Matthew 2: 1-12

The following text is Matthew 2:1-12 (King James Version) and has been copied from Bible Gateway at this location.

1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

5And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

7Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

8And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

9When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

10When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

11And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

This, like the passages we have already looked at, is a story of events thought by the gospel-writer (who I will hereafter refer to as "Matthew") to have taken place around the time of Jesus' birth. We have, as far as I know, no information about where Matthew read or heard this story. It is, at best, a second-hand story and would not be regarded by historians as strong evidence that the events "really" happened. Indeed, certain elements of the story make it seem more like a deliberately crafted work of imagination than an attempt at realistic reporting. A star, for example, is not the kind of thing one can "follow" nor the kind of thing that can be said to rest "over" a particular location on earth. Still, there is no reason to think that Matthew himself doubted the truth and importance of the story. It illuminates very well certain truths about

• Jesus' place in both Jewish history and universal history.
  
• The range of attitudes toward Jesus by people of status, intellect, and political power.

The story begins by situating itself geographically at a definite and nearby location ("...in Bethlehem of Judaea") and temporally in a history which was comparitively recent at the time the gospel was written ("...in the days of Herod the King"). Matthew is clear that the Jesus he is writing about is a flesh-and-blood human being, born among a particular people, born to play a particular role in the history of that people, and born at a specific time in the stream of history. He is not an abstract archetype, a disembodied spirit, or a timeless mythical god-figure. These assertions about outward facts about Jesus are in a sense open to question. They might turn out, if we should find some way to check, to be somewhat other than Matthew thought. At the very least, we can say that they don't seem completely compatible with what Luke has to say. But this much seems pretty clear: Matthew thought he was writing about a real person, and he was using source material some of which came from people who knew this real person.

Next we are told about "wise men from the east" who come to Jerusalem looking for someone they call "...the king of the Jews." Two things strike me about this - -

• first: the supposition that people who were not Jews would take such an interest in who the "King of the Jews" might be. Evidently, Matthew thought that many foreigners would inherently sense that events among the people of Judah would have world-wide significance. Many commentators have pointed out that this aspect of the story shows a gentile interest in Jesus, but surely it also shows a gentile interest in the Jews
  
• second: that for Matthew himself it is important that Jesus is "King of the Jews", that he is part of the story of the descendants of Abraham and David. We are all too aware today of the historic tensions between Christians and Jews, and of the fact that some of these date back to the earliest years of Christianity. The fact remains that these two faith traditions are very much intertwined and that the faith of the early Church cannot really be understood apart from the context of Jewish history and Jewish faith.

Having arrived in Jerusalem to look for the new king, the "wise men" start asking around for him. They say they want to "worship" him. I'm tempted to go off on a tangent here and try to figure out what this word means in this context. Soon, as we shall see, Herod himself hypocritically says he wants to "worship" this successor. But who "worships" kings? What is the Greek word for this that's in the gospel? Unfortunately, I know that if I pursue every tantalizing question of this kind I will never get far in this commentary. Maybe some reader (if I have any readers) will chip in with an insight about it. Be that as it may, the inquiries the "wise men" make come to the attention of Herod, the old king. The text says "...he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." This is pretty much to be expected, given the attitude of kings throughout history to potential rivals, including babies.

Now (in verses 4-6) we are given a picture of Herod consulting with the chief priests and the scribes of the people. Sounds like the kind of thing that a prudent king would do. However, it also sounds like the kind of thing that Matthew, writing decades later, would have absolutely no way of knowing. The passage is probably retrospective speculation. It is also not clear to me whether "chief priests" and "scribes" at that time would have interpreted the quoted passage "for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel" as a prediction that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. (I say "it's not clear to me" meaning that I really am not sure. Other writers have cast some doubt on this and I feel obliged to mention that; but going back to find those writers, re-read their thoughts, and form my own judgement would ... again ... be a detour for me. I welcome any comments on the matter from my readers).

Herod's last word in this chapter is to send the wise men on their way to Bethlehem, and to ask them to report back. We know, of course, that he is up to no good. In him we see at one level the garden-variety attachment to power that all kings (and presidents, and CEO's) experience in some degree. I am tempted to wonder out loud whether he would have been quite as upset if he really understood what kind of King Jesus would turn out to be. Jesus wasn't really destined to take Herod's throne, but a far more exalted one. Symbolically, however, Herod's sense of threat is entirely warranted. All earthly power is fundamentally challenged by Jesus' spiritual kingdom.

Is it in other translations, or only in folklore, that the "wise men" are themselves "kings" ("We three kings of Orient are,...")? T.S. Eliot's wonderful poem "Journey of the Magi" presents even these worshippers as "no longer at ease in their old dispensations" after viewing the Christ child, and this seems quite plausible to me. In Matthew's story, though, there is little hint of that. After being pointed toward Bethlehem by Herod (not by the star, incidentally), the "wise men" again follow the star until it comes to the where the young child Jesus is. Alert readers will notice that this was a "house" and not a manger or stable. This seems to be in conflict with Luke's story, though I suppose the two can be harmonized with a little imagination. It's the kind of detail that the village atheist loves to pick on and that most believers (like myself) will find irrelevant.

Anyway, the wise men "rejoiced with exceeding great joy" when they saw the star again, and when they actually found Jesus and his mother they "fell down and worshipped him" and "...presented unto him gifts; gold and frankincense and myrrh". Here we have a picture of the learned and possibly powerful foreigners paying homage and tribute to a child who is not yet recognized by anyone in his own country. Many readers feel that Matthew is scoring points here against his fellow Jews. More to the point for me is that he is scoring points against all of us (including Christians, especially Christians) who inerit a tradition of faith, but fail to recognize and give due respect and honor to God's chosen ones among our contemporaries, especially if they appear in humble disguise.

The end of the wise men's story is that they are "warned of God in a dream that they sould not return to Herod", and they go home another way. This caution does indeed seem wise. There is no point in crossing Herod's path if they can avoid it. Thus, the wise men end their only brief appearance in the canonical gospels; leaving just enough of a record to inspire centuries of story-tellers, poets, playwrights, mystics, and conspiracy theorists.

We have not heard the last of Herod, however. In the next part of the story, beginning at Matthew 2:13, we learn of his terrible and genocidal wrath. It's a horrible story, and more than I can think abour or write about today.

Matthew 1: 18-25

Having said as much as I care to about the genealogy of Jesus' mother, I pass on to ponder a better-loved portion of Matthew's gospel - its account of the birth of Jesus.

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

This story will continue in Matthew 2, where we will read about the Magi or "wise men", the vengeful and fearful King Herod, the mass murder of Bethlehem's children, and the flight of Mary, Joseph and Jesus to Egypt. But there is more than enough right here in these eight verses of Chapter 1 for us to ponder today. Unlike the first readers of this gospel (or so I assume), we have also read Luke's account and it's inevitable that we will read each in the light of the other, making some comparisons, and asking some questions. I hope that we can do so without closing our hearts to the spirit of wonder, awe and joy that pervades both accounts. Perhaps we can, if we heed George Fox's advice to "...stay your minds upon that spirit which was before the letter; here ye learn to read the scriptures aright."

Verse 18 tells us very compactly that before Mary and Joseph "came together" (i.e. had intercourse) she "was found with child of the Holy Ghost". This claim is not found in the gospel of Mark or the gospel of John, and is also not referred to anywhere in the epistles of Paul or other books of the New Testatment. In the gospel of Luke, on the other hand, a story of how it came about and of what it meant to Mary is told in much greater detail. The following is from Luke 1: 26-56

26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
39And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
40And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
46And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
51He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; 55As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
56And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

The "Inquiring Mind", as a certain tabloid's advertising calls it, has many questions here. I will try to address these questions at least briefly, but at the same time I don't want to give them undue importance. The "inquiring mind" has some relation to what George Fox called the "itching ears" of those who came to hear him preach and had to wait instead while he kept silence.

Question 1 of the "inquiring mind" is: What's the "real story" here? Corollary questions are - If Luke's story is right why does Matthew omit so much of it? If either Matthew or Luke are right, why do Mark, John, Paul and all the other New Testament writers ignore the birth narratives completely? Is Luke's version earlier and for some reason censored or suppressed by Matthew? Or is Luke's version later and conveniently invented for some dishonest purpose?

My answers (which may not be your answers and which I suppose will appear to some as mere speculations) are:

• The "real story" is that the early Jesus movement knew in the Spirit that Jesus was sent from God and was just not an ordinary guy but in some rich sense one or more of the following: a "son of God"/a "son of Man"/a prophet like Moses/ a king like David/ a teacher/ a heavenly priest/ a sacrificial lamb/ a suffering servant/etc. etc. His real identity and importance was not reducible to any single formula or description. Paul knew of Christ as son of God and said so without any reference to the birth narratives. Ditto for John, Ditto for Mark. Paul may not have heard the birth stories, he may have heard them and discounted them, or he may have omitted them because he thought his audience either already knew them or would not believe them.
  
• Matthew may or may not have known the story of the annunciation as recounted by Luke. If he knew it and did not repeat it he would not be the first or last man who found the role of a woman, even Jesus' mother, to be unworthy of detailed attention. I hope to "ponder" Luke's account in greater depth when I actually get to Luke in this slowly growing blog. I resist the temptation to "jump ahead" with great difficulty, because I think that the speeches of Mary and Elizabeth in Luke's gospel are among the most beautiful and profoundly spiritual parts of the Bible.
  
• Both birth narratives may well have begun with information that Jesus' family pased on to his first followers and they then grew by accretion or were whittled down by selective memory. I am mystified as to why so many Biblical commentators never seem to consider this possibility.
  
• The decision of Matthew and Luke to work these stories into their gospels may have stemmed from the need to underline Christ's divine origins for later Christians who had never known Jesus in the flesh.
  

To continue...Mary was "found to be with child of the Holy Spirit". In other words, she is pregnant and her betrothed is not the father. According to verse 19 Joseph, at first, is of a mind to end their engagement. However he wants to do it "privily" (or "quietly" as some of the more modern translations put it). This predicament of Joseph's is not touched on in Luke's gospel, which - as already hinted - seems to be much more from Mary's point of view. But we can readily understand that it was a real dilemna. Naturally, any repudiation of Mary by Joseph would imply that she was guilty of adultery. It would expose her at a minimum to public shame and at least in theory to death by stoning. (though, possibly, under Roman occupation this penalty would not actually be inflicted). One wonders whether the "and" that connects "Joseph was a just man" to "not willing to make her a public example" was understood by Matthew as "and therefore" or "and nevertheless". That is, is the thought here that even though Joseph was "just" and law-abiding he nevertheless wanted to be merciful? Or is it that because he was just he wanted to avoid exposing Mary to shame and possible death? I think of Joseph's dilemna here as a more concentrated version of one which afflicts all people of faith, and perhaps all people of deep moral principle: the dilemna between "consistency" and the principle of law on the one hand, and a more compassionate consideration on the other. Generally speaking, I vote for compassion over principle, but hope to honor both wherever possible.
In this particular case, Joseph's dilemna is resolved by a dream. Lots of commentators have noticed that Joseph's namesake in the Hebrew scriptures was also a dreamer of dreams. I don't know whether this is somehow significant or just a coincidence. Probably very little in the Scriptures is "just a coincidence".
Actually, I have oversimplified a little in saying that the dilemna is resolved by a dream. The words of the text are that "...behold,the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream" (verse 20). Like most people of our century I tend to internally translate this as "he dreamed he saw an angel". For the author and first reader of this gospel the more natural reading would have been that a real angel (literally, a "messenger") spoke to Joseph, using a dream to do it. Either way, I have no problem affirming that it was right of Joseph to trust his vision of what God wanted and to act on it.
Let's look a bit more deeply at the messenger's exact message (verses 20-21). "...Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from his sins."
Joseph is here addressed as a "son of David" even though his genealogy has not been presented in this gospel. This might be evidence that the gospel's final editor has taken the genealogy from one source and the words of the angel to Joseph from another. Or it might just be that "son of David" is used here in some looser sense than the purely genealogical. I have no special insight to offer about it, but just mention the question.
The core of the angel's message has three parts: an explanation of where the child Jesus comes from ("of the Holy Ghost"), an instruction as to what to call the child ("thou shalt call his name Jesus") and a prediction of what the child's role will be ("for he shall save his people from their sins"). This verse will no doubt justify further "pondering", perhaps in my next post. I hope to dig around and find out what others have discovered about the derivation of the name "Jesus", its relationship to Yeshua/Joshua, and its relationship to salvation, particularly salvation "from sin", which is - of course - only one kind of salvation. For reasons of time and space, however, I hurry on here to summarize the remaining verses of this section.
Verses 22 and 23 interrupt the story slightly to insert Matthew's interpretation of how these events are a fulfillment of prophecy. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.. This, too, will bear further pondering in my next post. Matthew's interpretation of the quoted prophecy is - to put it mildly - open to question and has been sometimes regarded as a deliberate distortion. My own attitude, which is rapidly becoming a theme of this blog, is that any misinterpretation is probably an honest misinterpretation, and that in any case it leaves unaffected the truly central faith claim of the gospel.
The final verses of the passage (verses 24 and 25) round out the story with a simple statement that Joseph arose after his dream, "took unto him his wife", "knew her not [that is, did not have intercourse with her] until she brought forth her first-born son" and "called his name JESUS". More about these verses, also, in my next post (or maybe the one after that).
- - Rich Accetta-Evans

Matthew 1: 1-17

I remember how pointless all those "begats" in the Bible seemed to me when I first encountered them as a child. The less reverent kids in Sunday School would giggle and snicker over the long, unfamiliar, and seemingly silly names. The adults around us seemed not to care about the begats very much either: not even those who were committed to the view that every word of Scripture was dictated by God and had been infallibly transcribed. But in this blog we will ponder the lists of "begats" as we ponder every other portion of the gospels.

I quote here from the so-called King James Version, feeling that it must surely by now be exempt from copyright. (Though I am more than willing to give credit to Bible Gateway for putting it on-line. The verses below are snipped from that source.)

1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations

Thus the Gospel According to Matthew, placed by the Church at the beginning of the New Testament, places a genealogy at the beginning of its story. The "boring begats" are at the beginning of the beginning of the Greatest Story Ever Told. Generally, anything placed at the beginning of a story is something very significant. Whether 20th and 21st century children would giggle or not, the matter of Jesus' ancestry (or - rather - his mother's husband's ancestry) appears to have been considered very important both when the gospel itself was written and also later when the Christian portion of the Bible itself was put together.

There is more to ponder here than we might at first have thought. Why does the gospel-writer believe that this genealogy is important? It doesn't culminate, as we might have expected, with "Joseph begat Jesus", and thus doesn't offer evidence that Jesus had what we would call "good genes". In fact, the same gospel will go on in the next few verses to flatly tell us that Joseph did not beget Jesus.

One complicating factor here is that the author/editor of the gospel in its present form may not be the same person who compiled the genealogy. The disciple named Matthew or Levi may or may not have contributed some of the material recorded in this gospel, but it seems pretty clear to most readers that he was not the single author of it (and nowhere in the gospel itself does it remotely claim that he is, by the way). The gospel as we have it appears to be a compilation of material from many sources. The final author/editor has inserted clarifications, interpretations and transitions but has usually (it seems to me) been very respectful of the sources themselves, preserving some details because they were there even if they didn't necessarily support the point being made. Thus, the possibility exists that the final author preserved the genealogy of Joseph because it was there in his source material and not because he himself saw its importance in the same light. It would have been possible, if the author were less scrupulous, to say in verse 16 that "Judah begat Mary" instead of "Judah begat Joseph", and thus bring the only-begotten son of God into David's line on his mother's side. But that's not the kind of author we are dealing with.

That, however, just pushes the question back a step. If the final author/editor of the gospel didn't write this genealogy, then an earlier writer did and that writer, too, must have had some ground for doing so, and some ground (I believe) for doing so in good faith. Like most modern readers, I have little interest in Jesus' biological ancestry per se. My belief in Him and acceptance of His authority does not rest on his descent, or lack thereof, from Abraham or David. But it is important to me that the writer of this gospel is a person of integrity.

I take it that the writer of this gospel was a sincere believer in Jesus Christ, who saw Jesus' mission in the context of the whole history of Israel, and who saw Him in some sense as the fulfillment of certain promises by God to the people of Israel, including the promise of a divinely anointed successor to the throne of David. In the light of that belief, the gospel writer naturally would think that Jesus was descended from David (if not biologically, then in the sense of being in David's "household"). This is a logical deduction within its own terms. For most of the details of the genealogy, then, the writer need only turn to existing Hebrew scripture, which already provided a list of the descendants of Abraham and of David up to a certain time.

Finally, I think it's worth noticing that this genealogy is not only a list of men. Barbara E. Reid, author of the commentary "The Gospel According to Matthew" (Liturgical Press; Collegeville Minnesota) points out that

The linear progression of thirty-nine male ancestors is broken at four points by the names of women. They are not the ones who would immediately come to mind as great figures from Israel's past. Each has an unusual twist to her story. Tamar (v.3), after being widowed, took decisive action to coerce her father-in-law, Judah, to provide an heir for her (Gen 38). She conceived Perez and Zerah, who continued the Davidic line. Tamar is the only woman in Hebrew scriptures who is called righteous (Genesis 38:26), a term that is of central importance to Matthew. Rahab (v.5) a prostitute in Jericho (Joshua 2), risked disobeying the orders of the king of Jericho and sheltered spies sent from Joshua to reconnoiter the land... Ruth, a Moabite woman, returned with her mother-in-law, Naomi to Bethlehem rather than stay with her own people after her husband Mahlon died... Finally the wife of Uriah is the one who bore David's son after David arranged to have Uriah killed in battle (2 Samuel 11).

Each story speaks of how women took bold actions outside the bounds of regular patriarchal marriage to enable God's purposes to be brought to fruition in unexpected ways. Not only were the circumstances unusual, but some of these women were also outsiders to Israel. Remembering their stories prepares for the extraordinay circumstances of Jesus' birth and the salvation he will ultimately extend to those outside Israel (28:19). The women's presence in the midst of the male ancestors of Jesus also signals the integral role that women disciples play in the community of Jesus' followers. They remind the reader that women are not marginal to the history of Israel or Christianity.

Comments are not only welcomed, but pleaded for.

- - Rich Accetta-Evans

Introduction to "Pondering The Gospels"

In this blog, if I am able to follow through on my present intention, I will begin at the beginning of the Gospel according to Matthew and work my way gradually through the four "canonical" Gospels of the New Testament,verse by verse. In each post I will quote a few verses and say something about them. Of course, I hope that others will add comments as well.

As time goes on, these posts may add up to something like a "commentary" on the gospels, but it will be different than most scriptural commentaries. For one thing, I am not in a position to tell the reader what the meaning of a passage might be, nor to instruct anyone on whether a story is true, whether it is literal or figurative, or what the author's purpose is in presenting it. I am not able, in short, to tell you what to think. I want to invite you, instead, to think along with me. But "think" is not quite the right word here. "Thinking" sounds like a word for a purely academic or intellectual activity. I hope we will bring our bring our whole selves to the encounter with these gospels: our intellect of course, and any relevant research we may know of, but also our values, our needs, our hopes, fears, and passions. I hope that both my readers and I will be able to not only "think" about the passages we read but to "ponder" them - to hold them in our hearts, to weigh them, to search them, to let them search us.

A word of warning about where I am coming from: I am not a disinterested scholar (Truth be told - I am not much of a scholar at all). I believe in the reality of Jesus Christ. I have many strong convictions about Him and these are bound to influence my "ponderings" in this blog. Readers, of course, are free to think of these things quite differently than I do, and to offer their own perspectives.

I am not a "de-bunker" of Scripture, since I don't see the Scriptures as "bunk". At the same time, I am also not the kind of Christian who sees something in the Bible and automatically thinks "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!", as that offensive bumper sticker so stridently proclaims. The gospel writers and other Biblical writers were in some ways as handicapped as we are in trying to learn the Truth about God, or even the prosaic facts about the events in the life of Jesus. They (and we) come to know things through a limited number of ways: through the written or oral reports of others, through their (or our) own experience, and through logical inferences from the first two. For that reason, it is possible to recognize possible mistkakes, internal contradictions, and implausibilities and still continue to trust the writer. When I read parts of the gospels that seem problematic in one way or another one of the questions I ponder is "Where did the writer get this idea?" The answer may not always be clear, but the question asked in this form makes it possible to entertain doubts and disagreements without falling into cynicism. (Cynicism, by the way, seems to be an occupational hazard of Biblical scholarship, and I pray to be protected from it).

Well, enough of this introduction. In the next post, I'll dive into Matthew, starting with the "begats".