Matthew 1
Mt 1:1 A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
This first verse of Matthew consists, in the Greek, of eight nouns. The absence of a verb suggests to some commentators that it is intended as a title (though not to the book as a whole). Actually, it stands as a perfectly good sentence, although other languages would require other words to signal the relationships between words that are already clear in the Greek.
There is a stair-like construction:-
Book -ancestry –Jesus = Christ —son —-David —–son ——AbrahamA record of the genealogy -. {Mt 1:1-17} This phrase is very similar to ‘book of the genealogy of Adam’, in Gn. 5:1. Another version of the genealogy of Jesus Christ is found in Lu 3:23-38. The many differences between them are sometimes explained by the theory that Matthew gives the ancestry through Joseph, whereas Luke traces it through Mary. This is thought by most scholars to be unlikely. In the words of R.T. France (NBC), ‘probably Luke offers us a ‘physical’ family-tree, while Matthew gives the official throne-succession list (which would not necessarily pass from father to son, but would remain within the family). His concern is with Jesus’ right (through Joseph) to the title ‘King of the Jews’.’
Genealogy – Gk. genesis, which is ‘used chiefly in the LXX for toledot, and employed in the same sense in Mt 1:1 (see 1, above). In the other NT occurrences, however, it is used in the sense of ‘birth’ (Mt 1:18 Lu 1:14 Jas 1:23, ‘his natural face’, lit. ‘face of his birth’; Jas 3:6, ‘cycle of nature’, lit. ‘course of birth’).’ (NBD)
‘The modern reader finds this list of names a dull way to begin a book. For Matthew and his readers, however, it was far from dull: it was all about the fulfilment of Israel’s story in the coming of their true king. A record of the genealogy is, in Gk., the title of the ‘Book of Genesis’, so that the reader thinks of a new beginning. The list begins with Abraham (the hero of the book of Genesis and the patriarch from whom Israel traced its origin), leads on to David (the first true king of Israel), and continues down the royal line of Judah to the point where its monarchy was destroyed at the exile to Babylon. The division into three sets of fourteen generations (17) emphasizes these turning-points (and perhaps for a Jewish reader the point is reinforced by the fact that the three Hebrew letters of the name David, used as numerals, add up to fourteen!).’ (NBC)
‘At the very beginning of the Gospel According to Matthew, we read, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Immediately we are back in the Old Testament, for the very first thing that Matthew can think to tell us about our Lord is that he is of Hebrew descent. And so to know who Jesus Christ is, we must know something about the Hebrew David and Abraham…Or to put it another way, Christianity did not start with the events recorded in the New Testament. The roots of our Christian faith lie deep in the Old Testament.’ (Morna Hooker)
‘The purpose of the Evangelist seems to be, by the genealogy, to show that Jesus, though born of a virgin-mother, was nevertheless legally of Abraham’s seed and a son of the royal house of David.’ (NBD)
Jesus Christ – ‘For modern readers ‘Christ’ is no more than a ‘surname’ of Jesus, but Matthew clearly uses it here with its full force as a title, ‘Messiah’, the true king of Israel in the line of David, whose coming they eagerly awaited.’ (NBC)
The son of David, the son of Abraham – ‘It is like a pedigree given in evidence, to prove a title, and make out a claim; the design is to prove that our Lord Jesus is the son of David, and the son of Abraham, and therefore of that nation and family out of which the Messiah was to arise. Abraham and David were, in their day, the great trustees of the promise relating to the Messiah. The promise of the blessing was made to Abraham and his seed, of the dominion to David and his seed; and they who would have an interest in Christ, as the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed, must be faithful, loyal subjects to him as the son of David, by whom all the families of the earth are to be ruled. It was promised to Abraham that Christ should descend from him, {Ge 12:3 22:18} and to David that he should descend from him (2Sa 7:12 Ps 89:3, etc.; 132:11); and therefore, unless it can be proved that Jesus is a son of David, and a son of Abraham, we cannot admit him to be the Messiah. Now this is here proved from the authentic records of the heralds’ offices. The Jews were very exact in preserving their pedigrees, and there was a providence in it, for the clearing up of the descent of the Messiah from the fathers; and since his coming that nation is so dispersed and confounded that it is a question whether any person in the world can legally prove himself to be a son of Abraham; however, it is certain that none can prove himself to either a son of Aaron or a son of David, so that the priestly and kingly office must either be given up, as lost for ever, or be lodged in the hands of our Lord Jesus. Christ is here first called the son of David, because under that title he was commonly spoken of, and expected, among the Jews. They who owned him to be the Christ, called him the son of David, ch. 15:22; 20:31; 21:15. Thus, therefore, the evangelist undertakes to make out, that he is not only a son of David, but that son of David on whose shoulders the government was to be; not only a son of Abraham, but that son of Abraham who was to be the father of many nations.’ (M. Henry)
‘In calling Christ the son of David, and the son of Abraham, he shows that God is faithful to his promise, and will make good every word that he has spoken; and this. 1. Though the performance be long deferred. When God promised Abraham a son, who should be the great blessing of the world, perhaps he expected it should be his immediate son; but it proved to be one at the distance of forty-two generations, and about 2000 years: so long before can God foretel what shall be done, and so long after, sometimes, does God fulfil what has been promised. Note, Delays of promised mercies, though they exercise our patience, do not weaken God’s promise. 2. Though it begin to be despaired of. This son of David, and son of Abraham, who was to be the glory of his Father’s house, was born when the seed of Abraham was a despised people, recently become tributary to the Roman yoke, and when the house of David was buried in obscurity; for Christ was to be a root out of a dry ground. Note, God’s time for the performance of his promises is when it labours under the greatest improbabilities.’ (M. Henry)
‘God works in spite of failures. In the first seventeen verses of Matthew we meet forty-six people whose lifetimes span two thousand years. All were ancestors of Jesus, but they varied considerably in personality, spirituality, and experience. Some were heroes of faith-like Abraham, Isaac, Ruth, and David. Some had shady reputations-like Rahab and Tamar. Many were very ordinary-like Hezron, Aram, Nahshon, and Achim. And others were evil-like Manasseh and Abijah. God’s work in history is not limited by human failures or sins, and he works through ordinary people. Just as God used all kinds of people to bring his Son into the world, he uses all kinds today to accomplish his will. And God wants to use you.’ (Handbook of Biblical Application)
The son of David – Cf. Mt 12:23 15:22 21:9 Mr 10:48 12:35 Joh 7:42 Ro 1:3 2Ti 2:8 Re 5:5
‘The word son, among the Jews, had a great variety of significations. It means, literally, a son; then a grandson; a descendant; an adopted son; a disciple, or one who is an object of tender affection-one who is to us as a son. In this place it means a descendant of David; or one who was of the family of David. It was important to trace the genealogy of Jesus up to David, because the promise had been made that the Messiah should be of his family, and all the Jews expected it would be so. It would be impossible, therefore, to convince a Jew that Jesus was the Messiah, unless it could be shown that he was descended from David. See Jer 23:5 Ps 132:10,11; compared with Ac 13:23,Joh 7:42.’ (Barnes)
‘The name “Jesus” is from the Greek (and Latin) for the Hebrew “Jeshua” (Joshua), which means “the Lord is salvation.” “Christ” is from the Greek for the Hebrew Meshiah (Messiah), meaning “anointed one.” son of David was a highly popular messianic title of the times. The genealogy is here traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes his claim and right to the throne of David. {Mt 1:6} The genealogy in Lu 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan {Mt 1:15} and Matthat {Lu 3:24} were the same person and Jacob {Mt 1:16} and Heli {Lu 3:23} were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle).’ (Ryrie)
Mt 1:3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,
This genealogy includes four OT women (plus Mary, Mt 1:16): Tamar, {Mt 1:3} Rahab, {Mt 1:5} Ruth, {Mt 1:5} and Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother. {Mt 1:6} The mention of four mothers in vv3-6 is remarkable. Each was probably non-Jewish, and in each case there was something unusual or even scandalous. It has been suggested that Matthew wished to demonstrate precedent and scriptural support for the unusual circumstances of Jesus’ birth. He may even be bearing in mind his own background as a former social outcast.
‘Through four interracial marriages Matthew teaches us about missions and racial reconciliation (1:3, 5-6). While Matthew’s most obvious point is the connection of Jesus with Israel’s history, another point would also strike his biblically sensitive readers forcefully. Genealogies need include only men (those in 1 Chron exemplify this pattern), so the unexpected appearance of four women draws attention to them. Had Matthew merely meant to evoke the history of Israel in a general way, one would have expected him to have named the matriarchs of Israel: Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and Rachel. Or to evoke supernatural births as a prelude to Mary’s, he could cite Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel, whose wombs God opened. Instead he names four women whose primary common link is their apparent Gentile ancestry: Tamar of Canaan, Rahab of Jericho, Ruth the Moabite and the ex-wife of Uriah the Hittite.
In a world divided by races and cultures, an interracial marriage can appear scandalous, an act of treachery. The traditional white prejudice in some parts of the United States against black-white intermarriage is rooted in the history of slavery and racism (see Bennett 1966:242-73). Yet a genuinely divinely ordained interracial marriage can testify that Christ is a bond that runs deeper than race. One Tamil-Sinhalese couple in racially torn Sri Lanka declared, “Our marriage crosses the ethnic lines that divide our nation” (Williams 1992:10). By contrast, many North American Christians fail to actively pursue even interracial friendships.’ (IVP NT Commentary)
Mt 1:5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse,
‘Women did not need to be recorded in ancient genealogies, but Matthew includes four women (1:3, 5-6), three of them Gentiles {Ge 38:6 Jos 2:1 Ru 1:4} and the other also a Gentile or at least the wife of a Gentile {2Sa 11:3} -even though he omits the matriarchs prominent in Jewish tradition, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and Rachel. Thus he hints from the Old Testament that God has always planned missions to all peoples.’ {Mt 28:19} (NT Background Cmty)
Mt 1:8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
‘Three of the kings of Judah (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah) are omitted (as is Jehoiakim in v11) to keep the number of generations to fourteen. The list is in any case selective, since the thirteen generations after the exile cover 600 years.’ (NBC)
‘Abridgment is the general rule in biblical genealogies. Thus, for example, Mt 1:8 omits three names between King Joram and Ozias (Uzziah), Ahaziah, {2Ki 8:25} Joash {2Ki 12:1} and Amaziah. {2Ki 14:1} In Mt 1:11 Matthew omits Jehoiakim. {2Ki 23:34} Matthews goal is to reduce the genealogies to a memorable three sets of fourteen individuals, for fourteen is the number of David1, D = 4, V or Hebrew waw = 6 and the last D = 4, for a total of 14.’ (Hard Sayings of the Bible)
Mt 1:11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
Jeconiah = Jehoiachin, king of Judah, ‘who was taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. In the Heb., Jeremiah contracted “Jeconiah” to “Coniah.” {Jer 22:24,28 37:1} A curse was pronounced on Coniah that none of his descendants would prosper sitting on the throne of David. Had our Lord been the natural son of Joseph, he could not have been successful on the throne of David because of this curse. But since he came through Mary’s lineage, he was not affected by this curse.’ (Ryrie)
Mt 1:12 After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
The exile of Babylon – The exile of the people of Judah in Babylon is normally counted from 597 BC, when the armies of Nebuchadnezzar first took captives.
Mt 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Of whom is feminine in the Gk., showing that Jesus was not the physical son of Joseph. ‘The word is feminine singular, indicating clearly that Jesus was born of Mary only and not of Mary and Joseph. It is one of the strongest evidences for Jesus’ virgin birth.’ (Ryrie)
‘Matthew 1:16 and 18 make it clear that Jesus Christ’s birth was different from that of any other Jewish boy named in the genealogy. Matthew pointed out that Joseph did not “beget” Jesus Christ. Rather, Joseph was the “husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”‘ (Wiersbe)
The point of Matthew’s genealogy is to trace Jesus’ legal (not physical) line of descent.
The uniqueness of Jesus’ birth. ‘Matthew 1:16 and 18 make it clear that Jesus Christ’s birth was different from that of any other Jewish boy named in the genealogy. Matthew pointed out that Joseph did not “beget” Jesus Christ. Rather, Joseph was the “husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”‘ (Wiersbe)
Jesus the Son of David. ‘Both Mary and Joseph belonged to the house of David. The Old Testament prophecies indicated that the Messiah would be born of a woman, {Ge 3:15} of the seed of Abraham, {Ge 22:18} through the tribe of Judah, {Ge 49:10} and of the family of David. {2Sa 7:12-13} Matthew’s genealogy traced the line through Solomon, while Luke’s traced it through Nathan, another one of David’s sons. It is worth noting that Jesus Christ is the only Jew alive who can actually prove his claims to the throne of David! All of the other records were destroyed when the Romans took Jerusalem in A.D. 70.’ (Wiersbe)
Moffat’s translation of this verse attracted severe criticism in its day: “Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed), the father of Jesus…,”
Mt 1:17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.
‘Not every generation needs to be listed in a genealogy, as is the case here. Why the division into three groups of 14? Possibly because the numerical equivalent of the Hebrew letters in the name David (the focal point of this genealogy) equals 14. The repetition of Jeconiah in verse 12 makes the fourteenth name in the last grouping.’ (Ryrie)
Mt 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: his mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Matthew’s purpose in 1:18-25, seems to be to answer the calumny that Jesus was an illegitimate child of Mary, and to defend the action of Joseph.
Matthew’s account focuses on the circumstances of the conception and naming of Jesus very much from Joseph’s perspective. Of course, Mary had also received an angelic visitor, Lu 1:26-35.
‘The story of the birth of Jesus is filled with the surprise and excitement that one might expect when God begins to act in fulfillment of the promise and preparation of the past. In particular, it portrays the wonderful mixing of the miraculous and the ordinary, the divine and the human.’ (WBC)
‘There may be an element of apologetic in Matthew’s stress on Joseph’s surprise, his abstention from intercourse, the angel’s explanation of Jesus’ divine origin, and the scriptural grounds for a virgin birth, due perhaps to an early form of the later Jewish charge that Jesus birth was illegitimate. But the account reads primarily as if designed for a Christian readership, who wanted to know more precisely how Mary’s marriage to Joseph related to the miraculous conception of Jesus, and who would find the same delight that Matthew himself found in tracing in this the detailed fulfilment of prophecy.’ (France)
‘The situation described in these verses is Joseph’s legal engagement to Mary. If typical Jewish custom were followed, she may well have been still a young teenager. Joseph may have been considerably older. Engagement in ancient Judaism was legally binding and required divorce if it were to be broken, but sexual relations and living together under one roof were not permitted until after the marriage ceremony. Joseph could therefore be spoken of already as Mary’s husband, but Matthew emphasizes this was “before they came together.”‘ (Blomberg)
‘Matthew is clearly describing a supernatural conception here, but he uses remarkable restraint in that description. {similarly Lu 1:35} Most non-Christian legends of virginal conceptions were quite different and much more detailed and/or crass. Belief in this kind of conception obviously depends on one’s approach to the supernatural more generally. On the virginal conception in particular, it is often said that such a belief stems from prescientific superstition. But even the relatively primitive stage of first-century science was sufficiently advanced for people to know that in every other known instance it required a biological father as well as a biological mother to produce a human child. The Christian notion of a virginal conception was no more plausible in first-century Judaism than it is in the twentieth-century Western world, yet it has formed an integral part of Christian belief for two thousand years.’ (Blomberg)
Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph – Such betrothal usually took place at the age of 12 or 13, with marriage itself following a year later. ‘Mary would have probably been between the ages of twelve and fourteen (sixteen at the oldest), Joseph perhaps between eighteen and twenty; their parents likely arranged their marriage, with Mary and Joseph’s consent. Premarital privacy between betrothed persons was permitted in Judea but apparently frowned upon in Galilee, so Mary and Joseph may well not have had any time alone together at this point.’ (IVP Background Commentary)
‘Joseph appears as a very real person, confronted with an understandable dilemma. Yet this righteous man, of such little significance to the narrative on the one hand and such great significance on the other (bestowing Davidic descent upon Jesus), receives a revelation to which he is submissive and obedient.’ (WBC)
Before they came together – before they left their respective parental homes and before sexual relations began.
With child through the Holy Spirit – ‘We do not have here the pagan notion of a god having sexual relations with a woman but rather of the creative power of God at work within Mary in order to accomplish his purposes.’ (WBC)
Mt 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Because or ‘although’, in which case the sense would be, ‘Although Joseph was a righteous man and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace…’ Joseph’s righteousness would have led him to want to be obedient to the law, which required the stoning in the case of adultery. {De 22:20-21,23-24, but not thought to have been insisted on in NT times} But he was clear that he must divorce one so clearly guilty. In kindness, he chose private divorce proceedings.
Her husband – ‘Although Joseph and Mary were not yet married, so sacred was the year of engagement, or betrothal, that they were by custom considered as if married. {cf. Ge 29:21 De 22:23-30} Consequently, Joseph’s only recourse seemed to be to “put her away,” which meant to give her a bill of divorce, a certificate saying, in effect, “This woman is not my wife; I am not her husband”.’ {see Ho 2:2} (Ryrie)
A righteous man – Matthew ‘affirms, against any possible misinterpretations of the virgin birth, that Joseph controlled himself, practicing sexual restraint. By calling Joseph righteous {Mt 1:19} Matthew invites us to learn from Joseph’s character about fidelity, discipline and preferring God’s honor above our own. This paragraph assumes the principles of sexual fidelity and discipline that both Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries demanded. {see Mt 5:27-30} Like most first-century Jewish people, Joseph was faithful to his future spouse in advance, awaiting marriage, and he expected the same in return. So clearly does Matthew want his audience to understand that this was part of Joseph’s character that he points out that even once he and Mary were married, they refrained from marital relations until Jesus’ birth (1:25). This would have taken considerable self-control; in many Middle Eastern societies observers simply assume that “if a man and woman are alone together for more than twenty minutes they have had intercourse” (Delaney 1987:41). The self-control of this young couple challenges those today who doubt their ability to control their passions.’ (Keener)
He had in mind to divorce her quietly – Betrothal was so solemn that it could be broken only by divorce. ‘Jewish and Roman law both demanded that a man divorce his wife if she were guilty of adultery…Further, Joseph had another reason to divorce her. Because others would assume that Joseph himself must have gotten her pregnant unless he divorced her, his reputation was at stake for the rest of his life. Under these circumstances, Joseph would be righteous in divorcing Mary; to fail to do so would violate law and custom, would bring enduring reproach on his household and would constitute embracing as wife one who had betrayed him in the worst manner conceivable in his culture.’ (Keener)
‘When he discovers Mary’s pregnancy, he naturally assumes that she has been unfaithful to him. He is called a “righteous” man, which for Matthew does not imply sinless perfection but regularly refers to one who is law-abiding, upright in character, and generally obedient and faithful to God’s commandments. Here Joseph’s righteousness leads him to want to spare Mary the disgrace of public divorce and censure and the legal proceedings for a suspected adulteress. Jewish laws typically required a man to divorce an adulterous wife, but Joseph proposes to divorce her “quietly,” which is perhaps better translated “privately” (Goodspeed), in the sense of a settlement out of court.’ (Blomberg)
‘Joseph could have profited by divorcing Mary publicly. By taking her to court, Joseph could have impounded her dowry-the total assets she brought into the marriage-and perhaps recouped the bride price if he had paid one at betrothal.’ (Keener)
How Joseph must have agonised! He loved Mary, and wanted her to be his wife. He thought her trustworthy, and yet had been unfaithful! He was a man of principle, who viewed the marriage vow with utmost seriousness. But he was also kindhearted. He might have made an accusation of adultery that would have led to a public trial before a magistrate, but preferred instead to consider a private divorce that would have been before two witnesses.
‘A woman with a child, divorced for such infidelity, would be hard pressed ever to find another husband, leaving her without means of support if her parents died.’ (IVP Background Commentary)
‘Joseph had a difficult decision to make. Being a righteous man, he did not want to go against God’s laws. To marry Mary would have been an admission of guilt when he was not guilty. To have a public divorce would have exposed Mary to public disgrace, and apparently Joseph’s compassion would not allow him to expose her to public humiliation. Therefore, he chose the option to have a private divorce before two witnesses and dismiss her quietly. This way he could keep his reputation, while still showing compassion.’ (Life Application)
Mt 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”
An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream – Dreams occur in three main parts of the Bible: Genesis 20-41; Daniel 1-7; Matthew 1-2.
“Joseph son of David” – The marriage was necessary to establish Jesus’ legal Davidic lineage. ‘Jesus, the legal son of Joseph, as he shall become through Joseph?s obedience, is therefore reckoned as of Davidic descent with the concomitant note of eschatological fulfillment.’ (WBC)
“Do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife” – ‘The protestations of innocence that Mary had doubtless made to Joseph were now seen indeed to be true.’ (WBC) Even though his own concerns had been allayed, husband and wife would still have to face malicious rumour and gossip.
“What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” – This underlines Joseph’s and Mary’s passivity in the matter: the initiative and action was all God’s. ‘Jesus was conceived when God took off the glove of nature and touched Mary with his naked finger. Thus, Jesus did not evolve up and out of history.’ (C.S. Lewis)
‘The angel explains to Joseph that Mary has not been unfaithful and that her child has been supernaturally conceived. He reminds Joseph of his messianic lineage by calling him “son of David.” He commands Joseph not only not to divorce Mary but to go ahead and marry her. The child will therefore legally be Joseph’s son and thus legally son of David.’ (Blomberg)
This passage is strongly Trinitarian. God the Father reveals himself through his Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
‘In Judaism the Holy Spirit was supremely the one who revealed God’s will to the prophets: he was equally at work in the creation of the world. What is more, re-creation was seen to be the Spirit’s work, as the marvellous story of the valley of dry bones makes so clear, Ezek 37. And Isaiah had predicted long ago that when the coming great deliverer was born the Spirit of the Lord would “rest” or “remain” upon him, Isa 11:2. So know the Spirit finds a perfect vehicle through whom to reveal God and re-create broken humanity.’ (Green)
The idea of a virgin both has no precedence in ancient Jewish literature. Pagan concepts of the gods coming down and having intercourse with women are very wide of the mark.
Mt 1:22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet:
No less than ten times Matthew introduces an aspect of the birth or life of Jesus with the kind of formula that is found in this verse. Mt 1:22-23 2:5-6 15,17-18,23 4:14-16 8:17 12:17-21 21:4-5 27:9-10
This verse is, no doubt, a comment on the part of the Evangelist, rather than a continuation of the angelic message. Note Matthew’s role as a teacher: he does not just relate the story; he also explains its meaning.
The wording here ‘accurately expresses the evangelist’s and the early Church’s view of the Scriptures as stemming from God and mediated to human beings by the agency of prophets.’ (WBC)
It is with wonderful arrogance that Alan Richardson (TWBB) offers the following feeble support to the predictive element in prophecy: ‘It would be false to the standpoint of the NT if we were to say that the significance of OT prophecy consists solely in “forth-telling” and to discount the element of “foretelling” altogether. The “argument from prophecy” is still impressive when it is restated in the light of modern knowledge. We can indeed no longer imagine that the OT writers were given a miraculous “preview” of the events of the life and death of Jesus, or that detailed predictions of his ministry and passion were divinely dictated to them; nor shall we look for precise fulfilments of particular OT texts, as writers in the pre-critical period have done ever since the days of the author of St. Matthew’s Gospel. {e.g. Mt 1:22-23 2:5-6,15,17-18,23, etc.} We shall notice rather that the prophets, standing in the midst of the stirring events of their times, discerned therein the character and purpose of God, more particularly his judgement and mercy. The pattern of his action, both for judgement and salvation, was discerned and forth-told by them in their declaration of his will. As their sense of God’s unfolding purpose deepened, they came increasingly to look forward to a denouement, a climax of Israel’s history, a “day of the Lord” in which those things which were now but partially revealed should be fully and finally made manifest.’ (Art. ‘Prophecy’)
Mt 1:23 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”-which means, “God with us.”
The quote is from Isa 7:14.
‘The reference in Isa 7:15-16 to the short period of time in the promised child’s life before the kings Ahaz dreads are destroyed seems to require at least a partial fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah’s day. Nevertheless, the LXX translation of almah as parthenos (both words often though not always mean “virgin,” though the Greek term is less equivocal) shows that some Jews already two hundred years before Christ favored an interpretation in which this immediate fulfillment was not seen as exhausting Isaiah’s prophecy. Further exegetical clues in Isaiah support the LXX’s interpretation. Isa 8:4,8 seems to equate Immanuel with Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, but Isa 7:11 8:18 suggests that this child will be a “sign,” a term that regularly in Scripture refers to a more remarkable event than the simple birth of a child to a normally impregnated woman. By the time one reaches Isa 9:6, the prophet is speaking of a child, naturally taken as still referring to Immanuel, who is the “Mighty God.” In no sense can this prophecy be taken as less than messianic or as fulfilled in a merely human figure. So it is best to see a partial, proleptic fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in his time, with the complete and more glorious fulfillment in Jesus’ own birth.’ (Blomberg)
‘Verse 21 introduces the key Matthean theme of God’s presence with his people, which is emphasized again at the end of his Gospel in 28:18-20. The church in every age should recognize here a clear affirmation of Jesus’ deity and cling tightly to this doctrine as crucial for our salvation. At the same time, Matthew wants to emphasize that Jesus, as God, is “with us;” deity is immanent. Too often those who have rightly contended for Jesus’ full deity have created a God to whom they do not feel close rather than one who became human in every way like them but without sin. {Heb 4:15} As God “with us,” Jesus enables us to come boldly before God’s throne {Heb 4:16} when we accept the forgiveness of sins he made available {Mt 2:21} and develop an intimate relationship with him.’ (Blomberg)
‘The Virgin Birth meshes harmoniously with the rest of the New Testament message about Jesus. He himself worked miracles and rose miraculously from the dead, so no new problem is involved in affirming that he entered the world miraculously. He left the world supernaturally, by resurrection and ascension, so a supernatural way of arriving was entirely fitting. The stress laid on Jesus’ preincarnate dignity and glory {Joh 1:1-9 17:5 2Co 8:9 Php 2:5-11 Col 1:15-17 Heb 1:1-3 1Jo 1:1} made a mode of entry into incarnate life that involved proclamation of the glorious role he was coming to fulfill {Mt 1:21-23 Lu 1:31-35} more natural than any alternative.
It is noteworthy that Matthew and Luke show themselves much more interested in the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purpose than in the virginal conception as a physical wonder or an apologetic weapon or a pointer to two-nature christology.
While we cannot affirm that a divine person could not have entered this world any other way than by virgin birth, Jesus’ miraculous birth does in fact point to his deity and also to the reality of the creative power that operates in our new birth. {Joh 1:13} Also, while we cannot affirm that God could not have produced sinless humanity apart from virgin birth, Jesus’ humanity was sinless, and the circumstances of his birth call attention to the miracle that was involved when Mary, a sinner, {Lu 1:47} gave birth to one who was not “in Adam” as she was, nor therefore needed a Savior as she did. Rather, Jesus was destined through the maintained sinlessness of his unflawed human nature to become the perfect sacrifice for human sins, and so the Savior of his mother and of the rest of the church with her.’ (Concise Theology)
‘If New Testament Christianity is to reappear today with its power and joy and courage, men must recapture the basic conviction that this is a Visited planet. It is not enough to express formal belief in the “Incarnation” or in the “Divinity of Christ;” the staggering truth must be accepted afresh-that in this vast, mysterious universe, of which we are an almost infinitesimal part, the great Mystery, whom we call God, has visited our planet in Person. It is from this conviction that there springs unconquerable certainty and unquenchable faith and hope. It is not enough to believe theoretically that Jesus was both God and Man; not enough to admire, respect, and even worship him; it is not even enough to try to follow him. The reason for the insufficiency of these things is that the modern intelligent mind, which has had its horizons widened in dozens of different ways, has got to be shocked afresh by the audacious central Fact-that, as a sober matter of history, God became one of us.’ (J. B. Phillips, New Testament Christianity)
‘Matthew is operating typologically. Old Testament events, viewed as of crucial significance in the history of salvation, are seen to display patterns of God’s activity, which are being repeated in the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. Such parallels can be attributed only to God. A text that may well have had a previous historical referent is seen as being completed or filled full, a common meaning of the verb plero (“fulfill”). Much controversy in an often polarized and heated debate concerning Matthew’s use of Isa 7:14 in Mt 1:23 could be defused if these hermeneutical principles were recognized.’ (Blomberg)
“They will call him” – ‘They’ are those whom he has saved from their sins.
‘“‘Immanuel’…God with us” – ‘What a claim, right at the outset of the Gospel! It is so ultimate, so exclusive. It does not fit with the pluralist idea that each of us is getting through to God in his or her own way. No, says Matthew. God has got through to us in his way. And Jesus is no mere teacher, no guru, no Muhammad or Gandhi. He is “God with us.” That is the essential claim on which Christianity is built. It is a claim that cannot be abandoned without abandoning the faith in its entirety.’ (Green)
This verse, together with the promise of the continuing presence of Jesus in 28:20, form a framework for the entire Gospel.
Michael Green summarises five ways in which God makes himself know: (a) the genealogy shows that he speaks through history; (b) dreams; (c)
‘Behold at once the deepest mystery and the richest mercy. By the light of nature we see the eternal as a God above us: by the light of the law we see him as a God against us; but, by the light of the gospel, we see him as a God with us, reconciled to us, at peace with us, interested for us, interceding in our behalf. Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift! (Hughes, in The Bible Illustrator)
Mt 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
‘Much later rabbinic tradition charges that Mary slept with another man, but Joseph’s marrying her {Mt 1:24} demonstrates that he did not believe this was the case.’ (IVP NT Background Commentary)
‘Joseph values commitment to God above his own honor, another principle Matthew articulates elsewhere. {compare Mt 7:21-27 23:5-11} When God reveals the truth to Joseph, he immediately believes and obeys God’s will, unbelievable as the truth would seem without a deep trust in God’s power. {compare Lu 1:37} (By contrast, many unmarried men today refuse to take responsibility even when they are the father!) Joseph trusted God enough to obey him. Yet such obedience was costly. Because Joseph married Mary, outsiders would assume that he had gotten Mary pregnant before the wedding. Joseph would remain an object of shame in a society dominated by the value of honor. This was a stressful way to begin a marriage! By waiting to have intercourse, {Mt 1:25} hence failing to provide the bloody sheet that would prove Mary’s virginity on the wedding night, {De 22:15} Mary and Joseph also chose to embrace shame to preserve the sanctity of God’s call. Joseph’s obedience to God cost him the right to value his own reputation.’ (Keener)
‘His action revealed four admirable qualities: (1) righteousness, {Mt 1:19} (2) discretion and sensitivity, {Mt 1:19} (3) responsiveness to God, {Mt 1:24} and (4) self-discipline.’ {Mt 1:25} (Life Application)
Mt 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
He had no union with her until she gave birth to a son – A Jewish marriage would normally be consummated on the first night of the seven-day wedding. ‘The grammatical construction translated “until” strongly suggests (but does not prove) that Mary and Joseph proceeded to have normal sexual relations after Jesus’ birth.’ (Blomberg)
He gave him the name Jesus – This indicates Joseph’s formal adoption of Jesus and establishes the latter’s Davidic lineage. ‘The fact that Jesus is adopted by Joseph in no way makes Jesus’ Davidic lineage questionable. In Jewish circles a child became a man?s son not so much by physical procreation itself as by acknowledgment on the part of the man.’ (DJG)
‘Was faith ever more tested than the Virgin’s faith, when for no fault of hers, but in consequence of an act of God himself, her conjugal relation to Joseph was allowed to be all but snapped asunder by a legal divorce? Yet how glorious was the reward with which her constancy and patience were at length crowned! And is not this one of the great laws of God’s procedure toward his believing people? Abraham was allowed to do all but sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22); the last year of the predicted Babylonian captivity had arrived ere any signs of deliverance appeared; {Da 9:1-2} the massacre of all the Jews in Persia had all but taken place; {Es 7 8} Peter, under Herod Agrippa, was all but brought forth for execution (Acts 12); Paul was all but assassinated by a band of Jewish enemies (Acts 23); Luther all but fell a sacrifice to the machinations of his enemies (1521); and so in cases innumerable since-of all which it may be said, as in the song of Moses “The Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that theirs power is gone”.’ {De 32:36} (JFB)
