| 33. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with achar {אַחַר֙ | ʾaḥar} hadavar hazeh {הַדָּבָר֙ הַזֶּ֣ה | ha-dāvar ha-zēh} ‘after this event’, marking a temporal transition. The negative lo {לֹא | lōʾ} + Qal perfect shav {שָׁ֥ב | šāḇ} yields emphatic negation “did not return.” The construct midarko haraah {מִדַּרְכּוֹ הָרָעָה | miḏarḵōw hā-rā-ʿāh} ‘from his evil way’ intensifies moral judgment. The vav consecutive sequence vayyashav {וַיָּשָׁב | way-yā-šāḇ} + vayyaas {וַיַּעַשׂ | way-ya-ʿaś} advances the narrative: “and he returned and he made.” Miktsot {מִקְצֹות | miqṣôṯ} ‘extremities’ highlights selection from society’s margins. The participle hechafets {הֶחָפֵץ | he-ḥā-peṣ} with Piel imperfect yemalle {יְמַלֵּא | ye-mal-lēʾ} in the consecration formula etyado {אֶת־יָדֹו | ʾet yā-dōw} explains the ordination. Finally, the resultant vihi kohanei bamot {וִיהִי כֹּהֲנֵי בָמוֹת | wîhî kōhănê bāmôt} ‘and they became priests of the high places’ underscores the institutionalization of unauthorized worship. |