 |
| Mary and Elizabeth, from the LDS Media Library |
One thing I find interesting about both of these chapters is
that they both put emphasis on Mary in different ways, and both bring other women
into the story to do it.
Matthew’s Genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:1–17)
Matthew does this with his genealogy. Like most genealogies
of the time, Matthew’s genealogy of Christ consists predominantly of a string
of male names, going from father-to-son until arriving at Joseph, husband of
Mary (1:16). And yet, unexpectedly, Matthew makes periodic mention of four
women (besides Mary):
- Tamar (1:3)
- Rahab (1:5)
- Ruth (1:5)
- Bathsheba (1:6, “the wife of Urias”)
(Note that the KJV renders the first two as Thamar
and Rachab. I am following the Old Testament spellings of their names.)
Almost every commentary I consulted—from both Latter-day
Saints and non-Latter-day Saints—pointed out not only the unusual inclusion of
women, but the unexpected nature of which women were included.
- Tamar was the daughter-in-law of Judah, who—after being snubbed by Judah the right to levirate marriage and children through his third son, Shelah—tricked Judah into thinking she’s a prostitute and got pregnant with twins (see Genesis 38).
- Rahab was the Canaanite prostitute living in Jericho, who was allowed to live when the Israelites attacked the city because she aided the Israelite spies (Joshua 2 & 6).
- Ruth was a Moabite (i.e., non-Israelite) women living in Bethlehem during the time of the Judges, who waited until Boaz was drunk, then tricked him into thinking he slept with her before revealing that he was her next of kin (see Ruth 1–4)[1]
- Bathsheba was the woman David committed adultery with, and then sent her husband to certain death to cover it up (2 Samuel 11).
These probably aren’t the women that come to mind when
wanting to emphasize the noble lineage of the Messiah, nor are they (with the
exception of Ruth) probably the women we tend to hold up as heroines for our
young women today. It wouldn’t necessarily be fair to characterize these women
as “sinners,” but many of their stories are certainly scandalous.
But so was Mary’s, if you don’t know it’s miraculous nature.
Imagine you are a young woman in the late-first century BC, you are engaged to
be married, and you are pregnant—and the child isn’t his.
Oh, and you live in a culture where fornication and adultery
are punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:20–21, 23–24).
That’s Mary’s situation, and before Gabriel explained things
to Joseph (1:18–25), she was the only one in her hometown of Nazareth who that knew
she’d done nothing wrong. Modern readers probably don’t always appreciate that
when Joseph sought “to put her away privily”—rather than “make her a publick
example” (1:19)—he wasn’t just trying not to embarrass her. He was saving her
life.
Even after Joseph married her, folks no doubt talked, and
Mary probably endured a certain amount of shaming. The seemingly scandalous nature
of Jesus’s conception was later a point of criticism for the early Christian
movement. Perhaps Matthew is trying to respond to these by not only setting the
story straight—explaining the miraculous birth and angelic annunciation—but also
by highlighting other apparently scandalous births that were part of the
Messianic lineage.
Whatever the purpose of their inclusion, the lives and
circumstances of these women deserve careful, studied attention as important
figures in the Messiah’s origins.[2]
The Meeting of Elizabeth and Mary (Luke 1)
Luke tells the annunciation of Christ’s birth to Mary
(rather than to Joseph), but also tells the story of Elizabeth (KJV spelling, Elisabeth),
the mother of John the Baptist. New Testament scholar Richard Baukham outlines
the chapter chiastically,[3] based on whose experience or point-to-view
each part of the story is told from:
(A) Narrator
(1:5–7)
(B) Zacharias (1:8–20)
(C) people (and
Zacharias) (1:21–23)
(D)
Elizabeth (1:24–25)
(E)
Mary (1:26–38)
(F)
Elizabeth and Mary (1:39–45)
(E’)
Mary (1:46–56)
(D’)
Elizabeth (1:57–61)
(C’) people (and
Zacharias) (1:62–66)
(B’) Zacharias (1:67–79)
(A’) Narrator (1:80)
The key thing to notice here is that the experiences and
voices of women—Mary and Elizabeth (D-E-F-E’-D’)—are at the center of the
story. The angelic annunciation to Mary (1:26–38) and her song (commonly called
the Magnificat) (1:46–56) form the center-flanking wings of the most
central element—Mary’s time with Elizabeth (1:39–45). Even here, the focus
remains on Mary and her status as “the mother of [the] Lord” (1:43). Here in this
focal point of the chiastic pattern, Elizabeth becomes the first witness of the
miraculous child in Mary’s womb (1:43), and of Mary’s important place in
history.
Beloved of God
Given this focus on Mary in Luke’s opening narrative, it’s
interesting to note that Luke is writing his gospel to someone named Theophilus
(1:4)—a Greek name meaning “beloved of God.”
Mary’s own name (the same as the Hebrew name Miriam) likely derives from the Egyptian mr(y), meaning “beloved.”[4] If we assume that Mary is a shortened theophoric name
(i.e., a name with a deity in it), her name would literally mean “beloved of God/the
Lord.” This should immediately bring
to mind Nephi’s vision, where he first sees the tree of life, then is shown
a fair virgin from Nazareth, bearing a child, and immediately understands that
the tree represents the “love of God” (1 Nephi 11:8–22)—the very meaning of the
virgin’s name, known by Nephi’s later descendants (e.g., Mosiah 3:8; Alma 7:10).[5]
In Luke, the point is also made that she’s espoused to
Joseph, from the “house of David” (1:27). This is mentioned, of course, because
of the expectation that the Messiah be from the house of David. But it’s
nonetheless interesting that the name David
also means “beloved” in Hebrew, and he was known for being loved of the Lord.
So in Luke 1, we have mention of three names which all mean “beloved
[of God/the Lord]” in three different languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Egyptian),
and the central character in the story is bears one of those names. The point
here being is that, as often is the case in scripture, Mary’s own name conveys a
lot meaning, reflected in other scriptures about her—especially in the Book of
Mormon. It’s certainly interesting that Luke begins his gospel written to the “beloved
of God” with so much emphasis on Mary, who was herself the “beloved of God/the
Lord.”
Anyway, I hope these rough musings are enough to show that
there’s potentially more to learn about Mary and what her experience was like
here in Matthew 1 and Luke 1 than might initially meet the eye. I hope I’ve given
you at least something interesting to think about as you read these chapters. I’d
encourage everyone to consider and reflect on Mary’s experiences themselves
this week, or on that of Elizabeth, or Joseph, or Zacharias.
[1] On
this there is some debate, but some scholars believe the references to uncovering
and lying at Boaz’s feet in Ruth 3 are a euphemism. On this, see Adele
Reinhartz, “Ruth: Introduction and Annotations,” in The Jewish Study Bible: Torah, Nevi’im, Kethuvim, 2nd ed., ed.
Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,
2014), 1577–1578.
[2] For well-informed
insight on these women, and ideas as to why they are mentioned in the genealogy
of Christ, from the perspective of Latter-day Saint women, see Julie M. Smith, Search,
Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford
Books, 2014), 255–259; Camille Fronk Olsen, Women of the New Testament (Salt
Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2014), 41–107.
[3] This
is pointed out in Smith, Search, Ponder, and Pray, 53.
[4] See
James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the
Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2005), 225.
[5] Alma’s
prophecy in 7:10, I’d just like note, also uses very similar language to Luke
1:35.
Comments
Post a Comment