Amazing Grace DVD: The Story of William Wilberforce

Part of World Changers Resources.

Genesis 49:10:	<ad kî-yambom, shîlomh
Ezekiel 21:27/32:	<ad--bom, ,absher-lô

The greater agreement by scholars on the understanding of the Ezekiel passage would seem to favor the same sense in Genesis 49:10. In partial accord with BDB, shîlomh should probably be repointed as shellomh. This view is at least partially, if not completely, supported by the Greek Septuagint ("until the things stored up for him come"), the Syriac Peshitta ("until he comes whose it is"), and the Aramaic Targum Onkelos ("until the Messiah comes, whose is the kingdom").

The following objections to such an understanding are adduced by some: (1) One would expect shellô instead of shellomh for the NIV sense. Normally that would be true, but not in this context, where the same form of the third masculine singular pronominal suffix occurs twice in verse 11: <îromh ("his donkey") and sûtomh ("his robes"). (2) One would expect shellô hû, instead of shellomh. This one mystifies me, for why must the masculine pronoun be written twice? That would be redundant, and it is often necessary to supply the verb "to be" in Hebrew, so no copula is needed. I see nothing ungrammatical, impossible, or even unlikely in such a construction. SS 1:6 (shellî) appears to be analogous. So I simply disagree with such a subjective judgment. Moran’s analysis of Ezekiel 21:27/32 is even less convincing. There the NIV has the most natural reading of the text.

(3) This view destroys the synonymous parallelism with the following colon. Yet synthetic parallelism is also very common in Hebrew poetry. (4) Such a use of the relative particle she (and its variants) is said to be limited to late Hebrew. Yet Archer insists that it is used in early Hebrew as well. Its Akkadian counterpart (sha) is attested even earlier. The Hebrew particle is used in the song of Deborah (Judg. 5:7) and Job 19:29. (Most of its uses are in Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.)

So I hold that the NIV main text is the most likely reading, the second footnote alternative is a close second, and the first footnote alternative is the least likely. In any event, the NIV maintains balance by providing alternative options.

Exodus 4:6

Although the NIV describes Moses’ diseased hand as "leprous," the footnote (in the name of balance) points out that the skin disease referred to here (and elsewhere) may not be leprosy. A fuller explanation is given in one of my other books in Baker’s NIV trilogy.

Exodus 6:12

The NIV footnote indicates that the literal Hebrew for the clause "since I speak with faltering lips" is "since I am uncircumcised of lips." Since the literal rendering does not clearly communicate the sense, CBT interpreted the figure and translated its meaning with clarity. In Exodus 4:10 Moses had said that he was "slow of speech and tongue." Neither there nor here did he mean that he had a speech impediment (see Acts 7:22, "powerful in speech"). Rather, he felt that he was not eloquent or quick-witted enough to respond to the pharaoh. The literal expression used here is an excellent illustration of the fact that "literal" does not always equal "accurate," because at times it can be confusing and even misleading (inaccurate).

Exodus 20:3

Should this commandment be rendered "You shall have no other gods before me" (main NIV text) or "You shall have no other gods besides me" (footnote alternative)? Of all the proposals for translating the Hebrew expression used here ("before," "besides," and others), "before" seems preferable because it is the most neutral, but the NIV allows the alternative as another option. Regardless of one’s choice, the general sense is clear: The Lord wants his people to worship no other gods or idols in his presence. Nothing else is to compete with Israel’s covenant Lord in their heart and life. He brooks no rivals.

Exodus 20:24

Here (and elsewhere) CBT chose "fellowship offerings" over the familiar "peace offerings," hence the explanatory footnote, "Traditionally peace offerings" (for balance). The NIVSB explains:

Two basic ideas are included in this offering: peace and fellowship. The traditional translation is "peace offering," a name that comes from the Hebrew word for the offering, which in turn is related to the Hebrew word shalom, meaning "peace" or "wholeness." Thus the offering perhaps symbolized peace between God and man as well as the inward peace that resulted. The fellowship offering was the only sacrifice of which the offerer might eat a part. Fellowship was involved because the offerer, on the basis of the sacrifice, had fellowship with God and with the priest, who also ate part of the offering (7:14:15, 31:34).

So the fellowship offering included a communal meal, thanksgiving, and fellowship. Fellowship or communion among the Lord, the priest, and the worshiper was established. Fellowship offerings included vow offerings, thank offerings, and freewill offerings (see chart on "Old Testament Sacrifices" at Lev. 4 in the NIVSB).

Exodus 21:6; 22:8:9, 28

Sometimes in legal literature it is difficult to determine whether Hebrew ,eblomhîm refers to "God" or his representatives, "judges" (either is possible--see the lexicons). Where CBT was somewhat uncertain, one was put in the main text and the alternative in a footnote (as in these verses).

Exodus 22:20

To help the reader more fully comprehend the particular Hebrew verb here rendered "destroyed," the NIV has a footnote explaining: "The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them." As I have written elsewhere, "In the Old Testament, when defeated people and things were to be devoted to the Lord, it usually meant that everything perishable or flammable should be totally destroyed (cf. Josh 6:7), while gold and silver and other precious metals should be brought to the Lord’s temple and used in his service." This NIV footnote occurs frequently in the Old Testament.

Exodus 25:17

Why did the NIV call the lid of the ark of the covenant "an atonement cover" instead of "a mercy seat" (KJV and the footnote here)? The NIVSB study note here explains:

atonement. Reconciliation, the divine act of grace whereby God draws to himself and makes "at one" with him those who were once alienated from him. In the OT, the shed blood of sacrificial offerings effected atonement . . . ; in the NT, the blood of Jesus, shed once for all time, does the same. . . . atonement cover. . . . That God’s symbolic throne was capped with an atonement cover signified his great mercy toward his people.

The study notes on Leviticus 16:2 and 17:11 are also helpful:

atonement cover. . . . Blood sprinkled on the lid of the ark made atonement for Israel on the Day of Atonement (vv. 15:17). In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) the word for "atonement cover" is the same one used of Christ and translated "sacrifice of atonement" in Ro 3:25. . . .

     blood . . . makes atonement. Practically every sacrifice included the sprinkling or smearing of blood on the altar or within the tabernacle. . . , thus teaching that atonement involves the substitution of life for life. The blood of the OT sacrifice pointed forward to the blood of the Lamb of God, who obtained for his people "eternal redemption" (Heb 9:12). "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9:22).

Exodus 28:20

The purpose of the footnote here is to inform the reader that the precise identification of some of the precious stones listed in verses 17:20 is uncertain. Indeed, the preface to the NIV has already alerted NIV users to the fact that "minerals, flora and fauna, architectural details, articles of clothing and jewelry, musical instruments and other articles cannot always be identified with precision."

Exodus 31:13

It is sometimes difficult to determine whether the form of the Hebrew verb used here (qamdash) should be translated as "make holy," "sanctify," or "set apart as holy." So between the main text and the two footnote alternatives, all three major possibilities are presented. In Scripture, to be "holy" is basically to be "separated" or "set apart to King Yahweh for his holy purposes and functions in his service and for his glory."

Exodus 34:13

The translator footnote here enables the reader to understand that "Asherah poles" are wooden "symbols of the goddess Asherah." Elsewhere I have explained Asherah more fully:

Asherah was a Canaanite fertility or mother goddess and consort of El (cf. Ugaritic ,atrt, Athirat), and also the wooden cult object or "sacred pole" by which she was represented. Apparently, the plurals Asherim and Asheroth refer only to her images or cult objects. The contexts show that Asherah was a goddess (or an object representing her) who was worshiped along with Baal (Judg 3:7; 2 Kgs 23:6).

Leviticus 16:8

The footnote helpfully defines the scapegoat as "the goat of removal; Hebrew azazel." This goat was sent away alive bearing the sins of the nation (vv. 21:22), thus symbolizing the removal of the people’s sin and guilt (cf. John 1:29).

Numbers 5:21

The final clause of this verse may be rendered either "when he [the Lord] causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell" (main text) or "when he causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness" (footnote alternative).

The NIVSB explains:

The figurative language here (and in vv. 22, 27) speaks of the loss of the capacity for childbearing (and, if pregnant, the miscarriage of the child). This is demonstrated by the determination of the fate of a woman wrongly charged (v. 28). For a woman in the ancient Near East to be denied the ability to bear children was a personal loss of inestimable proportions. Since it was in the bearing of children that a woman’s worth was realized in the ancient world, this was a grievous punishment indeed.

Numbers 16:14

According to the footnote alternative, the Hebrew for "Will you gouge out the eyes of these men?" may also be rendered "Will you make slaves of these men?" or "Will you deceive these men?" Thus three options are presented. The first is a literal rendering of the original text. The other two represent figurative understandings of that literal language. Most commentators agree that the sense of the idiom is to "blind" in the sense of "deceive" or "mislead." Moses is accused of blinding the men to the true state of affairs so they will continue to follow his leadership.

Numbers 34:8

The footnote indicates that Lebo Hamath may be read as "the entrance to Hamath." The NIVSB explains why Lebo Hamath is preferable:

Lebo, however, probably does not mean "entrance," but should be identified with modern Lebweh, about 15 miles northeast of Baalbek and 20 miles southwest of Kadesh on the Orontes River, near Riblah. At one time Lebo must have served as a fortress guarding the southern route to Hamath. Perhaps the phrase should be translated "Lebo of Hamath." It is often referred to in Scripture as the northern limit of Israel (see v. 20; 48:1; Nu 13:21; 34:8; Jos 13:5; 1 Ki 8:65; 2 Ki 14:25; Am 6:14).

Deuteronomy 3:11

In the footnote CBT recognizes a popular interpretation among other English Bible versions and commentaries, namely, that "bed" may refer to a sarcophagus (stone coffin). Millard, however, argues for the main text over the footnote alternative, pointing out that iron was in use this early as adornment, veneer, plating, and paneling. It would be analogous to the "iron" chariots in Joshua 17:16, where certain parts of the wooden chariots were apparently made of iron. In Millard’s words:

weapons and pieces of iron jewelry also survive from this period, and texts refer to more. . . . Even in the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1950:1550 b.c.), cuneiform tablets from Mari in Mesopotamia tell us of iron used in rings and bracelets.

     In southern Turkey an ivory box was unearthed from a level of the 18th century b.c. decorated with studs of gold, lapis lazuli and iron!

     From a Hittite text that can now be dated no later than the 16th century b.c., we find a reference to a "throne of iron" given as a gift by one ruler to another. . . . Doubtless the iron throne referred to here was wooden, embellished with iron.

So King Og’s bed may have been plated with iron--a rarity at the time that deserved mention in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 6:4

Deuteronomy 6:4:9 is known as the Shema, Hebrew for the first word, "Hear" (see Mark 12:29:30). The Hebrew for "The Lord our God, the Lord is one" can be read in other ways as well (see the three footnote alternatives). Merrill favors the second alternative, "The Lord is our God, the Lord is one": "That is, the Divine Name should be construed as a nominative in each case and the terms ‘our God’ and ‘one’ as parallel predicate nominatives." All the possible renderings either state explicitly or strongly imply the doctrine of monotheism, in addition to declaring that the Lord (Yahweh) is Israel’s covenant God. "The consistent teaching of Moses and the prophets, as well as the psalmists and the wise men, admits of the Lord only as true deity." Such a divine revelation is absolutely imperative in view of the multiplicity of other so-called gods worshiped in Canaan and elsewhere.

Deuteronomy 23:18

Here the difficulty is that a literal rendering of the Hebrew ("dog" instead of "male prostitute"; see NIV footnote) would be misleading and puzzling since most readers would not know how to understand the word "dog" in this context, where it is clearly figurative. The male prostitute is "disparingly described here as a ‘dog.’" The term is commonly associated with moral or spiritual impurity and is often used in a derogatory manner (cf. 1 Sam. 17:43; 24:14; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Kings 8:13; Matt. 7:6; Phil. 3:2; Rev. 22:15). To communicate the sense clearly, we provided what we believed to be the correct contextual nuance while furnishing the literal rendering in the footnote.

Deuteronomy 30:3

The Lord promises that when his chosen people return to him in obedience, he "will restore your fortunes," but the footnote allows for the alternative translation, "will bring you back from captivity." These two options appear quite frequently in the NIV, only sometimes in reverse order (with the latter rendering in the main text and the former in the footnote). Since the Hebrew can be translated either way, translators must decide on a case-by-case basis according to context. Where there is uncertainty, the alternative can be given in a footnote (as in the NIV).

Joshua 7:19

The NIV provides a footnote on Joshua’s word to Achan ("give glory to the Lord"): "A solemn charge to tell the truth." So the sense is: "Give glory to the Lord by telling the truth" (see John 9:24). In the same context "confess to him" is presented as an alternative to "give him the praise." These contextual nuances in the two footnotes aid the reader’s understanding of the main text and seem favored by Joshua’s continuing address to Achan: "Tell me what you have done; do not hide it from me." These words are then followed by Achan’s confession of sin (v. 20).

Judges 2:16; 4:4; 10:2

In Judges 2:16 the NIV, bowing to tradition, translated the Hebrew root shpt. as "judges" while offering "leaders" as the alternative in the "Or" footnote. In 4:4 and 10:2, however, CBT reversed the text and footnotes, with "leading" and "led" in the text and "judging" and "judged" in the footnotes. In the Mari letters the Akkadian equivalent of Hebrew shompemt. is shampit.um: "the shampit.um was appointed by the king . . . to act as a territorial governor, his activities including administration, the conduct of military campaigns, and the arbitration of domestic disputes." This is a more accurate description of the functions of a shompemt. in Judges. Something like "leader" or "ruler" or "governor," then, would be closer than "judge" to the use of the term in the book of "Judges."

1 Samuel 3:13

According to the footnote, a tiqqun sopherim ("correction of/by the scribes"; see chapter 3: "The Old Testament") occurred here, changing "his sons blasphemed God" to "his sons made themselves contemptible." The former reading is supported by the LXX. Youngblood accepts it. The penalty for such blasphemy was death (Lev. 24:13:16).

2 Samuel 8:18

Some readers may wonder why the NIV has "David’s sons were royal advisers" when the Hebrew for "royal advisers" is the common word for "priests" (see the footnote alternative). The parallel passage in Chronicles has "David’s sons were chief officials at the king’s side" (1 Chron. 18:17), thus supporting the meaning "royal advisers" here instead of "priests." The NIVSB study note on 1 Chronicles 18:17 explains the situation:

The earlier narrative at this point [2 Sam. 8:18] uses the Hebrew term ordinarily translated "priests". . . . The Chronicler has used a term for civil service instead of sacral service. Two approaches to this passage are ordinarily followed: 1. Some scholars see here an attempt by the Chronicler to keep the priesthood restricted to the Levitical line as part of his larger concern with legitimacy of cultic institutions in his own day. 2. Others argue that the Hebrew term used in 2 Sa 8:18 could earlier have had a broader meaning than "priest" and could be used of some other types of officials (cf. 2 Sa 20:26; 1 Ki 4:5). The Chronicler used an equivalent term, since by his day the Hebrew term for "priest" was restricted to cultic functionaries. The Septuagint, Targum, Old Latin and Josephus all translate the term in Samuel by some word other than "priest."