The Determination of the Father (Eph. 1:5)

“He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.”

The word predestined (proorisas—aorist active participle) is a late and rare word, meaning to determine or decide beforehand. It is a compound word meaning to set a boundary and beforehand, thus to set boundaries beforehand. It refers to God’s predetermined plan and purposes. It is used twice in Ephesians (1:5, 11). It points clearly to believers being the objects of His predestination. God has predestined us to something. The emphasis is not on whom, but to what one is predestined. Predestination is an act of God the Father. He determined and decreed it. Election deals with Gods selection, while predestination deals with God’s determination or plan for those whom He selects. Thus, election and predestination are not the same, but they are connected. The object of predestination is “us,” i.e. believers. Unbelievers are never said to be predestined.

The preposition eis (to or unto), indicates direction or appointment and “adoption as son.” The object of the preposition is adoption. The Greek word is huiothesia, a compound word meaning a son and a placing, and “signifies the place and condition of a son given to one to whom it does not naturally belong.” (Vine, Expository Dictionary, 1:32). It is a term used only by Paul, and first employed and developed by him (cf. Rom. 8:15; 9:4; Gal. 4:5). There is good reason for this; it is a term that Jews know little or nothing about, for it was borrowed from Roman law. The term is not found in the Old Testament (LXX). Paul is a Roman citizen (Acts 22:28), he was raised under the Roman system in Tarsus. It is from his Roman background, not his Jewish background that inspired him to use the term. He is writing to Gentiles who knew and lived under Roman law. The word is rich in meaning for the believer. Barclay tells us how adoption under Roman law was carried out:

It was carried out by a symbolic sale in which copper and scales were used. Twice the real father sold his son, and twice he symbolically bought him back; finally he sold him a third time, and at the third sale he did not buy him back. After this the adopting father had to go to the praetor, one of the principal Roman magistrates, and plead the case for the adoption. Only after this was the adoption complete.

When the adoption was complete it was complete indeed. The person who had been adopted had all the rights of a legitimate son in his new family and completely lost all rights in his old family. In the eyes of the law he was a new person. So new was he that even all debts and obligations connected with his previous family were abolished as if they had never existed (DBS: Ephesians, 78).

What a picture this presents to us as believers. Notice the following aspects of the term adoption:

·        It is a forensic or legal term. This makes it very binding. The term and act provides security. A Roman father had the legal right to disinherit his natural children, but not his adopted child.

·        The term does not center upon the nature of the Christian, but upon the status and rank of the believer, our new position in Christ. “The point is that the one adopted acquired a new status, privilege, and property that would not have been available under his old father” (Hoehner, Ephesians, 197).

·        It was a twofold process. First, the son was released from the control of his natural father. Second, he came under control of his new adopted father. The old is done away with, now things are new. There is a new relationship and benefits. We are now sons (notice our text says “as Sons”) of God. The new father now has the right to control our lives and property. With this comes new responsibility to our new father—God.

The agency of the believer’s adoption is “through Jesus Christ to Himself.” The Greek preposition is dia (through), and has the idea “of passing between two objects through another object” (A.T. Robertson, Gramar, 581). This is in keeping with Jesus as the way to the Father (John 14:6). We come to God only through Jesus Christ. The words “to Himself” apply to God the Father, not to Jesus Christ. The whole context is what God the Father is doing and how He is doing it. God the Father is the subject (1:4). This action of the Father comes through Jesus Christ. The preposition through indicates the work of Christ on our behalf.

God choose and predestined us “according to the kind intention of His will.”  The proposition (kata, according to) denotes the standard of the Father’s action. It denotes that the action taking place conforms to the standard—“the kind intention of His will.” The Greek word translated kind intention is eudokia, meaning good pleasure or delight in. God acts in accordance to His own delight or pleasure of His will. His will is not arbitrary, but is controlled by His absolute positive character. God will never contradict His character. Nor can His will be influenced by something outside of Himself, this is especially true in the present context since these events were before the act of creation. The standard of God’s choosing and predestinating is the pleasure and satisfaction of His own holy, loving, and perfect will.

MATTHEW 2:15 AND HOSEA 11:1

Matthew 2:15 says the fleeing of Jesus to Egypt was to fulfill the Word of God: Hosea 11:1. It is charged that Matthew forces an interpretation to the words of Hosea that was never intended.  Barclay claims that Matthew “in his eagerness…finds prophecies in the Old Testament where no prophecies were ever meant” [Matthew, 1:27]. To many, Matthew’s interpretation appears to be arbitrary and have caused much discussion. Hosea 11:1 speaks of a historical event: the people of Israel going down to Egypt. Matthew’s method is to draw a comparison between the nation and the King of the nation. Dale DeWitt tells us, “The Old Testament is sometimes applied in an adaptive, expanded, or equivalent sense to both Israel and the church; when this is done, real visible or conceptual connections with the Old Testament source appear, so that a sense of historical reality and meaning continuity is sustained.” [DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY IN AMERICA DURING THE 20^TH CENTURY, 109].  Roy Zuck notes that “fulfilled” in some context like this one, points to an enlarging or heightening of Old Testament passages. That there are places were fulfillment is “not in the sense of prophecies being realized but in the sense that they are ‘filled with more meaning’” [BASIC INTERPRETATION, 269] Matthew compares and connects the history of Israel and Jesus:

Israel	Jesus
Born in the land	Born in the land
Fled to Egypt	Fled to Egypt
Baptized at the Red Sea	Baptized in the Jordan
40 years in wilderness	40 days in wilderness
Heard law from Mountain	Gave law from mountain
Experienced miracles	Performed miracles
Disobedient to God's Word	Obedient to God's Word

It is clear from the context that Hosea is not strictly a prophecy, but it is certainly a historical event.  Thus, the question that must be faced is how this passage can have a fulfillment?

First, notice the word fulfillment. It is the Greek word pleroo, which means to fill up or complete, thus fulfill. It does not necessarily need to be tied to a reference of predictive fulfillment. It can be taken in the sense of accomplishment or completion, such as an obligation or duty (cp Matt. 3:15). Thus, the word has a “broader significance than mere one-to-one prediction.” [D.A. Carlson, MATTHEW, 92]. Matthew takes the broader significance to make it appear that Hosea is predictive, thus a fulfillment of prophecy. That is not the case.

The answer how this is a fulfillment is simple. It is not a fulfillment or completion of predictive prophecy, but of a type. Types have to be completed, just as future prophecies must be. A “type is an Old Testament institution, event, person, object, or ceremony which has reality and purpose in Biblical history, but which also by divine design foreshadows something yet to be revealed.” [Donald K. Campbell quoted by Paul Lee Tan, THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY, 167]. A type is never spoken of as future, yet it speaks of future things. Paul Lee Tan is correct when he reminds us that:

            Prophecies and types both point to things future and are predictive in their natures. Types, however, are to be distinguished from prophecies in their respective forms. That is, a type prefigures coming reality; a prophecy verbally delineates the future. One is expressed in events, person, and acts; the other is couched in words and statements. One is passive in form, the other active [Tan, 168].

Types are indirect pictures of Christ or New Testament truth. They are found in Old Testament events, places, and individuals that make historical connections between the two testaments. Such examples are the Passover, the brazen serpent, the temple, Melchizedek, among many, all of which find fulfillment in the person of Christ, actions and events in the life of Christ, or truths found in the New Testament. The fulfillment is not directly predicted in the type, but is clearly seen in retrospect through the eyes of inspiration by the writers of Scripture. Matthew does not say Hosea is in direct fulfillment of prophecy, but he is saying it is a fulfillment or completion of a type by means of a historical connection. Christ going to Egypt and being called out of Egypt is connected with the history of Israel. Matthew’s key seems to be not only the historical event, but also Jehovah’s expression “my son.” In this expression, Matthew saw a correspondence of God’s greater Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, the history of Israel anticipated the life of Israel’s Messiah. Jesus was the “typological recapitulation of Israel” [Carson, 91]. Matthew interprets the passage correctly. He did not use it as a springboard for an unrelated homily. He did not exegete Hosea in a way that is unrelated to the original meaning. Instead, Matthew drew a relationship between the two events. For Matthew, Israel’s history is connected to Jesus’ history by the means of sonship (Exodus 4:12, Matthew 2:15). This does not deny the historical-grammatical understanding of the passage in Hosea, but affirms it so that the correspondence can be made. John Walvoord observes about the correspondence between the two events: “In both cases, the descent into Egypt was to escape danger. In both cases, the return was important to the providential history of the nation Israel” [Matthew, 23]. 

Book Review: WHY FOUR GOSPELS?

BY DAVID ALLEN BLACK

There seems to be two trends in the study of the Gospels. First, the Q Hypothesis is being abandoned among many scholars. Second, there is a new look on the subject of Markan Priority. This book does both. It is an introduction to what Black calls the Four Gospel Hypothesis. It makes a case for a return to Matthew as the first Gospel written and interdependence of the Gospel tradition. He calls for a return to taking the Patristic witnesses seriously, and stop paying lip service to their writings. For too long scholars have devalued, ignored, or denied these sources. He relies heavily on these witnesses, which “utterly fails to support the priority of Mark at any point” [p.32]. He sees the synoptic Gospels springing from what he classifies as phases of the apostolic period, with John being a late supplement to the other Gospels. He maintains that each phase provided circumstances and the need for each Gospel. The essence of this hypothesis:

• 
  The Jerusalem Phase (30-42 AD; Acts 1-12). He views the Gospel of Matthew was the manifesto of the mother church of Jerusalem.
• The Gentile Mission Phase (42-62 AD; Acts 13-28). This Gospel of Luke was written to (1) to produce a version of Matthew’s Gospel that would meet the spiritual needs of the Gentiles. (2) To make sure the modified version would be acceptable to Peter and the Twelve.
• The Roman Phase (63-67 AD). Written by Mark as a joint action by Peter and Paul to help verify Luke’s Gospel. The Gospel of Mark was Peter’s record to add another eyewitness of the written record.
• The John supplement. Written to make clear the primary objective of Jesus throughout his public ministry is to win over the spiritual authorities in Jerusalem. John supplements what is not in the synoptic Gospels.

Black views Matthew as the priority Gospel, and states that this hypothesis does away with the need for the so-called Q document, as well as Markan priority. He sees Luke using Matthew and Mark using both Matthew and Luke. The weakness is that the presentation is brief and concise [only 78 pages]. Also it is not clear how he comes to some conclusions or speculations concerning Mark. The detail for support is limited, giving only the major arguments. This is because it was written as an introduction or handout for teaching a course. However, there is enough to whet the appetite of the student and stimulate his thinking. I hope he expands his views in a deeper in further publication of the hypothesis. There is a good biography for students to use to explore the synoptic problem. The present work was written for his students, pastors and well studied laymen. However, most laymen will have a hard time understanding this complicated subject of the synoptic problem. For those who have an interest in this subject this work should not be overlooked, even if there is little or no agreement with his views. I found the ideas interesting and worthy of consideration. It also left me with questions and a desire for more study of the subject. It is a succinct alternative position to the popular view of the synoptic problem.

Spurgeon Quote

A man who fears not God, will break all his laws with an easy conscience, but one who is the favorite of heaven, who has been indulged to sit at royal banquets, who knows the eternal love of God to him, cannot bear that there should be any evil way in him that might grieve the Spirit and bring dishonor to the name of Christ. A very little sin, as the world calls it, is a very great sin to a truly awakened Christian.

From a sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon entitled "Self-Humbling and Selfsearching," delivered January 15, 1871

Notes on the SABBATH

We are often told by certain religious teachers that worship on Sunday is wrong, or that Sunday is the new Sabbath. Neither is true. In the Bible we see:

The Creation Sabbath (Gen. 2:3)

After the six days of work on creation we are told that God rested. The Hebrew word Sabbath, meaning “to cease, or to rest.” However, nowhere in this passage is there any instruction to keep the Sabbath. It was not a commandment until Israel became a nation, hundreds of years later.

The Beginning of the Sabbath as a Day of Worship (Ex. 16:23)

The first mention of the Sabbath is on the occasion of the giving of the manna while Israel was on their wilderness journey. It is a command given to Moses for the nation Israel to observe. The language of the text indicates this is a new step in God’s relationship to Israel. There is no indication that Israel had a previous understanding of the Sabbath. Nor is the Sabbath said to be observed before this point in time by man. The purpose of the Sabbath:

• It is a sign between God and Israel (Ex. 31:13). It is clear that the Sabbath was not given to all mankind, but to the nation Israel. Its purpose is NATIONAL in scope.
• It is a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt (Deut. 5:15). It is a memorial to God, not as Creator, but as Deliverer. He Delivered the nation of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt.
• It is for the purpose of worshiping God by the nation of Israel (Lev. 23:3).

The Sabbath in the Gospels.

Those who promote Sabbath keeping try to prove that Jesus taught that it was for all mankind. Their proof text is Mark 2:27—“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” They falsely conclude that since it was made for man and not just the nation Israel, we must obey and observe the Sabbath. It must be pointed out that the only mankind that was commanded it keep the Sabbath was the people of the nation of Israel. No Gentile nation or person was given such a command. Christ was speaking to the nation of Israel when he made the observation. Jesus Himself kept the Sabbath because He was a Jew, “born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4).

The Sabbath in Acts

In the book of Acts there is no mention of the Sabbath except in connection with the Jews and Jewish evangelism (Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4). Notice in each case it a Jewish synagogue that the meeting is taking place, never a church meeting. Paul met on the Sabbath in established Jewish synagogues to preach Christ to them. In contrast, when Paul meets with believers, he does so on the first day of the week (Acts 10:7). Here they had assembled to “break bread” (i.e. communion) and hear the Word. This Scripture points out the fallacy that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday around 300 AD by Constantine. Scripture indicates otherwise; while the Jews met on the Sabbath, believers and the church met on Sunday.

The Sabbath in the Epistles

Paul mentions the Sabbath only twice. First, in Colossians 2:16-17 there is a list of which we are not to let anyone judge us, including “a Sabbath day.” Note it is found in the context of legalism. Paul explicitly condemns those who would judge people on the basis of the keeping of the Sabbath and other legalistic rituals (cf. Gal. 4:9-11). There are two reasons for this:

• The Law has been nailed to the cross and “cancelled” the ordinances against us.
• The foods, festivals and Sabbath were “a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ (Col. 2:17). Thus to cling to a prophetic shadow after the reality of substance came is wrong. The substance replaces the shadow.

The other reference is Hebrews 4:9. Sabbath keepers point to this verse in pride: “There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” (While the KJV translates it only as rest, the Greek word is Sabbath—“sabbatismos”). They maintain this means we are to obey and keep the Sabbath. However, notice the following:

• The main subject of the passage is not the Sabbath, but the subject of rest. The word rest is found nine times in this chapter. The Sabbath rest remains, but not the Sabbath. There is a difference.
• The Sabbath rest is identified as “His rest” (Heb. 4:1). This is the rest Israel failed to enter into because of unbelief (Heb. 3:12-19). It could not be the rest of the Sabbath (Saturday), for they had entered and observed it faithfully. Rather, it was the true spiritual rest offered by God of which the Sabbath was a shadow of “His rest.” His rest can only be entered into by faith, not by an outward observance.
• True believers have entered this rest (Heb. 4:3).
• The true Sabbath rest remains (Heb. 4:9). It is not found in a special day of the week, but in Christ. He is the substance. Why is this a Sabbath rest? Because believers have found rest from work (Heb. 4:10). Just as God rested from his work of creation, we can rest in His work of redemption. It is a true rest. We have ceased to work for our salvation and do not depend on our own works to keep our salvation (Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8-9). Our faith rests in Christ, not in a day of the week.

"Grace is something that comes to us which we don't deserved. Peace is something that happens within us which is not in any way affected by our external circumstance. With grace from above and peace within, who wouldn't have cause for rejoicing?"  - Chuck Swindall, LAUGH AGAIN, 37

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

First in the order of the Gospels, and in the hearts of many Christians, is the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew is important for a number of reasons:

First, it is the bridge Gospel. It is the Gospel, after 400 years of silence, which carries us from the Old Testament to the New Testament. It is the bridge that carries us from the promise of the Messiah to the fulfillment of Messiah in Jesus Christ. The hope of Israel had arrived in the person of Jesus, and Matthew’s aim is to show that Jesus is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament Scriptures. Those Scriptures have been fulfilled.

Second, it records the life of Jesus Christ and His teachings on the Kingdom. It is the teaching Gospel. It is built around five discourses given by the Lord (Matt. 5-7; 10; 13; 18; 24-25). It is impossible to understand the ministry and writings of Paul without knowing the life and ministry of Christ. In fact, there would be no apostle Paul or the Church, the body of Christ, without the historical Christ and the events of His ministry on earth. It is foundational that we understand why He came, was rejected, and why the earthly Kingdom did not come at that period in history, if we are to understand our position and relationship in Christ today.

Third, it is important dispensationally. It reveals that Israel’s hope of the Messiah has arrived in the person of Jesus Christ, and that the promise of the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. It clearly teaches that the Kingdom of Heaven was the earthly kingdom which was promised and predicted in the Old Testament. Christ came to fulfill the Law, and He gave the laws of the earthly kingdom in the Sermon on the Mount. It relates the Gospel of the Kingdom and Israel’s need for repentance to enter the Kingdom. Likewise, Matthew clearly reveals that the nation was not ready to receive the King or His Kingdom.

Fourth, Matthew reveals important inter-dispensational principles about the Kingdom of God. This does not deny the coming earthly kingdom, but explains the principles of God’s kingdom. When Christ taught of the coming earthly kingdom, he taught that its foundation was Righteousness (Matt. 5:6, 20); a foundation in all God’s dealing with man, even today. We need to see the dispensational distinctions of the Gospel, but we also need to see the inter-dispensational or continuing principles that are common to all dispensations and the universal Kingdom of God. However, it must be pointed out that these inter-dispensational principles are given within the context of the coming Messianic earthly Kingdom.

Prepositions and the Spiritual Blessing List

Ephesians 1:4 ff

“In love” (1:4). These words have been much debated as to what they modify. The debate is over which verse this prepositional phrase applies, verse 4 or verse 5. [Remember, the verse numbers are not in the original text, but was added later. The verse breakdowns are man made.] In other words, should the verses read: “be holy and blameless before Him in love” (1:4). Or should it be taken as the beginning of verse 5 and be taken to read, “In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself.” Translations and commentators are divided. The debate centers upon two views and the arguments of each side have merit. Eadie (Ephesians, 28) correctly says the phrases “position is difficult to assign. Much may be said on either side.”

First view places the phrase “in love” in connection with the phrase “holy and without blame” (KJV, NKJV).  This position holds that it fits best with the rhythm and structure of the passage favors this view. Normally the modifying phrases follow the action words in this context (cf. vv. 3, 6, 8-10), however that is not without debate. They point to the fact that the phrase four out of five times follows the clauses it modifies (Eph. 4:2; 15; 16; 5:2). These instances point to human love, not divine love. Thus, it balances out holiness and blamelessness which is affected by love. (See Harold Hoehner, EPHESIANS, 184). This is in keeping with the use of agape, which refers often to human love in Ephesians. However, a major problem with this is that it reduces holiness, blamelessness, and love to the moral level. While the Scriptures are heavy on a moral lifestyle, it is unlikely here in this context. A statement counseling moral behavior would not be appropriate in the eulogy which is designed to honor God and His actions on our behalf.

The second view says it goes with verse 5, as today’s major translations (NASB, NIV, TEV, RSV) connect it with “having predestined us.” This is more likely in the context. In the context of verse 4 and 5, the phrase seems to point to divine motive, i.e. God acted in love. His love is what motivated God to foreordain believers to position of sonship by adoption. The view is more natural. “Love is implied in predestination.” (Eadie, 30). By it modifying predestination it shows the motivating factor in the choice of God as His love, nor ours. As Chafer says, “His love is the dominating motive in all that he does. For this reason it is probably correct to relate the phrase ‘in love’ which occurs at the end of verse 4 with the beginning of verse 5. It is in love that He predestinated us.” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, EPHESIANS, 39). This may be considered redundant for predestination in itself indicates love. However, it brings out this truth openly, so there can be no question as the motivating factor that stands behind our predestination. Paul is not leaving it to chance, but making sure that God’s love is recognized in the process of His choice. “The reference to love implies that God’s purpose originates in and is controlled by His love; it is not an arbitrary exercise of power” reports Best (EPHESIANS, 16).

It may be normal for the modifying phrases to follow the action words, but that is disputed in this section in verses 4, 8, 10. The structure of this long Greek sentence (1:3-14) broken down in English (sentence structure of the NASB) shows a pattern of prepositions before the action words.

• Sentence 1
  
  Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places]in Christ,  just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.
• Sentence 2
  In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed in the Beloved.
• Sentence 3
  In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished on us.
• Sentence 4
  In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will according to His kind intention which he purpose in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, [that is,] the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.
• Sentence 5
  In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestinated according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praises of His glory.
• Sentence 6
  In Him, you also, after listening to the message of the truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s (own) possession, to the praise of His glory.

It is noted that this long sentence is a list of the blessings God grants to us. There is a clear pattern. Each sentence begins with the Greek preposition in (ev), after the first initial propositional sentence is before the action. In each case the preposition is locative, stating at the beginning of each sentence the sphere in which the following action is taken. It helps place the emphasis on what it should be: God. In each case it is the emphasis is on the action of God and not our doing or work. This to me is the best way to structure these “in” phrases in this context.

Christendom is rapidly losing sin-consciousness, which means losing God-consciousness; which means eternal doom.  - William R. Newell

The Action of Joseph

Matthew 1:24-25

(Last of a series on Matthew 1:18-25)

Joseph action was that of obedience, for he was an obedient man. Joseph replaced his plan with faithful obedience to the Word of God. He did not ask for confirmation; he did not need to, for the Word had been given, the action needed was obedience. There is no need for additional guidance when the Word clearly tells us what to do.  The need is only to obey. In spite of the fact of what people may think and say, Joseph acted in confident faith that he was doing the will of God. “Joseph…did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife” (1:24). He places his willingness to obey above his own honor. To take Mary as his wife, it would be naturally assumed by others that Mary had been unfaithful, or that they violated their vows before marriage. The child would be early fueling speculation. Mary and Joseph elect to take on disgrace, embarrassment, and humiliation to maintain the blessedness of God’s call.

He made the Child his own. Two things are marked in the text: First, he made Mary his wife. Second, he named the son Jesus.  Both actions completed the legal “adoption” of Jesus as Joseph’s son.

Not only was Joseph a righteous and obedient man, he was also one of great restraint and self discipline.   He “did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son” (1:25). The couple had no sexual contact until after the birth of Christ. The euphemism of “know” is common in the Bible for the sexual contact. “Mary was to be a virgin not only at the point of conception but also at the point of giving birth” (Nolland, MATTHEW, 103). The reason for the abstinence is not explained; except it takes away any doubt and confirms the conception was supernatural in origin. It also makes clear that perpetual virginity is not taught in this statement, or in Scripture. They enjoyed and had a sexual relationship after the birth of Christ is clearly indicated. The facts are that Mary and Joseph had other children (Mark 6:2-3, Matthew 12:46; 13:54-56). There were at least four half brothers and two half sisters. They are half brothers and sisters because Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. These are not Jesus’ nephews and nieces, nor are they Joseph’s children from another marriage, as some would suggest. Luke 2:7 says Jesus was her “firstborn” son, indicating there were other sons after this birth. Perpetual virginity violates the clear meaning of Scripture. It is clear that Mary and Joseph entered fully into married life after the birth of Jesus. These brothers and sisters were not virgin born. Matthew clearly states that the virginity of Mary was limited. It was “till” the birth of Christ. To hold to the perpetual virginity is wrong scripturally. It is wrong morally, because it downgrades the dignity of marriage. It is wrong doctrinally because it deifies Mary.

Matthew simply records the fact of the birth, not the details. The continuance of Joseph’s obedience is seen in the fact that “he called his name Jesus.” A name above all names.  He is the God-man—the Savor.  His humanity is seen in his genealogy. His Deity is seen in the virgin birth. Gaebelein notes:

If Matthew 1:1-17 were all that could be said of His birth, He might then have had a legal right to the throne, but He could never have been He who was to redeem and save from sin. But, the second half before us shows Him to be truly the long promised One, the One of whom Moses and the prophets spake, to whom all the past manifestations of God in the earth and the types, pointed. (MATTHEW, 27).