Another excellent dive into the context of scripture. Exodus is RICH with historical elements that aren’t made plain by scripture alone, so Guzik’s commentary adds a wealth of information to help interpret the Israeli journey out of Egypt.
Historical context provided, Exodus comes alive as a story of a redeeming God, a jealous God, a God with a penchant for humor and maybe even sarcasm, and a God who time and time again makes a way for His people.
Language is of course a topic of dissection, but I think most important to the Exodus commentary is the additional insights on Egyptian religion and culture. The plagues are not so arbitrary when you discover that each plague was a direct challenge to the Egyptian pantheon of gods. Makes way more sense as to why God would send frogs, when one of the Egyptian gods of fertility was depicted as having a frogs head. Truly, He works in mysterious ways.
Also, the theology of the “angels” and “angel of Lord” was very nice to have clarity provided. The Ten Commandments get their proper exploration, especially with regard to their original interpretations. Geographical insights help to make a clear story for the Israelites in the wilderness which is nice for an uneducated smoothnbrain like me.
Lastly, you can’t talk about Exodus without talking about those last 14 chapters building the Tabernacle. Quoting a handful of other writers, it was very nice to see some actual theology attributed to the tabernacle, as well as the interpretation of what different raw materials symbolized in the ancient Middle East. Can’t state enough how much less arbitrary Exodus is, when there’s actually a reason that acacia wood is used here, and why the silver base was symbolic of xyz, and why the onyx stone in the ephod directly represented xyz. All this stuff that doesn’t mean anything to me because I’m not an exiled Hebrew circa 1470 BC.
Guzik does take a few stabs at Catholic and Orthodox doctrine in this book, especially around idol worship in the Ten Commandments chapters, so he loses a star for that. The point was not made for education, but for insisting that those interpretations of scripture are incorrect. I’m just a catechumen and was told not to go entering any theological debates I’m not qualified to participate in, but it’s still a bit disingenuous to me.