That's right. I went there.
Now that I have your attention let me note for the record that I do believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.
And the imagination part begins
Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, is writing an account of his glorious time with Jesus. He's trying to think, "how am I going to get the attention of my audience? How am I going to convince them that He is the one that the prophets spoke of when they spoke of the Messiah."
He thinks, "ok well we got the genealogy part down." (TL:DR Your lineage was KEY in Jewish culture at Jesus time and was necessary to prove prophecy fulfilled.)
The conception of Christ AKA say what now?
"Hmmm, I know! We'll talk about how He was conceived! That's it! Right... how was he conceived again?"
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. (Matthew 1:18-19)
AWWWWKKKKKWWWWAAAARRRRRD. As it were.
"But seriously guys! He's the Son of God! Guys? Guys?"
Matthew was trying to convince his audience that Jesus, that crazy rabbi that everyone heard about, was actually the Son of God come to save the world! Y'all think we're crazy for believing this stuff now, imagine what people back then were saying when they heard any of this?
The skepticism of those in the time period AKA Yeah right, cuckold.
"Pffffftt, yeah right. Holy Spirit my patootie. She got raped and you just don't want to admit it."
You actually don't think that people were thinking that back then too? Matthew probably knew it, but he was either oblivious or didn't care. Oblivious is not likely. Matthew was a tax collector before he started following Jesus, a serious Roman bureaucrat who had spent many years embroiled in the muckery of Roman bureaucracy. He plowed on with the story.
Joseph's side of the story AKA Now you're a CRAZY cuckold, not just a cuckold.
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:20-21)
So Matthew goes he does, "I know! It was an ANGEL FROM THE LORD! That will get people's attention. That's why Joseph didn't divorce her."
An angel from the Lord comes and tells you to live out the rest of your life as an alleged cuckold (because again, realistically, you think people then bought this Holy Spirit stuff? I kind of doubt it, but anyone is free to correct me). This is NOT a small life-decision for Joseph at this point. The shame he's going to have to walk around with? The cut eyed looks and the rumours and the whispering, and the hushed titters? Private divorce sounds good to me, from that perspective. And he didn't even get to NAME the freaking bastard (irreverence making you cringe yet some of my right leaning folks?)
The faith equation AKA I don't care if you think I'm crazy I know what I saw.
But Joseph chose a more difficult path. He chose to face the potential sully on his honour because the Angel was right. He chose to believe that something special was going on and that he was going to be a part of it, even if it meant a lifetime of shame.
Now if I was trying to hornswaggle my readers, I definitely would not have written in a crazy ass cuckold who justified himself with a speech from an Angel from the Lord. I doubt the skeptics of the time would have let it go that easily. (Note that I think it's kind of pretentious of us to think that skeptics DIDN'T exist back then.) Why would I make my story WORSE by making my character witnesses to the Virgin Birth a sullied bride who got raped and a crazy cuckoo who heard voices from angels? All that does is feed the rumours that were already spreading at that time that he was just the bastard son of a Roman soldier.
But there it is. Matthew decided to put it in anyway. Whatever for, I don't know, but I'm skeptical of a view that suggests that such a defamatory statement against Christ's nature would make it into a fabricated account that is attempting to establish His Deity through false premises.
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:24-25)An origin story? Or just some crazy fiction?
And thus, we have the origin story of Jesus according to Matthew, trying to convince his very Jewish readership that this bastard born and fathered by this crazy guy who thought he was special and privy to prophecy (spoken to by an Angel) was the Messiah to whom Isaiah prophesied, whom all the Teachers of the Law and the Rabbis taught would be a militaristic saviour come to free them from the Romans (or as was a popular Messianic view of the time).
(See Matthew 1:22-23 for his stated reasons as to why he was telling the story this way.)
Good one Matthew. Well chosen.
Again, a facetious remark to draw your attention to just how unconvincing this story really is. But Matthew wrote it out anyway. He even died for it. Or even if he didn't it was someone that believed it and likely probably suffered greatly for believing it as well. (History of Christianity 101. If you have any questions, consult a basic history text on early Christianity right after the time of the death of the last apostle but before the Romanification of the Church.)
The conclusion
With all this wild meandering, I want to conclude with this. This story is a skeptic's dream come true as to the many ways that you can laugh at us. But people wrote this, believed this, and then died for believing it. To nobody's particular benefit. Except to continue sharing the message that God dwelt among us and He did so in Jesus.
Why? "for he will save his people from their sins" said the angel to Joseph.
Curious yet? I'll continue on with this journey through Matthew, continually through a skeptical lens. I hope I'm asking the same questions you ask as I go through this. If I am not, then share with me. If I'm saying anything wrong, share THAT too.
