MINI-THREAD: Strands of Salvation in the Synoptics.

Joseph isn’t the only beloved son to be given a multi-coloured coat in Scripture.

Jesus is given one too, though by the Roman soldiers.

In Matthew, it’s scarlet (kokkinos).

In Mark, it’s purple (porphyra).
And, in Luke, it’s resplendent (lampros), like the linen of the saints (Rev. 19).

In each Synoptic, the colour of Jesus’ robe answers to the way Jesus’ life is framed.
Mark introduces us to Jesus as Israel’s king--the one whom messengers run before, crying, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord!’.

For Mark, then, Jesus is clothed in purple,
the colour of royalty--the colour of the kings of Midian (Judg. 8),

of Solomon’s chariot (Sngs. 3),

of Daniel’s royal robe (Dan. 5).
For Matthew, however, Jesus is not clothed in purple, but in scarlet.

Jesus emerges from a genealogy tainted with the colour of sin and of its remedy (cp. Matt. 1, Isa. 1):

first we have Judah, the one destined to wash his garments in the blood of grapes (Gen. 49),
then we have Tamar, who ties a scarlet thread around her chosen son’s hand,

and finally we have Rahab, saved by a scarlet thread.
These strands of sin and salvation reach their climax in the true Son of Judah:

the one who is clothed in scarlet as he prepares to bear his people’s sins (cp. 1.21), and whose resurrection is proclaimed by one whose clothes are ‘white as snow’.
Luke is different again.

Luke doesn’t open his gospel with an account of the sin-stained history of Judah’s line,

nor does he open it with a royal fanfare.

Instead, Luke talks to us about innocence and righteousness:
about a blameless couple from the line of Aaron,

a virgin overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (to bear the holy Son of God),

and a genealogy which connects Jesus with the innocence of Adam.
For Luke, then, Jesus begins his ministry at the priestly age of thirty,

and, as he goes to the cross, he is arrayed in a resplendent robe, like the white linen of the saints.
And so, in the Synoptics, as he fills up the many aspects of Joseph’s life, Jesus wears a coat of many colours.
Like Joseph, he was destined to rule over his brethren,

yet he first had to suffer because of their sin.
True, raised up from the pit and honoured among the Gentiles, Jesus is not currently recognised by the twelve tribes of Israel,

yet the day will come when he will be, and I pray it might be soon.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with James Bejon

James Bejon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JamesBejon

24 Jul
MINI-THREAD.

Respect for our leaders is a good thing, as is love for our neighbours.

Naivety, however, is not.

‘A few weeks to flatten the curve’ soon became a year and more.

‘Vaccinate the over 70s and cry freedom!’ was just as quickly abandoned.
‘No vaccines for children’ and ‘No vaccine passports’ fared similarly. (Why trust leaders whose wives can’t trust them?)

And, as estimates of vaccine efficacy plummet in Israel, freedom has now been made dependent on a 3rd dose of the vaccine...

...which won’t be the last (since Israel has apparently procured about 30 million doses, which makes 4 or 5 for each person, children included).
Read 15 tweets
20 Jul
Dear #Semitics folks.

I’d be grateful for some help with some nominal patterns.

Hebrew has a whole bunch of qiṭṭēl-shaped adjectives which describe physical conditions, often defects.

Examples include pissēaḥ = ‘lame’,

gibbēaḥ = ‘bald’,

ḥerēš = ‘deaf’,
ʔiṭṭēr = ‘left-handed’,

ʕiwwēr = ‘blind’,

piqqēaḥ = ‘well-sighted’, and

gibbēn = ‘hump-backed’.

Quite a few more turn up in Mishnaic Hebrew, e.g.,

qiṭṭēaʕ = ‘without a hand/foot’,

giddēm = ‘without a hand’,

ṣimmēaʕ/ṣimmēm = ‘with misshapen ears’,
ʕiqqēl = ‘clubfooted’, and

ḥiggēr = ‘lame’.

These sorts of conditions/defects form a well known type of personal name/nickname, which is attested all over the ANE.
Read 10 tweets
9 Jul
A MINI-THREAD...

...full of speculation.

Today I came across the Babylonian word ‘tullal’.

It refers to a soap plant (or something like it).
It’s parsed in the Concise Dictionary of Akkadian as a 2nd person (D-stem) conjugation of the verb ‘elēlu’ (‘to be pure’),
...so it means ‘you purify (things)’, i.e., ‘a purifier’,

which is a pretty neat name for a plant.
Read 11 tweets
2 Jul
Grateful for advice from #Hebrew and #Linguistics folk.

The Biblical name Naarah (נַעֲרָה) can be translated as ‘girl’.

A bit non-descript perhaps, but then some names are.

Clines, however, reads נַעֲרוֹתֶֽיךָ in Job 41.5 as ‘your sparrows’, which strikes me as plausible. Image
It also finds confirmation in a few apparent cognates from other languages, e.g.,

Mehri «nəγγōr» = ‘stork’,

Akkadian «nēru» = ‘a type of bird’ (from a lexical list), and

Arabic «nuγarat-» = ‘a red-billed sparrow’.
The question:

How much can be inferred about the base form of נַעֲרוֹתֶֽיךָ on the basis of the information above?

And what if anything does that tell me about the likelihood that the name נַעֲרָה is related to a ‘sparrow’ word?
Read 4 tweets
27 Jun
THREAD: John’s #Passion #Narrative

SUB-TITLE: The Fall in Reverse

A garden, a tree, some thorns, some guards, angels, weapons, and flames.

What passage of Scripture do these things bring to mind? Genesis 2–3, right?

It’s *a* valid answer. But it’s not the only one.
John’s passion narrative involves all of these things,

and its use of them is highly instructive, as we’ll see below.
Like all masterpieces, John’s passion narrative works at multiple levels.

For a start, it can be read it as a historical narrative and subjected to critical scrutiny.

And, when that’s done, it fares pretty well.
Read 54 tweets
9 Jun
THREAD: Fun with Genealogies.

Soon after the Israelites’ conquest of the trans-Jordan, the Machirites (descendants of Manasseh) came to Moses in order to raise the issue of Zelophehad’s inheritance.
Zelophehad had only fathered daughters.

Hence, if his daughters married Israelites from a different tribe, the Machirites would lose a sizeable chunk of their land-inheritance.
At first blush, the Machirites’ concern seems reasonable enough.

But it also raises a question.
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(