The Portfolio base package includes Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament which is a good theological dictionary of the OT. One of the authors is Bruce Waltke who was my OT professor at Regent College and is a friend of mine -- a fine scholar, theologically conservative.

Pat Flanakin said:

Rosie, thanks.

Regarding Dr. Waltke, he is endeared by the same pastor I referred to above and esteemed greatly.

TWOT is fine, but it doesn't provide what an exegetical commentary does.

Does anyone have the resource I asked about above (New Int. Dic of OT Theo and Exe)?  What are your thoughts on its help in OT exegesis?

Pat, sorry for my confusion, but in this thread you're asking for two different things. First you asked for recommendations of a good OT exegetical commentary and I think Mark gave you some good suggestions there.

Next you asked: "A pastor which I respect and who teaches from the original languages recommended I have a theological dictionary of the NT and OT"

A theological dictionary is not the same thing as an exegetical commentary. NIDOTTE is an excellent dictionary, but it is more along the lines of what TWOT is -- i.e., a theological dictionary, not a commentary. Except it goes into more depth than TWOT does (it is longer). I think the confusion for you is the word exegetical in the title of NIDOTTE. It helps you do exegesis because it tells you the meaning of words and often gives you the different contextual meanings as the word appears in different passages in Scripture. But it doesn't do the exegetical work based on a passage of Scripture that an exegetical commentary does.

Here's an example of an entry from NIDOTTE:

שָׁמַט (šāmaṭ), q. release; relinquish; remit; loosen; give up; let fall; throw down; stumble; ni. be thrown or flung down; hi. release, let drop (#9023); שְׁמִטָּה (š^emiṭṭâ), nom. remission of debts (#9024).

ANE The vb. is well attested, occurring in Akk. šamāṭu(m), pull or take down, tear, break, pull or wrench off; Syr. š^emaṭ, draw or pull out, pull down; Tigre šämṭäṭä, pull down; and Arab. samaṭa, remove, put aside, take away. The nom. šēmiḥḥa, annual remission of debt, is found in Sam.

OT 1. The q. is used in 2 Kgs 9:33, which describes how, at Jehu’s command, two or three eunuchs threw Jezebel, the queen mother, from an upper window, and her crushed body was trampled on by horses. With the assassination of Ahab’s wife and other members of his family, the Omride dynasty, which had been established in revolution (1 Kgs 16:15–20) and characterized by apostasy (16:29–33) and avarice (ch. 21), was brought to an end, in fulfilment of the prophecies of judgment that had been leveled against successive unfaithful kings (14:11; 16:4; 21:19–24).

In Jer 17:4, the faithless people of Judah are warned that, as a result of their ineradicable and compulsive sin, they will be forced to relinquish the land given to them by Yahweh. It seems probable that the word וּבְךָ, and in/against you, which follows the vb. (q.), is an error for יָדְךָ, your hand (see Driver, 1906, 99; Peake, 221; Robinson, 484; Bright, 118; BHS; Carroll, 349; McKane, 1986, 384, 386–87; see Deut 15:3). If this be correct, then the meaning is, “You shall loosen your hand from your heritage” (RSV), i.e., “You will have to relinquish your heritage” (JB; cf. NIV). The penalty for failure to obey the covenant stipulations will be forfeiture of their heritage (on נַחֲלָה, see, e.g., Janzen, 144–45) and loss of national existence.

The ni. pf. (precative; see Dahood, 308, 312) is used in the first stich of Ps 141:6, where it almost certainly has the meaning be flung down (see C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 509–10). The Heb. text of vv. 5–7 is beset by difficulties, and diverse translations have been proposed. Among the more convincing are the following, all of which preserve the meaning be dropped, thrown, or hurled for שָׁמַט in ni.: “When their judges are flung on jagged rock” (JB); “their rulers will be thrown down from the cliffs” (NIV); “When their rulers are thrown down from rocky cliffs” (TEV); “When their governors shall be cast down upon the rock” (Eaton, 304); “Their rulers shall be thrown down from the sides of the rock” (Anderson, 1972, 921). The psalmist is praying not only for divine protection from enemies and deliverance from evil and temptation, but also for the punishment of the wicked. If the above translations accurately convey the gist of v. 6a, then the psalmist here may have in mind the form of punishment referred to in 2 Chron 25:12 and Luke 4:29 (see Delitzsch, 365–66; Kirkpatrick, 1957, 799; Anderson, 1972, 921).

The occurrence of the q. in 2 Sam 6:6 has generated much debate, and the meaning of the vb. here cannot be determined with any degree of certainty (see Driver, 1966, 267). Eager to transfer legitimacy and power from the house of Saul to himself and his city, David decided to have Israel’s most precious ancient symbol, the ark, transported by oxcart to Jerusalem from Baalah of Judah (identified in Josh 15:9 and 1 Chron 13:6 with Kiriath Jearim, where the ark was left in 1 Sam 7:1). The transfer is recorded in 2 Sam 6:1–15. According to 6:6 (par. 1 Chron 13:9), at one point in the journey the oxen drawing the cart stumbled (q., שָׁמְטוּ). Instinctively reaching out his hand (a comparison with 1 Chron 13:9, 4QSam^a, LXX, Pesh., Tg., and Vg. indicates that the words אֶת יָדוֹ, his hand, were accidentally omitted from MT) to steady the sacred object, Uzzah accidentally violated the sanctity of the ark, thereby incurring the divine wrath.

The fact that Uzzah is reported to have been struck down dead by Yahweh (2 Sam 6:7) is offensive to many readers. Various explanations for his death have been proposed (see Anderson, 1989, 103–4), including the following: his presumption or disdain; his (presumably unintentional) frustration of the divine will caused by a failure to recognize that the falling of the ark was a sign indicating Yahweh’s desire to halt the procession; his act of sacrilege in coming into contact with the holy ark when he was not a priest. An unusual approach is taken by Caird (1078–79). Following Arnold, he maintains that יָד here does not mean stumble but drop, which he takes to be a euphemism for defecating. Uzzah slipped (this reading requires a minor alteration of MT) on the excrement, fell against the ark, and died as a result of striking his head on the bare rock of the threshing floor. While ingenious, this reading of vv. 6–7 has not commanded much support. If, as some have argued, the vb. is transitive, then one should translate “for the oxen had nearly overturned it” (Anderson, 1989, 103), “were making it tip” (NAB; cf. Ackroyd, 66), or “were making it tilt” (JB). However, there is no explicit accusative. LXX adds a suffix, reading שְׁמָטוֹ, shook it (cf. Tg., which, however, uses a different vb.).

Despite the conflicting interpretations, however, most commentators agree that one of the main points the author is making is a theological one. There was almost certainly a strong element of political calculation and manipulation involved in the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem. Noth (134), for example, refers to it as “an astute royal manoeuvre of very questionable legitimacy.” Commanding allegiance and devotion, the presence of the ark would have conferred religious legitimacy both to David and to his city. The incident related in 2 Sam 6:1–11 would have reminded both king and commoners alike that the awesome, potentially lethal, power of the holy God, here represented by the ark, cannot be controlled by any human being (see Kirkpatrick, 1899, 92; McKane, 1963, 211; Anderson, 1989, 107–8; Brueggemann, 249–50).

2. The theme of land is ubiquitous in the OT (Janzen, 146). The q. occurs in Exod 23:11, which instructs Israelites to let the land lie fallow (שָׁמַט) and rest every seventh year. The same demand is found in Lev 25:2–7, which, however, uses the vb. שָׁבַת, rest, have a Sabbath. A comparison of Exod 23:10–11 with Lev 25:2–7 strongly suggests that the passage in Lev is dependent on, and an expansion of, the Exod text (C. J. H. Wright, 1992, 857). The custom of letting land lie fallow is fairly common among so-called primitive peoples, who wish to appease the spiritual powers believed to control the land and its fertility (cf., e.g., Rylaarsdam, 1011–12). Unsurprisingly, the OT gives a theological explanation of the law respecting land (cf. von Rad). In Lev 25:4, the motivation is more overtly religious than in Exod 23:10–11: Every seventh year Israel must relinquish use of the land in acknowledgment of the fact that God owns it and gives it to his people for stewardship (cf. Lev 25:23). However, in Exod 23:11, the motive has a predominantly humanitarian dimension: the fields (crops, vines, olives) must lie fallow so as to provide food for the poor (specifically those without land of their own). Plowing and related agricultural activities were to cease and whatever grew of its own accord was to be made available to the poor.

Clearly, a single universal fallow year is intended by the formulation in Lev 25, but it is unclear whether the intention of the law in Exod 23:11 was that all parts of the country would observe the Sabbath year simultaneously. Largely on the ground that a fallow year once every seven years would not go far to sustaining the poor over a seven-year period, some have argued that Exod 23:10–11 envisaged farmers operating their own fallow year on their land so that there would be a seven-year rotation for individual farms. However, C. J. H. Wright (1992, 857) argues that when the sabbatical year law is set in the context of all the other laws concerning benefit rights for the landless poor (especially the annual right of gleaning in Lev 19:9–10; 23:22; Deut 24:19–22, and the triennial tithe in Deut 14:28–29), the question of how the poor survived for the six years preceding the sabbatical year falls away. It is uncertain whether this fallow year instruction was actually implemented in ancient Israel prior to the Maccabean period.

The same phraseology used in the fallow year law in Exod 23:10–11 is found in Deut 15:1–3. In Deut 15:2, the interesting sentence שָׁמוֹט כָּל־בַּעַל֙ מַשֵּׁהיָדֹו אֲשֶׁר יַשֶּׁה בְּרֵעֵהוּ, probably means: “Every creditor who holds a loan pledge shall release what has been pledged to him by the one indebted to him” (cf. C. J. H. Wright, 1992, 858; NEB; REB; JB; Phillips, 103). As Horst, North, and C. J. H. Wright (1984; 1992, 858), among others, have convincingly argued, Deut 15:1–3 calls for the septennial remission of pledges for debt and not simply of the debt itself. Pledges often took the form of property, but sometimes debtors offered to put their dependants at the disposal of creditors. A creditor was legally entitled to recover a debt from an insolvent debtor by taking into service the man’s wife and children (cf. Exod 21:7). There are good grounds for thinking that the law in Deut 15:1–3 is later than both Exod 23:10–11 and Lev 25:2–7 and that its aim was to expand on the law of seventh year fallow so that compassion would be extended not only to the landless poor, but also to those landowners who had become burdened by poverty and debt (C. J. H. Wright, 1992, 858–59). In Deut 15:1, the meaning grant a remission is conveyed by the vb. עָשָׂה (do, make) followed by nom. שְׁמִטָּה. In v. 2 the nom. and q. inf. abs. of שָׁמַט are used and in v. 3 the hi. occurs in tandem with יָדֶךָ (lit., your hand shall release [so RSV], i.e., you must remit [JB; NEB; NRSV], or, of a claim, you must renounce [REB]).

The fact that the phrasing of this law in Deut 15:1–3 is so strongly reminiscent of Exod 23:11 has suggested to some scholars that it was primarily concerned with agrarian debt related to the use of the land. As in Lev 25, Deut 15:1–3 views the seventh year as having universal significance. The return of all pledges (property and persons) would have afforded considerable relief to debtors, but would they not have continued to be burdened with the debt itself? Some (e.g., C. J. H. Wright, 1992, 858) think that the pledge would not only have provided security until a debt was settled, but would also have served to repay the loan. In such an “antichretic” arrangement, the produce of the pledged land or the service of the dependant put at the creditor’s disposal would belong to the creditor and would constitute the payment of the debt (C. J. H. Wright, 1992, 858; 1990, 171–72).

This is a compelling view in the case of Deut 15:1–3. It is uncertain whether this law is prescribing a complete, permanent cancellation of the debt or a temporary suspension of repayment for one year. However, a temporary respite is suggested both by the wording of v. 2 (“he [the creditor] shall not press [נָגַשׂ] his neighbor”) and by the fact that a special Year of Jubilee would have been unnecessary if the intention of the sabbatical law had been the total, permanent cancellation of all debts and the permanent restoration of all mortgaged property (C. J. H. Wright, 1992, 859; cf., e.g., Craigie, 236; pace, e.g., Smith, 198–99; G. E. Wright, 428; Mayes, 247; Payne, 93; Nelson, 223). It seems, then, that Deut 15:1–3 is instructing creditors to return pledges to debtors and not to press for any loan repayments for the duration of the year of release.

The theological rationale for the שְׁמִטָּה law in Deut 15:1–3 is based on the recognition of God’s generosity in delivering his people out of bondage and in giving them the gift of land. In vv. 7–11, Israelites are warned that it would be a sin to harden their hearts and to fail to show compassion and generosity to the poor. In v. 9, those who are in a position to lend are exhorted not to be grudging and halfhearted in their response to poverty and hardship, but to give cheerfully and generously, even when the seventh year, the year of remission (שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה), is imminent. Deut 31:10–11 instructs Israel that, at the end of every seventh year, at the appointed time of the year of release (בְּמֹעֵד שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה [v. 10]), the deut. law is to be read at the central sanctuary during the Feast of Booths.

P-B Verbal and nom. forms occur in both Heb. and Aram. The vb. in Heb. is שָׁמַט, slip; loosen, detach; carry off, steal; ni. be detached, slip away; pi. and hi. loosen, pluck; drag forth; cause release from debt; cause cessation of field labor; come under the law of limitation of the sabbatical year; rest (of the ground); remit a debt; abandon, send away; hitp. slide, fall off. In Aram. the vb. is שְׁמַט, שְׁמֵיט, loosen, detach, break loose, take away; slip off, glide; be released, rest, lie fallow; let rest, leave fallow; af. release, remit a debt; rest, lie fallow; abandon, let lie fallow; pa. cause remission of debt; let go, drop, discard; tear off; itp. slip off, be dislocated; break loose; relieve one-self; escape, get rid. The Heb. nom. forms שְׁמִטָּה, שְׁמִיטָּה and the Aram. nom. forms שְׁמִטְּתָא, שְׁמִטְּתָה, שְׁמִטָּא, שְׁמִיטָּא, שְׁמִיטָּה, שְׁמִיטְּתָא, mean release, rest, especially cancellation of debts and rest of the soil in the sabbatical year. The nom. שַׁמְטוּטִין means slips, shoots. The Heb. adj. forms שָׁמוּט and the Aram. שְׁמוּטָא, שְׁמִיטָא, שְׁמִיטָה, mean nimble, long, thin. In Aram. the words שָׁמוֹטָא, שָׁמוּטָא, mean long stretched (name of a species of) locusts (Jastrow 2:1592, 1594–95).

See Borrowing & lending

See Falling, tottering, stumbling

Bibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel, 1977; A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms. Vol. 2: Psalms 73–150, NCBC, 1972; idem, 2 Samuel, WBC, 1989; C. A. and E. G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. II, ICC, 1960; J. Bright, Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1965; W. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 1990; G. B. Caird, “The First and Second Books of Samuel: Introduction and Exegesis,” IB, 1953, 2:853–1176; R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL, 1986; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1983; M. Dahood, Psalms III: 101–150, AB, 1970; F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Vol. III, KD, 2d ed., 1885; S. R. Driver, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: A Revised Translation With Introductions and Short Explanations, 1906; idem, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel With an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions and Facsimiles of Inscriptions and Maps, 2d ed., revised and enlarged, 1966; J. H. Eaton, Psalms: Introduction and Commentary, 1972; F. Horst, Das Privilegerecht Jahves, 1930; W. Janzen, “Land,” in ABD, 1992, 4:143–54; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, 1957; idem, The Second Book of Samuel, With Maps, Notes and Introduction, 1899; W. McKane, I & II Samuel: Introduction and Commentary, 1963; idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Volume 1: An Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I–XXV, ICC, 1986; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, NCBC, 1979; R. D. Nelson, “Deuteronomy,” in HBC, 1988, 209–34; R. North, “Yâd in the Shemitta-law,” VT 14, 1954, 196–99; M. Noth, “Jerusalem and the Israelite Tradition,” in (his) The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1967, 132–44; D. F. Payne, Deuteronomy, 1985; A. S. Peake, Jeremiah Vol. I: Jeremiah I–XXIV, 1910; A. Phillips, Deuteronomy, CBC, 1973; G. von Rad, “The Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land in the Hexateuch,” in (his) The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1966, 79–93; H. W. Robinson, “Jeremiah,” in Peake, 1920, 474–95; J. C. Rylaarsdam, “The Book of Exodus: Introduction and Exegesis,” IB, 1952, 1:831–1099; G. A. Smith, The Book of Deuteronomy, 1918; C. J. H. Wright, “What Happened Every Seven Years in Israel? Old Testament Sabbatical Institutions for Land, Debt and Slaves,” EvQ 56, 1984, 129–38, 193–201; idem, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament, 1990; idem, “Sabbatical Year,” in ABD, 1992, 5:857–61; G. E. Wright, “The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction and Exegesis,” IB, 1953, 2:309–537.

Robin Wakely

In my view, the most complete and technical OT commentaries in Logos are these:

• Anchor Bible Commentary - emphasises philology on exegesis, sometimes at the expense of theology. Some volumes are excellent, though the quality varies considerably.
• New International Commentary on the Old Testament - evangelical and of a pretty consistent high standard. In my view, the best if you can afford it.
• Hermeneia - high on criticism, sometimes weak on theology. The best example of continental scholarship.
• International Critical Commentary - some excellent volumes, though many now dated.
• Word Biblical Commentary - Mostly (but not exclusively) evangelical. Some excellent volumes (e.g. Genesis), others are disappointing.
• Keil and Delitzsch - the best budget purchase. Solid, competent, though dated.