I think of those three theories, the last one is most unlikely. Because he had to be told in a dream that she'd conceived by the Holy Spirit AFTER he'd made up his mind to send her away. Also too, if he'd make a public case of it, not only would she have been shamed, but she also would've been stoned to death, the punishment for adultery.
And actually, Matthew's the only Gospel that has Jesus' ancestry listed. I think the reason for that is because he was a Jew, who was writing for the Jews, as you'll see below.
Your Life Is Worth Living
By Fulton J. Sheen, St. Andrew's Press: 2001
pgs. 49-57
"We begin with Matthew who wrote his gospel for the Jews to show Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah. His audience was a shut-in group whose gaze did not go beyond the horizons of Judea. It was wholly Palestinian in character. We are steeped everywhere in Matthew in the Old Testament. It is obvious that the very best way to convince the Jews our Lord was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament is to quote the Old Testament, and to show our blessed Lord is pre-announced. Therefore, Matthew directs his gospel to the Jews and is very careful to unite the Old and the New Testament, often quoting Christ to say I am come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it (4) ((original italics)).
There are one thousand and sixty-eight verses in the gospel of Matthew and about three-fifths of those relate the words of our Lord. The point to be emphasized is: he was addressing the Jews, You must believe that Christ is the Son of God because He was prefigured in our Scriptures (5) ((original italics)). In Matthew there are one hundred and twenty-nine Old Testament references; fifty-three of them are citations, or text; and seventy-six are allusions. These references are taken from twenty-five books of the Old Testament, and from the major parts of the Law of the Prophets and Psalms.
We have been showing Christ is the expected Messiah and saying Matthew used that as his argument. Ten times Matthew uses the expression after or before a text in the Old Testament, "That it might be fulfilled." For example, "That it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Micah," or, "What was spoken by the prophet Isaiah." He also uses the expression, "which was spoken of," by Jeremiah, David, and so forth. He uses that expression fourteen times. The law of the Old Testament demanded a priest, a prophet, and a king; and therefore, in the first part of the gospel of Matthew, we find Christ presented as a King, then we find Him presented as a Teacher, and finally, as a Priest.
Matthew was a tax collector. He was a dishonest and disloyal Jew because he sold himself out to the Romans. He was known as a publican, one who had bargained with the Romans, the captors and masters of the country, for the collection of taxes. He might promise, in our money, say $200,000 for a certain area in Capernaum. Then he would collect $400,000 and pocket $200,000. Hence, he was much despised by his own people. The Lord said to him, Come follow me (6) ((original italics)). Matthew leaves everything, including his counting table and his money, but he takes his pen with him to write a gospel and becomes the most patriotic of all the evangelists.
No one loves Israel more than Matthew. He loves the Old Testament simply because he discovered its fulfillment. His vocation as a tax collector is reflected in what he writes. Matthew uses three words for money which occur no where else: tribute (7), piece of money (8), and talent (9). Then he uses words like gold (10) and silver (11) which do not occur in the other Gospels. Two parables of the talent are only recorded by Matthew. He is the one evangelist who handled that much money. A talent was worth about three hundred times as much as a dollar and about eight thousand times as much as a penny, of which Mark speaks. Matthew, the tax collector, also uses the word "money changers" (12) which does not occur elsewhere except as a debt, and to which a publican, such as Matthew, would naturally make reference. Such, in brief, is the gospel of Matthew."
There's also that last bit of the chapter, where it says "He had no relations with her until she bore a son..." Matt. 1:25. That "until" part, has caused a lot of questions. Many have said well then she must not have stayed a virgin, because that until means he had relations with her afterward. Of course this isn't true though. Here's an excerpt of a reply from Catholic Answers:
"Now, does Matthew’s use of "until" mean what your friend says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for "until" (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child "until" the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.
When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with."
And here's the article: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
I think of those three theories, the last one is most unlikely. Because he had to be told in a dream that she'd conceived by the Holy Spirit AFTER he'd made up his mind to send her away. Also too, if he'd make a public case of it, not only would she have been shamed, but she also would've been stoned to death, the punishment for adultery.
ReplyDeleteAnd actually, Matthew's the only Gospel that has Jesus' ancestry listed. I think the reason for that is because he was a Jew, who was writing for the Jews, as you'll see below.
Your Life Is Worth Living
By Fulton J. Sheen, St. Andrew's Press: 2001
pgs. 49-57
"We begin with Matthew who wrote his gospel for the Jews to show Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah. His audience was a shut-in group whose gaze did not go beyond the horizons of Judea. It was wholly Palestinian in character. We are steeped everywhere in Matthew in the Old Testament. It is obvious that the very best way to convince the Jews our Lord was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament is to quote the Old Testament, and to show our blessed Lord is pre-announced. Therefore, Matthew directs his gospel to the Jews and is very careful to unite the Old and the New Testament, often quoting Christ to say I am come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it (4) ((original italics)).
There are one thousand and sixty-eight verses in the gospel of Matthew and about three-fifths of those relate the words of our Lord. The point to be emphasized is: he was addressing the Jews, You must believe that Christ is the Son of God because He was prefigured in our Scriptures (5) ((original italics)). In Matthew there are one hundred and twenty-nine Old Testament references; fifty-three of them are citations, or text; and seventy-six are allusions. These references are taken from twenty-five books of the Old Testament, and from the major parts of the Law of the Prophets and Psalms.
We have been showing Christ is the expected Messiah and saying Matthew used that as his argument. Ten times Matthew uses the expression after or before a text in the Old Testament, "That it might be fulfilled." For example, "That it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Micah," or, "What was spoken by the prophet Isaiah." He also uses the expression, "which was spoken of," by Jeremiah, David, and so forth. He uses that expression fourteen times. The law of the Old Testament demanded a priest, a prophet, and a king; and therefore, in the first part of the gospel of Matthew, we find Christ presented as a King, then we find Him presented as a Teacher, and finally, as a Priest.
ReplyDeleteMatthew was a tax collector. He was a dishonest and disloyal Jew because he sold himself out to the Romans. He was known as a publican, one who had bargained with the Romans, the captors and masters of the country, for the collection of taxes. He might promise, in our money, say $200,000 for a certain area in Capernaum. Then he would collect $400,000 and pocket $200,000. Hence, he was much despised by his own people. The Lord said to him, Come follow me (6) ((original italics)). Matthew leaves everything, including his counting table and his money, but he takes his pen with him to write a gospel and becomes the most patriotic of all the evangelists.
No one loves Israel more than Matthew. He loves the Old Testament simply because he discovered its fulfillment. His vocation as a tax collector is reflected in what he writes. Matthew uses three words for money which occur no where else: tribute (7), piece of money (8), and talent (9). Then he uses words like gold (10) and silver (11) which do not occur in the other Gospels. Two parables of the talent are only recorded by Matthew. He is the one evangelist who handled that much money. A talent was worth about three hundred times as much as a dollar and about eight thousand times as much as a penny, of which Mark speaks. Matthew, the tax collector, also uses the word "money changers" (12) which does not occur elsewhere except as a debt, and to which a publican, such as Matthew, would naturally make reference. Such, in brief, is the gospel of Matthew."
There's also that last bit of the chapter, where it says "He had no relations with her until she bore a son..." Matt. 1:25. That "until" part, has caused a lot of questions. Many have said well then she must not have stayed a virgin, because that until means he had relations with her afterward. Of course this isn't true though. Here's an excerpt of a reply from Catholic Answers:
ReplyDelete"Now, does Matthew’s use of "until" mean what your friend says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for "until" (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child "until" the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.
When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with."
And here's the article: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
Okay, I gotta go now! Love you!! <333
P.S. Let me know what you think?
ReplyDeleteSorry. I didn't mean to hijack the thing. >.<
ReplyDelete