The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, 1-17
1:1 This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
The record of the genealogy – (Mt 1:1-17) This phrase is very similar to ‘book of the genealogy of Adam’, in Gn. 5:1. Another version of the genealogy of Jesus Christ is found in Lk 3:23-38.
Genealogy – Gk. genesis, which is ‘used chiefly in the LXX for toledot, and employed in the same sense in Mt 1:1 (see 1, above). In the other NT occurrences, however, it is used in the sense of ‘birth’ (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:14; Jas 1:23, ‘his natural face’, lit. ‘face of his birth’; Jas 3:6, ‘cycle of nature’, lit. ‘course of birth’).’ (NBD)
Morna Hooker comments on how deeply the Christian faith is rooted in the Old Testament:
‘At the very beginning of the Gospel According to Matthew, we read, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Immediately we are back in the Old Testament, for the very first thing that Matthew can think to tell us about our Lord is that he is of Hebrew descent. And so to know who Jesus Christ is, we must know something about the Hebrew David and Abraham…Or to put it another way, Christianity did not start with the events recorded in the New Testament. The roots of our Christian faith lie deep in the Old Testament.’
‘The purpose of the Evangelist seems to be, by the genealogy, to show that Jesus, though born of a virgin-mother, was nevertheless legally of Abraham’s seed and a son of the royal house of David.’ (NBD)
According to The Sceptic’s Annotated Bible, this is ‘a boring genealogy like that we are told to avoid in 1 Tim 1:4’. But it is not reasonable to suppose that a teacher like Paul, steeped as he was in the Jewish scriptures with their many genealogies, would reject genealogies per se. It is not absolutely clear what Paul meant ‘myths and endless genealogies, but we are given hints when he says that they lead to ‘meaningless talk’, 1 Tim 1:6; and ‘quarrels and strife’, 1 Tim 6:3-5.
Jesus Christ – The latter is not really a surname, but a lofty title:
‘For modern readers ‘Christ’ is no more than a ‘surname’ of Jesus, but Matthew clearly uses it here with its full force as a title, ‘Messiah’, the true king of Israel in the line of David, whose coming they eagerly awaited.’ (NBC)
As noted by JFB:
‘Christ’ was used by our Lord only occasionally (Mt 23:8; 23:10; Mk 9:4), and by others only at the close of his earthly ministry (Mt 26:68; 27:17). The full form, ‘Jesus Christ’, was used by the Lord just once (Jn 17:3), and by his followers not at all until after his ascension and the establishment of the church in his name.
The son of David, the son of Abraham – ‘It is like a pedigree given in evidence, to prove a title, and make out a claim; the design is to prove that our Lord Jesus is the son of David, and the son of Abraham, and therefore of that nation and family out of which the Messiah was to arise. Abraham and David were, in their day, the great trustees of the promise relating to the Messiah. The promise of the blessing was made to Abraham and his seed, of the dominion to David and his seed; and they who would have an interest in Christ, as the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed, must be faithful, loyal subjects to him as the son of David, by whom all the families of the earth are to be ruled. It was promised to Abraham that Christ should descend from him, (Ge 12:3 22:18) and to David that he should descend from him (2 Sam 7:12; Ps 89:3, etc.; 132:11); and therefore, unless it can be proved that Jesus is a son of David, and a son of Abraham, we cannot admit him to be the Messiah. Now this is here proved from the authentic records of the heralds’ offices. The Jews were very exact in preserving their pedigrees, and there was a providence in it, for the clearing up of the descent of the Messiah from the fathers; and since his coming that nation is so dispersed and confounded that it is a question whether any person in the world can legally prove himself to be a son of Abraham; however, it is certain that none can prove himself to either a son of Aaron or a son of David, so that the priestly and kingly office must either be given up, as lost for ever, or be lodged in the hands of our Lord Jesus. Christ is here first called the son of David, because under that title he was commonly spoken of, and expected, among the Jews. They who owned him to be the Christ, called him the son of David, ch. Mt 15:22; 20:31; 21:15. Thus, therefore, the evangelist undertakes to make out, that he is not only a son of David, but that son of David on whose shoulders the government was to be; not only a son of Abraham, but that son of Abraham who was to be the father of many nations.’ (M. Henry)
‘In calling Christ the son of David, and the son of Abraham, he shows that God is faithful to his promise, and will make good every word that he has spoken; and this. 1. Though the performance be long deferred. When God promised Abraham a son, who should be the great blessing of the world, perhaps he expected it should be his immediate son; but it proved to be one at the distance of forty-two generations, and about 2000 years: so long before can God foretel what shall be done, and so long after, sometimes, does God fulfil what has been promised. Note, Delays of promised mercies, though they exercise our patience, do not weaken God’s promise. 2. Though it begin to be despaired of. This son of David, and son of Abraham, who was to be the glory of his Father’s house, was born when the seed of Abraham was a despised people, recently become tributary to the Roman yoke, and when the house of David was buried in obscurity; for Christ was to be a root out of a dry ground. Note, God’s time for the performance of his promises is when it labours under the greatest improbabilities.’ (M. Henry)
The son of David – Cf. Mt 12:23; 15:22; 21:9; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Jn 7:42; Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 5:5.
Barnes: The word ‘son’ can mean, literally, a son, or a descendant:
‘It was important to trace the genealogy of Jesus up to David, because the promise had been made that the Messiah should be of his family, and all the Jews expected it would be so. It would be impossible, therefore, to convince a Jew that Jesus was the Messiah, unless it could be shown that he was descended from David. See Jer 23:5; Ps 132:10,11; compared with Acts 13:23; Jn 7:42.’ (Barnes)
‘The name “Jesus” is from the Greek (and Latin) for the Hebrew “Jeshua” (Joshua), which means “the Lord is salvation.” “Christ” is from the Greek for the Hebrew Meshiah (Messiah), meaning “anointed one.” son of David was a highly popular messianic title of the times. The genealogy is here traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes his claim and right to the throne of David. (Mt 1:6) The genealogy in Lk 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Mt 1:15) and Matthat (Lk 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Mt 1:16) and Heli (Lk 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle).’ (Ryrie)
‘The modern reader finds this list of names a dull way to begin a book. For Matthew and his readers, however, it was far from dull: it was all about the fulfilment of Israel’s story in the coming of their true king. A record of the genealogy is, in Gk., the title of the ‘Book of Genesis’, so that the reader thinks of a new beginning. The list begins with Abraham (the hero of the book of Genesis and the patriarch from whom Israel traced its origin), leads on to David (the first true king of Israel), and continues down the royal line of Judah to the point where its monarchy was destroyed at the exile to Babylon. The division into three sets of fourteen generations (17) emphasizes these turning-points (and perhaps for a Jewish reader the point is reinforced by the fact that the three Hebrew letters of the name David, used as numerals, add up to fourteen!).’ (NBC)
We may go further than this, by agreeing that Matthew’s genealogy signals ‘end of exile’:
‘Matthew’s genealogy is creatively and carefully crafted to present Jesus as Israel’s long-awaited deliverer – descended from David, who will bring an end to the exile and restore the land promised long ago to Abraham.’
(Enns, The Bible Tells Me So, 207)
‘In the first seventeen verses of Matthew we meet forty-six people whose lifetimes span two thousand years. All were ancestors of Jesus, but they varied considerably in personality, spirituality, and experience. Some were heroes of faith-like Abraham, Isaac, Ruth, and David. Some had shady reputations-like Rahab and Tamar. Many were very ordinary-like Hezron, Aram, Nahshon, and Achim. And others were evil-like Manasseh and Abijah. God’s work in history is not limited by human failures or sins, and he works through ordinary people. Just as God used all kinds of people to bring his Son into the world, he uses all kinds today to accomplish his will. And God wants to use you.’ (Handbook of Biblical Application)
1:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 1:3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 1:4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 1:5 Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, 1:6 and Jesse the father of David the king.
Unusually, this genealogy includes four women (plus Mary, Mt 1:16): Tamar, (Mt 1:3) Rahab, (Mt 1:5) Ruth, (Mt 1:5) and Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother (Mt 1:6). This mention of four mothers in vv3-6 is remarkable (especially since the genealogy does not mention matriarchs such as Sarah, Rebekah or Rachel, each of whom needed divine intervention to conceive). Each was probably non-Jewish, and in each case there was some unusual or even scandalous sexual activity. It has been suggested that Matthew wished to demonstrate precedent and scriptural support for the unusual circumstances of Jesus’ birth, and for these circumstances to present no barrier to his being, legally, of Davidic descent (so Lincoln, Born of a Virgin?). Lincoln’s case is perhaps not quite so strong as he claims, given the amount of sexual innuendo that he finds in Ruth 3.
Matthew may even have in mind his own background as a former social outcast.
Rahab…Ruth – On the inclusion of four women in this genealogy:
‘Women did not need to be recorded in ancient genealogies, but Matthew includes four women (Mt 1:3, 5-6), three of them Gentiles (Gen 38:6; Jos 2:1; Ruth 1:4) and the other also a Gentile or at least the wife of a Gentile (2 Sam 11:3) -even though he omits the matriarchs prominent in Jewish tradition, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and Rachel. Thus he hints from the Old Testament that God has always planned missions to all peoples.’ (Mt 28:19) (NT Background Cmty)
At first sight, Matthew’s genealogy implies that Rahab was the mother of Boaz. However, the interval between Rahab (1406 BC) and Boaz (1100 BC) is much too great for them to be mother and son. But ancient genealogies often skipped generations, and it is likely that Matthew (especially given his 14+14+14 structure) is doing the same here. See this.
‘Through four interracial marriages Matthew teaches us about missions and racial reconciliation (Mt 1:3, 5-6). While Matthew’s most obvious point is the connection of Jesus with Israel’s history, another point would also strike his biblically sensitive readers forcefully. Genealogies need include only men (those in 1 Chron exemplify this pattern), so the unexpected appearance of four women draws attention to them. Had Matthew merely meant to evoke the history of Israel in a general way, one would have expected him to have named the matriarchs of Israel: Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and Rachel. Or to evoke supernatural births as a prelude to Mary’s, he could cite Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel, whose wombs God opened. Instead he names four women whose primary common link is their apparent Gentile ancestry: Tamar of Canaan, Rahab of Jericho, Ruth the Moabite and the ex-wife of Uriah the Hittite.
‘In a world divided by races and cultures, an interracial marriage can appear scandalous, an act of treachery. The traditional white prejudice in some parts of the United States against black-white intermarriage is rooted in the history of slavery and racism. Yet a genuinely divinely ordained interracial marriage can testify that Christ is a bond that runs deeper than race. One Tamil-Sinhalese couple in racially torn Sri Lanka declared, “Our marriage crosses the ethnic lines that divide our nation” (Williams 1992:10). By contrast, many North American Christians fail to actively pursue even interracial friendships.’ (IVP NT Commentary)
1:6b David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah), 1:7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 1:8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah, 1:9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 1:10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 1:11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
Rehoboam –
Verse 8 omits three names between King Joram and Uzziah – Ahaziah, (2 Kings 8:25) Joash (2 Kings 12:1) and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1). Verse 11 omits Jehoiakim. (2 Kings 23:34). Abridgement in genealogies was not uncommon. As to the reason why these names are left out of Matthew’s genealogy, it has been suggested that:
- ‘because of Joram’s marriage to the Baal-devotee Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, their progeny is passed over “to the third and fourth generation”.’ F.F. Bruce (Answers to Questions) thinks that the first explanation is the ‘less improbable’.
- ‘Matthew has trimmed this part of his genealogy in order to make each of the three parts add up to 14 generations.’ ‘Matthew’s goal is to reduce the genealogies to a memorable three sets of fourteen individuals, for fourteen is the number of David, D = 4, V or Hebrew waw = 6 and the last D = 4, for a total of 14.’ (Hard Sayings of the Bible). It is to be added that David is the 14th name in Matthew’s genealogy.
The selectivity of Matthew’s list is apparent from the fact that thirteen generations after the exile cover no less than 600 years.
As a variation on the first explanation mentioned above, James Bejon suggests that the omissions draw attention to the Matthean theme of exodus:
‘The accession of Ahaziah was a notable event in and of itself, since Ahaziah was the son of Jehoram and Athaliah, and Athaliah was a daughter of the recently-cursed Ahab (2 Kgs 8.16–18, 25–26). Ahaziah thus represented an unwelcome injection of foreign blood (and behaviour) into David’s line (cp. 2 Chr 21.13 w. the refs. to Ahab’s influence in 22.1–6). And, a year later, an even more notable event took place: Ahaziah died without any sons old enough to succeed him, at which point Athaliah sought to slay all the potential heirs to the throne and claim it for herself.
‘Mercifully, however, Ahaziah’s sister managed to spare Ahaziah’s youngest son, Joash, and hide him away (protected by a Gentile guard) until he was old enough to reign (cp. 2 Chr 22–23).
‘Consider, then, the situation. We have a foreign ruler in charge of Israel (i.e., an illegitimate ‘king of the Jews’), a newborn child who’s a threat to the ruler’s authority, an attempt to extinguish the ‘line of promise’, and a member of royal family who’s hidden the child away in a foreign environment. Ring any bells? It should do. It’s another exodus event.’
See this further analysis of the issue, based on the work of Bejon:
Uzziah the father of Jotham – Here is an example of the abridgement just mentioned. According 1 Chron 3:11f there were three generations between Uzziah and Jotham. These were Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.
David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah) – The ‘wife of Uriah’ was, of course, Bathsheba:
‘But Matthew omits her name and switches from the Chronicler’s descriptive phrase, “the daughter of Ammiel,” to “the [wife] of Uriah” (so 2 Sam 11:26; 12:10, 15). The change calls attention to her taking on the status of a Gentile through marriage to Uriah, repeatedly designated a Hittite. In fact, the stress falls not so much on Uriah’s wife-for in contrast with 2 Samuel Matthew leaves out “wife”-as on Uriah himself. Thus again the genealogy foreshadows the place of Gentiles in the church.’ (Gundry, 1st ed.)
In so designating Bathsheba, Matthew is perhaps highlighting another of the scandalous moments in David’s lineage, and his adultery rather than his regal glory (Cameron B. R. Howard).
Jeconiah = Jehoiachin, king of Judah,
‘who was taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. In the Heb., Jeremiah contracted “Jeconiah” to “Coniah.” (Jer 22:24,28; 37:1) A curse was pronounced on Coniah that none of his descendants would prosper sitting on the throne of David. Had our Lord been the natural son of Joseph, he could not have been successful on the throne of David because of this curse. But since he came through Mary’s lineage, he was not affected by this curse.’ (Ryrie)
1:12 After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 1:13 Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 1:14 Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, 1:15 Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
On the fortunes of the house of David at this time:
‘We may learn from hence, what a low condition the family of David was in when the true Messiah came; according to ancient prophecy, it was like a stump of a tree, or like to a tree cut down to the root (Isa. 11:1), and Christ who sprung from it was like a root out of a dry ground (Isa. 53:2).’ (John Gill, Exposition of the Bible)
The exile of Babylon – The exile of the people of Judah in Babylon is normally counted from 597 BC, when the armies of Nebuchadnezzar first took captives.
Joseph, the husband of Mary –
By whom is feminine in the Gk., showing that Jesus was not the physical son of Joseph.
As Lincoln explains, Matthew wishes to show that Jesus is descended from David via Joseph, and yet Joseph was not his biological father. This is alluded to in the present passage:
‘Instead of what would have been in accord with the patrilineal nature of what has gone before, namely, ‘Jacob the father of Joseph, and Joseph the father of Jesus who is called the Messiah’, he has ‘Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah’ (1.16).’
The point of Matthew’s genealogy is to trace Jesus’ legal (not physical) line of descent.
On the uniqueness of Jesus’ birth:
‘Matthew 1:16 and 18 make it clear that Jesus Christ’s birth was different from that of any other Jewish boy named in the genealogy. Matthew pointed out that Joseph did not “beget” Jesus Christ. Rather, Joseph was the “husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”‘ (Wiersbe)
Moffat’s translation of this verse attracted severe criticism in its day: “Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed), the father of Jesus…,”
‘Both Mary and Joseph belonged to the house of David. The Old Testament prophecies indicated that the Messiah would be born of a woman, (Gen 3:15) of the seed of Abraham, (Gen 22:18) through the tribe of Judah, (Ge 49:10) and of the family of David. (2 Sam 7:12-13) Matthew’s genealogy traced the line through Solomon, while Luke’s traced it through Nathan, another one of David’s sons. It is worth noting that Jesus Christ is the only Jew alive who can actually prove his claims to the throne of David! All of the other records were destroyed when the Romans took Jerusalem in A.D. 70.’ (Wiersbe)
- That you came from a line of kings? (Matt 1:20, Luke 1:27)
- That you were a son of David? From the tribe of Judah?
- That your son would be the “Seed” promised in Genesis 3:15?
- That the prophet Isaiah was talking about your Son when he wrote, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”? (Isaiah 7:9)
- That when you fled to Egypt with Mary and Jesus, to escape King Herod, you were protecting The Seed?
1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations.
The genealogies of Matthew and Luke differ in a number of ways.
Commentators have been long been aware of these differences. For instance, the 19th-century commentators Jamieson, Fausset and Brown write concerning some of the challenges involved in the genealogies:
‘That there should be difficulty in these genealogies is not surprising, considering,
1. the want of sufficient materials of comparison;
2. the double or triple names given to the same persons;
3. the intermediate names omitted;
4. the name of sons given to those who were only in the direct line of descent, and of brothers to those who were only collaterally related;
5. the Levirate law, by which one is called the son, not of his actual, but of his Levirate father (see Deut 25:5-6; Lk 20:28).
(Numbering added)
For such reasons, JFB say, it is not possible to solve every difficulty. However, it is clear enough that our Lord ‘sprang out of Judah’ (Heb 7:14), and it would be delightful to any Jewish believer, and concilatory to any unprejudiced Jew, to see the external lines of their nationhood converging on Jesus of Nazareth.
‘Matthew’s genealogy runs from Abraham down to Jesus in three groups of 14 generations. Luke’s genealogy goes from Jesus all the way back up to Adam, and indeed God before him. While the two genealogies are similar between Abraham and David, they diverge dramatically between David and the exile, meeting for Shealtiel and Zerubabel, before diverging again and only meeting with Jesus’s legal father, Joseph. Consequently, Joseph is presented as having two different fathers: Jacob in Matthew and Eli in Luke.’
Various explanations for the divergences have been offered.
(1) One (probably Matthew) records the ‘official’ genealogy through Joseph, the other the ‘actual’ genealogy through Mary. This is the view of Howe and Geisler (When Critics Ask).
In the words of Robert Clifton Robinson:
‘There are two different genealogies for Jesus because one is showing Jesus’ legal right to be Messiah through David (Joseph), the other, Jesus physical right to be Messiah through Mary.’
According to this view, Matthew addresses the interests of his mainly Jewish readers, who needed to know that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Luke addresses those of his mainly Greek readers, who would be more interested in Jesus as the Perfect Man.
However, there is nothing in the text that would suggest this. In any case, both trace Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph (Mt 1:16; Lk 3:23).
Counting further against the theory that Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy through Mary is the fact that his genealogy consistently focuses on fathers, and the indication that Mary herself was of the tribe of Aaron, and not Judah (she is described as the ‘kinswoman’ of Elizabeth, who herself is said to be ‘from the daughters of Aaron’, Lk 1:5).
(2) One (probably Matthew) spiritualizes the genealogy rather than following it literally. According to Mark Edward:
‘The prevailing interpretative theory for how the author of Matthew constructed this genealogy is based on his interest in Jesus as the ‘son of David’, a messianic title going back a century or two before Jesus. He uses David to frame the genealogy (1.1,17), as one of the dividers of the three sets (1.6), and to identify Joseph when the infancy narrative proper begins (1.20). In ancient Hebrew, letters had numerical value, which results in the name ‘David’ (דוד) equating to 14. Artificially creating a genealogy of three sets of fourteen comes from this gematria.’
John Nelson takes a similar line.
(3) The lines of descent cross but are different because one list includes several adoptive lines through levirate marriages (Deut 25:5-10) (NT Background Commentary).
James Bejon writes:
‘Consider the case of Boaz and Ruth. Due to Boaz’s (levirate) marriage to Ruth, Obed’s genealogy could be reckoned in two different ways. Boaz acquired Ruth as his wife in order to ‘perpetuate the name’ of Mahlon (Ruth 4.10), so Obed could legitimately be referred to as ‘a son of Mahlon, the son of Eli-Melech (etc.)’. Biologically, however, Obed was ‘the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon (etc.)’. As a result, Obed’s genealogy could be reckoned in two different ways.’
Bejon adds that a similar situation would be created if someone were adopted:
‘For instance, Mordecai is said to have taken Esther ‘as his daughter’ (Est. 2.7). Consequently, Esther’s ancestry could be traced either through Mordecai the son of Jair (Est. 2.5) or through Esther’s biological father (a different son of Jair).’
Bejon shows how this provides a possible explanation as to why Shealtiel is traced back to David in two different ways. Matthew records his legal line, whereas Luke records his biological line.
(4) F.F. Bruce (Answers to Questions, p40f) inclines to the view that Matthew’s genealogy gives the line of succession to the throne of David (which did not always correspond to the line of descent from father to son), whereas Luke gives the line of Joseph’s descent from David by another branch of the family. Machen is quoted:
‘There is nothing at all inherently improbable in such a solution. When a kingly line becomes extinct, the living member of a collateral line inherits the throne. So it may well have been in the present case.’
In the words of R.T. France (NBC),
‘probably Luke offers us a ‘physical’ family-tree, while Matthew gives the official throne-succession list (which would not necessarily pass from father to son, but would remain within the family). His concern is with Jesus’ right (through Joseph) to the title ‘King of the Jews’.’
Peter J. Williams stresses that ancient genealogies do not necessarily conform to modern ideas of such things:
‘To us, genealogies record faithfully and accurately our lineage, step-by-step, through the generations, without missing any out.’
Williams continues:
‘The two gospel genealogies make different points. Matthew traces from Abraham through the royal line to Jesus, and strikingly mentions four women who were either non-Israelite (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth) or at least had foreign connections (Uriah’s wife). Among other things this prepares us for the end of the book, which shows the gospel going to all nations. Luke’s genealogy connects Jesus with the first man and helps us to think of the contrasts between Jesus and Adam (and all other humans generally). It’s a perfect prelude to the temptation narrative in Luke 4:1–13 in which Jesus refuses food in the barren desert in contrast to Adam who took the forbidden fruit in a garden full of other fruit.’
McGrath offers what is perhaps a variation on this theme. He thinks that it is likely that the difference is due to the ‘curse of Jeconiah recorded in Jer 22:24-30. This says that
‘no descendant of Jeconiah (sometimes called Coniah or Jehoiachin) will ever sit on the throne of his ancestors. Matthew 1:12 says that Jesus was descended from Jeconiah…That might well have led the author of Luke to provide a different lineage for Jesus.’
‘Not every generation needs to be listed in a genealogy, as is the case here. Why the division into three groups of 14? Possibly because the numerical equivalent of the Hebrew letters in the name David (the focal point of this genealogy) equals 14. The repetition of Jeconiah in verse 12 makes the fourteenth name in the last grouping.’ (Ryrie)
Fourteen [generations] from the exile to the Christ – There appear to be only thirteen generations in this last division. According to Mounce,
‘Schweizer is probably correct in his observation that, since ancient reckoning always included the first and last elements of a series, the sequence should be (1) Abraham to David, (2) David to Josiah (the last free king), (3) Jeconiah (the first king of the captivity) to Jesus (p. 23). This would place fourteen generations in each division.’There is an emphasis on ‘exile’ in this genealogy:
‘The Matthean genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:2–17), which repeatedly emphasizes the “exile to Babylon” as a major turning point in its tripartite, fourteen-generation structure (Mt 1:11, 12, 17), suggests apparently that the entirety of the final fourteen generations “from the exile to Babylon to the Messiah” is characterized as a period of “exile” in some sense.’ (J.M. Scott, art. ‘Exile’, DJG 2nd ed.)
The Birth of Jesus Christ, 18-25
Although many English versions identify this section as being about ‘the birth of Jesus’, the nativity itself is mentioned only in passing. And, by the time of the visit of the Magi, Jesus is described as a ‘child’. So we must look for other emphases in Matthew’s narrative, and the following notes will attempt to point these out.
According to Harper’s Bible Commentary, this account fits the genre of annunciations stories, a genre found regularly in the Bible:
‘They serve not to record historical fact but to interpret the role a child is destined to play in salvation history and to emphasize that that role is initiated by God. The appearance of an angel and the announcement of the child’s future destiny form the core of the genre. Usually there is some impediment to the birth, e.g., sterility or old age. The situation here is that Mary has become pregnant between her betrothal and the consummation of the marriage, with the apparent suggestion of illegitimacy.’
It goes without saying that this polarisation (‘not this…but that’) is not the only option open to the thoughtful reader. The possibility that, in the case of Jesus, historical fact leads to interpretation is at least as plausible an approach.
For Gundry,
‘This passage explains how Jesus came to have the legal status of a descendant of David even though Joseph didn’t father him: Joseph, himself a “son [= descendant] of David,” brought Jesus into David’s line by taking Mary to wife prior to Jesus’ birth and by naming him at his birth. Without this explanation the preceding genealogy of Jesus through Joseph is pointless (see especially 1:16). On the other hand, this passage highlights Jesus’ deity by noting that Mary became pregnant after her betrothal to Joseph but before her marriage to him and sexual intercourse with him. So she bore a divine child as the result of generation by the Holy Spirit.’
More controversially, Gundry (Commentary on Matthew, 1st ed.) thinks that Matthew has Luke’s account before him, and makes various changes for theological reasons. These changes often include fusion:
‘We only have to suppose that Matthew had the traditions that later went into Luke 1-2 to see what happens under his artistry. He fuses the stories about the births of John the Baptist and Jesus just as he will assimilate their messages to each other in Mt 4:17 and just as he will conflate the separate deliverances of two demoniacs (Mt 8:28-34) and the separate healings of two blind men (Mt 9:27 -31; 20:29-34).’
1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.
The birth of Jesus Christ happened this way – It is noticeable, however, that, unlike Luke, Matthew does not describe Jesus’ birth. In fact, Matthew does not use the usual word for ‘birth’ (gennesis γεννησις), but the same word that he uses in v1 for Jesus’ ‘genealogy’ (genesis γένεσις). The main point of this section, then, would seem to be the vindication of Jesus as the (adopted) son of Joseph, and therefore the rightful heir of the throne of David.
Additionally, Matthew’s purpose here seems to be to answer the calumny that Jesus was an illegitimate child of Mary, and to defend the action of Joseph.
Matthew’s account, then, focuses on the circumstances of the conception and naming of Jesus very much from Joseph’s perspective. Of course, Mary had also received an angelic visitor, Lk 1:26-35.
‘The story of the birth of Jesus is filled with the surprise and excitement that one might expect when God begins to act in fulfillment of the promise and preparation of the past. In particular, it portrays the wonderful mixing of the miraculous and the ordinary, the divine and the human.’ (WBC)
‘There may be an element of apologetic in Matthew’s stress on Joseph’s surprise, his abstention from intercourse, the angel’s explanation of Jesus’ divine origin, and the scriptural grounds for a virgin birth, due perhaps to an early form of the later Jewish charge that Jesus birth was illegitimate. But the account reads primarily as if designed for a Christian readership, who wanted to know more precisely how Mary’s marriage to Joseph related to the miraculous conception of Jesus, and who would find the same delight that Matthew himself found in tracing in this the detailed fulfilment of prophecy.’ (France)
‘The situation described in these verses is Joseph’s legal engagement to Mary. If typical Jewish custom were followed, she may well have been still a young teenager. Joseph may have been considerably older. Engagement in ancient Judaism was legally binding and required divorce if it were to be broken, but sexual relations and living together under one roof were not permitted until after the marriage ceremony. Joseph could therefore be spoken of already as Mary’s husband, but Matthew emphasizes this was “before they came together.”‘ (Blomberg)
Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph –
IVP Background Commentary: Mary would probably have been between 12 and 14 years old; Joseph about 6 years older. Their betrothal would have been arranged by their parents, with their consent. In accordance with Galilean custom, they may not have had any time alone together before marriage.
‘Joseph appears as a very real person, confronted with an understandable dilemma. Yet this righteous man, of such little significance to the narrative on the one hand and such great significance on the other (bestowing Davidic descent upon Jesus), receives a revelation to which he is submissive and obedient.’ (WBC)
Before they came together – before they left their respective parental homes and before sexual relations began.
Writing in DJG [2nd ed.], art. ‘Birth of Jesus’, S. Young comments:
‘Although “before they lived together” is a legitimate translation of the Greek prin ē synelthein autous, given the context, the equally legitimate “before they had sexual relations” is also implied.’
With child through the Holy Spirit – See also v20. This expression does not demand, but is surely consistent with, a virginal conception.
Lincoln (Born of a Virgin?) says that:
‘Elsewhere in Jewish literature the language of divine begetting does not entail a conception without a human father.’
Indeed, Lincoln doubts that the present expression requires, or even implies, a virginal conception. He cites other scriptural instances where a pregnancy is identified as being caused by God, without any suggestion that there was no biological father:
‘In Psalm 2.6–7 – ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you’ – God’s address to the king meant that the latter had a special status and role in carrying out God’s purposes and obeying God’s will as a son obeys his father, not that God had been involved in his birth instead of a human father. Indeed, the notion that being God’s son meant having a divine or semi-divine nature is foreign to the Jewish Scriptures and more at home in the Graeco-Roman world.
Elsewhere, when God is named as the direct cause of certain pregnancies, whether in the case of Eve (Gen. 4.1), Leah (Gen. 29.31–32), Rachel (Gen. 30.22–23), Ruth (Ruth 4.13) or others, this divine causality was never understood as excluding the woman’s intercourse with a man.
Paul’s talk of Ishmael being born according to the flesh and Isaac being born according to the Spirit (Gal. 4.29) confirms how the latter formulation would normally have been taken. His readers would have been clear that Abraham was the biological father of both sons but that Isaac was the son who was the fulfilment of the divine promise.
Elsewhere in the New Testament, the phrase ‘of or from the Spirit’ is used of the birth of believers (John 3.5). In fact, John 1.12–13 explicitly states that believers as children of God are born not from natural human sexual union but from God. This is, of course, not suggesting that their physical births came about through some supernatural means but is speaking of a spiritual relationship that those who have two human parents enter into and that is not to be attributed to physical descent from these parents.
There is, then, nothing to this point in Matthew’s account that suggests a supernatural or virginal conception. The angel assures Joseph, and the narrator assures readers, that Mary’s irregular pregnancy should be seen as part of the divine purposes in which the Spirit was at work in the circumstances of Jesus’ birth.’
(Paragraphing added)
Lincoln remarks that it is not at all unusual in Scripture for an account of a birth to emphasise the divine and maternal aspects, even though there is no reason to think that the birth took place by other than normal means. See, for example, Gen 4:1f; 30:1f; Judges 13:3; Job 31:15; Psa 139:13-16. Isa isa 7:14 especially, there is no mention of a male partner, though he is (suggests Lincoln) assumed.
‘We do not have here the pagan notion of a god having sexual relations with a woman but rather of the creative power of God at work within Mary in order to accomplish his purposes.’ (WBC)
Does Matthew teach the Virgin Birth?
According to Andrew Lincoln, the evidence for the virgin birth in Matthew 1 is not as conclusive as is often thought.
Mt 1:16 – ‘Mary, of whom Jesus was born’. This unusual wording might be taken as a ‘divine passive’, with God (and not a human father) as the implied agent of conception. Alternatively, it might simply reflect continuity with the rest of the genealogy, where four women – each associated with some kind of irregularity or scandal surrounding their sexual activity or procreation – have already been highlighted.
Mt 1:18d – Mary was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. The traditional understanding is that this implies the miraculous nature of the conception. The wording is ambiguous so as to avoid giving the impression that Mary was ‘impregnated by the divine seed’, or something similarly crass. The revisionist interpretation is that, once again, this wording does not necessarily exclude male involvement in the conception, but rather stresses divine (non-miraculous) superintendence.
Mt 1:20d – the child is conceived from the Holy Spirit. As above.
Mt 1:22 – Matthew cites Isa 7:14 from the LXX, with its use of ‘parthenos‘ for the mother-to-be. Matthew seems to have deliberately quoted the Isaiah passage in a way that is consistent with virginal conception. It seems unlikely that he would have done so if he suspected, or knew, that Jesus had been conceived normally but illegitimately. On the other hand, it is urged that the use of ‘parthenos’ in the LXX of the Isaiah passage – even if it is understood to mean ‘virgin’ rather than ‘young woman’ – simply refers to a woman who was a virgin at the time of the prediction (and would later become pregnant through normal means).
Mt 1:25 – Joseph had no marital relations with Mary until she had borne a son. For the traditional interpretation, this teaches that Mary was a virgin at the time of conception, and continued so until after Jesus’ birth. The revisionist interpretation has to make sense of this by noting that it would be quite usual for a man and woman to abstain from sexual relations during her pregnancy; and (more controversially) by postulating that an unknown man (i.e. not Joseph) was the father. According to this latter reading, the mention of four women in the genealogy, each involved in some kind of sexual irregularity, prepares the way for this otherwise shocking proposal.
I should add that Lincoln, on balance, prefers the traditional reading. If there is ambiguity in Matthew’s account, this may be explained in various ways:
(a) careful avoidance of crass and misleading language about the divine involvement in the conception;
(b) an assumption that Matthew’s readers were already aware of the virginal conception, and therefore did not need to have it spelt out;
(c) Matthew’s main focus is elsewhere: he is more interested in Jesus as ‘Emmanuel’ (God With Us) than he is in the means by which he became so.
‘Matthew is clearly describing a supernatural conception here, but he uses remarkable restraint in that description. (similarly Lk 1:35) Most non-Christian legends of virginal conceptions were quite different and much more detailed and/or crass. Belief in this kind of conception obviously depends on one’s approach to the supernatural more generally. On the virginal conception in particular, it is often said that such a belief stems from prescientific superstition. But even the relatively primitive stage of first-century science was sufficiently advanced for people to know that in every other known instance it required a biological father as well as a biological mother to produce a human child. The Christian notion of a virginal conception was no more plausible in first-century Judaism than it is in the twentieth-century Western world, yet it has formed an integral part of Christian belief for two thousand years.’ (Blomberg)
1:19 Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately.
Because or ‘although’, in which case the sense would be, ‘Although Joseph was a righteous man and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace…’ Joseph’s righteousness would have led him to want to be obedient to the law, which required the stoning in the case of adultery. (Deut 22:20-21, 23-24, but not thought to have been insisted on in NT times) But he was clear that he must divorce one so clearly guilty. In kindness, he chose private divorce proceedings.
‘So we should read this as Joseph both being an obedient, observant Jew—but also being a man of compassion and care.’ (Ian Paul)
Her husband to be – lit. ‘her husband’. See Gen 29:21; Deut 22:23-30, and also notes below on the binding nature of betrothal.
Gundry comments that:
‘The designation of Joseph as Mary’s husband…both militates against any thought that another man fathered Jesus and emphasizes that Jesus was born into a Davidic family (cf. v 16). Full betrothal was so binding that its breaking required a certificate of divorce, and the death of one party made the other a widow or widower…Hence, Joseph is called Mary’s “husband” before marriage.’
A righteous man – ‘Joseph is not only righteous in his care to do the right thing; he is also merciful in his not wanting to disgrace Mary.’ (Gundry)
Keener comments that Matthew
‘affirms, against any possible misinterpretations of the virgin birth, that Joseph controlled himself, practicing sexual restraint. By calling Joseph righteous (Mt 1:19) Matthew invites us to learn from Joseph’s character about fidelity, discipline and preferring God’s honor above our own. This paragraph assumes the principles of sexual fidelity and discipline that both Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries demanded. (see Mt 5:27-30) Like most first-century Jewish people, Joseph was faithful to his future spouse in advance, awaiting marriage, and he expected the same in return. So clearly does Matthew want his audience to understand that this was part of Joseph’s character that he points out that even once he and Mary were married, they refrained from marital relations until Jesus’ birth (Mt 1:25). This would have taken considerable self-control; in many Middle Eastern societies observers simply assume that “if a man and woman are alone together for more than twenty minutes they have had intercourse” (Delaney 1987:41). The self-control of this young couple challenges those today who doubt their ability to control their passions.’
Kenneth E. Bailey (Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes) asks what it means for Joseph to be described as ‘righteous’ (just). He would have held God’s law in high esteem. Knowing that he himself was not responsible, he might have invoked Deut 22:23, which requires the stoning of both parties in the pregnancy. But, for him, ‘righteousness’ meant going beyond the just requirements of the law. He invoked, instead, the spirit of Isa 42:1-6,
‘Justice, as understood by this special servant of God, is neither “retributive justice” (you harm me and I will see that you are harmed) nor is it “equal application of law” (I pay my taxes and so must you), but here justice means compassion for the weak and exhausted…Joseph looked beyond the penalties of the law in order to reach out with tenderness to a young woman who was no doubt bruised and exhausted.’
He had in mind to divorce her quietly – Betrothal was so solemn that it could be broken only by divorce.
Lincoln explains Joseph’s predicament:
‘Being a righteous man (and righteousness according to the law will be a major theme in Matthew’s Gospel), Joseph resolves to act in line with the Torah but also compassionately. Legally, there were two alternatives. He could simply present Mary with a bill of divorce, signed by two or three witnesses (Deut. 24.1), or he could ask for an inquiry before the elders that would attempt to determine whether she was pregnant because of consent or because of rape (Deut. 22.23–27). Joseph decides to go for the first option. According to 1.19, he planned to divorce her quietly, being unwilling to expose her to public shaming or humiliation.’
Keener comments:
‘Jewish and Roman law both demanded that a man divorce his wife if she were guilty of adultery…Further, Joseph had another reason to divorce her. Because others would assume that Joseph himself must have gotten her pregnant unless he divorced her, his reputation was at stake for the rest of his life. Under these circumstances, Joseph would be righteous in divorcing Mary; to fail to do so would violate law and custom, would bring enduring reproach on his household and would constitute embracing as wife one who had betrayed him in the worst manner conceivable in his culture.’
‘When he discovers Mary’s pregnancy, he naturally assumes that she has been unfaithful to him. He is called a “righteous” man, which for Matthew does not imply sinless perfection but regularly refers to one who is law-abiding, upright in character, and generally obedient and faithful to God’s commandments. Here Joseph’s righteousness leads him to want to spare Mary the disgrace of public divorce and censure and the legal proceedings for a suspected adulteress. Jewish laws typically required a man to divorce an adulterous wife, but Joseph proposes to divorce her “quietly,” which is perhaps better translated “privately” (Goodspeed), in the sense of a settlement out of court.’ (Blomberg)
‘Joseph could have profited by divorcing Mary publicly. By taking her to court, Joseph could have impounded her dowry-the total assets she brought into the marriage-and perhaps recouped the bride price if he had paid one at betrothal.’
How Joseph must have agonised! He loved Mary, and wanted her to be his wife. He thought her trustworthy, and yet had been unfaithful! He was a man of principle, who viewed the marriage vow with utmost seriousness. But he was also kindhearted. He might have made an accusation of adultery that would have led to a public trial before a magistrate, but preferred instead to consider a private divorce that would have been before two witnesses.
‘A woman with a child, divorced for such infidelity, would be hard pressed ever to find another husband, leaving her without means of support if her parents died.’ (IVP Background Commentary)
‘Joseph had a difficult decision to make. Being a righteous man, he did not want to go against God’s laws. To marry Mary would have been an admission of guilt when he was not guilty. To have a public divorce would have exposed Mary to public disgrace, and apparently Joseph’s compassion would not allow him to expose her to public humiliation. Therefore, he chose the option to have a private divorce before two witnesses and dismiss her quietly. This way he could keep his reputation, while still showing compassion.’ (Life Application)
‘The nativity is not often drawn into discussions of divorce in Matt 5 and 19. Our text seems to teach that a decision to divorce can in some cases be a form of righteousness, even in a Gospel that so counterculturally protects marriage against divorce. Later, a certain Joseph-like “first-righteousness” may even be solicited in the expression, unique to Matthew, in which Jesus forbids divorce “except in a case of unchastity” (Mt 5:32; cf. Mt 19:9–10), probably meaning that in some cases a disciple should divorce. It is remarkable that the problem of divorce appears as early as the Gospel’s first story.’ (Bruner)
Brown (The Birth of the Messiah, p524, fn. 28): It is unthinkable that the manner of Jesus’ conception could have been the product of fertile post-Matthean imagination:
‘Matthew’s world view and that of his opponents is not one in which deities have sexual relations with men or women and beget children. He is in confrontation with Pharisees and in his account of the ministry he is most careful not to give them anything they can use against Jesus (e.g., his omitting the spittle miracle narrated in Mark 8:22–26). If the situation described in Matthew is not a factual one but is the product of Christian romantic imagination, one must deem it a great religious blunder; for it gave rise to the charge of illegitimacy against Jesus that was the mainstay of anti-Christian polemic for many centuries.’
1:20 When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 1:21 She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
When he had contemplated this – Bailey says that the word translated ‘considered’ (enthymēomai) can also mean ‘to become angry’. This would have been a very natural reaction, in the circumstances.
The implication seems to be that he had made up his mind to divorce Mary quietly. But then the angel of the Lord intervened.
An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream – Revelatory dreams occur in three main parts of the Bible: Genesis 20-41; Daniel 1-7; Matthew 1-2.
There are a number of details in the birth narratives that could only have been known by one or two people. A good case can be made for supposing that Matthew draws particularly on material derived from Joseph, whereas Luke’s account relies on Mary’s testimony.
Gundry thinks that,
‘Matthew turns the annunciation to Mary before her conceiving Jesus (Luke 1 :26-38) into an annunciation to Joseph after her conceiving Jesus.’
According to Gundry, the reason for this is that Matthew wishes to portray Joseph
‘as a model of righteousness, mercy, and obedience to God and of emphasizing the Davidic messiahship of Jesus as a result of Joseph’s obedience.’
“Joseph son of David” – The marriage was necessary to establish Jesus’ legal Davidic lineage.
‘Jesus, the legal son of Joseph, as he shall become through Joseph’s obedience, is therefore reckoned as of Davidic descent with the concomitant note of eschatological fulfillment.’ (WBC)
‘To the ancient world there would be no inconsistency here, for adoption provided one with ancestors as assuredly as did biological descent.’ (Harper’s Bible Commentary)
‘The angel calls him by name and adds his descent, in order to banish fear.’ (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Four Gospels)
“Do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife” – ‘The protestations of innocence that Mary had doubtless made to Joseph were now seen indeed to be true.’ (WBC) Even though his own concerns had been allayed, husband and wife would still have to face malicious rumour and gossip.
The command not to be afraid does not require us to suppose that the fear of the Lord has no place in the NT. As Ferguson (The Dawn of Redeeming Grace) notes:
‘It is Jesus (Matthew 10:28); it is the first Christians (Acts 9:31); it is Paul (2 Corinthians 7:1); it is the author of Hebrews (Hebrews 12:28); it is Simon Peter (1 Peter 2:17); it is all the saints (Revelation 15:4).’
On the challenges faced by Mary and Joseph:
‘In view of the whole Gospel story, their acceptance of God’s call unquestionably cost them dearly at times: as the recipients of slander and gossip, in lingering confusion as to when and how Jesus would fulfill what was announced of him, and ultimately Mary’s deep grief at seeing Jesus crucified—plus her added difficulties of not (fully) understanding that Jesus was to be raised from the dead or the saving significance of his death until some time after the resurrection.’ (DBT, art. ‘Virgin Birth’)
Matthew and Luke give independent accounts of Jesus’ birth:
‘The story of Jesus’ birth in Matthew’s gospel is seen through the eyes of Joseph; in Luke’s gospel, we see it through Mary’s. No attempt is made to bring them into line. The central fact is the same; but instead of Luke’s picture of an excited Galilean girl, learning that she is to give birth to God’s Messiah, Matthew shows us the more sober Joseph, discovering that his fiancée is pregnant. The only point where the two stories come close is when the angel says to Joseph, as Gabriel said to Mary, ‘Don’t be afraid.’ That is an important word for us, too, as we read the accounts of Jesus’ birth.’ (Wright)
Lincoln (Born of a Virgin?) finds it plausible that:
‘Matthew held that Jesus was illegitimate simply in the sense that he was illegitimately conceived by someone other than Joseph and that he depicts this issue as immediately resolved through Joseph’s public acknowledgement of Jesus as his own son. Although Jesus had been conceived irregularly, Joseph’s acceptance of him meant that he would not have been seen as a mamzer; there would have been no public questioning of his paternity or treatment of him as having any other status than Joseph’s son.’
“What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” – This underlines Joseph’s and Mary’s passivity in the matter: the initiative and action was all God’s:
‘Jesus was conceived when God took off the glove of nature and touched Mary with his naked finger. Thus, Jesus did not evolve up and out of history.’ (C.S. Lewis)
There is a great deal of reassurance for Joseph in these angelic words:
‘The angel explains to Joseph that Mary has not been unfaithful and that her child has been supernaturally conceived. He reminds Joseph of his messianic lineage by calling him “son of David.” He commands Joseph not only not to divorce Mary but to go ahead and marry her. The child will therefore legally be Joseph’s son and thus legally son of David.’ (Blomberg)
This passage is strongly Trinitarian. God the Father reveals himself through his Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
‘In Judaism the Holy Spirit was supremely the one who revealed God’s will to the prophets: he was equally at work in the creation of the world. What is more, re-creation was seen to be the Spirit’s work, as the marvelous story of the valley of dry bones makes so clear, Ezek 37. And Isaiah had predicted long ago that when the coming great deliverer was born the Spirit of the Lord would “rest” or “remain” upon him, Isa 11:2. So know the Spirit finds a perfect vehicle through whom to reveal God and re-create broken humanity.’ (Green)
The idea of a virgin both has no precedence in ancient Jewish literature. Pagan concepts of the gods coming down and having intercourse with women are very wide of the mark. Indeed,
‘In contrast to the promiscuous stories of Greek mythology in which male offspring appear as by-products of liaisons between the gods and earthly women, the virgin birth as God’s creative work in no way compromises or offends his holiness or his supreme lordship over all creation. The virgin birth is the revelation of a holy God through his equally righteous Son.’ (EDBT)
Lincoln, however doubts that the expression ‘from [or of] the Holy Spirit’ refers to a virginal conception. He states:
‘In Jewish literature the language of divine begetting does not entail a conception without a human father.’
In support, Lincoln cites the following biblical passages:
In Psalm 2.6–7 – ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you’ – God’s address to the king meant that the latter had a special status and role in carrying out God’s purposes and obeying God’s will as a son obeys his father, not that God had been involved in his birth instead of a human father…
Elsewhere, when God is named as the direct cause of certain pregnancies, whether in the case of Eve (Gen. 4.1), Leah (Gen. 29.31–32), Rachel (Gen. 30.22–23), Ruth (Ruth 4.13) or others, this divine causality was never understood as excluding the woman’s intercourse with a man.
Paul’s talk of Ishmael being born according to the flesh and Isaac being born according to the Spirit (Gal. 4.29) confirms how the latter formulation would normally have been taken. His readers would have been clear that Abraham was the biological father of both sons but that Isaac was the son who was the fulfilment of the divine promise.
Elsewhere in the New Testament, the phrase ‘of or from the Spirit’ is used of the birth of believers (John 3.5). In fact, John 1.12–13 explicitly states that believers as children of God are born not from natural human sexual union but from God…
There is, then, nothing to this point in Matthew’s account that suggests a supernatural or virginal conception. The angel assures Joseph, and the narrator assures readers, that Mary’s irregular pregnancy should be seen as part of the divine purposes in which the Spirit was at work in the circumstances of Jesus’ birth.
(Paragraphing added)
“You will name him Jesus” – ‘Joshua’, a common enough name. But the underlying meaning, ‘The Lord saves’ is invested with unique significance in the description which immediately follows.
The naming of Jesus, on the one hand, and naming of his brothers (Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3, Acts 21:17-18, Gal 1:18-19, Jas 1:1, Jude 1), on the other hand, seems to have been on entirely different principles.
Whereas ‘Jesus’ was a common enough name at the time, it was particularly appropriate for a Messianic figure.
But, as Stein (on Mark) observes:
‘The names of the brothers are Hebraic and allude back to the [Old Testament] patriarchs: Jacob (James) and his sons Joseph (Joses), Judas, and Simon.’
“He will save his people from their sins” – Cf. Psa 130:8.
To ‘save’ can mean to deliver from various kinds of trouble. The common Jewish expectation would have been of the destruction of their enemies. But here the significance of the name is made clear by the addition of ‘from their sins’. His salvation will be spiritual, and not political; from their sins, not from their oppressors.
‘His people will be in the first instance the Jews (Matthew uses this term laos particularly for the chosen race), but the man who wrote Mt 28:19 must have expected a wider application ultimately.’ (France)
The significant thing here is not the name itself (Jesus, ‘Jehovah saves’, was a common enough name) but the statement that ‘he will save his people from their sins’. Matthew’s assumption is similar to that in Mk 1:3 – the coming of Jesus is the Lord himself coming to his temple. (Macleod, The Person of Christ, p34)
The question occurs, at this early stage of the narrative: How will he save his people from their sins? By the end of the Gospel, that answer is clear – by his blood (Mt 26:26).
Hendriksen detects a note of limited atonement…
‘Whom will he save? Not everybody but “his people” (cf. John 3:16), “his sheep” (John 10:11).’
…but this seems to be reading too much (or perhaps too little) into the text.
More convincing is Bruner’s observation that the name ‘Jesus’ (‘God saves’) is followed by the explanation, ‘for he himself will save his people from their sins’:
‘One possible conclusion…is that Jesus really is, in some mysterious way, “God with us.” And this seems to be what Matt 1:23’s Emmanu-El will in a moment say that Jesus is, or at least embodies.’
1:22 This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: 1:23 “Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.”
This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled – No less than ten times Matthew introduces an aspect of the birth or life of Jesus with the kind of formula that is found in this verse. Mt 1:22-23; 2:5-6; 15,17-18,23; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 21:4-5; 27:9-10. This indicates a very high view of Scripture.
This is, no doubt, a comment on the part of the Evangelist, rather than a continuation of the angelic message. Note Matthew’s role as a teacher: he does not just relate the story; he also explains its meaning.
On Matthew’s purpose in citing Scripture in this way, Lincoln writes:
‘Matthew is not so much citing Scripture to prove to other Jews that Jesus is the Messiah as employing Scripture to give expression to the confession that he and his readers share.’
Verse 23, together with the promise of the continuing presence of Jesus in Mt 28:20, form a framework for the entire Gospel.
The wording here ‘accurately expresses the evangelist’s and the early Church’s view of the Scriptures as stemming from God and mediated to human beings by the agency of prophets.’ (WBC)
Talbot: Two kinds of ‘fulfilment’ of the Scripture: predictive and typological. Predictive fulfilment requires that the prophet was referring specifically to some future event. In typological fulfilment, the future event is seen as the fullest expression of a past event. Jesus’ birth is of this second kind:
‘His birth is the fullest expression of a type of God’s activity, namely, the birth of a child functioning as a guarantee of God’s promised deliverance of his people.’
“The virgin will conceive” – ‘Although the Hebrew of Isa 7:14 does not use the technical term for ‘virgin’ b’tula, neither does it use the normal word for ‘woman’ or ‘wife’, which we might have expected. Instead, the unusual term ‘alma for ‘young woman’ is used, someone sexually mature but not necessarily married, which the Greek translation (the Septuagint, LXX), translates parthenos. It is this term that Matthew uses, which our ETs rightly translate ‘virgin’.’ (Ian Paul)
‘Verse 21 introduces the key Matthean theme of God’s presence with his people, which is emphasized again at the end of his Gospel in Mt 28:18-20. The church in every age should recognize here a clear affirmation of Jesus’ deity and cling tightly to this doctrine as crucial for our salvation. At the same time, Matthew wants to emphasize that Jesus, as God, is “with us;” deity is immanent. Too often those who have rightly contended for Jesus’ full deity have created a God to whom they do not feel close rather than one who became human in every way like them but without sin. (Heb 4:15) As God “with us,” Jesus enables us to come boldly before God’s throne (Heb 4:16) when we accept the forgiveness of sins he made available (Mt 2:21) and develop an intimate relationship with him.’ (Blomberg)
This bracketing of two references to the divine immanence at the beginning and end of the Gospel (Mt 1:23 and Mt 28:20) serve highlight its overall message: ‘In combination, they reveal the message of Matthew’s story: In the person of Jesus Messiah, his Son, God has drawn near to abide to the end of time with his people, the church, thus inaugurating the eschatological age of salvation.’ (J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 2nd ed. His italics).
‘If New Testament Christianity is to reappear today with its power and joy and courage, men must recapture the basic conviction that this is a Visited planet. It is not enough to express formal belief in the “Incarnation” or in the “Divinity of Christ;” the staggering truth must be accepted afresh-that in this vast, mysterious universe, of which we are an almost infinitesimal part, the great Mystery, whom we call God, has visited our planet in Person. It is from this conviction that there springs unconquerable certainty and unquenchable faith and hope. It is not enough to believe theoretically that Jesus was both God and Man; not enough to admire, respect, and even worship him; it is not even enough to try to follow him. The reason for the insufficiency of these things is that the modern intelligent mind, which has had its horizons widened in dozens of different ways, has got to be shocked afresh by the audacious central Fact-that, as a sober matter of history, God became one of us.’ (J. B. Phillips, New Testament Christianity)
“They will call him” – ‘They’ are those whom he has saved from their sins.
‘“‘Immanuel’…God with us” – ‘What a claim, right at the outset of the Gospel! It is so ultimate, so exclusive. It does not fit with the pluralist idea that each of us is getting through to God in his or her own way. No, says Matthew. God has got through to us in his way. And Jesus is no mere teacher, no guru, no Muhammad or Gandhi. He is “God with us.” That is the essential claim on which Christianity is built. It is a claim that cannot be abandoned without abandoning the faith in its entirety.’ (Green)
According to Matthew 1:22-23, Jesus received the name ‘Immanuel’ (‘God with us’) in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.
Wonderful blessings are associated with the name – and character – of ‘Immanuel’. Gerald Bilkes offers the following outline:-
1. He is God-with-us to reconcile sinners to God. Man is born alienated from God, and God can have no fellowship with him because of sin. But Immanuel came to save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). He gave His life as an offering for sin so that sinners can be brought back into fellowship with God (1 John 1:3). On the cross He could promise the repentant thief that he would be with Him in paradise (Luke 23:43), that is to say, in fellowship with God.
2. He is God-with-us to guide, empower, and expand His church. Having ascended into heaven, Christ is now no longer with believers physically here on earth. Yet as the Heidelberg Catechism expresses so beautifully, “with respect to His Godhead, majesty, grace and Spirit, He is at no time absent from us” (Q&A 47). At the close of the gospel of Matthew, Immanuel promised His church, “Behold, I am with you always” (Matt. 28:20).
3. He is God-with-us to comfort His people. Think of Psalm 46, which so beautifully describes the encouraging presence of God in the midst of very chaotic circumstances. He is “a very present help in trouble” (v. 1). Christians need not fear, even when the earth shakes and kingdoms rage. God’s presence with His people is constant: “The Lord of hosts is with us” (vv. 7, 11). Believer, God is near you, to help and protect you.
4. He is God-with-us to bring His people to glory. We read in Revelation 21:3 of the new heavens and the new earth, where “God himself shall be with them.” In glory, the presence of God with His people will be perfect and uninterrupted. Revelation 22:4 tells us that they shall even see His face.
Do you believe this record God has given of Immanuel? Do you see how low Christ stooped to be God-with-sinners? Do you experience the blessings of God-with-us? These can only be ours through a new birth from above. His birth calls us to ask: Have I been born again? If so, He is your Immanuel.
‘Behold at once the deepest mystery and the richest mercy. By the light of nature we see the eternal as a God above us: by the light of the law we see him as a God against us; but, by the light of the gospel, we see him as a God with us, reconciled to us, at peace with us, interested for us, interceding in our behalf. Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift! (Hughes, in The Bible Illustrator)
1:24 When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, 1:25 but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.
‘Much later rabbinic tradition charges that Mary slept with another man, but Joseph’s marrying her (Mt 1:24) demonstrates that he did not believe this was the case.’ (IVP NT Background Commentary)
‘Joseph values commitment to God above his own honor’. This is a principle that Matthew articulates elsewhere (compare Mt 7:21-27; 23:5-11):
‘When God reveals the truth to Joseph, he immediately believes and obeys God’s will, unbelievable as the truth would seem without a deep trust in God’s power. (compare Lk 1:37) (By contrast, many unmarried men today refuse to take responsibility even when they are the father!) Joseph trusted God enough to obey him. Yet such obedience was costly. Because Joseph married Mary, outsiders would assume that he had gotten Mary pregnant before the wedding. Joseph would remain an object of shame in a society dominated by the value of honor. This was a stressful way to begin a marriage! By waiting to have intercourse, (Mt 1:25) hence failing to provide the bloody sheet that would prove Mary’s virginity on the wedding night, (Deut 22:15) Mary and Joseph also chose to embrace shame to preserve the sanctity of God’s call. Joseph’s obedience to God cost him the right to value his own reputation.’ (Keener)
‘Matthew presents Joseph as a human being of remarkable spiritual stature. He possessed the boldness, daring, courage and strength of character to stand up against his entire community and take Mary as his wife. He did so in spite of forces that no doubt wanted her stoned. His vision of justice stayed his hand. In short he was able to reprocess his anger into grace.’ (Bailey)
‘His action revealed four admirable qualities: (1) righteousness, (Mt 1:19) (2) discretion and sensitivity, (Mt 1:19) (3) responsiveness to God, (Mt 1:24) and (4) self-discipline.’ (Mt 1:25) (Life Application)
He had no union with her until she gave birth to a son – A Jewish marriage would normally be consummated on the first night of the seven-day wedding.
Blomberg comments:
‘The grammatical construction translated “until” strongly suggests (but does not prove) that Mary and Joseph proceeded to have normal sexual relations after Jesus’ birth.’
For Lincoln (Born of a a Virgin?), this expression is consistent with the notion that some other man had fathered Jesus, and the Joseph had agreed to ‘adopt’ Jesus as his own. Sexual relations during pregnancy were regarded with disapproval in Jewish culture.
Whom he named Jesus – This indicates Joseph’s formal adoption of Jesus and establishes the latter’s Davidic lineage:
‘The fact that Jesus is adopted by Joseph in no way makes Jesus’ Davidic lineage questionable. In Jewish circles a child became a man’s son not so much by physical procreation itself as by acknowledgment on the part of the man.’ (DJG)
In fact, this whole account focuses on Joseph as the legal father of Jesus, and tends to confirm that the genealogy offered by Matthew follows Joseph’s (rather than Mary’s) line.
‘Was faith ever more tested than the Virgin’s faith, when for no fault of hers, but in consequence of an act of God himself, her conjugal relation to Joseph was allowed to be all but snapped asunder by a legal divorce? Yet how glorious was the reward with which her constancy and patience were at length crowned! And is not this one of the great laws of God’s procedure toward his believing people? Abraham was allowed to do all but sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22); the last year of the predicted Babylonian captivity had arrived ere any signs of deliverance appeared; (Dan 9:1-2) the massacre of all the Jews in Persia had all but taken place; (Es 7 8) Peter, under Herod Agrippa, was all but brought forth for execution (Acts 12); Paul was all but assassinated by a band of Jewish enemies (Acts 23); Luther all but fell a sacrifice to the machinations of his enemies (1521); and so in cases innumerable since-of all which it may be said, as in the song of Moses “The Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone”.’ (Deut 32:36) (JFB)