Matthew 1:18

BIRTH OF CHRIST. (Mat 1:18-25)

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise--or, "thus."

When as his mother Mary was espoused--rather, "betrothed."

to Joseph, before they came together, she was found--discovered to be.

with child of the Holy Ghost--It was, of course, the fact only that was discovered; the explanation of the fact here given is the Evangelist's own. That the Holy Ghost is a living conscious Person is plainly implied here, and is elsewhere clearly taught (Act 5:3-4, &c.): and that, in the unity of the Godhead, He is distinct both from the Father and the Son, is taught with equal distinctness (Mat 28:19; Co2 13:14). On the miraculous conception of our Lord, see on Luk 1:35.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat_1:18-20

A just man.

An honest mans dilemma

I. That troubles are irrespective of character.

II. That the mental perplexities of the good arise often from the want of insight into the divine movements. The cycles of Gods providence are too vast for our limited capacities.

III. That God graciously removes the honest scruples of the righteous. Josephs mental difficulties were removed

(1) By an angelic communication;

(2) By revealing the dignity of Christs birth;

(3) By showing the nature of His mission. Jesus was the only man born with special mission in reference to sin.

IV. That this mysterious conception and noble birth came to pass in accordance with prophetic prediction (Isa_7:14-16).

V. Josephs belief in the angelic communication, and obedience to the divine command. Faith essential to willing and unreserved obedience, and to the removal of mental difficulties. (W. Edwards.)

Joseph

1. His natural suspicion.

2. His merciful determination.

3. We need the tempering of justice with mercy, and mercy with justice. (R. Ward.)

Nothing so clearly discovers a spiritual man as his treatment of an erring brother. (Augustine.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 1:18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise, ουτως ην, 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 γεννησις, which some critics have unwarily confounded with the word γενεσις, 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 Deu 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 Isa 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.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_1:18. Espoused = betrothed.—Among the Jews the betrothal took place a year before marriage, and during the interval the betrothed maiden remained with her own family. But from the day of betrothal the pair were regarded as man and wife (Carr).

Mat_1:19. A just man.—Two courses were open to him. He could either summon her before the law-courts to be judicially condemned and punished, or he could put her away by a bill of divorcement before witnesses, but without assigning cause. He resolved to take the more merciful course, which was also the more “just.” Dr. Brown says, “That some communication had passed between him and his betrothed, directly or indirectly, on the subject, after she returned from her three months’ visit to Elizabeth, can hardly be doubted. Nor does the purpose to divorce her necessarily imply disbelief on Joseph’s part of the explanation given him. Even supposing him to have yielded to it some reverential assent—and the Evangelist seems to convey as much by ascribing the proposal to screen her to the justice of his character—he might think it altogether unsuitable and incongruous in such circumstances to follow out the marriage.”

Mat_1:22. Fulfilled.—The Evangelists frequently quote prophecies, the context of which must, at the time that they were first delivered, have been interpreted of things then present, and that, too, according to the Divine intention. But the same Divine intention, looking forward to remote futurity, so framed the language of prophecy that it should apply with greater specialty to the times of the Messiah (Bengel).

Mat_1:23. A virgin.—R.V., the virgin, a particular virgin. The prophecy (Isaiah 7) is distinctly Messianic, but the sign in Isaiah is not concerned with the manner of the child’s birth, but with the name and the deliverance which should happen in his infancy. Therefore the weight of the reference is to the name “Emmanuel” and to the true Son of David, whose birth was the sign of His people’s deliverance (Carr).

Mat_1:25. Firstborn.—The oldest MSS. omit “firstborn.” So R.V. Scripture supplies no data for any decision as to whether Mary had or had not children besides our blessed Lord, nor does any tradition that can really be called primitive (Plumptre).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_1:18-25

A mysterious birth.—After the lineage of Jesus we naturally come to His birth. Whence and when He came we have seen, viz. from just that direction and at just such a time as were fitting in the case of one who was spoken of as the Christ. What we ask next is as to the manner and circumstances of His appearance. Looked at from the same point of view, was there anything noteworthy about these? The answer is given us here. The “birth of Jesus Christ” was on such “wise” as to be well worthy of note. It was so, first, on account of the perplexities by which it was marked. It was so, next, on account of the light by which these perplexities were removed.

I. The perplexities of the case.—On these mysteries it does not become us to say very much; nor is it necessary, in fact. The Evangelist explains their origin and nature in a few serious words. A certain man named Joseph belonging to that “house and lineage of David” (Luk_2:4) of which the preceding verses tell us so much, was betrothed to a maiden named Mary, of the same line with himself, but had not as yet formally taken her as his wife. Whilst thinking of doing so he hears that about her which fills him with doubt. Ought he to do what he was thinking of doing? In that doubt of his very much is implied. Much is implied about her. Had the report in question been about another than her, Joseph would probably not have doubted at all. In such a quarter he would never have thought of marriage again. But he cannot come all at once to this conclusion about her. Could such an one as he knew her to be have been guilty of evil? Could she be saying what she knew to be false? What is he to do? What is to be believed? Much also, in that same doubt, is implied about him. It shows how exceedingly anxious he is to do what is right! How equally anxious not to be harsh! How completely occupied by such thoughts! Before he can settle them sleep is upon him; even in his sleep he is thinking about them. Surely, if ever, that was in one sense “the sleep of the just.”

II. The light vouchsafed in this case.—Much is noticeable about this. How pertinent it was in the first place! How exactly meeting the case! What Joseph wanted was light on his path. What would God have him to do? The answer comes from the lips of one whom he recognises immediately as “an angel of the Lord.” The answer directs him as to the very thing he is thinking about with so much apprehension and doubt. “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not, take unto thee Mary thy wife.” What authority can be higher? What directions more clear? How ample, next, is this light! Referring, as we think (cf. Luk_1:34), to what Mary has said, the angel goes on to speak of things present. These really are as you have heard them to be. They are indeed due to the operation of the Spirit of God (end of Mat_1:20). Also, next, of things future. In operating thus wonderfully God is providing for a corresponding result. The child thus to be born is to be a child by itself. The very name it is to bear proves that this is true of the work it shall do. “Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He it is who shall save His people from their sins.” Do not wonder, therefore, to hear of such an intervention with such an object in view. Lastly, see how well assured is all the information thus given. Do not hesitate to believe what I have been telling you (we suppose the angel in the next words to be still speaking to Joseph) as though it were something unheard of before. Because it is unexampled among men, do not suppose that it was unexpected by God. The very contrary is the case. A well-known scripture proves this to be so. In that scripture, on the one hand, you find the very marvel in question expressly foretold. “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.” There, on the other hand, you read of just the same results as those of which I told you just now, even in regard to the very name of the child so to be born. For what is the name Emmanuel—that is, God with us, but another form of the name Jesus (= Jah-Oshea) or God our Saviour? And what is this difference in form but a stronger proof of the far foresight of God? Understand, therefore, how fully and truly you will be doing as God wills by doing as I have bid. Fear less than ever to take unto thee Mary thy wife.

In conclusion, how beautiful are the pictures we see here:—

1. Of the mercy of God to individuals.—How exceedingly trying in this case were the positions of both Joseph and Mary. How trying for him to have to suspect his betrothed. How trying for her to be suspected by him. How doubly trying for both of them, being such as they respectively were. Nothing, we may say, could well exceed this bitterness except the sympathy with which it was met. What full appreciation is manifested of its nature and course! What wise selection and adaptation of the means for its cure! And what mighty agencies we see set in motion for bringing this issue about. Is it not a sight to see this “angel of the Lord” flying to that one sleeping man’s room. Sooner than allow him and that other one to continue disquieted, sooner than allow those who sincerely desire to know God’s will to remain in ignorance about it, heaven itself opens its gates and sends its messenger down.

2. Of the mercy of God to mankind.—How gracious is this design of His of sending men a Saviour! How long ago resolved on! How constantly cherished! How carefully provided for! How marvellously begun! All this we see here in this brief interview between one angel and man! All this, therefore, we are to think of as existing even when it cannot be seen. This is the full advantage of having such a “door” opened to us in “heaven.” The light we thus see is not to be regarded by us as being merely lit for that time. Rather it is an evidence to us of what has been before. Rather, also, a prediction of what is to be afterwards. But for this, as things are in heaven, it would not have been there at all.

3. Of the consistency of God’s ways.—Most exceptional, no doubt, the intervention described here. Equally so the circumstances in which it took place. In connection with so great a perplexity, after so unusual a previous announcement, and with so direct a bearing on the chief feature in the whole history of our race. Granted the possibility of such interventions, there could be no fitter time for their use.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_1:18-25. The great exceptional birth.—

1. The great exceptional birth.

2. The whole life of Christ the great exception of being.

3. The direct contact of the human with the divine. Son of God. Son of man.

4. God has never ceased to take an interest in the human race, but only once has He inserted into it a new man—a personal, redeeming, transforming life.

5. The race had no power in itself to give birth to a Saviour.

6. Men often misinterpret their circumstances. Joy has often been threading its way to us through the entangled lines of our perplexity.

7. The marriage of Joseph and Mary was useful as showing that Mary was not superhuman. She was an ordinary member of the human family, and so far Jesus Christ was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.

8. Christ was the only man born with a special mission in relation to sins. Every other man since Adam was born in sin, but He descended, as it were, upon it to destroy its power.

9. This was all in fulfilment of prophecy.

(1) Time a great realising power;

(2) the announcements of one age are the men of another;

(3) all prophecy, good or bad, may safely be left to the determining power of time;

(4) great events may require preparation;

(5) wonderful connection between the prophecies and the facts.

10. Joseph’s being asleep when the announcement was made to him is suggestive.

(1) man’s life is not all comprised in the little bustle of his wakeful hours;

(2) some communications can be effectually made only when men are most dissociated from the external and material;

(3) in sleep man is as thoroughly alone as he possibly can be in this world, and in a certain sense is more entirely in the power of God than in any other condition.—Joseph Parker, D.D.

Christ’s wonderful incarnation.—We have five evidences of Christ’s wonderful incarnation.

1. The Virgin Mary is found with child of the Holy Ghost.

2. Joseph’s perplexity, who being certain of the real conception of the Virgin, and uncertain of the holy manner of it, is put to a perplexed deliberation what to do.

3. The testimony of the anger revealing the truth to Joseph.

4. The manifested accomplishment of the prophecy of Isa_7:14.

5. The quiet faith and ready obedience of Joseph, after that he is now taught of God.—David Dickson.

Mat_1:20. The disclosure to Joseph.—

1. No less than divine revelation can satisfy a soul in matters concerning Christ.

2. The Lord can turn the doubts and fears and perplexities of His own into an advantage unto themselves and others also, and into a clearer manifestation of His own glory.

3. The Lord useth to show Himself in a necessary nick of time.

4. As Christ is the Son of David by lineal descent through Mary, His mother, so also by law through Joseph, His supposed father. “Joseph, thou son of David.”

5. The Lord in due time cleareth the righteousness of such as suffer in their name and estimation for Christ.—David Dickson.

Mat_1:19-20. Man’s extremity, God’s opportunity.—Was ever faith more tried than the Virgin’s, when for no fault of hers, but in consequence of an act of God Himself, her conjugal relation to Joseph was allowed to be all but snapped asunder by a legal divorce? Yet how glorious was the reward with which her constancy and patience were at length crowned! And is not this one of the great laws of God’s procedure towards His believing people? Abraham was allowed to do all but sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22); the last year of the predicted Babylonish captivity had arrived ere any signs of deliverance appeared (Dan_9:1-2); the massacre of all the Jews in Persia had all but taken place (Esther 7; Esther 8); Peter, under Herod Agrippa, was all but brought forth for execution (Acts 12); Paul was all but assassinated by a band of Jewish enemies (Acts 23); Luther all but fell a sacrifice to the machinations of his enemies (1521); and so in cases innumerable since, of all which it may be said, as in the song of Moses, “the Lord shall judge His people, and repent Himself for His servants, when, He seeth that their power is gone” (Deu_32:36).—D. Brown, D.D.

Mat_1:21. Salvation from sin.—However absurd the statement may appear to one who has not yet discovered the fact for himself, the cause of every man’s discomfort is evil, moral evil; first of all, evil in himself, and then, evil in those he loves. With this latter I have not now to deal. The one cure for any organism, is to be set right—to have all its parts brought into harmony with each other; the one comfort is to know this cure in process.—

1. Rightness alone is cure. Man’s rightness is to be free from wrongness, that is, from sin. The evil is in him; he must be set free from it—from the sin he is, which makes him do the sin he does. The sin he dwells in, the sin he will not come out of, is the sole ruin of a man. “This is the condemnation, that light,” etc.

2. Do you desire me to say how the Lord will deliver you from your sins? Such a question springs from the passion for the fruit of the tree of knowledge, not the fruit of the tree of life. Men would understand—they do not care to obey—understand where it is impossible they should understand save by obeying.—Geo. Macdonald, LL.D.

Jesus, the Saviour from sin.—This name given by Divine direction. Jesus, a Son of man, yet not chosen by man or self-elected as “Saviour,” but the elect of God (Isa_42:1). He may, therefore, be received with the utmost confidence. Jesus the Saviour not merely from the consequences of sin, but from the corrupting, enthralling, damning evil itself. This “the central idea of Christianity.” To dream of salvation in sin is as absurd as to think of “saving a man from drowning by keeping him under the water which is destroying him;” or of “recovering a man from sickness by leaving him under the malady which constitutes the complaint” (W. Jay). How does Jesus save from sin?

I. He has performed a work by which God, the infinitely righteous One, can deal with men in grace.—Human salvation could only be accomplished consistently with the eternal law of righteousness. But see Rom_3:21-26. Jesus is the true mercy-seat; the meeting-place of God and man.

II. He has shown us the true character of sin.—Presenting it in such a light that we may well loathe ourselves on account of it, and wish to be saved from it. We are bound to believe that only by His incarnation and sacrifice could human salvation become possible. What a tremendous evil, then, sin must be!

III. He has set us an example of holy living, and made a demand of discipleship.—His was a perfect obedience, prompted by a perfect love. His heart was pure; His life in all respects right and good. We are to be His disciples. “Learn of Me.” “Follow Me.” Discipleship means a gradual approximation to His own perfect character.

IV. He gives us His Holy Spirit to work in us this great salvation.—(Tit_3:5.) The Spirit represented as “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom_8:9). Not only because He proceeds from Christ, but also because He works in us a resemblance to Christ. Christ liveth in us (Gal_2:20), assimilating our characters to His own.—H. M. Booth.

“Jesus.”—There is more of power to sanctify, elevate, strengthen, and cheer in the word “Jesus” (Jehovah-Saviour) than in all the utterances of man since the world began.—C. Hodge, D.D.

The influence of holy character.—If to live with men diluted to the millionth degree with the virtue of the highest can exalt and purify the nature, what bounds can be set to the influence of Christ? To live with Socrates—with unveiled face—must have made one wise; with Aristides, just. Francis of Assisi must have made one gentle; Savonarola, strong. But to have lived with Christ must have made one like Christ, that is to say, a Christian.—Prof. H. Drummond.

Mat_1:22-23. Emmanuel.—

1. The mystery of Christ’s wonderful conception was not altogether hid from the church under the Old Testament.

2. It was foretold that the child born should be God and man in one person, “Emmanuel.”

3. It was foretold that He should be believed in, and acknowledged to be God incarnate. “They shall call His name Emmanuel.”—David Dickson.

Emmanuel.—

I. The reality of the Incarnation.—The uncontroverted mystery of “God manifested in the flesh.”

II. The purpose thereby contemplated—viz. the laying open a way for our re-union with God.

III. The actual accomplishment of this purpose consequent upon our reception of Christ.—Actual union with God, a communion with Him as our Friend, Father, and final Joy.—Henry Craik.

Mat_1:23. “God with us.”—The great secret of our Christian joy lies in this fact, that we believe in a present, not in an absent Jesus; One who is Emmanuel—God with us. Try to get hold of that great fact of our Lord’s presence, and then you will see what results flow from it.

I. That fact should make us humble.—If the Son of God, King of kings and Lord of lords, chose to come to this earth in the lowliest manner; if He chose a manger to be born in, a workman’s home to live in, the commonest of clothing and of food, surely we, who profess to be His followers, have no right to be proud.

II. The fact of our Lord’s abiding presence ought to make us brave.—If God be for us, and with us, who can be against us? No temptation need be too strong to be conquered, no difficulty need be too hard to be surmounted, by those who know that God is with them—Emmanuel.

III. The fact of our Lord’s abiding presence ought to make us good to each other.—Look on your fellow-men, and learn from the incarnation to respect man, every man, as wearing the flesh which Jesus wears.—H. J. Wilmot-Buxton.

Mat_1:24-25. Joseph’s obedience.—

1. From the time that a man is sure of God’s word and warrant, he should dispute no more, but stop his ears to all carnal reasoning.

2. A soul that knoweth the worth of Christ will be glad according to its power to do service to Him, or to any of those who belong unto Him.

3. When faith be holdeth the majesty of Jesus it breedeth fear and respect in the believer toward Him.—David Dickson.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

SECOND SECTION

JESUS, AS MIRACULOUSLY CONCEIVED BY HIS MOTHER IN FAITH, OR IN THE MYSTERY OF HIS INCARNATION, IS NOT RECOGNIZED EVEN BY THE LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID (JOSEPH), TILL ATTESTED BY AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN.

Mat_1:18-25 (Luk_1:26-33)

Contents:—The tragical situation of the two betrothed descendants of David at their first appearance in history. Mary, pregnant by the power of the Holy Ghost, misunderstood and doubted by her betrothed. Joseph’s intention of privately putting her away. The mother and child vindicated from dishonor by Divine intervention. Joseph’s faith. Ancient prophecy. The name: Jesus.

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When5 as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away [by divorce] privily. 20But while he thought on these things, behold, the [an] angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins. 22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Isaiah 7.). 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn6 son: and he called His name Jesus.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat_1:18. The Evangelist commences his narrative at the period when Mary’s pregnancy had become matter of certainty, about the time of her return from visiting Elisabeth.

The reading γένεσις is much better established in Mat_1:18 than γέννησις, and clearly more appropriate, as the event in question was not properly a γεννησις [begetting].

Of the Holy Ghost.—The notion of begetting is completely excluded by that of the Holy Ghost. The secret influence of the Spirit is more minutely described in Luk_1:35.

Mat_1:19. Joseph being a just man (lit. being just).—The word just has been falsely interpreted as kind, tender-hearted. To have acted upon his suspicion in reference to Mary as if it had been matter of certainty, would have been not merely unkind, but unjust. Such conduct would have been all the more inexcusable, since Mary had informed him not only of the fact of her pregnancy, but likewise of its cause. Joseph was unable to share her faith; but neither could he bring his mind entirely to disbelieve her account. This struggle of doubt and of suspicion with his feelings of generosity and of previous high esteem for Mary, influenced the decision at which he arrived. He resolved not to accuse her publicly (the reading παραδειγματίσαι is an explanation of δειγματίσαι); that is, not to dismiss her by a bill of divorce, which would have stigmatized her as an adulteress, but to dismiss her privately by a bill of divorce without assigning any reason for it. Thus her disgrace would at least not become matter of notoriety, although, of course, suspicion would attach to her; at any rate, her child might still be regarded as the son of Joseph. By this conduct he would unquestionably have taken upon himself a portion of her ignominy. He might be considered a hardhearted man, who turned away a noble woman unjustly. Those circumstances-afford an insight into the inward struggle which both experienced. On the bill of divorce, comp. Deu_24:1-3; Mat_19:8.

Mat_1:20. The Angel of the Lord that appeared to him in a vision when sleeping, was the angel of the Lord in the peculiar and historical sense of that term—the Angel of the Lord, Gen_16:7; Gen_16:9, and in other passages; or the Angel of the presence, Exo_32:34; Exo_33:14; Isa_63:9; or the Angel of the covenant, Mal_3:1. The angel Gabriel (hero of God), who, according to Luke 1, delivered the messages relating to the birth of Christ, was probably only a more definite manifestation of the Angel of the Lord (Dan_8:16; Dan_9:21). The angel of Christ’s incarnation must, in this case, be carefully distinguished from later angelic apparitions. (See the author’s Leben Jesu, ii. B. 1, 41.)

In a dream.—It is worthy of remark that the Joseph of the New Testament, like the Joseph of the Old Testament, uniformly received his revelations in dreams. This particular form of revelation may have been chosen, 1. because his spiritual life was imperfectly developed; 2. because of his spiritual sincerity and simplicity of heart.

Mary thy wife.—Among the Jews the betrothed bore the title of wife.

Of the Holy Ghost.—Both the descent of Jesus and His mission were revealed long before His actual appearance on earth. His birth, His name, and His work were equally from the Holy Ghost.

Mat_1:22-23. On the Messianic application of Isa_7:14, consult the commentaries. It must, however, be observed that the Evangelist Matthew uses the expression, “was fulfilled,” ἐπληρώθη, in reference not merely to the fulfilling of conscious verbal predictions, but also to that of typical prophecies. In the passage before us the reference is probably to a typical prophecy. The virgin (עַלְמָה) presented to Ahaz as a sign, was a type of the holy Virgin for the following reasons: 1) her future pregnancy and her giving birth to a son were announced even before her marriage had actually taken place; 2) the highest and strongest kind of faith was called into exercise in connection with this child, by which it obtained the name of Immanuel, and became the sign of approaching deliverance in a season of peculiar trial; 3) the name Immanuel was verified in the God-Man; 4) all these circumstances served to render the birth of this child peculiarly sacred, and to connect it with the future of Israel; thus strikingly prefiguring the advent of the holy child, the Hope of Israel.

Mat_1:24-25. Joseph believed in consequence of the Divine intimation he had received in a dream, and forthwith married Mary, with all the Jewish marriage ceremonies, from a regard to her reputation. But he did not consummate the marriage till Mary had given birth to her first-born. From the expression, first-born, Mat_5:25, it must not, however, be inferred that Mary subsequently bore other children. An only child was also designated first-born. The term merely implied that this was the child which had opened the womb (Gen_27:19; Gen_27:32; Exo_13:2). That Jesus had no actual brother according to the flesh, will appear on closer consideration of the real extraction of the so-called brothers of the Lord. They were the sons of Alphæus, Joseph’s brother, and of Mary, the wife of Alphæus, the sister-in-law (not the sister) of the mother of the Lord. (See the author’s dissertation in his “History of the Apost. Age,” i. p. 189; and his article, Jacobus, der Bruder des Herrn, in Herzog’s “Real-Encycl.”)7 The expression, “brethren (brothers) of the Lord,” has been taken in its literal sense by the Antidicomarianites in the ancient Church, and by many modern Protestant theologians; while the Roman Catholic Church, since the times of the Collyridians, of Epiphanius, Ambrose, etc., has gone to the opposite extreme of maintaining that Joseph and Mary never lived together on terms of husband and wife. (Meyer, in his Commentary, hastily ascribes the same view to Olshausen, Lange, von Berlepsch. Our text indicates the opposite.)8

DOCRTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. If it may be said of Abraham, that his faith brought [Germ.: hineingeglaubt] the word of the Lord as a word of promise into the world, it may, in the same way, be said of Mary, that her faith brought the incarnation of the Word into the world. And as the faith of Abraham was the connecting link by which the Divine blessing attached itself to his seed according to the promise, so Mary, by her strong and living faith, conceived, through the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Saviour of the world. The faith of Abraham established a connection between physical birth and spiritual regeneration; but, in the inspired faith of Mary, birth and regeneration have become actually one,—nay, the birth of Christ was regeneration not merely in a passive, but also in an active sense. It was creative regeneration—sinlessness, which became the efficient cause of the regeneration of men; sinlessness redeeming from sin. Those who hold that Christ derived from Mary our sinful nature, which became transformed into sinlessness by His unswerving holiness till death, argue as if regeneration were the goal of Christianity, whereas it is its commencement. In this respect they, as well as the Baptists, come very far short of Abraham’s faith. Abraham had not merely, like Melchisedec, faith as an individual, but also as the head of a family; and this faith comprehended his house and his posterity. He believed in the sanctification of nature, in the consecration of birth, and in the spiritual exaltation of natural descent by reception into the household of God. In Mary, the divine inspiration of faith went along with her conception as virgin mother; and hence, in her Son, the eternal Logos was united to human nature. (For a discussion on the miraculous birth, see Lange’s Leben Jesu, vol. ii. p. 66.)

2. The unutterably tragical situation of the Virgin, misunderstood and deserted by her betrothed, presents a striking type of the future history of her Son, when denied and abandoned by men, even his disciples. Similarly, however, her vindication by the angel of the Lord prefigures Christ’s glorification. Mary forsaken by her husband was a type of Christ’s loneliness in Gethsemane and on the cross.

3. The expression, “an angel of the Lord,” is subsequently explained by the introduction of the definite article—the angel of the Lord—connecting it with the whole Christology of the Old Testament.

4. In the same way, the announcement of the angel of the Lord is connected with the Bible doctrine of the Trinity; and that of the name Jesus with the doctrine of redemption.

5. The relation between dreams and other forms of divine revelation, is to be gathered from the doc trine of visions, and of their different forms.

6. In the passage which refers to the fulfilment of the prediction, contained in Isa_7:14, we must properly appreciate the spirit of Old Testament prophecy generally, the New Testament explanation of its various statements, and, lastly, the difference between typical and verbal prophecy.

7. In examining the passage, “and he knew her not,” etc., we must make a vast difference between the question whether Joseph and Mary lived together on terms of conjugal intercourse, and the inquiry whether Mary had afterwards other sons.

HOMILETICAL AND PRATICAL

The trials of Jesus’ mother when disowned and forsaken, prefigured His own trials when denied and deserted: 1. In both cases the cause was the same—faith. 2. The import was the same—elevation above the world. 3. The issue was the same—glory. 4. Lastly, the effect was the same—the awakening of faith.—The mother and the Song of Solomon 1. The great similarity between them. 2. The infinite difference.—The share female character has had in promoting the kingdom of God, 1. in its extension; 2. in its limitation.—Mary a model of unshaken confidence in God.—Committing oneself to the Lord leads to success even in the world.—On the connection between mistrust and unbelief.—How the entertaining of generous sentiments may become the means of preserving our faith.—An honest doubter will obtain light.—The first New Testament narrative commends to us a holy consideration for woman.—High regard for the honor and reputation of woman.—Justice must ever be allied to gentleness.—The infinite blessing which rewarded Joseph’s self-denial.—The manifestation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, concentrated in the birth of Christ.—The Holy Spirit introduced the Son into the world; and the Son, the Holy Spirit .—Symbolical lessons of the creative action of the Holy Spirit in the birth of Christ. 1. It points back to the creation of the world (Gen_1:2), and to the creation of man. (The breath of God, Gen_2:7.) 2. It points forward to the creation of the Church, and the founding of the heavenly city of God (Acts 2).—The miraculous birth of Christ viewed in the light of the miraculous birth of Adam.—The miraculous birth of Jesus as the regeneration of man.—Import of the name Jesus (the Redeemer) in connection with salvation: 1. A seal and assurance of the mode of redemption. 2. A proclamation of the fact of redemption. 3. A celebration of His work of redemption.—Joshua a type of Jesus: 1. As the hero of the achievements of faith, who followed upon Moses the lawgiver; 2. as champion in the strength of the Lord; 3. as the leader of the people from the desert to Canaan.—Redemption from sin and deliverance from sin are inseparable.—“The people” of Jesus, and they alone, are the saved. 1. We must belong to His people (listen to awakening grace) in order to obtain salvation. 2. We must be in a state of salvation (surrender ourselves to converting grace) in order wholly to belong to His people.—The people of Jesus a wonderful people of the “wonderful” King. 1. They are one in Christ, and yet diffused among all nations. 2. This people existed before it appeared (the elect), and appeared before it existed (the typical people of God under the Old Covenant). 3. They suffer with Christ, until, to appearance, they perish, and yet triumph with Christ throughout all eternity.

Jesus as Immanuel.—Jesus as the first-born in every respect (Col_1:15-18).—Gossner:—True love finds a way between jealousy and insensibility.—God forsakes none who confide in him.—Braune:—Divine interposition saves.—(Gal_4:5.)

ADDENDA

BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

The Sinaitic Manuscript of the Bible, which Professor Tischendorf rescued from the obscurity of the Convent of St Catharine on Mount Sinai, and carefully edited in two editions in 1862 and 1863,* two years after the issue of the third edition of Dr. Lange’s Commentary on Matthew, has been carefully compared in preparing the American edition of this work from Chapter 8 to the close of the Gospel of Matthew. I thought I was the first to do so, but just before I finished the last pages of this volume, I found that Bäumlein, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John,** and Meyer, in the fifth edition of his Commentary on Matthew, both of which appeared in 1864, had preceded me, at least in print. No critical scholar can ignore this manuscript hereafter. For it is the only complete, and perhaps the oldest of all the uncial codices of the Bible, or at least of the same age and authority as the celebrated Vatican Codex (which is traced by some to the middle of the fourth century), and far better edited by the German Protestant Professor, Tischendorf, than the latter was by the Italian Cardinal, Angelo Mai. In the absence of a simpler mark agreed upon by critics (the proposed designation by the Hebrew א has not yet been adopted, and is justly objected to by Tregelles and others on the ground of typographical inconvenience), I introduce it always as Cod. Sin., and I find that Dr. Meyer in the fifth edition does the same. As I could not procure a copy of the printed edition of this Codex till I had finished the first seven chapters, I now complete the critical part of the work by adding its more important readings in the first seven chapters where they differ from the textus receptus, on which the authorized English, as well as all the older Protestant Versions of the Greek Testament are substantially based.

*Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, sive Novum Testamentum cum Epistola Barnabœ et Fragmentis Pastoris (Hermæ). Ex Codice Sinaitico auspiciis Alexandri II., omnium Russiarum imperatoris, ex tenebris protracto orbique litterarum tradito accurate descripsit Ænotheus Friderious Constantinus Tischendorf, theol. et phil. Dr., etc. etc. Lipsiæ, 1863. The text is arranged in four columns and covers 148 folios; the learned Prolegomena of the editor 81 folios. There is besides a magnificent photo-lithographed fac-simile edition of the whole Sinaitic Bible, published at the expense of the Emperor of Russia, in 4 volumes (3 for the Old and 1 for the New Testament, the latter in 148 folios), under the title: Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Auspiciis augustissimis imperatoris Alexandri II. ed. Const. Tischendorf. Petropoli, 1862. A copy of this rare edition I have also consulted occasionally, in the Astor Library of New York. For fuller information on this important Codex (in the words of Tischendorf: “omnium codicum uncialium solus integer omniumque antiquissimus”), we must refer the reader to the ample Prolegomena of Tischendorf, also to an article of Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. vii. (1864), p. 74 ff. (who is disposed to assign it to a somewhat later age), and to Scrivener’s treatise, which I have not seen.

**Hengstenberg, in his Commentary on John, concluded in 1863, pays no attention whatever to this Codex, and is very defective in a critical point of view

Mat_1:18.—Cod. Sin. sustains γένεσις, birth, nativity (B., C., P., S., Z., etc., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford) for the lect. rec. γέννησις, which may easily have arisen from ἐγέννησε and ἐγεννήθη, and as appearing to suit the connection better (partus modus), comp. Meyer, in the fifth ed., p. 43. But Christ’s origin was not properly a begetting, engendering, γέννησις (from γεννάω); and hence γένεσις is preferable both for internal and external reasons. Comp. Luk_1:14 : ἐπὶ τῇ γενέσει αὐτοῦ, which is better supported there than γεννήσει.

Mat_1:19.—Cod. Sin.: δειγματισαι for the lect. rec. παραδει γματίσαι; the παρα in Cod. Sin. being “punctis notatum rursus deletis,” as Tischendorf remarks, Proleg. p. 42, which I found to be correct on inspection of the fac-simile edition in the Astor Library. The sense, however, is not altered, since both δειγματίζω (only once, Col_2:15) and παραδειγματιζω (twice, Mat_1:19 and Heb_6:6) mean to make a show or example of one, to put to shame. Lachmann, Tischendorf (ed. septima critica major, 1859), Alford (4th ed. of 1859), and Meyer (5th ed., but omitting to notice the original reading of Cod. Sin.) read δειγματίσαι on the authority of B., Z., and scholia of Origen and Eusebius.

Mat_1:25.—Cod. Sin. reads simply: ετεκεν υιον, instead of the lect. rec.: ἔτεκω τὸν υἱὸν αὑτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, and here sustains the testimony of Codd. B., Z., etc., and the modern critical editions. The omission of πρωτότοκον is much easier accounted for, on doctrinal grounds, than its insertion, and cannot affect the controversy concerning the question of the brothers of Christ, since πρωτότοκος is genuine in Luk_2:7, where there is no variation of reading. On the other hand, the term does not necessarily prove that Mary had children after Jesus. Comp. Crit. Note 2, on p. 52, and the remark of Jerome, quoted in Tischendorf’s crit. apparatus (ed. 7. p. 4).

Footnotes:

[5] Mat_1:18.—Lit.: “For when,” μνηστευθείσης γάρ.

[6] Mat_1:25.—[πρωτότοκον, in Mat_1:25. is omitted in Codd. Sin. and Vat., in the old Egyptian versions, Hilar., Ambros., Greg., Hieron., and in the critical editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford. Lange in his version retains it, and Meyer defends it. It may have been inserted from Luk_2:7; but the omission may also be easily explained from superstitious veneration of the Blessed Virgin, as necessarily implying her perpetual virginity, which the term “first born” seemed to disprove.—P. S.]

[7][Compare also, on the other hand, the article Jacobus in Winer’s Real-Wörterbuch. i. p. 525 sqq., and P. Schaff: “Das Verhaltniss des Jacobus Alphœi zu Jacobus dem Bruder des Herrn,” Berlin, 1841.—Trsl.]

[8][In this sentence, which is omitted in the Edinb. transt., Lange means to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, as held by the Roman Church, and attributed to him by Meyer. Lange admits the reality of the marriage of Joseph and Mary and their cohabitation after the birth of Jesus, but, like Olshausen, he considers it i compatible with the dignity of Mary as the mother of the Saviour of the world, to have given birth to ordinary children of man. He also holds that Christ must be the last in the royal line of David and could have no successor or rival. But this reasoning is dogmatic, not exegetical. On the force of the ἑως οὗ in this connection, compare Meyer’s and Add. Alexunder’s remarks on Mat_1:25.—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 1:18-25.

Jesus Born Of A Virgin Mother

Having presented the genealogy of Jesus, the inspired writer commences the narrative proper with matters pertaining to Jesus’ birth and infancy. (Mat 1:18 to Mat 2:23) The passage now before us is designed to show, that he was born of a virgin mother. Matthew does not mention the annunciation to Mary, nor the birth of the forerunner, (Luke 1) but begins at the time when it became apparent that Mary was with child, which would be soon after her return from the visit to Elisabeth. (Luk 1:56)

Mat 1:18. The birth[1] of Jesus Christ was on this wise. It has already been intimated (Mat 1:16) that he was not in the ordinary way the son of Joseph; and this point is now distinctly stated. His mother Mary. It is no doubt wisely provided that we know very little concerning the personal history of "Mary the mother of Jesus." (Act 1:14) The traditions relating to her, so highly prized by Romanists, are of no value. She was probably (see on "Mat 1:17") a descendant of David. We know nothing of her parents, or of any brothers; there is allusion to a sister (Joh 19:25), who is by some identified with "Mary the wife of Clopas," mentioned just after, and who upon that supposition must have borne the same name (see on "Mat 13:55"). We are informed that Elisabeth was her kinswoman, (Luk 1:36) so that Jesus and his forerunner were remote relatives Mary’s early home appears to have been Nazareth, and she probably lived a life of poverty and toil. As to her character, we are somewhat better informed. In Luke’s narrative she appears before us as a deeply pious maiden, prompt to believe what God revealed, (Luk 1:38, Luk 1:45) and anxious to have all difficulties in the way of her faith removed; (Luk 1:34) as humbly rejoicing in the high privilege secured to her by the divine promise, (Luk 1:46-55) and through the years which followed thoughtfully pondering the things which occurred in connection with her child. (Luk 2:19) The familiarity with Scripture manifested by her song of thanksgiving, (Luk 1:46 ff,) shows how lovingly she had been accustomed to dwell on the word of God. Mary was of course not faultless, but her character was worthy of her high providential position, and she deserves our admiration and gratitude. Above all the "mothers of the wise and good" may we call her ’happy’, (Luk 1:48) and cherish her memory. The utterly unscriptural, absurd, and blasphemous extreme to which the Romanists have gradually carried their veneration of Mary, must not drive us into the opposite extreme. The name ’Mary’ is the same as Miriam, and is often written Mariam in the Greek, particularly when applied to the mother of our Lord (e. g., Mat 1:20). Its original meaning of rebelliousness was quite suitable for the sister of Moses.

[1] The correct text of the Greek is genesis, ’origin,’ and so birth, rather than gennesis, prob. derived from eggenthe in Mat 1:16. A few very early versions and Fathers here omit ’Jesus,’ reading simply ’the birth of the Christ,’ and this is adopted by Treg., Westcott Hort, and McClellan. The question is quite interesting, for the principles involved, to students of text-criticism (see Treg., Tisch., Scriv., W. H.); but it does not seem allowable to leave the reading of all the Greek MSS. and most versions. The practical difference is not very important (see on "Mat 1:1"). In the second clause omit gar of the common Greek text, leaving the simple genitive absolute. Matthew quite frequently employs this construction (Weiss).

Of Joseph likewise but little is known. Though of the old royal family, he appears to have been quite poor, and to have followed the lowly calling of wood-workman, probably what we call a carpenter (compare see on "Mat 13:55"). He is here declared (Mat 1:19, Rev. Ver.) to be a ’righteous’ man, and we shall presently find him faithfully attentive to his precious charge (ch. 2); but beyond this the Scriptures give us no information (compare at end of Matthew 2).

Espoused, Rev. Ver. gives betrothed. So Wyc., Tyn., Gen. The Com. Ver. followed Rheims in giving "espoused," which formerly meant betrothed. It appears to have been a custom among the Jews for a betrothed maiden to remain still for some time in her father’s house, before the marriage was consummated; and before they came together, probably refers to their coming to live in the same home, though it may be taken in the other sense, which is obvious. (compare 1Co 7:5) She was found, does not imply an attempt at concealment, but merely states that it was then ascertained. The expression is consistent with the view that she herself discovered the fact, and then, through information conveyed in some suitable way, it was ascertained by Joseph. The narrative is marked by great delicacy. A little reflection will suggest reasons why a divine revelation on the subject was made to Mary beforehand, and to Joseph only after the fact had become apparent. A different course with regard to either of them would have occasioned additional embarrassment and distress. Ghost is an Anglo Saxon word of the same meaning as the Latin ’Spirit,’ and having the same primary sense of ’breath’ (see on "Mat 16:25"). It has in modern times given way to the Latin term, and become obsolete, except (1) as denoting a spirit of a dead person supposed to become visible, (2) as used in the phrase ’to give up the ghost’ (equals expire), and (3) as applied to the third person of the Trinity. In this last sense our Common English Version employs it only in those passages of the New Testament in which ’holy’ is prefixed, so as to make the personal designation ’The Holy Ghost’; and employs it in all such passages, except Luk 11:13; 1Th 4:8. When used without ’holy’ in the New Testament and everywhere in the Old Testament, the word is ’Spirit.’ (Compare as to ’hallow,’ on Mat 6:9). It is to be regretted that Rev. Ver. did not uniformly adopt ’Holy Spirit,’ with Amer. Revisers. Compare on Mat 3:11; Mat 12:32; Mat 28:19. Of the Holy Ghost, (literally out of, marking the Holy Spirit as the source or cause of her, condition), is here not meant to be understood as a part of the discovery, but is a fact appended by the narrator.—Under ordinary circumstances, Mary’s condition would have involved a crime which, by the law of Moses, was punished with death by stoning. (Lev 20:10) And a betrothed woman must be treated in this respect as if already married. (Deu 22:23 f)

Mat 1:19. From the time of betrothal the parties were legally bound to each other, so as to be called husband and wife, (Mat 5:20; Deu 22:24) and so that unchastity in either would be adultery. An unrighteous man would have cherished a passionate angel and sought to punish as severely as possible. Joseph, being a just (Rev. Ver. righteous), man, (compare 1Sa 24:17) was not inclined to extreme severity, but was disposed to divorce her privately. (So Bleek, Grimm, Cremer). Or it may be understood thus: Joseph, being righteous (and therefore feeling that in such circumstances he could not take her as his wife), and yet not willing to expose her publicly,[1] was disposed to pursue a middle course, and divorce her privately. (So Meyer, Weiss, Morison.) The statement has been frequently made (so Chrysostom, Grotius), that the Greek word rendered ’righteous’ may signify ’good, kind,’ but it has not been shown to have that meaning anywhere in the New Testament, and the common meaning gives a good sense, in either of the above ways. It would appear that the law, (Deu 22:23 f) was not regarded as compelling a husband to accuse his wife as an adulteress, and so Joseph would not be violating the law if he should avoid the extreme course, and divorce her, and this without stating his reason in the "writing of divorcement," (Mat 5:31). Edersheim shows such a course to accord with custom and Rabbinical opinion.

[1] The earliest MSS. read deigmatisai, ’make her a spectacle,’ the common Greek text paradeigmatisai, ’make her an example.’ It is somewhat difficult to decide which is the correct reading, but the difference in meaning is unimportant.

Mat 1:20. The angel, more probably an angel, although the Greek might be understood as definite because of the Lord being appended. As to the angels, see on "Mat 18:10". Divine communications by means of dreams are mentioned by Mat 1:20, Mat 2:12-13, Mat 2:19, Mat 27:19; and referred to in Act 2:17; not elsewhere in New Testament. Edersheim shows that the Jews attached great importance to dreams. There was probably something connected with such dreams as really gave divine guidance to distinguish them from ordinary dreams. Joseph is addressed as son of David, and thereby somewhat prepared for the remarkable disclosure about to be made. He probably knew that his was a leading branch of the royal family (see on "Mat 1:17"). Mary thy wife, the betrothed woman being frequently spoken of as a wife. (Deu 22:24) So as to ’Joseph her husband,’ in Act 2:19. Of the Holy Ghost. Accordingly in Mat 1:21 it is not, shall bring forth a son ’unto thee,’ as was said to Zacharias, (Luk 1:13)

Mat 1:21. Jesus is the same name as Joshua, a contraction of Jehoshuah, (Num 13:16, 1Ch 7:27) signifying in Hebrew ’Jehovah is helper,’ or ’Help of Jehovah.’ In the later books, (e. g., Neh 7:7, Neh 8:17; Ezr 2:2, etc.), it sometimes takes the form Jeshua (Jeshuah), and this the Greek translators of the Old Testament expressed (compare on Mat 1:2) by Jesus. (In the Jewish books subsequent to Christianity it is frequently Jeshu). The name Joshua is everywhere in the Septuagint found in this form, Jesus, and so in the two passages of the New Testament in which Joshua is mentioned. (Act 7:45; Heb 4:8) As applied to our Lord there is of course a certain modification of the idea conveyed by the name, but the leading thought is the same, viz., deliverance, salvation, and that springing from Jehovah. Like Joshua, who led Israel into the promised land, Jesus was to be the leader and ruler of his people, the "captain of their salvation", (Heb 2:10) under whose guidance they would be delivered from all dangers and brought safe to the rest that remaineth. (Heb 4:9) Like the high-priest Joshua, who was associated with Zerubbabel in bringing the Jews back from the captivity, (Ezr 2:2; Zec 8:1) Jesus was to be the high-priest of his people. He thus answered at the same time to the civil and religious rulers of the nation, at once King and Priest. Compare "he shall be a priest upon his throne," said of Joshua in Zec 6:13.[1] Mary had also been told (Luk 1:31) that the child must be named Jesus, but without the reason for it here given. For he shall save. In Revised Version, it is he that shall save. The word ’he’ is here pretty clearly emphatic in the Greek, he himself, he and no other, though Revised Version rather exaggerates the emphasis.[2] The word rendered ’save’ signifies primarily to ’preserve,’ secondarily to ’deliver,’ and it often conveys both ideas at the same time. It is applied to physical dangers (Mat 8:25), death (Mat 24:22; Mat 27:40, Mat 27:42), disease (Mat 9:21-22; Jas 5:15), and to sin and its consequences, which is the common use. From their sins, from both the consequences and the dominion, both the penalty and the power of their sins. Messiah did not come, as the Jews commonly supposed he would, simply to save his people from the dominion of foreigners; it was something deeper and higher, to save them from their sins. And not to save them in their sins, but from their sins. His people would to Joseph naturally mean Israel. It may have been meant to denote the spiritual Israel, including some of the nation, though not all (Rom 9:6, Rom 9:27, Rom 9:31; Rom 11:7), and some Gentiles. (Rom 9:25-26, Rom 9:30) Or the angel may have meant simply the people of Israel, i. e., the truly pious among them, not intending to exclude the Gentiles from being saved by Jesus, but confining the view at present to the salvation of the Jews. So the angel announces to the shepherds "great joy, which shall be to all the people." (Luk 2:10, Revised Version) Ecclus. Sir 46:1 says of Joshua, "Who according to his name became great for the salvation of his elect" (God’s elect), which shows that the meaning of the name would be readily apprehended, and the connection in Ecclus. clearly confines the "elect" to Israel. Compare the restriction of our Lord’s ministry, and the temporary restriction of the ministry of the Twelve, to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mat 15:24; Mat 10:5, Mat 10:6.) The same question as in this case arises in Act 5:31, Revised version "to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins."

[1] Other persons named Joshua or Jesus are found in 1Sa 6:14, 1Sa 18:2; Kings 1Sa 23:8; Luk 3:29; Col 4:11; Ecclus. Prologue and 50:27; Josephus, "Ant."vi. 6, 6; xi. 7, 1; xii. 5, 1; xv. 3, 1. See also Bar-Jesus, Act 13:6. Jason, in Act 17:5; Rom 16:21 is the same name altered into a form sounding better in Greek, as Jews among us often give their names a more English shape.

[2] Winer, Fritzsche, Meyer, and others, hold that autos in Nom. is always emphatic. But the New Testament has some examples (see Buttmann, p. 107, Grimm II. 2) in which it cannot without great violence be so understood, and we seem compelled to admit that it is occasionally only an unemphatic ’he,’ etc. (Latin is). It is freely so used in modern Greek (Mullach), and there is a partly similar use of in late Latin ipse (Ronsch). Compare Ellicott on Col 1:1; Moulton’s note to Winer p. 187.

Mat 1:22. All this was done, etc. The statement and quotation in Mat 1:22 f. has been understood by some expositors (Chrys., Alexander) as a part of the words of the angel. They render: ’And all this has taken place,[1] it may be fulfilled,’ etc., and the language, so far as that goes, warrants their interpretation. In Mat 26:56, the same form of expression is commonly referred to the speaker of what precedes, and not to the Evangelist; (compare Mar 14:49) in Mat 21:4, the connection will admit of either view. (see on "Mat 21:4"). In the present case, however, we should have to suppose the angel to be anticipating when he says: "All this has taken place," for most of the events to which he refers were yet future; and in Mat 21:4, no part of the event in question has taken place when the Saviour speaks. Matthew has not elsewhere than in these three passages the precise expression, ’all this has taken place in order that,’ etc., but he remarks upon the designed fulfilment of prophecy much oftener than the other Evangelists, so that it is quite natural to refer this statement to him; which on the whole seems decidedly best. Looking back upon the events, Matthew connects them with the time at which he is writing, and thus very naturally says: ’All this has taken place that it might be fulfilled, etc.[2] Fulfilled is the translation of a Greek word being applied to a work or a duty, and to predictions, as here. This last very important use, to fulfil (a prediction), is found frequently in Matthew, (Mat 1:22, Mat 2:15, Mat 2:17, Mat 2:23, Mat 4:14, Mat 8:17, Mat 12:17, Mat 13:35, Mat 21:4, Mat 26:54, Mat 26:56, Mat 27:9) and in John; (Joh 12:38, Joh 13:18, Joh 15:25, Joh 17:12, Joh 18:9, Joh 18:32, Joh 19:24, Joh 19:36) several times in Luke (Luk 1:20; Luk 4:21; Luk 21:22; Luk 24:44), and in Acts (Act 1:16, Act 3:18, Act 13:27) once in Mark (Mar 14:49) and in James (Jas 2:23) An examination of these passages would show that in general they will admit only the strict sense of fulfil, implying a real prediction, and that no one of them requires the quite different meaning attached to the term by some expositors, viz.: that while there was no real prediction, the New Testament occurrence reminded the Evangelist of the Old Testament passage, or so resembled the Old Testament occurrence as to warrant the application to it of the same language. This serious departure from the etymology and regular use of the word is supposed by such expositors to be required by a few passages in which it is difficult for us to see that there exists the strict relation of prediction and fulfilment. But such passages, it will be found, all admit of at least a possible explanation in consistency with the idea of a real fulfilment (see on Mat 2:15, Mat 2:18), and we have no right to take this or any other word in a sense alien to its origin and use, unless there be found passages in which it cannot possibly have the usual meaning. The strict application of this rule of interpretation is here a matter of importance, as the question involved seriously affects the prophetic relation between the Old and the New Testament.

[1] The word rendered in the Common English Version ’was done’; properly signifies to ’come to be,’ ’come to two,’ ’happen,’ etc., and this meaning is very important for the exact exposition of many passages in the Testament. The student should look out for this and not be content to render it loosely.

[2] The peculiar idiom of the Greek makes it equally proper to render ’that it may,’ or ’that it might,’ according to the connection.

But two things are to be observed. (1) The New Testament writers sometimes quote Old Testament expressions as applicable to gospel facts or truths, without saying that they are prophecies (e. g., Rom 10:18), and in some cases it is doubtful how they intend the quotation to be regarded. (2) It is often unnecessary, and sometimes impossible, to suppose that the prophet himself had in mind that which the New Testament writer calls a fulfilment of his prediction. Some predictions were even involuntary, as that of Caiaphas. (Joh 11:50) Many prophecies received fulfilments which the prophet does not appear to signifying to ’make full,’ to ’fill up.’ (So the English fill full or fulfil). It is often used in New Testament, both literally, as to fill a valley, boat, etc., and figuratively, as to fill with gladness, knowledge, etc. In a derivative sense it signifies to ’perform fully,’ ’accomplish,’ have at all contemplated. But as God’s providence often brought about the fulfilment though the human actors were heedless or even ignorant of the predictions they fulfilled (e. g., Joh 19:24), so God’s Spirit often contemplated fulfilments of which the prophet had no conception, but which the Evangelist makes known. And it is of a piece with the general development of revelation that the later inspiration should explain the records of earlier inspiration, and that only after events have occurred should the early predictions of them be fully understood.

Some still insist that the phrase that it might be fulfilled should be rendered, or at any rate should be understood as denoting, ’so that it was fulfilled,’ expressing only the result; but the best scholars are now very nearly unanimous in maintaining that we must hold fast, in this and all similar passages, to the established meaning of the phrase. The design expressed is often not merely, and in some cases not at all, that of the human agents, but the design of God in his providence. It is probably the failure to note this simple distinction—while it was clearly perceived that in some passages no such design as that stated can have been entertained by the actors themselves—that has led numerous earlier interpreters, including some of the Greek Fathers, to accept the sense of result; and the disposition to do so has doubtless been strengthened in some minds by dislike to the idea of divine predestination. Notice that the term which here precedes does not exactly signify ’was done’ (which would direct our thoughts to the human actors), but, as above explained, ’has occurred,’ ’has taken place,’ i. e., in the course of providence. (Compare on Mat 2:17, and Mat 6:10).

Mat 1:23. The quotation is from Isa 7:14. Proposing to give Ahaz a sign of speedy deliverance from his enemies, Ephraim and Syria, the prophet speaks as here quoted, adding (Alexander’s version): "Curds and honey shall he eat until he shall know (how) to reject the evil and choose the good; for before the child shall know (how) to reject the evil and choose the good, the land of whose two kings thou art afraid shall be forsaken." A certain woman (to us unknown), then a virgin, would bear a son; and before he should arrive at the early age indicated, i. e., in the course of a few years, Ahaz would be delivered from the dreaded kings of Syria and Israel by the coming of the Assyrians, who would lay those countries waste. Then Judah would prosper, and the growing child would have other food than merely curds and honey. It is not necessary to maintain that Isaiah himself saw anything further in the prediction. But as ’spoken by[1] the Lord, through the prophet,’ we learn from Matthew that it also pointed forward to the birth from the more notable virgin, of one who should be not merely a pledge of divine deliverance, but himself the Deliverer; who should not simply give token by his name of God’s presence to protect, but should himself be the present and manifest Deity. We need not suppose that Matthew would in argument with a Jew have appealed to this passage as by itself proving to the Jew that Jesus was the Messiah—for we have no information that the Jews understood it as a Messianic passage—but it is one of many predictions, some more and some less plain, which all combined would furnish conclusive proof. And we, who might never have perceived such a reference in the prophet’s words, accept it on the authority of the Evangelist, and do so without difficulty, because we see how fully the prophetic books are pervaded by the Messianic idea. (Act 10:43) ’To him all the prophets bear witness.’ Some expositors of Isaiah (at Hengstenberg, Alexander) understand an exclusive reference to the birth of Jesus; but how could that possibly become a sign to Ahaz of his speedy deliverance from Syria and Ephraim? The Hebrew is, literally, "Behold, the maiden conceiving and bringing forth a son, and calling " etc. As the calling is future, it is natural to take the other participles as future also (Toy.) The last Hebrew verb might mean ’thou shalt call,’ and so the Sept. has "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son, and thou shalt call," etc. Matthew has substantially the same as the Septuagint (which he commonly follows, compare on Isa 8:3,) only changing the last verb to ’they shall call,’ i. e., people shall call—he shall be so recognized. (Compare Isa 8:3) The Hebrew substantive signifies ’maiden.’ No case has been found in which it must mean a married woman; the only examples adduced by Gesenius and others (Pro 30:19 Son 6:8) fail to prove the point. The Sept. here translates ’virgin,’ Matthew confirms that by his authority, and all the efforts have failed to show that it is wrong.[2] Immanuel. One of the forms of the principal Hebrew word for God is el; and immanu signifies ’with us.’ While this was to be the actual name of the child born in the time of Ahaz, it was for Jesus not a name actually borne, but only a description of his character and position. Compare the name Jedidiah, ’beloved of Jehovah,’ which Nathan gave to Solomon at his birth, (2Sa 12:25) but which was not actually borne by him. Compare also Isa 60:18; Eze 48:35.

[1] For the principal actor old English commonly said ’of’ (same word as Latin ab, Greek apo); in modern English it is ’by.’ The intermediary we now most clearly express by ’through.’

[2] This Hebrew word is almah. Another word, bethulah, generally means virgin, but in Joe 1:8 is clearly applied to a young wife. If such an instance had been found for almah, it would have been claimed as triumphant proof that ’virgin’ is not here a proper translation. The other Greek translations of Isaiah render by neanis, a young woman; but it must be remembered that the Christians early began to use this passage against the Jews, and that of the three translators Aquila was a Jew, Theodotion a Jew or a heretic, Symmachus an Ebionite (Judaizer,) which makes their rendering suspicious. Buxtorf and Levy give no Aramaic (Chaldee) examples in which almah must mean a married woman. The result seems to be that almah does not certainly prove a virgin birth but fully admits of that sense, which Matthew confirms.

Mat 1:24. Joseph, believing and obedient, at once married his betrothed, with all the customary ceremonies, taking her to his house, where she would have his protection and tender care. They lived in Nazareth. (See on "Mat 2:23".)

Mat 1:25. Till she brought forth her firstborn son. The Revised Version properly omits the phrase, ’her firstborn.’[3] Though not said here, it is said in Luk 2:7, that he was ’her firstborn.’ This phrase of Luke, and Matthew’s ’till,’ naturally suggest that Mary afterwards bore other children, but do not certainly prove it. The word ’till’ is sometimes employed where the state of things do not change after the time indicated. Yet the examples adduced (the best are, perhaps, Psa 112:8, Psa 110:1; less apposite are Gen 8:7; Deu 34:6; 1Sa 15:35; 2Sa 6:23; Isa 22:14; 1Ti 4:13) are none of them really similar to the one before us. The word will inevitably suggest that afterwards it was otherwise, unless there be something in the connection or the nature of the case to forbid such a conclusion. In like manner the dedication of the firstborn son (Exo 13:15) gave a sort of technical sense to the term ’firstborn,’ which might cause it to be applied to an only child. Still, this would be very unnatural for Luke, writing long afterwards, and perfectly knowing that there was no other offspring, if such was the case. Combine these separate strong probabilities furnished by ’till’ and ’firstborn’ with the third expression ’brethren’ or ’brothers’ and even "sisters " (see on "Mat 13:55"), and the result is a very strong argument to the effect that Mary bore other children. The Romanists hold marriage to be a less holy state than celibacy, and so they set aside all these expressions without hesitation. When some Protestants (as Alexander), on grounds of vague sentiment, object to the idea that Mary was really a wife, and repeatedly a mother, they ought to perceive that the Evangelists had no such feeling, or they would certainly have avoided using so many expressions which naturally suggest the contrary. It was inevitable that Jesus should be commonly regarded as the son of Joseph (Mat 13:55; Joh 1:46), for the divine communications to Joseph and Mary could not at present be made known. Accordingly even Mary says, ’thy father and I,’ and even Luke ’his parents’. (Luk 2:41, Luk 2:43, Luk 2:48.)

[3] This is the reading of the two oldest (B and à), and several other important Greek MSS. (Z. 1, 33), and often four oldest versions (old Latin, old Syriac, and the two Egyptian.) The additional words, ’her firstborn,’ are obviously added from Luk 2:7, where the text does not vary. We can see why many copies should have inserted them here, to make Matthew similar to Luke, and can see no reason why any copy should have omitted them here, when well known to exist in Luke. Observation shows that assimilation of parallel passages was almost always effected by insertion in the shorter, and the probable reason is that it would have been held irreverent by students and copyists to omit anything from the longer text.

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 1:18 f. The most ’highly-favoured’ of all women has to bear for a time the deepest reproach a woman can suffer. (Edersheim: "The first sharp pang of the sword which was to pierce her soul.") But it proves only a step in the progress to everlasting honour.—

Mat 1:19 f. Divine guidance in perplexity. (1) A perplexity here of the most cruelly painful sort. (2) The perplexed man is unselfishly anxious to do right. (3) He takes time and reflects. (4) The Lord directs him. Personal righteousness and prayerful reflection will often carry us through; and the result may be the highest joy. Jer. Taylor: "In all our doubts we shall have a resolution from heaven, or some of its ministers, if we have recourse thither for a guide, and be not hasty in our discourses, or inconsiderate in our purposes, or rash in judgment."

Mat 1:20. Jesus and the Holy Spirit. (1) His humanity due to the Holy Spirit. (2) His whole life controlled by the Holy Spirit (Mat 4:1; Mat 12:28; Joh 3:34; Heb 9:14). (3) His mission vindicated and commended by the Holy Spirit. (1Ti 3:16; Joh 16:8-11.) (4) His work continued by the Holy Spirit (Joh 14:16, Joh 16:13 Act 16:7; ’the Spirit of Christ,’ Rein. Act 8:9.)

Mat 1:21. The three Joshuas.—Our Saviour.

I. What he is. (1) God with us. (2) Born of a woman. (8) Thus the God-man.

II. What he does. (1) He will save. (2) He will save his people. (3) He will save his people from their sins.—The gospel not merely gives us religious instruction, but makes known a personal Saviour. Its power does not reside in propositions, but in a person.

Mat 1:22. Providence fulfilling prophecy.

Mat 1:21-23. Nicoll: "Jesus Christ was, (1) The child of the Holy Ghost, who had existed from eternity, and now entered into the sphere of sense and time; (2) Born into the world with a distinct mission—his name was called Jesus, because he was to save."

Mat 1:23. Mary. (1) The Mary of prophecy. (2) The Mary of history. (3) The Mary of modern fancy. See Milton’s "Hymn on the Nativity," and Marks. Browning’s noble poem, "The Virgin Mary to the Child Jesus." Lorimer: "Such a mother must have exerted a marked influence on the character of her child. To question it would he to question the reality of his humanity."

The Incarnation, as to its nature, is of necessity unfathomably mysterious; but as a fact, it is unspeakably glorious, and, with the Atonement and Intercession, it furnishes a divinely simple and beautiful solution of the otherwise insoluble problem of human salvation. Many things the world accepts and uses as vitally important facts, concerning the nature of which there may yet be questions it is impossible to answer.

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Annunciation to Joseph and the Birth of Jesus.

v. 18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise,

the evangelist writes. The reference is not so much to the actual process of generation, but expresses the general idea of origin. It was in this way that the Messiah assumed human nature, took upon Himself the form of our sinful flesh. As the Son of God He had no beginning, but is in the bosom of the Father from eternity, Joh 1:18. As a human being He had a beginning, and this origin the evangelist relates:

v. 18. When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mary had entered into a betrothal, into a contract of espousal, with Joseph. She had agreed to a marriage, she had pledged her word to Joseph, just as he was bound to her by is promise of betrothment. While Mary was in this relation to Joseph, and after she had given him her pledge as his promised bride, she still lived at her own or at her father’s house. As a rule, some time elapsed before a betrothed virgin was formally given in marriage and taken to her husband’s house, Deu 20:7; Jdg 14:7-8; Jdg 15:1-2. During this time, cohabitation did not take place, though the marriage contract was legal and binding. And it was then, before the celebration of the nuptials, that Mary was found with child. Her situation was not only delicate, but the most distressing and humiliating which could fall to the lot of a pure maiden. Knowing herself to be innocent of even the slightest transgression in deed, and fully convinced of the fact that her condition was due only to the supernatural working of the Holy Ghost, she nevertheless could expect no one to believe her defense, should she attempt one. "Nothing but the fullest consciousness of her own integrity and the strongest confidence in God could have supported her in such circumstances, where her reputation, her honor, and her life were at stake."

The Obligation of a Rightful Betrothal

In view of the fact that the modern conception of the marriage-tie is rapidly sinking to the level of the heathen idea in its most immoral manifestations, and that playing with the sanctity of the marriage-bond has become the order of the day, it is necessary to emphasize the Scriptural view of the obligation of a valid betrothal, as indicated in the text above, vv. 18-20. To maintain that passages of this kind have historical value only, that they therefore concern the Jews alone, and that their commands are not binding upon the Christians of today, is inconsistent with the demand which properly makes the Bible the rule of life as well as the norm of doctrine.

A rightful betrothal is entered upon when one man and one woman, being of marriageable age and not hindered by Scriptural or legal impediments, with the express or implied consent of their parents or guardians, and by their own free mutual consent, promise to be and remain to each other husband and wife in a lifelong union. That is the Scriptural view of a valid betrothal. And such a betrothal, without considering the Jewish police and church regulations, is, according to the Bible, tantamount to a marriage, so far as the insolubility of the marriage tie is concerned. When Lot was urged to make haste out of the doomed city of Sodom, he was sent by the angels to speak to his "sons-in-law that would marry his daughters," who were betrothed to them and intended to consummate the marriage later. Gen 19:14. When Jacob, with the will and consent of the parents on either side, Gen 28:2; Gen 29:18-19, was betrothed to Rachel, the daughter of Laban, he spoke of her as his "wife" before the nuptials had been celebrated, Gen 29:21. Both of these events took place before the Jewish church law was in existence. A similar case is that recorded in our passage. When Mary was "espoused to Joseph, before they came together," Joseph is called her "husband," and she is called his "wife. " And in Luk 2:5 Mary is called Joseph’s "espoused wife. " See Luk 1:27; Deu 22:22-29; Deu 28:30; Hos 4:13.

In addition to these clear and unmistakable passages we have another reason for considering a rightful betrothal tantamount to marriage, and that is by analogy from the parts of Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testaments, in which the union of Christ and His Church is spoken of. We find throughout these passages that the terms "espoused" or "bride" (the equivalent, in the original text, of the German "Braut," a betrothed woman) and "wife" are used as synonyms and altogether indiscriminately. The great "mystery" concerning Christ and His Church, Eph 5:32, would lose its meaning if betrothal and marriage, as spoken of in the Word of God, were not identical. "For thy Maker is thy husband; the Lord of Hosts is His name," Isa 54:5. "Thou shalt no more be termed forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed desolate; but thou shalt be called Hephzibah and thy land Beulah; for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee," Isa 62:4-5. "I will betroth thee unto Me forever; yea, I will betroth thee unto Me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies," Hos 2:19. "Come with Me from Lebanon, My spouse," Son 4:8-12. "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom," Joh 3:29. "And I, John, saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband... Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife," Rev 21:2-9. Compare with these passages also the following: "The marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready," Rev 19:7. "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church," Eph 5:25, and the many statements in which lack of loyalty and faithfulness in the people of Israel is compared to adultery. A passage which is especially clear is 2Co 11:2.

In view of these facts there is but one conclusion: "A valid betrothal, the lawful and unconditional mutual consent of a marriageable man and a marriageable woman to be husband and wife, makes the parties to such compact essentially husband and wife before God... The rescission of lawful espousals or valid betrothal is unlawful desertion from the marriage-bond as truly as after the consummation of marriage. " "Apart from the doctrine of Scriptures regarding the obligation of the betrothal, if we only look at the engagement as we have it today and judge according to reason, that is, according to the natural moral understanding, we must consider the engagement as we have it today, with respect to its obligation, as tantamount to the consummated marriage."

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

AN ANGEL APPEARS TO JOSEPH

Mat 1:18-25. We find that Gabriel spoke to Mary when she was wide awake, in broad daylight; but in the case of Joseph, he appears to him in a dream, while asleep; as Mary, if not vindicated by Divine intervention, must have been culpable under the law of Moses, and liable to the penalty of death by stoning. While Joseph, recognizing her physical condition, and was contemplating a private separation from her, in order to protect her from the severity of the law, the angel notifies him relative to the Conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost, repeating the prophecy of Isa 7:14 :

“And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.”

Here we see that the Messianic glory of Jesus, witnessed by both Testaments, is that “He shall save His people from their sins.” The world is full of religion — Pagan, Moslem, Papal, and Protestant with an infinite diversity of subdivisions; but the great trouble is that they do not take away the sins of their votaries. For this reason, the people who preach and experience entire sanctification really stand alone as the dispensers of the true Gospel, while on them devolves the magnitudinous work of the world’s evangelization. The Bible is its own expositor. If we are not in harmony with it, we are without hope and without God. Full salvation follows as a logical sequence from the Divinity and Consequent omnipotence of our Savior. The world is thronged with millions today who claim to be the followers of Jesus, but do not realize that they are saved from their sins. There is a missing link somewhere in the chain of their profession. If they had Jesus in the true Scriptural sense, they would be saved from all their sins, the Holy Spirit testifying to the fact. The trouble with the world is not about religion, for it inundates the globe, more demonstrative with heathens, Mohammedans, and Jews than Christians; but the problem to be solved is personal, experimental salvation, which, in its intrinsic reality, attested with the Holy Spirit and corroborated by the Word of God, is the only foundation of heavenly hope. When Jesus saves people from their sins, they have them no more. It is an accomplished fact, known and realized beyond the possibility of doubt; has the full assurance, given by the Holy Spirit, to the complete work of Christ in your heart; really precludes all doubt. “And they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God is with us.” Here you see a refutation of the idea entertained by some that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and it was subsequently translated into Greek. This inference has doubtless originated from the fact that he wrote it in Judea and for the Jews. But we must remember that the Greek language was universal in the apostolic age, and well known in Jerusalem. The fact that Matthew translates this Hebrew word Emmanuel into Greek, is demonstrative proof that he was writing in Greek. There is a deep and sweet significance in the word Emanuel — i.e., “God with us” — in contradistinction to his dwelling, far away in heaven, among the angels. The very fact that He took our humanity, to retain it forever, is demonstrative proof that He has become one of us, to abide with us in this world, and all other worlds, through all eternity. Joseph, awakening from his sleep, proceeds at once to do as the angel had told him; i.e., receive his betrothed wife, and call the name of her Son Jesus, which is a Greek word, and means Savior, signifying the work He came to do — i.e., to save His people from their sins. Who are His people? All who receive Him; as to them He gives power to become the children of God. (Joh 1:12.)

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:18 Jesus the Messiah (literally Jesus the Christ): Using Messiah in the translation accurately communicates that it is a title rather than a personal name (“Jesus Christ”). • engaged to be married: In Judaism, engagement (or betrothal) meant a permanent relationship (Mal 2:14) that could be broken only by legal process; thus, Mary was considered Joseph’s wife and he her husband (see Matt 1:20; Deut 22:23-24), even though they had not had sexual relations. Mary’s status as a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception through the power of the Holy Spirit helps authenticate Jesus’ divinity.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 1:18. Τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ ἡ γέννησις οὓτως ἦν, The generation, however, of Christ was on this wise) By this most ancient reading[50] the text refers to Mat 1:17, and the advent of the Messiah, expected for so many generations, is declared and exhibited (exsertè demonstratur) to the reader. Thus, too, the words, ἐγεννήθη, (was generated), and γὲννησις, (generation), refer mutually to each other. The particle δὲ (however) subserves both references. In like manner, the name “JESUS” is repeated in ch. Mat 2:1, from ch. Mat 1:25. In later ages, most of the Greek copyists have added Ἰησοῦ[51] (the genitive case of ἸΗΣΟῦς, Jesus) before Χριστοῦ (the genitive case of ΧΡΙΣΤΌς, Christ), according to which reading, the expression would refer with less force to either the first or sixteenth verse indifferently. It was the CHRIST whom Mary had in her womb by the Holy Ghost, and whom Joseph, afterwards, by the command of the angel, called JESUS. Elegantly, and in accordance with the order of events, the name JESUS is reserved till Mat 1:21; Mat 1:25.—Cf. Gnomon on Luk 2:11. The word γέννησις (generation) includes (Mat 1:18-25) both the Conception (cf. γεννηθὲν, conceived, Mat 1:20) and the Nativity (cf. γεννηθέντος, having been born, Mat 2:1). For Mat 1:18 contains the introductory statement (propositionem)[52] of those matters which follow, to which, also, the οὕτως (thus, or on this wise) refers: and the conjunction γὰρ (for) commences the handling of the subject (tractationem), which corresponds with the introductory statement.—Cf. the use of γὰρ in Heb 2:8.[53] The particle οὕτως guards us from thinking, on account of the preceding genealogy, that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus.—μνηστευθείσης γὰρ τῆς μητρὸς Αὐτοῦ Μαρίας, For after His mother Mary had been betrothed) The LXX. render the Hebrew ארש (to betroth) by ΜΝΗΣΤΕΎΟΜΑΙ in Deu 20:7, etc.—ΠΡῚΝ Ἢ ΣΥΝΕΛΘΕῖΝ ΑὐΤΟῪς, before they came together) Joseph had not yet even brought Mary home (see Mat 1:20); but in these words, and the more firmly on that account, the commercium tori is specifically denied, in order to assert her pregnancy by the Holy Spirit. Nor does the expression, ΠΡῚΝ Ἤ (before), imply that they came together after our Lord’s birth.—εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost) There can be no doubt but that Mary disclosed to Joseph (perhaps when he proposed to consummate their marriage) the sacred pregnancy, which she had concealed from every one else.—ἘΚ, of) The expression ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου (of the Holy Spirit) occurs again at Mat 1:20. See, also, Joh 3:6.

[50] In Mat 1:18, we know how it was read in the second century from Irenæus, who (after having previously cited the words, “Christi autem generatio sic erat”) continues, “Ceterum potuerat dicere Matthæus, Jesu vero generatio sic erat; sed prævidens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores, et præmuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthæum ait: Christi autem generatio sic erat.”—(C. H. lib. iii. 16, 2.) TREGELLES.—(I. B.)

[51] Such is the reading of E. M., viz., τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κ.τ.λ.—(I. B.)

[52] Propositio and Tractatio are terms regularly used by Bengel in his Introductory Synopses in the technical and rhetorical sense.—ED.

[53] Lachmann omits γὰρ with BZabc Vulg. Iren. 204. Tischendorf, with less weight of authorities, retains it viz., of the oldest, Pd.—ED.

PZ and Rec. Text read Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which, therefore, Lachmann prefers. B, and Origen 3, 965d read Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. But Iren. 191, 204, and a b c d Vulg. read only Χριστοῦ, which Tischendorf prefers.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_1:18. Τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] provided with the article, and placed first with reference to Mat_1:16. The origin of Jesus Christ, however, was as follows.

μνηστευθείσης] On the construction, see Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 270 f. [E. T. 315]. On the betrothal, after which the bride still remained in the house of her parents without any closer intercourse with the bridegroom until she was brought home, see Maimonides, Tract. אִישׁוֹת; Saalschütz, M. R. p. 728 ff.; Keil, Archaeol. § 109.

γάρ] explicative, namely, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 234 ff.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 86 ff.

πρὶν ἤ] belongs as much as the simple πρίν to the Ionic, and to the middle age of the Attic dialect; see Elmsley, ad Eur. Med. 179; Reisig, ad Soph. Oed. Colm. 36; it is, however, already found alone in Xenophon (Kühner, ad Anab. iv. 5. 1), as also in Thucydides, v. 61. 1, according to our texts (see, however, Krüger in loc.), but is foreign to the Attic poets. With the aorist infinitive, it denotes that the act is fully accomplished. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 726. Comp. Act_2:20; Act_7:2; Mar_14:30; Joh_4:49; Tob_14:15.

συνελθεῖν] Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Maldonatus, Jansen, Bengel, Elsner, Loesner, and others understand it of cohabitation in marriage. The usage of the language is not opposed to this. See the passages of Philo in Loesner, Obss. p. 2; Joseph. Antt. vii. 9. 5; Diodorus Siculus, iii. 57, Test. XII. Patr. pp. 600, 701. Just as correct, however, in a linguistic point of view (Kypke, Obss. p. 1 f.), and at the same time more appropriate to the reference to Mat_1:20; Mat_1:24, is the explanation of others (Luther, Beza, Er. Schmid, Lightfoot, Grotius, Kypke, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Arnoldi, Bleek) of the bringing home and of domestic intercourse. Others (Calvin, Wetstein, Rosenmüller, Olshausen) combine both explanations. But the author in the present case did not conceive the cohabitation in marriage to be connected with the bringing home, see Mat_1:25.

εὑρέθη] Euth. Zigabenus (comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact) appropriately renders it: ἐφάνη. Εὑρέθη δὲ εἶπε διὰ τὸ ἀπροσδόκῃτον. Εὑρεθῆναι is nowhere equivalent to εἶναι. See Winer, p. 572 [E. T. 769].

ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχειν or φέρειν, to be pregnant, very often in the LXX., also in Greek writers, Herodotus, iii. 32, Vit. Hom. ii.; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 792 E.

ἐκ πν. ἁγ.] without the article, see Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 151]. רוּהַ יְהֹוָה or רוּחַ קֹרֶשׁ יְהֹוָה, πνεῦμα, πν. ἅγιον, πν. τοῦ Θεοῦ, is the personal divine principle of the higher, religious-moral, and eternal life, which works effectually for the true reign of God, and especially for Christianity, which rules in believers, and sanctifies them for the Messiahs kingdom, and which, in reference to the intellect, is the knowledge of divine truth, revelation, prophecy, etc., in reference to morals is the consecration of holiness and power in the moral life of the new birth with its virtues and world-subduing dispositions, bringing about, in particular, the truth and fervour of prayer, the pledge of everlasting life. Here the πνεῦμα ἅγιον is that which produces the human existence of Christ, through whose actionwhich so appeared only in this, the single case of its kindthe origin of the embryo in the womb of Mary was causally produced (ἐκ) in opposition to human generation, so that the latter is thereby excluded. It is not, however, that divine power of the Spirit (Luk_1:35), which only concurs in the action of human generation and makes it effectual, as in the generation of Isaac and of the Baptist, and, as the idea is expressed in the Sohar Gen. (comp. Schmidt in the Bibl. f. Krit. v. Exeg. d. N. T. I. p. 101): Omnes illi, qui, sciunt se sanctificare in hoc mundo, ut par est (ubi generant), attrahunt super id Spiritum sanctitatis et exeuntes ab eo illi vocantur filii Jehovae. Theodore of Mopsuestia (apud Fred. Fritzsche, Theodori Mops, in N. T. Commentar. p. 2): ὥσπερ γὰρ (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) κοινωνόν ἐστι πατρί τε καὶ υἱῷ εἰς τὴν τοῦ παντὸς δημιουργίαν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου τοῦ σωτῆρος σῶμα κατεσκεύασε.

ἐκ πνεύμ. ἅγ., moreover, is added, not as an object to εὑρέθη, but from the historical standpoint, to secure at once a correct judgment upon the ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα (ἐθεράπευσε τὸν λόγον, Euth. Zigabenus).

REMARK.

As regards the conception of Jesus by a virgin, we have to notice the following points in their exegetical bearing:(1) Mary was either a daughter of David (the common view), or she was not. See on Mat_1:17, Remark 2. In the first case, Jesus, whose divine generation is assumed, was, as Matthew and Luke relate, a descendant of David, although not through an unbroken line of male succession, but in such a way that His mother alone conveyed to Him the Davidic descent. But if Mary were not a daughter of David, then, by the divine conception, the possibility of Jesus being a descendant of David is simply excluded; because, on that view, the Davidite Joseph remains out of consideration, and this would be in contradiction not only with the statements of prophecy, but also with the unanimous testimony of the N. T. (2) As it is nowhere said or hinted in the N. T. that Mary was a descendant of David, we must assume that this is tacitly presupposed in the narratives of Matthew and Luke. But as a consequence of this supposition, the genealogical trees would lose all their importance, in so far as they are said to prove that Jesus was υἱὸς Δαυείδ (Mat_1:1). Josephs descent from David, upon which in reality nothing would turn, would be particularly pointed out; while Marys similar descent, upon which everything would depend, would remain unmentioned as being a matter of course, and would not be, even once, incidentally alluded to in what follows, say by θυγάτηρ Δαυείδ, as Joseph is at once addressed in Mat_1:20 as υἱὸς Δαυείδ. (3) Paul and Peter (Rom_1:3-4; Act_2:30 : ἐκ σπέρματος, ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος; comp. 2Ti_2:8) designate the descent of Jesus from David in such a way, that without calling in the histories of the birth in the first and third Gospels, there is no occasion for deriving the Davidic descent from the mother, to the interruption of the male line of succession, for which Gal_4:4[358] also affords neither cause nor justification. Nowhere, moreover, where Paul speaks of the sending of the Son of God, and of His human yet sinless nature (2Co_5:21; Rom_8:3; Php_2:6 f.), does he betray any indication that he presupposes that divine conception.[359] (4) Just as little does John, whose expression ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, although he was so intimate with Jesus and His mother, leaves the question as to the how of this ἐγένετο without a direct answer, indeed; but also, where Jesus is definitely designated by others as Josephs son, contributes no word of correction (Joh_1:46, Joh_6:42; comp. Joh_7:27),nay, relates the self-designation Son of a man from Jesus own mouth (see on Joh_5:27), where the context does not allow us to refer ἀνθρώπου to His mother. (5) It is certain, further, that neither in Nazareth (Mat_13:55; Mar_6:3; Luk_4:22), nor in Capernaum (Joh_6:42), nor elsewhere in the neighbourhood (Joh_1:46), do we meet with such expressions, in which a knowledge of anything extraordinary in the descent of Jesus might be recognised; and in keeping with this also is the unbelief of His own brethren (Joh_7:3),nay, even the behaviour and bearing of Mary (Mar_3:21; Mar_3:31; comp. on Mat_12:46-50; see also Luk_2:50 f.). (6) We have still to observe, that what is related in Mat_1:18 would obviously have greatly helped to support the suspicion and reproach of illegitimate birth, and yet nowhere throughout the N. T. is there found the slightest whisper of so hostile a report.[360] If, moreover, in the narratives of the first and third evangelists, angelic appearances occur, which, according to the connection of the history, mutually exclude each other (Strauss, I. p. 165 ff.; Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 362 ff.),namely, in Matthew, after the conception, in order to give an explanation to Joseph; in Luke, before the conception, to make a disclosure to Mary,nevertheless that divine conception itself might remain, and in and of itself be consistent therewith, if it were elsewhere certainly attested in the N. T., or if it could be demonstrated as being an undoubted presupposition, belonging to the conception of Christ as the Son of God.

[358] Certainly, in Rom_1:4, Paul expressly refers Christs relation to God as His Son to His πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, not to His σάρξ. See on Rom_1:3. The supernatural generation is not a logical consequence of his system, as Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 315, thinks. If Paul had conceived the propagation of sin as taking place by means of generation (which is probable, although he has not declared himself upon the point), he cannot, in so thinking,after the history of the fall (2Co_11:3), and after Psa_51:7,have regarded the womans share as a matter of indifference.

[359] We should all the more have expected this origin to have been stated by Paul, that he, on the one side, everywhere ascribes to Christ true and perfect humanity (Rom_5:15; 1Co_15:21, al.), and, on the other, so often gives prominence to His elevation above sinful humanity; for which reason he also designates the σάρξ of Christwhich was human, and yet was not, as in other men, the seat of sinas ὁμοίωμα σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας (Rom_8:3), with which Heb_2:14; Heb_2:17 also agrees.

[360] The generation (nay, according to Luk_2:5, the birth also) before the marriage was concluded is necessarily connected with faith in the divine generation. The reproach of illegitimate birth was not raised by the Jews until a later time (Origen, c. Celsum, 1:28), as a hostile and base inference from the narratives of Matthew and Luke. Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 526 f. They called Jesus a Mamser [i.e. one born in incest]. See Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. I p. 105 ff.

Taking into account all that precedes, it is clear, in the first place, that the doctrine which became dominant in the church, in opposition to all Ebionitism, of the birth of Jesus Christ from a virgin, is indeed fully justified on exegetical grounds by the preliminary history in Matthew and Luke; but that, secondly, apart from the preliminary history, no glimpse of this doctrine appears anywhere in the N. T.,nay, that elsewhere in the N. T. it has to encounter considerable difficulties of an exegetical kind, without, however, breaking down before physiological or theological impossibilities (in answer to Strauss). Exegetically, therefore, the proposition of faith, that in Jesus the only-begotten Son of God entered as man into humanity, cannot be made to depend upon the conception, which is recorded only in Matthew and Luke,[361] but must also, irrespective of the latter, remain fast and immutable in its full and real meaning of the incarnation of the divine Logos, which took place, and takes place, in no other; so that that belief cannot be made to depend on the manner in which Jesus was conceived, and in which the Spirit of God acted at the very commencement of His human existence. And this not merely for exegetical, but also for dogmatical reasons, since the incarnation of the Son of God is by no means to be subjected to the rule of universal sinful origin (Joh_3:6) in fallen humanity (by which His whole redemptive work would be reduced to nothing); and which indeed must alsoconsidering the supernatural conceptionbe conceived as exempted on the mothers side from this rule of traducianism.[362]

[361] The comparison with heathen παρθενογενεῖς, called παρθένιοι in Homer, such as Buddha, Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Plato, Romulus (see the literature in Hase, Leb. Jesu, § 27 a), should have been here left entirely out of consideration,partly because they belong, for the most part, to an entirely foreign sphere of life, have no analogies in the N. T., and amount to apotheoses ex eventu (Origen, c. Celsum, 1:37); partly because so many of the παρθένιοι are only the fruits of the lust of the gods (see Homer, Ilias, 16:180 ff.). Far too much weight has been attached to them, and far too much has been transferred to them from the Christian idea of the Son of God, when the thought is found expressed in them that nothing can come forth by the way of natural generation which would correspond to the ideal of the human mind, Olshausen, Neander, Krabbe, Schmid, bibl. Theol. I. p. 43; Döllinger, Heidenth. u. Judenth. p. 256.

[362] Comp. Schleiermacher, Christl. Glaube, § 97, p. 64 ff., and Leben Jesu, p. 60 ff. Too much is asserted, when (see also Gess, Pers. Christ. p. 218 f.) the limitation is imposed upon the divine counsel and will, that the freedom of Jesus from original sin must necessarily presuppose the divine conception in the womb of the Virgin. The incarnation of the Logos is, once for all, a mystery of a peculiar kind; the fact is as certain and clear of itself as the manner in which it took place by way of human birth is veiled in mystery, and is in no way determinable à priori. This is also in answer to Philippis assertion (Dogmatik, IV. 1, p. 153, ed. 2), that the idea of the God-man stands or falls with that of the birth from a virgin,a dangerous but erroneous dilemma. Dangerous, because Mary was not free from original sin; erroneous, because God could also have brought about the incarnation of the Logos without original sin in some other way than by a birth from a virgin.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 1:18-25 . THE BIRTH OF JESUS. This section gives the explanation which ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη (Mat 1:16 ) leads us to expect. It may be called the justification of the genealogy (Schanz), showing that while the birth was exceptional in nature it yet took place in such circumstances, that Jesus might justly be regarded as the legitimate son of Joseph, and therefore heir of David’s throne. The position of the name Τοῦ δὲ Ι . Χ . at the head of the sentence, and the recurrence of the word γένεσις , point back to Mat 1:1 ; γένεσις , not γέννησις , is the true reading, the purpose being to express the general idea of origin, ortus , not the specific idea of generation ( ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς ἐκαινοτόμησε τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ὄνομα τῆς γεννήσεως , γένεσιν αὐτὴν καλέσας . Euthy. Zig. on Mat 1:1 ).

Mat 1:18 . μνηστευθείσης … αὐτούς indicates the position of Mary in relation to Joseph when her pregnancy was discovered. Briefly it was betrothed, not married. Πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν means before they came together in one home as man and wife, it being implied that that would not take place before marriage. συνελθεῖν might refer to sexual intercourse, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned ( Joseph. Antiq. vii. 9, 5), but the evangelist would not think it necessary to state that no such intercourse had taken place between the betrothed. That he would regard as a matter of course. Yet most of the fathers so understood the word; and some, Chrysostom, e.g. , conceived Joseph and Mary to be living together before marriage, but sine concubitu , believing this to have been the usual practice. Of this, however, there is no satisfactory evidence. The sense above assigned to συνελ . corresponds to the verb παραλαβεῖν , Mat 1:20 , παρέλαβε , Mat 1:24 , which means to take home, domum ducere . The supposed reason for the practice alleged to have existed by Chrysostom and others was the protection of the betrothed ( διʼ ἀσφάλειαν , Euthy.). Grammarians ( vide Fritzsche) say that πρὶν ἢ is not found in ancient Attic, though often in middle Attic. For other instances of it, with infinitive, vide Mar 14:30 , Act 7:2 ; without ἢ , Mat 26:34 ; Mat 26:75 . On the construction of πρὶν with the various moods, vide Hermann ed. Viger, Klotz ed. Devarius, and Goodwin’s Syntax. εὑρέθη … ἔχουσα : εὑρέθη , not ἦν . (So Olearius, Observ. ad Ev. Mat. , and other older interpreters.) There was a discovery and a surprise. It was apparent (de Wette); διὰ τὸ ἀπροσδόκητον (Euthy.). To whom apparent not indicated. Jerome says: “Non ab alio inventa est nisi a Joseph, qui pene licentia maritali futurae uxoris omnia noverat”. ἐκ πν . ἁγ . This was not apparent; it belonged to the region of faith. The evangelist hastens to add this explanation of a painful fact to remove, as quickly as possible, all occasion for sinister conjecture. The expression points at once to immediate divine causality , and to the holy character of the effect: a solemn protest against profane thoughts.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ is the true Emmanuel, and therefore, Jesus (that is, Savior) is conceived in the Virgin by the holy Ghost, as it was foretold by the Prophets.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

The mystery of Christ's incarnation is to be adored, not pried into. If we know not the way of the Spirit in the formation of common persons, nor how the bones are formed in the womb of any one that is with child (Ecc 11:5), much less do we know how the blessed Jesus was formed in the womb of the blessed virgin. When David admires how he himself was made in secret, and curiously wrought (Psa 139:13-16), perhaps he speaks in the spirit of Christ's incarnation. Some circumstances attending the birth of Christ we find here which are not in Luke, though it is more largely recorded here. Here we have,

I. Mary's espousal to Joseph. Mary, the mother of our Lord, was espoused to Joseph, not completely married, but contracted; a purpose of marriage solemnly declared in words de futuro - that regarding the future, and a promise of it made if God permit. We read of a man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her, Deu 20:7. Christ was born of a virgin, but a betrothed virgin, 1. To put respect upon the marriage state, and to recommend it as honourable among all, against that doctrine of devils which forbids to marry, and places perfection in the single state. Who more highly favoured than Mary was in her espousals? 2. To save the credit of the blessed virgin, which otherwise would have been exposed. It was fit that her conception should be protected by a marriage, and so justified in the eye of the world. One of the ancients says, It was better it should be asked, Is not this the son of a carpenter? than, Is not this the son of a harlot? 3. That the blessed virgin might have one to be the guide of her youth, the companion of her solitude and travels, a partner in her cares, and a help meet for her. Some think that Joseph was now a widower, and that those who are called the brethren of Christ (Mat 13:55), were Joseph's children by a former wife. This is the conjecture of many of the ancients. Joseph was just man, she a virtuous woman. Those who are believers should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers: but let those who are religious choose to marry with those who are so, as they expect the comfort of the relation, and God's blessing upon them in it. We may also learn, from this example, that it is good to enter into the married state with deliberation, and not hastily - to preface the nuptials with a contract. It is better to take time to consider before than to find time to repent after.

II. Her pregnancy of the promised seed; before they came together, she was found with child, which really was of the Holy Ghost. The marriage was deferred so long after the contract that she appeared to be with child before the time came for the solemnizing of the marriage, though she was contracted before she conceived. Probably, it was after her return from her cousin Elizabeth, with whom she continued three months (Luk 1:56), that she was perceived by Joseph to be with child, and did not herself deny it. Note, Those in whom Christ is formed will show it: it will be found to be a work of God which he will own. Now we may well imagine, what a perplexity this might justly occasion to the blessed virgin. She herself knew the divine original of this conception; but how could she prove it? She would be dealt with as a harlot. Note, After great and high advancements, lest we should be puffed up with them, we must expect something or other to humble us, some reproach, as a thorn in the flesh, nay, as a sword in the bones. Never was any daughter of Eve so dignified as the Virgin Mary was, and yet in danger of falling under the imputation of one of the worse crimes; yet we do not find that she tormented herself about it; but, being conscious of her own innocence, she kept her mind calm and easy, and committed her cause to him that judgeth righteously. Note, those who take care to keep a good conscience may cheerfully trust God with the keeping of their good names, and have reason to hope that he will clear up, not only their integrity, but their honour, as the sun at noon day.

III. Joseph's perplexity, and his care what to do in this case. We may well imagine what a great trouble and disappointment it was to him to find one he had such an opinion of, and value for, come under the suspicion of such a heinous crime. Is this Mary? He began to think, "How may we be deceived in those we think best of! How may we be disappointed in what we expect most from!" He is loth to believe so ill a thing of one whom he believed to be so good a woman; and yet the matter, as it is too bad to be excused, is also too plain to be denied. What a struggle does this occasion in his breast between that jealousy which is the rage of man, and is cruel as the grave, on the one hand, and that affection which he has for Mary on the other!

Observe, 1. The extremity which he studied to avoid. He was not willing to make her a public example. He might have done so; for, by the law, a betrothed virgin, if she played the harlot, was to be stoned to death, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24. But he was not willing to take the advantage of the law against her; if she be guilty, yet it is not known, nor shall it be known from him. How different was the spirit which Joseph displayed from that of Judah, who in a similar case hastily passed that severe sentence, Bring her forth and let her be burnt! Gen 38:24. How good it is to think on things, as Joseph did here! Were there more of deliberation in our censures and judgments, there would be more of mercy and moderation in them. Bringing her to punishment is here called making her a public example; which shows what is the end to be aimed at in punishment - the giving of warning to others: it is in terrorem - that all about may hear and fear. Smite the scorner, and the simple will beware.

Some persons of a rigorous temper would blame Joseph for his clemency: but it is here spoken of to his praise; because he was a just man, therefore he was not willing to expose her. He was a religious, good man; and therefore inclined to be merciful as God is, and to forgive as one that was forgiven. In the case of the betrothed damsel, if she were defiled in the field, the law charitably supposed that she cried out (Deu 22:26), and she was not to be punished. Some charitable construction or other Joseph will put upon this matter; and herein he is a just man, tender of the good name of one who never before had done anything to blemish it. Note, It becomes us, in many cases, to be gentle towards those that come under suspicion of having offended, to hope the best concerning them, and make the best of that which at first appears bad, in hopes that it may prove better. Summum just summa injuria - The rigour of the law is (sometimes) the height of injustice. That court of conscience which moderates the rigour of the law we call a court of equity. Those who are found faulty were perhaps overtaken in the fault, and are therefore to be restored with the spirit of meekness; and threatening, even when just, must be moderated.

2. The expedient he found out for avoiding this extremity. He was minded to put her away privily, that is, to give a bill of divorce into her hand before two witnesses, and so to hush up the matter among themselves. Being a just man, that is, a strict observer of the law, he would not proceed to marry her, but resolved to put her away; and yet, in tenderness for her, determined to do it as privately as possible. Note, The necessary censures of those who have offended ought to be managed without noise. The words of the wise are heard in quiet. Christ himself shall not strive nor cry. Christian love and Christian prudence will hide a multitude of sins, and great ones, as far as may be done without having fellowship with them.

IV. Joseph's discharge from this perplexity by an express sent from heaven, Mat 1:20, Mat 1:21. While he thought on these things and knew not what to determine, God graciously directed him what to do, and made him easy. Note, Those who would have direction from God must think on things themselves, and consult with themselves. It is the thoughtful, not the unthinking, whom God will guide. When he was at a loss, and had carried the matter as far as he could in his own thoughts, then God came in with advice. Note, God's time to come in with instruction to his people is when they are nonplussed and at a stand. God's comforts most delight the soul in the multitude of its perplexed thoughts. The message was sent to Joseph by an angel of the Lord, probably the same angel that brought Mary the tidings of the conception - the angel Gabriel. Now the intercourse with heaven, by angels, with which the patriarchs had been dignified, but which had been long disused, begins to be revived; for, when the First-begotten is to be brought into the world, the angels are ordered to attend his motions. How far God may now, in an invisible way, make use of the ministration of angels, for extricating his people out of their straits, we cannot say; but this we are sure of, they are all ministering spirits for their good. This angel appeared to Joseph in a dream when he was asleep, as God sometimes spoke unto the fathers. When we are most quiet and composed we are in the best frame to receive the notices of the divine will. The Spirit moves on the calm waters. This dream, no doubt, carried its own evidence along with it that it was of God, and not the production of a vain fancy. Now,

1. Joseph is here directed to proceed in his intended marriage. The angel calls him, Joseph, thou son of David; he puts him in mind of his relation to David, that he might be prepared to receive this surprising intelligence of his relation to the Messiah, who, every one knew, was to be a descendant from David. Sometimes, when great honours devolve upon those who have small estates, they care not for accepting them, but are willing to drop them; it was therefore requisite to put this poor carpenter in mind of his high birth: "Value thyself. Joseph, thou art that son of David through whom the line of the Messiah is to be drawn." We may thus say to every true believer, "Fear not, thou son of Abraham, thou child of God; forget not the dignity of thy birth, thy new birth." Fear not to take Mary for thy wife; so it may be read. Joseph, suspecting she was with child by whoredom, was afraid of taking her, lest he should bring upon himself either guilt or reproach. No, saith God, Fear not; the matter is not so. Perhaps Mary had told him that she was with child by the Holy Ghost, and he might have heard what Elizabeth said to her (Luk 1:43), when she called her the mother of her Lord; and, if so, he was afraid of presumption in marrying one so much above him. But, from whatever cause his fears arose, they were all silenced with this word, Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. Note, It is a great mercy to be delivered from our fears, and to have our doubts resolved, so as to proceed in our affairs with satisfaction.

2. He is here informed concerning that holy thing with which his espoused wife was now pregnant. That which is conceived in her is of a divine original. He is so far from being in danger of sharing in an impurity by marrying her, that he will thereby share in the highest dignity he is capable of. Two things he is told,

(1.) That she had conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost; not by the power of nature. The Holy Spirit, who produced the world, now produced the Saviour of the world, and prepared him a body, as was promised him, when he said, Lo, I come, Heb 10:5. Hence he is said to be made of a woman (Gal 4:4), and yet to be that second Adam that is the Lord from heaven, Co1 15:47. He is the Son of God, and yet so far partakes of the substance of his mother as to be called the fruit of her womb, Luk 1:42. It was requisite that is conception should be otherwise than by ordinary generation, that so, so though he partook of the human nature, yet he might escape the corruption and pollution of it, and not be conceived and shapen in iniquity. Histories tell us of some who vainly pretended to have conceived by a divine power, as the mother of Alexander; but none ever really did so, except the mother of our Lord. His name in this, as in other things, is Wonderful. We do not read that the virgin Mary did herself proclaim the honour done to her; but she hid it in her heart, and therefore God sent an angel to attest it. Those who seek not their own glory shall have the honour that comes from God; it is reserved for the humble.

(2.) That she should bring forth the Saviour of the world (Mat 1:21). She shall bring forth a Son; what he shall be is intimated,

[1.] In the name that should be given to her Son: Thou shalt call his name Jesus, a Saviour. Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the Greek. Joshua is called Jesus (Act 7:45; Heb 4:8), from the Seventy. There were two of that name under the Old Testament, who were both illustrious types of Christ, Joshua who was Israel's captain at their first settlement in Canaan, and Joshua who was their high priest at their second settlement after the captivity, Zac 6:11, Zac 6:12. Christ is our Joshua; both the Captain of our salvation, and the High Priest of our profession, and, in both, our Saviour - a Joshua who comes in the stead of Moses, and does that for us which the law could not do, in that it was weak. Joshua had been called Hosea, but Moses prefixed the first syllable of the name Jehovah, and so made it Jehoshua (Num 13:16), to intimate that the Messiah, who was to bear that name, should be Jehovah; he is therefore able to save to the uttermost, neither is there salvation in any other.

[2.] In the reason of that name: For he shall save his people from their sins; not the nation of the Jews only (he came to his own, and they received him not), but all who were given him by the Father's choice, and all who had given themselves to him by their own. He is a king who protects his subjects, and, as the judges of Israel of old, works salvation for them. Note, those whom Christ saves he saves from their sins; from the guilt of sin by the merit of his death, from the dominion of sin by the Spirit of his grace. In saving them from sin, he saves them from wrath and the curse, and all misery here and hereafter. Christ came to save his people, not in their sins, but from their sins; to purchase for them, not a liberty to sin, but a liberty from sins, to redeem them from all iniquity (Tit 2:14); and so to redeem them from among men (Rev 14:4) to himself, who is separate from sinners. So that those who leave their sins, and give up themselves to Christ as his people, are interested in the Saviour, and the great salvation which he has wrought out, Rom 11:26.

V. The fulfilling of the scripture in all this. This evangelist, writing among the Jews, more frequently observes this than any other of the evangelists. Here the Old Testament prophecies had their accomplishment in our Lord Jesus, by which it appears that this was he that should come, and we are to look for no other; for this was he to whom all the prophets bore witness. Now the scripture that was fulfilled in the birth of Christ was that promise of a sign which God gave to king Ahaz (Isa 7:14), Behold a virgin shall conceive; where the prophet, encouraging the people of God to hope for the promised deliverance from Sennacherib's invasion, directs them to look forward to the Messiah, who was to come of the people of the Jews, and the house of David; whence it was easy to infer, that though that people and that house were afflicted, yet neither the one nor the other could be abandoned to ruin, so long as God had such an honour, such a blessing, in reserve for them. The deliverances which God wrought for the Old Testament church were types and figures of the great salvation by Christ; and, if God will do the greater, he will not fail to do the less.

The prophecy here quoted is justly ushered in with a Behold, which commands both attention and admiration; for we have here the mystery of godliness, which is, without controversy, great, that God was manifested in the flesh.

1. The sign given is that the Messiah shall be born of a virgin. A virgin shall conceive, and, by her, he shall be manifested in the flesh. The word Almah signifies a virgin in the strictest sense, such as Mary professes herself to be (Luk 1:34), I know not a man; nor had it been any such wonderful sign as it was intended for, if it had been otherwise. It was intimated from the beginning that the Messiah should be born of a virgin, when it was said that he should be the seed of the woman; so the seed of the woman as not to be the seed of any man. Christ was born of a virgin not only because his birth was to be supernatural, and altogether extraordinary, but because it was to be spotless, and pure, and without any stain of sin. Christ would be born, not of an empress or queen, for he appeared not in outward pomp or splendour, but of a virgin, to teach us spiritual purity, to die to all the delights of sense, and so to keep ourselves unspotted from the world and the flesh that we may be presented chaste virgins to Christ.

2. The truth proved by this sign is, that he is the Son of God, and the Mediator between God and man: for they shall call his name Immanuel; that is, he shall be Immanuel; and when it is said, He shall be called, it is meant, he shall be, the Lord our righteousness. Immanuel signifies God with us; a mysterious name, but very precious; God incarnate among us, and so God reconcilable to us, at peace with us, and taking us into covenant and communion with himself. The people of the Jews had God with them, in types and shadows, dwelling between the cherubim; but never so as when the Word was made flesh - that was the blessed Shechinah. What a happy step is hereby taken toward the settling of a peace and correspondence between God and man, that the two natures are thus brought together in the person of the Mediator! by this he became an unexceptionable referee, a days-man, fit to lay his hand upon them both, since he partakes of the nature of both. Behold, in this, the deepest mystery, and the richest mercy, that ever was. By the light of nature, we see God as a God above us; by the light of the law, we see him as a God against us; but by the light of the gospel, we see him as Immanuel, God with us, in our own nature, and (which is more) in our interest. Herein the Redeemer commended his love. With Christ's name, Immanuel, we may compare the name given to the gospel church (Eze 48:35). Jehovah Shammah - The Lord is there; the Lord of hosts is with us.

Nor is it improper to say that the prophecy which foretold that he should be called Immanuel was fulfilled, in the design and intention of it, when he was called Jesus; for if he had not been Immanuel - God with us, he could not have been Jesus - a Saviour; and herein consists the salvation he wrought out, in the bringing of God and man together; this was what he designed, to bring God to be with us, which is our great happiness, and to bring us to be with God, which is our great duty.

VI. Joseph's obedience to the divine precept (Mat 1:24). Being raised from sleep by the impression which the dream made upon him, he did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, though it was contrary to his former sentiments and intentions; he took unto him his wife; he did is speedily, without delay, and cheerfully, without dispute; he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. Extraordinary direction like this we are not now to expect; but God has still ways of making known his mind in doubtful cases, by hints of providence, debates of conscience, and advice of faithful friends; by each of these, applying the general rules of the written word, we should, therefore, in all the steps of our life, particularly the great turns of it, such as this of Joseph's, take direction from God, and we shall find it safe and comfortable to do as he bids us.

VII. The accomplishment of the divine promise (Mat 1:25). She brought forth her first-born son. The circumstances of it are more largely related, Luk 2:1, etc. Note, That which is conceived of the Holy Ghost never proves abortive, but will certainly be brought forth in its season. What is of the will of the flesh, and of the will of man, often miscarries; but, if Christ be formed in the soul, God himself has begun the good work which he will perform; what is conceived in grace will no doubt be brought forth in glory.

It is here further observed, 1. That Joseph, though he solemnized the marriage with Mary, his espoused wife, kept at a distance from her while she was with child of this Holy thing; he knew her not till she had brought him forth. Much has been said concerning the perpetual virginity of our Lord: Jerome was very angry with Helvidius for denying it. It is certain that it cannot be proved from scripture. Dr. Whitby inclines to think that when it is said, Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born, it is intimated that, afterwards, the reason ceasing, he lived with her, according to the law, Exo 21:10. 2. That Christ was the first-born; and so he might be called though his mother had not any other children after him, according to the language of scripture. Nor is it without a mystery that Christ is called her first-born, for he is the first-born of every creature, that is, the Heir of all things; and he is the first-born among many brethren, that in all things he may have the pre-eminence. 3. That Joseph called his name Jesus, according to the direction given him. God having appointed him to be the Saviour, which was intimated in his giving him the name Jesus, we must accept of him to be our Saviour, and, in concurrence with that appointment, we must call him Jesus, our Saviour.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 18. Espoused to Joseph] The word μνηστευθεισης, from μνηστευω, 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: De 20:7; Jdg 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 De 22:25; De 22:28. 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, De 22:23-24, and had her stoned to death.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(18) St. Matthew, for some reason or other, omits all mention of what St. Luke relates very fully, as to the events that preceded the birth of Jesus and brought about the birth at Bethlehem. Either he had not access to any document full and trustworthy, like that which St. Luke made use of, or, as every writer of history must fix a beginning more or less arbitrary, he found his starting-point in those facts which took a foremost place in what bore upon the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy. It has been said that the impression left by his narrative is so far misleading, that it suggests the idea that there was no earlier connection with Nazareth than that which we find in 2:23. It must, however, be remembered that even St. Luke’s narrative tells us nothing as to the original home of Joseph, and that one who himself belonged to Bethlehem, as being of the house and lineage of David, might, without any improbability, be betrothed to a maiden of Nazareth, probably of the same lineage. Of the earlier life of Mary the Canonical Gospels tell us nothing, and the Apocryphal Gospels (though they have furnished the groundwork of the treatment of the subject by Christian art—see Notes on Luk_1:27) are too legendary to be relied on. The omission of any mention of her parents suggests the idea of orphanhood, possibly under the guardianship of Joseph. The non-appearance of Joseph in the records of our Lord’s ministry, makes it probable that he died in the interval between the visit to the Temple of Luk_2:42 and the preaching of the Baptist, and that he was older than Mary. Both were poor; Joseph worked as a carpenter (Mat_13:55), Mary offered the cheaper sacrifice of “two young pigeons” (Luk_2:24). They had no house at Bethlehem (Luk_2:7). Mary was related to Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah the priest (Luk_1:36). Both were within the circle of those who cherished Messianic expectations, and to whom, therefore, the announcement that these expectations were to be fulfilled would come as the answer to their hopes and prayers.

Was espoused to Joseph.—Betrothal, among the Jews, was a formal ceremony, the usual symbolic act being, from patriarchal times, the gift of a ring and other jewels (Gen_24:53). The interval between betrothal and marriage was of uncertain length, but among the Jews of our Lord’s time was commonly for a whole year in the case of maidens. During that time the bride-elect remained in her own home, and did not see the bridegroom till he came to fetch her to his own house. All communications in the meantime were conducted through “the friend of the bridegroom” (Joh_3:29).

Of the Holy Ghost.—To Joseph and those who heard the new report from him, prior to the more precise truths revealed by our Lord’s teaching, the words would at least suggest a divine creative energy, quickening supernaturally the germ of life, as in Gen_1:2, Psa_104:30.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. Jesus] see Mat_1:21.

Christ (anointed)] The title of Jesus as Prophet, Priest and King; for among the Jews, Prophets, Priests and Kings were anointed on entering upon their office. Christos, very rare as a classical Greek word, is a translation of the Hebr. Mashiach, a term applied to the Saviour in one passage only of the O. T. (Dan_9:25-26). In the N. T. the Hebrew form is used twice (Joh_1:41; Joh_4:25), where it is explained “which is called Christ.” Note that one title—Messiah or Christ—has been adopted almost to the exclusion of others quite as common in the O.T., “The Branch,” “He that cometh” (Habba), “The Prophet.” This is partly due to the great influence of Daniel’s prophecy, partly to the appropriateness of the title to the Son of David.

Mary] The Hebr. form is Miriam; the Greek Maria.

espoused (betrothed)] Among the Jews the betrothal took place a year before marriage, and during the interval the betrothed maiden remained with her own family. But from the day of betrothal the pair were regarded as man and wife.

18–25. The Birth of Jesus Christ. Luk_1:26-56; Luk_2:4-7

St Mark and St John give no account of the birth of Jesus, St Luke narrates several particulars not recorded by Matthew, (1) the annunciation, (2) Mary’s salutation of Elizabeth in a city of Juda (or Juttah), and (3) the journey from Galilee to Bethlehem.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ,.... The Evangelist having finished the genealogy of Christ, proceeds to give an account of his birth, which includes both his conception and bringing forth; and which he says

was on this wise, so, "after this manner", and which was very wonderful and astonishing;

when as, for his mother Mary was found with child, not of man, no, not of Joseph her husband; Christ had no real father as man, Joseph was only, as was supposed, his father; but

of the Holy Ghost, according to Luk 1:35. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee", &c. and this was done that the human nature of Christ might be clear of original pollution; that so being the immediate produce of the Holy Ghost and without sin, it might be fit for union with the Son of God, and for the office of Mediator he had undertook. When Mary is said to be

found with child, the meaning is, it appeared by evident signs, it was observed by Joseph particularly, who might know not only that she was with child, but with child of the Holy Ghost; by conversation with her, who might relate to him what passed between the Angel and her, Luk 1:28 though it looks as if as yet he did not know this, or at least was not fully satisfied about it; since he had a mind to have put her away, before he was assured of the truth of it, by the appearance of an angel to him. Now Mary's being with child, and its being known, were facts, at the time when she was

espoused to Joseph, and thereby the outward credit both of Mary and Jesus were secured; for had this appeared before the espousals, the Jews would have fixed a brand of infamy on them both; and both the espousals and her being found with child, were

before they came together; that is, before they cohabited together as man and wife, before he brought her home to his own house and bed. The espousals were before they thus came together. It was usual with the Jews first to espouse or betroth, and then to marry, or rather consummate the marriage, by bringing the woman home to her husband's house, between which there was some space of time. The account and manner of betrothing is given by Maimonides (y) in the following words.

"Before the giving of the law, if a man met a woman in the street, if he would, he might take her, and bring her into his house and marry her between him and herself, and she became his wife; but when the law was given, the Israelites were commanded, that if a man would take a woman he should obtain her before witnesses, and after that she should be his wife, according to Deu 22:13 and these takings are an affirmative command of the law, and are called "espousals" or "betrothings" in every place; and a woman who is obtained in such a way is called "espoused" or "betrothed"; and when a woman is obtained, and becomes "espoused", although she is not yet "married, nor has entered into her husband's house", yet she is a man's wife.''

And such a distinction between a married woman and a betrothed virgin, which was Mary's case, may be observed in Deu 22:22 moreover, her being found or appearing to be with child, was "before they came together"; which it is likely, as Dr. Lightfoot (z) observes, was about three months from her conception, when she was returned from her cousin Elizabeth. It is probable that as soon as she was espoused to Joseph, or quickly after, she went and paid her visit to Elizabeth, with whom she stayed about three months, and then returned home, Luk 1:56. Upon her return home, she appears to be with child, with which she had gone three months, a proper time for the discovery of such a matter, Gen 38:24 and which is assigned by the Jewish doctors for this purpose. In the Misna (a) such a case as this is put,

"If two men should espouse two women, and at the time of their entrance into the bride chamber, the one should be taken for the other--they separate them for three months, because they may prove with child;''

that is, as Bartenora observes upon it,

"they separate them that they may not return to their husbands; and that if they should be with child, they may distinguish between a legitimate and an illegitimate offspring; and that the children which they may bring forth may not be ascribed to the wrong persons.''

Now Mary being gone three months from the time of her espousals to Joseph, and he and she not being yet come together, it was a clear case, that the child she was gone three months with, was none of his; hence it follows,

(y) Hilchot. Ishot. c. 1. sect. 1, 2, 3. (z) In loc. (a) Yebamot, c. 3. sect. 10.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Ver. 18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ] A γενεσει from γεννησιν transit. And being to relate a strange thing, and till then never heard of, he elegantly stirs up the hearers’ mind with this preface.

When as his mother Mary was espoused] An ancient and commendable custom. Adam took his wife the first day of their creation (she was espoused to him), but knew her not till after the fall: Lot’s daughters were espoused, yet had not known man, Gen 19:8; Gen 19:14. See Deu 22:22. Yea, the very heathens had their espousals, Jdg 14:1; Placuit, despondi: nuptiis hic dictus est dies, saith he in Terence. We agreed, were contracted, and the wedding day appointed.

To Joseph, before they came together] Espoused they were by a special providence. 1. That Mary might not be held a harlot. 2. That being big, and needing necessary help, she might be provided for. 3. That the mystery of Christ might be made known by degrees.

She was found with child of the Holy Ghost] This wonderful conception of our Saviour is a mystery not much to be pried into, {a} and is therefore called an overshadowing, Luk 1:35. Where also, lest any should mistake this of in the text for the material cause: as if the Holy Ghost had begotten him of his own substance (as fathers do their children), the whole order and manner of this conception, so far as concerneth us to know, is declared by the angel.

{a} Mirari licet, rimari non licet.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ - The circumstances attending his birth.

Was on this wise - In this manner.

Espoused - Betrothed, or engaged to be married. There was commonly an interval of ten or twevle months, among the Jews, between the contract of marriage and the celebration of the nuptials (see Gen 24:55; Jdg 14:8; Deu 20:7), yet such was the nature of this engagement, that unfaithfulness to each other was deemed adultery. See Deu 22:25, Deu 22:28.

With child by the Holy Ghost - See the note at Luk 1:35.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The account of the birth of Jesus Christ follows his genealogy. From these words, "before they came together," Helvidius and others have started objections, which have been answered long ago by St. Jerome, where he shews in many examples from Scripture, that the words before and until do not signify what happened afterwards; for that point is left indefinite, but only what was done before, or not done. Thus when it is said, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies they footstool, Psalm cix, by no means signifies, that after the subjection of his enemies, the Son of God is no longer to sit at the right hand of his Father. In common conversation, when we say that a man died before he reached his 30th year, we do not mean that he afterwards attained it. Or, should we say that Helvidius died before he did penance, we cannot mean that he afterwards did penance: the same conclusion should be deduced from the words, "before they came together," the end being accomplished by the power of the operation of the Holy Ghost, without their going together. If we should advance, that such a man was cured before he went to a physician, the natural inference would be, that he did not go to a physician at all. Thus also in the language of Scripture, the word first-begotten does not mean after whom others were born, but before whom no one was born, where there were further issue or not. And the reason is, because the law required that a sacrifice should be offered for the first-born, and that he should be redeemed very soon after his birth; nor did it allow the parents to wait and see if any other son should be born. (Estius) --- True and perfect marriage, and continual living in the same, without knowing each other. (St. Augustine, lib. ii. Consen. Evang. chap. i.) (Bristow)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The evangelist prefaceth this extraordinary birth of our Saviour in this manner.

Now the birth or Jesus Christ was on this wise; not in the ordinary course and manner in which children are conceived and brought forth into the world (with child of the Holy Ghost Luk 1:35), but in this wonderful manner.

When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph. Betrothing, or espousing, was nothing else but a solemn promise of marriage made by two persons each to other, at such a distance of time as they agreed upon. It was a decent usage, approved of (if not ordained) by God, as appears by Deu 20:7. That we are obliged still to use it I dare not say; it might be a prudential order and constitution of that state. There was nothing in it typical, nothing to bring it under the notion of a carnal ordinance, as the apostle calls some of their ordinances relating to the worship of God. It seemeth equitable, that the parties to be married might have some convenient time to think seriously of the great change they are soon to make in their lives, and more solemnly seek unto God for his blessing upon them; as also that they might more freely discourse together about their household affairs, and the settlement of their families, than the modesty of the virgins of that age would otherwise have allowed them. It made them man and wife before God, though they came not together for some time after. The distance of time seemeth to have been left to the agreement of parties and parents. In this case we cannot certainly assert the distance, but it appeareth to have been such as that she was

found with child before they came together. Mary knew what the evangelist here asserts, that it was by

the Holy Ghost; for as she must know that she had not known man as she told the angel, Luk 1:34; so the angel had satisfied her, saying, Luk 1:35, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. It cannot be doubted but that she revealed this to some of her friends, but how it came to be found, or who found it, we are not told. Joseph as yet had no such revelation.

God would have his Son to be born of a virgin:

1. For the fulfilling of the promise, Isa 7:14.

2. Of the Holy Ghost, that the womb of the virgin being sanctified by the Spirit of holiness, there might be no traduction of original sin.

Of a betrothed virgin:

1. That he might not be under the reproach of illegitimacy.

2. Nor his mother subjected to the punishment of the Judaical law.

3. That Mary’s stock might be by her betrothed husband.

4. That Christ might have a guard in his infancy.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

§ 7. AN ANGEL ANNOUNCES JESUS’S BIRTH TO JOSEPH. Matthew vv18-25.

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 (Act_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, (Luk_1:28,) Blessed art thou among women, etc.; language which is paralleled by the words concerning Jael in Jdg_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 Mat_1:20, 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. Gen_6:3; Gen_49:21. God sends forth this his Spirit. Proverbs 23; Isa_42:1. This Spirit thus sent forth is an agent, Act_8:29; Act_10:19; and a person, being designated by a personal pronoun. Joh_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. Mat_28:19. So the same three appear in the apostolical benediction. 2Co_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.”

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 18-25. JESUS THE CHRIST BY DIVINE ORIGIN. Recorded by Matthew only. The frequent similarity of language found in Luk_1:26-35 (vide Synopticon") is probably due to the fact that Joseph and Mary not unnaturally fell into the way of using the same words to express two messages of similar import.

The object of this paragraph is to show that Messiah was in origin not of man but of God. This fact was accepted even by his reputed father Joseph, who was only convinced of it after a special communication by an angel in a dream; giving him the facts of the case, and foretelling that a son would be born, and that this Son would be the expected Saviour; and also showing from prophecy that such union of God with man was no unheard-of supposition, but the fulfilment and completion of ancient thought suggested by God. Joseph at once accepts the communication and takes Mary home, avoiding, however, all cause for the supposition that the child was, after all, of human origin.

Now the birth (ver. 1, note). Gennhsiv ("generation") of the received text refers to the causative act, the true reading (genesiv) to the birth itself. (cf. Luk_1:14) Of Jesus Christ was on this wise. The Revised Version margin says, "Some ancient authorities read, "of the Christ, but perhaps the reading, "of Christ Jesus" (B Origen), is even preferable, as in no good manuscript of the New Testament is the article elsewhere prefixed to "Jesus Christ," and the easy residing, "of the Christ," would hardly provoke alteration, while it might easily arise from assimilation to the preceding "unto the Christ" of ver. 17 (cf. Dr. Hort, in Westcott and Hort, "Appendix." Bishop Westcott, however, seems to prefer the reading. "of the Christ," and so distinctly Irenaeus, 3:16). If the reading, "of Christ Jesus," be accepted, the evangelist purposely repeats his phrase of ver. 17, and then identifies him with the historic Person. When as. The Revised Version omits "as" because obsolete; cf. "what time as." His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph; had been betrothed (Revised Version), the tense clearly showing that the betrothal had already taken place. Betrothal was and is with the Semitic races a much more formal matter than with us, and as binding as marriage; of. Deu_22:23, Deu_22:24; cf. also the words of the angel, "Mary thy wife" (ver. 20). Before they came together; including, probably, both the home-bringing (ver. 24) and the consummation (ver. 25). She was found (eurwyh). Although Cureton ("Corp. Ign.," p. 271) shows that the Aramaic equivalent is used in the sense of "became," and wishes to see this weaker meaning in several passages of the Greek Testament (including, apparently, the present), the references that he gives (Rom_7:10 2Co_5:3 2Co_11:12) do not justify us in giving up the stronger and more usual sense. On eureyh always involving more or less prominently the idea of a surprise, cf. Bishop Lightfoot on Gal_2:17. Observe the reverent silence with which a whole stage of the history is passed over. With child of the Holy Ghost (ek Pneumatov Agiou ; cf. ver. 20, without the article in both cases). According to the usual interpretation of these words, "the Holy Ghost" refers to the Third Person of the Trinity, and "of" ( ek) is used because the agent can be regarded as the immediate source. (cf. 2Co_2:2) But the questions suggest themselves:

(1) whether Pneuma Agion is here used in a strictly Christian or in a pre-Christian sense? and

(2) if the latter, what was this pre-Christian sense? As to (1), it may be argued that the evangelist himself, writing long after Pentecost, and recording sayings taught among Christians only alter Pentecost, would naturally wish his words to be understood in a Christian sense; and hence that Pneuma Agion here has at least that comparatively developed doctrine of the Personality of the Holy Ghost which we find indicated in the New Testament; e.g. Mat_28:19 2Co_13:13 Joh 14-16. It may, however, be justly replied that the words are in themselves rather a record of the feelings of Joseph and Mary about the Incarnation, and are merely a translation of the phrase Ruah-hakodesh (or its Aramaic equivalent, Ruah Kudsha), which they themselves used; and that hence its true meaning here must be rather sought in the meaning of the Semitic phrase in pre-Christian times. In other words, Pneuma Agion here means neither more nor less than Ruah-hakodesh meant on the lips of a godly and instructed Jew before the teaching of Christ, and especially before Pentecost.

(3) What was this pre-Christian sense? What did Ruah-hakodesh mean? To answer this fully would be to compile a treatise on one of the most difficult and disputed points of Old Testament and early Jewish theology. But a cursory comparison of passages in the Old Testament and the pre-Christian writings seems to show that, though there are many places which quite fall in with the Trinitarian view, and which are often marked by strong personification of the Spirit, (e.g. Isa_63:10-14; cf. further App. A. in Dr. Sharpe"s "The Tree of Life," Cambridge, 1889) religious Jews did not understand by Ruah-hakodesh a permanent and distinct hypostasis in the Deity, but rather the Deity itself in relation to the world as the Source and Maintenance of its life, (Job_33:4 Psa_104:30 Job_34:14 Psa_139:7 Isa_63:10; cf. RAPC Wis 1:7 12:1) in contrast to the Deity absolutely and as the object of worship. Pre-Christian thought, that is to say, used the term "Holy Spirit" as designating the One God in a certain relation to the world, not as designating a permanent and real distinction in the Godhead. If this be so, we must understand the phrase here to mean that Christ was conceived of God (not of any Person in the Godhead) in contrast to man. We may, perhaps, even give to ek its fullest meaning of" origin". (cf Joh_1:13, ouk exaimatwn ... all ek Yeou) The phrase as a whole thus only insists that the Child was by origin Divine. It will be noticed that Luk_1:35 is then closely parallel, "the Holy Ghost" (Pneuma Agion) there apparently connoting an outpouring of life; "the power of the Most High" (dunamiv uqistou), an outpouring of strength. Dorner ("System.," 3:343; cf. 162, etc.) says that the expression in our text is "the less precise ancient Christian designation of the Divine Essence generally, out of which (de quo) Christ has come. To the Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian sense is only to be ascribed, according to the Scriptures, first, the internal preparation of humanity for the Divine Incarnation, and, secondly, after the Unio the animation of the humanity of Christ by the Divine power issuing from the Logos." The passage in Martensen"s "Dogmatics," so well known for its latter part, apparently agrees with this: "He is born not of the will of a man, nor of the will of the flesh; but the holy will of the Creator took the place of the will of man and of the will of the flesh, that is, the creating Spirit, who was in the beginning, fulfilled the function of the plastic principle. He was born of the Virgin Mary, the chosen woman in the chosen people. It was the task of Israel to provide, not, as has been often said, Christ himself, but the mother of the Lord; to develop the susceptibility for Christ to a point when it might be able to manifest itself as the pro-foundest unity of nature and spirit a unity which found expression in the pure virgin. In her the pious aspirations of Israel and of mankind, their faith in the promises, are centred; she is the purest point in history and in nature, and she, therefore, becomes the appointed medium for the new creation." Observe that the Greek Creeds (sarkwyenta gennhyenta , Marcellus ek Pneumatov Agiou kai Mariav thv Paryenou), by not inserting the article (contrast afterwards kai eiv to Pneuma to Agion), probably intended only to reproduce St. Matthew"s language. The Latin could not fail to be ambiguous (de Spiritu Sancto). If, however, we divest ourselves of considerations directly derived from exegesis, and, turning to the theological side, ask which Person of the Blessed Trinity, in fact, prepared Mary for the Incarnation of the Second Person, we must undoubtedly answer that it was the Third Person. For this is his peculiar function, uniting alike the Persons in the Godhead and also the Godhead to creation. (cf. Dorner, "System.," 1:425, 437; 4:159, etc.)

Vers. 18-25. The birth of Jesus Christ.

I THE DISTRESS OF MARY.

1. She was betrothed to Joseph. They had loved one another with a pure and holy love; now they were betrothed. The tie of betrothal was in the eyes of the Jews as sacred as that of marriage. The bridegroom had not yet taken home his bride; she was still in her parents" house. They were looking forward to the coming nuptials. It was the time upon which, years afterwards, men look back with such tender recollections the time when young love was budding in all its freshness and purity; the time gilded by so many bright hopes of happiness to come; a time especially blessed when both are living in the faith and love of God, and are looking forward to live together in that holy estate of matrimony, which represents the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and the Church.

2. She was found with child. Every rose has its thorns; that bright, happy time is often, in ordinary experience, clouded with difficulties and anxieties. Never was there a greater trial for a betrothed pair than this which befell Joseph and Mary. "They loved one another, we may be sure, deeply, sincerely. Now there was a barrier between them; it seemed an impassable hairier. Mary knew the secret: did she tell her betrothed? It may be that she thought it too sacred, too awful; she could not tell even Joseph. She had received the angel"s message in implicit faith. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord," she had said; "be it unto me according to thy word." Perhaps she kept the secret in her heart; it was a strange mixture of awful joy and very bitter anguish. Those who are nearest to the Lord are often called to drink of his cup and to be baptized with his baptism. It was so now with the blessed virgin. She was to have that highest grace for which Jewish matrons longed so earnestly she was to be the mother of the Christ; but she had to undergo a trial most acutely painful, a shame most terrible to a pure maiden soul. She seemed unworthy of the love of him who loved her best, whom she loved with the deep affection of a tender virgin-heart. She bore it in patience, though her heart was breaking; it was the agony which she had anticipated when she yielded herself in faith to the holy will of God. Perhaps she bore it in silence; the mystery was too deep, too awful for words. Perhaps (for we cannot tell)she whispered it to Joseph. But it was too strange, too incredible. He loved her and he trusted her; there is no real love without mutual confidence. But there is a limit to the trustfulness of the most loving heart. And this story seemed altogether impossible. Joseph could not believe it. His suspicions were natural, excusable; but how cruelly they must have wounded the tender heart of Mary!

3. It was of the Holy Ghost. The evangelist relates in few and simple words the greatest fact in the world"s history; the miracle of miracles, in tile train of which lesser miracles must of necessity follow. The Incarnation is a truth above words, above the reach of human thought; it calls upon us, not for rhetorical description, but fur adoration and thanksgiving. "The Spirit of God had moved brooded upon the face of the waters" in the day when God created the heaven and the earth. And now in the beginning of the new creation the Holy Ghost had come upon the blessed virgin, the power of the Highest had overshadowed her. She was highly favoured indeed, blessed above all other women, chosen to be the mother of the Lord. Very pure and holy she must have been; it may well be, the holiest of women, as she was the most highly favoured. But she was a creature, born in sin like ourselves, needing, like ourselves, to be cleansed by the atoning blood of her own Divine Son. And now the unique grace and dignity vouchsafed unto her brought with it a season of heart-rending anguish.

II JOSEPH.

1. He was a just man. He too was sorely tried. He had tenderly loved his bctrothed; he loved her still. He was in a position of the greatest perplexity. Mary was conscious of her own innocence; the angel had announced to her the cause of her immaculate conception. Joseph had, at the most, only her word to trust in; appearances were against her; her statement, if she told him all, required a very high degree of unquestioning, trustful faith. But he was a just man; he would not do her wrong. He could not wholly believe; perhaps he did not wholly disbelieve. We may be sure chat he was distracted with anxiety. He was a just man; he wished to do what was right; but he was in a great difficulty; it caused him long and anxious thought.

2. His intention. He intended to adopt a middle course; he would not expose his betrothed; he loved her still. His justice was not the strict, stern justice which considers only the letter of the Law; it was tempered with the gentler feelings, mercy and compassion. He could not bring one whom he had loved so dearly into the danger of shame and death. But under circumstances so suspicious he could not consummate the marriage. He was minded to put her away privily.

III THE DIVINE INTERVENTION.

1. The solution of Joseph"s doubts. He thought on these things. We may be sure that he prayed. It was misery to him to mistrust his betrothed; it was misery to be doubtful about the right path to be pursued in a case of such momentous importance to them both. A holy man like Joseph, who prayed always, would pray most earnestly, most importunately under circumstances so distressing. At last the answer came. God will not leave his servants in perplexity; he will clear up their doubts; he will teach them what they ought to do. But trust in God does not remove the duty of thoughtfulness. We must think, as Joseph thought, seriously and prayerfully, when difficult questions present themselves. If we do this, God will not suffer us to be led astray; he will guide us aright.

2. The angel. The word means "messenger." The blessed angels are God"s messengers; they are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. They help us now, for they encamp round about those who fear the Lord. They bring God"s messages of love to us now, as they did then to Joseph; they guide us now, as they then guided him. The angel appeared to him in a dream; so they often whisper now the intimations of God"s holy will in the hour of quiet, in the silence of the night.

3. The message. It calmed the fears of Joseph, it removed his doubts, it enabled him to rejoice once more in the love of his betrothed. There was nothing to separate her from him. tie was to take her; her words, if she had told him, strange and mysterious as they were, were strictly true; that which was conceived in her was of the Holy Ghost. She should bring forth a Son, a Son who should be the Saviour of the world, not Joseph"s son, but entrusted for a time to Joseph"s care. Mary was to be the mother of the Lord, the highest honour surely ever vouchsafed to child of Adam; Joseph was to have the great joy of watching over his infancy and youth. Surely no charge so high and holy had ever been entrusted even to the blessed angels. It was God"s answer to prayer, the prayer of a righteous man which availeth much with God. His anxiety was over new; his doubts were dispelled; his path was clear. He was a righteous man; he had thought and he had prayed. God will answer us, he will guide us in our perplexities, and show us the path of duty, if, like Joseph, we try to live a holy life, if we think seriously, if we pray earnestly.

IV THE PROPHECY.

1. It must be fulfilled. For it was spoken of the Lord. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Isaiah is often called the evangelical prophet; in his prophecy we have the foreshadowing of the gospel, the good tidings of salvation; his very name points to the Saviour; it is "Jesus" with the elements reversed, it means "the salvation of Jehovah." The prophecy was given through him; but he was not the author of it, it came from God. God had spoken it, and he would make it good. He had announced his will long ago, and at length the time was come. "Now all this is come to pass," the angel said (for these words are part of the message), "that it might be fulfilled." All this had come to pass that human nature might be cleansed by its union with the Divine nature in the Person of Christ. That great result was the end contemplated by the prophecy; to fulfil the prophecy, and to save the souls of men, was the same thing, It was an end worthy of a Divine intervention, worthy of an angel-messenger. All this, the annunciation, the miraculous conception, all this is come to pass that his gracious purpose, announced so long ago, might now be fulfilled.

2. The substance of the prophecy. The Hebrew words mean literally, "The virgin is with child, and beareth a Son." The prophet is speaking of one virgin, one illustrious and unique, as Chrysostom says. The terms of the prophecy can be satisfied only by a miraculous conception, a supernatural birth. It is the sign which the Lord himself shall give the sign of the Messiah, the sign of deliverance from sin and death. That marvellous birth, foretold so solemnly, in such strange, startling language, was to be the beginning of the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God upon earth. For the virgin-born is the King, the King who must reign till all his enemies are put under his feet. And he is "God with us Immanuel. He has taken upon him the form of a servant; he is made in the likeness of men. He was from all eternity in the form of God, living in that glory which he had with the Father before the world was. Now he is Immanuel," God with us," the Word incarnate. "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." He has taken upon him our human nature, that by the mysterious union of the human and Divine in the one Person of Christ our human nature might be cleansed from the dark stain of sin, and be created anew after the image of God. God is with us with us to redeem, to cleanse, to regenerate, to sanctify. He abideth in us if we are truly his, he in us and we in him. He is with us always even to the end of the world, ready to hear our prayer, ready to help us, ready to save us even to the uttermost; for through the wondrous miracle of the Incarnation he is ours and we are his, if we abide in his love.

V THE HOLY NAME.

1. Joseph"s obedience. All his doubts were dispelled, his anguish was gone, he was filled with a strange and awful joy. His betrothed was to be the mother of the Messiah. He was to care for her now, to watch over the infancy of the holy Child. He took unto him his wife; he respected her spotless purity; he lived with her in reverential awe. At last the promised Child was born. Joseph looked upon the heavenly face of the blessed Babe. There is something very sweet in the calm face of an innocent infant. What a depth of celestial beauty must there have been in the smile of the infant Jesus! what a treasure of unspeakable joy must that holy Babe have been to Mary and Joseph! He called his name Jesus, in obedience to the angel"s bidding.

2. Many had borne that name already. It is the Greek form of the common Hebrew name Joshua. The first Joshua of whom we read was called originally Oshea or Hoshea; this name, which was also the name of the last King of Israel and of the first in order of the minor prophets, means "salvation." Moses added to it the sacred name, and called the son of Nun Jehoshua or Joshua, "the salvation of Jehovah" He fulfilled the prophecy contained in his name. He was steadfast in unswerving allegiance to Jehovah: "As for me and my house," he said, "we will serve the Lord." He was the Lord"s instrument in saving the people of Israel out of the hands of their enemies. He led them through the river Jordan, he fought their battles for them, he gave them rest in the promised land. In all this he was an eminent type of our Lord, who is the Captain of our salvation, who fought out the fearful conflict for us against the deadly enemy, who leads his people through the river of death into the everlasting rest. The name of their great leader naturally became common among the Jews; it appears again and again under its various forms, Oshea, Hoshea, Jehoshua, Joshua, Joshua, Jesus.

3. But only the Son of God fulfilled its blessed meaning. He was indeed the Salvation of Jehovah; he was Jehovah, God the Son, come in his infinite tenderness, in his Divine compassion, to save his people. "He shall save his people from their sins," the angel said. This was the meaning, the translation of the name. "He himself shall save his people," the Greek word means himself by his own power. The first Joshua saved the Israelites by the help of God; the second Joshua is himself God, therefore he himself is "able to save even to the uttermost all who come unto God by him." "He shall save his people." He came to "redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." He has a people, his own people, for he is a King, and his people are a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. They belong to him; they are his, bought with a price; they are not their own. All Christians are his by solemn dedication to his service in holy baptism; but in the deepest sense they only are his people in whom the promise is fulfilled, whom he is saving from their sins. Alas! there are some of whom it is written, "Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God". (Hos_1:9)

4. His salvation is present. He saves his people from their sins; not only from the punishment of sin, but from the sin itself. His precious blood, once shed upon the cross, cleanses all who believe in him from the defilement of sin. His gracious presence, abiding in the heart through the indwelling of his Spirit, saves his people from the dominion of sin. "The sting of death is sin;" "but God giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." This is the plain teaching of Holy Scripture; then if we are his, sin must be losing its power over us, for his blood is cleansing from all sin those who walk in the light of his presence, and he is saving them from the power of sin. We must try to realize in our own experience this victory over sin. Most people seem to be content with a life that falls very short of anything that can be called victory. But this is what God promises to give us; the Lord Jesus came to save his people from their sins; the purpose of his coming is not fulfilled in us unless we are saved from them. And he will save us, himself will save us, if we trust his word and come to him in faith.

5. And it is future, it is everlasting. Joshua led the children of Israel into Canaan; Jesus leads his people into heaven. He is preparing a place for us there, and is preparing us for it. Without holiness no man shall see the Lord; but he of God is made unto us Sanctification. He makes his people holy by the gift of his Spirit. He takes away the sting of death, which is sin, and changes death into sleep. Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord," for if they die in him, in spiritual union with him, he is their Jesus, their Saviour; the blessed meaning of the holy Name is realized in their experience, and refreshes their soul in death with its heavenly music.

LESSONS.

1. God"s holiest saints are often very sorely tried. Be patient; trust always.

2. God heareth prayer; he will bring the afflictions of his people to a happy issue.

3. The holy Name is exceeding precious and sacred; pronounce it with reverence; treasure it in your heart; do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus.

4. He shall save his people from their sins: is he saving you from yours?

Vers. 18-25. Nativity of our Lord.

I SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN NATURE OF OUR LORD. He who came to be a new Head and Source of life to humanity could scarcely be the product of the old stock. All other men have sprung from Adam; all that has appeared in humanity is the evolution of what was in the first man. No new blood has been infused into the race. But in Christ a new beginning is made. As a matter of fact, he has never been accounted for by natural causes. His distinctive character among men requires an unusual, exceptional origin. "If by close historical scrutiny or critical questioning we fail to resolve the miraculous character of Jesus the ultimate fact of Christianity into the common, known elements of our human nature; if the laws of heredity prove insufficient to.explain his generation; then the further question will at once arise whether there may not be other than natural elements present in human history which come to their perfect flower in Jesus of Nazareth? whether we may not find in the laws and forces of a supernatural evolution the sufficient explanation of his miraculous Person?" Expand by showing how neither Hebrew nor Gentile influences account for Jesus, and by showing the originality of the character and plan of Jesus, his sinlessness, his authority, his self-assertion.

II THE TRUE HUMANITY OF JESUS. The Son of God did not come and assume for a year or two the appearance of a man in his prime. He was born a human Child, as truly human as any of us, with all human appetites, necessary emotions, and liabilities. Human birth ushers human beings into an existence out of which they cannot retire. So it was with our Lord. He lived under the limitations and restrictions which necessarily attend human nature. His was a real humanity. "He that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one." We think of him as for the most part a spectator marking the conduct of others and caring for them, but having no righteousness of his own to maintain and continue. We are very conscious of the difficulties of the sanctified, but are apt to forget that he who sanctifies had the same temptations and the same difficulties. He as well as they had to watch and pray, to cry for aid and for relief, to put from him the views of the world which tempted him to abandon his high purpose. Miraculous birth is not necessarily an incarnation of God. But no miraculous birth recorded in the Bible was produced similarly to this. And the preparation thus made for the Incarnation is obvious. The mode of the Incarnation, as well as much else regarding it, is obscure; but it rosy be right to point here to one or two of its chief lessons or results.

1. Jesus is a Divine Person. That self which has ever been the same in all itsacts is Divine. He may act now through his human nature eating, sleeping, dying or he may act through his Divine nature; but he who does so is not a man, but God the Son. What we find in Christ is God furnishing himself with a human body, mind, and soul, through and in which he as truly lives and works as through and in his Divine nature. Being the same Person after his incarnation as before, he took our nature "that he might taste death for every man;" that he might, that is, he who was already existing before he became Man. His Divine nature could not die, but he means to taste death, and therefore takes a nature which can suffer death. In that death on the cross no person died but the Son of God.

2. Another lesson of the Incarnation, if not of the Nativity, is too importantto overlook. If we would learn how to benefit our fellow-men, we must study our Lord"s method. Looking upon us who were infinitely beneath him, and desiring to bring us up more nearly to his level, he saw that the way to do so was to become one of us; to come among us and share with us in all but sin. There is probably more in this example than we are always willing to admit. We speak of raising the masses. One would take Christ"s way of doing so who should himself become a sharer in their condition; who should give up his own pleasant, healthy residence and live among those he desires to benefit; who should give up his own lucrative profession and engage in the same kind of labour they are engaged in; who should put himself, with his education, his right views of what life should and might be, at their disposal; and should thus be among them a continua example and help. He would thus make their wrongs his own wrongs, and as he raised himself raise his class. D.

Vers. 18-25. Joseph"s testimony.

After giving the genealogy of Jesus, the evangelist proceeds to furnish important particulars of the history of his generation and birth. In these he brings out prominently the notable testimony of Joseph in proof of the Christship of Jesus. We note

I THAT JOSEPH IS A CREDIBLE WITNESS.

1. He was a righteous man.

(1) This is the character claimed for him by Matthew at a time when, if it were not a fact, it might have been challenged; for Joseph was well known. (see Mat_13:55 Luk_4:22Jo Luk_6:42) According to Eusebius, this Gospel was written in the third year of Caligula, i.e. A.D. 41, when many of Joseph"s contemporaries were still living.

(2) Everything recorded of Joseph is consistent with this character. It is in particular well sustained by his conduct towards Mary, under the trying circumstances detailed in the text. He might have prosecuted her for adultery. (see Deu_22:23, Deu_22:24) But he had an option of mercy, which he preferred. He resolved accordingly "to put her away privily," viz. by giving her, in presence of two witnesses, a bill of divorcement, without assigning any cause. (see Deu_24:1) Thus her life would be spared. Note:

(a) True righteousness is merciful. Of this the gospel of our salvation furnishes glorious illustration.

(b) Leniency devoid of justice is not true mercy. The terrors of the Lord," as well as those of the Law, are necessary to the public good of the universe.

(3) As a righteous man Joseph could not be guilty of falsehood. This must hold under ordinary conditions, but especially in this case, where the subject of testimony is momentous, involving everlasting issues.

2. He was a sensible man.

(1) He certainly was not over-credulous, else he might have listened without demurrer to Mary"s story. There is no mention here of Gabriel"s message to Mary. (see Luk_1:26-38) The omission suggests that Matthew"s design was to bring out prominently the evidence of Joseph. Yet that Mary had communicated these things to Joseph may be reasonably presumed. She made no secret of them. (see Luk_1:46-55)

(2) There were not wanting good reasons by which he might have been inclined to listen to this wonderful story.

(a) He had sufficient knowledge of Mary"s previous piety to have disposed him to credit her testimony; but the circumstances are unprecedented, and he is not satisfied.

(b) He had the testimony of Elisabeth, (see Luk_1:39-56) which was weighty when taken in connection with the vision of Zacharias, the remarkable event of the Baptist"s birth, and Zacharias"s prophecy. (see Luk_1:67-79) Still, he was not satisfied. Note: Never was mother so honoured and so tried as Mary. Let not those who aspire to honours think to escape trials. As Mary suffered with Christ and for his sake, so shall we if Christ be formed in us. (cf. Act_5:41 Act_9:16 Rom_8:17 Php_1:29)

3. He had the best opportunities of knowledge.

(1) As espoused to Mary he was in the best position to be acquainted with the matter of her testimony.

(2) He was therefore in the best position to he convinced by the complementary evidence furnished in the vision vouchsafed to himself.

(3) Of this vision he was, of course, a first-rate witness, for he was himself the subject of it.

II THAT HIS TESTIMONY IS VERY VALUABLE.

1. Because of the importance of the subject.

(1) The subject is stupendous. The incarnation of Deity in human nature. "Immanuel.

(2) Such an event must be of the utmost moment to humanity. It presages the beatification of humanity. In this all "partakers of flesh and blood" must have the deepest interest.

(3) This is wonderful news for sinners. And such are we all. Note: Not only was the incarnation of Jehovah necessary for redemption, but faith in Jesus as Jehovah is necessary for salvation. The very name of Jesus associates Jehovah and salvation. (cf. Act_3:16 Act_4:10 Act_9:14 Rom_10:13)

2. Because of the nature of its authentication.

(1) An angel appeared to Joseph. Superhuman intelligence alone could reveal the subject.

(2) He appeared to him in a dream. Not an ordinary, but a Divine, dream. Such dreams carried with them convincing evidence. Else they could not serve their purpose. (cf. Num_12:6 Deu_13:1-3 1Sa_28:6, 15 Joe_2:28) The evidence was convincing to Joseph. It reassured him of the innocence of Mary, and certified the truth of her wonderful story. It let in also the evidence of Elisabeth in its full force. The whole was confirmed by the correspondence of prophetic times, which had now awakened a general expectation.

(3) The sequel proved that Joseph was not misled.

(a) He had the "sign" that Mary should "bring forth a Son." God alone could certainly forecast this.

(b) That Son was to support the character of a Divine Saviour of sinners. Who but God could have foreseen that this Child would ever claim to be such a Saviour, much less that he should behave miraculously consistently with that most difficult and lofty claim?

3. Because of its consistency with Scripture.

(1) The miracle of the virgin-mother was a prominent subject of ancient prophecy.

(a) It dawned in the first promise, (Gen_3:15) that the "Seed of the woman," viz. without the man the issue therefore of a virgin should "bruise the serpent"s head.

(b) It is explicitly set forth by Isaiah (Isa_7:14) in the passage cited in the text. Here we note the definite article not "a virgin," but "the virgin (hmlh)." One only such occurrence was ever to take place.

(2) Another notable circumstance is that, according to Isaiah, the house of David was not to fair until this wonder should be accomplished. The sign was given expressly to reassure that house, now fearing extinction, when, after the slaughter perpetrated by Pekah, Judah was again invaded by Rezin. But, excepting in Jesus, the family of David is now difficult to trace. Surely this ought to convince the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. The certainty of our faith is established by many infallible proofs. Unreasonableness is with unbelief.

III THE HAND OF GOD IS EVIDENT IN THE HISTORY.

1. Wisely ordered was the espousal of Mary to Joseph, not only to give value to his testimony, but also to shield the reputation of the virgin, and to afford her and her infant a needful earthly guardianship. Note: A providence that is equal to all emergencies may well be trusted by Christians.

2. It is also a significant circumstance that Jesus received his name at the time of his circumcision. To give the name at such a time was the common custom. (Luk_1:59, Luk_1:60) But in this case the name of Jesus was most appropriately given when that blood was first shed without which there is no remission of sins. The sign of circumcision had its perfect accomplishment in the shedding of the blood of the covenant upon the cross.

3. This.Name, with its reason, are a blessed revelation. There is no salvation but from sin. Sin carries its own punishment. The removal of sin is the remission of punishment. Infinite mercy can only save sinners from punishment by saving them from sin.

4. Jesus becomes incarnate again in every regenerate spirit. The reconciliation of the human to the Divine was first effected in the Person of Christ. As Christ is formed in us we become reconciled to God. Christ grows up in us as we grow up into him. The life of faith is a life of miracle. J.A.M.

The mystery of the Incarnation.

Christianity starts with a miracle. It is a miracle altogether so stupendous and so unique that its reception settles the whole question of the possibility of the miraculous. He who can believe that God shadowed himself to our apprehension in the likeness of a man, he who can recognize in the Babe of Bethlehem, both the Son of God and the Son of Mary, will find that no equal demand is ever afterwards made upon his faculty of faith. Both Testaments begin with a miracle. A world of order and beauty arising out of chaos is a miracle as truly as is the birth of a divinely human Saviour by the Divine overshadowing of Mary. We ask how these things were done, but the mystery eludes all human explanations. In the whole circle of causes yet searched out by man, there are none which help us to trace the mystery. We ask why, and then for us the mystery of wisdom and grace is allowed to unfold a little. Two influences affected the truth of the Incarnation in the time of the apostles Judaism tended to overpress the mere humanity of Christ; Gnosticism tended to dissipate the humanity into a mere appearance.

I ON WHAT PRINCIPLE is THE INCARNATION FOUNDED. It is essentially a revelation, and it rests upon the principle that man can only be taught the truth concerning God, and saved from his sins, by a revelation. Man is made a moral being by receiving a revelation of the will of God. Man is redeemed by receiving a revelation of the-mercy of God. What man precisely needs is a revelation of God"s character; it must be shown to him in human spheres. That is the Incarnation, "God manifest in the flesh.

II WHAT FORM DID THE INCARNATION TAKE? We may gain the best ideas by noticing what it was not.

1. God did not put on the mere appearance of humanity. This was the error of the Docetae. To correct this the evangelists give details of our Lord"s birth into veritable humanity.

2. God did not assume to himself a human body. That is, he did not find a human body, and come into it, as the hermit-crab will find, and enter into, an empty shell. Scripture says he was made man.

3. God did not take any particular class or kind of humanity. He was just the world"s Babe, the world"s Man. R.T.

The Holy Ghost before Pentecost.

We are so accustomed to associate the term "Holy Ghost" with the descent of the Spirit on the disciples at Pentecost, that it seems strange to us to find it used by the evangelists even in the early portions of their Gospels. But there is no proper authority for connecting the term exclusively with Pentecost. Properly speaking, there is nothing peculiar or distinctive in the term. "Spirit" and "Ghost" are synonyms. "Holy Spirit" may properly be put wherever "Holy Ghost" is found. Nothing is added to our knowledge by using the term "Ghost." Whenever God is spoken of in the Scripture as working within things, out of sight, in the spheres of thought and feeling, he is spoken of as God the Spirit, or God the Ghostly. The Old Testament is full of statements concerning the working of God"s Spirit in creation; in the antediluvians; in the kings; in the prophets. God works in the created spheres in two ways.

1. In external spheres, and in modes apprehensible by human senses.

2. In internal spheres, and in modes apprehensible by the feeling, the mind, and the will. God"s secret workings are to be regarded as the operations of his Spirit. So the mysterious putting forth of Divine power in the case of Mary is properly presented as the working of the Holy Ghost.

I GOD WORKING IN THE MINDS OF MEN IS THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH OF. THE HOLY GHOST. This belongs exclusively to no one age, to no one dispensation, to no one race. To the heathen God is the "great Spirit." "Moved by thee, the prophets wrote and spoke." There is this "inspiration of the Almighty which giveth understanding," as the common heritage of the race; and special forms it takes, within Jewish lines, only illustrate the universal forms it takes for all humanity.

II GOD USING, AS HIS AGENCY, THE LIFE AND WORDS AND WORKS OF JESUS, IS THE SPECIAL CHRISTIAN TRUTH OF THE HOLY GHOST. So Jesus said, "He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you;" "He shall... bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." The Holy Ghost of the early Church is the Holy Spirit of the Church of all the ages, only his instruments are precise; his agency is limited. He works through the outer revelation which has been brought to men by Christ, and is given to men in Christ. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This is, the birth of Christ was not in the ordinary and natural way, but his mother Mary was found to be with child by the extraordinary and miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost.

Here note, That the espousal of Mary to Joseph was for the safety of Christ, and for the credit and reputation of the virgin. It was for our Savior’s safety, because being to fly into Egypt, he has Joseph his reputed father to take care of him; and it was for the virgin’s reputation, lest she should have been accounted unclean.

Learn hence, What a special regard Almighty God has to the fame and reputation of his children; he would have them free from the least suspicion of evil and dishonesty. Mary being espoused to an husband, frees herself from the suspicion of naughtiness, and her son from the imputation of an illegitimate birth.

Observe further, The miraculous conception of the holy Jesus; the Holy Ghost overshadowed the virgin, and did miraculously cause her conception without the help of an human father. Thus Christ was the Son of God as well in his human as in his divine nature; he must needs be a perfect, holy person, who was conceived purely by the Holy Spirit’s operation.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [IX. Annunciation to Joseph].

IX. ANNUNCIATION TO JOSEPH OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS. (At Nazareth, B. C. 5.) aMATT. I. 18-25.

a18 Now the birth [The birth of Jesus is to handled with reverential awe. We are not to probe into its mysteries with presumptuous curiosity. The birth of common persons is mysterious enough ( Ecc_9:5, Psa_139:13-16), and we do not well, therefore, if we seek to be wise above what is written as to the birth of the Son of God] of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed [The Jews were usually betrothed ten or twelve months prior to the marriage. So sacred was this relationship that unfaithfulness to it was deemed adultery, and was punishable by death--death by stoning ( Deu_22:23-28, Lev_20:10, Eze_16:38, Joh_8:5). Those betrothed [22] were regarded as husband and wife, and could only be separated by divorcement. Hebrew betrothals set the world a good example. Hasty marriage is too often followed by hasty repentance. "No woman of Israel was married unless she had been first espoused"] to Joseph, before they came together [Before Joseph brought his bride to his own house. An espoused maiden lived in her father's house until the marriage, as is our own custom] she was found with child of the Holy Spirit [The two evangelists (Matthew and Luke) which give the earthly genealogy of Jesus are each careful to mention his miraculous conception through the Holy Spirit (comp. Luk_1:35). All New Testament writers recognize Jesus as at once both human and divine. Christ's physical nature was begotten of the Holy Spirit, but the Christian's spiritual nature is begotten of him ( Joh_1:13). The act of the Holy Spirit in this case indicates that he is a personality, and not a mere influence, as some are disposed to imagine. Influences do not create physical bodies.] 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man [As a righteous man he could not complete his marriage, and thus stain his family name. As a merciful man he did not wish to openly disgrace the one to whom he was so fondly attached. He wished to act justly toward his own reputation, and mercifully toward the reputation of Mary], and not willing to make her a public example [he did not wish to expose her to the shame of a public trial before the court, nor to punish her as the law permitted], was minded to put her away privily [The law of Moses gave the husband the power of divorce ( Deu_24:1). The bill or writing certifying the divorce usually stated the cause, and was handed to the wife in the presence of witnesses. Joseph evidently intended to omit stating any cause in the bill, that there might be no record to convict her of shame. The law of divorce applied to betrothed as well as to married persons. In his kindness Joseph anticipates the special teaching of Christ ( Mat_19:8) and the general instruction of Paul ( Gal_6:1). How different the conduct of the innocent Joseph from that of guilty Judah [23] ( Gen_38:24). Judah needed some one to point out his unfitness-- Joh_8:7.] 20 But when he thought on these things [God guides the thoughtful, not the unthinking], behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him [The Lord looks after the good name of those who honor his name, and he serves those who serve him ( 1Sa_2:30, Joh_12:26). The sufferings of both Mary and Joseph must have been very extreme at this time--one being forced to suspect the chief object of his affections, and the other being compelled to rest under the unjust suspicions of loved ones, because of a condition which God alone could explain. But God does explain where we can not understand without his revelation, and where we absolutely need to know] in a dream [A mode of communication frequently used by God ( Gen_20:3, Gen_31:11, Gen_31:24, Gen_37:5, Gen_41:1, 1Ki_3:5, Dan_7:1, Job_4:13-15). It is difficult to say how men determined between ordinary and divine dreams, but doubtless the latter came with a glory and vividness which gave assurance of their supernatural nature. Matthew mentions four divine dreams, viz.: this one; the second one given to Joseph ( Mat_2:13); the dream of the Magi ( Mat_2:12); the dream of Pilate's wife-- Mat_27:19], saying, Joseph [We are known to angels, and they address us by name ( Act_10:3, Act_10:13, Act_27:24). Much more does the Lord know our names-- Joh_10:3, Luk_19:5], thou son of David [the name of David was calculated to waken the memories of God's promises, and helped to prepare Joseph to receive the wonderful news that Messiah was about to be born, for Messiah was the promised heir of David], fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife [Have no fear as to Mary's virtue and purity. Fear no disgrace in taking her. Joseph feared as a son of David that this marriage would sully his genealogy. But it was that which gave point and purpose to an otherwise barren and uninteresting record. He feared as a man lest he should share Mary's apparent disgrace; but he had infinitely more reason to fear his unworthiness to share with her the exalted responsibilities of parentage to our [24] Lord]: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son [the angel does not say "shall bear thee a son," as he said to Zacharias-- Luk_1:13]; and thou shalt call his name JESUS [Joseph was to take the position of a legal father to the child and name it. The name means "Salvation of Jehovah" or "Jehovah is the Saviour." Would we could all bear our names, such as Christian, pastor, magistrate, father, mother, child, etc., as Jesus bore that wonderful and responsible name of Saviour]; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins [Thus from before his very birth-hour the nature of Christ's salvation is fully set forth. He came to save from the guilt of sin by having shed his blood, his may be remitted or washed clean. He saves from the power of sin by bestowing the gift of the Spirit, who regenerates, comforts, and strengthens, and ultimately he saves from the punishment of sin by giving us a resurrection from the dead, and an abundant entrance into the home of glory. That is no salvation at all which fails to free us from this triple bondage of sin.] 22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord [It was not fulfilled because predicted, but was rather predicted because sure to take place. Prophecies are fulfilled in four ways, namely, 1. When a thing clearly predicted comes to pass. 2. When that which has been pictured in type and shadow is at last shown forth in substance and reality. 3. When an event which has been described in language more elevated and elaborate than it demands is followed by another similar event to which the said language is more perfectly suited. 4. When parabolic or figurative language may be applied to some subsequent event. The prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled after the third fashion, which was spoken by the Lord. In innumerable passages the divine origin and inspiration of the Scriptures are clearly and unmistakably set forth. The same Spirit which foretold through [25] the lips of the prophet now interprets the foretelling through the lips of the angel] through the prophet [ Isa_7:14. Isaiah's name is not given. The ancients were studious readers, and had few books, so that there was little need to cite authors by name], saying [About the year 740 B. C. While Ahaz was king of Judah, his land was threatened with an invasion by the united armies of Syria and Israel. Isaiah came to frightened Ahaz, promised divine aid, and told Ahaz to seek from God a sign confirming this promise. This Ahaz refused to do; whereupon Isaiah replied that God would grant a sign anyway. The sign was that a virgin should have a son, and before the son reached the age of discretion, the kingdoms of Syria and Israel should be destroyed. The sign given Ahaz was one of deliverance, and prefigured the birth of Christ, the great Deliverer, in four ways: 1. A virgin bearing a child. 2. A male child ( Rev_12:5). 3. The divinely ordered naming of the child. 4. The significance of the name given. Jesus fulfilled in his ministry man predictions; but many more such as this one were fulfilled upon him without his volition], 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child [The Sonship of Jesus demands a miraculous birth. If we doubt the miracle of his conception, we can never solve the perplexing problem of his marvelous life and death], and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name [rather, title; under the head of "name" the titles of Jesus are also set forth at Isa_9:6] Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us [Nature shows God above us; the Law shows God against us; but the Gospel shows God with us, and for us. The blessing of the church militant is Christ, God with us; that of the church triumphant is Christ, us with God. In this world Jesus walked "with us" in human form ( Joh_1:14); and because he did so, we, in the world to come, shall walk "with him" in divine form ( 1Jo_3:2, 1Co_15:49). In a personal sense Jesus may fitly be called "God with us," for he was God and man united in one body.] 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him. [he followed the instructions, though contrary to his first inclination. Blessed are they who [26] permit God to guide them. As Joseph appears to have acted at once upon the angel's instruction, the marriage must have taken place several months prior to the birth of Jesus], and took unto him his wife [thus becoming the legally recognized father of Jesus, and though he bestowed upon Jesus but a humble name ( Luk_4:22, Mat_13:55), he nevertheless rescued him from the reproach of an illegitimate birth]; 25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son [Romish teachers contend for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that she may be regarded as an object of worship. This doctrine can not be proved by Scripture. But there are weightier reasons than this which forbid us to worship her; namely, it can not be proven from Scripture either that she was divine or that she was sinless. Moreover, the fact that she entered the marital state at all, shows that she was perfectly human, and comported herself as such]: and he called his name JESUS. [Two Old Testament heroes bore the name Jesus under the form of Joshua. One was captain of Israel for the conquest of Canaan, the other was high priest of Israel for rebuilding the Temple ( Zec_6:11, Zec_6:12). Christ was both the Captain of our salvation and the High Priest of our profession.]

[FFG 22-27]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

18. The birth of Jesus Christ. The word rendered here “birth” is the same in Greek that is translated “genealogy” in verse 1. Mary having been betrothed. Not married, but engaged. Betrothal was, from the times of the patriarchs, a formal ceremony (Gen. 24:53), and was regarded a binding obligation. It generally lasted a whole year before marriage. After betrothal unfaithfulness was regarded adultery. Before they came together. Before marriage. She was found. The angel (Luke 1:26) predicted her conception, and when the prediction was verified she probably did not hesitate to reveal it. Her heart would be filled with joyous pride instead of shame. Holy Ghost. Correctly, Holy Spirit. The Divine power. Christ is the only example of such a birth in all history. His birth, like his life and his resurrection, is a miracle.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

This begins a new part of the story in which the author describes the events leading up to the birth of Jesus.

His mother, Mary, was engaged to marry Joseph

"His mother, Mary, was going to marry Joseph." Parents normally arranged the marriages of their children. AT: "The parents of Mary, the mother of Jesus, had promised her in marriage to Joseph" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

His mother, Mary, was engaged

Translate in a way that makes it clear that Jesus was not already born when Mary was engaged to Joseph. AT: "Mary, who would be the mother of Jesus, was engaged" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

before they came together

"before they got married." This may refer to Mary and Joseph sleeping together. AT: "before they had slept together" (See: Euphemism)

she was found to be pregnant

This can be stated in active form. AT: "they realized that she was going to have a baby" or "it happened that she was pregnant" (See: Active or Passive)

by the Holy Spirit

The power of the Holy Spirit had enabled Mary to have a baby before she had slept with a man.

Her husband, Joseph

Joseph had not married Mary yet, but when a man and woman promised to marry each other, Jews considered them husband and wife though they did not live together. AT: "Joseph, who was supposed to marry Mary" or "Joseph" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

end his engagement with her

"cancel their plans to get married"

translationWords

Jesus

Mary

Joseph (NT)

Holy Spirit

righteous

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

18–25. THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST

Luk 1:26-56; Luk 2:4-7

St Mark and St John give no account of the birth of Jesus, St Luke narrates several particulars not recorded by St Matthew, (1) the annunciation, (2) Mary’s salutation of Elizabeth in a city of Juda (or Juttah), and (3) the journey from Galilee to Bethlehem.

18. (α) Ἰησοῦ, now read by Tisch. (ed. 8), though absent from editions 5 and 7, is supported by all the Greek codices, but rejected by some critics, chiefly on the evidence of Irenæus, who (as appears from the Latin version of his works) read τοῦ Χριστοῦ and sustained it on special grounds; but also because the collocation ὁ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς is hardly defensible from the position of the adjective χριστός, and is not found elsewhere in the genuine text of the N.T. See Hammond (Text. Crit. p. 66 foll.), who discusses this reading at length: and Scrivener’s Introd. p. 493.

The reading τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις, ‘the birth of the Messiah,’ is theologically valuable as denoting that the Messiah was born, against the false teaching that Jesus became the Messiah, or the Messiah entered into Him at baptism. Hence the interest of the discussion.

(β) After μνηστευθείσης the received text has γὰρ—the usual particle for beginning a narrative in explanation of a statement: cp.

τοιοῦτον ἦν τὸ πρᾶγμʼ, ὅπως γὰρ ἤλθομεν κ.τ.λ.

Soph. Ant. 407.

Nam is similarly used in Latin. The insertion of γὰρ in the text was probably the unconscious error of a copyist familiar with classical usage.

18. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. See Mat 1:21.

Χριστοῦ. As a classical word χριστὸς is very rare (Æsch. Prom. Vinct. 480 and Eur. Hipp. 516 are among the few instances where it occurs) and thus belongs to a class of words that have passed into Christian use without any debasing pagan associations. In the LXX. it is frequent as a translation of the Hebrew Mashiach (anointed). To the Jew it would suggest the thought of (1) Prophet, μὴ ἅψησθε τῶν χριστῶν μου καὶ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις μου μὴ πονηρεύεσθε, Psa 104:15; (2) Priest, καὶ εἰσοίσει ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ χριστὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος, Lev 4:16; (3) King, ποιῶν ἔλεος τῷ χριστῷ αὐτοῦ τῷ Δαβίδ, Psa 18:50. As a proper name it was the Messiah, the Χριστὸς ἡγούμενος of Dan 9:25—the only passage where the term Mashiach is applied directly to the coming Deliverer. In the N.T. the Hebrew form is used twice (Joh 1:41; Joh 4:25), where it is explained: εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον χριστός (ch. Joh 1:42) and οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός. Note that one title—Messiah or Christ—has been adopted almost to the exclusion of others quite as common in the O.T., ‘The Branch,’ ‘He that cometh’ (ὁ ἐρχόμενος, Hebr. Habba), ‘The Prophet.’ This is partly due to the great influence of Daniel’s prophecy, partly to the appropriateness of the title to the Son of David.

μνηστευθείσης, ‘betrothed.’ Among the Jews the betrothal took place a year before marriage, and during the interval the betrothed maiden remained with her own family. But from the day of betrothal the pair were regarded as man and wife. For the genitive absolute μνηστ.… Μαρίας instead of the nominative as subject to εὑρέθη see Winer, p. 260.

Μαρίας. The Hebrew form is Miriam.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18-25. Circumstances of his Birth.

18. τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ] The combined name is emphatically put first as resuming the subject of ver. 1, and the δέ takes up the δέ which has connected all the previous members of the series, introducing a reason for this inversion ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη, with which this last one had been brought in, ver. 16.

γένεσις] The ordinary reading γέννησις seems to have been taken up from ver. 16, and the γάρ, which follows, appended to account for the exception in this last case to the direct sequence of ἐγέννησεν throughout the genealogy. γένεσις must be understood in a wide sense, as nearly identical in meaning with γέννησις; as “= ‘origo,’ not merely ‘birth,’ ” . It probably is chosen by the Holy Spirit to mark a slight distinction between the γέννησις of our Lord and that of ordinary men. See schol. in digest.

μνηστευθείσης] The interval between betrothal and the consummation of marriage was sometimes considerable, during which the betrothed remained in her father’s house, till the bridegroom came and fetched her. See Deu 20:7.

[γάρ] here is explicative; ‘quum videlicet …’ So Soph. Trach. 475, πᾶν σοι φράσω τἀληθὲς οὐδὲ κρύψομαι. ἔστιν γὰρ οὕτως ὥσπερ οὗτος ἐννέπει. Lysias, Eratosth. § 19, εἰς τοσαύτην … αἰσχροκέρδειαν ἀφίκοντο, τῆς γὰρ πολεμάρχου γυναικὸς κ.τ.λ. See more examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 469. We may perhaps with equal likelihood say that it is apologetic for the οὕτως: ‘thus it took place; and an account of it is needed, for &c.’

πρὶν ἤ is said to belong to the middle age of Attic. With an aor. following, it betokens the entire completion of the act indicated. See it treated in Hermann on Viger, p. 442; Klotz on Devarius, p. 726.

συνελθεῖν] Here to be understood of living together in one house as man and wife; the deductio in domum mariti: see especially Kypke, Observationes Sacræ, p. 1 ff., who remarks well, that it answers to the word παραλαβεῖν, vv. 20, 24. Chrys. Hom. iv. 2, vol. vii. p. 49, opposes this view: οὐκ εἶπε πρὶν ἢ ἀχθῆναι αὐτὴν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ νυμφίου, καὶ γὰρ ἔνδον ἦν. ἔθος γὰρ τοῖς παλαιοῖς ὡς τὰ πολλὰ ἐν οἰκίᾳ τὰς μεμνηστευμένας ἔχειν, κ.τ.λ. But it seems most agreeable to the context. His following remark is doubtless a just one: καὶ τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐ πρὸ τῆς μνηστείας ἐκύησεν; ἵνα … συσκιασθῇ τὸ γινόμενον τέως, καὶ ἵνα πᾶσαν πονηρὰν διαφύγῃ ἡ παρθένος ὑπόνοιαν.

εὑρέθη] not merely for ἦν, as some have said, but in its proper meaning:—she was discovered to be, no matter by whom: ἐπί τῶν παραδόξων, καὶ παρʼ ἐλπίδα πᾶσαν ἐκβαινόντων, καὶ οὐ προσδοκωμένεν λέγεσθαι εἴωθε, Chrys. the words ἐκ πν. ἁγ. are the addition of the Evangelist declaring the matter of fact, and do not belong to the discovery.

ἐκ πν. ἁγ.] by (the agency of) the Holy Ghost. See reff. and those to ver. 20: and compare by all means Chrys.’s remarks, Hom. iv. 3, p. 50 f. The interpretation of πν. ἁγ. in this place must thus be sought: (1) Unquestionably τὸ πν. τὸ ἅγ. is used in the N.T. as signifying the Holy Ghost. Luk 3:22: Act 1:16: Eph 4:30. (2) But it is a well-known usage to omit the articles from such words under certain circumstances, e.g. when a preposition precedes, as εἰς λιμένα (Plato, Theæt. § 1), &c. We are therefore justified in interpreting ἐκ πν. ἁγ. according to this usage, and understanding τὸ πν. τὸ ἅγ. as the agent referred to. And (3) even independently of the above usage,—when a word or an expression came to bear a technical conventional meaning, it was also common to use it without the art. as if it were a proper name: e.g. θεός, νόμος, υἱὸς θεοῦ, &c.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. Χριστοῦ] So a b c d S1 S2; Irenæus, III. xi. 8, xvi. 2; Tert. de Carne Christi, xxii. This Western reading is probably right. Nowhere in the N.T. is the article used before Ἰης. Χρ. B. has ʼΧριτοῦ Ἰησοῦ, an assimilation to the later usage of S. Paul. א C al Ox have τοῦ δὲ ἸησοῦΧρ. The variation in the position of Ἰησοῦ is against its originality.

γένεσις] So א B. C al Ox γένεσις here means begetting (see above), whilst in 1:1 it has another meaning. The early translators differ in their treatment of the word. The latins render by generatio in both verses. The Syriac S1 S2 render in v. 1 by “generation,” in this verse rightly by “birth.” But γέννησις was more common to the latter sense, and is therefore substituted here by E K L al.—μνηστευθείσης] Add γάρ E K L al Omit, א B. C* Z Ox, latt S1 S2.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Espoused [μνηστευθεισης : Rev., betrothed; Tyn., maryed]. The narrative implies a distinction between betrothal and marriage. From the moment of her betrothal a woman was treated as if actually married. The union could be dissolved only by regular divorce. Breach of faithfulness was regarded as adultery, and was punishable with death (Deu 22:23, 24), and the woman 's property became virtually that of her betrothed, unless he had expressly renounced it; but, even in that case, he was her natural heir.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.