NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part IV

A highly esteemed British scholar in his Bible commentary points out that Mary was found with child, “Namely, after the space of three months from her conception, when she was now returned home from her cousin Elizabeth.¹ The masters of the traditions assign this time period to discover a thing of that nature. ‘A woman who is either put away from her husband, or becomes a widow, neither marries, nor is espoused, for a period of ninety days: namely, that it may be known, whether she be big with child or no; and that distinction may be made between the offspring of the first husband and of the second. In like manner, a husband and wife, being made converts, are parted from one another for ninety days, that judgment may be made between children begotten properly.”² Since Mary was only espoused to Joseph, and had not yet consummated the marriage with intimate relations, and was gone for three months to visit her cousin Elizabeth, upon her return home she is found to be three months pregnant, a proper time for the discovery of such a matter, which is assigned by the Jewish doctors for this purpose. As another astute British theologian, points out, “Now Mary having been gone three months from the time of her espousal to Joseph, and he and she not having not yet come together, it was a clear case that the child she was pregnant with was not his.”³ One thing of importance must be added here. Since by Jewish custom, tradition and law, a man could not call a woman his wife and she could not call him her husband until the marriage was consummated on the marriage bed, it does necessitate that Joseph and Mary were intimate following the birth of Jesus in order to allow them later to be accepted as a married couple. Had this not happened, then Matthew would never have listed Joseph as the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus.⁴ The question of whether or not such union ever produced another child is one that is open to debate and discussion. So no wonder everyone was surprised when Mary returned home, so Joseph decided to be compassionate and do the right thing to protect her reputation, thinking that perhaps she had gotten pregnant while visiting Elizabeth. This is why the Rabbis said that after the betrothal is announced: “They must be kept apart for three months lest they be with child.”⁵ This was accepted as a test that the woman had not been impregnated by their husband before the wedding. It is also interesting that the Hebrew/Aramaic word for betrothal (engaged) is “kiddushin” which signifies “sanctification, separation,” i.e., the setting aside and separating of a particular woman for a particular man. This is the same meaning of the word “sanctification” when used for the believer, who after being born again by the work of the same Holy Spirit, is separated and set aside for a particular person, God the Father. But one of the most effective scriptures for Christian Theology in tying Jesus’ conception and birth to the activity of the Holy Spirit, comes from the Old Testament.⁶  So if for no other reason, knowing this about Jewish tradition helps us point out that the story of Mary and Joseph fits well with their customs, and lends even more credence to their story here in Matthew. So let the words of a Jewish Targum on God’s word to Moses be a warning to those who find the whole story of Jesus genealogy and virgin birth nothing more than a fairytale: “I will raise up for them a Prophet from, among their brethren in whom will be the Holy Spirit, as in you; and I will put My Word of prophecy in his mouth, and he will use them to speak whatsoever I command him; and the man who will not hearken to the words of My prophecy which will be spoken in My Name, My Word will take vengeance on him.”⁷ Also, let us examine this excerpt from an interesting documentary: In 1911 the famous Judaist Hermann L. Strack initiated an important discussion of the so-called Sadducean documents from Damascus, which speak at length of a ‘teacher of righteousness’ and the ‘Holy Spirit’. In these literary finds – there is an account of God concealing Himself and rejecting the remnant of Israel…The Messiah is referred to here by the name ‘the Branch.’ Of him it is said that God will ‘make His Holy Spirit known to them through His Messiah, and He will be the Truth.’ Reference is made four times to the ‘Messiah of Aaron and Israel.’ The ‘Messiah of Aaron’ means His priestly role, and the ‘Messiah of Israel’ His kingly status.”⁸ When this is applied to Jesus of Nazareth, it compliments Him perfectly.

Verse 19: “Mary’s husband, Joseph, was a good man. He did not want to cause her public disgrace, so he planned to divorce her secretly.” The language here in calling Joseph Mary’s husband and speaking of his option to divorce, clearly shows that as far as society and the law were concerned, they were married. The only factor that was still not completed was the consummation through intimate relations. This being the case, then the word “annulment” would better fit the situation than “divorce.” Most agnostic claims of the natural conception of Jesus do not include this excerpt. If Joseph were the biological father, why was he surprised and wondered if Mary was pregnant by another man? This would make Christ an illegitimate child. No objective liberal is willing to make such a claim, and yet some force its assumption by their own interpretation and belief that the virgin birth did not take place. But as this story about Jesus immaculate conception spread, the Jews felt the need to counter the story and offer their own explanation. Rather than it being one single story, it became a part of Jewish literary tradition, which is made up of two variant medieval manuscripts collected together some time between 300 and 700 AD Some of it even made it’s way into the Babylonian Talmud’s rabbinic laws written around 500 AD. It was first attested to in 826 AD by Archbishop Agobard of Lyon, but the stories themselves contain verbal traditions that go back to 100 AD. Here is the section that deals with Joseph and Mary:

“There was a certain idle and worthless adventurer named Joseph Panthera, of the fallen tribe of Judah. He was a man of fine figure and rare beauty, but spent his time in robbery and licentiousness. He lived in Bethlehem of Judea. Nearby there lived a widow, who had a daughter named Miryam, of whom mention is made of several times in the Talmud as a dresser of women’s hair. This daughter was betrothed by her mother to a very chaste, gentle, and pious youth named Jochanan. Now it happened that Joseph occasionally passed by Miryam’s door and saw her. Then he began to have unholy affection for her. So he went back and forth by the place, and at length the mother said to him, “What makes you so thin?” He replied, “I am madly in love with Miryam.” Then, said the mother, “I would not deny doing you a favor; see if she is willing, and do with her as you please.” Obeying her counsel, Joseph Panthera went frequently by the house, but did not find a suitable time until one Sabbath evening, when he happened to find her sitting before the door. Then he he took her inside the house, and both sat down in a room near the door, for she thought he was her betrothed, Jochanan. It was at night on the eve of the Sabbath, when drunken he crossed over to her room and raped her. But she thought in her heart that it was her betrothed Jochanan; she hid her face and was ashamed. He embraced her; but she said to him: “Touch me not, for I am in my separation.” He took no heed thereat, nor regarded her words, but persisted. She conceived by him. After three months, Jochanan was told that his betrothed was with child. In great agitation, he went to his teacher, Simon ben Shetach, and telling him about the matter, asked him what he ought to do. The teacher inquired, ‘Do you suspect anyone?” Jochanan said, “Nobody, except Joseph Panthera, who is a good for nothing, and lives near my house.’ The teacher said, ‘My son, take my advice, and keep silent; for if he had been there he will surely go there again. Therefore, be wise, and get a witness, so that you may bring charges against him before the Sanhedrin.’ The young man went home and was sorely troubled during the night. He thought to himself, ‘When this thing becomes known the people will say it was my doing.’ Therefore, to avoid the shame and disgrace, he ran away to Babylon and settled down there to live.”⁹

When this document fell into the hands of Reformer Martin Luther, he responded this way, “The haughty evil spirit jests in this book with a threefold mockery. First, he mocks God, creator of heaven and earth, with His son, Jesus Christ, as you may see for yourself if you believe, as a Christian, that Christ is the son of God. Secondly, he mocks all Christendom, because we believe in such a Son of God. Thirdly, he mocks his own Jews by giving them such a scandalous, foolish, thoughtless idea about brazen dogs and cabbage-stalks, etc., which would make all dogs bark to death, if they could understand it, as such raving, ranting, senseless, foaming mad fools. Is not this a master of mocking, who can effect three such great mockeries? The fourth mockery is that herewith he has mocked himself, as we shall one day to our joy see, thank God!”¹⁰ Some believe that this type of writing is what soured the hearts and minds of Christians against the Jews in Europe, and as such it fostered an anti-Jewish sentiment to spread, and was used to slander the Jews and build credibility for their arguments of violent repression against them that grew into what happened in the concentrations camps of WWII. But thank God that Joseph was a man of honor and decided not to make a public spectacle of Mary. As we find out, this would have been the greatest and severest punishment for Mary.¹¹ In Mary’s case, it meant either bringing her before the civil magistrate in order to determine her punished according to the law.¹² As one Jewish commentator explains it, if a woman is forced to lie with a man under a circumstance and in a location where she has no access to help or can alert others by screaming, then the death penalty would not be enforced.¹³ But if it could be proven that Mary was cooperative with a man, or if being forced did not raise her voice in protest, then she would be brought out to the gate of the city and stoned with stones, which was making a public example indeed. Or to divorce her in a very public manner, and thereby expose her to open shame and disgrace. To prevent any of this, Joseph relied on his being a tender and compassionate person, although he was certainly just and good man. But it was the angel’s advice that swayed him the most. Such are situations we often face. The law would allow us to sue and obtain the harshest sentence for the perpetration of whatever insult or crime was made against us. But sometimes the Holy Spirit will ask us to be a “Joseph” and let God handle any punishment.