Their was an era in the timeline of Israel that falls with the charismatic people, sages and prophets claiming to walk with divine gifts of revelation. These people went about prophesying and preaching until a century or more after the fall of Jerusalem around 586 B.C. The prophets were led by a need for justice and life with God and held fast the matters of religion, politics and ethics. The prophets instilled a new form of morality upon the public life of the Jewish community.

Certain relationships of the prophets to other individuals or groups should be clearly understood. At times there is overlapping, but never duplication or conflict, in carrying out God’s plan if each workman occupies his designated place and does the task assigned to him. Sometimes God has appointed certain men to do two or more types of work at the same time. We need to know that the prophets of Ancient Israel hold one of the powers of the state. They were influential in the field of religion, they were especially important among the people and their words were very much considered even though not wanted in the lives of the kings.

           The prophets of Ancient Israel are most often seen as intermediaries for God. They believed in God as a supernatural power that could influence human affairs and could be influenced by human beings. These prophets were part of a society in which enough people encouraged, or at the very least, tolerated their pronouncements, and the societies in which they lived were in upheaval and needed their services, even if the “powers that be” might not have wanted to listen to them. This was true whether we think of the “Big Three,” Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, or the twelve minor prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

REFERENCE:

            – A Legacy of Prophecy, September 28, 2003 (The Rev. Gretchen Woods)

Ahab meaning “brother of the father” was king of Israel and the son and successor of Omri who reigned at around 869 BC-850 BC. He married Jezebel, the daughter of King Ithobaal I of Tyre, and the alliance was doubtless the means of procuring him great riches, which brought pomp and luxury in their train. We can read in 1 Kings 22:39 and Amos 3:15 of his building an ivory palace, and founding new cities, the effect perhaps of a share in the flourishing commerce of Phoenicia, which supplied the ivory for his palace.

The material prosperity of his reign, which is comparable with that of Solomon a century before, was overshadowed by the religious changes which his interreligious marriage introduced. Although he worshiped YHWH, his wife was firmly attached to the worship of the Melkart – the Tyrian Ba’al, and led by her he gave a great impulse to this cult by building a temple in honor of Baal in Samaria. One of the things that are attached in his name is the murder of Naboth, an act of royal encroachment, stirred up popular resentment just as the new cult aroused the opposition of certain of the prophets. Indeed, he is referred to, for this and other things as being “more evil than all the kings before him”.

As we can see, King Ahab has gotten riches and power in his time; it was possible that he had everything he ever wanted. He was worshipping God, unfortunately he had marriages with women who have different religions, who had seduced and convinced him to worship their God instead. If only he hadn’t done that, he might have been one of the greatest kings of Israel.

REFERENCE:

            - Wikipedia.com

Did the authors and editors of Scripture ever intend to write what we define as “history?” If they did not, many of our arguments about the historicity of the Bible in modern terms become meaningless. This is the introductory phrase of the author in his discussion about the relevance of our modern perception of history in relation to what the authors’ of the Bible’s intended purpose. He has given us reasons on why shouldn’t we judge the Bible’s authenticity just because it hadn’t attain our modern views on its historicity to justify its genuineness. It was stated that it is virtually impossible believe that there is such a thing as “objective” historical truth. All history is somebody’s opinion, which is I agree on. Though I’m not an enthusiast when it comes to history books, all the books about history that I was forced to read has in one way or the other been presented on what the writer’s view and who’s side he/she is in. Oh yes, it stated parts and parcels of the opposing side but still it concentrated more on what he/she wants to show to the world.

Dr. Isbell’s main point in his discussion is that the biblical authors did not intend to write “history” when they were writing the Word of God. They didn’t think about trying to accomplish writing about history as we might define the word in the modern world. That us why they had not included many facts that historians might ask about, they didn’t care about trying to attain a certain standard. Sample of which is that of the editors of Kings and Chronicles were offering a moral evaluation of kings and events, not a chronicle or annals that merely recorded what happened. That was not mainly their intention! When God wanted His people to write His Word, surely He didn’t have in mind to state history just to satisfy our modern mind. He wanted the Bible to be written to attest of what He has done and what He will do for His people and not for the benefit of modern historians.

REFERENCE:

“History and Writing”, Charles David Isbell, Director of Jewish Studies, Louisiana State University (August 2003)

David is not the first King of Israel! Even though some scholars would actually insist that David was the first king since he was specifically chosen by God and that Saul was just chosen by the people. I beg to differ. Despite the fact that that is the truth, God allowed Saul to be chosen as king and it is also logical to say that from the Bible itself, Saul was the first king. Saul is identified in the Books of Samuel, 1 Chronicles and the Qur’an as the first king of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Saul reigned from Gibeah for some four decades at the close of the second millennium B.C. When his reign succumbed to a Philistine onslaught, a part of his kingdom fell to the Philistines, while the remainder was contested by his surviving son Ish-bosheth and rival David. The Books of Samuel give three distinct accounts of how Saul came to be anointed as king:

* (1 Samuel 9:1-10:16) Saul was sent with a servant to look for his father’s donkeys, who had strayed; leaving his home at Gibeah, they eventually wander to the district of Zuph, at which point Saul suggests abandoning their search. Saul’s servant however, remarks that they happened to be near the town of Ramah, where a famous seer was located, and suggested that they should consult him first. The seer (later identified by the text as Samuel), having previously had a vision instructing him to do so, offers hospitality to Saul when he enters Ramah, and later anoints him in private.

* (1 Samuel 10:17-24 and 12:1-5) Desiring to be like other nations, there was a popular movement to establish a centralized monarchy. Samuel therefore assembled the people at Mizpah in Benjamin, and despite having strong reservations, which he made no attempt to hide, allows the appointment of a king. Samuel uses cleromancy to determine who it was that God desired to be the king, whittling the assembly down into ever smaller groups until Saul is finally identified. Saul, hiding in baggage, is then publicly anointed.

* (1 Samuel 11:1-11 and 11:15) The Ammonites, led by Nahash, lay siege to Jabesh-Gilead, who are forced to surrender. Under the terms of surrender, the occupants of the city would be forced into slavery, and have their right eyes removed as a sign of this. The city’s occupants send out word of this to the other tribes of Israel, and the tribes west of the Jordan assemble an army under the leadership of Saul. Saul leads the army to victory against the Ammonites, and, in both gratitude and appreciation of military skill; the people congregate at Gilgal, and acclaim Saul as king.

REFERENCE:

            - The Bible; Wikipedia. Org

One scholar argues a reasonable process of gradual acceptance for the political climate of the time is needed. Given that Israel was a loose confederation of tribes united by their faith, and without a strong political or theological leader, he argues that a series of displays of ability or, from a theological point of view, gifts from God as evidence that He was divinely chosen for rulership were needed to bring all the tribes on board for the inevitable loss of individual freedom resulting from the institution of a monarchy.

Some might say that the Book of Samuel is both, parts may be pro to this kind of government and some of it is anti. But before we look into it, let us first define the word monarchy for us to be able to understand the question further. Monarchy according to my friend Mr. Webster is a form of government upon which the power is vested to a sovereign, as a king or emperor which in modern times, usually, a hereditary constitutional sovereign; originally, the sole ruler of a nation. So base from that definition, it is somewhat in tune with the Book of Samuel because the people of Israel has chosen a king and the blood of that anointed one will carry the line of kingship. Unfortunately, Saul was the first and the last of hid line and there came another king not within his bloodline. Does that make it less monarchial as it is? No! As for my observation, the Book of Samuel is pro-monarchy for the very reason that it is through this form of regime has bring forth peace and greater security of the land. In the Book of Samuel, most of the events that have happened that are mostly stated are those of which monarchy has taken a big role in the unity of Israel.

REFERENCE:

            - Old Testament Survey, Stratford, Et. Al.

            - Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition)

The “kinsman redeemer” is a Goel. The word means to redeem, receive or buy back. Provision was made in the Law of Moses for the poor person who was forced to sell part of his property or himself into slavery. His nearest of kin could step in and “buy back” what his relative was forced to sell. The kinsman redeemer was a rich benefactor, or person who frees the debtor by paying the ransom price. The nearest of kin had the responsibility of redeeming his kinsman’s lost opportunities. If a person was forced into slavery, his redeemer purchased his freedom. When debt threatened to overwhelm him, the kinsman stepped in to redeem his homestead and let the family live. If a family member died without an heir the kinsman gave his name by marrying the widow and rearing a son to hand down his name

One of the most beautiful passages where the word Goel is found is in the life of Naomi in the book of Ruth. The book of Ruth is a story about Naomi’s Goel. Naomi, a picture of Israel, had wondered away from Bethlehem. She was the poorest person in Israel, but her kinsman was the richest man in Israel. Because of the death of her husband, Elimelich, and two sons Mahlon and Chilion, she and her daughter-in-laws lost all income and their homestead. Naomi was living in a foreign land and sensed the loss of her homeland and relatives. She became bitter. The secret of all her daughter-in-law Ruth had was in union with Boaz. The nearer kinsman, a picture of the law had the first right to the property and Boaz came next after him. If Ruth’s closer relative would not redeem or purchase it, Boaz was prepared to do so. The man who was nearest of kin agreed to redeem the piece of land until he found out there was a young widow involved. He graciously backed out because it would mar his own inheritance! That left Boaz as the rightful nearest of kin who had the privilege of redeeming her land and her with it. The Moabitess and the Jew became one. Boaz was nearest of kin to her deceased husband. He was able to redeem by paying the price of redemption, and he was willing to redeem the land. That is what makes this epic so beautiful. Four things were required in order for a kinsman to redeem: He must be near of kin.  He must be able to redeem. He must be willing to redeem. Redemption was completed when the price was completely paid.

REFERENCE:

- Hope of Israel Baptist Mission – Copyright 1997-2006; www.hopeofisrael.net

Judges, the seventh book of the Old Testament of the Bible, traces Israel’s history from the death of Joshua, the lieutenant and successor of Moses, to the beginning of the monarchy under Saul. Its title is derived from the figures who serve as the protagonists in most of the book. Their Hebrew designation is normally translated “judge,” but the word has a broader meaning and should perhaps be translated “ruler.” So that would mean such term would be inaccurate for the reason that the term judge doesn’t even capture the essence of the meaning that it want to impart. Where sufficient information is related about individual “judges,” they consistently appear in the role of war leader or ruler, not judge.  The very name of the Book of Judges is misleading because the meaning of judges in the Old Testament is not the same as the contemporary meaning of a judge. Not only that, the book includes some of the most sordid and unsettling accounts in all the Old Testament.

A key description of this period of Israel’s history is given in Judges 21:25, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.” The judges were neither kings nor prophets, but were raised up by God for the purpose of helping his people in times of crisis. They were essentially “deliverers” leading the people when they were oppressed by surrounding nations. The nature of the history of Judges is expressed in the name of the book. The Hebrew word that is translated Judges is derived from the verb meaning “to judge, to govern.” The English word judge can be misleading, since for us it refers to one who decides on conflicts. This is only one aspect of the task of the judge in the book of Judges. The Hebrew word has a wide range of meaning: “defend, rule, act as a lawgiver, decide controversy, condemn and punish.”

REFERENCE:

            http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/judges.htm

Some scholars would actually ask: Was the command to exterminate the Canaanites and the people of the other cities that were destroyed by Israel a justifiable act on the part of God, who ordered it? The divine command to destroy the Canaanites and Jericho is contrary to the New Testament revelation of God in Christ. So, this divine command to exterminate from the face of the earth all men, women, and children belonging to the seven or eight nations of Canaan is one of the most frequently raised objections to seeing God as just and loving in the Old Testament. How can God’s fairness and mercy be seen in such blanket and wholesale condemnation of entire nations?

Once again we are back to the question, “Will not the judge of all the earth do right?” It is the question Abraham asked of God, just before He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. It would seem clear that the Old Testament does uphold the justice and righteousness of God, even in this command to eradicate the Canaanites.

According to one author, it is for us to place the whole question in perspective, let the principle of Deuteronomy 9:5 be cited: It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Therefore, there is no attempt to establish an implied or real moral superiority for Israel; the text informs us to the contrary in its explicit statements and narratives. The call of Yahweh cannot be traced to Israel’s superiority in righteousness or numbers, “but it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which he swore to your forefathers.”

 

REFERENCE:

            Old Testament Life and Literature is copyright © 1968, 1997 by Gerald A. Larue.

 

The people of Israel had many customs and laws that seem unusual to us. They were still a rather wild people and hard to control. Their ideas of wrong and right were not the same as ours, and their tribal customs were different from our family traditions. One of their customs was that of the avenger of blood. Accidents happened in the wilderness. People got angry and killed each other. When that happened, the victim’s tribe appointed an avenger of blood to take revenge. The person would find whoever killed their relative and kill him in turn. If he couldn’t find the person, he would kill a close relative. This happened whether the first death happened on purpose or by accident. It wasn’t a fair system and innocent people often died.

God knew that he couldn’t order this to stop. The people hadn’t listened to Moses and they wouldn’t listen to Joshua. But maybe he could change the custom in such a way to protect innocent people. After the land had been divided up, Joshua chose six cities and made them cities of refuge. These cities were spread around the land, so everyone was only one or two days away from one. They were also built on high places, so they could be seen from far away. If a person accidentally killed another person (or even if he did it on purpose), he would run to the nearest city of refuge. The avenger of blood would chase after him. If he caught the man before he got to the city of refuge, he would kill him. But if the man made it safely to the city, the avenger could not do anything.

The elders of the city of refuge would look into the case and see if the murder was an accident or had been done on purpose. If it had been done on purpose, they sent the killer out of the city, and the avenger of blood usually got him. But if he had not meant to kill anyone, he was allowed to stay there and farm some land especially set aside for innocent people. He would stay there until the high priest of the nation died and was replaced by a new high priest. When that happened, he was free to go home and no one could hurt him. The six cities of refuge were Kedesh, Shechem, Hebron, Golan of Bashan, Ramoth of Gilead, and Bezer.

REFERENCE:

- www.chicagoubf.org

What we have in Exodus is this: God says at the beginning that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart (Ex 4:21, 7:4-5). The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is then described in several different ways:

* Pharaoh’s heart became hard (Ex 7:13, 23)

* Pharaoh hardened his heart (Ex 8:15, 32)

* God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Ex 9:7, 10:20)

However, when the Bible says Pharaoh hardens his heart, it also says that this happened “just as the Lord had said” (Ex 8:15). In particular, consider Exodus 9:34-10:2:

When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts. So Pharaoh’s heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the LORD had said through Moses.

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD.”

In other words, Pharaoh’s hardening his heart is considered to be the same as God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. I take this to mean that Pharaoh did the actual hardening, as we see it – he decided on his own to not listen to God and let the Israelites go. But God knew in advance what Pharaoh would do in any given situation, and deliberately placed Pharaoh in this situation wherein God decided that Pharaoh would be born at the time and place that he was and thus placed him in this position of power (Exodus 9:13-16.) Thus God brought about the situation, namely that Moses would encounter a pharaoh whose heart was hardened against God, though Pharaoh hardened his heart of his own free will.

REFERENCE:

            - www.rationalchristianity.net