The Bible Knowledge Commentary

on Matthew 1 & 2

An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty

New Testament Edition

Based on the New International Version

by

John F. Walvoord
Roy B. Zuck

Victor Books

A Division of Scripture Press Publications Inc.
USA Canada England

Introduction

It is fitting that the New Testament begins with four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. These accounts present the “good news” concerning the Son of God, telling of His life on earth and His death on the cross for the sin of mankind. The first three Gospels take a similar view of the facts surrounding this Person, while the Fourth Gospel is unique in its presentation. Because of this common view of Jesus Christ the first three New Testament books are called the Synoptic Gospels.

Outline

I. Introduction of the King (1:1-4:11)

A. Presentation by ancestry (1:1-17)

B. Presentation by advent (1:18-2:23)

C. Presentation by an ambassador (3:1-12)

D. Presentation through approval (3:13-4:11)

II. Communications from the King (4:12-7:29)

A. Beginning proclamations (4:12-25)

B. Continuing pronouncements (chaps. 5-7)

III. Credentials of the King (8:1-11:1)

A. His power over disease (8:1-15)

B. His power over demonic forces (8:16-17, 28-34)

C. His power over men (8:18-22; 9:9)

D. His power over nature (8:23-27)

E. His power to forgive (9:1-8)

F. His power over traditions (9:10-17)

G. His power over death (9:18-26)

H. His power over darkness (9:27-31)

I. His power over dumbness (9:32-34)

J. His power to delegate authority (9:35-11:1)

IV. Challenge to the King’s Authority (11:2-16:12)

A. Seen in the rejection of John the Baptist (11:2-19)

B. Seen in the condemnation of the cities (11:20-30)

C. Seen in the controversies over His authority (chap. 12)

D. Seen in the change in the kingdom program (13:1-52)

E. Seen in various rejections (13:53-16:12)

V. Cultivation of the King’s Disciples (16:13-20:34)

A. The revelation in view of rejection (16:13-17:13)

B. The instruction in view of rejection (17:14-20:34)

VI. Climax of the King’s Offer (chaps. 21-27)

A. The official presentation of the King (21:1-22)

B. The religious confrontation with the King (21:23-22:46)

C. The national rejection of the King (chap. 23)

D. The prophetic anticipation of the King (chaps. 24-25)

E. The national rejection of the King (chaps. 26-27)

VII. Confirmation of the King’s Life (chap. 28)

A. The empty tomb (28:1-8)

B. The personal appearance (28:9-10)

C. The “official” explanation (28:11-15)

D. The official commissioning (28:16-20)

The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament

 

 

 

Matthew 1:1

1:1. From the very first words of his Gospel, Matthew recorded his central theme
and character. Jesus Christ is the main character in Matthew’s presentation, and
the opening verse connected Him back to two great covenants in Jewish history:
the Davidic (2 Sam. 7) and the Abrahamic (Gen. 12; 15). If Jesus of Nazareth is
the fulfillment of these two great covenants, is He related to the rightful line?
This is a question the Jews would have asked, so Matthew traced Jesus’ lineage
in detail.

 

Matthew 1:2

1:2-17. Matthew gave Jesus’ lineage through His legal father, Joseph (v. 16).
Thus this genealogy traced Jesus’ right to the throne of David, which must come
through Solomon and his descendants (v. 6). Of particular interest is the
inclusion of Jeconiah (v. 11) of whom Jeremiah said, “Record this man as if
childless” (Jer. 22:30). Jeremiah’s prophecy related to the actual occupation of
the throne and the reception of blessing while on the throne. Though Jeconiah’s
sons never occupied the throne, the line of rulership did pass through them. If
Jesus had been a physical descendant of Jeconiah, He would not have been able
to occupy David’s throne. Luke’s genealogy made it clear that Jesus was a
physical descendant of David through another son named Nathan (Luke 3:31).
But Joseph, a descendant of Solomon, was Jesus’ legal father, so Jesus’ right to
the throne was traced through Joseph.

Matthew traced Joseph’s line from Jeconiah through the latter’s son Shealtiel
and grandson Zerubbabel (Matt. 1:12). Luke (3:27) also refers to Shealtiel, the
father of Zerubbabel, in Mary’s line. Does Luke’s account, then, mean that Jesus
was a physical descendant of Jeconiah, after all? No, because Luke’s Shealtiel
and Zerubbabel were probably different persons from those two in Matthew. In
Luke Shealtiel was the son of Neri, but Matthew’s Shealtiel was the son of
Jeconiah.

Another interesting fact about Matthew’s genealogy is the inclusion of four Old
Testament women: Tamar (Matt. 1:3), Rahab (v. 5), Ruth (v. 5), and
Solomon’s mother (v. 6), Bathsheba. All of these women (as well as most of the
men) were questionable in some way. Tamar and Rahab were prostitutes (Gen.
38:24; Josh. 2:1), Ruth was a foreigner, a Moabitess (Ruth 1:4), and Bathsheba
committed adultery (2 Sam. 11:2-5). Matthew may have included these women in
order to emphasize that God’s choices in dealing with people are all of His grace.
Perhaps also he included these women in order to put Jewish pride in its place.

When the fifth woman, Mary (Matt. 1:16), was mentioned in the genealogy, an
important change occurred. The genealogy consistently repeated, the father of,
until it came to Mary. At that point Matthew changed and said of whom was
born Jesus. The “of whom” is a feminine relative pronoun (ex heôs), clearly
indicating that Jesus was the physical Child of Mary but that Joseph was not His
physical father. This miraculous conception and birth are explained in 1:18-25.

Matthew obviously did not list every individual in the genealogy between
Abraham and David (vv. 2-6), between David and the Exile (vv. 6-11), and
between the Exile and Jesus (vv. 12-16). Instead he listed only 14 generations in
each of these time periods (v. 17). Jewish reckoning did not require every name
in order to satisfy a genealogy. But why did Matthew select 14 names in each
period? Perhaps the best solution is that the name “David” in Hebrew
numerology added up to 14. It should be noted that in the period from the Exile
to the birth of Jesus (vv. 12-16) 13 new names appeared. Many scholars feel that
Jeconiah (v. 12), though repeated from verse 11, provides the 14th name in this
final period.

Matthew’s genealogy answered the important question a Jew would rightfully
ask about anyone who claimed to be King of the Jews. Is He a descendant of
David through the rightful line of succession? Matthew answered yes!

See map, Palestine in the Time of Jesus

 

Matthew 2:1

B. Presentation by advent (1:18-2:23)
(Luke 2:1-7)

 

Matthew 1:18

1. HIS ORIGIN (1:18-23)

1:18-23. The fact that Jesus was born “of Mary” only, as indicated in the
genealogical record (v. 16), demanded further explanation. Matthew’s
explanation can best be understood in the light of Hebrew marriage customs.
Marriages were arranged for individuals by parents, and contracts were
negotiated. After this was accomplished, the individuals were considered married
and were called husband and wife. They did not, however, begin to live together.
Instead, the woman continued to live with her parents and the man with his for
one year. The waiting period was to demonstrate the faithfulness of the pledge of
purity given concerning the bride. If she was found to be with child in this
period, she obviously was not pure, but had been involved in an unfaithful sexual
relationship. Therefore the marriage could be annulled. If, however, the one-year
waiting period demonstrated the purity of the bride, the husband would then go to
the house of the bride’s parents and in a grand processional march lead his bride
back to his home. There they would begin to live together as husband and wife
and consummate their marriage physically. Matthew’s story should be read with
this background in mind.

Mary and Joseph were in the one-year waiting period when Mary was found
to be with child. They had never had sexual intercourse and Mary herself had
been faithful (vv. 20, 23). While little is said about Joseph, one can imagine how
his heart must have broken. He genuinely loved Mary, and yet the word came
that she was pregnant. His love for her was demonstrated by his actions. He
chose not to create a public scandal by exposing her condition to the judges at the
city gate. Such an act could have resulted in Mary’s death by stoning (Deut.
22:23-24). Instead he decided to divorce her quietly.

Then in a dream (cf. Matt. 2:13, 19, 22), an angel told Joseph that Mary’s
condition was not caused by a man, but through the Holy Spirit (1:20; cf. v. 18).
The Child Mary carried in her womb was a unique Child, for He would be a Son
whom Joseph should name Jesus for He would save His people from their sins.
These words must have brought to Joseph’s mind the promises of God to provide
salvation through the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-37). The unnamed angel also
told Joseph that this was in keeping with God’s eternal plan, for the Prophet
Isaiah had declared 700 years before that the virgin will be with Child (Matt.
1:23; Isa. 7:14). While Old Testament scholars dispute whether the Hebrew
almaòh should be rendered “young woman” or “virgin,” God clearly intended it
here to mean virgin (as implied by the Gr. word parthenos). Mary’s
miraculous conception fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy, and her Son would truly be
Immanuel… God with us. In light of this declaration Joseph was not to be
afraid to take Mary into his home (Matt. 1:20). There would be
misunderstanding in the community and much gossip at the well, but Joseph
knew the true story of Mary’s pregnancy and God’s will for his life.

 

Matthew 1:24

2. HIS BIRTH (1:24-25)

1:24-25. As soon as Joseph awakened from this dream, he obeyed. He
violated all custom by immediately taking Mary into his home rather than
waiting till the one-year time period of betrothal had passed. Joseph was
probably thinking of what would be best for Mary in her condition. He brought
her home and began to care and provide for her. But there was no sexual
relationship between them until after the birth of this Child, Jesus. Matthew
simply noted the birth of the Child and the fact that He was named Jesus,
whereas Luke, the physician (Col. 4:14), recorded several details surrounding the
birth (Luke 2:1-7).

 

Matthew 2:1

3. HIS INFANCY (CHAP. 2)

a. In Bethlehem (2:1-12)

 

Matthew 2:1

2:1-2. Though not all scholars agree on the timing of the arrival of the Magi
from the East, they apparently came some time after the birth of Jesus. Jesus
and Mary and Joseph, though still in Bethlehem, were now in a house (v. 11),
and Jesus was called a Child (paidion, vv. 9, 11) rather than a newborn Infant
(brephos, Luke 2:12).

The exact identity of the Magi is impossible to determine, though several ideas
have been suggested. They have been given traditional names and identified as
representatives of the three groups of peoples that descended from Noah’s sons,
Shem, Ham, and Japheth. More likely they were Gentiles of high position from a
country, perhaps Parthia, northeast of Babylon, who were given a special
revelation by God of the birth of the King of the Jews. This special revelation
may simply have been in the sky, as might be indicated by their title “Magi”
(specialists in astronomy) and by the fact they referred to a star which they saw.
Or this revelation could have come through some contact with Jewish scholars
who had migrated to the East with copies of Old Testament manuscripts. Many
feel the Magi’s comments reflected a knowledge of Balaam’s prophecy
concerning the “star” that would “come out of Jacob” (Num. 24:17). Whatever
the source, they came to Jerusalem to worship the newborn King of the Jews.
(According to tradition three Magi traveled to Bethlehem. But the Bible does not
say how many there were.)

 

Matthew 2:3

2:3-8. It is no surprise that King Herod… was disturbed when the Magi came
to Jerusalem looking for the One who had been “born King” (v. 2). Herod was
not the rightful king from the line of David. In fact he was not even a descendant
of Jacob, but was descended from Esau and thus was an Edomite. (He reigned
over Palestine from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. See the chart on the Herods at Luke 1:5.)
This fact caused most of the Jews to hate him and never truly to accept him as
king, even though he did much for the country. If someone had been rightfully
born king, then Herod’s job was in jeopardy. He therefore called the Jewish
scholars together and inquired where the Christ was to be born (Matt. 2:4).
Interestingly Herod connected the One “born king of the Jews” (v. 2) with “the
Christ,” the Messiah. Obviously Israel had a messianic hope and believed that the
Messiah would be born.

The answer to Herod’s question was simple, because Micah the prophet had
given the precise location centuries before: the Messiah would be born in
Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). This answer from the people’s chief priests and
teachers of the Law (scribes, KJV) was apparently carried back to the Magi by
Herod himself. Then Herod asked them when they had first seen their star
(Matt. 2:7). This became critical later in the account (v. 16); it showed that Herod
was already contemplating a plan to get rid of this young King. He also
instructed the Magi to return and tell him the location of this King so that he
might come and worship Him. That was not, however, what he had in mind.

 

Matthew 2:9

2:9-12. The journey of the Magi from Jerusalem wrought a further miracle. The
star they had seen in the East now reappeared and led them to a specific house
in Bethlehem where they found the Child Jesus. Bethlehem is about five miles
south of Jerusalem. “Stars” (i.e., planets) naturally travel from east to west across
the heavens, not from north to south. Could it be that “the star” which the Magi
saw and which led them to a specific house was the Shekinah glory of God? That
same glory had led the children of Israel through the wilderness for 40 years as a
pillar of fire and cloud. Perhaps this was what they saw in the East, and for want
of a better term they called it a “star.” All other efforts to explain this star are
inadequate (such as a conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars; a supernova; a
comet; etc.).

Nevertheless they were led to the Child and going in, they worshiped Him.
Their worship was heightened by the giving of gifts… gold… incense and…
myrrh. These were gifts worthy of a king and this act by Gentile leaders pictures
the wealth of the nations which will someday be completely given to the Messiah
(Isa. 60:5, 11; 61:6; 66:20; Zeph. 3:10; Hag. 2:7-8).

Some believe the gifts had further significance by reflecting on the character of
this Child’s life. Gold might represent His deity or purity, incense the fragrance
of His life, and myrrh His sacrifice and death (myrrh was used for embalming).
These gifts were obviously the means by which Joseph took his family to Egypt
and sustained them there until Herod died. The wise men were warned by God
not to return and report to Herod, so they returned to their homes by another
route.

b. In Egypt (2:13-18)

 

Matthew 2:13

2:13-15. After the visit of the Magi, Joseph was warned by an angel of the
Lord to take Mary and Jesus and flee to Egypt. This warning was given in a
dream (the second of Joseph’s four dreams: 1:20; 2:13, 19, 22). The reason was
Herod would be searching for the Child to kill Him. Under cover of darkness,
Joseph obeyed, and his family left Bethlehem (see map) and journeyed into
Egypt. Why Egypt? The Messiah was sent to and returned from Egypt so that the
prophet’s words, Out of Egypt I called My Son, might be fulfilled. This is a
reference to Hosea 11:1, which does not seem to be a prophecy in the sense of a
prediction. Hosea was writing of God’s calling Israel out of Egypt into the
Exodus. Matthew, however, gave new understanding to these words. Matthew
viewed this experience as Messiah being identified with the nation. There were
similarities between the nation and the Son. Israel was God’s chosen “son” by
adoption (Ex. 4:22), and Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son. In both cases the
descent into Egypt was to escape danger, and the return was important to the
nation’s providential history. While Hosea’s statement was a historical reference
to Israel’s deliverance, Matthew related it more fully to the call of the Son, the
Messiah, from Egypt. In that sense, as Matthew “heightened” Hosea’s words to a
more significant event—the Messiah’s return from Egypt—they were “fulfilled.”

 

Matthew 2:16

2:16-18. As soon as Herod learned that the Magi had not complied with his
orders to give him the exact location of the newborn King, he put into action a
plan to kill all the male children in Bethlehem. The age of two… and under
was selected in compliance with the time… the Magi saw “the star” in the East.
Perhaps this time reference also indicated that when the Magi visited Jesus, He
was under two years of age.

This slaughter of the male children is mentioned only here in the biblical record.
Even the Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37-?100) did not mention this dastardly
deed of putting to death innocent babies and young children. But it is not
surprising that he and other secular historians overlooked the death of a few
Hebrew children in an insignificant village, for Herod’s infamous crimes were
many. He put to death several of his own children and some of his wives whom
he thought were plotting against him. Emperor Augustus reportedly said it was
better to be Herod’s sow than his son, for his sow had a better chance of
surviving in a Jewish community. In the Greek language, as in English, there is
only one letter difference between the words “sow” (huos) and “son” (huios).

This event too was said to be the fulfillment of a prophecy by Jeremiah. This
statement (Jer. 31:15) referred initially to the weeping of the nation as a result of
the death of children at the time of the Babylonian Captivity (586 B.C.). But the
parallel to the situation at this time was obvious, for again children were being
slaughtered at the hands of non-Jews. Also, Rachel’s tomb was near Bethlehem
and Rachel was considered by many to be the mother of the nation. That is why
she was seen weeping over these children’s deaths.

See map, Jesus’ Journeys from Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth

 

Matthew 2:19

c. In Nazareth (2:19-23)

2:19-23. After Herod died… Joseph was again instructed by an angel of
the Lord. This was the third of four times an angel appeared to him in a dream
(cf. 1:20; 2:13, 19, 22). He was made aware of Herod’s death and told to return
to the land (v. 20). Joseph obediently followed the Lord’s instruction and was
planning to return to the land of Israel, perhaps to Bethlehem. However, a son
of Herod, Archelaus, was ruling over the territories of Judea, Samaria, and
Idumea. Archelaus, noted for tyranny, murder, and instability, was probably
insane as a result of close family intermarriages. (He ruled from 4 B.C. to A.D. 6.
See the chart on the Herods at Luke 1:5). God’s warning to Joseph (again in a
dream, Matt. 2:22; cf. 1:20; 2:13, 19) was not to return to Bethlehem, but instead
to move back to the northern district of Galilee to the town of Nazareth. The
ruler of this region was Antipas, another son of Herod (cf. 14:1; Luke 23:7-12),
but he was a capable ruler.

The fact that the family moved to Nazareth was once again said to be in
fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 2:23). However, the words He will be called a
Nazarene, were not directly spoken by any Old Testament prophet, though
several prophecies come close to this expression. Isaiah said the Messiah would
be “from [Jesse’s] roots” like “a Branch” (Isa. 11:1). “Branch” is the Hebrew
word nesÖer, which has consonants like those in the word “Nazarene” and
which carry the idea of having an insignificant beginning.

Since Matthew used the plural prophets, perhaps his idea was not based on a
specific prophecy but on the idea that appeared in a number of prophecies
concerning Messiah’s despised character. Nazareth was the town which housed
the Roman garrison for the northern regions of Galilee. Therefore most Jews
would not have any associations with that city. In fact those who lived in
Nazareth were thought of as compromisers who consorted with the enemy, the
Romans. Therefore to call one “a Nazarene” was to use a term of contempt. So
because Joseph and his family settled in Nazareth, the Messiah was later despised
and considered contemptible in the eyes of many in Israel. This was Nathanael’s
reaction when he heard Jesus was from Nazareth (John 1:46): “Can anything
good come from there?” This concept fit several Old Testament prophecies that
speak of the lowly character of the Messiah (e.g., Isa. 42:1-4). Also the term
“Nazarene” would have reminded Jewish readers of the similar-sounding word
“Nazirite” (Num. 6:1-21). Jesus was more devoted to God than the Nazirites.

 

This Document in Rich Text

This document in PDF

to read Hebrew, Gr eek &

Latin characters