| 16. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with the fronted temporal phrase ba'et hahi {בָּעֵת הַהִיא | bā-ʿēṯ ha-hîʾ} ‘at that time,’ anchoring the action to the immediate crisis context. The main predicate kitsats {קִצַּץ | qiṣṣaṣ} ‘he cut off’ is followed by two coordinated direct objects marked with ʾeṯ: et-daltot heikhal Yahweh {אֶת־דַּלְת֨וֹת הֵיכַ֤ל יְהוָה | ʾeṯ-daltôṯ hêḵāl Yə-hō-wāh} ‘the doors of the temple of the LORD’ and ve'et-ha'omnot {וְאֶת־הָאֹ֣מְנ֔וֹת | wə-ʾeṯ-hā-ʾomnōṯ} ‘and the supports.’ The relative clause introduced by asher {אֲשֶׁר | ʾăšer} ‘which’ plus tsippa {צִפָּה | ṣippāh} ‘he overlaid’ recalls Hezekiah’s earlier embellishment; syntactically it can attach most naturally to the nearer “supports,” yet contextually it can also describe both doors and supports as items he plated. The appositional identification khizqiyyah melekh yehudah {חִזְקִיָּה מֶ֣לֶךְ יְהוּדָ֑ה | ḥizqiyyāh meleḵ yəhûḏāh} ‘Hezekiah, king of Judah’ heightens the irony: the same king who adorned these elements now removes what he added. The sequence culminates with the wayyiqtol va-yitnem {וַֽיִּתְּנֵ֖ם | wayyitnēm} ‘and he gave them,’ driving the narrative forward to the beneficiary phrase le-melekh ashur {לְמֶ֥לֶךְ אַשּֽׁוּר | lə-meleḵ ʾAššûr} ‘to the king of Assyria.’ The plural “them” coheres best with the stripped-off materials (implied by the pairing of “cut off” with “overlaid”), presenting the act as a forced transfer of temple wealth in political submission. |