Virgin
“But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then” Deuteronomy 22:20
Virgin – What happens to a young woman who is not married and is discovered not to be a virgin? Well, if you lived under the Mosaic code, there were only two possibilities. If she is not a virgin as a result of rape, she is not to be harmed. Her assailant must marry her and pay a stiff penalty to the family. But if she is not a virgin for any other reason, she is to be killed.
Joseph lived under the Mosaic code. So did Mary. So when Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant and he knew that it wasn’t his child, he had two choices. He could announce her deceit and allow her to suffer the consequences, or he could protect her in spite of the circumstances. He chose to protect her. His love for her overcame his own cultural expectations. He wasn’t being a good Jew. He was being a good man. So, God came to him in a dream and told him not to fear. His heart was in the right place. God was doing something that didn’t fit the rules.
There is a lot of controversy over the use of the Hebrew word bethula when it is applied to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Why? Because many people don’t want to believe that Jesus was anything more than a special man. One of the great prophets. One of the sages. But not God. These people wish to think of this word as a word for “young woman of marriageable age” but not necessarily “virgin”. I guess they haven’t considered the Mosaic code in the background. It hardly makes any sense at all for Joseph to act the way that he did if it were only the case of a “young woman”. There is no penalty for being a young woman. There is only a penalty for being a young woman who is supposed to be a virgin but isn’t. Unless betula means “virgin”, it’s pretty hard to explain Joseph’s behavior. But, of course, if it does mean “virgin” in this case, then our natural explanations go right out the window. There are some things that God does that bend all the rules, including the rules of pregnancy.
Would you rather be rule-right or open to God? It’s not always an easy question to answer. Ask Joseph.
Matthew 1 never indicates that the child Mary was holding in her womb was not Joseph’s. In fact I think the author is very clear that Joseph was the physical father of her child.
First, he lays out a physical genealogy of Jesus/Yeshua as being the son of David, son of Abraham, by way of Joseph, the husband/man of Mary. Then, he explains how his mother was espoused to Joseph before their coming together.
Have you ever done a study on the Greek grammar of Matthew 1:18? What I have found is that the phrase translated as “before their coming together” in the YLT, according to the Greek grammar, is connected to that which comes before it, not to that which comes after it. I believe what comes after it is a separate thought. Here’s a .pdf of my study as it pertains to this: http://messyanic.com/before-their-coming-together.pdf
So, in my understanding the author is just identifying Mary as being one who was espoused to Joseph before their coming together, suggesting I believe, that she was a virgin, not having known any other men prior to Joseph. This is in contrast to the other women mentioned in the genealogy — they all were known by other men before bringing forth sons begotten of the men in the Messiah’s lineage.
This idea of Mary being espoused to Joseph before their coming together is corroborated by the account given in Luke 1.
Just a query, how do you deal with the passage where Joseph was in distress regarding Mary’s pregnancy and was considering putting her away?
First of all, I don’t believe the statement of “putting her away” in this case connotes a divorce. (I know that’s a common belief concerning this passage.)
Given what the author of Luke reveals in chapter 1, a messenger came to Mary while she was espoused to Joseph before they came together, to tell her that she would conceive and bring forth a son in the future, which would naturally be that of the man to whom she was espoused.
She was told furthermore that this child would be great, and be called “son” of the highest; he would be given his father David’s throne and he would rule over the house of Jacob, and of his reign there would be no end. Essentially, he was to be the Messiah.
Mary believed the word of YHVH; she proceeded to visit Elisabeth who was pregnant with John the Baptist and told her the news. Evidently Elisabeth believed her. And I believe Zacharias got wind of it, since she stayed with them for nearly three months. And he, too believed the news and prophesied after he was able to speak again, saying, a horn of salvation is being raised up in the house of David. <– All of this happened before Mary ever conceived.
So at that time, not only did Joseph and Mary know that they were chosen to bring forth the Messiah, the people having heard Zacharias the priest prophesy were also expecting the Messiah to come. And the teachers of the law understood that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem.
According to Luke 2 there was an enrollment decreed in that day and people were traveling to their hometowns, and I believe Joseph was intending to travel to Bethlehem, but having found Mary was pregnant, knowing this child was set apart, considered sending/putting her away temporarily (out of the public eye), for fear of her being made an example or show of in Bethlehem.
(Consider Matthew 2. After the child is born, Joseph is divinely told to take Mary and the child and flee to Egypt given King Herod's plot to kill the infant boys. And then he is divinely told to return after Herod's death. It appears to me that Joseph could have simply been caring for Mary and the child's welfare.)
The fact that the author of Matthew draws the reader's attention to the words spoken in Isaiah 7, which was that of a sign given to the house of David, in particular, during the reign of King Ahaz, when King Ahaz feared a conspiracy being formulated from the north (between the king of Ephraim and the king of Aram) to topple his throne, supports this notion. Joseph appeared to be afraid of what men might do, but the messenger reassured him to not be afraid, that this child was begotten of holy spirit, and that he would essentially be the greatly anticipated Messiah. So, Joseph when he woke from the dream, did as the messenger told him and took her to him, and did not know her until she gave birth. And he called the child "Jesus/Yeshua".
Carrie,
I’ve read your article and I don’t find it compelling for a number of reasons:
Since I’m not sure how much you understand the Greek, I’ll first make this observation. The Greek text you reference is the Textus Receptus (TR). Of the versions you cite, only the YLT and KJV are based on the TR. The word gar is not found in the Greek text underlying Matthew 1:18 in the other versions (ESV, NASB, NIV, & HCSB), but it seems as though you assume it is (re: your note As we’ve already pointed out, in most cases [ESV, NASB, KJV, HCSB], the Greek word preceding “mother” is translated as “when”, “when as” or “after”, suggesting a cause & effect in this verse…). In any case, gar does not always mean “for”, and sometimes it’s not even translated at all. And translation is not always strictly word-for-word, because of differences between the target language and the ‘original’.
The word prin, “before”, is a subordinating conjunction—just like its English translation—which introduces a dependent clause (as opposed to an independent clause, a stand-alone sentence). When a dependent clause is sandwiched between two clauses, as we have in Matthew 1:18, it’s a matter of interpretation whether it temporally applies to the one preceding or the one following. Overall contextual clues will be the decisive factor, not its usage in other verses, which is determined by those contexts.
The verb for “putting away” in 1:19 is apoluō (here as an aorist infinitive), a compound word, with luō (“loose”, “release”) prefixed by the preposition apo, which has the sense of “away from”, “from”. Many times when verbs are prefixed by a preposition the resulting verb obtains an intensifying force. This indicates apoluō connotes a separation of permanence, rather than one of a temporary nature. If you look at Thayer, you’ll see that each definition implies this. The term is used for “divorce” quite a few times in Matthew’s Gospel (5:31, 32; 19:3, 7, 8, 9), and otherwise used in reference to dismissing people (14:15: 14:22, 23; 15:23, etc.). And given the immediate context of Matthew’s use of “betrothal” in verse 18 and “husband” in verse 19 (in the engagement/betrothal, the individuals are perceived as husband/wife, as I’m sure you know) with apoluō, “divorce” is the most likely definition, especially when verses 20-21 are considered.
It was after this chronologically that Joseph solidified the marriage (ending the betrothal) (v. 24), though he did not consummate the marriage (come to ‘know’ her) until after she birthed Yeshua (v. 25). This indicates Mary was already pregnant during the betrothal period, before they were officially married. This was frowned upon, shall we say, in the culture, for a man and a woman to consummate their marriage during the betrothal. Overall, the standard belief that Mary was a virgin and that she became pregnant through the Spirit, without Joseph, seems to be the best way to understand this.
First, I would like to thank you, Craig, for this informative response. I have shared my study on “prin” with a few other folks who are more learned in Greek than I, asking for feedback, and I appreciate your bringing my attention to the other translations not being based on the TR (which I will look into further and correct my study notes).
I understand that what I presented may not be compelling enough to sway one firmly trenched in the virgin birth doctrinal position to abandon that notion. I have often grappled with making what I found known because it seems so inconsequential on its own. But for those who have serious doubts concerning the VB doctrine, yet are hung up on the wording of Matthew 1:18, I thought my findings might be beneficial.
I can agree that the use of “prin” might be a matter of interpretation, but if we were to look at the contextual clues of Matthew 1 with the search being in what was already established in the chapter instead of what is presented afterward, it makes more sense to me that the clause would belong to the notion that she was espoused to Joseph as opposed to the notion that she was found with child of holy spirit.
Thank you, also, for the explanation you gave concerning “sending her away”. I agree that it has more of a flavor of “dismissing” people, a stronger sense of sending someone away. But I still don’t believe the fact that the author identifies Joseph and Mary as husband and wife is enough to suggest divorce was on his mind. What would be the reason for divorce? The author doesn’t claim the child she is carrying is *not* Joseph’s. On the contrary he lays out a genealogy for Joseph, identified as the man/husband of Mary.
I believe that Joseph is the same as the one identified in Matthew 1:18 simply because of the way Joseph is addressed in verse 18, as if we are to already know who he is. He’s not introduced as being “the son of David” or “of the house of David” in verse 18, which I think would have been a pertinent detail to include if he was indeed not the same man addressed in verse 16.
Regarding your last paragraph indicating that verse 24 demonstrates “Joseph solidified the marriage (ending the betrothal)”, why do you suppose Joseph and Mary were only betrothed at the time of Mary’s pregnancy? Doesn’t the fact that she’s pregnant, having been espoused to Joseph before their coming together, demonstrate the marriage was already consummated?
With all due respect, I don’t think the standard belief that Mary became pregnant through the Spirit, without Joseph, seems to be the best way to understand this. Because that concept, a girl getting pregnant by way of “the Spirit” without being known by a man, is a foreign concept to the Scriptures. (Except in the case of Genesis 6 when the sons of God, who many understand to be fallen angels, which are spirit beings, mated with the daughters of men and produced offspring by them: the nephilim. But that behavior was condemned.)
The most reasonable explanation that I can see is that Joseph knew the woman to whom he was betrothed, consummating their union, and she conceived. The child whom she carried was of holy spirit, meaning, he was sanctified by God in her womb.
The author clearly states Joseph, being righteous and unwilling to make a show/example of her minded to dismiss her. Perhaps he thought it better for her to go in hiding given that she was holding “he who was to be born king of the Jews”, and he feared harm coming to her and the child.
We see examples in the past of children in the house of David being put away in hiding when there were men seeking to end the Davidic dynasty, only to come back later to rule. In fact, this is exactly what happened in the days of Queen Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah. She killed off the heirs to the throne after finding her son to be dead, but Ahaziah had a son (Joash), who was hidden away for six years. (See 2 Kings 11:13-21) [I’m just now making this connection! Praise Yah!]
The thing is, it’s this part of the lineage that is missing from Matthew’s genealogy, and I think it was intentionally left out by the author. Perhaps for this very reason…to give a clue as to *why* Joseph minded to dismiss his wife who was found with child of the Messiah. (Oh, I’m so excited for just now seeing this!)
You’re welcome. I’m far from proficient in NT Greek, but I’ve been self-learning for a number of years, and I have a lot of study helps. Since I have software that parses all the words and has a great search function, I’ve focused more on grammar/syntax of late.
Since there’s no grammatical/syntactical support for the position outlined in your paper (over against the usual translations), we’re left with interpreting via both the immediate and the larger contexts. Regarding your statement that there’s no precedent for a ‘virgin birth’ as such, I note that there are many miracles of YHWH for which there was no precedent. And given that YHWH formed Adam from the dust of the earth and took Eve from Adam, I’ve no problem whatsoever with believing that He impregnated a woman “through the Holy Spirit”—a miracle with no Scriptural precedent. And since the context better supports this miracle, I see no need to abandon my position.
As far as the genealogy, there have been volumes written on this subject. When considering Matthew’s genealogy, I think it important to look at Luke’s for comparison and contrast.
The biggest problem that I see with accepting the notion of a “virgin birth” where the seed of the man is absent is that there were promises made to men by YHVH specifically pertaining to their seed, that would come from their bowels/loins. So it makes no sense for YHVH to cause the birth of the Messiah to come about without the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah or David.
As for YHVH forming Adam from the dust of the earth, that was done in the beginning on the sixth day, but then there came to be evening, and there came to be morning. He finished the works that He had made, and then He ceased/rested from the works which He made on the seventh day, and hallowed that day. There is nothing to indicate a need or intention of creating another kind of man apart from Adam’s seed on another day.
Furthermore, Yeshua identifies himself continually as the son of man. Why would he call himself the son of man, if he was not really the son of a man?
As for the lineage given in Luke, the departure in who’s father is who is with Joseph, not with Jesus/Yeshua. Both Matthew and Luke attribute Jesus as being begotten of Joseph, but in Luke’s account, I believe the author was laying out how the people were attempting to reason out Jesus being called the “son” of God, being the son of Joseph (hence, that lineage going all the way back to God, not just to Adam).
These are just some of my personal objections to the virgin birth doctrinal notion.
In the preface to the genealogy in Luke (3:23), the writer states that Yeshua “was the son, as it was supposed (hōs enomizeto), of Joseph. Yeshua was identified in some way to be “the second Adam” by Paul (1 Cor 15:42-49), and also “from heaven” (John 6).
“Son of man” in the Septuagint (LXX) merely means “human” in Ps 8:4, Num 23:19, e.g., and not “man” in opposition to “woman”. In the NT, with the exception of a few quotations from the LXX—Heb 2:6 (from Ps 8:4) and Rev 1:13; 14:14 (referring to the figure in Daniel 7 “like a son of man”), as well as John 5:27—the term is always with the article (ho) as the Son of Man, a term solely on Yeshua’s lips as a third person self-designation (with the exceptions of John 12:34 and Stephen in Acts 7:54-56). Yeshua’s use of the Son of Man is unique, not found in contemporaneous literature (1 Enoch cannot be determined). Many claim it as some sort of title; but, Hurtado convincingly argues that, since it was not used in the same manner as “the Son of God”, e.g., that it merely refers to things about Yeshua rather than categorizing Him: “[I]t is the sentence/saying that conveys the intended claim or statement, not ‘the son of man’ expression itself” (“Summary and Concluding Observations,” in ‘Who is This Son of Man?’: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus, L. W. Hurtado and P. L. Owen eds. [London: T&T Clark, 2011], p 167; emphasis in orginal).
I don’t doubt the people understood Yeshua to be the son of Joseph, given what is stated in Luke 4:22. So the “supposing” mentioned in chapter 3, I believe had more to do with the names that followed Joseph’s.
Also, given there are several places where Yeshua is clearly identified as being the son of Joseph, none of which identify him as an adoptive parent as some who hold to the virgin birth doctrine suggest, I think that idea is used to simply justify a belief. (See the opening chapters of Luke and John 1:45; 6:41-42)
I believe the reference to “the second Adam” is referring to the resurrected man, given the immediate context.
As for being “from God”, John the Baptist is also referred to as being sent “from God” in John 1.
I can agree the phrase, son of man, simply means “human”, and the word for man there does not mean man as in a male figure vs a woman being a female figure, but what does it mean to be “human”?
Adam (H121) was identified simply as man (translated from “adam” (H120) in Hebrew) in Genesis 1-2, but the use of “son of man” elsewhere in the Old Testament is often translated from son of “adam”.
This makes sense to me that Adam would reproduce after like kind, as established in Genesis 1, and that which he begat are called “sons” (and daughters). Hence the kind of “man” being reproduced via a man (male) knowing his woman (female), are considered humankind (which would include male and female).
The idea of Yeshua being something formed apart from the seed of Adam and placed in Mary’s womb, which is what I’ve heard some claim Yeshua to be, would, in my mind, prevent him from being called the “son of adam”, hence not a “human” in the true sense of the word. He would be another “kind” of being, and that just doesn’t fit my understanding of what is said about him in the Bible.
Carrie, I am a fan of your enthusiasm and thought efforts, and have appreciated several of your points, too. I, too, find myself having to totally start over on so many things!
I do think I may see something you seem to keep missing, and that is that, in the Hebrew economy, anyway, the lineage of the identity (tribe) is passed through the mother, not the father. Therefore, the tribal identity of Adam is insured by the seed of the woman (namely, mother, which in this case is Mary, or, Miriam), not of the man. Yeshua was not just “placed in Mary’s womb”; i.e. as a zygote; she contributed half the genetics.
What do you mean by “the Hebrew economy”, Laurita?
According to Scripture, the seed of the woman is produced by way of the man “knowing” his woman and with the help of YHVH, she conceives and brings forth. It is my understanding that the “knowing” is the sower of seed (aka the man) sowing his seed (“sperma” in the Greek) in the woman, and the “conceiving” is the taking hold together with one.
Genesis 2:24 establishes the man is to cleave to the woman and the two become one flesh. Then Genesis 4:1,25 establishes the man knowing his woman and her conceiving and bringing forth seed, which I understand to be specifically, sons.
My understanding (and I can be corrected) is that it is the mother that determines whether or not the child is considered a Jew. It is her genetics, not the genetics of the father.
The reference to the economy of, say, the Hebrews, is a holistic use of the word which may be a little outdated these days, but it encompasses all that makes, say, a Hebrew a Hebrew. Nowadays I know that we tend to narrow the term to just mean money, but in other ages, where money was not what drove the system, the term was broader to include all the factors..
I have been learning a lot from you, Carrie, and I appreciate your additions to the conversation, and look forward to more. Thank you.
Thank you, and you’re welcome Laurita. As far as I know, that notion concerning the mother being the determining factor of a child being considered a Jew is a modern convention. That is not how the tribes of Israel were reckoned in the Old Testament, or in the New Testament.
Maybe someone else can chime in on this thought.
I’m not sure if there was a particular word used for an adopted son over against just “son”. Perhaps there was, but I’m unaware of it.
I think it possible that Yeshua’s adversaries in John 8:41 were taking a jab against Him in the statement, “We are not born of fornication (ek porneias)”, with reference to knowledge that Mary was ‘with child’ during her betrothal.
While the Baptist was sent “from God”, Yeshua “came down from heaven” as “the bread of life” (John 6).
Yeshua’s self-designation as the particularized the Son of Man is important here. For example, in John 9:35 He asks the formerly-blind-but-now-healed man if he believes in “the Son of Man”. Then he explains that He’s come for judgment “so that the blind will see and those who see become blind”. In the prologue, as the Word/Light He gave “those believing in His name” the “right to become children of God”.
I don’t see that as a jab, Craig. They are the ones who declared themselves to be sons of Abraham, and Yeshua called them out on it, declaring that they were of another father. So to them, he was suggesting *they* were born of fornication, and that’s what they were responding to. At that point, they were on the defensive and not in a position to take jabs.
Regarding Yeshua’s statement and the bread of life, I see that he was speaking in a parable, not declaring a clear statement of his physical origin.
I do agree that Yeshua is identified as *the* Son of Man, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a reference to his kind of being, that is, a human being.
I notice a lot of your points are based in the book of John. Personally, I believe relying on Luke and Matthew to establish the origin of Yeshua is a wiser choice than on John because those books speak plainly as to his conception and/or birth, whereas John speaks more figuratively.
If you can suspend your belief regarding the virgin birth and attempt to read through Luke all by itself or through Matthew all by itself, I think you’ll find that everyone identifies with Yeshua as being a man born in the natural way. The same goes with the book of Acts.
So, if you maintain that position while reading the book of John, I think you might be able to see his writings in a different light.
They were certainly on the defensive, and I contend that they went on the offense in their defense. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. But it’s not a major point, as I implied. However, I think it may be advantageous to investigate if there were some word used during the first century to denote a step-father over against a biological father.
Of course Yeshua is human. I’d never deny that. But, I contend that He is not merely human.
If Matthew and Luke speak plainly about the birth of Jesus, then why do you and I hold such different views? I’ve illustrated above that your assertion in your initial comment here regarding the grammar is without basis, so, as I also stated, we’re left with the context. I think the context is pretty clear in Matthew 1, e.g., that Mary was ‘with child’ during her betrothal and that Joseph’s wish to divorce (the best meaning of the term in its context) her implies that he thought she had union with another man. It seems to me that rather than this text being clear [though it is to me], we have diametrically opposed views. I could start citing this or that to back up my position, but I don’t think it would be of benefit here.
After having spent years studying the Gospel of John, I’m of the firm opinion that the standard Christian view is correct regarding Messiah’s divine/human origin. The preexistent divine Word ‘became flesh’ resulting in the Person of Messiah Yeshua. In my writings on my blog I’ve engaged with other views, and I don’t think they hold up under scrutiny both grammatically and contextually.
Part of the reason that I think we hold such different views is because of the traditions of men that we have inherited. I chose to scrap the traditions a while ago and dissect the verses in both Matthew 1 and Luke 1 to get to the bottom of what those authors were attempting to convey. And then sought to understand them through the paradigm of what I understood the Tanakh was saying keeping in mind the immediate context within which they were stated.
You may or may not realize this, but church tradition has filled in the blanks for us, and it is very difficult to see it any other way than that which has been laid out for us. But it is possible.
I’ve only been part of the “church” (non-denominational) for about 18 years. I didn’t grow up with it. I recall clearly reading a Trinitarian formula on a local church bulletin and thinking, “What?! Surely, there is only one God!” This led me down a path of researching Christology, which led me to a study of the NT Greek. I wanted to know, to the best of my ability, what the text said. So, it’s not that I’ve been indoctrinated over the period of nearly my whole life (I’m 57).
I like to sometimes read works of different and even opposing opinions. Sometimes I’ve been persuaded away from a view I’d currently held, other times not. I’ve even read occult material (for apologetics purposes), some of which I thought was quite clever in the way it perverted Judeo-Christian truths. This sort of thing, I feel, has helped me in my studies. I’m a skeptic by nature–hopefully, a ‘healthy’ one.
Carrie, For what it is worth as I am a relative neophyte, my understanding of TR is that it is considered amongst the weakest sources for accuracy by today’s experts. Also to be considered I think is that Matthew and Luke) are considered derivatives of Mark which was written earlier so if the same story is presented in Mark and either of Matthew or Luke, Mark is considered more reliable, not ABSOLUTELY reliable because, there are no original texts extant and consequently ALL variance texts need to be considered with a healthy degree of scepticism.
I believe the point you are making is that the grammar in Matthew is insisting only that Mary, “was espoused to Joseph” before she had sex, and not that Mary, “got pregnant” before she had sex. But even if this is correct I don’t see what difference it makes when all is considered.
1. It still does not preclude that she also became pregnant before she had sex, nor does it insist that Joseph was the father, only that they were engaged before, and at some unknown point in the future, they had sex. Verse 25 confirms this, “and [Joseph] did not know her till she brought forth her son – the first-born, and he called his name Jesus.”
2. She was still found to be pregnant by “holy spirit”. Whoever or whatever a holy spirit is, he or it seems pointedly distinct from Joseph.
3. As a secondary and much more debatable point, according to some Hebrew Matthew accounts, this particular Joseph of verse 16 is the father and not the husband of Mary. So that would bring into question the genealogy aspect of your claim that, “the author is very clear that Joseph was the physical father of her child.” Luke’s genealogy confirms that Joseph (this time the husband) was not the genetic but only the legal father of Jesus.
The scenario surrounding Joseph in Matthew 1 is taking place after Mary conceived. So naturally, if Mary was espoused to Joseph before they came together, then they obviously came together in order for her to conceive.
The fact that it says “she was found with child of holy spirit” does not mean an entity known as “the holy spirit” got her pregnant in lieu of being known by a man. There is no evidence of anything like that ever happening throughout the entire Bible, so to assume that’s what that statement means is a major deviation from the norm, and one would have expected the author to elaborate on that point if that truly was the meaning behind that statement. But he doesn’t. Neither does anyone ever refer to that notion anywhere in the New Testament.
The natural order is that a man knows a woman (sows his seed in her) and with the help of YHVH she conceives (takes hold together with one). YHVH God forms the flesh from the seed of the man in the woman’s womb, gives him his spirit and the breath of life, and the woman brings forth in due season.
Sons and daughters of men are flesh beings, begotten of the seed of a man, and to each is given a spirit from YHVH God.
“Thus saith the Lord God, who made the heaven, and established it; who settled the earth, and the things in it, and gives breath to the people on it, and spirit to them that tread on it:” (Isaiah 42:5 Brenton)
“…before the dust also return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return to God who gave it.” (Ecclesiastes 12:7 Brenton)
The author of Hebrews recognizes that we have fathers of our flesh, and then there’s the Father of our spirits:
“Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Hebrews 12:9 KJV)
Also, Numbers 16:22 and 27:16 identifies YHVH as being the “God of the spirits of all flesh”.
When the author of Matthew says she was found with child of holy spirit, I believe he is simply saying the child she is carrying is set-apart, the child is of/out of/from *holy* spirit, as opposed to being of/out of/from common spirit; he’s the one to be identified as the “Christ/Messiah”. That’s what the first 17 verses lay out: the origin (genesis) of Jesus/Yeshua **the Christ/Messiah**, son of David, son of Abraham.
The author starts verse 18 by saying “The birth of Jesus/Yeshua *Christ/Messiah* was thus:” and then proceeds to speak of an event that is *not* *the physical birth* of Jesus/Yeshua. This author *doesn’t ever* give any detail surrounding Jesus’/Yeshua’s physical birth except to say that it happened in Bethlehem in Matthew 2:1. So what is he talking about when he refers to “the birth” in verse 18?
I think the first 17 verses lays out the *flesh* origin of Jesus, who is called Christ, and the latter part of the chapter speaks of his *spirit*.
Consider Jeremiah 1:5. Jeremiah was “sanctified” (H6942) before he came out of the womb, to be a prophet. It seems to me that the author of Matthew is indicating that this child Mary was holding in her womb was simply sanctified.
And Joseph, her husband, knowing this and being righteous and unwilling to make a show/example of her, given the political climate in that day (see Matthew 2), minded to send her away quietly/secretly. But while he thought on those things, a messenger appeared to him in a dream telling him to not be afraid, for that which in her was begotten of holy spirit, and she is to bring forth a son and he is to name him “Jesus/Yeshua” for he shall save his people from their sins.
Carrie, don’t let the “seemingly” opposition to your stance and what you’ve discovered drive you away. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. I’m not saying you are wrong or right, but let’s talk it out. The original prophecy had to do with king Ahaz and Gods promise of deliverance in regards to Syria and Israel. (Isaiah 7) The question is, what does that have to do with the Messiah and what does it mean? Two is better than one… sites like this allow us to work out these things together. Stick around and bless us with your presence. Looking forward to future discussions.
Thank you, Robert. I sincerely appreciate the open and respectful dialogue.
Regarding the author of Matthew’s reference back to the words of the prophet Isaiah in Matthew 1…
I believe he was saying that what was transpiring in Joseph’s day was *filling up* or *making full* the words of the prophet. I don’t think he was suggesting the words spoken in Isaiah were necessarily alluding to the Messiah to come in Joseph’s day.
It seems to me that the author was seeing (and making) a connection between the two scenarios.
This connection I believe, related to (1) a king being seated on the throne of David and a fear of what other men might do to him, (2) a virgin conceiving (naturally) and bringing forth a son and, (3) how this sign of a son being born was a demonstration that God was with the house of David, in particular.
The author of Matthew lays out the genealogy in three distinct segments and points out the title of “King” for David, and “Christ” for Yeshua, using the Babylonian removal as a pivot point, which I think most would recognize that removal meant an end to the Davidic dynasty. But there remained a promise for a righteous branch of David to be raised up in the future to be king over the whole house of Israel.
The author also identifies four mothers in the genealogy: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba, only he identifies the last as being one who belonged to another man, which I believe is to draw our attention to the fact that all four of these women were known by other men before being known by the men to whom they bore sons. And then he identifies Mary as the mother of Yeshua, saying she was espoused to Joseph before their coming together, which I can see this being an allusion to her having not known another man prior to Joseph.
Ultimately, in addition to these points, I think the fact that the Messiah was to be named “YHVH is salvation” because he would render salvation to Israel, was seen by Matthew to be a signal to the house of David that God was with them even then.