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