The Weekend Word

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. Jean says:

    Thank you MLD. Great lesson!

  2. Em again says:

    may i agree with Jean? good questions to think on, also

    “This tells me that it was common knowledge among the people – that the prophets said this about the Messiah.”

    and FWIW, that closing observation tells me that MLD is a man of Faith also – a thinking one 🙂

  3. Em again says:

    “Think about this – if Jesus came to die, why wasn’t he allowed to die with the massacred children? Could he have died as ‘the child/God’ vs man/God?”

    been thinking on this… in addition to the fact that our Lord’s death had to carry the virtue of obedience to the Father (He came to do the Father’s will), He also established a witness to who he was in the miracles and teaching in His earthly 33 years (i remember the 12 year old boy amazing his listeners in the Temple)… miracles probably impacted His contemporaries, who witnessed them, more than reading the stories of them do us, but His teaching that has been recorded vitally impacts and edifies all of us … and condemns the scoffers, too, i’m certain

  4. I think it is very important to hang for a while on my opening paragraph to understand the great efforts the author takes to bring his class up to speed as to who Jesus is. He must do this through the prophets of the Old Testament to a people if they know anything scriptural may only know about the prophets (and this probably only through tales and yarns of such). So he slowly goes through, I forget how many, perhaps a dozen references to the the prophets to make his point — the pointing of the prophets to Jesus.

  5. Babylon's Dread says:

    Is MLD taking us through Matthew here? Why is he not credited?

    I have to say that the reference to Is 11:1 is a better connection and explanation than is allowed here. As for prophets, in the plural, it is not hard to make that connection from Is 11:1 to Je. 23:5, Je 33:15; Ze 3:8; 6:12 where the same hebrew root is translated as branch or shoot. This historic use of this concept is very old.

    I would agree that there is much that prophets said that is not in the text but believed to be genuine and would have had the people talking about such things, Spoken vs written words of the prophets is actually an interesting study and might be a line of thinking that is helpful here.

    Anyway I just think Is 11:1 is as good a connection as the supposition made here…

  6. Babs, As I always say, most of us who comment on scripture get our thought from the white spaces on the page.

    My point is, what is the directive that will point to Jesus if we use your verses? Is not everyone from Nazareth called a Nazarene? All people in Los Angeles are known as Angelenos. I think (and it is only my thought) that Matthew is referring to something more particular and direct that was commonly known but not put in a surviving writing.

    btw – what is a person from Albuquerque called?

  7. Jean says:

    You got me thinking, as I was reading 1 Cor 15:3-4 this morning. Paul said that Jesus died, was buried and was raised on the third day, all in accordance with the Scriptures (our OT). It appears that when the apostles and evangelists studied the OT, they found Jesus stuff everywhere. In fact, would it be an overstatement to say that looking for Jesus and the Gospel and prophecies about Him in the OT is the only reason the early Christians studied the OT at all?

  8. Jean,
    “In fact, would it be an overstatement to say that looking for Jesus and the Gospel and prophecies about Him in the OT is the only reason the early Christians studied the OT at all?”

    I would hope that it was the only reason the OT folks read the OT – to seek Jesus. God made no bones about the purpose of the OT – he laid out the theme in Gen 3 – Man’s problem, God’s solution. The rest of scripture is just the details on how that works.
    (Hint – how that works = Jesus)

  9. Em again says:

    Luke 2:25-30 has always touched me as a beautiful story… but i wonder if there is a lesson there that i have not picked up on…

  10. Lesson = God entering the temple after a 400 year absence.

  11. Em again says:

    ah yes, an innocuous, little impotent baby – who knew what was about to be unleashed?
    good ponder
    but what about Simeon and Anna Luke 2:36 and others who must have come to the temple to worship God (Herod’s temple?) … ?… did God not honor their worship? how sad to worship in an empty, God forsaken place…

  12. Em, because God was not in the temple does not mean that God is not present and working with people. It just means that he was not in their presence in that special way that he was before the exile when he did inhabit the temple.
    My thoughts go like this (test them if you would like);
    1) God left the temple at the exile
    2.) God re entered the temple at the time described by Luke 2
    3.) At the crucifixion when the curtain was torn, was not to let people enter the temple to do direct sacrifice – but to show all that God no longer lives in a temple made by made.

  13. Em again says:

    nothing to “test” MLD – 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: