NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part II (con’t)

Now comes a change in the descriptive linguistics. It reads: “Joseph was the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah.” This makes a difference in the way the genealogy ends. For some skeptics, it constitutes the largest stumbling block in crediting Jesus with being the son of David, since it implies that Jesus was “of” Mary, not “fathered by” Joseph. So skeptics ask: How then could He be considered a descendant of David, because proper genealogies are to be traced back through the fathers? First, there is a physical answer. Jewish Rabbis once had a discussion about a father being included in his daughters genealogy. They explained that this was only permissible: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you will allow his inheritance to be passed on to his daughter.¹ This made it clear to the Jews that a son takes precedence over a daughter.”² That is, if there is one. Based on this, scholars point to the fact that Mary’s father Joachim of Nazareth was a descendant of David.³ Therefore, since there is no record of Mary having any brothers, then the line of David could be passed on to Jesus through her, especially since Jesus was not conceived through contact with Joseph. Also in Mary’s case, according to tradition, Mary’s mother Anne was born in Bethlehem, and married Joachim of Nazareth, and both are descendants of David. Furthermore, even if Joseph was not the biological father, he too was of the line of David. So no matter what route one takes, Jesus’ genealogical line goes back to David. Then there is the spiritual answer: since God the Father caused Jesus to be conceived through the Holy Spirit, He is the one who said of David, “You are my son.”⁴ So again, spiritually speaking Jesus was of the lineage of David. Furthermore, ancient Jewish texts tell us: “The house of David is of royal lineage, being a descendant of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel.”⁵ Other Jewish writings also trace the family tree of the Messiah from the family of David in the line of Zerubbabel, and reckons the same number of generations from Zerubbabel to the Messiah, same as Matthew does from Zerubbabel to Jesus. According to another Jewish writer, he also points to Zerubbabel’s connection with David and says that from this line the king Messiah will be revealed.”⁶ When examining such genealogies we must keep in mind, with the different pronunciations of names, it is still the same list of forefathers. This should be proof for many Jews today, that according to their own account and expectations the Messiah must have come many, many years ago. What does not make any sense is the debate over Joseph, the husband of Mary. But some in the past have felt compelled to argue the point in trying to discredit Jesus. But that wasn’t all. The subject of her qualifications in being chosen as the one through whom the Son of God would enter the world as a human being, seemed to be lessened because she and Joseph then had other children. That’s why some 300 years after our Lord’s ascension into heaven, there were already dogmatic foundations being laid within the early church of what would later become the “veneration of Mary.” This defense of Mary then begin to exert themselves into the dialogue with Jews and skeptics. As in all religions at the time, it was fashionable to venerate those who were the leading figures in the beginning of these religions. We see this from the writings of one early church father who examined all the Christian sects that had risen from the time of the Church’s founding, and where they stood on accepting church doctrines at the time. He says: “...those who say that St. Mary, the ever-virgin, had intercourse with Joseph after giving birth to the Savior, I call them Antidicomarians.‘⁷”⁸ Also, this same early church father told that after Jesus was circumcised, embraced by Simeon in the Temple, and confessed by Anna the daughter of Phanuel, that He was taken to Nazareth. But two years later they returned to Bethlehem in time for the visit of the Magi. He says: “And in Bethlehem Jesus came to a house with his own mother and Joseph, who was an old man but was Mary’s companion.”⁹ This may account for the fact that after Jesus was 12 years old and found in the Temple debating with the elders, we hear no further mention of Joseph in the Scriptures. While Mary was without doubt favored of God, and chosen to bear His Son because of her character and innocence, there was no extra ordinary veneration of her in New Testament times. Today, while most Protestants are considered Antidicomarianites as it pertains to her ever-virgin status, and by believing that Mary and Joseph went on to have several more children after Jesus was born, they certainly are not opponents of Mary as a special woman chosen and blessed by God. One Jewish polemic writer on the story of Jesus, in commenting on the virgin birth of Jesus and how by not being of the seed of Joseph as her husband, therefore Jesus could never be considered the Messiah because there is no record that Mary can be traced to David, points to a Scripture Christians assigned to the Messiah: “Men from Judah’s family will be kings. The sign that his family rules will not leave his family until Shiloh [the real king] comes. Then many people will obey and serve him,”¹⁰ and mocks that Christians take this as a reference to Jesus. However, a very well-respected Jewish translator makes a note here on the original Hebrew text. He points out that it reads: “The scepter shall not pass from Judah, nor the mace from between his legs, that tribute to him may come and the submission of peoples to him.”¹¹ He explains, that the word “mace” comes from a Hebrew word that refers to a ruler’s long staff. As such, the same object is being referred to twice by different names to show that one stands for royalty and the other for power.¹² This clearly fits into what Christian theologians have made evident that Jesus came to fill three roles: Prophet, Priest, and King. While here on earth, He certainly filled His position as Prophet.¹³ Then, by way of the cross and His ascension He took His position as High Priest.¹⁴ And when He returns to rule and reign, He will come as the all triumphant KING of Kings.¹⁵ This Jewish writer goes on to say: “The word sceptre applies only to a king or prince because it is so written in Scripture.”¹⁶ The Jewish polemic writer we quoted earlier then has this to say: “If the critic of the Talmud will tell you that all of these verses refer to Jesus, who stemmed from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, ask him how he knows this genealogy. After all, to all the genealogies of Matthew and Luke one does not find one for Jesus and Mary. Now, if , as you say, Jesus was not Joseph’s son, then he has no relationship to this genealogy. If, however, you trace his lineage through Joseph, then you must admit that he had [an earthly] father. But unless you trace his lineage through Joseph, how can you prove that he stemmed from Judah and David?”¹⁷ This was written in the 13^th century in response to some Christian works in 1240 AD attacking the Jewish Talmud. While the author is anonymous, most Hebrew scholars believe that he was a German Rabbi, because of his use of many German words in the text. He also comments on a prophecy to David: “For this is what the Lord says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel,”¹⁸ and how Christians have falsely identified this person with Jesus. He says, “How, then, can you say Jesus is a god when the verse calls him a man?”¹⁹ Then in his critique of the Gospels, the writer makes this observation, that in verse 16 Joseph is listed as “the husband” of Mary. He says, “Now, this is how we answer them: If she had not yet had sexual relations nor was she even married to her husband, then why is he called her husband? It should have said, ‘the betrothed of Mary,’ in which case they would not be stating an obvious falsehood in their liturgy when they say that he never had relations with her.”²⁰ What this writer completely overlooks is that by calling Joseph the husband of Mary, Matthew was stating the end result of their relationship after Jesus was born and then she and Joseph got married and perhaps had other children. Secondly, by calling Jesus the son of Joseph, the writer was not referring to him as the biological father, but His paternal parent as head of the family. We must also note that here Matthew calls Jacob the father of Joseph, while scripture tells us that the father’s name was Heli.²¹ Some scholars believe that whenever a man’s genealogy ends with a woman’s name, they would then insert her father’s name.²² Therefore, it could read, “Jacob was the father-in-law of Joseph, Mary’ husband.” And in wondering why Jesus was referred to as God when He was in fact a man, shows that the polemic writer did not understand that Jesus was God incarnate. Furthermore, this last verse in our text includes an interesting grammatical revelation. In referring to the progeny of each man the Greek word “egennēsen” signifies a father-son relationship and is utilized up to this point. But when it comes to Jesus’ relationship with Mary, the Greek word is changed to: “egennēthē”, which refers to Mary alone as the one who is responsible for the birth of Jesus. So here the Word itself bears witness that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a virgin woman without man’s contribution.²³