Matthew

By John F. Walvoord, Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley

What does the first book of the New Testament teach?

As the first gospel, the book of Matthew is a bridge between the Old Testament and the New. It presents Jesus as the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament, but also as the Savior whose death was necessary for the salvation of mankind. Yet Matthew also describes the future Kingdom of Jesus when He will reign on earth at His Second Coming. 

In this fourth volume of the renewed Walvoord Commentary Series, renowned biblical scholar and prophecy expert John Walvoord, along with Dr. Charles Dyer, walks readers through the gospel of Matthew chapter by chapter and unfolds his message of Jesus’ Messianic identity, teachings, miracles, and future return as victorious King. 

Revised and updated throughout and based on the text of the English Standard Version (ESV), this new edition of Walvoord’s commentary will serve a whole new generation of pastors, leaders, and laypeople.     

• Language: English
• Publisher: Moody Publishers
• Release date: Jul 26, 2013
• ISBN: 9780802483140

John F. Walvoord

John F. Walvoord was president of Dallas Theological Seminary and author of numerous books on eschatology and theology. He held the A.M. degree from Texas Christian University in philosophy and the ThD degree from Dallas Theological Seminary in Systematic Theology.

Book preview

© 1974 by

THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO

© 2013

THE JFW PUBLISHING TRUST AND CHARLES H. DYER

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2000, 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Edited by Philip E. Rawley

Interior design: Ragont Design

Cover design: Tan Nguyen

Cover image: Shutterstock

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Walvoord, John F.

     [Matthew, thy kingdom come]

     Matthew / John F. Walvoord; revised and edited by Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley.

       pages cm. — (The John Walvoord prophecy commentaries)

     Rev. ed. of: Matthew, thy kingdom come : a commentary on the first Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI : Kregel Publications, 1998.

     Includes bibliographical references and index.

     ISBN 978-0-8024-0476-3

     1. Bible. Matthew—Commentaries. I. Dyer, Charles H., 1952- editor of compilation. II. Title.

   BS2575.53.W35 2013

   226.2’07—dc23

2013012980

We hope you enjoy this book from Moody Publishers. Our goal is to provide high-quality, thought-provoking books and products that connect truth to your real needs and challenges. For more information on other books and products written and produced from a biblical perspective, go to www.moodypublishers.com or write to:

Moody Publishers

820 N. LaSalle Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60610

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Printed in the United States of America

This book is dedicated to the late Dr. Howard G. Hendricks, and to Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost and Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint, three very special faculty members who served at Dallas Theological Seminary during Dr. Walvoord’s tenure as president.

You shared Dr. Walvoord’s passion for accurately handling the Word of God, and you also modeled theological integrity and biblical consistency … all the while displaying a shepherd’s heart for your students.

Thank you for serving so faithfully with Dr. Walvoord … and for instilling in your students a passion for God’s Word!

CHARLES H. DYER

To my first mentor and closer than a brother friend, Jim Killion. May God’s face always shine on you.

PHILIP E. RAWLEY

Dr. Charles H. Dyer received his ThM and PhD degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary. After serving on the faculty and administration at Dallas Seminary for twenty years, Charlie joined the administration of Moody Bible Institute where he served for ten years as Provost and Dean of Education. In 2010 Charlie left academic administration to become Professor-at-Large of Bible and host of The Land and the Book radio program. In addition to his extensive teaching and speaking schedule, Charlie also leads tours to the Middle East and is the author of numerous books, including The Rise of Babylon, The New Christian Traveler’s Guide, A Voice in the Wilderness, and What’s Next? He also authored Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, coauthored Nelson’s Old Testament Survey, and has contributed articles to Bibliotheca Sacra and chapters for several other books.

Philip E. Rawley is a former Moody Publishers textbook editor, one of the founding editors and writers for Today in the Word, and a freelance writer living in Rockwall, Texas. He is a graduate of the University of South Florida (BA) and Dallas Theological Seminary (ThM). Phil and his wife, Sarah, have two children and two grandsons.

Contents

Foreword

Preface

Introduction

Part One: The Origin of Jesus Christ

1. The Genealogy and Birth of Jesus Christ

2. The Divine Protection of the Child Jesus

Part Two: The Early Ministry of Jesus

3. The Introduction and Baptism of Jesus

4. The Temptation of Jesus and the Call of His First Disciples

Part Three: The Principles of the Kingdom: The Sermon on the Mount

5. The Moral Principles of the Kingdom

6. The Life of Faith in the Kingdom

7. Doing the Will of the Father

Part Four: The Credentials of the King

8. The Authority of the King over Disease and Nature

9. The Authority of the King to Forgive Sin

Part Five: The Rejection of the King and the Kingdom

10. The Twelve Apostles Called and Commissioned

11. The Growing Opposition to Jesus

12. Jesus Rejected by the Pharisees

Part Six: The Period between the Two Advents

13. The Mysteries of the Kingdom

Part Seven: The Continued Ministry of the Rejected King

14. The Compassion of the Rejected King

15. The Rejected King’s Continued Ministry of Mercy

16. Teaching in Anticipation of Rejection

17. The Coming Kingdom after Jesus’ Suffering and Death

18. Teachings Concerning Greatness and Forgiveness

19. Jesus Ministers in Perea

20. The Journey to Jerusalem

21. Jesus’ Arrival in Jerusalem

22. Jesus’ Controversy with the Jewish Rulers

23. Jesus Condemns the Scribes and Pharisees

Part Eight: The Olivet Discourse on the End of the Age

24. The Signs of the End of the Age

25. Judgments at the End of the Age

Part Nine: The Death and Resurrection of the Rejected King

26. Jesus’ Last Hours before Crucifixion

27. The Crucifixion of Jesus

28. The Resurrection and Final Words of Jesus

Bibliography

Subject Index

Scripture Index and Apocrypha

Foreword

In the last few weeks before my father died we had time to celebrate his life, tell stories about past family events, and dream a little about the future. His mind and memory were sharp and he was as upbeat and confident as ever. He was ninety-two years of age, had lived a full life, and had served well the Lord he loved.

The doctors had given him six weeks to live, and in that time we relived many a family story. He was visited by a parade of his close friends, many influential leaders he had taught and mentored. From his hospital room were days filled with warm memories and laughter, and an occasional hymn echoed down the hall.

My father had a list of things he entrusted to me as his oldest son. But in the last week of his life, the conversation turned to the seventy years he had dedicated to the study of the Bible. And in all that time, he explained, four key books of the Bible had been the subject of his most intense study: Revelation, Daniel, Matthew, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians. He shared stories about how they were first written, taught, and eventually published.

I remember many of those times. Every summer our family piled into our car and drove across the U.S. and sometimes into Canada. We went from one Bible conference to another, but a lot of that time was spent on the road. And always somewhere in the car was a cardboard box filled with books.

Many nights Dad put us to bed and quietly went into a motel bathroom to read and take notes. Then when he was ready he would dictate an entire chapter, footnotes and all. So whether on the road or at home, this scholarly work was often done late at night and early in the morning. And it continued all his life.

In our final conversations his dream was that his work and biblical insights would live on after him. He remembered how the commentaries and works of some of the great teachers of the Bible lived on for generation after generation. Would his commentaries survive to teach others after his death?

My father explained he had chosen Moody Publishers (then known as Moody Press) to publish his first commentary on Revelation for one very important reason. He knew he could trust them to keep the commentary in print as long as it was needed.

So in those last weeks of my father’s life, our discussions produced one more assignment. Could I find a way to fulfill his dream to keep these works alive for the generations of students he would not be able to teach in the classroom?

From the seed of that dream has grown the new Walvoord Commentary series. The team that took up that dream is made up of men my father knew and trusted. And as he would have guessed, it was championed by Greg Thornton, senior vice president of media at Moody Bible Institute.

Philip Rawley agreed to take the lead as the editor of the series. And he took on the assignment with much more than the word editor implies. Phil was both a student of my father’s and a friend. As far back as twenty-five years ago he collaborated with me to help my father with a project that became Every Prophecy of the Bible. Since then we have worked together on many writing projects.

But I believe this may have been one of Phil Rawley’s most important tasks. He was much more than an editor. In many instances he took up the mantle of the writer who could best capture the way my father would have explained his biblical insights to a new generation of students.

Dr. Mark Hitchcock also agreed to join the team. Because of Mark’s interest in prophecy, he and my father often had lunch to discuss key issues in biblical prophecy. Mark is a great admirer of my father’s work and a prolific author in his own right who had written more than fifteen books on prophecy and end-time events before we met. Mark was a natural choice to work with me to research and write Armageddon, Oil, and Terror shortly after my father’s death. In that process we became close friends in the quest to turn my father’s ideas and notes into an entirely new work. It was an amazing journey.

Dr. Hitchcock has collaborated on Revelation and has taken on the lion’s share of expanding my father’s work and class notes, previously published as The Thessalonian Epistles, into a full commentary for this series. He is a thorough scholar who fully understands my father’s teaching from the Epistles.

Dr. Charles Dyer also became an important part of the team. He is an author and teacher who has been greatly influenced by my father as one of his students and later a colleague in the administration of Dallas Theological Seminary. As an Old Testament scholar, Dr. Dyer has taken up the task of revising my father’s commentary on Daniel. He also agreed to work on Matthew for two reasons. First, most of Jesus’ teaching on prophecy is best understood in its Old Testament context. Second, Dr. Dyer is as familiar with the Holy Land and the setting of Matthew as anyone I know. He will, I am sure, make both Daniel and the events of Matthew’s Gospel come alive for every reader of the Walvoord Commentary series.

So now, almost a decade after my father’s death, his legacy will live on in this new series of biblical commentaries. I am sure he would have been proud of the men who have taken up his torch and are passing it to a new generation of Bible students. As a great man of The Book, my father is greater still because those who follow in his footsteps remain true to his vision and faithful to the exposition of God’s Word.

JOHN EDWARD WALVOORD

January 2011

Preface

Dr. John F. Walvoord was a theologian, teacher, administrator, author … and so much more! His time at the helm of Dallas Theological Seminary was a time of growth, development, and stability for that great institution. He stepped in as president following the death of the school’s founder, and he led the school for the next thirty-five years. In spite of all the demands of the presidency, he also found time to write. And his writings continue to make a mark among conservative evangelicals.

I had Dr. Walvoord as a professor my very first year at Dallas Seminary, and (as many can attest!) he was an imposing, almost intimidating, teacher. But over the next decades I also had the privilege of getting to know Dr. Walvoord on a personal level, especially during the twenty years I served on the faculty and administration at the school. And the more I got to know Dr. Walvoord, the more I came to appreciate him. Along with the title President came duties and difficulties that few outside the inner circle of leadership can even begin to understand. But John Walvoord seemed to handle virtually every problem and situation with an almost limitless supply of energy and strength.

After retiring as president, Dr. Walvoord remained the school’s greatest booster and cheerleader. And he continued speaking and writing! To those of us who watched him, he was the model of an ultimate spiritual marathon runner. He stayed the course for life’s entire race—from the starting gun all the way to the finish line—with a determination and passion that helped set him apart from the pack.

When I was asked if I would be willing to take part in a project to revise several of his commentaries, I immediately said yes. The opportunity to work on Daniel was exciting, but I was also looking forward to this commentary as well. Dr. Walvoord’s work on Matthew might be less known, but it’s just as important for developing a correct understanding of the Messiah’s two advents in God’s kingdom program. It is no accident that Jesus’ major discourse on the future is recorded in Matthew 24–25. It’s a treat to be able to share Dr. Walvoord’s thoughts on the book of Matthew with a new generation of Bible expositors.

As this revision gets ready to go to press I need to express appreciation to several individuals. The first is Dr. Walvoord’s son, John E. Walvoord. John, thank you for authorizing a new edition of this commentary. I trust you find the final product worthy of bearing your father’s name.

The next person to thank is Phil Rawley. Phil, our friendship goes back several decades. And throughout those years I’ve watched you serve, often behind the scenes, as a skilled wordsmith and biblical expositor. There are many other books in print that should also bear your name!

Next in line for kudos is Bethany Rawley, Phil’s daughter and writing assistant. Bethany, your attention to detail is greatly appreciated! Thanks for your help! Your father and I are both thankful for your skill!

Finally, I want to extend a special word of thanks to Greg Thornton, senior vice president of media at Moody Bible Institute. Greg, thank you for your foresight in approving this project to update and reintroduce this book, along with the others in the series, to a new generation! And thanks as well for your friendship. You are deeply appreciated!

Dr. Charles H. Dyer

Phoenix, Arizona

January 31, 2013

Introduction

The gospel of Matthew has commonly been considered one of the most important books of the New Testament, and properly a gospel to be placed first in the New Testament. Although the order of the books in the Bible came through human choice rather than divine inspiration, this gospel serves as a sturdy bridge connecting the Old and New Testaments. It fittingly sets the stage for the books that follow. Matthew deals primarily with the life of Jesus Christ as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies relating to the coming King. He also helps explain why the prophecies relating to the kingdom of Christ on earth have had their fulfillment delayed until His second coming. Anyone desiring to master the New Testament may, accordingly, well begin with the gospel of Matthew, which introduces its readers to the New Testament truth that follows.

History uniformly testifies that the first gospel was written by Matthew, one of the twelve disciples. All the early copies of Matthew are headed by the phrase according to Matthew, and the testimony of the early Fathers is unanimous on the authorship of this gospel.¹

The authorship and authenticity of the gospel, however, are complicated by two factors: (1) the question of whether the gospel we have is a translation of an earlier Hebrew work by Matthew; and (2) the question of whether Matthew is heavily indebted to the gospel of Mark for most of his facts.

Part of the problem is Papias’s statement that Matthew wrote his logia in the Hebrew dialect. Does the term logia refer to the entire gospel of Matthew, or just to a collection of sayings from Jesus? Guthrie cites several reasons why it’s best to understand Papias’s use of logia as referring to the entire gospel and not just to a shorter collection of sayings. He concludes, From these data it would seem to be a reasonable inference that Papias believed that what Matthew wrote was a Gospel.²

The major objection to Guthrie’s arguments is the belief that Matthew could not have written the gospel that bears his name. In essence, the argument assumes the word logia can’t be understood to refer to the gospel of Matthew because it requires us to accept Matthew as the author. However, such an argument assumes what it is trying to prove. If one accepts the possibility of Matthew as the author, then Papias’s use of logia to describe the entire gospel matches well his usage of the term in other places. And certainly it seems that the early church identified Matthew the tax collector and disciple as the author of the book that bears his name.³

Was Matthew’s work composed in Hebrew before being translated into Greek? Although this explanation of the gospel of Matthew is questioned by many capable scholars today, it seems to have been held by such early Fathers as Papias, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Origen, and Jerome, as well as later Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine, and others.⁴

The testimony of the early Fathers has some minor contradictions but seems to be fairly uniform on the fact that an early Hebrew version of the gospel existed. Although the opinion of the early Fathers is considered to have some weight, many twentieth-century scholars question whether this belief is grounded in fact. An examination of the Greek text for the gospel of Matthew does not substantiate the idea that it is a translation, as it contains none of the characteristics of a translated work. For instance, the gospel includes a number of original Aramaic terms it uses without translation. These include words like Rabbi, Hossanah, mammon, raca, and cumin—words that would be understandable to Jewish Christians but that would have required translation for Gentile readers.⁵ Lenski, who gives an exhaustive list of the various arguments, concludes, But these few instances are scarcely sufficient to convince the thoughtful reader that Matthew’s gospel as we now have it is a translation and not an original production.⁶

Almost invariably, modern writers who claim that the Greek version of Matthew was a translation of an earlier Aramaic or Hebrew work do not accept the concept that Matthew is the inspired Word of God and usually question whether Matthew wrote it at all. For instance, The Anchor Bible, after long discussion which leaves the whole question in uncertainty, states, The reader has already been warned that there are no firm conclusions to be drawn as to the authorship of our present gospel of Matthew.⁷ Plummer is even more dogmatic. The answer, therefore, to the question, Who was the author of the First Gospel? is a negative one. It was not S. Matthew.⁸

Conservative scholarship has agreed that whether or not there was an earlier Hebrew version, the present Greek version was Matthew’s own work and that it is the inspired Word of God. Whatever earlier materials Matthew may have produced in his native tongue, the point is that the Greek gospel was inspired of God and bears the authority of being the Word of God. Blomberg offers a careful summary of the available evidence.

When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church tradition. Were the Gospel not written by him, the church surely chose a rather strange individual (in light of his unscrupulous past by Jewish standards) as a candidate for authorship. Without any ancient traditions to the contrary, Matthew remains the most plausible choice for author.⁹

The second factor complicating authorship is the question of whether Matthew is indebted to the gospel of Mark for most of his facts. The early Fathers are quite clear in their testimony that Matthew was the first gospel to be written and was followed in order by Mark, Luke, and John. For example, Eusebius quotes Origen as follows:

As I have understood from tradition, respecting the four Gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of God throughout the world. The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew. The second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained to him…. And the third, according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from the Gentiles; and last of all the Gospel according to John.¹⁰

The order of writing for the four Gospels presented by the early church is the same order found in our Bible today. Modern liberal scholarship, however, almost universally believes that Matthew’s gospel is dependent on the gospel of Mark. W. C. Allen, representing the liberal point of view, states, Almost the entire substance of the second Gospel has been transferred to the first.¹¹ William R. Farmer, however, although a liberal critic, holds to the priority of Matthew, a conclusion based on extensive research.¹²

Many conservative interpreters, like R. C. H. Lenski, generally hold with the early Fathers that Matthew was first,¹³ but the question remains open even among conservatives.

A theory has also been advanced by scholars to explain the material that is common to Matthew and Luke but that is not found in the gospel of Mark. This hypothetical source is called Q (Ger. Quelle, source). "The result of this is that a second source is needed to explain the considerable amount of material common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. This hypothetical source, known as Q, may have been a written document, but more probably it existed in the form of oral tradition with some relatively minor variations in different geographical regions."¹⁴

The reality is that the gospel writers did use sources. Matthew had access to Jesus’ genealogical record. Luke evidently interviewed Mary to gain her perspective on key events. The early church writers claimed that Mark’s gospel was dependent on Peter. The use of sources by itself is not a problem. But building a theory on a hypothetical source like Q seems to place too much weight on too flimsy a foundation.

After all the discussion and various views are considered, the monumental and original character of the gospel of Matthew stands out. Even Allen, who holds so strongly to the priority of Mark, has a long list of materials in Matthew which are not found in Mark.¹⁵

While many similarities between the Synoptic Gospels exist, the suggestion that this proves literary dependence is not convincing. The gospel of Matthew has many evidences of being written independently, both in the order of the narrative and in the addition and subtraction of details. While the inspiration of Matthew would not be affected if he had chosen to use some of Mark’s material, Matthew probably wrote his gospel in Greek sometime before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and possibly as early as A.D. 44, during the persecution of Agrippa I. As Dyer notes, the available evidence does not demand literary dependence on the part of the gospel writers.

After viewing all of the above data it is this writer’s opinion that there is no evidence to postulate a tradition of literary dependence among the Gospels. The dependence is rather a parallel dependence on the actual events which occurred. The Gospels are similar because they are all recording the same events. And yet they are different because each writer under the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit carefully chose the material which accorded best with the purpose of his book. Matthew based a good portion of his work on his eyewitness account as a disciple. Mark based his on the testimony of Peter, and Luke wrote after consulting several authorities which he met in his travels with Paul through Palestine and the rest of the Roman world.¹⁶

Of even more importance than discussion on the sources of the gospel of Matthew is its self-evident unique character, which has caused this gospel to be placed first in the New Testament. Its position is assured because its subject matter serves as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments. Matthew’s purpose obviously was to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, that He fulfilled the requirements of being the promised King who would be a descendant of David, and that His life and ministry fully support the conclusion that He is the prophesied Messiah of Israel.

The gospel of Matthew, accordingly, presents Christ’s royal genealogy and the early recognition that He was indeed the King of the Jews. These historical materials are followed by the Sermon on the Mount, stating the moral principles of the kingdom, given more extensively in Matthew than in the other gospels. The theme is continued by presenting the sayings and the miracles of Christ as His credentials prophesied in the Old Testament.

Having laid this broad base, Matthew then proceeds to account for the fact that Christ did not bring in His prophesied kingdom at His first coming. The growing rejection of Christ, His denunciation of the unbelief of the Jews, and His revelation of truth relating to the period between the two advents (Matt. 13) serve to support this point.

Beginning in Matthew 14, the growing line of rejection leads to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and 25, describing the course of the age between the two advents, with special reference to the great tribulation just preceding Christ’s second coming to the earth. Having set forth the rejection of Christ in the context of ultimate glorification, Matthew’s gospel then records the facts of His death, resurrection, and postresurrection ministry.

As a whole, the gospel is not properly designated as simply an apologetic for the Christian faith. Rather, it was designed to explain to the Jews, who had expected the Messiah when He came to be a conquering king, why instead Christ suffered and died, and why there was the resulting postponement of His second coming. The gospel of Matthew, with its many quotations from the Old Testament, is the proper platform on which the later books of the New Testament were erected. The magnitude of Matthew’s contribution as he wrote, guided by the Spirit of God, fully justified the attitude of the early church, which regarded Matthew as the most important gospel and its contents as fundamental to the Christian faith.

As you read through this commentary please note that the English Standard Version is used as the basis for exposition, corrected as necessary by reference to other versions and the original Greek. When he originally wrote this commentary on Matthew, Dr. Walvoord hoped to make a lasting contribution to the understanding of Scripture. We believe he succeeded, and we hope this new revised edition will also prove helpful to students of the Bible.

NOTES

1. For example, Eusebius quotes from Papias, who in the second century wrote that, "Matthew composed his logia in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated it as he was able" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16). While there is some difficulty with Papias’s statement that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, his identification of Matthew as the writer is significant. Papias was also joined by Irenaeus who wrote, Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome (also cited by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 5.8.2).

2. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 3d ed. revised (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1970), 33–40.

3. So John Chrysostom wrote, By whom Matthew also, being filled with the Spirit, wrote, what he did write:—Matthew the Publican, for I am not ashamed to name him by his trade in John Chrysostom, Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, George Prevost and M. B. Riddle, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume X: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Philip Schaff, ed. (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 2.

4. Cf. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 1:25–27.

5. So, for example, Matthew writes Rabbi without ever interpreting the term. Luke avoids using it altogether, and John translates the term the first time he uses it. And they said to Him, ‘Rabbi’(which means Teacher), ‘where are you staying?’ (John 1:38).

6. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Wartburg, 1943), 17.

7. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible, vol. 26, Matthew, clxxxi.

8. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), x.

9. Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol.22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 44.

10. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.4–6.

11. Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew, in the International Critical Commentary, xiii.

12. William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (Macon, GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 1981), vii–x.

13. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 19.

14. Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1–13, Bruce M. Metzger, gen. ed., Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie, New Testament eds.; vol. 33a (Dallas: Word, 1998), xlviii.

15. Allen, xl–lxii. For a conservative discussion of Q materials, see Guthrie, 143–57.

16. Charles H. Dyer, Do the Synoptics Depend on Each Other?Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (July–September 1981): 244.

The Genealogy and Birth of Jesus Christ

THE ROYAL GENEALOGY, PART 1 (1:1–6)

1:1–6 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king.

The first gospel opens by presenting the evidence that Jesus is indeed the true Son of David, the Son of Abraham, the Son of God, and is the true Messiah of Israel and the Savior of the world. Such a far-reaching claim must be supported by the best evidence. Accordingly, Matthew presents in an orderly way first the genealogy establishing the legal claim of Jesus to be the King of Israel. Then it accounts for the supernatural conception and deity of Jesus by explicitly detailing the virgin birth. In the process, the genuineness of His claim to be the King of Israel is demonstrated, and the damaging suspicion that Christ was illegitimate, a slander propagated by unbelievers, is completely answered. This material, as well as the rest of Matthew 1–2, is found only in this gospel.¹

The opening words, The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham, are intended to provide an introduction to the genealogy, not to the book as a whole. This introduction clearly demonstrates that Matthew’s purpose in writing the gospel is to provide adequate proof for the investigator that the claims of Jesus to be King and Savior are justified. For this reason, the gospel of Matthew was considered by the early church one of the most important books of the New Testament and was given more prominence than the other three gospels.²

As presented by Matthew, the genealogy begins with Abraham and concludes with Joseph, described as the husband of Mary but explicitly excluded from being the actual father of Jesus Christ. In the phrase of whom Jesus was born, whom is a feminine pronoun, referring to Mary. By contrast, the genealogy of Luke 3:23–38 is usually interpreted as giving the genealogy of Mary (see below).

Some Bible interpreters such as Blomberg view the opening words of Matthew, the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, as a heading for all of chapters 1–2 and thus, carrying the sense of an account of the origin³ (v. 1). Blomberg continues:

Key Matthean titles for Jesus also appear here in the opening verse. Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Meshiach (Messiah), meaning Anointed One. There was a great diversity of Jewish messianic expectation in the first century and previous eras, but one common thread involved liberation of Israel from its enemies [see R.A. Horsley, The Liberation of Christmas (New York: Crossroad, 1989]. Son of David points to the Messiah’s necessary lineage and royal rule (see 2 Sam 7:11b–16). The classic intertestamental illustration of the messianic Son of David appears in Pss Sol 17:21–18:7—a righteous warrior-king who establishes God’s rule in Israel. Son of Abraham traces Jesus’ lineage back to the founding father of the nation of Israel, thus ensuring his Jewish pedigree from the earliest stage of his people’s history. But echoes are probably also to be heard here of God’s promises to Abraham that his offspring would bless all the peoples of the earth (Gen 12:1–3). Son of Abraham also carried messianic overtones as well in at least some intertestamental Jewish circles (e.g., T. Levi 8:15).

Already in this title verse, key themes of chaps. 1–2 are presented in a nutshell. Matthew’s names for Jesus present him as the fulfillment of the hopes and prophecies of Israel but also as one who will extend God’s blessings to Gentiles. His birth marks a new epoch in human history.⁴

Matthew’s genealogy is divided into three divisions of fourteen generations each. In making this division, some names are omitted, such as the three kings, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, who are included in the line in 1 Chronicles 3:11–12. Also of interest is the fact that the names recorded in Matthew 1:13–15 are not found in the Old Testament but may have been recorded in the registers of families available at the time of Christ.⁵ The deliberate editing of the genealogy to provide three divisions of fourteen generations each was by design, probably for literary symmetry, although some have pointed out that the numerical value of the Hebrew consonants in the word David add up to fourteen.⁶

MacArthur provides a helpful comparison and contrast between the genealogies of Matthew and the gospel of Luke, a question many students of the Bible ask. He notes:

Matthew’s genealogy presents a descending line, from Abraham through David, through Joseph, to Jesus, who is called Christ [1:17]. Luke’s genealogy presents an ascending line, starting from Jesus and going back through David, Abraham, and even to Adam, the son of God (Luke 3:23–38). Luke’s record is apparently traced from Mary’s side, the Eli of Luke 3:23 probably being Joseph’s father-in-law (often referred to as a father) and therefore Mary’s natural father. Matthew’s intent is to validate Jesus’ royal claim by showing His legal descent from David through Joseph, who was Jesus’ legal, though not natural, father. Luke’s intent is to trace Jesus’ actual royal blood ancestry through His mother, thereby establishing His racial lineage from David. Matthew follows the royal line through David to Solomon, David’s son and successor to the throne. Luke follows the royal line through Nathan, another son of David. Jesus was therefore the blood descendant of David through Mary and the legal descendant of David through Joseph. Genealogically, Jesus was perfectly qualified to take the throne of David.⁷

THE ROYAL GENEALOGY, PART 2 (1:7–11)

1:7–11 And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

The fourteen names in this second section of Matthew’s genealogy contain some notable names. For example, Rehoboam was a wicked king who was the father of Abijah, of whom the Bible says, [Abijah] walked in all the sins that his father did before him, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God (1 Kings 15:3). Yet Abijah was the father of Asaph, a good king, who was the father of Jehoshaphat, another good king. However, good or evil, [these kings] were part of Messiah’s line; for though grace does not run in the blood, God’s providence cannot be deceived or outmaneuvered.⁸

This section ends with the important note that these generations brought Israel to the time of the deportation to Babylon (v. 11). The brothers of Jeconiah included Zedekiah (not mentioned by name here), who was the last king of Judah before the kingdom’s destruction and the people’s deportation to Babylon by King Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25).

THE ROYAL GENEALOGY, PART 3 (1:12–17)

1:12–17 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

The careful reader will note that this last section in Jesus’ genealogy actually contains only thirteen names. Complicated explanations are not wanting.⁹ Suggested answers include a textual omission of Jehoiakim, or the possibility that Jesus is considered the fourteenth generation.

The threefold division is explained by Matthew himself in 1:17. The first division is the generations from Abraham to David, including Abraham as the first in the line of promise and culminating in David as the king. The second group of fourteen are kings who trace the line from David to Jeconiah, and the third division traces the line through the captivity to Jesus Christ.

An unusual feature of the genealogies is the prominence of five women who normally would not be included. Each of the first four had an unusual background. Tamar (1:3) got in the line by playing a prostitute with her father-in-law, Judah (Gen. 38:11–30). Rahab, a Gentile prostitute rescued from Jericho because she delivered and sheltered the spies (Josh. 2:6; 6:25), is declared by Matthew to have been the wife of Salmon, the father of Boaz (see Ruth 4:21; 1 Chron. 2:11). There is no Old Testament support for Matthew’s statement, which nevertheless is not a problem because he wrote under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.

Another Gentile was included in the messianic line in the person of Ruth, the subject of the beautiful book by the same name in the Old Testament. Although Ruth was also a Gentile, she like Mary had an unspotted record. The fourth woman in the line is not named directly but is simply called the wife of Uriah. But from the account in 2 Samuel we know that Matthew was writing about Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, who had formerly been the wife of Uriah. Her relationship to David began with adultery and resulted in the murder of her husband (2 Sam. 11:1–12:25). No explanation is given for the emphasis of these facts in the genealogy, which many Jews would love to have forgotten. Possible reasons include the preparation for the prominence of Mary as the fifth and final woman in the line, and also to put Jewish pride in its place for having falsely accused Mary of sexual promiscuity for having conceived out of wedlock (cf. John 8:41).

Taken as a whole, these genealogies support the conclusion that Christ is a genuine son of David and Abraham through Mary, a King with a right to rule, with His legal title through Joseph, and His deity supported by His supernatural conception without a human father.

SUPERNATURAL CONCEPTION AND BIRTH OF JESUS (1:18–25)

1:18–25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

To put to rest any question or false accusations against the virtue of Mary or the supernatural nature of Christ’s birth, Matthew explicitly described the relationship between Joseph and Mary. Joseph was legally betrothed to Mary and is described as her husband in Matthew 1:16. Betrothal was legally equivalent to marriage, and the relationship could only be broken by divorce or death, even though the relationship preceded actually living together as man and wife.

In this waiting period, according to 1:18, Mary was found to be pregnant. She had not revealed her experience with the angel, recorded in Luke 1:26–38. Obviously, Joseph knew nothing about it, and possibly Matthew himself, when writing this account, did not have this information, as the gospel of Luke was probably written later than the gospel of Matthew. Joseph considered the consummation of the marriage impossible and contemplated a quiet divorce rather than a public disclosure and scandal.

At the beginning of the narrative, Matthew at once declared that the child was from the Holy Spirit (1:18) and then described how this fact was revealed to Joseph. An angel sent by God appeared to him in a dream, addressing him as Joseph, son of David. He was instructed not to be afraid of taking Mary as his wife, as the child had been conceived by