Ezra 10:44 has been known to be notoriously difficult to translate due to its awkward syntax and unconventional use of words. Contrary to various scholarly assessments, this article will argue that the author deliberately constructed this verse in a confusing manner. The context of Ezra 10 and the wordplay embedded within the verse all point towards the fact that Ezra 10:44 is an example of confused language. The use of confused language, thus, suggests that the ending of Ezra is purposely not made clear. The reader is left with no clarity as to the eventual outcome of the foreign wives and their children .
This article argues that the twice used conjunction כי in Ezra 9:15 should be interpreted as a concessive conjunction. Such a reading then suggests that the repatriated community is living in a paradoxical situation: YHWH is righteous, despite not destroying Israel for their sin; Israel stands before YHWH in guilt, despite the fact that they should not be able to. Consequently, this interpretation influences our understanding of the sentence »O LORD, God of Israel, you are just« (9:15) as a comment concerning God’s just punishment.
The main question that this paper seeks to answer is whether the language of “covenant” in the “covenant of works” is biblically warranted. One text that has been used within some Reformed circles to support a covenant made between Adam and God is Hosea 6:7, “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant, there they dealt faithlessly with me” (ESV). This passage, however, has been thwart with various readings within biblical scholarship. This paper argues that the only viable reading of Hosea 6:7 is that Adam transgressed a covenant. If this language of covenant is warranted, then ministers, elders, and the whole church have very good reason to teach and preach the covenant of works and use the language of covenant which the Westminster Confession of Faith uses (7.2).
The book of Nehemiah has often been understood to have an immense focus on the wall. A closer look at the narrative, however, shows that the focus on the wall is exclusively found in the Nehemiah Memoir and not in the third-person narrations. From a narratological perspective, the shifting of narrators is the author’s intention to relay a message. Hence, adopting the narratological approach, this article will argue that the author(s) effectively presents the wall as an inadequate solution to Israel’s problems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.