[The next few post we will be centering our studies on Matthew1:18-25.]
A Study of Matthew 1:18
Matthew 1:18-25 begins telling us how the birth of Christ happened, as shown by the Greek idiom, “was as follows.” The word birth is the Greek word geneseos, meaning origin, and suggests that the genealogy [biblos geneseos] now reaches its goal. The goal was to present the Jesus as the Messiah. France argues that the reading “Tou de Christon” of the early Latin and Syria version is a better rendering here, and translates the first phrase: “The Messiah’s origin was like this” [Matthew, 46 fn 13]. This certainly ties in well with the purpose of Matthew, which is to show that the Messiah has came and it was Jesus.
Matthew centers his account on Joseph’s perspective, in contrast to Luke which gives Mary’s perspective. He sets the occasion of Messiah’s coming with the anticipation of a wedding. We learn:
First, Mary and Joseph are “betrothed.’ The Greek is mnesteutheises, meaning betrothed, a pledge to be married. We today would think of it as an engagement, however, that does not fully convey the situation. It was more like marriage itself, but not consummated. In the days of Christ, there were three parts to a marriage: engagement, betrothal, and marriage.
- Engagement usually took place early while the couple was still children, or even infants. It was made between the parents of the children. It was an agreement by the parents that the two would be married when they grew up. Barclay notes, “it was often made without the couple involved ever having seen each other. Marriage was held to be far too serious a step to be left to the dictates of human passion and the human heart.” [DBS: Matthew, 1:9] This is not to say that romantic attraction was entirely unknown, as evidence by Jacob (Gen. 29:20), Dinah (Gen. 34:3), Michal (1 Sam. 18:20) and others. Mary and Joseph were well beyond the engagement step, although Scripture reveals nothing about Mary and Joseph’s engagement and how it came to be.
- Betrothal was the ratification of the engagement. It was like marriage, in that it could only be broken by divorce. In the case of the death of the man, the girl would be considered a widow. It, like marriage, required faithfulness. Violation was an act of adultery and could result in death of the offender (Deut. 22:23-25). At this time in history, “betrothal called for a solemn oral commitment in the presence of witnesses with an added pledge of a piece of money or a written pledge that would conclude with a benediction. Another kind of betrothal, cohabitation, was strongly disapproved by the rabbis” [ISBE, 3:263].It was equivalent to a civil contract of marriage and legally binding. The betrothal was sacred; Mary was the betrothed wife of Joseph. However, there was no consummation of the marriage. Instead there was an interval elapsed between betrothal and the final ceremony of marriage. It could be short, anywhere from a few weeks up to a year. Afterward the interval, the bride was led from her paternal home to that of the husband for the formal marriage.
- There marriage vows were spoken and the formal legal document signed, followed by the washing of hands and the benediction. Thus, the marriage supper began and continued until the bride was led to the bridal chamber.
It is believed that Mary was in her early to mid teens when she was betrothed. Traditionally both bride and groom were young, with the groom being older than his bride. The rabbis established a minimum age of 12 for girls and 13 for boys for betrothal [Wm. Coleman, Today’s Handbook of Bible Times and Customs, 87]. We have no way of knowing how young or old Mary and Joseph were at the time. However, seeing that Joseph seems not to be alive by the time of Christ’s ministry, for he is not mentioned after the childhood of Jesus, he may have been somewhat older. Evidence for Mary being quite young is seen in the tradition that she lived until the later part of the first century.
Second, it was during the betrothal that Joseph found out the news that Mary was with child. This is stressed by the aorist passive participle, which indicates the fact of the betrothal which had transpired at a prior time. It is clear that this took place “before they came together.” This phrase refers both to domestic and sexual union. Mary was still a virgin. The text clearly indicates that they were not living together as husband and wife, the consummation of the marriage had not yet occurred.
Third, it was a supernatural conception “of the Holy Ghost.” The Greek construction is interesting, for it literally reads “of Holy Spirit” (ek pneumatos hagion). Bullinger makes a point to demonstrate that when the Greek article is not used, it refers not to the person of the Holy Spirit, “but always to the gifts and operations” of the Holy Spirit [The Giver and the Gifts, 26]. In other words, she was found with child by the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit, not by the person of the Holy Spirit (cf. Luke 1:35). This guards against what is commonly found in mythology, where a god co-habits with a human to produce an offspring. We must NEVER get the idea that this conception was a result of a personal physical union between Mary and the third person of the Godhead. The text negates such an idea. There was no co-habitation between the two. Rather, it was the power of intervention by the Holy Spirit that produced this event. Matthew here speaks of the creative work by the Holy Spirit, not a sexual act. Noland calls this “a unique miracle of God, not simply another miracle of God.” [NIGTC: Matthew, 98].
MacLeod is correct when he writes, “no new person came into existence at the conception of Jesus—in this, Jesus’ birth differs from all others. Rather, an eternal, pre-existent person, the second person of the Triune God, chose to come down into our human race and be born one of us” [“The Virginal Conception of our Lord in Matthew 1:18-25,” Emmaus Journal, Sum. 1999, 3]. The process was simply to introduce the pre-existent one into Mary’s womb, not create a new life, thus, there was no need for sexual contact for Mary to conceive.
It is interesting to read what the author said about the definite article in regard to the words translated "holy spirit" or "Holy Spirit."
ReplyDeleteif what he said is correct then let us consider the following verse:
"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" (Eph.5:18; KJV).
This would be the correct translation:
"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with spirit."
And the same here:
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye holy spirit" (Jn.20>22).
This certainly makes sense because if the redenering is "the Holy Spirit" then it would contradict other passages in the Scriptures (see John 16:5-7).