased most vividly in the example of
Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33).
These patterns highlight the basic remedies for sin within the Old Testa-
ment. At the head of the pattern is divine discipline. Divine discipline for hu-
man sin is often presented simply as punishment for violation without being
part of a larger pattern that sees it prompting a human response. This is dis-
played most vividly in the Torah, especially in the early stories of Genesis and
in the penalties associated with the legal codes. Punishments of this sort are
designed to remove serious violators from the camp or to discourage the vio-
lator or others from repeating the violation. However, even in these cases di-
vine discipline refines the community by removing the rebellious and warn-
ing the rest of the community. As part of the larger pattern, divine discipline
prompts repentance from the willing. The fact that full punishment is rarely
exacted but rather more often a punishment is mitigated reveals its disciplin-
ary design.
The Prophets introduce a role for the prophetic voice within this basic
rhythm. In these texts, the divine discipline is often replaced or supplemented
by the prophetic voice, warning or interpreting discipline with the hope of a
penitential turn by the people, which will prompt divine grace (2 Kings 17,
22; Isaiah 6; Jeremiah passim; Ezekiel 3, 18, 33; the Twelve passim). The divine
threat is often delivered through prophets, but it can be delivered by God per-
sonally or may be communicated through the law, which defines sin and out-
lines legal penalties and covenant curses. In Proverbs, the prophetic voice is
replaced by the voice of Lady Wisdom and the sages, who admonish their
charges, and in Job 33:23–30 by a mediator who confronts Job and prompts
prayerful confession, to which God responds.
The first phase of the priestly sacrificial rites in Leviticus 4–6 and 16 envi-
sions human sin that is followed not by divine discipline 1 or prophetic warn-
ing but rather by self-recognition or communal revelation of guilt. This is
then followed by a human response of confession and then sacrifice, which
leads to the divine grace of forgiveness. The priestly legislation is clear, how-
ever, that priestly rituals of this sort are not available for defiant sin but only
for inadvertent and certain deliberate sins.
A mediator may also play a role in the human response to the divine threat
or act of discipline. Jeremiah is probably the best example of a prophet who
1. Although, see Sklar (2005).

Conclusion 521
was sent to intercede before God on behalf of the people (e.g., Jer 14:1–15:4),
but this role is also suggested by Elihu in Job 33:23–30 and Job himself in
16:19 and 19:25, exemplified by Abraham and especially Moses in the Torah,
by priests through the book of Leviticus, and by various praying leaders (e.g.,
Daniel 9, Ezra 9, Nehemiah 1 and 9).
Although it is dominant in the Old Testament, the basic pattern is not the
only model for the interaction between God and humanity. Because of the
stubbornness of humans, divine discipline or threat of discipline does not al-
ways lead to a normative human response. In some cases, when this happens
God responds with further discipline (Ezekiel 20), sometimes with a mixture
of discipline and grace (Psalm 78, 106; Ezekiel 20), and at other times with
grace alone (Nehemiah 9, Ezekiel 20, Hosea 11). In some cases, what appears
to be a proper human response does not always elicit a divine response of
grace from God. This may be due to the fact that God’s patience has run out
for the people who have been given enough chances ( Jer 14:1–15:4), that di-
vine discipline is not yet complete (Lamentations 3?), or that the people lack
true penitential response ( Jer 4:1–4).
This evidence reminds us that one cannot reduce divine-human interac-
tion to a single model (the problem of Job!), especially because of the dynamic
of divine and human sovereignty. The Old Testament is witness to the consis-
tent recalcitrance of humanity but also recognizes the mysterious sovereignty
of God. Before renewing covenant with rebellious Israel in Exodus 34, a re-
newal based on Yahweh’s gracious and just character showcased in 34:6–7,
Yahweh declares in Exod 33:19: “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,
and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” This divine
freedom is recognized regularly throughout the Old Testament in phrases
such as “who knows” and “perhaps,” which precede hopes for God’s grace in
reply to human response (2 Sam 12:22; Joel 2:14; Amos 5:15; Jonah 1:6, 3:9;
Zeph 3:3). It is expressed by the people in Lamentations 3, who claim that
God refuses to listen to their penitential cries, and those in Isaiah 64, who
claim that God has hardened their hearts. This divine freedom most often
benefits humanity. For instance, Cain deserves no grace, but instead Yahweh
mitigates his punishment. The nation of Israel is deserving of annihilation in
Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 but instead is preserved by God. The dom-
inant pattern of human sin–divine discipline–human response–divine grace
in all of its forms cannot be reduced to an impersonal retribution principle
separated from the dynamic relationship between Yahweh and his people.
Repentance is the dominant human response. This is universal in the
Prophets, which consistently look for a repentance that engages the affections,
the voice, and the actions. However, repentance is also advocated elsewhere
in the Old Testament. It can be discerned in the narratives (Genesis 4, 20, 35),
the covenant curses (Leviticus 26), and sermons (Deuteronomy 4, 30) in the
Torah. It is evident in the models for prayer and repentance advanced by
Job’s friends and even exemplified by Job in chap. 42. It is voiced in the
522 Chapter 27
admissions of sin with attendant hope for changed behavior in the Psalter
(e.g., Psalms 19, 32, 51, 119). Repentance such as this underlies the penitential
prayers in Lamentations, Daniel, and Ezra–Nehemiah and is key to renewal in
the book of Chronicles. One, however, must be careful because repentance is
not always put forward as the remedy. In the crisis over Israel’s sin in Exodus
and Numbers, repentance is not demanded by Yahweh. Mediators are far more
important to these narratives, and repentance is even rejected (Numbers 14).
At times, repentance is even shown to be insincere and unreliable (Genesis 50,
Exodus 1–15, Psalms 78, Isaiah 58). The book of Judges most often speaks only
of the cry of the people, with no reference to penitence.
Pessimism over humanity’s ability to respond penitentially explains the
regular appearance of the theme of divine transformation throughout the Old
Testament. Deuteronomy regularly defines covenant faithfulness as some-
thing that engages the inner affections as well as shapes the outer behavior.
And it is Deut 30:6 that expresses the role of God to make this a reality
through the divine circumcision of the heart of the people (contrast Deut
10:16). An echo of this can be heard in 1 Kgs 8:58, in which Solomon asks
God to incline the people’s heart to obedience. Isaiah speaks of a new day of
grace that will prompt a response from the people, and Hosea speaks of a time
when God will pursue his people (Hosea 2–3) and heal them (Hosea 14), but
Jeremiah and Ezekiel are the ones who develop this the most with their vision
of transformation. In their future expectation, God will forgive and transform
his people from within through a new covenant with a new spirit and a new
heart, on which the law will be written ( Jer 24:6–7, 31:33–34, 32:37–44; Ezek
11:19, 36:26–27, 37:14, 39:26). Haggai depicts a faithful remnant stirred up in
spirit by God (1:12–15), and Zechariah looks to a future day when the people
will be given a spirit of grace and supplication (12:10–14) and will be cleansed
by a fountain (13:1). Like Deuteronomy, Proverbs looks for the internalization
of wisdom’s values and at one point speaks of wisdom’s spirit being poured
out into the heart (1:23). This inner transformation is very important in the
psalms, which look not only for forgiveness from God but also for a deep
transformation in the walks of the psalmists, which is often linked to an in-
ternal work of God (e.g., Psalms 19, 25, 32, 40, 51, 86, 119). This hope for a
divine transformation is evidence that the Old Testament does not abandon
its vision for a penitent people, but rather, in the wake of the endurance of
sin, it provides a new way for this penitence to be realized.
This journey through the Old Testament has consistently revealed the im-
portance of the character of God for remedying sin, and it is this character
that makes sense of the variety of remedies. God’s character is consistently
emphasized, especially focusing on the recitation of elements from the char-
acter creed found in Exod 34:6–7. There, God’s character is identified as both
gracious and just; God forgives and yet punishes, that is, he displays a severe
mercy. This character has been consistent throughout the Old Testament.
Yahweh is a God who takes sin very seriously and does not leave the guilty
Conclusion 523
unpunished, and yet he is a God filled with grace and mercy expressed
through his patience and forgiveness. It is his justice that explains his regular
discipline of sin but his grace that offers hope to a disciplined people. His jus-
tice has gracious intent, as he seeks to eliminate the sin that threatens human
existence and severs relationship with him. His grace is seen in his constant
mitigation of punishment and expressed in his reticence to discipline. This se-
vere mercy, however, cannot be controlled even by the character creed, which
is carefully qualified by Yahweh himself as being always under the control of
his sovereign will (Exod 33:19).
Works Cited
Ackroyd, Peter R.
1968 Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century b.c. OTL.
Philadelphia: Westminster.
Aejmelaeus, Anneli
2002 Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer xxv 1–14 in
the Book of Jeremiah. VT 52: 459–82.
Ahlström, G. W.
1971 Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem. VTSup 21. Leiden: Brill.
Albrektson, Bertil
1963 Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations. Studia Theologica
Lundensia 21. Lund: Gleerup.
Aletti, Jean-Noël
1976 Proverbes 8,22–31: Étude De Structure. Bib 57: 25–37.
Alexander, T. Desmond
1995 From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Main Themes of the
Pentateuch. Carlisle: Paternoster.
Alexander, T. Desmond, and Rosner, Brian S., eds.
2000 New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity.
Allen, Leslie C.
1983 Psalms 101–150. WBC 21. Waco, TX: Word.
1992 The Structuring of Ezekiel’s Revisionist History Lesson (Ezekiel 20:3–31).
CBQ 54: 448–62.
Alt, Albrecht
1937 Zur Vorgeschichte des Buches Hiob. ZAW 55: 265–68.
Alter, Robert
2004 The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. New York: Norton.
Andersen, Francis I.
1976 Job: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Andersen, Francis I., and Freedman, David Noel
1989 Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24a. New York:
Doubleday.
Anderson, Albert A.
1972a The Book of Psalms, vol. 1: Introduction and Psalms 1–72. London: Oliphants.
1972b The Book of Psalms, vol. 2: Psalms 73–150. London: Oliphants.
Anderson, Bernhard W.
1983 Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Anderson, Bernhard W., and Bishop, Steven
1999 Contours of Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Anderson, R. Dean
1994 The Division and Order of the Psalms. WTJ 56: 219–41.
- 524 -
Works Cited 525
Anderson, Robert A.
1984 Signs and Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. ITC. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Arnold, Bill T.
1996 The Use of Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible: Another Look at Bilingualism in
Ezra and Daniel. JNSL 22: 1–16.
Arnold, Bill T., and Choi, John H.
2003 A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Balentine, Samuel E.
1983 The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament. OTM. New
York: Oxford University Press.
1989 Prayers for Justice in the Old Testament: Theodicy and Theology. CBQ 51:
597–616.
1993 Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue. OBT. Min-
neapolis: Fortress.
2002a Job as Priest to the Priests. Ex auditu 18: 29–52.
2002b Leviticus. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
2006a “I Was Ready to Be Sought Out by Those Who Did Not Ask.” Pp. 1–20 in
Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 1: The Origin of Penitential Prayer in Second
Temple Judaism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline.
SBLEJL 21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2006b Job. Smyth and Helwys Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys.
Baltzer, Klaus
1960 Das Bundesformular. WMANT 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
1971 The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish and Early Christian Writings.
Oxford: Blackwell.
1991 Moses Servant of God and the Servants: Text and Tradition in the Prayer of
Nehemiah (Neh 1:5–11). Pp. 121–30 in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays
in Honor of Helmut Koester, ed. B. A. Pearson. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Barr, James
1961 The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1968 Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon.
1969 Biblical Words for Time. SBT. Rev. ed. Naperville, IL: Allenson.
1972 Semantics and Biblical Theology: A Contribution to the Discussion. Pp. 11–
19 in Congress Volume: Uppsala 1971, ed. Henrik S. Nyberg. VTSup 22. Lei-
den: Brill.
1987 Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN: Ei-
senbrauns.
1993 The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. Minneapolis: Fortress.
1999 The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. Minneapolis:
Fortress.
Barrera, Julio C. Trebolle
2002 Origins of a Tripartite Old Testament Canon. Pp. 128–45 in The Canon De-
bate, ed. Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Barth, Christoph, and Bromiley, Geoffrey William
1991 God with Us: A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
526 Works Cited
Bartholomew, Craig
2002 A God for Life, and Not Just for Christmas! The Revelation of God in the Old
Testament Wisdom Literature. Pp. 39–57 in The Trustworthiness of God:
Perspectives on the Nature of Scripture, ed. Paul Helm and Carl R. Trueman.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Leicester: Apollos.
Bartholomew, Craig; Hahn, Scott; Parry, Robin; Seitz, Christopher; and Wolters, Al, eds.
2006 Canon and Biblical Interpretation. Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 7. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan.
Bartholomew, Craig; Healy, Mary; Möller, Karl; and Parry, Robin, eds.
2004 Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Scripture and Her-
meneutics Series 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Barton, John
2001a Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
2001b Theological Ethics in Daniel. Pp. 660–70 in The Book of Daniel: Composition
and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. Leiden: Brill.
2003 Covenant in Old Testament Theology. Pp. 23–38 in Covenant as Context:
Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson, ed. A. D. H. Mayes and Robert B. Salters.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baumgartner, W.
1988 Jeremiah’s Poems of Lament. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Schol-
arship 7. Sheffield: Almond.
Bautch, Richard J.
2003 Developments in Genre between Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers and the Psalms of
Communal Lament. SBLAB 7. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2006 “May Your Eyes Be Open and Your Ears Attentive”: A Study of Penance and
Penitence in the Writings. Pp. 67–86 in Repentance in Christian Theology, ed.
Mark J. Boda and Gordon T. Smith. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Baxter, Benjamin
2008 “In the Original Text It Says . . .”: A Study of the Discussion of the Hebrew and
Greek Languages within Evangelical Commentaries, with a View to the Fallacies
Noted in Barr’s The Semantics of Biblical Language and Carson’s Exegetical
Fallacies. Unpublished M.A. thesis, McMaster Divinity College.
Becking, Bob
1998 Ezra’s Re-Enactment of the Exile. Pp. 40–61 in Leading Captivity Captive: “The
Exile” as History and Ideology, ed. Lester Grabbe. JSOTSup 278. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press.
2000 From Exodus to Exile: 2 Kgs 17,7–20 in the Context of Its Co-Text. Pp. 215–
31 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to
Zecharia Kallai, ed. Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. VTSup 81. Leiden:
Brill.
Beckwith, R. T.
1985 The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in
Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Begg, Christopher T.
1989 Babylon in the Book of Isaiah. Pp. 121–25 in The Book of Isaiah—Le livre
d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leur relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage, ed. J. Ver-
meylen. BETL 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Works Cited 527
Begrich, Joachim
1934 Das Priesterliche Heilsorakel. ZAW 52: 81–92.
Beldman, David
2007 Reading Job: Appropriating Ricoeur’s Hermeneutic toward an Integrated Christian
Hermeneutic. Unpublished M.A. thesis, McMaster Divinity College.
Bellinger, W. H.
1984 Psalmody and Prophecy. JSOTSup 27. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Ben Zvi, Ehud
1991 A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah. BZAW 198. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
1993 A Gateway to the Chronicler’s Teaching: The Account of the Reign of Ahaz
in 2 Chr 28,1–27. SJOT 7: 216–49.
1996a A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah. BZAW 242. Berlin: de Gruy-
ter.
1996b Twelve Prophetic Books or “The Twelve”: A Few Preliminary Considerations.
Pp. 126–56 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in
Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup
235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
2002 The Book of Chronicles: Another Look. SR 31: 261–81.
Bendor, S.
1996 The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ªAb) from
the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7. Jerusa-
lem: Simor.
Bergant, Dianne
1997 Israel’s Wisdom Literature: A Liberation-Critical Reading. A Liberation-Critical
Reading of the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Bergler, S.
1977 Threni V: Nur ein Alphabetisierendes Lied? Versuch einer Deutung. VT 27:
304–20.
Berquist, Jon L.
1989 The Social Setting of Malachi. BTB 19: 121–26.
Betts, T. J.
2005 Ezekiel the Priest: A Custodian of Torah. Studies in Biblical Literature. New
York: Peter Lang.
Beyerlin, W.
1970 Die Rettung der Bedrängten in den Feindpsalmen der Einzelnen auf Institutionelle
Zusammenhänge Untersucht. FRLANT 99. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht.
Bibb, Bryan D.
2008 Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds in the Book of Leviticus. LHBOTS 480. Lon-
don: Continuum.
Biddle, Mark E.
1990 A Redaction History of Jeremiah 2:1–4:2. ATANT 77. Zürich: Theologischer
Verlag.
2005 Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology. Nashville:
Abingdon.
528 Works Cited
Blenkinsopp, Joseph
1977 Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. Studies of Ju-
daism and Christianity in Antiquity 3. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press.
1983 Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early
Judaism. The Oxford Bible Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1988 Second Isaiah: Prophet of Universalism. JSOT 41: 83–103.
1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. ABRL. New
York: Doubleday.
1993 Second Isaiah: Prophet of Universalism. Pp. 186–206 in The Prophets, ed.
Philip R. Davies. Biblical Seminar 42. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Block, Daniel I.
1997 The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1998 The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1999 Judges, Ruth. New American Commentary 6. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.
Boda, Mark J.
1995 Words and Meanings: hdy in Hebrew Research. WTJ 57: 277–97.
1996 Chiasmus in Ubiquity: Symmetrical Mirages in Nehemiah 9. JSOT 71: 55–70.
1997 Sibling Rivalry. Pp. 789 in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, ed. L. Ryken, J. C.
Wilhoit, and T. Longman III. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
1999 Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9. BZAW
277. Berlin: de Gruyter.
2000 Haggai: Master Rhetorician. TynBul 51: 295–304.
2001 From Complaint to Contrition: Peering through the Liturgical Window of
Jer 14,1–15,4. ZAW 113: 186–97.
2003a From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8. CBQ 65: 390–
407.
2003b Haggai–Zechariah Research: A Bibliographic Survey. Tools for Biblical Studies 5.
Leiden: Deo.
2003c The Priceless Gain of Penitence: From Communal Lament to Penitential
Prayer in the “Exilic” Liturgy of Israel. HBT 25: 51–75.
2003d Reading between the Lines: Zechariah 11:4–16 in Its Literary Contexts. Pp.
277–91 in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah 9–
14, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. JSOTSup 304. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
2003e Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet? Pp. 49–69 in Yahwism after
the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. Bob Becking
and Rainer Albertz. Studies in Theology and Religion 5. Assen: Van Gorcum.
2004a The Delight of Wisdom. Themelios 29: 4–11.
2004b Haggai/Zechariah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
2005a Ezra. Pp. 277–84 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, ed. Bill
T. Arnold, H. G. M. Williamson, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity.
2005b Prayer. Pp. 806–11 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, ed. Bill
T. Arnold, H. G. M. Williamson, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity.
2005c Terrifying the Horns: Persia and Babylon in Zechariah 1:7–6:15. CBQ 67:
22–41.
Works Cited 529
2006a Confession as Theological Expression: Ideological Origins of Penitential

Prayer. Pp. 21–50 in Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 1: The Origin of Penitential
Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney
A. Werline. SBLEJL 21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2006b Creating Space for a Theological Conversation. Pp. xiii–xx in Repentance in
Christian Theology, ed. Mark J. Boda and Gordon T. Smith. Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press.
2006c Form Criticism in Transition: Penitential Prayer and Lament, Sitz im Leben
and Form. Pp. 181–92 in Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 1: The Origin of Peni-
tential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and
Rodney A. Werline. SBLEJL 21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2006d Freeing the Burden of Prophecy: Ma¶¶aª and the Legitimacy of Prophecy in
Zech 9–14. Bib 86: 338–57.
2006e From Dystopia to Myopia: Utopian (Re)Visions in Haggai and Zechariah 1–
8. Pp. 211–49 in Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi.
Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 92. Helsinki: Finnish Exegeti-
cal Society / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
2006f Oil, Crowns and Thrones: Prophet, Priest and King in Zechariah 1:7–6:15.
Pp. 379–404 in Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi. Piscat-
away, NJ: Gorgias.
2006g Renewal in Heart, Word and Deed: Repentance in the Torah. Pp. 3–24 in Re-
pentance in Christian Theology, ed. Mark J. Boda and Gordon T. Smith. Col-
legeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
2007a After God’s Own Heart: The Gospel according to David. Phillipsburg, NJ: Pres-
byterian and Reformed Press.
2007b Figuring the Future: The Prophets and the Messiah. Pp. 35–74 in Messiah,
ed. Stanley E. Porter. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
2007c Haggai, Book of. Pp. 715–18 in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
ed. K. D. Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abingdon.
2007d Messengers of Hope in Haggai–Malachi. JSOT 32: 113–31.
2008a Hoy, Hoy: The Prophetic Origins of the Babylonian Tradition in Zechariah
2:10–17. Pp. 171–90 in Tradition in Transition, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael
H. Floyd. LHBOTS 475. London: T. & T. Clark.
2008b Lamentations, Book of. Pp. 399–410 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wis-
dom, Poetry and Writings, ed. Tremper Longman III, Peter Enns, and Daniel
G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
2008c The Priceless Gain of Penitence: From Communal Lament to Penitential
Prayer in the “Exilic” Liturgy of Israel. Pp. 81–101 in Lamentations in Ancient
and Contemporary Contexts, ed. Nancy Lee and Carleen Mandolfo. SBLSymS.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature / Leiden: Brill.
2008d Redaction in the Book of Nehemiah: A Fresh Proposal. Pp. 25–54 in Unity and
Disunity of Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and
Paul Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix.
2009 Identity and Empire, Reality and Hope in the Chronicler’s Perspective.
Pp. 249–72 in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Com-
parative Perspectives, ed. Gary Knoppers and Ken Ristau. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
530 Works Cited
Forthcoming a 1–2 Chronicles. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 5a. Carol Stream,

IL: Tyndale.
Forthcoming b The Daughter’s Joy: Zion as Redactional Leitmotif in a Latter Phase
of the Book of the Twelve.
Forthcoming c “Declare His Glory among the Nations”: The Psalter as Missional
Collection. In Christian Mission: Old Testament Foundations and New Testa-
ment Developments, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Cynthia Long Westfall. McMas-
ter New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Forthcoming d “Judges.” In Numbers–Ruth. Revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary
2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Forthcoming e Prayer as Rhetoric in the Book of Nehemiah. In A New Perspective on
Ezra–Nehemiah: Story and History, Literature and Interpretation, ed. Isaac Ka-
limi. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Forthcoming f Walking in the Light of Yahweh: Zion and the Empires in the Book
of Isaiah. In Empire in the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Cynthia
Long Westfall. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Forthcoming g “Uttering Precious Rather Than Worthless Words”: Divine Patience
and Impatience with Lament in Isaiah and Jeremiah. In Lament: Israel’s Cry
to God, ed. Mark J. Boda, Carol Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher. LHBOTS.
London: Continuum.
Forthcoming h Zechariah, Book of. In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
ed. K. D. Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abingdon.
Boda, Mark J.; Falk, Daniel K.; and Werline, Rodney A., eds.
2006 Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 1: The Origin of Penitential Prayer in Second
Temple Judaism. SBLEJL 21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature / Leiden:
Brill.
2007 Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second
Brill.
2008 Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 3: The Impact of Penitential Prayer Beyond Second
Brill.
Boda, Mark J., and Porter, Stanley E.
2005 Literature to the Third Degree: Prophecy in Zechariah 9–14 and the Passion
of Christ. Pp. 215–54 in Traduire le Bible Hébraïque: De la Septante à la
Nouvelle Bible Segond / Translating the Hebrew Bible: From the Septuagint to the
Nouvelle Bible Segond, ed. Manuel Jinbachian and Robert David. Sciences Bib-
liques 15. Montreal: Médiaspaul.
Boda, Mark J., and Redditt, Paul, eds.
2008 Unity and Disunity of Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, Reader. Hebrew
Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Phoenix.
Boda, Mark J., and Smith, Gordon T., eds.
2006 Repentance in Christian Theology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Bonnard, Pierre E.
1972 Le second Isaïe, son disciple et leurs éditeurs: Isaïe 40–66. Études Bibliques.
Paris: Gabalda.
Works Cited 531
Bostock, David
2006 A Portrayal of Trust: The Theme of Faith in the Hezekiah Narratives. Paternoster
Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster.
Boström, Lennart
1990 The God of the Sages: The Portrayal of God in the Book of Proverbs. ConBOT 29.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Bouzard, Walter C., Jr.
1997 We Have Heard with Our Ears, O God: Sources of Communal Lament in the
Psalms. SBDLS 159. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Bowen, Nancy R.
1999 The Daughters of Your People: Female Prophets in Ezekiel 13:17–23. JBL
118: 417–33.
Brandscheidt, Renate
1983 Gotteszorn und Menschenleid: Die Gerichtsklage des Leidenden Gerechten in Klgl
3. TTS 41. Trier: Paulinus.
Braun, Roddy
1976 Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22,
28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles. JBL 95: 581–90.
Brett, Mark G.
1991 Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testa-
ment Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2000 The Future of Old Testament Theology. Pp. 465–88 in Congress Volume: Oslo,
1998, ed. André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø. VTSup 80. Leiden: Brill.
Brettler, Marc Z.
1989a The Book of Judges: Literature as Politics. JBL 108: 395–418.
1989b Ideology, History and Theology in 2 Kings XVII 7–23. VT 39: 268–82.
1999 Predestination in Deuteronomy 30:1–10. Pp. 171–88 in Those Elusive Deuter-
onomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, ed. Linda S. Schearing and
Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Briggs, Charles Augustus, and Briggs, Emilie Grace
1910 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. 2 vols. New York:
Scribners.
Bright, John
1965 Jeremiah. AB 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Brodie, Thomas L.
2001 Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, William P.
1996 Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testa-
ment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bruckner, James K.
2001 Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative: A Literary and Theological Analysis.
JSOTSup 335. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Brueggemann, Walter
1965 Amos 4:4–13 and Israel’s Covenant Worship. VT 15: 1–15.
1968 Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historian. Int 22: 387–402.
1969 Amos’ Intercessory Formula. VT 19: 385–99.
532 Works Cited
1982a The Creative Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
1982b Genesis. IBC. Atlanta: John Knox.
1984a The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary. Augsburg Old Testa-
ment Studies. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
1984b Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition. JSOT 29: 89–107.
1988 2 Samuel 21–24: An Appendix of Deconstruction? CBQ 50: 383–97.
1989 Praise to God Is the End of Wisdom: What Is the Beginning? Journal for
Preachers 12: 30–40.
1991 Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon. JSOT 50: 63–92.
1997 Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis:
Fortress.
1998 A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
2003 An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Brueggemann, Walter, and Miller, Patrick D.
1995 The Psalms and the Life of Faith. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Büchler, Adolf
1928 Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century. Lon-
don: Oxford University Press and Milford.
Butler, Trent C.
1983 Joshua. WBC 7. Waco, TX: Word.
Byargeon, Rick W.
1997 The Structure and Significance of Prov 9:7–12. JETS 40: 367–75.
Camp, Claudia V.
1985 Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs. Bible and Literature Series
11. Sheffield: Almond.
1987 Woman Wisdom as Root Metaphor: A Theological Consideration. Pp. 45–76
in The Listening Heart: Essays in Wisdom and the Psalms in Honor of Roland E.
Murphy, ed. Kenneth G. Hoglund. JSOTSup 58. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Campbell, Antony F.
2005 2 Samuel. FOTL 8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Carr, David M.
1993 Reaching for Unity in Isaiah. JSOT 57: 61–80.
1996 Reading Isaiah from Beginning (Isaiah 1) to End (Isaiah 65–66): Multiple
Modern Possibilities. Pp. 188–218 in New Visions of Isaiah, ed. Roy F. Melu-
gin and Marvin A. Sweeney. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Carroll, Robert P.
1986 Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
1989 Jeremiah. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
1999 Halfway through a Dark Wood: Reflections on Jeremiah 25. Pp. 73–86 in
Troubling Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and
Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Carson, Don A.
1996 Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Works Cited 533
Chapman, Stephen B.
2000 The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation. FAT 27.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
2003 A Canonical Approach to Old Testament Theology? Deuteronomy 34:10–12
and Malachi 3:22–24 as Programmatic Conclusions. HBT 25: 121–45.
Childs, Brevard S.
1964 Interpretation in Faith. Int 18: 259–71.
1970 Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster.
1974 The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia:
Westminster.
1978 The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature. Int 32: 46–55.
1979 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1985 Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1993 Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the
Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress.
2001 Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
2003 Critique of Recent Intertextual Canonical Interpretation. ZAW 115: 173–84.
Chinitz, Jacob
1997 Two Sinners. JBQ 25: 108–13.
Chisholm, Robert B., Jr.
1990 “For Three Sins . . . Even for Four”: The Numerical Sayings in Amos. BibSac
147: 188–97.
Christensen, Duane L.
1991 Deuteronomy 1–11. WBC 6a. Dallas: Word.
Clapp, Rodney, and Wright, John
2002 God as Santa. ChrCent 119: 29–31.
Clark, Gordon R.
1993 The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 157. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Clements, Ronald E.
1980 Isaiah 1–39. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1982 The Unity of the Book of Isaiah. Int 36: 117–29.
1989 Deuteronomy. OTG. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
1985 Beyond Tradition-History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s
Themes. JSOT: 95–113.
1997 Zion as Symbol and Political Reality: A Central Isaianic Quest. Pp. 3–17 in
Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. J. T. A. G. M.
van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne. Leuven: Leuven University Press and
Peeters.
2003 The Davidic Covenant in the Isaiah Tradition. Pp. 39–70 in Covenant as
Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson, ed. A. D. H. Mayes and Robert
B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clifford, Richard J.
1990 Exodus. Pp. 44–60 in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E.
Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
1998 The Wisdom Literature. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon.
1999 Proverbs: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
534 Works Cited
Clines, David J. A.
1978 The Theme of the Pentateuch. JSOTSup 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
1989 Job 1–20. WBC 17. Dallas: Word.
2004 Putting Elihu in His Place: A Proposal for the Relocation of Job 32–37. JSOT
29: 243–53.
2006 Job 21–37. WBC 18a. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Coats, George W.
1968 Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of
the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon.
1983 Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. FOTL 1. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
1988 Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God. JSOTSup 57. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Cogan, Mordechai
2001 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 10. New
York: Doubleday.
Coggins, Richard J.
1998 Do We Still Need Deutero-Isaiah? JSOT 81: 77–92.
Collins, John J.
1984 Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. FOTL 20. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
1985 Daniel and His Social World. Int 39: 131–43.
1993 Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis:
Fortress.
Collins, T.
1993 The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books. Biblical
Seminar 20. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Conrad, Edgar W.
1991 Reading Isaiah. OBT 27. Minneapolis: Fortress.
2003 Reading the Latter Prophets. JSOTSup 376. London: T. & T. Clark.
Conway, Mary L.
2008 From Objective Observation to Subjective Participation: How the Speaking Voices
in Lamentations Lead from Suffering toward Redemption. Unpublished M.T.S.
thesis, McMaster Divinity College, McMaster University.
Cook, Stephen L.
1995 Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting. Minneapolis:
Fortress.
Cooper, A.
1982 Narrative Theory and the Book of Job. SR 11: 39–40.
Cothey, Antony
2005 Ethics and Holiness in the Theology of Leviticus. JSOT 30: 131–51.
Cover, Robin C.
1992 Sin, Sinners (Old Testament). Pp. 31–40 in vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary,
ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Craigie, Peter C.
1976 The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1983 Psalms 1–50. WBC 19. Waco, TX: Word.
Works Cited 535
Creach, Jerome F. D.
1996 Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. JSOTSup 217. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Crenshaw, James L.
1975 Hymnic Affirmation of Divine Justice: The Doxologies of Amos and Related Texts
in the Old Testament. SBLDS 24. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press and Society of
Biblical Literature.
1998 Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Cross, Frank Moore
1953 The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah. JNES 12: 274–77.
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1998a From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
1998b Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel. Pp. 3–21 in From Epic to Canon: His-
tory and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
2000 The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic
History. Pp. 79–94 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deu-
teronomistic History, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville. Sources
for Biblical and Theological Study 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Crüsemann, Frank
1969 Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel. WMANT 32.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Curtis, Byron G.
2000 The Zion-Daughter Oracles: Evidence on the Identity and Ideology of the
Late Redactors of the Book of the Twelve. Pp. 166–84 in Reading and Hearing
the Book of the Twelve, ed. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney. SBLSymS 15. At-
lanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2006 Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location Trajectory
Analysis. Academia Biblica 25. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature /
Leiden: Brill.
Curtis, John B.
1979 On Job’s Response to Yahweh. JBL 98: 497–511.
1983 On Job’s Witness in Heaven. JBL 102: 549–62.
Dahood, Mitchell J.
1968 Proverbs 8:22–31: Translation and Commentary. CBQ 30: 512–21.
Daniels, Dwight R.
1987 Is There a “Prophetic Lawsuit” Genre? ZAW 99: 339–60.
Davidson, Jo Ann
2001 “Even if Noah, Daniel, and Job” (Ezekiel 14:14, 20): Why These Three? Jour-
nal of the Adventist Theological Society 12: 132–44.
Davies, Graham I.
1989 The Destiny of the Nations in the Book of Isaiah. Pp. 93–120 in The Book of
Isaiah—Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leur relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouv-
rage, ed. Jacques Vermeylen. BETL 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
1992 Hosea: Based on the Revised Standard Version. New Century Bible Commen-
tary. London: Marshall Pickering.
536 Works Cited
1993 Hosea. OTG. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

2003 Covenant, Oath, and the Composition of the Pentateuch. Pp. 71–90 in Cov-
enant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson, ed. A. D. H. Mayes and
Robert B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, Philip R.
1998 Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures. Library of An-
cient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
De Vries, Simon J.
1968 The Origin of the Murmuring Tradition. JBL 87: 51–58.
DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy L.
1997 Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter. Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press.
2000 The Canonical Shape of the Psalms. Pp. 93–110 in An Introduction to Wisdom
Literature and the Psalms: Festschrift Marvin E. Tate, ed. Harold Wayne Ballard
and W. Dennis Tucker. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
2004 Introduction to the Psalms: A Song from Ancient Israel. St. Louis: Chalice.
Delekat, Lienhard
1967 Asylie und Schutzorakel Am Zionheiligtum: Eine Untersuchung zu Den Privaten
Feindpsalmen. Mit Zwei Exkursen. Leiden: Brill.
Delitzsch, Franz
1956 Biblical Commentary on the Book of Job. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Dempsey, Carol J.
2006 “Turn Back, O People”: Repentance in the Latter Prophets. Pp. 47–66 in
Repentance in Christian Theology, ed. Mark J. Boda and Gordon T. Smith. Col-
legeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Dempster, Stephen G.
1997 An “Extraordinary Fact”: Torah and Temple and the Contours of the Hebrew
Canon. TynBul 48: 23–56.
2003 Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible. Leicester:
Apollos / Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
2006 The Prophets, the Canon and a Canonical Approach. Pp. 293–325 in Canon
and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew, Scott Hahn, Robin
Parry, Christopher Seitz, and Al Wolters. Scripture and Hermeneutics 7.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Dentan, Robert C.
1963 Preface to Old Testament Theology. Rev. ed. New York: Seabury.
Deuel, D. C.
1996 Malachi 3:16: “Book of Remembrance” or Royal Memorandum? An Exeget-
ical Note. TMSJ 7: 107–11.
Deventer, Hans van
2000 The End of the End, or, What Is the Deuteronomist (Still) Doing in Daniel?
Pp. 62–75 in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Proph-
ets, ed. Johannes C. de Moor and H. F. Van Rooy. OtSt 44. Leiden: Brill.
Di Lella, Alexander A.
1987 The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. AB 39. New York:
Doubleday.
Works Cited 537
Diamond, A. R.
1987 The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama. JSOTSup 46.
Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Dick, Michael B.
1979 Legal Metaphor in Job 31. CBQ 41: 37–50.
Diepold, Peter
1972 Israels Land. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Dietrich, Walter
1987 David, Saul und die Propheten: Das Verhältnis von Religion und Politik Nach den
Prophetischen Überlieferungen vom Frühesten Königtum in Israel. BWANT 7.
Folge, Heft 2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
2000 History and Law: Deuteronomistic Historiography and Deuteronomic Law
Exemplified in the Passage from the Period of the Judges to the Monarchical
Period. Pp. 315–42 in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomist Historiogra-
phy in Recent Research, ed. Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, and Jean Daniel
Macchi. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Dillard, Raymond B.
1981 The Chronicler’s Solomon. WTJ 43: 289–300.
1984 Reward and Punishment in Chronicles: The Theology of Immediate Retri-
bution. WTJ 46: 164–72.
1987 2 Chronicles. WBC 15. Waco, TX: Word.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.
1993 Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament in the Hebrew Bible.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
1997 Tragedy, Tradition, and Theology in the Book of Lamentations. JSOT 74:
29–60.
2002 Lamentations. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Dorsey, David A.
1988 Lamentations: Communicating Meaning through Structure. EJ 6: 83–90.
Dozeman, Thomas B.
1989 God on the Mountain. SBLMS 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Douglas, Mary
1999 Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Driver, S. R.
1911 Propitiation. P. 128 in vol. 4 of A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings. New
York: Scribner.
Duggan, Michael
2001 The Covenant Renewal in Ezra–Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40): An Exegetical, Lit-
erary, and Theological Study. SBDLS 164. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Dumbrell, William J.
1983 “In Those Days There Was No King in Israel, Every Man Did What Was Right
in His Own Eyes”: The Purpose of the Book of Judges Reconsidered. JSOT 25:
23–33.
1985 The Purpose of the Book of Isaiah. TynBul 36: 111–28.
Durham, John I.
1987 Exodus. WBC 3. Waco, TX: Word.
Dyrness, William A.
1979 Themes in Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
538 Works Cited
Eaton, John H.
1976 Kingship and the Psalms. SBT 32. London: SCM.
Eberhart, Christian
2002 Beobachtungen zum Verbrennungsritus bei Schlachtopfer und Gemein-
schafts-Schlachtopfer. Bib 83: 88–96.
Ego, Beate
2003 The Repentance of Nineveh in the Story of Jonah and Nahum’s Prophecy of
the City’s Destruction—a Coherent Reading of the Book of the Twelve as Re-
flected in the Aggada. Pp. 155–64 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the
Twelve, ed. Aaron Schart and Paul Redditt. BZAW 325. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Eichrodt, Walther
1961 Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
1970 Ezekiel: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Ellis, E. Earle
1991 The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of
Modern Research. WUNT 54. Tübingen: Mohr.
Emmerson, Grace I.
1992 Isaiah 56–66. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn
1988 In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra–Nehemiah. SBLMS 36. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Eslinger, Lyle M.
1985 Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1–12. Bible and Litera-
ture 10. Decatur, GA: Almond.
Estes, Daniel J.
2005 Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Evans, Craig A.
1988 On the Unity and Parallel Structure of Isaiah. VT 38: 129–47.
Fields, Weston W.
1997 Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative. JSOTSup 231.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Fishbane, Michael A.
1984 Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel. Int 38: 131–50.
1985 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon.
Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Anne
1999 The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law. JSOTSup 287. Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press.
Floyd, Michael H.
2000 Minor Prophets, Part 2. FOTL 22. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
2002 The Ma¶¶aª as a Type of Prophetic Book. JBL 121: 401–22.
Fohrer, Georg
1962 Jesaja 1 als Zusammenfassung der Verkündigung Jesajas. ZAW 74: 251–68.
Fokkelman, J. P.
1987 Exodus. Pp. 56–65 in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and
Frank Kermode. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Frankel, David
2002 The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal
Lore. VTSup 89. Leiden: Brill.
Works Cited 539
Freedman, David Noel

1963 The Law and the Prophets. Pp. 250–65 in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962, ed.
G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill.
1964 Divine Commitment and Human Obligation, the Covenant Theme. Int 18:
419–31.
1991 The Unity of the Hebrew Bible. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
1992 The Symmetry of the Hebrew Bible. ST 46: 83–108.
Fretheim, Terence E.
1983 Deuteronomic History. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon.
1984 The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. OBT 14. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
1996 The Pentateuch. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon.
1999 First and Second Kings. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westmin-
ster John Knox.
2002 Jeremiah. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys.
2006 Repentance in the Former Prophets. Pp. 25–46 in Repentance in Christian
Theology, ed. Mark J. Boda and Gordon T. Smith. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press.
Gabler, Johann P.
1992 An Oration on the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Systematic The-
ology and the Specific Objectives of Each. Pp. 489–502 in The Flowering of
Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology,
1930–1990, ed. Ben C. Ollenburger, Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard F. Hasel.
Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Gane, Roy
2005 Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Garrett, Duane A.
1993 Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. New American Commentary 14. Nash-
ville: Broadman.
Garsiel, Moshe
1993 The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach. CBQ 55: 244–62.
Gärtner, Judith
2006 “. . . Why Do You Let Us Stray from Your Paths . . .” (Isa 63:17): The Con-
cept of Guilt in the Communal Lament in Isa 63:7–64:11. Pp. 145–63 in
Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 1: The Origin of Penitential Prayer in Second
Temple Judaism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline.
SBLEJL 21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Gemser, B.
1960 The Rîb—or Controversy—Pattern in Hebrew Mentality. Pp. 120–37 in Wis-
dom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, ed. Martin Noth and David Winton
Thomas. VTSup 3. Leiden: Brill.
Gerbrandt, Gerald E.
1986 Kingship according to the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S.
1963 Jeremiah’s Complaints: Observations on Jer 15:10–21. JBL 82: 393–408.
1988 Psalms: Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. FOTL 14. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
540 Works Cited
2002 Theologies in the Old Testament, trans. J. Bowden. London: T. & T. Clark.
Gilbert, M.
1981 Le discours de la sagesse en Proverbes 8. Pp. 202–18 in Sagesse de l’ancien tes-
tament, ed. M. Gilbert. Gembloux: Duculot.
Glazier-McDonald, Beth
1987 Malachi, the Divine Messenger. SBLDS 98. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Goldingay, John
1989 Daniel. Word Biblical Themes. Dallas: Word.
1995 Models for Interpretation of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1998 Isaiah I 1 and II 1. VT 48: 326–32.
2001 Isaiah. NIBC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
2003 Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: Israel’s Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
2006 Old Testament Theology, vol. 2: Israel’s Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Good, Edwin M.
1991 The Problem of Evil in the Book of Job. Pp. 50–69 in The Voice from the
Whirlwind: Interpreting the Book of Job, ed. Leo G. Perdue and W. Clark Gilpin.
Nashville: Abingdon.
Gooding, David W.
1982 The Composition of the Book of Judges. ErIsr 16 (Orlinsky Volume): 70–79.
Gordis, Robert
1967 Commentary on the Text of Lamentations (Part Two). JQR 58: 14–33.
1974 The Song of Songs and Lamentations: A Study, Modern Translation and Commen-
tary. Rev. ed. New York: Ktav.
Gorman, Frank H.
1990 The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time, and Status in the Priestly Theology. JSOTSup
91. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Gosse, Bernard
1998 The Masoretic Redaction of Jeremiah: An Explanation. JSOT 77: 75–80.
Gottwald, Norman K.
1954 Studies in the Book of Lamentations. Chicago: Allenson.
Goulder, M. D.
1982 The Psalms of the Sons of Korah. JSOTSup 20. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Grabbe, Lester L.
1998 Ezra–Nehemiah. Old Testament Readings. London: Routledge.
Graffy, Adrian
1984 A Prophet Confronts His People: The Disputation Speech in the Prophets. AnBib
104. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Gray, John
1970 I & II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd ed. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
1986 Joshua, Judges, Ruth. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Gray, Mark
1998 Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13.7–15:
The Rape of Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor. JSOT 77: 39–54.
Green, Joel B., and Turner, Max
2000 Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theol-
ogy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Works Cited 541
Green, William S.
2002 Stretching the Covenant: Job and Judaism. Review & Expositor 99: 569–77.
Greenberg, Moshe
1969 Understanding Exodus. Heritage of Biblical Israel Series 2. New York: Behrman
House for the Melton Research Center of the Jewish Theological Seminary
of America.
1979 Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law. Pp. 5–28 in Yehezkel Kaufmann Ju-
bilee Volume, ed. Menahem Haran. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960. [Reprinted as
pp. 143–50 in Jewish Law and Decision-Making, ed. Aaron M. Schreiber. Phila-
delphia: Temple University Press, 1979.]
1983a Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
1983b Ezekiel 1–20. AB 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
1986 More Reflections of Biblical Criminal Law. Pp. 1–17 in Studies in the Bible, ed.
Sara Japhet. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Greenfield, Jonas C.
1985 The Seven Pillars of Wisdom (Prov. 9:1): A Mistranslation? JQR 76: 13–20.
Greenspahn, Frederick E.
1986 The Theology of the Framework of Judges. VT 36: 385–96.
Gunkel, Hermann
1967 The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction. FBBS 19. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Gunkel, H., and Begrich, J.
1933 Einleitung in Die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der Religiösen Lyrik Israels. 2nd ed.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Gunn, D. M.
1980 The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story. JSOTSup 14. Shef-
field: JSOT Press.
Gunneweg, Antonius H. J.
1978 Understanding the Old Testament. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Gwaltney, W. C., Jr.
1983 The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament
Literature. Pp. 191–211 in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Compar-
ative Method, ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
Haak, Robert D.
1982 A Study and New Interpretation of Qsr Nps. JBL 101: 161–67.
Habel, Norman C.
1965 The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives. ZAW 77: 297–323.
1972 The Symbolism of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9. Int 26: 131–57.
1975 The Book of Job. CBC. London: Cambridge University Press.
1985 The Book of Job: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Hahn, Scott
2005 Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Recent Research (1994–
2004). Currents in Biblical Research 3: 263–92.
Hahn, Scott, and Bergsma, John S.
2004 What Laws Were “Not Good”? A Canonical Approach to the Theological
Problem of Ezekiel 20:25–26. JBL 123: 201–18.
542 Works Cited
Halpern, Baruch
1991 Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century bce: Kinship and the
Rise of Individual Moral Liability. Pp. 11–107 in Law and Ideology in Monar-
chic Israel, ed. B. Halpern and D. Hobson. JSOTSup 124. Sheffield: JSOT
Press.
Hals, Ronald M.
1988 Ezekiel. FOTL 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hamilton, Victor P.
1990 The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1995 The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hanson, Paul D.
1975 The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Haran, Menahem
1997 The Bérît ‘Covenant’: Its Nature and Ceremonial Background. Pp. 203–19 in
Tehillah Le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed.
Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
2003 The Place of the Prophecies against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah. Pp.
699–706 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls
in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H.
Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill.
Harland, P. J.
1996 The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis 6–9). VTSup
64. Leiden: Brill.
1998 Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel. VT 48: 515–33.
Harrington, Hannah K.
2003 Review of Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Cited 1
October 2006. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=
14526CodePage=1452.
2008 Holiness and Purity in Ezra–Nehemiah. Pp. 998–116 in Unity and Disunity of
Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and Paul Red-
ditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Phoenix.
Harris, Scott L.
1995 Proverbs 1–9: A Study of Inner-Biblical Interpretation. SBLDS 150. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Harrison, R. K.
1977 Introduction to the Old Testament with a Comprehensive Review of Old Testament
Studies and a Special Supplement on the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hartley, John E.
1988 The Book of Job. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1992 Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word.
Hasel, Gerhard F.
1980 The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isa-
iah. AUMSR 5. 3rd ed. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
1984 The Relationship between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. TrinJ
n.s. 5: 113–27.
1991 Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. 4th ed. Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans.
Works Cited 543
Hauge, Martin R.
2001 The Descent from the Mountain. JSOTSup 323. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
Hawtrey, Kim
1993 The Exile as a Crisis for Cultic Religion: Lamentations and Ezekiel. RTR 52:
74–83.
Heater, Homer
1992 Structure and Meaning in Lamentations. BibSac 149: 304–15.
Helmer, Christine
2005 Biblical Theology: Reality, Interpretation, across Disciplines. Pp. 1–16 in Bib-
lical Interpretation: History, Context, and Reality, ed. Christine Helmer and Tay-
lor G. Petrey. Atlanta : Society of Biblical Literature / Leiden: Brill.
Helmer, Christine, and Petrey, Taylor G., eds.
2005 Biblical Interpretation: History, Context, and Reality. SBLSymS 26. Atlanta: So-
ciety of Biblical Literature / Leiden: Brill.
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm
1964 I & II Samuel: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Hiebert, Theodore
2007 The Tower of Babel and the Origin of the World’s Culture. JBL 126: 29–58.
Hillers, Delbert R.
1984 Micah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah. Hermeneia. Philadel-
phia: Fortress.
Hobbs, T. R.
1985 2 Kings. WBC. Waco, TX: Word.
Hofman, Marina
2007 Tamar as the Unsung Hero of Genesis 38. Unpublished M.A. thesis, McMaster
Divinity College.
Holladay, William Lee
1958 The Root Sûbh in the Old Testament: With Particular Reference to Its Usages in
Covenantal Contexts. Leiden: Brill.
Holmgren, Fredrick C.
1992 Faithful Abraham and the ªamanâ Covenant Nehemiah 9,6–10,1. ZAW 104:
249–54.
Hoppe, Leslie J.
2000 The Holy City: Jerusalem in the Theology of the Old Testament. Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press.
Horst, F.
1929 Die Doxologien im Amosbuch. ZAW 47: 45–54.
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Zenger, Erich
2005 Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: For-
tress.
House, Paul R.
1989 Zephaniah: A Prophetic Drama. Bible and Literature Series 16. Sheffield: Al-
mond.
1990 The Unity of the Twelve. Bible and Literature Series 27. Sheffield: Almond.
1998 Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
2003 Endings as New Beginnings: Returning to the Lord, the Day of the Lord,
and Renewal in the Book of the Twelve. Pp. 313–38 in Thematic Threads in
544 Works Cited
the Book of the Twelve, ed. Aaron Schart and Paul Redditt. BZAW 325. Ber-
lin: de Gruyter.
Howard, David M.
1989 Editorial Activity in the Psalter: A State of the Field Survey. Word & World 9:
274–85.
Hugenberger, Gordon
1994 Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage,
Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. VTSup 52. Leiden: Brill.
Hurowitz, Victor
Forthcoming Proverbs. Miqra le-Yisrael. Tel Aviv: Am Oved / Jerusalem: Magnes.
[Hebrew]
Hyatt, J. Philip
1971 Commentary on Exodus. NCB. London: Oliphants.
Isbell, Charles D.
2002 The Function of Exodus Motifs in Biblical Narratives: Theological Didactic
Drama. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Jackson, Bernard S.
2006 Wisdom-Laws: A Study of the Mishpatim of Exodus 21:1–22:16. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jacob, Edmond
1958 Theology of the Old Testament. New York: Harper.
Jahnow, Hedwig
1923 Das Hebräische Leichenleid im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung. BZAW 36. Giessen:
Alfred Töpelmann.
Janowski, Bernd
2000 Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Traditions- und Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur
Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift. WMANT 55. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag.
Janzen, David
2004 The Social Meanings of Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible: A Study of Four Writings.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Janzen, J. Gerald
1973 Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. HSM 6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1985 Job. IBC. Atlanta: John Knox.
Japhet, Sara
1989 The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. BEATAJ
9. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
1993 I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Jastrow, Marcus
2003 Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Mid-
rashic Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Jenson, Philip
1992 Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. JSOTSup 106.
2003 Holiness in the Priestly Writings. Pp. 93–121 in Holiness: Past and Present, ed.
Stephen C. Barton. London: T. & T. Clark.
Jobes, Karen H., and Silva, Moisés
2000 Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Works Cited 545
Jobling, David
1986 The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible II.
JSOTSup 39. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
2000 What, If Anything, Is 1 Samuel? Pp. 601–14 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah:
Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and
J. Gordon McConville. Sources for Biblical and Judaic Study 8. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Johnson, Aubrey R.
1962 The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
1979 The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Johnson, Bo
1985 Form and Message in Lamentations. ZAW 97: 58–73.
Johnstone, William
1997 1 and 2 Chronicles. JSOTSup 253–54. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Jones, Barry Alan
1995 The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. SBDLS 149.
Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Jones, Gwilym Henry
1984 1 and 2 Kings. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Joyce, P. M.
1989 Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel. JSOTSup 51. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press.
Kaiser, Walter C.
1982 A Biblical Approach to Personal Suffering. Chicago: Moody.
Kalimi, Isaac
2005 An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and
Writing. SSN 46. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Kalluveettil, Paul
1982 Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from
the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. AnBib 88. Rome: Pontifical Bib-
lical Institute.
Kaminski, Carol M.
2004 From Noah to Israel: Realization of the Primaeval Blessing after the Flood. JSOT-
Sup 413. London: T. & T. Clark.
Kaminsky, Joel S.
1995a Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 196. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
1995b Joshua 7: A Reassessment of Israelite Conceptions of Corporate Punishment.
Pp. 315–46 in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström, ed.
Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy. JSOTSup 190. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
1997 The Sins of the Fathers: A Theological Investigation of the Biblical Tension
between Corporate and Individualized Retribution. Judaism 46: 319–32.
Kang, S.-M.
1989 Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. BZAW 177. Ber-
lin: de Gruyter.
Kaplan, Mordecai M.
1926 Isaiah 6:1–11. JBL 45: 251–59.
546 Works Cited
Kelly, Brian E.
1996 Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles. JSOTSup 211. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Kessler, Martin
1999 The Function of Chapters 25 and 50–51 in the Book of Jeremiah. Pp. 64–72
in Troubling Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and
Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Keys, Gillian
1996 The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the “Succession Narrative.” JSOTSup 221.
Kidner, Derek
1985 The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes: An Introduction to Wisdom Liter-
ature. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Kitchen, Kenneth A.
1977 Proverbs and Wisdom Books of the Ancient Near East: The Factual History
of a Literary Form. TynBul 28: 69–114.
Kiuchi, N.
1987 The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function.
Klawans, Jonathan
2000 Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Klein, Ralph W.
1978 A Theology for Exiles: The Kingship of Yahweh. Dialog 17: 128–34.
1979 Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation. OBT. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1983 1 Samuel. WBC 10. Waco, TX: Word.
Kline, Meredith G.
1963 Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Knauf, Ernst A.
2000 Does “Deuteronomistic Historiography” (DtrH) Exist? Pp. 388–98 in Israel
Constructs Its History: Deuteronomist Historiography in Recent Research, ed. Al-
bert de Pury, Thomas Römer, and Jean Daniel Macchi. JSOTSup 306. Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press.
Knibb, Michael A.
2001 The Book of Daniel in Its Context. Pp. 16–35 in The Book of Daniel: Compo-
sition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. Leiden: Brill.
Knierim, Rolf P.
1985 The Composition of the Pentateuch. Pp. 393–415 in Society of Biblical Liter-
ature: 1985 Seminar Papers, ed. Kent H. Richards. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
1995 The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases. Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans.
Knierim, Rolf P., and Coats, George W.
2005 Numbers. FOTL 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Knohl, Israel
1995 The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapo-
lis: Augsburg. Reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Works Cited 547
Knoppers, Gary N.
1987 Dynastic Secession and Oracle in 1 Kings 11. Proceedings, Eastern Great Lakes
and Midwest Biblical Society 7: 159–72.
1993 Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual
Monarchies, vol. 1: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam. HSM 52. At-
lanta: Scholars Press.
1994 Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual
Monarchies, vol. 2: The Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Jo-
siah. HSM 52. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
1996 Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?
JAOS 116: 670–97.
2000 Prayer and Propaganda: Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple and the Deu-
teronomist’s Program. Pp. 370–96 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent
Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon
McConville. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 8. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
2001 The Davidic Genealogy: Some Contextual Considerations from the Ancient
Mediterranean World. Transeuphrates 22: 35–50.
2004 I Chronicles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12. New
York: Doubleday.
Koch, Klaus
1955 Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament? ZThK 52: 1–42.
1983 Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament? trans. Thomas H.
Trapp. Pp. 57–87 in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw. IRT
4. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1985 Is Daniel Also among the Prophets? Int 39: 117–30.
Konkel, August, and Longman, Tremper, III
2005 Job, Song of Songs. Cornerstone 6. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale.
Koopmans, William T.
1990 Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. JSOTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Kraemer, David C.
1993 On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. JSOT 59: 73–92.
Krasovec, Joze
1992 The Source of Hope in the Book of Lamentations. VT 42: 223–33.
1999 Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel
in the Light of Greek and Modern Views. VTSup 78. Leiden: Brill.
Kratz, Reinhard G.
2001 The Visions of Daniel. Pp. 91–113 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Re-
ception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. Leiden: Brill.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim
1986 Theology of the Psalms, trans. Keith R. Crim. Continental Commentaries.
Minneapolis: Augsburg
1988 Psalms 1–59: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald. Continental Commen-
taries. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
1989 Psalms 60–150: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald. Continental Com-
mentaries. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
548 Works Cited
Kühlewein, J.
1973 Geschichte in Den Psalmen. Calwer Theologische Monographien. Stuttgart:
Calwer.
Kuntz, J. Kenneth
1974 The Canonical Wisdom Psalms of Ancient Israel: Their Rhetorical, Thematic
and Formal Dimensions. Pp. 186–222 in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor
of James Muilenburg, ed. Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler. PTMS. Pitts-
burgh: Pickwick.
2000 Wisdom Psalms and the Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter. Pp. 144–60 in For a
Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and
Early Christianity, ed. Randal A. Argall, Beverly Bow, and Rodney Alan Wer-
line. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Lack, Rémi
1973 La symbolique du livre d’Isaïe: Essai sur l’image littéraire comme élément de struc-
turation. AnBib 59. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Lacocque, André
2001 Allusions to Creation in Daniel 7. Pp. 114–31 in The Book of Daniel: Compo-
sition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. Leiden: Brill.
Lanahan, William F.
1974 The Speaking Voice in the Book of Lamentations. JBL 93: 41–49.
Lang, Bernhard
1983 Die Sieben Säulen der Weisheit (Sprüche IX 1) im Licht Israelitischer Ar-
chitektur. VT 33: 488–91.
Lapsley, Jacqueline E.
2000a Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel.
BZAW. Berlin: de Gruyter.
2000b Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of
the Moral Self. Pp. 143–73 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropo-
logical Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. At-
Larkin, Katrina J.
1994 The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological
Wisdom Anthology. CBET 6. Kampen: Kok.
Lee, Nancy
2002 The Singers of Lamentations: Communities under Siege, from Ur to Jerusalem to
Sarajevo. Biblical Interpretation 60. Leiden: Brill.
Lee, Won W.
2003 Punishment and Forgiveness in Israel’s Migratory Campaign. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Leene, Hendrik
2000 Ezekiel and Jeremiah: Promises of Inner Renewal in Diachronic Perspective.
Pp. 150–75 in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Proph-
ets, ed. Johannes C. de Moor and H. F. Van Rooy. OtSt 44. Leiden: Brill.
Leiman, Shnayer Z.
1976 The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence.
Hamden, CT: Archon Books for the Academy.
Levine, Baruch A.
1989 Leviticus. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Works Cited 549
Levinson, Bernard M.
1994 The Case for Revision and Interpolation within the Biblical Legal Corpora.
Pp. 37–59 in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Inter-
polation and Development, ed. Bernard M. Levinson. JSOTSup 181. Sheffield:
1997 Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
2008 “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation. FAT 54. Tü-
bingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Lichtenstein, M.
1968 The Banquet Motif in Keret and in Proverbs 9. Journal of the Ancient Near
Eastern Society of Columbia University 1: 19–31.
Liedke, Gerhard
1971 Gestalt und Bezeichnung Alttestamentlicher Rechtssätze: Eine Formgeschichtlich-
Terminologische Studie. WMANT 39. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Linafelt, Tod
2000 Surviving Lamentations: Catastrophe, Lament, and Protest in the Afterlife of a
Biblical Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Linville, James R.
1998 Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity. JSOTSup 272.
Lohfink, Norbert
1993 Recent Discussion on 2 Kings 22–23: The State of the Question. Pp. 36–61 in
A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed.
Duane L. Christensen. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3. Winona
1994 Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy.
Minneapolis: Fortress.
2000 The Concept of “Covenant” in Biblical Theology. Pp. 11–31 in The God of Is-
rael and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms, ed. Norbert Lohfink and
Erich Zenger. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Lohfink, Norbert, and Zenger, Erich
1994 Der Gott Israels und Die Völker: Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psal-
men. SBS 154. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.
2000 The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press.
Long, Burke O.
1984 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature. FOTL 9. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
1997 Letting Rival Gods Be Rivals: Biblical Theology in a Postmodern Age. Pp.
222–33 in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed.
Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Long, V. Philips
1989 The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coher-
ence. SBLDS 118. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Longman, Tremper, III
2006a Proverbs. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms.
Grand Rapids: Baker.
550 Works Cited
2006b Reading Wisdom Canonically. Pp. 352–73 in Canon and Biblical Interpreta-
tion, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew et al. Scripture and Hermeneutics 7. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan.
Longman, Tremper, III, and Dillard, Raymond B.
2006 An Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Longman, Tremper, III, and Reid, Daniel G.
1995 God Is a Warrior. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
Lortie, Christopher
2007 These are the Days of Haggai and Zechariah: The Literary Function of the Proph-
ets in Ezra 1–6. Unpublished M.A. thesis, McMaster Divinity College.
Louw, J. P., and Nida, Eugene A.
1989 Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd
ed. New York: United Bible Societies.
Lowery, R. H.
1991 The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah. JSOTSup 120.
Lucas, Ernest
1995 Sacrifice in the Prophets. Pp. 59–74 in Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. Roger T. Beck-
with and Martin J. Selman. Carlisle: Paternoster / Grand Rapids: Baker.
Lundbom, Jack R.
1999 Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New
York: Doubleday.
Luyten, J.
1979 Psalm 73 and Wisdom. Pp. 59–81 in La sagesse de l’ancien testament, ed. Mau-
rice Gilbert et al. Paris: Duculot.
Malamat, Abraham
1955 Doctrines of Causality in Hittite and Biblical Historiography: A Parallel. VT
5: 1–12.
Mandolfo, Carleen
2002 God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament. JSOTSup 357. Lon-
don: Sheffield Academic Press.
2007 Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of
Lamentations. Semeia Studies 58. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Mann, Thomas W.
1988 The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch. Atlanta: John
Knox.
1995 Deuteronomy. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox.
Marshall, I. Howard
2004 Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-
demic.
Martens, Elmer
1994 The Oscillating Fortunes of “History” within Old Testament Theology. Pp.
313–40 in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its
Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker.
Works Cited 551
2001 Reaching for a Biblical Theology of the Whole Bible. Pp. 83–101 in Reclaim-
ing the Old Testament: Essays in Honour of Waldemar Janzen, ed. Gordon Zerbe.
Winnipeg: CMBC.
2007 Old Testament Theology Since Walter Kaiser, Jr. JETS 50: 673–92.
Martínez, Florentino Garcia, and Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C.
1997–98 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Mason, R. A.
1977 The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
1990 Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
1994 Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel. OTG. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Matties, Gordon
1990 Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse. SBDLS 126. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
Mayes, A. D. H.
1979 Deuteronomy. NCB. Greenwood, SC: Attic.
1981 Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy. JBL 100: 23–51.
Mayes, A. D. H., and Salters, Robert B., eds.
2003 Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Mays, James Luther
1976 Micah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
1987 The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter. JBL 106: 3–12.
1994 The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms. Louisville: Westmin-
ster John Knox.
McCann, J. Clinton
1993 Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter. Pp. 93–107 in
Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann. JSOTSup 159. Shef-
field: JSOT Press.
2002 Judges. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
McCann, J. Clinton, ed.
1993 The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
McCann, J. Clinton, and McCann, Nancy Rowland
1993 A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah. Nash-
ville: Abingdon.
McCarter, P. Kyle
1980 I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 8.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
1984 II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 9.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
McCarthy, Dennis J.
1963 Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in
the Old Testament. AnBib 21. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
1971 An Installation Genre? JBL 90: 31–41.
1974 The Wrath of Yahweh and the Structural Unity of the Deuteronomistic His-
tory. Pp. 97–110 in Essays in Old Testament Ethics, ed. James L. Crenshaw and
J. T. Willis. New York: Ktav.
552 Works Cited
the Old Testament. 2nd ed. AnBib 21a. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
the Old Testament. 3rd ed. AnBib 21a. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
McConville, J. Gordon
1984 Law and Theology in Deuteronomy. JSOTSup 33. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
1992 I Kings VIII 46–53 and the Deuteronomic Hope. VT 42: 67–79.
2000 1 Kings 8:46–53 and the Deuteronomic Hope. Pp. 358–69 in Reconsidering
Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Gary N.
Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville. Sources for Biblical and Theological
Study 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
2001 Biblical Theology: Canon and Plain Sense (Finlayson Memorial Lecture
2001). Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 19: 129–33.
2002 Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5. Leicester: Apollos /
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
McDonald, Lee M.
1995 The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson.
2007 The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd ed. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson.
McKane, William
1970 Proverbs: A New Approach. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
McKeating, Henry
1993 Ezekiel. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
McKenzie, Steven L.
1991 The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuterono-
mistic History. VTSup 42. Leiden: Brill.
2000a Covenant. Understanding Biblical Themes. St. Louis: Chalice.
2000b The Trouble with Kingship. Pp. 286–314 in Israel Constructs Its History: Deu-
teronomist Historiography in Recent Research, ed. Albert de Pury, Thomas
Römer, and Jean Daniel Macchi. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
McKenzie, Steven L., and Graham, M. Patrick
1994 The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. JSOTSup 182.
McKinlay, Judith E.
1996 Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink. JSOTSup 216.
1999 To Eat or Not to Eat: Where Is Wisdom in This Choice? Semeia 86: 73–84.
Mein, Andrew
2001 Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mendenhall, George E.
1955 Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Presbyterian
Board of Colportage of Western Pennsylvania.
Meyers, Carol L., and Meyers, Eric M.
1987 Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
AB 25b. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Works Cited 553
Milgrom, Jacob
1964 Did Isaiah Prophesy During the Reign of Uzziah? VT 14: 164–82.
1975 Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. RB 82: 186–205.
1976 Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. SJLA
18. Leiden: Brill.
1981 Vertical Retribution: Ruminations on Parashat Shealah. Conservative Judaism
37: 11–16.
1989 Ethics and Ritual: The Foundations of the Biblical Dietary Laws. Pp. 159–91
in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, ed. Edwin B. Fir-
mage, Bernard G. Weiss, and John W. Welch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
1990a Excursus: Repentance in the Torah and the Prophets. Pp. 396–98 in Num-
bers. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
1990b Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
1991 Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3.
New York: Doubleday.
1996 Further on the Expiatory Sacrifices. JBL 115: 511–14.
2000 Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3a.
2001 Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3b.
2004a Covenants: The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code
(Leviticus 17–27). Pp. 91–101 in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Vol-
ume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical
Judaism, ed. Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
2004b Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics. Continental Commentaries. Minneapo-
lis: Fortress Press.
Millar, J. G.
1999 Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy. NSBT. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Miller, John W.
1994 The Origins of the Bible: Rethinking Canon History. Theological Inquiries. New
York: Paulist Press.
Miller, Patrick D.
1973 The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1990 Deuteronomy. IBC. Louisville: John Knox.
1993 The Beginning of the Psalter. Pp. 83–92 in Shape and Shaping of the Psalter,
ed. J. Clinton McCann. JSOTSup Sheffield: JSOT Press.
1994 They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis:
Fortress.
Mitchell, Christine
2006 The Ironic Death of Josiah in 2 Chronicles. CBQ 68: 421–35.
Moberly, R. W. L.
1983 At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34. JSOTSup 22. Shef-
field: JSOT Press.
1992 Genesis 12–50. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
554 Works Cited
Möller, Karl
2003 A Prophet in Debate: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos. JSOTSup
372. London: Sheffield Academic Press.
Moore, Michael S.
1983 Human Suffering in Lamentations. RB 90: 534–55.
Morgan, Donn F.
1981 Wisdom in the Old Testament Traditions. Atlanta: John Knox.
1990 Between Text and Community: The “Writings” in Canonical Interpretation. Min-
neapolis: Fortress.
Morrow, William S.
1986 Consolation, Rejection, and Repentance in Job 42:6. JBL 105: 211–25.
Muenchow, Charles
1989 Dust and Dirt in Job 42:6. JBL 108: 597–611.
Murphy, Roland E.
1963 A Consideration of the Classification “Wisdom Psalms.” Pp. 156–67 in Con-
gress Volume: Bonn, 1962, ed. G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill.
1978 Wisdom: Theses and Hypotheses. Pp. 35–42 in Israelite Wisdom: Theological
and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, ed. John G. Gammie, Walter
Brueggemann, W. Lee Humphreys, and James M. Ward. Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press.
1981 Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. FOTL
13. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1987 Wisdom’s Song: Proverbs 1:20–33. CBQ 49: 456–60.
1997 Reflections on a Critical Biblical Theology. Pp. 265–80 in Problems in Biblical
Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L.
Eades. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1998 Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
2002 The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. 3rd ed. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Murphy, Roland E., and Huwiler, Elizabeth
1999 Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. NIBC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Murray, Donald F.
1998 Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and Polemics in a
Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.17–7.29). JSOTSup 264. Sheffield:
Murray, Robert
1982 Prophecy and the Cult. Pp. 200–216 in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition, ed. R. Cog-
gins, A. Phillips, and M. Knibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nasuti, Harry P.
1999 Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition and the Post-Critical Interpretation of
the Psalms. JSOTSup 218. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Nelson, Richard D.
1981 The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield:
Department of Biblical Studies–University of Sheffield.
1993 Raising up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
1998 The Historical Books. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon.
2002 Deuteronomy: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Works Cited 555
Newsom, Carol
1996 The Book of Job. Pp. 317–637 in vol. 4 of The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Le-
ander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon.
Nicholson, Ernest W.
1986 God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clar-
endon.
1998 The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Ox-
ford: Clarendon and Oxford University Press.
Nogalski, James D.
1993a Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin: de Gruyter.
1993b Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin: de Gruyter.
2003 The Day(s) of Yhwh in the Book of the Twelve. Pp. 192–213 in Thematic
Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Aaron Schart and Paul Redditt. BZAW
Nogalski, James, and Sweeney, Marvin A.
2000 Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. SBLSymS 15. Atlanta: Society of
Noth, Martin
1943 Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
1971 Das Buch Josua. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 7. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
1972 A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
1981 The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Nutkowicz, Hélène
2004 Propos autour de la mort d’un enfant: 2 Samuel XI 2–XII 24. VT 54: 104–18.
O’Brien, Julia M.
1990 Priest and Levite in Malachi. SBLDS 121. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
O’Brien, Mark A.
1989 The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment. OBO 92. Freiburg:
Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
O’Connell, Robert H.
1996 The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges. VTSup 63. Leiden: Brill.
O’Connor, Kathleen M.
1988 The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation and Role in Chapters 1–25.
SBLDS 94. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
2002 Lamentations and the Tears of the World. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Odell, Margaret S.
1991 An Exploratory Study of Shame and Dependence in the Bible and Selected
Near Eastern Parallels. Pp. 217–34 in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Per-
spective, ed. K. Lawson Younger Jr. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies
11. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
1992 The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–63. JSOT 56:
101–12.
2006 Ezekiel. Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys.
Ogden, G.
1983 Joel 4 and Prophetic Responses to National Laments. JSOT 26: 97–106.
556 Works Cited
Ollenburger, Ben C.
1985 Biblical Theology: Situating the Discipline. Pp. 37–62 in Understanding the
Word: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson, ed. James T. Butler, Edgar W.
Conrad, and Ben C. Ollenburger. JSOTSup 37. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
1991 So Wide a Sea: Essays on Biblical and Systematic Theology. Elkhart, IN: Institute
of Mennonite Studies.
2004 Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future. Sources for Biblical and Theo-
logical Study 1. Rev. ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Ollenburger, Ben C.; Martens, Elmer A.; and Hasel, Gerhard F.
1991 The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old
Testament Theology, 1930–1990. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 1.
Olson, Dennis T.
1985 The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of
Numbers and the Pentateuch. BJS 71. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
1997 Negotiating Boundaries: The Old and New Generations and the Theology of
Numbers. Int 51: 229–40.
Olyan, Saul M.
2000 Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Orlinsky, Harry M., and Snaith, Norman H.
1967 Studies on the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah. VTSup 14. Leiden: Brill.
Oswalt, John
1986 The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1997 The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
2006 The Nations in Isaiah: Friend or Foe; Servant or Partner. Bulletin of Biblical
Research 16: 41–51.
Pakkala, Juha
2002 Jeroboam’s Sin and Bethel in 1 Kgs 12.25–33. BN 112: 86–94.
Patrick, Dale
1976 Translation of Job XIII 6. VT 26: 369–71.
1985 Old Testament Law. Atlanta: John Knox.
1989 Studying Biblical Law as a Humanities. Semeia 45: 27–47.
Patrick, James E.
2005 The Fourfold Structure of Job: Variations on a Theme. VT 55: 185–206.
Patton, Corrine
1996 “I Myself Gave Them Laws That Were Not Good”: Ezekiel 20 and the Exodus
Traditions. JSOT 69: 73–90.
Paul, Shalom M.
1991 Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Perdue, Leo G.
1977 Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Liter-
ature of Israel and the Ancient Near East. SBDLS 30. Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press.
1994 The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology. OBT. Minne-
apolis: Fortress.
2007 Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Works Cited 557
Perdue, Leo G., ed.

1997 Families in Ancient Israel. The Family, Religion, and Culture. Louisville: West-
minster John Knox.
Perlitt, Lothar
1969 Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag.
Person, Raymond F.
2002 The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature. SBLMS 2. At-
Péter, R.
1977 L’imposition des Mains dans l’ancien Testament. VT 27: 48–55.
Petersen, David L.
1977 Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles.
SBLMS 23. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
1995 Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox.
2000 A Book of the Twelve? Pp. 3–10 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve,
ed. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney. SBLSymS 15. Atlanta: Society of Bibli-
cal Literature.
Ploeg, J. P. M. van der
1979 Le Psaume 119 et la sagesse. Pp. 82–87 in La sagesse de l’ancien testament, ed.
Maurice Gilbert et al. Paris: Duculot.
Plöger, Otto
1968 Theocracy and Eschatology, trans. S. Rudman. Oxford: Blackwell.
Polak, Frank H.
1996 Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exo-
dus. Pp. 113–47 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpre-
tation, ed. Marc Vervenne. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
2004 The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari. Pp. 119–34
in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the
Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism, ed. Chaim Cohen, Avi
Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Polan, Gregory J.
1986 In the Ways of Justice toward Salvation: A Rhetorical Analysis of Isaiah 56–59.
American University Studies 7 / Theology and Religion 13. New York: Peter
Lang.
Polzin, Robert
1980 Moses and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History
1. New York: Seabury.
Pope, Marvin H.
1965 Job. AB 15. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Porteous, Norman W.
1965 Daniel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Porter, Stanley E.
1991 The Message of the Book of Job: Job 42:7b as Key to Interpretation? EQ 63:
291–304.
558 Works Cited
Pressler, Carolyn
2002 Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: West-
minster John Knox.
Propp, V. I.
1968 Morphology of the Folktale. Publications of the American Folklore Society. Bib-
liographical and Special Series 9. 2nd ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Propp, William H.
1999 Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2. New
York: Doubleday.
2006 Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2A.
Provan, Iain W.
1988 Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Com-
position of the Deuteronomistic History. Berlin: de Gruyter.
1990 Reading Texts against an Historical Background: The Case of Lamentations
1. SJOT 1: 130–43.
1991 Lamentations. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Quinn-Miscall, Peter D.
2001 Reading Isaiah: Poetry and Vision. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Rad, Gerhard von
1936 Die Konfessionen Jeremias. EvTh 3: 265–76.
1953 Studies in Deuteronomy. SBT 9. London: SCM.
1961 Genesis: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
1962 Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
1966 The Deuteronomic Theology of History in I and II Kings. Pp. 205–21 in The
Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. London: Oliver & Boyd.
1971 Gerichtsdoxologie. Pp. 28–37 in Schalom: Studien zu Glaube und Geschichte Is-
raels: Alfred Jepsen Zum 70sten Geburtstag, ed. Karl-Heinz Bernhardt. Arbeiten
zur Theologie. Stuttgart: Calwer.
1972 Wisdom in Israel. Nashville: Abingdon.
1983 The Confessions of Jeremiah. Pp. 88–99 in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed.
James L. Crenshaw. Issues in Religion and Theology 4. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Raitt, Thomas M.
1977 A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
Raney, Donald C.
2003 History as Narrative in the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles. Studies in
the Bible and Early Christianity 56. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Redditt, Paul L.
2000 Daniel 9: Its Structure and Meaning. CBQ 62: 236–49.
2001 Recent Research on the Book of the Twelve as One Book. CurBS 9: 47–80.
2003a The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research. Pp. 1–26 in
Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Aaron Schart and Paul Redditt.
BZAW 325. Berlin: de Gruyter.
2003b Zechariah 9–14: The Capstone of the Book of the Twelve. Pp. 305–32 in
Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah 9–14, ed. Mark
J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. JSOTSup 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
Works Cited 559
Reimer, David J.
2003 An Overlooked Term in Old Testament Theology—Perhaps. Pp. 325–46 in
Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson, ed. A. D. H. Mayes
and Robert B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reindl, Joseph
1981 Weisheitliche Bearbeitung von Psalmen: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der
Sammlung des Psalters. Pp. 333–56 in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980, ed.
John A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill.
Rendtorff, Rolf
1989 Jesaja 6 im Rahmen der Komposition des Jesajabuches. Pp. 73–82 in The
Book of Isaiah—Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leur relectures. Unité et complexité
de l’ouvrage, ed. Jacques Vermeylen. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
1993 Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology, trans. Margaret
Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress.
1997 How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity. Pp. 420–32 in
Society of Biblical Literature: 1997 Seminar Papers. SBLSP 36. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
1998a Alas for the Day! The “Day of the Lord” in the Book of the Twelve. Pp. 186–
97 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. Tod Linafelt and
Timothy K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress.
1998b The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. OTS. Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark.
2000a A Christian Approach to the Theology of Hebrew Scriptures. Pp. 137–54 in
Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, ed. Alice Ogden Bel-
lis and Joel S. Kaminsky. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2000b How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity. Pp. 75–87 in
Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. SBLSymS 15. Atlanta: Society of
2005 The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament. Leiden: Deo.
Renkema, Johan
1988 The Literary Structure of Lamentations (I–IV). Pp. 294–396 in The Structural
Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry, ed. W. van der Meer and Johannes
C. de Moor. JSOTSup 74. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
1998 Lamentations. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters.
Renz, Thomas
1999 The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 76. Leiden: Brill.
Richter, Heinz
1959 Studien zu Hiob: Der Aufbau des Hiobbuches, Dargestellt an den Gattungen des
Rechtslebens. Theologische Arbeiten 11. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.
Ricœur, Paul
1976 Philosophical Hermeneutics and Theological Hermeneutics: Ideology, Utopia, and
Faith. Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture
17. Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union and the University of California
Press.
Roberts, J. J. M.
1982 Isaiah in Old Testament Theology. Int 36: 130–43.
1991 Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westmin-
ster John Knox.
560 Works Cited
2002 Job’s Summons to Yahweh: The Exploitation of the Legal Metaphor. Pp.
117–22 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
Roche, Michael de
1983 Yhwh’s Rîb against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-Called “Prophetic Law-
suit” in the Preexilic Prophets. JBL 102: 563–74.
Rofé, Alexander
1993 The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Deuteronomy 28:69–30:20): Historico-
Literary, Comparative, and Formcritical Considerations. Pp. 269–80 in A
Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. Du-
ane L. Christensen. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3. Winona
Römer, Thomas
2000 Deuteronomy in Search of Origins. Pp. 112–38 in Reconsidering Israel and
Judah. Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and
J. Gordon McConville. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
2005 The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary
Introduction. London: T. & T. Clark.
Römer, Thomas, and Pury, Albert de
2000 Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Is-
sues. Pp. 24–141 in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomist Historiography
in Recent Research, ed. Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, and Jean Daniel Mac-
chi. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Rose, Martin
2000 Deuteronomistic Ideology and Theology of the Old Testament. Pp. 424–55
in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomist Historiography in Recent Research,
ed. Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, and Jean Daniel Macchi. JSOTSup 306.
Rösel, Hartmut N.
1999 Von Josua bis Jojachin: Untersuchungen zu den Deuteronomistischen Geschichts-
büchern des Alten Testaments. VTSup 75. Leiden: Brill.
Rost, Leonhard
1982 The Succession to the Throne of David. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Bib-
lical Scholarship 1. Sheffield: Almond.
Rudolph, W.
1976 Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi. KAT 13. Gütersloh: Mohn.
Rudolph, Wilhelm, and Jepsen, Alfred
1975 Micha, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja. KAT13, 3. Gütersloh: Mohn.
Sabourin, Leopold
1974 The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning. New ed. Staten Island, NY: Alba.
Sæbø, Magne
1998 Johann Philipp Gabler at the End of the Eighteenth Century: History and
Theology. Pp. 310–26 in On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the
Old Testament, ed. Magne Sæbø. JSOTSup 191. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
Sailhamer, John
1992 The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
Works Cited 561
1995 An Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach. Grand Rap-

ids: Zondervan.
Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob
1978 The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry. HSM 17. Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press.
1985 Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective. OBT 16. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
Salters, R. B.
2003 Yahweh and His People in Lamentations. Pp. 347–69 in Covenant as Context:
Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson, ed. A. D. H. Mayes and Robert B. Salters.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sanders, James A.
1972 Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1984 Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. GBS. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
1987 From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Sandys-Wunsch, J., and Eldridge, L.
1980 J. P. Gabler and the Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology:
Translation, Commentary, and Discussion of His Originality. SJT 33: 133–58.
Sarna, Nahum M.
1987 The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in Jewish Tradition. Pp. 9–20
in Understanding Scripture: Explorations of Jewish and Christian Traditions of In-
terpretation, ed. Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyschogrod. Studies in Juda-
ism and Christianity. New York: Paulist Press.
1991 Exodus-Shemot. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society.
1992 Exodus, Book of. Pp. 689–700 in vol. 2 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David
Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Sawyer, John F. A.
1996 The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Saydon, Paul P.
1946 Sin-Offering and Trespass-Offering. CBQ 8: 393–98.
Scharbert, J.
1959 Formgeschichte und Exegese von Ex 34,6f und Seiner Parallelen. Bib 38:
130–50.
Schart, Aaron
1998a Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs. BZAW 260. Berlin: de Gruyter.
1998b Redactional Models: Comparisons, Contrasts, Agreements, Disagreements.
Pp. 893–908 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, vol. 2. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Schart, Aaron, and Redditt, Paul, eds.
2003 Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 325. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schenker, A.
1994 Interprétations Récentes et Dimensions Spécifiques du Sacrifice ˙a††at. Bib
75: 59–70.
562 Works Cited
Schmidt, H.
1928 Das Gebet der Angeklagten im Alten Testament. BZAW 49. Gießen: Alfred
Töpelmann.
Schmitt, Hans-Christoph
1982 Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie. VT 32: 170–89.
Schniedewind, William M.
1991 The Source Citations of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily.
VT 41: 450–61.
1993 History and Interpretation: The Religion of Ahab and Manasseh in the Book
of Kings. CBQ 55: 649–61.
1996 The Problem with Kings: Recent Study of the Deuteronomistic History.
RelSRev 22: 22–27.
Schoors, Antoon
1973 I Am God Your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the Main Genres in Is. XL–LV.
VTSup 24. Leiden: Brill.
Schwartz, Baruch J.
2000 Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration. Pp. 43–67 in The Book of Ezekiel:
Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T.
Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Scobie, Charles H. H.
2003 The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Scullion, John
1992 Genesis: A Commentary for Students, Teachers, and Preachers. Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press.
Seeligmann, I. L.
1953 Voraussetzungen des Midraschexegese. Pp. 150–51 in Congress Volume: Copen-
hagen, 1953. VTSup 1. Leiden: Brill.
Seitz, Christopher R.
1988 Isaiah 1–66: Making Sense of the Whole. Pp. 105–26 in Reading and Preach-
ing the Book of Isaiah, ed. Christopher R. Seitz. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1989 The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah. ZAW 101: 3–27.
1991 Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah—A Reassessment of
Isaiah 36–39. Minneapolis: Fortress.
2002 Two Testaments and the Failure of One Tradition History. Pp. 195–211 in Bib-
lical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott Hafemann. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity.
2006 The Canonical Approach and Theological Interpretation. Pp. 58–110 in
Canon and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew, Scott Hahn,
Robin Parry, Christopher Seitz, and Al Wolters. Scripture and Hermeneutics
7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Seow, C. L.
1982 Hosea 14:10 and the Foolish People Motif. CBQ 44: 212–24.
Seybold, Klaus
1973 Das Gebet des Kranken im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung
und Zuordnung der Krankheits- und Heilungspsalmen. BWANT 99. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
Works Cited 563
Shea, William H.
1979 The Qinah Structure of the Book of Lamentations. Bib 60: 103–7.
Shelley, John C., Jr.
1992 Job 42:1–6—God’s Bet and Job’s Repentance. RevExp 89: 541–46.
Sheppard, Gerald T.
1980 Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old
Testament. BZAW 151. New York: de Gruyter.
1982 Canonization: Hearing the Voice of the Same God through Historically Dis-
similar Traditions. Int 36: 21–33.
1992 Theology and the Book of Psalms. Int 46: 143–55.
Sherlock, Charles
1993 The God Who Fights: The War Tradition in the Holy Scripture. Rutherford Stud-
ies in Contemporary Theology 6. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Shields, Mary E.
1995 Circumcision of the Prostitute: Gender, Sexuality, and the Call to Repen-
tance in Jeremiah 3:1–4:4. BibInt 3: 61–74.
2004 Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetorics of Intertexuality, Metaphor, and Gen-
der in Jeremiah 3.1–4.4. London: T. & T. Clark.
Skehan, Patrick W.
1947 The Seven Columns of Wisdom’s House in Proverbs 1–9. CBQ 9: 190–98.
Skinner, John
1951 Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah. Cunningham Lectures
1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sklar, Jay
2005 Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions. Hebrew Bible
Monographs 2. Sheffield: Phoenix.
Smend, Rudolf
1981 Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. 2nd ed. Theologische Wissenschaft 1.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Smith-Christopher, Daniel L.
2001 Prayers and Dreams: Power and Diaspora Identities in the Social Setting of
the Daniel Tales. Pp. 266–90 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception,
ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. Leiden: Brill.
Smith, Gary V.
1977 Structure and Purpose in Genesis 1–11. JETS 20: 307–19.
Smith, Mark S.
1990 The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of
Jeremiah 11–20. SBLMS 42. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
1992 The Theology of the Redaction of the Psalter: Some Observations. ZAW 104:
408–12.
1996 The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary
Investigation. CBQ 58: 25–50.
Smith, Ralph L.
1990 Micah–Malachi. Word Biblical Themes. Dallas: Word.
Snell, Daniel C.
1980 Why Is There Aramaic in the Bible? JSOT 18: 32–51.
Soggin, J. Alberto
1972 Joshua: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
564 Works Cited
1981 Judges: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Sohn, Seock-Tae
1999 “I Will Be Your God and You Will Be My People”: The Origin and Back-
ground of the Covenant Formula. Pp. 355–72 in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near
Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. Robert
Chazan, William W. Hallo, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Speiser, E. A.
1964 Genesis. AB 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Sperling, S. David
2000 Joshua 24 Re-examined. Pp. 240–58 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent
Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon
McConville. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 8. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Stackert, Jeffrey
2007 Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legisla-
tion. FAT 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Stansell, Gary
1996 Isaiah 28–33: Blest Be the Tie That Binds (Isaiah Together). Pp. 68–103 in
New Visions of Isaiah, ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney. Sheffield:
Steck, O.
1991 Der Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vor-
geschichte des Kanons. BTS 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Steinmann, Andrew E.
1996 The Structure and Message of the Book of Job. VT 46: 85–100.
Steins, Georg
1995 Die Chronik als Kanonisches Abschlussphanomen: Studien zur Entstehung und
Theologie von 1/2 Chronik. BBB 93. Weinheim: Beltz Athenaum.
Stiebert, Johanna
2000 Shame and Prophecy: Approaches Past and Present. BibInt 8: 255–75.
2002 The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution.
JSOTSup 346. London: Sheffield Academic Press.
Stone, Lawson G.
1991 Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of Joshua.
CBQ 53: 25–36.
Stuart, Douglas K.
1987 Hosea–Jonah. WBC 31. Waco, TX: Word.
1989 Hosea–Jonah. Word Biblical Themes. Dallas: Word.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T.
1999 Johann Philipp Gabler and the Delineation of Biblical Theology. SJT 52:
139–55.
Stulman, Louis
2005 Jeremiah. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon.
Sun, Henry T. C., and Eades, Keith L.
1997 Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Works Cited 565
Swanson, James
1997 Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testa-
ment). Electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
Sweeney, Marvin A.
1988 Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition. BZAW
1989 The Wilderness Traditions of the Pentateuch: A Reassessment of Their Func-
tion and Intent in Relation to Exodus 32–34. Pp. 291–99 in Society of Biblical
Literature: 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. David J. Lull. SBLSP 28. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
1991 Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk. VT 41: 63–83.
1992 Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum.
ZAW 104: 364–77.
1996a The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah. Pp. 50–67 in New Visions of Isaiah, ed.
Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
1996b Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans.
1997a Davidic Polemics in the Book of Judges. VT 47: 517–29.
1997b The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah. Pp. 41–61 in
Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. J. T. A. G. M.
van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne. Leuven: Leuven University Press and
Peeters.
1997c Tanak versus Old Testament: Concerning the Foundation for a Jewish The-
ology of the Bible. Pp. 353–72 in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in
Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
2000 The Twelve Prophets. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
2001 King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
2003 Zephaniah: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Talstra, E.
1993 Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8, 14–
61. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 3. Kampen: Kok Pharos.
Tate, Marvin E.
1990 Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Dallas: Word.
Taylor, Richard A., and Clendenen, E. Ray
2004 Haggai, Malachi: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture.
New American Commentary 21a. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.
Terrien, Samuel
1993 Wisdom in the Psalter. Pp. 51–72 in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of
John G. Gammie, ed. Leo G. Perdue, Bernard B. Scott, and William J. Wise-
man. Louisville: Westminister John Knox.
Thompson, J. A.
1980 The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Throntveit, Mark A.
1992 Ezra–Nehemiah. IBC. Louisville: John Knox.
566 Works Cited
Tigay, Jeffrey H.
1996 Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society.
Tournay, Raymond
1988 Voir et entendre Dieu avec les Psaumes, ou la liturgie prophétique du second temple
à Jérusalem. CahRB 24. Paris: Gabalda.
1991 Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second
Temple in Jerusalem. JSOTSup 118. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Tov, Emanuel
1981 Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah.
Pp. 145–67 in Le livre de Jérémie, ed. P. M. Bogaert. BETL 54. Louvain: Uni-
versity of Louvain Press.
Trible, Phyllis
1978 God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. OBT 2. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1992 Overture for a Feminist Biblical Theology. Pp. 445–64 in The Flowering of Old
Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology,
1930–1990, ed. Ben C. Ollenburger, E. A. Martens, and Gerhard F. Hasel.
Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Tuell, Steven S.
1992 The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. HSM 49. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Turner, Laurence A.
1990 Announcements of Plot in Genesis. JSOTSup 96. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
2003 Genesis, Book of. Pp. 350–59 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch,
ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity.
Ulrich, Eugene C.
1999 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls
and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Leiden: Brill.
Unterman, Jeremiah
1987 From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah’s Thought in Transition. JSOTSup 54.
Van Leeuwen, Raymond C.
1990 Liminality and Worldview in Proverbs 1–9. Semeia 50: 111–44.
1992 Review of Whybray: Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs. Critical Review
of Books in Religion: 126–28.
1993 Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve. Pp. 31–50 in In
Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie, ed. Leo G. Perdue,
Bernard B. Scott, and William J. Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox.
Van Seters, John
1975 Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
1984 Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament. Pp. 139–58 in
In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor
of G. W. Ahlström, ed. W. Boyd Barrick, John R. Spencer, and G. W. Ahlström.
1994 The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox.
Works Cited 567
VanderKam, James C.
1992 Ezra–Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah. Pp. 55–75 in Priests, Prophets and
Scribes, ed. Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, and Robert P. Carroll. Sheffield:
JSOT Press.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J.
1998 Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Lit-
erary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
2000 Exegesis and Hermeneutics. Pp. 52–64 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology,
ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Leicester: Inter-Varsity.
Vaux, Roland de
1964 Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Venter, Pieter M.
2007 Daniel 9: A Penitential Prayer in Apocalyptic Garb. Pp. 33–50 in Seeking the
Favor of God, vol. 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Ju-
daism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline. SBLEJL 22.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature / Leiden: Brill.
Vos, Geerhardus
1966 Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Vriezen, Theodorus C.
1970 An Outline of Old Testament Theology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vroom, Jonathan
2009 Eye for an Eye in Context: The Meaning and Function of the Lex Talionis in the
Torah. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, McMaster Divinity College.
Vroom, Jonathan, and Boda, Mark J.
2009 Review of Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holi-
ness Legislation, by Jeffrey Stackert. Shofar 27: 188–90.
Walsh, Jerome T.
1993 Symmetry and the Sin of Solomon. Shofar 12: 11–27.
Walsh, Jerome T., and Cotter, David W.
1996 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Waltke, Bruce K.
1979 The Book of Proverbs and Old Testament Theology. BibSac 136: 302–17.
1996 Does Proverbs Promise Too Much? AUSS 34: 319–36.
2004 The Book of Proverbs. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Fredricks, Cathi J.
2001 Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Waltke, Bruce K., and O’Connor, M.
1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Watson, Francis
1994 Text, Chuch and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
1997 Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Watts, James W.
1992a Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative. JSOTSup 139. Sheffield:
JSOT Press.
1992b Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Nations. CBQ 54: 432–47.
568 Works Cited
Watts, James W., and House, Paul R., eds.

1996 Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John
D. W. Watts. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Watts, John D. W.
1985 Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Waco, TX: Word.
2000a A Frame for the Book of the Twelve: Hosea 1–3 and Malachi. Pp. 209–17 in
Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. J. D. Nogalski and M. A.
Sweeney. SBLSymS 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2000b Superscriptions and Incipits in the Book of the Twelve. Pp. 110–24 in Read-
ing and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney.
SBLSymS 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2005 Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Rev. ed. Waco, TX: Word.
Webb, Barry G.
1987 The Book of the Judges: An Integrated Reading. JSOTSup 46. Sheffield: JSOT
Press.
1990 Zion in Transformation: A Literary Approach to Isaiah. Pp. 65–84 in Bible in
Three Dimensions, ed. David J. A. Clines, Stephen Fowl, and Stanley E. Porter.
1997 The Message of Isaiah: On Eagles’ Wings. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Webster, Jane S.
1998 Sophia: Engendering Wisdom in Proverbs, Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solo-
mon. JSOT 78: 63–79.
Weimar, Peter
1974 Die Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung. BZ
18: 65–93.
Weinfeld, Moshe
1970 The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East.
JAOS 90: 184–203.
1972 Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon. Reprinted,
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
1991 Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB
5. New York: Doubleday.
1993 Judges 1.1–2.5: The Conquest under the Leadership of the House of Judah.
Pp. 388–400 in Understanding Poets and Prophets, ed. George W. Anderson
and A. Graeme Auld. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Weis, Richard
1986 A Definition of the Genre Ma¶¶aª in the Hebrew Bible. Unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Claremont Graduate School.
1992 Oracle. Pp. 28–29 in vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freed-
man. New York: Doubleday.
Weiser, Artur
1962 The Psalms: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Welker, Michael, and Schweitzer, Friedrich, eds.
2005 Reconsidering the Boundaries between Theological Disciplines: Zur Neubestinnung
der Grenzen Zwischen Den Theologischen Disziplinen. Theology: Research and
Science 8. Münster: Lit.
Works Cited 569
Wellhausen, J.
1905 Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 6th ed. Berlin: Reimer.
Wenham, Gordon J.
1979 The Book of Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1987 Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco, TX: Word.
1995 The Theology of Old Testament Sacrifice. Pp. 75–87 in Sacrifice in the Bible,
ed. Roger T. Beckwith and Martin J. Selman. Carlisle: Paternoster / Grand
Rapids: Baker.
2000 The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua. Pp. 194–203 in Recon-
sidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Gary
N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville. Sources for Biblical and Theological
Study 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
2006 Towards a Canonical Reading of the Psalms. Pp. 333–51 in Canon and Bibli-
cal Interpretation, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew, Scott Hahn, Robin Parry, Chris-
topher Seitz, and Al Wolters. Scripture and Hermeneutics 7. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
Werline, Rodney A.
1998 Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious In-
stitution. SBLEJL 13. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
2007 Prayer, Politics and Social Vision in Daniel 9. Pp. 17–32 in Seeking the Favor
of God, vol. 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism,
ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline. SBLEJL 21. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature / Leiden: Brill.
Wesselius, Jan-Wim
2001 The Writing of Daniel. Pp. 291–310 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and
Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. Leiden: Brill.
Westbrook, Raymond
1985 Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes. RB 92: 247–64.
1994 What Is the Covenant Code? Pp. 15–36 in Theory and Method in Biblical and
Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development, ed. Bernard M. Lev-
inson. JSOTSup 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Westermann, Claus
1969 Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM.
1974 Creation. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1980 The Promises to the Fathers: Studies on the Patriarchal Narratives. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
1981a Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Atlanta: John Knox.
1981b The Structure of the Book of Job: A Form-Critical Analysis. Philadelphia: For-
tress.
1982 Elements of Old Testament Theology. Atlanta: John Knox.
1984 Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis:
Augsburg.
1985 Genesis 12–36: A Commentary. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis:
Augsburg.
1994 Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Westermann, Claus, and Green, David
1987 Genesis: A Practical Commentary. Text and Interpretation. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
570 Works Cited
Whybray, Roger N.
1965 Proverbs 8:22–31 and Its Supposed Prototypes. VT 15: 504–14.
1975 Isaiah 40–66. NCB. Greenwood, SC: Attic.
1994 Proverbs. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1995 Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1996 Reading the Psalms as a Book. JSOTSup 222. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
1998 Job. Readings, a New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
Widmer, Michael
2004 Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34
and Numbers 13–14. FAT 2/8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Wilkinson, Bruce
2000 The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking through to the Blessed Life. Sisters, OR: Mult-
nomah.
Williams, Daniel H.
1994 Proverbs 8:22–31. Int 48: 275–79.
Williamson, H. G. M.
1976 The Accession of Solomon in the Book of Chronicles. VT 26: 351–61.
1977 Eschatology in Chronicles. TynBul 28: 115–54.
1982 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1983 The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles. Pp. 305–18 in Isaac Leo
Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and Ancient World, ed. A. Rofé and Y.
Zakovitch III. Jerusalem: Rubinstein.
1985 Ezra, Nehemiah. WBC. Waco, TX: Word.
1987 Ezra and Nehemiah. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press .
1994 The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Ox-
ford: Clarendon and Oxford University Press.
1998 Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah. Dids-
bury Lectures 1997. Carlisle: Paternoster.
Williamson, Paul R.
2000 Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and Its Covenantal De-
velopment in Genesis. JSOTSup 315. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Willis, John T.
1971 Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at the Ramah Sanctu-
ary. JBL 90: 288–308.
Wilson, Gerald H.
1985 The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 76. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
1986 The Use of Royal Psalms at the “Seams” of the Hebrew Psalter. JSOT 35: 85–
94.
1990 The Prayer of Daniel 9: Reflection on Jeremiah 29. JSOT 48: 91–99.
1993a Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of
Psalms. Pp. 72–82 in Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann.
1993b Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls
and Promises. Pp. 42–51 in Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton
McCann. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Works Cited 571
Wilson, Robert R.
1972 An Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Dumbness. VT 22: 91–104.
1984 Prophecy in Crisis: The Call of Ezekiel. Int 38: 117–30.
2000 Unity and Diversity in the Book of Kings. Pp. 293–310 in “A Wise and Dis-
cerning Mind”: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long, ed. Saul M. Olyan and Robert
C. Culley. BJS 325. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies.
Wolde, E. J. van
1994 Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11. Biblical Interpretation
6. Leiden: Brill.
Wolff, Hans Walter
1961 Das Kerygma des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. ZAW 73: 171–86.
1966 Kerygma of the Yahwist. Int 20: 131–58.
1974 Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea. Hermeneia. Philadel-
phia: Fortress.
1975 The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work. Pp. 83–100 in The Vital-
ity of Old Testament Traditions, ed. Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter
Wolff. Atlanta: John Knox.
1977 Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos, trans.
Samuel Dean McBride. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1986 Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary. Continental Commentaries. Minneapo-
lis: Augsburg
1990 Micah: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
2000 The Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historical Work. Pp. 62–78 in Recon-
sidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Gary
N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Wolters, Albert M.
1990 “A Child of Dust and Ashes” ( Job 42:6b). ZAW 102: 116–19.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas
1995 Does Truth Still Matter? Reflections on the Crisis of the Postmodern Univer-
sity. Crux 31: 17–23, 26–28.
1997 Suffering, Power, and Privileged Cognitive Access: The Revenge of the Par-
ticular. Pp. 79–94 in Christianity and Culture in the Crossfire, ed. David A.
Hoekema and Bobby Fong. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wong, G. C. I.
1997 Faith and Works in Isaiah XXX 15. VT 47: 236–46.
2009 The Road to Peace: Pastoral Reflections in Isaiah 1–12. Singapore: Genesis.
Wong, Gregory T. K.
2006 Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges: An Inductive, Rhetorical Study.
VTSup 111. Leiden: Brill.
Wong, Ka Leung
2001 The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 87. Leiden: Brill.
Wright, Christopher J. H.
1990 God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
2006 The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity.
572 Works Cited
Wright, David P.
1987 The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Meso-
potamian Literature. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
1988 Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly Writings of the Bible. Pp. 180–93 in
Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Medicine in Bible and
Talmud, Jerusalem, December 1987, ed. Joshua O. Leibowitz and Samuel S.
Kottek. Koroth 9. Jerusalem: Israel Institute of History and Medicine.
1991 The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity. Pp. 150–81 in Priesthood and Cult in An-
cient Israel, ed. G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan. JSOTSup 125. Sheffield:
Würthwein, Ernst
1994 Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Yee, Gale A.
1982 An Analysis of Prov. 8:22–31 according to Style and Structure. ZAW 94: 58–
66.
2003 Poor Banished Children of Eve: Woman as Evil in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis:
Fortress.
Zenger, Erich
2000a The God of Israel’s Reign over the World (Psalm 90–106). Pp. 161–90 in The
God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms, ed. Norbert Loh-
fink and Erich Zenger. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
2000b Zion as Mother of the Nations in Psalm 87. Pp. 123–60 in The God of Israel
and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms, ed. Norbert Lohfink and
Erich Zenger. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Zevit, Ziony
1985 Deuteronomic Historiography in 1 Kings 12–2 Kings 17 and the Reinvesti-
ture of the Israelian Cult. JSOT 32: 57–73.
Zimmerli, Walther
1978 Old Testament Theology in Outline. Atlanta: John Knox.
1979 Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Hermeneia. Philadel-
phia: Fortress.
Index of Authors
Ackroyd, P. R. 453, 458–459 Beyerlin, W. 400, 404

Aejmelaeus, A. 223–224 Bibb, B. D. 14
Ahlström, G. W. 304, 306, 424 Biddle, M. E. 12, 18, 54, 64, 231, 236–237,
Albrektson, B. 458–459 240
Aletti, J.-N. 370 Blenkinsopp, J. 10, 15–16, 18, 20, 124, 153,
Alexander, T. D. 1, 14, 16, 24 204, 212, 374
Allen, L. C. 279–280, 404, 406, 436, 438, Block, D. I. 122, 137–141, 143–145, 253,
442–444 256–258, 261, 268, 273–274, 280, 282–
Alt, A. 378 290, 452
Alter, R. 32 Boda, M. J. 1, 10–11, 20, 27, 30, 36, 40, 54,
Andersen, F. I. 309, 380, 386, 392 84, 93, 104, 108, 124–125, 130–131,
Anderson, A. A. 398, 406–410, 412–413, 137, 143, 154, 166, 171, 182, 190, 207,
418–419, 424, 426, 430, 442 211–213, 232–233, 235, 237, 240, 242,
Anderson, B. W. 423 258, 279, 284, 323, 325–326, 331–335,
Anderson, R. A. 461 346, 355, 359–360, 366, 370, 380, 386,
Anderson, R. D. 395 395, 398, 416, 423–424, 431, 437, 439,
Arnold, B. T. 290, 460 448, 452–456, 458–459, 465–466, 472–
473, 475–480, 482–484, 487–488, 490,
Balentine, S. E. 48, 57, 60, 65–67, 73, 77, 494, 499–500, 503–504, 507
79–80, 84, 167, 171, 382, 390, 394, 428 Bonnard, P. E. 212
Baltzer, K. 82, 133, 171 Bostock, D. 199
Barker, J. 86, 310 Boström, L. 374
Barr, J. 6–8, 18, 32, 44, 51, 150, 361, 391 Bouzard, W. C., Jr. 452
Barrera, J. C. T. 10 Bowen, N. R. 273
Bartholomew, C. 1, 8, 373 Brandscheidt, R. 459
Barton, J. 115, 294, 304, 314–315, 461–462 Braun, R. 128, 492
Baumgartner, W. 243 Brettler, M. Z. 107, 143, 180
Bautch, R. J. 394, 415, 423, 507 Briggs, C. A. 506
Baxter, B. 44 Briggs, E. G. 506
Becking, B. 180–181, 472 Bright, J. 237–238
Beckwith, R. T. 8, 357 Brodie, T. L. 16, 124
Begg, C. T. 203 Brown, W. P. 390
Begrich, J. 242, 398, 427, 431, 445, 452– Bruckner, J. K. 26–27
453 Brueggemann, W. 3–4, 8, 10, 27, 44, 46, 51,
Beldman, D. 5, 374, 377, 382, 384 124, 161, 187–188, 190, 239–240, 243–
Bellinger, W. H. 424 245, 248, 250–251, 311, 313, 352, 361,
Ben Zvi, E. 294, 315, 328, 490–491, 501 372, 398, 450
Bendor, S. 110 Büchler, A. 52
Bergant, D. 395, 449–450 Butler, T. C. 130–134
Bergler, S. 457 Byargeon, R. W. 370–372
Bergsma, J. S. 280
Berquist, J. L. 343 Camp, C. V. 361–362
Betts, T. J. 253 Campbell, A. F. 158–161
- 573 -
574 Index of Authors
Carr, D. M. 190, 204 Dentan, R. C. 2

Carroll, R. P. 223–224, 231–232, 234–237, Deuel, D. C. 343
250–251 Deventer, H. van 469
Carson, D. A. 6, 44 De Vries, S. J. 87
Chapman, S. B. 10, 125, 351–352 Diamond, A. R. 232, 241–242, 244
Childs, B. S. 3–5, 8–10, 14, 48, 87–88, 94, Dick, M. B. 387
99, 115, 124, 190, 192–193, 203–204, Diepold, P. 114
207, 209, 351–352, 375, 458–459 Dietrich, W. 124, 151
Chinitz, J. 160 Di Lella, A. A. 7
Chisholm, R. B., Jr. 309–310 Dillard, R. B. 295, 490–492, 496, 500–501,
Choi, J. H. 290 504
Christensen, D. L. 105 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 452, 455–456, 458–
Clapp, R. 491 459
Clark, G. R. 44 Dorsey, D. A. 378, 453
Clements, R. E. 97–98, 100, 190, 194, 202– Douglas, M. 40
203, 211–212 Dozeman, T. B. 39, 41, 115
Clendenen, E. R. 342–343, 345 Driver, S. R. 72
Clifford, R. J. 35, 371, 390 Duggan, M. 482, 487
Clines, D. J. A. 14, 17, 24, 35, 37, 86, 378– Dumbrell, W. J. 138, 143, 190
380, 382, 384–388, 390, 393–394 Durham, J. I. 42
Coats, G. W. 29, 32, 86–87, 91, 95 Dyrness, W. A. 12
Cogan, M. 176
Coggins, R. J. 190 Eades, K. L. 1
Collins, J. J. 347, 460–461, 463–464, 469– Eaton, J. H. 429
470 Eberhart, C. 149
Collins, T. 125, 294, 346–347 Ego, B. 294
Conrad, E. W. 125, 198, 203, 294 Eichrodt, W. 2–3, 11, 264
Conway, M. L. 452 Eldridge, L. 1
Cook, S. L. 304 Ellis, E. E. 8
Cooper, A. 378 Emmerson, G. I. 212
Cothey, A. 52 Eskenazi, T. C. 472, 489
Cotter, D. W. 173 Eslinger, L. M. 149, 151
Cover, R. C. 4 Estes, D. J. 379, 389, 394
Craigie, P. C. 99, 106–107, 397, 399, 402, Evans, C. A. 190
405–410, 413, 415, 418, 420
Creach, J. F. D. 448 Falk, D. K. 11, 423, 465, 476, 479, 507
Crenshaw, J. L. 131, 447 Fields, W. W. 25
Cross, F. M. 25, 38, 124, 176, 204 Fishbane, M. A. 250, 259, 271, 282, 289,
Crüsemann, F. 331, 456 465
Curtis, B. G. 125, 254, 335, 388, 392–393 Fitzpatrick-McKinley, A. 40
Floyd, M. H. 323, 326, 328, 330, 335, 344
Dahood, M. J. 370 Fokkelman, J. P. 35
Daniels, D. R. 232 Frankel, D. 87–88
Davidson, J. A. 264 Franklin, P. 5
Davies, G. I. 77, 82, 84, 115, 190, 193, 295– Fredricks, C. J. 17, 23
297, 299–300, 303 Freedman, D. N. 10, 25, 124, 309
Davies, P. R. 8 Frei, H. 5
DeClaissé-Walford, N. L. 395, 448–449 Fretheim, T. E. 15, 34, 97, 122–123, 128,
Delekat, L. 400 134, 140, 165, 171, 175, 180–182, 184,
Delitzsch, F. 392 188–189, 224, 239–240, 244, 247–248,
Dempsey, C. J. 351, 353 251, 351
Dempster, S. G. 7–8, 10, 115, 124–125,
351–352, 354, 356, 506, 511, 513 Gabler, J. P. 1–2
Index of Authors 575
Gane, R. 52–54, 59–61, 66–69, 72–75, 82 Heater, H. 453, 456

Garrett, D. A. 359 Helmer, C. 1–2
Garsiel, M. 159–160 Hertzberg, H. W. 157, 161–162
Gärtner, J. 205, 214 Hiebert, T. 23
Gemser, B. 387 Hillers, D. R. 319
Gerbrandt, G. E. 151 Ho, E. 377
Gerstenberger, E. S. 3, 8, 244, 399, 402, 418 Hobbs, T. R. 179
Gilbert, M. 370 Hofman, M. 30
Glazier-McDonald, B. 341–342, 344–345 Holladay, W. L. 6, 12, 62, 105, 107, 227,
Goldingay, J. 10–12, 51, 87, 98, 191, 205, 267
209, 352, 460–461, 463–464, 469 Holmgren, F. C. 486–487
Good, E. M. 388, 390, 394 Hoppe, L. J. 190
Gooding, D. W. 137 Horst, F. 131
Gordis, R. 457–458 Hossfeld, F.-L. 398, 403–404, 410, 412,
Gorman, F. H. 59 427–428, 431, 448
Gosse, B. 223–224 House, P. R. 2, 8, 294, 328, 347, 350
Gottwald, N. K. 458–459 Howard, D. M. 395
Goulder, M. D. 412 Hugenberger, G. 38, 100
Grabbe, L. L. 472 Hurowitz, V. 362
Graffy, A. 323 Huwiler, E. 371
Graham, M. P. 122 Hyatt, J. P. 38, 47
Gray, J. 126, 132–134, 137, 167
Gray, M. 160 Isbell, C. D. 36
Green, J. B. 1, 18, 21
Green, W. S. 382 Jackson, B. S. 40
Greenberg, M. 35, 171, 253, 257, 290 Jacob, E. 3
Greenfield, J. C. 371 Jahnow, H. 452
Greenspahn, F. E. 138, 141 Janowski, B. 72
Gunkel, H. 242, 398–399, 427, 431, 452– Janzen, D. 56, 66
453 Janzen, J. G. 223–224, 389–390
Gunn, D. M. 154 Japhet, S. 490–492, 494–495, 499, 501
Gunneweg, A. H. J. 352 Jastrow, M. 150
Gwaltney, W. C., Jr. 452 Jenson, P. 51, 73, 77, 79–80, 194
Jepsen, A. 330
Haak, R. D. 140 Jobes, K. H. 8
Habel, N. C. 194, 361–362, 386–387, 390, Jobling, D. 123, 143, 153
392 Johnson, A. R. 424
Hahn, S. 25, 38, 280 Johnson, B. 453, 457–458
Halpern, B. 118–119, 353 Johnstone, W. 503
Hals, R. M. 273 Jones, B. A. 125, 294
Hamilton, V. P. 19–21, 29–30 Jones, G. H. 179
Hanson, P. D. 335 Joüon, P. 65
Haran, M. 223–224 Joyce, P. M. 256, 258, 265, 274, 293
Harland, P. J. 23–24
Harrington, H. K. 52, 489 Kaiser, G. P. C. 2
Harris, S. L. 359, 362 Kaiser, W. 453
Harrison, R. K. 506 Kalimi, I. 503
Hartley, J. E. 55, 60, 71, 75, 195, 378–379, Kalluveettil, P. 38
382, 385–390, 392, 394, 396 Kaminski, C. M. 22–24, 33
Hasel, G. F. 1, 3–4, 333 Kaminsky, J. S. 12, 110, 118–119, 265,
Hauge, M. R. 35–36, 42 511
Hawtrey, K. 459 Kang, S.-M. 213
Hayes, J. H. 153 Kaplan, M. M. 194
Kelly, B. E. 12, 490–491 Lundbom, J. R. 231

Kenzo, M. 5 Luyten, J. 398, 447
Kessler, M. 223–224
Keys, G. 159 Malamat, A. 157
Kidner, D. 378 Mandolfo, C. 4, 453
Kitchen, K. A. 359 Mann, T. W. 15–16, 23, 28, 107, 125
Kiuchi, N. 52, 63–64 Marshall, I. H. 1
Klawans, J. 12, 51–52 Martens, E. A. 1, 4
Klein, R. W. 149–154, 188–189, 456, 459 Martínez, F. G. 9
Kline, M. G. 38, 82, 99 Mason, R. A. 128, 304, 326, 328–329, 344,
Knauf, E. A. 122 492
Knibb, M. A. 460, 465 Matties, G. 12, 119, 265, 286
Knierim, R. P. 3, 48–49, 86–87, 91, 95, 268 Mayes, A. D. H. 38, 105, 107, 114
Knohl, I. 77, 79–81, 382 Mays, J. L. 319–320, 322, 395, 448
Knoppers, G. N. 122, 158, 166, 173–175, McCann, J. C. 145, 395, 449
186, 188, 492, 504 McCann, N. R. 395, 449
Koch, K. 12, 119, 373, 460 McCarter, P. K. 148–151, 154–155, 157–162
Konkel, A. 392 McCarthy, D. J. 38, 82, 99, 128, 133–134,
Koopmans, W. T. 134 175
Kraemer, D. C. 472 McConville, J. G. 1, 99, 116, 166, 171, 189
Krasovec, J. 12, 46, 119, 455 McDonald, L. M. 8
Kratz, R. G. 461, 469 McKane, W. 359–360, 362, 366, 375
Kraus, H.-J. 397–400, 403–413, 415, 417– McKeating, H. 268
418, 421, 426–432, 434–435, 438–442, McKenzie, S. L. 38, 122, 151
444–445 McKinlay, J. E. 371
Kühlewein, J. 431 Mein, A. 12, 253, 256, 265, 268–270, 286–
Kuntz, J. K. 374, 395, 406, 447, 449 287, 289
Mendenhall, G. E. 38
Lack, R. 212 Meyers, C. L. 331
Lacocque, A. 464 Meyers, E. M. 331
Lanahan, W. F. 453, 455 Milgrom, J. 23, 25, 46, 52–54, 63–67, 71,
Lang, B. 370–371 74–75, 77–80, 82, 84, 110, 118, 194–
Lapsley, J. E. 289–290, 293 195, 353, 408, 491
Larkin, K. J. 465 Millar, J. G. 99–101, 107, 111–112,
Lee, N. 452–453 114
Lee, W. W. 86–88, 90–92, 94 Miller, J. W. 36, 42, 46, 93
Leene, H. 292 Miller, P. D. 99–100, 213, 395, 398
Leiman, S. Z. 8 Mitchell, C. 501
Levine, B. A. 51–52, 60–61, 66, 68, 80–81 Moberly, R. W. L. 28, 39, 41–44, 46–48
Levinson, B. M. 40 Möller, K. 309–310
Levinson, J. D. 40 Moore, M. S. 453
Lichtenstein, M. 371 Morgan, D. F. 10, 374, 447
Liedke, G. 166 Morrow, W. S. 391
Linafelt, T. 457–458 Muenchow, C. 389, 391
Lindbeck, G. 5 Murphy, R. E. 1, 359, 370–371, 374, 394,
Lohfink, N. 25, 88, 105, 395 398, 418
Long, B. O. 1, 166, 175, 177–178, 180 Murray, R. 424
Long, V. P. 153–154, 156
Longman, T., III 213, 295, 371, 373–375, 392 Nasuti, H. P. 395
Lortie, C. 472 Nelson, R. D. 51–52, 98–101, 105–107,
Louw, J. P. 6 122–124
Lowery, R. H. 501 Newsom, C. 391
Lucas, E. 75 Nicholson, E. W. 14, 38
Nida, E. A. 6 Raitt, T. M. 12, 249, 251–252, 265, 268,

Nogalski, J. D. 125, 294, 348 287, 293
Noth, M. 87, 114, 122–124, 132, 151–153, Raney, D. C. 501
173, 188 Redditt, P. L. 125, 294, 469, 472
Nutkowicz, H. 160 Reid, D. G. 213
Reimer, D. J. 354
O’Brien, M. A. 167, 344 Reindl, J. 449
O’Connell, R. H. 137, 143 Rendtorff, R. 4, 10, 25, 115, 204, 294, 347–
O’Connor, K. 241, 243–244, 452, 458 348, 352
O’Connor, M. 83 Renkema, J. 453, 458
Odell, M. S. 258, 275, 280, 282, 284, 288, Renz, T. 256, 282, 285
290, 292 Richter, H. 387
Ogden, G. 304, 306, 308 Ricœur, P. 5
Ollenburger, B. C. 1 Roberts, J. J. M. 190, 211, 324–330, 387
Olson, D. T. 14, 86–87, 91, 94 Roche, M. de 232
Olyan, S. M. 77 Rofé, A. 105, 107
Orlinsky, H. M. 209 Römer, T. 99, 122, 127
Oswalt, J. 190, 192–194, 198, 203–204, Rose, M. 188–189
206, 209, 211–212 Rösel, H. N. 122
Rosner, B. S. 1
Pakkala, J. 181 Rost, L. 159
Patrick, D. 38, 40, 49–50, 54, 79–80, 98, Rudolph, W. 330, 344
393
Patrick, J. E. 377 Sabourin, L. 395, 415, 431
Patton, C. 280 Sæbø, M. 1
Paul, S. M. 309–312, 314 Sailhamer, J. 10, 14
Perdue, L. G. 3, 110, 374–375, 382, 390, Sakenfeld, K. D. 44
402, 406, 447 Salters, R. B. 38, 456, 459
Perlitt, L. 114, 135 Sanders, J. A. 4, 8–9
Person, R. F. 124 Sandys-Wunsch, J. 1
Péter, R. 60 Sarna, N. M. 10, 14, 35, 46, 513
Petersen, D. L. 344, 503 Sawyer, J. F. A. 190
Petrey, T. G. 1 Saydon, P. P. 54
Ploeg, J. P. M. van der 406 Scharbert, J. 45
Plöger, O. 304, 335 Schart, A. 125, 294
Polak, F. H. 38, 41 Schenker, A. 63
Polan, G. J. 212 Schmidt, H. 400, 407
Polzin, R. 99, 106, 114, 123 Schmitt, H.-C. 14
Pope, M. H. 378, 380, 386, 389, 393 Schniedewind, W. M. 122, 178, 500
Porteous, N. W. 469 Schoors, A. 242
Porter, S. E. 335, 393 Schwartz, B. J. 288
Pressler, C. 127, 130–137, 141, 143–145, Schweitzer, F. 1
152, 165 Scobie, C. H. H. 1, 513
Propp, V. I. 35 Scullion, J. 21
Propp, W. H. 35, 38, 40–42 Seeligmann, I. L. 9
Provan, I. W. 122, 175, 177, 453, 456, 458– Seitz, C. R. 8, 10–11, 190, 198, 203–204,
459 241
Pury, A. de 122 Seow, C. L. 298
Seybold, K. 407
Quinn-Miscall, P. D. 205 Shea, W. H. 453
Shelley, J. C., Jr. 389
Rad, G. von 2–3, 18–19, 98, 114, 119, 131, Sheppard, G. T. 9, 352, 448
187–188, 242, 373–374, 447 Sherlock, C. 213
Shields, M. E. 227, 231, 233–236 Turner, M. 1

Silva, M. 8
Skehan, P. W. 371 Ulrich, E. C. 9
Skinner, J. 242 Unterman, J. 12, 249–250, 252
Sklar, J. 42, 51–52, 54, 56–57, 63–64, 70–
73, 93, 160–161, 408, 520 VanderKam, J. C. 472
Smend, R. 124 Vanhoozer, K. J. 1, 3, 6
Smith, G. T. 11 Van Leeuwen, R. C. 347, 361, 374
Smith, G. V. 22 Van Seters, J. 25, 87–88, 135
Smith, M. S. 14, 35, 40, 87, 241, 243, 395 Vaux, R. de 61
Smith, R. L. 330 Venter, P. M. 465–466, 468–470
Smith-Christopher, D. L. 460 Vriezen, T. C. 2–3
Snaith, N. H. 209 Vroom, J. 40
Snell, D. C. 460
Soggin, J. A. 122, 128, 131–132, 140, 153 Walsh, J. T. 173
Sohn, S.-T. 38 Waltke, B. K. 17, 23, 83, 359, 372, 374
Speiser, E. A. 21 Watson, F. 5, 7, 11, 371
Spener, J. 2 Watts, J. D. W. 191–192, 347, 349
Sperling, S. D. 135 Watts, J. W. 35, 202, 223–224, 294, 307
Stackert, J. 40, 77 Webb, B. G. 123, 137, 190, 202–203
Stansell, G. 199 Webster, J. S. 362, 371
Steck, O. 294 Weimar, P. 24
Steinmann, A. E. 377 Weinfeld, M. 38, 40, 46, 62, 97, 99, 102,
Steins, G. 10 106, 109–110, 118, 133, 143, 158, 166,
Stiebert, J. 290 182, 298, 303, 360, 507
Stone, L. G. 127 Weis, R. 323, 326
Stuart, D. K. 296–297, 300–301, 304–307, Weiser, A. 402, 432, 447
309–311, 313–314 Welker, M. 1
Stuckenbruck, L. T. 1 Wellhausen, J. 151, 453
Stulman, L. 224, 237, 240 Wenham, G. J. 16, 19–21, 24, 28–29, 51,
Sun, H. T. C. 1 60, 66, 75, 127, 195, 395
Swanson, J. 6 Werline, R. A. 11, 104, 171, 423, 461, 464–
Sweeney, M. A. 7, 10, 48, 92, 141, 143, 465, 469–470, 476, 479, 507
172–174, 178, 183, 190, 192–194, 197, Westbrook, R. 40
203, 211, 294, 298–299, 304–306, 308, Westermann, C. 3, 12, 17–19, 21, 23, 30,
311, 314–319, 321, 323–330, 335, 344, 204, 212, 235, 242, 392, 431, 452–453,
346, 355, 513 458–459
Wette, W. M. L. de 2
Talstra, E. 166–167, 171 Whybray, R. N. 14, 48, 89, 209, 370–371,
Tate, M. E. 398, 403, 412, 423, 425–427, 374, 392, 395, 425, 449
430–432, 434, 447 Widmer, M. 42–46, 92–93, 118
Taylor, R. A. 342–343, 345 Wilkinson, B. 491
Terrien, S. 374, 447, 449–450 Williams, D. H. 370–371
Thompson, J. A. 227–228, 231–232, 235– Williams, E. 197
236 Williamson, H. G. M. 128, 190, 194, 204,
Throntveit, M. A. 472 211, 472, 474, 488, 492–493, 500, 503–
Tigay, J. H. 104, 107, 118, 511 504
Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 9 Williamson, P. R. 24
Tournay, R. 424 Willis, J. T. 149
Tov, E. 223–224 Wilson, G. H. 395, 448–449, 465
Trible, P. 3–4, 44 Wilson, R. R. 175, 178–179, 182–183,
Tuell, S. S. 257 258
Turner, L. A. 16–17, 24 Wolde, E. J. van 23
Wolff, H. W. 25, 104–105, 108, 167, 183, Würthwein, E. 124

188–189, 295–296, 298–304, 306–311,
313–315, 319–320, 322 Yee, G. A. 370–371
Wolters, A. M. 390
Wolterstorff, N. 5 Zenger, E. 395, 398, 403–404, 410, 412,
Wong, G. T. K. 123 427–428, 431, 448–449
Wong, K. L. 12, 51, 195, 268–270, 287, 315 Zevit, Z. 181
Wright, C. J. H. 25, 39, 114, 116 Zimmerli, W. 2, 253–254, 256, 264, 266,
Wright, D. P. 52, 60, 74 268, 272, 274, 283–284, 290, 293
Wright, J. 491
Index of Scripture
Genesis Genesis (cont.) Genesis (cont.)

1 16, 22–23, 33 4:19–24 21 9:4–7 25
1–2 369 4:23 20 9:7 17
1–11 16, 18, 23–24, 32, 4:25–26 20, 23 9:15 22
117, 119, 515, 517 4:26 43, 311 9:18–27 22
1:1–11:26 23 5 33 9:20–27 23
1:11 197 5:1 16 9:22 23
1:28 17–19, 23 5:1–6:8 16 9:24–25 23
1:28–30 22 5:22 21 9:46 32
2–3 18, 23, 32 5:24 21 10–11 33
2:3 269 5:29 21 10:1–11:9 16
2:4 16 6 26, 32–33, 117, 517 10:32 16
2:4–4:26 16 6–7 32 11 26, 32
2:16–17 18 6–9 32 11:1–9 23
2:19 18 6:1–2 23 11:4 23
2:24 101 6:1–4 23 11:6–7 23
2:25 18 6:1–7 21 11:8–9 23
3 18–19, 22, 32, 115– 6:1–8 21 11:10–26 16
116, 318, 516 6:3 21, 23 11:27 16
3:1 18 6:5 21–22 11:27–30 16
3:5 18 6:5–7 23 11:27–25:11 16
3:6 18, 23 6:6–9 23 12 16, 24, 33–34
3:7 18 6:7 21 12–50 16
3:11 18 6:8 21 12:1 16
3:14–19 18, 23 6:9 21, 24, 397 12:1–3 24, 41, 115
3:15 19–20 6:9–9:28 16 12:2 17
3:16 19 6:11–13 21 12:6 134
3:20 19 7:6–24 23 12:6–7 134
3:21 18 7:7 290 12:8 20
3:22 18–19 7:11 22 12:10–20 28
3:22–24 23 7:21–23 22 12:17 158
4 19, 23, 32–33, 117, 7:22–23 425 13:4 20
120, 521 8 33, 517 14 27
4:1–16 23 8:1 22 14:10 194
4:5 19 8:2–5 22 14:13 38
4:5–6 155 8:15–19 22 15 24, 33, 40
4:7 19 8:20–22 22 15–22 115
4:8 23 8:21 22, 32, 117, 287, 15:6 24–25, 440
4:11–12 23 427 15:16 129
4:13 419, 445 9 32, 100, 115 16 28
4:14 20 9:1 17 17 17, 24, 30, 33, 35
4:16 20, 23 9:1–3 22 17:1 24–25, 379, 397
4:17 20, 23 9:4–6 22 17:7 37
- 580 -
Index of Scripture 581
Genesis (cont.) Genesis (cont.) Genesis (cont.)

17:7–8 249 25:22 312 37:2–50:26 16
17:12–14 25 25:26 28 37:4 30
17:14 25, 56 26 28, 33–34 37:12–36 30
18 26 26:5 25 37:15 267, 369
18–20 33 26:10 518 37:18–20 30
18:16–33 25–26, 41 26:25 20, 43 37:26 214, 419
18:17–19 25 26:34–35 28 37:29 307
18:18 25 27 34 37:31–32 32
18:19 25 27:9 303 37:34 307
18:20 25–26 27:36 28 37:36 30
18:21 26 27:46 28, 368 38 30–31, 34
18:23–25 118 28 34 38:24 30
18:23–33 23 28:6–9 28 38:26 30
18:24 57 29:25 28 38:28 367
18:26 26, 57 30 247 39:1 30
18:27 26, 392 30:22–24 247 39:2 31
18:29–32 26 30:25–43 28 39:5 31
18:30 26 30:27 339 39:8 368
18:31 26 31:7 28 39:9 426
18:32 26 31:20 28 39:21 31
19 26 31:27 28 39:23 31
19:12 27 31:43 28 40:13 27
19:12–13 26 31:44–55 38 41:39 420
19:16 26 32 30 42:15 202
19:29 26 32–33 29 42:21 31
20 27–28, 34, 114, 120, 32:13–21 29 42:22 31
521 32:25 29 42:28 31
20:1–2 27 32:26 29 42:33 202
20:3 27, 234 32:27 29 43 34
20:3–5 518 32:28 29 43:3–5 32
20:5 27 33:14 29 43:30 44
20:6 27 33:18 29 43:32 31
20:7 27 33:19 134 44:13 307
20:8–10 27 33:19–22 136 44:16 31
20:9 27 34 29, 34 44:20 32
20:11–13 27 34:3 101 45:5 31
20:14 27 34:15 202 45:7–8 31
20:16 27, 192 34:22 202 46 34
20:17 27 34:30 286 46:19–20 247
20:17–18 27 35 33, 120, 521 46:34 31
21:14 267, 369 35:1 29 48:1–22 247
21:33 20, 43 35:1–8 30 48:17 367
22 33, 320 35:1–15 29 48:19 368
22:16 24 35:2 29 49:9 20
22:16–18 25 35:3 29 49:11 425
22:17 24 35:11 30 49:29–33 32
22:18 24 35:19 247 50 14, 121, 522
25:11 28 35:24 247 50:15 31
25:12–18 16, 28 36 34 50:15–21 31
25:13 16 36:1–8 28 50:16–17 31–32
25:19–35:29 16 36:1–43 16, 30 50:17 19, 57, 419
25:21 162 36:9 16 50:20 31
582 Index of Scripture
Genesis (cont.) Exodus (cont.) Exodus (cont.)

50:22–26 136 8:28–31 36 15:25 95
9 49 16 87–89, 95
Exodus 9:1 37 16:7 41, 89
1 14 9:3 41 16:7–8 89
1–7 49 9:7 36, 41 16:10 41
1–15 35–37, 48, 121, 9:12 36 16:12 89
522 9:13 37 16:33–34 50
1:1–7 35 9:18 41 16:34 50
1:7 35 9:22–24 49 17 87
2:23 289 9:24 41 17:1–7 88–89
2:23–6:1 35 9:27 36 17:2 89, 432
2:24 139 9:28 36 17:4 95
3 37, 195 9:30 36 17:7 89
3–4 194 9:34 36, 41, 196 17:8–16 154
3:1 37 9:35 36 17:12 41
3:10 195, 260 10:1 36, 41, 196 18:21 214
3:11 263 10:3 37 19 35, 37, 40, 47–48, 81,
3:12 37 10:8 37 86–87
3:14 260 10:11 37 19–20 47, 82
3:19 36 10:14 41 19–24 36, 38, 40, 47,
3:22 42 10:16–17 36 49, 82, 97–100, 115–
4 47 10:17 57, 419 116
4:10 41 10:20 36 19–31 91
4:21 36 10:27 36 19–40 35–37, 40, 49
4:24–26 37 11 50 19:1 87
5:7 328 11–15 50 19:1–2 35, 37
5:9 41 11:1 158 19:1–24:11 38
5:12 328 11:10 36 19:1–24:18 35
5:21–23 88 12 50 19:3–7 38
6:1–8 37, 88, 250, 298 12:15 56 19:4 47
6:2–7:7 35 12:19 56 19:4–6 38–39, 115
6:5 139 12:31–15:21 87 19:5 46–47, 343
6:6 388 12:36 42 19:6 47
6:7 249–250, 289, 496 13–14 50 19:7 39
6:8 250 14 320 19:8 38–40
6:9 88, 140 14:4 36, 41 19:9–13 39
6:12 88 14:7 41 19:10 269, 425
6:16 17 14:8 36 19:11 311
6:19 17 14:17 36, 129 19:14 269, 425
7:13 36 14:18 41 19:14–15 39
7:14 36, 41 14:33 45 19:15 311
7:16 37 15 50, 88 19:16 41
7:17 202 15:1–18 88 19:16–25 39
7:22 36 15:1–20 35 19:18 41
7:26 37 15:1–21 88 19:20–25 41
8 49 15:5 419 20 49, 110, 120
8:8 37 15:13 388 20–23 47, 116
8:8–9 36 15:20–21 88 20:1–17 39
8:11 36, 41, 196 15:21 35 20:1–23:33 38
8:15 36 15:22–27 88 20:2 39
8:20 41 15:22–18:27 35, 37, 86– 20:3–7 39
8:28 36, 41, 196 87, 90, 94 20:3–17 39
Exodus (cont.) Exodus (cont.) Exodus (cont.)

20:5–6 43, 110, 118, 28:38 57, 204, 209 32:15–19 42
275, 324–325, 344, 28:41 269 32:20–29 42
348, 518 28:43 57 32:30 42
20:8 80 29:1 269 32:31–32 42, 71
20:8–11 39, 80 29:2 209 32:31–34 23
20:11 80 29:8 269 32:32 57, 93, 419, 425
20:12–17 39 29:10 59 32:32–33 425
20:17 368 29:11 269 32:33 42, 425
20:18 39 29:13 419 32:33–35 93
20:19 39 29:14 59 32:34 42, 408
20:20 39, 102, 360 29:16 287 32:35 42
20:21 39 29:18 287 33:1–3 42
20:22–26 40 29:20 287 33:4 42–43
20:22–23:33 40, 261 29:22 419 33:6 42
20:23–23:19 49 29:25 287 33:12–13 420
21:1 40 29:27 269 33:12–17 43
21:1–23:9 40 29:33 73, 269 33:12–23 43
21:3 234 29:36–37 73, 269 33:16 46
21:12–17 40 29:41 287 33:17 43
21:18–19 40 29:43 41 33:18 41
21:20 40 29:44 269 33:18–34:35 43
21:21 444 30:11–16 161 33:19 46, 120, 521, 523
21:22 234 30:12 70 33:20 46
21:23–25 40 30:29 269 33:21 43
21:24 270, 315 30:30 269 33:22 41
21:30 70 30:33 56 33:23 495
21:33–34 40 30:38 56 34 35, 44, 92, 96, 251,
22:1 426 31:13 269 307, 375, 410, 416,
22:3 204 31:14 56, 427 521
22:7–14 167 31:18 368 34:1 39, 43, 368
22:15 296, 433 32 93, 317, 425, 435 34:2 43, 311
23:4 267, 369 32–33 43 34:4 368
23:10–19 40 32–34 25, 37, 39, 48–49, 34:5 43
23:11 503 92, 94, 116, 120–121, 34:6 44–45, 348
23:21 57 283, 333, 412, 517, 34:6–7 43–45, 48, 93,
24 40–41, 47–49 521 110, 118, 120, 306–
24:3 38, 40, 47 32:1 41 307, 317, 324–325,
24:4–8 38 32:4 41 347–348, 425, 435,
24:6 287 32:7 41 446, 459, 485, 518,
24:7 38, 40, 47 32:8 41 521–522
24:8 40, 47, 287 32:9 41 34:7 44–45, 57, 71, 82,
24:9–11 38, 40 32:9–10 92 247, 348, 438
24:12 368 32:10 41 34:9 23, 46, 71, 93, 410
24:12–18 41 32:11 42 34:10 43
24:15–18 41 32:11–12 42 34:11–26 39
24:16–17 41 32:11–13 23, 42 34:28 39
25 97 32:11–14 92 34:29 368
25–31 41, 87 32:12 93, 317, 347 35–40 41, 87
25–40 36, 49, 87, 116 32:12–14 307, 317 35:5 429
25:8 40 32:13 42 35:22 429
28:3 269 32:14 42, 347 40 14, 36, 49, 76
28:10 17 32:15 368 40:9–11 269
Exodus (cont.) Leviticus (cont.) Leviticus (cont.)

40:13 269 4:22–35 61 7 418
40:34–35 41 4:23 64–65 7:1–10 59
40:34–38 41 4:24 59 7:2 287
40:36–38 35 4:25 54, 59 7:14 287
4:26 69, 71, 75 7:18 57, 84, 204, 320,
Leviticus 4:27 62 419
1 14 4:27–28 62, 64 7:20 56
1–3 60 4:28 64–65 7:20–21 53
1–7 60 4:29 59 7:21 56
1–16 50, 60, 77, 79, 81– 4:30 54, 59 7:25 56
82 4:31 60, 71, 75 7:27 56
1–25 82 4:33 59 8–10 49
1:1 35, 41, 87 4:34 59 8:10–12 269
1:3 204 4:35 71, 75 8:11 209
1:4 59–60, 84, 204, 320 5 209 8:14 59
1:5 287 5:1 53, 57, 61, 67, 419 8:15 269
1:9 60, 287 5:1–4 52 8:18 59
1:11 287 5:1–6 66 8:19 287
1:13 60 5:1–13 59, 61 8:24 287
2:12 60 5:2–3 53, 59 8:30 209, 269
3 149 5:2–4 53 8:35 55
3:2 59, 287 5:2–5 62 9:6 41
3:5 60 5:3 64–65 9:12 287
3:8 59, 287 5:4 53, 64–65 9:18 287
3:13 59, 287 5:5 65, 75, 420 9:23 41
3:16 60 5:5–13 52 10:1–2 55–56
4 54, 59, 63, 118 5:6 69 10:10 51–52, 268–269
4–5 68, 75, 84 5:9 59, 209 10:11 51–52, 268–269
4–6 53, 61, 71–72, 120, 5:10 69, 71 10:17 57, 419
410, 413, 520 5:13 71 11–15 78, 80
4–15 69 5:14–19 54, 62, 73, 491 11–27 49
4:1 62 5:14–26[6:7] 59, 61 11:24–40 58
4:1–21 61 5:15 61 11:25 425
4:1–35 59 5:16 71, 75 11:28 425
4:1–5:13 59, 61 5:17 57, 62, 419 11:32 58, 287
4:1–6:7 60 5:18 71 11:39–40 58
4:2 61, 406 5:19 62 11:44 78–80
4:3 63, 118 5:20–23[6:1–4] 61, 67 11:44–45 50, 78, 81
4:4 59 5:20–25[6:1–6] 59 11:45 249
4:5–7 59 5:20–26[6:1–7] 62, 73, 12:1–8 58
4:6 209 53–54, 62, 66, 491 12:7 69, 71
4:6–7 54 5:21 62–63 12:8 53, 71
4:13 62–63, 118, 406 5:23[6:4] 62–63 13:4 58
4:13–14 64 5:23–24 75 13:6 58, 287, 425
4:14 64–65 5:24–25 73 13:33 58
4:15 59 5:26[6:7] 71 13:34 58, 287, 425
4:15–18 59 6:1–7 167 13:45–46 57
4:16–18 54 6:2–3 53 13:52 58
4:17 209 6:4 27 13:54 58
4:20 71, 75 6:5–6 73 13:56 58
4:22 62 6:20 209, 425 13:58 58, 287, 425
4:22–23 62, 64 6:24–30 59, 61 14 60
Leviticus (cont.) Leviticus (cont.) Leviticus (cont.)

14:4 426 16:16 68 19:12 78, 80
14:4–5 428 16:18 68 19:14 79–80
14:6 426 16:18–19 73 19:15 342
14:6–7 59 16:19 59, 68, 209, 269 19:16 80
14:7 209 16:21 59, 65, 67, 171, 19:17 57
14:8 58, 425 272, 420 19:18 79–80, 436
14:8–9 58, 287 16:21–22 52, 209, 272 19:19 79
14:9 58, 425 16:22 57, 419 19:20 445
14:10–14 54, 491 16:24–28 58 19:20–22 59
14:10–29 58–59 16:25 209 19:22 71
14:10–31 59 16:26 52 19:25 80
14:12–14 59 16:27 69 19:28 80
14:16 209 16:29 67 19:30 79
14:17 59 16:29–31 75 19:30–32 80
14:19 53, 69 16:30 68–69, 72, 287 19:31 78
14:20 287 16:31 67 19:32 79
14:21 59 16:33 68 19:34 79–80
14:21–24 54, 491 17–25 82 19:35–36 79
14:22 53 17–27 50, 77–80, 85 19:36 80
14:24 59 17:1–2 77 19:36–37 80
14:25 59 17:4 56, 78, 419 19:37 79
14:27 209 17:6 287 20 79–80
14:28 59 17:7–8 287 20:2 78
14:31 53 17:9 56, 78 20:2–5 55–56, 518
14:40–41 58 17:10 78 20:3 78
14:43–45 58 17:14 56, 78 20:5 78, 118
14:49 426 17:15 287, 425 20:6 78
14:51 209, 426 17:15–16 58 20:7 79–80
14:51–52 59 17:16 57 20:7–8 78, 80–81
14:52 426 18 79 20:8 79–81, 269
14:52–53 72 18–20 79 20:9 55, 78
14:53 287 18:2 80 20:10–13 78
15 56 18:3–5 79 20:10–16 55
15:5–8 425 18:4–6 80 20:11–13 78
15:5–27 58 18:21 78, 80 20:14 56
15:10 425 18:24–25 270 20:15–16 78
15:11 425 18:24–30 79, 477 20:16 78
15:12 58 18:25 78 20:17 56–57, 78
15:13 58, 287, 425 18:26 79 20:18 53, 56, 78
15:13–15 59 18:27 78 20:19 57
15:15 53, 69 18:28 78 20:20 57
15:17 58 18:29 56, 78 20:22 78–79
15:28 287 18:30 78–80 20:22–26 79
15:30 53, 69 19 79 20:23 368
15:31 50, 269 19:2 80 20:24 80
16 50, 60, 68–69, 75, 84, 19:3 79 20:26 78, 80–81
120, 337, 520 19:3–4 80 20:27 78
16:1–19 59 19:5 204 21–25 79
16:3 202 19:5–8 57 21:1–4 78
16:4 209 19:7 84, 204, 320 21:4 78
16:14 59 19:8 56–57, 78 21:6 78
16:15 59 19:10 78, 80 21:6–7 80
Leviticus (cont.) Leviticus (cont.) Leviticus (cont.)

21:7–8 80 24:19–20 270, 315 26:40–46 84, 116, 236,
21:8 80, 269 24:20 55 515
21:9 56 24:21 55, 78 26:41 83–84
21:11 78 24:22 80 26:42 83, 519
21:12 78, 80 24:23 55 26:43 84, 390
21:15 80, 269 25 79, 82, 503 26:43–44 79
21:23 78, 80 25:9 306 26:44 390
22:2 78, 80, 269 25:17 79–80 26:44–45 80, 519
22:3 53, 56, 78, 80 25:18 79 26:46 40, 77, 79
22:4 287 25:18–24 79 27 87
22:5 78 25:27 27 27:13 62
22:6 58, 78 25:36 79 27:15 62
22:7 287 25:38 80, 249 27:19 62
22:8 78, 80 25:43 79 27:27 62
22:9 55, 57, 79–80 25:55 80 27:28 129
22:14 62 26 75, 78, 82–85, 95, 27:31 62
22:14–16 54, 491 100, 112, 115–116, 27:34 14, 40, 77
22:15 78 120, 167, 182, 204–
22:16 57, 80 205, 240, 270, 280, Numbers
22:19–21 204 284, 293, 310, 334, 1 14, 87
22:23 84, 204, 320 439, 468, 479, 489, 1–10 87
22:25 84, 204, 320 495, 517, 519, 521 1:1 86
22:27 84, 204, 320 26:1 80 1:1–3 86
22:29 204 26:2 79–80 1:1–10:10 86–87
22:30–31 80 26:3 79 1:3 86
22:31 79 26:3–6 289 1:20 86
22:31–32 81 26:3–13 82 1:20–42 17
22:32 80, 269 26:3–45 79 1:22 86
22:32–33 78 26:12 249, 496 1:24 86
22:33 80, 249 26:13–14 80 1:26 86
23:8 80 26:14–15 79 1:28 86
23:11 204 26:14–39 82 1:30 86
23:22 80 26:15 390 1:32 86
23:26–32 68 26:18 83, 112, 469 1:34 86
23:27 67 26:21 83, 469 1:36 86
23:29 56, 67, 78 26:23 83 1:38 86
23:29–30 55–56 26:24 469 1:40 86
23:30 78 26:27 83, 202, 519 1:42 86
23:30–31 80 26:27–39 83 1:45 86
23:32 67 26:28 83, 469 3:1 17
23:43 80 26:28–38 519 3:4 86
24:1–23 79 26:33 440 3:10 86
24:10–16 55 26:34 84 4:15 86
24:14 78 26:39 83, 118, 284, 4:15–20 55
24:15 57 519 4:18 86
24:15–16 57 26:39–40 117–118, 124, 4:20 86
24:16 78 182, 284, 438, 466, 4:30 253
24:16–17 78 476, 480, 483, 511, 5:1–4 58
24:17 55 518 5:2 86
24:17–22 62 26:40 65, 83, 120, 420, 5:5–9 62
24:17–24 315 511, 519 5:5–10 66
24:18 62 26:40–45 75 5:6 62
Numbers (cont.) Numbers (cont.) Numbers (cont.)

5:6–7 65 13:31–33 92 16:31–33 118
5:6–8 54, 491 13:45–46 58 16:31–35 95, 518
5:7 62, 420 14 71, 92, 121, 375, 435, 16:41 90
5:11–31 167 522 16:42–45 90
5:13 53 14:5 91 16:46 90
5:31 57, 272, 419 14:6–9 92 16:46–50 95
6 58–59 14:10 92 17:6–15 88
6:5 408 14:11–12 92 18:1 57, 209
6:6–7 86 14:11–35 92 18:14 129
6:9 58 14:13–19 23, 92, 95 18:17 287
6:11 269 14:13–23 423 18:22 55, 57
6:12 54, 491 14:17–18 93, 306, 324 18:23 57
6:18 58 14:18 45, 57, 82, 110, 18:27 419
6:19 58 118, 485, 518 18:32 57
7:1 269 14:18–19 71, 317, 435 19:4 209
8:7 209, 425 14:19 57, 93, 419 19:7–8 58
8:12 59 14:20 93, 444 19:7–21 425
8:19 86, 161 14:22–23 93 19:11–13 57
8:21 69, 425 14:28–38 95 19:12 287
9:6–11 86 14:29–38 93 19:13 53, 56
9:13 56–57 14:31 390 19:14–22 58
10 37, 87 14:34 209, 419 19:18 209, 426
10:10 41, 87 14:36–38 92 19:18–19 427–428
10:11 86 14:39 42 19:18–20 427
10:11–12 87 14:39–40 94–95 19:19 58, 209, 287, 425–
10:11–25:18 86–87, 94 14:39–45 111 426
11 87–88 14:41–43 94–95 19:20 53, 56–57, 427
11:1–3 89 14:43 62 19:21 209
11:1–13 88 14:44–45 94 20 87, 90–91, 94
11:2 95 15 94 20:1 90
11:4–35 89 15:3 287 20:1–3 88
11:11 95 15:22 66, 406 20:1–13 88
11:20 390 15:22–29 94 20:2–5 90
11:25 125 15:22–31 53, 61, 406 20:2–13 90–91
11:31–32 89 15:24 66 20:6 90, 95
11:33 89 15:25–26 71 20:7–8 90
11:33–34 95 15:27 66 20:9–13 90
11:34 89 15:27–31 67 20:12 90
12 89, 92 15:28 71 20:22–29 90
12:1–2 89 15:29 66 21 92
12:4–10 89 15:30 56, 65 21–25 91
12:6–8 93 15:30–31 57, 66, 94, 406 21:1–3 91
12:11–12 90, 95 15:31 56 21:2–3 128
12:11–13 23 15:32 328 21:4 140
12:13 90, 95 15:32–36 55 21:4–9 91
12:14–15 90, 95 15:33 328 21:4–10 88
13 92 15:41 249 21:4–25:16 91
13–14 35, 90, 92, 94–95, 16 90, 437 21:5 368
111, 120, 283, 521 16:20–21 90 21:7 95
13:27 92 16:22 90, 95 21:8–9 95
13:28 92 16:23–35 90 21:21–35 128
13:30 92 16:28 202 22–24 91
Numbers (cont.) Deuteronomy (cont.) Deuteronomy (cont.)

22:3 290, 369 4:1 102, 109 5:33 102, 109
24:20 154 4:1–14 40 6:1 101–102
25 91–92 4:2 101–102 6:1–5 361
25:3 91 4:3 111 6:2 102, 109, 360
25:4–13 95 4:4 101 6:3 102, 110
25:5 91 4:5 102 6:4 102
25:7–8 92 4:6 102 6:4–15 132
25:9 91 4:6–8 116 6:5 101
25:13 92 4:9 102–103, 435 6:6 101
26 86–87, 91 4:10 102, 360 6:7 102
26:2 86 4:13 99, 368 6:8 102, 367
26:10–11 118 4:14 102 6:9 102
26:63–65 86 4:16 103, 268 6:9–10 275
26:64–65 87 4:20 321 6:12 102–103, 435
27:15–23 492 4:23 99, 102–103, 435 6:13 102, 360
29:7 67 4:24 104–105, 109 6:14 103
29:7–11 68 4:25 103, 109, 268 6:15 108–109
30:16 57 4:25–28 101 6:17 102
31:23–24 287 4:25–31 111 6:18 102
31:24 425 4:26–27 104 6:18–19 109
32:15 62 4:26–31 104 6:24 102, 360
33:36–39 90 4:27 104 6:25 102
35:11 67 4:29 101, 104–105, 108, 7:1–3 477
35:11–34 53 307 7:1–26 129
35:12 388 4:29–30 104 7:2 99
35:16–34 67 4:29–31 101, 104–105, 7:3 368
35:19–27 388 107–108, 117, 515 7:4 103–104, 109
35:25 27 4:30 102, 105–106, 108, 7:6 108–109, 343
35:31–32 70 304, 307, 310 7:7 108
36 97 4:31 99, 105, 107–108, 7:7–10 111
114 7:8 108
Deuteronomy 4:37 108 7:9 99, 101–102, 113,
1–3 123 4:39 102, 106 438
1–4 116 4:40 102, 109 7:9–10 110, 118
1–11 133 4:41–43 113 7:10 103, 109
1:1–5 99 4:44–11:32 100 7:11 102
1:1–4:43 100 5 110 7:12 99, 102
1:1–4:49 124 5:1 102 7:13 110
1:6–3:29 99, 492 5:2 99, 102 8:1 102, 109–110
1:19–46 111 5:3 99 8:2 102
1:23 522 5:9 108–109 8:6 102, 298, 360
1:26 102–103 5:9–10 110, 118, 518 8:11 102–103
1:32 102 5:10 108 8:14 103–104
1:37–38 186, 492 5:11 109, 113 8:18 99, 113
1:41–46 111 5:12 269 8:18–20 435
1:43 102–103 5:15 108 8:19 103
2:14–16 111 5:16 109 8:19–20 109
3:3 368 5:22 368 8:20 102
3:18–20 132 5:26 360 9:1 102
3:24 108 5:27 111 9:1–6 111
4 104–107, 121, 521 5:31 102 9:4–5 128
4–26 99 5:32 102, 104, 342 9:5 113
Deuteronomy (cont.) Deuteronomy (cont.) Deuteronomy (cont.)

9:7 103, 109 11:23 109 17:12 113, 406
9:7–8 103 11:26–28 101, 109 17:16–17 173
9:7–29 111 11:27 102 17:19 360
9:8 109 11:28 102–104, 298 18:6–8 149
9:9 99 11:29–30 101 18:9–14 492
9:9–11 368 11:30 134 18:13 397
9:10 113 11:32 102 18:22 406
9:11 99 11:32–12:1 101 19 98
9:12 103–104 12 98, 112, 132, 142, 19:1–13 113
9:14 425 181 19:9 298
9:15 99, 368 12–14 98 19:13 113
9:16 103–104 12–26 113 19:15–16 388, 396
9:16–29 23 12:1 102 19:19 113
9:18 103, 109 12:1–7 142 19:20 113
9:19 109 12:1–26:15 100 19:21 113, 270, 315
9:20 109 12:5 299, 311 20 98
9:22 103, 109 12:8 142 20:10–18 129
9:23 102–103 12:14 299 20:18 103
9:24 103 12:19 142 20:20 108
9:25–29 114 12:28 102 20:22–23:19 98
9:26 321 12:31 109 21:1–9 98, 112–113
9:29 321 13 98 21:5 158
10:1 368 13:1 102 21:7–8 113
10:3 368 13:3–4 132 21:8 271, 287
10:8 99 13:4 101 21:9 113
10:10 114 13:5 101–102, 360 21:10–14 98
10:12 101–102, 298, 360 13:6 113 21:13 234
10:12–13 102, 132, 360 13:12–15 129 21:15–22:39 98
10:13 102 13:14 101 21:21 113
10:15 108 13:17 109 22:21–22 113
10:16 101, 107, 522 14:1–21 98 22:22 27, 234
10:17 342 14:2 108–109, 343 22:24 113
10:17–18 109 14:21 109 23:1–14 98
10:20 101–102, 132, 360 14:22–16:17 98 23:6 477
10:21 108 14:23 299, 360 23:14 109
10:22 108 14:25 299 23:15 109
11:1 102, 132 14:29 110 23:15–24:22 98
11:2–4 108 15:2–18 503 24 296
11:3 102 15:4 110 24:1 234
11:5–6 109 15:6 110 24:1–4 232–233
11:6 118 15:10 110 24:4 234
11:8 102, 109, 477 15:15 108 24:7 113
11:9 109 15:18 110 24:16 110, 118, 124,
11:13 101–102 15:19–16:8 112 182, 186, 251, 513,
11:14 110 16:18–18:22 97 518
11:15 110 16:20 109 24:18 108
11:16 102–104, 342 16:22 109 24:19 110
11:17 109 17:2 99 24:22 108
11:18 101–102, 367 17:7 113 25:11 270, 315
11:19 102 17:8 158 25:12 113
11:20 102 17:8–13 400 25:17–19 154
11:22 101–102, 298 17:11 104 26:1–15 98
Deuteronomy (cont.) Deuteronomy (cont.) Deuteronomy (cont.)

26:7 140 29:25–29 106 32:8 442
26:15 110 29:26 109 32:15 196
26:16 101–102 29:28 102, 109 32:15–18 319
26:16–19 100–101 30 105–107, 112, 117, 32:16 108–109
26:16–28:68 100 121, 166, 171, 189, 32:18 435
26:17 102, 298 465, 468, 479, 489, 32:20 289, 428
26:18 102, 343 512 32:30 309
26:19 109, 116 30:1 106, 108–109 32:35 325
27 101, 105 30:1–2 100, 344 32:41 325
27–28 112 30:1–10 101, 104–108, 32:46 101–102
27–30 99 111, 117, 171, 483, 32:46–47 111
27:5–7 112 512, 515 32:47 109
27:10 102 30:2 101–102, 105–106, 33:6 286
27:15–26 110 108, 307, 310 33:9 99
28 100, 105, 113, 123, 30:2–4 479 33:11 84, 204
310, 517 30:3 107, 114 34 124–125
28–30 82, 167, 280, 310, 30:4 212 34:9–12 125
495 30:5 107 34:10–12 125
28–33 116 30:6 101, 107, 114, 304,
28:1 102 515, 522 Joshua
28:2 102, 110 30:8 102, 106, 108, 304 1 123, 125, 127, 133,
28:9 102, 109, 298 30:8–10 106 186–187, 351, 441,
28:9–10 116 30:10 101–102, 105– 506
28:13 102 106, 108 1–12 122
28:14 103–104 30:15 109 1:1–9 134, 492
28:15 102 30:15–20 101, 111, 132 1:3–5 127
28:15–68 110 30:16 101–102, 298 1:5 127, 130
28:20 103 30:17 102–104 1:5–9 127
28:26 102 30:19 109 1:6–7 127–128
28:45 102 30:20 101–102 1:7 127–128, 132, 342
28:47 102 31 515 1:8 127–128
28:50 342 31–34 99 1:9 127–128, 130
28:52 202 31:1–13 124 1:12–18 132
28:58 102, 360 31:6–8 128 1:16–17 132
28:69 98–99 31:9 99 2:10 128
29 105, 171 31:12 102, 360 3:1–4:24 134
29–30 133 31:13 102, 360 3:10 202
29–31 152 31:16 99, 103, 175, 188 4:19–24 134
29:1–32:52 100 31:16–17 111 4:24 360
29:8 99, 102, 128 31:16–21 103 5–8 126
29:9 110 31:17 109 5:1–12 134
29:11 99 31:17–18 289, 428 5:4–7 134
29:12 249, 496 31:18 109 6:17 128–129
29:13 99 31:20 99, 103–104 6:18 128–130
29:17 103–104 31:23 128 6:18–19 128
29:18 103 31:23–29 127 6:21 128
29:20 99, 109 31:25 99 7 124, 129, 131, 136,
29:21 435 31:26 99 157, 185, 187, 353,
29:21–28 101 31:27 111 424, 478
29:23 109, 302 31:29 103–104, 109, 7:1 129, 518
29:24 99, 103, 109 111, 268, 298 7:5 130
29:25 103 32 431 7:6–9 130
Joshua (cont.) Joshua (cont.) Judges (cont.)

7:7 130, 306 22:23 62 2:1–5 137, 143
7:10 130 22:29 62, 132 2:2 143
7:11 130 23 122, 133, 137, 152, 2:3 143
7:11–12 130 165, 185 2:4–5 143
7:11–13 129 23–24 136 2:6 137
7:13 130 23:3–5 133 2:6–3:6 138
7:14–15 130 23:4 133 2:6–16:31 141, 145
7:15 129–130 23:6 133, 342 2:11 146, 176
7:16–18 130 23:6–8 133 2:11–23 123
7:19 130 23:7 133 2:12 139, 146
7:20–21 131 23:8 133 2:12–13 139
7:21 368 23:9–10 133 2:13 139, 146
7:24 131 23:11 133 2:14 139, 146, 175, 188
7:24–25 131, 518 23:12 101, 133 2:15 139, 146
7:25 131 23:12–13 133 2:16 140, 145, 147, 186
8 137, 185 23:13 133 2:18 139–140, 146–147,
8:26 128 23:15–16 133 186, 188
8:30–35 134 23:16 133, 175, 188 2:19 139–140, 146–147
9 38, 157 24 123, 134–135, 137– 2:20 139, 146, 175, 188
9–10 126 138, 185 2:20–3:6 137
9:1–10:43 134 24:1–27 134 2:22 139, 146, 298
9:23 157 24:2 134 3–16 141
9:27 157 24:2–13 134 3:7 139, 146, 176
10:1 128 24:14 360, 397 3:7–16:31 138
10:28 128 24:14–15 135 3:8 139, 146
10:35 128 24:14–24 134 3:9 138–140, 146–147
10:37 128 24:17 135 3:10 140, 147
10:39–41 128 24:18 135 3:11 140, 147
11 126 24:19 57, 419 3:12 139–140, 146–147,
11:1–23 134 24:19–20 135 176
11:11 128 24:21 135 3:14 139, 146
11:12 128 24:22 134 3:15 138–139, 146
11:20 128–129 24:23 135 3:18 147
11:21 128 24:24 135 3:27 306
11:26–32 134 24:25–26 134 3:28 140, 147
12 123 24:27 134 3:30 140, 147
13–21 126 24:32 134 3:30–4:1 138
13–22 123 27:22–14 134 3:31 138
17–21 137 31:16–21 135 4:1 139–140, 146–147,
17:1 128 31:27–29 135 176
17:11 128 4:2 139, 146
21:45 134 Judges 4:3 139, 146, 152
22 131–132, 136–137, 1 123, 137, 141, 143, 4:4 140, 147
185 184 4:5 138
22–24 186 1:1 137 4:14 140, 147
22:5 132 1:1–2 144 4:23 140, 147
22:16 62 1:1–36 137 4:24 140, 147
22:16–19 132 1:1–2:5 138, 141, 143, 4:31 140
22:17–20 518 145 5:31 147
22:18 62, 132 2 186, 440 6 194
22:20 129, 131–132 2–16 122 6:1 139, 146, 176
22:22–23 132 2:1–2 143 6:2 139, 146
Judges (cont.) Judges (cont.) 1 Samuel

6:6 139, 146, 152 13:2 138 1 122, 161
6:7 139, 146, 152 14:6 140, 147 1–3 186
6:10 360 14:12–19 431 1:12–18 148
6:12 140, 147 14:15 433 1:15 149
6:14 140, 147 14:19 140, 147 1:16 149
6:15 138 15:14 140, 147 1:28 148
6:22 306 15:20 147 2–3 163
6:25–27 139, 146 16–21 145 2:7 301
6:34 140, 147, 306 16:5 433 2:8 392
6:36 147 16:16 140 2:11 148–149
7:2 140, 147 16:20 140 2:11–36 151
7:8 306 16:31 140, 147 2:12 149
7:9 140, 147 17–18 141 2:18 149
7:16 306 17–21 123, 141, 143– 2:19 149
8–9 143 144 2:22 149
8:21 438 17:1–4 141 2:22–24 149
8:22 144 17:1–21:25 138, 141 2:23–25 149
8:22–23 143 17:3 27 2:25 149
8:22–35 138 17:5 141 2:29 149
8:28 140, 147 17:6 142 2:30 149
8:33 140, 147 17:7–13 141 2:31–33 353, 519
9:16 435 18:1 142 2:35 149
9:21 290 18:1–6 141 2:36 149
9:26 203 18:7–11 141 3:11–14 151
9:38 390 18:22–27 141 3:13 149
10 145, 188 18:27–29 141 3:14 149
10:1–2 138 18:28–31 144 3:18 150
10:3–5 138 18:30–31 141 4 150
10:6 139, 146, 176 19–20 141 4–6 163
10:7 139, 146 19–21 186, 353 4:1–7:1 150
10:8 139, 146 19:1 142 4:11 151
10:8–9 140 19:1–3 141 5:6 161
10:9 139, 146–147 19:4–10 141 6:19 42
10:10 139, 146, 152, 19:11–15 142 7 151, 164, 166, 186,
163, 284 19:16–28 142 188–189, 354, 520
10:10–16 141, 145, 152, 19:18 141 7:2 150
189 19:29–30 142 7:2–17 188
10:12 146 20:1–11 142 7:3 150
10:15 139, 146, 284 20:12–48 142 7:3–9 163
10:16 139–140, 145–147 20:18 143–144 7:4 150, 163
10:29 140 20:23 143 7:5–9 23
10:30 140, 147 20:26 304 7:6 150, 152
11:1 138, 140, 147 20:26–28 143 7:8–10 151
11:13 27 20:48 518 7:9 258
11:29 147 21:2–5 143 7:12 166
11:32 147 21:10–11 518 7:13 166
11:35 306 21:25 142 7:14 411
12:7 140, 147 7:16 166
12:8–10 138 Ruth 8 148, 151
12:11–12 138 1:14 101 8–12 151
12:13–15 138 4:18 17 8:3 151
13–16 141 8:5 151
13:1 139, 146, 176 8:7 151, 390
spread is long
1 Samuel (cont.) 1 Samuel (cont.) 2 Samuel (cont.)

8:8 151 15:24–25 163 6 185
8:11–17 159 15:25 57, 156, 419 6:1–11 159
8:18 151 15:26 390 6:8 155
8:19–20 144 15:29 156 7 123, 163, 187
8:22 144 15:30 156, 163 7:1–2 158
9:1–2 144 15:35 42, 148 7:2 158
9:5 408 16:1 42, 148, 390 7:12 158
9:13 311 16:7 390 7:13 158
10:2 408 16:13–14 429 7:14 249, 442
10:8 153 16:14 154 7:16 158
10:12 431 18:3 38 7:21 154
10:19 390 19:2 421 10–20 159
11:2 202 20:8 38 11 159–161, 163, 173
12 123, 133, 145, 152, 22 157 11–12 159–160
164–165, 186, 188, 22:16 518 11–20 159–160, 163,
520 23:18 38 186–187, 353, 518
12:1–5 152 24 156, 185, 188 11–24 173
12:1–25 163 25 156, 185 11:26 234
12:3 70 25:26 426 12 162, 164
12:6–25 152 25:28 57, 419 12:5 159–160
12:8 152, 163 25:31 156 12:7 159
12:8–11 188 25:33 426 12:9 176, 426
12:10 152, 189 26 156–157, 185 12:10 426
12:12 144 26:18–19 518 12:10–12 159–160
12:12–13 153 26:19 442 12:13 159–161, 163,
12:14 360 26:23 157, 185 426, 445
12:14–15 153, 156 28 492 12:13–14 161
12:16–18 153, 163 28:3–25 154 12:14 160, 353, 519
12:19 153 31 432 12:15 160
12:19–25 258 31:1–13 154 12:16 160
12:20–21 153 12:22 160, 188, 307, 521
12:23 153 2 Samuel 13 160
12:24 360 1 185 13–14 160
12:24–25 153 1:2 307 13:14 260
12:25 23, 153 1:14–16 157 13:19 307, 392
13 153–154, 164, 492 1:17–27 452 13:31 307
13:8–9 153 2:1–5:5 144 13:39 391
13:12 154 2:19 65, 369 14–19 160
13:13 153–154 2:21 65 14:2 42
13:14 154 2:22 342 15:32 307
14:16 260 3 158, 185 18:18 197
14:24 304 3:21 38 19:2 42
15 154, 156, 164, 189, 3:25 433 19:20 419
492 3:28–29 157 19:25 425
15–16 154 3:31 305 20 122, 160
15:2–3 353, 519 3:39 158, 185 20:2 101
15:9 154 4 185 21 157, 186, 519
15:11 62, 148, 155 4:9 445 21–24 123, 161
15:13 155 4:10–12 157 21:1 157, 353, 519
15:19 155, 159, 176 5–10 159, 173 21:3 157
15:22–23 155 5:3 38 21:6 157
15:23 390 5:4–5 175 21:14 157, 162, 353, 519
15:24 156 5:21 419 22:49 301
2 Samuel (cont.) 1 Kings (cont.) 1 Kings (cont.)

23:16 150 8:22 167 9:6 172, 497
24 161, 163–164, 185– 8:23–26 166 9:7 429
186, 188, 354 8:23–53 172 9:9 172
24:10 161, 163 8:24 166 9:16 38
24:11–13 161 8:25–26 178, 188 10–11 173
24:14 161, 163, 188 8:27–30 166–167, 171 10:3 53
24:15 518 8:27–53 166 10:16 356
24:15–25 162 8:29 299 11 165, 175, 188
24:16 161–162 8:29–30 167 11–12 186
24:16–25 162 8:30 167, 299, 444 11:1–8 173–175
24:17 162–163 8:31 170, 400 11:2 101
24:17–25 162 8:31–32 167–168, 400 11:4 178
24:18 162 8:31–50 167 11:4–11 181
24:19–25 162 8:31–53 167 11:6 176, 178
24:23 84, 204 8:32 272 11:9–10 174, 186
24:25 162 8:33–34 168, 170 11:9–13 175
8:35–36 168, 170 11:11 174
1 Kings 8:36 172, 183 11:11–12 353, 519
1 165 8:37–40 168, 170 11:11–13 174, 180
1–11 173 8:39 442, 444 11:12 175
1:29 445 8:40 360 11:12–13 178, 188
2 133, 152, 165–166, 8:41–43 169 11:13 175, 178
185 8:41–45 170 11:14–22 175
2:1–9 187 8:43 360 11:23–25 175
2:2–4 165 8:44 495 11:26–40 175
2:10–12 175 8:44–45 169 11:32 178, 188
2:31–33 157 8:44–51 166 11:33 176, 178
2:33 158, 185 8:46 517 11:33–35 175
2:46 174 8:46–50 169–170 11:34 178, 188
3:1–3 173–175 8:46–53 166, 171 11:34–35 175
3:3 178 8:47 106, 171 11:35 175
3:4–10:29 173 8:48 495 11:36 178, 188
3:6 178, 182, 186, 188 8:50 44, 425 11:38 176, 178
3:14 178 8:51 171, 321 11:38–39 180
3:16–4:34 494 8:51–53 167 12:25–33 177, 499
3:26 44, 425 8:52 171 13:1–3 177
6 166, 187 8:52–53 167 13:2 177
6:11–13 166, 187 8:53 171, 321 13:3 177
6:12 166 8:54 167 14–15 186
6:13 166 8:56 171 14:1–20 177
6:20 308 8:57 172 14:8 176, 178
6:22 308 8:57–60 171 14:10 353, 519
7:48 308 8:58 171–172, 183, 189, 14:10–11 177
8 123–124, 131, 166– 356, 522 14:12–13 177
168, 170–173, 182– 8:59–60 172 14:14 177
183, 185, 188–189, 8:61 171–172 14:15 440
354, 465, 468, 479– 8:62–64 167 14:15–16 177
480, 483, 489, 494– 8:64 308 14:16 353, 519
495, 513, 520 9 173, 187 14:17–18 177
8–9 166 9:3 172, 495 14:21–24 499
8:14 308 9:4 172, 178 14:22 177
8:16 495 9:5 172, 178, 188 14:24 178
1 Kings (cont.) 2 Kings (cont.) 2 Kings (cont.)

15:3 177–178 5:11 43 17:7–20 123, 180
15:4–5 178, 188 6:15–20 23 17:7–23 180
15:5 176 8:8 492 17:9 367
15:9 178 8:18 178 17:13 180–181, 189, 352
15:11 176–178 8:19 178, 188 17:13–20 179
15:14 177 8:27 178 17:14–17 181
15:26 176–177 9 176 17:15 174, 390
15:28–30 353, 519 10 179 17:18 175, 181, 188
15:30 177 10:10 353, 519 17:19 181
15:33 176 10:17 353, 519 17:20 390, 429
15:34 177 10:29 177 17:20–23 181
16:2 177, 392 10:31 177 17:21–23 177, 186, 353,
16:7 177 12 498 519
16:12–13 186 12:2 177 17:22 177
16:19 176 12:3 177 17:25 360
16:25 176 13:2 176–177 18–19 238, 323
16:26 177 13:3–5 183, 189 18:1–3 178
16:30 176 13:6 177, 183 18:3 176–178
16:31 174, 177 13:11 176–177 18:6 342
17 179 13:19 84 18:8 367
17:10 303, 328 13:21 177 18:18 177
17:12 328 13:22–23 183, 189 18:27 177
17:12–13 182 13:23 182, 186, 429 18:37 307
17:17–23 23 14:3 177–178 19–20 424
18:17 180 14:4 177 19:15 484
18:21 180 14:5–6 182, 185–186, 19:19 484
18:37 180 353, 518 19:21 368
18:38–39 180 14:6 182 19:26 140
21 160 14:22 177 19:34 178, 188
21:9 305 14:24 176–177 20 353, 519
21:12 305 14:25 315 20:6 178, 188
21:20–21 353, 519 14:26–27 183, 189 20:12–19 179
21:25 183 15:3 177–178 20:16–18 178, 182,
21:27–29 183, 186, 189 15:4 177 186
21:28–29 353, 519 15:9 176–177 21 178–179
22 183 15:18 176–177 21:2 177–178
22:5 312, 492 15:24 176–177 21:2–9 178
22:19–21 194 15:28 176–177 21:3 174
22:43 177–178 15:34 176–178 21:6 178–179
22:52 176–177 15:35 177 21:9 178
22:54 174 16:2 176–178 21:10–15 178
30:6 356 16:3 178 21:11–14 353, 519
16:3–4 177 21:12–14 179, 186
2 Kings 16:13 287 21:12–15 500
2:12 307 16:15 287 21:13 425
2:20 303 17 122, 165, 178, 181– 21:14 321
3:2 176 182, 187, 323, 352, 21:16 178
3:3 177 354, 520 21:16–17 178
3:10 306 17:2 176 21:20 177
3:11 492 17:7 360 21:21 174
4:33 23 17:7–8 180 21:21–22 178
4:41 303 17:7–18 181 22 520
2 Kings (cont.) 1 Chronicles (cont.) 2 Chronicles (cont.)

22–23 123, 185, 187– 8:28 17 5:1 494
189, 352, 354 9 504 5:2–10 494
22:2 176–178 9:9 17 5:10 368
22:13 312 9:34 17 5:11–13 494
22:16–17 353, 519 10 490–491, 497–498 5:13–14 494
22:17 175, 188 10:13 497 6 495, 505, 513
22:19 183 10:13–14 491–492, 497 6:1–42 494
23 177 11:3 38 6:2 10
23:4–25 181 14:2–7 498 6:5–6 495
23:9 149 17 494, 496 6:18–40 495
23:15 177 17:11–14 504 6:21 339, 444
23:25 183 17:13 249 6:23 272
23:26 175, 188 17:23 504 6:30 442
23:26–27 179, 186, 353, 17:27 504 6:31 360
500, 519 21:26 497 6:33 360
23:27 390 22 491–493 6:34 495
23:32 177–178 22–29 492 6:36 517
23:37 177–178 22:10 249, 504 6:37 106, 495
24:2–4 179, 186, 353, 22:11 497 6:38 495
519 22:11–13 492 6:40 496
24:3–4 500 22:12 494 7 491, 496
24:4 179 22:13 497 7:1–2 494
24:9 177–178 22:19 497 7:3 494
24:19 177–178 23–27 492 7:4–10 494
24:20 429, 500 25 503 7:11 494
25 122, 124, 165, 182, 25:5 498 7:12 495
187, 441 26:4–5 498 7:12–16 495–496, 513
25:1 453 26:31 17 7:12–22 495
25:3–7 453 27:24 202 7:13 495
25:8–12 453 28–29 491–493 7:13–15 495, 499
25:15 194 28:7 493 7:15 496
25:25–26 453 28:7–8 504 7:17–22 495–496
28 360 28:8 493 7:19 497
37–39 360 28:9 493–494, 497 7:20 429
41 36024 28:9–10 493 7:22 497
28:10 493 8:1 494
1 Chronicles 28:19–21 493 8:16 494
1 504 28:20 497 9 491, 497–498
1–9 20, 490 28:21 429 9:30 498
1:29 17 29:10–19 493 10 498
2:7 497 29:18 493 10–12 498
3 331, 504 29:19 493 10–36 496–498
3:1–9 498 29:23 497 10:1–11:4 499
4:10 497 29:28 500 11:1 498
4:22 234 31:2–8 492 11:2–4 503
5:7 17 11:5 499
5:20 162, 497 2 Chronicles 11:5–12 499
5:25 497 1–9 494 11:5–23 499
7:2 17 1:5 311 11:11 499
7:4 17 2:1 494 11:12 499
7:9 17 2:12 494 11:13–17 498–499
7:22 42 3:1–2 494 11:16 497
2 Chronicles (cont.) 2 Chronicles (cont.) 2 Chronicles (cont.)

11:16–17 499 18:31 497 26:9–10 498
11:17 499 19:2 498 26:10–15 498
11:18–22 498 19:3 497 26:16 268, 497
11:18–23 499 19:4–11 498 26:16–23 195, 497–498
12:1 492, 497, 499 20:1 498 26:18 497
12:1–9 498 20:2–30 498 27:3–4 498
12:1–11 499 20:3 305 27:5–7 498
12:2 497, 499 20:4 497 28:4–8 498
12:3–4 499 20:9 497 28:6 497
12:5 497, 499 20:14–19 503 28:9 498
12:6 497, 499 20:17 202 28:9–15 503
12:7 497 20:27–30 498 28:16–25 498
12:10–14 499 20:31 498 28:19 497
12:12 497, 499 20:35–37 497 28:22 497
12:13 499 21:1–3 498 28:27 498
12:14 492, 497 21:5 498 29 503
13:1 498 21:7 504 29–32 501
13:5 504 21:8–11 498 29:6 497, 501
13:10–11 497 21:10 497 29:7 497, 501
13:11 492 21:12–15 503 29:8–9 501
13:12–15 497 21:13 497 29:10 501
13:13–18 498 21:16–17 498 29:11 501
13:21 498 21:16–20 498 29:15 501
14:4 497 21:19 435, 498 29:16 501
14:4–5 492 22:2 498 29:18 501
14:6–7 498 22:9 497 29:19 501
14:7 497 23:1–17 498 29:20 504
14:8–15 498 24:1 498 29:20–36 501
14:11 497 24:13 498 29:22 287
15:1 498 24:15–16 500 29:31 429
15:1–8 503 24:18 497 29:36 494
15:2 497 24:19–22 498 30 501
15:4 497 24:20 497 30:1 501
15:7–10 503 24:20–22 503 30:1–26 498
15:10–15 498 24:21–22 491 30:5 504
15:12 497 24:23–24 498 30:6 497, 501, 504
15:13 497 24:24 497 30:7 497, 501
15:14 306 24:25–26 498 30:8 131, 501
15:15 497 25:1 498 30:9 45, 307, 324, 497,
16:1–9 498 25:4 513 501, 504
16:6 498 25:5 498 30:11 497, 501
16:7–10 498 25:7 498 30:12 494, 501
16:10 498 25:7–10 503 30:14 501
16:12 497–498 25:14 498 30:15–20 502
17:4 497 25:15–16 503 30:16 287
17:5 498 25:15–24 498 30:18 497
17:12 498 25:20 497 30:19 497
17:12–19 498 25:27–28 498 30:22 420
18:1–19:3 497 26:2 498 30:27 497
18:4 492, 497 26:3 500 31:9 339
18:9–27 503 26:5 497 31:21 497
18:12–27 498 26:6 498 32 491
2 Chronicles (cont.) 2 Chronicles (cont.) Ezra (cont.)

32:3–5 498 36:20–23 504 9:1–10:44 473
32:20 497 36:21 84, 503 9:3 307
32:20–22 498 36:22–23 333, 503–504 9:3–5 476, 479
32:24 435, 497 36:23 513 9:3–15 476
32:25 435, 497, 502 9:4 478
32:27–30 497, 502 Ezra 9:6 408
32:29–30 498 1 472 9:6–7 476–477, 519
32:31 497 1–6 472–475, 479 9:6–12 477
33 520 1:1 333, 474–475 9:6–15 476
33:2 500 1:2–3 473 9:7 476–477, 511
33:6 497 1:2–4 472 9:8 477
33:8 492 1:5 333, 472 9:8–9 477
33:10 498, 500 1:6 474 9:10 477, 511
33:11 500, 504 1:9 473 9:10–11 477
33:12 497, 500 2:1 473 9:10–12 476–477
33:13 162, 497, 500 2:12 473 9:11–12 477
33:14 498, 500 2:17 473 9:13 477, 511
33:15 500 2:61–63 475 9:13–15 477
33:18–19 497 3 334 9:14 333, 476–477
33:19 162, 497 3:3 474 9:15 477, 499, 511
33:23 497 4:1–5 474 10 473, 476, 478, 481–
33:24–25 498 4:3 481 482, 487
34:2 492 4:6–24 474 10:1 420, 476, 478–480,
34:3 497 4:17–23 474 484
34:8 502 5 473 10:1–6 307
34:10–13 498 5:1–2 474 10:1–44 475, 478
34:19 502 6 472–473 10:2 478
34:21 502 6:14 472, 474 10:3 478
34:22 502 6:15 472 10:4 478
34:22–23 502 6:19–22 475 10:5 478
34:23–25 502 6:21 475 10:6 42, 478
34:25 497 7 473 10:7–8 478
34:27 497, 502 7–10 472, 474–475 10:10 478
34:28 502 7:1–13 475 10:11 478, 489
34:29–32 498 7:5 473 10:12 478
35:11 287 7:7 472 10:13 478
35:20–24 498 7:8 472 10:14 478
35:24 42 7:14 473 10:16–17 478
35:24–25 498 7:14–26 473, 475 10:18–44 478
35:25 452 7:15–24 473 10:19 54, 491
36 490, 504 7:25–26 473
36:11–20 502 7:27–9:15 475 Nehemiah
36:12 497, 502 8:15–36 473 1 182, 423, 453, 458,
36:12–13 502 8:21 305 465–466, 472–473,
36:13 497, 502 8:23 162 476, 479–483, 489,
36:14 497 9 182, 423, 453, 458, 512, 516, 520–521
36:15 386 465, 476, 479, 481– 1–6 474, 479, 481
36:15–16 498, 502 483, 489, 511–512, 1:1 473
36:15–20 498 516, 520–521 1:1–3 480
36:15–21 502 9–10 479, 483, 511 1:2 479
36:16 492 9:1 489 1:3 479
36:17–20 503 9:1–2 476 1:4 42
Nehemiah (cont.) Nehemiah (cont.) Nehemiah (cont.)

1:5 466, 486 9 182, 279, 283, 423, 9:36–37 487
1:6 420, 484, 511, 444, 453, 458, 465– 9:38–10:29 487
519 466, 476, 479, 481, 10 481, 487–488
1:7 386 483, 485, 487, 489, 10:1–39 483
1:9 482 510–512, 516, 520– 10:9–31 489
2:1–6:19 488 521 10:28 487–488
2:10 481 9–10 486–488 10:30 487–488
2:12 482 9:1–3 479, 483, 487 10:31 488, 503
2:19 481 9:1–10:39 483 10:34–35 488
2:20 481 9:1–38 483 10:37–39 488
3 488 9:2 484, 487, 489, 511, 10:39 487
3:22 472 519 12:16 335
4:1 481 9:2–3 420, 480 13 472, 488, 511
4:3 481 9:3 484 13:1–3 488
4:4–5 481 9:5 484 13:3 489
4:7 481 9:6 484 13:4 481
5 481, 511 9:7 484 13:4–9 488
5:1–5 481 9:7–8 484 13:6 473
5:7 481 9:8 486 13:7 481
5:8 481 9:9–11 484 13:8 481
5:9 481 9:9–12 485 13:10–14 488
5:10–11 481 9:9–23 486 13:13 425
5:12 481 9:12–23 484 13:15–22 488
5:12–13 481 9:13–14 485 13:23–30 488
5:13 481 9:15 485 13:28 481
6:1 481 9:16–17 485 13:31 488
6:2 481 9:16–18 484
6:5 481 9:17 44–45, 306–307, Esther
6:12 481 324, 368, 485 1:17 234
6:14 481 9:18–22 485 1:20 234
6:17 481 9:19 485 3:4 444
6:19 481 9:24–25 484 4:1 392
7 481 9:24–28 484–485 4:3 307, 392
7–13 472–474, 481 9:24–31 484 4:14 307
7:1–13:31 488 9:25 196 9:24–25 518
7:5 482 9:26 484
8 472–473, 483, 487– 9:26–31 484 Job
488 9:27 484 1:1 360, 379, 381, 410
8–10 482–483, 488 9:28 484 1:1–2:13 377–378
8:1 482 9:28–31 485 1:2 379
8:1–12 482 9:29–31 486 1:3 379
8:2–4 482 9:30 485 1:4 379
8:5 482 9:30–31 486 1:5 379–380, 382
8:6 482 9:31 44 1:8 360, 379–381, 410
8:7–12 482 9:32 466, 480, 486–487 1:13–17 379
8:8 482–483 9:32–34 519 1:18–19 379
8:9 42, 307 9:32–37 486 1:20 307
8:10 307 9:33 486, 499 1:21 383, 387
8:13 483 9:33–34 511 1:22 378, 380
8:13–18 483 9:33–35 486 2:1–10 379
8:14–17 483 9:35 486 2:3 360, 378–380
8:18 483 9:36 486 2:8 392
Job (cont.) Job (cont.) Job (cont.)

2:10 378, 380, 383, 387 9:28 387 16:17 380–381, 387
2:11–13 379 9:28–33 387–388 16:18–22 387
2:12 307 9:29 387 16:19 213, 387–388, 521
3:1–26 377 9:32 387, 396 16:21 258, 387
3:13 84 9:33 387 16:22 286
4–5 131 10:1 289 17:3 387
4:1 140, 377 10:2 387 17:8 379–380
4:6 379–380 10:2–3 387 17:9 380
4:6–9 382 10:3 388, 390 17:14 435
4:7 379–380 10:6 380–381 17:16 392
4:8 381 10:6–7 382, 387 18:5 381–382
4:8–9 379 10:7 381, 387 18:21 381–382
4:17 380 10:14 380–381, 387 19:2 213–214
5:1 377 10:14–17 387 19:6–7 387
5:2–3 442 10:15 380–381, 387 19:7 387
5:8 385, 520 10:17 387 19:18 390
5:17 385, 390 11:2 380 19:23–29 387
5:27 382 11:4 380 19:25 388, 396, 521
6:1 377 11:6 385, 389, 520 19:26 388
6:9 214 11:11 381 20:4–5 382
6:10 382 11:14 382 20:5 381
6:14 380 11:15 342 20:10 84
6:25 258 12:4 397 20:11 392
7:1 204 13:3 258, 387 20:23 382
7:15–16 390 13:6 387 20:27–29 382
7:16 390–391 13:6–12 387 21:4 140
7:19–21 383 13:7 419 21:7 383
7:20 380 13:8 342, 387 21:19–21 383
7:21 57, 381, 392, 433 13:10 342 21:26 392
8:1 377 13:15 258, 387 21:29–30 383
8:4 380–381 13:15–19 387 22:3 380
8:4–6 385, 520 13:18 380, 387 22:4 380
8:6 380 13:19 382, 387 22:4–5 382
8:8–10 382 13:23 380–381 22:5 381
8:13 381 13:23–24 428 22:9 213
8:15 444 13:23–26 383 22:19 380
8:20 379, 381–382, 390, 13:24 289 22:21 385
410 13:26 380–381, 416, 518 22:21–26 384
8:31 381 14:3–4 387 22:21–27 385, 520
9:1 377 14:4 204, 382, 387, 396, 22:26 342
9:2 380, 387–388 427 22:28–29 385
9:2–3 387 14:16 380 22:30 380
9:3 387, 389 14:17 381 23:1–7 192
9:15 380, 387–389 15:4 380–381 23:3–7 387
9:16 387 15:5 381 23:4 387
9:19–21 387–388 15:7–10 382 23:5 387
9:20 379–380, 387, 393 15:8 417 23:6 387
9:20–22 410 15:14 192, 380 23:7 379, 387
9:21 379, 387, 390–391, 15:14–15 192, 427 23:11 380
393 15:17–18 382, 431 23:11–12 382
9:22 379 15:20 381–382 23:12 380
9:23 380 16:8 387 24:19 380
Job (cont.) Job (cont.) Job (cont.)

25:4 192, 380, 384, 427 33:26 380, 386 40:15–41:26 464
25:4–5 192 33:27 380, 386 40:27 444
26:1 377 33:28 386 42:1–6 377–378, 389,
26:2 377 33:31 386 393, 423
27:1 377, 431 33:31–33 386 42:2 389
27:4 419 33:32 380, 386 42:2–5 390
27:4–6 382 33:33 386 42:3 389
27:5 377 34:5 380 42:4 389
27:6 380 34:5–6 382 42:5 389
27:7 381 34:6 381 42:6 390–391, 393
27:12 383 34:11 383 42:7 379, 393
27:13–23 383 34:12 387–388 42:7–9 23
27:17 380 34:19 342 42:7–17 377
27:18 367 34:23 387, 396 42:8 381
28 383 34:26 381, 383 42:8–9 382
28:21 53 34:26–30 428 42:9 342, 393
28:28 360, 380 34:27 381 42:9–10 381
29–31 394 34:29 289 42:10 381, 393
29:1 377, 431 34:31–33 386 42:10–11 379
29:17 381 34:33 390 42:12 379
30:1 390 34:37 380–381 42:13–15 379
30:15 425 35:3 380 42:16–17 379
30:19 392 35:6 380–381
30:23 392 35:7 380 Psalms
31:5 381 35:8 380–381 1 396–399, 405–406,
31:13 390 36:1 377 409, 415, 417, 448–
31:30 380 36:5 390 451, 506
31:33 381, 419–420 36:5–12 386 1–2 448, 450
31:35 387 36:6 383 1–41 448
32:1 382 36:6–7 383 1:1 418, 448
32:1–5 377 36:8 386 1:2 448
32:1–14 382 36:9 381, 386 1:6 448
32:2 380 36:10 387 2 422, 448–450
32:6–7 383 36:11 387 2:1 448
32:8 383 36:12 387 2:4 448
32:9 383 36:18 70 2:12 418, 448
32:14 377 36:21 381 5 400, 508
32:21 342 37:2 378 5:3[2] 400
33:3–4 383 37:14 378 5:6[5] 400
33:8–10 382 37:21–24 377 5:7[6] 400
33:9 380–381 37:23 378, 380 5:8[7] 400
33:12 380 38–41 389 5:11[10] 400
33:13 387–388 38:1 377 5:12–13[11–12] 400
33:14–15 383 38:2 389 6 299
33:15–18 386 38:41 369 6:3[2] 428
33:17 380 40:2 387–388 6:10 367
33:18–30 435 40:2–5 378 7 299, 400, 508
33:19–22 386 40:4–5 389, 391, 393 7:2[1] 400
33:23–30 385, 520–521 40:5 309 7:4[3] 400
33:23–33 386 40:6 377 7:4–6[3–5] 400
33:24 70 40:7 389 7:6 392
33:24–25 386 40:8 380 7:10[9] 400
Psalms (cont.) Psalms (cont.) Psalms (cont.)

7:18[17] 420 23:5 400 33:13 442
9 448 24 399, 508 33:20 330
9–10 396, 508 24:4 399 34 396–397
9:14 301 25 415, 417–418, 446– 34:9[8] 418
10 448 447, 508, 522 34:10–23[9–22] 397
10:11 289 25:2 415 34:12–15[11–14] 397
10:12 396 25:4–7 416 34:13–14[12–13] 407
10:13–15 396 25:4–15 416 34:16–23[15–22] 397
11 401, 508 25:7 518 34:19 214, 430
11:4 442 25:8–10 416 34:21[20] 428
12:2 442 25:8–15 416 34:22 63
12:5–6[4–5] 422 25:11 446 34:23 445
12:9 442 25:12–13 407 35:10 428
13:2 289, 428 25:16 415 35:11 388, 396
14 403, 508 25:16–20 415 35:13 67
14:2 442 25:16–22 417 36 403
14:6 403 25:18 57 36:2[1] 403
14:7 403 25:18–19 415 36:4[3] 403
15 399, 402, 508 25:20–21 415–416 36:5 390
15:2 399 25:22 416, 445 36:8[7] 442
15:4 390, 399 25:28 57 36:11[10] 403
16:10 435 26 401, 508 36:12–13[11–12] 403
17 401, 508 26:11 445 37 397, 508
17:3 400–401 27 423, 508 37:18 397
17:6 443 27:3 202 37:24 429
17:8 400 27:5 400 37:34 301
18 401, 508 27:9 289, 428 37:37 410
18:21[20] 401 27:12 388, 396 38 407–408, 410, 413,
18:24[23] 401 28:2 339, 444 508
18:25[24] 397, 401 28:4 435 38:2–4[1–3] 407
18:34[33] 397 28:6 339, 444 38:4[3] 428
18:40 301 30:8 289, 428 38:4–12[3–11] 407
18:42[41] 401 30:9 426 38:5[4] 407–408
19 405–407, 413–415, 30:10[9] 435 38:6[5] 408
447, 508, 522 31:5 445 38:13[12] 407
19:2–7[1–6] 405 31:20[19] 442 38:16[15] 408
19:8–12[7–11] 405 31:24[23] 444 38:17[16] 407
19:8–15[7–14] 405 32 412, 418–419, 421– 38:19[18] 408, 423
19:9[8] 397 423, 445–448, 508, 38:20–21[19–20] 407
19:12[11] 405–406, 518 520, 522 38:21[20] 407
19:13[12] 404, 406, 446 32:1 57, 419, 421, 446 38:22[21] 408
19:13–15[12–14] 406 32:1–2 418, 421 38:23[22] 408
19:14[13] 406, 446 32:1–5 418, 421–422 39 408, 413, 415, 508
19:15 204 32:2 446 39:2[1] 408
20:5 154 32:3–5 418 39:3[2] 408
21:11[10] 442 32:5 57, 419–421, 423, 39:6[5] 408
22:1–2 244 446 39:6–7[5–6] 408
22:15[14] 428 32:6–11 421 39:7[6] 408
22:16[15] 392 32:10 445 39:8[7] 413
22:18[17] 428 33 448 39:9[8] 408
22:25 289, 428 33:11 444 39:9–14[8–13] 408
22:30 392 33:12 418 39:10[9] 408

39:11[10] 408 51:3–4[1–2] 424, 426– 65:3–4[2–3] 411
39:11–12[10–11] 408 428, 430 65:4[3] 411
39:12[11] 408 51:4[2] 426, 446 65:5[4] 412, 418
39:13[12] 408 51:5[3] 232, 426, 428 66 401
39:14[13] 408 51:5–8[3–6] 426 66:5 442
40 409, 413, 508, 522 51:6[4] 192, 425–427 66:10 401
40:2–4[1–3] 409 51:6–14[4–12] 426 68:22[21] 397
40:2–11[1–10] 409 51:7[5] 427 69 410, 413, 443, 508
40:5[4] 418 51:8[6] 427 69:3[2] 408, 443
40:7–9[6–8] 409 51:9[7] 232, 287, 426, 69:5[4] 410
40:12[11] 409 430 69:6[5] 408, 410, 423
40:12–13[11–12] 409 51:9–11[7–9] 426–430 69:15[14] 443
40:12–18[11–17] 409 51:10[8] 428 69:16[15] 408
40:14–18[13–17] 409 51:11[9] 289, 428, 446 69:18 289, 428
40:15–16[14–15] 409 51:12–14[10–12] 428– 69:19 445
41 409, 413, 449, 508 429 69:29[28] 425
41–43 448 51:13[11] 429 70 409
41:12 202 51:14[12] 429 71:23 445
41:13 448 51:15[13] 430 72 449
42–43 423 51:15–21[13–19] 430 72–73 448
42–72 448 51:16[14] 426 72:4 213
42:7 13 51:16–17[14–15] 430 72:18 448
44 305, 398–399, 453 51:18 84, 204 72:18–19 448
44:12 441 51:18–19[16–17] 430 72:19 448
44:21 404 51:18–21[16–19] 430 73 398, 449–450, 508
44:25 289, 428 51:19 320 73–89 448
44:26 392 51:21[19] 430 73:13 192
44:27 445 51:20–21[18–19] 430 74 412–413, 453
47:6 306 52:5[4] 419 74:2 388
41:2[1] 418 53 403, 508 76:10 396
41:3[2] 409 53:3[2] 442 77:16 388
41:4[3] 409 53:6 390 78 431, 434, 447, 508,
41:5[4] 409–410, 423 53:7[6] 403 521–522
41:6–10[5–9] 409 55:19 445 78:1–2 431
41:9[8] 409 55:24[23] 435 78:2 431
41:13[12] 410 56 397, 508 78:8 433
41:14[13] 448 57 508 78:10 368
42:11[10] 428 57:2[1] 400 78:12–58 432
44:10–11[9–10] 398 57:5[4] 442 78:17 433
44:12–13[11–12] 398 57:8 429 78:34 299
45:3[2] 442 58:2[1] 442 78:38 44
49:3[2] 442 60 305, 453 78:40–41 433
49:5[4] 431 61:3 214 78:56–57 433
49:8[7] 70 62 398 78:57 419
49:10[9] 435 62:10[9] 442 78:59 390
50:14–15 319 62:13[12] 398 78:67 390
50:23 410 63 508 79 305, 412–413, 453,
51 31, 415, 423–424, 63:2 433 508
426, 430, 445–447, 64:6[5] 410 79:8 413
508, 516, 520, 522 65 411, 508 79:9 409, 413
51:3[1] 426, 428, 445– 65:2[1] 412, 418 81:3 306
446 65:3[2] 412, 413 83 453

84 508 101:7 419 107 441, 443, 446, 450,
84:5[4] 418 102:1 214 508, 520
84:6[5] 418 102:3 289, 428 107–50 448
84:12[11] 397 102:4[3] 428 107:2–3 441
84:13[12] 418 102:6[5] 428 107:4 267
85 412, 508 102:27[26] 444 107:4–32 442
85:2[1] 412 103 434, 437, 446, 508 107:8 442
85:3[2] 412–413 103:1–5 437 107:9 443
85:5[4] 412–413 103:1–6 434 107:15 442
85:8[7] 412 103:3 446 107:16 443
85:13[12] 412 103:3–5 435 107:17–22 441
86 410, 413, 508, 522 103:6–18 437 107:21 442
86:5 410, 413 103:7–8 435 107:23–32 441
86:6 444 103:7–12 435 107:31 442
86:11 414 103:8 45, 306–307, 324 107:33–34 441
86:14–17 410 103:11 446 107:33–43 441
86:15 45, 306–307, 324, 103:12 446 107:39–40 441
410 103:13 44, 446 107:42–43 442–443, 450
88 423 103:13–16 435 107:43 298, 407
88:15 289, 428 103:13–18 436 108:2 429
89 305, 411, 449, 508 103:14–16 436 109:13–15 519
89–90 448 103:17 446 110 449
89:9[8] 417 103:20–22 437 111:4 45, 306–307, 324
89:11 213 104–6 449 112:1 418
89:16[15] 418 104:6 419 112:6–8 429
89:27–28 249 104:22 20 112:7 429
89:31–35[30–34] 411 105 431 115:16 442
89:33 158 106 182, 423, 431, 437, 116:1 444
89:39 390 441, 446–447, 449, 118:16 301
89:48[47] 442 453, 465–466, 479, 118:17–21 131
89:49 411 508, 516, 521 118:22 390
89:52 448 106–7 448 119 406–407, 413–415,
89:53[52] 448 106:1–6 438 508, 522
90 404, 449–450, 508 106:3 418 119:1 397
90–106 448 106:5 437 119:1–2 418
90:3 442 106:6 171, 446, 511, 119:9–16 407
90:7–8 404 519 119:25 392, 407
90:8 518 106:7–46 438–439, 441 119:80 397
90:11 307, 404 106:8 438 119:84–85 407
90:12 404, 450 106:13 330 119:97–106 407
90:13 391 106:13–14 439 119:108 84, 204
94 397, 508 106:14 432 119:116 429
94:2 435 106:16–18 437 119:133 407
94:5 213 106:23 273 119:176 267
94:12 418 106:24 390, 440 120:2 419
95:7–11 422 106:26 440 120:3 419
95:9 432 106:30–31 440 123 453
95:10 289 106:31 419 124:4 408
98:6 306 106:45 440 125 397, 508
99:8 57 106:46 425 126 412
101 401 106:47 437, 440–441 127:1 445
101:6 397 106:48 437, 448 127:5 418
Psalms (cont.) Proverbs Proverbs (cont.)

128:1 418 1 361 2:20 364
128:2 418 1:1 359, 431 2:21 364, 369, 397
130 443–445, 508 1:1–7 359 2:22 364, 369
130:1–4 444 1:3 363–364 3–8 364
130:1–6 444 1:5 359, 361, 366–367 3:1 365, 367–368
130:1–8 423 1:6 431 3:3 365, 367
130:3–4 444 1:7 360–361, 363, 366, 3:5 366
130:4 446 368, 372, 379 3:5–6 365
130:5 444 1:8 366, 368 3:6 367
130:5–7 445 1:8–19 362–363 3:7 365, 367
130:5–8 444 1:8–33 361 3:11 362, 368, 390
130:7 444 1:8–22:16 359 3:13 432
130:7–8 444 1–9 7, 359, 361–362, 3:13–20 370
135 431 364–375, 384, 416, 3:19 432
135:4 343 507–508 3:21 367–368
136 431 1:10 368, 433 3:23 366
137 453 1:10–19 365 3:25 364
137:7 314 1:11–14 362 3:29 365
137:7–8 315 1:12–15 365 3:30 365
137:8 435 1:15 367, 369 3:31 364
137:8–9 418 1:16–18 365 3:32 364, 417
138–45 449 1:18–19 369 3:33 364
139 402, 508 1:19 362 4:1 366–367
140:7[6] 444 1:20–33 362–363, 370 4:2 368
141:1 443 1:22 368 4:4 365, 367, 369
141:7 428 1:23 362, 365, 367 4:5 367–368
143 404, 508 1:24 366, 368 4:6 366–368
143:1 444 1:25 362, 367–368 4:7 367
143:2 427 1:28 366–367, 433 4:7–9 370
143:3 213 1:29 360, 367 4:8 367
143:7 289, 428 1:30 362, 367–368 4:10 366–367
143:8 404 1:32 369 4:13 367, 369
143:10 404 1:33 366, 370 4:14 364–365, 369
143:11 404 2 364 4:15 367–369
143:12 404 2:1 365, 367 4:16 365
144 449 2:1–5 363 4:17 365
144–50 448 2:2 365–366, 432 4:18 364
144:15 418 2:3 366, 410, 432 4:19 364
144–45 449 2:4 366 4:20 366
145 448–450 2:5 360, 366–367, 372 4:21 365, 367–368
145:8 45, 306–307, 324 2:6 366, 432 4:22 367, 369
145:12 442 2:7 366 4:23 365, 367
145:14 429 2:8 366 4:24 365, 367
145:19–20 450 2:9 364, 367 4:25 367
145:20 449 2:10 365 4:26 367
145:21 450 2:11 366, 432 4:27 365, 367–368
146 449 2:12 364–366 5:1 366, 432
146–50 448 2:13 365 5:3 364–365
146:5 418 2:14 365 5:4–5 369
150 449 2:15 365 5:6 364–365, 367
150:3 306 2:16 364–366 5:7 366, 368
150:6 448 2:18–19 369 5:8 367, 369
Proverbs (cont.) Proverbs (cont.) Proverbs (cont.)

5:12 362, 366, 368 8:33 369 13:24 158
5:13 366 8:34 366–367 14:1–14 374
5:15–20 365 8:35 366–367, 369 14:17 140
5:22 364 8:36 368–369 14:26 360
5:22–23 365, 369 9 370–373 14:27 360
6:6 369 9:1 370 14:29 140, 432
6:14 366 9:1–6 371 14:31 426
6:16–19 365 9:4 373 15:2–7 374
6:18 366 9:6 367, 369, 373 15:5 362
6:20 367–368 9:7 364 15:8 374
6:21 365, 367 9:7–12 372 15:10 362
6:22 366 9:8 367–368 15:11 442
6:23 362 9:9 367 15:16 360
6:23–24 369 9:10 366, 371–372, 379 15:21 432
6:24 364, 366 9:11 369, 372 15:26 374
6:25 366, 368 9:12 369 15:31–32 362
6:25–35 365 9:13–18 371 15:32 390
6:26 369 9:16 373 15:33 360
6:27–29 369 9:18 369 16:5 374
6:32 369 10–31 359, 373, 375– 16:6 360, 375
6:32–33 369 376 16:9 374
6:33 158 10:1 431 16:19 214
6:35 70 10:2 374 16:29 433
7:1 365, 367 10:2–3 374 16:32 460
7:2 367 10:3 374 17:5 426
7:3 365, 367 10:11 419–420 17:15 374
7:4 370 10:17 362 17:27 432
7:5 364–366 10:18 419–420 18:2 432
7:6–27 365 10:23 432 18:23 444
7:15 433 10:23–27 374 19:8 432
7:22–23 369 10:27 360 19:17 435
7:24 366 11:1 374 19:20 369
7:25 369 11:5 397 19:21 374
7:26–27 369 11:8 374 19:23 360
8 370 11:12 432 20:1 369
8:1 432 11:20 397 20:5 432
8:2 370 11:21 374 20:9 192, 287
8:4 442 11:31 374 20:10 374
8:5 365, 367 12:1 362 20:18 460
8:7 365 12:1–14 374 20:19 369
8:9 367 12:4 234 20:22 374
8:10 367 12:14 435 20:23 374
8:11 370 12:16 419 21:3 374–375
8:13 365 12:22 374 21:10 368
8:14 438 12:23 419 21:11 369
8:17 366–367, 433 12:24 364 21:18 70
8:20 364 12:25 364 21:22 460
8:21 367 13:8 70 21:27 374–375
8:22–31 366 13:14 367 21:30 374, 432
8:30 370 13:18 362 22:4 360
8:31 442 13:20 369 22:6 368
8:32 366 13:22 374 22:11 429
Proverbs (cont.) Proverbs (cont.) Isaiah (cont.)

22:16 359 78:17–30 432 1:11 191, 430
22:17 366 78:21–31 432–433 1:11–13 191
22:19 368, 374 78:33–34 433 1:13–14 191
22:22 213 78:34–35 433 1:14 191
22:22–23 374 78:36 433 1:15 191, 215, 218
23:3 368 78:36–37 432–433 1:15–20 232
23:4 374 78:38–39 433 1:16–17 192
23:5 374 78:38–55 433 1:16–19 191
23:6 368 78:39 433 1:17 191–192
23:9 368 78:43–53 433 1:18 192
23:10–11 374 78:56–72 432 1:19 192
23:12 368 78:59–72 432 1:20 192
23:15 369 1:21 193
23:17 368 Qoheleth 1:21–31 192–194, 198,
23:19 366–367, 369 1:4 444 205, 220–222, 286
23:22 366, 368 1:13 442 1:25 193
23:23 367 2:3 442 1:26 193
23:26 365 2:8 442 1:26–27 193
23:29–30 407 2:19 307 1:28–31 193
24:1 368 3:10 442 2:1 191, 203
24:3 432 3:14 360 2:1–4 352
24:19 368 3:18 442 2:1–5 191, 193
24:21 369 3:21 307, 442 2:2–4 193
24:22 307 5:7 360 2:4 192, 258
24:28 433 6:12 307 2:5 193
25:1 431 7:18 360 2:9 57
26:26 420 8:1 298, 307 3:11 435
27:5 362 8:11 442 3:15 213
27:11 369 8:12 360 3:25 438
27:24 374 8:13 360 4:2–6 191, 193
28:10 397 9:3 442 4:3 425
28:13 419–420 9:12 442 5:19 191
28:16 432 12:1 416 5:24 191, 390
28:18 397 12:9 431 5:25 201
29:1 362 12:13 360, 380 6 190–191, 194, 197–
29:10 410 198, 203–205, 209,
29:15 158, 362 Song of Songs 216, 218–223, 227,
29:23 214 3:1–4 296 246, 256, 259, 263,
30:8 381 3:3 445 292, 354, 520
30:15 309 5:7 419, 445 6–39 203, 221
30:20 425 6:1 203
31:4 368 Isaiah 6:1–4 195
31:10–31 371 1 191, 193, 201, 203, 6:1–11 197
31:11 234 209, 220 6:1–13 423
31:16 367 1–5 190–191, 194, 200 6:3 194–195
31:23 234 1–39 190, 203 6:5 131, 195
31:28 234 1:1 191, 203 6:6–7 195
31:30 360, 374, 379 1:2–3 319 6:8 195, 260, 263
78:3–8 431 1:2–20 191–193, 198, 6:8–13 195
78:7–8 432 203, 220–222 6:9 260
78:9–11 432 1:4 191, 268 6:9–10 195–196, 206
78:12–16 432–433 1:10 191 6:10 196
Isaiah (cont.) Isaiah (cont.) Isaiah (cont.)

6:11 196–197 23:1–14 305 37:4 333
6:12–13 197 24:6 63 37:31 333
6:13 195, 197 25:8 425 37:32 333
6:15 390 26 202 37:37 140
6:16 390 26:2–4 202, 220 38:17 435
7–12 198 26:8 202 39 190, 203, 221
7–39 190, 198, 201, 204, 26:9 433 39:5 –7 203
212, 220–221 26:13 234 40 203–205, 209, 212,
7:1 203 26:19 392 221, 256
7:3 202 27:3 367 40–48 212
7:14 10 27:9 202, 221 40–55 190, 203–207,
7:20 408 27:9–11 203 211–213, 221
8:6 390 28–33 199–201 40–66 204
8:8 408 28:5 333 40:1–2 205
8:12 10 28:7 267 40:1–11 190, 204, 221
8:17 289, 428 28:15 199 40:2 84, 412
8:18 202 28:16 10, 199 40:3–6 195
9:8–10:4 201 28:18 199 40:9 203
9:12 201 28:18–19 199 40:10 204, 206
9:13 201, 220, 310 29:13 200 40:11 204
9:17 201 29:16 10 40:12–26 204
9:21 201 29:19 199, 220 40:13 10
10:1–2 201 29:22 445 40:27 190, 204, 213
10:4 201 30:1 199 40:27–49:13 204, 207,
10:5–34 201–202 30:8 368 222
10:19 286 30:10–11 191, 194 41–48 206–207
10:20–21 202, 220 30:12 199, 203, 390 41:2 333
10:20–22 333 30:13–14 199 41:8 206
11:1 197 30:15 199–200, 220 41:9 390
11:3 258 30:18 199–200, 220, 330 41:21 211
11:4 192, 258 30:18–26 200, 221 41:22 386
11:6–7 20 31:1 199 41:23 386
11:9 268 31:1–3 199 41:25 333
11:11 333 31:2 199 41:26 386
11:16 333 31:3 199 42:9 386
12:4–6 331, 456 31:6–7 200 42:12 386
13–23 328 31:7 390 42:14 217
13–27 201 33 242 42:17 206
13–35 198 33:8 390 42:18–20 206
13:18 44 33:13–16 201 42:18–43:8 205
14:21 353, 518 33:15 390 42:25 205
14:28 203 33:24 57 43:1 205
15:5 301 34:2 325 43:1–9 257
17:6 309 34:6–7 329 43:9 386
17:7–8 202, 220 35:4 435 43:14–25 205
18:7 299 35:8 442 43:15 211
19:11 442 35:10 445 43:25 425
19:19–22 202, 220 36–37 323 43:26–44:5 205
19:21 202 36–38 198 44 221
21:11 445 36–39 198, 201 44:1 205–206
21:12 445 36:1 203 44:3 362
22:12 452 36:22 307 44:6 211
Isaiah (cont.) Isaiah (cont.) Isaiah (cont.)

44:7 386 52:15 209 59:16 429
44:9–20 206 53:1 208, 210 59:18 213, 435
44:18 196 53:2–3 208 59:20 213
44:19 106 53:3 70 59:20–21 215, 221
44:21–22 205 53:4–6 208–210 59:21 213
44:22 425 53:4–12 210 60–62 213
44:26 386 53:6 209, 267, 369 60:7 204
44:28 212 53:7–9 208 61:1 430
45:1 211–212 53:10 208–209, 214 61:2 325
45:13 212, 333 53:11–12 207–210 61:3 392
45:21 386 53:12 57, 207 62:1 217
46:3 333 54 211 62:5 234, 445
46:8 106 54:1 234, 331, 456 62:6 217
47 212 54:6 390 63–64 431
47:1 392 54:7–8 436 63:1–6 213
48 212 54:8 289, 428 63:4 325
48:5 402 54:17 396 63:5 429
48:10 401 55 211 63:6 213
48:14 207 55:7 444 63:7 216, 218
48:20 203, 386 56 213 63:7–11 216, 218
49 212 56–66 190, 212–213, 63:7–64:11[64:12] 218–
49–55 212 221 219, 221
49:1–7 207 56:1–2 213 63:7–66:17 213
49:1–13 206 56:1–66:24 213 63:9 218
49:3 206 56:2–8 212–213 63:9–10 216
49:6 206–207 56:7 204 63:11 216–218
49:8 10 56:8 212 63:11–64:11[12] 217
49:9 10 56:9–59:15 213 63:12 217
49:14 190, 204, 207, 213 56:10 260 63:14 217
49:14–54:17 204, 207, 57 214, 219 63:15 217
212 57–58 209 63:16 217–218
49:15–50:11 206 57:6 392 63:17 196, 217–218
50:2 206, 445 57:11 217, 408 63:18 217
50:4–9 206 57:14–20 221 63:19[64:1] 217
50:10 206 57:15 213–214 64 455, 521
51:1–8 206 57:17 289, 428 64:1[2] 217
51:5 206 58 214–216, 309, 522 64:3 330
51:9 206 58:3 67, 214, 218 64:3–4[4–5] 217
51:9–16 242 58:3–5 304 64:4[5] 217–218
51:9–52:6 206 58:5 67, 392 64:4–6[5–7] 218
51:10 443 59 215–216 64:6[7] 289, 217, 428
51:11 445 59:1 215 64:7[8] 217
51:14 435 59:2 428 64:8[9] 217–218
52–53 211 59:2–3 215 64:9–10[10–11] 217
52–55 206 59:3 328 64:11[12] 217, 219
52:7–10 207, 211 59:4–8 215 65 219, 222
52:8 207, 260 59:7–8 10 65–66 218–219
52:10 207 59:9–11 215 65:1–7 218
52:11 10 59:12–13 215–216 65:6 217
52:13–15 207–209, 211 59:14–15 215 65:6–7 219, 353, 519
52:13–53:12 207–208 59:15–19 215 65:7 219
52:14 207, 442 59:15–21 213 65:8–10 219
Isaiah (cont.) Jeremiah (cont.) Jeremiah (cont.)

65:9–10 219 2:27 227–228, 232 3:25 227, 229, 235–236
65:11–12 219 2:29 232, 242 4–23 237
65:12 218–219 2:30 226, 232 4:1 232, 234, 236, 341
65:13–16 219 2:31 228 4:1–2 229, 235–236,
65:17–25 219 2:35 232 238, 244
65:24 219 2:36 228 4:1–4 521
65:25 268 2:37 390 4:2 232
66 193 3 240, 296 4:3–4 236–237
66:1–2 214 3:1 232–233, 236 4:4 229–230
66:1–6 219 3:1–4:4 232 4:5 306
66:4 218–219 3:2 235, 239 4:5–6 238
66:6 435 3:2–3 232 4:5–8 237, 239
66:7–13 219 3:2–5 233 4:5–6:30 237
66:10 42 3:3 227–229, 236 4:7 238
66:14–17 219 3:4 232 4:8 238, 305
66:18–24 212–213, 219 3:4–5 235, 242 4:10 238–239, 241, 245,
66:22 444 3:5 228, 233–234, 436 306
3:6 228, 232–234, 362 4:14 425
Jeremiah 3:6–10 233 4:15 228
1 194–195 3:6–13 252 4:19–21 238–239, 241,
1:1 224 3:7 228, 233 245
1:1–3 223 3:8 228, 232–234, 362 4:30 390
1:2 223 3:9 232 5:3 226–228, 341
1:5 25, 195 3:10 228–229, 249 5:4–5 250
1:7 260, 263 3:11 228, 233–234 5:6 228, 362
1:7–10 223 3:11–12 362 5:7 228
1:8 223 3:12 228, 230, 234, 436 5:9 238
1:10 224, 231 3:12–13 234–235, 237, 5:11 228
1:13–16 231 240 5:19 228
1:16 223 3:12–4:4 234 5:22 228, 230, 442
1:17 223 3:13 228–229, 232, 234– 5:23 228
1:17–19 223, 231 236 5:24 228, 230
1:18 223 3:14 228, 230, 232, 234, 5:28 196
1:19 223 237 5:29 238
2 232 3:14–18 234, 246, 249, 6:1 238, 306
2–23 224, 245–246 252 6:14 238, 247
2:1–37 232 3:15 154 6:15 227, 229
2:1–3:5 242 3:17 235 6:17 260
2:1–4:2 240 3:19 227–228, 230, 232, 6:19 228, 390
2:1–4:4 231, 236–238, 235 6:20 204, 430
245, 248 3:19–20 235 6:23 44
2:3 54, 63, 491 3:19–4:2 252 6:24 246
2:5 228 3:20 228, 232, 235 6:24–26 238
2:9 231, 353, 519 3:21 233, 235, 444 6:26 238, 305, 392
2:10 319 3:21–25 235, 248 6:27–30 226
2:11 228, 319 3:21–4:2 240 6:28 228, 268
2:13 228, 319 3:22 228–230, 232–235, 6:29 226
2:17 228 341, 362 6:30 390
2:19 228, 362 3:22–25 235–236, 238 7 251, 362
2:20 228 3:23–24 235 7:1–26 239
2:22 232, 425 3:24 232 7:3 229
2:23 232 3:24–25 229 7:9 452
Jeremiah (cont.) Jeremiah (cont.) Jeremiah (cont.)

7:12 230 11:11 230 16:5 247
7:13 227, 429 11:14 241, 258 16:10 240, 245
7:13–15 226 11:15 241 16:10–13 251, 353, 519
7:14 230, 239 11:18–23 232, 241–244 16:11 228
7:16 239, 241, 258 11:20 242, 244 16:12 228, 249
7:20 239 11:20–23 244 17:1 229, 249–250, 368
7:21–23 241 11:21 243 17:5 228
7:21–29 226 11:21–23 242 17:8 408
7:23 230 11:22–23 353, 518 17:9–10 229, 249
7:24 228–229, 249 12:1 228, 242 17:10 230
7:25 503 12:1–6 241–242, 244 17:13 228
7:26 228 12:3 242 17:14–18 241–242, 244
7:27 227, 239 12:4 242 17:18–27 226
7:27–29 233, 235 12:5–6 242 17:23 228
7:29 239, 390 12:6 228 18 227, 230, 354
8:4 228 13:1–6 258 18:1–4 225
8:4–5 228, 341 13:10 228, 249 18:1–17 225–226
8:5 228, 362 13:15 131 18:5–10 225
8:6 227, 229, 391 13:21 246 18:7–10 341
8:9 390 13:22 240, 245 18:8 231
8:11 247 14:1–15:4 240–241, 243, 18:10 228
8:12 227, 229 245, 521 18:11 227
8:14–16 239 14:2–22 305 18:12 228–229, 249
8:18 240 14:7 228, 362 18:16 247
8:18–9:1 239, 241–243, 14:7–9 240 18:18 244
245 14:9 243 18:18–23 241–242
8:19 239 14:10 84, 204, 243, 320 18:20 237, 258
8:21 240 14:11 240–241 18:21 353, 518
8:22 240 14:11–12 258 18:23 425
9:1 228, 240, 242 14:12 84, 204, 240–241, 18:30–32 355
9:2 240 320 19:4 228
9:3 28, 228 14:13 238, 306 19:15 228
9:6 401 14:15:4 241 20 362
9:7 226 14:17 243, 247 20:7–13 241–242, 244
9:10 240, 245 14:18 435 20:12 244
9:11 298 14:19 243, 390 20:13 244
9:13 228 14:19–22 240 20:14–18 241–242,
9:16 452 14:20 243, 519 244
9:16–21 452 15:1 240–241, 258 21:1–2 258
9:17–21 240, 245 15:4 353, 519 21:2 237
9:23 202 15:5 247 21:3–14 237
9:24 10, 250 15:6 228 21:7 44
10:19 247 15:6–7 240 22:9 228–229
10:25 227–228 15:10 242 22:10 247
11 251 15:10–14 241–242, 244 22:23 139, 246, 289
11–15 242 15:15 243 23:1–8 252
11–23 240–241, 244 15:15–18 242–243 23:3 333
11:4 228, 230 15:15–21 241–242, 244 23:9 430
11:6–8 226 15:16 243 23:14 229
11:8 228, 249 15:18 243, 246–247 23:16–17 238
11:9 228 15:19 237, 246 23:18 237, 417
11:10 228 15:19–21 243 23:22 237, 417
Jeremiah (cont.) Jeremiah (cont.) Jeremiah (cont.)

24–25 223–224, 230, 30:15 246–247 33:26 390
256 30:17 247, 251 34:11 228
24–33 252 30:18–21 251 34:12–22 40, 226
24:4–7 249, 252 30:22 250 34:14–22 503
24:5–6 224 31 352 34:16 228
24:6 224, 249, 355 31:2–9 252 34:18–19 226
24:6–7 522 31:4–14 251 35:14 226
24:7 224, 229, 249–250, 31:7 333 35:14–17 226
355, 417, 429 31:9 247 35:15 227, 230, 503
24:8–10 224 31:10 440 35:17 227
25 224, 354 31:14 247 36:3 226, 230
25:1–7 251 31:15 10, 247 36:6–7 226
25:1–13 223 31:15–22 252 36:6–9 304
25:3 224 31:16–17 247, 251 36:7 228–230
25:3–9 231 31:18 248 37:1–10 258
25:3–11 224, 226, 245 31:18–19 230, 247, 355 37:3 237
25:4 224, 503 31:18–20 247 37:6–10 237
25:5–6 224 31:19 227–229 38:19 408
25:9–11 224–225 31:21–24 251 39:1 453
25:11–12 465 31:22 228 39:1–10 453
25:12–38 224 31:27–28 251 41:1–3 453
25:13 223–224 31:27–34 251 41:4–9 453
25:14 223 31:27–37 250, 252 41:5 307
26–52 224, 246 31:27–40 250 42:1–6 237
26:2–6 226, 251 31:29 251 42:7–43:1 237
26:3 227 31:30 182, 186, 353, 518 42:9–12 252
26:4 228 31:31 250 42:11–12 44
26:5 503 31:31–34 107 42:16 408
26:6 230 31:32 234 44:1–14 226
26:12–13 226 31:33 229, 250, 355, 44:4 228, 503
26:13 227 429, 496 44:10 227–228
26:17–19 318 31:33–34 251, 303, 368, 46–51 224
26:18 258 417, 522 46:10 329
29 248 31:34 250–251, 355 46:28 247
29:10 249, 465 31:37 390 48:27 247
29:10–14 249, 252 31:38–40 251 48:31 301
29:12 227–228 32:18 251, 518 49 314
29:12–13 229, 248 32:19 442 49:4 228
29:12–14 248 32:37–38 355 49:7–22 314
29:13 228–229 32:37–41 107, 250, 252 49:24 246
29:17–19 226 32:37–44 522 49:32 440
29:19 503 32:38 250 49:36 440
29:32 353, 518 32:39 250, 292, 360, 429 50:4 227–228
30–33 224, 226, 246 32:39–40 229, 355 50:4–7 252
30:3 246 32:40 229, 250, 417 50:5 227–228
30:5 246 32:41–44 251, 355 50:6 228
30:5–7 246 33:1–26 250, 252 50:17–20 250, 252
30:8–11 251 33:5 289, 428 50:24 367
30:11 247–248 33:6 251 50:42 44
30:12 246–247, 251 33:6–26 251 50:43 246
30:12–15 246 33:8 251 51:2 440
30:14–15 248 33:24 390 51:6 435, 445
Jeremiah (cont.) Lamentations (cont.) Ezekiel (cont.)

51:63 367 3:26 455 1:1–28 259
52 224 3:26–41 459 1:2 254–255
52:3 429 3:27 455 2–3 264, 354
52:6–11 453 3:28 455 2:1–3:11 259–260
52:12–16 453 3:29 455 2:3 260, 268
3:30 455 2:3–4 260, 263
Lamentations 3:32 455 2:3–5 195
1 453–454, 458 3:33–38 506 2:5 260, 267
1–4 457 3:33–39 459 2:5–8 268
1:1–11 452, 454 3:34 213 2:6 260
1:2 454 3:39–40 458 2:7 260, 267
1:4 289 3:39–42 458 2:8 260
1:5 458 3:40 455, 458–459 3 273, 282, 520
1:8 289 3:40–47 453 3:4–5 195
1:8–9 458 3:41–47 456, 458 3:6 260, 267
1:9 454 3:41–66 458 3:7 260, 267
1:10 454 3:48 456 3:7–9 260
1:11 289, 458 3:48–51 452 3:8–9 260
1:12 455, 458 3:50 456 3:9 260
1:12–16 453 3:52–58 456 3:11 260, 267
1:14 458 3:52–66 458 3:12–15 259–260
1:17 452, 454 3:59–66 456 3:15 253
1:18 458 3:64 435 3:16–21 259–260, 274–
1:18–19 454 3:64–66 458 275, 283
1:18–22 453 4 453, 456, 458 3:17–21 341
1:20 458 4:1–6 452 3:18 261, 283
1:20–22 454 4:3 456 3:18–19 261, 267, 283
1:21 289 4:6 456 3:18–21 285
1:21–22 458 4:10 44, 456 3:19 261, 283
1:22 458 4:11–16 456 3:20 262, 268
2 453–454, 458 4:13 456, 458, 511 3:20–21 283
2:1–10 454 4:14 328, 456 3:21 262
2:1–12 452 4:17–20 456 3:22–23 259, 263
2:11–12 454 4:21 331 3:23 253
2:13–19 454 4:21–22 314, 458 3:24 263
2:14 458 5 182, 217, 453, 456– 3:24–27 257, 260, 263,
2:16 458 458 279
2:20 455, 458 5:2 458 3:25 263
2:20–21 458 5:6–7 457–458 3:26 257, 263
2:20–22 453–454 5:7 511, 519 3:26–27 257, 268
3 453, 455, 457–458, 5:8 458 3:27 263, 267
510, 512, 516, 520– 5:16 458, 511 4–6 270
521 5:19 457 4:4–6 57, 209
3:1–40 458 5:20 457–458 4:12–15 269
3:16 392 5:21 457–458 4:14 306
3:19–38 458 5:21–22 458 5:1 408
3:19–39 459 5:22 390, 457–458 5:5–17 270
3:21 106 5:6 268, 390
3:21–33 459 Ezekiel 5:10 286, 440
3:22 455 1–3 194–195, 256, 267 5:11 269
3:23 455 1:1 253, 255 5:12 440
3:25 455 1:1–3 253 6:1–7 269
Ezekiel (cont.) Ezekiel (cont.) Ezekiel (cont.)

6:1–14 270 12:26–28 270 16:58 272
6:8 286 12:27 273 16:59–63 290
6:8–10 286 13:1–16 273 16:60 287, 289
6:9 268, 286, 289–290 13:5 273 16:60–63 286, 290
6:10 289 13:9 273 16:62 289
6:13 287 13:10 273 16:63 287
7:3 271, 288 13:10–12 273 16:72 289
7:8 271, 288 13:10–16 270 17 431
7:9 271 13:11–14 273 17:2 431
7:12 42 13:14–15 273 17:19 271
7:19 269 13:16 273 17:21–32 341
7:20 269 13:17 273 18 219, 256, 274, 282,
7:20–21 270 13:17–23 273 284, 292, 520
7:27 42, 271, 288 13:19 269 18:1 284
8:1 253–255 13:20 273 18:1–32 285
8:1–11:25 253 13:22 267, 273 18:2 182, 186, 251, 275–
9 270 13:24–27 274 276, 353, 518
9:4 264, 289 14 264, 272, 274 18:2–3 431
9:7 269 14:1 253 18:3–4 275
9:8 264, 286, 306 14:1–3 264 18:3–18 276
9:10 271 14:1–11 274, 285 18:4 270
10 270 14:3 279 18:5 268
10:16 292 14:3–4 274 18:5–9 268, 275
10:17–23 270 14:3–5 274 18:6 269
11:1–13 270 14:4–5 274 18:9 268
11:12 268 14:5 274 18:10 268
11:13 254, 264, 286 14:6 266–267, 274 18:10–13 268, 275
11:15 254 14:6–7 274 18:11–13 268
11:16 286–287 14:7 269, 279, 341 18:13 274, 426
11:16–21 286 14:7–8 274 18:14–18 275
11:17 286 14:8 266, 269 18:15–17 268
11:18 270 14:9 266 18:17 268
11:18–20 291 14:9–11 274 18:19 268, 275–276, 278
11:19 291, 355, 522 14:11 267, 269 18:19–24 276
11:20 289, 291 14:12–23 264, 270 18:20 271
11:21 268 14:13 270 18:21 267–268
11:25 253 14:14 279 18:21–32 284
12:2 268 14:22 253, 286 18:22 268
12:9 268 14:22–23 264, 266, 286 18:23 267
12:10 253 16 251 18:24 268, 270
12:11 253 16:1–43 270 18:25 275, 277–278
12:14 440 16:2 420 18:25–28 277
12:15 286 16:17–21 280 18:26 268
12:15–16 286 16:19 287 18:27 267–268
12:16 286, 288–289 16:29 203 18:28 267
12:17–20 270 16:38 271 18:29 275, 277
12:21–25 270 16:43 271 18:29–32 277
12:21–28 272 16:47 268 18:30 267, 271, 288
12:21–13:23 274 16:49 362 18:30–32 266, 291
12:22 273 16:52–54 272 18:31 267
12:24 273 16:53 107, 287 18:32 267
12:25 268 16:55 287 19:2 20
Ezekiel (cont.) Ezekiel (cont.) Ezekiel (cont.)

20 251, 256, 271, 279, 20:40 84, 204, 287, 291, 30:20 254–255
282, 292, 353–354, 320 30:23 440
437, 441, 485, 521 20:40–41 320 30:24 139
20:1 253–255 20:41 84, 286–287 30:26 440
20:1–4 280 20:41–42 287 31:1 254–255
20:3 259, 279 20:42 287, 289 31:14 442
20:4 279, 288 20:43 289–290 32:1 254–255
20:5–7 281 20:44 288–289 32:16 452
20:5–10 281 20:51 204 32:17 254–255
20:5–26 279–281 21:11–12 289 32:18 150
20:7 267, 269 21:15 390 32:24–25 272
20:8 268, 279, 281 21:17 227 32:30 272
20:8–10 281 21:18 390 33 254, 256, 264, 284,
20:9 256, 269, 279, 288 21:30 445 292, 354, 520
20:11–12 281 21:34 445 33:1 283
20:11–17 281 22:2 288 33:1–6 283, 285
20:12 288 22:8 269 33:1–7 260
20:13 268–269, 279, 22:10 269 33:1–9 274, 283
281, 390 22:15 270, 440 33:1–20 256, 283
20:13–15 281 22:26 51, 268–269 33:2 283
20:14 256, 269, 279, 22:30 273 33:6 283
288 22:31 271–272 33:7 283
20:15 280 23 251 33:7–9 267, 283
20:16 269, 281, 390 23:35 267, 272 33:8–9 283
20:17 280–281 23:36 288 33:9 283
20:18 268–269 23:37–39 269, 280 33:10 283–284
20:18–20 268, 281 23:38 269 33:10–20 275, 283
20:18–26 281 24 254 33:11–12 267
20:19 268 24:1 254–255 33:12 268, 283
20:20 269 24:13 269–270, 287 33:13 268
20:21 268–269, 279, 281 24:14 288 33:14–16 267–268
20:21–24 353, 519 24:15–27 254 33:15 268
20:21–26 281 24:17 289 33:15–16 268
20:22 256, 269, 279, 288 24:21 269 33:17 284
20:23 280, 440 24:21–23 253 33:18 268
20:24 269, 281, 390 24:25–27 254 33:19 267–268
20:25–26 280–281 24:26 253 33:20 271, 284, 288
20:27 259, 280 24:26–27 257 33:21 253–255
20:27–29 280 25–32 264 33:21–22 254, 257–258
20:27–44 266, 279 25:12–14 314 33:21–33 254
20:28 287 26:1 254–255 33:24–29 258
20:30 259, 269 26:15 289 34–48 256
20:30–31 280 27:30 392 34:1–10 258
20:30–32 280 27:34 443 34:7–10 270
20:31 279 28:8 435 34:11–31 286
20:33 281 28:25 286, 288 34:12 286
20:33–44 280 28:25–26 286 34:13 286
20:34 10, 281, 286 28:26 287, 289 34:17–31 287
20:35–36 281 29:1 254–255 34:22–31 287
20:38 268, 281–282 29:12 440 34:23–31 270
20:39 269, 281, 291 29:17 254–255 34:25 289
20:39–44 286 30:6 292, 429 34:27 287
Ezekiel (cont.) Ezekiel (cont.) Daniel (cont.)

34:29 272 39:23 270, 286, 289 4:24 462
34:30 289 39:23–24 270, 428 4:27[30] 462
35:1–15 314 39:24 268–269, 289 4:29[32] 462
35:11 288 39:25 288 4:30–31[33–34] 462
36:6–7 272 39:26 272, 287, 355, 522 4:31–34[34–37] 462
36:15 272 39:27 286, 288 4:34[37] 462
36:16–38 270 39:28 286, 289 5 462
36:17 269 39:29 289, 291, 339, 5:1–4 462
36:18–19 271 362, 428 5:12 461
36:19 288 40–48 287 5:17 463
36:20 256, 288 40:1 254–255 5:18–22 463
36:20–23 269 43 287 5:21 461
36:21–23 288 43:1–5 257 5:23 463
36:22 288 43:1–12 286 5:31 461
36:23 288–289 43:7 291, 299 6:4–5 460
36:24 286 43:7–8 269 6:4–15 462
36:24–33 429 43:8 268 6:10 465
36:24–38 286 43:9 291 6:21–24 518
36:25 287 43:10–11 290 6:24 462
36:25–27 303 43:18 287 6:28 461
36:25–28 289 43:20 287 7 463
36:26 291 43:26 287 7–12 460, 463, 468
36:26–27 355, 522 43:27 84, 204 7:1 461, 463
36:27 291 44:6 268 7:1–2 463
36:28 287, 289 44:7 269 7:2 464, 469
36:29 287 44:10 267, 272 7:3 464, 469
36:29–30 287 44:12 272 7:8–14 463
36:31 289–290 44:13 209 7:10 425
36:32 288, 290 44:23 51, 268 7:13–14 464
36:33 287 44:29 129 7:18 464, 470
37:1–14 286 45:9 267–268 7:21 464, 470
37:13 289 45:20 287, 406 7:22 464, 470
37:14 289, 291, 355, 522 7:23–27 463
37:15–28 286 Daniel 7:25 464, 470
37:21 286–287 1–6 460–463 7:27 464, 470
37:21–23 270 1:1–2:4 460 8 463
37:22–25 287 1:4 461 8:1 461, 463
37:23 287, 289, 362 1:8 461 8:1–12:13 460
37:23–24 291 1:12 461 8:9–12 463
37:23–27 289 1:16 461 8:11–12 464
37:24–28 270 1:17 460–461 8:12 464
37:25 287 1:20 470 8:13 464
37:26 289 1:20–23 460 8:15 470
37:26–28 287 2:1 461 8:23–25 463
37:27 289 2:4–7:28 460 8:24 464, 470
37:28 287, 289 2:46–47 461 9 182, 423, 444, 453,
38:8 286 3:8–12 462 458, 463, 465, 467,
38:12 287 3:28–29 461 469–470, 476, 479,
39:7 269 3:29 462 483, 512, 516, 520–
39:11–16 269 4 462 521
39:21–29 286 4:21–22[24–25] 462 9:1 461, 465
39:22 289 4:23 462 9:1–2 463, 468
Daniel (cont.) Daniel (cont.) Hosea (cont.)

9:3 339, 392, 444, 463, 12:3 461, 464, 470 4–14 298
465, 479 12:7 464, 470 4:1 298–299
9:4 420, 465–466, 480, 12:10 464, 470 4:2 299
484, 486 12:11 464 4:5 298–299
9:4–5 468 4:6 297–299, 390
9:5 171, 466, 511 Hosea 4:6–9 299
9:5–6 466, 519 1 296 4:7 297
9:6 466, 511 1–3 349 4:7–14 299
9:7 466–467 1:1–2:1 295 4:8 297
9:8 466–467, 511, 519 1:2 297 4:10 297
9:9 466 1:2–2:17 304–305 4:12 299, 303
9:9–11 466 1:6 57 4:14 298–299
9:10 466 1:10–2:1 295 4:15 303–304
9:11 466, 519 2 296 4:16 297
9:12–13 466–467 2–3 355, 522 4:18 295, 299
9:13 466–470 2:2 296, 298 5 299
9:14 466–467 2:2–4 295, 304 5:4 297–300
9:15 466–467, 511 2:2–12 295 5:5 297–298
9:16 466–467 2:2–23 295, 300 5:6 298–299
9:16–18 466 2:4–5 304 5:7 297, 299
9:17 339, 467 2:5 295–296, 303 5:8 299, 306
9:17–18 444 2:5–8 296 5:8–15 300
9:17–19 467 2:6 296 5:8–7:17 300
9:18 339, 467 2:7 295–298, 303 5:9 299
9:19 444, 466–467 2:7–8 296 5:12–15 300
9:20 420, 465, 480, 484, 2:8 296, 301 5:13 303
511, 519 2:9–13 296 5:13–15 300
9:20–21 463 2:10 295 5:14 299, 302
9:21–27 465 2:12 295 5:15 298–300, 433
9:23 339, 444 2:13 295–297 6:1 297, 300, 303
9:24 468–469 2:14–15 296 6:1–3 298–304
9:26 464, 469 2:14–23 296 6:1–6 242
9:26–27 463 2:16 433 6:2 309
9:27 464, 469 2:16–17 296 6:3 300–301
10–12 463–464 2:18 234, 305 6:4 298, 300–302, 425
10:1 461, 463, 470 2:18–3:21[4:21] 305 6:4–7:16 300–301
10:1–2 463 2:19 298 6:6 298, 300
10:2 42 2:19–20 296 6:11 297
10:7 463 2:19–3:21[4:21] 305 7:1 303
10:8 463 2:20 296, 298 7:6–7 297
10:14 463 2:23 296 7:8 297
10:16 442, 463 2:24–23 304 7:10 297, 300
10:18 463 3 296–297 7:13 297–298
11:1 461, 463 3:1 295, 297 7:14 300–301, 342
11:30 464 3:1–3 296 7:15 297
11:31 464 3:1–5 300, 304 7:16 297, 300, 419
11:32 464 3:4–5 297 8:1 297–298, 301, 306
11:33 461, 464, 470 3:5 297 8:2 298, 301, 303
11:34 464 3:22 303 8:2–3 300
11:35 464, 470 4 299 8:3 301
11:36–45 463 4–7 300 8:5 303–304
12:1 464 4–11 299 8:7 297
Hosea (cont.) Hosea (cont.) Joel (cont.)

8:9 297 14:1–3 304 2:14 307–308, 312, 317,
8:13 84, 204, 297, 320 14:1–4 350 330, 347, 349, 354,
9:1 295, 331, 456 14:2 297–298, 302, 521
9:7 442 350 2:15 306
9:8 260 14:2–9 242 2:15–16 308, 347
9:9 408 14:3 57, 297 2:15–3:21[4:21] 308
9:10 269, 295 14:4 304 2:16 306
9:15 297 14:4–7 303 2:17 305–306, 308
9:17 390 14:5 362 2:18 308
10:1 297 14:7 297 2:18–19 308
10:2 63 14:9 298 2:19 308
10:3 301 14:10 298 2:19–27 308
10:7 301 2:21–24 331, 456
10:9 297 Joel 2:25 306
10:11–13 297 1:1 307 2:28–32[3:1–5] 308
10:12 298, 304 1:1–2:27 242 3[4] 308
10:13 297 1:2 305–306 3:1 349
10:15 301 1:2–4 305 3:1–2[2:28–29] 339, 362
11 301–302, 304, 350, 1:2–12 305 3:1–21[4:1–21] 308
521 1:2–14 305 3:2 349
11:1 295 1:2–20 306 3:4[4:4] 435
11:1–4 301 1:3 305 3:5[2:32] 10
11:1–9 350 1:4 306 3:7[4:7] 349, 435
11:1–11 297 1:5 305–306 3:8[4:8] 307
11:5 297, 301 1:5–10 305 3:9[4:9] 307, 308
11:5–6 301 1:6 306 3:10[4:10] 307
11:7 297, 301, 362 1:8 234, 305 3:21[4:21] 308
11:8 300–302 1:9–13 307 4:2 307
11:8–9 302 1:11 305
11:8–11 301, 304 1:11–12 305 Amos
11:10–11 302 1:12 442 1–2 309, 328
11:12 297 1:13 305, 308 1:2 309
12 302 1:13–14 305, 347 1:3 309
12:1 302 1:14 305–306 1:3–5 309
12:1–6 304 1:15 305–306 1:3–2:5 310
12:2 302 1:15–20 305–306 1:4–5 310
12:3 302 1:16 305 2:4 390
12:3–4 302 1:18 289 2:6–16 310
12:4–5 302 1:19 305 3:2 25
12:6 297–298, 302 1:20 347 3:7 417
12:7 295, 304 2 238 4 348, 354
12:7–13 302 2:1 306, 349 4:4 310
12:8 302 2:1–11 306 4:4–5 312
12:12 302 2:11 306–307, 348 4:4–13 310
12:13 302 2:11–14 317, 347, 349 4:4–5:17 310–312
12:14 302 2:12 307 4:6 312
13:4 298 2:12–13 307 4:6–11 310
13:6 297 2:12–14 306–308, 341 4:6–12 311
13:12 297, 302 2:12–17 306 4:6–13 311, 334, 495
13:16 63, 302 2:13 45, 306–307, 324, 4:8–11 312
14 303, 355, 522 347 4:12 311–312
14:1 297, 302, 310, 350 2:13–14 307 4:13 131, 311–312
Amos (cont.) Jonah (cont.) Micah (cont.)

5:1–17 310–311 1:6 316–317, 349, 521 4:1–5 319, 350
5:2 311–312 1:13 316 4:2 319
5:2–3 311–312 1:14–16 316 4:3 258
5:4 312 1:17–2:10 316 4:5 319
5:4–5 311 2 316 5:2 10
5:4–6 310–311 2:1 316 5:6 333, 442
5:5 312 2:4 316 5:7 333
5:5–6 312 2:7 316, 435 6–7 319, 322
5:6 312 2:8 316 6:1 319
5:7 312 2:9 418 6:1–5 319
5:8–9 131, 312 3 310 6:7 84, 204
5:9 312 3–4 317 6:8 312
5:10–13 312 3:2 316 6:9–16 320
5:10–15 312 3:4 348 6:11 192
5:12 70 3:5 316 6:12 419
5:14 312 3:5–8 347 6:13 320
5:14–15 312 3:5–9 307 6:16 320
5:15 312, 330, 349, 354, 3:6 316, 392 7 242
521 3:7–8 305, 347 7:1–10 320–321
5:16 305 3:7–9 316 7:7 350
5:16–17 312 3:8–10 347 7:8 321
5:17 312 3:9 307, 312, 317, 330, 7:9 321, 350
5:21 390 347, 349, 521 7:10 321
5:21–24 73 3:10 317, 391 7:11 321
5:22 84, 320, 430 4 316 7:11–13 320–321
5:24 311 4:1–11 350 7:12 321
7:1–3 312–313 4:2 45, 306–307, 317, 7:14 321
7:1–9 258 324, 347 7:15 321
7:1–8:2 312 4:4 155 7:16–17 321
7:1–8:3 313 4:9 155 7:16–20 321
7:2 444 4:11 348 7:17 321
7:4–6 312–313 7:18 57, 321, 333, 348
7:7–8 312–313 Micah 7:18–20 321
7:10–17 313 1–5 319, 321 7:19 321, 425
7:17 353, 518 1:1 318 7:20 321
8:1–2 312–313 1:2 319
9:1 313 1:5 319 Nahum
9:2–8 313 1:7 319 1:1 323
9:5–6 131 1:9 319 1:2–3 324–325, 348
9:8 313 2:1–2 319 1:2–8 324
9:9 313 2:2 419 1:3 45, 307
9:10 313 2:4 150 1:8 323
9:14 313328 2:6–7 319 1:9 324
2:7 140 1:11 323
Obadiah 2:12 333 1:12–13 324
15 435 2:12–13 319 1:15 323
3:1–3 319 2:8 323
Jonah 3:4 289, 428 2:13 323
1:1–3:3 316 3:5 319 3:1 323
1:3 316 3:8 319, 322 3:5 323
1:4 271 3:9–11 319 3:7 323
1:5 316 3:9–12 319 3:18 323
Nahum (cont.) Zephaniah (cont.) Haggai (cont.)

3:19 348 1:7–18 329 1:12–15 332–333, 350,
1:16 306 515, 522
Habakkuk 1:17–18 328 1:13 333, 386
1–2 242 2:1 329 1:13–14 333
1:1 325–326 2:1–2 329 1:14 332–333
1:2–3 326 2:1–3 328–330 1:15 333–334
1:2–4 326–327 2:1–3:13 328 2:1 333
1:4 326–327 2:1–3:20 328 2:1–9 333
1:5 10 2:2 329 2:4 333
1:5–10 326 2:3 328–330, 341 2:5 333
1:5–11 326 2:4 328 2:6–9 334
1:5–17 327 2:4–15 328 2:10–14 233, 334
1:6 325 2:4–3:8 328 2:10–23 334
1:7 327 2:4–3:20 328, 330 2:15 334
1:9 327 2:7 333 2:15–19 334
1:11 326 2:9 333 2:17 334
1:12 327 2:14–15 331 2:18 331
1:12–17 326–327 3 350 2:19 334
1:13 327 3:1 328 2:20–23 334
2–3 350 3:1–5 328
2:1 326 3:2 328 Zechariah
2:1–3 326 3:3 349, 354, 521 1–6 342, 349
2:2 326, 368 3:5 328 1–8 335–336, 350
2:2–3 326 3:6 328 1:1 335
2:3 330 3:7 328, 330, 503 1:1–6 335–336, 338,
2:3–4 10 3:8 328, 330 341, 346
2:4 10, 327 3:9–10 328 1:2 336
2:4–20 326 3:9–20 328 1:3 224, 335–336
2:5 327 3:11–13 330–331 1:4 335–336, 338, 346–
2:5–20 326 3:12–13 330 347
2:8 327 3:13 333 1:6 335–336, 346, 499
2:10 327 3:14 328, 331 1:6–14 342
2:12 327 3:14–20 328 1:7 335, 338
2:16 327 3:16–20 331 1:7–8 342
2:17 327 3:20 331 1:7–17 336
2:18 327 6:9–15 331 1:7–6:15 335–336, 340
2:20 327 1:8 342
3:1–15 326 Haggai 1:12 336
3:3–15 327 1 332, 335 1:12–13 342
3:16 327 1:1 331 1:13 337
3:16–19 326 1:1–11 333 1:14 336
3:17–19 327 1:2 332 1:15 336
1:2–4 332 1:16 336
Zephaniah 1:4 332 1:17 336
1:1 328 1:5 332 2 441
1:2–3 328 1:5–7 332 2:1 342
1:2–4 328 1:7 332 2:1–4[1:18–21] 336–337
1:2–18 328 1:8 332 2:1–9 342
1:2–2:3 328 1:9 332 2:5–9[2:1–5] 336
1:4–16 328 1:9–11 332 2:10–16[6–12] 342
1:6 328 1:10–11 332 2:10–17[6–13] 337
1:7 311 1:12 332–333 2:13 337
Zechariah (cont.) Zechariah (cont.) Malachi (cont.)

2:14 331, 456 9:11–17 339 2:7 345
2:14–17[10–13] 336 10:1–3 335, 339–340 2:8 342
3 331, 336–337 10:4–12 339 2:10 345
3:1–5 337 10:8 445 2:10–16 342
3:4 336 11:1–3 335, 339 2:11 234
3:7 337 11:4–16 335, 339 2:13 204
4 337, 441 11:8 140 2:17 342–343
4:6 337 11:17 335, 339 3 349–350
5 337 12–13 350 3:1 345, 386
5:1–4 337–338 12–14 339 3:1–2 343
5:1–11 338 12:1 335, 341 3:1–7 516
5:5–11 337–338 12:10 339–340, 362, 444 3:2 343, 425, 444
6:1–8 337 12:10–14 340, 355, 522 3:2–3 343
6:15 337 12:10–13:1 339–340, 3:3 343, 345
7 362 350 3:4 343
7–8 309, 320, 338, 346 13:1 340, 355, 522 3:5 343
7–14 349 13:2–6 340 3:6 345
7:1 335 13:3 340 3:6–12 341
7:1–8:23 335 13:3–6 340 3:7 345–346
7:3 269 13:4–6 340 3:10 202
7:5 453 13:7–9 335, 339 3:13 343
7:7–10 346 13:8 339 3:15 342
7:9–10 338 13:9 339, 401 3:16 343, 345, 425
7:11 368 14:1–2 340 3:16–3:24[4:6] 516
7:11–13 346 14:3–15 340 3:17 343
7:14 346 14:16–19 340 3:18 343
8:11 333 14:19 408 3:19 343
8:15 338 14:20–21 340, 350 3:20 343
8:16–17 338 3:20–21 343
8:19 338, 453 Malachi 3:21 343
8:20–23 338 1:2 345 3:22 344
9–10 338–339 1:2–3 10 3:22–24[4:4–6] 125, 344,
9–14 294, 335, 339–341 1:10 84, 204 352
9:1 335, 341 1:13 84, 204 3:23 343
9:1–8 338 2:1–9 342 3:23–24 344–345
9:9 331, 456 2:4–6 345
9:9–10 339 2:6 342, 345
New Testament
Matthew Luke Acts

1:23 10 1:16–17 345 13:40 10
2:6 10 16:16 8
2:18 10 16:29 8 Romans
5:17 8 16:31 8 1:17 10
7:12 8, 10 24:44 9 3:15–17 10
9:2 445 3:21 8
22:40 8, 10 John 9:13 10
13:15 8 9:19–21 10
24:14 8 10:11 10
Romans (cont.) 2 Corinthians Hebrews

10:13 10 6:17 10 10:37–38 10
11:34 10
Galatians James
1 Corinthians 6:1–2 65 5 436
1:29–30 10
2:16 10 2 Timothy 1 Peter
3:15–17 4, 10 3:13–16 10
Deuterocanonical Literature
2 Maccabees Sirach Sirach (cont.)

2:13–14 9 1:6–7 407 22:14 407
10:19 407 39:1 7, 9

A Severe Mercy - Sin and Its Rem - Mark J. Boda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Severe Mercy - Sin and Its Rem - Mark J. Boda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

00-Boda-SevMercy.

book Page i Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:52 AM

Winona Lake, Indiana

ç Copyright 2009 by Eisenbrauns.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ad majorem Dei gloriam

To Tremper Longman III

24. Ezra–Nehemiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472

Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524

The introduction to this volume explains the genesis of the present

Ego ex eorum numero me esse proﬁteor qui scribunt proﬁciendo,

Biblical Theology as a Discipline

3. For this section, see Helmer (2005).

7. For some of these categories, see Hasel (1991).

1982: creation/salvation) or a multitude of themes that consistently arose

The Present Approach

text, or apart from the construal in scripture by a community of faith and

In light of this, Vanhoozer’s proposal for the biblical theological enterprise

Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

spread is 6 points long

The Present Work

spread one pica short

2:380–495; Westermann 1982: 118–25; Dyrness 1979: 99–110; Goldingay

1.5 pica long on top

The book of Genesis functions as the introduction to the Torah, which in

the theological themes developed in the book of Genesis, but particularly so

The Account of the Heavens and the Earth

spread one pica long

The Account of Adam (5:1–6:8)

The Account of Noah (6:9–9:28)

Noah’s righteous and blameless character and relationship with Yahweh

The Accounts of Shem, Ham, and Japheth

The Account of Terah (11:27–25:11)

on a family because of an unknown sin, caused by the folly of another. In this

The Account of Isaac (25:19–35:29)

34. Mann (1988: 8). See further Wenham (2000: 109).

spread is 3 points long

of deception is evidenced in his interactions with his brother Esau in chaps.

The Account of Jacob (37:2–50:26)

Although Joseph’s perspective on the incident is healthy, there are legiti-

The covenant ratiﬁcation in Genesis 17 highlights the three key promises

spond but, even more striking, an emphasis on divine superintendence over

spread 6 points long

The way this covenant is to be understood, however, has been a point of

What follows in 20:22–23:33 is an initial installment of laws, the Book of

spread is 6 points long

these words (33:4, 12–17). 25 It is once again Moses’ intercession, now in an

Table 3.1. The Character of Yahweh

34. See Knierim (1985: 393–415).

Exodus 19–40 represents the ﬁrst major phase of Yahweh’s revelation to

The ﬁrst section of this legislation (chaps. 11–15) is related to ceremonial

spread one pica long

Table 4.1. Gradations of Cleanliness in Priestly Legislation

Holy Clean Unclean

Ritual versus Morality

Commission versus Omission

Inadvertence versus Deﬁance

Deity versus Humanity

Communal versus Individual

Remedies for Sin

Punishment, Death, and Destruction

Table 4.2. trk in the Priestly Legislation

Destruction. Inanimate objects were also endangered when the priestly