Posted on 12/14/2018 5:56:56 AM PST by Gamecock
A strange thread runs through the most prominent women associated with Jesus: they are all women of, shall we say, ill repute. Most of their notorious reputations spring from sexual scandals. What does this say about Christ? An awful lot.
If your habit is to skip over the genealogies in the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, you may have missed a treasure buried in this list of forty fathers who comprise Jesus’s ancestry (if we count Joseph), stretching as far back as Abraham. The hidden treasure is the five women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Jesus’s mother, Mary. Why are they listed? And what makes them as valuable as any man mentioned? That’s precisely what Matthew wants us to ask.
Five Women of Ill Repute First, Tamar (Matthew 1:3). Tamar is the sort of ancestor most of us wouldn’t mention when recounting our family history. Do you remember her story (Genesis 38)? She entered the messianic bloodline by disguising herself as a prostitute and seducing her father-in-law, Judah. The scene and story are complicated. Given the cultural mores of the time, she acted more righteously than he did, since he had treated her unjustly and she had little recourse. Still, there’s no denying how horrible a mess it was.
Second comes Rahab (Matthew 1:5). She didn’t need a disguise. She was a prostitute (or at least had been prior to her marriage). She was also a Gentile. And not just a Gentile, a Canaanite and a resident of Jericho, the first city Joshua set his sights on in the Promised Land. So, how did Rahab manage to become Jesus’s great, great, great, great — add another 24 greats — grandmother? She hid Jewish military spies and helped them escape, so Joshua spared her and her family (see Joshua 2 and 6). Once she was folded into Israel, Rahab married Salmon, which resulted in the genealogical appearance of . . .
Ruth, the third woman in our list (Matthew 1:5). She wasn’t personally embroiled in sexual scandal, but she came from a people that was. Ruth was a Moabite, a nation which had sprung from the incest between Lot and his oldest daughter (Genesis 19:30–38). Ruth’s people were polytheistic pagans, occasionally offering human sacrifices to idol-gods like Chemosh. Through personal tragedy and great loyalty, she wound up at Bethlehem and in the (lawful) arms of Boaz and also joined Jesus’s family tree. How did that happen, given that Jews were forbidden to marry Moabites (Ezra 9:10–12)? You have to read Ruth — an entire book of sacred Jewish Scripture named after this Moabitess! But catch this: Matthew records Boaz as the son of Rahab and Salmon. If that’s true (ancient genealogies sometimes skip generations), imagine how Rahab might have prepared young Boaz to see in a foreign woman a wild branch God wished to graft into the Jewish olive tree.
The fourth woman is “the wife of Uriah” (Matthew 1:6). We know her as Bathsheba, the woman Israel’s greatest king couldn’t — or better, wouldn’t — keep his hands off of. The account in 2 Samuel 11 doesn’t tell us Bathsheba’s side of this adulterous story. But given the fact that David wielded nearly absolute power as king, this was multilevel abuse, plain and simple. But its result was anything but simple. This single immoral “meal” (Hebrews 12:16) produced a cascading sequence of tragic events. Bathsheba became pregnant. Her husband was murdered in a major cover-up. David brought upon himself, and his entire household, a curse that resulted in horrifying suffering for many, particularly Bathsheba (see 2 Samuel 12). And yet there she is, foregrounded in Jesus’s background.
Last on the list, but certainly not least, is Mary, the mother of Jesus (Matthew 1:16). She became pregnant with Jesus before her wedding. The child’s father was not her betrothed, Joseph. The shadow of this “illegitimate” pregnancy would have lingered over her reputation (and her son’s) for their entire earthly lives.
Jesus’s First Women Two more women figure prominently in Jesus’s life and are worth mentioning here. Both their reputations made them, in human wisdom, unlikely people to experience two astonishing firsts of Jesus.
In John 4, Jesus encounters a Samaritan woman from Sychar at midday at Jacob’s well (John 4:6). Like Rahab and Ruth (and perhaps Tamar), this woman was not Jewish. And like Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba, this woman had known numerous men — five husbands and at least one uncovenanted “significant other” (John 4:17–18). And yet in John’s Gospel, this woman is the first person to whom Jesus explicitly discloses himself as the Messiah (John 4:25–26). The first person: this woman.
And then there’s Mary Magdalene. The Bible tells us little about Mary other than that she had seven demons cast out of her (Luke 8:1–3), was present at Jesus’s crucifixion (John 19:25), saw where Jesus was buried (Mark 15:47), and saw the resurrected Jesus (Matthew 28:1–10). History, however, has tended to remember Mary as a woman with a sordid sexual past. We’re not sure why. Perhaps it’s because she (likely) came from the disreputable town of Magdala. Or maybe those strange early Christian apocryphal writings are to blame. Or maybe Mary really did have a past (which is where I lean). It seems reasonable that a vague, lingering remnant of what was once her public shame clings to her reputation to highlight her Savior’s grace.
What is so astonishing about Mary Magdalene is that she was the first person Jesus appeared to after being raised from the dead (John 20:11–18). The first person! Jesus did not appear first to his mother, nor to Peter, but to a formerly immoral, formerly demonized woman.
A Gracious Sorority Why Mary Magdalene? Why the woman at the well? Why unwed Mary of Nazareth? Why Bathsheba, Ruth, Rahab, and Tamar? Why did God choose to make these women of ill repute so prominent in redemptive history?
In order to place the emphasis of history on redemption.
All of these women share this in common: a disgraceful past. They either committed or suffered disgrace. Whether they deserved them or not, they each had a tainted reputation. They endured the contempt of others and felt the pain of very real shame. At least four of the six would have carried extremely painful, sordid memories.
But God no longer sees them as disgraceful, but grace-full. God changed their identities. Instead of women of ill repute, he made them ancestors or disciples of the Messiah. They are archetypes of what he does for all of his children. God is saying loudly through each woman:
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:17–18)
The Old Has Passed Away In Christ the old has passed away! Jesus takes away the old reputation. In Jesus, your past sin or the abuse and injustice you’ve suffered, and the ways you’ve viewed yourself and others have viewed you because of it, is not who you are. In Jesus, your heavenly Father says,
You are my child (Ephesians 1:5). I have washed you and made you holy (1 Corinthians 6:11). You are clean, and no one has authority to say otherwise (Acts 10:15). And you are my beloved (Romans 9:25). I have removed all your scarlet letters (Psalm 51:7).
God has thousands of reasons for everything he does. One great reason he founded this gracious sorority was to remind us of his lavish, unmerited grace to the undeserved and unlikely and despised. It’s another way to tell us that he loves to redeem sinners, he loves to produce something beautiful out of something horrible, he loves to make foreigners his children, and he loves to reconcile his enemies. He loves to make all things work together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28), even for prostitutes, mistresses, and men like me.
Yes.
It seems most likely Uriah knew what was going on.
The Court and City of Jerusalem was not that large.
Uriah had friends in the King's guard.
They had wives.
The wives talked, the servants talked.
You cannot keep that sort of secret in that sort of setting.
There was no sort of "privacy" such as exists in large urban centers of today.
A virgin conceived and bore a son.
After that, her virginity was of no import.
The prophecy had been filled and there was no need for her to remain a virgin after Jesus was born.
She and Joseph were free to do as they pleased, since the angel told Joseph to not fear to take Mary AS HIS WIFE.
That comes with responsibilities and privileges.
That’s also way Scripture says Joseph waited until after Jesus was born to have sex with Mary and lists the other children they had together.
Careful reading of Scripture is that not much of anyone really understood who Jesus was and claimed to be until AFTER His resurrection.
YES!
Luke uses the word πρωτότοκον in describing Jesus.
The word conveys the following meaning:
4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly, first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent (Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).
4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).
[4416 (prōtótokos) refers to "the first among others (who follow)" – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).]
******************************************
Now contrast this with John's description of Jesus being the only begotten Son of God.
μονογενῆ is the word he uses.
It conveys the following:
3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).
Luke used this word also in 7:12, 8:42 and 9:38 to note the only child of others.
He did not use it in relation to Jesus.
This is significant in that Luke was a doctor....a man trained in the medical field. He would know if a woman had more than one child.
Further, Luke tells us he specifically "....investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." Luke 1:3 NASB
Luke notes in 8:19 that Jesus had brothers...though he doesn't mention the sisters.
He doesn't segregate or note these brothers as being from another marriage of Joseph's.
Further, we have the account in Matthew where the people in His hometown noted:
Coming to His hometown, He taught the people in their synagogue, and they were astonished. “Where did this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers?” they asked. 55“Is this not the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56Aren’t all His sisters with us as well? Where then did this man get all these things?”… Mattnew 13:54-56 NASB
The locals identified Him as belonging to BOTH Joseph and Mary and the brothers were His.
There is no reference to them being from anyone other than Joseph and Mary.
It is true there are no passages saying Joseph went in and lay with Mary as seen in various places in the OT. However, there are no passages ever saying they went to the bathroom either...but I think we know they did.
Further, we have no passages describing Joseph actually working...yet we know he was a carpenter. Therefore we can say with confidence he did work at some point.
The New Testament is clear....Joseph and Mary had other children as long as one reads the passages in context and doesn't read their theology back into the texts.
However, it is recorded that Joseph did not know her (have sex with her) until AFTER Jesus was born. Because she was found to be with child BEFORE THEY (Mary and Joseph) came together.
I suppose saying, *And then they had sex* wouldn’t be good enough for certain folks anyway, considering what they do with other passages that clear.
Excellent point!
Please provide Scripture to back up your assertation.
Matthew 27
56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[a] and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
Mark 15
40 There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.
Mark 3
18 James the son of Alphaeus,
According to all references Alphaeus and clopas or Cleopas are the same person.
This other mary is idebtified as the mother of James and Joses or josepth and she is identified as the wife of Clopas or Cleopas.
Jude is also called another son of Alphaeus by many of the historical shall i say experts?.
It can get kind of mixed up but since there is not one scripture saying anything about any of these children being the children of Josepth and Mary the following scripture closes the deal for me.
John 19
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,[b] here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
Mary had no other Children.
The Greek has other words for cousins which are not used in these or the other passages dealing with this topic.
-— James and Joseph and Simon and Judas——
At least two of these were the sons of another Mary and Clopas or Cleaopas.
Mary was a virgin.
Luke
28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
Mary was favored by God, i doubt if any one could really believe he would trash her after her baring his son.
She was not like the average woman, people today try to compare her to their mother but there is nothing to compare.
If they were cousins Luke would have so noted. The context of the passages along with the Greek tell us Joseph and Mary had their own biological children.
If they were cousins Luke would have so noted.
It is always the mother of Jesus and his brethren or brothers and sisters, it never refers to them as Mary`s children.
Also if Mary had other children the below scripture would not be possible.
John 19
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
As far as his family was concerned Jesus had no authority after his death, if Mary had other children the second born male would have taken over the responsibility.
And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
If Mary had other children john would have had the fight of his life, it just would not have happened.
Also Luke was a Greek he would not have known that the Hebrew meanings was different from the Greek meanings of certain words.
Paul was not there, he could only know by word of mouth and it might be that Greek was more familiar to him than Hebrew or Aramaic.
I believe it is and has always been a language problem but since you or i can not prove it either way i see no reason to use Mary to show our bias for the Catholic Church as there are a few things that they are proven to be wrong about, such as calling any one other than God father.
We can agree on that i think.
I agree there no specific texts that say on Tuesday Joseph and Mary engaged in sexual intercourse....however, when the passages in question are read in context it's clear Joseph and Mary had sex and had other children.
Now, to the point of why did Jesus give Mary to John.
I provide the article below. In summary, at this point it is believed His brothers and sisters were not saved at this point. He gave Mary to one of His closest friends...someone He could trust.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Mary-John.html
The article also notes this is not Jesus giving John to everyone. The Greek behind this passage indicates it is a personal situation. John is to take Mary into his home and care for her.
Also Luke was a Greek he would not have known that the Hebrew meanings was different from the Greek meanings of certain words.
This comment is easily answered by noting that Luke had researched everything as he noted in the opening of this gospel. Also, you presume he would not be conversant in Hebrew.
Paul was not there, he could only know by word of mouth and it might be that Greek was more familiar to him than Hebrew or Aramaic.
Same argument from Luke can be applied here. But you forget Paul was a Pharisee....would he not know Hebrew?
In either situation, the Holy Spirit moved these men to write as they did and use the words they did.
The Greek New Testament doesn't support the Roman Catholic claims on this issue.
.however, when the passages in question are read in context it’s clear Joseph and Mary had sex and had other children.
I think we need to realize that this was not a normal set of events, it was Miraculous so why do you assume that the Miracle stopped there?
Mary found favor with God because she was not like other women, I believe Mary was a virgin all of her life, i do not believe the Miracle stopped with the birth.
——I provide the article below. In summary, at this point it is believed His brothers and sisters were not saved at this point. He gave Mary to one of His closest friends...someone He could trust.——
I can only remind you that Jesus was considered a nut, his authority would not have been recognized by his family or any one else except John and John had no authority.
—— This comment is easily answered by noting that Luke had researched everything as he noted in the opening of this gospel.-——
I still believe it is a terrible language problem and will note that it was years before Paul or luke could have known anything about it.
By Pauls own words it was three years before he even went to see Peter and was with him only fifteen days and possibly 14 years later saw him again.
He only saw Peter and James on his first visit so by his words it must have been many years before he met any of the other apostles.
So who was he interviewing?
-—In either situation, the Holy Spirit moved these men to write as they did and use the words they did.-—
There is no proof of that at all and if the holy spirit was involved why would Luke have to research it.
If you watch TV you can see that each side of the political chain claims they have proof but at the end of the day there is only proof of what side they are on.
When you listen to the commentators they do not know any more than what they did to begin with, it is all just speculation, but they do believe the system is using the hearings to some how get to Trump.
The protestants are using Mary to show their bias for the Catholic Church, i think it is a shame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.