Matthew · Chapter 1

V. 1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ-That is, strictly speaking, the account of his birth and genealogy. This title therefore properly relates to the verses that immediately follow: but as it sometimes signifies the history of a person, in that sense it may belong to the whole book. If there were any difficulties in this genealogy, or that given by St. Luke, which could not easily be removed, they would rather affect the Jewish tables, than the credit of the evangelists: for they act only as historians setting down these genealogies, as they stood in those public and allowed records. Therefore they were to take them as they found them. Nor was it needful they should correct the mistakes, if there were any. For these accounts sufficiently answer the end for which they are recited. They unquestionably prove the grand point in view, that Jesus was of the family from which the promised seed was to come. And they had more weight with the Jews for this purpose, than if alterations had been made by inspiration itself. For such alterations would have occasioned endless disputes between them and the disciples of our Lord.

The son of David, the son of Abraham-He is so called, because to these he was more peculiarly promised; and of these it was often foretold the Messiah should spring. Luke 3:31.

Verse 1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ] I suppose these words to have been the original title to this Gospel; and that they signify, according to the Hebrew Phraseology, not only the account of the genealogy of Christ, as detailed below, but the history of his birth, acts, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension.

The phrase, book of the generation, twdlwt rps sepher toledoth, is frequent in the Jewish writings, and is translated by the Septuagint, biblov genesewv, as here, by the evangelist; and regularly conveys the meaning given to it above; e. g. This is the book of the generations of Adam, Genesis 5:1. That is, the account of the life of Adam and certain of his immediate descendants. Again. These are the generations of Jacob, Genesis 37:2. That is, the account or history of Jacob, his son Joseph, and the other remarkable branches of the family. And again. These are the generations of Aaron and Moses, Numbers 3:1. That is, the history of the life and acts of these persons, and some of their immediate descendants. The same form of expression is also used, Genesis 2:4, when giving the history of the creation of heaven and earth.

Some have translated biblov genesewv, The book of the genealogy; and consider it the title of this chapter only; but the former opinion seems better founded.

Jesus Christ] See on Matthew 1:16, 21.

The son of David, the son of Abraham] No person ever born could boast, in a direct line, a more illustrious ancestry than Jesus Christ. Among his progenitors, the regal, sacerdotal, and prophetic offices, existed in all their glory and splendour. DAVID, the most renowned of sovereigns, was king and prophet: ABRAHAM, the most perfect character in all antiquity, whether sacred or profane, was priest and prophet: but the three offices were never united except in the person of Christ; he alone was prophet, priest, and king; and possessed and executed these offices in such a supereminent degree as no human being ever did, or ever could do. As the principal business of the prophet was to make known the will of God to men, according to certain partial communications received from Heaven; so Jesus, who lay in the bosom of the Father, and who was intimately and thoroughly acquainted with all the mysteries of the eternal world, came to declare the Divine nature and its counsels to mankind; see John 1:18. As the business of the priest was to offer sacrifices to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people; so Christ was constituted a high priest, to make, by the sacrifice of himself, an atonement for the sins of the whole world; see 1 John 2:2, and the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. As the office of king was to reign over, protect, and defend the people committed to his care by the Divine Providence; so Christ is set as a king upon Sion, having the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, Psalm 2:6, 8, &c. Of the righteousness, peace, and increase of whose government, there shall be no end, Isaiah 9:7. This three-fold office, Christ executes not only in a general sense, in the world at large; but, in a particular sense, in every Christian soul. He is first a prophet, to teach the heart of man the will of God; to convict the conscience of sin, righteousness, and judgment; and fully to illustrate the way of salvation. He is next a priest, to apply that atonement to the guilty conscience, the necessity of which, as a prophet, he had previously made known. And lastly, as a king, he leads captivity captive, binds and casts out the strong man armed, spoils his goods, extends the sway of the sceptre of righteousness, subdues and destroys sin, and reigns Lord over all the powers and faculties of the human soul; so that AS sin reigned unto death, EVEN so does grace reign through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:21.

It is remarkable, that the evangelist names David before Abraham, though the latter was many generations older: the reason seems to be this, that David was not only the most illustrious of our Lord’s predecessors, as being both king and prophet; but because that promise, which at first was given to Abraham, and afterwards, through successive generations, confirmed to the Jewish people, was at last determined and restricted to the family of David. Son of David, was an epithet by which the Messiah was afterwards known among the Jews; and, under this title, they were led to expect him by prophetic authority. See Psalm 89:3, 4; Psalm 132:10, 11, compared with Acts 13:23, and Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5. Christ was prophesied of under the very name of David. See Ezekiel 34:23, 24; 37:24, 25.

Verse 1. The book — That is, This is the book, the verb being elegantly omitted, according to the custom of the Hebrews, and also of the Greeks and Romans; of the generation — Or, as the Syriac expresses it, The writing, narrative, or account of the generation, or birth of Jesus, &c. The word genesiv, indeed, here rendered generation, sometimes signifies the history of a person’s life, yet it is much more frequently used for genealogy, or birth; and it seems to be intended to be taken in this restrained sense here. Dr. Macknight renders the phrase, The table of the genealogy of Jesus: observing that the word Biblov, book, is used in this limited sense Mark 10:4, where a bill of divorce is so called: and Jeremiah 32:12, where a deed of conveyance is termed rps, a book. Indeed, the Jews, and also the Greeks, called all writings books, whether short or long. Of Jesus Christ — Jesus is his proper name, given him by God, his true Father, Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:31; 2:21. Christ is, as it were, a surname, descriptive of his unction to the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices. To the name Christ, that of Jesus is often superadded in the New Testament, not only that Christ might be pointed out for the Saviour, as the word Jesus signifies, but that Jesus might be shown to be the true Messiah, or Christ, in opposition to the unbelief of the Jews. The son of David, the son of Abraham — i.e., a descendant of David and Abraham; the word son, in the language of the Hebrews, being put for any descendant, however remote. Here the evangelist proposes what he is going to prove; viz, that Jesus Christ, whose history he is about to give, was the son of David and Abraham, which it was necessary he should show because the grand prophetical character of the Messiah was, that he was to spring from Abraham and David. The sense of the latter clause, indeed, the son of Abraham, is ambiguous: it may mean either that David was the son of Abraham, or, which seems the more probable sense, that Christ, who was the son of David, was also the son of Abraham. This sense accords better both with the following words, and with the design of the evangelist, which was to show, that Christ was descended from both these renowned patriarchs, and that in him was fulfilled the promises made to both. David is first named, 1. That the catalogue, to begin from Abraham, might proceed regularly, without the repetition of his name; 2. Because the memory of David was more fresh upon the minds of the Jews, and his name in greater repute than that of Abraham, especially when the discourse related to the Messiah, John 7:42; more plain and explicit promises of him being made to David, and the prophets having spoken of Christ under the name of David. Add to this, that David was both a prophet and a king, and therefore a more manifest type of the Messiah, who sustains both of these offices, as well as that of a priest. Hence those who had entertained higher conceptions of Christ than others, termed him the son of David, as appears from many passages in the gospels.

Verse 1. The book of the generation, or rather the genealogy, of Jesus Christ. This is the Hebraical mode of writing. Moses says, Genesis 5:1, This is the book of the generations of Adam. Jesus, a Saviour, was his proper name. Christ, the anointed, the Messiah, was his surname of dignity and office, as prophet, priest, and king.

This genealogy was no doubt taken from the public records among the jews, neither the evangelist Matthew nor Luke is responsible for omissions of names, or the difficulties under which both the genealogies may seem to labour. It is obvious from the Chronicles, and from the great pains which Ezra took to purify the jewish seed, that the genealogies of families would be preserved by the jews in the best possible state of correctness. On the return from Babylon they divided the nation into ten classes, three of which were noble; the priests, the levites, and the Israelites of pure blood. The other seven were children by mothers forbidden by the law to have any alliance with the priests. To these must be added proselytes, emancipated servants, the Nothi, or persons in unlawful wedlock, the Nethinims, the illegitimate, whose parentage was uncertain, and the foundlings. So Dr. Lightfoot reckoned. By a nation whose genealogy was connected with nobility, and with the promise of the holy seed, the public registers would be kept as correctly as possible.

But how are we to reconcile the difference between the genealogy of St. Luke, and this of St. Matthew? It is replied, that they follow different lines of descent, and harmonize in the grand points. The genealogy itself is divided into five parts. From Adam to Noah — from Noah to Abraham — from Abraham to David — from David to Zerubbabel — and from Zerubbabel to Christ. Now from David to Zerubbabel, the two evangelists follow different lines. St. Matthew ascends from Solomon, and St. Luke descends to Nathan; but they both meet in the person of Salathiel. The one takes his line from Zerubbabel by Rhesa to Mary, the other from Zerubbabel by Abia to Joseph. It will be asked again, why St. Matthew should make Joseph’s father to be Jacob? St. Luke says that his father was Eli. The learned reader is here referred to Chrysostom, to Ambrose, and the Synopsis, where he will find a long note. Spanheim has also discussed it among his doubts. The substance of the criticism is, that Jacob was the proper father of Joseph, and Eli the proper father of Mary; consequently, by the marriage, both Jacob and Eli were the fathers of Joseph. Saurin, a prince among divines, in his sermon on the Family of Christ, which I have translated in the seventh volume of his sermons, reprobates the many unwise attempts of critics to solve this difficulty, and he removes every scruple by a simple recital of the text. “Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being as was supposed, the son of Joseph, who was the son in law of Eli, having married Mary his daughter.” We find no objection against the improved genealogy of St. Luke till the times of Celsus, of Porphyry, and of Julian.

1. The book — Rather a roll or scroll than a book. For when we read the word book in the Bible, or any work of antiquity, we must completely banish all conception of a modern volume from the press, bound in leather, neatly printed on fine paper, cheap, and easy to handle. On the contrary, we must shape in thought a cumbrous roll of linen, papyrus, or parchment, with letters laboriously written with a calamus or reed pen, or a stilus or iron pen, very expensive, and to be read by unrolling successive portions. When rolled up, it was bound round with thongs, called in Latin, lora. The scroll was continuous in length, and was read by unrolling the one end, and rolling up the other end, so as to glide the eye down the open page, as is seen by the illustration on the next page. The Latin word for roll, volumen, (from volvo, to roll,) is the origin of our word volume. When the reading was finished the Romans deposited the roll in a round case or box called scrinium. As comparatively few could possess a book, authors often read their productions in public. And it was important that very valuable documents should be kept in a safe repository. Manuscript copies of the Old Testament were kept in the temple and the synagogues. So also copies of the Gospels and Epistles were preserved in the Christian churches. When the author produced his book, it was immediately transcribed, and copies were put in circulation among purchasers; others were deposited in the archives of the various churches. The multiplied copies were checks upon each others’ correctness. Of the Gospels and Epistles, numerous copies were circulated in Europe, Asia, and Africa within a century after their first publication. It was therefore impossible that any counterfeit, or any great alteration, should come into existence. The very perfect agreement (with the exception of slight mistakes in copying) of all manuscript copies throughout the world, places beyond all doubt the genuineness of all the four Gospels.

The first two chapters of Matthew are in some degree a sort of separate part or section, giving an account of the royal pedigree and divine birth and infancy of the Saviour. They are so given as to demonstrate, both by miracle and prophecy, that he is the true Messiah, the God-man, the Divine Saviour which was to come.

The book of the generation — Strictly, this is the title of the genealogy or pedigree only which now follows. But as in the Old Testament, so here, the pedigree is naturally followed by biographical sketches and narrations. Matthew doubtless gives the genealogy of Joseph; (and so it was only the legal genealogy of Mary and Jesus;) whereas Luke gives the natural descent of Mary. It was customary with the Jews very carefully to preserve their pedigrees or family registers. We see them distributed all through the Old Testament. They were cherished especially from the fact that in some family the Messiah was to be born. So Josephus, who was of priestly family, says: “I give the descent of our family exactly as I find it written in the public records.” So noble a family line as that of the royal David, of course had its records public at Bethlehem, the place of David’s birth; to which place Mary had to go and be enrolled by public authority. Matthew either gives the public record verbatim, or perhaps the family tree with its abridgements and annotations, as kept in Joseph’s home. In the time of the Emperor Domitian, about the close of the first century, all the descendants of David were sought out by royal command. The rumour of their regal descent had rendered the emperor jealous. The descendants of our Lord’s brethren were brought into his presence, and questioned as to their claims of royalty. But as they appeared to be unambitious Christian men, looking only for a heavenly kingdom, the emperor dismissed them in peace. That the record of David’s royal line was preserved, we are expressly told by Josephus, who says in his autobiography, “I am myself of the royal lineage by my mother.” When Jerusalem was sacked, the genealogical records were completely destroyed; so that it is impossible for the Jews to trace the line of David for any Messiah yet to come. This is a complete refutation of their expectations of that kind.

Jesus Christ — The word Jesus is, in Greek form, the same as Joshua in Hebrew, and implies Saviour. Our Lord was so named (ver. 21) by express command of the angel: first, to indicate that he was the Saviour from sin; and second, to show that he was the antitype of Joshua, his type; for as Joshua was leader of Israel, bringing them into the earthly Canaan, Jesus is a Saviour, bringing his people into a heavenly Canaan. So, often in the Bible, names are significant and typical, being divinely and prophetically given for that very purpose. The word Christ is not primarily a proper name, but is a word of royal office. It is derived from the Greek criw, chrio, to anoint; and is exactly parallel with the Hebrew word Messiah, both signifying anointed. For as the Hebrews anointed kings and priests to their dignity, so kings and priests were called anointed; and so the prophets foretold him who was to come under the royal and priestly title of Anointed, Messiah or CHRISTOS. Under this title he was earnestly waited for by the Jews, and even by the Samaritans, as the Samaritan woman testifies: I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ. John 4:25. Hence our Saviour’s name was Jesus; and his office was to be the Christ, or royal Messiah.

Son of David — The word son here, as often elsewhere in Scripture, signifies descendant at any distance of descent. This parentage from David proves even his human royalty. He was by blood a king; by the law of race entitled to be anointed and crowned. He was entitled to expel Herod from his throne, and reign in his stead king of the Jews. Son of Abraham — We have remarked in the notice of Matthew, that he wrote more particularly for the Jews. For this reason he traces the Lord’s genealogy to David, the Jewish king, and to Abraham, the founder of the Jewish dispensation. Luke, on the other hand, writing for Gentiles, traces the genealogy up to Adam, the human, and to God, the divine father of ALL. There are many difficulties found by learned men in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Some of these difficulties arise in reconciling the two; others arise from peculiarities of this genealogy itself. The consideration of the former belong to a commentary upon Luke. The latter we shall briefly notice in our notes upon this chapter.

1 The genealogy of Christ from Abraham to Joseph. 18 He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary when she was espoused to Joseph. 19 The angel satisfieth the misdeeming thoughts of Joseph, and interpreteth the names of Christ.

CHAPTER 1. Verse 1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ. — Whether this title merely introduces the genealogy which follows, or extends to the whole account of our Lord contained in this gospel is a question disputed by interpreters. In Genesis 5:1, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” the LXX. use the same phrase as that here employed by St. Matthew; and the section which it introduces is plainly an account of Adam’s production, and of the patriarchs who descended from him in the line of Seth to Noah. But the word genesiv occurs also in Genesis 2:4: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created;” where it obviously signifies the history or relation of their production, and of the several events which followed. In Greek authors genesiv signifies original, extract, descent, or birth; but the Hebrew mode of speaking is here probably the better rule; and the term may be here extended to the history which follows, as in Genesis 6:9, where, “These are the generations of Noah,” is the title of a section which says nothing of his descent, but carries us on to the character of that patriarch, and the events of his life. If this introductory clause be limited to the genealogy, it may be translated, as by Campbell, “the lineage,” if taken in the more extended sense, “the history of Jesus Christ.” Jesus Christ. — On the name Jesus, see the note on verse 21. When Matthew adds Christ to this name he declares that Jesus was the MESSIAH; and in proof of this his gospel was written. The word signifies, one anointed; in allusion to the custom of consecrating and inaugurating priests and kings among the Jews, by anointing them with oil. The composition for this purpose, and which was applied not only to persons but to things set apart for the service of God, was made by Moses under Divine direction, and kept in the sanctuary. It was typical of the communication of the Holy Spirit with which the Church is replenished; and for this reason it is, that his sacred influence upon the minds of believers is called by St. John “an unction, or anointing, from the Holy One.” It was the full effusion of the Spirit upon our Saviour which constituted him “the Messiah, or Christ;” that is “the Anointed of the Lord.” After the resurrection of our Lord the term Christ, without the article, passed into a proper name, and, as such, is used to distinguish the Divine founder of our religion.

The son of David, the son of Abraham. — The terms son and daughter were used by the Hebrews to signify grandchildren, or any lineal descendants, however remote. Thus, our Lord calls the woman whom he healed of an infirmity, “a DAUGHTER of Abraham.” The Messiah was to be a descendant of Abraham, through Isaac, not Ishmael; through Jacob, not Esau; and was to be of the tribe of Judah, and of the house and lineage of David. Thus was fulfilled in our Lord the promise made to Abraham, “that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed;” and the covenant with David, “that of the fruit of his body he would raise up the Christ to sit upon his throne.” The name, “Son of David,” appears constantly in the latter Jewish writings for “the Messiah;” and that it was so used in common language in the time of our Lord appears from several passages of the gospels: “Hosannah to the Son of David;” “Have mercy upon us, thou Son of David,” &c. St. Matthew therefore proves from the Jewish genealogies, that our Lord was descended from David and Abraham. — This was sufficient for the purpose of this evangelist, who wrote immediately for the use of the Jews: but St. Luke, who wrote his gospel for the Gentile Churches, carries up the genealogy from Abraham to Noah and Adam: and thereby put them in possession of the Old Testament account of the origin and descent of mankind, and corrected their vain traditions and absurd fables.

Verse 2. Abraham begat Isaac] In this genealogy, those persons only, among the ancestors of Christ, which formed the direct line, as specified: hence no mention is made of Ishmael, the son of Abraham, nor of Esau, the son of Isaac; and of all the twelve patriarchs, or sons of Jacob, Judah alone is mentioned.

Verse 2. Abraham begat Isaac — “The evangelist here opens his history with our Lord’s genealogy by Joseph, his supposed father. Luke gives another genealogy of him, thought by many to be Joseph’s also, but without foundation; for the two genealogies are entirely different, from David and downward. It is true, some have attempted to reconcile them by alleging, that they exhibit Joseph’s pedigree, the one by his natural, the other by his legal father. But, had that been the case, the natural and legal fathers would have been brothers, which it is plain they were not, Jacob, Joseph’s father in Matthew, being the son of Matthan, the son of Eleazar; whereas Eli, the father supposed to be assigned him by Luke, was the son of Matthat, a different person from Matthan, because the son of Levi.” Besides, on this supposition, we should be altogether uncertain whether our Lord’s mother, from whom alone he sprang, was a daughter of David, and consequently could not prove that he had any other relation to David than that his mother was married to one of the descendants of that prince. Let the reader judge whether this would come up to the import of the passages of Scripture, which tell us he was made of the seed of David. See Romans 1:3; Acts 2:30. But this important difficulty is easily removed by supposing that Matthew gives Joseph’s pedigree, and Luke, Mary’s. See Macknight. But, taking it for granted that Luke gives us our Lord’s real pedigree, and Matthew that of Joseph, his supposed father, it may reasonably be inquired why Matthew has done so? To this it may be answered, that he intended to remove the scruples of those who knew that the Messiah was to be the heir of David’s crown; a reason which appears the stronger, if we suppose, with the learned writer last quoted, that Matthew wrote posterior to Luke, who has given the real pedigree. For, “though Joseph was not Christ’s real father, it was directly for the evangelist’s purpose to derive his pedigree from David, and show that he was the eldest surviving branch of the posterity of that prince, because, this point established, it was well enough understood that Joseph, by marrying our Lord’s mother, after he knew that she was with child of him, adopted him for his son, and raised him both to the dignity and privileges of David’s heir. Accordingly, the genealogy is concluded in terms which imply this: Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. Joseph is not here called the father of Jesus, but the husband of his mother, Mary; and the privileges following this adoption will appear to be more essentially connected with it, if, as is probable, Joseph never had any child. For thus the regal line of David’s descendants by Solomon, failing in Joseph, his rights were properly transferred to Joseph’s adopted son, who, indeed, was of the same family, though by another branch. Matthew, therefore, has deduced our Lord’s political and royal pedigree, with a view to prove his title to the kingdom of Israel, by virtue of the rights which he acquired through his adoption; whereas Luke explains his natural descent, in the several successions of those from whom he derived his human nature. That the genealogy, not only of our Lord’s mother, but of his reputed father, should be given by the sacred historians, was wisely ordered; because the two taken together prove him to be descended of David and Abraham in every respect, and consequently that one of the most remarkable characters of the Messiah was fulfilled in him; the principal promises concerning the great personage, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed, having been made to those patriarchs, in quality of his progenitors; first to Abraham, Genesis 22:18, then to David, Psalm 132:11, 12.” And accordingly Matthew begins this genealogy with a plain allusion to these promises: for he evidently intended it, not so much as an introduction to his history of Christ, as to show that, according to the flesh, he was the son of David and the son of Abraham, as it was often foretold the Messiah should be. If it be inquired whence Matthew had this genealogy, there being nothing of it to be found in Scripture, Dr. Whitby answers, “From the authentic genealogical tables kept by the Jews, of the line of David: for, it appears from the taxation, mentioned Luke 2., that they had genealogies of all their families and tribes, since all went to be taxed, every one to his own city,

2. Begat Isaac — His birth is given Genesis 21:2. Jacob — Genesis 25:26. Judas and his brethren — Genesis 29.

And his brethren — At several points in the genealogy there are individual matters added, not forming an essential part of the lineage. Such are the clauses and his brethren in this verse; and Zara of Thamar in the third verse; of Rachab in the fifth verse; the king in the sixth verse; and of her that had been the wife of Urias in the same verse. Profound reasons have been sought for these additions, somewhat unnecessarily, by commentators. If we may suppose Matthew to have copied the home genealogy in the family of Joseph, these incidents may easily be supposed to have been freely inserted as interesting allusions to popular points or characters in Jewish sacred history. Certainly no genealogy of that day could have suggested more points of interesting reminiscence than that of this son of David, and putative father of the Messiah. The only difficulty is with the clause concerning Rachab, who, as some have thought, could not, upon chronological grounds, have been identical with the Rahab of Jericho, if she were the wife of Salmon.

But Alford well says; “Those very grounds completely tally with their identity. For Naashon (the father of Salmon) offered his offering at the setting up of the tabernacle (Numbers 7:12) thirty-nine years before the taking of Jericho. So that Salmon would be of mature age at or soon after that event; at which time Rahab was probably young, as her father and mother were living (Joshua 6:23.) Nor is it any objection that Achan, the fourth in descent from Judah by Zara, is contemporary with Salmon, the sixth of the other branch, since the generations in the line of Zara average sixty-nine years, and those in the line of Pharez forty-nine; both within the limits of probability. The difficulty of the interval of 366 years between Rahab and David does not belong to this passage only, but equally to Ruth 4:21, 22; and is by no means insuperable, especially when the extreme old age of Jesse, implied in 1 Samuel 17:12, is considered.”

Verse 2. Abraham begat Isaac. — For a full investigation of the questions which have been raised on the genealogies of Christ given by St. Matthew and St. Luke, recourse may be had to Grotius, Hammond, Le Clerc, Lightfoot, Bishop Kidder, Whitby, Dr. Barrett, and others who have written at large upon them. The genealogies coincide from Abraham to David; and then so entirely differ, except in two descents, that they must be regarded as two distinct tables; and the opinion now generally admitted is that of Lightfoot, that St. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, whose adopted son Jesus was; and St. Luke, that of his virgin mother. — This derives strong confirmation from the circumstance that the Jewish rabbins in their writings call Mary the daughter of Eli. This distinction in the genealogies also serves to explain the reason why St. Luke begins his genealogy with stating that Jesus was the SUPPOSED son of Joseph, “who was the son of Eli.” The natural father of Joseph was, as Matthew states, Jacob; but Mary being the daughter of Eli, Joseph became his son-in-law; or simply, according to the vague way in which the Hebrews used such relative terms, his SON; which is farther confirmed by another instance of a son-in-law being called a son in the same table, namely, Salathiel, who is called “the son of Neri,” that is, his son-in-law; his natural father being Jechonias, 1 Chronicles 3:17. The only point of real importance, however, in this question is, whether Mary as well as Joseph was of the house of David, because the Christ was indubitably to be of the seed of David “according to the flesh,” which our Lord was not by mere virtue of his being the adopted son of Joseph, and entered as such in the Jewish genealogies. Now, though there seems sufficient reason to conclude that Mary married Joseph as next of kin; and though the very silence of the Jews, who, upon the promulgation of the doctrine of Christ’s miraculous conception, at whatever period that was first made known, whether during our Lord’s life, or immediately after his ascension, must have raised this fatal objection, if Mary had not been a descendant of David as well as Joseph, proves that this fact was a subject of public notoriety; yet the matter is settled by a passage in the gospel of St. Luke, which those who have investigated this question of the two genealogies have generally overlooked. In Luke 1:32, when the angel makes the annunciation to Mary that she should become the mother of the Messiah, he says, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of HIS FATHER David,” — terms which could not have been used unless Mary herself had been David’s descendant. It may be added to this, that unless it had been a matter sufficiently well known and acknowledged, that Mary and Joseph were of the same house and lineage, it could have answered no end for Matthew to have copied from the public genealogical tables of the Jews the descent of Joseph from David, since he himself closes the list of descents with an account of the conception and birth of Jesus, which declares that he was not the son of Joseph, but of Mary only. But the family relationship of Mary and Joseph being well known, the one genealogy was as well suited to his purpose as the other. Beside that, it had also this advantage, that it established our Lord’s legal right to the throne of David, through Joseph, of whom he was the son by adoption. And this was of importance in arguing with the Jews; for, although Mary was descended from David, yet, had she married into the tribe of Levi, under the same circumstances as she married Joseph, our Lord would have been reckoned in the Jewish genealogies as of the tribe of Levi, and his legal claim to the throne of David could not have been maintained on the ground of descent; but, having married into her own tribe, our Lord was the descendant of David, both in law and by nature. With respect to other difficulties in these tables of descent, they are to be referred to the Jewish records, and not to the evangelists who copied them. As, however, the Jews exerted particular care in preserving the pedigree of their priests, and also the line of David, in which they expected the Messiah, the discrepances are probably apparent only, and the obscurity arises from the circumstance that their mode of keeping them, as being affected by their changes of name, or the practice of bearing double names, and by their laws of succession, is now but partially known. The tables are, however, sufficiently clear to prove the only point for which they were introduced, that Jesus was the son of David, and the son of Abraham.

V. 3. Of Thamar-St. Matthew adds the names of those women also, that were remarkable in the sacred history.

Verse 3. Phares and Zara] The remarkable history of these twins may be seen, Gen. 38: Some of the ancients were of opinion, that the evangelist refers to the mystery of the youngest being preferred to the eldest, as prefiguring the exaltation of the Christian Church over the synagogue. Concerning the women whose names are recorded in this genealogy, see the note at the end of the chapter.

verse 3, and Joseph went to Bethlehem, the city of David, because he was of the house and lineage of David. And this is certain, touching the tribe of Levi, because their whole temple service, the effect of their sacrifices and expiations, depended on it. And, therefore, Josephus, being a priest, not only confidently depends on these genealogical tables for the proof of his descent, anwqen ex ierewn, in a long series from priests; but adds, that all their priests were obliged to prove, ek twn arcaiwn thn diadochn, their succession from an ancient line; and if they could not do it, they were to be excluded from officiating as priests, and that, in whatsoever part of the world they were, they used this diligence. And again, Christ being promised as one who was to proceed out of the loins of David, and therefore called the son of David, it was absolutely necessary that the genealogy of the house and lineage of David should be preserved, that they might know that their Messiah was of the seed of David, according to the promise. Hence the apostle says to Timothy, Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead, 2 Timothy 2:8. And Eusebius, (Eccl. Hist., lib. 1. cap. 6,) from Africanus, says, according to the version of Ruffinus, ‘That all the successions of the Hebrews were kept in the secret archives of the temple, and thence they were described, ek thv Biblou twn emerwn, from their ephemerides, by the kinsmen of our Saviour.’ It therefore, doubtless, was from these authentic records that Matthew had his genealogy, for otherwise he would have exposed himself to the cavils of the Jews. And hence the author of the epistle to the Hebrews represents it as a thing evident to the Jews, that our Lord sprang out of Judah, Hebrews 7:14.”

As to some difficulties which occur upon comparing this genealogy with that of Luke, the reader is referred to the notes on them both. We must observe, however, that if we could not satisfactorily remove some, or even any of those difficulties, it would not affect the credit of the evangelists, for it would be a sufficient vindication of them to say, that they gave Christ’s pedigree as they found it in the authentic tables, preserved among the Jews in the temple registers. Upon this subject Bishop Burnet observes, that had not this genealogy been taken with exactness out of those registers, the bare showing of them would have served to have confuted the whole. For, if those registers were clear and uncontroverted in any one thing, they were so with respect to the genealogies; since these proved both that the Jews were Abraham’s seed, and likewise ascertained their title to the lands, which, from the days of Joshua, were to pass down either to immediate descendants, or, as they failed, to collateral degrees. Now, this shows plainly, that there was a double office kept of their pedigrees; one natural, which might probably be taken when the rolls of circumcision were made up; and the other, relating to the division of the land; in which, when the collateral line came instead of the natural, then the last was dropped, as extinct, and the other remained. It being thus plain, from their constitution, that they had these two orders of tables, we are not at all concerned in the diversity of the two evangelists on this head; since they both might have copied them out from those two offices at the temple; and if they had not done it faithfully, the Jews could easily have demonstrated their error in endeavouring to prove that Jesus was entitled to that well-known character of the Messiah, that he was to be the son of David, by a false pedigree. Now since no exceptions were made at the time when the sight of the rolls must have ended the inquiry, it is plain they were faithfully copied out; nor are we now bound to answer such difficulties as seem to arise out of them, since they were not questioned at the time in which only an appeal could be made to the public registers themselves. See Burnet’s Four Discourses, p. 16.

Abraham begat Isaac, &c. — Matthew, being a Jew, brings Christ’s genealogy down from Abraham, for the comfort of the Jews, who deduced all their genealogies from him, because God had taken him and his seed into a peculiar covenant; Luke, a Gentile, and a companion of the apostle of the Gentiles, carries Christ’s pedigree upward unto Adam, for the comfort of the Gentiles, who were not lineally of the seed of Abraham. Jacob begat Judas and his brethren — The words, his brethren, are added, probably, because they were patriarchs and heads of the people from whom the Messiah was to proceed, and to show that he was related to all the tribes as well as to that of Judah, and to comfort those of the dispersion, (many of whom were not returned out of captivity, as Judah was,) in their equal interest in the blessings of the seed of Abraham. Judah is particularly named in preference to any of them, both because it was from him our Lord came, and because to him the extraordinary promise was made, that his brethren should praise and bow down to him, and that his descendants should continue a distinct tribe, with some form of government among them, till Shiloh, who was to spring from his loins, should come.

Verse 3. And Judas begat Phares and Zara — Some have observed that these sons of Judah are mentioned together because they were twins born at the same time: but if this had been a reason for assigning Zara the honour of being named in this genealogy, Esau, the twin brother of Jacob, ought to have obtained it likewise. He seems rather to be mentioned to prevent any mistake. For if he had not, considering the infamy of Pharez’s birth, we might have been apt to imagine that not the Pharez whom Judah begat in incest, but another son of Judah, called Pharez, was our Lord’s progenitor, it being no uncommon thing among the Jews to have several children of the same name. Wherefore, to put the matter beyond doubt, Thamar, as well as Zara, is mentioned in the genealogy, if her name be not rather added because she was remarkable in the sacred history. This reason certainly must be assigned why three other women are named in this catalogue, viz., Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. They were all remarkable characters, and their story is particularly related in the Old Testament. This seems much more probable than the opinion of those who think they are mentioned, either because they were great sinners, to teach us that Christ came to save such, or with a view to obviate the cavils of the Jews against the mean condition of the mother of our Lord; their renowned ancestors, such as even David and Solomon, being descended of women whose quality rendered them much meaner than she was. It was, however, one degree of our Saviour’s humiliation, that he would be born of such sinners, and it certainly may encourage the vilest to come unto him, and expect salvation from him. Nor shall they be disappointed, if, in true repentance and lively faith, they turn from their sins to God.

3. Phares and Zara — Genesis 38:27. From Pharez to David the genealogy is furnished in Ruth 4:18-22.

We present a comparative catalogue of the names in Matthew, and the Old Testament:

MATTHEW

GEN

. 5, 10, 11, and Ruth 4 1 CHR

. 1, 2, 3.

Abraham Abram3 Abraham

Isaac — — Isaac

Jacob — — Israel

Judas — — Judah

Phares — — Pharez

Esrom Hezron Hezron

Aram Ram Ram

Aminadab Amminadab Amminadab

Naason Nahshon Nahshon

Salmon Salmon Salma

Booz Boaz Boaz

Obed Obed Obed

Jesse Jesse Jesse

David, 14 David David, 14

Solomon — — Solomon

Roboam — — Rehoboam

Abia — — Abia

Asa — — Asa

Josaphat — — Jehosaphat

Joram — — Joram

— — — — Ahazia

— — — — Joash

— — — — Amaziah

Ozias David Azariah

Joatham — — Jotham

Achaz — — Ahaz

Ezekias — — Hezekiah

Manasses — — Manasseh

Amon — — Amon

Josias — — Josiah

— — , 14 — — Jehoiakim

Jechonias — — Jeconiah

Salathiel — — Salathiel & Pedaiah

Zorobabel — — Zerubbabel

— — — — Hananiah

— — — — Pelatiah & Rephaiah

— — — — Arnan

Abiud — — Obadiah

Eliakim — — Shechaniah

— — — — Shemaiah

— — — — Neariah

Azor — — Elioenai & Azrikam

— — — — Johanan & Anani

Sadoc — — — —

Acheim — — — —

Elioud — — — —

Eleazar — — — —

Matthan — — — —

Jacob — — — —

Joseph — — — —

Jesus, 14 — — — —

See an excellent article by Dr. Strong, in the Methodist Quarterly Review, October, 1852, for an investigation of these genealogies. By comparing these lists, it will be seen that there are three names, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which occur in the Old Testament, (namely, in Chronicles,) which are omitted in Matthew in making out the second of his three fourteens in verse 17. If these were reckoned, the number would be seventeen. Upon this, we shall remark in our note on that verse. In the article to which we have referred, Dr. Strong compares the genealogy of Matthew (which we might call the home family tree of Joseph) with those of Luke and Chronicles, in the third fourteen; he finds farther omissions in it; and after elaborately showing the fair agreement of names between the three catalogues of this fourteen, he makes the following statement:

“As the list in the Chronicles ends here, bringing down the lineage some nine generations after Zerubbabel, under whom the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity, that is, to about B.C. 280, we have only the surprisingly short period of about two centuries and a half preceding Christ’s immediate parentage, during which his whole descent is not vouched for by the sacred archives of the Jewish nation.”

V. 4. Naasson-Who was prince of the tribe of Judah, when the Israelites entered into Canaan.

Verse 4. And Aram begat Aminadab — Of these, to Jesse, little is said in Scripture, for either they lived in slavery in Egypt, or in trouble in the wilderness, or in obscurity in Canaan before the kingdom was settled. Naasson, as we learn Numbers 1:7, was head of the house of Judah, not, as some through mistake have affirmed, when the Israelites entered Canaan, but when they were numbered and marshalled in the wilderness of Sinai, in the second year after they were come out of Egypt. Accordingly, in the catalogue given 1 Chronicles 2:10, he is termed prince of the children of Judah, where Salmon his son is called Salma.

V. 5. Obed begat Jesse-The providence of God was peculiarly shown in this, that Salmon, Boaz, and Obed, must each of them have been near a hundred years old, at the birth of his son here recorded.

Verse 5. Salmon begat Booz of Rachab — Viz., after their settlement in Canaan. It is not exact said that this woman was Rahab of Jericho, commonly called the harlot, but it is highly probable she was; for that Rahab was contemporary with Salmon, and a remarkable person, and there was no other of that name, especially of that age, of whom the compiler of the table could possibly suppose his reader to have any knowledge. It is true she was of one of those idolatrous nations with which the Israelites were forbidden to marry. But as the reason of that prohibition was only lest they should be tempted to idolatry, it could have no force in the case of Rahab, who, before her marriage with Salmon, undoubtedly acknowledged the God of Israel for the true God, and became a proselyte of righteousness. And Booz begat Obed of Ruth — Although the son of a Moabite by an Israelitish woman was forbidden to enter into the congregation of the Lord; that is, at least was rendered incapable of being a prince in Israel, and perhaps even of being naturalized by circumcision; yet it evidently appears from this celebrated instance, Ruth being a Moabitess, that this precept was not understood as excluding the descendants of an Israelite by a Moabitish woman from any hereditary honours and privileges, otherwise the kinsman of Booz would not have wanted a much better reason than any he assigned, (Ruth 4:6,) for refusing to marry Ruth, when she became a widow. And Obed begat Jesse — Inasmuch as there were at least 300 years between Salmon and David, and only three persons are here named as intervening to fill up that space of time, viz., Booz, Obed, and Jesse, they must each of them have been about 100 years old at the birth of his son, here named, which is not to be wondered at, considering the age in which they lived. Moses, a little before their time, had lived 120 years, when his natural strength was not abated. And Caleb, at 85, was strong and fit for war. Add to this, that they were persons of eminent piety, and therefore, probably, God vouchsafed to each of them a longer life than ordinary, and continued their strength to a late period thereof.

V. 6. David the king-Particularly mentioned under this character, because his throne is given to the Messiah.

Verse 6. And Jesse begat David the king — David has the title of king given him in this genealogy, because he was the first king of his family, and because he had the kingdom entailed upon his children; in which respect he had greatly the advantage of Saul, from whose family the kingdom was taken away almost as soon as it was conferred. It is true, ten of the twelve tribes revolted from David’s grandson. Nevertheless, the promise of God remained sure, for whereas an end was soon put to the kingdom of the ten tribes, the empire of the two which adhered to David’s family was of much longer duration, not to mention that the tribe of Judah, out of which the Messiah was to spring, was one of those two that continued in their allegiance to his house. This kingdom also was a type of the kingdom of Christ, which indeed might be said to be begun by him. For to him the promise of the Messiah was made, and of his seed the Messiah was to be raised up, to possess his throne, and establish it for ever. Ezekiel 37:25. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife, &c. — In the original it is, of her of Urias; ek thv tou Ouriou. Though David, in this unhappy affair, acted in a way most unworthy of his character, yet God, on his deep repentance, not only graciously forgave him, but entailed the promise on his seed by this very woman. An amazing instance this of his boundless mercy!

Ver. 6. David the king. His dignity is here named twice, to distinguish him from every other David. It is done to show the fidelity of God in raising up the Messiah of his line, as he had promised when Nathan the prophet was sent to console him, at the time his purposes to build the temple were not accepted. The Lord then promised him, that the Messiah should descend in his line to sit upon his throne for ever. This promise was afterwards the first source of comfort to the church, saying, “I will give you the sure mercies of David.” Isaiah 55:4. It is therefore with the justest propriety that this evangelist commenced his gospel with the genealogy of Christ, as the son of David.

Verse 7. And Solomon begat Roboam — From whose government ten of the tribes revolting, chose Jeroboam for their king, who, to prevent them from returning to their subjection to the house of David, introduced the worship of the golden calves, and led the whole nation into the dreadful crime of gross idolatry; a crime from which they were never totally reclaimed, and which was the chief source of their misery and ruin, bringing down the divine vengeance upon them in repeated punishments, till they were so reduced as to become an easy prey to the Assyrian monarchy.

V. 8. Jehoram begat Uzziah-Jehoahaz, Joash, and Amaziah coming between. So that he begat him mediately, as Christ is mediately the son of David and of Abraham. So the progeny of Hezekiah, after many generations, are called the sons that should issue from him, which he should beget, Isaiah 39:7.

Verse 8. Joram begat Ozias] This is the Uzziah, king of Judah, who was struck with the leprosy for his presumption in entering the temple to offer incense before the Lord. See 2 Chronicles 26:16, &c. Ozias was not the immediate son of Joram: there were three kings between them, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which swell the fourteen generations to seventeen: but it is observed that omissions of this kind are not uncommon in the Jewish genealogies. In Ezra 7:3, Azariah is called the son of Meraioth, although it is evident, from 1 Chronicles 6:7-9, that there were six descendants between them. This circumstance the evangelist was probably aware of; but did not see it proper to attempt to correct what he found in the public accredited genealogical tables; as he knew it to be of no consequence to his argument, which was merely to show that Jesus Christ as surely descended, in an uninterrupted line from David, as David did from Abraham. And this he has done in the most satisfactory manner; nor did any person in those days pretend to detect any inaccuracy in his statement; though the account was published among those very people whose interest it was to expose the fallacy, in vindication of their own obstinate rejection of the Messiah, if any such fallacy could have been proved. But as they were silent, modern and comparatively modern unbelievers may for ever hold their peace. The objections raised on this head are worthy of no regard; yet the following statement deserves notice. St. Matthew took up the genealogies just as he found them in the public Jewish records, which, though they were in the main correct, yet were deficient in many particulars. The Jews themselves give us sufficient proof of this. The Talmud, title Kiddushim, mentions ten classes of persons who returned from the Babylonish captivity: I. ynhk COHANEY, priests. II. ywl LEVEY, Levites. III. larvy YISHRÆL, Israelites. IV. ylwlj CHULULEY, common persons, as to the priesthood; such whose fathers were priests, but their mothers were such as the priests should not marry. V. yryg GIREY, proselytes. VI. yrwrj CHARUREY, freed-men, or servants who had been liberated by their masters. VII. yryzmm MAMZIREY, spurious, such as were born in unlawful wedlock. VIII. ynytn NETHINEY, Nethinim. IX. yqwtv SHETUKEY, bastards, persons whose mothers, though well known, could not ascertain the fathers of their children, because of their connections with different men. X. ypwsa ASUPHEY, such as were gathered up out of the streets, whose fathers and mothers were utterly unknown. Such was the heterogeneous mass brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem; and although we learn from the Jews, that great care was taken to separate the spurious from the true-born Israelites, and canons were made for that purpose, yet it so happened, that sometimes a spurious family had got into high authority, and therefore must not be meddled with. See several cases in Lightfoot. On this account, a faithful genealogist would insert in his roll such only as were indisputable. “It is therefore easy to guess,” says Dr. Lightfoot, “whence Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this genealogy, and Luke the first forty names of his: namely, from the genealogical rolls, at that time well known, and laid up in the public keimhlia, repositories, and in the private also. And it was necessary indeed, in so noble and sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired into by the Jewish people, as the lineage of the Messiah would be, that the evangelists should deliver a truth, not only that could not be gainsayed, but also might be proved and established from certain and undoubted rolls of ancestors.” See Horæ Talmudicæ.

Verse 8. And Joram begat Ozias — By Ozias, Uzziah is intended, and it is certain from the history of the Kings and Chronicles that he was the son of Amaziah, 2 Chronicles 26:1; Amaziah, of Joash, ch. 24:27; Joash, of Ahaziah, ch. 22:11; and Ahaziah, of Jehoram. But, according to the language of the Hebrews, the children of children are reputed the sons or daughters, not only of their immediate parents, but of their ancestors, and these ancestors are said to beget those who are removed some generations from them. Thus Isaiah says to Hezekiah, Of thy sons which thou shalt beget shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon: which prediction was not fulfilled until the days of Jeconiah, long after the days of Hezekiah. But it will be asked, why these three in particular are left out of the catalogue? The best answer to this question seems to be, that the evangelist followed the Jewish tables in writing this list, and that he found them left out in these. But if he himself, though he found them in the tables, omitted their names, it must, as Dr. Doddridge observes, have been “by some peculiar divine direction, that the sin of Jehoram is thus animadverted upon, even to the fourth generation, his intermediate descendants being thus blotted out of the records of Christ’s family, and overlooked as if they had never been.”

Ver. 8. Joram begat Ozias. Here three names are omitted, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Joram had many brethren, but he slew them all on coming to the throne. 2 Chronicles 21:4. The Ethiopians, for providence has a revenge against murder and adultery, slew all his children in return, as in ver. 17, excepting Jehoahaz. Also the forty two grandchildren of Joram were slain by Jehu. 2 Chronicles 22:8. Ahaziah had many children, whom Athaliah slew on their father’s death; but Joash an infant escaped, and was the father of Ozias. Perhaps these three names are omitted because of their wickedness, as God has said, Psalm 37:28, the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. It must be observed that for any discrepancies, or apparent discrepancies, in these genealogies the evangelists are not responsible. They faithfully quoted the public records, which were admitted to be correct, and never disputed, so long as the jews remained a nation; and which consequently, no modern critic can have a right to dispute.

V. 11. Josiah begat Jeconiah-Mediately, Jehoiakim coming between. And his brethren-That is, his uncles. The Jews term all kinsmen brethren. About the time they were carried away-Which was a little after the birth of Jeconiah.

Verse 11. Josias begat Jechonias, &c.] There are three considerable difficulties in this verse. 1. Josias was not the father of Jechonias; he was only the grandfather of that prince: 1 Chronicles 3:14-16. 2. Jechonias had no brethren; at least, none are on record. 3. Josias died 20 years before the Babylonish captivity took place, and therefore Jechonias and his brethren could not have been begotten about the time they were carried away to Babylon. To this way be added a fourth difficulty, viz. there are only thirteen in this 2nd class of generations; or forty-one, instead of forty-two, in the whole. But all these difficulties disappear, by adopting a reading found in many MSS. Iowsiav de egennhse tov Iwakeim\ Iwakeim de egennhse ton Ieconian. And Josias begat JEHOIAKIM, or Joakim, and JOAKIM begat Jechonias. For this reading, see the authorities in Griesbach. Josiah was the immediate father of Jehoiakim (called also Eliakeim and Joakim) and his brethren, who were Johanan, Zedekiah, and Shallum: see 1 Chronicles 3:15. Joakim was the father of Joachin or Jechonias, about the time of the first Babylonish captivity: for we may reckon three Babylonish captivities. The first happened in the fourth year of Joakim, son of Josiah, about A. M. 3398. In this year, Nebuchadnezzar, having taken Jerusalem, led a great number of captives to Babylon. The second captivity happened under Jechoniah, son of Joakim; who, having reigned three months, was taken prisoner in 3405, and was carried to Babylon, with a great number of the Jewish nobility. The third captivity took place under Zedekiah, A. M. 3416. And thus, says Calmet, Matthew 1:11 should be read: Josias begat Joakim and his brethren: and Joakim begat Jechonias about the time of the first Babylonish captivity; and Jechonias begat Salathiel, after they were brought to Babylon. Thus, with the necessary addition of Joakim, the three classes, each containing fourteen generations, are complete. And to make this the more evident, I shall set down each of these three generations in a separate column, with the additional Joakim, that the reader may have them all at one view.

1 Abraham 1 Solomon 1 Jechonias

2 Isaac 2 Rehoboam 2 Salathiel

3 Jacob 3 Abia 3 Zorobabel

4 Judah 4 Asa 4 Abiud

5 Pharez 5 Josaphat 5 Eliakim

6 Esrom 6 Joram 6 Azor

7 Aram 7 Ozias 7 Sadoc

8 Aminadab 8 Joatham 8 Achim

9 Naason 9 Achaz 9 Eliud

10 Salmon 10 Ezekias 10 Eleazar

11 Booz 11 Manasses 11 Matthan

12 Obed 12 Amon 12 Jacob

13 Jesse 13 Josias 13 Joseph

14 David 14 Joachim 14 JESUS

In all forty-two generations.

Verse 11. Josias begat Jechonias — According to the Bodleian and other MSS., (of which notice is taken in the margin of our Bibles,) we must read Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jechoniah. And this indeed seems absolutely necessary to keep up the number of fourteen generations; unless we suppose, with Dr. Whitby, that the Jechoniah here is a different person from that Jechoniah mentioned in the next verse, which seems a very unreasonable supposition, since it is certain that throughout this whole table each person is mentioned twice, first as the son of the preceding, and then as the father of the following. And his brethren — Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, who were both kings of Judah, the former the predecessor to Jehoiakim, and the latter the successor of his son Jehoiachin. Of the history of these persons see the notes on 2 Kings 23:30, 31; and 24:1-30; and 25:1-7. About the time they were carried away to Babylon — There were two transportations to Babylon of the tribes which composed the kingdom of Judah. The first happened in the eighth year of the reign of Jehoiachin the son of Jehoiakim. For Jehoiachin delivered up the city to Nebuchadnezzar, and, by treaty, agreed to go with the Chaldeans to Babylon, at which time the princes and the mighty men, even 10,000 captives, with all the craftsmen and smiths, were carried away to Babylon. 2 Kings 24:12-16. The second transportation happened in the 11th year of the reign of Zedekiah, when the city was taken by storm, and all the people made prisoners of war and carried off. The seventy years of the captivity were dated from the first transportation, here properly called metoikesia, a removal or migration: and it is of this that the evangelist speaks in this genealogy: the other is more properly termed aicmalwsia, a being taken and carried away captive.

Verse 12. Jechonias begat Salathiel] After Jechonias was brought to Babylon, he was put in prison by Nebuchadnezzar, where he continued till the death of this prince, and the accession of Evilmerodach, who brought him out of prison, in which he had been detained thirty-seven years, and restored him to such favour that his throne (seat) was exalted above all the kings which were with him in Babylon: Jeremiah 52:31, 32. But though he thus became a royal favourite, he was never restored to his kingdom. And, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 22:30, no man of his seed sat upon the throne of David; yet the regal line was continued through his son Salathiel, who died in Babylon: but Zorobabel, his son, returned from captivity, and by him the race of David was continued, according to Matthew, by Abiud; and, according to Luke, by Rhesa. See on Luke 3:23, &c.

The term carrying away to Babylon, metoikesia, from metoikew, to change a habitation, or place of residence, would be more properly translated by the word transportation, which is here peculiarly appropriate: the change was not voluntary; they were forced away.

Verse 12. And after they were brought to Babylon — After the Babylonish captivity commenced, Jechonias begat Salathiel — It is here objected, that God said concerning this Jeconiah, called also Coniah, Jeremiah 22:30, Write ye this man childless: How then did he beget Salathiel? This objection is easily answered, for that verse, (where see the note,) expounds itself: it being added, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. The expression, therefore, manifestly means, without a child that shall actually succeed in the kingdom: for the text itself supposes that he should have seed, but none that should prosper, sitting on the throne of David and ruling in Judah: which is according to the sacred history, (2 Chronicles 36.,) for the king of Babylon set up Zedekiah, his uncle, in his stead, who was the last king of Judah, in the 11th year of whose reign the Jews were carried away captive. Salathiel begat Zorobabel — Here is another difficulty: for, 1 Chronicles 3:19, we read, The sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei: now if Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, how could he be the son of Salathiel? In answer to this, let it be observed, 1st, that Salathiel might die without issue, and Pedaiah, his brother, might marry his widow, (according to the law of God, Deuteronomy 25:5,) to raise up seed to his brother. Zerubbabel, being the fruit of this marriage, would of course be called the son of Salathiel and the son of Pedaiah. Or, 2dly, there might be two persons of the name of Zerubbabel; one the son of Salathiel, and the other the son of his brother Pedaiah. This seems very likely, considering that the word Zerubbabel signifies a stranger in Babylon, a name which very probably would be given to several children born in the captivity. Be this as it may, the Zerubbabel here mentioned was that illustrious person who was the chief instrument of restoring and settling the Jewish commonwealth, on their return from captivity.

V. 16. 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 farther observed, that the word Christ in Greek, and Messiah in Hebrew, 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.

Verse 16. Jesus, who is called Christ.] As the word cristov Christ, signifies the anointed or anointer, from criw, to anoint, it answers exactly to the Hebrew jyvm mashiach, which we pronounce Messiah or Messias; this word comes from the root jvm 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 cristov Christ, or jyvm Mashiach, became a name of dignity, and often signified the same as king. See Isaiah 45:1; Psalm 105:15; Leviticus 4:3; 6:20; 1 Samuel 2:10. The words jyvm Mashiach and Ëlm melec, cristov and basileuv, Christ and king, are frequently interchanged. 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalm 2:2, 6; Luke 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 Exodus 29:7.

“It appears from Isaiah 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 jvm mashach signifies to anoint; and jyvm 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 jyvmh ha-mashiach, THE anointed ONE, in Hebrew; which gave birth to o cristov 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.”

Verse 16. Jacob begat Joseph — It is evident that Joseph was properly the son of Jacob, and only the son-in-law of Eli: Luke 3:23. See note on verse 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, Matthew 13:55; the son of Joseph, John 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 Numbers 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 Genesis 29:21; Deuteronomy 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 µyhycm, Messiahs, or, anointed persons, even though, strictly speaking, they had not been anointed with oil, as Abraham and Isaac, Psalm 105:15; Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1; and the king of Tyre, Ezekiel 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 Daniel 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, John 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 Luke 4:18; John 3:34; Acts 4:27; and 10:36, 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, Hebrews 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.

Ver. 16. Jacob begat Joseph. St. Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli. This is accounted for by the law, which says, “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall take her, and the firstborn shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead.” Deuteronomy 25:5, 6. By consequence, Jacob and Heli were brothers. See on ver. 1.

Verse 16. Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom, &c. — Here it is to be observed, that the evangelist, in giving the natural line of descent from David to Joseph, uses the term egennhse, begat, in each instance; but instead of saying that Joseph begat Jesus, he turns the phrase by saying, “Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, OF WHOM WAS BORN Jesus;” thus intimating what he afterward more fully states, that Jesus was not begotten of Mary by her husband, Joseph.

V. 17. So all the generations-Observe, in order to complete the three fourteens, David ends the first fourteen, and begins the second (which reaches to the captivity) and Jesus ends the third fourteen. When we survey such a series of generations, it is a natural and obvious reflection, how like the leaves of a tree one passeth away, and another cometh! Yet the earth still abideth. And with it the goodness of the Lord which runs from generation to generation, the common hope of parents and children.

Of those who formerly lived upon earth, and perhaps made the most conspicuous figure, how many are there whose names are perished with them? How many, of whom only the names are remaining? Thus are we likewise passing away! And thus shall we shortly be forgotten! Happy are we, if, while we are forgotten by men, we are remembered by God! If our names, lost on earth, are at length found written in the book of life!

Verse 17. Fourteen generations] See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 1:11”. The Jews had a sort of technical method of summing up generations in this way. In Synopsis Sohar, p. 132, n. 18, we have the following words; “From Abraham to Solomon were fifteen generations; and then the moon was at the full. From Solomon to Zedekiah were other fifteen generations; the moon was then in the wane, and Zedekiah’s eyes were put out.” That is, the regal state came to its zenith of light and glory in the time of Solomon; but decreased gradually, till it became nearly extinct in the days of Zedekiah. See Schoetgen.

Verse 17. So all the generations, &c. — “Matthew, designing to show that Jesus was the Messiah, began his genealogy at Abraham, to whom the promise was originally made, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. But the succession of Christ’s ancestors, from Abraham downward, naturally resolved itself into three classes; viz., first of private persons from Abraham to David; next of kings from David to Jehoiakim; and then of private persons from the Babylonish captivity, when an end was put to the royal dignity of our Lord’s progenitors.” For Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, was reduced to the condition of a private person, being made a captive; “and as for Salathiel and Zerubbabel, notwithstanding they had the supreme command, after their return from the captivity, they were not vested either with the titles or powers of princes, being only lieutenants of the kings of Persia. Wherefore the evangelist, thus invited by his subject, fitly distributes Christ’s ancestors into three classes, the first and last of which consisting exactly of fourteen successions, he mentions only fourteen in the middle class, though in reality it contained three more, viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. But omissions of this kind are not uncommon in the Jewish genealogies. For example, Ezra 7:3, Azariah is called the son of Meraioth, although it is evident, from 1 Chronicles 6:7-9, that there were six descendants between them.” — Macknight. We may observe also, that God’s chosen people, in each of these several intervals, were under a different kind of government, and the end of each interval produced a great alteration in their state. In the first, they were under patriarchs, prophets, and judges; in the second, under kings; and in the third, under the Asmonæan priests and generals. The first fourteen generations brought their state to dignity and glory in the kingdom of David; the second, to disgrace and misery in the captivity of Babylon; and the third, to honour and glory again in the kingdom of Christ. The first begins with Abraham, who received the promise, and ends in David, to whom it was renewed and revealed more fully; the second begins with the building of the temple, and ends with its destruction; the third begins with their temporal captivity in Babylon, and ends with their spiritual deliverance by Christ. “When we survey such a series of generations,” says Dr. Doddridge, “it is obvious to reflect, how, like the leaves of a tree, one passeth away, and another cometh; yet the earth still abideth. And with it, the goodness of the Lord, which runs on from generation to generation, the common hope of parents and children. Of those who formerly lived upon earth, and perhaps made the most conspicuous figure among the children of men, how many are there whose names are perished with them! and how many of whom only the names are remaining! Thus are we likewise passing away! And thus shall we shortly be forgotten! Happy, if, while we are forgotten by men, we are remembered by God, and our names are found written in the book of life! There will they make a much brighter appearance than in the records of fame, or than they would do even in such a catalogue as this of those who were related to Christ according to the flesh; whose memory is here preserved, when that of many, who were once the wonder and terror of the mighty in the land of the living, is lost in perpetual oblivion.”

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.

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. 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.

§ 7. AN ANGEL ANNOUNCES JESUS’S BIRTH TO JOSEPH. Matthew 18-25.

Verse 17. Fourteen generations. — Lightfoot has shown, by a number of instances, that it was usual with the Jews to reduce things or numbers nearly alike to the same term, for the sake of aiding the memory. Here, therefore, are three regular classes, formed by unimportant omissions: the first, under the patriarchs, and judges, from Abraham to David; the second, under the kings; the third, under the governors and Asmonean priests, from the captivity to Christ. The Greeks as well as Jews reckoned by generations. So Pausanias: “From Thanypus to Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles, wente andrwn kai deka eisi geneai, were fifteen generations of men.” So also Herodotus and Polybius.

Verse 18. Espoused to Joseph] The word mnhsteuqeishv, from mnhsteuw, to contract, or betroth, refers to the previous marriage agreement, in which the parties mutually bound themselves to each other; without which, no woman was ever married among the Jews. Among the Hindoos, a woman is espoused often a whole year, and even longer before the marriage takes place.

Before they came together] The woman was espoused at her own, or her father’s house; and, generally, some time elapsed before she was taken home to the house of her husband: Deuteronomy 20:7; Judges 14:7, 8. This custom has been immemorially observed among the inhabitants of Ireland, who have not only this, but many Asiatic customs, which, added to various authentic historic proofs, are collateral evidences that they received the Christian religion, not from the popes of Rome, but through the means of Asiatic missionaries.

Among the Jews, the espousal, though the marriage had not been consummated, was considered as perfectly legal and binding on both sides; and hence a breach of this contract was considered as a case of adultery, and punished exactly in the same way. See Deuteronomy 22:25, 28. Nor could a contract of this kind, though there was no cohabitation, be broken but by a regular divorce, as Mr. Selden, in his Uxor Hebraica, has proved at large from the Jewish rabbins.

She was found with child] Her situation was the most distressing and humiliating that can be conceived. Nothing but the fullest consciousness of her own integrity, and the strongest confidence in God, could have supported her in such trying circumstances, where her reputation, her honour, and her life were at stake. What conversation passed between her and Joseph, on this discovery, we are not informed; but the issue proves that it was not satisfactory to him: nor could he resolve to consider her as his wife, till God had sent his angel to bear the most unequivocal testimony to the virgin’s innocence. His whole conduct, on this occasion, was exceedingly benevolent and humane. He might at once have taken the advantage of the law, Deuteronomy 22:23, 24, and had her stoned to death.

Verse 18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise, outwv hn, was thus — It was not in the ordinary course of nature, or manner in which children are conceived and born, but in the wonderful manner following. Not only the birth, but the conception of Christ, and what preceded it, are here included in the word gennhsiv, which some critics have unwarily confounded with the word genesiv, used in the first verse of this chapter. When his mother was espoused to Joseph — According to the custom of the Jews, who did not usually marry without previous espousals. This was nothing but a solemn promise of marriage, made by the parties to each other, before witnesses, to be accomplished at such a distance of time as they agreed upon, which, it seems, was sometimes longer and sometimes shorter, according as the age of the persons, or other circumstances, might demand or advise. It was a custom, if not ordained, at least approved of by God, as appears from Deuteronomy 20:7, and had many advantages attending it. The parties had hereby time to think seriously of the great change they were soon to make in their lives, and to seek unto God for his blessing upon them. And they might converse together more freely about their household affairs, and the management of their family, than they could well have done consistently with modesty, without such a previous betrothing. God would have Mary to be espoused, for the safety and honour of Christ in his infancy, and the credit, and comfort of his mother. Before they came together — Viz., to cohabit as man and wife; she was found with child — Very unexpectedly, doubtless; perhaps by Joseph, who, with the care of a husband, observed his intended wife, and from whose sight she did not conceal herself, being conscious she had not dishonoured him. Of, or rather, by the Holy Ghost — Mary knew it was by the Holy Ghost she had conceived with child; both because she was sure she had not known man, as she told the angel, and because the angel had assured her, the Holy Ghost should come upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadow her. This, no doubt, she would reveal to some of her friends, who, considering her great piety, and the testimony borne by her cousin Elizabeth, probably, fully believed her. But certainly she had not mentioned it to Joseph, as despairing, perhaps, of his giving credit to what was so improbable, or judging it better to commit the matter to God, by whom, as she had learned, it had already been revealed to her cousin Elizabeth, and by whom she might hope it would be revealed to Joseph also. Indeed, it is not easy to conceive how he should know or believe it, otherwise than in consequence of some supernatural revelation made to himself. This, therefore, in tenderness to her reputation, and out of regard to their mutual peace when they should come together, as well as to prepare the way for Joseph’s acknowledging Jesus for the true Messiah and his Saviour, God was graciously pleased to grant him. We may observe here, it became Christ to be born thus by the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit forming his human nature of the body of a virgin, as he formed Adam out of the dust of the earth, 1, that he might have no other father but God: 2, that the womb of the virgin being sanctified by the Spirit of holiness, there might be no traduction of original sin, which would have been contrary both to the majesty of his person, and the execution of his office: 3, that his nativity might be perfectly free from every defilement of lust and impurity. And as it was necessary that he should be born of a virgin that he might be born without sin, and that the ancient promise might be fulfilled, (see Isaiah 7:14,) so it was wisely ordered that he should be born of a betrothed virgin. For hereby he was preserved from coming under the reproach of illegitimacy, and his mother from being subjected to the punishment of the judicial law. And at the same time, by this means she was not destitute of one to take care of her during her confinement, nor Jesus of a guard during his infancy. “Never was a daughter of Eve so dignified as the virgin Mary, yet she was in danger of falling under the imputation of one of the worst of crimes. We find not, however, that she tormented herself about it; but, conscious of her own innocency, she kept her mind calm and easy, and committed her cause to him who judgeth righteously; and, like her, those who are careful to keep a good conscience, may cheerfully trust God with the keeping of their good name.”

Ver. 18. Mary was espoused to Joseph. The manner of betrothing a virgin among the jews was, to make her a promise of marriage before credible witnesses; then, after a convenient time, he took her home to his house with all the honours of a public marriage.

18. Now the birth — Having traced the pedigree of the Saviour as the prophesied Son of David, Matthew now proceeds to furnish in the history of his birth the proof of his divine INCARNATION, that is, his embodiment in the flesh. Upon the stock of our sinful humanity is to be grafted a sinless member. From the dust of the earth, by Almighty power, was created the first Adam; by the same Almighty power, in the dust of our humanity, is to be created the second Adam. The doctrine of the Incarnation, as held by the ancient Church, is thus impressively expressed in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, became of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” This is a beautiful summary of the New Testament doctrine of the personal nature of Jesus the Christ. On this wise — In this manner. This old word wise for manner is now obsolete in ordinary style. It is still used in the words likewise, otherwise, etc. It resembles the word way or ways, but has no etymological connection with it. When as — This old English phrase has at the present day dropped the as.

His mother Mary — Of Mary, the mother of Jesus, little is said by the evangelists after the narrative of the birth of Jesus. Tradition adds a few points of little historical value. After the childhood of Jesus, she appears at the wedding of Cana; and again in company with his brethren to induce him to retire from the crowds of Galilee to the home of his childhood Nazareth. She appears again at the cross; but not at the resurrection. At Calvary, she was consigned by her dying Son to the care, not of his brethren, but of the beloved disciple John. She is named for the last time in the New Testament (Acts 1:14) as associating with the disciples at Jerusalem after the ascension.

Mary is by tradition said to have died in the year 63. She was claimed by a letter of the General Council of Ephesus, in the fifth century, to have died and been buried at that city, which was the apostolic residence of John during the closing days of his life.

The immaculate conception of Mary, that is, her sinlessness from birth, is now an article of faith in the Church of Rome. This is not only undeclared in Scripture, but is in contradiction to its most positive doctrines. That all the race have fallen in Adam, with the exception of Christ alone, that all alike are saved by his merits, is the uniform language of Scripture. That Mary is an exception is nowhere intimated. About the fifth century the worship of Mary commenced in the Romish Church; and in the sixth, her festivals began to be generally observed. To such extravagant lengths has this been carried, that, at the present day, at Rome, the religion of Mary has superseded the religion of Jesus. Idolatry in heathendom is hardly surpassed by the Mariolatry of the popedom. The only pretext in Scripture for this worship is the language of the angel, (Luke 1:28,) Blessed art thou among women, etc.; language which is paralleled by the words concerning Jael in Judges 5:24. If we examine all the writings of Paul, they contain no reference to Mary. Neither the Epistles nor Apocalypse of John, to whose care she was intrusted, make any allusion to her. Peter, who was acquainted with her, mentions her not in his letters. Neither in the Epistles nor in the Gospels, is any human being described as offering any invocation to her; nor is any authority given for such a practice. But though, beyond the maternity of the Redeemer, Mary is unrecognized in the scheme of salvation, yet this distinction secures for her our special reverence, as standing eminent among her sex, and alone amid our race. To her belong, not indeed mediation, nor worship, nor invocation, nor omnipresence, nor prayer to aid our souls or bodies, but reverence, as for the one selected by God to be the mother of the Incarnate. Was espoused — Contracted in marriage. An espousal among the Jews was nearly as sacred as the marriage vow itself. Though the woman remained at her father’s house until after marriage, yet during that time of espousal before marriage, a violation of the contract by unchastity was equivalent in criminality and in punishment to adultery. To Joseph — Of Joseph, the husband of Mary, but little account is given in the Scripture. He was descended from the royal line of David; and hence is addressed by the angel in verse 20, Joseph, thou son of David. But though of regal descent, he resided in obscurity in the small and not very reputable town of Nazareth. According to the Jewish custom, which requires that every man, however high his rank, should be master of a manual trade, Joseph was a carpenter. That is, this English word is the most obvious translation of the Greek term; although it may be extended to mean a smith or artificer of any kind. Nothing is said of Joseph indicating that he possessed a very marked character. Yet his whole conduct justifies the statement that he was a just man. All his procedures appear simple, pure, obedient to the divine requirements, and faithfully fulfilling the duties of his peculiar relation. Though it is not asserted, yet it is too clearly implied to admit doubt, that JOSEPH died during the childhood of JESUS. Mary, the mother of Jesus, as well as his brethren sometimes appears during the ministry of Jesus, but never JOSEPH. Of the Holy Ghost — So that the Lord, being the child of a purely human mother and of a Divine Father, should at once be the Son of man and the Son of God — the God-man. This miraculous fact was predicted by the first prophecy that the seed of the WOMAN (and not of the man) should bruise the head of the serpent. Hence the idea of an incarnation, by means of a pure virgin from a divine father, has been adopted into various systems of Paganism. Instances of this are Romulus among the Romans, Melkarth (or Hercules) among the Syrians; and greatest of all, as St. Jerome remarked centuries ago, Boodha among the Hindus. The Latin Church styles Mary the Virgo Deipara, or Virgin God-mother. Mr. Milman remarks that the first Romanist missionaries to the East were dismayed at finding in the stupendous system of Boodhism a Virgo Deipara. Holy Ghost — The word ghost is derived from the Saxon word gast, and signifies spirit. Ghostly, in older English, (of which ghastly is a cognate,) signifies spiritual. Holy Ghost is therefore precisely synonymous with Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as the word ghost is almost exclusively applied in the English of the present day to the apparition of a departed human spirit, it would be better perhaps, in case of a new translation, to disuse the word ghost in this connection. That God is a Spirit is plentifully revealed in Scripture. Yet this Spirit speaks of his Spirit. Genesis 6:3; 59:21. God sends forth this his Spirit. Proverbs 23; Isaiah 42:1. This Spirit thus sent forth is an agent, Acts 8:29; 10:19; and a person, being designated by a personal pronoun. John 15:26. This Spirit is associated with Father and Son in the baptismal command, and, like the other two, has his name or personal appellation. Matthew 28:19. So the same three appear in the apostolical benediction. 2 Corinthians 13:13. Here the Father is the personal source of love, the Son of grace, and the Holy Spirit of communion. Yet God’s spirit must be divine, omnipotent, and eternal. God is universally in Scripture declared to be one. Here, therefore, we find that in some one mysterious respect God is trine, and in some other unfathomable respect he is one. Here, then, we have a three-one, a Triune, a Trinity. This view of the sacred word has been faithfully held by the faithful Christian Church in all ages. Where ever it is denied, rationalism and skepticism are sure gradually to gain the ascendant, and the Gospel life is lost. The doctrine of the Christian Church in all ages, as derived from the word of God, is thus expressed in our first Article of Faith: “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness: the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead, there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

Verse 18. Now the birth of Jesus, &c. — The birth of our Saviour is now placed by chronologers in about four years before the common era from which we reckon. In the first ages of Christianity the practice of dating from the birth of Christ was unknown; and, in fact, was not generally adopted among Christians till about A.D. 730; and it is now generally agreed that an error of four years was then made in fixing the era. Was espoused to Joseph. — Maimonides says, that “before the giving of the law, if a man met a woman in the street, he might take her home and marry her; but when the law was given, the Israelites were commanded that if a man would take a woman, he should do it before witnesses, and this was called an espousal, or betrothing; and when a woman, is espoused, although she is not yet married, or has entered her husband’s house, yet she is a man’s wife.” Six months, and sometimes a year, intervened between the betrothment and the nuptials. “No woman,” says Lightfoot, “is ever married, among the Jews, without a previous espousal.” The same previous ceremony appears to have been customary among other nations. Before they came together, &c. — Before she was removed to her husband’s house, and the marriage consummated.

She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. — Ek wneumatov agiou. Because of the absence of the article, Wakefield translates, “by a holy spirit,” signifying, by the Divine power. But Bishop Middleton has shown that after prepositions anomalous instances of the omission of the article frequently occur. Besides, we have no indication of a plurality of beings, bearing the appellation, of “holy spirits,” in the New Testament, and no such phrase as wneumata agia. That the human nature of our Lord should be thus formed supernaturally by the power of the Holy Ghost, was necessary, that he might escape the traduction of original sin, and be born and remain perfectly pure and sinless, that so the Divine nature might, without moral degradation, he personally united with the human, and that he might be qualified to be a perfect example of holiness, and finally “offer himself without spot to God,” as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

V. 19. A just man-A strict observer of the law: therefore not thinking it right to keep her.

Verse 19. To make her a public example] paradeigmatisai, to expose her to public infamy; from para, near, and deiknumai, I show, or expose; what is oddly, though emphatically, called in England, showing up-exposing a character to public view. Though Joseph was a righteous man, dikaiov, and knew that the law required that such persons as he supposed his wife to be should be put to death, yet, as righteousness is ever directed by mercy, he determined to put her away or divorce her privately, i.e. without assigning any cause, that her life might be saved; and, as the offence was against himself, he had a right to pass it by if he chose. Some have supposed that the term dikaiov should be translated merciful, and it certainly often has this signification; but here it is not necessary.

Verse 19. Joseph her husband, being a just [or righteous] man — That is, as many understand it, a strict observer of the law, and of the customs of his ancestors, and therefore not judging it right to retain her under these circumstances. But the following words, and not willing to make her a public example, seem manifestly to lead to another and even an opposite sense of the word here rendered just, or righteous. Hence some interpret the clause thus: Joseph, being a good-natured, merciful, and tender-hearted man, was unwilling to go to the utmost rigour of the law, but chose rather to treat her with as much lenity as the case allowed. But, Dr. Doddridge very well observes, it is without any good reason that dikaiov should be here rendered merciful or good-natured, because, “if we consider the information which Joseph might have received from persons of such an extraordinary character as Zachariah and Elizabeth, who would certainly think themselves obliged to interpose on such an occasion, and whose story so remarkably carried its own evidence along with it; besides the intimation the prophecy of Isaiah gave, and the satisfaction he undoubtedly had in the virtuous character of Mary herself; we must conclude that he would have acted a very severe and unrighteous part, had he proceeded to extremities without serious deliberation; and that putting her away privately would, in these circumstances, have been the hardest measure which justice would have suffered him to take. It seems the expression, paradeigmatisai, here rendered to make her a public example, “may perhaps refer to that exemplary punishment which the law inflicted on those who had violated the faith of their espousals before the marriage was completed. See Deuteronomy 22:23, 24, where it is expressly ordered that a betrothed virgin, if she lay with another man, should be stoned. We may suppose, however, that the infamy of a public divorce, though she had not been stoned, may also be expressed by the same word. But then there was besides a private kind of divorce, in which no reason was assigned, and the dowry was not forfeited as in the former case, and by this she would not have been so much defamed.” But it must be observed, that as their being betrothed to each other was a thing publicly known, he could not have put her away so privately, but there must have been witnesses of it, two at least, her parents, suppose, or some of her nearest relations.

Ver. 19. Joseph — being a just man. A man of probity, benignity, and clemency, of a meek and quiet spirit.

19. Just man — Just, not in its severe sense, but in its milder meaning of a fair man, unwilling to inflict unnecessary misery, even in effecting a proper penalty. Make her a public example — By the terrible death, namely, by being stoned to death with her accomplice, prescribed in Deuteronomy 22:23, 24. Put her away privily — By simply a note of dismissal or bill of divorcement, as described in Deuteronomy 24:1.

Verse 19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, &c. — Dikaiov is by some taken to signify merciful, or compassionate, a sense in which the word is seldom or never used; and which, though it appears to harmonize with the moderate conduct which Joseph purposed to pursue toward Mary, destroys in fact the force of the passage. That he was a mild and considerate man, appears from his being unwilling to make her a public example; but it was because he was a just man, that is, a man who regarded the law, and was observant of moral duties, that he resolved to put her away, though privily; so that here we have the character of this excellent man drawn by a brief but striking touch of the pencil of inspiration. His sense of justice prevented his affection from stooping to what then appeared to be a disgrace, and yet the mildness of his character led him to perform an act of justice without severity. Paradeigmatisai, to make her a public example, here means, either to bring her before the magistrate, in order to her being punished capitally according to the law, Deuteronomy 22:23, 24; or, more probably, as this law required witnesses of the crime, which Joseph could not produce, to divorce her in a public manner, and thereby openly expose her shame. There was, however, a method of divorce so private as to require to be done in the presence of only two persons, by simply giving the woman a bill of divorce, without assigning any reasons. This Joseph resolved to adopt; and as this proceeding illustrates the character of Joseph, so the whole circumstance of the case exhibits that of Mary. She does not appear to have made any communication to Joseph of the message of the angel. She might be forbidden to do this; or she might wisely conclude that it would be treated as an idle tale; and so she left the matter in the hands of God, supported only by her NOBLE FAITH, and submitting to temporary suspicion in patient expectation of a Divine interposition at the fittest time. The idolatrous worship paid to the virgin has perhaps led Protestants too much to overlook those striking illustrations of her character which incidentally, but powerfully break forth in the narratives of the evangelists. They, however, unite to prove her to have been a woman equally eminent in the order of intellect and piety; retired and humble, but firm, thoughtful, and singularly qualified to pass through that succession of mysterious scenes, which could only be opened fully by the resurrection of her glorious Son from the dead. Never was mother so honoured or so tried.

Verse 20. That which is conceived (or formed) in her] So I think gennhqen should be translated in this place: as it appears that the human nature of Jesus Christ was a real creation in the womb of the virgin, by the power of the Holy Spirit. The angel of the Lord mentioned here was probably the angel Gabriel, who, six months before, bad been sent to Zacharias and Elisabeth, to announce the birth of Christ’s forerunner, John the Baptist. See Luke 1:36.

Verse 20. But while he thought on these things — While he was revolving them in his mind, in the night season, ignorant as he then was of the divine conception in Mary; while he was inclined to divorce her in this private way, but had not absolutely determined upon it; and while there was a conflict in his breast from opposite considerations; justice showing, on the one hand, what was due to himself; and on the other, what was due to one of Mary’s character; — while he was thus deliberating with himself, and in danger of innocently doing wrong, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him — Here we have a remarkable instance of the care which God takes of good men, both in keeping them from sin, and in affording them direction in time of need. Joseph had formed that determination which every prudent and wise man would have formed in similar circumstances; and yet, if he had executed his design, he would have greatly injured the holy virgin, in deserting her, and exposing her to censure and reproach. He kept the matter in his own breast, and discovered it to no living creature. But it was not concealed from God, who is privy to the most secret things, and who cannot suffer any that fear him, and look for his direction, to take any step that will be to the injury or loss of the innocent. So constantly does the divine providence superintend the affairs of men, and watch for the salvation of the righteous, even while they sleep. — An angel foretold to Mary, that she should be the mother of Christ; and an angel appointed Joseph to be the foster-father of the child, when born; angels ministered to Christ after his temptation; angels strengthened him in his agony; angels bore testimony, as to his nativity, so also to his resurrection, for it was proper that they should pay a peculiar respect to him by whom they had been created, and to whom they were, and were to be, subject. In a dream — The angel appeared to Mary while awake, because faith and consent were required in her that she might conceive by the Holy Ghost; but he appeared to Joseph while sleeping, because that was sufficient in his case, and he was about to believe easily. For we more easily believe those things possible to have been done, which are done already by the divine power, and contrary to the law of nature, than the things which are yet to be done. Hence it was, that the matter was not signified to Joseph before the virgin had conceived, which, indeed, if it had been, might have left room for suspicion. In proportion as Joseph was the more and the longer perplexed with doubt, so much the stronger and more weighty is his testimony, after he is informed of the truth. Saying, Joseph, thou son of David — The angel reminds Joseph of the nobility of the stock from whence he sprung, that he might not think of any thing mean, but might raise his mind to the expectation of great things. He who made David, who was the son of a shepherd, a king, why should he not also give a carpenter a son that should be a king? Who promised David that the Messiah should arise from his posterity, He will certainly make his promise good, and will sooner change the whole order of nature than suffer what he hath foretold to fail of accomplishment. Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife — i.e, Who is betrothed to thee to be thy wife. For it is a mistake to interpret these words, as some have done, as if she had been already married to Joseph, and he had abstained from all conjugal intercourse with her, in consequence of some vow he had made. Dr. Waterland reads this clause, Scruple not the taking of Mary thy wife. It seems that Joseph had been induced, by a fear of offending God, to think of divorcing his wife, either because he thought she belonged to another man, or because he knew it was by no means lawful or honourable for him to cherish an adulteress. The angel’s words imply, Fear not to take her home to thee, and treat her kindly as a wife ought to be treated, according to the espousals that have passed between you, though there may seem to be some danger of bringing a reflection on thyself and family; for that which is conceived in her is of no human original, but produced by the miraculous and unexampled operation of the Holy Ghost. Thus, after Matthew has related how Christ was of royal descent, he now shows that he was also of much higher birth, and had a divine original. Now, although no example be extant of such a wonderful nativity, it nevertheless ought not to be rashly called in question by any especially by the Jews, since they believe that Abraham, the father of the nation, had a son by Sarah after she was past child-bearing; since they believe that Adam, the first man, was produced without father or mother; and that all the dead will be restored to life. That Joseph’s scruples about taking Mary did not proceed, as some of the fathers supposed, from veneration, appears from the reason here given by the angel why he should take her, which, in that case, would have been the only reason against taking her. And we may observe, too, that the angel’s terming her his wife, and encouraging him to take her, shows on what a flimsy foundation the belief of her perpetual virginity, entertained by the papists and others, is built.

20. Angel of the Lord — During the four hundred years intervening between the Old Testament and the New, prophecy, miracle, inspiration, and angelic appearance had ceased. This interval of cessation and silence was broken by the preparation for the appearance of Jesus the Saviour. The first phenomenon opening his new dispensation was the appearance of the angel GABRIEL in the temple, announcing to Zechariah the birth of John the Baptist, forerunner of the Messiah. This Epiphany was followed by a profusion of miraculous displays of every variety of nature, preceding the birth, attending the ministry, and following the ascension of the Son of God. Angels appear in their splendour, devils in their malignity; dreams, miracles, and divine operations of various nature surround and attend the sacred person of the Lord. It was a miraculous dispensation, a supernatural epoch, in which the powers of heaven and hell came forth in manifestations extraordinary and unparalleled, and not to be tested by the experience of ordinary ages. It is not for us to say, who live in the common level of human history, that angelic appearances and demoniacal possessions did not transpire during the period in which God’s own Son was incarnate. That greatest of miracles might well imply, and properly be attended by, a retinue of inferior but kindred facts.

The angel of the Lord appeared to our Lord’s ostensible father, to announce the birth of the human Son of God. The word angel signifies messenger, and is chiefly used in Scripture to designate a living spiritual being sent by God to perform some supernatural ministry. It is not true that angels first appear in Scripture at the Babylonish captivity. Angelic appearances to Abraham and to Lot are narrated in Genesis, and to Manoah in Judges. A reference to a concordance will show that the word angel, as a term for a superhuman being, abounds in the Old Testament. Yet it is no doubt true that there are names for the angels, which appear for the first time, in the Scriptures, after the captivity. These names may have been matters of a later revelation to the Jews. Or the Persians may have retained, traditionally, a primitive revelation of their names. Or, more probably than either supposition, the names were of human origin; but being of significant meaning, these angelic beings, when appearing to human eyes, adapt themselves to the human conception by adopting the human significant name appropriate to themselves. It cannot be supposed that these angels retain these human names in the spiritual world. As they adapt themselves to human form, and speak with a human voice, so do they identify themselves to human acquaintance by some familiar yet descriptive appellation. So the angel appearing to Zechariah (Luke 1:19) says: “I am Gabriel that stands in the presence of God.” And in the 26th verse, this same Gabriel is named as announcing to Mary the approaching birth of the Messiah. Now this Gabriel appears in Daniel 8:16, to explain the vision of the ram and he goat; and what is still more striking, he interprets to Daniel (Daniel 9:21-27) the vision of the seventy weeks. Thus the same Gabriel announces the most striking prediction of the Messiah to Daniel, of the harbinger of the Messiah to Zechariah, and of the incarnation of the Messiah to Mary. And the very appropriate appellation by which he declares himself to men is “God’s strong one,” for such is the import of the name.

No systematical view is given us of the angel worlds. No reverence or worship of them is required or justified. Human fancies among Jewish, Mohammedan, and some imaginative Christian writers, have constructed schemes and systems and worlds of angelology. But the references of Scripture to this class, or series of classes of beings, are incidental and reserved. The inference is that we have ordinarily little to do with them. Self-sufficient philosophers, like Strauss, have announced that the age for the belief in such superior beings is past. Natural philosophy has shown that the natural operations of the world are effected by natural forces, and the demand for such beings is crowded out of existence. As truly might they say that the exact forces of nature exclude all voluntary agents, human as well as superhuman. Nor can any philosophy prove that there are no personal intelligent beings in the universe superior in rank or power to man. On the contrary, the opinion is improbable even to absurdity, that the vast interval between little, finite man and the infinite One is entirely vacant, and filled by no living, intelligent occupants. Hence the existence of systems of beings of angelic rank is perpetually reasonable, and can never be superseded in any age by any advance of philosophy.

In a dream — Though dreams are usually the vain vagaries of our sleeping hours, which no sensible man usually regards, yet God has often made them the means of communicating warnings and directions. God, who made the mind, can shape its conceptions in sleep, as well as in wakefulness, to present supernatural information. Dreams were, however, considered by the Jews as an inferior sort of revelation. We may add that while an angel appeared in open sight both to Zechariah and to Mary to announce the illustrious births, and that angel no less than Gabriel, “that stands in the presence of God,” to Joseph, as of inferior importance, appears an unnamed angel in a dream.

Thou son of David — A man simple in character, but illustrious by descent. It was absolutely essential that Mary should be a daughter of David, in order that Jesus might be truly of the seed of David according to the flesh. And it was important, though not essential, that Joseph should be of the line of David, in order that Christ should also seem, by his reputed father, a son of David, to the eyes of men.

That Messiah should be son, that is, descendant, of David, was so clearly and abundantly revealed in Old Testament prophecy as to be a settled point in Jewish theology. The Chaldee paraphrase, (which was the free translation of the Old Testament books, prepared after the return from the captivity, as the received expositor of Scripture, and read in the public service,) when it comes to the passage, (Isaiah 11:1,) “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,” etc., construes it thus: “A king shall come out of the sons of Jesse, and the Messiah out of his son’s sons.” And that this Davidic origin was the doctrine of the learned Jews in the Saviour’s day, is evident from Mark 12:35: “Say the scribes that Christ is the son of David.” And so Matthew 22:42: “What think ye of Christ, whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.”

That Jesus was reputed to be, according to this doctrine, the son of David, is plentifully evident. Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be taxed, “because they were of the house and lineage of David.” Luke 2:11. The blind men of Jericho cried: “Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on us.” The multitudes at the capital cry: “Hosanna to the son of David.” And the heading of his genealogy is: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David.” Matthew 1:1. And hence the angel of the annunciation is sent (Luke 1:22) to a virgin of the house of David. And of her offspring he promises, (ver. 32,) the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.

Is of the Holy Ghost — It is part of the impurity of our depraved nature, that the subject of our own origin by birth should suggest other than pure thoughts. But the divine law hath established that through all nature a new life should be produced only from the method of double parentage. When therefore from a single human parent a new human person takes origin, a miracle of surpassing power, over and above nature, is performed, it may be truly believed to take place only “of the Holy Ghost.” This phrase is not to be so understood as to imply that the Holy Ghost is the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In Luke the angel declares to Mary; “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” By this we are to understand simply that divine power was imparted to the human person of the virgin, from which a being of perfect holiness should be conceived and born, blending the divine and the human natures. From this whole matter all but the truly impious and profane will banish every impure and gross thought. Even in the most minute conceptions that our minds, in their trains of meditation, may be called upon to frame, our reverence will compel us to think of this one holy conception and birth with a purity and an awe suitable to the real sacredness and grandeur of so supernatural a fact and being.

Verse 20. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. — In this mode, as well as others, God “at sundry times” made known his will to the patriarchs and prophets; so that dreams were reckoned by the Jews as one of the modes of prophetic inspiration. It was the tradition of Divine revelations being made in this manner, carried into the heathen world, which led to the common notion of the significancy of dreams; and thus by abuse it became, and still continues a fruitful source of superstition. The prophetic dreams of sacred writ were not, however, common dreams; and as they were supernaturally induced, and were admonitory, directive, or predictive, they were accompanied with an internal evidence; of what kind we cannot say, but such as distinguished them from the ordinary rovings of the mind in sleep, and afforded sufficient conviction of their supernatural character. And although this method of communication was more frequent and longer continued under those dispensations of religion which preceded Christianity, yet they were probably sometimes vouchsafed to pious Gentiles; and even now the phenomenon of dreaming, a very powerful instrument of working upon the mind of man, may occasionally be employed to warn the wicked and direct the good, although as the medium of revealing religious truth, dreams are no longer necessary. The use or abuse of this doctrine will, however, depend upon sobriety of mind.

V. 21. Jesus-That is, a Saviour. It is the same name with Joshua (who was a type of him) which properly signifies, The Lord, Salvation. His people-Israel. And all the Israel of God.

Verse 21. JESUS] The same as Joshua, [vwhy Yehoshua, from [vy yasha, he saved, delivered, put in a state of safety. See on Exodus 13:9; Numbers 13:16, and in the preface to Joshua. He shall save his people from their sins.] This shall be his great business in the world: the great errand on which he is come, viz. to make an atonement for, and to destroy, sin: deliverance from all the power, guilt, and pollution of sin, is the privilege of every believer in Christ Jesus. Less than this is not spoken of in the Gospel; and less than this would be unbecoming the Gospel. The perfection of the Gospel system is not that it makes allowances for sin, but that it makes an atonement for it: not that it tolerates sin, but that it destroys it. In Matthew 1:1, he is called Jesus Christ, on which Dr. Lightfoot properly remarks, “That the name of Jesus, so often added to the name of Christ in the New Testament, is not only that Christ might be thereby pointed out as the Saviour, but also that Jesus might be pointed out as the true Christ or Messiah, against the unbelief of the Jews.” This observation will be of great use in numberless places of the New Testament. See Acts 2:36; 8:35; 1 Corinthians 16:22; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:15, &c.

Verse 21. She shall bring forth a son — Hers, not thine, for he does not say to thee, Christ being apatwr, without father, as man. And thou shalt call his name Jesus — It belonged to Joseph, as being reputed his father, and the person under whose protection Christ was placed during his infancy, to give him his name. “Six men,” says Rabbi Eliezer, “have been named before they were born; viz., Isaac, Ishmael, Moses our lawgiver, Solomon, Josiah, and King Messiah.” To these we may add, Cyrus and John the Baptist: and observe, that those persons to whom a name has been given by God before their birth, have always been remarkable persons. The name Jesus, in Greek, answers to Joshua, or rather, Jehoshuah, in Hebrew, which signifies Jehovah shall save; for Jah, or Jehovah, enters into the composition of the name, as Bishop Pearson has largely and clearly shown in his most learned and instructive Exposition of the Creed, pp. 69-71. So that Christ’s being called Jesus, was in effect an accomplishment of the prophecy that he should be called Emmanuel. It was not without reason that the successor of Moses was called by this name; for, by subduing the Canaanites, and putting the tribes of Israel in possession of the promised land, he showed himself to be, under God, the Saviour of his people. But this name agrees much better to our Jesus, who both delivers his followers from much more dangerous enemies, and divides unto them a much more glorious inheritance. Thus, in the next clause, he shall save his people from their sins — Joseph, by his people, could not understand any other than the Jewish nation, which is generally signified by that name in the Scriptures; and to them he was peculiarly sent, and them he will at length fully gather, save, and restore. We know, however, that all the true Israel of God, including even the Gentiles that should believe in him, are included. All these, it is here said, he should save from their sins, i.e, from the guilt, power, and pollution of them, by procuring, through his death, and receiving, in consequence of his ascension into heaven, an ample pardon for them, and the Holy Spirit to write that pardon on their hearts, and renew them after the divine image, that, in consequence of a life of holiness on earth, they might be raised to a state of complete perfection and felicity in heaven. How plain it is from hence that, although the gospel offers us salvation by faith, and not by works, yet it effectually secures the practice of holiness, since holiness is a part of that salvation wherewith Christ came to save sinners; for he came to save them from their sins. It is worth observing, on this occasion, what an excellent example of gentleness and prudence is here set us by Joseph! In an affair which appeared dubious, he chose, as we should always do, rather to err on the favourable than on the severe extreme. He is careful to avoid any precipitate steps; and, in the moment of deliberation, God interposes to guide and determine his resolves. Let us reflect, with what wonder and pleasure he would receive the important message from the angel, which not only assured him of the unstained virtue and eminent piety of her he loved, and confirmed his choice of her, as the partner of his future life, but brought him tidings of a divine Saviour, a Jesus, an Emmanuel, who should be God with men, and should save his people from their sins; and assured him, moreover, that the object of his affections, his beloved, espoused Mary, should, by a miraculous conception, be the happy mother of this heavenly offspring, and should therefore through all generations be entitled blessed. Let us also receive these glad tidings of great joy, designed for the consolation of all people, with suitable humility and gratitude, and seek unto this Jesus that he may answer his divine name in us, and save us, his people, from our sins. Let our souls bow to this Emmanuel, our incarnate God, and, while with holy wonder we survey the various scenes of his humiliation, let us remember, too, his native dignity and divine glory, and pay him the worship and service which are his undoubted due.

Ver. 21. Thou shalt call his name Jesus, from the Hebrew Joshua, a Saviour, as explained in the next words, for he shall save his people from their sins. Those therefore who would derive the name from Jehovah, err. Jesus was a common name in Israel; but the great and high name of JEHOVAH belongs exclusively to the Eternal. Exodus 3:6. For Joshua, a Saviour, the LXX have Ihsouv, thence Jesus, who saves us from sin by his atoning sacrifice, from death by the power of his resurrection, and from the domination of Satan by the efficacy of his grace, and the power of his gospel.

21. Thou shalt call his name Jesus — We have already remarked, in our note on verse 1, that the name JESUS is equivalent in Greek to the Hebrew name of JOSHUA, who was his type, as being the deliverer of Israel into the promised land. The original name of Joshua was Hoshea, and Moses (doubtless by divine inspiration) changed his name to Joshua, in order to make it signify the salvation of God. Numbers 13:16. Thus the name was given to indicate the reality of the thing. The reality was that Joshua should be God’s saviour of Israel from their enemies, and their establisher in Canaan. As antitype to this, the same name is given, by the same divine direction, to the Lord our Saviour, because he shall save his people from their sins. As Joshua is redeemer of Israel from their enemies, and their establisher in Canaan, so Jesus is the Redeemer of believers from their sins, and their establisher in the heavenly Canaan. Whence we have the typical parallels:

Redeemer. — The Redeemed. — The Evil. — The Result.

Joshua — Israel — Enemies — Canaan.

Jesus — Believers — Sins — Heavenly Canaan.

We here also see Scripture instances in which the name is divinely imposed to signify the reality of the thing. The name of Jesus signifies saviour, and is given because he IS Saviour; from which we shall in the proper place infer that he is called Emmanuel, (verse 23,) signifying God with us, because he truly IS God manifest in the flesh. So that we may forcibly maintain against the doctrine of the mere humanity of Christ the sublime truth of the Incarnation.

For he shall save his people from their sins — From these words it is plain that however the Jews may have expected a political Messiah to save the nation from the Romans, the angel promised a Jesus, who should save his people from their sins. Modern neologists, who maintain that Jesus started at first with the purpose of forming a temporal kingdom, are contradicted by the very earliest declarations in the Gospels to the contrary.

Verse 21. And thou shalt call his name Jesus. — Mary being taken home to be the wife of Joseph, it belonged to him as the father, in the legal construction, to give the child a name; and he was directed to call him Jesus, which is the Hebrew Joshua in the Greek form, and signifies a Saviour, from [v to save. Hence the angel adds, for he shall save his people from their sins. He does not say, according to the expectation of the Jews, he shall save his people ISRAEL from their Gentile ENEMIES; but indefinitely, his people, all who believe on him, whether Jew or Gentile; and that not from temporal calamity or degradation, but from their sins: thus, from the beginning, was the notion of a political Messiah excluded from the minds of Joseph and Mary. The very name of our Lord, given by Divine command, lays a firm foundation for the trust of the guilty; and opens the most glorious hope to man, even that of SALVATION from the guilt and penalty, from the power and pollution of sin in this life, and beyond it a resurrection from the dead, immortality, and eternal felicity.

Verse 22. By the prophet] ISAIAH is added here by several MSS., versions, and fathers. The prophecy is taken from Isaiah 7:14.

Verse 22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled — That is, by the doing of all this was fulfilled the following prophecy. For we are not to suppose that the bare accomplishment of an ancient prediction was the end God had in view in sending his Son into the world; which would imply that, if no such prediction had been given, God would not have sent his Son. No: God’s design was the salvation of mankind, and the prophecy was fulfilled, as it were, by the way, without being primarily intended. For the events foretold by the prophets came to pass, not because of the prophecies which predicted them, but the prophecies predicted them because they would come to pass. Thus, in other places, what was merely a consequence of things being done, is represented as the chief end of doing them, as Romans 5:20, The law came in (viz., between Adam and Christ,) that the offence might abound. Certainly God did not give the law with a design to make men’s sins abound; but this was the consequence of its being given. For, like a dam placed in the way of a stream, it made the corruption of mankind rise the higher and spread the wider. To this may be added, however, that he who had foretold these things because he had determined to do them, in due time actually did them, that he might show himself true to his word and promise.

22. Now all this was done — All this includes the whole narrative (from ver. 18) of the events of the miraculous birth. That it might be fulfilled — But did the entire train of events take place in order to fulfil that one prophecy? To obviate so absurd a meaning some learned men have shown that the phrase might be translated: All this was done SO THAT it was fulfilled. But the present translation leads to no absurd result. All these things did transpire, in order, among other and more direct purposes, to the fulfilment of that prophecy, inasmuch as the fulfilment of that prophecy was at the same time the accomplishment of the Incarnation of the Redeemer, and the verification of the divine prediction. Nor is there any predestinarian fatalism in all this. God predicts what he foresees that men will freely do; and then men do freely in turn fulfil what God predicts, and so unconsciously act in order to verify God’s veracity. Moreover there is no fatalism in supposing that God has high plans, which he does with infinite wisdom carry out through the free, unnecessitated, unpredestinated, though foreseen wills of men. Such is his inconceivable wisdom, that he can so place free agents in a free system of probation, that whichever way they freely turn they will but further his great generic plans and verify his foreknowledge. So that it may in a right sense be true that all things are done by free agents, in order to so desirable an end as to fulfil the divine foresight.

Verse 22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled, &c. — By this we are not to understand that the end of Christ’s being born of a virgin was to fulfil the prediction; but that the event exactly corresponded to the prophecy, and was intended to fulfil it, with reference to the great purpose of our salvation, anciently promised by the prophets, and in the mode which had been revealed to them. The prediction declares that a certain event would take place; and the evangelist assures us, that the very event spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah, that “a virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a Son,” was the birth of Jesus Christ of the Virgin Mary: in other words, that not only did an event take place, to which the words of the prophet might be applied, by way of parallel or accommodation, but that the prophecy was now fulfilled in a strict and literal sense. Some of those commentators who contend that the quotations adduced from the prophets by St. Matthew and other writers of the New Testament, are used as apposite illustrations, in the same manner as passages from the Greek and Latin classics by modern writers, will not even except those instances which, like the above, are introduced by the strong formula, ina wlhrwqh to rhqen, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken. They therefore soften the import of wlhrow, to “fulfil,” into the occurrence of an event bearing some resemblance to another. Michaelis, however, who adopts this doctrine in part, makes all exception of those passages which are introduced with this form of expression. The fact is, that none of these quotations which appear with this or any other form expressive of fulfilment of any part of the Old Testament, can be taken in any other sense than as specified accomplishments of predictions, the sense indeed of which might not in many instances be obvious before they were pointed out by the Spirit of inspiration, and which in some few instances, even then, may be somewhat difficult to trace; but if, as Dr. Owen justly observes, “the same Spirit which dictated the prophecies in the Old Testament, dictated also their interpretation in the New, he surely could best ascertain to whom or to what they were meant to be ultimately applied.” If indeed it were the practice with St. Matthew and the evangelists to introduce an apposite application of the moral sentences and weighty sayings of the Old Testament, where it is manifest that no prediction is involved, the case would be altered; but it is not so, for the supposed examples of this practice which have been adduced will not support themselves. Dr. Campbell instances, “Out of Egypt have I called my Son,” which will be considered in its place, and the conclusion drawn from it refuted. His second instance, when examined, will be found against him. It is taken from the directions as to the paschal lamb, Exodus 12:46: “None of his bones shall be broken;” which he says is a mere law, not a prophecy; and yet St. John, after speaking of our Lord’s legs not being broken upon the cross, says, “For these things were done, that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.” But, if this law as to the paschal lamb was designed to constitute it a type, then, from the first, that law looked forward to the circumstance which accomplished the type; and that very circumstance being of a remarkable character was designed to mark out Christ’s sacrifice as the true and spiritual passover. — Thus the law, though simply in itself a ceremonial direction, had the nature of a prophecy, and prefigured an event which was literally fulfilled in the antitype to the Jewish paschal sacrifice. Dr. Sykes, indeed, who strongly contends for the principle of accommodation in these cases, urges that it was customary with the Jewish rabbins to apply passages of the Old Testament in a sense very remote from that of the original author; but Dr. Marsh makes a sufficient reply, when he says that he has produced no passages from the Talmud or from any Jewish commentator, where similar expressions to those above mentioned, — “that it might be fulfilled,” &c., — are used to introduce instances of mere accommodation. In the case of St. Matthew, especially, this theory is in the highest degree absurd; since he wrote more immediately for the conviction of the Jews, and therefore more frequently than the other evangelists quotes the prophecies of the Old Testament, and shows their fulfilment. Had he, therefore, applied the same form of introduction with respect to such prophecies, and to mere rhetorical allusions, he would have defeated his own purpose by perplexing his readers. That which appears to have misled many commentators on this point, is the difficulty of discovering, in several of these quotations, a direct prediction of what related to Messiah in the scope and context of the prophetic discourse from which it was taken. But this objection has proceeded upon a faulty view of the character and genius of the Hebrew system of prophecy itself. It ought to be remembered, that, in the declarations of the prophets, as Dr. Owen again remarks, there was “a grand and extensive scheme formed by Providence from the first, which consists of different parts, some respecting the temporal, and others the spiritual benefit of mankind; and yet there is a close and intimate connection between them, and upon this are founded the reasons of those abrupt transitions to remote subjects, and quick changes of numbers and persons, &c., so frequent in the prophecies, so that temporal is often introductory to, and significant of the spiritual. For as every temporal blessing, favour, and deliverance, which the Jews obtained, sprang from the mercies of God through Christ; so they became not only preludes to, but also types and pledges of that future deliverance and blessing which he was finally to procure by his birth, actions, and sufferings, for the whole human race.” Hence it is, that some prophecies singly and literally apply to Christ; and others in a more spiritual manner are completed in and by him, than in those personal and historical types of him and the affairs of his kingdom, with which the Jewish Scriptures and history abound.

V. 23. They shall call his name Emmanuel-To be called, only means, according to the Hebrew manner of speaking, that the person spoken of shall really and effectually be what he is called, and actually fulfil that title. Thus,

Unto us a child is born-and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace-That is, he shall be all these, though not so much nominally, as really, and in effect. And thus was he called

Emmanuel; which was no common name of Christ, but points out his nature and office; as he is God incarnate, and dwells by his Spirit in the hearts of his people.

It is observable, the words in Isaiah are, Thou (namely, his mother) shalt call; but here, They-that is, all his people, shall call-shall acknowledge him to be Emmanuel, God with us. Which being interpreted-This is a clear proof that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek, and not in Hebrew. Isaiah 7:14.

Verse 23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child] We have already seen, from the preceding verse, that this prophecy is taken from Isaiah 7:14; but it may be necessary to consider the circumstances of the original promise more particularly. At the time referred to, the kingdom of Judah, under the government of Ahaz, was reduced very low. Pekah, king of Israel, had slain in Judea 120,000 persons in one day, and carried away captives 200,000, including women and children, together with much spoil. To add to their distress, Rezin, king of Syria, being confederate with Pekah, had taken Elath, a fortified city of Judah, and carried the inhabitants away captive to Damascus. In this critical conjuncture, need we wonder that Ahaz was afraid that the enemies who were now united against him must prevail, destroy Jerusalem, and the kingdom of Judah, and annihilate the family of David! To meet and remove this fear, apparently well grounded, Isaiah is sent from the Lord to Ahaz, swallowed up now both by sorrow and by unbelief, in order to assure him that the counsels of his enemies should not stand; and that they should be utterly discomfited. To encourage Ahaz, he commands him to ask a sign or miracle, which should be a pledge in hand, that God should, in due time, fulfil the predictions of his servant, as related in the context. On Ahaz humbly refusing to ask any sign, it is immediately added, Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, &c. Both the Divine and human nature of our Lord, as well as the miraculous conception, appear to be pointed out in the prophecy quoted here by the evangelist:-He shall be called la-wnm[ IM-MENU-EL; literally, The STRONG GOD WITH US: similar to those words in the New Testament:-The Word which was God-was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth: John 1:1, 14. And, God was manifested in the flesh: 1 Timothy 3:16. So that we are to understand, God with us, to imply God incarnated-God in human nature. This seems farther evident from the words of the prophet, Isaiah 7:15. Butter and honey shall he eat-he shall be truly man, grow up and be nourished in a human, natural way; which refers to his being WITH US, i.e. incarnated. To which the prophet adds, That he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good:-or rather, According to his knowledge, לדעתו le-daato, reprobating the evil, and choosing the good. This refers to him as GOD; and is the same idea given by this prophet, Isaiah 53:11: By (or in) his knowledge (the knowledge of Christ crucified, בדעתו be-dadto) shall my righteous servant sanctify many; for he shall bear their offences. Now this union of the Divine and human nature is termed a sign or miracle, twa oth, i.e. something which exceeds the power of nature to produce. And this miraculous union was to be brought about in a miraculous way: Behold a VIRGIN shall conceive: the word is very emphatic, העלמה ha-almah, THE virgin; the only one that ever was, or ever shall be, a mother in this way. But the Jews, and some called Christians, who have espoused their desperate cause, assert, that “the word hml[ almah does not signify a VIRGIN only; for it is applied, Proverbs 30:19, to signify a young married woman.” I answer, that this latter text is no proof of the contrary doctrine: the words בעלמה גבר Ërd derec geber be-almah, the way of a man with a maid, cannot be proved to mean that for which it is produced: beside, one of Deuteronomy Rossi’s MSS. reads בעלמיו be-almaiu, the way of a strong, or stout, man (rbg geber) IN HIS YOUTH; and in this reading the Syriac, Septuagint, Vulgate, and Arabic agree, which are followed by the first version in the English language, as it stands in a MS. in my own possession-the weie of a man in his waring youthe; so that this place, the only one that can with any probability of success be produced, were the interpretation contended for correct, which I am by no means disposed to admit, proves nothing. Beside, the consent of so many versions in the opposite meaning deprives it of much of its influence in this question.

The word hml[ almah, comes from ml[ alam, to lie hid, be concealed; and we are told that “virgins were so called, because they were concealed or closely kept up in their fathers’ houses, till the time of their marriage.” This is not correct: see the case of Rebecca, Genesis 24:43, and my note there: that of Rachel, Genesis 29:6, 9, and the note there also: and see the case of Miriam, the sister of Moses, Exodus 2:8, and also the Chaldee paraphrase on Lamentations 1:4, where the virgins are represented as going out in the dance. And see also the whole history of Ruth. This being concealed, or kept at home, on which so much stress is laid, is purely fanciful; for we find that young unmarried women drew water, kept sheep, gleaned publicly in the fields, &c., &c., and the same works they perform among the Turcomans to the present day. This reason, therefore, does not account for the radical meaning of the word; and we must seek it elsewhere. Another well known and often used root in the Hebrew tongue will cast light on this subject. This is hlg galah, which signifies to reveal, make manifest, or uncover, and is often applied to matrimonial connections, in different parts of the Mosaic law: ml[ alam, therefore, may be considered as implying the concealment of the virgin, as such, till lawful marriage had taken place. A virgin was not called hml[ almah, because she was concealed by being kept at home in her father’s house, which is not true, but literally and physically, because, as a woman, she had not been uncovered-she had not known man. This fully applies to the blessed virgin: see Luke 1:34. “How can this be, seeing I know no man?” and this text throws much light on the subject before us. This also is in perfect agreement with the ancient prophecy, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent,” Genesis 3:15; for the person who was to destroy the work of the devil was to be the progeny of the woman, without any concurrence of the man. And, hence, the text in Genesis speaks as fully of the virgin state of the person, from whom Christ, according to the flesh, should come, as that in the prophet, or this in the evangelist. According to the original promise, there was to be a seed, a human being, who should destroy sin; but this seed or human being must come from the woman ALONE; and no woman ALONE, could produce such a human being, without being a virgin. Hence, A virgin shall bear a son, is the very spirit and meaning of the original text, independently of the illustration given by the prophet; and the fact recorded by the evangelist is the proof of the whole. But how could that be a sign to Ahaz, which was to take place so many hundreds of years after? I answer, the meaning of the prophet is plain: not only Rezin and Pekah should be unsuccessful against Jerusalem at that time, which was the fact; but Jerusalem, Judea, and the house of David, should be both preserved, notwithstanding their depressed state, and the multitude of their adversaries, till the time should come when a VIRGIN should bear a son. This is a most remarkable circumstance-the house of David could never fail, till a virgin should conceive and bear a son-nor did it: but when that incredible and miraculous fact did take place, the kingdom and house of David became extinct! This is an irrefragable confutation of every argument a Jew can offer in vindication of his opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Either the prophecy in Isaiah has been fulfilled, or the kingdom and house of David are yet standing. But the kingdom of David, we know, is destroyed: and where is the man, Jew or Gentile, that can show us a single descendant of David on the face of the earth? The prophecy could not fail-the kingdom and house of David have failed; the virgin, therefore, must have brought forth her son-and this son is Jesus, the Christ. Thus Moses, Isaiah, and Matthew concur; and facts, the most unequivocal, have confirmed the whole! Behold the wisdom and providence of God!

Notwithstanding what has been said above, it may be asked, In what sense could this name Immanuel be applied to Jesus Christ, if he be not truly and properly GOD? Could the Spirit of truth ever design that Christians should receive him as an angel or a mere man, and yet, in the very beginning of the Gospel history, apply a character to him which belongs only to the most high God? Surely no. In what sense, then, is Christ GOD WITH US? Jesus is called Immanuel, or God with us, in his incarnation.-God united to our nature-God with man-God in man.-God with us, by his continual protection.-God with us, by the influences of his Holy Spirit-in the holy sacrament-in the preaching of his word-in private prayer. And God with us, through every action of our life, that we begin, continue, and end in his name. He is God with us, to comfort, enlighten, protect, and defend us in every time of temptation and trial, in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us, and in us, and we with and in him, to all eternity.

Verse 23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth, &c. — Some have unhappily supposed that this famous prophecy immediately related to the birth of a child of Isaiah’s in a natural way, and that it only referred to Christ in a secondary sense. But surely a son’s being born of one then a virgin, when she was married, was no such extraordinary event as to answer such a pompous introduction as we meet with in the viith of Isaiah. Had this been all, what need was there of these words, The Lord himself shall give you a sign? What need of that solemn notice, Behold! there being nothing new or strange in all this. Besides, the promise, A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel, is made as a sign or miracle, to confirm the house of David in God’s promise made to him, respecting the perpetuity of his kingdom. But what sign or miracle could it be, that a woman should be with child after the ordinary manner? what wonder was there in this? As to Isaiah 7:16, Before the child (or, as it is in the Hebrew, this child,) shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings, it seems most reasonable to interpret it as referring to Shear-jashub, whom Isaiah was ordered to take in his hand for no other imaginable reason but that something remarkable was to be said of him. So that their deliverance from the two kings of Syria and Israel, before Isaiah’s son, (whom he had taken in his hand,) should be able to distinguish between good and evil, was to be considered by them as typical of a much greater deliverance by the Messiah, in due time to be born of a future virgin. See notes on Isaiah 7:11-16. Thus, according to the usual manner of the prophets, the people of God, in their present distress, are comforted with the promise of the Messiah hereafter to appear. They shall call his name — That is, his name shall be called; a personal verb being put for an impersonal, as is frequently the case; or, as some copies read it, Thou shalt call, or, he shall be owned and accounted; Emmanuel, God with us — God in our nature, by whose incarnation, God is united to our nature; and by whose mediation, God is reconciled to us and is present with us. The names of Christ, it must be observed, are of two kinds: 1st, proper and distinguishing, pointing out his person; 2dly, descriptive, either of his person or offices, such as there are many in Scripture, as David, the Branch, Wonderful, Counsellor. It is to be observed, that in the Scripture language, to be called, and to be, are the same thing. It is, therefore, no objection against the application of these words to Christ, that he did not bear the name Emmanuel, if he really was God with us, which is the import of it. And that he was, is sufficiently proved from his being entitled the mighty God by Isaiah, ch. 9:6. Now, he who is properly called El, God, and is also emmanu, with us, must infallibly be that Emmanuel, who is God with us.

Ver. 23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, as explained in Isaiah 7:14.

23. Behold, a virgin — Isaiah 7:14. This memorable prophecy was delivered by Isaiah, under the following circumstances: Ahaz, king of Judah, was invaded by the combined hosts of the kings of Israel and of Syria. He was reduced to the last extremity. Jehovah then sent Isaiah the prophet to offer him a SIGN that God would bring deliverance. The object of the command was to bring Ahaz to repose his faith in Jehovah. But though the prophet offered him a sign either in heaven or in earth, yet the idolatrous king refused to accept any sign. Whereupon the prophet, rebuking the king for wearying God, declares that God will give a sign, whether the king ask it or not, and whether it should be to him a sign or not. That sign is the standing sign for Israel for all ages, the future MESSIAH. As that Messiah should come, so Judah should be preserved until his coming. And when he should be born of the virgin, he should not grow to years of intelligence in a shorter time than would be required to sweep away those two invading kings from their power.

The words of the prophet, in our translation, are as follows: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call him Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.” To this we will append the elegant and exact version of Bishop Lowth: And Jehovah spake yet again to Ahaz, saying:

Ask thee a SIGN from Jehovah thy God:

Go deep to the grave, or high to the heaven above.

And Ahaz said: I will not ask; neither will I tempt Jehovah. And he said: Hear ye now, O house of David:

Is it a small thing for you to weary men,

That you should weary my God also?

Therefore Jehovah himself shall give you a sign:

Behold, the virgin conceiveth, and beareth a son;

And she shall call his name Immanuel.

Butter and honey shall he eat,

When he shall know to refuse what is evil, and to choose what is good: For before this child shall know

To refuse the evil, and to choose the good;

The land shall become desolate,

By whose two kings thou art distressed.

Upon this memorable passage we remark:

1. The word virgin has, in the original Hebrew, the definite article the, THE virgin. This implies that a particular and known virgin is predicted, (specially recognized by the mind of the prophet,)* who, though a virgin, should bring forth an Immanuel; that is, a God-with-us, a God-man. Now we have already remarked (on ver. 18) that a Virgo Deipara is truly predicted in the first promise in Eden; and that the expectation was familiar to the ancient world. Melkarth, so near as in Syria, was fabled to be such a god-man. The virgin, then, of Isaiah, was THE virgin of prophetic foresight. 2. The tenses of the Hebrew in this passage are not all future. Hengstenberg renders it thus: “Behold THE virgin has conceived and bears a son, and she calls his name Immanuel.” All this shows that Hengstenberg’s view of prophetic vision is correct. The powerful conceptions of the prophet’s mind become as a present reality. His mind’s eye sees the panorama of future objects and events now standing and moving before him. Time is dropped out of the account. 3. This explains what to many commentators has been a great difficulty in the following verse, Isaiah 7:16. Before this ideal child, beheld in vision as now being born, is able to know good from evil, these two invading kings shall disappear. Isaiah takes the growth of the infant, conceptually present, as the measure of the continuance of the invading kings. That Immanuel, the predicted seed of the woman, the prophet sees as already being born; he is being fed on nourishing food, namely, butter and honey, to bring him to early maturity; but in a briefer period than his growth to intelligence shall require, these invading kings shall be overthrown, and Israel be rescued. Thus was the Messiah, yet to be born, a sign, not indeed to unwilling Ahaz, but to Israel, of her speedy deliverance and permanent preservation. Well and wisely, therefore, does the inspired evangelist, now that the Messiah is born, adduce this prophecy to show its fulfilment in him. The amount of the whole is, that the spirit of prophecy availed itself of the occasion of Ahaz’s unbelief, to utter and leave on record a striking prediction of the Incarnation.

(*Prof. Nordheimer, in his Hebrew Grammar, gives the following rule of syntax in regard to the Hebrew article: “The article is subjectively prefixed to a common noun by way of emphasis, and to point it out as one which, although neither previously or subsequently described, is still viewed as definite in the mind of the writer.” In Biblical Repository, October, 1841, Prof. Nordheimer showed the express application of the rule to this passage.) They shall call his name Emmanuel — This name they are directed by God to give him; and there could be no reason with God to select this name but because (as noted on verse 21) its meaning denoted a reality. The person bears the name because he is what the name signifies. As the Lord was called Jesus, saviour, because he is Saviour; and as he is called Christ, anointed, because he is the Anointed, so is he called Emmanuel, God-with-us, because he is God with us. He is God with man; he is Divinity with humanity. And he is called God with us because he is virgin-born, for the prophet conjoins these two facts as antecedent and result. That is, because he has only a human mother, and so a divine Father, therefore he is in name, and thereby in reality, God with us. No Jewish or Unitarian gloss can evade this. It demonstrates that Messiah is by birth, God with us; and therefore that he is so by person, by nature, and by substance.

Verse 23. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, &c. — This illustrious prophecy was delivered by Isaiah, (chap. 7,) in the reign of Ahaz, king of Judah, when he and his people were under great apprehensions that the state would be subverted by the invasion of the confederated kings of Israel and Syria. God by the prophet promises deliverance to Ahaz, who appears to have been utterly distrustful in the message of God, and in this spirit to have refused to ask a sign from God, “either in the depth, or in the height above,” that is, any natural prodigy within the compass of observation. This he did, secretly trusting in the help of his ally, the king of Assyria, rather than in God; but covering his unbelief with a pretence of not being willing to “tempt the Lord.” Upon this the prophet losing sight of Ahaz, and the sign he had refused to ask, turns to the people, “the house of David,” and says to them, not to Ahaz, “The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” This was “a sign” to them, as it was the utterance of a new prophecy and ASSURANCE respecting the coming of Messiah, made under special inspiration; and it was “a sign” or pledge, also, that the house of David, and the kingdom of Judah, should not be destroyed, for they all knew that Messiah was to be the heir and possessor of David’s throne, as his descendant; and thus it had in it the nature of “a sign,” encouraging for the occasion, although the Messiah was not to be born till a distant period, beside that the prophecy was a new disclosure respecting him, and unveiled the most important particulars concerning him: as,

1. That he should be born of a virgin, then for the first time explicitly announced, although intimated in the first promise, where he is called the seed of the woman.

2. That he should be a Divine person, according to his name, “Emmanuel, God with us.”

3. That he should also be truly a man, being fed from a state of childhood with the common meats of the land, until he attained maturity, — “Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know,” or till he shall know, “to refuse the evil, and choose the good;” that is, in the Hebrew mode of speaking, till he is grown up to the age of discernment. Some suppose that this allusion to butter and honey was an assurance that the land should remain cultivated, and yield food for its inhabitants, till the time of his birth. But I am inclined to think that this part of the prediction is to be taken as an indication of the lowly state in which this wondrous personage was to pass his youth. Butter, the hemah of Scripture, is probably the same as the haymak of the Arabs, which is cream produced by simmering sheep’s milk over a slow fire, which with wild honey was the common food of persons in humble life; and as it is noticed of John the Baptist that his food was “locusts and wild honey,” to indicate that he spent his early life in desert solitudes, so of Emmanuel it is thus predicted, that he should spend his childhood and youth in obscurity among a rural and poor people, and not in the palaces of the great, which was the fact. This view receives confirmation from the 22d verse of the same chapter, where for the people to eat butter and honey is placed among the effects of a desolated and wasted state of the country, which no longer afforded them luxuries. So many important particulars respecting the Messiah did this explicit prophecy contain. What man but a prophet inspired of God could have foreseen an event not only so improbable, but apparently impossible, and that seven hundred years before it took place? Here is the express prophecy recorded in the sacred books of the Jews; and no one has ever pretended that it was fulfilled in the case of any human being, but in “the man CHRIST JESUS.” The verse which follows, — “For before the child,” or this child, “shall know to refuse the evil, or to choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest,” that is, Israel and Syria, “shall be forsaken of both her kings,” may be understood to signify, that within that period of time in which this or any other child comes to years of understanding, the two invading kings should be destroyed, as they were soon afterward, by the king of Assyria; or with others, we may understand it to be a distinct prophecy, and that the child now spoken of and pointed to was the prophet’s own son, whom he was commanded to take with him to meet Ahaz, Isaiah 7:3. For why this child was taken by the prophet, by express command, on such an occasion, as Dr. Kennicott observes, but that something remarkable was to be said of him, does not otherwise appear. To so striking a fulfilment of this prophecy in our Lord, the Jews object, that the word tml[ is not to be strictly translated a virgin; to which the answer is conclusive, that it is so rendered in their own Septuagint, which translation was made three hundred years before St. Matthew wrote; and, although it is rendered neaniv, a young girl, and not warqenov, a virgin, by the Jews, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian, this was subsequently to the Christian era, and to serve the cause of their own unbelief. They also interpret the prophecy, as the modern Socinians, of a young woman then a virgin being married, and bringing forth a child in the ordinary way; which could be no such extraordinary matter, as to be introduced so emphatically: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive!” &c.: and could be no “sign,” or miracle denoting a supernatural interposition to confirm the hope of “the house of David.”

They shall call his name Emmanuel, &c. — This is not a proper name, but a name of description; and the phrase, “they shall call his name,” is the same as” he shall be called,” as it is expressed in some of the earlier versions; and to be called is in the Hebrew idiom to be; as “my house shall be called a house of prayer;” that is, it shall be so. — Christ is therefore God, and “God with us,” otherwise he could not be Jesus, the Saviour; and so the real name which was given to our Lord implies all that is expressed by his prophetic designation.

The high import of the term Emmanuel is attempted to be sunk, by the Unitarians, into a mere intimation that “God would be with the Jews,” to deliver them from their enemies; but whoever follows those sections of Isaiah’s prophecies which succeed each other in the 7th, 8th, and 9th chapters of his prophecy, will perceive that, with him, it was a designation which implies positive Deity. For not only immediately after (Matthew 8:8) is the land of Judah called Emmanuel’s land, and so he is held forth as ITS LORD and Owner; but, with the same course of thought in his mind, and with evident reference to the child to be born of a virgin, the prophet exclaims, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” Such, with Isaiah, were the glorious and Divine characters of Emmanuel.

This descriptive title of our Lord, then, related primarily to the union of the Divine nature with ours; a union so strict as to be PERSONAL, though without confusion of the SUBSTANCE, which remained, and must for ever remain, distinct, though hypostatically ONE. This is a mystery which reason cannot now, and perhaps never may, comprehend; not because it is contrary to it, but manifestly above it. It is no more contrary to it, than the union of our own body and soul, things of a quite different, and even of a contrary essence, in one person; and that it is above reason arises from this, that we have exceedingly imperfect and inadequate views of human nature itself, much more of the Divine. — Necessarily we must be so acquainted with each as to prove that such a union as the Divine and human natures in the person of the one Christ is contrary to some principle in either, of which we have full and adequate knowledge, before we can decide the question on natural principles; a presumption of which no reasonable, not to say modest man can be guilty. Our faith in these high mysteries rests therefore upon the testimony of God, as collected from the plain unwarped meaning of his own revelation. But the name Emmanuel, God with us, does not simply indicate this mysterious fact. The greatest consequences depend upon it. We are assured thereby of the condescension of God to MAN, even in his “low estate.” The gracious and benevolent conduct of our Lord to mankind. during his sojourn on earth, was the public visible exhibition of the same sympathies and affections which he feels toward us, now he has entered into his glory; and, beside this, it was this peculiar circumstance, that he was truly God in our nature, which gave that grand and boundless consideration to his vicarious sufferings, which has rendered it “righteous” in God to remit the sins of all who penitently trust in his merit; while his remaining God and man for ever personally united affords us the pledge of that inconceivable exaltation of human nature which shall take place, as to the righteous, at his second advent. For then these vile bodies are to be made like unto his glorious body, and our souls to undergo that vast change which the New Testament describes by the indefinite, but for that reason the most expressive term which could be used, — “glorification.” He will therefore be “God with us,” and we shall be with him, as the Head of glorified human nature, for ever. “When he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” On this whole account it may be remarked, that the birth of Christ of a pure virgin was the commencement of the completion of that series of illustrious predictions which began to be delivered to the patriarchs, and were proclaimed to the Jewish Church in increasing number and variety by the Hebrew prophets, until the close of that singular succession of inspired men in the person of Malachi. That the Christ should be born of a virgin, was obscurely intimated in that first promise of grace on which the mercy of God permitted guilty and penitent man to hope. He was then announced as “the Seed of the woman,” — a singular mode of expression, which probably from the beginning served to awaken attention and inquiry; but it was expressly declared that he should be born of a virgin in that passage from Isaiah which has been already considered. The intimate connection which exists between this important circumstance and the whole plan of our redemption, is at once seen by those who hold the true scriptural doctrine of our Lord’s sacrificial and vicarious death; and every effort is therefore made to discredit the doctrine by those who deny Christ’s death to be a proper atonement for sin. For, since they reject the atonement, they can find no reason for the miraculous conception; and regarding it, therefore, as an incumbrance to the history of Christ, they have zealously, though vainly, and in opposition to all evidence, endeavoured to prove that those portions of the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke which treat of it are additions of later times. But all the parts of truth must be consistent with each other; and as the sacrificial character of the death of Christ will be found indelibly stamped upon a hundred unquestioned passages, both of the Old and the New Testaments, it follows that he must have been “without spot,” absolutely without sin, which no human being ever was, or could be, who came into the world in the ordinary manner. By natural generation we are connected with Adam, whom St. Paul teaches us to consider as the fountain of sin and death to all his posterity; but the human nature of our Lord came not down the stream which issued from that fountain. By being formed and nourished in the womb of the virgin, he partook of human nature with as much truth, as if he had been begotten of man; but, being conceived of the Holy Ghost, his real human nature was, ab origine, spotless and unpolluted, having no seeds of evil in it, nor placed under those penal relations to the first Adam, by which all his posterity became separated and alien from that life of God which is the principle of all true holiness. Thus was the human nature of our Lord “holy, harmless, and separate from sinners,” in its original condition and relations, as well as by his subsequent practice; and thus was that which was born of Mary called by the angel, in St. Luke, “a holy thing.” His example was therefore that of a perfect man, and his sacrifice that of a “Lamb without spot;” so that he could die vicariously, that is, in the place of others, the merit of his death being transferable, in consequence of his not being held to that penalty. He died, “the JUST for the UNJUST, that he might bring us to God.” See note on Luke 1:35.

Verses 24, 25. Joseph did as the angel had bidden him — This sudden change of his resolution, shows his great faith and ready obedience to God. When God speaks to our hearts, we speedily and cheerfully do what before we not only scrupled, but thought, perhaps, most inconvenient and unpleasing, and even contrary to the dictates of reason. And took unto him his wife — That is, he took her home to his house. Nevertheless, in expectation of this wonderful event, and out of reverence to this sacred birth, he knew her not as his wife, though she dwelt under his roof; but she continued a pure virgin till at least Jesus was born. “On what terms they afterward lived,” says an eminent divine, “is of so little importance to us, that one cannot but wonder it should have been the subject of so much debate. It is sufficient for us to know that she was a virgin, not only at the time of Christ’s conception, but at his birth, as the prophecy foretold she should be. The evangelist, therefore, wisely contented himself with recording this, without affirming any thing further, either way, on this delicate subject.” We must observe, however, that the expression, Till she had brought forth her firstborn son, does not necessarily imply that he knew her afterward, any more than the Lord’s words to Jacob, Genesis 28:15, I will not leave thee till I have done all that which I have spoken to thee of, imply that the Lord left Jacob after he had fulfilled his promises to him; or what is said, 2 Samuel 6:23, of Michal, Saul’s daughter, that she had no child till the day of her death, that she bore a child or children afterward; nor will the expression, her firstborn son, prove that she had afterward any more children, being in Scripture applied continually to the person that first opened the womb, as the phrase, is, whether there were any more children or not. Indeed, the Greek here, ton uion authv, ton prwtotokon, is literally, her son, the firstborn, or that firstborn, viz., that person eminent and dear to God above others that were the firstborn, whom all the firstborn in the Old Testament prefigured, whom the angels adore, Hebrews 1:6, and in whom those that believe become the firstborn, and the first fruits of God’s creatures. Nevertheless, when it is considered what is the great end of marriage, that Joseph took Mary to wife by the command of God himself, and that his law not only permits, but even enjoins husbands to perform the marriage duty, it is, as Dr. Whitby observes, “not easy to be conceived, that he should live twelve years with her he loved so well, and all that time deny that duty which was not to be diminished when the wife was less beloved:” especially as no just reason whatever can be assigned for such conduct. Be this as it may, we may safely conclude with St. Basil, an ancient father of the Church, that till she had brought forth her firstborn her virginity was necessary: “but what she was afterward let us leave undiscussed, as being of small concern to the mystery.”

V. 25. He knew her not, till after she had brought forth-It cannot be inferred from hence, that he knew her afterward: no more than it can be inferred from that expression, 2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no child till the day of her death, that she had children afterward. Nor do the words that follow, the first-born son, alter the case. For there are abundance of places, wherein the term first born is used, though there were no subsequent children. Luke 2:7.

Verse 25. Her first-born son] ton uion authv ton prw&otokon. Literally, That son of hers, the first-born one. That Mary might have had other children, any person may reasonably and piously believe; that she had others, many think exceedingly probable, and that this text is at least an indirect proof of it. However this may be, the perpetual virginity of Mary should not be made an article of faith. God has not made it one: indeed it can hardly bear the light of several texts in the Gospels. He knew her not] Had no matrimonial intercourse with her-TILL she had brought forth that son of hers, of whom the evangelist had been just speaking, the first-born, the eldest of the family, to whom the birthright belonged, and who was miraculously born before she knew any man, being yet in a state of virginity. See on Matthew 13:55. The virginity of Mary, previously to the birth of Christ, is an article of the utmost consequence to the Christian system; and therefore it is an article of faith: her perpetual virginity is of no consequence; and the learned labour spent to prove it has produced a mere castle in the air. The thing is possible; but it never has been, and never can be proved.

He called his name JESUS.] This name was given by the command of God, see Matthew 1:16, and was imposed on Christ when eight days old; for then, according to the Jewish law, he was circumcised: thus he had the name of Saviour given when he first began to shed that blood without which there could be no remission of sins.

The goodness of God is manifested, not only in his giving his Son to save a lost world, but also in the choice of the persons who were his progenitors: among whom we find, First, SAINTS, to excite our courage: Abraham, remarkable for his faith; Isaac, for his obedience; and Jacob, for his fervour and constancy.

Secondly, Penitent SINNERS, to excite our confidence: such as David, Manasses, &c.

Thirdly, Sinners, of whose repentance and salvation we hear nothing; to put us on our guard. Who can read the account of idolatrous Solomon, who, from the whole evidence of the sacred history, died In his sins, without trembling?

Four WOMEN are mentioned in this genealogy: two of these were adulteresses, Tamar and Bathsheba; and two were Gentiles, Rahab and Ruth, and strangers to the covenant of promise; to teach us that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and that, though strangers to his people, we are not on that account excluded from a salvation which God has designed for all men. He is not the God of the Jews only; he is also the God of the Gentiles.

The state of the royal family of David, the circumstances of the holy virgin and her spouse Joseph, the very remarkable prophecy of Isaiah, the literal and circumstantial fulfilment of it, the names given to our blessed Lord, the genealogical scroll of the family, &c., &c., are all so many proofs of the wisdom, goodness, and providence of God. Every occurrence seems, at first view, to be abandoned to fortuitous influence, and yet the result of each shows that God managed the whole. These circumstances are of the greatest importance; nor can the Christian reader reflect on them without an increase of his faith and his piety.

ST. MATTHEW

Verses 24, 25. Joseph did as the angel had bidden him — This sudden change of his resolution, shows his great faith and ready obedience to God. When God speaks to our hearts, we speedily and cheerfully do what before we not only scrupled, but thought, perhaps, most inconvenient and unpleasing, and even contrary to the dictates of reason. And took unto him his wife — That is, he took her home to his house. Nevertheless, in expectation of this wonderful event, and out of reverence to this sacred birth, he knew her not as his wife, though she dwelt under his roof; but she continued a pure virgin till at least Jesus was born. “On what terms they afterward lived,” says an eminent divine, “is of so little importance to us, that one cannot but wonder it should have been the subject of so much debate. It is sufficient for us to know that she was a virgin, not only at the time of Christ’s conception, but at his birth, as the prophecy foretold she should be. The evangelist, therefore, wisely contented himself with recording this, without affirming any thing further, either way, on this delicate subject.” We must observe, however, that the expression, Till she had brought forth her firstborn son, does not necessarily imply that he knew her afterward, any more than the Lord’s words to Jacob, Genesis 28:15, I will not leave thee till I have done all that which I have spoken to thee of, imply that the Lord left Jacob after he had fulfilled his promises to him; or what is said, 2 Samuel 6:23, of Michal, Saul’s daughter, that she had no child till the day of her death, that she bore a child or children afterward; nor will the expression, her firstborn son, prove that she had afterward any more children, being in Scripture applied continually to the person that first opened the womb, as the phrase, is, whether there were any more children or not. Indeed, the Greek here, ton uion authv, ton prwtotokon, is literally, her son, the firstborn, or that firstborn, viz., that person eminent and dear to God above others that were the firstborn, whom all the firstborn in the Old Testament prefigured, whom the angels adore, Hebrews 1:6, and in whom those that believe become the firstborn, and the first fruits of God’s creatures. Nevertheless, when it is considered what is the great end of marriage, that Joseph took Mary to wife by the command of God himself, and that his law not only permits, but even enjoins husbands to perform the marriage duty, it is, as Dr. Whitby observes, “not easy to be conceived, that he should live twelve years with her he loved so well, and all that time deny that duty which was not to be diminished when the wife was less beloved:” especially as no just reason whatever can be assigned for such conduct. Be this as it may, we may safely conclude with St. Basil, an ancient father of the Church, that till she had brought forth her firstborn her virginity was necessary: “but what she was afterward let us leave undiscussed, as being of small concern to the mystery.”

25. Till she had brought forth her firstborn son — These words assert the virginity of the mother of the Lord until the time of his birth. According to the Creed, “He was born of the virgin Mary.” They are also understood by many to imply that she was subsequently the mother of other children than Jesus. On the other hand, the perpetual virginity of the blessed mother is a standard doctrine in the Roman Church, and is generally maintained by the older writers of the Christian Church. With many this opinion is mainly grounded upon what they consider the demands of our “pious feelings.” It may be doubted, however, whether this pious feeling is not rather ecclesiastical and sentimental than Scriptural and truly spiritual. The proof that Mary was the mother of subsequent children, is derived, so far as this passage is concerned, both from the word until, and the words her firstborn. From the word until, the implication is inferred that her virginity continued not after her maternity. And this we apprehend is the usual sense of the word until and its corresponding term in most languages. When we affirm a certain state of things until a given point, we naturally imply a change after that point. Yet not necessarily. We may intend our affirmation to cover the time previous to the point, without pretending to affirm, imply, or even know what took place after that point. Examples of this, quoted by Bishop Pearson on the Creed, are Genesis 28:15; Deuteronomy 34:6; 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Mark 28:20. The conclusion of this argument therefore fairly is, I think, that there is a decided probability, although no full certainty, that the evangelist meant to imply the birth of subsequent children. As to the word firstborn, it is affirmed by Pearson and others that the word is in the Old Testament properly applied to the only born. That is, it is applied to any child whose birth has been preceded by no other, whether succeeded by any or not. The Mosaic law prescribed the sanctification of the “firstborn.” Exodus 12:2. And this firstborn was still so called, whether succeeded by subsequent children or not. This is undoubtedly true. But still it may be questioned whether a subsequent historian would style that child the firstborn where there was notoriously no second born. The evangelist could, I think, do so only by transferring himself, as it were, to the time of the birth, when the future contingency was unknown. Therefore, the balance of the argument upon this point also leaves an implication against the perpetual virginity of the blessed mother. This question is connected with the further discussion of the question concerning the brethren of the Lord. Upon that point see our note upon Matthew 13:55. In closing our notes upon this chapter, we offer the following remarks:

1. The style of the evangelist is eminently prosaic and plain. There is not the slightest tinge of poetry in the whole narrative. There is nothing of the fabulous or mythical strain. He narrates the most wonderful events without the slightest wonder. The whole tone of the style is purely historical, as plain and level as if it detailed the most ordinary events of life.

2. Matthew, thus far, gives neither date nor place. The persons are named without formal introduction. All are assumed to be familiar to his readers. As if writing to Jewish Christians, to whom all the facts, persons, and places are well known, he appears to write rather as if to verify and record than to inform.

3. In his first two chapters, Matthew so plans his narrative as, by blending fact with prophecy, to prove the Messiahship of Jesus. He is careful to inform us that these events took place for the purpose (in addition to all their other purposes) of fulfilling the predictions of the prophets of the Old Testament. The New Testament is born of the Old. The Gospel is contained in the law. The old dispensation is but a preparation for the new. He who is the true Jew is bound to be the believing Christian.

4. Matthew gives no dates, but his mention of historical names, such as Herod and Archelaus, enables us to fix, with some approach to accuracy, the time of our Lord’s birth. The following extract, from Prof. Robinson’s English Harmony of the New Testament, furnishes the best statement upon this point: “The precise year of our Lord’s birth is uncertain. Several data, however, exist, by which an approximation may be made, sufficiently accurate to show that our present Christian era is not entirely correct.

“1. According to Matthew 2:1-6, Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great, and not long before his death. Herod died in the year of Rome (A.U.) 750 just before the passover; see Josephus, Ant., b. 17, ch. 8, sec. 1; ib., b.17, ch. 9, sec. 3. This has been verified by calculating the eclipse of the moon, which happened just before his death; (Jos., Ant., b. 17, ch. 6, sec. 4. Ideler, Handb. of Chronol., vol. ii, p. 391 sq.) If now we make an allowance of time for the purification, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the remaining there till Herod was dead, for all of which not less than six months can well be required, it follows that the birth of Christ cannot in any case be fixed later than the autumn of A.U. 749.

“2. Another note of time occurs in Luke 3:1, 2, where John the Baptist is said to have entered upon his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius; and again in Luke 3:23, where Jesus is said to have been ‘about thirty years of age’ at his baptism. Now if both John and Jesus, as is quite probable, entered upon their ministry at the age of thirty, in accordance with the Levitical custom, (Numbers 4:3, 35, 39, 43, 47,) then by reckoning back thirty years we may ascertain the year of John’s birth, and of course also that of Jesus. Augustus died Aug. 29, A.U. 767; and was succeeded by Tiberius, who had already been associated with him in the government for at least two years, and probably three. If now we reckon from the death of Augustus, the fifteenth year of Tiberius commenced Aug. 29, A.U. 781; and going back thirty years, we find that John must have been born not earlier than August, A.U. 751, and our Lord of course not earlier than A.U. 752, a result disagreeing with that obtained from Matthew by three years. If, on the other hand, we reckon from the time when Tiberius was admitted as co-regent of the empire, which is shown to have been certainly as early as A.U. 765, and probably in A.U. 764; then the fifteenth year of Tiberius began in A.U. 778, and it follows that John may have been born in A.U. 748, and our Lord in A.U. 749. In this way the results obtained from Matthew and Luke are more nearly coincident.

“3. A third note of time is derived from John 2:20: ‘Forty and six years was this temple in building.’ Josephus says in one place that Herod began to build the temple in the eighteenth year of his reign, while in another he specifies the fifteenth year. (Ant., b. 15, ch. 11, sec. 1; Wars, b. 1, ch. 21, sec. 1.) He also assigns the length of Herod’s reign at thirty-seven or thirty-four years; according as he reckons from his appointment by the Romans, or from the death of Antigoinus. (Ant., b. 17, ch. 8, sec. 1; Wars, b. 1, ch. 33, sec. 8.) Herod was first declared king of Judea in A.U. 714; (Jos., Ant., b. 14, ch. 14, sec. 4, 5; Wars, b. 1, ch. 14, see. 4; comp. Ant., b. 14, ch. 16, sec. 4. Ideler, Handb. of Chronicles, 2:390;) hence the eighteenth year of his reign, when Herod began to rebuild the temple, would coincide with A.U. 732; and our Lord’s first passover, in the forty-seventh year following, would fall in A.U.

779. If now our Lord at that time was thirty and a half years of age, as is probable, this would carry back the year of his birth to the autumn of A.U. 748.

“4. Further, according to a tradition preserved by the Latin Fathers of the first five centuries, our Lord’s death took place during the consulate of the two Gemini, C. Rubellius and C. Fufius; that is, in A.U. 782, So Tertullian, Lactantius, Augustine, etc. See Tertull. adv. Jud., sec. 8; Augustin. de Civ. Dei, 18:54.) If now the duration of his ministry was three and a half years, then, as before, the year of his birth would be carried back to the autumn of A.U. 748. “5. Some modern writers, taking into account the abode in Egypt, and also the ‘two years’ of Matthew 2:16, have supposed that Jesus must have been from two to three years old at Herod’s death, and hence they assume that he was born in A.U. 747. The same year, A.U. 747, is also fixed upon as the date of Christ’s birth by those who regard the star in the east as having been the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn. which occurred in that year. So Keppler, Munter, Ideler, Handb. of Chronol., Berlin, 1826. “From all these data it would appear, that while our Lord’s birth cannot have taken place later than A.U. 749, it may nevertheless have occurred one or two years earlier.

“The present Christian era, which was fixed by the abbot Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century, assumes the year of Christ’s birth as coincident with A.U. 754. It follows then, from the preceding statements, that this our common era begins in any case more than four years too late; that is, from four to five years, at the least, after the actual birth of Christ. This era was first used in historical works by the venerable Bede, early in the eighth century; and was not long after introduced in public transactions by the Frank kings Pepin and Charlemagne.”

Verse 25. Her first-born Son. — The first son was, among the Jews, called “the first-born,” whether any more sons were brought forth afterward or not; so that nothing can be inferred from this passage, one way or the other, as to the question whether Mary had any other child. The object of the evangelist was to show that she had none before Jesus, and that he was born of her, still being a virgin. It is for the latter reason that he refers to Joseph’s continency. The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is a figment of later times, founded neither upon Scripture, nor uniform tradition, nor the reason of the case.