Ezekiel 17. Is the king of Israel obligated to obey international law?
Ezekiel 17:17
And we see there that God was angry with him for flouting what was then something in our language called international law and making a covenant with Egypt and not with Babylon, and therefore woe and woe.
If it is not in the best interests of the people of Israel, whether security, economic, religious, identity-related, etc., and he is making the wrong decisions…
If he is a ruler of the Natihoz type, then the claim should be written about that.
If he is mistaken, then what is the claim?
Apparently, this is how the scripture was simplified, that there is no claim at all about what he/his advisors believe is good for the people of Israel, not whether they were mistaken or misled or simply negligent.
But only if he did not obey international law (blasphemy against God?)
Am I right?
You can spend a minute on wording and typing before asking a question. I’ll just say up front that I’m not dealing with the Bible.
Please accept the wording as it is.
This is the maximum that my gentlemen taught me in the Shav”ar in Bnei Brak almost 4 decades ago
I studied Ezekiel 17
The Holy One is angry with the king
sends a prophet with a parable to warn him about making a covenant with Egypt and not with Babylon.
There is no argument there about the effectiveness of the covenant because it is not good for the people of Israel and the king was wrong, negligent or exaggerated in the strategy of this military covenant.
But only that he was wrong within the framework of something like the international law that was in force at the time
He was an appointment of the king of Babylon and had to keep his loyalty.
(For example, despite the good of the people of Israel, make a covenant with Egypt… otherwise this should have been the argument)
Is there a situation where the Holy One expects the king of 👑 Israel
to keep international law even at the expense of security/the good of the people of Israel?
I hope I managed to formulate it better…
Yes, you succeeded. To teach you, ask Titla to make your life easy. I am already turning to my good friend Bessie Roth with a complaint.
To your question, this can be interpreted in many ways. What you are proposing sounds unlikely. There is a breach of a covenant with the king of Babylon here. This has nothing to do with international law but with the fulfillment of obligations. You could also say that there is criticism here of the risk he took, and not at all criticism of the breach of a covenant per se. This is reminiscent of the discussion about Jacob's rebuke of Shimon and Levi (you have troubled me to shame me).
As usual, I do not see how anything clear can be learned from the Bible.
Yes, sir
By the way, I did not study with Rabbi Shaafsal, but rather the parallel with his son Yoel.
🙂
Both the question and the answer actually stem from a lack of Bible study:
The problem is with breaking the covenant and the problem with this is the breaking of the oath (and those with the oath) that comes with the covenant, and with the desecration of the Lord that comes after it (not because of what the Gentiles think but because of the breaking of the oath that is in the name of the Lord). And so it is written – “He despised his rod and broke his covenant-”
There are not several ways to interpret this. There is only one way, which is the simple simple and that is it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
