Inspirassion

Pick Elegant Words
864 examples of  israelites  in sentences

864 examples of israelites in sentences

It comprises Sarthes, Usbegs, Tadjiks, Khirgizes, Nogais, Israelites, a few Afghans and Hindoos andas may be naturally supposeda fair supply of Russians.

Just after the Israelites were emancipated from their bondage in Egypt, while they stood before Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet waxed louder, and the mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten commandments from the midst of clouds and thunderings.

The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought for their deliverance, proclaim the reason for such a law at such a timewhen the body politic became a theocracy, and reverently waited for the will of God.

" From the direction to the Israelites to "buy" their servants, and from the phrase "bought with money," applied to Abraham's servants, it is argued that they were articles of property.

These laws were a merciful provision for the poorer classes, both of the Israelites and Strangers.

The Mosaic system enjoined upon the Israelites the greatest affection and kindness toward their servants, foreign as well as Jewish. Lev.

It may be objected, that this command had no reference to servants among the Israelites, but only to those of heathen masters in the surrounding nations.

A foreign servant flees from his master to the Israelites; God speaks, "He shall dwell with thee, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best."

Were the Israelites commanded to exercise toward him, uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to the multitude, who were circumcised, and within the covenant?

Again: the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition against their willsthe objector finds small gain to his argument.

Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of foreign servants merely, was the any law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from the Israelites?

[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and boys at thirteen years.] 8.

The Israelites, during their long captivity in Babylon, lost as a body, their knowledge of their own language.

The condition of the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Israelites, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it.

What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites? (1.)

They were not domestic servants in the families of the Israelites.

So far from being distributed among the Israelites, their family relations broken up, and their internal organization as a distinct people abolished, they seem to have remained a separate, and, in some respects, an independent community for many centuries.

When they were attacked by the Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aidit was promptly rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in the occupation of their cities, while all Israel returned to Gilgal.

There is no intimation that they served families, or individuals of the Israelites, but only the "house of God," or the Tabernacle.

This service was their national tribute to the Israelites, rendered for the privilege of residence and protection under their government.

As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition, hypocrisy, and lying, we might assuredly expect that they would reduce them to the condition of chattels and property, if there was any case in which God permitted them to do so.

But none of the Israelites were included in this class.] (2.)

The probable centre of that portion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly, have been less than 60 miles from the city.

See "Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt," an able article by Professor Robinson, in the Biblical Repository for October, 1832.] (3.)

Probably there was the same requisition upon the Israelites for one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor, that was laid upon the Egyptians.

Instead of taking it out of their crops, (Goshen being better for pasturage than crops) they exacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that only the poorer Israelites were required to work for the Egyptians at all, the wealthier being able to pay their tribute, in money.

THE ISRAELITES, UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.

First, they were made tributaries by the Israelites.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, why had their language no word that meant slave?

But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word Ebed if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer.

But if the Israelites had not only servants, but besides these, a multitude of slaves, a word meaning slave, would have been indispensable for purposes of every day convenience.

The word forever, instead of defining the length of individual service, proclaims the permanence of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their permanent domestics should be of the Strangers, and not of the Israelites; and it declares the duration of that general provision.

For you Israelites only?]for thee, and for thy SERVANT, and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy STRANGER that sojourneth with thee." Further, in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year, the strangers are included in the precepts, prohibitions, and promised blessings.

" In what sense was the land of Goshen the possession of the Israelites?

In what sense were the Israelites to possess these nations, and take them as an inheritance for their children?

Here let it be observed, that both Israelites and Strangers, belonged indiscriminately to each class of the servants, the bought and the hired.

It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges, merely political and national, the hired servants from the Israelites, were more favored than either the hired, or the bought servants from the Strangers.

This last disability seems to have been one reason for the different periods of service required of the two classes of bought servantsthe Israelites and the Strangers.

Those Strangers who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants themselves, would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants.

Those Strangers who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants themselves, would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants.

On the other hand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land being a sort of sacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance, was, with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor and personal character.

Another reason doubtless was, that as those Israelites who became servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, except as a last resort when other expedients to recruit their finances had failed(See Lev.

All the Strangers that dwelt in the land, were tributaries to the Israelitesrequired to pay an annual tribute to the government, either in money, or in public service, which was called a "tribute of bond-service;" in other words, all the Strangers were national servants, to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word which is used to designate individual servants, equally designates national servants or tributaries.

The same word is applied to the Israelites, when they paid tribute to other nations.

Besides being better fitted for this by previous habitsagriculture, and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of all occupations; kings engaged in them.

Since the command forbade such outrages upon the Israelites, it permitted and commissioned the infliction of them upon the Strangers.

If Israelites, all rights belonging to Israelites were theirs.

If Israelites, all rights belonging to Israelites were theirs.

The same was true of all "the strangers within the gates" among the Israelites: Whether these Strangers were the servants of Israelitish masters, or the masters of Israelitish servants, whether sojourners, or bought servants, or born in the house, or hired, or neitherall were protected equally with the descendants of Abraham.

It is this, "The slavery of the Canaanites by the Israelites, was appointed by God as a commutation of the punishment of death denounced against them for their sins."If

What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites?

They were not domestic servants in the families of the Israelites.

So far from being distributed among the Israelites, and their internal organization as a distinct people abolished, they remained a separate, and, in some respects, an independent community for many centuries.

When attacked by the Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aidit was rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in their cities.

There is no intimation that they served families, or individuals of the Israelites, but only the "house of God," or the Tabernacle.

This service was their national tribute to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and protection under their government.

As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition, and lying, we might assuredly expect that they would reduce them to the condition of chattels if there was any case in which God permitted them to do so.

Throughout the Mosaic system, God warns the Israelites against holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the Egyptians.

God's denunciations against the bondage of Egypt make it incumbent on us to ascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what they retained.

The Israelites were not dispersed among the families of Egypt[A], but formed a separate community.

Probably one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the Israelites in common with the Egyptians.

Instead of taking it from their crops, (Goshen being better for pasturage) they exacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that labor was exacted only from the poorer Israelites, the wealthy being able to pay their tribute in money.

THE ISRAELITES UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.

The probable centre of that portion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly have been less than sixty miles from the city.

See "Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt," an able article by Professor Robinson, in the Biblical Repository for October, 1832.]

First, they were put to tribute by the Israelites; then by the Medes and Persians; then by the Macedonians, Grecians and Romans, successively; and finally, were subjected by the Ottoman dynasty, where they yet remain.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if Abraham had thousands and if they abounded under the Mosaic system, why had their language no word that meant slave?

But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word ebedh if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?"

But if the Israelites had not only servants, but a multitude of slaves, a word meaning slave, would have been indispensable for every day convenience.

The word "forever," instead of defining the length of individual service, proclaims the permanence of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their permanent domestics should be of the Strangers, and not of the Israelites: it declares the duration of that general provision.

In what sense was Goshen the possession of the Israelites?

In what sense were the Israelites to possess these nations, and take them as an inheritance for their children?

Israelites and Strangers, belonged indiscriminately to each class of the servants, the bought and the hired.

It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges, merely political, the hired servants from the Israelites, were more favored than even the bought servants from the Strangers.

This last disability seems to have been one reason for the different periods of service required of the two classes of bought servantsthe Israelites and the Strangers.

Those who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for the Stranger's to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants.

Those who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for the Stranger's to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants.

On the other hand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land being a sacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance was with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor and personal character.

Besides as those Israelites who became servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, till other expedients to recruit their finances had failed(Lev.

All the Strangers that dwelt in the land were tributaries, required to pay an annual tax to the government, either in money, or in public service, (called a "tribute of land-service;") in other words, all the Strangers were national servants to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word used to designate individual servants, equally designates national servants or tributaries.

The same word is applied to the Israelites, when they paid tribute to other nations.

Besides being better fitted for it by previous habitsagriculture, and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of all occupations.

The Israelites were like permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they cling to it.

The inference is like unto it, viz., since the command forbade such outrages upon the Israelites, it permitted and commissioned their infliction upon the Strangers.

In all these respects, all classes of servants among the Israelites, formed but ONE CLASS.

This class consisted both of Israelites and Strangers.

This class also, consisted of Israelites and Strangers, the same difference in their kinds of employments noticed before.

Hence, the care to preserve serve inviolate the distinction between a descendant of Abraham and a Stranger, even when the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the initiatory ordinances, entered the congregation, and become incorporated with the Israelites by family alliance.

It is this,"The slavery of the Canaanites by the Israelites, was appointed by God as a commutation of the punishment of death denounced against them for their sins."

In these verses, the Israelites are commanded to "destroy the Canaanites," "drive out," "consume," "utterly overthrow," "put out," "dispossess them," &c. Did these commands enjoin the unconditional and universal destruction of the inhabitants or merely of the body politic?

These laws were given to the Israelites, long before they entered Canaan; and they must have inferred from them that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land were to continue in it, under their government.

For at his death, the Israelites still "dwelt among them," and each nation is mentioned by name.

True, multitudes of the Canaanites were slain, but not a case can be found in which one was either killed or expelled who acquiesced in the transfer of the territory, and its sovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to the Israelites.

The Canaanites knew of the miracles wrought for the Israelites; and that their land had been transferred to them as a judgment for their sins.

On this account their influence would be far more perilous to the Israelites than that of the country.

The great design was to transfer the territory of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, absolute sovereignty in every respect; to annihilate their political organizations, civil polity, and jurisprudence and their system of religion, with all its rights and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy, administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and agents.

The great design was to transfer the territory of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, absolute sovereignty in every respect; to annihilate their political organizations, civil polity, and jurisprudence and their system of religion, with all its rights and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy, administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and agents.

[Footnote C: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their territory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did God's command require the Israelites to chase them to the ends of the earth and hunt them out, until every Canaanite was destroyed?

Just after the Israelites were emancipated from their bondage in Egypt, while they stood before Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet waxed louder, and the mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten commandments from the midst of clouds and thunderings.

"] The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought for their deliverance, proclaim the reason for such a law at such a time.