Myrrh

Myrrh was given to Mary as a 'gift' from the wise men when Jesus was born. In a recent sermon given at the church I attend, it was mentioned that myrrh was often used in the embalming process of the deceased.

I had not known that.

How prophetic that at Jesus' birth, He would be given myrrh. I wonder now if Mary and Joseph were scratching their heads at such a 'gift'.

All these years knowing that story, and it has only now become more profound to me.

@chaney3 said
Myrrh was given to Mary as a 'gift' from the wise men when Jesus was born. In a recent sermon given at the church I attend, it was mentioned that myrrh was often used in the embalming process of the deceased.

I had not known that.

How prophetic that at Jesus' birth, He would be given myrrh. I wonder now if Mary and Joseph were scratching their heads at such a 'gift'.

All these years knowing that story, and it has only now become more profound to me.

I wonder what the shelf life is for myrrh and if it would still be viable when it was required?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I wonder what the shelf life is for myrrh and if it would still be viable when it was required?

Good point.
The myrrh given to Jesus would have to last over 30 years.

Still, the implications of the gift are what caught my attention.

@chaney3 said
Good point.
The myrrh given to Jesus would have to last over 30 years.

Still, the implications of the gift are what caught my attention.

It's a nice little continuity.

If we though strip away the 'God' from the narrative and view it as a human-written story, then it is not surprising that such 'threads' and continuities would be present. Indeed, we find that in any other work of fiction (no offense intended) even by modern writers. In other words, if the whole story is known, then the writer has the luxury of going back and including elements to add to the plot.

We can see this on a wider scale where NT writers went out of their way to fulfill OT prophecies, even when their evidence/reasoning was weak. Take for example Mary and Joseph returning to Bethlehem and the bizarre reasons given for this. (No census would require them to go there). It was however fulfilling the OT prophecy so they did their best to work it in.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
It's a nice little continuity.

If we though strip away the 'God' from the narrative and view it as a human-written story, then it is not surprising that such 'threads' and continuities would be present. Indeed, we find that in any other work of fiction (no offense intended) even by modern writers. In other words, if the whole story is known, then the writer has t ...[text shortened]... e them to go there). It was however fulfilling the OT prophecy so they did their best to work it in.

The dilemma is, of course, that all writings in the Bible are attributed to God, and written by men. It leaves no room for creativity by brilliant writers because they merely wrote what they were inspired to write..... through God.

As far as continuity.....my favorite example comes from the movie Terminator, with regards to the photo that Kyle Reese had of Sarah Conner, given to him by Sarah's son. (I will explain if you haven't seen the movie)

I've always wondered after that.....if writers today can be brilliant, why would we not believe that writers could be as brilliant and creative thousands of years ago too.

That said, I try very hard to believe that the Bible is the word of God, despite my doubts.

@chaney3 said
That said, I try very hard to believe that the Bible is the word of God, despite my doubts.

Why do you feel you have to "try" to do this?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I wonder what the shelf life is for myrrh and if it would still be viable when it was required?

Some thoughts:

I am speculating that the myrrh mentioned in the New Testament of the Bible that was presumably brought by the nomadic wise men from the East was in resin form and burned.

The OP makes the correlation between the gift of myrrh and the funerary processes during Jesus’ time. Both Myrrh and Frankincense were used in the process of mummification. If the wise men were nomadic, similar to ancient Sufi tradition, rather than royalty (on a side note, it is common even in modern times for Sufis to refer to each other as royalty, so it is easy to understand the confusion in translation and tradition), they may well have combined their prophetic scholarship with their access to marketable goods.

It would also make sense that these gifts had their origins in Egypt as there is reason to believe that Jesus’ genealogy traces back through the Egyptian woman Asinath, whom Joseph (of the many colored coat) took to wife. It also makes sense when one considers that Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt where they likely had family...

As to the resins, there have been resins found in ancient tombs and which are still viable. It’s possible that they were used to burn rather than as internal preservative such that we think of when we consider modern embalming processes...Also, both myrrh and frankincense were thought to have restorative qualities which point to the concept of resurrection..

As to the gold, well...what young parents wouldn’t need money, especially after both having another mouth to feed exactly during tax season 😉, but I also think it points to the prophesies death of Jesus as a “down payment” if you will on funeral arrangements which were costly enough that in the end someone else came forward to pay...one Joseph of Arimathea...

Here’s an interesting article I found about what was found in an Egyptian tomb and mentions myrrh..

https://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/exhibits/online/mummification/materials.html

@chaney3 said
Good point.
The myrrh given to Jesus would have to last over 30 years.

Still, the implications of the gift are what caught my attention.

That was not the only purpose of myrrh, said to have medicinal qualities, along with frankincense. The purpose in scripture was to mention these things as highly prized and expensive items, fit for gifting to a king. Some have opined that the gold was the least valuable of these three gifts.

Interesting thread.

I had a quick read up on myrrh and on thing which caught my imagination was how it used to be gathered.

Myrrh is produced by a certain tree when it is injured. The sap produces the healing substance from which myrrh is gleaned, so what the farmers do is repeatedly injure the trees dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of times causing them to create this healing balm.

I thought it a fascinating parallel with

Isaiah 53:5
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

If we though strip away the 'God' from the narrative and view it as a human-written story,

Why are you intent on stripping away God from the narrative?
Is "stripping away" God from the narrative supposed to be the default human reaction?

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

If we though strip away the 'God' from the narrative and view it as a human-written story,

Why are you intent on stripping away God from the narrative?
Is "stripping away" God from the narrative supposed to be the default human reaction?

He doesn't belong there.

@chaney3

Their coming to find Jesus was under the sovereignty and direction of God.
I feel the gifts that they brought were also under the providence of God (for whatever reason they brought them).

Christ lived for thirty three and a half years on this earth. Yet in His living He denied Himself as in a kind of dying to self. He moved, lived, and spoke by His Father.

That something related to dying was given to Him at birth, I think, has this significance. The cross at the end of those years was a climax and culmination of the man who all His life died to even His own perfect human life and lived by His Father.

Perhaps that is part of the significance of myrrh being presented as a gift to the baby Son of Man and Son of God.

"I can do nothing from Myself; as I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 5:30)

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

He doesn't belong there.

God belongs there. In fact the whole life of Jesus is so inextricably mingled with God, to rid God from the account is to rid Jesus the man from the account.

God and man are impossibly difficult to separate from the Gospels became God and man are so interwoven that the arrival of God as a man and a man as God is the kernel of the Gospel.

Now you can reject God from the combination if you harbor a personal interest in "stripping away God" from what the writers were writing. Some of eventually us stand against that urge for seeing the good fortune (the blessing rather) of not doing so.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

He doesn't belong there.

God belongs there. In fact the whole life of Jesus is so inextricably mingled with God, to rid God from the account is to rid Jesus the man from the account.

God and man are impossibly difficult to separate from the Gospels became God and man are so interwoven that the arrival of God as a man and a man a ...[text shortened]... tually us stand against that urge for seeing the good fortune (the blessing rather) of not doing so.

Look sonship, I was stripping God out of the narrative in order to view a Gospel as a piece of writing involving plot development, and to explain why the inclusion of myrrh might have been inserted at the beginning to tie in with the ending.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

If we though strip away the 'God' from the narrative and view it as a human-written story,

Why are you intent on stripping away God from the narrative?
Is "stripping away" God from the narrative supposed to be the default human reaction?

Do you agree that it is healthy and useful to be able to examine biblical text in the context and juxtaposition of God existing, and of God not existing?