JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
Hi,
It seems that they are obligated to do so relating to buying back the land for a brother who had to sell his away (Lev. 25:25); and also for the brother (or near kinsman) of a man who died and hadn't had any sons (Deut.25:5-7). It also seems to be the same case with the avenger of blood, who is the kinsman of a murdered person (Numb. 35:9-21); IE, this isn't optional, the kinsman is obligated to put him to death.
But in the English translation of the case of redeeming a poor Israelite from slavery, it seems like it's the language of being optional (Leviticus 25:47-49). Any thoughts on this? Especially from those who are good with the Hebrew? My best guess is that we can assume this was also obligatory, in light of the other duties of the kinsman-redeemer being described as such; and that it's language is a bit different because it's also in this passage that exactly who the nearest kinsman is, is being defined for us. So the focus here isn't as the other passages to emphasize whether it's optional or not, but rather the focus is defining exactly who the nearest kinsman-redeemer in all these cases would be.
It seems that they are obligated to do so relating to buying back the land for a brother who had to sell his away (Lev. 25:25); and also for the brother (or near kinsman) of a man who died and hadn't had any sons (Deut.25:5-7). It also seems to be the same case with the avenger of blood, who is the kinsman of a murdered person (Numb. 35:9-21); IE, this isn't optional, the kinsman is obligated to put him to death.
But in the English translation of the case of redeeming a poor Israelite from slavery, it seems like it's the language of being optional (Leviticus 25:47-49). Any thoughts on this? Especially from those who are good with the Hebrew? My best guess is that we can assume this was also obligatory, in light of the other duties of the kinsman-redeemer being described as such; and that it's language is a bit different because it's also in this passage that exactly who the nearest kinsman is, is being defined for us. So the focus here isn't as the other passages to emphasize whether it's optional or not, but rather the focus is defining exactly who the nearest kinsman-redeemer in all these cases would be.