WANT TO DIG DEEPER INTO THE BIBLE? Easy to follow as we go through the Bible Chapter by Chapter, breaking down the scriptures. N2Christ…
The Hezekiah (Heb: Chizkiyahu) narrative in II Kings (chapters 17 – 20) and Isaiah (36 – 39) concludes on a dissonant and haunting confrontation between King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah. Hezekiah has just shown his kingdom’s wealth to messengers of Brodach Baladan, King of Babylonia. Isaiah asks Hezekiah about his guests, and when Hezekiah tells him where they are from, Isaiah proclaims:
Behold, days are coming and everything in your house and what your
ancestors have collected until this day will be carried off to
Babylonia, nothing will remain saith the Lord. And the children that
you will beget will be taken to be eunuchs in the palace of the King
of Babylonia. And Hezekiah responded to Isaiah, the word of the Lord
that you have spoken is good, insomuch as there will be peace and
truth in my days. (II Kings 20:17-18, JPS translation).
This prophecy of doom is devastating and perplexing. Does Isaiah mean to say that Hezekiah is literally responsible for the future exile and destruction at the hands of Babylonians? If so, what did he do wrong? How should Hezekiah have known it was bad to receive foreign emissaries from Babylonia?
Has there been a published version of the Bible where the text was ordered in the order it is best assumed that it was written?
I’m not interested in a version that is ordered in a chronological sense from the perspective of…
1 John 5:16 (NIV) Emphasis Added
If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin t…
Most translations seem to agree that “Jealous” is the best translation for this passage. For example:
Exodus 34:14 (NASB)
—for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God—
However, Young’s Literal Translation chooses to use “Zealous”, instead:
Exodus 34:14 (YLT)
for ye do not bow yourselves to another god — for Jehovah, whose name [is] Zealous, is a zealous God.
What is the original word used here and what does it mean? Is “jealous” a good translation of it or does the original word carry a broader meaning than that?
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. …
I apologize in advance for the length of the question.
The book of Ruth is incredibly romantic and powerful, but I don’t understand the legal portion of the drama:
Now Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there. And behold, the redeemer, of whom Boaz had spoken, came by. So Boaz said, “Turn aside, friend; sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, “Sit down here.” So they sat down. Then he said to the redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative Elimelech. So I thought I would tell you of it and say, ‘Buy it in the presence of those sitting here and in the presence of the elders of my people.’ If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if you will not, tell me, that I may know, for there is no one besides you to redeem it, and I come after you.” And he said, “I will redeem it.”—Ruth 4:1-4 (ESV)
So far, so good. The property must remain in the family:
If your brother becomes poor and sells part of his property, then his nearest redeemer shall come and redeem what his brother has sold.—Leviticus 25:25 (ESV)
(In passing, it’s interesting to see that Naomi would be paid for the land so the effect of the rule is that widows retained some form of property ownership.)
Then Boaz said, “The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead, in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance.” Then the redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it.”
Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm a transaction, the one drew off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was the manner of attesting in Israel.—Ruth 4:5-7 (ESV)
I do see that the custom of perpetuating the name of the dead had legal basis:
“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.’—Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (ESV)
But why does Boaz say, “The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite”? How does redeeming some land also introduce a levirate marriage obligation?
I think I understand the argument in Galatians 3:19a about the purpose of the law. But then in the second half of the verse, Paul begins, “The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. A mediator, however, imp…
In 1 Kings 18, verse 16 onwards we read that Elijah performed a miracle.
He prays to God and brings fire down from heaven to consume the sacrifice.
He is shown as a courageous prophet who is not afraid of King Ahab or the f…
King James Bible And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,…
On the surface, the book of Joshua draws a hard-and-fast distinction between Israelites and Canaanites. The book seems to advocate the removal of the Canaanites from the land lest they jeopardize Israel’s covenant with YHWH. But evidence from the book itself, as well as from archaeology, suggests that this distinction was not strictly maintained. What is the evidence? What then does the book have to say about religious exclusivity?