Part 11: Luke's list: Nathan: part C
Aug 29, 2016 0:57:35 GMT
Post by Colossians on Aug 29, 2016 0:57:35 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Forward
Recall that in part 4 of this series we showed why it was that Luke didn’t record Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt with His parents (which was to escape Herod's act of genocide against the infants of Israel), and neither therefore the fact that His return therefrom was the fulfilment of Hos 11:1 that God had called His Son out of Egypt.
And yet despite the very wise and good reason for such omission, the silence nevertheless screams at us: "surely somehow it could have been recorded!". And so we labelled it an “overwhelming” omission, and that which is in line with its being used by atheists and bible sceptics to malign the integrity of scripture.
However in our conclusion to that part we said that Luke had (nevertheless) recorded the event after all, and that the “merely-apparent” omission was in fact part and parcel of what Luke’s list would be shown to be.
___________________________
LUKE’S LIST: NATHAN: PART C
Note the genealogy of Nathan the prophet, which for the sake of context we place alongside the genealogy of David:
Genealogy of David............Genealogy of Nathan
.......Judah...............................Judah
.......Pharez..............................Pharez
.......Hezron..............................Hezron
.......Ram.................................Jerahmeel
.......Amminadab.......................Onam
.......Nahshon...........................Shamai
.......Salmon.............................Nadab
.......Boaz................................Appaim
.......Obed................................Ishi
.......Jesse...............................Sheshan
.......David...............................Attai
..............................................Nathan
And recall that we have said that Nathan stands as type for Christ when considered in conjunction with David, and even more particularly, because his name means “given”.
And although Christ’s being given was irresistibly inclusive of His becoming flesh and living among men, we understand such to more particularly refer to His sacrifice at Calvary (on account of our sin).
___
Now note carefully how Christ (and/or the writers of the gospels) refers to such (impending) event:
“And He said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto Him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples” Mt 26:18.
“Then Jesus said unto them, my time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready” John 7:6.
“Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come” John 7:8.
“Then they sought to take Him: but no man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come” John 7:30.
“These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as He taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on Him; for His hour was not yet come” John 8:20.
“Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father” John 13:1.
___
And recall that an important theme we have emphasised throughout this series, indeed that which is based on the fact that a father and his son are one (a son carries forward his family’s name into future generations), is Christ’s declaration that He and His (own) Father were one.
___
And so given that we have (with particular reference to Nathan the prophet) looked at the meaning of the name Nathan, we should properly look also at the meaning of the name of his father Attai.
It means: “my time, my hour”.
So then, given that the Son (typed in Nathan the prophet) and the Father are one, we should properly combine the meanings of Nathan and his father’s name:
[My time, my hour] – [given] = “My time to be given”.
___
Now note again the last 3 names in Nathan’s genealogy:
Sheshan
Attai
Nathan
We have shown that the last 2 combine to form the declaration: “my time to be given”. But Sheshan means “Lily” or “light”, so that doesn’t help us in our endeavour to show that Luke in fact recorded Christ’s being called out of Egypt.
But the situation is not as dead-ended as it might at first appear to be, for although Sheshan was Attai’s father according to Jewish genealogical principle, he was not in fact his biological father, for he in fact had no sons, but only a daughter.
And so and rather, and in similar fashion to Sarah’s providing a son to Abraham via her handmaid Hagar (for Hagar was her property and thus Abraham was permitted to go in unto her at Sarah’s say-so), he gave his daughter Ahlai to his male servant Jarha, thereby preserving his seed via the proxy of his male servant, a fact attested to by the (otherwise-redundant) listing of several generations, beginning with Attai (and then Nathan), after him. (See 1 Chr 2:36-41).
The point?
Jarha was an Egyptian.
Summarily …
....Jarha [(an Egyptian)]
.
.......I
.
Attai–Nathan [= “My time to be given”]
: the Son (who was inseparable from the Father) was called out of Egypt, after which it would become His time to be given.
___
And so we see that the account of Christ’s being called out of Egypt, recorded explicitly in Matthew, has been there in Luke’s gospel all along: it is encoded in – it is built in to – the genealogy of Nathan the prophet, only because Luke’s list has been presumed a genealogy of Christ by the church at large to date, and the referent of “Nathan” therefore the prince rather than the prophet, this vital understanding has been missed.
Silence does indeed sometimes speak (much) louder than words.
So then:
“Bessed be Egypt my people … and Israel mine inheritance” Is 19:25.
Amen.
Forward
Recall that in part 4 of this series we showed why it was that Luke didn’t record Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt with His parents (which was to escape Herod's act of genocide against the infants of Israel), and neither therefore the fact that His return therefrom was the fulfilment of Hos 11:1 that God had called His Son out of Egypt.
And yet despite the very wise and good reason for such omission, the silence nevertheless screams at us: "surely somehow it could have been recorded!". And so we labelled it an “overwhelming” omission, and that which is in line with its being used by atheists and bible sceptics to malign the integrity of scripture.
However in our conclusion to that part we said that Luke had (nevertheless) recorded the event after all, and that the “merely-apparent” omission was in fact part and parcel of what Luke’s list would be shown to be.
___________________________
LUKE’S LIST: NATHAN: PART C
Note the genealogy of Nathan the prophet, which for the sake of context we place alongside the genealogy of David:
Genealogy of David............Genealogy of Nathan
.......Judah...............................Judah
.......Pharez..............................Pharez
.......Hezron..............................Hezron
.......Ram.................................Jerahmeel
.......Amminadab.......................Onam
.......Nahshon...........................Shamai
.......Salmon.............................Nadab
.......Boaz................................Appaim
.......Obed................................Ishi
.......Jesse...............................Sheshan
.......David...............................Attai
..............................................Nathan
And recall that we have said that Nathan stands as type for Christ when considered in conjunction with David, and even more particularly, because his name means “given”.
And although Christ’s being given was irresistibly inclusive of His becoming flesh and living among men, we understand such to more particularly refer to His sacrifice at Calvary (on account of our sin).
___
Now note carefully how Christ (and/or the writers of the gospels) refers to such (impending) event:
“And He said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto Him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples” Mt 26:18.
“Then Jesus said unto them, my time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready” John 7:6.
“Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come” John 7:8.
“Then they sought to take Him: but no man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come” John 7:30.
“These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as He taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on Him; for His hour was not yet come” John 8:20.
“Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father” John 13:1.
___
And recall that an important theme we have emphasised throughout this series, indeed that which is based on the fact that a father and his son are one (a son carries forward his family’s name into future generations), is Christ’s declaration that He and His (own) Father were one.
___
And so given that we have (with particular reference to Nathan the prophet) looked at the meaning of the name Nathan, we should properly look also at the meaning of the name of his father Attai.
It means: “my time, my hour”.
So then, given that the Son (typed in Nathan the prophet) and the Father are one, we should properly combine the meanings of Nathan and his father’s name:
[My time, my hour] – [given] = “My time to be given”.
___
Now note again the last 3 names in Nathan’s genealogy:
Sheshan
Attai
Nathan
We have shown that the last 2 combine to form the declaration: “my time to be given”. But Sheshan means “Lily” or “light”, so that doesn’t help us in our endeavour to show that Luke in fact recorded Christ’s being called out of Egypt.
But the situation is not as dead-ended as it might at first appear to be, for although Sheshan was Attai’s father according to Jewish genealogical principle, he was not in fact his biological father, for he in fact had no sons, but only a daughter.
And so and rather, and in similar fashion to Sarah’s providing a son to Abraham via her handmaid Hagar (for Hagar was her property and thus Abraham was permitted to go in unto her at Sarah’s say-so), he gave his daughter Ahlai to his male servant Jarha, thereby preserving his seed via the proxy of his male servant, a fact attested to by the (otherwise-redundant) listing of several generations, beginning with Attai (and then Nathan), after him. (See 1 Chr 2:36-41).
The point?
Jarha was an Egyptian.
Summarily …
....Jarha [(an Egyptian)]
.
.......I
.
Attai–Nathan [= “My time to be given”]
: the Son (who was inseparable from the Father) was called out of Egypt, after which it would become His time to be given.
___
And so we see that the account of Christ’s being called out of Egypt, recorded explicitly in Matthew, has been there in Luke’s gospel all along: it is encoded in – it is built in to – the genealogy of Nathan the prophet, only because Luke’s list has been presumed a genealogy of Christ by the church at large to date, and the referent of “Nathan” therefore the prince rather than the prophet, this vital understanding has been missed.
Silence does indeed sometimes speak (much) louder than words.
So then:
“Bessed be Egypt my people … and Israel mine inheritance” Is 19:25.
Amen.