Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
16. Jacob begat Joseph ] “Joseph which was the son of Heli” (Luke), see last note; probably Joseph was the son of Heli and the heir to Jacob. It is conjectured with much probability that Jacob was Mary’s father. In that case, although both genealogies show Joseph’s descent, they are in fact equally genealogies of Mary’s family.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mat 1:16-17
Joseph the husband of Mary.
Jesus the seed of the woman
1. Jesus is the Christ.
2. He has a human ancestry.
3. He has a Jewish ancestry.
4. He has a Gentile ancestry.
5. He has a royal ancestry.
6. He has a lowly ancestry.
7. He has a holy ancestry.
8. He has an imperfect ancestry.
9. He has a mortal ancestry.
10. He has an immortal. (Dr. Bonar.)
Joseph and Mary were one thing by right of inheritance, another by present condition. They were successors to the kingdom of Israel, but were poor. Why does God permit the righteous to be deprived of their right and to be brought to poverty?
1. Because thus He will prove them.
2. Because worldly abundance is not so fit for them.
3. That He may crown them with future blessedness more abundantly.
4. That He may let us see how careful He is of us when we are in need.
5. How content were Joseph and Mary in their low estate.
6. The way to heaven is by adversity. (R. Ward.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 16. Jesus, who is called Christ.] As the word Christ, signifies the anointed or anointer, from , to anoint, it answers exactly to the Hebrew mashiach, which we pronounce Messiah or Messias; this word comes from the root mashac, signifying the same thing. As the same person is intended by both the Hebrew and Greek appellation, it should be regularly translated The Messiah, or The Christ; whichever is preferred, the demonstrative article should never be omitted.
Priests, prophets, and kings, among the Jews, were anointed in order to the legitimate exercise of their respective offices. Hence the word Christ, or Mashiach, became a name of dignity, and often signified the same as king. See Isa 45:1; Ps 105:15; Le 4:3; Le 6:20; 1Sa 2:10. The words Mashiach and melec, and , Christ and king, are frequently interchanged. 1Sa 2:10; Ps 2:2; Ps 2:6; Lu 23:2; and see the Scholia of Rosenmuller on this place. The reason of this may be seen in the following note, which I extract from the comment on Ex 29:7.
“It appears from Isa 61:1, that anointing with oil, in consecrating a person to any important office, whether civil or religious, was considered as an emblem of the communication of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. This ceremony was used on three occasions, viz. the installation of prophets, priests, and kings, into their respective offices. But why should such an anointing be deemed necessary? Because the common sense of men taught them that all good, whether spiritual or secular, must come from God, its origin and cause. Hence it was taken for granted,
1. That no man could foretell events, unless inspired by the Spirit of God. And therefore the prophet was anointed, to signify the communication of the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge.
2. That no person could offer an acceptable sacrifice to God for the sins of men, or profitably minister in holy things, unless enlightened, influenced, and directed, by the Spirit of grace and holiness. Hence the priest was anointed, to signify his being divinely qualified for the due performance of his sacred functions.
3. That no man could enact just and equitable laws, which should have the prosperity of the community and the welfare of the individual continually in view, or could use the power confided to him only for the suppression of vice and the encouragement of virtue, but that man who was ever under the inspiration of the Almighty.
Hence kings were inaugurated by anointing with oil. Two of these offices only exist in all civilized nations, the sacerdotal and regal; and, in some countries, the priest and king are still consecrated by anointing. In the Hebrew language mashach signifies to anoint; and mashiach, the anointed person. But as no man was ever dignified by holding the three offices, so no person ever had the title Mashiach, the anointed one, but Jesus, The CHRIST. He alone is King of kings, and Lord of lords: the king who governs the universe, and rules in the hearts of his followers; the prophet, to instruct men in the way wherein they should go; and the great high priest, to make atonement for their sins. Hence he is called the Messias, a corruption of the word ha-mashiach, THE anointed ONE, in Hebrew; which gave birth to ho Christos, which has precisely the same signification in Greek: of him, Melchisedeck, Abraham, Aaron, David, and others, were illustrious types. But none of these had the title of THE MESSIAH, or THE ANOINTED OF GOD. This does, and ever will, belong exclusively to JESUS, The CHRIST.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
How Luke cometh to make Joseph the son of Heli we shall inquire (if God please) when we come to his third chapter: but from this verse ariseth a very grave question, viz. How, or wherefore, the evangelist, in deriving the pedigree of Christ, bringeth the line down to Joseph, from whom our Saviour did not descend, being no flesh of his flesh. Christ being the promised Messias, the prophecy, Isa 7:14, must be and was fulfilled in him, A virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Now if Joseph were not the true, but only the legal or supposed, father of Christ, what had the evangelist to do with his genealogy? Many answers are given to this. Some think that the evangelist accommodates himself to the vulgar opinion; they took him generally for the true and natural son of Joseph; they said, Is not this the carpenters son? But then the Holy Spirit must have attempted to have proved a conclusion true from a medium that was false, which must by no means be allowed. Besides, neither could this be Matthews design, who afterwards relates the mystery of our Saviours incarnation plain enough; and tells us, Mat 1:18, that Mary was found with child before Joseph and she came together. Others therefore say that amongst the Jews the genealogies of women use not to be reckoned. How universally true that is I cannot tell; generally it is, (very probably), it being usual almost with all nations to reckon descents from the males. It is granted by most that Luke derives the descent of Mary. In the present case, it seemeth of high concern that the genealogy both of Joseph and Mary should be counted. Though our Saviours being the Messias could not have been proved from his being the Son of Joseph, for then he could not have been the Son of a virgin, yet (admitting the Jewish error in that case, not knowing the mystery of Christs incarnation) Christ, by their own confession, was confirmed to be the Son of David because Joseph was so. On the other side, Luke deriving Marys genealogy from David, and affirming Christ to be born of a virgin espoused, confirmed him to all the world to be both the Son of David, descending from Mary a virgin, that was a daughter to one who was the son of David, and also the true Messiah, in whom the prophecy was fulfilled, of a virgins conceiving and bearing a Son. So that by the reckoning of the generation of two persons, both of which were lineally descended from David, he was proved to be the Son of David, both to the generality of the Jews, who could not deny but Joseph was so, and to all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, to whom God should give to believe the mystery of the incarnation by the conception of the Holy Ghost. This to me seems a sufficient reason for the reckoning up our Saviours descent from David both by father and mother. Which is advantaged by considering that Joseph was not only the reputed father, but the legal father of Christ; and although his being not the natural but the legal father of Christ will not prove him the Son of David, further than to the Jews who would have him to be the natural son of Joseph, yet the genealogy reckoned from Abraham to Joseph will prove Joseph the son of David; (whom they judged Christs natural father), so as they had nothing to say against that and the other parts of this Gospel; and this chapter indeed, with the genealogy of Mary, will prove that he was both the Son of David, and the true Messias, as a Son born of a virgin. Whereas some say that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, and think to prove it by her being cousin to Elisabeth, who is expressly called a daughter of Aaron, Luk 1:5; besides that Luk 3:23-38 plainly proveth her of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David, the proof is by no means sufficient; for although the law, Num 36:8,9, for the avoiding of a confusion of inheritances, commanded them to marry within their tribes, yet this law concerned not the daughters of the tribe of Levi, for that tribe had no inheritance as the rest. So as that kindred might easily be, though Mary was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, as indeed she was. But leaving this question, let us come to the words of the verse. And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary; that is, the espoused husband of Mary. Espousals make a marriage before God: the angel afterward saith to Joseph, (but yet espoused), Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. And he was soon after the legal, actual husband of Mary.
Of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ; that person who was called Jesus is by the direction of the angel, as we shall by and by see, who was also called Christ, which, as we said, signifieth Anointed, and the same with Messiah. It is observed by some that the name Christ was given to kings of Judah (because of their anointing) before the captivity, but to none after, till he came who was the Christ; God by that providence (if the Jews would have understood it) pointing out to them, that the person was now come who was promised them under the notion of the Messiah, Dan 9:25,26, and whom they expected, as appeareth from Joh 1:41; 4:25, and no longer to be expected.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. And Jacob begat Joseph, thehusband of Mary, of whom was born JesusFrom this it is clearthat the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; norhas this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiouslyproclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal fatherof our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but theacknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that thedescent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned. Seeon Mt 1:20.
who is calledChristsignifying “anointed.” It is applied in theOld Testament to the kings (1Sa 24:6;1Sa 24:10); to the priests(Lev 4:5; Lev 4:16,c.) and to the prophets (1Ki19:16) these all being anointed with oil, the symbol of theneedful spiritual gifts to consecrate them to their respectiveoffices; and it was applied, in its most sublime and comprehensivesense, to the promised Deliverer, inasmuch as He was to beconsecrated to an office embracing all three by the immeasurableanointing of the Holy Ghost (Isa61:1; compare Joh 3:34).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Jacob begat Joseph,…. According to an old tradition mentioned by p Epiphanins, this Jacob, the father of Joseph, was named Panther, and which name perhaps is originally Jewish; and it may be observed, that Joseph is sometimes called by the Jewish writers Pandera q, and Jesus , the son of Pandira r. It has created some difficulty with interpreters that Jacob should be here said to beget Joseph, when Joseph in Luke is said to be the son of Eli. Some have thought Joseph’s father had two names, one was Jacob, and the other Eli; others take them to be two different persons, and suppose that Joseph was the natural son of the one, and the legal son of the other, either by marriage, or by adoption, or by the law of the brother’s wife, De 25:5. But the truth of the matter is, that not Joseph, but Jesus, is by Luke called the son of Eli, as will be made to appear in its proper place. Joseph, who is here called the husband of Mary, because he not only espoused her, but, upon the advice and encouragement of the Angel, took her to be his wife, was, as is evident by this genealogy, of the house and lineage of David; though a mean and obscure person, and by trade a carpenter. Mary, which is the same name with Miriam in Hebrew, was a poor virgin that dwelt at Nazareth, a city of Galilee; yet also of the family of David, and belonged to the city of Bethlehem;
of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ, or Messiah; being that illustrious person, who was spoken of by the Prophets of the Old Testament under that name, and whom the Jews expected. We may learn from hence, what a low condition the family of David was in, when the true Messiah came; according to ancient prophecy, it was like a stump of a tree, or like to a tree cut down to the root, Isa 11:1 and Christ who sprung from it was like a root out of a dry ground,
Isa 53:2. From the whole of this genealogy it appears, that Jesus was of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David; whereby several ancient prophecies have their accomplishment, and therefore he ought to be acknowledged as the true Messiah: and also that he was of the blood royal, and had his descent from the kings of Judah, and was heir apparent to the throne and kingdom of his father David. The Talmudic Jews own that Jesus, or Jesu, as they call him, was put to death because he s, “was nigh to the kingdom”, or nearly related to it. Yea, even in that malicious book t they have written of his life, they represent him as akin to queen Helena, who they say, on that account, would have saved his life. And this was so clear a point, and their forefathers were so thoroughly convinced of this matter, that they would have took him by force and made him a king, Joh 6:15 but his kingdom was to be of another kind, a spiritual, and not a temporal one.
p Contra Haeres. l. 3. Haeres. 78. q Toldos Jesu, p. 3. r T. Hieros. Avoda Zara, fol. 40. 4. T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 14. 2. & Midrash Kohelet, fol. 81. 1. s T. Bab. Sanhed. fol. 43. 1. t Toldos Jesu, p. 10.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,” (lakob de egennesen ton Joseph ton andra Marias) “Then Jacob begat the Joseph who was the husband of Mary,” fortieth generation of the Faith-line of Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. Note that while this Jacob beget Jesus, else Jesus could not have, as seed of Coniah, sat on David’s throne, Jer 22:30.
2) “Of whom was born Jesus,” (eks hes egennethe) “Of whom (of Mary-feminine gender) was born,” or came to exist lesous) “Jesus”, Savior, deliverer, forty-first generation of the Abrahamic Faith-line and of the Davidic covenant of promise. The phrase “of whom was born Jesus,” deliverer, refers to Mary, without any begettal connection with Joseph her espoused husband. This prepares for the angelic, revelation that follows, Matthew 18-25.
3) “Who is called Christ.” (ho leggomenos Christos) ”The one who is called Christ,” the anointed one, in whom, by faith, the forty-second generation of the Faith-line of Christ has since and does not exist, and in and through whom a kingly lineage is obtained; 2Co 5:17. Joseph was in the legal line of the royal lineage of Jesus Christ, but Jesus was made “in the flesh,” as the seed of the woman, made after the flesh, the seed of David through Mary’s unaccursed Davidic family lineage, from David’s son Nathan, Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4-5; Gen 3:15; Luk 3:21. The name and or title “Christ” means “anointed.” He was the anointed Messiah for whom Israel had long waited, Isa 61:1-2; Luk 4:16-22. He was anointed as 1) a prophet to teach and preach, 2) a priest to atone, 3) a king to save and reign.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16. Jesus, who is called Christ By the surname Christ, Anointed, Matthew points out his office, to inform the readers that this was not a private person, but one divinely anointed to perform the office of Redeemer. What that anointing was, and to what it referred, I shall not now illustrate at great length. As to the word itself, it is only necessary to say that, after the royal authority was abolished, it began to be applied exclusively to Him, from whom they were taught to expect a full recovery of the lost salvation. So long as any splendor of royalty continued in the family of David, the kings were wont to be called χριστοί, anointed. (96) But that the fearful desolation which followed might not throw the minds of the godly into despair, it pleased God to appropriate the name of Messiah, Anointed, to the Redeemer alone: as is evident from Daniel, (Dan 9:25.) The evangelical history everywhere shows that this was an ordinary way of speaking, at the time when the Son of God was “manifested in the flesh,” (1Ti 3:16.)
(96) Every reader of the Bible is familiar with the phrase, the Lord’s anointed, as applied to David and his successors, (2Sa 19:21; Lam 4:20.) — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Mat 1:16. Jacob begat Joseph It is a maxim among the Jews, that the family of the mother is not called a family; all their pedigrees are reckoned and deduced from the father. This is the reason why St. Matthew has here set down the genealogy of Joseph. It is also very probable, that Mary was an only daughter, and, in some degree, an heiress, and consequently obliged to marry in her own family. See Num 7:9. So that by giving the genealogy of Joseph, St. Matthew gives at the same time that of Mary. He is called the husband of Mary; for the names of husband and wife were given bythe Jews to persons who were only betrothed. See Gen 29:21. Deu 22:24. Some copies, however, read, Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed. It is added at the end of this verse, who is called Christ; that is to say, who is known by that name, and is really the Christ, or the Messiah. Compare Luk 1:32; Luk 1:35. For to be called is a frequent Hebraism, to express that the person spoken of shall really and effectually be what he is there called, and actually fulfil that title. So, Mat 1:23 it is said, They shall call his name Emmanuel; which is no common appellation of Christ, but indicates his nature and office; the Deity incarnate, who by his Spirit dwells in the hearts of the faithful. See Beausobre and Lenfant, and Heylin.
Who is called Christ What first gave rise to this term was, the ceremony of anointing, bywhich the kings and the high-priests of God’s people, and sometimes the prophets, were consecrated and admitted to the exercise of their holy functions: for all these functions were accounted holy among the Israelites. As this consecration was considered as adding a sacredness to their person, it served as a guard against violence, from the respect had to religion. Its efficacy this way was remarkably exemplified in David. By this consideration principally, as he acknowledges, he was restrained from avenging himself on Saul his enemy, who sought his life, when he had it in his power to kill him. The Lord forbid, said he, that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against, him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord. 1Sa 24:6. The word here translated anointed is, as in other places, in Hebrew Messiah, and in the Greek of the Seventy, Christ. It was a term, therefore, in its original use, applicable to all the succession of kings and high-priests, good and bad, of the people of Israel.
But the most eminent use and application of the word is, when it is employed as the title of that Divine Personage typified and predicted from the beginning, who was to prove, in the most exalted sense, the Redeemer and Lord of God’s people. He is spoken of by the prophets under several characters, and, amongst others, under this of God’s anointed, the Messiah or the Christ. Those of the prophets, who seem more especiallyto have appropriated this title, formerly more common, to the Mediator of the New Covenant, were the royal prophet David, Isaiah, and Daniel. The first represents him as anointed of God King of God’s heritage, the second as set apart and consecrated to be the Messenger of good tidings to the inhabitants of the earth, the third as appointed to make expiation for the sins of the people. See Psa 2:2; Psa 105:15. 1Ch 16:22. Isa 61:1; Isa 61:11. Dan 9:25-26.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 1:16 . ] In Luk 3:24 , Joseph is called a son of Eli . This variation, also, cannot be set aside. As in the case of most great men who have sprung from an obscure origin, so also in the case of Jesus, the ancestors of no reputation were forgotten, and were given by tradition in varying form. The view, however (Epiphanius, Luther, Calovius in answer to Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmller, Paulus, Gratz, Hofmann, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange, Arnoldi, Bisping, Auberlen), that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary , and consequently that in Luk 3:24 Joseph is entered as son-in-law of Eli, or Eli as maternal grandfather of Jesus (Spanheim, Wieseler, Riggenbach in the Stud. u. Kritik . 1855, p. 585 ff., Krafft), is just as baseless and harmonistically forced an invention as that of Augustine, de consen. ev . ii. 3; or of Wetstein, Delitzsch, that Joseph was the adopted son of Eli; or that of Julius Africanus in Eusebius i. 7, that Matthew gives the proper father of Joseph, while Luke gives his legal father according to the law of Levirate marriage (Hug), or conversely (Schleiermacher after Ambrose and others). The contradictions which our genealogy presents to that of Luke are to be impartially recognised. See a more minute consideration of this in Luke after ch. 3.
It is well known that the Jews (the Talmud, and in Origen, c. Celsum , i. 32) call Jesus the son of Pandira [354] or Panthera. See Paulus, exeget. Handb . I. p. 290; Nitzsch in the Stud. u. Kritik . 1840, 1; Keim, Leben Jesu, I. p. 368; Ewald, Gesch. Christi , p. 187, Exo 3 .
] is to be rendered husband , and not (Olshausen, after Theophylact, Grotius) betrothed . For when the genealogist wrote, Joseph had been long ago the husband of Mary; and the signification of is never that of sponsus .
] see on Gal 4:4 .
] if the assumption of Storr (Zweck d. evangel. Gesch. u. d. Briefe Joh. p. 273), that this addition expresses the doubt of the genealogist, an unbelieving relative of Jesus, is a pure imagination, and completely opposed to the standpoint of the evangelist, who adopted the genealogy, still we are not to say, with Olshausen (comp. Gersdorf, and already Er. Schmidt), that here means to be called, and also actually to be . This would be to confuse it improperly with . See Winer, p. 571 [E. T. 769]. The genealogical source, which found a reception in our Matthew, narrates in a purely historical manner: who bears the name of Christ (Mat 4:18 , Mat 10:2 , Mat 27:17 ); for this name , which became His from the official designation, was the distinctive name of this Jesus. Comp., besides, Remark 3, after Mat 1:17 .
[354] . Epiphanius, Haeres. 78. 7, thus ( ) terms the father of Joseph. John of Damascus, de fide Orthodox. iv. 15, removes this name still further back in the roll of ancestors. The Jewish book, Toledoth Jeschu, calls the father of Jesus, Joseph Pandira. See Eisenmenger, p. 105; Paulus, exeget. Handb. I. p. 156 f.; Thilo, Cod. apocr. I. p. 526 f.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Ver. 16. And Jacob begat Joseph ] Whose genealogy is here recorded, and not Mary’s, it being not the custom of that people then to set forth the genealogies of women. As at this day, the Jews have an over-base conceit of that sex; saying that they have not so divine a soul as men, but are of a lower creation, &c., and therefore they suffer them not to enter the synagogue, but appoint them a gallery without. (Blount’s Voyage into the Levant.)
The husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus ] This is the sum of all the good news in the world, such as surpasseth the joy of conquest or of harvest, Isa 9:3 ; Isa 9:5-6 , and should therefore swallow up all discontents whatsoever.
Who is called Christ ] The name of Jesus is mel in ore, melos in aure, iubilium in corde (Bernard): as it was to St Paul, who therefore names it nine different times in the ten first verses of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, as loth to come off it. Yet is not the name Jesus alone half so sweet as when Christ is added to it, as here. For Jesus Christ betokeneth such a Saviour as is anointed and appointed thereunto by God, consecrated to the office according to his Godhead, and qualified for it according to his manhood. In both natures a Saviour, and that ex professo (as you would say) and by consent of all three persons; the Son being anointed by the Father, with the Holy Ghost: and as Samson when clothed with the spirit saved the people, so Christ much more.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 1:16 . : the genealogy ends with Joseph . It is then presumably his, not Mary’s. But for apologetic or dogmatic considerations, no one would ever have thought of doubting this. What creates perplexity is that Joseph, while called the husband ( ) of Mary, is not represented as the father of Jesus. There is no in this case, though some suppose that there was originally, as the genealogy came from the hand of some Jewish Christian, who regarded Jesus as the Son of Joseph (Holtzmann in H. C.). The Sinaitic Syriac Codex has “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus,” but it does not alter the story otherwise to correspond with Joseph’s paternity. Therefore Joseph can only have been the legal father of Jesus. But, it is argued, that is not enough to satisfy the presupposition of the whole N. T., viz. , that Jesus was the actual son of David ( , Rom 1:3 ); therefore the genealogy must be that of Mary (Nsgen). This conclusion can be reconciled with the other alternative by the assumption that Mary was of the same tribe and family as Joseph, so that the genealogy was common to both. This was the patristic view. The fact may have been so, but it is not indicated by the evangelist. His aim, undoubtedly, is to set forth Jesus as the legitimate son of Joseph, Mary’s husband, at His birth, and therefore the proper heir of David’s throne. . The peculiar manner of expression is a hint that something out of the usual course had happened, and prepares for the following explanation: ; not implying doubt, but suggesting that the claim of Jesus to the title Christ was valid if He were a legitimate descendant of David, as the genealogy showed Him to be.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
of whom. Greek. ex hes, feminine. [Mary].
born = brought forth. Greek. gennao. Spoken, here, of the mother. See note on “begat” (Mat 1:2).
Jesus. See App-98.
Christ = Anointed. Hebrew Messiah. See App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 1:16. , the husband of Mary) This turn of the genealogical line is evidently singular;[18] and in this place, therefore, I must advance and substantiate several important assertions.
[18] Singularis. i.e., unique.-(I. B.)
I. Messias or Christ is the Son of David.
This is admitted by all.-See Mat 22:42, and Act 2:30.
II. Even in their genealogies both Matthew and Luke teach that Jesus is the Christ.
This is clear from Mat 1:16, and Luk 3:22.
III. At the time when Matthew and Luke wrote the descent of Jesus from David had been placed beyond doubt.
Both Matthew and Luke wrote before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, when the full genealogy of the house of David, preserved in the public records, was easily accessible to all: and our Lords adversaries did not ever make any objection, when Jesus was so frequently hailed as the Son of David.
IV. The genealogy in St Matthew from Abraham, and that in St Luke from the creation of man, to Joseph the husband of Mary, is deduced, not through mothers but fathers, and those natural fathers.
This is evident in the case of all those ancestors, whose names St Matthew and St Luke repeat from the Old Testament. Wherefore it is not said, whether Ruth had been the wife of Mahlon or Chilion; but Obed is simply said to be the son of his real father Boaz by Ruth [though his legal father was Mahlon.-See Rth 4:10, etc.] From Abraham to David the same ancestors are evidently mentioned by both Matthew and Luke; so that there can be no doubt but that both Evangelists intend not mothers but fathers, and those, fathers by nature, from David to Joseph. Thus, in the books of Kings and Chronicles, as often soever as the mother of a king is mentioned alone, it is a sign that he whom her son is said to have immediately succeeded was his natural father.
V. The genealogy in Matthew from Solomon, and that in Luke from Nathan, is brought down to Joseph, not with the same, but with a different view [respectu, relation, regard.]
This is clear from the preceding section.
VI. Jesus Christ was the Son of Mary, but not of her husband Joseph.
This is evident from Mat 1:16.
VII. It was necessary that the genealogy of Mary should be drawn out.
Without the genealogy of Mary, the descent of Jesus from David could not be proved, as follows from what has just been said.
VIII. Joseph was for some time reputed to be the father of the Lord Jesus.
The mystery of the Redeemers birth from a virgin was not made known at once, but by degrees; and, in the meanwhile, the honourable title of marriage was required as a veil for that mystery. Jesus, therefore, was believed to be the Son of Joseph, for instance, after His baptism, by Philip (Joh 1:45); in the time of His public preaching, by the inhabitants of Nazareth (Luk 4:22; Mat 13:55), and only a year before His Passion by the Jews (Joh 6:42). Many still clung to this opinion even after our Lords Ascension, and up to the time, therefore, when, a few years subsequently to that event, St Matthew wrote his gospel.
IX. It was therefore necessary that the genealogy of Joseph also should in the meanwhile exist.
It was necessary that all those who believed Jesus to be the Son of Joseph, should be convinced that Joseph was descended from David. Otherwise they could not have acknowledged Jesus to be the Son of David, and consequently could not acknowledge Him to be the Christ. When therefore the angel first appeared to Joseph, and commanded him to take unto him his wife, he called him (Mat 1:20) the son of David: because, forsooth, the Son of Mary would for a time have to bear that name as if derived from Joseph. In like manner, not only was Jesus in truth the first-born (Luk 2:7; Luk 2:23) of His mother, but it behoved also that He should be reputed to be the first-born of Joseph: those, therefore, who are called the brethren of Jesus, were His first cousins, not His half-brothers. It is needless to attempt, as some have done, to prove the consanguinity of Joseph and Mary from their marriage: for even if David be their nearest common ancestor, St Matthews object is attained. St Matthew then has traced the genealogy of Joseph, but still so as to do no violence to truth: for he does not say that Jesus is the Son of Joseph, but he does say that He was the Son of Mary; and in this very sixteenth verse he intimates, that this genealogy of Joseph, which had its use for a time, would afterwards become obsolete. Marys descent from David was equally well known at that time, as appears from St Luke.
X. Either Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary, and Luke that of Joseph; or Matthew that of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary.
This clearly follows from the preceding sections.
XI. The genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph; in Luke, that of Mary.
St Matthew traces the line of descent from Abraham to Jacob: he expressly states that Jacob begat Joseph, and expressly calls Joseph the husband of Mary. Joseph therefore is regarded throughout this genealogy as the descendant of those who are enumerated, not on Marys account, but on his own. Matthew, indeed, expressly contradistinguishes Joseph from Mary as the son of Jacob; but in St Luke, by a less strict mode of expression, Heli (Luk 3:23) is simply placed after Joseph. Since, then, Joseph is described in Matthew as actually the son of Jacob, St Luke cannot mean to represent him as actually the son of Heli. The only alternative which remains, therefore, is to conclude that he is the son of Heli, not in his own person, but by virtue of another, and that other his wife. Mary, then, is the daughter of Heli. The Jewish writers mention a certain , Mary, the daughter of Heli, whom they describe as suffering extreme torments in the infernal regions.-See Light-foot[19] on Luk 3:23, and Wolfius[20] on Mat 1:20. St Luke does not, however, name Mary in his genealogy; for it would have sounded ill, especially to Jewish ears, had he written Jesus was the Son of Mary, the daughter of Heli, the son of Matthat, etc.-on which account he names the husband of Mary, but that in such a manner that all may be able to understand (from the whole of his first and second chapters), that the name of Marys husband stands for that of Mary herself.
[19] John Lightfoot, D.D. Born in Staffordshire, 1602. Educated at Christ Church, Cambridge. One of the Assembly of Divines during the Commonwealth. In 1648 was made Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, and served the office of Vice-Chancellor: and died in 1675. He excelled in rabbinical learning.-(I. B.)
[20] John Christopher Wolfius, a learned Lutheran divine, pastor and Professor of Oriental Languages at Hamburgh. Born 1683. Died 1739. Author of Bibliotheca Hebra, Cur Philologic et Critic in Novum Testamentum.-(I. B.)
XII. That in St Luke is the primary, that in St Matthew the secondary genealogy.
When a genealogy is traced through female as well as male ancestors, any descent may be deduced in many ways from one root; whereas a pedigree, traced simply from father to son, must of necessity consist only of a single line. In the genealogy, however, of Jesus Christ, Mary, His mother, is reckoned with His male ancestors, by a claim of incomparable precedence. In an ordinary pedigree ancestors are far more important than ancestresses. Mary, however, enters this genealogy with a peculiar and unrivalled claim, above that of every ancestor whatever of the whole human race; for whatever Jesus derived from the stock of man-of Abraham, or of David-that He derived entirely from His mother. This is the One Seed of Woman without Man. Other children owe their birth partly to their father, partly to their mother. The genealogy of Mary, therefore, which is given in St Luke, is the primary one. Nor can that of Joseph, in St Matthew, be considered otherwise than secondary, and merely employed for the time, until all should become fully convinced, that Jesus was the Son of Mary, but not of Joseph. St Matthew mentions Jechoniah, although he is passed by in the primary genealogy.-See Jer 22:30; and cf. Luk 1:32-33.
XIII. Whatever difficulty yet remains regarding this whole matter, so far from weakening, should even confirm our faith.
The stock of David had, in the time of Jesus of Nazareth, dwindled down to so small a number (see Rev 22:16), that on this ground also the appellation Son of David was used by Antonomasia[21] for The Messiah. And that family consisted so exclusively of Jesus and His relatives, that any one who knew Him to belong to it could not fail, even without the light of faith, to acknowledge Him as the Messiah, since the period foretold by the prophets for His manifestation had already arrived, and none of our Lords relations could be compared with Himself. Our Lords descent, therefore, from the race of David, as well as His birth at Bethlehem, were less publicly known; nay, rather He was in some degree veiled, as it were, by the name of Nazarene, that faith might not lose its price.[22]-See Joh 7:27; Joh 7:41-42. And thus men, having been first induced on other grounds to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, concluded, on the same grounds, that He must be the Son of David.-See Mat 12:23. The necessary public documents, however, were in existence, whence it came to pass, that the chief priests, though employing every means against our Lord, never questioned His descent from David. Nay, even the Romans received much information concerning the Davidical descent of Jesus.-See Luk 2:4. Of old the facility with which His descent could be traced, showed Jesus to be the Son of David: now the very difficulty of so doing (caused as it is by the destruction of Jerusalem, and all the public records which it contained), affords a proof, against the Jews at least, that the Messiah must long since have come. Should they acknowledge any other as the Messiah, they must ascertain his descent from David in precisely the same manner that we do that of Jesus of Nazareth. As light, however, advanced, the aspect of the question has not a little changed. Jesus was called, on various occasions, The Son of David, by the multitude (ch. Mat 12:23, Mat 21:9), by children (Mat 21:15), by the blind men (Mat 9:27, Mat 20:30), by the woman of Canaan (Mat 15:22): but He never declared to His disciples that He was the Son of David, and they, in their professions of faith, called Him, not The Son of David, but The Son of God; He invited, also, those who called Him the Son of David, to advance further.-See Mat 21:42-43, and Mat 9:28. In the first instance our Lords descent from David was rather a ground of faith, afterwards it became rather an obstacle to faith. No difficulty can now be a hinderance to them that believe.-See 2Co 5:16. Jesus is the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.[23]
[21] The substitution of an appellative designation for a proper name.-ED. See explanation of technical terms in Appendix.-(I. B.)
[22] Ut pretium fidei maneret. Faith was allowed to remain attended with seeming difficulties, at the cost of surmounting which, men were appointed to attain to it.-ED.
[23] Rev 22:16.-(I. B.)
XIV. Matthew and Luke combine ulterior objects and advantages with the genealogy.
If the Evangelists had merely wished to show that Mary and also Joseph were descended from David, it would have been sufficient for their purpose, had they, taking the genealogies as they exist in the Old Testament for granted, commenced at the point where these conclude, namely, with Zorobabel, or at any rate with David himself, and traced the line through Nathan or Solomon down to Jesus Christ. St Matthew, however, begins further off, viz. with Abraham, and descends through David and Solomon. St Luke, on the other hand, ascends to Nathan and David, and thence beyond Abraham to the first origin of the human race. Each of them, therefore, must have had at the same time a further object in view.
St Luke, as is evident at first sight, makes a full recapitulation[24] and summary of the lineage of the whole human race, and exhibits with that lineage the Saviours consanguinity to all Gentiles, as well as Jews: St Matthew, writing to the Hebrews, begins with Abraham, thus reminding them of the promise which had been made to that Patriarch. Again, St Luke simply enumerates the whole series, through more than seventy steps, without addition or comment: whereas St Matthew, besides several remarkable observations which he introduces in particular cases concerning the wives and brothers of those whom he mentions, and the Babylonian Captivity, divides the whole series into three periods; and, as we shall presently consider, enumerates in each of these periods fourteen generations. And hence, also, we perceive the convenience of the descent in Matthew, and the ascent in Luke: for in this manner the former was enabled more conveniently to introduce those observations and divisions; the latter, to avoid the stricter word , begat, and take advantage of the formula , as was supposed, and in an exquisite manner to conclude the whole series with God.- , who is called Christ) St Matthew is dealing with the Jewish reader, who is to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ, by such means as His genealogy. And accordingly he here and there [throughout his Gospel] expresses and establishes what the other Evangelists take for granted. The force of the name Christ recalls especially the promise given to David concerning the Kingdom of the Messiah: and the force of the name Jesus recalls especially the promise given to Abraham concerning the Blessing.[25]
[24] See explanation of technical terms in voc. ANAKEPHALAESOSIS. The word is used by Quintilian.-(I. B.)
[25] The Greek , and the Hebrew , means Anointed, i.e., King. Jesus is the proper name of our Lord: [the] Christ is a surname [cognomen], implying His office. The ancients were expecting the Christ, before the birth of Jesus: when Jesus had been born, a demonstrative proof was given that this very Jesus is the Christ; and when that demonstration of His being the Christ was subsequently made more widely known, the appellation, Jesus Christ, became the prevalent one.-Vers. Germ.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1 Six Marys 2 of whom was born 3 Christ
1 Six Marys
1 Six Marys are to be distinguished in the N.T.:
(1) the mother of Jesus; always clearly identified by the context.
(2) Mary Magdalene, a woman of Magdala, ” out of whom went seven demons” Luk 8:2 She is never mentioned apart from the identifying word “Magdalene.”
(3) The mother of James (called “the less,” Mar 15:40) and Joses, the apostles. A comparison of; Joh 19:25; Mat 27:56; Mar 15:40 establishes the inference that this Mary, the mother of James the less, and of Joses was the wife of Alphaeus (called also Cleophas), Joh 19:25 and a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. Except in; Mat 27:61; Mat 28:1 where she is called “the other Mary (i.e. “other” than her sister, Mary the Virgin); and Joh 19:25 where she is called “of Cleophas,” she is mentioned only in connection with one or both of her sons.
(4) Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus, mentioned by name only in Luk 10:39-42; Joh 11:1; Joh 11:2; Joh 11:19; Joh 11:20; Joh 11:28; Joh 11:31; Joh 11:32; Joh 11:45; Joh 12:3 but referred to in; Mat 26:7; Mar 14:3-9.
(5) The mother of John Mark and sister of Barnabas Act 12:12.
(6) A helper of Paul in Rome Rom 16:6.
2 of whom was born
2 The changed expression here is important. It is no longer, “who begat,” but, “Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” Jesus was not begotten of natural generation.
3 Christ
3 Christ (Christos=anointed), the Greek form of the Hebrew “Messiah” Dan 9:25; Dan 9:26 is the official name of our Lord, as Jesus is his human name; Luk 1:31; Luk 2:21. The name, or title, “Christ” connects Him with the entire O.T. foreview (See Scofield “Zec 12:8”) of a coming prophet Deu 18:15-19, Priest Psa 110:4 and king 2Sa 7:7-10. As these were typically anointed with oil; 1Ki 19:16; Exo 29:7; 1Sa 16:13 so Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit; Mat 3:16; Mar 1:10; Mar 1:11; Luk 3:21; Luk 3:22; Joh 1:32; Joh 1:33 thus becoming officially “the Christ.”
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Joseph: Mat 1:18-25, Mat 2:13, Luk 1:27, Luk 2:4, Luk 2:5, Luk 2:48, Luk 3:23, Luk 4:22
of whom: Mar 6:3, Luk 1:31-35, Luk 2:7, Luk 2:10, Luk 2:11
who: Mat 27:17, Mat 27:22, Joh 4:25
Reciprocal: Mat 4:18 – walking Joh 1:14 – the Word Rom 1:3 – which
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The Christmas Message
Mat 1:16-25
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
We here present one of the great omissions of the Bible, which constitutes one of the great proofs that Christ was virgin born.
The earlier verses of the first chapter of Matthew present the genealogy of Joseph, and husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called the Christ.
1. Since Joseph was not the father of Jesus, why was it necessary for God the Spirit to give us the details of his genealogy? It was for this cause: Joseph, while not actually father to Jesus, was legally father to Him. We mean by that statement that Jesus, being the Son of Mary, was born into the family of Joseph, and that Joseph became, therefore, the recognized father of Jesus. The Bible puts it this way: “Being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph.”
Some of the Jews even said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph?” Now mark the fact that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, showing his direct lineage from Abraham through David and the kingly line. This table, therefore, established that Joseph was the legal heir to David’s throne.
In the study of the genealogy you will note that the name of Jechonias occurs in Mat 1:11. Now of this Jechonias, known commonly as Coniah, God has said, “For no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (Jer 22:30). Because of this curse upon Coniah, had Jesus actually been Joseph’s son, He could not sit on David’s throne and prosper; however, being not actually begotten of Joseph (who was of Coniah’s sons), and yet legally Joseph’s Heir, He could take David’s throne.
Luk 1:31-33 does, however, forever establish the fact that Christ must take David’s throne; and the genealogy of Mat 7:1-29 demonstrates that without actually being Joseph’s son, God has proved Christ as eligible to David’s throne as his Heir. This is doubly true, because Jesus was not only born of Mary, and under Joseph’s “wing,” but Mary herself, according to the genealogy of Luk 3:1-38, was also a seed of David, through Nathan, but not of the kingly line.
2. Since, then, Jesus was not Joseph’s son, how is that fact established by the Matthew genealogy? Now we will set before you the great omission which is so revealing, and which establishes Christ as Son of God.
Here is the way the genealogical table runs:
“Abraham begat Isaac”; “Isaac begat Jacob”; “Jacob begat Judas”; “Judas begat Phares”; “Pharas begat Esrom,” and so on to David. Then we read:
“David begat Solomon”; “Solomon begat Roboam,” and so on until we read:
“Matthan begat Jacob”; “Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”
In the Record it reads “begat, begat, begat,” for 39 times; then suddenly the word “begat” is dropped out entirely, and not even inferred, as the Bible passes into the birth of Jesus. Reading as all the others read, it would have been “Jacob begat Joseph”; Joseph begat Jesus”; but it does not so read. The rather it reads: “Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,” etc.
It is not difficult to explain this great omission of the word “begat,” for the Bible goes on to assert: “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.”
The language above could be neither plainer nor stronger. It establishes the Virgin Birth of our Lord in so concise and clear a fashion that no believer in the truth of the inspired Word can doubt that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost and born of Mary.
I. THE BIRTH OF JESUS WAS ON THIS WISE-BY THE HOLY GHOST (Mat 1:18)
The key verse: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: * * she was found with Child of the Holy Ghost.”
1. The Virgin Birth is established by the plain statement of Scripture. The Word of God stands or falls on this one statement: “of the Holy Ghost.” The words are true or false. If false, there is no dependency in the Word of God. We are ready to grant that thousands of preachers repudiate the Virgin Birth of Christ. When they do so, however, they leave to themselves a discounted, derided, and defamed Bible. No one can accept any statement of the Bible as inerrant if this statement is untrue.
2. The Virgin Birth is true, or else the world has no Saviour. If Jesus Christ were the son of Joseph and Mary, then His mother was a woman of the street; His father was unclean; and He was a bastard of illegitimate parentage; and, saddest of all, He was, Himself, a sinner.
How shuddering is this to consider! Yet, if Christ were conceived by man, outside of wedlock, each statement is of necessity true. Thus we would have, if the modernist had his way, not only no Bible worth believing, but we would have no Saviour worth trusting. With one stroke of his penknife the modernist would rob himself and all the world of a Saviour, who is Jesus Christ the Lord. Hear the fiat of Scripture: The angel is speaking to Mary, and he says, “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.”
The Babe did not partake of the nature of His mother, for she gave Him only the body that God prepared; He partook only of the nature of the Holy Ghost.
Christ did no sin, He knew no sin, and in Him there was no sin, all because He was God the Son, and Son of God.
II. THE CHARACTER OP JOSEPH, THE HUSBAND OF MARY (Mat 1:19)
Our text reads: “Then Joseph her husband, being a just man.”
1. Joseph was a just man-not a man of shame. Instead of being guilty of uncleanness, as the modernist would impugn, God says he was a just man, and when he discovered the condition of his espoused wife to be, he was minded to put her away privately. We accept God’s Word as true and final. Joseph is exonerated.
2. Once more the Virgin Birth of Christ is manifested. Therefore if Mary were not a virgin, and Christ were not virgin-born, then God has lied twice. And we cry, “Let God be true, but every man a liar.”
We add another infallible proof that Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit and was virgin born. It is proved by the eternity of Christ. No son of Joseph and Mary or pi any other so begotten after man, could be God the eternal Son. Christ came forth from the Father and came into the world. The only time He spoke of His birth, so far as the Bible records, was when He said about His Kingship, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world.” He spoke often about coming from Heaven, coming from the Father, coming into the world. He also spoke of the glory He had with the Father before the world was.
3. Not that alone, but the statement of Holy writ, “Great is the mystery * *: God was manifest in the flesh,” makes the Virgin Birth a necessity. If Christ were not God-begotten, He could not be God manifest in flesh. Remember, Jesus Christ was the Word in Heaven: that is the reason He became the Word in flesh tabernacling among us. That is the reason that He was the express Image of the Father, full of grace and truth. That is the reason that He could declare the Father.
III. HIS NAME, JESUS (Mat 1:21)
The key verse says, “And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His Name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins.”
1. The significance of His preannounced Names, acclaim Christ virgin born. The first Name is that of our text: the Name is Jesus. From the deep meanings of that Name comes forth the word, “He shall save His people from their sins.” Mary herself grasped the significance of that Name, when upon her visit to her older cousin, Elizabeth, she said: “My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” Who was God her Saviour? It was none other than the Babe whom she was to mother. Did any mother ever speak in such rapturous terms of her own babe? Impossible! Mary did so only because Gabriel had told her that she was to be mother to Jesus, and she believed the words that were told her (Luk 1:45).
That Name Jesus, Saviour, has been a favorite Name among the saved.
2. The significance of the Name “Immanuel.” “A virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His Name Immanuel” (Isa 7:14).
Here is the Name which suggests, “God with us.” This is set forth also in Mat 1:23. No wonder that Gabriel said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.” No wonder that it is written, and written of that Babe, “God was manifest in the flesh.”
The Old Testament Scriptures everywhere sustain this truth. For instance in Isa 9:6 we read, “Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: * * and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” No babe could be so honored or so named unless begotten of the Holy Ghost, and virgin born.
3. The significance of the names, “Lord,” and “God.” Again in Isa 40:1-31 :3 John, who was the forerunner to Christ, is spoken of as preparing the way of the Lord, and making straight in the desert a highway for our God. Thus the Babe was named both Lord and God. The shepherds heard in the annunciation on the day of Christ’s birth, the word, “There is born unto you, a Saviour who is Christ, the Lord.” In Isaiah the babe is called (Isa 45:21), a just God and a Saviour.
IV. HIS BIRTH A FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHETS (Mat 1:22)
1. The authority of the Prophets. Hear the words: “That * * which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet.” How else could the Prophet have spoken the story of the virgin-born Son of God, but by the dictation of the Lord? In all history none other was ever announced ahead of His birth as was Christ.
(1) The fact that He was to be born of a virgin was foretold. This is no small matter for your consideration. Who, in the days of intelligent thought, could in himself, have suggested such a marvel? Remember this was no myth, nor mythological fairy story: it was a prediction of 700 years before Christ, fulfilled in actual history.
(2) The fact that He was born in Bethlehem was also foretold. What said the Lord through Micah? “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
Thus did the Lord, through His Prophet, declare in one breath how Christ should be born in Bethlehem, and how He was God the Son, with His goings forth from eternity past.
Thus it came to pass that, when Herod the king inquired of the chief priests where Christ should be born, they said, “In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the Prophet.” Then they quoted to Herod the words of Micah.
2. The fulfillment of the Prophets. The fulfillment of the words of the Prophets must needs come to pass, because the words of the Prophets were the words of the Lord. Indeed, all that the Prophets have written must have a like literal fulfillment.
V. GOD WITH US (Mat 1:23)
We want to enlarge on this wonderful Name given to Christ: Emmanuel-God! Yet not God merely, but God with us.
1. The One who was born of Mary was the One who was with God and was God. Let those who think upon the Virgin Birth of our Lord during this Yuletide, remember that He was eternally God. It is written, “In the beginning was the Word.” So much from Joh 1:1-51. Now let us examine 1Jn 1:1-10. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” Is it not a privilege to see and hear and know and handle the One who was God from the beginning?
If someone says, “No man hath seen God at any time,” let such a one remember that “the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” Thus “( * * we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” Now we are prepared to hear Christ saying, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.”
2. The One begotten of Mary was God manifesting God unto men.
(1) He did the will of the Father. He said, “I do always those things that please Him.” Again He said, “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.” He knew no will but the Father’s.
(2) He spoke the words of the Father. He said that His words were not His, but the Father’s. He said again, “I have given unto them the words that Thou gavest Me.”
(3) He wrought the works of the Father. Here is His statement, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” Then He said, “The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works.”
What, then, is the result of all this? Here it is:
“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him.”
Surely we have established the fact that the Christ of Bethlehem and the Father were One. They were one because Christ was God, Emmanuel.
VI. JOSEPH, OBEDIENT UNTO GOD (Mat 1:24)
Our Scripture says, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife.”
1. Joseph believed God. The man who had laid down that night, filled with misgivings and fears, accepted the story of the Divine begetting. He did not, he could not, understand it, yet he believed. He could not grasp the full significance of it all, yet he believed.
The men of today should stop to consider how Joseph at the first thought to put away Mary whom he loved, supposing her to have fallen into sin somewhere or other, with whom, he knew not. Yet Joseph was changed in his ideas after the angel had talked with him, and he married her who was to be mother to Christ, and accepted Him as One begotten of the Holy Ghost.
2. Joseph obeyed God. He took unto him his wife, as the angel of the Lord had bidden him. It was not so long until the Word of God was verified, and Mary brought forth her firstborn Son, and Joseph “called His Name Jesus.”
This naming of the Babe adds further light to Joseph’s faith and obedience. He was told that Mary’s Babe should be called Jesus, “for He shall save His people from their sins.” This Joseph accepted at 100 per cent.
Let us also fall down with admiration and worship, and acknowledge that Babe as God our Saviour. The promise is for all. It is for you and for me. The Babe, virgin born, was sent from God to save all who believe on Him.
Even now He is saying, “Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God.” Shall we not trust Him, and come to Him? Mark you, “There is none other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Once a Babe, then the crucified and buried Son of God; now, exalted at the Father’s right hand, and soon coming again in the clouds of Heaven.
VII. THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT (Mat 2:13-15)
1. The strategy of King Herod. Under guise of urgent and interested inquiry, Herod, aroused by the visit of the Magi, who had come to worship Him who was born King of the Jews, set in motion the law that would make certain the death of the Infant Christ. His order was that all male sons, two years or under, should be killed. The result was that in Ramah there was weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, for they were not.
2. The warning from God to Joseph. God told Joseph to arise and take the Infant Christ and flee into Egypt. This Joseph at once did. If you ask where Joseph, the carpenter, obtained money for so costly and extensive a trip, we answer God sent it by the Magi who came to worship Christ, bringing gifts of great cost and value in the market of their day.
3. The peculiar wording of God’s warning to Joseph. In the second chapter of Matthew we read the following statements, spoken to and about Joseph:
(1) “Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word” (Mat 2:13);
(2) “When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night, and departed into Egypt” (Mat 2:14);
(3) “But when Herod was dead,” the angel of the Lord said, “Take the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel” (Mat 2:19-20);
(4) “He arose, and took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel” (Mat 2:21).
Mark you that the expression “the young Child and His mother” would have been peculiar if used but once; however, the four-times repetition of the word, for emphasis, makes the statement passing strange.
What does this mean? The natural way of statement would have been, “Take your wife and your child,” etc. However, the Babe was not Joseph’s child.
Mat 2:15 gives us the needed light. Observe the words: “When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night, and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called My Son.” Thus the expression, “the young Child and His mother” was spoken because God said the Bable was “My Son.” On this Christmas Day we fall down, therefore, and worship Mary’s Babe as Lord, and Christ, and Saviour, God the Son, and Son of God.
AN ILLUSTRATION
One of the things about the Christmas message that we should not overlook was that Christ came from Heaven to live and die for His enemies.
“During the Revolutionary War there was living in Pennsylvania a faithful preacher of the Gospel named Peter Miller. Near him lived a man who was violently opposed to Miller, and openly abused both him and his followers. The man was found guilty of treason, and sentenced to death. No sooner was the sentence pronounced than Miller set out on foot to General Washington to intercede for the man’s life. He was told that his prayer for his friend could not be granted. ‘My friend! He is not my friend,’ answered Peter Miller. ‘I have not a worse enemy living than that man.’ ‘What,’ said Washington, ‘you have walked sixty miles to save the life of your enemy? That, in my judgment, puts the matter in a different light. I will grant the pardon.’ The pardon was made out, and Miller at once proceeded on foot to the place, fifteen miles distant, where the execution was to. take place. He arrived just as the man was being taken to the scaffold. The traitor, on seeing Miller in the crowd, exclaimed, ‘Why, there is old Peter Miller! He has come all the way from Ephrata to have his revenge gratified today by seeing me hanged.’ These words were scarcely spoken before Miller stepped forward, produced the pardon and the life of his worst enemy was spared. ‘When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son’ (Rom 5:10). ‘Christ died for the ungodly.'”
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
1:16
Verse 16. The use of the term “begat Is not used here because Joseph was only the foster father of Jesus. But the verse states that he was the husband of Mary in order to show how the two blood streams from David were Joined. Husband is from aseb which Is the only word for husband in the New Testament. It is so rendered 50 times and by “man 156 times. The word cannot hence be known to designate a married man except by the connection in which it is found. Jesus who is called Christ. The specific meaning of the first word is saviour and the last is defined anointed. The force of the combined title Is “Saviour and King.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.] The mother’s family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Mary’s husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary’s father. These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the ‘seed of the woman,’ and as the ‘Son of David’; that, as a man, this, as a king. It was therefore needful, in setting down his genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both. Therefore Luke declareth him the promised seed of the woman, deducing his mother’s stock, from whence man was born, from Adam; Matthew exhibits his royal original, deriving his pedigree along through the royal family of David to Joseph, his (reputed) father.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 1:16. Joseph, the legal father, whose genealogy is here given. In Luk 3:23, Joseph is called the son of Heli. Explanations:
(1.) Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, Hell being her father, and the father-in-law of Joseph. This is the most probable view, since the writers of the New Testament assume that Jesus was descended from David through his mother. It involves no positive difficulty, and is in accordance with the prominence given to Mary in the opening chapters of Luke. See notes on Luk 3:23.
(2.) Both are genealogies of Joseph. This assumes one, or perhaps two, levirate marriages in the family of Joseph. (A levirate marriage was one in which a man wedded the widow of his elder brother, the children being; legally reckoned as descendants of the first husband: comp. Deu 25:5-6; Mat 22:24, and parallel passages.) It is supposed that Jacob (Matthew) and Heli (Luke) were brothers or half-brothers, one of whom died without issue, the other marrying the childless wife. If brothers, Matthan (Matthew) and Matthat (Luke) refer to the same person. The objection to the whole theory is, that Jewish usage would insert in the genealogy not the name of the second husband (the real father), but only that of the first husband who died childless. The theory that Jacob and Heli were brothers compels us to assume an identity which is opposed rather than favored by the similarity of the names: Matthan and Matthat. The theory that they were half-brothers assumes a second levirate marriage in the case of Matthan and Matthat. Besides the double difficulty thus created, there is no evidence that the levirate usage applied to half-brothers. The view that the names Matthan and Matthat refer to the same person, involves the cousinship of Joseph and Mary, which is nowhere alluded to. According to another hypothesis, the royal ancestry of Joseph is given by Matthew, a descent from David through private persons is traced by Luke. This implies inaccuracy in one or the other.
Of whom was born. The form here changes in accordance with the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 1:16. Jacob begat Joseph It is evident that Joseph was properly the son of Jacob, and only the son-in-law of Eli: Luk 3:23. See note on Mat 1:2. Though Joseph was not the true father of Christ, yet Christs pedigree was reckoned by him, because he had no other father as man, and Joseph was his supposed father, being the husband of Mary, his mother; and the mother being transplanted into her husbands family, the child must go for one of that family. And therefore Josephs family was to be set down, lest, if it had not been known, the Jews should have taken occasion to reject Christ on that account, for it was generally received among them that Jesus was the son of the carpenter, Mat 13:55; the son of Joseph, Joh 6:42. If, therefore, Joseph had not been acknowledged to have been of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David, they would undoubtedly have considered this as a strong objection to Christs pretences of being the Messiah. Hence the Divine Wisdom was pleased to direct this apostle to remove that stumbling-block. Let it be observed, further, that it was a received rule among the Jews, that the family of the mother is not called a family; all their pedigrees being reckoned and deduced from the father. This is the reason why Matthew has here set down the genealogy of Joseph; and thus Jesus Christ is the son of David, because Josephs marriage with Mary gave to Jesus a right to all the privileges which a child, that is born of strange parents, was entitled to by adoption, and which were granted by law to the posterity of a man who had married his brothers widow. It is, moreover, very probable, that Mary was an only daughter, and an heiress, and consequently obliged to marry in her own family. See Num 36:7-9. So that by giving the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gives at the same time that of Mary. He is called the husband of Mary; for the names of husband and wife were given by the Jews to persons who were only betrothed. See Gen 29:21; Deu 22:24. Some copies, however, read, Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed. Of whom was born Jesus This is elegantly said, for he was the seed of the woman, not of the man. Who is called Christ i.e., Who is known by that name, and is really the Christ, or, the anointed one. Matthew adds this that he may distinguish the Saviour from others, who, either then or before, might have been called Jesus. Among the Hebrews, those who were raised, by the singular providence of God, to eminent dignities, were termed , Messiahs, or, anointed persons, even though, strictly speaking, they had not been anointed with oil, as Abraham and Isaac, Psa 105:15; Cyrus, Isa 45:1; and the king of Tyre, Eze 28:14. Much more those who, by an unction, were consecrated to any particular office, as their prophets, high priests, and kings, had that appellation given them. In particular their kings, as long as royalty remained in the family of David, were called Christs, or, anointed ones. But after the destruction of the kingdom, this name, as appears from Dan 9:25-26, began to be referred to one Redeemer, whom the Jews, encouraged by the predictions of the prophets, and especially of the last named, Daniel, looked for from God, to be their chief ruler and teacher, Joh 4:25; and by whom a perfect reparation of the breach was expected to be made. That super-eminent and singular Christ, Jesus professed himself to be, and both he and his disciples assigned, as a reason of the appellation, that he was furnished with power manifestly extraordinary and unparalleled, as well for the declaring and confirming his heavenly doctrine, as for the executing of all his other offices. See Luk 4:18; Joh 3:34; Act 4:27; and Act 10:36; Act 10:38.
As all the offices mentioned above, the prophetic, the priestly, the kingly, were to meet in him, and to be sustained by him in an infinitely higher degree than they were by any persons under the Jewish dispensation, who were no more than types of him, so he is represented as anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, Heb 1:9. He is immeasurably filled with the Holy Ghost, even as to his human nature, and most completely qualified for sustaining every office and character in which we need him. Are we ignorant of God and of divine things? He is a teacher come from God, a prophet like, nay, superior to Moses, and him we are to hear on pain of eternal destruction. He is the truth, and wisdom, and word of God: yea, the light of the world, and they that believe in him shall not abide in darkness, but shall have the light of life. Have we sinned and come short of the glory of God? Are we guilty before God, and subject to his just judgment? He is the high priest of our profession, a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek, a priest possessed of an unchangeable priesthood, and who, by one offering of himself, once made, hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified; having put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and ever living to make intercession for us. Are we the servants of sin, and therefore the subjects of Satan, captivated by his power, and held under his dominion? Does this present world tyrannise over us, and the law in our members war against the law of our mind and lead us captive to the law of sin that is in our members? And are we subject also to the law of death, and in bondage to the fear of it? He is exalted a prince and a saviour; is a king set upon the holy hill of Zion; and as to this office, also, the Spirit of the Lord God is upon him, because the Lord hath anointed him to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord; to deliver us from this present evil world; to make us free from the law of sin and death; to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and to deliver them, who, through fear of death, were all their life long subject to bondage.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 16
Jesus, who is called Christ. Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning the anointed King. It was a title of dignity, often applied, in the early part of the Old Testament, to other monarchs. In Daniel 9:25 , it is used to designate the coming Redeemer; and, subsequently, it seems to have been reserved exclusively for this use. It must be kept in mind, therefore, that the proper, personal name, by which the Savior was known during his life, was simply Jesus, (Matthew 1:21 😉 and that whether he was or was not the Messiah or Christ, was a question of fact for those who knew him to consider. On this distinction depend the point and meaning of such passages as John 1:41; and many similar expressions.