Exodus 34:14

34:14 For you must not worship ¹  any other god, ²  for the Lord, whose name ³  is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 4:24

4:24 For the Lord your God is a consuming fire; he is a jealous God. ⁴ 

Deuteronomy 6:15

6:15 for the Lord your God, who is present among you, is a jealous God and his anger will erupt against you and remove you from the land. ⁵ 

Deuteronomy 32:21

32:21 They have made me jealous ⁶  with false gods, ⁷ 

enraging me with their worthless gods; ⁸ 

so I will make them jealous with a people they do not recognize, ⁹ 

with a nation slow to learn ¹⁰  I will enrage them.

Joshua 24:19

24:19 Joshua warned ¹¹  the people, “You will not keep worshiping ¹²  the Lord, for ¹³  he is a holy God. ¹⁴  He is a jealous God who will not forgive ¹⁵  your rebellion or your sins.

Psalms 78:58

78:58 They made him angry with their pagan shrines, ¹⁶ 

and made him jealous with their idols.

Proverbs 6:34-35

6:34 for jealousy kindles ¹⁷  a husband’s ¹⁸  rage,

and he will not show mercy ¹⁹  when he takes revenge.

6:35 He will not consider ²⁰  any compensation; ²¹ 

he will not be willing, even if you multiply the compensation. ²² 

Ezekiel 8:3

8:3 He stretched out the form ²³  of a hand and grabbed me by a lock of hair on my head. Then a wind ²⁴  lifted me up between the earth and sky and brought me to Jerusalem ²⁵  by means of divine visions, to the door of the inner gate which faces north where the statue ²⁶  which provokes to jealousy was located.

Daniel 1:2

1:2 Now the Lord ²⁷  delivered ²⁸  King Jehoiakim of Judah into his power, ²⁹  along with some of the vessels ³⁰  of the temple of God. ³¹  He brought them to the land of Babylonia ³²  to the temple of his god ³³  and put ³⁴  the vessels in the treasury of his god.

Nahum 1:2

God Takes Vengeance against His Enemies

1:2 The Lord is a zealous ³⁵  and avenging ³⁶  God;

the Lord is avenging and very angry. ³⁷ 

The Lord takes vengeance ³⁸  against his foes;

he sustains his rage ³⁹  against his enemies.

Nahum 1:1

Introduction

1:1 The oracle against Nineveh; ⁴⁰ 

the book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite: ⁴¹ 

Colossians 1:22

1:22 but now he has reconciled you ⁴²  by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him –

[34:14]  ¹ tn Heb “bow down.”

[34:14]  ² sn In Exod 20:3 it was “gods.”

[34:14]  ³ sn Here, too, the emphasis on God’s being a jealous God is repeated (see Exod 20:5). The use of “name” here is to stress that this is his nature, his character.

[4:24]  ⁴ tn The juxtaposition of the Hebrew terms אֵשׁ (’esh, “fire”) and קַנָּא (qanna’, “jealous”) is interesting in light of Deut 6:15 where the Lord is seen as a jealous God whose anger bursts into a destructive fire. For God to be “jealous” means that his holiness and uniqueness cannot tolerate pretended or imaginary rivals. It is not petty envy but response to an act of insubordination that must be severely judged (see H. Peels, NIDOTTE 3:937-40).

[6:15]  ⁵ tn Heb “lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you and destroy you from upon the surface of the ground.” Cf. KJV, ASV “from off the face of the earth.”

[32:21]  ⁶ sn They have made me jealous. The “jealousy” of God is not a spirit of pettiness prompted by his insecurity, but righteous indignation caused by the disloyalty of his people to his covenant grace (see note on the word “God” in Deut 4:24). The jealousy of Israel, however (see next line), will be envy because of God’s lavish attention to another nation. This is an ironic wordplay. See H. Peels, NIDOTTE 3:938-39.

[32:21]  ⁷ tn Heb “what is not a god,” or a “nondeity.”

[32:21]  ⁸ tn Heb “their empty (things).” The Hebrew term used here to refer pejoratively to the false gods is הֶבֶל (hevel, “futile” or “futility”), used frequently in Ecclesiastes (e.g., Eccl 1:1, “Futile! Futile!” laments the Teacher, “Absolutely futile! Everything is futile!”).

[32:21]  ⁹ tn Heb “what is not a people,” or a “nonpeople.” The “nonpeople” (לֹא־עָם, lo’-’am) referred to here are Gentiles who someday would become God’s people in the fullest sense (cf. Hos 1:9; 2:23).

[32:21]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “a foolish nation” (so KJV, NAB, NRSV); NIV “a nation that has no understanding”; NLT “I will provoke their fury by blessing the foolish Gentiles.”

[24:19]  ¹¹ tn Heb “said to.”

[24:19]  ¹² tn Heb “you are not able to serve.”

[24:19]  ¹³ sn For an excellent discussion of Joshua’s logical argument here, see T. C. Butler, Joshua (WBC), 274-75.

[24:19]  ¹⁴ tn In the Hebrew text both the divine name (אֱלֹהִים, ’elohim) and the adjective (קְדֹשִׁים, qÿdoshim, “holy”) are plural. Normally the divine name, when referring to the one true God, takes singular modifiers, but this is a rare exception where the adjective agrees grammatically with the honorific plural noun. See GKC §124.i and IBHS 122.

[24:19]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “lift up” or “take away.”

[78:58]  ¹⁶ tn Traditionally, “high places.”

[6:34]  ¹⁷ tn The word “kindles” was supplied in the translation; both “rage” and “jealousy” have meanings connected to heat.

[6:34]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “a man’s.”

[6:34]  ¹⁹ tn The verb חָמַל (khamal) means “to show mercy; to show compassion; to show pity,” usually with the outcome of sparing or delivering someone. The idea here is that the husband will not spare the guilty man any of the punishment (cf. NRSV “he shows no restraint”).

[6:35]  ²⁰ tn Heb “lift up the face of,” meaning “regard.”

[6:35]  ²¹ tn The word rendered “compensation” is כֹּפֶר (cofer); it is essentially a ransom price, a sum to be paid to deliver another from debt, bondage, or crime. The husband cannot accept payment as a ransom for a life, since what has happened cannot be undone so easily.

[6:35]  ²² tn BDB 1005 s.v. שֹׁחַד suggests that this term means “hush money” or “bribe” (cf. NIV, NRSV, NLT). C. H. Toy takes it as legal compensation (Proverbs [ICC], 142).

[8:3]  ²³ tn The Hebrew term is normally used as an architectural term in describing the pattern of the tabernacle or temple or a representation of it (see Exod 25:8; 1 Chr 28:11).

[8:3]  ²⁴ tn Or “spirit.” See note on “wind” in 2:2.

[8:3]  ²⁵ map For the location of Jerusalem see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[8:3]  ²⁶ tn Or “image.”

[1:2]  ²⁷ tn The Hebrew term translated “Lord” here is אֲדֹנָי (’adonay).

[1:2]  ²⁸ tn Heb “gave.”

[1:2]  ²⁹ tn Heb “hand,” which is often used idiomatically for one’s power and authority. See BDB 390 s.v. יָד 2.

[1:2]  ³⁰ tn Or “utensils”; or “articles.”

[1:2]  ³¹ tn Heb “house of God.”

[1:2]  ³² sn The land of Babylonia (Heb “the land of Shinar”) is another name for Sumer and Akkad, where Babylon was located (cf. Gen 10:10; 11:2; 14:1, 9; Josh 7:21; Isa 11:11; Zech 5:11).

[1:2]  ³³ tn Or “gods” (NCV, NRSV, TEV; also later in this verse). The Hebrew term can be used as a numerical plural for many gods or as a plural of majesty for one particular god. Since Nebuchadnezzar was a polytheist, it is not clear if the reference here is to many gods or one particular deity. The plural of majesty, while normally used for Israel’s God, is occasionally used of foreign gods (cf. BDB 43 s.v. אֱלֹהִים 1, 2). See Judg 11:24 (of the Moabite god Chemosh); 1 Sam 5:7 (of the Philistine god Dagon); 1 Kgs 11:33 (of the Canaanite goddess Astarte, the Moabite god Chemosh, and the Ammonite god Milcom); 2 Kgs 19:37 (of the Assyrian god Nisroch). Since gods normally had their own individual temples, Dan 1:2 probably refers to a particular deity, perhaps Marduk, the supreme god of Babylon, or Marduk’s son Nabu, after whom Nebuchadnezzar was named. The name Nebuchadnezzar means “Nabu has protected the son who will inherit” (HALOT 660 s.v. נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר). For a discussion of how temples functioned in Babylonian religion see H. Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East, 77-81.

[1:2]  ³⁴ tn Heb “brought.” Though the Hebrew verb “brought” is repeated in this verse, the translation uses “brought…put” for stylistic variation.

[1:2]  ³⁵ tn Heb “jealous.” The Hebrew term קַנּוֹא (qanno’, “jealous, zealous”) refers to God’s zealous protection of his people and his furious judgment against his enemies. The root קָנָא (qana’) can denote jealous envy (Gen 26:14; 30:1; 37:11; Pss 37:1; 73:3; 106:16; Prov 3:31; 23:17; 24:1, 19; Ezek 31:9), jealous rivalry (Eccl 4:4; 9:6; Isa 11:13), marital jealousy (Num 5:14, 15, 18, 25, 30; Prov 6:34; 27:4), zealous loyalty (Num 11:29; 25:11, 13; 2 Sam 21:2; 1 Kgs 19:10, 14; 2 Kgs 10:16; Ps 69:10; Song 8:6; Isa 9:6; 37:32; 42:13; 59:17; 63:15; Zech 1:14; 8:2), jealous anger (Deut 32:16, 21; Ps 78:58), and zealous fury (Exod 34:14; Deut 5:9; 29:19; 1 Kgs 14:22; Job 5:2; Pss 79:5; 119:139; Prov 14:30; Isa 26:11; Ezek 5:13; 8:3; 16:38, 42; 23:25; 35:11; 36:5, 6; 38:19; Zeph 1:18). See BDB 888 s.v. קָנָא; E. Reuter, TDOT 13:47-58.

[1:2]  ³⁶ tn The syntax of this line has been understood in two ways: (1) as a single clause with the Lord as the subject: “A jealous and avenging God is the Lord” (NRSV; NASB) or “The Lord is a jealous and avenging God” (NIV); and (2) as two parallel clauses: “God is jealous, and the Lord avenges” (KJV). The LXX reflects the latter. Masoretic accentuation and Hebrew syntax support the former. Accentuation links קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם (qano’ vÿnoqem, “jealous and avenging”) together rather than dividing them into separate clauses. Normal word order suggests that קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם (“jealous and avenging”) are attributive adjectives modifying אֵל (’el, “God”). In verbless clauses such as this, the predicate normally precedes the subject; thus, “a jealous and avenging God” (אֵל קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם, ’el qanno’ vÿnoqem) is the predicate and “the Lord” (יְהוָה, yÿhvah) is the subject.

[1:2]  ³⁷ tn Or “exceedingly wrathful”; Heb “a lord of wrath.” The idiom “lord of wrath” (וּבַעַל חֵמָה, uva’al khemah) means “wrathful” or “full of wrath” (Prov 22:24; 29:22). The noun “lord” (בַעַל) is used in construct as an idiom to describe a person’s outstanding characteristic or attribute (e.g., Gen 37:19; 1 Sam 28:7; 2 Kgs 1:8; Prov 1:17; 18:9; 22:24; 23:2; 24:8; Eccl 7:12; 8:8; 10:11, 20; Isa 41:15; 50:8; Dan 8:6, 20); see IBHS 149-51 §9.5.3.

[1:2]  ³⁸ tn The term נָקַם (naqam, “avenge, vengeance”) is used three times in 1:2 for emphasis. The Lord will exact just retribution against his enemies (the Assyrians) to avenge their wickedness against his people (Judah).

[1:2]  ³⁹ tn The verb “rage” (נָטַר, natar) is used elsewhere of keeping a vineyard (Song 1:6; 8:11-12) and guarding a secret (Dan 7:28). When used of anger, it does not so much mean “to control anger” or “to be slow to anger” (HALOT 695 s.v.) but “to stay angry” (TWOT 2:576). It describes a person bearing a grudge, seeking revenge, and refusing to forgive (Lev 19:18). It is often used as a synonym of שָׁמַר (shamar, “to maintain wrath, stay angry”) in collocation with לְעוֹלָם (lÿ’olam, “forever, always”) and לָעַד (la’ad, “continually”) to picture God harboring rage against his enemies forever (Jer 3:5, 12; Amos 1:11; Ps 103:9). The long-term rage depicted by נָטַר (“maintain rage”) serves as an appropriate bridge to the following statement in Nahum that the Lord is slow to anger but furious in judgment. God seeks vengeance against his enemies; he continually rages and maintains his anger; he is slow to anger, but will eventually burst out with the full fury of his wrath.

[1:1]  ⁴⁰ tn Heb “of Nineveh.”

[1:1]  ⁴¹ tn Or “Nahum of Elkosh” (NAB, NRSV).

[1:22]  ⁴² tc Some of the better representatives of the Alexandrian and Western texts have a passive verb here instead of the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν (apokathllaxen, “he has reconciled”): ἀποκατηλλάγητε (apokathllaghte) in (Ì⁴⁶) B, ἀποκατήλλακται [sic] (apokathllaktai) in 33, and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες (apokatallagente") in D* F G. Yet the active verb is strongly supported by א A C D² Ψ 048 075 [0278] 1739 1881 Ï lat sy. Internally, the passive creates an anacoluthon in that it looks back to the accusative ὑμᾶς (Juma", “you”) of v. 21 and leaves the following παραστῆσαι (parasthsai) dangling (“you were reconciled…to present you”). The passive reading is certainly the harder reading. As such, it may well explain the rise of the other readings. At the same time, it is possible that the passive was produced by scribes who wanted some symmetry between the ποτε (pote, “at one time”) of v. 21 and the νυνὶ δέ (nuni de, “but now”) of v. 22: Since a passive periphrastic participle is used in v. 21, there may have a temptation to produce a corresponding passive form in v. 22, handling the ὑμᾶς of v. 21 by way of constructio ad sensum. Since παραστῆσαι occurs ten words later, it may not have been considered in this scribal modification. Further, the Western reading (ἀποκαταλλαγέντες) hardly seems to have arisen from ἀποκατηλλάγητε (contra TCGNT 555). As difficult as this decision is, the preferred reading is the active form because it is superior externally and seems to explain the rise of all forms of the passive readings.