Life Project Blog

Matthew 3:1-12

Matthew skips over nearly 30 years between 2:23 and 3:1 and in so doing he has emphasized for us his priority on the identity and role of Jesus over that of providing mere biographical information. This is further emphasized for us in that Matthew picks up all these years later not with Jesus, but with John, for John’s story serves to underscore the messianic role and function that Jesus will fulfill.

A common form of Jewish messianic hope is represented by the notion that Elijah would return as a precursor to the arrival of the Messiah (cf. Matt. 11:14; 17:10-13; Mal. 3:23-24; 4:5-6). Matthew takes care to present John in this light to underscore ultimately, the identity of Jesus, for in presenting John as he did, Matthew shows that John’s emergence upon the scene marks the beginning of a whole new paradigm in Israel. Consider the fact that John has come to the territory of David (3:1) in the spirit of Elijah (cf. 3:4; 2Kings 1:8) preaching a message of repentance (3:2, 7-10; cf. Mal. 3:1-5; 4:5-6), in the context of the nearness of the Kingdom (3:2) and the ultimate judgment of the “mightier one” to come (3:11-12).  As Matthew’s story continues to unfold in the chapters that follow, John’s work will continue to give us focus on the character and mission of Jesus (cf. 3:14; 11:1-19; 14:1-12; 16:14-20; 17:9-13; 21:23-27). Matthew breaks his description of John the Baptist into two parts: 3:1-6 highlight John’s ministry, and 3:7-12 his message.

3:1-6: There is no coincidence in the fact that John appears in the “wilderness of Judea” (or “desert”) for it had long been expected that the precursor to messiah’s arrival would come from the Wilderness (Is. 40:3-4; 42:14-55:13; Ezek. 20:33-44; Hos. 2:14-15). This also provides us with a connection between Moses in the Wilderness and the story of Jesus. The Kingdom of Heaven (mentioned by Matthew 33 times in his Gospel) was near; there was urgency in John, an urgency that came from the very nature of his calling, as seen in the quotation from Isaiah 40:3.

John is further connected to the prophets of old in Matthew’s description of his wardrobe and menu. His dress is associated with that of Elijah (2Kings 1:8; cf. Zech. 13:4). His menu is that of a prophet fully consecrated to God. The impact of John’s ministry out in the desert was profound indeed; people came from all around to hear his message. They not only heard it, but they responded to it as well, confessing their sins and repenting, being baptized in the Jordan River.

3:7-12: Yes indeed, John’s ministry was having quite an impact, and when a radical message has a significant impact upon the people, the authorities will be looking into the situation, and that is what happens in these verses. Matthew tends to present the Pharisees and Sadducees as a united front throughout his Gospel, but to be sure, they would have only been united if they felt threatened, for they were rival factions that didn’t usually see eye-to-eye on very much. John, as Jesus would later, saw right through their façade.

In verses 7-10, John essentially launches a broadside at them; his message, crafted in apocalyptic terms they would understand was simply that they must repent of their unrighteousness like everyone else, or face judgment. This is made even clearer in vv. 11-12 where John clearly tells them that his baptism is all about repentance, but there will shortly appear one who is far greater than he, who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. There are various interpretations of the issue of “Holy Spirit” and “fire” that John speaks of here and whichever you prefer is fine by me. As for me, as simple-minded as I am, I simply see a very tight context here that is illustrated in verse 12:

His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Using a simple agricultural metaphor that would be understood by most anyone in that day, John is telling the religious leaders that they will soon be able to repent and receive Jesus’ baptism and the Holy Spirit, or they can refuse and face the consequences; it would be their choice, just like it is our choice. This same tension will come up time and again in Matthew’s story.

In the next scene, John will have an entirely different kind of visit; see you there!

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14

As a Christian reading this verse as translated in the NIV, and then seeing Matthew’s reference to it in Matthew 1:22-23, it is very easy to say that this is really cool, and then just keep on going. If we do that, we miss something that is both problematic and fascinating. Here is Matthew’s statement:

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

This is the first time Matthew cites the fulfillment by Jesus of an Old Testament prophecy, but scholars have struggled with it for centuries because the original Hebrew of Isaiah doesn’t exactly say what we have just read. In fact, there really isn’t any record of a messianic interpretation of this verse prior to Matthew. There are two reasons for this: First, as I mentioned, the Hebrew doesn’t quite say anything about a virgin, for the Hebrew word Isaiah used was “’almah” which means a young woman of marriageable age; she may or may not still be a virgin. This ambiguity is important to us because Mary’s virginity is the point of the exercise in our Matthew passage.

The second problem for scholars is the fact that this verse falls within the larger context set in Isaiah 7:1-2:

When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.

Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

Here’s what happens in Isaiah 7: The kings of Syria and Israel (Northern Kingdom) join in league together to oppose the Assyrians. They ask King Ahaz of Judah (Southern Kingdom) to join with them, but he refuses, so they march on Jerusalem to dethrone him and put a favorable king on the throne (Is. 7:6). God dispatches Isaiah to Jerusalem to tell Ahaz that the two kings will fail if Ahaz will believe God (Is. 73-9). Ahaz doesn’t take Isaiah’s advice, and even considers an alliance with the Assyrians (cf. 2 Kings 16:5, 7; Is. 7:17). The Lord sends Isaiah to Ahaz a second time, this time offering to give Ahaz a sign so that he will believe God, and once again Ahaz refuses (Is. 7:10-12). In 7:14, God, who through Isaiah, gives him a sign anyway.

The sign God gave Ahaz in 7:14 that Matthew quotes is explained further in Isaiah 7:16:

for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

The prophet goes on to explain that their lands will be laid waste by the king of Assyria, which is what happened, and Ahaz and his kingdom were saved from the threat. Thus, it probably never occurred to Isaiah, or anyone else for that matter, that the son of 7:14 was the future Messiah at all; that is until Matthew got it.

What Matthew saw was a broader meaning that applied to the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promises; consider the larger context of Isaiah 7-11: It is full of the theme of exile (7:18-25; 8:1-10, 19-22) right beside the theme of God’s presence (Immanuel, 8:8, 10) and the clear promise of a great son of David (9:6-7; 11:1). What Matthew understood was that there may well have been a fulfillment in Isaiah’s time of certain prophetic promises, and that those early fulfillments might very well foreshadow an ultimate fulfillment by the Person of Jesus Christ, which is an important concept for us to keep in mind as we go forward in his Gospel.

Matthew 1:18-25

This scene explains the ambiguity that we found in 1:16 regarding the father of Jesus, and I’m sure you will recall our discussion of that from last time. Joseph was betrothed to Mary, which in that place and time was a process of about a year in length. During that time, the couple was legally married, but their union could not be consummated. During this time, the woman would normally continue living with her parents, and after the appropriate time had expired, she would move to her husband’s house to begin their lives as husband and wife and consummate their marriage.

Since they were legally married, even though they were not living together, the only way this betrothal could be broken was by the death of one of the parties, or by a legal divorce. When our story picks up, Joseph has just found out that Mary is pregnant. Joseph does not know who the father of her child is, but he does know who the father is not. OK, so you are Joseph: What would you do?

Being a righteous man, Joseph recognizes that his betrothed has committed adultery, and that the Law prescribes what must come next. Being a compassionate man, he doesn’t want to initiate formal proceedings and bring Mary to disgrace, so he resolves to present her with a bill of divorce quietly, in front of two witnesses, rather than have formal proceedings, which technically would have her facing a capital crime.

With this all bouncing around in his mind, God steps in.

A messenger of God comes to Joseph and explains the situation (vv. 20-21) telling him that the child has come from the Holy Spirit of God. All of this takes place in a dream and then Joseph awakens. Verses 24 and 25 tell us that Joseph believed this and did as he was instructed, taking Mary into his house, and when the son was born, naming him Jesus; we are also told that Joseph and Mary did not consummate their marriage until after Jesus was born. It’s all well and good for us to read this and accept it without much more thought, but we also know how the story of Jesus ends, so the news that He was the Son of God is already a given in our minds, but what about Joseph? Every December we hear sermons and stories about the great faith of Mary, while Joseph is only mentioned in passing. Clearly, Mary’s faith was amazing, but it always strikes me that Joseph’s was even greater. Maybe it is because I’m a man, but Joseph was still faced with a rather significant choice here; what if that was just a regular old dream and not an angel coming to deliver a message?

Remember: Mary knew she was still a virgin; Joseph only knew he wasn’t the father of her child.

Whatever thoughts and lingering doubts may have been in his mind, Joseph did as he was instructed, and Jesus was of the royal line of David by adoption.

Some might be thinking here that Mary was also of David’s line as seen in Luke’s genealogy, and that would appear to be true. However, Mary was a descendant of David through David’s son Nathan, while Joseph was of David’s line through King Solomon, and the throne was passed down to and through Solomon, not Nathan, thus any claim Jesus would have had to the throne of David, would have been by his adoption by Joseph which, by the way, would be perfectly legal.

Much more important than any claim to the throne at that time, was the fact that Jesus’ actual father was God, and His unique status as royal heir and Son of God will continue to play a major part in his early years that are discussed in the next chapter.

Coming up next, I will discuss the two verses I had skipped, verses 22 and 23 which tell us that Jesus’ unconventional conception took place to fulfill the prophecy found in Isaiah 7:14; see you then!

Matthew continues his genealogy as he moves from the first group of 14 names to the next. The first group culminates in King David, that glorious figure who is “a man after God’s own heart”, with whom God made a covenant that one of his descendants would always be on his throne, and quickly the second group of 14 comes along, ending with no one on David’s throne. This scenario underscores the failure of the people of the Abrahamic covenant, and the lack of fulfillment of their covenant.

We can see Matthew’s historic vision in this sequence, a vision of election and high privilege followed by human failure and lost opportunity. It would seem that this is a preview of what would follow in Matthew’s story as the pattern of Israel’s rebellion and subsequent judgment unfolds in Israel’s rejection of Jesus, and Israel’s loss of kingdom (21:33-22:10) the destruction of the nation (21:41; 22:18; 23:29-24:3)and eschatological destruction (8:10-11; 22:11-14).

The final group of 14 is an interesting one for several reasons. For the most part, the names found in the first two thirds of the genealogy can be found in the Septuagint, but the nine names in vv. 13-15 don’t follow any Old Testament genealogy. In addition, Matthew uses only nine names to cover about 500 years, while Luke uses 18, and of these, only four are in both lists; two of the four are Joseph and Jesus. To be fair, this is not uncommon in comparing genealogies, as we have mentioned, and neither Matthew nor Luke are recording genealogies as  strict historical pedigrees.  Finally, Matthew’s progression from father to son is suddenly broken when there is no direct link between Joseph and Jesus, leaving the father of Jesus not strictly identified (see verse 16). Notice that Matthew instead shifts our attention from Joseph to Mary as “mother of Jesus”.

Matthew will answer the obvious questions about this ambiguity in the next scene, and the implications of that answer will be the subject of the entire story… and to say that those implications are huge, would be an understatement, to say the least.

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: (1:1)

Matthew begins with this verse full of content and contextual implications. It would seem that Matthew is intent on linking the story of Jesus to the larger context of Israel’s history. Notice his reference to “the genealogy of” in language which in the original Greek parallels that of the Septuagint in Gen. 2:4 and 5:1, alongside the names of David and Abraham, two of Israel’s most illustrious heroes. That Matthew uses the terms “Jesus the Messiah” (or Jesus Christ) makes it quite clear that this son of David is special (cf. 2:4; 16:16, 20; 22:42; 24:5, 23; 26:63, 68). In putting the personal name together with the messianic concept, Matthew is referring back to the hopes of an entire Nation.

With the reference “son of David” our author is hearkening back to the glory days of his people and God’s covenant promises concerning the Davidic royal house, David may well be considered the pivotal name in the genealogy for it is mentioned 5 times, and is the only name associated with the title of “king” (v. 6), singling him out of all other royal references as the greatest. Many scholars also point out the presence of the numerical value associated with the Hebrew numeric consonants. For the name David the numerics look like this: d (4) w (6) d (4) or 4 + 6 + 4 = 14. The number 14 is the number of David to be sure, but here it appears that, as some suggest, it has more meaning than that, for it is also arrived at by multiplying 2 X 7. Seven, as we saw in our study of Revelation, is the number of completeness or perfection. Jesus is the second Person of the godhead. Thus, some suggest that 14 is the number of Messiah, and when you compare that to David, and recall that the Messiah would be the son of David, these scholars conclude their case.

As for me personally, I don’t know who is right or wrong about the numbers, but in noticing how often the number 14 appears here, and remembering how the ancient Jews felt about numbers, it appears to me that at the least, Matthew is trying in every way possible to make sure that his readers get “son of David” and “Messiah” out of this discussion.

Matthew goes on to mention that David was a “son of Abraham” which is another interesting component. Recall God’s covenant with Abraham: Isaac was the son of promise through whom all of the nations of the world would be blessed. Here, David is named “son of Abraham”. Jesus is mentioned as “son of David” and “Messiah” with the obvious attempt to reinforce Matthew’s contention that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of God’s covenant promise to Abraham.

This isn’t such a boring genealogy is it?

While Matthew doesn’t mention every man who could be mentioned here, the inclusion of the names of four women is worthy of our note. As scholars like to do, they often differ about why these four names are included. My thought is that these women are all Gentiles; yet here they are in the genealogy of Jesus, who is the fulfillment of the very non-Gentile Abrahamic covenant. It strikes me that this may be important for two reasons: First, because Matthew makes certain to point out when Jesus breaks the ethnic barrier between Jew and Gentile (cf. 8:5-13; 15:21-28; 28:18-20), and second because of the way that social outcasts received His message. Whether or not this was Matthew’s thinking, one thing is perfectly clear: This is no ordinary genealogy, and with the arrival of Jesus the Messiah, nothing would ever be the same again.

We’ll pick up in verse 6 when we get together next time!

I’ll confess to you right here and now that when I sit down to read the Bible, I skip the genealogies, but when I sit down to study the Bible, I look for genealogies. For many who casually read the Bible, genealogies are cumbersome, boring and wearysome, but for more than casual readers, we come to realize that they are not included in the inspired text just to fill space or aid in curing insomnia; they tell a story.

Matthew begins his telling of the story of Jesus Christ by giving us some vital insight into just exactly who this Jesus guy is, and He is no ordinary man. It is no coincidence then, that this is no ordinary genealogy. When most people look at a Biblical genealogy, we assume that this is an exact record of biological ancestry; a pedigree one might say, but this isn’t always the case, in fact it seldom is just that. Sometimes, genealogies in the Bible don’t match up exactly, and skeptics and scoffers have no end of fun criticizing the Scriptures for what they assume to be historical inaccuracies, because they overlook the fact that the Scriptures are not like other books, for they are God’s revelation of Himself to Man, not the mere musings of the human mind.

In order for us to get the value of Biblical genealogies, we must realize that they are not so much concerned with a person’s biological ancestry as they are with demonstrating a person’s corporate and tribal status within the larger community. We can see this by noticing that in most cases, the great names are first, and the last name is the person who is being magnified by the presence of the greater names. By doing this, a storyteller can set up the basis for telling the descendant’s story by putting the descendant (last name) into the context of his great ancestors.

Matthew does not follow that pattern here, for he does not build Jesus up by associating His name with His great ancestors, rather he builds up the ancestors by associating their names with that of Jesus, which is the first and last name that is mentioned. I think a quick look at the structure will show you what I mean:

First off, we are looking here at Matthew 1:1-17 which is broken into three main sections. Verses 2-6 cover the time in the history of the Jewish people from Abraham to David, a period that culminates in the high point of Israelite history in the beginning of the Davidic monarchy.  In verses 7-11, Matthew reminds his readers both of the glory of the Davidic reign and the steady slide that resulted in Israel’s darkest period of captivity. The third period, in verses 12-16, extends from the captivity to Jesus, a period in which there is no king, a period in which the Jews are at the mercy of foreign powers and in which their hopes of redemption grow and are finally met when Jesus comes onto the scene as the culmination of Jewish history. Notice verse 16 where Jesus is born and is named by Matthew as “Jesus who is called Christ”. In doing this, Matthew is making all who have gone before subservient to Jesus, the Redeemer of Israel.

Note verse 17:

Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

In this summation, Matthew has done two interesting things: First, he has tied Jesus to the history of Israel so as to place Him at its very center, and second, he set up His arrival as a the beginning of a whole new era, an era that is not like any that has come before. In doing this, Matthew has also forced us to notice the number 14, since he mentioned it three times in his summary verse. We’ll consider this and other exciting things as we continue our look at this amazing passage next time; see you then!

From the second century AD onward, Matthew the tax collector has been identified as the author of this, the first Gospel in our New Testament. As is true with the other three Gospels, it first began to be circulated without an author’s name and so it remains debatable whether or not he was the actual author; that is if you want to debate. Most likely written sometime after 70 AD, there has never been much in the way of debate concerning its veracity or worthiness of being considered divinely inspired, and it usually appeared at the top of any list of writings to be included in Scripture.

This Gospel is uniquely Jewish in its orientation, which is why it was thought to have been written for a primarily Jewish audience. More than any other of the Gospels, Matthew points out all of the things Jesus did to fulfill Old Testament Scripture, yet the records indicate that it was probably the most popular of all New Testament writings as early as the second century. It was most often referred to and most often quoted in the surviving early Christian writings, by both Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Among the writers of the New Testament, Matthew stands out as the best actual writer in literary terms. He writes not as an eye witness, which he most assuredly was to many of the events in his narrative, but as a third party narrator, which gives his readers an advantageous position from which to view the events he describes. Often, he tells us what the characters are thinking, what their motivations and emotions are, insights which clearly increase our understanding. He, as we will see, uses literary devices to illustrate his points, as well as a deliberately devised structure that helps to clearly set out his seven major themes… and there is a fascinating unity in the fact that there are seven sections of the book, that use seven themes to convey the Person of Jesus Christ to his readers.

There is little doubt in my mind that the use of “seven” was deliberate on his part. Seven of course, is the number of completeness or perfection; some would say it is God’s number as seen in an apocalyptic view of the Scriptures. As we will see in our discussion of chapter 1, the very genealogy of Jesus in Matthew’s account is full of the number seven, or more accurately a multiple of that number: 14… the number of Messiah. You just can’t read Matthew without being clear about who Jesus is!

Here is the structure of the book:

1:1 – 4:16        Establishes the identity and role of Jesus Christ.

4:17 – 11:1      Jesus begins His ministry of teaching and healing to establish God’s presence in the land.

11:2 – 16:20    Jesus’ disciples, through divine inspiration receive special insight into His person and mission.

16:21 – 20:34  Jesus engages the disciples in explicit discussions about His priorities and intentions and the ultimate purpose of His mission.

21:11 – 25:46  In Jerusalem Jesus’ teaching and actions lead to rising conflict with the Jewish leaders.

26:1 – 27:50    As the situation intensifies, Jesus strives to willingly complete His mission.

27:51 – 28:50  God vindicates His Son through cosmic signs and resurrection from the dead and gives Him the authority to commission His Church.

I don’t know about you, but I can hardly wait to get started; see you next time!