Joseph and Mary's relationship...

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
How intimately did Yeshua understand the heart of a kid who feels that it's his fault when his parents argue and then break up?

When Hebrews 2:17-18 and 4:15 talks about His participating in our weaknesses, temptations, and sufferings, can it mean that He found out what it's like to be the kid that everybody calls "the little bastard"?

Mark 6:3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

People referred to Yeshua as "the Son of Miriam", rather than "the Son of Joseph". In that culture, referring to someone by the mother's name, instead of the father's, implied illegitimacy.

Second thing is this.. A year before Yeshua's death, people were still saying
John 6:42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
Since it seems that Joseph was still alive and available at that time, yet no more is told of Joseph like he is completely out of the picture, it is almost fishy to me. Joseph didn't seem to have much to do with Yeshua, his son. In a small town obsessed with personal morality, family relations, and messianic hope, what kind of rumors circulated about Yeshua's birth? Did Yeshua know personally the confusion a kid feels when his parents are deeply ambivalent about his very existence--and can't talk about it, not even with each other?
Luke 2:51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. When "Miriam kept all these things and pondered them in her heart,"
Ladies you know that we have best friends in whom we can talk to .. even the most darkest secrets... so why does Mary have none in whom she can share her concerns with? What was the sword that pierced her heart? How about Yeshua's whole life... not just the final sword of death on the cross?

And in the end, it was not to his brother's keep did He place His mother's care in, but one of His favorite disciples...

Just ponderings...something to think about..
 
Last edited:

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
How intimately did Yeshua understand the heart of a kid who feels that it's his fault when his parents argue and then break up?

When Hebrews 2:17-18 and 4:15 talks about His participating in our weaknesses, temptations, and sufferings, can it mean that He found out what it's like to be the kid that everybody calls "the little bastard"?

People referred to Yeshua as "the Son of Miriam", rather than "the Son of Joseph". In that culture, referring to someone by the mother's name, instead of the father's, implied illegitimacy.


I agree that it's more than likely that Jesus was considered a bastard child.....and in John 8, it seems to come out when the Jews say they were not "illegitimate children" when Yeshua was calling them out. It seemed that their comment was more than a veiled way of making clear that Yeshua had no right to call them illegitimate children of Abraham since they all supported the rumor that He was born out of wedlock/wasn't truly born the correct way. As no one but Mary and Joseph (alongside Elizabeth, Zechariah and John) were aware of the prophecies of Christ---knowing He was born of a virgin---the rest of the people would reasonably disbelieve the claim that God was the Father of Christ. It's one of the reasons why it seems that Joseph choosing to marry Mary was a BIG deal since it seemed publically that she had either slept with another man....or that her/Joseph were messing around. Either way, shame would have been something that MARY/Joseph had to deal with.



With Joseph, I've always been under the impression that he was an excellent father. He did all that was possible in protecting Yeshua and Mary when he was told in Matthew 1-2 to obey the angel warning them of the slaughter of the HEBREW Babies---and he didn't divorce Mary due to being made aware by the Lord that the child was of the Lord. That he stayed/chose to protect his family is a testament to his being a family man. Additionally, it's always amazing when people try to make it out as if Christ did not have a significant job. For He was a carpenter, Mark 6:2-4 Mark 6 --and the son of one as well, Matthew 13:54-56 / Matthew 13

“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

The fact that the community noted Yeshua to be the son of Joseph the Carpenter---as also seen in John 6:42--- is something that seems very significant. For it seems the community deemed Joseph to be the father of Yeshua and called him such.


With Jospeg, in the latter life of Christ, people have often suspected that Joseph was long dead. Some of this would not be surprising, as marriages back in Jewish culture were not necessarily YOung Love ones....for many scholars have suspected that Joseph was in his 40's/50's while Mary was a teenager when they were engaged. Some scholars have supported the view that Joseph was probably a widower when he met Mary---in regards to the other brothers/sisters of Yeshua (as discussed here). Thus, by the time Yeshua was an older man, his father would have been either in advanced age or on his way out/dead. Of course, what if Joseph was around? While this is not the general consensus, it certainly cannot be ruled out. We might speculate for instance, why Jesus used so many "father/son" real-life parables when He spoke? Could it have been because He had a close relationship with Joseph? Also, if you read the infancy accounts closely, there seems to be a lot of emphasis on Joseph; we tend to think that because He isn't mentioned a lot of other places, he was dead or unimportant--that's not necessarily true.

It seems that Joseph was more than aware of how he needed to take care of Yeshua---and as Yeshua was involved in the same trade as His father (a carpenter), it seems that Joseph may've trained Yeshua in the family buisness. That would be reasonable, of course, as Jesus was the FIRST-Born son of Joseph/Mary...and there were certain realities that fell with that.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17


The Right of the Firstborn

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his
sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
For the first-born son often grew up with the expectation that he would work with his father and share the responsibility of providing for the family, and he was often designated as the person who would inherit the farm or business. In most cases, he was groomed to assume this role and given heavy responsibilities to help manage the family affairs. Depending on his age at the time of his father's death, he was usually the person who took over, settled the estate, cared for his mother and other siblings, and performed other functions. Widows were often considered incapable of providing for their children, and the custody of the children was often awarded to guardians—including older male siblings. An eldest son may have been named guardian or trustee of one or more of his younger siblings.

While many fathers provided for their sons, the second- and third-born sons often lived in the shadow of one or more older brothers. Unless the father was a man of some means, younger sons' right of inheritance was usually diminished either by his family or by law. If he inherited at all, it was usually a bequest of lesser value or of inferior quality than that of his older brother. If the sons were inadequate for handling affairs, that made the situation even more hairy to deal with. And it's the main reasons behind why Jesus blessed his mother with John before He died---for as the FIRST-Born, making certain others were cared for came upon HIS shoulders and not the rest of the family.
John 19:24
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
This is keeping with the biblical injunction to honor ones parent...for Jesus made provision for his mother--who was most certainly a widow and probably in her late 40's or early 50s, with little to no personal income. Of course, his mother's sister was Salome---who was the mother of the sons of Zebedee (well off, by the way), James and John. And with that in place, of course Jesus made certain that he family was taken care of. While on the cross, Jesus gave Mary to the care of John because Mary had NO OTHER SONS to take up the responsibility/authority of the "first-born" . For in the abscense of the Father, the "first-born" took up the responsibility as HEAD OF THE FAMILY. This is basic reality within Jewish culture.


All of this can be more discovered in what's known as the LAWS OF INHERITANCE of the First-Born. And for more info, one can go online and look up the following:



The issue of character, as it relates to how one handles their wealth/provision and their own lives, is another key issue to deal with concerning Jesus looking out for his mother. As another ministry said best:
Jesus Cares for His Mother


Jesus did not commend His mother to His brothers because at this time they were not yet believers (see Jn. 7:5; Mt. 12:47-50).[8] The idea that the Savior did not have any brothers through Mary or that all references in Scripture to His brothers means cousins or close relatives is the legacy of Romanist exegesis. It is disproved by Matthew 13:54-56 where the Jews in our Lord’s hometown (Nazareth) compared the miracle-working Jesus to His ordinary brothers and sisters in an attempt to question the validity of His ministry. It would have been absurd for the inhabitants of Nazareth to compare Christ to His cousins. Further, the Word of God in speaking prophetically of our Lord’s brothers states explicitly that these brothers were Mary’s children not cousins. “I have become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s children” (Ps. 69:8). These brothers were not equipped spiritually at the time of the crucifixion to be Mary’s companions or guardians. Fortunately, however, God had mercy on these brothers, for after the resurrection of Jesus, only days after the ascension we find them worshipping with the apostles and Mary (Ac. 1:14).

Interestingly, one can even discern a pattern in the Old Testament of believing parents being cared for by godly children, even when there were unbelieving or unfaithful children who were already (according to the flesh) first in line. “Abraham lived with Isaac and Jacob, not with Ishmael, or with his sons by Keturah. Issac lived with Jacob, not Esau, and Jacob lived under the care and supervision of Joseph and therefore gave to Joseph a double portion by adopting Joseph’s two sons as heirs on equal terms with all this other sons (Gen. 48:5, 6).”[9] For Bible-believing Christians, personal godliness and faithfulness to Jehovah are far more important than physical birth.


The New Testament epistles also teach that believing children and grandchildren should honor their progenitors. Paul writes: “If any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God” (1 Tim. 5:4).The fifth commandment is not just speaking about attitudes or words spoken to parents but also applies to concrete acts of piety. A believer’s first religious duty toward his parents when they are old and feeble is to lovingly care for their physical and spiritual needs.

Some things to consider, however. Did Jesus as the eldest male of the family (if Joseph were dead), (have to) take care of the family? To this I would say, "Not necessarily." In fact, while this may have been a cultural norm, I would argue that the Synoptic Gospel writers go to great lengths to show that He separated Himself from the customary "household" expectations (see: Mt. 4.13-6; Lk. 4.16-30, 31-32 and Mk. 2.1). Thus, we should probably be careful when applying ancient Jewish “norms” to every ancient Jew or Jewish family, especially as the Gospels portray Jesus as one who shattered many of those expectations. Moreover, you only need to take another look at the story of the Prodigal Son to see that not everyone stuck to the norm!
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
Having no place to lay His head, indicates that Yeshua was not given any inheritance from Joseph. The fact that His mother was without, and needed Yeshua to find another male to look after her, kinda indicates that the "family" of Joseph's side were a little remiss in taking care of Joseph's business since he passed.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Since it seems that Joseph was still alive and available at that time, yet no more is told of Joseph like he is completely out of the picture, it is almost fishy to me. Joseph didn't seem to have much to do with Yeshua, his son. In a small town obsessed with personal morality, family relations, and messianic hope, what kind of rumors circulated about Yeshua's birth?

As said earlier, most scholars have noted that Joseph was most likely dead by the latter half of Yeshua's life when examining how marriages often involved ladies who were very young with men who were older. And even in the abscence of Joseph from the text, I'd argue that it doesn't mean his prescence was not truly felt by Yeshua. His parents---as seen in Luke 2---may not have been fully aware of what the Lord was to be.....and in some ways, had to take it one day at a time.

I think Joseph was more than present/busy seeking to ensure his family was taken care of just as it is with all men..

When studying Jewish culture, others forget that the role of the son was to take on the family trade of the Father...and as His father (Joseph) was a Carpenter for many. Carpenters made a good bit of finances...& Christ would've taken that over when Joseph died since he was the oldest/in charge of taking care of his mother---with the Lord leading the family buisness/means of income for SOME time...and there were at least 18yrs for Christ to have made plans/stored up resources for traveling ministry, which he often noted....and of course, though Joseph may have started at one level, perhaps he built up in time.

There's actually a most interesting video on the issue, entitled The Visit of the MAGI - Prophesy in the News......as it discusses how Joseph and Jesus were probably very well off and would have been the equivalent of modern day contractors....and it also tells about the Magi who visited Jesus when he was approximately 15 months old in Bethlehem...and brings up the point of how the gifts brought to Jesus wouldn't have been little "token gifts.", as they were gifts from tremendously wealthy men to a future king. As John Macarther said on the issue:
a. The Identification of the Gifts

1) Gold
Gold was a super valuable commodity, as it is today. It was used for only the best purposes, such as in the construction of the Temple and all of its contents (1 Kgs. 5-7; 2 Chr. 2-5). It was worn as jewelry, and even used to make utensils for the rich.


2) Frankincense
Literally, the Greek says "pure incense." This incense came from a white juice that was extracted from the bark of a certain tree growing in Arabia, its Old Testament equivalent also being derived from the meaning of white. Frankincense was used as a fragrant scent in the meal offerings for the scent that was symbolically rising to God (Lev. 2:1), and as a perfume in wedding processions (S. of S. 3:6).


3) Myrrh
Myrrh came from a little tree that was also located in Arabia, and which gave forth a beautiful perfume. It was used in Proverbs 7:17 to perfume a bed and in Psalm 45:8 to put on clothes. As a prototype of deodorant, myrrh was used by Esther when she was getting all dolled up to come in to the king (Est. 2:12), and also was used in the same bridal procession of Solomon where frankincense was used. Mixed with wine in Mark 15:23, it served as an anesthetic, and in John 19:39-40, it was used in the preparation of Jesus' body for burial.


So, there was precious gold, frankincense, a beautiful- smelling incense, and myrrh, a lovely ointment and perfume. But the significance went way beyond the natural use of each gift:
b. The Interpretation of the Gifts
I personally believe that Joseph and Mary, who were especially poor now that Joseph was temporarily not working in his trade, were able to use these gifts when they were sent by God into the foreign culture of Egypt. Because it would have been difficult for Joseph to establish himself there, I am very confident that the gold, frankincense, and myrrh were the resources they used to support themselves until they finally made their way back to Nazareth.




But going even further on the issue, there's also the issue of understanding what it means to be a "carpenter"---as indeed, there's even debate concerning the concept of CHrist being a "carpenter" and what that looks like. With "carpenter", people often forget the Greek word -- tektôn. Of course, though traditionally translated "carpenter" and certainly used to refer to carpenters, carpenter is not as precise as necessary. It actually means "craftsman"..and this word is found in English "architect", which comes from the Greek for "master craftsman" -- 1 Corinthians 3:9-11 1 Corinthians 3 ). For more info, one can go online and look up the article known as "Was jesus a carpinter?" ( //answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006042006609 ).

As said best there:
To indicate what SORT of craftsman--what materials he worked in-- one might add the term "wood" or "stone".

In fact, we see that in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. In 2 Samuel 5:11 (describing David's hiring of craftsmen from Phoenicia) the Hebrew mentions "carpenters and masons". The Greek translation of this verse TWICE uses the word tekton, in phrases which might be translated 'craftsmen in wood and craftsmen in stone'.

There are, in fact, some early writers in the church who suggested Jesus was, in fact, a stone masonmason, or as both, are made from the likelihood that there was more work for a stone mason than for a carpenter in that time and place, esp. since stone was plentiful and most standing structures were chiefly made of it.

This would also add something to some major pronouncements Jesus made -- "on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18; cf. Matthew 7:24-25); "the stone that the builders rejected...made the chief cornestone" (Mark 12:10, quoting Psalm 118:22, compare 1 Peter 2:4-7), and other language about his "building this temple".

(See also John 2:19-21, where the "temple" he refers to is his own body, And note the accusations made against him that he claimed he would tear down and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem [Mark 14:58; 15:29], a stone edifice [see Mark 13:1-2]. All of this gains in force if Jesus or perhaps that he worked in BOTH (which would explain why the gospel writers don't add "wood" or "stone"). Arguments for him working as a stone was a skilled stonemason.)
Again, it was the case that CHrist was called a tekton---which is a Greek word meaning not merely a carpenter skilled in making cabinets/ furniture ...but rather one who was a designer, construction engineer, or architect. If one was a tekton, they could build a house, construct a bridge, or design a temple.....and that was something that often was involved/needed in the buisness world.

To me, that's interesting--as in the Greek, carpenter can mean a woodworker..and yet, it can also mean STONE worker or Mason---which would be hilarious since in the New Testament Jesus is refered to as the CHIEF Cornerstone. In Bible times, carpenters were employed in building houses, constructing furniture, and making farm implements---and of course, for Biblical Reference, one can go to Exodus 31:2-4 , Exodus 35:30-32 / /Exodus 36:7-9 / 1 Kings 7:13-15 //2 Chronicles 2:6-8 / 2 Chronicles 2 / 2 Kings 22:5-7 / /2 Kings 12:11-13 / 1 Chronicles 22:14-16 1 Chronicles 29:4-6 / Ezra 3:6-8 . And though laborers, they were able to provide for themselves/have good sustainable income. From what I was able to study on the historical/cultural context of Jesus's times, the economy of first century Israel was supported by three key segments: agriculture of olives, figs, grains, dates, and vineyards; trade fostered by Israel’s key location on the Mediterranean Sea; and large government building projects sponsored by King Herod.

  • King Herod employed many laborers by commissioning many public works (e.g. building temple in Jerusalem, palaces, ports, fortresses, stadiums, ornate stone carvings, etc.)
  • There was a very large disparity between rich and poor.
  • The upper class was made up of the temple priests and priestly aristocracy (including the Sadducees – a Jewish sect)
  • The middle class was comprised of traders and merchants, artisans (stonecutters, masons, sculptors) and craftsman (metal, wood, cloth dye). The Pharisees (another Jewish sect), sages, scribes, and teachers were also a part of the middle class.
  • The lower class was made of laborers (weavers, stone carriers, slaves (non-Jewish person taken into slavery because of debt), and the unemployable (lepers, blind, insane, crippled, etc.)
Seeing what the definition of "craftsmen"/"carpenter" in Greek terms allows, it could have easily been the case that Joseph was more than a man in the woodworking arena. It could be that that Joseph beyond a mere carpenter and perhaps a craftsman of the highest degree....especially seeing how when reading the text, he was well known in a town of thousands as being not just a carpenter but the carpenter---as in the best of the best around. Additionally, as it relates to historical evidence, it has been suggessted that Joseph built or repaired boats by the Sea of Galilee, or plows and yokes for farmers since many feel that Nazareth was probably too small to support any sort of fulltime tekton, consequently leading to Jesus and/or Joseph having to possibly travel to Sepphoris to find work or sell their crafts. Also, there are many who have worked at the carpenter trade for a good while....and have seen many different income levels among carpenters. Some goes on to own their own company and are very successful, and others are content to just work for others at an hourly wage. To even suggest that carpenters in Jesus' day were wealthy is a stretch, though to say that many could not have made themselves well-off may be just as much of an issue.

But with that in mind, it'd make more than enough sense as to why Christ was often invited to the parties of Prominent Pharisees (Luke 14:1-3 /Luke 14 /Luke 7:35-37 / Luke 7 )-----not just because of his ministry...but also because of the quality of work He was known for when it came to making works of art for others. Perhaps He even built a good number of things for the Pharisees themselves and he was akin to having the role of one who was a Design Artist invited to share his insight on things. One must bear in mind the reality of how Christ was often considered to be without credentials when He spoke on spiritual issues, John 7:14-16 / John 7 -----as the Pharisess were always astonished at him. It'd be like one who's a Social Worker or a Construction Worker coming into a Pastors Conference and teaching as if he came straight out of Seminary...and others feeling that one needed Seminary to be qualifed to know scripture were amazed. __________________ __________________
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
I can see Yeshua being an awesome Carpenter.. Wouldn't be surprised if His work is still holding up too.. but He never left His mark on it to identify it as His own work.

Matthew 8:20
Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

By this Yeshua was bringing the reality that Yeshua was doing without. Even taking coins from a fish's mouth to pay tax. To me this is saying while Joseph employed all his children in his trade, it doesn't mean that all his children benefited financially. The eldest get the choice pieces of inheritance, and Yeshua being from the second batch of children.. was probably treated more like the step child.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Did Yeshua know personally the confusion a kid feels when his parents are deeply ambivalent about his very existence--and can't talk about it, not even with each other?Ladies you know that we have best friends in whom we can talk to .. even the most darkest secrets... so why does Mary have none in whom she can share her concerns with? What was the sword that pierced her heart? How about Yeshua's whole life... not just the final sword of death on the cross?
.




Luke 2:48-50 / Luke 2
Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 4

48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”[a] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.



His parents, as a whole, may've heard many of the things the Lord had told them....but as parents/humans, that doesn't mean that everything that occurred in the life of Yeshua made sense to them. With Mary, as she was the one told first--and knowing how women are when it comes to deep processing--she chose to treasure things/ponder them. But with that said, I'm not certain it could be said that both Joseph/Mary as a COUPLE weren't perplexed together. The same thing with parents not understanding and being amazed occurred earlier when Yeshua was a baby rather than 12yrs old...as seen here in Luke 2:32-34 / Luke 2

Even Mary didn't understand the Lord fully seeing how scripture notes in Mark 3 that his family came to take him home when he started his ministry/chose his disciples....saying "He is out of His mind." To paint Mary as she would have been anymore aware than Joseph may not be accurate. What the scripture seem to note plainly is that Joseph sought to prepare the Messiah to take up the family trade---and being a parent/man who has to take up responsibility of the family, taking time to ponder may not be an option he had....while Mary, staying at home, had time to ponder/treasure more so than he did.


It's no different than today when men are often busy just trying to ensure the family actually SURVIVES and the women may wonder "Why don't they talk about how they feel on our kids??!"--and even then, if/when men may ask, many women have such deep thoughts that they don't even TELL their own husbands what they're pondering/treasuring. A woman's heart is very complex...but on the same token, men may not be as talkative, but that doesn't mean they don't love/feel things deeply...and as Yeshua was historically noted to have taken on his Father's trade, it would be reasonable as to see tha Joseph was indeed busy.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Matthew 8:20
Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

By this Yeshua was bringing the reality that Yeshua was doing without. Even taking coins from a fish's mouth to pay tax.

Historically, V, that scripture does not have ANYTHING to do with homelessness...and it's reading into the text to assume so when considering the reality of homes within the scripture/Yeshua having places to live.


The Messiah was traveling, a person ran up to him and said, I will follow you! The Messiah responds, Foxes have holes, birds have nest, I don't know where I'm going to lay my head next.

Some of this seems to be quite simple. For one may have a residence in their hometown..or, for that matter, places they can chill when in their area. However, when on the Mission Field, there's a reason why they ask for support through things such as sponsors or believing God for providence when they're there. They may be Asia and continually traveling so much that they don't have time to work as extensively in ONE area/generate income as they may've done when they lived in one location. It'd be like having a man who owns a barbershop and desiring to go abroad to Cambodia....but knowing that there's not going to be consistent income week after week abroad as it'd be on his home turf. One would not say to that barber that they were just "poor" their entire lives. Rather, they'd understand that for a time/season they would need more extensive aid in a MOBILE ministry where you never know what may happen next.

THey may have had funding they stocked up when working consistently to take care of their families....and that money may've been placed away. But when they leave, they leave. I have seen this many times with missionaries...and its something I'm having to address as well concerning one of the programs I'm signing up for which (if I say yes to it) would require me to be in Asia for 2yrs while teaching and furthering education as I also seek to present the Gospel to others. Though they would pay for my apartment/food, the expenses it takes to live abroad are much ($14, 900), with me having to raise my own support through either paying directly out of pocket from the savings/resources I've been able to have while working here in the States....or choosing to write letters/have others sponsor me while I'm abroad. For one to look at me requesting support and saying "You MUST be poor!!!!" would be foolish since I live in the upper middle class. My asking for support when abroad simply means the dynamics of traveling away from your normal means of income makes a significant world of difference in how I normally generate income.

Likewise, that's what could have happened with Jesus when taking care of his mother/family in light of the loss of Joseph as the breadwinner---for He already died long before Jesus began ministry....and Jesus would have inherited the family buisness. Though He had the ability to multiply resources he'd need such as food or drink (as he did before), it was not something he could do like magic. He only did what He saw his father doing/allowing......and walking with the Lord in trust for provision. If he decided to leave to do missionary work, it would have caused a stir---especially when people, including brothers and sisters, didn't believe Him ( John 7:4-6 ) and thought He was crazy. They may've had HIGH expectations of Him to carry on the family legacy---but to simply get up/become a MINISTER when for 18yrs he seemed to be normal rather than radical.....


Its no coincidence that his family thought he was out of his mind after beginning to do ministry and go against the cultural expectations they may've had on him. ..and seeing the people he chose for his disciples.

Mark 3:13-18Jesus Appoints the Twelve
13 Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons. 16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Jesus Accused by His Family and by Teachers of the Law
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
One could also say that they felt He was out of His mind in the sense of what He wanted to do with His life. For many already believed in the power he had....but to believe it wasn't for anything but helping others in bondage rather than fame/glory....that was hard for alot of folks. And when they saw Jesus beginning to gather his crew together/launch out, as what happens with ALOT of families that fear for those they feel are not mature enough to handle themselves in the real world/on a huge platform, it could've been the same with Jesus.
Perhaps His family thought the man was crazy for trying to start a full-time ministry so early after casting out demons/healing others on such a noticeable level----and also on one where the orthodoxy of the day was very much being shaken by his challenges. Kind of like the entire mentality that others have when a government is in charge that's off----where people know of others with radical thoughts/abilities and would rather have them remain "low-key"/"underground" rather than shake the boat and turn things upside down---that's possibly what could've been occuring with Jesus's family due to his challenging the Pharisees/religious leaders of the day and getting in their face......for to the leaders, they may've been thinking "Who does this hot young prophet think he is???!!!"


And at the threat given toward Jesus, the family thought "No, He didn't.....!!" and felt they had to go rescue Him from stiring too many waves/possibly getting killed. There's also the fact that Christ may have been going too fast when beginning to show signs of the miraculous. The text of John 7, shows how people were very much aware of the miraculous works He was doing, which none could deny....and even more interesting that it seemed that people were bothered by the fact that apparently he did not have any kind of formal schooling and yet spoke as if He did, alongside the issue of the track record he had----as he had already turned water to wine, healed an offical's son in John 4:43-54, and healed a crippled man on the Sabbath, and feed THOUSANDS with bread/fish in John 6 (and later, many of those same people rejecting Him when he said He was the bread of life/had to have his body eaten--with some saying it was a hard teaching, John 4:9 )
So when his family came for Him, they may have been again trying to protect Jesus. But Christ went forward anyhow.

When on the Mission field in ministry, he may not have had the same kind of living styles that He was accoustomed to....and in that sense, one could say that He left all behind (i.e homes, houses, job, etc). However, Jesus always supplied abundantly. There were many baskets of leftovers that were taken up after Jesus blessed and multiplied the fish and bread..showing that even when on the mission field/supported by others----as Luke 8:1-5 notes---he still was in connection with the Father and had the means to supply where there was lack since later in Luke 9:10-27 it shows where he's able to feed thousands. The apostles didn't go back to Jesus and say, "Whew! Man, we barely made it! That last scrap of bread just barely fed the very last person." They had more than enough.
prior to his brothers saying he should go to the World


Showing he could provide for himself didn't equate to his family automatically trusting him, of course. For after the beginning of his ministry, even His own brothers encouraged Him to make a name for Himself rather than stay local. So to a degree, one could say they came to believe in Him....but perhaps no more than it was for the people who many times "believed" in Him when seeing his miracles/following Him and yet turning later on ( John 2:22-24, John 8:30-32, Matthew 12:38-40, /Mark 8:10-12 , Mark 8:11-13, Luke 11:15-17 ,Luke 11:28-30, etc) due to superficial faith and a "belief" that wasn't based on seeing Him for who He was fully---but believing only in His abilities/not His Mission or His Work.

With the family of Christ, its also possible that Mary never told them outright what God had told her of Christ....as the scripture say that many things she was told she kept to herself/pondered them ( Luke 2:10-20 , Luke 2:39-52 , etc ). Some things even she did not fully understand when it came to Jesus....and the brothers and sisters of Christ may have been kept ignorant of it...and if they grew up not seeing his power, its understandable as to why they may have had doubts about who he was. There's no record that they knew Jesus was God.....even though he showed in ministry he could be taken care of and provide for others in wonderful ways. But its still interesting when considering how their complaints about Christ may not have been valid if assuming they lived well....and scripture seems to show this. Considerhow Joseph himself was described. For the Lord was part of a very extensive family and His earthly father lived long enough to teach Yeshua a trade:
Mark 6:1-5
3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.


Jesus had four brothers and an uncounted number of sisters. Luke 2 doesn't mention these siblings when Jesus was missing at 12yrs of age....though some of them had been born already. Some of them could've easily be YOUNG teens whom Jesus had to look out for as the eldest. With the women in his family, this would have especially been the case and has happened with some where one can have a big family with the oldest in their early 20's and the youngest being 8yrs of age. One may think it odd since having young children when Christ was older/Joseph was gone would have meant that Joseph was very old when raising his family.......and he could have passed early on. Many familes have had that dynamic, so its not impossible for the same to be the case in the family of Christ.
For more information, it seems that in Jewish society, men were often much older than the virgins they married. Often they'd go off to make a suitable home then they come back to get their bride. Dowries had to be paid as well to recieve a bride. Thus, Joseph could have been in his late twenties or early thirties before marrying the 15 to 16 year old Mary. By the time Jesus was in His thirties, Joseph could have been in his fifties or sixties.

By the time Christ was an adult, Joseph was no longer on the scene. However, there was no mentioned of this family being destitute since they were known to these people by name and were not anonymous beggars. Jesus had to have supported His family as a carpenter for some time at least -even though when he moved on, it didn't seem as if His family didn't seem to be hurting for money when Christ was busy with His ministry. As he also had younger brothers, they could have also been trained in the family buisness/trade as well and able to handle things while Jesus went/did his own thing. If Joseph died not too long before Jesus went into to ministry, then it'd not be counter to the concept of Jesus having a job that could bring home finance. For Joseph's status in the society is similar to that of some bosses and their families where the man has his sons as part of the business, all share-holders in the corporation. If the father died, All the hardworking sons could hold things down..with the oldest calling the shots/determining as did his father how things would be run....delegating. Jesus would have been responsible to ensure his family was taken care of---and it seems that its more than reasonable to assume that Christ's brothers held d a respectable and comfortable status within the society.



When He began His ministry, Christ attended a wedding party with His mother, brothers and disciples. One has to wonder who was getting married that they should be there. ...and what's interesting is that Mary apparently had enough authority to tell the servants what to do so she was surely an honored guest. That's hardly the profile of a humble pauper. At old age, she seemed to be quite spirited in the way she handled things.......as seen in how she spoke to Christ and how he protested but still honored her request.
[
B]John 2:1-10[/B]
1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”


4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”


5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”

6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He said to them, “Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast.” And they took it. 9 When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. 10 And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!”
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I can see Yeshua being an awesome Carpenter.. Wouldn't be surprised if His work is still holding up too.. but He never left His mark on it to identify it as His own work.

Matthew 8:20
Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

By this Yeshua was bringing the reality that Yeshua was doing without. Even taking coins from a fish's mouth to pay tax. To me this is saying while Joseph employed all his children in his trade, it doesn't mean that all his children benefited financially. The eldest get the choice pieces of inheritance, and Yeshua being from the second batch of children.. was probably treated more like the step child.

If Yeshua was considered as not being the First-Born, that would create a host of issues in regards to His rights/assertion on giving the mother away as He did since that'd be against the Law of Torah. The view that Joseph had children prior to Yeshua, although a possibility, isn't generally accepted as being logical since the text says that all of Yeshua's brother/sisters were born AFTER Yeshua was...and all of them were younger. Of course, that does not change the reality that Yeshua Himself was a Step-Child...one who was very radical at that :) But being a step-child of someone doesn't mean that they're treated wrongly....and with Yeshua, he would still have to accept the rights of the First-Born. That was the only way he'd legally have the right to give Mary away upon His death.

And on the issue of his saying "Foxes have holes...", the house issue becomes interesting when considering some factors.


Jesus, on the Mission Field, would have logically discussed not having a home---but again, that's not the whole of what Christ said...and ...especially as it concerns Christ/his having to look out for his family in the loss of his father. And for yet another perspective on the issue (for the sake of the casual lurker)..as said best should one go online/look up the ariticle entitled "Did Jesus have a house in Capernaum? - NT " ( //ntweblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/did-jesus-have-house-in-capernaum.html ) :
Mark 2.15: καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ
And it happened that he was reclining in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who were following him . . .

This may be an example of the criterion I was recently discussing, accidental information, or material given away in passing, where a piece of data (here: Jesus had a house in Capernaum) is assumed and not narrated. However, there is another way to take the verse. Is Mark intending the reader to take the αὐτοῦ (his) with reference to Levi, who has just been called to follow Jesus? This is the way that most commentators across the centuries have taken it, but I suspect that this is under the influence of Luke, who makes this a great party in Levi's house (Luke 5.29). Incidentally, I can't help wondering how Levi had the resources to finance this big party if he had just left everything (Luke 5.28); perhaps it was long last big bash with his old mates before setting off on the road with Jesus; or perhaps by "everything", Luke means his career and his means of earning a living (cf. the same pattern in the Zacchaeus story in Luke 19.1-10, where the tax-collector is called, and Jesus invites himself to tea).

But Mark's text encourages the reader to imagine Jesus hosting the party at his own place in Capernaum. After all, he has just asked Levi to follow him (Mark 2.14) and from that point onwards, Levi is absorbed into the anonmymous following disciples group in Mark, not even listed as one of the twelve in Mark 3.13-19. Mark 2.15-18 is a new pericope in Mark, and it is probably Mark himself who has bolted this pericope onto the Call of Levi in 2.13-14, in which case he may well have inherited this tradition about Jesus partying in his house without a link with the Levi tradition.

I am not sure why we should be surprised at the note that Jesus may have had a house in Capernaum. After all, Capernaum does seem to be the hub of his mission in Galilee. Perhaps we allow ourselves to be seduced by the saying in Matt. 8.20 // Luke 9.58, "Foxes have their holes and the birds of the air have their nests . . ." But even if Jesus said that, we don't know when he said it, and it could reflect a later, itinerant stage of his mission.

If Jesus the craftsman had a career in Capernaum, perhaps this is how he got to know those later to become his disciples.

If Mark 2.1-12 also depicts Jesus at his house (2.1, ἐν οἴκῳ, "at home"), perhaps that is why he says "Child, your sins are forgiven" -- they've just dug a big hole through the roof of Jesus' house and he's going to have to get up there later on to mend it.

Interesting perspective/worth considering (IMHO), as it concerns the scenario with the tax-collector. Of course, as it concerns the traditional view of Matthew/Levi being the one who actually threw the party, there's support for that. Seeing how it is with others who grow up experiencing life on BOTH sides of the tracks, be it with the rich or the poor, its always interesting to see how Christ may've experienced the same. And as it concerns his experience, in many ways it can be said how he was like the man who really didn't choose to be on either side ---but was simply walking down the railroad/passing through. Throughout his life, Jesus didn't discriminate which group he went to in order to reach for the sake of the Gospel (like the rich young ruler, Zacheus the Tax Collector and Matthew the Tax Collector too.....and the Pharisee who invited Jesus to come to His house, Luke 7:36-50...........and as the man was BORN into impoverished conditions rather than in REGAL MANNER ( Luke 2 /Matthew 1:11 ), he knew what life was like from the bottom.
But he knew how to make connections. In example, Matthew 9:9, Mark 2 and Luke 5:28-30 speak on the issue deeply.


Tax collectors were a trip...with most of them indeed WEALTHY, as it was with Zacchaeus ( Luke 19:1-3 /Luke 19 )..and for those who were tax-collectors, it's something that people often did not want to mix with ...even though Jesus often did went counter to the norms in connecting with them as He often did for those who were outcasts( Matthew 11:19,Matthew 11:18-20, , Matthew 21:31-33/ ,Luke 3:11-13 Luke 3 , Luke 15:1-3 Luke 15, Luke 18:8-10 /Luke 18, )---wWhen Matthew was called, he did not disguise his past or make any excuse for it, which was humility. Tax collectors were among the most hated and despised in society in society since the money they collected was often extorted for personal gain and partly a tax for Rome, which made them not only theives but traitors to the Jewish Nation. Also, regarding the text, one must keep in mind that there are generally 2 categories of tax collectors: 1.) gabbi collected general taxes on land and property, and a income, referred to as poll and registration taxex; 2.) mokhes colleted a wide variety of use taxes, similar to import duties, buisness license fees, and toll fees. Additionally, there were two categories of mokhes: great mokhes hired others to collect taxes for them; small mokhes did their own assessing and collecting. Matthew was a small mokhes ......and it is likely that there was representivitves of both classes attending Matthew's Feast---ALL of whom were considered social outcasts and of bad reputation. There was still stigma against him when he invited Jesus to come/dine in his home and others were still wondering "Why in the world is Christ fellowshipping with this person who is clearly a sinner?".

For anyone doing sincere research on the types of people who were often at tax-collector parties, it'll be apparent that it was not a matter of things being "prime/proper". ...as they were noted to be BUCK WILD!!! For the "religious", Heaven help them if they were there.....but for Christ, He decided to go counter to what many Judeas would've done---and what the Pharisees often did when it came to distancing themselves from anything they thought was unclean. Jesus, in his radical ideology, was able to maintain mobility that the religious leaders simply didn't have...

On the subject of Christ owning a house, the main factor to consider is the basic reality behind the trade that Christ was involved in----and specifically, He was a carpenter, Mark 6:2-4 Mark 6 --and the son of one as well, as seen in Matthew 13:54-56. Having a job like that would enable one to own a HOME at some point...and as Christ was not traveling in ministry but for 3yrs while the other 18yrs were at home with the folks, its illogical to attempt rulling out the possibility that Christ either owned a home or had money enough (at some point ) to rent----and later, when that became uncessary, others supported him on His MISSIONARY endeavors.


. The fact that His mother was without, and needed Yeshua to find another male to look after her, kinda indicates that the "family" of Joseph's side were a little remiss in taking care of Joseph's business since he passed.

As John 7 indicates plainly that his own brothers didn't believe in Him at first (James included), assuming it was due to money issues wouldn't be dealing fully with the context since John--a cousin of Christ alongside James (John and James, sons of Zebedee)--was a disciple...and the Lord trusted him even above his own brothers. John's father was very wealthy.


When looking at Mark 1:19-20/Mark 1:23, one must note some things:
Mark 1:19-20
16As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 18At once they left their nets and followed him.
19When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. 20Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.
Amazing that those coming from "homeless" families were SOMEHOW able to afford HIRED SERVANTS!!!! Unless of course it's the case that in the times it was the POOR working for the Poor, then the logical response is that the disciples were from well-off families. It's amazing to see how often people act as if all of those who followed Christ were "dirt poor"...yet not many read through the scriptures, of course. For Several of Jesus' first disciples were not poor but were self-employed fisherman or, as in this case (James and John), were apart of a family buisness.

For those who were fishermen, for example, people often fail to realize how much of a profitable buisness the fishing industry was in the times Christ lived in...with the Sea of Galilee being a BIG TIME Hot spot for anyone wanting to get work, due to the variety of fish (and thus, diversity in products) one could find. Many were involved in the trade, from the fishermen--who could be day laborers (Mark 1:19-20) to the owners of the fishing boats and the merchants who marketed the fish. The Gospels themselves also attested to a thriving fishing trade ( Matthew 4:16 ). Seeing how prosperous/prominent the industry was, it's not surprising to see how it was even referenced in his teachings when it came to the Kingdom of God (as well as how often the usage of fish was continual in his mnistry)

And with Jesus, again, He had a great tendency to do the Supernatural in spite of what seemed logical---be it thinking no provision could come when there was a shortage of material/resources for survival...or in times where there WAS an abundance of provision/resources available to rely upon and opportunity to trust more so in what one can do on their own rather than on what the Lord can provide----realizing that He is the one to trust rather than our own means. For He's the One giving ability to generate wealth as stated in Deuteronomy 8:18

The multiple times he multiplied food on their behalf is evidence of that.....as seen in all of the instances where they had PLENTY of food to spare to feed many in spite of what seemed like too little.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Did Yeshua give up the riches of Heaven for a poor existence on earth?

2 Corinthians 8:9
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.



"Poor" has a context, for assuming Yeshua had nothing to do with riches would entail one assuming all forms of riches within scripture were to either be condemned...or that He never had them--and the scriptures don't really support either concept. He became poor in the sense of salvation rather than poverty, from a spiritual perspective. To assume tha that "riches" in II Corinthians 2:8-9 means money is to assume that Yeshua was an advocate for poverty--and that'd also mean that Yeshua, in that interpretation, came down to live homeless in order that we might become millionaries/rich. If saying that it cannot be that interpretation, then there's inconsistency--and in saying He'd be against riches, he'd be hypocritical for having disciples who were very well off in supporting Him. Luke 8 shows that plainly amongst many others...
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Poor in the sense of salvation???
When you sacrifice the reality of living on High in heaven for an existence as a fragile human, there is an impoverishment that occurs..and yet, in doing so, He was able to be EXALTED back above His former position, from the place of a servant (as the Son of man came to serve rather than to be served) to a King. And He made us rich by bringing us to His level when it comes to the authority/position we now have in Christ as Co-Heirs (Romans 8).

His identifying with the human condition and taking on our sin is an impoverishment, but it enriches us at the same time......as Paul also echoed in II Corinthians 5:21 when it notes "He who knew no sin became sin for us, that in him we could be the righteousness of God."
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
That really doesn't answer poor in the sense of salvation...

I have no disagreement with His riches in heaven and leaving it all behind.. that is physical as well as spiritual poorness that He took on here on earth in comparison to His heavenly life.

Where I have a little trouble following is where you seem to think that salvation is a poor place.

I see salvation as very rich spiritually speaking. Now if you are trying to say that being humble is poor, meek etc.. and there in lies the keys to salvation.. I can begin to relate.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
That really doesn't answer poor in the sense of salvation...

I have no disagreement with His riches in heaven and leaving it all behind.. that is physical as well as spiritual poorness that He took on here on earth in comparison to His heavenly life.

Where I have a little trouble following is where you seem to think that salvation is a poor place.

I see salvation as very rich spiritually speaking. Now if you are trying to say that being humble is poor, meek etc.. and there in lies the keys to salvation.. I can begin to relate.
Didn't say that salvation was a poor place. What was said was that the Lord became poor spiritually in order that we could become rich physically--and as it concerns the physical, where I see the Lord becoming "poor" isn't so much in the sense of being homeless all of his life when preaching as much as it is with his being impoverished physically when he suffered through his trials to/on the Cross. Beaten, stripped naked and physically marred from looking in any way good to very poor.

I also see poor in the physical sense as it concerns his taking on the nature of a servant (even though He himself was a King) and doing things that were very lowly ( John 13, Mark 10:44-46 ,Matthew 20:27-29 , Philippians 2 )

To be poor in spirit is to be lowly ( Psalm 119:140-142 , Psalm 138:5-7 , Proverbs 16:19, Proverbs 29:23, Isaiah 57:14-16, Ezekiel 21:25-27 , etc), something which Yeshua often described himself as in many instances ( Matthew 18:3-5, Matthew 5:2-4, Zechariah 9:8-10, 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, etc )

I love the way that Hazakim said it best in their song "Cruxifixtion Description"--in honor of what the prophet Isaiah said in Isaiah 53:


Isaiah 53
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 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.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.


Hazakim - Crucifixion Description
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
Easy G (G²);59167187 said:
Didn't say that salvation was a poor place. What was said was that the Lord became poor spiritually in order that we could become rich physically--and as it concerns the physical, where I see the Lord becoming "poor" isn't so much in the sense of being homeless all of his life when preaching as much as it is with his being impoverished physically when he suffered through his trials to/on the Cross. Beaten, stripped naked and physically marred from looking in any way good to very poor.

I also see poor in the physical sense as it concerns his taking on the nature of a servant (even though He himself was a King) and doing things that were very lowly ( John 13, Mark 10:44-46 ,Matthew 20:27-29 , Philippians 2 )

To be poor in spirit is to be lowly ( Psalm 119:140-142 , Psalm 138:5-7 , Proverbs 16:19, Proverbs 29:23, Isaiah 57:14-16, Ezekiel 21:25-27 , etc), something which Yeshua often described himself as in many instances ( Matthew 18:3-5, Matthew 5:2-4, Zechariah 9:8-10, 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, etc )

I love the way that Hazakim said it best in their song "Cruxifixtion Description"--in honor of what the prophet Isaiah said in Isaiah 53:


Isaiah 53
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 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.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.


Hazakim - Crucifixion Description
So you are saying that being humble or meek is spiritually poor....:confused:
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
How did our Lord become "poor" spiritually? Was He lacking in the Holy Spirit? Was He lacking in spiritual strength? Was He deprived of a relationship with His Heavenly Father?
Asking how he was able to become poor is like asking "How did the Lord lower himself--per Philippians 2--to take the nature of a servant/man? " ...or asking how it was possible that He who was Eternal was able to die. There are some things that I don't know if we were able to ever understand fully--or will ever be able to.
1 Timothy 3:16
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:15-16
The entire concept of Kenosis, if ever hearing of it, is what has been used in discussions of his emptying Himself...limiting his abilities when he came to the Earth. This is a basic reality in the concept of the Incarnation.....something many have discussed throughout history. On the issue, for the sake of the reader, there are out some references for anyone interested which were very helpful in addressing fully all of the passages on the matter that're often overlooked...and again, all one need do is go online/look up the references under their respective titles:

  • "The Kenosis of Epaphroditus" ( //bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/philippians/2_25-30.htm )
  • "Kenosis, Kenotic Theology" ( //mb-soft.com/believe/txn/kenosis.htm )
  • "Kenosis and Jesus Christ" ( //developingtheology.blogspot.com/search/label/Kenosis )
  • "Christ and Kenosis: A Model for Mission" ( //www.bible.acu.edu/ministry/centers_institutes/missions/page.asp?ID=415 )
  • "The Poured-Out Life: The Kenosis Hymn in Context" ( //www.cresourcei.org/kenosis.html )
  • "Doctrine of the Kenosis in Philippians 2:5-8" ( //faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/GTJ-NT/McClain-Phil2-Kenosis-GTJ.pdf )


As another said best on the issue:
Kenotic theology is in reality a variant but new form of orthodox, biblical faith. It has appeared in a variety of forms over the last century. It has been vigorously debated, and interest in it remains. From one angle it can be seen as an attempt to give conceptual substance to the great hymn of Charles Wesley that speaks in awe that the Son would "empty himself of all but love" and die for a fallen humanity. From another angle kenotic theology reprsents an attempt to give central place to Jesus' limited yet sinless humanity while affirming that the ultimate significance of that humanity was and is that here on earth God the eternal Son has come, truly come, to redeem."
Personally, I enjoy discussing topics such as this from the perspective of those understanding of the original culture---which is that of a Hebraic/Talmudic and Jewish understanding. And it's always interesting to see how many of the sites/critiques coming against the concept of Kenosis always seem to leave out the perspectives of those who're Messianic Jewish and how they saw it, alongside the issue of generally leaving alone the numerous verses on the nature of the Holy Spirit and how Christ relied on the Spirit for all things. For the Holy Spirit was involved throughout Jesus’ life...as it was the Spirit that caused his conception (Matthew 1:20), descended on him at his baptism (Matthew 3:16), led him into the desert (Luke 4:1) and anointed him to preach the gospel (Luke 4:18), by whom Jesus drove out demons (Matthew 12:28), by whom Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 9:14) and by whom He was raised from the dead (Romans 8:11) and a host of other things in which the Holy Spirit was needed by Christ.

As another Jewish believer said best:
I agree that this concept is hard to understand. But think about it for a moment. If we're dealing with things too high for us, shouldn't it be reasonable to expect difficulties in our rational minds' understanding everything? This is why faith is so vital.

What "kenosis" actually teaches is that Jesus Christ did not employ His divinity during His earthly existence. As God, He certainly was omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent etc. But He was also perfectly human, sin only excepted. And as a real man, He had to learn, He had to exercise faith etc. - things He would not have to do in His divinity. Let me add another side that you may not have considered...... Everything that Jesus did during His earthly ministry He did through the Holy Spirit. Had he operated out of His own divinity, then the Church could never perform the miracles He performed or carry out His ministry after the Resurrection. But since everything He did he did through the Holy Spirit, we who are His followers can also do the same ministry He did through the same Spirit.
Should everything God does (and is) make sense to us, his creatures? Would He be God if we understood everything about Him? I must say that Kenosis is just one way some (not all) evangelical theologians have tried to explain what happened when Messiah was born. As human language trying to explain the LORD of creation, it is bound to be flawed (e.g. I don't feel very comfortable with your term G-d/man whereas G-d incarnate better explains what happened to me).
.....
Do you really understand what the New Testament means when it said that the Word that was God became flesh and dwelled amongst us?
First, He came to show us the character of His Father in heaven (once again human language to describe the relationship between G-d incarnate and G-d Ruler of the Universe). He also came to show us the way we (made in the image of G-d!) were actually supposed to live. That meant, first of all, a life in total trusting loving surrender to our Father in heaven.

Jesus was omniscient in the sense that He could know anything He wanted to know. He chose not to know more than what the Spirit of G-d should reveal to Him at any moment. He could be anywhere He wanted to be... He chose to be in one place where His Father wanted Him to be... even if it led to the cross. (It is interesting to note that some more literal translations of the New Testament have Him say: (Joh.3:13) "Nobody ascended to heaven except Him that descended from heaven, the Son of man that _is_ in heaven.")

The paradox is that He would not have been who He was if He did not choose at every moment to do what His Father wanted from Him, He would not have been God, He would not have been Messiah, He would have been just a sinfull man (and thus not omniscient or omnipresent). Jesus illustrated that the Holy One of Israel "ram v'nisa", high and lifted up indeed dwells with the broken and humble in spirit. That is His character.


Personally, on that one, I must say I see no problem--as there're already too many things which are indeed of note to me that're beyond logical understanding---hence, why it's called mystery. And at this point in life, I'm simply glad that the Lord chose to become like us to aid us/be our Redeemer:
Hebrews 2:17
For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
Hebrews 4:14-16
Jesus the Great High Priest
14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. 16Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
So you are saying that being humble or meek is spiritually poor....:confused:
Humbleness is apart of poorness, as it concerns being humble at heart---though as said already, the poverty he experienced included His taking on our battles/struggles, identifying with us and sufffering the impoverishment of soul we deserved (Isaiah 53).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

3rdHeaven

Truth Seeker
Nov 23, 2011
1,282
57
✟1,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);59169301 said:
Asking how he was able to become poor is like asking "How did the Lord lower himself--per Philippians 2--to take the nature of a servant/man? " ...or asking how it was possible that He who was Eternal was able to die. There are some things that I don't know if we were able to ever understand fully--or will ever be able to.
1 Timothy 3:16
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:15-16
The entire concept of Kenosis, if ever hearing of it, is what has been used in discussions of his emptying Himself...limiting his abilities when he came to the Earth.

Humbleness is apart of poorness, as it concerns being humble at heart---though as said already, the poverty he experienced included His taking on our battles/struggles, identifying with us and sufffering the impoverishment of soul we deserved (Isaiah 53).

I thought Kenosis was emptying ourselves to do the Will of God.
 
Upvote 0