Bilangan 10:29-32

The Appeal to Hobab

10:29 ¹ Moses said to Hobab son of Reuel, the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, ²  “We are journeying to the place about which the Lord said, ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us and we will treat you well, ³  for the Lord has promised good things ⁴  for Israel.” 10:30 But Hobab ⁵  said to him, “I will not go, but I will go instead to my own land and to my kindred.” 10:31 Moses ⁶  said, “Do not leave us, ⁷  because you know places for us to camp in the wilderness, and you could be our guide. ⁸  10:32 And if you come with us, it is certain ⁹  that whatever good things the Lord will favor us with, we will share with you as well.”

Rut 1:16-17

1:16 But Ruth replied,

“Stop urging me to abandon you! ¹⁰ 

For wherever you go, I will go.

Wherever you live, I will live.

Your people will become my people,

and your God will become my God.

1:17 Wherever you die, I will die – and there I will be buried.

May the Lord punish me severely if I do not keep my promise! ¹¹ 

Only death will be able to separate me from you!” ¹² 

Rut 1:2

1:2 (Now the man’s name was Elimelech, ¹³  his wife was Naomi, ¹⁴  and his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. ¹⁵  They were of the clan of Ephrath ¹⁶  from Bethlehem in Judah.) They entered the region of Moab and settled there. ¹⁷ 

1 Samuel 15:19-22

15:19 Why haven’t you obeyed ¹⁸  the Lord? Instead you have greedily rushed upon the plunder! You have done what is wrong in the Lord’s estimation.” ¹⁹ 

15:20 Then Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed ²⁰  the Lord! I went on the campaign ²¹  the Lord sent me on. I brought back King Agag of the Amalekites after exterminating the Amalekites. 15:21 But the army took from the plunder some of the sheep and cattle – the best of what was to be slaughtered – to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.”

15:22 Then Samuel said,

“Does the Lord take pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices

as much as he does in obedience? ²² 

Certainly, ²³  obedience ²⁴  is better than sacrifice;

paying attention is better than ²⁵  the fat of rams.

1 Samuel 15:2

15:2 Here is what the Lord of hosts says: ‘I carefully observed how the Amalekites opposed ²⁶  Israel along the way when Israel ²⁷  came up from Egypt.

Kisah Para Rasul 2:6

2:6 When this sound ²⁸  occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion, ²⁹  because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

Kisah Para Rasul 2:1

The Holy Spirit and the Day of Pentecost

2:1 Now ³⁰  when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.

Kisah Para Rasul 12:18

12:18 At daybreak ³¹  there was great consternation ³²  among the soldiers over what had become of Peter.

Yesaya 55:5

55:5 Look, you will summon nations ³³  you did not previously know;

nations ³⁴  that did not previously know you will run to you,

because of the Lord your God,

the Holy One of Israel, ³⁵ 

for he bestows honor on you.

Yesaya 60:3

60:3 Nations come to your light,

kings to your bright light.

Kisah Para Rasul 13:47-48

13:47 For this ³⁶  is what the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have appointed ³⁷  you to be a light ³⁸  for the Gentiles, to bring salvation ³⁹  to the ends of the earth.’” ⁴⁰  13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice ⁴¹  and praise ⁴²  the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed for eternal life ⁴³  believed.

[10:29]  ¹ sn For additional bibliography for this short section, see W. F. Albright, “Jethro, Hobab, and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition,” CBQ 25 (1963): 1-11; G. W. Coats, “Moses in Midian,” JBL 92 (1973): 3-10; B. Mazar, “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite,” JNES 24 (1965): 297-303; and T. C. Mitchell, “The Meaning of the Noun h£tn in the Old Testament,” VT 19 (1969): 93-112.

[10:29]  ² sn There is a problem with the identity of Hobab. The MT says that he is the son of Reuel, making him the brother-in-law of Moses. But Judg 4:11 says he is the father-in-law. In Judg 1:16; 4:11 Hobab is traced to the Kenites, but in Exod 3:1 and 18:1 Jethro (Reuel) is priest of Midian. Jethro is identified with Reuel on the basis of Exod 2:18 and 3:1, and so Hobab becomes Moses’ חֹתֵן (khoten), a relative by marriage and perhaps brother-in-law. There is not enough information to decide on the identity and relationships involved here. Some suggest that there is one person with the three names (G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC], 93); others suggest Hobab is a family name (R. F. Johnson, IDB 2:615), and some suggest that the expression “the son of Reuel the Midianite” had dropped out of the genealogy of Judges, leading to the conflict (J. Crichton, ISBE 2:1055). If Hobab is the same as Jethro, then Exod 18:27 does not make much sense, for Jethro did go home. On this basis many conclude Hobab is a brother-in-law. This would mean that after Jethro returned home, Moses conversed with Hobab, his brother-in-law. For more discussion, see the articles and the commentaries.

[10:29]  ³ tn The verb is the Hiphil of the root “to be good” (יָטַב, yatav); it may be translated “treat well, deal favorably, generously with.” Here it is a perfect tense with vav (ו) following the imperative, showing a sequence in the verbal ideas.

[10:29]  ⁴ tn The Hebrew text simply has “has spoken good” for Israel.

[10:30]  ⁵ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Hobab) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[10:31]  ⁶ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[10:31]  ⁷ tn The form with אַל־נָא (’al-na’) is a jussive; negated it stresses a more immediate request, as if Hobab is starting to leave, or at least determined to leave.

[10:31]  ⁸ tn In the Hebrew text the expression is more graphic: “you will be for us for eyes.” Hobab was familiar with the entire Sinai region, and he could certainly direct the people where they were to go. The text does not record Hobab’s response. But the fact that Kenites were in Canaan as allies of Judah (Judg 1:16) would indicate that he gave in and came with Moses. The first refusal may simply be the polite Semitic practice of declining first so that the appeal might be made more urgently.

[10:32]  ⁹ tn Heb “and it shall be.”

[1:16]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “do not urge me to abandon you to turn back from after you.” Most English versions, following the lead of the KJV, use “leave” here. The use of עזב (“abandon”) reflects Ruth’s perspective. To return to Moab would be to abandon Naomi and to leave her even more vulnerable than she already is.

[1:17]  ¹¹ tn Heb “Thus may the Lord do to me and thus may he add…” The construction וְכֹה יֹסִיף…כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה (koh ya’aseh...vÿkhoh yosif, “May he do thus…and may he do even more so…!”) is an oath formula of self-imprecation (e.g., 1 Sam 3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22; 2 Sam 3:9,35; 19:14; 1 Kgs 2:23; 2 Kgs 6:31). In this formula the exact curse is understood but not expressed (GKC 472 §149.d; BDB 462 s.v. כֹּה 1.b). In ancient Near Eastern imprecations, when the curse was so extreme, it was not uttered because it was unspeakably awful: “In the twelve uses of this formula, the calamity which the speaker invokes is never named, since OT culture (in keeping with the rest of the ancient Near East) accorded such power to the spoken word” (F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 82). Ruth here pronounces a curse upon herself, elevating the preceding promise to a formal, unconditional level. If she is not faithful to her promise, she agrees to become an object of divine judgment. As in other occurrences of this oath/curse formula, the specific punishment is not mentioned. As Bush explains, the particle כִּי (ki) here is probably asseverative (“indeed, certainly”) and the statement that follows expresses what underscores the seriousness of her promise by invoking divine judgment, as it were, if she does otherwise. Of course, the Lord would not have been obligated to judge her if she had abandoned Naomi – this is simply an ancient idiomatic way of expressing her commitment to her promise.

[1:17]  ¹² tn Heb “certainly death will separate me and you.” Ruth’s vow has been interpreted two ways: (1) Not even death will separate her from Naomi – because they will be buried next to one another (e.g., NRSV, NCV; see E. F. Campbell, Ruth [AB], 74-75). However, for the statement to mean, “Not even death will separate me and you,” it would probably need to be introduced by אִם (’im, “if”) or negated by לֹא (lo’, “not”; see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 83). (2) Nothing except death will separate her from Naomi (e.g., KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NJPS, REB, NLT, GW; see Bush, 83). The particle כִּי introduces the content of the vow, which – if violated – would bring about the curse uttered in the preceding oath (BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.c; e.g., Gen 42:16; Num 14:22; 1 Sam 20:3; 26:16; 29:6; 2 Sam 3:35; 1 Kgs 2:23; Isa 49:18). Some suggest that כּי is functioning as an asseverative (“indeed, certainly”) to express what the speaker is determined will happen (Bush, 83; see 1 Sam 14:44; 2 Sam 3:9; 1 Kgs 2:23; 19:2). Here כִּי probably functions in a conditional sense: “if” or “if…except, unless” (BDB 473 s.v. כִּי2.b). So her vow may essentially mean “if anything except death should separate me from you!” The most likely view is (2): Ruth is swearing that death alone will separate her from Naomi.

[1:17]  sn Ruth’s devotion to Naomi is especially apparent here. Instead of receiving a sure blessing and going home (see v. 8), Ruth instead takes on a serious responsibility and subjects herself to potential divine punishment. Death, a power beyond Ruth’s control, will separate the two women, but until that time Ruth will stay by Naomi’s side and she will even be buried in the same place as Naomi.

[1:2]  ¹³ sn The name “Elimelech” literally means “My God [is] king.” The narrator’s explicit identification of his name seems to cast him in a positive light.

[1:2]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “and the name of his wife [was] Naomi.” This has been simplified in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[1:2]  sn The name Naomi (נָעֳמִי, na’omi) is from the adjective נֹעַם (noam, “pleasant, lovely”) and literally means “my pleasant one” or “my lovely one.” Her name will become the subject of a wordplay in 1:20-21 when she laments that she is no longer “pleasant” but “bitter” because of the loss of her husband and two sons.

[1:2]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “and the name[s] of his two sons [were] Mahlon and Kilion.”

[1:2]  sn The name Mahlon (מַחְלוֹן, makhlon) is from מָלָה (malah, “to be weak, sick”) and Kilion (כִליוֹן, khilyon) is from כָלָה (khalah, “to be frail”). The rate of infant mortality was so high during the Iron Age that parents typically did not name children until they survived infancy and were weaned. Naomi and Elimelech might have named their two sons Mahlon and Kilion to reflect their weak condition in infancy due to famine – which eventually prompted the move to Moab where food was abundant.

[1:2]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “[They were] Ephrathites.” Ephrathah is a small village (Ps 132:6) in the vicinity of Bethlehem (Gen 35:16), so close in proximity that it is often identified with the larger town of Bethlehem (Gen 35:19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11; Mic 5:2 [MT 5:1]; HALOT 81 s.v. אֶפְרָתָה); see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 64. The designation “Ephrathites” might indicate that they were residents of Ephrathah. However, the adjectival form אֶפְרָתִים (ephratim, “Ephrathites”) used here elsewhere refers to someone from the clan of Ephrath (cf. 1 Chr 4:4) which lived in the region of Bethlehem: “Now David was the son of an Ephrathite from Bethlehem in Judah whose name was Jesse” (1 Sam 17:12; cf. Mic 5:2 [MT 5:1]). So it is more likely that the virtually identical expression here – “Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah” – refers to the clan of Ephrath in Bethlehem (see R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth [NICOT], 91).

[1:2]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “and were there”; KJV “continued there”; NRSV “remained there”; TEV “were living there.”

[15:19]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “listened to the voice of the Lord.”

[15:19]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “you have done what is evil in the eyes of the Lord.”

[15:20]  ²⁰ tn Heb “listened to the voice of the Lord.”

[15:20]  ²¹ tn Heb “journey.”

[15:22]  ²² tn Heb “as [in] listening to the voice of the Lord.”

[15:22]  ²³ tn Heb “look.”

[15:22]  ²⁴ tn Heb “listening.”

[15:22]  ²⁵ tn The expression “is better” is understood here by ellipsis (see the immediately preceding statement).

[15:2]  ²⁶ tn Heb “what Amalek did to Israel, how he placed against him.”

[15:2]  ²⁷ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Israel) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:6]  ²⁸ tn Or “this noise.”

[2:6]  ²⁹ tn Or “was bewildered.”

[2:1]  ³⁰ tn Grk “And” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style does not.

[12:18]  ³¹ tn BDAG 436 s.v. ἡμέρα 1.a has “day is breaking” for ἡμέρα γίνεται (Jhmera ginetai) in this verse.

[12:18]  ³² tn Grk “no little consternation.” The translation given for τάραχος (taraco") in this verse by BDAG 991 s.v. τάραχος 1 is “mental agitation.” The situation indicated by the Greek word is described in L&N 25.243 as “a state of acute distress and great anxiety, with the additional possible implications of dismay and confusion – ‘great distress, extreme anxiety.’” The English word “consternation” is preferred here because it conveys precisely such a situation of anxiety mixed with fear. The reason for this anxiety is explained in the following verse.

[55:5]  ³³ tn Heb “a nation,” but the singular is collective here, as the plural verbs in the next line indicate (note that both “know” and “run” are third plural forms).

[55:5]  ³⁴ tn Heb “a nation,” but the singular is collective here, as the plural verbs that follow indicate.

[55:5]  ³⁵ sn See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4.

[13:47]  ³⁶ tn Here οὕτως (Joutws) is taken to refer to what follows, the content of the quotation, as given for this verse by BDAG 742 s.v. οὕτω/οὕτως 2.

[13:47]  ³⁷ tn BDAG 1004 s.v. τίθημι 3.a has “τιθέναι τινὰ εἴς τι place/appoint someone to or for (to function as) someth….Ac 13:47.” This is a double accusative construction of object (“you”) and complement (“a light”).

[13:47]  ³⁸ sn Paul alludes here to the language of the Servant in Isaiah, pointing to Isa 42:6; 49:6. He and Barnabas do the work of the Servant in Isaiah.

[13:47]  ³⁹ tn Grk “that you should be for salvation,” but more simply “to bring salvation.”

[13:47]  ⁴⁰ sn An allusion to Isa 42:6 and 49:6. The expression the ends of the earth recalls Luke 3:6 and Acts 1:8. Paul sees himself and Barnabas as carrying out the commission of Luke 24:27. (See 2 Cor 6:2, where servant imagery also appears concerning Paul’s message.)

[13:48]  ⁴¹ tn The imperfect verb ἔχαιρον (ecairon) and the following ἐδόξαζον (edoxazon) are translated as ingressive imperfects.

[13:48]  ⁴² tn Or “glorify.” Although “honor” is given by BDAG 258 s.v. δοξάζω as a translation, it would be misleading here, because the meaning is “to honor in the sense of attributing worth to something,” while in contemporary English usage one speaks of “honoring” a contract in the sense of keeping its stipulations. It is not a synonym for “obey” in this context (“obey the word of the Lord”), but that is how many English readers would understand it.

[13:48]  ⁴³ sn Note the contrast to v. 46 in regard to eternal life.