Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Al Silberman <alfred.silberman AT lmco.com>]

On Wed, 09 Sep 1998  Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph> wrote:

>It does result in an interpretation question, however.  If "promised" is
>the intented meaning here, does that mean that the food may or may not
>have been given?  Why the change of verb, with NTN used in the first and
>third of the group of clauses and )MR in the second?  I don't see, "and
>he gave him a house, and bread he promised him, and land he gave him,"
>as being the necessary equivalent of, "and he gave him a house and bread
>and land."

There is a big difference between the giving of land, a house and bread.
The first two represent a one time gift while bread would have to be
supplied daily. Thus, while a house and land were given as a one time gift,
bread had to promised for the future on a continuous basis.

Which brings up the following questions:
1. Why aren't house and land listed together?
2. Wouldn't it be more natural to say land then house?