| 10. Linguistic Exegesis The narrative verb vayipša {וַיִּפְשַׁ֨ע | wayyiṗšaʿ} ‘and he rebelled’ uses the vav consecutive + Qal imperfect to signal a past action. The proper noun Edom {אֱדוֹם | ’ĕdôm} functions as subject. The idiom mitachat yad {מִתַּחַת יַד | mittaḥat yad} ‘from under the hand’ denotes political subordination. The phrase ʿad hayyôm házzeh {עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה | ʿad hayyôm házzeh} ‘until this day’ extends that state into the narrative present. The adverb ʾāz {אָז | ʾāz} ‘then’ and the imperfect tîp̄šaʿ {תִּפְשַׁע | tîp̄šaʿ} ‘she rebelled’, introduced by baʿēt hahîʾ {בָּעֵת הַהִיא | baʿēt hahîʾ} ‘at that time’, parallel the earlier uprising. The repeated mittaḥat yādô {מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ | mittaḥat yādô} reinforces the analogous rebellion. The conjunction kî {כִּי | kî} ‘because’ introduces a causal clause led by the perfect ʿāzav {עָזַב | ʿāzav} ‘he forsook’, with the accusative particle ʾet- {אֶת־ | ʾet-} omitted in English. The construct chain Yahweh ʼĕlōhê ’ăḇōtāw {יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתָיו | yəhōwāh ʼĕlōhê ʼăḇōtāw} binds the divine name to the ancestral title, creating a theological climax that contrasts covenant unfaithfulness with political collapse. |