Category Archives: MATTHEW

BIBLE QUESTIONS, JESUS CHRIST, MATTHEW

HOW DOES THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION DIFFER FROM THE VIRGIN BIRTH — BOB PRICHARD

The virgin birth refers to the birth of Jesus Christ in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, made more than seven hundred years before His birth. “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us” (Matthew 1:18-23).

Mary, the mother of Jesus was a virgin when she conceived Him. She and her betrothed husband Joseph had never “come together” sexually. The child she conceived was the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16), conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit. Thus the conception of Christ was unique in all history. His actual birth, although very humble, was a normal birth. Thus the virgin birth really has more to do with the conception of Jesus Christ than it does with His actual birth.

The immaculate conception is the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without “original sin,” and then remained a sinless virgin throughout life. This  idea has no basis in scripture. While it is true that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ, she did not remain a perpetual virgin. Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth a son” (Matthew 1:25), implying Joseph did “know her” later. Mary and Joseph had other children, the brothers and sisters of Jesus (Matthew 13:54-56). 

Mary was not sinless. “All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, the “lamb without spot” (1 Peter 1:19) is the only exception. Christ had no need to offer sacrifice for His sins, because He had none (Hebrews 7:27). Mary, however, had to offer a sin offering (Luke 2:22-24; Leviticus 12:6-8). Only sinners would need to offer a sin offering. Mary was not without sin.

The Bible does not teach “original sin,” the idea that all human beings inherit Adam’s sin. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20). Mary was born pure, like every other child, but then made her own choices about sin. Mary was a great woman, but nothing in the scriptures indicate that there was anything unusual about her birth.

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, JESUS CHRIST, LUKE, MARK, MATTHEW

DID JESUS MAKE HIS TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM ON ONE OR ON TWO ANIMALS? — BOB PRICHARD

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all record the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem. Mark and Luke record the instructions of Jesus to the disciples to go into the village to “find a colt tied, whereon never man sat” (Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30). John also mentions only one animal (John 12:12-18). Matthew, however, mentions two animals: “an ass tied, and a colt with her” (Matthew 21:2). He then adds, “And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon” (Matthew 21:6-7). While all four accounts agree that Jesus rode on the colt, Matthew’s mention of the mother donkey seems to be contradictory. Why did Matthew include this detail, when the others did not?

Matthew stressed that what happened that day was in fulfillment of prophecy. Zechariah prophesied “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass” (9:9). The gospel writers emphasized that the colt had never been ridden, which would indicate that the colt was still dependent on the mother. Thus it would have been much easier to lead the colt through the excited multitudes if led behind its mother, since it was untrained to follow a roadway. Matthew highlights the detail that the animal Jesus chose to ride was a colt, by mentioning its mother. The other writers simply omitted mention of the mother of the foal.

But did Jesus ride on one animal, or two? While the language of Zechariah 9:9 seems to say He rode two animals at once, it is merely a reflection of the Hebrew way of stating things in poetic parallelism. Psalm 24:1 shows similar parallelism: “The earth is the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” “Earth” and “world” are parallel in meaning, repeated for poetic emphasis. The disciples “brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes [thus making a saddle out of their clothes], and they set him thereon” Matthew 21:7). Some have thought that Matthew was saying Jesus was riding both animals, but what Matthew was really saying is that the disciples set Jesus on the clothes-saddle, not on the two animals.

Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords entered Jerusalem on a lowly colt, fulfilling to the minutest detail the prophecies concerning the Messiah. He did not enter riding the white charger of an earthly king but as the Prince of Peace on a lowly beast of burden. In response, the whole city of Jerusalem was moved. “And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strowed them in the way. And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?” (Matthew 21:8-10). 

“Lift up your heads, O ye gates; And be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; And the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, The Lord mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; Even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; And the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory.” (Psalm 24:7–10). Jesus, the King of Glory comes in peace, acclaimed by the people, and crowned with praise.

BIBLE QUESTIONS, JESUS CHRIST, MATTHEW

WHO WERE THE WISE MEN WHO CAME TO SEE CHRIST? — BOB PRICHARD

“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him” (Matthew 2:1-2). A star led these wise men, called in the original Greek text the magoi (thus often called the Magi, today). This word is rendered “sorcerer” in Acts 13:6-8, describing a false teacher named Bar-Jesus, and is rendered “astrologer” in Daniel 1-2. The general purpose of the wise men was to give advice to a king, and especially to interpret dreams and omens.

Daniel and his friends were wise men in Babylon. “Then the king commanded   to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to show the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king” (Daniel 2:2). Among the wise men at any king’s court might be many magicians, astrologers and sorcerers. Astrology, the superstitious study of “signs” found in the heavenly bodies, and astronomy, the scientific study of the heavenly bodies, were linked at that time. It would appear that the wise men who came to see Christ were astronomer-astrologers, because they had observed some special star, and were aware that the star signified a special birth.

It was natural that the wise men would first go to Herod, king of Judaea, to find out what his court knew about the birth of a new king. The wise men probably served in the court of another king in the east, but likely knew little about the Jews or Herod. All that Herod’s advisers could tell him was that Micah prophesied Bethlehem to be the birthplace of the king. “And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel” (Matthew 2:4-6).

The arrival of the wise men at Bethlehem was probably not at the time of Christ’s birth, as is usually thought, because He was no longer in the manger, as Luke described, but was now in a house. “When they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh” (Matthew 2:11). Although a popular holiday song proclaims that these wise men were “three kings,” they were advisers to kings, rather than kings, and although they brought three gifts (gold, frankincense and myrrh), the Bible does not reveal how many of them there were. They might have been only two men, or many more than three.  

The reason that they were truly “wise men” is that they followed the light from God. Wise men still follow the light of God’s written word. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psalm 119:105).

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, JESUS CHRIST, MATTHEW

DID THE PROPHETS SAY CHRIST WOULD BE “CALLED A NAZARENE”? — BOB PRICHARD

After describing the birth and early years of the life of Jesus, Matthew tells us that Joseph, having obeyed God by going down to Egypt, returned to Galilee, to Galilee, “and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23). There seems to be a problem, however, in that there is no Old Testament prophet who said, “He shall be called a Nazarene,” and the city of Nazareth is never mentioned in the Old Testament.

Some have suggested that Matthew meant a Nazarite, rather than a Nazarene. A Nazarite took vows of holiness, never cutting his hair, avoiding any contact with dead bodies, and generally living a very austere life. Some of the prophets did refer to the holiness of the Messiah, but none said He would be a Nazarite. John the Baptist may well have taken a Nazarite vow, but Jesus, who was called a glutton and a winebibber, and who touched the dead to bring them back to life, would not have been a Nazarite. Surely Matthew understood the difference between a Nazarite, one who had taken a Nazarite vow, and a Nazarene, one who was from the city of Nazareth.

A more likely explanation for Matthew’s statement that “He shall be called a Nazarene” lies in a play on words, specifically the Hebrew word “branch,” that would have been very obvious to the Jewish readers who were the target of his gospel account. Matthew stressed that Jesus was “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1), as he showed that Jesus was the fulfillment of the words of the prophets as the One who was the promised Messiah-King. The Hebrew word for “branch,” neser is very similar to the root word of Nazareth. Isaiah had prophesied of the Messiah, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots” (Isaiah 11:1). Of this Branch, he said, “the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD” (Isaiah 11:2). The prophet Zechariah said, “Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH” (Zechariah 3:8).

Matthew’s statement, “that which was spoken by the prophets” (2:23), is a general statement, not necessarily indicating that any of the prophets specifically said, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” Elsewhere, when Matthew speaks of fulfilled prophecy, and he has a specific quotation in mind, he names the prophet, or says “the prophet,” rather than “the prophets.” His general statement indicates that a general teaching of the prophets was that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene.

There is significance in being called a Nazarene. To be a called a Nazarene was to be called “from the backwoods,” to be unsophisticated. When Philip told Nathanael, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth,” Nathanael commented, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:45-46).  Many of the prophets said the Branch, coming from humble beginnings, would be despised and rejected by men. Jesus was treated as a “Nazarene” by the religious authorities of His day.

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, JESUS CHRIST, MATTHEW

WAS JESUS BORN IN A HOUSE, AS MATTHEW SAYS, OR IN A STABLE, AS LUKE SAYS? — BOB PRICHARD

Critics of the historical accuracy of the Bible often find what they believe are contradictions among the writers of the gospel accounts because there are some differences between accounts. Remember however, that a difference is not necessarily a contradiction. The differing accounts of Matthew and Luke concerning the Christ child are a good case in point. 

Luke describes the birth of Christ: “Joseph also went up from Galilee … unto Bethlehem to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:4-7). Matthew described the arrival of the wise men from the East: “When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh” (Matthew 2:10-11). Mark and John do not discuss the birth of Christ. They surely knew the details, but chose to write about other things.

The apparent contradiction between Luke and Matthew comes about from the preconceptions of the readers. There are many things “everybody knows” about the birth of Christ, which are not so. One of those Bible facts that everyone seems to “know” is that the wise men came on the night that Jesus was born. In fact, the differences between the accounts of Matthew and Luke indicate that it is highly unlikely that the wise men came on the night Christ was born, because Matthew’s account indicates that Joseph, being a good husband and father, had arranged for his family to move from the stable into a house by the time the wise men arrived. While this might have happened the night Christ was born, more than likely they were not able to move into the house for a few days, if not weeks after the birth of Christ. The fact is, Matthew does not give any details of any particular place where Christ was born, except that it was in Bethlehem, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah 5:2.  “For thus it is written by the prophet, and thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel” (Matthew 2:5-6).  

The wise men [not kings, despite “We Three Kings”] brought three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh, which were all very precious. It is unlikely that just three men would have traveled this great distance to carry such a costly gift. Most people assume that there were three wise men because there were three gifts, but Matthew does not give any indication of how many wise men there were. It is important in studying the Bible to read what is there, not what we think is there! The Bible is God’s revealed Will to mankind. It is not contradictory. “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, JESUS CHRIST, JOHN, MARK, MATTHEW

WHY DID JESUS REFUSE, AND THEN ACCEPT THE “VINEGAR” OFFERED AT THE CROSS? — BOB PRICHARD

As they took Jesus to Golgotha crucify Him, “They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink” (Matthew 27:34). Mark described the drink given to Christ as “wine mingled with myrrh” (Mark 15:23). What Matthew and Mark were describing was a cheap Roman vinegar wine which had a drug mixed in to dull the senses. It was the Roman custom that they would offer a man undergoing crucifixion this drugged wine so that he might more easily endure his cross. Jesus refused this wine, however, apparently so that he would be able to undergo His suffering with a clear mind.

As Jesus neared death, he said “I thirst” (John 19:28). One of the natural physical effects of crucifixion was great thirst due to the loss of body fluids. David predicted the death of Christ saying, “They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (Psalms 69:21). John recognized this fulfillment of prophecy: “After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst” (John 19:28). In the fulfillment of this prophecy, Jesus demonstrated His humanity. One of the heresies at the end of the first century was the idea that Jesus was not really human.  In his description of Jesus, however, John demonstrated that Jesus was both truly man and truly deity.

John described the last moments of the life of Christ, saying, “Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost” (John 19:29-30). Jesus was at the point of death and wished to say His final words. His parched throat and lips needed moisture, so He accepted the vinegar.

It is significant as to how the vinegar was offered to Jesus. “They filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.” Any Jew who saw the hyssop would immediately think of the night of the first Passover when each family was to slay a perfect lamb and put its blood on the door post, so that the death angel would pass over.  Moses had commanded the Israelites, “Ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning” (Exodus 12:22). It was the blood of the Passover lamb that saved the Israelites from death. On the cross, the perfect lamb of God gave His life’s blood so that men could be saved.

His last words from the cross were, “It is finished.” Jesus came to serve and to carry out the will of the Father. In His life, His ministry, and His death, He perfectly fulfilled the will of His heavenly Father, and made the perfect sacrifice for mankind.

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHRISTIAN LIVING, MATTHEW

IS IT SINFUL TO “JUDGE” SOMEONE ELSE? — BOB PRICHARD

Most people would assume that is is sinful to judge another person. After all, Jesus said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). Because of this statement, many have assumed that it is sinful to correct anyone, because this would mean that one is “judging.” But is it even possible to go through life without ever judging, or discerning between what is right, and what is wrong?

Paul wrote, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:1-2). How can one determine that his brother is “overtaken in a fault,” without “judging” him? To say, “You cannot condemn my actions, because that would be judging me,” is to say that nothing can ever be determined to be wrong. This idea promotes a moral indifference that nothing is really sinful, and as long as you condemn no one else’s sin, no one can condemn your sin.

Jesus qualified  his teaching about judging: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (Matthew 7:3). Jesus commanded, in very “judgmental” terms, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). When you remove the beam from your own eye, then you will be in a proper position to help your brother remove the speck from his eye.

Paul said for the spiritual to “bear one another’s burdens,” and to restore the man “overtaken in a fault.” He said that this was done “in the spirit of meekness.” Meekness, a part of the fruit of the Spirit, is the key to proper judging  of the works of another. Meekness is closely related to humility and childlikeness. Jesus said that His followers must humble themselves as little children, if they are to enter into the kingdom.  “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3-4). If we approach the faults of others from the standpoint of meekness and humility, we can properly “judge” them. That is, when we act out of humility and weakness, we will have no thought for our own pride, but will with childlike sincerity correct one another.

In talking about how each member of the body of Christ, the church, is to work together, Paul said that we are to be “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Is it more loving to leave a person in his sin by saying nothing, or is it more loving to “judge” him, and try to help him leave his sin? If we are truly “speaking the truth in love,” correcting one another in a spirit of meekness, we will please God.

CHRISTIAN LIVING, MATTHEW

WHO’S IN CHARGE? — BOB PRICHARD

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24).

The old saying warns, “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” The thought is that someone (hopefully the best cook), will be in charge, without everyone trying to make the soup. The same is true of the “soup” of our life. Many voices, many masters are clamoring for control of our lives. Mammon, “material wealth” is especially loud in demanding our attention. But as the rich fool learned, what matters is being “rich toward God” (Luke 12 21).

How to be rich toward God is simple: we make Him the Master of our lives. He is the pilot of our lives, the guide for all we do. Knowing that He is our Master, so many decisions of life are simplified. We look to Jesus, because, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).

Is it any wonder that so many are in hot water today because of their divided loyalties?