The Babe In The Manger

Webers_Home · Dec 13, 2019

.
● Luke 1:26-27 . . In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God
unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a maiden espoused to a man
whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the maiden's name was
Mary.

The sixth month wasn't a date on the Jews' calendar. It was relative to the
second trimester of Mary's cousin Elizabeth. (Luke 1:24, Luke 1:36)

Nazareth is roughly 64 miles north of Jerusalem as the crow flies, and 20
miles inland from Haifa.

Joseph's biological connection to David is extremely important in matters
related to theocratic royalty because the right to take his throne passes
down thru men.

Mary's name is equivalent to Miriam in the Old Testament: she was Moses'
sister.

NOTE: Mary and Elizabeth were biologically related to Rachel's sister Leah by
her two sons Levi and Judah. Elizabeth's name is equivalent to Elisheba in
the Old Testament; she was Aaron's wife. All four of the Jews named in this
post were biologically related to Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham.
_

DNB · Dec 13, 2019

Very Interesting information WH, ...but one must admit, any Jew is from the genealogy of Jacob, and thus Isaac & Abraham.

Webers_Home · Dec 14, 2019

.
● Luke 1:28 . .The angel went to her and said: Greetings, you who are
highly favored!

"highly favored" is translated from the Greek word charitoo (khar-ee-to'-o)
which means to indue with special honor. It's a rare word that appears in
only one other verse in the entire New Testament at Eph 1:6.

The angel wasn't describing Mary's character as if she was an ultra pious
Jew. He merely stated that she was the object of a very special blessing;
same as Christ's believing followers are the objects of a very special blessing
at Eph 1:6, i.e. the angel informed Mary that she was extremely fortunate;
though for the moment she had no clue as to why.

NOTE: The Douay Rheims version of Luke 1:28 says that Mary was "full of
grace" instead of highly favored and "blessed are you among women". Those
phrases aren't translated from the Greek; i.e. editors took the liberty to
insert them because in their opinion that's what the passage ought to say
even though it doesn't, so we can safely ignore them.

Arbitrary editing can be troublesome at times because the practice erodes
our confidence that all scripture is by inspiration of God (2Tim 3:16, 2Pet
1:20-21). Sometimes arbitrary editing is helpful; but other times it just
muddies the waters.

● Luke 1:29 . . She was greatly troubled at this statement, and kept
pondering what kind of salutation this might be.

Artists generally depict the angel as a celestial being with wings and/or
aglow with some sort of ethereal light. But I don't think that's how this one
came knocking. He probably looked to Mary no different than an ordinary
man because the New Testament Greek word for angel is aggelos (ang'-el
os) which refers to all manner of messengers, e.g. prophets (Matt 11:10),
delegates (Luke 7:24), fire (Heb 1:7), church officers (Rev 1:20-3:14), and
apparitions (Rev 22:16).

I rather suspect that Mary was a little nervous that maybe this man talking
to her wasn't some sort of crackpot.

● Luke 1:30 . . But the angel said to her: Do not be afraid, Mary,

The New Testament Greek word for "afraid" is phobeo (fob-eh'-o) which
basically refers to fright and alarm. Mary was scared; and who wouldn't be
when a total stranger walks into your life out of nowhere, talking crazy, and
knowing your name to boot? Even the holiest of holy men have been shaken
by angels, e.g. Dan 10:15-17 and Heb 12:18-21. So Mary's reaction wasn't
unusual.
_

Webers_Home · Dec 15, 2019

.
● Luke 1:30 . .You have found favor with God.

The Greek word translated "favor" is charis (khar'-ece) a common word for
"grace" which, in my estimation, is best understood as gracious; and can be
defined as kind, courteous, inclined to good will, generous, charitable,
merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial, affable, non
threatening, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and
tactful.

The equivalent of charis in the Old Testament is chen (khane); for example:

"Noah found favor in the eyes of The Lord." (Gen 6:8)

I think it fair to say that when someone has found favor with God, it
probably means that He's taken a liking to them; or at least a personal
interest; for example:

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you." (John 15:9)

"How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be
called children of God; such is what we are." (1John 3:1)

● Luke 1:31a . . Behold,

The Greek word translated "behold" is idou (id-oo') which, in this case,
means to listen up and pay attention 'cause this is important.

● Luke 1:31b . . you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son.

The Greek word translated "conceive" means exactly what it says. We're not
talking about a test tube baby here. The very same word is used at Luke
1:24 and Luke 1:36 in talking about Elizabeth's baby.

It's amazing the number of Christians that I encounter online who honestly
believe baby Jesus was an implant. i.e. that his mom was a surrogate
mother instead of his biological mother.
_

Earburner · Dec 15, 2019

Webers_Home said:
.
● Luke 1:26-27 . . In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God
unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a maiden espoused to a man
whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the maiden's name was
Mary.

The sixth month wasn't a date on the Jews' calendar. It was relative to the
second trimester of Mary's cousin Elizabeth. (Luke 1:24, Luke 1:36)

Nazareth is roughly 64 miles north of Jerusalem as the crow flies, and 20
miles inland from Haifa.

Joseph's biological connection to David is extremely important in matters
related to theocratic royalty because the right to take his throne passes
down thru men.

Mary's name is equivalent to Miriam in the Old Testament: she was Moses'
sister.

NOTE: Mary and Elizabeth were biologically related to Rachel's sister Leah by
her two sons Levi and Judah. Elizabeth's name is equivalent to Elisheba in
the Old Testament; she was Aaron's wife. All four of the Jews named in this
post were biologically related to Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham.
_

And MOST importantly, if you can seriously think on it, Mary gave birth to the Eternal Person of God The Son, FROM Heaven, whose origin was NOT from any seed of a MAN.

Thats why Jesus could say what He did:
John 8[23] And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Earburner · Dec 15, 2019

Oh, and might add this:
KJV- Heb. 10[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Ezra · Dec 15, 2019

Earburner said:
Mary gave birth to the Eternal Person of God The Son, FROM Heaven, whose origin was NOT from any seed of a MAN.

this is one of the most important things NO man can physically lay claim to the Christ seed.. the most important fact is he was the saviour

Helen · Dec 15, 2019

DNB said:
Very Interesting information WH, ...but one must admit, any Jew is from the genealogy of Jacob, and thus Isaac & Abraham.

Don't hold your breath...he doesn't usually respond to posts...what he does here is blog , here in open forum rather than in the blogging section.
I in times passed, have asked him why he blogs here on the DISCUSSION boards... others have asked him too...but he has deaf ears and just carries on. I doubt many even bother to read them now...not if there is no discussion...

DNB · Dec 15, 2019

Helen said:
Don't hold your breath...he doesn't usually respond to posts...what he does here is blog , here in open forum rather that in the blogging section. I in times passed have asked him why he blogs here in the DISCUSSION boards... others have asked him too...but he has deaf ears and just carries on. I doubt many even bother to read them now...not is there is no discussion...

Good to know, ....this way I know just to speak rhetorically so that others, if they choose, may read or consider my opinion.
Thanks for the heads up!

Webers_Home · Dec 15, 2019

.
Mary's baby was on track as a miracle.

● Luke 1:34-35 . . How will this be-- Mary asked the angel --since I am a
virgin? The angel answered: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the
power of the Most High will overshadow you.

The angel also said:

● Luke 1:31-32 . .You are to give him the name Jesus.

Mary's fiancé was instructed to give her baby the very same name.

● Matt 1:20-21 . . An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and
said: Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife,
because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth
to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

(Joseph had been contemplating breaking the engagement because Mary
was preggers with a baby that wasn't his.)

Joseph complied with the angel's instructions.

● Matt 1:24-25 . . When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord
had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union
with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

So Christ went in the books as Joseph's son because that's how it worked in
those days when a man stood with a woman to name her child. (cf. Luke
1:59, Luke 2:21).

From that day on; Joseph was identified by all, including Mary, as Jesus'
father. (Matt 13:55, Luke 2:27, Luke 2:41, Luke 2:48). In other words:
Joseph adopted Mary's baby as his own; which had some legal ramifications.

Adopted children have just as much legal right to an inheritance as a father's
biological children; especially a right to the father's name; and that's how
baby Jesus got into Joseph's genealogy at Matt 1:1-17. Had the little guy
been Joseph's foster child, or his stepchild; then it would've been fraud for
Matthew to place the boy in Joseph's genealogy.

Joseph's action wasn't without precedent. At Gen 48:5-7, Jacob adopted his
own two grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim; and by doing so installed them
in positions equal in rank, honor, power, and privilege to his twelve original
sons.

Jacob's motive for adopting Manasseh and Ephraim wasn't for himself; it was
in sympathy for his beloved wife Rachel whose life was cut short during her
child-bearing years, which subsequently prevented her from having any
more children of her own. Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total
progeny up to six: two of her own, two by the maid Bilhah, and two by
Asenath; the wife of Jacob's son Joseph.

According to Matt 1:20, Joseph was David's progeny; thus Jesus became
David's progeny via his adoption by Joseph. Seeing as how Joseph was also
Solomon's progeny (Matt 1:6) then Jesus became Solomon's progeny too via
his adoption by Joseph. This is very important because it is via David's son
Solomon that entitlement to the throne is inherited. (1Kgs 1:16-39)
_

Webers_Home · Dec 16, 2019

.
In the beginning; God created only one human being directly from the dust
of the Earth. No other human being has ever come into existence that way.
All succeeding human beings are descendants of that first one; including his
own wife.

Eve was formed from samples of already-existing, already-created human
materials taken from Adam's body. So then organically, and biologically, Eve
was just as much Adam as Adam.

● Gen 2:23 . . Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh

So then, any offspring conceived by Eve's body, whether normally conceived
or virgin conceived, would also consist of bone of Adam's bones and flesh of
his flesh because that is the only kind of human being that Eve was designed
to reproduce.

Now, unless someone can prove conclusively and beyond any shadow of
sensible doubt, that Mary's body was in no way organically or biologically
related to Eve, then we must conclude that any offspring conceived by
Mary's body, whether normally conceived or virgin conceived, would also be
organically and biologically related to Eve; and thus consist of bone of
Adam's bones and flesh of his flesh.

When you get right down to it; Mary wasn't the most important woman in
Jesus' life; it was Eve all along and from the very beginning.

● Gen 3:14-15 . . So the Lord God said to the serpent: I will put enmity
between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall
bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.
_

Webers_Home · Dec 17, 2019

.
● Luke 1:31-32 . . the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father.

When Joseph adopted Jesus into Solomon's lineage, it gave the child a legal
opportunity to inherit David's throne, but it did not give him a natural
opportunity, viz: in order to fully qualify as a candidate for the throne, Jesus
absolutely had to be David's biological progeny.

● Ps 89:3-4 . . I have made a covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to
David My servant: I will establish your seed forever, and build up your
throne to all generations

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn to David, a truth from which He will not
turn back: Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.

● Ps 89:35-36 . . Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto
David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.

The New Testament verifies that Jesus satisfies the natural requirement in
those Psalms.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a
bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to
biological progeny; for example:

● Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual progeny. But the seed in Rom 1:1-3 is
biological progeny because David's seed is "according to the flesh" i.e. his
physical human body.

David's seed according to the flesh not only validates Jesus' natural
candidacy for David's throne, but also verifies that Adam was Jesus'
biological progenitor because the Bible traces David's lineage all the way
back there in Luke's genealogy.

But even without Luke's contribution, it's easy to prove that Adam was
David's biological progenitor simply by referring to the fact that all human
beings, regardless of race or color, are Adam's biological progeny; which of
course includes David.

● Acts 17:26 . . From one man God made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth.

Now, unless somebody can prove clearly, conclusively, iron clad, and without
spin and sophistry that David's body was in no way biologically related to
Adam's body, then we have to conclude that baby Jesus' body was also
biologically related to Adam's body due to his natural descent from David.
_

Webers_Home · Dec 18, 2019

.
FAQ: A king named Jeconiah is listed in Solomon's genealogy (Matt 1:11).
He was a very bad king; so bad that God pronounced a curse on his
posterity. If Jesus inherited David's throne from Solomon, then shouldn't he
have also inherited Jeconiah's curse right along with it?

A: Yes; because the monarchy and the curse were a package. But here's the
wording of the curse.

"Thus says The Lord: Write this man down childless, a man who will not
prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the
throne of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jer 22:29-30)

The wording "ruling again in Judah" indicates that the curse on Jeconiah's
royal progeny was limited to the era of the divided kingdom, with Judah in
the south and Samaria in the north. That condition came to an end when
Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then
later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery.

When Messiah reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction
won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate all the
land of Israel. So the curse doesn't extend to him.

● Ezek 37:21-22 . .You shall declare to them: Thus said the Lord God: I am
going to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone
to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I
will make them a single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one
king shall be king of them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and
never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms.

FAQ: I've heard it said that Jesus was virgin-born primarily to circumvent
Jeconiah's curse, viz; the curse only extends to blood relatives. Is that true?

A: It's an attractive alternative. If perchance you should favor it, you will be
in good company because it's a common belief held among quite a few
respectable expositors.

Speaking for myself alone, I sincerely believe the opinion is an error because
adoption gives kids a standing equal to those born in the home. Were that
not true, then Jesus would have no right to a place in Solomon's genealogy.
_

amadeus · Dec 18, 2019

Webers_Home said:
.
FAQ: A king named Jeconiah is listed in Solomon's genealogy (Matt 1:11).
He was a very bad king; so bad that God pronounced a curse on his
posterity. If Jesus inherited David's throne from Solomon, then shouldn't he
have also inherited Jeconiah's curse right along with it?

A: Yes; because the monarchy and the curse were a package. But here's the
wording of the curse.

"Thus says The Lord: Write this man down childless, a man who will not
prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the
throne of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jer 22:29-30)

The wording "ruling again in Judah" indicates that the curse on Jeconiah's
royal progeny was limited to the era of the divided kingdom, with Judah in
the south and Samaria in the north. That condition came to an end when
Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then
later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery.

When Messiah reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction
won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate all the
land of Israel. So the curse doesn't extend to him.

● Ezek 37:21-22 . .You shall declare to them: Thus said the Lord God: I am
going to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone
to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I
will make them a single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one
king shall be king of them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and
never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms.

FAQ: I've heard it said that Jesus was virgin-born primarily to circumvent
Jeconiah's curse, viz; the curse only extends to blood relatives. Is that true?

A: It's an attractive alternative. If perchance you should favor it, you will be
in good company because it's a common belief held among quite a few
respectable expositors.

Speaking for myself alone, I sincerely believe the opinion is an error because
adoption gives kids a standing equal to those born in the home. Were that
not true, then Jesus would have no right to a place in Solomon's genealogy.
_

Then having said all of that based on Matt 1:11, Jerem 22:30 and Ezek 37:21-2 why did you not also explain that the genealogy in Luke 3 the genealogy for David is listed through another of his sons, Nathan, which of course does not include Jechonias because it is Not Solomon's line at all?

See Luke 3:16 and Matt 1:7 for Nathan versus Solomon; and Luke 3:23 and Matt 1:16 for Joseph with his father being Heli in the former and Jacob in the latter. Please clarify this for us. Thank you!

Webers_Home · Dec 19, 2019

.
● Luke 2:1-2 . . In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a
census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census
that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)

The historical accuracy of this particular census has been contested by some
of the Bible's critics. However, there is an explanation that they apparently
either missed or just simply chosen to ignore. But the explanation is a bit
complicated so I'm going to skip it so we can keep moving.

● Luke 2:2-4 . . And everyone went to his own town to register. So Joseph
also; went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem
the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.

It's one thing to belong to a house and quite another to belong to a line. The
one is legal whereas the other is biological.

For example: Jesus belonged to Solomon's house, but he didn't belong to
Solomon's line. Another example is Obed (Ruth 4:16, Matt 1:5, and Luke
3:32). He belonged to Mahlon's house but Obed didn't belong to Mahlon's
line. (Ruth 4:9)

It's odd the language says that Joseph went "up" because Bethlehem is to
the south of Nazareth, down past Jerusalem. But seeing as how Bethlehem
is roughly 1,405 feet higher above sea level than Nazareth, "up" seems
appropriate.

The journey is roughly 68 miles as the crow flies, but was possibly at least
80 on the ground back then. Plus, there were no paved roads in that day,
nor any diesel-powered earth moving equipment, so you'd have to expect
that the roads were tolerable but not all that great; and if perchance it had
been raining, the roads would be even worse.

● Luke 2:5 . . He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be
married to him

Artist typically portray Joseph and Mary traveling together with her mounted
on a donkey. I seriously doubt it. She was carrying a term baby so was more
likely in a wagon or some sort of cart; and padded too.

We can't really be sure that the couple traveled all alone on the road like sad
little immigrants. Everyone in Joseph's home related to David would've been
required to go to Bethlehem too, and quite likely they all journeyed
together.

At the time, Joseph and Mary were engaged but not yet married. So she
couldn't register with Joseph as man and wife. In other words, Mary went to
Bethlehem to register for herself; which doesn't necessarily prove she was
related to David seeing as how Bethlehem was no doubt the ancestral home
of quite a few other families in Israel besides David's.
_

Webers_Home · Dec 20, 2019

.
● Luke 2:6-7 . . While they were there, the time came for the baby to be
born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths
and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

According to Mic 5:2, Bethlehem back then was a tiny community compared
to many of the others in Judah; probably less than a 1,000 residents. I
honestly doubt that all those had homes in town.

When I was a boy, I lived in a mountain community of 2,000, but the town
proper itself had at most 200 actually living in it though everyone
thereabouts had the town's name in their mailing address. As I recall there
was only one motel even though a major interstate passed right thru the
middle of town so I wouldn't be surprised if the inn spoken of in Luke 2:7
was the only one there was.

However the Greek word for "inn" appears only three times in the entire New
Testament: one in Luke 2:7, another in Mark 14:14, and a third in Luke
22:11. In Mark and Luke, the word speaks of a single room: a guest
chamber; i.e. a sort of bed and breakfast. In other words: the "inn" was
likely nothing more than a spare room in a private home.
_

Webers_Home · Dec 21, 2019

.
● Luke 2:8. . . And in the same region there were some shepherds staying
out in the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night.

To hear Jacob tell it; a shepherd's life would not be my career of choice.
(Gen 31:38-40)

● Luke 2:9-11 . . And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and.
the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.

. . . And the angel said to them: Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you
good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the
city of David there has been born for you a savior;

The Greek word for "savior" is soter (so-tare') which basically means a
rescuer. Common examples of this would be lifeguards, firemen, cops,
emergency medical teams, Coast Guard units, snow patrols, and mountain
rescue teams. Rescuers typically save people who are facing imminent death
and/or grave peril and utterly helpless to do anything about it.

Saviors in the Old Testament were what we might call knights in shining
armor, i.e. they were ordinary men and women called upon by God to
liberate their people from things like slavery and oppression. (Neh 9:27)

This one born in Bethlehem wasn't an ordinary savior. He was/is a divine.
being. (John 1:1-14)

● Luke 2:11 . . which is Christ the Lord.

The Greek word for "Christ" basically refers to anointing; which is how
Jewish kings were installed back in the Old Testament; for example David
(1Sam 16:1-13). So then, calling someone "Christ" is all the same as calling
them a king; regardless of their ethnic identity. For example: the Old
Testament equivalent of Christ is mashiyach (maw-shee'-akh) which the
Bible applies to a Persian king named Cyrus. (Isa 45:1)

In that respect, there have been many Christs, but none like this one
because he will not only rule his people, and not only rescue his people from
their normal woes, but also the one woe that all men fear most.

● Matt 1:18-21 . .This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His
mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because
Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to
public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

. . . But after he had considered this, an angel of The Lord appeared to him
in a dream and said: Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary
home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,
because he will save his people from their sins.

Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name Joshua; which in Hebrew
means: Jehovah-saved, i.e. saved by Jehovah. Now when Jehovah saves
people from their sins, then they need not ever again fear the sum of all
fears. Surely no one would dispute that kind of news as justifiable cause for
the "great joy" announced by the angel to the shepherds.
_

Pearl · Dec 21, 2019

Webers_Home · Dec 22, 2019

.
● Matt 2:1 . . Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days
of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.

The Greek word for these particular wise men is from magos (mag'-os) from
which we get the English word magician. But back then, the word indicated a
variety of disciplines, e.g. philosophy, religion, science, politics, and
medicine, etc. In other words; these men were intelligent and they were
educated.

Now before we assume that these guys were all ethnic Persians we need to
be aware that the Jews and their converts were spread out all over the world
at this time; for example on the day of Pentecost:

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation
under heaven. A crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one
heard [the disciples] speaking in his own language. Utterly amazed, they
asked: Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?

. . .Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?
Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and
Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of
Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism);
Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own
tongues!" (Acts 2:5-11)

I think it's pretty safe to assume that ethnic Persians would not be
interested in the Jews' religion so I posit that the wise guys were either
Jewish men or converts; and thus knowledgeable of the Old Testament
prophecies that speak of a very important successor to David's throne.

● Matt 2:2b . . for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to
worship him.

So; how did the travelers know to follow that star? Well; first off we have to
realize that their star wasn't a celestial object because it was low enough in
the sky to direct people to the exact house were baby Jesus was lodged
(Matt 2:9). In other words: their star was an apparition.

During the holidays, planetariums here and there put on shows that theorize
the wise men's star. They typically neglect to take into account that stars, in
their normal motions, never move to the north or to the south; they always
move from the east to the west. Well, Bethlehem is south of Jerusalem and
Nazareth is north.

Plus, they seem to always forget that the wise men's star stood right over
the place where little Jesus was lodged. Well; stars in their motions never
take a time-out to hover; and even if one were to do so, they are so high in
the sky that it's nigh unto impossible without special instruments to tell the
exact spot where any one star is directly over something.

But how did they know their star was related to the newborn king? Well;
according to Matt 2:12, they were in contact with God. In other words: the
men weren't acting on their own initiative: they were on a mission; directed
and supervised by divine oversight.
_

Webers_Home · Dec 23, 2019

.
● Matt 2:3-4 . . And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all
Jerusalem with him. And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes
of the people, he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born.

The Greek word for "Christ" basically refers to anointing; which is how
Jewish kings were installed back in the Old Testament; for example David
(1Sam 16:1-13). So then, calling someone "the Christ" is all the same as
calling them a king; regardless of their ethnic identity. For example: the Old
Testament equivalent of Christ is mashiyach (maw-shee'-akh) which the
Bible applies to a Persian king named Cyrus. (Isa 45:1)

Right about here I got a bit curious. Why would Herod think that the king
the wise men sought was predicted in the Bible? It seems to me that in
order for Herod to be thinking that way, he'd have to be aware of Daniel's
famous seventy-week prophecy. (Dan 9:24-27)

Well, after a bit of checking, I discovered that Herod took an interest in the
Jews' religion and was somewhat learned in it. In point of fact, Herod at this
time was upgrading the Temple.

The chief priests and scribes, being Old Testament experts, were for sure
aware of Daniel's prophecy and I'll just bet that they and their forbearers
had been keeping track of Daniel's timeline all along and thus probably not
all that surprised when rumors of a Christ started cropping up in their day.

Well; anyway, Herod asked the wrong question. According to Matt 2:2, baby
Jesus was already born; in fact, born even before the wise men left their
country. So then, knowing where Israel's new king was to be born was a
long shot that he'd still be there. The question Herod should have asked is:
Where might the boy be now?

After an audience with Herod, the wise men departed; still guided by their star.

● Matt 2:9 . . After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the
star they had seen in the east went ahead of them.

And then it stood right over the very address where Jesus was lodged.

● Matt 2:9 . . It stopped over the place where the child was.

The place was a house rather than a stable.

● Matt 2:11a . . On coming to the house

It's difficult to calculate the boy's age when the wise men arrived; however
one thing we know for sure it was their understanding that the king they
sought was already born even before they left home to seek him. We know
that because their inquiry contains some past tense grammar in Matt 2:2.

There's no telling how long after Jesus' birth that the men departed their
country to search for him. Plus, there were no motorized conveyances back
then; and people normally didn't travel at night because their artificial
lighting was pretty much limited to torches, candles, and oil-fired lanterns.
_

The Babe In The Manger

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads