If you would like to ask a question or make a comment about the material presented in this video, please use the contact form at this link: bibletalk.tv/contact/video/K8CFJnDLI9s
Here is some info that might clarify: Answer: Matthew 2:23 says about Jesus, “He went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.” Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament? Matthew is obviously not quoting a prophecy directly, as there is no Old Testament passage with the wording he uses. Three major options exist for interpreting this verse. First, it may be that Matthew is associating the word Nazarene with the Hebrew word netser (“branch or sprout”). The “Branch” was a common term for the Messiah, such as in Isaiah 11:1: “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” Hebrew was written with only consonants, and netser would have appeared as NZR-the same main consonants as Nazareth. In fact, in Aramaic, the common language of Jesus’ day, the word for “Nazareth” and the Hebrew word for “branch” sounded very much alike. Matthew’s point could be that Jesus was “sprouting up” from an obscure village in Galilee; Jesus was the Branch predicted by the prophets, and the name of the town He grew up in happens to sound just like the prophets’ word for “branch.” A second option is that Matthew is citing a prophecy not found in the Old Testament but in another source. If so, Matthew referred to a prophecy known to his original audience yet unknown to us today. However, this is unlikely and an argument from silence. A third option is that Matthew uses the word Nazarene in reference to a person who is “despised and rejected.” In the first century, Nazareth was a small town about 55 miles north of Jerusalem, and it had a negative reputation among the Jews. Galilee was generally looked down upon by Judeans, and Nazareth of Galilee was especially despised (see John 1:46). If this was Matthew’s emphasis, the prophecies Matthew had in mind could include these two passages concerning the Messiah: “But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads” (Psalm 22:6-7). It’s true that Nazarenes were “scorned by everyone,” and so one could see this messianic prophecy as an allusion to Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth. “He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem” (Isaiah 53:3). Again, in Jesus’ day, Nazarenes were “despised and rejected,” and so Isaiah’s prophecy could be viewed as an indirect reference to Jesus’ background as the supposed son of a carpenter from Nazareth. If Psalm 22:6-7 and Isaiah 53:3 are the prophecies that Matthew had in mind, then the meaning of “He shall be called a Nazarene” is something akin to “He shall be despised and mocked by His own people.” Jesus not only identified with humanity by coming to our world; He also identified with the lowly of this world. His upbringing in an obscure and despised town served as an important part of His mission. Jesus identified Himself as “Jesus of Nazareth” during His encounter with Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 22:7-8). After his conversion, Paul mentioned Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 26:9). One of the names of the early Christians was “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5), and the term Nasara, meaning “Nazarene,” is still used today by Muslims to identify a Christian. Recommended Resource: The Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Geisler
Bathsheba immoral? Do you not understand that women had NO CHOICE but to sleep with a king if he demanded it? The sin was David's, not Bathsheba's. To his sin of adultery, David added the sin of murdering Bathsheba's husband Uriah. She loved her husband and mourned for him. But she had to marry David after that. You want to add insult to injury by calling her immoral?!?!
The act that both were involved with was immoral. David, of course, incurred greater guilt because of his position and power. Your view of the king’s right to have any woman, even a married one may have been true in pagan nations with pagan kings, but not in Israel and certainly not during the reigns of Saul, David or Solomon. These men were guided and restricted by God’s law as were the women of that time. - MM
Both were "involved?" The woman had NO CHOICE. David incurred "greater guilt?" If the woman had NO CHOICE, what was the lesser guilt that she was guilty of? If "the act" was forced sex -- rape -- what part of "the act" is the woman guilty of? Are you claiming that a married woman who is raped is guilty of adultery? That is Islam, not Christianity. In Islam the woman is guilty when she is raped, but you claim to be a Christian teacher. This is appalling. David took what he wanted and went on to murder her husband, but in your lecture you overlooked the sins of men and pointed out the sins of the women ancestors of Jesus -- even though you yourself acknowledge that David's sin was greater (and you still haven't explained what HER sin was!) You need to look at your male bias; it harms women.
2 Samuel 12:24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the Lord loved him..... Does this sound like a rape? 1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.... Obey the Word of God!
Anyway, God was working through this situation because Solomon was so highly blessed as an individual and as a ruler; this is well documented. He and his decendants could have ascended much more, even hastening the day of the coming of the Lord, had he not become captive to excessive sexual sin.
If you would like to ask a question or make a comment about the material presented in this video, please use the contact form at this link: bibletalk.tv/contact/video/K8CFJnDLI9s
Thank you for posting free knowledge for those who love to serve the Lord
Thank you, I love BibleTalk!❤
...Thank you. You are so organized. May you rule over many cities in Heaven.💓
Thank you. I have learned a lot.
AMEN
Thank you
If you would like to ask a question or make a comment about the material presented in this video, please use the contact form at this link: bibletalk.tv/contact/video/K8CFJnDLI9s
The differences between genealogies were explained by JULIUS AFRICANUS I think in the second century. And it is good.
Thanks for that. I’ll check it out.
- MM
BibleTalk.tv no problem. I do enjoy your teachings.
THANKS
Matthew is my favourite gospel, and I'm not Jewish.
See Trinities podcast, for the best scholarship on the issue.
So I am confused as to what prophet was Matthew referring to about the Nazarene?
Here is some info that might clarify:
Answer: Matthew 2:23 says about Jesus, “He went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.” Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament?
Matthew is obviously not quoting a prophecy directly, as there is no Old Testament passage with the wording he uses. Three major options exist for interpreting this verse. First, it may be that Matthew is associating the word Nazarene with the Hebrew word netser (“branch or sprout”). The “Branch” was a common term for the Messiah, such as in Isaiah 11:1: “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” Hebrew was written with only consonants, and netser would have appeared as NZR-the same main consonants as Nazareth. In fact, in Aramaic, the common language of Jesus’ day, the word for “Nazareth” and the Hebrew word for “branch” sounded very much alike. Matthew’s point could be that Jesus was “sprouting up” from an obscure village in Galilee; Jesus was the Branch predicted by the prophets, and the name of the town He grew up in happens to sound just like the prophets’ word for “branch.”
A second option is that Matthew is citing a prophecy not found in the Old Testament but in another source. If so, Matthew referred to a prophecy known to his original audience yet unknown to us today. However, this is unlikely and an argument from silence.
A third option is that Matthew uses the word Nazarene in reference to a person who is “despised and rejected.” In the first century, Nazareth was a small town about 55 miles north of Jerusalem, and it had a negative reputation among the Jews. Galilee was generally looked down upon by Judeans, and Nazareth of Galilee was especially despised (see John 1:46). If this was Matthew’s emphasis, the prophecies Matthew had in mind could include these two passages concerning the Messiah:
“But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads” (Psalm 22:6-7). It’s true that Nazarenes were “scorned by everyone,” and so one could see this messianic prophecy as an allusion to Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth.
“He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem” (Isaiah 53:3). Again, in Jesus’ day, Nazarenes were “despised and rejected,” and so Isaiah’s prophecy could be viewed as an indirect reference to Jesus’ background as the supposed son of a carpenter from Nazareth.
If Psalm 22:6-7 and Isaiah 53:3 are the prophecies that Matthew had in mind, then the meaning of “He shall be called a Nazarene” is something akin to “He shall be despised and mocked by His own people.” Jesus not only identified with humanity by coming to our world; He also identified with the lowly of this world. His upbringing in an obscure and despised town served as an important part of His mission. Jesus identified Himself as “Jesus of Nazareth” during His encounter with Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 22:7-8). After his conversion, Paul mentioned Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 26:9). One of the names of the early Christians was “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5), and the term Nasara, meaning “Nazarene,” is still used today by Muslims to identify a Christian.
Recommended Resource: The Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Geisler
Bathsheba immoral? Do you not understand that women had NO CHOICE but to sleep with a king if he demanded it? The sin was David's, not Bathsheba's. To his sin of adultery, David added the sin of murdering Bathsheba's husband Uriah. She loved her husband and mourned for him. But she had to marry David after that. You want to add insult to injury by calling her immoral?!?!
The act that both were involved with was immoral. David, of course, incurred greater guilt because of his position and power. Your view of the king’s right to have any woman, even a married one may have been true in pagan nations with pagan kings, but not in Israel and certainly not during the reigns of Saul, David or Solomon. These men were guided and restricted by God’s law as were the women of that time.
- MM
Both were "involved?" The woman had NO CHOICE.
David incurred "greater guilt?" If the woman had NO CHOICE, what was the lesser guilt that she was guilty of?
If "the act" was forced sex -- rape -- what part of "the act" is the woman guilty of? Are you claiming that a married woman who is raped is guilty of adultery? That is Islam, not Christianity.
In Islam the woman is guilty when she is raped, but you claim to be a Christian teacher.
This is appalling.
David took what he wanted and went on to murder her husband, but in your lecture you overlooked the sins of men and pointed out the sins of the women ancestors of Jesus -- even though you yourself acknowledge that David's sin was greater (and you still haven't explained what HER sin was!)
You need to look at your male bias; it harms women.
2 Samuel 12:24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the Lord loved him..... Does this sound like a rape?
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.... Obey the Word of God!
Anyway, God was working through this situation because Solomon was so highly blessed as an individual and as a ruler; this is well documented. He and his decendants could have ascended much more, even hastening the day of the coming of the Lord, had he not become captive to excessive sexual sin.
If you would like to ask a question or make a comment about the material presented in this video, please use the contact form at this link: bibletalk.tv/contact/video/K8CFJnDLI9s