Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181475 | ||
Doc, I think you misunderstood my reference to a "dramatic addition?" I do not deem any portion of Scripture to be a "dramatic addition." Rather what I question as being a "dramatic addition" is the idea of Mary arriving in Bethlehem on the very night when Jesus was born. This is an extrabiblical interpretation -- albeit a very popular one. Luke 2:5-6 states simply that Mary was pregnant ("with child") when Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem. They also say that Jesus was born "while they were there" -- indicating some time during their stay rather than immediately upon arrival. Matthew 2:11 states that the magi visited in a house (not a stable), and Matthew 2:16 states that Herod had all boys killed in Bethlehem "from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi." This indicates the magis' visit to Bethlehem and departure were likely nearly 2 years after Jesus' birth -- after they had begun living in a house. In addition, Matthew 2:22-23 also teach that Joseph's reason for returning to Nazareth of Galilee rather than Bethlehem of Judea as a home was because of the fear of Herod's son Archelaus finding them in Bethlehem. They had apparently resettled in Bethlehem after the census -- and would have apparently been expected to settle there upon their return if not for Joseph's concern for their safety from Herod Archelaus. It seems to me that the amount of time from Joseph and Mary's departure (after marriage but perhaps prior to any outward signs of pregnancy) until the time of their arrival back in Nazareth was sufficient for people not to be aware of any oddity regarding the time of their marriage and Jesus' age upon their return from Egypt. In addition, any relatives living in Bethlehem when they arrived simply knew that they were married and that Mary was pregnant and had her first child while there. Finally, I don't see any reference to "dubious parentage" (based on out-of-wedlock conception) whatsoever in John 6:42. It seems to me the clearest reading of John 6:42 is the exact opposite -- that everyone assumed Joseph to be Jesus' natural father as the husband of Mary and were puzzled by Jesus' claim to have come supernaturally from heaven. There is no suggestion in John 6:42 of out-of-wedlock conception -- which would be expected from any detractors if the timing of conception (prior to marriage) were public knowledge. |
||||||
2 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | DocTrinsograce | 181484 | ||
Hi, Brent... I don't ever recall thinking that Jesus was born the night of Mary and Joseph's arrival in Bethlehem. Perhaps I had never heard it taught in the way you describe. The Biblical narrative seems pretty clear that as many as two years may have passed between His birth and His departure to Egypt. Luke's went to great lengths to include chronology, far more so than the other synoptic gospels. Yes, Jesus' extended family, neighbors, and those with whom they associated in synagogue thought that Joseph was the father of Jesus. They were all aware that His conception had taken place during Mary and Joseph's betrothal. Such a thing was a disgrace, but it would not have abrogated Christ's legitimacy in Jewish law. We need to remember that the notion of an "illegitimate child" is more Western in origin. In the eyes of any Jewish authority, Jesus would still have been an heir of Joseph, His putative father. If people had thought that someone else might be His father, they would have brought that criticism to the fore in debunking His Davidic lineage -- something that would have been easy to verify prior to the destruction of the temple. Thank you for the discussion. In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181513 | ||
Hi Doc, Thanks for the insight regarding the view people would have had regarding the "legitimacy" of Jesus' origins if they believed He had been conceived by Mary and Joseph during the betrothal. This is a helpful consideration. It doesn't remove the question of whether Joseph and Mary were actually left with this longstanding disgrace or whether God providentially arranged the timing of events in such a way that only very few would know. However, it does help to keep a more balanced impression of what probably resulted if God did not protect Joseph, Mary, and Jesus from a public impression of conception during betrothal but prior to marriage. If the opportunity were there, I would surmise that Joseph would have looked to publicly marry Mary as early as possible in the pregnancy and then to leave for Bethlehem before most in Nazareth knew she was expecting. The 2nd trimester would also have been a much better time for travel, and a teenager may well have been not yet showing early in the 2nd trimester with a first baby. Family in Bethlehem would then simply know that Joseph had brought along his wife and that she was with child -- not necessarily knowing the timing of the engagement and marriage. The chronology of events that are specifically outlined does, to me, hint of a potential protective hiding of the pregnancy: 3 months spent away at the beginning (the first trimester, when morning sickness could draw attention), the fact that there was a period of deliberate abstention from sexual relations after marriage but prior to birth (rather than simply abstention due to Mary being too large and uncomfortable for sex), etc. I know this is not a fully answerable question -- to say, "Yes, it must have happened that way..." This is not stated, and so must be left uncertain until Heaven. My concern is more that the image I hold of God's working in these events is not in any way contrary to what He reveals in Scripture, and I wish to test that in this forum. (If so, I want to correct it where possible once I'm aware of my error.) I can also appreciate your statement that you "don't ever recall thinking that Jesus was born the night of Mary and Joseph's arrival in Bethlehem." I don't specifically remember thinking that either personally. I also don't know that I've ever heard it directly taught by a pastor. But I do know of multiple portrayals in film, rhyming children's books, etc. attempting to help us imagine the events. Most (if not all) portray Mary as arriving in Bethlehem very large and ready to pop with Joseph frantically looking about for a room where they can have the imminent birth inside and away from the elements. I have increasingly questioned this image in my own mind, but it is clearly there in almost every visual depiction that I have seen. Thank you again for your helpful insight. In His grace, Brent |
||||||
4 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | MJH | 181514 | ||
In John 8:41, those Jesus is confronting say to him, "We are not illegitimate children..." I have heard more than one person mention that this may have been a jab at Jesus' questionable birth. It's not conclusive, but just a thought. Here is what I think.... Mary and Joseph go to the census during the feast of booths (Joseph would be going to Jerusalem anyway at that time, and Bethlehem was very close by so it “kills two birds with one stone”. The Romans usually had a window of time to register.) Since Bethlehem was Joseph's home town, many relatives would have been there. So why did they not find "room?" Really...a pregnant woman can't find room in their hometown? I figure 1 of 2 possibilities. 1) Joseph and Mary were ostracized by their family due to the questionable pregnancy, and her odd explanation. After the birth, the relatives relented and accepted them, especially after the witness of the shepherds from Migol Eder (the Temple shepherds) which would have confirmed Mary and Joseph's story from a third party. This is why later in Matthews story we see them in a home. 2) From Archeology we learn that the INN near Bethlehem was typical of the times. The people lived above and the animals. For any privacy, people could descend into the stable area below the housing (The stables below the housing served to warm the housing and give those staying close watch of their animals.) It is thought that for privacy, people could expel the animals from an area of the stable, clean it up, and find privacy. Since this time was so busy given a Festival at Jerusalem, the INN would be packed. Theory 2 does not match the history of being born in a cave, but does match archeology and inferences. As far as the people in Bethlehem NOT knowing about the questions surrounding Mary’s pregnancy assumes that the relatives from Bethlehem and Nazareth never communicated, which is hard to believe since they met at least 3 times a year at the feasts. Also, then why didn’t Mary and Joseph find accommodations with family if they had no reason to keep them apart. It is doubtful that the time of arrival and the time of birth were far removed. If not that night, then within a week would make most sense, but the text is not clear about how long they waited. MJH |
||||||
5 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181516 | ||
Thanks, MJH. This was very helpful. You make a good point about eventual communication between relatives and about possibilities of the birthplace. Regarding the stable, another theory is that Joseph and Mary were indeed staying with Joseph's relatives, and the word we typically translate as "inn" should be "house" as it is when the Magi arrive. Joseph's family's residence was perhaps too packed to allow privacy for the birth, so they moved the couple temporarily to a family stable (below or nearby) for the birth. I'm not sure how exact dates of birth and (approximated) conception were followed and reported, but the upheaval of the census would likely have taken center stage in the minds of many. If Joseph and Mary left Nazareth before Mary was visibly pregnant and arrived in Bethlehem married, the delay in realization and calculation of conception vs. marriage (at least to those outside the immediate family) would be sufficient for other events to confirm to family members the supernatural nature of this event: news from (Mary's relatives) Elizabeth and Zechariah about John being the prophet and Jesus being the Lord, the shepherds' report, the prophecies shared at the temple, the coming of the Magi, and Herod's fear of the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem at that same time. I believe the John 8:41 reference you give is the one I heard someone use once to suggest the leaders were making a reference to Jesus' conception (and I understand that you are presenting it as a verse often used, not an argument from you of such a reference). I didn't have the reference, but it's the only situation I'm aware that has ever been cited. However, this seems to me to be reading into the text and is not directly supported by the context. In context, Jesus is questioning the legitimacy of the Pharisees' claim to be God's children and spiritual descendants of Abraham. Jesus has just accused them of having Satan as their father (confirmed again in Joh 8:44) because they refuse to believe and are seeking to kill Him, the Messiah from God. The most natural reading of John 8:41 is that the Pharisees are simply reacting to Jesus' accusation against them, not making one toward Him in return. Jesus' response deals with the Pharisees' condition. If there were other instances of the Pharisees challenging the legitimacy of Jesus' physical birth, this could be seen as an additional reference, but it carries no such suggestion if standing alone. If the Pharisees thought they could find fault with Jesus' conception, they would be expected to respond to Jesus' challenge, "Which one of you convicts me of sin?" in Joh 8:46 with the same judgmental tone they showed toward the (healed) blind man in John 9:34: "You were born entirely in sins..." No such suggestion was made about Jesus in response to His challenge. I appreciate your insight. This is really helping me to better process this secondary but persistent issue that keeps coming back gently every year. I'm glad for this forum to test perceptions to see that they fall within biblical limits or correct them. |
||||||