The Savior’s Birth (v. 18-25)
Among Jews, betrothal was a solemn act with legally binding consequences, just as the wedding ceremony is to us (or betrothal in the old times; therefore this might be a justification for using the old word “betrothal”). After the betrothal the couple was called husband and wife, even though the woman still lived with her parents. The wedding meant that the husband “took his wife”, so that they formed their own home and lived together. If the husband died during the betrothal, the wife was considered to be a widow. It was adultery if a betrothed woman gave herself to another man. This could bring severe punishment and in any case shame. Joseph wanted to protect his betrothed from this and thus planned to divorce her quietly. In a dream he then sees an angel, who tells him that Mary is innocent and that the child that she carries has been conceived in a way which no other child in the world has. Joseph is therefore to take his wife and name the child Jesus, because this Jesus “will save his people from their sins”. This statement does not have a real meaning in Swedish (or Greek), unlike Hebrew or Aramaic. The name Jesus (which is the same name as Joshua in the Old Testament) means “The Lord saves”. Jewish names had more meaning than ours do. They often contained a confession or a motto. They were considered to bear the innermost essence of a person. Therefore, there was a proclamation and a promise from God in the name Jesus itself.
There is also a special meaning in the words “save his people from their sins“. It was a general Jewish belief that Messiah was to save his people, but he would do it by freeing them and overthrowing their enemies. The words of the angel give another picture of Messiah, a picture which Matthew will draw on in his gospel. It is a picture of a suffering Savior, one who is persecuted and rejected, but precisely in this way he wins forgiveness of sins for his people.
All this happened, Matthew says, so that the words of Scripture would be fulfilled, and then he quotes Isaiah’s word about the virgin who would give birth to a son (Is 7:14). He quotes the Greek translation, which was commonly used among Jews (and is called the Septuagint). In the Hebrew text a word which can mean both virgin and young woman is used for “virgin”. Our current church bible “young woman” is used in Isaiah, but the word “virgin” is used in this passage, in the same way as the Greek translation did.
In the future, we will continue to meet this thought over and over again in Matthew, that the Scripture (that is, the Old Testament) has been fulfilled in Christ. In this Matthew often uses a way of quoting and interpreting of the Scripture, which may seem a bit strained to us, but this way of reading and explaining the Scripture was widely accepted in this time. While modern scholars today take it for granted that one should try to determine what the authors of the Bible themselves meant with their statements, the Jews - and also Jesus - were convinced that there is more to the words of the Bible than that meaning, which the words may have had in a particular historic situation. For they were convinced that God spoke to them through these words and that he had enclosed inexhaustible riches in them, which were possible to find through an attentive study. To “examine the Scriptures” was therefore to compare one passage with another, to pay attention to the bigger picture in Scripture, and to find hints and reference to that, which happened both previously and later. They entered deeply into all the details in the texts, were mindful of both pronunciation, as they had learned it, and the written text, which consisted of consonants with vowels and thus opened up for other pronunciations and new meanings.
Here we have an example of this way of reading. Isaiah says that the son of the virgin is to be called Immanuel. This, Matthew now says, has been fulfilled when Mary’s son was named Jesus. This conclusion makes no sense if one has not - as Matthew - realized that both these names mean the same thing. For “the Lords saves” means that “God is with us”. That God who should be against us, shows that he makes our lost cause his when he sends us his Son as a Savior. He comes to us and will never abandon us. This idea is prevalent through the whole gospel of Matthew, even to its last verse: Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
Now one may of course ask: How did Matthew know what he here tells about Jesus’ birth? It is understandable that many have wanted to explain away this as legend, since it goes against everything that we usually count on. Fifty years ago it was often claimed that the legend about Jesus’ supernatural birth arose on Hellenistic soil. Among the Greeks there were many myths about sons of gods, who had lived on earth, and it was not strange if they had similar thoughts about Jesus. However, that theory does not stand up to scrutiny. It is namely possible to show that the narratives about Jesus’ birth (as we have them in the first two chapters in Matthew and in another version in Luke) must have had its origin among people, who knew and spoke Aramaic and knew the Hebrew Bible. Thus, they must have originated on Jewish soil, in Palestine or Syria. That changes the whole issue. To a Jew it was by no means natural, but rather offensive to think that Messiah would be born in this way. Among the Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria, the first church in Jerusalem had a entirely dominant position until 70 AD, when the city was destroyed. In the first church Jesus’ own brother Jacob was the leading figure until his death (ca 62 AD). Relatives of Jesus were among the Christians in Palestine at least until 130 AD. It therefore seems strange if legends could have occurred in these circles, when their leaders knew that they were unfounded. However, the process becomes understandable, assuming that stories which went back to those who were closest to Jesus, had been preserved in the first church. What Matthew here tells is the sequence of events as it may have been told by Joseph, while the other version, which Luke tells, give us the events as they should have seemed from Mary’s point of view.
Among Jews, betrothal was a solemn act with legally binding consequences, just as the wedding ceremony is to us (or betrothal in the old times; therefore this might be a justification for using the old word “betrothal”). After the betrothal the couple was called husband and wife, even though the woman still lived with her parents. The wedding meant that the husband “took his wife”, so that they formed their own home and lived together. If the husband died during the betrothal, the wife was considered to be a widow. It was adultery if a betrothed woman gave herself to another man. This could bring severe punishment and in any case shame. Joseph wanted to protect his betrothed from this and thus planned to divorce her quietly. In a dream he then sees an angel, who tells him that Mary is innocent and that the child that she carries has been conceived in a way which no other child in the world has. Joseph is therefore to take his wife and name the child Jesus, because this Jesus “will save his people from their sins”. This statement does not have a real meaning in Swedish (or Greek), unlike Hebrew or Aramaic. The name Jesus (which is the same name as Joshua in the Old Testament) means “The Lord saves”. Jewish names had more meaning than ours do. They often contained a confession or a motto. They were considered to bear the innermost essence of a person. Therefore, there was a proclamation and a promise from God in the name Jesus itself.
There is also a special meaning in the words “save his people from their sins“. It was a general Jewish belief that Messiah was to save his people, but he would do it by freeing them and overthrowing their enemies. The words of the angel give another picture of Messiah, a picture which Matthew will draw on in his gospel. It is a picture of a suffering Savior, one who is persecuted and rejected, but precisely in this way he wins forgiveness of sins for his people.
All this happened, Matthew says, so that the words of Scripture would be fulfilled, and then he quotes Isaiah’s word about the virgin who would give birth to a son (Is 7:14). He quotes the Greek translation, which was commonly used among Jews (and is called the Septuagint). In the Hebrew text a word which can mean both virgin and young woman is used for “virgin”. Our current church bible “young woman” is used in Isaiah, but the word “virgin” is used in this passage, in the same way as the Greek translation did.
In the future, we will continue to meet this thought over and over again in Matthew, that the Scripture (that is, the Old Testament) has been fulfilled in Christ. In this Matthew often uses a way of quoting and interpreting of the Scripture, which may seem a bit strained to us, but this way of reading and explaining the Scripture was widely accepted in this time. While modern scholars today take it for granted that one should try to determine what the authors of the Bible themselves meant with their statements, the Jews - and also Jesus - were convinced that there is more to the words of the Bible than that meaning, which the words may have had in a particular historic situation. For they were convinced that God spoke to them through these words and that he had enclosed inexhaustible riches in them, which were possible to find through an attentive study. To “examine the Scriptures” was therefore to compare one passage with another, to pay attention to the bigger picture in Scripture, and to find hints and reference to that, which happened both previously and later. They entered deeply into all the details in the texts, were mindful of both pronunciation, as they had learned it, and the written text, which consisted of consonants with vowels and thus opened up for other pronunciations and new meanings.
Here we have an example of this way of reading. Isaiah says that the son of the virgin is to be called Immanuel. This, Matthew now says, has been fulfilled when Mary’s son was named Jesus. This conclusion makes no sense if one has not - as Matthew - realized that both these names mean the same thing. For “the Lords saves” means that “God is with us”. That God who should be against us, shows that he makes our lost cause his when he sends us his Son as a Savior. He comes to us and will never abandon us. This idea is prevalent through the whole gospel of Matthew, even to its last verse: Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
Now one may of course ask: How did Matthew know what he here tells about Jesus’ birth? It is understandable that many have wanted to explain away this as legend, since it goes against everything that we usually count on. Fifty years ago it was often claimed that the legend about Jesus’ supernatural birth arose on Hellenistic soil. Among the Greeks there were many myths about sons of gods, who had lived on earth, and it was not strange if they had similar thoughts about Jesus. However, that theory does not stand up to scrutiny. It is namely possible to show that the narratives about Jesus’ birth (as we have them in the first two chapters in Matthew and in another version in Luke) must have had its origin among people, who knew and spoke Aramaic and knew the Hebrew Bible. Thus, they must have originated on Jewish soil, in Palestine or Syria. That changes the whole issue. To a Jew it was by no means natural, but rather offensive to think that Messiah would be born in this way. Among the Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria, the first church in Jerusalem had a entirely dominant position until 70 AD, when the city was destroyed. In the first church Jesus’ own brother Jacob was the leading figure until his death (ca 62 AD). Relatives of Jesus were among the Christians in Palestine at least until 130 AD. It therefore seems strange if legends could have occurred in these circles, when their leaders knew that they were unfounded. However, the process becomes understandable, assuming that stories which went back to those who were closest to Jesus, had been preserved in the first church. What Matthew here tells is the sequence of events as it may have been told by Joseph, while the other version, which Luke tells, give us the events as they should have seemed from Mary’s point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment