“Notice what you notice.” Another first verse item – …Jesus Christ, the Son of God… We’ve often heard that Mark moves fast and gets right at the heart of the matter. And now in his introduction he leaves no doubt as to where he is headed. This Jesus (of Nazareth) is our Christ (Messiah) and He IS the Son of God!! Mark shows us where he is headed. He opens proclaiming immediately that Jesus is the Son of God and he will close with the same proclamation in 15:39, this time from the centurion at the foot of the cross, Truly this man was the Son of God! What a bold statement, The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mark leaves no doubt!
A second item today was truly a learning moment for me. I had always assumed that the OT quotation in verses 2 and 3 was from Isaiah. Mark even attributes it to Isaiah. However the verse two portion is from Malachi (Mal. 3:1); only verse three is from Isaiah (Is. 40:3). Matthew 27:9 is the only other place in the Gospels where multiple OT prophets are quoted with attribution only to the “major” prophet. Thank you, Study Bible!
This getting up early and reading and posting is blessing me! Hopefully those of you reading these verses and posts are also being blessed!
“Notice what you notice.” Maybe I’m caught up on geography a bit. Again, “notice” came to me in today’s first verse: …the wilderness of Judea. I noticed it in part because we had Zacharias and Elizabeth living in the hill country of Judea and I had done some research to understand that region. So I wondered a bit about the wilderness of Judea. But also “wilderness” is a term that catches my eye whenever I see it because it brings back teaching from a Bible study from long ago, in the group where Carol and I first met.
The leader of that Bible study was teaching from the book of Exodus. After escaping from Pharaoh and traveling a bit further, On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai (Exodus 19:1). They spent almost a year in the Sinai region: On the twentieth day of the second month of the second year, the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle of the covenant law.12Then the Israelites set out from the Desert of Sinai and traveled from place to place until the cloud came to rest in the Desert of Paran (Numbers 10:11-12). This time frame occupies the last 22 chapters of Exodus, the entire book of Leviticus, and the first ten chapters of Numbers. That’s an extended time of preparation that the Lord was giving the Israelites before they entered the Promised Land. Think of it as a year-long retreat. So “wilderness” to me is not just a geographical region – it’s more a metaphor for a time of seeking God and learning from Him.
So we have John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea and baptizing in the Jordan River (verse 6). Geographically, Jerusalem is about twenty miles from the nearest point of the Jordan River. This narrow ribbon of land north of the Dead Sea from Jerusalem to the river is the region known as the wilderness of Judea.
So “wilderness” for me is both geographical and spiritual. It’s also a “time frame” for me, a time to get outside myself (in wherever location) and seek the Lord more completely. Often it’s been some “down time” in my life when things were not going so well. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that my “wilderness” should be a more regular habit – getting outside myself and seeking Him.
“Notice what you notice.” So, a number of items today! The first jumped out at me in the first verse, an item we’ve read over many, many times: Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. “…every year…” Immediately I imagined Mary and Joseph on their trip to Bethlehem. More than likely this was a trip they had made many times before (to Jerusalem), so the road was familiar. However, at nearly full-term, it would have been much less pleasant for Mary than in her younger years! So that was #1, pretty simple…
#2 was verse 46, After three days they found him in the temple… The Study Bible notes helped me here. The journey from Nazareth to Jerusalem was likely a 2-3 day journey. It probably would have taken only one day in Jerusalem to find Jesus, and the temple was a good place to start. So my Study Bible had Mary and Joseph going one day out, one day back, and one day looking. So why a full day out?
Last summer Carol and I were visiting Turkey when we learned
about caravanserai.
My Internet search yielded two definitions. The first was labeled historical: “an inn with a central courtyard for travelers in the desert regions of Asia or North Africa”. The second was simply “a group of people traveling together; a caravan”. As to the first, Carol and I visited a caravanserai in Turkey. Along this one particular road, caravanserai were located approximately every 30 miles (50 km), the distance a camel could travel in one day or a ten-hour trip for humans walking three mph. With robbers aplenty back in those days, these caravanserai were “safe havens” for travelers. We have a great photo of Carol relaxing in true traveler fashion. Hopefully she will add that to her own post.
So, one day out for Mary and Joseph makes sense. They were traveling in a group and possibly did not start looking for Jesus until they reached the caravan stopping point. They certainly would not have wanted to return to Jerusalem alone and not unless they were certain they could make it back before dark. At a reasonable “caravan” stopping point they would probably meet other travelers headed to Jerusalem. Traveling in a group was always safer. So they could reasonably continue traveling north that first day until the entire caravan stopped, then reverse directions the next day. I know, not a big revelation, but it’s nice to connect our own personal experiences with Bible history.
Finally, verse 51: And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart. Here we see one of Luke’s primary sources – Jesus’ mother! We don’t know much about Luke, only what he personally revealed in his introductions and what we read of him in Acts. We don’t know if he was an early disciple (but not an apostle) or if he came to faith later. But I can easily imagine that Mary lived many years after Jesus’ Ascension and that she had many face-to-face conversations with Luke. It just gives me more confidence when I read Luke’s Gospel. I surmise that he is reporting first-person, factual accounts of Jesus’ early and later life. Glory!!
“Notice what you notice.” Not much to say this morning, since nothing jumped out to me on my own, but there was an explanatory item in my Study Bible. In the NASB and NKVJ translations Matthew 2:23 has in quotation marks, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” The ESV has no source quote: And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. But all three translations have a plural on prophets. In addition, the Study Bible also says that there is no mention of Nazareth in the Old Testament.
It seems that if there were a direct quote there would be no plural on prophet – see Mt. 1:22-23; 2:5-6, 17-18. So where does Matthew get his quote. If we look ahead to John’s Gospel, we find this familiar quote, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46) I’m certainly not an Arabic or Greek scholar; I have no idea what punctuation these older writers used for quotations. I can only imagine that Nazareth had something of a seamy reputation in these OT and NT times and that Matthew was simply connecting Jesus to his low-status birth and early life.
Katey was looking ahead yesterday when she mentioned that Joseph had heard from the angel(s) on three occasions in his dreams. Today’s reading had that third occasion. Katey also mentioned that we have an OT Joseph who also was a dreamer. Intriguing!
“Notice what you notice.” Just two items… First, in Mt. 2:14, Joseph took Jesus and Mary “by night” and fled to Egypt. Clearly they were in danger and didn’t want anyone to know that they had left or where they were headed. Bethlehem was in the “hill country” of Judea, so it would have been rough going, especially at night. They probably would have headed south to Hebron, then west toward Egypt. Even today there is no direct road west out of Bethlehem, so they would have been 2-3 days in the hill country before they ever got to flatter ground. Again, rough travel for a young family.
Second, in Mt. 2:16, Herod made his plan of death “according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men”. That explains why, in yesterday’s reading Herod had called the Wise Men back to the palace. He had learned from them “what time the star had appeared” (Mt. 2:7). So somehow from the Wise Men’s information Herod made his calculation to do away with any infant boys two years and under. A number of questions arise: When did the Wise Men first see the star? How long was their journey? How long did the Holy Family stay in Bethlehem? And how long would they have stayed longer in Bethlehem if they had not been warned to leave? And how old was Jesus when they fled? The Holy Family’s trip to Jerusalem for the presentation in the Temple would have been after Mary’s 40 days of purification. So when did the angel appear to Joseph? We simply don’t know. But I expect it was with a mix of fear and confidence that Joseph led his family out of Bethlehem.
I’m looking forward to getting together later this morning!!
“Notice what you notice.” I think it’s what I had hoped for, that in reading only a few verses at each sitting we would see words and phrases and “concepts” that we had not noticed before – or had glossed over without really considering them further. Again today I report on three such items, in order of appearance, not importance.
First, in verse 3, “…and all Jerusalem with him…”. I can imagine Herod being troubled. He already had a long history of murdering family and friends who might be a threat to him. But to whom is this “all Jerusalem” referring? The Temple leaders – the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes…? Or the wealthy…? Or the average citizen…? Why would anyone but Herod be “troubled” at this news of a new King of the Jews? Weren’t they looking for a Messiah? I would think that “all Jerusalem” would be thrilled, not troubled.
Second, in verse 7, “…secretly.” Why would Herod summon the Wise Men “secretly”? It was previously noted that “all Jerusalem” was troubled “with him”. He had already publicly inquired of the Wise Men “…where the Christ was to be born”. Now he’s questioning them about the star and the time of its appearance. Is Herod into astrology? Surely not astronomy!! This item is truly intriguing to me.
Finally, verse 11, “the house”. I had suggested two days ago that Mary and her baby had probably not spent much time in that stable setting. So that item is confirmed in Matthew, that the Wise Men went “into the house”. So we have to re-think any artwork or manger sets that have the Wise Men worshiping at the stable. And I’m glad there was some gracious, generous family in Bethlehem willing to move the Newborn and His mother into their home!
“Notice what you notice.” What’s blessing me today is how much our agreement to “deep think” these passages is linking them all together. Two items came up again that I had mentioned in earlier posts. The first was the work of the Holy Spirit. I had reflected on the work of the Holy Spirit back on January 3 in relation to Mary, Elizabeth, and Zacharias. Now we see His work on Simeon in three consecutive verses (Luke 2:25-27), lest there should be any doubt of the work of the Holy Spirit throughout Jesus’ early life!!
The second item was Mary’s “firstborn” (v. 23). I talked about that at length on January 9, then mentioned it again on January 10. But on both of those occasions I was thinking about my Catholic background, Mary’s “ever” virginity, and whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters. But I had forgotten about setting aside the firstborn of all males for the Lord’s service (Exodus 13:12-13). These firstborn of all Israelites were later replaced by the tribe of Levi (Numbers 3:11-13). So any mention of Jesus’ being Mary’s firstborn does not automatically suggest a second born or third…, etc. However, that little word “until” still applies (Matthew 1:24-25) to disrupt Catholic teaching.
Finally, one other mention – Anna (Luke 2:36-38). That name always jumps out at me. My mother had died when I was four years old. She always went by her nickname, Nancy, but her given name was Anna. “Anna” is also the name on her tombstone, so that name is imbedded in my soul. I don’t see too many girls named Anna these days, but a few older “Anna” women that I have known have been gems!! I am blessed every time I read Luke’s mention of this three-verse Anna.
“Notice what you notice.” A couple of things today… First, my NKJV text had in verse 17 that the shepherds made it “widely known” what they had heard and seen. But that verse had a footnote that “widely” was omitted in (presumably) an earlier translation. To my mind the NKJV added “widely” because of the next verse, “And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds.” Both the ESV and the NASB say simply in verse 17 that “…they made known…”, while the NIV is more like the NKJV “…they spread the word…”. For any of those translations, verse 18 makes it clear that the stable birth was probably well known to the locals. I can imagine that Mary and her newborn baby spent very little time in that manger setting.
Second, in verse 8 the NKJV and the NIV have the shepherds “living out in the fields”. The NASB is a bit lighter, with the shepherds “staying” instead of “living” and the ESV has them simply “out in the fields”. Most sermons that I’ve heard on the topic have shepherds as society’s castoffs – among the lowest ranks of working people. But I guess I never imagined them LIVING out with the sheep. I probably assumed that they pastured them during the day, then brought them in at night. Further reflection has my earlier thoughts to be wholly unrealistic; they had to roam far and wide to find fresh grass for the sheep every day. But, “living” jumped out at me…
Finally, “firstborn” in verse 7… Why “first” if not a second born or third or more? Hearkening back to my thoughts from yesterday’s reading…
Feel free to share your own thoughts on these readings. It would be good to hear from more of you.
“Notice what you notice.” Verse 25, “…until…”, as in “Joseph … kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son.” I well remember from my Catholic childhood the phrase, “Blessed Mary ever virgin”. The obvious follow-up to that phrase is that Joseph never consummated his marriage to Mary, Jesus had no “true” brothers or sisters, and any mention of His brothers or sisters simply reflected His cousins. I presume that that Catholic teaching still holds; I went online to four Catholic websites (including one Vatican website) that hold to that doctrine.
But the word “until” is a challenge for them. One argument went something like this: If I say “The Lord bless you until we meet again”, does that mean the blessing stops when we do meet again? That is, the inclusion of “until” does not imply any certainty of any suggested or implied action. I am not a theologian or a rhetorician, so I don’t want to pursue this issue any further. But it’s what I noticed. All I know is that I am on the other side from my Catholic brothers, sisters, and friends!
Genealogies have always been a challenge to most Bible readers. That’s certainly the case for me, especially when I had prior knowledge that Matthew’s genealogy and Luke’s genealogy were quite different from each other. And after extolling Luke’s virtue a few days ago as a research historian, I found myself casting a wary eye on Matthew’s listing. But I read through his genealogy three times before moving over to Luke’s (Luke 3:23, ff.). And yes, they are very different.
But what I noticed in comparing the two was a major split after David. Matthew traces Jesus’ ancestry through David’s son, Solomon while Luke goes from David to Nathan. The listings are very different after that. The only common name that I saw was Zerubbabel (Mt. 1:12-13; Luke 3:27), the leader of the Jewish return from captivity. I have no idea what to make of it all. Maybe we’ll learn more when we come to Luke’s genealogy two weeks (14 days!) from now. (Sorry, that’s a play on Matthew’s fixation on FOURTEEN!)
One other item that I noticed in Matthew’s listing was my familiarity with all of the names up to Zerubbabel, but a complete blank on every name after that until we get to Joseph, Mary’s husband. That may be my oversight, but it may also be reality. Any Bible scholars out there?
