Matthew 5

v11

For some reason in the NIV, vs3-10 are indented like a poem or a saying, but v11 is not. Not sure why, because v11 and 12 seems to fit in pretty well with the rest.

Note that the persecution is not for the sake of justice or even for other kinds of injustice (eg political opinions, being ugly) - it's because of Christ. It can be easy for Christians to play the persecution card, especially in the west where the persecutions don't actually look too bad (I'm not devaluing them, because in all sufferings we have to realise that they are subjectively borne), but that undercuts the value of what's being said here. The blessing isn't persecution itself; it is persecution in the name of Christ.

v12

Persecution for the sake of God's message and his service is as old as the hills really. It's a longstanding situation, and so we shouldn't be surprised. Instead, we should look back at those heroes of the faith and be glad that we share the same struggles they did. It means we're like them, both in service to God and hopefully in relationship with God. How many times have people said, "I wish I heard from God like Moses did"? Well, live the life of devotion to God that Moses did, and then you can suffer like he did.

v13

The NASB and KJV add the pretty unnecessary "of men". It's probably in the Greek. I don't think the NIV's loss of it damages the meaning.

I've often heard the story about salt in NT times being mixed with dirt so that you had a bowl of it on your table, and you would pinch it between fingers and grind it so that the salt would fall and the dirt stays in your fingers. I've no idea if that's true. What is true is that if salt loses its flavour, it is just a white powder that is pretty much worthless. We are that flavour of God in the world. I'm not sure that we are actually all that flavourful at times. How often do people desire what we offer? Our lives need to be so obviously better that people want what we have in their own lives. And I don't just mean rich - that is so painfully obviously how it seems to work here, and that's sad, especially in the context of Jesus' previous words about the poor in spirit.

v14

Again, our light should be so bright that we can't hide it, that it's obvious to anyone looking or even glancing in our directions. How do we do this? I think this actually sets up the hard teachings of Jesus that will come subsequent in the sermon on the mount.

v15

This is more than just chance seeing now, Jesus is talking about motive. We need to be active in not just being lamps, but being put on lampstands.

v16

Jesus directly explains it. Our lives shouldn't just stand out, we should be bold in making sure we're in the world where people can see us. Behind closed doors is not where the gospel shines. How can we ignore that?

v17

There is a difference between abolishing a law and fulfilling it. In both instances they are done away with, but one is done away with because it has become or perhaps always was wrong (eg abolishing slavery); the other is fulfilled because its good purpose is complete (eg laws about the actions of barber surgeons are no longer needed, because we now have hospitals and proper surgeons).

That can be confusing for some people, and the role of the OT is regularly one of difficulty. It's historical difficulty in interpretation and application has created huge problems; South Africa is a great example, and if you don't know what I mean just read a little about the Calvinism of the Trekboers.

v18

I would argue that what is accomplished is primarily the death and resurrection of Christ, but I think you could also persuasively argue that the accomplishments are on a sliding scale from that to eternal glory, and as such the laws of God decrease as grace increases. That does fit in with the "heaven and earth passing away" language of Christ too.

v19

Reading this passage on its own makes it sound like we're still completely under the law. But that's a very irresponsible reading. You need to read it in the context of other things Jesus says about the Sabbath, about food laws, about tithing...

v20

These laws serve a purpose in the new age of Christ's coming, but not in the brutally legalistic way that the Pharisees and teachers of the law put it forward. Relationship is key. Yes, God is holy and pure and powerful, and that can be scary. But he is also loving and kind and forgiving, and we should relate to him on both bases. Dogs are scary, but we have them as pets. Of course, God is not a dog - good dogs are just a fantastic example of how we should live. We don't tame God, he is domesticating us in a way. But instead of turning us into simple servants, like the modern world has done with pets he is turning us into members of his family.

This is complicated and difficult, and I don't think we should expect anything less from dealing with God. Again, it seems clear to me that this is a message that is being set up to show the quality of the life that a Christian should lead. It should be more righteous than a Pharisee - but perhaps not because we are more pedantic about law-keeping; rather because we do so in an attitude of love and service to God through Christ.

Matthew 5

v1

Getting into the brass tacks now, as we turn a corner into the sermon on the mount. It's interesting that Jesus sat down. I think he is mostly pictured as standing to teach in the sermon on the mount. I'm not sure just how mountainous a mountainside is, but when you look at the pictures Penny brought back from Israel, it's pretty hilly to say the least. It could be for the purpose of a natural ampitheatre sort of thing.

v2

Did he ever teach them. These could be some of the best known words of the best known lesson ever.

Interestingly, the non NIV translations have the words "he opened his mouth and taught them". I mean, that's probably more literal, but seemingly unnecessary to me. I don't think anyone is arguing he taught in sign language or interpretive dance.

v3

There is an interesting divide here between Matthew and Luke: Luke only says "poor", but Matthew adds "in spirit". The Lucan is pretty simple and clear, unless we are meant to read 'poor' with some sort of underlying metaphorical significance. But 'poor in spirit' is a much more nebulous term, especially when the blessing they receive is considered. It could be a jibe at the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, and be referring to those who look poor in spiritual actions. That seems a bit of a long bow to me. But the NASB has a note saying, "That is, those who are spiritually arrogant." So I guess it's a legit direction to take it.

Can it mean that those who are far from God will come to him and inherit the kingdom? Certainly that is the case. That is a pretty strong message to, say, gentiles too. I think it would be too much to say that there is a pattern of opposites in the beatitudes, but there are certainly multiple lines that simply report that these people will inherit the kingdom.

v4

Some people read these blessings as non-exclusive - so this one doesn't say that it is particularly blessed to be mourning if it means a heavenly comfort; more that this is just an expansion of the normal blessings that we know. This is in contradistinction to a more exclusive interpretation, that says that these are the real eternal blessings, and that other blessings (like being rich or happy in this life) are fleeting. This is backed up by other scripture (eg Luke 16:25). Hard to say. I guess I tend to fall on the latter simply because these are hard teachings, and I think they're meant to be that way - they're meant to turn the world upside-down.

v5

This is a great example of the flipping of the natural order. The meek are not usually the ones in power or the ones to receive the big benefit. That is a heavenly thing, not an earthly thing.

v6

Not all of these are doing that world-flipping though; some just seem to point out, like this one, that the right thing will be rewarded, will come out on top eventually. Doing the wrong thing does not pay long-term dividends.

v7

Of course, you could take exclusiveness too far. There are plenty of people who lacked mercy who will be shown mercy by God (which is I think what this is talking about, rather than just a sort of prid pro quo wisdom saying). But I guess even then they should show mercy once they've received the mercy.

v8

Are the pure in heart the only ones to see God? Certainly not if history has anything to say about it. But I guess if there is a non-exclusive element to this teaching, Jesus doesn't do much to imply it. Not here, at least.

v9

Doesn't really say by whom they will be called this. I assume the only person it really matters to be from though is God.

v10

And another claiming of the kingdom, this time for the persecuted. Again, there are a number of verses that make it pretty clear that the path of Christianity is a path of persecution. If someone is really living the Christian life, then persecution should really follow in some form. Sure, there are people who make deathbed choices and stuff; but this is a general rule rather than a slavish one, I think. They probably all are.

Matthew 4

v12

What an interesting verse. It seems to suggest that Jesus was not keen to be arrested, so he went rural. I've never heard that before (obviously I've read it here, but don't remember it). Jesus was clearly never in danger of being arrested "early", but perhaps didn't want to foment more trouble.

v13

It makes so much more sense when you know where these places are. Maps are good for that, as are visits to Israel.

v14

Now did Jesus move there to fulfill the prophecy, or did his movement just fulfill it?

v15

It's amazing to me that Galilee was called "of the Gentiles" even way back then. This prophecy was given like 700 years before Christ, and yet the place is still the same (or different, but the name still applies): it's a place where Gentiles live.

v16
Now it's unsure whether this verse is talking about the Gentiles living there, or the Jews living in a place of darkness because of the Gentiles. I think when I preached on this passage of Isaiah I said the second one primarily for that verse; I think I'd say the fulfillment of the prophecy is talking about everyone there, since the light is Jesus.

v17

This is the central message of Jesus' ministry. It's the same as John TB's, with the added "the kingdom is near".

v18

We're getting into M stuff here (ie stuff that is the same as Mark).

v19

There had to be more than that. You don't just follow a total stranger, for instance. Yet this is how Matthew paints it - not necessarily that they're strangers, but that it was as simple as Jesus coming up and saying, "Come, follow me." Had Jesus preached in a synagogue yet? I don't think so. Were these guys already disciples of John TB? Maybe. They might have seen Jesus' baptism (although remember that was at least 40 days before, if not longer!).

v20

It's even more amazing that he uses the words "at once" to show that this was an immediate thing. He didn't come ask them to follow him, and they packed stuff up, sorted out their families, their retirement plans, their income streams; they just went. Feels kind of familiar (note: we did spend like a year raising funds though; I know missionaries who would have said "I've been called" and just gone and trusted God to support them).

v21

The way this is painted is like it's on the same day, one right after the other. Maybe it was; they were all fisherman after all, all at the lake.

v22

These guys are there working in the family business, and they just skip off. This isn't skipping off for an early Friday or something; they are gone for three years (though 'gone' is a speculation; they do spend a fair bit of time in and around Galilee, so who knows if they didn't go back and visit). Matthew doesn't seem to feel it important to mention that they leave Zebedee with the hired men (as Mark does). Maybe he felt it was implied. But why not include it if you were working from a source similar to Mark? Maybe he didn't have it. This is all before Jesus has called Matthew, after all.

v23

And now Jesus' ministry starts. This is a pretty all-encompassing summary of that ministry.

v24

It's one thing to go around visiting places and speaking and having 'healings'. There are plenty of stories of pre-organised healing shows where people are actors or whatever. But for people to come from such a long way away, and for everyone to be healed, not just a select few... it's incredible. For people to be healed no matter their problem... that's phenomenal.

v25

It's little wonder so many people followed him. Why wouldn't you? Clearly something amazing is happening, and clearly the things he taught would have been incredibly entertaining and thought-provoking and meaningful. But that's not the end of the story, is it?

Matthew 4

v1

I'm not sure why this takes place in the desert. My imagination is that it's this big confrontation between two powerful people, and so it needs to take place in the middle of nowhere to save people from all the explosions.

v2

It's funny, but to me the preparation for facing a big challenge would not be to fast, it would be to do the opposite and make sure I was well fed and energised. But fasting is one of those things that people have oft used to focus themselves. I'm not sure exactly what kind of fasting it was they did back then. Thinking of it as 'no food or water' is not helpful, because it's rarely that (I think the thing the Jews wanting to kill Paul do is like that, but it's more a vow than a fast). But it does say "40 days and 40 nights", which discounts the sort of Ramadan fasting of only during the day.

The point is that Jesus is hungry. A pretty normal human emotion after fasting for 40 days.

v3

This first temptation seems to be related to questioning whether Jesus is really the son of God. How many people have said to me over the years, "If God is real, he should just prove it to me right now by doing X"? I hadn't realised till now that this is pretty much the exact same question that "the tempter" puts to Jesus here. It's also related to food, because as is stated before, Jesus is hungry.

v4

And I think the answer is actually the same now as it was then. It's not that bread isn't important, and it's not that proof isn't important too - Jesus does plenty of miracles, and actually becomes transfigured in front of the Three - but the important thing is what God says. God says Jesus is his son. That's what you should pay attention to. Yes, I know there are trust issues there for modern people that aren't there for the devil(he knows), but there is in my opinion more than sufficient evidence for the reliability and trustworthiness of the scriptures to scaffold a faith in God and his word. Rarely is someone's objection purely logical.

v5

I have often wondered if anyone saw Jesus standing on the top of the temple and they were like, "He's gunna jump!" I don't know. This could have all happened in Jesus' head for all I know.

v6

What is the temptation here? It's very similar. The question is once again "If you're the son of God". But now instead of relying on his own power to do things, it's relying on God's power to do things. Instead of, "If you're the son of God, do this," it's, "If you're the son of God, God will do this for you."

The way the devil twists the words of scripture is quite informative. For one, there's a big difference from doing something that needs to be done and being kept safe, and doing something unnecessarily reckless and being kept safe. The fact is that Jesus does throw himself off a metaphorical temple roof - he puts himself in the hands of God's enemies and is crucified and dies. And God does rescue him from that by raising him from the dead.

v7

There's also the obvious element of testing, which Jesus refers to here. If the only purpose of jumping off the temple is to see if God will fulfill his promise, then that's not really faithful. What kind of messiah wouldn't have faith in God to save him when he really needs it?

v8

This is what makes me think that it's in Jesus' head, because I'm pretty sure there is no mountain where you can see all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour. The argument about whether the devil showed Jesus in his mind or on big TV screens on the top of a mountain, or if they both used their superpowers, is pretty moot anyway I would hope.

v9

It's kind of strange that the devil offers this to Jesus. Firstly, can he even do this? I think the answer is yeah, kinda. After all, he is the ruler of the power of the air. I often get focused on comparing Satan's power to God's, which of course makes Satan look pretty pants. But he is still by no means powerless. He has been given authority over some things, so earthly kingdoms is a thing he could put Jesus in charge of. I think this is appealing to a human desire (who doesn't want to be lauded as royalty?), but also there is a godly desire here too: God really wants all the kingdoms of the earth to bow before him.

v10

But therein lies the rub: Satan's job is not to be bowed to. God alone is the one to be worshipped and served. This is most probably the most common temptation that we face today, and it's disturbing how often we all fail. But then, that's what Jesus came for.

v11

Satan is hence defeated by Jesus in their preliminary bout. Funnily enough, angels do come and attend him just as Satan promised in verse 6. God does have a sense of humour.

Matthew 3

v1

I wonder how soon before Jesus John TB started preaching in the wilderness. We're not told, but you may recall from the recounting in Luke that John TB and Jesus were cousins, and only born a few months apart. So if John started his ministry when he turned 30, he'd only have been baptising people for a few months. I get the feeling that it was longer, but who knows. You could argue that it would be hard for him to have the following he did in just a few months, but Jesus only had a following for three years before he died and now has a global church, so go figure.

v2

John TB's message was about repentance. I think repentance often gets a single-sided focus: either you're focused on purity (get your life straightened up) or apology (being sorry for what you've done wrong). It is of course both: you acknowledge your wrongdoing and seek to change.

v3

Again this is the sort of prophetical exegesis I wouldn't necessarily agree with were it not being done in scripture itself. Look this passage up in Isaiah, and you'll see it gets translated more or less the same, but the commas and quote marks are in different spots, lending a different emphasis to the words "in the wilderness". Now you can't make too much of that - there are no quote marks in the Hebrew or the Greek. The truth is that the Isaiah verse at the very least can be translated both ways (the NIV has a footnote to that effect). There isn't one for this verse; I wonder why.

My point being that changing the focus of "in the wilderness" from the speaker to those listening is a change of meaning. Now all of Matthew's messianic prophecies are going to be a change of meaning, aren't they? Part of the nature of prophecy is a dual meaning. But I wouldn't be comfortable making that change myself, or at the very least I'd be very cautious.

At the end of the day though, the message is more or less the same: Israel is being called to prepare the way for the good news about God's coming to them. In Isaiah it was (I think) a message to Israel that God would bring them home from their second 'wilderness' experience (the exile), having just prophesied that Babylon was going to come take them away. Now it's the coming of Jesus to them.

v4

He dressed a bit strangely is the connotation. He's doing weird things, like the prophets did. In fact, the reference to a leather belt and a hair garment is from 2 Kings 1:8 and is about Elijah. Definitely a style choice there.

I heard someone one say that locusts are not the insect but a type of fruit which also goes by this name. This goes against the Greek though: unless you think that God bombards the earth with fruit in Revelation 9.

v5

As I said earlier, lots of people went to John TB. There was an obvious thirst for the message he had. People have described John TB as a rock star, and I don't think that's too far off. Remember, preaching was a form of entertainment as well as information distribution, even rough sermons like John's about the need for repentance.

v6

Baptism was not something that made up the religious ordinances of Israel, and so it's free here to have a meaning put upon it by John TB. Clearly it's a baptism linked to repentance - not necessarily forgiveness at this point, although if it were that would be in keeping with the OT message anyway.

v7

It's good to know that Jesus' attitude to the Pharisees was not lonely. John TB (no doubt through the spirit's leading) felt the same way about them. If there's one thing that gets the sharp end of the stick in the gospels, it's always hypocrisy and failures of leadership.

v8

But even then the message is the same: it's not enough to say you repent, you need to produce fruit in keeping with it.

v9

Because this was the kind of thing they would say (and in fact did say to Jesus). Reliance on historical relationships to God is important but not sufficient - never has been, never will be. You need to relate to God yourself, in the present. That's how God relates to us: both historically and in the moment.

v10

God is a winnower, he is a decision-maker. A time of decision comes. God is slow in it sometimes (the OT attests to that readily!) but it does always come. It's never a good idea to wait. In fact, the attitude of waiting shows that you don't understand anyway, because this isn't a game where you can stave off having to fulfill responsibilities till the last moment; this is where you have a moment by moment and ongoing relationship of love that you always want to be involved in (imagine a man who continues to enjoy prostitutes until his wedding night - that would not be cool!).

v11

John TB makes it clear that his baptism is merely symbolic and holds no special power beyond the announcement by the person that they accept the need for repentance and do so. The one John TB is expecting is Jesus, who will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire. Now I'm not quite sure what he means by "and fire".

v12

Oh wait, yes I am. it's clear that the baptism of fire is not a good one. Either you receive the Holy Spirit and become a Christian, or you receive the fire and it destroys you (I'm not preaching annihilationism here, although you have to admit the picture of a burning fire burning stuff up is pretty destructive). It certainly isn't some sort of purgatorial picture.

v13

This is pretty awkward. I should point out that in my understanding geographically John is near Jerusalem (see v5, although that's not conclusive). The fact is though that even v5 shows that people came from everywhere in Judea to get baptised. So Jesus coming from Galilee could well be a very long way.

v14

But John TB isn't disturbed by the distance, but by the fact that Jesus is here asking for his entirely inconsequential baptism, when Jesus is the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire! If you've ever had to give a sermon in a room full of Bible college lecturers, then you know how easy it is to feel inadequate in the face of someone way better than you. I imagine it would be similar to building the house of a famous architect or something.

v15

But Jesus assures him that this is the way to fulfill righteousness, and when Jesus does that, can you really argue? I'm not sure why it needed to be this way. It could be that by Jesus being baptised here, it gives creedence to the preaching of John TB.

v16

And of course this descent of the Holy Spirit onto Jesus is what gives that tick of approval from God himself, both onto Jesus and onto John's baptism in a way.

v17

The voice from heaven doesn't have anything to say about John TB's baptism; something a little more important is happening here. God is stating in a way that no-one who was there would be able to deny that Jesus is his son, loved by and pleasing to God. This is not the kind of voice you would ignore, although I'm sure many did.

Matthew 2

v13

If I were writing this and wanted to make it suspenseful, I'd have had the Herod story first then the fleeing story. But Matthew probably doesn't want to make it suspenseful. I think he wants to make it clear, and perhaps even knows that this might be read a lot and so wants it to serve that purpose instead.

Interesting that the dream comes to Joseph. I guess, again, he's the husband, so he's the one that will need convincing.

v14

And again Joseph is obedient. Good on him. Egypt is a long way to go!

v15

This is one of those prophetic exegeses that I would not countenance if anyone else made it; but when you find it in scripture, you are kind of bound by it.

v16

This is terrible violence, but not altogether uncommon from royalty of the time unfortunately. For instance, Herod got into an argument with the Hasmoneans, and so gave an order that all their male inheritors should be killed. Politics was a bloody business.

This is one of the things that bring praise for democracy - plurality of power increases stability and apathy, reducing these kinds of violence.

Also it's clear that the time between Jesus birth, the magis' visit, and Herod realising that they had not returned to him, is around two years.

v17

It just strikes me at this moment that if you asked me to independently point to all those passages of scripture that align neatly enough with Christ's life and death that they could be prophecies, I'd be rubbish at it. The knowledge of scripture of the Jewish people at the time must have been amazing. Besides, what else did they have to read? Scripture was knowledge, education, entertainment and culture. It's true that our increase in media distracts us from knowing God's word - even Christian media. I'm not sure what the answer to that is though. Be all the more thankful for people who study it full-time and share their knowledge with us!

v18

And so Christ's birth was celebrated by magi, and by shepherds, and mourned by so many mothers whose children were lost in an attempt to kill him. Christ's arrival is a source of joy, but also causes human terror.

v19

So Joseph didn't even have to wait for a report from travellers - he got a dream that was essentially a newspaper article.

v20

I assume that the dream was to assure him that the danger was gone and to also encourage him to head back to Judea, since it would have been easy to stay in Egypt, but that would have made for quite a different Christian story!

v21

Once again, Joseph was obedient, and I think there's a difference between the obedience of following instructions that take your family out of harm's way, and the obedience of putting your family in harm's way. Both are important, but one is easier.

v22

And there was danger - Archelaus was Herod's son (known also as Herod Archelaus, so he's another Herod), and upon his father's death killed 3000 people in Jerusalem for arguing with him about a justice matter. This is not the kind of person you want to be King of the Jews near. And so that is why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, became a refugee in Egypt, and then grew up a Galilean.

v23

And he lived in a place called Nazareth, which was yet another fulfillment of prophecy. "Nazarene" later came to refer to a sect of Jews who followed the teachings of a man from Nazareth called Jesus. In fact, Christians in some Middle Eastern countries are still called Nazarenes - you might recall that when those ISIS losers took over parts of Syria and Iraq to play at being rulers, they painted an Arabic ن (the letter N) on the houses of Christians to mark them out: N for Nazarene.

Matthew 2

v1

"King Herod" sets a time period. Seriously, there is so much historical stuff in the gospels that to claim Jesus never existed is such bollocks.

The KJV uses the old-fashioned "wise men", the NASB uses "magi" and the NIV interestingly uses "Magi" with a capital M. Not sure what the idea is there.

v2

The magi's question is so amazing, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." I love that line in Life of Brian where Brian's mum asks what star sign he is (Capricorn) and what they're like, and their response is, "He is the Son of God, the Messiah, king of the Jews!" "So that's Capricorn, is it?" "No, no, that's just him." The reason I refer to that is that it's not like there is a prophecy in scripture that talks about a star rising to establish when the Messiah will be born - if there was, it would be very likely Matthew would have included it in his gospel. This means God not only honoured the beliefs of the eastern magi so that their idea of what the star would mean was right, but he used it to communicate the coming of the Messiah in the east, but not in Jerusalem! (Save for Joseph; and Mary and the shepherds, but that's a different gospel.)

v3

The first time that Jerusalem hears of the birth of the Messiah is from some eastern magi. No wonder they were disturbed. It's like it happened without any fanfare - for them, anyway.

v4

The Jews were looking out for a Messiah. I don't mean they had active Messiah Patrol or something necessarily, but the fact is that Herod knew that the Bible had word that there was to be a Messiah, and he expects the Bible to have answers about where that Messiah would be born. Note also that when the magi turn up and ask about the "King of the Jews", Herod instantly translates this as "Messiah". They weren't messing around here.

v5-6

And there is indeed an answer - Bethlehem. Here is Matthew once again pointing to scripture as prophecying Jesus' coming. The Jews don't get told when, but they do get told where.  This is why I say they didn't necessarily have a Messiah Patrol; if they did, you'd assume someone would have heard about Jesus' birth and asked the question, "Could this be the Messiah?"

v7

Uh-oh. We all know how this story ends, but honestly, what noble reason would there be to know when he was born?

v8

See, this command would have been just as legit without verse 7's little investigation. But at least he does tell them where to go.

v9

This is no ordinary star. This is not just astrology. This star moves. It stops moving. There's something special about it. What was it? What did it look like? No idea. Doesn't say, doesn't matter. The point is that it guided them to where they were going - and it had to be a guidance more specific than "here's Bethlehem" because they already knew that bit from Herod.

v10

I think part of their overjoyment was the fact of the star's specialness itself. This is an obviously special thing. They had come all this way for something special, and they were not disappointed.

v11

They worshipped him. That doesn't mean they necessarily accepted him to be God; there is plenty of attestation of the Greek word προσκυνέω as simply meaning to give someone the appropriate homage or respect due to their superior rank over you. This was at the very least a king; you bow to kings. Of course, it doesn't mean they didn't think he was God too. Just saying. I mean, the whole star thing might happen when God has his Messiah born; but it's pretty darn special.

v12

And I imagine the dream fed into that too; that's also fairly special. They certainly took it to heart, because they followed its warning. Again, this doesn't mean the magi instantly associated Jesus with God - although the whole virgin birth story, which they would no doubt have heard upon turning up on Mary's doorstep, is a really strong contender there, even if you're not looking for the Isaiah prophecy.

Matthew 1

v18

The comparisons of the translations in this passage are hilarious. On the one hand the birth of Jesus "came about" (NIV), "was as follows" (NASB) and "was on this wise" (KJV); Mary "was pledged to be married" (NIV), "had been betrothed" (NASB) and "was espoused" (KJV); was "found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit" (NIV), "found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (NASB) and "found with child of the Holy Ghost" (KJV). On the other hand, "before they came together" (NIV), "before they came together" (NASB) and "before they came together" (KJV).

Now I get it. The word is συνέρχομαι, it means "to come together or accompany", so it gets used in Mark 3 to describe the crowd assembling for example - and that's pretty much exclusively how it is read throughout the NT. So it could refer to the time before Mary and Joseph having assembled as husband and wife. I'm not suggesting that it should be translated "bumped uglies" or anything (although it could be a reason why translators have been so reticent to clarify). I'm just surprised that this language has remained so constant when almost everything else in the verse has changed.

We often, perhaps almost exclusively, think of this early Christmas-y narrative synergistically - putting the bits from the different gospels together. So we read Matthew and think, "Yes, Mary had that whole encounter with the angel and stuff." But that information is not important to Matthew. It just says here, "She was found to be preggers before her and Joseph had 'come together' (aka gotten their freak on)." So the focus here isn't on Mary and her situation, but on Joseph.

v19

And the point is that Joseph, coming across this situation, is a pretty cool dude. Sure, he's not going to just accept that his new wife is up the duff with some unknown baby, but he's not going to ruin her because of it either. The verse goes so far as to point out that this is not because he has feelings for her, or because it costs him nothing; it's because it's the righteous thing to do.

v20

I love this bit, because honestly there is no other way that Joseph is going to be reasonably convinced of what's happened here without an angel appearing. If Mary were to say, "God told me that this baby is from him," Joseph would be pretty gormless if he said, "Oh, okay. That's totally not an excuse a girl in our society would try on to avoid endless shame and negative consequences."

Moreover, Joseph made a righteous decision! If you read the NIV's primary translation, he did what was right in the eyes of the law. But sometimes God breaks the rules, and what would ordinarily be absolutely godly to do suddenly becomes wrong, and you have to change your plan to remain obedient to God. But when God is going to do something that really throws a spanner in the works, he will let you know. It won't always be an angel - in fairness, this is Jesus being born, so it is worthy of a heavenly singing telegram, but most things that happen in our lives aren't that.

v21

And Joseph doesn't need this extra bit of info either. He could have just been told, "This is God's will, so get onto it, mate." But God brings Joseph in on the secret, because Joseph is going to be a big part of this. He's the adopted dad of Jesus the Messiah. That's a big deal.

v22

The NIV separates this from the angel's speaking with a paragraph break; the others use the word "Now" which is probably included in the Greek. So this is Matthew breaking down the prophecy fulfillment for us. You have to wonder if the Jews were actively looking for this prophecy to be fulfilled, or if it was just sort of sitting on a shelf somewhere with people thinking, "Yeah, that could happen." I don't know the answer to that.

v23
What I do know is that it is a pretty kick-ass prophecy. Whatever it meant to Ahaz back in the day (I can't imagine it meant much beyond that God had plans that involved peace and being with his people), the whole virgin birth thing is a big deal as a fulfillment of a prophecy that is utterly God-worked. Sure, it could have just meant "young woman" in Isaiah, and I'm cool with that. But God picks the harder version for his son's birth, and rightly so.

v24

And imagine how grateful Mary must have been - to God and to Joseph - for doing it this way. Jesus could have been born to a single mum. But instead God wanted Jesus to be born in a family of mum and dad, and also for that dad to have a lineage that went back to David. There is talk about Mary also having that lineage, but let's face it: without a dad, even an adopted dad, he was always just going to be a bastard, because it's not like angels were going to appear to everyone who met him to give them the same heads up as they gave Joseph.

v25

Just in case you were wondering if they did the nasty while Mary was pregnant. Maybe this is to prove that Jesus isn't Joseph's biological kid (although I would think the understanding of pregnancy is once you're preggers, you can't get pregnant again from doing the nasty). I think as much as anything this is about confirming that they were married, even though the marriage wasn't consummated on the wedding night as was tradition (and yes, people probably checked; there are still plenty of cultures where this happens). This actually means a fair bit to those cultures who think that marriage isn't marriage if you didn't do any horizontal mambo. We in the west definitely know full well that sex doesn't equal marriage. But I think even in the west we still perhaps need to learn that marriage doesn't always equal sex. And I'm not saying it never does or anything - the Bible makes it clear that kids are generally born in marriages, and that sex is generally done in them too. But marriage is bigger than those things.

Matthew 1

Well, it's been a long time since I did this - a verse by verse commentary on my reading of the Bible - but it feels like, with 2018 upon us and Penny and I being here in Namibia, it's a good time to kick it off again. I still promise nothing other than my own scintillating wit and opinion. Starting with Matthew because it's actually one of only two books of the NT that I haven't done one of these for. That's not surprising - the NT is shorter, more accessible, and was easier and more relevant to read when I was younger.

v1

I find it interesting first off that the NIV doesn't use a comma between "Jesus the Messiah" and "the son of David". The KJV and NASB both do. Probably not much to read into that. What does strike me is that this is the very first verse of the gospel, and it pulls no punches: Jesus is the Messiah. To say he's a son of Abraham doesn't say much beyond that he's a Jew really; to say he's the son of David puts him in a kingly line, and not just by being from the tribe of Judah, but actually being in the line of the best king. It's a big claim.

v2

There's Judah right there.

v3

I'll be honest, while some of these names stand out, many of them are pretty boring. Tamar isn't though: one of the women that is mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. I'm not doing Genesis, so I won't go into her story here (although it is amazing), but she is one of the most righteous people in Genesis, so while perhaps interesting that she is mentioned, maybe not super surprising because she's well-known and a picture of righteousness. We don't know Tamar's background, but given Judah married a Canaanite woman, it's probable that he got Canaanite wives for his kids too.

v4

Nahshon is the leader of the tribe of Judah during the Numbers period. This genealogy is really the same as the one from the end of Ruth - unsurprising, given that...

v5

Two women named in the same verse! So woman number two is Rahab, another picture of great faithfulness and faith. These women really know how to step it up. Is it really that Rahab? I mean, Rahab was right at the beginning of the conquest. But there's several generations before you get to David, so I think it works. What this means is that Rahab married an Israelite, Salmon (funny name) - David's line has another non-Jewish mother! I don't think it's so big a deal, as there are plenty of stories of people taking non-Jewish wives (even though it's frowned upon by God; Rahab is an exception to that anyway, as she gets naturalised by God through the killing of Ai).

Ruth is the third woman mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. Famous for having a whole book written about her, like Esther. Again, another gentile mother! But with a story like hers, why wouldn't you claim such a heritage.

v6

And of course now we get to David. The mention of David brings forth all the ideas of the greatest king of Israel, and then is immediately dashed by the fact that Solomon's mother is mentioned - not by name, interestingly, but rather "Uriah's wife" to remind us all that David wasn't all that and a bag of potato chips. Speaking of non-Jewish mothers, there's no mention of Bathsheba's heritage, but her husband was a Hittite.

v7-11

And now we get the list of kings of Judah. That's a pretty sorry list. Good kings are rare, bad kings are so frequent that I can't even remember all the bad things they're known for. It's a royal line, absolutely, but when you read those names you remember that these guys leave a lot to be desired. Josiah is my favourite king, because his story is a story of God's faithfulness even in the midst of judgment. But then comes those words: "exile to Babylon".

v12

These names we don't know so well. Zerubbabel we know as the leader of the exiles in their return (I still remember that story of the whole bible thing where the guy used the mnemonic of 'za-rubber-ball' - I don't remember much else except that Herah dies, awww).

v13-14

This Zadok isn't the famous one; he was a Levite priest during the time of David. There's also a scribe called Zadok post exile, but he's also not this Zadok.

v15

This isn't the famous Eleazar either; he's one of Aaron's sons. There's another one in Ezra; it's not him either.

v16

And here's the big shebang: Joseph,  Jesus' dad, comes from the line of David. And people make a big fuss about how Joseph isn't Jesus' real dad, but I think that's kind of the point of the whole thing. Joseph adopts Jesus, and inheritance and lineage is passed on just as strongly to an adopted child as it is to a fruit-of-your-loins kid. This adoption is, I've always thought, a picture of God's adoption of us. Besides, as we've just seen, the human line is pretty crappy anyway. Being able to draw your lineage as "me, son of God, who has done all that great stuff you've read about" is much more impressive.

We also have the mention of Mary, which makes it clear that she is Jesus' mum, and the lineage draws no other connection to Jesus bar that Joseph was married to her. This is clearly different to the rest of the genealogy; we don't have all the names of the mothers for everyone else (Ruth, Rahab, Tamar and Bathsheba notwithstanding). Mary is, so I'm told, a good Jewish girl though.

v17

What's the significance of the three 14s? Well, three is of course a number of completeness (I always think of the Trinity); seven is the number of God, and 14 is that doubled. Are there people missing from this genealogy? Probably, I've no idea, I didn't count (that's what scholars say though). The numbering gives structure and order, and the point is that God, as a god of order, has ordained this. Maybe. I mean, there are actually only 41 generations in total if you count them, so the three 14s that Matthew is talking about are fanciful. It's interesting that Matthew didn't make up one though; the hardest one to edit would be the most recent one of course, because it's the most accurate and well-remembered. So he just works with it.