1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
The Gospel according to Matthew, one of the 12 Apostles also known as Levi (Mark 2:14), is thought to have been written 5-10 years after Jesus ascended into heaven, making it one of the first books of the Bible to be written. Matthew was a Jew, originally a publican (tax collector) before he responded to Jesus’ call to discipleship (Mat 10:3). Since his Gospel initially targeted a Jewish audience, his account is also valuable to understand the culture and customs of the Jews at the time of Christ.
According to the testimony of many early church writers (and none to the contrary), the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (more exactly, Aramaic) and later translated into koine Greek. However, most recent scholars believe the original language was Greek, for the Septuagint was widely used in Judaism. It is even possible that the general Jewish population did not speak Aramaic, but Greek (see note for Mat 27:46). On the other hand, if Matthew did write in Hebrew, it would help explain the origins of the book of Mark, which agrees closely to Matthew in the main yet gives some details differently. So perhaps Peter used Matthew’s Hebrew version as a base text and then dictated to Mark the Gospel that bears his name. The evidences that a Hebrew version of Matthew ever existed are extremely scant. And analyses of the language, grammar and idioms of Matthew do not show signs that it was translated. Perhaps the early church writers were mistaken.
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, or, “The genealogical record of Jesus Christ” (see Gen 5:1). Following the traditional Jewish method, Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage beginning with Abraham unto David and then following the successors to his throne right up to Joseph, the husband of Mary (v16). Luke’s genealogy however, appears to follow Mary’s more humble lineage. It begins much earlier with Adam and passes through Abraham and David just as Matthew’s record; then it takes a new route, following a different son of David (Nathan) which bypasses all the kings of Israel/Judah beginning with Solomon.
The origins and purposes of these genealogies are a matter of much discussion and mystery. The most probable explanation, in my opinion, is that Matthew’s Gospel traces Jesus’ legal ancestry to king David and patriarch Abraham (a crucial point in the Jewish concept of the Messiah), while Luke’s Gospel traces His genetic line all the way back to Adam (more important to Luke’s Gentile audience). Of course, if Luke does follow Jesus’ genetic line, then he must follow Mary’s lineage and not Joseph’s (who was not Jesus’ genetic father). Opponents of this idea point out that Luke fails to advertise that he is giving Mary’s genealogy and even names Joseph, not Mary, as Jesus’ immediate antecedent. Proponents counter with the Law’s rule that female inheritors should bear the name of their father (Num 27:1-11) and point out that Mary was a prominent source for Luke’s gospel (see Luke 1). Early testimony in church literature affirms her to be a descendant of king David (see Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians and Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho).
There are two notable features in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus that seem a-typical. First, he mentions four women (Luke has none), and second, he omits some names in order to count generations instead of each father-son relation (see note v2). For the Jews however, the witness of Jesus’ genealogy incontrovertibly demonstrated that He was born in the Messianic kingly line – a son of David (2Sam 7:12-13) and a son of Abraham (Gen 22:18). The Scriptures had prophesied that the Messiah would be a direct descendant of these two great men of the Jewish faith and there the Jews looked for Him.
The four women in this genealogy stand out in striking fashion, for not one of them was a true Jew after the flesh. No mention of Sarah or Rebecca, but Tamar the Canaanite (as inferred from Gen 38), Rahab of Jericho fame, Ruth the Moabitess, and Bathsheba the Hittite (inferred from 2Sam 11:3). While two of these women turned out to be remarkable women of faith, they were first known for adulterous relationships. Perhaps that detail is aimed at the Jewish audience, who were fanatical in attaching salvation exclusively to those of Jewish blood (Mat 3:9), and perhaps it speaks of the marriage of Christ to His Church (Gentile and Jew alike). For the Jew however, it highlights this inescapable and embarrassing fact: the Old Testament accounts show that between Abraham and David there were multiple examples of non-Jewish blood entering the kingly line. So while Matthew’s genealogy shows Jesus to be a direct descendant of Abraham, he also notes that line was not as pure as the Jews would wish.
The chronologies of Matthew and Luke are identical from Abraham to David, but there they separate until the time of the Babylonian Captivity, where they converge for two generations before separating once again. The diligent student will find that the divergence is due to Solomon’s disobedience and wickedness, and the convergence is due to the word of God by the prophet Jeremiah against Jehoiachin, proclaiming that king childless and thereby requiring an adoption to keep the kingly line intact (see note v12).
The most striking detail however, is that this thousands-of-years-long pedigree abruptly ends with its most illustrious character. It is indeed an act of God that the most famous, world-changing figure in all history has no genealogical record of neither descendants nor relatives. Jesus culminated that long royal line such that it ended forever, at least in its physical realization. For with the household of Joseph and Mary the registers of the genealogical line of Jesus the Messiah stops. Of course, Jesus Himself never married and had no earthly sons; but not even the descendants of his brothers and sisters are known!
The differences in the Matthew and Luke’s genealogies seem to be the following:
- Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage through Joseph, while Luke follows Mary’s lineage
- Matthew’s line is legally ancestral, the very succession of kings that would have reigned from David to Christ.
- Luke’s line is direct and genetic, the true physical succession of fathers all the way back to Adam.
- Matthew’s genealogy begins at Abraham and progresses through David, proving to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.
- Luke’s genealogy works backward from Jesus directly to Adam, proving to the Gentiles the genetic link between the first and last Adam.
- Luke follows David’s son Nathan, effectively cutting off Solomon and all the kings of Israel and Judah due to Solomon’s sin.
- The convergence of the two chronologies at Shealtiel necessitate an adoption by Jehoiachin, who by the word of the Lord was childless.
- Luke includes no women in his genealogy, but Matthew mentions four – all are Gentiles.
- Matthew counts 3 divisions of 14 generations from Abraham to Jesus.
2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
Many in this list were not the first-born and some were adopted sons or from levirate marriages. Presumably that is not the case with Luke’s blood-line genealogy. The Old Testament names are spelled differently: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah), Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim), Jehoiachin, Shealtiel, Zerubabbel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus the Christ.
There are 42 generations in Matthew’s list, which does not include the above names in parenthesis. Since the reason for this genealogy was to show the Jews that Jesus was truly a son of David, it is almost beyond doubt that Matthew took much of this material directly from the temple records. The strictest Pharisee could not argue against those! Genealogies were extremely important in Judaism, for they proved one’s rights as a Jew to participate in the community and Temple. According to Josephus, many Jewish families kept their own genealogies at home to correspond with the temple records and confirm their ancestry. And, he says, in the case of the priests, those genealogies included women.
Given the above facts, I believe the missing names and division of generations at fourteen were a feature of the temple genealogies which served to strengthen Matthew’s assertion that Jesus was a son of David – especially given the general opinion that He was not (John 7:41-42). And since the complete lineage of Jesus up to the time of the Babylonian Captivity can be found by piecing together various passages of the Old Testament, there is additional and ample proof of His ancestry. Commentator Adam Clarke counts only 41 generations in the list and says a name is missing in the KJV (see note v11).
A minority of scholars (see Arthur Hervey’s meticulous work) argue that both Matthew and Luke relate the genealogy of Joseph, but generally agree that Matthew gives Jesus’ regal lineage and Luke gives Jesus’ blood lineage. Their theory is primarily based on Matthan and Matthat being the same person in the respective genealogies; namely, that he was Jesus’ great-grandfather who begat Jacob (who was allegedly childless). Consequently Heli, by levirate marriage, had a son in the name of his brother Jacob. That son was Joseph the purported father of Jesus.
Phares and Zara of Thamar are the twin sons of Judah. Why are both listed when only one is in the lineage of David? Some commentators believe Matthew is drawing attention to the symbolism of that account (Gen 38:27-30), for the two sons seem to represent the Jews and Gentiles. On the other hand, this phrase may have been simply another feature of the temple genealogies.
5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
Some commentators believe there is a missing name or two between Salmon and Boaz, thinking it unlikely that Rahab could be the great-great-grandmother of David, who according to most chronologists was born roughly 350 years after the fall of Jericho. However, if we allow those early men to have had their respective generational sons in old age (about 100 years old), then the lineage could be complete. And certainly it was common in those days of multiple wives and natural longevity to have sons in old age. Abraham had 6 sons after the age of 135.
There is no Old Testament text that corroborates Matthew’s assertion that Rahab was the wife of Salmon (1Chr 2:11; Ruth 4:21) and one wonders where he obtained that interesting information. While Jewish targums and midrashes did opine that Rahab the Jerichoan harlot became the wife of a prince in Israel, there is no further mention of her outside the book of Joshua (Josh 2:1, 6:25).
7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
Here the lineages of Matthew and Luke diverge, with Matthew following David’s son Solomon and Luke following David’s son Nathan (note Zech 12:11-14). God was highly displeased with Solomon’s conduct and by the mouth of the prophet Ahijah took the kingdom of Israel from the seed of Solomon, while leaving his posterity one tribe on account of his father David (1Kings 11). The rending of the kingdom from the Davidic line through Solomon took place in the very generation that the two genealogies of Jesus divide. It resulted in Solomon and his seed being completely left out of the Messianic line in Luke’s gospel. I do not believe that is a coincidence. The wisest man in the world did not measure very high on the important scale of character valor.
8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
Joram begat Ozias, or using the OT spelling, Jehoram begat Uzziah. There were however, three additional kings between Jehoram and Uzziah, so that the father-son line goes: Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah. They were descendants of Queen Athaliah and were particularly wicked kings with short reigns. Precisely why Matthew left these three kings out is unknown, although if we are correct in maintaining that Matthew was giving the temple genealogy, then we know it was not an error of omission.
11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
The actual father-son line here is confusing even in the Old Testament accounts, for after good king Josiah’s untimely death, several of his brothers and/or uncles reigned in quick succession. Thus it says that Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren – not necessarily brothers, but relatives. From the scattered OT references to this period, the most likely scenario is that four of Josiah’s brothers/uncles/sons reigned (or at least attempted to reign) in short order after his death: Jehoahaz, Johanan, Jehoiakim and Shallum. This was during the time of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem and Nebuchadnezzar deposed most of these young men quickly and put another in his place. The last “king” installed by Nebuchadnezzar was Zedekiah (also called Mattaniah). He is believed to be either Josiah’s brother or an adopted son. Jehoiakim, who reigned 11 years, was the father of Jehoiachin, who was put on the throne after Jehoiakim was carried captive into Babylon. Jehoiachin reigned just 3 months before he too was taken into Babylon, where he remained in prison until the death of Nebuchadnezzar.
From this history it appears that Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren means the following: Josiah begat Jehoiakim and his brothers, all of which occupied the throne. The Jechonias of the next verse however, cannot be Jehoiakim, for he did not beget Salathiel, but his son Jeconiah did (1Chr 3:17; 2Kings 24:6). Counting Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), the section adds up to fourteen generations and 42 in total. The confusion is probably due to the close spelling and sound of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin. According to Clarke, some ancient manuscripts add the name: “And Josiah begat Jehoiakim and Jehoiakim begat Jehoiachin.” And a footnote in the KJV remarks: “some read, Josias begat Jakim, and Jakim begat Jechonias.” It is possible that an early copyist mistook the two names as one and accidentally omitted Jakim. Irenaeus (ca A.D. 180) mentions that Matthew’s genealogy includes Jehoiakim (Against Heresies, Bk3 Ch21). If that be true, the text should read: “Josias begat Jakim and his brethren, and Jakim begat Jechonias about the time they were carried away to Babylon: and after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel…”
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
Jechonias (Jehoiachin) was taken from Jerusalem and imprisoned in Babylon for many years – until the death of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 52:31-32). Also called Coniah, he was the last of the kings according to the word of the Lord through Jeremiah (Jer 22:24-30).
Salathiel begat Zorobabel. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke diverged at David, but here they meet again for 2 generations, only to diverge once again. Luke records that Neri begat Salathiel who begat Zorobabel who begat Rhesa (Luke 3:27), while Matthew says Jehoiachin begat Salathiel who begat Zorobabel who begat Abiud. The divergence after Zorobabel is not problematic – the lineages simply follow different sons – but the initial convergence at Salathiel is abnormal. How can Salathiel have two fathers? Only by adoption or a levirate marriage. Apparently Neri was the genetic father of Salathiel (per Luke), but Jehoiachin was his adoptive father (per Matthew). For by the Word of the Lord, the wicked king Jehoiachin would be childless (Jer 22:30).
Chronologists have proposed various explanations for these anomalies, for the main Old Testament text (1Chr 3:16-19) seems to have suffered some corruptions.
13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
These names are too late in time to be in the OT genealogies, yet they must have existed in the Jewish genealogical records when Matthew wrote his Gospel. The many critics of Christianity from among the Jews lodged no objection to Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, which indicates that his record was verifiable and accepted. And as far as I am aware, no such accusation is ever referenced in the early church writings, although the Jews tried all kinds of other arguments to rationalize their rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. So it is significant that they never attempted to disallow Jesus as the Messiah on account of Him not being a true descendant in the Davidic and Abrahamic line.
None of the sons of Zorobabel recorded in 1Chr 3:19-20 were named Abiud. Did he have other children? Did one of the sons have two names? Or does the genealogy skip over a few generations here, as it did in earlier sections? Note that Luke has twenty generations between Zorobabel and Joseph, where Matthew has only eleven.
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
The lineage is simple, but does not correspond with Luke’s genealogy, which has Joseph being the son of Heli (Luke 3:23). The common explanation of the latter Scripture is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. See our comments at Mat 1:1.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
Approximate time from Abraham to David was 850 years; from David to the Babylonian captivity, 450 years; from the captivity to Christ, 450 years. Yet each of these periods had fourteen generations, resulting in a total of forty-two generations from Abraham to David (see note v11). In symbolic contexts of the Scripture, the number 42 signifies pilgrimage, suffering and perseverance. In the book of Revelation, the Kingdom of Christ on earth is given 42 months of pilgrimage, during which it is persecuted and tested by the Beast (Rev 13). The 42 months equal 3-1/2 years, another symbolic representation of the time-period of the Church Age (Rev 12:14; Dan 12:7). The Scriptures also name 42 encampments as the children of Israel journeyed from Egypt to Canaan.
The meaning of generation in this context is uncertain, for according to the OT genealogies, there were more than 14 father-son pairs in the middle segment of this genealogy (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah) and there may have been un-named fathers in the first segment (between Salmon and Boaz). The average generational age however, is consistent between the last two segments at roughly 30 years, while the first segment was double that. However, many fathers in that era had sons in old age, even double that of later periods. Abraham for instance, was 100 when he had Isaac, who was 60 when he had Jacob, who was about 90 when he had Judah.
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew’s account continues from Joseph’s perspective, describing his thoughts and actions after the birth of Jesus. This is in contrast to the book of Luke, where the genealogy and birth account is based upon Mary’s perspective.
A Jewish marriage was preceded by a betrothal period which lasted between 6 and 12 months. During that time, the woman continued to live at her father’s house. Evidently there were no sexual relations during this time, although the couple was considered to be legally married and a divorce was required to separate the two even though the marriage ceremony had not taken place.
The birth of Jesus was carefully crafted by God to show both His deity and His humanity. He could have been supernaturally conceived by an un-espoused virgin, but that would have opened the door to claims of illegitimacy and deprived Him of an earthly family. On the other hand, He could have been supernaturally conceived by a married woman, but that would have left His divine conception and true deity in doubt. To be born to an espoused virgin satisfied those objections until such moment that His works and words could be added to the body of evidence proving His divine identity.
Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35); not that the Holy Spirit was God the Son’s literal father, but that the Spirit was the moving power which brought about the supernatural conception and birth of Jesus the man. The second person of the Trinity is eternal and has always existed. He was made flesh (John 1:14) as Jesus the Nazarene, also called the Christ, (Mat 16:20), the Son of God (Mat 27:54), the Son of man (Mat 9:6). The dual nature of Jesus Christ is a delicate topic, but is certainly taught in the Scriptures. Jesus was fully human, born of woman and with all the physical characteristics of a man, but His true being is eternal and divine. His unique title, the only begotten Son (John 3:16) has reference primarily to this once-only birth of a God-man.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Mary must have told Joseph of the angel Gabriel’s visit and her supernatural conception (Luke 1:26-38), yet he was still in a very difficult position. Her story was incredible, how could she be telling the truth? Was it not more likely that she was covering for a sin she knew was punishable by death? On the other hand, even if her story were true, what about his friends and family? They would think him to be a fornicator.
However, Joseph was a just man. The same word is used to describe Simeon in Luke 1:6. He was a God-fearing, righteous and good person. Considering her story, Joseph realized that the best action would be to divorce her privately – meaning he would not expose Mary as an adulteress, nor would he be taken for a fornicator. According to the Law, an adulteress was to be stoned, but it also allowed the husband to divorce his wife (Deut 24:1), apparently for little reason (Mat 19:3). Joseph decided the best action was to simply divorce her without saying why.
Joseph was a descendant in the Davidic line (Luke 2:4) and a carpenter by trade (Mat 13:55) who lived in the hill country of the Galilee (Luke 2:39). Early church writers believed he was an older man, perhaps a widower, when he married Mary, a much younger woman. Early Catholicism offers various speculative writings about Joseph, but they are clearly unauthoritative texts. In the Bible, we read nothing more about Joseph after the notable trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old (Luke 2:42). He was probably no longer living during Jesus’ ministry, for at the cross He asked John to care for His mother (John 19:26-27).
Put her away privily, or divorce her quietly (NIV). Some versions imply that Joseph intended to release her from the betrothal and send her away. In addition to being an impossible scenario, it is also a poor translation. The Greek word here for put away is apoluo, the same word translated divorce later in this book (Mat 5:31; Mat 19:3). Sending Mary away without a divorce would hardly have kept her from being a publick example. A never-married woman living with a child? No, Joseph planned a bill of divorcement, but not one that laid upon her the charge of adultery.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Joseph’s decision to divorce Mary was suddenly changed when an angel appeared to him and completely confirmed Mary’s astonishing story. However, his own reputation must have suffered in public estimation, for Mary was pregnant and they were yet unmarried.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
The angel instructed Joseph to name this special child, JESUS (Luke 2:21), which is the Greek form of the well-known Hebrew name, Joshua, meaning “Deliverer, Savior.” It was a fitting name for, He shall save His people from their sins. The OT Joshua became famous for leading the children of Israel into the Promised Land. As a young man, he was Moses’ right-hand minister, a devout and fervent man who led the Israelites in an early attack against Amalek (Ex 17:9) and who ascended Mt Sinai with Moses to receive the two tables of stone (Ex 32:17). Joshua and Caleb were the only two spies who did not give an evil report of Canaan.
There are two other Joshuas mentioned in the OT and both have interesting details that point to the most famous Joshua of all. The first was Joshua a Bethshemite (see 1Sam 6) and the second was the high priest Joshua, a leader among the Jews at the time of their return from the Babylonian Captivity. A messianic prophecy centered upon this man’s name can be found in Zech 3:1-9.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
This Messianic prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 is one of the most compelling and important prophetic details of the Old Testament, for it predicts that the Messiah would be a Divine being and not a mere man – which is the meaning of the word Emmanuel. It foretells the incarnation of the Son of God, of Deity being manifested in human flesh (John 1:14). This unique action was announced by a unique event, a virgin conceived without knowing a man (Luke 1:34). The virgin birth fulfills perfectly the very first Messianic prophecy of all, given by God to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (Gen 3:15). In it, He said that the Redeemer would be born of the seed of the woman. Man, the normal and common lineage-bearer, is excluded from the coming Savior. Jesus was truly of woman’s seed and not man’s. There is reason to believe that Eve understood by this word from God that the One who would come to bruise the serpent’s head would need to be a God-man, for when she bore her first-born son Cain, she said, I have gotten a man: even Jehovah (see note Gen 4:1). Daniel also hints at the spectacular birth of the Messiah, likening Christ to a stone cut out of a mountain without hands (Dan 2:34).
Threatened by Jesus’ clear fulfillment of this prophecy, later Jewish rabbis and commentators have persuaded some Christian commentators to believe that the Hebrew word translated virgin (almah) in Isaiah 7:14 refers to any young woman, married or unmarried. A word study will reveal that they are certainly wrong on this point (see note Isa 7:14). Besides, Matthew was a Jew who knew the OT Scriptures and he certainly understood Isaiah to mean that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Another fact that completely destroys the Jewish rabbis’ re-definition of almah is that their own Greek translation of the OT Scriptures, the Septuagint, uses the very same word that Matthew used (parthenos), and it is the standard Greek word for a virgin.
All this was done, that it might be fulfilled... which refers to Matthew’s testimony concerning Jesus’ name, His virgin birth, the incarnation and His Davidic lineage, which was a key part of Isaiah’s original prophecy. At that time in history, Judah was at the point of disappearing altogether. The joined forces of Syria and Israel had crushed the land of Judah mercilessly, killing or carrying captive 300,000 people. They were even then gathered to destroy the last remaining Judahite stronghold, the city of Jerusalem. If that happened, the Davidic line of kings would end and God’s promise would fail (Gen 49:10; 1Kings 8:25). So God sent Isaiah with a message to King Ahaz, informing him that in spite of the seemingly impossible odds, Jerusalem would prevail. As a sign that this would certainly come to pass, He said: Here ye now, O house of David…Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he many know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings (Is 7:13-16). Notice that the prophecy is not addressed to Ahaz nor to the inhabitants of Jerusalem but to the house of David. The kingly line would not be broken, God says, until a virgin would conceive and bear a man-child. And with the birth of that Child and King, the Davidic line on earth abruptly ended! The endless genealogies of the physical Jews (1Tim 1:4) do not continue after Jesus Christ, who reigns on, world without end, upon the spiritual throne of David in the heavenlies.
The latter half of Isaiah’s prophecy is not so clear upon an initial reading. The key to understanding comes by remembering that God had told Isaiah to take his young son, Shearjashub, with him to this meeting with Ahaz (Is 7:3). The prophetic message is hidden in an object-lesson, or play on words, involving two children: Isaiah’s son and a future virgin’s son. The first two sentences in the prophecy were to be fulfilled 850 years later, but the last sentence was to be fulfilled before Shearjashub was old enough to choose between good and evil. Both prophecies accurately came to pass. If anyone wonders why God would conceal a prophecy within a sign, study 1Cor 2:6-8.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
These details we learn only from the gospel of Matthew, which will be found to contain many citations of OT prophecy concerning the Messiah. Chronologically, the first 4 prophecies concerning Christ are recorded only in the book of Matthew, all in relation to His birth. A principle purpose of this primary Gospel to the Jews is to show that Jesus the Nazarene fulfills both the prophecies of the Prophets and the typological details of the Law.
The books of Mark and John do not have any of the material found in the first three chapters of Matthew. The book of Luke does relate Jesus’ birth and genealogy, but they clearly originate from separate sources. The two early accounts are complementary but not exact, giving different historical details and personal thoughts.