As for Mary, the mother of Jesus, all available evidence supports the view that she really gave birth to Jesus who was conceived in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit excluding any human intervention. It was Jesus who taught Nicodemus that "Flesh can give birth only to flesh; it is spirit that gives birth to spirit (John, 3: 6). Thus at the very conception of Jesus the sacred and the secular were interminably joined together in the person of Jesus in such a way that all those who want to approach God thereafter had to follow the same model. Mary was the perfect instrument in the hands of God who by becoming the mother of Jesus became the Mother of God Himself.
There are some people who are allergic to the thought that things can happen beyond their scheme of things and therefore they attempt to pull down the marvels performed by God to the level of their feeble thoughts. An example is their skepticism about the virginity of Mary claiming that she had other children besides Jesus and for this they depend on certain passages in the Bible or on certain paintings of early origin. Our main objection to such conclusions is based on the fundamental requirement of interpretation of texts that has to give prime importance to the intention of the author. The intention of the author would be violated if unwarranted extrapolation of meaning is attempted in the case of reference to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. The question of the direct brothers and sisters could be entertained only if Mary herself had other children either before or after the birth of Jesus. It is clear from both Matthew and Luke (Matthew, 1: 20-23 and Luke, 1: 34-35) that there was no doubt in the minds of those Evangelists that Mary was a virgin when the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit was announced by the Angel to Joseph and Mary respectively. As for doubting about her continued virginity after the birth of Jesus, some adduce the text of Matthew 1: 24 that says: "Rising from sleep Joseph did as the angel had directed him; he took Mary home to be his wife, but had no intercourse with her until her son was born".
From the above text, we must keep in mind two points. First was the attempt of the angel to calm down a perplexed Joseph who had earlier hesitated to accept Mary as his wife. Second, the need to drive home the fact that Jesus was no ordinary child like any other. The intention of the Evangelist about those two vital points was served by the above-quoted text without the need of proving or disproving at that point of time any other possible interpretation. The author wanted to make clear that the acceptance of Mary by Joseph as his wife did not involve the usual consequences of being husband and wife in their case. This is so because his concern was to stress the uniqueness of the child born to Mary, which was accomplished by the author's use of the word 'until'. The birth of Jesus was the defining moment for the author in his narration and given the importance of the event, Matthew took it as a point of reference to describe the relationship between Joseph and Mary. As for the usage in Scripture as well as in our daily life, 'UNTIL' does not warrant an interpretation about what happened after the stated event. On the contrary, it serves to stress the importance and relevance of the stated event without going over to say what happened later. An example from the Book of Genesis may be taken to prove our point. "After forty days Noah opened the trapdoor that he had made in the ark, and released a raven to see whether the water had subsided, but the bird continued flying to and fro until the water on the earth had dried up" (Gen., 8: 6-7). Does the author mean to say anything about what happened to the flying raven after the earth had dried up? Or again, what does the Psalmist mean to say in "The Lord said to my lord, 'you shall sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool under your feet'" (Psalm, 110: 1)? Does it mean that once the enemies are made his footstool, he should not sit at the right hand of the Lord? Similarly, in our daily usage, when someone says that he or she will never do something until his or her death, does it imply that he or she was going to do it after his or her death? Thus the import of the word 'until' depends on our use in specific contexts and should be understood accordingly.
As for passages in the Bible referring to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, we hold the view that they are cousins of Jesus and not direct brothers and sisters. The underlying reason for our contention is derived from the concept of 'family' held at the time of Jesus. Apart from the innumerable studies about the clannish nature of the concept of 'family' of those times, we want to show from the Bible itself that the clan was considered a family in its proper sense. For this purpose we refer to the incident in the Jerusalem Temple reported by Luke when Jesus was 12 years old (See Luke, 2: 41-46). After the festivities when the parents of Jesus started their journey back home, the boy Jesus stayed back at the Temple without their knowledge. Joseph and Mary journeyed on for a day thinking that Jesus was in their party . According to our concept of the 'nuclear family' and the attendant concerns, it is something impossible and we would not hesitate to brand Joseph and Mary as irresponsible! Not so in those times when the whole clan was considered a family and one parent was as good as any other. Under the circumstances one's cousins were also considered brothers and sisters and there was nothing unusual if Jesus was said to have brothers and sisters (Mark, 3: 32). Apostle James who is considered the brother of Jesus is mentioned as the son of Alphaeus (Mark, 3: 18).
There are some people who are allergic to the thought that things can happen beyond their scheme of things and therefore they attempt to pull down the marvels performed by God to the level of their feeble thoughts. An example is their skepticism about the virginity of Mary claiming that she had other children besides Jesus and for this they depend on certain passages in the Bible or on certain paintings of early origin. Our main objection to such conclusions is based on the fundamental requirement of interpretation of texts that has to give prime importance to the intention of the author. The intention of the author would be violated if unwarranted extrapolation of meaning is attempted in the case of reference to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. The question of the direct brothers and sisters could be entertained only if Mary herself had other children either before or after the birth of Jesus. It is clear from both Matthew and Luke (Matthew, 1: 20-23 and Luke, 1: 34-35) that there was no doubt in the minds of those Evangelists that Mary was a virgin when the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit was announced by the Angel to Joseph and Mary respectively. As for doubting about her continued virginity after the birth of Jesus, some adduce the text of Matthew 1: 24 that says: "Rising from sleep Joseph did as the angel had directed him; he took Mary home to be his wife, but had no intercourse with her until her son was born".
From the above text, we must keep in mind two points. First was the attempt of the angel to calm down a perplexed Joseph who had earlier hesitated to accept Mary as his wife. Second, the need to drive home the fact that Jesus was no ordinary child like any other. The intention of the Evangelist about those two vital points was served by the above-quoted text without the need of proving or disproving at that point of time any other possible interpretation. The author wanted to make clear that the acceptance of Mary by Joseph as his wife did not involve the usual consequences of being husband and wife in their case. This is so because his concern was to stress the uniqueness of the child born to Mary, which was accomplished by the author's use of the word 'until'. The birth of Jesus was the defining moment for the author in his narration and given the importance of the event, Matthew took it as a point of reference to describe the relationship between Joseph and Mary. As for the usage in Scripture as well as in our daily life, 'UNTIL' does not warrant an interpretation about what happened after the stated event. On the contrary, it serves to stress the importance and relevance of the stated event without going over to say what happened later. An example from the Book of Genesis may be taken to prove our point. "After forty days Noah opened the trapdoor that he had made in the ark, and released a raven to see whether the water had subsided, but the bird continued flying to and fro until the water on the earth had dried up" (Gen., 8: 6-7). Does the author mean to say anything about what happened to the flying raven after the earth had dried up? Or again, what does the Psalmist mean to say in "The Lord said to my lord, 'you shall sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool under your feet'" (Psalm, 110: 1)? Does it mean that once the enemies are made his footstool, he should not sit at the right hand of the Lord? Similarly, in our daily usage, when someone says that he or she will never do something until his or her death, does it imply that he or she was going to do it after his or her death? Thus the import of the word 'until' depends on our use in specific contexts and should be understood accordingly.
As for passages in the Bible referring to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, we hold the view that they are cousins of Jesus and not direct brothers and sisters. The underlying reason for our contention is derived from the concept of 'family' held at the time of Jesus. Apart from the innumerable studies about the clannish nature of the concept of 'family' of those times, we want to show from the Bible itself that the clan was considered a family in its proper sense. For this purpose we refer to the incident in the Jerusalem Temple reported by Luke when Jesus was 12 years old (See Luke, 2: 41-46). After the festivities when the parents of Jesus started their journey back home, the boy Jesus stayed back at the Temple without their knowledge. Joseph and Mary journeyed on for a day thinking that Jesus was in their party . According to our concept of the 'nuclear family' and the attendant concerns, it is something impossible and we would not hesitate to brand Joseph and Mary as irresponsible! Not so in those times when the whole clan was considered a family and one parent was as good as any other. Under the circumstances one's cousins were also considered brothers and sisters and there was nothing unusual if Jesus was said to have brothers and sisters (Mark, 3: 32). Apostle James who is considered the brother of Jesus is mentioned as the son of Alphaeus (Mark, 3: 18).
No comments:
Post a Comment