Results 81 - 100 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Eternal nature of condemned souls? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 2617 | ||
What are the foundational Scriptures for the eternal nature of the human soul (of a non-believer) after the fall? | ||||||
82 | History of eternal suffering doctrine? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 2919 | ||
Thanks, JVH0212. This is a question that has puzzled me for some time; it came up in another thread, and I thought this would be a great chance to get some further input. The eternality of the soul appears to be a fundamental belief among many orthodox Christian teachers and is often mentioned as an understood fact as part of the central message of the Good News itself. Does anyone know the history of this doctrine -- when, where and-or how it began; and how it came to have such an assumed part in the presentation of the Gospel? |
||||||
83 | History of eternal suffering doctrine? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 3428 | ||
Thank you for the reference. I used the book title you suggested as the basis for a search to find the book you recommended and was happy to find one of George Whitefield's sermons on this topic, which gave several passages. He quoted Daniel 12:2, Matthew 25:46 and Mark 9:47-48 (actually Mark 9:43-48). These verses give a strong argument to the idea that the soul of the unbeliever suffers eternally, so I feel they have corrected my initial understanding prior to posing this question. I'll quote them below with notes. Daniel 12:2 -- Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. [This could be read as partially inclusive, as could the original verse I mentioned from Revelation.] Matthew 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [The context of this verse definitely seems all-inclusive to me, and the same Greek word is used for both instances of "eternal"; if "eternal life" means continuing forever, "eternal punishment" should mean this as well.] Mark 9:47-48 "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED." [The large type is in the NASB, indicating quotation. This also appears to be all-inclusive.] |
||||||
84 | Hell - Soul destroyed? Suffer forever? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 39237 | ||
What do the Scriptures say about eternal suffering in Hell vs. destruction of the soul itself? The verse above (Matthew 10:28) and others appear to indicate that the norm is eventual destruction of the soul itself. Other verses, however (like Matt 25:46), appear to indicate eternal suffering. And still others (Mark 9:47-48) focus more on the eternality of Hell itself. It seems clear from Rev. 14:11 that at least those who worship the beast and-or receive his mark will burn forever. However, Matt 10:28 (as referenced above) indicates that the soul can be and is destroyed. I have an earlier question related to this that can be accessed by searching under this same verse (Matt 10:28), and I closed it off after getting some excellent answers from kalos and JonnyRay49423 at that time. However, I'm looking for a little extra detail on the Scriptural statements this time. |
||||||
85 | Soul destroyed? or Eternal suffering? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 39260 | ||
That's a good question. The distinction between soul (psuche) and spirit (pnuema) is a completely separate matter, and others may have a better grasp of the distinction than I do. I guess I have a view (albeit not unalterable) that the soul (or psyche) is the central identity or existence of an individual, whereas the spirit (pneuma, breath, wind) is that which comes from God and carries life within it -- as when God breathed into man and he became a living soul. If God removes the spirit from a body, the body dies but the soul continues. If and when the breath of God leaves the soul, the soul (and the individual) ceases to exist altogether. Suffering in hell would, therefore, be eternal for all only in the sense that it would continue as long as the soul continued. However, those who have actively (in a "lambano" - Strong's 2983 sense of receiving him) taken hold of Satan and his beast as their leader will suffer forever with him according to Rev. 14:11. It appears to me from what I can see that this eternal sharing in the suffering of the devil and his angels is reserved only for those who have deliberately given themselves up in this way. In contrast, those who are given up to Satan in a more passive way (a "dechomai" - Strong's 1209 receiving of him) are eventually wiped from existence altogether. It seems to me that there is room for this explanation in the images given by Christ in Lk 12:47-48 of differing levels of punishment based on the degree of defiance shown. However, there seems to be such a strong tide of belief in eternal conscious punishment of each unbeliever amongst those teachers and congregations who are biblically solid (even to the point of including it in some of their basic creeds) that I hesitate to hold too firmly to such an idea (as the annihilation of most unbelievers) without seeking testing from a forum such as this (as well as elsewhere). |
||||||
86 | Soul destroyed? or Eternal suffering? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 39312 | ||
Thank you, Rainbow Maker, for your solid observation. As you point out, the text definitely does refer to ability and does not directly say that God will do this, and I will keep that in mind. This is an example of the kind of feedback I am looking for. I'd love to have more of such feedback from you and others. Please don't let my reply below hinder this. That said, I also feel the need to say that I don't believe your observation leads to any change in the apparent meaning of the verse in question. I think the context (particularly Matthew 10:16-11:1) gives a very strong impression of reference to what evil men both are capable of and will do as opposed to what our righteous God both is capable of and will do -- thus encouraging the disciples as to the value of faithfully and trustingly carrying the message of God rather than fearing and yielding to obstinate and violent men. This contrast of losing one's fleshly life at the hands of men vs. losing the life of one's soul at the hands of God is reversed and restated for deeper emphasis in v.39 of this same passage. (Matthew 10:39 "He who has found his 'life' [soul -- psuche 5590, same as "soul" in 10:28] will lose it, and he who has lost his 'life' [soul -psuche again] for My sake will find it.") It seems to me that the choice presented (in Matthew 10:28,39 and the surrounding passage) is whether a) to focus on protecting one's soul with the comfort and ongoing well-being of this fleshly body at the expense of its eternity or b) to focus on actively receiving and enjoying an eternal linking of one's soul with one's spirit from God and with the Spirit of God, resulting in eternal life in His presence. The true believer will choose b) in the end, whereas the rocky soil heart of Luke 8:13-14 experiences only an apparent but passive receipt (rendered "dechomai" - Strong's 1209 - by Luke) of the seed planted within it and remains content with option a) if and when finally tested. As a side note, I also thank you for your excellent point in your reference to Matthew 7:23. I'm in full agreement that one's self-confidence of having a relationship with Christ and-or even supernatural gifting and power on God's behalf are simply not a guarantee of either saving faith or its benefits: including a true ongoing relationship with God and salvation from the eternal fires of Hell. As pointed out in Matthew 7, saving faith is active, not passive -- also illustrated clearly in Hebrews 11 and in James 2. (The testing of our faithful obedience in harsh or difficult circumstances is thus of great benefit and encouragement, since it helps to increase our assurance upon passing through a struggle and-or to jar us awake to the need for continued growth in our faith whenever we encounter short-term failures.) |
||||||
87 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | Brent Douglass | 1789 | ||
I agree with Charis's choice of 1 Cor 14:39-40 to challenge this. This verse is an excellent admonition to Whyndell and-or anyone who would seek would seek to say authoritatively that tongues or prophecy CAN NOT exist today. This is basically equivalent to forbidding them, and directly violates Paul's command, unless there is a direct statement ending and condeming them in a later Scripture (which there isn't). It is probably safe to say that your (Whyndell's) experience with tongues was false and that MANY exercises of tongues are counterfeit -- coming either from the individual deluding himself, psychological manipulation on the part of others, and-or from false spirits. This needs to be taken into consideration whenever tongues or prophecy are practiced, and they need to be properly tested; this is often (usually?) neglected. There are good experiential reasons why many Christians have an initial distrust toward congregations where these gifts are practiced. This does not negate God's sovereign potential to use them if and whenever He so chooses. All of the following arguments come from 1 Cor 14, so I will simply offer the verse numbers (vv.nn) I'd also take issue with your suggestion that tongues are never for individual edification. I think 1 Corinthians 14 clearly states that the individual who speaks in a Holy-Spirit-given-tongue is spiritually edified (vv.2,4,14,17)in his pure worship or thanksgiving and that this is fruitful for his spirit (although not his mind, unless there is interpretation v.14). They are never for showing off, but they apparently edify the individual believer when practiced privately. I agree that they are real languages (vv.10-13), are NOT prophetical (vv.1-4) but rather for God-given prayer and-or worship (vv.13-17) -- with which others can then share and say, "Amen," if they are translated. For the record, I am a member of a church that does not practice these gifts in the assembly (to my knowledge). I believe I am somewhat objective. |
||||||
88 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | Brent Douglass | 1857 | ||
I assume that you're still on the list, Whyndell, but are simply tired of responding to this particular thread. I'd like to clarify some things from my previous posting. This can be a maddening topic, since there is so much abuse of this gift in many (if not a vast majority of) situations where it is practiced. (If I were to base this only on various and varied personal observations of worship services, I could even be tempted to say "all" situations, but I hesitate to thus "forbid" their practice, since I feel this would be against Scripture). Nevertheless, if one is convinced that such gifts have ceased, he or she must obviously take such an approach (with fear and trembling, I trust, for reasons that I restate below). I absolutely agree that Paul was not discouraging people from correcting error. He was, however, saying not to forbid speaking in tongues (in the manner in which God ordained that they be practiced, and in no other way). For the record, I agree with your definition of tongues as meaning earthly languages. Every direct reference and example of tongues in Scripture (including 1 Cor 12 and 14, Pentecost, and Peter's preaching to Cornelius and his friends) refers specifically to actual human languages; Paul's reference that there are many languages and none is without meaning (1 Cor 14:10) surely indicates a reference to earthly tongues. It seems unreasonable to assume the mention of "tongues of angels" anything but exaggeration in 1 Corinthians 13:1, unless we are also to consider some to "know all mysteries and all knowledge" and to "have all faith, so as to remove mountains" as well. Clearly Paul is not necessarily advocating these as real possibilities. I assume that your statement, "You do not have the simplest understanding of what tongues were for," refers to the fact that tongues were used as a sign. It is true that one purpose of tongues is as a sign, albeit not a sign leading to belief among unbelievers or the ungifted -- just as prophecy is a sign leading to new belief (1 Cor 14:22-25, full passage needed for context). However, just has prophecy has other purposes than simply acting as a sign (clear and accurate communication from God), so may tongues (perhaps purer worship of God without being filtered through a fleshly mind). If, on the basis of 1 Cor 14:22-25, one says tongues can only be used as a sign and nothing else, he must do the same with prophecy, for they are clearly compared and contrasted in parallel. This is a tiresome subject, and it would take a book to clarify it. I recommend the collection of Lloyd-Jones sermons on this topic, "The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit." I'm not in full agreement (including something this posting), but I think he has the best explication I've seen. |
||||||
89 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | Brent Douglass | 142287 | ||
Dear footwasher, Please do not be put off by my directness in the answer below. There is no offense intended toward you, but I believe the facts of the Scriptures are clear on this. Also, for the record, I frequently pray in tongues. However, I believe they are real human languages even though I don't understand them. The definition you give is an interesting idea, but ideas must be tested by Scripture. The Scriptures are very clear in Acts 2:4-11 that the disciples were empowered by the Holy Spirit to "speak in other tongues" and that Jews from various other countries heard them "in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." The power of the Spirit was upon the speakers, not the hearers. The worship of God in various languages given by the Spirit at Pentecost clearly consisted of real human languages that could be recognized and understood by those around them. In 1 Cor 14, Paul says that there are "a great many kinds of languages in the world" (1 Cor 14:10). These are also earthly tongues. He goes on to say that tongues are used for praise, blessing, and thanksgiving (1 Cor 14:16). He also stresses the importance of the ungifted or unbeliever understanding the language being spoken in order for edification to take place (1 Cor 14:16-17,23). The idea that the gift of tongues includes giving of a specific "heavenly language" is not a biblical concept and has no clear example in the Scriptures. The most detailed examples of both practice and teaching regarding tongues clearly connect Spirit-enabled tongues with human languages. There may be a question in both your and my minds regarding how those from every people, tongue, tribe, and nation will communicate and worship together before the throne -- whether in a common language, through ability to understand tongues, or some other method. However, God has not chosen for the Scriptures to deal with this question, so we must finally leave it unanswered for now. The Scriptures have higher authority than whatever teacher told you that the gift of tongues equates with praying in a heavenly language, no matter how convincing s/he was. I would suggest asking for clear biblical observations to back up such suggestions. I don't believe any will be forthcoming. The Bible must ALWAYS be the authority in such questions. |
||||||
90 | Forgive or confront - which to choose? | Matt 18:1 | Brent Douglass | 740 | ||
First of all, choose to forgive. Christ chose to die for us while we were yet his enemies. You and I both have a much deeper debt of sin before God than anyone has toward either of us. If we don't begin with forgiveness, we should pray in terror every time we ask God to "forgive us our debts (or trespasses) as we forgive our debtors". If we refuse to forgive "those who trespass against us" then we are asking God to hold our sins to our account and condemn us to hell. Is this extreme? How does it compare with Jesus's teaching in Mat 18:23-35? The guidelines for confronting a brother who sins (Mat 18:15-18) must be read in the context of Mat 18:23-25, as well. When Paul (in Eph 6:27-28) tells us to "be angry and sin not" by not letting "the sun set" on our anger, there is no mention of confrontation with the other person. This is a call to a forgiveness in order to "not give the devil an opportunity"; it serves our spiritual interest by preventing bitterness from clouding our ability to love. Once we have forgiven, we are ready to consider whether confrontation is beneficial. Confrontation is for the benefit of our brother (or sister) who has done something wrong, not for the purpose of "letting off steam" or verbal retaliation. As in Mat 18:15, where the purpose is to "[win] your brother" back to obedience and growth in his relationship with God. It's possible that Paul had this in mind in Gal 5:19-21 when he listed specific sins that are practiced by those who "will not inherit" the kingdom of heaven. The increasingly strong convictions and confrontations presented in Matthew 18 are meant to draw the offender to confession, repentance and restoration. Is this not how the Spirit convicts and confronts us, as well? He confronts us to the degree necessary and the degree we are willing to receive. He is to be our model. I suspect that the final and unequivocable rejection of this persistent and faithful conviction ("slamming the door in the Spirit's face" if you will) is what is meant by the blasphemy against the Spirit, but that's another question. |
||||||
91 | HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER | Matt 22:37 | Brent Douglass | 589 | ||
Jesus said that "No one can serve two masters" and that any attempt to serve 2 masters would result in choosing 1 over the other at some point. The example he then gives is God vs. mammon (material wealth). However, material wealth is not the only competitor he is concerned with. He also says that unless one "hates" his or her mother, father, sister, brother, wife, children and even one's own life, that person can not be His disciple. The Lord must be our first love, thus the choice being made (by his grace) to love him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. This is comparable to Wesley's doctrine of "Christian perfection" as a "perfect" love for God as exercised by a "complete" disciple; this is what the Christian should desire. | ||||||
92 | Does Mark 6:3 indicate a question..... | Mark 6:3 | Brent Douglass | 26910 | ||
(Part 1 of 2) Dear Richbee, I think rocwalker1's answer is a very good explanation of this. This was simply a comment as to how familiar (and "normal") Jesus was to them. The people of Nazareth knew Mary and her other children, and most Christians assume that Joseph was dead by this time since he is not mentioned again after Jesus' visit to the temple at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41ff). I don't think there is any suggestion that Jesus was an illegitimate child of Mary here or elsewhere in the gospels by anyone in His life, although I'm confident that there was in the time of the early church -- once the reality of His virgin birth began to be openly taught after His resurrection. Modern myths and images surrounding Christ's birth make it hard to imagine that no one knew, but Matthew and Luke paint a different picture when read carefully. The complete lack of any such suggestion of illigitemacy by Jesus' opposition in the gospels suggests to me that no one (but Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zechariah, and perhaps a very few close and trusted friends) knew the timing of Jesus' conception and birth as compared to Joseph and Mary's wedding. If they had, they could have been expected to assume illegitimacy and use it as a further excuse to denounce Jesus and His message. Even a righteous and loving man like Joseph (see Matthew 1:19), despite obvious reason to desire otherwise, could not believe any other conclusion than fornication -- at least not without divine intervention (Matthew 1:20). Jesus' miraculous virgin conception was no doubt one of those things that "Mary treasured .., pondering them in her heart," until she witnessed them to Luke and others after Christ's resurrection. God carefully, deliberately and exactly ordained the sequence surrounding Jesus' conception and birth and the marriage of His parents in such a way as to keep His miraculous conception a secret until the proper time and in order to safeguard their reputation as righteous and faithful servants of God. This is an exciting part of the Christmas story that we tend to miss. Bear with me, and I'll offer some observations (and minor interpretations that seem obvious once some modern myths are debunked). The angel Gabriel's words encouraged Mary to visit her cousin Elizabeth in rural Judeah (Luke 1:36-40), "[a]nd Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home." (Luke 1:56) Do you have kids? Then you, like me, may think, "Conception plus 3 months equals 1st trimester." Mary spent her "morning sickness" time away from Nazareth, with someone whose immediate greeting was Luke 1:42-43 -- "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?" Mary received from Elizabeth encouragement and protection, and Zechariah kept his mouth shut too. By the time Mary returned to her home in Nazareth 3 months later (coincidence that Luke mentions 3 months?), she had stopped vomiting (assuming a "typical" pregnancy) but probably wasn't showing yet (again assuming a "typical 1st pregnancy for a young girl). Joseph then publicly married her (Matthew 1:24). The people of Nazareth had no idea that Mary was pregnant yet, but they would have soon if she had stayed there much longer. Then ("In those days") came the providential census that allowed Joseph and Mary to leave for Bethlehem abruptly with no need for explanation (Luke 2:1-5). The most logical assumption is that Joseph and Mary would have been prudent enough to leave for Bethlehem BEFORE Mary was visibly pregnant, since no one in Nazareth would have believed that the Holy Spirit had impregnated her; Joseph knew that from personal experience. The image of their arrival in Bethlehem with Mary ready to pop is a modern myth with no biblical basis; to the contrary, the wording "while they were there" (Luke 2:6) indicates that they had already been there (presumably sleeping in the stable) for some time when Jesus was born. Since we know Joseph was a righteous man, his family in Bethlehem naturally assumed that they had already been married when Mary conceived and that the child was Joseph's. However, in reality Joseph and Mary were careful to wait until after Jesus' birth before they actually had sexual union -- a point which Matthew makes sure we are aware of (Matthew 1:25). |
||||||
93 | Does Mark 6:3 indicate a question..... | Mark 6:3 | Brent Douglass | 26911 | ||
(Part 2 of 2) We don't know exactly how long Mary and Joseph stayed in Bethlehem after Jesus' birth. However, we do know that it was long enough for the star to appear (presumably appearing at His birth rather than prior to it), for the magi to recognize it and make their plans, go to Jerusalem, wait for further direction from a gathering of all the priests and scribes, and then go on to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1-6). We also know that Herod used the time of the star's appearance in deciding to slaughter all children 2 years old and under (Matthew 2:7,16), and we know that they were no longer in the stable but in a house (or an inn) when the magi came to visit (Matthew 2:11). After their approximately 2 years in Bethlehem, they ran away to Egypt (Matthew 2:12-15). Someone more knowledgeable than I can probably tell you when Herod the great died and they returned to settle into a "normal" life in Nazareth again (Matthew 2:19-23). However, sufficient time and activity had passed for the people of Nazareth to assume that Joseph was the father of Jesus and that He had been conceived after Mary and Joseph were married. People simply knew that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem but that Nazareth was the hometown of Him and His family. |
||||||
94 | When did Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181460 | ||
I know tradition indicates that Mary gave birth the night of her arrival in Bethlehem. However, that seems rather like a dramatic addition. Is there any clear indication in Scripture or elsewhere historically that people in Nazareth (other than Joseph and presumably Mary's immediate family) knew that Mary was pregnant before she left for Bethlehem, or did Mary leave perhaps early in her 2nd trimester before she was showing? I'm not aware of any clear and direct accusations toward Jesus about being conceived out of wedlock, and I would expect them if His birth was well known. It seems like the timing of Mary's visit to Elizabeth, the decree of Caesar, and the flight to Egypt kept the miraculous and scandalous conception a secret -- but one that could be later easily confirmed by those closest to Mary and Joseph still alive after Jesus' resurrection. Any insight or comments on this concept and question? | ||||||
95 | 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. |
||||||
96 | 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? | ||||||
97 | 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. |
||||||
98 | 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 |
||||||
99 | 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. |
||||||
100 | What makes John the Baptist greater ? | Luke 7:27 | Brent Douglass | 1515 | ||
1 Peter 1:10-12, 17-21 and Col 1:26-2:3 This is probably one of those "hard sayings of Jesus" in the book by the same name. I don't have it in front of me (and don't remember exactly what that author(s) wrote about this, but I would strongly recommend the book as a reference (particularly for questions of this type) I believe F.F. Bruce is the writer, but there is a series of "Hard Sayings" books by several solid authors. Anyway, one sense in which I believe John the Baptist would be considered "greater" than all previous prophets and saints was that he was able to look into the fulfilment of his prophecies and understand the identity of the Messiah that he was proclaiming (at least to a certain degree). John recognized Jesus when the Holy Spirit descended on him (although he had some uncertainty later), but the prophets of the Old Testament longed to look into the secrets they were foretelling about the Messiah and the salvation of Israel and the nations; those secrets were hidden until their revelation in Jesus the Christ. All believers who came after him have access to these (but not all) mysteries and can thus more fully rejoice (in this life) in the hope and salvation that God has given us. (See 1 Peter 1 and Colossians 1.) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |