Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | Brent Douglass | 229259 | ||
I have heard some commentators suggest that this verse is a jab at Jesus -- suggesting He had an illegitimate birth. Is this evident at all from the context or the language of the time? Perhaps I am just missing something obvious, but it seems to me that this is quite a reach that is assumed based on modern dramatic traditions regarding the conception and birth of Christ. The context seems pretty clear that they are simply claiming to be true spiritual descendants of Abraham, not unfaithful idolaters or descendants of idolaters. Rather it seems that the religious leaders would have consistently, repeatedly, and forcefully made such accusations against Jesus if the history regarding His conception and birth was known. Please let me know if the following observations seem to be way off track. There seems to me to be a clear pattern in the conception and birth history of Matthew and Luke indicating that God provided a way for Mary to be sequestered with Elizabeth during the first trimester (when morning sickness would have been most evident). The census then provided an ideal reason for Joseph and Mary to marry quickly and leave early in the second trimester before Mary's pregnancy would have become obvious to others (being the first pregnancy of a young and likely healthy woman), and it seems that Joseph would have wisely pursued such a path. They then likely would have arrived in Bethlehem (perhaps to Joseph's birth home or extended family) already married. The baby was then born "while they were there" (Luke 2:4-6) in Bethlehem (not likely the night they arrived or the context would have noted the timing as in other places in Scripture). No relatives there in Bethlehem would have been aware that they were not already married at the time of conception -- unless they chose to deliberately trust them to believe their story (when Joseph himself had naturally doubted until an angel spoke to him). Then they remained in Bethlehem for nearly two years (probably intending to settle there away from any potential gossip in Nazareth if they returned too soon with a child). And then they went to Egypt (likely for several years) before finally returning to Nazareth when Jesus was likely anywhere from 4 to 10 years old (before He was 12 anyway). As a result, the exact timing of Jesus' conception and birth would likely have been hidden from everyone in Nazareth as well -- again unless Joseph and Mary chose to deliberately reveal it. (Joseph knew from personal experience how ridiculous the story would sound coming from another person before Jesus had proven His identity through His ministry, death, and resurrection.) If people knew the story of Jesus' conception before His death and resurrection, I would expect Jesus' enemies to use the common "knowledge" of His apparent illegitimate birth at every opportunity to undermine Him and refute His claims and His popularity as a spiritual leader. Yet we never see such direct accusations, and no commentators have pointed to any reference except this one (which seems so questionable in context). I am really not looking for an argument. However, the context and observations seem to argue rather strongly against such interpretation, and yet people much more knowledgeable that I have, at times, made such a suggestion. Is there something in the text, grammar, or practices of the day that indicates this intent on the part of the religious leaders or a response/reaction on the part of Jesus indicating that He understood their statement in such a light? Please let me know what you think? |
||||||
2 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229266 | ||
There are no real grounds for suggesting that the Pharisees were referring to Jesus' birth in John 8.41. In Jewish eyes Jesus would not have been seen as born of fornication, for Joseph and Mary were betrothed, and betrothed couples regularly had children without it being frowned on (except by high sticklers). Betrothal was binding and could only be broken by divorce. Marriage simply sealed the betrothal. Furthermore the contrast made by the Pharisees was with God as their Father. Thus as you say they were contrasting themselves with those who had idols as their father and were thus 'born of fornication'. Idolatry was regularly seen as harlotry. |
||||||
3 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | justme | 229273 | ||
biblicalman: Forgive me if I am a pest. I am really just seeking where your source is for such rich information. Being in the UK you may well have more information about such things that I can't get to. When you say "betrothed couples regulary had children without being frowned on (except by high sticklers)." I never have thought about this before. Our culture here in the US is very tollerant of even Christians living together before marriage. I find such living together before marriage very much like shooting your self in the foot, it seldom lasts when the couple does get married. Thank you for taking the time to responding to me, Blessings. justme |
||||||
4 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229276 | ||
Hi, The Israelites/Jews believed in arranged marriages, although that did not necessarily mean that the parents did not consult their children. But for a man or woman to marry without their parents agreement was unusual (Esau was an exception and thereby grieved his parents). When the couple were agreed on by their parents they became betrothed. This was then seen as binding, and only divorce could set it aside. The aim was that it would last for life. You will notice that Joseph was going to 'put away, divorce' Mary privately, even though they were 'only' betrothed. It had to be a semi-official action. Marriage wowuld then result when they had reached the necessary age. These are facts that can be found in any reliable Bible Dictionary, and good commentaries. NBD says, 'the betrothed woman was sometimes called 'wife' and was under the same obligation of faithfulness (Gen 29.21; Deut 22.23-24; Matt 1.18, 20) and the betrothed man was called 'husband' (Joel 1.8; Matt 1.19). Best wishes. |
||||||