I appreciated this greatly. The question I have is: How does this view of Mary allow for their freedom to flea to Egypt and their freedom to return to Jerusalem to look for the boy Jesus?
Great questions! Perhaps on answer can answer both: protecting an investment. If they were enslaved, they are more valuable alive to the person who is enslaving them. That’s my two cents. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Because this video shows the possibility, and even probability, but does not prove the plausibility, it is a topic that is debated at best. Still a good video, nonetheless.
I am glad you found it interesting! Dr. Mitzi J. Smith argues that Joseph was the person who was enslaving them. I didn’t go into it in the video because I was trying to keep the video short, as well as I think that case is harder to make. Basically though, in the same verse that mentioned Jesus was 30, it mentioned Joseph. “Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli” Luke 3:23. It was apparently common practice to free your enslaved child when you die so that they can inherit your property, and this Jesus was freed, which explains the “as was thought” comment. That being said, I think there is a lot less to go on in the argument that Jesus was enslaved specifically by Joseph, so I didn’t feel it was necessary to include. That said, I would recommend checking the argument in full from Smith.
A clear misunderstanding of what is meant by Jesus "becoming a slave". It's the same meaning as when Paul calls himself Christ's slave. The idea is clearly that of being a servant of God. You can't then take that single passage and use it to distort the rest of Scripture. This is bad Bible study.
What’s bad is people consistently calling being a “servant” some kind of metaphor or something. This video is just scratching the surface. When Paul calls himself a “prisoner of Christ” people don’t deny that Paul was imprisoned. It is only this topic that troubles people because it is challenging to learn that the messiah was born into slavery. However, I find it more compelling that Jesus was enslaved, as he understands the lowest of the low because he experienced it.
Wow!! A great eye opener.
I need to read "Bitter the Chastening Rod"
Thanks for watching! Yes, it’s definitely worth you time :)
I appreciated this greatly. The question I have is: How does this view of Mary allow for their freedom to flea to Egypt and their freedom to return to Jerusalem to look for the boy Jesus?
Great questions! Perhaps on answer can answer both: protecting an investment. If they were enslaved, they are more valuable alive to the person who is enslaving them. That’s my two cents.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
Because this video shows the possibility, and even probability, but does not prove the plausibility, it is a topic that is debated at best. Still a good video, nonetheless.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
Also, everything is debated in Jesus scholarship, soooooo 🤷♂️
Super interesting. My question ultimately is: who did they belong to? Joseph? Cause that raises all sorts of other questions.
I am glad you found it interesting! Dr. Mitzi J. Smith argues that Joseph was the person who was enslaving them. I didn’t go into it in the video because I was trying to keep the video short, as well as I think that case is harder to make. Basically though, in the same verse that mentioned Jesus was 30, it mentioned Joseph. “Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli” Luke 3:23.
It was apparently common practice to free your enslaved child when you die so that they can inherit your property, and this Jesus was freed, which explains the “as was thought” comment.
That being said, I think there is a lot less to go on in the argument that Jesus was enslaved specifically by Joseph, so I didn’t feel it was necessary to include. That said, I would recommend checking the argument in full from Smith.
A clear misunderstanding of what is meant by Jesus "becoming a slave". It's the same meaning as when Paul calls himself Christ's slave. The idea is clearly that of being a servant of God. You can't then take that single passage and use it to distort the rest of Scripture. This is bad Bible study.
What’s bad is people consistently calling being a “servant” some kind of metaphor or something. This video is just scratching the surface.
When Paul calls himself a “prisoner of Christ” people don’t deny that Paul was imprisoned. It is only this topic that troubles people because it is challenging to learn that the messiah was born into slavery. However, I find it more compelling that Jesus was enslaved, as he understands the lowest of the low because he experienced it.