Down an Unfamiliar Road

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.

The next time someone scolds you for making a mistake when trying to learn something new, remember this: very few things get perfected without leaving a trail of many, many slip-ups and miscalculations. To shy away from making mistakes, will never help you lose your fear of new experiences. Nothing holds us back more than to think that making mistakes is a bad thing. Here are five things I’ve read about making mistakes, that can change minds about their value. One: mistakes remind us that we are not perfect. This is good, because once you think you’re perfect, you stop trying to improve. Two: mistakes are a product of one’s free will. How will you know your limitations until you push against the strong wind of criticism. Three: mistakes can remind us of how fortunate we are. They will help us see how blessed we are with what we already have, instead of being upset over what we can’t get. Four: mistakes can be very motivating. There is a certain urge to try again each time we fail to hit the mark the first time. It’s almost like a dare that we can’t make it, and it builds up our desire to prove our critics wrong. And five: mistakes show that little is gained without taking certain risks. We all need improvement in areas of our lives where we are not happy with our past performances. It keeps the cycle of mistakes, learning, trying and improving going. So instead of continually saying: “I can’t make it,” start saying: “I haven’t made it yet, but I will.” – Dr Robert R Seyda

via Call it serendipity, call it a love story | Sunday Life, Lifestyle Features, The Philippine Star | philstar.com.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part III

NOTE: If you have a thorough knowledge of Old Testament history, these names are not a boring list of progeny, but each familiar name evokes a story or incident. Yet there have been many who do not want to accept that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. For instance, in a medieval Jewish polemic work concerning the claims found in Matthew and other Gospel writers it states: “Gabriel came as a messenger sent by God to Mary in her virgin state, when she was espoused to Joseph of the house of David, and He announced to her she would conceive and bear a son, who would be holy, and be called a son of the highest; that the throne of David would be assigned to him by the Lord God for occupation, and that he would reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there should be no end. This statement disagrees with those made in other parts of the New Testament, and cast strong suspicion on the veracity of a book asserted to be written under the influence of inspiration.”¹ I noticed that the writer quotes quite a number of scriptures from the Gospels and the writings of Paul. But the one he did not quote in this instance was Jesus’ answer to Pilate as to whether He was the King of the Jews as promised to David. Our Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”² This is something that confused Nicodemus, who came to Jesus for more clarity. But the same answer the Master gave Nicodemus also applies to this skeptic. In order for him to understand the kingdom of our Lord he must first be born again.

But Christian writers were not silent on this subject of Jesus’s birth and who His father really was. In response to Jewish traditional stories that Jesus was born out of wedlock to a man named Joseph Panthera, one church father gives this rebuttal in his argument to a writer who attacked the Christian faith:

“Let us now return to where the Jew [in this story you told] is introduced, [where he was] speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that “when she was pregnant she was thrown out by the carpenter to whom she was engaged, for being guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;” and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, invented these stories in an attempt to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. But failing to do this in a credible manner, and their preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, they would have rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks and Barbarians, who were expecting divine condemnation, might depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but not by concocting one of the vilest and most disgraceful falsehoods of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its merited and preceding actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men, stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.”³

It is also important to note that at the end the author of this Gospel states: “Mary was the mother of Jesus.” One writer has a very interesting and valid take in on the use of the name “Mary” for the mother of Jesus. He says: “In English this Hebrew name is usually rendered by the spelling “Miryam” in the Tanakh [Jewish Bible] and “Mary” in the [English] New Testament. This unfounded and artificial distinction produced by translators subtly drives a wedge between Yeshua’s mother and her own Jewishness. The original Miryam was the sister of Moshe Rabbenu (“Moses, our teacher”);⁴ and a prophet;⁵ in some respects she is seen as a role-model for the Jewish woman leader of today. But the name “Mary” evokes in the reader’s thinking an otherworldly image of “Madonna and Child,” complete with halos, beatific smiles and angels in array, instead of the New Testament’s portrayal of a down-to-earth Jewish lady in an Israel village managing her wifely, maternal and other social responsibilities with care, love and faith.” Then the writer goes on to say that she bore a child, “who is called the Messiah,’” or as the Greek text reads: “being called the Christ”. This must not be taken as the writer having any doubt about Jesus being the Messiah, but that since this was an objective biography of Jesus, the author wanted everyone to know that it was Yeshua of Nazareth, the son of the virgin Mary, who was being hailed as the Messiah, not some other Yeshua.⁶

Verse 17: “So there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David. There were also fourteen generations from David until the people were taken away to Babylon. And there were fourteen more from the time the people were taken to Babylon until the Messiah was born.” Many Bible scholars do not take this as being from the pen of Matthew, but the scribe who was putting his Hebrew text into Greek. It was not uncommon for scribes to enter comments or clarifications in the margins of their translations. This scribe knew that Matthew was an accountant; that he was acquainted with debits and receivables. In this case, he divides the genealogy of Jesus into three groups. First, all those who lived during the time of the Patriarchs, Prophets and Judges – from Abraham to Jesse. Then those who lived during the time of the Kings – from David to Josiah and the exile of the Jews into Babylon. Finally, during the leadership of the Princes and Priests – from the return of the exiles to Jacob. To the scribe, this was like balancing a checkbook. To those who might criticize that in order for Matthew to have fourteen generations in each segment, he manipulated not only the number but his choice of entrants, wanting to pick and choose those that would make our Lord’s past look the best, they should take note that Matthew’s did not remove unsavory characters from the list. As we can see, not everyone in this list was without spot or wrinkle. Abraham fathered a son out of wedlock. Jacob stole his older brother Esau’s birthright. Judah slept with his daughter-in-law, not knowing she was disguised as a prostitute. Rahab was a prostitute. Ruth, the Moabite, was a product of an earlier incest between Lot and his oldest daughter.⁷ At first this might seem to be a debased act on the part of Lot’s daughters. But Jewish scholars point out that this occurred prior to the giving of the Law. All those who were born prior to the generation of Isaac and his descendants, were the posterity of Noah. In one discussion by Rabbis on this subject, the question is asked: “Why did not Adam marry his daughter? So that Cain should marry his sister, as it is written, For I said, the world shall be built up by grace. But otherwise, she would have been forbidden to Cain? — Once however that it was permitted, it remained so.”⁸ Jewish scholars believe that Eve’s offense was followed by her early death, so Adam had no other choice but to find a helpmate among his own children because there were no others available.⁹ In other words, such incest by Lot’s daughters was permitted on the basis of need to keep Lot’s genealogy going since he had no sons, and thus was not a violation of any law given by God. Nevertheless, the outcome that the two sons ended up being Israel’s enemies might be interpreted as God’s response for what they did. However, one Jewish commentator does take note that with the oldest daughter having secured the future for her father’s name by becoming pregnant, the younger daughter had no need to follow suit. Her child was named ben Ammi, and his offspring were known as the children of Ammon. The second daughter’s child was named Moab, who became the father of the Moabites. So this misguided effort led to the grandnieces of Abraham producing two future enemies that their uncle Isaac’s descendants did not need. Says the writer, because of this, these two sons and their children “were forever barred from membership in the Jewish people.”¹⁰ Then we come to Bathsheba who committed adultery with David. This does not take into account the kings before him that were less than faithful to the Lord. To top it off, Mary became pregnant before she was married, something that was looked on with shame in her day. But it all served a purpose. God can use the best and the worst in order to carry out His will. That makes it possible for anyone to be part of the family of God. Although many pastors, when examining the membership rolls of their churches, would prefer to find listed only the finest, most educated, and highly moral people in town, a real church will have names of former drunkards, thieves, murderers, adulterers, etc. That’s why, as the old hymn goes, when the names are called up yonder, don’t be surprised if you hear some that you knew on earth were nothing but scoundrels and persona non grata in the community. It must be remembered that the Jews who doubted Jesus’ claim of Messiahship, did not have Matthew’s genealogy list at that time. But when they were told that Jesus was a carpenter’s son from Nazareth in Galilee, they dismissed His claims simply based on their preconceived ideas of who the Messiah would be and where he would come from. But within some thirty years, Matthew’s scroll was made available and they were given the evidence of His lineage to David and Abraham. Yet they still did not believe because of the biases and prejudices against Galileans and the children of common laborers. Strange that none of their portraits hang in Jewish homes today, but the picture of Jesus is exhibited on the walls of thousands and thousands of walls in Christians homes around the world.

1 Chizuk Emunah – Faith Strengthened by Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, Translated by Moses Mocatta, 1881, Part II, Ch. 32

2 John 18:36

3 Origen Adamantius (184-253 AD), “Contra Celsus”, Bk. I, Ch. 32, written circa 248 AD

4 Exodus 2:4-8

5 Ibid. 15:20

6 Jewish New Testament Commentary, op. cit., Matthew 1:18

7 Genesis 19:37

8 Babylonian Talmud, op. cit., Seder Nezikin, Masekhet Sanhedrin, folio 58b

9 Ibid., footnote (11)

10 Tzror Hamor op. cit., Parshat Veyeyra, loc. cit. pp. 268-269

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part II (con’t)

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part II

Verse 6: “Jesse was the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon. (His mother was Uriah’s wife.)” The original Greek here is much more provocative than some English translators have permitted. True, by the time Solomon was conceived and born to David and Bathsheba, her former husband Uriah was dead and King David had legally married her. Most translators try desperately to impress that fact by indicating the legality of their union with such interjections as Uriah’s “widow”; “former wife,” etc. But the Greek simply says “her of Uriah,” thereby implying that even legal marriage had not been able to cover David’s sin of adultery and the staged murder of her husband. It must be noted that David already had more than one wife, now he was taking another man’s wife after talking her into having sexual relations with him, even though she protested. The Jews were not silent on this subject: “What are David’s two sins? That of Uriah and his illegal census of Israel. But there is a third one? That of Bathsheba? For that of Bathsheba he was punished, as it is written: ‘For the ewe he will pay fourfold.’¹ What were the four punishments? The death of Bathsheba’s first child, the death of David’s son Amnon, the misfortune of David’s daughter Tamar, and David’s son Absalom’s death.”² This provides a point of validity in the Scripture: even though the author was tracing the human lineage of the pure Son of God, he did not, nor was he persuaded to pass over this sordid point in David’s life. His imperfect heritage made Christ the perfect answer to the problems of all peoples.

Verses 7-8: “Solomon was the father of Rehoboam. Rehoboam was the father of Abijah. Abijah was the father of Asa. Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat was the father of Jehoram. Jehoram was the father of Ozias.” The author is doing an admirable job in showing that Jesus was the only one in this accepted lineage of the Messiah by the Jews, who could possibly qualify as the true Anointed One. It has been pointed out that the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament used by the United Bible Society in their Greek text says: “Abijah moreover begat Asaph.” However, the majority of Greek versions have “Abijah begat Asa,” showing the different ways Bible characters were referred to. The same goes for one Rabbi in the Mishnah who is referred to as “Jose” in one place and “Joseph” in another. Then we come to Ozias, because he is elsewhere referred to as Uzziah,³ and also identified as Azariah in Scripture.⁴ Furthermore, he was the great-great-grandson of Jehoram, because between them came sons Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.⁵ Some believe the writer may have done this because these kings were ineligible to be in the Messiah’s lineage because of the curse upon Ahab’s family, into which Jehoram married. For many scholars, the omission of these three kings does not affect what the author is attempting to do, and that is to show that Jesus, the true Messiah, is of the family of David. Even Jewish chroniclers would have no reason to complain, since in Ezra⁶ there are six generations omitted in one instance.⁷ Such omissions were mentioned: “Gentile Sages explained: there were some generations missing, unmentioned in the Scripture between them. Perhaps they received this knowledge from the Sages of Israel and it stands to reason. We see this too in the lineage of Ezra; seven generations are missing from Ahitub I until Ahitub II in the book of Ezra,⁸ but they are mentioned in Chronicles⁹ But here is a difficulty: the missing generations in David’s lineage are not mentioned anywhere, as opposed to the Ezra’s lineage.”¹⁰ Therefore, to put Ozias directly after Jehoram (or Joram) was done here in like manner, as we have seen with Hezekiah.¹¹ It would be hard to fault the record keepers back in those ancient days, since the sons of Jacob ended up in Egypt for over 400 years, then were exiled from the Promised Land for 70 years, and finally driven out completely in 70 AD. Also, with many of these men having more than one wife, in addition to concubines, keeping track of all their descendants was a chore. However, the Holy Spirit in His wisdom inspired Matthew to record those that mattered the most in tying Jesus to David and Abraham.

Verses 9-12: “Ozias was the father of Jotham. Jotham was the father of Ahaz. Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah. Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh. Manasseh was the father of Amon. Amon was the father of Josiah. Josiah was the grandfather of Jehoiachin and his brothers, who lived during the time that the people were taken away to Babylon. After they were taken to Babylon: Jehoiachin was the father of Shealtiel. Shealtiel was the grandfather of Zerubbabel.” The son of Manasseh is recorded in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, Greek text as “Amos.” However, we also find him listed as “Amon,”¹² as do all the other Greek texts. What happened after the Jews were carried off into Babylon in 586 B.C., no doubt caused a disruption in the keeping of genealogies. Yet the record reads, “This is a list of Jehoiachin’s children after Jehoiachin became a prisoner in Babylon: His children were Shealtiel, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.”¹³ The Hebrew actually has, “Y’khonyah (Jehoiachin), also called Asir.”¹⁴ Jewish scholars explain that the word “asir” actually means, “one imprisoned, because he had been in prison, as we see by what was recorded in the King’s Record:¹⁵ “Later, Evil Merodach became the king of Babylon. He let King Jehoiachin of Judah out of prison.”¹⁶ Jehoiachin was only 18 years old when he became king, and his rule lasted only 3 months.¹⁷ And we find out why in Jeremiah.¹⁸ Then we notice that the writer skips over Shealtiel’s son and goes directly to the grandson, Zerubbabel. We also find that Shealtiel had a brother named, Pedaiah, and that Pedaiah is the father of Zerubbabel.¹⁹ However, elsewhere we read: “Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and the priests with him, along with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, and the people with him, built the altar of the God of Israel.”²⁰ According to British theologian and commentator John Gill, Jews explain: “…in Haggai, Zachariah and Ezra, Zerubbabel is called the son of Shealtiel, because he was his son’s son; for Pedaiah was the son of Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah; and…in many places children’s children are mentioned as children?”²¹ Gill goes on to say, “No doubt there are many instances of this; but to me it seems that Pedaiah was not the son of Shealtiel, but his brother. And I greatly suspect that Shealtiel had no children of his own, since none are mentioned; and that he adopted his brother Pedaiah’s son Zerubbabel, and made him his heir and successor in the government of Judah. However, it is certain, as one genealogical writer among the Jews observes, that he was of the son’s sons of Jechonias, king of Judah, from whom our Evangelist makes him to descend”.²² By this we can clearly see how important it was for the Jews to make sure they got the genealogy right. And in this case, again no one on either side argues against the Messiah being a descendant of David. But in Matthew’s case it was his intent to prove beyond doubt that Jesus of Nazareth surely qualified.

Verses 13-16: “Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud. Abiud was the father of Eliakim. Eliakim was the father of Azor. Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Achim. Achim was the father of Eliud. Eliud was the father of Eleazar. Eleazar was the father of Matthan. Matthan was the father of Jacob. Jacob was the father of Joseph.” It is notable that Jewish critics of this genealogy have not mounted any credible opposition to the list provided here in Matthew. This would then suggest that the writer was not making this up on his own, but was actually taking the information available from genealogical tables available among the Jews in his day. For instance, we are told that one Rabbi reported: “I found a roll of genealogical records in Jerusalem and therein was written…”²³ This confirmed what was written some 200 years earlier.”²⁴ Also the Jews tell us: “A book of genealogies was found in Jerusalem, wherein it was stated that Hillel was a descendant of King David.”²⁵ So these things were not hidden, and since we are familiar with Matthew’s expertise as a tax accountant, he would probably knew just where to look. And by the same token, had the Jews wanted to prove the writer wrong, they could have easily accessed the records themselves to do so. In fact, those who did could find no fault with it.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part I (con’t)

We must also take note that man can only reproduce through natural means, but God transcends these human limits. Did He not make Adam out of the earth’s dust? Could He then not also send His Son as a human being with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as forefathers by blood and by prophecy? And to those who believe, hasn’t He given them power through the Spirit to become the children of God? To modern authors, this genealogy does not contain the catchy phraseology so typical of contemporary works and which they claim is necessary to hold the reader’s interest. And rightly so, because this writer’s account is not a novel, but the advent of the greatest story every written. Over the centuries there have been many critics concerning this genealogy, but we must remember that the author was tracing the human side of Jesus’ family, not the divine. Therefore, while knowing who fathered whom was needed, it is more important to know that it was the heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit who brought His Son into the world, and this spiritual genealogy is the most significant. Not only for Jesus, but for all those who would eventually be called the children of God. As a matter of fact, one Jewish writer who devoted his learning to publishing anti-Christian works of Jewish authors, traveled long distances to gather his material. He became convinced that one medieval polemic work titled: “Toledot Yeshu,”¹ made Jews guilty of blaspheming Jesus. So he implored them to restrain their fellow Jews from mocking Jesus, Mary, the cross, the mass, and Christian teachings.² But it would take two world wars before Christians worldwide would deplore the treatment of Jews, and tone down the animosity on both sides. But one thing both Jews and Christians agreed to was that the Messiah would come through the family of David. One respected Rabbi said: “In the generation when the son of David [i.e., the Messiah] will come, scholars will be few in number, and as for the rest, their eyes will be blurred by sorrow and grief.”³ Jewish literature also agrees with Matthew’s lineage by recognizing: “…there are two women from whom come king David, and king Solomon, and King Messiah; and these two are Tamar and Ruth.”⁴ The acknowledgment of the lineage of Jesus is also supported by Jewish Messianic thinkers who say: “From Joseph in Egypt we infer that success and prosperity in life accrue sooner or later to everyone who observes the rite of the covenant and keeps himself pure and chaste. Our thinking is confirmed by the example of Boaz, concerning whom we read [said to Ruth], ‘As the Lord lives, lie down until the morning.’⁵ The Tempter wished to lead Boaz into sin; but faithful and true to his oath, he resisted the temptation and thus kept pure the sign of the covenant. Therefore, he was honored by fathering those whose offspring became kings and rulers over all other kings, and also of becoming the ancestral forefathers of King Messiah who is called by the name of the Holy One.”⁶ The mention of Boaz ushers in another well-known individual, his mother, the prostitute named Rahab who helped Joshua conquer Jericho. Because of her cooperation she and her relatives were saved from destruction. Tradition has it that she ended up becoming the wife of one of Joshua’s generals named Salmon.⁷ The Jews taught: “Aminadab fathered Nahshon, who was the head of the household of the tribe of Judah, and Nahshon then fathered Salmon the Righteous.⁸ He is the Salmon of Bethlehem of Judah, and Netophah, whose sons abolished the guards which the wicked Jeroboam had set over the highways. They served their father, and were reassuring children, like balm”.⁹ Not only did Rahab conceive Boaz, but Jewish literature tells us: “Eight prophets who were also priests were descended from Rahab the harlot, namely, Neriah, Baruch, Serayah, Mahseyah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanamel and Shallum.’ Rabbi Judah says: Hulda the prophetess was also one of the descendants of Rahab the harlot. We know this because it is written here ‘the son of Tikvah’ and it is written elsewhere, in connection with Rahab, ‘the family line of the scarlet thread!’”¹⁰ That scarlet thread was the sign given to Rahab for her to display on her apartment window so that the troops would pass by her apartment and not destroy it or anyone inside. How amazing that Jesus was a part of the family line known as the “scarlet thread,” because it too is a symbol of His precious blood that He blessed at His last meal with the disciples, and which is the cleansing reservoir that washes away all our sins and makes us clean in heart and mind, as well as the powerful source that heals our diseases through His wounds. Based on this information, we need not cringe when we mention the harlot Rahab as one of Jesus’ notable ancestors. Also, as much as the Jews detested men marrying outside the Israelite bloodline, even they admit that Ruth, who became Boaz’s wife, was an exceptional outsider as well. Jewish writers tell us: “Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left a widow, and her two sons were left orphans. They transgressed the decree of the Word of the Lord and took foreign wives for themselves, from the daughters of Moab. The name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the second was Ruth, the daughter of Eglon the king of Moab, and they lived there for a period of about ten years.”¹¹ However, some Rabbis point out: “In the exercise of His justice God’s reluctance to take human life is shown also in His treatment of Mahlon and Chilion, for first their horses died, and then their camels and their donkeys died, after that their father died.”¹² This fact of Ruth being a Moabite princess is confirmed by later writers: “For as a reward for the forty-two sacrifices offered up by Balak, he was privileged that Ruth should be his descendant; as Rabbi Jose ben Huna said: Ruth was the daughter of Eglon, the grandson of Balak, king of Moab.”¹³ It should also be noted here that another woman named Tamar was part of our Lord’s genealogy.¹⁴ One Jewish commentator surmised, that when Judah saw her, she “…appeared to be suitable as a wife, the daughter of a prominent person, a trader named Shua, who was known as a generous person,” it might be likely that Judah may have married her for her looks or as a possible door to her father Shua’s fortune.¹⁵ Another esteemed Jewish Rabbi sees the same connection by pointing out: “Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite,” which he mentions, “implies that he married her on account of her father.”¹⁶ This of course, went against the teachings of the patriarchs. So we see that Rahab,¹⁷ the well-known prostitute from Jericho, and Ruth, the Moabitess,¹⁸ were all Gentile women. This may help explain why Jesus called Saul of Tarsus to become His ambassador to the Gentiles, because they were such an integral part of His human heritage. The writer goes on to tell us that Obed was the father of Jesse, even though some Jewish scholars do not believe that Jesse was the immediate son of Obed, but part of the fourth generation after him; though no other sons are mentioned between them in the Book of Ruth. One Jewish historian lists them this way, “Boaz was apparently 300 years old when he fathered Obed and he died immediately after his union with Ruth. His father Salmon died when the Israelites entered the Land. But one Rabbi disagrees and explains in his commentary on Ruth, that these elders; Salmon, Boaz, Obed and Jesse, were still alive at David’s birth.”¹⁹ Therefore, Jesse is rightly placed among the forefathers of Christ, since the Messiah was to be a branch of his family tree, and is called the root of Jesse,²⁰ which words are interpreted as the Messiah by many of the Jewish scholars. As a matter of fact, Jewish theologians say: “There is a further allusion to this union of the spiritual nature with the human nature in these words: ‘Because as long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth,²¹ because divine life on the earth is only possible through the Messiah, the son of Jesse. He it is, who is master and lord over all, and from him humanity and individual life receive their nourishment and sustenance.”²² A Jewish prayer also reveals this thought: “Samuel prayed: ‘ Give us discernment, O LORD, to know Your ways, and cut away evil from our hearts we can reverence You, and forgive us so that we may be redeemed, and keep us far from suffering, and satisfy us in the pastures of Your land, and gather our far-flung brothers and sisters from the four corners of the earth, and let them who err from Your remedies for sin be disciplined, and lift up Your hand against the wicked , and let the righteous rejoice as they build Your city and establish the Temple and in their exaltation of the descendant of David Your servant and the preparation of a light for the son of Jesse Your Messiah; before we call may You answer; blessed art You, O LORD, who hears and answers prayer.”²³ Jewish men in many countries repeat this prayer every day of the year. But it has a familiar ring to the prayer our Lord taught His disciples, and may have been somewhat of an inspiration for our Master. As such, we should also pray and thank our heavenly Father that by way of His love, mercy and grace we too are included in the spiritual genealogy that we trace back to Him through His Son Jesus the Christ. So Matthew leaves no doubt the the Jewish people and leaders were ripe for the coming of the Messiah as a descendant of David. But few of them agreed on who He would be and how He would appear. So in their biases caused them to miss Him when He did arrive. When you look at the secular world today where hope abounds for a world leader that will bring all mankind together in peace and harmony, they too overlook the man from Galilee because He does not fit their mold.