Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
25. knew her not till ] This expression cannot be considered as in any way decisive of the question, whether the Virgin Mary had or had not children besides our blessed Lord.
her firstborn son ] The oldest MSS. omit the word “first-born:” translate “a son.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Knew her not – The doctrine of the virginity of Mary before the birth of Jesus is a doctrine of the Scriptures, and is very important to be believed. But the Bible does not affirm that she had no children afterward. Indeed, all the accounts in the New Testament lead us to suppose that she did have them. See the notes at Mat 13:55-56. The language here evidently implies that she lived as the wife of Joseph after the birth of Jesus.
Her first-born son – Her oldest son, or the one who had the privilege of birthright by the law. This does not of necessity imply that she had other children, though it seems probable. It was the name given to the son which was born first, whether there were others or not.
His name Jesus – This was given by divine appointment, Mat 1:21. It was conferred upon him on the eighth day, at the time of his circumcision, Luk 2:21.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. Her first-born son] -. Literally, That son of hers, the first-born one. That Mary might have had other children, any person may reasonably and piously believe; that she had others, many think exceedingly probable, and that this text is at least an indirect proof of it. However this may be, the perpetual virginity of Mary should not be made an article of faith. God has not made it one: indeed it can hardly bear the light of several texts in the Gospels.
He knew her not] Had no matrimonial intercourse with her – TILL she had brought forth that son of hers, of whom the evangelist had been just speaking, the first-born, the eldest of the family, to whom the birthright belonged, and who was miraculously born before she knew any man, being yet in a state of virginity. See on Mt 13:55. The virginity of Mary, previously to the birth of Christ, is an article of the utmost consequence to the Christian system; and therefore it is an article of faith: her perpetual virginity is of no consequence; and the learned labour spent to prove it has produced a mere castle in the air. The thing is possible; but it never has been, and never can be proved.
He called his name JESUS.] This name was given by the command of God, see Mt 1:16, and was imposed on Christ when eight days old; for then, according to the Jewish law, he was circumcised: thus he had the name of Saviour given when he first began to shed that blood without which there could be no remission of sins.
The goodness of God is manifested, not only in his giving his Son to save a lost world, but also in the choice of the persons who were his progenitors: among whom we find, First, SAINTS, to excite our courage: Abraham, remarkable for his faith; Isaac, for his obedience; and Jacob, for his fervour and constancy.
Secondly, Penitent SINNERS, to excite our confidence: such as David, Manasses, c.
Thirdly, Sinners, of whose repentance and salvation we hear nothing to put us on our guard. Who can read the account of idolatrous Solomon, who, from the whole evidence of the sacred history, died In his sins, without trembling?
Four WOMEN are mentioned in this genealogy: two of these were adulteresses, Tamar and Bathsheba; and two were Gentiles, Rahab and Ruth, and strangers to the covenant of promise; to teach us that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and that, though strangers to his people, we are not on that account excluded from a salvation which God has designed for all men. He is not the God of the Jews only; he is also the God of the Gentiles.
The state of the royal family of David, the circumstances of the holy virgin and her spouse Joseph, the very remarkable prophecy of Isaiah, the literal and circumstantial fulfilment of it, the names given to our blessed Lord, the genealogical scroll of the family, c., &c., are all so many proofs of the wisdom, goodness, and providence of God. Every occurrence seems, at first view, to be abandoned to fortuitous influence, and yet the result of each shows that God managed the whole. These circumstances are of the greatest importance nor can the Christian reader reflect on them without an increase of his faith and his piety.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
25. And knew her not till she hadbrought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUSTheword “till” does not necessarily imply that they lived on adifferent footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of thesame word in 1Sa 15:35; 2Sa 6:23;Mat 12:20); nor does the word”first-born” decide the much-disputed question, whetherMary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, asLIGHTFOOT says, “Thelaw, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any wereborn after or no, but only that none were born before.”(See on Mt 13:55, 56).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
“And knew her not”,…. Or “but he knew her not”, answering to the Hebrew that is, had carnal knowledge of her, or copulation with her, though his wife. The words are an euphemism, or a modest way of expressing the conjugal act, and is a very ancient one, see Ge 4:1 and what has been used in nations and languages. And this conduct of his was necessary,
till she had brought forth her firstborn; that it might be manifest not only that she conceived, being a virgin, but also that she brought forth, being a virgin: for both are signified in the prophecy before related, “a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son”; which is all one as if it had been said, a virgin shall conceive, and “a virgin” shall bring forth a son. The “firstborn” is that which first opens the womb of its mother, whether any follows after or not, Ex 13:12. Christ is called Mary’s firstborn, because she had none before him, whether she had any after him or not; for her perpetual virginity seems to be no necessary article of faith: for when it is said,
Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth, the meaning is certain that he knew her not before. But whether he afterwards did or not, is not so manifest, nor is it a matter of any great importance; the word “until” may be so understood as referring to the time preceding, that the contrary cannot be affirmed of the time following, 2Sa 6:23 and which may be the case here, and is indeed generally understood so; and it also may be considered as only expressive of the intermediate time, as in Mt 5:26 as Beza observes. Christ was “her firstborn” as he was man, and the firstborn of God, or his first and only begotten, as the Son of God. It is further observed, that she “called his name Jesus”, as was foretold to her, or ordered her by the Angel, Lu 1:31 and to Joseph, Mt 1:21.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And knew her not ( ). Note the imperfect tense, continuous or linear action. Joseph lived in continence with Mary till the birth of Jesus. Matthew does not say that Mary bore no other children than Jesus. “Her firstborn” is not genuine here, but is a part of the text in Lu 2:7. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught here. Jesus had brothers and sisters and the natural meaning is that they were younger children of Joseph and Mary and not children of Joseph by a previous marriage. So Joseph “called his name Jesus” as the angel had directed and the child was born in wedlock. Joseph showed that he was an upright man in a most difficult situation.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And knew her not,” (kai ouk eginosken auten) “And he knew her not,” in a cohabiting, conjugal, one flesh relation. This imperfect term indicates absolute and habitual abstinence from marital intercourse, the sole purpose of the hastened marriage was to legitimatize (make legal) the child as an heir of Joseph.
2) “Till she had brought forth her firstborn son:” (heos ou eteken huion) “Not at all until she bore a son, an heir,” not till then and afterward did they (Mary and Joseph) engage in marital intercourse.
3) “And he called his name JESUS.” (kai ekalesen to onoma autou lesoun) “And he (Joseph) called his (the heir’s) name Jesus,” exactly as the angel of the Lord had directed him to do, Mat 1:21. The name Jesus appears in the Old Testament as Jeshohua or Joshua and Jeshua, meaning “Jehovah our Salvation”, Ezr 3:2; Zec 6:11; Act 7:45; Heb 4:8. As Joshua was captain of the Lord’s host and Jeshua was High Priest of Israel, Jesus is both our salvation-captain and our presiding and interceding High Priest, Heb 2:10; Heb 7:25; Heb 12:1-2.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
25. And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. (115) It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
(115) “ Il est nomme Premier nay, mais non pour autre raison, sinon afin que nous sachions qu’il est nay d’une mere vierge, et qui jamais n’avoit eu enfant;” — “he is called First-born, but for no other reason than that we may know that he was born of a pure virgin, and who never had had a child.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(25) Till she had brought forth her first-born son.The word firstborn is not found in the best MSS. The questions which meet us here, unprofitable as they are, cannot be altogether passed over. What bearing have these words on the widespread belief of Christendom in the perpetual maidenhood of Mary? On what grounds does that belief itself rest?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
25. Till she had brought forth her firstborn son These words assert the virginity of the mother of the Lord until the time of his birth. According to the Creed, “He was born of the virgin Mary.” They are also understood by many to imply that she was subsequently the mother of other children than Jesus. On the other hand, the perpetual virginity of the blessed mother is a standard doctrine in the Roman Church, and is generally maintained by the older writers of the Christian Church. With many this opinion is mainly grounded upon what they consider the demands of our “pious feelings.” It may be doubted, however, whether this pious feeling is not rather ecclesiastical and sentimental than Scriptural and truly spiritual.
The proof that Mary was the mother of subsequent children, is derived, so far as this passage is concerned, both from the word until, and the words her firstborn. From the word until, the implication is inferred that her virginity continued not after her maternity. And this we apprehend is the usual sense of the word until and its corresponding term in most languages. When we affirm a certain state of things until a given point, we naturally imply a change after that point. Yet not necessarily. We may intend our affirmation to cover the time previous to the point, without pretending to affirm, imply, or even know what took place after that point. Examples of this, quoted by Bishop Pearson on the Creed, are Gen 28:15; Deu 34:6 ; 1Sa 15:35; 2Sa 6:23; Mat 28:20. The conclusion of this argument therefore fairly is, I think, that there is a decided probability, although no full certainty, that the evangelist meant to imply the birth of subsequent children. As to the word firstborn, it is affirmed by Pearson and others that the word is in the Old Testament properly applied to the only born. That is, it is applied to any child whose birth has been preceded by no other, whether succeeded by any or not. The Mosaic law prescribed the sanctification of the “firstborn.” Exo 12:2. And this firstborn was still so called, whether succeeded by subsequent children or not. This is undoubtedly true. But still it may be questioned whether a subsequent historian would style that child the firstborn where there was notoriously no second born. The evangelist could, I think, do so only by transferring himself, as it were, to the time of the birth, when the future contingency was unknown. Therefore, the balance of the argument upon this point also leaves an implication against the perpetual virginity of the blessed mother. This question is connected with the further discussion of the question concerning the brethren of the Lord. Upon that point see our note upon Mat 13:55.
In closing our notes upon this chapter, we offer the following remarks:
1 . The style of the evangelist is eminently prosaic and plain. There is not the slightest tinge of poetry in the whole narrative. There is nothing of the fabulous or mythical strain. He narrates the most wonderful events without the slightest wonder. The whole tone of the style is purely historical, as plain and level as if it detailed the most ordinary events of life.
2 . Matthew, thus far, gives neither date nor place. The persons are named without formal introduction. All are assumed to be familiar to his readers. As if writing to Jewish Christians, to whom all the facts, persons, and places are well known, he appears to write rather as if to verify and record than to inform.
3 . In his first two chapters, Matthew so plans his narrative as, by blending fact with prophecy, to prove the Messiahship of Jesus. He is careful to inform us that these events took place for the purpose (in addition to all their other purposes) of fulfilling the predictions of the prophets of the Old Testament. The New Testament is born of the Old. The Gospel is contained in the law. The old dispensation is but a preparation for the new. He who is the true Jew is bound to be the believing Christian.
4 . Matthew gives no dates, but his mention of historical names, such as Herod and Archelaus, enables us to fix, with some approach to accuracy, the time of our Lord’s birth. The following extract, from Prof. Robinson’s English Harmony of the New Testament, furnishes the best statement upon this point:
“The precise year of our Lord’s birth is uncertain. Several data, however, exist, by which an approximation may be made, sufficiently accurate to show that our present Christian era is not entirely correct.
“1. According to Mat 2:1-6, Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great, and not long before his death. Herod died in the year of Rome (A.U.) 750 just before the passover; see Josephus, Ant., b. 17, ch. 8, sec. 1; ib., b.17, ch. 9, sec. 3. This has been verified by calculating the eclipse of the moon, which happened just before his death; (Jos., Ant., b. 17, ch. 6, sec. 4. Ideler, Handb. of Chronol., vol. ii, p. 391 sq.) If now we make an allowance of time for the purification, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the remaining there till Herod was dead, for all of which not less than six months can well be required, it follows that the birth of Christ cannot in any case be fixed later than the autumn of A.U. 749.
“2. Another note of time occurs in Luk 3:1-2, where John the Baptist is said to have entered upon his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius; and again in Luk 3:23, where Jesus is said to have been ‘about thirty years of age’ at his baptism. Now if both John and Jesus, as is quite probable, entered upon their ministry at the age of thirty, in accordance with the Levitical custom, (Num 4:3; Num 4:35; Num 4:39; Num 4:43; Num 4:47,) then by reckoning back thirty years we may ascertain the year of John’s birth, and of course also that of Jesus. Augustus died Aug. 29, A.U. 767; and was succeeded by Tiberius, who had already been associated with him in the government for at least two years, and probably three. If now we reckon from the death of Augustus, the fifteenth year of Tiberius commenced Aug. 29, A.U. 781; and going back thirty years, we find that John must have been born not earlier than August, A.U. 751, and our Lord of course not earlier than A.U. 752, a result disagreeing with that obtained from Matthew by three years. If, on the other hand, we reckon from the time when Tiberius was admitted as co-regent of the empire, which is shown to have been certainly as early as A.U. 765, and probably in A.U. 764; then the fifteenth year of Tiberius began in A.U. 778, and it follows that John may have been born in A.U. 748, and our Lord in A.U. 749. In this way the results obtained from Matthew and Luke are more nearly coincident.
“3. A third note of time is derived from Joh 2:20: ‘Forty and six years was this temple in building.’ Josephus says in one place that Herod began to build the temple in the eighteenth year of his reign, while in another he specifies the fifteenth year. (Ant., b. 15, ch. 11, sec. 1; Wars, b. 1, ch. 21, sec. 1.) He also assigns the length of Herod’s reign at thirty-seven or thirty-four years; according as he reckons from his appointment by the Romans, or from the death of Antigoinus. (Ant., b. 17, ch. 8, sec. 1; Wars, b. 1, ch. 33, sec. 8.) Herod was first declared king of Judea in A.U. 714; (Jos., Ant., b. 14, ch. 14, sec. 4, 5; Wars, b. 1, ch. 14, see. 4; comp. Ant., b. 14, ch. 16, sec. 4. Ideler, Handb. of Chronicles, 2: 390;) hence the eighteenth year of his reign, when Herod began to rebuild the temple, would coincide with A.U. 732; and our Lord’s first passover, in the forty-seventh year following, would fall in A.U. 779 . If now our Lord at that time was thirty and a half years of age, as is probable, this would carry back the year of his birth to the autumn of A.U. 748.
“4. Further, according to a tradition preserved by the Latin Fathers of the first five centuries, our Lord’s death took place during the consulate of the two Gemini, C. Rubellius and C. Fufius; that is, in A.U. 782, So Tertullian, Lactantius, Augustine, etc. See Tertull. adv. Jud., sec. 8; Augustin. de Civ. Dei, 18:54.) If now the duration of his ministry was three and a half years, then, as before, the year of his birth would be carried back to the autumn of A.U. 748.
“5. Some modern writers, taking into account the abode in Egypt, and also the ‘two years’ of Mat 2:16, have supposed that Jesus must have been from two to three years old at Herod’s death, and hence they assume that he was born in A.U. 747. The same year, A.U. 747, is also fixed upon as the date of Christ’s birth by those who regard the star in the east as having been the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn. which occurred in that year. So Keppler, Munter, Ideler, Handb. of Chronol., Berlin, 1826.
“From all these data it would appear, that while our Lord’s birth cannot have taken place later than A.U. 749, it may nevertheless have occurred one or two years earlier.
“The present Christian era, which was fixed by the abbot Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century, assumes the year of Christ’s birth as coincident with A.U. 754. It follows then, from the preceding statements, that this our common era begins in any case more than four years too late; that is, from four to five years, at the least, after the actual birth of Christ. This era was first used in historical works by the venerable Bede, early in the eighth century; and was not long after introduced in public transactions by the Frank kings Pepin and Charlemagne.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Mat 1:25. And knew her not till, &c. Some may infer from this passage, that Mary had other children afterwards; but the original here only excludes the time preceding the birth, without any consequence as to the future. Thus Michal had no child until the day of her death; 2Sa 6:23 where the LXX has the Greek word , as in the text. Nor do the words which follow in the Evangelist alter the case; her first-born son; for there may be a firstborn without a second; and the commentators abound with instances where the term first-born is used, though there are no subsequent children. On what terms Joseph and Mary afterwards lived, is of so little consequence to us, that I cannot but wonder, says Dr. Doddridge, it should have been the subject of so much debate among Christians. The present passage surely is clear enough, wherein the Evangelist, in the plainest manner, asserts that Joseph cohabited not with Mary till she was delivered of her wonderful Son, who is truly the first-born among his brethren, and which alone was of consequence for Christians to kn
Inferences.As all our hopes depend upon the salvation purchased by the Lord Jesus Christ, it is most satisfactory to observe how convincing the evidence is, that he is the true Messiah, the Son of God, and the son of man, in whom the prophesies of the Old Testament and the promises made to the fathers were fulfilled.
When we survey such a series of generations as this before us, it is obvious to reflect, how, like the leaves of a tree, one passeth away, and another cometh; yet the earth still abideth, and with it the goodness of the Lord; which runs on from generation to generation, the common hope of parents and children. Of those who formerly lived upon the earth, and perhaps made the most conspicuous figure, how many are there whose names have perished with them; how many, of whom only the name is remaining! Thus are we passing away, and thus shall we shortly be forgotten: happy if, while we are forgotten of men, we are remembered by God: happy, if our names, lost on earth, are at length found written in the book of life.
Never was any daughter of Eve so dignified as the Virgin Mary; yet was she 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.
We have in Joseph an excellent pattern of gentleness and prudence (Mat 1:19.). In an affair which appeared dubious, he chose, as we should always do, rather to err on the favourable than on the severe extreme; he was careful to avoid any precipitate steps; and in the moments of deliberation God interposed, to guide and determine his resolves. It is good for us to think, to reflect on things, as Joseph did. Were there more of deliberation in our censures and judgments, there would be more of mercy and moderation in them.
The angel appeared to Joseph in a dream (Mat 1:20). When we are most quiet and composed, we are in the best frame to receive the notices of the divine will. Extraordinary direction, like the present, is not to be expected by us; but God has still methods of making known his mind in doubtful cases, by hints of Providence, debates of conscience, advice of faithful friends, and by the study of, and light thrown upon, his sacred word. We should therefore from each of these (still applying the general rules of the written word) take direction from God in all the steps of our life, and more particularly in the great concerns of it.
With what wonder and pleasure must Joseph have received the glad tidings, so honourable to Mary, so satisfactory to himself! With what pleasure should we also receive them! For we too are informed of Jesus, who came to save his people from their sins. How important and glorious a salvation! Blessed JESUS! answer thy character, in delivering us not only from sin’s condemning, but from its reigning and existing power. May our souls bow to EMMANUEL, our incarnate God, and gratefully adore that wonderful condescension,God and man united in one Christ, that God and man may be for ever reconciled!
REFLECTIONS.1st, As the Old Testament opened with the generation of the heaven and the earth, the New begins with the generation of Him who, in the fulness of time, became incarnate for man’s redemption from the curse he had brought upon himself, and under which the whole creation groaned. We have here his genealogy from authentic records, to prove the accomplishment of the prophesies which went before concerning him, as sprung, according to the flesh, from David and Abraham, Gen 12:3. 2Sa 7:12 for which purpose these genealogical tables are produced, abundantly sufficient for the conviction of those in that day, that Jesus was descended from these patriarchs, whatever cavils have since been raised, or difficulties started against them.
In this genealogy we may observe, (1.) That the line of descent is not always through the first-born, but in many, as Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, &c. from the younger sons. (2.) That of the four women mentioned, we have two Gentiles and two adulteresses, who would seem to add no honour to their descendants; but herein we have an intimation, that Christ’s salvation was not designed to be confined to the Jewish people, but to be extended to the Gentiles also; and that the most guilty need not despair, when they see that our Lord, in taking the likeness of sinful flesh, humbles himself to derive his descent from such as these. (3.) In the genealogy there are several persons passed over; for what reason, it is difficult, and of little import, to resolve; and the lineal descendant, though at the distance of three generations, is said to be the son of his remote ancestor, as in the case of Ozias. (4.) The generations are divided into three fourteens, not that there were no more persons really in the descent, but that the Evangelist thought fit to mention no more. In the first, we see the family of David rising to the throne; in the second, a race of kings descend from him; in the last, the royal family declines even to a poor carpenter; so fading is this world’s greatness. Yet then, when to human view all prospect of the kingdom’s being restored to David’s house seemed desperate, Jesus arose to sit on his father’s throne, Luk 1:32.: when God promises, we never need despair. (5.) Jesus is called Christ, or Messiah, the Anointed One, uniting in his person the threefold offices, to which men were anointed under the law, of prophet, priest, and king; and all his followers are called Christians, an honourable title, and most applicable to those who have indeed received an unction from the holy One, and are consecrated to God as kings and priests through their exalted Head.
2nd, The account of the birth of Jesus follows his genealogy. And we have,
1. His miraculous conception. His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph; but before the marriage was consummated she was found with child, through the wondrous operation of the Holy Ghost, who formed Christ’s human nature, that it might be pure from every spot of that corruption which naturally descends to every son of Adam with his being; and that he might thus be a Lamb without blemish, fit for God’s altar.
2. Joseph’s prudent resolve. Probably Mary herself communicated to him the circumstances of her case; and though a thousand suggestions might rise up to question her veracity; (and to take her to his bed in such a situation he could not think of, being a just man;) yet was he unwilling withal to make her a public example, and have her punished with death as an adulteress: her artless relation and unaffected simplicity, though wonderful, might well have caused him to hesitate; and where the shadow of a doubt remains, a just man will ever lean to the side of mercy and charity: therefore he resolved to put her away privily, as little as possible to wound her character, while duty bade him preserve his own. Note; (1.) Though apparently the greatest injuries may be done us, it is wise to suppress rash anger, and deliberate before we punish. (2.) In very dark cases, where any circumstances appear which will admit of a favourable interpretation, love, which thinketh no evil, will gladly entertain them.
3. The Lord relieves Joseph from his perplexity: while he deliberates what was fit to be done for God’s glory and his own peace in Mary’s case, the angel of the Lord in a dream directs him how to act. For, when we are in doubt, yet in simplicity desire to know and follow the will of God, we shall be directed, if not by an angel or a dream, yet by some word of God, or intimation of Providence. Joseph is now diverted from his purpose, and bidden, without hesitation, to take to him his wife, since her conception is not the fruit of adultery, but of the Holy Ghost; and the angel calls him Joseph, thou son of David, to lead his thoughts from this extraordinary circumstance to the Messiah who should descend from him; assuring him, that this child now conceived is designed to be the very person, as the name given him imports; he shall be called Jesus, or the Saviour; this being the great end of his appearing, to save his people from their sins, from the punishment, the power, and the nature of them. Note; They to whom Jesus is become a Saviour, are distinguished from others by their holiness; every one who nameth the name of Christ must depart from iniquity, or they are none of his; yet it is by his grace that they are enabled so to do.
4. The accomplishment of the Scriptures herein is observed by the Evangelist. The prophesy of Isaiah, Isa 7:14 had foretold, a virgin should conceive, and bring forth a son, and his name be called Immanuel, that is, God with us; which was now fulfilled; Mary being that virgin, and God himself by the incarnation uniting the human nature to the divine. Jesus Christ was thus enabled to execute the office of a Saviour, having the humanity thus united to his godhead, to offer for the sins of men: infinite worth was therefore annexed to this sacrifice, arising from the dignity of his person; by which means God became reconciled to us, and we who were far off were brought nigh unto God. How mysterious this union! Let us wonder, love, and adore!
5. Joseph no sooner awaked, than he obeyed the heavenly vision, which carried undoubted evidence to his mind of its original; and in obedience to the angel’s command, he called the child’s name Jesus. Note; (1.) When God commands, we must obey without hesitation. (2.) Since Jesus is now come into the world, we are called upon to accept of his salvation: for, if we neglect or despise it, how shall we escape?
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 1:25 . ] He had no sexual intercourse with her ( imperfect ). In this sense is used by the Hebrews, and by the Greeks of a later age (often in Plutarch); also the Latin novi and cognosco (Justin, v. 2, xxvii. 3; Ovid. Meta. iv. 594; comp. Caesar, de bello Gallico, vi. 21 : feminae notitiam habuisse). See Wetstein and Kypke. Since Epiphanius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, very many expositors have maintained, with a view to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, but in opposition to the straightforward and impartial character of the narrative, that Joseph, even after the birth of Jesus, had no sexual intercourse with Mary. [365]
But (1) from of itself no inference can be drawn either in favour of or against such a view, as in all statements with “ until ” the context alone must decide whether, with regard to that which had not formerly occurred, it is or is not intended to convey that it afterwards took place. But (2) that it is here conceived as subsequently taking place, is so clear of itself to every unprejudiced reader from the idea of the marriage arrangement, that Matthew must have expressed the thought, “ not only until but afterwards also he had not ,” if such had been his meaning. That he did not , however, mean this is clearly shown (3) by his use of , which is neither equivalent to (Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus), nor does it designate the first-born, without assuming others born afterwards (so formerly most expositors). The latter meaning is untenable, because the evangelist employed as an historian, from the standpoint of the time when his Gospel was composed, and consequently could not have used it had Jesus been present to his historical consciousness as the only son of Mary. But Jesus, according to Matthew (Mat 12:46 ff., Mat 13:55 f.), had also brothers and sisters, amongst whom He was the firstborn . Lucian’s remark ( Demonax , 29), speaking of Agathocles, is correct: , , . (4) All a priori suppositions are untenable, from which the perpetual virginity of Mary is said to appear, such as that of Euth. Zigabenus: , ; of Olshausen: “it is manifest that Joseph, after such experiences, might with good reason believe that his marriage with Mary was intended for another purpose than that of begetting children.” Hofmann has the correct meaning ( Schriftbeweis , II. 2, p. 405), so also Thiersch, Wieseler, Bleek, Ewald, Laurent, neut. Stud . p. 153 ff., Schenkel, Keim, Kahnis, I. p. 426 f. Comp. on the passage before us, Diogenes Laertius, 3:22, where it is said of Plato’s father: ; see also Wetstein; Paulus, exeget. Handb . I. p. 168 f.; Strauss, I. p. 209 ff.
] is not to be referred to Mary, so that would be taken together, as Paulus, after some older interpreters, maintains, but to Joseph, as is certain after Mat 1:21 ; comp. Grotius.
[365] As a logical consequence of this supposition, Joseph was made to be a worn-out old man (Thilo, ad cod. Apocr . I. p. 361; Keim, Gesch. Jes . I. p. 365), and his children were regarded either as children of a former marriage (Origen, Epiphanius, and many other Fathers), or the brothers of Jesus were transformed into cousins (Jerome). Of any advanced age in the case of Joseph there is no trace in the N. T. In Joh 6:42 , the Jews express themselves in such a way that Joseph might be conceived as still alive at the time.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Ver. 25. And knew her not till she brought forth ] We think hardly of him that taketh to wife the widow and relict of another, that is left great with child, before she hath laid down her burden; how much more in this case! Besides, this might be part of the angel’s charge to him, that after she had brought forth her Son Jesus she continued still a Virgin, pie credimus, but it is neither article of our creed nor principle of our religion. But that she vowed virginity is both false and absurd. For how could she promise virginity to God and marriage to Joseph? Sure it is, the blemish will never be wiped off from some of the ancients, who, to establish their own idol, of I know not what virginity, have written most wickedly and most basely of marriage, which both Christ honoured with his first miracle and the Holy Ghost by overshadowing the betrothed Virgin. As for the Papists that disgrace it, they appear herein more like devils than divines. 1Ti 4:1 . If the same God had not been the author of virginity and marriage, he had never countenanced virginity by marriage, as he did in the Virgin Mary.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25. ] “ ‘ non cognovit eam, doneo .’ Non sequitur, ergo post: sufficit tamen confirmari virginitatem ad partum usque: de reliquo tempore lectori quo relinquitur existimatio.” Bengel. And with regard to the much-controverted sense of this verse we may observe, (1) That the prim facie impression on the reader certainly is, that was confined to the period of time here mentioned. (2) That there is nothing in Scripture tending to remove this impression, either ( ) by narration, and the very use of the term, (on which see note at ch. Mat 13:55 ), without qualification, shews that the idea was not repulsive: or ( ) by implication, for every where in the N.T. marriage is spoken of in high and honourable terms; and the words of the angel to Joseph rather imply, than discountenance, such a supposition. (3) On the other hand, the words of this verse do not require it: the idiom being justified on the contrary hypothesis. See reff. On the whole it seems to me, that no one would ever have thought of interpreting the verse any otherwise than in its prim facie meaning, except to force it into accordance with a preconceived notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary . It is characteristic, and historically instructive, that the great impugner of the view given above should be Jerome, the impugner of marriage itself: and that his opponents in its interpretation should have been branded as heretics by after-ages. See a brief notice of the controversy in Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity, i. 72 ff. As to the expression , compare the remarkable parallel, Diog. Laert. iii. 1. 2, where he says of the father of Plato, , , with ib. 4 (said of Plato) . . .
] i.e. Joseph; see Mat 1:21 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 1:25 . : absolute habitual (note the imperfect) abstinence from marital intercourse, the sole purpose of the hastened marriage being to legitimise the child. : not till then, and afterwards? Here comes in a qustio vexata of theology. Patristic and catholic authors say: not till then and never at all, guarding the sacredness of the virgin’s womb. does not settle the question. It is easy to cite instances of its use as fixing a limit up to which a specified event did not occur, when as a matter of fact it did not occur at all. E.g. , Gen 8:7 ; the raven returned not till the waters were dried up; in fact, never returned (Schanz). But the presumption is all the other way in the case before us. Subsequent intercourse was the natural, if not the necessary, course of things. If the evangelist had felt as the Catholics do, he would have taken pains to prevent misunderstanding. : the extended reading (T. R.) is imported from Luk 2:7 , where there are no variants. is not a stumbling-block to the champions of the perpetual virginity, because the first may be the only . Euthymius quotes in proof Isa 44:6 : “I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God.” , he (not she) called the child Jesus, the statement referring back to the command of the angel to Joseph. Wnsche says that before the Exile the mother, after the Exile the father, gave the name to the child at circumcision ( Neue Beitrge zur Erluterung der Evangelien , p. 11).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
knew her. Heb, idiom, and Figure of speech Metonymy (of Adjunct) for cohabitation. Note the imperfect tense = was not knowing. See App-132.
till. Mat 12:46-60; Mat 13:55, Mat 13:56, clearly show that she had sons afterwards. See the force of this word heos in Mat 28:20, “unto”.
her firstborn Son. These words are quoted by Tatian (A.D. 172) and twelve of the Fathers before cent. 4; and are contained in nearly all MSS. except the Vatican and Sinaitic (cent. 4). All the Texts omit “her firstborn” on this weak and suspicious evidence. But there is no question about it in Luk 2:7.
he: i.e. Joseph
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25.] non cognovit eam, doneo. Non sequitur, ergo post: sufficit tamen confirmari virginitatem ad partum usque: de reliquo tempore lectori quo relinquitur existimatio. Bengel. And with regard to the much-controverted sense of this verse we may observe, (1) That the prim facie impression on the reader certainly is, that was confined to the period of time here mentioned. (2) That there is nothing in Scripture tending to remove this impression, either () by narration,-and the very use of the term, (on which see note at ch. Mat 13:55), without qualification, shews that the idea was not repulsive: or () by implication,-for every where in the N.T. marriage is spoken of in high and honourable terms; and the words of the angel to Joseph rather imply, than discountenance, such a supposition. (3) On the other hand, the words of this verse do not require it: the idiom being justified on the contrary hypothesis. See reff. On the whole it seems to me, that no one would ever have thought of interpreting the verse any otherwise than in its prim facie meaning, except to force it into accordance with a preconceived notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is characteristic, and historically instructive, that the great impugner of the view given above should be Jerome, the impugner of marriage itself: and that his opponents in its interpretation should have been branded as heretics by after-ages. See a brief notice of the controversy in Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity, i. 72 ff. As to the expression, compare the remarkable parallel, Diog. Laert. iii. 1. 2, where he says of the father of Plato, , , with ib. 4 (said of Plato) . . .
] i.e. Joseph; see Mat 1:21.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 1:25. , and) St Matthew says and, not but. He took her, and knew her not: both by the command of the angel.- , , knew her not until) It does not follow from this (until) that he did so afterwards. It is sufficient however, that her virginity should be established up to the time of her delivery. With regard to the remainder of her married life, the reader is left to form his own opinion. The angel did not expressly forbid Joseph to have conjugal intercourse with her: but he perceived such a command to be implied by the very nature of the case.- , until she brought forth the Son) A very old Egyptian version has only these words, without the addition of her first-born:[69] according to which reading, the address of the angel, the declaration of the prophet, and the act of Joseph [in naming Him as the angel directed] are expressed in words which exactly correspond together.-sc., She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus,-She shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Jesus,-She brought forth TON , THE Son, and he [Joseph][70] called His name Jesus. The article TON (the) has a relative value here, and refers to Mat 1:21 with the same meaning, until she brought forth THAT Son The same reading is found in Codex Barberini I. (by which name we suppose the celebrated Vatican MS. to be intended in this place), and we have assured ourselves that beyond doubt such must have been originally that of the Latin Vulgate. For Helvidius,[71] and Jerome in the commencement of his book against him, thus quote the words of St Matthew-et non cognovit eam, donec peperit filium suum, i.e., and he knew her not till she brought forth her Son; but more commonly they quote thus donec peperit filium, i.e., until she brought forth ([72] or the) Son, without the addition of either suum (her) or primogenitum (first-born); nor can it be argued, that they have in these instances intended to abridge the text, since Jerome in one place thus quotes the passage in full, Exurgens autem-accepit uxorem suam et non cognovit eam, donec peperit filium: et vocavit nomen ejus Jesum, i.e., But on rising from sleep-he received his wife, and knew her not until she had brought forth [the] Son: and he called His name Jesus.[73]
[69] The disputed words are found in E. M. Tregelles favours the omission.-(I. B.)
[70] See Text v. 25, He called his name Jesus.-ED.
[71] A famous Arian disciple of Auxentius. He lived in the fourth century.-(I. B.)
[72] Vercellensis of the old Itala, or Latin Version before Jeromes, probably made in Africa, in the second century: the Gospels.
[73] BZ. Memph. Theb. b.c. read only (without the article or the words following). Dd. and Vulg. read as the Rec. Text. Lachmann and Tischendorf follow the former reading, as resting on the weightiest authorities.-ED.
Both these writers, after a long dispute upon this passage of St Matthew, seek for a fresh argument grounded on the appellation , first-born, not from this passage of St Matthew, but solely from Luk 2:7. If the Codex Barberini I., and the Coptic version already mentioned, obtained this reading from Greek MSS., their testimony is on that ground of great weight: if, on the other hand, they obtained it from Latin sources, they greatly corroborate the genuine reading of the very ancient Latin version. The words , her first-born, appear to have been introduced into St Matthew, from the parallel passage in St Luke already cited: and the very idea of the Son of a Virgin, implies that He must have been the first-born in a pre-eminent and strictly singular manner. [Such as He is expressly declared to be in Luk 2:7, Vers. Germ.]
In some passages our criticism takes a different view of matters from what it did formerly. Yet no one can fairly accuse me of inconstancy; for I do not confine myself to those views, which have gained acceptance by long usage (though I do not reject such assistance where truth requires it): but I proceed to draw forth, by degrees, from their concealment, those things which have been buried out of sight.
, he called) i.e., Joseph did so; as we learn from Mat 1:21.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
JESUS
The Greek form of the Hebrew Jehoshua meaning saviour.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
she: Exo 13:2, Exo 22:29, Luk 2:7, Rom 8:29
and he: Luk 2:21
Reciprocal: Gen 3:15 – her seed 2Sa 6:23 – unto the day 1Ki 1:4 – knew her not Mat 2:1 – Jesus Luk 1:31 – and shalt Luk 1:60 – Not Eph 1:5 – according Rev 12:5 – she
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:25
Verse 25, Joseph took Mary into his home in fulfillment of his espousal and on the Instructions of the angel. Knew her not is a Biblical expression for the intimate relation of the sexes. The reason Joseph did not have this relation with Mary now was because the angel had told him that her son was to be born of a virgin, which required that at the time of the birth his mother must never have had intimate relations with a man. Till she had brought forth has to mean that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph lived with Mary In the intimate relation of husband and wife, else the language Is meaningless and deceptive. It therefore proves that Mary did not continue to be a virgin, but lived with her husband in the relationship of a wife, and her children by that marriage will be met with in later chapters of this book.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 1:25. Knew her not. A Hebrew form for conjugal cohabitation; comp. Luk 1:36.
A son. The words answering to her and first-born are omitted by some of the best authorities. They may, however, have been left out to support the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. In Luk 2:7, the phrase is genuine beyond a doubt. It does not of itself prove that Mary had other children, nor does till of necessity imply this. Yet Matthew, with the whole history of Christ before him, would scarcely have used the expression, had he held the Roman Catholic notion of the perpetual virginity. It would have been easy to assert that by saying: he never knew her. Many Protestant commentators suppose that the genealogy of David found its end in Christ, and that Mary could not have given birth to children after having become the mother of the Saviour of the world. But this is a matter of sentiment rather than a conviction based on evidence. The brethren of our Lord are frequently mentioned (four by name, besides sisters), in close connection with Mary, and apparently as members of her household. They are nowhere called his cousins, as some claim them to have been. They were probably either the children of Joseph by a former wife (the view of some Greek fathers), or the children of Joseph and Mary (as now held by many Protestant commentators). To the first view the genealogy of Joseph seems an insuperable objection; for the oldest son by the former marriage would have been his legal heir, and the genealogy out of place. The question, however, is complicated with other exegetical difficulties and doctrinal prejudices. The virginity of Mary up to the birth of Jesus is here the main point. The whole subject is fully discussed by Lange and Schaff in the English edition of Langes Commentary, Matthew, pp. 255-260.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
It is piously believed, though not positively in scripture asserted,that the Virgin had no other child but our Savior: it is a very probable opinion, though not an infallible article of faith, as the Church of Rome would make it: for the word until signifies in scripture as much as never.
So Gen 28:15. I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have promised; that is, I will never leave thee.
So the words following, Her first-born son, do not imply that she had any child after, but that she had none before. That child which first opened the womb, is usually in scripture called the first-born, though there was no other born after.
Thus Joshua 18 Machir is called the first-born of Manasseh, though he had no more children. So that Christ, not only as God, but as also he was man, was the first-born and only son. St. Austin expounds and applies Eze 44:2 to the virgin Mary; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it; because the Lord God of Israel hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut. And others of the ancients say, that as Christ lay in a tomb, in which none lay before or after himself. But he said, Quid post partum secutum erat curiose none est quarendum. What the Virgin was afterwards, is of small concern to the mystery, therefore not to be inquired after. And yet it is now passed by some into a matter of faith, that the Virgin Mary was ever a virgin, and it has been styled a heresy to hold the contrary; but how is it consistent with good divinity, to make that an article of divine faith, which is founded on no divine revelation. Or to make that necessary to be believed, which confessedly is not contained in the Holy scripture, let the Church of Rome answer.
Editor’s Note: it would benefit the reader to cross-reference Mar 6:3; Gal 1:19, etc., to put this matter to rest.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
1:25 And knew her not {l} till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(l) The word “till”, in the Hebrew language, gives us to understand that a thing will not come to pass in time to come: as Michal had no children “till” her death day, 2Sa 6:23 . And in the last chapter of this evangelist: Behold, I am with you “till” the end of the world.