Monday, July 20, 2026

Keil and Delitzsch on the Conditional Nature of the Prophecy in Judges 13:2-7

  

Judg. 13:2–7. Whilst the Israelites were given into the hands of the Philistines on account of their sins, and were also severely oppressed in Gilead on the part of the Ammonites, the angel of the Lord appeared to the wife of Manoah, a Danite from Zorea, i.e., Sur’a, on the western slope of the mountains of Judah (see at Josh. 15:33). Mishpachath Dani (the family of the Danites) is used interchangeably with shebet Dani (the tribe of the Danites: see Judg. 18:2, 11, and 18:1, 30), which may be explained on this ground, that according to Num. 26:42, 43, all the Danites formed but one family, viz., the family of the Shuhamites. The angel of the Lord announced to this woman, who was barren, “Thou wilt conceive and bear a son. And now beware, drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean: for, behold, thou wilt conceive and bear a son, and no razor shall come upon his head; for a vowed man of God (Nazir) will the boy be from his mother’s womb,” i.e., his whole life long, “to the day of his death,” as the angel expressly affirmed, according to v. 7. The three prohibitions which the angel of the Lord imposed upon the woman were the three things which distinguished the condition of a Nazarite (see at Num. 6:1–8, and the explanation given there of the Nazarite vow). The only other thing mentioned in the Mosaic law is the warning against defilement from contact with the dead, which does not seem to have been enforced in the case of Samson. When the angel added still further, “And he (the Nazarite) will begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines,” he no doubt intended to show that his power to effect this deliverance would be closely connected with his condition as a Nazarite. The promised son was to be a Nazarite all his life long, because he was to begin to deliver Israel out of the power of his foes. And in order that he might be so, his mother was to share in the renunciations of the Nazarite vow during the time of her pregnancy. Whilst the appearance of the angel of the Lord contained the practical pledge that the Lord still acknowledged His people, though He had given them into the hands of their enemies; the message of the angel contained this lesson and warning for Israel, that it could only obtain deliverance from its foes by seeking after a life of consecration to the Lord, such as the Nazarites pursued, so as to realize the idea of the priestly character to which Israel had been called as the people of Jehovah, by abstinence from the deliciae carnis, and everything that was unclean, as being emanations of sin, and also by a complete self-surrender to the Lord (see Pentateuch, p. 674). (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols. [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 2:292-93)

 

Susan Gillingham on Psalm 41:3 and 9 and its Use in the New Testament

  

Verses 3 and 9 (about the betrayal by a close friend, having possible correspondences with 35:14) result in the psalm being read in Jewish tradition as a personal psalm of one suffering in body and soul. Even Rashi sees this is about real, physical sickness. For those who argue the psalm should first be seen in the light of David, verse 9 is seen as a reference to Ahithophel, and verse 10 as alluding to the true cause of David’s distress which was in not being allowed to build the Temple.

 

This personal reading is paralleled in Christian tradition, where instead of reading the psalm through the viewpoint of the distress of David it is read through the sufferings of Christ. The best example is in Jn. 13:18, set in the context of the Last Supper, where John refers to Jesus using 41:9 as a prophecy about the imminent betrayal of Judas (‘But it is to fulfil the scripture, ‘The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me’). The Greek used here is different from the Septuagint—there is a different word for ‘eat’, and ‘bread’ is in the singular—but the specific reference to ‘eating bread’ becomes an appropriate literal reference to Judas receiving bread from Jesus during the following Passover meal, Jesus telling Judas to do what he was going to do, and Judas leaving (Jn. 13:21–30). So, according to John, Jesus uses Ps. 41:9 (which would probably have some resonance with Ahithophel’s betrayal of David) but this is to show that he is no longer the victim of circumstance, as was David, but one who is able to anticipate his own fate.

 

It is possible that this psalm is also alluded to in the account of Judas’ betrayal in Mk. 14:17–21. The fact that this is taking place ‘as it is written of him’ (Mk. 14:21) and that the reference is to eating and betrayal (verse 18) might suggest that Ps. 41:9 also shaped the account: Jesus, like the psalmist, is the ‘righteous sufferer’. Furthermore, in Acts 1:16 Peter’s first sermon refers to scripture being fulfilled, ‘which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas’: it is more than likely, given the reference to ‘David’ and hence to the psalms, that Ps. 41:9 is the ‘prophecy’ referred to here. (Susan Gillingham, Psalms through the Centuries, 3 vols., [Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Sussex, U.K.: Wiley Blackwell, 2018], 2:248-49)

 

Mary Jane Woodger on the "Zion"


Context: Discussion of D&C 57:

  

Zion does not always refer to a geographical location. The location of the center place of Zion, however, is a specific location. (Mary Jane Woodger, The Essential Doctrine and Covenants Companion: Key Insights to your Gospel Study [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2012], 112)

 

Sunday, July 19, 2026

Radak (David Kimhi) on Isaiah 53:6

 

Radak on Isaiah 53:6:1

כלנו כצאן תעינו. ר"ל כצאן מבלי רועה, לפיכך אמר כצאן בפתח הכ"ף לידיעה כי אותו הצאן הוא תועה שאין לו רועה: (source)

 

"All we like sheep have gone astray." That is to say, like sheep without a shepherd. Therefore he says kaṣṣō'n ("like the sheep"), with the kaf vocalized with pataḥ, indicating definiteness, because it refers to that particular flock—the flock that wanders because it has no shepherd.

 

Radak on Isaiah 53:6:2

הפגיע. העון הוא הפוגע בהם והאל הוא המפגיע ששולח להם הרע, פירוש עון עונש העון, כמו כי לא שלם עון האמרי עד הנה:

 

"Has laid [it] upon" (הפגיע). The iniquity is what strikes them, while God is the one who causes it to strike—that is, who sends the calamity upon them. Here, "iniquity" (עון) means the punishment for iniquity, as in, "for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete" (Genesis 15:16).

 

Discussion of Sarah/Sariah on the b-hebrew mailing list (September 1, 2000)

 When asked about the name “Sarah”:

 

[Brown, Driver, and Briggs] deduce that Sarah is from the root srr, to rule, so that srh is she ruled. So princess, noble lady. Whereas Israel is from the root srh, to contend. In any case, Israel has to be a verbal sentence, as it begins with y, unless you can find a root that is ysr. BDB says Israel is either El contends, prevails, or puts it in the jussive, let El contend, prevail. That isn't how names go imo, I don't know any names in the jussive. As for Sarah, I would guess that the theopho[r]ic is missing, as every name in the ane had a theophoric. It is probably sariah, YHWH, or Yah, rules. (Liz Fried, email to the b-hebrew mailing list, September 1, 2000)

 

Has Egyptology Disproven the Book of Abraham? A Yale Egyptologist Responds

 

Has Egyptology Disproven the Book of Abraham? A Yale Egyptologist Responds








Review of Friberg/ Carroll‬: "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"

 

Review of Friberg/ Carroll‬: "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"








Blog Archive