Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Explain Matt 1:20-25 vs Luke 2:4-6 | Matt 1:24 | Makarios | 30741 | ||
Greetings Karineena! Excellent perception! :-) The Zondervan NASB Study Bible attempts to answer this alleged contradiction.. "1:18 had been betrothed. There were no sexual relations during a Jewish betrothal period, but it was a much more binding relationship than a modern engagement and could be broken only by divorce (see v.19). In Deut. 22:24 a betrothed woman is called a "wife," though the preceding verse speaks of her as being "engaged to a man." Matthew uses the terms "husband" (v.19) and "wife" (v.24) of Joseph and Mary before they were married." Also, the Ryrie Expanded Edition Study Bible states, "1:19 her husband. Although Joseph and Mary were not yet married, so sacred was the year of engagement, or betrothal, that they were by custom considered as if married (cf. Gen. 29:21; Deut. 22:23-30)." The MacArthur Study Bible states, "1:18 betrothed. Jewish betrothal was as binding as modern marriage. A divorce was necessary to terminate the betrothal (v.19) and the betrothed couple were regarded legally as husband and wife (v.19) - although physical union had not yet taken place..." and "(Luke) 2:5 betrothed. ... Matthew 1:24 indicates that when the angel told Joseph about Mary's pregnancy, he "took to him his wife"- i.e., he took her into his home. But they did not consummate their marriage until after the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:25). Therefore, technically, they were still betrothed." So by understanding that "betrothal" almost meant marriage itself, then we can understand both Matthew and Luke to the point where we can get a picture without having the text seem contradictory. Blessings to you, Nolan |
||||||
2 | Further understanding of betrothal? | Matt 1:24 | Karineena | 31206 | ||
If there was no sexual relation during a Jewish betrothal period, and they were not married when Jesus was born, why would it be important to state "he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son"? Since they were both under Jewish law and known to be righteous, wouldn't this be assumed? | ||||||
3 | Further understanding of betrothal? | Matt 1:24 | Mommapbs | 31213 | ||
Greetings! I'm going to take a "common sense" stab at this one! Regardless of how "righteous" we assume others to be, there are no guarantees without proof. God provided this in the statement "he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." Here's what I think the "proof was!" Although Scripture does not give the details, we could safely assume that Mary had at least a midwife in attendence at the birth of Jesus. Remember Bethlehem was full of people at the time, so it is very probable that there were other women available to assist this first-time mother! It would be physically obvious to Mary's birth attendents that she was a virgin. |
||||||
Up | Down | |||
Questions and/or Subjects for Matt 1:24 | Author | ||
|
leegreerwin | ||
|
Jesusman | ||
|
Karineena | ||
|
Makarios | ||
|
Karineena | ||
|
Mommapbs | ||
|
2007 mouse |