Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWO

Part I (con’t)

At this point in Matthew’s biography of Jesus, King Herod Antipas becomes the main character. He was considered by most as having been nothing more than a servant of king Hyrcanus II. The Jewish leaders did not have a very high regard for Herod. As a matter of fact, in the Babylonian Talmud we find this sordid story of one incident in his life. “Herod was the slave of the Hasmonean house, and had set his eyes on a certain maiden of that house. One day he heard a voice from heaven say, ‘Every slave that rebels now will succeed.’ So he rose and killed all the members of his master’s household, but spared that maiden. When she saw that he wanted to marry her, she ran up on to a roof and yelled out, ‘Whoever comes and pretends they are from the house of Hasmonean, is a slave, since I am the only one left, I am throwing myself down from this roof.’ Herod preserved her body in honey for seven years. Some say…his reason was that people might say that he had married a king’s daughter.”¹ This maiden’s name was Mariamne, the daughter of Alexander, a son of Aristobulus II. According to Josephus, she was actually put to death by Herod after being married to him several years.² As a matter of fact another Jewish historian tells us that: “Before going to Egypt to meet with Octavian, and thinking that he may meet his death there, Herod had given secret orders to execute his wife Mariamne and her mother Alexandra, the last survivors of the Hasmonean dynasty, should he not come back alive. These orders came to be known to Mariamne who then hated her husband Herod more than ever. And he could not reconcile the matter with her after he came back from Egypt. Herod’s sister, the wicked Salome who hated Mariamne, took this opportunity to make false claims that Mariamne intended to poison her husband, and she got her brother’s approval to have her executed without trial.”³ Is it any wonder then that this same Herod would show no fear or hesitation in slaughtering all newborn infants boys up to the age of two, just based on the word of some visiting eastern astrologers?

Now Matthew turns his attention to the strange visitors who showed up looking for the new king of the Judeans. Contrary to the way they are depicted in most manger scenes at Christmas time, these travelers from the east were not well thought of by the Jews in those days. The word among the Jews was quite negative: One Rabbi referred to them as sorcerers while another called them blasphemers. In fact, one Rabbi went so far as to say: “He who learns a single thing from a magian is worthy of death.” Such astrologers were dismissed because they did not give credit to God for arranging the stars and galaxies in the heavens, which violates the Scriptures.⁴ This is confirmed by what another Rabbi said: “They regard not the work of the Lord, neither have they considered the operation of His hands.⁵ Not only that, but the Jews refer to what else the Scriptures had to say as to why the Torah was more dependable than the stars. This was Moses’ message to the children of Israel: “Look, I have taught you laws and rulings, just as Adonai my God ordered me, so that you can behave accordingly in the land where you are going in order to take possession of it. Therefore, observe them; and follow them; for then all peoples will see you as having wisdom and understanding. When they hear of all these laws, they will say, ‘This great nation is surely a wise and understanding people.’”⁶ The reason, because in all the nations except Israel, wisdom and understanding was sought in the “science of cycles and planets.”⁷ In addition, when discussing what to call certain Jews who were negligent and did not faithfully observed Jewish customs and traditions, we read that such magi were included in a negative way: “It has been reported, If one has learning of Scripture and Mishnah but was not taught by Rabbinical scholars…he is an ‘Am ha-arez’ [Lit., ‘people of the earth’; the description of those Jews who are careless about religious duties]. Rabbi Samuel ben Nahmani says such people are boors; Rabbi Jannai says they are Samaritans; And their bread and wine must not be used by an observant Jew. Rabbi Aha ben Jacob says they are magicians who deceive the people. Rabbi Nahman ben Isaac said: The definition of Rabbi Aba ben Jacob appears the most probable; because there is a popular saying: The magician mumbles and knows not what he says; the scholar recites and knows not what he says.”⁸ To the people of Jesus’s day, all such wizardry and magic came from the east. We are told that: “During the time between ancestors Eber, and Peleg and the building of the tower of Babel and the first city after the flood – which was founded in its actual building – came the beginning of taking of counsel, and of ideology. For Nimrod the son of Cush the Ethiopian, the father of Asshur, ruled as a king. His kingdom arose in Orech, Arphal and Chalana, and he also founded Tiras, Tubal and Laban in Assyria. The Greeks say that it is the Zoroaster who went on further to the east and became the original settler of Bactria. The world’s transgressions were spread abroad from there, for Nimrod was the originator of wrong doctrine, astrology and magic – which is what some say of Zoroaster.”⁹ I’m sharing this so that you get a taste of how these astrologers were looked at, not looked up to by the Jews. Also, historian Herodotus includes them among the Medes as follows: “Deïokes then united the Median race alone, and was their ruler: and of the Medes there are the tribes as follows: namely, Busai, Paretakenians, Struchates, Arizantians, Budians, Magians: the tribes of the Medes are so many in number.”¹⁰ However, some scholars dispute this as being the name of a tribe. Instead, they see it as the possible name of an office or profession. In any case, this term seems to fit that of the Magi. Yet others say that the term “magi” is of Persian origin and is their word for “priest.” In fact, a Latin-language prose writer states: “If what I read in a large number of authors is true, namely, that magician is the Persian word for priest, what is there criminal in being a priest and having due knowledge, science, and skill in all ceremonial law, sacrificial duties, and the binding rules of religion, at least if magic consists in that which Plato sets forth in his description of the methods employed by the Persians in the education of their young princes? I remember the very words of that divine philosopher. Let me recall them to your memory.”¹¹ Also, mid-eastern documents we read about what these Magi were responsible for. Xenophon, a Greek historian, soldier, mercenary, and student of Socrates, born around 429 BC, was certainly aware of what their function was before they ever showed up in search for Jesus. Here is what he shares: “Now at dawn of day the first thing that Cyrus did was to call the magi and bid them select the gifts ordained for the gods in acknowledgment of such success.”¹² He goes on to say: “In the first place, set other things apart for the gods whatever the magi direct, as they interpret the will of the gods.”¹³ He follows this with: “And then the Medes came in, after they had delivered to the magi what the magi had directed them to set apart for the gods.”¹⁴ So we can see that such magi were gift bearers to the gods. Also, in the works of a Neoplatonic philosopher we read: “Among the Persians they that were wise concerning God, and worshipped him, were called ‘Magi’, for so ‘Magus’ signifies in their country dialect; and so august and venerable were this sort of men accounted with the Persians, that Darius, the son of Hystaspis, ordered this, among other things, to be inscribed on his monument, that he was the master of the Magi.”¹⁵ All of this is to give you as a reader of the Scriptures a better understanding of who these visitors from the east were seen as. From some of these references we learn to a certain degree that these men called magi were considered holy, revered, and highly respected for their study of the galaxies, so as to earn the title, “wise men” in their homeland. No doubt this is why Luther and the English translators of the Bible decided to call them “wise men.” Also a Roman philosopher, politician, lawyer, orator, political theorist, consul and constitutionalist, considered one of Rome’s greatest orators and prose stylists, made this comment on the magi: “Among the Persians the prophets and diviners are the magi, who assemble regularly in a sacred place for practice and consultation, just as formerly you priests used to do on certain days of the month. Indeed, no one can become king of the Persians until he has learned the theory and the practice of the magi. Moreover, you may see whole families and tribes devoted to this art. For example, Telmessus in Caria is a city noted for its cultivation of the soothsayer’s art, and there is also Elis in Peloponnesus, which has permanently set aside two families as soothsayers, the Iamidae and the Clutidae, who are distinguished for superior skill in their art. In Syria the Chaldeans are pre-eminent for their knowledge of astronomy and for their quickness of mind.”¹⁶ Adding to that, another Roman author and teacher of rhetoric, shared this story about the magi: “The wisdom of the Persian Magi was (besides other things proper to them) conversant in prediction: They foretold the cruelty of Ochus towards his subjects, and his bloody disposition, which they collected from some secret signs. For when Ochus, upon the death of his father Artaxerxes, came to the crown, the Magi charged one of the eunuchs that were next him to observe upon what things, when the table was set before him, he first laid hands; who watching intently, Ochus reached forth both his hands, and with his right laid hold of a knife that lay by, with the other took a great loaf, which he laid upon the meat, and did cut and eat greedily. The Magi, hearing this, foretold that there would be plenty during his reign, and much blood shed. In which they were correct.”¹⁷ So they were also seen as soothsayers and predictors of future events, much like we read about in Daniel: “So the king called his wise men to come to him. They used magic and watched the stars. They did this to try to interpret dreams and to learn what would happen in the future. The king wanted them to tell him what he had dreamed, so they came in and stood in front of him.”¹⁸ Therefore, many Bible scholars accept the possibility that the magi who came to find Jesus, came from Persia (today’s Iran). No doubt this is why they had such an affect on king Herod’s thinking and plotting. There is a possibility, that because of these non-Jewish astrologers looking for the new king of the Judeans, that a foreign power was involved.

Based on the time of their arrival; Joseph then being warned and taking Jesus and Mary into Egypt, and the plot being carried out, it is calculated by many scholars to have occurred close to two years after Jesus birth. So, it wasn’t any factor of royalty represented in these magi, nor that they were rich. But that they were known as predictors of the future and were tied closely to foreign kings as religious advisers. So Herod had much to fear because of their talent to predict correctly. This is also attested to by one of the early church fathers who writes: “And that he was God as soon as he was born and not a mere man, the magi will plainly show. For after a period of two years – as they told Herod the time the star had risen, ‘two years ago at the most’ – they came to Jerusalem.”¹⁹ Dr. John Lightfoot, a highly respected British theologian and rabbinical scholar agrees with this assessment, as we will see in his commentary on verse 16.

NOTE: A little lesson on stars so that you can get a better idea of what the Magi may have followed on their way to Jerusalem:

A star is a ball of burning gases, mostly hydrogen and helium. A star shines or glows because its gravity causes its gases to fuse together. This process releases energy, hence the “shine”. Our Sun is only a medium-sized star. There are stars that are bigger, smaller, hotter, and cooler. However, the Earth is very small compared to the Sun. More than a million Earths could fit into the Sun. Therefore, if what the Magi saw was a star, it had to be far away in the galaxy, otherwise it would have competed with our own star, the sun. It is good to remember, while all sky objects appear bright, some stars and galaxies radiate light, while the others only reflect light. The stars make their own light. The Moon, planets, asteroids, natural satellites, and comets shine by light reflected from the Sun. Our closest star is 4½ light years away, which means when you look up into the sky at night, the lights you see from the stars is already old. The further away the star, the older the light. In fact, the light from many stars reaching us just now started out toward earth long before Jesus was born. Just as scientists cannot fathom a fish that could swallow Jonah and keep him alive for three days, neither can they reconcile a star in the sky that stayed in place for almost two years and then disappeared. Rather than dismissing these as objects of our imagination, we can certainly advocate that only God could create and control such things. When we add this to the virgin birth of Jesus after a visit by an angel, it is certainly a level of understanding that can only be attain through faith. Could it be that the star spoken of by the prophets was ignited when it was decided by the Father for Him to come to earth as the Messiah, and it’s light arrived just in time to lead the Magi to their destination. Think about it!

1 Babylonian Talmud, op. cit., Seder Nezikin, Masekhet Bava Bathra, folio 3b

2 Josephus op. cit., Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. 15, Ch. 7:6-7

3 Abraham Zacuto, “Seder Olam Zutta,” Year 3731 – 29 BC, “Death of Mariamne and Alexandra”

4 Deuteronomy 18:8

5 Isaiah 5:12

6 Deuteronomy 4:5-6 – Complete Jewish Bible

7 Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo’ed, Masekhet Shabbath, folio 75a

8 Ibid., Masekhet Sotah, folio 22a

9 The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book I, Anacephalaeosis I, Hellenism 3:1-3

10 Histories, Book I, Clio 101

11 Lucius Apuleius Madaurensis (124-170 AD, Apologia, Sec. I, Part 25

12 Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, Bk. 4, Ch. 5:14

13 Ibid., Book 4, 5:51

14 Ibid, Book 4, 6:11

15 Porphyry of Tyre (234-305 AD), Abstentia From Animal Food, Vol., 1, Bk., 4, Ver. 16

16 Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), On Divination, Book I, Sec. 41

17 Claudius Aelianus (circa 175-235 AD), Varia Historia, Vol 2, Chap. 17

18 Daniel 2:2

19 Epiphanius of Salamis, The Panarion of Epiphanius, Sec. II, 30, Contra Ebonites, 29, 1

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWO

Part I

Verse 1: “Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem in Judea during the time when Herod was king. Sometime after Jesus was born, some magi from the east came to Jerusalem.” It is interesting to note that most Jewish and Christian scholars now estimate that Yeshua was born somewhere between 8 to 4 BC. The reason is because Dionysius Exiguous, the sixth-century monk who set up the modern calendar, made an error in determining the date which was not corrected until later. This is why the Jewish community and secular scholars customarily denote the period from 1 AD (“Anno Domini,”) meaning: “in the year of the Lord,” onward, as “CE” (“Common Era”). And the years before the birth of Christ was always referred to as BC, meaning “before Christ,” now has become “BCE” (before the Common Era) to avoid relating dates explicitly to the Messiah. So often, people are led by what they perceive to be the case, rather than the evidence in the case. This helps us to make better sense from historical data when we calculate the events under Herod the Great (circa 73 – 4 BC), who founded the Herodian dynasty which ruled Israel from 37 BC until the war with Rome in 66–70 AD. Herod himself was a man of great physical energy and ambition. His career came to the notice of historians in 47 BC in Syria and the Galilee through a combination of military successes, political organization and bribery of Roman superiors, which enabled him to replace the last of the Hasmonean rulers, King Antigonus, when the latter died in 37 BC (possibly as a consequence of one of Herod’s bribes). Therefore, if Herod died shortly after the innocents were slain when Yeshua was only two years old (which would be in 4 BC, then this means that Yeshua was possibly born in 6 BC. It is also important to note that Matthew specifically says that the wise men came to Jerusalem. Bethlehem is only about 5 miles from Jerusalem. Too often we see this event presented much like the traditional manger scene. But we must note that these visitors did not go to the stable in Bethlehem, they went to Herod’s palace in the city of Jerusalem. We also have an interesting variety of identities given to these men. One of the oldest Hebrew versions of Matthew calls them “astrologers.”¹ In Luther’s German Bible, which had a great influence on the early English versions, they are called “Weisen vom Morgenland” (Wise men from the East), which is what the King James Version names them. In the Greek these men are called “magos” hence the term “Magi” for the visitors from the east at Christmas time. And in the Aramaic Version they are referred to as “Magians”. Our English word “magician” comes from this root word. They were not known as kings, but rather astrologers. In ancient days kings would call their wise men and astrologers to help interpret their dreams on how successful they might be on certain ventures, including war. This may be what led one Jewish philosopher to call the prophet from Mesopotamia, named Balaam,² a “magos” because he was “very celebrated for his skill in divination…who was initiated in every branch of the soothsayers’ art. And he was celebrated and renowned above all men for his experience as a diviner and prophet, as he had in many instances foretold to many people incredible and most important events.”³ It should also be pointed out that in addition to Tamar, Rahab and Ruth who were non-Jewish women involved in Jesus’ family tree, these magi were non-Jewish Persians. Adding another Gentile factor to the mix. What may have led this same philosopher to consider Balaam a magi was what Balaam said in his last prophecy, “I see him coming, but not now. I see him coming, but not soon. A star will step out from the family of Jacob. A new ruler will arise from the Israelites.”⁴ One Jewish scholar renders the first part of this verse this way: “What I see is not for now; what I behold will not be soon.”⁵ This scholar goes on to say that the star referred to here as “an allusion to the great name that the Messiah will make for Himself on the whole globe.”⁶ He then refers to the scripture that says: “Then Adonai will be king over the whole world. On that day Adonai will be the only one, and his name will be the only name.”⁷ So we can see that this star was already part of Jewish lore about the coming Messiah King. You would think that with such expectation on the part of the Jews for the coming Savior, they would have recognized Jesus immediately, especially when He started teaching, “in My name.”⁸ But even more so when He told them, “I and the Father are one.”⁹ Perhaps this was another factor in Jesus’ commission for His disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. The only Jewish king we know of in the Bible who was a student of the stars was King David of Israel. How felicitous that his descendant, the KING of Kings, would be born in his home town to which the Magi were eventually lead by a star. Some scholars have suggested that the Bethlehem spoken of here is the one we read about in Joshua that was in the territory of Zebulun, which would put it in Galilee near Kiryat Tivon, around 6 miles north-west of Nazareth.¹⁰ But this would certainly preclude the wise men from going out of their way to Jerusalem since they were led by the star. Even one noted Jewish chronicler, mathematician, historian, astronomer and astrologer stated that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem of Judah, which is about six miles from Jerusalem.¹¹ Also, a well-known Jewish traveler named Benjamin wrote about his visit to this area in 1575 AD: “From Jerusalem it is two parasangs¹² to Bethlehem, which is called by the Christians Beth-Leon, and close thereto, at a distance of about half a mile, at the parting of the way, is the pillar of Rachel’s grave, which is made up of eleven stones, corresponding with the number of the sons of Jacob. Upon it is a dome resting on four columns, and all the Jews that pass by carve their names upon the stones of the pillar.” This traveler says that this was also attested to by a Muslim known as Edrisi,¹³ who was born in Sabtah (now Ceuta, Spain), around 1100 AD. He wrote in 1154 AD, “The tomb is covered by twelve stones, and above it is a dome vaulted over with stones.” The traveler continues: “At Bethlehem there are two Jewish dye shops. It is a land of brooks of water, and contains wells and fountains.”¹⁴ And an early Christian apologist (100 – 165 AD), wrote, “Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia [circa 4 miles] from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea.”¹⁵ However, knowing that Christians held Bethlehem in high esteem because Jesus was born there, we see in a polemic Jewish writing that they had little respect for this village. As a matter of fact, one ancient Jewish story goes this way:

“Once a Jew was plowing and his ox snorted loudly. An Arab who was passing by and heard the snorting said to him: ‘Jew, Jew. Unharness your ox, and unhook your plow and stop plowing. For today your Temple was destroyed!’ The ox snorted again. The Arab then said to him, ‘Jew, Jew. Harness your ox, and hook up your plow. For today the Messiah-king was born!’ He said to him, ‘What is his name?’ The Arab replied, ‘Menachem,’ meaning “consoler.” He said to him, ‘And what is his father’s name?’ The Arab said, ‘Hezekiah.’ He said to him, ‘Where is he from?’ He said to him, ‘From the royal capital of Bethlehem in Judea.’ So the Jew went and sold his ox and sold his plow. And he became a peddler of infants’ clothing. And he went from place to place until he came to that very city. All of the women bought from him. But Menachem’s mother did not buy from him. He heard the women calling, ‘Menachem’s mother, Menachem’s mother, come buy some clothes for your child’…The Jew said to her, ‘We are sure that on this day it was destroyed, and on this day of the year it will be rebuilt. Do not abandon the child. Provide for him; She said to the peddler, ‘I have no money.’ He said to her, ‘It doesn’t matter to me. Come and buy for him and if you have no money, pay me when I return’.”¹⁶

It is said that later this farmer turned peddler returned to Bethlehem and went looking for the mother and her child Menachem. When he did not see the baby, he said to her, “What happened to the infant?” She said to him, “Since the time you saw him a spirit came and carried him up and took him away from me.” A Rabbi named Bun was asked what this story meant, and he said, “Why must we learn this that the Messiah was born on the day that the Temple was destroyed from a story about an Arab? Do we not have explicit Scriptural evidence for it? Lebanon with its majestic trees will fall.¹⁷ And what follows this? There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse.¹⁸ Right after an allusion to the destruction of the Temple the prophet speaks of the Messiah.” This same story is repeated in other Jewish literature.¹⁹ Also, St. Jerome spent quite a bit of time in Bethlehem in Judea. He certainly would have researched any suggestions that the place where Jesus was born lay in another part of Israel. Jerome commented that “Bethlehem” means “House of Bread,” and it was there that the “Bread which came down from heaven” also was revealed.²⁰ Just think, this little village would have gone unnoticed and perhaps ignored by tourist to this day, had it not been for the fact that a baby named Jesus was born there over 2000 years ago. If His being born there could do that to a sleepy little village, then what a change can He make when He is born in one’s heart! But the skepticism on the part of some was already alive even during our Lord’s early ministry. It was this type of thinking and theorizing that Jesus encountered wherever He went. No wonder His being called the Messiah met such resistance by some, and made fun of by others. It also may explain why after healing several people He told them not to tell who did it because it would interfere with His trying to spread the good news of God’s new covenant for the salvation of His people. But what about King Herod Antipas who is mentioned in the text? He was considered a member of the Hasmonean Dynasty before it became the Herodian Dynasty. In fact, a British barrister and legal academic, and also the British-appointed attorney-general of Mandatory Palestine and a lifelong Zionist, wrote this on the relationship between Herod Antipas and Julius Caesar:

“A happier era seemed to be dawning for the Jews when Julius Caesar became dictator. At the beginning of the civil war between him and Pompey, Hyrcanus, at the instance of Antipater, prepared to support the man to whom he owed his position; but when Pompey was murdered, Antipater led the Jewish forces to help Caesar, who was hard pressed at Alexandria. His timely help and his influence over the Egyptian Jews recommended him to Caesar’s favor, and secured for him an extension of his authority in Palestine, and for Hyrcanus the confirmation of his political leadership over the Jews. Joppa was restored to the Hasmonean domain, Judea was granted freedom from all tribute and taxes to Rome, and the independence of the internal administration was guaranteed. Caesar, too, whatever may have been his motive, showed favor to the Jews throughout his Empire. Mommsen²¹ thinks that he saw in them an effective mixture of cosmopolitanism and national decomposition, and to that intent gave them special privileges; but this seems a perverse reason to assign for the grant of the right to maintain in all its thoroughness their national life, and for their exemption from all Imperial or municipal burdens that would conflict with it. It is more reasonable to suppose that, taking in this as in many other things a broader view than that of his countrymen, Caesar recognized the weakness of a world-state whose members were so denationalized as to have no strong feeling for any common purpose, no passion of loyalty to any community, and he favored Judaism as a counteracting force to this peril”.²²

Through this we can see how God was influencing the cultural, religious, and political forces into the balance and substance needed for His Son to come into the world to accomplish the greatest feat ever attempted, the salvation of mankind from certain ruin and everlasting punishment. At no other time in the history of the part of the world, would it have been more right or possible for Jesus to be born so that he would minister as He did, gather the disciples that He did, have the effect on Jerusalem and the Temple that He did, and set into motion what would become the church. We should never see this as a matter of happenstance. It was all part of God’s eternal plan.

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

To all my friends, followers, fans, and students who love and reverence God’s Word.

We just finished chapter one of Matthew’s Gospel.  There we discovered some details concerning Mary and Joseph relationship, and how Joseph could be called Mary’s husband before their marriage was consummated because she was pregnant with Jesus.

According to Jewish Law, couples must wait one year from the time of engagement before marrying.  However, the groom can seal his commitment by writing a decree of marriage and paying a dowry to the bride’s father.  No doubt, something Joseph did.

However, the Law also required that couples be separated for a minimum of three months after their engagement in order to prove that the bride was a virgin.  So Mary decided to go visit her cousin Elizabeth.  This was not a last minute decision, it was all orchestrated by God.  So we read that after these three months, Mary comes back, but announces to Joseph that she is pregnant.

Since Joseph had already made his commitment, he had the right to annul the marriage. However, an angel told him to hold on to Mary, and let her have the baby, then he could consummate the marriage.  This is what Joseph did, because this was no ordinary baby, it was the Son of God.

So what happens now?  On Monday we will start the second chapter Matthew.  So join me and lets explore this together.  God bless you for your commitment to know more about our Lord.

Every automobile engine, whether it has 4, 6, or 8 pistons, must have its timing set exactly right in order for the motor to run smoothly.  That means, each piston must reach its maximum height and compression at point of ignition by the spark plug, to get the full power it needs to drive the car forward.  If the timing is off, then the engine will run rough and there will be less power to move ahead.  Spark plugs will fire when there is little fuel and compression in the chamber, or not fire when it needs to, thus wasting fuel and becoming ineffective in doing what it is designed to do.  Life is a lot like an engine, and our timing is critical in order for us to be effective in doing what God designed us to do.  So we need God to set our timing so that we can perform at our maximum efficiency.  No wonder the prophet Isaiah said, those who wait on the Lord will have renewed strength, their takeoff will be like that of an eagle (Isa. 40:31). – Dr. Robert R. Seyda

In Greek philosopher Plato’s work titled Philebus, we read the dialogue between Socrates, Protarchus, and Philebus. Among the things they discuss are those things that Philebus says brings a person enjoyment, pleasure and delight, and how good they are to every living being. But Socrates disagrees, and contends that wisdom, intelligence, memory, fact-based opinion and sound reasoning are much more desirable than those mentioned by Philebus. Dr. Benjamin Jewett, who translated this work, says in his introduction that we can learn this from their conversation: “The higher the view which men take of life, the more they lose sight of their own pleasure or interest. True religion is not working for a reward only, but is ready to work equally without a reward. It is not ‘doing the will of God for the sake of eternal happiness,’ but doing the will of God because it is best, whether rewarded or unrewarded. And this applies to others as well as to ourselves. For he who sacrifices himself for the good of others, does not sacrifice himself that they may be saved from the persecution which he endures for their sake, but rather that they in their turn may be able to undergo similar sufferings, and like him stand fast in the truth. To promote their happiness is not his first object, but to elevate their moral nature. Both in his own case and that of others there may be happiness in the distance, but if there were no happiness he would equally act as he does.” Certainly there was no pleasure in what our Lord went through in order to endure the shame and agony of the cross. But because of His willingness to suffer for our sake, He gave us an example to follow when we must make the choice between enjoyment, pleasure and delight for ourselves, but choose rather to use our intelligence, memory, fact-based opinion and sound reasoning in order to help others gain access to knowing and understanding more about God’s love, grace and mercy. Of course this all comes with a price that may include inconvenience, suffering and even sacrifice. Jesus didn’t hesitate, should we?

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part V (con’t)

As we have seen, in the case of Moses, the concept of predestination and God’s involvement in helping man achieve his destiny was already part of Jewish thought. Therefore, the prophecies, angelic visitations, childhood, ministry, sacrifice, resurrection and ascension of Jesus were already mapped out by His Father in heaven. All He needed to do was be faithful and obedient to the end. If that was the case for our Lord, then why should it not be the same for us, His followers and children of the Most High. This brings us back to the doctrine of the virgin birth and the ever-virgin dogma of Mary. Matthew’s statement that Joseph and Mary did not have intimate relations until after Jesus was born has caused some conflict between Protestant and Catholic scholars, especially since the development of the perpetual virginity of Mary was conceived in the Roman Catholic Church some two hundred years after the foundation of the church in Antioch. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from an apocryphal book written well after the New Testament. It states that: “…the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity, which consists in perpetual chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.”¹ This writer says that this information is based on a tradition found in the Gospel of Peter, as well as the Gospel of James. In the Gospel of James we read this: “And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judea should be enrolled. And Joseph said: I will enroll my sons, but what will I do with this maiden? How shall I enroll her? As my wife? I am ashamed. As my daughter then? But all the sons of Israel know that she is not my daughter. The day of the Lord will itself bring it to pass as the Lord wills.”² This of course implies that he already had sons before Jesus was born to Mary. In all the writings over the centuries, it appears quite clear that most supporters of the perpetual virginity of Mary viewed her as the Second Eve, and did not want anything to lessen her stature as the chosen one to bring the Son of God into the world. This effort was double-edged. First, to secure the sanctity of Mary as the most blessed among women, having conceived by the Holy Spirit and given birth to the promised Messiah, the Son of God. And second, to ensure the holiness of Jesus as one born of a virgin, thereby providing the claim that He was without spot or wrinkle, to become the Lamb of God that took away the sins of the world. One of the earliest mentions was made by Anthanasius Bishop of Alexandria (296-373 AD) who called the mother of Jesus, “Mary Ever-Virgin.”³ It was not until the 1566 AD that Catechism of the Council of Trent appeared that explicitly taught that because Eve believed the serpent it brought a curse on the human race. However, Mary by believing the angel brought blessings to mankind. At first, many leaders of the Protestant Reformation accepted this teaching as valid. For instance, Martin Luther wrote on February 2, 1546 that “Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”⁴ But as more and more ancient documents of early Christian writers were made available, Protestants refused to declare it a doctrine of the movement. The reason being, that while Mary was a blessed woman, and one out of many, she plays no role in man’s salvation. She was at the cross, but only as a spectator. She was at the tomb, but only to pay her respects. She was in the Upper Room, where she too was filled with the Holy Spirit. But there is no record that she ministered, died a martyr or that she rose from the dead. As a matter of fact, in Acts of the Apostles it says: “All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren.”⁵ This by no means makes her less important as the one God chose from among all others to bear His Son in human form. From that time on there is no further mention of Mary in the New Testament as having any role in the church, the propagation of the Gospel, or present at any meetings of the Jerusalem Council of the Church. However, on the Roman Catholic side, her veneration continued to grow. Part of the reason can be traced to the Jews attack on Jesus as being the illegitimate son of a mercenary Roman soldier. The church leaders felt they needed to venerate Mary and raise her to a higher level in the minds of their own constituents, lest they too be persuaded by these bogus arguments. They reasoned, that God would not select any woman to bear His Son who was not herself the purest and most innocent. It would take many centuries though for the Catholic Church to adopt the Immaculate Conception idea as doctrine and dogma, and many more years before on December 8, 1854 Pope Pius IX infallibly defined, excathedra: “The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ, the savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.” Father John Hardon, S.J., notes that “Neither the Greek nor Latin Fathers explicitly taught the Immaculate Conception, but they professed it implicitly.”⁶ For better understanding, the Immaculate Conception refers to the concept that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from Original Sin from the very moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne. Roman Catholics say: the Feast of the Immaculate Conception celebrates the solemn belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is universally celebrated on December 8, nine months before the feast of the Nativity of Mary, which is celebrated on September 8. The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church never adopted these views as dogma or doctrine. In conclusion, these are the thoughts of man, not the words of God, since neither the immaculate conception or perpetual virginity are found anywhere in the New Testament canon. Therefore it should be up to each individual to accept or reject this teaching without risk of losing their salvation by grace through Jesus Christ the Son of God. While most Catholic priests and scholars tell you that Catholics do not pray “to” Mary, that they only ask her to hear their pray and communicate it to God the Father and Jesus her son, still many prayers authorized by the Catholic church seem to indicate otherwise. For instance the Rosary prayers:

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part V

Let’s look at the title “Immanu’el”, which was applied to Yeshua as the Messiah.¹ As Matthew explains, it means “God is with us” — which is how Hebrew “immanu” (is with us) “El” (God) is written in Isaiah.² However, Yeshua was not called Immanu’el by His disciples during his life on earth; rather, this was intended to connect Yeshua with the prophecy made by the prophet Isaiah, as well as His incarnation by describing Him as “God-with-us.”³ In the Jewish Bible, names frequently describe an aspect of the person named. In fact it uses several names to refer to the Messiah, including “Shiloh.”⁴ Later, when the children of Israel entered the Promised Land, the place where they erected the tabernacle was called Shiloh.⁵ It was from here that Joshua sent out men to explore the land before dividing it up among the tribes.⁶ This is where Samuel was dedicated to the Lord by his mother Hannah.⁷ And the Psalmist tells us that because of the people’s wickedness, the Lord forsook His place in the tabernacle at Shiloh.⁸ So it is not surprising that people looked toward Shiloh for the Messiah to appear and reestablish God’s kingdom among them. The listing of this term in the KJV: “until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be,” raises some questions about translation. The NIV renders it: “until he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations shall be his.” This conforms to two other versions that are important in finding the true meaning: The Septuagint has: “until whenever should come the things reserved to him. And he is the expectation of nations.” The Jewish version reads: “until he comes to whom obedience belongs; and it is he whom the people will obey.”⁹ One answer might be found in the original Hebrew “shiloh,” which means: “tribute to him.” Others say, however, that the term “Shiloh” as a name, not a phrase. For instance, in the one ancient manuscript we read the following commentary on this verse: “Whenever Israel rules, there will not fail to be a descendant of David upon the throne. For the ruler’s staff is the Covenant of kingship, and the clans of Israel are the divisions, until the Messiah of Righteousness comes, the Branch of David. For to him and his seed is granted the Covenant of kingship over his people for everlasting generations which he is to keep … the Law with the men of the Community, for … it is the assembly of the men of …”¹⁰ So it is clear that the understanding of this phrase was deemed to be a reference to the Messiah by the Jewish sect called the Essenes. And if nothing else, the intent of this scripture seems to clearly be focused on a special leader. Then we have, “Branch,”¹¹ “Sprout,”¹² and the longest, “Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace.”¹³ All describe the Messiah, yet He was best known by just one name, Yeshua. The same commentator also shares: “There have been more than fifty messianic pretenders in the last two thousand years of Jewish history, starting with Todah (Theudas) and Judah HaG’lili,¹⁴ continuing with Shim’on Bar-Kosiba (died 135 AD), whom Rabbi Akiva recognized as the Messiah by changing his name to “Bar-Kochva” (“son of a star” or “the Morning Star”), and culminating in Shabtai Tzvi (1626– 1676), who became a Muslim, and Jacob Frank (1726– 1791), who became a Roman Catholic. But none of them met the criteria laid down in the Tanakh¹⁵ concerning the identity of the Messiah; whereas Yeshua met all of them that are applicable to his first coming.”¹⁶

Verses 24-25: “When Joseph woke up, he did what the Lord’s angel told him to do. He married Mary. But Joseph did not have intimate relations with her until her son was born. And he named Him Jesus.”

Even though it would be hard to prove and defend, yet Joseph accepted this coming child as his own. No doubt he was depending on the Jewish verbal law of the Rabbis to back him up. After all, this is what the Rabbis taught: “If a person states, “This is my son,” his word is accepted regarding his inheritance and is also accepted with regard to freeing his widow from yibbum – levirate marriage.”¹⁷ The grammatical structure of this verse – did not have…until – most certainly alludes to the subsequent union between Mary and Joseph thereby indicating the possibility of the existence of Jesus’ younger brothers and sisters as the children of Joseph and Mary.¹⁸ But we also see that in Mary’s case, once Joseph died, she was not obligated to marry any brothers he might have in order to bear a son in Joseph’s name to keep his legacy alive. The Jews however, find fault with Matthews reasoning in these verses. In the polemic work mentioned earlier, it reads: “When he was born from his mother’s stomach like other men, her womb opened and she gave birth to a boy, and she called him God.¹⁹ This implies that if Jesus was immaculately conceived, then He should have somehow been immaculately delivered from His mother’s womb. Since He was born like any other child, then He was no different than any other child. So by the writer saying that Mary named Him “Yeshua,” it was simply their effort to divinitize a normal son into the Son of God.”²⁰ Again, this shows a lack of understanding the divine incarnation of the God/Man known as Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. The fact that Mary’s husband Joseph’s father’s name was Jacob, and this dream Joseph had concerning Mary’s unborn son, makes it very reminiscent of Jacob and Joseph of Old Testament days, as well as the dream which Amram, the father of Moses, had concerning his son. So to any Jew reading this text of Matthew, the idea of dreams being portends of a child about to be born having extraordinary characteristics and a special relationship with God, was not new. So why were they not as open to Yeshua the son of Mary, as they were to Moses and Samson? After all, did not Moses get water out of a rock? So why would Jesus getting wine out of a well be less acceptable? Not only that, but when Moses first showed up in Egypt and announce that God had sent him to deliver His people, he was not believed at first. But after a number of signs and wonders, they came to believe his message. Should they not consider believing in Yeshua as well? Look at all the signs and wonders He performed. However, while Moses gave them their first covenant, this Yeshua said He came to bring them a the new covenant. Apparently, that was more than they could take, so they rejected Him and suffered the consequences. So when we preach Jesus as Savior of the world, we should not make Him an option, but the only solution to sin and suffering and the gift of eternal life. To continue from what was said before about the dream of Joseph, Mary’s husband, and Jacob the father of Joseph to whom he gave the coat of many colors, I am including a section for your information and study from a Jewish historian on the dream of Moses’ father about his son for comparison with the story of Jesus:

“There was a man whose name was Amram, one of the nobler of the Hebrews, was fearful for his whole nation, lest it should fail, by the lack of young men to be raised in the future, and was very uneasy about it, since his wife was pregnant, and he knew not what to do. Hereupon he went to God in prayer; and entreated him to have compassion on those men who had never transgressed the laws of His worship, and to afford them deliverance from the miseries they at that time endured, and to render stillborn their enemies’ hopes of the destruction of their nation. Accordingly God had mercy on him, and was moved by his supplication. He stood beside him in his sleep, and exhorted him not to despair of his future. He said further, that He did not forget their righteousness towards Him, and would always reward them for it, as He had formerly granted his favor to their forefathers, and made them increase from a few to so great a multitude. He put him in mind, that when Abraham was come alone out of Mesopotamia into Canaan, he was made happy, because although his wife was barren at the time, afterward she was enabled by God to conceive, and bare him sons. That he left to Isaac the land of Canaan. As for Jacob, he became well-known to strangers also, by the greatness of that prosperity in which he lived, and left to his sons, who came into Egypt with no more than seventy souls. Know therefore that I will provide for you all in common what is for your good, and particularly for yourself what will make you famous; for that child, out of dread of whose nativity the Egyptians have doomed the Israelite children to destruction, will be this child of yours, and will be concealed from those who watch to destroy him: and after he is brought up in an unusual way, he will deliver the Hebrew nation from the distress they are under from the Egyptians. He will be famous as long as the world lasts; and this not only among the Hebrews, but foreigners also: – all which will be the effect of My favor to you, and to your posterity. When the vision had informed him of these things, Amram awoke and told it to Jochebed his wife. And now their fear increased on account of the prediction in Amram’s dream; for they were very concerned, not only for the child, but on account of the great happiness that was to come to him also. However, the mother’s pregnancy was such that while it afforded the confirmation of what was foretold by God; for it was not known to those that watched her, by the easiness of her pains, and because the throes of her delivery did not fall upon her with severity. And now they nourished the child at home privately for three months; but after that time Amram, fearing he might be discovered, and, by falling out of favor with the king, both he and his child might perish, and so he should make the promise of God of none effect, he determined rather to trust the safety and care of the child to God, than to depend on his own concealment of him, which he looked upon as a thing uncertain, and whereby both the child, so privately to be nourished, and himself should be in imminent danger; but he believed that God would certainly procure the safety of the child, in order to secure the fulfillment of his own predictions. After they reached their decision, they made an ark of bulrushes in the form of a cradle, yet big enough for an infant to comfortably to lay in: they then daubed it over with mud, which would naturally keep out the water from entering between the bulrushes, and put the infant into it, and setting it afloat upon the river, they left its preservation to God; so the river received the child, and carried him along. But Miryam, the child’s sister, ran along the bank next to him, as her mother had asked her to do, to see whether the ark would be carried, where God demonstrated that human wisdom was not needed, but that the Supreme Being is able to do whatsoever He pleases: so that those who, in order to keep themselves safe, condemn others to destruction, and work very hard at it, will still fail in their efforts; but that others are in a surprising manner preserved, and obtain a prosperous condition almost in the very midst of their calamities; those, I mean, whose dangers arise by the appointment of God. And, indeed, such a providence was exercised in the case of this child, as showed the power of God.”²¹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part IV (con’t)

Verses 20-21: “But after Joseph thought about this, an angel from the Lord came to him in a dream. The angel said, ‘Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to accept Mary to be your wife. The baby inside her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son. You will name Him, Yahweh saves. Give Him that name because He will save His people from their sins.”

The term “angel of the LORD,” appears some 65 times in the Old Testament and 12 times in the New Testament. Often they are described as servants, warriors, and messengers.¹ Another thing to consider is that the Hebrew word “ADONAI” which is translated as “LORD,” literally means, “my Lords.” But rather than seeing this as any reference to the trinity, grammarians consider it the “plural of majesty”; so this led to rendering it simply as “my LORD.” But the plural form fits well with another plural Hebrew term for God “Elohim”, which is used exclusively in the story of the creation from Genesis 1:1-2:3 The second chapter of Genesis should rightly begin at 2:4, because then we find the term LORD God, which is “YaHWeH Elohim”, which singled out One above all the others. The Jews were very careful to substitute for God’s His personal, in order to prevent any inadvertent violation of speaking God’s name in vain. The Jews believed that the name was written in such a way as to hide the real name so it could not be spoken in irreverence.² In any case, an angel of YaHWeH was certainly understood to be a messenger from God. With regard to the angel who spoke to Joseph, most Jews would contribute this revelation to an Archangel such as Gabriel. In the Jewish writings we read the following words of one noted Rabbi who spoke of God: “He said, ‘Hear my words: If there be a prophet among you, I, YaHWeH, will make Myself known to him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream.³ The Rabbi goes on to say: It is the sixth level from the level of prophecy, the level of Gabriel, appointed over dreams.”⁴ Likewise, in another Jewish document it is stated: “It is one of the foundations of our faith that God conveys prophecy to man. Prophecy is bestowed only upon a very wise sage of a strong character, who is never overcome by his natural inclinations in any regard. Instead, with his mind, he overcomes his natural inclinations at all times. He must also possess a very broad and accurate mental capacity . . . When the Spirit rests upon him, his soul becomes intermingled with the angels, and he will be transformed into a different person and will understand with a knowledge different from what it was previously. He will rise above the level of other wise men, as the prophet, Samuel told Saul:⁵ ‘The Spirit of God will descend upon you and you shall prophesy with them. And you will be transformed into a different person’.”⁶ The angel’s message is quite explicit that Yeshua was to save “His people” from their sins. These “people” are without doubt the Jews. The verse is quite positivistic in its prophetic tone. Here we have three things: a prophecy, a command, and a promise; each had a 100% chance of being wrong. But their precise fulfillment lends even more authenticity to the infallibility of God’s Word. This may well be the first New Testament promise that Yeshua will eventually be the Savior of the Jews, but that will occur during the tribulation period. At the time Jesus was born, His name was not all that unusual. Jesus is the English form of the Greek Iesous, which was the Greek form of the Aramaic name Yeshu’a. Yeshu’a is itself a contracted form of Yehoshu’a which is Joshua in English. According to one comment about this name: This is an example of a “semitism” (an allusion to Hebrew or Aramaic) brought over literally into the Greek text. It provides strong evidence in favor of the theory that there was a Hebrew or Aramaic verbal or written tradition behind the extant Greek manuscripts, for only in Hebrew or Aramaic does the explanation here of Yeshua’s name make any sense; because in Greek, Latin, or English the name itself has no meaning.”⁷ The writer leaves little doubt in the reader’s mind as to why this name was so apropos for our Lord. In Hebrew Yehoshu’a means: “Yahweh is salvation.” Nevertheless, Yeshua ben Yoseph became better known as Jesus of Nazareth. This idea of an eternal salvation was not foreign to Jewish thinkers. For instance, in a Jewish Targum we find this: “When Jacob saw Gideon son of Joash and Samson son of Manovach, who were established to be deliverers, he said, I am not looking for the salvation of Gideon, nor am I looking for the salvation of Samson; for their salvation will be a temporary salvation; but I have waited and look for Your salvation, O LORD; for Your salvation is eternal salvation.” Another copy of this Targum reads: “…but for the salvation of Messiah the son of David, who will save the children of Israel, and bring them out of captivity, and my soul waits for Your salvation.”⁸ The reason I have changed the ending of verse 21 in the text above from the way it is in the KJV and NIV, is because in Hebrew Matthew was saying “YaHWeH saves,” which was Hellenized into Greek and then Anglicized into the English, “Jehovah.” These prophesies of the arrival of the Messiah are not only found in Jewish writings, but in Greek writings as well. In one we read: “Then also shall a child of the great God come, clothed in flesh, to men, and fashioned like to mortals in the earth.”⁹

Verses 22-23: “All this happened to make clear the full meaning of what the Lord said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son. They will name him Immanuel.’ (Immanuel means ‘God with us.’).”

Here Matthew is quoting from Isaiah: “The young woman will become pregnant, bear a son and name him ‘Immanu El [with us is God].”¹⁰ It is important to note that there is no contradiction or misquoting here between Mary naming Him Yeshua and what Isaiah said. Yeshua was His human name, while Immanu El was His divine name. Matthew was merely pointing out that the name Yeshua is indicative of what Isaiah meant with the name Immanuel, by adding what it means in Hebrew, “God with us.” His name was indicative of reality: God with us in the form of a human being to become our Savior. Christ’s deity incarnate in human flesh is hereby affirmed. Yeshua was not a puppet; He was God in the flesh, alive here on earth. Over the centuries there have been numerous debates and books written on the virgin birth. One very astute commentator tells us there are three main objections put out by doubters and skeptics: 1) A virgin birth is impossible. And without God being involved, that’s true. 2) Isaiah, by using the Hebrew word “almah,” was referring to a “young woman,” because had he meant to write “virgin” he would have used the Hebrew word “b’tulah.” Throughout Scripture “almah” is used to describe a young girl not yet married, while “b’tulah” is indicative of a girl too young to marry, both who have been tested and found to be virgins.¹¹ 3) In Isaiah, the context of the prophecy is actually giving King Achaz a sign of an event to take place within his lifetime.¹² On the contrary, as one Jewish expert points out, the context in which this prophecy is given includes all of Isaiah chapter 7, not just these eight verses, which shows that this was meant for the entire House of David as mentioned in verse 13 and referred to as “you” in plural in verses 13-14.¹³ In spite of some doubters and critics, these words were rightly applied here by Matthew to Mary, the expectant mother of Yeshua. There was no one back in King Ahaz’s house at that time who would qualify. Isaiah begins with “Behold,” not only to get attention to what he was about to say, but also to denote that it was something wonderful and extraordinary which was about to be revealed. In a highly regarded Jewish writer’s commentary we have this insight: “Therefore, the LORD (meaning the LORD, on His own, will give you a sign: He will give you a sign by Himself, without asking your permission), on His own, will give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child (is with child: This is actually the future, as we find concerning Manoah’s wife, that the angel said to her:¹⁴ ‘And you will conceive and bear a son,’ and it is written, ‘Behold, you are with child and will bear a son.’), and she will bear a son, and she will call his name (Divine inspiration will rest upon her.) Immanuel. ([lit. God is with us. That is] to say that our Rock shall be with us, and this is the sign, for she is a young girl, and she never prophesied, yet in this instance, Divine inspiration shall rest upon her. This is what is stated below:¹⁵ ‘And I was intimate with the prophetess, etc.,’ and we do not find a prophet’s wife called a prophetess unless she prophesied.’ Some interpret this as being said about Hezekiah, but it is impossible, because, when you count his years, you find that Hezekiah was born nine years before his father’s reign. And some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl and incapable of giving birth.).”¹⁶ So in this Jewish writer’s own words, this prophecy could not have applied to anyone during this period of Isaiah’s ministry. Not only was this a ploy back in the days after Matthew’s gospel first appeared, and in centuries to come, but even today the fallacy of faith and desensitivity of denial cause critics to take prophecies concerning the Messiah which were applied to Yeshua, and twist them so as to make them inapplicable to Him. It will be interesting to see after the Rapture how they will try to do the same with those prophecies that announced His return to catch away the saints, especially with so many Christians worldwide suddenly missing.

1 Cf., Zechariah 1:12

2 Babylonian Talmud, op. cit. Seder Mo’ed, Masekhet Pesachim, folio 50a; see footnote (29)

3 Numbers 12:6

4 Rabbi Hiyya opened and said Zohar on Genesis, “Joseph’s Dream”, Genesis 37:5

5 I Samuel 10:6

6 Mishnah Torah, op. cit,. Sefer Madda, Yesodei haTorah, Chap. 7:1

7 Jewish New Testament Commentary, op. cit., loc cit.

8 Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, op. cit. Section XII Vayechi, Chap. 49:18, pp. 47-50

9 Sibylline Oracles, Book III:387

10 Isaiah 7:14, Complete Jewish Bible

11 See Exodus 2:8

12 Isaiah 7:10-17

13 Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Jewish New Testament Commentary, op. cit., loc. cit.

14 Judges 13:3

15 Isaiah 8:3

16 Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary, op. cit., Isaiah 7:14

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.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part III (con’t)

With that said, many scholars point out a discrepancy between the list provided in 1 Chronicles and what the author lists here. They point to missing individuals in the genealogy, which they consider either an effort on the part of Matthew to hide something, or it was a case of changing the rules in an attempt to get the three sets of fourteen generations he needed in order to fulfill some prophecy. However, many scholars believe it was simply a case of doing so to help readers memorize three sets of fourteen each much easier. The names are spelled according to the Hebrew.¹ The reason I did so was to highlight how many Hebrew names in the English Bible substitute the “b” for the “v”; the “i” for the “y”; and the “J” for the “Y”. This is important, because when a name ends with “iah” instead of “yah” it’s hard to see the influence of Yahweh in naming that person.

Genealogy of Jesus: From David to the Babylonian Captivity

Comparison of lists with some Hebrew names spelled differently in Greek

As we can see, Matthew gives us 14 generations and 1 Chronicles lists 18. Not only that, but Luke’s list is also at odds with that of the one here in Matthew. Some scholars have been pressed to explain this apparent discrepancy. But since we cannot interview those who composed these genealogies, it is impossible to know for certain. But the one thing we know for sure is that Jesus had nothing to say about providing His family tree as proof of His lineage back to David or Abraham. As we say today, one chronologist takes the direct route and the other the scenic route but both end up at the same place. And there is a clear reason why this should not be a serious factor. Joseph had nothing to do with it. Also, even Mary’s lineage was not important enough to produce. Our Lord said it over and over, I and the heavenly Father are one. Mary was certainly the most blessed among women for being chosen as the one who would cooperate in allowing the Son of God to come to earth in human form. But Jesus never made an issue out of it. He kept pointing to heaven. And when He rose from the grave, it was not to prove that He was the son of Mary, but the Son of God, because it was His Father who raised Him to life again. That’s why Jesus continued to say, I was with Him all along, and I was with Him when He decided to send me here to earth. As we have seen, the counting of generations to define a period in history was not new to Jewish thinking. Rabbis tell us about recording the ten generations from Adam to Noah “to show how great was God’s patience, because all the generations provoked Him continually until He brought upon them the waters of the Flood. Then there were ten generations from Noah to Abraham, to show how great was His patience, because all the generations provoked him continually until Abraham our father came and received the reward of them all.”² Other cultures used this same method. For instance, in Greek literature we read: “From Tharypas to Pyrrhus, son of Achilles, there are fifteen generations.”³ Likewise, in other non-Jewish writings we read: “Of this Babylon, besides many other rulers, of whom I shall make mention in the Assyrian history, and who added improvement to the walls and temples, there were also two who were women. Of these, the one who ruled first, named Semiramis, who lived five generations before the other, and had levees built on the plains which are a sight worth seeing; because before this the river used to flood like a sea over the whole plain.”⁴ This is even more proof that using generations was a normal part of charting history.

Verse 18: “This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah happened. His mother Mary was engaged to marry Joseph. But before they consummated their marriage, he learned that she was expecting a baby. (She was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.)” Jewish rabbis say: “A virgin is allowed twelve months from the time her intended husband asked her to get married, in which to prepare her marriage outfit, as was requested by Eliezer the servant of Abraham of Rebekah, ‘So her brother, along with her mother, said: “Let the girl stay with us for a year,’⁵, and just as such a period is allowed for the woman, so, too, it is allowed for the man to prepare for the wedding from the time his bride requested that they marry.”⁶ When we take this traditional custom and apply it to Joseph and Mary, it gives us a better idea of what happened from the time he asked her to marry him. This time period of one year would certainly account for why Mary was able to go visit Elizabeth for three months after she and Joseph became engaged. In the same Jewish document we also read: “A virgin who is widowed, divorced, or victim of a broken engagement – the value of her dowry, if she remarries, is two hundred silver coins. Also, a claim of non-virginity can be filed against them if it is discovered that they were not virgins, and they can lose the entire dowry if the husband claims that the marriage was based on the mistaken premise that she was a virgin.”⁷ This makes it clear the action Joseph could have taken once he found out that Mary had gotten pregnant without his involvement. Also, Jewish literature, such as the Mishnah and Talmud, suggests that a girl was eligible for marriage after she began menstruating, approximately around the age of twelve.⁸ Thus we can see that if Joseph had already lost one wife and needed a new one, he could have easily been twice the age of Mary. Also, if it turns out that Mary had no brothers, Joseph’s proposal of marriage may have also been designed to give this girl a future just in case her father’s inheritance was not enough for her to live on. This may also foretell why we hear little about Joseph later on, since he too may have died by the time Jesus was grown. Christ’s virgin birth has been one of the most misinterpreted, misused and misunderstood aspects of His life. He had to be more perfect than normal mankind, otherwise He could not have saved us – hence the virgin birth. Christ received His divinity through the Holy Spirit and His humanity by way of Mary – hence the virgin birth. However, a common appellation among the Jews for Jesus was “Jesus son of Panthera”, an allusion to the widespread rumor during the earliest centuries of the Christian era that Jesus was the result of an illegitimate union between his mother and a Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera.⁹ It was conjectured that since this Roman soldier, who was in fact a German mercenary stationed near Bethlehem at this time, was in fact the real father of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus was an illegitimate child. The word Panthera is similar to the Greek word “parthenos” which means “Virgin.” The fact is that the Pharisee’s used a play on words show that they really knew about his virgin birth but wanted to camouflage the truth and make it look like a lie, by suggesting the this Roman soldier whose name sounded like “virgin”, was the “virgin” in this case, not Mary. Such subterfuge gives even more credence to Christ’s immaculate conception since it was in writing before the Gospels appeared, and thereby eliminates the theory by critics of Christ’s virgin birth being a post-apostolic inception as church doctrine. It is interesting to speculate why life’s conceiving essence should come from the Holy Spirit exclusively. It is only natural to eliminate the Son Himself since He was the One being conceived. The Father is also unlikely since His relationship with fallen man has been by necessity at great distance since the Garden of Eden. Furthermore, it is said: “No man can see God and live,”¹⁰ let alone be touched by Him in this manner. But the creative activism of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament from creation and onward made Him the perfect choice to perform the miracle of the immaculate conception. There were also rules in the Jewish verbal law that regulated how a man and woman were engaged or betrothed. A venerable Jewish Rabbi said: “Before the Torah was given, when a man would meet a woman in the marketplace and he and she decided to marry, he would bring her home, have intimate relations in private and thus make her his wife. Once the Torah was given, the Jews were commanded that when a man desires to marry a woman, he must ask her to be his wife in the presence of witnesses. Only after this, does she become his wife. This is alluded to¹¹ in the phrase: ‘When a man takes a wife and has relations with her….’ This process of acquisition fulfills one of the Torah’s positive commandments. The process of acquiring a wife is formalized in three ways: through the transfer of money, through the transfer of a formal document and through intimacy. The effectiveness of intimate relations and the transfer of a formal document have their origin in the Torah itself, while the effectiveness of transfer of money is Rabbinic in origin. This process of acquisition is universally referred to as “betrothal” or “consecration”. And a woman who is acquired in any of these three ways is referred to as: “wife.” Once this process of acquisition has been formalized and a woman has become betrothed, she is considered to be married even though the marriage bond has not been consummated and she has not entered her husband’s home.”¹² So according to verbal law, Joseph must have either asked Mary to be his wife in the presence of witnesses, and the payment of a dowry to her father. Matthew makes it quite clear that she did not become his wife through intimate relations before Jesus was born.