What about Luke and Matthew and the genealogy of Jesus?

Good question

The question of the genealogy of Jesus Christ has been the subject of sermons, Sunday School lessons, commentary, apologetics, and Bible Handbooks. The seeming conflict of Matthew and Luke is a good excuse to learn about what appears to be a pretty boring subject. Rather than give a trimmed explanation I decided to present the opinions of several people. Behind the names of the authors that put together the books are researchers and others that narrowed the treatment of this part of the story of Jesus in each volume.

Several treatments are also presented in the hope that something different that will further illuminate this will in turn spur independent study in more depth. Looking back into the Old Testament and finding how each ancestor and the prophecies concerning the birth of Jesus fits in with the story of salvation gives a richer understanding of the expectation of His coming, His meaning to the world, and His contemporaries.

There are a lot of other books and each might impart something meaningful concerning this subject. It is also rewarding to look at the Hebrew and Greek and do word studies as more meaning is gained by doing so. However brief this answer is, it is a good start. If you are not a believer it may be difficult to bring an adversarial stance to any aspect of God’s Word and expect to learn a great deal beyond the bare bones explanation.

A question that has long perplexed the readers of the New Testament concerns the differing genealogies of Jesus Christ recorded in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

At first glance, the impression is created that both accounts are tracing the family line of Jesus through His earthly father Joseph in which case we would be faced with an obvious contradiction, because Matthew 1:16 indicates Jacob is Joseph’s father, while Luke 3:23 tells us that Heli is the father of Joseph.

A plausible solution to this difficulty is to understand that Matthew is indeed giving us Joseph’s family line, but Luke is tracing the genealogy of Mary. The reason that Mary is not mentioned in Luke 3 is because she has already been designated the mother of Jesus in several instances.

The usual practice of a Jewish genealogy is to give the name of the father, grandfather, etc., of the person in view. Luke follows this pattern, and does not mention the name of Mary, but the name of the legal father. However, Luke is quick to add that Joseph is not, in reality, the father of Jesus, since Jesus had been virgin born (Luke 1:34, 35).

A literal translation of Luke 3:23 would be, "Jesus, when He began, was about thirty years old, being the son of Joseph, as it was thought, of Heli.… " This does not at all mean that Jesus was the son of Heli, but that Jesus was a descendant, on His mother’s side, of Heli. The word "son" has this wider meaning.

Thus Luke is tracing the roots of Jesus through His mother, Mary, who was a descendant of Heli, et cetera. Joseph’s name is mentioned, according to the common practice, but he is clearly portrayed as the supposed father of Jesus, and God as the actual father.

The purpose of the two genealogies is to demonstrate that Jesus was in the complete sense a descendant of David. Through His foster father, Joseph, He inherited—by law—the royal line, albeit a deposed line according to Jeremiah 22:28–30. More importantly through His mother He was a flesh and blood descendant of King David through David’s son Nathan. Thus, Jesus had the proper credentials for the throne of David. ¹

The genealogy which opens the Gospel of Matthew and the New Testament is in many respects the most important document in the Scriptures. The entire Bible rests upon its accuracy. You will notice it has three divisions:

1. Genealogy from Abraham to David (vv. 1–6).
2. Genealogy from Solomon to the Babylonian captivity (vv. 7–11).
3. Genealogy from the Babylonian captivity to Joseph, the carpenter (vv. 12–17).

In our study of Genesis, we note the fact that it is a book about families. The genealogies there are very important, and we see them here as we start the New Testament.

Now I must confess that at first this looks rather boring. You give someone a New Testament, and they begin here in the Gospel of Matthew with a genealogy staring them in the face, and they’re not going to get very far in it. A chaplain friend of mine told me that in World War II he gave out literally thousands of New Testaments to servicemen. He’s seen the men in the bunks open the New Testament, read for a minute or two at the beginning of Matthew, start through that genealogy and come to the conclusion this Book wasn’t for them. Can’t blame them! My point is that we ought to use a little wisdom in giving out literature to people. The average person should start first in any one of the other three Gospels, preferably Mark, rather than the Gospel of Matthew. But that doesn’t lessen the importance of this genealogy.

The New Testament rests upon the accuracy of this genealogy because it establishes the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is of the line of Abraham and of the line of David. Both are very important. The line of Abraham places Him in the nation, and the line of David puts Him on the throne—He is in that royal line.

The genealogies were very important to the nation Israel, and through them it could be established whether a person had a legitimate claim to a particular line. For example, when Israel returned from the captivity, we find in the Book of Ezra, "These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood" (Ezra 2:62). It was possible in Ezra’s day to check the register of the tribe of Levi and remove those who made a false claim.

Evidently these genealogies were kept by the government and were accessible to the public. I have a notion they were kept in the temple because Israel was a theocracy, and actually the "church" and the state were one. This genealogy was obviously on display and could have been copied from the public records until the temple was destroyed in B.C. 70. The enemies of Jesus could have checked them and probably did. This is interesting and important because they challenged every move of the Lord Jesus, even offering a substitute explanation for the Resurrection, but they never did question His genealogy. The reason must be that they checked it out and found that it was accurate.

This is most important because it puts Jesus in a very unique position. You remember that He said the Shepherd of the sheep enters in by the door but the thief and the robber climb up some other way to get into the sheepfold (see John 10:1–2). That "fold" is the nation Israel. He didn’t climb into the fold over a fence in the back, and He didn’t come in through the alley way. He came in through the gate. He was born in the line of David and in the line of Abraham. This is what Matthew is putting before us. He is the fulfillment of everything that had been mentioned in the Old Testament. So the enemies of Christ never could challenge Him in regard to His genealogy. They had to find some other ways to challenge Him, and, of course, they did.

When I was a teenager, I became interested in the Bible for the first time, and I went to a summer conference where the Lord spoke to my heart. Our Bible teacher thrilled my heart as he taught the Word of God. One morning he asked, "How many of you young people have read the Bible through in a year?" There were two to three hundred young people there, but not a hand went up. He asked the same question four times. Finally, one young man in the back put up his hand rather hesitatingly and said, "Well, I read it, but I only read the parts that were interesting. I didn’t read the genealogies." Everybody laughed, and the teacher laughed, too, and admitted that he didn’t read them either. At that very moment it occurred to me that since the Spirit of God has used so much printer’s ink to give them to us, there must be some importance in them for us. So I’ll have you note this genealogy now in Matthew because it is very important.

This is the genealogy of the Lord Jesus on Joseph’s side. We’ll have another when we get over to Luke, and that will be from Mary’s side.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham

Matthew 1:1

"The book of the generation" is a phrase which is peculiar to Matthew. It’s a unique expression, and you won’t find it anywhere else in the New Testament. If you start going back through the Old Testament, back through Malachi and Zechariah and Haggai and back to the Pentateuch, through Deuteronomy, Numbers, Leviticus, Exodus into Genesis, you’ll almost come to the conclusion that it’s nowhere else in the Bible except here in Matthew. Then all of a sudden, you come to the fifth chapter of Genesis and see "This is the book of the generations of Adam …" (Genesis 5:1). There is that expression again. There are two books: the book of the generations of Adam and the book of the generation of Jesus Christ. How did you get into the family of Adam? You got in by a birth. You didn’t perform it; in fact, you had nothing to do with it. But that’s the way you and I got into the family of Adam. We got there by birth. But in Adam all die (Romans 5:12). Adam’s book is a book of death.

Then there is the other book, the book of the generation of Jesus Christ. How did you get into that family, into that genealogy? You got into it by a birth, the new birth. The Lord Jesus says we must be born again to see the Kingdom of God (see John 3:3). That puts us in the Lamb’s Book of Life, and we get there by trusting Christ. We all are in the first book, the book of the generations of Adam. I trust that you, my friend, are also in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

Matthew says Jesus is "the son of David, the son of Abraham." Didn’t Matthew know that Abraham came before David? Of course he did because he makes that clear in the rest of the genealogy. Then why did he put it this way? He is presenting the Lord Jesus as the Messiah, the One who is the King, the One who is to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. And that comes first. He must be in the line of David in fulfillment of the prophecies that God made to David. He is the Son of David.

He is also the Son of Abraham and it is very important that He be the Son of Abraham, because God had said to Abraham, "… in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed …" (Genesis 22:18). And in Galatians 3:16 Paul explains who that "seed" is: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." So Jesus Christ is the Son of Abraham.

Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias

Matthew 1:2–6

A careful look at the genealogy that follows is not only interesting; it is actually thrilling. Four names stand out as if they were in neon lights. It is startling to find them included in the genealogy of Christ. First, they are the names of women; second, they are the names of Gentiles.

Customarily, the names of women did not appear in Hebrew genealogies, but don’t find fault with that for the very simple reason that today we have the same thing in marriage. In a marriage the name that the couple takes is the name of the man. They don’t take the name of the woman. Her line ends; his goes on. That’s the way we do it today, and that’s the way they did it then.

Down through the years I have performed marriages in which the girl had a lovely name like Jones or Smith, and she wanted to exchange it for a name like Neuenschwander or Schicklegruber! You would think that she’d not want to surrender her name for one having four or five syllables, but that’s the way they do it today. I have a clipping in my file of about ten years ago that tells of a couple in Pasadena who did the unusual thing of taking the name of the woman, which, I understand, can be legally done. But our custom is to take the name of the man, and it is the man’s genealogy that is given.

In Jesus’ day it was indeed unusual to find in a genealogy a woman’s name—yet here we have four names. They are not only four women; they are four Gentiles. As you know, God in the Law said that His people were not to intermarry with tribes that were heathen and pagan. Even Abraham was instructed by God to send back to his people to get a bride for his son Isaac. Also, the same thing was done by Isaac for his son Jacob. It was God’s arrangement that monotheism should be the prevailing belief of those who were in the line that was leading down to the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet in His genealogy are the names of four gentile women—two of them were Canaanites, one was a Moabite, and the fourth was a Hittite! You would naturally ask the question, "How did they get into the genealogy of Christ?"

"Thamar" is the first one, and she is mentioned in verse three. Her story is in Genesis 38, and there she is called Tamar. That chapter is one of the worst in the Bible. Thamar got into the genealogy because she was a sinner.

"Rachab" is the next one mentioned in verse five. She’s not a very pretty character in her story back in Joshua chapter 2 where she is called Rahab. But she did become a wonderful person after she came to a knowledge of the living and true God. "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace" (Hebrews 11:31). She got into the genealogy of Christ for the simple reason that she believed. She had faith. Notice the progression here. Come as a sinner, and then reach out the hand of faith.

"Ruth" is the next one mentioned in verse five. She is a lovely person, and you won’t find anything wrong with her. But at Ruth’s time there was the Law which shut her out because it said that a Moabite or an Ammonite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord (see Deuteronomy 23:3). Although the Law kept her out, there was a man by the name of Boaz who came into his field one day and saw her. It was love at first sight.

Now, maybe you didn’t know that I believe in love at first sight. I proposed to my wife on our second date, and the only reason I didn’t propose on our first date was because I didn’t want her to think I was in a hurry! I do believe in love at first sight. But don’t misunderstand me—we waited a year before we were married, just to make sure. And I think that is always the wise thing to do.

Boaz loved Ruth at first sight, and he extended grace to her by putting his mantle around her and bringing her, a Gentile, into the congregation of Israel. She asked, "… Why have I found grace in thine eyes … ?" (Ruth 2:10). You and I can ask that same question of God regarding His grace to us. Again, note the progression. We come as sinners and hold out the hand of faith, and He, by His marvelous grace, saves us.

"Bathsheba" is not mentioned by name but called "her that had been the wife of Urias" (v. 6). Her name isn’t mentioned because it wasn’t her sin. It was David’s sin, and David was the one that really had to pay for it. And he did pay for it. She got into the genealogy of Christ because God does not throw overboard one of His children who sins. A sheep can get out of the fold and become a lost sheep, but we have a Shepherd who goes after sheep and always brings them back into the fold. He brought David back. So this is the whole story of salvation right here in this genealogy.

Now there are some more interesting things about this genealogy. If you will compare this genealogy with the one in I Chronicles 3 (some of the names are spelled differently), you will find that in verse eight of Matthew, the names of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are left out. This shows that genealogies are quoted to give us a view of a certain line of descendants and that every individual is not necessarily named in every genealogy of the Bible. I think we should remember this in the genealogies given to us in Genesis before the Flood. These are not necessarily complete genealogies, but they are given to trace a certain line for us. I personally think man has been on this earth a lot longer than Ussher’s dating which is found in the margins of many editions of the Bible. Remember that these dates are by Ussher and are not part of the Bible. They are faulty and do not belong there.

And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon,

Matthew 1:10–11

In verse 11, we find that Matthew skips Jehoiakim but includes Jechonias. Jechonias deserves our special attention because God had said that none of his seed would sit on the throne. "As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah [his name is Jeconiah, but God took the Je off his name because it is the prefix for Jehovah, and this man was a wicked king] the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence…. Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22:24, 30). Because of the sin of this man Jechonias, no one in his line could ever sit on the throne of David. You see, Joseph is in this line, but Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus. This is one of the most remarkable facts in the Scriptures, and Matthew is trying to make it clear to us. Joseph gave to Jesus the title, the legal title, to the throne of David because Joseph was the husband of Mary who was the one who bore Jesus. Jesus Christ is not the seed of Joseph, nor is He the seed of Jeconiah. But both Joseph and Mary had to be from the line of David, and they were—through two different lines from two different sons of David. We’ll find when we get to Luke that Mary’s line comes from David through his son Nathan. Joseph’s line comes through the royal line through Solomon. So Joseph and Mary both had to go to Bethlehem to be enrolled for taxation because they were both from the line of David. You see how interesting, fascinating, and important these genealogies are and how much they are worth our study.

Now the genealogy concludes with this verse—

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Matthew 1:16

You see that this breaks the pattern which began as far back as verse 2 where it says that Abraham begat Isaac. From then on it was just a whole lot of "begetting," and verse 16 begins by saying, "And Jacob begat Joseph." You would expect it to continue by saying that Joseph begat Jesus, but it does not say that. Instead, it says, "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Obviously, Matthew is making it clear that Joseph is not the father of Jesus. Although he is the husband of Mary, he is not the father of Jesus.

What is the explanation of this? Well, Matthew in the rest of this chapter will give us the explanation and will show how it fulfills Old Testament prophecy.

Luke, who wrote the Gospel bearing his name, was a Greek doctor. In his Gospel, he goes into an extended section on obstetrics. Both Gospels declare that Jesus was virgin born. Joseph was not His father, but Mary was not unfaithful to Joseph. Jesus is not an illegitimate child. This is something new: "… A woman shall compass a man" (Jeremiah 31:22).

Now, my friend, I have never objected to any man saying that he does not believe in the virgin birth. A man has the right to disbelieve. But I do have two very definite objections: I do not think that a preacher should deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. If he does, then he ought to get a job selling insurance and deal with births in a different way. And I do object to anyone saying that the Bible does not teach the virgin birth of Christ. The only Jesus that we have any historical record of is the One who was virgin born. If you want to take the position that He was not virgin born, where is your documentation? You will have to produce evidence—certainly more than the puny reasoning of man. It is so easy to sit in a swivel chair in some theological seminary and write a thesis on the impossibility of the virgin birth. You may write a very profound tome on the subject, but you haven’t any documents to back up your denial. All you have is just rationalism. By the process of rationalizing you may say, "It couldn’t have happened." Well, who are you to say that it couldn’t have happened? A few years ago man said that it was impossible to go to the moon, but we have gone there, and we have gone there by using the laws of God. God is the Creator of natural laws. He can either use those natural laws or He can set them aside in order to accomplish His purposes. The record clearly states that Jesus Christ was virgin born.

In verse 17 we find a statement which will explain something in the genealogies.

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Matthew 1:17

Matthew puts the genealogy into groupings to give an overall view of Old Testament history. One era extends from Abraham to David, another from David to the Babylonian captivity, and the third from the captivity in Babylon to the birth of Jesus Christ. Obviously, he has omitted some names from the genealogy in order to fit fourteen into each period. The question is, why did he do this? Apparently, the number fourteen (twice seven) offered some proof concerning the accuracy of this genealogy.

Now that Matthew has shown that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, he is going to give us an explanation. Already in the Old Testament, a supernatural birth has been predicted by God. Jeremiah is talking to the nation Israel when he says, "How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man" (Jeremiah 31:22). That’s not the way it’s done, my friend. That’s not natural birth; it’s supernatural. The virgin birth of the Lord Jesus is the "new thing" which God has done. And it is the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:18

"The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." Here’s the way it happened, Matthew is telling us. When His mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, that is, she was engaged to him, before they came together—they had had no sexual relationship—she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Matthew 1:19

The Mosaic Law was very specific at this point. It said that a woman who was guilty of being unfaithful should be stoned to death—that was the extreme penalty. But this man Joseph was a remarkable man. We devote a great deal of attention to Mary, and rightly so. Protestants should not let themselves be deterred from giving Mary a great deal of credit. She was a remarkable person. Remember that she was the one whom God chose to be the mother of our Lord, and God makes no mistakes. He picked the right girl. While all of this is true, we need to remember that God also chose Joseph. God made no mistake in choosing him either. A hot-headed man would immediately have had her stoned to death or would have made her a public example by exposing her. But Joseph was not that kind of man. He was a gentle person. He was in love with her, and he did not want to hurt her in any way, although he felt that she had been unfaithful to him.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:20

In order to prevent a very tragic situation, the angel appeared to Joseph to make clear to him what was taking place.

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 1:21

The name Jesus means "Savior." He shall have the name Jesus because He shall save His people from their sins.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying

Matthew 1:22

Matthew, who is writing for the nation Israel, points out that all this was done so that it might be fulfilled as the Lord had spoken. Matthew is appealing to the nation Israel to understand that this One who had come must be the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy.

It has been said that there are over three hundred prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ that have been literally fulfilled. I don’t know how many of them are in Matthew, but I do know that Matthew quoted more from the Old Testament than the other three Gospel writers all together. It seems he records things and substantiates them from the Old Testament because he is not primarily trying to give a "life of Christ" but is showing that this is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Him.

Now he states the prophecy which was given in Isaiah 7:14:

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matthew 1:23

Now let’s look at this a moment because it is very important. The liberal theologian has, of course, denied the fact of the virgin birth of Christ, and he has denied that the Bible teaches His virgin birth. Very candidly, I suspect that the Revised Standard Version was published in order to try to maintain some of the theses of the liberals. In fact, I am sure of this because one of the doctrines they have denied is the virgin birth. In the New Testament of the Revised Standard Version, which was copyrighted in 1946, Matthew 1:23 reads thus: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel’ (which means, God with us)."

In the Old Testament of the Revised Standard Version, which was copyrighted in 1952, Isaiah 7:14 reads like this: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Notice that in Isaiah they substituted "young woman" for the word virgin, even though in Matthew 1:23 they had used the word virgin, which is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14!

The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was given as a sign. My friend, it is no sign at all for a young woman to conceive and bear a son. If that’s a sign, then right here in Southern California a sign is taking place many times a day, every day. They translated it "young woman" to tone down that word virgin.

Let us look at Isaiah 7:14 in the original Hebrew language. The word used for "virgin" is almah. The translators of the Revised Standard Version went to the writings of Gesenius, an outstanding scholar who has an exhaustive Hebrew lexicon. (I can testify that it’s also exhausting to look at it!) Gesenius admitted that the common translation of the word is "virgin," but he said that it could be changed to "young woman." The reason he said that was because he rejected the miraculous. So this new translation and others who have followed him, have attempted to say that almah means "young woman" and not "virgin."

Let’s turn back to Isaiah 7 and study the incident recorded there. This was during the time when Ahaz was on the throne. He was one of those who was far from God, and I list him as a bad king. God sent Isaiah to bring a message to him, and he wouldn’t listen. So we read: "Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord" (Isaiah 7:10–12). May I say, it was pious hypocrisy for him to say what he did. God had asked Isaiah to meet Ahaz on the way to deliver God’s message to him that God would give victory to Ahaz. However, Ahaz wouldn’t believe God and so, in order to encourage his faith, Isaiah tells him that God wants to give him a sign. In his super-pious way Ahaz says, "Oh, I wouldn’t ask a sign of the Lord." Isaiah answered him, "God is going to give you a sign whether you like it or not. The sign isn’t just for you but for the whole house of David." Now here is the sign: "… Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14).

Obviously, if this refers to a young woman, it would be no sign to Ahaz, or to the house of David, or to anybody else; but if a virgin conceives and bears a son, that, my friend, is a sign. And that’s exactly what it means.

When the word almah is used in the Old Testament, it means a virgin. Rebekah was called an almah before she married Isaac. I asked a very fine Hebrew Christian, who is also a good Hebrew scholar, about that. He said, "Look at it this way. Suppose you went to visit a friend of yours who had three daughters and two of them were married and one was still single. He would say, ‘These two are my married daughters, and this young lady is my third daughter.’ Do you think he would mean a prostitute when he said ‘young lady’? If you would imply that she was anything but a virgin, he would probably knock your block off." May I say, I would hate to be those who deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ when they must come into the presence of the Son of God. I’m afraid they are going to wish they could somehow take back the things they have said to malign Him.

The fact that the word almah means "a virgin" is proven by the Septuagint. During the intertestamental period, seventy-two Hebrew scholars, six from each of the twelve tribes, worked down in Alexandria, Egypt, on the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language. When they came to this "sign" in Isaiah, those seventy-two men understood that it meant "virgin," and they translated it into the Greek word parthenos. That is the same word which Matthew uses in his Gospel. My friend, parthenos does not mean "young woman"; it means "virgin." For example, Athena was the virgin goddess of Athens, and her temple was called the Parthenon because parthenos means "virgin." It is clear that the Word of God is saying precisely what it means.

Notice something wonderful. "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." It looks as if there is a problem here. Can you tell me where Jesus was ever called Emmanuel? No, He is called Jesus because that is His name. He was given this name because He shall save His people from their sins. Christ, by the way, is His title; Jesus is His name. But it says here that He shall be called "Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Friend, here we have one of the most wonderful things in the entire Word of God. Let’s look at this. Emmanuel means "God with us." He can’t be Emmanuel, God with us, unless he is virgin born. That’s the only way! And notice, unless He is Emmanuel, He cannot be Jesus, the Savior. The reason they call Him Jesus, Savior, is because He is God with us. This truth about the One who came down to this earth is one of the most wonderful things in the Bible.

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Hebrews 2:9). He had to be a sacrifice that was acceptable. I couldn’t die for the sins of the world. I can’t even die a redemptive death for my own sins. But He can! How can Jesus be a Savior? Because He is Emmanuel, God with us. How did He get with us? He was virgin born. I say again, He was called Jesus. He was never called Emmanuel. But you cannot call Him Jesus unless He is Emmanuel, God with us. He must be Emmanuel to be the Savior of the world. That is how important the virgin birth is.

Can a person be a Christian and deny the virgin birth? Hear me very carefully: I believe that it is possible to accept Christ as your Savior without knowing much about Him. You may not even know that this record is in the Bible. But after you have become a child of God, you will not deny the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus. You may not have to know it to be saved, but as a child of God you cannot deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Do I sound dogmatic, friend? Well, I hope I do because I consider this to be all-important. I want a Savior who is able to reach down and save Vernon McGee. If He’s just another man like I am, then He’s not going to be able to help me very much. But if He is Emmanuel, God with us, virgin born, then He is my Savior. Is He your Savior today? He took upon Himself our humanity in this way so that He might taste death for us, that He might die a redemptive death on the cross for us.

The rest of this chapter deals with the genealogy of Mary, not Joseph. The genealogy of Joseph is found in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham and comes down to the Lord Jesus Christ through David and through Solomon. The legal title to the throne came through Joseph.

Luke’s genealogy is different. It is given in reverse order from Matthew’s. Luke goes back to David and then back to Adam. Luke gives Mary’s story, and this is clearly her genealogy. The royal blood of David flowed through her veins also, and Jesus’ blood title to the throne of David came through her.

Two things about this genealogy should be noted. First, Dr. Luke makes it clear that Joseph was not the father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

Luke 3:23

The word son as it is used in this genealogy is not in the better manuscripts. Joseph was not the son of Heli. The word son is added to indicate the lineage through the father (the man) who was the head of the house. In other words, the genealogy is listed according to the man’s name. In Matthew, where it is giving the genealogy through Joseph, it states that Jacob begat Joseph.

The second important thing to notice is verse 31 which reads:

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David

Luke 3:31

Matthew traces the line of Christ through David’s son, Solomon. That is the royal line. Luke traces the line of Christ through David’s son, Nathan. Mary had the blood of David in her veins. Jesus Christ is the Son of David.

Luke reveals Jesus Christ as the Son of Man and the Savior of the world. His line does not stop with Abraham, but goes all the way back to Adam who was the first "son" of God—the created son of God. But he fell from that lofty position when he sinned. Jesus Christ, the last Adam and the Son of God, is come to bring mankind back into that relationship with God which Adam formerly had and lost. This relationship is accomplished through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. ²

A casual reading of the New Testament may cause a person to wonder why it begins with something as seemingly dull as a family tree. One might conclude that there is little significance to be drawn from this catalog of names and, thus, skip over it to where the action begins.

However, the genealogy is indispensable. It lays the foundation for all that follows. Unless it can be shown that Jesus is a legal descendant of David through the royal line, it is impossible to prove that He is the Messiah-King of Israel. Matthew begins his account where he must—with the documentary evidence that Jesus inherited the legal right to the throne of David through His stepfather, Joseph.

This genealogy traces the legal descent of Jesus as King of Israel; the genealogy in Luke’s Gospel traces His lineal descent as Son of David. Matthew’s genealogy follows the royal line from David through his son, Solomon, the next king; Luke’s genealogy follows the blood line from David through another son, Nathan. This genealogy concludes with Joseph, of whom Jesus was the adopted Son; the genealogy in Luke 3 probably traces the ancestry of Mary, of whom Jesus was the real Son.

A millennium earlier, God had made an unconditional agreement with David, promising him a kingdom that would last forever and a perpetually ruling line (Psalm 89:4, 36, 37). That covenant is now fulfilled in Christ: He is legal heir to the throne of David through Joseph and the actual seed of David through Mary. Because He lives forever, His kingdom will last forever and He will reign forever as David’s greater Son. Jesus united in His Person the only two bases for claims to the throne of Israel (the legal and the lineal); since He still lives, there can be no other claimant.

1:1–15 The formula the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham is similar to the expression in Genesis 5:1: "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam." Genesis introduces the first Adam; Matthew, the last Adam. The first Adam was head of the first, or physical, creation. Christ, as the last Adam, is Head of the new, or spiritual, creation.

The subject of this Gospel is Jesus Christ. The name Jesus presents Him as Jehovah-Savior; the title Christ ("Anointed"), as the long awaited Messiah of Israel. The title Son of David is associated with the roles of both Messiah and King in the OT. The title Son of Abraham presents our Lord as the One who is the ultimate fulfillment of the promises made to the progenitor of the Hebrew people.

The genealogy is divided into three historical sections: from Abraham to Jesse, from David to Josiah, and from Jeconiah to Joseph. The first section leads up to David; the second covers the kingdom period; the third preserves the record of royal descent during the exile (586 B.C. and following).

There are many interesting features in this register. For example, in this paragraph, four women are mentioned: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (her who had been the wife of Uriah). Since women are seldom mentioned in eastern genealogical tables, the inclusion of these women is all the more astonishing in that two of them were harlots (Tamar and Rahab), one had committed adultery (Bathsheba), and two were Gentiles (Rahab and Ruth). Their inclusion in Matthew’s introduction is perhaps a subtle suggestion that the coming of Christ would bring salvation to sinners, grace to Gentiles, and that in Him, barriers of race and sex would be torn down.

Of interest too is the mention of a king named Jeconiah. In Jeremiah 22:30 God pronounced a curse on this man:

Thus says the Lord:

"Write this man down as childless,

A man who shall not prosper in his days;

For none of his descendants shall prosper,

Sitting on the throne of David,

And ruling anymore in Judah."

If Jesus had been the real son of Joseph, He would have come under this curse. Yet He had to be the legal son of Joseph in order to inherit the rights to the throne of David. The problem was solved by the miracle of the virgin birth: Jesus was the legal heir to the throne through Joseph. He was the real Son of David through Mary. The curse on Jeconiah did not fall on Mary or her children since she did not descend from Jeconiah.

1:16 Of whom in English could be construed as referring to both Joseph and Mary. However, in the original Greek, whom is singular and in the feminine gender, thus indicating that Jesus was born of Mary, but not of Joseph. But in addition to these interesting features of the genealogy, mention must also be made of the difficulties which it presents.

1:17 Matthew draws special attention to the fact that there are three sections of fourteen generations each. However, we know from the Old Testament that certain names are missing from his list. For example, between Joram and Uzziah (v. 8), Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah reigned as kings (see II Kings. 8–14; II Chronicles 21–25).

The genealogies of Matthew and Luke seem to overlap in mentioning two names: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12, 13; Luke 3:27). It is strange that the ancestry of Joseph and Mary should merge in these two men, and separate again. The difficulty is increased when we notice that both Gospels follow Ezra 3:2 in listing Zerubbabel as the son of Shealtiel, whereas in I Chronicles 3:19 he is listed as the son of Pedaiah.

A third difficulty is that Matthew counts twenty-seven generations from David to Jesus, while Luke gives forty-two. Even though the evangelists are outlining different family trees, it still seems odd that there should be such a difference in the number of generations.

What attitude should the Bible student take toward these difficulties and seeming discrepancies? First, our foundational premise is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Therefore, it cannot contain errors. Second, it is infinite because it reflects the infinity of the Godhead. We can understand the fundamental truths of the Word, but we can never fully comprehend all there is in it.

So, our approach to these difficulties leads us to conclude that the problem lies in our lack of knowledge rather than in the Bible’s fallibility. Bible problems should challenge us to study and search for the answers. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter" (Proverbs 25:2).

Careful research by historians and excavations by archaeologists have not been able to demonstrate that the statements of the Bible are false. What seem to us like difficulties and contradictions all have reasonable explanations, and these explanations are filled with spiritual significance and profit.

Jesus Christ Is Born of Mary (Matthew 1:18–25)

1:18 The birth of Jesus Christ was different from any of the births mentioned in the genealogy. There we found the repeated formula: "A begot B." But now we have the record of a birth without a human father. The facts surrounding this miraculous conception are stated with dignity and simplicity. Mary had been promised in marriage to Joseph, but the wedding had not yet taken place. In New Testament times, betrothal was a form of engagement (but more binding than engagement today) and it could be broken only by divorce. Although an engaged couple did not live together until the marriage ceremony, unfaithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punishable by death.

During the time of her betrothal, the Virgin Mary became pregnant by a miracle of the Holy Spirit. An angel had previously announced this mysterious event to Mary: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you" (Luke 1:35). A cloud of suspicion and scandal hung over Mary. In all of human history there had never been a virgin birth. When people saw an unwed woman who was pregnant, they had only one possible explanation.

1:19 Even Joseph did not yet know the true explanation of Mary’s condition. He might have been indignant at his fiancée on two counts: First, her apparent unfaithfulness to him; and second, though innocent, he would almost inevitably be accused of complicity. His love for Mary and desire for justice led him to decide to break the betrothal by a quiet divorce. He wished to avoid the public disgrace which normally accompanied such an action.

1:20 While this gentle and deliberate man was mapping his strategy to protect Mary, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. The salutation, "Joseph, son of David," was doubtless designed to stir up the con sciousness of his royal pedigree and to prepare him for the unusual advent of Israel’s Messiah-King. He should have no misgivings about marrying Mary. Any suspicions concerning her purity were groundless. Her pregnancy was a miracle of the Holy Spirit.

1:21 The angel then revealed the unborn Child’s sex, name, and mission. Mary would bear a Son. He was to be named JESUS, (which means "Jehovah is salvation" or "Jehovah, the Savior"). True to His Name, He would save His people from their sins. This Child of destiny was Jehovah Himself, visiting earth to save people from the penalty of sin, from the power of sin, and eventually from the very presence of sin.

1:22 As Matthew recorded these events, he realized that a new era had dawned in the history of God’s dealings with the human race. The words of a messianic prophecy, long dormant, had now sprung to life. Isaiah’s cryptic prophecy was now fulfilled in Mary’s Child: So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet. Matthew claims divine inspiration for the words of Isaiah—the Lord had spoken by the prophet at least 700 years before Christ.

1:23 The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 included the foretelling of a unique birth ("Behold, the virgin shall conceive"), the sex of the Child ("and bear a Son"), and the name of the child ("and [she] shall call His name Immanuel"). Matthew adds the explanation that Immanuel means God with us. There is no record of Christ ever being called "Immanuel" while on earth; He was always called "Jesus." However, the meaning of the name Jesus (see above on v. 21) implies the presence of God with us. Immanuel might also be a designation for Christ which will be used primarily in His Second Advent.

1:24 As a result of the angel’s intervention, Joseph abandoned his plan to divorce Mary. He continued to recognize their betrothal until Jesus’ birth, after which he married her.

1:25 The teaching that Mary remained a virgin all of her life is disproved by the consummation of their marriage mentioned in this verse. Other references which indicate that Mary had children by Joseph are Matthew 12:46; 13:55, 56; Mark 6:3; John 7:3, 5; Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5; and Galatians 1:19.

In taking Mary as his wife, Joseph also took her Child as his adopted Son. This is how Jesus became legal heir to the throne of David. In obedience to the angelic visitor, he called the Baby’s name Jesus.

Thus the Messiah-King was born. The Eternal One entered time. The Omnipotent became a tiny Infant. The Lord of glory veiled that glory in a human body, and "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9). ³

1:1–2. The book of the generation. The genealogy of Christ opens with a statement similar to the various divisions of the book of Genesis (showing the unity of the Scriptures). Jesus Christ is the title most often used of the Saviour. Jesus (Greek Ieµsous; Hebrew Yehoshua) is His earthly name, meaning "saviour." Christos is the Greek translation for "messiah" or "anointed." Technically: Jesus the Christ.

Son of David. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to King David, through the line of Davidic kings, Matthew connects Jesus with His royal heritage. Despite six centuries of vacancy on the royal throne, the Messiah must be of royal descent. The genealogy here is that of Joseph, Jesus’ legal father, whereas the genealogy of Luke 3:23–38 is that of Mary, His actual parent, showing His blood line back to David. The author’s purpose is to show that the messianic promises made to David’s line are fulfilled in Jesus. Son of Abraham. He is also the fulfillment of the covenant promises to Abraham, the forefather of the Jews (cf. Genesis 12:3; 13:15; 22:18). Since Matthew is writing primarily to Jewish readers, he naturally begins by emphasizing Jesus’ Jewish parentage.

3–8. Judas is the Greek form of Judah, the father of the tribe so named. The promise of Jacob was that the leadership of the twelve tribes would come through Judah (cf. Gen 49:8–12) which the Jews understood to mean that the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah. Thamar … Rachab … Ruth … wife of Uriah. Four "questionable" women appear in this genealogy in addition to Mary, the mother of Jesus. It was not customary to list the names of women in a genealogy; therefore, the inclusion of these names must be deliberate on the part of the author. Tamar was the mother of two illegitimate sons (Pharez and Zerah) by Judah. Rahab was the converted prostitute of Jericho and the mother of Boaz. Ruth, the wife of Boaz, was a godly foreigner (Moabitess). The wife of Uriah is none other than Bathsheba whose adultery with David is infamous. However, she later became the legitimate wife of David and the mother of Solomon. The curious feature of mentioning these women in this genealogy indicates that the evangelist wished to disarm Jewish criticism about the unusual virgin birth of Jesus by showing that irregular unions were divinely blessed in the Messiah’s legal ancestry. "The evangelist’s argument is that Jesus, born of a virgin mother, was none the less the true lineage of David because Joseph was in fact legally married to his mother Mary" (Tasker, p. 32).

9–10. Uzziah [Ozias] is referred to as Uzziah (Isaiah 6:1) and Azariah (II Kings 14:21). Three generations are omitted at this point. Matthew omits the names of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah and then omits Jehoiakim after the name of Josiah. "The omissions are doubtless due to his arbitrary shortening of the list to give three groups of fourteen" (Kent, p. 3). Being familiar with rabbinical thinking, Matthew uses a symmetry of numbers. He has, accordingly, divided the generations from Abraham to Jesus into three groups of fourteen each: from Abraham to David (vss. 2–6), from David to the Babylonian exile (vss. 6–11), from the exile to the birth of Jesus (vss. 12–16). The significance of the number fourteen seems to come from the numerical values of the Hebrew consonants in the name David which add up to that number. The system of rabbinic sacred arithmetic was often based on hidden calculations. To what degree Matthew is following such a system is uncertain.

11–15. Jechoniah is also called Jehoiachin (II Kings 24:8) and Coniah (Jeremiah 22:24) and was cursed from having any descendant upon the throne of David according to Jeremiah 22:30. It should be noted that Jesus is not a natural descendant of his. He was recognized by the Jews of the exile as their last legitimate king. Carried away to Babylon refers to the seventy years’ captivity of the Jews in Babylon during the days of Daniel the prophet.

Salathiel is named as the son of Jechoniah. This does not contradict Jeremiah 22:28–30 for the predicted childlessness of Jechoniah refers to reigning children, that is, that he would have no son who would rule Israel as king. The reference to Salathiel as the son of Neri in Luke 3:27 is better understood as being a totally different person, rather than the result of levirate marriage. It is assumed that the rest of this family record comes from Joseph’s family annals.

16. Joseph the husband of Mary. The wording carefully inspired by the Holy Spirit avoids giving the impression that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus. As the husband of Mary, he was Jesus’ legal father and the one through whom He had a right to David’s throne. It is not said that Joseph "begat" Jesus, which is a deliberate change from the preceding genealogical expressions. Every emphasis of the text at this point reinforces the idea of the virgin birth of Christ. The marriage of Joseph and Mary took place after the conception but before the birth of Jesus.

17. Fourteen generations is the literary grouping used by Matthew to emphasize the three major periods of Israel’s national history: theocracy, monarchy, hierarchy. The use of "so" implies this is an artificial arrangement. The translation would be "so this makes fourteen generations."

18. Espoused means that Mary was already bound or betrothed to Joseph, although they were not yet actually married. Among the Jews, marriage vows were said at the betrothal and required a legal divorce to end them. The custom of the day usually required an interval of one year of betrothal before the bride could actually take residence in her husband’s house and consummate their union. It was during this interval that Mary was found with child. Her pregnancy naturally would have been assumed to be the result of an illegitimate union of adultery, a circumstance usually punishable by death (Deut 22:23). At this point, Mary had not yet explained her situation to Joseph. Indeed, she could hardly have expected Joseph to accept her story of the miraculous conception of the child by the Holy Spirit. With child of the Holy Ghost is the biblical explanation for the miraculous conception of Christ.

19–20. Because Joseph was a just man, he decided to divorce Mary privately (privily) but while he considered what should be done the angel of the Lord spoke to him in a dream. The angel is better translated as "an angel." Prior to His birth, Jesus Christ, the. second person of the Trinity, often appeared to men in the form of a man. These appearances in the Old Testament are called theophanies or Christophanies. Since the Scripture clearly states that "no man hath seen God at any time" (Jn 1:18), these appearances evidently refer to Christ rather than God the Father. It is interesting to note the references to God refer to Him as Lord (cf. Gen 18:2, 13, 17). After His birth as Jesus, there were no more temporary physical appearances of God to man. After His resurrection Jesus appeared to men as Himself in a glorified body.

Put her away means literally to divorce her. The Jewish betrothal had to be legally broken. Joseph’s merciful attitude gives an insight into his true nature as a man. Thou son of David is the address by the angel to Joseph. In spite of his humble circumstances, he was a legitimate heir to the vacant throne of David. The angel orders him to take Mary as his wife because the baby she has conceived is of the Holy Ghost. This divinely born miracle-Son is the fulfillment of God’s miraculous promises to the Jewish nation, which promises began in the book of Genesis with God’s covenant with Abraham.

21–22. Call his name Jesus. The naming of the child Jesus (Hebrew Yehoshua) means "Jehovah saves." This points to the very purpose of Christ’s coming into the world to save sinners. Placed early in the New Testament, this statement becomes the foundational concept of the gospel. Jesus, by His very name and nature, is the Saviour. That it might be fulfilled. This phrase (Greek  pleærooæ) indicates the inevitability of the fulfillment of the words of the prophet, as well as the fact that Matthew saw Isaiah’s statement as predictively fulfilled in the birth of Christ. "The verb pictures the promise or prophecy as an empty vessel which is at last filled when the event occurs" (R. Lenski, Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, p. 52). Arndt and Gingrich list this use of the word as "the fulfillment of divine predictions or promises" (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 677). There can be no doubt that Matthew firmly believed this reference was definitely a prediction of an event that was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. One wishing to deny the predictive element of Isaiah or its acceptance by the early church cannot adequately do so on a philological-grammatical basis, nor on the basis of historical precedent.

23–25. A virgin relates Mary the mother of Jesus to the prediction found in Isaiah 7:14. Matthew uses the Greek word parthenos to translate the Hebrew word >almah. His contextual usage of "fulfill" is almost certainly indicative of his understanding the Isaiah passage to contain a definitely predictive element. He recognizes the prophecy as coming from God (the Greek preposition hypo introduces the direct agent with a passive verb, whereas dia introduces the mediate agent). The Lord is the source of the prophecy and the prophet is his mouthpiece. Thus, God is the cause and the prophet is the instrument which He uses. The quotation of Isaiah 7:14 follows the Septuagint (LXX) rendering where parthenos is also used to translate the Hebrew >almah. Perhaps no prophetic prediction has created a greater controversy than Isaiah’s prediction of a virgin-born Son which Matthew clearly claims to have been fulfilled in the birth of Christ (cf. The Interpreter’s Bible, V, p. 218. It is interesting to note that the exegetical and homiletical sections of this work are done by different authors, and on the same page the exegete denies that Isaiah is predicting the birth of Christ and the expositor claims that he is!). The liberal interpretation of this verse attempts to deny the validity of Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 as a prediction of the birth of Christ (cf. G. Cox, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, pp. 29–30; A. Argyle, The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 28; F. Pilson, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, pp. 54–55).

There can be no doubt that the Greek term parthenos is always to be translate) "virgin" (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 6325. The real question is whether the LXX is correct in its translation of the Hebrew <almah. Since the weight of scholarship supports the translation of the Hebrew word >almah as being the most accurate word possible for "virgin," one can only conclude that the LXX translaters were correct in their interpretation. The Dead Sea Scroll copy of Isaiah indicates the same usage (cf. G. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament, p. 310). For a thorough discussion of the Old Testament usage of <almah see E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, I, pp. 284–291; Studies in Isaiah, pp. 143–198; C. Feinberg, "Virgin Birth in the Old Testament and Isaiah 7:14," Bibliotheca Sacra 119, pp. 251–58; E. Hindson, Isaiah’s Immanuel, and "Development of the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14," Grace Journal, X, 1, 2 pp. 3–15, 19–25.

The virgin birth of Christ is undoubtedly the most essential doctrine underlying His deity. The prediction in Isaiah 7:14 of a virgin-born son calls His name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. This is a title describing the deity of the person of the Son of God rather than a name actually used by him. It implies God will come to dwell among His own people. For a discussion of the significance of the virgin birth of Christ see R. Gromacki, The Virgin Birth: Doctrine of Deity; H. Hanke, The Validity of the Virgin Birth; J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ.

2:1–2. Bethlehem of Judea was also called Ephrath. The town is five miles south of Jerusalem. Its name in Hebrew means "house of bread." This Judaean city was the birthplace of King David. It was the original city of Joseph’s ancestors. According to Luke 2:1–7, Mary and he traveled there from Nazareth and Jesus was born in a stable after they arrived there. Herod the king was known as Herod the Great, and was the son of Antipater, an Edomite. He became king by Roman decree in 43 b.c. Wise men were originally the priestly caste among the Persians and Babylonians. These Magi from the east were experts in the study of the stars. Tradition claims there were three royal visitors who were also kings. However there is no real historical evidence to verify this. All we are told in the text is that there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Born King of the Jews. The wise men naturally came to Jerusalem, the royal capital of Israel, seeking one whom they thought was to be born a king, on the basis of their calculations of the stars. What exactly this meant to them we are not sure. Perhaps, through the science of astronomy they observed a new star and for some reason correlated that with the birth of a king. Why they would associate this star with Israel is uncertain. "It is entirely conceivable that these men had made contact with Jewish exiles, or with the prophecies and influence of Daniel, and thus were in possession of Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah" (Kent, p. 6). His star. It is unlikely that this star could only have been a natural phenomenon since it led the wise men to Jerusalem and later to Bethlehem. It almost certainly was a divine manifestation used by God to indicate the fact and place of the Messiah’s birth and the place of His reign.

3–4. Naturally, such a question, seeking the birth of a new king, would upset Herod, the current ruler. He quickly gathered his scribes and demanded an explanation of them. The scribes belonged mainly to the party of the Pharisees and functioned as members of a highly honored profession. "They were professional students and defenders of the law … they were also referred to as lawyers because they were entrusted with the administration of law as judges in the Sanhedrin" (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 8). Where Christ should be born. This demand is highly significant in that it implies the Jews of that day were anticipating the Messiah.

5–6. When they replied that He would be born In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet, they clearly anticipated a literal fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies regarding the coming of the Messiah. The quotation is from Micah 5:2 where the prophet predicts that Bethlehem of the tribe of Judah shall be the place where the governor or ruler of Israel shall originate. It is significant to note that Isaiah and Micah were contemporaries. Their prophecies of the coming of the Messiah interrelate to one another. The Governor who will come from Bethlehem is none other than the child-ruler predicted in Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder." The prophet goes on to proclaim that this ruler is the "mighty God" and that the increase of His government shall never end. He will sit upon the throne of David forever.

7–11. Herod’s fear of a rival ruler caused him to question what time the star appeared. His subsequent slaughter of the children at Bethlehem from two years old and under was apparently calculated from the time given him by the wise men. The fact that the child was found in a house (vs. 11) and not the manger would indicate that Jesus was probably no longer a baby when the wise men found Him. They were guided to this place by the star which went before them. This again indicates the supernatural nature of this star. The young child. When the wise men arrived they found the child (not a baby) with His mother in a house. This would indicate that the family had now moved out of the stable into a rented home at Bethlehem. Whether the visit of the wise men occurred a few months after the birth of the child or one to two years afterwards is uncertain. Since the wise men brought three gifts, i.e., gold, frankincense and myrrh, it has been assumed that they were three in number (some traditions have even given them names but these are not necessarily established by fact). It has been suggested that the gifts were in recognition of Jesus as King, Son of God, and the Suffering Saviour. It is also significant that they worshiped him, indicating their recognition of the deity of the one whom they were worshiping. Again, Matthew has reasserted the importance of the deity of Christ. He is the virgin-born Son, "God with us," who deserves our worship. ⁴

1Josh McDowell, Answers to Tough questions: Skeptics ask about the Christian faith [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, ^©1993 by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.

2J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, ^©1981 by J. Vernon McGee.

3William MacDonald; edited with introductions by Arthur Farstad, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, ^©1995 by William MacDonald.

⁴Jerry Falwell, executive editor; Edward E. Hinson and Michael Kroll Woodrow, general editors, KJV Bible commentary [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, ^©1994.

See also

Clark Pinnock, "Genealogy of Jesus Christ" in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1975.

W. F. Arndt, Does the Bible Contradict Itself? 5th rev. ed., Concordia Press, 1955

Biblical quotations from above are from the King James Authorized Version unless otherwise indicated.

King Herod ordered the slaughter of the children two and under in age.  Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt having been warned that Herod was out to kill Jesus.  Jesus stands in direct contrast with the kind of king Herod was.  Flavius Josephus records how Herod died and the evil that he did before the earth was finally rid of him. All the public works and glittering buildings that he had built are memories now.  He is remembered as evil and a murderer. 

(168) But now Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God’s judgment upon him for his sins: for a fire glowed in him slowly, which did not so much appear to the touch outwardly as it augmented his pains inwardly; (169) for it brought upon him a vehement appetite to eating, which he could not avoid to supply with one sort of food or other. His entrails were also exulcerated, and the chief violence of his pain lay on his colon; an aqueous and transparent liquor also settled itself about his feet, and a like matter afflicted him at the bottom of his belly. Nay, farther, his privy member was putrified, and produced worms; and when he sat upright he had a difficulty of breathing, which was very loathsome, on account of the stench of his breath, and the quickness of its returns; he had also convulsions in all parts of his body, which increased his strength to an insufferable degree. (170) It was said by those who pretended to divine, and who were endowed with wisdom to foretell such things, that God inflicted this punishment on the king on account of his great impiety; (171) yet was he still in hopes of recovering, though his afflictions seemed greater than anyone could bear. He also sent for physicians, and did not refuse to follow what they prescribed for his assistance; and went beyond the river Jordan, and bathed himself in warm baths that were at Calirrhoe, which, besides their other general virtues, were also fit to drink; which water runs into the lake called Asphaltitis. (172) And when the physicians once thought fit to have him bathed in a vessel full of oil, it was supposed that he was just dying; but, upon the lamentable cries of his domestics, he revived; and having no longer the least hopes of recovering, he gave order that every soldier should be paid fifty drachmae; (173) and he also gave a great deal to their commanders, and to his friends, and came again to Jericho, where he grew so choleric, that it brought him to do all things like a madman; and though he were near his death, he contrived the following wicked designs. (174) He commanded that all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation wheresoever they lived, should be called to him. Accordingly, there were a great number that came, because the whole nation was called, and all men heard of this call, and death was the penalty of such as should despise the epistles that were sent to call them. And now the king was in a wild rage against them all, the innocent as well as those that had afforded him ground for accusations; (175) and when they were come, he ordered them all to be shut up in the hippodrome, and sent for his sister Salome, and her husband Alexas, and spoke thus to them:—"I shall die in a little time, so great are my pains; which death ought to be cheerfully borne, and to be welcomed by all men; but what principally troubles me is this, that I shall die without being lamented, and without such mourning as men usually expect at a king’s death." (176) For that he was not unacquainted with the temper of the Jews, that his death would be a thing very desirable, and exceedingly acceptable to them; because during his lifetime they were ready to revolt from him, and to abuse the donations he had dedicated to God: (177) that it therefore was their business to resolve to afford him some alleviation of his great sorrows on this occasion; for that, if they do not refuse him their consent in what he desires, he shall have a great mourning at his funeral, and such as never any king had before him; for then the whole nation would mourn from their very soul, which otherwise would be done in sport and mockery only. (178) He desired therefore that as soon as they see he hath given up the ghost, they shall place soldiers round the hippodrome, while they do not know that he is dead; and that they shall not declare his death to the multitude till this is done, but that they shall give orders to have those that are in custody shot with their darts; and that this slaughter of them all will cause that he shall not miss to rejoice on a double account; that as he is dying, they will make him secure that his will shall be executed in what he charges them to do; and that he shall have the honor of a memorable mourning at his funeral. (179) So he deplored his condition, with tears in his eyes, and obtested them by the kindness due from them, as of his kindred, and by the faith they owed to God, and begged of them that they would not hinder him of this honorable mourning at his funeral. So they promised him not to transgress his commands.

6. (180) Now anyone may easily discover the temper of this man’s mind, which not only took pleasure in doing what he had done formerly against his relations, out of the love of life, but by those commands of his which savored of no humanity, (181) since he took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust, or against him, nor were they accused of any other crimes; while it is usual for those who have any regard to virtue, to lay aside their hatred at such a time, even with respect to those they justly esteemed their enemies.

1. (182) As he was giving these commands to his relations, there came letters from his ambassadors, who had been sent to Rome unto Caesar, which when they were read, their purport was this:—That Acme was slain by Caesar, out of his indignation at what hand she had in Antipater’s wicked practices; and that as to Antipater himself, Caesar left it to Herod to act as became a father and a king, and either to banish him or to take away his life, which he pleased. (183) When Herod heard this, he was somewhat better, out of the pleasure he had from the contents of the letters, and was elevated at the death of Acme, and at the power that was given him over his son; but, as his pains were become very great, he was now ready to faint for want of something to eat; so he called for an apple and a knife; for it was his custom formerly to pare the apple himself, and soon afterward to cut it, and eat it. (184) When he had got the knife, he looked about, and had a mind to stab himself with it; and he had done it, had not his first cousin, Achiabus, prevented him, and held his hand, and cried out loudly. Whereupon a woeful lamentation echoed through the palace, and a great tumult was made, as if the king were dead. (185) Upon which Antipater, who verily believed his father was deceased, grew bold in his discourse, as hoping to be immediately and entirely released from his bonds, and to take the kingdom into his hands, without any more ado; so discoursed with the jailer about letting him go, and in that case promised him great things, both now and hereafter, as if that were the only thing now in question; (186) but the jailer did not only refuse to do what Antipater would have him, but informed the king of his intentions, and how many solicitations he had had from him [of that nature]. (187) Hereupon Herod, who had formerly no affection nor good will towards his son to restrain him, when he heard what the jailer said, he cried out, and beat his head, although he was at death’s door, and raised himself upon his elbow, and sent for some of his guards, and commanded them to kill Antipater without any further delay, and to do it presently, and to bury him in an ignoble manner at Hyrcania.

(188) And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Berea, and granted the kingdom to Archelaus. (189) He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and Paneas to Philip, who was his son, but own brother to Archelaus, by the name of a Tetrarchy; and bequeathed Jamnia, and Ashdod, and Phasaelis, to Salome his sister, with five hundred thousand [drachmae] of silver that was coined. (190) He also made provision for all the rest of his kindred, by giving them sums of money and annual revenues, and so left them all in a wealthy condition. He bequeathed also to Caesar ten millions [of drachmae] of coined money; besides both vessels of gold and silver, and garments exceeding costly, to Julia, Caesar’s wife, and to certain others, five millions. (191) When he had done those things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven.—A man he was of great barbarity towards all men equally, and a slave to his passions; but above the consideration of what was right; (192) yet was he favored by fortune as much as any man ever was, for from a private man he became a king; and though he were encompassed with ten thousand dangers, he got clear of them all, and continued his life till a very old age; but then, as to the affairs of his family and children, in which, indeed, according to his own opinion, he was also very fortunate, because he was able to conquer his enemies; yet, in my opinion, he was herein very unfortunate.

(193) But then Salome and Alexas, before the king’s death was made known, dismissed those that were shut up in the hippodrome, and told them that the king ordered them to go away to their own lands, and take care of their own affairs, which was esteemed by the nation a great benefit; (194) and now the king’s death was made public, when Salome and Alexas gathered the soldiery together in the amphitheatre at Jericho; and the first thing they did was, they read Herod’s letter, written to the soldiery, thanking them for their fidelity and good will to him, and exhorting them to afford his son Archelaus, whom he had appointed for their king, like fidelity and good will. (195) After which Ptolemy, who had the king’s seal intrusted to him, read the king’s testament, which was to be of force no otherwise than as it should stand when Caesar had inspected it; so there was presently an acclamation made to Archelaus, as king, and the soldiers came by bands, and their commanders with them, and promised the same good will to him, and readiness to serve him, which they had exhibited to Herod; and they prayed God to be assistant to him.

(196) After this was over, they prepared for his funeral, it being Archelaus’s care that the procession to his father’s sepulchre should be very sumptuous. Accordingly he brought out all his ornaments to adorn the pomp of the funeral. (197) The body was carried upon a golden bier, embroidered with very precious stones of great variety, and it was covered over with purple, as well as the body itself; he had a diadem upon his head, and above it a crown of gold; he also had a sceptre in his right hand. (198) About the bier were his sons and his numerous relations; next to these was the soldiery distinguished according to their several countries and denominations; and they were put into the following order:—First of all went his guards, then the band of Thracians; and after them the Germans; and next the band of Galatians, everyone in their habiliments of war; and behind these marched the whole army in the same manner as they used to go out to war, (199) and as they used to be put in array by their muster-masters and centurions; these were followed by five hundred of his domestics, carrying spices. So they went eight furlongs, to Herodium; for there, by his own command, he was to be buried;—and thus did Herod end his life.

4. (200) Now Archelaus paid him so much respect, as to continue his mourning till the seventh day; for so many days are appointed for it by the law of our fathers; and when he had given a treat to the multitude, and left off his mourning, he went up into the temple; he had also acclamations and praises given him, which way soever he went, everyone striving with the rest who should appear to use the loudest acclamations. (201) So he ascended a high elevation made for him, and took his seat, in a throne made of gold, and spake kindly to the multitude, and declared with what joy he received their acclamations, and the marks of the good will they showed to him: and returned them thanks that they did not remember the injuries his father had done them, to his disadvantage; and promised them he would endeavor not to be behind hand with them in rewarding their alacrity in his service, after a suitable manner; (202) but that he should abstain at present from the name of King; and that he should have the honor of that dignity, if Caesar should confirm and settle that testament which his father had made; and that it was on this account, that when the army would have put the diadem on him at Jericho, he would not accept of that honor, which is usually so much desired, because it was not yet evident that he who was to be principally concerned in bestowing it, would give it him; (203) although, by his acceptance of the government, he should not want the ability of rewarding their kindness to him; and that it should be his endeavor, as to all things wherein they were concerned, to prove in every respect better than his father. (204) Whereupon the multitude, as it is usual with them, supposed that the first days of those that enter upon such governments, declare the intentions of those that accept them; and so by how much Archelaus spake the more gently and civilly to them, by so much did they more highly commend him, and made application to him for the grant of what they desired. Some made a clamor that he would ease them of some of their annual payments; but others desired him to release those that were put into prison by Herod, who were many and had been put there at several times; (205) others of them required that he would take away those taxes which had been severely laid upon what was publicly sold and bought. So Archelaus contradicted them in nothing, since he pretended to do all things so as to get the good will of the multitude to him, as looking upon that good will to be a great step towards his preservation of the government. Hereupon he went and offered sacrifice to God, and then betook himself to feast with his friends.

Josephus, Flavius, The Works of Josephus, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.

See In the Beginning and Jacob's Ladder