Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Photobucket
Welcome to Kadaish. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to participate in the discussions, sharing your ideas and questions. This will broaden the scope of our understanding together and we greatly appreciate your willingness to be involved, regardless of how we may agree or disagree. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The birth of Jesus
Topic Started: Sep 15 2012, 04:44 AM (275 Views)
MarkStaneart
Member Avatar
Administrator
While we will find the name “Jesus” used 172 times in the book of Matthew. The author only finds it necessary to surname Him as “Christ” in the first three instances that He is introduced: in verse 1, when his thesis is first introduced, in verse 16, when his name falls chronologically in the genealogical account, and finally when He is introduced at birth. It would be redundant to continue to title Him in such a way throughout the narrative since the entire point of the writing is to prove this very point.

The opening story describes the conditions of His birth with an air of mystery. There is a clear focus upon Joseph, and how, by rights, there was no reasonable explanation for his participation in these events. The genealogical record places an emphasis upon the idea of Divine grace: that the circumstances that brought each of individual through their experiences in history were orchestrated by God’s personal intervention. The account describing the birth of Yeshua continues this same theme, placing Joseph in the role previously established by God, Mary is the personification of Israel, out of whom the Messiah is born.

The traditional Jewish marriage was established by “betrothal”, when a man states his intent to marry a woman and both families agree to the arrangement. From this point, they are contractually married, though the relationship is not consummated and neither can yet enjoy the privileges of the agreement. The man has a specified period of time to complete given tasks, to include building a home and establishing himself in business in the community. The wife, at the same time, is to be preparing herself and gathering the essential tools and skills for married life, with the help of her mother and the women of the community. The focuses of the two parties are completely different, as the timelines could never juncture at the same time. Once the man has completed his tasks, he is free to come and claim his bride and consummate the relationship. She, on the other hand, must establish herself early and maintain herself in expectancy of his arrival. The status of “betrothed” continues from the point of time that the marriage is agreed upon and the time the husband and the wife’s father agrees that the man is able to fulfill his social and financial obligations in the community as a husband and father. According to the account of Matthew, sometime during the betrothal period, Mary became pregnant.

Evidence regarding the virgin birth of the Messiah is not as conclusive here as some are inclined to believe. While it is certainly within the realm of possibility, and has strength in such an assertion elsewhere, the phrase “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1:18) must not be considered conclusive.

Instead, this phrase ought to be recognized in reference to Isaiah 63:11.

In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him? That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name? That led them through the deep, as an horse in the wilderness, that they should not stumble? As a beast goeth down into the valley, the Spirit of the LORD caused him to rest: so didst thou lead thy people, to make thyself a glorious name.
(Isaiah 63:9-14)

The given reference to the “Ruakh haKodesh” (Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost) would not have been offered to the intended audience of Matthew as a new idea- such does not fit within the thesis of discussion. Rather, such describes “The Prophet” that Israel is anticipating:

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
(Deuteronomy 18:18-19)

Joseph is described in this passage as a man full of justice because he was “mindful” or considered, divorcing Mary privately. However, justice, in such an instance required that Mary be put to death.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

However, this would not be possible in such an instance. A capital offense would require the evidence from at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6). One may suppose that the pregnancy, itself, should count as witness alone. This is not true in Jewish Law. In fact, if the evidence of guilt appears to be overwhelming, the accused cannot legally be tried. When there is not enough evidence to demonstrate even the possibility of evidence, it is considered impossible to conduct a fair trial. The accused, then, must be set free. For this reason, Joseph’s only legal recourse is divorce, having found some “uncleanness” in her (Deuteronomy 24:1).

The Hebrew word often translated “just” is “tzadeek”. It can also mean “charitable”, suggesting that his character was not such to cause Mary unnecessary pain. Yet, still, the Text offers no hint that he ever once considered continuing the marriage to be even an option.

The “things” that Joseph had to consider were not a matter of what but of how. He had already established that he was not going to have her publicly tried for adultery or shamed as a divorcee. These circumstances must have held poignant familiarity to the audience of Matthew. The book of Hosea describes the Most High God considering these very options. Isaiah 50 speaks of the Lord God of Israel having full right to put away Israel and yet choosing to love her anyway. This is the message that the author of Matthew is clearly presenting: that the only reason that this child bears legitimacy is by grace from his (adoptive) father: and that, via the Holy Spirit.

Joseph is addressed by “the angel of the Lord” in a dream. Such a messenger should arrest the attention of the audience, lending to the consistent thread of Matthew’s thesis. It was “the angel of the Lord” that instructed Hagaar to return to the protection of the house of Abraham, saving the life of her son, Ishmael (Genesis 16). The “angel of the Lord” kept Abraham from sacrificing his son, Isaac, on the altar (Genesis 22). The usage of this term is rare enough to be identified with a very singular idea; but rare enough to be immediately recognized by someone with a foundation in Jewish antiquity. What may be most relevant is that, while “the angel of the Lord” appears in the time of Abraham, Moses, during the period of Judges, and to David, He disappears almost completely until the prophecy of Zechariah, where He intercedes with the Most High on behalf of Israel (Zechariah 1:12) and prophecies the coming of the Messiah (Zechariah 12:8).

“Jesus”

Joseph may or may not have recognized his commission to foster-parent this child as part of the Messianic prophecies. The association with the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was added by the author of Matthew to draw the connection for his audience that may not have yet appeared obvious. In fact, the prophecy (unless pointed out specifically), doesn’t quite seem to fit. In Isaiah, the child will be “named Emmanuel”, which means, “God with us.” Joseph is instructed to name the child, “Jesus” (Yehoshua), which means “God will deliver.”

The name Yehoshua (Joshua or Jesus), at least the way we tend to think of it, would not have been identifiable as the coming Messiah. In Deuteronomy 18:15, we are told that the coming Prophet (the Messiah) would come in a way that would identify Him with Moses (Moshe means “delivered” not “deliverer”). Joshua, of the Exodus story, was never associated with deliverance but with the conquest of the Land. But, the Joshua of the Exodus story was never approached by “the angel of the Lord.” However, Joshua, the High Priest, in the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah was. This Joshua was commissioned with the spiritual restoration of the Israelite community after the Babylonian captivity. This Joshua was promised the restoration of the house of Israel through the One God will send forth who is named “the Branch”, through whom He will “remove the iniquity of that land in one day.” (Zechariah 3:8-9).

“Emmanuel” (God with us), has often been used as evidence to suggest the deity of the Messiah. With no intention of arguing against this premise, it should not be a given or established fact, based upon the way Matthew’s intended audience would have interpreted this prophecy. A declarative statement that defines the relationship between God and man was a common practice. The anti-type of “Emmanuel” might be “Ichabod”, which means “the glory of the Lord has departed”. Ichabod was the grandson of the High Priest Eli, who was born the day that Eli and his sons died and the Ark of the Covenant was captured in battle (1st Samuel 4:21).

Speculations abound as to who Emmanuel must have been in Isaiah 7: 14. The general conclusion is that his identity is withheld for the protection of his family from the wrath of Ahaz (whom the prophecy given is condemning). Another suggestion, among Jewish scholars in particular, is that Emmanuel was describing the nation of Israel metaphorically. The second usage of the name describes “the land of Emmanuel” in Isaiah 8:8. This would lead to Rashi’s later conclusion that Isaiah 9:6 is also describing the Hebrew State in general. Even this popular notion only stands to deflect the mystery surrounding either account and does not stand up to even rudimentary consideration. The child (Emmanuel) is described as not yet knowing “to refuse evil or choose good” in the reign of King Ahaz (Isaiah 7:15). The nation of Israel had received and accepted the Torah over 700 years before.

Further debate as to whether or not the woman to give birth to Emmanuel was a virgin has added to the conversation. Rabbinical scholars will point out that the word for “virgin” is “almah”, which simply means “girl”. “Bethoolah” would have been the preferred word if her virginity was to be emphasized. However, the Jewish translators responsible for the Greek Septuagint chose the Greek word “pantheros”, which emphasizes the girl’s virginity and legal availability for marriage as opposed to the more generic “koras-ion”. This debate must have been must have been fierce in during the 1st Century, even to damage the credibility of the Septuagint among many yeshivas (Rabbinic schools of theology). It is as though the author of Matthew had no intention of providing a definitive answer; but simply creating the air of mystery. The same questions that were discussed as to what must have been the parentage of Emmanuel in Isaiah 7-8 would be asked of Yeshua (John 6:42).

The Jewish marriage was not fully consummated until the husband and wife engaged in sexual intercourse. The marriage ceremony, the party that ensued was all considered preparatory to entering into the physical union of becoming husband and wife. This is why extra-marital sexual activity was such a desecration to the Jewish society: it was literally an adulteration of a covenantal act. At the marriage ceremony, the groom would establish his legitimacy to lay claim to the wife, offer his pledges of dedication to her and the community. The wife would be given to the husband by the father. Traditionally, a groom would take the wife to a prepared and adorned, private chamber; while the entire community waited outside (with copious amounts of alcohol) until the groom emerged to proclaim that they were now married. This is why, in Luke’s account, the author is clear to describe Joseph and Mary as being “espoused” even after Yeshua had been born.

The manner in which a woman wore her veil clearly distinguished her marital status. The married woman wore her head-covering in a way that was different than one who was engaged, available, divorced or widowed. Circumcision of the child would have occurred on the eighth day after his birth. The mother is forbidden to engage in sexual activity for a minimum of 33 days after bearing a male child (Leviticus 12:1-4). This would easily establish for Simeon and Anna who they should look for in the Temple (Luke 2:22-38). An “espoused” woman bringing an infant to be circumcised was a social impossibility.
Visit Mark Staneart at www.renewourdays.com
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · c 50- 60: Matthew written · Next Topic »
Add Reply