Israel’s God is here identified with three names: (1) אֵל (’ el ), “El” (or “God”); (2) אֱלֹהִים (’ elohim ), “Elohim” (or “God”), and (3) יְהוָה ( yÿhvah ), “Yahweh” (or “the Lord ”). The name אֵל (’ el , “El”) is often compounded with titles, for example, El Elyon , “God Most High.”


The Lord’s dwelling place here refers to the tabernacle.


Joshua quotes the Lord ’s words in vv. 2 b-13 (note that the Lord speaks in the first person in these verses); in vv. 14-15 Joshua himself exhorts the people (note the third person references to the Lord ).


For an excellent discussion of Joshua’s logical argument here, see T. C. Butler, Joshua (WBC), 274-75.


Like witnesses in a court of law, Israel’s solemn vow to worship the Lord will testify against them in the divine court if the nation ever violates its commitment.


The name Hormah ( חָרְמָה , khormah ) sounds like the Hebrew verb translated “wipe out” ( חָרַם , kharam ).


The statement to this very day reflects the perspective of the author, who must have written prior to David’s conquest of the Jebusites (see 2 Sam 5:6-7 ).


See Exod 14:19; 23:20 .


Bokim means “weeping ones” and is derived from the Hebrew verb בָּכָא ( bakha ’, “to weep”).


The Asherahs were local manifestations of the Canaanite goddess Asherah.


The expression mighty ones probably refers to the leaders of the army.


The speaker may be Deborah here.


Threshing wheat in a winepress . One would normally thresh wheat at the threshing floor outside the city. Animals and a threshing sledge would be employed. Because of the Midianite threat, Gideon was forced to thresh with a stick in a winepress inside the city. For further discussion see O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel , 63.


Some interpreters equate the Lord and the messenger in this story, but they are more likely distinct. In vv. 22-23 the Lord and Gideon continue to carry on a conversation after the messenger has vanished (v. 21 ).


Whoever takes up his cause will die by morning . This may be a warning to the crowd that Joash intends to defend his son and to kill anyone who tries to execute Gideon. Then again, it may be a sarcastic statement about Baal’s apparent inability to defend his own honor. Anyone who takes up Baal’s cause may end up dead, perhaps by the same hand that pulled down the pagan god’s altar.


The name Harod means, ironically, “trembling.”


The names Oreb and Zeeb , which mean “Raven” and “Wolf” respectively, are appropriate because the Midianites had been like scavengers and predators to Israel.


Ephraim’s leftover grapes are better quality than Abiezer’s harvest . Gideon employs an agricultural metaphor. He argues that Ephraim’s mopping up operations, though seemingly like the inferior grapes which are missed initially by the harvesters or left for the poor, are actually more noteworthy than the military efforts of Gideon’s family.


I will thresh . The metaphor is agricultural. Threshing was usually done on a hard threshing floor. As farm animals walked over the stalks, pulling behind them a board embedded with sharp stones, the stalks and grain would be separated. See O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel , 63-65. Gideon threatens to use thorns and briers on his sledge.


Seventeen hundred gold shekels would be about 42.7 pounds (19.4 kilograms) of gold.


In Exod 28:4-6 and several other texts an ephod is described as a priestly or cultic garment. In some cases an ephod is used to obtain a divine oracle ( 1 Sam 23:9; 30:7 ). Here the ephod is made of gold and is described as being quite heavy (70-75 lbs?). Some identify it as an idol, but it was more likely a cultic object fashioned in the form of a garment which was used for oracular purposes. For discussion of the ephod in the OT, see C. F. Burney, Judges , 236-43, and R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel , 349-52.


A concubine was a slave woman in ancient Near Eastern societies who was the legal property of her master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with her master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. After the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative ( 2 Sam 21:10-14 ; 1 Kgs 11:3 ).


The name Abimelech means “my father is king.”


Baal-Berith was a local manifestation of the Canaanite storm god. The name means, ironically, “Baal of the covenant.” Israel’s covenant allegiance had indeed shifted.


The name Gaal derives from, or at least sounds like, a Hebrew verb meaning “to abhor, loathe.” His father’s name, Ebed , means “servant.” Perhaps then this could be translated, “loathsome one, son of a servant.” This individual’s very name (which may be the narrator’s nickname for him, not his actual name) seems to hint at his immoral character and lowly social status.


Perhaps the Tower of Shechem was a nearby town, distinct from Shechem proper, or a tower within the city.


The name El-Berith means “God of the Covenant.” It is probably a reference to the Canaanite high god El.


A hand mill consisted of an upper stone and larger lower stone. One would turn the upper stone with a handle to grind the grain, which was placed between the stones. An upper millstone , which was typically about two inches thick and a foot or so in diameter, probably weighed 25-30 pounds (11.4-13.6 kg). See G. F. Moore, Judges (ICC), 268; C. F. Burney, Judges , 288.


The name Habboth Jair means “tent villages of Jair” in Hebrew.


The Ashtars were local manifestations of the goddess Ashtar (i.e., Astarte).


You do to us as you see fit, but deliver us today . The request seems contradictory, but it can be explained in one of two ways. They may be asking for relief from their enemies and direct discipline from God’s hand. Or they may mean, “In the future you can do whatever you like to us, but give us relief from what we’re suffering right now.”


Then you will become the leader . The leaders of Gilead now use the word רֹאשׁ ( ro ’ sh , “head, leader”), the same term that appeared in their original, general offer (see 10:18 ). In their initial offer to Jephthah they had simply invited him to be their קָצִין ( qatsin , “commander”; v. 6 ). When he resists they must offer him a more attractive reward – rulership over the region. See R. G. Boling, Judges (AB), 198.


The Lord will judge…if we do not do as you say . The statement by the leaders of Gilead takes the form of a legally binding oath, which obligates them to the terms of the agreement.


The inability of the Ephraimites to pronounce the word shibboleth the way the Gileadites did served as an identifying test. It illustrates that during this period there were differences in pronunciation between the tribes. The Hebrew word shibboleth itself means “stream” or “flood,” and was apparently chosen simply as a test case without regard to its meaning.


Touching the carcass of a dead animal undoubtedly violated Samson’s Nazirite status. See Num 6:6 .


Plowed with my heifer . This statement emphasizes that the Philistines had utilized a source of information which should have been off-limits to them. Heifers were used in plowing ( Hos 10:11 ), but one typically used one’s own farm animals, not another man’s.


The wheat harvest took place during the month of May. See O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel , 37, 88.


The name Ramath Lehi means “Height of the Jawbone.”


The name En Hakkore means “Spring of the one who cries out.”


Here an ephod probably refers to a priestly garment (cf. Exod 28:4-6 ).


See the note on the word “concubine” in 8:31 .


Dan was located in the far north of the country, while Beer Sheba was located in the far south. This encompassed all the territory of the land of Canaan occupied by the Israelites.


The land of Gilead was on the eastern side of the Jordan River.


Verses 33-36 a give a condensed account of the battle from this point on, while vv. 36 b-48 offer a more detailed version of how the ambush contributed to Gibeah’s defeat.


The number given here ( twenty-five thousand sword-wielding Benjaminites ) is an approximate figure; v. 35 gives the more exact number (25,100). According to v. 15 , the Benjaminite army numbered 26,700 (26,000 + 700). The figures in vv. 35 (rounded in vv. 44-46 ) and 47 add up to 25,700. What happened to the other 1,000 men? The most reasonable explanation is that they were killed during the first two days of fighting. G. F. Moore ( Judges [ICC], 429) and C. F. Burney ( Judges , 475) reject this proposal, arguing that the narrator is too precise and concerned about details to omit such a fact. However, the account of the first two days’ fighting emphasizes Israel’s humiliating defeat. To speak of Benjaminite casualties would diminish the literary effect. In vv. 35, 44-47 the narrator’s emphasis is the devastating defeat that Benjamin experienced on this final day of battle. To mention the earlier days’ casualties at this point is irrelevant to his literary purpose. He allows readers who happen to be concerned with such details to draw conclusions for themselves.


The name Bethlehem ( בֵּית לֶחֶם , bet lekhem ) is from “house, place” ( בֵּית ) and “bread, food” ( לֶחֶם ), so the name literally means “House of Bread” or “Place of Food.” Perhaps there is irony here: One would not expect a severe famine in such a location. This would not necessarily indicate that Bethlehem was under divine discipline, but merely that the famine was very severe, explaining the reason for the family’s departure. map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-E2 ; Map10-B4 .


The name “Elimelech” literally means “My God [is] king.” The narrator’s explicit identification of his name seems to cast him in a positive light.


Too old to get married again . Naomi may be exaggerating for the sake of emphasis. Her point is clear, though: It is too late to roll back the clock.


Clung tightly . The expression suggests strong commitment (see R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth [NICOT], 115).


The name Naomi means “pleasant.”


The name Mara means “bitter.”


I left here full . That is, with a husband and two sons.


The divine name translated Sovereign One is שַׁדַּי ( shadday , “Shaddai”). See further the note on this term in Ruth 1:20 .


The text is written from Ruth’s limited perspective. As far as she was concerned, she randomly picked a spot in the field. But God was providentially at work and led her to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz , who, as a near relative of Elimelech, was a potential benefactor.


In this patriarchal culture Ruth would “belong” to either her father (if unmarried) or her husband (if married).


The female workers would come along behind those who cut the grain and bundle it up. Staying close to the female workers allowed Ruth to collect more grain than would normally be the case (see O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel , 61, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 121).


The similarly spelled Hebrew terms נָכַר ( nakhar , “to notice”) and נָכְרִי ( nokhriy , “foreigner”) in this verse form a homonymic wordplay. This highlights the unexpected nature of the attentiveness and concern Boaz displayed to Ruth.


Barley was harvested from late March through late April, wheat from late April to late May (O. Borowski, Agriculture in Ancient Israel , 88, 91).


Ruth must have waited until Boaz fell asleep, for he does not notice when she uncovers his legs and lies down beside him.


Now he saw a woman . The narrator writes from Boaz’s perspective. Both the narrator and the reader know the night visitor is Ruth, but from Boaz’s perspective she is simply “a woman.”


Sleep here . Perhaps Boaz tells her to remain at the threshing floor because he is afraid she might be hurt wandering back home in the dark. See Song 5:7 and R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 218.


‘Do not go to your mother-in-law empty-handed .’ In addition to being a further gesture of kindness on Boaz’s part, the gift of barley served as a token of his intention to fulfill his responsibility as family guardian. See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 225-26, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 187.


Acquire the field . This probably refers to the right to redeem and use the field. See the note on the word “selling” in v. 3 .


I would ruin my own inheritance . It is not entirely clear how acquiring Ruth and raising up an heir for the deceased Elimelech would ruin this individual’s inheritance. Perhaps this means that the inheritance of his other children would be diminished. See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 245-46.


Salmon appears to be an alternate spelling of Salmah in the preceding line.


The theological message of the Book of Ruth may be summarized as follows: God cares for needy people like Naomi and Ruth; he is their ally in this chaotic world. He richly rewards people like Ruth and Boaz who demonstrate sacrificial love and in so doing become his instruments in helping the needy. God’s rewards for those who sacrificially love others sometimes exceed their wildest imagination and transcend their lifetime.


Like the number seven, the number ten is sometimes used in the OT as an ideal number (see, for example, Dan 1:20 , Zech 8:23 ).


The Lord “remembered” her in the sense of granting her earlier request for a child. The Hebrew verb is often used in the OT for considering the needs or desires of people with favor and kindness.


The ephah was a standard dry measure in OT times; it was the equivalent of one-tenth of the OT measure known as a homer. The ephah was equal to approximately one-half to two-thirds of a bushel.


Horns of animals have always functioned as both offensive and defensive weapons for them. As a figure of speech the horn is therefore often used in the Bible as a symbol of human strength (see also in v. 10 ). The allusion in v. 1 to the horn being lifted high suggests a picture of an animal elevating its head in a display of strength or virility.


In this context God’s holiness refers primarily to his sovereignty and incomparability. He is unique and distinct from all other so-called gods.


The number seven is used here in an ideal sense. Elsewhere in the OT having seven children is evidence of fertility as a result of God’s blessing on the family. See, for example, Jer 15:9 , Ruth 4:15 .


The Hebrew word occurs only twice in the OT, here and again in v. 14 . Its exact meaning is not entirely clear, although from the context it appears to be a sacrificial tool used for retrieving things from boiling water.


The name Ichabod ( אִי־כָבוֹד ) may mean, “Where is the glory?”


The name Ebenezer ( אֶבֶן הָעָזֶר ) means “stone of help” in Hebrew (cf. TEV); NLT adds the meaning parenthetically after the name.


A quarter shekel of silver would weigh about a tenth of an ounce (about 3 grams).


In the Hebrew text the pronoun you is plural, suggesting that Saul’s father was concerned about his son and the servant who accompanied him.


In light of Saul’s commission to be Israel’s deliverer (see v. 1 ), it is likely that some type of military action against the Philistines (see v.5) is implied.


The name “Nahash” means “serpent” in Hebrew.


Jerub-Baal ( יְרֻבַּעַל ) is also known as Gideon (see Judg 6:32 ). The Book of Judges uses both names for him.


The list differs from others. In 1 Sam 31:2 (= 1 Chr 10:2 ), Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malki-Shua are listed as Saul’s sons, while 1 Chr 8:33 and 9:39 list Jonathan, Malki-Shua, Abinadab, and Eshbaal.


The word “uncle” can modify either Abner or Ner. See the note on the word “son” in v. 51 for further discussion.


This observation marks the preceding statement (v. 28 ) as an unconditional, unalterable decree. When God makes such a decree he will not alter it or change his mind. This does not mean that God never deviates from his stated intentions or changes his mind. On the contrary, several passages describe him as changing his mind. In fact, his willingness to do so is one of his fundamental divine attributes (see Joel 2:13 ; Jonah 4:2 ). For a fuller discussion see R. B. Chisholm, Jr., “Does God Change His Mind?” BSac 152 (1995): 387-99.


Although the exact weight of Goliath’s defensive body armor is difficult to estimate in terms of modern equivalency, it was obviously quite heavy. Driver, following Kennedy, suggests a modern equivalent of about 220 pounds (100 kg); see S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel , 139. Klein, taking the shekel to be equal to .403 ounces, arrives at a somewhat smaller weight of about 126 pounds (57 kg); see R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC), 175. But by any estimate it is clear that Goliath presented himself as a formidable foe indeed.


Or “greaves.” These were coverings (probably lined for comfort) that extended from about the knee to the ankle, affording protection for the shins of a warrior.


That is, about fifteen or sixteen pounds.


Sticks is a pejorative reference to David’s staff (v. 40 ); the same Hebrew word ( מַקֵּל , maqqel ) is used for both.


Beginning with 20:42 b, the verse numbers through 21:15 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 20:42 b ET = 21:1 HT, 21:1 ET = 21:2 HT, 21:2 ET = 21:3 HT, etc., through 21:15 ET = 21:16 HT. With 22:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


The name הַמַּחְלְקוֹת סֶלַע ( Sela Hammakhleqoth ) probably means “Rock of Divisions” in Hebrew, in the sense that Saul and David parted company there (cf. NAB “Gorge of Divisions”; TEV “Separation Hill”). This etymology assumes that the word derives from the Hebrew root II חלק ( khlq , “to divide”; HALOT 322 s.v. II חלק ). However, there is another root I חלק , which means “to be smooth or slippery” ( HALOT 322 s.v. I חלק ). If the word is taken from this root, the expression would mean “Slippery Rock.”


Beginning with 23:29 , the verse numbers through 24:22 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 23:29 ET = 24:1 HT, 24:1 ET = 24:2 HT, 24:2 ET = 24:3 HT, etc., through 24:22 ET = 24:23 HT. With 25:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


The name נָבָל ( Nabal ) means “foolish” or “senseless” in Hebrew, and as an adjective the word is used especially of persons who have no perception of ethical or religious claims. It is an apt name for this character, who certainly typifies such behavior.


The seah was a dry measure equal to one-third of an ephah, or not quite eleven quarts.


See Isa 8:19 for another reference to magicians who attempted to conjure up underworld spirits.


See the note at 1 Sam 14:41 .


Masoretic mss of the Hebrew Bible mark this word as the half-way point in the book of Samuel, treating 1 and 2 Samuel as a single book. Similar notations are found at the midway point for all of the books of the Hebrew Bible.


The Semitic goddess Astarte was associated with love and war in the ancient Near East. See the note on the same term in 7:3 .


This chapter is closely linked to . It should be kept in mind that 1 and 2 Samuel were originally a single book, not separate volumes. Whereas in English Bible tradition the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah are each regarded as two separate books, this was not the practice in ancient Hebrew tradition. Early canonical records, for example, counted them as single books respectively. The division into two books goes back to the Greek translation of the OT and was probably initiated because of the cumbersome length of copies due to the Greek practice (unlike that of Hebrew) of writing vowels. The present division into two books can be a little misleading in terms of perceiving the progression of the argument of the book; in some ways it is preferable to treat the books of 1-2 Samuel in a unified fashion.


The Amalekites were a nomadic people who inhabited Judah and the Transjordan. They are mentioned in Gen 36:15-16 as descendants of Amalek who in turn descended from Esau. In Exod 17:8-16 they are described as having acted in a hostile fashion toward Israel as the Israelites traveled to Canaan from Egypt. In David’s time the Amalekites were viewed as dangerous enemies who raided, looted, and burned Israelite cities (see ).


Ziklag was a city in the Negev which had been given to David by Achish king of Gath. For more than a year David used it as a base from which he conducted military expeditions (see 1 Sam 27:5-12 ). According to 1 Sam 30:1-19 , Ziklag was destroyed by the Amalekites while Saul fought the Philistines.


Tearing one’s clothing and throwing dirt on one’s head were outward expressions of grief in the ancient Near East, where such demonstrable reactions were a common response to tragic news.


The claims that the soldier is making here seem to contradict the story of Saul’s death as presented in 1 Sam 31:3-5 . In that passage it appears that Saul took his own life, not that he was slain by a passerby who happened on the scene. Some scholars account for the discrepancy by supposing that conflicting accounts have been brought together in the MT. However, it is likely that the young man is here fabricating the account in a self-serving way so as to gain favor with David, or so he supposes. He probably had come across Saul’s corpse, stolen the crown and bracelet from the body, and now hopes to curry favor with David by handing over to him these emblems of Saul’s royalty. But in so doing the Amalekite greatly miscalculated David’s response to this alleged participation in Saul’s death. The consequence of his lies will instead be his own death.


The Book of Yashar is a noncanonical writing no longer in existence. It is referred to here and in Josh 10:12-13 and 1 Kgs 8:12-13 . It apparently was “a collection of ancient national poetry” (so BDB 449 s.v. יָשָׁר ).


The word beauty is used figuratively here to refer to Saul and Jonathan.


The cities of Gath and Ashkelon are mentioned here by synecdoche of part for the whole. As major Philistine cities they in fact represent all of Philistia. The point is that when the sad news of fallen Israelite leadership reaches the Philistines, it will be for these enemies of Israel the occasion of great joy rather than grief.


Clothing of scarlet was expensive and beyond the financial reach of most people.


The expression weapons of war may here be a figurative way of referring to Saul and Jonathan.


The name Ish-bosheth means in Hebrew “man of shame.” It presupposes an earlier form such as Ish-baal (“man of the Lord”), with the word “baal” being used of Israel’s God. But because the Canaanite storm god was named “Baal,” that part of the name was later replaced with the word “shame.”


This accusation against Abner is a very serious one, since an act of sexual infringement on the king’s harem would probably have been understood as a blatant declaration of aspirations to kingship. As such it was not merely a matter of ethical impropriety but an act of grave political significance as well.


The name Perez Uzzah means in Hebrew “the outburst [against] Uzzah.”


That David’s sons could have been priests , in light of the fact that they were not of the priestly lineage, is strange. One must assume either (1) that the word “priest” ( כֹּהֵן , kohen ) during this period of time could be used in a broader sense of “chief ruler” (KJV); “chief minister” (ASV, NASB), or “royal adviser” (NIV), perhaps based on the parallel passage in 1 Chr 18:17 which has “the king’s leading officials”, or (2) that in David’s day members of the king’s family could function as a special category of “priests” (cf. NLT “priestly leaders”). The latter option seems to be the more straightforward way of understanding the word in 2 Sam 8:18 .


–20 is known as the Succession Narrative. It is a literary unit that describes David’s efforts at consolidating his own kingdom following the demise of King Saul; it also provides the transition to subsequent leadership on the part of David’s successor Solomon.


The upper millstone ( Heb “millstone of riding”) refers to the heavy circular stone that was commonly rolled over a circular base in order to crush and grind such things as olives.


The name Jedidiah means “loved by the Lord .”


Here the narrative resumes the battle story that began in 11:1 (see 11:25 ). The author has interrupted that story to give the related account of David’s sin with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. He now returns to the earlier story and brings it to a conclusion.


The expression translated the water supply of the city ( Heb “the city of the waters”) apparently refers to that part of the fortified city that guarded the water supply of the entire city. Joab had already captured this part of the city, but he now defers to King David for the capture of the rest of the city. In this way the king will receive the credit for this achievement.


My remaining coal is here metaphorical language, describing the one remaining son as her only source of lingering hope for continuing the family line.


That is, on top of the flat roof of the palace, so it would be visible to the public.


This marks the beginning of ch. in the Hebrew text. Beginning with 18:33 , the verse numbers through 19:43 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 18:33 ET = 19:1 HT, 19:1 ET = 19:2 HT, 19:2 ET = 19:3 HT, etc., through 19:43 ET = 19:44 HT. From 20:1 the versification in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible is again the same.


The significance of the statement it fell out here is unclear. If the dagger fell out of its sheath before Joab got to Amasa, how then did he kill him? Josephus, Ant . 7.11.7 (7.284), suggested that as Joab approached Amasa he deliberately caused the dagger to fall to the ground at an opportune moment as though by accident. When he bent over and picked it up, he then stabbed Amasa with it. Others have tried to make a case for thinking that two swords are referred to – the one that fell out and another that Joab kept concealed until the last moment. But nothing in the text clearly supports this view. Perhaps Josephus’ understanding is best, but it is by no means obvious in the text either.


The Hebrew text as it stands reads, “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage; in fact, from a text-critical point of view the books of Samuel are the most poorly preserved of all the books of the Hebrew Bible. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, “Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” Both versions are textually corrupt. The Chronicles text has misread “Bethlehemite” ( בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי , bet hallakhmi ) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name אֶת לַחְמִי (’ et lakhmi ). (See the note at 1 Chr 20:5 .) The Samuel text misread the word for “brother” ( אַח , ’ akh ) as the accusative sign ( אֵת , ’ et ), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath. Thus in all probability the original text read, “Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.”


In this long song of thanks, David affirms that God is his faithful protector. He recalls in highly poetic fashion how God intervened in awesome power and delivered him from death. His experience demonstrates that God vindicates those who are blameless and remain loyal to him. True to his promises, God gives the king victory on the battlefield and enables him to subdue nations. A parallel version of the song appears in .


The wings of the wind. Verse 10 may depict the Lord mounting a cherub, which is in turn propelled by the wind current. Another option is that two different vehicles (a cherub and the wind) are envisioned. A third option is that the wind is personified as a cherub. For a discussion of ancient Near Eastern parallels to the imagery in v. 10 , see M. Weinfeld, “‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds’,” JANESCU 5 (1973): 422-24.


Lightning is a common motif in OT theophanies and in ancient Near Eastern portrayals of the storm god and warring kings. Arrows and lightning bolts are associated in other texts (see Pss 77:17-18; 144:6 ; Zech 9:14 ), as well as in ancient Near Eastern art. See R. B. Chisholm, “An Exegetical and Theological Study of /” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983), 187, 190-92.


This probably alludes to the fact that David will praise the Lord in the presence of the defeated nations when they, as his subjects, bring their tribute payments. Ideally God’s chosen king was to testify to the nations of God’s greatness. See J. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (SBT), 182-85.


The parallel text in 1 Chr 21:1 says, “An adversary opposed Israel, inciting David to count how many warriors Israel had.” The Samuel version gives an underlying theological perspective, while the Chronicler simply describes what happened from a human perspective. The adversary in 1 Chr 21:1 is likely a human enemy, probably a nearby nation whose hostility against Israel pressured David into numbering the people so he could assess his military strength. See the note at 1 Chr 21:1 .


Threshing sledges were heavy boards used in ancient times for loosening grain from husks. On the bottom sides of these boards sharp stones were embedded, and the boards were then dragged across the grain on a threshing floor by an ox or donkey.


Summon Bathsheba. Bathsheba must have left the room when Nathan arrived (see 1:22 ).


Summon … Nathan. Nathan must have left the room when Bathsheba reentered.


The Kerethites and Pelethites were members of David’s royal guard (see 2 Sam 8:18 ). The Kerethites may have been descendants of an ethnic group originating in Crete.


Grabbed hold of the horns of the altar. The “horns” of the altar were the horn-shaped projections on the four corners of the altar (see Exod 27:2 ). By going to the holy place and grabbing hold of the horns of the altar, Adonijah was seeking asylum from Solomon.


The phrase the city of David refers here to the fortress of Zion in Jerusalem, not to Bethlehem. See 2 Sam 5:7 .


Grabbed hold of the horns of the altar. The “horns” of the altar were the horn-shaped projections on the four corners of the altar (see Exod 27:2 ). By going to the holy place and grabbing hold of the horns of the altar, Joab was seeking asylum from Solomon.


The phrase City of David refers here to the fortress of Zion in Jerusalem, not to Bethlehem. See 2 Sam 5:7 .


Offering sacrifices at the high places. The “high places” were places of worship that were naturally or artificially elevated.


There was no one else in the house except the two of us. In other words, there were no other witnesses to the births who could identify which child belonged to which mother.


The work crews . This Hebrew word ( מַס , mas ) refers to a group of laborers conscripted for royal or public service.


Beginning with 4:21 , the verse numbers through 5:18 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 4:21 ET = 5:1 HT, 4:22 ET = 5:2 HT, etc., through 5:18 ET = 5:32 HT. Beginning with 6:1 the numbering of verses in the English Bible and the Hebrew text is again the same.


Tiphsah. This was located on the Euphrates River.


The verse numbers in the English Bible differ from those in the Hebrew text ( BHS ) here; 5:1-18 in the English Bible corresponds to 5:15-32 in the Hebrew text. See the note at 4:21 .


As a unit of dry measure a cor was roughly equivalent to six bushels.


Work crews . This Hebrew word ( מַס , mas ) refers to a group of laborers conscripted for royal or public service.


During the month Ziv . This would be April-May, 966 b.c. by modern reckoning.


Inside and out probably refers to the inner and outer rooms within the building.


In the month Ziv . This would be April-May, 966 b.c. by modern reckoning.


In the month Bul . This would be October-November 959 b.c. in modern reckoning.


The Palace of the Lebanon Forest. This name was appropriate because of the large amount of cedar, undoubtedly brought from Lebanon, used in its construction. The cedar pillars in the palace must have given it the appearance of a forest.


Rectangular in shape. That is, rather than arched.


The name Jakin appears to be a verbal form and probably means, “he establishes.”


The meaning of the name Boaz is uncertain. For various proposals, see BDB 126-27 s.v. בעז . One attractive option is to revocalize the name as בְּעֹז ( be ’ oz , “in strength”) and to understand it as completing the verbal form on the first pillar. Taking the words together and reading from right to left, one can translate the sentence, “he establishes [it] in strength.”


The festival . This was the Feast of Tabernacles, see Lev 23:34 .


The month Ethanim . This would be September-October in modern reckoning.


And its poles . These poles were used to carry the ark. See Exod 25:13-15 .


Horeb is another name for Mount Sinai.


In the same way he had appeared to him at Gibeon. See 1 Kgs 3:5 .


The work crews . This Hebrew word מַס ( mas ) refers to a group of laborers conscripted for royal or public service.


These work crews . The work crews referred to here must be different than the temporary crews described in 5:13-16 .


The phrase city of David refers here to the fortress of Zion in Jerusalem, not to Bethlehem. See 2 Sam 5:7 .


Three minas . The mina was a unit of measure for weight.


From Egypt . Because Que is also mentioned, some prefer to see in vv. 28-29 a reference to Mutsur. Que and Mutsur were located in Cilicia/Cappadocia (in modern southern Turkey). See HALOT 625 s.v. מִצְרַיִם .


Concubines were slave women in ancient Near Eastern societies who were the legal property of their master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with their master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. The usage in the present passage suggests that after the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative (cf. also 2 Sam 21:10-14 ).


The hill east of Jerusalem refers to the Mount of Olives. map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


A high place . The “high places” were places of worship that were naturally or artificially elevated (see 1 Kgs 3:2 ).


These two occasions are mentioned in 1 Kgs 3:5 and 9:2 .


So Hadad asked Pharaoh … This lengthy description of Hadad’s exile in Egypt explains why Hadad wanted to oppose Solomon and supports the author’s thesis that his hostility to Solomon found its ultimate source in divine providence. Though Hadad enjoyed a comfortable life in Egypt, when the Lord raised him up (apparently stirring up his desire for vengeance) he decided to leave the comforts of Egypt and return to Edom.


The city of his father David . The phrase refers here to the fortress of Zion in Jerusalem, not to Bethlehem. See 2 Sam 5:7 .


Because of this. Reference is made to the idolatry mentioned earlier.


The city of his father David. The phrase refers here to the fortress of Zion in Jerusalem, not to Bethlehem. See 2 Sam 5:7 .


We have no portion in David; no share in the son of Jesse. Their point seems to be that they have no familial relationship with David that brings them any benefits or places upon them any obligations. They are being treated like outsiders.


The work crews. See the note on this expression in 4:6 .


The eighth month would correspond to October-November in modern reckoning.


The festival he celebrated in Judah probably refers to the Feast of Tabernacles (i.e., Booths or Temporary Shelters), held in the seventh month (September-October). See also 1 Kgs 8:2 .


The expression common people refers to people who were not Levites. See 1 Kgs 12:31 .


Tell her so-and-so . Certainly the Lord gave Ahijah a specific message to give to Jeroboam’s wife (see vv. 6-16 ), but the author of Kings here condenses the Lord ’s message with the words “so-and-so.” For dramatic effect he prefers to have us hear the message from Ahijah’s lips as he speaks to the king’s wife.


Disaster . There is a wordplay in the Hebrew text. The word translated “disaster” ( רָעָה , ra ’ ah ) is from the same root as the expression “you have sinned” in v. 9 ( וַתָּרַע [ vattara ’], from רָעַע , [ ra ’ a ’]). Jeroboam’s sins would receive an appropriate punishment.


Abishalom (also in v. 10 ) is a variant of the name Absalom (cf. 2 Chr 11:20 ). The more common form is used by TEV, NLT.


Elijah’s sarcastic proposals would have been especially offensive and irritating to Baal’s prophets, for they believed Baal was imprisoned in the underworld as death’s captive during this time of drought. Elijah’s apparent ignorance of their theology is probably designed for dramatic effect; indeed the suggestion that Baal is away on a trip or deep in sleep comes precariously close to the truth as viewed by the prophets.


Torn down. The condition of the altar symbolizes the spiritual state of the people.


So he went on up, looked, and reported, “There is nothing.” Several times in this chapter those addressed by Elijah obey his orders. In vv. 20 and 42 Ahab does as instructed, in vv. 26 and 28 the prophets follow Elijah’s advice, and in vv. 30, 34, 40 and 43 the people and servants do as they are told. By juxtaposing Elijah’s commands with accounts of those commands being obeyed, the narrator emphasizes the authority of the Lord ’s prophet.


The point of the saying is that someone who is still preparing for a battle should not boast as if he has already won the battle. A modern parallel would be, “Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.”


Sackcloth was worn as a sign of sorrow and repentance. The precise significance of the ropes on the head is uncertain, but it probably was a sign of submission. These actions were comparable to raising a white flag on the battlefield or throwing in the towel in a boxing match.


Your servant . By referring to Ben Hadad as Ahab’s servant, they are suggesting that Ahab make him a subject in a vassal treaty arrangement.


He is my brother. Ahab’s response indicates that he wants to make a parity treaty and treat Ben Hadad as an equal partner.


King Ahab of Samaria . Samaria, as the capital of the northern kingdom, here stands for the nation of Israel. map For location see Map2-B1 ; Map4-D3 ; Map5-E2 ; Map6-A4 ; Map7-C1 .


Disaster . There is a wordplay in the Hebrew text. The word translated “disaster” ( רָעָה , ra ’ ah ) is similar to the word translated “evil” (v. 20 , הָרַע , hara ’). Ahab’s sins would receive an appropriate punishment.


“Attack! You will succeed; the Lord will hand it over to the king.” One does not expect Micaiah, having just vowed to speak only what the Lord tells him, to agree with the other prophets and give the king an inaccurate prophecy. Micaiah’s actions became understandable later, when it is revealed that the Lord desires to deceive the king and lead him to his demise. The Lord even dispatches a lying spirit to deceive Ahab’s prophets. Micaiah can lie to the king because he realizes this lie is from the Lord . It is important to note that in v. 14 Micaiah only vows to speak the word of the Lord ; he does not necessarily say he will tell the truth. In this case the Lord ’s word itself is deceptive. Only when the king adjures him to tell the truth (v. 16 ), does Micaiah do so.


Beginning with 22:43 b , the verse numbers through 22:53 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), because 22:43 b in the English Bible = 22:44 in the Hebrew text. The remaining verses in the chapter differ by one, with 22:44-53 ET = 22:45-54 HT.


This statement may fit better with the final paragraph of .


Apparently Baal Zebub refers to a local manifestation of the god Baal at the Philistine city of Ekron. The name appears to mean “Lord of the Flies,” but it may be a deliberate scribal corruption of Baal Zebul, “Baal, the Prince,” a title known from the Ugaritic texts. For further discussion and bibliography, see HALOT 261 s.v. זְבוּב בַּעַל and M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 25.


The prophet Elijah’s position on the top of the hill symbolizes his superiority to the king and his messengers.


In this second panel of the three-paneled narrative, the king and his captain are more arrogant than before. The captain uses a more official sounding introduction (“this is what the king says”) and the king adds “at once” to the command.


In this third panel the verb “come down” ( יָרַד , yarad ) occurs again, this time describing Elijah’s descent from the hill at the Lord’s command. The moral of the story seems clear: Those who act as if they have authority over God and his servants just may pay for their arrogance with their lives; those who, like the third commander, humble themselves and show the proper respect for God’s authority and for his servants will be spared and find God quite cooperative.


Elisha may be referring to the fiery chariot(s) and horses as the Lord’s spiritual army that fights on behalf of Israel (see 2 Kgs 6:15-17; 7:6 ). However, the juxtaposition with “my father” (clearly a reference to Elijah as Elisha’s mentor), and the parallel in 2 Kgs 13:14 (where the king addresses Elisha with these words), suggest that Elisha is referring to Elijah. In this case Elijah is viewed as a one man army, as it were. When the Lord spoke through him, his prophetic word was as powerful as an army of chariots and horses. See M. A. Beek, “The Meaning of the Expression ‘The Chariots and Horsemen of Israel’ (II Kings ii 12),” The Witness of Tradition ( OTS 17), 1-10.


The two brief episodes recorded in vv. 19-25 demonstrate Elisha’s authority and prove that he is the legitimate prophetic heir of Elijah. He has the capacity to bring life and blessing to those who recognize his authority, or death and judgment to those who reject him. map For location see Map2-B1 ; Map4-D3 ; Map5-E2 ; Map6-A4 ; Map7-C1 .


The new moon was a time of sacrifice and special feasts ( Num 28:14 ; 1 Sam 20:5 ). Apparently it was a convenient time to visit a prophet. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 57.


The advisers would have mentioned a specific location, but the details are not significant to the narrator’s purpose, so he simply paraphrases here.


A kab was a unit of dry measure, equivalent to approximately one quart.


A seah was a dry measure equivalent to about 7 quarts.


See the note at 2 Kgs 5:1 .


The words “your son” emphasize the king’s respect for the prophet.


Joram is a short form of the name Jehoram.


Note how the young prophet greatly expands the message Elisha had given to him. In addition to lengthening the introductory formula (by adding “the God of Israel”) and the official declaration that accompanies the act of anointing (by adding “the Lord ’s people”), he goes on to tell how Jehu will become king (by a revolt against Ahab’s dynasty), makes it clear that Jehu will be an instrument of divine vengeance, and predicts the utter annihilation of Ahab’s family and the violent death of Jezebel.


See 2 Kgs 8:28-29 a.


Jezebel associates Jehu with another assassin, Zimri, who approximately 44 years before had murdered King Elah, only to meet a violent death just a few days later ( 1 Kgs 16:9-20 ). On the surface Jezebel’s actions seem contradictory. On the one hand, she beautifies herself as if to seduce Jehu, but on the other hand, she insults and indirectly threatens him with this comparison to Zimri. Upon further reflection, however, her actions reveal a clear underlying motive. She wants to retain her power, not to mention her life. By beautifying herself, she appeals to Jehu’s sexual impulses; by threatening him, she reminds him that he is in the same precarious position as Zimri. But, if he makes Jezebel his queen, he can consolidate his power. In other words through her actions and words Jezebel is saying to Jehu, “You desire me, don’t you? And you need me!”


Jehu’s command is intentionally vague. Does he mean that they should bring the guardians (those who are “heads” over Ahab’s sons) for a meeting, or does he mean that they should bring the literal heads of Ahab’s sons with them? (So LXX, Syriac Peshitta, and some mss of the Targum) The city leaders interpret his words in the literal sense, but Jehu’s command is so ambiguous he is able to deny complicity in the executions (see v. 9 ).


The Carians were apparently a bodyguard, probably comprised of foreigners. See HALOT 497 s.v. כָּרִי and M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 126.


Beginning with 11:21 , the verse numbers through 12:21 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 11:21 ET = 12:1 HT, 12:1 ET = 12:2 HT, 12:2 ET = 12:3 HT, etc., through 12:21 ET = 12:22 HT. With 13:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


The identity of this unnamed “deliverer” is debated. For options see M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 143.


Jehoash and Joash are alternate forms of the same name.


By comparing Elisha to a one-man army, the king emphasizes the power of the prophetic word. See the note at 2:12 .


The name Joahaz is an alternate form of Jehoahaz.


The referent here is Joash of Judah (see 12:21 ), not Joash of Israel, mentioned earlier in the verse.


Judah is the thorn in the allegory. Amaziah’s success has deceived him into thinking he is on the same level as the major powers in the area (symbolized by the cedar). In reality he is not capable of withstanding an attack by a real military power such as Israel (symbolized by the wild animal).


This must refer to Amaziah.


Azariah was also known by the name Uzziah.


Pul was a nickname of Tiglath-pileser III (cf. 15:29 ). See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 171-72.


This may refer to child sacrifice, though some interpret it as a less drastic cultic practice. For discussion see M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 266-67.


See the note at 1 Kgs 7:23 .


It is doubtful that Tiglath-pileser ordered these architectural changes. Ahaz probably made these changes so he could send some of the items and materials to the Assyrian king as tribute. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 190, 193.


For discussion of this name, see HALOT 744 s.v. סוֹא and M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 196.


See the note at 1 Kgs 15:12 .


See the note at 2 Kgs 16:3 .


In vv. 24-29 Samaria stands for the entire northern kingdom of Israel.


The verb “make” refers to the production of idols. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 210-11.


No deity is known by the name Succoth Benoth in extant Mesopotamian literature. For speculation as to the identity of this deity, see M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 211.


Nergal was a Mesopotamian god of the underworld.


This deity is unknown in extra-biblical literature. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 211-12.


Nibhaz and Tartak were two Elamite deities. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 212.


Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of the Sepharvaim are unknown in extra-biblical literature. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 212.


This refers to the foreigners whom the king of Assyria settled in the land (see v. 35 a).


For a discussion of these titles see M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 229-30.


In v. 25 the chief adviser develops further the argument begun in v. 22 . He claims that Hezekiah has offended the Lord and that the Lord has commissioned Assyria as his instrument of discipline and judgment.


Aramaic was the diplomatic language of the empire.


As a sign of grief and mourning.


Lair is a city located in northeastern Babylon. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 235.


This refers to the cherub images that were above the ark of the covenant.


Zion (Jerusalem) is pictured here as a young, vulnerable daughter whose purity is being threatened by the would-be Assyrian rapist. The personification hints at the reality which the young girls of the city would face if the Assyrians conquer it.


Shaking the head was a mocking gesture of derision.


This divine title pictures the Lord as the sovereign king who rules over his covenant people and exercises moral authority over them.


The word picture has a parallel in Assyrian sculpture. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 238.


This refers to crops that grew up on their own (that is, without cultivation) from the seed planted in past years.


The assassination probably took place in 681 b.c.


No such Mesopotamian god is presently known. Perhaps the name is a corruption of Nusku.


Extra-biblical sources also mention the assassination of Sennacherib, though they refer to only one assassin. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 239-40.


See the note at 2 Kgs 17:16 .


See the note at 2 Kgs 16:3 .


See the note at 1 Kgs 15:12 .


These towns marked Judah’s northern and southern borders, respectively, at the time of Josiah.


Attempts to identify this deity with a god known from the ancient Near East have not yet yielded a consensus. For brief discussions see M. Cogan and H. Tadmor II Kings (AB), 288 and HALOT 592 s.v. מֹלֶךְ . For more extensive studies see George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek , and John Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament .


This is a derogatory name for the Mount of Olives, involving a wordplay between מָשְׁחָה ( mashÿkhah ), “anointing,” and מַשְׁחִית ( mashÿkhit ), “destruction.” See HALOT 644 s.v. מַשְׁחִית and M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 289.


See the note at 2 Kgs 21:6 .


That is, the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, 597 b.c.


This would have been Jan 15, 588 b.c. The reckoning is based on the calendar that begins the year in the spring (Nisan = March/April).


The king’s garden is mentioned again in Neh 3:15 in conjunction with the pool of Siloam and the stairs that go down from the city of David. This would have been in the southern part of the city near the Tyropean Valley which agrees with the reference to the “two walls” which were probably the walls on the eastern and western hills.


Heb “toward the Arabah.” The Arabah was the rift valley north and south of the Dead Sea. Here the intention was undoubtedly to escape across the Jordan to Moab or Ammon. It appears from Jer 40:14; 41:15 that the Ammonites were known to harbor fugitives from the Babylonians.


Riblah was a strategic town on the Orontes River in Syria. It was at a crossing of the major roads between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Pharaoh Necho had earlier received Jehoahaz there and put him in chains ( 2 Kgs 23:33 ) prior to taking him captive to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar had set up his base camp for conducting his campaigns against the Palestinian states there and was now sitting in judgment on prisoners brought to him.


The seventh day of the month would have been August 14, 586 b.c. in modern reckoning.


See the note at 1 Kgs 7:23 .


These shovels were used to clean the altar.


These were used to trim the wicks.


These held the embers used for the incense offerings.


It is not altogether clear whether this is in the same year that Jerusalem fell or not. The wall was breached in the fourth month (= early July; Jer 39:2 ) and Nebuzaradan came and burned the palace, the temple, and many of the houses and tore down the wall in the fifth month (= early August; Jer 52:12 ). That would have left time between the fifth month and the seventh month (October) to gather in the harvest of grapes, dates and figs, and olives ( Jer 40:12 ). However, many commentators feel that too much activity takes place in too short a time for this to have been in the same year and posit that it happened the following year or even five years later when a further deportation took place, possibly in retaliation for the murder of Gedaliah and the Babylonian garrison at Mizpah ( Jer 52:30 ). The assassination of Gedaliah had momentous consequences and was commemorated in one of the post exilic fast days lamenting the fall of Jerusalem ( Zech 8:19 ).


The parallel account in Jer 52:31 has “twenty-fifth.”


The twenty-seventh day would be March 22, 561 b.c. in modern reckoning.


Perhaps this refers to the scattering of the people at Babel ( Gen 11:1-9 ).


A concubine was a slave woman in ancient Near Eastern societies who was the legal property of her master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with her master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. After the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative ( 2 Sam 21:10-14 ; 1 Kgs 11:3 ).


This means “later” in relation to the births of the three sons (Jerahmeel, Ram and Caleb) mentioned in v. 9 .


See the note on the word “concubine” in 1:32 .


Joram is a variant spelling of the name “Jehoram.”


The phrase when he defiled his father’s bed refers to Reuben having sexual relations with his father Jacob’s concubine Bilhah. This incident is recorded in Gen 35:22 .


Beginning with 6:1 , the verse numbers through 6:81 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 6:1 ET = 5:27 HT, 6:2 ET = 5:28 HT, 6:16 ET = 6:1 HT, etc., through 6:81 ET = 6:66 HT. Beginning with 7:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


Chapter of 1 Chr begins here in the Hebrew text; 6:16-81 ET = 6:1-66 HT. See the note at 6:1 .


Aharah is called “Ahiram” in Num 26:38 .


Eshbaal is called “Ishbosheth” in 2 Sam 2:8 .


Meribbaal is called “Mephibosheth” in 2 Sam 4:4 .


Jebus was an older name for the city of Jerusalem (cf. Josh 15:8 ; Judg 1:21 ). map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


Verse 6 inserts into the narrative parenthetical information about Joab’s role in the conquest of the city. Verse 7 then picks up where v. 5 left off.


In the Hebrew text ( BHS ) a verse division occurs at this point, and for the remainder of the chapter the verse numbers of the Hebrew Bible differ by one from the English Bible. Thus 1 Chr 12:4 b ET = 12:5 HT, and 12:5-40 ET = 12:6-41 HT. Beginning with 13:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


That is, March-April.


The modern reader might think God seemed to overreact here, but Israel needed a vivid object lesson of God’s holiness. By loading the ark on a cart, David had violated the instructions in God’s law ( Exod 25:12-14 ; Num 4:5-6, 15 ). Uzzah’s action, however innocent it may seem, betrayed a certain lack of reverence for God’s presence. God had to remind his people that his holiness could not under any circumstances be violated.


The name Perez Uzzah means in Hebrew “the outburst [against] Uzzah.”


The phrase the City of David refers here to the fortress of Zion in Jerusalem, not to Bethlehem. See 2 Sam 5:7 .


The name Baal Perazim means “Lord of outbursts” in Hebrew.


Gershom is a variant spelling of the name Gershon.


An ephod was a priestly garment worn over the robe.


The one who ruled before you is a reference to Saul, from whom the kingdom was taken and given to David.


See the note on the word “talents” in 19:6 .


The name Solomon ( שְׁלֹמֹה , shÿlomoh ) sounds like (and may be derived from) the Hebrew word for “peace” ( שָׁלוֹם , shalom ).


Verses 8-10 are confusing. Two different lists of Shimei’s sons appear. In between these lists is the statement “these were the leaders of the family of Ladan,” suggesting that the list just before this includes the sons of Ladan, not Shimei. But verse 8 already lists Ladan’s sons. Apparently the text as it stands is a conflation of differing traditions.


See 1 Chr 23:1 , where David had previously designated Solomon as king over Israel.


The tabernacle was located in Gibeon; see 1 Chr 21:29 .


Because Que is also mentioned, some prefer to see 1 Kgs 10:28-29 as a reference to Mutsur. Que and Mutsur were located in Cilicia or Cappadocia (in modern southern Turkey). See HALOT 625 s.v. מִצְרַיִם .


Beginning with 2:1 , the verse numbers through 2:18 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 2:1 ET = 1:18 HT, 2:2 ET = 2:1 HT, 2:3 ET = 2:2 HT, etc., through 2:18 ET = 2:17 HT. Beginning with 3:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


As a unit of dry measure a kor was roughly equivalent to six bushels (about 220 liters).


The name Huram Abi means “Huram [is] my father.”


This would be April-May, 966 b.c. by modern reckoning.


The figure given here appears to refer to the combined length of both pillars (perhaps when laid end-to-end on the ground prior to being set up; cf. v. 17 ); the figure given for the height of the pillars in 1 Kgs 7:15 , 2 Kgs 25:17 , and Jer 52:21 is half this (i.e., eighteen cubits).


This festival in the seventh month was the Feast of Tabernacles, see Lev 23:34 .


The seventh month would be September-October in modern reckoning.


These poles were used to carry the ark. The Levites were to carry it with the poles on their shoulders. See Exod 25:13-15 ; 1 Chr 15:15 .


Horeb is another name for Mount Sinai (cf. Exod 3:1 ).


Here the phrase heal their land means restore the damage done by the drought, locusts and plague mentioned in v. 13 .


The phrase the City of David refers here to the fortress of Zion in Jerusalem, not to Bethlehem. See 2 Sam 5:7 .


This name was appropriate because of the large amount of cedar, undoubtedly brought from Lebanon, used in its construction. The cedar pillars in the palace must have given it the appearance of a forest. See 1 Kgs 7:2 .


The people’s point seems to be that they have no familial relationship with David that brings them any benefits or places upon them any obligations. They are being treated like outsiders.


In the parallel account in 1 Kgs 12:18 this name appears as “Adoniram.”


Concubines were slave women in ancient Near Eastern societies who were the legal property of their master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with their master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. After the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative ( 2 Sam 21:10-14 ; 1 Kgs 11:3 ).


Beginning with 14:1 , the verse numbers through 14:15 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 14:1 ET = 13:23 HT, 14:2 ET = 14:1 HT, 14:3 ET = 14:2 HT, etc., through 14:15 ET = 14:14 HT. Beginning with 15:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


Asherah poles . A leading deity of the Canaanite pantheon was Asherah, wife/sister of El and goddess of fertility. She was commonly worshiped at shrines in or near groves of evergreen trees, or, failing that, at places marked by wooden poles (Hebrew אֲשֵׁרִים [’ asherim ], as here). They were to be burned or cut down ( Deut 7:5; 12:3; 16:21 ; Judg 6:25, 28, 30 ; 2 Kgs 18:4 ).


In the parallel passage in 1 Kgs 15:20 , this city’s name appears as Abel Beth Maacah. These appear to be variant names for the same place.


One does not expect Micaiah, having just vowed to speak only what the Lord tells him, to agree with the other prophets and give the king an inaccurate prophecy. Micaiah’s actions became understandable later, when we discover that the Lord desires to deceive the king and lead him to his demise. The Lord even dispatches a lying spirit to deceive Ahab’s prophets. Micaiah can lie to the king because he realizes this lie is from the Lord . It is important to note that in v. 13 Micaiah only vows to speak the word of his God; he does not necessarily say he will tell the truth. In this case the Lord ’s word is deliberately deceptive. Only when the king adjures him to tell the truth (v. 15 ), does Micaiah do so.


The name Berachah , which means “blessing” in Hebrew, is derived from the verbal root “to praise [or “to bless”],” which appears earlier in the verse.


A number of times in 2 Chronicles “Israel” is used instead of the more specific “Judah”; see 2 Chr 12:6; 23:2 ). In the interest of consistency some translations (e.g., NAB, NRSV) substitute “Judah” for “Israel” here.


Jehoram and Joram are alternate spellings of the Israelite king’s name (also in vv. 6-7 ). The shorter form is used in these verse to avoid confusion with King Jehoram of Judah, father of Azariah.


Jehoshabeath is a variant spelling of the name Jehosheba ( 2 Kgs 11:2 ).


This law is recorded in Deut 24:16 .


The thorn bush in the allegory is Judah. Amaziah’s success had deceived him into thinking he was on the same level as the major powers in the area (symbolized by the cedar). In reality he was not capable of withstanding an attack by a real military power such as Israel (symbolized by the wild animal).


As a unit of dry measure a kor was roughly equivalent to six bushels (about 220 liters).


This may refer to child sacrifice, though some interpret it as a less drastic cultic practice (NEB “burnt his sons in the fire”; NASB “burned his sons in the fire”; NIV “sacrificed his sons in the fire”; NRSV “made his sons pass through fire”). For discussion see M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 266-67.


That is, “of Judah.” Frequently in 2 Chronicles “Israel” is substituted for “Judah.”


Perhaps these terms refer metonymically to the royal court, the priests and Levites, and the people, respectively.


The phrase the City of David refers here to the fortress of Zion in Jerusalem, not to Bethlehem. See 2 Sam 5:7 .


According to Lev 25:4 , the land was to remain uncultivated every seventh year. Lev 26:33-35 warns that the land would experience a succession of such sabbatical rests if the people disobeyed God, for he would send them away into exile.


Concerning the seventy years see Jer 25:11 .


In addition to the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, there are two deuterocanonical books that are also called “Ezra.” Exactly how these books are designated varies in ancient literature. In the Septuagint (LXX) canonical Ezra is called Second Esdras, but in the Latin Vulgate it is called First Esdras. Our Nehemiah is called Third Esdras in some manuscripts of the LXX, but it is known as Second Esdras in the Latin Vulgate. (In the earliest LXX manuscripts Ezra and Nehemiah were regarded as one book, as they were in some Hebrew manuscripts.) The deuterocanonical books of Ezra are called First and Fourth Esdras in the LXX, but Third and Fourth Esdras in the Latin Vulgate. The titles for the so-called books of Ezra are thus rather confusing, a fact that one must keep in mind when consulting this material.


The first year of Cyrus would be ca. 539 B.C . Cyrus reigned in Persia from ca. 539-530 B.C.


Cf. Jer 29:10; 25:11-14 . Jeremiah had prophesied that after a time of seventy years the Jews would return “to this place.” How these seventy years are to be reckoned is a matter of debate among scholars. Some understand the period to refer to the approximate length of Babylon’s ascendancy as a world power, beginning either with the fall of Nineveh (612 b.c. ) or with Nebuchadnezzar’s coronation (605 b.c. ) and continuing till the fall of Babylon to the Persians in 539 b.c. Others take the seventy years to refer to the period from the destruction of the temple in 586 b.c. till its rebuilding in 516 b.c.


A Persian name meaning “gift of Mithras.” See HALOT 656 s.v. מִתְרְדָת .


A Babylonian name with the probable meaning “Shamash protect the father.” See HALOT 1664-65 s.v. שֵׁשְׁבַּצַּר .


The total number as given in the MT does not match the numbers given for the various items in v. 9 . It is not clear whether the difference is due to error in textual transmission or whether the constituent items mentioned are only a selection from a longer list, in which case the total from that longer list may have been retained. The numbers provided in 1 Esdras come much closer to agreeing with the number in Ezra 1:9-11 , but this does not necessarily mean that 1 Esdras has been better preserved here than Ezra. 1 Esdras 2:13-15 (RSV) says, “The number of these was: a thousand gold cups, a thousand silver cups, twenty-nine silver censures, thirty gold bowls, two thousand four hundred and ten silver bowls, and a thousand other vessels. All the vessels were handed over, gold and silver, five thousand four hundred and sixty-nine, and they were carried back by Shesbazzar with the returning exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem.”


The list of names and numbers in this chapter of Ezra has a parallel account in Neh 7:6-73 . The fact that the two lists do not always agree in specific details suggests that various textual errors have crept into the accounts during the transmission process.


The same total is given in Neh 7:66 , but it is difficult to understand how this number is reached, since the numbers of people listed in the constituent groups do not add up to 42,360. The list in vv. 3-60 apparently is not intended to be exhaustive, but the basis of the selectivity is unclear.


The מָנִים ( manim , cf. Neh 7:71, 72 ) is a measuring weight for valuable metals, equal to 1/60 of a talent or 60 shekels (BDB 584 s.v. מָנֶה ; HALOT 599 s.v. מָנֶה ). For further study, see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel , 203-6.


Jozadak (also in 3:8 ) is a variant spelling of Jehozadak.


The name יְהוּדָה ( Yehudah ; cf. KJV, ASV, NASB “Judah”) is probably a variant of Hodaviah (see Ezra 2:40 ; cf. NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT).


This was a long, straight, metallic instrument used for signal calls, rather than the traditional ram’s horn (both instruments are typically translated “trumpet” by English versions).


See Ps 107:1; 118:1, 29; 136:1 . Cf. 2 Chr 5:13; 7:3; 20:21 .


The temple had been destroyed some fifty years earlier by the Babylonians in 586 b.c.


Esarhaddon was king of Assyria ca. 681-669 b.c.


The Assyrian policy had been to resettle Samaria with peoples from other areas (cf. 2 Kgs 17:24-34 ). These immigrants acknowledged Yahweh as well as other deities in some cases. The Jews who returned from the Exile regarded them with suspicion and were not hospitable to their offer of help in rebuilding the temple.


Darius ruled Persia ca. 522-486 B.C .


The purpose of the opening verses of this chapter is to summarize why the Jews returning from the exile were unable to complete the rebuilding of the temple more quickly than they did. The delay was due not to disinterest on their part but to the repeated obstacles that had been placed in their path by determined foes.


The chronological problems of Ezra 4:6-24 are well known and have been the subject of extensive discussion since ancient times. Both v. 5 and v. 24 describe the reign of Darius I Hystaspes, who ruled Persia ca. 522–486 b.c. and in whose time the rebuilt temple was finished. The material in between is from later times (v. 16 describes the rebuilding of the walls, not the temple), and so appear to be a digression. Even recognizing this, there are still questions, such as why Cambyses (530-522 b.c. ) is not mentioned at all, and why events from the time of Xerxes (486-465 b.c. ) and Artaxerxes (464-423 b.c. ) are included here if the author was discussing opposition to the building of the temple, which was finished in 516 b.c. Theories to explain these difficulties are too numerous to mention here, but have existed since ancient times: Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, rearranged the account to put Cambyses before Xerxes and replacing Artaxerxes with Xerxes (for further discussion of Josephus’ rearrangement see L. L. Grabbe, “Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration” JBL 106 [1987]: 231-46). In brief, it seems best to view the author’s primary concern here as thematic (the theme of opposition to the Jewish resettlement in Jerusalem, including the rebuilding of the temple and restoration of Jerusalem’s walls) rather than purely chronological. In the previous verses the author had shown how the Jews had rejected an offer of assistance from surrounding peoples and how these people in turn harassed them. The inserted account shows how, in light of the unremitting opposition the Jews experienced (even extending down to more recent times), this refusal of help had been fully justified. Some of the documents the author employed show how this opposition continued even after the temple was rebuilt. (The failure to mention Cambyses may simply mean the author had no documents available from that period.) For detailed discussion of the difficulties presented by the passage and the various theories advanced to explain them, see H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC), 56-60.


Ahasuerus , otherwise known as Xerxes I, ruled ca. 486-464 b.c.


Artaxerxes I ruled in Persia from ca. 465–425 b.c.


The double reference in v. 7 to the Aramaic language is difficult. It would not make sense to say that the letter was written in Aramaic and then translated into Aramaic. Some interpreters understand the verse to mean that the letter was written in the Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language , but this does not seem to give sufficient attention to the participle “translated” at the end of the verse. The second reference to Aramaic in the verse is more probably a gloss that calls attention to the fact that the following verses retain the Aramaic language of the letter in its original linguistic form. A similar reference to Aramaic occurs in Dan 2:4 b, where the language of that book shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic. Ezra 4:8 –6:18 and 7:12-26 are written in Aramaic, whereas the rest of the book is written in Hebrew.


Like Rehum, Shimshai was apparently a fairly high-ranking official charged with overseeing Persian interests in this part of the empire. His title was “scribe” or “secretary,” but in a more elevated political sense than that word sometimes has elsewhere. American governmental titles such as “Secretary of State” perhaps provide an analogy in that the word “secretary” can have a broad range of meaning.


Management of the provinces that were distantly removed from the capital was difficult, and insurrection in such places was a perennial problem. The language used in this report about Jerusalem (i.e., “rebellious,” “odious”) is intentionally inflammatory. It is calculated to draw immediate attention to the perceived problem.


The statement that prior Jewish kings ruled over the entire Trans-Euphrates is an overstatement. Not even in the days of David and Solomon did the kingdom of Israel extend its borders to such an extent.


Darius I Hystaspes ruled Persia ca. 522–486 b.c.


This great king of Israel would, of course, be Solomon.


A reference to the catastrophic events of 586 b.c.


Cyrus was actually a Persian king, but when he conquered Babylon in 539 b.c. he apparently appropriated to himself the additional title “king of Babylon.” The Syriac Peshitta substitutes “Persia” for “Babylon” here, but this is probably a hyper-correction.


The practice referred to in v. 11 has been understood in various ways: hanging (cf. 1 Esd 6:32 and KJV); flogging (cf. NEB, NLT); impalement (BDB 1091 s.v. זְקַף ; HALOT 1914 s.v. מחא hitpe; cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV). The latter seems the most likely.


The sixth year of the reign of Darius would be ca. 516 B.C .


At this point the language of the book reverts from Aramaic ( 4:8 –6:18) back to Hebrew. Aramaic will again be used in Ezra 7:12-26 .


The expression “king of Assyria” is anachronistic, since Assyria fell in 612 b.c. , long before the events of this chapter. Perhaps the expression is intended subtly to contrast earlier kings of Assyria who were hostile toward Israel with this Persian king who showed them favor.


If the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1 is Artaxerxes I Longimanus (ca. 464–423 B.C. ), Ezra must have arrived in Jerusalem ca. 458 B.C. , since Ezra 7:7-8 connects the time of his arrival to the seventh year of the king. The arrival of Nehemiah is then linked to the twentieth year of the king ( Neh 1:1 ), or ca. 445 B.C . Some scholars, however, have suggested that Ezra 7:7 should be read as “the thirty-seventh year” rather than “the seventh year.” This would have Ezra coming to Jerusalem after, rather than before, the arrival of Nehemiah. Others have taken the seventh year of Ezra 7:7-8 to refer not to Artaxerxes I but to Artaxerxes II, who ruled ca. 404–358 B.C . In this understanding Ezra would have returned to Jerusalem ca. 398 B.C. , a good many years after the return of Nehemiah. Neither of these views is certain, however, and it seems better to retain the traditional understanding of the chronological sequence of returns by Ezra and Nehemiah. With this understanding there is a gap of about fifty-eight years between chapter six, which describes the dedication of the temple in 516 b.c. , and chapter seven, which opens with Ezra’s coming to Jerusalem in 458 b.c.


Apparently it took the caravan almost four months to make the five hundred mile journey.


Ezra 7:12-26 is written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew.


At this point the language of the book reverts from Aramaic ( 7:12-26 ) back to Hebrew.


In ancient Judaism Ezra and Nehemiah were regarded as a single book with dual authorship. According to the Talmud, “Ezra wrote his book” ( b. Bava Batra 15a). The Gemara then asks and answers, “And who finished it? Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah.” Accordingly, the two are joined in the Leningrad Codex (ca. A.D. 1008), the manuscript upon which modern printed editions of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., BHK and BHS ) are based.


The name Nehemiah in Hebrew ( נְחֶמְיָה , nÿkhemyah ) means “the LORD comforts.”


Beginning with 4:1 , the verse numbers through 4:23 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 4:1 ET = 3:33 HT, 4:2 ET = 3:34 HT, 4:3 ET = 3:35 HT, 4:4 ET = 3:36 HT, 4:5 ET = 3:37 HT, 4:6 ET = 3:38 HT, 4:7 ET = 4:1 HT, etc., through 4:23 ET = 4:17 HT. Thus in the Hebrew Bible chap. of the Book of Nehemiah has 38 verses, while chap. has only 17 verses.


Chapter begins here in the Hebrew text ( BHS ). See the note at 4:1 .


The poor among the returned exiles were being exploited by their rich countrymen. Moneylenders were loaning large amounts of money, and not only collecting interest on loans which was illegal ( Lev 25:36-37 ; Deut 23:19-20 ), but also seizing pledges as collateral ( Neh 5:3 ) which was allowed ( Deut 24:10 ). When the debtors missed a payment, the moneylenders would seize their collateral: their fields, vineyards and homes. With no other means of income, the debtors were forced to sell their children into slavery, a common practice at this time ( Neh 5:5 ). Nehemiah himself was one of the moneylenders ( Neh 5:10 ), but he insisted that seizure of collateral from fellow Jewish countrymen was ethically wrong ( Neh 5:9 ).


Beginning with 9:38 , the verse numbers through 10:39 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 9:38 ET = 10:1 HT, 10:1 ET = 10:2 HT, 10:2 ET = 10:3 HT, etc., through 10:39 ET = 10:40 HT. Beginning with 11:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


This statement contains a great deal of restrained humor. The author clearly takes pleasure in the effectiveness of the measures that he had enacted.


In the English Bible Esther appears adjacent to Ezra-Nehemiah and with the historical books, but in the Hebrew Bible it is one of five short books (the so-called Megillot) that appear toward the end of the biblical writings. The canonicity of the book was questioned by some in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. It is one of five OT books that were at one time regarded as antilegomena (i.e., books “spoken against”). The problem with Esther was the absence of any direct mention of God. Some questioned whether a book that did not mention God could be considered sacred scripture. Attempts to resolve this by discovering the tetragrammaton ( YHWH ) encoded in the Hebrew text (e.g., in the initial letters of four consecutive words in the Hebrew text of Esth 5:4 ) are unconvincing, although they do illustrate how keenly the problem was felt by some. Martin Luther also questioned the canonicity of this book, objecting to certain parts of its content. Although no copy of Esther was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, this does not necessarily mean that the Qumran community did not regard it as canonical. It is possible that the absence of Esther from what has survived at Qumran is merely a coincidence. Although the book does not directly mention God, it would be difficult to read it without sensing the providence of God working in powerful, though at times subtle, ways to rescue his people from danger and possible extermination. The absence of mention of the name of God may be a deliberate part of the literary strategy of the writer.


The geographical extent of the Persian empire was vast. The division of Xerxes’ empire into 127 smaller provinces was apparently done for purposes of administrative efficiency.


The third year of Xerxes’ reign would be ca. 483 b.c.


Unlike the Book of Daniel, the usual order for this expression in Esther is “Persia and Media” (cf. vv. 14, 18, 19 ). In Daniel the order is “Media and Persia,” indicating a time in their history when Media was in the ascendancy.


The size of the banquet described here, the number of its invited guests, and the length of its duration, although certainly immense by any standard, are not without precedent in the ancient world. C. A. Moore documents a Persian banquet for 15,000 people and an Assyrian celebration with 69,574 guests ( Esther [AB], 6).


The finest linen was byssus, a fine, costly, white fabric made in Egypt, Palestine, and Edom, and imported into Persia (BDB 101 s.v. בּוּץ ; HALOT 115-16 s.v. בּוּץ ).


Vashti is the name of Xerxes’ queen according to the Book of Esther. But in the Greek histories of this period the queen’s name is given as Amestris (e.g., Herodotus, Histories 9.108-13). The name Vashti does not seem to occur in the nonbiblical records from this period. Apparently the two women are not to be confused, but not enough is known about this period to reconcile completely the biblical and extrabiblical accounts.


Refusal to obey the king was risky even for a queen in the ancient world. It is not clear why Vashti behaved so rashly and put herself in such danger. Apparently she anticipated humiliation of some kind and was unwilling to subject herself to it, in spite of the obvious dangers. There is no justification in the biblical text for an ancient Jewish targumic tradition that the king told her to appear before his guests dressed in nothing but her royal high turban, that is, essentially naked.


Heb “If upon the king it is good”; KJV “If it please the king.” Deferential language was common in ancient Near Eastern court language addressing a despot; it occurs often in Esther.


Laws…that cannot be repealed . On the permanence of the laws of Media and Persia see also Esth 8:8 and Dan 6:8, 12, 15 .


Previously in this chapter the word “queen” accompanies Vashti’s name (cf. vv. 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 ). But here, in anticipation of her demotion, the title is dropped.


For purposes of diplomacy and governmental communication throughout the far-flung regions of the Persian empire the Aramaic language was normally used. Educated people throughout the kingdom could be expected to have competence in this language. But in the situation described in v. 22 a variety of local languages are to be used, and not just Aramaic, so as to make the king’s edict understandable to the largest possible number of people.


There may be a tinge of regret expressed in the king’s remembrance of Vashti. There is perhaps a hint that he wished for her presence once again, although that was not feasible from a practical standpoint. The suggestions by the king’s attendants concerning a replacement seem to be an effort to overcome this nostalgia. Certainly it was to their advantage to seek the betterment of the king’s outlook. Those around him the most were probably the most likely to suffer the effects of his ire.


Mordecai is a pagan name that reflects the name of the Babylonian deity Marduk. Probably many Jews of the period had two names, one for secular use and the other for use especially within the Jewish community. Mordecai’s Jewish name is not recorded in the biblical text.


Jeconiah is an alternative name for Jehoiachin. A number of modern English versions use the latter name to avoid confusion (e.g., NIV, NCV, TEV, NLT).


Hadassah is a Jewish name that probably means “myrtle”; the name Esther probably derives from the Persian word for “star,” although some scholars derive it from the name of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. Esther is not the only biblical character for whom two different names were used. Daniel (renamed Belteshazzar) and his three friends Hananiah (renamed Shadrach), Mishael (renamed Meshach), and Azariah (renamed Abednego) were also given different names by their captors.


That Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate apparently means that he was a high-ranking government official. It was at the city gate where important business was transacted. Being in this position afforded Mordecai an opportunity to become aware of the plot against the king’s life, although the author does not include the particular details of how this information first came to Mordecai’s attention.


That Esther was able so effectively to conceal her Jewish heritage suggests that she was not consistently observing Jewish dietary and religious requirements. As C. A. Moore observes, “In order for Esther to have concealed her ethnic and religious identity…in the harem, she must have eaten…, dressed, and lived like a Persian rather than an observant Jewess” ( Esther [AB], 28.) In this regard her public behavior stands in contrast to that of Daniel, for example.


The text of Esther does not disclose exactly how Mordecai learned about the plot against the king’s life. Ancient Jewish traditions state that Mordecai overheard conspiratorial conversation, or that an informant brought this information to him, or that it came to him as a result of divine prompting. These conjectures are all without adequate support from the biblical text. The author simply does not tell the source of Mordecai’s insight into this momentous event.


Mordecai did not bow . The reason for Mordecai’s refusal to bow before Haman is not clearly stated here. Certainly the Jews did not refuse to bow as a matter of principle, as though such an action somehow violated the second command of the Decalogue. Many biblical texts bear witness to their practice of falling prostrate before people of power and influence (e.g., 1 Sam 24:8 ; 2 Sam 14:4 ; 1 Kgs 1:16 ). Perhaps the issue here was that Haman was a descendant of the Amalekites, a people who had attacked Israel in an earlier age (see Exod 17:8-16 ; 1 Sam 15:17-20 ; Deut 25:17-19 ).


Mordecai’s position in the service of the king brought him into regular contact with these royal officials. Because of this association the officials would have found ample opportunity to complain of Mordecai’s refusal to honor Haman by bowing down before him.


This disclosure of Jewish identity is a reversal of the practice mentioned in 1:10, 20 .


This year would be ca. 474 b.c. The reference to first month and twelfth month indicate that about a year had elapsed between this determination and the anticipated execution.


The enormity of the monetary sum referred to here can be grasped by comparing this amount (10,000 talents of silver) to the annual income of the empire, which according to Herodotus ( Histories 3.95) was 14,500 Euboic talents. In other words Haman is offering the king a bribe equal to two-thirds of the royal income. Doubtless this huge sum of money was to come (in large measure) from the anticipated confiscation of Jewish property and assets once the Jews had been destroyed. That such a large sum of money is mentioned may indicate something of the economic standing of the Jewish population in the empire of King Ahasuerus.


Possessing the king’s signet ring would enable Haman to act with full royal authority. The king’s ring would be used to impress the royal seal on edicts, making them as binding as if the king himself had enacted them.


The city of Susa was in an uproar . This final statement of v. 15 is a sad commentary on the pathetic disregard of despots for the human misery and suffering that they sometimes inflict on those who are helpless to resist their power. Here, while common people braced for the reckless loss of life and property that was about to begin, the perpetrators went about their mundane activities as though nothing of importance was happening.


Although prayer is not specifically mentioned here, it is highly unlikely that appeals to God for help were not a part of this reaction to devastating news. As elsewhere in the book of Esther, the writer seems deliberately to keep religious actions in the background.


As much as half the kingdom . Such a statement would no doubt have been understood for the exaggeration that it clearly was. Cf. the similar NT scene recorded in Mark 6:23 , where Herod makes a similar promise to the daughter of Herodias. In that case the request was for the head of John the Baptist, which is a lot less than half the kingdom.


According to Esth 9:10 Haman had ten sons.


The passive verb (“have been sold”) is noncommittal and nonaccusatory with regard to the king’s role in the decision to annihilate the Jews.


There is great irony here in that the man who set out to destroy all the Jews now finds himself begging for his own life from a Jew.


Cf. 1:10 , where Harbona is one of the seven eunuchs sent by the king to summon Queen Vashti to his banquet.


As in 7:4 Esther avoids implicating the king in this plot. Instead Haman is given sole responsibility for the plan to destroy the Jews.


Cf. 3:12 . Two months and ten days have passed since Haman’s edict to wipe out the Jews.


A number of additions to the Book of Esther appear in the apocryphal (or deuterocanonical) writings. These additions supply further information about various scenes described in the canonical book and are interesting in their own right. However, they were never a part of the Hebrew Bible. The placement of this additional material in certain Greek manuscripts of the Book of Esther may be described as follows. At the beginning of Esther there is an account (= chapter 11) of a dream in which Mordecai is warned by God of a coming danger for the Jews. In this account two great dragons, representing Mordecai and Haman, prepare for conflict. But God responds to the prayers of his people, and the crisis is resolved. This account is followed by another one (= chapter 12) in which Mordecai is rewarded for disclosing a plot against the king’s life. After Esth 3:13 there is a copy of a letter from King Artaxerxes authorizing annihilation of the Jews (= chapter 13). After Esth 4:17 the account continues with a prayer of Mordecai (= part of chapter 13), followed by a prayer of Esther (= chapter 14), and an account which provides details about Esther’s appeal to the king in behalf of her people (= chapter 15). After Esth 8:12 there is a copy of a letter from King Artaxerxes in which he denounces Haman and his plot and authorizes his subjects to assist the Jews (= chapter 16). At the end of the book, following Esth 10:3 , there is an addition which provides an interpretation to Mordecai’s dream, followed by a brief ascription of genuineness to the entire book (= chapter 11).


See N. C. Habel, “The Narrative Art of Job,” JSOT 27 (1983): 101-11; J. J. Owens, “Prologue and Epilogue,” RevExp 68 (1971): 457-67; and R. Polzin, “The Framework of the Book of Job,” Int 31 (1974): 182-200.


The Book of Job is one of the major books of wisdom literature in the Bible. But it is a different kind of wisdom. Whereas the Book of Proverbs is a collection of the short wisdom sayings, Job is a thorough analysis of the relationship between suffering and divine justice put in a dramatic poetic form. There are a number of treatises on this subject in the ancient Near East, but none of them are as thorough and masterful as Job. See J. Gray, “The Book of Job in the Context of Near Eastern Literature,” ZAW 82 (1970): 251-69; S. N. Kramer, “Man and His God, A Sumerian Variation on the ‘Job’ Motif,” VTSup 3 (1953): 170-82. While the book has fascinated readers for ages, it is a difficult book, difficult to translate and difficult to study. Most of it is written in poetic parallelism. But it is often very cryptic, it is written with unusual grammatical constructions, and it makes use of a large number of very rare words. All this has led some scholars to question if it was originally written in Hebrew or some other related Semitic dialect or language first. There is no indication of who the author was. It is even possible that the work may have been refined over the years; but there is no evidence for this either. The book uses a variety of genres (laments, hymns, proverbs, and oracles) in the various speeches of the participants. This all adds to the richness of the material. And while it is a poetic drama using cycles of speeches, there is no reason to doubt that the events represented here do not go back to a real situation and preserve the various arguments. Several indications in the book would place Job’s dates in the time of the patriarchs. But the composition of the book, or at least its final form, may very well come from the first millennium, maybe in the time of the flowering of wisdom literature with Solomon. We have no way of knowing when the book was written, or when its revision was completed. But dating it late in the intertestamental period is ruled out by the appearance of translations and copies of it, notably bits of a Targum of Job in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the general works and commentaries, see A. Hurvitz, “The Date of the Prose Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered,” HTR 67 (1974): 17-34; R. H. Pfeiffer, “The Priority of Job over Isaiah 40-55 ,” JBL 46 (1927): 202ff. The book presents many valuable ideas on the subject of the suffering of the righteous. Ultimately it teaches that one must submit to the wisdom of the Creator. But it also indicates that the shallow answers of Job’s friends do not do justice to the issue. Their arguments that suffering is due to sin are true to a point, but they did not apply to Job. His protests sound angry and belligerent, but he held tenaciously to his integrity. His experience shows that it is possible to live a pure life and yet still suffer. He finally turns his plea to God, demanding a hearing. This he receives, of course, only to hear that God is sovereignly ruling the universe. Job can only submit to him. In the end God does not abandon his sufferer. For additional material, see G. L. Archer, The Book of Job ; H. H. Rowley, “The Book of Job and Its Meaning,” BJRL 41 (1958/59): 167-207; J. A. Baker, The Book of Job ; C. L. Feinberg, “The Book of Job,” BSac 91 (1934): 78-86; R. Polzin and D. Robertson, “Studies in the Book of Job,” Semeia 7 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977).


The term Uz occurs several times in the Bible: a son of Aram ( Gen 10:23 ), a son of Nahor ( Gen 22:21 ), and a descendant of Seir ( Gen 36:28 ). If these are the clues to follow, the location would be north of Syria or south near Edom. The book tells how Job’s flocks were exposed to Chaldeans, the tribes between Syria and the Euphrates ( 1:17 ), and in another direction to attacks from the Sabeans ( 1:15 ). The most prominent man among his friends was from Teman, which was in Edom ( 2:11 ). Uz is also connected with Edom in Lamentations 4:21 . The most plausible location, then, would be east of Israel and northeast of Edom, in what is now North Arabia. The LXX has “on the borders of Edom and Arabia.” An early Christian tradition placed his home in an area about 40 miles south of Damascus, in Baashan at the southeast foot of Hermon.


The name “Job” is mentioned by Ezekiel as one of the greats in the past – Noah, Job, and Daniel ( 14:14 ). The suffering of Job was probably well known in the ancient world, and this name was clearly part of that tradition. There is little reason to try to determine the etymology and meaning of the name, since it may not be Hebrew. If it were Hebrew, it might mean something like “persecuted,” although some suggest “aggressor.” If Arabic it might have the significance of “the one who always returns to God.”


The numbers used in the chapter, seven, three, and five, carry the symbolism in the Bible of perfection and completeness (see J. J. Davis, Biblical Numerology ). Job’s “seven sons” are listed first because in the East sons were considered more valuable than daughters (recall Ruth, who is “better than seven sons” [ Ruth 4:15 ]).


The text draws the curtain of heaven aside for the reader to understand the background of this drama. God extols the virtue of Job, but Satan challenges the reasons for it. He receives permission to try to dislodge Job from his integrity. In short, God is using Job to prove Satan’s theory wrong.


The “sons of God” in the OT is generally taken to refer to angels. They are not actually “sons” of Elohim ; the idiom is a poetic way of describing their nature and relationship to God. The phrase indicates their supernatural nature, and their submission to God as the sovereign Lord. It may be classified as a genitive that expresses how individuals belong to a certain class or type, i.e., the supernatural (GKC 418 §128. v ). In the pagan literature, especially of Ugarit, “the sons of God” refers to the lesser gods or deities of the pantheon. See H. W. Robinson, “The Council of Yahweh,” JTS 45 (1943): 151-57; G. Cooke, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” ZAW 76 (1964): 22-47; M. Tsevat, “God and the Gods in the Assembly,” HUCA 40-41 (1969/70): 123-37.


Here the verb “bless” is used in one of its very common meanings. The verb means “to enrich,” often with the sense of enabling or empowering things for growth or fruitfulness. See further C. Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church (OBT).


The formula used in the expression is the oath formula: “if not to your face he will curse you” meaning “he will surely curse you to your face.” Satan is so sure that the piety is insincere that he can use an oath formula.


So Satan, having received his permission to test Job’s sincerity, goes out from the Lord ’s presence. But Satan is bound by the will of the Most High not to touch Job himself. The sentence gives the impression that Satan’s departure is with a certain eagerness and confidence.


The series of catastrophes and the piety of Job is displayed now in comprehensive terms. Everything that can go wrong goes wrong, and yet Job, the pious servant of Yahweh, continues to worship him in the midst of the rubble. This section, and the next, will lay the foundation for the great dialogues in the book.


Job’s servants were probably armed and gave resistance, which would be the normal case in that time. This was probably why they were “killed with the sword.”


The “fire of God” would refer to lightning ( 1 Kgs 18:38 ; 2 Kgs 1:12 ; cf. NAB, NCV, TEV). The LXX simply has “fire.” The first blow came from enemies; the second from heaven, which might have confused Job more as to the cause of his troubles. The use of the divine epithet could also be an indication of the superlative degree; see D. W. Thomas, “A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew,” VT 3 (1953): 209-24.


The name may have been given to the tribes that roamed between the Euphrates and the lands east of the Jordan. These are possibly the nomadic Kaldu who are part of the ethnic Aramaeans. The LXX simply has “horsemen.”


Both wind and lightning (v. 16 ) were employed by Satan as his tools. God can permit him such control over factors of the weather when it suits the divine purpose, but God retains ultimate control (see 28:23-27 ; Prov 3:4 ; Luke 8:24-25 ).


It was the custom to tear the robe in a time of mourning, to indicate that the heart was torn ( Joel 2:13 ). The “garment, mantel” here is the outer garment frequently worn over the basic tunic. See further D. R. Ap-Thomas, “Notes on Some Terms Relating to Prayer,” VT 6 (1956): 220-24.


In mourning one normally put off every adornment that enhanced or embellished the person, including that which nature provided ( Jer 7:29 ; Mic 1:16 ).


While the first half of the couplet is to be taken literally as referring to his coming into this life, this second part must be interpreted only generally to refer to his departure from this life. It is parallel to 1 Tim 6:7 , “For we have brought nothing into this world and so we cannot take a single thing out either.”


Some commentators are troubled by the appearance of the word “Yahweh” on the lips of Job, assuming that the narrator inserted his own name for God into the story-telling. Such thinking is based on the assumption that Yahweh was only a national god of Israel, unknown to anyone else in the ancient world. But here is a clear indication that a non-Israelite, Job, knew and believed in Yahweh.


Once again the adverb חִנָּם ( khinnam , “gratis”) is used. It means “graciously, gratis, free, without cause, for no reason.” Here the sense has to be gratuitously, for no reason.” The point of the verb חָנַן ( khanan , “to be gracious”) and its derivatives is that the action is undeserved. In fact, they would deserve the opposite. Sinners seeking grace deserve punishment. Here, Job deserves reward, not suffering.


The meaning of the expression is obscure. It may come from the idea of sacrificing an animal or another person in order to go free, suggesting the expression that one type of skin that was worth less was surrendered to save the more important life. Satan would then be saying that Job was willing for others to die for him to go free, but not himself. “Skin” would be a synecdoche of the part for the whole (like the idiomatic use of skin today for a person in a narrow escape). The second clause indicates that God has not even scratched the surface because Job has been protected. His “skin” might have been scratched, but not his flesh and bone! But if his life had been put in danger, he would have responded differently.


The “bones and flesh” are idiomatic for the whole person, his physical and his psychical/spiritual being (see further H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament , 26-28).


This is the same oath formula found in 1:11 ; see the note there.