Essay I
Nick Thomas
REL 317
David Reis
Part 1
Chapters one and two of the Gospel of Matthew are split up into three sections. The first section is the Genealogy. The writer of Matthew is unknown, but the author begins the first 16 verses with father and son connections and continues this pattern for 14 generations. The genealogy culminates with the birth of Jesus Christ. The author states in verse 16, “and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.” The word “Messiah” means, “Anointed one” or “chosen one” and is derived from the original Hebrew Bible. This was the first break in the pattern of father to son relations in the first 16 verses of Matthew. The second section of chapters one and two is the “conception of the Holy Spirit” found is verses 18-25. In this section of scripture, the Holy Spirit speaks to Joseph in a dream. The Holy Spirit tells him not to leave Mary, but to stay with her to fulfill prophesy found in Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14, “ Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” (Isa. 7:14) Joseph, after waking up from the dream, listened to the angel and decided to remain with Mary. The third section in chapters one and two is “the birth story”. In chapter two, Herod hears word from wise men that the “king of the Jews” has been born. Herod sends the wise men out to search for Jesus. The wise men find Jesus. However, in a dream an angel tells them that Herod wants to kill Jesus, so the wise men depart to their own city. Joseph received a message from an angel during a dream that told him to leave his home and flee to Egypt. After being in Egypt, Herod dies, and Joseph withdrew to a district of Galilee. They lived in the city of Nazareth.
Part 2
Dorothy Weaver, the author of Rewriting the Messianic Script: Matthew’s Account of the Birth of Jesus dives into gospel of Matthew. She begins to bring to light hidden ideas and opinions that are often missed when reading the first two chapters of the gospel of Matthew. Weaver begins to elaborate on the alteration that has taken place in Matthew, which is contrary to traditional messianic script. Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus is far different than the Jews were expecting and its literary significance is quite ironic when paying close attention to order and detail. Weaver expresses that the first two chapters of Matthew are split up into three sections. These sections are Chapters 1:1-25, which is the story of Joseph. The second section is Chapter 2:1-23 which is the story of Herod. Finally, the third section, Chapter 2:1-12 is the story of Magi. Weaver broke down the first two chapters into three sections to bring light to humorous and outlandish ideas that are often missed when reading the gospel of Matthew.
The first section that Weaver describes is the story of Joseph. The coming Messiah that was prophesied in the Hebrew bible was supposed to be an heir of David. Weaver begins to explain that Jesus was still found in alignment with King David, but through adoption by Joseph (Weaver, 377). In the first 16 verses, the gospel writer uses the repetition of father and son, father and son, until it reaches Joseph, who is then handed off so to speak to Mary, “of whom Jesus was born ”(Mt.1:16). Weaver talks about the significance of this and how the gospel writer ironically credits a woman rather than a man. The writer of Matthew really begins to rewrite the traditional messianic script in a way that doesn’t align with Jewish tradition.
The second section that Weaver talks about in her article is the story of King Herod. Weaver states that the author of Matthew “undermines” Herod’s kingship in verse 3 of chapter 2. The writer of Matthew uses the word “frightened” when hearing the one who is king of the Jews has been born. To say that the King is frightened of a baby takes the legitimacy away from his authority and power. Shortly after King Herod hears the news of the coming Messiah, he orders the Magi to go and find the child that has been born. When the Magi find Jesus, however, they worship him. The king is undermined again, when the Magi depart from Jesus and don’t return to the King to report to where Jesus is living. Weaver begins to express that the author wants to portray King Herod not so much as an authoritative king, but really a scared and powerless king.
The third section Weaver unveils is the story of the Magi. This section takes place in chapter 2 of Matthew, verses 1-12. This is when Weaver feels that the narrator is really beginning to voice their opinion of King Herod of Judea and the Jewish people (Weaver, 381). Weaver talks about the vocation of Jesus and the role in his ministry, which was to “bring salvation to God’s people Israel, the Jews” (Weaver, 381). Ironically, the one who is bringing salvation to his people goes unnoticed by the people of Jerusalem. Instead, “astrologers from the east” find the Jewish Messiah. This puts a very negative light on the Jewish people, as well as King Herod of Judea. Finally, Weaver concludes that the Jewish people who have finally received their King don’t go and worship Him like the Magi do. Instead, the Jewish people offer deadly threats and bloody murders to welcome their Messiah (Weaver, 382). Weaver capitalizes on the hidden opinions of the author of Matthew and how the traditional messianic script that the Jewish people were expecting was rewritten with a bias.
Warren Carter, the writer of Matthew and The Margins really begins to unwrap the text of the first two chapters of Matthew. Warren states that his thesis is that Jesus offers his disciples an alternative lifestyle that is contrary to the Roman Empire (Carter, 46). Carter unpacks the gospel of Matthew, and informs readers that the reason this gospel was written was to educate disciples on how to live a lifestyle that was glorifying to God. Carter talks about the ironies that the Gospel of Matthew reveals, which are contrary to the Roman beliefs at the time. Carter states three main assertions that the Gospel of Matthew claims. The first assertion states, “Synagogues are places of hypocrisy and violence. It places a weight on Jews that if they don’t follow Jesus their end is destruction “ (Carter, 5). The second assertion the gospel makes is that men were superior to women. More often than not, only men were disciples, and women were almost invisible (Carter, 5). Finally, the third assertion states, “The gospel resists and exposes the violent and oppressive ways of empires, which lord over people”(Carter, 5). The gospel writer presents a negative connotation towards the Roman government. The gospel writer refuses to present any positive attitudes toward the empire throughout the entirety of the gospel.
The second half of Warren Carter’s article is an in-depth analysis of Chapter Two and its similarities with the Hebrew bible. In the section “Elite Opposition and Magi Worship” Carter elaborates on the connection of Matthew 2:1-12 and the story of Moses leading the people out of slavery in the book of Exodus. When Pharaoh is attempting to attack Moses and his people, he resembles King Herod of Judea who attempted to attack Jesus. Both Herod and Pharaoh are resisting God’s purpose. Carter says that the story of Jesus and Moses is one that goes together. Carter’s argument is that the story of Jesus is the new exodus (Carter, 81-82). Later in the chapter, Carter summates his argument, which is the parallel between Jesus and Moses and Herod and Pharaoh. Carter gives four comparisons between these stories of the Old Testament and New Testament. The first comparison is the similar attacks on male children. This is found in Exodus chapter one, and in Matthew 2:16-18. Both Herod and Pharaoh make orders to have death brought upon male children. The second parallel is the conflicts with rulers. This is another connection between Pharaoh and Herod of Judea. Pharaoh’s conflict is in Exodus chapter two and Herod’s is found in Matthew 2:1-12. The third comparison is in alignment with the Hebrew bible and is between Jesus and Moses. God provides protection over both of them from the rulers of their time. This is found in Exodus 2:15 where Moses hides from Pharaoh at the well, and in Matthew 2:13-14, where Jesus, Mary, and Joseph flee to Egypt. Finally, Carter ends his article with the comparison of the misuse of power and the destruction it brings. Exodus 2:23 is much like Matthew 2:19, in that Pharaoh misused his power and God struck him down, much like the death of Herod. (Carter, 89) No reason or cause of death for Herod was revealed in the New Testament. However, Matthew may have mentioned the death of Herod in order to instill fear in people should they decide to live a contrary lifestyle to the one He (God) asks.
Part 3
Phillip Harland, the writer of “Emperor Worship,” and Helen Bond, the author of “Herod Family,” both go into the great detail about what it meant to be an emperor or ruler.
Helen Bond focuses on the life of Herod and what victories and challenges he faced while being Governor of Galilee and King of Judea (Bond, 802). Bond discusses the many seasons of insecurity that Herod faced. She also notes the seasons of his life filled with complete comfort and security (Bond, 805). Herod had many deaths in his family, multiple wives, many children and grandchildren, but was never able to satisfy his soul (Bond, 807). In the article “Herod Family,” Bond brought up an interesting point about the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Bond mentions that the gospel writer adds the story of “The Massacre of boys under two” which is in Matthew 2:16-18. However, Bond states, “Herod was certainly capable of such an act, particularly toward the end of his reign, yet it is curious that neither Josephus (whose record of this period, especially in the Jewish Antiquities, is particularly detailed) nor Luke (whose whole account is quite different) mentions this” (Bond, 807). Next, Bond brings up the ironic comparison between Jesus and Moses and Herod and Pharaoh. These comparisons are similar to those discussed in Warren Carter’s article. Bond brings about the idea of whether or not the writer of the gospel of Matthew is rewriting the Hebrew bible stories of Moses, with Jesus as the new Moses (Bond, 807). An example that Bond gives in the text is the stories of Moses outsmarting the patriarch family and Jesus outsmarting King Herod. Both Bond and Carter notice the negative connotation that the gospel writer puts on Herod, and the positive connotation that is put on Jesus.
Phillip Harland notes in his article that emperors were often referred to as gods. (Harland, 256) There were local shrines that expressed honor to the gods. This idea of giving “emperor worship” was largely practiced. Emperor Worship refers to emperors or specific members of the imperial family who would receive honor, which was directly connected to the gods or goddesses. However, on the contrary, Harland states that there is no reference to the worship of emperors in the New Testament. Harland begins to express three references to emperors found in the New Testament. The worship of emperors, however, is never mentioned. These references are Romans 13:1 (be subject to the Government), 1 Tim 2:1-2 (pray and give thanks to the emperors) and lastly, 1 Peter 2:17 (honor the emperor). However, no New Testament author ever mentions worshiping the emperor. Harland asks the question of to what degree we can assume that John’s view of imperial cults or Roman emperors resemble what other early Christian authors believed? (Harland, 257) This is a complex question, but the connection between John’s references to the Roman government in the book of Revelation is similar to the way the gospel writer of Matthew portrays King Herod. In the book of Revelation, John characterized the Roman Government as a seven-headed beast coming out of the sea. This beast was given all authority over everyone and everything. It can be assumed that John here is making a concrete statement to stay away from imperial cults (Harland, 257). In a similar way, Herod is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew as a murderer, seeking to kill all young children in and around the land of Bethlehem (Mt. 2:16). Both the gospel writer of Matthew and John, the author of Revelation, impose their biased opinions of the emperor, putting him in a negative light and bringing only glory and honor to Jesus followers.
Harland, Bond, Weaver, and Carter suggest the idea of a biased opinion in the writing of the gospel of Matthew. There seems to be an extremely negative connotation toward King Herod, and it plays a major role in the first two chapters of Matthew. When reading the gospel of Matthew with an un-analytical approach, a reader may never notice these hidden opinions and emotions toward the Roman government.
Part 4
After reading an in-depth analysis of the first two chapters of Matthew and learning about the political system of the time, I really gained a new perspective on the writer of Matthew. While reading the text as a child and not being exposed to the other side of the story, I would have thought that the author was biased one way or another. It became so apparent that the gospel writer didn’t like Herod of Judea. After reading Weaver’s article and Carter’s detailed analysis of the chapter, the author’s biased opinion became so obvious. I had no knowledge of the social political system of the first century, so I really gained a new perspective after reading Helen Bond’s article “Herod Family.”
Another thing that became so obvious to me was the comparison between King Herod and Pharaoh and Moses and Jesus. This was something that I had never noticed before. Herod and Pharaoh both had negative reputations. They both wanted to kill little children, wanted to kill God’s people, and misused the power that they were given. The comparison between Jesus and Moses is quite similar. Both of these men had to hide from the emperor or king of their time, had the calling to save peoples’ lives, and were in right favor of God. This was a great paper for me because it highly enhanced my knowledge and understanding of these crucial chapters of Matthew.
Bibliography
Gospel Passage: Mt 1:1-2:23
Harland, Phillip A. “Emperor Worship.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 255-257. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
Bond, Helen K. “Herod, Family.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 801-812. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. (section C)
Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000. (pp. 1-7, 36-49, 73-89)
Weaver, Dorothy. “Rewriting the Messianic Script: Matthew’s Account of the Birth of Jesus.” Interpretation 54 (2000): 376-385.
Essay II
Daniel Tudorache
Rel 317
2/32/15
Divine Birth
There are not many people born into the world that reset the calendar back to zero, well except one. Jesus Christ. Understanding his birth story fully can be a complex process although understanding Hebraic language can be a start. Hebraic language does not always have a literal meaning, rather a metaphorical diction. The Hebrew people didn’t pair the meaning of the actual words said to the overall idea of the parable or metaphor. They also use a great amount of parallelism to further prove an idea or symbolic meaning of an event, item or person. Matthews’s account of Jesus is not all that meets the eye. The beginning of the passage starts with the genealogy of Jesus Christ. When I was little I always skipped past the genealogies because I thought they were pointless. Although within the bible it’s a common theme to put the most important aspect of the passage first (the meaning is in the middle I know). Genealogies within the Jewish community were very important. It was what gave your family name credentials by tracing it back to the “purity” of the first Jewish people. Matthew in the first verse writes “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son Abraham” (Mt 1:1). Right off the bat we can notice an irregular statement. First and foremost we can notice the phrases “Son of David” and “Son of Abraham”. Jesus was not the son of David or Abraham, although the break in the geology and events wasn’t for nothing. The break in events could symbolize how God is attempting to work through different people and supports his “mysterious” ways. There is in fact a multitude of generation’s in-between the two. Matthew is attempting to possible connect to the Jewish people through cultural and historical accounts. Using Genealogies as a format in the bible has only been done twice before in the Old Testament. Gen 2:1 which is the creation story and Gen 5:1 which is the account of Adam’s family linage. Jesus’s genealogy seems to be the missing puzzle piece. Matthew is attempting to finish the prophecy that was promised to Abraham. Gen 22:1 “and through your offspring, all nations on the earth will be blessed”. Matthew is attempting to suggest that Jesus birth line is “pure” in compliance to Hebrew family traditions. When he writes “Son of David”; he attempts to express that the “anointed” one has finally arrived. Matthew is trying to parallel Jesus to David, who was also a King except not in the same sense of “Kingship” as traditionally viewed by the Hebrew people. Past Hebrew leaders much like David and Abraham, were military leaders and gained respect through military victories and following the word of God. Matthew sets Jesus apparat from David further on in the genealogy. Men were very important within the Jewish community in the sense of preserving your family name. Women were never mentioned within a genealogical structure. There are five “gentile” women mentioned; Ruth, Tamar, Uriah and Rahab. All five of these women had been with a man prior to their current one and were of course gentile. Within a society of deeply implemented traditions this must have come as a surprise to some people. What Matthew was attempting to write to his audience, is that Jesus isn’t a military King and he is not only there to save the Jews but bring salvation to all the people of the earth regardless of if they had an “immoral” past or weren’t accepted by society. Matthew then continues on into the nativity story of Jesus. Marriage was a very sacred ritual to the Hebrew people. Any form of adultery would be seen as “blasphemy” or “unclean”. Mary having claimed to have been with no other man was now pregnant through the Holy Spirit. The fact that Jesus wasn’t conceived by a man is metaphorical in the sense of breaking the genealogy line for the purpose of fulfilling Gods promise to Abraham. The Jewish community back then would stone anyone who broke the law of the land. Joseph (fearing Mary would get stoned) decided that he was going to divorce her quietly, for he could not stand the idea that she betrayed him. “Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly” (Mt 1:18). Another aspect contributing to Josephs decision could be that marriage was culturally binding in the time rather than what we have today. Before Joseph could leave Mary, the Holy Spirit came to him in a dream and told him “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit”. I believe Matthew is trying to make a connection with the angel that visited and angels from the Old Testament to further connect with his audience. I believe the angel is a representation of a fundamental messenger from the past for God. Then God speaks to Joseph and says “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (Mt 1:23). Now after Joseph speaks to God, he is given two things by God which was invaluable within the Jewish socio-religious system. One was a Son (Jesus) and two the opportunity to raise the Messiah. Joseph did what the lord had commanded yet did not consummate with Mary until the birth of Jesus. Matthew continues on to the visit of the Magi. Popular to contrary belief the Magi actually didn’t come to Jesus at the night of his birth but a few months after. We can decipher this by looking at the phrases “They came…they asked” implying that Jesus was actually born before they got there. This was in the time of King Herod according to both Matthew and Luke yet the Magi weren’t from Bethlehem but from Parthian to the East (modern day Iraq). The fact that they came all the way from the east is an indicator that the prophecy has almost begun. The Magi were also known to have the power to “crown” Kings so that can also be seen by Matthew as a parallel to the soon to come “King of the Jews”. After the Magi speak to Herod they secretly find the star and move towards it eventually reaching Jesus himself. When the Magi get there the first thing they do is “bow down and worship him” (Mt 2:11). Matthew was attempting to make a very clear point that the new age has arrived. The Magi, who have power to crown kings, are now bowing down to “worship” Jesus. It was the main intention of their voyage. The use of the word worship entitles Jesus to his divinity and connection to God. This idea of a supernatural intervention (The Star) is the overall theme of the fulfillment of the prophecy. Without the help of the light in the sky (God) then the Magi would have went back to Herod and fallen into his trap. Instead they took another route home by yet another source of divine intervention through a dream. “And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route” (Mt 2:9) Next Matthew writes that the Magi “their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh” (Mt 2:9). Matthew is potentially making yet another Old Testament connection with the gifts given to Jesus. Gold in the Old Testament was used for the temples. That was because it was in their eyes the correct metal to keep in a room with God. Incense was in relation to Jewish ritual. During Jewish rituals they would sprinkle these incense on animals for sacrifices for a more divine connection. Lastly they gave Jesus Myrrh, a certain resin found in trees in the Middle East used for perfume, medicine and incense. I believe that Matthew is attempted to give us a rough timeline of Jesus’s life with the representation of the gifts. The gold symbolizes The Temple and the birth of Jesus. The incense symbolizes his divinity. The Myrrh symbolizes his suffering to come. Each gift has a specific role to play in the Jewish culture, which is why I believe that Matthew used these gifts to really drive in the point that the Messiah has finally arrived. Lastly I would like to state that the actual identity of the Magi is unknown and they could have possible been just a part of a clergy or upper class. Dreams have been an apparent theme in Matthews’s account of Jesus’s birth and continue throughout the rest of the book. God came yet again to Joseph in a dream yet this time warned him to leave for Egypt because Herod wanted to kill Jesus. Joseph being very obedient to the lord’s word took off for Egypt. (Mt 2:13) “Take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” Once Herod figured out the little game the Magi played on him, he was angry and started killing little boys in Bethlehem, but the family of the Messiah escaped. I believe that Matthew is as I said before making an Old Testament connection to Moses in retrospect to Moses survival of the babies being thrown into the Nile. Matthew is trying to prove that there is in fact a sense of divinity in the line of David and Jesus and that their linage had a greater meaning than anyone knew. After Herod died Joseph, Mary and Jesus returned to Bethlehem. “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.” (Mt 2:20). This is the final stage of the nativity story. The return back to Bethlehem is the final stage in the process. The notion I believe Matthew is attempting to get across is that God will keep his promise even when the odds are slim. Throughout the passage the Lord had been with them the whole time. God had been watching over Joseph for the trials in his path and redirected him in his dreams when he was wrong. Matthew was really trying to connect with the Jewish people by using a great number of parallels to the Old Testament to potentially better connect with the people and spread the word of God.
Sources:
- Harland Phillip A. “Emperor Worship” Vol. 2 edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfield 255-257, Abingdon Press, 2007.
- Bond, Helen K. “Herod Family” Vol. 2 edited by Katherine Doob, Abingdon Press
- Levine, Amy-Jill and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Annotated New Testament, Oxford University 2011
- White, L Michael. “Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite” HarperOne, 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay III
Lucas Kuchta
Part one
An account of the genealogy of Jesus, he is linked back to the son of David and Abraham. Through three sets of fourteen generations he is called the Messiah, and what follows is his birth story. Mary the wife of Joseph became pregnant before they had slept together, with a child of the Holy Spirit. Joseph sees a vision to stay with Mary, despite her becoming pregnant before they had lain together. King Herod is visited by three wise men, and they inquire where the newborn king is. This made King Herod frightened, and he sent the wise men to go find this child that was threatening his power. The wise men find the child with his mother Mary and offer him gifts. Once the wise men left, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to flee with the child and his mother to Egypt. The angel also told him to wait until told otherwise, for Herod is going to search for the child and destroy him. Joseph took the child and Mary by night and remained in Egypt till the death of Herod. In a rage King Herod sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem, all less than two years of age. When Herod died, a dream appeared to Joseph in Egypt, instructing him to take the child and mother to the land of Israel. Joseph took them to Israel, but when he heard that Archelaus was ruling in place of his father it scared him. Joseph then traveled to Galilee; he made his home in Nazareth so what the prophets had said could be fulfilled.
Part two
In Warren Carter’s reading, Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading, Carter interprets the gospel of Matthew as a work of resistance. Carter believes this gospel was written for a large Jewish religious group. He sees this gospel boldly standing up against the cultural structures in place and speaking out against the Roman imperial power. An argument that Carter brings up is how the gospel addresses the disciples who lived in the time after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. In his argument he talks about how the fall of Jerusalem was interpreted as God’s punishment for people being mislead into the rejection of Jesus. Carter explains in a couple different ways, how the gospel of Matthew can be seen as a resistance against the imperial power and cultural structures. These factors set up how the gospel was carefully written to appear legitimate and actually shape the resistant and alternative lifestyle of a community of disciples of Jesus. Other factors included how the gospel’s audience was living in a tough time of Antioch, and that the audience was resisting the values and commitments of the Roman Empire. With the audience already in tension with other members of Jewish community, Carter shows that this audience was already ready to push back against the oppression they have been receiving. The gospel asks the audience to go along and agree with some pretty controversial items then, and still now. Carter brings up how all synagogues are to be regarded as places of violence and hypocrisy. Along with this, Jewish leaders are then tied into being viewed as murders and hypocrites. Carter talks about how the gospel rejects patriarchy, but it is seen frequently that God is being called father and the world could be seen as the Father God being a divine patriarch. It seems that the gospel itself is actually doing the things that actually contradict its very own teachings. The Imperial Empire and gospel both have ways of making people do what they want; the Divine Empire is basically just an alternative to the power of Rome. This is where Carter makes his connection to the gospel as an act of resistance. Common themes addressed by Carter include good vs. evil, rebellion, and the contrast between King Herod and Jesus. The gospel’s audience has been pushed to the brink, and conveniently there is another power to look up to and worship. The oppression mentioned earlier was mostly made of the constant Roman presence. Though some of the Jews welcomed this presence, these Jews were mostly composed of the elite class. Those who recognized that Jews have lost their liberty to Rome, offered forms of resistance through diplomatic terms and nonviolent protests. Matthew writes after the war, he saw the fall of Jerusalem as a punishment from God for various sins. Carter talks about how the gospel is full of warnings that include severe consequences to unfaithfulness. These warnings can be seen as acts of bullying followers into faithfulness. The gospel builds an alternate view that eventually Rome will succumb to God’s purposes. This is important for Carter to point out because the community of disciples in tension with this Roman presence is given hope from the gospel that one day God will establish an empire. God’s blessing is the new hope of a new and better way of life. God’s blessing is seen as disrupting the hierarchical and unjust status quo. Divine sovereignty, presence, agency, and societal well-being are all claims of the Roman power, and the gospel contests these claims. The gospel narrative contests Roman propaganda by depicting Rome’s empire as not ultimate. The gospel tells a story of a man who suffers the worst of the worst that the empire could possibly impose on him. This is talking about how Jesus is executed by crucifixion, but then is resurrected, showing limitations of Roman power. Jesus has come back from the dead, from a brutal execution, showing that good has battled and won over evil. When Jesus returns once again, the empire of God will be established and Jesus will have saved his people from their sins.
Carter describes the contrasts of two responses to God’s initiative. Here he talks about how the empire is pushing back as Herod and the chief priests respond negatively. Herod employs many tactics to disrupt the work of God. Herod’s actions solidify the oppressive barriers that Jesus is going to save everyone from. The second response is about how a division is created between the power and powerless. Herod is portrayed in a negative manner, but this is just consistent with all kings beings viewed negatively.
In the gospel, the birth of Jesus is met by responses of resistance, violence, and rejection, which are all common aspects of Roman Imperial power. Before Jesus is even born he is already facing the adversaries of Roman power. Carter talks about how Jesus’ resurrection anticipates his return to establish God’s empire over Rome.
Dorothy Jean Weaver
Weaver talks about how the narrative of Matthew portrays Jesus in a new way of several aspects of; identity, character, and vocation of the Messiah. In turn the gospel contests all notions of kingship, power, and social status. From the beginning Jesus’s genealogy closes with parallel references to the Messiah. Here Matthew redefines messianic terminology, in order to rewrite the messianic script. Weaver addresses the questions of messianic identity, messianic character, and messianic vocation. Through Jesus’s genealogy, Jesus’ connection to the line of David is broken. But the connection is restored back to the lineage of David when Joseph adopts Jesus. It is important here to recognize how the narrator clears and back up some of the glaring issues associated with Jesus’ genealogy. It is assured that Mary is a virgin who is carrying the Son of God. Although Jesus is the son of David, he is brought in on terms of adoption. This creates the identity of Jesus Messiah, son of David, the son of Abraham. Weaver talks about how the narrator uses the story of Herod to reassess original views of the messiah and then redefines the concepts of power. In the gospel it is shown how Herod is losing his power to the new coming child, who will become king of the Jews. Herod is written as scared and terrified from the news of the birth of the new king. How can a king be so powerful if he is terrified of a newborn child, this shows the balance of power tilting more towards the side of Jesus. Jesus the Messiah’s power is expressed through vulnerability, opposed to violence. Herod’s power is shown to be real weakness, while Jesus’s weakness is demonstrated to be real power. Through the story line of the magi, the narrator refutes traditional views of the vocation of the Messiah, redefining categories of outsider and insider. The vocation of Jesus is to bring salvation to the Jews. Weaver explains that once the narrator establishes the traditional viewpoint on messianic vocation, this is where the rewriting begins. The Jews do no accept Jesus; they seek out to get rid of him. While the outsiders recognize him as the Messiah and worship him. The narrator clears up the air, solidifies that Jesus is on a mission of saving that will extend beyond the borders of Judea. This is the new rewritten vocation of Jesus the Messiah. Matthew portrays Jesus as one whose identity, character, and vocation stand as a direct challenge to all notions of kingship, power, and social status.
Part three
The term, emperor worship or imperial cults refers to a range of phenomena that entails the emperors as recipients of honors traditionally directed from the gods or goddesses. Cults were not as uncommon as they are today. Most religions of this time period were more like cults than established religions. These cults were around to enforce good behavior from the people composed of them. This is how programs such as the Roman Empire could maintain good conduct from its people. The gospel of Matthew was viewed as a resistance against the Roman power. The author of Peter goes down a different road than the author of Matthew. Peter asks followers of Christ to “honor the emperor,” this is part of process of maintaining good conduct in the followers.
The reading of imperial worship and nature of cults sheds new light on a more unspoken topic on the gospels and Christianity in general. Cults were not uncommon back in the time period when the gospels were written. The cults were a kind of way for people to be controlled and monitored. More of a way to be kept in check, these rules in the cults had ways to maintain good conduct of its recipients. Matthew’s gospel has been seen as an act of resistance against Roman power and its social structures. Taking things back a couple of steps, the Gospel of Matthew was written in a post war time period. It was a time for change in political and religious aspects for the Jews. In the gospel of John, the Roman Empire is addressed as the evil empire for military and religious reasons. The audience of the gospel of Matthew faced a lot of opposition from the Roman imperial power/imperial cults. It is important to recognize the possible clash of the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar. Recognizing this, we can see now how Matthew could have been subverting imperial cults and Roman power.
Matthew’s gospel suggests that Jesus was born two years before the death of Herod. While Herod was in the final couple years of his life, Matthew adds the story of his massacre of boys under two in and around Bethlehem. This story is an important addition for the gospel because it portrays Jesus as a new Moses. Jesus, just like Joseph has outsmarted an evil ruler, the Pharaoh and Herod. Matthew creates a new Jesus parallel to Moses in highlighting how vulnerability is not a weakness, but the source of their power. Both the Pharaoh and Herod have immense power shown through violence, but this power is expressed as weakness when both Jesus and Moses prevail. This constant struggle of good versus evil is a common theme in the gospels. The different portrayal of Jesus in the book of Matthew stresses more importance of Jesus not using his powers like his enemies do. Though Jesus could perform miracles, he does not when he could easily save himself from being sacrificed. Once again we see Jesus gaining power through his vulnerability, then rising three days later after his execution. Once again we see good prevailing against powerful evil, through power originating from vulnerability.
In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Philip A. Harland sees possible bias in Paul and the author Matthew, as a result of the public perception of Romans. It’s argued at the time there was an opposition between Christianity and the roman imperial order likely leading to this bias. Because of these criticisms of Roman emperors and imperial cults should be looked at skeptically. The gospel of Matthew portrays king Herod as a vicious and violent ruler, but fails to take into account the failing mental state of the king. There is no doubt that king Herod was a harsh ruler to a certain extent, but Harland makes an important argument that the conflict of the roman empire and Christians should play a role in the interpretation of the book of Matthew.
Also in the new interpreter’s dictionary of the bible, Bond gives the detailed description of the king Herod from a historical, non-biblical perspective. In it there is evidence of arguments made by Harland. She states “Herod was undoubtedly a complex character with an insatiable lust for power, honor, and fame, and a need to be respected by his subjects. He was capable of acts of great generosity (three times he reduced taxes or donated famine relief), and, particularly in his declining years, great brutality.” This kind of historical evidence is what cannot be found in the gospel of Matthew, and raises inquiry of what other biases might play a role in the portrayal of Jesus.
Part four
This project has been a great opportunity to have a more educated understanding of the gospels. Diving into the gospel of Matthew and researching why he may have portrayed Jesus in a particular manner has changed my views of the gospel heavily. The gospels now are no longer just words that I memorized when I was younger; they are complex and puzzle like readings that could be studied endlessly. What I appreciate most about the gospels is how the more I read and learn about them, I realize all the things I still do not understand about them. There is no correct gospel, there is no answer, and this is what makes it very interesting to me. The ambiguity of the gospels has affected me much more than it has for me when I was younger. When I was younger I read the bible, pretended to understand what was being discussed and got my ticket to be married in a church a long time from now. Now when reading the gospels it creates a little bitch of an itch in my brain. Instead of just zoning out and going a long with what everyone else had said, I read the gospels now with more inquiry. My mind stops itself form going to the next sentence because a question pops up in my head, the itch must be satisfied. Having a second opportunity to explore and learn more about such an ever-lasting subject has been quite surprising. My younger self would have been in shock if I were taking a religious class in college. Being able to discuss and hear different opinions and theories of why the gospels have been written is much more rewarding than being told what to believe in. Personally for me it has been great for me to hear the other side of the story, instead of just being spoon fed material that isn’t backed up. There is much more to learn about the gospels, personally I feel like I have just barely skimmed the tip of the iceberg.
Bibliography
Gospel Passage: Mt 1:1-2:23
Harland, Phillip A. “Emperor Worship.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 255-257. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
Bond, Helen K. “Herod, Family.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 801-812. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. (sectionC)
Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000. (pp. 1-7, 36-49, 73-89)
Weaver, Dorothy. “Rewriting the Messianic Script: Matthew’s Account of the Birth of Jesus.” Interpretation 54 (2000): 376-385.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay IV
Alexa Biby
Religion 317
Jesus’ Birth
Part 1: Summary of Matthew 1:1-2:23
Matthew 1:1-2:23 is the genealogy of Jesus, the virgin birth, King Herod’s reaction to the news of the child Jesus, the flight to Egypt, and then Mary, Joseph, and Jesus settling in Galilee. In the very first verse, Jesus is referred to as Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, and the son of Abraham. Right of the back, the author connects Jesus to important figures in the Jewish tradition. This will later become important because of the audience the author was writing for, which was a largely Jewish audience. In the first line, Jesus was referred to as the Messiah, which means “anointed one.” In the Jewish Annotated New Testament the footnotes mention that the term Messiah is never used in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. After a long list of Jesus’ ancestry we learn that Jesus’ mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, but before they had lived together, she learned that she was with child from the Holy Spirit. Joseph, being a good man, was going to divorce her quietly until he was visited by an angel of the Lord who told Joseph who Mary was going to give birth to and the circumstances of that birth. Joseph took Mary as his wife and had no marital relations with her until she gave birth to Jesus.
After the birth of Jesus, the story shifts to King Herod and the wise men. The wise men from the east are regarded as Persian astrologers who came to Jerusalem asking about the birth of Jesus. King Herod heard of the wise men who were asking: “where is the child who has been born King of the Jews?” Herod was frightened after he heard this and called to see the wise men. He asked them to bring him word when they found him because he wanted to pay him his respects as well. When the wise men found the house where the child Jesus was, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The wise men were warned in a dream not to return to Herod, so they left to return home another way.
Next, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph again in a dream and told him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt and remain there until further word. They got up and left in the night and remained there until the death of Herod. Here, the footnotes refer to Jesus as a new Moses and that Egypt is a traditional place of refuge. Herod was angry that he had been tricked by the wise men. After receiving no word from them he had all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and younger killed. After the death of Herod, another angel appeared to Joseph and told him to take Mary and Jesus to the land of Israel. When Joseph heard that Archelaus, son of Herod, was ruling over Judea, he was afraid to go there so he took them to the district of Galilee and they settled in a town called Nazareth. The passage ends with “He will be called a Nazorean” (Mt 2:23).
In these passages, Jesus is referred to by many different names. In the beginning he is called Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham, Messiah, Emmanuel, which means “God is with us,” and Nazorean. He is called Messiah many times throughout the passages.
Part 2: Summary of Two Articles
The first article is Rewriting the Messianic Script: Matthew’s Account of the Birth of Jesus by Dorothy Jean Weaver. Weaver is a professor of the New Testament at the Eastern Mennonite Seminary. Weaver starts the article out by stating that the gospel of Matthew is a messianic narrative that the author has altered from the traditional messianic portrait. This reworking begins with the passage we are focusing on, 1:1-2:23. Weaver uses the storylines of three major characters found in the passage to address the questions of the messianic identity, messianic character, and messianic vocation.
The first character that Weaver addresses is Joseph. The Messiah is expected to come from the royal line of David, who is also from the line of Abraham. These are two prominent figures in the Jewish tradition. Abraham is the “father of the Jewish people” (Weaver, 377). In the gospel we learn that Joseph is not Jesus’ biological father, but his adopted father. After Joseph learns that Mary is with child before they were married, he still agrees to take her as his wife and takes Jesus as his own son. The traditional expectation is that the Messiah will come from the line of David, but here we see the author rewriting the messianic script and Jesus is adopted into the line of David. Jesus does not come into the line of David in ordinary terms like the others before him. The author also changes up the formula of the genealogy and breaks Jesus’ connection to the Davidic line at the end.
Another difference with the genealogy that the reader is surprised to find is the significance of women. There is a consistent patrilineal genealogy, until the author breaks it with the name of four mothers, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah (Weaver, 378). The author does not reference to Joseph’s fatherhood, but instead mentions Mary and her motherhood. The women hold the significance in this genealogy, especially Mary. Along with Mary’s significance, comes the idea of sexual scandal that Joseph was faced with. Mary was found to be with child before her and Joseph had lived together. This must have been a difficult situation for Joseph to make sense of. He was faced with a sexual scandal alongside an ethical dilemma on what to do. He originally decides to divorce Mary quietly, but after being visited by an angel of the Lord he marries Mary and takes Jesus as his own. Here we see the author reworking the messianic identity with having Jesus being born under sexual scandal and an ethical dilemma.
The next character that Weaver addresses is King Herod. In Mt 1:1-2:23, we see King Herod frightened by the news of Jesus’ birth. He has all the children two years old and younger killed to try to get rid of any possible threats to his throne. According to Weaver, the story of Herod rewrites the messianic script with regard to the character. The gospel of Matthew calls Jesus the Messiah, which is the “one who has been born king of the Jews” (Weaver, 379). With this in mind, the reader anticipates that Jesus, the Messiah, will come holding power, but the author presents Jesus as a child. Jesus being presented as a child does not give off much hope for power as anticipated. This redefines the character of Jesus. King Herod is seen as holding the power in the beginning of the gospel. He carries the powerful title of king and also uses his power which is seen when he has the children killed. It does not get more powerful than deciding who lives and who dies. Herod is ruthless when it comes to his power.
What is interesting about the King Herod that we see is Jesus, a child, puts fear into Herod. Herod is fearful when he learns about the birth of Jesus from the wise men. He is so fearful that he kills children over it. Where is the power in being fearful of a child? There is originally weakness and vulnerability with Jesus being presented as a child, but it turns into power when it strikes fear into Herod.
Lastly, Weaver addresses the story of the Magi and how the Magi redefine the vocation of the Messiah. The author of Matthew portrays the Jewish people, the insiders, as unaware of the Messiah that is coming, but the magi, the outsiders, are the ones who are aware of the birth of the Messiah. The magi are foreign astrologers from the east. They are outsiders to the faith and scriptural prophecies of the Jewish people, yet they are the ones who find Jesus. This places emphasis on the fact that Jesus’ saving mission reaches far past the Jews and the magi are an example of this. This changes the vocation of the messianic portrait to not only the King of the Jews, but a king for all.
The second article is Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading by Warren Carter. In the introduction, Carter starts off by saying that he read Matthew’s gospel as a counter narrative. The gospel was written for a largely Jewish religious group. The gospel goes against everything that the status quo of the Roman imperial power stands for. It resists the structure of the culture in many different ways that Carter later addresses. He argues that the gospel addresses disciples who live in the time after the defeat of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE. This destruction of Jerusalem has been interpreted by many as God’s punishment of the religious leaders for misleading the people into rejecting Jesus, God’s commissioned agent of Christ (Carter, 1). Carter also states where the gospel was written, in the city of Antioch in Syria. The author of the gospel of Matthew is unknown. We learn more about the audience in which the author is addressing. The gospel’s audience is in tension with other members of the city’s Jewish community. Also, the audience is meant to resist the values and the ways of the Roman Empire. The gospel reveals that the Roman Empire is doomed. (Carter, 4). The audience is supposed to reject the pressures of Rome and focus on Jesus. These are two different empires we see here, the empire of Rome and the empire of God. As readers, we have historical insight into what it would be like to live during the time the gospel was written. The historical insight gives us as readers a better grasp on the gospels. There was a heavy influence from Rome in Antioch at the time Matthew’s gospel was being written.
Carter continues to discuss the Roman imperial presence. This was difficult in Antioch where the gospel was being written because there was such a strong Roman presence. Matthean scholars do not recognize this because there is very little mentioned and the emperor receives only a brief reference in 22:15-22 (Carter, 36). Antioch plays an important role because it was the capital of the Roman province of Syria. It was a military and administrative center. It held four important functions: taxation, jurisdiction, supervision of local government, and internal order and defense (Carter, 37). Many of the buildings placed an emphasis on Roman control. Coins had an image of the emperor on them, which served as a reminder of Roman control and power. Antioch was a multi-religious city. The city had many temples that were dedicated to different gods (Carter, 47). In the gospel, Rome is seen as an agent of Satan (4:8). It is limited. One day the empire of Rome will fall to Gods Empire. This is the gospels view of the imperial presence. The gospel offers an alternative lifestyle for the audience that would be difficult to maintain. Next, Carter addresses Herod and his actions against God. He is a king who initiates terrible actions just to maintain the title of king. He demonstrates the oppressive structures from which Jesus is to save the world (Carter, 73).
Part 3: Analytical Response to The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible volume 2, the term “emperor worship” is discussed. Scholars use this term, or more often, “imperial cults” to refer to a variety of phenomena in the Roman world that involved the emperors or members of the imperial family. They received honors that were traditionally directed at gods or goddesses. These honors consisted primarily of sacrifice and related rituals. In section A, we learn about the four levels of these rituals or cultic honors for members of the imperial family. First, there was the official cult of the deceased emperors that centered in the city of Rome. A ceremony took place where the senate inducted the deceased emperor into the realm of the gods. In the west, the Latin speaking, they did not worship living emperors as much as the east, the Greek speaking, did. The east did not hesitate to treat living rulers as they were gods. Secondly, there were provincial imperial cults and temples organized by institutions that represented the civic communities of a given province. Thirdly, there were civic cults that were devoted to the “revered gods” or to an individual emperor. These maintained close connections with other institutions of the city and were often established from donations of prominent families. Fourthly, there were other local shrines and expressions of honor for the emperors as gods in more unofficial settings like a household (Harland, 256).
Section B discusses the Roman Empire, imperial cults, and early Christianity. Aside from John’s Revelation, there is no reference in the New Testament to worship emperors. What you do find in the New Testament are early Christian authors addressing what one’s stance on addressing the emperor or empress should be. Paul says “be subject to the governing authorities” (Rom 13:1). Along with that, the author of the Pastoral Epistles tells his recipients to offer prayer for all persons, including emperors, kings, and those in high position (1 Tim 2:1-2). The author of Peter says “honor the emperor and those in high positions” (1 Pet 2:17). None of these say to worship the emperor or peoples in high positions, but to show respect for them. John characterizes the Roman imperial power as a seven headed beast rising from the sea. This is a reference to Satan. Many scholars say that imperial cults more so than other Greco-Roman religious practices, were a primary source of conflict for early Christians. There was a clash between the “cult of Christ” and the “cult of Caesar” (Harland, 257). As we can see, imperial power was very present in the daily life of the audience for which Matthew was writing for. It would have been difficult for people to ignore all imperial power and presence because it was everywhere. There were constant reminders of Rome’s power all around.
In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible volume 2, the second term that we look at is “Herod, family.” As we see in Matthew 1:1-2:23, King Herod plays an important role in this passage. His character in the gospel helps shape the character of Jesus that Matthew portrays. Herod might be a ruthless, powerful king, but he shows fear for one character in the gospel and that is the child Jesus. He is not so mighty and all powerful here. In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible we learn more about the life of Herod and just how ruthless he was. Herod was born in the late 70s BCE. The first reference to Herod and his family is through his grandfather, Antipas. Next we see Herod’s father, Antipater, appoints his two oldest sons as governors. Phasael becomes governor over Jerusalem and Herod governor over Galilee. In 37 BCE Herod began his long reign as king of the Jews. Upon taking power, Herod executed forty-five of Jerusalem’s wealthiest aristocrats. Herod had a total of 10 wives, 15 children, 20 grandchildren. Herod even had his 3 eldest sons killed (Bond, 807). In the gospel of Matthew we see firsthand that Herod is not afraid to have people and even children killed if it means he gets to keep his title as king.
Part 4: My Appreciation for the Gospels in their First-Century Context
Thanks to not only this project, but this entire class as a whole, I now have a greater appreciation for the gospels. It has really made me look at the gospels in a new light. Before this class, I thought I was familiar with the gospels and had a grasp on them, but now I realize my understanding barely scratched the surface. I did not understand how complex each gospel was. This class has opened me up to read the gospels in a new, critical way. The gospels are more than just words on a page. There is meaning behind how the gospels are set up and the words used in them. Reading the gospels take work, a lot of it. One has to dig deep to fully understand them. I used to think that the New Testament was easy to understand compared to the Old Testament, but now I see that the New Testament is complex in its own way.
Not only do I have a greater appreciation for reading and interpreting the gospels, but also for the authors and the circumstances in which they wrote them. Before this class, I did not fully understand the first-century circumstances that the authors were writing in. This project has helped me learn about the social political system of the first-century. I learned that the conditions would have been difficult for the authors because there was such a large imperial presence, especially for Matthew who was writing in Antioch. I now have a greater appreciation for the gospels and the dedication it took to write them.
Bibliography
Levine, Amy, and Marc Z. Brettler. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.
Harland, Phillip A. “Emperor Worship.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 255-257. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
Bond, Helen K. “Herod, Family.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 801-812. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. (section C)
Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000. (pp. 1-7, 36-49, 73-89)
Weaver, Dorothy. “Rewriting the Messianic Script: Matthew’s Account of the Birth of Jesus.” Interpretation 54 (2000): 376-385.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay V
Landon Sherbourne
REL 317
Essay Review
Matthew’s Birth Narrative
Part 1:
Matthew starts his gospel with a genealogy, first by declaring “Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1). He has already made in explicitly clear that Jesus is Messiah and that the genealogy to follow will connect him to King David and then to Abraham the “father” of the Jewish people. In (vv. 1-17) the author then starts with Abraham and proceeds to write down the entire lineage to David and then to “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah” (v16). The author opens and ends the passage with the declaration that Jesus is Messiah. The next half of the chapter describes Jesus birth (vv. 18-25). Once again we see “Jesus the Messiah” in (v. 18). The passage then describes Mary’s Immaculate Conception, before Joseph can call off the wedding he is visited by an angle of the Lord who assures him that this is the work of the Holy Spirit and tells him that he must name the boy Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins (vv. 20, 21). Joseph obeys the commands and does not have marital relation with her until the child is born (vv. 24, 25). Chapter two gives an account of Herod, the Magi, and Joseph and Mary’s fleeing of Herod’s wrath. The magi, wise men, visit Herod to ask where is the child who has been born king of the Jews. This frightens Herod and after the magi find Jesus to offer gifts and worship, they travel home on a different road, after receiving instruction from God in a dream (v.12). Joseph and Mary then flee to Egypt, as Joseph had been instructed to do in a dream. For Herod sent and killed all the children two years and under in the region of Bethlehem (v.16). They remained in Egypt until Herod died and then they returned to Nazareth of Galilee, for they were afraid to return home for fear of Achelous, Herod’s predecessor. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the prophets, “He will be called a Nazorean” (v. 23).
Part 2. External source summary and analysis.
Dorothy Jean Weaver thesis in, Rewriting the Messianic Script, states “This study examines Matt 1:1-2:23 in order to identify the traditional messianic expectations to which Matthew responds and the new messianic script written by Matthew” (376). She then breaks the paper down into three sections, each focusing on the major characters (Joseph, Herod, and the magi). The first section addresses the questions of messianic identity (1:1-25: the story of Joseph), the second messianic character (2:1-23: the story of Herod), and the third messianic vocation (2:1-12: the story of the magi)” (376-377). Her thesis gives great insight to what will be discussed and very clearly states how he will going about answering this topic of Matthews rewriting of the traditional messianic script.
Section one; Messianic Identity: The Story of Joseph (1:1-25).
Weaver first breaks down the genealogy of Jesus that links him back to the lineage of David and Abraham. The language and structure of the text hold true to the traditional expectations. This would have the reader expecting that the genealogy would end with “Joseph the father of Jesus.” Instead we see the genealogy close with “Joseph is the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, the one who is called Messiah” (Weaver 377). Thirty nine previous connections have just been broken. Jesus is now not linked to the line of David by blood, but rather through later adoption. Furthermore this idea that Joseph is not the father of Jesus is reiterated and made clear to the audience in (v.18). Here we see the first major rewrite in the messianic script. The next deviation from script occurs with the insertion of four women (Tamar, v.3; Rahab, v.5; Ruth, v.5; the wife of Uriah, v.6) and Mary into the genealogy (Weaver 378). This breaks away from the original patrilineal genealogy and places the key significance on these five women, especially Mary. In addition, all of these women also have at least a hint of sexual scandal attached to their name or story. Mary was with child before marrying Joseph. The narrator smooth these discrepancies over when Joseph receives word from an angle of the Lord that the baby was “conceived by the Holy Spirit” (v.18-20), that Mary is still a “virgin” (v.23) and through the “adoption” of Jesus by Joseph to connect him to David. Yet Weaver explains how ultimately the messianic script has been effectively broken as Jesus is not the blood child of Joseph and is instead conceived by the Holy Spirit, which from a human perspective would have looked like a sexual scandal.
Section two; Messianic Character: The Story of Herod (2:1-23).
This section shows how the story of Herod rewrites the traditional messianic script with regards to character and redefines the idea of power and powerless. The one who has been born “king of the Jews” Jesus, stands in juxtaposition to “Herod the king.” In this passage Jesus is most often referred to as “the child” and does not really do anything, but be subject passive verbs or the effective object of the action of others. Whereas Herod is displaying great actions of power. He orders others into his presence (vv. 4, 7), sends them out to do his bidding (vv. 8-9, 16), and wields power over life and death (v.16) (Weaver 380). At the surface Jesus appears to be powerless and feeble. His life is in danger from almost the moment of his birth. His parents must then flee to Egypt to protect him from Herod. Yet through all of this the author is working to overturn the depiction of the powerless. We see signs of weakness in Herod. He is terrified by the news of the birth of a child (v.3), tricked by magi (v.16), and is ultimately prevent from killing Jesus by the power of God. The “powerless” child Jesus is now shown to have more “power” than Herod, as he has escaped death and made it safely to Nazareth. While Herod ends the story “powerless” as he is dead. The messianic script has continued to been rewritten as Jesus shows his power not through violence, but through vulnerability (Weaver 381).
Part 3: Messianic Vocation: The Story of Magi (2:1-12)
This section of the story of Jesus redefines the ideas of “outsider” and “insiders.” The Jewish people are astonishingly unaware of the Messiah and unreceptive of his identity and presence when they learn of him. Conversely we have the magi from the east, who would not have been knowledgeable in scriptural prophecies of the Jewish people, traveling a great distance by following a star to worship the “the king of the Jews.” The collective response of the Jewish people can then be seen in the deadly character of “worship” Herod seeks to offer Jesus (Weaver 382). Jesus is not known by his own people, but rather gentiles from a far of land. The messianic script is being rewritten, as the people and religious elite believed that the Messiah was coming to rescue them from the persecution of Rome. As a powerful leader who would restore their kingdom. Instead we see a messiah who has come to reach far beyond the Jewish nation, to rest of the rest of the gentile world. However Matthew does depict Jesus’ central mission to be the Jewish Messiah, “to save his people from their sins” (1:21) and “to shepherd God’s people” (2:6). Matthews compete picture of Jesus is one that has rewritten the messianic script, by challenging all the traditional ideas of power, identity, and character.
In Warren Carter’s, Matthew and the Margins, he states his thesis to be, “That the gospel calls its audience to such an existence. It offers the audience a vision of life as voluntary marginals, confirms and strengthens those who already embrace such an existence, and challenge them and others to great faithfulness” (46). He looks at the book of Matthew as “a work of resistance written for a largely Jewish audience. It speaks out against the status quo dominated by Roman imperial power and synagogal control” (1).
The central issue in Matthew is Jesus’ juxtaposition of the religious elite, who are the center with Herod. Born of prestige, wealth, and social position, the religious elite comprise everything Jesus is not, yet everything the messianic script says he will be. Carte explains how in a bigger picture this reflects the cosmic battle of God and Satan (3). There is a focus of expressing the corrupt leadership and central focus the world has taken. Matthew shows Gods Empire entering the world to break down the center and to offer life. Yet Gods Empire seems to actually resemble the Roman Empire in certain ways. It uses a “do it or else” position to command compliance and there is violent destruction for those who resist.
The next section gives historical reference to the Christian communities living inside Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. The city was a place of great architecture and many buildings. However the Jewish people living here were submitted to the power and persecution of the Romans. Emperor Vespasian minted a coin which had a bound female personifying Judea. This was humiliating to the Jewish community as a constant reminder of defeat (Carter 38). Rome was thought to be destined by the gods to rule. The Jewish elite welcomed Roman presence, while other like Josephus simply cooperated, and there was also resistance through non-violent protest. Matthew then offers a way to live inside the dominating rule of Rome, by means of living a marginal existence. This is the idea of living inside the Roman rule and abiding to its laws and taxes, yet having your true existence with in your religious community and being separated for the center.
Chapter two of Carter, The Empire Strikes Back, explains Matthew chapter two verse by verse. In this breakdown of chapter two we see a close resemblance of Herod to Pharaoh and Jesus to Moses. In (v.1) we see Herod’s resistance to God’s purpose from the moment he hears of Jesus’ birth, likewise Pharaoh was resistant to Gods will to let the people of Israel go. Jesus and Moses are both in line with God’s will and the savior of the Jewish people. Further Joseph and Mary are forced to flee to Egypt, because Herod is going to kill all the boys under two years old (2:16). Jesus is then able to relive the exodus upon his return to Israel. We see a very similar story in the life of Moses, where his parents had to send him floating down the Nile River to save him from Pharaoh who was killing all the Israelite boys out of fear that they would overpower him. God’s power is prevailing and ultimate throughout the whole story. (v.23) “Jesus of Nazareth” this name would have been identified by Jerusalem elite to be from an insignificant, powerless, little place, and on the margins away from the real action (Carter 89). Once again we see Jesus being depicted in a lowly fashion. Not as a prestigious king, but a humble servant.
Part 3: Comparison with The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible:
Emperor Worship or more commonly called “imperial cults”, was the practice of giving honor and sacrifice to emperors that were normally directed to the gods. There were four different types of cults. 1. Official cult of deceased emperors: this cult paid homage to the dead emperors and had a special ceremony to induct the dead into the realm of the gods. In eastern Greek Mediterranean area the emperors were worshiped as gods while still living. 2. Local shrines and expressions of honor: held in unofficial settings, house or association. They would offer sacrifices for “revered gods” and hold banquets in their name. Emperor worship was thoroughly integrated into local levels of western Asia Minor. (Harland 256). This idea of emperor worship helps to see how the Jewish people of Antioch and especially the Christians, described in Carter’s book, would have felt very marginalized. This common practice of the day was very contrary to Jewish and Christian beliefs, yet very popular among the common population. This would have led to much persecution and a difficult life. Matthews’s gospel would most likely have been the very life blood for those who were trying to live a marginal existence.
Besides Revelations there are no direct references to emperor worship in the New Testament. Paul calls Christians to “be subject to the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1) and the Pastoral Epistles calls us to “offer prayers and thanksgiving for all persons, including emperors and those in high positions” (1 Tim. 2:1-2) (Harland 256). I think this is connected to Carters idea of “voluntary marginality” and would fall under the “in-both” categories. The Christians were to submit to the will of their authorities, the “in-both” group lives simultaneously in both worlds, existing in their larger cultural context and in that of their own group ethos (Carter 45). The Christians of the time had no option but to live under the authority of opposing government. Therefore Marks idea of living a marginal life is really the only way to live if you are to be a true Christian.
The story of Herod was very insightful and helpful in gaining a better understanding of the gospel of Matthew and its historical significance. One feature of Herod I found particularly interesting, was the massive amount of people he had ordered to death, and the fact that most of whom were family or close friends. Upon gaining power he executed forty five of Jerusalem’s wealthiest aristocrats and would also cycle quickly through high priest once they gained too much popularity. It would appear that this would probably be a large factor in why the Pharisees and scribes were so obedient to Herod. In Weavers book it talks about how the “chief priests and scribes” passed the information, of Jesus birth location, to Herod only after an official investigation and further they did not seek to go and find Jesus (382). One would think that they must have a least been somewhat intrigued at the possibility of the Messiah. Yet maybe Herod’s dominating presence, kept them from further investigation. As they most likely had great fear of Herod.
Herod seems to have an insatiable desire for power and prestige, so much so that it appears he is almost willing to do anything to get it. From killing his three eldest sons, to pledging allegiance to Octavius who has just defeated Antony, the man who brought Herod to power (Bond 806). His loyalty seems to be side with no one, but those who can offer him what he wants, more power. This too was the driving force behind many of Pharaohs decisions. Herod is then the perfect example of the center with God is fighting against. Weaver discusses these ideas when talking about how the gospel is focused on expressing the corrupt leadership and central focus. A focus that lifts men over women, rich over poor, violence above compassion, and the center above the margins. It uses division, contest, and propaganda to further its goals (3). This historical view of Herod helps to understand why the gospel writer took such a strong stance against Rome. Herod would appear to be the perfect example in many ways of the “evil” Roman Empire. The gospel writer would now be able to use Herod to show the larger cosmic battle of God and Satan.
Part 4: Personal reflection
Although the gospel of Matthew displays Herod as a picture of Satan. Not everything he did was evil and self-centered. Herod brought a great time of prosperity and stability to Judea, which it had not seen for many generation. He was for the most part very respectful of the Jewish people’s tradition and did not put up many pagan images or build temples to other gods in their land. In keeping Israel free of emperor worship, he was often seen as a Jew by pagan eyes. He also built one of the most magnificent temples the world has ever seen (Bond 807). These were all sides of Herod I had never heard about before, most of my knowledge of Herod came from the Matthew and his extremely negative view. It was helpful to learn about a more complete Herod, so that I can have a great understanding of why Matthew speaks of Herod the way he does. I also have never thought about the birth narrative with such a close relation to the Moses story. It was fascinating to see just how closely related these two stories really are and how much influence Moses’s story had on the author of Matthew. This paper has really help me to look at the gospel from a historical perspective and to assess them based on the given evidence. I now feel more confident in being able to answer why the gospels were written the way they were and to have the ability to look at them from an analytical perspective.
Reference Page
Bond, Helen K. “Herod, Family.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2,
edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 801-812. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
(section C)
Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000. (pp. 1-7, 36-49, 73-89)
Harland, Philip A. “Emperor Worship.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 255-257. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
2007.
Weaver, Dorothy. “Rewriting the Messianic Script: Matthew’s Account of the Birth of
Jesus.” Interpretation 54 (2000): 376-385.