(avg. read time: 14–28 mins.)
Last year, I wrote a series of posts looking at Matthew and Luke’s Christmas stories in Jewish context. That is, I examined the stories in the original theological/historical context they emerged from. But we must acknowledge that they were ultimately told, preserved, and given their lasting significance in the context of the Christian community and the literature produced by it in the form of the NT. It was important to see Christmas in the Jewish context as well, since the Gospel Christmas stories operate as hinge stories connecting the era of Christ with the preceding history from which it draws its language, imagery, and theological/historical context. It is never simply that the old is reinterpreted in light of the new; the new is also interpreted in light of the old. But now we must consider the Christmas stories in light of the Christian context. This will mean not only looking at Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2 again, but we will also look at John 1:1–18 and Rev 12, as these Johannine texts also provide illuminating angles on Christmas.
Matthew 1
A New Genesis
Canonically, Matthew’s Christmas story is the first one we encounter, and this is as it should be with how explicitly he bridges the OT and NT from the opening chapters. Indeed, he does this from the very first words: βίβλοςγενέσεωςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ (1:1). This unique introduction to a Gospel evokes the use of the two opening words in the LXX of Gen 2:4 and 5:1, where the account of generation/genealogy concerned heaven and earth (Gen 2:4) and humanity (Gen 5:1). But now it concerns Jesus Christ, through whom God brings about a new genesis, a new creation, by giving him all authority in heaven and on earth (28:18). This connection of creation and new creation is further supported by the connection of Jesus’s birth with his resurrection and exaltation. Jesus made promises to his disciples concerning the παλιγγενεσία (19:28), which can be translated as “regeneration” or—more in line with the overarching eschatology of the Gospel—“re-creation” (as in new creation). Given that Jesus has predicts his own death but has also promised that he will sit on his throne as the Son of Man (cf. 25:31; 26:64) and that his disciples will judge the twelve tribes of Israel from their twelve thrones, the only reconciliation between these two predictions is through his predicted resurrection. And while the closing of the Gospel does not describe him as sitting on his throne, it does describe him as receiving the cosmic authority of that position subsequent to his resurrection. Finally, Jesus’s resurrection—in connection with the genesis of 1:1 and the cosmic re-genesis of 19:28—becomes a pattern for all of creation, so that when the current world order is destroyed (5:18; 24:35), creation will be renewed to bear the eternal glory of God. As such, we should see in these opening words at least two levels of significance. One, Matthew is intentionally connecting Jesus’s genealogy to the first genealogies of Genesis, and he has done so in a way that will signify that the history of the world since Genesis has found its climax in Jesus (more on this below). Two, this account is not only of Jesus’s generation, but of generation/regeneration through Jesus Christ. Christmas is the necessary step to Easter/Pascha and to the promises yet to come because of it.
Christ, Abraham, David, and the Fulfillment of Scripture
In this introduction to the genealogy, Matthew emphasizes Jesus’s descent from Abraham and from David. He is truly of Israelite descent, through the royal line, and thus is the heir of Abrahamic and Davidic promises (which I have noted in the earlier series on Matthew and Luke). But, in light of how Matthew lays out the scheme of this genealogy, Jesus is also at the beginning of the crucial chapter for Israel. The genealogy begins with Abraham (at the roots of Israel’s covenantal story), then proceeds fourteen generations to David (at this time considered the climactic king of Israel’s history to which Israel constantly looked back and used as a basis for future hopes), then proceeds fourteen generations to the exile (the nadir of Israel’s history from which it had not fully recovered), and finally proceeds fourteen generations to Jesus (the juncture at which it would make sense for the solution to the problem of the exile to arrive). It is clear enough why Abraham and David are chosen as the prominent ancestors to link to Jesus, but there is more to say on this point in light of the function of this genealogy as part of the introduction for the book.
Abraham’s name only appears three more times after ch. 1. Two of the three times, he appears in the formulaic triad of reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The first time (3:9), John the Baptist relativizes the status of being biological children of Abraham. It may help establish one as being part of the covenant people, but it is not something upon which to presume, thinking that descent was enough to ensure righteous standing. This is why John calls the Pharisees and the Sadducees to repentance, even as he called the other people of Israel (3:2). God can make those who have no biological relation to Abraham his children (hence the reference to rocks), but what really matters about being children of Abraham is following in his faithfulness, as Paul argued in Romans. Jesus makes much the same point in his response to the centurion seeking his miraculous healing power (8:11–12) when he refers to the eschatological feast after the resurrection. Many like the centurion who are not Jews and who are not from the Promised Land will come from around the world to join in this feast with the resurrected Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. First and Second Benedictions of the Amidah; Apoc. Zeph. 9; 11:1–4; T. Lev. 18:14; T. Jud. 25:1; T. Zeb. 10:2; T. Benj. 10:6–11; LAB 23:13), but those who should have been the heirs of the kingdom will be on the outside looking in because they did not properly understand the identity as children of Abraham to be a vocation with commensurate demands and responsibilities as well. The last reference is Jesus’s diatribe on the resurrection with the Sadducees (22:32) and I can only briefly summarize work I have done on this text elsewhere. Here the statement is less about people as it is about God, the God who self-identifies as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus’s argument in Matt 22 entails that the exodus was only the initial demonstration of God’s self-identification as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the coming resurrection and its attendant eschatological events will be the supreme demonstration and fulfillment of this identification. The sense of correspondence of the two events, the amplification in the latter, and the latter’s fulfillment of the former all implicitly tie the resurrection with new exodus belief, which fits a motif of Jesus’s ministry. As such, one sees that in Jesus’s own ministry and in the eschatological events inaugurated by his death and resurrection, God is both acting consistently with the self-identification as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and amplifying the context in which that identification was made by enacting a new exodus that is superior to the old in terms of scope, efficacy, and everlastingness. The general resurrection is a key part of these events, and it will take place in accordance with what Jesus has already inaugurated of the new exodus by his ministry, death, and resurrection.
In contrast, Matthew features eleven references to David, mostly in the eight references to the Son of David (9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15; 22:42). The references to Jesus as Son of David usually appear in contexts of his miraculous power, as people refer to him as Son of David in hope for healing from blindness (9:27; 20:30–31), in response to exorcism (12:23), and in hope of exorcism (15:22). He is also greeted as the Son of David when he enters Jerusalem in preparation for the Passover (21:9, 15). In one case, Jesus asks the Pharisees about whose son the Messiah is and they reply that he is the son of David (22:42). In response, Jesus says that David calls the Messiah his Lord (in Ps 110:1), not his son (22:43–45). Clearly, one of the primary expectations of the identity of the Messiah was that the Messiah would be a king like David and be descended from David (2 Sam 7:12–16; Pss 89:1–37; 132; Isa 9:1–7; 11; 55:1–5; Jer 23:5–8; 30:1–3, 18–22; 33:14–26; Ezek 34:23–31; 37:19–28; Hos 3:4–5; Mic 5:2–15; T. Sim. 7:2–3; T. Jud. 24; T. Naph. 8:2–3; Pss. Sol. 17:21–46; 4QcommGen A V, 1–4; 4QDibHama 1–2 IV, 5–8; 4QpIsaa III, 11–24; 4QFlor 1 I, 7–13; 4QAramaic Apocalypse/4Q246 II). Among those who expected the coming of a royal Messiah, he was described as necessary to reuniting the kingdom, delivering it from enemies, and executing God’s will and judgment. Jesus never claims to be the Son of David himself in Matthew’s narration, but he implicitly affirms it (as in the episode in which Peter confesses that he is the Messiah in 16:16–20 or in his trial). Two other points should be kept in mind here. One, even if Jesus never explicitly claims to be the Son of David, Matthew—writing on the other side of the resurrection—surely sees the validity of this claim. Two, Jesus’s self-understanding and self-presentation of Messiahship moves beyond only being the Son of David, as in only his descendant, to being David’s Lord, one who sits at the right hand of the one called “Lord,” who the Lord himself calls to sit there. This may partly explain why he does not claim to be the Son of David: he knows that he surpasses even the expectations of this eschatological persona. (The only other reference to David is to what David did on the Sabbath in 12:3–4, wherein Jesus responds to the Pharisees’ claim that he and his disciples were violating the Sabbath with reference to David’s precedent to justify his action as he reasons from lesser to greater, since, again, he is one greater than David [12:6].)
What theological context do these other references to Abraham and David supply? First, in continuity with what I have previously noted about the promises to Abraham and David, Jesus’s descent from them foreshadows how he will act to bring the history of Israel, including the promises to these two great figures, to fruition. Second, while this genealogical status is important for setting Jesus in his context in the history of Israel, he also relativizes it, since descent from Abraham does not matter without bearing fruit like his and since the one called Son of David is greater than David as his Lord. Third, we thus see how the opening lines of the Gospel according to Matthew portend the rest of the narrative, which will concern how God faithfully fulfills Scripture and old promises in new ways through Jesus Christ. Fourth, the eschatological references to Abraham in particular illustrate the scope of salvific work extending beyond the boundaries of the Jewish people (as Matthew’s narrative, more than any other Gospel, will foreshadow) and how Jesus, as the son of Abraham, is the one through whom all nations will be blessed (Gen 12:3).
Before we move on, I think it is necessary to repeat some notes I have made previously about the notion of “fulfillment” of Scripture in the NT (as well as, to a lesser extent, the OT). It is easy to imagine a simple understanding of textual/prophetic fulfillment—as is common even today—in which the quoted text is supposed to speak of a future event that has not happened until the event in question brings the text to mind. While there are debates about prophetic viewpoints in Israel and Second Temple Judaism, it seems clear enough that when it comes to their claims about “fulfillment,” this particular view does not suffice as a more or less comprehensive description. Intertextual links were more essential. Allusion, typology, recapitulation of narrative summaries, and so on can also be ways of referring to fulfillment, not so much of precise details as written, but of essential narrative patterns or dynamics of action, promise, and character, which can happen through contrast or through emulation/recapitulation. This kind of fulfillment is more like fulfillment of contractual (more properly: covenantal) promises and expectations based on past performance and history (i.e., expectations based on the impression, “that is the kind of person/people he/she/they is/are”). We see all types of fulfillment in the NT, and it would help to expand our concepts of what “fulfillment” involves in order to appreciate all of them.
The Virgin Birth
This brings us to the matter of the virgin birth, which I have written about elsewhere. A lot of theological layering has been added to this event since the first century in an attempt to explain its significance and why it was necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin. A more complete consideration of Christmas in Christian context would evaluate this theological exposition of the later Church, but I am more interested here in Christmas in the earliest Christian contexts as defined by the documents that articulate the Christmas story. I will consider Luke’s account and the significance he assigns to the virgin birth later, but for now it is worth noting that both texts attest to it, but neither is clearly dependent on the other. Matthew ties it to a particular Scripture, but Luke does not. In other words, one ties it explicitly to prophecy fulfillment, but the other does not. But despite different theological motives, they both claim it. However, there is no explicit reference to it in Mark or John, nor is there any identifiable implicit reference. It is not easy to account for why this is on the basis of later theological accounts of the virgin birth, and so this provides part of the warrant for getting back to the roots of this belief in Jesus’s virgin birth.
Matthew, like Luke, stresses that Jesus’s virginal conception happened by the power of the Holy Spirit (1:18, 20). This has since become a fundamental point about Jesus’s incarnation expressed in the creeds. But why is it specified that this has happened by the Holy Spirit and not by God the Father? Luke would seem to be clearer about this than Matthew as he quotes a parallelism that links the Spirit with the power of God (Luke 1:35). Given the fact that the Spirit is often described in relation to the power of God as the one who brings God’s power to bear on a person or situation (and this would be especially true in Second Temple Judaism as the Spirit became more associated with immanence while God was understood more frequently in terms of transcendence), this works well enough as an initial explanation for why the Spirit is specified, but I think there is more to it in both Matthew and Luke, although I will address Luke in more detail later. First, the description of the Holy Spirit’s activity (particularly in terms of “coming upon” someone), in both the OT and the NT, is otherwise not a description of sexual action (cf. Num 11:25; 24:2; Judg 3:10; 11:29; 1 Sam 11:6; 19:20, 23; 2 Sam 23:2; 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; Isa 42:1; 44:3; 59:21; 61:1; Ezek 11:5; 39:29). But the fact that Jesus is physically conceived by the Holy Spirit, as opposed to others born from the Spirit (John 3:6, 8; 1 John 3:24; 4:13), establishes his birth as a unique event in the history of the Spirit’s action. Second, this conception by the Spirit establishes Jesus’s unique relationship to the Spirit (Matt 3:11, 16; 4:1; 10:18–20; 12:28, 31–32; 28:19). The fact that Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit anticipates how Jesus will have the Spirit descend on him at God’s declaration that he is his Son (3:16), be the one who shows his superiority to John by baptizing with the Spirit (3:11), will be led by the Spirit into the wilderness and empowered by the Spirit to overcome Satan’s temptations (4:1), and will drive out demons (and presumably perform other miracles) by the Spirit in declaration of the coming of God’s kingdom (12:28). The Spirit is also uniquely linked with Jesus in that the Spirit gives words to those who testify to Jesus, especially in situations of persecution (10:18–20), and in that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is linked with falsely attributing the Spirit’s actions in Jesus to Beelzebul (12:31–32). This unique relationship is also shown in Jesus’s closing instruction telling his disciples to baptize other disciples in the name of the Father, himself, and the Holy Spirit (28:19). Against any impressions of adoptionism that might have seemed reinforced from the scene of Jesus’s baptism and the Holy Spirit descending upon him, Matthew insists that Jesus is not simply another great prophet who received empowerment by the Holy Spirit and consequently received exaltation. Rather, his relationship with the Holy Spirit extends beyond his ministry to his very entrance into the world and even beyond that to the interrelationship of the Godhead. As such, the reference to Jesus’s conception by the Holy Spirit is essential framing by which we should understand Jesus’s conception as the incarnation and by which we should understand all else that Matthew conveys about Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
However, it is not entirely clear that this conception by the Holy Spirit necessitated that Jesus’s mother be a virgin. Within the framework that both Matthew and Luke operate in, where infertility was a frequent reality in their shared sacred history, it would hardly seem inappropriate for the Holy Spirit to conceive a child within the womb of a barren woman. Nor would Mary’s virginity be necessary to remove all doubts about Jesus’s parentage (i.e., that God was his Father). Jesus having God as his Father is not predicated on the circumstances of his birth in Matthew, Luke, or the other NT texts, but on the transcendent reality of their relationship in the Godhead. Nor would this virginal conception have been considered necessary by virtue of Jesus being called God’s Son, since people who had previously been called God’s children included Israel, righteous individuals, and the king (not to mention angels), and in no case did it imply that their human fathers were not their actual fathers (Exod 4:22; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Wis 2:13, 16–18; 5:5; 9:7; 18:13; Sir 4:10; Jub 1:24–25, 28; Jos. Asen. 6:3, 5; 13:13; 18:11; 19:8; 21:4; 4QAramaic Apocalypse/4Q246 II, 1; 4QcommMal/4Q253a 1 I, 3–4; 4QDibHama/4Q504 1–2 III, 5–7; 11QMelch/11Q13 II, 14; cf. Deut 32:6; Isa 63:16; 64:8; Jer 3:4; Mal 1:6; 2:10; Tob 13:4; Wis 11:10; 14:3; Sir 23:1, 4; 51:10; 3 Macc 2:21; 5:7–8, 51; 6:3–8; 2 Bar 13:9; Jos. Asen. 11:13; 12:8, 12–15; L.A.B. 53:7; Hel. Syn. Pr. 1:2; 2:6; 4:38; 9:7; Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 13.13.6). Rather, Matthew ties the significance of the virginity to a specific text: Isa 7:14 (1:22–23).
I have already commented on this text before, but I think it would be helpful to expand on it and its context further to illustrate why it is used here. Naturally, what establishes its relevance is the reference to a “virgin” (παρθένος). As is well known, the MT testifies to the use of a term that most naturally means “young maiden” (עלמה). The Aramaic Targum agrees with the MT, while the Vulgate and the Peshitta agree with the LXX. Obviously, a lot has been written about this difference between terms and how the translation might have happened. But in any case, the difference can be overstressed. A “young maiden” was a girl who had not yet borne children, but was of marriageable age, which would mean, according to norms of the day, she would be presumed to be a virgin if she is not married. Of course, even the Greek term was not always used strictly for referring to a virgin, as it could also refer to a young woman who was not yet a mother (e.g., Gen 34:3 LXX). In neither Hebrew nor Greek is there a term reserved strictly for virgins per se (this heads off the objection that Isaiah would have used בתולה if he meant “virgin,” since there are cases where it does not clearly refer to virgins as such [Isa 23:4; 47:1 {cf. v. 9}; Jer 31:13; 51:22; Lam 1:18; Ezek 9:6; Joel 1:8] and cases where the qualifier “who had not known a man” is attached [Gen 24:16; Judg 21:12], which would be unnecessary if it only meant “virgin”). This linguistic ambiguity works well as a reminder that a young maiden is not necessarily the same as a virgin, but there is significant overlap between these categories and the latter is certainly more definite than the former. And in any case, the original prophecy was clearly not understood as meaning that a young woman/virgin will conceive without engaging in sex. The fact that it functions as a sign associated with a prophecy does not mean it is in itself a miraculous action. Rather, I think Matthew is engaging in typological interpretation here in order to link this text to Jesus. After all, given that Jesus’s virginal conception appears in Luke as well, it is not that Matthew constructed an account of a virginal conception out of this text; it is that Matthew has used this text as a way to understand and convey the significance of something that was a preexisting story about Jesus’s life.
The bases for Matthew making a typological link here, beyond the reference to a virgin conceiving, include that the prophecy is addressed to the house of David (specifically, King Ahaz; Isa 7:2, 13), that there is promised deliverance (Isa 7:3–7; 8:4; Matt 1:21), and that both children signify God being “with us.” In the original context of Isa 7:1–17, Isaiah gives a promise to Ahaz that his kingdom will be delivered from the attacks of the northern kingdom of Israel and Aram, although they will be replaced by the threat that is Assyria (hence, this passage is not entirely hopeful). Even though Ahaz refused to ask for a sign of this, Isaiah gives him one anyway: a designated young maiden (or virgin, perhaps) will conceive—although the future sense is not unambiguous in the Hebrew—and give birth to a son who will not even mature before God brings deliverance by Assyria (as noted throughout the following text). Given how the text plays out after this prophecy, it is most likely that it originally refers to Isaiah’s son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. His birth is also connected to the defeat of Israel and Aram as indicating that the time is short for the oracle’s fulfillment (Isa 8:4; 7:15–16), it is connected with the coming of Assyria and the danger it poses to Judah (8:7–8; 7:17–25), and he is associated with the name Immanuel (8:8, 10; 7:14). Furthermore, Isaiah declares in 8:18 that his sons were given to him for signs and wonders (cf. 7:11, 14).
However, the story does not end with the replacement of two enemy kingdoms with a larger one that will yet be hostile. Chapter 7 belongs to a larger unit that includes ch. 9. Ironically, for all that Isa 9:6 is a widely used text for the Church during Advent, it is not cited in Matthew or Luke’s Christmas account, but I would argue that it is still relevant for the analysis of this story, and Matthew obviously knew about it (4:13–17). After all, Isaiah seems to be operating on the basis of an inherent typology in 7–9. Between the reference to the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and 9:6, there have been no other reference to a child being born, but obviously Isaiah’s son is not the one to fulfill the words of Isa 9:6, since his birth relates to the judgment on Israel and Aram, as well as the coming of Assyria to trouble Judah. The child of 9:6 points to a time and condition beyond that. This child’s birth will surpass that of the one previously called Immanuel, for he will have an even more glorious four-part name: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. While the house and throne of David were not in any way improved in the previous promise, they are improved by being established in everlasting peace here (9:7). The judgment on Israel and Aram is recapitulated in the subsequent text (9:8–10:4) and judgment eventually comes against Assyria as well (10:5–19), which brings us beyond the original horizon of chs. 7 and 8. This child’s birth thus brings about an even better state in relation to these three entities than was the case with Immanuel, and so it is reasonable to say that Isaiah sets up a typology within his own text in expectation of the child of 9:6.
It is unclear if Matthew himself specifically purposed to establish a typological relationship that was quite this wide-ranging, but the links between his text beyond the citation of 7:14 and this larger complex lends credibility to this reading. On this reading, Matthew places Jesus in typological relationship not only to 7:14, but to 9:6 (and 8:8, 10 in between) as well. After all, Jesus brings both 7:14 and 9:6 to fulfillment, even if they originally applied to two different figures. But now he has incorporated both figures into himself and brought them both to their promised goal. He is the anti-type that goes beyond the original type and Isaiah’s original anti-type. He is not only the sign of God’s deliverance; he is the agent of God’s salvation. He has not come to save the people from Roman oppression by overthrow (as one might be inclined to take from ch. 9), but from their greatest enemies: the evil spiritual powers and the sin that controls both those powers and the people (as shown by the particular sins that manifest in their lives). He will not only receive the throne of his father David; he will receive all power in heaven and on earth and take his position at the right hand of God the Father, whence he will continue as he has done in the Gospel, bringing judgment and salvation to all nations. He is the one that the rest of Matthew’s narrative will demonstrate embodies both the identities of the child of Isa 7:14 and the child of Isa 9:6. Indeed, Matthew will show that Jesus embodies the essence of the name Immanuel in a way that no one has before, since Jesus is truly God with us always (cf. the book-ends of Matt 1:23 and 28:20), who has come to act as Redeemer and Deliverer. That he conveys this point is especially clear in light of the fact that the angel instructed Joseph to name the baby Jesus, while the prophecy he cites says that he will be named Immanuel. He does not fulfill the prophecy in respect to the name he went by, but in respect to fulfilling what the name means.
In all of these ways, we see how the Christmas story is tied with the Easter story as Jesus’s birth foreshadows his death, resurrection, and exaltation, by which he inaugurates God’s heavenly kingdom. In every telling of the Christmas story, it is essential not only to understand the larger narrative context from which it emerged, but also to understand it through the lens of the gospel events that confirmed God’s revelation of who Jesus is: his death, resurrection, and exaltation. This is why he is described as being of David’s lineage in anticipation of his exaltation beyond David to the right hand of God the Father. This is why his name is a description of his mission, to save people from their sins, which will be accomplished at the climax of the story. This is why he is described as “God with us” in anticipation of the climactic events that show he will always be with us. And this is why he is described as fulfilling Scripture by his very conception in anticipation of his fulfillment of Scripture in the events of his death, resurrection, and exaltation (21:37–44; 26:23–24, 31–32, 54–56; 27:9–10).
Now before we move on to the next chapter, there is one other feature of the narrative worth noting here: the focus on Joseph. Matthew, Luke, and John (once in 1:45) all refer to Joseph, and he is an actual character in the story in Matthew and Luke, but only Matthew presents him as a narrative focus from whose perspective we see events unfold. Why is this? The obvious answer is that it is due to Matthew’s concern for the genealogical link to David, which comes from Joseph. The virginal conception story clarifies that Jesus is not Joseph’s biological son, but Joseph is necessary for the incorporation of Jesus into the line of David in Matthew’s account, since he marries Mary and legitimizes Jesus’s lineage by his adoption of him as his son. This much is true about the reasoning behind the account, but I cannot help but wonder if there is more to the story. What I think this “more” is concerns the description of Joseph as “righteous” as doing what he was commanded to do.
The aforementioned points are common enough descriptors of good characters in biblical narrative, but what is more significant about Joseph is what these terms mean for him and for Matthew’s larger narrative. Joseph is described as “righteous” as an explanation for his initial action in the story. He learned that Mary was pregnant and that he was not the father (since he could not be). While the Torah did not require him to divorce her in this situation, it permitted him to do so, and the explanation we are given for him acting as he did—in a way that would preserve his image and spare her public disgrace—was that he was righteous (δίκαιος). This term and its larger word group (including the noun δικαιοσύνη and the verb δικαιόω) have inspired much discussion in biblical studies, especially in Paul’s works. The verb is only used twice in Matthew to refer to vindication by speech and action (11:19; 12:37). The noun appears seven times as that which is fulfilled (at least in part) by Jesus’s baptism (3:15), something that the blessed ones of the kingdom hunger and thirst for (5:6), a condition linked to the gospel, so that one is persecuted for the sake of Jesus, his gospel, and righteousness (5:10–12), a quality that Jesus’s followers should have in a way that surpasses the Pharisees (5:20), right actions that characterize God’s people (6:1), and a way that defined John the Baptist’s life (21:32). The use that arguably acts as the key to all the others is in 6:33, where Jesus instructs his followers to seek God’s kingdom and God’s righteousness, which is to say, “his righteous will.” After all, what is right/righteous is what God defines as such and believers are to seek what God values, what is favored in God’s eyes. They embody this quality in themselves when they obey what God commands. While the adjective has a semantic domain that goes beyond this idea, it fundamentally defines its usage in relation to people as those who are declared as right in God’s eyes by their right relation and right conduct in consistency with the standard of God’s commands (5:45; 9:13; 10:41; 13:17, 43, 49; 23:29, 35; 25:37, 46; cf. 23:28). Even where the word group does not appear, those who are judged righteous by God are those who do God’s will/commands (7:21; 12:10–12, 50; 21:28–32; 25:31–40), especially by following Jesus and his teaching (7:24, 26; 28:20).
Thus, here is what I suggest is significant about Joseph in the Christian context beyond his genealogical link. Joseph represents a transition of a righteous person from the old covenant to the new covenant that Jewish believers had to navigate in Matthew’s day and into our own. He was described as righteous because he followed God’s commands as conveyed by the Torah, keeping them not only in letter, but in spirit (hence his desire not to disgrace the young woman he will be divorcing). But the angel of the Lord brings him a new word beyond the Torah, one that will ultimately be about its fulfillment (hence the giving of the name Jesus to signify that he would save his people from their sins in 1:21). Because what is happening in Mary will ultimately bring about God’s salvific purposes, as Jesus embodies the reconciliation of God and humans in his name and in his person, it would not be right for Joseph, a man previously designated as right in God’s eyes, to use the Torah as grounds for divorcing her. Joseph then shows his righteous character by doing God’s will, which is to say, what was commanded by the new word. In this way, Matthew’s Christmas story portends an issue that would arise in Jesus’s life and afterwards when other Jews who had been righteous according to the Torah would have to face when confronted with God’s new revelation in Jesus. Would they stick to the standard of righteousness they had already known, or would they continue along the trajectory of righteousness to follow God’s will according to the new revelation in Christ that would ultimately fulfill what they had already known? Joseph poses that challenge in how he acts, and he represents his fellow Jews who faithfully followed Jesus, recognizing him as the fulfillment of the Torah, even as his revelation is a new word from God.