Results 41 - 60 of 156
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Israel the promise land? | Gen 17:8 | MJH | 150095 | ||
"the army from the north attack Israel..." If you look closely at the geography, all armies in the ancient world would have to attack from the north of south (or possibly from the west by way of the sea.) I can not think of a time that an army attacked from any other direction than north or south. Babylon may be more East, but to attack, they would have to come from the North. Just a thought. MJH |
||||||
42 | What was the purpose of circumcision? | Gen 17:10 | MJH | 223383 | ||
Gen 12 - Abram is given the Promise. I will bless you, make you into a great nation, all nations on earth will be blessed through you, and the Land will be yours. No Sign of this covenant Promise given. Gen 15 - Abram is given the covenant Promise in covenant form. God "cuts" a covenant with Abram and repeats the promises. No sign of the covenant is given. Gen. 16 - Abram has Ishmael with Hagar. He attempts to make God's promise come true in his own strength. If Abram does not have a child, God is proved to be a liar. Abram solves the problem, so he thinks for the next 13 years. He assumes the blessing is reckoned through Ishmael. Gen. 17 - Abram believes God and it is credited as righteousness. God promises a son, the Promised son, through Sarah. God gives the sign of the covenant Promise--circumcision. Why not given until now? Because Abraham needed to understand that God's Promise (all of it) will come about in God's time and way. Circumcision is a physical reminder of that fact. It is neither by Abram’s works nor ours that the Promise of God will come to all nations. By cutting the very part of the body that attempted to secure the Promise in his own strength; the part of the body that signified a man’s power and strength, the People of God would be reminded of this Promise and that it would not come about by their (or their child’s) ability, strength, cunning, or wisdom, but by God's alone. Joshua 5. All the people who were born in the wilderness wanderings were not circumcised. Why? When the first generation refused to trust God's promise of the land by entering; and then trying to conquer it on their own strength, they proved themselves to be faithless. They did not trust in the Promise of God and therefore they were forbidden to participate in the sign of the promise. They were faithless so they can not perform the covenant sign of faith in the Promise. When the next generation is ready to enter the land, and they do trust God, they get circumcision. (This is a further proof of trust, because it made them extremely vulnerable at the door step of their enemies.) The prophets repeatedly say that one should be “circumcised of heart.” Having a surgery performed on you at eight days old did not demonstrate your own acceptance of the Promise. Circumcised of heart is true Faith in the Promise which is by far more important than an outward physical sign. In Paul’s day and some time earlier, circumcision was seen as a way for Gentiles to join the community. Rather than an outward sign of true faith, it became the means to join God’s people and therefore was a “work of the law” to get saved. That’s turning the original meaning Abraham was shown upside down. If circumcision is seen as a way to get saved, then better to stay uncircumcised. Circumcision of the heart (as spoken of by the Prophets) was and is the main issue. Yet, Paul does not toss out the commandment as is seen in circumcising Titus (or was that Timothy?) and proving in Acts 21-22 that he was not teaching against the Jews circumcising their children. I hope that helps. Please note: you should do due diligence in seeking answers to your questions. My answer may not be that common, but I am certain that gifted teachers here will comment should they feel I am off base…which I welcome. |
||||||
43 | Looking for ref to ID Jacob's opponent | Gen 32:24 | MJH | 173825 | ||
How about I just give you the answer, He was the messiah. The "Angel of the Lord." There are however, a ton of references. If you want some very interesting ones, check out some Jewish commentaries too. But if you want an iron clad 100 percent answer, you won't find it. No one knows. MJH |
||||||
44 | belly of a whore? | Gen 38:9 | MJH | 214222 | ||
I think you may be a bit confused. The only place your question could be connected to is Gen 38 where Onan refuses to produce a child with his dead brothers wife by "spilling his semen on the ground." The act was tantamount to attempting to prevent the birth of the Messiah. It was through Tamar that Jesus was ultimately born. Judah sends Tamar to live with her own family as a widow until the younger son was old enough. Since Judah was afraid of loosing his last remaining son (all the other with this women had died), he never intended on giving his son to her to fulfill the duty of a brother. Tamar learns that Judah is coming to town, so she dresses as a prostitute and gets Judah to sleep with her. She becomes pregnant and you can read the rest of the tale in Gen 38. MJH |
||||||
45 | Good study guide for Exodus? | Exodus | MJH | 140374 | ||
The following is a Jewish commentary on the book of Exodus, but shows many of the types of things taught during the time of Jesus, thus things He would have been aware. Also, comments by latter Jewish sages. I find it very interesting, but it is not a sole source since it is not written by those who accept Jesus as the Messiah. JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus: Shemot: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Sarna, Nahum M. (Author) ISBN: 0827603274 It is 65 dollars retail, but at www.karis.spreadtheword.com it is 45.00 MJH |
||||||
46 | Resurrection Day, not easter! | Exodus | MJH | 215258 | ||
justme, This issue has irritated me for some time. It's a nearly futile research project unless you have a lot of time and can weed through language issues. Not only that, but most people who do research this area have a conclusion in mind before they begin…and they often find that their assumptions are correct regardless of what they are. Here is what I've gleaned. Easter is an English word! The German word connection is there due to missionary connections within the Anglo-Saxon world. The word may or may not have connection to a pagan goddess, but there are no other languages in our day that use a spring goddess name to refer to the resurrection. Almost all are derived from the Hebrew word Passover. And during the second to fourth centuries when a debate over dates was heated, English wasn't the language used! In the second century, the Roman and Jerusalem branches argued over how to celebrate Passover and the Lord’s resurrection. The Roman church wanted the resurrection to always fall on the first day of the week while the Jerusalem church wanted it to fall on first fruits. (Jesus rose on both, but the first day of the week is based on the sun, and First Fruits is based on the moon, so it changes days of the week every year.) Even though the Jerusalem side could argue that they were the living disciples of the Apostle John…they knew him personally and how he did it, they still lost the argument (split between East and West), but the Lord’s resurrection was still connected to God’s festival of Passover. In short, they observed the Passover followed by a day of fast followed by the Resurrection celebration of our Lord. The festival season was still referred to by the Greek word derived from the Hebrew festivals. In the fourth century the split between anything looking “Jewish” was at its breaking point. When the Christian Church became the political church, they had the opportunity to make some definitive statements about doctrine and Holy Days. Up until then, the Christians were at least somewhat dependant on the Jews for determining when Passover began and not all Christians followed the same calendar. There was quite a bit of confusion that needed to be dealt with in the now organizing church. Therefore, a calculation was invented based on both the lunar cycle and the solar cycle. This calculation puts the Lord’s Resurrection Holy Day, almost always near the Passover. The fourth century is where people like to connect the English Easter to a pagan goddess. My personal view is that I find it very hard to apply negative intent to the fourth century church fathers. It’s simply historically not the right time for this behavior. My belief is that the gentile/Jewish separation caused the church leaders to find a good opportunity to make a clean break. They couldn’t jettison the Resurrection, and since the Resurrection is intricately connected to Passover and First Fruits, they needed to find a way to keep the days without remaining “Jewish” in appearance. Any negative intent applied to these Church leaders is in regards to anti-Judaism rather than pro pagan goddess. In other words, they wanted to separate from anything appearing Jewish, but did not want to marry themselves to anything pagan. If in fact they were attempting to borrow the pagan goddess, then why do all languages on Earth today, except English and German, use a word coming from Passover rather than a word coming from a pagan goddess? And why can we not find any fourth century Church fathers writing anything that would make you believe they were in truth, pagan mixing Aster lovers? In fact you can not. But there is ample writings showing their hatred for anything appearing Jewish! In fact the link provided by nickmostly does a good job with the etymology of the Anglo-Saxon word Easter. The case if far stronger against a pagan connection than there is for one. Now to get personal: It is enormously unfortunate that the Christian Church does not celebrate Passover! There is simply no other Festival instituted by God that more profoundly professes the Grace of God through the redemption of his children both through the Exodus and through the crucifixion/resurrection. The Christian church has no idea what it is missing. MJH |
||||||
47 | when did moses send his wife and sons | Exodus | MJH | 215489 | ||
The answer is traditionally found in these verses, but you will note the odd construction: "went back to Egypt." Ex 4:20 "So Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the staff of God in his hand. And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, . . . [Pharaoh] will not let the people go. "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, 'Let my son go that he may serve me.' If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.'" "At a lodging place on the way" Ex 4:24 At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put [him] to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched [his] feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision. "At the mountain of the Lord"- opposite direction. The LORD said to Aaron, "Go into the wilderness to meet Moses." So he went and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him. Ex 4:28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD with which he had sent him to speak, and all the signs that he had commanded him to do. "Now in Egypt and apparently without family." Exo 4:29 Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the people of Israel. Did Moses decide that this was too dangerous for his family to go with him? Also, while many English Text say God was about to kill Moses, the pronouns do not have a noun they are attached to. One is left not knowing if Moses was the target, or his firstborn son? Likewise, we are not 100 percent certain whose feet were touched with the foreskin, the Angel of the LORD or Moses or the Son's. Probably more than you asked, but I have found this passage very interesting for some time. MJH |
||||||
48 | What NAME do we call our GOD? Ex 3:14 | Ex 3:15 | MJH | 164743 | ||
The name of God is spelt using the four Hebrew letters, Yod, He, Vav, He. These four letters of God's name are also called the HEBREW TETRAGRAMMATON. I can not type Hebrew in the answer here, but you can find it by googling the word Tetragrammaton. The way the word if pronounced is lost to antiquity since the Jews, wanting to honor the 3rd commandment, would not utter the name out loud. It is NOT pronounced Jehovah, this we now know. The best guess is Yahweh. Some simply say the Hebrew letters (which sounds a lot like breathing in and out...so with each breath we take, we are speaking the name of God.) Some translations use LORD in all caps to replace the four letters. Others use Yahweh, or ADONI in all caps (Adoni is the word Lord in Hebrew.) I hope this helps, but I feel it may only complicate. Oh, and by the way, Jesus name is not Jesus but rather Yeshua. Yeshua means "God Saves or Salvation" And thus the passage where the angel tells Joseph to name the boy "Yeshua because he will save his peole from their sins."makes since in Hebrew. Also when Jesus says to Zacheus that he will be coming to his house he says, "Today salvation has come to your house." There is a play on words using Jesus' own name. Some people reject outright the name Jesus and claim it has pagan roots. The use of Jesus comes from translating the Hebrew name of Yeshua into the Greek and then into Latin and then to English. There are no pagan roots, but translation roots to the English name Jesus. MJH - |
||||||
49 | Why worship on resurrection day? | Ex 20:10 | MJH | 140402 | ||
Jesus instituted the Holy Communion during Passover and said to do "this" in remembrance of me. The question is, what does "this" refer to? If it refers to Passover, then possibly we have been getting it wrong. I will allow others to debate this with you and me, but I believe that we ought to celebrate Passover and do it in remembrance of Jesus. It's quite amazing how much of Passover reflects Jesus, even the way the Jews do it today. The early church DID celebrate Passover, and debated in the 180's AD whether it should be done on the traditional Passover day, or the Sunday following. Rome said Sunday, and Jerusalem said the traditional day. Rome almost excommunicated Jerusalem, but cooler heads prevailed, and they lived in peace for a while. But they both seem to have celebrated Passover in connection with the Lords resurrection. Certainly the Apostles celebrated Passover and connected it with the Lord's Resurrection. To believe otherwise is absurd. They were Jewish and Acts shows Paul eager to return to Jerusalem before Shavuot (Pentecost) to celebrate it in Jerusalem. Celebrating Jesus birth is man made; though I think a good man made tradition. Celebrating his Resurrection was not man made, but commanded by Jesus Himself. Easter was not a word even used, nor imagined to be used in connection with Jesus Resurrection until the 4th century when that pagan spring fertility celebration was mixed with the Holy Passover. I believe one of the greatest tragedies in church history. My family celebrates "resurrection day" and have a separate God honoring "spring celebration" for our girls that we try to tie into the first really nice sunny day to honor God for the seasons and new agricultural season. Our Resurrection Day happens two days (3 if your Jewish) after Passover when ever Passover happens. Then of course we do go to church on "Easter." God Bless you in your search for truth. MJH |
||||||
50 | Who is the Lord of the 10 commandments? | Ex 20:11 | MJH | 140401 | ||
The sabbath day is Saturday (as you apparently know.) During the first century the Christians, both Jewish and Gentile, continued to honor the Sabbath and usually attended the synagogue. On the first day of the week they honored the Lord's Ressurection day, meeting in homes. During the 4th century (300's) AD, the Church fathers adapted the Sunday celebration because Constantine wanted the whole empire to be consistent in their worship. They choose Sunday as the day of worship. No small reason for this was the fact that the Sun god was worhshiped on this day. This also began another persecusion of the Jews. (I believe) The day a person rests is one of contraversy. Whole denominations center around this one commandment. You need to come to your own conclusions both on the day, and how you honor it. But like the rabbis of old, you need to interpert what it means to "work" while avoiding the temptation to be legalistic, or worse, to honor the sabbath above loving your neighbor as yourself. I'm sure some on the forum, should they read my answer, will correct some errors in my history, but I know that I am close. I honor Saturday, imperfectly I am sure; but then attend church on Sunday. We realised that our Sunday was anything but restful, but it is not easy to go against the grain of the rest of your Brothers, particularly when they assume you are legalistic simply by honoring Saturday as the Sabbath. I often wonder who is being legalistic. Your question seemed to be more of a statement, but I hope that I have helped some. MJH |
||||||
51 | animal that can't be killed | Leviticus | MJH | 217458 | ||
The Bible does not restrict raising any animals. It also does not restrict slaughtering them with the exception previously noted. It does restrict which can be used as a sacrifice and where a sacrifice could be made as well as which can be eaten by a member of the Assembly of God. If you are interested in which can be "eaten" see Leviticus 11. This may be what you were seeking. MJH |
||||||
52 | Baptism ritual before John | Lev 8:6 | MJH | 141974 | ||
No, John the Baptist was not doing anything radically new in his day. The idea of water being used to make a person or object clean is written about all over the book of Leviticus. See Lev 14:8 and the whole chapter of Lev. 15 for a sample. The temple itself has many, many baptismal pools. (Singular they were called a Mikvah.) You can do a search at google with the word mikvah and find a host of information. They have excavated these pools outside the temple which explains why 3000 could be baptized at one time. The dead sea scrolls have a lot written in their societal order about their Mikvout (I think this is how you spell the plural of Mikvah.) Also the Jewish oral law, the Talmud or Mishnah, has a lot to speak of about these baptisms. John used the Jordan because it was a source of living water. A baptism required a certain amount of living water defined as water that fell from heaven, or water that was moving. A cistern or well (unless also a spring) was not living water. The people usually baptized themselves and did not get dunked by a rabbi or other person; however, that does not mean rabbi’s didn’t physically baptize also. Jesus did not baptize. Many wealthy Jews in Jerusalem has their own Mikvah in their homes. A person immersed themselves for many reasons such as to enter the Temple, to become ritually clean after becoming unclean for any reason, and then to signify a returning back to “Torah” or the written (and probably the Oral) law of Moses. John was calling people back to following Torah, or the books of Moses. To repent was to turn back to something. This something was the “Way” of God. (Way is another interpretation of the word Torah which also means teaching, law, commandments, etc..) “Biblical Archaeology Review” magazine has an in-depth article on this in one of their 1986 issues. Should you be so inclined to study this more, you can check it out at your local college or university library. Also, go to Amazon.com and type Mikvah in the search area and several books on the subject will come up, then check them out at your local library. It is quite fascinating. Too much to post here unfortunately. MJH |
||||||
53 | What caused two of Aarons sons to die. | Lev 10:2 | MJH | 212839 | ||
Aaron's sons died because they offered strange fire. That is what the Scriptures state. There, of course, is debate on what was wrong. To sum up, they were in the service of God in his Holy temple. They did something to render themselves unclean and therefore dead. Whether they did so with malace, or they made a bad mistake with good intentions is irrelevant (otherwise it would say.) The fact is, they made a mistake where one should not make one. Imedaiatly following this event we learn about clean and unclean, leaving some to assume they did something to render themselves "unholy" in a holy place. Our God is a consuming fire (as the book of Hebrews remindes us). It is a dangerous thing to fall into the hands of a holy God. It is dangerous to serve God on Earth in His Holy Tabernacle when He is present. I hope that helps some. MJH (Sorry, I don't have spell check) |
||||||
54 | what is/are the discharge(s) referred to | Lev 15:2 | MJH | 214234 | ||
The "issue" is this text is only seen here in Lev 15. The Hebrew word "zobe" means, a seminal or menstrual flux: - issue (according to Strongs). The primary reason this is associated with penal discharge is because the second half of the chapter referrers to a woman's menstrual flow and uses the same word. Some commentators believe the man's problem is gonorrhea. In either case, for the man this is something that is not natural, where as for the woman it would be menstrual OR if it lasted longer than seven days, something unnatural. Normal seminal flow, whether in intercourse or not, would only render a man unclean until evening. Please note that “unclean” is not a “sin state.” Being unclean was not in any way a statement on the person’s personal failings. It had primarily to do with whether they could approach a Holy God in His Tabernacle/Temple. While sin can make you “unclean”, being unclean does not usually mean you sinned. MJH |
||||||
55 | hebrews 12:24/1peter 1:2 | Lev 16:14 | MJH | 214134 | ||
Only the priests can sprinkle the blood of a Sacrifice, and as far as Heb 12:24 and 1 Peter 1:2 is concerned, only the High Priest can sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat. In the World to Come (aka Heaven), Jesus is the High Priest who sprinkled his own blood once and for all cleansing the sinner. MJH |
||||||
56 | Wise Christian spending? | Lev 19:18 | MJH | 140051 | ||
Lev 19:18 ". . .you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." I think this is the best verse that applies. They could be child laborers in sweat shops. OR they could be making a good living wage in their culture. Often companies actually bring economic renewal and help to area of the world by setting up shop. Not all companies are greedy money grubbers out to harm the little guy. I mention this because I have friends on a board of a non-profit mercy organization that tries to find companies that will set up in poor nations to help them. So by not buying you may be “loving your neighbor.” But then you may be “loving your neighbor” by buying the products. It’s not always so clear. Also you said, “. . .countries that are against Christianity.” I don’t think that applies, since you may be hurting the wrong people. If we do something against a country specifically, and not just a company or product, the best way would be for the United States to impose sanctions. MJH |
||||||
57 | Hair cuts and beards | Lev 19:27 | MJH | 139644 | ||
. | ||||||
58 | Putting God 1st in our lives? | Deut 6:4 | MJH | 217455 | ||
Deut 6:4-6 is the primary Text for this idea. | ||||||
59 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214577 | ||
Cheri, (2 post long) I was interested in your question but didn’t have time to answer. Now that you and John had your dialogue, it seems somewhat unnecessary, but I did the work so here it is. A starting point in how I approach the Bible may be helpful: 1) I don’t believe as some commentators do, that God can violate the covenant, but mankind can not, therefore God can include Ruth just because he said so. God MUST remain faithful. 2) I don’t believe the covenant stipulations change after Jesus resurrection; but rather that the law points to and is enhanced and enlightened by Him. Rom 3:31 “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. [give it a firmer standing]” ESV I include this for those “who are reading along” as John so wisely recognizes. With this in mind, the law for the Moabite can not simply be uprooted (Deut 4:2; 12:32 “do not add to this law, nor take away from it.”) A Moabite can not “enter the assembly of the LORD” to the tenth generation…forever. The “forever” is “ ‘ad o’lam ”, which is nearly impossible to translate any other way than “forever.” If it could, then the Targum Jonathan, which Gill quotes, (see John’s answer) would have most certainly used this option. Neh. 13:23 also says this law means forever. The phrase “assembly of the LORD” is another key. One source had this to say, “In the Torah, the word kahal (assembly) is used to apply to Israel as a nation, to a religious gathering and to a national governing assembly. This national governing assembly consisted of all adult males meeting in plenary session. Eligibility in this governing assembly was apparently tantamount to eligibility in full citizenship and therefore eligible for leadership.” While Ruth was a women and may (or may not) be exempt for that reason, I believe there are other options. It is possible that this passage is speaking of holding leadership position. In this case, Ruth also wouldn’t need worry about this law. Furthermore, when we look at the law in context, it falls within a marriage section. Why would this be included here? Let’s read the context of the sin of Moab: Num 25:1 “While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor.” It was within adulterous relationships that Moab seduced Israel with their women threatening their existence as a nation, and by extension, the coming Messiah. If they can’t beat them by war, and they can’t defeat them with the curses of Balaam, maybe they can defeat them by seduction. To marry into this nation was to marry into their cult. See also Neh 13:23 “In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people.” The women in this passage were not “making your God my God” but rather were still worshiping their false gods. The mothers are the primary teacher of children when they are young. This instance was a violation of the Law (and Nehimiah also says “ ‘ad olam” means forever.) With these passages we are hard pressed to say women are absolved from the Deut 23 law simply by being women. So if Ruth wasn’t exempt because she was a woman then what? ...continued... |
||||||
60 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214578 | ||
... continued ... So if Ruth wasn’t exempt because she was a woman then what? We read in the book of Ruth that Boaz was exceedingly detailed in his observance and more than just observant; his heart is pure and right. Boaz is, as we say now, a part of the New Covenant “with the Torah written on the heart.” If this law forbade marriage to Ruth, certainly he of all people would have understood this. So why did he marry her? The book of Ruth does an interesting thing. While Orpah returns to her gods and her people, Ruth says, “Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God.” Here Ruth does two things. First she leaves her own people. In effect she cancels her citizenship. It may be this statement that is the key. While a Roman could be a member of the “Assembly of the LORD” (ie. church in the New Testament) yet remain a Roman citizen, the same is not true for the Moabite. Once Ruth abandoned her people and therefore was no longer a Moabite (at least in terms of citizenship) she was no longer bound by the Law of Deut 23. The second thing she does is to enter the covenant as Abraham, by faith. “Your God will be my God.” She becomes a “ger.” I do not much care for the term Proselyte, because in the New Testament days, the term carried connotations that are not intended in the Torah. A “ger” was a non-Israelite that sojourned with Israel. There was one Law for the “ger” and for the native born. But a “neker” was a stranger who was “passing through” and a “zowr” was a stranger who was an Idolater. The Law had specific things to say about each, but in most English translations, the word stranger is used for all three. It is possible then that referring to a person as a Moabite was tantamount to referring to them in light of Balaam and their heinous sin at Peor. No such person even remotely connected to their form of Idolatry should be a part of the assembly of Israel. They were all “zowr” as long as they had any part of that nation. (No dual citizenship.) When Ruth clearly says, your God will be my God, she joined the people of God and the covenant as well. But can Ruth join the covenant in this way? Yes! She entered neither through marriage nor some other means, but in the same means that Abraham entered, through faith. She had not only abandoned her false gods, but her people as well. It was only after this that Boaz married her. Finally, there is one other option, though remote: It was common, at least in the first century and beyond, to discuss what happens when two laws collide. If one law says, “A Moabite cannot enter the assembly of Israel.” And another law says, “If [your brother] dies and has no son, [you shall] perform the duty of a husband's brother to [his wife].” Then which of these laws must be broken, for surly one of them will? The most common easy answer was that a positive law trumped a negative law. That “rule” would apply favorably here as well. This is an extension of the “what is the greatest commandment” discussion Jesus entered into. So there are four possibilities: 1) Ruth was a woman and therefore not bound by this law. 2) Ruth was not a leader in the assembly, and therefore did not violate this law. 3) Ruth abandoned her gods AND her people, making her no longer a citizen Moabite, and joined the people of God and their God fully by faith. Therefore the law didn’t apply because she no longer was technically a Moabite. 4) The positive command to fulfill the duty of a brother trumped the negative command to not let a Moabite enter the assembly. I personally like #3, but I have yet to discuss it with others. This option has a difficulty in that the Text continues to have others refer to Ruth as a Moabite, but I believe this is for two reasons: 1) to keep the negative image of Moab in the readers mind connected to Ruth; 2) to help explain how great Boaz is to be willing to marry such a woman and why the nearest kinsman redeemer didn’t want anything to do with her. In the end, Ruth and Boaz didn’t break the law of Deut. 23, of that we can be certain. MJH -sorry for the length. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |