Hakim-hakim 3:8

3:8 The Lord was furious with Israel ¹  and turned them over to ²  King Cushan-Rishathaim ³  of Aram-Naharaim. They were Cushan-Rishathaim’s subjects ⁴  for eight years.

Hakim-hakim 4:2

4:2 The Lord turned them over to ⁵  King Jabin of Canaan, who ruled in Hazor. ⁶  The general of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth Haggoyim. ⁷ 

Mazmur 44:12

44:12 You sold ⁸  your people for a pittance; ⁹ 

you did not ask a high price for them. ¹⁰ 

Yesaya 50:1

50:1 This is what the Lord says:

“Where is your mother’s divorce certificate

by which I divorced her?

Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? ¹¹ 

Look, you were sold because of your sins; ¹² 

because of your rebellious acts I divorced your mother. ¹³ 

[3:8]  ¹ tn Or “The Lord’s anger burned (or raged) against Israel.”

[3:8]  ² tn Heb “sold them into the hands of.”

[3:8]  ³ tn Or “Cushan the Doubly Wicked.”

[3:8]  ⁴ tn Or “they served Cushan-Rishathaim.”

[4:2]  ⁵ tn Heb “the Lord sold them into the hands of.”

[4:2]  ⁶ tn Or “King Jabin of Hazor, a Canaanite ruler.”

[4:2]  map For location see Map1 D2; Map2 D3; Map3 A2; Map4 C1.

[4:2]  ⁷ tn Or “Harosheth of the Pagan Nations”; cf. KJV “Harosheth of the Gentiles.”

[44:12]  ⁸ tn The prefixed verbal form is a preterite (without vav [ו] consecutive).

[44:12]  ⁹ tn Heb “for what is not wealth.”

[44:12]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “you did not multiply their purchase prices.”

[50:1]  ¹¹ sn The Lord challenges the exiles (Zion’s children) to bring incriminating evidence against him. The rhetorical questions imply that Israel accused the Lord of divorcing his wife (Zion) and selling his children (the Israelites) into slavery to pay off a debt.

[50:1]  ¹² sn The Lord admits that he did sell the Israelites, but it was because of their sins, not because of some debt he owed. If he had sold them to a creditor, they ought to be able to point him out, but the preceding rhetorical question implies they would not be able to do so.

[50:1]  ¹³ sn The Lord admits he did divorce Zion, but that too was the result of the nation’s sins. The force of the earlier rhetorical question comes into clearer focus now. The question does not imply that a certificate does not exist and that no divorce occurred. Rather, the question asks for the certificate to be produced so the accuser can see the reason for the divorce in black and white. The Lord did not put Zion away arbitrarily.