Matthew 1:18-24 Bible Teaching

WELCOME PRAYER Matthew 1.18-24 January 18th 2026 So, we left off last week covering the genealogy of Yeshua verses 1-17 and we will wrap up chapter one this morning beginning at verse 18. Instead of reading from the King James I am going to actually read from the AR or Apostolic Record Version of Matthew we finished a while back – there are very few differences except in moment of King James obscurity which we tried to clear up through simpler wording that accords with the Greek. So here we go. 18Now the birth of Yeshua the Christ happened like this: When his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. I want you to just sit in this line for a moment – “now the birth of Yeshua the Chrst happened like this.” The birth of . . . Yeshua the Christ. The single most momentous day in the history of human kind, the pivotal beginning of the end of Satan’s reign over the earth, therefore death, hell, and sin that separated humanity from God, the fulfilling of the law and therefore what should have been, “a knowledge of sin” because Paul said, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Now the birth of Yeshua . . . was on this wise, happened like this . . . When his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. The King James uses the antiquated term, “betrothed” where we have said engaged. In that day, between an engagement and the marital consummation there was typically, according to Genesis 24:55 and Judges 14:8 an interval lasting ten to twelve months. However, and according to Deuteronomy 22:25 and 28) the nature of this engagement was such that if either party was unfaithful to each other it was considered adultery. Matthew clearly wants to illustrate that his origins were not natural because he includes the line, When his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, before they had sex, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. In Luke 1:35 The angel Gabriel tells Mary, she will conceive “by the Holy Spirit,” with the angel explaining, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" This is one of the scriptural supports that helps define the Holy Spirit as the power of God as it says, “and the POWER of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” Going back to Isaiah 7:14, he, by the same power of God wrote, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,” a name that means, “God with us,” in Hebrew. At verse 23 Matthew will reference this passage in Isaiah, the first from many he will take from the Old Testament. Now, you might recall from the introduction last week how we pointed out the practice of the writers of the Apostolic Record was sometimes to borrow passages from the Old Testament that explicitly mean one thing and assign them to a different interpretation in the narrative to believers in that day. Many higher critics of Christianity maintain that Isaiah, when he said, “behold a virgin shall conceive” criticize this prophecy as supportive of the virgin birth because one, the Hebrew word translated to virgin, (almah) does not mean virgin but only means, “a young woman,” and therefore it was not a prophecy of a literal virgin birth and that men created a mythology about Yeshua’s origins by reappropriating that Hebrew word to mean virgin and assigning it to Christ. While it is true that the Hebrew word in the Hebrew text only means young girl, the Septuagint translation of the text uses the Greek word, Parthenos, which is the same word used by Matthew and Luke, and Parthenos, which conveys a young woman with added cultural meaning. While true that neither the word almah nor parthenos literally means virgin, parthenos directly describes a young woman of purity. We even have secular support for this interpretation as the Greek edifice called the Parthenon literally means "House of the Virgin" which is a direct reference to Athena the Virgin. Let’s put it this way. Instead of the terms meaning a person who has never had sexual intercourse, the word convey this as part of the whole description. We might see the terms like we would understand the description of a Roman or Greek “bathhouse boy” – there is direct implication of what that boy was used for in that time. For a Hebrew or a Greek to call a young woman an almah or a Parthenos, was akin to calling her an innocent, not sexually defiled girl. It does not mean, virgin, but the inference is clear. We will see and we will believe what we want to see and believe, but siding with research, logic, context and reason, looking to that culture in Isaiah’s time, it was implicitly understood that Mary was an innocent young woman, with indirect reference etymological references being that her “breasts were just beginning to develop.” Like the denial of the resurrection, the denial of the virgin birth is central to skeptics and they use these little cracks to escape from belief in the miracle of His human beginnings. Why is the conception and birth of Christ from a virgin important to His make-up as Lord and Savior? Primarily, it uniquely establishes Yeshua as both divine (the Son of God) and human, (born of a woman). In other words, all the rest of us were born of human parents – not a human mother and God, who is Spirit, as our father. To be born of human semen and human ovum makes us entirely of this earth and entirely of the flesh, which would make Yeshua nothing more than a unique leader at best but to be conceived of the human ovum of an innocent young girl and the Power of God overshadowing her, automatically makes Him from conception, from both heaven and earth, spirit and flesh. Some ask, “well wasn’t his mother’s flesh sinful from the Fall and wouldn’t that be transferred to Christ?” Interestingly, the placenta serves as a filter between the blood of the mother and the blood of the child, and the child develops their own blood supply. So Mary’s contribution to her son was the biological human ovum. The idea that Yeshua would have inherited Mary’s sin nature caused two things to develop over time which create a problem with regard to this idea – First, it challenges the idea that we are sinful at birth because of Adam’s fall – something men created called, “original sin” which teaches that all of us are sinners by virtue of Adam and Eve sinning and we are sinful (from the womb). I reject that notion entirely but suggest that while as humans of two human parents and are totally wrapped in a sinful selfish nature with capacity to sin (because of Adam) no human being inherits Adams literal sin for disobeying God – only the capacity, which admittedly tends to overwhelm all of us really quickly in mortality (if not before – I mean, aren’t in utero creations entire selfish, seeking to take all they can from their motherly hosts bodies as a means to survive?) But the second thing this created was the Catholic idea that it was necessity to make the conception of MARY immaculate so that she did NOT have sin, and therefore when she conceived Christ she was a pure vessel in order to bring Him forth without the original sin they claim. All this is from the mind of men and something I also personally reject. Reeling it all back in, I see things much simpler. Mary’s human tendency to sin (established by Adam) was inherited by her baby biologically) but his Father’s sinless nature and inability to sin was present from conception too. This combination made Him one of a kind. Over decades (even centuries of time), early Christian leaders decided that they needed to work out a way to explain this unique nature of Christ, and developed the man-made teaching that He is 100% God and 100% human or fully God and fully man. Sound reasonable but not really logical because 100% is everything, and to have two 100% is non-sense. But early Church Fathers like Clement (c. 150-215 AD) and Tertullian (c. 150-225 AD) articulated the idea of Yeshua as both God and man, laying foundational concepts for the later creed. In 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea Yeshua was claimed to be “fully God, but the specific union of divine and human natures was still being defined. In the 381 AD Council of Constantinople the doctrine of the Trinity had evolved, serving to create this perfect storm of human logic to codify God and then in 451 AD (Council of Chalcedon) this council produced the definitive Chalcedonian Definition, stating Jesus is "one person in two natures, divine and human, unconfused, unchangeable, indivisible, inseparate". So essentially, while the official creed of Him being 100% God and 100% man came in 451 AD, but the concept emerged from centuries of theological discussion, with early Christian writers and councils gradually defining this core Christian belief, which is mindlessly repeated on out in almost every Christian church today. As with most things held up as true over time, there is truth involved but there is also error. The problem I have with the fully God and fully man idea is not that He wasn’t a genuine material fleshly human being, nor that He had the fullness of God in Him (that is supported by the text) the problem I have is with this idea being connected and then blended with the doctrine of the Trinity which describes Yeshua as fully God from all eternity, the second person of the Godhead, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that this person is what inhabited the fleshly body of the Man because when THIS idea is included there are all sorts of illogical results that DO NOT accord with scripture. So, how do we respond? We suggest the following: That the Preincarnate existence of what became the Man Yeshua of Nazareth was not a person but was God Himself in the form of God’s logos – referred to as His word in the text. That Mary was by definition a pure young virgin whose material ovum was fertilized by the very Power of God that overshadowed her, making God the Father of her child. That what inhabited her child, from conception, was fully God and NOT a preincarnate, co-equal, co-eternal second person of the Trinity but the very Logos (heart) of God. And that He would be (and here is where we challenge 2000 years of man-made doctrine) a human being, named Yeshua of Nazareth, whose Father (because He was a human being) was God. And that instead of Him being seen as 100% God and 100% man, He was (listen closely) a little less than God by virtue of His human flesh, and a little more than man by virtue of the fullness of God in Him. A hill to die on? Not at all. If you want to follow the 100% / 100% Trinitarian logic – go for it. Admittedly, it was created by a lot of so-called informed men much closer to the day than now and has lasted 2000 years so it could be correct. But doctrine certitude does not save us to the Kingdom – neither is an absolute right understanding of the ontology of Christ, but faith alone – and we suggest even faith that is errant at times. But as we move forward – even today – you will see problems with what men have created relative to the text and we suggest that these problems warrant investigation. Theologically, the conception of Christ by the virgin Mary by God’s Spirit (and not of the Second person of the Trinity) is super significant as it illustrates God actively intervening to fix humanity's problems created by our first parents, reminding believers that salvation comes through divine action first, not human. Secondly, it clearly signals Yeshua as a unique human being, the first of God’s new creation, distinct from all others born naturally, making material and spiritual redemption possible. Finally, if Yeshua was like us, he too would be sinful therefore needing His own savior and the virgin birth ensures that He was rightly and from the get-go the “sinless and anointed one” qualified to save others and therefore making His life lived, His death, His resurrection, His ability to ascend into the Holy of Holies above and His ultimate victory over all things possible. Another early swipe at the man-made doctrine of the Trinity is also right here in verse 19 as Matthew writes, When his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. If the creedal teaching of the Trinity stands, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate persons (as it maintains), distinct as three co-equal and co-eternal larry moe and Larrys or manny moe and jacks, as separate and distinct eternally as butcher, baker and candle-stick maker, and if we take the scripture literally, then Yeshua would be the separate and distinct Son of the (person) of the separate and distinct Holy Spirit and not of the separate and distinct person of the Father. This is a theological problem that directly confronts the Trinity. Understand, we readily accept what the text says, and receive that it was the power of God (by His Holy Spirit) that Yeshua was conceived, but to make that Spirit a person destroys the scriptural teaching that clearly maintains that God the Father created Him. Trinitarians will fall back on this and say, “Well the three persons are one,” but that is intellectually dishonest, and serves to only prove they would rather live in that murky space than see the obvious contradiction their man-made doctrine creates and pursue truth. Verse 19. 19And Joseph her husband, being just and not willing to expose her to shame decided to quietly divorce her. Joseph apparently and naturally assumed that Mary had gotten pregnant by another man but being a good soul chose to simply privately divorce her (which was allowd according to Deuteronomy 22:25-28; 24:1). Already we have the first evidence of what the presence of Christ within us – even within the life of His own mother – brings. Suspicion. Doubt. Claim of what you are saying is impossible and from some other naturalistic reason or impulse. On several occasions I have publicly been taken to task on my claim that Christ is in me and that I came to see this in what I refer to a roadside experience in 1997. I’ve have atheists (from John Dehlin and Anthony Magnabosko, to Bill Reel and even my own brother) try to assign my claim to this event as something else – that my miracle was self-induced, the product of my own making, psychologically driven, a crutch, and/or even of the Devil. What could a young innocent girl say to winding up prego when the only means of procreation was physical and material. The physically materially oriented lacking or rejecting the Spiritual metaphysical side of things, can only believe and receive what is tangible, provable, observable and then worst of all, traditional or according to the laws and ways of this world. Not so with Mary. Not so with the man-born blind and not so with me in my own experience. Can you imagine the women of Mary’s day? The scripture doesn’t mention it but living under a 1500 year culture of the Law, she had to be subject to scorn, ridicule and accusation and in this we readily witness that when people stand for the Invisible God who makes all things possible, when the challenge the ways and traditions of this world on behalf of God’s work in them, there will always be accusations of “crazy, insanity, delusions and worse yet, deception.” We know that she certainly faced some sort of shame because Matthew writes that Joseph was going to take action against the charge against her under the law NOT of fornication, but of adultery – one of the worst crimes a woman could commit in that age. Verse 20 20But while he (Joseph) thought on this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said, “Joseph, son of David, do fear not to take Mary as thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Which is another claim of what inseminated her – God through the Power of His Spirit NOT the person of the Holy Spirit. As an aside, because of the man-made, human, spirit of Man teachings of Joseph Smith, Jun, who claimed that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible was mans, and ignoring these verses that clearly lay the power of God to Yeshua’s conception, the LDS have historically taught that God the Father, in that Body of flesh, had actual sexual intercourse with Mary, siring Christ. I refer to things like this as, Twistianity, and add them up in a collective that only leads to Mormonism being a doctrinal paradox compared to sound biblical exegesis. The angel of the Lord speaking to Joseph then adds, 21And she will bear a son, and you will call his name YESHUA, for he will save his people from their sins. Seven biblical figures were given names before their birth: "Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, John the Baptist and Yeshua." The name of the Messiah was important enough for God to send an angel directly to tell Joseph what it should be. Yeshua is the same name as Joshua, which is a contraction of Jehoshuah mentioned first in Numbers 13:16 and then 1st Chronicles 7:27 which literally means, “Help of YAHAVAH." What is interesting is the Hebrew name, Hoshea, which means, saved or a savior or salvation but the addition of the Ya to it (making it Yahoshea) suggests that it literally means, God (YA) saves. The first time the name, Joshua the son of Nun is mentioned was by Moses in Exodus 17:9 and he was captain-general of the Hebrews under Moses and when Moses (the Lawgiver) died, Joshua became his successor. Numbers 13:16 tells us that he was first called, Hoshea but later Moses refers to Him as Yeshua. Both in the Septuagint and Greek Testament he is called Yeshua showing that He was a foreshadowed type of our King. This Yeshua (who we refer to as Joshua) led the nation into the Promised land, fighting against and conquering the enemies of his people and after delivering them into the promised land divided it to them by lot according to their tribes. All of these parallels would be apparent to an informed Jew and it has been said that the name Yeshua was favorite among Hebrew women birthing sons in they hoped theirs would be the fulfillment of the promised Messiah to come. Of course, the paradox of this is had these mothers known the life and death such a son would live and experience they probably would not have been so quick to want their son identified with such – but they believed the Messiah would be a earthy Savior with an earthly Kingdom that would save them instead of a Messiah with a heavenly Kingdom that would save them from their sins. So their misguided understanding persisted. Yeshua became Jesus through a linguistic journey, just like many of his original teachings became something different from the original intent. Again, his original Hebrew name (Yeshua, meaning "Yahweh saves") and this was adapted into Greek as Yay-sous (which dropped the "sh" sound of Joshua or Yeshua and replaced it with an "s" because Greek has no “sh” sound). This name was then “Latinized” to “ae-yesus, and finally Anglicized to Jesus in English, with the "J" sound developing much later in the medieval period, transforming the original familiar Hebrew name into a distinctly Greek/Latin/English form. Male names often ended in "-ous," so again, Yeshua became "JZyay-soos"). Iesus (Latin): Early Latin translations followed the Greek Iēsous, rendering it as Ee-ay-sus. And then during the medieval period, the letter 'J' (which was initially pronounced like the Greek 'I' or 'Y') developed its modern English sound and so English translators kept the 'J' spelling from Latin, but pronounced it with the new English 'J' sound, resulting in "Jesus". As Yeshuans, we suggest that any name, frankly any idea, right or wrong about Him can be spiritually overcome with the power of His person known spiritually. But because of what men have done with His name and cause, politicizing both Him and it, we have returned to what God told Joseph to call Him before His birth as a means to more in line with historical material reality while distinguishing our views of Him and His cause from human tradition. People will ask why I use Jesus sometimes and its all to show God is not a stickler on such things – so I am not going to rigid in my articulations. But as a group we want to try and identify closely with what was instead of what has become. At verse 22 Matthew resorts to Isaiah 7:14 and writes: 22Now all this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, saying, 23Behold, a virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel, which means, God with us. Aside from this being a prophecy, itt seems that the way Isaiah first used these words, they simply meant that in his day the birth of a child was a sign that God would deliver the Jews in the same way that child was delivered – that He would bring them forth supernaturally and that the Nation of Israel was not to look to outside help from the Assyrians to save them but instead that YAHAVAH would deliver them from invasion. Matthew took the liberty to use this passage and assign it the birth of Yeshua who he, some 700 years pronounced Him as God with us by giving him the title of Emmanuel. It's composed of the word "Immanu" (which means, “with us”) and "El" (meaning God). It’s a beautiful title and conveys so much to those with eyes to see, ears to hear and hearts that understand. 24 Then when Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded, and took to him his wife: Joseph was guided numerous times by visionary dreams. As we will see again three times in the next chapter. What is the view of dreams in the faith today? The Bible is filled with instances where God speaks through dreams, such as Jacob's ladder, Pharaoh's famine dream (interpreted by Joseph), and angels appearing to Joseph in dreams. Dreams from God seem to be for encouragement, warning, revealing mysteries, or providing direction, often with symbolic or prophetic meaning. The question becomes how to tell whether a dream is from God or from our own subconscious mind? Some people thing every dream is from the subconscious while others a convinced that every dream is from God. I personally believe that dreams can be direct communications to us but add that we should be really cautious about thinking all of them are, and how to interpret their meaning. I would recommend that all dreams are vetted by principles of scripture but even more so by the fruit of what they convey. In other words if a person has a dream that they should do something selfish, unloving, dark, evil, retaliatory, vengeful or out of harmony with the Fruit of the Spirit which is agape love, reject it. Some suggest that if the dream is in harmony with the written text it could be true but I have personally encountered a person who had a dream in her teens that led her to believe I was to be her husband (as verified by her mother and family) to the point she was even told my name, but for that to happen it would have meant that I either practice polygamy (which is in the Bible) or divorce Mary which is absolutely out of harmony with God’s love, my duty as a husband and father, and the order established in Eden. So be wise. Matthew’s first chapter wraps up with Him adding to verse 24 which says, 24 Then when Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded, and took to him his wife: And saying, 25But he did not know her until she had born a son, and he called his name Yeshua. Roman Catholicism claims that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. This passage appears to contradict that tradition. There are also other passages that seem to resist this religious tradition (which is held firmly by Catholics in order for her to be a worthy recipient of their adoration, and prayer – clearly adding more human intermediaries between God and man. But admittedly, other passages that speak of Christ having siblings cannot be fully trusted as literal because in that day brothers and sisters were often assigned to cousins and even distant relatives. I tend to side with Yeshua having siblings from Mary and Joseph and this is entirely possible by the way Matthew says, “but Joseph did not KNOW her UNTIL she had born a son and called His name Yeshua. Join us for our verse by verse through chapter two next week!