Pregnant or Not? - Why Did Joseph Hesitate To Marry Mary? Have We Been Fooled All These Years? An In-Depth Study of the Original Hebrew Behind Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:31

Tryck här för den svenska versionen!

Statement of belief: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17 KJV)

. Please notice the highlighted considerations below!!

Created 5942_{[v2016-12-14-21:32]}02 04 2039 [2023-05-24]

Edited 5967_{[v2023-12-04]}08 22 2039 [Wed 2023-12-06]

Time for yet another step in the Protestant Movement?

More truthful independent Bible translations!

No more Bibles “Authorized by…” the Vatican, by the Government, or by any other Authority of men!

Revelation 14:8; 18:4!

Pregnant or Not?

Why Did Joseph Hesitate

To Marry Mary?

Have We Been Fooled All These Years?

An In-Depth Study of the Original Hebrew Behind Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:31

A Tad of a Background. Some Real Time Values

As always, there are more valuable discoveries yet to make in well known Biblical stories. Some of these may be unexpected, and for some people, even undesirable. Perhaps this could apply also to those found below, but as for me, I find joy in discovering things that gives me reason for changing my own prior misconceptions. That is, ideas of “my own” that are frequently traditional teaching and thinking derived from teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, though as yet not discovered as such by Protestants, whether for lack of time, interest, courage, or will power…

This article is about the supposed pregnancy of Mary prior to her wedding to Joseph, and about how the now available original Hebrew Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 1:31. My hope is that you too will find value in that which I am sharing?

For starters, I’ll mention the fact that Matt 1:23 is a reference to Isaiah 7:14, as are also the words of the angel to Mary per Luke 1:31-33, which words seems also to be a reference to Isaiah 9:6-7. Nevertheless, these references are not intended as exact quotes from Isaiah. There are differences such as past, present, or future tense.

When reading the Scriptures for my own edification, as though God is speaking to me directly, I find value in applying lessons of the past into my own present and future, and such that hopefully in the future my past will be better than otherwise. More specifically, I find that the Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 is using past tense (perfected time), whereas all translated Bible versions that I’ve looked at is using future tense for that same passage. (More about that at this link!) As I remember, my Hebrew language teacher in California did mention something about the reason for this, but to me that did not make much sense. At any rate, I hope we may all find value in learning from the experiences of Joseph and Mary, and from those experiences as reported in the New Testament…

The Heart of the Matter – The Exact definition of each given word

Please compare each of the following quotes! You’ll need to read carefully and with full attention to every detail, in order to make these discoveries your own. That is, lest you will merely perceive these discoveries as “the opinion of the author”, me. But how valuable is that to you in the long run?

1. “a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son” KJV Matt 1:23

2. “jungfrun skall bliva havande och föda en son” Swedish 1917 Matt 1:23

3. Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew 1:23

” הנה העלמה הרה ותלד בן”

4. Hebrew OT/OT+ (e-Sword) Jesaja 7:14:

“הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן ”

הנה ^H2009 העלמה ^H5959 הרה ^H2030 וילדת ^H3205 בן ^H1121

5. Vatican Library Hebrew transcript Luke 1:31:

” הנד הרה ותלד בן”

6. “Se, du skall bliva havande och föda en son” Swedish 1917 Luke 1:31

7. “Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son” KJV Luke 1:31

8. “Behold you are pregnant and will give birth to a son and will call his name Yeshua.” Nehemia Gordon Luke 1:31

I’ve highlighted the two Hebrew words of special importance for this particular study using red font, as also for the corresponding translation in Swedish 1917, KJV, &c.. When you compare the words in line #3 vs #4 you will recognize said differences as regards past tense, ילדת, vs. future tense, תלד.

Please notice that each one of the quoted NT passages is using future tense. Yes, in the original Hebrew as well as in the translations (#1-3 & #5-7; more re #8 here). That is, Mary’s pregnancy is recorded as an event yet in the future! Per this record, Mary was not yet pregnant at that point in time! More about that below… Please notice also that the word הרה, when used in present tense (i.e. imperfect, an act not yet perfected; as used in the #8 translation (“will give birth”), as well as in #4 & #5), it does not indicate an already verified or perfected act, such as conception or pregnancy. And הרה is certainly not a word used for referencing a sexual encounter per se! It is, indeed, a status as yet not perfected. Thus, I perceive הרה as referencing also a special relationship between a male and a female, including the feelings, the wishes, and plans of a couple espoused to one another, such as were at that time Joseph and Mary. Please remember that in those days, so far as I know, there were no lab tests available for confirming whether or not conception and pregnancy had occurred. And a missed menstrual period is not a certain sign of pregnancy either. Thus, it is obvious that the word הרה must necessarily be a word defined such as to accommodate the circumstances of that time and place. Or isn’t that so?

A Conclusion thus far – Mary was not pregnant at the time referenced in said Bible record

In summary, according to the words of the angel to Mary (per the Swedish 1917, FB98, FB15, KJV, and the original Hebrew Luke 1:31) Mary was not yet pregnant, she has as yet not conceived in the sense that we use those words today! Hmmmm… (Use this link to download a pdf copy of the first pages of each of the gospels of Luke and John in Hebrew and with parallel English translation.)

Verify or deny?

What is the exact meaning of מעוברת?

Let’s zoom in towards the heart of the matter!

But what of Matt 1:18-21? Do we not read in those verses that Mary was pregnant at the time when the angel spoke to her? Let’s zoom in on these verses (18, 20, & 21), and, in particular, upon the words translated in terms of pregnancy and birth.

Matt 1:18-21:

- KJV:

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

- Swedish 1917:

18 Med Jesu Kristi födelse gick det så till. Sedan Maria, hans moder, hade blivit trolovad med Josef, befanns hon, förrän de kommo tillsammans, vara havande av helig ande.

20 Men när han hade fått detta i sinnet, se, då visade sig i drömmen en Herrens ängel för honom och sade: "Josef, Davids son, frukta icke att taga till dig Maria, din hustru; ty det som är avlat i henne är av helig ande.

21 Och hon skall föda en son, och honom skall du giva namnet Jesus, ty han skall frälsa sitt folk ifrån deras synder."

- Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew:

” 18 ולידת מיש״ו היה בזה האופן) ויהי כאשר היתה אמו ארוסה ליוסף קודם שידע אותה נמצאת מעוברת מרוח הקדש”

” 20 ובחשבו בזה הדבר בלבו והנה מלאך נראה אליו בחלום ואמר יוסף בן דוד אל תירא לקחת אשתך מר״ים שמרוח הקדוש היא מעוברת”

” 21 ותלד בן ותקרא שמו ישו״ע כי הוא יושיעאת עמי מעונותם.”

You’ll notice that the words ‘birth’ (v. 18), and ‘shall bring forth’ (v.21) fully agree with the above said. Additionally, you’ll notice that the Hebrew words thus translated (לידת and תלד) are variants of the same Hebrew words (Strong’s H2029-2032 ’ תלד’ and H3205-3206 ’ הרה’) that you’ve read in Luke 1:31 and in Isaiah 7:14 above. Per verse 21 it is clear that this word, תלד, is also referencing a future event. Nothing strange in that though, given that that word is in reference to a future birth and delivery, not to a prior pregnancy.

The Meaning of the Key Word – The Heart of the Matter

What remains then is for us to study and properly understand the Hebrew word, מעוברת, translated, respectively, as “was found with child” (v. 18) and “is conceived” (v. 20). As you notice, מעוברת (Strong’s H5674-5679), is an entirely different word than the Hebrew words (Strong’s H3205-3206, הרה, and H2029-2032, תלד) considered above.

What is the real meaning of this other word, מעוברת? The word consistently used in the Bible to indicate conception and pregnancy is הרה, not מעוברת! Let’s study Strong’s definitions for all the words using the same Hebrew root as מעוברת:

Strong’s Dictionary definitions:

H5674:

עָבַר, A primitive root; to cross over; used very widely of any transition (literally or figuratively; transitively, intransitively, intensively or causatively); specifically to cover (in copulation)

H5675:

עֲבַר (Chaldee); corresponding to H5676: [KJV usage] - beyond, this side.

H5676:

עֵבֶר From H5674; properly a region across; but used only adverbially (with or without a preposition) on the oppositeside (especially of the Jordan; usually meaning the east):

H5677:

עֵבֶר The same as H5676; Eber, the name of two patriarchs and four Israelites: [KJV usage] - Eber, Heber.

H5678:

עֶבְרָה Feminine of H5676; an outburst of passion: [KJV usage] - anger, rage, wrath.

H5679:

עֲבָרָה From H5674; a crossing place: [KJV usage] - ferry, plain [from the margin].

Using e-Sword, I find these words (H5674-79) 711 times in the OT. Upon reading quite a few of those 711 OT occurrences, I found none using any of those words in reference to conception or pregnancy! Accordingly, please review the above definitions carefully, and if you find a good and valid reason for translating מעוברת, as used in Matt 1:18, 20, in terms of anything pertaining to conception or pregnancy, please let me know!

Furthermore, wouldn’t the Bible passage Matt 1:18-25 be more consistent with itself by using one and the same word in reference to one and the same thing?

The Alternative – Using the Real and True meaning of the Hebrew word מעוברת

Let’s say that this last referenced word, מעוברת, in fact, and in real time, is indeed referencing something entirely separate from conception and pregnancy. Something making Joseph ”minded to put [Mary] away privily”. What was the reality behind the choice of the word מעוברת? May we glean something from how this word is used elsewhere in the Bible? In particular, any first-time occurrence within the Bible?

KJV:

Gen 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;

Swedish 1917:

1 Mos 8:1 Men Gud tänkte på Noa och på alla vilda djur och alla boskapsdjur som var med honom i arken, och han lät en vind gå fram över jorden, så att vattnet sjönk undan.

Said word(s) are first found in Gen 8:1, as above quoted. Perhaps not very helpful? Is it?

Searching the OT and Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew for מעוברת (the exact form used in Matt 1:18, 20), I get zero hits in the OT, and none in Matthew outside of Matt 1:18, 20. Nothing besides those two occurrences! Not very helpful, is it?

The closest I find is eleven (11) hits when searching the OT for מעברת. None in Matthew. That is, eliminating the one letter waw, which letter when used in that position is indicating present tense and not much more. Strong’s definition of said word is as follows. That is, the very same root as the above (H5674-9):

H4569:

מַעֲבָרָה מַעֲבָר

From H5674; a crossing place (of a river, a ford; of a mountain, a pass); abstractly a transit, that is, (figuratively) overwhelming: - ford, place where . . . pass, passage.

Again, not very helpful. Is it?

On the other hand, searching my Bible for H5678, I get 34 hits in OT. Seeing that the definition of H5678 is “outburst of passion” I could make sense out of applying that to Matt 1:18, 20. KJV is translating H5678 using “anger, rage, wrath”. However, none of said 34 hits is a word including the letters mem, מ, or waw, ו, as found within מעוברת. Accordingly, those hits too, are less than a perfect help, are they not? Even so, said missing letters does not necessarily change the root meaning of said word. (Mem-, -מ, may be seen as a prescript, and waw, ו, to indicate present tense, i.e. imperfect, as in something yet to be perfected. As also above said.)

Perhaps one may consider the English expression “to be beside oneself…”, or the Swedish expression “att vara ifrån sig…”, as being within the Strong’s definitions above quoted for H5674-9 and H4569? Accordingly, I find it reasonable to conclude that the word מעוברת in Matt 1:18, 20 has something to do with passion, more specifically, in these two verses, a passion associated with the Holy Spirit.

But, if so, why would such a passion make Joseph “minded to put [Mary] away privily”? Could it be that the words “Joseph her husband, being a just man” is an indication of Joseph having a tendency towards leaning to such as is ‘politically correct’? And that Mary’s passion was perceived by some as not being in harmony with such as was at that time considered ‘politically correct? Or how would Joseph initially recognize that this passion of Mary was indeed spurred by the Holy Ghost? To me, such an interpretation of said word seems in perfect harmony with the textual and contemporary setting. Even more so when considering how such a passion of Mary may have contributed towards fostering her son Jesus into the man he was to become. The fruit is not falling too far from the tree, it is said. Or is that not so?

After all that, I discovered the following Google translation:

However, notice carefully that that translation is more than likely based solely upon the extant KJV translation of that word! That is, as indicated in the right lower quarter of the above screenshot, and considering that the word מעוברת seems to be a very rarely used word outside of its direct associations with Matt 1:18, 20. Sure, I could perceive some logic in applying such a meaning to that word, that is, as in the sperm passing over from the male to the female. Nevertheless, considering the clear meaning derived from the context using the generally used word for conceive, הרה, I do not see any sense in using the word מעוברת in the context of Matt 1:18, 20. Doing so seems contradictory to me. That is, such a usage does indeed make Matt 1:18-25 and the Biblical record self-contradictory.

Thus, translating מעוברת in terms of pregnancy is certainly contrary to the fundamental Bible study rule that any Bible interpretation, to be true, must be in harmony with both the Bible record and the reality created by God, i.e. nature.

Indeed, the practice of basing any translation merely upon past translations is none better than placing tradition over and above Sola Scriptura and truth itself. That is, as per the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. These days I am seeing this Babylonian principle being exemplified in many ways. For instance in several Bible dictionaries, in the so called ‘peer reviewed’ articles of so called science, in the commonly used argument “everyone knows…”, etc..

This practice, as I perceive it, constitutes the fundamental cause of the confusion of languages associated with the tower of Babel, Gen 11. This practice is the very essence of gossip, and a prime tool used by the chief Gossip Monger of all, Satan himself. Compare Strong’s G1228: “διάβολος, a traducer…”, and Webster’s Dictionary: Traducer, a gossip monger, a slanderer. Compare below!

Why are obvious mistranslations in the Bible being maintained?

Why are the authorities among men, and the authorities of most or all societies that I am aware of, commonly tending towards quieting, censoring, persecuting, or even murdering, such among men as are pursuing the truth? Is it not simply because of their aim of maintaining status quo, their monopoly of powers, and financial wealth?

Seeing that that is indeed so, I do not find it very difficult to understand why any Bible version authorized by a king, by the Vatican, or by any such authority of men, would prefer Bible translations (e.g. KJV and the Swedish 1917 version) such as tend to put blame upon individual citizens rather than upon the hierarchy and its prime representatives. That is, politically correct Bible translations over and above such procreative brave men as Tyndale, Martin Luther, Elijah, and many other pioneers and front men.

Accordingly, in Matthew 1:18-25, we find Mary in a setting where she is being portrayed as a promiscuous woman and where her son is being portrayed as being conceived outside of marriage. That is, unless, and until after her death, Mary is artfully, and contrary to nature, magically pronounced to be, not only a saint, but the virgin mother of God Himself, yes even of the very same God who is said to have made her pregnant in the first place. Indeed, is this truly in harmony with Biblical teaching? I would say not. How about you?

An added bonus for said authorities of so doing, is that men in general, and husbands in particular, and also as fathers of their own children, are being disassociated from their original God given responsibilities as the head of each their family. The family unit, as created in the image of Elohim, the Creator, is being trampled in the dust, and intimacy between husband and wife is being downplayed in favor of all species of perversity, hidden behind the curtains though it might be. All in the name of transferring all trust towards said authorities of men.

Thus also creating a sense of holiness, sanctity, and awe towards such blind servants of the Church and of the State as are then fooled into choosing celibacy over and above our Creator’s own very first instructions to mankind per Gen 1:28. Indeed, what kind of wisdom is that, other than that being described by the words “the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Jehovah Elohim had made” Gen 3:1?!

Not to mention the obvious fact that women will often come to view the priest behind the curtain as a holy man, as God’s own representative. Something that a young priest may use for his own purposes in order to get women to view pregnancies caused by his own intimate encounters as comparable to the pregnancy of Mary by means of the Holy Spirit. As in a Coocoo’s nest!

But isn’t Luke indicating that Jesus was merely the adopted son of Joseph?

”Jesus… being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…”

Perhaps you’ll find cause for studying the above translation just a tidbit more deeply? Here’s a link that you might, per chance, find helpful towards that end…

To Learn and to Apply Within One’s Own Life – As Did Joseph and Mary

Cause and Natural Consequence – Mistranslation Leads to Wrong Lessons Learnt

And vice versa…

The Value of Accurate Dating

The built in meaning of the angel’s command to Joseph per Matt 1:20, 24, following the above said conclusions, will naturally be what it ought to be in the first place. That is, a reassurance to Joseph, and a guidance, for him not to hesitate any further, but to perfect his marital relationship with Mary by consummating their relationship and for the two of them to conceive and give birth to a son.

Also the words “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son” Matt 1:25 will then naturally receive their true meaning, other than that of current tradition and teaching. None the less, an even better translation would then be in terms such as “And really did not get to know her until after she had brought forth her firstborn son…” No wonder, considering that shortly following the consummation of their marriage, thus making Mary pregnant, Mary chose to spend at least three months with Elisabeth in Juda Luke 1:39.

I find it quite possible that said “three months” is yet another mistranslation. That is, considering also the above said, ‘three months’ may be rather a reference to the Biblical month named month #3, which falls out shortly prior to midsummer. That is, about nine months following the consummation of their union as husband and wife. That is, about the time of either Passover or Pentecost, a time most likely for their journey to Bethlehem and for the birth of their son. Under such circumstances the words of Matt 1:25 falls perfectly natural into place. Or don’t you agree with that?

And, considering the role of the Holy Spirit in all of these events, isn’t it quite obvious that the instructions given per Gen 1:28, and more, are being fulfilled in the lives of Joseph and Mary, as were then also the specific words given each of them by the angel of God? What do you think?

Why and How is it that for such a long Time we have all misunderstood the reason for Joseph’s hesitancy?

How is it that not even the 1397 Wycliffe Bible, the 1531 Tyndale Bible, or any among the Protestant pioneers discovered or recognized the obvious truths suggested above? I believe the answer to that question is quite simple and straightforward. The original mistranslation is found in the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew original. The Greek NT translations are based upon said Aramaic translation, and so on. This happened very early, even in the 1st or 2^nd century CE, and since then the Inquisition effectively removed most every trace of said Hebrew original NT scriptures, while pretending that Greek was the original language of the NT scriptures. Yet, isn’t it obvious that if that would have been the case, then why so many different Greek versions of the NT? Makes no sense at all considering how carefully each copy of the Bible is said to be exactly transcribed and copied, or isn’t that so. Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew has been denigrated based upon ridiculous reasons, and the Aramaic likewise. For further studies of these sequential translation, please feel welcome to study this link of mine!

Now, if those of us calling ourselves SDA truly are the Sola Scriptura based people that we claim to be, how is it that we are not more intent upon, and more willing, to receive, accept, and thoroughly study the best available originals and transcripts that our Redeemer and Creator is making available to each among us from time to time? For instance Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew? May I suggest that you make youself familiar with Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew by means of this book and this book…

Remember this quote from Papias, one of the very earliest ‘church fathers’: “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. (Papias, 150-170 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3:39)”

Consider these things carefully, and in the light of God’s own Word! I am sure the Holy Spirit of our Maker will abundantly bless you in so doing!

Consider it! ”Remember the Sabbath day…” Every one of them! Ex 20:8; Lev 23! Selah!

Click on the present above to receive a gift for you!

- If you will accept the blessings within?

Comments and donations freely accepted at:

Tree of Life^©

e-Post: TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com

Pearls & Mannah – “I found it!”

Home

Feel free to use, and for sharing freely with others, any of the truth and blessings belonging to God alone. I retain all the copyrights to the within, such that no one may lawfully restrain my use and my sharing of it with others. Including also all the errors that remain. Please let only me know about those. I need to know in order to correct them. Others don’t need to be focused upon the errors that belong to me alone. Please respect that, and please do not hesitate to let me know of any certain error that you find!