NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part III

NOTE: If you have a thorough knowledge of Old Testament history, these names are not a boring list of progeny, but each familiar name evokes a story or incident. Yet there have been many who do not want to accept that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. For instance, in a medieval Jewish polemic work concerning the claims found in Matthew and other Gospel writers it states: “Gabriel came as a messenger sent by God to Mary in her virgin state, when she was espoused to Joseph of the house of David, and He announced to her she would conceive and bear a son, who would be holy, and be called a son of the highest; that the throne of David would be assigned to him by the Lord God for occupation, and that he would reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there should be no end. This statement disagrees with those made in other parts of the New Testament, and cast strong suspicion on the veracity of a book asserted to be written under the influence of inspiration.”¹ I noticed that the writer quotes quite a number of scriptures from the Gospels and the writings of Paul. But the one he did not quote in this instance was Jesus’ answer to Pilate as to whether He was the King of the Jews as promised to David. Our Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”² This is something that confused Nicodemus, who came to Jesus for more clarity. But the same answer the Master gave Nicodemus also applies to this skeptic. In order for him to understand the kingdom of our Lord he must first be born again.

But Christian writers were not silent on this subject of Jesus’s birth and who His father really was. In response to Jewish traditional stories that Jesus was born out of wedlock to a man named Joseph Panthera, one church father gives this rebuttal in his argument to a writer who attacked the Christian faith:

“Let us now return to where the Jew [in this story you told] is introduced, [where he was] speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that “when she was pregnant she was thrown out by the carpenter to whom she was engaged, for being guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;” and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, invented these stories in an attempt to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. But failing to do this in a credible manner, and their preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, they would have rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks and Barbarians, who were expecting divine condemnation, might depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but not by concocting one of the vilest and most disgraceful falsehoods of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its merited and preceding actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men, stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.”³

It is also important to note that at the end the author of this Gospel states: “Mary was the mother of Jesus.” One writer has a very interesting and valid take in on the use of the name “Mary” for the mother of Jesus. He says: “In English this Hebrew name is usually rendered by the spelling “Miryam” in the Tanakh [Jewish Bible] and “Mary” in the [English] New Testament. This unfounded and artificial distinction produced by translators subtly drives a wedge between Yeshua’s mother and her own Jewishness. The original Miryam was the sister of Moshe Rabbenu (“Moses, our teacher”);⁴ and a prophet;⁵ in some respects she is seen as a role-model for the Jewish woman leader of today. But the name “Mary” evokes in the reader’s thinking an otherworldly image of “Madonna and Child,” complete with halos, beatific smiles and angels in array, instead of the New Testament’s portrayal of a down-to-earth Jewish lady in an Israel village managing her wifely, maternal and other social responsibilities with care, love and faith.” Then the writer goes on to say that she bore a child, “who is called the Messiah,’” or as the Greek text reads: “being called the Christ”. This must not be taken as the writer having any doubt about Jesus being the Messiah, but that since this was an objective biography of Jesus, the author wanted everyone to know that it was Yeshua of Nazareth, the son of the virgin Mary, who was being hailed as the Messiah, not some other Yeshua.⁶

Verse 17: “So there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David. There were also fourteen generations from David until the people were taken away to Babylon. And there were fourteen more from the time the people were taken to Babylon until the Messiah was born.” Many Bible scholars do not take this as being from the pen of Matthew, but the scribe who was putting his Hebrew text into Greek. It was not uncommon for scribes to enter comments or clarifications in the margins of their translations. This scribe knew that Matthew was an accountant; that he was acquainted with debits and receivables. In this case, he divides the genealogy of Jesus into three groups. First, all those who lived during the time of the Patriarchs, Prophets and Judges – from Abraham to Jesse. Then those who lived during the time of the Kings – from David to Josiah and the exile of the Jews into Babylon. Finally, during the leadership of the Princes and Priests – from the return of the exiles to Jacob. To the scribe, this was like balancing a checkbook. To those who might criticize that in order for Matthew to have fourteen generations in each segment, he manipulated not only the number but his choice of entrants, wanting to pick and choose those that would make our Lord’s past look the best, they should take note that Matthew’s did not remove unsavory characters from the list. As we can see, not everyone in this list was without spot or wrinkle. Abraham fathered a son out of wedlock. Jacob stole his older brother Esau’s birthright. Judah slept with his daughter-in-law, not knowing she was disguised as a prostitute. Rahab was a prostitute. Ruth, the Moabite, was a product of an earlier incest between Lot and his oldest daughter.⁷ At first this might seem to be a debased act on the part of Lot’s daughters. But Jewish scholars point out that this occurred prior to the giving of the Law. All those who were born prior to the generation of Isaac and his descendants, were the posterity of Noah. In one discussion by Rabbis on this subject, the question is asked: “Why did not Adam marry his daughter? So that Cain should marry his sister, as it is written, For I said, the world shall be built up by grace. But otherwise, she would have been forbidden to Cain? — Once however that it was permitted, it remained so.”⁸ Jewish scholars believe that Eve’s offense was followed by her early death, so Adam had no other choice but to find a helpmate among his own children because there were no others available.⁹ In other words, such incest by Lot’s daughters was permitted on the basis of need to keep Lot’s genealogy going since he had no sons, and thus was not a violation of any law given by God. Nevertheless, the outcome that the two sons ended up being Israel’s enemies might be interpreted as God’s response for what they did. However, one Jewish commentator does take note that with the oldest daughter having secured the future for her father’s name by becoming pregnant, the younger daughter had no need to follow suit. Her child was named ben Ammi, and his offspring were known as the children of Ammon. The second daughter’s child was named Moab, who became the father of the Moabites. So this misguided effort led to the grandnieces of Abraham producing two future enemies that their uncle Isaac’s descendants did not need. Says the writer, because of this, these two sons and their children “were forever barred from membership in the Jewish people.”¹⁰ Then we come to Bathsheba who committed adultery with David. This does not take into account the kings before him that were less than faithful to the Lord. To top it off, Mary became pregnant before she was married, something that was looked on with shame in her day. But it all served a purpose. God can use the best and the worst in order to carry out His will. That makes it possible for anyone to be part of the family of God. Although many pastors, when examining the membership rolls of their churches, would prefer to find listed only the finest, most educated, and highly moral people in town, a real church will have names of former drunkards, thieves, murderers, adulterers, etc. That’s why, as the old hymn goes, when the names are called up yonder, don’t be surprised if you hear some that you knew on earth were nothing but scoundrels and persona non grata in the community. It must be remembered that the Jews who doubted Jesus’ claim of Messiahship, did not have Matthew’s genealogy list at that time. But when they were told that Jesus was a carpenter’s son from Nazareth in Galilee, they dismissed His claims simply based on their preconceived ideas of who the Messiah would be and where he would come from. But within some thirty years, Matthew’s scroll was made available and they were given the evidence of His lineage to David and Abraham. Yet they still did not believe because of the biases and prejudices against Galileans and the children of common laborers. Strange that none of their portraits hang in Jewish homes today, but the picture of Jesus is exhibited on the walls of thousands and thousands of walls in Christians homes around the world.

1 Chizuk Emunah – Faith Strengthened by Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, Translated by Moses Mocatta, 1881, Part II, Ch. 32

2 John 18:36

3 Origen Adamantius (184-253 AD), “Contra Celsus”, Bk. I, Ch. 32, written circa 248 AD

4 Exodus 2:4-8

5 Ibid. 15:20

6 Jewish New Testament Commentary, op. cit., Matthew 1:18

7 Genesis 19:37

8 Babylonian Talmud, op. cit., Seder Nezikin, Masekhet Sanhedrin, folio 58b

9 Ibid., footnote (11)

10 Tzror Hamor op. cit., Parshat Veyeyra, loc. cit. pp. 268-269