This is about ritual purity, not moral purity.
According to Leviticus 15:19-30, a woman is unclean during her monthly period, until 7 days have passed. It may be as simple as she had been on her period, but the time had passed so that David would not be unclean if he had relations with her.
Leviticus 15:1924,28-30 NIV
19 “‘When a woman has her regular ...
The question is a good one, and worth discussing. My own sense is that it includes a mis-step, however, which casts a different light on things. My short answer to the question posed ("how does 'foot washing' lead to the act of 'sexual intercourse'?") is: it doesn't! First, though, to pick up a point made in a comment to the question.
"Feet" as a euphemism ...
As a commenter notes, there is a text-critical issue here.
The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible plainly reads "Michal" at this point. However, as the textual notes to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttargtensia indicate, there are two Hebrew manuscripts that read "Merob", and there is some support for this among Septuagint manuscripts, too:
P. Kyle McCarter ...
Looking at the texts of Deuteronomy 24 and Jeremiah 3, I'd suggest the key aspect of these verses are divorce:
"...her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled" (Dt 24:4)
"If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the ...
Not a Hyperbolic Expression
The Text of Psalm 51:4:
לְךָ לְבַדְּךָ ׀ חָטָאתִי וְהָרַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ עָשִׂיתִי
לְמַעַן תִּצְדַּק בְּדָבְרֶךָ תִּזְכֶּה בְשָׁפְטֶֽךָ׃
1) "Against you alone" (לְךָ לְבַדְּךָ): This is a prayer of David for repentance (a penitential psalm), and while he sinned against many others in the affair with Bathsheba, ...
Scholarly opinion is that the additional sentence in the Latin translation of 2 Sam 1:26 (Sicut mater unicum amat filium suum, ita ego te diligebam) is a mediaeval interpolation; that is to say: it was added by a mediaeval copyist and was not in Jerome's original text. The purpose of the interpolation is obviously to avoid any possibly homoerotic reading of ...
Excellent question. Let's explore some explanations.
1) The first explanation is simply that they were indeed unlawful priests (c.f. Judges 17).
2) That the text would mention this transgression without consequence seems strange to many commentators who propose a second explanation - that the word "priest" here means "advisor". Let's examine a textual ...
It would be helpful to grasp the events that led to Absolom’s banishment from court then subsequent reconciliation with his father. These events are recorded in 2 Samuel 13 and 14. Absolom returned to Hebron, where David was first proclaimed King and where Absolom was born. The NIV Study Bible makes this comment:
Absolom may have had reason to believe ...
I am no dancer, but I don't believe the context can support Mr. Garlock's interpretation:
The word in question (karar), is defined by BDB as "to whirl, to dance". However, since the word is only used twice (here and in v. 16), we shouldn't place too much confidence in the lexical precision. Rather, it is the context that clarifies what was going on.
In 2015 an unprecedented archaeological event took place - the finding of a 3,000 year old royal seal dated to the time of King David :
The dating of the seal corresponds to the historical period of the Jebusites and the conquest of Jerusalem by King David, as well as the construction of the Temple and the royal official compound by his son, King Solomon.”
For the phrase in question, the Hebrew text states וְהִיא מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ (vehiy mitkaddeshet mitumʿatah). To note, the Hebrew text lacks the conjunction כִּי (ki); therefore, translating this Hebrew phrase into English with an initial “for” is untenable. Since there is no “for,” the author is not providing the reason that David laid with her. ...
The answer can be gleaned from other places in the Bible where King David and his sin is spoken of. Paul writes in Romans 4:5-8:
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, ...
I will offer a response to this question two ways:
Assuming David was forgiven
Considering the possibility that David was not forgiven
Assuming David was forgiven
The Lord’s words to Samuel put it very well:
the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward
appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
Two individuals may ...
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
If this is true, it follows that Judas did not confess his sins before God.
David wrote Psalm 32:
Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD.&...
The Idea in Brief
The area in question appears to be in the frontal abdominal area directly below the sternum--i.e., the so-called "gut."
The Babylonian Talmud indicates that the "fifth rib" was the junction point of the gall bladder and liver.
b. Sanhedrin 6:4n (Folio 49A)
F. He said to him, “Now if at exactly the fifth rib he had ...
As part of my secular job (I'm a Respiratory Therapist), I do EKG's (aka ECG's and cardiograms) on people. EKG leads V1-V6 are ventricular - the 2 larger pumping chambers of the bottom portion of the heart - leads. Lead V5 is placed in the left 5th intercostal space between the 5th & 6th (below the 5th and above the sixth) ribs, and would be most ...
Absalom was the son of Maacah (2 Sam 3:3), while Amnon was the son of Ahinoam (2 Sam 3:2), both by David, so they were half-brothers.
Tamar is said to be explicitly Absalom's sister (2 Sam 13:1, 32), in a way that Amnon recognizes she is not to him (2 Sam 13:4); yet she is viewed still as all the brothers' sister (1 Chr 3:9), as David ...
Scripture comments after Michal despised David for his exuberance at the bringing in of the ark (2 Samuel 6:20-23) :
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
[2 Samuel 6:23 KJV]
Scripture does not say that Michal was barren. Only that 'therefore', that is to say as a result of her attitude and words, she had no child.
There are two, possibly inter-related, issues here. One is the preposition expected with the root mlk in the hifil; the other is the relationship between the prepositions ʾel and ʿal.
1. MLK + ??
Typically the verb mlk takes the preposition ʿal, "rule over", and in the Hifil it appears so on at least six occasions (1 Sam. 12:1; 2 Ki. 8:20; 1 Chr. 28:4; 2 ...
איך נפלו גבורים ויאבדו כלי מלחמה
In this verse there is - patently - a synonymic parallelism. Besides the first term (איך), that is (in this context) an interjection of astonishment, the rest of the verse is composed inside a parallelism structure.
The powerful (men) [גבורים] fell [נפלו]
the war instruments [כלי מלחמה] perished [ויאבדו]!
Like we ...
God sent Nathan to David to expose his sin and pronounce God’s judgment upon him:
“Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before ...
This is a very interesting question - and I don’t have a ready answer. Nevertheless there are some aspects which are worth consideration.
JOHN 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition [snip -emphasis mine]
Only two persons are labelled ‘son of ...
First, remember that David was king, and as king he answered to no one but G-d. He could have ordered Uriah killed on whatever pretext and then taken Bat-Sheva. He had that authority. Instead, what he did was rely on the fact that Jewish soldiers going into battle are required to give their wives conditional retroactive divorce papers which in effect say: ...
The verse is not Proverbs 18:8, but Proverbs 8:8, which states
Proverbs 8:8 (NASB)
8 All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness;
There is nothing crooked or perverted in them.
The Hebrew word for "crooked" is Hebrew verb פָּתַל, which means "to twist." That is, this word is the Niphal participle, which means "twisted" (or crooked), and is ...
Saul and Ahinoam - 6 children:
Jonathan -> Mephibosheth - Mica - etc.
Merab (f) (eldest) - [five children by Adriel]
Michal (f) - wife of David x2. (Michal raised Merab's children for some reason.)
Saul and Rizpah (concubine) - [Armoni and Mephibosheth]
So, David gave over to the Gibeonites the five ...
The answer is simple - there are two problems with Judas' confession -
It was not to Jesus, the one he had betrayed
It was sorrow for the consequences and not the sin itself
True confession leads to reformation and (where possible) rectification of the wrong done. Perhaps the best way to understand Judas is to compare and contrast him with Peter:
There is nothing in the Scripture to support a conclusion that God responded to the sin of David and Judas differently, and in the case of Judas' sin, the account demonstrates the deficiency of atonement under the Mosaic Law when the priests failed to respond to Judas' confession.
First, it is misleading to say the LORD forgave ...
The LXX Greek translation of Hebrew transliteration for destroyer in Exodus 12:23 (hammashit) is olethreyonta, a different word from appollyon. Hebrew abbaddon is not used in Exodus 12:23. Isaiah 37:36 may provide additional context.