Confusion with today's gospel reading

  • Thread starter Thread starter tammied
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tammied

Guest
Today’s gospel suggests that Joseph settled in a place called Nazareth but wasn’t he originally from Nazareth? When reading this it seems as though this is a last minute thought to go to a new place.:confused:
Thank you,
Tammie
 
Today’s gospel suggests that Joseph settled in a place called Nazareth but wasn’t he originally from Nazareth? When reading this it seems as though this is a last minute thought to go to a new place.:confused:
Thank you,
Tammie
Maybe Joseph was planning to return to Bethlehem after Herod’s death instead of going back to Nazareth. From Luke’s Gospel, it sounds like Joseph had been living in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem because of the Roman census. From the ESV:
Luk 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,
Luk 2:5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
 
The magi found the Holy Family in a house in Bethlehem a considerable time after Jesus’ birth. Their visit was definitely after Jesus was presented in the Temple, 41 days after his birth. Herod killed all the boys under two, which makes me think Herod expected Him to be about one.

Thus it appears that they had settled in Bethlehem and would have stayed there but for Herod. I am curious why.
 
The magi found the Holy Family in a house in Bethlehem a considerable time after Jesus’ birth. Their visit was definitely after Jesus was presented in the Temple, 41 days after his birth. Herod killed all the boys under two, which makes me think Herod expected Him to be about one.

Thus it appears that they had settled in Bethlehem and would have stayed there but for Herod. I am curious why.
We really have no way of knowing since the Bible does not say. Perhaps Joseph found work in Bethlehem.
 
Today’s gospel suggests that Joseph settled in a place called Nazareth but wasn’t he originally from Nazareth? When reading this it seems as though this is a last minute thought to go to a new place.:confused:
Thank you,
Tammie
rather it sounds like he was guided by the Holy Spirit, as he was guided in the other decisions and actions he took to protect his family, and the statement in no way implies he never lived there before, but because this is Matthew’s gospel, written for the Hebrews to relate how Jesus’ coming and mission fulfilled the Prophets, makes the point that even this choice fulfilled a prophecy, (as did the fact that Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem so Jesus could be born there).
 
Perhaps I should have quoted the gospel and then rephrased the question.
Mt 2:13-15, 19-23

When the magi had departed, behold,
the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said,
“Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt,
and stay there until I tell you.
Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.”
Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night
and departed for Egypt.
He stayed there until the death of Herod,
that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled,
Out of Egypt I called my son.

When Herod had died, behold,
the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream
to Joseph in Egypt and said,
“Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel,
for those who sought the child’s life are dead.”
He rose, took the child and his mother,
and went to the land of Israel.
But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea
in place of his father Herod,
he was afraid to go back there.
And because he had been warned in a dream,
he departed for the region of Galilee.
He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth,
so that what had been spoken through the prophets
might be fulfilled,
He shall be called a Nazorean.

“He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth”. If he was from Nazareth why doesn’t it say that he went home. The wording implies that we’re being introduced to a new town. I’m not questioning why he went nor where he went just thought the wording was interesting considering Joseph was a Nazorean.
 
the wording does not imply anything, it gives no information on whether or not he had ever lived in Nazareth, it simply states what he did, and gives the reason why, from Matthew’s perspective, the name of the town is important. the gospels operate on a “need to know basis” and if we don’t need to know it for our salvation, it probably won’t be there.
 
Perhaps I should have quoted the gospel and then rephrased the question.
Mt 2:13-15, 19-23

When the magi had departed, behold,
the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said,
“Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt,
and stay there until I tell you.
Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.”
Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night
and departed for Egypt.
He stayed there until the death of Herod,
that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled,
Out of Egypt I called my son.

When Herod had died, behold,
the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream
to Joseph in Egypt and said,
“Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel,
for those who sought the child’s life are dead.”
He rose, took the child and his mother,
and went to the land of Israel.
But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea
in place of his father Herod,
he was afraid to go back there.
And because he had been warned in a dream,
he departed for the region of Galilee.
He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth,
so that what had been spoken through the prophets
might be fulfilled,
He shall be called a Nazorean.

“He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth”. If he was from Nazareth why doesn’t it say that he went home. The wording implies that we’re being introduced to a new town. I’m not questioning why he went nor where he went just thought the wording was interesting considering Joseph was a Nazorean.
Stepping out…but in reference to you asking about why it doesn’t state he went back home…home would be considered a pro-noun and Nazareth wasn’t mentioned at all, grammar speaking…it wouldn’t have been proper, I guess. It would have been confusing, because we would have to figure out where home was…so…🤷
 
Laudatur Iesus Christus.

I did some reflection on this issue when I heard that the Vatican’s Nativity Scene this year was going to be set in Joseph’s workshop. I looked at the accounts of the Nativity in both St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s accounts and I broke them down and tried to weave them together in chronological sequence. I also used GoogleEarth to look at some of the distances involved. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:

When one considers the distances involved, the sequence of events makes some sense. The Temple in Jerusalem was approximately 70 miles from Nazareth. However, the Temple was less than 5 miles from Bethlehem. Joseph does not appear to have been wealthy, but carpentry was a good trade at the time, with plenty of wood available in the area of both Nazareth and Bethlehem. (See, Denis O’Shea, Mary and Joseph: Their Lives and Times, (1949), Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, USA.) However, it might be that business would have been better in Bethlehem, near the city of Jerusalem rather than in the relatively remote town of Nazareth.

It appears that Joseph and Mary were living in Nazareth and were betrothed there. However, the enrollment caused them to travel the 70 or so miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem late in Mary’s pregnancy. When they were newly arrived in Bethlehem, and while they were still in inadequate accommodations, Jesus was born, perhaps on the very night of their arrival. With a newborn, it would not make sense to transport the baby to Nazareth, only to have to make the return trip in less than two months to present Him at the temple.

It is possible, even likely, that Joseph set up shop in Bethlehem and supported the Holy Family during their stay there. This relocation and effort to break into business in a new town may explain the offering of the “poor man’s” sacrifice at the time of Jesus’ presentation. It seems unlikely that the gifts of the magi had been received at the time of the presentation, some 40 days after the Lord’s birth, or else the poor man’s offering would not have been made.

This all suggests that the Holy Family returned to Bethlehem after the presentation and lived there with Joseph plying his trade until the Magi appeared and Joseph was warned to flee into Egypt. This period in Bethlehem could have been as long as 18 months or even two years, given the dates supplied by the Magi to Herod.

The distance from Bethlehem to Alexandria in Egypt is about 310 miles, by direct measurement and likely longer by road.

After the time in Egypt was complete, Joseph apparently considered returning to Bethlehem, where he had established himself before the flight, however, he decided against it on Angelic advice. Given the difficulty of having the Roman-supported, Jewish King hostile to Jesus’ survival (and to His claim to the Davidic throne) the Holy Family removed themselves entirely from the kingdom of Judea, and returned to their home town of Nazareth, put a 70 mile buffer between Jesus and the authorities in Jerusalem, and returning to a place where they doubtless had old friends and strong ties, given the potential danger to the Child.

Hence, when Luke says, “And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth,” (Luke 2:39) he may have been referring not only to the presentation in the temple, but also to the calling from Egypt to fulfill the prophecy.

Thus, a weaving of the accounts given by St. Matthew and St. Luke together, with a consideration of the distances involved, one may conclude that the Holy Family began in Nazareth, lived for as much as two years in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt and lived there for a period of time, perhaps two or more years as well, and then returned to Nazareth where they settled again.

This makes more sense of the Vatican’s current Nativity Scene than other theories that I have seen so far. If the Magi are pictured in Joseph’s shop, it is more likely in my mind to have been in Bethlehem than in Nazareth.

I hope this is helpful. If there are any difficulties with this understanding of the matter, I would appreciate having them drawn to my attention. These reflections have added a lot of texture to my understanding of the Nativity story; if they are mistaken I would appreciate help in setting them right.

Merry Christmas.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top