Nobodies Were the First To Know

[Just_Ahead]

Nobodies Were the First to Know
When God announced the birth of Christ to sweaty, uncouth shepherds, he signaled something important about the kind of Messiah he was sending.

Christianity Today magazine.
December 7, 2019.
Article written by Daniel Darling, Baptist.
Taken from his new book The Characters of Christmas: The Unlikely People Caught Up in the Story of Jesus, by Daniel Darling. Moody Publishers.​

*****

My short review of the article

I bought a subscription to Christianity Today magazine -- a present to myself. The above links should take you to the complete article (CT) and the listing of the book (MP).

I hope you take a few minutes to read about the roles of shepherds, lambs, and angels.

No Scribes.
No Pharisees.
No Romans.
No royals of the day.​

Just humble outsider shepherds with the simple faith

To look up,
Listen,
and
Put their faith in the Christ child.​

 

[Revmitchell]

The shepherds were not lowly or sweaty. That is assumed with no foundation. These were priestly shepherds raising sheep to be used in the temple.

 

[Just_Ahead]

The shepherds were not lowly or sweaty. That is assumed with no foundation. These were priestly shepherds raising sheep to be used in the temple.

Revmitchel,

I will respond to you briefly, since I originated this post with the above link to the article "Nobodies were the first to know."

You are correct that the gospel account of Luke 2: 8-20 (KJV) does not use the words "lowly" or "sweaty" to describe the shepherds abiding in the field. However, our Lord Jesus, The Good Shepherd, does use the word lowly to describe himself in Matthew 11:29 (KJV). And Luke the gospel writer uses the word sweat in Luke 22:44 (KJV) to describe our Lord Jesus in prayer.

Did Daniel Darling, the author of the Nobodies article, "assume with no foundation," as you state? If we accept the KJV text for our proof of "assume with no foundation," then I must agree with you.

Permit me also to point out that it is difficult to conclude (when we use the KJV New Testament accounts) that "These were priestly shepherds raising sheep to be used in the temple." Although, there are writers on the Internet who make that conclusion. Do they have direct KJV scriptural support to come to that conclusion? On your points, I cannot agree with either those writers or your sentence that I quote.

All this gives me a sweat, but not to worry, because this Healthline article tells me: sweating is good for me, as does Genesis 3:19 (KJV).

Just call me "sweaty."

 

[Revmitchell]

Use of the KJV is not evidence of anything. Using those words in other places in scripture and in different contexts is aldo not evidence of anything.

However we know from history the sheep being raised just outside the city were temple sheep raised by priestly shepherds.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

In those days, very few could gain entrance to a palace while pretty much anyone could visit a stable. Isn't that the real lesson God gave us though the humble conditions surrounding Christ's birth? Seems more important than specifics of those shepherds' job description.

 

[Just_Ahead]

In those days, very few could gain entrance to a palace while pretty much anyone could visit a stable. Isn't that the real lesson God gave us though the humble conditions surrounding Christ's birth? Seems more important than specifics of those shepherds' job description.

OnlyaSinner,

I totally agree with you.

 

[Just_Ahead]

Use of the KJV is not evidence of anything. Using those words in other places in scripture and in different contexts is also not evidence of anything.

However we know from history the sheep being raised just outside the city were temple sheep raised by priestly shepherds.

Use of the KJV is not evidence of anything.

Is there another Bible version you prefer that I use? If so, please tell me.

Using those words in other places in scripture and in different contexts is also not evidence of anything.

So, what value should we place on the written words of Scripture? And who decides that value?

However we know from history the sheep being raised just outside the city were temple sheep raised by priestly shepherds.

Do you have a source? Historical, biblical, or otherwise? Or is this what you want them to be (the sheep, the shepherds, or both)?

 

[Dave G]

Interesting article.

I skimmed it briefly, and the author seems to get the gist of why the Lord came to earth...
To save those who were nobodies.

That He is the Saviour of the oppressed, down-trodden and "average nobody" is a warm comfort to those who believe.
I'm reminded of these Scriptures:

" Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?" ( James 2:5 ).

" He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, [and] lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set [them] among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth [are] the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them." ( 1 Samuel 2:8 )

" Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." ( Matthew 5:3 ).

" For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
27 but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 that no flesh should glory in his presence." ( 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 )

 

[Shoostie]

My short review of the article

I bought a subscription to Christianity Today magazine -- a present to myself. The above links should take you to the complete article (CT) and the listing of the book (MP).

I hope you take a few minutes to read about the roles of shepherds, lambs, and angels.

No Scribes.
No Pharisees.
No Romans.
No royals of the day.​

Just humble outsider shepherds with the simple faith

To look up,
Listen,
and
Put their faith in the Christ child.​

1) Shepherds weren't any more "low class" than 99% of the population back then.
2) Matthew mentions the "wise men from the east" visiting the young Jesus. These men were 1%ers. Matthew doesn't mention the shepherds.
3) The thing about the shepherds is about their function, that Jesus would share as the shepherd of Israel.

Just_Ahead and Christianity today never heard of the "wise men"? How is that possible?

If you want to argue that professional Jews (scribes, priests) weren't the ones to visit baby Jesus, you might have something, but that doesn't seem to be what you've noticed. Jesus and the early Christians didn't like the professional Jews, because they were self-righteous and persecuted Christians.

 

[Reynolds]

The shepherds were not lowly or sweaty. That is assumed with no foundation. These were priestly shepherds raising sheep to be used in the temple.

What Scriptural evidence supports that view?

 

[Revmitchell]

What Scriptural evidence supports that view?

Well the only thing that is mentioned in scripture is where the shepherds were at which we see in vs. 8 "And in the same region" and is a reference to what is found in vs. 4 " And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, ". What I find interesting is no one asks the scriptural support for the view that they were just lowly shepherds. Anyway we know from non scriptural and reliable source called the Mishna that that these were priests. In it it says that the regulations at the time would not allow the keeping of sheep except in the wilderness except for those used in the Temple services.

These shepherds were in the fields surrounding Bethlehem not in the wilderness. Further it would have not been realistic for shepherds in the wilderness to travel so quickly to see the baby Jesus.

 

[Reynolds]

Well the only thing that is mentioned in scripture is where the shepherds were at which we see in vs. 8 "And in the same region" and is a reference to what is found in vs. 4 " And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, ". What I find interesting is no one asks the scriptural support for the view that they were just lowly shepherds. Anyway we know from non scriptural and reliable source called the Mishna that that these were priests. In it it says that the regulations at the time would not allow the keeping of sheep except in the wilderness except for those used in the Temple services.

These shepherds were in the fields surrounding Bethlehem not in the wilderness. Further it would have not been realistic for shepherds in the wilderness to travel so quickly to see the baby Jesus.

I agree its a possibility. We dont have enough evidence to say yea or nay. We have NO scriptural evidence.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree its a possibility. We dont have enough evidence to say yea or nay. We have NO scriptural evidence.

No no its clear and the source is reliable. There is no need to doubt it. Not being in scripture doesnt mean unreliable.

 

[Reynolds]

No no its clear and the source is reliable. There is no need to doubt it. Not being in scripture doesnt mean unreliable.

You have fallen far short of proof.

 

[Revmitchell]

You have fallen far short of proof.

Well that is your opinion. Scripture does not give all the details of everything. It is a common practice to use outside sources with regard to culture and practices. In fact there are no theologians or pastors who do not. At least not credible ones.

 

[Reynolds]

Well that is your opinion. Scripture does not give all the details of everything. It is a common practice to use outside sources with regard to culture and practices. In fact there are no theologians or pastors who do not. At least not credible ones.

You dont dont outside proof. You have enough to support a theory, not prove it.

 

[Revmitchell]

You dont dont outside proof. You have enough to support a theory, not prove it.

Im ok with you being wrong

 

[Reynolds]

Im ok with you being wrong

You are wrong so often I will take that as a compliment.