Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

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 ...


8

The verse is Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry isn't like English poetry, relying on rhyme and meter. Instead Hebrew poetry relies on parallels and rhythm of ideas. This site already has an answer with the basics of Hebrew poetry. The second line of a couplet will restate the first in a slightly different manner. This verse has a triplet. How is Sheshach ...


8

According to the NET translators' notes, Scholars debate the appropriateness of this verse to this context. Many see it as a gloss added by a postexilic scribe which was later incorporated into the text. Both R. E. Clendenen (“Discourse Strategies in Jeremiah 10, ” JBL 106 [1987]: 401-8) and W. L. Holladay (Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 1:324–25, 334–35) ...


7

The LXX and MT texts of Jeremiah are substantially different. The LXX is substantially shorter (around an eighth shorter) and the order of some of the text is different. This is much more substantial than most divergences between the LXX and MT. In general, there are two main ways in which the MT and LXX can differ: the Hebrew text that the LXX ...


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 ...


5

First, let me put into context that "new covenant" as used in Jeremiah does not mean a covenant that replaces an "old covenant." When we speak of "the Covenant" we are usually talking about the one between the Jewish people and God made at Mt. Sinai. But that covenant was not the first, nor the last covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. See, e.g. ...


5

Verse 33 explains what’s going on: ולא ילמדו עוד איש את־רעהו ואיש את־אחיו לאמר דעו את־ה׳; כי־כולם ידעו אותי למקטנם ועד־גדולם נאם-ה׳ כי אסלח לעונם ולחטאתם לא אזכר־עוד׃ and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: ‘Know the LORD’; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, ...


5

Zedekiah figured that he would not be taken to Babylon because Jeremiah said he would not see Babylon. It was his opinion that the prophets disagreed. The understanding is that Zedekiah refused to believe Jeremiah because Ezekiel had prophesied that Zedekiah should never see Babylon (he had no idea that his eyes would be put out). Thus Zedekiah doubted God's ...


4

Ephraim is Jacob's eldest son by 'adoption', replacing Reuben who he rejects: 5And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are. ESV According to Jacob's blessing he hopes for Ephraim to carry on his name (despite Joseph's protestations ...


3

This turns, I think, on a question of how personal names worked in the time period. There may not be a simple answer to your question. As you've noticed, the name is a short phrase, and the terminal element is theophoric. Semantically, the two versions mean the same thing, and may well have been interchangeable in conversation, or variable in regional ...


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 ...


3

תסובב tesovev, literally means encircles, but should be translated here metaphorically to mean “court” or “woo” as in "courting a woman." Jeremiah, more than any other prophet in the OT, is a prophet of doom. He has told the people that they will be conquered and should submit to the Babylonian empire (see chapter 28). Chapter 31 contains beautiful ...


2

Several modern critical commentaries confidently dismiss in methodological exactness the typical traditional reasons why many have held that the ‘MT is superior to the LXX’. For example on reviewing the omissions of the LXX which represents the largest difference, here is a concise summary of old ideas rejected by a critical commentary: These (in common ...


2

I would first like to offer one passage in the New Testament that effectively answers both the issue of intermarriage between Israel and Gentiles, as well as the state of the Torah of Moshe. In Ephesians 2:14-16, the apostle Paulos wrote, 14 For he is our peace, who made both, one, and destroyed the middle-wall of the fence, 15 when he abolished 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

Verse 10 starts a paragraph in the Hebrew, and the following verse (v. 11) mentions "Jacob" in parallel... That is, Israel = Jacob, which is a masculine name. So the context of verses 10-11 refers to the faithful remnant of Israelites in both the northern and southern kingdoms (="Jacob"), who will be reestablished through the New Covenant (Jer 31:31). In ...


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 ...


2

Jer. 2:27 Saying to a tree, “You are my father,’ And to a stone, “You gave birth to me.’ For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face. But in the time of their trouble They will say, ‘Arise and save us.’ Jer. 2:28 But where are your gods that you have made for yourselves? Let them arise, If they ...


2

The Bible Forgery URL states that Jeremiah 8:8 should be translated as: “How can you people say ‘We are the experts, for we have the Lord’s Bible,’ when behold, like a forgery, the pen has been manipulated by dishonest Bible copiers!” (Jeremiah 8:8) You're right that is far from the common interpretation. Most English translations have something along ...


2

I interpret scripture as clearly stating the Torah as a corruption of the 'Law'. (The Ten Commandments I believe according to scripture were the 'Law') I don't believe 613 additional acts or policies authorised by God through Moses means either God or Moses made a mistake. God gave people free will so Moses was told by God to give the people what they ...


2

The Idea in Brief The New Covenant is extended to all nations of the world, because those people who accept this New Covenant are fused (or baptized) into the mystical Body of the Christ. That is, his blood of Jesus Christ is the New Covenant (Luke 22:20). In this respect, then, the New Covenant is not an extension of the Old Covenant but of both the ...


1

Translation of Hebrew Text The Hebrew text of Jer. 31:31-34 (Jer. 31:30-33 Masoretic) states, לא הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים נְאֻם יַהְוֶה וְכָרַתִּי אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת בֵּית יְהוּדָה בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה לב לֹא כַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת אֲבוֹתָם בְּיוֹם הֶחֱזִיקִי בְיָדָם לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה הֵפֵרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי וְאָנֹכִי ...


1

Clearly this question is expansive, so forgive me if I do not give direct support or citation for everything. Rather I want to put forward the basic idea of an interpretation and would love to continue in conversation. Question 1. What is this new covenant that is forged with Jews/Israel but not with non-Jews/non-Israel? It is actually quite ...


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

• What is this new covenant that is forged with Jews/Israel but not with non-Jews/non-Israel? The covenant with Jeremiah is an expansion of the covenant with Abraham. With Abraham, God’s covenant has three aspects to it to be expanded by the latter covenants: Land: Expanded By Mosaic Covenant {Ex. 19 - Lev. 27; Deut.} Seed: Expanded by Davidic Covenant ...


1

Taken from Keil and Delitzsch's Commentary: The Kethib התעתים has been incorrectly written for התעיים, the Hiphil from תּעה, to err; here, as in Proverbs 10:17, it means to make a mistake. בּנפשׁותיכם, not, "you mislead your own selves," decepistis animas vestras (Vulg.), nor "in your souls," - meaning, in your thoughts and intentions ...


1

While the Torah may or may not be in one-for-one in format of a Ketubah, there are many similarities between a Jewish wedding and when the Israelite received the Torah. In this "wedding," the Torah would take the place of the Ketubah and this would be a basis for understanding the Torah as being a Ketubah. What is important to remember however is that the ...



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