Chapter 1

1 The genealogy of Christ from Abraham to Joseph. 18 He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary when she was espoused to Joseph. 191 The angel satisfieth the misdeeming thoughts of Joseph, and interpreteth the names of Christ.

1. The book of the generation. [The Human Ancestry of Jesus, Matt. 1:1–17=Luke 3:23b–38. Major comment: Matthew and Luke.] This is Matthew’s title for the family record of Jesus appearing in vs. 1–17, and has been rendered variously as “genealogy,” “book of the genealogy,” “book of the nativity,” “ancestry,” or “birth roll.” The opening words of ch. 2:1 favor the view that Matthew may also have intended this title to cover his narrative of the circumstances leading up to the birth of Jesus (ch. 1:18–25).

In composing an account of the life of Jesus designed primarily for readers of Jewish birth (see p. 273), Matthew begins in typical Jewish style by giving Jesus’ family pedigree. Because the coming of Messiah is a matter of prophecy, he shows that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the One to whom Moses and the prophets bore witness. Inasmuch as Messiah was to be the seed of Abraham (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16), the father of the Jewish nation, and of David, founder of the royal line (Isa. 9:6, 7; 11:1; Acts 2:29, 30), Matthew presents evidence that Jesus qualifies as a descendant of these two illustrious men. Without such evidence, His claim to Messiahship would be held invalid, and additional proofs could be dismissed without further examination of His claim (cf. Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64).

At the time Matthew wrote, it was probably possible to verify his genealogy of Jesus by comparing it with accessible public records. A large part of it (vs. 2–12) could be checked against OT lists (1 Chron. 1:34; 2:1–15; 3:5, 10–19). The fact that, so far as we know, no contemporaries of Matthew, even the avowed enemies of the Christian faith, ever challenged the validity of this family pedigree is excellent testimony favoring the genuineness of the genealogical list.

Jesus. Gr.Ieµsous, equivalent to the Heb. YehoshuaФ, “Joshua” (see Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8, where Luke and Paul refer to Joshua as “Jesus”). The name has generally been taken to mean “Jehovah is salvation” (see Matt. 1:21). Some scholars suggest the translation, “Jehovah is generosity.” Joshua’s original name (see Vol. II, p. 169), Oshea, was changed to Jehoshua (see on Num. 13:16). Joshua is an abbreviation of Jehoshua. When Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the common language of the Jews, after the Babylonian captivity, the name became YeshuaФ, the form transliterated into Greek as Ieµsous. YeshuaФ was a common name given Jewish boys in NT times (see Acts 13:6; Col. 4:11), in harmony with the Hebrew custom of selecting names having religious connotations (see also on Matt. 1:21).

Today, names are but little more than identification tags. But in Bible times a name was chosen with the greatest of care because it signified the faith and hope of the parents (see PK 481), the circumstances of the child’s birth, his own personal characteristics, or was related to his life mission—particularly when the name was divinely appointed.

The name Jesus is fraught with historic and prophetic memories. As Joshua led Israel to victory in the earthly promised land, so Jesus, the Captain of our salvation, came to open for us the gates of the heavenly Canaan. But not only is Jesus the Captain of our salvation (Heb. 2:10), He is also “the Apostle and High Priest of our profession” (Heb. 3:1). The high priest, upon the return from Babylonian captivity (see on Ezra 2:2), bore the name Joshua (Zech. 3:8; 6:11–15). As Hosea (the name is identical in the Hebrew with the Oshea of Num. 13:16) loved an undeserving wife, sought in vain, for a time, to win her affections, and finally bought her back at the slave market (Hosea 1:2; 3:1, 2), so Jesus came to set the human race free from the slavery of sin (Luke 4:18; John 8:36).

Christ. Gr. Christos, a translation of the Heb. Mashiach (see on Ps. 2:2), “Messiah,” meaning “Anointed,” or “Anointed One.” Before the resurrection, and commonly so in the four Gospels, Jesus is generally referred to as the Christ, making the term a title rather than a personal name. After the resurrection the definite article was generally dropped from common usage and “Christ” became a name as well as a title.

In OT times the high priest (Ex. 30:30), the king (2 Sam. 5:3; cf. 1 Sam. 24:6), and sometimes prophets (1 Kings 19:16) were “anointed” upon consecration to holy service, and were therefore mashiach, “anointed” (Lev. 4:3; 1 Sam. 24:6; 1 Chron. 16:21, 22). In Messianic prophecy the term came to be applied specifically to the Messiah, who, as Prophet (Deut. 18:15), Priest (Zech. 6:11–14), and King (Isa. 9:6, 7), was the One ordained to be our Redeemer (Isa. 61:1; Dan. 9:25, 26). As Prophet He came to represent the Father before men, as Priest He ascended to represent men before the Father, and as King He liberates those who believe in Him, not only from the power of sin in this life, but also from the kingdom of sin—and reigns over them in the kingdom of glory.

Christos is from chrioµ, a verb which means, “to rub,” “to massage,” “to anoint.” In the NT, Christ is said to be “anointed” (Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb. 1:9).

Used together, as in Matt. 1:18; 16:20; Mark 1:1; etc., the two names “Jesus” and “Christ” constitute a confession of faith in the union of the divine and human natures in one Person, of belief that Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary, Son of man, is indeed the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God (see Acts 2:38; etc.). See Additional Note on John 1; see on Matt. 1:23; John 1:1–3, 14; Phil. 2:6–8; Col. 2:9.

Son of David. This was the popular designation by which rulers (Matt. 22:42; Mark 12:35; Luke 20:41) and common people (Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9; Mark 10:47, 48; Luke 18:38, 39; cf. John 7:42) alike referred to the expected Messiah. Its use as a Messianic title points to an understanding of the prophecies predicting the Davidic descent of the Messiah. To a people weary of the Roman yoke it implied also the restoration of their kingdom to the independence and prosperity of David’s illustrious reign. David himself had understood that the promise of a son to sit upon his throne (2 Sam. 7:12, 13; Ps. 132:11) would be fulfilled by the one who was to redeem Israel (Acts 2:29, 30; see on Deut. 18:15). Again and again the prophets of old spoke thus of the Messiah (Isa. 9:6, 7; 11:1; Jer. 23:5, 6; etc.). NT writers repeatedly apply the title “seed of David” to Christ (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8; etc.). As the Son of David, Jesus became heir both to David’s throne and to the Messianic promises given to David.

Son of Abraham.Among the heroes of faith, Abraham had the distinction of being called the “Friend” of God (James 2:23; cf. 2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8). Because of his faithfulness (see Gal. 3:7, 9) Abraham was selected to become the father of God’s chosen people. The promise that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed was, according to Paul, a definite Messianic prediction (Gen. 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:16). In harmony with his endeavor to convince the Jews of the Messiahship of Jesus, Matthew appropriately and purposefully carries Christ’s genealogy back to Abraham, whereas Luke, writing for Gentile Christians, considered it essential to trace Christ’s ancestral record back to the father of our race. To show that Jesus descended from Abraham, and was thus eligible for consideration as heir to the promises made to him, was sufficient for Matthew’s purpose. See on John 8:35, 39.

For a discussion of differences between the lists of Matthew and Luke see on Luke 3:23.

2. Abraham begat Isaac. Except for variations owing to the Greek transliteration of Hebrew names, and for certain intentional omissions (see on vs. 8, 11, 17), Matthew’s genealogy from Abraham to Zorobabel agrees with similar lists in the OT (see 1 Chron. 1:28, 34; 1 Chron. 2:1, 4, 5, 9-12, 15; 3:15–19; cf. Ruth 4:18–22). There are no records with which to compare the names of the intertestamental period from Zorobabel to Christ.

Judas. That is, Judah (see on Gen. 29:35). Paul states that it was “evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda” (Heb. 7:14).

His brethren. Matthew here alludes to the other sons of Jacob, perhaps with the intention of reminding Jews of other tribes that Jesus of the tribe of Judah was their Saviour too.

3. Phares and Zara. These were children of Thamar (Tamar) by Judah (see on Gen. 38:6-30). Thamar, probably a Canaanites (see Gen. 38:2, 6), was Judah’s daughter-in-law.

Thamar. It is the exception, rather than the rule, to find women named in Hebrew genealogical lists. Even so, Matthew refers to them incidentally rather than specifically as genealogical links. The fact that the names of such honored women as Sarah and Rachel are omitted suggests that the four women mentioned were probably in each case included because of unusual circumstances. It is likely that all four—Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bath-sheba—were of Gentile origin. Herein lies an implied rebuke to Jewish exclusiveness, and a tacit recognition of the fact that Jesus belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews.

With the exception of Ruth, scandals were attached to the names of all these women. A merely human historian might have chosen to pass over their names in silence for fear that the honor of the Messiah be tarnished. But Matthew specifically quotes the Master as saying to the Pharisees that He came not “to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (ch. 9:13). It may be that Matthew, himself a publican and therefore sometimes classed with harlots (see ch. 21:31, 32), found in his heart a tender place for others who were generally shunned as living beyond the pale of respectability.

5. Salmon. See Ruth 4:20; cf. 1 Chron. 2:11. Salmon was a near relative of Caleb and Ephrath (1 Chron. 2:9–11, 19, 24) and of Bethlehem (whose father is another “Salma,” see 1 Chron. 2:50, 51, 54), and hence of a family known to have settled Bethlehem Ephratah (see 1 Chron. 2:24, 51, Moffatt; Micah 5:2; see on Gen. 35:19). Some commentators suggest that Salmon may have been one of the spies sent by Joshua into the city of Jericho before Israel crossed the Jordan (Joshua 2:1).

It is sometimes objected that Rahab of Jericho cannot be Rahab the wife of Salmon because the generations Matthew lists between Salmon and David are too few to span the time interval between Rahab of Jericho and David. But this objection is not necessarily valid because: (1) Matthew elsewhere intentionally omits certain of the ancestors of Jesus (see on vs. 8, 11, 17), and following the author of Ruth, may possibly have done so here as well. (2) Rahab was probably young at the time of her marriage (see Joshua 6:23), Booz (Boaz) was evidently no longer young when he married Ruth (Ruth 3:10), and Jesse was along in years when David was born (1 Sam. 17:12–14).

Rachab. See Vol. II, p. 424; see on Ruth 1:1; 2:1. There appears to be little reason to doubt that this is Rahab the Canaanitess, the harlot of Jericho who protected the Hebrews sent to spy out that city prior to its capture (Joshua 2; see on ch. 6:23). She is the only person by that name mentioned in the Bible, and the Gr. Rhachab of Matthew is an accurate transliteration of the Heb. Rachab. However, in Heb. 11:31 and James 2:25 the spelling is Raab. (The “Rahab” of Ps. 87:4; 89:10; and Isa. 51:9 is from the Heb. rahab, and is a symbolic name for Egypt.) Also, the fact that Rahab is mentioned by name, contrary to the usual rule of not mentioning women in genealogical lists, suggests that Matthew had some special reason for including her. Whatever the case, the Rahab of Joshua 2 holds an honored place in the hall of heroes of faith (Heb. 11:31), and James refers to her as an example of faith in action (James 2:25).

Ruth. The Moabitess who accompanied Naomi upon her return from Moab to Bethlehem (see Ruth 4:18–22; 1 Chron. 2:3–15). The beauty of her devotion to Naomi (Ruth 1:16) and her unobtrusive winsomeness are unsurpassed in the annals of any age.

6. David the king. Even under the Hebrew monarchy the government of Israel was, in principle at least, a theocracy (DA 737, 738; see Vol. IV, p. 27). As supreme Ruler, God sought to direct national policy through His ambassadors, the prophets. David was responsive to divine leadership and sought to maintain a spirit of true humility before the Lord. When reproved for an evil course of action, he manifested an attitude of genuine repentance. He acknowledged his guilt, sought forgiveness, and set out anew to obey the voice of the Lord (2 Sam. 12:1–13; 24:10, 17; Ps. 51:4, 10, 11; etc.). It was David’s contrition of heart that made it possible for God to exalt and prosper him (see 1 Kings 3:6; 8:25; Isa. 57:15; Micah 6:8).

Solomon. The second son of Bath-sheba, born after David’s sincere repentance and forgiveness (2 Sam. 12:13–24; 1 Kings 1:11–40).

8. Josaphat. That is, Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:41–43). Variations in the spelling of names is common in the Bible. Most of the variations in the genealogical list are due to the fact that the names in Matthew’s Greek text appear in the main as they do in the LXX. The translators of the KJV simply transliterated the Greek names instead of going back to the Hebrew names of which these Greek names were a transliteration. Sometimes individuals were also known by different names. Thus Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:6) was also called Jeconiah (1 Chron. 3:16) or Jechonias (Matt. 1:11), on the basis of the Greek text.

Joram begat Ozias. Here Matthew omits the names of three successive kings of Judah between Joram (Jehoram) and Ozias (Uzziah or Azariah; see 1 Chron. 3:11, 12), namely, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. This omission could hardly have been accidental, for the royal genealogy, which appears repeatedly in the OT, was a matter of common knowledge; nor could it have been a copyist’s error (see on Matt. 1:17). It has been suggested that it may have been Matthew’s purpose to reduce the 19 names from Solomon to Jehoiachin to 14, to correspond to the number of generations from Abraham to David (v. 17).

It has also been suggested that Matthew considered these three least worthy of a place in the genealogy of Jesus. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were the immediate successors of Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and wife of Joram (2 Chron. 22–25). It was Athaliah who introduced Baal worship into the southern kingdom (see on 2 Kings 11:18), as her mother had into the northern kingdom (see 1 Kings 16:31, 32). Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah all did evil in the sight of the Lord (2 Chron. 22:3, 4; 2 Chron. 24:17, 18; 2 Chron. 25:14), at least in the latter part of their reigns.

9. Achaz. See 2 Kings 16.

Ezekias. That is, Hezekiah (2 Kings 18–20). One of the good kings of Judah; but his son Manasses (Manasseh), though he lived to repent of his evil ways, devoted a long and wicked reign to the task of obliterating the reforms of his father.

10. Amon begat Josias. Following the wicked reigns of Manasses (2 Kings 21:1–18) and Amon (2 Kings 21:19–26), Josias (Josiah, 2 Kings 22:1 to 23:28), greatgrandson of Ezekias, and last of the good kings of Judah, ascended the throne. Of the 20 rulers in the ruling house of the southern kingdom over a period of 345 years, a minority served the Lord. In striking contrast, 20 kings representing ten dynasties reigned in the northern kingdom over a period of 209 years, but there was not one among them who remained faithful to the Lord.

11. Jechonias. Here occurs the the second certain omission in Matthew’s list (see on v. 8). Jechonias (Jehoiachin, 2 Kings 24:6, Jeconiah, 1 Chron. 3:16, or Coniah, Jer. 22:24) was actually the son of Jehoiakim and thus literally the grandson, not the son, of Josias (1 Chron. 3:15, 16). Some have suggested that the addition of Jehoiakim to the list would make a more symmetrical division of the generations mentioned in Matt. 1:17 (see comments there), and that Matthew may have originally included the name of Jehoiakim but that it was accidentally lost at a later time, owing to its similarity to Jehoiachin. There is some textual evidence (see p. 146) for inserting the name Jehoiakim between Josias and Jechonias.

His brethren. If Jehoiakim were included (see the foregoing under “Jechonias”), then the “brethren” would refer to actual blood brothers—Jehoahaz and Zedekiah (see on 1 Chron. 3:15). Otherwise, the expression “his brethren” would be true only in a loose sense. Three of the sons of Josias—Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah—reigned on the throne of Judah, but one was actually the father and the other two were uncles of Jechonias.

Carried away to Babylon. Thus closes the second division of Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (see on v. 17). The period covered deals with the monarchy from its golden age under David and Solomon down to its dissolution and the dark age of Jewish history—the Babylonian captivity.

Between David and Salathiel, Luke lists six more genealogical links than Matthew gives (see Luke 3:27–31). The taking into account of the four omissions by Matthew (see on v. 8 and the foregoing under “Jechonias”) leaves a difference of only two. These may simply indicate that the ancestral line followed by Luke contained two more generations than the royal line followed by Matthew. Such a difference is easily possible in a period of five centuries. Between David and Jesus—a period of about 1,000 years—Luke lists 15 more generations than does Matthew, implying further omission on the part of Matthew.

12. Jechonias begat Salathiel. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah (ch. 22:30), Jechonias was to die “childless,” but this is immediately explained as meaning that “no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David.” Several sons of Jechonias, including Salathiel (Shealtiel), are listed in 1 Chron. 3:17, 18. It is possible that one or more of these accompanied him to Babylon (see on Jer. 22:28). Jechonias was a young man of 18 at the time of his captivity (see 2 Kings 24:8). Upon the death of Nebuchadnezzar, 37 years later, he was released from prison, “dined regularly at the king’s table” (2 Kings 25:29, RSV), received a regular allowance from the royal treasury, and enjoyed royal favor, apparently, during the remainder of his life (see on 2 Kings 25:27–29).

Salathiel begat Zorobabel. See on Luke 3:27. In compliance with the decree of Cyrus, which brought the 70 years of captivity to a close, Zorobabel led some 50,000 Jews back to Jerusalem. See on Ezra 2:2.

15. Matthan begat Jacob. Nothing more is known of the eight persons listed from Abiud to Matthan (vs. 13–15) than their names, none of them being mentioned elsewhere. These eight generations span five centuries. Matthew may have omitted certain names here in order that the third section of his genealogy might correspond to the first two sections (see on Matt. 1:17; Ezra 7:5). The facts that (1) the number of generations listed hardly seems proportionate to the length of time, that (2) Luke lists, for this period, nine more generations than Matthew, and that (3) Matthew omitted four names from the second section of his genealogy (see on vs. 8, 11) at least hint at such a possibility.

It has been suggested that the names Matthan, in Matthew, and Matthat, in Luke (ch. 3:24), are both variant spellings for Matthew (not the evangelist), and that therefore the two names “Matthan” and “Matthat” in reality indicate one and the same person. If so, Jacob and Heli (Luke 3:23) would be brothers. Heli is thus presumed to have had no male heir and to have adopted Joseph, his nephew, as his own legal son and heir (cf. on Luke 3:27). The objective of this suggestion is to make Joseph properly the “son of Heli,” as in Luke (ch. 3:23), as well as the son of Jacob, as in Matthew. According to another theory, Jacob married the childless widow of his brother Heli, in harmony with the levirate marriage law (Deut. 25:5–10). Joseph, the first son born to this union, would actually be the son of Jacob but legally the son and heir of Heli. Both of these suggestions, originally advanced by certain early Church Fathers, are based upon supposition and therefore open to serious question. For a further discussion of the problem see on Luke 3:23.

16. Joseph the husband. Matthew carefully avoids stating that Joseph “begat” Jesus. Joseph was related to Jesus, says Matthew, not as His father, but as the husband of His mother. The generic link “begat,” employed up to this point, is dropped, Matthew thereby emphasizing the fact of the virgin birth.

Mary. Gr. Maria, Mariam in the LXX, from the Heb. Miryam. Like Joseph, Mary was of the house of David (DA 44; cf. Acts 2:30; 3:23; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8), for it was through her alone that Jesus could literally be “the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3; cf. Ps. 132:11). The fact that Mary’s “cousin” (Luke 1:36) was “of the daughters of Aaron” (Luke 1:5) in no way requires that Mary be of the tribe of Levi instead of the tribe of Judah. For the word translated “cousin” see on Luke 1:36.

It seems that Mary spent her early life in Nazareth (Luke 1:26). She had a kinswoman, Elisabeth, the wife of Zacharias (Luke 1:36). Also, she had relatives in Cana, a village near Nazareth (see John 2:1, 5; DA 144, 146). The idea that her mother’s name was Anna is based exclusively on tradition. Mary was highly favored of the Lord and blessed among women (Luke 1:28, 42). From the first promise of a deliverer, who was to be of the “seed” of the woman (Gen. 3:15; Rev. 12:5), devout mothers in Israel hoped that their first-born might be the promised Messiah (DA 31). To Mary this great and unique honor was given.

Mary was no doubt chosen primarily because at the appointed time (Dan. 9:24–27; Mark 1:15; Gal. 4:4) her character more closely reflected the divine ideals of motherhood than that of any other daughter of David. She was one of that select minority who were “waiting for the consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25, 38; Mark 15:43; cf. Heb. 9:28). It was this hope that purified her life (cf. 1 John 3:3) and qualified her for her sacred role (PP 308; PK 245; DA 69). Every mother in Israel today may cooperate with Heaven as Mary did (DA 512), and may, in a sense, make of her children sons and daughters of God. See on Luke 2:52.

Of whom. In Greek this expression is in the feminine singular, thus making “Mary” the antecedent and expressly excluding Joseph as the natural father of Jesus. But by his marriage to Mary, Joseph became the legal, though not the literal, father of Jesus (see ch. 13:55).

17. All the generations. It is clear from the record that Matthew omits at least four names he would have included had it been his intention to provide a complete genealogy (see on vs. 8, 11). There may have been other omissions in that part of the list covering the intertestamental period, for from Abraham to Christ, inclusive, Luke lists 56 names to Matthew’s 41 (see on Matt. 1:15). Therefore, by “all the generations” Matthew clearly refers to those he has listed, and not to all the progenitors of Christ who actually lived and might have been included in a full list. It is possible that the number of names in the second and third sections of the genealogy were adjusted to correspond with the number in the first section.

Matthew may have adopted the device of an abbreviated, numerically symmetrical list, as an aid to the memory. Abbreviated lists are found in the OT, as, for example, in Ezra (see on Ezra 7:1, 5). But that abbreviated genealogy was evidently considered adequate proof of Ezra’s descent from Aaron, at a time when others were denied admission to the priesthood because they could not give acceptable proof of their ancestry (Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64). The Jewish philosopher Philo and the Jewish historian Josephus, both of whom were practically contemporary with Jesus, gave abbreviated genealogies that they evidently considered adequate to establish their pedigrees. An Arab today commonly gives his ancestry by mentioning a few prominent names, his purpose being, not to provide a complete list, but simply to establish descent.

Matthew’s threefold division of the genealogy is historically sound, for each section constitutes a distinct period in Jewish history. During the first, from Abraham to David, the Hebrew economy was essentially patriarchal; during the second it was monarchic; and during the third the Jews were under the dominion of various foreign powers.

Fourteen generations. Three divisions, each composed of 14 generations, would total 42 instead of the 41 listed by Matthew. This seeming discrepancy has been explained in various ways. Some propose that the name Jechonias should be counted twice, as the last name in the second group and the first in the third group. Others are of the opinion that Matthew originally listed the name Jehoiakim between those of Josias and Jechonias (see on v. 11).

Unto Christ. Literally, “unto the Christ” (see on v. 1). Matthew is thinking of Christ in historical perspective as the Messiah of prophecy.

18. The birth. [The Announcement to Joseph; His Marriage, Matt. 1:18–25. See The Nativity.] Perhaps Matthew mentions no more of the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus than were necessary by way of evidence that His coming constituted a fulfillment of the OT prophecies (see v. 22). In harmony with the purpose of his Gospel, Matthew, in contrast with Mark and Luke, omitted much of the human interest side of Jesus’ life in order that he might concentrate on Jesus’ teachings (see p. 191).

His mother Mary. Jesus was made “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Mary was as much in need of salvation from her sins as any other son or daughter of Adam (Rom. 3:10, 23). There is but “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

Espoused to Joseph. That is, betrothed, or engaged, to him. Both Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth (Luke 1:26, 27; 2:4), “their own city” (Luke 2:39), though, as descendants of David, they considered Bethlehem their ancestral home (see DA 66). The fact that they found lodging in Bethlehem only with difficulty suggests that neither of them had close relatives living there at the time. Both Joseph and Mary were of the house and lineage of David (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:26, 27; 2:4; see on Matt. 1:16). They were probably members of the small circle that eagerly studied the prophecies and looked for the coming of the Messiah (DA 44, 47, 98). If so, knowing that the time was near, they, like other members of this group, no doubt prayed that God would hasten His coming (see Luke 2:25, 26, 38). It seems that Joseph was a widower at the time of his marriage to Mary. He had at least six other children (Matt. 12:46; 13:55, 56; Mark 6:3; DA 90, 321; four brothers and an unspecified number of sisters are mentioned), all probably older than Jesus (DA 86, 87). See on Matt. 1:25.

Before they came together. Matthew has already indicated that Joseph was not the father of Jesus (v. 16). Here, he reaffirms the fact. During the time of betrothal the prospective bride and groom were bound legally as husband and wife though they did not live together (Deut. 22:23, 24). Betrothal constituted a legal relationship, a solemn covenant that could be broken only by legal means, that is, by divorce (see Mishnah, Gittin 8. 9, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 389; Kiddushin 3:7, 8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 318, 320).

Found with child. See on Luke 1:26–38. The angel had appeared to Mary after her betrothal (Luke 1:26, 27), but prior to the time of her conception (Luke 1:31, 35). Of the visit of the angel to Mary, Joseph apparently knew nothing till later. The appearance of the angel to Joseph did not occur until he already knew that Mary was “with child” (Matt. 1:18, 20).

Holy Ghost. Better, “Holy Spirit.” “Ghost” is from an old Anglo-Saxon word. The expressions translated “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” (Luke 11:13; etc.) are identical in the Greek. The Holy Ghost is represented as the Agent through whom the creative and life-giving power of God is exercised (cf. Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; John 3:3–8; Rom. 8:11; etc.). The role of the Holy Spirit in the birth of Jesus is more clearly stated by Luke than by Matthew (Luke 1:35). It was by the agency of the Holy Spirit that “the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14), and that the Son of Mary could be called the “Son of God” (see on Luke 1:35).

In an endeavor to discredit Jesus as the Messiah, the Jews manufactured the fiction that He was an illegitimate child (John 8:41; 9:29). But it is worthy of note that the most learned Jewish scholars today recognize that story to be sheer invention. Joseph Klausner, for instance, says that “there is no historical foundation for the tradition of Jesus’ illegitimate birth” (Jesus of Nazareth, p. 36).

The incarnation of Jesus is a sublime and unfathomable miracle. He was “in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6; John 1:2), adored by the heavenly hosts and seated upon the throne of the universe. But as the King of glory He chose to “give back the scepter into the Father’s hands” (DA 22, 23), that He might “for a little while” be made “lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:7, 8, RSV), “in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). Afterward, He would again receive “all power” (Matt. 28:18), be “enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels” (AA 38), and be crowned “with glory and honor” (Heb. 2:7, RSV; see also Isa. 52:13–15). The mystery of the incarnation, however, is far surpassed by the mystery of the condescending love that prompted it (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; Gal. 2:20; 1 John 4:9). The “mystery of godliness” is the grand ministry of all time (1 Tim. 3:16). See on Phil. 2:7, 8; see Additional Note on John 1.

19. Just. Gr. dikaios, which may describe one who is correct, as observant of rules and customs, or righteous, as in accordance with what is right. In the NT dikaios is often used in the broad sense of correspondence to the divine standard. Thus Zacharias and Elisabeth (Luke 1:5, 6), Simeon (Luke 2:25), and Joseph of Arimathaea (Luke 23:50) are all described as dikaios. Pilate’s wife referred to Jesus as a “just man,” Gr. dikaios (Matt. 27:19). From the Jewish point of view a “just man” was a strict observer of the laws of Moses and of rabbinical traditions. As a result, Joseph may have questioned whether it would be morally right for him to marry someone who, it appeared, was an adulteress.

Not willing. Joseph tempered his sense of justice with mercy for the supposed offender. He was “not willing” to bring upon Mary additional embarrassment and suffering. The presumed offense was against himself. He could legally “put her away” merely by declaring that she did not please him (Matt. 19:3, 8; Mark 10:4), without mentioning his reason for doing so.

A public example. The fact that Joseph sought to spare Mary the embarrassment of a public trial is evidence of his own integrity as well as of his considerateness toward her.

Minded to put her away. Or, “resolved to divorce her” (RSV). From the time of betrothal both parties were legally bound, each to the other, and might be separated only by divorce (see on chs. 1:18; 5:27).

20. The angel. This was probably Gabriel, who had already appeared to Zacharias (Luke 1:11, 19); and to Mary (see on Luke 1:19).

In a dream. Luke (ch. 1:26–38) implies that the angel appeared to Mary visibly, not in a dream or a vision: he “came in unto her” (v. 28). To Joseph, however, the angel appeared in a dream while he was brooding over the problem that perplexed him. Inspired dreams are one of God’s appointed ways of revealing His will to men (Num. 12:6; Joel 2:28; cf. Gen. 20:3; 31:11, 24; 41:1; etc.)

Thou son of David. Joseph knew, of course, that he was of the royal line. He may even have been heir apparent to the throne of David, as could be implied by Matthew’s genealogy.

Fear not. He was not to hesitate or to question Mary’s virtue. As a “just man” (v. 19) Joseph need have no fear that by taking Mary he would forfeit righteousness. In fact, God required this act of faith.

Wife. Gr. guneµ, meaning (1) woman in general (chs. 9:20; 13:33; etc.), (2) a wife (chs. 14:3; 18:25), (3) one betrothed (Gen. 29:21, LXX; Deut. 22:23, 24, LXX; cf. Rev. 21:9). Here the third meaning evidently applies.

21. She shall bring forth. The angel did not tell Joseph that his “wife” would bear him a son, as he had told Zacharias concerning John (Luke 1:13). Jesus was to be born “the Son of God,” not the son of Joseph (Luke 1:35), but from the moment of Jesus’ birth Joseph was to be as His father. Like other children, Jesus would be benefited by a father’s companionship, guidance, and protection.

Call his name. Joseph was to have the privilege of naming his “Son,” an act usually considered to be the paternal prerogative (see Luke 1:59–63). Mary was also to participate in the naming of Jesus (Luke 1:31). Names of Jewish children were officially bestowed a week after birth, on the child’s eighth day, when the rite of circumcision was performed (Luke 2:21).

Jesus. See on v. 1.

He shall save. The name Jesus means “Jehovah is salvation” (see on v. 1). The word translated “he” is emphatic, as if the angel had said, “For he it is who shall save,” etc.

Echoing down through the ages of antiquity had sounded the promise, “Lo, I come” (Ps. 40:7; Zech. 2:10; Heb. 10:7). For centuries the Hebrew people—His people—had waited expectantly for the coming of their Deliverer. Now, “when the fulness of the time was come” (Gal. 4:4), the finger of destiny pointed to the One who was to fulfill these expectations. See on John 1:14.

From their sins. Sin had bound men (Rom. 6:16; 2 Peter 2:19) in its prison house (Isa. 42:7). Christ came that He might loose the bonds, open the prison doors, and deliver the captives from the sentence of death (Isa. 61:1; Rom. 7:24, 25). He came to save us from our sins, not in our sins. He came, not only to save us from sins actually committed, but from our potential tendencies that lead to sin (Rom. 7:23–5; 1 John 1:7, 9). He came to redeem us from “all iniquity” (Titus 2:14), including every hereditary and cultivated tendency to evil (DA 671).

Christ did not come to save His people from the power of Rome, as the Jews fondly hoped, but from the power of a far more formidable foe. He did not come to “restore again the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6), but to restore the dominion of God in the hearts of men (Luke 17:20, 21). Christ did not come primarily to save men from poverty and social injustice (Luke 12:13–15), as many apostles of the social gospel claim today, but from sin, the fundamental cause of poverty and injustice.

22. All this was done. Every important aspect of the life and mission of Jesus—His nature, His birth, the events of His life, and most particularly His sufferings and death—were all foretold by the prophets of old (see DA 242, 820). Not only so, but every act of His life was performed in fulfillment of a plan that existed from eternity. Ere He came to earth that plan lay before Him in all its details, and each event had its appointed hour (DA 147, 451; see on Deut. 18:15; Luke 2:49).

That it might be fulfilled. Expressions of this nature are characteristic of Matthew (see chs. 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9, 35). The Greek construction here employed may indicate either purpose or simply result. Accordingly this clause may be translated either, “in order that it might be fulfilled,” or, “as a result it was fulfilled.” Matthew uses this construction in both ways, and the context must determine in each case which is intended. The predictions concerning Christ had been made supernaturally; their fulfillment came about largely in a natural way, so far as men could see, yet with events ordained by Him who “ruleth in the kingdom of men” (Dan. 4:17; DA 147; see on Luke 2:49). Certain things happened, not to fulfill prophecy, but rather in fulfillment of prophecy. The sense of Matthew’s statement, “that it might be fulfilled,” would therefore be rendered more appropriately, “in fulfillment of” (see on Deut. 18:15).

23. A virgin. Literally, “the virgin.” Directly and indirectly Matthew and Luke supply evidence to confirm the truth of the virgin birth: (1) Both affirm that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). (2) They declare that Mary was to “bring forth a son” who was not to be the son of Joseph (see on Matt. 1:21) but the Son of God (Luke 1:35). (3) Mary remained a virgin “till she had brought forth” Jesus (Matt. 1:25). (4) Mary affirmed her virginity to the angel (Luke 1:34). Thus the virgin birth of Jesus is fully attested, even apart from the word “virgin” itself, and would stand even if Matthew had never used that word in this setting.

Matthew and Luke, writing as they did under divine direction, would not have related the story of the virgin birth if it had not been true. They knew well how the Jewish leaders had taunted Jesus because of the mysterious circumstances surrounding His birth, and that they were giving critics further opportunity for ridicule by repeating the story (see DA 715).

There can be no doubt that Matthew here uses “virgin” in the strict sense of the word, in reference to Mary as a chaste, unmarried young woman. For a consideration of the objection that the prophecy of Isaiah, “a virgin shall conceive,” applied only to a local situation in his day, see on Isa. 7:14. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Matthew applies Isaiah’s prediction to Christ, and in doing so uses the word parthenos, which strictly means “virgin” and nothing else. For a complete discussion of the problem of Isa. 7:14 see Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 151–169.

Rejecting all miracles, modern Bible critics generally dismiss the idea of the virgin birth as unworthy of an enlightened mind. They direct attention to the fact that, of all NT writers, only Matthew and Luke even mention it. They stress the fact that neither Mark, presumably the earliest of the Gospels, nor John, written to confirm the divinity of Jesus, nor Paul, the great theologian of the NT, so much as allude to it. The critics conclude that Mark knew nothing of the virginity of Mary, and that John and Paul considered the idea too fanciful to be worth mentioning.

These are all arguments from silence, and as such prove nothing. Matthew and Luke refer to the virginity of Mary as one detail of the birth narrative, and since Mark and John do not record the birth narrative at all they have no comparable reason for referring to this particular detail of it. The same is true of Paul, who stresses the incarnation, the union of divinity with humanity, as the great central fact implicit in the birth of Jesus. As the means by which the incarnation was accomplished, the virgin birth is, in a sense, incidental to the greater truth. The Pauline concept of the deity of Jesus Christ is wholly consistent with the virgin birth (see Phil. 2:6–8; Col.1:16; Heb. 1:1–9; etc.). Except for the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection Paul is almost altogether silent concerning details of the life narrative of our Lord, and he deals with these three events simply as historical facts.

The critics point to the fact that pagans attributed the greatness of such men as Alexander, Pythagoras, Plato, and Augustus Caesar to descent from the gods and to supposed virgin birth. But this is no more valid an argument than to say that the existence of spurious coins and counterfeits of the great masterpieces of art proves that there are no genuine ones.

If the statements of Matthew and Luke relative to the virgin birth are to be dismissed as incredible because the truth thus expressed transcends human knowledge and experience, many other passages throughout the Gospels must be discarded on the same basis. If the human mind is made the standard for determining the reliability of Scripture, the Bible ceases to be the Word of God to man and becomes merely a human document.

It should not be forgotten that the entire plan of salvation is a miracle, a “mystery” (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 1:9; 3:9; Col. 1:27; 2:2; Rev. 10:7). In the first place, it is a mystery that God could love sinners (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8). It is likewise a mystery that infinite wisdom could devise a plan whereby mercy might be combined with justice (Ps. 85:10) so as to meet the just claims of God’s holy law and at the same time save the sinner from its penalty (John 3:16; Rom. 6:23). It is a miracle that man, who is naturally at enmity with God (Rom. 8:7), can come to live at peace with Him (Rom. 5:1). It is a miracle that Christ can deliver from the reign of sin and death a man bent on evil (Rom. 7:24; Rom. 8:1, 2), and enable him to live a perfect life in harmony with the divine character (Rom. 8:3, 4). It is a miracle that a man can be born again (John 3:3–9), that an imperfect man (Rom. 3:23) can be transformed (Rom. 12:2) by the grace of Christ into a perfect man (Matt. 5:48) and become a son of God (1 John 3:1–3). The virgin birth, the perfect life, the vicarious death, the glorious resurrection of Jesus, are all mysteries of the human mind. The Christian religion makes no apology for the great mysteries of the plan of salvation, for God’s redeeming love is itself the greatest of all mysteries.

The incarnation of the Son of God is the sovereign fact of all time, the cornerstone of the Christian faith. But apart from the virgin birth there could be no true incarnation, and without the incarnation and virgin birth the Bible becomes mere fable and legend, Christianity a pious hoax, and salvation a disappointing mirage. See Additional Note on John 1.

With child. That is, by the Holy Spirit, as Luke also testifies (Luke 1:35). “When the fulness of the time” came (Gal. 4:4), God brought His Son into the world, having prepared for Him a body (Heb. 10:5).

Emmanuel. The Greek transliteration of the Heb. ФImmanuХ El, literally, “God with us.” The Son of God came to dwell, not only among us, but to be identified with the human family (John 1:1–3, 14; Rom. 8:1–4; Phil. 2:6–8; Heb. 2:16, 17; DA 23). See Additional Note on John 1; see on John 1:1–3, 14 . “Emmanuel” was not so much a personal name as it was a title descriptive of His mission (cf. Isa. 9:6, 7; 1 Cor. 10:4).

24. Took unto him. See vs. 18, 20. When God spoke, Joseph acted, without doubt or delay. In this perhaps more than in any other aspect of the character of Joseph is it apparent why he was suited to be the earthly protector of Mary and her child Jesus. In taking Mary to his house, Joseph acted on faith. Such an event as that announced by the angel was unknown in the annals of human experience, but Joseph believed that “with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26; cf. Gen. 18:14; Job 42:2; Jer. 32:17; Zech. 4:6; Luke 1:37; Rom. 4:21).

The role of Joseph was humble yet indispensable, and his prompt compliance with the angel’s instructions made a great deal of difference, both to Mary and to public opinion.

25. Knew her not. The form of the verb in Greek is against the Roman Catholic tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity, for it implies that Mary’s virginity continued only until the birth of Jesus. However, the word “till” (Gr. heoµs) is not conclusive either for or against perpetual virginity. The most natural meaning of v. 25 is that although Mary did not live with Joseph as his wife before the birth of Jesus, she did so afterward. Compare the uses of heoµs in the LXX of Gen. 8:7; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 6:23 and in Matt. 5:26; 12:20; 18:30; 22:44. Jesus had both brothers and sisters, but the brothers, at least, were older than Jesus, and therefore Joseph’s children by a former marriage (see on Matt. 12:46). The fact that Jesus committed His mother to the care of John (John 19:27) may imply that Mary had no other children of her own. On the other hand, she may have had children who were not in a position to care for her or who were unsympathetic toward both her and Jesus. See on Matt. 1:18.

Her firstborn son. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of the word “firstborn.” However, such an omission in no way affects the certainty that Jesus was Mary’s first-born, for these same manuscripts have the statement in Luke 2:7.

Among the Jews the term “firstborn” was frequently used in a technical, legal sense. As a result of the deliverance of Israel’s first-born from the tenth Egyptian plague, God claimed all the first-born sons of Israel as His own (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:13). At Sinai the tribe of Levi was accepted for the service of the sanctuary in the place of the first-born of all the tribes, but the Lord required that every first-born son be redeemed (Num. 3:45, 46). Technically, the “firstborn” might be an only child.

Called his name Jesus. Names were officially conferred on children on the eighth day after birth (Luke 2:21). At that time “Jesus” was registered as the son of Mary and Joseph. See on Matt. 1:1.

Ellen G. White comments

21  4T 251

23        DA 19, 24, 25, 26; Ed 83; ML 290