I recently updated all of the versions of the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament: Third Edition (ALT3). As I was reviewing the files, I came across the beginnings of a project I had thought of doing years ago, back in 2008. It was to be a commentary on each verse of the New Testament as translated in ALT3. I never pursued that project. But I did find a sample I had done, my commentary on Matthew Chapter One. I thought readers of this newsletter would be interested in those comments.

 

Commentary on Mathew:

Chapter One

 

¹A scroll of a genealogy of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham: [cp. Luke 3:23-38]

 

      Most versions begin the New Testament with “The book of the genealogy….” However, there is no definitive article (“the”) anywhere in this phrase. Therefore, the nouns should be indefinite as in ALT3 (using “a”), or the added definite article should be offset in brackets or italics.

      Also, “book” is not the best translation of the Greek word biblion. The more accurate historical translation is “scroll.” In the first century, paper pages were not bound into book form as today. Writing was done on long strips of papyrus, then rolled up into scrolls. Consequently, throughout the ALT, you will consistently see “scroll” where most versions have “book” (e.g., Luke 4:17; John 21:25).

      The lack of the article with “genealogy” (Gr. genesis) is appropriate since there is another genealogy of Jesus given in Luke 3:23-38. The two genealogies differ in many respects. These differences can be accounted for in several possible ways.

      The first possibility is that Matthew is tracing Jesus’ genealogy through His earthy father Joseph while Luke is tracing it through His mother Mary. Another possibility is that Matthew is giving Jesus’ legal ancestry and Luke the biological ancestry. Or finally, it is possible that one or more Levirate marriages were involved.

      A Levirate marriage is when a married man dies without leaving children, but then his brother marries the widow (see Luke 20:27,28). In such cases, either the dead brother or the biological father could legally be called the father of the child. This could explain why Matthew gives Joseph’s father as Jacob (1:16) while Luke has Eli (3:23).

      It is also possible that generations are being skipped. This is commonly done throughout Scripture. For example, in Ezra 7:3, six generations are skipped between Azariah and Meraioth as compared to 1Chronicles 6:7-11.

      The skipping of generations is not problematic given that “son” (Gr., uios) can be used in the more general sense of “descendant.” This can be seen in this verse in that Jesus is said to be the “Son” of both David and Abraham. But both of these men lived hundreds of years before the earthly life of Jesus.

 

            ²Abraham fathered [or, begot, and through verse 16] Isaac, and Isaac fathered Jacob, and Jacob fathered Judah and his brothers, ³and Judah fathered Pharez and Zarah by Tamar, and Pharez fathered Hezron, and Hezron fathered Ram, ⁴and Ram fathered Amminadab, and Amminadab fathered Nahshon, and Nahshon fathered Salmon, ⁵and Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz fathered Obed by Ruth, and Obed fathered Jesse, ⁶and Jesse fathered David the king.

 

      Most find reading the genealogies in Scripture to be rather boring. But these genealogies are important for several reasons. First, they show that God is concerned with not just “people” in general, but individual persons. He knows each of us by name!

      Second, the genealogies ground the Biblical narratives into real history. The Bible does not contain made up stories, but real stories about real people who actually lived (see 2Peter 1:16). The names mentioned in this paragraph are from narratives found in Genesis through 1Samuel.

      Third, and most importantly, this genealogy and the one in Luke trace the “roots” of Jesus. This is important as the OT prophesied that the Messiah would be descended from Abraham, Judah, and David.

 

      And David the king fathered Solomon by the [wife] of Uriah, ⁷and Solomon fathered Rehoboam, and Rehoboam fathered Abijah, and Abijah fathered Asa, ⁸and Asa fathered Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat fathered Joram, and Joram fathered Uzziah, ⁹and Uzziah fathered Jotham, and Jotham fathered Ahaz, and Ahaz fathered Hezekiah, ¹⁰and Hezekiah fathered Manasseh, and Manasseh fathered Amon, and Amon fathered Josiah, ¹¹and Josiah fathered Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

 

      If you have read the Old Testament (OT), these names in this paragraph should be familiar. They are all names of the kings of Judah and are found in 2Samuel, 1,2 Kings, and 1,2Chronicles.

 

            ¹²And after the Babylonian captivity, Jeconiah fathered Shealtiel, and Shealtiel fathered Zerubbabel, ¹³and Zerubbabel fathered Abiud, and Abiud fathered Eliakim, and Eliakim fathered Azor, ¹⁴and Azor fathered Sadok, and Sadok fathered Achim, and Achim fathered Eliud, ¹⁵and Eliud fathered Eleazar, and Eleazar fathered Matthan, and Matthan fathered Jacob, ¹⁶and Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom [Gr., es, feminine, singular] was born Jesus, the One being called Christ [“the Anointed One”].

 

      The names in this paragraph are not so familiar. That is because they are all from the intertestamental period. This term refers to the time period between the close of the OT with the book of Malachi in about 400 B.C. to the opening scenes of the NT in about 5 B.C. (the conception of John the Baptist, Luke 1).

      An important point in this paragraph is found in v. 16 as indicated in ALT3. The word “whom” is feminine, singular. This is important as it shows that Jesus was born only of Mary. If He had been the Son of both Mary and Joseph, then a masculine, plural pronoun would have been used.

      Another important point is that Jesus is the Christ. This word is simply transliterated from the Greek word Christos, which in turn, is a translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah. Both the Hebrew and Greek words mean “the Anointed One.” This phrase is a reference to the OT practice of anointing kings, priests, and prophets with oil at the start of their respective services. But Jesus is truly anointed in that He is King, Priest, and Prophet, all in one.

 

            ¹⁷So all the generations from Abraham to David [were] fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian captivity [were] fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian captivity to the Christ [were] fourteen generations.

 

      This paragraph is somewhat problematic. If you count out the generations, there are only 51 generations mentioned, not 52. This is because the last set only contains 13 generations. One way to evade this is to count Jeconiah twice, in both the second and third paragraphs.

      But it should be noted that there are generations skipped in this genealogy. Three names have been skipped between Joram and Uzziah: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (2Kings 8:24; 1Chr 3:11; 2Chr 22:1,11; 245:27). One name is skipped between “Josiah fathered Jeconiah,” that of Jehoiakim (2Kings 23:34).

      Matthew’s point is not to count out generations, but again, to trace the “roots” of Jesus. In doing so, it is legitimate to omit generations, to group names into arbitrary groups to keep things organized, and to count names twice in doing so. The important point is that the basic descent is accurate. And nowhere in early objections to the Christian faith is there any objection raised based on Jesus’ heritage.

      Until the Jewish temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the genealogical records were available, and it could be clearly sent that Jesus was descended from Abraham, Judah, and David, as the OT required the Messiah to be.

     

            ¹⁸Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this manner: For His mother Mary, having been promised in marriage to Joseph, before they came together [fig., had sexual relations], was found having in [the] womb [fig., to have become pregnant] by [the] Holy Spirit.

 

      Mary had been promised in marriage to Joseph. This was in the days of prearranged marriages. The parents would arrange marriages for their children. But in today’s terms, Mary and Joseph would be considered to be engaged. But the important point here is that Joseph and Mary, despite knowing they were going to get married, had not yet engaged in sexual intercourse.

      The reason this is important is that if this were today, you would be hard pressed to find an engaged couple who had not yet been engaging in sexual relations. I say this as I have talked to pastors and others who provide premarital counseling for engaged couples. Given today’s situation, they say they assume the couple is already having sex, unless they are given clear evidence that the couple is not doing so. But this situation is far from the Biblical model, as seen in the lives of Mary and Joseph.

      The most important point of this verse is that Mary become pregnant “by the Holy Spirit.” But we are not told exactly how this was done. But it was a miracle for a virgin to have become pregnant.

      However, it should be noted that if Mary had not been a virgin, then this whole story could not have happened. There would have been no way to know if Mary had become pregnant by whomever she had sex with or if it was a miraculous conception. It was only by her being a virgin that it could be clearly seen that a miracle had taken place.

 

¹⁹But Joseph her husband being righteous and not wanting to publicly disgrace her, intended to privately send her away [or, to secretly divorce her].

 

      The last word most literally means “send away.” But traditionally, it is translated as “divorce” in passages such as this one. However, there are some who believe the word refers to “sending away” a divorced spouse with a “certificate of divorce” (see Matt 19:7).

      Since Joseph and Mary were not yet married, “send away” might fit better here. But the important point is that Joseph obviously did not believe Mary when she told him she was pregnant but that she was still a virgin. Needless to say, that is hard to believe. Joseph assumed, as anyone would, that Mary had cheated on him. But again, if Joseph and Mary had been having sex, then there would have been no reason for this assumption. Joseph would have just assumed that the child was his. Thus again, if Joseph and Mary had been engaging in sexual intercourse, then the entire Christmas story would never have happened.

      However, in the Jewish culture of the times, most women knew not to engage in sexual intercourse before marriage. The reason was that most Jewish men would not consider marrying a woman who was not a virgin. Moreover, a man had a right to divorce his new wife if he found out on the wedding night that she was not a virgin. Importantly, Jesus appears to support this right in Matthew 5:31,32. That passage will be exegete when it comes. But here, it will just be noted that it was not just the culture of the times, but Jesus Himself who is teaching that sexual intercourse before marriage is wrong.

      Adding to this is that in the Jewish culture of the time it was very difficult for a single woman to support herself. Most women stayed in their father’s homes until they got married and then moved into their husband’s home after marriage. About the only “career” open to a single woman was prostitution. Therefore, either a woman remained a virgin until she got married or she became a prostitute.

      Moreover, for a woman to get pregnant out of wedlock was a great disgrace. That is why Joseph is said to be “righteous” for not wanting to publicly expose Mary’s apparent infidelity.

 

²⁰But while he was thinking about these [things], look!, an angel [or, a messenger] of [the] Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, you should not be afraid to take Mary [as] your wife, for the [Baby] in her was conceived by [the] Holy Spirit.

 

      Dreams are sometimes used in the Bible by God to reveal His will to people. But this is not to say all dreams are messages from God! Most are definitely not. But it does happen. And the important point here is that Joseph is now told how Mary because pregnant. She did not cheat on him. It was in fact a miracle, just as she had told him.

 

²¹And she will give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus [“Yahweh saves”], for He will save His people from their sins.”

 

      This verse summarizes the whole point of this narrative. Mary is to give birth to Jesus. The name Jesus means “Yahweh saves.” Some have seen in this meaning of His name support for the deity of Jesus. However, names at the time often used some form of “God” (Hebrew, elohim) or “Lord” (Hebrew, yhwh) in them. For instance, Ezekiel means “God will strengthen”(Fausset’s). But Jesus’ name does have significance. It summarizes Jesus’ mission—to save His people from their sins.

      But what is meant by “His people?” The most obvious answer would be the Jewish people. And it is true that Jesus said, “I was not sent except to the sheep, the ones lost from the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24).

      However, later Jesus would add, “And other sheep [i.e., Gentiles] I have which are not from this fold [i.e., the Jews]. These also it is necessary [for] Me to bring, and My voice they will hear. And they will become one flock [with] one Shepherd” (John 10:16). As indicted in ALT3, “the other sheep” are the Gentiles.

 

And Paul writes in Romans:

            ²⁵As also in Hosea He says: “I will call the [people] not My people, ‘My people;’ and the [people] not beloved, ‘Beloved.’ ²⁶And it will be in the place where it was said to them, ‘You [are] not My people,’ in that place they will be called sons [and daughters] of the living God.” [Hosea 2:23; 1:10]

 

      Therefore, Jesus’ mission was never only to the Jewish people; it was always intended that He would save Gentiles from their sins as well. Thus, God’s people are to be taken from all races. The fulfillment of this can be seen in Revelation 5:9:

 

      And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slain, and You redeemed us to God by Your blood, out of every tribe and tongue [fig., language group] and people and nation.”

 

      As such, “His people” is a reference to those who will believe on Jesus for their salvation. This can be seen in John 10, where Jesus first declares, “I am the good shepherd! The good shepherd lays down His life on behalf of the sheep” (verse 11). He then adds, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (verse 27). Consequently, you are one of Jesus’ “sheep” if you follow Him and trust in Him for salvation from your sins.

      But what does it mean to be “saved from sin?” Salvation from sin would entail first forgiveness from past sins. This can be seen in 1John 1:9 “If we shall be confessing our sins, He is faithful [or, trustworthy] and righteous that He shall forgive us our sins and cleanse [or, purge] us from all unrighteousness.”

      However, salvation from sin also includes the idea of being given the power or strength to refrain from sin. “Everyone having been begotten from God is not practicing sin, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to be sinning, because he has been begotten from God” (1John 3:9).

      The exact wording here is important, but it is missed in some translations. ALT3 correctly renders the idea of “practicing sin.” The text is not saying that born again Christians will never commit an act of sin. John previously denied that possibility in 1:8 of his first epistle. But what John is saying is that a lifestyle of sin is not possible for the born-again child of God.

      When a born-again person sins, the Holy Spirit will convict the person of sin and lead him or her to repentance. And true repentance includes a change of mind and desire brought about by the Holy Sprit to not sin again. In addition, the Holy Spirit will empower the person to avoid sin in the future. And being able to avoid sin is truly being set free from sin. This is what Jesus meant when He declared, “Therefore, if the Son makes you* free, you* will be free indeed!” (John 8:36).

 

²²Now this whole [thing] has happened so that the [word] spoken by the Lord through the prophet should be fulfilled, saying, ²³“Look! The virgin will have in [the] womb [fig., will conceive], and she will give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Emmanuel,” which is, being translated, “God with us.” [Isaiah 7:14]

 

      The fulfillment of prophecy is an important theme in the life of Jesus. And being born of a virgin was to be one “mark” of the promised Messiah.

      The preceding text showed clearly that Mary was in fact a virgin when she conceived Jesus. But some questions have been raised about the meaning of the word used here. The Greek word is parthenos. It is translated from the Hebrew word almah. In both cases, lexicons give “virgin” as a possible meaning; however, they also give “maiden” (Friberg, TWOT). “Maiden” means “a girl or a young unmarried woman” (Webster’s).

      As such, some claim the prophecy was not really about a virgin conceiving but simply an unmarried woman conceiving. However, “There is no instance where it can be proved that almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin” (TWOT).

      Moreover, the preceding discussion needs to be remembered. Unlike today, in the Jewish culture of the time, a young woman who had never been married was almost always a virgin. That is why one word could refer to both a virgin and a young unmarried woman since almost all women of the time they were one and the same. Again, only a prostitute would not remain a virgin until marriage.

      Finally on this verse, it is said that the Messiah would be called “Emmanuel.” Matthew tells us this word means “God with us.” Again, some find in this name support for the deity of Jesus. In this case, there could be some credence in this interpretation, as Jesus is never actually called “Emmanuel.” That destination was more a description of the nature of the Messiah than a true name. Therefore, this prophecy from Isaiah could have been preparing the Jewish people for the idea that the Messiah would in fact be God in the flesh.

 

²⁴Now Joseph, having been awakened from his sleep, did as the angel of [the] Lord ordered him, and he took his wife,

 

      This verse goes back to verse 20. Joseph realized that his dream was in fact a message from the Lord. And being the righteous man that he was, he believed the Lord’s message and took Mary to be his wife.

      This was actually a big step of faith, as the assumption of most everyone would be that he was the one who got Mary pregnant out of wedlock. And again, at that time, that was a disgrace. He would have appeared much better to his countrymen if he had gone through with his plans and sent Mary away. Then people would have assumed that Mary had cheated on him. But now, they would assume that he had sinned sexually with Mary by engaging in premarital sex.

      This assumption can be seen in John 8:41 when the Pharisees declare to Jesus, “We have not been born out of sexual sin [or, fornication].” Their implication was that Jesus was born of fornication; that His parents had engaged in premarital sex. This was a disgrace not just to the parents but to the child as well. But interestingly, this verse does show that it was well-known that there was something different about Jesus’ birth; that it was out of the norm.

 

²⁵and he was not knowing her [fig., was not having sexual relations with her] until which [time] she gave birth to her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

 

      This verse tells us that Joseph waited not only until they got married but until after Jesus was born to have sex with Mary. But they obviously proceeded to have a healthy sex life as Scripture tells us that they went on to have four more sons and at least two daughters (see Matt 13:55,56). At least, this is the most natural reading of this text.

      However, the Catholic Church claims Mary was “ever virgin”—that Joseph and Mary never had sex. This idea grew out of the belief in the post-apostolic Church that being single and celibate was somehow more “holy” than being married and having sex with one’s spouse. It also grows out of a debasement of sex.

      But there is zero Biblical evidence for the idea that Mary and Joseph never had sex. And this verse and the one about Jesus’ brothers and sisters is strong evidence that they did engage in sex.

      Some Catholics will claim that the word “until” in this verse does not necessarily indicate a change of behavior after the time period indicated. But it should be noted that there is actually a Greek phrase here, not just one word (eos ou). This is why ALT3 text has “until which [time.]” rather than just “until.”

      Compare the other places where this Greek phrase occurs in Matthew: 13:33; 14:22; 17:9; 18:30,34; 26:36. In all six of these verses this phrase does indicate a change in behavior after the time period indicated. For example, in Matthew 13:33, the woman mixes yeast into flour; but once it is thoroughly mixed, she stops mixing. Here, Joseph was not having sex with Mary; but once Jesus was born, he began having sex with her.

      Moreover, the most natural way to take “firstborn” is that there were other children born to Mary afterwards. If Jesus was Mary’s only Son, He would have been called her “only-begotten Son.” Compare Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38 where each person’s child is said to be the person’s “only-begotten” since they each only had one child.

      The important point here is being single and celibate is not a holier lifestyle than being married and having sex with one’s spouse. The Bible in no way debases marriage and marital sex. Sex within marriage is ordained and blessed by God (see Gen 1:28; 2:24). In fact, Paul tells married Christian couples to “Stop depriving one another” and specifically commands them to be having sex (1Cor 7:1-5).

      The point is, God is not against sex. He is the one who created it and made it so enjoyable. But He also knew that sex outside of marriage is detrimental even dangerous, both physically and emotionally.

      Think about the long list of sexually transmitted diseases that are rampant in our society. Of course, our society’s “solution” to these is condoms and vaccinations. But these are not foolproof methods. The only foolproof method for avoiding sexually transmitted diseases is abstinence. There is also the myriad of problems that are caused by women and even girls getting pregnant out of wedlock. And again, the only foolproof method for avoiding pregnancy is abstinence.

      But beyond these physical problems is the emotional turmoil caused by engaging in premarital sex. Sex has a way of binding people together, but when the relationship ends, as it almost always does when people are engaging in premarital sex, then broken hearts are inevitable. And after a string of such broken hearts, a person loses the ability to truly bond with someone. In fact, it could be said that the number one cause of divorce is premarital sex.

      However, if a couple waits until marriage to have sex, then their relationship and yes even sex life will be blessed by God, and their chances for a successful marriage are greatly increased.