4 Sunday Advent
Matthew 1:18-25
Exegetical Notes by Brian
Stoffregen
4 Advent A: Matthew 1:18-25 -- exegetical notes
CONTEXTUAL STUFF
Our text should be read with 1:1-17 in mind. They are intentionally
connected by Matthew. Our lessons begins: "The *genesis* of Jesus
Christ was like this" (v. 18). Mt 1:1 reads: "A book of the *genesis*
of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." Matthew could have
used other words for "genealogy" or "birth," but he used this word,
which is also the Greek title of the first book of scriptures. Similar
wording is in the LXX at Gn 2:4 "This is the book of the *genesis* of
heaven and earth;" and in 5:1 "This is the book of the *genesis* of
human beings. In the day God made Adam, according to the image of God
he made him." I think Matthew intended a connection between these two
sections of chapter 1 and with the first book of scriptures. This is a
new beginning -- a new creation.
Throughout verses 1-16a, Matthew has used _egennesen_ 39 times
(aorist, *active* of _gennao_, which means: when used of the male role
= "to beget," or "to become the father of"; of the female role: "to
give birth"). In 16b the grammar changes. He does not write, "Joseph
*begat* Jesus," which we might expect after 39 times; but rather he
uses _egennethe_ (aorist, *passive* of _gennao_) "Joseph the husband
of Mary from whom *was born* Jesus the one being called Christ." We
already have a hint that there is something different about this birth
from all those that went before.
Richard Jensen (_Preaching Matthew's Gospel_) says about these opening
verses:
Genealogies were one of the chief ways that oral people understood
issues of identity. We can be sure that people read and heard this
first chapter of Matthew with excited anticipation. Matthew opens his
Gospel in this exciting way! [p. 32]
Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham
An emphasis that continues in these opening verses is that Jesus is
the *Messiah* (_christos_). This word occurs in vv. 1, 16, 17, & 18.
Without underlines or boldface, emphasis in ancient writings was often
indicated by repetition.
From what I've read, there was no standard expectations of a Messiah.
The word, messiah, means "anointed" (as does _christos_). In the OT,
kings, priests, and prophets were anointed. It was a sign of
commissioning or being set apart to serve God. Perhaps the strangest
use of this title is with Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1: "Thus says the LORD to
his *anointed*, to Cyrus...." Cyrus was Persian, not Jewish. Isaiah
declares that Cyrus doesn't even know God (45:4, 5), but that his lack
of knowledge (or belief) will not stop God setting him apart and using
him for God's purposes.
Calling Jesus, "the Messiah," simply indicates that God will use him
for some special purpose.
Jensen [pp. 32-33] suggests three other themes introduced in the
genealogy. Since through Abraham, the first name in the list, God
promised to bless all families on earth, there is a hint of the
universal mission that also concludes the gospel -- going to "all
nations".
The unique inclusion of the women in the list both suggest the
universal mission, since "most of them are Gentiles," but he also
notes that "three of these women have been involved in scandalous
behavior: incest, prostitution, and adultery." This suggests: "God's
grace clearly includes persons such as these. God's grace clearly
includes sinners like you and me."
However, J. Andrew Overman (_Church and Community in Crisis: The
gospel According to Matthew_) takes a different approach to the women.
First, these women are not portrayed as sinners in the stories that
make the relatively famous in Israelite history. On the contrary, Ruth,
Tamar, and Rahab are heroines. And surely if he was looking for
dramatic sins and sinners Matthew could have done better....
What is common among these women is that all except Rahab had unusual
births or birth stories associated with them. Also, these women through
their actions kept the royal line of Israel alive....
All these women, one could say, saved Israel.... the mention of the
women culminating in Mary is probably less a scandal and more a potent
reminder to Matthew's audience of the lengths to which God has gone to
save the people of God in the past and has recently acted similarly in
the person and story of Jesus, messiah, son of David, son of Abraham.
[pp. 32-33]
Carter (_Matthew and the Margins_) has a similar interpretation of the
five women in the list:
All five situations are subversive "over-against" prevailing norms,
marginal to the patriarchal line and structures. God's actions are not
contained by or bound to these structures. God breaks them open to work
on the margins. The margins are not God-forsaken or cursed, but crucial
to God's purposes. [p. 60]
Keener (_A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew_) states about the four
women, their "primary common link is their Gentile ancestry" (p. 79).
He goes on to say in contrast to the comments above:
Not all commentators regard these women as representative Gentiles.
Many commentators instead link them to charges of either sinfulness or
irregular births, suggesting that their names prepare readers of the
scandal of the virgin birth in 1:18-25 or counter slanders of Mary's
infidelity; as God vindicated these women of old, he would also
vindicate Mary. The "irregular" birth interpretation is possible (and
not necessarily inconsistent with the interpretation of the Gentile
mission above, but if that were his main point, why would he choose
these four women over Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel, whose wombs God
opened? the latter are more prominent and would provide better examples
of "irregular" births in the miraculous sense he intends for the virgin
birth. The scandal interpretation is more problematic. If Matthew were
defending Mary against slanders of infidelity, why would he choose
Tamar and Bathsheba, both of whom did in fact act immorally by the
standards of his Jewish contemporaries? [p. 79]
Keener concludes his comments on this section with:
The Bible that accepted David's mixed race also implied it for the
messianic King: Matthew thus declares that the Gentiles were never an
after-thought in God's plan, but had been part of his work in history
from the beginning. One who traces Matthew's treatment of Gentiles
through the Gospel, from the Magi who sought Jesus in chapter 2 through
the concluding commission to disciple the nations in 28:19, will
understand Matthew's point in emphasizing this. Matthew exhorts his
readers that as much as Jesus is connected with the heritage of Israel,
he is for all peoples as well, and his disciples have a responsibility
to let everyone know about him. [pp. 80-81]
Finally, Jensen suggests that in v. 17, Matthew indicates that
"history has a plan. God is in charge of that plan. All of history
comes to fruition and fulfillment in the birth of a baby boy."
FULFILLMENT OF SCRIPTURES
Besides beginning his book with a look back at Old Testament
characters, Matthew repeatedly, in the first four chapters, quotes Old
Testament verses, mostly to show that Jesus fulfills them. One reason,
I believe, that Matthew was placed first in the New Testament (even
though it probably was not written first) is his stronger connection
to the Old Testament through such quotations. In some ways, he serves
as a good bridge from the old to the new.
HOW JESUS IS WHO HE IS
Besides telling us "who" Jesus is with these titles, these texts also
indicate "how" Jesus is "who" he is.
He is "son of David" because of his genealogy -- but Joseph didn't
"begat" him! The Davidic descendancy is not transferred through
natural paternity but through legal paternity. "By naming the child,
Joseph acknowledges him as his own. The Jewish position on this is
lucidly clear and is dictated by the fact that sometimes it is
difficult to determine who begot a child biologically. Since normally
a man will not acknowledge and support a child unless it is his own,
the law prefers to base paternity on the man's acknowledgment. The
Mishna _Baba Bathra_ 8:6 states the principle: 'If a man says, "This
is my son," he is to be believed.' Joseph, by exercising the father's
right to name the child (cf. Luke 1:60-63), acknowledges Jesus and
thus becomes the legal father of the child." [Raymond Brown, _The
Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary of the Infancy Narratives in the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke_, p. 139 -- I recommend this 700+ page
book for those who want a good, even-handed approach to this topic. He
also has a two-volume set on _The Death of the Messiah_].
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION
Jesus is "Son of God" because of his unique conception. Brown (_The
Birth of the Messiah_) prefers the phrase "virginal conception" over
"virgin birth." The issue, as he says, is not the "manner of Jesus'
birth or how he came forth from the womb, but the manner of his
conception." [p. 517].
In some circles, the virginity of Mary has become a benchmark for
orthodoxy -- and as long as the Creeds are official statements, "born
of the virgin Mary" is the confession and teaching of our Church.
However, I don't believe that this was major issue in the first
century. I don't believe that "proving" the virgin birth is primarily
what our passage is about, but since it is such a "hot" issue now, it
needs to be addressed. I share some of the thoughts from Brown's book
with some of my own musings.
Since the birth stories from Matthew and Luke seem to come from two
different sources, and both include the virginal conception, it must
have pre-dated these two writings. Where did the idea come from? It
did not come from Isaiah 7:14 because neither in the Hebrew ("the
young woman with child") nor in the LXX ("the virgin will have in her
womb") refer to a miraculous conception. In addition, this "sign" was
directed specifically to Ahaz as an event during his lifetime. Note
that the NRSV supplies the verb "is" -- "the young woman *is* with
child". (The NIV uses "will be".) Also the use of the definite
article, "*the* young woman" suggests that Isaiah was referring to
someone whose identity was known to Ahaz. Without the influence of
Jesus' birth, we would think that the conception in this young woman
happened naturally and that she was pregnant when Isaiah spoke/wrote
these words. The "sign" for Isaiah is not a virginal conception, but
the providential timing of the birth to a young woman. ("Teenager"
might be the closest English word to the meaning of the Hebrew which
referred to a young woman past puberty and thus marriageable, rather
than "virgin".) The origin of Jesus' virginal conception did not come
from Isaiah.
There are numerous stories of virginal conception in pagan and world
religions. Brown suggests three key questions concerning these
stories:
(1) Would such legends or traditions have been known to Christians in
NT times? If so, they wouldn't have been included in an angelic
announcement that closely follows other birth announcements in the OT.
(2) If they had known of such stories, would the Greek-speaking Jewish
Christians have wanted to pattern the Messiah after them? [Do we want
a Messiah modeled after Hercules?] Since Jesus' life, death and
resurrection was quite different from these other god-men, it seems
unlikely their type of conception stories would have been connected
with Jesus.
(3) "Are any of these divinely engendered births really parallel to
the non-sexual virginal conception of Jesus described in the NT, where
Mary is not impregnated by a male deity or element, but the child is
begotten through the creative power of the Holy Spirit?"
Brown elaborates more on the third question: "These 'parallels'
consistently involve a type of _hieros gamos_ where a divine male, in
human or other form, impregnates a woman, either through normal sexual
intercourse or through some substitute form of penetration. In short,
there is no clear example of _virginal_ conception in world or pagan
religions that plausibly could have given first-century Jewish
Christians the idea of the virginal conception of Jesus." [p. 523]
If there is nothing in Jewish history nor pagan history that might
lead to the virginal conception stories of Jesus, the easiest
explanation is "that's what happened." From "what happened," Matthew
looked back and used Isaiah 7:14 as part of his "fulfillment" theme.
However, if "that's what happened," why is it only in two writings? An
obvious answer is that Matthew and Luke were dealing with situations
where promoting the virginal conception was important.
One of those situations might have been the question of "When did
Jesus become God's Son?" Paul, in Romans 1:4 suggests that the
resurrection declares Jesus to be the Son of God. By the time of Mark,
we, the readers, know that the identity of Jesus as Son of God begins
at baptism and continues through his ministry (even if it was not
publicly known until the crucifixion in the narrative). In Matthew,
the identity of Jesus as Son of God is pushed back to his conception
(as it is in Luke) and it is something that is acknowledged by
characters in their narratives. The Gospel of John pushes Jesus'
divinity back to before creation. Perhaps declaring Jesus' divine
connection at conception was an issue that Matthew needed to address
in his gospel.
Another of those situations might have been the accusation of Jesus'
illegitimate birth. By the late second century this was clearly an
approach from the anti-Christian, Celsus. Brown gives this
reconstruction from Origin's work _Against Celsus_.
It was Jesus himself who fabricated the story that he had been born of
a virgin. In fact, however, his mother was a poor country woman who
earned her living by spinning. She had been driven out by her
carpenter-husband when she was convicted of adultery with a soldier
named Panthera. She then wandered about and secretly gave birth to
Jesus. Later, because he was poor, Jesus hired himself out in Egypt
where he became adept in magical powers. Puffed up by these, he claimed
for himself the title of God. [p. 535]
If the beginnings of such arguments against Jesus were known to
Matthew and Luke, they may have felt the need to counter it with the
stories of the virginal conception and birth. If the other biblical
writers weren't facing such an attack, they wouldn't need to talk
about the birth.
The idea of the non-sexual "creative power of the Holy Spirit" got me
thinking about the actual miracle in the womb. I've never read any
discussion about this, so these are my own musings. If we have ruled
out the need for male's sperm, what about the female's egg? As I
pointed out above, there is a connection between the "genesis" of
Jesus and the "genesis" of heaven and earth. In Genesis' first
creation story, God creates out of nothing with a word. In the second,
God is always using something to form animals and humans. With this
miraculous conception, did God say: "Let Mary's egg become
fertilized," and it happened? Or did God say, "Let a zygote be placed
in Mary's womb," suggesting that both sperm and egg originated from
God?
At this point in my contemplations, I find more reasons for the
second. First of all, we confess that Jesus is truly and fully God --
not half God and half human -- a common creature in many pagan
stories.
Secondly, while it might be argued that this view denies the humanity
of Christ, I would counter that by saying that just as God created the
first humans out of nothing (or from dirt and a rib); so God could
create a truly human zygote without sperm or egg. I've already
mentioned the "genesis" connection between our text and creation.
Thirdly, having God place a zygote in the womb does away with any
sexual connotations. God becomes both the male and female in terms of
the conception, while Mary remains the "God-bearer" -- something a
male's anatomy wouldn't permit.
Fourthly, I believe that "conception" was still understood in the
first century as the man planting a seed into the fertile "soil" of
the woman. They didn't understand the union of sperm and egg. Thus,
God could be seen simply as "the planter" and Mary the "soil" where
the divine "seed" grew.
These are some thoughts to discuss and perhaps research. Yet, at the
same time, the virgin conception wasn't that big a deal in the first
century.
Eduard Schweizer (_The Good News According to Matthew_) writes:
It was assumed of many great men at the time, from Plato to Alexander,
that they had been born without human father. The fact of such a birth
therefore did not single Jesus out as unique, it simply placed him in
the company of all the great men of the age.
More important than the idea of Mary's virginity therefore are the
points that distinguish the birth stories in the Gospels from these
other accounts. In them god is pictured as mating with a woman or
virgin. . . .
Whether a virgin birth is possible is a question only a modern world
ask; virgin birth was an accepted notion to men of the New Testament
period. By no means, therefore, should a man's faith be judged by
whether nor not he thinks a miracle like this is possible, the less so
because the virgin birth plays such an infinitesimal role in the New
Testament. It is nowhere described; only the Annunciation is mentioned
in Matthew 1 and Luke 1. Neither Matthew nor Luke returns to the
subject, not even in the course of the Christmas story proper.
According to Mark 3:21, Jesus' mother, who thinks him mad, appears to
have no inkling of the promises made by the angel. No other document,
above all none of the many summaries of the faith in a formula, hymn,
or sermon in the New Testament, mentions the virgin birth. . . .
What the text asks is therefore not whether we can consider a virgin
birth physically possible, but . . . whether in this birth we can see
God's own and unique intervention for man's salvation. And if this is
the case, then we can also say what this story of the virgin birth is
further meant to say: that this birth stands not merely as one among
many in the long series of millions of births, that it took place not
merely through the creative will or drive of a man, but through God's
own will as creator. [pages 33-35]
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NAMES
What, I think, is more important than the virginal conception, are the
names given to this child. "Jesus" (Greek) or "Joshua" (Hebrew) --
names that mean "savior". Note that with this name, the importance of
Jesus is not "who he is" -- defined by the genealogy and the virgin
conception as son of God; but what he will do -- save people from
their sin!
"Emmanuel," which, as Matthew tells us, means "God with us". Daniel
Patte (_The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on
Matthew's Faith_) suggests that we should also consider this name as
part of Jesus' vocation rather than his nature. Jesus' calling is to
save his people from their sins and to manifest God's presence.
Nowhere else is Jesus called "Emmanuel." In fact, Matthew modifies the
quote slightly. Rather than saying, "*You* will call ...," as in
Isaiah 7:14; he has, "*They* will call ...." "Emmanuel" is not the
name Joseph will give the child. It is the name given to him by
others. By what he does -- namely saving people from their sins -- the
people experience God's presence among them. It is only in Matthew
where Jesus says: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I
am there among them" (18:20) -- and this saying is in the context of
forgiving sins (see 18:15-18). This gospel ends with Jesus' promise:
"I am with you always, to the end of the age" (28:20). For Matthew, it
is Jesus himself, Emmanuel, who is the abiding presence of God with us
after the resurrection, not the Holy Spirit (as in Luke/Acts &
John).
My guess is that the people experienced the divine presence after
Jesus had gone. Matthew's community described it as the continuing
presence of Jesus. Luke's and John's communities described it as the
presence of the Holy Spirit. We humans will always have some
difficulty trying to put our experiences with God into mere words.
Can we believe that in this infant, God is with us as our savior? It
can be safer to argue about what might have happened at Jesus' birth
way back in history; than to live our lives today confessing and
believing that "God is with us/me right now". I think that some of the
historical arguments can be ways of avoiding the living God now. I
once suggested from something I read, that all some people want is an
*inoculation* of Christianity -- just enough of it so that they don't
catch the real thing. Sometimes Christmas is no more than a "booster
shot" -- something that helps us *not* catch the real thing. The real
thing is "God is with us". The "savior" has been born and is with us.
Yet many people feel more in bondage at Christmas time -- bondage to
attend parties, buy gifts, spend too much money, be happy, etc. We may
celebrate the coming of the Prince of Peace by making our lives more
chaotic; the coming of the Lord of Life by becoming more depressed.
These can be indications that we need more of the real thing. How do
we live today knowing that the savior, God-is-with-us now?
JOSEPH'S "CONVERSION"
Perhaps what is at least as miraculous as the virginal conception is
how Joseph's mind was changed. In the first century, marriages were
still arranged. Their families may have determined that Joseph and
Mary would be married when they were still young children. When Joseph
finds out that Mary is pregnant, his "righteous" decision to divorce
her is what the law and society expected him to do.
Keener (_A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew_) notes: "Jewish,
Greek, and Roman law all demanded that a man divorce his wife if she
were guilty of adultery. . . . Mediterranean society viewed with
contempt the weakness of a man who let his love for his wife outweigh
his appropriate honor in repudiating her" (p. 91). Divorcing pregnant
Mary was the right thing for Joseph to do.
It would seem that Joseph was convinced that she had committed
adultery and his obedience to the law and unwilling to be shamed
himself forced him in good conscience to divorce her; but out of his
compassion, he wouldn't expose her to public shame by dragging her
before the courts.
Other commentators have suggested that divorcing Mary could mean that
Joseph was offering the "real" father the opportunity to raise his
child by marrying the mother.
Like Joseph of old in Genesis 37:5-22, this Joseph learns of God's
will through a dream -- a dream in which a messenger/angel of the Lord
speaks to him. This method of communication will occur a few other
times to Joseph.
Actually, a virginal conception might be a much easier miracle than
changing the minds of some of our stubborn, "I-know-I'm-right" type
people. Could Joseph have been one of those? -- before the angel's
visit? -- and before Mary gives birth to a son? [I think that Ahaz,
from the First Lesson is definitely one of those kinds of people -- he
righteously will *not* ask for a sign, quoting scriptures that he
won't put God to the test (Isaiah 7:10). But God is going to give him
a sign whether he wants it or not.]
The statement of the angel in v. 20 raises a question, "Why would
Joseph be *afraid* to take Mary as his wife?" While the literal *was
found* in v. 18 can simply mean "She *was* pregnant," what if Matthew
intended a more literal meaning: If "She *was found* to be pregnant,"
who *found* her in that condition? Was she beginning to show? Could
Joseph's fear be related to rumors that his betrothed was already
pregnant? "What would the neighbors say" kind of fear?
Besides our self-righteousness, how often do we let "fear of the
neighbors" control our actions? God breaks through both these barriers
in Joseph. At the end, he takes Mary as his wife, in spite of his
fears; and he claims the son as his own by naming him, in spite of his
earlier self-righteous decision to quietly divorce this woman who was
carrying another man's child (as he supposed).
Joseph's actions, though, are still based on faith. The decision to
follow through with the marriage plans was left up to him. He had to
believe the message from the angel in the dream that the child was
from the Holy Spirit and that he should not be afraid.
It could also be that Matthew uses Joseph -- a "righteous man" (v. 19)
-- as the first indication that what God demands is a righteousness
that "exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" (5:20). Joseph has
determined what he thinks is "right" to do; but that was not the same
as what God had determined was the "right" thing to do.
The real event of Christmas is that God comes to change the world and
each of us -- not just through a historical virginal conception and a
baby lying in a manger, but through the God who is with us today;
shattering our self-righteous attitudes and seeking to move us beyond
our fears and our self-righteousness.
MORE ON "EMMANUEL"
What does it mean to call the child, "Jesus" the one who "saves us
from our sins"? What does it mean to call the child, "Emmanuel," the
"God who is with us"? Note that these questions are in the present
tense.
In a parallel vein, I have heard testimonies from individuals who
praise God for what God did for the individual in the past -- usually
centered on some significant way that God "saved" the person from an
unhealthy life. I have frequently left such events wondering: What is
God doing for that person now -- today?
The same could be said of congregations who keep looking back to their
wondrous pasts, while seemingly forgetting that the God of the past is
still with them today.
"Emmanuel" is actually a phrase in Hebrew (_`immanu el_). It doesn't
contain a verb, and it is usually correct to provide a present tense
form of "to be," e.g., NRSV's "God *is* with us." Thus this name
doesn't imply that God *was* with us only during Jesus' lifetime, but
that through Jesus, God continues to be with us.
In doing a little research on this Hebrew phrase which occurs in
Isaiah 7:14 and 8:8, I discovered that the preposition _`im_ = "with"
comes from the verb _`MM_ which means: (1) "to be hidden" and (2) "to
be common or in common".
The primary noun from this verb, _`am_ means "people" or a "group of
people" who have something in common. It is often used of Israelites
in opposition to Gentiles. It is part of the phrase _`am ha'arez_ =
"people of the land". It is also used of a "swarm" or "flock" of
animals.
Anyway, it seems to me that the translation "God is with us" doesn't
completely capture the sense of the Hebrew. The words suggest that
"God is *in common* with us people" -- or "God is one of us." In this
sense, John captures the sense with "The Word became flesh and lived
among us" (1:14a).
A NEW & DIFFERENT COMMUNITY
Carter (_Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious
Reading_) suggests that this miraculous conception turns the ancient
world upside down.
This conception without male agency and outside marriage circumvents
the patriarchal household structure emphasized in 1:1-17. God is not
bound by a structure that privileges male power. God seems to counter
it, a theme that will continue as Jesus creates a new community in
which the household is "not ruled by or even defined by a male head of
the house" [quote from Levine, "Matthew," 254](see 4:18-22; 12:46-50;
chs. 19-20). And, second, the removal of human fatherhood anticipates
the theme that membership in Jesus' new community is not constituted by
descent through the father's biological or ethnic line. [from
Eilberg-Schwartz, _God's Phallus_, 223-37]. Jesus is descendent of
Abraham and David not by physical descent but by God's action. God's
action prepares the way for two central dimensions of the
"over-against" identity of the community of disciples. This community
will be nonpatriarchal and ethnically inclusive. [a footnote: God's
actions, which exercise complete control over Mary's womb without her
knowledge and consent, raise disturbing questions. Note that she will
need a male to "rescue" her form her "shame" and reincorporate her into
patriarchal society. What sort of image of God does this scene present?
How does the preceding and following material interact with this scene?]
As we look at Matthew throughout this year, we will see what God has
planned for this very special, anointed, child.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com
from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pericopeonline/