Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

The talmud explains that this is not directly because of either giving birth or being ritually impure. (Many things can cause ritual impurity, ranging from being in the same room as a dead human to having certain bodily emissions.) The sin-offering after birth is to atone for inappropriate things she might have said during the birth (remember, no drugs to ...


7

While researching my answer to Jon's question I came across the following rabbinic interpretation (Babylonian talmud, Yevamot 34b): [The source for] Onan's [guilt] may well be traced, for it is written in Scripture, That he spilt it on the ground; whence however, [that of] Er? -R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It is written, And He slew him also, he also died ...


5

A look at a couple translations reflecting modern and classic scholarship offers some helpful insight. 24 The best thing we can do is to enjoy eating, drinking, and working.[a] I believe these are God’s gifts to us, 25 and no one enjoys eating and living more than I do. 26 If we please God, he will make us wise, understanding, and happy. But if we ...


4

In the end, the focus is less on Er than it is on Judah and Tamar. Judah was stealing Tamar's rightful due, namely a sin and support mechanism. What Er did was irrelevant to the focus the author wished to place on Judah's bad behavior. For more on Tamar and Judah, check out: Why was Tamar more righteous than Judah Did God really kill Onan for masturbating? ...


4

This prophecy concerns the problems encountered in rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. It is closely connected with the story in Ezra 4. The wicked woman in the "eiphah" measure (bushel or barrel) represents one or more of the enemies of Israel, primarily the Samaritans and the Edomites, who harassed the builders after being excluded from the rebuilding ...


3

This verse you are noticing is within the overall concept of a peaceful contentment in the moment which is not really a human ability but is a spiritual attitude that can only come from God. This simple contentment, such as the simple relaxed enjoyment of our daily eating and drinking as part of the essentials of living is contrasted with a meaningless ...


3

Considerations Language Features Immediate Context Parallel Passages Language Features Verse 2 is directly tied to verse 3 by the Greek word αντι (an-tee') which is translated in most versions as "Therefore," "Accordingly," or some variation. This means the outcome in verse 3 should be seen as a result of the principle stated in verse 2. This shows the ...


3

The word "forgive*"(aphiemi-to send forth*) implies a legal action: it holds one 'harmless' from a legal debt. To be declared "aphiemi", means one's debt has been satisfied; in the case of Matt. 12:30-32, one's penalty of 'sin and blasphemy' shall be "aphiemi" them-following, of course, the prescription of 1 John 1:9,"If we confess our sins; He is faithful ...


3

I think Matthew Henry's Commentary answers your question best: It is not so much an abuse of the body as of somewhat else, as of wine by the drunkard, food by the glutton, etc. Nor does it give the power of the body to another person. Nor does it so much tend to the reproach of the body and render it vile. This sin is in a peculiar manner styled ...


3

The text is obviously ambiguous on this point and I agree with AffableGreek that Er isn't the focus of the story. However... Firstborns don't do well in the Pentateuch: Cain is made to be a wanderer (4:11) Ishmael is excluded from the Abrahamic covenant Esau is excluded from the Abrahamic covenant Reuven, Gad, and Menasheh, all firstborns, take up ...


3

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, in his commentary to Leviticus 12, explains the sin-offering of the new mother (and the nazirite’s, in that chapter) as a sort of prophylactic offering: At the moment the woman (or the former nazirite) re-enters ordinary human interactions after her period of impurity, she brings this offering to symbolize her commitment to ...


3

Grammar καὶ ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας [ἐν] τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς σὺν αὐτῷ, χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν πάντα τὰ παραπτώματα. ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ· (Colossians 2:13-14) And even though you were dead in your ...


3

From a Christian perspective prophets after the return from the Babylonian exile are often citing visions about the days of Messiah. However there is no evidence that ancient rabbinic sources understood Zechariah 5 as referring to the end times. Therefore, it seems purely a Christian view that equates this chapter to those times. Under that view, the woman ...


2

The Masoretic translation makes the verse easier to understand: 'None have beheld iniquity in Jacob, Neither hath one seen perverseness in Israel' 'perverseness' can alternatively be translated as 'calamity' - so Rabbi Hertz Then we read: Because there are no gross-injustice (iniquity) in Israel God remains on their side and visit no calamities on them. ...


2

I'd like to add something to @curiousdanni answer (and his comments) but from Aramaic perspective. In Aramaic Peshitta the word forgiven in Matthew 12:30-32 is ܢܶܫܬ݁ܒ݂ܶܩ which can also have meanings of left, ignored, omitted, dismissed (see William Jennings' Lexicon to the Syriac New Testament) and it is used in other verses in such meaning. For example: ...


2

While this topic is usually called the "Unforgivable Sin" I believe that is a bad translation and it should really be called the "Unignorable Sin". Verse 32 is: Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (NIV) The Greek ...


1

The 12th Century scholar Rashi addressed your issue. My translation follows The Complete Jewish Bible (in Hebrew and English) with Rashi Commentary, which you can access on-line here. My translation differs somewhat from yours. Verse 24 states: Is it not good for a man that he eat and drink and show himself enjoyment in his toil? This too have I seen that ...


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

One explanation is that God isn't speaking according to the strict letter of the law. The verse is saying that "He doesn't [want to] see evil in Israel". He looks to ignore it, as it were. This explanation is proffered by the Rashbam, Rashi and Onkelos, who explain that the latter clause of the verse ותרועת מלך בו stems from the word friendship/companionship ...



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