Difference between revisions of "Talk:Matt 1:1-2:23"

Latest revision as of 14:46, 13 February 2014

Verse 1:6: Guiltlessness[edit]

How is it that Matthew seems to have found her guiltless? (and the same with Rahab?) --Seanmcox 19:07, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I think Robert's x-ref's probably help with Rahab in general. My point is that there are five women in the list (none of whom "need" to be mentioned at all in a genealogy), and that all of them--this is as clear as can be--have some sort of sexual stigma about them. For three--perhaps four--it is clear that the sexual stigma is a common public misreading (this is for the four besides Bath-sheba). The implication--and it is only an implication I am trying to draw out here--is that the same is true of Bath-sheba, that somehow she is also misread in terms of her sexual stigma. In other words, she might have been guiltless. The genealogy suggests one go back and re-read the story carefully (this does not suggest that David was innocent, since Judah does not seem to be let off the hook at all). I hope that helps. --Joe Spencer 15:52, 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)

My original point was about the phrase "Matthew seemed to think her guiltless". It all seems a bit tenuous to me. There is nothing there that is either explicit or implicit, but rather interestingly anomalous, possibly.

Certainly the five women are interestingly anomalous. Perhaps (probably) they were foreordained to be mothers to the savior and thus, in order to fulfill their earthly missions, it became necessary to transgress the laws and they were then justified by the Lord for their necessary trnsgressions and perhaps that could be read into the James 2:25 reference, though I hardly see what being a harlot had to do with it, unless it was by continued harloting that the savior's line came to be (do we know anything about that?) but short of that, their presence in the genealogy could be explained otherwise (these 5 women were well known scriptural figures) and I see no evidence either internal or external to support the intentions of the author that are being suggested.

It is an interesting thought all the same and one thing that makes this bit of scripture apt for comment, I see, is that it ties all the women together in the genealogy. (perfect for commenting on the group) However, I think the idea needs some better explaining and I don't think there is any reason Matthew should be cited as suggesting something he did not really suggest, but if you want to read something into this genealogy, which I would not suggest, it could also be restated better. --Seanmcox 15:31, 23 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe, please take a look at my rewrite and make sure I didn't mess anything up. Thanks. --Matthew Faulconer 06:04, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I like the direction this commentary has gone. I think it is very well done now. I think that the discussion is thorough enough that it might merit some further discussion of how Bath-sheba might have been innocent. There is only the slightest hint of such a possibility in the OT text, but there may be reason to discuss it here. What do you think would be better? --Joe Spencer 16:05, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)

If this is the passage that suggests it, I think here makes sense. If someone disagrees or things get to far afield, we can always move things to a subpage (your favorite solution, I know Joe...). --RobertC 13:16, 26 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Robert, I think this is perhaps a good example of where a sub-page is a good idea: the point of the passage is not to think about Bath-sheba, but Jesus, and so to take up the issue on a sub-page seems to place the right emphasis on the subject. If someone wants to create one, or tell me how to do so, I'll get some work on the question started. --Joe Spencer 00:45, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I think a sub-page makes sense. You might choose to have a sub-page of your user page or you might choose a sub-page of this page (Matt 1:6-10). Neither seems quite right to me. I think the ideal place would be a section of the wiki devoted to special topics, since the topic is probably broader than just a discussion of what is found here in Matthew. However, we don't have a place designated as such. Given that, I am indifferent. In case you want to use a sub-page of Matt 1:6-10, I created this one. --Matthew Faulconer 02:57, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Bathsheba[edit]

Are you sure you want to crack that one open, Matthew? Actually, it is rather interesting to read the genealogy at the beginning of Matthew, because there are five women mentioned in Jesus' lineage, and each of them was involved with or accused of some sexual scandal: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. I read a post somewhere recently about how the five books of the Pentateuch had some connection to the structure of Matthew. Might there be some reason to read these five into the same structure? Why would Matthew impose a five-fold female structure on the 14-14-14 male structure of the genealogy? There is something curious at work there.

Moreover, it would be interesting to take up carefully the Bathsheba story. There is a great deal more at work there than a simple adultery. The political and covenantal overtones of the passage are incredible. Is this an invitation, then? --Joe Spencer 15:49, 2 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Have at it Joe, I always love to see what you come up with.--Rob Fergus 13:39, 3 Nov 2006 (UTC)

For me it is a question I am interested in knowing the answer to. So, absolutely, if you are interested in spending some time answering it I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. --Matthew Faulconer 15:36, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Verse 1:21: Yeshua = Jehovah saves[edit]

Eric, could you explain more your comment in the exegesis regarding verse 21? How is this an explicit connection to God? Is the idea that only God could save someone from sin? If so, I'm not sure if I agree. Aren't there cases in the old testament where a king saved the people from sin by tearing down their idols, making strict laws, etc? --Matthew Faulconer 06:21, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's more implicit than explicit. The way I understand the verse is that Mary and Joseph are supposed to call him Jesus, because he'll save the people from their sins. This suggests there is something significant about the name. But the name means "Jehovah saves." So on the one hand, this boy is supposed be someone who saves people, but it's also Jehovah that is saving people. To me there's at least a suggestion that this boy and Jehovah are one and the same. Does that make sense?