Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

14

Joseph's sons were Ephraim and Manasseh, Gen. 41:51 Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: “For God has made me forget all my toil and all my father’s house.” Gen. 41:52 And the name of the second he called Ephraim: “For God has caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction.” These became, in a sense, Jacob's sons: Gen. ...


11

When scripture refers to Yehuda ("Judah") and Yisra'el ("Israel") in the same verse, it is often because it is not referring to individual tribes (of which Yehuda was one), but rather, the two kingdoms into which the people of Yisra'el were split during the reign of King Rechav'am ("Rehoboam"), the son of King Shlomo ("Solomon"). This fracture was a ...


11

This is just by way of postscript and supplement to a (good!) answer already provided. The lists of tribes given in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament typically are as @Niobius describes: Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, replace both Joseph and Levi, most obviously in the tribal settlements during the "conquests" of Joshua/Judges. This is also how they ...


7

Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; God promised Abraham that his descendants would be as the sand of the sea, and as the stars of heaven. These two metaphors are in direct apposition to each other, and explain each other. The ...


6

By way of supplementing and extending the answers already provided for this question: As noted elsewhere in this Q&A, the kingdom that was united under the thrones of Saul, David, and Solomon, split in the aftermath of Solomon's reign into distinct "nations": one in the north, and one in the south (narrated in 1 Kings 12). When the two designations ...


3

Although Niobius' answer is good, it misses a bit of the point. G-d gives a childless Avram two metaphors to understand (a) that he would have a lot of progeny, and (b) that they had both tremendous potential to achieve great heights and also to suffer great lows. First, let me give you a fascinating look into how the Jewish Midrashic tales from the Torah ...


3

They are certainly referring to the same individual. The name is the same Briefly addressing this point. The name for 'Nebuchadnezzar' is spelled a variety of ways in Hebrew, sometimes ending with 'rezzar', but even within the book of Jeremiah we find alternate spellings: -rezzar נבוכדראצור: Jeremiah (1) נבוכדראצר: Jeremiah (28), and Ezekiel (4) ...


3

The simple answer is yes to your question, they are the same. Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem 3 times and he took captives when he did so. God also promised to keep the captives safe and prosper them. This is Nebuchadnezzar the second who reigned from 605 BC – 562 BC, while Nebuchadnezzar the first reigned from 1126–1103 BC. So there isn't a son with the ...


2

This answer offers a subtle but significant adjustment to Joseph's helpful offering. OP's main question is: Why is the masculine pronoun "him" used to describe Israel in this passage? The central answer to this question is that "Israel" is always "masculine, singular" in biblical Hebrew. One of the basic studies of this phenomenon is by J.J. Schmitt, ...


2

Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon, who attacked and defeated Jerusalem. He brought some of the Hebrews back to Babylon, including Daniel. This is the setting of the book of Daniel, told in Daniel 1:1-7. This alone may help to answer it seems odd that the king would simultaneously place an Israelite at the top of his >administration and attack his ...


1

That Joseph (and hence his son Ephraim who inherited a double portion of his blessing) was Israel's (aka Jacob's) favored son necessarily implies that a lineage through someone other than the favored son (namely Judah, the last of his children through Leah, his first wife) is a very separate entity. Historically Judah was the most important tribe in the ...


1

Then the king of Moab took his oldest son, who would have been the next king, and sacrificed him as a burnt offering on the wall. So there was great anger against Israel, and the Israelites withdrew and returned to their own land. (2 Kings 3:27, NLT) I'd interpret this as saying that the king sacrificed his son which then fuelled the rage of the ...


1

Explanation Number 1: God did not perceive iniquity that is "in Jacob" (people of Israel), for when they violate His words, He is not meticulous with them to meditate upon their falsity and their perversity in that they violate His law. Explanation Number 2: "he" in that verse referes to Balaam. Balaam did not perceive any practice of idolatry or robbery ...


1

I was listening to a sermon by Voddie Baucham a while ago on exactly this, and thought it was quite interesting, maybe it will be of some help to understand the issue. You can listen to the full thing here: Voddie Baucham - The 144,000 (skip to around minute 26 if you only want to hear the explanation as it pertains to the question). Basically, he says that ...


1

The Name Israel is the God-bestowed (spiritual) name given to Jacob after he prevailed at Bethel, and the name pertains to the continuation of the promises given to Abraham, passed to Isaac and then taken by Jacob when Isaac passed the birthright blessing to him. Although the names JAcob and Israel may appear to be used more or less interchangeably in ...


1

What is meant by being brought "back in ships to Egypt"? Did this happen historically? I find no reason from the text in question to assume that the Lord's threat to "send you (national Israel) back to Egypt in ships" is anything but literal. I take it to mean specifically the nation as a whole because the entire address regarding the Blessings and the ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible