Here is the text in question, with the most relevant portions emboldened:
Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us?
Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house."
Now the text makes manifest several points worth noting. First, the Lord Jesus has returned here to his own neighborhood or village. The people are offended for one simple reason -- the combination of new wisdom and miracles they are not used to associating with Jesus, and the familiarity with which they view him. They saw him play as a child and run in the streets. The old saying that familiarity breeds contempt is true, but one ingredient only it leaves out - pride.
Interestingly, they know his entire family, naming his parents and all the sons, and ALL his sisters were present with them. The details are fairly important because the doctrine of Mary as a perpetual virgin simply does not endure the scrutiny of this text. And their excuses run out fairly quickly.
First, they suggest that perhaps the children other than Jesus were adopted. But we can see from the text that it says nothing about adoption, nor does it any way imply this, meaning that the suggestion does not arise from the text itself, but from prior speculative misgivings about the nature of marriage and the canonical teaching regarding the birth of Jesus Himself.
Moreover, to stipulate that all -- not just some - of the other children were adopted suggests that seven children in Israel somehow ended up with no parents -- and that Mary and Joseph were rich enough to afford such a costly endeavor. Adoption was not common in Israel, and it occured only in cases where either the parents had died (by some other family member, who was usually the next of kin), or else in the rare case of abandonment, when someone simply ran off into the Greco-Roman world. Such a person could not likely return to Israel without suffering the death penalty in situations that allowed it (So long as Rome governed, only Roman officials could impose the "summum supplicium" -- "highest penalty").
The Jews were a people small in number in the Mediterranean after the Babylonian exile, and they highly prized their children, recognizing them as a blessing from God. Even Eve herself, said "with the help of the Lord" I have brought forth a son.
The text says "All" his sisters, not his sister, or both his sisters. This means that Jesus had at least 3 sisters (by legal reckoning), though the text does not name them at it does His brothers. Moreover, when adoption occurs, we can expect the text to tell us so, especially in the case of the Lord Jesus -- as it does for Esther -- since his unusual birth already requires us to understand that he has an unusual relationship to His parents.
The connective term "and" shows up as a link between Mary and the brothers of Jesus, and the sisters of Jesus, but not with Joseph. The reason for this should be obvious, Jesus is the biological son of Mary (the seed of the woman), but not Joseph. And Mary also gave birth to the other children -- so they are Jesus' half-brothers and sisters biologically, and Joseph is their natural father -- except in the case of Jesus. This explains why no "kai" (Grk. for "and") connects Joseph to the rest who are named either individually or as a group (sisters).
Curiously, they mention the names of Mary and the brothers, but not the father -- Joseph, or the sisters. This suggests they have a dim view of him for some reason, and we can see from John's Gospel what it is, where the opponents of Christ hint that he is an illegitimate son of Joseph - a charge which he rebuts. The account of the virgin birth of Christ, while it could not be disproved (because too many people knew it was true who were alive, and had seen the angels at his birth, etc), yet it did not go over well with the locals, who opposed his teaching and miracles (which they acknowledge, but only disdainfully).
Finally, Jesus accepts their charge that this is his family which they have named, saying that He is without honor in HIS OWN HOUSE (i.e. family). Again, as Occam's razor is wont to suggest, the simpler explanation ought to be preferred over the more lengthy and complex, when the added details are unnecessary to the evidence at hand.
Consider the background of people like Paul, who gives us extensive details about his biographical profile and life history. When anything out of the ordinary is true of him, he specifies it. He was a pharisee of pharisees, taught by Gamaliel, and was BORN a Roman citizen, whereas others had to pay a high price to gain this privilege. I could go on, but the point is clear enough -- having seven adopted siblings would be highly unusual, and it is certainly worth mentioning. And if Matthew had not said it, we surely would have expected that Luke the beloved physician, and meticulous historical researcher and writer, would have told us so.
It is also helpful to note that it would have been fraudulent of Mary to marry Joseph and then refuse to try to give him children, and would have given Joseph legitimate cause for divorce. Paul says this plainly in 1 Corinthians. And this would have meant that Mary's list of canonical books would have left out Genesis -- with the dominion mandate -- and the Song of Solomon. If she were unable to conceive, as had been Elizabeth, wife of Zacharias the priest, the text would have told us, as it did in the case of many women (i.e. Sarah, Hannah, etc.).
Others have suggested that Jesus simply referred to his "mother and brother and sister" in other texts simply to describe "him who does the will of My Father," meaning other disciples of the Lord Jesus, and that this text might just do the same sort of thing.
The problem with such an interpretation in this case, is that (if applied consistently) it would mean that Mary and Joseph were not really Jesus' parents either, but were simply called "father and mother" in the sense of discipleship.
Secondly, his brothers and sisters were decisively NOT his disciples at this point, and the Bible goes out of its way to point this out elsewhere. His own family -- minus Mary and Joseph - did not believe in the Lord Jesus until after His resurrection. And even then, some of his most devout disciples had a very hard time believing it. So the assumption that "brothers" etc only means "believers" or "disciples" runs into two contradictions immediately apparent upon the assumption in question.
If Mary was his literal mother, then so also The Lord's brothers and sisters (via Mary as the one biological parent they had in common). In terms that Luke's modern counterparts would appreciate, this means that Jesus' blood type would have been identical to Mary's (with no genetic contribution from Joseph), but the other children may have had varying blood types, depending on the dominant and recessive trait interactions between the two parents, and their specific blood types.
In other words, Jesus looked like Mary (in terms of visible traits), but not much like Joseph. This probably explains the reticence of the opponents of Christ to name his legal father -- and would have aroused their suspicions regarding His legitimacy - since they obviously were not disciples of the Lord. But He would have shared traits in common, then, with His brothers and sisters who inherited more genetic influence from Mary than Joseph.
The synagogues of the ancient Jewish world also kept the genealogical records of each family in the neighboring area. Note that these men said "the carpenter" and "called Mary" -- this is the description of a records checker, either not directly familiar with the parents (but who seems to know all the children quite well) or else it reflects a reticence to name Joseph for reasons already given, and "called Mary" reflects the fact that this was a very common name in Israel at the time. The Gospels name many Mary's. In fact, they are not easy to keep up with, and cause some confusion among commentators.
The question they pose, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?" indicates the source of their irritation. They knew him growing up and never saw this coming. He was, by all accounts, a very normal or typical child -- with a few exceptions that seemed mundane over time (unlikely or unusual stories about his birth, his visit to the Temple at age 12 when he stumped the scribes and a few other Ph.D.'s, etc - which you can be sure that they played down after the fact).
The last time they saw Him, Jesus was not preaching and teaching, and he was not doing "mighty works," or what we call miracles. They had never known Him to do such unusual things, though they clearly did know about the birth accounts of Jesus, but treated them with the usual skepticism one might expect.
The phrase "every scribe which is instructed in the kingdom of heaven" refers immediately to the apostles whom he had just asked, "Have you understood all these things?" They were scribes, men who understood and would in fact WRITE the very word of God, not merely make copies as most scribes did.
This implied textual comparison explains who is talking to, and of, Jesus and His family -- the scribes of the synagogue (genealogical record keepers too). The phrase "things new and old" (called "treasures new and old" in Luke's Gospel) refers to the two testaments -- written by prophetic scribes -- and their teachings about the Lord Jesus and His Messianic Kingdom, that the Christ first must suffer and then enter His glory.
This adds our next qualification to judging the teaching of Rome -- where in the two testaments do we ever get the notion that Mary was to be a perpetual virgin, given that the text I have already noted seem to tell against it strongly? Isaiah says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and give birth to A SON" -- one child from the virgin is all we can expect. The obvious inference from the details of Genesis and the Gospels is that after this one son was born, she ceased to be a virgin (i.e. got married). In the Bible, the word "virgin" always sits opposed to the word "married." But after Jesus was born, the text plainly says that Joseph "took her to wife."
Matthew 1 (18-25) reads plainly enough:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Once Mary was his wife, it was Joseph and Mary's obligation to pursue the acquiring of more children with the help of the Lord. But Joseph waited until after Jesus was born, as he was commanded -- so that Isaiah's prophecy would be fulfilled -- that a VIRGIN would give birth to a son. She is called his wife prior to this because persons betrothed (we say engaged) to be married were considered "espoused" by way of promise in the ancient world, until their wedding, when this was made official. To break off the promise one needed excellent (very weighty) grounds. So Joseph at first supposing what we all would, had decided to "put her away" quietly, meaning break off the engagement.
Note also that this discourse is preceded by a genealogy with a host of "begat" verbs, similar to what we first find in Genesis. There it says that Adam "knew" his wife Eve, and she "begat." Thus, we know precisely from Matthew's first chapter that the pernicious and superstitutious doctrine of Rome shows its tendency "to forbid marriage," as with its priests, and thus the fact that this particular "doctrine of demons" (this is what the NT calls it) attends many other like Romish speculations, with no ground in the Holy Scripture.
Luke 2: 4-7 supports the previous account of Matthew.
It reads,
"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."
verses 22-24 add:
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb [first, i.e the firstborn son] shall be called holy to the Lord;) [For all firstborn sons is Israel were Corban]
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."
Here, three times we are told - and shown - that Joseph and Mary did all things according to the Law of the Lord. This means that Matthew 1 holds an inevitable conclusion, and here Luke implies it in calling Jesus the "firstborn son" (for Jesus had four brothers, else it would have said "only son."). The term firstborn implies that there is a second-born, brothers not holy to the Lord in virtue of their pre-eminent status as the one who inherits a double portion of his father's estate, according to the law of the Lord (in order to provide for the elder members of the family should the father perish, leaving a widow behind).
The Law of the Lord (Genesis is in the Torah as well) also contains the dominion mandate, of which Joseph and Mary were quite well aware. And the lack of children was thought to be a curse in Israel, since children are a blessing from the Lord. This was the source of Sarah's agony who upbraided her husband, saying, "Give me children or I shall die!" Death, a curse originating from original sin - recounted in the early chapters of Genesis - is consistent with the lack of life -- in the form of children.
Sarah was enabled to conceive only after the sacramental blessing of Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, came upon Abraham and his household. In other words, Melchizedek effected the promise of the Abrahamic covenant by way of bread and wine, outside the walled city of Salem, later Jerusalem, as a prefiguring of the benefits of redemption purchased by Christ in his once-for-all sacrifice outside the city.
Thus, Melchizedek -- the Lord Jesus Christ -- both initiated and completed the promise of the Abrahamic covenant to the descendants of Abraham, as the author and finisher of our faith. Mary, in her song (the so-called "Magnificat"), makes the covenantal connection between herself and Sarah. Sarah also had a miraculous birth, in bringing forth Isaac, the seed of Abraham by faith in the promise.
But the point of note is that Mary, unlike Sarah, was not barren, and the miraculous birth of the Lord Jesus was not the result of the reversal of a curse, but merely the implementing of an extraordinary blessing. So while Sarah was only enabled to have one child -- and that well beyond her naturally-dictated child-bearing years -- Mary had the Lord Jesus at or near the beginning of her childbearing years. She was a young virgin, like Esther, when she married. In the ancient world, since life-spans were notoriously shorter and sometimes cut short by any manner of plague, war or the like, women tended to marry much younger than today. This fact is reflected in the biblical record in many places.
In sum, there is no reason whatever, and many to the contrary, to suppose that Mary first married Joseph after the birth of Jesus, and then wickedly defrauded him of what she promised at her wedding. Joseph and Mary, it says, walked blamelessly according to the law of the Lord. That should have settled the dispute long ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment