The Law, foriegn wives, scripture contradiction, and Mary

[reggieM]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for patiently working through this question – and for the reminder. I was, definitely about to give up in more ways than one. Also, more importantly – I hope your medical concerns will be lightened.

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?

Here’s what I have:

Ruth 4:17-22 (New American Standard Bible)

[edit]…
21and to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed,
22and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.

So, if we link that with Matthew 1:5

Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse

On first glance, it looks like Salmon and Rahab had a son, Boaz – who was an ancestor of King David. If it’s true on face value, then the Israelite Salmon married the Canaanite prostitute Rahab, in defiance of Deuteronomy 7:3

3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

And there is the law forbidding any priest to marry a harlot (Leviticus 21:7)

7 They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

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.

This may lead to your idea (later) that an exception was allowed by God, given Rahab’s heroic deed which rehabilitated her.

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). 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.

Could it be that her name was just used as a reference for the Babylonian city and she wasn’t really a harlot?

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?

That is really a superb insight. Even outside of this discussion, that is a remarkable thing to consider. They not only presented (and had to enage some kind of discourse with) the prostitute, they also failed to punish her, as you correctly point out. I never thought about that. But now what? Well, perhaps, since the teachers were granted the power to interpret the Law, God validated their decisions (if it corresponded with His will). The problem remains on how the Pharisees or other Jewish leaders would know what exceptions they could justly make to the Law … but still there is this interesting fact that you pointed out.

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.

That definitely makes sense to me.

How far can you go with the new idea(s) / what problems come to mind?

You really opened up some new concepts for me here, and I see a lot of room to work with them. Thank you!

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.

Exactly. Again, thanks for unravelling a knotty problem here. What we have left, as I see it, are some Catch-22 situations and the paradoxes which are integral to human life – along with the Law, which God applies to those paradoxes in ways that carry His divine will forward. Some might claim that’s a circular argument, but it’s really not because the Law had a purpose that transcended legalism. It was provided to shape and form a community of believers.

Yes, I still wonder (let’s take the most literal or common reading) how the priest Salmon could think he was justified in marrying the pagan, prostitute Rahab. Maybe he took a huge risk of faith – risking the possibility that he’d be struck dead. But perhaps (an idea I like better), he received a personal insight and confirmation from God which justified him and showed him that Rahab had great value for the Israelite people.

Theologically, the message of this is stronger in the Catholic view of Scripture since it rises above the Sola Scriptural legalism that would hold God bound to the Law as if it was absolute (or had value in itself). But it may also be God’s way of showing that it is not one’s “pure bloodline” that counts, since God can “raise up sons of Abraham” from the very stones.

In any case, you provided some great ideas here and I truly appreciate your sharing of expertise and intelligence on this matter.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for patiently working through this … I was, definitely about to give up … Also, more importantly – I hope your medical concerns will be lightened.

Thank you. Sorry for the long delay, but my last post was on the cusp of one of my longer “dips” into Eeyore gloom. TODAY – Being super-bowl Sunday – and excitement too much for me to even be in the room … I am at a quiet retreat and thinking — there’s that odd question again that I still haven’t fully worked out.

Here’s what I have:
21and to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed,

You’re right – I think my eyes glazed over when I read Matthew again in English… I can’t explain how I missed that,

There is one other point that I ought to clarify from several posts back:
The passage in Genesis on Ishmael is the only one with the number 13;
A number (counting) is a “cardinal” number – not an “ordinal” number like 1’st … 13’th. There is an ordinal 13th Genesis 14:4. The Jewish commentary does not apply to that passage for multiple reasons; although what happens at the thirteenth years is rather interesting suspersticiously…
Superstition around the number 13, eg: Jesus + 12 apostles = 13, one of which is a traitor… etc. and is replaced by another (a 14th), 7 doubled; the idea of oath.
Matth 1:5 σαλμων δε εγεννησεν τον βοες εκ της ραχαβ βοες δε εγεννησεν τον ιωβηδ εκ της ρουθ ιωβηδ δε εγεννησεν τον ιεσσαι

Ruth 4:21 και σαλμαν εγεννησεν τον βοος και βοος εγεννησεν τον ωβηδ

Joshu 2:1 και εισηλθοσαν εις οικιαν γυναικος πορνης η ονομα ρααβ και κατελυσαν εκει

Matthew is a Jewish writer – there is much evidence that someone translated his Aramaic into Greek.

There are two effects that I notice in the translation of names:
Jewish vowels were somewhat fluid, and so sometimes similar but not identical vowels are substituted. eg: in U.K. english baby is “bab’ih’” but in U.S. it is “babE”; also some words like Eat and Ate reflect common vowel smearing.

A second tendency is to decide whether or not, in the Greek, to STRICTLY spell by Hebrew sound – or to change the ending of the word to indicate GREEK part of speech.

A very good example of the problem is in Matthew 13:55 vs. Mark 6:3

Matth 13:55 ουχ ουτος εστιν ο του τεκτονος υιος ουχ η μητηρ αυτου λεγεται μαριαμ και οι αδελφοι αυτου ιακωβος και ιωσηφ και σιμων και ιουδας

Mark 6:3 Mark 6:3 ουχ ουτος εστιν ο τεκτων ο υιος της μαριας και αδελφος ιακωβου και ιωσητος και ιουδα και σιμωνος και ουκ εισιν …

Notice the variation on the ENDINGS of names (highlighted).
Matthew uses Mary’s name in full phonetic spelling: Mariam.
But Mark changes the ending sound of her name to reflect that she is a woman –
putting the -“as” sound there. Marias.

This causes apologetically embarassing Gender and identity problems to abound in Matthew’s names eg: Joseph IOSEPh ιωσηφ has no valid masculine ending – whereas in Mark it is ιωσητος – IOSETOS, the tau T is added to let the user know the masculine ending “os” is the alternate (unusual) spelling of a genitive word (eg:“OF-Joseph.”) But this change also identifies him as a MAN in Greek.

Matthew is fairly consistent in ignoring the Greek endings when writing names – Even to the point of putting a FEMININE ending on JUDAS because that is how it sounds in Hebrew! Facile comparisons are dangerous as the OT Greek, is by Jewish GREEK scholars.

This also brings up a common Catholic apologetic on MT. 16:18, which I think one ought to be wary of – I have shown much stronger reasons for why Matthew spelled the names as he did in that passage. Check my other threads.

in a straight comparison of names:
NT: SalmOhn → OT: Salman
NT: Boos → OT: Boes
NT: RouTh → OT: RouTh
NT: RAChAB ραχαβ → OT: ρααβ

Reading the harlot’s name in Hebrew again, רחב , ReCHeB notice the CHet (ח). Matthew spells it unabiguously as the Harlot’s name phonetically.
There is no “h” LETTER in Greek, though it is at the end of Chi – and Chet in Hebrew – so the omission in the LXX is indifferent/ambiguous but Matthew makes it quite clear that it is the Harlot’s name he means … one does not marry a city.

I’ll have to do some careful comparison on Salmon/Salman and Boos/Boes.
(Boo/es → Boaz in your English translation anti-alcoholic English minds ??? )

3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them; …
7 They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

Yes. Exactly. The priests were to obey Genesis as originally written.
but they did not apply to the disowned…

This may lead to your idea (later) that an exception was allowed by God, given Rahab’s heroic deed which rehabilitated her.

It might, BUT I would reiterate, she was not allowed in the CAMP of Israel but was an outcast – AND first I would need to have an solid alternate explanation for the following genealogy issue:

…Contd…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

D.R.

Ruth 2:1 Now her husband Elimelech had a kinsman … whose name was Booz…
…
Ruth 3:9 And he said to her: Who art thou ? And she answered: I am Ruth … for thou art a near kinsman.
…
Ruth 3:11 Fear not therefore … For all the people that dwell within the gates of my city, know that thou art a virtuous woman.
Ruth 3:12 Neither do I deny myself to be near of kin, but there is another nearer than I.
Ruth 3:13 Rest thou this night: and when morning is come, if he will take thee by the right of kindred, all is well: but if he will not, I will undoubtedly take thee, so the Lord liveth …
Ruth 3:15 And again he said: Spread thy mantle, wherewith thou art covered, and hold it with both hands. And when she spread it and held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it upon her. And she … went …
Ruth 3:18 And Noemi said: Wait, my daughter, till we see what end the thing will have. For the man will not rest until he have accomplished what he hath said.

Ruth 4:1 Then Booz went up to the gate, and sat there. And when he had seen the kinsman going by, of whom he had spoken before, he said to him, calling him by his name:
Ruth 4:3 … : Noemi, who is returned from the country of Moab will sell a parcel of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech.
Ruth 4:4 I would have thee to understand this, and would tell thee before all that sit here, and before the ancients of my people. If thou wilt take possession of it by the right of kindred: buy it, and possess it: but if it please thee not, tell me so, that I may know what I have to do. For there is no near kinsman besides thee, who art first, and me, who am second.

But he answered: I will buy the field.

Ruth 4:5 And Booz said to him: When thou shalt buy the field at the woman’s hand, thou must take also Ruth, the Moabitess, who was the wife of the deceased: to raise up the name of thy kinsman in his inheritance.
Ruth 4:6 He answered: I yield up my right of next akin: for I must not cut off the posterity of my own family. Do thou make use of my privilege, which I profess I do willingly forego.

Now, D.M. claimed that perhaps the kinsman was too POOR – but it is quite clear that kinsman WAS going to buy the field UNTIL he found out a Moabitess was involved, and therefore he says “for I must not cut off the posterity of my own family.”

By Rahab, I would expect Booz to already be cut off from inner temple worship, if legally enforced; But that does NOT mean he or his family was cut off from the inheritance of outer court worship where all PEOPLES were allowed to worship.

There are three things tacit in the above quotes, Women could be property owners – doweries were paid often for wives, and therefore the possession of the land could go to a foreigner if SHE married outside Israel.

Thus Judah prepared to burn Tamar until he learned that she had shrewdly stripped him ( figuratively too ) of the grounds to do so.
Brothers inherit from the father / grandfather, The ELDER receives MORE money than the younger – the closer cousin more than the farther. Booz was secondary his prosperity being a blessing not an inheritance.

D.M bases his logic on ability to BUY the land, but I don’t see how one can come to that conclusion given that it was NOT the price which changed the near kinsman’s mind – but the posterity (children) – and there was no further loss for Booz.

Could it be that her name was just used as a reference for the Babylonian city and she wasn’t really a harlot?

I think it just coincidence at the moment. But my mind is open…

But now what? Well, perhaps, since the teachers were granted the power to interpret the Law, God validated their decisions (if it corresponded with His will). The problem remains on how the Pharisees or other Jewish leaders would know what exceptions they could justly make to the Law … but still there is this interesting fact that you pointed out.

What do you see about the law which means they made an exception? It seems to me, the law was broken – and penalties followed to a certain extent. But no further. Jesus said, Go and learn the meaning of the words “it is mercy I desire and not sacrifice.”

You really opened up some new concepts for me here, and I see a lot of room to work with them. Thank you!

Me too, unfortunately I feel a bit dizzy …

Yes, I still wonder (let’s take the most literal or common reading) how the priest Salmon could think he was justified in marrying the pagan, prostitute Rahab.

Perhaps he didn’t. He just thought her value was worth more than his loss.

Theologically, the message of this is stronger in the Catholic view of Scripture since it rises above the Sola Scriptural legalism … But it may also be God’s way of showing that it is not one’s “pure bloodline” that counts, since God can “raise up sons of Abraham” from the very stones.

I would agree, but I hesitate over the legalism – the law is good, but what of the Lawyers?

In any case, you provided some great ideas here and I truly appreciate your sharing of expertise and intelligence on this matter.

–Your brother in Christ, Andrew.

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

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.

I have no particular attachment to what I’ve said here, but I merely offering my opinion. Whether I’m right or not, I don’t know. It doesn’t matter that much to me. This conversation is the only thing that is bringing me to login at this forum.

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.

It does some to relate to laughter in most variants, but I am not convinced that there is sufficient grounding to conclude that it must necessarily mean mockery or a malicious laughter.
In Gen 21:6 the same word is used:
And Sarah said, “God has made laughter for me; every one who hears will laugh over me.”
This doesn’t seem like much of a possibility for malicious laughter in this variant. The word seems to certainly be aptly translated as laughter but it doesn’t seem right to conclude that it must necessarily mean scoffing or mockery. It doesn’t make sense to think it necessarily possesses a sexual connotation either, although it seems possible for it sometimes have such a meaning due to its usage as you point out with Abimelech watching Isaac and Rebekah.
Are you certain that the verse in Gen 21:9 has been mistakenly translated when it claims that Ishmael was performing the action to Isaac and not Sarah?
I don’t read Hebrew, and I’m not an expert on the subject to know how to judge the original text. If you’re correct that it is incorrectly translated and that Ishmael is in fact laughing at Sarah, then I would agree that the interpretation that this was the reason why he was thrown out would seem more likely.
Would it be a potential explanation to think that Ishmael may have been mocking Isaac? Older siblings sometimes do have jealousy for younger ones that they perceive their parents have more attention for.
I think Gen 21:6 is an example where it cannot mean malicious or sexual laughter/jesting, although even if we didn’t have such an example on hand from the OT, should we assume that the word probably didn’t mean that?

(anyone can say this with me if she chooses)
Lord, we thank you for all of the wisdom you have granted us and we pray for help in resolving these things that we discuss. Bind us together in your love. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Reggie, and D.M. respectively.

Yes, I still wonder … how the priest Salmon could think he was justified in marrying the pagan, prostitute Rahab.

Another thought occurs to me. One can be cut off, as a priest, for having a malformed body – not something resulting from personal sin. If Salmon was already unable to enter the inner assembly because of a deformity, then he would be already paying the price that Rahab would incur. moot sin.

I don’t recall the exact verses – perhaps you might look to see how plausible my thought is ?

Hi Andrew,
I have no particular attachment to what I’ve said here,…

It does some to relate to laughter in most variants, but I am not convinced that there is sufficient grounding to conclude that it must necessarily mean mockery or a malicious laughter.

I note that laughter is ambiguous, possibly being scorn/disbelief/mockery…
If you were able to produce a single variant where the Hebrew COULD ONLY mean pleasant play, non-sexual, non-jesting, non-cruel – I would agree with you. I see you will try.

In Gen 21:6 the same word is used:
And Sarah said, “God has made laughter for me; every one who hears will laugh over me.”
This doesn’t seem like much of a possibility for malicious laughter in this variant.

I am going to disagree – and indicate that contextually it resides in a sequence which would be punishment of Sarah by God. I do not discount that it CAN ALSO include pleasant joy as well – eg: as I have already pointed out from the Greek.
Exegesis of the sequence next post.

… sexual … for it sometimes have such a meaning due to its usage as you point out with Abimelech watching Isaac and Rebekah.

That is the only place where a hebrew mem ( מ ) prefix is used with “?TsChQu” (laugh/jest/mock/etc.) besides Genesis 21:9 – the crux of the argument.
I took it to be sexual play (possibly) based on that passage alone, but I have only a few hundred words down in Hebrew, and am allowing overly-broad definitions because I haven’t had time to study them in detail. It is surprisingly easier than Greek! but there is one twist that I am not used to – some changes occur in the middle of the basic form of the word. So my searches on mockery are yet incomplete.

The odd thing about that passage (Gen 26:8) is that it need not be sexual in Hebrew; the mem prefix as far as I can tell has two functions depending on whether the word is a noun or a verb. Unfortunately for us, Isaac, is a VERB and a NOUN (aka. participle).

When used in front of a verb, “mem” tends to have the attribute of excessive, or intensive action, mem (as far as I know) always makes the verb passive – that is the object of the sentence is doing the action to the subject.

In Genesis 26:8 … י-צחק-מ-צחק את רבקה …

The direct object of the sentence is explicitly Rebeka, as the marker את serves to explicitly locate the object of the sentence, eg: a non translatable clue word.

The phrase relates Isaac to Rebeka (ReBeQuHe) – obviously; but note:
When Isaac’s name is meant, a yod(י) is the first letter (he) mocked/jested/played.
( Perhaps one could say Isaac’s name is more accurately “sport”. )

Taking the activity as a verb starting w/ mem, for the first part of the word is clearly Isaac’s name … it means the object did the action to Isaac.
Isaac is-mocked (by) Rebeka eg: for cowardice?

Are you certain that the verse in Gen 21:9 has been mistakenly translated when it claims that Ishmael was performing the action to Isaac and not Sarah?

The translation is Cryptic, not necessarily a mistake. Remember, the Hebrew bible I am quoting – the oldest Codex – was formalized centuries after Christ. Jerome had SEVERAL Hebrew scripts to work from that we do not.
It DOES look like a mistake at this time.

The name Isaac simply is not there, SO unless one chooses arbitrarily that the last word is “?saac” rather than “mock”. (It does not start w/ Isaac’s normal letter, but rather with mem.) Hypothetically these possibilities arise:

1. “ShRHe saw the-son-of-HeGR the-Egpyptian which-was-born to-Abraham from Isaac.”
   I have not studied all nuances of “from” – it might mean “Ishmael [was/is] away from Isaac”
2. It can also mean, if it is the plain passive VERB, that the object of the sentence (A circumloution, not a name) mocked Sarah or (less likely Abraham.)
   "Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian which was born to Abraham, mocking.
3. It could also mean, if it is a “noun” naming of what was done in the past – that “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Eyptian which-was-born to Abraham from mocking.”

I don’t have enough grammar experience to eliminate any one of these possibilities yet. I’m slow…

Ishmael is in fact laughing at Sarah, then I would agree … why he was thrown out would seem more likely.

1 & 2 would both be capable of condemning Ishmael of sin, but 3) does not, rather it suggests he is a reminder of their sin/mocking. eg: Sarah knew SHE was promised a child before Hagar came.

Would it be a potential explanation to think that Ishmael may have been mocking Isaac?

That is the idea that the Greek carries, but it presupposes that either A) the Hebrew was changed, dropping Isaac’s name later.or B) that a single word “mock” implies Isaac as well as being a/the verb… but B) is very unlikely!!! C) I missed something.

I think Gen 21:6 is an example … even if we didn’t have such an example on hand from the OT, should we assume that the word probably didn’t mean that?

…Explanations in a day or so…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

D.M.

I hold that there is a punishment implied by God w/ respect to Sarah by his asking a question of accounting to Abraham. This is a standard biblical pattern:

Look for questions phrased like: “Lord said … ?” and you will find an absolutely huge track record woe. The question is meant to bring to mind the sin / and God’s justice associated with a punishment.

I have already alluded to the parallels between Abraham & Adam, Sarah and Eve.
But I think it worthwhile to expound a little:

Adam was created first; he was given the law; then his wife was created – and she came up with a garbled version of the law (Presumably she didn’t listen to Adam too well.). Eve was tempted by the devil, she ate, and then shared the sin with her husband who was with her.

Abraham was approached first; he was given the explicit renewal of an existing covenant that both he and his wife had received before Hagar ever entered the story. ( Which incidentally, happens in part because Abraham was not willing to die for his wife, as is later the case with his son Isaac & his wife.
See st. Paul, in reference to husbands laying down their life…and wives obedience.

Abraham and Isaac show a momentary lapse of faith; as does Adam in not correcting Eve in her actions nor laying their lives down for their wives – In the passage we have been discussing, on Abraham and Sarah, we might presume that Abraham didn’t know his wife was scoffing behind the tent door… but that is not an excuse.

At this point, after the sin, God re-enters each story.
The first thing God does is ASK A QUESTION: (as if he doesn’t know).

Genes 18:13 And the Lord said to Abraham: ** Why did Sara laugh**, saying: Shall I, who am an old woman, bear a child indeed?

In the same manner, God asks Adam a question – and then Eve a question.
Genes 3:11 And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat*?
*Genes 3:12 And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Genes 3:13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat.

In both of these cases of marriage, the man who conveyed the law to the wife was the one whom is first approached by God as the responsible party.

In the case of Adam to Eve, they do not admit the sin and are both punished directly by God. In the case of Cain, Gen 4:6 – the punishment here is merely non-acceptance of the gift; and later in Gen 4:9 “Where is thy brother Abel?”
Brings about full punishment.

This theme of God asking an obvious question in a sinful situation plays out repetitively throughout the OT. Punishment follows or a reason for a previous loss/plague/punishment is explained by the question.

Exodus 4:11 & 14, God becomes angry with Moses – in the end Moses dies for God’s anger with him.
Exodus 16:28 – Moses is held responsible, and the Manna rots.
Numbers 11:23 – The plague follows the question. (Numbers 11:33)
Numbers 12:14 – Mary/Miriam is cast out of camp after a question of God’s.
Numbers 14:11-12…
Numbers 22:32 – Balaam is spared, but must prophecy what he does not want to after the question of God. God opens mouths FORCEFULLY. and would have spared the donkey – but not Balaam.
Joshua 7:10 – the question ends in a death sentence for the guilty; and severe losses as punishment before the question is ever asked.
2Samu7:5 – David is denied the building of the temple on account of his sin.
(too much blood on your hands, is reasoning given elsewhere.)

2Samu12: 9 & 10 – The direct punishment for Davids murder and adultery.
2Samu24:17 – David recognizes the a sin before God asks the question, and for this is granted a reprieve based on a sin offering.

1King 22:20, 2Chro18:19 – in the sending of a devil, God asks the question.
2Kings 1:3-1:4, question and curse.
2Chron25:15 – question, 2Chron25:20 punishment.
Job1:7, 2:2, The question of the DEVIL, and the punishment of the Just one Job; his sinful wife and children exterminated; and the God asks Job a question only of his complaint; Chapter 38 being dedicated to many such questions of Job as Job admits in chapter 39:35-35, and Job 42:3; for his sin of pride thinking of his own “justice” which causes him to say one word too many. (Though venial in scope, I would think as he didn’t merit death).

Isaiah 50:1, 66:1, 66:4
Isaiah 66:6 and 66:9, the punishing of the enemies who carry out punishment against God’s chosen people. This is very close to what happens to Sarah, for here is reprimand and consolation both. A double edged joy and sadness. Just as Jeremiah 24:3,5,8

Jeremiah 2:5,3:31,5:22 - 25, 8:4,8:6, etc. etc. etc. … much more …
Ezekiel 16:30,17:9,18:1, etc. etc.

Ezekiel 18:23 – the question of the turning sinner, and the turning just man.
Punishment for the one, mercy for the other.
Amos 7:8,9 and many more…
Jonas – eg: 4:4 & 7, Haggai 1:9, Zechariah 3:2 against Satan.
Many more which I won’t bother to list.

;--------------------- EXCEPTIONS ------------------------

Jesus did not come to judge during his ministry, but he does warn using the same formula:

Luke 7:31 – a small example of Jesus warning of condemnation.
Luke 12:42, Luke 14:13, etc.

The only direct / full exception to this rule is where one mourns for another whom God condemn. Eg: as we pray for those in purgatory or who may have died in sin.
God does not punish after the question, but reminds the person of his justice – it is a reprimand only.

1Samu16:1 ; Samuel mourning for Saul.
And elsewhere, David praying for the child of his Adultery; which dies.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Now for total honesty on what I have been able to find in the Hebrew by checking for variations. & A question on a Scott Hahn remark:
Dr. Hahn remarked about an adoption ceremony of Ishmael on Sarai’s knees – does anyone know if this is explicit in the Hebrew, and what word suggests adoption? I am unable to find it.

2nd.
I had my computer run a recursive search for variations on verbs and I detect around 6 and maybe 7 distinct verb variations (forms) in Hebrew. None of them showed up with respect to Isaac/mock spelled with the Tsadee. But, a similar sounding word DOES show up as playing, and laughing in a positive sense.

If there are any Hebrew readers who can distinguish these words for us, or a grammar rule that I could verify – I would appreciate it.
But I repeat – No verb variations of the original word were found; this is the total.

The original search:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6166189&postcount=38
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6166189&postcount=39

On the other hand:
The similar word is problematic. It shows up in Zecharias 8:5, & 8:6 speaking in retrospect of the punishment. The Greek here, does have mock in v: 8:5 – an ambiguous statement, but they may sport/jest as the Greek infers; as children do mock each other.

– but the root word, here, is not spelled as Isaac / (MOCK) as in the earlier search.

Zecha 8:5 ורחבות העיר ימלאו ילדים וילדות משחקים ברחבתיה.
The closest word is spelled: מ-שחק-ים.

It sounds close to mock, except the SHhin (ש) replaces a TSade. (צ) and the word ends in masculine feminine inclusive plural. I am looking for other examples of this differently spelled word, and I find inconsistent results in: Exodus 30:36, 33:26, Job 35:5, 36:28, and many others…
Which seem to be associated with clouds/sky/heaven???

**** BUT ****
Similar word(s), without the plural male ending show up in the context of positive types of play; and at approximately the correct location in the sentence.
I can’t fully translate these sentences, so I am limited in what I can induce/deduce from them.

Job 5:21 – laugh at adversity.
Job 29:24 – Job boasting of laughing without offense being taken.
Judges 16:25 contains both words, to play – and then mock/make sport.
1Samuel 18:7 contains what looks like a variant, and playing is the context. 2Samuel 2:14 – a deadly play but not mocking or jesting.
2Samu6:5 playing on musical instruments.
2nd Samuel 6:21 or 6:22 – sexual connotation; sillynes which upsets Michol.
David “jests” with other women besides his wife.

And Also…
There are DEFINITE negative examples of this spelling, mostly in Job.

Job 30:1, 39:7, 39:18, 39:22, Psalm 37:13,
Job 12:4 contains both, first play(ed) by friends – then mock spelled as usual.
Similar to Sampson.

Again, however the spelling of the root word, is different from my original search in all cases just listed … and it would seem the changed spelling changes the mood of the word for the most part.