Mt 1:5 The following remarks could be made to show that Rahab in this verse is the same person as Rahab of Jos 2:1, Heb 11:31, and Jms 2:25. Considering the fact the name Rahab is spelled ραχαβ in this verse but ρααβ in LXX, Heb 11:31, and Jms 2:25, there is evidence that ραχαβ is simply an inflected form of ρααβ. First, note that ραχαβ in Mt 1:5 is in the genitive case, ρααβ in Heb 11:31 and Jms 2:25 is in the nominative case, and ρααβ never appears in the genitive case in LXX. Thus, the possibility that ραχαβ is an inflected form does not conflict with the passages in which the word ρααβ appears. Second, the word ρααβ corresponds to the Hebrew word רחב. An example of another Hebrew name involving the letter ח that has an added χ in its Greek genitive form appears in ιωα ο του ζεμμαθ και ιωδαν ο του ιωαχα, which translates יואח בן זמה ועדן בן יואח of 2Ch 29:12. Note that this phrase has both ιωα, the Greek nominative form of יואח, and ιωαχα, the Greek genitive form of the same יואח. Additionally, the Greek nominative form of יואח appears also as ιωαα in 1Ch 26:4. This proves that ραχαβ of Mt 1:5 can be associated with ρααβ of LXX. Since the context of Mt 1:5 has no indication that the text does not refer to the well-known ρααβ "Rahab" of Jos 2:1, it follows that the text does indeed refer to her.

Mt 1:8 See the note on Mt 1:17.

Mt 1:11 See the note on Mt 1:17.

Mt 1:17 "So all the generations are: from Abraham to David, fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations." There are various examples in Scripture, including this verse, that show that the word πας "all" admits exceptions and indicates that in some respect something is excluded. For example, see 1Co 15:27. If the text meant that no generation was omitted, it would have αι ουν γενεαι "so the generations" instead of πασαι ουν αι γενεαι "so all the generations." The reason the list of generations omits some names could be inferred by examining who was omitted. As will be shown below, four well-known kings were omitted. All of them rejected the Lord. Apparently, they died in their sin. The fact that the Lord did not want them to be mentioned in Mt 1:2-16 could remind men that he does erase names from the book of life (Ps 69:28 (29)) and that people who die in their sin will be as if they have never been, that is, they will be as insignificant as if they have never existed (see the note on Ob 1:16.)

There are four kings that the Lord did not want to list in Mt 1:2-16. Three of them, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were not included in between Joram and Uzziah in Mt 1:8. Then, in Mt 1:11, Jehoiakim is not listed in between Josiah and Jehoiachin. Note that Ahaziah was a pagan king, and Joash and Amaziah committed apostasy (2Ch 24:17-22, 25:14-16). Jehoiakim rejected the Lord, and the Lord condemned him with many words in the book of Jeremiah. Now it may seem surprising that Joram, Ahaz, and Amon were included in the list of generations. However, God knows perfectly the heart of every man. The following observations could be made about these three men. Joram had a faithful father. It may be that Joram considered the true God in his painful and lengthy disease that preceded his death. Ahaz became a worshiper of the Lord (Is 7:10-12). His faith, however, was very immature. As for Amon, his sinful ways kept him from humbling himself before the Lord (2Ch 33:23).

When taken by itself, the passage of Mt 1:2-16 would allow for the possibility that more men were omitted from the list of generations because of their ungodliness. However, there is no compelling piece of evidence from Scripture that more men were omitted. In that culture, children were born not only to young fathers but also to men who were rather old. Rich men were more likely to practice polygamy and get children in their old age. Additionally, the Scripture indicates plainly that in ancient times people aged much slower. In view of these things, the fact that the fourteen generations from Abraham to David covers a period of about one thousand years does not imply that more people are omitted from the list. In the case of some of the men on the list, it can be easily seen from the Scripture that they were born to rather old fathers. Indeed, all of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were old when children were born to them. Perez was born one generation after his older brothers. The difference in age between Boaz and Ruth was of one generation or more (Ru 3:9-10). David was the youngest son of his father and had many siblings. Now it is especially unlikely that men are missing in the list of generations from Abraham to David because David is a forefather of Christ via Nathan, the son of David (see the genealogy of Mary in Lk 3:23-38.) If men were omitted on the list of generations from Abraham to David, the implication would be that they were omitted because of their ungodliness. However, it seems quite unlikely that God would grant very ungodly persons the privilege of becoming forefathers of Christ. In support of this remark, note that Solomon was given the conditional promise that his throne would endure forever (which implied that he would become a forefather of Christ) only if he kept walking before the Lord (1Ki 9:4-5). Since Solomon's heart turned from the Lord (1Ki 11:9-12), he did not become a forefather of Christ. In conclusion, the list of generations from Abraham to David in Mt 1:2-6 as well as the entire list of Lk 3:23-38 must be complete.

The generations listed in Mt 1:2-16 are as follows. From Abraham to David are fourteen generations, including Abraham and David. From the deportation to Babylon until Christ are fourteen generations, including Jehoiachin and Christ. From David to the deportation to Babylon are fourteen generations, including David but excluding Jehoiachin. The reason Jehoiachin was excluded could be explained as follows. In the third year of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem (Dan 1:1), captured Jehoiakim (Dan 1:2), and deported some people to Babylon (Dan 1:3-4). Apparently, this is when Jehoiachin became king, when his father was arrested. However, since Nebuchadnezzar allowed Jehoiakim to continue to reign, Jehoiachin's reign was brief. Jehoiachin reigned again ten years later, after his father died. He began to reign when he was eight-years old (2Ch 36:9), at the time when his father was arrested, and reigned again when he was eighteen-years old (2Ki 24:8), when his father died. Thus, 2Ch 36:9 gives his total reign time, while 2Ki 24:8 gives the length of his second reign. The fact that he was only eight-years old when deportations began explains why he was not included in the generations from David to the Babylonian exile.

Excluding the few individuals that God considered unworthy to be listed, there were forty generations after God's covenant with Abraham until Christ, that is, Christ was in the fortieth generation after Abraham. The number forty appears in Scripture in various contexts. Thus, it is plain that when God planned the events mentioned in Scripture, he often used the number forty. In particular, there were forty years from the covenant at mount Sinai to the time Israel entered the promised land. Considering also the number of generations from Abraham to Christ via Mary in Lk 3:23-38, this number is considerably larger than forty. Thus, the point is not that on every genealogical path from Abraham to the time of Christ there are forty generations, but that forty generations after Abraham, God began to fulfill his promise that in Abraham's seed (that is, in Christ) all nations will be blessed (Ge 22:18).

Mt 1:23 The manner in which Is 7:14 is quoted in this verse could be explained as follows. As Isaiah was speaking to king Ahaz, he said, שמעו נא בית דוד המעט מכם הלאות אנשים כי תלאו גם את אלהי לכן יתן אדני הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל "Hear, O house of David. Is it a small thing for you that you weary men that you weary my God also? For this reason the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and bear a son, and thou wilt call his name Emmanuel" (Is 7:13-14). See the next paragraphs for an explanation of this translation. Note that since Mt 1:23 is not spoken to Ahaz, it has καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου "they will call his name" instead of "thou wilt call his name" in Is 7:14. The words of Isaiah addressed the future. Thus, the statement that "thou wilt call his name" predicted that after the fulfillment of the sign, Ahaz would have descendants calling the one born of the virgin, Emmanuel. The fulfillment of the statement that "thou wilt call his name Emmanuel" is mentioned in the Scripture. Since Joseph was a descendant of Ahaz (Mt 1:9, 16), the brothers of Jesus were also descendants of Ahaz. As mentioned in Ac 1:14, the brothers of Jesus became believers. Thus, they realized that Jesus was God with them, that is, Emmanuel.

The Lord had a reason when he asked Isaiah to take his son with him to Ahaz (Is 7:3). The Lord said nothing about Isaiah taking his wife with him, and his wife is never mentioned in the passage. Thus, Isaiah's son had something to do with the prophecy, but not Isaiah's wife. The opinion that עלמה in Is 7:14 does not mean "virgin" but "young woman" and that it refers to Isaiah's wife has several issues. First, the wife of Isaiah is not mentioned in the passage. Second, the Lord was speaking about a sign. It was something to be expected, not a sign, that the wife of Isaiah would bear more children and that some of them would be sons. However, a virgin becoming pregnant and bearing a son, that was a clearly a sign from God.

An examination of the passage in Isaiah shows that Is 7:15-16 referred to the time of Ahaz, not to the sign mentioned in Is 7:14. First, it is clear that Is 7:15 and Is 7:16 speak about the same boy, for Is 7:16 begins with כי "for." Moreover, הנער "the boy" in Is 7:16 cannot be redundant. If Is 7:15-16 spoke about the one whose birth was predicted in Is 7:14, then הנער "the boy" would seem redundant. Therefore, הנער "the boy" must refer to Isaiah's son that was with him. Thus, Is 7:15-16 refers to that son of Isaiah, not to Jesus.

In Is 7:14, the form קראת "thou wilt call" has also been interpreted "she will call." However, Ahaz was told that the sign was to the house of David, so for multiple people, not just for one. Since the words were spoken to Ahaz, they had something to do with him also. In the interpretation "she will call," the passage does not say anything about what the sign had to do with Ahaz or the house of David. It does not say whether the house of David would notice it, or how they would respond to it. In the translation "thou wilt call his name Emmanuel," the passage states that the sign would be observed by descendants of Ahaz and that they would acknowledge that God is with them. The issue of Ahaz and of the other important men from the the house of David was that they would not trust God (Is 7:4, 9). They were not trusting that God was with them. Ahaz was offered a sign of his choice that he should trust God (Is 7:11), but he declined the offer (Is 7:12). Then Isaiah mentioned a sign that was to take place anyways, a sign that would convince descendants of Ahaz that God was with them (Is 7:14).

Notable in Is 7:14 is the article of העלמה "the virgin." The article indicates that the virgin had been mentioned somehow before. Most likely, the Lord meant here that he was not speaking for the first time about the virgin, but that he had mentioned her in previous messages. A well-known passage that makes a reference to Mary is Ge 3:15.

The view that the word עלמה does not mean "virgin" but "young woman" cannot be proven from Scripture. Even when Son 6:8 is interpreted as referring to Solomon's harem, the word עלמות still denotes virgins. Indeed, note that the harem of a king is described in the book of Esther. It had two sections, one for women who had been with the king, and another for those who had never been to the king, that is, for the virgins (Est 2:13-14). Now Son 6:8 mentions מלכות "queens," that is wives, פילגשים "concubines," and then עלמות. If Son 6:8 does refer to a harem, the only possibility is that עלמות means "virgins," for what else besides wives and concubines could have been in a harem?

Another interesting observation is that the word of Is 7:14 that is translated "virgin" is עלמה, not בתולה. The word used in Is 7:14 is clearly referring to a woman of marriageable age in Ge 24:43 and Pr 30:19. Additionally, in Ge 24:43, since Abraham's servant was looking for an appropriate wife for Isaac, the word must have implied a virgin. The other word, בתולה, though commonly understood with the meaning "virgin," has not always been used for a virgin. Indeed, note that בתולה by itself is insufficient to indicate virginity, for all of Ge 24:16, Lev 21:3, Jdg 21:12 use the word בתולה with additional words that indicate explicitly virginity. Moreover, this word refers to a young widow in Joel 1:8. In the context of De 22:13, it refers to a married woman that had known her husband (De 22:19). So בתולה appears to refer not only to virgins but also to women who look like virgins in the sense that they have not known man for much time (cf. Eze 23:8). To imply a marriageable age, the word בתולה has been used within the phrase נערה בתולה (Jdg 21:12, Est 2:3). Since Biblical Hebrew must have a word implying virginity and בתולה does not imply it, עלמה must be the word implying virginity. This word that implies virginity is used in Is 7:14. In conclusion, the fact that Is 7:14 has עלמה instead of בתולה emphasizes virginity and a marriageable age.

Mt 2:1 In the original language, the word μαγος "magus" has been used for certain Babylonian officials. It can be associated with the Hebrew word מג of Jer 39:3, 13, where it refers to a high official of Babylon. Now the LXX does not translate Jer 39:13 and transliterates the phrase רב מג of Jer 39:3 as ραβαμαγ. In LXX, μαγος "magus" translates the word אשף in Dan 1:20, 2:2, 10, 27, 4:7 (4), 5:7, 11, 15, where the word אשף is used for certain officials from among the Babylonian wise men.

Since Daniel's wisdom was greatly appreciated in Babylon (Dan 5:10-12), his teachings must have been preserved among Babylonian scholars. The magi who came to Jesus must have been learned men who recognized the signs of the birth of the Messiah based on Old Testament Scriptures and Daniel's interpretation of their content.

Mt 2:11 The reason Joseph is not mentioned could be that he went to greet the magi and invited them in. Thus, Joseph was with the magi when they saw the child and Mary.

Mt 2:15 The statement that εξ αιγυπτου εκαλεσα τον υιον μου "out of Egypt I called my son" refers to the fact that God spoke to Jesus while he was in Egypt. This statement is not about God calling Jesus to leave Egypt, for Mt 2:15 is not in the context of the departure from Egypt. Note that the departure from Egypt is mentioned later, in Mt 2:19-20. Understanding that Jesus was about two-years old when he and his family went to Egypt and that he was born sometime in the interval 10 BC to 8 BC (see the event sequence,) it follows that he spent several years there until the death of Herod. Mt 2:15 mentions that God called Jesus while he was in Egypt. God called Jesus also earlier, even from his mother's womb (Is 49:1).

The verse quoted in Mt 2:15 is Hos 11:1. In the book of Hosea, the Lord responds to the ungodly attitude of the Israelites who generation after generation committed great sins and would not repent. So the Lord was bringing judgments on them to move them to repentance. In the passage of Hos 11:1, after stating several final judgments on the Israelites, the Lord said, בשחר נדמה נדמה מלך ישראל כי נער ישראל ואהבהו וממצרים קראתי לבני "At dawn the king of Israel shall be utterly cut off. When Israel was young, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (Hos 10:15-11:1). The statement of Hos 10:15 that "at dawn the king of Israel shall be utterly cut off" is the last of the judgments listed in Hos 10:14-15, and so it could be applied to the last king of the northern kingdom of Israel. However, a full interpretation of Hos 10:15 must take in account that the text does not state plainly what king of the northern kingdom is meant, which is quite unusual for an Old Testament passage. It should be noted here that God's response to sin did not consist exclusively in judgments on sinners, but also, most importantly, in the fact that he provided the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. In the context of God saying how he planned to respond to the sin of the people, a reference to the sacrifice for sins would fit perfectly. Since God cannot lose sight of anything, it is impossible to assume that he lost sight of the death of the Messiah, the king of Israel, when he spoke Hos 10:15. The judgment on sin that caused the king of the northern kingdom to die, was incomparably less significant than the judgment on the sin of the world that caused the Messiah to die. Thus, the second part of Hos 10:15 must be primarily about the Messiah. In response to the sin of the Israelites and the sin of the rest of the world, God was bringing about the suffering and death of the Messiah. Note that the Messiah died after three hours of darkness (Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44); in this sense, his death was at dawn, as mentioned in Hos 10:15. As for the last king of the northern kingdom of Israel, his name was Hoshea. His Hebrew name was הושע, which is the same as that of the prophet Hosea. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew names translated "Hoshea" and "Jesus" are related. Note that the name "Jesus" translates the same Hebrew name as "Joshua." Now the original name of Joshua was Hoshea. However, Moses changed slightly Joshua's name from הושע "Hoshea" to יהושע "Joshua" (Nu 13:16). The Scripture mentions that king Hoshea did not do as much evil as the kings who reigned before him (2Ki 17:2). Thus, his death was due mainly to God's judgment on the sins of his nation. In this, there is some similarity between Hoshea, a king of Israel, and Jesus, the king of Israel, for Jesus, being without sin, suffered death because of God's judgment on the sins of the world.

In Hos 11:1, the phrase כי נער ישראל "when Israel was young" makes it is difficult to interpret Israel as referring to the nation of Israel because the nation had persons of every age, both young and old. For the same reason, "Israel" cannot refer either to the Israelite believers. However, the phrase כי נער ישראל "when Israel was young" fits the Messiah, for he is called Israel in Is 49:3. Having concluded above that the statement of Hos 10:15 that "the king of Israel shall be utterly cut off" is primarily about the Messiah, it becomes apparent that Hos 11:1 does not change the subject but continues to speak about the Messiah. The statement that "when Israel was young I loved him," indicates that the Messiah responded faithfully when God called him in Egypt. In Hos 11:2, his faithful response is contrasted to the faithless response of those who did not turn to God when they were called but turned to false gods. God spoke from Egypt not only to the Messiah but also to the people of Israel by means of Moses and Aaron. However, the Israelites did not have much faith and that generation perished in the desert. They did not listen to God but listened to those calling them to the worship of pagan gods (Nu 25:1-3, 31:16). The generation that came out of Egypt was under God's wrath (Nu 14:21-23, 27-30, Ps 95:10-11). So the Lord was not speaking about that generation when he said, ואמרת אל פרעה כה אמר יהוה בני בכרי ישראל ואמר אליך שלח את בני ויעבדני "and thou shalt say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to thee, let my son go, and he will serve me'" (Ex 4:22-23). The Lord knew that the generation that came out of Egypt would reject him and that they would not serve him. When he referred to Israel as his firstborn son, he did not mean that the unbelieving generation was his firstborn son but that his firstborn would be from the descendants of that generation and that the firstborn would represent Israel. Though there were many faithful people who lived before the Messiah, their sin separated them from God until the Messiah came and redeemed them. Their adoption as sons did not become effective while they were separated from God. So the Messiah is the firstborn son.

Mt 2:18 The passage indicates that Herod's decree was not limited to Bethlehem but was applied also in Ramah. It is notable that children were killed also in Ramah, since it was not very close to Bethlehem. A possible explanation is as follows. Ge 35:16-20 mentions that when Jacob departed from Bethel and went south on the way to Ephrathah (Bethlehem), Rachel died and Jacob buried her on the way to Ephrathah. The tomb of Rachel was relatively close to Ramah, for Saul met two men near Rachel's tomb, within the territory of Benjamin, after departing from Ramah (1Sa 10:2). That Saul departed from Ramah can be seen in 1Sa 9:6, indicating that he had gone to the city of the prophet. Since Rachel's tomb was on the way to Bethlehem, it follows that Ramah was on that way or close to it. Now 2Ch 16:1 indicates that Ramah controlled the access to the kingdom of Judah from the north. Therefore, it must be that one coming from the north would normally go through Ramah when traveling to Bethlehem. Since Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem from the north, they went through Ramah. When they returned to Nazareth, they must have traveled again through Ramah. Possible reasons for applying Herod's decree in Ramah could have been that Joseph and Mary were seen there, or that people from Bethlehem were there.

The statement that Rachel was weeping for her children could be explained as follows. Ramah was in the territory of Benjamin (Jos 18:25), and its inhabitants returned after the Babylonian exile (Ezr 2:26, Ne 7:30). Since the descendants of Benjamin were also descendants of Rachel, the women who were mourning their loss were associated with Rachel. Just as Jacob sometimes denotes descendants of Jacob (such as in Nu 23:7, De 32:9), so also Rachel denotes here female descendants of Rachel.

Mt 3:16 The text states that the Spirit descended in a manner similar to that of a descending dove, not that the Spirit resembled a dove. In view of Ac 2:3, the Spirit must have resembled fire, not a dove. The phrase καταβαινον ωσει περιστεραν "descending like a dove" appears in both Mt 3:16 and Jn 1:32. Moreover, it appears as ωσει περιστεραν καταβαινον "like a dove descending" in Mk 1:10, and as καταβηναι ... ωσει περιστεραν "descended ... like a dove" in Lk 3:22. In each case, since ωσει "like" is an adverb, it modifies the verb καταβαινω "to descend." Thus, the Spirit was not likened to a dove but the manner in which the Spirit descended was likened to the way a dove would descend.

Mt 5:13 The phrase εις ουδεν ισχυει "it is not good for anything" resembles לא יצלח לכל in Jer 13:7, 10.

Mt 6:25 " ... Is not the soul more valuable than food, and the body than clothing?" Since this is how God regards the soul and the body, one should expect that the Lord will provide that which is less valuable in order to preserve that which is more valuable. Now the passage is addressed to believers (Mt 5:1-2). There are various Scripture passages showing examples in which God has used times of difficulty to bring judgment on sin and to lead people to repentance. Note that in Mt 6:26, 28-30, the Lord makes the point that he provides for parts of his creation that are not nearly as valuable as mankind. Considering this fact, the word πλειον "more" in Mt 6:25 was interpreted as "more valuable."