Chapter One

1–17. Title. Genealogy of Jesus Christ. – 18–25. The Nativity of Christ.

Title. The Gospel according to Matthew in the Russian and Slavonic translations is titled the same way. But this title differs from the title of the Gospel in the Greek language. There it is not as clear as in Russian and Slavonic, and is shorter—“according to Matthew,” and the words “Gospel” or “good news” are absent. The Greek expression “according to Matthew” requires explanation. The best explanation is the following: The Gospel is one and indivisible, and belongs to God, not to people. Different people only set forth that single good news, or Gospel, given to them by God. There were several such people. But strictly speaking, four people are called evangelists: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They wrote four Gospels, that is, they presented, each from different points of view and in their own way, the one common good news about the one indivisible Person of the God-man. Therefore, in the Greek Gospel it says: according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, and according to John—that is, one Gospel of God according to the account of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Nothing, of course, prevents us from adding the word Gospel or good news to these Greek expressions for the sake of clarity, as was already being done in the deepest antiquity, especially since the titles of the Gospels—according to Matthew, according to Mark, etc.—did not belong to the evangelists themselves. Similar expressions were used by the Greeks for other people who wrote something. Thus, in Acts 17:28 it is said: “as also some of your poets have said,” and in the literal translation from Greek: “according to your poets”—and then their own words follow. One of the Church Fathers, Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus, speaks of “the first book of the Pentateuch according to Moses” (ἡ πρώτη βίβλος τῆς κατὰ τὸν Μωυσέα πεντατεύχου; Epiphanius, Adversus haereses, ed. K. Holl, Epiphanius. [Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 25] Band 1, Leipzig 1915. liber VIII, 4, p. 190:1), meaning that the Pentateuch was written by Moses himself. In the Bible the word Gospel means good news (for example, 2 Sam 18:20—according to the translation of the Seventy), and in the New Testament the word Gospel is used only for the good news or good tidings about salvation, about the Savior of the world.

Matthew 1:1. Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham. The Gospel according to Matthew begins with the genealogy of the Savior, which is presented from verse 1 to verse 17. In the Slavonic translation, instead of “genealogy,” it says “book of kinship.” The Russian and Slavonic translations are accurate, though not literal. In Greek it is “biblos geneseos” (βίβλος γενέσεως). “Biblos” means book, and “geneseos” (genitive case; nominative—“genesis” or “genesis”) is a word that cannot be translated into Russian or other languages. Therefore it has passed into some languages, including Russian, without translation (genesis). The word “genesis” denotes not so much birth as “origin,” “coming into being” (German: Entstehung). Generally it denotes a comparatively slow birth, more the process of birth than the act itself, and in the word is implied germination, growth, and final appearance in the world. Hence the connection between the Hebrew expression, which begins some genealogies (Gen 2:4-4:26) in the Bible, “sefer toledot” (book of births), and the Greek “biblos geneseos.” In Hebrew—plural—book of births, and in Greek—singular—geneseos, because the latter word implies not one birth but a whole series of births. Therefore, to denote the multiplicity of births, the Greek “genesis” is used in the singular, although it sometimes occurs in the plural. Thus, we should recognize our Slavonic (“book of kinship,” book of relatives, enumeration of families) and Russian translations as if not entirely, then approximately accurate, and admit that the Greek (“biblos geneseos”) cannot be translated otherwise than by the word “genealogy” for want of a suitable Russian word. If instead of the word “origin” sometimes “being” is used in Slavonic, and sometimes also “life,” then such inaccuracy can be explained by the same reason. In what sense are the words “Jesus Christ” used in verse 1? Of course, in the sense of the proper name of a known historical Person (so also in verse 18—the word “Christ” without the article), whose life and activity the evangelist intended to present to the readers. But was it not enough to call this historical Person simply Jesus? No, because that would have been indefinite. The evangelist wants to present the genealogy of Jesus, Who had already become known to both Jews and Gentiles as Christ and Whom the evangelist himself recognized not as a simple person but as Christ, the Anointed, the Messiah. Jesus is a Hebrew word, transformed from Yeshua, which means God the Savior. Similarly in verse 18. This name was common among the Jews. Christ, in Hebrew Messiah, means anointed or the anointed one. In the Old Testament this name was common. Thus called were the Hebrew kings, priests, and prophets, who were anointed with sacred oil. In the New Testament the name became proper (which is usually indicated by the Greek article), but not at once. According to the interpretation of Blessed Theophylact, the Lord is called Christ because, as King, He reigned and reigns over sin; as Priest, He offered a sacrifice for us; and He was anointed as Lord with true oil, the Holy Spirit. In naming this known historical Person Christ, the evangelist had to prove His descent both from David and from Abraham. The true Christ, or Messiah, was to come from the Jews (to be the seed of Abraham) and was unthinkable for them if he did not come from David and Abraham. From some Gospel passages it is clear that the Jews not only assumed the descent of Christ—the Messiah—from David, but also His birth in that same city where David was born (see Matt 2:6). The Jews would not have recognized as Messiah anyone who did not come from David and Abraham. These patriarchs had received promises concerning the Messiah. And the evangelist Matthew wrote his Gospel first and foremost for the Jews. “Nothing could have been more pleasant for a Jew than to be told that Jesus Christ was a descendant of Abraham and David” (St. John Chrysostom). The prophets prophesied about Christ as the son of David, for example, Isaiah (Isa 9:7), Jeremiah (Jer 23:5), Ezekiel (Ezek 34:23), Amos (Amos 9:11), and others. Therefore, having spoken of Christ, or Messiah, the evangelist immediately says that He was the Son of David, the Son of Abraham—Son in the sense of descendant—as is so common among the Jews. In the words: “Son of David, Son of Abraham,” as in the Greek Gospel as well as in the Russian, there is a certain ambiguity. One could understand these words as: Jesus Christ, who was a Son (descendant) of David, who was (in turn) a descendant of Abraham. But one could also understand them thus: Son of David and Son of Abraham. Both interpretations, of course, in no way change the essential matter. If David was a son (descendant) of Abraham, then, of course, Christ, as the Son of David, was also a descendant of Abraham. But the first interpretation comes closer to corresponding with the Greek text.

Matthew 1:2. Abraham begat Isaac; Isaac begat Jacob; Jacob begat Judah and his brothers; (See Luke 3:34). Having said that Jesus Christ was a Son of David and a Son of Abraham, the evangelist, beginning with verse 2, proves this idea in more detail. By naming Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, the evangelist points to known historical personalities to whom were given the promises that from them would come the Savior of the world (Gen 18:18, etc.).

Matthew 1:3. Judah begat Perez and Zerah by Tamar; Perez begat Hezron; Hezron begat Ram; Matthew 1:4. Ram begat Amminadab; Amminadab begat Nahshon; Nahshon begat Salmon; (See Luke 3:32-33.) Perez and Zerah (Gen 38:24-30) were twin brothers. Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, and Nahshon were probably all born and lived in Egypt, following Jacob and his sons’ settlement there. About Hezron, Ram, and Amminadab nothing particular is known except their names mentioned in 1 Chr 2:1-15. Nahshon’s sister, Elizabeth, married Aaron, the brother of Moses. In 1 Chr 2:10 and Num 2:3 Nahshon is called a “prince” or “ruler” of the children of Judah. He was among those engaged in counting the people in the Sinai wilderness (Num 1:7), and he was the first to bring an offering at the dedication of the tabernacle (Num 7:12) approximately forty years before the taking of Jericho.

Matthew 1:5. Salmon begat Boaz by Rahab; Boaz begat Obed by Ruth; Obed begat Jesse; Salmon, son of Nahshon, was among the spies in Jericho, whom the prostitute Rahab hid in her house (Josh 2:1). Salmon married her. According to the evangelist, from this marriage was born Boaz. But the Bible does not report that Rahab was the wife of Salmon (see Ruth 4:13; 1 Chr 2:11). Hence some conclude that the evangelist, in compiling the genealogy, “had access to information other than the Old Testament books.” The reading of the name Rahab is unsettled and indefinite: Rahab, Raab, and in Josephus—Rahaba. There are chronological difficulties regarding her. The birth of Obed from Boaz and Ruth is told in detail in the book of Ruth. Ruth was a Moabite, a foreigner, and the Jews hated foreigners. The evangelist mentions Ruth in order to show that among the ancestors of the Savior were not only Jews but also foreigners. From the reports about Ruth in Sacred Scripture one can conclude that her moral character was very attractive.

Matthew 1:6. Jesse begat David the king; David the king begat Solomon by the wife of Uriah; It is known that Jesse had eight sons (1 Sam 16:1-13), and according to 1 Chr 2:13-15—seven. The youngest of them was David. Jesse lived in Bethlehem and was the son of Ephratah from the tribe of Judah; during the time of Saul’s persecution of David he reached old age and was the chief among men. In saying Jesse begat David, the evangelist adds that “Jesse begat David the king.” There is no such addition for other kings, descendants of David. Perhaps because it was unnecessary; it was sufficient to name David as king to show that the line of kings—ancestors of the Savior—began with him. David, besides others, had sons Solomon and Nathan. Matthew the evangelist traces the further genealogy through the line of Solomon, Luke (Luke 3:31)—through Nathan. Solomon was the son of David “by the wife of Uriah,” that is, by a woman who had previously been the wife of Uriah. The details of this are set forth in 2 Sam 11–2 Sam 12 and are well known. The evangelist does not name Bathsheba by name. But mention of her serves here to express the desire to mark a departure from the proper order in the genealogy, since the marriage of David with Bathsheba was a transgression. Very little is known about Bathsheba. She was the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and, in all probability, was distinguished by many personal virtues, if she became the beloved wife of the king and had considerable influence on him. Solomon was proclaimed heir to the royal throne at her request.

Matthew 1:7. Solomon was the father of Rehoboam; Rehoboam was the father of Abijah; Abijah was the father of Asa; Solomon reigned forty years (1015–975 BC). During his reign the temple was built in Jerusalem. Rehoboam, or Rehoboam, son of Solomon, reigned in Judea “only over the sons of Israel who lived in the cities of Judah” (1 Sam 12:17; 2 Chr 10:17). He ascended to the throne at age forty-one and reigned in Jerusalem for seventeen years (975–957). After him his son Abijah ascended to the throne and reigned for three years (957–955). After Abijah his son Asa reigned (955–914).

Matthew 1:8. Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat; Jehoshaphat was the father of Joram; Joram was the father of Uzziah; After Asa his son Jehoshaphat (or Jehoshaphat) reigned at age thirty-five and ruled for twenty-five years (914–889). After Jehoshaphat his son Joram, aged thirty-two, reigned for eight years (891–884). After Joram Matthew shows a gap of three kings – Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, who reigned together from 884 to 810. If this gap was made not by chance, through a scribe’s error, but intentionally, then the reason for excluding these three kings from the genealogy should be sought in the fact that the evangelist considered them unworthy to be numbered in the line of heirs of David and ancestors of Jesus Christ 1.

Matthew 1:9. Uzziah was the father of Jotham; Jotham was the father of Ahaz; Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah; The great-grandson of Joram, Uzziah (810–758) is called in the Bible also Azariah. After Uzziah his son Jotham (or Jotham), aged twenty-five, reigned in Jerusalem for sixteen years (758–742). After Jotham his son Ahaz, aged twenty, ascended to the throne and reigned in Jerusalem for sixteen years (742–727).

Matthew 1:10. Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh; Manasseh was the father of Amon; Amon was the father of Josiah; After Ahaz his son Hezekiah ascended to the throne and reigned for twenty-nine years (727–698). After Hezekiah his son Manasseh, aged twelve, ascended to the throne and reigned for fifty years (698–643). After Manasseh his son Ammun or Amon ascended (in the Gospel of Matthew, according to some manuscripts, the Sinai, Vatican, and others, one should read Amos, but in other manuscripts no less authoritative but more numerous – Amon), aged twenty-two, and reigned for two years (643–641).

Matthew 1:11. Josiah was the father of Jechoniah; Jechoniah was the father of... and of his brothers, before the carrying away to Babylon. Josiah ascended to the throne at age eight and reigned for thirty-one years (641–610). After Josiah only his son Jehoahaz reigned for three months, an impious king whom the “people of the land” raised to power (2 Sam 23:30). But he was deposed by the king of Egypt. Since Jehoahaz was not among the ancestors of the Savior, the evangelist does not mention him. Instead of Jehoahaz his brother Eliakim, aged twenty-five, was put on the throne and reigned in Jerusalem for eleven years (610–599). The king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, subdued Eliakim and changed his name to Jechoniah. After him his son Jechoniah (or Jehoiachin), aged eighteen, reigned for only three months (in 599 BC). During his reign Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, approached Jerusalem, besieged the city, and Jechoniah went out to the king of Babylon with his mother, servants, and princes. The king of Babylon took him and carried him away to Babylon, and placed Matthania, Jechoniah’s uncle, on his throne, and changed the name of Matthania to Zedekiah. Since the evangelist then traces the line from Jechoniah and already after the carrying away to Babylon, there was no need to mention Zedekiah. After his captivity to Babylon Jechoniah was put in prison and remained there for thirty-seven years. After this Evilmerodach, the new king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign released Jechoniah from the house of imprisonment, spoke kindly to him, and set his throne above the thrones of the kings who were with him in Babylon. Jechoniah ended the period of the kings of Judah, which lasted more than four hundred and fifty years. However simple the eleventh verse appears to be, its interpretation presents insurmountable and almost unsolvable difficulties. In the Greek text, and specifically in the best manuscripts, it is not as in the Russian: “Josiah was the father of Jechoniah (not Jechoniah)... at (during) the carrying away to Babylon,” i.e., to Babylon. Further in verse 12 the same as in the Russian. It is assumed that the words of the Russian translation: “Josiah was the father of Jechoniah; Jechoniah was the father of Jechoniah” (in italics) – is an insertion into Matthew’s original words, though very ancient, known already to Irenaeus in the second century after Christ, but still an insertion, originally made in the margin in order to reconcile Matthew’s genealogy with the Old Testament scripture, and then also to answer the pagans who reproached Christians that the name Jechoniah is omitted from the Gospel. If the mention of Jechoniah is genuine, it can easily be seen (from the Russian translation) that from Solomon to Jechoniah there were not fourteen generations or ages, but fifteen, which contradicts the evangelist’s statement in verse 17. To explain this gap and restore the correct reading of verse 11, the following should be noted. In 1 Chr 3:15-17 the sons of King Josiah are enumerated thus: “the firstborn Jehoahaz, the second Jechoniah, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.” From this it is clear that Jechoniah had three brothers. Further: “the sons of Jechoniah: Jechoniah, his son, Zedekiah, his son.” From this it is clear that Jechoniah had only one brother. Finally: “the sons of Jechoniah: Assir, Shealtiel” and others. Here the evangelical genealogy almost coincides with the genealogy from 1 Chronicles. In 2 Sam 24:17 Matthania or Zedekiah is called Jechoniah’s uncle. Having examined these accounts carefully, we see that Josiah had a son (the second) Jechoniah, he had several brothers, about whom the evangelist does not speak, but speaks about the brothers of Jechoniah, whereas according to 1 Chr 3:16 the latter had only one brother, Zedekiah, which does not accord with the evangelist Matthew’s statement. Therefore it is supposed that there were two Jechoniahes, Jechoniah the first, who was also called Jechoniah, and Jechoniah the second. Jechoniah the first was originally called Eliakim, then the king of Babylon changed his name to Jechoniah. The reason why he was also called Jechoniah was explained in antiquity (Jerome) by the fact that the scribe could easily confuse Jehoiachin with Jechoniah, changing “h” to “k” and “n” to “m.” The name Jehoiachin can easily be read as: Jechoniah in Hebrew, because of the complete similarity of the consonants used in both names. Accepting such an interpretation, we should read the eleventh verse of Matthew’s Gospel as: “Josiah was the father of Jechoniah (otherwise Eliakim, Jechoniah) and of his brothers” and so forth; verse 12: “Jechoniah the second was the father of Shealtiel” and so forth. Against such an interpretation it is objected that such designation of generations contradicts the customs observed in genealogy. If the aforesaid interpretation were correct, the evangelist should have expressed himself thus: “Josiah was the father of Jechoniah the first, Jechoniah the first was the father of Jechoniah the second, Jechoniah the second was the father of Shealtiel” and so on. This difficulty apparently is not resolved even by the assumption that “the names of father and son are so similar that they were accidentally identified or confused when reproduced in Greek.” In view of this, other interpreters, to resolve this difficulty, assume that the original reading of verse 11 was as follows: “Josiah was the father of Jechoniah and of his brothers; Jechoniah was the father of Jechoniah at the carrying away to Babylon.” This last interpretation is better. Although it, due to the transposition of the words “and of his brothers” and does not accord with the existing, confirmed by ancient and important manuscripts, Greek text of Matthew’s Gospel, nevertheless we can suppose that the transposition was made by mistake by ancient scribes. In support of the latter interpretation one can also point to the fact that the existing Greek text, i.e., as stated above, “Josiah was the father of Jechoniah and of his brothers at (in the Russian translation – “before”) the carrying away to Babylon,” cannot be accepted without such or other changes and transpositions and is clearly erroneous, because Josiah lived not at the carrying away to Babylon or during it, but twenty years before that. As for Jer 22:30, where it says of Jechoniah: “thus says the Lord: write this man as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days,” the words “childless” are explained by the subsequent expressions of the prophet, from which it is clear that the children of Jechoniah will not “sit on the throne of David and rule in Judah.” In this very last sense the expression should be understood: “childless.”

Matthew 1:12. And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel; Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel; (See Luke 3:27). Among the sons of Jechoniah in 1 Chr 3:17 Shealtiel is mentioned. But according to 1 Chr 3:18-19 Jechoniah had another son, Pedaia, and it was through him that Zerubbabel was born. Thus, in Matthew’s Gospel there again appears to be an omission – that of Pedaia. Meanwhile in many other places of Holy Scripture and in Josephus Zerubbabel is called the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2; Nehem 12:1; Hag 1:1; Josephus, “Jewish Antiquities.” St. Petersburg, 1900, book XI, chapter 3, 1 (reissue: Moscow, 1994, vol. 1, p. 442) and others). To explain this difficulty it is assumed that Pedaia, according to the law of levirate marriage, took the wife of the deceased Shealtiel and in this way the children of Pedaia became by law the children of Shealtiel, his brother.

Matthew 1:13. Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud; Abiud was the father of Eliakim; Eliakim was the father of Azor; Matthew 1:14. Azor was the father of Zadok; Zadok was the father of Achim; Achim was the father of Eliud; Matthew 1:15. Eliud was the father of Eleazar; Eleazar was the father of Matthan; Matthan was the father of Jacob; According to 1 Chr 3:19 and following, among the sons and grandsons of Zerubbabel there is no Abiud. Based on the similarity of Hebrew and Greek names, it is assumed that Abiud is identical with Hodaviah 1 Chr 3:24 and Judah Luke 3:26. If so, then in verse 13 of Matthew’s Gospel there is again an omission. The genealogy in the indicated place of Chronicles is given thus: Zerubbabel, Hananiah, Isaiah, Shechaniah, Neariah, Elioenai, Hodaviah. Although filling such an omission with six persons would bring Matthew’s genealogy closer to Luke’s genealogy in the number of generations, despite the complete difference in names, nevertheless the identification of Abiud with Hodaviah is very doubtful. Nevertheless, some modern interpreters accept such an explanation. About the persons after Zerubbabel and, perhaps, Abiud, mentioned in verses 13–15, nothing is known either from the Old Testament, or from the writings of Josephus, or from the Talmudic and other writings. It can only be noted that this contradicts the opinion that the evangelist compiled the genealogy of the Savior only from the Bible, or at least does not support this opinion.

Matthew 1:16. And Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (See Luke 3:23.) According to the evangelists Matthew and Luke, the genealogies clearly belong to Joseph. But Matthew calls Joseph’s father Jacob, while Luke calls him Eli (Luke 3:23). And according to tradition, the father and mother of Mary were Joachim and Anna. The Savior, according to the clear narrative of Matthew and Luke (Luke 1:26), was not the son of Joseph. Why then was it necessary for the evangelists to compile and place in their Gospels the genealogy of Christ, which in fact did not apply to Him? Most interpreters explain this circumstance by the fact that Matthew traces the genealogy through the ancestors of Joseph, wishing to show that Jesus was not the natural, but the lawful Son of Joseph and, consequently, the heir of his rights and privileges as a descendant of David. Luke, if in his genealogy he also mentions Joseph, then in fact gives the genealogy of Mary. This opinion was first expressed by the Church writer Julius Africanus (third century), an excerpt from whose work is placed in Eusebius’ “Church History” (1, 7), repeated with alterations in Ambrose of Milan’s commentary on the Gospel of Luke, and was known to Irenaeus (Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses, book 3:32).

Matthew 1:17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the carrying away to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations. The word “all” refers most closely to the generations enumerated by Matthew from Abraham to David. In the subsequent expressions of the verse, when enumerating further generations, the evangelist does not repeat this word. Therefore, the simplest explanation of the word “all” appears to be as follows. The evangelist says: “all” indicated by me in the present genealogy “generations from Abraham to David” and so forth. The number fourteen was hardly sacred among the Hebrews, although it is composed of the repeated sacred number seven. We can think that the evangelist, having counted from Abraham to David fourteen generations, as well as from Jechoniah to Christ, wished to show some roundedness and correctness in the enumeration of generations, and therefore adopted the number fourteen also for the middle (royal) period of his genealogy, omitting for this purpose some generations. This method is somewhat artificial, but fully consistent with the customs and thinking of the Jews. Something similar is found in Gen 5:3 and following; Gen 11:10 and following, where from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Abraham up to ten generations are enumerated. By “generations” are understood successions – from father to son. Thus, the genealogy of Christ according to Matthew can be presented in the following form: I. Abraham. Isaac. Jacob. Judah. Perez. Hezron. Ram. Amminadab. Nahshon. Salmon. Boaz. Obed. Jesse. David. II. Solomon. Rehoboam. Abijah. Asa. Jehoshaphat. Joram. Uzziah. Jotham. Ahaz. Hezekiah. Manasseh. Amon (Amos). Josiah. Jechoniah. III. Jechoniah. Shealtiel. Zerubbabel. Abiud. Eliakim. Azor. Zadok. Achim. Eliud. Eleazar. Matthan. Jacob. Joseph. Jesus Christ.

Matthew 1:18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened in this way: when his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. (See Luke 2:5.) At the beginning of this verse the evangelist uses the same word as at the beginning of verse 1 – “genesis.” In Russian and Slavonic this word is now translated as “birth.” The translation is again inaccurate for lack of a suitable Russian word. In the proper sense it would be better to translate thus: “the origin of Jesus Christ (from the Virgin Mary) was thus.” The betrothal ceremonies among the Jews somewhat resembled ours, which take place at the blessing of the groom and bride. Concerning the betrothal a contract was drawn up or a solemn oral promise was given in the presence of witnesses that such and such a man took such and such a woman as his bride. After the betrothal the bride was considered the betrothed wife of her groom. Their union could only be dissolved by a proper divorce. But between the betrothal and the wedding, as with us, sometimes whole months passed (see Deut 20:7). “Mary” is a Greek name, in Aramaic – Mariam, and in Hebrew – Miriam or Miriam, derived from the Hebrew word “meri” – “stubbornness, obstinacy,” or from “rum” – “to be exalted, high.” According to Saint Jerome, this name means domina (“mistress.” – Note of editor). All derivations are doubtful. “Before they came together,” i.e., before the wedding itself took place. Whether Joseph and Mary lived in one house after the betrothal is not known. According to Saint John Chrysostom, “Mary already lived in his (Joseph’s) house.” But the expression: “do not be afraid to take Mary, your wife” (verse 20), seems to show that Joseph and Mary did not live in one house. Other interpreters agree with Chrysostom. “Was found to be,” – became noticeable to outsiders. “From the Holy Spirit.” All the circumstances of which the evangelist speaks, distinguished by their miraculous character, are incomprehensible to us (see Luke 3:22; Acts 1:16; Eph 4:30).

Matthew 1:19. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. “Her husband,” – the word “husband,” by literal translation from the Greek, means literally husband, not betrothed. But it is clear that the evangelist uses this word in the sense of protector, guardian, and perhaps even betrothed. Otherwise there would be an obvious contradiction in his own narrative. In Holy Scripture the words “husband” and “wife” are sometimes used not in the sense of spouses. “Being righteous” – Hebrew “tzaddiq.” So were called people who were pious, always striving to fulfill the ordinances of the law. Why Joseph is called so here is clear. Seeing that Mary was pregnant, he thought that She had done something wrong, and since the law punished for evil deeds, Joseph resolved to punish Mary, although this punishment, because of his kindness, should have been light. The word “righteous,” however, does not mean “good” or “merciful.” In the Gospel one can clearly observe a struggle of feelings in Joseph’s soul: on the one hand, he was righteous, and on the other – he dealt mercifully with Mary. According to the law he should have exercised his power and punished Her, but out of love for Her he did not wish to expose Her, i.e., to disgrace Her, to tell others about Her and then on the basis of his telling demand the punishment of Mary. The word “righteous” is not explained by the expression “unwilling”; the latter is an additional and special participle (in Greek – a participle). Joseph was a strict observer of the law and, moreover, did not wish to expose Mary. The word “expose” is read in the Greek in different ways. 1. According to one reading “expose” (δειγματίσαι) should be explained thus: to set an example, to expose as an example. The word is rare, not used among the Greeks, and in the New Testament found only in Col 2:15. It may be equivalent to the expression: “simply to dismiss.” 2. In many other manuscripts a stronger word is used, meaning – to put to shame or to endanger, to expose and thereby to bring something evil, to deliver to death as a woman who proved unfaithful (παραδειγματίσαι). “Planned” – here in the Greek another word is used, not “unwilling” – means a decision, a desire to carry out one’s intention. The Greek word, translated as “dismiss,” means “to divorce.” A divorce could be secret and public. The first was accomplished in the presence of only two witnesses, without explanation of the reasons for the divorce. The second – solemnly and with explanation of the reasons for the divorce in court. Joseph resolved to do the first. “Quietly” can mean here both secret negotiations, without a bill of divorcement. This, of course, was unlawful (Deut 24:1), but a bill of divorcement, even if it were secret, would contradict the word used in the Gospel “quietly.”

Matthew 1:20. But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit; “But just when Joseph had resolved to do this,” – the word “resolved” in the Greek implies hesitations and doubts and even suffering, – “behold, an angel of the Lord...” The word “behold,” in Russian – “look,” is used mainly in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and gives special force to the speech that follows. The reader or listener is invited here to special attention. Then the evangelist recounts how Joseph’s doubts and hesitations were removed. An angel of the Lord appeared to the Virgin Mary in her waking life at the Annunciation, because on Her part there was required a conscious relation to the angel’s message and consent; the angel’s annunciation to Mary referred to the future and was supreme. Joseph is visited by an angel in a dream, choosing a dream as if an instrument or means, and moreover a less perfect one than a waking vision. The annunciation to Joseph did not have the same significance as the annunciation to Mary – it was simply a warning. “Angel” – means messenger, envoy, but here is meant not a simple messenger, but “the Lord’s.” As one can conclude from the Gospel of Luke, this was the Archangel Gabriel. He told Joseph in a dream (“Joseph, son of David” – in the Greek nominative cases instead of vocative), that he should not be afraid to take Mary, his wife. “Do not be afraid” – here in the sense of: do not hesitate to do something. “Take” – the interpretation of this word depends on whether Mary was in Joseph’s house or outside it. If She was, then “take” will mean the restoration of Her rights as a betrothed; if She was not, then, besides this restoration, the word will also mean the taking of Her into Joseph’s house from Her own house or that of a relative. “Your wife” – not in the sense of “as your wife.” The reason why Joseph should take Mary, – “the child conceived in her,” i.e., the not yet born or appeared Infant, but only conceived, therefore also neuter. From the time of the dream Joseph was to become the keeper and protector of both the Mother and the Infant.

Matthew 1:21. and she will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. “She will bear a son” – the verb (τέξεται) used is the same as in verse 25, indicates the act of childbirth itself (see Gen 17:19; Luke 1:13). The verb γεννάω is used only when it is necessary to denote the descent of children from a father. “And you are to name him” – (thus in the Greek; in the Slavonic and some Russian editions – “they will name”) instead of name, call, a future instead of an imperative, is used and in our language to express softened commands, sometimes completely not differing in form from the imperative (write, learn, look, look, and so on). “For he will save his people from their sins.” He, namely He, He alone, will save the people (Greek) His, i.e., a certain people, belonging precisely to Him, not to anyone else. First of all, the Jewish people is understood here – so Joseph could have understood these words; then people from every nation. However, from among the Jewish and other nations only those persons who are His followers, believe in Him, properly belong to Him. “From their sins” (Greek – his, i.e., the people’s) – not from punishment for sins, but from the sins themselves – a remark very important, pointing to the authenticity of Matthew’s Gospel. At the very beginning of the gospel announcement, when the subsequent activity of Christ had not yet become clear and defined, it is indicated that Jesus Christ will save His people from its sins, not from worldly subjection to secular power, but precisely from sins, transgressions against God’s commandments. Here we have a clear designation of the nature of the future “spiritual activity of Christ.”

Matthew 1:22. All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: It is not known whose words are given in this verse, those of the angel or of the evangelist. According to Saint John Chrysostom, “it is worthy of wonder and worthy of the angel himself that he cried out, saying.” I.e., according to Chrysostom, the Angel “directs Joseph to Isaiah, so that, having awakened, even if he forgets his words, as being completely new, being nourished by Scripture, he recalls the prophetic words, and at the same time remembers his words also.” Such an opinion is supported by some modern interpreters on the grounds that if we consider these words to belong to the evangelist, then the speech of the angel would appear unclear and incomplete.

Matthew 1:23. “Look, the virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will name him Emmanuel,” which means, “God is with us. The words cited by the Angel (or, according to another opinion, by the evangelist himself) are found in the prophet Isaiah (Isa 7:14). They are cited with minor deviations according to the Septuagint translation, and were spoken by Isaiah to the Jewish king Ahaz at the occasion of the invasion of Judah by the Syrian and Israeli kings. The words of the prophet refer most closely to the circumstances of his time. The word used in the Hebrew text and Greek translation “virgin” means literally a virgin who has borne a son in a natural way and from a husband (see Isa 8:3, where the same virgin is called a prophetess). But then the prophet’s thought expands; he begins to contemplate future events, which will come when there is a complete change in circumstances of his time – instead of an invasion of the Israeli and Syrian kings Judah will be subdued by the king of Assyria. He “will come through Judah, overflowing it and passing on, reaching up to the neck; and the spreading of his wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Emmanuel” (Isa 8:8)! If in the first prophecy one should understand an ordinary virgin, ordinary childbirth, and an ordinary Jewish boy named Emmanuel, then in Isa 8:8 by this name, as is evident from the words of the prophet, God Himself is meant. Although the prophecy was not related to the Messiah in the Talmudic writings, it is clear that it has a higher meaning. The Messianic application of the prophecy was made first in Matthew’s Gospel. If the words of verse 23 were the words of the Angel, then the expression “which means” and so forth should be attributed to the evangelist himself. This is a common Greek expression showing that a Hebrew word or words are translated or interpreted when translating from Hebrew to Greek. According to some interpreters, the expression “which means” serves as proof that the Gospel of Matthew was not originally written in Hebrew but in Greek. On the other hand, it was said that when the Gospel was translated into Greek, then already at that time this expression was inserted by the translator or by the evangelist himself.

Matthew 1:24. When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, When Joseph awoke from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded (properly, foreordained, established, determined) him.

Matthew 1:25. and had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. (See Luke 2:7.) In this verse first of all the words “until she had borne” need explanation, literally “until,” in the Slavonic translation – “until” (ἕως οὗ), until. According to ancient and modern interpreters, this word does not have the meaning: “until, consequently afterwards” (see Gen 8:7; Ps 89:3 and others). The correct explanation of this verse is as follows: the evangelist speaks only of the time “until” the birth of the Infant, and does not speak or reason about the subsequent time. In general “what happened after the birth, you should judge for yourself” (St. John Chrysostom). The word “firstborn” is absent in the Sinai and Vatican manuscripts. But in other manuscripts, less important but more numerous, this word is added. It is found in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 2:7), where there are no variations. It means and first – last, but not always. In some cases – the first son, followed by others. “He named him” – this expression refers to Joseph. He named the Infant according to the command of the Angel and by virtue of his authority as the lawful, although not natural father (see Luke 1:62-63). * * * According to popular understanding, neither in the kingdom of Judah nor in the kingdom of Israel did wickedness and strife ever reach such a development as in the days of Ahab, with whose house, through Athaliah, the kings Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were connected.