09 April 2024
I'll start with a personal note. Because of the time I've spent counseling others, along with reading and interacting with Christian Manosphere blogs, I can safely conclude that my wife is a rare treasure. She's like an alien creature untouched by mainstream feminist culture. She is morally mature and I've never had to play headgames to persuade her to follow the Lord in our marriage. Very few men have it so easy.
Ancient Near Eastern culture in general, and Hebrew culture in particular, found a place for exceptional women. Sometimes the rules don't match divine priorities, and exceptional women find themselves in pivotal roles. They show up all over the Bible. Yet, by Jesus' time, legalism had taken a firm hold. The Jewish establishment had built up a major contempt for women, quite unlike their ancestors. When Matthew recounted a genealogy for Jesus, he reasserted the ancient Hebrew outlook, a strong theme in Jesus' teaching in the first place. Matthew mentions four women in his list, something no establishment Jewish writer would do.
Bailey recounts the stories of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. However, Matthew did not name the last one, because of her immorality. So far as I know, they were all Gentiles, to boot: Aramean, Amorite, Moabite and Hittite, in that order. Each was exceptional in one way or another. Tamar chose the only path possible to assert her privileges under Moses. Rahab belonged to a particularly filthy bunch of pagan louts, but immediately recognized the hand of Jehovah as superior to anything she knew. Ruth was a saint from start to finish. And "the wife of Uriah" took a very high risk initiative to become the mother of the next King of Israel.
I believe Bailey slides just a little into "woke" territory in making the case for why Matthew did this, but the review of these four women is critical to understanding how God worked to bring His Son into the world.
In discussing Jesus' adoptive father, Joseph, I'm surprised that Bailey did not mention one basic fact built into the Ancient Near Eastern customs and the Law of Moses: the basic feudalism of law. Joseph had a property right in his reputation (shame/honor culture). He also had a pending property right in his betrothed bride. While the Law of Moses gave him the authority to have Mary executed for getting pregnant without him, it did not require it. Do you imagine Hosea broke the Law in being so forgiving of his wayward wife, Gomer? The Law of Moses was far more flexible than the Pharisees portrayed it. Jesus said there were priorities, and that the Law was meant to protect covenant life, not confine people.
Mary was another of those exceptional women, knowing that things could have gone very hard for her, getting pregnant before the wedding. Bailey references Isaiah 43, where the Messianic prophecy says that Jesus would not be legalistic on those who had been crushed or broken, nor would He demand social justice. The author describes the practice of oil lamps in common homes. If the oil ran too low, the wick could burn in half and the glowing end drop to the floor, causing a fire. Hebrew homes would feature a bowl of water below the lamp sconce to prevent that. The ancient Hebrew culture had provisions for when unexpected things happened. God recognizes the limits of laws.
Matthew reports Joseph's reaction to the news of Mary's pregnancy using an ambiguous Greek word: enthymēomai. The meaning typically ignored by English translators is that Joseph became quite upset over this. Making Joseph appear dispassionate is another case of gilding the lily. That same word applies to Peter in his vision on the rooftop; he was quite disturbed at how this vision overthrew everything he knew. Thus, an early Arabic translation of Matthew's report on Joseph indicates he was fuming over Mary's pregnancy until the vision from God brought him back to earth.
Thus, the real moral stature of Joseph comes through without senseless adornment. Resisting the community pressure to have her stoned, he decided to marry her quickly in order to give some cover. It would then look like Joseph had gotten her pregnant, a social strike against him, too.
Should we suppose that it was a uniquely Hebrew response to anger, to then extend grace? Jesus mentions it in a couple of parables (Luke 14:16-24 and Mark 12:1-12). In the first, the infuriated ruler insists that his servants fill the banquet hall with whomever they could find on the streets. In the second, the vineyard owner sends his son to collect the share of grapes from the harvest after his servants were abused. Jesus grew up with a dad who acted like that. And finally, Joseph protected Mary by bringing her on that long trip, away from gossipy neighbors to give birth far from home where the gossip would be forgotten.
This document is public domain; spread the message.