GEBible — Godless Engineer's Bible App
Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this: After his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 1:16-18 sits inside this longer paragraph.
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham became the father of Isaac. Isaac became the father of Jacob. Jacob became the father of Judah and his brothers. Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron. Hezron became the father of Ram. Ram became the father of Amminadab. Amminadab became the father of Nahshon. Nahshon became the father of Salmon. Salmon became the father of Boaz by Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed by Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse. Jesse became the father of King David. David became the father of Solomon by her who had been Uriah’s wife. Solomon became the father of Rehoboam. Rehoboam became the father of Abijah. Abijah became the father of Asa. Asa became the father of Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat became the father of Joram. Joram became the father of Uzziah. Uzziah became the father of Jotham. Jotham became the father of Ahaz. Ahaz became the father of Hezekiah. Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh. Manasseh became the father of Amon. Amon became the father of Josiah. Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the exile to Babylon. After the exile to Babylon, Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel. Shealtiel became the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel became the father of Abiud. Abiud became the father of Eliakim. Eliakim became the father of Azor. Azor became the father of Zadok. Zadok became the father of Achim. Achim became the father of Eliud. Eliud became the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan. Matthan became the father of Jacob. Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this: After his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly. But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She shall give birth to a son. You shall name him Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.”
Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this: After his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
Iacob begat Ioseph the husbande of Mary of which was boren that Iesus that is called Christ.
All the generacions from Abraham to David are fowretene generacions. And from David vnto the captivite of Babylon are fowretene generacions. And from the captivite of Babylon vnto Christ are also fowrtene generacions.
The byrthe of Iesus Christ was on thys wyse. When hys mother Mary was betrouthed to Ioseph before they came to dwell to gedder she was foude with chylde by the holy goost.
And Iacob begat Ioseph ye husband of Mary, of whom was borne Jesus, that is called Christ.
So all the generations from Abraham to Dauid, are fourtene generations. And from Dauid vntil they were caried away into Babylon, fourtene generations: and after they were caried away into Babylon vntill Christ, fourteene generations.
Nowe the birth of Jesus Christ was thus, When as his mother Mary was betrothed to Ioseph, before they came together, shee was found with childe of the holy Ghost.
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv17–18 All those which are reckoned up in this pedigree…
All those which are reckoned up in this pedigree of David’s stock, as they begat one another orderly in their degrees.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv16–18 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,…
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Ver. 16. And Jacob begat Joseph] Whose genealogy is here recorded, and not Mary’s, it being not the custom of that people then to set forth the genealogies of women. As at this day, the Jews have an over-base conceit of that sex; saying that they have not so divine a soul as men, but are of a lower creation, &c., and therefore they suffer them not to enter the synagogue, but appoint them a gallery without. (Blount’s Voyage into the Levant.)
Read full note →
The husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus] This is the sum of all the good news in the world, such as surpasseth the joy of conquest or of harvest, Isa 9:3; Isa 9:5-6, and should therefore swallow up all discontents whatsoever.
Who is called Christ] The name of Jesus is mel in ore, melos in aure, iubilium in corde (Bernard): as it was to St Paul, who therefore names it nine different times in the ten first verses of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, as loth to come off it. Yet is not the name Jesus alone half so sweet as when Christ is added to it, as here. For Jesus Christ betokeneth such a Saviour as is anointed and appointed thereunto by God, consecrated to the office according to his Godhead, and qualified for it according to his manhood. In both natures a Saviour, and that ex professo (as you would say) and by consent of all three persons; the Son being anointed by the Father, with the Holy Ghost: and as Samson when clothed with the spirit saved the people, so Christ much more.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv16–18 How Luke cometh to make Joseph the son of…
How Luke cometh to make Joseph the son of Heli we shall inquire (if God please) when we come to his third chapter: but from this verse ariseth a very grave question, viz. How, or wherefore, the evangelist, in deriving the pedigree of Christ, bringeth the line down to Joseph, from whom our Saviour did not descend, being no flesh of his flesh. Christ being the promised Messias, the prophecy, Isa 7:14, must be and was fulfilled in him, A virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Now if Joseph were not the true, but only the legal or supposed, father of Christ, what had the evangelist to do with his genealogy? Many answers are given to this. Some think that the evangelist accommodates himself to the vulgar opinion; they took him generally for the true and natural son of Joseph; they said, Is not this the carpenter’s son? But then the Holy Spirit must have attempted to have proved a conclusion true from a medium that was false, which must by no means be allowed. Besides, neither could this be Matthew’s design, who afterwards relates the mystery of our Saviour’s incarnation plain enough; and tells us, Mat 1:18, that Mary was found with child before Joseph and she came together. Others therefore say that amongst the Jews the genealogies of women use not to be reckoned. How universally true that is I cannot tell; generally it is, (very probably), it being usual almost with all nations to reckon descents from the males. It is granted by most that Luke derives the descent of Mary. In the present case, it seemeth of high concern that the genealogy both of Joseph and Mary should be counted. Though our Saviour’s being the Messias could not have been proved from his being the Son of Joseph, for then he could not have been the Son of a virgin, yet (admitting the Jewish error in that case, not knowing the mystery of Christ’s incarnation) Christ, by their own confession, was confirmed to be the Son of David because Joseph was so. On the other side, Luke deriving Mary’s genealogy from David, and affirming Christ to be born of a virgin espoused, confirmed him to all the world to be both the Son of David, descending from Mary a virgin, that was a daughter to one who was the son of David, and also the true Messiah, in whom the prophecy was fulfilled, of a virgin’s conceiving and bearing a Son. So that by the reckoning of the generation of two persons, both of which were lineally descended from David, he was proved to be the Son of David, both to the generality of the Jews, who could not deny but Joseph was so, and to all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, to whom God should give to believe the mystery of the incarnation by the conception of the Holy Ghost. This to me seems a sufficient reason for the reckoning up our Saviour’s descent from David both by father and mother. Which is advantaged by considering that Joseph was not only the reputed father, but the legal father of Christ; and although his being not the natural but the legal father of Christ will not prove him the Son of David, further than to the Jews who would have him to be the natural son of Joseph, yet the genealogy reckoned from Abraham to Joseph will prove Joseph the son of David; (whom they judged Christ’s natural father), so as they had nothing to say against that and the other parts of this Gospel; and this chapter indeed, with the genealogy of Mary, will prove that he was both the Son of David, and the true Messias, as a Son born of a virgin. Whereas some say that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, and think to prove it by her being cousin to Elisabeth, who is expressly called a daughter of Aaron, Luk 1:5; besides that Luk 3:23-38 plainly proveth her of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David, the proof is by no means sufficient; for although the law, Num 36:8,9, for the avoiding of a confusion of inheritances, commanded them to marry within their tribes, yet this law concerned not the daughters of the tribe of Levi, for that tribe had no inheritance as the rest. So as that kindred might easily be, though Mary was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, as indeed she was. But leaving this question, let us come to the words of the verse. And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary; that is, the espoused husband of Mary. Espousals make a marriage before God: the angel afterward saith to Joseph, (but yet espoused), Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. And he was soon after the legal, actual husband of Mary.
Of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ; that person who was called Jesus is by the direction of the angel, as we shall by and by see, who was also called Christ, which, as we said, signifieth Anointed, and the same with Messiah. It is observed by some that the name Christ was given to kings of Judah (because of their anointing) before the captivity, but to none after, till he came who was the Christ; God by that providence (if the Jews would have understood it) pointing out to them, that the person was now come who was promised them under the notion of the Messiah, Dan 9:25,26, and whom they expected, as appeareth from Joh 1:41; 4:25, and no longer to be expected.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On v18 This is, the birth of Christ was not in…
This is, the birth of Christ was not in the ordinary and natural way, but his mother Mary was found to be with child by the extraordinary and miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost.
Here note, That the espousal of Mary to Joseph was for the safety of Christ, and for the credit and reputation of the virgin. It was for our Savior’s safety, because being to fly into Egypt, he has Joseph his reputed father to take care of him; and it was for the virgin’s reputation, lest she should have been accounted unclean.
Read full note →
Learn hence, What a special regard Almighty God has to the fame and reputation of his children; he would have them free from the least suspicion of evil and dishonesty. Mary being espoused to an husband, frees herself from the suspicion of naughtiness, and her son from the imputation of an illegitimate birth.
Observe further, The miraculous conception of the holy Jesus; the Holy Ghost overshadowed the virgin, and did miraculously cause her conception without the help of an human father. Thus Christ was the Son of God as well in his human as in his divine nature; he must needs be a perfect, holy person, who was conceived purely by the Holy Spirit’s operation.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v18 The mystery of Christ's incarnation is to be adored,…
The mystery of Christ's incarnation is to be adored, not pried into. If we know not the way of the Spirit in the formation of common persons, nor how the bones are formed in the womb of any one that is with child (Ecc 11:5), much less do we know how the blessed Jesus was formed in the womb of the blessed virgin. When David admires how he himself was made in secret, and curiously wrought (Psa 139:13-16), perhaps he speaks in the spirit of Christ's incarnation. Some circumstances attending the birth of Christ we find here which are not in Luke, though it is more largely recorded here. Here we have,
I. Mary's espousal to Joseph. Mary, the mother of our Lord, was espoused to Joseph, not completely married, but contracted; a purpose of marriage solemnly declared in words de futuro - that regarding the future, and a promise of it made if God permit. We read of a man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her, Deu 20:7. Christ was born of a virgin, but a betrothed virgin, 1. To put respect upon the marriage state, and to recommend it as honourable among all, against that doctrine of devils which forbids to marry, and places perfection in the single state. Who more highly favoured than Mary was in her espousals? 2. To save the credit of the blessed virgin, which otherwise would have been exposed. It was fit that her conception should be protected by a marriage, and so justified in the eye of the world. One of the ancients says, It was better it should be asked, Is not this the son of a carpenter? than, Is not this the son of a harlot? 3. That the blessed virgin might have one to be the guide of her youth, the companion of her solitude and travels, a partner in her cares, and a help meet for her. Some think that Joseph was now a widower, and that those who are called the brethren of Christ (Mat 13:55), were Joseph's children by a former wife. This is the conjecture of many of the ancients. Joseph was just man, she a virtuous woman. Those who are believers should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers: but let those who are religious choose to marry with those who are so, as they expect the comfort of the relation, and God's blessing upon them in it. We may also learn, from this example, that it is good to enter into the married state with deliberation, and not hastily - to preface the nuptials with a contract. It is better to take time to consider before than to find time to repent after.
Read full note →
II. Her pregnancy of the promised seed; before they came together, she was found with child, which really was of the Holy Ghost. The marriage was deferred so long after the contract that she appeared to be with child before the time came for the solemnizing of the marriage, though she was contracted before she conceived. Probably, it was after her return from her cousin Elizabeth, with whom she continued three months (Luk 1:56), that she was perceived by Joseph to be with child, and did not herself deny it. Note, Those in whom Christ is formed will show it: it will be found to be a work of God which he will own. Now we may well imagine, what a perplexity this might justly occasion to the blessed virgin. She herself knew the divine original of this conception; but how could she prove it? She would be dealt with as a harlot. Note, After great and high advancements, lest we should be puffed up with them, we must expect something or other to humble us, some reproach, as a thorn in the flesh, nay, as a sword in the bones. Never was any daughter of Eve so dignified as the Virgin Mary was, and yet in danger of falling under the imputation of one of the worse crimes; yet we do not find that she tormented herself about it; but, being conscious of her own innocence, she kept her mind calm and easy, and committed her cause to him that judgeth righteously. Note, those who take care to keep a good conscience may cheerfully trust God with the keeping of their good names, and have reason to hope that he will clear up, not only their integrity, but their honour, as the sun at noon day.
III. Joseph's perplexity, and his care what to do in this case. We may well imagine what a great trouble and disappointment it was to him to find one he had such an opinion of, and value for, come under the suspicion of such a heinous crime. Is this Mary? He began to think, "How may we be deceived in those we think best of! How may we be disappointed in what we expect most from!" He is loth to believe so ill a thing of one whom he believed to be so good a woman; and yet the matter, as it is too bad to be excused, is also too plain to be denied. What a struggle does this occasion in his breast between that jealousy which is the rage of man, and is cruel as the grave, on the one hand, and that affection which he has for Mary on the other!
Observe, 1. The extremity which he studied to avoid. He was not willing to make her a public example. He might have done so; for, by the law, a betrothed virgin, if she played the harlot, was to be stoned to death, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24. But he was not willing to take the advantage of the law against her; if she be guilty, yet it is not known, nor shall it be known from him. How different was the spirit which Joseph displayed from that of Judah, who in a similar case hastily passed that severe sentence, Bring her forth and let her be burnt! Gen 38:24. How good it is to think on things, as Joseph did here! Were there more of deliberation in our censures and judgments, there would be more of mercy and moderation in them. Bringing her to punishment is here called making her a public example; which shows what is the end to be aimed at in punishment - the giving of warning to others: it is in terrorem - that all about may hear and fear. Smite the scorner, and the simple will beware.
Some persons of a rigorous temper would blame Joseph for his clemency: but it is here spoken of to his praise; because he was a just man, therefore he was not willing to expose her. He was a religious, good man; and therefore inclined to be merciful as God is, and to forgive as one that was forgiven. In the case of the betrothed damsel, if she were defiled in the field, the law charitably supposed that she cried out (Deu 22:26), and she was not to be punished. Some charitable construction or other Joseph will put upon this matter; and herein he is a just man, tender of the good name of one who never before had done anything to blemish it. Note, It becomes us, in many cases, to be gentle towards those that come under suspicion of having offended, to hope the best concerning them, and make the best of that which at first appears bad, in hopes that it may prove better. Summum just summa injuria - The rigour of the law is (sometimes) the height of injustice. That court of conscience which moderates the rigour of the law we call a court of equity. Those who are found faulty were perhaps overtaken in the fault, and are therefore to be restored with the spirit of meekness; and threatening, even when just, must be moderated.
2. The expedient he found out for avoiding this extremity. He was minded to put her away privily, that is, to give a bill of divorce into her hand before two witnesses, and so to hush up the matter among themselves. Being a just man, that is, a strict observer of the law, he would not proceed to marry her, but resolved to put her away; and yet, in tenderness for her, determined to do it as privately as possible. Note, The necessary censures of those who have offended ought to be managed without noise. The words of the wise are heard in quiet. Christ himself shall not strive nor cry. Christian love and Christian prudence will hide a multitude of sins, and great ones, as far as may be done without having fellowship with them.
IV. Joseph's discharge from this perplexity by an express sent from heaven, Mat 1:20, Mat 1:21. While he thought on these things and knew not what to determine, God graciously directed him what to do, and made him easy. Note, Those who would have direction from God must think on things themselves, and consult with themselves. It is the thoughtful, not the unthinking, whom God will guide. When he was at a loss, and had carried the matter as far as he could in his own thoughts, then God came in with advice. Note, God's time to come in with instruction to his people is when they are nonplussed and at a stand. God's comforts most delight the soul in the multitude of its perplexed thoughts. The message was sent to Joseph by an angel of the Lord, probably the same angel that brought Mary the tidings of the conception - the angel Gabriel. Now the intercourse with heaven, by angels, with which the patriarchs had been dignified, but which had been long disused, begins to be revived; for, when the First-begotten is to be brought into the world, the angels are ordered to attend his motions. How far God may now, in an invisible way, make use of the ministration of angels, for extricating his people out of their straits, we cannot say; but this we are sure of, they are all ministering spirits for their good. This angel appeared to Joseph in a dream when he was asleep, as God sometimes spoke unto the fathers. When we are most quiet and composed we are in the best frame to receive the notices of the divine will. The Spirit moves on the calm waters. This dream, no doubt, carried its own evidence along with it that it was of God, and not the production of a vain fancy. Now,
1. Joseph is here directed to proceed in his intended marriage. The angel calls him, Joseph, thou son of David; he puts him in mind of his relation to David, that he might be prepared to receive this surprising intelligence of his relation to the Messiah, who, every one knew, was to be a descendant from David. Sometimes, when great honours devolve upon those who have small estates, they care not for accepting them, but are willing to drop them; it was therefore requisite to put this poor carpenter in mind of his high birth: "Value thyself. Joseph, thou art that son of David through whom the line of the Messiah is to be drawn." We may thus say to every true believer, "Fear not, thou son of Abraham, thou child of God; forget not the dignity of thy birth, thy new birth." Fear not to take Mary for thy wife; so it may be read. Joseph, suspecting she was with child by whoredom, was afraid of taking her, lest he should bring upon himself either guilt or reproach. No, saith God, Fear not; the matter is not so. Perhaps Mary had told him that she was with child by the Holy Ghost, and he might have heard what Elizabeth said to her (Luk 1:43), when she called her the mother of her Lord; and, if so, he was afraid of presumption in marrying one so much above him. But, from whatever cause his fears arose, they were all silenced with this word, Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. Note, It is a great mercy to be delivered from our fears, and to have our doubts resolved, so as to proceed in our affairs with satisfaction.
2. He is here informed concerning that holy thing with which his espoused wife was now pregnant. That which is conceived in her is of a divine original. He is so far from being in danger of sharing in an impurity by marrying her, that he will thereby share in the highest dignity he is capable of. Two things he is told,
(1.) That she had conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost; not by the power of nature. The Holy Spirit, who produced the world, now produced the Saviour of the world, and prepared him a body, as was promised him, when he said, Lo, I come, Heb 10:5. Hence he is said to be made of a woman (Gal 4:4), and yet to be that second Adam that is the Lord from heaven, Co1 15:47. He is the Son of God, and yet so far partakes of the substance of his mother as to be called the fruit of her womb, Luk 1:42. It was requisite that is conception should be otherwise than by ordinary generation, that so, so though he partook of the human nature, yet he might escape the corruption and pollution of it, and not be conceived and shapen in iniquity. Histories tell us of some who vainly pretended to have conceived by a divine power, as the mother of Alexander; but none ever really did so, except the mother of our Lord. His name in this, as in other things, is Wonderful. We do not read that the virgin Mary did herself proclaim the honour done to her; but she hid it in her heart, and therefore God sent an angel to attest it. Those who seek not their own glory shall have the honour that comes from God; it is reserved for the humble.
(2.) That she should bring forth the Saviour of the world (Mat 1:21). She shall bring forth a Son; what he shall be is intimated,
[1.] In the name that should be given to her Son: Thou shalt call his name Jesus, a Saviour. Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the Greek. Joshua is called Jesus (Act 7:45; Heb 4:8), from the Seventy. There were two of that name under the Old Testament, who were both illustrious types of Christ, Joshua who was Israel's captain at their first settlement in Canaan, and Joshua who was their high priest at their second settlement after the captivity, Zac 6:11, Zac 6:12. Christ is our Joshua; both the Captain of our salvation, and the High Priest of our profession, and, in both, our Saviour - a Joshua who comes in the stead of Moses, and does that for us which the law could not do, in that it was weak. Joshua had been called Hosea, but Moses prefixed the first syllable of the name Jehovah, and so made it Jehoshua (Num 13:16), to intimate that the Messiah, who was to bear that name, should be Jehovah; he is therefore able to save to the uttermost, neither is there salvation in any other.
[2.] In the reason of that name: For he shall save his people from their sins; not the nation of the Jews only (he came to his own, and they received him not), but all who were given him by the Father's choice, and all who had given themselves to him by their own. He is a king who protects his subjects, and, as the judges of Israel of old, works salvation for them. Note, those whom Christ saves he saves from their sins; from the guilt of sin by the merit of his death, from the dominion of sin by the Spirit of his grace. In saving them from sin, he saves them from wrath and the curse, and all misery here and hereafter. Christ came to save his people, not in their sins, but from their sins; to purchase for them, not a liberty to sin, but a liberty from sins, to redeem them from all iniquity (Tit 2:14); and so to redeem them from among men (Rev 14:4) to himself, who is separate from sinners. So that those who leave their sins, and give up themselves to Christ as his people, are interested in the Saviour, and the great salvation which he has wrought out, Rom 11:26.
V. The fulfilling of the scripture in all this. This evangelist, writing among the Jews, more frequently observes this than any other of the evangelists. Here the Old Testament prophecies had their accomplishment in our Lord Jesus, by which it appears that this was he that should come, and we are to look for no other; for this was he to whom all the prophets bore witness. Now the scripture that was fulfilled in the birth of Christ was that promise of a sign which God gave to king Ahaz (Isa 7:14), Behold a virgin shall conceive; where the prophet, encouraging the people of God to hope for the promised deliverance from Sennacherib's invasion, directs them to look forward to the Messiah, who was to come of the people of the Jews, and the house of David; whence it was easy to infer, that though that people and that house were afflicted, yet neither the one nor the other could be abandoned to ruin, so long as God had such an honour, such a blessing, in reserve for them. The deliverances which God wrought for the Old Testament church were types and figures of the great salvation by Christ; and, if God will do the greater, he will not fail to do the less.
The prophecy here quoted is justly ushered in with a Behold, which commands both attention and admiration; for we have here the mystery of godliness, which is, without controversy, great, that God was manifested in the flesh.
1. The sign given is that the Messiah shall be born of a virgin. A virgin shall conceive, and, by her, he shall be manifested in the flesh. The word Almah signifies a virgin in the strictest sense, such as Mary professes herself to be (Luk 1:34), I know not a man; nor had it been any such wonderful sign as it was intended for, if it had been otherwise. It was intimated from the beginning that the Messiah should be born of a virgin, when it was said that he should be the seed of the woman; so the seed of the woman as not to be the seed of any man. Christ was born of a virgin not only because his birth was to be supernatural, and altogether extraordinary, but because it was to be spotless, and pure, and without any stain of sin. Christ would be born, not of an empress or queen, for he appeared not in outward pomp or splendour, but of a virgin, to teach us spiritual purity, to die to all the delights of sense, and so to keep ourselves unspotted from the world and the flesh that we may be presented chaste virgins to Christ.
2. The truth proved by this sign is, that he is the Son of God, and the Mediator between God and man: for they shall call his name Immanuel; that is, he shall be Immanuel; and when it is said, He shall be called, it is meant, he shall be, the Lord our righteousness. Immanuel signifies God with us; a mysterious name, but very precious; God incarnate among us, and so God reconcilable to us, at peace with us, and taking us into covenant and communion with himself. The people of the Jews had God with them, in types and shadows, dwelling between the cherubim; but never so as when the Word was made flesh - that was the blessed Shechinah. What a happy step is hereby taken toward the settling of a peace and correspondence between God and man, that the two natures are thus brought together in the person of the Mediator! by this he became an unexceptionable referee, a days-man, fit to lay his hand upon them both, since he partakes of the nature of both. Behold, in this, the deepest mystery, and the richest mercy, that ever was. By the light of nature, we see God as a God above us; by the light of the law, we see him as a God against us; but by the light of the gospel, we see him as Immanuel, God with us, in our own nature, and (which is more) in our interest. Herein the Redeemer commended his love. With Christ's name, Immanuel, we may compare the name given to the gospel church (Eze 48:35). Jehovah Shammah - The Lord is there; the Lord of hosts is with us.
Nor is it improper to say that the prophecy which foretold that he should be called Immanuel was fulfilled, in the design and intention of it, when he was called Jesus; for if he had not been Immanuel - God with us, he could not have been Jesus - a Saviour; and herein consists the salvation he wrought out, in the bringing of God and man together; this was what he designed, to bring God to be with us, which is our great happiness, and to bring us to be with God, which is our great duty.
VI. Joseph's obedience to the divine precept (Mat 1:24). Being raised from sleep by the impression which the dream made upon him, he did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, though it was contrary to his former sentiments and intentions; he took unto him his wife; he did is speedily, without delay, and cheerfully, without dispute; he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. Extraordinary direction like this we are not now to expect; but God has still ways of making known his mind in doubtful cases, by hints of providence, debates of conscience, and advice of faithful friends; by each of these, applying the general rules of the written word, we should, therefore, in all the steps of our life, particularly the great turns of it, such as this of Joseph's, take direction from God, and we shall find it safe and comfortable to do as he bids us.
VII. The accomplishment of the divine promise (Mat 1:25). She brought forth her first-born son. The circumstances of it are more largely related, Luk 2:1, etc. Note, That which is conceived of the Holy Ghost never proves abortive, but will certainly be brought forth in its season. What is of the will of the flesh, and of the will of man, often miscarries; but, if Christ be formed in the soul, God himself has begun the good work which he will perform; what is conceived in grace will no doubt be brought forth in glory.
It is here further observed, 1. That Joseph, though he solemnized the marriage with Mary, his espoused wife, kept at a distance from her while she was with child of this Holy thing; he knew her not till she had brought him forth. Much has been said concerning the perpetual virginity of our Lord: Jerome was very angry with Helvidius for denying it. It is certain that it cannot be proved from scripture. Dr. Whitby inclines to think that when it is said, Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born, it is intimated that, afterwards, the reason ceasing, he lived with her, according to the law, Exo 21:10. 2. That Christ was the first-born; and so he might be called though his mother had not any other children after him, according to the language of scripture. Nor is it without a mystery that Christ is called her first-born, for he is the first-born of every creature, that is, the Heir of all things; and he is the first-born among many brethren, that in all things he may have the pre-eminence. 3. That Joseph called his name Jesus, according to the direction given him. God having appointed him to be the Saviour, which was intimated in his giving him the name Jesus, we must accept of him to be our Saviour, and, in concurrence with that appointment, we must call him Jesus, our Saviour.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv16–18 And Jacob begat Joseph,.... According to an old tradition…
And Jacob begat Joseph,.... According to an old tradition mentioned by (p) Epiphanins, this Jacob, the father of Joseph, was named Panther, and which name perhaps is originally Jewish; and it may be observed, that Joseph is sometimes called by the Jewish writers Pandera (q), and Jesus , the son of Pandira (r). It has created some difficulty with interpreters that Jacob should be here said to beget Joseph, when Joseph in Luke is said to be the son of Eli. Some have thought Joseph's father had two names, one was Jacob, and the other Eli; others take them to be two different persons, and suppose that Joseph was the natural son of the one, and the legal son of the other, either by marriage, or by adoption, or by the law of the brother's wife, Deu 25:5. But the truth of the matter is, that not Joseph, but Jesus, is by Luke called the son of Eli, as will be made to appear in its proper place. Joseph, who is here called the husband of Mary, because he not only espoused her, but, upon the advice and encouragement of the Angel, took her to be his wife, was, as is evident by this genealogy, of the house and lineage of David; though a mean and obscure person, and by trade a carpenter. Mary, which is the same name with Miriam in Hebrew, was a poor virgin that dwelt at Nazareth, a city of Galilee; yet also of the family of David, and belonged to the city of Bethlehem;
of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ, or Messiah; being that illustrious person, who was spoken of by the Prophets of the Old Testament under that name, and whom the Jews expected. We may learn from hence, what a low condition the family of David was in, when the true Messiah came; according to ancient prophecy, it was like a stump of a tree, or like to a tree cut down to the root, Isa 11:1 and Christ who sprung from it was like a root out of a dry ground, Isa 53:2. From the whole of this genealogy it appears, that Jesus was of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David; whereby several ancient prophecies have their accomplishment, and therefore he ought to be acknowledged as the true Messiah: and also that he was of the blood royal, and had his descent from the kings of Judah, and was heir apparent to the throne and kingdom of his father David. The Talmudic Jews own that Jesus, or Jesu, as they call him, was put to death because he (s), "was nigh to the kingdom", or nearly related to it. Yea, even in that malicious book (t) they have written of his life, they represent him as akin to queen Helena, who they say, on that account, would have saved his life. And this was so clear a point, and their forefathers were so thoroughly convinced of this matter, that they would have took him by force and made him a king, Joh 6:15 but his kingdom was to be of another kind, a spiritual, and not a temporal one.
Read full note →
(p) Contra Haeres. l. 3. Haeres. 78. (q) Toldos Jesu, p. 3. (r) T. Hieros. Avoda Zara, fol. 40. 4. T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 14. 2. & Midrash Kohelet, fol. 81. 1. (s) T. Bab. Sanhed. fol. 43. 1. (t) Toldos Jesu, p. 10.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv16–17 The husband of Mary - Jesus was generally believed…
The husband of Mary - Jesus was generally believed to be the son of Joseph. It was needful for all who believed this, to know, that Joseph was sprung from David. Otherwise they would not allow Jesus to be the Christ. Jesus, who is called Christ - The name Jesus respects chiefly the promise of blessing made to Abraham: the name Christ, the promise of the Messiah's kingdom, which was made to David. It may be further observed, that the word Christ in Greek, and Messiah in Hebrews, signify anointed, and imply the prophetic, priestly, and royal characters, which were to meet in the Messiah. Among the Jews, anointing was the ceremony whereby prophets, priests, and kings were initiated into those offices. And if we look into ourselves, we shall find a want of Christ in all these respects. We are by nature at a distance from God, alienated from him, and incapable of a free access to him. Hence we want a mediator, an intercessor, in a word, a Christ, in his priestly office. This regards our state with respect to God. And with respect to ourselves, we find a total darkness, blindness, ignorance of God, and the things of God. Now here we want Christ in his prophetic office, to enlighten our minds, and teach us the whole will of God. We find also within us a strange misrule of appetites and passions. For these we want Christ in his royal character, to reign in our hearts, and subdue all things to himself.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv16–18 Verse 16. Jesus, who is called Christ.] As the…
Verse 16. Jesus, who is called Christ.] As the word Χριστος Christ, signifies the anointed or anointer, from χριω, to anoint, it answers exactly to the Hebrew משיח mashiach, which we pronounce Messiah or Messias; this word comes from the root משח mashac, signifying the same thing. As the same person is intended by both the Hebrew and Greek appellation, it should be regularly translated The Messiah, or The Christ; whichever is preferred, the demonstrative article should never be omitted.
Priests, prophets, and kings, among the Jews, were anointed in order to the legitimate exercise of their respective offices. Hence the word Χριστος Christ, or משיח Mashiach, became a name of dignity, and often signified the same as king. See Isa 45:1; Ps 105:15; Le 4:3; Le 6:20; 1Sa 2:10. The words משיח Mashiach and מלך melec, Χριστος and βασιλευς, Christ and king, are frequently interchanged. 1Sa 2:10; Ps 2:2; Ps 2:6; Lu 23:2; and see the Scholia of Rosenmuller on this place. The reason of this may be seen in the following note, which I extract from the comment on Ex 29:7.
Read full note →
"It appears from Isa 61:1, that anointing with oil, in consecrating a person to any important office, whether civil or religious, was considered as an emblem of the communication of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. This ceremony was used on three occasions, viz. the installation of prophets, priests, and kings, into their respective offices. But why should such an anointing be deemed necessary? Because the common sense of men taught them that all good, whether spiritual or secular, must come from God, its origin and cause. Hence it was taken for granted,
1. That no man could foretell events, unless inspired by the Spirit of God. And therefore the prophet was anointed, to signify the communication of the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge.
2. That no person could offer an acceptable sacrifice to God for the sins of men, or profitably minister in holy things, unless enlightened, influenced, and directed, by the Spirit of grace and holiness. Hence the priest was anointed, to signify his being divinely qualified for the due performance of his sacred functions.
3. That no man could enact just and equitable laws, which should have the prosperity of the community and the welfare of the individual continually in view, or could use the power confided to him only for the suppression of vice and the encouragement of virtue, but that man who was ever under the inspiration of the Almighty.
Hence kings were inaugurated by anointing with oil. Two of these offices only exist in all civilized nations, the sacerdotal and regal; and, in some countries, the priest and king are still consecrated by anointing. In the Hebrew language משח mashach signifies to anoint; and משיח mashiach, the anointed person. But as no man was ever dignified by holding the three offices, so no person ever had the title Mashiach, the anointed one, but Jesus, The CHRIST. He alone is King of kings, and Lord of lords: the king who governs the universe, and rules in the hearts of his followers; the prophet, to instruct men in the way wherein they should go; and the great high priest, to make atonement for their sins. Hence he is called the Messias, a corruption of the word המשיח ha-mashiach, THE anointed ONE, in Hebrew; which gave birth to ὁ Χριστος ho Christos, which has precisely the same signification in Greek: of him, Melchisedeck, Abraham, Aaron, David, and others, were illustrious types. But none of these had the title of THE MESSIAH, or THE ANOINTED OF GOD. This does, and ever will, belong exclusively to JESUS, The CHRIST."
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv16–18 Mat 1:16. Jacob begat Joseph — It is evident…
Mat 1:16. Jacob begat Joseph — It is evident that Joseph was properly the son of Jacob, and only the son-in-law of Eli: Luk 3:23. See note on Mat 1:2. Though Joseph was not the true father of Christ, yet Christ’s pedigree was reckoned by him, because he had no other father as man, and Joseph was his supposed father, being the husband of Mary, his mother; and the mother being transplanted into her husband’s family, the child must go for one of that family. And therefore Joseph’s family was to be set down, lest, if it had not been known, the Jews should have taken occasion to reject Christ on that account, for it was generally received among them that Jesus was the son of the carpenter, Mat 13:55; the son of Joseph, Joh 6:42. If, therefore, Joseph had not been acknowledged to have been of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David, they would undoubtedly have considered this as a strong objection to Christ’s pretences of being the Messiah. Hence the Divine Wisdom was pleased to direct this apostle to remove that stumbling-block. Let it be observed, further, that “it was a received rule among the Jews, that the family of the mother is not called a family; all their pedigrees being reckoned and deduced from the father. This is the reason why Matthew has here set down the genealogy of Joseph; and thus Jesus Christ is the son of David, because Joseph’s marriage with Mary gave to Jesus a right to all the privileges which a child, that is born of strange parents, was entitled to by adoption, and which were granted by law to the posterity of a man who had married his brother’s widow. It is, moreover, very probable, that Mary was an only daughter, and an heiress, and consequently obliged to marry in her own family. See Num 36:7-9. So that by giving the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gives at the same time that of Mary. He is called the husband of Mary; for the names of husband and wife were given by the Jews to persons who were only betrothed. See Gen 29:21; Deu 22:24. Some copies, however, read, Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed.” Of whom was born Jesus — This is elegantly said, for he was the seed of the woman, not of the man. Who is called Christ — i.e., Who is known by that name, and is really the Christ, or, the anointed one. Matthew adds this that he may distinguish the Saviour from others, who, either then or before, might have been called Jesus. Among the Hebrews, those who were raised, by the singular providence of God, to eminent dignities, were termed משׂיהים, Messiahs, or, anointed persons, even though, strictly speaking, they had not been anointed with oil, as Abraham and Isaac, Psa 105:15; Cyrus, Isa 45:1; and the king of Tyre, Eze 28:14. Much more those who, by an unction, were consecrated to any particular office, as their prophets, high priests, and kings, had that appellation given them. In particular their kings, as long as royalty remained in the family of David, were called Christs, or, anointed ones. But after the destruction of the kingdom, this name, as appears from Dan 9:25-26, began to be referred to one Redeemer, whom the Jews, encouraged by the predictions of the prophets, and especially of the last named, Daniel, looked for from God, to be their chief ruler and teacher, Joh 4:25; and by whom a perfect reparation of the breach was expected to be made. That super-eminent and singular Christ, Jesus professed himself to be, and both he and his disciples assigned, as a reason of the appellation, that he was furnished with power manifestly extraordinary and unparalleled, as well for the declaring and confirming his heavenly doctrine, as for the executing of all his other offices. See Luk 4:18; Joh 3:34; Act 4:27; and Act 10:36; Act 10:38.
As all the offices mentioned above, the prophetic, the priestly, the kingly, were to meet in him, and to be sustained by him in an infinitely higher degree than they were by any persons under the Jewish dispensation, who were no more than types of him, so he is represented as anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, Heb 1:9. He is immeasurably filled with the Holy Ghost, even as to his human nature, and most completely qualified for sustaining every office and character in which we need him. Are we ignorant of God and of divine things? He is a teacher come from God, a prophet like, nay, superior to Moses, and him we are to hear on pain of eternal destruction. He is the truth, and wisdom, and word of God: yea, the light of the world, and they that believe in him shall not abide in darkness, but shall have the light of life. Have we sinned and come short of the glory of God? Are we guilty before God, and subject to his just judgment? He is the high priest of our profession, a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek, a priest possessed of an unchangeable priesthood, and who, by one offering of himself, once made, hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified; having put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and ever living to make intercession for us. Are we the servants of sin, and therefore the subjects of Satan, captivated by his power, and held under his dominion? Does this present world tyrannise over us, and the law in our members war against the law of our mind and lead us captive to the law of sin that is in our members? And are we subject also to the law of death, and in bondage to the fear of it? He is exalted a prince and a saviour; is a king set upon the holy hill of Zion; and as to this office, also, the Spirit of the Lord God is upon him, because the Lord hath anointed him to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord; — to deliver us from this present evil world; — to make us free from the law of sin and death; — to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; — and to deliver them, who, through fear of death, were all their life long subject to bondage.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv17–18 So all the generations ... - This division of…
So all the generations ... - This division of the names in the genealogical tables was doubtless adopted for the purpose of aiding the memory. It was common among the Jews; and other similar instances are preserved. The Jews were destitute of books besides the Old Testament, and they had but few copies of that among them, and those chiefly in their synagogues. They would therefore naturally devise plans to keep up the remembrance of the principal facts in their history. One method of doing this was to divide the tables of genealogy into portions of equal length, to be committed to memory. This greatly facilitated the remembrance of the names. A man who wished to commit to memory the names of a regiment of soldiers would naturally divide it into companies and platoons, and this would greatly facilitate his work. This was doubtless the reason in the case before us. And, though it is not strictly accurate, yet it was the Jewish way of keeping their records, and answered their purpose. There were three leading persons and events that nearly, or quite, divided their history into equal portions: Abraham, David, and the Babylonian captivity. From one to the other was about 14 generations, and by omitting a few names it was sufficiently accurate to be made a general guide or directory in recalling the principal events in their history.
In counting these divisions, however, it will be seen that there is some difficulty in making out the number 14 in each division. This may be explained in the following manner: In the first division, Abraham is the first and David the last, making 14 altogether. In the second series, David would naturally be placed first, and the 14 was completed in Josiah, about the time of the captivity, as sufficiently near for the purpose of convenient computation, 2 Chr. 35. In the third division Josiah would naturally be placed first, and the number was completed in Joseph; so that David and Josiah would be reckoned twice. This may be shown by the following table of the names:
Read full note →
First
Division
Second
Division
Third
Division
Abraham
David
Josias
Isaac
Solomon
Jechonias
Jacob
Roboam
Salathiel
Judas
Abia
Zorobabel
Phares
Asa
Abiud
Esrom
Josaphat
Eliakim
Aram
Joram
Azor
Aminadab
Ozias
Sadoc
Naasson
Joatham
Achim
Salmon
Achaz
Eliud
Boaz
Ezekias
Eleazar
Obed
Manasses
Matthan
Jesse
Amon
Jacob
David
Josias
Joseph
14
14
14
Carrying away into Babylon - This refers to the captivity of Jerusalem, and the removal of the Jews to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, 588 years before Christ. See 2 Chr. 36. Josiah was king when these calamities began to come upon the Jews, but the exact time of the 70 years of captivity did not commence until the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign, or 32 years after the death of Josiah. Babylon was situated on the Euphrates, and was encompassed with walls which were about 60 miles in circuit, 87 feet broad, and 350 feet high, and the city was entered by 100 brass gates - 25 on each side. It was the capital of a vast empire, and the Jews remained there for 70 years. See Barnes’ notes at Isa. 13.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv16, 18 The husband of Mary. The evangelist gives us rather…
The husband of Mary. The evangelist gives us rather the pedigree of St. Joseph, than that of the blessed Virgin, to conform to the custom of the Hebrews, who in their genealogies took no notice of women: but as they near akin, the pedigree of the one sheweth that of the other. (Challoner) --- Joseph the husband of Mary.[3] So he is again called, ver. 19: but in ver. 18, we read, when Mary his mother was espoused to Joseph. These different expressions of being husband, and being espoused, have occasioned different interpretations. Some think that Joseph and the blessed Virgin were truly married at the time of Christ’s conception: others, that they were only then espoused, or engaged by a promise to marry afterwards. St. Jerome says, when you hear the name of husband, do not from thence imagine them to be married, but remember the custom of the Scriptures, according to which, they who are espoused only, are called husband and wives. (Witham) --- That Jesus, who is called Christ, was of the seed of David, is also evident, as St. Augustine affirms from various texts of the holy Scriptures, as in the epistle to the Romans, where St. Paul, (chap. i.) speaking of the Son of God, says, who was made to Him of the seed of David, according to the flesh. See also the promises made to David, 2 Kings vii. Psalms lxxxviii. and cxxxi. and spoken of Solomon, as a figure of Jesus Christ. (Estius)
===============================
Read full note →
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Joseph virum Mariæ, Greek: ton anera Marias. And Ver. 19, vir ejus, Greek: aner autes. But Ver. 18, Greek: mnesteutheises, desponsata, Greek: mnesteuomai, is not properly the same as Greek: gamein.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v18 Mat_1:18-25 (Luk_1:26-33)
SECOND SECTION
JESUS, AS MIRACULOUSLY CONCEIVED BY HIS MOTHER IN FAITH, OR IN THE MYSTERY OF HIS INCARNATION, IS NOT RECOGNIZED EVEN BY THE LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID (JOSEPH), TILL ATTESTED BY AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN.
Read full note →
Mat_1:18-25 (Luk_1:26-33)
Contents:—The tragical situation of the two betrothed descendants of David at their first appearance in history. Mary, pregnant by the power of the Holy Ghost, misunderstood and doubted by her betrothed. Joseph’s intention of privately putting her away. The mother and child vindicated from dishonor by Divine intervention. Joseph’s faith. Ancient prophecy. The name: Jesus.
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When5 as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away [by divorce] privily. 20But while he thought on these things, behold, the [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 Ghost. 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins. 22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Isaiah 7.). 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn6 son: and he called His name Jesus.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Mat_1:18. The Evangelist commences his narrative at the period when Mary’s pregnancy had become matter of certainty, about the time of her return from visiting Elisabeth.
The reading γένεσις is much better established in Mat_1:18 than γέννησις, and clearly more appropriate, as the event in question was not properly a γεννησις [begetting].
Of the Holy Ghost.—The notion of begetting is completely excluded by that of the Holy Ghost. The secret influence of the Spirit is more minutely described in Luk_1:35.
Mat_1:19. Joseph being a just man (lit. being just).—The word just has been falsely interpreted as kind, tender-hearted. To have acted upon his suspicion in reference to Mary as if it had been matter of certainty, would have been not merely unkind, but unjust. Such conduct would have been all the more inexcusable, since Mary had informed him not only of the fact of her pregnancy, but likewise of its cause. Joseph was unable to share her faith; but neither could he bring his mind entirely to disbelieve her account. This struggle of doubt and of suspicion with his feelings of generosity and of previous high esteem for Mary, influenced the decision at which he arrived. He resolved not to accuse her publicly (the reading παραδειγματίσαι is an explanation of δειγματίσαι); that is, not to dismiss her by a bill of divorce, which would have stigmatized her as an adulteress, but to dismiss her privately by a bill of divorce without assigning any reason for it. Thus her disgrace would at least not become matter of notoriety, although, of course, suspicion would attach to her; at any rate, her child might still be regarded as the son of Joseph. By this conduct he would unquestionably have taken upon himself a portion of her ignominy. He might be considered a hardhearted man, who turned away a noble woman unjustly. Those circumstances-afford an insight into the inward struggle which both experienced. On the bill of divorce, comp. Deu_24:1-3; Mat_19:8.
Mat_1:20. The Angel of the Lord that appeared to him in a vision when sleeping, was the angel of the Lord in the peculiar and historical sense of that term—the Angel of the Lord, Gen_16:7; Gen_16:9, and in other passages; or the Angel of the presence, Exo_32:34; Exo_33:14; Isa_63:9; or the Angel of the covenant, Mal_3:1. The angel Gabriel (hero of God), who, according to Luke 1, delivered the messages relating to the birth of Christ, was probably only a more definite manifestation of the Angel of the Lord (Dan_8:16; Dan_9:21). The angel of Christ’s incarnation must, in this case, be carefully distinguished from later angelic apparitions. (See the author’s Leben Jesu, ii. B. 1, 41.)
In a dream.—It is worthy of remark that the Joseph of the New Testament, like the Joseph of the Old Testament, uniformly received his revelations in dreams. This particular form of revelation may have been chosen, 1. because his spiritual life was imperfectly developed; 2. because of his spiritual sincerity and simplicity of heart.
Mary thy wife.—Among the Jews the betrothed bore the title of wife.
Of the Holy Ghost.—Both the descent of Jesus and His mission were revealed long before His actual appearance on earth. His birth, His name, and His work were equally from the Holy Ghost.
Mat_1:22-23. On the Messianic application of Isa_7:14, consult the commentaries. It must, however, be observed that the Evangelist Matthew uses the expression, “was fulfilled,” ἐπληρώθη, in reference not merely to the fulfilling of conscious verbal predictions, but also to that of typical prophecies. In the passage before us the reference is probably to a typical prophecy. The virgin (עַלְמָה) presented to Ahaz as a sign, was a type of the holy Virgin for the following reasons: 1) her future pregnancy and her giving birth to a son were announced even before her marriage had actually taken place; 2) the highest and strongest kind of faith was called into exercise in connection with this child, by which it obtained the name of Immanuel, and became the sign of approaching deliverance in a season of peculiar trial; 3) the name Immanuel was verified in the God-Man; 4) all these circumstances served to render the birth of this child peculiarly sacred, and to connect it with the future of Israel; thus strikingly prefiguring the advent of the holy child, the Hope of Israel.
Mat_1:24-25. Joseph believed in consequence of the Divine intimation he had received in a dream, and forthwith married Mary, with all the Jewish marriage ceremonies, from a regard to her reputation. But he did not consummate the marriage till Mary had given birth to her first-born. From the expression, first-born, Mat_5:25, it must not, however, be inferred that Mary subsequently bore other children. An only child was also designated first-born. The term merely implied that this was the child which had opened the womb (Gen_27:19; Gen_27:32; Exo_13:2). That Jesus had no actual brother according to the flesh, will appear on closer consideration of the real extraction of the so-called brothers of the Lord. They were the sons of Alphæus, Joseph’s brother, and of Mary, the wife of Alphæus, the sister-in-law (not the sister) of the mother of the Lord. (See the author’s dissertation in his “History of the Apost. Age,” i. p. 189; and his article, Jacobus, der Bruder des Herrn, in Herzog’s “Real-Encycl.”)7 The expression, “brethren (brothers) of the Lord,” has been taken in its literal sense by the Antidicomarianites in the ancient Church, and by many modern Protestant theologians; while the Roman Catholic Church, since the times of the Collyridians, of Epiphanius, Ambrose, etc., has gone to the opposite extreme of maintaining that Joseph and Mary never lived together on terms of husband and wife. (Meyer, in his Commentary, hastily ascribes the same view to Olshausen, Lange, von Berlepsch. Our text indicates the opposite.)8
DOCRTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. If it may be said of Abraham, that his faith brought [Germ.: hineingeglaubt] the word of the Lord as a word of promise into the world, it may, in the same way, be said of Mary, that her faith brought the incarnation of the Word into the world. And as the faith of Abraham was the connecting link by which the Divine blessing attached itself to his seed according to the promise, so Mary, by her strong and living faith, conceived, through the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Saviour of the world. The faith of Abraham established a connection between physical birth and spiritual regeneration; but, in the inspired faith of Mary, birth and regeneration have become actually one,—nay, the birth of Christ was regeneration not merely in a passive, but also in an active sense. It was creative regeneration—sinlessness, which became the efficient cause of the regeneration of men; sinlessness redeeming from sin. Those who hold that Christ derived from Mary our sinful nature, which became transformed into sinlessness by His unswerving holiness till death, argue as if regeneration were the goal of Christianity, whereas it is its commencement. In this respect they, as well as the Baptists, come very far short of Abraham’s faith. Abraham had not merely, like Melchisedec, faith as an individual, but also as the head of a family; and this faith comprehended his house and his posterity. He believed in the sanctification of nature, in the consecration of birth, and in the spiritual exaltation of natural descent by reception into the household of God. In Mary, the divine inspiration of faith went along with her conception as virgin mother; and hence, in her Son, the eternal Logos was united to human nature. (For a discussion on the miraculous birth, see Lange’s Leben Jesu, vol. ii. p. 66.)
2. The unutterably tragical situation of the Virgin, misunderstood and deserted by her betrothed, presents a striking type of the future history of her Son, when denied and abandoned by men, even his disciples. Similarly, however, her vindication by the angel of the Lord prefigures Christ’s glorification. Mary forsaken by her husband was a type of Christ’s loneliness in Gethsemane and on the cross.
3. The expression, “an angel of the Lord,” is subsequently explained by the introduction of the definite article—the angel of the Lord—connecting it with the whole Christology of the Old Testament.
4. In the same way, the announcement of the angel of the Lord is connected with the Bible doctrine of the Trinity; and that of the name Jesus with the doctrine of redemption.
5. The relation between dreams and other forms of divine revelation, is to be gathered from the doc trine of visions, and of their different forms.
6. In the passage which refers to the fulfilment of the prediction, contained in Isa_7:14, we must properly appreciate the spirit of Old Testament prophecy generally, the New Testament explanation of its various statements, and, lastly, the difference between typical and verbal prophecy.
7. In examining the passage, “and he knew her not,” etc., we must make a vast difference between the question whether Joseph and Mary lived together on terms of conjugal intercourse, and the inquiry whether Mary had afterwards other sons.
HOMILETICAL AND PRATICAL
The trials of Jesus’ mother when disowned and forsaken, prefigured His own trials when denied and deserted: 1. In both cases the cause was the same—faith. 2. The import was the same—elevation above the world. 3. The issue was the same—glory. 4. Lastly, the effect was the same—the awakening of faith.—The mother and the Song of Solomon 1. The great similarity between them. 2. The infinite difference.—The share female character has had in promoting the kingdom of God, 1. in its extension; 2. in its limitation.—Mary a model of unshaken confidence in God.—Committing oneself to the Lord leads to success even in the world.—On the connection between mistrust and unbelief.—How the entertaining of generous sentiments may become the means of preserving our faith.—An honest doubter will obtain light.—The first New Testament narrative commends to us a holy consideration for woman.—High regard for the honor and reputation of woman.—Justice must ever be allied to gentleness.—The infinite blessing which rewarded Joseph’s self-denial.—The manifestation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, concentrated in the birth of Christ.—The Holy Spirit introduced the Son into the world; and the Son, the Holy Spirit .—Symbolical lessons of the creative action of the Holy Spirit in the birth of Christ. 1. It points back to the creation of the world (Gen_1:2), and to the creation of man. (The breath of God, Gen_2:7.) 2. It points forward to the creation of the Church, and the founding of the heavenly city of God (Acts 2).—The miraculous birth of Christ viewed in the light of the miraculous birth of Adam.—The miraculous birth of Jesus as the regeneration of man.—Import of the name Jesus (the Redeemer) in connection with salvation: 1. A seal and assurance of the mode of redemption. 2. A proclamation of the fact of redemption. 3. A celebration of His work of redemption.—Joshua a type of Jesus: 1. As the hero of the achievements of faith, who followed upon Moses the lawgiver; 2. as champion in the strength of the Lord; 3. as the leader of the people from the desert to Canaan.—Redemption from sin and deliverance from sin are inseparable.—“The people” of Jesus, and they alone, are the saved. 1. We must belong to His people (listen to awakening grace) in order to obtain salvation. 2. We must be in a state of salvation (surrender ourselves to converting grace) in order wholly to belong to His people.—The people of Jesus a wonderful people of the “wonderful” King. 1. They are one in Christ, and yet diffused among all nations. 2. This people existed before it appeared (the elect), and appeared before it existed (the typical people of God under the Old Covenant). 3. They suffer with Christ, until, to appearance, they perish, and yet triumph with Christ throughout all eternity.
Jesus as Immanuel.—Jesus as the first-born in every respect (Col_1:15-18).—Gossner:—True love finds a way between jealousy and insensibility.—God forsakes none who confide in him.—Braune:—Divine interposition saves.—(Gal_4:5.)
ADDENDA
BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR
The Sinaitic Manuscript of the Bible, which Professor Tischendorf rescued from the obscurity of the Convent of St Catharine on Mount Sinai, and carefully edited in two editions in 1862 and 1863,* two years after the issue of the third edition of Dr. Lange’s Commentary on Matthew, has been carefully compared in preparing the American edition of this work from Chapter 8 to the close of the Gospel of Matthew. I thought I was the first to do so, but just before I finished the last pages of this volume, I found that Bäumlein, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John,** and Meyer, in the fifth edition of his Commentary on Matthew, both of which appeared in 1864, had preceded me, at least in print. No critical scholar can ignore this manuscript hereafter. For it is the only complete, and perhaps the oldest of all the uncial codices of the Bible, or at least of the same age and authority as the celebrated Vatican Codex (which is traced by some to the middle of the fourth century), and far better edited by the German Protestant Professor, Tischendorf, than the latter was by the Italian Cardinal, Angelo Mai. In the absence of a simpler mark agreed upon by critics (the proposed designation by the Hebrew א has not yet been adopted, and is justly objected to by Tregelles and others on the ground of typographical inconvenience), I introduce it always as Cod. Sin., and I find that Dr. Meyer in the fifth edition does the same. As I could not procure a copy of the printed edition of this Codex till I had finished the first seven chapters, I now complete the critical part of the work by adding its more important readings in the first seven chapters where they differ from the textus receptus, on which the authorized English, as well as all the older Protestant Versions of the Greek Testament are substantially based.
*Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, sive Novum Testamentum cum Epistola Barnabœ et Fragmentis Pastoris (Hermæ). Ex Codice Sinaitico auspiciis Alexandri II., omnium Russiarum imperatoris, ex tenebris protracto orbique litterarum tradito accurate descripsit Ænotheus Friderious Constantinus Tischendorf, theol. et phil. Dr., etc. etc. Lipsiæ, 1863. The text is arranged in four columns and covers 148 folios; the learned Prolegomena of the editor 81 folios. There is besides a magnificent photo-lithographed fac-simile edition of the whole Sinaitic Bible, published at the expense of the Emperor of Russia, in 4 volumes (3 for the Old and 1 for the New Testament, the latter in 148 folios), under the title: Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Auspiciis augustissimis imperatoris Alexandri II. ed. Const. Tischendorf. Petropoli, 1862. A copy of this rare edition I have also consulted occasionally, in the Astor Library of New York. For fuller information on this important Codex (in the words of Tischendorf: “omnium codicum uncialium solus integer omniumque antiquissimus”), we must refer the reader to the ample Prolegomena of Tischendorf, also to an article of Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. vii. (1864), p. 74 ff. (who is disposed to assign it to a somewhat later age), and to Scrivener’s treatise, which I have not seen.
**Hengstenberg, in his Commentary on John, concluded in 1863, pays no attention whatever to this Codex, and is very defective in a critical point of view
Mat_1:18.—Cod. Sin. sustains γένεσις, birth, nativity (B., C., P., S., Z., etc., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford) for the lect. rec. γέννησις, which may easily have arisen from ἐγέννησε and ἐγεννήθη, and as appearing to suit the connection better (partus modus), comp. Meyer, in the fifth ed., p. 43. But Christ’s origin was not properly a begetting, engendering, γέννησις (from γεννάω); and hence γένεσις is preferable both for internal and external reasons. Comp. Luk_1:14 : ἐπὶ τῇ γενέσει αὐτοῦ, which is better supported there than γεννήσει.
Mat_1:19.—Cod. Sin.: δειγματισαι for the lect. rec. παραδει γματίσαι; the παρα in Cod. Sin. being “punctis notatum rursus deletis,” as Tischendorf remarks, Proleg. p. 42, which I found to be correct on inspection of the fac-simile edition in the Astor Library. The sense, however, is not altered, since both δειγματίζω (only once, Col_2:15) and παραδειγματιζω (twice, Mat_1:19 and Heb_6:6) mean to make a show or example of one, to put to shame. Lachmann, Tischendorf (ed. septima critica major, 1859), Alford (4th ed. of 1859), and Meyer (5th ed., but omitting to notice the original reading of Cod. Sin.) read δειγματίσαι on the authority of B., Z., and scholia of Origen and Eusebius.
Mat_1:25.—Cod. Sin. reads simply: ετεκεν υιον, instead of the lect. rec.: ἔτεκω τὸν υἱὸν αὑτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, and here sustains the testimony of Codd. B., Z., etc., and the modern critical editions. The omission of πρωτότοκον is much easier accounted for, on doctrinal grounds, than its insertion, and cannot affect the controversy concerning the question of the brothers of Christ, since πρωτότοκος is genuine in Luk_2:7, where there is no variation of reading. On the other hand, the term does not necessarily prove that Mary had children after Jesus. Comp. Crit. Note 2, on p. 52, and the remark of Jerome, quoted in Tischendorf’s crit. apparatus (ed. 7. p. 4).
Footnotes:
[5] Mat_1:18.—Lit.: “For when,” μνηστευθείσης γάρ.
[6] Mat_1:25.—[πρωτότοκον, in Mat_1:25. is omitted in Codd. Sin. and Vat., in the old Egyptian versions, Hilar., Ambros., Greg., Hieron., and in the critical editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford. Lange in his version retains it, and Meyer defends it. It may have been inserted from Luk_2:7; but the omission may also be easily explained from superstitious veneration of the Blessed Virgin, as necessarily implying her perpetual virginity, which the term “first born” seemed to disprove.—P. S.]
[7][Compare also, on the other hand, the article Jacobus in Winer’s Real-Wörterbuch. i. p. 525 sqq., and P. Schaff: “Das Verhaltniss des Jacobus Alphœi zu Jacobus dem Bruder des Herrn,” Berlin, 1841.—Trsl.]
[8][In this sentence, which is omitted in the Edinb. transt., Lange means to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, as held by the Roman Church, and attributed to him by Meyer. Lange admits the reality of the marriage of Joseph and Mary and their cohabitation after the birth of Jesus, but, like Olshausen, he considers it i compatible with the dignity of Mary as the mother of the Saviour of the world, to have given birth to ordinary children of man. He also holds that Christ must be the last in the royal line of David and could have no successor or rival. But this reasoning is dogmatic, not exegetical. On the force of the ἑως οὗ in this connection, compare Meyer’s and Add. Alexunder’s remarks on Mat_1:25.—P. S.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv16–18 And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of…
And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus--From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned. See on Mat 1:20.
who is called Christ--signifying "anointed." It is applied in the Old Testament to the kings (Sa1 24:6, Sa1 24:10); to the priests (Lev 4:5, Lev 4:16, &c.); and to the prophets (Kg1 19:16) --these all being anointed will oil, the symbol of the needful spiritual gifts to consecrate them to their respective offices; and it was applied, in its most sublime and comprehensive sense, to the promised Deliverer, inasmuch as He was to be consecrated to an office embracing all three by the immeasurable anointing of the Holy Ghost (Isa 61:1; compare Joh 3:34).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv17–18 17. All the generations — The word generations, perhaps,…
17. All the generations — The word generations, perhaps, here denotes the links in the recorded genealogical chain. This summation into three nearly equal parts is primarily made to aid the memory. At the same time it marks the three great stages of Jewish history; and shows that Christ’s coming was a great historical epoch. The three periods constitute the morning, the noonday, and the evening of the Jewish history, before Christ. The morning embraces the patriarchal, the Egyptian, and the Mosaic periods. The noonday embraces the monarchy from the glorious days of David and Solomon to its termination in Jechonias. The evening, or period of decline beginning with the captivity and the restoration, embraces the cessation of prophecy and divine communications during the second temple. During this period the Maccabees, or Asmonean princes of the priestly line, defended their country with a splendid secular heroism, and crowned her with independence, until the time of HEROD, surnamed the Great, whose wife Mariamne belonged to that illustrious line. During much of this time the High Priesthood was nearly equal in power to the ancient royalty. But the royal line of David was sunk into obscurity, and flowed along in secret like a noiseless and slender stream in a dense and silent forest. Accordingly the names in both Gospel genealogies, after the cessation of Old Testament records, are found only in the family pedigrees. They are names unknown to history. When the fullness of time came, the angel is sent to a maiden of that line residing in the insignificant and unhistorical village of Nazareth.
From Abraham to David — From Abraham to Christ was in round numbers 2,000 years. David was nearly the middle point between these two; so that from Abraham to David was about one thousand years. Yet so long were the lives of the patriarchs, that it required but fourteen generations to fill that 1,000 years; whereas to fill the second thousand, namely, from David to Christ, required twice fourteen, or twenty-eight generations.
Read full note →
From David until the carrying away — This period was filled by the monarchy of Israel. Of these kings, three occurring in the Old Testament are omitted by Matthew. Lightfoot has shown that omissions in genealogies often occurred. The most striking instance of such omission is found in Revelation, chap. Mat_7:5-8, where the tribe of Dan is omitted, probably on account of the idolatrous character of that tribe. It was probably for the double reason of marking the wicked character of these three kings, and to secure the mnemonic number of fourteen, that their names were omitted. Fourteen is twice the sacred number seven. Those who have traced through Scripture the many references to this sacred number seven, will not slight the idea that such a reference here exists.
Unto Christ — By counting it will be perceived that in this third period there are not fourteen generations, as mentioned by Matthew, but thirteen. But some early manuscripts of the New Testaments supply an important clause, which seems to have been omitted by the transcribers, which omission exists in the common text. The clause reads thus: Josias begat Joakim and his brethren; and Joakim begat Jechonias about the time of the first Babylonish captivity; and Jechonias begat Selathiel after they were brought to Babylon.
The supply of this clause solves every difficulty. Nor can there be a reasonable doubt that Matthew wrote these words. The authority for them in the early copies of the New Testament is respectable. But the internal argument demonstrates their genuineness. They are required by the facts of the Old Testament history, and they are required in the present passage in order to make sense.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv16–18 16. Jacob begat Joseph] “Joseph which was the son…
16. Jacob begat Joseph] “Joseph which was the son of Heli” (Luke), see last note; probably Joseph was the son of Heli and the heir to Jacob. It is conjectured with much probability that Jacob was Mary’s father. In that case, although both genealogies show Joseph’s descent, they are in fact equally genealogies of Mary’s family.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv17–18 (17) The arrangement into three triads of fourteen generations…
(17) The arrangement into three triads of fourteen generations each was obviously in the nature of a memoria technica. The periods embraced by the three groups were, it may be noted, of very unequal length; and the actual omission of names in one of them, makes it possible that the others may have been treated in the same way.
(1) From the birth of Abraham to the birth of David, taking the dates supplied by the received chronology of the Old Testament. B.C. 1996-1085.
Read full note →
(2) From the birth of David to the Captivity. B.C. 1085-588.
(3) From the Captivity to the birth of Jesus. B.C. 588-4.
There remains the further question, how we are to reconcile the genealogy given by St. Matthew with that given by St. Luke (Luk_3:23-38). This will, it is believed, be best dealt with in a short Excursus in the Notes on that Gospel. Here it may be sufficient to note that the difference between the two is, at least, strong presumptive evidence that neither of the two Evangelists had seen the record of the other. It is otherwise hardly conceivable that the element of difficulty which these differences involve should have been introduced by one or the other without a word of explanation. Each, it may be presumed, copied a document which he found, and the two documents were drawn up on a different plan as to the ideas of succession recognised in each of them.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv16–18 And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary. St.…
And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary. St. Luke calls Joseph "the son of Heli." There are two ways in which these differing statements may be made to accord. The two sons of Matthan were Jacob the elder, and Heli the younger. It may be that Mary was the only child of Jacob, and Joseph the son of Heli. Then by marriage with his cousin, Joseph would become Jacob"s son as well as Heli"s. Or it may be that Jacob died without children, and Heli, marrying his widow according to the Jewish usage, became by her the father of Joseph, who hence would be called Jacob"s son, that the elder brother"s line might not die out. The points noticed above in respect of these varying pedigrees seem to be all those on which anything needs to be said with the view of comparing them. Their variety stands as a constant evidence of the independence of the two evangelists. Had either of them been conscious of the existence of the other"s work. it is inconceivable that he would have made no effort to adjust the pedigree, for which he would possess means now lost for ever. They both design to give us the descent of Joseph from David, this being what a Sew would most regard. The descent of Mary from David is nowhere definitely mentioned in the Gospels, but that Jesus was sprung from David on the mother"s side too we are warranted in concluding from the words of the angel to Mary, (Luk_1:32) "his father David" (cf. also Delitzsch, "Hess. Proph.," But though we ought not to spend vain labour in attempting to reconcile these two genealogies of Joseph, we can see, from what we know of Jewish customs, grounds enough for understanding how these variations came to exist. The same Jew, we find, was often known under two names; of this we have several examples in the lists of the twelve apostles. It is possible, therefore, that in these two pedigrees there may have been more points of union than we are able to detect. Then the rule, before alluded to, by which a man took the childless widow of his deceased brother for his wife and raised seed unto his brother, may also have led to much confusion of names, which we have now no means of unravelling. The evangelists drew each his own list from some authentic source, accessible to others beside themselves, and the record of which could be verified when the Gospels were set forth. This should satisfy us that those we have received were held by the Jews soon after Christ"s time to be truthful records, and that each established from a Jewish point of view the descent of the putative father of Jesus from King David. Of whom was born Jesus. This name, which, through Jeshua, is the Greek form of Joshua, (for which, indeed, it stands in the Authorized Version of Act_7:45 and Heb_4:8) signifies "Jehovah is help," and was not an uncommon name among the Jews, though given with marked significance at this time (see ver. 21). We find, according to the best texts, that in Luk_3:29 this name occurs in the pedigree of Joseph (where the Authorized Version has Jose), and the Revised Version has adopted that reading. (Of the way in which the name was augmented when given to the famous successor of Moses, see Num_13:16) Who is called Christ. The evangelist here alludes merely to the well-known fact that Jesus was called by this name. The significance of the word, which is a translation of the Hebrew Messiah, is "anointed," and in the Old Testament it is given to priests, (as Lev_4:3, Lev_4:5, Lev_4:16) to a king appointed by Jehovah, (1Sa_24:6, 10 2Sa_19:21) also to King Cyrus, (Isa_45:1) and to some unnamed representative of Jehovah. (1Sa_2:10) It was subsequently applied to Jesus both in the Greek form and in the Hebrew. (Joh_1:41 Joh_4:25) It must, however, be noticed (vide Bishop Westcott, Add. Note on 1Jn_5:1) that it was not a characteristic title of the promised Saviour in the Old Testament, and was not even specifically applied to him, unless, perhaps, in Dan_9:25, 26 a passage of which the interpretation is very doubtful.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John A. Broadus 1886 · Public Domain On v18 Mat 1:18-25.
Mat 1:18-25.
Jesus Born Of A Virgin Mother
Read full note →
Having presented the genealogy of Jesus, the inspired writer commences the narrative proper with matters pertaining to Jesus’ birth and infancy. (Mat 1:18 to Mat 2:23) The passage now before us is designed to show, that he was born of a virgin mother. Matthew does not mention the annunciation to Mary, nor the birth of the forerunner, (Luke 1) but begins at the time when it became apparent that Mary was with child, which would be soon after her return from the visit to Elisabeth. (Luk 1:56)
Mat 1:18. The birth[1] of Jesus Christ was on this wise. It has already been intimated (Mat 1:16) that he was not in the ordinary way the son of Joseph; and this point is now distinctly stated. His mother Mary. It is no doubt wisely provided that we know very little concerning the personal history of "Mary the mother of Jesus." (Act 1:14) The traditions relating to her, so highly prized by Romanists, are of no value. She was probably (see on "Mat 1:17") a descendant of David. We know nothing of her parents, or of any brothers; there is allusion to a sister (Joh 19:25), who is by some identified with "Mary the wife of Clopas," mentioned just after, and who upon that supposition must have borne the same name (see on "Mat 13:55"). We are informed that Elisabeth was her kinswoman, (Luk 1:36) so that Jesus and his forerunner were remote relatives Mary’s early home appears to have been Nazareth, and she probably lived a life of poverty and toil. As to her character, we are somewhat better informed. In Luke’s narrative she appears before us as a deeply pious maiden, prompt to believe what God revealed, (Luk 1:38, Luk 1:45) and anxious to have all difficulties in the way of her faith removed; (Luk 1:34) as humbly rejoicing in the high privilege secured to her by the divine promise, (Luk 1:46-55) and through the years which followed thoughtfully pondering the things which occurred in connection with her child. (Luk 2:19) The familiarity with Scripture manifested by her song of thanksgiving, (Luk 1:46 ff,) shows how lovingly she had been accustomed to dwell on the word of God. Mary was of course not faultless, but her character was worthy of her high providential position, and she deserves our admiration and gratitude. Above all the "mothers of the wise and good" may we call her ’happy’, (Luk 1:48) and cherish her memory. The utterly unscriptural, absurd, and blasphemous extreme to which the Romanists have gradually carried their veneration of Mary, must not drive us into the opposite extreme. The name ’Mary’ is the same as Miriam, and is often written Mariam in the Greek, particularly when applied to the mother of our Lord (e. g., Mat 1:20). Its original meaning of rebelliousness was quite suitable for the sister of Moses.
[1] The correct text of the Greek is genesis, ’origin,’ and so birth, rather than gennesis, prob. derived from eggenthe in Mat 1:16. A few very early versions and Fathers here omit ’Jesus,’ reading simply ’the birth of the Christ,’ and this is adopted by Treg., Westcott Hort, and McClellan. The question is quite interesting, for the principles involved, to students of text-criticism (see Treg., Tisch., Scriv., W. H.); but it does not seem allowable to leave the reading of all the Greek MSS. and most versions. The practical difference is not very important (see on "Mat 1:1"). In the second clause omit gar of the common Greek text, leaving the simple genitive absolute. Matthew quite frequently employs this construction (Weiss).
Of Joseph likewise but little is known. Though of the old royal family, he appears to have been quite poor, and to have followed the lowly calling of wood-workman, probably what we call a carpenter (compare see on "Mat 13:55"). He is here declared (Mat 1:19, Rev. Ver.) to be a ’righteous’ man, and we shall presently find him faithfully attentive to his precious charge (ch. 2); but beyond this the Scriptures give us no information (compare at end of Matthew 2).
Espoused, Rev. Ver. gives betrothed. So Wyc., Tyn., Gen. The Com. Ver. followed Rheims in giving "espoused," which formerly meant betrothed. It appears to have been a custom among the Jews for a betrothed maiden to remain still for some time in her father’s house, before the marriage was consummated; and before they came together, probably refers to their coming to live in the same home, though it may be taken in the other sense, which is obvious. (compare 1Co 7:5) She was found, does not imply an attempt at concealment, but merely states that it was then ascertained. The expression is consistent with the view that she herself discovered the fact, and then, through information conveyed in some suitable way, it was ascertained by Joseph. The narrative is marked by great delicacy. A little reflection will suggest reasons why a divine revelation on the subject was made to Mary beforehand, and to Joseph only after the fact had become apparent. A different course with regard to either of them would have occasioned additional embarrassment and distress. Ghost is an Anglo Saxon word of the same meaning as the Latin ’Spirit,’ and having the same primary sense of ’breath’ (see on "Mat 16:25"). It has in modern times given way to the Latin term, and become obsolete, except (1) as denoting a spirit of a dead person supposed to become visible, (2) as used in the phrase ’to give up the ghost’ (equals expire), and (3) as applied to the third person of the Trinity. In this last sense our Common English Version employs it only in those passages of the New Testament in which ’holy’ is prefixed, so as to make the personal designation ’The Holy Ghost’; and employs it in all such passages, except Luk 11:13; 1Th 4:8. When used without ’holy’ in the New Testament and everywhere in the Old Testament, the word is ’Spirit.’ (Compare as to ’hallow,’ on Mat 6:9). It is to be regretted that Rev. Ver. did not uniformly adopt ’Holy Spirit,’ with Amer. Revisers. Compare on Mat 3:11; Mat 12:32; Mat 28:19. Of the Holy Ghost, (literally out of, marking the Holy Spirit as the source or cause of her, condition), is here not meant to be understood as a part of the discovery, but is a fact appended by the narrator.—Under ordinary circumstances, Mary’s condition would have involved a crime which, by the law of Moses, was punished with death by stoning. (Lev 20:10) And a betrothed woman must be treated in this respect as if already married. (Deu 22:23 f)
Mat 1:19. From the time of betrothal the parties were legally bound to each other, so as to be called husband and wife, (Mat 5:20; Deu 22:24) and so that unchastity in either would be adultery. An unrighteous man would have cherished a passionate angel and sought to punish as severely as possible. Joseph, being a just (Rev. Ver. righteous), man, (compare 1Sa 24:17) was not inclined to extreme severity, but was disposed to divorce her privately. (So Bleek, Grimm, Cremer). Or it may be understood thus: Joseph, being righteous (and therefore feeling that in such circumstances he could not take her as his wife), and yet not willing to expose her publicly,[1] was disposed to pursue a middle course, and divorce her privately. (So Meyer, Weiss, Morison.) The statement has been frequently made (so Chrysostom, Grotius), that the Greek word rendered ’righteous’ may signify ’good, kind,’ but it has not been shown to have that meaning anywhere in the New Testament, and the common meaning gives a good sense, in either of the above ways. It would appear that the law, (Deu 22:23 f) was not regarded as compelling a husband to accuse his wife as an adulteress, and so Joseph would not be violating the law if he should avoid the extreme course, and divorce her, and this without stating his reason in the "writing of divorcement," (Mat 5:31). Edersheim shows such a course to accord with custom and Rabbinical opinion.
[1] The earliest MSS. read deigmatisai, ’make her a spectacle,’ the common Greek text paradeigmatisai, ’make her an example.’ It is somewhat difficult to decide which is the correct reading, but the difference in meaning is unimportant.
Mat 1:20. The angel, more probably an angel, although the Greek might be understood as definite because of the Lord being appended. As to the angels, see on "Mat 18:10". Divine communications by means of dreams are mentioned by Mat 1:20, Mat 2:12-13, Mat 2:19, Mat 27:19; and referred to in Act 2:17; not elsewhere in New Testament. Edersheim shows that the Jews attached great importance to dreams. There was probably something connected with such dreams as really gave divine guidance to distinguish them from ordinary dreams. Joseph is addressed as son of David, and thereby somewhat prepared for the remarkable disclosure about to be made. He probably knew that his was a leading branch of the royal family (see on "Mat 1:17"). Mary thy wife, the betrothed woman being frequently spoken of as a wife. (Deu 22:24) So as to ’Joseph her husband,’ in Act 2:19. Of the Holy Ghost. Accordingly in Mat 1:21 it is not, shall bring forth a son ’unto thee,’ as was said to Zacharias, (Luk 1:13)
Mat 1:21. Jesus is the same name as Joshua, a contraction of Jehoshuah, (Num 13:16, 1Ch 7:27) signifying in Hebrew ’Jehovah is helper,’ or ’Help of Jehovah.’ In the later books, (e. g., Neh 7:7, Neh 8:17; Ezr 2:2, etc.), it sometimes takes the form Jeshua (Jeshuah), and this the Greek translators of the Old Testament expressed (compare on Mat 1:2) by Jesus. (In the Jewish books subsequent to Christianity it is frequently Jeshu). The name Joshua is everywhere in the Septuagint found in this form, Jesus, and so in the two passages of the New Testament in which Joshua is mentioned. (Act 7:45; Heb 4:8) As applied to our Lord there is of course a certain modification of the idea conveyed by the name, but the leading thought is the same, viz., deliverance, salvation, and that springing from Jehovah. Like Joshua, who led Israel into the promised land, Jesus was to be the leader and ruler of his people, the "captain of their salvation", (Heb 2:10) under whose guidance they would be delivered from all dangers and brought safe to the rest that remaineth. (Heb 4:9) Like the high-priest Joshua, who was associated with Zerubbabel in bringing the Jews back from the captivity, (Ezr 2:2; Zec 8:1) Jesus was to be the high-priest of his people. He thus answered at the same time to the civil and religious rulers of the nation, at once King and Priest. Compare "he shall be a priest upon his throne," said of Joshua in Zec 6:13.[1] Mary had also been told (Luk 1:31) that the child must be named Jesus, but without the reason for it here given. For he shall save. In Revised Version, it is he that shall save. The word ’he’ is here pretty clearly emphatic in the Greek, he himself, he and no other, though Revised Version rather exaggerates the emphasis.[2] The word rendered ’save’ signifies primarily to ’preserve,’ secondarily to ’deliver,’ and it often conveys both ideas at the same time. It is applied to physical dangers (Mat 8:25), death (Mat 24:22; Mat 27:40, Mat 27:42), disease (Mat 9:21-22; Jas 5:15), and to sin and its consequences, which is the common use. From their sins, from both the consequences and the dominion, both the penalty and the power of their sins. Messiah did not come, as the Jews commonly supposed he would, simply to save his people from the dominion of foreigners; it was something deeper and higher, to save them from their sins. And not to save them in their sins, but from their sins. His people would to Joseph naturally mean Israel. It may have been meant to denote the spiritual Israel, including some of the nation, though not all (Rom 9:6, Rom 9:27, Rom 9:31; Rom 11:7), and some Gentiles. (Rom 9:25-26, Rom 9:30) Or the angel may have meant simply the people of Israel, i. e., the truly pious among them, not intending to exclude the Gentiles from being saved by Jesus, but confining the view at present to the salvation of the Jews. So the angel announces to the shepherds "great joy, which shall be to all the people." (Luk 2:10, Revised Version) Ecclus. Sir 46:1 says of Joshua, "Who according to his name became great for the salvation of his elect" (God’s elect), which shows that the meaning of the name would be readily apprehended, and the connection in Ecclus. clearly confines the "elect" to Israel. Compare the restriction of our Lord’s ministry, and the temporary restriction of the ministry of the Twelve, to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mat 15:24; Mat 10:5, Mat 10:6.) The same question as in this case arises in Act 5:31, Revised version "to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins."
[1] Other persons named Joshua or Jesus are found in 1Sa 6:14, 1Sa 18:2; Kings 1Sa 23:8; Luk 3:29; Col 4:11; Ecclus. Prologue and 50:27; Josephus, "Ant."vi. 6, 6; xi. 7, 1; xii. 5, 1; xv. 3, 1. See also Bar-Jesus, Act 13:6. Jason, in Act 17:5; Rom 16:21 is the same name altered into a form sounding better in Greek, as Jews among us often give their names a more English shape.
[2] Winer, Fritzsche, Meyer, and others, hold that autos in Nom. is always emphatic. But the New Testament has some examples (see Buttmann, p. 107, Grimm II. 2) in which it cannot without great violence be so understood, and we seem compelled to admit that it is occasionally only an unemphatic ’he,’ etc. (Latin is). It is freely so used in modern Greek (Mullach), and there is a partly similar use of in late Latin ipse (Ronsch). Compare Ellicott on Col 1:1; Moulton’s note to Winer p. 187.
Mat 1:22. All this was done, etc. The statement and quotation in Mat 1:22 f. has been understood by some expositors (Chrys., Alexander) as a part of the words of the angel. They render: ’And all this has taken place,[1] it may be fulfilled,’ etc., and the language, so far as that goes, warrants their interpretation. In Mat 26:56, the same form of expression is commonly referred to the speaker of what precedes, and not to the Evangelist; (compare Mar 14:49) in Mat 21:4, the connection will admit of either view. (see on "Mat 21:4"). In the present case, however, we should have to suppose the angel to be anticipating when he says: "All this has taken place," for most of the events to which he refers were yet future; and in Mat 21:4, no part of the event in question has taken place when the Saviour speaks. Matthew has not elsewhere than in these three passages the precise expression, ’all this has taken place in order that,’ etc., but he remarks upon the designed fulfilment of prophecy much oftener than the other Evangelists, so that it is quite natural to refer this statement to him; which on the whole seems decidedly best. Looking back upon the events, Matthew connects them with the time at which he is writing, and thus very naturally says: ’All this has taken place that it might be fulfilled, etc.[2] Fulfilled is the translation of a Greek word being applied to a work or a duty, and to predictions, as here. This last very important use, to fulfil (a prediction), is found frequently in Matthew, (Mat 1:22, Mat 2:15, Mat 2:17, Mat 2:23, Mat 4:14, Mat 8:17, Mat 12:17, Mat 13:35, Mat 21:4, Mat 26:54, Mat 26:56, Mat 27:9) and in John; (Joh 12:38, Joh 13:18, Joh 15:25, Joh 17:12, Joh 18:9, Joh 18:32, Joh 19:24, Joh 19:36) several times in Luke (Luk 1:20; Luk 4:21; Luk 21:22; Luk 24:44), and in Acts (Act 1:16, Act 3:18, Act 13:27) once in Mark (Mar 14:49) and in James (Jas 2:23) An examination of these passages would show that in general they will admit only the strict sense of fulfil, implying a real prediction, and that no one of them requires the quite different meaning attached to the term by some expositors, viz.: that while there was no real prediction, the New Testament occurrence reminded the Evangelist of the Old Testament passage, or so resembled the Old Testament occurrence as to warrant the application to it of the same language. This serious departure from the etymology and regular use of the word is supposed by such expositors to be required by a few passages in which it is difficult for us to see that there exists the strict relation of prediction and fulfilment. But such passages, it will be found, all admit of at least a possible explanation in consistency with the idea of a real fulfilment (see on Mat 2:15, Mat 2:18), and we have no right to take this or any other word in a sense alien to its origin and use, unless there be found passages in which it cannot possibly have the usual meaning. The strict application of this rule of interpretation is here a matter of importance, as the question involved seriously affects the prophetic relation between the Old and the New Testament.
[1] The word rendered in the Common English Version ’was done’; properly signifies to ’come to be,’ ’come to two,’ ’happen,’ etc., and this meaning is very important for the exact exposition of many passages in the Testament. The student should look out for this and not be content to render it loosely.
[2] The peculiar idiom of the Greek makes it equally proper to render ’that it may,’ or ’that it might,’ according to the connection.
But two things are to be observed. (1) The New Testament writers sometimes quote Old Testament expressions as applicable to gospel facts or truths, without saying that they are prophecies (e. g., Rom 10:18), and in some cases it is doubtful how they intend the quotation to be regarded. (2) It is often unnecessary, and sometimes impossible, to suppose that the prophet himself had in mind that which the New Testament writer calls a fulfilment of his prediction. Some predictions were even involuntary, as that of Caiaphas. (Joh 11:50) Many prophecies received fulfilments which the prophet does not appear to signifying to ’make full,’ to ’fill up.’ (So the English fill full or fulfil). It is often used in New Testament, both literally, as to fill a valley, boat, etc., and figuratively, as to fill with gladness, knowledge, etc. In a derivative sense it signifies to ’perform fully,’ ’accomplish,’ have at all contemplated. But as God’s providence often brought about the fulfilment though the human actors were heedless or even ignorant of the predictions they fulfilled (e. g., Joh 19:24), so God’s Spirit often contemplated fulfilments of which the prophet had no conception, but which the Evangelist makes known. And it is of a piece with the general development of revelation that the later inspiration should explain the records of earlier inspiration, and that only after events have occurred should the early predictions of them be fully understood.
Some still insist that the phrase that it might be fulfilled should be rendered, or at any rate should be understood as denoting, ’so that it was fulfilled,’ expressing only the result; but the best scholars are now very nearly unanimous in maintaining that we must hold fast, in this and all similar passages, to the established meaning of the phrase. The design expressed is often not merely, and in some cases not at all, that of the human agents, but the design of God in his providence. It is probably the failure to note this simple distinction—while it was clearly perceived that in some passages no such design as that stated can have been entertained by the actors themselves—that has led numerous earlier interpreters, including some of the Greek Fathers, to accept the sense of result; and the disposition to do so has doubtless been strengthened in some minds by dislike to the idea of divine predestination. Notice that the term which here precedes does not exactly signify ’was done’ (which would direct our thoughts to the human actors), but, as above explained, ’has occurred,’ ’has taken place,’ i. e., in the course of providence. (Compare on Mat 2:17, and Mat 6:10).
Mat 1:23. The quotation is from Isa 7:14. Proposing to give Ahaz a sign of speedy deliverance from his enemies, Ephraim and Syria, the prophet speaks as here quoted, adding (Alexander’s version): "Curds and honey shall he eat until he shall know (how) to reject the evil and choose the good; for before the child shall know (how) to reject the evil and choose the good, the land of whose two kings thou art afraid shall be forsaken." A certain woman (to us unknown), then a virgin, would bear a son; and before he should arrive at the early age indicated, i. e., in the course of a few years, Ahaz would be delivered from the dreaded kings of Syria and Israel by the coming of the Assyrians, who would lay those countries waste. Then Judah would prosper, and the growing child would have other food than merely curds and honey. It is not necessary to maintain that Isaiah himself saw anything further in the prediction. But as ’spoken by[1] the Lord, through the prophet,’ we learn from Matthew that it also pointed forward to the birth from the more notable virgin, of one who should be not merely a pledge of divine deliverance, but himself the Deliverer; who should not simply give token by his name of God’s presence to protect, but should himself be the present and manifest Deity. We need not suppose that Matthew would in argument with a Jew have appealed to this passage as by itself proving to the Jew that Jesus was the Messiah—for we have no information that the Jews understood it as a Messianic passage—but it is one of many predictions, some more and some less plain, which all combined would furnish conclusive proof. And we, who might never have perceived such a reference in the prophet’s words, accept it on the authority of the Evangelist, and do so without difficulty, because we see how fully the prophetic books are pervaded by the Messianic idea. (Act 10:43) ’To him all the prophets bear witness.’ Some expositors of Isaiah (at Hengstenberg, Alexander) understand an exclusive reference to the birth of Jesus; but how could that possibly become a sign to Ahaz of his speedy deliverance from Syria and Ephraim? The Hebrew is, literally, "Behold, the maiden conceiving and bringing forth a son, and calling " etc. As the calling is future, it is natural to take the other participles as future also (Toy.) The last Hebrew verb might mean ’thou shalt call,’ and so the Sept. has "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son, and thou shalt call," etc. Matthew has substantially the same as the Septuagint (which he commonly follows, compare on Isa 8:3,) only changing the last verb to ’they shall call,’ i. e., people shall call—he shall be so recognized. (Compare Isa 8:3) The Hebrew substantive signifies ’maiden.’ No case has been found in which it must mean a married woman; the only examples adduced by Gesenius and others (Pro 30:19 Son 6:8) fail to prove the point. The Sept. here translates ’virgin,’ Matthew confirms that by his authority, and all the efforts have failed to show that it is wrong.[2] Immanuel. One of the forms of the principal Hebrew word for God is el; and immanu signifies ’with us.’ While this was to be the actual name of the child born in the time of Ahaz, it was for Jesus not a name actually borne, but only a description of his character and position. Compare the name Jedidiah, ’beloved of Jehovah,’ which Nathan gave to Solomon at his birth, (2Sa 12:25) but which was not actually borne by him. Compare also Isa 60:18; Eze 48:35.
[1] For the principal actor old English commonly said ’of’ (same word as Latin ab, Greek apo); in modern English it is ’by.’ The intermediary we now most clearly express by ’through.’
[2] This Hebrew word is almah. Another word, bethulah, generally means virgin, but in Joe 1:8 is clearly applied to a young wife. If such an instance had been found for almah, it would have been claimed as triumphant proof that ’virgin’ is not here a proper translation. The other Greek translations of Isaiah render by neanis, a young woman; but it must be remembered that the Christians early began to use this passage against the Jews, and that of the three translators Aquila was a Jew, Theodotion a Jew or a heretic, Symmachus an Ebionite (Judaizer,) which makes their rendering suspicious. Buxtorf and Levy give no Aramaic (Chaldee) examples in which almah must mean a married woman. The result seems to be that almah does not certainly prove a virgin birth but fully admits of that sense, which Matthew confirms.
Mat 1:24. Joseph, believing and obedient, at once married his betrothed, with all the customary ceremonies, taking her to his house, where she would have his protection and tender care. They lived in Nazareth. (See on "Mat 2:23".)
Mat 1:25. Till she brought forth her firstborn son. The Revised Version properly omits the phrase, ’her firstborn.’[3] Though not said here, it is said in Luk 2:7, that he was ’her firstborn.’ This phrase of Luke, and Matthew’s ’till,’ naturally suggest that Mary afterwards bore other children, but do not certainly prove it. The word ’till’ is sometimes employed where the state of things do not change after the time indicated. Yet the examples adduced (the best are, perhaps, Psa 112:8, Psa 110:1; less apposite are Gen 8:7; Deu 34:6; 1Sa 15:35; 2Sa 6:23; Isa 22:14; 1Ti 4:13) are none of them really similar to the one before us. The word will inevitably suggest that afterwards it was otherwise, unless there be something in the connection or the nature of the case to forbid such a conclusion. In like manner the dedication of the firstborn son (Exo 13:15) gave a sort of technical sense to the term ’firstborn,’ which might cause it to be applied to an only child. Still, this would be very unnatural for Luke, writing long afterwards, and perfectly knowing that there was no other offspring, if such was the case. Combine these separate strong probabilities furnished by ’till’ and ’firstborn’ with the third expression ’brethren’ or ’brothers’ and even "sisters " (see on "Mat 13:55"), and the result is a very strong argument to the effect that Mary bore other children. The Romanists hold marriage to be a less holy state than celibacy, and so they set aside all these expressions without hesitation. When some Protestants (as Alexander), on grounds of vague sentiment, object to the idea that Mary was really a wife, and repeatedly a mother, they ought to perceive that the Evangelists had no such feeling, or they would certainly have avoided using so many expressions which naturally suggest the contrary. It was inevitable that Jesus should be commonly regarded as the son of Joseph (Mat 13:55; Joh 1:46), for the divine communications to Joseph and Mary could not at present be made known. Accordingly even Mary says, ’thy father and I,’ and even Luke ’his parents’. (Luk 2:41, Luk 2:43, Luk 2:48.)
[3] This is the reading of the two oldest (B and à), and several other important Greek MSS. (Z. 1, 33), and often four oldest versions (old Latin, old Syriac, and the two Egyptian.) The additional words, ’her firstborn,’ are obviously added from Luk 2:7, where the text does not vary. We can see why many copies should have inserted them here, to make Matthew similar to Luke, and can see no reason why any copy should have omitted them here, when well known to exist in Luke. Observation shows that assimilation of parallel passages was almost always effected by insertion in the shorter, and the probable reason is that it would have been held irreverent by students and copyists to omit anything from the longer text.
Homiletical And Practical
Mat 1:18 f. The most ’highly-favoured’ of all women has to bear for a time the deepest reproach a woman can suffer. (Edersheim: "The first sharp pang of the sword which was to pierce her soul.") But it proves only a step in the progress to everlasting honour.—
Mat 1:19 f. Divine guidance in perplexity. (1) A perplexity here of the most cruelly painful sort. (2) The perplexed man is unselfishly anxious to do right. (3) He takes time and reflects. (4) The Lord directs him. Personal righteousness and prayerful reflection will often carry us through; and the result may be the highest joy. Jer. Taylor: "In all our doubts we shall have a resolution from heaven, or some of its ministers, if we have recourse thither for a guide, and be not hasty in our discourses, or inconsiderate in our purposes, or rash in judgment."
Mat 1:20. Jesus and the Holy Spirit. (1) His humanity due to the Holy Spirit. (2) His whole life controlled by the Holy Spirit (Mat 4:1; Mat 12:28; Joh 3:34; Heb 9:14). (3) His mission vindicated and commended by the Holy Spirit. (1Ti 3:16; Joh 16:8-11.) (4) His work continued by the Holy Spirit (Joh 14:16, Joh 16:13 Act 16:7; ’the Spirit of Christ,’ Rein. Act 8:9.)
Mat 1:21. The three Joshuas.—Our Saviour.
I. What he is. (1) God with us. (2) Born of a woman. (8) Thus the God-man.
II. What he does. (1) He will save. (2) He will save his people. (3) He will save his people from their sins.—The gospel not merely gives us religious instruction, but makes known a personal Saviour. Its power does not reside in propositions, but in a person.
Mat 1:22. Providence fulfilling prophecy.
Mat 1:21-23. Nicoll: "Jesus Christ was, (1) The child of the Holy Ghost, who had existed from eternity, and now entered into the sphere of sense and time; (2) Born into the world with a distinct mission—his name was called Jesus, because he was to save."
Mat 1:23. Mary. (1) The Mary of prophecy. (2) The Mary of history. (3) The Mary of modern fancy. See Milton’s "Hymn on the Nativity," and Marks. Browning’s noble poem, "The Virgin Mary to the Child Jesus." Lorimer: "Such a mother must have exerted a marked influence on the character of her child. To question it would he to question the reality of his humanity."
The Incarnation, as to its nature, is of necessity unfathomably mysterious; but as a fact, it is unspeakably glorious, and, with the Atonement and Intercession, it furnishes a divinely simple and beautiful solution of the otherwise insoluble problem of human salvation. Many things the world accepts and uses as vitally important facts, concerning the nature of which there may yet be questions it is impossible to answer.
John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv16, 18 Joseph the husband of Mary.
Mat_1:16-17
Joseph the husband of Mary.
Read full note →
Jesus the seed of the woman
1. Jesus is the Christ.
2. He has a human ancestry.
3. He has a Jewish ancestry.
4. He has a Gentile ancestry.
5. He has a royal ancestry.
6. He has a lowly ancestry.
7. He has a holy ancestry.
8. He has an imperfect ancestry.
9. He has a mortal ancestry.
10. He has an immortal. (Dr. Bonar.)
Joseph and Mary were one thing by right of inheritance, another by present condition. They were successors to the kingdom of Israel, but were poor. Why does God permit the righteous to be deprived of their right and to be brought to poverty?
1. Because thus He will prove them.
2. Because worldly abundance is not so fit for them.
3. That He may crown them with future blessedness more abundantly.
4. That He may let us see how careful He is of us when we are in need.
5. How content were Joseph and Mary in their low estate.
6. The way to heaven is by adversity. (R. Ward.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv16–18 16. Jacob begat Joseph. The descendant of a long…
16. Jacob begat Joseph. The descendant of a long line of kings was a poor carpenter of Nazareth. As the husband of Mary he was the legal father of Jesus, and Matthew gives his line of descent. A comparison of the table given by Luke will show that it differs in part from that of Matthew. Between David and Joseph the lists are widely different. Several views, all possible, have been presented, but the most probable explanation is that Matthew gives the line of Joseph, the legal line, and that Luke gives the line of Mary, the mother of our Lord. As the Jews regarded only male descent, unless Joseph, the supposed father, was a descendant of David they would not have recognized the genealogy as a fulfillment of the prophecies that Christ should be the Son of David; while Luke, himself a Gentile and writing for Gentiles, was more particular to give the line that shows that Jesus is really the Son of David. If Mary was the daughter of Heli, especially if an heiress, Joseph, by marriage, would become the “son of Heli.” That there is no contradiction between the two tables is shown by the fact that the Jews who best understood their genealogies never charged it. These tables were preserved with great care, for various reasons, until Christ was born, but it is asserted that Herod destroyed them. If this is incorrect, they did not survive the destruction of Jerusalem.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v18 Mat_1:18. Espoused = betrothed.—Among the Jews the betrothal took…
CRITICAL NOTES
Mat_1:18. Espoused = betrothed.—Among the Jews the betrothal took place a year before marriage, and during the interval the betrothed maiden remained with her own family. But from the day of betrothal the pair were regarded as man and wife (Carr).
Read full note →
Mat_1:19. A just man.—Two courses were open to him. He could either summon her before the law-courts to be judicially condemned and punished, or he could put her away by a bill of divorcement before witnesses, but without assigning cause. He resolved to take the more merciful course, which was also the more “just.” Dr. Brown says, “That some communication had passed between him and his betrothed, directly or indirectly, on the subject, after she returned from her three months’ visit to Elizabeth, can hardly be doubted. Nor does the purpose to divorce her necessarily imply disbelief on Joseph’s part of the explanation given him. Even supposing him to have yielded to it some reverential assent—and the Evangelist seems to convey as much by ascribing the proposal to screen her to the justice of his character—he might think it altogether unsuitable and incongruous in such circumstances to follow out the marriage.”
Mat_1:22. Fulfilled.—The Evangelists frequently quote prophecies, the context of which must, at the time that they were first delivered, have been interpreted of things then present, and that, too, according to the Divine intention. But the same Divine intention, looking forward to remote futurity, so framed the language of prophecy that it should apply with greater specialty to the times of the Messiah (Bengel).
Mat_1:23. A virgin.—R.V., the virgin, a particular virgin. The prophecy (Isaiah 7) is distinctly Messianic, but the sign in Isaiah is not concerned with the manner of the child’s birth, but with the name and the deliverance which should happen in his infancy. Therefore the weight of the reference is to the name “Emmanuel” and to the true Son of David, whose birth was the sign of His people’s deliverance (Carr).
Mat_1:25. Firstborn.—The oldest MSS. omit “firstborn.” So R.V. Scripture supplies no data for any decision as to whether Mary had or had not children besides our blessed Lord, nor does any tradition that can really be called primitive (Plumptre).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_1:18-25
A mysterious birth.—After the lineage of Jesus we naturally come to His birth. Whence and when He came we have seen, viz. from just that direction and at just such a time as were fitting in the case of one who was spoken of as the Christ. What we ask next is as to the manner and circumstances of His appearance. Looked at from the same point of view, was there anything noteworthy about these? The answer is given us here. The “birth of Jesus Christ” was on such “wise” as to be well worthy of note. It was so, first, on account of the perplexities by which it was marked. It was so, next, on account of the light by which these perplexities were removed.
I. The perplexities of the case.—On these mysteries it does not become us to say very much; nor is it necessary, in fact. The Evangelist explains their origin and nature in a few serious words. A certain man named Joseph belonging to that “house and lineage of David” (Luk_2:4) of which the preceding verses tell us so much, was betrothed to a maiden named Mary, of the same line with himself, but had not as yet formally taken her as his wife. Whilst thinking of doing so he hears that about her which fills him with doubt. Ought he to do what he was thinking of doing? In that doubt of his very much is implied. Much is implied about her. Had the report in question been about another than her, Joseph would probably not have doubted at all. In such a quarter he would never have thought of marriage again. But he cannot come all at once to this conclusion about her. Could such an one as he knew her to be have been guilty of evil? Could she be saying what she knew to be false? What is he to do? What is to be believed? Much also, in that same doubt, is implied about him. It shows how exceedingly anxious he is to do what is right! How equally anxious not to be harsh! How completely occupied by such thoughts! Before he can settle them sleep is upon him; even in his sleep he is thinking about them. Surely, if ever, that was in one sense “the sleep of the just.”
II. The light vouchsafed in this case.—Much is noticeable about this. How pertinent it was in the first place! How exactly meeting the case! What Joseph wanted was light on his path. What would God have him to do? The answer comes from the lips of one whom he recognises immediately as “an angel of the Lord.” The answer directs him as to the very thing he is thinking about with so much apprehension and doubt. “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not, take unto thee Mary thy wife.” What authority can be higher? What directions more clear? How ample, next, is this light! Referring, as we think (cf. Luk_1:34), to what Mary has said, the angel goes on to speak of things present. These really are as you have heard them to be. They are indeed due to the operation of the Spirit of God (end of Mat_1:20). Also, next, of things future. In operating thus wonderfully God is providing for a corresponding result. The child thus to be born is to be a child by itself. The very name it is to bear proves that this is true of the work it shall do. “Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He it is who shall save His people from their sins.” Do not wonder, therefore, to hear of such an intervention with such an object in view. Lastly, see how well assured is all the information thus given. Do not hesitate to believe what I have been telling you (we suppose the angel in the next words to be still speaking to Joseph) as though it were something unheard of before. Because it is unexampled among men, do not suppose that it was unexpected by God. The very contrary is the case. A well-known scripture proves this to be so. In that scripture, on the one hand, you find the very marvel in question expressly foretold. “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.” There, on the other hand, you read of just the same results as those of which I told you just now, even in regard to the very name of the child so to be born. For what is the name Emmanuel—that is, God with us, but another form of the name Jesus (= Jah-Oshea) or God our Saviour? And what is this difference in form but a stronger proof of the far foresight of God? Understand, therefore, how fully and truly you will be doing as God wills by doing as I have bid. Fear less than ever to take unto thee Mary thy wife.
In conclusion, how beautiful are the pictures we see here:—
1. Of the mercy of God to individuals.—How exceedingly trying in this case were the positions of both Joseph and Mary. How trying for him to have to suspect his betrothed. How trying for her to be suspected by him. How doubly trying for both of them, being such as they respectively were. Nothing, we may say, could well exceed this bitterness except the sympathy with which it was met. What full appreciation is manifested of its nature and course! What wise selection and adaptation of the means for its cure! And what mighty agencies we see set in motion for bringing this issue about. Is it not a sight to see this “angel of the Lord” flying to that one sleeping man’s room. Sooner than allow him and that other one to continue disquieted, sooner than allow those who sincerely desire to know God’s will to remain in ignorance about it, heaven itself opens its gates and sends its messenger down.
2. Of the mercy of God to mankind.—How gracious is this design of His of sending men a Saviour! How long ago resolved on! How constantly cherished! How carefully provided for! How marvellously begun! All this we see here in this brief interview between one angel and man! All this, therefore, we are to think of as existing even when it cannot be seen. This is the full advantage of having such a “door” opened to us in “heaven.” The light we thus see is not to be regarded by us as being merely lit for that time. Rather it is an evidence to us of what has been before. Rather, also, a prediction of what is to be afterwards. But for this, as things are in heaven, it would not have been there at all.
3. Of the consistency of God’s ways.—Most exceptional, no doubt, the intervention described here. Equally so the circumstances in which it took place. In connection with so great a perplexity, after so unusual a previous announcement, and with so direct a bearing on the chief feature in the whole history of our race. Granted the possibility of such interventions, there could be no fitter time for their use.
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Mat_1:18-25. The great exceptional birth.—
1. The great exceptional birth.
2. The whole life of Christ the great exception of being.
3. The direct contact of the human with the divine. Son of God. Son of man.
4. God has never ceased to take an interest in the human race, but only once has He inserted into it a new man—a personal, redeeming, transforming life.
5. The race had no power in itself to give birth to a Saviour.
6. Men often misinterpret their circumstances. Joy has often been threading its way to us through the entangled lines of our perplexity.
7. The marriage of Joseph and Mary was useful as showing that Mary was not superhuman. She was an ordinary member of the human family, and so far Jesus Christ was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.
8. Christ was the only man born with a special mission in relation to sins. Every other man since Adam was born in sin, but He descended, as it were, upon it to destroy its power.
9. This was all in fulfilment of prophecy.
(1) Time a great realising power;
(2) the announcements of one age are the men of another;
(3) all prophecy, good or bad, may safely be left to the determining power of time;
(4) great events may require preparation;
(5) wonderful connection between the prophecies and the facts.
10. Joseph’s being asleep when the announcement was made to him is suggestive.
(1) man’s life is not all comprised in the little bustle of his wakeful hours;
(2) some communications can be effectually made only when men are most dissociated from the external and material;
(3) in sleep man is as thoroughly alone as he possibly can be in this world, and in a certain sense is more entirely in the power of God than in any other condition.—Joseph Parker, D.D.
Christ’s wonderful incarnation.—We have five evidences of Christ’s wonderful incarnation.
1. The Virgin Mary is found with child of the Holy Ghost.
2. Joseph’s perplexity, who being certain of the real conception of the Virgin, and uncertain of the holy manner of it, is put to a perplexed deliberation what to do.
3. The testimony of the anger revealing the truth to Joseph.
4. The manifested accomplishment of the prophecy of Isa_7:14.
5. The quiet faith and ready obedience of Joseph, after that he is now taught of God.—David Dickson.
Mat_1:20. The disclosure to Joseph.—
1. No less than divine revelation can satisfy a soul in matters concerning Christ.
2. The Lord can turn the doubts and fears and perplexities of His own into an advantage unto themselves and others also, and into a clearer manifestation of His own glory.
3. The Lord useth to show Himself in a necessary nick of time.
4. As Christ is the Son of David by lineal descent through Mary, His mother, so also by law through Joseph, His supposed father. “Joseph, thou son of David.”
5. The Lord in due time cleareth the righteousness of such as suffer in their name and estimation for Christ.—David Dickson.
Mat_1:19-20. Man’s extremity, God’s opportunity.—Was ever faith more tried than the Virgin’s, when for no fault of hers, but in consequence of an act of God Himself, her conjugal relation to Joseph was allowed to be all but snapped asunder by a legal divorce? Yet how glorious was the reward with which her constancy and patience were at length crowned! And is not this one of the great laws of God’s procedure towards His believing people? Abraham was allowed to do all but sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22); the last year of the predicted Babylonish captivity had arrived ere any signs of deliverance appeared (Dan_9:1-2); the massacre of all the Jews in Persia had all but taken place (Esther 7; Esther 8); Peter, under Herod Agrippa, was all but brought forth for execution (Acts 12); Paul was all but assassinated by a band of Jewish enemies (Acts 23); Luther all but fell a sacrifice to the machinations of his enemies (1521); and so in cases innumerable since, of all which it may be said, as in the song of Moses, “the Lord shall judge His people, and repent Himself for His servants, when, He seeth that their power is gone” (Deu_32:36).—D. Brown, D.D.
Mat_1:21. Salvation from sin.—However absurd the statement may appear to one who has not yet discovered the fact for himself, the cause of every man’s discomfort is evil, moral evil; first of all, evil in himself, and then, evil in those he loves. With this latter I have not now to deal. The one cure for any organism, is to be set right—to have all its parts brought into harmony with each other; the one comfort is to know this cure in process.—
1. Rightness alone is cure. Man’s rightness is to be free from wrongness, that is, from sin. The evil is in him; he must be set free from it—from the sin he is, which makes him do the sin he does. The sin he dwells in, the sin he will not come out of, is the sole ruin of a man. “This is the condemnation, that light,” etc.
2. Do you desire me to say how the Lord will deliver you from your sins? Such a question springs from the passion for the fruit of the tree of knowledge, not the fruit of the tree of life. Men would understand—they do not care to obey—understand where it is impossible they should understand save by obeying.—Geo. Macdonald, LL.D.
Jesus, the Saviour from sin.—This name given by Divine direction. Jesus, a Son of man, yet not chosen by man or self-elected as “Saviour,” but the elect of God (Isa_42:1). He may, therefore, be received with the utmost confidence. Jesus the Saviour not merely from the consequences of sin, but from the corrupting, enthralling, damning evil itself. This “the central idea of Christianity.” To dream of salvation in sin is as absurd as to think of “saving a man from drowning by keeping him under the water which is destroying him;” or of “recovering a man from sickness by leaving him under the malady which constitutes the complaint” (W. Jay). How does Jesus save from sin?
I. He has performed a work by which God, the infinitely righteous One, can deal with men in grace.—Human salvation could only be accomplished consistently with the eternal law of righteousness. But see Rom_3:21-26. Jesus is the true mercy-seat; the meeting-place of God and man.
II. He has shown us the true character of sin.—Presenting it in such a light that we may well loathe ourselves on account of it, and wish to be saved from it. We are bound to believe that only by His incarnation and sacrifice could human salvation become possible. What a tremendous evil, then, sin must be!
III. He has set us an example of holy living, and made a demand of discipleship.—His was a perfect obedience, prompted by a perfect love. His heart was pure; His life in all respects right and good. We are to be His disciples. “Learn of Me.” “Follow Me.” Discipleship means a gradual approximation to His own perfect character.
IV. He gives us His Holy Spirit to work in us this great salvation.—(Tit_3:5.) The Spirit represented as “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom_8:9). Not only because He proceeds from Christ, but also because He works in us a resemblance to Christ. Christ liveth in us (Gal_2:20), assimilating our characters to His own.—H. M. Booth.
“Jesus.”—There is more of power to sanctify, elevate, strengthen, and cheer in the word “Jesus” (Jehovah-Saviour) than in all the utterances of man since the world began.—C. Hodge, D.D.
The influence of holy character.—If to live with men diluted to the millionth degree with the virtue of the highest can exalt and purify the nature, what bounds can be set to the influence of Christ? To live with Socrates—with unveiled face—must have made one wise; with Aristides, just. Francis of Assisi must have made one gentle; Savonarola, strong. But to have lived with Christ must have made one like Christ, that is to say, a Christian.—Prof. H. Drummond.
Mat_1:22-23. Emmanuel.—
1. The mystery of Christ’s wonderful conception was not altogether hid from the church under the Old Testament.
2. It was foretold that the child born should be God and man in one person, “Emmanuel.”
3. It was foretold that He should be believed in, and acknowledged to be God incarnate. “They shall call His name Emmanuel.”—David Dickson.
Emmanuel.—
I. The reality of the Incarnation.—The uncontroverted mystery of “God manifested in the flesh.”
II. The purpose thereby contemplated—viz. the laying open a way for our re-union with God.
III. The actual accomplishment of this purpose consequent upon our reception of Christ.—Actual union with God, a communion with Him as our Friend, Father, and final Joy.—Henry Craik.
Mat_1:23. “God with us.”—The great secret of our Christian joy lies in this fact, that we believe in a present, not in an absent Jesus; One who is Emmanuel—God with us. Try to get hold of that great fact of our Lord’s presence, and then you will see what results flow from it.
I. That fact should make us humble.—If the Son of God, King of kings and Lord of lords, chose to come to this earth in the lowliest manner; if He chose a manger to be born in, a workman’s home to live in, the commonest of clothing and of food, surely we, who profess to be His followers, have no right to be proud.
II. The fact of our Lord’s abiding presence ought to make us brave.—If God be for us, and with us, who can be against us? No temptation need be too strong to be conquered, no difficulty need be too hard to be surmounted, by those who know that God is with them—Emmanuel.
III. The fact of our Lord’s abiding presence ought to make us good to each other.—Look on your fellow-men, and learn from the incarnation to respect man, every man, as wearing the flesh which Jesus wears.—H. J. Wilmot-Buxton.
Mat_1:24-25. Joseph’s obedience.—
1. From the time that a man is sure of God’s word and warrant, he should dispute no more, but stop his ears to all carnal reasoning.
2. A soul that knoweth the worth of Christ will be glad according to its power to do service to Him, or to any of those who belong unto Him.
3. When faith be holdeth the majesty of Jesus it breedeth fear and respect in the believer toward Him.—David Dickson.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v18 Mat 1:18-25. We find that Gabriel spoke to Mary…
AN ANGEL APPEARS TO JOSEPH
Mat 1:18-25. We find that Gabriel spoke to Mary when she was wide awake, in broad daylight; but in the case of Joseph, he appears to him in a dream, while asleep; as Mary, if not vindicated by Divine intervention, must have been culpable under the law of Moses, and liable to the penalty of death by stoning. While Joseph, recognizing her physical condition, and was contemplating a private separation from her, in order to protect her from the severity of the law, the angel notifies him relative to the Conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost, repeating the prophecy of Isa 7:14 :
Read full note →
“And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.”
Here we see that the Messianic glory of Jesus, witnessed by both Testaments, is that “He shall save His people from their sins.” The world is full of religion — Pagan, Moslem, Papal, and Protestant with an infinite diversity of subdivisions; but the great trouble is that they do not take away the sins of their votaries. For this reason, the people who preach and experience entire sanctification really stand alone as the dispensers of the true Gospel, while on them devolves the magnitudinous work of the world’s evangelization. The Bible is its own expositor. If we are not in harmony with it, we are without hope and without God. Full salvation follows as a logical sequence from the Divinity and Consequent omnipotence of our Savior. The world is thronged with millions today who claim to be the followers of Jesus, but do not realize that they are saved from their sins. There is a missing link somewhere in the chain of their profession. If they had Jesus in the true Scriptural sense, they would be saved from all their sins, the Holy Spirit testifying to the fact. The trouble with the world is not about religion, for it inundates the globe, more demonstrative with heathens, Mohammedans, and Jews than Christians; but the problem to be solved is personal, experimental salvation, which, in its intrinsic reality, attested with the Holy Spirit and corroborated by the Word of God, is the only foundation of heavenly hope. When Jesus saves people from their sins, they have them no more. It is an accomplished fact, known and realized beyond the possibility of doubt; has the full assurance, given by the Holy Spirit, to the complete work of Christ in your heart; really precludes all doubt. “And they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God is with us.” Here you see a refutation of the idea entertained by some that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and it was subsequently translated into Greek. This inference has doubtless originated from the fact that he wrote it in Judea and for the Jews. But we must remember that the Greek language was universal in the apostolic age, and well known in Jerusalem. The fact that Matthew translates this Hebrew word Emmanuel into Greek, is demonstrative proof that he was writing in Greek. There is a deep and sweet significance in the word Emanuel — i.e., “God with us” — in contradistinction to his dwelling, far away in heaven, among the angels. The very fact that He took our humanity, to retain it forever, is demonstrative proof that He has become one of us, to abide with us in this world, and all other worlds, through all eternity. Joseph, awakening from his sleep, proceeds at once to do as the angel had told him; i.e., receive his betrothed wife, and call the name of her Son Jesus, which is a Greek word, and means Savior, signifying the work He came to do — i.e., to save His people from their sins. Who are His people? All who receive Him; as to them He gives power to become the children of God. (Joh 1:12.)
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On v18 J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [IX. Annunciation to…
J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [IX. Annunciation to Joseph].
IX. ANNUNCIATION TO JOSEPH OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS. (At Nazareth, B. C. 5.) aMATT. I. 18-25.
Read full note →
a18 Now the birth [The birth of Jesus is to handled with reverential awe. We are not to probe into its mysteries with presumptuous curiosity. The birth of common persons is mysterious enough ( Ecc_9:5, Psa_139:13-16), and we do not well, therefore, if we seek to be wise above what is written as to the birth of the Son of God] of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed [The Jews were usually betrothed ten or twelve months prior to the marriage. So sacred was this relationship that unfaithfulness to it was deemed adultery, and was punishable by death--death by stoning ( Deu_22:23-28, Lev_20:10, Eze_16:38, Joh_8:5). Those betrothed [22] were regarded as husband and wife, and could only be separated by divorcement. Hebrew betrothals set the world a good example. Hasty marriage is too often followed by hasty repentance. "No woman of Israel was married unless she had been first espoused"] to Joseph, before they came together [Before Joseph brought his bride to his own house. An espoused maiden lived in her father's house until the marriage, as is our own custom] she was found with child of the Holy Spirit [The two evangelists (Matthew and Luke) which give the earthly genealogy of Jesus are each careful to mention his miraculous conception through the Holy Spirit (comp. Luk_1:35). All New Testament writers recognize Jesus as at once both human and divine. Christ's physical nature was begotten of the Holy Spirit, but the Christian's spiritual nature is begotten of him ( Joh_1:13). The act of the Holy Spirit in this case indicates that he is a personality, and not a mere influence, as some are disposed to imagine. Influences do not create physical bodies.] 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man [As a righteous man he could not complete his marriage, and thus stain his family name. As a merciful man he did not wish to openly disgrace the one to whom he was so fondly attached. He wished to act justly toward his own reputation, and mercifully toward the reputation of Mary], and not willing to make her a public example [he did not wish to expose her to the shame of a public trial before the court, nor to punish her as the law permitted], was minded to put her away privily [The law of Moses gave the husband the power of divorce ( Deu_24:1). The bill or writing certifying the divorce usually stated the cause, and was handed to the wife in the presence of witnesses. Joseph evidently intended to omit stating any cause in the bill, that there might be no record to convict her of shame. The law of divorce applied to betrothed as well as to married persons. In his kindness Joseph anticipates the special teaching of Christ ( Mat_19:8) and the general instruction of Paul ( Gal_6:1). How different the conduct of the innocent Joseph from that of guilty Judah [23] ( Gen_38:24). Judah needed some one to point out his unfitness-- Joh_8:7.] 20 But when he thought on these things [God guides the thoughtful, not the unthinking], behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him [The Lord looks after the good name of those who honor his name, and he serves those who serve him ( 1Sa_2:30, Joh_12:26). The sufferings of both Mary and Joseph must have been very extreme at this time--one being forced to suspect the chief object of his affections, and the other being compelled to rest under the unjust suspicions of loved ones, because of a condition which God alone could explain. But God does explain where we can not understand without his revelation, and where we absolutely need to know] in a dream [A mode of communication frequently used by God ( Gen_20:3, Gen_31:11, Gen_31:24, Gen_37:5, Gen_41:1, 1Ki_3:5, Dan_7:1, Job_4:13-15). It is difficult to say how men determined between ordinary and divine dreams, but doubtless the latter came with a glory and vividness which gave assurance of their supernatural nature. Matthew mentions four divine dreams, viz.: this one; the second one given to Joseph ( Mat_2:13); the dream of the Magi ( Mat_2:12); the dream of Pilate's wife-- Mat_27:19], saying, Joseph [We are known to angels, and they address us by name ( Act_10:3, Act_10:13, Act_27:24). Much more does the Lord know our names-- Joh_10:3, Luk_19:5], thou son of David [the name of David was calculated to waken the memories of God's promises, and helped to prepare Joseph to receive the wonderful news that Messiah was about to be born, for Messiah was the promised heir of David], fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife [Have no fear as to Mary's virtue and purity. Fear no disgrace in taking her. Joseph feared as a son of David that this marriage would sully his genealogy. But it was that which gave point and purpose to an otherwise barren and uninteresting record. He feared as a man lest he should share Mary's apparent disgrace; but he had infinitely more reason to fear his unworthiness to share with her the exalted responsibilities of parentage to our [24] Lord]: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son [the angel does not say "shall bear thee a son," as he said to Zacharias-- Luk_1:13]; and thou shalt call his name JESUS [Joseph was to take the position of a legal father to the child and name it. The name means "Salvation of Jehovah" or "Jehovah is the Saviour." Would we could all bear our names, such as Christian, pastor, magistrate, father, mother, child, etc., as Jesus bore that wonderful and responsible name of Saviour]; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins [Thus from before his very birth-hour the nature of Christ's salvation is fully set forth. He came to save from the guilt of sin by having shed his blood, his may be remitted or washed clean. He saves from the power of sin by bestowing the gift of the Spirit, who regenerates, comforts, and strengthens, and ultimately he saves from the punishment of sin by giving us a resurrection from the dead, and an abundant entrance into the home of glory. That is no salvation at all which fails to free us from this triple bondage of sin.] 22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord [It was not fulfilled because predicted, but was rather predicted because sure to take place. Prophecies are fulfilled in four ways, namely, 1. When a thing clearly predicted comes to pass. 2. When that which has been pictured in type and shadow is at last shown forth in substance and reality. 3. When an event which has been described in language more elevated and elaborate than it demands is followed by another similar event to which the said language is more perfectly suited. 4. When parabolic or figurative language may be applied to some subsequent event. The prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled after the third fashion, which was spoken by the Lord. In innumerable passages the divine origin and inspiration of the Scriptures are clearly and unmistakably set forth. The same Spirit which foretold through [25] the lips of the prophet now interprets the foretelling through the lips of the angel] through the prophet [ Isa_7:14. Isaiah's name is not given. The ancients were studious readers, and had few books, so that there was little need to cite authors by name], saying [About the year 740 B. C. While Ahaz was king of Judah, his land was threatened with an invasion by the united armies of Syria and Israel. Isaiah came to frightened Ahaz, promised divine aid, and told Ahaz to seek from God a sign confirming this promise. This Ahaz refused to do; whereupon Isaiah replied that God would grant a sign anyway. The sign was that a virgin should have a son, and before the son reached the age of discretion, the kingdoms of Syria and Israel should be destroyed. The sign given Ahaz was one of deliverance, and prefigured the birth of Christ, the great Deliverer, in four ways: 1. A virgin bearing a child. 2. A male child ( Rev_12:5). 3. The divinely ordered naming of the child. 4. The significance of the name given. Jesus fulfilled in his ministry man predictions; but many more such as this one were fulfilled upon him without his volition], 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child [The Sonship of Jesus demands a miraculous birth. If we doubt the miracle of his conception, we can never solve the perplexing problem of his marvelous life and death], and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name [rather, title; under the head of "name" the titles of Jesus are also set forth at Isa_9:6] Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us [Nature shows God above us; the Law shows God against us; but the Gospel shows God with us, and for us. The blessing of the church militant is Christ, God with us; that of the church triumphant is Christ, us with God. In this world Jesus walked "with us" in human form ( Joh_1:14); and because he did so, we, in the world to come, shall walk "with him" in divine form ( 1Jo_3:2, 1Co_15:49). In a personal sense Jesus may fitly be called "God with us," for he was God and man united in one body.] 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him. [he followed the instructions, though contrary to his first inclination. Blessed are they who [26] permit God to guide them. As Joseph appears to have acted at once upon the angel's instruction, the marriage must have taken place several months prior to the birth of Jesus], and took unto him his wife [thus becoming the legally recognized father of Jesus, and though he bestowed upon Jesus but a humble name ( Luk_4:22, Mat_13:55), he nevertheless rescued him from the reproach of an illegitimate birth]; 25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son [Romish teachers contend for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that she may be regarded as an object of worship. This doctrine can not be proved by Scripture. But there are weightier reasons than this which forbid us to worship her; namely, it can not be proven from Scripture either that she was divine or that she was sinless. Moreover, the fact that she entered the marital state at all, shows that she was perfectly human, and comported herself as such]: and he called his name JESUS. [Two Old Testament heroes bore the name Jesus under the form of Joshua. One was captain of Israel for the conquest of Canaan, the other was high priest of Israel for rebuilding the Temple ( Zec_6:11, Zec_6:12). Christ was both the Captain of our salvation and the High Priest of our profession.]
[FFG 22-27]
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v16 1 Six Marys 2 of whom was born 3…
1 Six Marys 2 of whom was born 3 Christ
1 Six Marys
Read full note →
1 Six Marys are to be distinguished in the N.T.:
(1) the mother of Jesus; always clearly identified by the context.
(2) Mary Magdalene, a woman of Magdala, " out of whom went seven demons" Luk 8:2 She is never mentioned apart from the identifying word "Magdalene."
(3) The mother of James (called "the less," Mar 15:40) and Joses, the apostles. A comparison of; Joh 19:25; Mat 27:56; Mar 15:40 establishes the inference that this Mary, the mother of James the less, and of Joses was the wife of Alphaeus (called also Cleophas), Joh 19:25 and a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. Except in; Mat 27:61; Mat 28:1 where she is called "the other Mary (i.e. "other" than her sister, Mary the Virgin); and Joh 19:25 where she is called "of Cleophas," she is mentioned only in connection with one or both of her sons.
(4) Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus, mentioned by name only in Luk 10:39-42; Joh 11:1; Joh 11:2; Joh 11:19; Joh 11:20; Joh 11:28; Joh 11:31; Joh 11:32; Joh 11:45; Joh 12:3 but referred to in; Mat 26:7; Mar 14:3-9.
(5) The mother of John Mark and sister of Barnabas Act 12:12.
(6) A helper of Paul in Rome Rom 16:6.
2 of whom was born
2 The changed expression here is important. It is no longer, "who begat," but, "Mary, of whom was born Jesus." Jesus was not begotten of natural generation.
3 Christ
3 Christ (Christos=anointed), the Greek form of the Hebrew "Messiah" Dan 9:25; Dan 9:26 is the official name of our Lord, as Jesus is his human name; Luk 1:31; Luk 2:21. The name, or title, "Christ" connects Him with the entire O.T. foreview (See Scofield "Zec 12:8") of a coming prophet Deu 18:15-19, Priest Psa 110:4 and king 2Sa 7:7-10. As these were typically anointed with oil; 1Ki 19:16; Exo 29:7; 1Sa 16:13 so Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit; Mat 3:16; Mar 1:10; Mar 1:11; Luk 3:21; Luk 3:22; Joh 1:32; Joh 1:33 thus becoming officially "the Christ."
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv17–18 Such is Matthew’s introduction to his Gospel. And in…
Such is Matthew’s introduction to his Gospel. And in concluding this genealogy, which immediately places Jesus the Christ into the center before the minds and hearts of his readers, he gives a brief summary according to the divisions of Jewish history:
v. 17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David until the carrying away into Babylon are tour-teen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
Read full note →
The three periods represent, respectively, the three forms of government which the Jews had: theocracy, monarchy, hierarchy, with judges, kings, and priests at their head. But, incidentally, the same division sums up Israel’s fortunes. First came the age of slow and steady growth, with all the manifestations of the first love’s zeal and fervor toward God, culminating in the reign of David. Then came the period of slow decline and gradual disintegration, ushered in with the luxurious reign of Solomon and characterized by the continuous and losing conflict with idolatry. And lastly came the period of a restored Church with internal ruin, of a dead orthodoxy, of an insipid ritualism. If any fact stands out clearly from this contrast, it is this, that redemption was most sorely and urgently needed.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v18 General Information:
General Information:
This begins a new part of the story in which the author describes the events leading up to the birth of Jesus.
Read full note →
His mother, Mary, was engaged to marry Joseph
"His mother, Mary, was going to marry Joseph." Parents normally arranged the marriages of their children. AT: "The parents of Mary, the mother of Jesus, had promised her in marriage to Joseph" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
His mother, Mary, was engaged
Translate in a way that makes it clear that Jesus was not already born when Mary was engaged to Joseph. AT: "Mary, who would be the mother of Jesus, was engaged" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
before they came together
"before they got married." This may refer to Mary and Joseph sleeping together. AT: "before they had slept together" (See: Euphemism)
she was found to be pregnant
This can be stated in active form. AT: "they realized that she was going to have a baby" or "it happened that she was pregnant" (See: Active or Passive)
by the Holy Spirit
The power of the Holy Spirit had enabled Mary to have a baby before she had slept with a man.
Her husband, Joseph
Joseph had not married Mary yet, but when a man and woman promised to marry each other, Jews considered them husband and wife though they did not live together. AT: "Joseph, who was supposed to marry Mary" or "Joseph" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
end his engagement with her
"cancel their plans to get married"
translationWords
Jesus
Mary
Joseph (NT)
Holy Spirit
righteous
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv16–18 1:16 This genealogy is traced through Joseph, who stands…
1:16 This genealogy is traced through Joseph, who stands in David’s line (see also study note on Luke 3:23-38).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.