Oh no! That’s terrible, Dave. I’ll ask someone else then, and you can go next if you like – or if you know which one you’d like, tell me and I’ll post it.
I was just reading this last night in the Gospel of John:
It stuck in my mind because I first noticed how much myrrh and aloe Nicodemus brought which puzzled me (but that’s beside the point. 
) In any event, this:
brought that to mind. The smell of myrrh and other spices from the king’s garments evokes thoughts of the same scents coming from the risen Christ. Also, of course, the Magi gave myrrh as one of the gifts to the ‘newborn king’.
Well, myrrh is for embalming (such as it was) the dead. It seems a strange fragrance for a king’s wedding day – but then we know what the bride price involved. I’d be interested to know whether it was customarily used for other things. And what was the fragrance Mary of Bethany poured over Jesus feet? Are we told? I can’t remember. I know it’s in John – I’ll have a look.
Okay, that was spikenard – It would have been cooler if it’d been, say, cassia or stacte. 
I guess myrrh was also a traditional gift for kings.
I had to look up cassia and stacte to see if they were a type of aloe but no. 
Yes Myrrh was used in embalming by the ancient Egyptians and from them the practice caught on in the rest of the near East. Traditionally the grief to the third King/ Magi to Jesus – Balthazar - which is myrrh is seen as a prophecy of his death. Likewise Nicodemus’ gift is interpreted as a prophecy of Christ’s death and Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are both involved in the burial of Jesus
However, as an ointment that was understood to ward off flies from a corpse and have medicinal uses it was also associated with life and purification and used in rites of marriage. And in the book of Esther myrrh is used for the preparation and purification of the bride.
Spikenard (nard) and myrrh and other spices and ointments are used by the female lover to anoint her beloved in the Song of Songs (4:14)
nard and saffron,
calamus and cinnamon,
with every kind of incense tree,
with myrrh and aloes,
and all the finest spices.
In the Eastern, Catholic and Anglican Churches the incense bunt at High festivals is a mixture of myrrh, frankincense and other spices to show the connection between great love and the voluntary surrender of a life
In a time before deodorants and refrigerators bad smells were associated with death and impurity = even more so than today. Hence the phrase ‘the sweet odour of sanctity’
Thanks, Dick! One question, though, why did Nicodemus buy one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes for Jesus’ burial? It seems like a tremendous amount to me… 
It is a costly and lavish gift - and I think that may be the point
Perhaps there is some irony in the lavishness of the gift. Nicodemus brings a gift as if in tribute to an earthly King/Master. Nicodemus is also slow witted as to the meaning of being born again/from above and perhaps he doesn’t understand the meaning of the myrrh at this point (since it had more than one use) or the meaning of kingship as Jesus sees it. I could be an instance of dramatic irony - we are ‘in the know’ but Nicodemus, at this point in the narrative, is not.
I’m speaking of John 19:39 where Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus come together to take the body of Jesus, with Nicodemus bringing the “myrrh and aloes”. I haven’t read the other gospels lately so remind me where he brought myrrh as a gift and it would be useful to compare the two accounts.
I am a twit - I had a false memory of him bringing the gift when he came to see Jesus by night. You are right there is no dramatic irony here 
It’s a middle age thing So back to the previous post - the precise amount of myrrh and aloes John lists must just show that these two important men saw it fit to give him the (secret) burial of a King. Perhaps the exact amount is hyperbole - giving a sense of the honour done to Jesus’ body in contrast to the dishonour done to his body in the Passion.
That makes sense, Dick. Just as Mary’s use of spikenard to cleanse Christ’s feet was extravagant, so was Nicodemus buying 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes for Jesus’ burial.
Not only that, though. The women bought more and brought them on Sunday morning. Did they know what Nicodemus had done, or did they deem it insufficient? I guess the Jews did apparently use prodigious quantities of spices for burial (or at least those who could afford it did.) We typically think of Jesus and the disciples as poor people but I’ve read pretty convincing arguments that they were probably not as impoverished as we like to think.
It would be interesting to know how literally minded the Gospel writers were. Did they use symbolic numbers and hyperbole like the OT authors before them? What was the story-telling style of the age? I’m sure they wanted a faithful account, however, so i’m inclined to think they wrote as their memories and the memories of those they spoke to dictated…but maybe i’m approaching that from the wrong angle. Something can be 100% true in all the most important ways without being literally true (just like a good Terry Pratchett book, for example).
Not sure what the women thought - the burial had been in secret - but even if they’d know the use of myrrh was about paying their own respects.
I’m not sure it matters whether John gives the exact weights and measures; if it is hyperbole it still means that no expense was spared I guess James. And that’s the truth that is being communicated even to people who find it hard to imagine mathematical quantity of weight and measure(like myself )
I get the impression that we have a complex picture.
Some of Jesus disciples were rich – even very rich; for example Lazarus of Bethany and his sisters and also Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus.
I don’t think the fishermen would have been rich - but a fisherman would have been more independent than a peasant.
As for Jesus and his blood family. Well Jesus was a carpenter of the artisan class rather than the peasant class. In terms of trade he wasn’t from the middle classes as we think of the middle classes today – but certainly a carpenter (often employed in the building trade as well as making chairs and tables etc) was comparatively well off compared to a peasant.
Jesus’ family may also have been from the priestly caste I guess, distanced from the Temple but still with friends within the Temple which was a source of wealth.
However, I do think that Jesus identified with the materially poor and the lot of the materially poor which was terrible during his day because of the taxes of Rome and the double tax demanded by the Temple. I think Jesus was still a prophet in speaking up for the poor and against those who abused their riches (but not against the rich per se). It often happens that champions of the poor come from a higher class. YE si think his message was both for the poor and for the poor in spirit (not necessarily the same thing). But I certainly don’t see Jesus as a mere social revolutionary - not at all.
I think in Jesus’ day the rich and the poor mixed more together; they didn’t live in different areas widely separated in terms of distance as they do today.
Well that’s how I imagine it Cindy .
Dick, I think you’re probably right about that. James & John, Peter and Andrew were partners in their fishing businesses. Remember they left their father (I think this was James and John – but it probably applied to both familes) with the hired hands in the boat. From that (and other things) I would deduce that the boats were good-sized and the businesses profitable enough to employ assistance. Even a fishing business can be a going concern.
If you think of the time Jesus was asleep in the bows of the boat and all His disciples afraid of the storm . . . Jesus had more disciples than the twelve. Did they leave the women behind to fend for themselves? I can’t see that. I think the women were probably at the last supper, too, as well as other faithful followers. Why wouldn’t they be? We assume only the twelve; we don’t have any real reason to do that. The pictures we have are all of Jesus with twelve men in a rowboat, but that isn’t realistic, imo. The Sea of Galilee is big water. I wonder whether it’s plausible to think of the four seasoned fishermen overloading one of their boats and then setting out into deep water as the sun sets? Where would Jesus have slept in the bows of such a small boat? That wouldn’t have been shelter at all. I’ve sheltered in the bows of a fishing craft myself, and even in a large shrimp boat it’s cold and wet there. In a boat of the kind the artists depict, it would be literally impossible. My belief is that the fishermen had a fairly large boat, sufficient to hold Jesus and His hangers-on and to more or less confidently strike out straight across the Lake of Tiberius.
Jesus, interestingly, may have been a stone mason rather than a carpenter and may even have worked on some of Herod’s building projects with Joseph. The word we translate “carpenter” apparently just means a tradesman of the building persuasion. There was some reason to think masonry was more likely, but I can’t remember at the moment what that was. In some passages Jesus is referred to as the carpenter from Galilee, which would seem to indicate He was known and in demand. He’d no doubt been working in the trade (whatever it was) since childhood, and He didn’t begin His public ministry until around 30, so He’d had time to build a reputation if He was good at what He did.
So . . . when Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor and come follow Him, He may not have been asking of the ruler (except in degree) anything He Himself had not already done. It’s also been speculated that Jesus may Himself have been trained as a Pharisee. (Though apparently not well known in that capacity – “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?”) John the Baptist told the Pharisees, “There standeth one among you whom ye know not. He it is who, coming after me is preferred before me, whose sandals I am not worthy to unloose.” Like Paul, the Pharisees were typically men who supported themselves and their families through work in a trade (tent making in Paul’s case), so that would fit – even though it’s mostly conjecture.
Jesus warns potential followers that “The Son of Man hath nowhere to lay His head.” And some say this meant He himself had no claim on a home. He did of course have many friends who put Him and His disciples up when He was in their vicinity. I suspect that with His popularity through most of His ministry they would usually have had access to shelter of some kind. In Galilee, the homes of the disciples from there, and Jesus’ own family home. It would be interesting to know more about that part of His life.
Anyway, I digress . . .
Love, Cindy
How do we feel about David crying out to God for vengeance and punishment on his enemies, including their children?
1 ¶ «To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.» Do not keep silent, O God of my praise!
2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful Have opened against me; They have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
3 They have also surrounded me with words of hatred, And fought against me without a cause.
4 In return for my love they are my accusers, But I give myself to prayer.
5 Thus they have rewarded me evil for good, And hatred for my love.
6 ¶ Set a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand.
7 When he is judged, let him be found guilty, And let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless, And his wife a widow.
10 Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg; Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places.
11 Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder his labor.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy to him, Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off, And in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD, And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be continually before the LORD, That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth;
16 Because he did not remember to show mercy, But persecuted the poor and needy man, That he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing, so let it come to him; As he did not delight in blessing, so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment, So let it enter his body like water, And like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be to him like the garment which covers him, And for a belt with which he girds himself continually.
20 Let this be the LORD’S reward to my accusers, And to those who speak evil against my person. (NKJV)
Nice one, Paidion! a good juicy wrath Psalm
I’ll have a think!
Knee jerk reaction, is this is David at his most vindictive and vile. Yes, he justifies his anger by saying it’s “fair”…this guy is getting what he deserves as he did the same to others.
but this is contrary to the overarching message of the Bible…but i think it says that God allows us to express our feelings, even our dark ones. He of course may not choose to act on them. He more or less ignored Jonah and even told him off when Jonah (equally understandably) wanted Ninevah destroyed.