<hi type="bold">5. I send you Elijah--</hi>as a means towards your "remembering the law" (Mal 4:4).

<hi type="bold">the prophet--</hi>emphatical; not "the Tishbite"; for it is in his official, not his personal capacity, that his coming is here predicted. In this sense, John the Baptist was an Elijah in spirit (<reference osisRef="Luke.1.16">Lu 1:16</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.1.17">17</reference>), but not the literal Elijah; whence when asked, "Art thou Elias?" (<reference osisRef="John.1.21">Joh 1:21</reference>), He answered, "I am not." "Art thou that prophet?" "No." This implies that John, though knowing from the angel's announcement to his father that he was referred to by Mal 4:5 (<reference osisRef="Luke.1.17">Lu 1:17</reference>), whence he wore the costume of Elijah, yet knew by inspiration that he did not exhaustively fulfil all that is included in this prophecy: that there is a further fulfilment (compare Note, see on Mal 3:1). As Moses in Mal 4:4 represents the law, so Elijah represents the prophets. The Jews always understood it of the literal Elijah. Their saying is, "Messiah must be anointed by Elijah." As there is another consummating advent of Messiah Himself, so also of His forerunner Elijah; perhaps in person, as at the transfiguration (<reference osisRef="Matt.17.3">Mt 17:3</reference>; compare <reference osisRef="Matt.17.11">Mt 17:11</reference>). He in his appearance at the transfiguration in that body on which death had never passed is the forerunner of the saints who shall be found alive at the Lord's second coming. <reference osisRef="Rev.11.3">Re 11:3</reference> may refer to the same witnesses as at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah; <reference osisRef="Rev.11.6">Re 11:6</reference> identifies the latter (compare <reference osisRef="1Kgs.17.1">1Ki 17:1</reference>; <reference osisRef="Jas.5.17">Jas 5:17</reference>). Even after the transfiguration Jesus (<reference osisRef="Matt.17.11">Mt 17:11</reference>) speaks of Elijah's coming "to restore all things" as still future, though He adds that Elijah (in the person of John the Baptist) is come already in a sense (compare <reference osisRef="Acts.3.21">Ac 3:21</reference>). However, the future forerunner of Messiah at His second coming may be a prophet or number of prophets clothed with Elijah's power, who, with zealous upholders of "the law" clothed in the spirit of "Moses," may be the forerunning witnesses alluded to here and in <reference osisRef="Rev.11.2-Rev.11.12">Re 11:2-12</reference>. The words "before the ... dreadful day of the Lord," show that John cannot be exclusively meant; for he came before the day of Christ's coming in grace, not before His coming in terror, of which last the destruction of Jerusalem was the earnest (Mal 4:1; <reference osisRef="Joel.2.31">Joe 2:31</reference>).

5. I send you Elijah-- as a means towards your "remembering the law" (Mal 4:4). the prophet-- emphatical; not "the Tishbite"; for it is in his official, not his personal capacity, that his coming is here predicted. In this sense, John the Baptist was an Elijah in spirit (Lu 1:16, 17), but not the literal Elijah; whence when asked, "Art thou Elias?" (Joh 1:21), He answered, "I am not." "Art thou that prophet?" "No." This implies that John, though knowing from the angel's announcement to his father that he was referred to by Mal 4:5 (Lu 1:17), whence he wore the costume of Elijah, yet knew by inspiration that he did not exhaustively fulfil all that is included in this prophecy: that there is a further fulfilment (compare Note, see on Mal 3:1). As Moses in Mal 4:4 represents the law, so Elijah represents the prophets. The Jews always understood it of the literal Elijah. Their saying is, "Messiah must be anointed by Elijah." As there is another consummating advent of Messiah Himself, so also of His forerunner Elijah; perhaps in person, as at the transfiguration (Mt 17:3; compare Mt 17:11). He in his appearance at the transfiguration in that body on which death had never passed is the forerunner of the saints who shall be found alive at the Lord's second coming. Re 11:3 may refer to the same witnesses as at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah; Re 11:6 identifies the latter (compare 1Ki 17:1; Jas 5:17). Even after the transfiguration Jesus (Mt 17:11) speaks of Elijah's coming "to restore all things" as still future, though He adds that Elijah (in the person of John the Baptist) is come already in a sense (compare Ac 3:21). However, the future forerunner of Messiah at His second coming may be a prophet or number of prophets clothed with Elijah's power, who, with zealous upholders of "the law" clothed in the spirit of "Moses," may be the forerunning witnesses alluded to here and in Re 11:2-12. The words "before the... dreadful day of the Lord," show that John cannot be exclusively meant; for he came before the day of Christ's coming in grace, not before His coming in terror, of which last the destruction of Jerusalem was the earnest (Mal 4:1; Joe 2:31).


<hi type="bold">6. turn ... heart of ... fathers to ... children, &c.--</hi>Explained by some, that John's preaching should restore harmony in families. But <reference osisRef="Luke.1.16">Lu 1:16</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.1.17">17</reference> substitutes for "the heart of the children to the fathers," "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just," implying that the reconciliation to be effected was that between the unbelieving disobedient children and the believing ancestors, Jacob, Levi, "Moses," and "Elijah" (just mentioned) (compare Mal 1:<reference osisRef="2Cor.2.4">2; 2:4</reference>, <reference osisRef="2Cor.2.6">6</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Cor.3.3">3:3</reference>, <reference osisRef="2Cor.3.4">4</reference>). The threat here is that, if this restoration were not effected, Messiah's coming would prove "a curse" to the "earth," not a blessing. It proved so to guilty Jerusalem and the "earth," that is, the land of Judea when it rejected Messiah at His first advent, though He brought blessings (<reference osisRef="Gen.12.3">Ge 12:3</reference>) to those who accepted Him (<reference osisRef="John.1.11-John.1.13">Joh 1:11-13</reference>). Many were delivered from the common destruction of the nation through John's preaching (<reference osisRef="Rom.9.29">Ro 9:29</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rom.11.5">11:5</reference>). It will prove so to the disobedient at His second advent, though He comes to be glorified in His saints (<reference osisRef="2Thess.1.6-2Thess.1.10">2Th 1:6-10</reference>).

<hi type="bold">curse--</hi>Hebrew, Cherem, "a ban"; the fearful term applied by the Jews to the extermination of the guilty Canaanites. Under this ban Judea has long lain. Similar is the awful curse on all of Gentile churches who love not the Lord Jesus now (<reference osisRef="1Cor.16.22">1Co 16:22</reference>). For if God spare not the natural branches, the Jews, much less will He spare unbelieving professors of the Gentiles (<reference osisRef="Rom.11.20">Ro 11:20</reference>, <reference osisRef="Rom.11.21">21</reference>). It is deeply suggestive that the last utterance from heaven for four hundred years before Messiah was the awful word "curse." Messiah's first word on the mount was "Blessed" (<reference osisRef="Matt.5.3">Mt 5:3</reference>). The law speaks wrath; the Gospel, blessing. Judea is now under the "curse" because it rejects Messiah; when the spirit of Elijah, or a literal Elijah, shall bring the Jewish children back to the Hope of their "fathers," blessing shall be theirs, whereas the apostate "earth" shall be "smitten with the curse" previous to the coming restoration of all things (<reference osisRef="Zech.12.13">Zec 12:13</reference>, <reference osisRef="Zech.12.14">14</reference>).

 May the writer of this Commentary and his readers have grace "to take heed to the sure word of prophecy as unto a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawn!" To the triune Jehovah be all glory ascribed for ever! The New Testament  <chapter eID="Mal.4"/>

6. turn... heart of... fathers to... children, &c.-- Explained by some, that John's preaching should restore harmony in families. But Lu 1:16, 17 substitutes for "the heart of the children to the fathers," "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just," implying that the reconciliation to be effected was that between the unbelieving disobedient children and the believing ancestors, Jacob, Levi, "Moses," and "Elijah" (just mentioned) (compare Mal 1:2; 2:4, 6; 3:3, 4). The threat here is that, if this restoration were not effected, Messiah's coming would prove "a curse" to the "earth," not a blessing. It proved so to guilty Jerusalem and the "earth," that is, the land of Judea when it rejected Messiah at His first advent, though He brought blessings (Ge 12:3) to those who accepted Him (Joh 1:11-13). Many were delivered from the common destruction of the nation through John's preaching (Ro 9:29; 11:5). It will prove so to the disobedient at His second advent, though He comes to be glorified in His saints (2Th 1:6-10). curse-- Hebrew, Cherem, "a ban"; the fearful term applied by the Jews to the extermination of the guilty Canaanites. Under this ban Judea has long lain. Similar is the awful curse on all of Gentile churches who love not the Lord Jesus now (1Co 16:22). For if God spare not the natural branches, the Jews, much less will He spare unbelieving professors of the Gentiles (Ro 11:20, 21). It is deeply suggestive that the last utterance from heaven for four hundred years before Messiah was the awful word "curse." Messiah's first word on the mount was "Blessed" (Mt 5:3). The law speaks wrath; the Gospel, blessing. Judea is now under the "curse" because it rejects Messiah; when the spirit of Elijah, or a literal Elijah, shall bring the Jewish children back to the Hope of their "fathers," blessing shall be theirs, whereas the apostate "earth" shall be "smitten with the curse" previous to the coming restoration of all things (Zec 12:13, 14). May the writer of this Commentary and his readers have grace "to take heed to the sure word of prophecy as unto a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawn!" To the triune Jehovah be all glory ascribed for ever! The New Testament


 <milestone n="THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW" type="x-usfm-toc1"/> <milestone n="" type="x-usfm-toc2"/> <milestone n="" type="x-usfm-toc3"/> <title type="main">THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW</title>
 Commentary by David Brown

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW Commentary by David Brown


<title type="x-IS">INTRODUCTION</title>
<hi type="bold">The author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on <reference osisRef="Matt.9.9">Mt 9:9</reference>. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--</hi>that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.

<hi type="bold">For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is in every case placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--</hi>who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as Hug observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, Fosdick's translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand" (<reference osisRef="Matt.24.15">Mt 24:15</reference>)--a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on <reference osisRef="Luke.1.1">Lu 1:1</reference>) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, Tillemont, Townson, Owen, Birks, Tregelles. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of Irenæus [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day" (<reference osisRef="Matt.27.8">Mt 27:8</reference>); "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (<reference osisRef="Matt.28.15">Mt 28:15</reference>), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision.

 We have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against.

 But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by Grotius, Michaelis (and his translator), Marsh, Townson, Campbell, Olshausen, Creswell, Meyer, Ebrard, Lange, Davidson, Cureton, Tregelles, Webster and Wilkinson, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31.

<hi type="bold">But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a tittle of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles--</hi>in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. Michaelis tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and Davidson and Cureton among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original.

 Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by Guericks, Olshausen, Thiersch, Townson, Tregelles, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.

 It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of Dean Alford, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."

<hi type="bold">One argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of Hug (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and Roberts ("Discussions of the Gospels," &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language--</hi>so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke (<reference osisRef="Luke.1.1-Luke.1.4">Lu 1:1-4</reference>) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, Hug, Fritzsche, Credner, De Wette, Stuart, Da Costa, Fairbairn, Roberts.

<hi type="bold">On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics--</hi>whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by Credner [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by Da Costa in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur.
 <title type="x-s">CHAPTER 1</title> <title type="x-s3"><reference osisRef="Matt.1.1-Matt.1.17">Mt 1:1-17</reference>. Genealogy of Christ. ( = <reference osisRef="Luke.3.23-Luke.3.38">Lu 3:23-38</reference>).</title>

<hi type="bold">1. The book of the generation--</hi>an expression purely Jewish; meaning, "table of the genealogy." In <reference osisRef="Gen.5.1">Ge 5:1</reference> the same expression occurs in this sense. We have here, then, the title, not of this whole Gospel of Matthew, but only of the first seventeen verses.

<hi type="bold">of Jesus Christ--</hi>For the meaning of these glorious words, see on <reference osisRef="Matt.1.16">Mt 1:16</reference>; <reference osisRef="Matt.1.21">Mt 1:21</reference>. "Jesus," the name given to our Lord at His circumcision (<reference osisRef="Luke.2.21">Lu 2:21</reference>), was that by which He was familiarly known while on earth. The word "Christ"--though applied to Him as a proper name by the angel who announced His birth to the shepherds (<reference osisRef="Luke.2.11">Lu 2:11</reference>), and once or twice used in this sense by our Lord Himself (<reference osisRef="Matt.23.8">Mt 23:8</reference>, <reference osisRef="Matt.23.10">10</reference>; <reference osisRef="Mark.9.41">Mr 9:41</reference>)--only began to be so used by others about the very close of His earthly career (<reference osisRef="Matt.26.68">Mt 26:68</reference>; <reference osisRef="Matt.27.17">27:17</reference>). The full form, "Jesus Christ," though once used by Himself in His Intercessory Prayer (<reference osisRef="John.17.3">Joh 17:3</reference>), was never used by others till after His ascension and the formation of churches in His name. Its use, then, in the opening words of this Gospel (and in <reference osisRef="Matt.1.17">Mt 1:17</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.1.18">18</reference>) is in the style of the late period when our Evangelist wrote, rather than of the events he was going to record.

<hi type="bold">the son of David, the son of Abraham--</hi>As Abraham was the first from whose family it was predicted that Messiah should spring (<reference osisRef="Gen.22.18">Ge 22:18</reference>), so David was the last. To a Jewish reader, accordingly, these behooved to be the two great starting-points of any true genealogy of the promised Messiah; and thus this opening verse, as it stamps the first Gospel as one peculiarly Jewish, would at once tend to conciliate the writer's people. From the nearest of those two fathers came that familiar name of the promised Messiah, "the son of David" (<reference osisRef="Luke.20.41">Lu 20:41</reference>), which was applied to Jesus, either in devout acknowledgment of His rightful claim to it (<reference osisRef="Matt.9.27">Mt 9:27</reference>; <reference osisRef="Matt.20.31">20:31</reference>), or in the way of insinuating inquiry whether such were the case (see on <reference osisRef="John.4.29">Joh 4:29</reference>; <reference osisRef="Matt.12.23">Mt 12:23</reference>).

INTRODUCTION The author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on Mt 9:9. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers-- that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity. For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is in every case placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews-- who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as Hug observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, Fosdick's translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand" (Mt 24:15)--a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on Lu 1:1) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, Tillemont, Townson, Owen, Birks, Tregelles. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of Irenæus [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day" (Mt 27:8); "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (Mt 28:15), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision. We have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against. But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by Grotius, Michaelis (and his translator), Marsh, Townson, Campbell, Olshausen, Creswell, Meyer, Ebrard, Lange, Davidson, Cureton, Tregelles, Webster and Wilkinson, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31. But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a tittle of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles-- in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. Michaelis tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and Davidson and Cureton among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original. Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by Guericks, Olshausen, Thiersch, Townson, Tregelles, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it. It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of Dean Alford, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original." One argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of Hug (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and Roberts ("Discussions of the Gospels," &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language-- so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke (Lu 1:1-4) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, Hug, Fritzsche, Credner, De Wette, Stuart, Da Costa, Fairbairn, Roberts. On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics-- whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by Credner [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by Da Costa in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur. CHAPTER 1 Mt 1:1-17. Genealogy of Christ. ( = Lu 3:23-38). 1. The book of the generation-- an expression purely Jewish; meaning, "table of the genealogy." In Ge 5:1 the same expression occurs in this sense. We have here, then, the title, not of this whole Gospel of Matthew, but only of the first seventeen verses. of Jesus Christ-- For the meaning of these glorious words, see on Mt 1:16; Mt 1:21. "Jesus," the name given to our Lord at His circumcision (Lu 2:21), was that by which He was familiarly known while on earth. The word "Christ"--though applied to Him as a proper name by the angel who announced His birth to the shepherds (Lu 2:11), and once or twice used in this sense by our Lord Himself (Mt 23:8, 10; Mr 9:41)--only began to be so used by others about the very close of His earthly career (Mt 26:68; 27:17). The full form, "Jesus Christ," though once used by Himself in His Intercessory Prayer (Joh 17:3), was never used by others till after His ascension and the formation of churches in His name. Its use, then, in the opening words of this Gospel (and in Mt 1:17, 18) is in the style of the late period when our Evangelist wrote, rather than of the events he was going to record. the son of David, the son of Abraham-- As Abraham was the first from whose family it was predicted that Messiah should spring (Ge 22:18), so David was the last. To a Jewish reader, accordingly, these behooved to be the two great starting-points of any true genealogy of the promised Messiah; and thus this opening verse, as it stamps the first Gospel as one peculiarly Jewish, would at once tend to conciliate the writer's people. From the nearest of those two fathers came that familiar name of the promised Messiah, "the son of David" (Lu 20:41), which was applied to Jesus, either in devout acknowledgment of His rightful claim to it (Mt 9:27; 20:31), or in the way of insinuating inquiry whether such were the case (see on Joh 4:29; Mt 12:23).


<hi type="bold">2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren--</hi>Only the fourth son of Jacob is here named, as it was from his loins that Messiah was to spring (<reference osisRef="Gen.49.10">Ge 49:10</reference>).

2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren-- Only the fourth son of Jacob is here named, as it was from his loins that Messiah was to spring (Ge 49:10).


<hi type="bold">3-6. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4. And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5. And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6. And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her of Urias--</hi>Four women are here introduced; two of them Gentiles by birth--Rachab and Ruth; and three of them with a blot at their names in the Old Testament--Thamar, Rachab, and Bath-sheba. This feature in the present genealogy--herein differing from that given by Luke--comes well from him who styles himself in his list of the Twelve, what none of the other lists do, "Matthew the publican"; as if thereby to hold forth, at the very outset, the unsearchable riches of that grace which could not only fetch in "them that are afar off," but teach down even to "publicans and harlots," and raise them to "sit with the princes of his people." David is here twice emphatically styled "David the king," as not only the first of that royal line from which Messiah was to descend, but the one king of all that line from which the throne that Messiah was to occupy took its name--"the throne of David." The angel Gabriel, in announcing Him to His virgin-mother, calls it "the throne of David His father," sinking all the intermediate kings of that line, as having no importance save as links to connect the first and the last king of Israel as father and son. It will be observed that Rachab is here represented as the great-grandmother of David (see <reference osisRef="Ruth.4.20-Ruth.4.22">Ru 4:20-22</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Chr.2.11-1Chr.2.15">1Ch 2:11-15</reference>)--a thing not beyond possibility indeed, but extremely improbable, there being about four centuries between them. There can hardly be a doubt that one or two intermediate links are omitted.

3-6. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4. And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5. And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6. And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her of Urias-- Four women are here introduced; two of them Gentiles by birth--Rachab and Ruth; and three of them with a blot at their names in the Old Testament--Thamar, Rachab, and Bath-sheba. This feature in the present genealogy--herein differing from that given by Luke--comes well from him who styles himself in his list of the Twelve, what none of the other lists do, "Matthew the publican"; as if thereby to hold forth, at the very outset, the unsearchable riches of that grace which could not only fetch in "them that are afar off," but teach down even to "publicans and harlots," and raise them to "sit with the princes of his people." David is here twice emphatically styled "David the king," as not only the first of that royal line from which Messiah was to descend, but the one king of all that line from which the throne that Messiah was to occupy took its name--"the throne of David." The angel Gabriel, in announcing Him to His virgin-mother, calls it "the throne of David His father," sinking all the intermediate kings of that line, as having no importance save as links to connect the first and the last king of Israel as father and son. It will be observed that Rachab is here represented as the great-grandmother of David (see Ru 4:20-22; 1Ch 2:11-15)--a thing not beyond possibility indeed, but extremely improbable, there being about four centuries between them. There can hardly be a doubt that one or two intermediate links are omitted.


<hi type="bold">7-8. And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8. And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias--</hi>or Uzziah. Three kings are here omitted--Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (<reference osisRef="1Chr.3.11">1Ch 3:11</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Chr.3.12">12</reference>). Some omissions behooved to be made, to compress the whole into three fourteens (<reference osisRef="Matt.1.17">Mt 1:17</reference>). The reason why these, rather than other names, are omitted, must be sought in religious considerations--either in the connection of those kings with the house of Ahab (as Lightfoot, Ebrard, and Alford view it); in their slender right to be regarded as true links in the theocratic chain (as Lange takes it); or in some similar disqualification.

7-8. And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8. And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias-- or Uzziah. Three kings are here omitted--Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (1Ch 3:11, 12). Some omissions behooved to be made, to compress the whole into three fourteens (Mt 1:17). The reason why these, rather than other names, are omitted, must be sought in religious considerations--either in the connection of those kings with the house of Ahab (as Lightfoot, Ebrard, and Alford view it); in their slender right to be regarded as true links in the theocratic chain (as Lange takes it); or in some similar disqualification.


<hi type="bold">11. And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren--</hi>Jeconiah was Josiah's grandson, being the son of Jehoiakim, Josiah's second son (<reference osisRef="1Chr.3.15">1Ch 3:15</reference>); but Jehoiakim might well be sunk in such a catalogue, being a mere puppet in the hands of the king of Egypt (<reference osisRef="2Chr.36.4">2Ch 36:4</reference>). The "brethren" of Jechonias here evidently mean his uncles--the chief of whom, Mattaniah or Zedekiah, who came to the throne (<reference osisRef="2Kgs.24.17">2Ki 24:17</reference>), is, in <reference osisRef="2Chr.36.10">2Ch 36:10</reference>, as well as here, called "his brother."

<hi type="bold">about the time they were carried away to Babylon--</hi>literally, "of their migration," for the Jews avoided the word "captivity" as too bitter a recollection, and our Evangelist studiously respects the national feeling.

11. And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren-- Jeconiah was Josiah's grandson, being the son of Jehoiakim, Josiah's second son (1Ch 3:15); but Jehoiakim might well be sunk in such a catalogue, being a mere puppet in the hands of the king of Egypt (2Ch 36:4). The "brethren" of Jechonias here evidently mean his uncles--the chief of whom, Mattaniah or Zedekiah, who came to the throne (2Ki 24:17), is, in 2Ch 36:10, as well as here, called "his brother." about the time they were carried away to Babylon-- literally, "of their migration," for the Jews avoided the word "captivity" as too bitter a recollection, and our Evangelist studiously respects the national feeling.


<hi type="bold">12. And after they were brought to Babylon--</hi>after the migration of Babylon.

<hi type="bold">Jechonias begat Salathiel--</hi>So <reference osisRef="1Chr.3.17">1Ch 3:17</reference>. Nor does this contradict <reference osisRef="Jer.22.30">Jr 22:30</reference>, "Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man (Coniah, or Jeconiah) childless"; for what follows explains in what sense this was meant--"for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David." He was to have seed, but no reigning child.

<hi type="bold">and Salathiel--</hi>or Shealtiel.

<hi type="bold">begat Zorobabel--</hi>So <reference osisRef="Ezra.3.2">Ezr 3:2</reference>; <reference osisRef="Neh.12.1">Ne 12:1</reference>; <reference osisRef="Hag.1.1">Hag 1:1</reference>. But it would appear from <reference osisRef="1Chr.3.19">1Ch 3:19</reference> that Zerubbabel was Salathiel's grandson, being the son of Pedaiah, whose name, for some reason unknown, is omitted.

12. And after they were brought to Babylon-- after the migration of Babylon. Jechonias begat Salathiel-- So 1Ch 3:17. Nor does this contradict Jr 22:30, "Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man (Coniah, or Jeconiah) childless"; for what follows explains in what sense this was meant--"for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David." He was to have seed, but no reigning child. and Salathiel-- or Shealtiel. begat Zorobabel-- So Ezr 3:2; Ne 12:1; Hag 1:1. But it would appear from 1Ch 3:19 that Zerubbabel was Salathiel's grandson, being the son of Pedaiah, whose name, for some reason unknown, is omitted.


<hi type="bold">13-15. And Zorobabel begat Abiud, &c.--</hi>None of these names are found in the Old Testament; but they were doubtless taken from the public or family registers, which the Jews carefully kept, and their accuracy was never challenged.

13-15. And Zorobabel begat Abiud, &c.-- None of these names are found in the Old Testament; but they were doubtless taken from the public or family registers, which the Jews carefully kept, and their accuracy was never challenged.


<hi type="bold">16. And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus--</hi>From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned. See on <reference osisRef="Matt.1.20">Mt 1:20</reference>.

<hi type="bold">who is called Christ--</hi>signifying "anointed." It is applied in the Old Testament to the kings (<reference osisRef="1Sam.24.6">1Sa 24:6</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Sam.24.10">10</reference>); to the priests (<reference osisRef="Lev.4.5">Le 4:5</reference>, <reference osisRef="Lev.4.16">16</reference>, &c.); and to the prophets (<reference osisRef="1Kgs.19.16">1Ki 19:16</reference>)--these all being anointed with oil, the symbol of the needful spiritual gifts to consecrate them to their respective offices; and it was applied, in its most sublime and comprehensive sense, to the promised Deliverer, inasmuch as He was to be consecrated to an office embracing all three by the immeasurable anointing of the Holy Ghost (<reference osisRef="Isa.61.1">Is 61:1</reference>; compare <reference osisRef="John.3.34">Joh 3:34</reference>).

16. And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus-- From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned. See on Mt 1:20. who is called Christ-- signifying "anointed." It is applied in the Old Testament to the kings (1Sa 24:6, 10); to the priests (Le 4:5, 16, &c.); and to the prophets (1Ki 19:16)--these all being anointed with oil, the symbol of the needful spiritual gifts to consecrate them to their respective offices; and it was applied, in its most sublime and comprehensive sense, to the promised Deliverer, inasmuch as He was to be consecrated to an office embracing all three by the immeasurable anointing of the Holy Ghost (Is 61:1; compare Joh 3:34).


<hi type="bold">17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away--</hi>or migration.

<hi type="bold">into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon--</hi>the migration of Babylon.

<hi type="bold">unto Christ are fourteen generations--</hi>that is, the whole may be conveniently divided into three fourteens, each embracing one marked era, and each ending with a notable event, in the Israelitish annals. Such artificial aids to memory were familiar to the Jews, and much larger gaps than those here are found in some of the Old Testament genealogies. In <reference osisRef="Ezra.7.1-Ezra.7.5">Ezr 7:1-5</reference> no fewer than six generations of the priesthood are omitted, as will appear by comparing it with <reference osisRef="1Chr.6.3-1Chr.6.15">1Ch 6:3-15</reference>. It will be observed that the last of the three divisions of fourteen appears to contain only thirteen distinct names, including Jesus as the last. Lange thinks that this was meant as a tacit hint that Mary was to be supplied, as the thirteenth link of the last chain, as it is impossible to conceive that the Evangelist could have made any mistake in the matter. But there is a simpler way of accounting for it. As the Evangelist himself (<reference osisRef="Matt.1.17">Mt 1:17</reference>) reckons David twice--as the last of the first fourteen and the first of the second--so, if we reckon the second fourteen to end with Josiah, who was coeval with the "carrying away into captivity" (<reference osisRef="Matt.1.11">Mt 1:11</reference>), and third to begin with Jeconiah, it will be found that the last division, as well as the other two, embraces fourteen names, including that of our Lord.

17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away-- or migration. into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon-- the migration of Babylon. unto Christ are fourteen generations-- that is, the whole may be conveniently divided into three fourteens, each embracing one marked era, and each ending with a notable event, in the Israelitish annals. Such artificial aids to memory were familiar to the Jews, and much larger gaps than those here are found in some of the Old Testament genealogies. In Ezr 7:1-5 no fewer than six generations of the priesthood are omitted, as will appear by comparing it with 1Ch 6:3-15. It will be observed that the last of the three divisions of fourteen appears to contain only thirteen distinct names, including Jesus as the last. Lange thinks that this was meant as a tacit hint that Mary was to be supplied, as the thirteenth link of the last chain, as it is impossible to conceive that the Evangelist could have made any mistake in the matter. But there is a simpler way of accounting for it. As the Evangelist himself (Mt 1:17) reckons David twice--as the last of the first fourteen and the first of the second--so, if we reckon the second fourteen to end with Josiah, who was coeval with the "carrying away into captivity" (Mt 1:11), and third to begin with Jeconiah, it will be found that the last division, as well as the other two, embraces fourteen names, including that of our Lord.


<title type="x-s3"><reference osisRef="Matt.1.18-Matt.1.25">Mt 1:18-25</reference>. Birth of Christ.</title>

<hi type="bold">18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise--</hi>or, "thus."

<hi type="bold">When as his mother Mary was espoused--</hi>rather, "betrothed."

<hi type="bold">to Joseph, before they came together, she was found--</hi>discovered to be.

<hi type="bold">with child of the Holy Ghost--</hi>It was, of course, the fact only that was discovered; the explanation of the fact here given is the Evangelist's own. That the Holy Ghost is a living conscious Person is plainly implied here, and is elsewhere clearly taught (<reference osisRef="Acts.5.3">Ac 5:3</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.5.4">4</reference>, &c.): and that, in the unity of the Godhead, He is distinct both from the Father and the Son, is taught with equal distinctness (<reference osisRef="Matt.28.19">Mt 28:19</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Cor.13.14">2Co 13:14</reference>). On the miraculous conception of our Lord, see on <reference osisRef="Luke.1.35">Lu 1:35</reference>.

Mt 1:18-25. Birth of Christ. 18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise-- or, "thus." When as his mother Mary was espoused-- rather, "betrothed." to Joseph, before they came together, she was found-- discovered to be. with child of the Holy Ghost-- It was, of course, the fact only that was discovered; the explanation of the fact here given is the Evangelist's own. That the Holy Ghost is a living conscious Person is plainly implied here, and is elsewhere clearly taught (Ac 5:3, 4, &c.): and that, in the unity of the Godhead, He is distinct both from the Father and the Son, is taught with equal distinctness (Mt 28:19; 2Co 13:14). On the miraculous conception of our Lord, see on Lu 1:35.


<hi type="bold">19. Then Joseph her husband--</hi>Compare <reference osisRef="Matt.1.20">Mt 1:20</reference>, "Mary, thy wife." Betrothal was, in Jewish law, valid marriage. In giving Mary up, therefore, Joseph had to take legal steps to effect the separation.

<hi type="bold">being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example--</hi>to expose her (see <reference osisRef="Deut.22.23">De 22:23</reference>, <reference osisRef="Deut.22.24">24</reference>)

<hi type="bold">was minded to put her away privily--</hi>that is, privately by giving her the required writing of divorcement (<reference osisRef="Deut.24.1">De 24:1</reference>), in presence of only two or three witnesses, and without cause assigned, instead of having her before a magistrate. That some communication had passed between him and his betrothed, directly or indirectly, on the subject, after she returned from her three months' visit to Elizabeth, can hardly be doubted. Nor does the purpose to divorce her necessarily imply disbelief, on Joseph's part, of the explanation given him. Even supposing him to have yielded to it some reverential assent--and the Evangelist seems to convey as much, by ascribing the proposal to screen her to the justice of his character--he might think it altogether unsuitable and incongruous in such circumstances to follow out the marriage.

19. Then Joseph her husband-- Compare Mt 1:20, "Mary, thy wife." Betrothal was, in Jewish law, valid marriage. In giving Mary up, therefore, Joseph had to take legal steps to effect the separation. being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example-- to expose her (see De 22:23, 24) was minded to put her away privily-- that is, privately by giving her the required writing of divorcement (De 24:1), in presence of only two or three witnesses, and without cause assigned, instead of having her before a magistrate. That some communication had passed between him and his betrothed, directly or indirectly, on the subject, after she returned from her three months' visit to Elizabeth, can hardly be doubted. Nor does the purpose to divorce her necessarily imply disbelief, on Joseph's part, of the explanation given him. Even supposing him to have yielded to it some reverential assent--and the Evangelist seems to convey as much, by ascribing the proposal to screen her to the justice of his character--he might think it altogether unsuitable and incongruous in such circumstances to follow out the marriage.


<hi type="bold">20. But while he thought on these things--</hi>Who would not feel for him after receiving such intelligence, and before receiving any light from above? As he brooded over the matter alone, in the stillness of the night, his domestic prospects darkened and his happiness blasted for life, his mind slowly making itself up to the painful step, yet planning how to do it in the way least offensive--at the last extremity the Lord Himself interposes.

<hi type="bold">behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph thou son of David--</hi>This style of address was doubtless advisedly chosen to remind him of what all the families of David's line so early coveted, and thus it would prepare him for the marvellous announcement which was to follow.

<hi type="bold">fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost--</hi>Though a dark cloud now overhangs this relationship, it is unsullied still.

20. But while he thought on these things-- Who would not feel for him after receiving such intelligence, and before receiving any light from above? As he brooded over the matter alone, in the stillness of the night, his domestic prospects darkened and his happiness blasted for life, his mind slowly making itself up to the painful step, yet planning how to do it in the way least offensive--at the last extremity the Lord Himself interposes. behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph thou son of David-- This style of address was doubtless advisedly chosen to remind him of what all the families of David's line so early coveted, and thus it would prepare him for the marvellous announcement which was to follow. fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost-- Though a dark cloud now overhangs this relationship, it is unsullied still.


<hi type="bold">21. And she shall bring forth a son--</hi>Observe, it is not said, "she shall bear thee a son," as was said to Zacharias of his wife Elizabeth (<reference osisRef="Luke.1.13">Lu 1:13</reference>).

<hi type="bold">and thou--</hi>as his legal father.

<hi type="bold">shalt call his name JESUS--</hi>from the Hebrew meaning "Jehovah the Saviour"; in Greek Jesus--to the awakened and anxious sinner sweetest and most fragrant of all names, expressing so melodiously and briefly His whole saving office and work!

<hi type="bold">for he shall save--</hi>The "He" is here emphatic--He it is that shall save; He personally, and by personal acts (as Webster and Wilkinson express it).

<hi type="bold">his people--</hi>the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in the first instance; for they were the only people He then had. But, on the breaking down of the middle wall of partition, the saved people embraced the "redeemed unto God by His blood out of every kindred and people and tongue and nation."

<hi type="bold">from their sins--</hi>in the most comprehensive sense of salvation from sin (<reference osisRef="Rev.1.5">Re 1:5</reference>; <reference osisRef="Eph.5.25-Eph.5.27">Ep 5:25-27</reference>).

21. And she shall bring forth a son-- Observe, it is not said, "she shall bear thee a son," as was said to Zacharias of his wife Elizabeth (Lu 1:13). and thou-- as his legal father. shalt call his name JESUS-- from the Hebrew meaning "Jehovah the Saviour"; in Greek Jesus--to the awakened and anxious sinner sweetest and most fragrant of all names, expressing so melodiously and briefly His whole saving office and work! for he shall save-- The "He" is here emphatic--He it is that shall save; He personally, and by personal acts (as Webster and Wilkinson express it). his people-- the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in the first instance; for they were the only people He then had. But, on the breaking down of the middle wall of partition, the saved people embraced the "redeemed unto God by His blood out of every kindred and people and tongue and nation." from their sins-- in the most comprehensive sense of salvation from sin (Re 1:5; Ep 5:25-27).


<hi type="bold">22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet--</hi>(<reference osisRef="Isa.7.14">Is 7:14</reference>).

<hi type="bold">saying--</hi>as follows.

22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet-- (Is 7:14). saying-- as follows.


<hi type="bold">23. Behold, a virgin--</hi>It should be "the virgin" meaning that particular virgin destined to this unparalleled distinction.

<hi type="bold">shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us--</hi>Not that He was to have this for a proper name (like "Jesus"), but that He should come to be known in this character, as God manifested in the flesh, and the living bond of holy and most intimate fellowship between God and men from henceforth and for ever.

23. Behold, a virgin-- It should be "the virgin" meaning that particular virgin destined to this unparalleled distinction. shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us-- Not that He was to have this for a proper name (like "Jesus"), but that He should come to be known in this character, as God manifested in the flesh, and the living bond of holy and most intimate fellowship between God and men from henceforth and for ever.


<hi type="bold">24. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep--</hi>and all his difficulties now removed.

<hi type="bold">did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife--</hi>With what deep and reverential joy would this now be done on his part; and what balm would this minister to his betrothed one, who had till now lain under suspicions of all others the most trying to a chaste and holy woman--suspicions, too, arising from what, though to her an honor unparalleled, was to all around her wholly unknown!

24. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep-- and all his difficulties now removed. did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife-- With what deep and reverential joy would this now be done on his part; and what balm would this minister to his betrothed one, who had till now lain under suspicions of all others the most trying to a chaste and holy woman--suspicions, too, arising from what, though to her an honor unparalleled, was to all around her wholly unknown!


<hi type="bold">25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS--</hi>The word "till" does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in <reference osisRef="1Sam.15.35">1Sa 15:35</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Sam.6.23">2Sa 6:23</reference>; <reference osisRef="Matt.12.20">Mt 12:20</reference>); nor does the word "first-born" decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, "The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before." (See on <reference osisRef="Matt.13.55">Mt 13:55</reference>, <reference osisRef="Matt.13.56">56</reference>). <chapter eID="Matt.1"/>

25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS-- The word "till" does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1Sa 15:35; 2Sa 6:23; Mt 12:20); nor does the word "first-born" decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, "The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before." (See on Mt 13:55, 56).


<title type="x-s2">CHAPTER 2</title> <title type="x-s3"><reference osisRef="Matt.2.1-Matt.2.12">Mt 2:1-12</reference>. Visit of the Magi to Jerusalem and Bethlehem.</title>
<hi type="bold">The Wise Men Reach Jerusalem--</hi>The Sanhedrim, on Herod's Demand, Pronounce Bethlehem to Be Messiah's Predicted Birthplace (<reference osisRef="Matt.2.1-Matt.2.6">Mt 2:1-6</reference>).

<hi type="bold">1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea--</hi>so called to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, near the Sea of Galilee (<reference osisRef="Josh.19.15">Jos 19:15</reference>); called also Beth-lehem-judah, as being in that tribe (<reference osisRef="Judg.17.7">Jud 17:7</reference>); and Ephrath (<reference osisRef="Gen.35.16">Ge 35:16</reference>); and combining both, Beth-lehem Ephratah (<reference osisRef="Mic.5.2">Mi 5:2</reference>). It lay about six miles southwest of Jerusalem. But how came Joseph and Mary to remove thither from Nazareth, the place of their residence? Not of their own accord, and certainly not with the view of fulfilling the prophecy regarding Messiah's birthplace; nay, they stayed at Nazareth till it was almost too late for Mary to travel with safety; nor would they have stirred from it at all, had not an order which left them no choice forced them to the appointed place. A high hand was in all these movements. (See on <reference osisRef="Luke.2.1-Luke.2.6">Lu 2:1-6</reference>).

<hi type="bold">in the days of Herod the king--</hi>styled the Great; son of Antipater, an Edomite, made king by the Romans. Thus was "the sceptre departing from Judah" (<reference osisRef="Gen.49.10">Ge 49:10</reference>), a sign that Messiah was now at hand. As Herod is known to have died in the year of Rome 750, in the fourth year before the commencement of our Christian era, the birth of Christ must be dated four years before the date usually assigned to it, even if He was born within the year of Herod's death, as it is next to certain that He was.

<hi type="bold">there came wise men--</hi>literally, "Magi" or "Magians," probably of the learned class who cultivated astrology and kindred sciences. Balaam's prophecy (<reference osisRef="Num.24.17">Nu 24:17</reference>), and perhaps Daniel's (<reference osisRef="Dan.9.24">Da 9:24</reference>, &c.), might have come down to them by tradition; but nothing definite is known of them.

<hi type="bold">from the east--</hi>but whether from Arabia, Persia, or Mesopotamia is uncertain.

<hi type="bold">to Jerusalem--</hi>as the Jewish metropolis.

CHAPTER 2 Mt 2:1-12. Visit of the Magi to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The Wise Men Reach Jerusalem-- The Sanhedrim, on Herod's Demand, Pronounce Bethlehem to Be Messiah's Predicted Birthplace (Mt 2:1-6). 1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea-- so called to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, near the Sea of Galilee (Jos 19:15); called also Beth-lehem-judah, as being in that tribe (Jud 17:7); and Ephrath (Ge 35:16); and combining both, Beth-lehem Ephratah (Mi 5:2). It lay about six miles southwest of Jerusalem. But how came Joseph and Mary to remove thither from Nazareth, the place of their residence? Not of their own accord, and certainly not with the view of fulfilling the prophecy regarding Messiah's birthplace; nay, they stayed at Nazareth till it was almost too late for Mary to travel with safety; nor would they have stirred from it at all, had not an order which left them no choice forced them to the appointed place. A high hand was in all these movements. (See on Lu 2:1-6). in the days of Herod the king-- styled the Great; son of Antipater, an Edomite, made king by the Romans. Thus was "the sceptre departing from Judah" (Ge 49:10), a sign that Messiah was now at hand. As Herod is known to have died in the year of Rome 750, in the fourth year before the commencement of our Christian era, the birth of Christ must be dated four years before the date usually assigned to it, even if He was born within the year of Herod's death, as it is next to certain that He was. there came wise men-- literally, "Magi" or "Magians," probably of the learned class who cultivated astrology and kindred sciences. Balaam's prophecy (Nu 24:17), and perhaps Daniel's (Da 9:24, &c.), might have come down to them by tradition; but nothing definite is known of them. from the east-- but whether from Arabia, Persia, or Mesopotamia is uncertain. to Jerusalem-- as the Jewish metropolis.


<hi type="bold">2. Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews?--</hi>From this it would seem they were not themselves Jews. (Compare the language of the Roman governor, <reference osisRef="John.18.33">Joh 18:33</reference>, and of the Roman soldiers, <reference osisRef="Matt.27.29">Mt 27:29</reference>, with the very different language of the Jews themselves, <reference osisRef="Matt.27.42">Mt 27:42</reference>, &c.). The Roman historians, Suetonius and Tacitus, bear witness to an expectation, prevalent in the East, that out of Judea should arise a sovereign of the world.

<hi type="bold">for we have seen his star in the east--</hi>Much has been written on the subject of this star; but from all that is here said it is perhaps safest to regard it as simply a luminous meteor, which appeared under special laws and for a special purpose.

<hi type="bold">and are come to worship him--</hi>to do Him homage, as the word signifies; the nature of that homage depending on the circumstances of the case. That not civil but religious homage is meant here is plain from the whole strain of the narrative, and particularly <reference osisRef="Matt.2.11">Mt 2:11</reference>. Doubtless these simple strangers expected all Jerusalem to be full of its new-born King, and the time, place, and circumstances of His birth to be familiar to every one. Little would they think that the first announcement of His birth would come from themselves, and still less could they anticipate the startling, instead of transporting, effect which it would produce--else they would probably have sought their information regarding His birthplace in some other quarter. But God overruled it to draw forth a noble testimony to the predicted birthplace of Messiah from the highest ecclesiastical authority in the nation.

2. Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews?-- From this it would seem they were not themselves Jews. (Compare the language of the Roman governor, Joh 18:33, and of the Roman soldiers, Mt 27:29, with the very different language of the Jews themselves, Mt 27:42, &c.). The Roman historians, Suetonius and Tacitus, bear witness to an expectation, prevalent in the East, that out of Judea should arise a sovereign of the world. for we have seen his star in the east-- Much has been written on the subject of this star; but from all that is here said it is perhaps safest to regard it as simply a luminous meteor, which appeared under special laws and for a special purpose. and are come to worship him-- to do Him homage, as the word signifies; the nature of that homage depending on the circumstances of the case. That not civil but religious homage is meant here is plain from the whole strain of the narrative, and particularly Mt 2:11. Doubtless these simple strangers expected all Jerusalem to be full of its new-born King, and the time, place, and circumstances of His birth to be familiar to every one. Little would they think that the first announcement of His birth would come from themselves, and still less could they anticipate the startling, instead of transporting, effect which it would produce--else they would probably have sought their information regarding His birthplace in some other quarter. But God overruled it to draw forth a noble testimony to the predicted birthplace of Messiah from the highest ecclesiastical authority in the nation.


<hi type="bold">3. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled--</hi>viewing this as a danger to his own throne: perhaps his guilty conscience also suggested other grounds of fear.

<hi type="bold">and all Jerusalem with him--</hi>from a dread of revolutionary commotions, and perhaps also of Herod's rage.

3. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled-- viewing this as a danger to his own throne: perhaps his guilty conscience also suggested other grounds of fear. and all Jerusalem with him-- from a dread of revolutionary commotions, and perhaps also of Herod's rage.


<hi type="bold">4. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together--</hi>The class of the "chief priests" included the high priest for the time being, together with all who had previously filled this office; for though the then head of the Aaronic family was the only rightful high priest, the Romans removed them at pleasure, to make way for creatures of their own. In this class probably were included also the heads of the four and twenty courses of the priests. The "scribes" were at first merely transcribers of the law and synagogue readers; afterwards interpreters of the law, both civil and religious, and so both lawyers and divines. The first of these classes, a proportion of the second, and "the elders"--that is, as Lightfoot thinks, "those elders of the laity that were not of the Levitical tribe"--constituted the supreme council of the nation, called the Sanhedrim, the members of which, at their full complement, numbered seventy-two. That this was the council which Herod now convened is most probable, from the solemnity of the occasion; for though the elders are not mentioned, we find a similar omission where all three were certainly meant (compare <reference osisRef="Matt.26.59">Mt 26:59</reference>; <reference osisRef="Matt.27.1">27:1</reference>). As Meyer says, it was all the theologians of the nation whom Herod convened, because it was a theological response that he wanted.

<hi type="bold">he demanded of them--</hi>as the authorized interpreters of Scripture.

<hi type="bold">where Christ--</hi>the Messiah.

<hi type="bold">should be born--</hi>according to prophecy.

4. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together-- The class of the "chief priests" included the high priest for the time being, together with all who had previously filled this office; for though the then head of the Aaronic family was the only rightful high priest, the Romans removed them at pleasure, to make way for creatures of their own. In this class probably were included also the heads of the four and twenty courses of the priests. The "scribes" were at first merely transcribers of the law and synagogue readers; afterwards interpreters of the law, both civil and religious, and so both lawyers and divines. The first of these classes, a proportion of the second, and "the elders"--that is, as Lightfoot thinks, "those elders of the laity that were not of the Levitical tribe"--constituted the supreme council of the nation, called the Sanhedrim, the members of which, at their full complement, numbered seventy-two. That this was the council which Herod now convened is most probable, from the solemnity of the occasion; for though the elders are not mentioned, we find a similar omission where all three were certainly meant (compare Mt 26:59; 27:1). As Meyer says, it was all the theologians of the nation whom Herod convened, because it was a theological response that he wanted. he demanded of them-- as the authorized interpreters of Scripture. where Christ-- the Messiah. should be born-- according to prophecy.


<hi type="bold">5. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea--</hi>a prompt and involuntary testimony from the highest tribunal; which yet at length condemned Him to die.

<hi type="bold">for thus it is written by the prophet--</hi>(<reference osisRef="Mic.5.2">Mi 5:2</reference>).

5. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea-- a prompt and involuntary testimony from the highest tribunal; which yet at length condemned Him to die. for thus it is written by the prophet-- (Mi 5:2).


<hi type="bold">6. And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda--</hi>the "in" being familiarly left out, as we say, "London, Middlesex."

<hi type="bold">art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, &c.--</hi>This quotation, though differing verbally, agrees substantially with the Hebrew and the Septuagint. For says the prophet, "Though thou be little, yet out of thee shall come the Ruler"--this honor more than compensating for its natural insignificance; while our Evangelist, by a lively turn, makes him say, "Thou art not the least: <hi type="bold">for out of thee shall come a Governor"--</hi>this distinction lifting it from the lowest to the highest rank. The "thousands of Juda," in the prophet, mean the subordinate divisions of the tribe: our Evangelist, instead of these, merely names the "princes" or heads of these families, including the districts which they occupied.

<hi type="bold">that shall rule--</hi>or "feed," as in the Margin.

<hi type="bold">my people Israel--</hi>In the Old Testament, kings are, by a beautiful figure, styled "shepherds" (<reference osisRef="Ezek.34.1-Ezek.34.10">Eze 34:1-10</reference>, &c.). The classical writers use the same figure. The pastoral rule of Jehovah and Messiah over His people is a representation pervading all Scripture, and rich in import. (See <reference osisRef="Ps.23.1-Ps.23.6">Psa 23:1-6</reference>; <reference osisRef="Isa.40.11">Is 40:11</reference>; <reference osisRef="Ezek.37.24">Eze 37:24</reference>; <reference osisRef="John.10.11">Joh 10:11</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rev.7.17">Re 7:17</reference>). That this prophecy of Micah referred to the Messiah, was admitted by the ancient Rabbins.

 The Wise Men Despatched to Bethlehem by Herod to See the Babe, and Bring Him Word, Make a Religious Offering to the Infant King, but Divinely Warned, Return Home by Another Way (<reference osisRef="Matt.2.7-Matt.2.12">Mt 2:7-12</reference>).

6. And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda-- the "in" being familiarly left out, as we say, "London, Middlesex." art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, &c.-- This quotation, though differing verbally, agrees substantially with the Hebrew and the Septuagint. For says the prophet, "Though thou be little, yet out of thee shall come the Ruler"--this honor more than compensating for its natural insignificance; while our Evangelist, by a lively turn, makes him say, "Thou art not the least: for out of thee shall come a Governor"-- this distinction lifting it from the lowest to the highest rank. The "thousands of Juda," in the prophet, mean the subordinate divisions of the tribe: our Evangelist, instead of these, merely names the "princes" or heads of these families, including the districts which they occupied. that shall rule-- or "feed," as in the Margin. my people Israel-- In the Old Testament, kings are, by a beautiful figure, styled "shepherds" (Eze 34:1-10, &c.). The classical writers use the same figure. The pastoral rule of Jehovah and Messiah over His people is a representation pervading all Scripture, and rich in import. (See Psa 23:1-6; Is 40:11; Eze 37:24; Joh 10:11; Re 7:17). That this prophecy of Micah referred to the Messiah, was admitted by the ancient Rabbins. The Wise Men Despatched to Bethlehem by Herod to See the Babe, and Bring Him Word, Make a Religious Offering to the Infant King, but Divinely Warned, Return Home by Another Way (Mt 2:7-12).


<hi type="bold">7. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men--</hi>Herod has so far succeeded in his murderous design: he has tracked the spot where lies his victim, an unconscious babe. But he has another point to fix--the date of His birth--without which he might still miss his mark. The one he had got from the Sanhedrim; the other he will have from the sages; but secretly, lest his object should be suspected and defeated. So he

<hi type="bold">inquired of them diligently--</hi>rather, "precisely."

<hi type="bold">what time the star appeared--</hi>presuming that this would be the best clue to the age of the child. The unsuspecting strangers tell him all. And now he thinks he is succeeding to a wish, and shall speedily clutch his victim; for at so early an age as they indicate, He would not likely have been removed from the place of His birth. Yet he is wary. He sends them as messengers from himself, and bids them come to him, that he may follow their pious example.

7. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men-- Herod has so far succeeded in his murderous design: he has tracked the spot where lies his victim, an unconscious babe. But he has another point to fix--the date of His birth--without which he might still miss his mark. The one he had got from the Sanhedrim; the other he will have from the sages; but secretly, lest his object should be suspected and defeated. So he inquired of them diligently-- rather, "precisely." what time the star appeared-- presuming that this would be the best clue to the age of the child. The unsuspecting strangers tell him all. And now he thinks he is succeeding to a wish, and shall speedily clutch his victim; for at so early an age as they indicate, He would not likely have been removed from the place of His birth. Yet he is wary. He sends them as messengers from himself, and bids them come to him, that he may follow their pious example.


<hi type="bold">8. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently--</hi>"Search out carefully."

<hi type="bold">for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also--</hi>The cunning and bloody hypocrite! Yet this royal mandate would meantime serve as a safe conduct to the strangers.

8. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently-- "Search out carefully." for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also-- The cunning and bloody hypocrite! Yet this royal mandate would meantime serve as a safe conduct to the strangers.


<hi type="bold">9. When they had heard the king, they departed--</hi>But where were ye, O Jewish ecclesiastics, ye chief priests and scribes of the people? Ye could tell Herod where Christ should be born, and could hear of these strangers from the far East that the Desire of all nations had actually come; but I do not see you trooping to Bethlehem--I find these devout strangers journeying thither all alone. Yet God ordered this too, lest the news should be blabbed, and reach the tyrant's ears, before the Babe could be placed beyond his reach. Thus are the very errors and crimes and cold indifferences of men all overruled.

<hi type="bold">and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east--</hi>implying apparently that it had disappeared in the interval.

<hi type="bold">went before them, and stood over where the young child was--</hi>Surely this could hardly be but by a luminous meteor, and not very high.

9. When they had heard the king, they departed-- But where were ye, O Jewish ecclesiastics, ye chief priests and scribes of the people? Ye could tell Herod where Christ should be born, and could hear of these strangers from the far East that the Desire of all nations had actually come; but I do not see you trooping to Bethlehem--I find these devout strangers journeying thither all alone. Yet God ordered this too, lest the news should be blabbed, and reach the tyrant's ears, before the Babe could be placed beyond his reach. Thus are the very errors and crimes and cold indifferences of men all overruled. and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east-- implying apparently that it had disappeared in the interval. went before them, and stood over where the young child was-- Surely this could hardly be but by a luminous meteor, and not very high.


<hi type="bold">10. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy--</hi>The language is very strong, expressing exuberant transport.

10. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy-- The language is very strong, expressing exuberant transport.


<hi type="bold">11. And when they were come into the house--</hi>not the stable; for as soon as Bethlehem was emptied of its strangers, they would have no difficulty in finding a dwelling-house.

<hi type="bold">they saw--</hi>The received text has "found"; but here our translators rightly depart from it, for it has no authority.

<hi type="bold">the young child with Mary his mother--</hi>The blessed Babe is naturally mentioned first, then the mother; but Joseph, though doubtless present, is not noticed, as being but the head of the house.

<hi type="bold">and fell down and worshipped him--</hi>Clearly this was no civil homage to a petty Jewish king, whom these star-guided strangers came so far, and inquired so eagerly, and rejoiced with such exceeding joy, to pay, but a lofty spiritual homage. The next clause confirms this.

<hi type="bold">and when they had opened their treasures they presented--</hi>rather, "offered."

<hi type="bold">unto him gifts--</hi>This expression, used frequently in the Old Testament of the oblations presented to God, is in the New Testament employed seven times, and always in a religious sense of offerings to God. Beyond doubt, therefore, we are to understand the presentation of these gifts by the Magi as a religious offering.

<hi type="bold">gold, frankincense, and myrrh--</hi>Visits were seldom paid to sovereigns without a present (<reference osisRef="1Kgs.10.2">1Ki 10:2</reference>, &c.; compare <reference osisRef="Ps.72.10">Psa 72:10</reference>, 11, 15; <reference osisRef="Isa.60.3">Is 60:3</reference>, <reference osisRef="Isa.60.6">6</reference>). "Frankincense" was an aromatic used in sacrificial offerings; "myrrh" was used in perfuming ointments. These, with the "gold" which they presented, seem to show that the offerers were persons in affluent circumstances. That the gold was presented to the infant King in token of His royalty; the frankincense in token of His divinity, and the myrrh, of His sufferings; or that they were designed to express His divine and human natures; or that the prophetical, priestly, and kingly offices of Christ are to be seen in these gifts; or that they were the offerings of three individuals respectively, each of them kings, the very names of whom tradition has handed down--all these are, at the best, precarious suppositions. But that the feelings of these devout givers are to be seen in the richness of their gifts, and that the gold, at least, would be highly serviceable to the parents of the blessed Babe in their unexpected journey to Egypt and stay there--that much at least admits of no dispute.

11. And when they were come into the house-- not the stable; for as soon as Bethlehem was emptied of its strangers, they would have no difficulty in finding a dwelling-house. they saw-- The received text has "found"; but here our translators rightly depart from it, for it has no authority. the young child with Mary his mother-- The blessed Babe is naturally mentioned first, then the mother; but Joseph, though doubtless present, is not noticed, as being but the head of the house. and fell down and worshipped him-- Clearly this was no civil homage to a petty Jewish king, whom these star-guided strangers came so far, and inquired so eagerly, and rejoiced with such exceeding joy, to pay, but a lofty spiritual homage. The next clause confirms this. and when they had opened their treasures they presented-- rather, "offered." unto him gifts-- This expression, used frequently in the Old Testament of the oblations presented to God, is in the New Testament employed seven times, and always in a religious sense of offerings to God. Beyond doubt, therefore, we are to understand the presentation of these gifts by the Magi as a religious offering. gold, frankincense, and myrrh-- Visits were seldom paid to sovereigns without a present (1Ki 10:2, &c.; compare Psa 72:10, 11, 15; Is 60:3, 6). "Frankincense" was an aromatic used in sacrificial offerings; "myrrh" was used in perfuming ointments. These, with the "gold" which they presented, seem to show that the offerers were persons in affluent circumstances. That the gold was presented to the infant King in token of His royalty; the frankincense in token of His divinity, and the myrrh, of His sufferings; or that they were designed to express His divine and human natures; or that the prophetical, priestly, and kingly offices of Christ are to be seen in these gifts; or that they were the offerings of three individuals respectively, each of them kings, the very names of whom tradition has handed down--all these are, at the best, precarious suppositions. But that the feelings of these devout givers are to be seen in the richness of their gifts, and that the gold, at least, would be highly serviceable to the parents of the blessed Babe in their unexpected journey to Egypt and stay there--that much at least admits of no dispute.


<hi type="bold">12. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed--</hi>or, "withdrew."

<hi type="bold">to their own country another way--</hi>What a surprise would this vision be to the sages, just as they were preparing to carry the glad news of what they had seen to the pious king! But the Lord knew the bloody old tyrant better than to let him see their face again.
 <title type="x-s3"><reference osisRef="Matt.2.13-Matt.2.23">Mt 2:13-23</reference>. The Flight into Egypt--The Massacre at Bethlehem--The Return of Joseph and Mary with the Babe, after Herod's Death, and Their Settlement at Nazareth. ( = <reference osisRef="Luke.2.39">Lu 2:39</reference>).</title>
 The Flight into Egypt (<reference osisRef="Matt.2.13-Matt.2.15">Mt 2:13-15</reference>).

12. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed-- or, "withdrew." to their own country another way-- What a surprise would this vision be to the sages, just as they were preparing to carry the glad news of what they had seen to the pious king! But the Lord knew the bloody old tyrant better than to let him see their face again. Mt 2:13-23. The Flight into Egypt--The Massacre at Bethlehem--The Return of Joseph and Mary with the Babe, after Herod's Death, and Their Settlement at Nazareth. ( = Lu 2:39). The Flight into Egypt (Mt 2:13-15).