Proverbs – W.ONDERFUL W.ORLD OF W.ADHOLMS

Proverbs Gone Bad

I was reminded recently of how proverbs (both Biblical and otherwise) are often abused: through universalizing their claims to all situations.
A proverb, by definition, is a commonly received piece of wisdom that seems to be generally true and is offering some form of advice. It is not, however, a claim to a universal form of truth that speaks to any and every situation regardless of circumstance.
Here is one recent example of a modern proverb I heard misapplied (and this is the form in which it was stated):

What parents do in moderation, their children do in excess.

This proverb was used to suggest that parents should not do things (considered inappropriate by conservative Evangelicalism) in moderation, because their children will do it in excess. While this is true in some senses, it utterly fails in others. Children do not automatically (as was suggested in this conversation) do to excess what their parents did in moderation. Children might completely avoid the issue altogether, or perhaps even themselves learn the moderation from their parents (which seems the best option for parents wanting to instill such a life skill into their children).
A Biblical example that readily comes to mind is:

Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. (Proverbs 22:6 NIV)

I have heard far too many older folks claiming this as a universal promise that their wayward grown children will someday come back to the Faith. Many a preacher has led them into this false interpretation. As a proverb it must be remembered that it is generally true that the manner in which a child is raised determines the sort of person they will be later in life. But children (as their parents) are always choosing the paths they will take in life. Some children who have been raised by good parents simply rebel and choose their own way. This proverb is not a universal promise. It is a generally true notion. It is a reminder to bring up children properly in order to give them the best opportunity to live a full life on the right path.
So, please dear friend, listen to wisdom and do not make proverbs say what they have never said. Let proverbs be what they are and let them bring you a long and fruitful life (so long as that is your lot 😉 ).

Silver Dross or Like a Glaze

I was a little surprised to find that the TNIV and NIV 2011 have reverted to the Masoretic text (partially) of Proverbs 26:23 against the 1984 NIV which followed the critical rephrasing of this verse in light of Ugaritic and Hittite evidence (though it includes “silver dross” in the footnote). The updated NIV texts created a mixed text that attempts to blend the emended text of the Hebrew as well as maintaining the traditional (misunderstanding) of the Masoretes (adding “like” and maintaining “silver dross”).
“Like a coating of silver dross on earthenware are fervent lips with an evil heart.” (NIV2011 – emphasis added)
“Like a coating of glaze over earthenware are fervent lips with an evil heart.” (NET – emphasis added)
The issue pertains to the Hebrew כֶּ֣סֶף סִ֭יגִים which is properly translated “silver dross”. Based upon the cognate Ugaritic word spsg “glaze” (and another cognate in Hittite zapzaga[y]a) a significant and clarifying emendation was made by numerous translations. The emendation involves several elements: the admission that vowel pointing and spaces between words were lacking in the original text of the Old Testament. Removing the vowel-pointing (as well as the matres lectionis yods) and spacing of the Masoretes was inaccurate and should be altered to read כסףסגם “like glaze”. The kaph has then been understood to be the comparative preposition “like”, the yods have been dropped as matres lectionis along with the vowel pointing and the mem regarded as an enclitic (ESV, NAB, NIV1984, NRSV, NLT and, of course, the NET have followed this emended reading).
While the LXX retains the Masoretic reading of “silver”, but it offers an expansion (apparently because the translator was equally confused by the sense of the Hebrew): ἀργύριον διδόμενον μετὰ δόλου ὥσπερ ὄστρακον ἡγητέον χείλη λεῖα καρδίαν καλύπτει λυπηράν, “Silver given deceitfully is considered as earthenware, a smooth tongue hides a troubled heart” (my translation).
Part of the reason for opting to prefer the emended text in light of the cognate terms of Ugaritic and Hittite is based upon the notion that “silver dross” would simply not be used for such a thing. Glaze would be applied to vessels (though obviously it should not be applied to earthenware unless it is being used to conceal). In both cases the point is simply that one is covering over something that will not endure (earthenware) with something that makes it look better than it truly is. The reality is concealed. It is a ridiculous covering of earthenware. It is, in fact, a waste and deceitful. Its apparent value is only that…appearance. It is a cheap object made to look like it is worth something far more.
____________
K. L. Barker, “The Value of Ugaritic for Old Testament Studies,” BSac 133 (1976): 128-29.

כֶּ֣סֶף סִ֭יגִים

Hebraizing Students

The results of my Hebraic influence on students is beginning to show as seen in the following proverb from one of them written in ancient Near Eastern fashion to me:

“There are three things that trouble me,
four that disturb:
the teacher, joyously inflicting harm,
the paper, unrelenting in difficulty,
the class hour, extending past its due,
and the student, refusing to learn.”

A proverb of wisdom indeed! And this is one of the fun things about opening up the ancient forms of our Scriptures for others to enjoy. He did ask me if this could be counted as a contemporary cognate proverb. No.
But here are a few parallel passages from Wisdom/Instruction of Amenemope (an ancient Egyptian wisdom text) and the book of Proverbs (just for fun):

Esther 5-6 – The Tale Turns

5:1-8 – Esther’s Request. After three days of fasting (by both the Jews of Susa and Esther and her entourage), Esther determined it was time to see the king. The motif of three days of waiting for restoration/deliverance is found several times throughout the OT: Gen.22:4; 31:22; Jonah 1:17; Hosea 6:2. It is important that she prepared herself in her regal garments and entered into the king’s presence where she did not know the outcome, but knew Xerxes must receive her if her life was to be spared immediately. Though thirty days had passed since Esther had last been seen by the king she was welcomed and actually “pleased” with her. Whatever the king’s motivation for being pleased, one can be certain that this was no coincidence. According to the LXX and targums, the king was initially angry with Esther’s entrance, but when she fainted he was moved to receive her by the LORD. All of such additions suggest far more than the text itself and attempts to explain the reception of the king. The king apparently recognized that she would not have come unbidden and dressed as she was if not for some important matter. He was so moved by her presence that he actually tells her (though this would be a euphemism for kingly generosity), “up to half the kingdom” could be asked for and he would give it to her. Rather than explaining her reason for coming she invited the king and Haman to a banquet (which was ironically prepared for Haman). Haman was brought immediately to join Xerxes at the private banquet and some time after the dinner, while drinking wine (which would then be the appropriate time for discussing business matters), the king again asked what Esther wanted and repeated the same generous offer. Her reply was that she wished for the king and Haman to return the next day for another banquet. Why would she not simply bring up the subject at hand? What was to be gained in the invitation to another banquet? It would appear that this gave a sense of ominous anticipation to the whole scene. “Esther is shrewdly and subtly pursuing a well-designed plan, by which she has maneuvered the king into committing himself in advance” to give her what she would ask for (Bush 407). As it would turn out, the events leading to the next banquet would change everything.

5:9-14 – Haman’s Plot against Mordecai. The banquet seems to have pleased Haman in his own sight by suggesting to him that he was truly blessed to be privy to such a private and exclusive party. His high spirits were quickly altered upon encountering the obstinate Mordecai at the king’s gate. In fact, he became angry that not only would Mordecai not bow, but now he would not even rise in Haman’s presence or show fear. Despite his anger, Haman kept outward control, but the author of Esther informs us that Haman was so upset that he discussed his angst with his wife and friends stating that all the honor, power and wealth he possessed meant nothing to him as long as Mordecai was around. Haman could not wait for the assigned day for the killing of all the Jews, but wished to see Mordecai dead sooner. He was counseled to build a “gallows” that was approximately 75 feet high for requesting the king in the morning to have Mordecai hung on. Why should a gallows be erected that would be that tall since most of the important buildings of the era were rarely more than 30-40 feet high already? This would seem to be in order to facilitate Mordecai’s exposure before everyone for what he had done to Haman. So he built the gallows.

6:1-14 – The Day Everything Changed. A string of “coincidences” are noted throughout this chapter that alters the direction of the story up to this point (Karen Jobes calls this literary technique “peripety” which is “an unexpected reversal of circumstances” and provides several helpful diagrams for visualizing the reversals – 155-158; cf. Waltke 765). The king could not sleep and happened to have the chronicle read to him which contained the account of Mordecai’s foiling Xerxes assassination years before. Why should he at this time have suddenly had this particular chronicle read to him? Further, that he should think to ask if he had rewarded Mordecai for this. The string of coincidences continued as Haman entered the court of the king earlier than he had been advised and just as the king asked who was in the court might give him advice about the reward. Apparently Haman himself could not sleep with the thought of having Mordecai hung which would account for his early arrival to ask the king about this.

A conversation where the king and Haman fortuitously spoke past one another ensued. The king wanted to receive advice on how to reward “the man the king delights to honor” which Haman automatically assumed was himself according to the author. Haman’s advice was to essentially treat that man like the king by giving him the very clothes the king had worn, riding on the king’s horse and being publicly paraded about as the delight of the king. Haman was attempting to present himself as a “surrogate king” by actually masquerading as the king (Berlin 59-61). Haman’s pride could not allow him to think beyond himself as the “delight” of the king, but then the king commanded Haman to do all of these things for Mordecai “the Jew” (giving special emphasis to his ethnic identity). Haman was overwhelmed with grief and shame at what he had to endure publicly honoring as a king the very man who would not honor him. When Haman told his friends and wife what had transpired, their words in reply echoed the Jewishness of Mordecai as the very reason for this reversal and declared the destruction of Haman. How should we understand such a statement in the mouths of Haman’s wife and friends? Before Haman could even respond he was fetched for the next day’s banquet with Esther and the king. Haman was hurdling towards destruction unaware of what awaited him and unable to change the course that was about to befall him. Elsewhere the Scriptures declare, “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov.16:18). This would all pertain to the blinding pride of Haman and all who would fail to see things in the light of God’s covenant of grace.

Esther 3-4 – A Time for Action

3:1-6 – Haman…the Agagite. Whereas the last we read would have suggested that Mordecai should have been rewarded by the king, we find only the mention of another man who instead receives honors and acclaim from the king…and this man will seek for the destruction not only of Mordecai, but of all the Jews. Haman is introduced by stating that he was an “Agagite” which would suggest an immediate tension for the reader who has just recently discovered that Mordecai is not only a Jew, but even a descendant of Kish the father of King Saul. This seems intended to bring to mind the age-old conflict between the Amalekites (which used “Agag” for their royal family name) and Israel (Exo.17:8-16; Num.24:7; Deut.25:17-19) and was exemplified in Saul’s nearly destroying all of the Amalekites with the exception of king Agag in 1 Sam.15. According to Josephus and several of the targums “Amalek” is actually given in place of “Agagite” here (though the Greek versions completely alter the name destroying any connection to this historical conflict). The term “Agagite” in Esther functions in a nearly synonymous way with “enemy of the Jews” (Esther 3:10; 8:1, 3, 5, 10, 24; Bush 384). This may, in fact, answer why Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman despite the command of the king. The text does not explain a reason and there was sufficient precedence for bowing to kings, rulers and others (Gen.27:29; 1 Sam.24:8; 1 Kings 1:16). Certainly Mordecai had bowed to the king, so why not to Haman? The only reason suggested by the text is that Mordecai was “a Jew” and this must be read then in light of Haman being “Agagite”. The targums and the LXX versions add several different explanations about the worship of God alone for the reason that Mordecai would not bow down, but this goes well beyond what the text actually says and tries to spiritualize his reasoning. It seems more likely it was the ethnic identity that was the factor involved. The questioning of Mordecai about why he would not bow and pay homage may be more to force him to do this rather than to actually discover why. Mordecai’s actions so enraged Haman that he actually determined to destroy not only Mordecai, but all of Mordecai’s people—the Jews. “There is a parallel between the decree against all women because of the disrespect shown by one (Vashti) and the decree against all Jews because of the disrespect shown by Mordecai” (Berlin 37-38).

3:7-15 – The Lot Cast. The time indicated in 3:7 places these events five years after Esther’s choice as queen, sixteen years after the return to Jerusalem of Ezra and the rebuilding of the Temple, and sixty-four years after Zerubbabel and the first return from exile (Breneman 328). In the first month of that year Haman cast the pur (an Akkadian loanword from which the celebration takes the plural form for its name – Purim) that was explained as the “lot” (Heb. goral). He did this to determine the best time to destroy the Jews. This was a normal manner for determining certain matters of great importance and allowing for either the fates or divine direction to lead one (cf. Josh.18:6; Ps.16:5-6; Prov.16:33). The date selected by the lot was to be exactly eleven months later. So Haman then went to Xerxes to convince him to make the edict and used truth (“scattered”), half-truth (“different than all others”) and outright lies (“do not obey”) to convince the king to give his approval. He never once mentioned the people he was referring to, but only referred to them obliquely as “a certain people”. His appeal was made primarily to the empires and king’s self-interest and greed. The amount offered of 10000 talents of silver (or about 333-375 tons) equaled nearly the entirety of tribute collected by the Persians in a single year (Herodotus 3.89)! Perhaps Haman thought to collect this by pillaging the Jews, but the king seems not even to care about such matters. He simply issues the decree. “Haman is unmitigated evil, but the king is dangerous indifference personified” (Bush 387).

The exact date that Haman of the edict being issued was the thirteenth of Nissan which was the eve of Passover when the Jews would be celebrating Israel’s deliverance by the hand of God (Exo.12:18; Lev.23:5; Num.28:16). Would God again deliver His people? Would the LORD be faithful to His covenant? None of this is appealed to, but all of it remains implicit. The edict was made available in every language throughout the empire in order to encourage people everywhere to prepare to take action against the Jews on the 13^th of the twelfth month. According to Herodotus it took approximately three months for a message to be carried across the entire empire (5.52-53). The chapter closes with the king and Haman drinking together while the rest of the city of Susa was “bewildered” as the edict went out.

4:1-5 – Sackcloth and Ashes. Mordecai immediately tore his clothes in mourning and put on sackcloth and ashes, publicly wailing (cf. Num.14:6; 2 Sam.1:11; 3:31; 13:31; Ezra 9:3; Isa.36:22). These were the normal ancient cultural ways of demonstrating ones sorrow. He would not even change his clothes to approach Esther with the news, but instead stayed outside the city gate wailing. The effect upon the Jews everywhere else was similar as they heard the news of their impending destruction. When Esther heard the news she tried to get Mordecai to put on fresh clothes so she could speak to him, but was forced to speak to Mordecai through her eunuch-servant Hathach.

4:6-17 – A Call for Action. Mordecai relayed everything to Hathach who in turn relayed it all to Esther including bringing a copy of the royal edict concerning the destruction of the Jews. Further, Mordecai pleaded with Esther to go to the king on behalf of her people. Esther relayed that she, though the queen, could not simply go to the king for fear of losing her life unless he should choose to receive her or call for her. She had not, for whatever reason, been invited to the king’s presence for a month and did not know when this would next happen. Herodotus records that a message could be sent to the king requesting an audience (3.118, 140), but apparently Esther must have had her reasons for not wishing to send a message to request an audience.

Mordecai’s reply to Esther suggests that she will die if she does nothing. She must take action if there is to be hope for her and her family (which presumably would include Mordecai). Bush reads the first part of 4:14 as a rhetorical question with an emphatic “No!” as the answer. This reading would then suggest that there would be no deliverance for the Jews if Esther did not do something now (395-7; but see the contrary in Breneman 336fn4). Mordecai also questions Esther that she may have come to her position for such an opportune moment despite whatever the previous circumstances may have suggested. These are the usual verses that are used to point to God’s providential care, but why at this moment (above all others) didn’t the author of Esther choose to refer to God explicitly in any way whatsoever? The LXX makes God’s action very explicit both here and at other specific points, but
the Hebrew text used in our canon does not. How should we understand this? “One logical conclusion from God’s absence is that human action is important. Time and again, Esther and Mordecai’s initiatives are what make the difference for the Jews; we do not see them passively waiting for signs from God or for God to perform a dramatic miracle of some type….[T]he author is intentionally vague about God’s presence in events. He affirms on the one hand, that God is indeed involved with his people, but, on the other hand, he admits that it is sometimes difficult to perceive God’s involvement” (NIDOTTE 4:583-4). “These unfolding events begin to show the inscrutable interplay between circumstances thrust upon us, sometimes unjustly, and those the result of our own behavior, often flawed. God’s providence marvelously moves through both in his own good time” (Jobes 124).

Esther called for a severe fast of three days whereas normally fasting seems to have only gone from sunrise to sunset (NIDOTTE 3:781; cf. Judges 20:26; 1 Sam.14:24) and that there would be nothing to drink for the time Esther spoke of. Esther and her maids would also do this and then she would go to the king whatever the consequences to herself. Here we note that Mordecai does as Esther has commanded. Why is there no object for their fasting and no spiritual explanation? Again, this is implied in the text, but is not in any way stated. Fasting could be carried out for very secular reasons (as it is in our own day), but this would seem to be for an entreaty to the LORD despite His not being named. The time for action would be prepared for by a call for solemnity and fasting. When one realizes that the Jews only had one day a year for mandatory fasting (i.e., the Day of Atonement, though there were numerous other days later added – cf. Zech.7:5) this adds to the solemnity of the occasion. Further, when one realizes that this fasting would be occurring during the Feast of Passover (much as Daniel’s did in Daniel 10:2-4) which was a commanded feast (Num.9:13).

There are often propitious moments where we must take action despite what may appear to be the consequences to ourselves. The following is a relevant poem by Martin Niemöller who was a leading German pastor that realized all too late that action should have been taken by the true Church of Germany to oppose Nazism and its desire to exterminate certain people including particularly the Jews:

“First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

The Old Testament for Seventh Graders (in Four Weeks!) 4

Life Under the Covenant – Joshua-Malachi

Story: Living in the Land (Joshua-2 Chronicles) – Israel entered the land of eternal promise, but once they were in the land they failed to live according to the covenant. The LORD rescued them again and again even though they always managed to rebel again and again. (Joshua 23:16; Judges 21:25; 1 Kings 9:3-9) SCROLL

Prophets: The Word of the LORD (Isaiah-Malachi) – The LORD always sent his messengers with a word to his people to do what was right because he loved them enough to call them back to the covenant and to remind them of the consequences of disobedience. The word of the LORD was for the whole world, but what would people do? (Hosea 1:2; Jeremiah 1:9-10; 7:25; Amos 3:7; Jonah 3:2, 10) HORN

Exile: Judgment Days (Daniel, Esther) – Because Israel would not listen to the LORD they were sent into exile among the nations, the temple was destroyed and the kingship that was promised forever was done. At every turn it seemed like Israel would be completely destroyed, but the LORD continued to preserve His people even in exile. (Daniel 9:4-19) SWORD

Wisdom: Two Paths (Job-Song of Songs) – The reflections of people concerned with life, suffering, blessings, judgment and obedience became sharpened by the time spent in exile even while most of the works belonged to persons of ages long before the exile. Songs and sayings of wisdom where one considers what really matters serve to remind Israel that they must choose the right path. (Psalm 1; Proverbs 4:20-27) FORK-IN-THE–ROAD

Return: A New Day? (Ezra-Nehemiah) – The LORD brought Israel back again to the land and restored the temple with promises for the future, but the question remained, “For how long?” Would Israel be able to remain faithful or again be disobedient and undo it all? (Zechariah 8:1-8; Malachi 4) SUNRISE

For the other installments: 1, 2, 3

Blessed be the One Who Grabs Babylon's Babies and Smashes Them on a Rock: A Psalm

By the rivers of Babylon we sit down and weep when we remember Zion.
On the poplars in her midst we hang our harps,
for there our captors ask us to compose songs;
those who mock us demand that we be happy, saying: “Sing for us a song about Zion!”
How can we sing a song to the LORD in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand be crippled!
May my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you,
and do not give Jerusalem priority over whatever gives me the most joy.
Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell.
They said, “Tear it down, tear it down, right to its very foundation!”
O daughter Babylon, soon to be devastated!
How blessed will be the one who repays you for what you dished out to us!
How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock!
(Psalm 137:1-9 – NET)

Another psalm of weeping. But this psalm (unlike my post on Psalm 88) is not about an individual struggle of abandonment. This is a psalm of retribution while in captivity. One can almost hear the rhythms of this melancholy tune, cried without instrumentation in low groans, beckoning for the God of the covenant to pay back those who have rejoiced at and participated in the judgment of Israel. It a psalm of remembrance (zākar). Remembrance of all that Zion was and all it was meant to be. A call for the LORD to remember the unrelenting and unmerciful cry of victory from Esau over his brother Jacob (Obadiah 10-14). It is a reminder of the Deuteronomic filial lex talionis (Deut.19:19; Prov.24:29). It is a remembrance and call for the blessing of one who will destroy Babylon in the same manner that Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and kill her babies by smashing “them on a rock”. In the manner which Babylon has treated the LORD’s people…the cry of remembrance goes up in the very heart of the empire…”Blessed (‘ašrê) will be the one…”. But alas…who will repay Babylon (and Edom) for the actual slaying and destruction of Jerusalem’s children? (2 Kings 25:7; Lam.5:11-15) Where will he come from? Who could this one be who is called “happy” in doing the ‘dirty deed’?

It seems only appropriate to ask how we who are in Christ can ever pray such prayers? Can we not just skip this psalm as belonging to a bygone era of legalistic retribution? No…never. We must pray it more sincerely than ever those exiled in Babylon knew how to pray it. They prayed for justice and retribution according to the very will of the covenant keeping LORD. We also pray this, but with the knowledge of the very embodiment of the LORD…that is of Christ Jesus. We know for a certainty that our LORD will repay (Deut.7:10; 32:35; Isa.65:6; Jer.51:56; Rom.12:19; Heb.10:30). We pray for the destruction of all who will not ultimately yield to the Lordship of Christ…but we also pray that all who would yield will yield before that great and terrible Day of His Coming again! In that Day everyone will receive their reward…whether to everlasting punishment or everlasting blessedness.

We do not consider only the judgment of the now, but that which is eternal. Will we be found hidden in Christ in that Day where our deeds are found to be Spirit-empowered and lasting, or our faith is wanting and we ourselves are among those who are not even acknowledged by Him? The dashing of children against the stones would be but a small thing in the light of that ultimate assize that awaits us all if have not trusted ourselves to the Lordship of Christ Jesus. It is the judgment he bore for us…it is the righteousness he now bears for and in us. If indeed we are rewarded with life (and we know this because we have received the Spirit of son-ship), we say “Blessed is the one who repays…not according to what we have done…but according to the great riches of his mercy and grace which are in glory!” Blessed be His Name forever!

Daniel 3 – The God Who Saves

3:1-7 – The image of gold. Theodotian and the LXX provide an interesting time note that is not included in the Aramaic text found in our Bibles. They actually state that it was Nebuchadnezzar’s 18^th year when what follows happened and that would place the incident of the fiery furnace in the very year of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (cf. Jer.52:29). This made the trial of the three synonymous with the trial of the people of God and offered hope of salvation through the fires of Babylonian captivity.

It is unclear whether Nebuchadnezzar made the image of himself or (more likely) of one of his gods – Marduk or Bel. The dimensions of the image or statue are irregular. In the Aramaic, it is sixty cubits high and six cubits wide (Walvoord pg.81 notes this as unintentionally the number of man; cf. Rev.13:18) with the NIV giving 90 feet high and 9 feet wide (appearing like an obelisk much like the Washington Monument). In accordance with this, the Babylonians used the Sumero-Akkadian sexagesimal system of measurement which seems to be the explanation for the dimensions being in sixes (we still use this system in telling time: 24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds, etc). “To reduce [the dimensions of] the statue to something normal…[is]…to miss the point that the statue is extraordinary and monumental, even grotesque” (Goldingay 69; cf. Oppenheim 183-9). The place for the dedication was called Dura (meaning “a walled place”) and it was likely a location six miles southeast of Babylon where a massive pedestal of bricks has been discovered.

Why would Nebuchadnezzar set up such an image after his disturbing dreams mentioned in the second chapter? Perhaps the dreams gave him the idea (see the comments of third century Church Father Hippolytus 2.15), but perhaps he simply did not care what the end would be and only obsessed over the present and the head of gold which represented himself. Everyone present was commanded to worship the image at the sound of the music playing to demonstrate their loyalty to the king and to the empire and his gods (cf. Rev.13).

3:8-15 – The three Hebrews who would not bow. Some of the “astrologers” (Aram. kaśdāyin) apparently driven by jealousy for the elevated status of the three friends of Daniel accused them before Nebuchadnezzar who otherwise would have been ignorant of their failure to bow and worship the image. With all of the leaders of Babylon that are named as called to the dedication (Aram. hānukkah) of the image why was Daniel not mentioned specifically? His presence at the royal court might explain his absence from this ceremony (see Dan.2:49; Miller 108) though there may be other explanations as well.

The accusations brought against them are that they neither worship Nebuchadnezzar’s gods nor the image he has set up. They are given another chance or will be thrown immediately into a blazing furnace of fire. Could Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego have bowed on the outside and still remained true to God on the inside? (cf. 2 Kings 5:18-19; but see Deut.4:27-28; while gross idolatry occurred at that very time in the temple of Jerusalem according to Ezekiel 8, yet the three remained pure in far off Babylon where no one would have been the wiser). Note Nebuchadnezzar’s challenge that no god could save the three from his hand (compare the similar comments by Rabshekah in 2 Ki.18:33-35; Isa.36:17-20). In fact, in another place we discover that Nebuchadnezzar did kill two men – Zedekiah and Ahab – by throwing them into a fire (Jer.29:22). However, this account is not really a contest between Nebuchadnezzar and the three…it is a story about the one True God and His power and presence. This is not a “moral story” but it is a “display of a God who is faithful to His people even in captivity and is ever ready to deliver those who put their trust in Him. The contrast of the God of Israel to the idols of Babylon is a reminder that the god of this world, behind the Gentile dominion, is doomed to judgment at the hands of the sovereign God” (Walvoord 94).

3:16-23 – Thrown into the fire. The three offered no defense of themselves, but left everything to their God. “Formally, the existence of their God is expressed hypothetically; but neither they nor the reader actually question his existence as uncertain. Given that he exists, he is able to rescue…and he will rescue (that is a bold, un-evidenced wager parallel to those of 1:12-13; 2:14-16)” (Goldingay 73). According to the fourth century writer Jerome, “They indicate that it will not be a matter of God’s inability, but rather of His sovereign will if they do perish” (Miller 120). They would neither worship Nebuchadnezzar’s gods (which each of the three were named after) nor would they bow before the image outwardly. They stood upon the promise that their God would be with them even through the fire (cf. Exo.3:12; Isa.7:14; 43:1-3) and so in essence they were saying, “Death is preferable to apostasy” (Goldingay 74; note the confession of Job 13:15).

John Walvoord proposes that “the blazing furnace” following the Aramaic should be read without the definite article “the” and therefore would have “the resultant meaning that He [God] could deliver them from any fiery furnace, not just the one immediately at hand” (89). Their denial of worship absolutely infuriated Nebuchadnezzar who had the furnace heated “seven times hotter” which suggests simply that it could not be hotter (on the use of seven times cf. Prov.24:16; 26:16). His rage (as often is the case) moved beyond reason and instead of a slow burn which would have proven more painful to the three, he instead chose to kill them more quickly. The heat of the fires seems to match the heat of his temper.

He called for his strongest soldiers to throw them into the furnace, but this proved fatal to the soldiers. It appears that the three were thrown in through some hole in the top and then later the king saw them through some hole lower in the massive furnace. In the rush to punish the three they are not even stripped of their clothing as would have been normally done and so they were thrown into the fire with all their garments still on (though the exact translation of just what it was that the three Aramaic terms refer to remains unclear the significance is that they were thrown into the fire with clothes on and pulled out with their clothes not even singed or smelling of smoke let alone the any of their hairs singed, but the ropes were burned right off). At this point in the LXX the “Prayer of Azariah” and the “Song of the Three Hebrew Children” is inserted between Dan.2:23 and 2:24. The Rabbis have written that at the very moment the three were thrown into the fire Ezekiel was sent to restore the dead in the valley of dry bones…God was protecting and giving life (Sanhedrin Tractate, Rodkinson 279).

The Prayer of Azariah (and The Song of the Three Hebrew Children – NRS)

1:1 They walked around in the midst of the flames, singing hymns to God and blessing the Lord. ² Then Azariah stood still in the fire and prayed aloud: ³ “Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and worthy of praise; and glorious is your name forever! ⁴ For you are just in all you have done;
all your works are true and your ways right, and all your judgments are true. ⁵ You have executed true judgments in all you have brought upon us and upon Jerusalem, the holy city of our ancestors; by a true judgment you have brought all this upon us because of our sins. ⁶ For we have sinned and broken your law in turning away from you; in all matters we have sinned grievously. ⁷ We have not obeyed your commandments, we have not kept them or done what you have commanded us for our own good. ⁸ So all that you have brought upon us, and all that you have done to us, you have done by a true judgment. ⁹ You have handed us over to our enemies, lawless and hateful rebels, and to an unjust king, the most wicked in all the world. ¹⁰ And now we cannot open our mouths; we, your servants who worship you, have become a shame and a reproach. ¹¹ For your name’s sake do not give us up forever, and do not annul your covenant. ¹² Do not withdraw your mercy from us, for the sake of Abraham your beloved and for the sake of your servant Isaac and Israel your holy one, ¹³ to whom you promised to multiply their descendants like the stars of heaven and like the sand on the shore of the sea. ¹⁴ For we, O Lord, have become fewer than any other nation, and are brought low this day in all the world because of our sins. ¹⁵ In our day we have no ruler, or prophet, or leader, no burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, no place to make an offering before you and to find mercy.

¹⁶ Yet with a contrite heart and a humble spirit may we be accepted, ¹⁷ as though it were with burnt offerings of rams and bulls, or with tens of thousands of fat lambs; such may our sacrifice be in your sight today, and may we unreservedly follow you, for no shame will come to those who trust in you. ¹⁸ And now with all our heart we follow you; we fear you and seek your presence. ¹⁹ Do not put us to shame, but deal with us in your patience and in your abundant mercy. ²⁰ Deliver us in accordance with your marvelous works, and bring glory to your name, O Lord.²¹ Let all who do harm to your servants be put to shame; let them be disgraced and deprived of all power, and let their strength be broken. ²² Let them know that you alone are the Lord God, glorious over the whole world.” ²³ Now the king’s servants who threw them in kept stoking the furnace with naphtha, pitch, tow, and brushwood. ²⁴ And the flames poured out above the furnace forty-nine cubits, ²⁵ and spread out and burned those Chaldeans who were caught near the furnace. ²⁶ But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace to be with Azariah and his companions, and drove the fiery flame out of the furnace, ²⁷ and made the inside of the furnace as though a moist wind were whistling through it. The fire did not touch them at all and caused them no pain or distress.

²⁸ Then the three with one voice praised and glorified and blessed God in the furnace: ²⁹ “Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and to be praised and highly exalted forever;³⁰ And blessed is your glorious, holy name, and to be highly praised and highly exalted forever.³¹ Blessed are you in the temple of your holy glory, and to be extolled and highly glorified forever.³² Blessed are you who look into the depths from your throne on the cherubim, and to be praised and highly exalted forever.³³ Blessed are you on the throne of your kingdom, and to be extolled and highly exalted forever.³⁴ Blessed are you in the firmament of heaven, and to be sung and glorified forever.³⁵ “Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.³⁶ Bless the Lord, you heavens; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.³⁷ Bless the Lord, you angels of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.³⁸ Bless the Lord, all you waters above the heavens; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.³⁹ Bless the Lord, all you powers of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁰ Bless the Lord, sun and moon; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴¹ Bless the Lord, stars of heaven; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴² “Bless the Lord, all rain and dew; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴³ Bless the Lord, all you winds; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁴ Bless the Lord, fire and heat; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁵ Bless the Lord, winter cold and summer heat; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁶ Bless the Lord, dews and falling snow; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁷ Bless the Lord, nights and days; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁸ Bless the Lord, light and darkness; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁹ Bless the Lord, ice and cold; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁰ Bless the Lord, frosts and snows; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵¹ Bless the Lord, lightnings and clouds; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵² “Let the earth bless the Lord; let it sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵³ Bless the Lord, mountains and hills; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁴ Bless the Lord, all that grows in the ground; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁵ Bless the Lord, seas and rivers; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁶ Bless the Lord, you springs; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁷ Bless the Lord, you whales and all that swim in the waters; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁸ Bless the Lord, all birds of the air; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁹ Bless the Lord, all wild animals and cattle; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶⁰ “Bless the Lord, all people on earth; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶¹ Bless the Lord, O Israel; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶² Bless the Lord, you priests of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶³ Bless the Lord, you servants of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶⁴ Bless the Lord, spirits and souls of the righteous; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶⁵ Bless the Lord, you who are holy and humble in heart; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶⁶ “Bless the Lord, Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. For he has rescued us from Hades and saved us from the power of death, and delivered us from the midst of the burning fiery furnace; from the midst of the fire he has delivered us.⁶⁷ Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy endures forever.⁶⁸ All who worship the Lord, bless the God of gods, sing praise to him and give thanks to him, for his mercy endures forever.”

3:24-30 – The God who walks in the fire. Why might the Lord have allowed Nebuchadnezzar to be the first one to see the three walking in the fire and also a fourth in the fire? They were tied and he noted they were unbound…they were thrown into a fire so hot it killed his strongest soldiers for just getting to close and he noted they were unha
rmed and walking around (and in the LXX they are actually singing!). Who exactly is the fourth one seen by Nebuchadnezzar in the fire who never emerges from the flames? Note the reference in Isaiah 43:1-3 about the LORD being with His people even through the fire. One who looks like “a son of the gods” (Aram. bar ’elāhin) or even “a divine being” is a far more likely rendering in English than the KJV’s “Son of God”. Nebuchadnezzar also refered to this fourth being as God’s “angel” (Aram. mal’ak) sent to care for His servants.

What sort of transformation should this have made in him or did this make in him? His use of “the Most High God” is really not significant as it is other times spoken by those who were not of the faith of Israel (cf. Gen.14:19; Num.24:16; Isa.14:14). It is not that the king abandons his gods, but that he demanded that none blaspheme the God of the Jews under punishment of the very things he had declared he would do to those who failed to tell him his dreams and then interpret them (Dan.2:5). They were willing to give up their very lives or literally “yielded up their bodies” (and Theodotian adds “to the fire” which Paul adds to his letter to the Corinthians in 1 Cor.13:3) rather than deny their God total worship and trust. It was not a matter of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego knowing how their lives would end. They simply knew that to trust the LORD meant that whatever happened He would be faithful and they must also be faithful because He was faithful. This story later was taken up by Mattathias to encourage his sons in revolt against the tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century (1 Maccabees 2:59) and also by the writer of the Hebrews concerning those who “quenched the fury of the flames” in their walk of faith without having yet received the reward they sought (Heb.11:34). Contrast the command of Deut.7:25 concerning what supposed to be done to idols with what was done to the three in this account. The conclusion of Nebuchadnezzar is indeed the conclusion of the book of Daniel: no other god can save in the way that the God of Israel saves.

Daniel 1 – When In Exile….

<!–[if !mso]> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <![endif]–>
<!–[if !mso]> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <![endif]–>

Brief Introduction to the Book – Daniel was taken into captivity in the summer of 605BC while Jehoiachim son of Josiah was king of Judah some time after the Babylonians defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish. Jehoiachim had actually been placed upon the throne by Egypt and thus it seemed only fitting that the defeat of the Egyptians spelled the defeat of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar, was officially made king of Babylon later that summer upon the death of his father (Miller 56). Daniel and his friends were among those initially taken and he survived until some time after the Babylonian captivity ended with the defeat of the Babylonians by the Perians in 539BC. The book of Daniel was included in the Hebrew canon among the writings because he does not belong particularly to the prophets (as in the LXX canon and our own), but this does not mean the book was regarded as non-prophetic. Daniel contains several additions in the Catholic canon (Song of the Three, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon; and in the original KJV[!]), but this was not received into the Protestant canon of Scripture (these will be briefly discussed at the conclusion of this series). Many reject Daniel as being written in the 6^th century and instead date it to the Maccabean period (250-167BC), but Archer (421-448) Baldwin (14-80), Walvoord (11-25), and Miller (22-41) have argued rather persuasively for a 6^th century date of authorship perhaps shortly after the date of the Babylonian exile in 539BC. The book has been variously divided between the Hebrew sections (Dan.1:1-2:4a; 8:1-12:13) and Aramaic section (Dan.2:4b-7:28), but the most helpful distinction is between the stories (Dan.1-6) and the visions (Dan.7-12). “This biblical witness challenges the faithful to be awake for the unexpected intervention of God in wrapping up all of human history. The stories of Daniel and his friends picture men who bear eloquent testimony is both word and deed to an unswerving hope in God’s rule. As a consequence, they were made free to hang loosely on the world because they knew their hope rested elsewhere” (Childs 622).

1:1-2 – The beginning of captivity. The time note that Daniel provides refers to the year 605BC and though there are no records of any actual siege of Jerusalem, it is not necessary that Jerusalem was laid siege so much as taken captive in that year. Nebuchadnezzar is called “king” because either it refers to his functioning role in the very end of his father’s reign or because it refers to him this way as one who later was king of Babylon. Who is emphasized as responsible for the victory of Nebuchadnezzar over Jerusalem and what is the significance in relation to the book of Daniel? The Lord rules all the nations…great and small. The “temple articles” were promised to be taken to Babylon because of the sin of Hezekiah in showing the Babylonians his treasures (cf. 2 Chron.36:7, 10, 18, 20-23; Isa.39:2, 4, 6; Ezra 1:7-11 and comes into play later in Daniel 5:2-4). Literally, the articles were carried off to “Shinar” (cf. Gen.10:10) which was an ancient name of a city recognized to be a place of opposition to God (Gen.11:1-9; Zech.5:11). What is the significance of putting the articles of the temple of God into the temple of Nebuchadnezzar’s gods? (cf. 1 Sam.4-5) “To all appearances, the God of Jerusalem has been defeated by the gods of Babylon” (Goldingay 21), but Daniel will point in a radically different direction.

1:3-7 – The training of the best of the young exiles. The descriptions of those who were to be trained were that they were taken from the best families (royal and/or nobility; cf. Isa.39:7) and of fine appearance and high aptitude. The terms used are those of the wisdom literature (cf. Prov.1:1-6) with regard to the acumen of these young men (Heb. yělādîm which “covers men from birth to marriage” – Goldingay 5). The literature and language of the “Babylonians” (lit. “Chaldeans” Heb. kaśdîm, Aram. kaśdāy) included magical, astrological, medicinal, temple, wisdom, and legal texts among others. How could Daniel and his friends spend three years of intensive training in such things and yet remain true to the LORD? John Goldingay astutely notes that the “wise person knows how to learn from the wisdom of other peoples without being overcome by it” (24). The food and wine they were assigned came directly from the king’s table and thus was luxurious but would also have been offered to the god/s of the king (cf. Oppenheim 188-92) before they received it. Four of the chosen young men are named as particularly faithful and deserving of mention: Daniel (“God is my judge”; became Belteshazzar “Bel, protect his life!”), Hananiah (“The LORD has been gracious”; became Shadrach “Command of Aku” the moon god), Mishael (“Who is what God is?”; became Meshach “Who is what Aku is?”), and Azariah (“The LORD has helped”; became Abednego “Servant of Nebo” the god of Nebuchadnezzar’s namesake) – on name changes see Gen. 41:45; Esther 2:7. Why were their names changed and why did they not protest this and the learning of the Chaldeans, but did protest the diet that follows?

1:8-16 – The ten day test of food and faith. What might have been Daniel and his friend’s motivation for refusing the food and wine of Nebuchadnezzar and choosing to have “vegetables” (technically refers to “vegetables, grain, and non-mean products generally” Goldingay 6) and water instead? One suggestion has been that they were not “kosher” (cf. Lev.11, 17) and thus would “defile” them, but this would only pertain to meats and not to wine. As was previously mentioned it had been offered to the god/s (cf. 1 Cor.8-10; Rom.14), but so would the “vegetables” have been (cf. Bel and the Dragon 3; Oppenheim 192; those who denied consuming e
ven the “vegetables” for this reason: cf. Judith 10:5; 12:2; Add. Esther 14:17; Tobit 1:10-11). It is also notable that Jehoiachin was recorded to have eaten daily at the kings table according to 2 Kings 25:29. Goldingay proposes that they refused as symbols of “avoiding assimilation” (19). They had taken the names, learned the wisdom, worn the clothes and by outward appearances become “Babylonians”, but they would hold this one thing as to the LORD. Though Daniel’s request found favor with the chief official, the official was too afraid to grant it directly so the “guard” (or more properly the one given direct responsibility over them) exchanged portions with them thus relieving the chief official of responsibility. This act of Daniel and his friends was an outright act of faith on their part. At the end of the ten days they were found to be in much better appearance than the rest of those who ate the royal food so they were permitted to continue with their diet of faith. This is not in any way offered as a vegetarian command since the Law specifically commanded certain sacrifices of meat to be made and eaten every year (though the temple was destroyed at this time and thus the sacrifices could not be made then). “Even a small act of self-discipline, taken out of loyalty to principle, sets God’s servants in the line of his approval and blessing. In this way actions attest faith, and character is strengthened to face more difficult situations in the future” (Baldwin 92-3).

1:17-21 – An insight into the end before getting to the end. It is stated the God Himself gave the four young men understanding of all the things they were studying during their three years of Babylonian tutelage. How might this be understood in light of the contents of what they studied? What relation does God’s wisdom and knowledge have to the world’s? It is specifically noted that Daniel was blessed with being able to understand and interpret dreams (cf. Num.12:6) which comes into play later in the book (though it is not something inherent to him, but something he still prays and seeks). When they finally made their appearance before the king it was noticeable that these four far surpassed all the others, but they would still have opportunities to demonstrate the superiority of their God. The note in verse 21 concerning King Cyrus (see the prophecy in Isa.44:24-45:7) maintains that while Daniel when into captivity he lived to see the end of it under the Persians (cf. Deut.30:3-5; the “seventy years” of Jer.25:12).

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason. “Daniel,” A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago,

IL: Moody Press, 1994. pp. 421-448.

Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries vol. 23,

Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1978.

Childs, Brevard S. “Daniel,” An Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.

Philadelphia, PA: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1979. pp. 608-623.

Goldingay, John. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary vol. 30, Nashville, TN:

Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. The New American Commentary vol. 18, Nashville,

TN: B&H Publishing, 1994.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago, IL: Moody

Press, 1971.

Ezekiel 45-46 – Sacred Land and Days

<!–[if !mso]> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <![endif]–>

By Clarence Larkin (click to enlarge)

45:1-6 – The sacred district. The full sacred area would cover an area seven miles wide and seven miles long. One section stretching seven miles long and three miles wide would be for the priests and would be for the “Most Holy Place”. Another section stretching seven miles long and three miles wide would be for the Levites who serve on behalf of the people of Israel in the temple. They would no longer have towns scattered among the tribes (as in Josh. 21), but would live with all of the rest of Israel focused upon the center: the temple as the presence of the LORD in the midst of His people. The “city” would take up a section about one mile wide and seven miles long for the whole of Israel.

45:7-12 – The prince(s) of Israel. No longer would the princes be allowed to abuse Israel as had occurred throughout Israel’s history, but would receive a portion of the land surrounding the sides of the sacred districts. What is the importance of fair measurements? (cf. Lev. 19:36; Deut. 25:13-16; Prov.11:1; Amos 8:5-6; Hos.12:7) One shekel would be approximately 4 oz. and therefore one minah about 24 oz. The ephah (for dry measurements) and bath (for liquid measurements) would be about 5.8 gallons and so the homer would be about 58 gallons total.

45:13-20 – Offerings for atonement. Why would the LORD be so specific about the offerings Israel was to offer? The offerings made of wheat and barley were nearly 2% of the total, the oil 1% and the sheep .5%. These sacrifices were specifically for atonement. What need would Israel have for atonement? Also, note that the prince plays a particular role in making provision for the sacrifices as well. There was to be an atonement made on the first day of the year and the seventh (were these to be repeated?) for atonement of the temple. Why would the temple need atonement? What sorts of sins were said to be covered by this sacrifice?

45:21-25 – The feasts. The requirements here are notably different than those found in the Torah concerning the Passover celebration (cf. Exo.12:1-28; Num.9:1-14; Deut.16:1-8). However, it is also notable that whereas there was never a repetition of the smearing of blood on the doorposts after the exodus from Egypt, yet in verses 19-20 the posts of the temple were to be smeared in sacrificial blood prior to the actual celebration of Passover that would begin a week later. The other feast day is unnamed but is said to occur at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (cf. Deut. 16:13).

46:1-12 – The Sabbath and New Moon feasts. The eastern outer court gate was perpetually kept shut, but the inner courts eastern gate was opened every Sabbath and New Moon when the prince was to come and offer sacrifices and stand at the entrance of the gate giving worship to the LORD. The people were also to worship the LORD at that gate. The prince must come and go at the same gateway, but the people were to leave at the opposite (if they entered north they left south and vice-versa). What is the point of the control at the gates? The prince was to act as just another person and would not stay longer than the rest of the people though he was the only one permitted use of the eastern inner court gate which would be shut at evening after he had gone. There was a marked difference between what Ezekiel was instructed and what had happened throughout Israel’s history in regard to the ruler’s relations to the temple.

46:13-15 – The command to make daily offerings. Why might the language have shifted from the third person to the second person (“you”) for these few verses? Was Ezekiel expected to participate in this? Also, how does the nature of the sacrifices being a “lasting ordinance” relate to what is written in Hebrews 7:27; 9:25-10:18?

46:16-18 – The prince and his land. What is the importance of the inheritance being kept within the prince’s family and of the prince not being able to take any property from the rest of the house of Israel? (on acquisition of Israelite territories and inheritance issues see Deut.17:14-20; 2 Sam.9:7; 16:4; 24:24; 1 Kings 9:16; 16:24; 21:1-29) Many have often confused the notion of this “prince” with the Messiah, but Iain Duguid astutely notes, “It is the temple that points us to Jesus, not the prince” (NIVAC 524).

46:19-24 – The importance of the kitchens. Why should Ezekiel be shown the kitchens in the temple and why should these be mentioned for us? It is significant because temples of the ancient Near East were places for the gods to feast, but not for the general population, but in the temple of the LORD He prepares a table before His people and shares it with them (cf. Ps. 23:5; Matt.
22:1-14; Rev.3:20; 19:9).