Results 1 - 20 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243032 | ||
I believe Uriah was most likely a proselyte of Hittite ancestry, as that would be the most straightforward reading of the various texts including his name. He seems to clearly be a believer in YHWH based on David's inclusion of him in living in such proximity to the palace, his repeated inclusion among David's mighty men, and the way that his wife seems to be treated as a woman of honor despite David's obvious abuse of Uriah and David's rebuke by God through Nathan. I also doubt that David would have trusted a foreigner without first verifying his sincerity to YHWH and to Israel (having deceived the Philistines himself several times). However, David also came from a heritage of accepting foreign believers in YHWH into Israel and into the tribe of Judah: being only a few generations descended from both Rahab of Jericho and Ruth of Moab. As to the potential perception that inclusion of Uriah into the (legal but non-blood) lineage of the Messiah would somehow remove David, that is clearly not the case based on the remaining lineage. For example, Boaz is included in the lineage, and Judah is included with no mention of Judah's son Er (Tamar's first husband). If the dead husband automatically replaced the actual father in the lineage, Boaz should have been replaced by Elimelech or Mahlon as indicated in application of the principle in Ruth 4:5-17 - but shown not to impact Boaz's place in the recognized genealogy for David in Ruth 4:18-22 or in Matthew 1. There is no suggestion whatsoever here to discredit Jesus as the Messiah descended from David, Judah, and Abraham. Also, as you noted earlier, this is not a blood lineage to Jesus. That is recorded in Luke 3:23, which I would interpret, "Jesus Himself.. being the son (supposedly of Joseph but really) of Eli [Mary's father]..." I was actually surprised to find that this was also through David and Bathsheba (and not another wife) through their son Nathan (Luke 3:31-32; 1 Chron 3:5). It is true that this lineage establishes Jesus' legal inheritance to the throne of Israel and Judah (by adoption through Jesus' earthly father Joseph) all the way from David and Solomon through all the descended kings of Judah to Jeconiah/Jehoiachin at the deportation to Babylon and beyond. However, this is not a parable, so this does not mean that God has nothing else to communicate through the text but that one point. This is a completely paternalistic genealogy except for the inclusion of 4 women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah's wife (whose own name is not even directly mentioned in the original text of Matthew). What do these named people have in common through the unique mention of women in this patrilineal line? They are all foreign believers in the true God YHWH who were grafted into God's people -- and they are all noted deliberately in the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah who reigns on David's throne. (Someone may argue about Tamar, but there are strong potential indicators that she was a foreigner, and Judah certainly did not seem averse to having a foreign wife for himself or having sexual relations with someone he considered to be a foreign prostitute.) So we see that God always included all true believers (in His true Self as revealed in His words of the Bible and in the world and heavens that declare His glory) among His children and His people. Grafting in Gentiles may seem a new concept to the Judaizers of New Testament times, but God had always grafted them in -- even into the line of the Messiah. This seems to me evident from the text. My question is whether God went beyond this and here (at least metaphorically) honors a believing Gentile by applying the rights of kinsman redeemer. Yes, this would be beyond what the Jews would normally do. It would include a Gentile who had bonded himself to David and God's people as a believer in God and one of David's trusted mighty men by mentioning him specifically in the lineage of Christ. If the kinsman redeemer principle is applied, this explains Solomon's description as the son of David by Uriah's wife and the parallel with the other women mentioned. It would also potentially resolve the reason as to why Solomon was listed last among David and Bathsheba's sons in 1 Chron 3:5, 1 Chron 14:4, and 2 Samuel 5:14. This explanation does not make this true. I believe it to be a possible interpretation, but not something I would hold strongly. However, I also do not see it as of yet to be negated or disproven by anything given so far. My purpose in asking the question was to see whether this was way off base or plausible. So far, it still seems plausible to me. |
||||||
2 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243031 | ||
Ed, your answer was definitely offensive to me at the time due to the obvious assumptions and condescending and hypocritical tone I found within it. I feel that I had deliberately extended grace in my clarifications to you after you twice misquoted Scripture in this thread (first saying that Solomon was the result of an adulterous affair and later that Bathsheba's name was used directly in the Matthew genealogy, neither of which are accurate from the original Biblical text itself). Then shortly after in the same thread you accuse me of ignoring the Scriptures and asking what certainly appears to be a rhetorical question as to what difference the answer to my question makes anyway. I am not sure how to interpret these observations in a non-offensive way. Nevertheless, I will leave it behind because I do not wish to abandon the forum at this point or turn this into a further distraction from the question itself -- with people adding misguided suggestions about possible Muslim assumptions, not believing the Scriptures, or a liberal trying to undermine the genealogy of Christ. I accept none of those labels, and do not wish to enter into some kind of self-defense demonstrating the genuineness of my faith or my confidence in God's Word. I don't care to spend time "working through" the basis of whatever assumptions you carry about me or my motives in posting the question, but I wanted to be clear in this separate note before returning to the question at hand. For my part, you are forgiven whether you feel forgiveness is needed or not. |
||||||
3 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243023 | ||
I will let you cool off, Ed, and perhaps repost my question another time. You are obviously offended in some way by me, my question, or something. I do not have time for this. As you have moved from what I thought was trying to answer my question to treating the question as ignorant and inappropriate because it doesn't meet your superior standard, I see the reason for the sloppiness in your original reply was probably more out of being too quick to get rid of what you deemed an inappropriate question than a desire to help. I will wait and repost the question in the future, perhaps in a less offensive manner. When I do, please do not answer it. I would rather get input than have someone answer just to get a question out of circulation quickly because they deem it unworthy of discussion. |
||||||
4 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243016 | ||
The one who raises up an heir for the dead does not need to be a brother. The principle is that someone should raise up an heir for the man who tragically dies early having no heir, and the first child is then treated as his child. For example, David's grandfather Obed was legally the son and heir of Naomi and Elimelech through Ruth and her first husband (who is not clarified, probably Chilion but maybe Mahlon per Ruth 1:2-5), even though he was Boaz and Ruth's first child by blood. (See Ruth 4:5-22.) This responsibility was typically fulfilled by the closest available male relative (as indicated in Ruth 3:11-13). However, the idea of a patron fulfilling this duty is also understandable, particularly in a case where the patron was responsible for the death of the childless man. This would be David's role as king, adulterer, and killer over the foreigner Uriah, who might otherwise have no inheritance at all in Judah or Israel. 2 Samuel 12:22-24 seems to make it absolutely clear that Solomon was the first son born to David and Bathsheba after the death of Uriah. Yet 2 Samuel 5:13-16 and 1 Chronicles 3:1-8 both list Solomon last among the sons born to David and Bathsheba in Jerusalem. This seems to contradict precedence of listing according to birth order -- unless of course in God's eyes they were all born to David and Bathsheba but Solomon is legally another man's son. |
||||||
5 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243014 | ||
Ed, after posting my reply, I now see I was short-sighted in not noting the aspect of adultery that also applies to all 4 women: Tamar who resorted to deceit and posing as a prostitute to be included in Judah's family; Rahab the former harlot; Ruth whose in-laws had intermarried with an idolatrous people although Ruth herself was apparently already a believer when she met Boaz; and a woman who had been brought into David's house through adultery, deceit, and murder. This could be singly associated with the aspect of grace offered to adulterers, but it also seems odd that the names given all appear to be those of foreigners, so it doesn't remove the possibility of both. It does put your interpretation in a very different perspective though, so I understand better where it came from. |
||||||
6 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243013 | ||
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate the input, and I am honestly not trying to be argumentative. I am not a Greek scholar, but more literal English versions and a parallel text confirm to me that Bathsheba's name was not really mentioned directly in any of the Greek texts. I was not looking at the on-line version of the NASB but rather an off-line version. I guess I was looking at the 1977 NASB version (in my e-sword software) before the interpretive phrase "Bathsheba who had been the" was added into v.6 of the NASB translation. The older version has simply "her who had been the wife of Uriah" (with "who had been the wife" in italics to show it was added to flow more smoothly) per a more literal translation of the Greek ("her of Uriah"). I do not at all question the truth of your statement that God was supremely gracious to David in including him in Jesus' line despite his adultery. However, I don't at all see this particular passage as speaking to that. It seems to me that the inclusion of Uriah as a foreigner by obliquely referencing his wife in the lineage instead fits much more accurately into the pattern of all other insertions of women into this passage of a purely patrilineal legal inheritance through Jesus' adopted father Joseph, not His mother - so not through blood.) Once again I am back to observations of the original wording of Matthew 1:1-16, a completely patrilineal genealogy that deliberately references only 4 women other than Jesus' mother Mary. (I don't count Mary in the observation because she really needs to be mentioned from a genealogy standpoint as the only human parent of Jesus). Three of these women mentioned are foreigners (if one can allow that Tamar was almost definitely a foreigner) and the other is only mentioned as the unnamed wife of a named foreigner. The addition of these 4 women seems to have a fairly clear and consistent purpose of identifying foreigners with the genealogy of Jesus. That seems the only obvious explanation for their inclusion. I tend to doubt your view that this oblique mention of a woman's previous husband (who then just randomly happens to be a foreigner like every other woman added) breaks with the purpose of the other three women in order to insert a non-stated and completely separate interpretation that the Writer wanted to quietly introduce an idea of grace granted to David as a man who was previously an adulterer into the midst of the genealogy. (Solomon was not conceived under adultery after all, but only after God had forgiven David.) Therefore, I believe Uriah is mentioned in the list specifically because he is a foreigner (or perhaps the three foreign women are even mentioned partly to draw attention to Uriah as a foreigner, but that's a stretch). If so, what then is Uriah the Hittite's significance as a foreigner being included in the genealogy of Jesus? (The answer seems to be that Uriah may indeed be a legal ancestor in God's eyes, and I want to know if this is completely unrealistic or a viable understanding of the passage. I need a more careful investigation of the implications and validity, not a polite and cordial dismissal.) |
||||||
7 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243011 | ||
Actually, this is an easy oversight to make, but David did not father Solomon through an adulterous affair, and Uriah was not alive when Solomon was conceived. Solomon was the first child conceived by David and Bathsheba after Uriah had died. I am afraid this leaves the question unanswered. That first baby (conceived through adultery) died as a punishment from God. Remember Nathan's pronouncement about the lamb taken from the poor man, "You are the man..." See 2 Samuel 12:1-24 Note: It also seems to me that every other reference to a woman in Matthew's patrilineal lineage of Christ - except for Mary of course - references a foreigner being brought into Christ's lineage. (Some may argue that Tamar could have been a descendant of Israel but was likely a foreigner from Timnah, but Rahab and Ruth certainly were God-fearing foreigners joined into Christ's lineage through marriage.) It is also notable that Bathsheba's name is not mentioned in the lineage but instead that of her faithful foreign first husband ("the wife of Uriah". That set of observations is part of what brought on the original question, but the question of (the wording of) Uriah's inclusion is what I am focusing on here. He seems deliberately included as a foreigner into the lineage of Christ, as are the other (2 or) 3 foreigners. While Jesus was unquestionably a blood descendant of David and not Uriah, does God treat Him legally as a descendant of Uriah the Hittite as well. |
||||||
8 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243009 | ||
Is there any way that Jesus could be considered a descendant of Uriah, with David occupying the place of the responsible brother with Uriah's widow (based on Uriah being apart from his family as a Hittite given to David's service and brought to his death at David's hand for David's sin)? This would make Solomon Uriah's legal son before God. Is this impossible, or would this be a reason for the mention of Uriah here as a foreigner? | ||||||
9 | Seething a kid in its mother's milk? | Deut 14:21 | Brent Douglass | 241625 | ||
Most commentators I have read suggest that there was likely a pagan ritual associated with this use of a mother's milk to boil its young, since the context is consistently associated with the commands of the festival sacrifices. However, I do not believe the specific ritual has ever been verified in any writings currently available, so this is to a large degree speculative. On the face of it, however, the image itself is also repulsive, and any such ritual by the pagans would no doubt add to this repulsion. In the animal kingdom especially (and with humans as well), a mother's milk is the dearest form of caring for her helpless infant suckling, providing its most basic nourishment in the most intimate and endearing way imaginable from her own breast. (Consider the tender imagery of Isaiah 66:10-13, Psalm 22:9, and Matthew 23:37.) Therefore, to take a mother's milk and use it as the means of boiling her own child to tenderize it for the consumption of the priests (or the morbid appeasement of a false god) is to take that which God has given by design as a means of sustenance and intimacy between a mother and her young and turn it into an abominable celebration of abuse of power over another. If this was done in pagan worship, this would seem to be the symbolism invoked. I do not believe it is a significant stretch to apply this personally to forbid the abuse of another's tenderness or maleability (due to concern for others) evilly against them to lead them into sin, to draw them to ourselves selfishly and separate them from others whom they love, and/or to otherwise use their vulnerability for our own benefit or sport. However, this command, although repeated three separate times, remains quite obscure as to any significant application beyond basic obedience to the command itself and the image of corrupting the beauty of mother-child intimacy (and tender care of the mother for her helpless infant) into something hideous. To go further in exploiting such a currently non-contextual command with illustrations or application toward other doctrines of personal interest would seem similarly inappropriate. |
||||||
10 | Saved by Grace or Acts? | Lev 6:2 | Brent Douglass | 230621 | ||
Hi Rhonda, Bill responded to my post, but I wanted to answer to you, so that you can see this directly. I think Bill had a lot good to say about the importance of obedience -- which should be a natural result of our salvation, since the Holy Spirit indwells us and empowers us to be able to obey once our relationship with God has been restored through faith. (John 1:12,13; John 7:37-39) However, I can not fully agree with the following statement by Bill, and I think it important for you to see the distinction: 'Now on the other question about repentance as one of the steps in getting salvation. Throughout the Bible the concept of repentance has always included the attempt of restoration. Thus a theif must return the stolen goods to their rightful owners or do his best to do so. A murderer should feel obligated to ask forgiveness from the family and attempt to restore the manpower as represented by his victim to that family, again as best he/she can within his/her ability. Why is this necessary? God's basic Principle of "Reaping what we've sown in life."' I believe Bill has gone too far in applying demonstration of repentance toward others (through restitution) as being potentially necessary to salvation. Salvation is the restoration of our relationship with God, not others; only Christ can and does provide our restitution before God. Once saved, God desires us to do all that we can to restore our relationship with others, and He can/will convict us of areas in our lives where He wants to continually make us more like Him -- this being one of them. This is much of the point of James (and 1 John for that matter.) Our lives should be transformed, and this is part of the outward testimony to others that Christ has come into our lives and made us alive. Without increasing obedience, our testimony is minimal. However, this is a result of salvation, not a part of it. As I said, salvation restores our relationship with God through Christ. As David said to God after his sin with Bathsheba (which included adultery, deception, and murder against others), "Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is in Your sight, so that You are justified when You speak and blameless when You judge" (Psalm 51:4). Repentance and trust before God brings us to dependence upon Christ and restores our relationship with Him. All that we owed and all of our guilt has thus been removed from before Him by the payment and merit of Christ alone. Once that has been done, but not as pre-condition, He will begin to show you how He wants you to act toward others. This obedience of demonstrating repentance to others (including restitution) is done from a response to what Christ has done and as a witness to others of His work in you. It is not part of the repentance and faith that leads to salvation. It is a resulting good work that comes afterward. (See Ephesians 2:8-10.) Do not let someone tell you that you are not saved if you have not reimbursed someone. The question of your faith and salvation is between you and God, and it can not be judged on the basis of one action -- since we all continue to have a sin nature but also now have the Spirit. Nevertheless, ask God what He would have you do as His beloved child -- for His glory and because of His grace (and even for greater riches in Heaven for your faithfulness)-- but not to merit His approval or salvation. Salvation is between you and God, and Christ is your full and only possilbe restitution. Restitution toward others is a separate and later issue, initiated by God but between you and the other person/people involved. |
||||||
11 | Significance to the tents' locations? | Gen 31:33 | Brent Douglass | 230605 | ||
The care with which the narration describes Laban's process gives the impression that there was something significant to it that would be understood by people of the time -- presumably recorded in Moses' time. Are there any indications of practices of the time that could shed light on this, or are only unsupported speculations available (such as the three potential, mutually exclusive, and completely unsubstantiated interpretations I offered in the initial question)? | ||||||
12 | Saved by Grace or Acts? | Lev 6:2 | Brent Douglass | 230600 | ||
Our relationship with God was broken by our sin and our sinfulness. For the one who trusts Christ, the debt has been paid with God by Christ, the barrier to relationship with God has been removed through Christ's sacrifice, and our relationship has been restored through the merit of Christ's perfect life. However, this does not remove the barriers that our sins have placed between us and others or the barriers that others' treatment of us has caused. We can forgive others their sins, and we can show repentance (including restitution when possible) for our sins against others. This is the heart of God toward us -- providing for us the restitution for our sins. As we seek to honor God, and as He develops His heart in us, we will want to restore relationships with others - so far as it depends on us. Therefore, we should show restitution and repentance -- valuing the others we have hurt as much as we value ourselves. See also Romans 12:17-21. |
||||||
13 | Significance to the tents' locations? | Gen 31:33 | Brent Douglass | 230595 | ||
The narration of the sequence by which Laban searched the tents seems very carefully descriptive: First the tent of Jacob, then Leah, then the tent of them maids, and then Laban emerges from the tent of Leah (not the tent of the maids) before searching Rachel's tent. Is the maids' tent connected to or behind the tent of Leah? It seems so, but what does this indicate based on practices of the times? Is Rachel truly in her menstruation and kept separate? Is Leah treated as the higher wife positionally and thus has the maids more quickly at her disposal? Or is Rachel treated as the higher wife positionally and thus given a tent away from the others as is Jacob? Is there any research available of practices of the time, or only speculation? |
||||||
14 | Different fathers of Joseph. | NT general | Brent Douglass | 229349 | ||
I would agree with Tim. The best answer, which follows the context, is that Matthew gave the genealogy of Jesus through his adopted father Joseph whereas Luke followed the genealogy through Mary. Perhaps more clarification would be helpful. The context of Matthew focuses upon the experience and involvement of Joseph, whereas Luke focuses on Mary and treats Mary as the primary source. Matthew says nothing directly of Mary's encounter with the angel or of Mary's travel to visit Elizabeth, but it includes Joseph's decisions, his encounter with an angel in his dream, his decision to take Mary as his wife but remain celebate until after the child's birth, the visit of the Magi and Joseph's dream after they left, etc. It is also more directly connected to establish Jesus as the Messiah who would inherit the kingdom of David -- which passes through Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), the last king assigned by the Jews rather than by a conquering power. However, although this would be the natural expected line of descent of kingship, Jeremiah had also prophesied that no blood descendant of Jehoiachin would ever sit on the throne (Jer 22:30). Thus prophecies regarding the re-establishment of the progression of the throne of David through a permanent future king (through the lineage under which the kingship passed down) would have seemed impossible -- until we see Jesus come as the adopted descendant of Jeconiah with all rights of inheritance, but not a blood descendant. Nevertheless, Jesus was also a true blood descendant of David's son Nathan through his mother Mary and her father Eli. I believe that adding parenthesis to the Luke 3:23 description would better fit the intent of the text -- "being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Eli..." Since Luke explicitly points out that Jesus was not really Joseph's son, but only supposed/thought to be so, it would be quite illogical to then immediately give the genealogy through Joseph. In addition, Jewish genealogies were very carefully recorded, particularly for descendants of David, and the writer of Matthew and/or Luke (whichever wrote later) likely had access to the other's writing as well. Therefore, the blood father of Jesus is Mary's father Eli, who is descended through David through his son Nathan, not through the kingly line of Solomon. Thus he meets the test of being a blood descendant of David (through Nathan, Eli, and Mary) and also receiving the passing of the kingship itself directly through Solomon and Jehoiachin/Jeconiah through adoption as Joseph's oldest son (adopted and treated as a son and heir before any other children were conceived). |
||||||
15 | 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? |
||||||
16 | 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. |
||||||
17 | 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 |
||||||
18 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181483 | ||
Merry Christmas CD, I'm definitely fascinated with God's plan and how He worked it out so far as He has revealed. I believe it's the glory of God to conceal certain things in such a way that we can delight in discovering them later (Proverbs 25:2). This is one of those little aspects that bubbles to the surface for me every year at Christmas as I try to imagine in my mind's eye what happened. This has been the case for many years, as these questions have lain dormant but unanswered. It seems that this forum is a good place to seek insight on such a topic. The sending of Mary to Elizabeth's home for the first 3 months of her pregnancy (when there are usually certain physical results associated with pregnancy) and the apparent lack of the expected stigma of a baby conceived prior to wedlock seem to me to reveal a providential concealing of the timing except to those of Mary's, Joseph's, and Elizabeth's family to whom God or Mary and Joseph chose to reveal the miracle. Without this concealment, it seems to me that the scandal would have been a constant cloud over the family. Joseph, as a "righteous man," assumed the normal natural cause of Mary's pregnancy (unfaithfulness) rather than an unprecedented supernatural (but true) cause. I would expect others to do the same but to go further by following their natural fleshly inclinations and ruin the family's reputation through gossip. Yet no such gossip seems to be present in the gospels. This seems to me providential, but there is little room to examine such providence in the current image that is in most of our minds from media (in this case, well-intentioned media that are valuable in helping us imagine the event). This doesn't remove the wonder of "God with us" and the perfect providential plan to bring light and salvation to our hopeless race. It is clearly a secondary but interesting (and I believe valuable) consideration nevertheless. |
||||||
19 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181477 | ||
I see in the Amplified the description of Mary's condition as "about to become a mother." What level of connotation does this word carry that is translated simply "with child" in the NAS but "about to become a mother" in the Amplified? Does it definitely mean something beyond "pregnant" -- requiring a translation of "about to deliver her child" or something like that? Or is it possible that this can refer to a woman in her 2nd trimester? | ||||||
20 | 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. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |