35:4 So they gave Jacob all the foreign gods that were in their possession 1 and the rings that were in their ears. 2 Jacob buried them 3 under the oak 4 near Shechem
32:2 So Aaron said to them, “Break off the gold earrings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 5
1:24 Now to the one who is able to keep you from falling, 11 and to cause you to stand, rejoicing, 12 without blemish 13 before his glorious presence, 14
25:12 Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold, 18
so is a wise reprover to the ear of the one who listens. 19
2:13 “I will punish her for the festival days
when she burned incense to the Baal idols; 20
she adorned herself with earrings and jewelry,
and went after her lovers,
but 21 she forgot me!” 22 says the Lord.
1 tn Heb “in their hand.”
2 sn On the basis of a comparison with Gen 34 and Num 31, G. J. Wenham argues that the foreign gods and the rings could have been part of the plunder that came from the destruction of Shechem (Genesis [WBC], 2:324).
3 sn Jacob buried them. On the burial of the gods, see E. Nielson, “The Burial of the Foreign Gods,” ST 8 (1954/55): 102-22.
4 tn Or “terebinth.”
5 sn B. Jacob (Exodus, 937-38) argues that Aaron simply did not have the resolution that Moses did, and wanting to keep peace he gave in to the crowd. He also tries to explain that Aaron was wanting to show their folly through the deed. U. Cassuto also says that Aaron’s request for the gold was a form of procrastination, but that the people quickly did it and so he had no alternative but to go through with it (Exodus, 412). These may be right, since Aaron fully understood what was wrong with this, and what the program was all about. The text gives no strong indication to support these ideas, but there are enough hints from the way Aaron does things to warrant such a conclusion.
6 tn The expression in Hebrew is “men on/after the women,” meaning men with women, to ensure that it was clear that the preceding verse did not mean only men. B. Jacob takes it further, saying that the men came after the women because the latter had taken the initiative (Exodus, 1017).
7 tn Heb “all gold utensils.”
8 tn The verb could be translated “offered,” but it is cognate with the following noun that is the wave offering. This sentence underscores the freewill nature of the offerings people made. The word “came” is supplied from v. 21 and v. 22.
9 tn Heb “our souls.”
10 sn The expression here may include the idea of finding protection from divine wrath, which is so common to Leviticus, but it may also be a thank offering for the fact that their lives had been spared.
11 tn The construction in Greek is a double accusative object-complement. “You” is the object and “free from falling” is the adjectival complement.
12 tn Grk “with rejoicing.” The prepositional clause is placed after “his glorious presence” in Greek, but most likely goes with “cause you to stand.”
13 tn The construction in Greek is a double accusative object-complement. “You” is the object and “without blemish” is the adjectival complement.
14 tn Or “in the presence of his glory,” “before his glory.”
15 tn Heb “ate bread.”
16 tn The Hebrew word קְשִׂיטָה (qÿsitah) is generally understood to refer to a unit of money, but the value is unknown.
17 sn This gold ring was worn by women in the nose, or men and women in the ear.
18 sn This saying is another example of emblematic parallelism; the first half is the simile, and the second half makes the point from it: A wise rebuke that is properly received is of lasting value. The rebuke in the ear of an obedient student is like ornaments of fine jewelry.
19 tn The “ear of the listener” refers to the obedient disciple, the one who complies with the reproof he hears. Cf. KJV, ASV, NAB “an obedient ear.”
20 tn Heb “the days of the Baals, to whom she burned incense.” The word “festival” is supplied to clarify the referent of “days,” and the word “idols” is supplied in light of the plural “Baals” (cf. NLT “her images of Baal”).
21 tn The vav prefixed to a nonverb (וְאֹתִי, vé’oti) introduces a disjunctive contrastive clause, which is rhetorically powerful.
22 tn The accusative direct object pronoun וְאֹתִי (vé’oti, “me”) is emphatic in the word order of this clause (cf. NIV “but me she forgot”), emphasizing the heinous inappropriateness of Israel’s departure from the