He was born – it was quite messy

In Matthew’s description of the birth of Jesus there’s a lot missing it would seem. Whereas parents might wish to add a lot more detail to the timeline, Matthew cuts to the chase and simply says “He was born” – I really feel that that’s a bit misogynistic. There’s no long period of labour, none of the pain, no mention of the the sheer delight in seeing the baby, the utter relief of Mum as she sees what has she has been carrying for such a long time, and the Father’s relief that both are well. Plus there’s the midwives’ story: of travelling so far with this couple and delivering the child in not your typical hygienic delivery suite. But then again it was quite messy.

Back Story

We have a bit of their back story, that Mary was to be married to Joseph. Marriage then was not as it might be considered today. There was no need for the minister to preside, just an agreement between the families. Marriage was a property exchange, and a way to determine the handing down of goods from Father to Son – maintaining the familial line. That concept that the woman was a chattel. Still, our perceptions might be confused here as we try to entwine the thoughts of today with the historical form. Mary is betrothed to Joseph, meaning that she is at the first stage of Jewish marriage. She is truly married to Joseph but not yet living with him, for she has not arrived at the second stage of marriage known as the “coming together,” when husband and wife typically would begin to live in the same house and consummate the marriage. At the previous link there is a lot more detail about the perpetual virginity of Mary. There’s something vague in this : it;’s quite messy.

Virgin?

Which brings us to the word virgin, introduced in the English version when previously in the Hebrew and Greek it would mean young girl. This emphasis has introduced a partiuclar slant, even difficulties for people to access. In the Hebrew Scriptures, Deuteronomy 22:22-27, it states quite clearly that “Remove such evil from your community!” In some of the circumstances, the man can pay a fine however…what? And it can’t be deemed adultery as Mary was neither married nor engaged (betrothed).

So if she was a virgin, was this immaculate conception, or was that Mary’s Mum, Anne?

The ‘Immaculate Conception’ is not the same as the ‘Virgin Birth’

Prophecy

So when Matthew speaks of virgin, where is he getting this from? As Matthew does so often he links back to the Hebrew Scriptures. In Isaiah 7:13-16 we hear of the problems of King Ahaz. There’s trouble a-brewing and the people of Israel are not following God – nothing new there. A sign is promised, that someone would be born who would eat curds and honey, and know the difference between good and evil. At this point the bad king Ahaz faced would be gone. I don’t read too much hear about Jesus… More about the perceived translation error with the word Virgin here. All wives to be (stage one, see above) were virgins but to say that she was expecting and a virgin is quite messy.

What about the Romans?

Was there any historical precedence for a god to play the part of the Father? Many a Roman emperor would suggest that, despite having a human father, they were born of the human mother and a god. Many would claim that they were the son of god. So why not Mary? Perhaps we might consider this as Emmanuel – God with us. Let’s not get het up with the mis-translation, but focus upon ‘God with us’.

Joseph

Joseph is between a rock and a hard place. If he does stay with her, he has broken the law. He treads a fine line, and doesn’t investigate whether she was in a field nor try to track down any other man. Brave, foolish, or just wonderfully loving? Marriage was a property exchange, and a way to determine the handing down of goods from Father to Son.

We have an angel on hand to inform Joseph in a dream of his choices. He was offered a choice : to continue with Mary despite all the damning comments from others, the scurrilous accusations, or exit stage left, and never to be seen again. Was Mary unfaithful to him? What might his status be like if he goes through with this? It also conjures top a picture of real love for one another – sticking with each other when all gets tough. This, for him, is also quite messy.

What does Matthew do?

Matthew, in this passage (Matthew 1:18-25), cites a combination of Isaiah 7:14, 8:8 and 8:10 to make his point. If this Gospel was ostensibly written for the Jews, then they would have appreciated the background links to their scripture. Recall that the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures were the ‘Gospel’ back then – Matthew’s Gospel didn’t come out in paperback until around 70+ AD. But as we have mentioned above, the context is very different, and we might be straining to find a causal link here. This author also agrees.

Naming of the child

Like all parents the naming of the child might be a fraught process. One name, two names, do we have a link to the past family, is it popular? : here they give the child a very common name, Jesus. This means “God Saves” albeit Jesus is the Latin translation of Joshua. For that understanding of marriage, it is Joseph who names the child, that father to son relationship. Joseph doesn’t have a great role to play afterwards, an according to the Bible. Not as a consequence of his actions, but odd.

So what are your thoughts?