Verse by Verse

1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,

² saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”

³ When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

⁴ And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.

⁵ So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:

⁶ ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you shall come a Ruler who will shepherd My people Israel.’”

was born (v.1) = lit. “having been born” — about two years prior to the events in this chapter, probably around 4 B.C.

Bethlehem (v.1) = “house of bread” — also called Ephrath. It was five miles south of Jerusalem — birthplace of David

Herod (v.1) — Herod the Great, an Edomite, made king by the Romans in 43 B.C.

wise men (v.1) — The Bible doesn’t give us much information. They were called magi, they came from another country, and that country was in the east. They were probably astrologers from the Parthian Empire, which included Persia. They were pagan priests, educated in secret knowledge, who specialized in prophesying about future events based on what they saw in the stars and planets. When Daniel was carried off to captivity in Babylon (which later became part of the Parthian Empire), he and his Jewish friends proved themselves superior to men of this sort. And in all matters of wisdom and understanding about which the king examined them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers who were in all his realm (Daniel 1:20).

In some cases, and probably in Matthew, magi were seekers of genuine knowledge from the night sky without any attempt at fraud. They may have been part of the political council whose job it was to select the kings of the Parthian Empire. Parthians had conquered Judea earlier in Herod’s lifetime and forced him to flee to Rome. Herod needed three years and a Roman army to reconquer his throne. The Jews, who resented Roman rule, had gained a measure of self government under the Parthians and were ready to grab the opportunity again.

Herod died a few years after Christ was born and was probably already sick when the magi visited. The Romans also had an old emperor (Augustus) and no great military leaders. The situation was ripe for another Parthian invasion, except that their king had recently been deposed.

The magi might have been aware of Old Testament prophecies about the king of the Jews who would rule the world, and that may have been what drew them to follow the star. In the past, Jews had held high office in Persia (Daniel, for example) and some of their kings may have had Jewish blood. The magi might have been looking for a successor strong enough to withstand Rome, and they might not have minded traveling to Bethlehem to find him. 

The star may not have been intended specifically by God as a sign to the magi. It may have been a general sign that the King was born, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies like the one in Numbers 24:17: … A Star shall come out of Jacob; a Scepter shall rise out of Israel …

We can’t know for sure, but it is very unlikely that the star was a natural phenomenon, since it stopped above the village. — from a lesson I wrote for work

__________

We are informed by Tacitus, by Suetonius, and by Josephus, that there prevailed throughout the entire East at this time an intense conviction, derived from ancient prophecies, that ere long a powerful monarch would arise in Judaea, and gain dominion over the world. It has, indeed, been conjectured that the Roman historians may simply be echoing an assertion, for which Josephus was in reality their sole authority: but even if we accept this uncertain supposition, there is still ample proof, both in Jewish and in Pagan writings, that a guilty and weary world was dimly expecting the advent of its Deliverer. — Pentecost, page 67.

__________

Herod was greatly troubled and filled with alarm when he heard the report of the Magi. The “whole city was disturbed with him.” The reason for this agitation of the people was not far to seek. Only a little while before this, filled with rage of family rivalries and jealous of anyone who might supplant him on the throne of Palestine which he, an Idumean, had usurped, he had secured the murder of his own beautiful princess of the Asmonean line and his two favorite sons  Alexander and Aristobulus. Though he had sought by every means to secure the favor of the Roman Emperor, Augustus about this time had said he would prefer to be Herod’s hog (hus) than to be his son (huios), for he would then have a better chance of life. The city feared now the revenge of this cruel and cunning king, who had in the beginning of his reign destroyed the Sanhedrin, and now in the last years of his bloody reign, might seize and execute the chief Jews. — Pentecost, page 68.

__________

So long as any one lived, who was born in Bethlehem between the earliest appearance of this “star” and the time of the arrival of the Magi, he was not safe. The subsequent conduct of Herod shows, that the Magi must have told him, that their earliest observation of the sidereal phenomenon had taken place two years before their arrival in Jerusalem. — Pentecost, page 68.

scribes (v.4) — professional students and defenders of the law, mainly Pharisees

prophet (v.5) — Micah 5:2 — Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah

The quote (v.6) differs from the Hebrew and the Septuagint. The scribes may have been quoting from another translation or paraphrase, of just adding bits from other Scriptures.

Ruler (v.6) — Isaiah 9:6

This second chapter of the Gospel is at once historic and prophetic. All the stories gather round four prophecies, and indicate the fulfillment of their deepest intention in history.

The first prophecy is from Micah 5:2: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall One come forth unto Me that is the Ruler in Israel.”

The second is from Hosea 11:1: “I … called My Son out of Egypt.”

The third is from Jeremiah 31:15: “A voice is heard in Ramah; lamentation , and bitter weeping , Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted for her children, because they are not.”

The fourth is a truth uttered by many of the prophets in some form; “That He should be called a Nazarene.”

Thus the chapter shows us that the coming of the King was the fulfillment of the prophecies of the past. — Morgan, page 15

²² So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:

²³ “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

²⁴ Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,

²⁵ and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

the prophet (v.22) — Isaiah 7:14

Pentecost and Gaebelein have slightly different takes on the exact meaning of Isaiah’s sign from God.

Matthew called to our attention the fact that this miracle which had been announced to him had been promised to Israel in Isaiah 7:14, the great prophecy of the virgin birth. In the context of that passage, the kingdom of Judah was being threatened by a coalition of Israel and Syria. God sent Isaiah to bring King Ahaz of Judah a message of comfort. Isaiah promised that this coalition would fail and Judah would survive. The message was so important that God offered to confirm this promise to Ahaz. Isaiah asked Ahaz to seek a sign that God would fulfill His promise. However, Ahaz refused to permit God to give him a sign. This was not because Ahaz trusted God but because he refused to be obligated to submit to God, for he was a rebel against Him. Isaiah gave Ahaz a sign, nevertheless. It was the sign of the virgin birth. This prophecy had a double reference. The word for “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 is a broad word that refers to any young woman of marriageable age. The prophecy was intended to convey to Ahaz the promise that before a young woman of marriageable age could be married, conceive, bear a son, and wean that son, Judah would be rid of her enemies. Thus within about three years Ahaz would see the fulfillment of God’s promise to him that the powers allied against Judah would fail. But the prophecy went far beyond the immediate reference to Ahaz, for it was a prophecy concerning the virgin birth of Christ. When the New Testament referred to this prophecy, it selected the restrictive word for a virgin rather than interpreting it in a broader sense to mean simply a young woman. As Matthew wrote and interpreted the prophecy, he told us that Isaiah had in mind the miraculous conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. The definite article “the” used with virgin shows that Isaiah had one virgin in mind — Mary herself. — Pentecost, pages 54-55.

__________

So that, although that prophecy, of a virgin’s bringing forth a son, should not be fulfilled till many hundreds of years after, yet, at that present time, when the prophecy was made, Ahaz had a certain and notable sign, that the house of David should be safe and secure from the danger that hung over it. As much as if the prophet had said: “Be not so troubled O Ahaz, does it not seem an impossible thing to thee, that never will happen, that a pure virgin become a mother? but I tell thee such a virgin shall bring forth a son, before the house of David perish. — Gaebelein, page 36.

I think Gaebelein’s take makes a little more sense, but either view supports Matthew’s contention that Mary was a pure virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ.

Joseph’s response (v.24) was one of implicit faith and obedience. He did not ask for confirmation. He did not ask for explanation. He accepted the fact that Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the virgin birth was the true explanation of Mary’s pregnancy, and he obeyed the command of the angel and “took Mary home as his wife” (Matthew 1:24). Joseph demonstrated a remarkable restraint in that “he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son” (v.25). Thus Christ was truly born of a virgin … By the most natural interpretation of the expression “first-born,” Mary had other children, which were born from the wedlock of Joseph. The Gospel narratives speak of four such younger brothers and at least two sister. — Pentecost, page 55.

¹⁸ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

¹⁹ Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.

²⁰ But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

²¹ And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

now (v.18) = “but” — to contrast Christ’s birth with those just listed.

betrothed (v.18) — In that culture, vows were said at the time of betrothal and a legal divorce was required to end the arrangement. There was usually a period, often as long as a year, between the betrothal and the time when the bride moved in with her husband and the marriage was consummated.

before they came together (v.18) — Mary was a virgin

found with child (v.18) — punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:23)

with child (v.18) — her seed (Genesis 3:15)

of the Holy Spirit (v.18) — Luke 1:28-35

put her away privately (v.19) — divorce her, in accordance with Deuteronomy 24:1

Jesus (v.22) = “Jehovah saves”

He will save (v.21) — He and no other

His people (v.21) — Israel

The name that had been revealed to Mary was now repeated to Joseph. This name was to be given “because He will save His people from their sins” (v.21). The phrase”His people” must refer to the nation Israel to whom God had given promises in Jeremiah 31:31-14 that Messiah would come to grant forgiveness of sin. — Pentecost, page 54.

__________

sins (v.21) — What the people thought they wanted was a Joshua who could reveal himself to this material Jerusalem as King, break the power of Rome, and set up an earthly Kingdom. The angel said the deeper trouble was not that of the Roman yoke; or that they had been beaten in battle; the trouble with them was that they were sinners. — Morgan, page 14.

__________

If Matthew 1:1-17 were all that could be said of His birth, He might then have had a legal right to the throne, but He could never have been He who was to redeem and save from sin. — Gaebelein, page 27.

¹² And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel.

¹³ Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor.

¹⁴ Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud.

¹⁵ Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob.

¹⁶ And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.

¹⁷ So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

Shealtiel (v.12) — a different person than the Shealtiel mentioned in Luke’s genealogy of Mary (Luke 3:27)

husband of Mary (v.16) — An obvious shift from the “begot” that links the other generations

fourteen generations (v.17) — a literary grouping

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. 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. A further problem appears because the last section has actually only thirteen names. Complicated explanations are not wanting. Suggested answers include a textual omission of Jehoiakim or the possibility that Jesus is considered the fourteenth. — Walvoord, page 18

⁷ Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa.

⁸ Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah.

⁹ Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah.

¹⁰ Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah.

¹¹ Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

Matthew’s second set of 14 generations, from David to the Babylonian captivity, although four generations are missing to make 14.

Jeconiah (v.11) — Also called Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:8) and Coniah (Jeremiah 22:24). he was cursed to never have a descendant sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30). So Jesus could not have been Joseph’s son by blood and be king.

In this pedigree the names Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah and Jehoiakim are ommitted according to the law of Deuteronomy 29:20; the first three because of being the third and fourth generation of Ahab, and the remaining one because Jehoiakim was not an independent king and because of Jeremiah 36:23. These four names were blotted out of God’s book of remembrance. — Williams, page 696

1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:

² Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers.

³ Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram.

⁴ Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon.

⁵ Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse,

⁶ and Jesse begot David the king. David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah.

This genealogy proves that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Messianic promises made to David (Isaiah 9:6-7) and the covenant promises made to Abraham (Genesis 22:18).

Judah (v.2) — is named alone among his brothers because the prophecy of Jacob (Genesis 49:10) says that Shiloh would come from Judah.

Tamar (v.3) — She seduced her father-in-law, Judah (Genesis 38).

Rahab (v. 5) — She was a prostitute in Jericho who sheltered the messengers (Hebrews 11:31)

Ruth (v.5) — A Moabitess. An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever (Deuteronomy 23:3).

Her who had been the wife of Uriah (v.6) — Bathsheba, who committed adultery with King David and then became his wife after her husband was murdered.

David (v.6) alone has the title, the king. Solomon’s name is there, but there is no kingship attached to it. The unbelieving Jew, as he tries to reject prophecies concerning the Messiah, has always made a strong point of this, that the promises given to David concerning a son were all fulfilled in Solomon. Solomon according to them is the king, and higher than David in his rule and dominion. How striking then that the Holy Spirit gives the name simply Solomon without adding “the king” to it. David is the king and no other can have the title, till his Son come: even He who came and whom David called Lord (Psalm 110:1). — Gaebelein, page 24.

__________

The son of David to whom he looked for the fulfillment of his purpose of the establishment of the kingdom around the temple of Jehovah was Solomon. His name, Solomon, the peaceful, suggested the principle of the kingdom. His greatest endowment was that of wisdom, His specific work was that of the building of the temple. His reign was characterized by peace and prosperity.

Nevertheless the story of Solomon is one of disastrous failure. In spite of the gifts of wisdom from on high he lived a life of unutterable and appalling folly. Even though he built the temple, he so contradicted all that for which it stood as to make it a center of form without power; and even though through the goodness of God to him, for the sake of his father, the kingdom was maintained in peace during the period of his life, he had sown it with seeds of disruption which bore harvest immediately after his death. Thus was David disappointed in his son after the flesh.

Jesus Christ the Son of David after the flesh, but the Son of God as the resurrection finally attested, came for the overcoming of all the failure which characterized the life and reign of Solomon. With an innate wisdom He proceeded to the building of the temple which cannot be destroyed; and laid the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom in peace and prosperity from which all that offends will finally be cast forth.

The son of Abraham to whom he looked for the fulfillment of the promise of God, that from him there should spring a nation which should be the medium of blessing to all the nations, was Isaac. His name, Isaac, laughter, was to Abraham for evermore a witness of the merging of the human and the Divine, in that he was born because “Sarah received power to conceive seed when she was past age.” Through him there was given to Abraham that seed which consisted of sons who, to his vision were destined to carry forward the enterprises of God. The one influence which he exerted was that of the power, which he retained by faith, of blessing his sons after him. 

Nevertheless the story of Isaac is one of disappointment, both in the weakness of his own character, and in the appalling failure of his sons through the long succession of the ages; and in the fact that they failed to enter into the true meaning and value of the blessing he pronounced. Thus was Abraham disappointed in his son after the flesh.

Jesus, the son of Abraham after the flesh, but in the mystery of His Person able to say, “Before Abraham was I AM,” came to realized and fulfill all the purpose which had failed through Isaac and his seed after him. He was the true son of Abraham both human and Divine, and there sprang from Him “so many as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand, which is by the seashore, innumerable,” to carry out the purposes of God. — Morgan, pages 8-9

__________

It is significant to note that, when Jesus offered Himself to Israel as the Messiah, His claim to Davidic descent was never challenged. The Jews must have consulted the records to see whether the One who made such claims for Himself had the right to make those claims. Had they found any flaw in His descent, they would have been quick to accuse Him of being an impostor. Even though the nation rejected Him, it was not because He was outside the Davidic line and therefore ineligible to claim the Davidic throne. — Pentecost, page 39

The following is from a lesson I wrote for work.

Matthew, in the first chapter of his gospel, gives a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Luke 3 also gives us a genealogy of Jesus Christ. But the two lists are very different. Some people, who have looked for problems in the Bible but haven’t wanted to look for answers, have considered this evidence that the Bible cannot be accurate.

In fact, the two genealogies are fantastic proofs of how the Bible fits together. Here’s how:

Matthew’s list begins with Abraham. In verse six we find David and his son Solomon. Luke’s list begins with Joseph and goes back to Adam. In Luke 3:31, we see David and his son Nathan.

Luke is giving Jesus’ lineage through His mother, Mary. He refers to Joseph because genealogies were almost exclusively traced through the father. But when referring to Jesus’ relation to Joseph, Luke uses a word for son that includes the meaning “step-son.” Nathan was David’s oldest son, the one who usually would have become the next king. He didn’t, but a legal claim to the throne continued through his line to Mary, giving Jesus a legitimate legal claim to the throne of Israel.

Matthew is giving Jesus’ lineage through His legal father, Joseph (although Joseph wasn’t his birth father). Joseph’s line goes back to Solomon, David’s second son. Solomon and his heirs actually reigned, giving Joseph a legitimate royal claim to the throne.

Here’s where it really gets interesting. Because Jesus was Joseph’s adopted son, He had a royal claim to the throne. But if Jesus had been Joseph’s son by birth, He would have had no claim at all to be king. Why? If you look in Matthew 1:11, you find a man by the name of Jechonias. Because of Jechonias’ sin, he was cursed by God: 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.”

So Jesus, through Mary back to Nathan, had the legal claim to the throne. Through Joseph (and only as his step-son) back to Solomon, He had the royal claim to the throne. Both lines ended with Jesus Christ. No other sons of Mary and Joseph had a claim to the throne because they had an older brother with a better claim who was (and is) still living. And any other birth sons of Joseph would have been subject to Jechonias’ curse. All of Mary’s other sons were through Joseph. All this means that, if Jesus Christ wasn’t the Messiah, there never will be one.

The Gospel of Matthew never mentions an author, but it is generally accepted that it was written by Matthew the apostle. The earliest existing manuscripts are in Greek. Some people think that Matthew wrote the book in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that it was then translated. Most conservative scholars think that Matthew may have written parts of the book in Aramaic, but that he definitely wrote the gospel as we have it in Greek himself.

A unique statement within the book of Matthew provides internal evidence to its authorship. The account of the call of Matthew (ch.9) is followed by that of a meal taken by Jesus in the company of “publicans and sinners.” The best translation of this passage says the meal took place “at home.” The parallel account in Mark 2:15 makes it clear that this feast took place in Levi’s (i.e., Matthew’s) house. The phrase “at home” means “in my (that is, in the author’s) house.” — KJV Commentary, page 1160

Some people have claimed that much of Matthew has been copied from Mark.

While many similarities between the gospels exist, the proof that one is dependent on the other is not convincing, as there are so many variations. 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. However, the inspiration of Matthew would not be affected if he had chosen to use some of Mark’s material, if Mark was written earlier. 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. — Walvoord, page 12

__________

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. [In addition], 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 triumph to His second coming. — Walvoord, pages 12-13)

I noticed in the introductions of several of the commentaries I am using that the authors state that, when the Lord spoke of the Church in the latter chapters of Matthew, He was referring to the Body of Christ as it exists today. Even those authors who believe that Christ is still to return to set up His kingdom in Jerusalem (as I do) think the Lord was prophesying today’s church.

Before my study begins, I have a problem with this. The kingdom wasn’t even offered to Israel until Pentecost, and it seems unlikely that the offer to Israel would come after the Lord talked about the gospel being given to the Gentiles. Stam believes that the “church” in Matthew refers to the small remnant of Israel that did (and, in the Tribulation, will) trust Christ as their Messiah. This makes sense to me in light of Paul’s frequent claims that his message had been hidden by God until it was given to him.

The books I am using for this study are:

The Gospel of Matthew, by Arno C. Gaebelein (1961) Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, New Jersey

Expository Notes on the Gospel of Matthew, by H.A. Ironside (1948) Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, New Jersey

The Gospel According to Matthew, by G. Campbell Morgan (1929) Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, New Jersey

The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, by J. Dwight Pentecost (1981) Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan

The Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel of the Grace of God, by C.R. Stam (1983) Berean Bible Society

Complete Bible Commentary, by George Williams

Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, by John F. Walvoord (1974) The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois

King James Bible Commentary (1983) Thomas Nelson, Nashville, Tennessee