Mysteries of the Bible

[nebula]

Whenmost people think of "mysteries of the Bible," they think of such things as what happened to the Ark of the Covenant?....

But there are other mysteries I wonder about:

The Lord told Moses to speak to the rock. Instead, Moses struck the rock.

What I would like to know is:

What was Moses supposed to speak? Was it something prophetic that we all have missed out on becuase the words aren't there?

When the Magi came to Jerusalem to find the newborn king, Herod went to the priests to discover where the Scriptures stated Messiah was to be born.

What I would like to know is:

Why is that that Herod believed (after all, he sent soldiers to kill all the male babies) but the priests did not (for if they believed, would they not have journeyed with the Magi?).

In Revelation, John saw a huge angel with a foot in the sea and one on land. This angel spoke, and John was going to record what the angel spoke, but he was told not to record it.

What I would like to know is:

Besides what the angel said - why was John not allowed to record the words? What could be so significant about them that we are allowed to know the angel spoke, but not what he said?

Thoughts anyone?

[Hunterpoet]

From Spurgeon Devotional Commentary: Concerning Moses..." Certainly Moses erred in smitting the rock, for he was bidden to speak to it. The best of men are men at the best. " This last sentence may be a typo...I would think it should read, The best of men are men at THEIR best.

Revelations....maybe what the angel said was not significant...maybe he just greeted John.

[Floatingaxe]

Whenmost people think of "mysteries of the Bible," they think of such things as what happened to the Ark of the Covenant?....

But there are other mysteries I wonder about:

The Lord told Moses to speak to the rock. Instead, Moses struck the rock.

What I would like to know is:

What was Moses supposed to speak? Was it something prophetic that we all have missed out on becuase the words aren't there?

Moses was simply to speak to the rock to pour forth water. In his exuberance, he struck the rock. As the rock signified the Living Rock, Jesus Christ, who provides us with Living Water, striking it would have been an affront to God.

When the Magi came to Jerusalem to find the newborn king, Herod went to the priests to discover where the Scriptures stated Messiah was to be born.

What I would like to know is:

Why is that that Herod believed (after all, he sent soldiers to kill all the male babies) but the priests did not (for if they believed, would they not have journeyed with the Magi?).

I believe these priests were puffed up people, and considered these foregners as buffoons, and didn't take them too seriously. Herod was a man eaten up by a complex of insignificance, and felt so radically challenged that he would react in such a murderous way...much like Saul vs David.

In Revelation, John saw a huge angel with a foot in the sea and one on land. This angel spoke, and John was going to record what the angel spoke, but he was told not to record it.

What I would like to know is:

Besides what the angel said - why was John not allowed to record the words? What could be so significant about them that we are allowed to know the angel spoke, but not what he said?

I have thought about this before and my theory is that John was given distinct details about end times events, including names of modern day nations, and modern day events, such as the holocaust, etc. which is something I think God didn't want foreknown.

[kross]

From Spurgeon Devotional Commentary: Concerning Moses..." Certainly Moses erred in smitting the rock, for he was bidden to speak to it. The best of men are men at the best. " This last sentence may be a typo...I would think it should read, The best of men are men at THEIR best.

Revelations....maybe what the angel said was not significant...maybe he just greeted John.

The actual quote is, the best of men are men at best, without the the or their.

I guess I should explain that. It means that the best of men still just men, nothing more.

[Hunterpoet]

From Spurgeon Devotional Commentary: Concerning Moses..." Certainly Moses erred in smitting the rock, for he was bidden to speak to it. The best of men are men at the best. " This last sentence may be a typo...I would think it should read, The best of men are men at THEIR best.

Revelations....maybe what the angel said was not significant...maybe he just greeted John.

The actual quote is, the best of men are men at best, without the the or their.

I guess I should explain that. It means that the best of men still just men, nothing more.

I understand the meaning, no explaination is nessecary....I copied it accurately from my CD, as is proper, I don't have a hard copy of the original text.

[nebula]

From Spurgeon Devotional Commentary: Concerning Moses..." Certainly Moses erred in smitting the rock, for he was bidden to speak to it. The best of men are men at the best. " This last sentence may be a typo...I would think it should read, The best of men are men at THEIR best.

That wasn't the question.

The question is what would Moses have said?

Revelations....maybe what the angel said was not significant...maybe he just greeted John.

Revelation 10

1 Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. 2 He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, 3 and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke. 4 And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, "Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down."

[nebula]

Moses was simply to speak to the rock to pour forth water. In his exuberance, he struck the rock. As the rock signified the Living Rock, Jesus Christ, who provides us with Living Water, striking it would have been an affront to God.

Ummm...I know that.

The question, though, was:

What was Moses supposed to speak? Was it something prophetic that we all have missed out on becuase the words aren't there?

I am not asking why it was he was supposed to speak.

I am asking about what actual words he would or may have spoken?

For instance, at one point they came upon a dry well and Moses prayed/prophesied: "Spring up, o well!"

I wonder what words he was meant to speak to the rock.

When the Magi came to Jerusalem to find the newborn king, Herod went to the priests to discover where the Scriptures stated Messiah was to be born.

What I would like to know is:

Why is that that Herod believed (after all, he sent soldiers to kill all the male babies) but the priests did not (for if they believed, would they not have journeyed with the Magi?).

I believe these priests were puffed up people, and considered these foregners as buffoons, and didn't take them too seriously. Herod was a man eaten up by a complex of insignificance, and felt so radically challenged that he would react in such a murderous way...much like Saul vs David.

That's a good possibility.

In Revelation, John saw a huge angel with a foot in the sea and one on land. This angel spoke, and John was going to record what the angel spoke, but he was told not to record it.

What I would like to know is:

Besides what the angel said - why was John not allowed to record the words? What could be so significant about them that we are allowed to know the angel spoke, but not what he said?

I have thought about this before and my theory is that John was given distinct details about end times events, including names of modern day nations, and modern day events, such as the holocaust, etc. which is something I think God didn't want foreknown.

That's a plausible theory. I'm not sure if that is the answer, but something along those lines at least is plausible.

[Guest shiloh357]

When the Magi came to Jerusalem to find the newborn king, Herod went to the priests to discover where the Scriptures stated Messiah was to be born.

What I would like to know is:

Why is that that Herod believed (after all, he sent soldiers to kill all the male babies) but the priests did not (for if they believed, would they not have journeyed with the Magi?).

Well, I am not sure about those particular priests, but one thing I would like to make note of that is interesting.

When those priests cited a Scripture about the coming of the Messiah, they quoted it thusly:

And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. (Matthew 2:6)

They basically citing Micah 5:2, which actually reads a little differently:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

(Micah 5:2)

Notice that it refers to Bethlehem Ephratah in Micah. Ephratah means "fruitful" and identifies its location in Judah as opposed to another Bethlehem that was in the tribe of Zebulon (Josh. 19:15), but it also refers to a field or pasture just outside of Bethlehem, in between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

What is interesting is that the Mishnah comments on this passage stating that the Messiah would be revealed from "migdal eder" which means "the tower of the flocks." Now this is interesting because this refers to specicfic location relating to the pastures that lay between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

In those days, shephards had watch towers from which they they would be able to stand guard and see any danger to sheep that they may not have been able to see just standing on the ground. They would take turns standing in the guard towers. This was common all over the land.

However the mishnaic reference to migdal eder is a reference a specific tower and a specific piece of Pasture. In fact, the entire parcel of land on which these sheep grazed was simply named after the tower. It was simply called "Migdal Eder."

The sheep that were pastured at Migdal Eder were special sheep not like the ordinary sheep used for other comercial purposes. The sheep at Migdal Eder were set apart to be used for sacrifices at the Temple.

Remember when Jesus cleansed the Temple? The sheep being sold during Passover at that time, were raised at Migdal Eder.

The "shephards" that tended the sheep at Migdal Eder were not ordinary shephards. they were actually temple priests who on that particular year were serving as shephards and their job was to make sure that none of the sheep were inter-bred with ordinary sheep, as well as to make sure they did not get injured or bruised as that would make them unfit.

It was to these temple shephards/priests guarding their sheep at Migdal Eder, that the Angel Gabriel appeared to and announced Jesus birth.

That is also why the Angel mentioned "swaddling clothes." "Swaddling clothes" were the under garments worn by the priests and each year, these undergarments were discarded and given to the poor and the priests would get new "swaddling clothes" at the beggining of each New Year right. By mentioning that Jesus was wrapped in these swaddling clothes, the shephards would know what to look for as they were priests and would be able to easily recognize Jesus. Both the manger and the swaddling clothes would have been two dual signs making Jesus easy to identify.

It is unlikely that all of the shephards left at once. Some might have gone first to see Jesus, returned to the field and then the others would have run to the manger having been given directions by the first set of shephards.

The point is that at some of the priests most likely did go to visit Jesus.

The priests specifically referenced in the narrative were most likely members of the Saducees whose allegience was to Rome and the last thing they would have wanted was a "Messiah."

[Hunterpoet]

From Spurgeon Devotional Commentary: Concerning Moses..." Certainly Moses erred in smitting the rock, for he was bidden to speak to it. The best of men are men at the best. " This last sentence may be a typo...I would think it should read, The best of men are men at THEIR best.

That wasn't the question.

The question is what would Moses have said?

Revelations....maybe what the angel said was not significant...maybe he just greeted John.

Revelation 10

1 Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. 2 He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, 3 and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke. 4 And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, "Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down."

Your right Neb. The question was what would he have spoken. Well, because we do not know what the Lord said to him in those terms I was trying to bring to light that even Moses could be human and make a mistake. To make a guess as to what he should have said or could have said would just be pure speculation and open to critique which itself could only be speculation as to what his words may have been.

My comment concerning the angel was a very poor attempt at humor. Rest assured I will consider the audience in the future.

[nebula]

Shiloh -

Thanks for that insight.

Way cool!