Matthew 1
OGCBIBLE STUDY TEXTBOOK SERIES
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
Volume I-IV By Harold Fowler
College Press, Joplin, Missouri · Volume 1: · Copyright 1968 College Press · Volume 2: · Copyright © 1972 College Press Publishing Company · Volume 3 · Volume 4 · Copyright © 1985 College Press Publishing Company
PREFACE
It is predictably a constant feature of commentaries that they do not explain everything one might wish to know. This BIBLE STUDY TEXTBOOK on the Gospel of Matthew is no exception. As problems and questions have arisen in preparing this study, the author would search through other books for help - often in vain. Therefore, if some of the problems one might imagine are not dealt with in this brief study, the reason is that the present author perhaps did not see the problems, or having seen them, saluted them from afar and admitted he was a disciple with much more to learn, or else, having tried to deal with them, failed. As study continued, more material was constantly being uncovered that would have helped clarify the meaning of a passage already touched upon. But in the press of life and ministry it has not always been possible to return to those passages to rewrite. Grateful acknowledgement is hereby given to Seth Wilson, a student of the life of Jesus, whose helpful teaching has encouraged this study. Notes and attitudes reflected herein are sometimes his and are gratefully passed on to bless other lives. Other sources of information will be documented with just a word in the text; the full reference may be found in the bibliography. Studying at the feet of the Apostle Matthew has blessed my ministry and personal life manifold. Trying to plumb the depths of his meaning has convinced me that there is yet more down there to enrich the life for as long as one chooses to meditate upon Matthew’s independent testimony to the Lord’s message contained therein. Therefore, relatively speaking, this first volume of MATTHEW is a putting together of some notes to stimulate the reader to begin his own life-long appreciation of the mind of the Master revealed in the words of His publican Apostle. The aim of this study is to state in popular language the timeless testimony of Matthew, to indicate some appropriate applications of each truth and to suggest correlations with other commands and explanations made by the Apostles elsewhere in the NT. The THOUGHT QUESTIONS are intended to engage the mind in a lively discussion which should evoke vivid curiosity and opinions about what Jesus actually said or what Matthew actually meant. The FACT QUESTIONS attempt to review the knowledge of the materials from which buildings of understanding are constructed. The PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY is the author’s attempt to harmonize all of the available information given in the four Gospels into one coordinated story or discourse so as to reveal connections not seen in the reading of a single Gospel alone. Often a word, phrase or incident recorded by another Evangelist throws light on something that Matthew records without comment or explanation. ALL words printed in italics type in the TEXT are words added by the American Revision Committee to the American Standard Version in order to render a smoother translation, although these words are not in the original Greek. ALL words printed in bold-face type in the NOTES are citations of words or phrases in the ASV text upon which comment is being made.
My prayer is that the God of all truth will forgive what is mistaken or misleading about what is said about His Word herein, bless what is true and graciously accept what I offer to Him as my service over the past years of study and putting together these notes. Further, it is my prayer that these notes will do something to help us better to understand the will of Jesus and move us to enthrone Him more fully as King of our lives.
INTRODUCTION
TO WHOM DID MATTHEW DIRECT HIS BOOK?
The observation has often been urged that this gospel is addressed particularly to the Jews. Its Jewish destination appears, for instance, in the emphasis given to the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy in the events of Jesus-’ life, This, of course, could be overemphasized since all of the other three gospels record fulfilments of the ancient prophecies. Further, this record of Matthew is not Jewish in the sense that its message contradicts the mission of the Church to the Gentile world. If the gospel of Matthew could be said to be answering Jewish attacks upon the Christian message, then it should also be observed that Matthew does not disturb his narration with obtrusive answers to the supposed Jewish attacks. The differences between Matthew’s record and that of Mark, Luke and John are not all as clean-cut in this area of deciding to what audience the writer aimed his material, as would be supposed, There are subtle differences of treatment and emphasis, to be sure; a certain special Jewish flavor cannot be denied, But to dogmatize that Matthew did not intend his message for Gentile minds as well as Jewish is to ignore several definite matthaean emphases upon the Gentiles-’ interest in Jesus, His interest in them and their need of conversion. The evidences which point to the Jewish reading public as the aim of Matthew’s message, are the following considerations:
- The genealogy of Jesus is traced back only to David and Abraham whereas Luke traces his genealogical table clear back to Adam. 2. The matthaean account of the Sermon on the Mount reveals the true meaning of righteousness as contrasted with the ideals of the Law and demonstrates the true blessing of citizenship in the Kingdom of God but only hints at the gospel of grace. Its aim is to contrast the superficial views of current Pharisaism with the ultimate goal of driving man to the necessities of faith and salvation by grace. The non-Jewish reader could certainly arrive at the same point by reading the Sermon but probably with less understanding than would one trained in Old Testament religion and hopes for a glorious messianic kingdom. 3. The fulfilments of some 40 Old Testament passages in the life of Jesus is a matter for which a gentile reader would have perhaps some appreciation, if he knew something of the prophetic literature, whereas it would strike instantly to the heart of Jewish messianic interest and hopes. This must not be pushed too far inasmuch as, even today, the gentile mind can be impressed by the concurrence of hundreds of detailed prophecies in the life and ministry of one man. Matthew gives ample evidence that Jesus is the kind of Messiah actually predicted by the prophets and not the Messiah of popular expectation and mistaken rabbinic concept.
Matthew’s history of Jesus, while written from the Jewish standpoint for readers trained in the Old Testament religion, is primarily history. It would be unnecessary to call the Gospel by Matthew a defence, and Matthew’s purpose chiefly apologetic, except as any historical and objective presentation carries with it its own convincing force. Matthew does not direct his message to the Jewish nation in the sense of upholding current national ideals, or by exalting Jesus as a Jewish political hero capable of fulfilling their materialistic messianic expectations. Rather, he draws Israel’s true picture painted in the dark colors of national unbelief that rejected its Messiah. From the adoration of the Magi to the all-inclusive commission given by Jesus to evangelize the entire world, Matthew pictures Jesus as Him in whom the Gentiles may hope. He presents Jesus as Him to whom all unconverted Jews must turn in true repentance.
WHAT IS MATTHEW’S ORDER OR PLAN OF PRESENTATION?
His plan must be deduced from what he actually wrote rather than from any explicit statement that declares whether he intended to follow a strict chronological order or a more generally topical one, since he left no such statement. It seems clear, however, that while arranging his materials, Matthew chose not to be guided by chronological considerations so much as by the desire to present larger sections of Jesus-’ teaching. To this supposed end he seems to have collected into one place the teachings on a specific subject which may or may not have all been presented on one given occasion, although all were probably set forth by Jesus during a given period of His ministry. Though Matthew does not declare this intent, it may be deduced by checking the following list of topical examples of Jesus-’ preaching, for material that Mark and Luke sometimes describe as having been given on other occasions.
- Sermon on the Mount
Matthew 5, 6, 7
- Sermon on Evangelism
- Sermon on John the Baptist
- Sermon on Unforgiveable Sin
- Sermon in Parables
- Sermon on Human Traditions
- Sermon on Stumbling-blocks and Forgiveness
- Sermon on Eleventh-hour Laborers
- Three Parables on Rejected Opportunity
Matthew 21:28 to Matthew 22:14
- Four Answers to Attackers
- Sermon Against Religious Leaders
- Sermon on End of the Jewish State and of the World
- Sermon on Personal Preparation
Considering the live probability that the Evangelists summarize Jesus-’ teaching to provide their readers with the maximum information in the minimum space without losing the heart and power of His message, it should not be surprising to find the same nuggets, that Matthew places at one point, placed on another occasion by Mark or Luke. It is quite probable that Jesus did repeatedly address the same lessons, parables and sermons in equivalent language to men of various localities who had the same sins, identical prejudices and copybook concepts of righteousness and the Kingdom of God. Further, similar events may be confounded by the modern reader, whereas they were actually separate, however closely they might resemble each other. The plan to be followed in this MATTHEW Study Textbook will be that which follows the order of materials as Matthew himself arranged them. It is not a small temptation to rearrange his material along chronological lines seen most often in Luke’s Gospel. Such a rearrangement, with a view to harmonizing the four Gospels, is of great value for showing the coincidence of independent testimony. In addition it would capture more exactly the succession of events as well as provide to the student a sense of progressive continuity from the beginning of Jesus-’ preaching as it moves toward His glorification. For instance, it may be confusing to some to learn that, chronologically speaking, Matthew’s Chapter s 8, 9, 10, 12 all contain events which probably precede the Sermon on the Mount, recorded in Chapter s 5, 6, 7. However, if it will be remembered that Matthew does not either claim or strive for exact chronological order, then the seemingly contradictory placement of certain events and doctrines will cause no consternation. For all the advantages to be gained by shifting Matthew’s material and reorganizing it according to clearer chronological sequences of Luke, yet there is no little merit in letting Matthew tell his own story. As Apostle of Jesus Christ and inspired by His Holy Spirit, Matthew should be allowed to arrange the Gospel as he deems best. He intended that his systematic collection of the various discourses and events carry to the reader with its own convincing force the sure conviction that this Jesus of Nazareth. who was crucified and raised from the dead, is God’s Messianic King. Let those who would criticize Matthew’s anachronisms and lack of ordinary historical judgment realise that, after all, Matthew is writing the book and he should be permitted the ordinary literary liberties to group some details according to their nature and import. Matthew is master of his own work: let us hear him tell us about the Lord.
Therefore, in dealing with a specific passage in Matthew which has close verbal parallels that were also spoken on other occasions, primary attention will be given to get at Jesus-’ meaning, rather than to decide upon what occasion He said it. Wherever possible to harmonize parallel passages of Mark, Luke or John with the text of Matthew, the PARAPHRASE-HARMONY presents one version of an event, interweaving the various information derived from the parallels. Since other statements made by other eyewitnesses tend to modify, clarify or extend the declarations of the one eyewitness, it is a very desirable goal to have all available testimony in hand before proceeding to interpret any part of it.
SECTIONAL OUTLINE OF Matthew 1. Genealogy of Jesus
- Annunciation to Joseph
- Visit of the Wisemen
- Flight into Egypt and Return
- Preaching of John the Baptist
- Jesus Is Baptized by John
- Jesus Is Tempted by the Devil
- Jesus Preaches in Galilee
- Jesus Calls Four Fishermen
- Jesus Preaches and Heals in Galilee
- Jesus Preaches the Sermon on the Mount
(Matthew 5:1 to Matthew 8:1)
- Jesus Heals a Leper
- Jesus Heals a Centurion’s Servant
- Jesus Heals Peter’s Mother-in-law
- Jesus Calls Others to Discipleship
- Jesus Stills a Tempest
17, Jesus Frees the Gadarene Demoniacs
(Matthew 8:28 to Matthew 9:1)
- Jesus Forgives and Heals a Paralytic
- Jesus Calls Matthew Levi
- Jesus Raises Jairus-’ Daughter
- Jesus Heals Two Blind Men
- Jesus Evangelizes Galilee
- Jesus Commissions the Twelve Apostles to Evangelize
- Jesus Questioned by John, Sermon on John
- Jesus Condemns Unbelieving Cities and Invites Babes to Come to Him
- Jesus Answers Charges of Sabbath Breaking
- Jesus Heals Many
- Jesus Is Attacked for Casting Out Demon and Charged with Being in League with Satan
- Jesus Gives the Sign of Jonah
- Jesus Refuses to Let Fleshly Ties Bind Him
- Jesus Preaches Great Sermon in Parables
- Jesus Is Refused by His Own at Nazareth
- Jesus Hears of the Foul Murder of John the Baptist
(Matthew 14:1-13 a)
- Jesus Feeds the 5000 and Walks on the Sea
(Matthew 14:13 b - Matthew 14:33)
- Jesus Heals Some Sick at Gennesaret
- Jesus Argues with Jerusalem Pharisees about the Traditions
- Jesus Heals the Syrophoenician Woman’s Daughter
- Jesus Feeds 4000 and Heals Many in Decapolis
(Matthew 15:29-39 a)
- Jesus Refuses to Give Additional Signs from Heaven
(Matthew 15:39 b - Matthew 16:4)
- Jesus Warn Disciples Against Influence of Popular Leaders and Parties
- Jesus Tests Apostles: Peter’s Confession
- Jesus Shows Peter, James and John His Glory
- Jesus Heals and Frees Demonized Boy
- Jesus Makes Third Passion Prediction
- Jesus Quizzes Peter About Temple Taxes
- Jesus Teaches True Greatness, Temptations, Concern for Least of God-s loved Ones, and Forgiveness
- Jesus Teaches on Divorce
- Jesus Blesses the Little Children
- Jesus Tests Rich Young Ruler and Encourages Apostles
- Jesus Teaches Parable of the Eleventh Hour Servants
- Jesus Predicts His Passion Fourth Time
- Jesus Refuses to Establish Hierarchy
- Jesus Heals Two Blind Men at Jericho,
- Jesus Enters in Earthly Triumph into Jerusalem
- Jesus Cleanses Temple a Last Time and Receives Worship
- Jesus Curses Fig Tree and Teaches Disciples
- Jesus Meets Challenges of Authority: Parable of Vineyard
Let Out to Unworthy Tenants
Parable of Slighted Marriage Invitations
- Jesus Answers Captious Questions
- Jesus Attacks the Sins of the Righteous
- Jesus Describes the Last Days of the Jewish State and His Second Coming
(Matthew 24:1 to Matthew 25:46)
- Jesus Predicts His Own Death a Fifth Time
- Jesus Is Plotted Against by the Rulers
- Jesus Is Anointed by Mary of Bethany
- Judas Agrees with Jesus-’ Enemies to Betray Him
- Jesus Celebrates His Last Passover Feast and Institutes the Lord-s Supper
- Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denials
- Jesus Prays in Gethsemane
- Jesus Is Arrested
- Jesus Is Tried Before Caiaphas
- Jesus Is Denied by Peter
- Jesus Is Condemned by Sanhedrin
- Jesus-’ Betrayer Commits Suicide
- Jesus Tried Before Pilate
(Matthew 27:2; Matthew 27:11-31)
- Jesus Is Taken Out, Crucified and Buried
- Pharisees Set Roman Guard to Watch Tomb
- Jesus Arose!
- Jesus-’ Guards Testify to His Resurrection
- Jesus Appears and Commissions His- Disciples
BIBLIOGRAPHY [Volume 1]
Aland, Kurt, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum ed patrum adhibitis edidit. Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964.
Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W. A Geek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957,
Bales, James D. Jesus the Ideal Teacher, Rosemead, California: Old Paths Publishing, 1963.
Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew 2 vols. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1958.
Chambers, Oswald. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount. Fort Washington, Pennsylvania: Oswald Chambers Publications Association and Christian Literature Crusade, 1960.
Dana, H. E. The New Testament World, 3rd ed. revised. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1951.
Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.
_______, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.
Foster, R. C. Studies in the Life of Christ: Introduction and Early Ministry. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966.
Flavius Josephus. The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Philadelphia: John E. Potter & Co., n.d.
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Columbus: The Wartburg Press, 1943.
Lewis,W. Sunderland and Booth. Henry M. (ed.) The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Vol. 22. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., n.d.
Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1930.
Marshall, L. H. The Challenge of New Testament Ethics. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1360.
McGarvey, J. W. and Pendleton, Philip Y. The Fourfold Gospel. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Foundation, n.d.
McGarvey, J. W. The New Testament Commentary. Vol. I. Matthew and Mark, Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, n.d.
Orr, James. (ed.) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.
Pfeiffer, Charles F. Between the Testaments. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959.
Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962.
Plummer, Alfred. The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke 5th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1953.
BIBLIOGRAPHY [Volume 2]
Broomall, Wick. Biblical Criticism, Grand Rapids, 1957.
Symposium by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary. The Infallible Word. Grand Rapids, 1953.
Tasker, R. V. G. The Old Testament in the New Testament, New York, 1954.
Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Chicago, 1957.
Von Allmen, J. J. A Companion to the Bible, New York, 1958.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Inspiration, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1929.
Young, Edward J. Thy Word Is Truth, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1960.
Aland, Kurt. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum Locis patallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum ed patrum adhibitis edidit, Stuttgart; Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964.
Arndt, W. F., and Gingrich, F. W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew, 2 vols. Edinburgh: Saint Andrews Press, 1958.
Barker, William P. As Matthew Saw the Master. Fleming H. Reveil Co. Westwood, N.J., 1964.
Barnes, Albert. Notes on the New Testament; Matthew and Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964.
Bruce, Alexander Balmain. Expositor’s Greek Testament, Synoptic Gospels, New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1897.
. The Training of the Twelve. Grand Rapids; Zondervan Publishing House, 1963.
Bruce, F. F. Israel and the Nations: From the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple. Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1963.
Burton, Ernest DeWitt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Third Edition. Edinburgh. T. and T. Clark, latest reprint, 1955.
Butler, Paul T. The Gospel of John, 2 Vols. Joplin: College Press, 1965.
. Minor Prophets, The Prophets of the Decline. Joplin: College Press, 1968.
Carver, W. O. The Self-Interpretation of Jesus. Nashville: Broadman Press, n.d.
Centro Dehoniano. Documenti: Il Concilio Vaticano II. (Documents of The Second Vatican Council) Bologna, Italy: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1966.
Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, H. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.
Dana, H. E. The New Testament World. 3rd ed revised. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1951.
Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.
Edersheim, Alfred. Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.
Farrar, Frederich W. The Life of Christ.
Foster, R. C. Studies in the Life of Christ: The Middle Period. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.
Flavius Josephus. The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Philadelphia. John E. Potter and Co., n.d.
Hamilton, Floyd E. The Basis of Christian Faith. 3rd revised ed. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1946.
Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1964.
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary Exposition of the Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954.
Marshall, L. H. The Challenge of New Testament Ethics. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1960.
McGarvey, J. W. and Pendleton, Philip Y. The Fourfold Gospel. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Foundation, n.d.
McGarvey, J. W. The New Testament Commentary, Vol. I. Matthew and Mark. Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Co., n.d.
. Jesus and Jonah. Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Dehoff Publications, 1952.
McGavran, Donald. The Bridges of God. New York: Friendship Press, 1955.
Milligan, Robert. New Testament Commentary Vol. IX, Epistle to the Hebrews. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1959.
Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to Matthew. Westwood, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1929.
Newman, Albert Henry. A Manual of Church History. Vol. I. Valley Forge, Pa.: The Judson Press, 1964.
Orr, James. (ed.) The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.
Pfeiffer, Charles F. Between the Testaments. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959.
Plummer, Alfred. The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke 5 th ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1953.
. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963.
Qualben, Lars P. A History of the Christian Church. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1956.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vols. I, II, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.
Smith, Wilbur. The Supernaturalness of Jesus, Boston: W. A. Wilde Co., 1958.
. Therefore Stand. Natick, Mass.: W. A. Wilde Co., 1959.
Tenney, Merril C. New Testament Times. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1965.
Trench, R. C. Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.
. Notes on the Parables of Our Lord. Popular edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.
Unger, Merrill F. Archeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.
Wiend, Albert Cassel. A New Harmony of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm, B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956.
BIBLIOGRAPHY [Volume 3]
Aland, Kurt. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis edidit. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964.
Arndt, W. F., and Gingrich, F. W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew 2 vols. Edinburgh: Saint Andrews Press, 1958.
Barker, William P. As Matthew Saw the Master. Fleming H. Revell Co.; Westwood, N.J., 1964.
Barnes, Albert. Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964.
Bartchy, S. Scott. Mallon Chresai: First-Century Slavery and 1 Corinthians 7:21. Society of Biblical Literature for The Seminar on Paul, Dissertation Series, Number Eleven, 1973.
_________. Minor Prophets, The Prophets of the Decline. Joplin: College Press, 1968.
Carver, W. O. The Self-Interpretation of Jesus. Nashville: Broadman Press, n.d.
Centro Dehoniano. Documenti: II Concilio Vaticano II. (Documents of The Second Vatican Council) Bologna, Italy: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1966.
Cuminetti, Mario. Evangelo secondo Matteo. Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, Verona, Italy, 1973.
Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.
_________. Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.
Farrar, Frederich W. The Life of Christ. Portland, Oregon: Fountain Publications, latest reprint 1964.
Flusser, David. Jesus. Genova, Italy: Editrice Lanterna, 1976. Published in Italian translated from the German original by Giulia Zaggia. Original publication by Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Reinbex bei Hamburg, 1968.
Foster, R. C. Studies in the Life of Christ: The Middle Period. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.
Flavius Josephus. The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Philadelphia: John E. Potter and Co., n.d. Gesenius, William. Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Translation by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957.
Grollenberg, L. H. Shorter Atlas of the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1959.
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary Exposition of the Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954.
_________. New Testament Commentary Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.
Keil, C. F. and Delitzsch, F. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Columbus: The Wartburg Press, 1943.
Lewis, W. Sunderland and Booth, Henry M. (ed.) The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Vol. 22. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Co., n.d.
Marshall, L. H. The Challenge of New Testament Ethics. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1960.
McGarvey, J. W. and Pendleton, Philip Y. The Fourfold Gospel. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Foundation, n.d.
McGarvey, J. W. The New Testament Commentary, Vol. I. Matthew and Mark. Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Co., n.d.
_________. Lands of the Bible, A Geographical and Topographical Description of Palestine, with Letters of Travel in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and Greece. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, n.d.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies-’ Greek New Testament (third edition). London: United Bible Societies, 1971.
McMillan, Earle. The Gospel According to Mark. The Living Word Commentary, editor Everett Ferguson. Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1973.
Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to Matthew. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1929.
Newman, Albert Henry, A Manual of Church History. 2 vols. Valley Forge, Pa.: The Judson Press, 1964.
Orr, James. (ed.) The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.
Pfeiffer, Charles F. The Biblical World, A Dictionary of Biblical Archeology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966.
Plummer, Alfred. The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke 5 th ed. Edinburgh: T, and T. Clark, 1953.
_________. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963.
Rocci, Lorenzo, Vocabolario Greco-Itàliano. Roma: Societa Editrice Dante Alighieri, 1943.
Salvoni, Fausto. Da Pietro Al Papato. Genova, Italy: Editrice Lanterna, 1970.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vols. I. II. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962.
Slater, Philip. Wealth Addiction. Quest/77. Greenwich, Ct.: November/December, 1977.
Staton, Knofel. The Perfect Balance. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1975.
_________. The Servant’s Call. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1976.
Thomson, W. M. The Land and the Book. 2 Vols. New York: Harper and Bros., 1863.
Tolbert, Malcolm. Good News From Matthew. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1975.
Trench, R. C. Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.
_________. Notes on the Parables of Our Lord. Popular edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.
Unger, Merril F. Archeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.
_________. Archeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960.
Wiend, Albert Cassel. A New Harmony of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956.
Willcock, J. (ed.) The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke. Vol. 24. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, n.d.
Wilson, Seth. Learning From Jesus. Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1977.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: COMMENTARIES [Volume 4]
Alford, Henry
The Greek Testament. Vol. I. (Chicago: Moody Press) ed. 1958, revision by Everett Harrison.
Ash, Anthony Lee
The Gospel According to Luke, Vol. II. (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Co.) 1973.
Barclay, William
The Gospel of Matthew 2 Vols. (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press) 1958.
Barker, William P.
Barnes, Albert
Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House) 1964.
Barrett, C.K.
The Gospel According to St. John, an introduction with commentary and notes on the Greek Text. (London: S.P.C.K.) 1955.
Bruce, Alexander Balmain
Expositor’s Greek Testament, the Synoptic Gospels. Vol. I (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.) 1970.
Butler, Paul T.
The Gospel of John 2 Vols. (Joplin, Mo.: College Press) 1965;
The Gospel of Luke. (Joplin, Mo.: College Press) 1981.
Cuminetti, Mario
Evangelo Secondo Matteo. (Arnoldo Mondadori, Editore, Italy) 1973.
Edersheim, Alfred
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.) 1962.
Farrar, Frederio W.
The Life of Christ. (Portland: Fountain Publications) 1964.
Foster, R.C.
Studies in the Life of Christ: The Final Week. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House) 1962.
Godet, F.L.
The Gospel of John. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House) latest reprint 1970.
Hendriksen, William
Henry, Matthew
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Vol 5, Matthew to John. (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.) n.d.
Johnson, B,W. and DeWelt, Don
The Gospel of Mark. (Joplin, Mo.: College Press) 1965.
Keil, Carl Friedrich
Lenski, R.C.H.
The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House) 1961.
The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House) 1961.
The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House) 1964.
The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. (Columbus, Ohio: The Wartburg Press) 1943.
Lewis, Jack P.
The Gospel According to Matthew. (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Co.) 1976.
Lewis, W. Sunderland and Booth, Henry M. (ed.)
The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Vol. XXII. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co.) n.d.
Maggioni, Bruno
Evangelo Secondo Luca. (Verona, Italy: Arnoldo Mondadori Editori) 1973.
McGarvey, J.W, and Pendleton, Philip Y.
The Fourfold Gospel. (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Foundation) n.d.
McMillan, Earle
The Gospel According to Mark. (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Co.) 1973.
Morgan, G. Campbell
The Gospel According to Matthew. (Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co.) 1929.
Plummer, Alfred
The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke 5 th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark) 1953.
Robertson, A.T.
Staion, Knofel
The Servant’s Call. (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Co.) 1976.
Tolbert, Malcolm
Wilson, Seth
Learning From Jesus. (Joplin, Mo.: College Press) 1977.
REFERENCE WORKS [Volume 4]
Aland, Kurt (ed.)
Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum: Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum ed patrum adhibitis edidit. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt) 1964.
Arndt, W.F. and Gingrich, F.W.
Burton, Ernest DeWitt
Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Third ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark) latest reprint 1955.
Centro Dehoniano
Documenti II Concilio Vaticano II. (Bologna, Italy: Edizioni Dehoniane) 1966.
Dana, H.E.
The New Testament World. 3rd ed. revised. (Nashville: Broadman Press) 1951.
Edersheim, Alfred
Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.) 1960.
The Temple, Its Ministry and Services as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.) 1951.
Ferguson, Everett
Flavius, Josephus
The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. (Philadelphia: John E. Potter & Co.) n.d.
Kittel, Gerhard and Friedrich, Gerhard (ed.)
Theologisches Wörterbuch Zum Neuen Testament. Italian translation: Grande Lessico del Nuovo Testamento. (Bresoia, Italy: Paideia) 1965.
McGarvey, J.W.
Lands of the Bible. (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Co.) n.d.
Evidences of Christianity. Part III. (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co.) 1891.
Metzger, Bruce M.
Metzger, Bruce M. (ed.)
The Apocrypha. (New York: Oxford University Press) 1973.
Orr, James (ed.)
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. 5 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.) 1960.
Rocci, Lorenzo
Vocabolario Greco-Italiano. (Roma: Società Editrice Dante Alighieri) 1943.
Tacitus, P. Cornelius
Annali. (Milano, Italy: Garzanti Editore) 1981. Histories. (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc.) 1952.
Thomson, W.M.
The Land and the Book. 2 Vols. (New York: Harper & Bros.) 1863.
Unger, Merril F.
Archeology and the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House) 1962.
Wieand, Albert Cassel
SPECIAL STUDIES [Volume 4]
Antonini, Pier C.
Processo e condanna di Gesù. (Torino, Italy: 1982.
Bowker, John
Jesus and the Pharisees. (Cambridge: University Press) 1973.
Bruce, Alexander Balmain
The Training of the Twelve. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House) 1963.
Carver. W.O.
The Self-Interpretation of Jesus. (Nashville: Broadman Press) n.d.
Flusser, David
Jesus. (Genova, Italy: Editrice Lanterna) 1976. Published in Italian, translated from the original German by Giulia Zaggia. Original publication by Rowohlt Taschenbuck Verlag GmbH, Reinbex/Hamburg. -76
Kik, J. Marcellus
Matthew XXIV, An Exposition. (Philadelphia, Pa.: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co) 1948.
Marshall, L.H.
The Challenge of New Testament Ethics. (New York: St. Martin’s Press) 1960.
McGarvey, J.W.
Jesus and Jonah. (Murfreesboro, Tenn: Dehoff Publications) 1952.
Orr, James
The Resurrection of Jesus. Evangelical Reprint Library (Joplin, Mo.: College Press) 1972.
Radaelli, Anselmo
Lettura di un miracolo (Mc 11, 12-25) come introduzione all-‘intendimento del miracolo. (Milano, Italy: Ricerche bibliche e religiose), Numbers 2, 3 for 1978.
EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ONE
THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD
God’s Faithfulness is demonstrated:
I.
IN HIS FIDELITY TO THE FATHERS, (v. 1) God had promised Abraham that in him should all the families of the earth be blessed. He had sworn with an oath to David that He would set one of his descendants upon his throne forever. The genealogy of Jesus proves the marvellous fulfilment of God’s promises. God can be completely trusted. Isaiah-s prophecy came true in the most astounding way.
II.
IN HIS JUSTIFICATION OF JOSEPH’S JUDGMENTS.
ALL that is seen of Joseph reveals a guileless Israelite, especially in his decision haw he would divorce Mary. It was the only righteous thing to do, yet God had other plans. Even after the vision of the angel, Joseph yet had to decide whether he would take the risk that was clearly involved and trust God to do what He had said. The obedience of Joseph (Matthew 1:24-25) is a heroic demonstration of faith. God fully justified Joseph’s decision by bringing to pass what He had promised.
III. IN HIS SAVING SINNERS FROM THEIR SINS,
A. JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins
B. Immanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23) (Matthew 1:21)
What this means:
These three demonstrations of God’s trustworthiness mean something! We learn something of the character of God:
A. God’s fidelity to the fathers means that however distant may seem the fulfilment of His promises, however unlikely and visionary, God always keeps His Word. God has promised His Church many precious, glowing gifts both present and future, Though we may never live to see them personally received in our lifetime’ is no indication at all that they are not sure and forthcoming, B. God’s Justification of Joseph teaches us that the doubts, fears and perplexities of His people may be turned into God’s advantage and into a clear manifestation of His own glory, as well as to His people. God is therefore to be trusted even though we do not understand the reason for OUT doubts and frustrations. The obedience of Joseph illustrates the lesson that from the time a man is sure he has understood God’s Word for his case he must dispute his doubts no more, but shut his ears to all human reasoning and obey God. C. God’s Son’s Salvation of Sinners shows two significant truths:
God has shown us the true character of sin by presenting it in such a light that we should hate it in our own souls and cry to be saved from it, If God took on human flesh to deal personally, finally and mercifully with sinners and die for sin, then how unspeakably evil sin must be!
God has shown us the true character of His fellowship. The great secret of our Christian joy lies in this fact that we do not believe in an absent God. Rather we serve one who is ever present ever so much more, since Jesus came as our Immanuel, God with us.
Try to grasp what these great truths mean and then see what they do to you!
A. They ought to make us humble. If the Son of God, King of Kings and Lord of Glory, chose to come to this earth in the lowliest manner; if He chose a manger to be born in, a working man’s home in which to live, the commonest food and clothing; and if He did all this just to die for sinners so that God could deal with men through grace, then, we have no basis for pride. We have all been one of the class of moral lepers and all our best righteousness was just make-believe. (Romans 6:21-22)
B. God’s being ever with us to save and sustain us ought to make us brave. If God be for us and with us, who can stand against us? No temptation will ever be too strong to be conquered, no difficulty will ever be tm hard to be surmounted by us who know that Jesus our Immanuel is God with us. C. What God has done in Christ ought to make us love men- all men-in spite of what they are. Look on your fellow-men and learn, from God’s coming in the flesh, to respect man, every man, as wearing the flesh that Jesus wore.
Matthew 1:1-17
CHAPTER ONE Section 1. THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS
TEXT: 1:1-17
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren;
and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram,
and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;
and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa;
and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;
and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;
- and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Arnon begat Josiah;
- and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.
- And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel;
- and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor,
- and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
- and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
- and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
- So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
Why do you suppose Matthew would begin his Gospel with the lineage of Jesus? Would it have not been much simpler to omit those difficult names and get on with the story? Why do you think so?
b.
Why would Matthew call these first 17 verses the book of the generation of Jesus Christ when they are not a book-’ and these words do not constitute an adequate title for the entire Gospel?
c.
Do you think Matthew intended to give an exhaustive list of Jesus-’ ancestors? If so, why does he omit at least three names?
d.
Why does Matthew say there are fourteen generations in the three major sections of the list when there were obviously more ancestors?
PARAPHRASE
This is the record of the ancestry of Jesus Christ, a descendent of both David and Abraham:
Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah and his brothers Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar Hezron Ram Amminadab Nahshon Boaz whose mother was Rahab Obed whose mother was Ruth Jesse David the king Solomon whose mother was Uriah’s wife (Bathsheba) Rehoboam Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat Joram Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amos Josiah Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph. the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus, who is called Christ.
So the whole number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen; from David to the Exile to Babylon fourteen: and from the Exile to Babylon to the Christ Himself fourteen.
NOTES
The genealogies of Jesus recorded in Matthew and Luke are apparently so bare of practical use and so full of difficulties for the modern Bible student that many usually skip them and go on with the more important lessons which encourage faith and godliness. But the value of these records and the significance both to the modern unbeliever and Christian alike so greatly outweighs their seeming dry, forbidding content that Bible students cannot but be blessed by their study.
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
A. THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR THE GENEALOGICAL CERTIFICATION.
To the western mind these first 17 verses of Matthew’s Gospel seem to be a useless procedure in presenting Jesus-’ pedigree through which one must wade to get at the real beginning of His history. However, to the Jewish mind this is most natural, interesting and essential. Matthew’s opening words indicate that Jesus is both son of David and son of Abraham in an important, unique sense. God had promised the patriarchs and prophets that the Messiah would trace His lineage from these worthies. As apologetic evidence, therefore, it is imperative that Matthew indicate Jesus-’ lineage. (Cf. 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-5; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Jeremiah 33:15-18.) These prophecies, which admittedly come from God, place Matthew under obligation to show that this Jesus of Nazareth fulfills the prophecies in this primary respect, before he could proceed further. Throughout Matthew’s record (Matthew 12:23; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:30-31; Matthew 21:9; Matthew 21:15; Matthew 22:41-46) as well as the apostolic preaching and the writing of others (cf. Acts 2:25-36; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8) this ancestral relation of Jesus is emphasized. Neither Matthew and his age nor we and ours should spend further useless study and futile trusting in Jesus of Nazareth if he be not the son of David, the son of Abraham.
B. THE GENEALOGIES EMPHASIZE THE HUMANITY OF JESUS.
Jesus is truly human. The Word who was with God in the beginning became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw not only His glory, which befits that of the Father’s Only Son, but we saw His gracious self-abnegation. He was not ashamed to call us brethren: He had fellowship with us sinners, although he was sinless. (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:5-18; Hebrews 4:14-16; Hebrews 5:7-10)
C. THE GENEALOGIES PROCLAIM THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD.
God always keeps His word. The Jews were always a waiting people, never forgetting they were a chosen people. Often they forgot the moral responsibilities to God that that election required of them, but regardless of the long history of idolatry, decline and subjection, they never forgot their destiny rooted in the promises of God. Though man often forgets, God is faithful to His promises. What He promised to Abraham and David came to pass. (Romans 15:8)
D. THE GENEALOGIES HINT AT THE SINFULNESS OF MEN.
As we notice the text, we shall be struck by the sinful character of important names in the list. What we see of Jesus, who was not stained with any sin, will force us to conclude that grace and goodness do not necessarily run in families, and that heritage alone could not account for the purity of Jesus. JESUS WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE LINE OF DAVID: He was given to it. Certainly, it was not Matthew’s purpose to clothe Jesus with the diminishing glories of the first families of Israel, for he brings up, even if in a suggestive, veiled form, their embarrassing sins as well.
E. THE GENEALOGIES SHOW GOD’S PURPOSES IN HIS DEALINGS WITH ISRAEL.
In this rapid stroke of the pen, Matthew summarizes the history of Israel and shows that, in God’s providential dealings with the Jews, there was purpose and design, God was intending and willing that certain things happen. The many unanswered questions, which were left puzzling the ancient Hebrews, are drawn together and tied to God’s supreme solution: Jesus His Son. Because of these genealogies, we must view Jewish history as proceeding toward the goal of accomplishing God-s predetermined plan. (Cf. Acts 2:23; Acts 3:17-26; Ephesians 1-3)
F. THE GENEALOGIES DECLARE THAT JESUS IS NO MERE CREATURE OF HIS ENVIRONMENT.
Some might emphasize unduly the messianic expectation of the Jews to suggest that Jesus is to be accounted for by His fulfilment of the then-current Jewish expectations; that is, being quite as human as any other man, Jesus swept into the religious vacuum created by sterile Pharisaism end by Sadduccean philosophy, filling the crying need of the common people by His careful exploitation of His own extraordinary grasp of the times, These genealogies, on the other hand, clearly teach that the coming of Jesus was clearly planned and carefully prepared for; hence, He was a Child, not of the moment, but of the ages, (Study 1 Peter 1:20-21; Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6-7; Revelation 22:16.)
G. THE GENEALOGIES SUPPORT AND COMPLIMENT THE VIRGIN Births NARRATIVES.
Luke records the annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:32-35) where her baby is called both Son of the Most High, Son of God,-’-’ and Son of David. Whatever Mary’s lineage might be, though she would be the actual human parent of Jesus, yet Joseph was the head of the family, and the davidic connection of Jesus could only be established by acknowledging Jesus as legal heir of Joseph to David’s throne. Thus, the two genealogies are required to show that Jesus is both the lineal Son of David by Mary, and that He is the legal heir to David by Joseph. Jesus is not the blood son of His legal father: He is the blood-line heir of the davidic throne being the grandson of David through Mary.
THE PECULIARITIES OF MATTHEW’S GENEALOGY
Attacks have been launched which question the accuracy of Matthew’s record. Most fall short of their mark when Matthew’s purpose for introducing the genealogy is seen.
A. THE ARTIFICIAL DIVISION OF THREE GROUPS OF FOURTEEN GENERATIONS.
The partitioning of Matthew is called artificial because of the omission of three generations in verse 8, where we would expect to find the additional names: Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah. Also, in verse 11, Jehoiakim is omitted. The omissions were not accidental since the OT genealogical tables were a matter of public record (See 1 Chronicles 1-3; Nehemiah 7:5; Nehemiah 7:61-65; 2 Chronicles 12:15; 2 Chronicles 31:16-19) and intense private interest, both religious and legal (See Luke 1:5; Acts 4:36-37; Philippians 3:5). For this same reason, it may also be seen that Matthew makes these omissions not for advantage in argument, in which case ready refutation could be adduced from public annuals and OT chronicles. Rather, this artificial grouping of these well-known names furnishes three groups of fourteen names easily memorized. The early Christians, in argument with Jews, could more easily use the long, difficult list, having committed it to memory. Observe, it is Matthew who calls attention to the fact that he has so arranged the list. Matthew’s purpose at this point is not primarily historical in the sense that he merely gives a precise list, but illogical in the sense that he reasons to a conclusion: Jesus Christ (is) the son of David, the son of Abraham, Should he be charged with a deceptive motive for omitting the names, none could prove this supposed motivation, for Matthew never bases any argument upon the series of three groupings into fourteen generations each. It seems both fitting and proper to say that Matthew’s artificial catalogue of the number of the generations was meant to apply only to this list as given, and not to the number that had actually existed.
B. THE INSERTION OF NAMES OF BROTHERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HISTORICAL LISTS.
If he intended to give a simple, objective list, then why include the brothers of the lineal descendent? Is it because the OT so continually associates the sons of Jacob together? But, why mention the brethren of Jehoiakim in v. 11? It is difficult to see just why these extra names were introduced unless they offer another device for facilitating the memorization of the list.
C. THE INSERTION OF THE NAMES OF WOMEN INTO THE GENEALOGY.
The insertion of the names of women into the genealogy of so notable a person as the Messiah is a practice not only foreign but abhorrent to the ordinary practice. The singularity of these notices is most clearly observed by their contrast to Jewish national self righteousness:
The incestuous Tamar (Genesis 38)
The prostitute Rahab (if she is the same one who was contemporary with Salmon son of Nahshon, a chief of the tribe of Judah just prior to the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land (cf. Numbers 1:7 and Matthew 1:5 with Joshua 2:1-21; Joshua 6:1-25)
The virtuous but gentile Ruth (Rth 1:4) who belonged to the alien, hated Moabite race (cf. Deuteronomy 23:3-6)
Bathsheba, the seduced but guilty wife of Uriah (2 Samuel 11, 12)
The suggestion has been made as to why Matthew should have included these names: that he was answering the Jewish attacks and slanders upon the virgin birth and upon Mary’s character. Accordingly, then, Matthew would be answering these slanderers of Mary by reminding them of real blemishes in the Messiah-s unassailable bloodline. They should busy themselves with these real blemishes, well attested in the Jewish history, rather than slander the pure maiden Mary, However, it is difficult to admit that Matthew would, even for the sake of argument, compare the mother of Jesus with women in whose lives shame could be found. Perhaps Matthew’s insertion of these names is not for comparison and analogy but rather for contrast: if even such shameful blemishes in the messianic lineage could be used by God to carry out His purposes, how much more the creative action of the Holy Spirit in the chaste virgin! However, it must again be admitted that Matthew draws no conclusions upon the basis of these inserted names. How the Jewish ears must have stung as these women are mentioned! What could be Matthew’s purpose? Could it be that:
- The barrier between Jew and Gentile be down? Here is Ruth the virtuous Moabite and Rahab the believing Canaanite of Jericho (1) who find their places in Jesus-’ pedigree. It should be clear to the Jewish mind that the Messiah cannot be of unmixed blood!
The barriers between male and female are falling? The ordinary genealogy would have contained no names of women because they would have had no legal rights. Being regarded as a thing not a person, the mere possession of her father or husband, to be disposed of as he might choose, yet she finds her place in God’s scheme of things.
- The barriers between saint and sinner are changing? To the orthodox Pharisee, this must have been a blow, since his orthodox answer to the query The Messiah: whose son is he? must necessarily include those who have sinned greatly. So God is able to use for His purposes and fit into His scheme not only the righteous, but also sinners. Observe that these women are not the only notable sinners of the list, for one need only read the record of the lives of the kings themselves to see how truly God used those unworthy instruments to accomplish His will.
HOW MATTHEW USES SON AND BEGAT-’
Unless we observe the usual manner of constructing ancient genealogies, we must pronounce Matthew’s statement of the genealogy of Jesus as incorrect. The language of any nation or period must be understood in the light of its own peculiar usage. Genealogical terms were used in a much wider sense by the Hebrews than by ourselves. Matthew follows common usage among the Jews, when he describes, in v. 8, Joram as begetting Uzziah, when in reality Joram was grandfather of Uzziah at least three generations removed. (Compare the Hebrew usage in thus abbreviating genealogies: Ezra 7:1-3 contains 15 names of Ezra’s ancestry whereas the same genealogy, 1 Chronicles 6:3-14, contains 22 names.) Hence, son of, father of, and begat have broader technical meanings, which indicate adoption or some official connection or descent other than actual blood descent or other nearer or more remote connections. The sequences of generations often has to do with families rather than with individuals, and may represent the succession to the inheritance or headship, rather than the actual relationship of father to son. To summarize, then, we see that a man could be the son of another in one of the following modes:
Natural son. This descent and connection by birth constitutes the main line and, in any given case, has the presumption in its favor, unless clear facts to the contrary exist.
Grandson, or more generally, descendent (Cf. Genesis 46:26-27)
Adopted son (Cf. Genesis 48:5-16; Exodus 2:10; Hebrews 11:24) or legal son.
Son-in-law, by marriage one becomes the son of his father-in-law.
Levirate son (Study Deuteronomy 25:5-10 for the law and Rth 4:1-22
So, if Matthew seems to be inaccurate due to skipping names or adding some names which are not bloodline sons directly connected with their fathers, then we will not be surprised, for he is following current usage of his time.
WHOSE GENEALOGY IS THIS?
Does this pedigree belong to Joseph? to Mary? To examine the text is but to find the obvious answer which, in turn, raises problems. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16) If this be the pedigree of Joseph. then, why include such a list, if we are searching for a lineal descendent of David? The clearest truth taught by the narratives is that Jesus is NOT the lineal descendent of Joseph. the primary reason for which being Jesus-’ reported birth of the virgin. Luke, on the other hand, reports Jesus as being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph. the son of Heli. We will deal with the problem of Joseph’s father in Matthew 1:16. But, suffice it to say now, that the best solution to the problem whose genealogy this would be, is that Matthew provides us with Joseph’s genealogy which indicates Jesus to be of legal kinship to David and legal heir to David’s throne through His legal father, Joseph. Matthew shows that Jesus possessed the right characteristic to be the promised Messiah. He is not attempting to prove that Jesus possessed David-s blood, since David-s blood did not pass from Joseph to Jesus. Rather, Matthew shows that Jesus is of the right lineage legally to be the Messiah, This certifies one of the facts necessary to prove Jesus to be the Messiah. Luke, accordingly, provides the blood-line descent of Jesus through His mother directly from David, not, however, through the line of kings as regards the inheritance of David’s throne. We may rejoice that God in His providence has so clearly brought forth the Messiah from two lines: one line from which Jesus would inherit the throne of David, but from which He could not receive the blood of David (according to Matthew’s genealogy); the other line from which Jesus received the blood of David but would not inherit the throne (Luke’s record).
NOTES
Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ. This inscription at the beginning of the larger narrative of Matthew’s picture of Jesus might be confused for a title of the entire record. However, in view of the immediate context, it is better to take these words as supplying a title to the genealogical list alone. (Cf. Genesis 5:1 ff) The name Jesus-’-’ is the Savior’s personal name, a name then in common use (See Luke 3:29; Acts 13:6; Colossians 4:11). It is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Joshua (yehoshua) which means Jehovah is salvation, and is the term used for the OT Joshua in the Greek translation of the OT and in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. In Matthew 1:21 Mary is commanded by the angel to give this name to her yet unborn Son, for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. Thus, we recognize savior as the usual meaning. What was to this Son of Mary a common name, was given by God to provide the title which would declare His unique position to all the world. It is the personal name OF the Lord in the Gospels and the Acts, but passes into a title also, as used in the Epistles where generally it appears in combination with Christ or some other title. (Cf. Romans 3:26; Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Hebrews 12:8; 1 Peter 1:1).
Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah (Mashiach) as in John 1:41; John 4:25. This term is more a title than a proper name, the title signifying the one anointed, an idea derived from the God-appointed practice among the Jews of anointing their prophets, priests and kings. (For examples and information on this practice, see Judges 9:8-15; 1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 12:3-5; 1 Samuel 26:11; Isaiah 61:1; Exodus 29:1-9; Leviticus 8:12; Exodus 40:13-16; 2 Kings 19:16). The title easily passes into a personal name by use in passages where Christ does not mean the Messiah in general, but a very definite Messiah, Jesus, who is called Christ, not so much a title as a proper name. (See Acts 2:38; Acts 3:6; Acts 4:10; Acts 9:34; Romans 1:4; Romans 5:6; 1 Peter 1:1-3; 1 Peter 1:7.)
The son of David, the son of Abraham. In these four key words, Matthew summarizes the genealogy to follow, at once drawing attention. to his object: that is, showing that Jesus of Nazareth is legitimate heir of both David and Abraham, and, as such, possesses the necessary credentials for claiming the Messiahship. Because the Jews believed the prophecies that the Christ would be of the seed of David and of Abraham, the first step in convincing them that Jesus was the Christ was to demonstrate that He was a direct descendent of them.
Matthew 1:2 The sources of information for the names of the first division of fourteen generations might be found in Genesis 21:1-3; Genesis 25:21-26; Genesis 29:35; Genesis 38:29; Rth 4:18-22; 1 Chronicles 1:34 to 1 Chronicles 2:15. For ease of remembering, these names contained in this section may be regarded as patriarchs (Cf. Acts 2:29). The line of descent is traced in the Hebrew manner, naming the father who begot the son.
Observe that, in the case of both Isaac and his son Jacob, neither of their brothers, Ishmael and Esau, respectively, are involved in the promises of God’s Messiah, while in the case of Judah, both he and his brothers together produced the chosen nation whence sprang the Messiah. Although Judah alone represents the actual line of Jesus-’ descent, yet all twelve patriarchs were the direct heirs of the Messianic promise. Thus, it would seem that Matthew begins to use the names not merely or only for the list’s sake, but also to epitomize the history of God-s promise. We will see this again in the inclusion of the names of the women,
Matthew 1:3 Tamar. See above on Peculiarities, C, in the Preliminary Considerations.
Matthew 1:4-6 From Perez to David, the descent is traced according to Rth 4:18-22. A problem exists at this point regarding the time element. David is described as only fourth in descent from Salmon in a period of at least 450 years (Acts 13:18-20) from the entrance of Israel into Canaan until the beginning of the reign of Saul. Saul’s reign began prior to David’s birth by ten years (Cf. Acts 13:21 with 2 Samuel 5:4). Thus, there are only four generations which must cover 460 years. The most likely explanation might be one of two possibilities:
If Matthew is copying from Rth 4:18-22, it may be that the author of that passage omitted unimportant links in the Davidic line, while retaining only the more noted ones.
Or, if Matthew is copying public records, perhaps he is omitting the unimportant links in an undisputed chain.
Regarding such omissions in Matthew’s list, see A, Peculiarities in the Preliminary Considerations, For a clear example of compressed genealogy: Exodus 6:16-20; 1 Chronicles 23:12-15.
The ancestral line has now reached royalty, but it has also seen grave, public sin. See how Matthew introduces David’s sin: her that had been the wife of Uriah and in this phrase reminds of adultery, murder, and death of the first child, Though Bathsheba was David’s queen, she belonged to Uriah.
Matthew 1:6-11 These men are all kings whose names are found in the list of 1 Chronicles 3:10-19, or of course in the histories of these kings in the two books of Kings and Chronicles. No comment is needed on the names in the list except where some special problem requires it.
Matthew 1:8 Here Matthew omits three names: Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:26), Joash (2 Kings 12:2), and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:2). Neither the length of their reign nor their outstanding wickedness can be assigned as Matthew’s reason for omitting them, for there is no particularly obvious significance about the length of their reign or about their sins, any more than that of the other wicked men which are included. These men certainly deserve to be left out of the pedigree of the Messiah, but no more than some retained in the list. It becomes obvious that Matthew purposely drops these three kings to form three groups of ancestors comprised of the same number of names. It is not likely that Matthew made an unintentional error by omitting these names, for both friend and foe would have detected the error, and have demanded a correction in line with the OT chronicles.
Matthew 1:11 Josiah begat Jechoniah. Here again Matthew omits another name: Josiah begat Jehoiakim; Jehoiakim begat Jechoniah we would have expected him to say. Here are the problems:
Jechoniah is not the immediate son of Josiah (1 Chronicles 3:10-17).
Jechoniah apparently had no such brethren as mentioned here.
Jechoniah would, apparently, have then to be counted twice in order for Matthew’s scheme of fourteen names to stand good in the third group; that is, Jechoniah would then be number 14 in the second group and number one in the third.
Several solutions are possible to harmonize the known facts:
-
Jechoniah IS the son of Josiah in the broad sense of the word, peculiar to Hebrew usage.
-
The term brethren could also be taken in the broader sense of relatives or royal kindred, an interpretation which fits quite significantly into Jechoniah’s history. (See chart below.)
-
Because the list is apparently simplified for memorization, it would be possible to count Jechoniah twice, although some have suggested the more likely solution that David, rather than Jechoniah, is to be counted twice. See comment on Matthew 1:17.
-
The suggestion by some, that a scribal error has occurred in the copying of this text, raises more problems than it solves. The suggested original text is supposed to have read: Josiah begat Jehoiakim and his brethren, and Jehoiakim begat Jechoniah, but, when copied, Jehoiakim and Jechoniah were confused and the resulting text reads as we have it in the American Standard Version. This solution raises the following problems which are not answered by the solution:
a. There is scant textual evidence for such a supposed miscopy. The bulk of the evidence for including the name of Jehoiakim (i.e. MSS M, Theta, Lambda and 33) is from the ninth century, while the sole witness of Irenaeus in the Latin translation of his work suggests in the late second century that Jehoiakim’s name appeared in the text. b.
The actual reading of the above-mentioned texts does not mention the brothers with Jehoiakim, as supposed by those who suggest a scribal error. There is thus another textual problem to explain Jehoiakim had the brothers, not Jechoniah; so why are they mentioned with Jechoniah, even in the above-cited manuscripts?
c.
The mere substitution of the name of Jehoiakim in the best Greek text as it now stands would not solve the problem, for there would be a logical break of connection between Matthew 1:11-12, The word begat would be omitted between the substituted Jehoiakim (Matthew 1:11) and his son Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12). Such a substitution would read: Josiah begat Jehoiakim and his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon. Then after the Babylonian deportation Jechoniah begat Salathiel. -’-’ Note that the phrase important to this solution is missing: Jehoiakim begat Jechoniah.
Therefore, it would seem that there has been no evidence of scribal error. Harmonization is possible on simpler grounds.
At the deportation to Babylon. With this phrase Matthew indicates that he is not transcribing a mere list of names, rather, he is summing up Israel’s history. The Jewish readers would recognize the tangled, tragic history and would interpret the phrase Jechoniah and his brethren as referring to the general period between Josiah and Jechoniah. Two of Josiah’s sons reigned before Jechoniah (Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, Jechoniah’s uncle and father, respectively) and one reigned after him (Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle). The following chart will help clarify the history involved and provide a solution to a problem in Matthew 1:12:
Matthew 1:12 Jechoniah begat Shealtiel. Here Shealtiel appears as the son of Jechoniah, while in Luke 3:27 as the son of Neri. Elsewhere he is described as the son of Jechoniah (1 Chronicles 3:17). Because the name, Ned, is peculiar to Luke, not being found in the OT, we are unable to relate the name to known persons in the history without guessing. The appearance of Shealtiel in the two lists with two different fathers mentioned is not surprising in view of the many ways one man may be the son of another: adopted, son-in-law, levirate son, legal heir, grandson, Jechoniah, Jehoiachin, Coniah are but names for the same person (Jeremiah 2:24; Jeremiah 52:31; 2 Chronicles 36:8-9; 1 Chronicles 3:17).
It is at this point, however, that a supposed contradiction appears between the prophecies of Jeremiah and the genealogical lists of both Matthew and the OT genealogists. Jeremiah writes: Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast out.., (Jeremiah 36:30) Again, Thus saith Jehovah, Write this man (Jechoniah) childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah. (Matthew 22:30) Therefore, concerning both the father and the son, God promises that neither shall have an heir on the throne, yet it is obvious that Jechoniah, a son of Jehoiakim did sit on the throne of David, and that Jechoniah actually fathered seven sons (1 Chronicles 3:17-18; 2 Chronicles 36:9-10). Regarding these two seeming problems, the solution may be:
Concerning the prophecy about Jehoiakim, it may be said that his being without heir to the throne of David was fulfilled by his lack of a grandson who would be rightful heir. In other words, his dynasty would be broken by lack of a grandson. However, the ascension of Jehoiachim (Jechoniah, Conia) to the throne could hardly be called a reign, or a sitting on the throne, inasmuch as he was immediately besieged in Jerusalem, compelled to surrender after three months, then go into exile to Babylon.
The deportation to Babylon was tragic history of weighty significance: the throne of the house of David Isaiah is lost! Though Jechoniah sired seven sons, none of them sat on David’s throne, reigning in Judah. Jeremiah’s prophecy would then mean simply legal proscription and not actual childlessness, keep a lively interest in the public records of the davidic line. It is therefore an empty objection to suggest that Matthew could not have obtained the full genealogy, especially the latter portions, from authentic sources. There was also the mosaic legislation regarding inheritance (Leviticus 25:13-34; Leviticus 27:14-25) which restored lands which had been sold, at the end of every fifty years, to the heirs of the original owners. This, in turn, would require a registry of genealogy to be kept in every town for the accurate completion of just such a restoration of property. There is certainly nothing regarding Matthew’s use of authentic sources that would justify even one doubt concerning the reliability of his list. Then, the collapse of the Jewish nation and the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 AD., and the final and irreparable demolishing of the temple - all these collaborated to eliminate the further necessity of keeping genealogical records: the priesthood is thereby forever prohibited from serving at a now nonexistent altar and all hopes for a Son of David who would restore the kingdom to Israel are forever crushed.
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. With this verse the sonorous rhythm of the preceding generations comes to a halt. We are awakened to the change as Matthew does not say Joseph begat Jesus. Rather Joseph. legal heir of David-s throne, was the husband of the mother of the Messiah, Jesus. Granted, the English translation might allow doubt as to the true, grammatical antecedent of the expression of whom, that is, as to whether Joseph or Mary is intended. However, the best attested Greek texts of this phrase all unite in using a feminine pronoun. Therefore, on the basis of the fleshly relationship alone, Jesus is the Son of Mary, not Joseph: Jesus and Joseph are totally unrelated by blood. Not only the feminine pronoun but also the following context pronounce this fact.
The record of Matthew has been questioned by appeal to a late Syriac translation from the Greek text, which reads: and Joseph. unto whom was betrothed a virgin Mary, begat Jesus, the one called Christ. This late reading, no earlier than 400 A.D., is seized upon by those who would reject the idea of a virgin birth. Thus, Matthew is made to say that Joseph begat Jesus. However, Matthew did not in fact say so, because:
This reading, found only in the Siniatic Syriac translation is too late. ALL other Greek texts and versions support the common rendering and antedate the Syriac by at least 100 years.
The Siniatic Syriac is only a translation, not a Greek copy of Matthew’s original.
a.
The translator might have erred in translation from his Greek copy into Syriac.
b.
It is difficult to recreate the original Greek manuscript reading with complete certainty, which the translator used.
c.
But supposing no error in translation and supposing a faithful translation into Syriac of the Greek text, we cannot yet be sure that the Greek text before the translator was a faithful copy of the original document written by Matthew.
However, even with undeniable evidence against such a reading as Joseph begat Jesus, yet such a reading could stand as if stated by Matthew without damage to the fact of the virgin birth.
Because the one ancient text which contains the reading, also calls Mary a virgin, a fact which would prove to be a glaring contradiction unless begat understood in some sense other than physical generation.
The word begat as used in the genealogy of Matthew is clearly not to be taken solely in the physical sense. As shown above, the word begat means simply had as a legal heir. If Matthew had written Joseph begat Jesus, then he certainly would have intended it with that meaning, for certainly the context (Matthew 1:18-25) excludes the possibility of attributing paternity to Joseph.
Yet, as a matter of fact, Matthew did not say Joseph begat Jesus.-’-’ Two principle items should be abundantly clear: namely, that the question of the historicity of the virgin birth of Jesus does not rest upon the peculiar reading of an ancient but late manuscript, nor does it rest upon a wooden interpretation of begat. Rather, it rests squarely upon the entire narrative in Matthew, as well as that of Luke, as recorded with the abundant documentary attestation of the very best manuscripts.
Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations. We have seen that Matthew himself makes the generations come out with exactly fourteen names, while the actual history involved would require more names, both in the second and third sections of his list. Obviously, his list is no mere copy from the public annals, but is an adaptation intelligently and purposefully designed. But to what end? These purposes have been suggested:
By securing equal numbers of ancestors in each of the three groups of patriarchs, kings and common people, perhaps Matthew wished the reader to understand that all three groups were of equal importance regarding the relation to the Messiah.
Perhaps by his arrangement and additions Matthew intended to epitomize the history of Israel, relating the coming Christ to the context of Israel’s history and God’s covenantal promises.
Perhaps Matthew arranged the list for easy memorization, so that Christians could present the important evidence to the Jewish mind, which would prove that Jesus belonged to the house of David and thus was a proper person of whom to expect other messianic credentials. If Jesus be not the Son of David with the necessary legal certification, then a great cloud of doubt and uncertainty must ever attend our trust in Him. But because of Matthew’s ingenious arrangement, we are able to have at our fingertips the very material which will strengthen our faith in Jesus as the true Son of David, the Christ, and which will strengthen our confidence in God as a promise-keeping God. We have the evidence which helps us to appreciate the condescension of Jesus to dwell among us, and prepares us for the virgin birth narratives.
FACT QUESTIONS
List the various problems connected with the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.
What is the purpose or significance of the genealogies of Jesus?
What are the extra names or persons mentioned in Matthew’s list? Why are they there?
How do the two genealogies work together to fulfil the prophecies of Jeremiah and Psalms which had seemed to contradict each other?
In what different ways could one man be a son of another?
What is the meaning of the word Jesus? Christ?
What of the title in verse one: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, etc.? Does the book refer to the entire gospel of Matthew or only to the genealogy? Why is it called the book of the generation?
Into what basic divisions did Matthew divide the names?
Where could Matthew find the names in his lists to verify the accuracy of his writing?
- What names does Matthew omit? Was this omission accidental; or, what good purpose could be served by such omissions?
- Do omissions from Matthew-s list frustrate the purpose of the list?
- Why were the Hebrews so meticulous about keeping genealogies?
- Is it possible for modern Jews to prove descent from David for any modern claimant of the Messiahship? Why?
- Why is finding a practical solution to these problems important to the Bible student and important to Christian faith?
Matthew 1:18-25
Section 2. THE ANNUNCIATION TO JOSEPH
TEXT: 1:18-25
- Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph. before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
- And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
- But when he thought on these things, behold, an 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 Spirit.
- And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.
- Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
- Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.
- And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife;
- and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a. If Mary is betrothed to Joseph. why does the angel speak of her as his wife? b. Why did not Joseph believe that Mary was an expectant mother by the power of the Holy Spirit? Had not Mary told him of the angel’s visit to her? c. Why was Joseph convinced by what occurred in the dream? d. What do you think would be thought of Joseph and Mary in Nazareth? e. Why do you think God chose this method to bring His Son into the world? Or, could Jesus have been the Savior of men had He been the natural son of Joseph and Mary? Why do you think so?
PARAPHRASE
NOW the birth of Jesus Christ took place in the following manner: When His mother Mary was engaged to Joseph. but before their marriage (while she was yet a virgin), she was discovered to be an expectant mother whose pregnancy was caused by the Holy Spirit. Whereupon, Joseph. her husband, because he was an upright man and because he was unwilling to expose her to contempt, decided to divorce her quietly. But while he was turning the matter over in his mind, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying,
Joseph. son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for her child has been conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you are to name Him Jesus, because it is He who shall save His people from their sins.
ALL of this occurred with the result that it fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through Isaiah the prophet - Behold, the virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel. (Immanuel is a Hebrew word meaning God with us.)
So, when Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had directed him. He received Mary into his house, but had no intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.
SUMMARY
Joseph. unaware of the real cause of his fiancee’s pregnancy, decided upon a quiet divorce. God clarified her position to him and he, in turn, received her as his wife. The result of the entire episode is the fulfilment of Isa 7:14.
NOTES
Matthew 1:18 Here Matthew proceeds to narrate the actual historical facts for which the genealogy has so fitly prepared: the birth of the Christ who was both Son of David and Son of God. Let it not be thought that what Matthew proceeds to record are the very first events, for the Evangelist Luke, with another emphasis in mind, records several events which must have preceded the annunciation to Joseph by at least six months. They are the annunciation to Zachariah regarding the coming birth of John the Baptist; the announcement to Mary that she was to become the mother of God’s Son; Mary’s visit to Elizabeth and return to Nazareth. Study Luke 1 to appreciate fully what follows here.
**When his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph. **The betrothal had taken place before the event now narrated, but before they came together. The Jewish betrothal involved a covenant made in the presence of witnesses or the solemn promise was also written (Cf. Malachi 2:14) and was equivalent to a marriage vow. By virtue of this betrothal, the couple became husband and wife in a relationship which could only be terminated by death or divorce or unfaithfulness (see Deuteronomy 22:22-24). The ceremony of engagement was completed by a benediction and a cup of wine. From that moment Mary became the betrothed wife of Joseph. although several months might intervene before their coming together as married partners. Apparently no celebration and feasting accompanied the engagement ceremony, that being reserved for the joyous occasion when the groom would bring home his bride. Like any man in love, Joseph looked forward to that festive day when he, with his friends, would go to bring Mary to their future home. It was then that tragedy dashed his joy, shattering his hope in heart-rending anguish:
**She was discovered to be pregnant. **Naturally, Mary knew the reason for her pregnancy, even as the angel had announced to her in chaste and delicate language,
You will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. (Luke 1:31-35)
Matthew squarely meets the criticism of scepticism by the unswerving declaration that Mary’s condition was produced by the Holy Spirit. He is not saying that this latter fact was part of the discovery, for obviously Joseph knows nothing of the Holy Spirit’s influence in Mary’s case.
But if Mary had already been informed by the angel of the miracle of the supernatural conception, would she not have repeated to Joseph what the angel had said to her?. But would he have believed so wonderful a solution to his anguish? It is most likely to suppose that upon Joseph’s questioning Mary, she told him of the angelic visit. The very idea of a virgin birth. or, more correctly, of a virgin conceiving is unique by its very nature. Why should Joseph have believed her? However much he must have trusted Mary, only a communication from God could remove all the questions from his heart and provide the assurance he would need for the hard days to come. Mary could only wait upon God for her vindication in the eyes of Joseph. The heavenly messenger who had spoken to her might also speak to her beloved.
Further, we are not told who made the discovery of Mary’s condition or when the discovery was made. Several conditions help us to visualize the desperate difficulty of Mary’s pregnancy in Nazareth:
The mosaic legislation called for the death of any espoused woman found unfaithful (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). While it is true that the Jews did not legally possess the power of the death sentence during that period of Roman occupation (see John 18:31), yet it is difficult to see how this obviously unfaithful bride (as regarded by the sharp-eyed, sharp-tongued gossips of Nazareth) could have escaped notice.
Neither Matthew nor Luke reveal how long after the miraculous conception Joseph received Mary as his wife. His perplexity caused by Mary’s condition does seem to indicate that her pregnancy had continued some time before the marriage took place.
From the fact that it must be Joseph to decide not to expose Mary for a public example, we may assume Mary’s condition to be unknown to others but Joseph and Mary themselves. Surely, had the unsympathetic eyes of the neighbors in Nazareth noticed, or had the unbelieving family of Mary known her dilemma, they would have exposed her and her Son to the slander of an illegitimate birth.
Nor do we know exactly the order of events from the angel’s message to Mary until Joseph received her as his wife. When did the miraculous conception occur - immediately after Mary’s submission to the divine will, or quite a bit later? Did Joseph receive Mary into his home before or after she visited Elizabeth for three months? (Luke 1:39-56)
The Nazarenes who attack Jesus-’ presumptions to divine authority (Luke 4:16-30; Matthew 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-6), as well as other enemies, do not give even the slightest hint of a slander regarding a premature, thus illegitimate, birth. Rather, they refer to the mere obscurity of His birth as a child of the carpenter, Joseph.
Harmonizing the two narratives of Matthew and Luke in such a way as to produce a natural account of the course of events, we see the annunciation to Zachariah that he is to have a son, John; the betrothal of Mary and Joseph. which may have taken place before or after the annunciation to Zachariah; the annunciation to Mary that she is to have a son, Jesus (this annunciation occurs six months after that to Zachariah); the visit of Mary with Elizabeth in Judea which lasted three months and her return to Nazareth; upon returning to Nazareth. Mary is discovered to be with child; the annunciation to Joseph. Thus, there would yet remain only about six months for Mary before Jesus would be born, when Joseph learned of her condition.
Matthew 1:19 **Joseph her husband, because he was an upright man and being unwilling to expose her to contempt, decided to divorce her quietly. **Of what sort character is this man whom God has chosen to be the foster-parent of His Son? Feel the pain in Joseph’s entire being as he is torn between his deep love for Mary and his keen consciousness of what is right before God! As a true Israelite, Joseph must not consummate his marriage with Mary under the circumstances as he understood them, supposing Mary to have committed adultery. Yet, how truly he loved his espoused for what he had always known of her as the pure, gentle maiden. Only two courses lay open to Joseph now, both ending in divorce:
-
Public exposure, charging Mary with adultery, making her a public example, subjecting her to whatever Jewish law might have been in force at the time (if not the death penalty of Deu 22:23-24);
-
Or, resolve to take advantage of a Mosaic statute which allowed an unconditional and unexplained separation at the will of the husband (Deuteronomy 24:1). In writing the bill of divorcement he could be freer to state or omit the actual cause that prompted him to divorce Mary.
This latter determination stood out clearly to Joseph. that, if it must be, her letter of divorce would be handed to her privately in the presence of the two required witnesses.
Matthew 1:20 But while he was turning the matter over in his mind, i.e. during that anxious contending of feelings and the delayed resolve to divorce Mary, God intervened: an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. That assurance which Joseph could scarcely have dared to hope for is now conveyed to him in a dream-vision. By visions and dreams God had often spoken. (Cf. Genesis 20:3; Genesis 31:11; Genesis 31:24; Genesis 37:5; chap. 40; Genesis 41:1; 1 Kings 5:5; Daniel 7:1; Job 4:13-15) Matthew mentions four: this one, a second one to Joseph (Matthew 2:13); one to the Wisemen (Matthew 2:12); and perhaps the dream to Pilate’s wife (Matthew 27:19). We may imagine Joseph unable to sleep, being deeply troubled as he contemplated. his course until at last his thoughts surrendered to sleep. Then the angel appeared. The scriptures do not declare how those dreams by which God communicates to the dreamer are to be distinguished from those unreal images which ordinarily appear in sleep. Ordinary dreams are commonly characterized by great disjunctions with reality, are without sense or the normal representation of reality. Observe, on the other hand, the direct relation to reality seen in this dream:
l.
Accepting the reality of the supernatural realm upon the evidence for its existence in the data provided by the well-attested history contained in the biblical record, we observe here that God simply sends an angel messenger to communicate a message from the spirit-world of reality to the sense-experienced world.
The message given is directly related to Joseph’s immediate problem, to the Old Covenant Scriptures, and to the plan of God for man’s redemption.
This reality of Joseph’s dream as a reception of God’s communication cannot be gainsaid by appeal to the irrelevant evidence of normal dream patterns. To reduce this divine communication to a non-supernaturalistic explanation by saying that Joseph’s vision is easily resolved by analysis of his emotional disturbance and the undigested material in his stomach, is nothing short of attacking the entire historical fabric of Matthew’s work. Joseph did not dream up this angel. God sent the angel and communicated to him the message. The God who sends such messages to men is thoroughly able to make the dreamer know their reality.
Joseph. son of David. Indeed, Joseph was a descendent of the royal house, as attested by his genealogy. This is the occasion for him to prove himself a true son of David, possessed of the faith of David. NOW princely things would be expected of him: to be the protector of heaven’s Prince. This he must do in spite of his poverty and obscurity.
Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. What authority could be higher or what directions clearer? Joseph was not to fear for Mary’s virtue and purity nor fear future betrayals. The incredible story told by Mary of the angel’s appearance to her and the miraculous conception were exactly as represented after all. Joseph now would be in no way compromising his conscience, condoning sin, risking his own future happiness, nor otherwise doing something doubtful by fulfilling his promise to take Mary as his wife. The Holy Spirit is really the Father of her child.
Matthew 1:21 She shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. The wonderful tidings of the angel contains three great truths:
The miraculous foreknowledge of the sex of the child to be born. The seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15) is to be a boy. No father or mother can ever accurately know about any of their children before birth. How the definite concern of God for every particular part of the incarnation makes itself known!
The thrilling revelation in the name of the child. God is formally regarding Joseph as the legal father of the unborn child, for it must be Joseph. as Jesus-’ foster-parent, who will give the name to the Boy at His birth. However, the choice of the name remains the right of Him who is the true Father, and the name He chooses if profoundly full of meaning. The name JESUS means Jehovah is savior or Salvation of Jehovah and, although it is a relatively common name (see on Matthew 1:1), yet it is especially significant as the name of this child.
Clear announcement of the future ministry of the child. Though there were many who bore the name of Jesus in those days, whose parents, hoping in God to save His people Israel, so named their sons, yet the divine messenger emphasizes, It is HE - He alone - who shall save. No parent ever knows exactly what their babe will do in life, but God knew what this babe would do and named Him accordingly. The phrase his people, as Joseph would have understood it, evokes the image of political deliverance from Israel’s enemies and of freedom from the ills that servitude brings. But Jesus shall save His people from their sins, the seal evils from which they suffered. Yet, in delivering the lost sheep of the house of Israel to whom Jesus was principally sent (Matthew 15:24), He would lay the basis for the salvation of the Gentiles also (John 10:16).
Matthew 1:22 Now all this is come to pass. Did Matthew say this, or did the angel? The Greek verb is perfect tense (present abiding result of a past action) and is difficult to interpret as to whether the time involved is present regarding the angel’s speaking or Matthew’s writing. If the former, then we behold the Holy Spirit who prophesied these words through the prophet Isaiah, now interpreting the prophecy through the angel. If the latter, then we witness the same Spirit at work through Jesus-’ Apostle. In either case, the full authority of God stands behind the speaker and the interpretation of the prophecy given. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet. Here is clear, convincing evidence of the supernatural inspiration of Isaiah-s prophecy: the obvious fulfilment of what was predicted and the declaration of an inspired apostle that Isaiah’s message came from God. This expression is frequently used by Matthew throughout his Gospel to demonstrate the veracity of God in graciously keeping his promises. Study these prepositions carefully, for they reveal the process of divine revelation: spoken BY the Lord THROUGH the prophet. God revealed to Isaiah what was to happen, and now brings it to pass as predicted. Although God could have worked in human history without any advance notice to men, yet He chose to announce His plans in advance in order that men might be aware of the supreme importance that God placed upon His plans and prepare themselves for Jesus-’ coming, God did this also that men might have the full assurance that God has spoken in their history both in the unequivocal prophecy and in its well-attested fulfilment,
Matthew 1:23 Just because a virgin birth is without example among men, let it never be supposed that it was unknown to God! During a threatening national crisis when the combined armies of Israel and Syria launched a concerted attack against Judah’s capital, Jerusalem, her king and her people trembled. (Study 2Kings 16 and Isaiah 7 to appreciate the full impact of this historical situation.) Isaiah is sent to the frightened king to promise divine deliverance on the basis of belief of God’s willingness to help (Isaiah 7:3-9). The idolatrous king was urged to seek a miraculous sign from God which would confirm His promise. With a pious phrase he refused. Soundly rebuking the hardened king, Isaiah rejoined that God Himself would provide the sign anyway: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14) Continuing, Isaiah declared that the sign lay in the fact that before, this virgin’s son should reach the age of discretion, the kingdoms of Syria and Israel would be destroyed. Although God would bring deliverance, it would come no thanks to Ahaz, nor to his son, nor to the house of David generally as represented in that perverted generation, but rather a nameless maiden would give birth to the true Immanuel.
But, it is asked, can this interpretation given by Matthew (or by the angel) be certainly the true one? The following objections are often urged against such an application of Isa 7:14 to the virgin birth of Jesus:
-
The Greek term parthenos, a virgin or maiden, is misleading, as the Hebrew term -‘almah simply means -an adult woman,-’ and is certainly by no means confined to virgins. Has Matthew then falsified the evidence and concocted, by deliberate mistranslation, the virgin birth fiction? No, he is rightly following the then-current Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint version of 285 B.C. The Jewish scholars, who prepared that translation, used the term parthenos to render the Hebrew -‘almah, and they could scarcely be accused of endeavoring to create a fictitious support for a virgin birth of Jesus. Rather, they were intending to give the true meaning of the word as used in Hebrew by Isaiah.
-
Isaiah 7:14 was not interpreted by the ancient Synagogue in a Messianic sense, so the passage cannot be taken as referring to a -virgin-born Messiah.-’ Such a theory should be more appropriately explained as the zealous search of Jewish Christians for Messianic proof-texts, their striking upon Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy and their constructing a virgin-birth theory as its supposed fulfilment. Indeed, it might seem strange that if the passage really be a prophecy of the Messiah’s virgin birth. that the Jews should have so completely failed to interpret it in that way. However, they clearly missed the vicarious sufferings and death of the Messiah as foreseen in Isaiah 53 or in the graphic descriptions of Psalms 22. The inability of the Jewish scholars to grasp the unity between God’s Messiah as the ruling, victorious Son of David sitting upon David’s throne, and God’s Christ as the sacrificed Lamb of God, the Suffering Servant, must not color the true interpretation of the predictions. The suggestion, that Jewish-Christian enthusiasm invented the supposed virgin-birth fulfilment to Isaiah’s words, fails to supply an acceptable substitute sign to king Ahaz. That is, if a miraculous virgin birth were not the actual intent of the Spirit speaking through the prophet, an event which would be especially clear as a sign after the event actually occurred, then where is the force of the sign Isaiah offered Ahaz? Why should an ordinary birth be regarded as a sign?
-
The -‘almah or -young woman-’ who is meant is Isaiah-s wife and the son to be born is Isaiah’S.-’-’ But four objections immediately arise to this solution:
a.
The prophecy declares that a virgin (Lxx and Matthew) is to bear a son; Isaiah’s wife could hardly be called a virgin. The proof is entirely sufficient to establish virgin as the proper translation. If it were his wife to which he referred, he could hardly have expressed himself in a more ambiguous manner.
b.
There is no further allusion made to any son of the prophet by the name Immanuel or anything similar. A sign based upon the prophet’s own family affairs would have been, at best, one of a very precarious nature.
c.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive how, in such a context, a woman who had been long married, like the prophet’s own wife, could be called a young maiden of marriageable age without any explanation.
d.
No child born in the time of Isaiah possessed the many attributes which are predicted of the Messiah in Isaiah’s fuller context: The child is born whose endless, good government proceeded from the throne of David, and is entitled Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God (cf. God with us, Immanuel), Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace. (Matthew 9:6-7) The child is to be the branch out of the root of Jesse, upon whom the Spirit of Jehovah should rest and whose beneficent reign ultimately brings true peace. (Matthew 11:1-8)
Another interpretation, which attempts to discredit Matthew, finds the -almah in Abijah, the wife of Ahaz and mother of Hezekiah. Hezekiah, the righteous reformer, thus becomes the promised child. However, Hezekiah must have already been born before the commencement of his father’s reign (2 Chronicles 28:1; 2 Chronicles 28:27; 2 Chronicles 29:1) during which the prophecy of a child to be born of a virgin is given. Nothing else in the context draws attention to Hezekiah. Again, how could his mother be the young maiden?
Such interpretation which would attempt to discredit the inspired Apostle’s appropriate quotation of Isaiah’s prophecy finds its basic origin, not in sound Bible exegesis, but in a pseudo-scientific anti- supernaturalism. The translation of the Hebrew -almah is not the prime difficulty. The real entanglement lies in a disbelief in predictive prophecy and its historic fulfilment or a disbelief in the power of God to bring about Jesus-’ supernatural birth or else in the wilful desire to reject the unique Sonship of Jesus.
**And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. **It might be thought strange that the prophecy quoted predicts that the child so born is to be called Immanuel, while the angel specifies to Joseph that the child is to be named Jew. The fact that Matthew offers no comment upon this difference plainly suggests that there is no problem. The term Immanuel is properly the title of Him whose proper name is Jesus. Other titles are to be found in Isaiah 9:6, although Jesus was not known by these during His earth-life. The earth-shaking significance of this announcement is that it reveals our God, discontented to sit above the heavens and deal with His creation at long distance, coming down to tabernacle among men. The finest comment is still that of Php 2:5-10; Hebrews 2:14-18 and John 1:1-14. The very Word who was God is now to become flesh and dwell among men! These, too, are tidings of great joy which are for all people.
Matthew 1:24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel commanded him, and took unto him his wife. ALL his doubts resolved and his mind divinely set at rest, Joseph could no longer hesitate. His immediate duty to Mary and the unborn Child required immediate marriage which would give Mary his good name and would save the Child the reproach of an illegitimate birth. It is not known at what point during the pregnancy the marriage took place, nor how many persons were aware of her condition. Thus, it is impossible to say with certitude whether this couple suffered much public shame and abuse as their (apparently) fabricated story of visions of angels was (apparently) disbelieved as an invalid excuse. It would seem that the whole phenomenon of Jesus-’ life is better explained if He grew up in what from the human point of view, especially that of the Nazarenes, was a blameless home. And the attitude of His contemporaries both toward Him and the household in which He had lived does seem to be more natural if the conduct of Mary and Joseph was of a really, and not merely apparently, worthy kind. Above all, Joseph acknowledged Jesus as his legal Son. Here is to be found the real barrier against slander. If Joseph was really the righteous man he is said to be (Matthew 1:19), his character would be known and his acknowledgement of the Child the best shield against any likelihood of slander. Further, according to Luke’s narrative, the birth of Jesus occurred at a place remote from Nazareth. where Mary would not be under the gaze of prying eyes. Nor is the time known from the departure from Nazareth for Bethlehem during the census until the time of the return to Nazareth from Egypt. (Cf. Luke 2:1-39) So an apparently early time of birth would not necessarily have ever been known.
The next morning and the days following must have been days of joy as Joseph reported his dream to his beloved and proceeded immediately to bring his wife to his home and thus consummate their marriage begun at the time of their betrothal. Far beyond all earthly joys was their supreme moral satisfaction of being submitted to God’s will and of being permitted to become the guardians of God’s Son.
Matthew 1:25 **and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS. **Normally the consummation of marriage would include marital relations (to know is a Hebrew euphemism for sexual relations; cf. Luke 1:34). The revelations given to Joseph and Mary concerning the divine nature and future of the child apparently caused Joseph to forego his marital right; thus, he kept his wife a virgin until the birth of the Baby.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH
-
As a matter of RECORD. The text of Matthew which contains the unequivocal narration of the virgin birth of Jesus possess the same unanimous documentary attestation as the rest of the matthaean history. There is no textual evidence that even suggests that the history of the virgin birth might be the fanciful invention of later, uncritical Christians who desired to clothe the history of their Master’s birth with supernatural elements entirely unknown to Mary and Joseph. There can be little doubt that the first chapter of Matthew has always formed the original beginning of the book, since there is no full Greek manuscript of Matthew that does not contain this section, notwithstanding some minor textual variants within the passage.
-
As a matter of HISTORY. The announcement of the virgin birth of Jesus is a matter of historico-biographical fact. The account makes no attempt to explain or justify a doctrine of incarnation or a virgin-birth doctrine or the like. Rather it is rigidly confined to the matter of fact concerned. What Matthew writes is an event wholly real or totally imagined, completely true or entirely false. As a historical statement it cannot be insignificant or irrelevant. If it contributes to our information about the incarnation or else seriously mutilates the truth. the virgin birth narrative cannot remain a matter of historical indifference.
To the leaders of the early Church these facts held utmost importance, for the integrity of their personal character is brought into question, if they fabricated the virgin birth story and succeeded in foisting it upon the Church so early as to dominate its scripture and mold the form of its creed. These men were not the kind of men to accept uncritically or proclaim presumptuously such stories which lacked positive and authoritative certification and which, in turn, could be used in any way by unbelievers to discredit their Master or His family. That such certification must have been used is seen from the nature of the material: it contains information that could only have come from the principle characters who did the deeds and experienced the marvellous events told in the history. To charge the leaders of the early Church with fraud on the basis of their supposed imposture on so grand a scale as to produce the universal and instantaneous acceptance of the supposedly unauthenticated legend as part of the authoritative documents which narrate the life and ministry of Jesus, is completely unwarranted. The story could not have been honestly composed nor sincerely published as having been derived from any other source than the persons who could have guaranteed its truthfulness.
To those of the gospel writers and other NT penmen who do not mention the virgin birth event, the evidence already presented by Matthew and Luke rested upon a sufficient basis as to require no other artificial strengthening. Nothing negative can be proved about the so-called silence of John and of Paul on the subject. The fact that they do not mention the supernatural birth of Jesus cannot be construed to mean that they therefore did not know of it. The truth is better stated: they had not the occasion to treat the virgin birth. Rather, they teach as might be expected of men who were thoroughly acquainted with the fact. The doctrine they preach of the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) and of the Christ who being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, (Philippians 2:5-11) becomes comprehensible only in the light of the facts narrated by Matthew and Luke, and form a tacit acknowledgement of their veracity.
The fact that even Matthew and Luke, who do narrate the supernatural conception and birth. do not draw any conclusions from it nor teach any doctrine based upon it, certainly argues for its historical truthfulness, as no apparent end could be served by its inclusion in the narrative. Although Matthew notices that the virgin birth fulfills prophecy, yet he does not state the conclusion that therefore, Jesus is the Messiah, or some other similar apologetic statement. Naturally, Matthew’s ultimate aim was to demonstrate the unique human nature of the Messiah who had been promised to the Jews, and the nature of the miracle-working Son of God who possessed all the authority of God for His actions. Matthew pictures Jesus, outside the infancy narrative, not as the Pre-existent One who deigns to dwell in human flesh, but rather as the divinely-authorized, truly human, truly Jewish Messiah. Throughout Matthew’s selection of incidents from Jesus-’ life, from chapter three to the end, Jesus-’ ethical character and authoritative doctrine are presented without the precise definitions of His supernatural Person that are seen throughout John’s Gospel and in the epistles. Therefore, the infancy narratives, which announce the supernatural conception of the Son of God, are absolutely essential to providing the historical facts upon which the Jewish Messiahship and the divine incarnation must be based. Without the actual facts surrounding the virgin birth. these grand doctrines must forever be left suspended, ungrounded in verifiable history obtained from the eyewitnesses, Without the narrative of the supernatural conception, we may expect no satisfactory answer to the demand: where and when did the incarnation occur in such clear fashion as to fulfil all of the expectations of messianic prophecy? But, note carefully, the formulation and defence of these doctrines is our assimilation of the facts stated in these narratives plus other materials elsewhere; Matthew and Luke limit themselves to simple narration. This permits the doctrine to rest upon the statement of the facts. Thus, since the Evangelists were not trying to serve apologetic purposes, the historical veracity of the narration is the better guaranteed.
The virgin birth narrative is important, for it involves a clear, consistent account of the Lord’s birth without which nothing sure could be known.
- As a matter of INTEGRITY.
a. The honesty of all who confront the virgin birth: this fact puts to the proof, not the mental equipment of the skeptic, but his moral character. The problem before the critic is not the adequacy of the testimony, for the whole body of the early Christians attest the factuality of the virgin birth of Jesus, and the rejection of this testimony involves the radical undermining of confidence in all the testimony of the gospel witnesses. (See Machen, Virgin Birth. Chap. XI in which he proves that silence does not prove ignorance of it, but rather shows that the Apostles assumed it.) The denial of the miraculous conception of Jesus is not based upon well-attested history to the contrary, but rather upon the false philosophy of what can or cannot be known about God and His actions, a philosophy based upon the accepted principles of thought of our day. This false philosophy is nothing more than a mistaken view of natural law which holds that the uniformity in nature is an exact and immutable force which governs the universe. Thus, the appearance of a virgin birth disturbs the law of normal human birth as conceived through scientific observation of all observable cases and drawing probable conclusions about all others. While the scientific method leads to generally certain knowledge of repeated and repeatable events, it cannot speak with authority on the virgin birth. a unique event having no parallels. The scientific method can search the historical backgrounds, certify the reliability and veracity of the witnesses, but having done so, must listen to the testimony they bring. The question of the virgin birth. then, remains, Will we accept the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the universal acknowledgement of the early Church as recorded in the documents o-f the Church, or, rejecting this, will we adhere to a mistaken view of natural law, a view which decides a priori that all miraculous events are impossible?
b. The honesty of God is brought into the question of the virgin birth inasmuch as He promised to bring Immanuel into the world in just this fashion (Isaiah 7:14). As this Child is conceived in Mary, a young woman who is a virgin, the sure word of prophecy is fulfilled and God’s promise is kept.
c. The virgin birth touches the life of Jesus at the point which separates the most degraded and the most sacred in human life: either Jesus is the illegitimate son of some man known only to Mary or the offspring of fornication or the natural son of Joseph. or else He is the virgin-born Son of God. The clear, factual reporting of the gospel record is decisive in its declaration on which choice alone from the beginning stood above suspicion and doubt. That which involves the personal history and public honor of our Lord and His family cannot be a matter of indifference. The fact cannot be over-emphasized that the entire New Testament witness stands or falls as a whole. There is no objective standard by which certain portions of Jesus- life, as recorded by the gospel writers, may be excised, which does not also destroy every basis for secure knowledge about Jesus.
For further study see encyclopedic articles, such as those in ISBE: Person of Jesus Christ,-’-’ Virgin Birth. Messiah. A classic work in this field is J. Gresham Machen’s The Virgin Birth of Christ, especially Chapter s VII-IX, XIII.
FACT QUESTIONS
What does the Bible teach about Mary regarding her perpetual virginity, her sinlessness, her office as mediator for Christians, and her place in the church?
State the importance of the virgin birth to the Christian faith. Why believe in the virgin birth?
Give the proof for the virgin birth as a matter of historic fact.
What is the relationship between the genealogy which proceeded the virgin birth narrative and the narrative itself?
Is this birth narrative recorded by Matthew the first event immediately connected with the life of Jesus? Or, are there other important events. If so, what are they?
At what time during the engagement of Mary and Joseph was she found to be with child? What difference would the time make?
What was the true cause of Mary’s pregnancy? What difference would it have made were it otherwise?
What was the punishment for marital unfaithfulness under the Mosaic law?
In what order did the events probably occur from the betrothal of Mary and Joseph until they were married by their coming together?
-
Describe Joseph’s character from what may be known of it from all available information (Matthew 1:18-25; Matthew 2:13-15; Matthew 2:19-23; Luke 2:4,
-
What courses of action were open to Joseph while he was yet ignorant of the true cause of Mary’s condition?
-
List other occasions on which God had revealed His will through dreams or visions.
-
What does it mean to be a son of David? To Joseph? To Jesus?
-
What is the relation of the name the Babe is to wear with His ministry to the world?
-
List the objections offered to the consideration of Isa 7:14 as referring to the virgin birth and answer them.
-
What is the significance of the title Immanuel?
-
Show the different facts in the case of the birth of Jesus that demonstrate the protection from slander that might have arisen from ignorant gossip. 21-24, 39-49).