Matthew Chapter 1

James Trimm’s Nazarene Commentary on Matthew Chapter 1

1:1

1:1  These are the generations of Yeshua the son of David, the son of Avraham

The Hebrew reads:

אלה תולדות ישוע בן דוד בן אברהם

There is a special beauty in the exact Hebrew wording which we find here. This reading opens Matthew (and the entire NT) with a phrase that parallels that of the Torah. The Torah opens with:

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

(In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth)

Both phrases have exactly seven words.  Both phrases can be divided into two halves: The first three words form an initial phrase and the last four words give us two short phrases of two words each.

אלה תולדות ישוע

Here Yeshua is being generated.

בראשית ברא אלהים

Here Elohim is creating.

In both cases creation/generation is the second word and the noun is the third word.

In Gen. 1:1 Elohim is creating and in Mt. 1:1 Yeshua is being generated.  The next two phrases also parallel:

בן דוד בן אברהם

and

את השמים ואת הארץ

In both cases we have two phrases in which an initial word points to the word following.  In Matthew the two phrases point to the words דוד (David) and אברהם (Avraham) as the source of the generation taking place.  In Genesis the two phrases point to the two words השמים (the heaven) and הארץ (the earth) as the object of the creation taking place.  It is as if Mt. 1:1 is intended to present the inverse concept of Gen. 1:1 with parallel sentence structure (very similar to antithetic parallelism)  In Gen. 1:1 Elohim creates the Heavens and the Earth.  In Mt. 1:1 Yeshua is generated by David and Avraham.  In Gen. 1:1 ELOHIM generates the creation and ironically Mt. 1:1 has the creation generating the Messiah.  The Tanak begins with ELOHIM generating the creation. Matthew begins with the creation in turn generating Yeshua

1:3, 5, 6

Tamar… Rachav… Rut… the wife of Uriyah… Females are not normally listed in ancient Jewish genealogies,  It has been suggested that these women were listed to specify the mothers in cases of polygamous marriages.  However, the mother’s names are not listed in many instances that were clearly polygamous (such as Solomon’s marriage).  A more likely suggestion is that these women were included to highlight a history of unusual mothers in Messiah’s pedigree.  the wife of Uriyah  (2Sam. 11) Matthew does not call her the wife of David, or name her, but reminds us of David’s shortcoming by calling her the wife of Uriah.

1:8

Y’horam begat Uziyahu

The names of three kings are omitted here.  These are added back in Old Syriac (c), however they are clearly not part of the original text of Matthew, since verse 17 in Old Syriac (c) still counts only fourteen names.  It was not unusual for ancient Hebrew genealogies to be abbreviated and omit names.  For example if we compare the genealogy of Ezra as given in Ezra 7:1-5 1 with that given in Chron. 6:4-15 we find that the later genealogy given in Ezra also has omitted names.

1:11 

Y’khanyah

Tovia Singer and other anti-missionaries have claimed that the presence of Jeconiah in Yeshua’s genealogy disqualifies him from being Messiah due to the supposed “curse of Jeconiah” as we read in Jeremiah:

24 As I live, says YHWH, though Coniah the son of Yahuyakim king of Y’hudah were the signet upon My right hand, yet would I pluck you thence;
25 and I will give you into the hand of them that seek your life, and into the hand of them of whom you are afraid, even into the hand of N’vukhadretzar king of Bavel, and into the hand of the Chaldeans.
26 And I will cast you out, and your mother that bore you, into another country, where you were not born; and there shall you die.
27 But to the land whereunto they long to return, there shall they not return.
28 Is this man Coniah a despised, broken image? Is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? Wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into the land which they know not?
29 O land, land, land, hear the word of YHWH.
(Jer. 22:24-29)

However if we look in the Book of Haggai we find that Elohim appears to have reversed this curse:

23 In that day, says YHWH Tzva’ot, will I take you, O Z’rubavel, My servant, the son of Shealtiel, says YHWH, and will make you as a signet; for I have chosen you, says YHWH Tzva’ot.’
(Haggai 2:23)

Note the use of the term “signet ring” in each passage.

The Talmud seems to agree with this concept that the curse was reversed. It says:

Rab Judah said: Exile makes remission for three things, for it is written, Thus saith the Lord etc. He that abideth in this city shall die by the sword and by the famine and by the pestilence; but he that goeth out and falleth away to the Chaldeans who beseige you he shall live and his life shall be unto him for a prey. R. Johanan said: Exile atones for everything, for it is written, Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. Whereas after he [the king] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of Jechoniah, — the same is Assir — Shealtiel his son etc.33 [He was called] Assir,34 because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel, because God did not plant him36 in the way that others are planted. We know by tradition that a woman cannot conceive in a standing position. [yet she did conceive standing. Another interpretation: Shealtiel, because God obtained [of the Heavenly court] absolution from His oath. Zerubbabel [was so called] because he was sown in Babylon. But [his real name was] Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah.

Footnotes:
33. I Ch. III, 17. Notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven.
34. Which He had made, to punish Jechoniah with childlessness.”
(Sanhedrin 37b – 38a, Soncino Talmud Edition)

Also the Midrash Rabba says:

. . . they made the Calf and deserved to be exterminated, and I would have thought that He would curse and destroy them, yet, no sooner had they repented, than the danger was averted, And the Lord repented of the evil (ib. XXXII, 14).And so in many places. For example, He said about Jekoniah: For no man of his seed shall prosper (Jer. XXII, 30) and it says, I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations… In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, My servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make thee as a signet (Hag. II, 22 f.). Thus was annulled that which He had said to his forefather, viz. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah were the signet upon My right hand, yet I would pluck thee thence (Jer. XXII, 24).
(Numbers Rabbah XX:20)

And Midrash Pesikta Rabbati says:

R. Joshua ben Levi, however, argued as follows: Repentance sets aside the entire decree, and prayer half the decree. You find that it was so with Jeconiah, king of Judah. For the Holy One, blessed be He, swore in His anger, As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakhim king of Judah were the signet on a hand, yet by My right – note, as R. Meir said, that is was by His right hand that God swore – I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24). And what was decreed against Jeconiah? That he die childless. As is said Write ye this man childless (Jer. 22:40). But as soon as he avowed penitence, the Holy One, blessed be He, set aside the decree, as is shown by Scripture’s reference to The sons of Jeconiah – the same is Assir – Shealtiel his son, etc. (1 Chron 3:17). And Scripture says further: In that day . . . will I take thee, O Zerubbabel . . . the son of Shealtiel . . . and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). Behold, then, how penitence can set aside the entire decree!
(Pesikta Rabbati, Piska)

1:13

Av’ichud begat Av,ner

There is a well known mistake in the Greek text of this passage. While the text itself claims to give three lists of fourteen names (Mt. 1:17), the Greek text contains only 13 names in the last list:

14 names from Abraham to David:

1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Esrom
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon
11. Boaz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David

14 names from David to the carrying away to Babylon

1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa
5. Jehosaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezekias
11. Manases
12 Amon
13. Josias
14. Jehonias (carrying away to Babylon)

13 names from carrying away to Babylon to Messiah

1. Salathiel
2. Zorobabel
3. Abiud
4. Eliakim
5. Azur
6. Sadoc
7. Achim
8. Eliud
9. Eleazar
10. Matthan
11. Jacob
12. Joseph
13. Yeshua/Jesus

Now the DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew contains the missing Name “Abner” which occurs between Abiud and Eliakim in the DuTillet Hebrew text of Mt. 1:13. In Hebrew and Aramaic “d” (ד) and “r” (ר) look very much alike and are often misread for each other. In this case a scribe must have looked back up to his source manuscript and picked back up with the wrong name, thus omitting “Abner” from the list. The Greek text must have come from a Hebrew or Aramaic copy which lacked the name “Abner.” There is amazingly clear evidence for this. The Old Syriac Aramaic version of Matthew was lost from the fourth century until its rediscovery in the 19th century. This ancient Aramaic text has “Aviur” where the Greek has “Aviud” thus catching the error in a sort of “freeze frame” and demonstrating the reliability of the reading in the Hebrew.

The Hebrew versions of Matthew that have come down to us may be categorized into two basic text versions. The readings we find in the DuTillet, Munster texts exhibit a great deal of agreement with each other, with only minor variations from text to text. We will call this the “Traditional” Hebrew text. On the other hand, the Shem Tob text, while having a direct relationship with the Traditional Hebrew text, is a very different Hebrew text with many layers of corruption.

Recently I have been looking at the marginal notes in an edition of Hebrew Matthew published by Johannes Quinquarboreus Aurilacensis (YQA) in 1551. JQA was a student of Sebastian Munster.

Muster had published an edition of Hebrew Matthew in 1537 from a manuscript he stated that he had obtained from “among the Jews”. JQA republished Munster’s Matthew text with marginal notes offering alternate readings. Unfortunately JQA did not tell us from where he derived these alternate readings? Were these readings his own Hebrew translations of Greek or Latin versions of Matthew or were that from other manuscripts of Hebrew Matthew?

I recently found a clear answer to this question while reviewing these marginal notes. I noticed that JQA gives a marginal note to אביהוד (Abihud) which reads נא אבנר. נא is a Hebrew abbreviation meaning “in another version” and אבנר is the name “Abner”. This reading makes it clear that these are alternate readings from other Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew. This is because this reading is a key variance in the DuTillet Hebrew version of Matthew.

1:16

Ya’kov begat Yosef he that had betrothed Miriam the virgin, from whom was born Yeshua who is called Messiah. (Matt. 1:16)

The DuTillet Hebrew reads:

יעקוב הוליד את יוסף איש מרים שממנה נולד ישוע שנקרא משיח

In this passage there is a major variance between the Alexandrain and the Western text types.  The later Byzantine text type followed the Alexandrian type.  The Peshitta Aramaic was revised to agree with the Byzantine text type, however the Old Syriac retains the original reading.  (The final phrase “who is called the Messiah”)  is best preserved in the Peshitta and in Old Syriac (s).  The reading of Old Syriac (s) is heretical (suggesting that Yosef was the actual father of Yeshua) but this is almost certainly a scribal error, since the virgin birth is specified both in this verse and in other parts of the Old Syriac (s).  The following are some of the primary readings of this passage:

The reading of Old Syriac (s) is

יעקוב אולד ליוסף יוסף דמכירא הות לה מרים בתולתא אולד לישוע דמתקרא משיחא “Ya’akov begat Yosef, Yosef that had betrothed to him Miriam the virgin, begat Yeshua that is called Messiah.”

Andrew Roth has proposed that the reading of this verse in the Peshitta resolves the problem of the missing name in the genealogy of Matthew 1:1-17 without including the name “Avner” from 1:13 of the DuTillet text (which he regards as a product of the Middle Ages).  Roth’s solution understands the word גברה to mean “father” and thus understands the passage to mean: “Ya’akov begat Yosef, the father of Miriam who from her was born Yeshua who is called Messiah.”

By this theory the “Yosef” of this passage was not Yeshua’s step father, but Miriam’s grandfather (whom this theory maintains was also named “Yosef”).  There are, however, several problems with this theory:

1.  The textual evidence suggests that the word גברה was not even in the original text, since the Old Syriac and the Western Text in general (supported by The Old Syriac, Old Latin, Greek Western Type (f13, Q) and Latin column of Codex D)

2.  There is no evidence that גברה was used the mean “father” rather than “man” or “husband” in Biblical times.

3.  In light of the evidence presented in the commentary to 1:14, there is no missing name in the original Hebrew.

4.  The evidence indicates that Matthew gives Yeshua’s genealogy through his step-father Yosef (through whom he was heir to David’s throne) while Luke gives Yeshua’s genealogy theough his mother Miriam (see my soon to be published commentary to Luke 3:23).

1:17

fourteen generations…fourteen generations…fourteen generations…

The Messiah is shown to be the product of three sets of fourteen generations.  The Messiah is shown to be the son of fourteen because he is the son of David (see Matthew 1:1) and the  gematria (numerical value) of the word David (דוד) is 14.  Why three sets of 14 generations?  Because 3 * 14 = 42 and Messiah is also mystically shown to be the Son of Eloah and the gematria of Eloah אלוה is 42.  42 is also the gematria for אמא ”mother” (see notes to Jn. 16:18) and כבודי ”My Glory”.

1:18

And the birth of Messiah was this way:  After his mother Miriam was betrothed to Yosef, before he came unto her before ever they drew near one to to other, the Ruach HaKodesh found her pregnant. 

Messiah – The Alexandrian and Byzantine texts (followed by the Peshitta and the DuTillet Hebrew) have “Yeshua the Messiah” however the Western Text (Old Syriac, Old Latin and Latin Vulgate) read simply “Messiah”.  The ancient “Church Father” Irenaeus (2^nd century) writes of this passage:

 Matthew could have said “The biרth of Yeshua was thus…”, but the Holy Spirit foreseeing detractors and anticipatinע their deceitfulness says through Matthew “The birth of Messiah was thus…”

“betrothed” The Hebrew has אורשה (‘erusah).  Betrothal was a custom similar to “engagement” in many respects, but of a much more serious level.  A couple would become betrothed, often about a year before getting married, and the husband would go and build a home for his new bride.  A couple who were betrothed could only end their betrothal with a divorce, and a woman whose betrothed died, was regarded as a widow.  In a Jewish wedding today, the betrothal and wedding take place at the same time.  The couple are betrothed in the first portion of the ceremony, and then they would step forward and stand under the chuppah (canopy) for the actual marriage.  The chuppah represents their new home. 

The Aramaic (Old Syriac and Peshitta) has מכירא (m’kira) “betrothed” literally meaning “to buy or sell” as it is used in the Talmud (b.Sukk. 56a; b.Bat. 64b; b.Kidd. 6b).  The ancient Hebrews “purchased” their brides, as Ya’kov served Laban to “purchase” his wives (Gen. 29:18).  The price by which a bride is purchased is laid out in the Ketuvah (marriage contract) and is symbolized today by the wedding ring.

1:19

And Yosef her husband was a righteous man

The Hebrew word for “righteous” here is “Tzadik”.  A Tzadik in Judaism is a very special individual.  They are known as the “Pillars of the World” because their righteousness sustains existence (b.Hag. 12b; b.Yoma 38b; Bahir 71).  In other words Yosef was so righteous, that he was one of a handful of individuals for whose sake Elohim was sparing the world of his judgment (compare Genesis 19).

not willing to deliver her up to death and to expose her Following the Hebrew of DuTillet which reads ולא אבה למסור אותה למיתה ולא לגלותה The Aramaic of the Old Syriac reads לא צבא הוא דנפרסיה למרים “was not willing that he should expose Miriam”. In his commentary on Matthew, Ish’odad writes of this verse:

Nevertheless Yoseph was just and merciful… for his justice oppressed him, that he should not allow an adulteress within his house; and his mercy counseled him, that he should send her away privately; because he knew that he would deliver her to death if he exposed her…

Thus illustrating a balance of gevurah (justice, severity) with chesed (mercy, grace).

And the Apocryphal Protoevangelion of Ya’akov reads:

And if I expose her to the children of Israel, I fear lest she being with child by an angel, I shall be found to betray the life of an innocent person.
(Protoevangelion 10:15)

1:21

21 And behold, she will bear a son, and you will call his name Yeshua; for he will save his people from their sins.

“Yeshua” means “salvation” so that the passage is a wordplay in the Hebrew “You will call his name ‘Salvation’ for he will save his people from their sins.

his people There appears to be a scribal error in the Aramaic between “his people” (לעמה) Old Syriac (S) and Peshitta and “the world” (לעלמא) Old Syriac (C)

1:22-23

22 And all this was to fulfill what was spoken of from YHWH by the prophet Yesha’yahu, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.

See comments to Isaiah 7:14 also Isaiah 9:6 and Gen. 3:15

virgin – DuTillet עלמה Old Syriac and Peshitta: בתולתא

1:25  and he had no intercourse with her until she had born her son, <the firstborn:> and he called his name Yeshua.

The remez (implied meaning) of this verse seems to be that after Yeshua’s birth (and of course after Miriam’s days of purification) Yosef and Miriam consummated the marriage, having normal sexual relations.  This would conflict with the Catholic dogma of the “perpetual virginity of Mary”.

Under Construction