Matthew 1
DODDMatthew 1:1-17
Parallels: Luke 3
The genealogy of Christ from Abraham, as recorded by Matthew and from Adam, as recorded by Luke. Mat. I. 1—17. Luke III. 23. to the end.
MAT. I. 1.
BEFORE we proceed to the birth of this Divine Infant, whose conception was so very remarkable, it will be proper to give some account of his descent according to the flesh. And we shall therefore introduce it with a table of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, which is intended, not only as an introduction to his history, but more especially to shew that he was the son of David, and the son of Abraham, as it was often foretold the Messiah should be. (Compare Psa. cxxxii. 11; Isa. xi. 1; Jer. xxiii. 5; xxxiii. 15; and Gen. xii. 3; xxii. 18; xxvi. 4; xxviii. 14.)
Now it is well known that Abraham, that renowned patriarch, and friend of God, from whom the whole Jewish nation had the honour to descend, begat Isaac in his old age, that son of Sarah, according to the promise, with whom God’s covenant was established; and Isaac begat Jacob, on whom also it was entailed in preference to Esau, though his elder brother; and Jacob begat Judah and his eleven brethren, who became the heads of their respective tribes.
And as Judah was the person to whom that extraordinary promise was made, that his descendants should continue a distinct tribe, with
In his sacred cause.) There was, humanly speaking, a probability that Joseph might have brought some suspicion on his character or reflection on his family by admitting Mary in these circumstances.
The genealogy of Jesus Christ.) I am well aware that the word yue, and the Hebrew TILEDETH which corresponds to it, sometimes signifies the history of a person’s life (as well as other things.) and not merely his genealogy; (compare Gen. i. 9; xxxvii. 2; Judith xii. 18; Jam. i. 28;
and iii. 6. Gr.) and that the learned Vitringa understands it so in this place: (See Vitringa. Observ. Sacr. lib. i. dissert. i. pag. 39.) Yet, as it is much more frequently used in the latter sense (see Gen. v. 1; x. 1; xi. 10—27; xxv. 12; xxxvi. 1, 9; Numb. i. 20, &c; and Ruth iv. 18; in all which places it is applied to genealogies,) I think it best, with the learned Dr. Scott, to render it as above; only giving a little hint of the more extensive sense the word may possibly bear.
as recorded by St. Matthew.
some form of government amongst them, till Shiloh, that is, the Messiah, cameᵇ (Gen. xlix. 10,) and as it was from him that Christ descended, we shall confine ourselves to the line of his posterity. We therefore add that Judah begat Pharez and at the same time Zarah his twin brother, of Thamar, who had been his son’s wife; and Pharez begat Esrom, and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminidab, and Aminidab begat Naasson, who was prince of the tribe of Judah when the people were numbered and marshalled at mount Sinai (Numb. i. 7; x. 14;) and Naasson begat Salmon.
And, after their settlement in Canaan, Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab,ᶜ who had been a native of that country, but entertained the spies at Jericho, and afterwards embracing the Jewish religion, had the honour to be thus incorporated with this noble family; and Boaz their son begat Obed of Ruth, the Moabitess,ᵈ who had so resolutely chosen to adhere to the God and people of Israel; and Obed, in a very advanced age, begat Jesse:ᵉ And Jesse begat, besides several elder children, David, the celebrated king of Israel, who was favoured with the title of “The man after God’s own heart,” and had an ex-
ᵇ Till Shiloh, that is, the Messiah, came.] This sense of Jacob’s prophecy is so beautifully illustrated and so strongly asserted by the learned Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London, in his Discourses on Prophecy, Dissert. 3, p. 317, &c. that, if I was writing on this passage of the Old Testament, I should have little to do but to refer my reader to it.
ᶜ Of Rahab.] It is not indeed expressly said she was Rahab of Jericho, commonly called the harlot; but I think there can be no room to doubt it, as we know she was contemporary with Salmon, and may conclude that she (this Rahab) was, as all the other women mentioned in this list, a remarkable person. Now there was no other of that name, especially of this age, of whom the compiler of this table could (so far as we can judge) suppose his reader to have any knowledge.
ᵈ Boaz begat Obed of Ruth, the Moabitess.] The son of a Moabite, by an Israelitish woman, could never be allowed to enter into the congregation of the Lord: that is, at least he was rendered incapable of be-
ing a prince in Israel, and perhaps even of being naturalized by circumcision; which may be the meaning of the phrase, Deut. xxiii. 3. (See Mr. Lowman’s Hebrew Government, p. 130, &c. seq.) But it evidently appears, from this celebrated instance, that this precept was not understood as excluding the descendants of an Israelite by a Moabitish woman from any hereditary honours and privileges; otherwise, surely, Salmon, the son of Naasson, prince of Judah, would never have married Rahab, one of the accursed people of Canaan; nor would the kinsman of Boaz have wanted a much better reason than he assigned (Ruth iv. 6) for refusing to marry Ruth when she became a widow.
ᵉ Obed, in a very advanced age, begat Jesse.] That Salmon, Boaz, and Obed, must each of them have been about an hundred years old at the birth of his son here recorded, hath been observed by many, and is well accounted for by Dr. Whitby in particular: Annot. on ver. 4.
The genealogy Christ,
press promise that the Messiah should descend from him: (compare 2 Sam. vii. 12—16; and Acts ii. 30.) And David the king begat Solomon of Bathsheba, who had before been [the wife] of Uriah the Hittite: and, though that holy man, in this unhappy affair, acted in a way most unworthy his character, yet God, on his deep repentance, graciously forgave him, and entailed the promise on his seed by her.
And, to go forward therefore with the genealogy according to this line, Solomon begat Rehoboam, from whose government the ten tribes revolted under Jeroboam the son of Nebat; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa, whose reign was so long and prosperous: And Asa begat the good Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Jehoram, who unhappily dishonoured the holy family by an alliance with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab, 2 Kings viii. 18.
And (to omit Ahaziah, the son of that wicked woman, whose impieties and cruelties rendered her so infamous, 2 Chron. xxiv. 7; the ungrateful Joash, her grandson, who murdered Zechariah the prophet, the son of his great benefactor Jehoiada, 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21, 22; and Amaziah, his son, who succeeded him) Jehoram, at the distance of the fourth generation, may be said to have begat Uzziah the leper. And Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat that wicked Ahaz, who, instead of being reformed by the chastising hand of God, trespassed yet more and more against him. 2 Chron. xxviii. 22, and Ahaz begat the religious Hezekiah, that distinguished favourite of heaven: And Hezekiah begat Manasseh, so remarkable once for his enormous wickedness and afterwards for his humble repentance; and Manasseh begat that infamous and hardened sinner, Amon; and Amon begat Josiah, that eminently pious prince, whose heart was so early and so tenderly
Jehoram may be said to have begat Uzziah.] It is undeniably evident, from 2 Chron. chap. xxii. and following, that three princes are here omitted. If this table was taken from any public records amongst the Jews, the evangelist does not seem responsible for the exactness of it; but, if he himself drew it up, I think it
will be but modest in us to suppose that it was by some peculiar divine direction that the sin of Jehoram is thus animated by the very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
as recor e y t. atthew.
And Jasias begat Jeconiah and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
And after they were brought to Babylon. Jechonias be-
impressed with an apprehension of God’s approaching judgments: And Josiah begat Jehoiakim and his royal brethren, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, who both of them were kings of Judah, the former predecessor to Jehoiakim, and the latter the successor of his son: and, about the time of the Babylonish captivity, Jehoiakim begat Jehoiachin, otherwise called Jeconiah, who was so long the prisoner of the Chaldeans.
And, after the Babylonish captivity, commenced, this Jeconiah begat Salathiel; and Salathiel
be well understood without a very exact knowledge of the preceding history.
b Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah.] I here follow the reading of the Bodleian and other manuscripts, (notice of which is taken in the margin of our Bibles) Ἰωτικὰ ἐν ἐγένετο τὸν Ἰωτικὴν· Ἰωτικὴν ἂν ἐγένετο τὸν Ἰεζονίαν. And this indeed seems absolutely necessary, to keep up the number of fourteen generations; unless we suppose that the Jeconiah here is a different person from that Jeconiah mentioned in the next verse, which seems a very unreasonable supposition, since it is certain that throughout this whole table, each person is mentioned twice, first as the son of the preceding and then as the father of the following. I am obliged to the candid animad version of Dr. Scott for the small alteration I have made in my reading of this verse from what was published in the first edition.
i Jeconiah begat Salathiel.] I cannot take upon me certainly to determine whether Salathiel was the son of Jeconiah by descent or adoption. It is certain that Luke (chap. iii. 27) derives Salathiel, from David, by Nathan, and not by Solomon, whose line might possibly fail in Jeconiah. And this would be most evidently congruous to Jerem. xxii. 30; where it is said that Jeconiah should be written childless, as we render it: But, as the dispersion of Jeconiah’s seed is there threatened, and at least seven sons of his are reckoned up elsewhere, 1 Chron. iii. 17, 18, (supposing Aesir, as the word signifies, to be only a kind of surname of Jeconiah the captive) a greater number than one could suppose so unhappy a prince would adopt in his imprisonment, I should rather think the word, translated childless in the forecited prophecy, signifies (as the Seventy suppose, who have translated it) ἐκκρυπλοῦν, naked, stripped, or rooted up; and the more so, because it seems harsh
The genealogy of Christ,
begat Zerubbabel, that illustrious instrument of restoring and settling the Jewish commonwealth on their return from the captivity: And Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim: and Eliakim begat Azor: And Azor begat Zadok; and Zadok begat Achim: and Achim begat Eliud: And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob: And this Jacob begat Joseph, who was the husband of Mary, that blessed virgin, of whom was born, by the immediate power of God, Jesus, who is commonly called Christ, as he was indeed God’s Messiah, or anointed One; the great Sovereign, and Prophet, and High Priest of his Church, completely furnished for the discharge of all those offices by a most plentiful effusion of the Spirit which was given, not by measure to him.
This is the genealogy of his reputed father
to suppose synonyms should signify only he adopted: Yet I own it is something strange that Salathiel, who on this supposition was a descendant of Solomon, should be adopted by Neri, a descendant of Nathan, a younger and much inferior branch of David’s family; or that it should be said by Jeremiah that none of Jeconiah’s seed should rule any more in Judah, if Zerubbabel, their first ruler after the captivity, was at farthest but his great grandson. On the whole, I submit so difficult a question to the determination of abler judges, and content myself with thus hinting at what I found most material on either side. If the two genealogies do not speak of different persons that were named alike, I should conjecture that Salathiel, the son of Neri, might marry the daughter of Jeconiah, and might possibly, on that account, be also adopted by him. The attentive reader will see that this hypothesis at least softens the difficulties inseparable from either of the former.
Salathiel begat Zerubbabel.] This illustrious person, Zerubbabel, is so often said to have been the son of Salathiel, or Shealtiel, which is so nearly the same, (and accordingly the Syriack here reads Schaltiel) see Ezra iii. 2, 8; v. 2; Hag. i. 1. 12, 14; ii. 23; that I incline more and more to think, with Brenius, that the Zerubbabel mentioned, 1 Chron. iii. 17—19, as the son of Pedaiah the brother of Salathiel, was a different person from this. As the name Zerubbabel si nities
a stranger in Babylon, it is no wonder that it should be given to several children born in the captivity. If this solution be not allowed, I see not how the known difficulty here can be removed unless by acknowledging that the books of Chronicles (the author of which is unknown) may have suffered by the injuries of time, so that the present reading of some passages may be incorrect; which is very consistent with owning the plenary inspiration those books. By allowing this we should fairly get rid of two parts in three of the seeming contradictions in the writings of the Old Testament, (I speak on an accurate review of them,) and should be free from the sad necessity of such excessive criticisms, as are more likely to pain a candid heart than to satisfy an attentive and penetrating mind. The omission of a word or two in a genealogical table, and sometimes the mistake of a letter or two in transcribing, especially with regard to names or numbers, occasions many inextricable difficulties where, in the original reading, a might be perfectly clear.
1 Zerubbabel begat Abiud.) Rhesa, mentioned by Luke, chap. iii. verse 27, was probably another son of Zerubbabel. Abiud might possibly be the same with Meshulam, whose name is mentioned in 1 Chron. iii. 12; or perhaps he and his descendants falling into obscurity, their names might be no where preserved but in this genealogy of Joseph’s family, which the evangelist transcribed as he found it.
as recorded by St. Luke:
so that we see, as it here stands, that all the generations, in the first interval or class of this illustrious family, from Abraham to David, when we may look upon it as in its rising state, are fourteen generations: and after these, in the next class, from David to the Babylonish captivity, when it was seated on the throne, and may be reckoned as in its flourishing state, we may compute them as amounting to the same number; and, to consider them as they are represented here, they may again be counted fourteen generations: and, in like manner, in the last class, from the Babylonish captivity to Christ, when by degrees it sunk into obscurity, and manifestly was in its declining state, then also we may reckon them as fourteen generations.
LUKE III. 23.
But, though we have thus given the legal genealogy of Christ from Abraham, as derived from Joseph his reputed father, we shall yet add another that ascends to Adam; and this is the account which Luke hath given us in his gospel; where, after he had spoken of the baptism of Jesus when he was beginning [his public ministry,] and was about thirty years of age, he traces his descent in the line of Mary, whose father Heli adopting Joseph, whom he made his son in law, the descent of Joseph may on that account be reckoned from him, and so is in effect the same with that of Mary. Christ there-
m They may be counted fourteen generations.] I express it with this latitude, as it is manifest that three persons are omitted in the second class between Jehoram and Uzziah, ver. 8; and it is only by counting them as here represented that they make fourteen generations. And if, according to the reading of the Bodleian, Jehoiakim be introduced in ver. 11, and considered as the last of this class, (which seems the better reading, as Jeconiah does not appear to have had any brethren,) Jeconiah will thus be reserved for the third class, which otherwise would want one person to complete the number.
n In the line of Mary.] I am aware that Mr. Le Clerc and many other learned men have thought that Joseph was begotten by Heli, and adopted by Jacob: but I much rather conclude that he was
adopted by Heli, or rather taken by him for his son upon the marriage of his daughter, and that Heli was the father of Mary; because an ancient Jewish Rabbi expressly calls her the daughter of Heli; and chiefly, because else we have indeed no true genealogy of Christ at all, but only two different views of the line of Joseph his reputed father; which would by no means prove that Christ, who was only by adoption his son, was of the seed Abraham and of the house of David. Yet the apostle speaks of it as evident that Christ was descended from Judah, Heb. vii. 14; in which, if this gospel were (as antiquity assures us) written by the direction of Paul, perhaps he may refer to this very table before us. (See Mr. Whiston’s Harmony of the four Evangelists, Prop. xvi, p. 175, & seq.)
The genealogy of Christ,
fore being born of Mary after her espousals, which being (as was supposed) the son of IX. may be considered, upon this account, to be (as Luke at that time he commonly was reckoned) the the son of Heli, 24 III.23 son of Joseph, who, by adoption, or rather by Which was the son of the marriage of his daughter, was the son of Matthat, which was 24 Heli, The son of Matthat, the son of Levi, was the son of Melthe son of Melchi, the son of Jannah, the chi, which was the 25 son of Joseph, The son of Mattathias, the son of Janna, which son of Amos the son of Nahum, the son of Eli, was the son of Jo- 26 the son of Naggia, The son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, of Mattathias, the son of Shimei, the son of which was the son of 27 Joseph, the son of Judah, The son of Johan- Amos, which was nah, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the the son of Nahum, 28 son of Salathiel, the son of Neri, The son of Esli, which was the Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Nagge, 26 29 son of Elmodam, the son of Er, The son of Maath, which of Joses, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, was the son of Matta- 30 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, The son of thias, which was the Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Semei, which 31 son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, The son of seph, which was the Meleah, the son of Mainon, the son of Mattathias on of Juda, 27 as, the son of Nathan, the son of that celebrated Which was the son of king of Israel, David, the man after God’s own of Joanna, which 32 heart, The son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the sa, which was the son of Rheson of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Naas- son of Zorobabel, 33 son, The son of Aminadab, the son of Aram, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Esrom, the son of Pharez, the son of the son of Neri, 28 34 Judah, The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, Which was the son of Melchi, which who was, according to the promise, the son of was the son of Addi, that honourable patriarch Abraham, the son of which was the son of 35 Terah, the son of Nahor, The son of Serug, Cosam, which was the son of Ragau, or Reu, the son of Peleg, the the son of Elmodam, 36 son of Heber, the son of Salah, The son of Er, 29 Which was Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Pharez, which was the son of Judah, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
o Joseph, who by adoption, or rather by James, the son of Matthan. See Mat. i. the marriage of his daughter, was the son 15, 16. of Heli.] It is necessary to take the words p The son of Neri.] See the latter part in this latitude, because the true father of of note i, page 69. Joseph appears to have been Jacob or q The son of Cainan.] There is no
as recorded by St. Luke.
the son of Noah, with whom he was preserved in the ark, and it is well known that Noah was the son of Lamech. The son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, who was translated without dying, and was the son of Fared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan. The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, who, being descended from no human parents, but formed by the immediate power of a Divine Creating Hand, might, with peculiar propriety, be called [the son] of God, in his original state the heir of immortality and glory.
which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, God.
IMPROVEMENT.
Every any such series of generations, it is obvious that the leaves of a tree, one passeth away and anthe earth still abideth, and with it the goodness which runs on from generation to generation, the parents and children.
Formerly lived upon earth, and perhaps made the figure among the children of men, how many whose names have perished with them! and from nothing but their names are remaining! living away, and thus shall we be shortly forgotten. we are forgotten of men, we are remembered names are found written in the book of life! There much brighter appearance than in the records they would do even in such a catalogue of those to Christ according to the flesh; whose memory
mention made of this Cainan in either of the genealogies that Moses gives us, Gen. x. 24; and xi. 12; but Salah is there said to be the son of Arphaxad. Cainan must therefore have been introduced here from the translation of the seventy interpreters, who have inserted him in both these places in the same order as we find him here; and, as this translation was then commonly used and was more generally understood than the Hebrew, it is probable that some transcriber of this gospel added Cainan from that version, unless we suppose that Luke himself might choose, in writing this genealogy, to follow the Septuagint, as he appears to do in several other passages that he has quoted from the Old Testament. Nor is it, after all, a point of any consequence, as the design of the Evangelist was only to present us with the genealogy of Christ in its ascent to Adam, which is equally clear whether we reckon Salah as
the immediate descendant of Arphaxad or whether we consider him as his grand son by Cainan. And much less reason is there to object to the apparent difference there is between the names that Luke has given us and those we meet with of the same persons in the Old Testament: This is no more than what is usual when the same names are mentioned in a different language; nor will the Greek admit them to be so expressed as to agree exactly with the Hebrew. But, to avoid confusion, I have rather chosen, both in the former genealogy and this, to give the names that are delivered in the Old Testament, as they are written in the Hebrew, to which our language will admit us to come nearer than the Greek could do, and which must be allowed to be the more exact and true method of pronouncing them. Compare Gen. v. 3, 15 seq. xi. 10-27; and 1 Chron. i. 1-27.
Reflections on the genealogy of Christ.
is here preserved, when that of many, who were once the wonder and terror of the mighty in the land of the living, is lost in perpetual oblivion.
Mat. We observe, among these ancestors of Christ, some that were heathens, and others that, on different accounts, were of infamous characters; and perhaps it might be the design of Providence that we should learn from it, or at least should, on reading it, take occasion to reflect that persons of all nations, and even the chief of sinners amongst them, are encouraged to trust in him as their Saviour. To him therefore let us look even from the ends of the earth, yea from the depths of guilt and distress, and the consequence will be happy beyond all expression or conception.
Luke Adam, though originally the Son of God, lost that inheritance of life and glory which, in consequence of such a relation, he might reasonably have expected; but the second Adam repairs the loss which we had sustained by the transgression of the first. We are now predestinated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, and raised by him to the hope of a fairer inheritance than the terrestrial Paradise. Let it be our daily labour to secure this invaluable blessing; that so, as we have borne the image of the earthly Adam, we may in due time, bear the image of the heavenly, and at length attain to the perfect manifestation of the sons of God.
Matthew 1:18
Joseph’s suspicions concerning Mary removed by an angel to him. Mat. I. 18, to the e
MAT. I. 18.
AND now, having given an account of the birth of John, afterwards surnamed the Baptist, we proceed to that of JESUS CHRIST, the great subject of our history, which was attended with the most surprising circumstances, and was thus introduced. His mother Mary being contracted to Joseph, according to the method of the Jewish espousals, before they came to cohabit together as man and wife, she was found to be with child; and this pregnancy was (as we have been informed above) by the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit. Now Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, perceiving there was something very extraordinary in the case, and being by no means willing to expose her unto public infamy by any severe prosecution, never-
a A righteous man.] It is without any just reason that this text is often assigned as an instance where the word S. 1000 is used to signify merciful, and some accordingly have here translated it a good-natured man. If we consider the information which Joseph might have received from persons of such an extraordinary character as Zacharias and Elizabeth, (who would certainly think themselves obliged to interpose on such an occasion, and whose story so remarkably carried its own evidence along with it) besides the intimation the prophecy of Isaiah gave, and the satisfaction he undoubtedly had, in the virtuous character of Mary herself, we must conclude that he had acted a very severe and unrighteous part had he proceeded to extremities without serious deliberation: and that putting her away privately would, in these circumstances, have been the hardest measure which justice would have suffered him to take.
b To expose her unto public infamy.] It is very possible a great man may here refer to that exemplary punishment which the law inflicted on those who had violated the faith of their espousals before the marriage was completed: Deut. xxii. 23, 24; where it is expressly ordered that a betrothed virgin, if she lay with another man, should be stoned. We may suppose, however, that the infamy of a public divorce, though she had not been stoned, ma
is suspicions remove y an ang .
theless was so confounded with the concurrence of the strange circumstances that attended this affair, as that, in order to secure the honour of his own character, and to behave with all the tenderness that might be to a person that he loved, he purposed to himself to have divorced her as privately as the law of Moses would have allowed, that is, only in the presence of two witnesses, and without assigning any particular cause.
And as he was revolving these things in his mind during the night season, full of the thoughts of what he was to do, he fell asleep; and, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said unto him, Joseph, thou son of David, (as being lineally descended from him) fear not to take home Mary thy wife, according to the espousals that have passed between you, though there may seem some danger of bringing a reflection on thyself and family; for that which is begotten and formed in her, is of no human original, but was produced by the miraculous and unexampled operation of the Holy Spirit himself. And, in consequence of it, when her time is fulfilled, she shall bring forth a son; and thou, under whose protection and care he shall be placed during his infancy, shalt call his name Jesus, that is, God the Saviour; for he shall prove that glorious and divine person intended by God to save his people, even all that truly believe in him, both from the punishment and the dominion of their sins, by procuring an ample pardon for them, and raising them, after a life of holiness on earth, to a state of complete perfection and happiness.
the same word. But as a private kind of reason was assigned as not forfeited, as in and by this she would be famed. See Selden. xvi. p. 302, 365, 366. Heb. in loc. [ord.] Probably Gant to Zacharias and his scruple did not the fathers supposed, son, appears from the should take Mary, would have been the
Call his name Jesus.] Bishop Pearson seems to have set the etymology of this name in the clearest light, in his large discourse on it, (Pearson on the Creed, p. 69-71) in which he endeavours to prove that JAH, one of the names of God, enters into the composition of the Hebrew name, Jehoshuah, to which Jesus answers. (Compare Heb. iv. 8; where, by the way, I think it should have been rendered if Joshua had given them rest.) This derivation most plainly shews how Christ’s being called Jesus was in effect an accomplishment of the prophecy that he should be called Emmanuel.
Joseph takes home Mary his wife.
Now all this was done (that is, this miraculous conception, together with all the circumstances proper to attend it, was effected) that this celebrated prophecy might be accomplished which the Lord had so long before spoken by the prophet Isaiah, (Is. vii. 14) who said to the house of David in the reign of Ahaz, when it seemed in the utmost danger of being destroyed, “Behold, and attend to it with a becoming regard, while I assure you that God will accomplish a yet nobler work than what he is ready to perform in your deliverance from Pekah and the son of Tabeal; for an unspotted virgin, descended many ages hence from this royal family now to be rescued, shall, in a miraculous manner, conceive and bring forth a Son; and they shall call his name Immanuel;” which, being translated, signifies God with us, that is, God dwelling in our nature, on the most gracious and important design; a name in signification nearly equivalent to that of Jesus.
Then Joseph arising from his sleep, with entire satisfaction and humble acknowledgment, did as the angel of the Lord had appointed him; and, without any farther delay, took home Mary his wife. Nevertheless, in expectation of this wonderful event, and out of reverence to this sacred birth, he knew her not as a wife, though she dwelt under his roof; but she continued a pure virgin even till she had brought forth her divinely begotten Son, who, on account of his
That this prophecy might be accomplished.] Few are strangers to the objections which have been made against applying this prophecy to Christ, which drove Grotius and many others unhappily to suppose that it immediately related to the birth of a child of Isaiah’s in a natural way, and only in a secondary sense referred to Christ. The controversy is too large for this place. I content myself with observing that a son’s being born of one then a virgin, when she was married, was no such miraculous event as to answer such a pompous introduction; and that it seems most reasonable to interpret Isa. vii. 16, as referring to Shearjashub, whom Isaiah was ordered to take in his hand (ver. 3) for no other imaginable reason. At that something remarkable was to be
said to him. So that the general sense, in short, is this: “You have affronted God by refusing a sign now; yet his transcendent mercy will make your present forfeited deliverance, (by the death of these confederate kings, which shall happen before (HANAHAR) this child in my hand is grown up to the exercise of reason) a sign of a much nobler deliverance by the Messiah, who shall be born of an immaculate virgin, and condescend to pass through the tender scenes of infancy as other children do.” Compare Isaiah vii. 10-16. And see Bishop Chandler’s excellent remarks on this text, in his Defence of Christianity, page 325-331; Mr. Green’s 4th Letter to Mr. Collins; and Usher’s Annals, A. M. 3262.
The genealogy of Christ from Abraham,
firstborn Son; and he called his name Jesus.
distinguished glories, with peculiar propriety might be called the firstborn: And, according to the direction of the angel, he called his name Jesus. But several other circumstances, relating to this important event, will afterwards be recounted.
IMPROVEMENT.
WE see here, in Joseph, an excellent pattern of gentleness and prudence. In an affair which appeared dubious, he chose, as we should always do, rather to err on the favourable than on the severe extreme. He was careful to avoid any precipitate steps; and, in the moments of deliberation, God interposed to guide and determine his resolves.
With what wonder and pleasure did he receive these glad tidings! With what pleasure should we also receive them! For we too are informed of Jesus who came to save his people from their sins. An important and glorious salvation indeed! Hosannah to him that cometh in the name of the Lord! Blessed Jesus! answer thy character in delivering us not only from sin’s condemning, but from its reigning power!
Let our souls bow to Emmanuel, our incarnate God: and, while with holy wonder we survey the various scenes of his humiliation, let us remember too his native dignity and his divine glory. By him God hath fulfilled his ancient promises, in the most ample and glorious manner, in the fulness of time sending forth his Son, made of a woman, and sprung like a tender shoot from the decayed stock of David his servant.
While we study the oracles of the Old Testament, let us with pleasure trace the notices of the great Messiah there, even of Jesus, to whom all the prophets gave witness. May his name be ever in-
I Till she had brought forth her Son, the firstborn.] There seems to be some peculiar emphasis in the expression, τον υἱοὶ ἀνὶς τὸν ἀφιλοῖον, which justifies the turn I have given to the words. Compare Luke ii. 7; (where the very same words are used with a remarkable exactness;) Rom. viii. 29; Col. i. 15; and Heb. i. 6. Though I confess the force of the learned and candid Dr. Daniel Scott’s remarks on this note to be such as to convince me that this expression might have been used with regard to the firstborn son of any family, and, consequently, that no certain argument of Christ’s superior dignity and glory can be drawn from it, yet, from the pen of one so deeply impressed with the thought of it as Luke as well as Matthew was, I think it may probably contain some
reference to it. On what terms Joseph and Mary afterwards lived is of so little importance to us, that I cannot but wonder it should have been the subject of so much debate. It is sufficient for us to know that she was a virgin, not only at the time of Christ’s conception, but at his birth, as the prophecy foretold she should be. The evangelist therefore wisely contented himself with recording this, without affirming any thing farther either way on this delicate subject: I say, either way, for that the manner of expression here used will not certainly prove that Mary had more children afterwards, appears from comparing Gen. xxvii. 15; 1 Sam. xv. 35; Job xxvii. 5; Psal. cx. 1; cxii. 8; and Mat. xii. 20.
The genealogy of Christ from Abraham,
scribed upon our hearts ! In that name may we lift up our banners and judge those reproaches a glory which we may meet with in his sacred cause !