Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Interpretation of the Holy Bible - St.Matthew : lesson 5

Expand Messages
  • SOCM
    V 22,23 - Fulfillment of the Isaiah (BC 742) prophesy 7:14. Emmanuel, which is interpreted, as Our God with us . V 25 ����� And knew her not till she had
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 22, 2004
      V 22,23 - Fulfillment of the Isaiah (BC 742) prophesy 7:14.
      Emmanuel, which is interpreted, as "Our God with us".
      V 25 � "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn
      son: and he called his name JESUS.".
      We can learn two things from this
      1) Virgin birth of Jesus Christ
      From this verse it is clear that Birth of Jesus is not from a
      man (i.e. from Holy Spirit). There were many heretic teachings
      against this scripture. Main proponents of this heresy were Cerynthos
      ( 2nd century) and Ebionites. But their effort did not succeed.
      But there are some even today who subscribe to those views.
      2) Ever virgin St. Mary
      Since the usage is "And he knew her not, until she had borne her
      firstborn son", some people started propagating that `she knew after
      the birth of the firstborn'. It was one `Helviduss' who started this
      heresy. He said that people referred as "brothers of Lord " were
      brothers born this way. But let us look at some views point s from
      New Testament
      a. Child Jesus along with Joseph and Mary went to festival at
      the synagogue. And Jesus was lost in the crowd. But they search
      the child among their own people. Instead if there were younger
      children, they would have searched among `those young children'. As
      per the teaching of Hevlvadyos, if Jacob etc were younger brothers of
      Jesus, then when they went for this festival Mary should have taken
      the 9 year old Jacob and 6 year old Yosi and 3year old Simon and
      possibly Mary should be carrying an younger sister too. But there
      not even pointer to believe that this was the case.
      b. If Jesus had 3 brothers and a sister, then during the time of
      crucification, our Lord would have entrusted His mother to those
      brothers and sister. Not to apostle John. Even if He entrusted His
      mother to John, would these brothers and sister allow their mother to
      go with Apostle John? But St. Mary went with Apostle John and lived
      with him in Ephesus till her death.
      c. But if you look at some old Translation the usage is `with
      his brethren" not brothers.
      d. The church fathers of the first few centuries also were of
      the opinion our Lord did not have any brothers.

      Jews used the word `brethren' to address children born of same
      parents, people having blood relation, the people that belong to same
      caste (Duet 15:12, Nehemiah 5:7, Exodus 32:37) or even friends (2
      Samuel 1:26; 1 Kings 13:30). Even Christians also did the same way.
      (Acts 9:17; Romans 14:15, Philippians 2:25; I John 2:9)
      Another argument was that since the usage is Jesus as `firstborn
      son," So the argument was the St. Mary did not know man till the
      first born son but there could be sons other than first born (second
      born, third born etc) and so St. Mary should know man for this. The
      meaning of the word `first born' is born first. But whether some one
      was born or not after the first born he was called "first born".
      That means even if that child was the only child, still he was
      called "first born". (Exodus 22:29, Duet 21:17, 25:6; 2 Kings 3;
      27). For the Jews, there were some special laws and customs for
      the "first born". "First born" is also used for our Lord in Colo
      1:5; and Hebrew 1:6. So by this argument can we argue that God has
      other sons too?

      We have seen that Helvidyos argued since it is written `and he knew
      her not, until she had borne her firstborn", it is possible that she
      know man after first born's birth. See some other usages with same
      � And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until
      the waters were dried up from off the earth (Genesis 8:7)
      � I will be your God throughout your lifetime--until your hair
      is white with age. I made you, and I will care for you. I will carry
      you along and save you. (Isaiah 46:4)
      � The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until
      I make thine enemies thy footstool ( Psalm 110:1)
      � Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the
      day of her death ( 2 Samuel 6:23)
      So should we believe that after the occurrence of the
      incident "till", directly opposite has occurred? The words from St.
      Jerome will clarify this.
      "We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We
      do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son,
      because we do not read it. Nor we do say this in order to condemn
      marriage; for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage� You say that
      Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself I claim that Joseph
      himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be
      born of a virginal wedlock."
      The Birth of Jesus Christ
      The time of birth is described in Luke 2:1 to 3
      ( that we will see in next lession ..)
      From the Desk of the Moderators

      We withheld the name of the member who posts this message as per his request.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.