The Law, foriegn wives, scripture contradiction, and Mary

[Huiou_Theou]

Samuel anointed David as king over Israel. Nathan the prophet along with Zadok the priest anointed Solomon as king over Israel.

David was not king when Samuel first anointed him – it was not until later; First Saul unwittingly cursed his son Jonathan: 1Samu 14:27;
And then Jonathan enters into a covenant with David 1Samu18:3-4 Giving to David all the trappings of his princeliness. and even more, the kingship in 1Samu 20:16 – requesting kindness to his house. Saul also says after this, that Jonathan will never be king while David lives, eg: he knew what Jonathan had done.
Even though God chose David, none the less, the kingdom was obtained by covenant and it was recorded.

Secondly:
After David chose Solomon to be king; The activities of the Prophet and Priest were at most ratification. They simply made known the will of David to the people. Consider: A prophet can be false, a priest can be on the side of the sedition; it is a matter of believability which allows the new king to rule.

Thirdly:
David’s elder son, in a coup, also was able to get officials (plural) to call him king.
2Samu16:18 for I will be his [Absalom’s], whom the Lord has Chosen …
But Absalom needed to kill his father to maintain that illusion…

I have difficulty imagining how Joseph would have been recognized as the heir to David’s throne…

That’s irrelevant. If EVERYONE was a son of David, it does not change the argument. The FATHER chooses which of his son’s inherit whatever it is that the Father Owns. If a kingdom, or just property, the father picks the son who gets the double portion of the inheritance, etc.
Consider – Even Jacob had to trick his father… His purchase of the inheritance was not enough…

I’ll bet people probably did allege …[but] God performed many miracles…

The signs demonstrate that Jesus was a prophet. The magicians in Egypt could do most of the miracles that Moses did. Elijah’s miracles of the highest order did NOT make him King or messiah over the very sinful and legitimate king Ahab. None of this is enough to establish legitimacy of Kingship.
Nero, Absalom, Herod, etc…

Think about it, your bet is a good test – If you can find ANY evidence that anyone claimed that “one” of Jesus’ “brothers” was Joseph’s chosen one (for whatever meager amount he had) – I will simply concede the argument that Jesus had half brothers of Joseph. It would be very STRONG evidence.

Again, one of these “brothers” is named Joseph – the absence of any witness from Joseph (the Father) ought to have immediately arisen in the scriptures as arguments against Jesus’ Messianic credibility; Even the blind man knew he was a son of David… The more sons of David there are, the harder it is to DISPROVE and the more powerful a local disproof would be. Why argue the whole tree, if the very bud is cut off? (eg: Did he come from Nazareth?, the bible records Bethlehem! ). This isn’t a statistics contest.
There were before and after Jesus many who claimed to be messiah.
The simpler the proof to rule a person out – the quicker they could be eliminated.

Why this sudden omission in just this one case? Again, even St. Peter had his throne challenged! And evidence is given that Jesus (the incarnate covenantal father of 12 princes) handed it to Peter on earth.

We’re looking at this from totally different perspectives … God grant us wisdom.
–Andrew

 

[Huiou_Theou]

At thirteen subject to the commandments: At thirteen a child is liable for his own sins. This was the average age of puberty at the time of the Mishnah. This is the earliest reference to “bar-mitzvah” in Talmudic literature. The concept of a celebration of the bar-mitzvah does not appear until the fifteenth century. The idea of a “bat-mitzvah” does not appear until the 19th century.

wapedia.mobi/en/Mishnah

The date of the mishnah is 70AD - 200AD, hence the latest bar-mitzvah could have been invented as midrash is 200AD. But as the link points out, the mishnah is a writing down of ORAL traditions predating it – That is, it even speaks of laws in existence before 70AD.

… demonstrate pragmatic exercise of the Biblical laws, which was much needed at the time when the Second Temple was destroyed (70 AD). The Mishnah does not claim to be the development of new laws, but rather the collection of existing traditions.

This particular rule is an exposition of the meaning of Genesis;
Which means that the age 13 in Genesis is the influence – do a search…
Some site: Genesis Rabbah, 63:14 accredited to the third century. eg:200AD.
So, this is an extremely early date for the barmitzvah ceremony, and later the celebration would be recognized.

The finding of Jesus in the temple at age 12 is also in agreement with some of the text I read, where the child is allowed to interact with an elder, get a blessing, ask questions, etc… indicating that much of the mishnah really does go all the way back to Jesus’ day and is not new material or invention.

 

[adriancombe]

If she were not subject to the law, she wouldn’t have had to present Jesus in the Temple.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thanks Adrian! I appreciate the comment.

If she were not subject to the law, she wouldn’t have had to present Jesus in the Temple.

Are you (or anyone else) then supposing Mary’s presentation of Jesus means she is subject to the law?
eg:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5463055&postcount=13

But, the general idea I am exploring is whether or not one willfully submits to the law vs. the necessity to do so.

The firstborn of all animals, people, etc., God claimed from the time of Exodus – eg: even the firstborn of Egypt.
But the Egyptians were pagan and had no temple of the true God at that time.

I see these elements hanging around historically:
Bondswoman = Hagar the Egyptian → circumcise Ismaelite/(some)Egyptians.
Freewoman = Sarah → circumcise Isaac/Hebrews.

And am wondering about the possible connection(s).
Scripturally, I am wondering if you are thinking along the lines of:

KJV:
Galat 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Galat 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

DR:
Galat 5:3 And I testify again to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Galat 5:4 You are made void of Christ, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from grace.

So, are you applying these to Mary because circumcision is the entry point of the Law for men, and birth (or marriage) is the entry point for women?
Symbolically: obeying the law caused one to be under it?

And what do you(all) think of the flip side – that Hebrews/Israelites by circumcising others and Hebrews/Israelites doing whatever was required for women, has no effect. (Peter/Paul but not Marian Hypocrisy?)

Paul seems to have it both ways; The one duo-quote above and these that lie below.

KJV
1Cori 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
1Cori 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

DR1Cori 7:18 Is any man called, being circumcised? Let him not procure uncircumcision. Is any man called in uncircumcision? Let him not be_circumcised.
1Cori 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing: but the observance of the commandments of God.

KJV:
Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

DRActs 16:3 Him Paul would have to go along with him: and taking him, he circumcised him, because of the Jews who were in those places. For they_all knew that his father was a Gentile.

img205.imageshack.us/img205/8831/contextmg9.jpg

 

[adriancombe]

Thanks Adrian! I appreciate the comment.

Are you (or anyone else) then supposing Mary’s presentation of Jesus means she is subject to the law?
eg:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5463055&postcount=13
The firstborn of all animals, people, etc., God claimed from the time of Exodus – eg: even the firstborn of Egypt.
But the Egyptians were pagan and had no temple of the true God at that time.

I see these elements hanging around historically:
Bondswoman = Hagar the Egyptian → circumcise Ismaelite/(some)Egyptians.
Freewoman = Sarah → circumcise Isaac/Hebrews.

And am wondering about the possible connection(s).
Scripturally, I am wondering if you are thinking along the lines of:

So, are you applying these to Mary because circumcision is the entry point of the Law for men, and birth (or marriage) is the entry point for women?
Symbolically: obeying the law caused one to be under it?

And what do you(all) think of the flip side – that Hebrews/Israelites by circumcising others and Hebrews/Israelites doing whatever was required for women, has no effect. (Peter/Paul but not Marian Hypocrisy?)

Paul seems to have it both ways; The one duo-quote above and these that lie below.

img205.imageshack.us/img205/8831/contextmg9.jpg

WHOA. You have gone way more into the weeds with this than I would have. Not saying you are wrong to do so. Just not my style. You kind of lost me.

For a Jew, law meant the first five books of Scripture. Jesus is the fulfillment of these texts (among others). So it would be unlikely for a Jewess like Mary to go from that knowledge state to thinking she was above the law - regardless of whether she was aware of Her Immaculate Conception.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

WHOA. You have gone way more into the weeds with this than I would have. Not saying you are wrong to do so. Just not my style. You kind of lost me.

For a Jew, law meant the first five books of Scripture. Jesus is the fulfillment of these texts (among others). So it would be unlikely for a Jewess like Mary to go from that knowledge state to thinking she was above the law - regardless of whether she was aware of Her Immaculate Conception.

I’ll take that as a no.
:thankyou:

Part of the point of the thread is to go through some weeds; eg: about how did Mary know she was a legitimate Jewess given the first five books of the Bible?



The phrase you used “fulfillment of these texts” – When Jesus says he came to fulfill the law, and that not the slightest “tittle” would pass away; I was just noticing another connection to this insidious “weed”. The Pharisees, the commandments (Decalogue), and adultery are all directly connected with that phrase.

eg: The Pharisees interpretations are scrutinized in Matthew 5:18 by the context of 5:20 (heaven’s minimum requirement) and 5:27 (Adultery).
Again in Luke 16:17 where the same idea of impassability of law occurs – The context goes immediately to Adultery and its antithesis, Marriage.

D.R.

Luke 16:14 Now the Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luke 16:15 And he said to them: you are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts. For that which is high to men is an abomination before God.
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the kingdom of God is preached: and every one useth violence towards it.
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fall.
Luke 16:18 Every one that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her_husband committeth adultery.

It is almost avant guarde how covetousness is interrupted by adultery in the same paragraph. But: Adultery is also the euphimism for robbing idols, marrying foreigners, fornication, incest, eg: “abomination” or “Paganism”.
All the very things which cut someone off from being Abraham’s true children and which the Pharisees were accused of. eg: The things which permitted divorce.

David’s line is guilty of some of these foreign marriages…

Why would Mary be “above” the law if she thought she were “technically” cut off from it? I mean, how would you show she was a “Jewess” or that she knew she was a Jewess according to the proper interpretation of the Law, eg: From Genesis to Numbers?

Perhaps this will help:
Matthew in his geneology appears to take great pains to single out the WOMEN who even POTENTIALLY VIOLATE the Law as discussed in this thread, and ignores the ones who would be under it for certain. Why bother to do so, unless there was a controversy which these examples would suppress, but not explain?

I am hoping for an explanation or discovery of some kind – perhaps you just have a simpler view of it?

–Andrew.

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

In Genes 17:18, Abraham shows his preference for Ishmael, his eldest son in being kingly – eg: God responds by making him a king, the father of 12 princes, but Ishmael is not in his covenant.

God listened to the father’s plea for his favored son – but established the covenant with another – eg: who had no cities to be king over, but God only was King until the time of Saul; When the cities and forts were built. The city with foundations.

Genesis 16:4 is the despising of Hagar over Sari when she was barren.
Genesis 21:8-9 is the mocking verses of Ishmael to Sarah.

None of these verses show Ishmael mocking Sarah. Hagar despised Sarai, and Ishmael played with Isaac, which Sarah saw and then asked that he be gotten rid of because she did not want Ishamel to be the heir.

Yes, he would be 13 and some months, or 14/15 at most. The law holds for all ages above 13… eg: at least 13 when he mocked.

Genes 21:10 …for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.

Ishmael clearly knew he was to be a leader, as his father favored him and the promise was known of Ishmael being the father of a great nation. It is at the weaning of his half brother that Ishmael mocks Sarah – tying his mocking to the delay in his rival’s birth due to barrenness – and it is on this account that Sarah demands the divorce (eg:sending away of a non-wife sex partner) of Hagar so that Ishmael will not be given of Abraham’s inheritance ( a wandering herdsman! ).

Genes 25:16 shows clearly the kingly issue of Ishmael, the favored son of Abraham.

Gen 16:16 says Abram was 86 when Ishamel was born. Gen 17:1 says he was 99 when the Lord appeared and promised to give him a son by Sarah, which Gen 17:21 says would be born during the same season the next year, which means that Ishmael had to be around 14 when Isaac was born. Gen 21:8 says that Isaac was weaned, and it looks like it is saying that Sarah saw Ishmael playing with Isaac after this or at the same time. In order for the child to be weaned, the child could be maybe several months-1 years old at the very least.

I don’t understand how this supposed law of the age of 13 could have existed though if Moses never mentions it.

Where does Abraham favour Ishmael over Isaac? Where does it become clear that Ishmael thought he was to be heir?

I think it did, Barmitzvah is a word associated with a celebration today; There is no evidence of a celebration at the time of Jesus; hence it represents a development of tradition. The word Christmass isn’t in the bible either…

It didn’t. The text I am quoting clearly states that the celebration didn’t take place until the 15th century but that the Mishnah had the earliest reference to the ‘bar-mitzvah’ which in the context was not a celebration.

Why do both the father and mother need to take hold of him if he isn’t strong enough to struggle effectively?

Apply Deute 22:18-21 to a child of six months (circumcised). A fat child drunk on mothers milk… (people are called drunk on blood, why not milk?) Common sense of the statement, right?
If wine; it requires someone who knows how to make wine, the strength and stamina to press it, or has the strength to steal it? A 6 year old?, 7? when???

The command to honor your father and mother is also not something a powerless child can really do. Esp: OT commentary on that honor says – eg: … do not revile your father in your strength, even if he looses his mind in his old age…

St Paul too shows a change in status with age:

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once…

And EVEN Ishmael is carried by his mother at age 13+. A weak child.
Deute 21:15.

St Paul tells children to obey their parents… if they were not subject to the commandments, then he couldn’t command this. Children are capable of understanding right and wrong from an early age.

The fact that both parents take hold of him doesn’t necessarily indicate that it was in order to stop him struggling.

The hebrew word ‘caba’ (drunkard) seems to refer to those who get drunk on wine, although it might potentially also be possible for it to refer to those who imbibe themselves generally.

God Bless,

 

[D_M]

David was not king when Samuel first anointed him – it was not until later; First Saul unwittingly cursed his son Jonathan: 1Samu 14:27;
And then Jonathan enters into a covenant with David 1Samu18:3-4 Giving to David all the trappings of his princeliness. and even more, the kingship in 1Samu 20:16 – requesting kindness to his house. Saul also says after this, that Jonathan will never be king while David lives, eg: he knew what Jonathan had done.
Even though God chose David, none the less, the kingdom was obtained by covenant and it was recorded.

I interpret that David became king when Samuel anointed him. He did not physically reign until years later, but he had been anointed king over Israel by Samuel. Similarly, Jesus was king, but He did not physically reign over Israel or the world for the whole of His life.

David chose Solomon to be king, but he was still anointed by the prophet. In the church in past times, people who became bishops were sometimes selected by earthly powers but that didn’t mean that God did not infuse them with the powers that they thereby inherited once they were consecrated or that He did not give them their office.

That’s irrelevant. If EVERYONE was a son of David, it does not change the argument. The FATHER chooses which of his son’s inherit whatever it is that the Father Owns. If a kingdom, or just property, the father picks the son who gets the double portion of the inheritance, etc.

Where is there indication that it was known that Joseph had inherited such a kingship?

The signs demonstrate that Jesus was a prophet. The magicians in Egypt could do most of the miracles that Moses did. Elijah’s miracles of the highest order did NOT make him King or messiah over the very sinful and legitimate king Ahab. None of this is enough to establish legitimacy of Kingship.
Nero, Absalom, Herod, etc…

Think about it, your bet is a good test – If you can find ANY evidence that anyone claimed that “one” of Jesus’ “brothers” was Joseph’s chosen one (for whatever meager amount he had) – I will simply concede the argument that Jesus had half brothers of Joseph. It would be very STRONG evidence.

Again, one of these “brothers” is named Joseph – the absence of any witness from Joseph (the Father) ought to have immediately arisen in the scriptures as arguments against Jesus’ Messianic credibility; Even the blind man knew he was a son of David… The more sons of David there are, the harder it is to DISPROVE and the more powerful a local disproof would be. Why argue the whole tree, if the very bud is cut off? (eg: Did he come from Nazareth?, the bible records Bethlehem! ). This isn’t a statistics contest.
There were before and after Jesus many who claimed to be messiah.
The simpler the proof to rule a person out – the quicker they could be eliminated.

Why this sudden omission in just this one case? Again, even St. Peter had his throne challenged! And evidence is given that Jesus (the incarnate covenantal father of 12 princes) handed it to Peter on earth.

We’re looking at this from totally different perspectives … God grant us wisdom.

It is by faith that people could know that Jesus is who He claimed to be, and Jesus says that the signs He did bore witness to Him:

John 10:25, John 10:37-38

I’m not following what you mean about Jesus’ siblings… I don’t know if there is any evidence that shows that they were also children of Joseph. Jesus did have His claims challenged by many, and even if the claim that He wasn’t the direct descendant of David did not count among what was said in the in scriptures, that didn’t mean people didn’t use it (the same is true of a number of potential claims we could probably think up).

wapedia.mobi/en/Mishnah

The date of the mishnah is 70AD - 200AD, hence the latest bar-mitzvah could have been invented as midrash is 200AD. But as the link points out, the mishnah is a writing down of ORAL traditions predating it – That is, it even speaks of laws in existence before 70AD.

Yes, it’s possible that it could predate it, although that still wouldn’t show that this was the custom at the time of Jesus’ childhood.

If a child cannot sin, then the child also cannot love, because in order for a person to love she needs to be able to choose otherwise. Love has to be freely given or else it is not love. If it is forced or there is no ability to choose otherwise, then it is not really love.

This particular rule is an exposition of the meaning of Genesis;
Which means that the age 13 in Genesis is the influence – do a search…
Some site: Genesis Rabbah, 63:14 accredited to the third century. eg:200AD.
So, this is an extremely early date for the barmitzvah ceremony, and later the celebration would be recognized.

The finding of Jesus in the temple at age 12 is also in agreement with some of the text I read, where the child is allowed to interact with an elder, get a blessing, ask questions, etc… indicating that much of the mishnah really does go all the way back to Jesus’ day and is not new material or invention.

I don’t think this is a ceremony, but it was an understanding. The website states that the ceremony didn’t come till the 15th century, but that this reflected an early understanding that the child became subject to the commandments at the age of 13. However, it is not clear that this was an understanding widely believed in at the time of Jesus’ childhood.

(anyone can say this with me if she choose)

Lord, we thank you for all the help you’ve given us. We pray for wisdom concerning these things we discuss and that you help us discover what you are trying to show us. Look after Andrew, keep him healthy and bring us all together closer to you in your love. We ask for this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen

God Bless,

 

[adriancombe]

I’ll take that as a no.
:thankyou:

Part of the point of the thread is to go through some weeds; eg: about how did Mary know she was a legitimate Jewess given the first five books of the Bible?



The phrase you used “fulfillment of these texts” – When Jesus says he came to fulfill the law, and that not the slightest “tittle” would pass away; I was just noticing another connection to this insidious “weed”. The Pharisees, the commandments (Decalogue), and adultery are all directly connected with that phrase.

eg: The Pharisees interpretations are scrutinized in Matthew 5:18 by the context of 5:20 (heaven’s minimum requirement) and 5:27 (Adultery).
Again in Luke 16:17 where the same idea of impassability of law occurs – The context goes immediately to Adultery and its antithesis, Marriage.

D.R.

It is almost avant guarde how covetousness is interrupted by adultery in the same paragraph. But: Adultery is also the euphimism for robbing idols, marrying foreigners, fornication, incest, eg: “abomination” or “Paganism”.
All the very things which cut someone off from being Abraham’s true children and which the Pharisees were accused of. eg: The things which permitted divorce.

David’s line is guilty of some of these foreign marriages…

Why would Mary be “above” the law if she thought she were “technically” cut off from it? I mean, how would you show she was a “Jewess” or that she knew she was a Jewess according to the proper interpretation of the Law, eg: From Genesis to Numbers?

Perhaps this will help:
Matthew in his geneology appears to take great pains to single out the WOMEN who even POTENTIALLY VIOLATE the Law as discussed in this thread, and ignores the ones who would be under it for certain. Why bother to do so, unless there was a controversy which these examples would suppress, but not explain?

I am hoping for an explanation or discovery of some kind – perhaps you just have a simpler view of it?

–Andrew.

Intriguing. I would take it as an axiom that no single action of an ancestor of Mary would disqualify her as a Jewess. If it did, then she could not be descended from Adam and/or Eve, without whom there would be no sin at all, anywhere.

I don’t know if this helps, and I don’t recall the details - I may be able to look them up. It was in a Scott Hahn book. Essentially he was saying in one of the genealogies - I forget which - the Gospel writer intentionally included disreputable females in the line so Jewish detractors of Jesus who blasphemed Mary’s perpetual virginity would have to - in the same breath as it were - defame their own OT heroes, many of whom were Jesus’ ancestors but had questionable mothers.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Intriguing. I would take it as an axiom that no single action of an ancestor of Mary would disqualify her as a Jewess. If it did, then she could not be descended from Adam and/or Eve, without whom there would be no sin at all, anywhere.

I don’t know if this helps, and I don’t recall the details - I may be able to look them up. It was in a Scott Hahn book. Essentially he was saying in one of the genealogies - I forget which - the Gospel writer intentionally included disreputable females in the line so Jewish detractors of Jesus who blasphemed Mary’s perpetual virginity would have to - in the same breath as it were - defame their own OT heroes, many of whom were Jesus’ ancestors but had questionable mothers.

Thanks Ardiran,
Since you take it as an axiom, I’ll simply observe that many people do exactly the same as you do; the exact reasons being irrelevant.

It does help that Scott Hahn notices the issue; But what you bring up is especially intriguing – the idea that these people were “OT heroes” with questionable mothers.

In other threads I have come across the notion, apparently borne out in modern Jewish thinking, that it is a bigger scandal to have a non indigenous mother than father w/ respect to Judaism. Eg: To which line (the masculine ancestor or the feminine) is the greater importance? The genealogies, both OT and NT trace based on the masculine. I did some digging on Scott Hahn, and he appears to place great weight on the feminine line based on eg: David’s virgin bed-warmer the Shunamite, and many other scandalous queens, etc. Showing the queenship to be especially important to ancient Jewish thought of dynastic succession and/or the messiah.

I appreciate your taking the time to comment, Adrian.
–Andrew.

------------------ In general to everyone on the thread -------------------

I would comment that the passage in Matthew shows two very important things:
1st – that the scandals of these women were a problem in the first place;
2nd – that the easiest answer was only truly applicable to a person who believed in the Christos/Messias coming technically under the law as a Jew. eg: if one didn’t believe in an actual physical messiah from the JEWS, Matthew’s proof (which was to a Jewish audience), wasn’t important.

It does not follow that these people were necessarily hereos in the sense of heroic deeds; Bathsheba certainly wasn’t, though David clearly was. And some of the later masculine ancestors were important to Jesus’ tribe of Judah, but not to other tribes directly.

Again: Luke, who’s audience is primarily pagan makes his Genealogy go all the way back to Adam, and doesn’t bother with the “pagan” motherhood problem.
This is a double edged problem, for Luke’s primary audience, one might argue – were proselytes to the Jewish religion; this precarious position in knowlege (/ignorance) being either an asset or a detriment depending on which apologist was arguing their point.

One certainly can argue Jesus’ attraction sola-miraculous as David M. appears to do, but then, I am wanting to harmonize that Jesus was born under the law and that:
John 4:22 – For salvation is out of-the(plural) Jews.

The only harmonization I can see, technically, so far – is the possibility that Jesus or one of his ancestors became a Jew after they were born by some act;
Otherwise, there is a problem scripturally that no one has satisfactorily resolved.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

 

[adriancombe]

I doubt if she knew she was immaculately conceived and there is nothing in Scripture to clarify that one way or the other. It would be easier for her to know she had not committed any personal sins.

I think you could make the argument that once she realized she was the Mother of the Messiah, she could logically infer her immaculate conception based on the same facts of her life and the same OT verses we use today to prove it - but her humility probably would’ve prevented her from thinking that way.

However, even if we assume she knew and was fully aware of her unique status - humility is truth after all - she would still subject herself to the Law by the same logic that Jesus Himself did - to fulfill all righteousness. And to set an example for us poor sinners of course!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Andrew,
None of these verses show Ishmael mocking Sarah. …

It is easy to just say the opposite of my point, I find your remark cavalier.

mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0121.htm

As you can check, the word PLAY as in “play nicely”, is NOT in the Hebrew.
It reads (preserving order):

&saw(pass) ShRHe the-son-of-HeGR the-Egyptian which-was-born to-ABRHeM ?-TsChQ

Now, we know Ishmael wasn’t playing with himself, for there is no reflexive word.

The last word of the sentence: מ-צחק is an extended version of Isaac’s name; and since I know his name means “laughter”, it does not surprise me that there are other variations of the name – eg: verbs – which mean jest, sexually toy with, make sport of, etc.

I have verified that the particular version of the word used in Hebrew, in that passage, is not a pleasant one.

When I check the Greek, I come to the same conclusion, although the word could mean “play” – it generally is used in a sexual jesting fashion. eg: How a woman might dress up to catch a man’s attention (either honorably or dishonorably). It is also something which generally (but not always) happens from a superior to an inferior; the head to the body; the king to potential extra wives, a jealous husband to a wife who is getting more attention than him. etc.

I will note one example; The word is used here in Greek:
Genes 39:14 εμ-παιζ-ειν to-abuse
Genes 39:17 εμ-παιξ-αι abuse, (p+ participle Aorist,augmented? )

To belabor the point: Genesis was part of the “LAW”. One could made legal points from it. From the link you gave, it is only important to note that the work itself is explicitly a commentary on Genesis.

The only place the number thirteen shows up in Genesis is the passage in question.
Therefore, the comment points only to this passage to explain why their traditional interpretation of the Law is age 13.

Sarah was old, probably a bit cranky – milk can dry up early. Isaac’s age at the time of the incident is pure speculation. And, Isaac isn’t even explicit in the Hebrew “Play” text – he is ONLY suggested by the act of Ismael.

Give me credible evidence, at least, on linguistic grounds that he was not mocking the one who saw him – Sarah; either by an act jesting sexually with her son, or to her directly. (Homosexuality??!)

eg: Why does not Sarah cast out Ismael BEFORE this incident; Do you believe that he never “played” with Isaac before – within Sarah’s sight? ( Hagar was her personal handmaid whom she bossed around angrily. )

The bible does not record random facts in general, but records information that gives reason or emphasis to the story. Items are placed together to make a point.

Note: God sent Hagar back to Sarah previously. Hagar and especially her son were not permitted to be cast off by Sarah’s abuse.

Give me something plausible to work with about why it happened THIRTEEN years later. Contemplate for a while; there’s no rush.

I clearly see the proverbial manifestation of “Like mother, Like son.”

Gen 16:16 says Abram was 86 when Ishamel was born. … when the Lord appeared and promised to give him a son by Sarah …

This is irrelevant, but if you wish to push the point – I will gladly show other passages where the kind of logical deduction you are making can be proved false.
The bible is not a purely chronological history – it is not history in the American sense of the word. To be explicit: Sarah had been given promise of an Heir as well as Abraham before they ever acquired Hagar in Egypt. Sarah ignored it, and Abraham likewise ignored the implications of the original promise.

I don’t understand how this supposed law of the age of 13 could have existed though if Moses never mentions it.

Hello, All of Genesis is LAW, the question is how is the law to be interpreted.

Tell me, plausibly, why did God wait until thirteen years after Abraham and Sarai doubted God’s power/means, to offer the covenant of circumcision? And what is the lawful significance of a thirteen year old receiving circumcision?

It didn’t. The text I am quoting clearly states that the celebration didn’t take place until the 15th century but that the Mishnah had the earliest reference to the ‘bar-mitzvah’ which in the context was not a celebration.

Again, this is irrelevant. The existence of something usually precedes it’s being specially named. (eg: The Charleston dance…)
It can also precede it being magnified into a celebration. Your text does not date it’s existence, but only its name and public celebration. Without the temple, an adjustment and extra emphasis is a logical development – which implies an earlier origin.

St Paul tells children to obey their parents… if they were not subject to the commandments, then he couldn’t command this…

Children are naturally subject to their parents; the parents are responsible for the child’s behavior until a legal age. I don’t know of any culture which does as you propose today, and see no reason to believe that the Jews were different than the instinctive law which all countries appear to share in some form.

The fact that both parents take hold of him doesn’t necessarily indicate that it was in order to stop him struggling.

Why else, then, are BOTH parents taking hold of the child? There are other plausible reasons, but they point again to the parent’s responsibility and the child’s freedom.

The hebrew word ‘caba’ (drunkard) seems to refer to those who get drunk on wine,…

I’ll take your word for that; and ask you to also complete the Hebrew on the earlier passage in question.

God grant us wisdom and peace in this year to come.
Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

A general note to all:
It occurs to me:

King David made a covenant with Jonathan, of unquestioned Israelite lineage.
(esp: considering Davd M.'s contention that tribes could inter-marry…)
Thus, I think, at least David is an Israelite by covenant – thereby negating any possible significance of Ruth. It also explains how certain curses placed on foreigners (or those reckoned as children of such) could be evaded by David. His legal status as heir of Saul, family of Jonathan would suffice.

Happy new year, all!

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

As you can check, the word PLAY as in “play nicely”, is NOT in the Hebrew.
It reads (preserving order):

I clearly see the proverbial manifestation of “Like mother, Like son.”

I have checked and you are right that there is a meaning to that word that can indicate mockery, although it’s not necessarily so. For example the same word is used in these passages:

Gen 21:6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to** laugh**, so that all that hear will laugh with me.

Exodus 32:6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to** play.**

(go here to find more: searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=06711)

The point about greek may make the interpretation of mockery more likely.

It’s not clear that he was thrown out 13 years later, and in fact it seems likely that it is a bit longer than that. Ishmael was born 13 years before Isaac, and I don’t know what significance of that is, but there isn’t a reason why it would need to be assumed that it had to deal with a latent concept of bar-mitzvah.

I don’t know if Sarah saw Ishmael playing with her son before or not, and if she did, that doesn’t mean she didn’t make a decision on one occasion of seeing it that she didn’t on other occasions. Furthermore, perhaps it is possible that the passage in question is not referring to a specific incident of seeing them playing together, but is referring to Sarah often seeing this happen or seeing it on more than one occasion.

This is irrelevant, but if you wish to push the point – I will gladly show other passages where the kind of logical deduction you are making can be proved false.
The bible is not a purely chronological history – it is not history in the American sense of the word. To be explicit: Sarah had been given promise of an Heir as well as Abraham before they ever acquired Hagar in Egypt. Sarah ignored it, and Abraham likewise ignored the implications of the original promise.

I agree it is not history in our sense.

Hello, All of Genesis is LAW, the question is how is the law to be interpreted.

Tell me, plausibly, why did God wait until thirteen years after Abraham and Sarai doubted God’s power/means, to offer the covenant of circumcision? And what is the lawful significance of a thirteen year old receiving circumcision?

I know that Genesis is law, but that doesn’t mean that this implies some concept of bar-mitzvah. In Genesis God’s commandments are explicitly mentioned (eg. after Noah leaves the ark, he is told that he who sheds a man’s blood that his blood shall be shed also, or he tells Abram to circumcize), but there is no explicit mention that at the age of 13 a person becomes responsibe, and the commandments in Genesis are reiterated in Moses’ teaching (eg. circumcision is mentioned again in Exodus, and we have the commandment not to kill).

It’s not clear that Abram and Sarai doubted God’s covenant when they conceived Ishmael, for it is also possible that they thought that this was how his covenant was going to come about. I don’t know what the significance is of a thirteen year old receiving circumcision, but it doesn’t mean that they were not required to know and follow God’s commandments before this.

Again, this is irrelevant. The existence of something usually precedes it’s being specially named. (eg: The Charleston dance…)
It can also precede it being magnified into a celebration. Your text does not date it’s existence, but only its name and public celebration. Without the temple, an adjustment and extra emphasis is a logical development – which implies an earlier origin.

It’s true that the notion could have preceded it, but there isn’t adequate reason to assume that it existed at the time of Jesus. I don’t know what you mean by ‘an adjustment and extra emphasis’.

Children are naturally subject to their parents; the parents are responsible for the child’s behavior until a legal age. I don’t know of any culture which does as you propose today, and see no reason to believe that the Jews were different than the instinctive law which all countries appear to share in some form.

Parents are partially responsible for what their children do, but that doesn’t mean that the child does not have any responsibility. Parents and schoolteachers and others will punish children when they do things that they perceive to be wrong; all cultures recognize responsibility in children, otherwise they wouldn’t discipline them.

Why else, then, are BOTH parents taking hold of the child? There are other plausible reasons, but they point again to the parent’s responsibility and the child’s freedom.

Perhaps it was a form of symbolism.

Why does God’s wrath come upon children when in the book of Ezekiel the angel is told to smite the little children who do not sigh and groan over the abominations in the city (Ezekiel 9)?

I’ll take your word for that; and ask you to also complete the Hebrew on the earlier passage in question.

You’ll have to remind me what you’re referring to.

(anyone can say this with me if she chooses):

Lord, look after us and bind us together in your love. Grant us wisdom concerning these things we discuss and reveal your Truth within them. We ask for these things if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen

God Bless,

 

[adriancombe]

Exodus 32:6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to** play.***

It was my understanding the use of ‘play’ in this passage is a euphemism for sexual misconduct, i.e., in context, an orgy. *

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It was my understanding the use of ‘play’ in this passage is a euphemism for sexual misconduct, i.e., in context, an orgy. *

Hi Adrain!
Hmmmm… I agree, and here’s a bit of translation searching.

KJV.
1Cori 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
DR.
1Cori 10:7 Neither become ye idolaters, as some of them, as it is written: The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.
NA26 ?:
1Cori 10:7 μηδε ειδωλολατραι γινεσθε καθως τινες αυτων ωσπερ γεγραπται εκαθισεν ο λαος φαγειν και πειν και ανεστησαν παιζ-ειν

Throughout the O.T. the idea of Harlotry and Idolatry, the whore and the Idol worshipper, are used euphemistically and interchangably. I think the explicit link to the euphemism is here in 1Cori 10:7 where the same word used – eg: of Ishmael’s act – that is attributed to Exodus 32:6 by St. Paul. It is the same word in Greek.

Exodu 32:6 και ορθρισας τη επαυριον ανεβιβασεν ολοκαυτωματα και προσηνεγκεν θυσιαν σωτηριου και εκαθισεν ο λαος φαγειν και πιειν και ανεστησαν παιζ-ειν.

Notably, the Latin agrees in that particular word: a teasing play. ( Lewdness ?? )
Genes 21:9 Cumque vidisset Sara filium Agar Ægyptiæ ludentem cum Isaac filio suo, dixit ad Abraham

And in the other passage:
Exodu 32:6 Surgentesque mane, obtulerunt holocausta, et hostias pacificas, et sedit populus manducare, et bibere, et surrexerunt ludere.
Exodu 32:6 וישכימו ממחרת ויעלו עלת ויגשו שלמים וישב העם לאכל ושתו ויקמו ל-צחק.
In the Hebrew it has Lamed-Isaac, which is to-play/mock/orgy/be lewd. etc.
Essentially, Idol worship in the typical fertility cult way.

Websters…

Ancestral Language Translations: Tease

LanguagePeriodTranslationsLatin500 BCE-Modernfatigare, fatigo, lod, lud, ludam, ludant, luddeo, luddeum, lude, ludebant, ludebat, ludens, ludent, ludentem, ludentes, ludentibus, ludentium, luderet, lusistis, lusit, obtundere, vexare. (various references)

Now… let me point to the origin of Isaac’s name – Sarah and Abraham thought God was being Ludicrous and they laughed at him as in making fun of his jest for they did not believe sufficiently. They were in effect mocking him in disbelief.

When Sarah laughs – the word is spelled with a tav, eg ( she-laugh/mock ).
Genes 18:12 – ת-צחק

Later, when caught, she says coyly:
Genes 21:6 ו-תאמר שרה צחק עשה לי אלהים ; כל-השמעיצחק-לי.
(Crudely but politely)
& said ShRHe; ?]saac was-made-for me (by) Elohim; Whoever hears will Isaac-me !
Sarah said, God made laughter for me; They who-hear will mock-me.

I don’t see a word meaning “with”
In the name, laugh / mock (Isaac), there is a preceding yod which means that a man is doing the laughing: eg: in Genes 17:17; it is included in Isaac’s name, since he is masculine.

Now; often I hear people blaming Sarah for unbelief, that is – the (male) world mocks her; Though they overlook that Abraham too laughed.

Checking the other translations:
Genes 21:6 ειπεν δε σαρρα γελωτα μοι εποιησεν κυριος ος γαρ αν ακουση συ-γ-χαρ-ειται μοι
together-rejoice to/for-me.

Odd … the Greek can be interpreted
“whoever hears together-rejoice on account of me.”
The greeting/rejoicing is of a crowd, and may or not include Sarah – but they are laughing because (for) her or in her direction (to her)… Again, the Greek has a double meaning, and avoids the normal “meta” which would mean “with me”.

Genes 21:6 Dixitque Sara : Risum fecit mihi Deus : quicumque audierit, corridebit mihi.

I don’t know the Latin, but cum is with, and I am not sure of the nuance of “Co”.
So, perhaps this is where the modification of “with me” came from ?
Otherwise, not even this statement of Sarah’s excludes her ridicule as well as her joy linguistically.

The Jerusalem Hebrew site makes a similar, careful translation – perhaps I shouldn’t have bothered, with all the previous, but just looked there first…
mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0121.htm

It was fun doing some digging anyway.
Thanks for the observation !

–Your brother in Christ, Andrew.

 

[reggieM]

On an semi-related issue, how do we reconcile Rahab’s role in salvation history (her descendants leading to King David (Ruth 4:17-22) with Deut. 23:2 “Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted [to the assembly of the Lord]… Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted…"?

In James 2:25 we see: “In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”

In attempts to explain this, I’ve read that the Rahab of King David’s line was not Rahab the harlot. Or, she was called a harlot but wasn’t really one. The Jewish Encyclopedia accepts that she is the same person and was a harlot (described in graphic terms). It doesn’t reconcile her violation of the Law as a harlot (perhaps Deut. 23:2 does not condemn that?) or as a foreign wife to Salmon.

Others have tried to explain that she was a Canaanite but also of the same Hebrew race(?).

Perhaps the best explanation is to look first at God’s purpose in this law – as D.M. explains above – to prevent pagan-idolatry from entering among the chosen people. That seems fine – the law is not based on eternal principles but on disciplinary matters.

If so, how would Rahab (and the Jewish people of the time) have known that her marriage and offspring would be acceptable to the Lord? In other words, that she would be a legitimate exception to the rule?

Could it be that the Jewish teachers of the time recognized that God had justified and accepted her, even though she was a non-Hebrew, harlot – thus rendering her legitimate and acceptable in the Hebrew lineage?

That is just a guess and it leaves the problem about how the Jewish leaders would have known that God accepted her-- unless they were empowered with divine guidance to make that kind of decision.

Any help and thoughts you can offer on this are greatly appreciated!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

D.M.

Sigh I was hoping you would spend some days contemplating when I encouraged you not to hurry – not just a few minutes or hours.
I don’t know why people seem to want to answer right away, when I ask them to be thoughtful – but several priests have done the same as you when I asked them (even repeatedly) not to be rash.
They become quite attached to their position once stated, and it can make conversations both unnecessarily long, and tends to make me target practice once they are forced to admit they were wrong.
I really don’t want that to happen with you, I so much enjoy the conversation.

If you could spend more time, as you are a ??historian?? by career choice, perhaps you will find more decisive arguments, and I will be able to concede things rather than argue probabilities…
I am not here to “win”; but to discover – I don’t mind being shown where I have grossly erred – In fact, want that. And I want the deeper, pondered, thoughts…

I had exhaustively checked (as far as I can tell) all Hebrew variants of the particular word that Ishmael did to someone before I wrote what I did.
Let me expose my private study these two posts, focusing ONLY on the word and context to show you this in detail – eliminating only the places where it is Isaac’s name and nothing more.

Genes 17:17 – Abraham mocks/laughs.
Now Abraham has no example of anything like this happening, he falls on his face (worship) and laughs/mocks in that position because he has no example or father to tell him what is possible.
The same is true with Mary at the annunciation; ignorance of precedence means her question is answered / not reprimanded.
But after this surprise; Abraham is to transmit what he has learned to his wife: Genesis 17:15 … As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah …

Genes 18:12 – Sarah mocks/laughs.
Now there has been time passing between chapter 17 and chapter 18; the covenant of circumcision WITH the promise of ISAAC is in effect.
Sarah has already had her name changed, so they clearly must have talked and the large act of circumcision could not have gone un-noticed by her.

She has an explanation – but thinks it ludicrous, although her husband entered the covenant; Therefore she is disrespecting Abraham’s headship.
Parallel case: Zecharias, the father of John the baptist had examples from the OT of elderly people bearing children and YET he too doubts the Angel.
Both Zechariah and Sarah are reprimanded for their unbelief, for they had time to think and prepare for the gamble of faith – in contrast of Mary and Abraham having no prior example.
Mary, notably, does not laugh nor deny – for she does have that much of an example. Luke 1:34

Now, notice that Abraham is called to account and explain his wife’s activity.
Genes 18:13 – God calls Sarah on it: … זה צחק-ה שרה ל-אמר … why? mock ShRHe to-say …
If Sarah were merely “playing”, then why would God bother asking about it? There is nothing wrong with a little happiness at good news.

But instead of speaking positively of some playful activity or JOY, Sarah denies:
Genes 18:15 – denial (ת-כחש) (of) Sarah by saying, (שרה ל-אמר) not mock-I (לא צחק-תי) did,fearing / for fear (כי יראה) And-he-said “no” ( ו-י-אמר לא ) for laugh-woman/did laugh-woman ( כי צחק-ת )

I didn’t “play”??! makes no sense here. She was afraid because she HAD mocked/scoffed with sufficient information to know better than to do it.
Clearly Sarah knows what she did was offensive, she wasn’t just “playing” !! why else would she lie to try and cover it up? She appears to have offended her husband and God BOTH
This is an obedience issue, as Abraham has already committed himself (and her) to faith in the miracle to come.

– more –

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In an interlude to the story, notice how this one example of the word re-inforces the mocking/jesting/scoffiing and associates it with sexual sin.
eg: it occurs in a town which sodomizes as a form of “domination” or proving one’s self superior to another. Rape mockery.
It is the locals whom think that Lot is doing as is common there – trickery and treachery.
Genes 19:14 – (for YHUH will-destroy-this-city) כי-משחית יהוה את-העיר ויהי כמ-צחק בעיני חתניו
Lot is offensive because they take his words to be a trap/joke/jest of some kind. At very least they thought him insane and his action ludicrous. But this re-inforces the association of sexual context and the word.

;-------
Genes 21:6 ותאמר שרה צחק עשה לי אלהים כל-השמע יצחק-לי.
&said ShRHe; ?]saac was-made-for me (by) Elohim; Whoever-hears (will) Isaac-me !
Sarah said, God made laughter for me; They who-hear will mock-me.

And of course, your attempted counter example – and I parsed the Greek to show the careful double meaning being preserved in a previous post.
Sarah is both shamed and glorified by this miracle and gift to her.

NOW! After all these contextual uses of the word in the SAME BOOK; I will say that this word generally indicates an offensive/jesting/mocking which might vary in degree, but not offense.

Genes 21:9 – what Ishmael did – מ-צחק; (and note the MEM prefix.)
After all that has gone before – WHATEVER kind of play this “laughter” is, it OUGHT NOT BE DONE. Here Ismael does it, and the specific variant has a mem prefix indicating he was doing it to SOMEONE by my best estimation. HOWEVER, In the Hebrew, the word ISAAC does NOT exist next to the word “Play/mock” and the only other person in the sentence is Sarah.
Hence the Hebrew, I would think, insinuates he was doing it to/toward her directly or indirectly – which was my original understanding; whatever he did was insulting toward Sarah
(Perhaps he was laughing AT her because of Isaac… Just as she knew would happen in Genesis 21:6 ! )

Note the careful translation here which is exactly my point.
mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0121.htm
9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne unto Abraham, making sport.

One only gets the connection that he did this act (with the mem prefix) to/with Isaac in the Septuagint, and in the Vulgate translations.
But there is only one other place that exact word is used with the mem prefix in Hebrew:

Genes 26:8 – Isaac mocks his Rebekah – והנה יצחק-מ-צחק את – note the mem prefix; Isaac did something to his wife with a mem prefix.
If he were merely “playing” with her, like the shepherd boys do with the girls at the well – or the children do in the street (Zechariah 8:5 BUT NOT USING THIS PARTICULAR HEBREW WORD) and these could still be jesting/mocking – How is it that Pharaoh comes to realize that his act “proves” she is his wife? was it wrong to laugh or play with one’s sister?

Yet THIS is the exact word used of Ismael – and contextually, a son trying to sexually dominate his mother is the same as trying to replace his father. See Ham/Cham of Noah’s ark, and King David’s son Absalom with respect to David’s concubine(s). etc. If the word used with the mem prefix is associated WITH Isaac, then Ishmael is clearly doing something which ranges from derision to sexual harassment.

This is also plausible in the context of Genesis 26:8, for Issac has reason to be jealous of the other men taking access to his wife; He only fears them, but would want to remind her that HE is the husband regardless of the ruse to protect his life.

Next:
Genes 39:14 – The Egyptian trap; ל-צחק To-abuse us – (Take advantage of, hold in derision the whole of them)
Genes 39:17 – and: ל-צחק בי (abuse).
And for a single woman, it means attempted rape.

Exodu 32:6 – ל-צחק. (rose up to Play / idolatry).
This is idolatry as shown by St. Paul.

and the final example:
Ezeki 23:32 – laughed to scorn, the context being again, !idolatry! – Ezeki 23:30.

The word has such a total negative track record that I find it very implausible that Isaac/“Play” as a verb is meant in a simultaneously non-sexual and non-cruel/jesting way in the Old testament.
Have I missed a variant of this form of the word that is not meant as Isaac’s name? ( There are other words which mean mock/jest also – but they are spelled quite differently. )

I am wanting PLAUSIBLE explanations which fit the WHOLE of the context – and that is what I am trying to produce myself, incrementally testing hypothesis and correcting where needed.
Can you find any example where the word CAN NOT mean jesting/mocking ? ( I don’t have extra Biblical Hebrew of the period on hand, and the Qumran scrolls are not digital yet for my use. )

God grant us to find the truth.
–Andrew.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Reggie!

img695.imageshack.us/img695/3433/eeyore.jpg

Never give up.

On an semi-related issue, how do we reconcile Rahab’s role in salvation history (her descendants leading to King David (Ruth 4:17-22) with Deut. 23:2 “Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted [to the assembly of the Lord]… Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted…"?

This Genealogy link is not fully in Ruth 4:17-22 in the English bibles I have, I didn’t notice on cursory glance in the Hebrew, nor does Matthew mention the scandal, do you know a more explicit link?
(I am looking too, but I am unable to concentrate now; medical issues. I wrote the rest before I gave up.)

I too had originally thought that a similar curse to the third generation was why David was not permitted to build the temple, but his son of the fourth could.
As D.M. pointed out, Bathsheba could have been an Israelite who married a Hittite.
(One of the points of the thread). But then I stumbled onto Deut 23:2 a few years back – and it clearly destroyed that theory.

In James 2:25 we see: “In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”

It does not say that sending them justified her, but that was when it happened.
It would not have happened at all if something else related to God had not taken place – the introduction to God and his family.

I find it curious that the name Rahab is mentioned in Psalm 86:4 (DR, LXX, Vulgate ), or psalm 87:4 (KJV & Jerusalem Hebrew’s English translation – but not the Hebrew itself). Rahab’s Hebrew spelling is רחב , but in the Hebrew psalm the closest word is a sound alike word רהב – (“He” in place of “CHet”, ReCHeB vs. ReHeB (My holding place vowels are arbitrary, not from pointing) – The sound alike is not found as the name of a city, but rather the spelling of the Harlot is found as the name of several cities/landmarks Rohob, Rehob, and even Amaad, in English. eg: Joshua 19:28.

Something to come back to later, because Rahab is grouped with Babylon, and the euphemism of marriage (knowing me) is included in the psalm; if it is poetic parallelism, it suggests salvation of all nations/foreigners; BUT
I am not sure it has to be parallel poetry, for Israel sojourned in Babylon and many stayed there after the captivity – Babylon saving Israel via (Ezra?).
Tyre is, I think, a sheol/hellion city according what I think Jesus says.

… The Jewish Encyclopedia accepts that she is the same person and was a harlot (described in graphic terms). It doesn’t reconcile her violation of the Law … or as a foreign wife to Salmon.

Even if she was, she may not have been subject to the Law.

Let me give a little brainstorm for you to consider; eg: the prostitute that the Pharisees brought into the temple to trap Jesus – ( Although many think it was not inside, the gospel writer makes it clear that Jesus was doing his usual teaching – which is in the temple. )

Jesus says to them, let the one among you without sin cast the first stone.
They could not; and yet, no one punishes them nor does Jesus condemn them for NOT carrying out the law. What is the penalty under the Law (by humans) for not killing according to a decree of the Law?

There is a little issue of an Oath, which could also be part of a covenant, that would mean that anyone who killed Rahab for her harlotry would themselves be condemned to death by they oath the whole of Israel took through the spies, and ratified by Joshua (who doesn’t kill the spies for breaking the law in a moment of weakness) in exchange for her aid.

An Oath means, let me die at the hand of God if I break my promise.
How can they enforce it against Rahab if the whole nation is bound by an Oath?

Others have tried to explain that she was a Canaanite but also of the same Hebrew race(?).

Early on the Israelites were tricked into entering into a covenant with those who were to be expelled from the promised land. I don’t recall the verse.
Both legitimacy and immunity are factors in these laws; It does not surprise me that laws may apply in different ways depending on catch-22 situations that smart prostitutes put Israel into.

Note one thing about Rahab: She was not allowed in the CAMP during the destruction of Jericho – she was sent outside just as Moses’ sister Miriam was for her sin.

Any help and thoughts you can offer on this are greatly appreciated!

How far can you go with the new idea(s) / what problems come to mind?
David entered into covenant with Saul’s son, Jonathan, thus Meribaal – the only survivor of Saul’s house eats at David’s table as his family. If David were forbidden by the law to enter the assembly – which I suspect is the where the men gathered in the temple, beyond where women were allowed, and even farther than the pagans. (analogous to the CAMP at Jericho). Then the problem becomes that David had the Oath of a Covenant with Saul’s house, and therefore I would expect the oath was binding on the whole nation. Thus, who could punish david for breaking the law, or eating the bread no one else could eat, etc? Only God alone.