What Do We Actually Know about the Three Wise Men?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2024
- This piece originally appeared at the Logos blog and is used by permission.
www.logos.com/grow/really-kno...
🎁 Help me bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
👏 Many, many thanks to the CZcams channel members and Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
▶ CZcams:
Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Thomas Balzamo, Orlando Vergel Jr, ojntk, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Kalah Gonzalez, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Tim Gresham, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Andy B, Meghan, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, M.L., Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Someone (5x), Caleb, Scott, Darlene, Kayla, Sarah, Adam, Cody, Phil, Alan, John, Anirudh, Ben, Papa D, Robert
Who is the man - YOU ARE THE MAN!!! Nuff Said - Merry Christmas to all and God Bless Us Everyone!
I think it's very plausible, even likely, that Daniel is the source that lead to the wise men showing up. But indeed we cannot know.
✔
Good observation. 👍
Satan was the source of the star. That is why it led the Magi first to Herod and not to Jesus. No one else saw the star.
Very well articulated. Solid lesson. Thank you sir.
Thank you!
Three ships come sailing in on Christmas Day in the morning"..... refers to the "three" camels that the "three" wise men were riding. Camels used to be called "ships of the desert"as they were the principle means of transpoting goods actoss desert regions of the Middle East and North Africa.
This is interesting... thanks for sharing it.
I speculate that there needed to be a large enough number of these men to create such commotion?
Thanks again for your insight brother Ward .
✔
Correct again! I have been preaching this truth for over 30 years!
✔
Excellent! Especially your courage in declaring, "the Bible doesn't say".
Also the info that many have noticed they came later.
:--}>
Merry Christmas Mark! Thank you for all that you do.
Merry Christmas!
Thank, bless you and a Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Same to you!
Very enlightening. Thanks for your study!
My pleasure!
A list of 8 things we know about the "wise men" or "magi" according to Mark Ward's video, but of course watch the video for Mark's helpful explanations (and Mt. 2:1-18 is the sole source for all these):
1:05 The magi were magicians.
2:18 There were at least two magi.
2:56 The magi came from the east.
3:41 The magi rejoiced to see Jesus and worshiped him. The magi were the first Gentiles to see Jesus.
4:27 The magi gave Jesus at least three gifts - gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
5:29 Jesus was at least an infant and maybe a newborn when the magi came.
7:15 The magi did not return to Herod.
8:13 The magi may have followed a (now missing) prophecy from Daniel.
Thank you for this! You are always free to do this on my videos! I just never seem to have time!
I like the idea of Daniel being their source far better than the one I most frequently encounter of it being Numbers 24:17 and Balaam as the one they followed all that time later
I always assumed it was because of the Babylonian captivity (Daniel theory) even before I even heard it was a theory. I've only heard the one about Balaam recently. I did a read through of The Bible in 2020, and thought Balaam's prophecy about the scepter was in connection to Christ. Then I found out some of my favorite pastors do lean toward the magi having access to a record of Balaam's prophecy. I think both are actually plausible and not mutually exclusive. Personally, I still lean more towards these Mesopotamian men having access to Jewish Scriptures such as Daniel's. Micha's and such because of the captivity than it being Balaam's, but who knows. Maybe is all of the above.
Merry Christmas, Mark!
Same to you!
Very, very good, brother. The world needs more fathers like you. - Smiles
Many thanks, brother!
Thank you Mark, this is a good video.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Here are a few of my thoughts:
(1) The Magi’s visitation was prompted solely by their own astrological superstitions and political hopes (see Babylonian Planetary Omens Series, Part.4, by Erica Reiner, published by Brill, 2005). They lack knowledge of Micah 5:2 and so they go to where they would think a king would dwell - the capital city of Jerusalem.
(2) The star is not leading them. Why would God send a speechless star to lead the Magi directly to a genocidal, paranoid maniac alerting him of a rival to his throne resulting in murdered children and requiring God to directly intervene prompting the Holy Family to flee Judea into Egypt? Contrast this with Luke 2:9-16, where an angel of the Lord appears along a multitude of heavenly host speaking directly to the shepherds telling them exactly where to go to find the newborn Jesus, rather than lead them to the manger causing a spectacle that risks alerting Herod’s spies/loyalists and/or Roman authorities stationed in or near Bethlehem. Also note, that St. Matthew does not use the typical citation formula of “so Scripture would be fulfilled” (as he does eight times in this gospel) to indicate that the star was fulfilling Scripture or divinely sanctioned.
(3) The text records that the Magi rejoiced at seeing the reappearance of the star, not at seeing Jesus. It is likely that the Magi only consider the newborn Jesus to be an earthly king by supernatural sanction. Their asking for the “King of the Jews” indicates neither the “star” nor their astrological understanding about its appearance has supplied them with the clear knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind, in contrast to the angel’s clear proclamation to the shepherds on the night of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:10-11).
(4) The Magi bowed in reverence of Jesus' kingship; they did not worship Him in the way devout Christians worship Jesus. The Greek word proskyneo means to bow at the waist, or kneel upon both knees, or prostrate the body facedown as a gesture of reverence for someone in front of you. Consider, in Mark 5:6, where a demon-possessed man also prosekyneo (KJV "worshipped") Jesus; are we to believe the demons were honoring Jesus as their chosen Lord and savior?
St. Matthew includes the report of visitation of the Magi to explain why Jesus had spent time in Egypt (so fulfilling Scripture) and to affirm the importance of knowing and trusting in Holy Scripture instead of relying on human means of knowing the future.
@@danielrivera5317So not star of royal beauty bright?
Hi Mark.
A little off topic, but do you have a commentary or study bible you would recommend to add to my logos library.
Thank you!
If that's all I know… I'd get a whole-Bible commentary like the Tyndale (OT and NT) set or the Revised Expositor's Bible Commentary. Some volumes are always better than others, but all are responsible.
Hey Mark, if you haven't yet, you should definitely read Ben Witherington's brand new book "Sola Scriptura". He is a NT expert, Seminary prof. and he spends a lot of time on translation, particularly the Masoretic vs. Septuagint. Happy Christmas, thanks for the good work!
I will check it out! I’ve interviewed him before. Fun guy.
Very good and much needed video around this time of year. I'm from Puerto Rico and the magi are a big deal in Puerto Rican tradition, especially around Christmas time. There's even a town festival. Any way. We call them " Los Tres Reyes Magos " (the three magi kings) and on January 6th kids will put grass and weeds clippings in a shoebox, that is then place at the foot of the bed or, more commonly now, under the Christmas tree, and a bowl of water for the camels. They are the ones who traditionally bring the Christmas presents to children, not Santa (which is a whole'nother subject you could/should? make a video on). Imagine my surprise when I was 8 and I found out in church that, well, not only was Jesus not born around this time of year, but the magi did not get to see Him right after He was born, and to top it off, they were not kings and we don't really know how many were they, at least two. It was like my whole world had been a lie up to that point. As I grew older, traditions really didn't meant much to me. My parents didn't know any better at the time, but I think it's so important to always come to your kids with the truth. That'll definitely avoid an early-on existential crisis and a potential distrust in The Bible. So, awesome of you for posting this!
Very interesting!
Hi Mark,
THis sound silly, but I was giving a sermon review on your video The Biggest Step the IFB Needs to Take . 2 parts of my rely seem to hav egone onto youtube but not the middle bit. THis is a copy of the bit that did nto go on that vidoe clip. Hopfully you will be able to read the comment with those and it it will make better sense.
PART 2 GENERAL NOTES
I liked the opening generally.
I was always told when speaking to start by stating what I was going to say, say what I said I would say and then round off by saying what I said. Now that is not everyone’s cup of tea, but there were times when I was not sure of what the aim of the sermon was and what I was meant to get out of it.
The first half 10-15 minutes I thought was a reasonable presentation. It was interesting and logically presented. I liked has he referred to various passages to help us understand the story.
From there the sermon could have gone in several directions.:
What was God’s reply to Job’s plea for a hearing?
How does Ch 31 speak to how we live our lives and how we deal with ill fortune? These are some examples of where I might take a sermon on Job 31.
From there the sermon went looking into Job’s desire to have an indictment (Book) from God. This was not an obvious way to go. I would not say it was a totally wrong decision but, I thought he did not explain or argue it well. One needs to show why you are saying something is true and he did not do this very well. This damaged its value as a teaching tool. There was also a noticeable drop off in Bible examples which was disappointing.
Generally, this sermon followed the lines of the ones I heard earlier until he started talking about Bill Hybels. The sermon was longer by 5-10 minutes from this point on compared to other similar sermons. About 40 minutes instead of 30 minutes. I think this harmed the presentation. The sermon lost focus, and the arguments became disjointed and flew away from the text in a carefree manner.
This time issue is important to me. There is no use spending 40 minutes talking about something that should be said in 20-30 minutes. People become bored and the arguments are lost in the extra fluff. It also turns people listening to sermons.
Overall this is not the best example of this stump speech. One can compare it to one done about 6 months later in another church soundcloud.com/user-250273483/071121-sunday-am-if-only-god-had-written-a-book-rb-ouellette?in=user-250273483%2Fsets%2Fspecial-speaker-dr-r-b
Sparlingville Baptist Church
07.11.21 Sunday AM - If Only God Had Written a Book - R.B. Ouellette
Traditions can and are dangerous when it over rides Scripture.
Right!
The gifts from the magi’s probably had a practical purpose also. Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with the baby. What would they live on? Selling the gold, frankincense, and myrrh would have supported them while in exile.
True!
I've found the account of Sextus Julius Africanus fascinating ever since I ran across it several years ago! You are correct, we are only required to believe and be positive about the account given by Matthew. Interesting how the Gospel to the Jews focuses on the fact that Gentiles were the first to worship Him! There's a lot to ponder in that story. Very nicely done video as always, Mark. God bless and Merry Christmas!
How do you know they were gentiles? They came to worship the King of the Jews.
Now that you mention it, they may have been Persian Jews. That is now a strong possibility, in my opinion! Thank you!
Mark, Merry Christmas !
Good video, as always. But I have a question for you about something unrelated. I noticed in Revelation 5:9-10 some translations have it rendered "us" while other translations have "them." Is it "us" or "them" ? Could you possibly point me in a direction for making sense if this passage ? Thank you.
That's a textual variant, and a common one. I'd check out Metzger's Textual Commentary or Omanson's. Or a technical commentary like Osborne or Beale?
@@markwardonwords Thank you for your prompt reply.
Much of the tradition surrounding the wise men comes from Isaiah 60 which I think is pretty clearly prophetic about the story of the wise men.
This prophecy was showing how God was going to turn things around for Israel. While they would be taken captive for many years the day would come where they would be returned to their land and the descendants of their oppressor's would come and bow before them. This was fulfilled when they did this with Christ. Isaiah 60 has reference to kings and ships and some of things that you referenced that were tradition. When studying the wise men I think Isaiah 60 is pretty important to include.
✔
*Isaiah 60...This prophecy was showing how God was going to turn things around for Israel* Yes, at that time. When Israel was being threatened by the Assyrians. It had nothing to do with Jesus.
Love your content, but the volume is just too low for comfort
Hmm. I've been working on that. Someone just donated a mixer that I think is going to help a lot!
Could a system with a theorem prover, LLM, and theological ontology be employed to trace the historical evolution of specific concepts and identify key points of divergence across traditions?
I don't believe the the word used in Luke for inn means hotel or motel not like its used in the good Samaritans story that Jesus tells, that word inn does mean a lodging place as in motel. I believe the word inn here means guest room or extra room, most likely a family members home of Joseph's since all of his family had to go to Bethlehem for the census. (Speculation?) Considering the text does say house in Matthew. And there was no room but only on the bottom floor where the manger was that was used for a crib. Those homes at that time would have a stable downstairs.
As a matter of fact we owned a home built in 1887 that was totaly re-done and downstairs was a room that was the original stable for the horses. Of course it was converted into a living space for children by the time we bought it.
Anyway, good video, I did do a deep dive on this or "in" this subject this year after watching the advent movies and thinking to myself "is there anywhere in scripture that says barn or cave or animal's were there?",, nope there was mot...
PS hope you like the in and on part,,,😮
✔
Gracias a tus videos Mark me anime a abrir un canal en CZcams para ayudar a otros hermanos a usar Logos 10 para Latinoamerica.
Saludos y bendiciones desde Mexico 🇲🇽
¡Gracias! Que Dios te bendiga en estes videos.
Matthew 2:22-23 seems to indicate that Joseph's original plan was to live in Judea (but since Archelaus was there, he ended up going to his original hometown of Nazareth). One potential reason I have heard for this was that perhaps Joseph, knowing that Mary was carrying the Messiah and knowing the passage about the Messiah coming from Bethlehem, was under the impression that the child also had to grow up in Bethlehem, and so he was planning on having them stay there. (John 7:41-42 might also be another indicator that it was a common belief that the Messiah would not only be born in Bethlehem but would also be *from* (grow up) there.) However, he then received the dream to not go there, so he knew that his assumption had been wrong and so he could go back to his hometown of Nazareth.
Whatever the reason, if it is indeed the case that he was planning on going back there, I don't think we can rule out Jesus being older than an infant when the Magi came (especially considering that Herod was killing boys up to the age of 2).
Logical deduction. When the Magi finally caught up with Jesus, he was a young child living in a house. Matthew 2:11.
Hello Mark, just wanted to request of you that you do a video on the word “damnation” or “damned” in the KJV I’ve found on 2 or 3 separate occasions where the KJV translates the Greek word for “judgment” or “condemnation” as “damned” or “damnation” and it seems to me that this is either a mistranslation or a false friend. I was wondering whether you would be able to give a little insight. God bless!
Yes, I discussed this one recently. Where was that…? Oh, in my critique of How the Bible Came to Be.
@@markwardonwordsIs that on your channel or somewhere else?
Yes! Recent!
Would it be fair, in light of the BDAG definition, to say that the Magi could be called mystics?
That would be one possible gloss, yes!
Let me pause the video 2:35. Brother Ward thank you so much. There is speculation that the wise men may have come from the school of Daniel. Let me emphasis, speculation because they understood the sign.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the authorship and year written for Daniel?
(6th or 2nd century)
It is funny how “incensed” people get over traditions (har har). I appreciate the emphasis on speculation vs the actual (KJV or otherwise) text, and that I don’t have to wait two years to complete my Nativity scene (ok, sorry). Way too much sophistry has crept into Biblical teaching, dramatizations (cough Chosen cough), music, traditions, et al ad nauseum ad infinitum added to Scripture. There are some fascinating and truly plausible speculations about the Magi (e.g., Persian Megistanes, etc.), but your reminder here is perfect and timely. Now do the (“female or mostly female”) shepherds. 🤓 Blessings!
Right!
The Zoroastrian priests are called "magi". Zoroastrianism was the religion of the Persian Empire. Zoroastrianism, just like the Jewish Old Testament, has the promise of a Messiah. Ancient church tradition has the Apostle Thomas, whilst on his way to India, baptized the three magi
All of this is, of course, from outside Scripture. And I know I won't satisfy everyone.
Also Daniel, not only was he in the Babylonian Royal Court, but also the Persian Royal Court. Further still, religions have picked up influences from other religions, and some syncratistic religions have emerged.
"Magi (/ˈmeɪdʒaɪ/; singular magus /ˈmeɪɡəs/; Latin magus, from Greek μᾰ́γος, Old Persian 𐎶𐎦𐎢𐏁 (maguš)) are priests in Zoroastrianism and the earlier religions of the western Iranians. The earliest known use of the word magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, predating the Hellenistic period, refer to a magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest.
"Pervasive throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia until late antiquity and beyond, mágos (μάγος) was influenced by (and eventually displaced) Greek goēs (γόης), the older word for a practitioner of magic, with a meaning expanded to include astronomy/astrology, alchemy, and other forms of esoteric knowledge. This association was in turn the product of the Hellenistic fascination for Pseudo-Zoroaster, who was perceived by the Greeks to be the Chaldean founder of the Magi and inventor of both astrology and magic, a meaning that still survives in the modern-day words "magic" and "magician"." --- Wikipedia
Might it be an assumption that the wise men were, indeed, “good guys”? Astrology was condemned in Jewish laws and by God. Deut. 18:10-12, Lev. 19:26, Ex 22:18, 1 Sam. 28:3-14, Isaiah 47:13 (This could also add weight to the Magi being Gentiles.) Plus the result of many infant deaths. Not good. "Moises Silva’s “Biblical Words and Their Meaning” has an excellent discussion on the words “worship” and the Greek “Proskuneo.” He (and others) are convinced the Magi were merely “paying homage” bowing down as anyone would to any king, rather than godly worship.
The idea that they offered the baby Jesus something less than "worship" is supported in some Nicene Christian translations of Matthew 2.11:
Rheims: adored him
JB/NJB: did him homage
NEB/REB: in homage to him
NAB/NABRE: did him homage
NRSV/NRSVue: paid him homage
CEB: honored him
NCB: paid him homage
Interestingly enough, it's mostly found in Catholic translations, though Mainline Protestant translations do it, too. The HCSB/CSB does offer the marginal note, "Or they paid him homage," but most modern evangelical translations don't bother.
@@MAMoreno Very true. "Worship" is most definitely a "False Friend." I'm inclined to think Mark is too astute to not know it. He just hasn't yet made a video on it. "Worship" from "Worthship" - Magistrates in England are still called "Your Worship." Some time back I posted a CZcams video about it; New World Translation Curiosities Worship.
@@19king14 It's not necessarily a false friend. It could simply be overgeneralizing the translation of a word. Attempting to use the same English gloss for a Greek term regardless of context can cause this issue. (For instance, not every "city" in the New Testament is really a "city," but some English versions choose strict concordance as a higher priority than complete clarity.)
@@MAMoreno Very true, but might there be an even moral difference between calling a town a city and offering godly worship to someone as opposed to merely offering (in the words of Moises Silva) “political homage” or “genuflected”? 50+ years of discussing this with people and the greater majority insist “worship” is limited to only something to do toward God and can’t be anything more. It seems many scholars see something vital in this, thus it is quite heavily written about. Not to mention the KJ onlyists that insist if "worship" is translated differently, it is a biblical or doctrinal corruption.
Here's a thought: although astrology (the wrong application of star gazing) is condemned in the Bible, astronomy (a more useful form of star gazing) might be said to be endorsed by Genesis 1:14-15.
I feel the gifts were from the estate of Daniel.
Could be!
I think they were Kings from various nations as the fulfillment of Isaiah 60:3, "Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn." I think it's logical to assume 3 main ones who had many soldiers and servants and others with them because it'd be weird if there was a 4th king who brought nothing. Lol. 😂
Isaiah 60.1-6 is paired with Matthew 2.1-12 in an upcoming Epiphany reading in January (assuming you're part of a tradition that uses the Catholic or Protestant lectionaries). Not only do you have the arrival of the kings in verse 3, but you have them bringing "gold and frankincense" in verse 6. It's likely that Matthew had these verses in mind when recounting his nativity story.
@@MAMoreno I use the Book of Common Prayer for my daily devotions, but my Christian tradition is Baptist which doesn't use lectionaries.
@@michaelkelleypoetry My tradition is Baptist as well. Some Baptists do use the lectionaries. Others choose to make things hard on themselves. 😛
Iam always fascinated by this story..
At first Why did the three Wiseman followed the start.? What did they knew about it or why they were after it!?? Also was it the first time they track these kind of bright starts in the sky??
(Is there any account that they were astronomers and they tried to locate some ship of ancient Aliens that appear bright in the sky... ) just my thoughts
If you watched the movie Avatar 2 there is a scene where they see bright stars in the sky abd that actually was a flying object...!!
Im not trying to bring out that Jesus was an alien but there is really something that's not written in the bible...
I am pretty confident the Bible doesn't say there was 3 wise men. Probably more like 100 or more Magi and others showed up for this.
I was saying the same thing myself. The Bible never said how many.
You're right!
I've heard they where from a Christian sect that studied the stars. Watch a movie called "The star of Bethlehem" very interesting stuff
What I would love to know is where the idea that Jesus was born on December 25 came from because it is certainly not in the Bible. Additionally, I could never understand why preachers and Christians talk about putting Christ back into Christmas when he wasn't there in the first place. None of the indications from the passages in Matthew and Luke suggests a December date for the birth of the Lord Jesus. I don't celebrate Christmas because I'm not convinced that Jesus was born on the 25th of December, for me it's just a few days to rest and spend time with my family that I don't otherwise have unless it's another holiday. Concerning the magi, the Bible never said how many there were, but we even hear of names for them. Plus, can you please tell me how did you come to the conclusion that there were three gifts. I don't know Greek, but my English Bible (ESV) says
And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.
Matthew 2:11
The fact that a comma comes after the word gifts, suggests to me that in addition to the these gifts, gold, frankincense and myrh was given. So to my mind and how I've been taught English, Jesus didn't just get three gifts, but that only three were named. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it currently. Nevertheless, I thank you for video and hope if you have the time you could do one about the who December 25 birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ.
There's a GREAT article on this coming out on the Logos blog soon! Keep your eye out! It's by McGowin.
@@markwardonwords I certainly will. Thanks a lot.
I heard (read?) somewhere, not sure exactly where, one idea that what we now know as Christmas was an attempt to replace a pagan observance with something more "christian."
For me, the important thing is to remember that Jesus was actually born and went on to fulfil his role as Messiah. I've seen too many pointless discussions of how "everything" about Christmas is wrong, doing a disservice to those who take the time to attend church and remember the first advent.
That was super. My wife and I watched together
Thank you!
Where in this narrative of the Magi do we see anything that indicated they thought they were going to see God and therefore worshiped the child Jesus?
Vs 2 "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?
Vs 4 Herod said" Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born"
The Magi were asking where is the "King of the Jews? Herod was asking "Where the Messiah was to be born"
No mention of God.
Strongs and Vines give the meaning of proskyneo as: To do homage, bow down, prostrate oneself, worship and obeisance.
That being the case, why do most modern Bible versions render "proskyneo" as "worship for both the Magi and Herod?
“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” NASB
"And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him.” RSV Herod
"After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him" NIV
It seems that worship at the time of the KJV (17th century) carried the same broader meaning as "proskyneo" in 1st century koine Greek. That is not case in the 21st century where "worship" is now more exclusive to God or gods.
Some Bible versions that use "worship" for Jesus elsewhere do not do so at Matt 2
NRSV, Darby, Youngs Literal, NAB and more.
All the modern versions that render proskuneo as worship at Matt 2 do not do so at Matt 18:26 where a servant gave proskyneo to his master, they have the servant prostrating, giving homage, or falling down. They are right to do this.
From this it is clear that these translations know that whoever is giving "proskyneo" to whom should determine how the word is rendered in English. To God, it is worship. To a man, it is homage. Same Greek word.
If the translator believes Jesus is God then it is worship.
Neither the Magi, nor Herod, gave any indication they thought the child Jesus was God
Were, as Mark said in this fine video, "The Magi were the first Gentiles to worship Jesus."?
It seems unlikely.
Bible never said there were three.
Right!
The east would have been the Parthian empire, that had conflict with Rome.
How did Christianity get to the position whereby it is assumed a believer has to accept the whole N.T. canon is scripture? I believe 1 Corinthians 15. Isn't that the main issue?
That's been the pretty standard view since at least Athanasius. I'm a little confused as to what point you're trying to defend. Are you rejecting the entirety of Matthew's Gospel as Scripture, or just parts of it? Are you assuming that "Scripture" has to meet certain criteria (infallibility, historicity, inerrancy, etc.) to be true Scripture?
@MAMoreno well, I can't 'discover' what is N.T. scripture, so I have to 'sit on the fence'. I can't reject it or accept it. That's why I'm asking for more archeology to be performed, more ancient history to be uncovered (if possible). I personally would not 'carve up' a composition because I think that's disrespectful toward the author (whoever that is). I'm happy to let the author have their say and accept, or reject, the whole of it as scripture. Of course, writings can always be authentically early Christian and not inspired (like Clements Epistle... I assume). It's probably safer to assume a composition is not inspired. My criteria for scripture is that is any composition that is, 'God-breathed.' Anything that has that quality will be scripture and anything that does not have that quality cannot be scripture. What that means from a practicle perspective is that it has to be somehow linked to God as the source. For example, Jesus endorses the O.T. as being scripture and so on that basis I have something reliable to base my decision to accept that as scripture.
@@QuietlyContemplating Thanks for informing me about F.F. Bruce, "The Canon of Scripture". I will find a copy of it these holidays.
The Bible never mentions THREE. It is an assumption using the three types of gifts.
Two or more Magi could have brought these gifts.
When these Magi finally came to see Jesus, he was no longer an infant in the manger but a young boy living in a house.
Hmm! Did you get a chance to watch the video?
@@markwardonwords : Theories that people come up with is misleading. I was sharing what the scriptures teach.
@@jimjuri6490have you watched the video?
@@richardvoogd705 : Sorry! Total nonsense. The Magi went to Herod. Herod inquired from the scribes as to where Jesus was to be born. Then sent the Magi on with an insidious request. All this would have taken weeks.
When the Magi finally found Jesus, he was a young child living in a house.
Matthew 2:10 On seeing the star, they rejoiced with great joy. 11 And when they went into THE HOUSE, they saw the YOUNG CHILD with Mary his mother,
Herod in anger, killed all the children under 2 years. Obviously Jesus would have been under that age from Herod's calculations.
Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, seeing that he had been outwitted by the astrologers, flew into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in Bethʹle·hem and in all its districts killed, from TWO YEARS of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers.
The revelation of Jesus, by Solomon:
Psa 72:10 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.
Psalm 72 is paired with Matthew 2.1-12 during Epiphany (if you follow a lectionary), so this connection is a long-standing one in the Christian tradition, for sure.
Re: number 4, how do we know they were gentiles?
I confess that I wrote this some time ago and don't remember what I was thinking! I don't usually have this problem!
@@markwardonwords I actually had much the same question.
How can you be a modern Christian and not worship Jesus?
Not sure what you're saying, my friend! I worship Jesus!
Possibly Jewish astrologers from Babylon.
Quite a few comments in the posts discussing “worship.” A most helpful CZcams video that presents many evangelical, orthodox sources about “worship"; New World Translation Curiosities Worship.
You’re getting the part where the wise men went to Bethlehem wrong. The Bible -doesn’t say that.-
They where not of the tribes of Israel, and so we should realize that just because someone isn’t a Christian (or in this case someone practicing Judaism) it is their deeds towards others that matters, not their particular culture, race, or religious background. They where probably Zoroastrians, Humata, Huxta, Huvarshta (Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds), the Threefold Path of Asha is core to the belief.
Magi were not necessarily Gentile. As savior of the Wise Men and chief of staff to the Babylonian King(s), Daniel was in a unique position to captivate their understanding of their own arts...especially astrology. "The heavens declare the Glory of God." As chief of staff, Daniel would be a necessary stop for anyone interacting with the King(s). Therefore, his influence would have been for several decades regarding the things he taught the wise men. " The Scripture says Daniel was ten times wiser than all the wise men. Proverbs says, "a wise man will attain unto wise counsels." The wise men would have had to seek Daniel for the prosperity of the government and of their own affairs.
The Scripture says that multiple kings bestowed great wealth upon Daniel. As a wealthy wise man and leader in the government, Daniel would have been able to increase his wealth through "insider trading", which was the whole point of being in charge during that age and place. And the Scriptures tell us Daniel had been given to the master of the eunuchs. Therefore, Daniel's wealth would have been left to... chance? Or is it more likely that Daniel was entrusted with the wealth of the wicked to be laid up for the Ministry of Jesus. (You don't fly to another state and then flip the King a quarter. The gift should be at least equal to the journey. The gifts were not presentation pieces or merely symbolic.)
There were many Hebrews that found their life in Babylon very prosperous and did not return to Israel after their (national) time of correction. The Magi, by this time, would have been made of Jew and Gentile looking diligently to where and when the Messiah would be born. Most likely a caravan of Magi, associated troops, and servants would have made the trip together to lay the wealth of Daniel at the feet of Jesus.
Peace to all.
First off; the BIBLE never says there were "Three"!
It just says: "Wise men".
I know, my friend! Did you watch the video?
Can you do something on the story of Noah preaching to the lost that judgment was coming and trying to convince them to get on the ark? I feel that it a) adds to scripture, b) denies the plain reading of Genesis and the direct words of God, c) subverts the doctrine of election by making it seem like the people could have chosen to get on the ark after God’s proclamation of judgement on them and the election of Noah and his family to be saved.
I know a lot of people don’t realize that the story they taught us in Sunday school doesn’t exist in the Bible and many who cling to it even when it’s pointed out. I didn’t know until I got saved and actually read the whole Bible.
If anyone reading this disagrees with me, please provide the chapter and verse that that makes you think so.
Hmm. Worth keeping in mind.
The argument is based on 2 Peter 2.5. Noah is referred to as a δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα, which was translated by Tyndale as "preacher of righteousness" (followed by the KJV, ASV, NEB, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, CSB, MEV, CEB, LSB, et al.). Starting with Moffatt, some translations have instead phrased it as "herald of righteousness" (such as the RSV, NAB, NRSV, ESV, NET, and NTFE).
Some translations have slightly rephrased these words:
TEV: Noah, who preached righteousness
REB: Noah, who proclaimed righteousness
CEV: Noah, who preached the truth
And some have attempted to bring out their full meaning:
Phillips: Noah (the solitary voice that cried out for righteousness)
LB: Noah, the one man who spoke up for God
NCV: Noah, who preached about being right with God
GW: Noah was his messenger who told people about the kind of life that has God’s approval
NIrV: Noah preached about the right way to live
NLT: Noah warned the world of God’s righteous judgment
MSB: Noah, the sole voice of righteousness
As for the meaning of these words from a Calvinistic standpoint, here's what Calvin himself said: "But it may be asked why he calls Noah the preacher of righteousness. Some understand that he was the preacher of the righteousness of God, inasmuch as Scripture commends God’s righteousness, because he defends his own and restores them, when dead, to life. But I rather think that he is called the preacher of righteousness, because he labored to restore a degenerated world to a sound mind, and this not only by his teaching and godly exhortations, but also by his anxious toil in building the ark for the term of a hundred and twenty years."
Consider also the comment in the Geneva Bible: "For he ceased not for the space of an hundred and twenty years to warn the wicked both by word and deed, what wrath of God hanged over their heads."
And here's what R.C. Sproul's Reformation Study Bible has to say: "This description of Noah is unique in Scripture, but is well-known in Jewish tradition. It refers either to exhortations that were not recorded in the Old Testament, or to Noah’s lifestyle, that condemned sin and recommended righteous living to his contemporaries (Gen. 6.9)."
So too John MacArthur's study Bible: "See Gen. 6.9; 7.1. His life spoke of righteousness as he called people to repent and avoid the flood judgment."
If Peter meant it in the way that everyone above seems to take it, then it would be in line with what Josephus said at the beginning of Chapter 3 in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1: "But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land."
Consider this also: Jonah proclaimed a message of judgment upon Nineveh, and this message contained absolutely no hint that the Assyrians could repent. However, they did repent, and they were spared the judgment that God had proclaimed against them through Jonah. If this incident is not a subversion of the doctrine of election, then how would Noah's preaching be so? Or how is it not a subversion of the doctrine of election any time that you proclaim the gospel to unregenerate sinners with no knowledge of who will come to belief?
@@MAMoreno The difference is between the two different covenants given by God to Noah and the Church. They are very different.
The uninspired writings of Josephus thousands of years after the events are of no regard when they conflict with inspired scripture.
God commanded Jonah to warn Nineveh of coming judgement knowing that they would repent, knowing that he would give them grace to do so. But God did not command Noah to do likewise; he had determined destruction and was not offering grace. That’s the difference, it’s very simple.
Consider God’s commandment to the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites. He didn’t send prophets ahead to them to warn them so they might repent and escape destruction. No, like the people before the flood, their iniquity had risen to the level that God was pleased to annihilate them. Consider Sodom and Gomorrah.
The proclamation of the Gospel to all is for the glory of Christ, and that some might hear it and be transformed by it but for others to be further condemned by their rejection of it. It’s to be done because the Lord has commanded it. It’s the means God has determined to call the elect to Christ. His sheep hear his voice and obey it; the goats disregard it and rebel against it.
@@MAMoreno yes, it is a very ingrained, extra-biblical tradition. I didn’t realize it goes back to Calvin and earlier, thanks for that.
Personally, I believe in the doctrines of grace because of my experience as a false convert from an exclusively Arminian, evangelical background growing up, deconstructing in midlife, adopting the New Age religion/mysticism, but then having God come after me, ultimately culminated in a Road to Damascus, supernatural, total transformation - a miracle that had nothing to do with anything I did or could have done.
After my conversion, reading the scripture and hearing preaching for the first time with the Holy Spirit as my guide, the conclusion I came to was that the doctrines of grace are the gospel truth. I hadn’t read Calvin, I had never heard of “reformed” anything before that.
I read the Bible without any reference to tradition. I heard the preaching of MacArthur and Washer with no idea who they were or what denomination they held. But they were the ones I found on CZcams during the pandemic whose preaching resonated as the truth with my soul and according to what is written. I found the explanations for my false and true conversions right there in scripture, plain as day.
This is all to say that traditions develop over time and some have wrongly been elevated as canon. We should be Bereans and reject traditions and the interpretations of men as canon when they contradict what the scriptures actually say. I think this is easier for me to do than some people because in some ways I started with a blank slate.
Sola Scriptura et Semper Reformanda
I think it’s annoying when I see nativity scenes with the 3 wise men wearing crowns and 1 is a Black guy and all the other characters are brunette and Mary’s always wearing white and blue and there is always a star and at least one angel and there are camels, donkeys, and sheep and sometimes cows and shepherds and sometimes snow and sometimes a drummer boy and there’s hay in a trough and it looks like a wooden shack with hay and there are gifts and Joseph might have a staff and Jesus is a baby-baby.
The Bible NEVER said there were 3. So, there. (raspberry)
Did you watch the video?
@@markwardonwords
My criticism is directed specifically at your title. If you can't get that right, then WHY should I watch it? Are you trying to "Click-bait" the people?
You’ll never know if you don’t watch!
The Bible should be in the mythology section of the library.
True myth!
Mythology is already in the Religion section of the library (the 200 range in the Dewey Decimal system). You will find both the library's copies of the Bible and the library's books on other religions' mythologies in generally the same area.
(These are the things you know if you actually use a library often, especially if you use it for academic research.)
@@markwardonwords Research the difference between truth and myth and how truth is found. For instance to see if you have the most valid creation story you compare and contrast creation stories. You don't just Research one creation story as well you don't just Research one dying rising god.
@@markwardonwords How did you decide the over 100 creation stories are mythology except the Christian one?
@@markwardonwords Did you compare and contrast dying rising God's predating Christianity? Are all of them myths but the Christian one? The proof is the same in all of them. Writing of the particular religion. Osiris is written in cuneiform. He was worshipped right before a Jesus. Worship of him wained as Christianity was on the rise. My guess is you only know of one dying rising god and one creation story.
How could you not mention Daniel 9:25?:
“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”
Daniel 9:25 KJV
The weeks are taken as 7 year periods
69 weeks * 360 (prophetic years are 360 days according to my sources) * 7 = 173,880 days
According to well respected sources, the decree from Artaxerxes to rebuild the wall and stuff was March 14, 445 BC
And the date of Jesus' triumphal entry was April 6, 32 AD
Using a tool online to calculate number of days from March 14, 445 BC to April 6, 32 AD, I just got 173,882 days (so maybe the calculator is off just slightly) but praise the LORD!!!
There were no three wise men. People don't read their Bibles. Just as not all animals went into the Ark paired in 2's. Time for people to start using whatever lives in the cranium.
Yes, there is no list of 10 Commandments, and there are 13 Tribes of Israel (Levi is also a Tribe)
Let's face it: Aplogiticist don't bother about the Bible except where it suits their political ideology.
@@russellmiles2861 Joseph's tribe was divided
@@chesedwalnut3062 this a common Apologist retort. However, Joshua 14:4 refers to Manasseh and Ephraim two seperate tribes. It is in Numbers that there are references to Manasseh being a half tribe. Manasseh and Ephraim are also received as adopted by Jacob. Genesis 48:5. Jospeh has other children who are never mentioned by name or assigned land. It seems that land is assigned due to relationship with Jacob not Joshua.
Finally "Because the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim; and they gave the Levites no part in the land, only towns for their living-places, with the grass-lands for their cattle and for their property." Joshua 14:4
Moreover, Manasseh is described as being split into two parts (not half of one) Now to the one half-tribe of Manasseh Moses had given inheritance in Bashan; but unto the other half gave Joshua among their brethren beyond the Jordan westward. Joshua 22: 7
At best we can observe the accounts in the Bible are unclear or inconsistent. However, there is considerable evidence that there were 13 Tribes and the story was redacted to make 12 in later texts including Revelations.
I assume you know all this - It just reinforces how apologists considered it ethical to lie in defense of Faith. While could you not say it may be there were 12 Tribes, but Bible text leaves this uncertain?
@@russellmiles2861 There's no agreed-upon numeration of the Ten Commandments among the faith traditions that affirm it, but there is a set of laws at the start of the Covenant Code in Exodus 20 that are agreed by all traditions to be the Ten Commandments (notwithstanding the alternative list found in Exodus 34).
And yes, Israel plays fast and loose with the concept of the twelve tribes: sometimes Levi is counted, and sometimes it is not; sometimes Joseph's two tribes are counted as one, and sometimes they are counted separately.
I don't see what this has to do with apologetics. It's all just a bunch of pedantic nitpicking over the accepted terminology within Judaism and Christianity.
@@MAMoreno the 10 Commandments were created in Hebrew texts in early 1st millennium. There is just no list of 10 Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. In Exodus there is 13 (count them Thou shalls) and Deuteronomy offers 19, with another 30 odds straight after.
Notwithstanding they are very similar to earlier Persian laws.
This is again an example of how Apologist lie ... All you have to say is the 10 Commandments are based on the Hebrew Bible and not the Conical. But you choose to misrepresent this Bible texts.
Who says there were three Magi? The Magi could be Jewish magicians. "wise men" is not in the bible. They came to worship the King of the Jews, not a god. Herod inquired of the Magi about when they saw the star, then he had all the boys two and under killed. This definitely indicates, that Jesus was not a baby, when the Magi came to worship the King of the Jews.
Didja watch the video, friend?