We hope you will find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.
Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the contact form at the end. Â We would be pleased to hear from you.Â
MATTHEW 1
Survey of the New Testament
The Lord Jesus said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”, Matthew 5:17. He did this in a three-fold way. First, He brought out the full meaning of the Old Testament, revealing truths that the rabbis had not seen before, and thus fully filled out their meaning. Second, He fully demonstrated in His life the character and conduct that the Law and the prophets required of man. And third, He moved on to ensure that the predictions of the Old Testament would be fulfilled, not only in His death and resurrection, but also in His coming reign on the earth. When the apostle Peter stood up on the day of Pentecost and announced to the Jews that “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ”, he did it by quoting, and commenting upon, the Old Testament scriptures, Acts 2:14-36. When the apostle Paul went into the synagogue in Thessalonica, and sought to prove that “Jesus…is Christ”, he did it by reasoning out of the scriptures of the Old Testament, Acts 17:1-4. And when Apollos mightily convinced the Jews that Jesus was the Christ he did it by “shewing by the scriptures”, Acts 18:28.
So we should not think of the New Testament as a rival to the Old Testament. Rather, we should think of it in one sense as the sequel. But, having said that, we should remember that the New Testament contains truth that was not anticipated in the Old Testament, as a reading of Ephesians 3 will show. Whether we think of it as a sequel or a supplement, we should ever remember that the New Testament has equal authority with the Old Testament. The apostle Peter referred to the writings of the apostle Paul, and then alluded to “the other scriptures”, meaning the Old Testament. Thus he thought of both New Testament and Old Testament as being on the same level of authority.
Survey of the four gospels
Each of the four gospels has its own character, and they together present to us that four-fold view of the Lord Jesus which the Spirit desires we have at our disposal. The emphasis with Matthew is on the Lord Jesus as the rightful King of Israel. Luke emphasizes the true manhood of Christ, and shows how He relates to all men. Matthew, however, is concerned to show His true kingship, and how He relates to the nation of Israel. The birth-narratives of each gospel serve these two ends. Luke reserves the genealogy of Christ until the beginning of His public ministry, and goes back to Adam to show the genuine way in which the Lord Jesus has become man. He is not man by creation, as Adam, but by birth of a woman.
Matthew is not only writing so that his nation may realise that Jesus of Nazareth has a unique right to the throne of David, he is also showing that the fact that He is of the seed of David is part of the gospel. The apostle Paul indicated this at the very outset of his treatise on the gospel of God, for he said that the gospel was “concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh”, Romans 1:3. The gospel is for Jew and Gentile alike. The fact that a genealogy is included in it shows that the gospel deals with historical facts as well as doctrinal truths.
There are four ways in which persons have come into flesh. Adam, by creation; Eve, by formation; all others apart from Christ, generation; Christ, by incarnation. He is the only incarnate person, having come into manhood from outside, “taking part” extraordinarily, of that which we “partake of” ordinarily, Hebrews 2:14. It was important, as far as Luke was concerned, that the Lord Jesus should actually be born of a woman, and grow up into manhood, in order that He might have the same legitimate feelings and experiences as we do. On the other hand, it was important that His birth should be in a way which ensured His sinlessness, so that He did not have the sinful feelings and experiences we have.
Matthew is concerned about the legality of Christ’s claim to the throne. So it is that he begins with the genealogy of the true kings of Israel, those from the tribe of Judah. It was to the patriarch Judah that Jacob gave the right to rule, whereas to Joseph was given the right of the firstborn, 1 Chronicles 5:1,2. Judah, whilst he was given the right to rule, did not display the character that befits such an office, as we see from Genesis 38, and the incident with Tamar, his daughter in law. Joseph, however, showed the completely opposite character to Judah his brother by resisting the temptations of Potiphar’s wife, Genesis 39. So Christ has the legal right, and the moral right too, for He, Judah-like, is the “Lion of the tribe of Judah”, but is also, Joseph-like, the meek and suffering Lamb of God, Revelation 5:5,6.
The writer to the Hebrews was able to say that “it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah”, Hebrews 7:14, and the apostle Paul referred more than once to the Lord Jesus as being of the seed of David, Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8. It is reasonable to suppose that the genealogical records, of the line of David at least, would be kept in the temple at Jerusalem, and it would be possible to consult them and establish that Jesus Christ was indeed of the seed of David. It may be that those records were destroyed when Titus burnt the Temple, so the Spirit of God ensured Matthew and Luke had availed themselves of the information beforehand. It may be, however, that both Joseph and Mary were able to recite their respective ancestry, (much as some Chinese tribes can today), and this is what is found in the inspired word now. On the other hand, it is very possible that the Jews hid the records when Titus came to besiege Jerusalem, and they are available for future reference when the time comes.
Special note on the three groups of fourteen names
In Matthew 1:17 the word “eos” is used, (eos David…eos the captivity…eos Christ), and this was employed in Greek “before the names of illustrious men by which a period of time is marked”, Lexicon. So there are three special periods, that of “David”, that of the “Captivity”, with Jechonias prominent, and that of “Christ”. The “David Period” saw the setting up of the kingdom, the “Captivity Period” saw the setting aside of the kingdom, for the curse on Jechonias resulted in no Davidic king being available to occupy the throne, as we shall see. The “Christ Period” is the preparation for when He comes to reinstate the kingdom in due time, and ensure it will never be set aside again, for “of his kingdom there shall be no end”, Luke 1:33.
Notice that despite being twice called “David the king” in verse 6, this is not the formula in verse 17, because it is not so much David as a person but as a time and event marker.
The three divisions mentioned in verse 17 do not give the number of begettings, for Abraham is included, and we are not told his father here. The word generation in most cases refers to the man’s life from his birth to the birth of the son mentioned. Hence Abraham’s life up to the birth of Isaac is his generation.
So Matthew’s scheme, defining a generation as “a life up to the birth of a son”, or in David’s case, “his life up to the time he became David the king”, and then, in the second group, “David’s life as father of Solomon”, is as follows:
First group of fourteen
1. Abraham to the birth of Isaac.
2. Isaac to the birth of Jacob.
3. Jacob to the birth of Judah.
4. Judah to the birth of Phares.
5. Phares to the birth of Esrom.
6. Esrom to the birth of Aram.
7. Aram to the birth of Aminadab.
8. Aminadab to the birth of Naasson.
9. Naasson to the birth of Salmon.
10. Salmon to the birth of Booz.
11. Booz to the birth of Obed.
12. Obed to the birth of Jesse.
13. Jesse to the birth of David.
14. “David the king”, his generation up to the time he became king.
Second group of fourteen
1. “David the king”, his reign and the birth of Solomon.
2. Solomon to the birth of Roboam.
3. Roboam to the birth of Abia.
4. Abia to the birth of Asa.
5. Asa to the birth of Josaphat.
6. Josaphat to the birth of Joram.
7. Joram to the birth of Ozias.
8. Ozias to the birth of Joatham.
9. Joatham to the birth of Achaz.
10. Achaz to the birth of Ezekias.
11. Ezekias to the birth of Manasses.
12. Manasses to the birth of Amon.
13. Amon to the birth of Josias.
14. Josias to the birth of Jechonias about the time of the Captivity.
Third group of fourteen
1. Jechonias to the birth of Salathiel.
2. Salathiel to the birth of Zorobabel.
3. Zorobabel to the birth of Abiud.
4. Abiud to the birth of Eliakim.
5. Eliakim to the birth of Azor.
6. Azor to the birth of Sadoc.
7. Sadoc to the birth of Achim.
8. Achim to the birth of Eliud.
9. Eliud to the birth of Eleazar.
10. Eleazar to the birth of Matthan.
11. Matthan to the birth of Jacob.
12. Jacob to the birth of Joseph.
13. Joseph to the birth of Christ.
14. Christ as the one whose generation Matthew’s gospel records.
The first section begins with a child, Isaac, born by Divine intervention, to Abraham by Sarah. This was after Abraham had made the grave mistake of taking his slave-woman to wife and having Ishmael by her. The second section begins with a child born after his brother had died, after David had ensured Uriah’s death, so that he could take his wife. The third section begins with a man who, although having several sons, is condemned to be “childless”, because of idolatry, which is called adultery in the Old Testament, God being the husband of the nation, Jeremiah 31:32. The third section ends with a Child born by the intervention of the Spirit of God, with a mother pure and holy, and with no intervention by a father.
Structure of the chapter
|
(a) |
Verses 1-17 |
Christ’s birth in relation to history |
|
(b) |
Verses 18-21 |
Christ’s birth in relation to humanity |
|
(c) |
Verses 22-25 |
Christ’s birth in relation to Deity |
(a)Â Verse 1-17
Christ’s birth in relation to history
1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ- the book referred to here is the book in which Christ’s ancestry is set out, being the written record of His lineage in verses 2-16,. The writer to the Hebrews was able to say, “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah”, Hebrews 7;14, so he was confident that this was not disputed.
The word generation is “genesis”, meaning birth or origin, so we have here the birth of the Lord Jesus considered as to who was in His ancestry.
The word generations in the plural refers to the various ancestors of Christ, and has to do with the length of time between their birth and the begetting of a son.
Matthew does not record the actual event of Christ’s birth. He simply tells us the angel said “she shall bring forth”, verse 21, and then, that Joseph knew not Mary, “till she had brought forth”, verse 25. It is as if Matthew is the official registrar, whereas Luke is more like a personal physician as he records the circumstances of our Lord’s birth.
The Hebrews used a word or phrase from the start of each Old Testament book as its title, so that they did not add to the Word of God. They called the book of Genesis “In the beginning”, because those were its first words. So we can see that the word generation, being the Greek word “genesis”, has the idea of beginning about it. (But we should remember that it is not so much His beginning in connection with His own life upon the earth, but in relation to who has gone before).
So when Matthew uses the word for the book of the generation of Jesus Christ he is indicating that He will bring in a new beginning. And this is the case, for He alone can bring in a new creation, unmarked by sin. But whereas the first creation came in by His command, the new creation is brought in by His cross. The first creation was spoiled by sin, but the new creation is secured by the resurrection of the One who was made sin, yet put away sin. To reign He must rise from the dead, (for Messiah reigns for ever), to rise He must die; to die He must be born.
We cannot help noticing the contrast with the words of Genesis 5:1-3, “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:”
Notice also the difference between this and the words of Genesis 1:26,27, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Twice over we are told that God made man in his image, but this is not mentioned in chapter 5. The reason for this is that man had fallen, and he no longer could be said to represent God, although he still has certain features that mean he can reproduce God to a degree.
The idea behind the word “image” is representation, whereas the idea behind “likeness” is resemblance. The Lord Jesus referred to the head of Caesar on a coin as the image of Caesar. in Matthew 22:15-22 In other words, the image represented Caesar and his authority, and those who used the coin were recognising this.
Part of God’s plan in making man, then, was that he might represent Him to the rest of the creation. It was not necessarily true that Caesar’s image on the coin was a very good likeness, but God made sure that man had the capacity to represent Him well, by giving him certain characteristics which He Himself possesses.
Man was made in the likeness of God in at least three ways. First, God has personality, meaning He has consciousness of self. Each of the persons of the Godhead has His own particular distinctive features, by which He displays Himself. So man was given personality, not only to express himself as an individual, but primarily so as to display God.
God has spirituality, which not only means that He is a Spirit, see John 4:24, but also means He can appreciate His own glories. Man has a spirit, so that he might appreciate those glories too, and worship God in his spirit.
God has rationality, which means that He reasons, plans, purposes, and decides. Man has these abilities too; not, of course, in the sense that He could advise God, see 1 Corinthians 2:16, but so that he may order his life in relation to God’s purpose in an intelligent way. The reason man has these qualities is because he was formed in a unique way, for he lives because God breathed His life into him, and he became a living soul, Genesis 2:7.
Sadly, this is no longer the case, so that when Adam begat Seth, (as well, of course, as when he began Cain and Abel), he begat him in his own image, and after his likeness. Seth, like all men except Christ, represent Adam rather than God, and display the features of Adam, not God. As to his personality, he is now a sinner. As to his spirituality, he is dead in trespasses and sins. As to his rationality, his understanding is darkened.
This situation is remedied in Christ, however, as the apostle Paul explained to the believers at Ephesus and Colosse. To the Ephesians he wrote as follows, having outlined the sinfulness of the ways and thinking of men:
Ephesians 4:20
But ye have not so learned Christ;
But ye have not so learned Christ- we learn how to sin from Adam and his race, we learn how to live worthily through Christ’s example when here on earth. It is not simply that He taught how to live, but that He is the Life, John 14:6, for true life finds its fullest expression in Him; He is the subject of the lesson.
Ephesians 4:21
If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
If so be that ye have heard him- through the personal testimony of apostles and prophets, and the preaching of evangelists, pastors and teachers, the Ephesian believers had heard Him, as much as if they had been on earth when Christ was.
And have been taught by him- the preposition translated “by” is the Greek word “en”, which, (when it is not indicating a physical location), speaks of the character of a thing. The “thing” in question here is the truth expressed in Jesus, and the teaching they heard was in harmony with His character. In other words, it was a true representation, by way of teaching, of Him as the embodiment of truth.
As the truth is in Jesus- the true life is expressed in Jesus, the Man upon the earth who pleased God fully. This phrase is often misquoted as “the truth as it is in Jesus”, but this implies that truth in someone else is different. Christ alone is the full expression of the truth. Paul longed that the life of Jesus might be manifest in his mortal body, 2 Corinthians 4:10.
Ephesians 4:22
That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man- as Christ is learnt through His example as set out in His word, then the believer is instructed to put off the old man. The apostle Paul could say “I am crucified with Christ”, Galatians 2:20, and this is true of all believers. God reckons them to have been crucified when Christ was crucified. The words “put off” mean to take off and lay aside, and are used of those who stoned Stephen, Acts 7:58. They took off their garments and laid them aside as being unsuitable for the task in hand. Clothing speaks of character in the Scriptures, and so we should take off and discard the characteristics of Adam, the old, out-of-date and crucified man, for those garments are not suitable for the task in hand of living like Christ. For while our old man has been crucified with Christ, (for Christ undertook to deal with what we were in Adam, and by association with Him in His death and resurrection we are freed from the consequences of what Adam did when he fell, as Romans 6 explains), nevertheless, being still in the body, we still have the flesh, with its Adam-like tendencies. However, when we repented we renounced the old things of Adam, and now have the responsibility of putting that into practice in daily living. We do this by identifying characteristics that are contrary to Christ, and shedding them like a worn-out garment.
Which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts- because the human heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, it deceives the unbeliever into doing corrupting things, even things which will bring into ruin. This is a strong reason, therefore, why the believer should put off the old man and his ways.
Ephesians 4:23
And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
And be renewed in the spirit of your mind- instead of being corrupted by a deceitful mind, we should be constantly adjusting to the new things that are found to perfection in Christ. The spirit of our mind is our attitude of mind, which is so governed by the Spirit of God that it can be called the mind of the Spirit, Romans 8:5. We must adopt the right attitude to holy things if we are to be in the good of them.
Ephesians 4:24
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
And that ye put on the new man- this is the other side to the truth that we have been taught in Christ, for we have not only to put off, but put on as well. No doubt the garments of the two malefactors as well as Christ’s became the property of the soldiers at the foot of the cross. The question for us is which garments shall we put on, Christ’s, or the malefactors?
Which after God is created- likeness to Christ has to be created in us, for it does not come naturally. “After God” means with God as the model. God’s original design for Adam was that he be in the image and likeness of God. That likeness has been spoiled by sin, and Adam begat Seth after his likeness, not God’s, Genesis 5:1,3. Only because of Christ’s intervention as the second man, the last Adam, can God create anew after His likeness as expressed in Christ.
In righteousness and true holiness- this is the condition in which the new man is, ideally. It is our responsibility to put off all those things which are incompatible with righteousness and holiness. True holiness is holiness which is produced when we allow the truth to govern us. The truth in question being the truth in Jesus. The word for holiness here is not the usual one meaning separation. It has been defined as “that quality of holiness which is manifested in those who have regard equally to grace and truth”. Notice the three ideas of righteousness, holiness and truth, which could be used as summaries of the next few verses. They are in opposition to the corruption, lusts and deceit mentioned at the end of verse 22.
The apostle writes similar things to the Colossian believers:
Colossians 3:10
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him:
And have put on the new man- not only did we renounce the old man in repentance, but we embraced the new man in faith. The word for “new” here means youthful, vigorous, dynamic. The word for new in the parallel passage in Ephesians 4:24 means fresh, different. There the apostle emphasises the great change that comes about when a person is converted. Instead of living as Adam lived after he sinned, he begins to live like Christ, who did no sin. Here the emphasis is on the vigour of the new life.
Which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him- there is a constant renewing, for the word is a present participle, and this is perhaps why the apostle used the word for new which means youthful and vigorous. The new man will never grow old, for it has an in-built youthfulness. This is because it is likeness to Christ, and He never decays or deteriorates.
God made Adam in His own image and after His likeness, Genesis 1:26. He fell from his lofty position, however, and begat a son in his own likeness, Genesis 5:3. And thus it has been ever since, except in the case of Christ, who was virgin-born. He has now become the example for God’s people, and since He is the image of God, 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15, to imitate Him is to grow after the image of God. So the more we know of Christ, and the more we put that knowledge into practice in Christ-like deeds and attitudes, the more we shall be like God as to His virtue and goodness.
We return now to Matthew 1:
The son of David, the son of Abraham– notice that Matthew does not put David and Abraham in chronological order, even though that is the way he orders the genealogy. His main theme is the kingship of the Lord Jesus, so the order is David, the first rightful king of Israel, (Saul not being of the tribe of Judah), then Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation. Being descended from David gives Christ the right to the throne of David. Being son of Abraham gives Him the right to God’s promises to Abraham, including the land of Israel. He may claim the blessings of the Abrahamic and the Davidic covenants, and secure them for the nation of Israel.
By calling Him son of Abraham, Matthew is reminding us of His likeness to Isaac, the man who was lifted up on an altar. The apostle tells us in Galatians 3:16 that the covenant with Abraham was actually made with Christ. To die He must be born. To die for sins He must be sinless. To deal with sins He must be God and man. All this is in Matthew 1.
The original son of David, however, was Solomon, the one who was lifted to the throne. The order of mention here, however, David then Abraham, is the order of Matthew’s gospel, with chapters 1-25 showing Christ to be the true son of David, with the right to the throne, and chapters 26-27 showing Him to be the true son of Abraham, with the altar as His destiny. Chapter 28 tells of His resurrection, the sign His altar-work was accepted of God, and thus combines His Isaac-character and His David-character, for He declares that He has all power in heaven and in earth, so is fit to establish the Kingdom of God upon earth with the authority of heaven, Matthew 28:18.
Special note on the three sections of the genealogy
Each of the fourteen-name sections have a lesson for the nation of Israel, to whom Matthew is especially writing. The first section, Abraham to David, assures Israelites that Jesus of Nazareth has true connections to the patriarchs to whom the promises were given, and to David, to whom the throne of Israel was given. So the nation in the future has certain prospects, but only because they are vested in Jesus of Nazareth.
The second section is a warning, for it begins with David but ends with the Captivity, showing the folly of going into idolatry, the main reason why God allowed the nation to be carried away. In the future, the nation will have to decide whether it is going to worship the Antichrist and his image or not. To do so will incur Divine wrath again.
The thirds section, naming as it does mostly those who lived during the period between Malachi and Matthew, indicates that God watched over His people, and brought them through that dark period. Likewise, in the future He will safeguard His faithful remnant people, and bring them through the Great Tribulation into the kingdom of their Messiah.
1:2
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
Abraham begat Isaac- we notice from this statement two further things. First, that Matthew is starting from the past and working towards the present as he tells us Christ’s ancestry. He sees in Christ the man for the future, but who has His roots in the past. Luke’s genealogy of Christ, however, begins with the present, and goes right back to Adam at the beginning of time. He reserves his record until just before the temptation account, as if to challenge Satan to fail where he succeeded before when he tempted Adam. He is True Man in Luke’s account, whereas in Matthew He is True King.
The second feature that distinguishes Matthew’s genealogy of Christ from Luke’s, is that in Matthew the emphasis is on the father begetting, whereas in Luke the emphasis is on the son who was begotten. The one says, “Abraham begat Isaac”, and the other says, “Isaac, which was the son of Abraham”. Matthew emphasises the claim the father gives, whereas Luke emphasises the nature the son receives. This is all the more striking, in that Joseph did not beget Jesus. It was, as we shall see, Mary who did that.
And Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren- note that Judah is linked with his brethren, for it is the purpose God to re-unite the nation of Israel under Christ, so that all twelve tribes gather together unto Him, Genesis 49:10. See Hosea 1:11, where we read that the children of Judah, (the two-tribed kingdom of Judah and Benjamin), and the children of Israel, (the ten-tribed northern kingdom), shall be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head. It was not necessary to mention Judah’s eleven brothers, but Matthew is guided of the Spirit to include them as the ancestors of the twelve tribes of the nation over which the Lord Jesus shall reign. He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, Luke 1:33.
1:3
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram- there are three women mentioned in this first section of the genealogy, Thamar, (Tamar), Rachab (Rahab), and Ruth. There is one woman mentioned in section 2, Bathsheba, but not by name. Although the line passes through the male, these women are especially mentioned by Matthew. Matthew did not need to include these women, (for he does not mention Sarah or Rebekah, for instance). But he is showing that even though he is concerned with the glories of Christ the King, He has not forgotten His grace and humility. The Lord Jesus made Himself of no reputation even as to His genealogy. The presence of these women as ancestresses did not pollute the line, for the sin nature is passed on through the male, and Christ was born of a virgin.
Tamar pretended to be a harlot, Genesis 38:14,15; Rahab was a harlot, Joshua 2:1; Ruth was from a nation of harlots, Moab, Numbers 25:1; Bathsheba was treated like a harlot, 1 Samuel 11:2-4. The fifth woman is in section 3, Mary, pure and chaste, in marked contrast to the other four. Yet for all that, she still needed to know God as her Saviour, Luke 1:47, for she was not sinless, as some would erroneously teach.
The Lord Jesus is recorded in Matthew as saying to the Pharisees, “the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you”, Matthew 21:31. It is appropriate for Matthew, the ex-publican, to include harlots in the genealogy of the King. He shall save His people from their sins, even if they were harlots or publicans before.
1:4
And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
1:5
And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
Special note on the period of time between Naasson and Jesse
Naasson, (or Nahshon as he was called in the Old Testament), was old enough in the second year of Israel’s wilderness journey to be one of “the princes of the tribes”, Numbers 7:2,12. This is in 1490 BC. Jesse, the father of David, was said by the Jewish Midrash, (commentary), to have been 90 years old when David was born, in 1086 BC, and they also said that Boaz was 80 years old when he married Ruth. So Jesse was born in 1186 BC. The promise by God to Abraham was that his seed would come out of Egypt in the fourth generation, Genesis 15:16. The fourth generation in the line of Judah was Aminadab, the father of Nahshon, Ruth 4:18-21; Matthew 1:3,4.
If Nahshon was forty years old in 1490 BC, then he was born in 1530 BC. If he begat Salmon when he was ninety, then Salmon was born in 1440 BC. If Salmon begat Boaz when he was ninety, Boaz was born in 1350 BC. If Boaz begat Obed when he was eighty, Obed was born in 1270 BC. If Obed begat Jesse when he was eighty, Jesse was born in 1190 BC. If Jesse begat David when he was ninety, (and scripture tells us that “he went among men for an old man in the days of Saul, 1 Samuel 17:12), then David was born in 1100 BC. In fact he was born in 1085 BC, but the fifteen years of difference is easily made up throughout the seven generations involved.Â
1:6
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
And Jesse begat David the king- Jesse had many sons, but it was David that Samuel anointed to be king over Israel. He becomes the prototype, the one by whom the other kings of Judah were assessed.
David is the only one in the genealogy called a king, and that twice over, emphasising that it is of his line that the Messiah must come and reign as king. The name David is being used here as a time-marker, as we have already noted, for he was not a king when he was begotten, (in contrast to Christ who was “born king of the Jews”, Matthew 2:2). Matthew tells us there are fourteen generations from Abraham to David. By this he means fourteen life-periods up to a critical event. So the critical events in verse 16 are the life of Jesse up to the time when David could be described as the king. Then the life of David as king up to the time he begat Solomon, which begins the second grouping.
And David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias- in this way the moral lapse of David is recorded, for he treated Bathsheba in such a way as made her like the harlots mentioned in the list. Matthew could have written “David begat Solomon of Bathsheba”, but the point was that she had been the wife of Uriah until David had engineered his death. Like all sin, even if it is repented of, (as David’s was), it has repercussions, for Ahithophel, David’s counsellor, who abandoned him in favour of Absalom and who became the Old Testament “Judas”, was very probably Bathsheba’s grandfather, see 2 Samuel 11:3, and 23:34. It is solemn to think that the king who was so much associated with glory, (“Solomon in all his glory”, Matthew 6:29), began life associated with shame.
The generation of David up to the birth of Solomon is the fourteenth, and marks the end of the group. So Abraham, the founder of the nation is at the head, and then David the rightful and appointed king is the climax.
There are three sons of David in Matthew 1, namely Solomon, the direct son; Joseph the descendant son, and Christ the designated Son.
Just as Isaac was the first son of section one, so Solomon is the first of section two. Isaac was the man of the altar of suffering; Solomon was the man of the throne of glory. If the “Isaac” section of Matthew’s gospel is chapters 26 and 27, then the remainder of the gospel is the “Solomon” section.
Second group: “David until the carrying away into Babylon”
David ends the first group, and begins the second group, no doubt to emphasise his ongoing relevance as the generations come and go. He is also mentioned twice because his name in the first reference is to mark an event, the “David-event”. Christ is not “Son of Joash”, or any other of the kings apart from David, who gives his name to the dynasty.
1:7
And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
1:8
And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
1:9
And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
1:10
And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
1:11
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
So the first group ended with physical adultery, the second group ended with spiritual adultery, namely idolatry. The first group began with a man who had been brought out of idolatry in Babylonia, the second group ends with the nation that came from him being carried to Babylon because of their idolatry. This shows the need for a king who can “save his people from their sins”, as the other kings in the line could not.
Several kings are omitted in this section. Now if Matthew is to give a legally binding genealogy, then he can only omit names that are recorded elsewhere in Scripture, and this is what happens. His plan is to make three sets of fourteen, modelled on the first list from Abraham to David. To do this he has to omit some names, but this is not a negative thing, but a literary device to allow him to make various points relevant to the subject in hand, whilst at the same time presenting us with a meaningful genealogy of God’s King.
The following is a comparison between the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 3 and Matthew 1:
| 1 Chronicles 3 | Matthew 1 |
| Solomon | Solomon |
| Rehoboam | Roboam |
| Abia, (Abijah) | Abia, (Abijah) |
| Asa | Asa |
| Jehoshaphat | Josaphat |
| Joram, (Jehoram) | Joram, (Jehoram) |
| Ahaziah | ***** |
| Joash | ***** |
| Amaziah | ***** |
| Azariah, (Uzziah) | Ozias, (Uzziah) |
| Jotham | Joatham |
| Ahaz | Achaz |
| Hezekiah | Ezekias |
| Manasseh | Manasses |
| Amon | Amon |
| Josiah | Josias |
| Jehoiakim, Johanan, Zedekiah, Shallum | ***** ***** ***** |
| Jeconiah, (= Coniah, or Jehoiachin) | Jechonias |
| Salathiel, Pedaiah | Salathiel |
| Zerubbabel | Zorobabel |
| Hananiah | ***** |
| Shechaniah | ***** |
| Neariah | ***** |
| Elionai | ***** |
| Hadaiah | Abiud (?) |
There are no omissions in the first section of fourteen names, but to form another set of fourteen Matthew needs to omit certain persons, who nonetheless are recorded in the Book of Chronicles Chapter 3. He excludes kings whose actions or connections have significance for the future, once God has started dealings with the nation of Israel again after the rapture of the church saints. He does this as a literary device, so that those who seek after the Lord in the future may notice the omissions, and enquire concerning their meaning and significance.
The first omission is Ahaziah the son of Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel, who was the wife of Ahab, king of the Northern Kingdom in Samaria, and daughter of the king of the Zidonians, and who introduced Baal-worship into Israel. She attempted to destroy the seed royal, 2 Chronicles 22:10, and reigned over the land for six years. Matthew makes no notice of this, for Joash was the rightful heir. Athaliah sought to destroy the seed royal, and thus prevent the birth and reign of the Messiah, and, like her mother Jezebel, is an illustration of the woman of Revelation 17, who represents the future worldwide religious system opposed to God, who will persecute those who remain loyal to God. She will be “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus”, Revelation 17:6.
The second omission is Joash, who, although in many ways a good king, nonetheless only reigned wisely whilst Jehoiada the high priest was his spiritual guide. After the latter’s death, the kingdom deteriorated, and Joash even slew Jehoiada’s son in the temple courts, an event referred to by the Lord Jesus as a prime example of the sins of the fathers, in Matthew 23:35. In the future those who give good counsel to Israel, the two witnesses who will be stationed in the temple of God in Jerusalem, will also be slain, Revelation 11:3,7. Joash was not buried in the sepulchres of the kings, 2 Chronicles 24:25. He was significantly absent from the place of the kingly dead, so Matthew makes him significantly absent from the list of the kingly line.
The third omission is that of Amaziah, who, like Joash and Ahaziah, was descended from Athaliah, the daughter of the wicked queen Jezebel, the wife of Ahab king of Israel, a pagan idolater. Elisha the prophet was instructed of God to anoint Jehu to be king of Israel after he had wiped out the house of Ahab, 2 Kings 9:1-10. The word from God was, “For the whole house of Ahab shall perish”, verse 8. Â
Mannesses is included, despite his great apostasy, for he repented and was restored, and is another token, with the women, of the grace of God. See 2 Chronicles 33:1-20. We are not told what words he used in his prayer of repentance, nor what the seers said when they spoke to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, but they are written “in the book of the kings of Israel”, and “among the sayings of the seers”, 2 Chronicles 33:18,19. Quite possibly these writings will come to light in the last days. The repentance of Manasses will be an encouragement to those in Israel who, in the future, when the Antichrist is rising to power, will need to resist the temptation to apostatise and worship Antichrist and his image, a direct violation of the Law of God through Moses, and the very essence of apostasy. See Acts 21:21, where Luke uses the word “apostasia” in the expression “forsake Moses”.
Josiah had four sons, given in 1 Chronicles 3:15 as Johanan, Jehoiakim, (otherwise known as Eliakim, 2 Kings 23:34), Zedekiah, (otherwise known as Mattaniah, 2 Kings 24:17), and Shallum, (otherwise known as Jehoahaz, Jeremiah 22:11). These last three all became a king of Judah, but their names are omitted from the genealogy by Matthew, for various reasons. And not only are their names omitted, as if they were not worthy to be included in the line of the Messiah, they are described as the brothers of Jeconias, whose name is in the genealogy in Matthew, but who has a curse attached to him, as we shall see. They were in fact, his uncles, but they were brothers in their rebellion against God.
Johanan
Presumably Johanan died before his father, for he was not made king, even though he was firstborn, nor is any genealogy given of him in 1 Chronicles.Â
Jehoahaz
At the death of Josiah, the people made Jehoahaz king, (he was otherwise known as Shallum). He reigned for three months, 2 Kings 23:30,31. Pharoah-nechoh made him a prisoner, and he died in Egypt as Jeremiah said he would, Jeremiah 22:11,12, 2 Kings 23:34. He was 23 years old when his father Josiah died. He is omitted by Matthew, perhaps because he was put on the throne by the people, and removed from the throne by Pharaoh, king of Egypt. He reigned only three months.
Eliakim
We read that “Pharaoh-necho made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father”, 2 Kings 23:24, perhaps showing the contempt Pharaoh had for Jehoahaz, for in fact he was made king in the room of his own brother. Pharaoh changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. He was 25 years old when he began to reign, and reigned 11 years in Jerusalem, three years as servant of Pharaoh, and then servant of Nebuchadnezzar.
In the third year of Jehoiakim, (Eliakim), Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, and Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were taken into captivity, Daniel 1:1-7. Nebuchadnezzar bound Jehoiakim to carry him to Babylon, 2 Chronicles 36:6, but he was released and allowed to continue on the throne as a vassal king.
After three years of servitude to Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakim rebelled. Nebuchadnezzar was otherwise engaged at the time, but the Lord sent bands of Chaldees, Syrians, and Ammon against Judah to destroy it, 2 Kings 24:2. In the eleventh year of his reign, he died, unlamented, Jeremiah 22:18, (in contrast to the lamentation for his father Josiah, 2 Chronicles 35:25, Lamentations 4:20, Zechariah 12:11). Jeremiah had prophesied that he would be buried with the burial of an ass beyond the gates of Jerusalem, Jeremiah 22:19. See also Jeremiah 36:27-31.
He is omitted by Matthew, perhaps because he was made king by Pharaoh and carried to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, thus demonstrating that the two foremost world-powers of the time had control over the nation. But a more likely reason for his absence in Matthew 1 is that it was he who burnt pages of the Scriptures which he had cut out of the prophecy of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 36:21-25, and God’s displeasure is seen in that he is not mentioned in the line of the Messiah. He committed this sin in the fifth year of his reign, at the time of the Captivity, Jeremiah 36:9, and as a result God said of him, “He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David”, verse 30. So Jehoiakim took his penknife to cut up the word of God, and Matthew took his pen and, by the prompting of the Spirit of God, cut him out of the word of God. Jeremiah said of him, “They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! Or, Ah sister! They shall not lament for him saying, Ah lord! Or, Ah, his glory! He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem”, Jeremiah 22:18,19.
In between the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, Jehoiachin the son of Jehoiakim was put on the throne, but after just three months and ten days of rule, (the chronicler seems to emphasise the shortness of the reign by telling us how many days over three months), he was taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, who made Zedekiah king in his place. His name means “established of Jehovah”, but he was carried away!
Jehoiachin is otherwise known as Jeconiah and Coniah in the Old Testament, and Jechonias in Matthew 1. Like David and Christ he is a marker for a distinct event, in his case, the Captivity. But he is important for another reason. Jeremiah solemnly declared a judgement against him in these words, “Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Israel”, Jeremiah 22:29,30. Now Jeconiah had eight sons, 1 Chronicles 3:17, so he was not childless in that sense. Rather, it was that his descendants would not sit on the throne of Judah.
By this word through Jeremiah the Lord excludes all from sitting upon David’s throne who are descended from David through Coniah. But Christ is descended from David through Coniah or Jeconiah, Matthew 1:11,12. So if He is Joseph’s natural son, He is not able to occupy the throne of David, even though Joseph was a son of David. But Mary is of the line of David too, Luke 3:31. So it is important that Joseph should not divorce his espoused wife Mary, but rather, should marry her before Christ was born, which he did, Matthew 1:24,25. (Because he knew her not until after the birth of Christ, Mary is still called his espoused wife in Luke 2:5).
This is why Zerubbabel was never crowned king after the return from captivity, (even though he was of the line of David), for he was descended from Jechonias. The question is, given that Christ is descended from Jechonias, how can He sit on the throne of David? The answer will be found in the marriage of Joseph to Mary after the Child is conceived and before He is born.
At His birth, the Lord Jesus is a true Son of David “after the flesh”, Romans 1:3, because Mary is a descendant of David. He is also a true Son of David by legal right, because His legal father is a son of David. But none other can claim the throne, since they are disqualified by Jeremiah’s curse on Jeconiah.
Zedekiah
Nebuchadnezzar now made Zedekiah king over Judah and Jerusalem, 2 Chronicles 36:10. In the eleventh year of his reign, Jerusalem finally fell. Zedekiah was carried to Babylon and “roasted in the fire” by Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah 29:22.
He is omitted from Matthew’s list, perhaps because he was made king by Nebuchadnezzar, the destroyer of Jerusalem, and the instigator of the captivity. In any case, he reigned in Jerusalem after Jehoiachin and the princes of Judah, (such as Daniel), had been taken captive to Babylon, and the Times of the Gentiles had begun. God was no longer known as the God of Israel, but the God of heaven. But even this title gives hope for the future, for we read “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed”, Daniel 2:44. So the Times of the Gentiles will give way to the Day of the Lord, when the Messiah reigns.
Matthew is very tactful and gentle, for instead of using either of the two words which are used in the Old Testament for the Exile, one of which means “to take away captive”, and the other “removal”, he uses a word which simply means “a change of dwelling”.
The group begins with the repetition of the fact they were taken into captivity. Just as David is mentioned in both the first and second sections to emphasize God’s ongoing commitment to maintain his house, the two-fold mention of captivity stresses that man’s sinfulness was obstructing God’s purpose. Can God remedy the situation and bring in His king? The answer is seen in the preservation of the line of kings until Christ, even though they had not the right or the opportunity to sit on the throne of Israel.
It is interesting and solemn to notice that Matthew mentions Babylon twice, but Jerusalem, “the city of the great King”, Matthew 5:35, not at all. And this is how it is in this gospel, for despite being the Gospel of the King, Matthew only describes Him as going to Jerusalem, the city of the great King, (apart from when the Devil took Him to the pinnacle of the temple during the Temptation), when He went there to die. Yet Matthew mentions Babylon twice! How appropriate this will be for the future, when Babylon rises again, and the King of Babylon, the Antichrist himself, is dominant and demanding worship. Matthew is associating Babylon with idolatry and captivity as a warning to the nation of the future not to make the same mistake as their ancestors.
Third grouping: “The carrying away into Babylon unto Christ”.
1:12
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel- the account in 1 Chronicles 3:17-19 tells us that Salathiel and Pedaiah, with others, were sons of Jeconiah, and that Zerubbabel was the son of the latter, whereas here in Matthew we are told he was the son of the former. They are both right. There was a law in Israel called the Law of Levirate, (nothing to do with Levi). It reads as follows:
“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” Deuteronomy 25:5-10.
So it is perfectly possible that, as far as the chronicler is concerned, Salathiel was the husband of Zorobabel’s mother. (He very pointedly says of Jeconiah, “Salathiel his son”, as if to underline the fact that he did not disown him for any reason). However, if, especially given the turbulent times in which he lived, Salathiel did not survive to father a child, (no other sons of Salathiel are listed), then it was the responsibility of one of his brothers to marry his widow and raise up a son, “that his name be not put out of Israel”. So it is that Pedaiah may have performed the duty of levirate, and was biologically the father of Zorobabel, but raised up seed to Shealtiel his brother. By this means not only is his name “not put out of Israel”, but it is not put out of the genealogy of the Messiah either. Pedaiah no doubt saw the importance of raising up seed to his brother, for he was in the line of the Messiah. He was rewarded by himself being, in a sense, in the line of the Messiah also.
The latter half of the quotation from Deuteronomy 25 given above is illustrated by the kinsman who was nearer of kin to Elimelech than Boaz was, but who refused to raise up seed to his kinsman. As a result, we are not told his name, for it has been “put out of Israel”.
1:13
And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
1:14
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
1:15
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel- Matthew has made it clear by the arrangement of the names he gives, (and he will reinforce it in verse 17), that he is grouping the ancestors of Christ in fourteens. His first group of fourteen was given without any omissions, being the well-known line of the patriarchs. The second group is of fourteen also, but names have been omitted, as we have seen and tried to explain. These omissions are obvious because of the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 3. But now we come to ancestors of Christ from the beginning of the Captivity onwards, including the years when heaven was silent, and no prophet was raised up of God.
We know that Zerubabel was born during the Captivity, not only because his name means “Seed of Babel”, (in other words, he was conceived when Judah was in Babel, or Babylon), but also because we are told so by Matthew in verse 12. He was the leader, with Joshua the high priest, of the company that returned from exile, Ezra 2:1,2. So he was born after 605 BC, yet was old enough to be the leader of the nation in 535 BC, seventy years later. In addition, Matthew tells us that that his father was born in captivity also, verse 12. This suggests that Zerubbabel was born around thirty years after the carrying away, say 575 BC, making him aged forty at the Return from Babylon. The close of the Old Testament record is in 405 BC with Nehemiah’s reforms, so it is very likely that he it was who completed the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3 up to that point.
So we have a period of 170 years from the suggested date of Zerubbabel’s birth until the end of recorded Old Testament history. During that time the writer of the Book of Chronicles tells us there were six generations, ending with the sons of Elionai, with Hodaiah being mentioned first. This is a reasonable scenario, for it means that if Hodaiah is born just before the end of the period, on average each generation is twenty-eight or so years.
But Matthew says “Zorobabel begat Abiud”, and not, as in Chronicles, “the sons of Zerubbabel…Hananiah”. We may suppose, therefore, that Matthew has made his omissions between Zerubbabel and Hodaiah, so that the missing persons may be known from the book of Chronicles, but he can have his fourteen names for the last section. So we may wonder whether Abiud is in fact the same person as Hodaiah. Abiud is a name made up of two Hebrew words, meaning “father of honour”. Hodaiah is also made up of two words, giving the meaning “honourer of Jah”. So the meanings of the names are similar, both containing the idea of honour.
The generations from Abiud to Jacob are not in the Old Testament, the persons concerned having lived between the time of Nehemiah and Christ. They are a sign that God kept faith with His promise to David, even through the dark years of the inter-testamental period, when He was silent.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ- whereas the other sons in this list are begotten of their fathers, we now arrive at the unique exception. For the words “was born” do not simply refer to the actual birth of Christ, but His being begotten. And the word “begat” which has been used over forty times in the passage in the active mood, is now used again, but this time in the passive. He is begotten, but by Mary, so He is the Seed of the Woman, promised in Eden.
David makes Christ’s kingship possible, Jechonias makes Christ’s kingship impossible. The marriage of Joseph to Mary before Christ’s birth removes the difficulty. Hence the importance of including Mary in the generations, for the word begat, (in the passive), is used of her. If the sequence had been Joseph…Christ, then a misunderstanding might arise. Joseph needs to be in the genealogy to make Christ legally the Seed of David, (as Joseph was physically, verse 20), Mary needs to be in the genealogy to avoid the curse of Jechonias. The other women in the list are not said to have begotten sons, simply that the fathers begat through them. Christ is thus uniquely the “seed of the woman”.
Luke emphasizes the moral claim to the throne, as one who had not failed as the rest of David’s house had, 2 Samuel 23:3-5, for He is sinless. So it is appropriate that he should place the genealogy of Christ after He had lived in Nazareth for many years, and just before He resisted the temptations of the Devil in the wilderness.
1:17
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations- Hebrew letters have numerical value, and the letters of the name David amount to fourteen. So perhaps this is why Matthew is dividing the genealogy into three groups of fourteen. The name David means “beloved”, and thus the fact that he was beloved of God, (God calls him “a man after mine own heart”, Acts 13:22), is stamped upon the lists. But it also true that God’s Beloved Son is the culmination of the lists. So when the word came at His baptism, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”, that was not only a comment on His life, for He had pleased His Father well whilst living in Nazareth, but it was a comment on His person, for He was the Beloved, the one whose coming into the world represented the climax of the genealogy that had “beloved” stamped on it.
The expression “all the generations” means “all the generations the Holy Spirit guided Matthew to include”, rather than all the generations as a matter of fact. By the omission of certain kings, God indicated that He disapproved of them, and this was enshrined in the Scriptures. This being the case, the genealogy is not simply a transcript from the Temple records, as is also seen from the fact that the names of women are included, that Phares’ twin brother Zara is mentioned, as are Judah and Jechonias’ brethren, and the carrying away into Babylon; these things would not be found in a normal genealogy. But Matthew knew that most of the list were in the Book of Chronicles anyway. This is why he is happy to omit certain kings, for everyone knew they were there, and their omission highlighted their failure. So the missing persons do not give support to the idea that there might be gaps in the generations given in the early chapters of Genesis, (a ploy used by those who wish to make the earth older than it is). The most likely place for omissions is in Genesis 5, but Jude tells us that Enoch was the seventh from Adam, so confirming there are no missing names, Jude 14.
And from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations- so Matthew includes David in this section, to show that even though they were carried into Babylon at the end of the fourteen, the fact that David was at the head of the list justified God persisting with the nation, even after it had gone into captivity.
(b)Â Â Verses 18-21
Christ’s birth in relation to humanity
Luke’s account gives us details prior to the ones set out by Matthew, so let us look at his narrative first:
Luke 1:26
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
And in the sixth month- that is, of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. Luke, being a doctor, is very interested in these details, and they show the thoroughness with which he had researched his subject, as he himself indicated in 1:4. They also show his gospel as one relating to the conditions of men.
Elizabeth had hidden herself for the first five months, verse 24, and now Gabriel comes to Mary. After long years of silence from heaven, God is beginning to speak again. But soon angels will recede and first “the voice”, John the Baptist, John 1:22,23, will speak, and then the Word Himself.
The angel Gabriel was sent from God- this angel had been sent to Daniel to tell him of the way events would unfold concerning his people, and in particular about “Messiah the Prince”, Daniel 9:25. Note that the word is directly from God by means of an angel, thus signalling that heaven was making movements to fulfil God’s purpose on earth. The incarnation of the Son of God was of great interest to the angel-hosts, so the apostle Paul declares that part of the mystery of God being manifest in flesh was that He was “seen of angels”, 1 Timothy 3:16. The seraphim veil their faces in heaven, Isaiah 6:2.
Unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth- this village is not mentioned in the Old Testament. It is situated in the foothills of Galilee. It was a garrison town for the Roman army, with all that implies in terms of vice and uncouth behaviour. So much so that it had become a proverb- “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth” John 1:46. Yet in this unholy place a maiden and her husband-to-be were living their separate lives in purity and righteousness.
They give to us a fine example of separation from sin, whilst living in the world of sin. The Lord Jesus prayed about His people to His Father, not that they should be “taken out of the world”, but that they should be “kept from the evil” that is in it, John 17:15. This is possible because, although “in the world” physically, verse 11, because we have been born naturally, we are “not of the world” (morally), verse 16, because we have been born of God.
Matthew records that when, subsequent to the birth of the child, Joseph and Mary went to live again in Nazareth, after having lived for a while in Bethlehem, the prophet’s word was fulfilled which said, “He shall be called a Nazarene”, Matthew 2:23. It is not readily apparent where that quotation comes from, but Matthew is careful to say, “spoken”, and not “written”, and “in the prophets”, not “by the prophets”. So the most likely explanation is that this idea of Him being a Nazarene is connected with the fact that the Messiah was to be despised and rejected of men, (part of the sufferings that all the prophets spoke of, 1 Peter 1:11), and this was suggested to Matthew by His move to Nazareth, a notorious, despised place. There may also be a connection with the word “netzer”, meaning “branch”, one of the titles of the Messiah, Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12.
Luke 1:27
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
To a virgin- if she had been anything other than pure in mind and body, she would not have been fit to be the mother of the Lord. “Be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord”, exclaimed the prophet, Isaiah 52:11. If those who carried the vessels of the tabernacle were to be clean, how much more is this necessary for one who bears that One the vessels speak of! As she grew up in Israel, she, as a godly believer in the Old Testament prophecies, (as may be learned from her intelligent use of the Old Testament in her song, Luke 1:46-55), would wonder if she was to be the mother of the Messiah, especially as she was of the line of David. She would know the word to Ahaz, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”, Isaiah 7:14.
Espoused to a man whose name was Joseph- in Jewish practice, to be espoused or betrothed was to be considered a man’s wife-in-waiting. In fact, if a betrothed husband died before the wedding day, his wife-to-be was reckoned a widow. So much so that Mary is called Joseph’s wife before they were married, Matthew 1:20, and he was called her husband, verse 19. This is why Joseph thought he needed to divorce her, rather than simply break off the friendship. As a son of David he would be concerned about the royal line. If an espoused husband was prepared to marry his espoused wife despite the fact that the child she carried was not his, then that child was reckoned to be his son in Jewish law. The question in Joseph’s mind is whether the child was of the royal line. If there was uncertainty about this, then he would refuse to marry Mary. The reason being that, as Scripture says, he was a just man, Matthew 1:19, and therefore would be scrupulous in regard to the honour of the Messiah, and the demands of God in the law.
Of the house of David- the birth narrative is viewed from the point of view of Joseph in Matthew’s gospel, there being emphasis on Christ’s legal claim to the throne through Joseph in that gospel. There are three sons of David in Matthew 1: Solomon, the direct son; Joseph the descendant son, and Christ the designated Son. Luke emphasises the moral claim to the throne, as one who had not failed as the rest of David’s house had, 2 Samuel 23:3-5. Joseph was a son or descendant of David, but because of the bar placed on anyone descended through Jeconias occupying the throne of David, he himself had no right to the throne, see Jeremiah 22:28-30; Matthew 1:11,12.
And the virgin’s name was Mary- this is the same name as Miriam, Moses’ sister, and it means bitter. It is also the same as Naomi’s other name, Mara, also meaning bitter. Naomi’s testimony was “Call me not Naomi, (“pleasantness”), but call me Mara, for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me”, Ruth 1:20. Both Miriam and Naomi had bitter experiences because of their own folly, whereas Mary had bitter experiences as one who was subject to the will of God. This reminds us that despite the joy of being the mother of the Messiah, there was great affliction ahead of her, as she watched the sufferings of her Son. As Simeon would say, “A sword shall pierce through thine own soul also”, Luke 2:35, a reference, no doubt, to the fact that she was present for some of the time at the crucifixion. Needless to say, her sufferings are not vicarious, for only a sinless person can suffer for others, and she was not sinless, even though blameless before men.
Luke 1:28
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
And the angel came in unto her- she does not seem to have been frightened by the angel, although she was troubled about what he had to say. The angel came in, so the interview was conducted in the privacy of her home, as was appropriate given the nature of the matters dealt with. Clearly the angel knew where she was at the time, reminding us of the unobtrusive ministry of the angels towards the heirs of salvation, Hebrews 1:14. Yet the angel was to have no role in the incarnation, even though angels encamp round those that fear God, Psalm 34:7. It was to be the Spirit of God Himself who would protect her.
And said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured- the word hail means to rejoice, and would quieten Mary’s spirit, for she now knows that the message to be brought to her will cause her to rejoice and not fear, although she did fear somewhat when she heard it. The words highly favoured were used of Daniel when he was addressed by this same angel Gabriel, Daniel 9:23. This shows that while it is not something unique, it is something special. The expression, in fact, is used of all believers in Ephesians 1:6, where it is rendered “accepted”. It was indeed a great favour to be the mother of the Lord Jesus; with this favour comes the idea of grace, to enable to task to be accomplished. Notice that it is Mary who has received grace and favour, she does not bestow grace and favour on others.
The Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women- the one who would be born of her was to be named Emmanuel, God with us, and this in a special and unique way. As it is, the angel refers to the fact that the Lord is with Mary in every sense of the words, for He is on her side, at her side, and the special object of His attention. She is not blessed above women, in the sense that she is to be worshipped as if higher than mortals. Those who elevate Mary thus are clearly ignorant of the Scriptures, and tools of the Devil, as he seeks to divert praise away from Christ, who alone is worthy, Revelation 5:2,9.
Luke 1:29
And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying- she was not troubled by his arrival, even though presumably she had not had an angel visitant before. But she was in communion with God, so was comfortable in the presence of one sent from Him. She is troubled at his saying, however, for it was an unusual greeting, (and she may have connected it with the salutation to Daniel), and seemed to signify that something great was about to be announced to her, and she was no doubt fearful as to whether she was adequate for the task ahead.
And cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be- what was the angel about to announce? Could it possibly be about “Messiah the Prince”? By the words of her song later on, Mary demonstrates an intimate knowledge and love for Old Testament Scripture, and she is no doubt ranging over the possibilities in her mind. Foremost among them would surely be the coming of the Messiah- to be His mother was every Jewish maiden’s dream. Couple this with the fact that the period of time between the commandment to restore Jerusalem under Cyrus, (see Isaiah 44:26), and the cutting off of Messiah, was fast running out, Daniel 9:25.
Luke 1:30
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God- the angel assures her that those who find favour with God have no need to fear about the task He gives them to do. During her life Mary must have held on to this assurance when circumstances were grim. She was accustomed to ponder things in her heart, being a thoughtful girl, Luke 2:19; 2;51. It was indeed a great favour to be the mother of the Lord, yet we should remember that the apostle travailed in birth also, so that in the hearts of the believers in Galatia, Christ might be formed, Galatians 4:19. So whilst Mary is unique in one sense, in another all who seek to build Christ-like features into their fellow-believers travail also.
Luke 1:31
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name JESUS.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb- well might the angel say “Behold”, for this was a matter of great significance, and worthy of the closest attention. Notice that the child to be born is the real child of Mary. She is no mere carrier, as if He has no link with her. There was a heresy in earlier times, (and sadly there are still some today who promote it), which suggested that Christ was not in any way connected to Mary. That, in effect, she was simply the protective covering for the child in her womb. Those who put forward this error did so with the idea of maintaining the holiness of Christ, thinking that if He was linked to Mary too closely, He would become contaminated. But this, at heart, is the false doctrine known as Dualism, (and was taught by the Gnostics, false teachers the apostles warned the believers about), which teaches that matter is evil. This is not the case, for matter is neutral morally; it can be used for good, or for evil. The evil rests with the one who uses it in the latter way. So Christ was the real child of Mary, yet received no contamination through being physically connected with her. After all, subsequent to His birth, He was nourished by her- did this contaminate Him? Of course not. Then why should being nourished by her before birth do so? This error is a subtle way of denying the true humanity of Christ. If there was a possibility of contagion touching Him by birth in this way, He could have been produced without a mother as both Adam and Eve were.
The truth is, His real birth is vitally important, for He needs to experience every feeling that we have, sin apart. The words of Hebrews 2:14 are conclusive in this connection, “He also Himself likewise took part of the same”. So He (the Lord Jesus), also (as well as the children taking flesh and blood), likewise (in the same way as they do, as far as that is possible given who He is), took part (as one coming from outside of humanity), of the same (that is, the same flesh and blood as the children have).
The apostle Paul has been accused of not believing in the Virgin Birth. It is strange that Luke, the writer of the gospel we are considering, should have fellowship with such a person if he denied “the things most surely believed among us” that he writes about in his gospel, Luke 1:1. But fellowship with Paul he did have often, as we know from the “we” passages in the Acts, (the “we” meaning Paul, Luke, and others). The fact is that the apostle did refer to the virgin birth, although not in the same terms as Luke and Matthew. There was no need to repeat what they had already written. But there was need to emphasise the implications of His birth, however. So in Galatians 4:4 Paul writes, “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”. In 1 Timothy 3:16, “God was manifest in flesh”. In 1 Timothy 2:5, “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”; in Romans 8:3, “God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin”. These all imply the virgin birth, but instead of merely repeating the fact, they add doctrine to the fact. The apostle Paul also believed and taught that Jesus Christ was the Son of David, Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:8.
Luke 1:32
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David:
He shall be great- Mary is now told certain things about the child she will bring forth. And the first consideration is His greatness. Messiah’s greatness was thought of by many in Israel in terms of the defeat of Israel’s enemies, and the setting up of a glorious kingdom. That kingdom, however, will only be brought in when the nation as a whole receives Him as Messiah in the right way. That right way being with repentance and faith. He will not rule over a nation that is unbelieving. So when Christ came there was a genuine offer of the kingdom to Israel, with Him as their King. Sadly, however, they knew not the time of their visitation, Luke 19:44, and instead of giving Him a throne, they gave Him a cross. Instead of a crown of glory, a crown of thorns. Instead of a sceptre, a reed. Instead of the holy anointing oil, their vile spittle ran down His face. And all this because they did not understand that He had come primarily to save His people from their sins at Calvary, and only afterwards would He enter into His glory, Luke 24:26.
Even John the Baptist failed to grasp the true mission of Christ. When he was in prison because of his faithful rebuke of Herod’s immorality, he sent to the Lord and asked, “Art thou he that should come, or look we for another”, Luke 7:19. After all, had not the Lord gone into the synagogue at Nazareth and claimed that He was the Messiah who would “preach deliverance to the captives”, and “set at liberty them that were bruised”, Luke 4:18. How is it that he, the herald of the King, is left in prison? John failed to grasp the significance of the fact that the Lord Jesus has stopped reading the scroll at a significant point. He closed the scroll without finishing a sentence! For Isaiah 61:2, from which He was reading, went on to say, “and the day of vengeance of our God”. The day for vengeance upon Herod and those like him had not come, and this fact is clearly signalled by the Lord’s act of stopping the reading. So the day of setting literal prisoners free had not come either.
So the greatness the angel speaks of is moral greatness, and this fits in perfectly with Luke’s theme, and prepares the way for the other features of this king, as we shall see when we consider the statement about the throne of David.
And shall be called the Son of the Highest- the title “Most High God” is found in the Old Testament in connection with His supreme control over the affairs of men, and especially when the prophets speak of a coming day when Christ reigns as the representative of God on the earth. God made David His firstborn son figuratively, for the firstborn son administered everything for the father, and David was entrusted with the duty of being king over Israel. The words of Psalm 2:7 were, “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee”, meaning that David, upon his accession to the throne of Israel, was to administer for God. This charge was also extended to Solomon, in the words spoken to David about him, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son”, 2 Samuel 7:14. After all, God had called the nation His firstborn son, in Exodus 4:22. As king over such a people, it was appropriate that David and Solomon should be given the same title. Both these “sons”, however, failed in some way, and their successors who followed them on the throne were no better. David admitted this when he wrote, “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God…although my house be not so with God”, 2 Samuel 23:3,5.
Yet David held fast to the promises God had made to him, that despite the failure of his descendants, the promise of the throne would not be withdrawn. Speaking of this, God said about David, “Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgements; If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah”, Psalm 89:27-37.
Now the words spoken to David and Solomon about being God’s sons figuratively, are applied by the writer to the Hebrews to the Lord Jesus, who is God’s Son actually, see Hebrews 1:5. And this at the point in the chapter where He is described as being brought into the world by God at His second coming, to reign. So the promise that a descendant of David’s would sit on his throne still stands. As does also the promise that his kingdom would endure for ever. But what also stands is God’s threat that if his sons failed and did iniquity, they would be punished. This had come to pass, for the kingdom had been taken from Judah, and the Times of the Gentiles had begun with the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
So who is competent to administer for God? Only the one who is genuinely the Son of the Highest, whose abilities reach to the heights of Divine expectation.
And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David- note that the throne is given to Him. He does not simply inherit it by virtue of descent from David. The throne had lapsed at the captivity, and a curse had been pronounced upon any who were of the line of Jeconias. Jeremiah was told to announce this in the most solemn terms:
“O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.
This saith the Lord,
Write ye this man childless,
a man that shall not prosper in his days:
For no man of his seed shall prosper,
sitting upon the throne of David,
and ruling any more in Judah.”
Jeremiah 22:29,30.
So none of the descendants of Conias, as Jeconias was otherwise known, were to sit on David’s throne. Yet Joseph is son of David through Jeconias, as Matthew 1:11 shows, so he could not have claimed the throne. How is the difficulty to be overcome? Only by Mary, (who is of the line of David, but not through Jeconias), being the mother of the child, and Joseph becoming his legal father. So He is not the seed of Joseph, and therefore not the seed of Jeconias. The ban does not apply to Him. In this way David is His father, but He is not descended from Jeconias.
In John 6:14,15 the people wanted to make Christ king, after He had fed the multitude. He departed from them into a mountain to pray. He would not be given the throne by the people. But one day He will be given the throne by God, for Daniel saw the Son of Man brought near to the throne of God, and “there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed”, Daniel 7:14.
Luke 1:33
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever- is this poetic licence, or strict truth? The latter, for the Lord Jesus shall indeed reign for ever. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream which depicted types of successive Gentile rule under the form of the different metals that made up an image of a man. There came a stone out of heaven, however, which destroyed the image, and then expanded into a kingdom that filled the whole earth, and which lasted for ever, Daniel 2:44. This represents the kingdoms of this world being swept away by Christ at His coming to earth, and the setting up of His kingdom for a thousand years. After this He shall deliver up that kingdom to God, 1 Corinthians 15:28, and then the Godhead shall be all in all, and shall rule eternally.
Notice that He will reign over the House of Jacob. The angel is using the name that reminds us of Jacob who, in many respects, was a failure. As he himself admitted before Pharaoh, “few and evil have the days of the years of my life been”, Genesis 47:9. Yet it is the House of Jacob that Christ shall rule over, for He shall transform their failure into success. At His return to earth, it is said with reference to the Lord Jesus, “There shall come out of Sion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant with them, when I shall take away their sins”, Romans 11:26,27. So shall come to pass the promise given by God through Isaiah in these terms, “For I the Lord thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee. Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee saith the Lord, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel”, Isaiah 41:13,14.
There is also a connection with the fact that the nation that came from Jacob, the nation that was named after him as a changed man, Israel, (see Genesis 32:24-28), became divided on the death of Solomon, and the two parts were called Israel and Judah. Now those divisions are going to be healed, and Christ shall reign over a united nation. If the angel had said “reign over the house of Israel”, then we might have wondered if he was using the word in the sense the later prophets used it. For they described the ten-tribe division of the nation as Israel. Since He is to reign over Jacob, then all misunderstanding is removed.
And of his kingdom there shall be no end- how can this happen? Only if He is risen from the dead. Only as a resurrected man can He sit on David’s throne. This is a point made by the apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost. He showed that David knew that God had sworn on oath to him that one of his physical descendants would be raised up to sit on his throne, Acts 2:29-31. But if this one was to be physically descended from David, then He would be able to die. How could He then reign for ever, as other scriptures said He would? This is where David’s role as a prophet comes in, for in Psalm 16, (quoted by Peter in Acts 2), he prophesied that the Messiah would rise quickly from the dead. Only by sitting on the throne of David as a resurrected man, clear of death, can He reign for ever. So He has sole right to David’s throne by birth and by resurrection.
Luke 1:34
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Mary is not aware at this point of the way God is going to act. She is thinking in terms of normal human generation. She knows of only three ways in which a human being has ever come into the world, by creation, as Adam; by formation, as Eve; by generation, as all others. She is to learn that her child will come in through incarnation. She has no relations with Joseph, apart from being legally betrothed to him. The question does remain, however, why she did not immediately assume that the child would be born to them. Why does she not ask if she should marry Joseph? It is clear that she is feeling her way with the question, and not rushing to conclusions. She would have known of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 about a virgin who would conceive and bear a son, who would be called Emmanuel. Yet the angel has not referred to this, and has directed that the child’s name should be Jesus, not Emmanuel.
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee- the angel answers her query by revealing that the child shall be produced by the enabling of the Holy Spirit. As was said to Joseph later on, “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”.
When persons in the Old Testament were entrusted with some great task by God, He ensured that they could accomplish it by giving to them the Holy Spirit. In those days and times this was not a gift given permanently. David was given the Spirit of God to enable him to be a good king.. When he failed in the matter of Bathsheba, he pleaded with God not to take His Holy Spirit away from him, Psalm 51:11. If this had happened, he would no longer have been able to function as king. Things are different in this age, however, for the Holy Spirit indwells each believer for ever, John 14:16. Mary is assured of Divine power to strengthen her in every way for this great task, as men of old time were strengthened to serve God.
And the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee- so she will be protected by the overshadowing power of God Himself. She is not entrusted to the care of angels, but God Himself will preserve her. This is especially needed, since the penalty in most cases for fornication under the law was stoning. God will prevent men taking the law into their own hands. He will ensure her child is born without mishap. We must not forget that the child Mary will bear is the Seed of the Woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15, and against this Seed the enmity of the serpent and his seed will be directed. Many times Satan had sought to destroy the Seed Royal, but had failed. He knows he has but a short time to achieve this, but God will ensure he fails again.
Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God- the “also” indicates that this is an additional reason to the one Mary has already been given in verse 32. There the reason was that He would be Son of the Highest because God would recognise Him as His Firstborn, fit to reign. Here, it is because He is born as a result of the action of the Spirit of God. When Luke gives the genealogy of the Lord Jesus, he traces the line right back to Adam, and describes him as a son of God. In other words, Adam was a man because God had created him. So here, the child is to be called Son of God not only because He is equal with the Father as to His Deity, but also because He has been given a body by God’s intervention, as to His manhood. As He Himself said, “But a body hast thou prepared me”, Hebrews 10:5. So there are three ways in which the Lord Jesus is the Son of God:
As Only begotten Son, He is eternally in relation to God as to Divine affection, John 1:18.
As Firstborn Son, He is eternally in relationship to God as to Divine administration, Colossians 1:15.
As Son of God born, He is in relationship with God as to Divine intervention, Luke 1:35.
So by the manner of His birth, the Lord Jesus retains His relationship with His Father, so that it is still appropriate to call Him Son of God after He has taken flesh. He who is in the form of God has taken upon Him the form of a servant, and thus He has added manhood to Deity.
In the Old Testament, the holy things were the various parts of the tabernacle, so we read that the Levites served God “about the most holy things”, Numbers 4:4. The term was also used of the sacrifices, Numbers 18:19. Now these two categories of holy things symbolize the person of Christ, (for He dwelt or tabernacled among us, John 1:14), and His work, (for He said “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me”, Hebrews 10:8, and that body became a sacrifice, verse 10). So Mary is learning that she is the one through whom the essentially holy thing shall come into the world.
Luke 1:36
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren- this shows that Mary did not know that her aged kinswoman was expecting a child, (for Elizabeth had hid herself, verse 24). John the Baptist and Christ are conceived six months apart, in different places, and without the knowledge of it by the other mother. Couple with this the fact that Mary left Elizabeth just before John was born, so there was no confusion about the children. Up until recent times it was the requirement in English law that the Home Secretary should be present at the birth of the child of the sovereign, to ensure that there was no mistake as to who was presented to the world as child of the monarch. So it was that Mary went to Elizabeth after her child was conceived, verse 39, (by which time Elizabeth can greet her as “the mother of my Lord”, verse 43), and left her before Elizabeth’s child was born, verse 56,57. It was important that Mary should leave before John was born, even though Elizabeth, as an old woman having her first child, would have been greatly helped by her presence and assistance. There were considerations over-riding that need, however, for the identity of Mary’s child must not be in doubt in any way.
Luke 1:37
For with God nothing shall be impossible.
For with God nothing shall be impossible- this is encouragement to Mary, who was no doubt baffled as to how this great thing will happen. The birth of a child to Elizabeth prepares her for the greater work of a child being born of her, who knows not a man. This is an encouragement to all believers, as they remember that everything that is in harmony with the divine character and nature is possible with God. Of course there are some things that God cannot do; lie, for instance, Titus 1:2.
Luke 1:38
And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word- the simple, believing, humble reply of Mary is a lesson to all who believe. She accepts the great and privileged task given to her, and does so with humility, as the handmaid of the Lord, happy to serve in this way even though it will mean misunderstanding and censure from the world. The Lord Jesus “took upon him the form of a servant” when He became a man, Philippians 2:7. How appropriate that she who is the means, under God, whereby this came to pass, should describe herself as a servant. There are those who believe that this is the moment of Christ’s conception, as Mary willingly resigns herself to the will of God. Her faith is in stark contrast to the unbelief of Zacharias when he was told a lesser thing than birth of a child to a virgin would happen, Luke 1:18-20. He represents the old system of things, whereas Mary, young and beleiving, represents a fresh start with God’s dealings with men.
And the angel departed from her- this ensured that no-one could suggest that there was any angelic involvement in the incarnation, apart from the announcement of the event. The work is entirely of God, as befits the Person who is coming into manhood.
We return to Matthew 1:
1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise- having spoken of the begetting of the kings of Israel, which was perfectly normal, Matthew is now going to record the begetting that was supernatural. The other kings were born one way, after being begotten of their fathers, but this king is born on another wise, namely, begotten of the Holy Spirit. He is true man, (for His development and birth is after the normal manner), but sinless man, (for His conception is not after the normal manner). The preservation of the sinlessness of Christ does not depend on Mary, (who confessed God as her Saviour); nor is it compromised by the women in His pedigree who were immoral. Rather, it is preserved by the fact that His conception was by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together- the expression “when as” means that the previous phrase is being explained. Matthew is summarising the position at the point where Luke left off, with Mary returning from her three month’s stay in Elizabeth’s house in Judea. She is espoused to Joseph, but they have not “come together” as a result of a formal marriage ceremony.
She was found with child of the Holy Ghost- Matthew is careful to add how it is that Mary is with child, even though at this point in the account Joseph does not know that this is how it came about. As far as Joseph is concerned, she is with child, and discovered to be so, for the fact has become obvious. “Come together” should not be confused with “knew her”.
Luke tells us he had “perfect understanding of all things from the very first”, Luke 1:3, and this includes the beginning of the life of Christ in the womb. The angel had announced to Mary that she would have a child, and Mary had said, “Be it unto me according to thy word”, thus surrendering herself to the will of God. At that point the angel departs, so has nothing to do with the conception, for it is the Holy Spirit who will come upon Mary. She then leaves Nazareth, (and Joseph), and goes into the hill-country of Judea, to see her cousin Elizabeth, who is also expecting a child. Mary is greeted by Elizabeth as a mother, so we now know that Zecharias is not the father of Mary’s child. She leaves Elizabeth before John is born, so we also know that Mary’s child is not John. She returns to Nazareth and only then does Joseph learn of her condition, so she is not expecting Joseph’s child. The identity and pedigree of the Child is safeguarded all the way through, for it is vital that there be no doubt as to who He is.
With this we may compare the way Christ’s body was the subject of close attention after He died, with each stage from the taking down of His body to the laying in the tomb carefully documented, so that we may be sure it was the person who died on the cross that came forth from the tomb.
Joseph was not physically responsible for the unborn child or he would not have thought of divorcing Mary. He becomes legally responsible for the born child because he married Mary before the birth.
Special note on the virgin birth of Christ
The truth that the Lord Jesus was born of a virgin is foundational to the Christian faith. A local church is required by God to be the “pillar and ground of the truth”, 1 Timothy 3:15. The fundamentals of the faith should therefore be regularly and systematically taught, to God’s glory. The fact that Christ came into manhood, is vitally important. As also is the fact that He was born of a virgin. They affect His honour, and that of His Father. On the one hand, the Son of God cannot unite with Himself anything that is evil. On the other hand, He needs to associate Himself with men in the closest way that is possible for Him. The only way for this to happen is for Him to be really born as a man, but be born of a virgin, thus ensuring that the sin-principle that is normally passed on by a father, is not present in Him. For “by one man sin entered into the world”, and the process was begun when Adam begat a son, and did so in his likeness as a sinner, Genesis 5:3; Romans 5:12.
We may ask three important questions about this matter:
Why must Christ become man?
1. To be able to die, Hebrews 2:14.
2. To be fully-qualified to sympathize, Hebrews 2:14-18.
3. To be approachable, but still showing His glory, John 1:14.
4. To be of the seed of David according to the flesh, Romans 1:3.
5. To vindicate God’s trust in man in relation to the earth, Hebrews 2:8,9.
6. To enable Him to link believers to Himself, 1 Corinthians 6:15.
7. Because man is lower than angels, and He willed to take the low place, Philippians 2:7,8.
Why must Christ be born of a virgin?
1. So that He does not inherit any taint of Adam’s sin, which is passed on through the male, Romans 5:12.
2. So that He is not prevented from occupying the throne of David in a coming day by the curse pronounced on Jeconiah, Jeremiah 22:22.
3. So that He may unite manhood with His Deity by the Divine Agency of the Spirit of God, and not through any intervention by man.
4. So that His birth may be a sign that God is starting a new mode of dealing with men.
5. So God may indicate that the “seed of the woman” has indeed come, for only Christ fits that description. His birth is unique to highlight the fact that He is God’s remedy for the sin that came into the world through Adam.
What was involved when He came into manhood?
1. He gained the attributes of man without losing the attributes of God, for He who is in the form of God took upon Himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men, Philippians 2:6,7. It was on earth, as a man, that the Lord Jesus said, “I and my Father are one”, John 10:30.
2. The attributes of God and the attributes of man are properly ascribed to that one person.
3. He united Godhood and manhood together in His body.
4. He now has two natures in one Person, so He does not do some things as God and other things as man.
We return now to Matthew’s account:
Matthew 1:19
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Then Joseph her husband- in Jewish law, as one espoused to Mary, he is her husband, and she is his wife. The law of Jewish espousal was so strong, that if a woman’s betrothed husband died, she was classed as a widow.
Being a just man- we are told three things by Matthew about the character of Joseph, and this is the first. As a just man, he would be careful to obey the commands of the law of God. This would involve him in questioning Mary as to the circumstances by which she was with child. His subsequent course of action will depend on her answer. If she was waylaid in the city, (that is, where others were nearby to hear a plea for help), then she and the man involved are to be stoned to death, Deuteronomy 22:23,24. If she was waylaid in the field, with no-one at hand to hear her cry out, then nothing is to be done to her, for the law mercifully supposes that she was not willing, but the man is to be stoned to death, Deuteronomy 22:25-27.
Mary, however, would have assured Joseph that neither of these situations was the case. However, there is a third consideration. Even if he accepts Mary’s account of things, how is Joseph to know that the child is of the royal line of David? Mary will be able to tell him that the angel said the child would be given the throne of His father David, Luke 1:32, but how is Joseph to know whether Mary mistook the angel’s words, or that she simply dreamt of being the mother of the Messiah, and has made up the story to account for the fact that she is expecting a child? After all, most of the maidens of the tribe of Judah were dreaming that as well.
And not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily- now as a just man, Joseph was jealous for the honour of the House of David, but he knew that in Jewish law, if he married Mary, her child would become his child legally. Is it safe to do this, and thus, as a son of David himself, incorporate into the royal line a child whose identity is not known? This is the dilemma that faces him. And this is why he contemplates divorcing Mary, even though he does not believe she is with child by fornication.
He has two options, either to bring her before the elders of the city as one who must be cross-examined, or put her away, (that is, divorce her), privily, or privately, as one whose account is believed. If, as a just man, he believed Mary should be questioned, then he would adopt the former policy. If he believed her account, he would take the latter course, but again as a just man. The justness of his action being in this latter case in regard to Mary, for it is only just to deal with her gently, given that he believes her account. So this is the second feature that marks Joseph, even his gentleness and kindness.
1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
But while he thought on these things- the third characteristic of Joseph is his careful consideration of matters. The scripture says, “He that believeth shall not make haste”, Isaiah 28:16.
Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream- Joseph had no doubt gone to sleep with these things on his mind, and now the answer comes to him in such a way that he is not in a position to dispute it. The angel Gabriel came to Mary, and they had a conversation, for her fears and sincere questions needed to be answered. Joseph, however, only needs to know the answer to a simple question, should he or should he not marry Mary? If not, he must divorce her, for they are betrothed to marry. He cannot simply break off the friendship, for they are legally obligated already. He does not simply hear a voice, but an angel of the Lord appears to him as well. There would be something about this appearance that would leave him in no doubt that it was a messenger from God.
Joseph, thou son of David- the angel knows his name and his ancestry. By being addressed like this, Joseph assured that the message has to do with the fact that he is of the royal line of David. The fact that he is a son of David is the matter that is on his mind, and now he is to be given the answer to his dilemma. Both Joseph, verse 20, and Christ, verse 1, are called “son of David”, as if to by-pass all others in between, and to show the connection with the one who alone is called a king in the passage.
Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife- this shows he had been inclined to marry Mary, for he believed her story, but had a lingering doubt about the identity of the child. It is not “fear to put away”, as if that was his inclination, but rather, “fear not to take”, for that was what, as a just man, he thought it right to do. Note that the angel recognizes that Mary is his wife, and also reinforces that truth upon Joseph’s mind by stating it.
For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost- thus the angel delicately confirms what Mary would have told him. Note that it is not simply that she conceived with the aid of the Holy Spirit, for no doubt that could have been said about Sarah. The child is directly “of” the Holy Spirit, with the preposition meaning “out of”, or “sourced in”. That is, the conception or begetting of the child is only by the action of the Holy Spirit upon Mary. The other women in the list given by Matthew are not said to have begotten sons, simply that the fathers begat through them. Christ is thus uniquely the promised “seed of the woman”, Genesis 3:15.
Notice that Joseph has not been told the child is “son of David”, and heir to David’s throne, for the simple reason that He is not that yet. Because the line of kings runs through the male side, even Mary being descended from David does not make Him heir to the throne. He will only be son of David in the legal sense when Joseph marries Mary.
1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS- “she” means “Mary as the one you will have married”; it is as a married woman that Mary will bring forth a son. In this way Joseph learns that he is to marry Mary before the child is born. This will ensure that he will be considered the legal father of the child, with all that is entailed in that, since he was a son of David. Yet, as we have seen, there was the insurmountable obstacle of the curse on those of Jechonias’ line. However, by being the legal son of Joseph, but not the biological son, the Lord Jesus avoids that obstacle, for He is not of Jechonias’ seed biologically, but He is his descendant legally, but only because Joseph was married to Mary when He was born.
So Joseph is assured that the child will be safely brought to the birth, (for the Holy Spirit had not only come upon Mary to effect the conception, but had overshadowed her to preserve her and her child), and will be a son, not a daughter. He is to reinforce that he is the legal father by naming the child himself. When the angel spoke to Mary, he told her she would name the child. So the child is named by Mary as the physical mother, and by Joseph as the legal father. They would be agreed as to the name, in contrast to Zecharias and Elizabeth, Luke 1:59-64.
Jesus is the equivalent to the Old Testament name Joshua, and means either “Jehovah is Saviour”, or “Jehovah the Saviour”. Of course, having an illustrious name did not guarantee in ordinary circumstances that the person named would live up to it. For instance, there were wicked kings of David’s line who had names like Jehoram, “Jah is high”; Ahaziah, “Jah possesses”; Jehoahaz, “Jah upholds”; Jehoiakin”, Jah sets up”, and Jeconiah, “Jah is establishing”. The last name being specially interesting, because God (Jah) dis-established him by sending him into captivity; so his name was the reverse of his character and history.
Joshua was originally named Oshea, (“salvation”), but when he was sent by Moses to spy out the promised land, his name was changed to Jehoshua, “salvation of Jehovah” or “Jehovah saves”, Numbers 13:16. So when he eventually took the people into the land as their leader, it was very clear that it was God who brought them in to a place of salvation and blessing, not Joshua.
For he shall save his people from their sins- the “He” is emphatic, meaning “He, and no other”. As Peter said to the rulers who crucified Him, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby ye must be saved”, Acts 4:12. It is true there would have been many called Jesus in His day, named after Joshua, the renowned soldier-statesman that succeeded Moses as leader of the nation, but only He has the power to save from sins. Joshua could save from the Amalekites, but not from sin.
So the name Jesus is no mere pious hope, but the expression of the character the person will display. The reason why none of those kings in the genealogy of the previous verses could save the people, (whom they would call “their people”, because they were king over them), from their sins, was because they were failures themselves in greater or lesser degree, and often caused the fall of the nation. This one is different, for His name implies that He has no sin of His own, and is therefore in a position to deal with the sins of His people.
Note that it is sins that He deals with. He is not presented here as one who will overturn the Roman oppression, and deliver the people and set up His kingdom. His conquest will be seen to be successful when men and women are delivered from the greatest oppression of all, namely their sins. God said to the people in Hosea’s day, “But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen”, Hosea 1:7. One of the things that stumbled many in Israel, and even John the Baptist, (Luke 7:19, and see the words of his father in Luke 1:71,74), was the fact that when He came amongst them, He did not call for a rising up against the Roman Emperor. He even chose as one of His apostles Simon the Canaanite. The word Canaanite indicates Simon belonged to the Zealots, the party that were dedicated to the overthrow the Roman rule. Christ called him away from working against the Roman authorities, just as He called Matthew away from working for the Roman Authorities.
If they had remembered Hosea’s words, they would have realised that it was as the Lord their God that He would save, and His Deity would give utmost value to the death He would die at Calvary. It is by this they must be saved. The Lord Jesus cannot rule over an unbelieving, uncleansed nation.
(c)Â Verses 22-25
Christ’s birth in relation to Deity.
1:22
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Now all this was done- that is, the sum total of all events surrounding the birth of Christ, whether it be the action of the Spirit of God, the willing submission of Mary, or the courage of Joseph in taking her to be his wife. All combined together, with God’s overruling, to bring about the birth of Christ in the appointed and foretold way.
That it might be fulfilled- there are three ways in which the fulfilment of prophecy is introduced in the New Testament, as follows:
1. Where the Greek word “ina” is used, as here, then it is “in order that it might be fulfilled”, and the event in question completely fulfils the prophecy.
2. Where the word “tole” is found, as in Matthew 2:17, then it is “was fulfilled”, and indicates that the event was merely a case in point, and what happened was an illustration of what was said in the prophecy, (in that instance, that there was tribulation for the mothers of the district. But there will be tribulation for all Israel in a day to come, so the fulfilment is only partial in Matthew 2:7).
3. Where the word “opus” is used, as is the case in Matthew 8:17, it is “so that it might be”, and the fulfilment is not complete, but an event which was within the scope and intention of the prophecy. (The healing of the sicknesses of the body becomes an indicator that the Lord Jesus will deal with the spiritual problem, sin itself, at Calvary).
Which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying- note that the words were recorded by Isaiah, and yet they were the words of the Lord. He chose to speak through the prophet. This reminds us of the unique character of the Holy Scriptures, for, although written by men, yet they are the very word of God to us. Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Spirit of God, 2 Peter 1:21, much as when a sailing ship is borne along on the water by the wind in its sails, but yet all the time the captain is in control. The prophecy in question was uttered over 700 years before the event, but the long period of time did not mean the promise had lapsed, for God is faithful.
1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Behold- something of the wonder of the event, and the surprise of it, is expressed in Isaiah’s words. And the wonder was still there centuries later when the thing promised came to pass. Of course, the greatest surprise was that a virgin should conceive.
A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son- this is impossible naturally, but as the angel said to Mary, “For with God nothing shall be impossible”, Luke 1:37. It is not that a maiden who was a virgin at the time of Isaiah’s prophecy would later on have a child. In that case she would no longer be a virgin. And in any case, the birth of a child to this virgin is spoken of as a sign, but a young woman having a baby is no sign. She must be a virgin and be with child at the same time to fit the requirements of this prediction.
When it comes to deciding what is involved here, our safest course is to be governed by what the Old Testament usage of words is. So when we turn to Genesis 24, we find reference to Rebekah, and we are told in verse 16 that, (a) she was a damsel, (naarah), (b) that she was a virgin, (bethulah), and (c) that she had not been known by man. Clearly, to be described as a “bethulah” was not enough, (especially as it is used in Joel 1:8 of a married woman), so the words “that had not known man” needed to be added to make the situation clear. Now when Rebekah was described in verse 43, the servant calls her “the virgin”, (alma). He is clearly summing up what verse 16 has said, as is shown by the use of the definite article. The servant is giving a summary of what had happened when he first met Rebekah, and therefore she is the definite person he has in mind. So an “alma”, as Mary was, is (a) a maiden; (b) of marriageable age; (c), is not married; and (d) has not had physical relations with a man.
And they shall call his name Emmanuel- notice that whilst it was Mary who was to name the child Jesus, as His true mother, and Joseph who was to name Him likewise, as the legal father, it is “they” who call Him Emmanuel. The “they” are clearly the people whom He will have saved from their sins. They gladly acknowledge that the One who died upon the cross for them, so that their sins might be forgiven, is none other than Emmanuel, God manifest in flesh. The person He is gives value to the work that He did. In the original prophecy, it is the virgin who will call His name Emmanuel, showing that she will recognise the Deity of her child.
Which being interpreted is, God with us- Matthew knows that Israelites will understand the meaning of the name Emmanuel, but he also knows that Gentiles are going to have the gospel preached to them, so for their benefit, since the identity of this person is so important, he translates the name for us. Whereas others have names that simply reflect the pious hopes of the parents, this Child really is who His name declares Him to be. So it is that God’s promise comes literally true, for He saves “by the Lord their God”, Hosea 1:7.
We would do well if we notice the context of this quotation, as found in Isaiah 7:
Isaiah 7:1
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.
Here Isaiah describes how the king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, (formed when ten tribes broke away from Judah and Benjamin), had made a coalition with Assyria against Ahaz, the wicked king of Judah.
Isaiah 7:2
And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
Although very wicked, Ahaz was the rightful king of the line of David, which is why, very significantly, he is addressed as the house of David, for he is the current figurehead of the Davidic line. Is this not also why he is included by Matthew in the genealogy, despite his wickedness? The heart of Ahaz and his people are understandably troubled. How will the king react in this situation?
Isaiah 7:3
Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field;
Isaiah the prophet of the Lord meets the king at the end of the conduit of the upper pool. This is a symbolic place, for Jerusalem was vulnerable because the water supply was outside the city. The king needs to trust God and not the devices of men, and He will protect him, and through him, the house of David. Isaiah takes a symbolic person with him, his son, whose name Shear-jashub, had been specially given to him to signify God’s pledge that even though the nation would go into captivity, a remnant would return.
Isaiah 7:4
And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.
Isaiah 7:5
Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,
The prophet tells Ahaz to take heed to the word of the Lord, and to not be disturbed by the threats of the enemy, for the plan of Ephraim and Syria will not be successful, as verses 7-9 explain. He is to act in faith and not fear.
Isaiah 7:6
Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:
We learn now that the plan of the coalition is to displace Ahaz, so that there is not a prince of Judah on the throne in Jerusalem. This represents an attack on the Royal Line of the Messiah, and explains why Ahaz is addressed as “house of David”, for its future rests in him, in one sense.
Isaiah 7:7
Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
Isaiah 7:8
For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
Isaiah 7:9
And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.
Isaiah discerns Ahaz does not believe that God will save him from his enemies, and he therefore warns him against unbelief, or else he will be deposed, for unbelief will mean God’s protection will be withdrawn.
Isaiah 7:10
Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
Isaiah 7:11
Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
The word “again” confirms that when the house of David was addressed it was in the person of Ahaz. If Ahaz believed what the prophet had said, and if the Lord was indeed the Lord his God, then he would be give a sign to confirm His word, to confirm His promise of safety, and to ensure the continuance of the royal line.. He could ask the sign to be an occurrence in the heavens, or below. Such was the generosity of God’s offer.
Isaiah 7:12
But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.
Ahaz pretends to be too spiritual to need a sign, protesting that it would mean putting the Lord to the test. But if the Lord volunteered to be put to the test, then Ahaz, if he was a believer, should have asked for a sign.
Isaiah 7:13
And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
By behaving as he did, the king was causing the nation to be anxious for their safety, and constant anxiety is wearying. Worse than this, however, Ahaz was testing the patience of God.
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Because Ahaz is not fit to receive a sign, it will be in the future, but will have present relevance. The sign is given to “you”, plural, so, Ahaz having rejected the offer of a sign personally, is given one that will apply to the nation in some way, for he will be long gone when it comes to pass. When Matthew quoted these words, he wrote “they shall call his name Emmanuel”, which may be an allusion to the fact that the sign is not given to Ahaz personally, but to the nation. Whilst the nation of Israel as a whole did not recognise Him as their God when He came the first time, when He comes again to them they will say, “Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: This is the Lord; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation”, Isaiah 25:9.
Isaiah 7:15
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
The eating of butter and honey in this context is a sign of hardship, as verses 21 and 22 indicate, with the words, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land”.
It might be thought that butter and honey are luxuries, (with echoes of “land of milk and honey”), but the point is that the population of the land is going to be decimated, and there will be a surplus for that reason, not because of productivity. The same goes for the thorns and briers of verse 23, for there will be no-one to keep the weeds under control.
The eating of milk and honey is said to be “that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good”. The eating of butter and honey in itself does not teach a child to refuse evil and choose good. But if we see eating butter and honey as a sign that God has intervened in judgement, then the Child will grow up with the evidence even in His home of the privation that being judged of God as a nation brings. He will realise that national unfaithfulness is an evil and will realise that national faithfulness is good. Brought up in harsh conditions in Nazareth, the effects of Roman occupation would be clearly seen by the child Jesus. This was the sure sign that the nation had chosen the evil of idolatry, and rejected the good of obedience.
Notice that the prophet does not say He will learn how to refuse what is evil, and learn how to choose the good, but that He will know to refuse the evil and choose the good; in other words, know the experience, rather than having to learn by trial and error what is evil or good. As one who has no sin-principle within Him, the Lord Jesus did not have within Him any tendency to sin. This is a similar idea to that in Hebrews 5:8 where we read, “though he were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things that He suffered”. He learned what it was to obey, (for He as God had always commanded), but He did not have to learn to obey, as if He had a rebellious spirit. We read of Christ in Nazareth that He “grew in wisdom”, so He was able to increasingly appreciate the implications of the situation in the nation. Nazareth was a Roman garrison town, and every day there would be reminders that the land was occupied by a foreign power.
Isaiah 7:16
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
If it be asked why there is a certain obscurity about this sign, then the answer is surely that Ahaz had refused a clear sign, so God, in judgement upon him, gives a sign which is clear to those who live when it comes to pass, but not clear to Ahaz. In this way it is comparable to the use of parables by the Lord Jesus, for to the disciples the explanation was given, to the unbelieving nation the words were obscure. See Matthew 13:10-17.
Because he was unbelieving, God kept Ahaz guessing as to when the sign would be fulfilled. He did not know that the child would not be born for seven hundred years. He would anxiously await news that a child had been born and been given the name Immanuel. Then he would count the number of years between the birth of the child and him attaining the age of discretion, for it was during that time that the Northern Kingdom of Israel would be forsaken of both her kings. But that was assuming the child would be born in his lifetime. In the event, He was not, and Ahaz died without having seen the fulfilment of the prophecy.
Ahaz reigned from 739-723 BC. Pekah the king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was deposed in 736 BC. Hoshea, placed as governor by Tiglath-Pileser the Assyrian, slew Pekah in 735 BC, and was himself carried away to Assyria in 719 BC. So both Pekah and Hoshea, successive rulers in Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom, forsook the land. Pekah by being deposed, Hoshea by being carried away captive. So when Ahaz died in 723 BC Hoshea was still in power, which meant the sign and prophecy were not fulfilled in his lifetime. After all, he had refused to ask for a sign, and so God gave the sign but made sure he did not see it realized.
The mention of both Syria, and House of David in this passage is significant. Could it be relevant to the fact that Joseph was called “son of David” by the angel, Matthew 1:20? He was representative of the House, and would provide continuity with Ahaz, but would not be the one through whom the Messiah would come. And is this why Luke mentions Quirinius being Governor of Syria, Luke 2:2? The fact he was governor for the Roman Caesar reinforces the idea that Syria has been forsaken of her king, as Isaiah 7 said would happen. So Joseph is testimony that the nation of Israel has no king, and Quirinius that Syria has none either.
We return now to Matthew’s narrative.
Matthew 1:24
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him- here is another feature that marked Joseph, even his ready obedience to the revealed will of God. He has patiently waited for light, and now, having received it, acts upon it. He will have to share with Mary the reactions of the men and women of Nazareth as word is passed round as to the situation. Yet he is prepared to bear this reproach, just as Moses was prepared to bear the reproach of Christ in Egypt, “for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward”, Hebrews 11:26. The features we have noticed about both Mary and Joseph give us insight into the sort of home in which the Lord Jesus was brought up.
And took unto him his wife- she who was his wife by betrothal, is now his wife by marriage. By marrying her before Christ is born, Joseph ensures that He is truly son of David, and can inherit the throne. In one sense, then, this is the most important marriage in the Bible.
1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son- to “know” in this setting, is to have physical relations. At every stage the integrity of the person of the unborn Christ is maintained. The tomb of the Lord Jesus was safeguarded, being sealed and watched over, so that it is certain that only Christ went in, and only Christ came out in resurrection. So when He was in the womb, every safeguard is in place so that we know without a doubt that Mary’s firstborn child is the one conceived of the Holy Spirit. That He is firstborn removes all doubt, for Mary had no child before who could be confused with Him. She presented Him in the temple as the Law required firstborn sons to be, Luke 2:23. The title firstborn would have no meaning if Mary did not have other children afterwards. That she did do so is shown by Matthew 13:55,56.
And he called his name JESUS- by that action Joseph formally took the Child Jesus as his own son legally, with all its implications since Joseph was of the royal line of David.