jackie d Posted January 30, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 25 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,081 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/29/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/08/1967 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 below is a response from a very good friend of mine, David Haggith, when I asked about this verse: "While debate often comes with the territory and is almost inevitable with this kind of verse, I will say what I have thought about because I have puzzled about it some, myself, Jackie. The context immediately preceding it, sounds as if God is saying it to shame his people for being wayward, telling them how low he will bring them: 1)A woman will encompass a man like a wall will encompass a city. Or 2) like an army will surround its enemy. Taken one way it shames the real he-men who must "hide behind the skirts of women," as the saying goes -- meaning simply that they cannot defend themselves, so they will run to their wives for protection; that is to say they are weak. Taken the second way, it still means they are weak: a single woman will be to them like an army that surrounds them. On the other hand, the images that follow it seem to promise security, so it could be saying that the people of Jerusalem will become so strong that even their women will be fortresses against their enemies. So, the likely interpretation depends on which context you place it with. Yet there could be a third way of understanding this, and I'm sure you're pondering it: The comment is made as a lead-in to introducing the idea of the New Covenant. It talks about God creating a "new thing" just before it talks about God establishing a "new covenant." So, maybe the New Covenant is what is in view. Only men could be priests under the Old Covenant. Maybe God was saying he would eventually put women in men's roles. It could be a promise of female empowerment, saying God will create a new thing. He will empower women. Whenever God has brought changes, there has been an old guard who didn't believe it was God who was bringing the change and who, therefore, rebelled against it." http://www.prophecytalk.com/index.php?topic=4312.0 reply #3 intersting isn't it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan4257 Posted January 30, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 421 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/24/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2008 WOW and all in one sentence! Took some doing OneLight, but without plenty of commas for taking breaths between phrases it could have been much worse. Just watch this space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted January 30, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 827 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 12,101 Content Per Day: 1.50 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 04/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2008 As soon as I get to work I'll post on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily~Anne Posted January 30, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 146 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,308 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2008 OK, since this is obviously one of the more difficult passages to understand, then I really think it is important to look at what the rest of scripture says about God's design for man and woman. There is plenty of clear scripture on the issue. I wish I had more time to post, but as it is I am busy with my family at the moment. I will be back..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickilynn Posted January 30, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 138 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/13/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2008 http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/pro...irth/Jerem.html 2. Jeremiah says, "The Lord hath created [bara] a new thing in the earth." Bara is the word used five times in Genesis 1 to denote God's creative activity during the six days of creation. Nearly all of its remaining forty occurrences in the Old Testament also refer back to these six days (5). The word distinctly means "create" rather than "make" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickilynn Posted January 30, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 138 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/13/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2008 ..The other is that the Messiah and how His birth would come about had already been given in prophecy prior. Shalom Jackie, the "New" thing is not the prophecy, it is the Incarnation. It stands. So, why would the Lord God have been expressing something new (unknown) as this had been in circulation for some time? The prophecy wasn't new and birth to male children was not new as we are all aware. Because the Messiah's Incarnation was the NEW thing. Never been done before or since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily~Anne Posted January 30, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 146 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,308 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2008 Shalom, Exactly! And it's important to keep the verses IN CONTEXT with the chapter, not rip them out for a separate interpretation. Verses 21 abd 21 MUST be examined through the understanding of the ENTIRE chapter to be correctly understood. And it's not talking about men and women and their roles. Exactly, because otherwise scripture that is clear on men and women's roles, would make no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted January 30, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 827 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 12,101 Content Per Day: 1.50 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 04/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2008 That particular verse is interpreted differently by various scholars. Here's my non-scholarly interpretation. Jeremiah is one of my OT heros. Look at who he was talking to - a nation that had turned its back on God. Of all the prophets, his term had to have been one of the hardest. The people never listened to him. Not once. He never got to see the fruit of his labor, yet he endured through it all. He was "employed" at a time of great upheaval for Judah. They were more interested in the pagan gods surrounding them than God. They were hard-hearted. And, they were being ruled by who is considered to be the most evil king Judah ever had, King Jehoiakim. Remember, when Jeremiah first began it was under the reign of Josiah, the king who literally found the written law in a back room in the temple. The people didn't have the word of God! King Josiah had never heard it! Josiah had the word read to him and realized that they had not been following the law of God. Up to this point, the people had not heard of the promises, the prophecies,or anything else. So anything at this point in time, was new to them. He immediately read the law to the people and then marched throughout the land and destroyed "to dust" the pagan altars and idols that he found. Unfortunatley, this revival burst didn't last and the people again turned. Knowing the covenant, they broke the law. So, enter Jeremiah who delivers the message of judgement. Throughout his life he declared thier unrighteousness and the penalty for it. He spoke amidst the false prophets that were saying everything was going to be all right. He stood alone - pronouncing the coming judgement. Of course, it was the last days of Judah as a nation. Soon they would be carried off to Babylon. But - before that happened - Jeremiah said some very remarkable things. The prophets spoke from inside an onion, speaking away layer after layer of prophecies. The layers, though identical, were also sometimes different. By that, I mean that though they spoke of the things to come in the near future, it also sometimes meant the things to come in the distant future. these things were spoken in one prophecy, as I believe (IMHO) Jeremiahs was in this verse. He spoke not only of the people returning after the Babylonian captivity, but also of the New Covenant - the returning of the nation of Israel. This was the new thing, for he goes on to speak of of it in these verses. 31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickilynn Posted January 30, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 138 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/13/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2008 Well, we know what it is not. It is not a scripture about the roles of women. Almost every commentary I have, either in real book form or on the computer in study programs feel that these passages are speaking to the restoration of Israel to God, i.e. Israel "encompassing" God as opposed to God embracing Israel, as before. That is the "new" thing. The woman would be Israel. It's agreed by most of them, however, that it is a unique portion of scripture and difficult to translate. Shalom Cobalt, Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biblicist Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 New Living Translation Jeremiah 31:22 How long will you wander, my wayward daughter? For the Lord will cause something new to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts