“Here’s how the birth of Jesus happened,” thus today’s gospel’s passage begins. Matthew emphasizes the intervention of the Spirit from the beginning of his story to avoid a misunderstanding that Jesus may have been generated by the intervention of a man.
The spirit, in this story, does not represent the male element. Ruah (spirit in Hebrew is female) indicates strength, a divine breath of the Creator. He is referring to the spirit of God that hovered over the waters at the beginning of the world (Gen 1:2).
The virginal conception that is even explicitly mentioned by Luke (Lk 1:26-39) is not intended to emphasize the moral superiority of Mary nor, still less, does it constitute a depreciation of sexuality. It is introduced to reveal a fundamental truth for the believer: Jesus is not only a man; he is from above and is the same Lord who has taken on human form.
There are many legitimate questions arising in us about this birth narrative. But Matthew is not interested in satisfying our curiosity. All he wants us to understand is this: the son of Mary is the promised heir to the throne of David announced by the prophets.
The conclusion of the story is solemn. The whole passage seems to have been written to prove the fulfillment of what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son who will be called Emmanuel, which means God with us” (vv. 22-23).
The literal meaning of the orginal prophecy is the announcement of the birth of Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah. He was truly an Emmanuel, i.e., a sign that God protected his people and the dynasty of David, but did not answer all the expectations that had been placed in him. He did not even realize the promises of happiness, prosperity and peace described by Isaiah. He was not a wonderful counselor, an invincible warrior, an everlasting father, a prince of peace… (Is 9:5-6).
Here is what Matthew means: Jesus is the one who has fulfilled these prophecies. He is the son of the virgin announced by the prophet. He is really the Emmanuel, God with us. He will be given an everlasting kingdom, and he will fulfill all the hopes of Israel.
Just as in the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, the theme of Emmanuel also returns at the end of the book with the parting promise of the Lord, “Behold, I am with you (Here, I am the Emmanuel) always even to the end of this world” (Mt 28:20). The reference to “God with us” opens and closes all the work of Matthew because, the evangelist tells us, in Jesus, God has placed himself, and remains always at the side of humankind.
The story also highlights the virginity of Mary. The term virgin in the Bible also assumes a more metaphorical meaning: the person who loves with an undivided heart. Virginity is the symbol of total love for the Lord. It is in this sense that Paul uses the term when he writes to the Corinthians: “I share the jealousy of God for you, for I have promised you in marriage to Christ, as the only spouse, to present you to him as a pure virgin” (2 Cor 11:2).
Mary has certainly realized to perfection even this ideal of virginity. For every Christian, she is the supreme model of total and undivided love to God.
Today’s reflection will be complete only if we go through the mind of Joseph who is the protagonist in today’s reading. A man, a righteous man, betrothed to a woman (perhaps just a girl) is eagerly awaiting his wedding. Then he learns from the woman that she is pregnant. He is surely not the father. Her explanation that it is through the Holy Spirit, perhaps she did not even know how to explain that, and might have narrated the angel’s story which Joseph might have found difficult to believe, like any man of our times. Joseph might have spent sleepless nights to get his dilemma solved, whether to marry or not this woman who carries another person’s child. He finally decides to divorce her privately to save from disgrace this woman he had begun to love passionately. It is after he decides to divorce that he gets the dream to accept Mary as his wife.
Dream is just a way of narrating how Joseph got an advice from God without any mediation from priests or prophets. Here the dream is not a reference to an unconscious activity in the mind that takes place while a person is asleep, but rather an answer to a question that disturbed Joseph’s waking and sleeping hours. In the dream he recognizes that God’s will was to accept Mary and the child. When the will of God was against his decision, he still followed it.
The act of Joseph has a lot to teach us about our processes of discernment. Often, we would like to assume that our decisions are the will of God, or we find justifications to act against the will of God. What is my process of discerning God’s will in the things that I do?
Indebted to Fr. Fernando Armellini SCJ for the textual analysis
The stone of Machaerus prison was not merely cold; it was absorbent. It drank the warmth of the body and the light of the spirit, leaving behind the chill of inertia. For John the Baptist, this physical confinement was merely the outer chamber of a more profound, terrifying interior prison—a prison of crumbling certainty. Here, in the dank silence punctuated only by the distant, metallic echoes of Roman guards, the prophet who had shaken kingdoms with his voice now faced the deafening roar of his own doubts.
His mind, until now, had been a fortress built on the granite of prophecy. His identity was forged in the desert, tempered by asceticism, and defined by a singular, blazing vision: the Coming One. This was not a vague hope, but a detailed theological and psychological expectation, constructed from the fiery lexicon of Malachi (“He is like a refiner’s fire”) and the moral rage of Isaiah (“with righteousness he shall judge the poor”). John’s psyche was oriented like a compass needle to this magnetic north—a Messiah of purification, a divine axe laid to the root of rotten trees, a winnowing fan to separate irredeemable wheat from chaff. This belief was the engine of his courage, the source of his authority. It allowed him to face Herod, to name sin, to call a nation to the river of repentance. His self was synonymous with his role: the Voice, the Precursor, the one who prepares the way for That Day.
And then came Jesus. The moment at the Jordan had been the pinnacle of John’s life—the spirit descending, the voice affirming. He had pointed, unwavering: “Behold, the Lamb of God.” The transaction of destiny seemed complete. Yet, in the weeks and months that followed, a cognitive dissonance, slow and insidious, began to erode the foundations of his mind.
From his disciples, flickering reports filtered into the desert and now into his cell. Jesus was indeed preaching, but his message tasted different. It spoke of blessing for the poor in spirit, of mercy, of turning cheeks. He was feasting with tax collectors and sinners, not calling down fire upon them. He healed the sick, which was beautiful, but where was the decisive, political, liberating action? Where was the restoration of justice John had literally staked his life on? The psychological tension became unbearable. The man he had publicly proclaimed as the fulfillment of all history was behaving in a manner that violated every schema John’s psyche held for the Messiah.
Imprisonment acted as a psychological pressure cooker. The inactivity, the helplessness, the brutal contrast between his own fate and the kingdom he expected Jesus to inaugurate, fermented a crisis of meaning. Had he been wrong? The question was a form of torture. If he was wrong about the Messiah, then his entire life’s mission, his identity, his sacrifices were a tragic farce. The stones of his prison seemed to whisper: “Fool.” This was not merely intellectual doubt; it was an existential unraveling. The prophet who knew was now a man drowning in the “perplexities” of God’s inaction. His faith didn’t vanish; it mutated into a desperate, agonized hope that he might be misunderstanding, that Jesus had a plan. His message to Jesus—“Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?”—is the desperate gasp of a drowning psyche. It is not betrayal, but the last, fragile thread he clings to. He sends his disciples not to accuse, but to plead for a lifeline, for a sign that would re-anchor his shattered world.
Jesus’ response is a masterpiece of psychological and spiritual redirection. He does not offer a doctrinal proof or a rebuke. Instead, he provides data: “Go and tell John what you hear and see.” The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news preached to them. Jesus presents a schema of healing and liberation, directly quoting Isaiah’s poems of comfort (Is 35, 61), but pointedly omitting the verses about “the day of vengeance of our God.”
This message, delivered to John in his cell, forces him into a profound internal conflict. The drama is all within. He must hold two contradictory images in his mind: the Messiah of the Winnowing Fan, and the Messiah who raises the dead and eats with sinners. To resolve this, his ego—the part of his psyche that had built its entire house on the first image—must endure a kind of death. The final beatitude, “Blessed is the one who is not scandalized by me,” is the gentle, devastating key. The Greek word skandalon means a stumbling block, a trap. Jesus is saying: “Your offense, John, your cognitive stumble, is understandable. But blessedness lies in stepping over the stumbling block of your own expectations.”
This is the invitation to John’s conversion—not from sin to virtue, but from one understanding of God to another. It is a psychological conversion of the deepest order. John must deconstruct the messianic image he has worshipped. The mighty God of his imagination, the warrior-judge, is revealed to be hidden in the vulnerable, compassionate healer. This is not a loss of faith, but a loss of idols. The drama here is one of grief and disorientation. He must grieve the loss of the God he thought he knew.
John’s public identity was “the one who prepares the way for the Coming One.” If the Coming One is different, what does that make John? His role is not negated but transformed. He was not the herald of a political revolution, but of a revolution of the heart. To accept this requires a humility that borders on self-annihilation. He must move from “I was the voice crying in the wilderness for that” to “My crying in the wilderness prepared you to recognize this.” It is the shift from a ego-centered narrative of history to a participation in a divine mystery beyond his full comprehension.
The conversion’s culmination is not a shouted new dogma from the cell, but a quiet integration. We see its fruit in his absence. He does not send a second message. He recedes from the narrative. Having pointed to Jesus, and having had Jesus redefine the terms, John’s work is complete. His psychological drama concludes with a release—not from Herod’s prison, but from the prison of his own limited theology. He is freed from the burden of being the one who must fully understand. He can let the mystery be.
Jesus’ praise of John—“among those born of women no one has arisen greater”—acknowledges the supreme difficulty and greatness of this very journey. John’s greatness lies not in his unshakable certainty, but in his faithful questioning. He is the model of the true believer not because he never doubted, but because when his deepest convictions were scandalized, he did not retreat into rigid fundamentalism or cynical denial. He had the courage to send the question, to face the dissonant answer, and to allow his inner world to be reconfigured by a reality greater than his expectations.
His story is the ultimate drama of a human mind grappling with the Divine surprise. It tells us that faith is not a fortress to be defended, but a journey to be undertaken; that the deepest conversions are often not about turning away from sin, but about turning towards a God who is always stranger, kinder, and more liberating than we had dared to believe. In the cold dark of Machaerus, John the Baptist did not lose his faith. He found it, purified in the fire of his own sacred doubt, and in doing so, he was converted from a prophet of wrath into a silent witness to the boundless, scandalous, and blessed mercy of God.
在今天的福音中， 我們再次遇到洗者若翰，這位施洗者總是給我們帶來驚喜：在伯大尼，我們再也找不到他了。讓我們聽，他在哪裡：若翰在監獄裡。聖史瑪竇沒有告訴我們，若翰被囚禁在哪裡，可是，歷史學家Josephus Flavius 給我們透露了一些消息。Josephus Flavius 告訴我們：他被囚禁在馬卡魯斯（Machaerus）要塞。這是大黑落德在他的王國裡建造的八座要塞之一，為了更好理解福音中講述的事件，有必要提一下這個地方。馬卡魯斯位於佩雷亞（Perea）。佩雷亞（Perea）則位於大黑落德按照其遺囑，作為饋贈給其子黑落德安提帕（Herod Antipas）作為領土的兩片地區。另外兩部分領土，則被分給阿基勞斯（Archelaus）和斐理伯（Philip）他給阿基勞斯（Archelaus）留下最重要的部分，其中有包括耶路撒冷的猶大；至於斐理伯，他得到的是北部的地區。
在今天的福音中， 我们再次遇到洗者若翰，这位施洗者总是给我们带来惊喜：在伯大尼，我们再也找不到他了。让我们听，他在哪里：若翰在监狱里。圣史玛窦没有告诉我们，若翰被囚禁在哪里，可是，历史学家Josephus Flavius 给我们透露了一些消息。Josephus Flavius 告诉我们：他被囚禁在马卡鲁斯（Machaerus）要塞。这是大黑落德在他的王国里建造的八座要塞之一，为了更好理解福音中讲述的事件，有必要提一下这个地方。马卡鲁斯位于佩雷亚（Perea）。佩雷亚（Perea）则位于大黑落德按照其遗嘱，作为馈赠给其子黑落德安提帕（Herod Antipas）作为领土的两片地区。另外两部分领土，则被分给阿基劳斯（Archelaus）和斐理伯（Philip）他给阿基劳斯（Archelaus）留下最重要的部分，其中有包括耶路撒冷的犹大；至于斐理伯，他得到的是北部的地区。
全属于祢 
您必须登录才能发表评论。