Genesis 26:1-35

Isaac and Abimelech

26:1 There was a famine in the land, subsequent to the earlier famine that occurred ¹  in the days of Abraham. ²  Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines at Gerar. 26:2 The Lord appeared to Isaac and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; ³  settle down in the land that I will point out to you. ⁴  26:3 Stay ⁵  in this land. Then I will be with you and will bless you, ⁶  for I will give all these lands to you and to your descendants, ⁷  and I will fulfill ⁸  the solemn promise I made ⁹  to your father Abraham. 26:4 I will multiply your descendants so they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them ¹⁰  all these lands. All the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants. ¹¹  26:5 All this will come to pass ¹²  because Abraham obeyed me ¹³  and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” ¹⁴  26:6 So Isaac settled in Gerar.

26:7 When the men of that place asked him about his wife, he replied, “She is my sister.” ¹⁵  He was afraid to say, “She is my wife,” for he thought to himself, ¹⁶  “The men of this place will kill me to get ¹⁷  Rebekah because she is very beautiful.”

26:8 After Isaac ¹⁸  had been there a long time, ¹⁹  Abimelech king of the Philistines happened to look out a window and observed ²⁰  Isaac caressing ²¹  his wife Rebekah. 26:9 So Abimelech summoned Isaac and said, “She is really ²²  your wife! Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’?” Isaac replied, “Because I thought someone might kill me to get her.” ²³ 

26:10 Then Abimelech exclaimed, “What in the world have you done to us? ²⁴  One of the men ²⁵  might easily have had sexual relations with ²⁶  your wife, and you would have brought guilt on us!” 26:11 So Abimelech commanded all the people, “Whoever touches ²⁷  this man or his wife will surely be put to death.” ²⁸ 

26:12 When Isaac planted in that land, he reaped in the same year a hundred times what he had sown, ²⁹  because the Lord blessed him. ³⁰  26:13 The man became wealthy. ³¹  His influence continued to grow ³²  until he became very prominent. 26:14 He had ³³  so many sheep ³⁴  and cattle ³⁵  and such a great household of servants that the Philistines became jealous ³⁶  of him. 26:15 So the Philistines took dirt and filled up ³⁷  all the wells that his father’s servants had dug back in the days of his father Abraham.

26:16 Then Abimelech said to Isaac, “Leave us and go elsewhere, ³⁸  for you have become much more powerful ³⁹  than we are.” 26:17 So Isaac left there and settled in the Gerar Valley. ⁴⁰  26:18 Isaac reopened ⁴¹  the wells that had been dug ⁴²  back in the days of his father Abraham, for the Philistines had stopped them up ⁴³  after Abraham died. Isaac ⁴⁴  gave these wells ⁴⁵  the same names his father had given them. ⁴⁶ 

26:19 When Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and discovered a well with fresh flowing ⁴⁷  water there, 26:20 the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled ⁴⁸  with Isaac’s herdsmen, saying, “The water belongs to us!” So Isaac ⁴⁹  named the well ⁵⁰  Esek ⁵¹  because they argued with him about it. ⁵²  26:21 His servants ⁵³  dug another well, but they quarreled over it too, so Isaac named it ⁵⁴  Sitnah. ⁵⁵  26:22 Then he moved away from there and dug another well. They did not quarrel over it, so Isaac ⁵⁶  named it ⁵⁷  Rehoboth, ⁵⁸  saying, “For now the Lord has made room for us, and we will prosper in the land.”

26:23 From there Isaac ⁵⁹  went up to Beer Sheba. 26:24 The Lord appeared to him that night and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you. I will bless you and multiply your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham.” 26:25 Then Isaac built an altar there and worshiped ⁶⁰  the Lord. He pitched his tent there, and his servants dug a well. ⁶¹ 

26:26 Now Abimelech had come ⁶²  to him from Gerar along with ⁶³  Ahuzzah his friend ⁶⁴  and Phicol the commander of his army. 26:27 Isaac asked them, “Why have you come to me? You hate me ⁶⁵  and sent me away from you.” 26:28 They replied, “We could plainly see ⁶⁶  that the Lord is with you. So we decided there should be ⁶⁷  a pact between us ⁶⁸  – between us ⁶⁹  and you. Allow us to make ⁷⁰  a treaty with you 26:29 so that ⁷¹  you will not do us any harm, just as we have not harmed ⁷²  you, but have always treated you well ⁷³  before sending you away ⁷⁴  in peace. Now you are blessed by the Lord.” ⁷⁵ 

26:30 So Isaac ⁷⁶  held a feast for them and they celebrated. ⁷⁷  26:31 Early in the morning the men made a treaty with each other. ⁷⁸  Isaac sent them off; they separated on good terms. ⁷⁹ 

26:32 That day Isaac’s servants came and told him about the well they had dug. “We’ve found water,” they reported. ⁸⁰  26:33 So he named it Shibah; ⁸¹  that is why the name of the city has been Beer Sheba ⁸²  to this day.

26:34 When ⁸³  Esau was forty years old, ⁸⁴  he married ⁸⁵  Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, as well as Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. 26:35 They caused Isaac and Rebekah great anxiety. ⁸⁶ 

Genesis 24:18

24:18 “Drink, my lord,” she replied, and quickly lowering ⁸⁷  her jug to her hands, she gave him a drink.

Exodus 19:10

19:10 The Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and sanctify them ⁸⁸  today and tomorrow, and make them wash ⁸⁹  their clothes

Exodus 19:14

19:14 Then Moses went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes.

Numbers 19:17-22

19:17 “‘For a ceremonially unclean person you must take ⁹⁰  some of the ashes of the heifer ⁹¹  burnt for purification from sin and pour ⁹²  fresh running ⁹³  water over them in a vessel. 19:18 Then a ceremonially clean person must take hyssop, dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent, on all its furnishings, and on the people who were there, or on the one who touched a bone, or one killed, or one who died, or a grave. 19:19 And the clean person must sprinkle the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he must purify him, ⁹⁴  and then he must wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and he will be clean in the evening. 19:20 But the man who is unclean and does not purify himself, that person must be cut off from among the community, because he has polluted the sanctuary of the Lord; the water of purification was not sprinkled on him, so he is unclean.

19:21 “‘So this will be a perpetual ordinance for them: The one who sprinkles ⁹⁵  the water of purification must wash his clothes, and the one who touches the water of purification will be unclean until evening. ⁹⁶  19:22 And whatever the unclean person touches will be unclean, and the person who touches it will be unclean until evening.’”

Numbers 19:2

19:2 “This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord has commanded: ‘Instruct ⁹⁷  the Israelites to bring ⁹⁸  you a red ⁹⁹  heifer ¹⁰⁰  without blemish, which has no defect ¹⁰¹  and has never carried a yoke.

Numbers 30:1

Vows Made by Men

30:1 ¹⁰² Moses told the leaders ¹⁰³  of the tribes concerning the Israelites, “This is what ¹⁰⁴  the Lord has commanded:

Numbers 30:1

Vows Made by Men

30:1 ¹⁰⁵ Moses told the leaders ¹⁰⁶  of the tribes concerning the Israelites, “This is what ¹⁰⁷  the Lord has commanded:

Job 1:5

1:5 When ¹⁰⁸  the days of their feasting were finished, ¹⁰⁹  Job would send ¹¹⁰  for them and sanctify ¹¹¹  them; he would get up early ¹¹²  in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to ¹¹³  the number of them all. For Job thought, “Perhaps ¹¹⁴  my children ¹¹⁵  have sinned and cursed ¹¹⁶  God in their hearts.” This was Job’s customary practice. ¹¹⁷ 

Job 41:25

41:25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified,

at its thrashing about they withdraw. ¹¹⁸ 

John 3:25

3:25 Now a dispute came about between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew ¹¹⁹  concerning ceremonial washing. ¹²⁰ 

Hebrews 9:10-14

9:10 They served only for matters of food and drink ¹²¹  and various washings; they are external regulations ¹²²  imposed until the new order came. ¹²³ 

Christ’s Service in the Heavenly Sanctuary

9:11 But now Christ has come ¹²⁴  as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, 9:12 and he entered once for all into the most holy place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured ¹²⁵  eternal redemption. 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity, ¹²⁶  9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our ¹²⁷  consciences from dead works to worship the living God.

[26:1]  ¹ tn Heb “in addition to the first famine which was.”

[26:1]  ² sn This account is parallel to two similar stories about Abraham (see Gen 12:10-20; 20:1-18). Many scholars do not believe there were three similar incidents, only one that got borrowed and duplicated. Many regard the account about Isaac as the original, which then was attached to the more important person, Abraham, with supernatural elements being added. For a critique of such an approach, see R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 47-62. It is more likely that the story illustrates the proverb “like father, like son” (see T. W. Mann, The Book of the Torah, 53). In typical human fashion the son follows his father’s example of lying to avoid problems. The appearance of similar events reported in a similar way underscores the fact that the blessing has now passed to Isaac, even if he fails as his father did.

[26:2]  ³ sn Do not go down to Egypt. The words echo Gen 12:10, which reports that “Abram went down to Egypt,” but state the opposite.

[26:2]  ⁴ tn Heb “say to you.”

[26:3]  ⁵ tn The Hebrew verb גּוּר (gur) means “to live temporarily without ownership of land.” Abraham’s family will not actually possess the land of Canaan until the Israelite conquest hundreds of years later.

[26:3]  ⁶ tn After the imperative “stay” the two prefixed verb forms with prefixed conjunction here indicate consequence.

[26:3]  ⁷ tn The Hebrew term זֶרַע (zera’) occurring here and in v. 18 may mean “seed” (for planting), “offspring” (occasionally of animals, but usually of people), or “descendants” depending on the context.

[26:3]  ⁸ tn The Hiphil stem of the verb קוּם (qum) here means “to fulfill, to bring to realization.” For other examples of this use of this verb form, see Lev 26:9; Num 23:19; Deut 8:18; 9:5; 1 Sam 1:23; 1 Kgs 6:12; Jer 11:5.

[26:3]  ⁹ tn Heb “the oath which I swore.”

[26:4]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “your descendants.”

[26:4]  ¹¹ tn Traditionally the verb is taken as passive (“will be blessed”) here, as if Abraham’s descendants were going to be a channel or source of blessing to the nations. But the Hitpael is better understood here as reflexive/reciprocal, “will bless [i.e., pronounce blessings on] themselves/one another” (see also Gen 22:18). Elsewhere the Hitpael of the verb “to bless” is used with a reflexive/reciprocal sense in Deut 29:18; Ps 72:17; Isa 65:16; Jer 4:2. Gen 12:2 predicts that Abram will be held up as a paradigm of divine blessing and that people will use his name in their blessing formulae. For examples of blessing formulae utilizing an individual as an example of blessing see Gen 48:20 and Ruth 4:11. Earlier formulations of this promise (see Gen 12:2; 18:18) use the Niphal stem. (See also Gen 28:14.)

[26:5]  ¹² tn The words “All this will come to pass” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied for stylistic reasons.

[26:5]  ¹³ tn Heb “listened to my voice.”

[26:5]  ¹⁴ sn My charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. The language of this verse is clearly interpretive, for Abraham did not have all these laws. The terms are legal designations for sections of the Mosaic law and presuppose the existence of the law. Some Rabbinic views actually conclude that Abraham had fulfilled the whole law before it was given (see m. Qiddushin 4:14). Some scholars argue that this story could only have been written after the law was given (C. Westermann, Genesis, 2:424-25). But the simplest explanation is that the narrator (traditionally taken to be Moses the Lawgiver) elaborated on the simple report of Abraham’s obedience by using terms with which the Israelites were familiar. In this way he depicts Abraham as the model of obedience to God’s commands, whose example Israel should follow.

[26:7]  ¹⁵ sn Rebekah, unlike Sarah, was not actually her husband’s sister.

[26:7]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “lest.” The words “for he thought to himself” are supplied because the next clause is written with a first person pronoun, showing that Isaac was saying or thinking this.

[26:7]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “kill me on account of.”

[26:8]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Isaac) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[26:8]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “and it happened when the days were long to him there.”

[26:8]  ²⁰ tn Heb “look, Isaac.” By the use of the particle הִנֵּה (hinneh, “look”), the narrator invites the audience to view the scene through Abimelech’s eyes.

[26:8]  ²¹ tn Or “fondling.”

[26:9]  ²² tn Heb “Surely, look!” See N. H. Snaith, “The meaning of Hebrew ‘ak,” VT 14 (1964): 221-25.

[26:9]  ²³ tn Heb “Because I said, ‘Lest I die on account of her.’” Since the verb “said” probably means “said to myself” (i.e., “thought”) here, the direct discourse in the Hebrew statement has been converted to indirect discourse in the translation. In addition the simple prepositional phrase “on account of her” has been clarified in the translation as “to get her” (cf. v. 7).

[26:10]  ²⁴ tn Heb “What is this you have done to us?” The Hebrew demonstrative pronoun “this” adds emphasis: “What in the world have you done to us?” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 24, §118).

[26:10]  ²⁵ tn Heb “people.”

[26:10]  ²⁶ tn The Hebrew verb means “to lie down.” Here the expression “lie with” or “sleep with” is euphemistic for “have sexual relations with.”

[26:11]  ²⁷ tn Heb “strikes.” Here the verb has the nuance “to harm in any way.” It would include assaulting the woman or killing the man.

[26:11]  ²⁸ tn The use of the infinitive absolute before the imperfect makes the construction emphatic.

[26:12]  ²⁹ tn Heb “a hundredfold.”

[26:12]  ³⁰ tn This final clause explains why Isaac had such a bountiful harvest.

[26:13]  ³¹ tn Heb “great.” In this context the statement refers primarily to Isaac’s material wealth, although reputation and influence are included.

[26:13]  ³² tn Heb “and he went, going and becoming great.” The construction stresses that his growth in possessions and power continued steadily.

[26:14]  ³³ tn Heb “and there was to him.”

[26:14]  ³⁴ tn Heb “possessions of sheep.”

[26:14]  ³⁵ tn Heb “possessions of cattle.”

[26:14]  ³⁶ tn The Hebrew verb translated “became jealous” refers here to intense jealousy or envy that leads to hostile action (see v. 15).

[26:15]  ³⁷ tn Heb “and the Philistines stopped them up and filled them with dirt.”

[26:16]  ³⁸ tn Heb “Go away from us.”

[26:16]  ³⁹ sn You have become much more powerful. This explanation for the expulsion of Isaac from Philistine territory foreshadows the words used later by the Egyptians to justify their oppression of Israel (see Exod 1:9).

[26:17]  ⁴⁰ tn Heb “and he camped in the valley of Gerar and he lived there.”

[26:18]  ⁴¹ tn Heb “he returned and dug,” meaning “he dug again” or “he reopened.”

[26:18]  ⁴² tn Heb “that they dug.” Since the subject is indefinite, the verb is translated as passive.

[26:18]  ⁴³ tn Heb “and the Philistines had stopped them up.” This clause explains why Isaac had to reopen them.

[26:18]  ⁴⁴ tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Isaac) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[26:18]  ⁴⁵ tn Heb “them”; the referent (the wells) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[26:18]  ⁴⁶ tn Heb “called names to them according to the names that his father called them.”

[26:19]  ⁴⁷ tn Heb “living.” This expression refers to a well supplied by subterranean streams (see Song 4:15).

[26:20]  ⁴⁸ tn The Hebrew verb translated “quarreled” describes a conflict that often has legal ramifications.

[26:20]  ⁴⁹ tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Isaac) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[26:20]  ⁵⁰ tn Heb “and he called the name of the well.”

[26:20]  ⁵¹ sn The name Esek means “argument” in Hebrew. The following causal clause explains that Isaac gave the well this name as a reminder of the conflict its discovery had created. In the Hebrew text there is a wordplay, for the name is derived from the verb translated “argued.”

[26:20]  ⁵² tn The words “about it” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[26:21]  ⁵³ tn Heb “they”; the referent (Isaac’s servants) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[26:21]  ⁵⁴ tn Heb “and he called its name.” The referent (Isaac) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[26:21]  ⁵⁵ sn The name Sitnah (שִׂטְנָה, sitnah) is derived from a Hebrew verbal root meaning “to oppose; to be an adversary” (cf. Job 1:6). The name was a reminder that the digging of this well caused “opposition” from the Philistines.

[26:22]  ⁵⁶ tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Isaac) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[26:22]  ⁵⁷ tn Heb “and he called its name.”

[26:22]  ⁵⁸ sn The name Rehoboth (רְהֹבוֹת, rehovot) is derived from a verbal root meaning “to make room.” The name was a reminder that God had made room for them. The story shows Isaac’s patience with the opposition; it also shows how God’s blessing outdistanced the men of Gerar. They could not stop it or seize it any longer.

[26:23]  ⁵⁹ tn Heb “and he went up from there”; the referent (Isaac) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[26:25]  ⁶⁰ tn Heb “called in the name of.” The expression refers to worshiping the Lord through prayer and sacrifice (see Gen 4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 21:33). See G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:116.

[26:25]  ⁶¹ tn Heb “and they dug there, the servants of Isaac, a well.”

[26:26]  ⁶² tn The disjunctive clause supplies pertinent supplemental information. The past perfect is used because the following narrative records the treaty at Beer Sheba. Prior to this we are told that Isaac settled in Beer Sheba; presumably this treaty would have allowed him to do that. However, it may be that he settled there and then made the treaty by which he renamed the place Beer Sheba. In this case one may translate “Now Abimelech came to him.”

[26:26]  ⁶³ tn Heb “and.”

[26:26]  ⁶⁴ tn Many modern translations render the Hebrew term מֵרֵעַ (merea’) as “councillor” or “adviser,” but the term may not designate an official position but simply a close personal friend.

[26:27]  ⁶⁵ tn The disjunctive clause is circumstantial, expressing the reason for his question.

[26:28]  ⁶⁶ tn The infinitive absolute before the verb emphasizes the clarity of their perception.

[26:28]  ⁶⁷ tn Heb “And we said, ‘Let there be.’” The direct discourse in the Hebrew text has been rendered as indirect discourse in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[26:28]  ⁶⁸ tn The pronoun “us” here is inclusive – it refers to the Philistine contingent on the one hand and Isaac on the other.

[26:28]  ⁶⁹ tn The pronoun “us” here is exclusive – it refers to just the Philistine contingent (the following “you” refers to Isaac).

[26:28]  ⁷⁰ tn The translation assumes that the cohortative expresses their request. Another option is to understand the cohortative as indicating resolve: “We want to make.’”

[26:29]  ⁷¹ tn The oath formula is used: “if you do us harm” means “so that you will not do.”

[26:29]  ⁷² tn Heb “touched.”

[26:29]  ⁷³ tn Heb “and just as we have done only good with you.”

[26:29]  ⁷⁴ tn Heb “and we sent you away.”

[26:29]  ⁷⁵ tn The Philistine leaders are making an observation, not pronouncing a blessing, so the translation reads “you are blessed” rather than “may you be blessed” (cf. NAB).

[26:30]  ⁷⁶ tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Isaac) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[26:30]  ⁷⁷ tn Heb “and they ate and drank.”

[26:31]  ⁷⁸ tn Heb “and they got up early and they swore an oath, a man to his brother.”

[26:31]  ⁷⁹ tn Heb “and they went from him in peace.”

[26:32]  ⁸⁰ tn Heb “and they said to him, ‘We have found water.’” The order of the introductory clause and the direct discourse has been rearranged in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[26:33]  ⁸¹ sn The name Shibah (שִׁבְעָה, shiv’ah) means (or at least sounds like) the word meaning “oath.” The name was a reminder of the oath sworn by Isaac and the Philistines to solidify their treaty.

[26:33]  ⁸² sn The name Beer Sheba (בְּאֵר שָׁבַע, bÿ’er shava’) means “well of an oath” or “well of seven.” According to Gen 21:31 Abraham gave Beer Sheba its name when he made a treaty with the Philistines. Because of the parallels between this earlier story and the account in 26:26-33, some scholars see chaps. 21 and 26 as two versions (or doublets) of one original story. However, if one takes the text as it stands, it appears that Isaac made a later treaty agreement with the people of the land that was similar to his father’s. Abraham dug a well at the site and named the place Beer Sheba; Isaac dug another well there and named the well Shibah. Later generations then associated the name Beer Sheba with Isaac, even though Abraham gave the place its name at an earlier time.

[26:34]  ⁸³ tn The sentence begins with the temporal indicator (“and it happened”), making this clause subordinate to the next.

[26:34]  ⁸⁴ tn Heb “the son of forty years.”

[26:34]  ⁸⁵ tn Heb “took as a wife.”

[26:35]  ⁸⁶ tn Heb “And they were [a source of ] bitterness in spirit to Isaac and to Rebekah.”

[24:18]  ⁸⁷ tn Heb “and she hurried and lowered.”

[19:10]  ⁸⁸ tn This verb is a Piel perfect with vav (ו) consecutive; it continues the force of the imperative preceding it. This sanctification would be accomplished by abstaining from things that would make them defiled or unclean, and then by ritual washings and ablutions.

[19:10]  ⁸⁹ tn The form is a perfect 3cpl with a vav (ו) consecutive. It is instructional as well, but now in the third person it is like a jussive, “let them wash, make them wash.”

[19:17]  ⁹⁰ tn The verb is the perfect tense, third masculine plural, with a vav (ו) consecutive. The verb may be worded as a passive, “ashes must be taken,” but that may be too awkward for this sentence. It may be best to render it with a generic “you” to fit the instruction of the text.

[19:17]  ⁹¹ tn The word “heifer” is not in the Hebrew text, but it is implied.

[19:17]  ⁹² tn Here too the verb is the perfect tense with vav (ו) consecutive; rather than make this passive, it is here left as a direct instruction to follow the preceding one. For the use of the verb נָתַן (natan) in the sense of “pour,” see S. C. Reif, “A Note on a Neglected Connotation of ntn,” VT 20 (1970): 114-16.

[19:17]  ⁹³ tn The expression is literally “living water.” Living water is the fresh, flowing spring water that is clear, life-giving, and not the collected pools of stagnant or dirty water.

[19:19]  ⁹⁴ tn The construction uses a simple Piel of חָטָא (khata’, “to purify”) with a pronominal suffix – “he shall purify him.” Some commentators take this to mean that after he sprinkles the unclean then he must purify himself. But that would not be the most natural way to read this form.

[19:21]  ⁹⁵ tn The form has the conjunction with it: וּמַזֵּה (umazzeh). The conjunction subordinates the following as the special law. It could literally be translated “and this shall be…that the one who sprinkles.”

[19:21]  ⁹⁶ sn This gives the indication of the weight of the matter, for “until the evening” is the shortest period of ritual uncleanness in the Law. The problem of contamination had to be taken seriously, but this was a relatively simple matter to deal with – if one were willing to obey the Law.

[19:2]  ⁹⁷ tn Heb “speak to.”

[19:2]  ⁹⁸ tn The line literally reads, “speak to the Israelites that [and] they bring [will bring].” The imperfect [or jussive] is subordinated to the imperative either as a purpose clause, or as the object of the instruction – speak to them that they bring, or tell them to bring.

[19:2]  ⁹⁹ tn The color is designated as red, although the actual color would be a tanned red-brown color for the animal (see the usage in Isa 1:18 and Song 5:10). The reddish color suggested the blood of ritual purification; see J. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num 19),” VT 31 (1981): 62-72.

[19:2]  ¹⁰⁰ sn Some modern commentators prefer “cow” to “heifer,” thinking that the latter came from the influence of the Greek. Young animals were usually prescribed for the ritual, especially here, and so “heifer” is the better translation. A bull could not be given for this purification ritual because that is what was given for the high priests or the community according to Lev 4.

[19:2]  ¹⁰¹ tn Heb “wherein there is no defect.”

[30:1]  ¹⁰² sn Num 30 deals with vows that are different than the vows discussed in Lev 27 and Num 6. The material is placed here after all the rulings of the offerings, but it could have been revealed to Moses at any time, such as the Nazirite vows, or the question of the daughters’ inheritance. The logic of placing it here may be that a festival was the ideal place for discharging a vow. For additional material on vows, see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 465-66.

[30:1]  ¹⁰³ tn Heb “heads.”

[30:1]  ¹⁰⁴ tn Heb “This is the word which.”

[30:1]  ¹⁰⁵ sn Num 30 deals with vows that are different than the vows discussed in Lev 27 and Num 6. The material is placed here after all the rulings of the offerings, but it could have been revealed to Moses at any time, such as the Nazirite vows, or the question of the daughters’ inheritance. The logic of placing it here may be that a festival was the ideal place for discharging a vow. For additional material on vows, see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 465-66.

[30:1]  ¹⁰⁶ tn Heb “heads.”

[30:1]  ¹⁰⁷ tn Heb “This is the word which.”

[1:5]  ¹⁰⁸ tn The verse begins with the temporal indicator “and it happened” or “and it came to pass,” which need not be translated. The particle כִּי (ki, “when”) with the initial verbal form indicates it is a temporal clause.

[1:5]  ¹⁰⁹ tn The verb is the Hiphil perfect of נָקַף (naqaf, “go around”), here it means “to make the round” or “complete the circuit” (BDB 668-69 s.v. II נָקַף Hiph). It indicates that when the feasting had made its circuit of the seven sons, then Job would sanctify them.

[1:5]  ¹¹⁰ tn The form is a preterite with vav (ו) consecutive. The same emphasis on repeated or frequent action continues here in this verse. The idea here is that Job would send for them, because the sanctification of them would have consisted of washings and changes of garments as well as the sacrifices (see Gen 35:2; 1 Sam 16:5).

[1:5]  ¹¹¹ tn Or “purify.”

[1:5]  ¹¹² tn The first verb could also be joined with the next to form a verbal hendiadys: “he would rise early and he would sacrifice” would then simply be “he would sacrifice early in the morning” (see M. Delcor, “Quelques cas de survivances du vocabulaire nomade en hébreu biblique,” VT 25 [1975]: 307-22). This section serves to explain in more detail how Job sanctified his children.

[1:5]  ¹¹³ tn The text does not have “according to”; the noun “number” is an accusative that defines the extent of his actions (GKC 373-74 §118.e, h).

[1:5]  ¹¹⁴ tn The clause stands as an accusative to the verb, here as the direct object introduced with “perhaps” (IBHS 645-46 §38.8d).

[1:5]  ¹¹⁵ tn Heb “sons,” but since the three daughters are specifically mentioned in v. 4, “children” has been used in the translation. In this patriarchal culture, however, it is possible that only the sons are in view.

[1:5]  ¹¹⁶ tn The Hebrew verb is בָּרַךְ (barakh), which means “to bless.” Here is a case where the writer or a scribe has substituted the word “curse” with the word “bless” to avoid having the expression “curse God.” For similar euphemisms in the ancient world, see K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 166. It is therefore difficult to know exactly what Job feared they might have done. The opposite of “bless” would be “curse,” which normally would convey disowning or removing from blessing. Some commentators try to offer a definition of “curse” from the root in the text, and noting that “curse” is too strong, come to something like “renounce.” The idea of blaspheming is probably not meant; rather, in their festivities they may have said things that renounced God or their interest in him. Job feared this momentary turning away from God in their festivities, perhaps as they thought their good life was more important than their religion.

[1:5]  ¹¹⁷ tn The imperfect expresses continual action in past time, i.e., a customary imperfect (GKC 315 §107.e).

[41:25]  ¹¹⁸ tc This verse has created all kinds of problems for the commentators. The first part is workable: “when he raises himself up, the mighty [the gods] are terrified.” The mythological approach would render אֵלִים (’elim) as “gods.” But the last two words, which could be rendered “at the breaking [crashing, or breakers] they fail,” receive much attention. E. Dhorme (Job, 639) suggests “majesty” for “raising up” and “billows” (גַּלִּים, gallim) for אֵלִים (’elim), and gets a better parallelism: “the billows are afraid of his majesty, and the waves draw back.” But H. H. Rowley (Job [NCBC], 263) does not think this is relevant to the context, which is talking about the creature’s defense against attack. The RSV works well for the first part, but the second part need some change; so Rowley adopts “in their dire consternation they are beside themselves.”

[3:25]  ¹¹⁹ tc Was this dispute between the Baptist’s disciples and an individual Judean (᾿Ιουδαίου, Ioudaiou) or representatives of the Jewish authorities (᾿Ιουδαίων, Ioudaiwn)? There is good external support for the plural ᾿Ιουδαίων (Ì⁶⁶ א* Θ Ë^1,13 565 al latt), but the external evidence for the singular ᾿Ιουδαίου is slightly stronger ({Ì⁷⁵ א² A B L Ψ 33 1241 the majority of Byzantine minuscules and others}).

[3:25]  ¹²⁰ tn Or “ceremonial cleansing,” or “purification.”

[9:10]  ¹²¹ tn Grk “only for foods and drinks.”

[9:10]  ¹²² tc Most witnesses (D¹ Ï) have “various washings, and external regulations” (βαπτισμοῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν, baptismoi" kai dikaiwmasin), with both nouns in the dative. The translation “washings; they are… regulations” renders βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα (baptismoi", dikaiwmata; found in such important mss as Ì⁴⁶ א* A I P 0278 33 1739 1881 al sa) in which case δικαιώματα is taken as the nominative subject of the participle ἐπικείμενα (epikeimena). It seems far more likely that scribes would conform δικαιώματα to the immediately preceding datives and join it to them by καί than they would to the following nominative participle. Both on external and internal evidence the text is thus secure as reading βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα.

[9:10]  ¹²³ tn Grk “until the time of setting things right.”

[9:11]  ¹²⁴ tn Grk “But Christ, when he came,” introducing a sentence that includes all of Heb 9:11-12. The main construction is “Christ, having come…, entered…, having secured…,” and everything else describes his entrance.

[9:12]  ¹²⁵ tn This verb occurs in the Greek middle voice, which here intensifies the role of the subject, Christ, in accomplishing the action: “he alone secured”; “he and no other secured.”

[9:13]  ¹²⁶ tn Grk “for the purifying of the flesh.” The “flesh” here is symbolic of outward or ritual purity in contrast to inner purity, that of the conscience (cf. Heb 9:9).

[9:14]  ¹²⁷ tc The reading adopted by the translation is attested by many authorities (A D* K P 365 1739* al). But many others (א D² 0278 33 1739^c 1881 Ï lat sa) read “your” instead of “our.” The diversity of evidence makes this a difficult case to decide from external evidence alone. The first and second person pronouns differ by only one letter in Greek, as in English, also making this problem difficult to decide based on internal evidence and transcriptional probability. In the context, the author’s description of sacrificial activities seems to invite the reader to compare his own possible participation in OT liturgy as over against the completed work of Christ, so the second person pronoun “your” might make more sense. On the other hand, TCGNT 599 argues that “our” is preferable because the author of Hebrews uses direct address (i.e., the second person) only in the hortatory sections. What is more, the author seems to prefer the first person in explanatory remarks or when giving the logical grounds for an assertion (cf. Heb 4:15; 7:14). It is hard to reach a definitive conclusion in this case, but the data lean slightly in favor of the first person pronoun.