IN THE FIRST INSTALLMENT of this series we looked at some general facts in regard to The Gospel According To Matthew. We shall from now on look at the text more particularly and endeavor to get the outstanding lessons of the book.

The genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ is given in Matthew 1:1-17. Matthew began the ancestral line of our Lord with Abraham and traced His forebears through the centuries. When one compares the genealogy in Matthew with that found in II Chronicles and in other portions of the Word, one comes to the conclusion that the apostle has given us an abridged list instead of giving us the full number of those making up the theocratic line. These omissions are doubtless due to the fact that he wanted to list fourteen generations between Abraham and David; fourteen from David to the Babylonian Captivity; and fourteen from the Captivity to the Lord Jesus. This artificial arrangement, which was perfectly permissible, was to aid the memory.

Those who are omitted from this genealogy are the lesser of the sons of David and of Abraham.

In the line of descent of our Lord are Rahab and Ruth. These Gentiles were incorporated into the theocratic line doubtless because of their faith and trust in God.

It will be noted that Matthew gives the regal genealogy of Jesus. His reason for this no doubt was that he was presenting Jesus of Nazareth as the King of the Jews. But someone calls attention to the fact that the Lord through Jeremiah blocked the way against a descendant of Jeconiah's occupying the throne of David. Hear him: "0 earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Jehovah. 30 Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah" (Jer. 22:29,30).

Notwithstanding this clear prediction which states that no descendant of Jeconiah should sit upon the throne of David, Jeconiah is included in the genealogy of our Lord as is seen in Matthew 1:12. Since Jesus, according to numerous prophecies, is to mount the literal throne of David and reign in Jerusalem throughout the great Millennial Era, and since the Davidic line was blocked at Jeconiah, we may be certain that the genealogy appearing in Matthew is not our Lord's real ancestral line, but is His regal genealogy. As is well known to all biblical students, the line of descent was always reckoned through the father and never through the mother. This fact justified Matthew's use of the genealogy of Joseph who literally descended from Abraham through Jeconiah. Since Joseph became the husband of Mary, but never knew her as his wife until after the Lord Jesus was born, Joseph, the literal heir to the throne of David, became the foster-father of Jesus. This fact gave Him the legal right to the throne of Israel. Matthew is very particular in wording his statement relative to Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Hear him: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ [Messiah]" (Matt. 1:15).

In Luke 3:23-38 appears another genealogy of the Lord Jesus. An examination of this passage of scripture shows that Luke began with Jesus and traced His ancestral line back to Adam. He introduced his record with the following words: "And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli" (3:23). By his inserting the words, "as was supposed," Luke asserted most positively that, contrary to the general idea, Jesus was not the son of Joseph. Doubtless Luke was led to make this insertion in his genealogical table in order to re-emphasize his account of the miraculous conception and virgin birth of Jesus as is recounted in chapter 1 of his Gospel. An examination of Luke's genealogy of Jesus indicates that he traced the line through Nathan the son of David instead of through Solomon the son of David, as Matthew did. As has just been noted, Joseph descended from Abraham through David, Solomon, and Jeconiah, as shown by Matthew; but Jesus, according to Luke, descended from Adam through Abraham, David, and Nathan. These facts show that, whereas Matthew gave the legal, regal genealogy of Jesus through David and Solomon, Luke traced our Lord's descent from Adam through Nathan, a different line entirely. Since Luke has given us a very full account of the miraculous conception and virgin birth of the Lord Jesus in chapters 1 and 2, and since he has traced His genealogy in chapter 3 through David and Nathan back to Adam, only one conclusion is possible; that is, that the genealogy appearing in Luke is the natural descent of Jesus through Mary whose father was Eli. Thus Luke gives Mary's genealogy, of whom Jesus was born, as has been stated, by miraculous conception and virgin birth.

A most interesting and enlightening account of the birth of Jesus Christ is found in Matthew 1:18-25 which each one should read carefully. The facts recorded in this passage are simply these: Mary, the mother of Jesus, was betrothed to Joseph. But before they were married she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. At this development Joseph was shocked but, being a righteous man and not willing to make a public example out of her, he decided to put her away privately. As he was contemplating this move, an angel of the Lord came to him and explained the whole matter, showing him that Mary was true and that her condition was the result of the operation of the Holy Spirit in fulfillment of prophecy. He therefore was told that Mary should bring forth a son and that he, Joseph, was to call the child's name JESUS, for, said the angel, "it is he that shall save his people from their sins" (vs. 21). Then the angel quoted the prophecy uttered to the house of David by the Lord through the prophet in Isaiah 7:14 regarding the virgin birth of Messiah. Matthew affirmed that Isaiah in this prediction was foretelling the birth of King Messiah who would be born of a virgin and who would be called Immanuel, "God with us." The word in the original Hebrew translated "virgin" means literally an unmarried woman. This word occurs seven times in the Hebrew Bible, including Isaiah 7:14. In all other cases the facts of the context show that it meant an unmarried woman. When we examine this context, we see that Isaiah was speaking of a miracle which the Lord offered to show, not to Ahaz after he had in a hypocritical manner refused to have his faith strengthened but to the house of David, David's descendants in the future. This miracle which he proposed to point out was the virgin birth of the Messiah. From the context we see therefore that Isaiah 7:14 refers to the miraculous conception and the virgin birth of the Messiah.

But when one reads verses 15, 16, and 17 of Isaiah, chapter 7, one sees that the prophet was speaking about a child who would be born in the immediate future of Isaiah's day. Because of this fact many students have concluded that the child of miraculous birth mentioned in 7:14 was the same one mentioned in verses 15-17. This is not the necessary conclusion at all. This method of uttering prophecies is common to all the prophets. The principle involved is that which is known as the "law of double reference." According to this principle the prophets would speak of something in the immediate future and then suddenly blend their prediction with another referring to events which were to come to pass in the distant future, far removed from the first event and vice versa. In other words, the description of the first event would blend quickly into the more remote one. This method of prophesying, as already stated, was a common practice among the biblical writers. Since we know that this principle obtains throughout the prophetic word, and since we are to take everything at its "primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise," we are driven to the conclusion that the birth of the Messiah described in Isaiah 7:14 is blended with a prediction of the birth of another child who was born soon after the prophecy was spoken. There are therefore two children mentioned in verses 14-17: the one described in verse 14, Messiah the Son of God; and the one mentioned in 15-17, the child born by natural generation in the immediate future from Isaiah's time.

Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 as being fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ. I am of the profound conviction that Isaiah had no one in mind except the Messiah in this prediction. The Christian religion is based upon Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The unanimous testimony is that he was God who entered the world by miraculous conception and virgin birth in fulfillment of the predictions of the Old Testament. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth" (John 1:1-14). If Jesus Christ was not miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, then He was not the God-man. If He was not the God-man, His death could not atone for the sins of humanity. In such a case as that we who have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and have put our hopes in Him are still in our sins and have no hope of eternal life. But praise God these suppositions are false! He was the Word in the beginning with God and was God and was equal to God the Father. He entered the world by miraculous conception and virgin birth and took upon Himself the form of man, becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the cross. God therefore raised Him from the dead and highly exalted Him to make Him a Prince and a Saviour to grant salvation to all who come and accept Him by faith. Joseph's fears were allayed and he took Mary as his wife but did not know her as such until after Jesus was born.


In Matthew 2:1-12 we have an account of the visit of the Wise-men from the East at the time of the birth of Jesus, who came in order that they might pay homage to Him. When they arrived in Jerusalem they went to the royal palace and related to Herod the fact that they had seen a star in the east which they had interpreted as the one indicating the fact that the Messiah, the King of Israel, had been born. To every Bible believer this story is true. These men actually did see a star which appeared miraculously in the heavens. They interpreted it as signifying the birth of the King of Israel. Why they came to this conclusion no one can say. It is quite likely, however, that, when it did appear, they conversed with certain Jews still in Persia who probably pointed to the prediction found in Numbers 24:16-24, especially verse 17, which foretold the rising of a star out of Jacob. The context in this connection shows that the star is used in the figurative sense to indicate the Messiah of Israel. Since He is there called "a star," it was perfectly harmonious for God to cause a star to appear miraculously before their vision in order that they might investigate and learn concerning the birth of the Christ-child. If this supposition is correct, one can see the graciousness of the Lord throughout the entire transaction. God has vouched that He will bring the truth to everyone who hungers and thirsts for it. He always takes the individual where he is. These Magi were in the habit of looking at the stars. So God performed a miracle within the realm of their thinking which ultimately led those honest truth seekers to Him who was represented by the star.

When Herod heard from the Magi of the appearance of the star, he, together with all Jerusalem, became alarmed. At the same time there can be no doubt concerning Herod's jealousy of Him who was to become King of Israel. Herod therefore called in the scribes and inquired of them as to where the Messiah should be born. Their reply was that He was to be born in Bethlehem of Judah. To prove that proposition they quoted from Micah 5:2, which foretold that this future Shepherd of Israel, who would govern the nation, would be born there, even He "whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting." This prophecy showed the place where the Saviour of men would be born.

Let us note that this prophecy was interpreted literally. God said what He meant and meant exactly what He said. We are never to place a figurative or metaphorical meaning upon any passage unless the facts of the context show most clearly that such is the case.

When Herod learned of the birthplace of the Messiah, he instructed the Magi that they should go to Bethlehem, find where the child was, and report to him in order that he might go and worship Him. Upon their departure, however, they were warned by the Lord not to return to Herod but to go to their country by another way. They were obedient to the devine instructions.

The Lord then sent His angel who warned Joseph to take Mary and the Child Jesus, to flee into Egypt, and to remain there until he received specific instructions to return to the land of Israel. Josheph was obedient.

Matthew tells us that in the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt and their remaining there until they were called back into the land of Israel was the fulfillment of the prophecy found in Hosea 11:1, which declared, "Out of Egypt did I call my son." When one studies this quotation in the light of the original context, one sees that this passage primarily refers to Israel's departure out ot the land of Egypt under the leadership of Moses. Notwithstanding that historical setting, Matthew said that the Lord's retun from Egypt was in fulfillment of this prediction. How can this be? We must take all the facts into consideration. That the passage originally referred to Israel's departure from Egypt cannot be doubted. As just stated, the circumstances demand this interpretation. Israel was called God's first-born (Ex. 4:22). Jesus is likewise called God's first-born (Ps. 89:27). In view of this language it is easy to see the transition from the thought of Israel's being God's first-born to our Lord's being His first-born and of speaking of His coming out of Egypt in terms of Israel's original departure from the land of servitude. In view of these facts we learn that this prophecy, Hosea 11:1, falls into that class of predictions known as "the literal plus the typical significance." In the case of Israel's leaving Egypt those events were literal. In the case of our Lord's residence in Egypt and His coming out of it, the facts are also literal. Yet Israel's history, especially this part of it, was typical of our Lord's. So we see that there is a type of prophecy which is literal, plus a typical meaning.

In the Paragraph consisting of Matthew 2:16-18 is the record of Herod's slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem. When he saw that the Magi had departed without returning to report to him the whereabouts of the Christ-child, Herod became enraged and ordered the slaughter of all the babes of Bethlehem under two years of age-according to the time which he had exactly learned from the Wise-men. Matthew, in commenting upon this heinous, cruel incident, declared that a prophecy uttered by Jeremiah had been fulfilled. He then quoted Jeremiah 31:15 which we find recorded in Matthew 2:18:

"A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she would not be comforted, because they are not."

An Examination of this original text from which this quotation is taken shows that it was spoken with reference to the mothers in Israel whose sons were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzer at the time of the Babylonian Exile. Notwithstanding that fact, Matthew quotes this language and applies it to the distress which came upon the mothers of the infants of Behtlehem. There is no relationship of the typical and antitypical here as was the case with the preceding prophecy, which we have just studed. There is no other conceivable connection between the two, except that in both instances there was great sorrow, sadness, and distress which came upon the Jewish mothers of these two separate and distinct times. The distress was literal in both cases. About that position there can be no question. Since we cannot trace any connection between the original prophecy and the episode of the slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem, we can come to but one conclusion, which is that Matthew applies the words of Jeremiah to a similar case of distress of the Jewish mothers. Thus we come to the conclusion that this prophecy falls into that class which may properly be designated as "the literal plus an application." But let us remember that this is a literal prophecy which is applied to an analgous case.

In the last paragraph of Matthew, chapter 2, verses 19-23, we have a record of Joseph's bringing Jesus and Mary back to the land of Israel after the death of Herod the Great, who had sought to slay Him. Upon reaching the land of Israel, Joseph learned that Archelaus, one of sons of Herod, was ruling in Jerusalem in his stead. He therefore went directly to Nazareth of Galilee and there settled. Matthew tells us that he went to Nazareth, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he whoud be called a Nazarene." An examination of the Old Testament shows that there is no such prophecy as this one to be found. As we look at verse 23, however, we notice that Matthew said that God spoke "through the prophets." This was a message that was delivered by more than one prophet, but, as thus stated, there is no prophecy within the compass of the Old Testament to this effect--stating that He should be called a Nazarene.

What is the solution of this difficult problem? From John 1:46 we learn that Nathanael asked, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" From other sources we know that the people of Nazareth, in the days of our Lord, were looked down upon with disdain, disgust and hatred. The name "Nazarene" therefore stood for one who was despised. As we look through the prophecies of the Old Testament we see that the Messiah was to be despised, hated, and rejected by men. In view of this fact we see how Matthew could gather up all the prophecies which foretold that the Messiah would be despised and sum them up in the one statement, "that he should be called a Nazarene." A Nazarene is an inhabitant of Nazareth. The predictions which foretold that He would be despised were literal and are to be interpreted thus. Nazareth was a literal city and the people of that community were literally despised and hated. So then we see that the original prediction and the fulfillment were literal in every particular.

Since there is no specific prophecy in the Old Testament to this effect, since these words sum up and give us the gist of these prophecies, and since they are all literal, we arrive at the conclusion that this prophecy is a sample of those that might be called "the literal plus a summation" type of prophecy.

Every prophecy to be found in the Bible falls within one of the four catagories just discussed. Let us always bear in mind that all prophecy is to be taken literally and that we are never to force upon any passage a figurative or metaphorical meaning unless the facts of the context demand such. It is true that there are fugures of speech in predictive prophecy as in any other type of language. We must interpret figures of speech in the prophetic word upon sound principles which we use in interpreting such figures in any other type of literature. Let us pray the Lord that He may enable us to understand not only prophecy but all that He has given us in His precious Word.