{"id":23172,"date":"2022-09-24T09:53:59","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T14:53:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-matthew-118\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T09:53:59","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T14:53:59","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-matthew-118","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-matthew-118\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:18"},"content":{"rendered":"

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. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

18<\/strong>. Jesus<\/em> ] see Mat 1:21<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Christ<\/em> (anointed)] The title<\/em> of Jesus as Prophet, Priest and King; for among the Jews, Prophets, Priests and Kings were anointed on entering upon their office. Christos<\/em>, very rare as a classical Greek word, is a translation of the Hebr. Mashiach<\/em>, a term applied to the Saviour in one passage only of the O. T. (Dan 9:25-26<\/span>). In the N. T. the Hebrew form is used twice (Joh 1:41<\/span>; Joh 4:25<\/span>), where it is explained “which is called Christ.” Note that one title Messiah or Christ has been adopted almost to the exclusion of others quite as common in the O.T., “The Branch,” “He that cometh” (Habba), “The Prophet.” This is partly due to the great influence of Daniel’s prophecy, partly to the appropriateness of the title to the Son of David.<\/p>\n

Mary<\/em> ] The Hebr. form is Miriam; the Greek Maria.<\/p>\n

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

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

18 25<\/strong>. The Birth of Jesus Christ. Luk 1:26-56<\/span>; Luk 2:4-7<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Now the birth of Jesus Christ – <\/B>The circumstances attending his birth.<\/P>

Was on this wise – <\/B>In this manner.<\/P>

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

With child by the Holy Ghost – <\/B>See the note at Luk 1:35<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mat 1:18-20<\/span><\/p>\n

A just man.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

An honest mans dilemma<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>That troubles are irrespective of character.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>That the mental perplexities of the good arise often from the want of insight into the divine movements. The cycles of Gods providence are too vast for our limited capacities.<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>That God graciously removes the honest scruples of the righteous. Josephs mental difficulties were removed<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> By an angelic communication;<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> By revealing the dignity of Christs birth;<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> By showing the nature of His mission. Jesus was the only man born with special mission in reference to sin.<\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>That this mysterious conception and noble birth came to pass in accordance with prophetic prediction (Isa 7:14-16<\/span>).<\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>Josephs belief in the angelic communication, and obedience to the divine command. Faith essential to willing and unreserved obedience, and to the removal of mental difficulties. (W. Edwards.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Joseph<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>His natural suspicion.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>His merciful determination.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>We need the tempering of justice with mercy, and mercy with justice. (R. Ward.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Nothing so clearly discovers a spiritual man as his treatment of an erring brother. (Augustine.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

<\/P>

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

<\/P>

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

<\/P>

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

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The evangelist prefaceth this extraordinary birth of our Saviour in this manner. <\/P>

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

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

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

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

God would have his Son to be born of a virgin: <\/P>

1. For the fulfilling of the promise, Isa 7:14<\/span>. <\/P>

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

Of a betrothed virgin: <\/P>

1. That he might not be under the reproach of illegitimacy. <\/P>

2. Nor his mother subjected to the punishment of the Judaical law. <\/P>

3. That Marys stock might be by her betrothed husband. <\/P>

4. That Christ might have a guard in his infancy. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

18. Now the birth of Jesus Christwas on this wise<\/B>or, “thus.” <\/P>

When as his mother Mary wasespoused<\/B>rather, “betrothed.” <\/P>

to Joseph, before they cametogether, she was found<\/B>discovered to be. <\/P>

with child of the HolyGhost<\/B>It was, of course, the fact only that was discovered; theexplanation of the fact here given is the Evangelist’s own. That theHoly Ghost is a living conscious Person is plainly implied here, andis elsewhere clearly taught (Act 5:3<\/span>;Act 5:4<\/span>, c.): and that, in theunity of the Godhead, He is distinct both from the Father and theSon, is taught with equal distinctness (Mat 28:19<\/span>2Co 13:14<\/span>). On the miraculousconception of our Lord, see on Lu 1:35<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Now the birth of Jesus Christ<\/strong>,…. The Evangelist having finished the genealogy of Christ, proceeds to give an account of his birth, which includes both his conception and bringing forth; and which he says<\/p>\n

was on this wise, f1 u959?u965?u964?u969?u962?<\/strong> so, “after this manner”, and which was very wonderful and astonishing;<\/p>\n

when as, f1 u947?u945?u961?<\/strong>, for his mother Mary was found with child,, not of man, no, not of Joseph her husband; Christ had no real father as man, Joseph was only, as was supposed, his father; but<\/p>\n

of the Holy Ghost<\/strong>, according to Lu 1:35<\/span>. “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee”, c. and this was done that the human nature of Christ might be clear of original pollution that so being the immediate produce of the Holy Ghost and without sin, it might be fit for union with the Son of God, and for the office of Mediator he had undertook. When Mary is said to be<\/p>\n

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

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

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

“Before the giving of the law, if a man met a woman in the street, if he would, he might take her, and bring her into his house and marry her between him and herself, and she became his wife; but when the law was given, the Israelites were commanded, that if a man would take a woman he should obtain her before witnesses, and after that she should be his wife, according to De 22:13<\/span> and these takings are an affirmative command of the law, and are called <\/p>\n

“espousals” or “betrothings” in every place; and a woman who is obtained in such a way is called <\/p>\n

“espoused” or “betrothed”; and when a woman is obtained, and becomes “espoused”, although she is not yet “married, nor has entered into her husband’s house”, yet she is a man’s wife.”<\/p>\n

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

“If two men should espouse two women, and at the time of their entrance into the bride chamber, the one should be taken for the other–they separate them for three months, because they may prove with child;”<\/p>\n

that is, as Bartenora observes upon it,<\/p>\n

“they separate them that they may not return to their husbands; and that if they should be with child, they may distinguish between a legitimate and an illegitimate offspring; and that the children which they may bring forth may not be ascribed to the wrong persons.”<\/p>\n

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

y Hilchot. Ishot. c. 1. sect. 1, 2, 3. z In loc. a Yebamot, c. 3. sect. 10.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Birth of Christ.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>


<\/P>


<\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      (2.) That she should bring forth the Saviour of the world<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 21<\/span>). She shall bring forth a Son;<\/I> what he shall be is intimated,<\/P>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The birth of Jesus Christ <\/B> ( [] <\/SPAN><\/span>). In the Greek Jesus Christ comes before birth as the important matter after 1:16<\/span>. It is not certain whether “Jesus” is here a part of the text as it is absent in the old Syriac and the Old Latin while the Washington Codex has only “Christ.” The Vatican Codex has “Christ Jesus.” But it is plain that the story of the birth of Jesus Christ is to be told briefly as follows, “on this wise” (<\/SPAN><\/span>), the usual Greek idiom. The oldest and best manuscripts have the same word genealogy (<\/SPAN><\/span>) used in 1:1<\/span>, not the word for birth (begotten) as in 1:16<\/span> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). “It is in fact the word Genesis. The evangelist is about to describe, not the genesis of the heaven and the earth, but the genesis of Him who made the heaven and the earth, and who will yet make a new heaven and a new earth” (Morison). <\/P>

Betrothed to Joseph <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Matthew proceeds to explain his statement in 1:16<\/span> which implied that Joseph, though the legal father of Jesus in the royal line, was not the actual father of Mary’s Son. Betrothal with the Jews was a serious matter, not lightly entered into and not lightly broken. The man who betrothed a maiden was legally husband (Gen 29:21<\/span>; Deut 22:23<\/span>) and “an informal cancelling of betrothal was impossible” (McNeile). Though they did not live together as husband and wife till actual marriage, breach of faithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punished with death. The New Testament in Braid Scots<\/I> actually has “mairry’t till Joseph” for “betrothed to Joseph.” Matthew uses the genitive absolute construction here, a very common Greek idiom. <\/P>

Of the Holy Ghost <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She “was found with child” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Cor 8:9<\/span>; Phil 2:5-11<\/span>; and involved in Col 1:15-19<\/span>) and by John (John 1:14<\/span>; John 17:5<\/span>). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though Joh 1:14<\/span> seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world’s Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God’s will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. Joh 3:16<\/span> is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:” <\/strong>(tou de lesou Christou he genesis houtos en) “Then the birth of Jesus Christ was (come to exist) as follows:” thus, in the manner hereafter related. Here begins the explanation of the genealogy which verse 16 leads one to expect. That Jesus was the legitimate legal son of Joseph and heir to David’s throne is here justified.<\/p>\n

2) “When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,” <\/strong>(mnesteutheises tes metros autou Marias to Joseph) “When his mother Mary was engaged (betrothed or espoused) to Joseph,” or after she had become, had agreed to be married to him, during the time of their engagement, and before their marriage of coming together as husband and wife had been consummated.<\/p>\n

NOT FORGOTTEN<\/strong><\/p>\n

The history of the race is but partially told in the records of earth. Kings, even, and great men, are not all named. Sacred penmen pass lightly over crowned heads. there is one book in which al I names are entered; and in the Book of Life the good alone, prince and peasant, without respect to earthly station. Many Jehoiakims forgotten, many of humbler lineage held in everlasting remembrance.<\/p>\n

3) “Before they came together,” <\/strong>(prin e sunelthein autous) “Preceding, before, or prior to their becoming one together” in physical affinity, of conjugal sex relations.”<\/p>\n

4) “She was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” <\/strong>(heurethe in gastri echous ek pnematos hagiou) “She came to be (and was) pregnant in her womb, of or by means of, the Holy Spirit; This is the identical means by which the angel Gabriel had foretold Mary that she would become with child, of the Holy Ghost,<\/strong> Luk 1:26-27<\/span>; Luk 1:30-35<\/span>. This Holy Spirit begettal and virgin birth conception, is Gods Supernatural method by which Jesus could become: <\/p>\n

1) The seed of the woman, Gen 3:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2) Virgin born, Isa 7:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n

3) Of the seed of David according to the flesh, Rom 1:3<\/span>.<\/p>\n

4) Made of a woman, Gal 4:4-5<\/span>; 1Ti 3:16<\/span>. This is a true, trustworthy, incontestable record of Divine Incarnation.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ Matthew does not as yet relate the place or manner of Christ’s birth, but the way in which his heavenly generation was made known to Joseph. First, he says that Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit Not that this secret work of God was generally known: but the historian mixes up, with the knowledge of men, (97) the power of the Spirit, which was still unknown. He points out the time: When she was espoused to Joseph, and before they came together So far as respects conjugal fidelity, from the time that a young woman was betrothed to a man, she was regarded by the Jews as his lawful wife. When a “damsel betrothed to an husband” was convicted of being unchaste, the law condemned both of the guilty parties as adulterers: <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife,” (Deu 22:23<\/span>.) <\/p>\n

The phrase employed by the Evangelist, before they came together, is either a modest appellation for conjugal intercourse, or simply means, “before they came to dwell together as husband and wife, and to make one home and family.” The meaning will thus be, that the virgin had not yet been delivered by her parents into the hands of her husband, but still remained under their roof. <\/p>\n

(97) (“ Qui voyoyent bien par signes externes que Marie estoit enceinte.”) —(“Who saw well by outward marks that Mary was pregnant.”) <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CRITICAL NOTES<\/em><\/p>\n

Mat. 1:18<\/span>. Espoused<\/strong> = betrothed.Among the Jews the betrothal took place a year before marriage, and during the interval the betrothed maiden remained with her own family. But from the day of betrothal the pair were regarded as man and wife (Carr<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Mat. 1:19<\/span>. A just man.<\/strong>Two courses were open to him. He could either summon her before the law-courts to be judicially condemned and punished, or he could put her away by a bill of divorcement before witnesses, but without assigning cause. He resolved to take the more merciful course, which was also the more just. Dr. Brown says, That some communication had passed between him and his betrothed, directly or indirectly, on the subject, after she returned from her three months visit to Elizabeth, can hardly be doubted. Nor does the purpose to divorce her necessarily imply disbelief on Josephs part of the explanation given him. Even supposing him to have yielded to it some reverential assentand the Evangelist seems to convey as much by ascribing the proposal to screen her to the justice<\/em> of his characterhe might think it altogether unsuitable and incongruous in such circumstances to follow out the marriage.<\/p>\n

Mat. 1:22<\/span>. Fulfilled.<\/strong>The Evangelists frequently quote prophecies, the context of which must, at the time that they were first delivered, have been interpreted of things then present, and that, too, according to the Divine intention. But the same Divine intention, looking forward to remote futurity, so framed the language of prophecy that it should apply with greater specialty to the times of the Messiah (Bengel<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Mat. 1:23<\/span>. A virgin.<\/strong>R.V., the<\/em> virgin, a particular virgin. The prophecy (Isaiah 7<\/span>) is distinctly Messianic, but the sign in Isaiah is not concerned with the manner<\/em> of the childs birth, but with the name and the deliverance which should happen in his infancy. Therefore the weight of the reference is to the name Emmanuel and to the true Son of David, whose birth was the sign of His peoples deliverance (Carr<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Mat. 1:25<\/span>. Firstborn<\/strong>.The oldest MSS. omit firstborn. So R.V. Scripture supplies no data for any decision as to whether Mary had or had not children besides our blessed Lord, nor does any tradition that can really be called primitive (Plumptre<\/em>).<\/p>\n

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.<\/em>Mat. 1:18-25<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

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

I. The perplexities of the case.<\/strong>On these mysteries it does not become us to say very much; nor is it necessary, in fact. The Evangelist explains their origin and nature in a few serious words. A certain man named Joseph belonging to that house and lineage of David (Luk. 2:4<\/span>) of which the preceding verses tell us so much, was betrothed to a maiden named Mary, of the same line with himself, but had not as yet formally taken her as his wife. Whilst thinking of doing so he hears that about her which fills him with doubt. Ought he to do what he was thinking of doing? In that doubt of his very much is implied. Much is implied about her<\/em>. Had the report in question been about another than her, Joseph would probably not have doubted at all. In such a quarter he would never have thought of marriage again. But he cannot come all at once to this conclusion about her. Could such an one as he knew her to be have been guilty of evil? Could she be saying what she knew to be false? What is he to do? What is to be believed? Much also, in that same doubt, is implied about him<\/em>. It shows how exceedingly anxious he is to do what is right! How equally anxious not to be harsh! How completely occupied by such thoughts! Before he can settle them sleep is upon him; even in his sleep he is thinking about them. Surely, if ever, that was in one sense the sleep of the just.<\/p>\n

II. The light vouchsafed in this case.<\/strong>Much is noticeable about this. How pertinent<\/em> it was in the first place! How exactly meeting the case! What Joseph wanted was light on his path. What would God have him to do? The answer comes from the lips of one whom he recognises immediately as an angel of the Lord. The answer directs him as to the very thing he is thinking about with so much apprehension and doubt. Joseph, thou son of David, fear not, take unto thee Mary thy wife. What authority can be higher? What directions more clear? How ample<\/em>, next, is this light! Referring, as we think (cf. Luk. 1:34<\/span>), to what Mary has said, the angel goes on to speak of things present. These really are as you have heard them to be. They are indeed due to the operation of the Spirit of God (end of Mat. 1:20<\/span>). Also, next, of things future. In operating thus wonderfully God is providing for a corresponding result. The child thus to be born is to be a child by itself. The very name it is to bear proves that this is true of the work it shall do. Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He it is who shall save His people from their sins. Do not wonder, therefore, to hear of such an intervention with such an object in view. Lastly, see how well assured<\/em> is all the information thus given. Do not hesitate to believe what I have been telling you (we suppose the angel in the next words to be still speaking to Joseph) as though it were something unheard of before. Because it is unexampled among men, do not suppose that it was unexpected by God. The very contrary is the case. A well-known scripture proves this to be so. In that scripture, on the one hand, you find the very marvel in question expressly foretold. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. There, on the other hand, you read of just the same results as those of which I told you just now, even in regard to the very name of the child so to be born. For what is the name Emmanuelthat is, God with us, but another form of the name Jesus (= Jah-Oshea) or God our Saviour? And what is this difference in form but a stronger proof of the far foresight of God? Understand, therefore, how fully and truly you will be doing as God wills by doing as I have bid. Fear less than ever to take unto thee Mary thy wife.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, how beautiful are the pictures we see here:<\/p>\n

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

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

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

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES<\/em><\/p>\n

Mat. 1:18-25<\/span>. The great exceptional birth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1. The great exceptional birth.
2. The whole life of Christ the great exception of being.
3. The direct contact of the human with the divine. Son of God. Son of man.
4. God has never ceased to take an interest in the human race, but only once has He inserted into it a new mana personal, redeeming, transforming life.
5. The race had no power in itself to give birth to a Saviour.
6. Men often misinterpret their circumstances. Joy has often been threading its way to us through the entangled lines of our perplexity.
7. The marriage of Joseph and Mary was useful as showing that Mary was not superhuman. She was an ordinary member of the human family, and so far Jesus Christ was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.
8. Christ was the only man born with a special mission in relation to sins. Every other man since Adam was born in<\/em> sin, but He descended, as it were, upon<\/em> it to destroy its power. <\/p>\n

9. This was all in fulfilment of prophecy.
(1) Time a great realising<\/em> power; <\/p>\n

(2) the announcements of one age are the men of another;
(3) all prophecy, good or bad, may safely be left to the determining power of time;
(4) great events may require preparation;
(5) wonderful connection between the prophecies and the facts.
10. Josephs being asleep when the announcement was made to him is suggestive.
(1) mans life is not all comprised in the little bustle of his wakeful hours;
(2) some communications can be effectually made only when men are most dissociated from the external and material;
(3) in sleep man is as thoroughly alone as he possibly can be in this world, and in a certain sense is more entirely in the power of God than in any other condition.Joseph Parker, D.D<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Christs wonderful incarnation<\/em>.We have five evidences of Christs wonderful incarnation. <\/p>\n

1. The Virgin Mary is found with child of the Holy Ghost.
2. Josephs perplexity, who being certain of the real conception of the Virgin, and uncertain of the holy manner of it, is put to a perplexed deliberation what to do.
3. The testimony of the anger revealing the truth to Joseph. <\/p>\n

4. The manifested accomplishment of the prophecy of Isa. 7:14<\/span>. <\/p>\n

5. The quiet faith and ready obedience of Joseph, after that he is now taught of God.David Dickson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mat. 1:20<\/span>. The disclosure to Joseph<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1. No less than divine revelation can satisfy a soul in matters concerning Christ.
2. The Lord can turn the doubts and fears and perplexities of His own into an advantage unto themselves and others also, and into a clearer manifestation of His own glory.
3. The Lord useth to show Himself in a necessary nick of time.
4. As Christ is the Son of David by lineal descent through Mary, His mother, so also by law through Joseph, His supposed father. Joseph, thou son of David.
5. The Lord in due time cleareth the righteousness of such as suffer in their name and estimation for Christ.David Dickson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mat. 1:19-20<\/span>. Mans extremity, Gods opportunity<\/em>.Was ever faith more tried than the Virgins, when for no fault of hers, but in consequence of an act of God Himself, her conjugal relation to Joseph was allowed to be all but snapped asunder by a legal divorce? Yet how glorious was the reward with which her constancy and patience were at length crowned! And is not this one of the great laws of Gods procedure towards His believing people? Abraham was allowed to do all but sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22<\/span>); the last year of the predicted Babylonish captivity had arrived ere any signs of deliverance appeared (Dan. 9:1-2<\/span>); the massacre of all the Jews in Persia had all but taken place (Esther 7<\/span>; Esther 8<\/span>); Peter, under Herod Agrippa, was all but brought forth for execution (Acts 12<\/span>); Paul was all but assassinated by a band of Jewish enemies (Acts 23<\/span>); Luther all but fell a sacrifice to the machinations of his enemies (1521); and so in cases innumerable since, of all which it may be said, as in the song of Moses, the Lord shall judge His people, and repent Himself for His servants, when, He seeth that their power is gone<\/em> (Deu. 32:36<\/span>).D. Brown, D.D<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mat. 1:21<\/span>. Salvation from sin<\/em>.However absurd the statement may appear to one who has not yet discovered the fact for himself, the cause of every mans discomfort is evil, moral evil; first of all, evil in himself, and then, evil in those he loves. With this latter I have not now to deal. The one cure for any organism, is to be set rightto have all its parts brought into harmony with each other; the one comfort is to know this cure in process.<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Rightness alone is cure<\/em>. Mans rightness is to be free from wrongness, that is, from sin. The evil is in him; he must be set free from itfrom the sin he is, which makes him do the sin he does. The sin he dwells in, the sin he will not come out of, is the sole ruin of a man. This is the condemnation, that light, etc. <\/p>\n

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

Jesus, the Saviour from sin<\/em>.This name given by Divine direction. Jesus, a Son of man, yet not chosen by man or self-elected as Saviour, but the elect of God (Isa. 42:1<\/span>). He may, therefore, be received with the utmost confidence. Jesus the Saviour not merely from the consequences of sin, but from the corrupting, enthralling, damning evil itself. This the central idea of Christianity. To dream of salvation in<\/em> sin is as absurd as to think of saving a man from drowning by keeping him under the water which is destroying him; or of recovering a man from sickness by leaving him under the malady which constitutes the complaint (W. Jay<\/em>). How does Jesus save from sin?<\/p>\n

I. He has performed a work by which God, the infinitely righteous One, can deal with men in grace.<\/strong>Human salvation could only be accomplished consistently with the eternal law of righteousness. But see Rom. 3:21-26<\/span>. Jesus is the true mercy-seat; the meeting-place of God and man.<\/p>\n

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

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

IV. He gives us His Holy Spirit to work in us this great salvation.<\/strong>(Tit. 3:5<\/span>.) The Spirit represented as the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9<\/span>). Not only because He proceeds from Christ, but also because He works in us a resemblance to Christ. Christ liveth in us (Gal. 2:20<\/span>), assimilating our characters to His own.H. M. Booth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Jesus<\/em>.There is more of power to sanctify, elevate, strengthen, and cheer in the word Jesus (Jehovah-Saviour) than in all the utterances of man since the world began.C. Hodge, D.D<\/em>.<\/p>\n

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

Mat. 1:22-23<\/span>. Emmanuel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1. The mystery of Christs wonderful conception was not altogether hid from the church under the Old Testament.
2. It was foretold that the child born should be God and man in one person, Emmanuel.
3. It was foretold that He should be believed in, and acknowledged to be God incarnate. They shall call His name Emmanuel.David Dickson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Emmanuel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. The reality of the Incarnation.<\/strong>The uncontroverted mystery of God manifested in the flesh.<\/p>\n

II. The purpose thereby contemplated<\/strong>viz. the laying open a way for our re-union with God.<\/p>\n

III. The actual accomplishment of this purpose consequent upon our reception of Christ.<\/strong>Actual union with God, a communion with Him as our Friend, Father, and final Joy.Henry Craik<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mat. 1:23<\/span>. God with us<\/em>.The great secret of our Christian joy lies in this fact, that we believe in a present, not in an absent Jesus; One who is EmmanuelGod with us. Try to get hold of that great fact of our Lords presence, and then you will see what results flow from it.<\/p>\n

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

II. The fact of our Lords abiding presence ought to make us brave.<\/strong>If God be for us, and with us, who can be against us? No temptation need be too strong to be conquered, no difficulty need be too hard to be surmounted, by those who know that God is with themEmmanuel.<\/p>\n

III. The fact of our Lords abiding presence ought to make us good to each other.<\/strong>Look on your fellow-men, and learn from the incarnation to respect man, every<\/em> man, as wearing the flesh which Jesus wears.H. J. Wilmot-Buxton<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mat. 1:24-25<\/span>. Josephs obedience<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1. From the time that a man is sure of Gods word and warrant, he should dispute no more, but stop his ears to all carnal reasoning.
2. A soul that knoweth the worth of Christ will be glad according to its power to do service to Him, or to any of those who belong unto Him.
3. When faith be holdeth the majesty of Jesus it breedeth fear and respect in the believer toward Him.David Dickson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Section 2. THE ANNUNCIATION TO JOSEPH<\/strong><\/p>\n

TEXT: 1:18-25<\/p>\n

18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph. before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
19. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20. But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph. thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21. And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.
22. Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.
24. And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife;
25. and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS. <\/p>\n

THOUGHT QUESTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

a. If Mary is betrothed to Joseph. why does the angel speak of her as his wife?
b. Why did not Joseph believe that Mary was an expectant mother by the power of the Holy Spirit? Had not Mary told him of the angels visit to her?
c. Why was Joseph convinced by what occurred in the dream?
d. What do you think would be thought of Joseph and Mary in Nazareth?
e. Why do you think God chose this method to bring His Son into the world? Or, could Jesus have been the Savior of men had He been the natural son of Joseph and Mary? Why do you think so? <\/p>\n

PARAPHRASE<\/strong><\/p>\n

NOW the birth of Jesus Christ took place in the following manner: When His mother Mary was engaged to Joseph. but before their marriage (while she was yet a virgin), she was discovered to be an expectant mother whose pregnancy was caused by the Holy Spirit. Whereupon, Joseph. her husband, because he was an upright man and because he was unwilling to expose her to contempt, decided to divorce her quietly. But while he was turning the matter over in his mind, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, <\/p>\n

Joseph. son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for her child has been conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you are to name Him Jesus, because it is He who shall save His people from their sins. <\/p>\n

ALL of this occurred with the result that it fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through Isaiah the prophet – Behold, the virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel. (Immanuel is a Hebrew word meaning God with us.) <\/p>\n

So, when Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had directed him. He received Mary into his house, but had no intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus. <\/p>\n

SUMMARY<\/strong><\/p>\n

Joseph. unaware of the real cause of his fiancees pregnancy, decided upon a quiet divorce. God clarified her position to him and he, in turn, received her as his wife. The result of the entire episode is the fulfilment of Isa. 7:14<\/span>. <\/p>\n

NOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mat. 1:18<\/span> Here Matthew proceeds to narrate the actual historical facts for which the genealogy has so fitly prepared: the birth of the Christ who was both Son of David and Son of God. Let it not be thought that what Matthew proceeds to record are the very first events, for the Evangelist Luke, with another emphasis in mind, records several events which must have preceded the annunciation to Joseph by at least six months. They are the annunciation to Zachariah regarding the coming birth of John the Baptist; the announcement to Mary that she was to become the mother of God’s Son; Mary’s visit to Elizabeth and return to Nazareth. Study Luke 1<\/span> to appreciate fully what follows here. <\/p>\n

When his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph. <\/strong>The betrothal had taken place before the event now narrated, but before they came<\/strong> together<\/strong>. The Jewish betrothal involved a covenant made in the presence of witnesses or the solemn promise was also written (Cf. Mal. 2:14<\/span>) and was equivalent to a marriage vow. By virtue of this betrothal, the couple became husband and wife in a relationship which could only be terminated by death or divorce or unfaithfulness (see Deu. 22:22-24<\/span>). The ceremony of engagement was completed by a benediction and a cup of wine. From that moment Mary became the betrothed wife of Joseph. although several months might intervene before their coming together as married partners. Apparently no celebration and feasting accompanied the engagement ceremony, that being reserved for the joyous occasion when the groom would bring home his bride. Like any man in love, Joseph looked forward to that festive day when he, with his friends, would go to bring Mary to their future home. It was then that tragedy dashed his joy, shattering his hope in heart-rending anguish: <\/p>\n

She was discovered to be pregnant. <\/strong>Naturally, Mary knew the reason for her pregnancy, even as the angel had announced to her in chaste and delicate language, <\/p>\n

You will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High . . . The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. (Luk. 1:31-35<\/span>) <\/p>\n

Matthew squarely meets the criticism of scepticism by the unswerving declaration that Marys condition was produced by the Holy Spirit. He is not saying that this latter fact was part of the discovery, for obviously Joseph knows nothing of the Holy Spirits influence in Mary’s case. <\/p>\n

But if Mary had already been informed by the angel of the miracle of the supernatural conception, would she not have repeated to Joseph what the angel had said to her? . But would he have believed so wonderful a solution to his anguish? It is most likely to suppose that upon Joseph’s questioning Mary, she told him of the angelic visit. The very idea of a virgin birth. or, more correctly, of a virgin conceiving is unique by its very nature. Why should Joseph have believed her? However much he must have trusted Mary, only a communication from God could remove all the questions from his heart and provide the assurance he would need for the hard days to come. Mary could only wait upon God for her vindication in the eyes of Joseph. The heavenly messenger who had spoken to her might also speak to her beloved.<\/p>\n

Further, we are not told who made the discovery of Mary’s condition or when the discovery was made. Several conditions help us to visualize the desperate difficulty of Marys pregnancy in Nazareth:<\/p>\n

1. <\/p>\n

The mosaic legislation called for the death of any espoused woman found unfaithful (Deu. 22:23-24<\/span>). While it is true that the Jews did not legally possess the power of the death sentence during that period of Roman occupation (see Joh. 18:31<\/span>), yet it is difficult to see how this obviously unfaithful bride (as regarded by the sharp-eyed, sharp-tongued gossips of Nazareth) could have escaped notice.<\/p>\n

2. <\/p>\n

Neither Matthew nor Luke reveal how long after the miraculous conception Joseph received Mary as his wife. His perplexity caused by Mary’s condition does seem to indicate that her pregnancy had continued some time before the marriage took place.<\/p>\n

3. <\/p>\n

From the fact that it must be Joseph to decide not to expose Mary for a public example, we may assume Mary’s condition to be unknown to others but Joseph and Mary themselves. Surely, had the unsympathetic eyes of the neighbors in Nazareth noticed, or had the unbelieving family of Mary known her dilemma, they would have exposed her and her Son to the slander of an illegitimate birth. <\/p>\n

4. <\/p>\n

Nor do we know exactly the order of events from the angels message to Mary until Joseph received her as his wife. When did the miraculous conception occur – immediately after Marys submission to the divine will, or quite a bit later? Did Joseph receive Mary into his home before or after she visited Elizabeth for three months? (Luk. 1:39-56<\/span>) <\/p>\n

5. <\/p>\n

The Nazarenes who attack Jesus presumptions to divine authority (Luk. 4:16-30<\/span>; Mat. 13:54-58<\/span>; Mar. 6:1-6<\/span>), as well as other enemies, do not give even the slightest hint of a slander regarding a premature, thus illegitimate, birth. Rather, they refer to the mere obscurity of His birth as a child of the carpenter, Joseph.<\/p>\n

Harmonizing the two narratives of Matthew and Luke in such a way as to produce a natural account of the course of events, we see the annunciation to Zachariah that he is to have a son, John; the betrothal of Mary and Joseph. which may have taken place before or after the annunciation to Zachariah; the annunciation to Mary that she is to have a son, Jesus (this annunciation occurs six months after that to Zachariah); the visit of Mary with Elizabeth in Judea which lasted three months and her return to Nazareth; upon returning to Nazareth. Mary is discovered to be with child; the annunciation to Joseph. Thus, there would yet remain only about six months for Mary before Jesus would be born, when Joseph learned of her condition. <\/p>\n

Mat. 1:19<\/span> Joseph her husband, because he was an upright man and being unwilling to expose her to contempt, decided to divorce her quietly. <\/strong>Of what sort character is this man whom God has chosen to be the foster-parent of His Son? Feel the pain in Josephs entire being as he is torn between his deep love for Mary and his keen consciousness of what is right before God! As a true Israelite, Joseph must not consummate his marriage with Mary under the circumstances as he understood them, supposing Mary to have committed adultery. Yet, how truly he loved his espoused for what he had always known of her as the pure, gentle maiden. Only two courses lay open to Joseph now, both ending in divorce: <\/p>\n

1. Public exposure, charging Mary with adultery, making her a public example, subjecting her to whatever Jewish law might have been in force at the time (if not the death penalty of Deu. 22:23-24<\/span>); <\/p>\n

2. Or, resolve to take advantage of a Mosaic statute which allowed an unconditional and unexplained separation at the will of the husband (Deu. 24:1<\/span>). In writing the bill of divorcement he could be freer to state or omit the actual cause that prompted him to divorce Mary.<\/p>\n

This latter determination stood out clearly to Joseph. that, if it must be, her letter of divorce would be handed to her privately in the presence of the two required witnesses.<\/p>\n

Mat. 1:20<\/span> But while he was turning the matter over in his mind<\/strong>, i.e. during that anxious contending of feelings and the delayed resolve to divorce Mary, God intervened: an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream.<\/strong> That assurance which Joseph could scarcely have dared to hope for is now conveyed to him in a dream-vision. By visions and dreams God had often spoken. (Cf. Gen. 20:3<\/span>; Gen. 31:11<\/span>; Gen. 31:24<\/span>; Gen. 37:5<\/span>; chap. 40; Gen. 41:1<\/span>; 1Ki. 5:5<\/span>; Dan. 7:1<\/span>; Job. 4:13-15<\/span>) Matthew mentions four: this one, a second one to Joseph (Mat. 2:13<\/span>); one to the Wisemen (Mat. 2:12<\/span>); and perhaps the dream to Pilate’s wife (Mat. 27:19<\/span>). We may imagine Joseph unable to sleep, being deeply troubled as he contemplated. his course until at last his thoughts surrendered to sleep. Then the angel appeared. The scriptures do not declare how those dreams by which God communicates to the dreamer are to be distinguished from those unreal images which ordinarily appear in sleep. Ordinary dreams are commonly characterized by great disjunctions with reality, are without sense or the normal representation of reality. Observe, on the other hand, the direct relation to reality seen in this dream:<\/p>\n

l. <\/p>\n

Accepting the reality of the supernatural realm upon the evidence for its existence in the data provided by the well-attested history contained in the biblical record, we observe here that God simply sends an angel messenger to communicate a message from the spirit-world of reality to the sense-experienced world.<\/p>\n

2. <\/p>\n

The message given is directly related to Josephs immediate problem, to the Old Covenant Scriptures, and to the plan of God for mans redemption.<\/p>\n

This reality of Joseph’s dream as a reception of God’s communication cannot be gainsaid by appeal to the irrelevant evidence of normal dream patterns. To reduce this divine communication to a non-supernaturalistic explanation by saying that Joseph’s vision is easily resolved by analysis of his emotional disturbance and the undigested material in his stomach, is nothing short of attacking the entire historical fabric of Matthews work. Joseph did not dream up this angel. God sent the angel and communicated to him the message. The God who sends such messages to men is thoroughly able to make the dreamer know their reality.<\/p>\n

Joseph. son of David.<\/strong> Indeed, Joseph was a descendent of the royal house, as attested by his genealogy. This is the occasion for him to prove himself a true son of David, possessed of the faith of David. NOW princely things would be expected of him: to be the protector of heavens Prince. This he must do in spite of his poverty and obscurity.<\/p>\n

Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.<\/strong> What authority could be higher or what directions clearer? Joseph was not to fear for Marys virtue and purity nor fear future betrayals. The incredible story told by Mary of the angels appearance to her and the miraculous conception were exactly as represented after all. Joseph now would be in no way compromising his conscience, condoning sin, risking his own future happiness, nor otherwise doing something doubtful by fulfilling his promise to take Mary as his wife. The Holy Spirit is really the Father of her child. <\/p>\n

Mat. 1:21<\/span> She shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.<\/strong> The wonderful tidings of the angel contains three great truths: <\/p>\n

1. <\/p>\n

The miraculous foreknowledge of the sex of the child to be born. The seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15<\/span>) is to be a boy. No father or mother can ever accurately know about any of their children before birth. How the definite concern of God for every particular part of the incarnation makes itself known! <\/p>\n

2. <\/p>\n

The thrilling revelation in the name of the child. God is formally regarding Joseph as the legal father of the unborn child, for it must be Joseph. as Jesus foster-parent, who will give the name to the Boy at His birth. However, the choice of the name remains the right of Him who is the true Father, and the name He chooses if profoundly full of meaning. The name JESUS means Jehovah is savior or Salvation of Jehovah and, although it is a relatively common name (see on Mat. 1:1<\/span>) , yet it is especially significant as the name of this child. <\/p>\n

3. <\/p>\n

Clear announcement of the future ministry of the child. Though there were many who bore the name of Jesus in those days, whose parents, hoping in God to save His people Israel, so named their sons, yet the divine messenger emphasizes, It is HE – He alone – who shall save. No parent ever knows exactly what their babe will do in life, but God knew what this babe would do and named Him accordingly. The phrase his people, as Joseph would have understood it, evokes the image of political deliverance from Israels enemies and of freedom from the ills that servitude brings. But Jesus shall save His people from their sins, the seal evils from which they suffered. Yet, in delivering the lost sheep of the house of Israel to whom Jesus was principally sent (Mat. 15:24<\/span>), He would lay the basis for the salvation of the Gentiles also (Joh. 10:16<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Mat. 1:22<\/span> Now all this is come to pass.<\/strong> Did Matthew say this, or did the angel? The Greek verb is perfect tense (present abiding result of a past action) and is difficult to interpret as to whether the time involved is present regarding the angels speaking or Matthews writing. If the former, then we behold the Holy Spirit who prophesied these words through the prophet Isaiah, now interpreting the prophecy through the angel. If the latter, then we witness the same Spirit at work through Jesus Apostle. In either case, the full authority of God stands behind the speaker and the interpretation of the prophecy given. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet<\/strong>. Here is clear, convincing evidence of the supernatural inspiration of Isaiahs prophecy: the obvious fulfilment of what was predicted and the declaration of an inspired apostle that Isaiahs message came from God. This expression is frequently used by Matthew throughout his Gospel to demonstrate the veracity of God in graciously keeping his promises. Study these prepositions carefully, for they reveal the process of divine revelation: spoken BY the Lord THROUGH the prophet. God revealed to Isaiah what was to happen, and now brings it to pass as predicted. Although God could have worked in human history without any advance notice to men, yet He chose to announce His plans in advance in order that men might be aware of the supreme importance that God placed upon His plans and prepare themselves for Jesus coming, God did this also that men might have the full assurance that God has spoken in their history both in the unequivocal prophecy and in its well-attested fulfilment, <\/p>\n

Mat. 1:23<\/span> Just because a virgin birth is without example among men, let it never be supposed that it was unknown to God! During a threatening national crisis when the combined armies of Israel and Syria launched a concerted attack against Judahs capital, Jerusalem, her king and her people trembled. (Study 2 Kings 16<\/span> and Isaiah 7<\/span> to appreciate the full impact of this historical situation.) Isaiah is sent to the frightened king to promise divine deliverance on the basis of belief of Gods willingness to help (Isa. 7:3-9<\/span>). The idolatrous king was urged to seek a miraculous sign from God which would confirm His promise. With a pious phrase he refused. Soundly rebuking the hardened king, Isaiah rejoined that God Himself would provide the sign anyway: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa. 7:14<\/span>) Continuing, Isaiah declared that the sign lay in the fact that before, this virgins son should reach the age of discretion, the kingdoms of Syria and Israel would be destroyed. Although God would bring deliverance, it would come no thanks to Ahaz, nor to his son, nor to the house of David generally as represented in that perverted generation, but rather a nameless maiden would give birth to the true Immanuel. <\/p>\n

But, it is asked, can this interpretation given by Matthew (or by the angel) be certainly the true one? The following objections are often urged against such an application of Isa. 7:14<\/span> to the virgin birth of Jesus: <\/p>\n

1. The Greek term parthenos, a virgin or maiden, is misleading, as the Hebrew term almah simply means an adult woman, and is certainly by no means confined to virgins. Has Matthew then falsified the evidence and concocted, by deliberate mistranslation, the virgin birth fiction? No, he is rightly following the then-current Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint version of 285 B.C. The Jewish scholars, who prepared that translation, used the term parthenos to render the Hebrew almah, and they could scarcely be accused of endeavoring to create a fictitious support for a virgin birth of Jesus. Rather, they were intending to give the true meaning of the word as used in Hebrew by Isaiah. <\/p>\n

2. Isa. 7:14<\/span> was not interpreted by the ancient Synagogue in a Messianic sense, so the passage cannot be taken as referring to a virgin-born Messiah. Such a theory should be more appropriately explained as the zealous search of Jewish Christians for Messianic proof-texts, their striking upon Isaiahs Immanuel prophecy and their constructing a virgin-birth theory as its supposed fulfilment. Indeed, it might seem strange that if the passage really be a prophecy of the Messiahs virgin birth. that the Jews should have so completely failed to interpret it in that way. However, they clearly missed the vicarious sufferings and death of the Messiah as foreseen in Isaiah 53<\/span> or in the graphic descriptions of Psalms 22<\/span>. The inability of the Jewish scholars to grasp the unity between Gods Messiah as the ruling, victorious Son of David sitting upon Davids throne, and Gods Christ as the sacrificed Lamb of God, the Suffering Servant, must not color the true interpretation of the predictions. The suggestion, that Jewish-Christian enthusiasm invented the supposed virgin-birth fulfilment to Isaiahs words, fails to supply an acceptable substitute sign to king Ahaz. That is, if a miraculous virgin birth were not the actual intent of the Spirit speaking through the prophet, an event which would be especially clear as a sign after the event actually occurred, then where is the force of the sign Isaiah offered Ahaz? Why should an ordinary birth be regarded as a sign? <\/p>\n

3. The almah or young woman who is meant is Isaiahs wife and the son to be born is Isaiahs. But four objections immediately arise to this solution: <\/p>\n

a. <\/p>\n

The prophecy declares that a virgin (Lxx and Matthew) is to bear a son; Isaiahs wife could hardly be called a virgin. The proof is entirely sufficient to establish virgin as the proper translation. If it were his wife to which he referred, he could hardly have expressed himself in a more ambiguous manner. <\/p>\n

b. <\/p>\n

There is no further allusion made to any son of the prophet by the name Immanuel or anything similar. A sign based upon the prophets own family affairs would have been, at best, one of a very precarious nature. <\/p>\n

c. <\/p>\n

It is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive how, in such a context, a woman who had been long married, like the prophets own wife, could be called a young maiden of marriageable age without any explanation. <\/p>\n

d. <\/p>\n

No child born in the time of Isaiah possessed the many attributes which are predicted of the Messiah in Isaiahs fuller context: The child is born whose endless, good government proceeded from the throne of David, and is entitled Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God (cf. God with us, Immanuel), Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace. (Mat. 9:6-7<\/span>) The child is to be the branch out of the root of Jesse, upon whom the Spirit of Jehovah should rest and whose beneficent reign ultimately brings true peace. (Mat. 11:1-8<\/span>) <\/p>\n

4. <\/p>\n

Another interpretation, which attempts to discredit Matthew, finds the almah in Abijah, the wife of Ahaz and mother of Hezekiah. Hezekiah, the righteous reformer, thus becomes the promised child. However, Hezekiah must have already been born before the commencement of his fathers reign (2Ch. 28:1<\/span>; 2Ch. 28:27<\/span>; 2Ch. 29:1<\/span>) during which the prophecy of a child to be born of a virgin is given. Nothing else in the context draws attention to Hezekiah. Again, how could his mother be the young maiden? <\/p>\n

Such interpretation which would attempt to discredit the inspired Apostles appropriate quotation of Isaiahs prophecy finds its basic origin, not in sound Bible exegesis, but in a pseudo-scientific anti- supernaturalism. The translation of the Hebrew almah is not the prime difficulty. The real entanglement lies in a disbelief in predictive prophecy and its historic fulfilment or a disbelief in the power of God to bring about Jesus supernatural birth or else in the wilful desire to reject the unique Sonship of Jesus. <\/p>\n

And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. <\/strong>It might be thought strange that the prophecy quoted predicts that the child so born is to be called Immanuel, while the angel specifies to Joseph that the child is to be named Jew. The fact that Matthew offers no comment upon this difference plainly suggests that there is no problem. The term Immanuel is properly the title of Him whose proper name is Jesus. Other titles are to be found in Isa. 9:6<\/span> , although Jesus was not known by these during His earth-life. The earth-shaking significance of this announcement is that it reveals our God, discontented to sit above the heavens and deal with His creation at long distance, coming down to tabernacle among men. The finest comment is still that of Php. 2:5-10<\/span>; Heb. 2:14-18<\/span> and Joh. 1:1-14<\/span>. The very Word who was God is now to become flesh and dwell among men! These, too, are tidings of great joy which are for all people. <\/p>\n

Mat. 1:24<\/span> And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel commanded him, and took unto him his wife.<\/strong> ALL his doubts resolved and his mind divinely set at rest, Joseph could no longer hesitate. His immediate duty to Mary and the unborn Child required immediate marriage which would give Mary his good name and would save the Child the reproach of an illegitimate birth. It is not known at what point during the pregnancy the marriage took place, nor how many persons were aware of her condition. Thus, it is impossible to say with certitude whether this couple suffered much public shame and abuse as their (apparently) fabricated story of visions of angels was (apparently) disbelieved as an invalid excuse. It would seem that the whole phenomenon of Jesus life is better explained if He grew up in what from the human point of view, especially that of the Nazarenes, was a blameless home. And the attitude of His contemporaries both toward Him and the household in which He had lived does seem to be more natural if the conduct of Mary and Joseph was of a really, and not merely apparently, worthy kind. Above all, Joseph acknowledged Jesus as his legal Son. Here is to be found the real barrier against slander. If Joseph was really the righteous man he is said to be (Mat. 1:19<\/span>), his character would be known and his acknowledgement of the Child the best shield against any likelihood of slander. Further, according to Lukes narrative, the birth of Jesus occurred at a place remote from Nazareth. where Mary would not be under the gaze of prying eyes. Nor is the time known from the departure from Nazareth for Bethlehem during the census until the time of the return to Nazareth from Egypt. (Cf. Luk. 2:1-39<\/span>) So an apparently early time of birth would not necessarily have ever been known. <\/p>\n

The next morning and the days following must have been days of joy as Joseph reported his dream to his beloved and proceeded immediately to bring his wife to his home and thus consummate their marriage begun at the time of their betrothal. Far beyond all earthly joys was their supreme moral satisfaction of being submitted to Gods will and of being permitted to become the guardians of Gods Son. <\/p>\n

Mat. 1:25<\/span> and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS. <\/strong>Normally the consummation of marriage would include marital relations (to know is a Hebrew euphemism for sexual relations; cf. Luk. 1:34<\/span>). The revelations given to Joseph and Mary concerning the divine nature and future of the child apparently caused Joseph to forego his marital right; thus, he kept his wife a virgin until the birth of the Baby. <\/p>\n

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. As a matter of RECORD. The text of Matthew which contains the unequivocal narration of the virgin birth of Jesus possess the same unanimous documentary attestation as the rest of the matthaean history. There is no textual evidence that even suggests that the history of the virgin birth might be the fanciful invention of later, uncritical Christians who desired to clothe the history of their Masters birth with supernatural elements entirely unknown to Mary and Joseph. There can be little doubt that the first chapter of Matthew has always formed the original beginning of the book, since there is no full Greek manuscript of Matthew that does not contain this section, notwithstanding some minor textual variants within the passage. <\/p>\n

2. As a matter of HISTORY. The announcement of the virgin birth of Jesus is a matter of historico-biographical fact. The account makes no attempt to explain or justify a doctrine of incarnation or a virgin-birth doctrine or the like. Rather it is rigidly confined to the matter of fact concerned. What Matthew writes is an event wholly real or totally imagined, completely true or entirely false. As a historical statement it cannot be insignificant or irrelevant. If it contributes to our information about the incarnation or else seriously mutilates the truth. the virgin birth narrative cannot remain a matter of historical indifference. <\/p>\n

To the leaders of the early Church these facts held utmost importance, for the integrity of their personal character is brought into question, if they fabricated the virgin birth story and succeeded in foisting it upon the Church so early as to dominate its scripture and mold the form of its creed. These men were not the kind of men to accept uncritically or proclaim presumptuously such stories which lacked positive and authoritative certification and which, in turn, could be used in any way by unbelievers to discredit their Master or His family. That such certification must have been used is seen from the nature of the material: it contains information that could only have come from the principle characters who did the deeds and experienced the marvellous events told in the history. To charge the leaders of the early Church with fraud on the basis of their supposed imposture on so grand a scale as to produce the universal and instantaneous acceptance of the supposedly unauthenticated legend as part of the authoritative documents which narrate the life and ministry of Jesus, is completely unwarranted. The story could not have been honestly composed nor sincerely published as having been derived from any other source than the persons who could have guaranteed its truthfulness. <\/p>\n

To those of the gospel writers and other NT penmen who do not mention the virgin birth event, the evidence already presented by Matthew and Luke rested upon a sufficient basis as to require no other artificial strengthening. Nothing negative can be proved about the so-called silence of John and of Paul on the subject. The fact that they do not mention the supernatural birth of Jesus cannot be construed to mean that they therefore did not know of it. The truth is better stated: they had not the occasion to treat the virgin birth. Rather, they teach as might be expected of men who were thoroughly acquainted with the fact. The doctrine they preach of the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Joh. 1:14<\/span>) and of the Christ who being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, (Php. 2:5-11<\/span>) becomes comprehensible only in the light of the facts narrated by Matthew and Luke, and form a tacit acknowledgement of their veracity. <\/p>\n

The fact that even Matthew and Luke, who do narrate the supernatural conception and birth. do not draw any conclusions from it nor teach any doctrine based upon it, certainly argues for its historical truthfulness, as no apparent end could be served by its inclusion in the narrative. Although Matthew notices that the virgin birth fulfills prophecy, yet he does not state the conclusion that therefore, Jesus is the Messiah, or some other similar apologetic statement. Naturally, Matthews ultimate aim was to demonstrate the unique human nature of the Messiah who had been promised to the Jews, and the nature of the miracle-working Son of God who possessed all the authority of God for His actions. Matthew pictures Jesus, outside the infancy narrative, not as the Pre-existent One who deigns to dwell in human flesh, but rather as the divinely-authorized, truly human, truly Jewish Messiah. Throughout Matthews selection of incidents from Jesus life, from chapter three to the end, Jesus ethical character and authoritative doctrine are presented without the precise definitions of His supernatural Person that are seen throughout Johns Gospel and in the epistles. Therefore, the infancy narratives, which announce the supernatural conception of the Son of God, are absolutely essential to providing the historical facts upon which the Jewish Messiahship and the divine incarnation must be based. Without the actual facts surrounding the virgin birth. these grand doctrines must forever be left suspended, ungrounded in verifiable history obtained from the eyewitnesses, Without the narrative of the supernatural conception, we may expect no satisfactory answer to the demand: where and when did the incarnation occur in such clear fashion as to fulfil all of the expectations of messianic prophecy? But, note carefully, the formulation and defence of these doctrines is our assimilation of the facts stated in these narratives plus other materials elsewhere; Matthew and Luke limit themselves to simple narration. This permits the doctrine to rest upon the statement of the facts. Thus, since the Evangelists were not trying to serve apologetic purposes, the historical veracity of the narration is the better guaranteed. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The virgin birth narrative is important, for it involves a clear, consistent account of the Lord’s birth without which nothing sure could be known.<\/p>\n

3. As a matter of INTEGRITY.<\/p>\n

a. The honesty of all who confront the virgin birth: this fact puts to the proof, not the mental equipment of the skeptic, but his moral character. The problem before the critic is not the adequacy of the testimony, for the whole body of the early Christians attest the factuality of the virgin birth of Jesus, and the rejection of this testimony involves the radical undermining of confidence in all the testimony of the gospel witnesses. (See Machen, Virgin Birth. Chap. XI in which he proves that silence does not prove ignorance of it, but rather shows that the Apostles assumed it.) The denial of the miraculous conception of Jesus is not based upon well-attested history to the contrary, but rather upon the false philosophy of what can or cannot be known about God and His actions, a philosophy based upon the accepted principles of thought of our day. This false philosophy is nothing more than a mistaken view of natural law which holds that the uniformity in nature is an exact and immutable force which governs the universe. Thus, the appearance of a virgin birth disturbs the law of normal human birth as conceived through scientific observation of all observable cases and drawing probable conclusions about all others. While the scientific method leads to generally certain knowledge of repeated and repeatable events, it cannot speak with authority on the virgin birth. a unique event having no parallels. The scientific method can search the historical backgrounds, certify the reliability and veracity of the witnesses, but having done so, must listen to the testimony they bring. The question of the virgin birth. then, remains, Will we accept the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the universal acknowledgement of the early Church as recorded in the documents o-f the Church, or, rejecting this, will we adhere to a mistaken view of natural law, a view which decides a priori that all miraculous events are impossible?<\/p>\n

b. The honesty of God is brought into the question of the virgin birth inasmuch as He promised to bring Immanuel into the world in just this fashion (Isa. 7:14<\/span>). As this Child is conceived in Mary, a young woman who is a virgin, the sure word of prophecy is fulfilled and God’s promise is kept.<\/p>\n

c. The virgin birth touches the life of Jesus at the point which separates the most degraded and the most sacred in human life: either Jesus is the illegitimate son of some man known only to Mary or the offspring of fornication or the natural son of Joseph. or else He is the virgin-born Son of God. The clear, factual reporting of the gospel record is decisive in its declaration on which choice alone from the beginning stood above suspicion and doubt. That which involves the personal history and public honor of our Lord and His family cannot be a matter of indifference. The fact cannot be over-emphasized that the entire New Testament witness stands or falls as a whole. There is no objective standard by which certain portions of Jesus life, as recorded by the gospel writers, may be excised, which does not also destroy every basis for secure knowledge about Jesus. <\/p>\n

For further study see encyclopedic articles, such as those in ISBE: Person of Jesus Christ, Virgin Birth. Messiah. A classic work in this field is J. Gresham Machens The Virgin Birth of Christ, especially chapters VII-IX, XIII. <\/p>\n

FACT QUESTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. <\/p>\n

What does the Bible teach about Mary regarding her perpetual virginity, her sinlessness, her office as mediator for Christians, and her place in the church? <\/p>\n

2. <\/p>\n

State the importance of the virgin birth to the Christian faith. Why believe in the virgin birth? <\/p>\n

3. <\/p>\n

Give the proof for the virgin birth as a matter of historic fact. <\/p>\n

4. <\/p>\n

What is the relationship between the genealogy which proceeded the virgin birth narrative and the narrative itself? <\/p>\n

5. <\/p>\n

Is this birth narrative recorded by Matthew the first event immediately connected with the life of Jesus? Or, are there other important events. If so, what are they? <\/p>\n

6. <\/p>\n

At what time during the engagement of Mary and Joseph was she found to be with child? What difference would the time make? <\/p>\n

7. <\/p>\n

What was the true cause of Marys pregnancy? What difference would it have made were it otherwise? <\/p>\n

8. <\/p>\n

What was the punishment for marital unfaithfulness under the Mosaic law? <\/p>\n

9. <\/p>\n

In what order did the events probably occur from the betrothal of Mary and Joseph until they were married by their coming together? <\/p>\n

10. Describe Josephs character from what may be known of it from all available information (Mat. 1:18-25<\/span>; Mat. 2:13-15<\/span>; Mat. 2:19-23<\/span>; Luk. 2:4<\/span>, <\/p>\n

11. What courses of action were open to Joseph while he was yet ignorant of the true cause of Marys condition?
12. List other occasions on which God had revealed His will through dreams or visions.
13. What does it mean to be a son of David? To Joseph? To Jesus?
14. What is the relation of the name the Babe is to wear with His ministry to the world? <\/p>\n

15. List the objections offered to the consideration of Isa. 7:14<\/span> as referring to the virgin birth and answer them. <\/p>\n

16. What is the significance of the title Immanuel?
17. Show the different facts in the case of the birth of Jesus that demonstrate the protection from slander that might have arisen from ignorant gossip. 21-24, 39-49). <\/p>\n

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(18) St. Matthew, for some reason or other, omits all mention of what St. Luke relates very fully, as to the events that preceded the birth of Jesus and brought about the birth at Bethlehem. Either he had not access to any document full and trustworthy, like that which St. Luke made use of, or, as every writer of history must fix a beginning more or less arbitrary, he found his starting-point in those facts which took a foremost place in what bore upon the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy. It has been said that the impression left by his narrative is so far misleading, that it suggests the idea that there was no earlier connection with Nazareth than that which we find in 2:23. It must, however, be remembered that even St. Lukes narrative tells us nothing as to the original home of Joseph, and that one who himself belonged to Bethlehem, as being of the house and lineage of David, might, without any improbability, be betrothed to a maiden of Nazareth, probably of the same lineage. Of the earlier life of Mary the Canonical Gospels tell us nothing, and the Apocryphal Gospels (though they have furnished the groundwork of the treatment of the subject by Christian artsee Notes on Luk. 1:27<\/span>) are too legendary to be relied on. The omission of any mention of her parents suggests the idea of orphanhood, possibly under the guardianship of Joseph. The non-appearance of Joseph in the records of our Lords ministry, makes it probable that he died in the interval between the visit to the Temple of Luk. 2:42<\/span> and the preaching of the Baptist, and that he was older than Mary. Both were poor; Joseph worked as a carpenter (Mat. 13:55<\/span>), Mary offered the cheaper sacrifice of two young pigeons (Luk. 2:24<\/span>). They had no house at Bethlehem (Luk. 2:7<\/span>). Mary was related to Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah the priest (Luk. 1:36<\/span>). Both were within the circle of those who cherished Messianic expectations, and to whom, therefore, the announcement that these expectations were to be fulfilled would come as the answer to their hopes and prayers.<\/p>\n

Was espoused to Joseph.<\/strong>Betrothal, among the Jews, was a formal ceremony, the usual symbolic act being, from patriarchal times, the gift of a ring and other jewels (Gen. 24:53<\/span>). The interval between betrothal and marriage was of uncertain length, but among the Jews of our Lords time was commonly for a whole year in the case of maidens. During that time the bride-elect remained in her own home, and did not see the bridegroom till he came to fetch her to his own house. All communications in the meantime were conducted through the friend of the bridegroom (Joh. 3:29<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Of the Holy Ghost.<\/strong>To Joseph and those who heard the new report from him, prior to the more precise truths revealed by our Lords teaching, the words would at least suggest a divine creative energy, quickening supernaturally the germ of life, as in Gen. 1:2<\/span>, Psa. 104:30<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

7. AN ANGEL ANNOUNCES JESUS’S BIRTH TO JOSEPH. Matthew vv18-25.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

18<\/strong>. <\/strong> Now the birth <\/em> Having traced the pedigree of the Saviour as the prophesied Son of David, Matthew now proceeds to furnish in the history of his birth the proof of his divine INCARNATION, that is, his embodiment in the flesh. <\/em> Upon the stock of our sinful humanity is to be grafted a sinless member. From the dust of the earth, by Almighty power, was created the first Adam; by the same Almighty power, in the dust of our humanity, is to be created the second Adam. The doctrine of the Incarnation, as held by the ancient Church, is thus impressively expressed in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, became of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” This is a beautiful summary of the New Testament doctrine of the personal nature of Jesus the Christ.<\/p>\n

On this wise <\/em> In this manner. This old word wise <\/em> for manner <\/em> is now obsolete in ordinary style. It is still used in the words likewise, otherwise, <\/em> etc. It resembles the word way or ways, but has no etymological connection with it. When as <\/em> This old English phrase has at the present day dropped the as<\/em>.<\/p>\n

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

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

The immaculate conception of Mary, that is, her sinlessness from birth, is now an article of faith in the Church of Rome. This is not only undeclared in Scripture, but is in contradiction to its most positive doctrines. That all the race have fallen in Adam, with the exception of Christ alone, that all alike are saved by his merits, is the uniform language of Scripture. That Mary is an exception is nowhere intimated. About the fifth century the worship of Mary commenced in the Romish Church; and in the sixth, her festivals began to be generally observed. To such extravagant lengths has this been carried, that, at the present day, at Rome, the religion of Mary has superseded the religion of Jesus. Idolatry in heathendom is hardly surpassed by the Mariolatry of the popedom. The only pretext in Scripture for this worship is the language of the angel, (Luk 1:28<\/span>,) Blessed art thou among women, <\/em> etc.; language which is paralleled by the words concerning Jael in Jdg 5:24<\/span>. If we examine all the writings of Paul, they contain no reference to Mary. Neither the Epistles nor Apocalypse of John, to whose care she was intrusted, make any allusion to her. Peter, who was acquainted with her, mentions her not in his letters. Neither in the Epistles nor in the Gospels, is any human being described as offering any invocation to her; nor is any authority given for such a practice. But though, beyond the maternity of the Redeemer, Mary is unrecognized in the scheme of salvation, yet this distinction secures for her our special reverence, as standing eminent among her sex, and alone amid our race. To her belong, not indeed mediation, nor worship, nor invocation, nor omnipresence, nor prayer to aid our souls or bodies, but reverence, as for the one selected by God to be the mother of the Incarnate. Was espoused <\/em> Contracted in marriage. An espousal among the Jews was nearly as sacred as the marriage vow itself. Though the woman remained at her father’s house until after marriage, yet during that time of espousal before marriage, a violation of the contract by unchastity was equivalent in criminality and in punishment to adultery. To Joseph <\/em> Of Joseph, the husband of Mary, but little account is given in the Scripture. He was descended from the royal line of David; and hence is addressed by the angel in Mat 1:20<\/span>, Joseph, thou son of David. <\/em> But though of regal descent, he resided in obscurity in the small and not very reputable town of Nazareth. According to the Jewish custom, which requires that every man, however high his rank, should be master of a manual trade, Joseph was a carpenter. <\/em> That is, this English word is the most obvious translation of the Greek term; although it may be extended to mean a smith <\/em> or artificer <\/em> of any kind. Nothing is said of Joseph indicating that he possessed a very marked character. Yet his whole conduct justifies the statement that he was a just <\/em> man. All his procedures appear simple, pure, obedient to the divine requirements, and faithfully fulfilling the duties of his peculiar relation. Though it is not asserted, yet it is too clearly implied to admit doubt, that JOSEPH died during the childhood of <\/em> JESUS. Mary, the mother <\/em> of Jesus, as well as his brethren <\/em> sometimes appears during the ministry of Jesus, but never JOSEPH. Of the Holy Ghost <\/em> So that the Lord, being the child of a purely human mother and of a Divine Father, should at once be the Son of man and the Son of God the God-man. This miraculous fact was predicted by the first prophecy that the seed of the WOMAN (and not of the man) should bruise the head of the serpent. Hence the idea of an incarnation, by means of a pure virgin from a divine father, has been adopted into various systems of Paganism. Instances of this are Romulus among the Romans, Melkarth (or Hercules) among the Syrians; and greatest of all, as St. Jerome remarked centuries ago, Boodha among the Hindus. The Latin Church styles Mary the Virgo Deipara, <\/em> or Virgin God-mother. Mr. Milman remarks that the first Romanist missionaries to the East were dismayed at finding in the stupendous system of Boodhism a Virgo Deipara. Holy Ghost <\/em> The word ghost <\/em> is derived from the Saxon word gast, <\/em> and signifies spirit. Ghostly, <\/em> in older English, (of which ghastly <\/em> is a cognate,) signifies spiritual. Holy Ghost <\/em> is therefore precisely synonymous with Holy Spirit. <\/em> Inasmuch as the word ghost <\/em> is almost exclusively applied in the English of the present day to the apparition of a departed human spirit, <\/em> it would be better perhaps, in case of a new translation, to disuse the word ghost in this connection.<\/p>\n

That God is a Spirit is plentifully revealed in Scripture. Yet this Spirit speaks of his Spirit. Gen 6:3<\/span>; Gen 49:21<\/span>. God sends forth this his Spirit. Proverbs 23<\/span>; Isa 42:1<\/span>. This Spirit thus sent forth is an agent, Act 8:29<\/span>; Act 10:19<\/span>; and a person, being designated by a personal pronoun. Joh 15:26<\/span>. This Spirit is associated with Father and Son in the baptismal command, and, like the other two, has his name <\/em> or personal appellation. Mat 28:19<\/span>. So the same three appear in the apostolical benediction. 2Co 13:13<\/span>. Here the Father is the personal source of love, the Son of grace, and the Holy Spirit of communion. Yet God’s spirit must be divine, omnipotent, and eternal. God is universally in Scripture declared to be one. Here, therefore, we find that in some one mysterious respect God is trine, and in some other unfathomable respect he is one. Here, then, we have a three-one, a Triune, a Trinity. This view of the sacred word has been faithfully held by the faithful Christian Church in all ages. Where ever it is denied, rationalism and skepticism are sure gradually to gain the ascendant, and the Gospel life is lost.<\/p>\n

The doctrine of the Christian Church in all ages, as derived from the word of God, is thus expressed in our first Article of Faith: “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness: the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead, there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ came about in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit, and Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately.’<\/p>\n

The verse opens with what almost seems to be a public announcement. This is what we would expect for the birth is of Jesus the Messiah, and how it came about is thus to be seen as important. Note that Mary is not seen as doing anything positive towards the child’s conception. It is simply seen as something that happens to her. She was ‘found with child’. All is of God’s activity through the Holy Spirit, and she remains secondary. After that Joseph takes over. Unlike the ancient myths where gods mated with earthly women there is no suggestion here of any kind of sexual activity, even spiritual sexual activity. Indeed in Jesus’ eyes (and Matthew’s eyes) heavenly beings do not engage in such activity, for that is very much an earthly phenomenon (Mat 22:30<\/span>), while what happens here is heavenly.<\/p>\n

This lack of sexual activity is confirmed by the phrase ‘ek Pneumatos Hagiou’ which, apart from its being without the article, parallels the description of the four women in the genealogy (ek tes Thamar; etc). The Holy Spirit is thus seen as cooperating with Mary in the conception and birth, not as impregnating her.<\/p>\n

Note Matthew’s great emphasis on Joseph’s side of things, and this to such an extent that he puts Mary deliberately into the background, and plays down her part in things. This being his aim it is not surprising that he tells us nothing about the Annunciation and other activities in which Mary was involved. It would have placed too much attention on her and diverted his readers’ thoughts away from his main purpose, which was that of establishing Jesus as the heir of Joseph, and thus the titular son of David, even though at the same time he was emphasising His birth through a virgin.<\/p>\n

Mary was at the time betrothed to Joseph, who was the heir to the throne of David, and thus a man of high honour from a proud family. Betrothal was a binding state from which it was only possible to be released by divorce or death. It was at betrothal that the marriage covenant was signed and sealed, and all settlements agreed on. The wedding was only the final confirmation. But it would not have been seen as acceptable in the best families that sexual intercourse take place during this period. She would still be living at her father’s house, awaiting the marriage. Indeed Joseph and Mary may well have had little to do with each other. Their marriage would have been arranged.<\/p>\n

It is apparent that she had given him no notification of the pregnancy, but eventually the fact would have to come out, and the expression ‘she was found with child’ may possibly express this idea. Once this was clear her parents no doubt contacted Joseph and informed him of the situation. Recognising the situation as he saw it, and being a ‘righteous man’, that is, one who would do the right thing, he then determined to divorce her. It was not a matter of having an option. For him not to do so would bring disgrace on his name and on his family, and would be to be in breach of the Law and of public decency.<\/p>\n

It would have been a very ‘liberal’ minded man who would not have done so, and it would have revealed one who would not have been respected in the best circles, for it would have been to go against the very principles of the Law which was that she now ‘belonged’ to the man who had ‘known her’. She had been made one with him. (See 1Co 6:15-16<\/span>. This is also confirmed in the Mishnah). Love would thus not have come into it for a man in Joseph’s position. It would have been even more so if she had been raped.<\/p>\n

But being also genuinely righteous in a godly fashion, in a way exceeding the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat 5:20<\/span>), he did not wish to bring her into total and open disrepute by a public investigation (compare Num 5:11-31<\/span> for such an investigation, although that was where a child was not involved), so he decided to come to an arrangement for the divorce to proceed privately. This would involve the granting of a certificate of divorce before two witnesses and her then remaining at home in her father’s house until a suitable marriage could be arranged with someone else. He would probably by this forego his right to recover marriage settlements and confiscate her dowry, but he was a compassionate man and did not consider such things. In view of the fact that he knew that the child was not his, which emphasises the fact that he had not had sexual relations with her, no trial was necessary unless he wanted one. The matter could thus be quietly resolved, with as little public shame as possible to Mary. She would then be able to accept any offer that she might receive, probably from an older close relative looking for a nubile second wife who would recognise her place. That would be the best that she could hope for.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Birth of Jesus the Christ (1:18-25).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jesus the Messiah having been introduced as a fulfilment of history from Abraham onwards, the narrative now commences with His birth. Given what a remarkable event it was the account is soberly told, and this underlines its reliability. An invented story would have greatly ‘improved’ on what happened, as the apocryphal Gospels confirm. The comment about Joseph (Mat 1:19<\/span>) adds to its veracity. The description of him is as a man of noble heart who nevertheless is aware that he must uphold the family honour and do the right thing. No taint must be allowed to enter the house of David. It is only those who refuse to let God act in His world in His own way who have any difficulty with the story.<\/p>\n

In his account in Luke’s Gospel the writer only provides us with the details of Mary’s experiences and behaviour, and he takes almost no interest in Joseph’s part in things at all. For Luke was intent on stressing Jesus’ manhood, alongside His Messiahship, as the son of Adam, and that manhood came through His mother. But Matthew stresses Joseph because he wants all attention on His kingship. He wants us to be quite clear that He was of royal lineage. Matthew’s new material should not really surprise us. For we would expect something to be known about Joseph’s side of the story, for that would actually have been the side most taken notice of by most Jews, (excluding the bits that Joseph wanted to keep secret). And it must be quite apparent to anyone who thinks about it that Joseph would have had to be prepared by God in his own way for what was to happen, in order for the scheme to go through successfully. He was after all a man of noble ancestry caught up in something that was beyond him. So without God’s intervention the marriage would undoubtedly have foundered, with the baby being left without an earthly father. And yet unlike Mary he receives no direct vision of angels. He sees it all ‘in a dream’. From the divine point of view his part was secondary, and guidance was all that he required. However, from the point of view of Jesus’ acceptance as the heir to David’s kingship his part was crucial.<\/p>\n

Luke’s account would not have suited Matthew’s purpose at all. Matthew was concerned to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah from the house of David, receiving His right to kingship through Joseph’s royal ancestry, and he was thus deeply concerned that his readers should be involved in Joseph’s side of the story, and see that Joseph fully accepted Jesus as his own son, and to this end he consigns Mary very much to the background. Matthew’s source for the information may well have been Mary, but if so the story contains some hint of the reserve with which Joseph must have told her what had happened to him. It is always, however, possible that Matthew had met Joseph before Joseph actually died. Furthermore Matthew’s stress should not surprise us for another reason. It was far more in line with what we would expect from a Jew, to whom the woman’s side would not be so important. Luke, however, on his side continually lays great emphasis on women.<\/p>\n

The genealogy has already revealed that Jesus comes in fulfilment of Scripture, and this is now confirmed. It should be noted that neither the details in the quotation nor the name given in it are then incorporated into the text of the story, an evidence that the text has not influenced the story. Yet it is through the text that we discover that, in Jesus the Messiah, ‘God is with us’.<\/p>\n

Analysis of Mat 1:18-25<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> .<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> The birth of JESUS the Christ came about in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph (Mat 1:18<\/span> a),<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> Before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit, and Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately, and when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, you son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Mat 1:18-20<\/span>).<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> “And she will bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS, for it is he who will save his people from their sins” (Mat 1:21<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> Now all this is come about that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Behold, the virgin will be with child, and will bring forth a son, and they will call his name Immanuel,” which is, being interpreted, God with us.’ (Mat 1:22-23<\/span>).<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took to himself his wife, and knew her not until she had brought forth a son, and he called his name JESUS (Mat 1:24-25<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Note the careful parallels. The statement concerning the birth and betrothal in ‘a’ is paralleled in reverse order by Joseph’s taking of his wife and ‘not knowing her’ (similarly to a betrothal) and Jesus’ birth. The description is then given in ‘b’ of the inevitable consequence of a miraculous birth, so that Mary is found with child by the Holy Spirit, and in the parallel the Scriptural explanation of this is given, demonstrating that she will be with child through God’s working. Central in ‘c’ is the significance of the baby’s birth, He will save His people from their sins. A further point to note is how central Jesus is throughout the passage:<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> Jesus Christ (Mat 1:18<\/span> a).<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> The virgin-born child of the Holy Spirit (Mat 1:18<\/span> b).<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> Jesus (Mat 1:21<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> The virgin-born child Immanuel (Mat 1:23<\/span>).<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> Jesus (Mat 1:25<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

SECTION 2. THE BIRTH AND RISE OF JESUS THE MESSIAH (THE CHRIST) (1:18-4:25).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this section, following the introduction, Matthew reveals the greatness of Jesus the Christ. He will now describe the unique birth of Jesus, the homage paid to Him by important Gentiles, His exile and protection in Egypt followed by His subsequent bringing forth out of Egypt to reside in lowly Nazareth, His being drenched with the Holy Spirit as God’s beloved Son and Servant, His temptations in the wilderness which would then determine how He was to fulfil His role, and His coming forth to begin His task by the spreading of the Good News of the Kingly Rule of Heaven, to be entered by repentance and by looking to Him as the One Who is over that Kingly Rule. To this end He appoints disciples who are to become ‘fishers of men’, and begins His ministry of preaching and of ‘Messianic’ works in order to demonstrate the nature of the Kingly Rule.<\/p>\n

The section (Mat 1:18<\/span> to Mat 4:25<\/span>) may be analysed as follows:<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> Jesus the Christ is born of a virgin as ‘the son of Joseph’ and revealed as the Messianic Saviour by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit which accomplishes His birth and by His being named by God (Mat 1:18-25<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> Gentile Magi come seeking him bringing Him expensive gifts and paying Him homage (Mat 2:1-12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> Jesus goes into exile in Egypt and escapes the Bethlehem massacre at the hands of the earthly king Herod, and then returns and takes up His abode in lowly Nazareth in Galilee, choosing the way of humility (Mat 2:13-23<\/span>).<\/p>\n

d <\/strong> Jesus is introduced by John and drenched with the Holy Spirit on behalf of His people, being declared to be God’s beloved Son and unblemished Servant (Mat 3:1-17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> Jesus goes into the wilderness and is tempted by Satan, who tries to persuade Him to reveal His Sonship by misusing His powers, and by achieving an earthly worldwide kingship, with all its glory, by false means, rejecting the way of humility (Mat 4:1-11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> Jesus demonstrates the way that He will take by coming as a light into Galilee of the Gentiles and proclaiming the need to repent, and the nearness of the Kingly Rule of Heaven, seeking out four disciples who are to pay Him homage, surrender everything and become fishers of men (Mat 4:18-22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> Jesus proclaims the Good News of His Kingly Rule, and reveals His Messiahship by His miraculous and wonderful works, which reveal the working of the Holy Spirit (Mat 4:23-25<\/span>, compare Mat 12:28<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Note how in ‘a’ the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit reveals His true sonship, and in the parallel similar miraculous working of the Holy Spirit reveals Him for Who He is. In ‘b’ men who are Gentiles seek Him with expensive gifts to pay Him homage, and in the parallel He seeks men in Galilee of the Gentiles and demands from them the yielding of full homage to Him, and the giving of the most expensive gift of all, their whole lives. In ‘c’ He goes into exile from the earthly king Herod, and returns taking the way of humility, and in the parallel is Himself offered an earthly kingship and is tempted not to take the way of humility. In ‘d’ and centrally He receives the Holy Spirit on behalf of His people and is declared to be God’s beloved Son and blameless Servant.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Predestination: The Messiah’s Virgin Birth and Divine Nature ( Luk 2:1-7<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ) <\/strong> <\/em> Matthew’s second testimony of how Jesus’ birth was predestined by God the Father to fulfill essentially all Old Testament prophecies is recorded in Mat 1:18-25<\/span>, where he records the story of the Messiah’s prophetic conception of being born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit. This event fulfilled the prophecy of Isa 7:14<\/span> and is quoted in Mat 1:22-23<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Isa 7:14<\/span>, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”<\/p>\n

Mat 1:22-23<\/span>, “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”<\/p>\n

This story of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ testifies to the divine and human nature of the person of Jesus Christ, being told from Joseph’s point of view. It is very likely that Luke gives us the virgin birth told from Mary’s point of view (Luk 2:1-7<\/span>). <\/p>\n

We should keep in mind that the underlying emphasis of Mat 1:1<\/span> to Mat 2:23<\/span> is on the divine foreknowledge of God the Father in effecting His plan of redemption for mankind. Thus, we see the angel of the Lord intervening in Joseph’s life to show him God’s divine providence at work in his life.<\/p>\n

Central Theological Application of the Text <\/em> The central theological application of Mat 1:18-25<\/span> reveals that God has created, designed, and predestined everyone to be born again and filled with the Holy Spirit as children of God. Within the context of the Gospel of Matthew, every believer has been empowered by the Holy Spirit to fulfill the Great Commission (Mat 28:18-20<\/span>), working together in discipling the nations with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

The Deity and Humanity of Jesus Christ Declared <\/em><\/strong> Mat 1:20-24<\/span><\/strong> clearly states that Jesus Christ was both fully man and fully God. [284] It states here that God came to dwell among us by being born of a woman. Jesus Christ was not a spirit that manifested Himself as did the angels, nor was He simply a good man who died and was never resurrected. This doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man was one of the great mysteries of the Church.<\/p>\n

[284] Stanley Saunders says, “In this passage Matthew begins to develop an im age of the dual nature of Jesus’ identity both human and divine that will run throughout the Gospel.” Stanley P. Saunders, Preaching the Gospel of Matthew: Proclaiming God’s Presence <\/em> (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 8.<\/p>\n

1Ti 3:16<\/span>, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”<\/p>\n

Later in the first century and throughout the history of the church, this doctrine will be attacked fiercely by heretics since it is the foundational doctrine upon which the glorious Church will walk in victory throughout the ages to come.<\/p>\n

Joseph’s Dream –<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong> The wording of this passage suggests that Joseph was cast into a sleep by the Lord and was then awakened by Him also. It tells us, “While Joseph thought on these things, the angel of the Lord spoke to him in a dreamthen Joseph being raised from sleep.” I have had this experience of meditating on a matter and found myself in a sleep with a divine visitation.<\/p>\n

We can find other illustrations of such an experience in the Holy Bible. We see that Abraham fell into a deep sleep and the Lord spoke to Him in a dream.<\/p>\n

Gen 15:12<\/span>, “And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.”<\/p>\n

We see Peter falling into a trance, which was a state of being more awake than asleep, while the Lord spoke to him in a vision.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18<\/strong><\/span>  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.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18<\/strong><\/span><\/strong>   “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise” <\/strong> Comments –<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong> The Greek word “birth” ( ) in Mat 1:18<\/span> is the same Greek word used in Mat 1:1<\/span>, where it is usually translated “generation” or “genealogy.” This is a Hebrew structure used throughout the book of Genesis. It also shows that the author of this Gospel is a Jew who wrote with a Jewish mind. Jesus becomes the main character of this narrative material in this phrase since it is His genealogy.<\/p>\n

Comments <\/em><\/strong> The phrase “the genealogy of Jesus Christ” lacks the definite article in the Greek text of Mat 1:1<\/span>, but contains this article in Mat 1:18<\/span>, “the genealogy of Jesus Christ.” In fact, the definite article is missing entirely from Mat 1:1<\/span>, since the author is placing emphasis upon Jesus’ title of the Messiah, of Davidic Sonship and Abrahamic Sonship rather than His individual character. In contrast Mat 1:18<\/span> places emphasis upon the individual as the one to whom all Old Testament biblical prophecy is directed.<\/p>\n

Matthew’s Gospel opens with the statement that Jesus Christ holds the title of Davidic Sonship as well as Abrahamic Sonship, which title Matthew will prove with supporting evidence throughout the rest of His Gospel. This view is supported by the fact that the genealogy (Mat 1:2-16<\/span>) ends with the statement, “Jesus who is called (Messiah),” and by the way Matthew begins his historical narrative with the phrase, “The genealogy of Jesus Christ is thus;” (Mat 1:18<\/span>) that is, the historical narrative of Jesus Christ proves His Davidic Sonship and His Abrahamic Sonship. <\/p>\n

The fact that a statement about Jesus’ birth begins each of the three sections of Mat 1:1<\/span> to Mat 2:12<\/span> shows that this passage of Scripture emphasizes the testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures concerning Christ’s prophetic birth (Mat 1:1<\/span>; Mat 1:18<\/span>; Mat 2:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Mat 1:1<\/span>, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18<\/span>, “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.”<\/p>\n

Mat 2:1<\/span>, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,”<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18<\/strong><\/span> “When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph” <\/strong> Comments –<\/em><\/strong> The name “Mary” is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew name “Miriam.”<\/p>\n

Comments – <\/em><\/strong> John Gill gives us the account and manner of the Jewish custom of betrothing by quoting Maimonides: <\/p>\n

“Before the giving of the law, if a man met a woman in the street, if he would, he might take her, and bring her into his house and marry her between him and herself, and she became his wife; but when the law was given, the Israelites were commanded, that if a man would take a woman he should obtain her before witnesses, and after that she should be his wife, according to Deu 22:13<\/span> and these takings are an affirmative command of the law, and are called ‘espousals’ or ‘betrothings’ in every place; and a woman who is obtained in such a way is called ‘espoused’ or ‘betrothed’; and when a woman is obtained, and becomes ‘espoused’, although she is not yet ‘married, nor has entered into her husband’s house’, yet she is a man’s wife.” [285]<\/p>\n

[285] John Gill, Matthew,<\/em> in John Gill’s Expositor, <\/em> in e-Sword<\/em>, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on Mathew 1:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Deu 22:13<\/span>, “If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,”<\/p>\n

Albert Barnes says that the Jewish custom was to have an interval of ten to twelve months between the contract for marriage, or betrothal, and the actual wedding. During this interval, the virgin was betrothed, or espoused, to her future husband. This engagement was as strong as the marriage itself. [286] In Deu 22:22-29<\/span>, the Law of Moses considered a virgin who has been betrothed to a man as being bound under the same laws as a wife. If another man lay with such a betrothed virgin, then death is the penalty. If the virgin is not betrothed when a man lays with her, then the penalty is weakened to a monetary fine. The only way that this relationship between a man and his betrothed virgin can be broken is by a writing of divorce, since he was considered her husband (Mat 1:19<\/span>). <\/p>\n

[286] Albert Barnes, The Gospel According to Matthew,<\/em> in Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database<\/em> (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997), in P.C. Study Bible<\/em>, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on Matthew 1:18<\/span><\/p>\n

Deu 22:23-24<\/span>, “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.”<\/p>\n

We see the strength and bond of the act of betrothal in the story of Jacob and Laban. After seven years of labor, Jacob demanded his “wife” from Laban, her father (Gen 29:21<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Gen 29:21<\/span>, “And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.”<\/p>\n

It is important to note that Mary became pregnant by the Holy Ghost after her betrothal and before the marriage was consummated. In this way, God timed this event so that Joseph and Mary would not be condemned by their society for misconduct. God’s timing is perfect.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18<\/strong><\/span> “before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” <\/strong> This is the first use of the name “Holy Ghost,” or “Holy Spirit,” in the New Testament. However, we do find it used three times in the Old Testament (Psa 51:11<\/span>, Isa 63:10-11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Psa 51:11<\/span>, “Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.”<\/p>\n

Isa 63:10<\/span>, “But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit : therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.”<\/p>\n

Isa 63:11<\/span>, “Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?”<\/p>\n

The parallel passage in Luke’s Gospel says:<\/p>\n

Luk 1:35<\/span>, “And the angel answered and said unto her, 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.”<\/p>\n

Matthew immediately declares the divine conception of Jesus Christ in the opening verse of the narrative history of the Messiah.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> We know from Luke’s Gospel that after the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced the birth of Jesus, that she immediately visited her cousin Elisabeth for three months (Luk 1:26-40<\/span>). Since Matthew’s Gospel tells us that Mary’s conception came after her betrothal (Mat 1:18<\/span>), then she would have spent three months away from Joseph during the time of her betrothal. This three-month period would have given Mary time to show her pregnancy to others and upon her return to Joseph, to be found with child by him (note Gen 38:24<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Luk 1:56<\/span>, “And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.”<\/p>\n

We know that at this time of pregnancy, a woman first begins to show, though in the case of the first pregnancy, it may be ever so slightly. Note:<\/p>\n

Gen 38:24<\/span>, “And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.”<\/p>\n

Thus, it is most likely that Mary was found with child upon returning to see Joseph after her stay with Elisabeth. This absence would have compounded her husband’s confusion and distrust had not the angel appeared unto him. <\/p>\n

Mat 1:19<\/strong><\/span>  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:19<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “Then Joseph her husband” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> According to the Mosaic Law, when a woman is betrothed to a man, his is then called her husband (note Deu 22:23-24<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Mat 1:19<\/strong><\/span> “not willingwas minded” <\/strong> Comments <\/em><\/strong> Marvin Vincent gives a lengthy explanation of the difference between these two Greek words. He says that ( ) (G2309<\/span>) expresses a purpose or determination or decree, the execution of which is, or is believed to be, in the power of him who wills. Thus, we see Strong’s<\/em> definition as “ to determine, choose, purpose.” In contrast, Vincent explains that the word ( ) (G1014<\/span>) expresses wish, inclination, or disposition, whether one desires to do a thing himself or wants someone else to do it . Thus, Strong’s<\/em> second definition reflects this “weaker” mood as “to wish, to be inclined to.” He would translate this verse something similar to this:<\/p>\n

“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and determined not to make her a public example, was wishing that there was some way that he could put her away privately”<\/p>\n

Vincent uses examples of Classical Greek to support this explanation. However, he does acknowledge that the New Testament sometimes uses the word ( ) in the weaker sense, and it sometimes uses ( ) in the stronger sense. [287]<\/p>\n

[287] Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, <\/em> vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905), 12-15.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:19<\/strong><\/span> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Because Joseph was a righteous man, he had to make a decision. He could not dwell with an adulterous woman. He knew that this decision must be based upon the Law of Moses. He could have had her put to death by public stoning (Lev 20:10<\/span>), but this would have made both of them a public spectacle.<\/p>\n

Lev 20:10<\/span>, “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”<\/p>\n

Deu 22:20-21<\/span>, “But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”<\/p>\n

Or, Joseph could have taken Mary to the priest and implemented the Law of Jealousy, in which she would have had to drink water sprinkled with dust from the temple floor (Num 5:11-31<\/span>). But even this would have made her a public example by making her publicly cursed among the people. <\/p>\n

Or, he could have given her a writing of divorcement (Deu 24:1<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Deu 24:1<\/span>, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”<\/p>\n

This third method would have been the quietest way in which to handle the situation and can be allowed by the reading of this verse. A Jewish betrothal necessitated such a document as much as a marriage. However, before Joseph could do any of these things, God divinely intervened by a dream.<\/p>\n

In his comments on this verse in Matthew, John Lightfoot refers to the Talmudic tract ‘Gittin,’ which gives us an example of how simple and quietly a Jewish divorce can take place. He says that where this document treats divorce, the husband “delivers a bill of divorce to a wife to be put away: among other things, it might be given privately, if the husband so pleased, either into the woman’s hand or bosom, two witnesses only present.” [288]<\/p>\n

[288] John Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations Upon the Gospels, the Acts, Some Chapters of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and the First Epistle to the Corinthians, <\/em> vol. 2, ed. Robert Gandell (Oxford: The University Press, 1859), 18-19.<\/p>\n

In contrast to Joseph’s response, it is interesting to note how Judah reacted in this manner when he found his daughter-in-law with child. He immediately wanted her to be burnt, supposing that this would cause others to see him a righteous man (Gen 38:24<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Gen 38:24<\/span>, “And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.”<\/p>\n

Mat 1:20<\/strong><\/span>  But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. <\/p>\n

Mat 1:20<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “But while he thought on these things” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> After having meditated upon the idea of putting his wife away, Joseph had a dream. Often, we will dream about things that are troubling us. This was the case with King Nebuchadnezzar, whose thoughts were upon what events should come to pass afterwards. The Lord then gave the king a dream as a way of revealing to him these future events (Dan 1:1-21<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Dan 2:29<\/span>, “As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass.”<\/p>\n

Mat 1:20<\/strong><\/span> “behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> It is interesting to note that the Old Testament refers to young men having visions and old men having dreams. Thus, a dream was an acceptable way that the Jews believed God would speak to a man.<\/p>\n

Joe 2:28<\/span>, “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:”<\/p>\n

The Old Testament gives us a number of examples of God speaking to people in dreams.<\/p>\n

Gen 31:11<\/span>, “And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.”<\/p>\n

1Ki 3:5<\/span>, “In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee.”<\/p>\n

Note how King Saul sought the Lord by dreams, but found none.<\/p>\n

1Sa 28:6<\/span>, “And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.”<\/p>\n

It is very common for God to give us a divine visitation or speak to us in a supernatural way during major changes in our lives. This is the way God spoke to Jacob, and this is the way the Lord has intervened in my life.<\/p>\n

The devil does not know what God speaks to us in divine dreams, therefore, Satan could not immediately hinder to what was going on in the heart of Joseph. <\/p>\n

Mat 1:20<\/strong><\/span> “saying, Joseph, thou son of David” <\/strong> Comments (1) – <\/em><\/strong> The “son of David” means “a descendent of David.” We find in the first verse of this chapter that the word “son of” is not modified with the definite article “the” in the Greek, thus leaving the meaning of “son of” as indefinite. Therefore, the phrase “son of” may easily be translated in this context as “descendent of.” The use of the article in Mat 1:1<\/span> in the KJV <\/em> and other modern English versions has been added by translators. In contract, every use of the word “son of” in verses 2-16 is modified by the definite article “the,” meaning that a person is being identified as the immediate son of his father, although we know of a number of exceptions to this rule in this genealogy. <\/p>\n

So it is in verse 20, where the definite article is not used again in the Greek. This gives us the meaning, “descendent of David.”<\/p>\n

Comments (2) – <\/em><\/strong> Whether Joseph was David’s son thru Solomon (Matthew’s genealogy) or thru Nathan (Luke’s genealogy), Joseph was definitely of the lineage of David and Abraham. This phrase ties Joseph to the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Mat 1:1-17<\/span> and gives him a significant role in the birth and childhood of the Messiah. Matthew emphasizes Joseph’s relationship to David in order to support Jesus’ right as heir to the Davidic throne.<\/p>\n

Comments (3) – <\/em><\/strong> The angel knew about God’s covenant promise to David. He knows that Jesus is David’s seed who will be established forever (1Ch 17:14<\/span>). The angel could have said, “Joseph, son of Jacob.” However, God’s promise to David was being fulfilled, so the angel refers to David and Joseph’s ancestry back to David in light of the fulfillment of God’s promises.<\/p>\n

1Ch 17:14<\/span>, “But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.”<\/p>\n

This title for Joseph related Joseph to the birth of Jesus Christ in an indirect way, since Joseph was not the biological father of the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:20<\/strong><\/span> “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> It is interesting to note that the angel addressed Joseph’s worries with the statement, “Fear not.” This reveals that the source of our concerns is fear. We know that fear is the opposite of faith. When the angel revealed to Joseph God’s divine plan at work in his life, he stopped worrying and trusted God with this difficult situation he was facing; because Joseph, a just man, loved God. It was this love that removed his fears. The Scriptures say, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love,” (1Jn 4:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Bob Larson uses this acrostic to define fear: “False Evidence Appearing Real.” [289] Kenneth Copeland says that as faith opens the door for the anointing to work, so does fear open up the door and allow torment to come in. [290] It took genuine faith in God for Joseph to believe what the angel said about a virgin birth and to act in obedience to these words. A virgin had never conceived before. Nothing like this had ever happened before. Joseph had no reference point in his life to compare such an event. He had to utterly trust and fear God in this situation.<\/p>\n

[289] Bob Larson, Bob Larson in Action, <\/em> on <\/em> Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.<\/p>\n

[290] Kenneth Copeland, Believer’s Voice of Victory <\/em> (Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Fort Worth, Texas), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:20<\/strong><\/span> “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The Spirit of God has the power to transform the pre-incarnate Word of God into a tiny seed, and place Him within the womb of Mary. The power of the Spirit of God to create the heavens and the earth waxes small in comparison to be able to transform God Himself into a tiny seed. Benny Hinn says, “The Holy Ghost took God and made Him into a man.” [291]<\/p>\n

[291] Benny Hinn, This Is Your Day <\/em> (Benny Hinn Ministries, Grapevine, Texas), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program, 5 November 2012.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:21<\/strong><\/span>  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. <\/p>\n

Mat 1:21<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “And she shall bring forth a son” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Note that the angel does not tell Joseph that Mary would bring forth a son for him, as the angel told Zacharias (Luk 1:13<\/span>). This is because Joseph was not the biological father, as was Zacharias.<\/p>\n

Luk 1:13<\/span>, “But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.”<\/p>\n

Mat 1:21<\/strong><\/span> “and thou shalt call his name JESUS”<\/strong> – Comments (1) – <\/em><\/strong> The Greek word “ ” (G2424<\/span>) is translated “Jesus.” Why is this particular name given to the Son of God? The rest of the verse explains the reason: because Jesus’ name means “salvation.” is the Greek translation for the Hebrew name “Joshua” ( ) or ( ) (H3091<\/span>), which means, “Jehovah-saved” ( Strong<\/em>), being a combination of the Hebrew word , meaning “Jehovah,” and ( ) (H3467<\/span>), meaning, “to be safe, to free or succor” ( Strong<\/em>). Joshua’s original name was Oshea, or Hosea ( ) (H1954<\/span>), meaning “deliverer” ( Strong<\/em>). However, in Num 13:8<\/span>; Num 13:16<\/span>, Moses changed his name from Oshea to Joshua ( ). <\/p>\n

Num 13:8<\/span>, “Of the tribe of Ephraim, Oshea the son of Nun .”<\/p>\n

Num 13:16<\/span>, “These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua .”<\/p>\n

The name “Joshua” is thus a contraction of the name “Jehoshua.” In the later Old Testament books, it takes the name “Jeshua” (Neh 7:7<\/span>; Neh 8:17<\/span>), from which the Greek translation reads “Jesus.”<\/p>\n

Neh 7:7<\/span>, “Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua , Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai, Nehum, Baanah. The number, I say, of the men of the people of Israel was this;”<\/p>\n

Neh 8:17<\/span>, “And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.”<\/p>\n

Comments (2) – <\/em><\/strong> Apparently, in Jewish tradition, the fathers named the firstborn child. See Luk 1:63<\/span>, “And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.”<\/p>\n

We do see that the Jews often named their child according to the mercy that God had shown them, as was the case of Leah naming her sons conceived by Jacob, or the Jews named their child according to the divine task given to them, as was the case of the children of Israel and Hosea. In the case of Jesus Christ, God provides the name in order to show His mercy upon His children and to reveal the calling of Jesus as the One who is to save His people from their sins.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:21<\/strong><\/span> “for he shall save his people from their sins” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Note that Jesus did not come to save His people from Roman rule, but rather from their sins. This phrase is very likely a quote from Psa 130:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Psa 130:8<\/span>, “And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.”<\/p>\n

Psalms 130<\/span> is found in the group of Songs of Degrees which the children of Israel commonly sung as they made their way to Jerusalem during times of yearly feasts. Therefore, Joseph would have been familiar with this quote from the angel. He would have sung it often as he came to Jerusalem with others to seek God’s face in repentance and to pray for deliverance from the oppression of the Romans.<\/p>\n

We know that Joseph understood that the Lord was going to save the people of Israel from their sins. It was not until the book of Acts that the disciples fully understood that Jesus Christ died for all people, which included the Gentiles also. Paul then explains in his epistles that the Church is the “Israel of God”. Thus, we understand the angel to means in this verse that Jesus would save all of those people who would put their faith in Him.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:21<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments (1) – <\/em><\/strong> The expected return of the Messiah was, in the minds of the people, to deliver them from their Roman oppression. But this statement from the angel clearly gives Joseph the reason for the coming of the Messiah, which was to deliver the people from their sins and reconcile them back to God. As Matthew’s Gospel progressively reveals, the Gentiles are to be now included in this group of people. This became a stumbling block for the Jews. <\/p>\n

Comments (2) – <\/em><\/strong> As we have seen a number of times in the Old Testament, when God appeared to men and told them what to name their sons and daughters, the meaning of this name always matched the ministry of this person, or to proclaim a prophetic message. Here, the name Jesus means, “salvation,” since He shall save His people from their sins.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:22<\/strong><\/span>  Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, <\/p>\n

Mat 1:22<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The phrase (that it might be fulfilled) is unique to the Gospel of Matthew, being used nine times (Mat 1:22<\/span>; Mat 2:15<\/span>; Mat 2:17<\/span>; Mat 2:23<\/span>; Mat 4:14<\/span>; Mat 8:17<\/span>; Mat 12:17<\/span>; Mat 13:35<\/span>; Mat 21:4<\/span>), with similar phrases being used loosely three times in other places in Matthew (Mat 13:14<\/span>; Mat 26:56<\/span>; Mat 27:9<\/span>). [292] The reason this phrase is unique to the Gospel of Matthew is because the primary theme of this Gospel is the testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures, which states that Jesus Christ is the coming Messiah, who will reign as King of the Jews. Thus, the Gospel of Matthew continually declares that Jesus Christ fulfills Old Testament Messianic passages.<\/p>\n

[292] A tenth Matthean formula can be found in Matthew 27:35<\/span> in the KJV<\/em>. However, the rules of modern textual criticism require the omission this phrase from the UBS 4 because it is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts. Thus, only nine formulae will be considered in this commentary.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:23<\/strong><\/span>  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. <\/p>\n

Mat 1:23<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “and they shall call his name Emmanuel” <\/strong> Word Study on “Emmanuel” <\/em><\/strong> Strong <\/em> says the <\/em> Greek name “Emmanuel” ( ) (G1694<\/span>) means “God with us,” which is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name “Immanuel” ( ) (H6005<\/span>). Strong <\/em> says this Hebrew name is a compound of three Hebrew words: (H5973<\/span>) (with), and (H410<\/span>) (a contracted form for “the Almighty”), plus the suffix pronoun <\/strong> (us), so that this compound word means, “with us (is) God.”<\/p>\n

Comments – <\/em> The Greek word has one use in the New Testament (Mat 1:23<\/span>), and its Hebrew name “Immanuel” has two uses in the Old Testament (Isa 7:14<\/span>; Isa 8:8<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Isa 7:14<\/span>, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel .”<\/p>\n

Isa 8:8<\/span>, “And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel .”<\/p>\n

Scripture Reference – <\/em> Note also:<\/p>\n

Isa 8:10<\/span>, “Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us .”<\/p>\n

Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Note that Matthew slightly changes the quote of Isa 7:14<\/span> from “she shall call” to read, “they shall call.” Matthew is emphasizing that this child has been born to redeem a people back to God, in contrast to immediate context of Isaiah’s prophecy, which states that mother would conceive as a sign of God’s deliverance to ancient Israel. In other words, this is a dual prophecy, and must be adapted to the first century Jews. Thus, Matthew is saying that the people whom He has redeemed will call Him “Emmanuel.” <\/p>\n

NIV<\/em>, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and (she) will call him Immanuel.”<\/p>\n

Isaiah will later make this point that this child has been given to God’s people as a leader.<\/p>\n

Isa 9:6<\/span>, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”<\/p>\n

Some translations of Isa 7:14<\/span> read, “thou shalt call.” This is because the third person feminine singular, “she,” and the second person singular, “you,” have the same Hebrew construction within the written text so that it is a possible translation. <\/p>\n

Brenton<\/em>, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.”<\/p>\n

Rotherham<\/em>, “Wherefore let My Lord Himself give you a sign, Lo! a Virgin, being with child and giving birth to a son, thou wilt call his name Immanuel.”<\/p>\n

John Wesley comments that this slight change in wording indicates that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in the Greek language rather than in the Hebrew as some early Church fathers have stated. [293]<\/p>\n

[293] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament, <\/em> in The Wesleyan Heritage Library <\/em> (Rio, WI: Ages Digital Library: Wesleyan Heritage Publications, 2002), comments on Matthew 1:23<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Mat 1:23<\/strong><\/span><\/em> “which being interpreted is, God with us” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Matthew opens and closes his Gospel with the promise that God is now with us and that He will never forsake us.<\/p>\n

Mat 28:20<\/span>, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway , even unto the end of the world. Amen.”<\/p>\n

Mat 1:23<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Scripture References – <\/em><\/strong> Note similar verses:<\/p>\n

Joh 1:14<\/span>, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”<\/p>\n

1Ti 3:16<\/span>, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”<\/p>\n

Mat 1:22-23<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments – The Prophecy of Jesus’ Virgin Birth – <\/em><\/strong> The prophecy of Jesus’ virgin birth recorded in Mat 1:22-23<\/span> is taken from Isa 7:13-14<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Isa 7:13-14<\/span>, “And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel .”<\/p>\n

It reveals to us the purpose of God in His divine plan of redemption for mankind. The word “Behold” indicates that God would do a wonderful and extraordinary thing to bring about His purposes.<\/p>\n

How did Matthew interpret Isa 7:13-14<\/span> as a prophecy of the virgin birth of the Messiah: perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the Messiah is spoken of within the broader context of this passage in the book of Isaiah. In chapter 7, Ahaz was king of Judah. The kings of northern Israel and Syria had united in order to come against Judah. When the heart of Ahaz was weak, the Lord sent Isaiah to speak to the king and to tell him to ask from God a sign. When Ahaz refused to trust in the Lord, then Isaiah prophesied that God Himself would give a sign, or a pledge that the land of Judah would be delivered. He said that a virgin would conceive a son, and before this child was old enough to know the difference between good and evil, the kings of the north would be removed.<\/p>\n

In explaining Moyer’s view of how Matthew interpreted this Old Testament as Messianic by considering the broader context of nearby passages in the book of Isaiah, D. A. Carson says, “The promised Immanuel (Mat 7:14<\/span>) will possess the land (Mat 8:8<\/span>), thwart all opponents (Mat 8:10<\/span>), appear in Galilee of the Gentiles (Mat 9:1<\/span>) as a great light to those in the land of the shadow of death (Mat 9:2<\/span>). He is the Child and Son called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” in Mat 9:6<\/span>, whose government and peace will never end as he reigns on David’s throne forever (Mat 9:7<\/span>).” [294] Within the context of Isaiah 6-12, which speaks of the nation of Israel going into exile and the Messiah coming to deliver His people, the virgin birth spoken of in Isa 7:14<\/span> fits properly within the context of Matthew’s announcement that Jesus Christ is the Coming Messiah, who has come to save His people. Carson notes that we even see Matthew referring to this exile in Mat 1:11-12<\/span>; Mat 1:17<\/span> as a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, and we will see the Evangelist come back to this passage in Isaiah 6-12 when he introduces Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, for he will quote from Isa 9:1-2<\/span>.<\/p>\n

[294] D. A. Carson, Matthew, <\/em> in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary<\/em>, vol. 8, eds. Frank E. Gaebelien, J. D. Douglas, Dick Polcyn (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1976-1992), in Zondervan Reference Software, <\/em> v. 2.8 [CD-ROM] (Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp., 1989-2001), notes on Matthew 1:23<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:24<\/strong><\/span>  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:<\/p>\n

Mat 1:24<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The phrase “and took unto him his wife” tells us that Joseph then consummated the marriage by taking her into his home, and perhaps having a public marriage ceremony to precede this. This was the reason that Joseph would then travel with Mary to the city of Bethlehem with her. <\/p>\n

We can imagine the anxiety of a young bride who was now with a child wondering if her husband would embarrass her and divorce her. Yet, God knows our hearts, so He miraculously intervened in this situation to bring about a blessed consummation of marriage. When we yield ourselves to God’s plan for our lives, and allow the seed of God to impregnate our spirit and we obey His divine call, He will work out circumstances around us in a miraculous way, as He did for Mary, the mother of our Lord.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:25<\/strong><\/span>  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. <\/p>\n

Mat 1:25<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “And knew her not till” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> It is interesting to point out that the author uses the imperfect tense for the word “knew,” which implies continuous action done in the past. Therefore, we may read it to say, “he continued with her during her period of pregnancy without knowing her.” Joseph did not lay with Mary until after the birth of Jesus Christ. [295]<\/p>\n

[295] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/em>, in <\/em> P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on Matthew 1:25<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:25<\/strong><\/span> “she had brought forth her firstborn son” – <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The phrase “firstborn son” tells us that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had children after the Messiah. In fact the Scriptures tell us that Mary had four other sons and at least two daughters.<\/p>\n

Mat 12:46<\/span>, “While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.” <\/p>\n

Mat 13:55-56<\/span>, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?”<\/p>\n

Mat 1:25<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> There has been debate in the early writings of the Church whether Jesus Christ had any blood brothers, or were they simply step-brothers. But this phrase indicates that Joseph did “know” Mary at a later date, and therefore, she conceived again and gave Joseph his own biological children.<\/p>\n

Scripture Reference – <\/em><\/strong> Note a similar verse in Luke:<\/p>\n

Luk 2:7<\/span>, “And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Annunciation to Joseph and the Birth of Jesus.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 18<\/strong>. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise,<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

v. 18<\/strong>. When <\/strong> as<\/em> His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

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

The Obligation of a Rightful Betrothal<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mat 1:18<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Now the birth of Jesus Christ, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this manner; <\/em>literally, was thus; <\/em>not only the birth, but the conception of Christ, and what preceded it, are here included, in the word , which we translate birth, <\/em>and which some critics have unwarily confused with the word , generation, <\/em>used in the first verse of this chapter. Among the Jews there was a considerable space of time (generally a year, or six months) between the betrothing or wedding; and during this space of time it was that Mary was found with child by the power of the Holy Ghost. See Luk 1:26<\/span>. The last clause of the verse is better rendered by some, She was found to be pregnant, <\/em>or with child, by the Holy Ghost.<\/em> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mat 1:18<\/span> . ] provided with the article, and placed first with reference to Mat 1:16<\/span> . “The origin of Jesus Christ<\/em> , however, was as follows.”<\/p>\n

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

] explicative, namely, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 234 ff.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 86 ff.<\/p>\n

] belongs as much as the simple to the Ionic, and to the middle age of the Attic dialect; see Elmsley, ad Eur. Med. 179; Reisig, ad Soph. Oed. Colm. 36; it is, however, already found alone in Xenophon (Khner, ad Anab. iv. 5. 1), as also in Thucydides, v. 61. 1, according to our texts (see, however, Krger in loc.), but is foreign to the Attic poets. With the aorist infinitive, it denotes that the act is fully accomplished. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 726. Comp. Act 2:20<\/span> ; Act 7:2<\/span> ; Mar 14:30<\/span> ; Joh 4:49<\/span> ; Tob 14:15 .<\/p>\n

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

] Euth. Zigabenus (comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact) appropriately renders it: . . is nowhere equivalent to . See Winer, p. 572 [E. T. 769].<\/p>\n

or , to be pregnant, very often in the LXX., also in Greek writers, Herodotus, iii. 32, Vit. Hom. ii.; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 792 E.<\/p>\n

. .] without the article, see Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 151]. or , , . , . , is the personal divine principle of the higher, religious-moral, and eternal life, which works effectually for the true reign of God, and especially for Christianity, which rules in believers, and sanctifies them for the Messiah’s kingdom, and which, in reference to the intellect, is the knowledge of divine truth, revelation, prophecy, etc., in reference to morals is the consecration of holiness and power in the moral life of the new birth with its virtues and world-subduing dispositions, bringing about, in particular, the truth and fervour of prayer, the pledge of everlasting life. Here the is that which produces the human existence of Christ, through whose action which so appeared only in this, the single case of its kind the origin of the embryo in the womb of Mary was causally produced ( ) in opposition to human generation, so that the latter is thereby excluded. It is not, however, that divine power of the Spirit (Luk 1:35<\/span> ), which only concurs in the action of human generation and makes it effectual, as in the generation of Isaac and of the Baptist, and, as the idea is expressed in the Sohar Gen. (comp. Schmidt in the Bibl. f. Krit. v. Exeg. d. N. T. I. p. 101): “Omnes illi, qui, sciunt se sanctificare in hoc mundo, ut par est (ubi generant), attrahunt super id Spiritum sanctitatis et exeuntes ab eo illi vocantur filii Jehovae.” Theodore of Mopsuestia (apud Fred. Fritzsche, Theodori Mops, in N. T. Commentar. p. 2): ( ) , .<\/p>\n

. ., moreover, is added, not as an object to , but from the historical standpoint, to secure at once a correct judgment upon the ( , Euth. Zigabenus).<\/p>\n

REMARK.<\/p>\n

As regards the conception of Jesus by a virgin<\/em> , we have to notice the following points in their exegetical bearing: (1) Mary was either a daughter of David (the common view), or she was not. See on Mat 1:17<\/span> , Remark 2. In the first case, Jesus, whose divine<\/em> generation is assumed, was, as Matthew and Luke relate, a descendant of David, although not through an unbroken line of male<\/em> succession, but in such a way that His mother<\/em> alone conveyed to Him the Davidic descent. But if Mary were not a daughter of David, then, by the divine conception, the possibility of Jesus being a descendant of David is simply excluded;<\/em> because, on that view, the Davidite Joseph remains out of consideration, and this would be in contradiction not only with the statements of prophecy, but also with the unanimous testimony of the N. T. (2) As it is nowhere said<\/em> or hinted<\/em> in the N. T. that Mary was a descendant of David, we must assume that this is tacitly presupposed<\/em> in the narratives of Matthew and Luke. But as a consequence of this supposition, the genealogical trees would lose all their importance, in so far as they are said to prove that Jesus was (Mat 1:1<\/span> ). Joseph’s<\/em> descent from David, upon which in reality nothing<\/em> would turn, would be particularly pointed out; while Mary’s<\/em> similar descent, upon which everything<\/em> would depend, would remain unmentioned as being a matter of course, and would not be, even once, incidentally alluded to in what follows, say by , as Joseph is at once addressed in Mat 1:20<\/span> as . (3) Paul<\/em> and Peter<\/em> (Rom 1:3-4<\/span> ; Act 2:30<\/span> : , ; comp. 2Ti 2:8<\/span> ) designate the descent of Jesus from David in such a way, that without calling in the histories of the birth in the first and third Gospels, there is no occasion for deriving the Davidic descent from the mother<\/em> , to the interruption of the male line of succession, for which Gal 4:4<\/span> [358] also affords neither cause nor justification. Nowhere, moreover, where Paul speaks of the sending<\/em> of the Son of God, and of His human yet sinless nature (2Co 5:21<\/span> ; Rom 8:3<\/span> ; Phi 2:6<\/span> f.), does he betray any indication that he presupposes that divine conception. [359] (4) Just as little does John<\/em> , whose expression , although he was so intimate with Jesus and His mother, leaves the question as to the how<\/em> of this without a direct answer, indeed; but also, where Jesus is definitely designated by others as Joseph’s son, contributes no word of correction (Joh 1:46<\/span> , Joh 6:42<\/span> ; comp. Joh 7:27<\/span> ), nay, relates the self-designation “ Son of a man<\/em> ” from Jesus’ own mouth (see on Joh 5:27<\/span> ), where the context does not allow us to refer to His mother<\/em> . (5) It is certain, further, that neither in Nazareth (Mat 13:55<\/span> ; Mar 6:3<\/span> ; Luk 4:22<\/span> ), nor in Capernaum (Joh 6:42<\/span> ), nor elsewhere in the neighbourhood (Joh 1:46<\/span> ), do we meet with such expressions, in which a knowledge of anything extraordinary in the descent of Jesus might be recognised; and in keeping with this also is the unbelief of His own brethren (Joh 7:3<\/span> ), nay, even the behaviour and bearing of Mary (Mar 3:21<\/span> ; Mar 3:31<\/span> ; comp. on Mat 12:46-50<\/span> ; see also Luk 2:50<\/span> f.). (6) We have still to observe, that what is related in Mat 1:18<\/span> would obviously have greatly helped to support the suspicion and reproach of illegitimate<\/em> birth, and yet nowhere throughout the N. T. is there found the slightest whisper of so hostile a report. [360] If, moreover, in the narratives of the first and third evangelists, angelic appearances occur, which, according to the connection of the history, mutually exclude each other (Strauss, I. p. 165 ff.; Keim, Gesch. Jesu<\/em> , I. p. 362 ff.), namely, in Matthew, after<\/em> the conception, in order to give an explanation to Joseph; in Luke, before<\/em> the conception, to make a disclosure to Mary, nevertheless that divine conception itself might remain, and in and of itself be consistent therewith, if it were elsewhere certainly attested in the N. T., or if it could be demonstrated as being an undoubted presupposition, belonging to the conception of Christ as the Son of God.<\/p>\n

[358] Certainly, in Rom 1:4<\/span> , Paul expressly refers Christ’s relation to God as His Son to His , not to His . See on Rom 1:3<\/span> . The supernatural generation is not a logical consequence of his system, as Weiss, bibl. Theol.<\/em> p. 315, thinks. If Paul had conceived the propagation of sin as taking place by means of generation<\/em> (which is probable, although he has not declared himself upon the point), he cannot, in so thinking, after the history of the fall (2Co 11:3<\/span> ), and after Psa 51:7<\/span> , have regarded the woman’s<\/em> share as a matter of indifference<\/em> .<\/p>\n

[359] We should all the more have expected this origin to have been stated by Paul, that he, on the one side, everywhere ascribes to Christ true and perfect humanity ( Rom 5:15 ; 1Co 15:21<\/span> , al<\/em> .), and, on the other, so often gives prominence to His elevation above sinful<\/em> humanity; for which reason he also designates the of Christ which was human, and yet was not, as in other men, the seat of sin as (Rom 8:3<\/span> ), with which Heb 2:14<\/span> ; Heb 2:17<\/span> also agrees.<\/p>\n

[360] The generation (nay, according to Luk 2:5<\/span> , the birth also) before<\/em> the marriage was concluded is necessarily connected with faith in the divine<\/em> generation. The reproach of illegitimate<\/em> birth was not raised by the Jews until a later time (Origen, c. Celsum<\/em> , 1:28), as a hostile and base inference from the narratives of Matthew and Luke. Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr<\/em> . I. p. 526 f. They called Jesus a Mamser<\/em> [ i.e.<\/em> one born in incest]. See Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth<\/em> . I p. 105 ff.<\/p>\n

Taking into account all that precedes, it is clear, in the first place, that the doctrine which became dominant in the church, in opposition to all Ebionitism, of the birth of Jesus Christ from a virgin, is indeed fully justified on exegetical grounds by the preliminary history in Matthew and Luke; but that, secondly, apart from the preliminary history, no glimpse of this doctrine appears anywhere in the N. T., nay, that elsewhere in the N. T. it has to encounter considerable difficulties of an exegetical kind, without, however, breaking down before physiological or theological impossibilities (in answer to Strauss). Exegetically, therefore, the proposition of faith, that in Jesus the only-begotten Son of God entered as man into humanity, cannot be made to depend upon the conception, which is recorded only in Matthew and Luke, [361] but must also, irrespective of the latter, remain fast and immutable in its full and real meaning of the incarnation of the divine Logos, which took place, and takes place, in no other; so that that belief cannot be made to depend on the manner in which Jesus was conceived, and in which the Spirit of God acted at the very commencement of His human existence. And this not merely for exegetical, but also for dogmatical reasons, since the incarnation of the Son of God is by no means to be subjected to the rule of universal sinful origin (Joh 3:6<\/span> ) in fallen humanity (by which His whole redemptive work would be reduced to nothing); and which indeed must also considering the supernatural conception be conceived as exempted on the mother’s<\/em> side from this rule of traducianism. [362]<\/p>\n

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

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

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

Mat 1:18-25<\/span> (Luk 1:26-33<\/span>)<\/p>\n

Contents:The tragical situation of the two betrothed descendants of David at their first appearance in history. Mary, pregnant by the power of the Holy Ghost, misunderstood and doubted by her betrothed. Josephs intention of privately putting her away. The mother and child vindicated from dishonor by Divine intervention. Josephs faith. Ancient prophecy. The name: Jesus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

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

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mat 1:18<\/span>. The Evangelist commences his narrative at the period when Marys pregnancy had become matter of certainty, about the time of her return from visiting Elisabeth.<\/p>\n

The reading is much better established in Mat 1:18<\/span> than , and clearly more appropriate, as the event in question was not properly a [begetting].<\/p>\n

Of the Holy Ghost.<\/strong>The notion of begetting is completely excluded by that of the Holy Ghost. The secret influence of the Spirit is more minutely described in Luk 1:35<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:19<\/span>. Joseph being a just man<\/strong> (lit. being just<\/em>).The word just<\/em> has been falsely interpreted as kind, tender-hearted. To have acted upon his suspicion in reference to Mary as if it had been matter of certainty, would have been not merely unkind, but unjust. Such conduct would have been all the more inexcusable, since Mary had informed him not only of the fact of her pregnancy, but likewise of its cause. Joseph was unable to share her faith; but neither could he bring his mind entirely to disbelieve her account. This struggle of doubt and of suspicion with his feelings of generosity and of previous high esteem for Mary, influenced the decision at which he arrived. He resolved not to accuse her publicly (the reading is an explanation of ); that is, not to dismiss her by a bill of divorce, which would have stigmatized her as an adulteress, but to dismiss her privately by a bill of divorce without assigning any reason for it. Thus her disgrace would at least not become matter of notoriety, although, of course, suspicion would attach to her; at any rate, her child might still be regarded as the son of Joseph. By this conduct he would unquestionably have taken upon himself a portion of her ignominy. He might be considered a hardhearted man, who turned away a noble woman unjustly. Those circumstances-afford an insight into the inward struggle which both experienced. On the bill of divorce, comp. Deu 24:1-3<\/span>; Mat 19:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:20<\/span>. The Angel of the Lord<\/strong> that appeared to him in a vision when sleeping, was the angel of the Lord in the peculiar and historical sense of that termthe Angel of the Lord<\/em>, Gen 16:7<\/span>; Gen 16:9<\/span>, and in other passages; or the Angel of the presence<\/em>, Exo 32:34<\/span>; Exo 33:14<\/span>; Isa 63:9<\/span>; or the Angel of the covenant<\/em>, Mal 3:1<\/span>. The angel Gabriel<\/em> (hero of God<\/em>), who, according to Luke 1<\/span>, delivered the messages relating to the birth of Christ, was probably only a more definite manifestation of the Angel of the Lord<\/em> (Dan 8:16<\/span>; Dan 9:21<\/span>). The angel of Christs incarnation must, in this case, be carefully distinguished from later angelic apparitions. (See<\/em> the authors Leben Jesu,<\/em> ii. B. 1, 41.)<\/p>\n

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

Mary thy wife.<\/strong>Among the Jews the betrothed bore the title of wife<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Of the Holy Ghost.<\/strong>Both the descent of Jesus and His mission were revealed long before His actual appearance on earth. His birth, His name, and His work were equally from the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:22-23<\/span>. On the Messianic application of Isa 7:14<\/span>, consult the commentaries. It must, however, be observed that the Evangelist Matthew uses the expression, was fulfilled,<\/em> , in reference not merely to the fulfilling of conscious verbal predictions, but also to that of typical prophecies. In the passage before us the reference is probably to a typical prophecy. The virgin () presented to Ahaz as a sign, was a type of the holy Virgin for the following reasons: 1) her future pregnancy and her giving birth to a son were announced even before her marriage had actually taken place; 2) the highest and strongest kind of faith was called into exercise in connection with this child, by which it obtained the name of Immanuel, and became the sign of approaching deliverance in a season of peculiar trial; 3) the name Immanuel<\/em> was verified in the God-Man; 4) all these circumstances served to render the birth of this child peculiarly sacred, and to connect it with the future of Israel; thus strikingly prefiguring the advent of the holy child, the Hope of Israel.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:24-25<\/span>. Joseph believed in consequence of the Divine intimation he had received in a dream, and forthwith married Mary, with all the Jewish marriage ceremonies, from a regard to her reputation. But he did not consummate the marriage till Mary had given birth to her first-born. From the expression, first-born,<\/strong> Mat 5:25<\/span>, it must not, however, be inferred that Mary subsequently bore other children. An only child was also designated first-born. The term merely implied that this was the child which had opened the womb (Gen 27:19<\/span>; Gen 27:32<\/span>; Exo 13:2<\/span>). That Jesus had no actual brother according to the flesh, will appear on closer consideration of the real extraction of the so-called brothers of the Lord. They were the sons of Alphus, Josephs brother, and of Mary, the wife of Alphus, the sister-in-law (not the sister) of the mother of the Lord. (See<\/em> the authors dissertation in his History of the Apost. Age,<\/em> i. p. 189; and his article, Jacobus, der Bruder des Herrn,<\/em> in Herzogs Real-Encycl.<\/em>)7<\/span> The expression, brethren (brothers) of the Lord, has been taken in its literal sense by the Antidicomarianites in the ancient Church, and by many modern Protestant theologians; while the Roman Catholic Church, since the times of the Collyridians, of Epiphanius, Ambrose, etc., has gone to the opposite extreme of maintaining that Joseph and Mary never lived together on terms of husband and wife. (Meyer, in his Commentary, hastily ascribes the same view to Olshausen, Lange, von Berlepsch. Our text indicates the opposite.)8<\/span><\/p>\n

DOCRTRINAL AND ETHICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

2. The unutterably tragical situation of the Virgin, misunderstood and deserted by her betrothed, presents a striking type of the future history of her Son, when denied and abandoned by men, even his disciples. Similarly, however, her vindication by the angel of the Lord prefigures Christs glorification. Mary forsaken by her husband was a type of Christs loneliness in Gethsemane and on the cross.
3. The expression, an angel of the Lord, is subsequently explained by the introduction of the definite articlethe<\/em> angel of the Lordconnecting it with the whole Christology of the Old Testament.<\/p>\n

4. In the same way, the announcement of the angel of the Lord is connected with the Bible doctrine of the Trinity; and that of the name Jesus<\/em> with the doctrine of redemption.<\/p>\n

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

6. In the passage which refers to the fulfilment of the prediction, contained in Isa 7:14<\/span>, we must properly appreciate the spirit of Old Testament prophecy generally, the New Testament explanation of its various statements, and, lastly, the difference between typical and verbal prophecy.<\/p>\n

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

HOMILETICAL AND PRATICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Jesus as Immanuel.Jesus as the first-born in every respect (Col 1:15-18<\/span>).Gossner:True love<\/em> finds a way between jealousy and insensibility.God forsakes none who confide in him.Braune:<\/em>Divine interposition saves.(Gal 4:5<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

ADDENDA<\/strong><\/p>\n

BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Mat 1:18<\/span>.Cod. Sin. sustains , birth, nativity<\/em> (B., C., P., S., Z., etc., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford) for the lect. rec<\/em>. , which may easily have arisen from and , and as appearing to suit the connection better (partus modus<\/em>), comp. Meyer, in the fifth ed., p. 43. But Christs origin was not properly a begetting, engendering<\/em>, (from ); and hence is preferable both for internal and external reasons. Comp. Luk 1:14<\/span> : , which is better supported there than .<\/p>\n

Mat 1:19<\/span>.Cod. Sin.: for the lect. rec<\/em>. ; the in Cod. Sin. being punctis notatum rursus deletis<\/em>, as Tischendorf remarks, Proleg<\/em>. p. 42, which I found to be correct on inspection of the fac-simile edition in the Astor Library. The sense, however, is not altered, since both (only once, Col 2:15<\/span>) and (twice, Mat 1:19<\/span> and Heb 6:6<\/span>) mean to make a show or example of one, to put to shame<\/em>. Lachmann, Tischendorf (ed. septima critica major, 1859), Alford (4th ed. of 1859), and Meyer (5th ed., but omitting to notice the original reading of Cod. Sin.) read on the authority of B., Z., and scholia of Origen and Eusebius.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:25<\/span>.Cod. Sin. reads simply: , instead of the lect. rec<\/em>.: , and here sustains the testimony of Codd. B., Z., etc., and the modern critical editions. The omission of is much easier accounted for, on doctrinal grounds, than its insertion, and cannot affect the controversy concerning the question of the brothers of Christ, since is genuine in Luk 2:7<\/span>, where there is no variation of reading. On the other hand, the term does not necessarily<\/em> prove that Mary had children after Jesus. Comp. Crit. Note<\/em> 2, on p. 52, and the remark of Jerome, quoted in Tischendorfs crit. apparatus (ed. 7<\/span>. p. 4).<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[5]<\/span> Mat 1:18<\/span>.Lit.: For<\/em> when, .<\/p>\n

[6]<\/span> Mat 1:25<\/span>.[, in Mat 1:25<\/span>. is omitted in Codd. Sin. and Vat., in the old Egyptian versions, Hilar., Ambros., Greg., Hieron., and in the critical editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford. Lange in his version retains it, and Meyer defends it. It may have been inserted from Luk 2:7<\/span>; but the omission may also be easily explained from superstitious veneration of the Blessed Virgin, as necessarily implying her perpetual virginity, which the term first<\/em> born seemed to disprove.P. S.]<\/p>\n

[7]<\/span>[Compare also, on the other hand, the article Jacobus<\/em> in Winers Real-Wrterbuch<\/em>. i. p. 525 sqq., and P. Schaff: Das Verhaltniss des Jacobus Alphi zu Jacobus dem Bruder des Herrn,<\/em> Berlin, 1841.Trsl.]<\/p>\n

[8]<\/span>[In this sentence, which is omitted in the Edinb. transt., Lange means to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, as held by the Roman Church, and attributed to him by Meyer. Lange admits the reality of the marriage of Joseph and Mary and their cohabitation after<\/em> the birth of Jesus, but, like Olshausen, he considers it i compatible with the dignity of Mary as the mother of the Saviour of the world, to have given birth to ordinary children of man. He also holds that Christ must be the last in the royal line of David and could have no successor or rival. But this reasoning is dogmatic, not exegetical. On the force of the in this connection, compare Meyers and Add. Alexunders remarks on Mat 1:25<\/span>.P. S.]<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The subject of the miraculous conception, here intimated, being in itself so highly momentous, I would beg the Reader to attend to it with an affection equal to its vast importance. For this once admitted, brings up after it the glorious doctrine of the Atonement, with all the blessings connected with redemption. Let us consider therefore the subject particularly.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The expression here, used respecting the miraculous conception, is most striking indeed. The birth of JESUS CHRIST was on this wise: Mary was found with child of the HOLY GHOST. And the parallel passage in Luke is to the same amount. The HOLY GHOST shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Luk 1:35<\/span> . Hence it must undeniably follow, that the conception was without the intervention of an human father, and wrought by the express work of God the Holy GHOST. And, as if to confirm this still more, the Angel further declared, that what was conceived in the womb of the, Virgin Mary, was of the HOLY GHOST. (Mat 1:20<\/span> ) So much then in proof of the agency of GOD the HOLY GHOST.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Let us next enquire, what Scripture speaketh further of divine agency on this wonderful subject. That God the FATHER had an hand in this great work, is as plainly declared by CHRIST himself under the spirit of prophecy. For, speaking to the FATHER of the inefficacy in all sacrifices to take away sin, and making a voluntary offer of himself, JESUS saith, A body hast thou prepared me. Compare Psa 40:6<\/span> with Heb 10:5<\/span> . And elsewhere, speaking still in the spirit of prophecy, CHRIST saith, Thou hast covered me In my mother’s womb. I am fearfully and wonderfully made: when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought on the lowest parts of the earth; that is, the dark chamber of his mother’s womb. Psa 139:13-15<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Hence, therefore, in the agency of God the FATHER, which is here most plainly shewn, added to what we before noticed of the work of GOD the HOLY GHOST, everything most decidedly proves, that the conception was wholly miraculous.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Let us next call into our view what the Scriptures relate concerning Mary. That she was what the Jews called Almah, that is, a pure virgin, will never be questioned by those who believe the word of God. And therefore I shall not think it at all necessary to dwell upon it. But, what I wish chiefly to have impressed upon the Reader’s mind, respecting the part Mary bore in the miraculous conception, is this, that no taint of our corrupt nature was taken into the act. The promise at the fall was, the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. And therefore CHRIST, to fulfil this promise, must be of the seed of the woman. By his incarnation in her womb, He fully proved this. But then this incarnation being without an human, father, And accomplished wholly by the work of both God the FATHER and God the HOLY GHOST; the mere act of conception was all which Mary bore in the great deed. And as this conception was not by generation, in the ordinary way, so there was nothing in it that could pollute or defile. The angel’s message to Joseph, most clearly shews this: fear not, said he, to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the HOLY Ghost.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

And I desire the Reader to consider the subject yet further, for it is a point never to be lost sight of on this occasion. CHRIST is nowhere said in the scripture to be begotten of a woman, but made of a woman. God sent forth his Son, made of a woman. Gal 4:4<\/span> . And who was the maker but GOD the FATHER? A body hast thou prepared me. And who wrought upon the body of the Virgin Mary but GOD the HOLY Ghost? The HOLY GHOST shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Now mark what follows. Therefore also that HOLY THING which shalt be born of thee, shall be called the SON of GOD. So that it was not man generating, but God the HOLY Ghost overshadowing. Had Mary’s conception been by the act of generation by man, no doubt but the same taint of sin must have followed, as follows all the generations of our race. Then, (as David said of his mother, and we may all say of ours,) in sin did my mother conceive me. Psa 51:5<\/span> . But the Virgin’s womb became only the sacred chamber of formation; whereas CHRIST saith, he was fearfully and wonderfully made. And her conception was of that pure and holy Thing as the angel called CHRIST, being wrought by the HOLY Ghost, which was holy, harmless, undefiled; separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. And hence was fulfilled that which the Prophet was appointed to foretell. The LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man Jer 31:22<\/span> . Hence Christ also is called the second man, the LORD from heaven. 1Co 15:47<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

If I have succeeded in stating the scripture account of this most sublime subject, in terms sufficiently plain to be understood by the Reader of my Poor Man’s Commentary; I shall hope, under divine teaching, that the Reader will not only henceforth be led to form proper and just apprehensions of the miraculous conception; but also be taught to connect with it the great and glorious doctrine of the atonement, which immediately follows. For wherefore was this miraculous conception of Mary, and this holy incarnation of CHRIST, but for the express purpose to make his soul an offering for sin? And wherefore this Offering for sin, but to do away sin by the sacrifice of himself? And now the Lord Jesus CHRIST, having by that one offering of himself, once offered, finished transgression, made an end of sin, made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in an everlasting righteousness: this righteousness is to all, and upon all, that believe: or by that one offering of himself once offered, he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. See Dan 9:24<\/span> ; Rom 3:21-22<\/span> ; Heb 10:14<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 2<\/p>\n

Christ’s Birth Always a Miracle The Garden of Eden the Perplexity of Joseph the Ministry of Dreams Review of the Chapter Genesis and Matthew Compared Matter Ordered: Man Educated the Moral Value of Time the Reason of Divine Delay the Two Beginnings Are One<\/p>\n

Prayer<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Almighty God, who can speak like thee? There is music in thy voice and there is infinite tenderness in every tone which thou dost breathe into the listening heart. Thy words are full of hope: thou dost bring a great brightness to shine upon our dark life, and in many a prophetic word thou dost cause us to forecast the morning and rejoice in the broad light of boundless day. Thou hast never withheld the word of hope from the race of mankind. In the hour of sadness and intolerable depression thou hast caused thy voice to be heard, promising that the light shall come and that the glory of the Lord shall fill the earth. We bless thee that we have seen the fulfilment of thy promises: we live in the cloudless noontide: Jesus Christ thy Son, our Saviour, has come in all the plenitude of his redeeming power, and after his descent upon us there can be no more night on earth. May we receive him as men receive the light who have been long waiting for it: worn out, wearied, and sleep-bound, we rejoice when thou dost come to us with rest, security, and peace. We rejoice when the light calls us to renewed duty and to rekindled hope. May the Sou of the Father, the Prince of Peace, the King of kings and Lord of lords be born again in our hearts every day. May our breasts be the Bethlehem of his incarnation, and may our life be the sphere of his illuminating and redeeming ministry.<\/p>\n

For his great glad words we bless thee: they are sweeter to our taste than honey, yea than the honeycomb. For his simple but infinite sayings that touch our whole life how can we praise thee enough? We live upon them as upon living bread sent down from heaven; they are our joy and song, they are our strength and security, they are the answer to every hard question, they are the light which turns every mystery into a blessing. We assemble around his cross, we see the tragedy of his suffering, we feel the meaning of his agony it was for us he thus endured the cursed tree, he was delivered for our offences, he suffered, the Just for the unjust. Evermore draw us away with infinite constraint of love from the foolish delusion that we could have saved ourselves, bind us with ever deepening and ever purifying loyalty to Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, infinite in his redeeming power.<\/p>\n

We need this gospel all our life long, but specially in hours of agony when our sin is heavy upon us and our remorse doth eat as a canker and our conscience is as a flaming fire within us, and all life gathers itself up into an unanswerable accusation. Then may we hide ourselves in thy wounded side, Messiah, Son of God. We humbly implore thee to guide us during our life. It is a life that is reckoned in days: behold it is in the power of man to tell us how many breaths there are in our seventy years. We count our small life by its single respirations we know not that we may ever draw another breath. Our house is built half over the grave, and at any time the other half may be engulfed in the great tomb. Help us then to live wisely, with sobriety of heart, with dignity of purpose, with obedience of will, having no will or mind of our own, but seeking to live thy will and to breathe all thy purpose. Thou didst make us and not we ourselves: we are thine, we are not our own, therefore would we resign to thee that which never belonged to us, and our prayer would sum itself up in this one desire, namely, not my will but thine be done.<\/p>\n

Thou hast clothed us with great and terrible power; thou hast enabled us to blaspheme thy name; thou hast so made us that we can curse thee to thy face; thou hast given us that power, almost divine, which enables us to lift ourselves up in haughty pride and daring, so that we may challenge thy supremacy. We have played the actor well; our hypocrisy has been a life-long success; we have spoken the language of selfishness with the accent of sacrifice; we have hidden the gems and the garments we have stolen, and our wealth is a great theft. Behold our life lies naked before thee, a throbbing, black, horrible lie. Our prayers are aggravations, and our piety but a refined sin. O thou who hast the atoning blood, the riven heart, out of which alone there streams the river that can cleanse the defilement of mankind let us know the cleansing power of that precious blood.<\/p>\n

We put ourselves and one another confidently and affectionately into thine hands: deal with us as thou dost see best: keep us here or send us yonder as may be right in thy sight, not in ours. Make our house larger and multiply our estate greatly, or diminish both and send us into blankness and poverty, if it be for our soul’s health. Grant unto our counsels and devices great success and abundant honour, or drive them all back again into our open windows that they may be ours without result, if so be our life may thereby be saved.<\/p>\n

Pity us in our distresses, laugh not at us from the heavens derisively when we try to climb and then ignominiously fall, but lift us with strong and healing hands and set us where thou wouldst have us be, and not our will but thine be done, again and again we say. We have no better prayer: it is not ours, it is thy Son’s. Amen.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18-25<\/span> .<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary (probably an orphan, as her parents are not mentioned) was espoused (for a whole year during which the bride and bridegroom elect did not meet) to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

19. Then Joseph her husband (so called among the Jews from the moment of betrothal), being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.<\/p>\n

20. But while he thought (was distracted and perplexed) on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (begotten) in her is of the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS (not yet a specially sacred name); for he shall save his people from their sins.<\/p>\n

22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying:<\/p>\n

23. Behold, a virgin [ the<\/em> virgin, or “even a virgin”] shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.<\/p>\n

24. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:<\/p>\n

25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS.<\/p>\n

From this time human history takes a new departure. How otherwise would you have Christ come? You suggest a difficulty or two as to the acceptance of the story we have read: will you be good enough to suggest another story by which we shall escape all difficulty, the object being to bring into the human race a man different from all other men, and yet a Saviour and Redeemer of all mankind? How will you escape difficulty in carrying out that grand design? It is not enough for us to criticise the method by which Jesus Christ was declared to have come into the world; we ought to go one step further if we can, and that is to suggest a method which would have been clear of every difficulty, and which yet would have obviously covered the whole ground and accomplished the one supreme design. We are awaiting suggestions; as soon as the right ones come we shall know them: we cannot mistake true music, we shall know whether the wind comes along the earth and brings the earth’s dust with it, or whether it comes resoundingly from the heavens and brings with it voices and utterances of the upper and better world. Observe what had to be done: a Redeemer like ourselves in all points had to be introduced into the race, and yet so unlike us as to be wholly separate from sinners. Put that problem distinctly before your mind, and answer how it could have been accomplished as a grand historical success, except on the basis which is laid down in the Evangelic narrative.<\/p>\n

Wherever Christ is born it is a miracle.<\/em> When he is born in us it is by a miraculous conception. You do not suppose that a man becomes a Christian by some simple and obvious method which anybody can suggest and which any mind can fathom and understand? When Christ is born in your heart and mine, precisely the same operation is gone through as is indicated in this opening chapter of the gospel. It is an unexpected event, it is an event brought about by the overshadowing and ministry of the Holy Ghost. It is associated with ineffable joy, it enlists the co-operation of the angels in lifting up our gladness to its true pitch of utterance. The language of the gospel is only romantic and intellectually distressing to those who bring to bear upon it nothing but the effort of an unassisted mind. Regarded sympathetically, seized emotionally, read in the light of our own individual experience, no other language can so adequately and correctly set forth the infinite wonder and the ineffable emotion as that which we find in the gospel story. Moreover, it is in the line of the divine development, it is in harmony with the creation of the first Adam: out of the dust was brought the man, out of the man was brought the woman, out of the woman was brought the Son, out of the Son is brought the Church, which is his body, the glory of his ministry, the conquest of his almighty arm. It is all one line, beginning in the dust, ending where God ends, a development historical, gradual, sequential, complete. In very deed, great is the mystery of godliness.<\/p>\n

Human history then, I repeat, breaks away into a new line at this point, namely, the 18th verse of the first chapter of the gospel by Matthew. The great exception takes place here. From this moment human history has an upward direction, and focalises itself in a personality hitherto but dimly indicated by the voice of often enigmatical prophecy. There are such distinct points of departure in your life and mine. The point of departure, therefore, given by the Evangelist, ought not to startle us as though it had no analogy or confirmation in human experience. I object to the law which says that it can receive nothing that has not a counterpart in human consciousness and experience, because human consciousness and experience may yet have themselves to enlarge: they have not reached the highest and last point of their own development. On the other hand, I would call attention to the fact that there are a great many things within human consciousness and experience which are not distinctly recognised as being there. Why recoil from the first chapter of the book of Genesis or the first chapter of the gospel by Matthew? If I regard these chapters in a merely literal and verbal way, I am filled with distress. If I regard them sympathetically, and in the light of what takes place in the dim sanctuary of my own consciousness, I understand them every whit. That subtle old serpent, the devil, has talked to me. I do not ask the naturalist to tell me<\/em> whether, by the conformation of the serpent’s mouth, it was possible for the serpent to practise the utterance of articulate language: that is the question of a mountebank. The serpent has spoken with fatal eloquence to every man amongst us. Object to the figure,<\/em> if you like, but the grim, stern, damning fact<\/em> remains. And as to the tree in the midst of the garden, and the fiery, flaming sword and guarding cherubim, I know them. It is impossible to get back to the lost chance, it is impossible to sponge out one spot of crime, it is impossible to find the way to the tree we have once despoiled. To try it is to fight with fire, and the fire roots itself in the inextinguishable furnaces of the divine anger.<\/p>\n

And in very deed, if I go further back still, and think of man being shaped out of the dust, I know it: I feel the dust, I feel the Deity too. I know it must have been out of the deepest dust of the earth some parts of my nature were made, and I also know that there burns within me a fire which only God could have lighted. Observe, therefore, that I do not go back with the grammarian and the pedantic etymologist and ask those teachers to be kind enough to explain to me the opening chapters of Genesis or the opening chapters of human life in any of its grand beginnings and developings. I go down there alone, all silent, all wondering, and myself is the best annotation. So it is with this opening chapter of the gospel of Matthew. Jesus Christ is born in me, and a new departure is taken in my life by processes which can never be explained in words. In your development from infancy to spiritual manhood there comes in the story this all-separating “NOW.” When did it enter? You cannot tell. The chronometer has not yet been made that indicates these millionths of seconds in which great divine ministrations accomplish themselves in births that have no deaths. Have we passed from death unto life? Has Christ been born in us the hope of glory?<\/p>\n

Read the chapter still further until you see the wonderful union in Christ of the human and the divine the human on the mother’s side, the divine as indicated by the mysterious operation of the Holy Ghost. This was no imaginary Mary. This literal history was required in order to vindicate her memory from the charge of her being a merely dramatic woman. She was real, like ourselves, one of us; she lived the common human life, wept the common human tears, enjoyed the same enjoyments that fall to our lot: there is enough said about her in the gospels to prove the pure human nature of the woman, and little enough said about her not to magnify her into a feminine god. She is here long enough to be seen, understood, spoken about, attested, initialled by every witness that knows human nature, and behold she is gone!<\/em> The mother of Emmanuel must not remain too long;<\/em> she must be before my eye long enough for me to know that she is Mary, and none other: not a theatrical woman or a paper minister, conceived by the wild imagination of a delirious theology, but a WOMAN, a sister, a friend, a sufferer, a loving one and then she must go, and I cannot tell how. Buried without a funeral, buried without a grave, buried without an epitaph gone, and the eye cannot follow the swift movement of her translation.<\/p>\n

As for the operation of the Holy Ghost, it begins and ends in the word miracle.<\/em> Yet it, too, is a miracle which has its correspondence in our own nature. I cannot tell the source of my prayers. When I pray with you, it is not I praying, it is a voice I never heard before in that same tone. When I close my eyes to lead you upward, is it by some utterance I have committed to memory, some paragraphs I have formulated in the library, some sentences I have caught and detained as friends? God forbid. It is a birth of the Holy Ghost.<\/em> The poor words, half dumb, and trembling through and through with a throb of conscious weakness, may be partly mine, but the thing they labour to say I know not. Can you tell me the genesis, and give me the roots and starting fibres of all the purposes that have distinguished your life and made it as a flame of sacred fire, burning upward unto the heavens? You can rehearse to me the history of your commerce, and even that you can give in some instances only in part, for you know not whence the brightest suggestions came. You can tell me somewhat of the outward history of your life and body during the day as to where you have been and partly what you have seen; but even then the story is remarkable mainly for its incompleteness. Behind, and around, and above there are forces and ministries which have entered as living factors in all you have done, for which you have no name forces that have broken your thigh in the night’s wrestling, but left you in the morning with a nobler name.<\/p>\n

Such is the work of the Holy Ghost. It is not to be settled in language. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof; thou canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit. We prove<\/em> our birth, we do not explain it. I cannot tell you how I came to be; the Lord help every one of us to vindicate his being by temper pure as fire, by love noble as sacrifice!<\/p>\n

There was one man who looked on with great wonder. All the ages have crowded around that man, and, so to speak, have thronged him into an infinite multitude, all looking on with the same amazement, all distracted by the same perplexity. Joseph knew not what angel was coming to him along the crooked lines of his mental distraction. We seem to be born to misunderstand everything that is at all great and noble: we cannot understand ourselves, we can give but foolish answers to all the great questions which relate to our own being and our own destiny. No man yet ever satisfied his friend fully and left him in the position in which he could ask no question or suggest no doubt regarding any movement in life which was really tragical, involving suffering when that suffering might have been escaped. You are looking at your life as a great perplexity. God delights in our embarrassments: you cannot see how this knot can be untied, and you feel that it would be impious to attempt to cut it. Be in no haste. I have had a thousand knots like that in my life. When I touched them my fingers were too soft to get hold of the lines that bound them together in hardness. When I have called for steel, I have been guilty consciously of a coward’s trick, and the angel has said, “Do not cut it: let it alone: the answer of all things is not yet; in due time that knot shall prove itself to be part of the strange but ever beneficent ministry of the divine and Holy Father.”<\/p>\n

A most remarkable reason is given why the name should be called Jesus.<\/em> Referring to the 21st verse, you will find that the reason is, “for he shall save his people from their sins.” Christ is the only man known in history who was born with specific and exclusive reference to the sins of the human family. He does not come into the race with a small programme. The world had sickened at its heart of programmes an inch long; in its intolerable soreness of soul it could not have endured another. Make way: here is a man who is going to remove the dust from our house windows. We are glad to see him. Make way again: here is a man who is going to remove the dust from our doorstep. Welcome to him also. Again and again make way for a thousand men, each of whom has a short purpose and a superficial programme. So far as they go we bid each a cordial welcome. But when all the thousand have done their little work, and have gone away from our door, we feel that ANOTHER must come with some fuller purpose, with some grander ministry. I thank all men who have done anything for me, but there is a fire in me that is burning up my life who is to put that out? For all temporary mitigations of suffering I am thankful, but there is an asp biting my soul and I am dying of its injected poison. Who can touch a mind diseased? This Son of Mary, Son of God, comes with the avowed purpose of doing this very thing I want to have done.<\/em> By so much, therefore, as he even seems<\/em> to rise to the dignity of the occasion, I hail him, for he has caught the genius of my malady perhaps he may bring with him the one remedy. If he had made light of my disease, I should have run away from him, for he had not then understood me. If he had come with light and jaunty words upon his lips, I should have called him liar, and found the evidence in his tone. But when he meets me he says the case is grave, the case is fatal, the disease is sin, the malady is in the soul, the blood is tainted, the life is rotten, the burden is grievous. I say to him, as a mere man, “Sir, thou understandest me: what is the answer to all this suffering?” And when he says “Blood”<\/em> I feel that we are grappling with a Man that has at all events the right words. Let him prove them then will he be the crowned Saviour of the race, and his name shall be worn by no thief, but by himself only, every other Jesus forgotten in him whose surname is Christ.<\/p>\n

All that we have now read was done in fulfilment of prophecy.<\/em> God does not work extemporaneously, the suddenness of his movements is only apparent; every word he says comes up from eternity around the birth-place of Jesus Christ. There assembled the prophets and the minstrels of ancient time. “All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” The prophets were misunderstood men; they seemed to sing a song which found an entrance into no heart. Their forecasts were met with derisive laughter, their vaticinations were but the plaints of a disordered and unbalanced mind, and many a time, wrapping their mantles around them, travel-stained, they lay down, saying, “Would God the prophetic afflatus had never moved me to speech.” Prophets always suffer. It is a crucifixion to be born before your time. Happy he who speaks the language of the day: popular as a god is he. The man who projects himself by divine energy through centuries ahead, dies a thousand deaths. The prophets suffered for us: Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, and the mighty tribe of men who never spake to their own day, but shot their thunder voices across the ages, died for us. They have their reward. I cannot think of them as dead dust, scattered upon the winds and going to make up some other man’s grave, and there an end of them. I must, following the instinct of justice and nobleness of compensation, think of them as seeing the triumphs they predicted, and turning into songs all the tears and woes that afflicted them during their misunderstood ministry.<\/p>\n

Joseph was put to sleep by God, and was talked to through the medium of a dream. It is God’s old plan: He puts us into a deep sleep, and behold when we come out of it, there is the beautiful companionship of our life standing before us, or there is the great answer to a small difficulty that turned our life into a sharp pain, or there is the way out of an entanglement difficult as a labyrinth, puzzling as a thicket, devised by all the cunning cruelty of our worst enemies. Sometimes I have done as you have; many a time fallen off into sleep, quite unable to do the work that was pressing upon me. A refreshing slumber has blessed the brain, has wound it up in every energy and force, and the awakening has been as a resurrection, and we have gone to the work that defied us, and lo, in the hands recovered by sleep there has been cunning enough to lift the burden, or to dispel the difficulty, and we, who had fainted in weariness, rejoiced in a renewed and apparently inexhaustible strength.<\/p>\n

We are most alone<\/em> when we are asleep. God loves to speak to us in our loneliness. We are more spiritual when we are are asleep than when we are awake. When I am awake I have to do with all this world; I am lost and dazed amid countless eyes that are watching; I am struck by a million wonders that challenge my attention; my ears are filled with countless noises that fall upon one another and make rough tumult in my soul. God says to me, “Come into the darkness, and I will close thine eyelids and speak to thee alone.” If you ask me if I believe in dreams, taking the word dream in its wholeness, I say no: if you ask me if I believe in particular dreams, I say yes. Who would give up his dream life? In the dream life we are larger than in our waking hours. In dream I float through the air by easy and pleasant levitation; I move across difficulties I dare not encounter when I am awake. In dreams I step from star to star and cross the horizon at a bound. I know that these things appear to me in alight almost laughable when I awake, yet in my better thinking I get out of them hints, hints that startle me, make me think of possibilities which never come within the dull routine of life, and which have no place in the reckonings of the book-makers.<\/p>\n

Thank God for sleep, thank God for dreams, thank God for every ministry that gets you out of your littleness. If any minister of God in any church can charm you away from your counter and your desk, and make you feel even for one moment that the universe is larger than you had supposed it to be, go and hear that man: he is your soul’s true friend. If by tone of the voice, if by vehemence of appeal, if by tender ness of prayer, he can turn you to an upward look, he is God’s minister to your soul. Love him, honour him. You may disagree with him in many of his words, some of his propositions you may be quite unable to accept from an intellectual point of view; again and again he may provoke you into controversy by statements that appear to you either rash or irreconcilable; but by as much as he has the power to make you look up and see God’s wonders in the heavens, and to excite in you a desire to be broader and nobler than you are, is he the anointed minister of God to you, and should be received as such. I read the books that make me larger, I follow the authors that tell me of bigger things than I have yet seen, I love the souls that lure me into sleep that is enriched with dreaming, that extends the horizon, and doubles the stars, and heightens the sky in which they shine. From such companionship I return saying, “I have seen heaven’s gate open to-day, and there are lines in this universe that were never dreamed of before in my philosophy.”<\/p>\n

Thus, then, Jesus Christ comes into the world. We have now, from time to time, to follow him in his wondrous ministry. I will not attempt to prove the miracle of the incarnation by any verbal argument, but I will ask him to meet us here morning by morning, and to vindicate, by the eloquence of his own speech and the marvellousness of his own action, the claim that is set up for him in this chapter that he is at once the Son of Mary and the begotten of the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

VII<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

BEGINNINGS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE (CONTINUED)<\/p>\n

Broadus’ Harmony pages 7-8 and Mat 1:18-25<\/span><\/strong> ; Luk 2:1-20<\/span><\/strong> .<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE ANNUNCIATION TO JOSEPH Mat 1:18-25<\/span><\/strong> <\/p>\n

On this paragraph of Matthew I desire to commend in the highest possible terms the critical and elaborate discussion by Dr. Broadus in his peerless Commentary on Matthew, pages 8-13. You will not be kind and fair to yourself if you fail, in this connection, to read every word of it. And having read it, you do not need any other exegesis of the passage. In the fear, however, that you may not read it now, I submit a few brief observations:<\/p>\n

While betrothal among the Jews preceded the consummation of marriage, it was an essential part of it, and just as binding as the consummation itself (Lev 20:10<\/span> ; Deu 22:23<\/span> f). A man might put away his betrothed for infidelity to her betrothal vows, either publicly, thereby necessitating her open condemnation under the laws cited above, or he might, at his own option, privately give her a bill of divorcement without assigning the cause. Or, as putting her away at all was not mandatory, he might forgive her and consummate the marriage.<\/p>\n

Joseph, being a righteous, not a vindictive, man when Mary’s condition became obvious, was compelled to think on these things and determine his own course in the matter. Just at this juncture of his perplexity came the revelation which justified him in completing the marriage, without any necessity for forgiveness.<\/p>\n

It is easy to see why Mary needed the revelation at the beginning, while it was unnecessary for Joseph to understand until later, when he must take some step in the matter. The means of annunciation in the two cases indicate Mary’s superior spiritual state, as open vision is a higher order of revelation than by dreams. In no case was Joseph endowed with open vision, but four times God directs him by dreams (Mat 1:20<\/span> ; Mat 2:13<\/span> ; Mat 2:19<\/span> ; Mat 2:22<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

The name “Jesus” means Saviour, and the salvation to be achieved by him was not political deliverance of his people from Roman rule, but salvation “from their sins.” What a pity that his own disciples were so slow to understand the nature of the salvation, and how readily even Pontius Pilate acquitted him by the verdict, “I find no fault in him,” when he understood that our Lord’s kingdom was not of this world, and hence not a revolt against Caesar. Had the suspicious, bloody-minded old tyrant, Herod, understood, there would have been no massacre of the babes at Bethlehem. And even in our late day we need to be continually reminded of the real mission of our Lord.<\/p>\n

Let us make no mistake about this “salvation from sins.” It is salvation through the vicarious expiation of sins satisfying the claims of justice. It is salvation from the guilt of sin by justification, through faith. It is salvation from the defilement of sin by the cleansing blood of Christ applied by the Holy Spirit. It is salvation from the love of sin through regeneration. It is salvation from the dominion of sin through sanctification. It is the salvation of the body through resurrection and glorification. We may not stop at salvation done for us, but must include the salvation wrought in us. Salvation has the legal aspects expressed by the appropriate words, expiation and justification. And further expressed in a commercial legal sense by redemption and ransom (1Pe 1:18-19<\/span> ; Mat 20:28<\/span> ; 1Ti 2:6<\/span> ). Woe to the teacher or taught who leaves them out I It has its biological aspect, expressed by birth from above, or a new creature, and life more abundant, expressed by sanctification. Woe to the teacher or taught who leaves these out or magnifies these by decrying the legal aspects!<\/p>\n

It has its human or experimental side, as expressed in contrition, repentance, faith, confession, reformation and all those fruits of the Spirit, love joy, hope, peace, as we walk in new- ness of life from grace to grace, from faith to faith, from strength to strength, perfecting ourselves in holiness, being changed more and more into the image of Christ, from glory to glory.<\/p>\n

And just as surely must we admit into this idea of salvation God’s foreknowledge) election, and predestination. It is salvation from the power of Satan, the usurping de facto prince of this world.<\/p>\n

This name, “Jesus” is the same as “Joshua,” who was a type of our Lord as captain general of the army of God, and as the one who would lead the people into the Promised Land of rest. This feature of the name “Jesus” is not discussed here, but is emphasized in the letter to the Hebrews and again in Revelation. Another feature of the name is brought out by Paul where, after and because of his expiation of sins on the cross, his name is exalted above every name (Phi 2:9-11<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

Well might Peter say, “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein ye must be saved” (Act 4:12<\/span> ). All who heard or read it will cherish as a precious memory Dr. Winkler’s great sermon before the Southern Baptist Convention on “The Name Above Every Name.”<\/p>\n

We need to consider just here, in part, Matthew’s application of Old Testament quotations. It is a broad and complex question extending to all other New Testament quotations from the Old Testament, as finding fulfilment in New Testament events.<\/p>\n

The case before us is an extreme one, and so if Matthew he-justified here in his construction of the quoted passage from Isaiah, the battle need not be fought over on cases not extreme. We cannot justify Matthew by an attempt to modify the obvious and natural force of his words, “Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel (God with us).” Matthew evidently conveys the impression that the author of the prophecy looked to the virgin birth here recorded as the fulfilling event. I say the author of the prophecy; I do not mean the prophet Isaiah. Matthew distinctly affirms that the prophecy “was spoken by the Lord.” True, it was “through the prophet.” But it was not necessary that Isaiah should understand. Isaiah might have seen only the child of the days of Ahaz concerning whom it is there said, “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.” (See Isa 7:13-8:4<\/span> .)<\/p>\n

Just here comes in the much disputed double sense of prophecy. The double sense is not real, but is in the nature of an optical illusion which blends into one apparent mountain of several separate peaks which lie in one line of vision. A side view, from a different angle of vision, differentiates the peaks. The first and lowest peak in the line of vision is not really the last and highest peak. True, to the eye, looking at them afar off, they apparently blend into one. This limitation is in the nature of prophecy, which has no perspective, as in the nature of optics.<\/p>\n

New Testament interpretation is the later side view that differentiates the blended objects. For example, the Holy Spirit inspires David to speak of his great successor. David himself may understand that all of it applies to his immediate successor, Solomon. But the Spirit means his great, remote successor, Jesus. The vision does touch the foothill, Solomon, but goes on to rest on the higher peak, Christ, far beyond. There is no double sense. That is, what refers to Solomon does not mean Christ, and what refers to Christ does not mean Solomon. As seen afar off it appears to be one thing, but when the intervening distance is traversed the Solomon foothill is found to be quite a distinct and small affair compared with the mountain peak, Christ, which stood behind it and was optically blended into one view with it.<\/p>\n

Often, in the West, have I seen what appeared to be a single far-off blue mountain. But when approached nearer, and seen from a different angle of vision, as the road would turn, my one mountain became a whole range of separate, distinct peaks with intervening valleys.<\/p>\n

Mark my words: Only a very shallow truth lies in the catchword of the radical critics, ”The prophets speak to their own times.” They indeed teach their own times, but they do not and cannot foretell their own times. (See 1Pe 1:10-12<\/span> .) In the very nature of the case, foretelling looks beyond the present. Two great tests apply to all foretelling in the name of Jehovah:<\/p>\n

(1) The thing foretold must come to pass (Deu 18:21-22<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

(2) Though it come to pass it cannot, as a sign, authenticate a violation of revealed law (Deu 13:1-3<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

In the light of these tests, Matthew’s “fulfillments” of prophecy are all justified. He recorded his facts by inerrant inspiration. He interpreted his facts by adequate illumination. And that Matthew gets the true interpretation of the prophecy in Isa 7:14<\/span> is evident if we look on to Isa 9:6<\/span> ; Isa 11:1<\/span> f.<\/p>\n

Observe the last line of our paragraph: “And knew her not till she had brought forth her Son.” Add to this Luk 2:7<\/span> : “And she brought forth her firstborn Son.” Add yet Mar 6:3<\/span> “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?” To this add Mar 3:31-35<\/span> , “And there came to him his mother and brethren; and standing without, they sent unto him, calling him. And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, and saith, Who is my mother and my brethren? And looking round on them that sat about him, he saith, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.” The natural, obvious import of these passages is that Mary, after the birth of Jesus, bore children to Joseph. Only strained, unnecessary, sentimental quibbling can break the obvious natural sense. We are more inclined to suspect the quibbling, when we consider the air castle superstructure erected on this foundation of quicksand.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

THE BIRTH OF JESUS Luk 2:1-7<\/span> <\/strong> Dr. Broadus’ footnote in his harmony is much to the point: “Observe how the ruler of the civilized world is unconsciously bringing it about that the Messiah, the son of David, shall be born at Bethlehem, though the mother’s home was Nazareth. All the previous history of Rome and of Israel gathers about this manger.” We may add, all their subsequent history also. Indeed, we may say that Jesus is the key to the philosophy of all history. Daniel’s five world empires is an illustration; Revelation expands the thought to the end of time. Luke, in his Gospel and Acts, more than all the other historians, connects his story, at almost countless points of contact, with the history, geography, navigation, trade, chronology, religions, laws, customs, philosophies, literature, and games of both nations and localities, without the thought that he might be convicted of an anachronism. The most searching examination known to literature has never proved him at fault in the minutest detail of his story, by land or sea. Hasty criticism has indeed objected here and there to some detail, but has perished in the light of more elaborate research. Our short paragraph furnishes three cases in point:<\/p>\n

(1) A worldwide enrolment, by order of Augustus Caesar. It has been objected, first, that there is no historical proof of such decree, and second, that if decreed it could not apply to dependent kingdoms like Herod’s. It is now conceded that Augustus did issue this decree, and according to Tacitus, the Roman historian, it did include the “Regna,” or dependent kingdoms. This census was with a view to taxation. The evidence is abundant in the later history that the tax based upon the census was imposed and collected.<\/p>\n

(2) But, second, it is objected that Luke times the enrolment when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which was ten years later, and that only after Herod’s death was Judea subordinate to Syria. This objection is far more plausible. See partial or possible explanation in Dr. Robertson’s note (appendix to Broadus’ harmony, pp. 239-240).<\/p>\n

We may add that Luke was well aware of the enrolment ten years later, for he himself discusses it in Act 5:37<\/span> . And no historian contradicts his explicit statement in our paragraph. Nor is there evidence that any heathen historian was so devoted to accuracy as Luke. No one of their histories, nor even Josephus, could bear the test of accuracy to which Luke has been subjected.<\/p>\n

(3) It is objected that a Roman census would require enrolment at the place of residence and not of personal or family nativity. The answer is every way sufficient that dependent kingdoms would be allowed to follow their own established methods. It was the settled policy of Rome to interfere as little as possible with the fixed customs of these kingdoms.<\/p>\n

Note the last clause of our paragraph: “there was no room for them in the inn.” Upon this, one of the most touching gospel hymns was written, in which the line occurs, “There is room in my heart for thee, Lord Jesus.” In my choir at Waco was a brilliant young lady who could out sing the birds, and especially in singing this hymn could make the stars sparkle. She was not a Christian. At a gathering of ladies in a private home she sang it with unusual power. I leaned over and whispered to her, “My child, you sing it beautifully with your lips, but is there room in your heart for the Lord Jesus?” She was instantly convicted of sin, and the following Sunday came with face illumined, as the shining of the faces of Moses and Stephen, saying with joy and tears, “I have not only given him a room in my heart, but all of it as his residence forever.” Years later when, a happy wife and mother, she was dying, she took my hand and said, “He is still in my heart, and has called me to a room in his Father’s house of many mansions.”<\/p>\n

“No room for him in the inn” at his birth! The feeding trough of domestic animals his cradle. “With the wild beasts of the desert” in his temptation. In his life, while “the foxes had holes, and the birds of the air had nests, the Son of Man had not where to lay his head.”<\/p>\n

A fish contributed his temple-tax, the gold of Gentile magi paid the expenses of his flight into Egypt, his own labor as a carpenter supported the family after Joseph’s death, and sympathetic women ministered to him of their substance in his public ministry, at his death “a cross between two thieves” while his crucifiers gambled for his vesture, a borrowed tomb his place of sepulcher!<\/p>\n

Augustus Caesar, claiming divine honor, ruled the world, but his apostle John lived to see twelve “divine Caesars” come and go, with the thirteenth on the throne, and then to foreshow the downfall of them all Rome itself, like a volcano in eruption, overturned and swallowed up in the sea of nations.<\/p>\n

Very wisely the providence of God has left uncertain the exact date of his birth. We cannot determine with certainty the year or the month or the day in the terms of our era. We know that Augustus ruled at Rome, and Herod, the king of the Holy Land, was just about to pass away.<\/p>\n

The argument is very convincing that our present era, due to the Abbot Dionysius Exiguus, in the sixth century, is at least four years too late. But we do not deem the matter of sufficient importance to attempt the reform of our calendar another time. For centuries Christmas, on December 25, new style, has been fixed in the customs and literature of all nations west of Russia and Constantinople. And if the Greek church prefers the old style, what signifies a difference of twelve days? The Christ was born, and salvation does not consist in the observance of days and festivals (Gal 4:10<\/span> f; Col 2:16-23<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

We do know that he came in the fulness of time (Gal 4:4<\/span> ), when the world was ripe for his advent, when “Great Pan” and all other heathen gods were dead and their oracles were dumb, when their philosophies had failed to alarm, comfort or save, when their civilizations had rotted, when good men despaired, when Rome united the world in government, when the hierarchy at Jerusalem and the ritual in the Temple were but sounding brass and tinkling cymbals and when the dispersion and the synagogue throughout the world were ready to supply the firstfruits of the gospel.<\/p>\n

Note very carefully that though impatient thousands had in every intervening age been shaking the hour glass of time to make its sands run faster (Luk 10:24<\/span> ), and confident interpreters insisted that this first advent was always imminent, that is, liable to happen any time from Eve’s too hasty joy over the birth of Cain till Judas Maccabeus, God himself had fixed an unalterable day and kept narrowing the converging lines of all prophecies until they focused in one blended blaze of light on the new-born Babe in the manger at Bethlehem. From this great example, why cannot we learn that his final advent is not imminent, that is, liable to happen any day or hour, but like the first, must wait “the fulness of time” and the fixed, unalterable day, for Paul says, “Inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

THE ANNUNCIATION TO THE SHEPHERDS Luk 2:8-20<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The birth of our Lord was not divinely announced to Augustus, Herod or the Sanhedrin they would not have welcomed it but to shepherds, who like David, watched the flocks of Bethlehem. Those who looked, longed, and waited for his first coming, were not left in the dark, nor will those like them be left in the dark at his final advent (1Th 5:4<\/span> ). These shepherds of Bethlehem cared for the sacrificial flocks that were to be offered in the Temple. It was fitting, therefore, that they should know of the coming of the antitype, the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. The time is the night of the very day of Christ’s birth, the medium is an angel, the means open vision. The glory of the Lord is the Shekinah or halo-symbol of the Divine Presence, well known in the tabernacle of Moses and the Temple of Solomon.<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding the awe naturally excited by this glorious visitation, they, like Zacharias and Mary, are exhorted to “fear not.” The angel’s mission is mercy, not wrath. The character of the message is good tidings of great joy to all the people. “To bring good tidings” means the same as to evangelize or proclaim the gospel. “The people” means strictly the Jewish people, but of course through them all other peoples. The message itself is: “There is born to you this day, in the city of David, a Saviour who is Christ the Lord.”<\/p>\n

We have seen that Saviour means a Saviour from their sins. Christ is his official name and means the Anointed One. The Hebrew word is Messiah, Greek transliteration, Messias<\/em> ; Greek translation, Christos;<\/em> English, Christ. Jesus was to be anointed to qualify him as prophet, priest, sacrifice, and King. We come to the anointing on the day he was inducted into his public ministry. (See in the author’s first volume of sermons, The Anointed One.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

THE SIGN OF HIS FIRST ADVENT<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger.” How appropriate the sign of him who comes disrobed of heavenly glory to enter on his life of humiliation, poverty, and sacrifice! When the apostles later ask for the sign of his final advent, in his glory, how appropriately different the sign, the appearance in world darkness of a “great white throne” of eternal judgment. (See Mat 24:3<\/span> ; Mat 24:30<\/span> ; Mat 25:31<\/span> ; Rev 20:11<\/span> .) From the manger to the throne!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

HOW HEAVEN INTERPRETS THE COMING<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here we have the foundation of the third historic Christian hymn, “Gloria in Excelsis.” In this hymn is a triple contrast, God men; heaven earth; glory peace. This coming will make for glory to God in heaven, peace to men on earth. But the peace is not to all men only to men in whom he is pleased.<\/p>\n

We note here how this child in his coming affects three worlds. In heaven every bell is ringing and every angel singing. Earth, in its humbler classes, is rejoicing and singing hymns. Its kings and senates’ are indifferent, soon to be hostile. Hell is moved with fear and hate, stirring up the three Herods to kill its old Herod (Mat 2:16<\/span> ) ; his son, Herod (Mar 6:17-28<\/span> ); and his grandson, Herod (Act 22:1-3<\/span> ).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

QUESTIONS<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

1. What special comment on Mat 1:18-25<\/span> commended?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

2. Explain the relation of Jewish betrothal to marriage and what the Old Testament law on violation of betrothal vows?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

3. Meaning of the word “Jesus”?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

4. Full meaning of the salvation, from sin?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

5. What Old Testament name is the same as “Jesus,” and in what New Testament books is the relation between the two discussed?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

6. Explain and justify Matthew’s application of the Old Testament quotations.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

7. Explain and illustrate the apparent double sense of prophecy.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

8. What the two tests of prophecy?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

9. Collate the two passages indicating that Mary bore children to Joseph.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

10. What does Dr. Broadus ask us to observe on the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

11. What are the characteristics of Luke’s history?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

12. What are the three criticisms on his account of the birth of Christ, and your reply?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

13. What is the gospel hymn written on “No room for them at the inn,” and the incident given?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

14. With what other expressions in his life does the “no room at the inn” correlate?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

15. What can you say of the date of Christ’s birth, our era and calendar?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

16. Compare the first and final advent as to their alleged imminence.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

17. In the message of the angels to the shepherds, what means “good tidings,” “people,” “Christ”?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

18. What is the sign of the first advent? The second.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

19. What is the triple contrast in the song of the angels?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

20. Show how Christ’s coming affected three worlds. <\/p>\n

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ver. 18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ<\/strong> ] A from transit.<\/em> And being to relate a strange thing, and till then never heard of, he elegantly stirs up the hearers’ mind with this preface.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

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

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

a<\/em> Mirari licet, rimari non licet.<\/em> <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

18 25.<\/strong> CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS BIRTH.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

18. <\/strong> <\/strong> ] The combined name is emphatically put first as resuming the subject of Mat 1:1<\/span> , and the <\/strong> takes up the which has connected all the previous members of the series, introducing a reason for this inversion , with which this last one had been brought in, Mat 1:16<\/span> .<\/p>\n

<\/strong> ] The ordinary reading seems to have been taken up from Mat 1:16<\/span> , and the , which follows, appended to account for the exception in this last case to the direct sequence of throughout the genealogy. <\/strong> must be understood in a wide sense, as nearly identical in meaning with ; as “= ‘ origo<\/em> ,’ not merely ‘ birth<\/em> ,’ ” Me [7] . It probably is chosen by the Holy Spirit to mark a slight distinction between the of our Lord and that of ordinary men. See schol. in digest.<\/p>\n

[7] Meyer.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> ] The interval between betrothal and the consummation of marriage was sometimes considerable, during which the betrothed remained in her father’s house, till the bridegroom came and fetched her. See Deu 20:7<\/span> .<\/p>\n

[ <\/strong> ] here is explicative; ‘ quum videlicet<\/em> ’ So Soph. Trach. 475, . . Lysias, Eratosth. 19, , . . . See more examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 469. We may perhaps with equal likelihood say that it is apologetic for the : ‘thus it took place; and an account of it is needed, for<\/em> &c.’<\/p>\n

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

<\/strong> ] Here to be understood of living together in one house as man and wife; the deductio in domum mariti: see especially Kypke, Observationes Sacr, p. 1 ff., who remarks well, that it answers to the word , Mat 1:20<\/span> ; Mat 1:24<\/span> . Chrys. Hom. iv. 2, vol. vii. p. 49, opposes this view: , . , . . . But it seems most agreeable to the context. His following remark is doubtless a just one: ; , .<\/p>\n

<\/strong> ] not merely for , as some have said, but in its proper meaning: she was discovered to be<\/strong> , no matter by whom: , , , Chrys. the words . . are the addition of the Evangelist declaring the matter of fact, and do not belong to the discovery.<\/p>\n

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

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mat 1:18-25<\/span> . THE BIRTH OF JESUS. This section gives the explanation which (Mat 1:16<\/span> ) leads us to expect. It may be called the justification of the genealogy<\/em> (Schanz), showing that while the birth was exceptional in nature it yet took place in such circumstances, that Jesus might justly be regarded as the legitimate son of Joseph, and therefore heir of David’s throne. The position of the name . . at the head of the sentence, and the recurrence of the word , point back to Mat 1:1<\/span> ; , not , is the true reading, the purpose being to express the general idea of origin, ortus<\/em> , not the specific idea of generation ( , . Euthy. Zig. on Mat 1:1<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 1:18-25<\/p>\n

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, wanted to send her away secretly. 20But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23″ Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18 “the birth” There is a Greek manuscript variant between “beginning” [genesis] and “birth” [gennasis]. The term genesis was probably original (cf. MSS P1, , B, C; UBS4 rated it B). While both terms can mean “birth,” the first had wider connotations (creation, generation, i.e., “the new Genesis in Jesus as the second Adam, cf. Rom 5:12-21) and could have meant “begotten.” It has been supposed that later scribes changed the first term to “birth” deliberately to counteract later Christological (gnostic) heresies (cf. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart P. Ehrman, pp. 75-77).<\/p>\n

“betrothed to Joseph” Betrothal was a legally binding Jewish custom, usually lasting about a year before marriage. The parties lived separately but were considered contractually married. Only death or divorce could break the betrothal arrangement.<\/p>\n

NASB”she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit”<\/p>\n

NKJV”she was found with child of the Holy Spirit”<\/p>\n

NRSV”she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit”<\/p>\n

TEV”she was going to have a baby by the Holy Spirit”<\/p>\n

NJB”she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit”<\/p>\n

This refers to the virgin birth, which was not a sexual experience for Mary or the Spirit. This was a prophetic fulfillment of Gen 3:15 (” And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel”), and in a multiple fulfillment sense, of Isa 7:14 (” Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel”). Surprisingly, no apostolic sermons in Acts or the Epistles mention this, possibly because it could have been confused with Greco-Roman mythology (the Mount Olympus gods often took human women and bore children by them).<\/p>\n

Mat 1:19 “being a righteous man” A “righteous man” meant a lawful man by the standards of the Mosaic Law and the oral traditions of his day. It does not imply sinlessness; Noah and Job were righteous in the same sense (cf. Gen 6:9 and Job 1:1).<\/p>\n

“to send her away secretly” Joseph could have accomplished this through two legal procedures: (1) open renunciation in court or (2) the presentation of a written bill of divorce in front of two witnesses (cf. Deuteronomy 24). Mary had not shared the vision concerning her pregnancy with Joseph. OT Law demanded the death penalty for sexual unfaithfulness (cf. Deu 22:20-21; Deu 22:23-24).<\/p>\n

Mat 1:20 Joseph was informed about the pregnancy of his betrothed wife by an angelic messenger. In Luk 1:26 the angel is identified as Gabriel (cf. Mat 1:19; Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21).<\/p>\n

The word “dream” (onar) occurs five times in the first two chapters of Matthew (cf. Mat 1:20; Mat 2:12-13; Mat 2:19; Mat 2:22), but not again until Mat 27:19 and no where else in the NT.<\/p>\n

” an angel of the Lord” This phrase is used two ways in the OT.<\/p>\n

1. an angel (cf. Gen 24:7; Gen 24:40; Exo 23:20-23; Exo 32:34; Num 22:22; Jdg 5:23; 1Sa 24:16; 1Ch 21:15 ff; Zech. 1:28)<\/p>\n

2. as a way of referring to YHWH (cf. Gen 16:7-13; Gen 22:11-15; Gen 31:11; Gen 31:13; Gen 48:15-16; Exo 3:2; Exo 3:4; Exo 13:21; Exo 14:19; Jdg 2:1; Jdg 6:22-24; Jdg 13:3-23; Zec 3:1-2<\/p>\n

Matthew uses the phrase often (cf. Mat 1:20; Mat 1:24; Mat 2:13; Mat 2:19; Mat 28:2), but always in the sense of #1 above. The NT does not use sense #2 except Act 8:26; Act 8:29, where, “an angel of the Lord” is paralleled to the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:21 “you shall call His name Jesus” This name (Hebrew, Joshua) meant “YHWH saves,” ” YHWH brings salvation,” or “YHWH is Savior” (some verb must be supplied, cf. Luk 1:31). See SPECIAL TOPIC: THE NAME OF THE LORD at Mat 18:20.<\/p>\n

The name YHWH means<\/p>\n

1. This is the name which reflects deity as the covenant making God; God as savior, redeemer! Humans break covenants, but God is loyal to His word, promise, covenant (cf. Psalms 103).<\/p>\n

This name is first mentioned in combination with Elohim in Gen 2:4. There are not two creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, but two emphases: (1) God as the creator of the universe (the physical) and (2) God as the special creator of humanity. Gen 2:4 begins the special revelation about the privileged position and purpose of mankind, as well as the problem of sin and rebellion associated with the unique position.<\/p>\n

2. In Gen 4:26 it is said “men began to call upon the name of the Lord” (YHWH). However, Exo 6:3 implies that early covenant people (the Patriarchs and their families) knew God only as El-Shaddai. The name YHWH is explained only one time in Exo 3:13-16, esp. Mat 1:14. However, the writings of Moses often interpret words by popular word plays, not etymologies (cf. Gen 17:5; Gen 27:36; Gen 29:13-35). There have been several theories as to the meaning of this name (taken from IDB, vol. 2, pp. 409-11).<\/p>\n

a. from an Arabic root, “to show fervent love”<\/p>\n

b. from an Arabic root “to blow” (YHWH as storm God)<\/p>\n

c. from a Ugaritic (Canaanite) root “to speak”<\/p>\n

d. following a Phoenician inscription, a causative participle meaning “the One who sustains,” or “the One who establishes”<\/p>\n

e. from the Hebrew Qal form “the One who is,” or “the One who is present” (in future sense, “the One who will be”)<\/p>\n

f. from the Hebrew Hiphil form “the One who causes to be”<\/p>\n

g. from the Hebrew root “to live” (e.g., Gen 3:20), meaning “the ever-living, only-living One”<\/p>\n

h. from the context of Exo 3:13-16 a play on the imperfect form used in a perfect sense, “I shall continue to be what I used to be” or “I shall continue to be what I have always been” (cf. J. Wash Watts, A Survey of Syntax in the Old Testament, p. 67<\/p>\n

The full name YHWH is often expressed in abbreviation or possibly an original form.<\/p>\n

(1) Yah (e.g., Hallelu – yah)<\/p>\n

(2) Yahu (names, e.g., Isaiah)<\/p>\n

(3) Yo (names, e.g., Joel)<\/p>\n

3. In later Judaism this covenant name became so holy (the tetragrammaton) that Jews were afraid to say it lest they break the command of Exo 20:7; Deu 5:11; Deu 6:13. So they substituted the Hebrew term for “owner,” “master,” ” husband,” “lord” -adon or adonai (my lord). When they came to YHWH in their reading of OT texts they pronounced “lord.” This is why YHWH is written Lord in English translations.<\/p>\n

4. As with El, often YHWH is combined with other terms to emphasize certain characteristics of the Covenant God of Israel. While there are many possible combinations of terms, here are some.<\/p>\n

a. YHWH – Yireh (YHWH will provide), Gen 22:14<\/p>\n

b. YHWH – Rophekha (YHWH is your healer), Exo 15:26<\/p>\n

c. YHWH – Nissi (YHWH is my banner), Exo 17:15<\/p>\n

d. YHWH – Meqaddishkem (YHWH the One who sanctifies you), Exo 31:13<\/p>\n

e. YHWH – Shalom (YHWH is Peace), Jdg 6:24<\/p>\n

f. YHWH – Sabbaoth (YHWH of hosts), 1Sa 1:3; 1Sa 1:11; 1Sa 4:4; 1Sa 15:2; often in the Prophets)<\/p>\n

g. YHWH – Ro’I (YHWH is my shepherd), Psa 23:1<\/p>\n

h. YHWH – Sidqenu (YHWH is our righteousness), Jer 23:6<\/p>\n

i. YHWH – Shammah (YHWH is there), Eze 48:35<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: NAMES FOR DEITY <\/p>\n

“for He will save His people from their sin” Jesus came for three distinct purposes.<\/p>\n

1. to fully reveal the Father<\/p>\n

2. to give humans an example to follow<\/p>\n

3. to redeem mankind from sin<\/p>\n

Genesis 3 affected all life on this planet (cf. Rom 8:20-23). Jesus came to die in our place (cf. Mar 10:45; Joh 1:29; 2Co 5:21; Php 2:6-11; Isaiah 53). The promise of Gen 3:15 is fulfilled in Him!<\/p>\n

Mat 1:23 Matthew uses the fulfillment of OT prophecy as a major evidence for Jewish people to believe in Jesus as the promised Messiah.<\/p>\n

1. Mat 1:22 Isa 7:14<\/p>\n

2. Mat 2:15 Hos 11:1 and Exo 4:22-23<\/p>\n

3. Mat 2:23 possibly Isa 11:1<\/p>\n

4. Mat 3:15 “fulfill all righteousness”<\/p>\n

5. Mat 4:14 Isa 9:1-2<\/p>\n

6. Mat 5:17 “. . .but to fulfill”<\/p>\n

7. Mat 8:17 Isa 53:4<\/p>\n

8. Mat 12:17 Isa 42:1-4<\/p>\n

9. Mat 13:14 Isa 6:9-10<\/p>\n

10. Mat 13:35 Psa 78:2<\/p>\n

11. Mat 21:4 Isa 62:11 or Zec 9:9<\/p>\n

12. Mat 27:9 Zec 11:12-13<\/p>\n

“virgin” This is a quotation of Isa 7:14 from the Septuagint. In Isaiah the Hebrew word used was almah (BDB 761 II), meaning a “chaste young woman of marriageable age.” There was a special birth in Ahaz’s day (cf. Isa 7:15-16). Only one virgin birth has ever occurred, not two; therefore, the historical fulfillment in Isaiah’s day was a sign to Ahaz, but not an impregnation by the Holy Spirit. This is an example of a multiple fulfillment of prophecy. The sign to Ahaz was the child’s name. See my commentary of Isaiah 1-39 online at www.freebiblecommentary.org. <\/p>\n

NASB, NKJV,<\/p>\n

NJB”Immanuel”<\/p>\n

NRSV, TEV”Emmanuel”<\/p>\n

NJB”God-is-with-us”<\/p>\n

Immanuel meant “God with us” (BDB 769). This shows that the OT passage pointed beyond its own day. Isaiah 7-12 (the Syro-Ephramitic War) ultimately referred to incarnate Deity, Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Joh 1:1; Joh 5:18; Joh 10:33; Joh 14:9-10; Php 2:6). However, it must be remembered that the Jews did not expect the Messiah to be divine. They would have seen the powerful names from Isa 9:6 as metaphors. It is not until the NT that the Messiah as God Incarnate was clearly revealed.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:24-25 These verses reaffirm a truly supernatural virgin birth. They also imply that the couple had a normal married life after the birth of Jesus. The Textus Receptus, following the Greek uncial manuscripts C and D*, K, W add “her firstborn son,” implying other children.<\/p>\n

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Now: or, But, in contrast with those mentioned in verses: Mat 1:2-16. Render: “The begetting, then, of Jesus Christ was on this wise (for after His mother was espoused to Joseph, she was found with child) of pneuma hagion”. See App-101. <\/p>\n

birth = begetting. Greek. gennesis. Occurs only here and Luk 1:14, used of the Father. <\/p>\n

Jesus (Omit. by Tr. [WH] Rm.)<\/p>\n

Christ. Hebrew Messiah. So translated in Joh 1:41; Joh 4:25. <\/p>\n

on this wise: i.e. not begotten, as in the cases recorded in verses: Mat 1:2-16. <\/p>\n

was espoused = bad been betrothed. By divine ordering, so that the two lines, through Solomon and Nathan, might be united and exhausted in Messiah. before. Greek. prin. Occurs seven times (Mat 26:34, Mat 26:75. Mar 14:72. Luk 22:61; Joh 4:49; Joh 8:58; Joh 14:9); prin e, Occurs seven times (Mat 1:18. Mar 14:30. Luk 2:26; Luk 22:34. Act 2:20; Act 7:2; Act 25:16). In eleven of the fourteen passages where this word occurs the events did take place. In the other three, one was miraculously prevented (Joh 4:49); the day of the Lord is absolutely certain (Act 2:20); the other was legally imperative (Act 25:16). <\/p>\n

came together: as in 1Co 7:5. <\/p>\n

the Holy Ghost. Greek. pneuma hagion = holy spirit: i.e. power from on high. Not “the Holy Spirit”. See App-101. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

18-25. CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS BIRTH.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

[50] In Mat 1:18, we know how it was read in the second century from Irenus, who (after having previously cited the words, Christi autem generatio sic erat) continues, Ceterum potuerat dicere Matthus, Jesu vero generatio sic erat; sed prvidens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores, et prmuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthum ait: Christi autem generatio sic erat.-(C. H. lib. iii. 16, 2.) TREGELLES.-(I. B.)<\/p>\n

[51] Such is the reading of E. M., viz., , …-(I. B.)<\/p>\n

[52] Propositio and Tractatio are terms regularly used by Bengel in his Introductory Synopses in the technical and rhetorical sense.-ED.<\/p>\n

[53] Lachmann omits with BZabc Vulg. Iren. 204. Tischendorf, with less weight of authorities, retains it viz., of the oldest, Pd.-ED.<\/p>\n

PZ and Rec. Text read , which, therefore, Lachmann prefers. B, and Origen 3, 965d read . But Iren. 191, 204, and a b c d Vulg. read only , which Tischendorf prefers.-ED.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mat 1:18-25<\/p>\n

2. MARY AND JOSEPH<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18-25<\/p>\n

18 His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph.-Matthew, having traced the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Mary and Joseph, now begins his narrative at the period when Mary’s pregnancy had become a matter of certainty, which was about the time of her return from visiting Elisabeth. She “had been betrothed to Joseph”; the interval between betrothal and the consummation of marriage was sometimes considerable; the betrothed remained in the house of her father till the bridegroom came after her. (Dent. 20:7.) Matthew does not record the angel’s visit to Mary, neither does he record the account of her immediate departure out of Galilee into Judea, where she remained with Elisabeth about three months. (Luk 1:26-56.) Soon after her return from this visit into Galilee her pregnancy was discovered by relatives, and Joseph learned of it. Matthew is clear and definite in stating that “she was found with child” before “they came together”; this excludes Joseph from any connection with her state of pregnancy. It seems that Mary’s conception was not until after her betrothal; it took place between the time of her betrothal and the consummation of the marriage. We are not told who discovered that she was with child; we need not suppose that she published the fact, neither need we suppose that the Holy Spirit had made her pregnancy known to anyone. Mary’s situation was humiliating; her consciousness of her own integrity and virginity and her strong faith in God supported her under such trying circumstances; her reputation, her honor, and even her life were at stake. If the law of Moses be carried out under such conditions, she should be put to death.<\/p>\n

Matthew states clearly that she was “found with child of the Holy Spirit.” Her friends and relatives did not know that she was with child by the Holy Spirit; probably they would not have believed her had she told them it was the Holy Spirit; it was a delicate situation for her, and the records are silent as to what Mary had to say about her condition, if she said anything. Luke is more explicit on this point; he says that the angel Gabriel said to Mary, “Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. . . . The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.” (Luk 1:31-35.) The Holy Spirit is that which produced the human existence of Christ, through whose action, which so appeared only in this, the only case of its kind, the origin of the embryo in the womb of Mary was casually produced in opposition to human generation, so that the latter is thereby excluded , Jesus was truly “the seed of the woman.”<\/p>\n

“Jesus was as human as his mother Mary, and as divine as his father God.” This record testifies that Mary was a virgin; even after she is found to be with child, she is still a virgin. (Verse 23.)<\/p>\n

19 Joseph her husband.-From the moment of her betrothal a woman was treated as if actually married; the betrothal could be dissolved only by regular divorce. When she became “engaged,” she was considered as if “married.” Breach of faithfulness was regarded as adultery and was punishable with death. (Deu 22:23-24.) Hence, Joseph is spoken of as “her husband.” Joseph was a righteous man; he was righteous according to the standard of the law under which he lived; he was placed in a dilemma. Being a righteous man, he must expose Mary and insist that the law be enforced, which meant she should be put to death; or he must give up his affection for her and abide by consequent circumstances. He was “not willing to make her a public example”; he decided upon hearing of her condition “to put her away privily.” Joseph did not wish or desire to make a public example of her; the word here in the Greek means to exhibit, display, point out; Joseph decided not to expose Mary to public shame. Being a righteous man, he was also a merciful man; he determined to put her away or divorce her privately and not assign any cause for the divorce, that her life might be saved. As the offense that she was supposed to have committed was against Joseph, he had a right to pass it by if he chose to do so. Joseph was convinced that Mary had committed adultery, and he at once resolved to put her away, but he hesitated as to how he would dispose of the matter. The law required that he make a public example of her, but his righteousness and his mercy and his affection for Mary caused him to seek another course, and that was to “put her away privily.”<\/p>\n

20 An angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream.- The angel that appeared to him in a vision while he was sleeping was “an angel of the Lord.” This expression has been used frequently in the Old Testament. (See Gen 16:7; Gen 16:9; Exo 32:34; Exo 33:14; Isa 63:9; Mal 3:1.) It may have been the angel Gabriel, as this angel delivered the message relating to the birth of Jesus; Gabriel may also be designated as the “angel of the Lord.” (Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21.) The angel of the incarnation must be distinguished from later angelic apparitions. Joseph, the husband of Mary, like Joseph of the Old Testament, had a father named Jacob; again Joseph of the New Testament is like Joseph of the Old Testament in that he received his revelations in dreams. This particular form of revelation may have been chosen because of his simplicity and sincerity of heart. It may be that the statement of the angel to Joseph sin a dream confirmed what Mary had already related to Joseph; Joseph may have regarded her statement as incredible; so the angel would confirm Mary’s statement.<\/p>\n

Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.-Here Mary is called his “wife,” though they had not been married; this is similar to Joseph’s being called “her husband.” This emphasizes the fact that during the period of time between the espousal and the consummation of marriage both parties were considered as though they were actually married. The angel addressed Joseph in the dream as “thou son of David.” This would remind Joseph of the promised seed and the expectation of the Messiah to come through the lineage of David; it would also stamp the message on Joseph’s mind as the announcement of the birth of the Messiah. Since Mary was also of the lineage of David, she could be called “a daughter of David.” He is reminded that “Mary thy wife” was the subject of whom the angel was about to speak; this would call to his attention his affection for Mary, his betrothed wife. Joseph was in a state of undecided attitude as to the course he should follow the angel assures him that he should “take” “Mary thy wife,” for she was innocent of any crime. The explanation followed that “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” If Mary had related her experience and conversation with the angel Gabriel, this would be a confirmation of her statements, and clear her of any taint or guilt of adultery. Matthew records these incidents in such a way, both to Mary and to Joseph, that the child was of miraculous conception. The promise of the Messiah, his mission, and his descent were revealed long before his appearance on earth; his conception, his birth, his name, and his work were equally from the Holy Spirit. We are to understand from the announcement of the angel to Mary and now from the statement of the angel to Joseph that the human nature of Jesus Christ was a real creation in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

21 She shall bring forth a son.-The angel decided the matter for Joseph; his perplexity was removed, and he was encouraged to consummate his marriage with Mary. Joseph is assured that Mary is with child by the Holy Spirit; he is to understand that the child has no earthly or fleshly father; he is also assured that the child should be a son; he is even instructed as to the name that he should give Mary’s son. “Thou shalt call his name Jesus.” This name means the same as Joshua, deliverer, savior. Both Mary and Joseph now have instructions from an angel with respect to the course they should follow.<\/p>\n

Shall save his people from their sins.-This expresses briefly the mission of Jesus; the great task before him is to “save his people from their sins”; hence he is to be a Savior. He is to save “his people” from the bondage of sin; he is not to establish an earthly kingdom; not to deliver Israel from Roman bondage; he is not even to reestablish the old kingdom of Israel; he is to save the people from their sins. His name carries in itself no promise to save those who refuse to become his people; neither is he to save all men irrespective of character and of their relations to him; he is to be the Savior of his believing, penitent, obedient people. No one is encouraged to hope for forgiveness of sins without voluntary ceasing from sins. Jesus came to make atonement for the sins of man; he became a sin offering for the world. Joseph may not have understood the full import of this language. Thus early in the history, in the midst of pedigrees, and the disturbances of thrones by the supposed temporal king of the Jews, we have so clear a statement of the spiritual mission of Jesus and the nature of the office of Christ. No indication is here given that he would save his people from the punishment of their sins, but it is the sin itself from which he will save his people. Jesus did not come as the Jews commonly supposed that he would, simply to save his people from the dominion of foreigners. Here is also indicated the fact that his people would constitute a “spiritual Israel.”<\/p>\n

22, 23 The virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.-This is a quotation from Isaiah. (Isa 7:14.) It was spoken probably seven hundred years before its fulfillment; the angel tells Joseph in this dream that the condition of Mary is the beginning of the fulfillment of his prophecy. Joseph believed the prophet Isaiah; he is now to believe this statement of the prophet is to be fulfilled and the longexpected Messiah is soon to appear. This is the first great prophecy which the birth of Jesus fulfilled; special emphasis is laid here upon the point of Mary’s virginity; she is to become a maiden-mother; this means a deviation from the regular course of nature, and such a deviation was involves special divine power; therefore “the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.” (Luk 1:35.) By quoting this prophecy to Joseph the angel proves the fulfillment of it in Mary. “Virgin” as used here means that she had not known man; this fully agrees with Luke’s account (Luk 1:34), and is also in perfect agreement with the promise made to Eve when it was said, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise they head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Gen 3:15.) Isaiah spoke these words to King Ahaz concerning a threatened invasion of his territory by the kings of Israel and Syria. (Isa. 7:10-16; 8:1-4.) A part of Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled within a few years after it was spoken; in fact, all except that a virgin should conceive and bring forth a son. When the people of Isaiah’s time saw the fulfillment of part of his prophecy, they should have looked forward with stronger confidence to the fulfillment of the remainder. If they had done this, they would have been ready to believe the account of the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n

They shall call his name Immanuel.-There are two spellings of this word, “Immanuel” and “Emmanuel”; it means “God with us,” or “God in the flesh.” God was with Israel in delivering his people from their enemies at the time of Isaiah, but in a special way he is to be with them in saving them from their sins. This name is only a description of the character and position of Jesus; he was not to be called by this name as he was by the name “Jesus” or “Christ.” In what sense is Jesus “God with us” or “Immanuel”? Jesus is called Immanuel, or “God with us,” in his incarnation he is God united to our nature; God with man; God in man; God with us. Jesus is the beginning of “God with us” in a very definite and peculiar way. God is with us in his word, in prayer, and our obedience to him; he comforts, instructs, blesses, and save us. God is with us in a peculiar way since Jesus was born of Mary.<\/p>\n

24 Did as the angel of the Lord commanded him.-Verses twenty to twenty-three record the speech the angel made to Joseph in a dream; Joseph obeyed the command of the angel. He was conscientious in all that he did; he was conscientious in his intended course to put Mary away privately; the angel had now convinced him of his duty, and he is ready to take her as his wife; he is ready to obey the divine command; he now sees that Mary’s condition was not of her choice only, but was imposed by divine injunction; she had no other choice in being faithful to God than to accept conception by the Holy Spirit. Joseph now is convinced that she is faithful to Jehovah in becoming the mother of the Son of God; he must be as faithful to Jehovah in taking her now as his wife. Joseph did not delay, but “arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife.”<\/p>\n

25 Knew her not till she had brought forth a son.-Joseph delayed not to take Mary home as his wife; he provided for her reputation and comfort in her present circumstances as far as was within his power; he had no conjugal intercourse with her “till she had brought forth a son.” The statement that Joseph knew not Mary (sexually) until she brought forth a son implies that he did know her after this. This explodes the assumption by the Roman Catholics that Mary always remained a virgin; such an assumption is inconsistent with what is here stated and is unsupported by any other passage of scripture; it never would have been advanced except to force it into accordance with a preconceived notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It will be noticed that the American Revised Version omits “her firstborn,” and gives instead just “a son,” but in Luke’s record the phrase, “her firstborn son,” is found in the American Revised Version. This implies that Mary had other children. Authorities differ as to whether Mary had other children. The following scriptures are relied upon to prove that she had other children:Mat 13:55;Mark 6; Mark 3.<\/p>\n

The virgin birth.-“The virgin birth” is the correct and only correct term to use with respect to the birth of Jesus as contained in Matthew and Luke. “Immaculate conception” is too confused to be of much value; “supernatural or miraculous birth” is not clear as to the process of the birth; “supernatural or miraculous conception” is equally unsatisfactory. The only statement or term that is sufficiently definite and clear is “virgin birth.” The accounts of the virgin birth as given by Matthew and Luke are given with inspired delicacy and reserve, yet with such definiteness and clearness as to leave no doubt as to the facts recorded. The genealogy of Jesus reveals him to be the son of David; the virgin birth reveals him as Son of God. The records as given by Matthew and Luke are either true or false; there is no middle ground. The accounts are true records of the facts, or they are purely a story of invention. Believers in the divinity of Jesus believe the accounts to be true;those who do not believe in the virgin birth do not believe the records given by inspiration. If the virgin birth is not true, then Jesus was born as ordinary children are born, and Jesus was just an ordinary man; so much depends on the virgin birth that to reject it is to reject the divinity of Jesus and therefore the power to save.<\/p>\n

One objection urged against the virgin birth is that it is against the laws of nature. This objection has but little weight; how do we know that it was against the law of nature? True it did not follow the ordinary line of nature, but that does not prove that it was “against the laws of nature.” May it not have been the only way for divinity to become humanity? No event like this had ever occurred before this, and no event like it has occurred since; how do we know but that it was the natural way for divinity to become humanity? No one can answer this; therefore, no one can determine that the virgin birth was against the laws of nature.<\/p>\n

Another objection to it is made in these words: One human parent does not guarantee against sinlessness. This objection, if it has any weight, admits only one human parent, but claims that this would not guarantee a perfect sinless character. It is claimed that Jesus could contract from one parent as well as from two parents. Sin is not inherited sinful nature is not inherited; sins are not transmitted from parent to child. God has repeatedly declared that sin is not inherited, neither is it transmitted from parent to child. (See Deu 24:16; 2Ki 14:6; Eze 18:2-4.) Jesus did not contract sin from Mary, hence the objection to the virgin birth on this point fails to have any force.<\/p>\n

Another argument against the virgin birth is that the New Testament is silent on it except the records of Matthew and Luke. This is the famous argument “ex silentio.” It is true that Matthew and Luke are the only writers of the New Testament that give an account of the infancy of Jesus, but the accounts given by Matthew and Luke agree. Many events which are generally accepted are recorded by only one or two writers of the New Testament. A criminal could find one hundred to one who did not see him commit the crime; but the failure of many to see the crime committed does not prove the falsity of the one who did see it committed. This argument proves too much. However, there are other references to the virgin birth recorded in the New Testament. (See Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; Php 2:5-8.) Only one writer records this statement of Jesus: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (Act 20:35.) Luke only records this statement, and it is generally accepted; there are many other events and statements recorded by one or two writers of the New Testament; these are not rejected because every writer of the New Testament did not record them; neither should the virgin birth be rejected simply because two and only two writers record it.<\/p>\n

Again the objectors to the virgin birth have contended that the whole story has been invented by the disciples of Jesus. Either it is true or it was invented; there is no other alternative; but did the disciples of Jesus invent this story? It was prophesied long before the disciples of Jesus lived. (See Isa 7:14.) If the account was invented, it was not invented by the disciples of Jesus; it was invented by the prophets long before the days of the disciples. This clears the disciples of any accusation of inventing the story; so this objection also falls.<\/p>\n

Another objection to the virgin birth is that Joseph and Mary are called the parents of Jesus. It is cited that four times the record speaks of Joseph and Mary as his parents. (See Luk 2:27; Luk 2:33; Luk 2:41; Luk 2:43.) One time the record gives Mary as referring to Joseph as the father of Jesus. (Luk 2:48.) In reply to this, it is contended that Jesus corrected her for this error in Luk 2:49. However, if Jesus had called Mary and Joseph his parents, it would have showed (a) respect to Joseph as the husband of Mary, (b) proper respect to his mother, (c) and that Joseph was his legal parent.<\/p>\n

It is further urged as an objection to the virgin birth that the early church did not accept it. This is an assertion; there is no proof that the early church did not accept the accounts as given by Matthew and Luke. The writings of Ignatius and Justin Martyr show that the church did accept the entire record as given by Matthew and Luke. Not until the eighteenth century was it denied, and then by Voltaire and Tom Paine. In the nineteenth century Strauss and Renan denied the virgin birth;others have followed their example.<\/p>\n

Again it is urged that modern scholarship rejects the virgin birth. Some modern scholars may reject it, but all moderns do not reject it; Christian scholarship accepts it as it is recorded by Matthew and Luke. Suppose modern scholarship did reject it, what would that prove? Scholarship cannot save any one. The world by its wisdom does not know God, and cannot know him. (Mat 11:25-27; 1Co 1:20-25.)<\/p>\n

The reasons for accepting the virgin birth far outweigh any of the objections that may be urged against it. The record of it is a part of the New Testament; it has always been a part of it; not a single complete manuscript of the New Testament omits the account of the virgin birth. Some parts of the New Testament (Mar 16:12-20; Joh 8:1-11; Act 8:37) have been disputed, but the records of Matthew and Luke on the virgin birth have not been disputed. We accept the testimony of Matthew and Luke on other things, why not on this? When Matthew says that the birth of Jesus was “on this wise” (Mat 1:18), it seems that he means to record the facts of a birth that was different from other births in the genealogy. The date of Jesus’ birth, Herod’s reign, the public census and taxation, which are mentioned in connection with the virgin birth, are admitted. Why admit some of the facts of the account and not all of the facts?<\/p>\n

The sinlessness of Jesus implies the virgin birth. If he had been born in the ordinary way, we would not expect him to be sinless; “that which is born of the flesh is flesh” (Joh 3:6); if an ordinary birth was that of Jesus, then he was subject to sin and death as others of the human race. He gave his life up for the sins of the world, not that he had to die. An absolutely holy human being in the midst of sinful humanity seems to have been impossible.<\/p>\n

The deity of Jesus is involved in the virgin birth. A denial of it robs Jesus of his divinity. Luke declares that he should be called “the Son of God.” (Luk 1:35.) This marks him as a divine product; “Son of God,” and “the Son of the Highest” are titles of relationship to the Father in a unique way. If the virgin birth is denied, Jesus is reduced to the low level of an ordinary man.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

the Birth of Jesus Christ <\/p>\n

Mat 1:18-25<\/p>\n

The fear that Joseph, being a just man, might withdraw from their contemplated wedlock, would have filled Marys heart with untold anguish had she not been upheld by her faith in God. She felt that He was pledged to vindicate her character. Yield yourself to Him for His purposes and leave Him to deal with any contingent results! He becomes responsible!<\/p>\n

That which happened historically must take place experimentally. In each of us Jesus Christ must be born through the direct action of the Holy Spirit. See Gal 4:1-5. This is what we mean by the new birth; and when He has so entered our hearts, our Lord will become our Savior, not merely from the penalty but from the love and the power of our sins. Claim that this shall be your experience!<\/p>\n

Let us seek after that union with God which is the height of blessedness, both in this life and the next, and in virtue of which God becomes the companion of the soul in its earthly pilgrimage. This is the Name of names-Emmanuel. See Isa 7:14; Isa 9:1-7.<\/p>\n

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 2<\/p>\n

The Birth of Jesus Christ<\/p>\n

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. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18-25<\/p>\n

The subject of this passage is the birth of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the King, our Savior. In these verses Matthew, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, declares the deepest, most profound truths of sacred theology in simple, unmistakable terms. He tells us that Jesus Christ; the man who was born at Bethlehem, reared in Nazareth, and crucified at Calvary two thousand years ago is God. He tells us that this One who is God assumed our nature and became a man in a most remarkable way, by a miraculous, supernatural birth. His mother was a virgin!<\/p>\n

These are holy, mysterious things, noble objects of holy, reverent faith and adoration. They are things that can be defiled only by speculative curiosity. Those who deny either the deity of Jesus Christ or his miraculous virgin birth do not know God and cannot be persuaded by human reason to believe that which they will not receive as a matter of divine revelation. Consequently, nothing can be gained by the feeble, though well intended, efforts of men to prove these glorious and essential truths of Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n

We believe that which is recorded here. We adore it. We rejoice in it. We proclaim it. And we sing about it. But, we will not try to prove it. No man knows the way of the Spirit in the formation of any ordinary human being in the womb (Ecc 11:5). How then can we expect to understand and explain the virgin birth of Jesus Christ? It is enough for the believing heart to know that nothing is impossible with our God. It is enough for us to simply be informed that we may admire the wonderful works of our God. Like Moses of old, as he stood before the burning bush, when we read Mat 1:18-25, we have entered upon holy ground. Let us put off the shoes of carnal curiosity and seek to hear what God the Lord will say.<\/p>\n

Here the Holy Spirit tells us how Christ came into this world and why: He came by divine incarnation through the womb of the virgin Mary, to save his people from their sins. Every word in these verses needs to be carefully studied. Each line is worthy of diligent, prayerful study. <\/p>\n

Marys Pregnancy<\/p>\n

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 (Mat 1:18). God the Holy Spirit prepared in the womb of the virgin Mary a body for the Son of God (Heb 10:5). His human nature was conceived in the womb of the chosen virgin by the Holy Spirit, without the aid of a man (Luk 1:35). There was no other way for the Christ to come into this world. He must be born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Had he been conceived by the seed of a fallen, sinful father, he could not have been a sinless substitute of sinners. He was born of a woman that he might be human; but not by man, that he might not be sinful (C.H. Spurgeon).<\/p>\n

Our Lord Jesus was born of a virgin that he might be brought into this world as one made of a woman (Gal 4:4), but of an espoused, or lawfully betrothed virgin, so that he might both show the sanctity of marriage and protect the honor of his mothers name. Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled (Heb 13:4). Only those whose doctrine is the doctrine of devils prohibit men from marriage (1Ti 4:1-4). At the same time, he took care to protect Marys name. Though he was born of a virgin, she was a married virgin. Marys Son was also her Savior and he took care to protect her reputation, justifying her pregnancy in the eyes of the world. Matthew Henry suggests that three lessons are to be drawn from this verse.<\/p>\n

1.Those in whom Christ is formed will show it; and it will be found to be a work of God, which he will own (Col 1:27; Eph 2:8-10).<\/p>\n

2.After great and high advancements, lest we be puffed up with them, we must expect something or other to humble us, some reproach, as a thorn in the flesh.<\/p>\n

3.Those who take care to keep a good conscience may cheerfully trust God with the keeping of their good names, and have reason to hope that he will clear up, not only their integrity, but their honor, as the sun at noon day.<\/p>\n

You can imagine what a problem Marys pregnancy presented to Joseph. Here he was engaged to a woman who showed up pregnant; and he knew with certainty that he was not the father of her child. What will he do?<\/p>\n

Josephs Behavior <\/p>\n

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily (Mat 1:19). Josephs behavior exemplifies godliness, wisdom, and compassion. He saw in Mary what appeared to be a horribly evil thing. But he did not behave rashly. He patiently weighed his options as a man who sought to glorify God and do his will in all things. According to the law he could do any of three things: (1.) He could privately give her a bill of divorcement before two or three witnesses (Deu 24:1). (2.) He could make a public example of her and have her stoned to death (Deu 22:23-24). Or (3.) He could go ahead with his plans and marry her. No doubt, Joseph weighed the matter carefully with much prayer before the Lord. Being a just man, a man who sought always to do what was right, Joseph chose not to expose what he thought to be sin in his espoused wife. Though he felt he could not marry her, he chose to put her away quietly.<\/p>\n

C.H. Spurgeon wrote, When we have to do a severe thing, let us choose the tenderest manner. Maybe we shall not have to do it at all.<\/p>\n

What an example Joseph is to us in his behavior. Having been forgiven, he was willing to forgive. Having reason to suspect the worst of Mary, his love for her compelled him to cover and refuse to expose what he thought to be sin in her. As Shem and Japheth covered their fathers sin, Joseph was determined to cover that which he thought was Marys sin. May God give us grace to behave like Joseph in our dealings with others, especially in our dealings with his people. In all things be as lenient as possible with others. Always be ready to forgive the faults of others (Mat 6:14), and seek what is best for the fallen, erring brother or sister. No matter the fault, seek restoration, not retribution (Gal 6:1-12). In all things show love and grace, not judgment and condemnation.<\/p>\n

The Angels Message <\/p>\n

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins (Mat 1:20-21). Josephs patience was abundantly rewarded. He sought Gods will and found it. He sought divine direction and he received it. The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and gave him a message directly from God regarding the thing that troubled him. Blessed are they who wait on the Lord, who cast their cares upon him in the prayer of faith, and wait for him to direct their paths. (Pro 3:5-6). God sent his angel to speak to his servant in a dream. The angel of the Lord assured Joseph that Mary had not sinned, but had been highly favored of God and reminded him of his royal descent as a son of David.<\/p>\n

What comfort the angels words must have brought to Joseph. The Lords fear not was a matter of great relief to him. He was a man appointed by God to be the foster-father of the Son of God who, as the Son of Man, would come into this world through the womb of Mary. Thus, it became his privilege and honor, as well as his duty, to take Mary into his home and lovingly care for her.<\/p>\n

No doubt, Mary had great apprehensions. Would her story of the angelic visitation be believed? It certainly seemed improbable. No doubt, her faith sustained her. But she had a great trial for her faith. How relieved she must have been when Joseph told her of the angels message to him.<\/p>\n

Jesus<\/p>\n

More importantly, the angels message to Joseph was a message of grace, redemption, and salvation to sinners. The Lord of glory came into this world as the Son of Man. As the Son of God he was not born but given. As the Son of Man he was born through the womb of a chosen virgin (Isa 9:6). By Gods command he was named, JESUS, the Savior, because he was sent of God to save his people from their sins. What he is called, that he is Jesus, our Savior.<\/p>\n

The Lord Jesus came into the world to save his people from their sins. Those he came to save were his people before he came to save them, his by eternal election. There are some people in this world, an elect multitude, chosen in him before the world began, who are peculiarly and distinctively his people, chosen in him unto salvation (Eph 1:2-6; 2Th 2:13) and given to him as sheep to the shepherd (Joh 6:39).<\/p>\n

It is the office, work, and responsibility of Christ, the Son of God, as the God-man our Mediator, as the Surety of his people, and as Jehovahs righteous Servant to save all who were given to him in the covenant of grace (Joh 10:16-18). And save them he shall. The Lord Jesus Christ is an almighty, effectual Savior. The angel said to Joseph, He shall save his people from their sins! He saves his people from the penalty of their sins by his blood atonement (Rom 3:24-26), from the dominion of their sins by his regenerating Spirit (Joh 3:5-8; Rom 6:18), from the being of their sins when he takes them out of this world (Joh 14:1-3; Rom 7:25), and from all the evil consequences of their sins in resurrection glory (1Co 15:51-56). It is written of him, He shall not fail! He shall save his people from their sins!<\/p>\n

Jesus is our Saviors Mediatorial name. It is the same as Joshua in the Old Testament. Jesus is our Savior, our Redeemer, our Deliverer, our Salvation. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Act 4:12).<\/p>\n

The name of Jesus is so sweet,<\/p>\n

I love its music to repeat;<\/p>\n

It makes my joys full and complete, <\/p>\n

The precious name of Jesus! <\/p>\n

Jesus, O how sweet the name, <\/p>\n

Jesus, everyday the same; <\/p>\n

Jesus, let all saints proclaim<\/p>\n

Its worthy praise forever!<\/p>\n

Jesus is the name of encouragement and hope for guilty, heavy-laden sinners. Sinners may draw near and come to God, with confident hope of finding mercy, grace, and forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ (Joh 3:16-17).<\/p>\n

Jesus is the name of him who is peculiarly sweet and precious to believers (1Pe 2:7). Thy name is as ointment poured forth (Son 1:3). We breathe our Saviors name in prayer, trusting his blood, his righteousness, his grace, his power, and his intercession (Trusting him!), and have peace with God. Calling on his name we are saved, justified, forgiven of all sin, and forever accepted with God.<\/p>\n

How sweet the name of Jesus sounds in a believers ear!<\/p>\n

It soothes his sorrows, heals his wounds, <\/p>\n

And drives away his fear!<\/p>\n

Prophecy Fulfilled<\/p>\n

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Mat 1:22-23). Who would ever have imagined that the prophecy found in Isa 7:14 had reference to the Lord Jesus Christ? We are so spiritually dull in this body of flesh that, before we are capable of understanding prophecy, we must see it fulfilled. When we know even as we are known, we will see how that all the Scriptures speak of him whose name is Emmanuel (Luk 24:27; Luk 24:44).<\/p>\n

This name, Emmanuel, is only found three times in the Word of God (Isa 7:14; Isa 8:8; and Mat 1:23). But it is a name full of instruction and comfort to believing hearts. Emmanuel is God with us. Emmanuel declares the union of two natures in the Person of our Savior. He is both God and man in one glorious Person, as perfectly God as though he were not man, and as completely man as though he were not God. We must never lose sight of this great, foundation truth of the gospel. Jesus Christ is a man, just like us, only without sin. Yet, he is over all, God blessed forever (Rom 9:5), God manifest in the flesh (1Ti 3:16). He must be both God and man, or he could not be our Savior.<\/p>\n

Someone said, God could not suffer, and man could not satisfy; but the God-man both suffered and satisfied. Our Savior is a man. Therefore he is sympathetic with us. But he is not at all limited by his humanity. In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). Therefore he is able to save all who trust him.<\/p>\n

Josephs Obedience<\/p>\n

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS (Mat 1:24-25). Having received instruction from the Lord, Joseph was immediately obedient. He took Mary into his home as his wife, but refrained himself from all the privileges of their conjugal relationship until after she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Thus the Son of God came into this world and became one of us, that he might be our Savior. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us (Joh 1:14). He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, that he might redeem us. Now, he has ascended up to heaven again and is seated upon the throne of grace that he might save his people from their sins. Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift!<\/p>\n

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Birth of the King<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

A word or two sufficed to describe the birth of all the kings whose names we have read; but for our Lord Jesus Christ there is much more to be said. The evangelist girds himself up for his solemn duty, and writes:- “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.” It is a deep, mysterious, and delicate subject, fitter for reverent faith than for speculative curiosity. The Holy Ghost wrought in the chosen virgin the body of our Lord. There was no other way of his being born; for had he been of a sinful father, how should he have possessed a sinless nature? He is born of a woman, that he might be human; but not by man, that he might not be sinful. See how the Holy Ghost co-operates in the work of our redemption by preparing the body of our Lord!<\/p>\n

Mat 1:19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.<\/p>\n

Mary was espoused to him, and he was saddened and perplexed when he learned that she would become a mother before they had been actually married. Many would have thrust her away in indignation, and put her to an open shame; but Joseph was of royal mind as well as royal race. He would not expose what he thought to be the sin of his espoused wife: although he felt that she must be put away, he would do it quietly. When we have to do a severe thing, let us choose the tenderest manner. May be, we shall not have to do it at all.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:20. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

He could not but feel very anxious, and no doubt he prayed about these things both day and night. God would not leave the honour of the chosen virgin-mother without protection. Soon Joseph had the best of guidance. From heaven he had the assurance that Mary had not sinned, but had been favoured of the Lord. Joseph is reminded of his royal rank, “thou son of David”, and is bidden to cast away his fear. How he must have been comforted by the Lord’s “fear not”! He was to take Mary under his tender care, and be a foster-father to the son who would be born of her.<\/p>\n

Mary must have been in great anxiety herself as to whether her story of angelic visitation would be believed; for it looked improbable enough. We doubt not that faith sustained her; but she needed much of it. Every great favour brings a great trial with it as its shadow, and becomes thus a new test of faith. The Lord very graciously removed all suspicion from Joseph’s mind, and thus provided for the honour of the mother, and for the comfort of the holy child. If Jesus is born in our hearts, we shall have trouble; but the Lord will witness that Christ is ours, and he will surely bear us through.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:21. And site shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.<\/p>\n

The Lord of glory is born the Son of man, and is named by God’s command, and by man’s mouth, Jesus, the Saviour. He is what he is called. He saves us from the punishment and the guilt of sin, and then from the ill effect and evil power of sin. This he does for “his people”, even for all who believe in him. It is his nature to do this, as we see in the fact that his very name is Jesus-Saviour. We still call him by that name, for he still saves us in these latter days. Let us go and tell out his name among men; for he will save others.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:22-23. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.<\/p>\n

Who would have thought that the prophecy contained in Isa 7:14 could have referred to our Lord? One of these days we shall discover a great deal more in the inspired Word than we can see today. Perhaps it is needful to our understanding a prophecy that we should see it actually fulfilled. What blind eyes we have!<\/p>\n

It is pleasant to mark that, according to this verse, and the twenty-first, Emmanuel and Jesus mean the same thing. “God with us” is our Saviour. He is with us as God on purpose to save us. The incarnation of Jesus is our salvation.<\/p>\n

To cheer Joseph, and decide his mind, Holy Scripture is brought to his remembrance; and truly, when we are in a dilemma, nothing gives us such confidence in going forward as the sacred oracles impressed upon the heart. How conversant was Joseph with the prophets to have their words before him in a dream! Lord, whether I read thy Word when awake, or have it brought to my memory in my sleep, it is always precious to me! But thou, Lord Jesus, God with us, art dearer still; and the written Word is chiefly precious because it speaks of thee, the incarnate Word.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:24-25. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.<\/p>\n

Joseph was not disobedient to the heavenly vision in any respect. He did not delay, but as soon as he rose he “did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him.” Without delay, demur, or reservation, he obeyed. What holy awe filled his heart as he welcomed the favoured virgin to his home, to be respectfully and affectionately screened from all evil! What must he have thought when he saw the Son of the Highest lying on the bosom of her whom he had espoused! He was happy to render any service to the newborn King. Since he accepted Mary as his espoused wife, her child was the heir of Joseph, and so of David; and thus was by right the King of the Jews. Our Lord Jesus had a birthright by his mother; but his right on the father’s side was, by Joseph’s act and deed, also put beyond dispute.<\/p>\n

Let us leave this wonderful passage worshipping the Son of God, who condescended to be born the Son of man. Thus our God became our brother, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. The nearer he comes to us, the more humbly let us adore him. The more true the kinship of our King, the more enthusiastically let us crown him Lord of all!<\/p>\n

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

the birth: Luk 1:27-38 <\/p>\n

of the: Gen 3:15, Job 14:4, Job 15:14, Luk 1:25, Luk 1:35, Gal 4:4, Gal 4:5, Heb 7:26, Heb 10:5 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Gen 19:14 – which Gen 29:21 – Give me Deu 20:7 – betrothed a wife Deu 22:23 – General Eze 16:38 – as women Mat 1:16 – Joseph Mat 1:20 – that Mat 13:55 – is not this Luk 2:5 – General Joh 14:26 – Holy Ghost<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

TWO GREAT TRUTHS<\/p>\n

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise He called His Name Jesus.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18-25<\/p>\n

The verses (18 to 25) begin by telling us two great truths. They tell us how the Lord Jesus Christ took our nature upon Him, and became man. They tell us also that His birth was miraculous: His mother Mary was a virgin.<\/p>\n

I. A great mystery.These are very mysterious subjects. They are depths which we have no line to fathom: they are truths which we have not mind enough to comprehend. Let us not attempt to explain things which are above our feeble reason: let us be content to believe with reverence, and let us not speculate about matters which we cannot understand. Enough for us to know that with Him who made the world nothing is impossible. We may safely rest in the words of the Apostles Creed: Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary.<\/p>\n

II. The conduct of Joseph.It is a beautiful example of godly wisdom, and tender consideration for others. He did nothing rashly: he waited patiently to have the line of duty made clear. In all probability he laid the matter before God in prayer. The patience of Joseph was graciously rewarded. He received a direct message from God upon the subject of his anxiety, and was at once relieved from all his fears.<\/p>\n

III. The two names.One is Jesus: the other Emmanuel. One describes His office: the other His nature. Both are deeply interesting.<\/p>\n

(a) Jesus means Saviour.This is His special office. He saves them from the guilt of sin, by washing them in His own atoning blood; He saves them from the dominion of sin, by putting in their hearts the sanctifying Spirit; He saves them from the presence of sin, when He takes them out of this world to rest with Him: He will save them from all the consequences of sin, when He shall give them a glorious body at the last day.<\/p>\n

(b) Emmanuel signifies God with us.There was a union of two natures, the divine and human, in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is a point of the deepest importance. We should settle it firmly in our minds that our Saviour is perfect man as well as perfect God, and perfect God as well as perfect man. If we once lose sight of this great foundation truth we may run into fearful heresies. The name Emmanuel takes in the whole mystery. Jesus is God with us.<\/p>\n

IV. The two natures.If we would have a strong foundation for our faith and hope we must keep constantly in view our Saviours divinity. He in whose blood we are invited to trust is the Almighty God; all power is His in heaven and earth. None can pluck us out of His hand. If we are true believers in Jesus our heart need not be troubled or afraid. If we would have sweet comfort in suffering and trial we must keep constantly in view our Saviours humanity. He is the Man Christ Jesus, who lay on the bosom of the Virgin Mary as a little infant, and knows the heart of a man. He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.<\/p>\n

Bishop J. C. Ryle.<\/p>\n

Illustration<\/p>\n

More than seven hundred years before Christs birth, the prophet Isaiah had announced that a Saviour should be born, and that His name should be called Emmanuel. Of course the prophets knowledge came to him from God. But is it not very wonderful that all this should have been known and spoken of so many years before it happened? In the middle of the seventh chapter of Isaiah we find it all plainly written down. Not much notice probably was taken of it, at the time. Ahaz, the King of Judah, to whom the words were spoken, could not have understood their meaning. The prophet who spoke them passed away from earth, without any sign of the coming Messiah. Hundreds of years rolled by until the prophecy itself must have been almost forgotten. And then at last Gods Word came true. The hour for its fulfilment had arrived. Christ was born at Bethlehem, of a Virgin Mother. Now here we see how true the Bible is. Gods Word cannot fail. Generations lived and died, the seasons came and went, and at length in Gods good time that promise was performed. His revealed Word can stand against time and change. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the Word of our God shall stand for ever. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1:18<\/p>\n

Verse 18. The meaning of espousal as compared with marriage will be considered at verse 20. Before they came together means before they began living together as husband and wife. Found with child should be considered separately from the words of the Holy Ghost. Joseph did not know that her condition was produced by a miracle but thought she had been impure. The Inspired writer adds the italicized words for the information of the reader. The meaning of the clause is as if It said she was found with child (which later proved to be by the Holy Ghost).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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. <\/p>\n

[When as his mother was espoused] no woman of Israel was married, unless she had been first espoused. “Before the giving of the law (saith Maimonides), if the man and the woman had agreed about marriage, he brought her into his house, and privately married her. But after the giving of the law, the Israelites were commanded, that, if any were minded to take a woman for his wife, he should receive her, first, before witnesses; and thenceforth let her be to him a wife, as it is written, If any one take a wife. This taking is one of the affirmative precepts of the law, and is called espousing.” Of the manner and form of espousing, you may read till you are weary, in that tractate, and in the Talmudic tract, Kiddushin. <\/p>\n

[Before they came together.] “In many places the man espouseth the woman; but doth not bring her home to him, but after some space of time.” So the Gloss upon Maimonides. <\/p>\n

Distinction is made by the Jewish canons, and that justly and openly, between private society or discourse between the espouser and the espoused, and the bringing of the espoused into the husband’s house. Of either of the two may those words be understood, before they came together; or, rather, of them both. He had not only not brought her home to him, but he had no manner of society with her alone, beyond the canonical limits of discourse, that were allowed to unmarried persons; and yet she was found with child. <\/p>\n

[She was found with child.] Namely, after the space of three months from her conception, when she was now returned home from her cousin Elizabeth. See Luk 1:56; and compare Gen 38:24. <\/p>\n

The masters of the traditions assign this space to discover a thing of that nature. “A woman (say they) who is either put away from her husband, or become a widow, neither marrieth, nor is espoused, but after ninety days: namely, that it may be known, whether she be big with child or no; and that distinction may be made between the offspring of the first husband and of the second. In like manner, a husband and wife, being made proselytes, are parted from one another for ninety days, that judgment may be made between children begotten in holiness,” (that is, within the true religion; see 1Co 7:14) “And children begotten out of holiness.” <\/p>\n

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mat 1:18. The birth of Jesus Christ. Same word as in Mat 1:1 (generation). Here it means origin. The more usual word implies a begetting; the choice of this word indicates something peculiar in this birth, as does the form: Abraham begat Isaac, etc., etc.; the birth of Jesus Christ, however, was in this wise. For, in the next clause, implies: there is need of a particular account, for the circumstances were peculiar. The best critics, however, omit the word.<\/p>\n

His Mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph. Betrothed, not yet espoused. The betrothal was previous to the discovery. After betrothal unfaithfulness on the part of the woman was deemed adultery.<\/p>\n

Before they came together, lived together in one house as man and wife.<\/p>\n

She was found. Perhaps by herself according to the revelation made to her (Luk 1:26 ff.). If this verse points to a time after her return from visiting Elizabeth (see notes on Luk 1:39 ff.), her condition would soon be apparent.<\/p>\n

Of the Holy Ghost. A statement of fact, not a part of the discovery, or Joseph would not have been perplexed. The Third Person of the Trinity is meant. Comp. Luk 1:35. Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, is an article not only in our Apostles creed, but in nearly all other creeds of the ancient Church. On the other hand, neither the Scriptures nor the early Church know anything of the supernatural, immaculate conception of Mary. Christ is the sole, the absolute exception to the universal rule of sinfulness; a miracle in history.<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

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

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

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

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

IX. <\/p>\n

ANNUNCIATION TO JOSEPH OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS. <\/p>\n

(At Nazareth, B. C. 5.) <\/p>\n

aMATT. I. 18-25. <\/p>\n

a18 Now the birth [The birth of Jesus is to handled with reverential awe. We are not to probe into its mysteries with presumptuous curiosity. The birth of common persons is mysterious enough ( Ecc 9:5, Psa 139:13-16), and we do not well, therefore, if we seek to be wise above what is written as to the birth of the Son of God] of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed [The Jews were usually betrothed ten or twelve months prior to the marriage. So sacred was this relationship that unfaithfulness to it was deemed adultery, and was punishable by death–death by stoning ( Deu 22:23-28, Lev 20:10, Eze 16:38, Joh 8:5). Those betrothed [22] were regarded as husband and wife, and could only be separated by divorcement. Hebrew betrothals set the world a good example. Hasty marriage is too often followed by hasty repentance. “No woman of Israel was married unless she had been first espoused”] to Joseph, before they came together [Before Joseph brought his bride to his own house. An espoused maiden lived in her father’s house until the marriage, as is our own custom] she was found with child of the Holy Spirit [The two evangelists (Matthew and Luke) which give the earthly genealogy of Jesus are each careful to mention his miraculous conception through the Holy Spirit (comp. Luk 1:35). All New Testament writers recognize Jesus as at once both human and divine. Christ’s physical nature was begotten of the Holy Spirit, but the Christian’s spiritual nature is begotten of him ( Joh 1:13). The act of the Holy Spirit in this case indicates that he is a personality, and not a mere influence, as some are disposed to imagine. Influences do not create physical bodies.] 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man [As a righteous man he could not complete his marriage, and thus stain his family name. As a merciful man he did not wish to openly disgrace the one to whom he was so fondly attached. He wished to act justly toward his own reputation, and mercifully toward the reputation of Mary], and not willing to make her a public example [he did not wish to expose her to the shame of a public trial before the court, nor to punish her as the law permitted], was minded to put her away privily [The law of Moses gave the husband the power of divorce ( Deu 24:1). The bill or writing certifying the divorce usually stated the cause, and was handed to the wife in the presence of witnesses. Joseph evidently intended to omit stating any cause in the bill, that there might be no record to convict her of shame. The law of divorce applied to betrothed as well as to married persons. In his kindness Joseph anticipates the special teaching of Christ ( Mat 19:8) and the general instruction of Paul ( Gal 6:1). How different the conduct of the innocent Joseph from that of guilty Judah [23] ( Gen 38:24). Judah needed some one to point out his unfitness– Joh 8:7.] 20 But when he thought on these things [God guides the thoughtful, not the unthinking], behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him [The Lord looks after the good name of those who honor his name, and he serves those who serve him ( 1Sa 2:30, Joh 12:26). The sufferings of both Mary and Joseph must have been very extreme at this time–one being forced to suspect the chief object of his affections, and the other being compelled to rest under the unjust suspicions of loved ones, because of a condition which God alone could explain. But God does explain where we can not understand without his revelation, and where we absolutely need to know] in a dream [A mode of communication frequently used by God ( Gen 20:3, Gen 31:11, Gen 31:24, Gen 37:5, Gen 41:1, 1Ki 3:5, Dan 7:1, Job 4:13-15). It is difficult to say how men determined between ordinary and divine dreams, but doubtless the latter came with a glory and vividness which gave assurance of their supernatural nature. Matthew mentions four divine dreams, viz.: this one; the second one given to Joseph ( Mat 2:13); the dream of the Magi ( Mat 2:12); the dream of Pilate’s wife– Mat 27:19], saying, Joseph [We are known to angels, and they address us by name ( Act 10:3, Act 10:13, Act 27:24). Much more does the Lord know our names– Joh 10:3, Luk 19:5], thou son of David [the name of David was calculated to waken the memories of God’s promises, and helped to prepare Joseph to receive the wonderful news that Messiah was about to be born, for Messiah was the promised heir of David], fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife [Have no fear as to Mary’s virtue and purity. Fear no disgrace in taking her. Joseph feared as a son of David that this marriage would sully his genealogy. But it was that which gave point and purpose to an otherwise barren and uninteresting record. He feared as a man lest he should share Mary’s apparent disgrace; but he had infinitely more reason to fear his unworthiness to share with her the exalted responsibilities of parentage to our [24] Lord]: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son [the angel does not say “shall bear thee a son,” as he said to Zacharias– Luk 1:13]; and thou shalt call his name JESUS [Joseph was to take the position of a legal father to the child and name it. The name means “Salvation of Jehovah” or “Jehovah is the Saviour.” Would we could all bear our names, such as Christian, pastor, magistrate, father, mother, child, etc., as Jesus bore that wonderful and responsible name of Saviour]; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins [Thus from before his very birth-hour the nature of Christ’s salvation is fully set forth. He came to save from the guilt of sin by having shed his blood, his may be remitted or washed clean. He saves from the power of sin by bestowing the gift of the Spirit, who regenerates, comforts, and strengthens, and ultimately he saves from the punishment of sin by giving us a resurrection from the dead, and an abundant entrance into the home of glory. That is no salvation at all which fails to free us from this triple bondage of sin.] 22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord [It was not fulfilled because predicted, but was rather predicted because sure to take place. Prophecies are fulfilled in four ways, namely, 1. When a thing clearly predicted comes to pass. 2. When that which has been pictured in type and shadow is at last shown forth in substance and reality. 3. When an event which has been described in language more elevated and elaborate than it demands is followed by another similar event to which the said language is more perfectly suited. 4. When parabolic or figurative language may be applied to some subsequent event. The prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled after the third fashion, which was spoken by the Lord. In innumerable passages the divine origin and inspiration of the Scriptures are clearly and unmistakably set forth. The same Spirit which foretold through [25] the lips of the prophet now interprets the foretelling through the lips of the angel] through the prophet [ Isa 7:14. Isaiah’s name is not given. The ancients were studious readers, and had few books, so that there was little need to cite authors by name], saying [About the year 740 B.C. While Ahaz was king of Judah, his land was threatened with an invasion by the united armies of Syria and Israel. Isaiah came to frightened Ahaz, promised divine aid, and told Ahaz to seek from God a sign confirming this promise. This Ahaz refused to do; whereupon Isaiah replied that God would grant a sign anyway. The sign was that a virgin should have a son, and before the son reached the age of discretion, the kingdoms of Syria and Israel should be destroyed. The sign given Ahaz was one of deliverance, and prefigured the birth of Christ, the great Deliverer, in four ways: 1. A virgin bearing a child. 2. A male child ( Rev 12:5). 3. The divinely ordered naming of the child. 4. The significance of the name given. Jesus fulfilled in his ministry man predictions; but many more such as this one were fulfilled upon him without his volition], 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child [The Sonship of Jesus demands a miraculous birth. If we doubt the miracle of his conception, we can never solve the perplexing problem of his marvelous life and death], and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name [rather, title; under the head of “name” the titles of Jesus are also set forth at Isa 9:6] Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us [Nature shows God above us; the Law shows God against us; but the Gospel shows God with us, and for us. The blessing of the church militant is Christ, God with us; that of the church triumphant is Christ, us with God. In this world Jesus walked “with us” in human form ( Joh 1:14); and because he did so, we, in the world to come, shall walk “with him” in divine form ( 1Jo 3:2, 1Co 15:49). In a personal sense Jesus may fitly be called “God with us,” for he was God and man united in one body.] 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him. [he followed the instructions, though contrary to his first inclination. Blessed are they who [26] permit God to guide them. As Joseph appears to have acted at once upon the angel’s instruction, the marriage must have taken place several months prior to the birth of Jesus], and took unto him his wife [thus becoming the legally recognized father of Jesus, and though he bestowed upon Jesus but a humble name ( Luk 4:22, Mat 13:55), he nevertheless rescued him from the reproach of an illegitimate birth]; 25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son [Romish teachers contend for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that she may be regarded as an object of worship. This doctrine can not be proved by Scripture. But there are weightier reasons than this which forbid us to worship her; namely, it can not be proven from Scripture either that she was divine or that she was sinless. Moreover, the fact that she entered the marital state at all, shows that she was perfectly human, and comported herself as such]: and he called his name JESUS. [Two Old Testament heroes bore the name Jesus under the form of Joshua. One was captain of Israel for the conquest of Canaan, the other was high priest of Israel for rebuilding the Temple ( Zec 6:11, Zec 6:12). Christ was both the Captain of our salvation and the High Priest of our profession.]<\/p>\n

[FFG 22-27]<\/p>\n

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

AN ANGEL APPEARS TO JOSEPH<\/p>\n

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

And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.<\/p>\n

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

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mat 1:18-25. The Birth of the Messiah.In Mt., Joseph has the principal rle; in Lk., Mary. Six inspired dreams are narrated in Mt., three of them with the angel of Yahweh. Five are in chs. 1 and 2, the sixth in Matthew 27. Early writers like Justin Martyr claimed credence for the virgin birth of Jesus because records of pagan religion were full of similar marvels. Philo is witness for similar Jewish beliefs about the patriarchs. One curious early idea was that Mary conceived by a shaft of Divine light through the ear.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:18. Holy Ghost: in the OT sense, the power of God in active exercise.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:19. righteous: conscientious in observing the Law, and (yet) not willing, etc. Lk. mentions no scruples and no thought of repudiation.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:21. Jesus: Heb. Joshua, Yahweh is salvation.his people: the Jewish nation.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:22 f. Not part of the angels address, but Mt.s comment (cf. Isa 7:14*). This introduces us to a marked feature of Mt., his use of OT., which has been referred to in Introd. See further the Comm. of Micklem (xxxi ff.); Burkitt, Gosp. Hist., pp. 124128; and especially R. Harris, Testimonies.<\/p>\n

Mat 1:25 is not a statement of the perpetual virginity of Mary, a doctrine bolstered up by one of two suppositionsthat the brothers of Jesus were (a) Josephs children by a former marriage (Origen, Clem. Alex.), (b) cousins of Jesus, sons of Mary the wife of Alphus (Mat 27:56=Mar 15:40), brother merely implying kinship (Jerome, Augustine). See Brethren of the Lord, HSDB and HDB 1320.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 18 <\/p>\n

This wise; this manner.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Ver. 18.<\/span><\/big>-Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. The Birth of Christ happened in this manner. For Birth, the Greek has not , i.e., generation, properly so called, but , i.e., rise, conception, generation, nativity. When any one arises he is conceived, is begotten, is born.<\/p>\n

When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. Syriac, “of the Spirit of holiness”-that is, the Spirit who is holy, and the Author and Fountain of all holiness.<\/p>\n

God willed the Blessed Virgin to be betrothed to Joseph-1. Because Joseph appears to have been the nearest heir of David’s kingdom, that it might devolve from him upon Christ, as from a father to a son, by due order and right of succession, as I have said, ver. 16. 2. Because Joseph was a most holy man, like unto the patriarch Joseph, of whose chastity and virtue he partook, as well as of his name. He was called Joseph-i.e., increased-for he was enriched with great gifts and graces from God. Thus S. Bernard, Hom. 2 super Missus est. <\/p>\n

You may ask whether it be here meant that the Blessed Virgin was espoused to Joseph only by betrothal, or by an actual marriage contract and celebration of nuptials; and so, whether Christ was incarnate, and conceived of a virgin who was betrothed only, or of one who was actually married? For to a virgin thus betrothed Gabriel was sent to announce the Incarnation of Christ. (Luke i. 38.) And the Virgin, consenting to his message, and saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word,” immediately, in that very instant, conceived Christ. Many are of opinion that the Blessed Virgin was only espoused by betrothal, or per verba de futuro, by which only a promise of marriage takes place. So S. Hilary, in loc.; S. Basil, Hom. on the Human Generation of Christ; Origen, Hom. I, on divers passages of the Gospels. But others think, with better reason, that the Virgin was espoused not merely by betrothal, but by marriage, per verba de prsenti-by an actual nuptial contract. This is proved:-1. Because Joseph is called in the verse following, and in ver. 16, the husband of Mary. This must mean that he had married her. 2. Joseph wished to put her away, as being with child, as it is said in the verse following. He had therefore taken her to him to wife; for no one puts away what he has not. 3. Because “betrothed” (Luk 2:5) is interpreted to mean married. Yea, Joseph called her his wife. She was therefore already married, and introduced into the house of her husband, Joseph, as his wife, that, by this means, Joseph might be the attesting witness of her virginity, and the guardian and nourisher both of herself and her Child Jesus. Consider, also, that the Blessed Virgin, as soon as she had received Gabriel’s message, being now full of the WORD, visited Elizabeth, and abode with her three months. From whence it does not seem that she there celebrated her marriage with Joseph, nor yet after her return to Nazareth, for there exists no trace of such an event. So that she must have celebrated this marriage before Gabriel’s message, and the Incarnation of the WORD. Neither would it have been becoming that an unmarried virgin should undertake so great a journey into a mountainous country, without a husband, or companion, or without her guardian sending a maid, or some female relation with her. 4. Because it was plainly befitting that Christ should be born of a woman who was actually married, in order that he might not be despised by the Jews as illegitimate, but might be received as a legitimate son. And this is why Joseph is called Christ’s father. Finally, offspring is the proper fruit of wedlock. Thus Jerome, Haymo, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, Jansenius, Suarez, and others, passim.<\/p>\n

It may be objected-1. That the angel says to Joseph, “Fear not to take Mary thy wife.” Therefore, he had not taken her to wife, but only espoused her by betrothal. I reply-to take, here means the same thing as to keep, and retain: for the angel calls her his wife. They were therefore married. The Hebrew verbs often signify not only inchoate, but continuous action. The meaning, therefore, is-“Dismiss not, O Joseph, thy wife Mary, but keep and retain her.” For nothing is put away save what has been received and possessed.<\/p>\n

2. The Virgin is here called betrothed, before they came together, therefore before marriage. In reply, I deny the consequence. To come together does not here signify to contract marriage, nor yet to cohabit, but to make use of marriage already contracted.<\/p>\n

3. Why is she here spoken of, not as married, but as espoused? I reply, she is called espoused or betrothed, because her husband had not known her; and therefore she was as a bride, not yet married to her husband, but only promised. So S. Chrysostom. Hence Peter Chrysologus (Serm. 175) says, Joseph was a husband in name only, by consent of his spouse; that is, he was accounted her husband by the bond, not the consummation of marriage.<\/p>\n

That there was, however, a real marriage between Joseph and the Blessed Virgin is certain from the words of the Gospel, and the common agreement of theologians; and the axiom of lawyers, that-“Consent, not consummation, validates marriage.” Whence S. Augustine (lib. 1, de Nuptiis, c. 11) says-“The good of marriage was fulfilled in those parents of Christ. There was offspring, fidelity, a sacrament (for these are the three goods of marriage). We recognize the offspring, the Lord Jesus Himself; the fidelity, for there was no adultery; the sacrament, for there was no divorce.” He teaches the same more at large against Julian the Pelagian (lib. 5), who denied the marriage of Joseph and Mary. In chap. 9, he maintains that the jus matrimonii is not repugnant to a vow of chastity. By marriage, I possess a right over my wife, but because of my vow, I cannot use that right lawfully. If I do use it, I sin against my vow, not my marriage. That is, I do what is, technically, an irreligious, not an unjust act. For there is not adultery, as it would be, if the wife were joined in marriage. Joseph, therefore, had by matrimony, a power over the Blessed Virgin, but by his purpose, and as it would seem by his vow of chastity, he would not use this power. To have a right or power to do a thing, and to use that power, are wholly different things. The first is necessary for valid matrimony, but not the second.<\/p>\n

This right of cohabitation, and quasi dominion over a wife, in the case of married virgins, has several true and real, not fictitious consequences. The first is, that a virgin bride cannot marry another husband. The second is, that although the vow be broken by cohabitation, it is not fornication. The third, that offspring divinely granted and born (as Christ in the present instance was conceived of the Holy Ghost) is accounted legitimate as being born in wedlock.<\/p>\n

From all this, it may be gathered that the marriage of the Blessed Virgin Mary with Joseph was not only real matrimony, but lawful, yea, holy-real, because the essence of wedlock consists in the mutual delivery of power over each other’s body, even though this power be never exercised. And a vow of virginity takes away this power and right from no one, but only renders its exercise unlawful. It is after a similar manner that the power is separated from the use of a thing, in the case of certain religious, who remain owners of their paternal inheritance, but who, on account of their vow of poverty, are not able to make use of it. It was lawful marriage, because, although the Blessed Virgin had made a vow of virginity, yet she lawfully, and without peril of a breach of her vow, engaged in marriage, because she knew by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that Joseph would never use his power and marital rights to the detriment of her vow. So S. Augustine, de S. Virgin., c. 4, and theologians, passim. It is, moreover, probable that the Blessed Virgin Mary had revealed this, her vow, to Joseph before marriage, and that he had consented to it. Some add, that he had promised to be the guardian of her vow. It was holy marriage, because by means of it Joseph protected the good repute and the virginity of Blessed Mary; and became the guardian, nourisher, and educator of the Child Jesus. What were more holy than this?<\/p>\n

See S. Thomas, 3 part 29. 2. 1. in corpore, where he assigns many reasons why Christ was born of an espoused virgin. And he adds that there might be a fifth reason why the Mother of the Lord was espoused and a virgin, in order that in her person both virginity and matrimony might be honoured against the heretics, who attack either one or the other. The holy martyr Ignatius, cited by S. Jerome, gives yet another reason-in order that her child-bearing might be concealed from the devil, so that he thought that Christ was not born of a virgin, but of a wife.<\/p>\n

Observe here, tropologically, in the Blessed Virgin and Joseph the utmost height of angelic purity and virginity. And thus, the Blessed Virgin has communicated this gift of conjugal chastity to several eminent persons, specially devoted to her, as to S. Pulcheria, and Martian, to SS. Julian and Basilissa, to whom, in the first night after their vow of chastity, Christ appeared, accompanied by a vast throng of men in white robes, on the one hand, and the Blessed Virgin, girt about with a virgin throng, on the other hand. They who were with Christ chanted forth-“Thou hast conquered Julian, thou hast conquered.” And they who were with the Blessed Virgin replied-“Blessed art thou, Basilissa, who hast despised earthly marriage, and prepared thyself for eternal glory.” Wherefore Julian was the spiritual ancestor of innumerable believers in Christ and martyrs, and Basilissa, by word and example, was the mother of innumerable virgins of Christ.<\/p>\n

Also S. Henry I., or as some say, II., Emperor of Germany led such a life with his wife Cunegundes, of whom, when he was dying, he said to her parents-“Lo! a virgin I received her from you, a virgin I restore her to you.” Such, too, were S. Ccilia, with her spouse Valerian, to whom the Blessed Virgin sent by the hands of angels crowns of roses and lilies.<\/p>\n

Symbolically, in this marriage and family union of Joseph with Mary there was an image of the Sacred Trinity. For Joseph represented the Eternal Father, the Blessed Virgin the Holy Ghost, both because she was most holy, and because she had conceived by the Holy Spirit. Christ represented Himself, even the Son of God. Whence, 1. As there is in the Sacred Trinity an essence of Deity in Three Persons, so here was there one marriage and one perfect family, consisting of three persons, namely, Joseph, Mary, and Christ. 2. As in the Holy Trinity the Father spiritually begets the Son, and breathes the Holy Ghost, so here the Blessed Virgin spiritually-not carnally, but by the power of the Holy Ghost-conceived and brought forth Christ. 3. In the Holy Trinity, the Father begets the Son, as light emits light: whence we sing in the Creed, “Light of Light, very God of very God;” so the Blessed Virgin, as the Star of the Sea, brought forth Christ, who is “the Brightness of Eternal Light,” and the “Mirror without a spot.” (Wisd. vii. 25.) Whence, like as a star, without any diminution of itself, sends forth its rays, so did the Blessed Virgin, without any derogation to herself, bring forth Christ the Light of the world. “Neither do the star’s rays diminish its lustre, nor did the Son of the Virgin take away her maiden purity and integrity,” says S. Bernard. (Hom. 2 super Missus est) Whence also those words of Simeon concerning Christ, “A Light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.”<\/p>\n

This family was then, as it were, a heaven upon earth-a family, not so much of three human persons as of three embodied angels-yea, symbolically, as it were, of three Divine Persons. Therefore it is not doubtful that it was thronged with angels, ministering to the Virgin, as Queen of Heaven, and to Christ, as their Lord and their God. Yea, they were amazed, and had the utmost desire to behold the WORD Incarnate. Therefore, that house, as it were heaven, was concealing an admirable mystery. Black without, but fair within, “as the tents of Cedar, as the curtains of Solomon” (Song i. 5), says Rupert. Whence John Gerson (Sermon on the Nativity) exclaims in wonder-“O, how delectable to the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was that house’s Trinity, Christ, Mary, Joseph. Nothing dearer, nothing better, nothing on earth more excellent. Heaven envied earth such inhabitants-inhabitants more befitting heaven than earth.”<\/p>\n

Tropologically, Let husbands and wives imitate the Blessed Virgin and Joseph in purity, in sanctity, in patience, and charity, bearing one another’s burdens. There was in this family of Joseph, Mary, and Christ, the utmost concord amongst all, the utmost love, the utmost reverence, humility, piety, help, and mutual compliance. From it, not only all bickering was absent, but even the very lightest suspicion of any evil thing. Hence such a family deserved to have Christ, the Holy of Holies, for its offspring. In our day, there are often in families depraved, disobedient, proud, quarrelsome, impure children, because their parents are such. Like father, like child. What he sees and hears his father and mother do, that he also imitates and imbibes. Children ever ape their parents.<\/p>\n

Before they came together. Understand this not as though they afterwards came together for the marital debt, as the impure Helvidius maintained, who denied that the Blessed Virgin was always a virgin, and asserted that she afterwards became by Joseph the mother of those who, in the Gospel, are called the Lord’s brethren. S. Jerome confutes him at length, and shows that nothing is meant here except the miraculous conception of Christ by a pure virgin. Thus we say in common speech, “Such a one had grey hairs before he was an old man,” meaning that it was remarkable that he was early grey-headed, even though he never became an old man, but died before he came to old age. Similarly also we say, “His boy was wise before he came to man’s estate,” meaning that he was of precocious intellect, even though he died before he was of mature age; as those who are precocious do thus often die. Moreover, the brethren of the Lord are called His kinsmen. For, as S. Jerome says (Cont. Helvid.), brethren are so called in four ways: by nature, race, relationship, affection. People are brethren by nature, who are born of the same parents, by race, who belong to the same nation, as S. Paul calls the Jews his brethren (Rom. ix. I), by kinship, as cousins are called brethren in Scripture, by affection, as when Christians love one another with mutual fraternal love. For this is the love of the brotherhood, which S. Paul so often commands.<\/p>\n

She was found with child, by the Holy Ghost. Observe that Joseph understood by her appearance, that his wife, the Blessed Virgin, had conceived. But whether he knew that she was with child by the Holy Ghost, or not, is doubtful. S. Basil, Origen, Theophylact, and others, hold the affirmative. But the contrary is more probable, because Joseph wished to put her away, but is forbidden by the angel, who removes his scruple, adding, “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Therefore, before the revelation of the angel, he did not know this, because had he known it, he would not have wished to put her away.<\/p>\n

It is said, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was found with child of the Holy Ghost, because she had verily conceived by Him. The expression, by the Holy Ghost, must be referred to the words with child, not to was found. So the rest of the Fathers and Interpreters, passim. Origen adds that, “She was found by the angels, for they knew that she had conceived by the Holy Ghost.”<\/p>\n

Of the Holy Ghost. Not as though Christ were framed of the substance of the Holy Spirit, as is the case with other offspring, nor of the Holy Ghost as a father; because Christ, qu man, was not like to the Holy Ghost, who in His nature is God; but of the Holy Ghost as an agent and artificer. Thus S. Ambrose, in Luc. i. 35. Of the Holy Ghost, not, therefore, as of the Father, but, as it were, supplying the concourse of the father. For the Holy Ghost supplied the place of a father to Christ, through His power and operation. So S. Ambrose c. 2, de Spiritu Sancto, c. 5, and S. Augustine, Enchiridion, c. 39. For the substance of our Lord’s body was supplied by the Blessed Virgin, as His only human parent. Strictly speaking, by denotes the efficient cause, of the material cause-as we say in the Creed: “Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.”<\/p>\n

You may ask-why does not Matthew say also, “With child by the Eternal Father, and by the Son. as well as by the Holy Ghost?” It is replied that he might have said this with equal truth. For it is an axiom among Theologians, that the operations of the Holy Trinity, ad extra-that is, with reference to the universe of created things-are common to all the Three Divine Persons. But he preferred to say, “By the Holy Ghost,” because, as power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son, so love, goodness, and grace, which especially shine forth in this work of the Incarnation, are attributed to the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son by spiration, being, as it were, the term of the ideal love of the Father and the Son.<\/p>\n

Moreover S. Thomas (3 part, qust. 32, art. 1 et seq) teaches that the words “by the Holy Ghost” signify three things: 1. That of the pure love of God and the Holy Spirit, without any human merits, the Incarnation of the Lord was accomplished. 2. Of the same Grace of God and the Holy Spirit, without previous merits, He was conceived. Whence S. Augustine, c. de Prdest. Sanct. c. 15, proposes Christ, as it were, the ideal of election and the elect. “Whatsoever man is a Christian, he becomes such from the beginning of his faith by that self-same grace by which, at the first, Christ was made man: by the same Spirit a Christian is born again, by whom Christ was born; remission of sins is effected in us by the self-same Spirit by whom it was brought about that Christ should have no sin.” 3. Christ was holy, by virtue of his conception. For, like as a man, who, by ordinary generation, is propagated from Adam, a sinner, is by virtue of his conception born a sinner, so Christ, who was conceived, and, as it were, propagated by the Holy Ghost, was conceived holy by virtue of his conception. For that which the Holy Ghost worketh can be nothing else save warmth and fire. 4. By the Holy Ghost, signifies that He, in the formation of the Humanity of Christ, transposed all His sanctity into It (so far as a creature’s capacity would allow of such a thing, and so far as a creature can become like the Creator), and, as it were, transformed It into Himself: so that, next to Himself, He made It to be a pattern and prototype of holiness, that from It and according to It He might, as it were, express and depict all other holiness, both of all angels, and all men. Therefore the humanity of Christ was the most perfect, special, and most holy work of the Holy Ghost, in which He Himself constituted a fount of all sanctity, which, by its own purity, might wash away the filth of all sins, and, so far as it is concerned, sanctify all sinners.<\/p>\n

Moreover, S. Thomas (qust. 32, art. 2) teaches that the preposition “by,” in the expression by the Holy Ghost, signifies that Christ is consubstantial with the Holy Ghost, as touching his Godhead, not as touching his manhood, which He wrought in Christ. This, however, S. Augustine denies.<\/p>\n

Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily<\/p>\n

1. S. Chrysostom (in loco), S. Augustine (Epist. 52, ad Macedon.), Justin M. (contra Tryphon.), are of opinion, that Joseph suspected evil of the Blessed Virgin, as though she had conceived by another man. They think that this is hinted at in the expression, make her a public example. But we say, far be any such suspicions concerning a virgin so holy, or a man so just. How, indeed, could Joseph have suspected adultery in such a wife, or uncleanness in her parents’ house?<\/p>\n

2. Others think that Joseph wished to put away the Blessed Virgin out of extreme reverence, because he thought himself unworthy to have to wife one who was with child by the Holy Ghost. Whence they are also of opinion that S. Joseph accompanied the Blessed Virgin when she visited Elizabeth, and heard her saluted as Mother of God, and therefore thought himself unworthy of her. This is the opinion of Origen, S. Basil, Theophylact, S. Bernard (Hom. 2 super Missus est). S. Brigit asserts that the same was revealed to her (lib. 7, Revelat. c. 25). Whence Salmeron (lib. 3, c. 30) supports the same opinion by thirteen reasons.<\/p>\n

But, 3, plainly and surely, Joseph, seeing the Blessed Virgin with child, was astonished at the novelty of the thing, and his mind was agitated by contending and fluctuating emotions, and he reasoned somewhat in this way: “I know that this Virgin is most holy, wherefore I do not believe that she has been false to her troth, plighted to me. Still, she is with child, and I know not by me. But by whom I know not. Can it be by a former husband? Or can she have suffered violence on her journey, when she went to visit Elizabeth? Can she have suffered illusion from some spirit during sleep? Or, what would be more consonant with her sanctity, is she with child by an angel, or by the Deity Himself? Well, however the case may be, I am unwilling to retain her, if an angel, or God Himself, desires to have her. Wherefore I will resign her, and put her away from me.”<\/p>\n

God permitted this to take place in order that the conception of the Blessed Virgin by the Holy Ghost might be attested unto all, both by Joseph and by the Angel. Thus God permitted S. Thomas to doubt concerning Christ’s Resurrection, that he, touching Christ’s very wounds, might bear an irrefragable testimony to the same Resurrection.<\/p>\n

Joseph, who was a righteous man, teaches husbands and believers not to suspect evil concerning just and holy persons upon slight grounds, but to wait for proofs. They should not be too ready to infer guilt, but should put the most favourable construction they can upon everything.<\/p>\n

You may ask, why did not Joseph interrogate the Blessed Virgin, wherefore, and by whom she was with child? I reply, that it is merely the first thought which arose in Joseph’s mind, which is referred to, and which, out of modesty, he kept to himself. And he was shortly afterwards anticipated by the Angel, who answered in behalf of the Virgin, and exonerated him by saying that she had conceived by the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

The Blessed Virgin was unwilling, of her own accord, to make known this divine secret to Joseph, in order that she might not seem to boast of her own gifts, so wonderful and so divine; but she confided all to God, and God’s providential care, most certainly trusting that God would defend her good repute and her innocence, and either in His own time open out the whole matter, as she had seen that He had lately done in the case of her cousin Elizabeth, or else would order all things to His own greater glory, and therefore to the greater honour and reverence of this, her conception. From whence, see here and admire the greatness of soul, and the lofty resignation and confidence of the Blessed Virgin in God, whereby she put away from her all this peril and fear of dark suspicion and infamy. And herein she has given a singular example of equanimity and confidence to wives who have jealous husbands, that they, too, should put their trust in God, that God will make clear their innocence and chastity, will protect them, and make them a praise, as he did in this case of the Blessed Virgin. Thus S. Jerome says: “This is the testimony to Mary’s purity, that Joseph, knowing her chastity, and wondering at what had happened, hides in silence the mystery of which he was ignorant.” And S. Ambrose (in Luc. i.) says: “The Lord preferred that some should rather doubt concerning His own generation, than concerning His Mother’s purity.”<\/p>\n

It appears from all this that Joseph did not accompany the Blessed Virgin when she, very shortly after her Conception of Christ, visited S. Elizabeth. For if he had been in her company, and had seen and heard the great and wonderful things which befell her, they would have removed all his scruples, and he would not have thought of putting her away. And especially when S. Elizabeth said to the Blessed Virgin: “Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? He would have known from thence, that not only had she conceived of God, but that she had conceived God Himself, and that she was carrying Him in her womb.<\/p>\n

Observe that Joseph is here called just-that is, a man of probity-forasmuch as he was one who wished, out of charity, to consult for the good fame, yea, even for the dignity of his spouse, when he thinks of putting away privily one whom he thought himself unworthy of. S. Jerome and Theophylact think that husbands were commanded by the old law to traduce and accuse before the judges their wives, if they were guilty of adultery. But they adduce no place in which such a precept is given. For the passage in Num. v. 2 only permits such a thing to be done, but does not order it.<\/p>\n

To make her a public example. Not, to send her away to her own house, as Abul. thinks. For the Greek is, -that is, to disgrace, to defame, or, as S. Augustine (Epist. 59, ad Paulinum) says, rendering literally, “to make an example of.” It was the custom in Crete to lead adulteresses through the midst of the streets, as they did captives at Rome, that they might be gazed at and derided. Whence that ancient punishment by law against bawds: “Let bawds and adulterers be caned through the public streets of the city, that they may be reviled and derided.” And the line of Propertius: “Not even if the infamous one should traverse the whole city.”<\/p>\n

Was minded to put her away privily. By the way of secret divorce, giving her privily a bill of divorcement, as Abul. says on the passage, qust. 39; or rather, and in a more honourable way for her, by leaving her on the plea of travel, as going away into a far country. So Maldonatus. Whence the Syriac translates: “And he thought of leaving her secretly:” and the Arabic, “Since he did not wish to put her to public shame, he thought upon a private dismissal.”<\/p>\n

But while he thought on these things. He had evidently not resolved upon them. For this was his first thought, and, as it were, the first motive of his mind. Behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

Conceived: that is at one and the same time, conceived, formed, and animated, for this is the proper meaning of -that is, begotten, born. See Abul., qust. 52, and S. Thomas, 3 part. qust. 33 & 34, where he teaches that the Body of Christ was in the very instant of its Conception, as regarded all its members, 1, perfectly formed and organized by the Holy Ghost; 2, animated with a reasonable soul; 3, assumed by the WORD. 4. That the soul of Christ was filled with all wisdom, and the grace of that Headship which flows from thence into all the members-i.e., to all the faithful. 5. That the same soul saw God through the Beatific Vision. 6. That the same had the use of reason, even apart from the Beatific Vision, by means of infused knowledge, and that, in this way, It knew that It was hypostatically united to the Word, and therefore gave God highest thanks because of this vision and exaltation: and that God revealed to the soul of Christ His own will, concerning His death upon the Cross, that He might thereby redeem and save mankind; and that the soul of Christ forthwith accepted this, and offered himself to God as a whole burnt-offering, a victim for sin for the salvation of the world, with the utmost humility, obedience, reverence, love, exultation, and joyfulness of mind, saying-“Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me, that I should do thy will. Yea, O my God, I am content to do it: Thy law is written in my heart.” (Ps. xxxix. 8, and Heb. x. 7.)<\/p>\n

She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. If Jesus, as follows from this, is Emmanuel, that is, God with us; if He is the offspring and the Son of Blessed Mary, as is here said, then she is not only Mother of Christ but Mother of God, as defined by the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius. For Mother and Son are relative terms. Moreover, Valentinus is condemned by this passage, who taught that Christ brought down a celestial body from heaven, and passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a conduit-pipe. But she who bears a son is really the mother of the son; and furnishes, and indeed provides his body and all his limbs.<\/p>\n

Jesus, that is, Saviour. This was Christ’s proper name, here foretold by the Angel, but given Him at circumcision, a name which signifies and represents His office and dignity-yea, compendiously His whole life.<\/p>\n

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. The Syriac is: And they shall call his name Amanuil, which is explained, God with us. The Persian has, Immanuil, that is, because God dwelleth in us. The Egyptian version-And they shall give him the name Emmanuel, the interpretation of which is, for God is with us. S. Matthew to the reader, or, as some think, the Angel to Joseph, here brings forward the prophecy in Isa. vii. 14, to signify that it was now being fulfilled in this Conception of the Blessed Virgin, his wife, and would be perfectly fulfilled when she brought forth. And therefore he called Joseph the son of David, because the same thing was promised by God to David. I have fully expounded this prophecy in my commentary on Isa. vii., which see.<\/p>\n

Behold. A word exacting attention, consideration, and admiration. As it were, “Behold, O ye angels, and all mankind, see and admire a new and wonderful thing, a thing unheard of in all ages. For a virgin shall conceive and bring forth Emmanuel, that is, God made man.” Whence Jeremiah, overcome with astonishment at the same event, exclaims (xxxi. 22), “The Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man.”<\/p>\n

Cyrus, the first king of Persia, according to the testimony of Xenophon, never admired, and taught his friends to admire nothing on earth. For this is the mark of a great and a regal mind, to despise all things as being beneath him, as being of less importance than himself. And Seneca said that a wise man admired nothing, because, being above the earth, he despised all things lower than himself. But in Divine matters all things are worthy of admiration; because they are great, yea, the greatest things, especially the mystery of Emmanuel, because it is the great mystery of Divine Godliness, as the Apostle says, 1 Tim. iii. 10. Therefore, the goodness of the great God is a thing to be astonished at and admired. “Who through the bowels of his mercy visited us, the day-spring from on high.” “Behold, therefore, the infant Word, the wise Child, the God-Man,” says S. Bernard. Theologians and contemplative writers teach that we can consider and meditate upon this mystery in various ways, as by the method of compassion, of joy, of thanksgiving, of love, of imitation, but most loftily by wonder, as though we were always stumbling, amazed and astounded at this so great condescension of our God, whereby He deigned to descend to us worms of the earth so as to become a worm with us; and this, not for His own sake, but for ours, that He might unite men as worms to Himself, and make them gods. Thus the Blessed Virgin was amazed, and thus, too, S. Paul, S. Bernard, and Francis, and other especially saintly persons, who plainly and entirely despised the world, and all the things which are in the world, as being petty, brief, and transitory, and fixed their whole love, thought, and amazement on the Word Incarnate, and had their conversation always with Jesus, despising all other things.<\/p>\n

Emmanuel. The Syriac has Amman Elohan-i.e., our God with us; but the word our is not in the Hebrew Emmanuel. From the Syriac it appears possible that S. Matthew, if he wrote in Syriac (as, many think, because the Jews for whom he was writing, in the time of Christ spoke in Syriac), interpreted the Hebrew Emmanuel by the Syriac Emman Eloha, or God with us. Munster, and others who have translated the Gospel of S. Matthew out of Latin into Hebrew, render the single Hebrew word Emmanuel by two, Immanu Elohim.<\/p>\n

Some think that this interpretation was made by the Greek translator, who was followed by the Latin. The French shorten Emmanuel into Noel, which they duplicate and sing at Christmastide. Now, the name Emmanuel signifies the Incarnation of the WORD, and His whole Economy in the Flesh, because by It He was properly and physically God with us, by means of His flesh and His conversation, and ethically by reconciliation and grace. So S. Chrysostom.<\/p>\n

You may say: How is the name Jesus the same as Emmanuel, as S. Matthew here intimates? Tertullian (lib. contra Judos) answers that it is the same in sense if not in sound. For that God should be with us is the same thing as that a Saviour-i.e., Jesus-should be with us. For none other than God could be our Saviour.<\/p>\n

Observe the Hebraism by which called is put for be. He shall be called Emmanuel, that is, He shall be Emmanuel. This is by the figure of speech metonymy, to which the following passages are clearly similar: Jer. xxiii. 6, Zech. viii. 3, and Is. ix. 6-“And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God: the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace.” For all these things are signified, either explicitly or implicitly by the name of Jesus.<\/p>\n

Note, also, that Christ is not called by Matthew and Isaiah Emmanu Jehovah, or Emmanu Adonai or Elohim, though all these are names of God, because Jehovah connotes the essence of God, or signifies God as He is the first, chief, and uncircumscribable Entity, from whom all other entities derive their existence. Adonai connotes the dominion of God, and signifies God as He is the Ruler, the Judge, and the Avenger of all things. But El connotes the might and omnipotence of God, and signifies God as He is strong and omnipotent, because God manifested His utmost might and power in the Incarnation, and in Christ, for through Christ He hath vanquished His strongest enemies, even the devils, hell, death, and sin, yea, and all sins and vices, however many and however great. Whence, also, the Angel who announced this mystery, was called Gabriel-i.e., the strength of God.<\/p>\n

Hence, also, tropologically, observe: God is with us, not only in essence, presence, and power, as He is in all and every creature; but by the Incarnation He is also with us truly, properly, and really, as a Brother, living, speaking with us in the human nature assumed by Him, Therefore-2, He is with us, as a Head with its members. For Christ, as the Head of the faithful, causes to flow into them spiritual sense and motion, together with direction and government. 3. The Same, being Incarnate, is with us in the Eucharist, as it were our Food, feeding us with his own Flesh, and giving us to drink of His own Blood. So far, physically. 4. Christ, ethically, is with the Church as a bridegroom with a bride, assisting, protecting, sustaining, adorning, making her fruitful. Whence the Psalmist: “For though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me.” (Ps. xxii. 4.) Therefore the believer, in every difficulty, labour, or tribulation, invokes Emmanuel, that is, God with us, conversant in our flesh. And joyfully he cries, “The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall lack nothing. He shall lead me in a green pasture, and lead me forth beside the waters of comfort.” And, Ps. xxvii. 1, “The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom, then, shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? If armies in camp should stand together against me, my heart shall not fear; if a battle should rise up against me, in this will I be confident.” And with Paul, “If God be for us, who is against us?” so now, to any believer, but especially to a saint or a martyr, it is lawful to say what the Angel said to Gideon, “The Lord is with thee, O most valiant man.” (Judges vi. 12.)<\/p>\n

And Joseph rising from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: that is, did not put her away, but retained her with him, for this was what the Angel commanded him.<\/p>\n

And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name Jesus.<\/p>\n

1. S. Hilary, in loc., cited by S. Thomas in Catena, Dionys. Carthus., and Gagneius expound as follows: As the Jews were not able to look upon and recognize the face of Moses on account of the rays of light which God had, as it were, breathed into him when He talked with him on Mount Sinai, so neither was Joseph able to look upon and to know the Blessed Virgin, forasmuch as she had God in her womb, and therefore her face was most radiant. But after Christ was born, this glory and effulgence left her face, and then she could be seen and known by Joseph.<\/p>\n

2. On the contrary S. Epiphanius, Hresi 30-that is, his treatise against the Ebionites-expounds thus: Joseph knew her not in mind. He did not discover the sanctity and the dignity of the Blessed Virgin, his wife, until she brought forth Christ. But these expositions are either incorrect or else symbolical and mystical.<\/p>\n

3. According, therefore, to the true literal meaning, to know one’s wife signifies in Scripture the conjugal act. This, therefore, is excluded with reference to Christ, so as to signify that He was not conceived of Joseph, but by the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

Until. From hence the heretics have taken occasion to say that Joseph knew her after she had brought forth her Son. Whence they deny that the Blessed Virgin always remained a Virgin, and that after bearing her Child she lost her virginity. Thus Helvidius, Jovinian, the Ebionites, and the rest of the Antidicomariani, who are confuted by S. Epiphanius, S. Jerome, S. Augustine and others, who teach that the word until, in this place, only signifies what took place up to the time of the birth, not what happened after the birth, which is not here referred to. For by this word until, Matthew wished to assert a wonderful thing-a thing hitherto unheard of, and, according to nature, incredible-even the Conception of Christ, without a father, by a virgin mother. Similarly, until is used, Psa 110:1., “Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool,” not because Thou shalt not after that sit any longer, but because Thou shalt then sit far more gloriously, as victor and triumphant at my right hand. And in Mat 5:26, “Thou shalt not go out from thence until thou shalt pay the last farthing;” that is, thou shalt never come out from the fire of hell. And 2Sa 6:23, “Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death,” i.e., never. And, Gen 8:7, concerning the raven, which Noah sent forth out of the ark: “Which went forth and did not return until the waters were dried up;” i.e., it never returned. Thus, too, we say, “S. Agnes continued a virgin until death;” i.e., she always remained a virgin, for she could not lose her virginity after she was dead.<\/p>\n

You may urge, S. Matthew says, until she brought forth her firstborn son; therefore she had other sons, by Joseph, namely those who in the Gospel are called the Lord’s brethren. I reply by denying the conclusion. For, in Scripture, any one is called a first-born son, who has no elder brothers, even though he be an only son. This is plain from Exo 4:22, and 14:2. The word “first” denies the existence of any previous sons, but does not require, or presuppose, that there were any subsequent. Thus, an only son is even now called the first-born.<\/p>\n

Therefore it is a doctrine of the faith that the Blessed Virgin always remained a virgin, as is plain from S. Luk 1:34, Eze 44:2, and by the universal consent of the Fathers, and the common consent, and perpetual tradition of the Church. (See S. Jerome, contra Helvid., init. tom. 2.) <\/p>\n

*Limum, lit. mud, slime. (Return to the place .) <\/p>\n

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1:18 Now the birth of (2) Jesus Christ was thus: His mother, Mary, that is, having been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of [the] Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

(2) Christ is the true Emmanuel, and therefore, Jesus (that is, Saviour) is conceived in the virgin by the Holy Spirit, as foretold by the prophets.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

B. The King’s birth 1:18-25<\/span><\/p>\n

The first sentence in this pericope (section) serves as a title for the section, as the sentence in Mat 1:1 did for Mat 1:1-17. Matthew recorded the supernatural birth of Jesus to demonstrate further His qualification as Israel’s Messiah. He wanted to show that Mary could not have become pregnant by another man. These verses show how Jesus came to be the heir of Joseph and thus qualified to be Israel’s King.<\/p>\n

"Matthew ultimately is arguing that Jesus recapitulates the pattern of Israel’s experience while also presenting him as Israel’s hope." [Note: Bock, Jesus according . . ., p. 64.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Jewish law regarded an engaged couple as virtually married. Usually women married at about 13 or 14 years of age, [Note: France, p. 50.] <\/span> and their husbands were often several years older. Normally a one-year period of waiting followed the betrothal before the consummation of the marriage. During that year the couple could only break their engagement with a divorce.<\/p>\n

". . . a betrothed girl was a widow if her fiance<\/span> died (Kethub. i.2), and this whether the man had ’taken’ her into his house or not. After betrothal, therefore, but before marriage, the man was legally ’husband’ . . ." [Note: M’Neile, pp. 6-7.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Joseph, being a "righteous" (Gr. dikaios<\/span>) man, could hardly let his fiancée’s pregnancy pass without action since it implied that she had been unfaithful and had violated the Mosaic Law. Joseph had three choices concerning how to proceed. First, he could expose Mary publicly as unfaithful. In this case she might suffer stoning, though that was rare in the first century. [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 75.] <\/span> Probably she would have suffered the shame of a public divorce (Deu 22:23-24). A second option was to grant her a private divorce in which case Joseph needed only to hand her a written certificate in the presence of two witnesses (cf. Num 5:11-31). [Note: Edersheim, 1:154.] <\/span> His third option was to remain engaged and not divorce Mary, but this alternative appeared to Joseph to require him to break the Mosaic Law (Lev 20:10). He decided to divorce her privately. This preserved his righteousness (i.e., his conformity to the Law) and allowed him to demonstrate compassion.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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. 18. Jesus ] see Mat 1:21. Christ (anointed)] The title of Jesus as Prophet, Priest and King; for among the Jews, Prophets, Priests … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:18”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23172","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}