Do you think a legal claim, without also the biological claim, would satisfy Jewish Christians?
Your question implies Matthew envisioned "Jewish Christians" as his audience. The community for which he wrote would appear to be a law-observant one, but that does not exclude them from being predominantly Gentile converts... consider, for example, the controversy over law observance underlying Paul's letter to the Galatian churches. Writing in the decades after the Jewish War, Matthew is far removed from the earliest Christians, Jews who understood Jesus as appointed "son of God" at the resurrection and for whom biological descent from David is likely to have been an important qualification for being the messiah. The genealogy as it is presented in Matthew, however, presents a legal claim through Joseph as Mary's husband... this reflects a more advanced Christology that moves Jesus' claim to divine sonship back to his birth and subordinates descent from David to it, which is implied in the exchange later at 22:41-45.
It seems unlikely to me. They expected the messiah to be of the seed of David.
See above... this mistakenly conflates the community for whom Matthew wrote with the earliest Jews who came to believe Jesus was the "son of God" --- they are at least several decades removed from each other.
As I said, I agree the author believed in the Virgin Birth. I would suggest this was a holdover from when Christianity was rather more Jewish.
As it appears in Matthew's gospel, the genealogy reinforces the idea of a virginal Mary conceiving by means of the Holy Spirit. The strongest argument you could make in terms of a "holdover" would be that Matthew has modified an earlier genealogy that presented Jesus as Joseph's biological son, but this is conjecture and of limited value in assessing the views of the author and/or those of the community for which he was writing.
Okay... I am a little confused, then, why you raised it. My feeling is the female line was of no importance at all to the Jews, and I see no reason to suppose the author knew or cared
I raised it within parentheses, which are indicative of the enclosed material's secondary importance... I typically include these comments for the sake of thoroughness, a form of in-line footnote.
I appreciate there may be nuances in the Greek I miss, but Mary was not pregnant when she said she was a virgin. The angel tells her she will later conceive.
I've nowhere suggested Mary was pregnant when she declared her virginity to the heavenly messenger.
Whether you believe the virgin birth or not, this is strange; it indicates Mary is not aware that virgins can get pregnant. I doubt she can have been that naïve!
I'm not sure what
belief has to do with our discussion since neither of us identify as Christian "believers". In any case, Mary is narrated to
correctly connect conception to having sex with a man. I trust we can agree that (1) once a woman has been penetrated by a man she is no longer a virgin and (2) conception, if it occurs, can take up to several days after that sexual union. Here one of those nuances in the Greek would help you... she says "I know not {a} man" --- the verb is present tense, she is betrothed and thus not sexually active with Joseph (or with anyone else for that matter). Her question only makes sense against the background of the very stories in Israel's sacred texts you mention next...
But this certainly allows for sex to take place and normal conception, and there are other examples of the Bible where God has helped women conceive, but there is no suggestion of a virgin birth, so even the angel saying she will conceive by the Holy Spirit does not preclude a virgin birth.
The women in the stories to which you allude were sexually active with their husbands and it is precisely this
difference in the present story that accounts for Mary's response... she assumes conformity to the pattern, followed even in the close context of Elizabeth conceiving in her old age, and is thus bewildered since she is not having sex with Joseph. After the angel departs from Mary, she goes
with haste to see her relative and she is pregnant when Elizabeth speaks to her about the fruit of her womb, the grammatical construction demanding a present tense form of the verb 'to be' in relation to being blessed. To suggest Mary stopped by Joseph's house on her way for a quick intimate liaison is clearly reading something into the text the author doesn't intend...
So how do you understand Paul's view of the resurrection as he details in 1 Cor 15? In what way is Jesus the "first fruits" if he is more divine than he is man?
In the context of his discussion on the resurrection, Paul deliberately compares and contrasts Adam and Jesus... the first is described as a man out of the earth, an allusion to Gen 2:7, whereas the second is described as a man
from heaven --- the Christ in Paul's view has heavenly origins, different from and superior to that of Adam (and all humans descended from him) insofar as he pre-existed his earthly life in the heavenly realm, was involved in creation and nourished the Israelites of the wilderness wanderings (see previous post).
What do you think Paul believed before his conversion?
I see no reason to speculate about this... piecing together Paul's post-conversion beliefs is difficult enough without trying to reconstruct his pre-conversion beliefs. It is clear that in becoming a follower of the risen Jesus, Paul
changed his beliefs... some of these could be slight revisions, others quite radical --- we have no way of knowing to what degree they may have changed in the present context.
This feeds into the discussion on the genealogy. The Jewish belief was that the messiah would be a man descended from David (though admittedly there were plenty of diverse beliefs among the Jews).
This verse comes to us via Luke, but is still worth noting:
Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise [h]to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You.’
The Psalm itself refers to David, who was adopted by God; Paul would seem to be saying the same is true of Jesus.
The content of this speech is important to understanding what
Luke might think or imagine Paul to have said on the occasion... it is of no relevance to what Paul himself believed --- you seem to anticipate this rebuttal in your reserved presentation of the evidence. Luke is a collector of traditions, not unlike the Paul he idolizes and writes about at some remove... despite his admiration for Paul, however, it is clear he doesn't always understand or agree with him --- compare, for example, Paul's own scathing condemnation of idolatry in Romans 1 with the speech attributed to him in Acts 17.
I will almost point out this verse:
Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power according to the [c]Spirit of holiness [d]by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
This may well be a creed Paul is repeating, but the fact is that he repeats it, indicating it does reflect his own beliefs.
I agree that Rom 1:3-4 is pre-Pauline and represents the earliest Christological formulation... a man descended from David who is declared "son of God" at the resurrection. It does not follow, however, that Paul
restricts himself to this understanding... rather he incorporates it into his higher Christological vision of the divine son who, in coming to earth as a man, divested himself of his divinity and who is restored to this exalted status at the resurrection.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
