"Don't Do as the Romans Do": Anti-assimilation and Old Testament Narrative in Revelation

This week I got to engage in some academic fun. I was invited to share a paper at Briercrest College and Seminary's Bible/Theology Colloquium. For those interested, here is a summary excerpt from the paper:

John’s use of Old Testament narrative in Revelation is united in purpose. His primary concern is to warn the churches of the grave danger of entering into the sexual immorality and idolatry so aggressively prescribed by the surrounding culture. His goal in alluding to Old Testament characters and narratives is to firmly assert the vital importance of remaining faithful to Jesus in the face of severe (and even deadly) persecution. Examples from Israel’s past are called to mind as both admonition against assimilation and motivation for repentance and endurance. John’s use of the Old Testament beckons, “Do not imitate the practices of the nations around you! Remember how Jezebel, Ahab, Balaam, and Pharaoh suffered on account of their wickedness, and Israel for its unfaithfulness!” 

From the stories of Jezebel and Balaam the churches are reminded of the destruction that falls upon those who are unfaithful to the Lord. From the stories of Daniel and Exodus, they are instructed to remember that God delivers those who remain his faithful servants. Though they might be crushed under an enemy’s heel now, they will ultimately receive vindication and restoration. God will not allow a beast to conquer them nor a Pharaoh to enslave them forever. He will utterly destroy these satanic enemies, and will set up his people in a place of authority, even to rule with him. John’s message is one of concern and hope. His desire is for all the churches to be included among the overcomers, those who will make up the faithful bride of Christ.

If you are interested in the rest of the paper, it can be downloaded here.

‘Love’ and Discipleship in the Gospel of John

Here’s a question for you: Does the use of “love” in John match the use of “hate” in Luke?

That is far too broad (and probably inaccurate) a question to ask. My question is specifically about John 21:15-17, in which Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love me?”

As explored in my last post, in Luke 14:26 μισέω (“hate”) is used as a term of renunciation, renouncing one’s family as the foundation of security, belonging, and living and taking on Jesus as that foundation instead. In this sense, to hate my family means not that I harbor psychological hostility toward it, but that I no longer belong to/with my family, but belong to/with Jesus.

With this in mind, my question is: Since “love” is usually regarded as the opposite of “hate,” does Jesus’ question in John 17 have anything to do with the call to discipleship? Is this three-fold question of love a way of reinstating Peter as a disciple after he denied Jesus three-fold? Does “love” in this context mean the opposite of what “hate” means in Luke 14? In other words, does “love” in John 17 mean “proclamation of loyalty and belonging” while “hate” in Luke 14 means “renunciation of loyalty and belonging”?

‘Hate’ and Following Jesus in Luke 14

When it comes to his teachings about discipleship, Jesus says some pretty difficult things. In Luke 14, Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters -- and even himself -- he is not able to be my disciple” (14:26).

This statement seems to contradict 'nicer' things said by Jesus, such as: "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you" (Luke 6:47), or "And just as you would wish that others would do to you, do so to them" (Luke 6:31).

Why this talk of hating? Μισέω is typically translated as “hate.” According to BDAG, μισέω can also mean, to "disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment" (BDAG 653 §2; cf.Matt 6:24, Lk 16:13, John 12:25, Rom 9:13). (LSJ doesn't give any sources in support of this un-preferential treatment.) In I. Howard Marshall’s opinion, μισέω “is usually said to have its Semitic sense, ‘to love less’” (Marshall, 592; cf. Gen 29:31-33, Deut 21:15-17, 2 Sam 19:7, Prov 13:24, Isa 60:15, Mal 1:2, Rom 9:13, 1 John 2:9). This is detectable in Matthew’s parallel: “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (Matt 10:37-38).

In this way, μισέω isn’t a psychological hostility, but a renunciation, a disowning, or rejection (Marshall, 592; TDNT IV, 690). As a person chooses to follow Jesus, to become his disciple, he or she must sever the natural connections and obligations he or she has toward father, mother, spouse, children, brothers, sisters, and to renounce even himself/herself. According to Bonhoeffer, “By calling us [Jesus] has cut us off from all immediacy with the things of this world. He wants to be the centre; through him alone all things shall come to pass” (Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 95). Such a separation would be extremely disorienting. As Carson Brisson comments,

These words enter a cultural setting in which an individual was primarily defined, from birth through death, by her or his family. In such a milieu, this saying sounds a call for individuals and the community of faith to embrace discipleship to Jesus as their new and ultimate basis for personal and corporate identity (cf. 8:19-21). Such a call would have presented a radically impractical choice, not simply an emotionally difficult one, and a nearly impossible act in a cultural setting in which contemporary definitions of freedom as individual self-assertion and many contemporary forms of economic support outside one's family system did not exist. . . . If God’s invitation is so urgent and so absolute that an individual’s family ties no longer form the basis of her or his identity, what is left that discipleship may not require? (Brisson, Carson. Luke 14:26-27.Interpretation, 61 no 3 Jl 2007: 311)

The answer is, of course, "nothing." There is no more to give after a disciple renounces even his/her own life. To make this ominously clear, Jesus states, “Whoever does not bear his own cross and comes after me is not able to be my disciple” (Luke 14:27). Luke uses this language elsewhere, in 9:23 in which Jesus says, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”

The cross is, of course, and ultimately, a death sentence. Here, though, the cross also communicates the manner of life those who follow Jesus can expect – namely, one of shame and suffering. Just imagine, if we find it difficult today in our own time and culture to step outside the bounds of what our family members expect from us, how much more difficult would this task be within the bounds of the shame-honor culture of first-century Judea? But Jesus doesn't call us to an easy life. He calls us to a life submitted completely to him. This is why the apostles refer to themselves as δοῦλος τοῦ Ἰσοῦ Χριστοῦ, "slave of Jesus Christ." The life I live is not to be my own. In following Jesus' call, I give up my right to direct my own life. It's a total submission, an absolute resignation of self-sovereignty. If I declare that Jesus is Lord (κύριος), then that declaration has something to say about me too -- that I am his servant, his slave. Jesus becomes the anchor of our new reality. He is the mediator through whom we relate to the world and other people. No longer am "I" the lowest common denominator, but Jesus instead.

Ultimately, this order to "hate" is a declaration of where life is found. Am I so certain that there is more life to be found in my familial relations than in Jesus, or more life in wealth or in the other forms of security this world can offer? Or am I willing to let go of absolutely everything to which I previously clung to cling singularly to the one who offers life like no other can?

The Grammatical Structure of Luke 14:29

Another quandary brought to you by Greek Tutorial. This week I was reading through Luke 14:25-30 with a couple of students, and verse 29 proved to be, shall we say, especially interesting. I'd like to examine the grammatical structure of the pericope to get a feel for what's going on in Luke 14:29. Here's 14:28-30:

[28] Τίς γὰρ ἐξ ὑμῶν θέλων πύργον οἰκοδομῆσαι οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει τὴν δαπάνην, εἰ ἔχει εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν; [29] ἴνα μήποτε θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι πάντες οἰ θεωροῦντες ἄρξωνται αὐτῷ ἐμπαίζειν [30] λέγοντες ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἤρζατο οἰκοδομεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ἐκτελέσαι.

In verse 28, τὶς (nom masc sg) is matched by the participle θέλων (nom masc sg pres act ptc), and is modified by the genitive phrase ἐξ ὑμῶν to read, "For, who among you desiring". The participle θέλων belongs to the infinitive οἰκοδομῆσαι which gives us the content of the desire, "to build." The direct object of οἰκοδομῆσαι is the accusative masculine singular πύργον, "a tower."

This phrase so far: "For anyone from among you desiring to build a tower".

Next, οὐχὶ negates ψηφίζει, "does he not calculate," which takes τὴν δαπάνην as its object, "does he not calculate the cost." ψηφίζει is modified by the attendant circumstance participle καθίσας, which describes the action that goes on as the person calculates the cost: "does he not, sitting down, calculate the cost". The next clause, εἰ ἔχει εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν, appears to be a purpose clause (though this verse is missing an infinitive like "to see" or "to determine" to nicely shape this into a recognizable purpose clause), indicating why he calculates: "if he has [what is needed] for completion".

This whole first verse is a question, noted by the interrogative form of τίς (which is anarthrous when it functions as an indefinite pronoun), and the Greek question mark ; at the end: "For who among you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down [and] calculate the cost [to determine] if he has [what is needed] for completion?" (Feel free to quibble with these conclusions; there is lots of room to move here in my understanding of the syntax!)

Moving on to verse 29. ἴνα starts this verse, which always introduces the subjunctive mood. The arrangement of this verse is a little odd, though, because the subjunctive verb, ἄρξωνται, is almost at the end of the verse. Immediately after ἴνα, the clause μήποτε θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι is inserted before the ἴνα is completed. However, this arrangement may not be so strange, considering that ἴνα and μήποτε can function together as "a strengthened form of ἴνα μή" (Marshall [1978], "The Gospel of Luke," 594). And according to BDAG, this ἴνα μήποτε combination is often used for denoting purpose, "(in order) that . . . not, often expressing apprehension" (BDAG, 648-2b).

With this in mind, verse 29 looks a little friendlier. (If I had thought to look at BDAG last night with those Greek students, I could have been a little more helpful!) After the ἴνα μήποτε construction we find a genitive absolute θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον, "he placed a foundation," followed by the participle ἰσχύντος, negated by μή, "not being able," and its complementary infinitive ἐκτελέσαι, which completes the thought, "not being able to complete [it]".

So far in verse 29 we have: "In order that he does not place a foundation, and, not being able to complete it".

The consequence of this ill-conceived plan is that "all who see it should begin to mock him." πάντες is modified by the adjectival participle οἰ θεωροῦντες, "all who see," and is the subject of ἄρξωνται. ἄρξωνται takes ἐμπαίζειν as its complementary infinitive, "begin to mock." αὐτῷ likely refers to the uncompleted tower, rather than the builder.

This verse all together states, "In order that he does not place a foundation, and, being unable to complete it, all who see it should begin to mock him".

Verse 30 tells us the content of their mocking, "This man began to build and was not able to finish." (You can hear Nelson from The Simpsons in the background saying his customary, "Hah hah!")

I was going to do a grammatical diagram of this as well, but I've run out of time! Tune in next time for that.

There are many details I didn't focus on -- again, time being the issue. There is just never enough time for exegesis!

Luke 14:18, πάντες ἀπὸ μιᾶς

In Jesus' story in Luke 14:18, a servant is sent to invite the guests for a feast, but none of them want to come. In response, Luke writes, καὶ ήρξαντο πάντες ἀπὸ μιᾶς παραιτεῖτσθαι ("and all unanimously began to make excuses"). The use of the feminine singular genitive μίας is confusing. There is no syntactical reason for it. According to I. Howard Marshall, "ἀπὸ μιᾶς is probably a Greek phrase (sc. γρώμης) meaning 'unanimously' . . . rather than a literal translation of [the Aramaic] min hada, 'all at once, immediately'" (p. 588 from Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978).

At Greek tutorial last night, students were asking about μίας, and I had no clue what to say other than, "Check BDAG and see if πάντα or ἀπό works with μία in any idiomatic ways." If Marshall is write, that appears to be the case.

Luke 14:12-14, Dinner Invitation Etiquette and the Grace of God

Last night while reading through Luke 14 with some Greek tutor students, I was struck by something Jesus said to the host of the dinner he attended. Jesus told him, "Whenever you should hold a meal or dinner, don't invite your friends, brothers, relatives, or your wealthy neighbours since they might invite you in return, and you might be repaid" (v. 12). Instead, Jesus tells him to invite the crippled, the maimed, the blind, and the poor -- those who have no means to repay the gift of hospitality (v. 13). Jesus declares to him that "you will be blessed because they do not have [the means] to repay you, for you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous" (v. 14).

This resembles exhortations Jesus gave elsewhere, such as Luke 6:32-36,

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them.And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that.And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Or like Jesus' instruction on acts of righteousness in Matthew 6:1-4,

Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

From Jesus' words in Luke 14, it seems that there is no repayment (from God) for giving to those who have the means to give back to you. Repayment is received from the friend or relative or neighbour who does for you what you did for him. But God repays those who give out of grace with no hope of repayment. From the contexts of Luke 6 and Matthew 6, it is also clear that God rewards those who do these good things in secret rather than in plain view for the sake of a pat on the back, or the elevation of one's status among his/her peers.

This is a big deal. Jesus wants us as his followers to be looking out for those who are truly down and out, to get our love working and acting in the real world. Inviting such people means also that your time is spent with them, and not only your food consumed by them. This isn't just food-bank-filling. This is ministering truly and personally to those who have real need.

And in a very real way, this action is a picture of what God, in Jesus, already has done, and does each day, for us. He has given the gift of his love, his grace, his Fatherhood, his Son, the promise of his enduring presence -- all things we can never repay. In this way in all of these passages, Jesus calls us to imitate the way the Father gives to us: out of grace.

Luke 4:22-28 and the Angry Mob

In Luke 4:16 and following there is a curious and rapid shift in the direction of the narrative.

Jesus goes into the synagogue in Nazareth and reads from Isaiah:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
because he anointed me to preach good news to the poor;
he has sent me to proclaim freedom for the captive,
and recovery of sight for the blind,
and to send away in freedom those who are broken,
and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour."

After which, Jesus said, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

The response of those in the synagogue was bewilderment. They were amazed at his words and said to each other, "Is this not Joseph's son?"

Jesus replied to their amazement with a surprising chastisement. He said, "Certainly you will speak to me this proverb: 'Physician, heal yourself. Whatever we heard that happened in Capernaum, do also here in your hometown.'"

Then he went on to tell about how prophets like Elijah and Elisha performed miracles for those outside of Israel (or at least outside of the people of Israel) because the people of Israel lacked faith. He said this to underscore his point that "no prophet is welcome in his hometown" (Lk 4:24).

Now here the story takes a quick twist. After Jesus' first words, everyone in the synagogue was amazed by him. Now after his second discourse, they became enraged. They marched him off to a cliff because they wanted to kill him by throwing him off of it. (And somehow Jesus was able to walk through them, leaving unharmed.)

So, why the sudden change in attitude? Jesus had just claimed that he was a prophet who had come to fulfill the passage he read from Isaiah. The proverb he quoted was a rebuke for their lack of faith, and, in speaking of Elijah and Elisha, he rebuked them further, implying that they are no better than their forefathers who lacked faith in God's prophets of long ago.

Most ironically, showing a glimmer of Luke's humour and flare, the narrative immediately follows Jesus to Capernaum where he performs miracles of healing and casting out of demons. Faith is the key.

Matthew 6:8, “your Father knows before you ask him”

In Matthew 6, Jesus speaks a lot on prayer: method, appropriate time and place, and even gives us an example of how we should pray. I was struck today by verse 8. Jesus said, "[7]And when praying, do not babble on like the heathen, for they think that by means of their many words they will be heard. [8] Therefore, do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

The fact that the Father knows what we need before we ask is very reassuring. I find it interesting that Jesus doesn't say, "Don't bother praying, because the Father already knows what you need." The exhortation is, "Don't babble on and on . . . for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

It's all about humility, isn't it? Earlier in Matt 6 Jesus warns us not to blow the trumpet to announce our charitable acts. And we're to pray in secret with the door closed behind us rather than shouting out in the street. Jesus is communicating how prayer is to function. It's not a show, it's an enactment of humility before the Father. Of course he doesn't need to be told what we need to live; he made life afterall. We are to do good deeds, but not for our own glorification. The Father sees what goes on in secret, and he rewards those who do righteous things when there is no one to watch. Those who 'peacock' about have attention as their only reward.

This seems to be really a call for honest intent. The idea is to be righteous in the sight of God rather than super-duper in the sight of men. Perhaps a little bit like marriage versus dating. There is so much pressure to be doing the right things and saying the right things and being the right things when two people are getting to know one another. But once that superficiality is stripped away, and a husband and wife can simply go about living life together, their efforts together are real and not for show. The result is a rich interaction in which love is the point and service is the means.

Anyway, I was greatly impressed (once again) by Matthew 6:8, and am deeply grateful to have been provided life by a God who knows how to take care of me, and who is interested in the way I live the life he has placed in me.

Matthew 5:3,10, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

Appearing twice in Matthew's Beatitudes is the phrase, "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Respectively this phrase is applied to "the poor in Spirit" and "those persecuted on account of righteousness." If they receive the same blessing, is there a connection between the two groups? Maybe the experience of persecution causes a person to become poor in spirit? Or perhaps the answer is found in viewing the Beatitudes as a unified whole rather than as blessings to separate group:
Looking at the literary structure of the passage, the same blessing is given in the first beatitude as the last. There are eight blessings given in the third person:

1. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
2. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
3. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
4. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
5. Blessed are those who show mercy, for they will be shown mercy.
6. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
7. Blessed are those who make peace, for they will be called sons of God.
8. Blessed are those who have been persecuted on account of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

These blessings don't form a chiasm, at least none that I can decipher. But they are hemmed in the beginning and end by "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," as an inclusio of sorts, indicating the norms of the kingdom. The norms of this sinful world will be turned on its head.
And how does one get into this wonderful kingdom? It isn't easy, that's for sure. Obedience is absolutely required. For, "anyone who breaks the least of one of these commands and teaches men [to do] likewise, he will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19). This is a direct slight to those regarded in that day as the authorities on righteousness - the scribes and Pharisees. For, as Jesus continues, "If your righteousness does not greatly exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20).

So, if the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who are poor in spirit, the pure in heart, the mournful,  meek, and merciful, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, those who are persecuted on account of it, and those who make peace instead of war, then it is definitely not for those who operate out of greed and hostility and selfish ambition and hate.
That's quite the list to live up to. The Lord has given us quite the standard to adhere to, and thankfully, sufficient grace to see use through. At any rate, knowing that he will return soon makes me just as nervous as it makes me glad.

Matthew 5:2, Jesus opens his mouth

During Jesus' temptation in the desert, the devil says to Jesus, "If you are the son of God, say that these stones should become bread." And replying, Jesus said, "It is written, 'Not upon bread alone does man live, but upon every word that comes from the mouth of God'" (Matthew 4:3,4).

Interestingly, the next time that "mouth" (στόμα) appears in Matthew is in 5:2, in which he writes, "And opening his mouth he [Jesus] taught them," which precludes the Beatitudes. Perhaps this is reading too much into the significance of word occurrence, but could this be a subtle indication that the words Jesus opens his mouth to say are in likeness to the words that come from the mouth of God? (See also Matt 13:35 for another instance of the opening of God's mouth.)

Matthew 3:11-12, Fire of Baptism and the Unquenchable Fire

In verses 11 and 12, Matthew uses πὺρ ("fire") twice in very striking ways. In verse 11 John the Baptist says of himself, ". . . I baptize you with water for repentance," and in contrast he says of Jesus, "but the one who is coming after me is greater than me . . . who will baptize you in (with/by means of?) the Holy Spirit and fire."

In the very next verse John continues on about Jesus, saying, "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will purge his threshing floor and will gather together his grain into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up completely in unquenchable fire."

What is so striking to me in these two verses is the double use of πὺρ. In verse 11, fire is part of the means by which Jesus will baptize (‘υμᾶς βαπτίσει ’εν πνεύμα ‘αγίῳ καὶ πυρί). In verse 12, the chaff is burned in unquenchable fire (τὸ δὲ ’άχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ’ασβέστῳ). The proximity of the two occurrences of πὺρ suggest there is a connection between the fire with which Jesus baptizes and that which burns up the chaff.

Perhaps it is possible that the Holy Spirit and the fire of Jesus' baptism work in us to burn the chaff, or the unfruitful parts of us, so that he may gather together the good in us as we are transformed into his likeness. Or is this a picture similar to John 15 in which the unfruitful branches are thrown away and burned? I am hesitant to see a direct connection between these passages because their focus seem to be distinct. In John 15, those who remain in Jesus are described as fruitful, and those who do not remain in him are thrown out. Here in Matthew 3, fire is used (along with the Holy Spirit -- or is the καὶ epexegetical, "he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, namely, fire"?) on those who are baptized by Jesus, so I would assume this is not a separation of the faithful and unfaithful.

Maybe this is the work Jesus does in us as we follow him; he does away with the unhealthy parts of us in suffering or in the situations we encounter, and nurtures the parts of us that are healthy and pleasing to him.

Obviously, there are holes I need to fill in. If I had the time (and maybe I'll just take the time some time soon), it would be interesting to see if there are any notable connections between John the Baptist's words here and areas of the New Testament that speak of working out our salvation, or growing, or becoming conformed to the likeness of Jesus. Oh grad school, maybe you will provide me the time for all of these things!

More to come on Matthew 3.

Matthew 3:3, εὐθυς and the way of the Lord

Chalk this one up to presuppositions lingering from first year Greek.

In Matthew 3:3 I came across an occurrence of εὐθυς that surprised me. In verse 3, Matthew quotes Isaiah 40:3, "A voice crying in the desert; prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths."

"Straight" in both Matthew 3:3 and Isaiah 40:3 (LXX) is εὐθείας. In my early Greek training I memorized εὐθύς as "immediately." But it turns out, εὐθύς is very commonly used to mean "straight" when pertaining to the condition of a line or road (cf. BDAG, 406; LSJ). With this in mind, εὐθύς is the unsurprising translation of the Hebrew ׳ַשְׁרוּ, "make straight."

Just a quick note. It's past midnight. More to come on Matthew 3.

Matthew 2, Jubulant Magi and the Use of Dreams

In Matthew 2, the Magi from the East arrive in Jerusalem, and inquire of Herod where they can find "the one born king of the Jews" (2:2). When they arrive in Bethlehem and see the star stand above where the child was, the Magi celebrate. "And seeing the star, they rejoiced with great and exceeding joy." The words Matthew uses makes this intense manner of celebration apparent: ’εχάρησαν ("they recoiced") χαρὰν ("with joy") μεγάλην ("great") σφόδρα ("exceeding"). They understood that this child bore great significance, so it is no wonder that they fell down to worship him, and presented him with gifts.

Another interesting thing in Matthew 2 is the reoccurrence of dreams and warnings from God. Chapter 1 told of Joseph's dream, in which he was commanded not to be afraid, but to take Mary as his wife and to name the child Jesus (1:20-21). In Chapter 2, the Magi are warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, but to return to their land by another route (2:12). And Joseph receives two more dreams, one telling him to flee to Egypt to save the child from Herod's ill-begotten search (2:13), and one to inform him of Herod's death, and that they may now safely return to Israel (2:19).

The significance of Joseph in Jesus' early life cannot be overrated. Though he was not Jesus' real father, God sent his angel to speak to Joseph to inform him of what must happen with the child. Obviously there are cultural reasons for why God would speak to a man rather than to a woman in the first century, but it is interesting that Joseph disappears from the story shortly after. I will have to pay close attention to the last mention of Joseph for any last comment on his role.

Matthew 1:19, Righteous Joseph

"And Joseph her husband was righteous and, not wishing to disgrace her, desired to release her secretly."
I wonder if he is righteous (δίκαιος) because of wanting to release hersecretly, or if his desire to release her because of her pregnancy is what makes him righteous? His desire to release her secretly would be an indication of compassion more than righteousness. Maybe his adherence to the law is what makes him righteous.
There is a similarity in process between Joseph's actions here and Peter's actions in Acts 10:9-15. Peter was to preach to the gentile Cornelius' household. Normally he would have objected since Peter was a Jew and Cornelius and his people were gentiles, and Jews didn't associate freely with gentiles. However, he received a vision in which he was commanded, "Do not call anything unclean that God has made clean" (Acts 10:15), and thus he obediently went to Cornelius' home and shared the good news about Jesus with them. As a result, the entire household was baptized.

In Matthew 1, Joseph thought that the best thing to do with a pregnant betrothed would be to secretly release her from betrothal. In this way she would not be disgraced and he would preserve his righteousness. However, an angel of the Lord told him in a dream not to be afraid, but to take Mary as his wife, and to call her son "Jesus." Because of the vision, he obeyed the Lord and married Mary, and named her son in accordance with the angel's message.

Both Peter and Joseph were concerned with doing what they viewed as right. In both cases, each received a vision which communicated that the actions they were to take, though seemingly against what they viewed as proper conduct, was actually according to the Lord's will.

Perhaps also, in calling Joseph "righteous" allows the reader to expect Joseph to obey the angel of the Lord. I will be watching for more allusions to the righteousness of Joseph, and to how Matthew characterizes righteousness in other characters.