u/TonyChanYT

English Revised Version, Ro 1:

>1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 which he promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.

Surprisingly, the term appeared only once in the Bible.

Many interpreters (e.g., Cyril of Jerusalem) understood "Spirit of holiness" as another term for the Holy Spirit. However, let's look at the parallelism:

descended from David            according to the flesh
Son of God in power             according to the Spirit of holiness

Son of David || Son of God.
Flesh || Spirit of holiness.

Horizontally, Jesus was the Son of David according to the flesh, in a bodily sense.
Vertically, Jesus was the Son of God according to the sense of the Spirit of holiness.

Horizontally, Paul was talking about Jesus.
Vertically, I believe Paul was also talking about Jesus, not the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of holiness was Jesus' human spirit. It referred not to another person (the Holy Spirit) but to Christ's own spiritual being, characterized by perfect holiness.

Paul contrasted the horizontal and vertical aspects of the one person, Jesus Christ. The rest of the passage bore this out:

>even Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name's sake: 6 among whom are ye also, called to be Jesus Christ's.

In this paragraph, Paul stressed the singular person of Jesus. The immediate context was thoroughly Christological.

Spirit of holiness = Holy Spirit?

I don't think so. Paul was talking about Christ’s own human spirit, or his spiritual nature, rather than the Third Person of the Trinity.

u/No-Reality9698, u/Chrysologus

God sent Moses to Egypt to deliver the Israelites. On his way back to Egypt, Exodus 4: >24 at a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.

Why did God want to kill Moses?

Because of circumcision or its absence.

Why was this so serious?

Moses had just been chosen to lead Israel out of Egypt and deliver God's covenant to the people. If Moses himself were disregarding the covenant sign, he would be disobeying the very God whose commands he was about to proclaim. Before Moses took on the new role as the leader of the Israelites, he needed to set an example: his son needed to be circumcised.

Why didn't the text simply say so?

The passage is famously cryptic. It leaves several questions unanswered:

Was God trying to kill Moses or his son?

The Hebrew pronouns were ambiguous.

Why hadn't the son been circumcised?

Some suggest Zipporah, who came from Midian, may have opposed the practice.

What exactly did Zipporah mean by calling Moses "a bridegroom of blood"?

Because the text doesn't explain these details, different interpretations exist.

See also

• Why did God react so differently concerning the lack of circumcision in Exodus 4:24-26 and Joshua 5:2?

Leviticus 4: >1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the Lord’s commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them, 3 if it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a bull from the herd without blemish to the Lord for a sin offering.

The high priest offered a bull.

>13 “If the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they do any one of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, and they realize their guilt, 14 when the sin which they have committed becomes known, the assembly shall offer a bull from the herd for a sin offering and bring it in front of the tent of meeting.

>22“ ‘When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the Lord his God, when he realizes his guilt 23 and the sin he has committed becomes known, he must bring as his offering a male goat without defect.

A leader offered a male goat.

>27“ ‘If any member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands, when they realize their guilt 28and the sin they have committed becomes known, they must bring as their offering for the sin they committed a female goat without defect.

Common people offered a female goat.

For unintentional sins, the gender of the sacrificial animal depended on the type of person who committed the sin. Those in the higher echelon sacrificed a male, while common people sacrificed a female. Male animals generally represented a higher-value offering.

There was a clear hierarchy:

1. The high priest and the entire congregation brought the most valuable offering, a bull.
2. A leader brought a male goat.
3. An ordinary Israelite brought a female goat or lamb.

The text does not imply that leaders' sins are intrinsically more sinful than those of ordinary people. Rather, the higher one's representative role in the covenant community, the greater the consequences of one's sin and the more substantial the required offering.

For context, my friend and I have been friends for about a year now, and I've always noticed one thing: whenever he sees someone sinning, he calls them out in a disrespectful way that doesn't reflect the love of God. Today I asked him about it very nicely and politely, but he got mad at me, and it turned into a heated debate where, this sounds crazy, but I felt Jesus talking through me, and I wasn't speaking anymore. After the debate, I won, but I kept feeling guilty about the debate, so now I'm wondering if God was speaking through me, and I won the debate. Why am I feeling guilty? Is this the enemy trying to weaken me? This is kind of making me question my faith. Please help.

Not reformed but I have a genuine question that I would like to understand. Under the notion of "unconditional election" if I am not elect am I just out? Like if I have a desire to follow God but I am not part of the elect then too bad? Or is the position more that if I have any desire to follow God that makes me elect?

u/InternalTomatillo878, u/fire_spittin_mittins, u/cbot64

Justice was more important than ritual sacrifices. The Book of Proverbs is part of the Bible's "Wisdom Literature" and provides practical guidance for living a righteous and godly life. It emphasizes themes such as wisdom, justice, humility, and the fear of the Lord.

Pr 21: >3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

The point is not that sacrifices were inherently bad. They were commanded by God under the Mosaic covenant. Rather, God values moral integrity and justice more highly than ritual observance. Loving God is inseparable from loving our neighbors.

Isaiah expressed a similar sentiment in 1: >11 “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.

The problem was not the sacrifices themselves, but that they were offered by people who neglected righteousness and justice. Ritual without obedience was unacceptable to God.

>17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

James carried this theme to the NT 1: >27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

According to James, Christianity was a religion in the true sense of the word.

Is Christianity not a religion but a relationship?

That's a false dichotomy. It is both a religion and a relationship. God is righteous and just. That's God's character. We are to relate to God that way. Don't just pay God lip service in words or ceremonies. Examine our hearts. Express our faith through tangible deeds of love, compassion, fairness, and caring for others.

u/foolonthedrums, u/vinberdon, u/CrowMagpie, u/gagood

After the death of Solomon, his son Rehoboam succeeded him as king. 1 Kings 14: >25 In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem. 26 He carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made.

Did Shishak take away the Ark of the Covenant?

No. Three centuries later, around 621 BC in 2 Chronicles 35: >1 Josiah celebrated the Passover to the Lord in Jerusalem, and the Passover lamb was slaughtered on the fourteenth day of the first month. 2 He appointed the priests to their duties and encouraged them in the service of the Lord’s temple. 3He said to the Levites, who instructed all Israel and who had been consecrated to the Lord: “Put the sacred ark in the temple that Solomon son of David king of Israel built. It is not to be carried about on your shoulders. Now serve the Lord your God and his people Israel.

That's the last time the Ark of the Covenant was mentioned in the Old Testament.

A few decades later, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon captured Jerusalem and raided the temple. The ark was not mentioned.

According to non-canonical 2 Maccabees 2: >1 "We know from the records that Jeremiah the prophet instructed the people who were being taken into exile to hide some of the fire from the altar, as we have just mentioned. 2 We also know that he taught them God's Law and warned them not to be deceived by the ornamented gold and silver idols which they would see in the land of their exile. 3 And then he urged them never to abandon the Law. > >4"These same records also tell us that Jeremiah, acting under divine guidance, commanded the Tent of the Lord's Presence and the Covenant Box to follow him to the mountain where Moses had looked down on the land which God had promised our people. 5When Jeremiah got to the mountain, he found a huge cave and there he hid the Tent of the Lord's Presence, the Covenant Box, and the altar of incense. Then he sealed up the entrance.

Jeremiah hid them in a cave. The Babylonians did not have it.

>6 "Some of Jeremiah's friends tried to follow him and mark the way, but they could not find the cave. 7 When Jeremiah learned what they had done, he reprimanded them, saying, 'No one must know about this place until God gathers his people together again and shows them mercy. 8 At that time he will reveal where these things are hidden, and the dazzling light of his presence will be seen in the cloud, as it was in the time of Moses and on the occasion when Solomon prayed that the Temple might be dedicated in holy splendor.'

Now, in the canonical Jer 3: > 15“‘And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 And when you have multiplied and been fruitful in the land, in those days, declares the LORD, they shall no more say, “The ark of the covenant of the LORD.” It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again. 17At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the LORD, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the LORD in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart.

The last mention of the Ark of the Covenant is in Revelation 11: >19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a severe hailstorm.

Perhaps God took the ark before the Babylonians could obtain it and stored it in heaven for safekeeping.

There are four principal views:

1. It was hidden before the Babylonian conquest. This tradition is preserved in 2 Maccabees 2:1–8, which says that Jeremiah hid the Ark in a cave on the mountain where Moses viewed the Promised Land. This is an ancient Jewish tradition but is not part of the Hebrew Bible or Protestant canon.
2. It was destroyed or taken by the Babylonians. Some historians think the Babylonians simply destroyed or carried it away, and the biblical writers did not mention it because it no longer existed. There is, however, no direct evidence for this.
3. It had disappeared earlier. Some scholars suggest it was removed during the reign of Manasseh or another wicked king, perhaps to protect it or due to idolatry in the Temple.
4. God removed it. This is a theological inference rather than a biblical statement. Revelation's vision of the heavenly Ark is symbolic and should not be read as proof that the earthly Ark was physically transported into heaven.

Where is the Ark now?

I don't know. Now that the Paraclete dwells in my spirit, God's presence is in me. I am not spending more time trying to figure out where the Ark is. From a New Testament perspective, the Ark itself is no longer central. God's presence is not localized in a sacred chest but is manifested in Jesus Christ and, through the Spirit/Paraclete, in his people.

u/ComplexMud6649, u/BasilFormer7548, u/u/RepresentativeOk651

What does St. Paul mean by “works”? Is he referring to the ethical, judicial, or ritual precepts?

Yes, all of the above. Moreover, he sometimes used it specifically to mean only faithful works.

Faith ≡ faithful works. Faith and works are two sides of the same coin. Here, I will give the First-Order Logical proof of that.

Let proposition F = you have faith in his heart.
W = you exhibit (faithful) deeds.

James 2:

>17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

¬W → ¬F
⇒ F → W

Now let's look at the converse.

>18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Works show faith. But what kinds of works?

Galatians 2: > 16 know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

Works of the law (without faith) are not good enough. Only faithful works or deeds will do.

Matthew 5: >16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

My good, faithful works show my faith.
W → F

Altogether, it is saying F ⟷ W.

Because F ≡ W. James 2: >24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

What about saving by faith alone, as Paul expressed?

Ephesians 2: > 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of [faithless] works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

We are saved by grace through faith for good works.

ESV 1 Timothy 4: >16 Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Titus 3: >5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in [faithless] righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit

Philippians 2: >12b work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Right. Works apart from faith (i.e., faithless works) are useless in saving you. However, after you have been saved by faith, you will naturally show faithful deeds because F ⇔ W, according to James 2 and Galatians 2.

Faith and faithful works are logically the same thing. You can't have one without the other. Your invisible vertical faith will produce observable horizontal works.

See also

• JUSTIFICATION by works, grace, or faith?
• Can we lose our salvation?.

u/Spiritual_Ant_7681, u/kervinjacque

Was Lot aware that the two visitors at Sodom were angels?

Genesis 19: >1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city.

They were referred to as "angels," but this seems to be from the narrator's perspective, not necessarily Lot's.

>When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground 2 and said, “My lords,

Lot addressed them as "my lords", which was a respectful form of address for honored guests, but didn't necessarily indicate he knew they were angels.

>please turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.”

Lot's actions were entirely consistent with ordinary Near Eastern hospitality:

1. He got up to greet them.
2. He bowed with his face to the ground.
3. He called them "my lords", a respectful title also used for human superiors.
4. He urged them to stay at his house, wash their feet, and leave early.

None of these actions required that he recognize them as angels. In fact, they initially appeared to be ordinary men. This was reinforced by the reaction of the Sodomites, who saw them simply as "the men."

Then the men of Sodom demanded to have sex with these two visitors.

>11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.

At this point, it was clear to Lot that the visitors were supernatural beings.

Why did Lot want those men to stay with him?

Lot might not have initially recognized these visitors as angels. He treated them with great respect and hospitality, but this was likely due to cultural norms rather than a recognition of their supernatural nature. He realized they were angels later in the narrative.

u/OV_MamaKat

2S 23: >20 Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was a valiant man of Kabzeel, a doer of great deeds. He struck down two ariels of Moab. He also went down and struck down a lion in a pit on a day when snow had fallen. 21And he struck down an Egyptian, a handsome man. The Egyptian had a spear in his hand, but Benaiah went down to him with a staff and snatched the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear. 22 These things did Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and won a name beside the three mighty men. 23 He was renowned among the thirty, but he did not attain to the three. And David set him over his bodyguard.

Does it snow very often in Israel?

Mount Hermon rises to about 2,814 meters. Snow often covers the upper slopes during winter and spring, feeding important springs and rivers that contribute to the Jordan River's headwaters.

Jerusalem, 750 m above sea level, gets measurable snow every few years.

Kabzeel was in the Negev foothills. Snow is extremely rare, perhaps once every decade or two, and it melts within hours.

What is the significance of Benaiah jumping into the pit with the lion on a snowy day?

Snow means slippery footing, reduced traction, cold, and poor visibility. A lion already has the advantage in a confined pit. Snow only increases the danger for humans.

Benaiah went down into the pit and fought the lion there under adverse conditions. It shows his determination and grit.

Isn't this a foolish thing to do?

By ordinary standards, yes, but not for a hero. His "foolishness" was exactly what made him trustworthy to David: he was a man who would not calculate the odds when danger threatened the king. The piling up of details is characteristic of heroic narratives.

Is it just a "fish story"?

I don't think so. If it were, I doubt that David would have made him a mighty man. Furthermore, the text humbly notes that despite this, Benaiah "did not attain to the three" (the top three mighty men). If the author were exaggerating, he would have put Benaiah in the top three. The honest ranking gives the story credibility.

Wouldn't there have been a smarter way to dispatch the lion?

Sure, but that wasn't the point of the listing. The point wasn't to teach lion-hunting techniques; it's to highlight Benaiah's extraordinary bravery.

David knew that the man who faced death head-on in the worst possible conditions was the man who would never flee when the king's life was on the line. The snow wasn't an obstacle to be avoided; it was the very thing that made the victory worthy of the royal chronicle.

u/Holezjah01

Jn 7: > 5 For not even his brothers believed in him.

How could it be?

Lk 4: >16 [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read.

Jesus read a passage from Isaiah.

>18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.

Jesus applied this verse to himself. Jesus sensed that the audience's response was mixed.

>23 He said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘“Physician, heal yourself.”

What was Jesus trying to convey here to the audience of his hometown?

They were sarcastic in unbelief. They might have witnessed Jesus being sick when he was a boy. They were thinking: Since Isaiah proclaimed him the anointed healer, then heal yourself first, Physician!. They challenged him to prove his abilities by addressing his own needs first, and then the needs of his people in his hometown:

>What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’”

They were thinking: Go ahead. Prove yourself. You are the great Physician!

Jesus didn't perform miracles at their request because of their unbelief. At the end, they tried to kill him:

>29 they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. 30 But passing through their midst, he went away.

Why did Jesus use the proverb "Physician, heal thyself"?

Jesus used the proverb because that was what they were thinking. They didn't believe in Jesus and responded sarcastically with this proverb.

What was Jesus trying to convey?

Jesus warned against familiarity breeding contempt: >24 He said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.”

Don't be like those homegrown unbelieving Jews in the time of Elijah. The people of Nazareth thought they knew him, but they were blind to his true identity and mission. Spiritually, they didn't know Jesus.

u/321Shellshock123, u/EvanFriske, u/Striking-Swan595

The Roman Catholic Church thinks IVF is morally wrong, even for married couples using their own genetic material. They believe procreation should occur through the marital act itself. IVF separates conception from sexual union. Human embryos are persons with dignity from conception. IVF commonly results in unused or destroyed embryos.

I think it is okay because I don't believe the human soul begins immediately at conception.

If you believe that, it's better to follow your conscience.

Wiki: >Pam Reynolds Lowery (May 31, 1956 – May 22, 2010), from Atlanta, Georgia, was an American woman who, in 1991, stated that she had a near-death experience (NDE) during a brain operation performed by Robert F. Spetzler at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, Arizona.[1] Reynolds was under close medical monitoring during the entire operation. During part of the operation she had no brain-wave activity and no blood flowing in her brain, which rendered her clinically dead. She claimed to have made several observations during the procedure which medical personnel reported to be accurate.

Dr. Michael Egnor is an American neurosurgeon, professor, and author who is well known for his critiques of materialist theories of the mind and his advocacy of a dualist view of consciousness. He said: >I think a good way to discuss this is to begin with what is, in some ways, the paradigmatic near-death experience in modern times. That was Pam Reynolds. She was a woman who, in her mid-30s, was found to have an aneurysm in a major blood vessel at the base of her brain. At the time in 1991, it was inoperable through ordinary means, and she would die soon from rupture of the aneurysm.

Her case was urgent and desperate.

>She came to Phoenix, as it turns out, to Dr. Robert Spetzler, who is a neurosurgeon in Phoenix, who was the world's expert in aneurysms, and he had an operation he called a standstill procedure, which was a very radical procedure for treating certain kinds of aneurysms. The problem with her aneurysm is that it involved the artery at the base of her brain, which is a critical artery. The aneurysm was a ballooning, asymmetrical enlargement of the artery that was about to burst. The artery had to be reconstructed, but the process could not be performed while it was still carrying blood. So there had to be some way to stop the blood flowing through it. But if you stop the blood flowing through it, you die. So what Spetzler worked out was an operation, and he did it a number of times on Reynolds and other patients. It was quite successful when he would put them under anesthesia, open their head, expose a region of the aneurysm, cool their body down to about 60° Fahrenheit,

16°C

>put them on a heart-lung machine, stop their heart, raise the head of the bed, drain the blood out of their brain, and he had about 30 minutes to rebuild the artery. The person is as dead as it gets. Once the artery was rebuilt, he would then restart her heart. During the process, she was heavily monitored, meaning that they had to make sure that her brain was dead because that actually protected her brain when it was cooled down. Everything was stopped, which gave him more time to operate. And after her surgery, she made an ex excellent recovery.

It was a successful operation.

>After the aneurysm was fixed, she said, "You know, I watched the whole surgery." So the doctor said, "You couldn't have watched the whole surgery. You were brain-dead; you were under surgical drapes. She then told him all about the surgery, the details she saw. She said that what happened was that when her heart stopped (she was a musician), she heard a natural D

• That was the way she described it. It was like a hum, and then all of a sudden, she felt a pop that popped out of her body.

Her soul/spirit left her body.

>She could see her body, and she could see the room, and she said she went up to the ceiling, and she could see everyone there. She could see Spatzer, she could see the instrument, she could see herself, and all the other people there. And then she hovered over his shoulder and watched him operate on her.

She saw, but not with her physical eyes.

>She described his instruments to him in some detail, in things that she could not have known unless she was a surgeon in the operating room. That is, there were details of the structure of the instruments. He had custom-made instruments. And she described conversations that he had, word by word, that he was talking about. She described issues that arose during the surgery and conversations between doctors. She described the music they were playing in the operating room while she was brain-dead. She said that while she was watching, she then saw a tunnel.

She had a vision experience.

>She felt herself being pulled down the tunnel. So it was a very pleasant feeling. It wasn't like she was being dragged. At the other end of the tunnel, she saw this beautiful world. She saw her grandparents, who had passed away. Her grandparents told her that it wasn't her time yet, and that she had children to raise, and she had to go back. So she went back down the tunnel, and she went back into her body, and when her heart restarted, she said it was like diving into ice water. She said it was extremely unpleasant, which yeah, it was 60°. It was very cold actually. Her near-death experience is undoubtedly the best-documented near-death experience in medical history because it was almost an experiment. It was almost like a prospective study where they actually did it on purpose.

u/Villian1470

Lk 22: >36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

Jesus told the disciples to buy swords figuratively.

Why did the disciples misunderstand?

This was not an isolated incident. Throughout the Gospels, they repeatedly interpreted Jesus literally when He spoke symbolically. Examples include:

• "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." They thought He was talking about bread (Matthew 16:5–12).
• "Destroy this temple..." They thought He meant the building rather than His body (John 2:19–21).
• "Lazarus has fallen asleep." They thought Jesus meant ordinary sleep (John 11:11–14).

Jesus often taught in ways that were only fully understood later.

Further, they were still expecting a political kingdom. Even near the end of Jesus' ministry, the apostles had not fully abandoned hopes that he would establish an earthly kingdom. Only hours earlier, they had been arguing about who was the greatest (Luke 22:24). After the resurrection, they still asked, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6) So when Jesus mentioned buying swords, it fitted naturally into their existing expectations.

u/Repulsive_Event_7185

Exodus 16: >23 he said to them, “This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’” 24 So they laid it aside till the morning, as Moses commanded them, and it did not stink, and there were no worms in it. 25 Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.” > >27 On the seventh day some of the people [Label these people S1] went out to gather,

S1 disobeyed God's instruction.

>but they found none. 28 And the LORD said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws? 29See! The LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30So the people rested on the seventh day.

There was no mention that S1 were punished. At that time, there was no specific prescription of punishment for violating the Sabbath except the general sin offerings. That changed in Exodus 35: >1 Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, “These are the things the Lord has commanded you to do: 2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.

After that, they continued their journey and celebrated the 2nd Passover in Num 15: >1 In the first month of the second year after Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, … > >4 So Moses told the Israelites to observe the Passover, 5 and they did so in the Wilderness of Sinai, at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. The Israelites did everything just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Some months later, in Num 15: >32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man [S2] was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him.

They knew the death penalty. They did not know how the sentence was to be carried out. They had some questions: Was gathering wood truly a capital offense under these circumstances? Who should execute the sentence? By what method should it be carried out?

Moses wanted to be sure.

>35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.

S2 was stoned to death.

Why S1 were not stoned to death?

Because God didn't stipulate a clear punishment at the time. He only did it later.

Jonah spoke of his near-death experience in 2: >2 “I called out to the LORD, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.

Jonah used the term Sheol metaphorically. He did not actually die.

Jesus used this event as a type for his own death experience. He said in Matthew 12: >40 "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth".

There are several parts to this typology:

1. Jonah didn't die and go to Sheol, but Jesus did die and spend time in the heart of the earth, or hades.

2. Both spent three days.

3. Jonah prayed to the LORD for his deliverance (Jonah 2:7) in the belly of the fish. Jesus preached to the dead.

4. God delivered Jonah and saved him from death. Jesus conquered death through his resurrection, providing deliverance and salvation for humanity.

Jonah's near-death experience foreshadowed Jesus' death experience.

u/Crusoelander_128

Judges 19: >1In those days, when there was no king in Israel, a certain Levite was sojourning in the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, who took to himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2a But she was unfaithful [H2181] to him. She left him and went back to her parents' home in Bethlehem, Judah.

The Hebrew word here has a wide range of meanings.

Brown-Driver-Briggs:

1. be or act as a harlot
2. figurative of improper intercourse with foreign nations
3. of intercourse with other deities, considered as harlotry, sometimes involving actual prostitution
4. moral defection

Was she a harlot? Did she commit adultery?

Here is some background info about adultery and prostitution. It was serious, worthy of death, as described in Deuteronomy 22: > 22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Even if the husband was just suspicious, it was serious. He would bring her to the priest, according to Numbers 5 >19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
> >“ ‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

The husband didn't do any of these damaging things to her. Instead, he did the opposite. He forgave whatever she did, Judges 19: > 2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her parents’ home in Bethlehem, Judah. After she had been there four months, 3her husband went to her to persuade her to return. He had with him his servant and two donkeys. She took him into her parents’ home, and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed him.

She initiated the leaving. To where? To her father's home. If she had committed prostitution, it's unlikely that her father would welcome her back.

When her father saw the son-in-law, he was glad. Why? If she had committed adultery, both the father and the concubine would have been in big trouble. It didn't seem that she had committed anything that serious. The three seemed to be getting along well. The father kept wanting the husband to enjoy his hospitality.

Finally, the husband traveled a long way to get the concubine back. After she died a terrible death, he wanted justice. Would he have done it and raised such an outcry if she were a prostitute? I don't think so.

Cambridge Bible suggests that it could be as simple as that she was just angry with her husband without being unfaithful: >played the harlot against him] The text is open to suspicion. LXX. cod. A reads was angry with him; this suits the context, which implies a quarrel, but not unfaithfulness, on the woman’s part; she left him in anger and returned to her father’s house, whither the Levite followed to pacify her (Jdg 19:3 f.). How are we to account for the reading of the text? Moore ingeniously suggests that by the transposition of two letters she was angry (te’ĕnaph) might have become ‘she committed adultery’ (tin’aph), which was altered by the Jews to ‘played the harlot,’

I don't know what she did wrong that caused her to run away from her husband. Whatever it was, I don't think it was prostitution or adultery.

u/General-Base-9094, u/logos961, u/MirzaBeig

Nu 31: >13 Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the chiefs of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp. 14 And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15 Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live? 16 Behold, these, on Balaam’s advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

Killing the men and boys would minimize the thread of future revenge. Killing the women would avoid the temptation of idol worship. Spare the virgins, no need to kill them.

Moses elaborated in De 21: >10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

These war brides were given some rights.

1. It was specific to women captured in war.
2. It provided a process, including mourning, a month of waiting, and the possibility of release.
3. It forbade selling her as a slave.

Why did God allow that?

According to our modern morality, it wasn't right. However, I take the commands in their historical context. Taking captives in war was common in many ancient cultures, such as Egypt, Assyria, and Canaan. Moses regulated and limited what could be done, often in ways that were more humane than those of surrounding cultures. The text aims to protect the girls from immediate abuse. They had rights: a waiting period, protection against sale, and freedom if not married. While modern readers rightly find it morally troubling, the law sets boundaries in a context where war spoils were typically brutal. It represented a mitigating, protective regulation, not an unrestricted license for abuse.