|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 20:46:41 GMT -8
12/05:
Question: Is Matthew the one that some people say might be trying to "force" Jesus to fulfill the prophecies?? And he is the historian, right?? The following part of the chapter seems weird to me: " 19After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead. 21So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
So was the angel of the Lord wrong or did Jospeh disobey?? Does it seem weird to anyone else the Joseph would have a dream stating one thing and then have a dream about another?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:13:11 GMT -8
12/05:
Some answers: A. Matthew is often seen by some as "force-fitting" Old Testament passages into prophecies about Christ. More on this later- I, having been bugged by this at one point was pleased to find some quite satisfying answers to this apparent dilemma
B. It is usually Luke who is looked to as the most 'historical' of the Gospel writers
C. In answer to the question about the dream/ angel, two points: we have two visions/ angelic appearances. The first states that Herod the Great is dead (which is true), so Joseph and fam return. But Archaeleus, his equally evil son is reigning in Judea (the part of Israel around Jerusalem/ Bethlehem), so Joseph doubts. Then he has another vision telling him to lie low in Galilee. The important thing to note here is that Galilee is IN ISRAEL, so Joseph is still fulfilling the message of the first dream. Herod the Great had ruled over ALL ISRAEL, so there was no safe place in Israel to go to (thus, Egypt). But when Archelaus ruled, he only ruled over JUDEA (one part of Israel). Archelaus was just as bad as his father, but his brother Herod Antipas, who was given rule over GALILEE wasn't feared, so it made sense to return to Nazareth in Galilee (This transference of jurisdiction is all undisputed history, BTW)
Most likely, Joseph had intended on moving his family to Bethlehem and raising Jesus there away from gossiping townspeople (the whole virgin birth thing), but the political circumstances forced them to return to their hometown after this little Egyptian interlude. Matthew either doesn't know or doesn't bother to say that they originally came from Nazareth in Galillee in the first place, which Luke makes clear.
Comparing the birth/youth accounts in Luke and Matthew can seem daunting, but they can be harmonized. It is a bit curious why they include very different peices of the puzzle without a whole lot of overlap, but, they indeed are not demonstrably contradictory.
If you'd like I could write out a chronological harmonization of birth/youth events in the life of Christ. Let me know.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 21:14:25 GMT -8
12/05:
C. Oh, yeah...duh, Michelle. No need to do the chronological harmonization unless you are just dying to do it or just want to have it on hand for a reference. Maybe if we ever do a study of the gospels it would be helpful, but I'm fine for now. Thanks!!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:15:30 GMT -8
12/05:
An amendement: I stated "Most likely, Joseph had intended on moving his family to Bethlehem and raising Jesus there away from gossiping townspeople"
However, this can't be easily reconciled with Luke 2:39, which seems to pretty clearly indicate that Mary and Joseph returned quite promptly to Nazareth after the birth. How is it then that Jesus was in Bethlehem at roughly 2 years old for the Magi to meet him there? Well, I think Luke 2:41 helps explain how. It says that Mary and Joseph went up every year from Galilee to Jerusalem for the Passover. Bethlehem being near Jerusalem, and being Joseph's ancestral home, it would have been a natural place for them to stay during the overcrowded Jewish holiday. So, it's actually more likely that the Magi found them in Bethlehem while they were visiting for the passover, when Jesus was about 2.
So, the timeline goes something like this:
Jesus born in Bethlehem (shepherd story) 8-6 BC? Mary, Joseph, and Jesus travel back to Nazareth after a couple weeks They come to Jerusalem two years later for passover 6-4 BC? The Magi find them and worship Jesus Herod finds out and kills the babies in Bethlehem (which, being a small town, wouldn't be very many) Joseph leads his family to Egypt Herod Dies, and then return to Nazareth 4 BC (certain date)
So, in answer to the related question of how long they were in Egypt: We are told by Josephus that Herod died in 4 BC just before a passover, so unless this was that very passover that Mary and Joseph had gone to Jerusalem for (meaning they had to flee before the actual day of Passover) they would have been in Egypt anywhere from perhaps only a month (enough time to hear the news that he had died shortly after they fled) or it was about 1 year later or 2 years at the most.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:16:09 GMT -8
12/05:
Matthew's use of Old Testament passages as prophecies of Christ seems strained at times- Matthew 2 is a perfect example of several of these instances: the whole Nazarene thing, the whole Rachel crying for her children, the quoting of Hosea 11:1 "Out of Egypt have I called my son". If you look up these passages in the OT, you will find that their immediate and obvious context appears to have nothing to do with the Messiah. (That said, he does often quote from OT prophecies that do seem obviously Messianic as well, such as his quoting of Micah 5:2 in Matthew 2:6). This bothered me until I read a book called Search for the Messiah- all about the Jewish expectations of what/ who the Messiah would be just before and during the life of Christ. And what I found was that Matthew isn't just making this stuff up. Whether the interpreations seem a stretch or not, Jews were already, before the life of Christ, applying just these same OT passages to the Messiah- saying that they had 'double meanings'. So, Matthew is just saying, "Look, rumors have been going around for years that the Messiah will fulfill a double meaning of these passages (XYZ). Check this out! These things actually happened in Jesus' life!" It would be fishy if there wasn't already a precedent for these kinds of expectations- if indeed Matthew made up messianic expectations to fulfill. But it was just the other way around: they were already expectations and he was showing how even these less clear ones were fulfilled in Christ.
That being said, I do sometimes think that Matthew is less interested in what we might call a 'historical account' than, say, Luke. His accounts are very thematic and message-driven. Nevertheless, there is a solid historical nature to his writings.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 21:17:24 GMT -8
12/05:
Thanks, the whole Jewish context really sheds light on his writing especially since it was directed mostly towards Jews. I find that I am fascinated by the gospels, probably more so than the rest of the NT. I'm excited to get through the OT on CD to get a better understanding of the Messianic prophecies. At some point (and perhaps you've done this as a group alread) I think it would be nice to go through a study of those prophecies and how Jesus fulfilled them.
Thanks for your great teaching and knowledge!!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:18:43 GMT -8
12/05:
We will in depth before long I believe, and usually at Christmas and Easter we do this to some degree as well. It's been a tradition in the group for several years.
In regard to your first post, great questions, by the way. I'm glad to see someone else asks them too. Are you reading/studying stuff in addition to just reading plain text? Those are the questions that get generated through study, not just casual reading.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 21:20:24 GMT -8
12/05:
No, just reading the text. Some of it comes from remembering back to the little "skit" we did and what we talked about then. Although, I am going to do some outside studying. I did a search today because I was looking for some historical context for Matthew and I think I found something great. If it's a treasure I will be sure to share it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:22:09 GMT -8
12/05:
The Magi (wise men from the East) would have been Persian Zoroastrians/ astrologers. Zoroastrianism has a lot of similarities and relationships with Judaism and is considered by some (including me) to be one of those belief systems which (at least in its origins) demonstrates an encounter with God outside the Jewish frame of reference (similar to some of the tribal beliefs we discussed when studying Eternity in their Hearts).
|
|