Work Notes III
74.
Brown INT p344. JN: the angel stirring the water is missing from the best ms.
75.
Harmony of the Four Gospels, 1894, William Arnold Stevens and Ernest D. Burton. Abbrev: SBH; Burton and Goodspeed harmony of the synoptics, abbrev: BGH.
76.
BGH. Consider using excerpts from that preface in your preface.
77.
Quirinius appointed (garble) in 6 a.d., replacing Herod Archelaus, who had been deposed by Augustine. Quirinius immediately ordered a census for tax purposes. Because Jewish law forbids censuses, Judah stirred up another revolt against Roman rule.
78.
MT 2. J born in days of Herod the King (Herod the Great). His son Archelaus was named ethnarc (less than a king) by Augustine of Judaea, Samaria and Idumea. He was deposed in 6 a.d. Herod's son Antipas (Herod Antipas) was named tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. Herod's son Philip was made tetrarch of territories north and east of the Jordan. Herod's sister, Salome I, was granted a toparchy that included Jabneh, Ashdod and Phyaelus.
In 7 b.c., an ailing Herod had two of his sons, Aristobulus and Alexander, executed. He had another one killed later. No longer dependent on his alliance with the Hasmoneans, he had his Hasmonean wife and her son(s) by him killed.
Some may suggest that the massacre of the innocents is a legendary account of Herod's execution of three of his sons. On the other hand, anyone so merciless on his own children would have been altogether capable of the atrocity recorded in MT.
Still, LK's account of the timing of Jesus' birth is at odds with all other evidence. His date places J's birth some 10 to 13 years too late.
Archelaus, records show, took his father's place (in part) in 7 b.c., meaning Jesus, in MT's account, must have been born before then. Other indicators point to a date as late as 2 b.c., but no one thinks 6 or 7 a.d. can be right.
We may wonder whether there has been a conflation of the two Herods.
If, as experts believe, J was killed around 27 or 30 a.d., he would have been "too young." Various leads (including in the gospels) suggest that he was at least 30 years old when he died. Of course, as with so much of history before the printing press, exact dates are hard to come by.
As I say in a footnote to Miracle Cure, I question LK's details of the birth. The earliest versions of LK on hand don't include the infancy story. This implies that decades had passed since the time of Mary's recollections, leaving the writer/editor to splice the available data as well as he could. Yet, I suspect that the essence of the story is right.
Both MT and LK are concerned to move J about so as to account for a messiah coming from Nazareth. In MT's infancy story, the problem is to get J from Bethlehem to Galilee. In LK's, the problem is to get J from Galilee to Bethlehem.
Though LK's dating is wrong, I think the lucan account closer to reality than the matthean. The matthean story, though it came before the lukan story, appears to be an echo of LK, which is to say that both echo the account that preceded both, which I sketch in the FN.
79.
Brown JN I-XII p290 (vicinity of 290). Brown makes the case for JN 6:51-59 to be a "eucharistic" verse of the bread of life discourse of JN 6:35-50.
This is interesting bcz it implies that the semi-literal interpretation of the bread of life idea took hold in the early church, even though J was almost certainly speaking metaphorically (as he does throughout JN and in the synoptic parables). Think of our idiom, "He eats that stuff up." We are to fuel up on J. That's all we need.
Still, when we gather for a meal as Christians, it certainly makes sense to honor Jesus. And, there is he in our midst when two or three get together in his name. He is in each of us and among us at the same time.
Let us also reflect that when we consume the wafer or cracker and drink the wine or grape juice, this is to remind us that we should learn to think like Jesus and do like J. We can leave to philosophers the theory of transubstantiation. Once a person is truly born again, he is always communing with Jesus. He doesn't need a special ceremony to bring about that result. So the point of the eucharist is so that Christians may share a special time with each other and with their Lord.
80.
Brown JN I-XII p291. (Also see 292.) The passage may be an interpolation meant to include the Christian passover liturgy. Perhaps a liturgical commentary (midrash) was inadvertently incorporated by a copyist.
WN IV
81.
Brown INT p263. MK takes up about 35% of LK.
82.
Brown INT p237. Bottom graph. The synoptic evangelists MT and LK do the same sort of thing I do. They take elements of MK and weave them together in accord with their needs. For example, see Brown on LK 4.38-39, the healing of Simon's mother in law. LK omits the presence of the four fishermen-disciples found in MK's version because in LK, J had not yet called these disciples.
83.
Brown INT p238. Check remarks near end of first graph. That J had healed the mother in law and effected a huge catch of fish "makes more intelligible why Simon and the others followed J so readily."
84.
Brown INT p233. FN 15 on LK's apparent inaccuracies: In LK 23.45, LK explains the darkness at the death of J as the result of a solar eclipse. But, according to astronomical calculations and Roman records, there was no such event in the Near East in November of 29, nor at Passover of 30 or 33. Of course LK and others may have assumed the darkening came from a solar eclipse. Other physical possibilities are volcanic ash (the volcano-ridden rift valley runs through Palestine) and a very big dust storm, a phenomenon well-known in the Near East. That sort of event would also explain why the darkening was not noted by Roman writers, as it would have been local -- though it implied that the whole world had gone dark spiritually (there was no light at all in it between J's death and resurrection).
In Acts 5:37-37 Gamiliel (ca. a.d.36), LK has Gamiliel speak about Theudas's revolt which did not occur until 10 years after the "speech." Check that. May turn out to be relatively minor.
85.
Re JN. I feel fairly confident that at least some NT stories are what are sometimes called midrash. That is, they use an underlying account and embellish it with a story meant to get across moral and theological truths. We have as an example from pre-Christian times, the book Tobit, which was beloved by Jews because of its blend of fun fantasy with deep morality. Some NT episodes are not meant for light entertainment but nevertheless convey truth via accepted literary license. Take the case of the woman at the well. JN may very well have known of an incident in which J influence a Samarian woman, who then brought the townspeople out to him. And it is plausible that J gave his disciples an abbreviated version of his talk with the woman.
Still, it was the writer of JN who wrote the dialogue. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, this writer wished to convey some important knowledge about the messiah. We can be sure of this because he has also taken one of J's sayings about the harvest and adapted it to this account, though the adaptation may seem slightly out of sync. But the author placed it there in order to stress the importance of continued evangelism. People (even if not politically correct Jews) are in dire need of salvation, and look how one poor woman of low esteem could reap such a harvest of souls! The story also underscores the importance of coming to a personal relationship with J, a major Johannine theme, as Brown notes.
Think of your pastor giving a good sermon. He may give you an illustration to try to get across his point and may base that illustration on Scripture. But he dresses it up in modern language and concepts so that people relate more easily. Maybe the donkey becomes a car, or whatever. Now get this: (Hopefully) he is speaking the truth, regardless of the fact that the illustration is made up! In fact, that's how Jesus taught. Parable is just an old word for verbal illustration.
That's how it is, I suggest, with some -- though not all -- of the stories of the NT. Except, that these stories generally do reflect things that actually happened. But whether a healing occurred while leaving Jericho or entering it is a matter of literary license. The point is that, according to witnesses, a healing occurred near Jericho.
Those who do not care to come near to J will seize on these differences in order to brush off the message of Jesus, which is: throw yourself at God's mercy in Jesus' name and you will be saved -- forever!
As Bruce Metzger observed, though details may be incorrect here and there, the apostles and early Christians must have been convinced by something! And that something was their continued interaction with Jesus both in person and via the Holy Spirit.
We need be clear that there are different levels of allegory and parallel. The apocryphal story Susanna teaches important spiritual lessons, but no one takes it as anything but religious fiction. On the other hand, the discourses of John are altogether in another dimension. Susanna is clearly fiction, but then how should we characterize the story of the woman at the well? In that case, the writer has reconstructed events based on memories of witnesses and his own understanding of Jesus as given him via the Holy Spirit.
And in the case of the synoptics, we can discern that the writers have put together remembered sayings and events, sometimes giving their own interpretations. These events were not recalled as fictions. What the evangelists tried to do was to take what people had remembered and put it in writing as the period of the eyewitnesses drew to a close. So, although these epigrams are set, as best the writers were able, into a narrative, that narrative -- such as it was -- is somewhat fictional, if not contradictory at times. Yet, no one tried to write fiction. They were trying to be faithful reporters in an era before the printing press and electronic recording. That is not what the writers of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon were trying to do. They were writing morality tales that were intended as fiction.
86.
Brown INT p244. Only LK includes the hostile encounter with a Samarian village -- which is diametrically opposed to the encounter described in JN. Offhand thought: I wonder whether JN might have taken refuge in Samaria after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in a.d.70.
But LK has the parable of the good Samarian.
Check 2d graph.
THE BIG OMISSION: LK eliminates J's trip to Jerusalem (Judaea?). Everything between the two mass feeding miracles in MK.
MK's "beyond the Jordan" echoes JN which has J across the Jordan near JB. Check!!!
87.
Brown INT p239. FN 30: The lucan list of the 12 apostles (see also the 11 in Acts 1:13) seems to stem from a different tradition than that shown in MK 3.16-19 and MT 10.2-4.
My take is that there was to begin with a group of disciples, some of whom became pillars of the church known as messengers or envoys of the Lord (in Greek: apostles). After a while the term apostle began to be restricted to a particular group of men who had seen Jesus and been given special powers. Paul used this title of himself in order to insist on his equality with those who had seen Jesus before his crucifixion.
Names of these elders were recalled in different sets, just as you might remember Jack and Jim from your childhood but not Jesse, whereas your brother remembers Jim and Jesse, but not Jack. Of course Peter was not going to be overlooked by anyone because of he was just hard to forget and evidently was very active. But note that James, who is a "brother" or blood relative of Jesus, was a leader who was recalled as an apostle, though he was not one of those originally designated or chosen by J.
That is, the notion of messenger was not glorified into the title of Apostle right away.
As for J choosing 12 disciples to become apostles. Firstly, we may recall that he had attracted quite a few men who treated him as a master or rabbi. But, when his teaching became too difficult, most of them turned back. Some remained. Was the number exactly 12? We should recall that numbers such as 7, 12, 40, 70, 72, 144, 1,000 were used in ancient times as representative of spiritual wholes. It seems probable that there were approximately 12 men among his followers at the time of his resurrection appearances.
This number represents the Jewish people. Jesus chose men to reach all "the 12 tribes." Since 10 of the tribes had been decimated hundreds of years previously, we must conclude that this was a way of saying that the messiah was reaching out to the Jewish nation.
LK as a matter of fact has 70 (or 72) disciples fanning out across Palestine to reach out to the Jews. This story is so hard to fit into the general information on hand that we take it to be genuine from the perspective of LK. Why insert something that doesn't jibe, especially when we see that LK strives to make his gospel a coherent account.
88.
When we question some of the contradictions, we should keep in mind that what is impossible for man is possible with God.
89.
Brown INT p241. LK modifies MK's story of Mary and his brothers standing outside a house where a crowd has gathered around him so that there is only praise for them, not MK's implicit rebuke.
90.
Brown INT p241 FN 33. Is the lucan story (weepg, anointg feet) the same as that of the anointing of J' head by the woman at the house of Simon the leper (MK 14.3-9; MT 26.6-13) and that of the anointg of J' feet by Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (JN 12.1-8)?
FN 33. Many think the two stories have been confused in the traditions that came down to LK and JN. Others argue for one basic story. Hagiographic tradition and legend glued the three stories together and further confused the situation by identifying Mary, the sister of Martha, with Mary of Magdala.
This all goes to underscore what I have been saying: Something like that happened! The truth conveyed by the recollected and perhaps rewritten story is what counts, not the particulars.
91.
Brown INT p242. LK omits MK's account of the dance of Herod's daughter and its grim end. That omission accords better with Josephus, who says Herod executed JB for being a troublemaker (probably at the prodding of the Jewish authorities). Still, one can easily imagine JB publicly condemning Herod's marriage (or proposed marriage) to Herodias, who divorced Herod II in order to wed Herod Antipas. Such a ;public denunciation would have been taken as a political threat in those parlous times.
92.
Brown INT p242. Not only does LK leave out the 2d feeding miracle, he also leaves out MK's material found between the 2 feedings -- including the walking on water.
My thought is that perhaps the men in the boat saw J do an "impossible" translation. At one moment he was at one point on the shoreline, and a moment later he was at another point around the bend in the lake, miles distant. They would have thought: "How did he get that far? Did he walk across the water?" This would also account for JN's report of the entire group being translated across Lake Galilee in an instant. Such a feat would be no less miraculous than actually walking on water. And it accounts for variations in the gospel accounts. As for MT havg Peter get out of the boat and walk toward J, we know that J certainly has power to actually walk on water. Yet, it is possible that this little episode is a midrash meant to convey some very important truths: belief, faith, focus on J, grace, grace and grace...
I don't doubt that the story could be an accurate account of what occurred. But my alternative is not less miraculous!
93.
Anyone who worries that each of the four gospels were written at one or two removes from the eyewitnesses might consider than a major portion of the NT was written by the apostle Paul, who had a personal encounter with the risen Jesus and who, as an eyewitness to many miracles, spoke as one filled with God's spirit and truth.
94.
wiki on bethsaida,
According to Josephus, around the year 30/31 CE (or 32/33 CE) Herod II raised the village of Bethsaida in Lower Gaulanitis to the rank of a polis and renamed it "Julias," in honor of Livia, the wife of Augustus. It lay near the place where the Jordan enters the Sea of Galilee.[19]
Julias/Bethsaida was a city east of the Jordan River, in a "desert place" (that is, uncultivated ground used for grazing). If this is the location to which Jesus retired by boat with his disciples to rest a while. The multitude following on foot along the northern shore of the lake would cross the Jordan by the ford at its mouth, which is used by foot travelers to this day. The "desert" of the narrative is just the barrīyeh of the Arabs, where the animals are driven out for pasture. The "green grass" of Mark 6:39, and the "much grass" of John 6:10, point to some place in the plain of el-Baṭeiḥah, on the rich soil of which the grass is green and plentiful, compared to the scanty herbage on the higher slopes.[citation needed]
bethsaida abt 7 mi frm capernaum on north shore. chorazin nearby.
95.
Brown INT p349. FN: Jesus' raisings from the dead (Lazarus {Jn 11:1-44}, the son of the widow of Nain [Lk 7:11-17], the daughter of Jairus [Mk 5:35-43]) are recounted by the evangelists as miraculous resuscitations, similar to those done by the OT prophets Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:32-37). Jesus' own resurrection is of a higher order, eschatologically anticipating God's raising of the dead in the last days. Resuscitation restores ordinary life; resurrection involves eternal life.
Well, so he says. Not really sure about this.
MT 27:50-53 has the veil of the temple ripped apart, accompanied by an earthquake that resulted in many rocks and boulders being split apart and tombs being opened. Many of "the saints" got up and were seen walking around in Jerusalem. This occurred when Jesus died, two days before his resurrection.
These I suggest were particular servants of Jehovah, such as Anna the prophetess and the holy man Simeone, along with some of the named prophets, who had been looking forward to Israel's redemption. Their revival fulfills God's pledge to the Old Order of earthly Israel. Whether they died again or not is not related. But we can assume that they did not, though what became of them is a divine secret.
Sunday, July 19, 2020
Wednesday, July 8, 2020
viii. Nazareth days
Luke 2:41-42
It was the custom of Joseph and Mary to make the trek from Nazareth to Jerusalem to attend the annual Passover celebration. Mary recalled one trip, when her son was 12 years old, particularly vividly.
On their way back from the feast, they assumed that the lad was walking with friends or relatives from Nazareth,1 when in fact he had decided to remain in the Temple, where he was discussing scripture with the expert doctors of the law. 2 Once Joseph and Mary realized that Jesus had not returned with them, they headed back to Jerusalem.
It was the custom of Joseph and Mary to make the trek from Nazareth to Jerusalem to attend the annual Passover celebration. Mary recalled one trip, when her son was 12 years old, particularly vividly.
On their way back from the feast, they assumed that the lad was walking with friends or relatives from Nazareth,1when in fact he had decided to remain in the Temple, where he was discussing scripture with the expert doctors of the law. 2 Once Joseph and Mary realized that Jesus had not returned with them, they headed back to Jerusalem.
For three days, the frantic couple hunted high and low for him. When they finally found him sitting amid the learned men discussing scripture, they were surprised to see that Jesus' listeners were amazed at the depth of his answers to the questions of the experts. His astounded mother exclaimed, "Son, why did you do this to us?! See here, your father and I have been looking everywhere for you! We were worried sick!" Jesus replied, "Why were you looking for me? Don't you know that I must be in my Father's house?""
That remark went right over their heads.
But he returned to Nazareth with them and was an obedient son.
As Jesus grew, both physically and mentally, people tended to think well of him – as did God, of course.
1. This shows that his parents had a great deal of trust in the boy being a responsible person.
2. Implicit here is the understanding that Jesus had reached the age at which he could make some decisions as a man without first consulting his earthly father or others. This age threshold evidently coincided with the onset of puberty, and may not have been a fixed at a particular number.
According to Jews for Jesus,
The bar/bat mitzvah is not found in the Bible. Bar mitzvah is of medieval origin, though the term itself is found in the Talmud, while bat mitzvah did not exist until the 20th century...The web article continues,
The bar mitzvah ... takes place at thirteen years of age, and the only mention of someone of that age in the Tanakh [Old Testament] is in Genesis 17:25:And Ishmael his [Abraham’s] son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
The fact that the age of twelve is specifically noted may suggest that it was a transition age even in the first-century, though any evidence comes from the later period of the Talmud. At least, twelve could be considered an age when a young man evidenced wisdom and piety. Josephus (Antiquities X.4.1) says of King Amon:And when he was twelve years old, he gave demonstrations of his religious and righteous behavior; for he brought the people to a sober way of living, and exhorted them to leave off the opinion they had of their idols, because they were not gods, but to worship their own God. And by repeating on the actions of his progenitors, he prudently corrected what they did wrong, like a very elderly man, and like one abundantly able to understand what was fit to be done …Josephus likewise speaks of Samuel (Antiquities V.10.4):Now when Samuel was twelve years old, he began to prophesy: and once when he was asleep, God called to him by his name …
Tuesday, July 7, 2020
vii: Out of Egypt [old draft]
Matthew 2:1-23; Luke 2:40
After Joseph had re-established himself in Bethlehem and his little family had been living there for some time,1 three astrologers2 from the east showed up in Jerusalem, wanting to know where the new king of the Jews was. They said that in the east they had seen his star, and wished to worship him. Everybody was very interested in this news, which could easily spell trouble from the Romans who would brook no challenge to their rule. King Herod was especially worried. He was well known for getting rid of anyone who might pose a challenge.
Herod summoned a meeting of the leading priests and and experts in scripture and demanded that they tell him where the Messiah was to be born. (The Hebrew word Messiah and the Greek word Christ both mean Anointed. Every proper king of Israel was anointed with oil as a sign that he had been chosen by Jehovah. Many hoped that God would send a man anointed by God as the king chosen to save the Jews and Israel. This then implied that such a "son of man" would have been born a descendant of David, since it was believed that only David's descendants had a right to be king.)
After consulting one another, they told Herod, "In the Bethlehem that is in Judaea. We refer you to the scripture that says,
And you Bethlehem, in Judah,(Matthew quotes what we know as Micah 5:2.3)
are not in any way the least among the clans of Judah
for out of you will come a governor
who will be the shepherd of my people, Israel.
English translations of Matthew vary on this passage. The Matthean version came across something like this: Bethlehem is not to be counted as insignificant with respect to Israel's rulers because out of Bethlehem is to come a good ruler who will shepherd God's people, Israel.
Once the room had cleared, Herod had the three brought in secret to his court, where he questioned them carefully as to exactly when they first saw the star. This permitted him to calculate the child's age. The king then sent them to Bethlehem to locate (and identify) the child. He told them to let him know when they had found him so that he might also go to worship the child.
Having obtained the information they needed, the three traveled to Bethlehem, which was only five miles away. Once there, they were able to locate the child.
Luke says the star led them directly to the right house, but if so, one wonders why they had to ask around in Jerusalem. They doubtless went to Jerusalem because, as the capital of the Jewish land, that seemed a logical place for the birth of a messiah. In any case, as Bethlehem was rather small, it doesn't seem that, with diligent inquiries, they would have had much trouble finding a male child of the right age.
On reaching the right house, they found the baby boy with his mother Mary. They fell to their knees and worshiped him and then opened their treasures and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.3a
Before leaving Bethlehem, one of them was warned in a dream to steer clear of Herod, and so they left for their own land by a route that avoided Jerusalem.
After their departure, Joseph also had a dream in which one of Jehovah's angels told him: "Get up right now! Take the baby and his mother and flee to Egypt and stay there until I tell you differently. Herod is about to try to destroy the baby."4
So Joseph arose and did as he was told. He and his family remained in Egypt until after Herod's death. (This episode fulfills the saying, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."5)
Once Herod realized that the astrologers had made a fool of him, he went into a terrible rage. He sent soldiers to kill all the boys under age two in and around Bethlehem. Herod knew how old his target was by what the astrologers had told him.6
This atrocity fulfilled a passage of the prophet Jeremiah:
A voice was heard in Ramah –Once Herod was dead, Joseph had another dream in which Jehovah's angel appeared. The angel told him, "Arise and take the youngster and his mother and go back to the territory of Israel. They are dead8 who sought the child's life.
Weeping and great mourning;
Rachel weeping for her children
And she would not be comforted,
because they are not7
Joseph did as he was told, but as he entered Jewish territory, he heard that Herod's son, Archelaus, was now in charge (Caesar Augustus had denied him the kingship but named him ethnarc, or national leader). Joseph feared to go anywhere near the Herods and so decided to stay out of Judaea9, instead taking his little family up north to Galilee, back to the town of Nazareth. This choice fulfilled what was said by the prophets, that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene.10
The child grew strong, and was exceptionally intelligent. God gave him wonderful spiritual gifts.
1. I must assume this statement in order to bring Matthew and Luke into partial conformity to each other. You will also see that I insert other relevant detail based on modern research and knowledge.
2. These men were very probably skilled in astrology, as well as in other areas of occult knowledge. The word magic stems from the Greek word magus (magi is the plural). By the time of Herod, any form of divination was shunned by Jews, who would then not have been aware of such a sign. By worshiping Jesus, and giving him gifts, the magi symbolically acknowledged that he was granted mastery of all worldly power, the spiritual power associated with Satan.
The 17th century astronomer Johannes Kepler suggested that the magi saw a nova, a fairly common astronomical event in which two nearby stars interact, appearing to us as a "new star." Indeed, they may have seen a supernova, whereby a star is destroyed by explosion. The light output is fantastically high and, when close enough (not too close, God willing!), can be seen from earth for as much as several months.
3. Micah 5:2
But you Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the clans of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to me him who is to be ruler in Israel – whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.Notice that the final clause implies the pre-existence of the one who comes out of Judah to save Israel, even though he is to come forth to God. The doctrine of the dual sonship of God and his humanity is here implicit. If we then regard the Holy Spirit as effectively the mind of God, we have the doctrine of the Trinity.
3a. The Psalms and Isaiah use poetic imagery as they forecast the reign of Israel's deliverer. A more or less literal fulfillment of that theme is given by Matthew.
Psalm 72:10-15
10 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.Isaiah 60:6
11 Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.
12 For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper.
13 He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy.
14 He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight.
15 And he shall live, and to him shall be given of the gold of Sheba: prayer also shall be made for him continually; and daily shall he be praised.
The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the Lord.
4. History records that Herod was a very dangerous man. He even had three of his adult sons executed.
5. Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
6. We should not assume that Jesus was two years old at that time, though he might have been. Herod was quite capable of trying to make very sure that the child was not overlooked by setting an age threshold well above the lad's actual age.
7. Jeremiah 31:15
Thus says Jehovah:As with other Old Testament scriptures quoted in Matthew, some object that the passage is taken out of context and that the prophet was not conveying the message that Matthew relates. An answer: The Holy Spirit is the one who helps Christians interpret scripture. Thus, scripture means whatever God says it means. God speaks through his old word in new ways. In fact, the story of Jesus itself proves that fact!
A voice was heard in Ramah –
lamentation, and bitter weeping.
Rachel weeping for her children
would not be comforted,
because they were not.
8. "They" may refer to Herod and his inner circle.
9. Matthew says God warned Joseph not to settle in Judah. My intuition is that God would have told Joseph to head for Galilee while he was back in Egypt. So what may have occurred is that God, though he would have protected Joseph and his family in Judaea, but he permitted Joseph to act on his fear of the Herods and head up to Galilee.
10. The writer of Matthew sees the move to Nazareth as providential, as he finds here a divine pun. Nazirite means consecrated one. Certainly during Jesus' 40 "days of separation" in the wilderness, Jesus met the criteria of a Nazirite (see below). Further, as God's Anointed, who could be more consecrated than Jesus? In fact, the word messiah – more accurately rendered mashiach – means a person anointed, which is to say, consecrated, to serve God.
One of the prophets referring to an anointed deliverer is Daniel. In chapter 9 of the book Daniel, we have,
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.Perhaps the writer of Matthew did not name Daniel because he saw the prophecy as too difficult for his readers. Elsewhere in the Old Testament are at least 40 references to a messiah, although that word is not used.
Numbers 6
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord:
3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the Lord, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
6 All the days that he separateth himself unto the Lord he shall come at no dead body.
7 He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head.
8 All the days of his separation he is holy unto the Lord.
vi. Jehovah helps: The birth of Jesus [old rough draft]
Luke 8: 8-39. This section is only very rough right now. A great deal needs to be done to clean it up.
Luke relates:
After Caesar Augustus removed Herod Archelaus1a as ethnarc for Judaea, the emperor appointed Quirinius as his legate for the newly formed Syrian tetrarchy, thus putting the Judaean part of the new administrative area under direct Roman rule. In the name of the emperor, Quirinius required that everyone in his tetrarchy register for a census. As Herod the Great, Archelaus's father, was a hereditary ruler of Judaea, he had paid Rome a vassal's tribute, which his tax gatherers gained without necessity of a census. But Quirinius, imposing the Roman system, required to know how many people lived in his region for taxation purposes. Luke tells us that this was Quirinius's first census, which records put at about a.d. 6 or 71 in current dating. (As any census was prohibited by Jewish law, a revolt soon broke out.)2
Every adult male went to his ancestral town in order to register himself. This included Joseph, who had been living in the Galilean town of Nazareth. As a descendant of David, Joseph had to go to the Bethlehem in Judaea. He brought along a very pregnant Mary, his fiance/wife under Jewish law.
As explained in Footnote 1, it appears that Luke may be mistaken as to the reason for the couple's trip.
For some unspecified reason, Joseph traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem with his pregnant wife.
On arrival in Bethlehem, her water broke and the baby was delivered – in an animal manger because the inn was full up. Mary wrapped her firstborn son in a newborn's cloths.
Several shepherds were keeping a night-watch on their flock in a field nearby. Suddenly, Jehovah's angel was right next to them, and everything lit up with God's glory. The men were frightened, but the angel said, "Nothing to fear. Behold: I bring you awesome news that is wonderful for everybody. Born to you today in David's city is a Savior [later known as Christ the Lord]. And here is a sign for you: Lying in a manger, you will find a baby in newborn cloths."
Suddenly a host of divine beings appeared with the angel, thundering:
On the eighth day after birth, it was time for the baby to be circumcised in order to fulfill Jewish law. At the ceremony, the lad was officially given the name Jesus (which means Jehovah helps or Jehovah saves).
Once Mary's time of purification was done (when Jewish women were kept apart from others after the menstrual period or after childbirth3, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, in accordance with Jewish custom based on the scriptures that say that every firstborn who is male will be deemed holy to Jehovah.4 (Under the law, they were required to offer for sacrifice in the Temple either a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons.5)
Now there was a devout and upright man in Jerusalem who had been looking for the Consolation of Israel. Being one of the rare Jews blessed with the Holy Spirit, he had been assured by the Spirit that he would not see death before first seeing what he had so longed for [that is, the Lord's Anointed].
The Spirit led him into the Temple, and on seeing the baby with his parents, took him in his arms and praised God,
Soon after this, the prophetess Anna, the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, approached. She was a very old woman who had been married for seven years and a widow for 84 years. She spent most of her time in the Temple, worshiping, fasting and praying for others night and day. She talked about the boy to anyone who was interested in the Redemption of Israel.6
What about the virgin birth?
A crucial point about the assertion of the virgin birth is that you do not have to believe it in order to be saved. All that is required for salvation is to be truly sorrowful for what you have done wrong and are doing wrong and to believe that Jesus can, and will, forgive you and heal you on the inside. That's all. Nothing else is necessary.
With that clarified, here are some thoughts on why a virgin birth was necessary.
As we know from the extreme example of abused children themselves becoming abusive to others, sin is contagious. In fact, sin spreads very much like physical disease. The domino effect is so pervasive that no one avoids it during the course of his or her life.
Yet, I suggest, sin is also transmitted via spirits, and in particular via the spirits of people during the sex act. This theory has had many adherents, from Augustine (354-430), to Ambrose (340-397) to Barth (1886-1968), though it has fallen into disfavor in modern times. Yet I do not mean to say that sex during marriage is not ordained by God. On the other hand, pair-bond marriage is for the fallen, not the risen who are admitted to paradise.
In order for God to ransom us from our terrible captivity and from the grim fate of death, it was necessary that a deadly injustice be done to a sinless person. Who would God choose for that role other than someone with whom he was on very intimate terms? And yet no man who had Adam's spiritual seed in him could qualify. Why? Because sin is transmitted during the sex act between two people.
As an adult, Jesus is well known for asserting that if a person even looks at another person with lust, the heart is stained by sin. Yes, I realize that such feelings are natural -- in this fallen world. During the sex act the male at least is experiencing some sort of intensity, and perhaps the female. At the point of conception, the soul is imparted to the new being. Whatever sin is staining each person may also stamp the new creation.
In fact, in some cases "lower" souls enter humanity this way; or possibly one of the biological parents already has a "lower" soul, thus tending to unconsciously "believe" a lower soul into existence. I am referring here to the souls of the "children of perdition" who, though human, are not truly made after the image of God. These are the tares that will be sifted out and destroyed when the time comes. They were never meant to be.
But even for those not born as tares, the imprint of sin is passed from one generation to the next in the human race.
These observations lead us to realize why Jesus was born of a virgin. The natural seed of Adam was spiritually tainted. Jesus, as the new Adam, must begin life without taint. His mother Mary, pure in heart, did not experience lust during the act of conception. She was a meek vessel. The Holy Spirit assured that conception was indeed immaculate. Thus, a new beginning for humanity could occur, with a man who was born with no sin becoming a "man of sorrows, acquainted with grief" (IS 53:3). In this conception, we have the Son of God becoming a son of humanity (Son of Man). God mercifully made his utterly innocent son into sin for our sakes. By taking the sin of humanity upon himself, he actually became a cesspool of sin on the cross. The "man of sorrows" was a "man of sin" for our sakes.
Of course, we may wonder: how is it that Mary was not tainted by the sin of Adam? But the point is that Mary experienced no carnal desire during a sex act, because there was no sex act. She did transmit her human nature to her son. Another point is that "God does not look upon sin" (paraphrase of HAB 1:13 and of Paul's theology), so that whatever problems she may have had God overlooked, declining to see them as sinful. All this is speculation. The issue is that it was necessary, for our sakes, that a sinless man come into our fallen world so as to pay off the devil by submitting to a total injustice.
Christ's sacrifice would have been worthless had he not been utterly blameless. Sin cannot save. Sin cannot heal. Sin can only make you sick and kill you. By suffering the outrageous injustice of judicial murder, Jesus was able to renew and revive humanity.
Yes, he was a man born of the Spirit. But his and the Father's gift to us is that we can also be born of the Spirit with no taint of sin. On account of Jesus, God does not look upon the "old man of sin" -- our animalistic or carnal nature. So when the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit to remake our lowly spirits into a new creation, there is no sin during the process of being born again! We are now in with the In Crowd. No worries.
Though a born-again person should put Jesus first in his or her life, we all know that one may be truly born again and yet unable to tolerate the idea of not marrying. Jesus leaves the believer free to decide. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed (JN 8:36).
We can understand why some Christian thinkers concluded that Mary must have remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. As the "Mother of God," they thought it inappropriate that she would have ever had carnal relations. And certainly one can point to NT references in which Jesus indicates that paradise's pleasures are better than sex, which is why people who have been deprived of sex have nothing to worry about.
Plus, would not any siblings born in the usual way be tainted with sex-transmitted original sin?
But the fact is that the gospels refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters, including James, the brother of Jesus, who led the Jerusalem church after the resurrection. The standard answer is that these were cousins or close neighbors who had grown up with him. So the conclusion is that we do not know whether Mary gave birth to other children by Joseph. I would say that I do not see a strong theological reason for denying that she bore other children.
1. Scholars tend to agree that the date implied for Jesus' birth here is implausible. That is, 6 or 7 a.d. seems contrary to various other data given. For example, Archelaus is the son of the Herod in Matthew who tried to have Jesus killed. Thus, they tend to see Luke's infancy narrative as a pious interpolation – perhaps inserted to fight the Marcion heresy, which dehumanized Christ. My take is that, though the scholars have a point, what is impossible for man is possible with God, who is in charge of time and history.
In his An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor/Doubleday 1996), Raymond E. Brown notes, "The wrong temporal sequence in the Acts reference suggests that the Luke-Acts author did not know precisely when this census took place ... and so he may have mingled it with the troubled times of Archelaus's father, Herod the Great, ten years before."
In addition, Brown reports that the Roman Catholic Church adopted the method of critical Protestant theologians in positing a three-tier layering of formation of the four gospels: Jesus' public ministry in Judaea and Galilee in the first third of the First Century, apostolic preaching about Jesus in the second third of that century, composition of the written gospels in roughly the last third of the century. In an authoritative RC Church document, "the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission proposed the three-stage development as a way of explaining that, although they contain historical material, the Gospels are not literal history."
Though I tend to agree with Brown and others, I point out that no one can be sure what the precise history was. Many events once considered historically impossible have since been accepted as accurate.
In any case, it seems to me plausible that the writer or an editor of Luke took a group of remembered incidents and wove them together as best he could. So we come to the idea that the story may well be substantively correct, with some details possibly being inaccurate.
In this respect, I find interesting that Brown's list of Roman legates for Syria includes Quintilius (or Quinctilius) Varus for 6 to 4 b.c., or perhaps a year or so longer. That time period corresponds to the period of Jesus' birth, which is estimated to have occurred within 6 to 2 b.c. (See Brown's The Birth of the Messiah, Appendix VII.) In other words Quintilius governed in the time frame for Jesus' birth. The names of the two governors strike the ear as very similar and we can well imagine people confusing them. So is it unreasonable to conjecture that the two names were merged in the historical data available to the writer of Luke? The chief problem with that idea is that Quintilius would not have compelled the vassal king of Judaea, Herod, to perform a census. But, in 4 b.c., a rebel named Judah seized the arsenal of Galilee's largest city, Sepphoris, and armed the citizenry. In response, the Syrian governor Publius Quinctilius Varus sacked Sepphoris – which is just a few miles north of Nazareth – and sold the population into slavery. Also interesting is the fact that this Judah was the same man who in 6 a.d. led a revolt against the census of Quirinius, the one noted in Luke. Hence, we have the possibility that Joseph took his family south to get clear of the rebellion or its aftermath. So it does indeed look as though the Luke account's time discrepancy was a result of a simple confusion of nearly identical names. Luke's writer assumed Joseph was responding to Quirinius's census, which was associated in his mind with Judah's rebellion – though he was unaware that there had been two rebellions by the same man fought against first Quintilius in 4 b.c. and then Quirinius in 6 a.d. (these years correspond to Archelaus's reign).
The idea that Joseph fled the war zone with his pregnant wife makes more sense than his taking her 90 miles in order to enroll in a census. Scholars tend to doubt that the Romans would have required such a thing – though Roman punishments could be harsh. In fact, the high plausibility of my conjecture tends to corroborate the essential claim that Joseph removed with his pregnant wife from Nazareth to Bethlehem. As said, a skilled carpenter can work anywhere.
If this idea is right, though, we have the historical fact that the insurrections were not confined to Galilee. A bloodbath struck Jerusalem as religious patriots tried to remove the Roman eagle from the Temple. Perhaps Joseph stopped in Bethlehem so his wife could give birth but, considering the awful atrocities (Rabbinical tradition calls this period a "terrible" time for Jews), headed south to one of the Jewish colonies in Egypt. We would expect that God would make sure his precious son was kept in safety.
On their return journey they once again decided to avoid Bethlehem and Judaea in particular, says Matthew because Archelaus was (still) ruler. Though Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas, his rule evidently wasn't considered to be quite as awful as that of Archelaus, whose reputation was very bad.
We may guess that the writer of the Lucan infancy account assumed that the couple was settled in Nazareth and so must have showed up in Bethlehem during the great census. Notice though that Luke has Mary visiting Elizabeth in the hills of Judaea, not Galilee. It seems more likely that Mary would have gone the much shorter distance from Bethlehem than from Nazareth. (Mary would have been available to help her cousin, which would explain why Joseph let her go.) But if so, the manger story becomes suspect.
If, as is quite possible, Joseph was a master carpenter, he could have set up shop in nearly any town of substance. So it is unsurprising that he could have been a craftsman in Nazareth, only to set up trade in Bethlehem. After all, the child was very young and the parents might well have been reluctant to take him over the somewhat difficult 90-mile journey. Later, we assume he earned a living in one of the Jewish colonies of Egypt. Eventually, Nazareth became Jesus' home town. This is the story line we follow in this book. So we are assuming that Joseph brought his pregnant wife to Bethlehem for some unspecified reason eight to ten years prior to the census of Quirinius. My guess is that he left Nazareth in order to spare his wife the humiliation of everyone knowing that the birth had come too soon to have occurred within normal wedlock. It may be that early Christians were averse to mention of that point, not wishing to give ammunition to skeptics or simply being unwilling to make it seem as though there was all that much of a scandal. (We know, for example, that the composers of Matthew and Luke polished passages from Mark in order to show what they regarded as true reverence.)
If we decide against reconciling the lucan and matthean accounts, we may speculate as follows: When Joseph heard about what the Romans had done in the nearby town of Sepphoris, he immediately made haste to flee Galilee with the pregnant Mary, or even with Mary and the baby Jesus, assuming he could have been born in Nazareth (though I think the former the more probable). When the Romans retook Sepphoris, there was a massacre, with many women and children killed. The survivors were sold into slavery.
So we may imagine that the Matthean writer had heard, in part, of the massacre at Sepphoris and Joseph's flight southward, and brought in King Herod's well-known antagonism to potential rival claimants to the throne to explain Joseph's flight southward (this time from Bethlehem to Egypt rather than from Nazareth to Bethlehem). In addition, we now know from history that Herod had had three of his adult sons executed for supposedly endangering his hold on the throne. This information may have become mixed with the old account of the Sepphoris massacre.
In addition, we also know that shortly after the death of Herod in 4 b.c., his son Archelaus suppressed an insurrection at the Temple by Jewish fanatics who had stoned to death a contingent of his soldiers. About 3,000 people died after the army arrived in full force. Jesus would have been about two years old when this occurred, echoing Matthew's tale about Herod ordering the death of boys aged two or younger. We can imagine that if Joseph fled with his family from Galilee to escape the revolutionary violence there, then he also would have wished to avoid the Jerusalem area, and Bethlehem was only five miles away, when he heard of the Temple massacre. Where would be a logical place for a peace-loving man with a wife and child to flee? South to one of the Jewish colonies in Egypt. Fortunately, a good carpenter can work his trade almost anywhere.
Of course, all that does not explain the story of the three magi. Hence, we would have to conclude that that was a pious literary touch. Still, as we can detect strong elements of truth in both infancy accounts – despite the garbles – we might expect that there is something to the story that some wise men paid homage to Jesus when he was very young (think of the incident when he was 12 years old, confounding the sharpest Scripture scholars in the Temple).
After Caesar Augustus removed Herod Archelaus1a as ethnarc for Judaea, the emperor appointed Quirinius as his legate for the newly formed Syrian tetrarchy, thus putting the Judaean part of the new administrative area under direct Roman rule. In the name of the emperor, Quirinius required that everyone in his tetrarchy register for a census. As Herod the Great, Archelaus's father, was a hereditary ruler of Judaea, he had paid Rome a vassal's tribute, which his tax gatherers gained without necessity of a census. But Quirinius, imposing the Roman system, required to know how many people lived in his region for taxation purposes. Luke tells us that this was Quirinius's first census, which records put at about a.d. 6 or 71 in current dating. (As any census was prohibited by Jewish law, a revolt soon broke out.)2
Every adult male went to his ancestral town in order to register himself. This included Joseph, who had been living in the Galilean town of Nazareth. As a descendant of David, Joseph had to go to the Bethlehem in Judaea. He brought along a very pregnant Mary, his fiance/wife under Jewish law.
As explained in Footnote 1, it appears that Luke may be mistaken as to the reason for the couple's trip.
For some unspecified reason, Joseph traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem with his pregnant wife.
On arrival in Bethlehem, her water broke and the baby was delivered – in an animal manger because the inn was full up. Mary wrapped her firstborn son in a newborn's cloths.
Several shepherds were keeping a night-watch on their flock in a field nearby. Suddenly, Jehovah's angel was right next to them, and everything lit up with God's glory. The men were frightened, but the angel said, "Nothing to fear. Behold: I bring you awesome news that is wonderful for everybody. Born to you today in David's city is a Savior [later known as Christ the Lord]. And here is a sign for you: Lying in a manger, you will find a baby in newborn cloths."
Suddenly a host of divine beings appeared with the angel, thundering:
Glory to God in the highest heaven!Once the angels vanished, the shepherds made haste to see what the Lord had revealed. In Bethlehem, they quickly found Joseph and Mary, with the baby lying in the animal manger, as they had been told. Immediately they told the parents about what they had just seen and heard concerning the child. Mary never forgot this incident, and continuously mulled it over.
On earth, peace among humans, for whom he cares deeply.
On the eighth day after birth, it was time for the baby to be circumcised in order to fulfill Jewish law. At the ceremony, the lad was officially given the name Jesus (which means Jehovah helps or Jehovah saves).
Once Mary's time of purification was done (when Jewish women were kept apart from others after the menstrual period or after childbirth3, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, in accordance with Jewish custom based on the scriptures that say that every firstborn who is male will be deemed holy to Jehovah.4 (Under the law, they were required to offer for sacrifice in the Temple either a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons.5)
Now there was a devout and upright man in Jerusalem who had been looking for the Consolation of Israel. Being one of the rare Jews blessed with the Holy Spirit, he had been assured by the Spirit that he would not see death before first seeing what he had so longed for [that is, the Lord's Anointed].
The Spirit led him into the Temple, and on seeing the baby with his parents, took him in his arms and praised God,
Now let your servant depart in peace, O LordAfter blessing the parents, Simeon told Mary, "This child is set for the falling and rising up of many in Israel, and for a sign which is spoken against, so that the real thoughts of many will be revealed. Yes, and a sword will pierce through your own soul."
for, as you said, my eyes have seen your salvation
prepared in front of all peoples:
a light for revelation to the gentiles
and the glory of your people Israel
Soon after this, the prophetess Anna, the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, approached. She was a very old woman who had been married for seven years and a widow for 84 years. She spent most of her time in the Temple, worshiping, fasting and praying for others night and day. She talked about the boy to anyone who was interested in the Redemption of Israel.6
What about the virgin birth?
A crucial point about the assertion of the virgin birth is that you do not have to believe it in order to be saved. All that is required for salvation is to be truly sorrowful for what you have done wrong and are doing wrong and to believe that Jesus can, and will, forgive you and heal you on the inside. That's all. Nothing else is necessary.
With that clarified, here are some thoughts on why a virgin birth was necessary.
As we know from the extreme example of abused children themselves becoming abusive to others, sin is contagious. In fact, sin spreads very much like physical disease. The domino effect is so pervasive that no one avoids it during the course of his or her life.
Yet, I suggest, sin is also transmitted via spirits, and in particular via the spirits of people during the sex act. This theory has had many adherents, from Augustine (354-430), to Ambrose (340-397) to Barth (1886-1968), though it has fallen into disfavor in modern times. Yet I do not mean to say that sex during marriage is not ordained by God. On the other hand, pair-bond marriage is for the fallen, not the risen who are admitted to paradise.
In order for God to ransom us from our terrible captivity and from the grim fate of death, it was necessary that a deadly injustice be done to a sinless person. Who would God choose for that role other than someone with whom he was on very intimate terms? And yet no man who had Adam's spiritual seed in him could qualify. Why? Because sin is transmitted during the sex act between two people.
As an adult, Jesus is well known for asserting that if a person even looks at another person with lust, the heart is stained by sin. Yes, I realize that such feelings are natural -- in this fallen world. During the sex act the male at least is experiencing some sort of intensity, and perhaps the female. At the point of conception, the soul is imparted to the new being. Whatever sin is staining each person may also stamp the new creation.
In fact, in some cases "lower" souls enter humanity this way; or possibly one of the biological parents already has a "lower" soul, thus tending to unconsciously "believe" a lower soul into existence. I am referring here to the souls of the "children of perdition" who, though human, are not truly made after the image of God. These are the tares that will be sifted out and destroyed when the time comes. They were never meant to be.
But even for those not born as tares, the imprint of sin is passed from one generation to the next in the human race.
These observations lead us to realize why Jesus was born of a virgin. The natural seed of Adam was spiritually tainted. Jesus, as the new Adam, must begin life without taint. His mother Mary, pure in heart, did not experience lust during the act of conception. She was a meek vessel. The Holy Spirit assured that conception was indeed immaculate. Thus, a new beginning for humanity could occur, with a man who was born with no sin becoming a "man of sorrows, acquainted with grief" (IS 53:3). In this conception, we have the Son of God becoming a son of humanity (Son of Man). God mercifully made his utterly innocent son into sin for our sakes. By taking the sin of humanity upon himself, he actually became a cesspool of sin on the cross. The "man of sorrows" was a "man of sin" for our sakes.
Of course, we may wonder: how is it that Mary was not tainted by the sin of Adam? But the point is that Mary experienced no carnal desire during a sex act, because there was no sex act. She did transmit her human nature to her son. Another point is that "God does not look upon sin" (paraphrase of HAB 1:13 and of Paul's theology), so that whatever problems she may have had God overlooked, declining to see them as sinful. All this is speculation. The issue is that it was necessary, for our sakes, that a sinless man come into our fallen world so as to pay off the devil by submitting to a total injustice.
Christ's sacrifice would have been worthless had he not been utterly blameless. Sin cannot save. Sin cannot heal. Sin can only make you sick and kill you. By suffering the outrageous injustice of judicial murder, Jesus was able to renew and revive humanity.
Yes, he was a man born of the Spirit. But his and the Father's gift to us is that we can also be born of the Spirit with no taint of sin. On account of Jesus, God does not look upon the "old man of sin" -- our animalistic or carnal nature. So when the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit to remake our lowly spirits into a new creation, there is no sin during the process of being born again! We are now in with the In Crowd. No worries.
Though a born-again person should put Jesus first in his or her life, we all know that one may be truly born again and yet unable to tolerate the idea of not marrying. Jesus leaves the believer free to decide. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed (JN 8:36).
We can understand why some Christian thinkers concluded that Mary must have remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. As the "Mother of God," they thought it inappropriate that she would have ever had carnal relations. And certainly one can point to NT references in which Jesus indicates that paradise's pleasures are better than sex, which is why people who have been deprived of sex have nothing to worry about.
Plus, would not any siblings born in the usual way be tainted with sex-transmitted original sin?
But the fact is that the gospels refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters, including James, the brother of Jesus, who led the Jerusalem church after the resurrection. The standard answer is that these were cousins or close neighbors who had grown up with him. So the conclusion is that we do not know whether Mary gave birth to other children by Joseph. I would say that I do not see a strong theological reason for denying that she bore other children.
1. Scholars tend to agree that the date implied for Jesus' birth here is implausible. That is, 6 or 7 a.d. seems contrary to various other data given. For example, Archelaus is the son of the Herod in Matthew who tried to have Jesus killed. Thus, they tend to see Luke's infancy narrative as a pious interpolation – perhaps inserted to fight the Marcion heresy, which dehumanized Christ. My take is that, though the scholars have a point, what is impossible for man is possible with God, who is in charge of time and history.
In his An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor/Doubleday 1996), Raymond E. Brown notes, "The wrong temporal sequence in the Acts reference suggests that the Luke-Acts author did not know precisely when this census took place ... and so he may have mingled it with the troubled times of Archelaus's father, Herod the Great, ten years before."
In addition, Brown reports that the Roman Catholic Church adopted the method of critical Protestant theologians in positing a three-tier layering of formation of the four gospels: Jesus' public ministry in Judaea and Galilee in the first third of the First Century, apostolic preaching about Jesus in the second third of that century, composition of the written gospels in roughly the last third of the century. In an authoritative RC Church document, "the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission proposed the three-stage development as a way of explaining that, although they contain historical material, the Gospels are not literal history."
Though I tend to agree with Brown and others, I point out that no one can be sure what the precise history was. Many events once considered historically impossible have since been accepted as accurate.
In any case, it seems to me plausible that the writer or an editor of Luke took a group of remembered incidents and wove them together as best he could. So we come to the idea that the story may well be substantively correct, with some details possibly being inaccurate.
In this respect, I find interesting that Brown's list of Roman legates for Syria includes Quintilius (or Quinctilius) Varus for 6 to 4 b.c., or perhaps a year or so longer. That time period corresponds to the period of Jesus' birth, which is estimated to have occurred within 6 to 2 b.c. (See Brown's The Birth of the Messiah, Appendix VII.) In other words Quintilius governed in the time frame for Jesus' birth. The names of the two governors strike the ear as very similar and we can well imagine people confusing them. So is it unreasonable to conjecture that the two names were merged in the historical data available to the writer of Luke? The chief problem with that idea is that Quintilius would not have compelled the vassal king of Judaea, Herod, to perform a census. But, in 4 b.c., a rebel named Judah seized the arsenal of Galilee's largest city, Sepphoris, and armed the citizenry. In response, the Syrian governor Publius Quinctilius Varus sacked Sepphoris – which is just a few miles north of Nazareth – and sold the population into slavery. Also interesting is the fact that this Judah was the same man who in 6 a.d. led a revolt against the census of Quirinius, the one noted in Luke. Hence, we have the possibility that Joseph took his family south to get clear of the rebellion or its aftermath. So it does indeed look as though the Luke account's time discrepancy was a result of a simple confusion of nearly identical names. Luke's writer assumed Joseph was responding to Quirinius's census, which was associated in his mind with Judah's rebellion – though he was unaware that there had been two rebellions by the same man fought against first Quintilius in 4 b.c. and then Quirinius in 6 a.d. (these years correspond to Archelaus's reign).
The idea that Joseph fled the war zone with his pregnant wife makes more sense than his taking her 90 miles in order to enroll in a census. Scholars tend to doubt that the Romans would have required such a thing – though Roman punishments could be harsh. In fact, the high plausibility of my conjecture tends to corroborate the essential claim that Joseph removed with his pregnant wife from Nazareth to Bethlehem. As said, a skilled carpenter can work anywhere.
If this idea is right, though, we have the historical fact that the insurrections were not confined to Galilee. A bloodbath struck Jerusalem as religious patriots tried to remove the Roman eagle from the Temple. Perhaps Joseph stopped in Bethlehem so his wife could give birth but, considering the awful atrocities (Rabbinical tradition calls this period a "terrible" time for Jews), headed south to one of the Jewish colonies in Egypt. We would expect that God would make sure his precious son was kept in safety.
On their return journey they once again decided to avoid Bethlehem and Judaea in particular, says Matthew because Archelaus was (still) ruler. Though Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas, his rule evidently wasn't considered to be quite as awful as that of Archelaus, whose reputation was very bad.
We may guess that the writer of the Lucan infancy account assumed that the couple was settled in Nazareth and so must have showed up in Bethlehem during the great census. Notice though that Luke has Mary visiting Elizabeth in the hills of Judaea, not Galilee. It seems more likely that Mary would have gone the much shorter distance from Bethlehem than from Nazareth. (Mary would have been available to help her cousin, which would explain why Joseph let her go.) But if so, the manger story becomes suspect.
If, as is quite possible, Joseph was a master carpenter, he could have set up shop in nearly any town of substance. So it is unsurprising that he could have been a craftsman in Nazareth, only to set up trade in Bethlehem. After all, the child was very young and the parents might well have been reluctant to take him over the somewhat difficult 90-mile journey. Later, we assume he earned a living in one of the Jewish colonies of Egypt. Eventually, Nazareth became Jesus' home town. This is the story line we follow in this book. So we are assuming that Joseph brought his pregnant wife to Bethlehem for some unspecified reason eight to ten years prior to the census of Quirinius. My guess is that he left Nazareth in order to spare his wife the humiliation of everyone knowing that the birth had come too soon to have occurred within normal wedlock. It may be that early Christians were averse to mention of that point, not wishing to give ammunition to skeptics or simply being unwilling to make it seem as though there was all that much of a scandal. (We know, for example, that the composers of Matthew and Luke polished passages from Mark in order to show what they regarded as true reverence.)
If we decide against reconciling the lucan and matthean accounts, we may speculate as follows: When Joseph heard about what the Romans had done in the nearby town of Sepphoris, he immediately made haste to flee Galilee with the pregnant Mary, or even with Mary and the baby Jesus, assuming he could have been born in Nazareth (though I think the former the more probable). When the Romans retook Sepphoris, there was a massacre, with many women and children killed. The survivors were sold into slavery.
So we may imagine that the Matthean writer had heard, in part, of the massacre at Sepphoris and Joseph's flight southward, and brought in King Herod's well-known antagonism to potential rival claimants to the throne to explain Joseph's flight southward (this time from Bethlehem to Egypt rather than from Nazareth to Bethlehem). In addition, we now know from history that Herod had had three of his adult sons executed for supposedly endangering his hold on the throne. This information may have become mixed with the old account of the Sepphoris massacre.
In addition, we also know that shortly after the death of Herod in 4 b.c., his son Archelaus suppressed an insurrection at the Temple by Jewish fanatics who had stoned to death a contingent of his soldiers. About 3,000 people died after the army arrived in full force. Jesus would have been about two years old when this occurred, echoing Matthew's tale about Herod ordering the death of boys aged two or younger. We can imagine that if Joseph fled with his family from Galilee to escape the revolutionary violence there, then he also would have wished to avoid the Jerusalem area, and Bethlehem was only five miles away, when he heard of the Temple massacre. Where would be a logical place for a peace-loving man with a wife and child to flee? South to one of the Jewish colonies in Egypt. Fortunately, a good carpenter can work his trade almost anywhere.
Of course, all that does not explain the story of the three magi. Hence, we would have to conclude that that was a pious literary touch. Still, as we can detect strong elements of truth in both infancy accounts – despite the garbles – we might expect that there is something to the story that some wise men paid homage to Jesus when he was very young (think of the incident when he was 12 years old, confounding the sharpest Scripture scholars in the Temple).
1a. The best account of Archelaus's reign is from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
https://miraclecurebook.blogspot.com/2020/09/herod-archelaus-troubled-career.html
2. Most of the information in the first paragraph comes from Roman sources, rather than from Luke. Also at several other points I have added supplementary detail.
3. Leviticus 12
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,Leviticus 15
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
4. Leviticus 12
6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
7 Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
5. Deuteronomy 15:1
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
6. Luke says that after the Temple rite was finished, the family returned to Nazareth. If so, then Matthew's account does not agree. See Footnote 1.
Monday, July 6, 2020
Appendix: Jehovah is gracious: John is born
Luke 1:37-80 This section very rough. Must be redone.
When Elizabeth's pregnancy reached full term, a son came out. When her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had been good to her, they joined her in rejoicing.
Under Jewish custom and law, male boys are circumcised on the eighth day after birth. Those at the ceremony expected that he would be named Zechariah, after his father or after a grandfather. But Elizabeth spoke up: "No! He is to be named John.
The attendees argued with her. "None of your relatives has that name."
So they asked* the father what the boy's name should be. Zechariah, after signaling for a writing tablet, wrote: John.
Everyone was very surprised.
Just then, Zechariah regained his ability to speak and began blessing God.
News of these events spread like wildfire all through the Judaean hill country. Realizing that God's hand was on the boy, everyone was wondering what he could be.
The Holy Spirit took hold of Zechariahz1 and he began to prophesy:
* Luke has the attendees making signs to get Zechariah's attention, even though there is nothing about him having been made deaf. It is possible however that they might have assumed deafness on the basis of Zechariah being mute.
+ In ancient Judaism, horn was a metaphor for power.
% It doesn't take much reflection to realize that the essential Christian message has been summarized here in hymn-like fashion. As it seems unlikely there was anyone on hand recording Zechariah's words, it is fair to suppose that the evangelist or a later editor was using this point in Luke's narrative as a teaching opportunity. He places the Christian truth, as he understands it, at an appropriate point. In addition, he makes certain that no one will presume to mistake John as the Savior, an important clarification within the early church.
It has been suggested that Luke's infancy story was added as a means of countering Marcion's false gospel that claimed that Jesus, though fully divine, was not fully human or human at all.
Hence it is quite plausible that a great deal of the Lukan infancy story was crafted in order to inculcate into new Christians the church's position that Jesus was simultaneously God and man. If, as internal structure seems to suggest, the episode was added after the gospel had been substantially completed, the interpolation probably occurred in the mid-second century, more than 100 years after the time of Luke's infancy story.
Still, we must observe that – despite the fact their infancy stories do not match – the Jewish-oriented Matthew and the gentile-oriented Luke both agree on the virgin conception and birth of Jesus. So we can be fairly certain that early on the church held this understanding. John, which was probably written well after the synoptic gospels, takes the story back even farther. Jesus always was the Son of God, before he became incarnate.
It is also easy to believe that the writer(s) of Matthew used the infancy narrative as a means of pictorially getting across important theology. These men did not set about to write Holy Writ. They were putting together teaching "manuals" that could be read aloud to the congregants. It was their way of making sure essential Christian teachings got across.
Yet, they no doubt based their tales on reports that "something like that" had happened.
That this notion isn't so silly is shown by how each synoptic evangelist felt free to poach from Mark and revise it in accord with theological or temperamental disposition. Or how each synoptic evangelist lifts sayings of Jesus from a now-lost collection (dubbed by scholars Q) and splices them together in ways that they decide on. That does not mean you won't find the truth in the records of Jesus' sayings and deeds. It's all there, though arranged differently in each gospel.
Discounting for a moment the infancy stories, scholars have determined that nothing or very little that is essential is made up by the synoptic writers. They plainly have sources for everything they write. But, they feel free to arrange these disparate materials into easily read and remembered episodes.
Yet, we do not know the sources of the two infancy stories. Luke's exceptional focus on Mary does not mean she was a direct source, though the writer implies that he received some of his information from her or someone who knew her.
Luke's focus on Mary may be a result of Marcion's troublemaking. The evangelist seems to have gone to great lengths to emphasize Jesus' humanity in order to counter the claim that the Christ was ultra-spiritual and not human at all.
z1. Filled with the Holy Spirit. Prophets and a few other of God's servants could receive Spirit power during the pre-Resurrection Old Dispensation, at least at times. But the Holy Spirit came to all sorts of people in a brand new way once Jesus had conquered death.
First photo below is an excerpt from The Gospel According to John, I-XII by Raymond E. Brown (Doubleday/Anchor 1966, Anchor Bible Vol. 29) concerning the Spirit. Second photo below comes from the Birth of the Messiah by Brown (Doubleday/Image 1979), also on the Spirit.
Under Jewish custom and law, male boys are circumcised on the eighth day after birth. Those at the ceremony expected that he would be named Zechariah, after his father or after a grandfather. But Elizabeth spoke up: "No! He is to be named John.
The attendees argued with her. "None of your relatives has that name."
So they asked* the father what the boy's name should be. Zechariah, after signaling for a writing tablet, wrote: John.
John means Jehovah is gracious.
Everyone was very surprised.
Luke is recounting a miracle here. As a woman, Elizabeth almost certainly could not read, and so presumably the mute Zechariah had no way to communicate to her that the baby was to be named John. We can understand her choice as she saw the baby as the fulfillment of God's grace to her. So the neighbors were astonished when Zechariah confirmed that name, implying that each parent had chosen that unlikely name independently.
Zechariah was able to communicate via writing because there were men in the crowd, and a large percentage of Jewish men were literate so as to be able to read Scripture.
Just then, Zechariah regained his ability to speak and began blessing God.
News of these events spread like wildfire all through the Judaean hill country. Realizing that God's hand was on the boy, everyone was wondering what he could be.
The Holy Spirit took hold of Zechariahz1 and he began to prophesy:
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has visited his people and wrought their redemption.The child grew and became spiritually strong. He lived in the wilderness areas right up until the point that he was revealed to Israel.
He has raised up a horn+ of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David
As his prophets have been foretelling since time immemorial:
Salvation from our enemies, and out of the hand of all who hate us.
Showing mercy toward our fathers
and remembering his holy covenant:
the oath he swore to Abraham our father
that, being rescued from our foes, we could serve God fearlessly
in holiness and righteousness through all our days
Yes, and you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High
for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his roads
to give knowledge of salvation to his people
in the remission of their sins
because of the tender mercy of our God,
whereby the Dayspring from on high will visit us
to shine on those sitting in darkness under the shadow of death
to guide our feet into the way of peace.%
* Luke has the attendees making signs to get Zechariah's attention, even though there is nothing about him having been made deaf. It is possible however that they might have assumed deafness on the basis of Zechariah being mute.
+ In ancient Judaism, horn was a metaphor for power.
% It doesn't take much reflection to realize that the essential Christian message has been summarized here in hymn-like fashion. As it seems unlikely there was anyone on hand recording Zechariah's words, it is fair to suppose that the evangelist or a later editor was using this point in Luke's narrative as a teaching opportunity. He places the Christian truth, as he understands it, at an appropriate point. In addition, he makes certain that no one will presume to mistake John as the Savior, an important clarification within the early church.
It has been suggested that Luke's infancy story was added as a means of countering Marcion's false gospel that claimed that Jesus, though fully divine, was not fully human or human at all.
Hence it is quite plausible that a great deal of the Lukan infancy story was crafted in order to inculcate into new Christians the church's position that Jesus was simultaneously God and man. If, as internal structure seems to suggest, the episode was added after the gospel had been substantially completed, the interpolation probably occurred in the mid-second century, more than 100 years after the time of Luke's infancy story.
Still, we must observe that – despite the fact their infancy stories do not match – the Jewish-oriented Matthew and the gentile-oriented Luke both agree on the virgin conception and birth of Jesus. So we can be fairly certain that early on the church held this understanding. John, which was probably written well after the synoptic gospels, takes the story back even farther. Jesus always was the Son of God, before he became incarnate.
It is also easy to believe that the writer(s) of Matthew used the infancy narrative as a means of pictorially getting across important theology. These men did not set about to write Holy Writ. They were putting together teaching "manuals" that could be read aloud to the congregants. It was their way of making sure essential Christian teachings got across.
Yet, they no doubt based their tales on reports that "something like that" had happened.
That this notion isn't so silly is shown by how each synoptic evangelist felt free to poach from Mark and revise it in accord with theological or temperamental disposition. Or how each synoptic evangelist lifts sayings of Jesus from a now-lost collection (dubbed by scholars Q) and splices them together in ways that they decide on. That does not mean you won't find the truth in the records of Jesus' sayings and deeds. It's all there, though arranged differently in each gospel.
Discounting for a moment the infancy stories, scholars have determined that nothing or very little that is essential is made up by the synoptic writers. They plainly have sources for everything they write. But, they feel free to arrange these disparate materials into easily read and remembered episodes.
Yet, we do not know the sources of the two infancy stories. Luke's exceptional focus on Mary does not mean she was a direct source, though the writer implies that he received some of his information from her or someone who knew her.
Luke's focus on Mary may be a result of Marcion's troublemaking. The evangelist seems to have gone to great lengths to emphasize Jesus' humanity in order to counter the claim that the Christ was ultra-spiritual and not human at all.
z1. Filled with the Holy Spirit. Prophets and a few other of God's servants could receive Spirit power during the pre-Resurrection Old Dispensation, at least at times. But the Holy Spirit came to all sorts of people in a brand new way once Jesus had conquered death.
First photo below is an excerpt from The Gospel According to John, I-XII by Raymond E. Brown (Doubleday/Anchor 1966, Anchor Bible Vol. 29) concerning the Spirit. Second photo below comes from the Birth of the Messiah by Brown (Doubleday/Image 1979), also on the Spirit.
Thursday, July 2, 2020
Appendix: Luke's preface
Luke 1:1-4
I have used the work of a number of eyewitnesses and preachers in this narrative concerning what are now established facts. Having worked to draw up an accurate account, I thought it a good idea to send you a copy, Your Excellency Theophilus, so that you can be assured concerning the matters about which you were instructed.
Luke, which was coupled with the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, goes into far more detail than the other gospel writers. The author(s) doubtless had access to a a large cache of source material. He seems to have interviewed either Mary or one of her close associates.
As Theophilus means Friend of God, it is possible that the author was using a literary device to introduce his text. Whether he was or was not, the address to a person of that name is appropriate.
Appendix: Relatives meet
Luke 1:39-56
The stories about the birth of Jesus are placed in appendices because they are not at all essential to the message of salvation. There are a number of questions as to their authenticity. The remainder of the gospel accounts clearly are recollections of words spoken and actions taken by Jesus, though the writers were not always certain of where, when, or in what order, events occurred.
Sometime during her pregnancy, Mary rushed off to a town in the Judaean hill country to visit her relative Elizabeth and Elizabeth's husband Zachariah. When Elizabeth heard Mary call out a greeting to her, Elizabeth felt her baby leap inside her as she was filled with the Holy Spirit.
"You are so blessed among women! And so is the fruit of your womb!" exclaimed Elizabeth as Mary met her. "As soon as I heard your voice, my baby jumped for joy!"
Elizabeth told Mary she had to be highly blessed because Mary was willing to believe what God had told her. "Don't worry. Everything you were told will come true," Elizabeth said. Elizabeth's words made Mary ecstatic. She was overwhelmed that God had chosen her.
My soul is in awe of the enormity of the Lord,The writer of Matthew amplifies Mary's exultation with allusions to various Old Testament scriptures.** He writes,
and my spirit* has rejoiced in God my Savior!
For he has looked upon the low estate of his servant girl.
My goodness! From now on young and old+ will say that I am blessed!
For the Mighty One has done great things to me. Holy is his name!
Mary stayed with her cousin for three months, and then returned to her house.His mercy extends to generations and generations of those who fear him.
He has shown strength with his arm, scattering the proud with their ideas of self-glory.
He has cast rulers from their thrones and exalted those at society's bottom.
The hungry he has filled with good food, while sending away the rich empty.
He has given help to his servant Israel,
remembering to give his mercy
(which he had promised to the patriarchs)
to Abraham and his descendants forever
[We may conjecture that Mary's visit to Elizabeth occurred before Joseph became aware of Mary's pregnancy.]
* Old Testament poetry is full of couplets. The author of Matthew attributes to Mary an instance of synonymous parallelism, in which the A line is echoed and reinforced by the B line. In this case, the A line uses the word soul and the B line uses the word spirit. While some scholars among Hellenized Jews were concerned about the distinction between these two words, we see right away that both are used in place of the usual word for self: I (or, in Greek, ego).
I have no doubt that the author had on hand a report of Mary's substantive reaction, which he then phrased in poetical form.
+ Young and old: literally all generations. Mary was speaking in Aramaic. My thought is that by the time her recollection was put into Greek, the connotation had shifted. Also, it is quite likely that the author had in mind that a New Epoch was set to begin.
** In his An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor/Doubleday 1997), Raymond E. Brown writes that "hymns or canticles of the Lukan infancy narratives" were most likely "Christian compositions that Luke adapted and placed on the lips of his first characters of his gospel." Father Brown was the first Catholic to teach at the Protestant-founded Union Theological Seminary. The Archdiocese of New York approved his book for study by Catholics. His order, the Selpician Fathers, retains the copyright.
Author's notes:
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
Appendix: Stunning developments
Luke 1:5-38; Matthew 1:18-25
The stories about the birth of Jesus are placed in appendices because they are not at all essential to the message of salvation. There are a number of questions as to their authenticity. The remainder of the gospel accounts clearly are recollections of words spoken and actions taken by Jesus, though the writers were not always certain of where, when, or in what order, events occurred.
During Herod's reign as king of Judaea, there lived a certain priest named Zachariah, there was a priest named Zachariah, of the Abijah order; his wife Elizabeth was an offspring of the Aaronite priesthood. Both were righteous before God – blameless in their walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord.
But the elderly couple was childless, Elizabeth being infertile.
One day, when it was his order's turn to officiate before God, Zachariah was performing his priestly duty of lighting the incense inside the Lord's Temple while a crowd outside prayed. While going about his task (for which he had been chosen by lot), he saw an angel of the Lord1 standing on the right side of the incense altar.
He had been chosen by lot as the one who lit the incense inside the Lord's Temple. Outside a crowd was praying.
Shocked, Zachariah was filled with dread. But the angel said, "Don't worry, Zachariah. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, whom you are to name John. You will be very happy, and many people will be glad that he was born. In the Lord's eyes, he will be great. He will drink no wine or alcohol, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, right from the womb. He will turn many Jews to their God Jehovah.
"Your son will go before God like another Elijah, with that prophet's spirit and power, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to prepare a people focused on the Lord.
Because John was chosen as a prophet – indeed the last of the Hebrew prophets – he was to receive the Holy Spirit. He would be able to transmit God's word to the people. In the Old Dispensation, only a few people, generally prophets, could receive the Spirit. After the resurrection of Jesus, anyone who trusted Jesus would receive the Spirit – some more, some less.
Zachariah replied, "How can this be? I am an old man, and my wife is old too."
The angel answered, "I Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, am sent to speak to you, and to reveal this good news. But, because you would not believe me, you will be mute – unable to speak a word until what I have told you comes true at the proper times."
Gabriel means something like "God's strong man." The name is significant because the angel's appearance marks a fulfillment of a prophecy in Daniel.
In the first appearance of Gabriel, Daniel received a prophecy, part of which said,
Daniel 9: 25-26
That is, in this interpretation, the Jerusalem rebuilt by the returnees under the Persians would last for 483 years, after which it would be destroyed. Before that happens, the Messiah is to be cut off. Under that timeline, the dunking of Jesus would have taken place in a.d. 25 or 26. His death is generally put at a.d. 30 or 33. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans about 40 years after the crucifixion, in a.d. 70.
We may suppose that the writer of Luke, who is thought to have been dwelling in Antioch not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, saw the prophecy in Daniel as meaningful.
In the first appearance of Gabriel, Daniel received a prophecy, part of which said,
Daniel 9: 25-26
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.The seven and sixty-two-week "weeks," according to a WikiPedia article, are most frequently understood for the purpose of Christological interpretation as consecutive, making up a period of 69 weeks (483 years) beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 b.c. and terminating with the baptism of Jesus.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
That is, in this interpretation, the Jerusalem rebuilt by the returnees under the Persians would last for 483 years, after which it would be destroyed. Before that happens, the Messiah is to be cut off. Under that timeline, the dunking of Jesus would have taken place in a.d. 25 or 26. His death is generally put at a.d. 30 or 33. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans about 40 years after the crucifixion, in a.d. 70.
We may suppose that the writer of Luke, who is thought to have been dwelling in Antioch not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, saw the prophecy in Daniel as meaningful.
The people outside wondered what was taking Zachariah so long. When the priest finally did come out, gesturing because he could not speak, they discerned that he had seen a vision.
Upon completing his tour of duty at the Temple, the old priest returned home. Not long after, his wife conceived. The old woman hid herself from curious eyes for five months. She was delighted to be pregnant – at long last! "The Lord has looked after me and taken away my embarrassment, dealing kindly with me."
In those days, infertility was often seen as a sign of divine displeasure.
When Elizabeth was six months along, the angel Gabriel was sent to the Galilean town of Nazareth to visit Mary, a virgin engaged to Joseph, a descendant of King David.
"Hello, you who are greatly favored," the angel said. "Jehovah is with you; as a woman, you are indeed blessed."
Mary was troubled. "What kind of a greeting is that?!" she thought.
But the angel said, "Nothing to worry about, Mary. You have found favor with God. Behold: You will conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, whom you will name Jesus.
Jesus is a form of Joshua and means "Jehovah saves" or "Yahweh saves." Then, as now, Joshua/Jesus was a common name for Jewish boys. We may reflect that this name humbly reflects the union of human and divine.
"He will be great and be called the Son of the Highest; Jehovah God will give him the throne of his forefather David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom is infinite."
"What!?" exclaimed Mary. "But I am a virgin."
In Luke's story, Mary's bewilderment makes sense if Gabriel actually said something like, "You have conceived in your womb a son whom you will name Jesus." But the Greek text does not support that idea, scholars say. Still, we know that precision is not only easily lost in translation (from Aramaic to Greek), but as recollections are passed from one person to the next.
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you," said the angel. "For this reason, what is born of you will be known as the Son of God."4
He added, "Behold: In her old age, your relative Elizabeth has conceived a son. She who is now six months pregnant used to be termed barren. So you see, with God, nothing is impossible."
Mary gasped. "You are looking at God's servant girl! Whatever you say, let it be so."
The angel left.
Concerning the birth of Jesus:
While Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before the marriage was fulfilled,2 she was found to be with child. Joseph, being a kindly man, was unwilling to humiliate her by public exposure and was trying to think of a way to divorce her secretly. As he was puzzling about this problem, he had a dream in which one of Jehovah's angels appeared and told him: "Joseph, son of David, don't fret about taking Mary as your wife. What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bring forth a son. And you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."xy1
The author of Matthew draws attention to the Scripture (Isaiah 7:14):
Look! The virgin will be with child and give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel.3
The gospel writer notes that Immanuel is interpreted as meaning God with us, which is equivalent to Jehovah saves.
When Joseph woke up, he obeyed God's angel and took Mary for his wife, but he abstained from sex with her during her pregnancy. He gave the baby the name Jesus.
On the phrase son of God
Though the word christos is a Greek equivalent for the Jewish word messiah, it appears that the earliest Jewish Christians transmitted the idea of messiah to their Gentile hearers by settling on a descriptive term familiar to Gentiles: son of God. Both Augustus Caesar and Tiberius Caesar had assumed the title son of god. They left ambiguous from which god in the Greco-Roman pantheon they were descended.
But as Christians, Jewish and Gentile, reflected on who this Savior is, they came to realize that the term son of God fits Jesus perfectly. A son of God carries the connotations of someone who is sent. Thus, the word angel can be translated son of God or messenger. The term son of God can also connote a person directly created, not through the sex act, as are those sons of God known as angels.
In the Old Testament, the term Angel of Jehovah refers to God's visible presence among humans. The angel is in a manner of speaking like a projection from heaven. No one can see God, but we can see his angel. That is, the Angel of Jehovah in the Old Testament IS the particular, special Son of God. But he had yet to become human and take the name Jesus. The Son is not merely a projection however. He is the expression of God, the Father, in the human world. And, though he is one with the Father, he is also distinct from the Father. A human parallel is the ideal marriage, in which husband and wife become one unified soul with two distinct personalities.
As the Lucan writer was a Gentile, we can understand his interpretation of what the angel said, as obtained from tradition. Supposing the essential truthfulness of the account, it is possible that the angel said "he will be called son of God," which would be closer to "he will be called a son of God." In that period in Jewish Palestine, the phrase "sons of God" also connoted the concept of persons marked out to serve God. John the Dunker was, in this sense, a son of God.
In The Birth of the Messiah (Image/Doubleday 1979), Raymond E. Brown reports that there are a number of semiticisms in the Lucan birth story. In other words, the Greek text shows strong signs of translating Hebrew/Aramaic phrases and words, thus pointing to Luke's Gentile writer hearing the story from Jewish Christian emigres from Judaea.
The gospel of John, written a few decades after the other gospels, has a highly developed conception of a pre-existent Son of God, or Word, or Message, of God. Though the prologue does not specify the concept of the Trinity, in which son of God becomes God the son, that notion is certainly implied. (An early scribe apparently inserted the "Johannine comma" at John 5:7–8, which declares the Trinity point blank.) The Trinity idea is questionable for the Synoptic authors.
Interestingly, John contains numerous semiticisms and shows that the writer or his close consultant must have lived in Jerusalem before its destruction in a.d. 70.
All four gospels may well have been composed in Jewish diaspora communities outside Judaea. All seem to represent mixed Jewish and Gentile congregations, though attitudes vary among the authors. John seems to have been composed by one or more Jews who viewed "official" Judaism with strong skepticism.
In any case, the point is that, as John tends to indicate, the original Jewish witnesses for Jesus recognized the sublime truth in the son of God expression that they had adopted as one way of translating the word messiah.5
A major messianic prophecy was given to King David by the prophet Nathan. That prophecy shows why the Synoptic gospel writers were anxious to demonstrate that Jesus was a descendant of David. It also shows that the phrase son of God was associated with the expected messiah. But that phrase does not necessarily imply that the Messiah was to be the equivalent of God.
2 Samuel 12-17
And we see that the Davidic messiah is to be known as "son of God." Yet, the scripture does not require that the messiah be God the Son. Would God the Son commit iniquity? So it is probable that most Jews of the time took "son of God" to refer to a specially chosen man who would be granted divine strength. Yet, because Jesus committed no sin, it turned out – much to the shock of many people – that the son of God is also God the Son.
Though the word christos is a Greek equivalent for the Jewish word messiah, it appears that the earliest Jewish Christians transmitted the idea of messiah to their Gentile hearers by settling on a descriptive term familiar to Gentiles: son of God. Both Augustus Caesar and Tiberius Caesar had assumed the title son of god. They left ambiguous from which god in the Greco-Roman pantheon they were descended.
But as Christians, Jewish and Gentile, reflected on who this Savior is, they came to realize that the term son of God fits Jesus perfectly. A son of God carries the connotations of someone who is sent. Thus, the word angel can be translated son of God or messenger. The term son of God can also connote a person directly created, not through the sex act, as are those sons of God known as angels.
In the Old Testament, the term Angel of Jehovah refers to God's visible presence among humans. The angel is in a manner of speaking like a projection from heaven. No one can see God, but we can see his angel. That is, the Angel of Jehovah in the Old Testament IS the particular, special Son of God. But he had yet to become human and take the name Jesus. The Son is not merely a projection however. He is the expression of God, the Father, in the human world. And, though he is one with the Father, he is also distinct from the Father. A human parallel is the ideal marriage, in which husband and wife become one unified soul with two distinct personalities.
As the Lucan writer was a Gentile, we can understand his interpretation of what the angel said, as obtained from tradition. Supposing the essential truthfulness of the account, it is possible that the angel said "he will be called son of God," which would be closer to "he will be called a son of God." In that period in Jewish Palestine, the phrase "sons of God" also connoted the concept of persons marked out to serve God. John the Dunker was, in this sense, a son of God.
In The Birth of the Messiah (Image/Doubleday 1979), Raymond E. Brown reports that there are a number of semiticisms in the Lucan birth story. In other words, the Greek text shows strong signs of translating Hebrew/Aramaic phrases and words, thus pointing to Luke's Gentile writer hearing the story from Jewish Christian emigres from Judaea.
The gospel of John, written a few decades after the other gospels, has a highly developed conception of a pre-existent Son of God, or Word, or Message, of God. Though the prologue does not specify the concept of the Trinity, in which son of God becomes God the son, that notion is certainly implied. (An early scribe apparently inserted the "Johannine comma" at John 5:7–8, which declares the Trinity point blank.) The Trinity idea is questionable for the Synoptic authors.
Interestingly, John contains numerous semiticisms and shows that the writer or his close consultant must have lived in Jerusalem before its destruction in a.d. 70.
All four gospels may well have been composed in Jewish diaspora communities outside Judaea. All seem to represent mixed Jewish and Gentile congregations, though attitudes vary among the authors. John seems to have been composed by one or more Jews who viewed "official" Judaism with strong skepticism.
In any case, the point is that, as John tends to indicate, the original Jewish witnesses for Jesus recognized the sublime truth in the son of God expression that they had adopted as one way of translating the word messiah.5
A major messianic prophecy was given to King David by the prophet Nathan. That prophecy shows why the Synoptic gospel writers were anxious to demonstrate that Jesus was a descendant of David. It also shows that the phrase son of God was associated with the expected messiah. But that phrase does not necessarily imply that the Messiah was to be the equivalent of God.
2 Samuel 12-17
12 And when your days are fulfilled, and you sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, which will proceed out of your loins, and I will establish his kingdom.We notice that Jesus, as this book will demonstrate, fulfilled this description – though he himself committed no iniquity.
13 He will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15 But my mercy will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you.
16 And your house and your kingdom will be established forever before you. Your throne will be established forever.
17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak to David.
And we see that the Davidic messiah is to be known as "son of God." Yet, the scripture does not require that the messiah be God the Son. Would God the Son commit iniquity? So it is probable that most Jews of the time took "son of God" to refer to a specially chosen man who would be granted divine strength. Yet, because Jesus committed no sin, it turned out – much to the shock of many people – that the son of God is also God the Son.
1. Angelic appearances play an important role in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke but no role in the material stretching from the baptism of Jesus to the passion period. John, at 5:4, has an angel stirring water, but there is no indication that he or she was visible to anyone or made any announcements. Angels appear shortly after the Resurrection in Matthew, Luke and John, with Mark leaving us to assume that the "young man" could only have been an angel.
2. Raymond E. Brown notes that in those days Jewish marriage consisted of two steps: "a formal exchange of consent between witnesses (Mal 2:14) and the subsequent taking of the bride to the groom's family home (Matt 25:1-13)." Brown adds, "While the term marriage is sometimes used to designate the second step, in terms of legal implications it would more properly be applied to the first step." Brown's comment is found in The Birth of the Messiah – A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (Doubleday/Image 1979).
3. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint, the word parthenos was used by the Alexandrian Jewish translators. That Greek word is precisely equivalent to the strict sense of the word virgin in English. But some have objected that the Hebrew does not specify virgin but means only young woman. We may wonder what made the ancient Jewish scholars so sure of what Isaiah meant. But in any case, in ancient Israel virgin and young woman carried the same meaning. A young woman who was unmarried and pregnant was socially unthinkable. Such an unfortunate woman would have been referred to by some epithet, such as harlot.
But, would the prophet behind Isaiah have meant to focus on a young married woman? What's so unusual about a young married woman having a son? There is nothing incredible to behold. It happens every day. It was also not all that unusual for an unmarried woman to become pregnant. Plainly, the prophet was pointing to a supernatural event. Thus, I suggest that the author of Matthew interpreted Isaiah 7:14 correctly.
Isaiah 7 makes plain that the prophecy concerns an event in Isaiah's near future. But Matthew was inspired to see God's word fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. This is the way prophecy often works, just as Caiaphas inadvertently truthfully prophesied in John 11.
Brown calls the citation "felicitous" because Isaiah is, apparently, pointing to someone of the Davidic line being born of a virgin, thus further justifying the Matthean insistence that Jesus is a fully legitimate descendant of David, and thus entitled to be God's anointed savior king.
From Isaiah 7:
13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?From John 11:
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all!In addition, we can make a case for making the Septuagint the authoritative text of the Old Testament, rather than the Hebrew Masoretic (or other) text, based on the knowledge that the Septuagint was used by Jesus in his teachings. That proposal should not be taken to mean that the Masoretic text is of no value or that textual critics may not hone in on the "original" texts and offer useful commentary.
50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
4. A discussion of the necessity for a virgin conception is found here:
Jesus' purity vs. original sin
https://zioncallingyou.blogspot.com/2020/06/appendix-d-jesus-purity-vs-original-sin.html
5. Raymond E. Brown (Birth of the Messiah Doubleday/Image 1979) disagrees with this thought, arguing that fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls mention the son of God and the son of the Most High. Yet there is scholarly dispute as to whether these phrases are speaking of a "literal" son or not. These and a few references in the Old Testament may be taken as ambiguous. Yet, in view of the strong Jewish monotheism of the First Century, a "literal" interpretation is unlikely. What is likely is that Jews accused Hellenistic Christians of blasphemy on account of that phrase. It did not take long, in fact, for Jewish Christians to realize that their messiah was "literally" the son of God, rather than a son of God.
xy1. The angelic revelations in Matthew to Joseph and in Luke to Mary come months apart, which brings up the question of why Joseph and Mary did not confide in each other during their betrothal. But it seems plausible that Mary was simply too timid at that point to announce to her fiance/husband that she was pregnant -- angel or no angel.
In any case, one comes away with the impression that Mary went to Elizabeth's house immediately after Gabriel spoke to her and did not return to her parents' home, where Joseph would have encountered her, until she was showing. That's when Joseph went into a mental tailspin.
Author's notes:
The following note discusses, in a non-Gnostic sense, how, in my estimate, God could have become a sinless man without having to have been born of a virgin.
The note below concerns knowledge of the virgin conception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Work Notes III 74. Brown INT p344. JN: the angel stirring the water is missing from the best ms. 75. Harmony of the Four Gospels, 1894, Wi...
-
Luke 1:1-4 I have used the work of a number of eyewitnesses and preachers in this narrative concerning what are now established facts. Ha...
-
Luke 1:5-38; Matthew 1:18-25 The stories about the birth of Jesus are placed in appendices because they are not at all essential to the mess...