But Jehosheba, the daughter of King Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah and stole him away from among the king's sons who were being put to death, and she put him and his nurse in a bedroom. Thus they hid him from Athaliah, so that he was not put to death.
2 Kings 11:2

Maybe Jehosheva prayed for guidance (the text doesn't say), but she didn't wait for a sign. She saw a problem and she acted. Sometimes praying and "waiting on the Lord" is just a fear of doing what we know is right.

https://directory.torahtent.com/
You can now add links without registering. I made it mandatory to register to stop spam bots but it made it harder for real people. So I changed this recently.

110625 /14th day of the 8th month 5786
WORD FOR TODAY “do you oppose the ordinance of GOD”: Rom 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

WISDOM FOR TODAY: Pro 20:22 Do not say, "I will repay evil"; Wait for the LORD, and He will save you.

Ask the LORD how you can serve HIM better

www.BGMCTV.org

Jonah 1:1 —2, “Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai, saying, “Get up! Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before Me.”” I would speculate that not everyone in Nineveh was evil, however the majority most likely was. Jonah obviously held a great deal of animosity toward the people there, was he then being prejudiced against all of the people who lived there? Our Creator knew the people would be willing to repent if the right person went to them with the right words. So the question is; are we any different than Jonah when we choose to hate an entire group of people for the wickedness of a few or even the majority of the people in that group?

May I read you John 3 from the Big Brain Bible?

May I read you John 2 from the Big Brain Bible?

May I read you the Gospel of John from the Big Brain Bible?

BIBLE STUDY --- THE FIVE SCROLLS OF THE TANAKH [MEGILLOT]

THE SCROLL OF RUTH

AUTHOR AND DATE

The author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not approved in the book of Ruth, it scarcely could have been written during the period in which Solomon began his policy of foreign marriages. Also, David’s close friendship with Moab might have prompted someone in his kingdom to write the book, thus presenting objective rationale for David’s actions {see 1 Samuel 22:3-5}. Consequently, the author may have been someone close to David, possibly Samuel, Nathan, or Abiathar. The time of the narrative is indicated by the opening statement: “In the days when the judges ruled…” The dates of the judges probably comprise a period of about 300 years, beginning with the judgeship of Othniel and concluding with that of Samson, though Samuel also served as a judge. If the genealogical information is complete in Ruth 4:18-22, the events took place during the life of David’s great-grandfather and mark the birth of his grandfather. Allowing a 35-year generation span, the events would have taken place somewhere about the turn of the 11th century BC, or about 100 years before David’s birth.

PURPOSE

The book’s purpose is closely related to its date of composition. Assuming an early date, that is, one close to David’s lifetime, its principal thrust must be the authentication of the Davidic line. The book may be considered as a justification for including the godly Moabitess in the nation of Israel.

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION {1:1-5}

Driven by famine, Elimelech with his wife Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, cross the Jordan to stay for a period of time in Moab, where there is sufficient provision. The two sons, after marrying Moabite women, die, and their father dies as well. Naomi is left a widow, with two foreign daughters-in-law.

RETURN TO BETHLEHEM {1:6-22}

Hearing reports from Bethlehem that the famine has ended, Naomi makes preparations to return. Both of her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, accompany her for at least a portion of the journey. Probably thinking of the problems they might encounter as foreigners in Judah, Naomi strongly urges the girls to stay in their own land. Both of the young widows refuse, but Naomi presents the facts. First, she is not pregnant, so the chance of a younger brother fulfilling the levirate responsibility is not imminent. Second, she has no prospects of remarriage and consequently no prospect of further children. Then she also notes that even if the first two conditions were met immediately, the possibility of their waiting was impossible. Orpah is persuaded and kisses her mother-in-law good-bye. But Ruth “clung to her” {1:18}. The verb, having the connotation of being glued to something, is the same verb used of marriage {Genesis 2:24}. Ruth demonstrated her serious intentions by making five commitments {Ruth 1:16-17}. In essence, Ruth renounced her former life in order to gain a life that she considered of greater value. She decided to follow the YHVH of Israel and his Laws. Ruth’s appeal to the YHVH of Israel was more than equal to Naomi’s pleas, and the two of them returned together. Their arrival in Bethlehem was traumatic for Naomi. Having left Bethlehem with a husband and two sons, she returned empty. She told her friends to call her “Mara” {bitter}. But she had returned at a propitious time, the beginning of the harvest season.

REAPING IN THE FIELDS OF BOAZ {2:1-23}

The first verse of the chapter provides the setting for the narrative that follows by introducing Boaz, a wealthy relative of Elimelech. In the second verse, Ruth volunteered to glean the fields by following the reapers and picking up the small amounts left behind. Gleaners were also permitted to harvest the grain in the corners of the fields -- a provision for the poor contained in the Law {Leviticus 19:9-10}. Ruth happened to come to the field of Boaz. When he visited this field, he noticed Ruth, inquired about her, and learned her identity. His overseer reported that she had industriously worked the fields from early morning until that time. Boaz, attracted to her because of her loyalty and concern for Naomi, graciously made additional provisions for her. She was given a favoured position in reaping, directly behind the main body of reapers. Further, she was to receive water that had been drawn for her by the young men -- an unorthodox arrangement. Ruth, falling before Boaz in a gesture of great humility and respect, asked why she -- as a foreigner -- should receive such favour. Boaz gave two reasons: her kindness to her mother-in-law, and her spiritual insight, which led her to seek after Israel’s YHVH, “under whose wings you have come to take refuge” {Ruth 2:12}. She was also given a place at the reapers’ table and, upon Boaz’s orders, returned to the fields, this time to reap from the unharvested grain. At the end of the day, she returned home to Naomi and told her of the day’s events. Naomi informed Ruth that Boaz had the right of redemption {see discussion below}. Ruth returned to his fields until the end of the harvest season.

RELYING UPON THE KINSMAN {3:1-18}

Naomi advised Ruth to approach Boaz as a go’el, or kinsman-redeemer. The plan suggested by Naomi seems peculiar, yet some thoughts may give a certain colouring to it.

1 -- Naomi seems to have believed that Boaz was the nearest kinsman, being ignorant of the yet nearer one {3:12}. Consequently, according to Israelite Law {Deuteronomy 25:5ff.}, it would be the duty of Boaz to marry Ruth to produce offspring, since her husband died.

2 -- The general presentation of Naomi’s character in this book is that of a YHVH-fearing woman. It is certain that, however curious in its external form, there can be nothing counselled here that is repugnant to YHVH’s Law or shocking to a virtuous man such as Boaz. Otherwise, Naomi would have been frustrating her own purpose. Boaz’s response to Ruth’s actions demonstrated his gentlemanly concerns for her. He explained to her that he was not the nearest kinsman but promised that he would take care of the necessary procedures the next day. Protecting her reputation, Boaz sent her home before daylight. Naomi predicted that Boaz would settle the matter that very day.

REDEEMING THE INHERITANCE {4:1-22}

Boaz went to the place of business, the city gate. The city gate area comprised the forum where the public affairs of the city were discussed. Boaz indicated that he wished to discuss a matter of business with the nearer kinsman. Ten of the city elders acted as witnesses. The first matter at hand was to deal with the issue of property. Boaz asked this nearer kinsman if he was willing to acquire property for Naomi. This is stated in the traditional stipulation: “Your purchase of the land from Naomi also requires that you marry Ruth, the Moabite widow” {4:5}. The nearer kinsman was unwilling to marry Ruth because this would inevitably cost him some financial loss, since he would have to divide his own property with any son of his born to Ruth. Thus, he relinquished his rights by the custom of taking off his shoe. {The shoe was symbolic of the land rights that belonged to the inheritance.} So, Boaz took the part of being the kinsman-redeemer. The marriage of Boaz and Ruth produced a son who, under Israel’s Laws, was reckoned as Naomi’s child and heir.

MESSAGE

First, the book of Ruth traces the lineage of Ruth to David. The completion of that line is in Matthew 1 and finds its fulfilment in Yeshua. A second teaching is the beauty of YHVH’s grace. A foreigner, even a Moabitess, can be linked with Israel’s blessing. Theologically, the concept of kinsman-redeemer as a type of Messiah is clearly evident. He must be a blood relative, have the ability to purchase, be willing to buy the inheritance, and be willing to marry the widow of the deceased kinsman. And finally, the love that Ruth showed to Naomi provides a pattern of devotion. The women of Bethlehem told Naomi, “Your daughter-in-law… loves you so much and [is] better to you than seven sons!” {4:15}.

BIBLE STUDY --- THE FIVE SCROLLS OF THE TANAKH [MEGILLOT]

THE SCROLL SONG OF SONGS

Short Old Testament book {eight chapters} containing only poetry. Its beautiful poetic passages describe the many dimensions of human love; there is little in this book that is explicitly religious. In addition to the popular title, the book is sometimes referred to as the “Song of Songs.” This is the most literal translation of the short title of the book in the original language and means “the best of all possible songs.” Some writers also entitle the book “Canticles”; this title is based on the name of the Latin version of the book, Canticum Canticorum.

AUTHOR

There was an old tradition among the Jews that King Solomon {c. 970–930 BC} wrote the Song of Songs. This view is based on one of several possible translations of the first verse of the Song: “Solomon’s song of songs” {1:1}. This view could be correct, though there cannot be absolute certainty, for the last words of the verse in the original language could be translated in various ways. An English translation that preserves the ambiguity of the original would be “The song of songs, which is Solomon’s”; the last words could mean that Solomon was author, but equally they could indicate that the song was “dedicated to Solomon” or “written for Solomon.” As is often the case with the Old Testament writings, authorship cannot be known with absolute certainty.

DATE

It follows that if the authorship is uncertain, there must also be uncertainty concerning the date at which the song was written. If Solomon was the author, it was written during the latter half of the tenth century BC. If he was not the author, then the song was probably written at a later date. But the contents indicate that the song must have been written and completed at some point during the Hebrew monarchy {before 586 BC}. For those who do not accept Solomon as author, the precise date will depend to some extent upon the theory that is adopted concerning the interpretation of the song. If the song is an anthology of Israelite love poetry, then the many poems making up the song would have been written at different dates and gathered together into a single volume toward the end of the Hebrew monarchy.

VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS

There are two major difficulties in interpreting this book. First, the song appears to be secular in its present form and YHVH’s name does not appear; the only exception to this statement is in 8:6, where some English versions translate the text to show YHVH’s name, though the original text uses the name in an unusual {adjectival} sense. The second problem is that, taken at face value, the song contains only secular poetry of human love. What is the theological significance of love poetry? These and other difficulties have led to a multitude of different interpretations of the song. A brief survey of some of the most significant interpretations will clarify not only the problem of understanding the book but also its content and meaning.

THE SONG AS AN ALLEGORY

One of the oldest interpretations of the song sees it as an allegory. This view was held by both Jewish and modern scholars from an early date. The description of human love in the song is seen as an allegory of the love between the Moshiach and the church. Augustine of Hippo {AD 354–430} believed that the marriage referred to in the song was an allegory of the marriage between the Moshiach and the church. This theory was valued for a long time. It influenced the translators of the KJV. They added chapter headings to their translations as an aid to readers in understanding the Bible. For example, at the beginning of the first chapter of the Song of Solomon, they wrote, “1 -- The Church’s love unto the Moshiach, 5 -- She confesseth her deformity, 7 -- and prayeth to be directed to his flock.” It is important to stress however, that the Hebrew text does not mention the Moshiach or the church. The headings represent the understanding of the translators, not the content of the original Hebrew.

THE SONG AS A DRAMA

The view that the song is a drama is also an old one. Those who hold this theory begin by noting that there are several speakers or actors. Perhaps then, the song is the script of an ancient dramatic play. This theory has some strong points. In the manuscript of an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, headings have been added to the Song of Solomon that identify the speakers. The cast includes bride, bridegroom, and companions. However, the headings were probably not a part of the original Hebrew text. They reflect the interpretation of the early Greek translators. There is one major difficulty with this theory: there is no clear evidence that drama was a form of art used by the Hebrews. Although drama was common among the Greeks, it does not appear to have been employed in the Near East. It is possible however, to suggest a slight variation to the drama theory. Perhaps the Song of Solomon is not a drama but simply dramatic poetry, similar to the book of Job. This possibility is more plausible, but it too has difficulties. A story or plot would be expected for either drama or dramatic poetry, but it is not clear that there is a story. According to one interpretation, the story might go as follows. The song tells the story of true love. A maiden was in love with a shepherd lad. King Solomon, however, fell in love with the maiden and took her to his palace. There he tried to win her love with beautiful words but failed. She remained faithful to the shepherd lad whom she loved. Failing to win her, Solomon released her and allowed her to return to her true lover. The story is beautiful and simple, but it is not easy to see in the text without added headings and explanations. Other interpreters have discerned a quite different story in the Song of Solomon. In conclusion, it is not absolutely clear that there is a single story being told.

THE SONG AS REFLECTING A FERTILITY CULT

Some modern scholars claim that the origin of the Song of Solomon is to be found in the fertility cults of the ancient Near East. In ancient fertility cults there was great emphasis on the fertility of the land, which would be seen in bountiful harvests. The cults were designed to ensure that the land remained fertile. They were accompanied by a mythology describing the gods responsible for fertility. This mythology included love poetry about the gods, and the poetry has some similarity to the Song of Solomon. The theory might go like this: Originally the Hebrews also had a fertility cult. The Song of Solomon contains the love poetry associated with that cult. Later, the mythological references were omitted, so that the present song looks like secular love poetry. The main difficulty with this theory is the lack of any firm evidence. There is no reference to YHVH or any other gods in the Song of Solomon. There is no reference to a fertility cult or any other kind of cult. If the theory has some validity to it, the evidence no longer exists.

THE SONG AS A COLLECTION OF POEMS

This last, most probable theory of interpretation involves two basic principles. First, the song is to be interpreted literally; it is what it seems to be -- poetry celebrating human love. Second, the Song of Solomon is a collection, not a single piece of poetry. Just as the book of Psalms contains songs, hymns, and prayers from many different periods of Israel’s history, so too the Song of Solomon contains poetry from different periods and different authors. The common theme joining all the passages together is human love. Opinions differ concerning where one song ends and the next begins. There may be as many as 29 songs in the book, some consisting of only one verse and others much longer.

PURPOSE AND THEOLOGICAL TEACHING

If the Song of Solomon is primarily an anthology of the poetry of human love, what is its significance as a biblical book? What are its theological implications? First, the presence of the song in the Bible provides a valuable insight concerning human love. The love between a man and a woman is a noble and beautiful thing; it is a gift of YHVH. It is characterized by a certain mystery and cannot be bought. But because human love is a beautiful and noble thing, it can easily be debased. In the modern world, the Song of Solomon provides a proper perspective and a balanced view of human love. Further, a high value of human love is essential. Since human love and marriage are employed in the Bible as an analogy of YHVH’s love for humanity, love in itself must be good and pure.

CONTENT

THE WOMAN SINGS HER LOVE SONG {1:2-7}

In each of the songs, the reader is like an eavesdropper listening to the words of love spoken, sometimes privately and sometimes to the beloved one. The opening song is a song of praise, rejoicing in love and delighting in a particular loved one: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth -- for your love is more delightful than wine” {verse 2}. This song as many others, is characterized by a country setting, here highlighted by a contrast with the city. The young woman is from the country and tanned from working in the open air; it makes her self-conscious among the city women of Jerusalem. But love overpowers self-consciousness, and it is in the country that she will meet her lover.

THE KING CONVERSES WITH THE WOMAN {1:8–2:7}

In this passage, both the man and the woman are talking, though it is not a conversation in the normal sense. They are talking about each other, rather than to each other, and the beauty of both the man and the woman emerges, not in an abstract sense, but through the eyes of the beholder. Though beauty may perhaps be defined in an abstract sense, the beauty perceived by lovers is of a different kind; it is rooted in the lover’s perception of the loved one and in the relationship of love that acts like a lens to focus that perception.

A SONG OF SPRINGTIME {2:8-13}

This beautiful song describes the young maiden watching her beloved come to her. He calls her to join him in the countryside, where the winter has passed and the new life of spring can be seen in the land. The beauty of young love is here likened to the blossoming forth of fresh life and fragrance that characterizes Palestine in spring.

THE WOMAN SEARCHES FOR HER LOVED ONE {2:14–3:5}

Now the woman sings and a new dimension of her love emerges from the words of her song. Love is full when the partners are together, but separation creates sorrow and loneliness. The words of the maiden evoke the desperation of separated lovers, a desperation that could only be dissipated when she held her lover again and would not let him go {3:4}.

THE KING’S WEDDING PROCESSION {3:6-11}

The song begins with a description of the approach of the royal wedding procession, a palanquin surrounded by men of war. The king approaches the city for his wedding, and the young girls of the city go out to greet him. The song can be compared with Psalm 45, another wedding song.

THE WOMAN’S BEAUTY, LIKE A GARDEN {4:1–5:1}

In sumptuous language, the man describes his maiden’s beauty. To the modern reader, the language is sometimes strange: “your neck is like the tower of David” {4:4}. But the strangeness lies principally in our unfamiliarity with the ancient metaphors. Nonetheless, much of the language here draws upon the imagery of nature and wildlife, which can be appreciated by all. Again, beauty is not described merely as something aesthetic, for it is intimately tied to the relationship of love: “How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine” {verse 10}. And again, the maiden’s beauty is not simply to be admired; it is to be given to the beloved. So, when the man stops his words of adoration, the woman offers herself to him {verse 16} and he accepts {5:1}.

THE WOMAN SPEAKS OF HER BELOVED {5:2–6:3}

In this song, the woman is talking with other women, and the man is not present. As she speaks about her lover, there is a change from words expressing a sense of loneliness and separation {5:4-8} to a resurgence of delight as she contemplates her loved one. The sorrow of separation from her beloved is dispelled as she recounts to them the handsomeness of her man {verses 10-16}.

THE MAN SPEAKS OF HIS LOVED ONE’S BEAUTY {6:4–7:9}

This long passage may contain more than a single song; there are words from the man, the maiden, and the female companions. The principal theme is further description by the man of his beloved’s beauty {6:4-10; 7:1-9}, a theme already known from an earlier passage {4:1–5:1}. Each part of the maiden’s body is exquisitely beautiful in the eyes of the one who loves her.

THE WOMAN AND THE MAN REFLECT UPON LOVE {7:10–8:14}

Both partners speak in this complex passage, which may contain a number of short love songs. While some parts are difficult to interpret {especially 8:8-14}, other verses reveal in the most profound language the meaning of love. Love, that most powerful of all human relationships, creates a sense of mutual belonging and mutual possession: “I belong to my lover, and his desire is for me” {7:10}. And later, the girl speaks of love with words that convey one of the most powerful understandings of love in the entire Bible: “For love is as strong as death… Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away. If one were to give all the wealth of his house for love, it would be utterly scorned” {8:6-7}.

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die"

De22