An Analysis of “Treasured Possession” (Exodus 19:5)

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.


The stipulations element of the covenant (וְעַתָּ֗ה אִם־שָׁמ֤וֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ֙ בְּקֹלִ֔י וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֑י, v.5) is followed by the divine promise of Israel’s special position, which is presented with three terms. The first of three descriptions held out to Israel is סְגֻלָּה, which has been translated into English as “peculiar treasure” (KJV), “treasured possession” (ESV; NIV; cf. NASB; RSV; HCSB), and “special treasure” (NLT). The precise meaning and origin of סְגֻלָּה is somewhat obscure. Given the importance of understanding this term in order to understand the immediate passage as well as Israel’s intended position throughout Biblical history, the exegete does well to investigate סְגֻלָּה.

Out of its eight Biblical uses, twice סְגֻלָּה carries a secular or common use as it refers to literal treasure. In 1 Chronicles 29:3, David speaks of all the resources, including his own special treasure (סְגֻלָּה), which he is donating to the building of Solomon’s temple. In Ecclesiastes 2:8, Solomon mentions gold, silver, and סְגֻלָּה among many other pleasures he sought in vain. However, סְגֻלָּה came to be employed in a theological-figurative sense (e.g., Ps 135:4). As Sarna and Hamilton note, a connection between the Hebrew סְגֻלָּה (segulla) and Akkadian sikiltum may exist. Sikiltum occurs in a royal seal parallel to the description of Abban king of Alalakh as the servant and beloved of the god, Alad. Similarly, in an Ugarit text from a Hittite king (identified as “the sun”) to Hammurapi of Ugarit, a potential cognate of סְגֻלָּה occurs parallel to a word referring to Hammurapi as a friend-servant. Such parallels suggest that sikiltum, and correspondingly סְגֻלָּה, connotes a special relationship (Sarna, 104; Hamilton, 303). In Malachi 3:17, YHWH uses סְגֻלָּה to describe the remnant that fears Him. Again, such texts indicate that סְגֻלָּה connotes a unique relationship. Therefore, according to Stuart, in Exodus 19:5, סְגֻלָּה indicates God’s intention to create for Himself His own particular people. As he says,

“This represents the separation of his chosen people from the general world population, or, stated in terms of the overall biblical plan of redemption, the beginning of the outworking of his intention to bring close to himself a people that will join him for all eternity as adopted members of his family.” (422)

In like thought, according to Childs, if Israel demonstrates faithfulness to God’s covenant, she will achieve this special relationship (367). In other words, these scholars claim that סְגֻלָּה primarily serves to define Israel’s relationship to God; “Israel is God’s own people, set apart from the rest of the nations” (Childs, 367). Interestingly, in the Pentateuch exclusively, this language of Israel as God’s סְגֻלָּה always occurs hand in hand with Israel’s unique election and subsequent call to holiness (Ex 19:5; Dt 7:6 14:2 26:18; Sarna, 104; Hamilton, 302). In other words, Israel’s unique “otherness” from all other nations as a result of her election and special relationship to God is to result in Israel’s “otherness” in action, ethics, religious service, etc.

In conclusion, although used to refer to an individual’s literal special treasure, a “prized possession” if one will, סְגֻלָּה entered the figurative as well as the religious sphere to denote something or someone of a unique, privileged position similar to that of one’s literal “prized possession.” In Exodus 19:5, God states that if Israel is faithful to His covenant, such a position will be hers. God holds his people as his “prized possession,” His special and most valued treasure. What a privilege! And, as a result of this special position, God’s people are called to special conduct unique from those that are not God’s people.

The meaning of “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband” (Genesis 3:14)

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.


In Genesis 3:14-19, God pronounces His curse upon the serpent, the women, and the man after humanity’s fall into sin. Of the punishments administered out to the woman, God includes the following—וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ך. Much scholarly debate has occurred as a result of the ambiguity of this phrase. What is meant by the woman’s desire (תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ)? And how does this desire relate to her husband (וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙)? The answer to these sorts of questions is no trivial matter, for they strike at the heart of the nature of both womanhood and the marital relationship within this fallen world, let alone the identity of God’s curse against the woman.

Matthews provides a succinct survey of various perspectives on the meaning of this phrase (see pg. 250). One such popular view argues that תְּשׁוּקָה refers to the wife’s sexual desire for her husband. In this case, the וְאֶל would be understood as indicating interest, e.g., desire for your husband. The central argument for this understanding is found in Song of Solomon 7:11 [Eng. 10], one of only two other occurrences of תְּשׁוּקָה, where תְּשׁוּקָה clearly refers to sexual desire. Further support is drawn from the close proximity reference to childbirth in 3:1, which assumes sexual relations. According to this interpretation, the woman’s curse entails sexual desire for her husband despite the now extremely painful experience of childbirth that comes as a result of such sexual relations, “making all the more certain that the woman will undergo painful childbirth” (Matthew, 250). In other words, וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ relates more so to what precedes it (הַרְבָּ֤ה אַרְבֶּה֙ עִצְּבוֹנֵ֣ךְ וְהֵֽרֹנֵ֔ךְ בְּעֶ֖צֶב תֵּֽלְדִ֣י בָנִ֑ים) than what follows (וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ). Therefore, the relationship of the subsequent line about the husband ruling is handled in various ways. For example, Wenham provides one possible understanding—the husband takes advantage of his wife’s sexual appetite; “women often allow themselves to be exploited in this way because of their urge toward their husband” (81).

However, more persuasive reasons exist for understanding this desire as a desire of the woman to rule over or be independent of her husband. In this case, the וְאֶל would most likely be viewed as adversative, e.g., desire against your husband. This view finds initial support in the immediate and larger context. This punishment comes as the disruption of the complementary marriage relationship (i.e., the woman as the man’s helpmeet) established in 2:18-25. Matthew also notes that this “reference to marital disharmony [in 3:16] . . . has its match in the subsequent clause, where the judgment against the man alludes to the ensuing gender struggle in the indictment, ‘because you listened to your wife’ (3:17)” (250). Further, this interpretation makes much more sense of the relationship between this line (וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ) and the one that follows (וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ). As Wenham states, “woman’s desire for independence would be contrasted with an injunction to man to master her” (81-82). But finally, the nail in the coffin is the close proximity use of תְּשׁוּקָה in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s personified desire to dominate Cain. Further, as Hamilton notes, the pairing of תְּשׁוּקָה and מָשַׁל in both 3:16 and 4:7 argues that these words should be read in concert and carry the same force in both contexts. As such, “the clear meaning of 4:7 illuminates the less clear meaning of 3:16” (201). In fact, the lexical and structural similarities are likely intentional (Matthew, 251). Therefore, although the meaning of תְּשׁוּקָה can be ambiguous—granted—these connections between its use in 3:16 and 4:7 are convincing. With that said, the clear meaning in 4:7 is that of control and mastery; and as such, וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ is best understood as referring to the desire of the woman to rule over or be independent of her husband.

The Revelation of Christ as Revelation on Revelation

The Old Testament (OT) anticipates Christ and is an unfinished story without Him. Christ fulfills the hopes of the OT, which is another way of saying that the OT is about Christ (Lk 24:25-27, 44-45; Jn 5:39-40). Therefore, when the realization (i.e., Christ) of what was anticipated in the OT arrives, it actually illuminates and clarifies the expectation. In other words, Christ’s person and work specify what was anticipated in previous revelation. As such, the revelation of Jesus is a revelation on previous revelation (cf. Heb 1:1-2). Only in this sense is all previous revelation understood with all its implications, in its fullest meaning. In light of progressive revelation culminating in Christ, the significance of OT passages develop, they undergo an organic expansion, and they receive a fuller, but not contradictory, meaning. And as Christians who affirm the centrality of Christ in scripture and desire to read scripture in context, including its ultimate canonical context, we must read the OT in light of its consummation in Christ.

Continue reading

Discontinuity through Continuity (or Discontinuity without Parenthesis)

Just a few days ago I tweeted the following:

I’ve decided to expand upon and explain these tweets in further detail in this post. Allow me to do this by providing an illustration.

Continue reading

In Pursuit of Responsible Typology

As I mentioned yesterday, there has been some discussion within dispensational circles lately about typology and analogical interpretation. In my post yesterday I shared my dissatisfaction and qualms with that view which seeks to remove typology from its typical central role in “doing” Biblical theology in favor of “putting one’s Bible together” by means of analogy. So because I understand typology as fundamental to the unity and promise-fulfillment structure of the Old and New Testaments as well as a central way the New Testament writers use the Old Testament to show its continuity with their message and the work of Christ, I’m in pursuit of something more than an analogical interpretation, that being typology.

But yes, if lacking good definition and hermeneutical safety-rails, typology can easily become something other than typology–imaginative, fanciful, interpretations; finding typology where typology is not really present and connecting dots where no dots are to be found.[1] But, while recognizing the possible “slippery-slope,” I don’t want to be fallacious and equate typology with the slope itself, as many seem to do (e.g., Mark Snoeberger). Typology done legitimately is legitimate, despite hermeneutically unfortunate and irresponsibility decisions that find refuge under the umbrella of typology.

Continue reading