Chapter XLVIII (continued, part 16)
late us as) the one (people ; the Hebrew is ' the one ') ? In order that He might seek a godly seed;" i. e., that He mighthave "aseed of God," a nation the repository ofthe covenant, and the stock of the Messiah, and the witness fortheoueGod amidst thesurroundingpolytheisms. Marriage with foreign women, and repudiation of the wives wedded in the Jewish covenant, utterly set aside this Divine purpose. Calvin thinks " the one " to refer to the conjugal one body formed by the original pair (Genesis 2). God might have joined many wives as one with the one husband, for He had no lack of spiritual Ijeing to impart td others besides Eve; the design of the restriction was to Becure a pious offspring: but cf. Ifale, v. 10. One object of the marriage relation is to raise a seed for God and for eternity. IG. putting away—i. e., divorce, foronecoveretU violence with . . . garment Maurer translates, "And (Jehovah hateth him who) covereth his garment
(t. e., his wi/e, in Arabic idiom ; cf. Genesis 20. 16, ' He is to thee a covering of thy eyes;' the husband was so to the wife, and the wife to the husband ; also Deuteronomy 22.
80; Ruth .3. 9; Ezekiel 16. 8) with injury." The Hebrew favours "garment," being accusative of the t?iing covered.
Cf. with Englisli Version, Psalm 73. 6, "violence covereth them as a garment." Their "violence" is the putting away of their wives; the "garment" with which tliey try to cover it is the plea of Moses' permission (Deuteronomy
21. 1 ; cf. Matthew 19. 6-9). 17. wearied . . . Lord—(Isaiah
13.24.) This verse forms the transition to ch. 3. 1, &c. The Jewish skeptics of that day said virtually, God delighteth In evil-doers (inferring this from the prosperity of the Burrouuding heathen, whilst they, the Jews, were comparatively not prosperous: forgetting that their attendBnce to minor and external duties did not make up for their neglect of the weightier duties of the law ; e. g., the duty they owed their wives, just before handled); or (if aot) Where (is the proof that He is) the God ofjudgment? To this the reply (ch. 3. 1) is, "The Lord whom ye seek, and whom as messenger ofthe covenant (i. e., Divine rat-
3. 2, 6, 6). whom ye seek . . . whom ye delight in—(See Note, ch. 2. 17.) At His first coming they "souglit" and "delighted in" the hope of a temporal Saviour: not in what He then was. In the case of those wliom Jtalachi in his time addresses, " whom ye seek . . . deliglit in," Is Ironical. They unbelievingly asked. When will He come at last? Ch. 2. 17, " Where is the God ofjudgment" (Isaiah
5. 19 ; Amos 5. 18 ; 2 Peter 3. 3, 4) ? In the case of the godly, the desire for Messiah was sincere (Luke 2. 25, 28). He is called "Angel of God's presence " (Isaiah 03. 9), al.so Angel of Jehovah. Cf. His appearances to Abraham (Genesis 18.
Ifler of God's covenant with Israel) ye delight in (thinking He will restore Israel to its proper place as first of the uations), shall suddenly come," not as a Uestorer of Israel temporally, but as a consuming Judge against Jerusalem (Amos 5. 18, 19,20). The "suddenly" implies the unprepareduess of the Jews, who, to the last of the siege, were expecting a temporal deliverer, whereas a destructive j udgment was about to destroy them. So skepticism shall be rife before Christ's second coming. He shall suddenly and unexpectedly come then also as a consuming Judge to unbelievers (2 Peter 3. 3, 4). Then, too, they shall affect to seek His coming, whilst really denying it (Isaiah
1, 2, 17, 33), to Jacob (Genesis 31. 11 ; 48. 15, 16), to Moses in the bush (Exodus 3. 2-6); He went before Israel as the Shekinah (Exodus 14. 19), and delivered the law at Sinai (Acts 7. 38). suddenly—This t?pithet marks the second coming, rather than the first ; the earnest of that unexpected coming (Luke 12. 38-46; Revelation 10. 15) to judgment was given in the judicial expulsion of the moneychanging profaners from the temple by Messiah (Jlalthew
21. 12, 13), where also as here He calls the temple His ternpie. Also in the destruction of Jerusalem, most unexpected by the Jews, who to the last deceived themselves with the expectation that Messiah would suddenly appear as a temporal Saviour. Cf. the use of " suddenly " in Numbers 12. 4-10, where He appeared in wrath, mt ssenger ofthe covenant viz., of tlie ancient covenant willi Israel (Isaiah 03. 9) and Abraham, in which llie promise to the Gentiles is ultimately include<l (Galatians 4. 16, 17). The gospel at the first advent liej^an with Israel, then embraced the Gentile world : so also it shall be at the second advent. All the manifestations of God in the Old Testament, the Shekinah and human appearances, wer«
5. 19; Jeremiah 17. 15; Ezekiel 12. 22, 27).
Ver. 1-18. Mrssiah's Coming, preceded by His Forkbunker. TO Punish the Guilty for various Sins, and TO llEWARD THOSE WHO Fear God. 1. Behold—Calling especial attention to the momentous truths which follow. Ve ly .bellevlngly ask. Where is the God of Judgment (ch. 2 7J? " Behold," therefore, " I send," (Sc. Yonr
The Chming of the Messiah MALACHI III. to Punish the Guilty People,
made m tne person of tne lilvine Son (Exodus 23.
changeableness of God is the sheet-anchor of the Cliurch, • The perseverance of the saints is guaranteed, not by their unchangeable love to God, but by His unchangeable love to them, and His eternal purpose and promise in Christ Jesus. [MooRK.] He upbraids their ingratitude that they turn His very long-suffering (Lamentations 3. 22) into a ground for skeptical denial of Hisconiing as a Judge at all (Psalm 50.1,3, 4, 21; Ecclesiasles 8.11,12; Isaiah 57.11; Romans 2. 4-10). 7-Vi. Reproof for the non-payment of tithes and offerings, which is the cause of their national calamities, and promise of prosperity on their paying tliem. 7. from . . . days of your fathers—Ye live aa your fathers did when they brought on themselves tlie Babylonian captivity, and ye wish to follow in their steps. This shows that nothing but God's unchanging lohg-sutfering had prevented tlieir being long ago "consumed" (1'. (i). Return unto me—in penitence. I will return unto you—in blessings. Wherein, &c.—(F. 16.) The same insensibility to tlieir guilt continues: they speak in the tone of injured innocence, as if God calumniated them. 8. roll lit., cover: hence, defraud. Do ye call delrauiling God no sin to be "returned" from (u. 7)? Yet ye have done so to me in respect to the tithes due to me, viz., the tenth of all tlie remainder after the firstfruits were paid, which tenth was paid to the Levites for their support (Leviticus 27.30-33): a tenth paid by the Levites to the priests (Numbers 18.26-28): a second tenth paid by the people for the entertainment of the Levites, and their own families, at the tabernacle (Deuteronomy 12.18): another tithe every third year for the poor, &c. (Deuteronomy 14. 28, 29). oflVrings—the first-lruits, not less than one-sixtieth part of llie corn, wine, and oil (Deuteronomy IS. 4; Nehemiah 13. 10, 12). . The priests had this perquisite also, the tenth of the tithes which were the Levites' perquisite. But they appropriated all the tithes, robbing the Levites of their due nine-tenths; as they did also, according to Josephus, before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. Thus doubly God was defrauded, the priests not discharging aright their sacrificial duties, and robbing God of the services of the Levites, who were driven away by destitution. [Gkotius.] 9. cni-sed—(Ch. 2. 2.) As ye despoil me, so I despoil you, as I threatened I would, if ye continued to disregard me. In trying to defraud God we only defraud ourselves. The eagle who robbed the altar set fire to her nest from the burning coal that adhered to the stolen flesh. So men who retain God's money in their treasuries will find it a losing possession. No man ever yet lost by serving God with a whole heart, nor gained by serving Him with a half one. We may compromise with conscience for half the price, but God will not endorse the compromise; and, like Ananias and Sappliira, we shall lose not only what we thought we had purchased so cheaply, but also the price we paid for it. If we would have God "open" His treasury, we must open ours. One cause of the barrenness of the Church is the parsimony of its members. [Moore.] 10. (Proverbs 3. 9, 10.) storehouse [Margin, 2 Chronicles 31.
20,21; Hebrews 11.26; 12. 2G). He was the messenger of the old covenant, as well as of the new. 8. (Cli. 4. 1
Kevelation 6. 16,17.) The Messiah would come, not, as they expected, to flatter the theocratic nation's prejudices, but to subject their principles to the fiery test of His heart-searching truth (Matthew 3. 10-12), and to destroy Jerusalem and the theocracy after they had rejected Him. His mission is here regarded as a whole from the first to the second advent; tlie process a efining and separating the godly from the ungodly bt-ginning during Christ's stay on earth, going on ever since, and about to continue till the final separation (Matthew 25. 31-
46). The refining process, whereby a third of the Jews is refined as silver of Us dross, whilst two-thirds perish, is described, Zechariah 13. 8, 9 (cf. Isaiah 1. 2-5). 3. sit—The purifier sits before the crucible, fixing his eye on the metal, and taking care that the fire be not too hot, and keeping the metal In, only until he knows the dross to be completely removed by his seeing his own image re-
flected (Romans 8. 29) in the glowing mass. So the Lord In the case of His elect (Job 23. 10; Psalm 66. 10; Proverbs
17.3; Isaiah 48. 10; Hebrews 12. 10; 1 Peter 1. 7). He will
git down to tlie work, not perfunctorily, but wltli patient love and unflinching justice. Tlie Angel of the Covenant, as in leading His people out of Egypt by the pillar of cloud and fire, has an aspect of terror to His foes, of love to His friends. The same separating process goes on in the world as in each Christian. Wlien the godly are completely separated from the ungodly, the world will end. When the dross is taken from the gold of the Christian, he will be for ever delivered from the furnace of trial. The purer the gold, the hotter tlie fire now; the whiter the garment, the harder the washing. [Moore.] purify
, . . sons of lievi—of the sins specified above. The very Levites, tlie ministers of God, then needed cleansing, so universal was the depravity, that tliey may offer . . . In rigUteousness—as originally (ch. 2. 6), not as latterly
(ch. 1. 7-14). So believers, the spiritual priesthood (1 Peter
2.5). 4:. as ill the days of old—(Ch. 1. 11 ; 2.5, 6.) The " oflTering" {Mincha, Hebreiv) is not expiatory, but prayer, thanksgiving, and self-dedication (Romans 12. 1 ; Hebrews
13. 15; 1 Peter 2. 5). 5. I . . . come near . . . to Judgment —/ whom ye challenged, saying, "Where is the God of Judgment" (ch. 2. 17)? I whom ye think far off', and to be slow in judgment, am "near," and will come as a "swift witness;" not only a judge, but also an eye-tviiness against sorcerers; for mine eyes see every sin, thougli ye think I take no heed. Earthly judges need witnesses to enable them to decide arigiit : I alone need none (Psalm 10. 11 ; 73.
11; 94. 7, &c.>. sorcerers—a sin into which the Jews were led In connection with their foreign idolatrous wives. The Jews of Clirist's time also practised sorcery (Acts 8. 9;
13. 6 ; Galatians 5. 20 ; Josephus, Antiquities, 20. 6 ; B. Jud.
2.; 12.23). It shall be a characteristic of the last Antichristian confederacy, about to be consumed by the brightness of glirist's coming (Matthew 21. 24 ; 2 Thessalonians 2. 9; Revelation 13. 13, 14; 16. 13, 14; also 9. 21 ; 18. 23;
11; cf.l Chronicles 26. 20; Nehemiah 10.38; 13. 5, 12). prove me . . . hercwitli—with this; by doing so. Test me whether I will keep my promise of blessing you, on condition of your doing your part (2 Chronicles 31. 10.) pour . . . o»»t—/i7., empty out: image from a vessel completely emptied of its contents : no blessing being kept back, tvinfloAvs of Iieavcn— (2 Kings 2. 7.) that . . . not . . . room enough, ite. lit., even tonot . . . sufflciency, i. e., either, as English Version. Or, even so as that there should be "no€ merely" "sullicienoy," but superabundance. [Jerome, MatjBER.] GESKNiusnot.so welUrans/a/es, "Even toafallure of sufflelency," which in the caseof God could never arise, and therefore for ever, perpetually ; so Psalm 72.5, "as long as the sun ai\d moon endure;" lU., until a failure of t/ie sun and moo7i, which Is never to be; and therefore means, /or ci'cr. 11. I will rebuke {Note, ch. 2. S.) I will no longer " rebuke {Knylish Version, ' corrupt') the seed," but will rebuke every agency that could hurt it (Aniosl.
Jl. 8; 22. 15). Romanism has practised It; an order of ex-
orcists exists in tliat Church, adulterers—(Ch. 2. 15, 16.) fear not mc—the source of all sins. G. tlie Lord—Jeliovah: a name implying His immutable faithfulness in ful-
filling His promises: the covenant-name of God to the Jews (Exodus 6. 3), called here " the sons of Jacob," in reference to God's covenant with that patriarch. I change not—Ye are mistaken In inferring that, because I have not yet executed Judgment on the wicked, 1 am changed from what I once was, viz., a God of judgment, therefore ye . . . are not consumed—Ye yourselves being "not consumed," as ye have long ago deserved, are a signal proof of my unchangeableness. Romans 11.29: cf. the whole chapter, In which God's mercy in store for Israel is made wholly to flow from God's unchanging faithfulness to His own covenant of love. So here, as is implied by the phrase "sons of Jacob" (Genesis 28. 13; 35. 12). They are spared because I am Jehovah, and they.so>i.» of Jacob; while I spare them, I will also punish them; and while I punish them, I will not wholly consume them. The un740
».) Vi. Kullllling the blessing (Deuteronomy !i3. 29; Zechariah 8 13>. delightsome land—(Daniel 8.9.) 13-18. He notices the comi)laint of the Jews that it is of no profit to
MALACIH IV.
GocTs Judgment on the WickedL
rromises to the Bighleous.
sltion to trust m Q^A in spite of peiplexing appearances, and in order to make your service less mercenary, that the present blended state is allowed ; but at last all ("ye," both godly and ungodly) shall see the eternal difference therf; really is " between him tliat serveth God and him that serveth Him not" (Psalm 58. 11). return-ye sliall turn to a better state of mind on this point.
eerve Jehovah, for that the ungodly proud are happy; and declares He will soon bring the day when it shall be known that He puts an everlasting distinction between the godly and the ungodly, words . . . atoixt—Hebrew, "hard;" so "the hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spolien against Him" (Jude 15). [Hendekson.] have we spoken—The Hebrew expresses at once their as-
siduity and liabit of speaking against God. [Vatablus.] The niplial form of the verb implies that these things were said, not directly to God, but of God, to one another (Kzekiel 33. 20). [Moobe.] 14. what profit . . . tliat we
Ver. 1-6. God's Comiug Judgment: Triumph of tub Godly: Return to the Law the Best Preparation FOB Jehovah's Coming: Elijah's Preparatory Mission OF Reformation. 1. tlie day cometii . . . burn
. . . kept, &o.—(iVote, ch. 2. 17.) They here resume the same murmur against God. Job 21. 1-1, 15; 22. 17 describe a further stage of the same skeptical spirit, when the skeptic has actually ceased to keep God's service. Psalm
(cli. 3. 2; 2 Peter 3.7). Primarily is meant the judg:iient coming on Jerusalem; but as this will not exliaust the meaning, without supposing what is inadmissible iu Scripture, exaggeration, the final and full accomplishment, of wliich the former was the earnest, is tlie day of general judgment. Tliis principle of interpretation is not double, but successive fulfilment. The language is abrupt, " Beliold, the day cometli ! It burns like a furnace." The abruptness imparts terrible reality to the picture, as if it suddenly burst on the propliet's view, all the proud in opposition to tlie cavil above (ch. 3. 15j, "now we call the proud (haughty despisers of God) happy." stubble (Obadiah 18; Matthew 3. 12). As Canaan, the inlieritance of the Israelites, was prepared for their jjossession by purging out the lieathen, so judgment on tlie apostates
73.1-14 describes the temptation to a like feeling in tlie saint when .seeing the really godly suffer and the ungodly prosper in worldly goods now. The Jews here mistake utterly the nature of God's servloe, converting it into a mercenary bargain ; tliey attended to outward observances, not from love to God, but in the hope of being well paid for in outward prosperity; when this was witliheld, they charged God wltli being unjust, forgetting alilte tliat God requires very different motives from theirs to accompany outward observances, and that God rewards even the true worshipper not so much in this life, as in the life
to come, his ordinance lit., what He requires to be kept. His observances." walked monmfully in mournful garb, .sackcloth and ashes, the emblems of penitence ; they forget Isaiah 58.3-8, where God, by showing what is true
sliall usher iu tlie entrance of the saints upon the Lord's inheritance, of wliich Canaan is tlie type—not lieaven, but earth to its utmost bounds (Psalm 2. 8) purged of all things tliat otTend (Matttiewl3. 41), wliich are to be "gathered out of His kingdom," the scene of the judgment being that also of the kingdom. Tlie present dispensation is a spiritual kingdom, parentlietical between the Jews' literal kingdom and its antitype, the coming litei'al kingdom of the Lord Jesus, neither root nor branch—proverbial {or utter destruction (Amos 2. 9). H, The eflect of the judgment on the righteous, as contrasted with its eflfect on the wicked {v. 1). To the wicked it shall be as an oven that consumes the stubble (Matthew 6. 30) ; to the righteous it shall be the advent of the gladdening Sun, not of condemnation, but "of righteousness;" not destroying, but "healing" (Jeremiah 23. 6). you that fear my name —The same as those in ch. 3. 16, who confessed God amidst abounding blasphemy (Isaiah 66. 5; Matthew 10. 32). The spiritual blessings brought by Him are summed up in the two, " righteousness" (1 Corinthians 1. 30) and spiritual "healing" (Psalm 103.3; Isaiah 57. 19). Those who walk in the dark now may take comfort in the certainty that they sliall walk hereafter iu eternal light (Isaiah 50.10). in liis wings—implying the winged swiftness with which He shall appear (cf. "suddenly," ch. 3.1) for the relief of His people. The beams of the Sun are his "wings."
fasting, similarly rebukes those who then also said, Wherefore have we fasted and thou seest not? &c. They mistook the outward show for real humiliation. 15. And now—Since we are not prosperous who serve Jeliovah, and " the proud" heathen flourish in prosperity, we must pronounce them the favourites of God (ch. 2. 17 ; Psalm 73.
12). set up lit,, built up: metaphor from arcliitecture (Proverbs 24.3; cf. Margin, Genesis 16.2; Margin, 30.3). tempt God—dare God to punish them, by breaking His laws (Psalm 95.9). 16. "Then," when the ungodly utter such blasphemies against God, the godly hold mutual converse, defending God's righteous dealings against those blasphemers (Hebrews 3. 13). The " often" of English
Version is not in the Hebrew. There has been always in the darkest times a remnant that feared God (1 Kings 19.
18; Romans 11. 4). feared the Liord—reverential and loving fear, not slavish terror. When the tire of religion burns low, true believers should draw the nearer togetlier, to keep the holy flame alive. Coals separated soon go out. book ofremembrance . . . forthem—for tlieir advantage, against the day wlie*i those found faitliful among the faithless sliall receive their final reward. Tiie kings of Persia kept a record of those who had rendered services to the king, that they might be suitably rewarded (Estlier 6.1,2; cf. Esther 2. 23; Ezra 4. 15; Psalm 56.8; Isaiah 65.6; Daniel 7. 10 ; Revelation 20. 12). Calvin makes the fearers of God to be those awakened from among the ungodly mass (before described) to true repentance ; the ivriling of the book thus will imply that some were reclaiinable among the blasphemers, and that the godly should be assured that, though no hope appeared, tliere would be a door of penitence opened for them before God. But tliere
Cf. "wings of the morning," Psalm 139.9. The "Sun" gladdening the righteous is suggested by the previous "day" of terror consuming tiie wicked. Cf. as to Christ, 2 Samuel 23. 4 ; Psalm 84. 11 ; Luke 1. 78 ; John
1. 9; 8. 12; Ephesians 5. 14; and in His second coming, 2 Peter 1. 19. The Church is the moon reflecting His light (Revelation 12. 1). The righteous shall by His righteousness "shine as the Sun in the kingdom of the Father" (Matthew 13. 43). ye shall go fortli—from the straits in which you were, as it were, held captive. An earnest of this was given in the escape of the Christians from Pella before the destruction of Jerusalem, grow up-rather, " leap" as frisking calves [Calvin] ; lit., spread, takt a wide range, as calves of tlie stall—which when set free from the stall disport with joy (Acts 8. 8; 13. 52; 20. 24; Romans 14.17;Galatians5.22; PhilemonL4; lPeterl.8). Especially
Is notliing in the context to support this view. 17. jewels —(Isaiah 62.3.) IM., my peculiar treasure (Exodus 19.5; Deuteronomy 7.6; 14.2; 26.18; Psalm 135.4; Titus 2. 14;
1 Peter 2. 9 ; cf. Ecclesiastes 2. 8). Calvim translates more In accordance with Hebrew idiom, "They shall be ray peculiar lrea.s\XT&inthe day inwhich Iwill do it" (i. e., fulfil my promise of gathering my completed Church ; or, " make" tliose things come to pass foretold in v. 5 above [Gboti us]) ; so in cli. 4.3 "do" is used aljsolutely, "in tlie day that I shall do this." Maukeu, not so well, translates, "in tlie day which I shall make," t. e., appoint; as Psalm 118.24. as . . . man spareth . . . son—(Psalm 103. 18.) 18. Then hall ye . . . discern—Then sliall ye see the falseness of your calumny against God's government (v. 15), tliat the "proud" and wicked prosper. Do notjudge before the time
tlie godly shall rejoice at their final deliverance at Christ's second coming (Isaiah 61. 10). 3. Solving the difficulty
(ch. 3. 15) that the wicked often now prosper. Their prosperity and the adversity of the godly shall soon be reversed. Yea, the righteous shall be the army attending Christ in His final destruction of the ungodly (2 Samuel
till my work Is complete. It is lu part to test your dlspo-
22. 43; Psalm 49. 14; 47. 3; Micah 7. 10; Zecharlah 10.6; 1 741
The Mission of the Prophet Elijah MALACHI IV. before the Dreadful Day of the Lord.
Corinthians (5. 2; Revelation 2. 26, 27 ; 19.14,15). ashesafter having been bui-nt with the tire of judgment (v. 1). 4. Remember . . . law—"The law and all the propliets" were to be in force until Jolin (Matthew 11. 13), no prophet Intervening after Malachi; therefore they are told, " Remember the law,'' for in the ab.sence of living propliets they were likely to forget it. The office of Christ's forerunner was to bring them back to the law, which they had too much forgotten, and so " to make ready a people prepared for the Lord'' at His coming (Luke 1. 17). God witliheld prophets for a time, that men might seek after Christ with the greater desire. [Calvin.] The history of human advancement is marked by periods of rest, and again progress. So in Revelation: it is given for a time; then during its suspension men live on the memories of the past. After Malachi there was a silence of 400 years; then a harbinger of light in the wilderness, ushering in the brightest of all the lights that had been manifested, but short-lived; then eighteen centuries during which we have been guided by the light which shone in that last manifestation. The silence has been longer than before, and will be succeeded by a more glorious and awful revelation than ever. John the Baptist was to "restore" tlie defaced image of "the law," so that the original might be recognized when It appeared among men. [Hinds.] Just as "Moses" and "Elias" are here connected with the Lord's coming, so at the transfiguration they converse with Him, implying that the law and prophets which had prepared His way were now fulfilled in Him. statutes
Even after the transfiguration Josns Ofatthew 17. 11) speaks of Elijah's coming "to n^store all things" as still future, though He adds tliat Elijaii (in tlse person of John tlie Baptist) is come already in a sense (cf. Acts 3. 21). However, the future forerunner of Messiah at His second coming may be a prophet or number of prophets clotlied with Elijah's power, who, witli zealous uplioUlers of " the law" clothed in the spirit of "Moses," may be the forerunning witnesses alluded to here and in Revelation 11. 2-12. The words "before the . . . dreadful day of the Loi'd," 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 whicli last the destruction of Jerusalem was the earnest {v. 1; Joel 2.31). 6. turn
. . . heart of . . . fathers to . . . children, Ac—Explained by some, that John's preacliiiig should restore harmony in families. But Luke 1. 16, 17 substitutes for "the heart of the children to the lathers," "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just," implying that the reconciliation to be elTected was that between the unbelieving disobedient children and the believing ancestors, Jacob, Levi, "Moses," and " Elijah" (just mentioned) (cf. ch. 1. 2;
2. 4, 6; 3. 3, 4). The threat here is that, if this restoration were not efl'ected, Messiah's coming would prove "a curse" to the "earth," not a blessing. It proved so to guilty Jerusalem and the "earth," i. e., the land of Judea when it rejected Messiah at His first advent, though He brought blessings (Genesis 1"2. 3) to those who accepted Him (John 1. 11-13). Many were delivered from the common destruction of the nation through John's preaching (Romans 9. 29; 11, 5). It will prove so to the disobedient at His second advent, though He comes to be glorified la His saints (2 Thessalonians 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
. . . Judgmeuts ceremonial "statutes:" "judgments" in civil questions at issue. "The law" refers to morale and religion. 5. I send yo»i EUijali—as a means towards your
' remembering the law" {v. 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 (Luke 1. 16, 17), but not the literal Elijah; whence when asked, "Art thou Elias" (John 1. 21) 1 he answered, " I am not. Art thou that prophet? No." This Implies that John, thougli knowing from the angel's announcement to his father that he was referred to by Malachi 4. 5 (Luke 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 (cf. note, ch. 3. 1). As Moses in v. 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 (Matthew 17. 3
(1 Corinthians 16. 22). For if God spare not the natural branches, the Jews, much less will He spare unbelieving professors of the Gentiles (Romans 11. 20, 21). It is deeply suggestive that tlie last utterance from heaven for 4()0 years before Messiah was the awful word "curse." Messiah's first word on the mount was "Blessed" (Matthew
5.3). The law speaks wrath ; the gospel, blessing. Judea
is now under the "curse" because it rejects Messiah; when the spirit of Elijali, or a literal Elljali, shall bring the Jewish'children back to the Hope of their "fathers," blessing shall be theirs, whereas the apostate "earth" shall be "smitten with tlie curse" previous to the coming restoration of all things (Zechariali 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 gloiy ascribed for ever!
cf. 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. Revelation 11. 3 may refer to the same witnesses as at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah ; Revelation
11. 6 identifies the latter (cf. 1 Kings 17. 1; James 5. 17). 742
END OF VOLUME I.
0 OMMENTAET,
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY,
ON THE
Old and New Testaments.
BY THE
REV. ROBERT JAMIESON, D.D., ST. PAUL'S, GLASGOW, SCOTLAND;
REV. A. R. FAUSSET, A.M., ST. CUTHBERT'S, YORK, ENGLAND;
AJTD THE REV. DAVID BROWN, D.D., PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, ABERDEEN, SCOTLAND.
"VOL. II. NEW TESTAMElsTT. MATTHEW—EOMANS : REV. DAVID BROW, D.D.
1 CORINTHIANS—REVELATION : REV. A. R. FAUSSET, A.M.
S. S. SGTiJ^NTON & CO.
HILLSDALE, MICH.: JEROME B. NAMES.
1879.
THE
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY COMMENTARY.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING 10
S. MATTHEW.
The author of this Gospel was a publican or tax-gatherer, residing at Caperuaum, ou 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 Matthew 9. 9. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labours. Tliat, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to tlie East, is the general testimony of antiquity ; but the precise-scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. Tliat he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers that of tlie apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by thin apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.
For the dale 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 iu tlie oldest MSS. of the old Latin version, while in all the Greek MSS., Willi scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, tlie 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 tlie Jews—wlio 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 otliers. Tiiat 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 witliout remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently—" Whoso readeth, let liim understand" (Matthew 21. 15)—a call to attend to the Divine signal for fiight which could be intended only for tliose 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 persecutiou 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 witliout 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 Luke 1. 1-4) would be suflicient for a time, especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favour 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 iu 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 tliink, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favour of so early a date as a. d. 37 or 38—according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, Tillemont, TowjtsoN, Owen, Bikks, Tkegelles. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of Irenseus (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—thougli probably the majority of critics are in favour of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as tliis 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;" "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews urUU this day" (Matthew 27. 8 and 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 colouring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to wliich 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 gi»atest 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 ou the part of the Evangeli.st 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, ox Syro-Clialdaic, 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 him-
Kelf or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded Is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by Gkotius, Michaehs (and his translator), Marsu, Townson, Campbem,, Olshausen, Ckes-
WKLL, Meyeh, Ebbard, Lanqe, DAVIDSON, CuHETON, Treqelles, Webstek and WiLKiNSOU &c. The evidence re-
Introduction. MATTHEW. Introductioh.
ferred 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 Greeli Gospel ? We have not a tittle of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or any one 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 mtegral 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 liave from men not apostles—in order to .show that as tliat 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 tliey did, we cannot but tliink 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 tliat he had suc(^eeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and Davidson and Cureton among ourselves, have made the same attempt. Bat the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that nonesuch are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Gi'eek 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 autliov'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 favour of tlie originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by Guericks, Olshausen, Thieusc'h, Townson, TREGiiLi^ES, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difl[aculty, 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 tlie 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 con-
fidently aflirmed that the Greek language was not sufflciently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew
publislied 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 favour 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, Uiat our Lord hardly
f-ver spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaio, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go tho length, ou
the other side, of Hug (in his Introduction, pp. 326, &c.) and Roberts (" Discussions," &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 neces-
sary liere to say is, tliat 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 digest's or short narratives of the principal facts of
our Lord's history which we know from Luke(l. 1-1) 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 mat-
ter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisui-ely draw up tho 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 enslirined. The following among otliers hold to tliis view
of tlie sole originality of tlie Greek Matthew: Erasmus, Cai.vin, Beza, Liqiitfoot, Wetstbin, Lardner, Hug,
Fritzsche, Ckedner, De WErrE, Stuart, Da Costa, Fairbairn, Roberts.
On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available
upaoe been already exhausted: The characteristici, 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, whlcli of tho Evangelists drew frcm 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. Tlie most popular opinion until witliiu apretty recent period—and in this country, perliaps, the most
popular still—Is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materliys of the first Gospel, and the
third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here wo can but state our own belief, tliat each of the
first three Evangelists wrote independently of botli the others; while the fourtli, familiar with the first tliree, wrote
tosuppletnenttliem, and, even where he travelsalong the same line, wrote quite Independently of them. This judgment we expr(;ss, with all deference for those who think otlierwl.se, as the result of a pretty close study of each of the Gos-
pels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of tlie two topics noticed, the lin-
guistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by Credner (" Einleituna"), of
whose results a good summary will be found In Davidson's " Introduction." The other peculiarities of the Qo-jpelt*
have been most felicitou»ly and beautifully brought out by Da Costa In his " Four Witnesses," to which we mu»»
alinply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur.
TTie Oenealngy nf ChristMATTHEW I. from Abraham to Joseph.
ash, and Amaziah (I CHironicles 3. 11, 12). Some omissions behooved to be made, to compress the whole into three fourteens (v. 17). The reason why these, ratlier 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
Vi r. 1-17. Geneat-ogy of Chuist. (=Luke 3. 23-38.) 1. Tke book of tlic geiier.-il.ioii—an expiessiou purely Jewish ; nifanintt, "Table of the genealogy.' In Genesis 5. 1 the same expression owurs in inis sense. We have here, then, the title, not of this whole Gospel of Matthew, but only of tlie lirsl seventeen verses, of Jesxis Clivist—For the meaning of these glorious words, see on v. 16, 21. "Jesus," the name given to our Lord at His circumcision (Luke 2. 21), was that by whioli He was fiuniliarly known while on eartli. The word " Clirist"—though applied to Uim as a proper name by the angel who announced His birth to the shepherds (Luke 2. 11), and once or twice used In tliis sense by our Lord Himself (ch. 23. S, 10; Mark 9. 41) —only began to be so used by others about the very close
it); in their slender right to be regarded as true links in the theocratic chain (as Lanqe takes it); or in some similar disqualification. 11. And Josias begn^ Jechonias and his brethren—Jeconiah was Josiah's grandson, being the son of Jehoiakim, Josiah's second son (1 Chronicles 3. 15); but Jehoiakim might well be sunk In such a catalogue, being a mere puppet in the hands of the king of Egypt (2 Chronicles 36. 4). The "brethren" of Jechonias here evidently mean his uncles—the chief of whom, Mattaniah or Zedekiah, who came to the throne
of His eartlily career (ch. 20. 08; 27.17). The full form, "Jesus Clirist," though once used by Himself In His Intercessory Prayer (John 17. 3), was never used by others
(2 Kings 24. 17), is, In 2 Chronicles 36. 10, called "his brother," as well as here, about the time they were carried away to Babylon lit., 'of their migration,' for the Jews avoided the word 'captivity' as too bitter a recollection, and our Evangelist studiously respects the national feeling. 13. A»d after they were brouglit to ('after the migration of) Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathlel—So 1 Chronicles 3. 17. Nor does this contradict Jeremiah 22. 30, " Thus salth 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 reignin;/ child, and Salatliiel (or Shealtiel) begat Zorobabel—So Ezra 3. 2; Nehemiali
till after His ascension and tlie formation of churches in His name. Its use, tlieu. In the opening words of this Gospel (aud in v. 17, IS) is in the style of the late period when our Evangelist wrote, rather tliau of the events he was going to record, the son of David, tlie son of Abraham—As Abraham was the first from whose family it was predicted tliat Messiah should spring (Genesis 22. 18), so David was the last. To a Jewish reader, accordingly, tliose behooved to be the two great starting-points of any true genealogy of tlie promised Messiali; and thus this opening vers^, as it stamps tlie first Gospel as one peculiarly Jev/ish, would at once tend to conciliate the writer's people. From the nearest of tliose two fathers came that familiar name of tlie promised Messiah, "tlie son of Pavid" (Lulte 20. 41], wliicli was applied to Jesus, either lu devout acknowledgment of His rightful claim to it (ch.
12. 1 ; Ilaggai 1. 1. But it would appear from 1 Chronicles
8. 19 that Zerubbabel was Salathiel's grandson, being the son of Pedaiah, whose name, for some reason unknown,
is omitted. 13-15. And Zorobabel begat Abiud, die. 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. 16. And Jacob begat .Toseph, the husband of Mary, ofwhom was born Jesus—From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Josepii ; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not tlie 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. Seeonv. 20. who is called Christ—signifying 'anointed.' It is applied in the Old Testament to the fciw^i
9. 27 ; 20. 31), or in tlie way of insinuating inquiry wliether such wore the case (see on John 4. 29 ; ch. 12. 23). 3. AbraIiam be;;at Isaac; and Isaac begat iTacob ; and Jacoli begat JmCas and liis brethren—Only the fourth son of Jacob is here named, as it was from his loins that Messiah was to spring (Genesis 19. 10). 3. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar ; and Phares begat Ksroui ; and K^rom begat Aram ; 4. And Aram begat Amlnadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson ; and Nansson begat Salmon; 5. And Salmon begat Boox of Rachab ; and Booz begnt Obed of Rntli ; and Obed begat Jesse ; 6. And Je^sc begat David the king ; and David (he king begat Solomon of her of Vrias—Four women are here Introduced; two of them Gentiles by birth Hachab and Ruth ; and three of them witli a blot at their names in the
(1 Samuel 24.6,10); to the priests (Leviticus 4.5, 16, &c.); and to the prophets (1 Kings 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(Isaiali 61. 1 ; cf. John 3. 34). 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 (' 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 Israelitisli 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 Ezra 7. 1-5 no fewer than six generations of the priesthood are omitted, as will appear by comparing it with 1 Chronicles 6. ^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. Lanqe thinks that this was meant as a tacit hint that Mary was to be supplied, as the thirteenth link of the last cliain, 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 (d. 17, reckons David twice—as the last of the first fourteen auu
01(1 TestanK'iit TImmar, Rachab and Bath-shebu. This feature in the present genealogy—herein difffering 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
ofT," but reach 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 o? all that line from which the throne th.'it Messiah was to occupy took its name—" the throne of David." The ai-.gel 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 Rjichab is here represented as the great-grandmother of David (see Ruth 4.20-
22; and 1 Chronicles 2. 11-15)—a thing not beyond possibility Indeed, t)Ut extremely lmprobal)Ie, there being about four centuries between them. There can hardly be a doubt that one or two Intermediate links are omitted. 7. And Solomon begat Roboam ; and Roboam begat Abla ; and A bia begat Asa ; 8. A nd Asa begat Josaphat
and Josaphat begat Joram ; and Joram begat Ozias (or Uzziah)—Three kings are here omitted—.^/laztaTi, Jb-
The Binh of the Ilessiah. MATTHEW II. Tlie Visit of the Wise Mm.
the first of the second—so, if we reckon the second fourteeu to end with Josiali, wlio was coeval with tlie " carrying away into captivity" (u. 11). and the third to begin with Jeconiah, it will be found that tlie last division, as well as the other two, embraces fourteen names, Including that of our Lord.
gin destined to this unparalleled distinction, shall »>«> with child, and sliall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, wliich, being interpreted,
is, God Willi us—ISot tiiat He was to have this lor 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 fellowsliip between God and men from henceforth and for ever. ^4. Then Joseph, l>eing raised from sleep (and all Ills difficulties now removed j, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife—With what deep and revel eutial joy would tliis 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 .tn honour unparalleled, was to all around her wholly unknown!
18-2.5. Birth of Chkist. 18. Now tlie birth of Jegua CUrUt -vvag on tliis wise, or 'thus': Wlieii as Ills motlier Mary was espoused — rather, 'betrothed' — to Josepli, before tliey came togetlier, she was found (or discovered to be) witU cUlld 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 (Acts 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 (Matthew 28. 19; 2 Corintliians 13. 14). On the Miraculous Conception of our JLiOrd, see on Luke 1. 35. 19. Then Joseph lier husband—of. v. 20, " Mary, thy wife." Betrothal was, In Jewish law, valid marriage. In giving Mary up, therefore, Joseph had to take legal steps to
!45. 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 difterent footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15.35; 2 Samuel 6.23; Matthew 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 Ligutfoot says, 'The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born a//e»- or no, but only that none were born before.' (See ou ch. 13.55, 56.)
effect the separation, being a just man, and not willlug to make her a public example—or 'to expose her'
(see Deuteronomy 22. 23, 24)— was minded to put her away pri-vily—(' privately') by giving her the required writing of divorcement (Deuteronomy 24. l)jn presence only of two or three witnesses, and withont 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
Ver. 1-12. Visit of the Magi to Jekusalem and Bethlehem. Tlie Wise Men reach Jerusalem— The Sanhe-
driin, on Herod's demand, j>ronounce Jielhtchem to be Messiah's predicted Birth-place {v. 1-0). 1. Now when Jesna was born lu Bethlehem of Judea—so called to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, near the Sea of Galilee (Joshua 19. 15) ; called also Jieth-tehem-judah, as being in that tribe (Judges 17.7); and Ephrath (Genesis 35. IB); and combining both, Belh-lehem Ephratah [iiV.ci\h o. 2). It layabout six miles south-west 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 birth-place; uay, they stayed at Nazareth till it was almost too late
it altogether unsuitable and incongruous in such circumstances to follow out the marriage. 30. 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 I>>rd appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of DaA'ld—This style of address was doubt-
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 Luke '2. 1-6.) In the d.iys of Herod the king—styled the Great; son of Antipater, an Edomite, made king by the Homans. Thus was " the sceptre departing from Judah " (Genesis 49. ID), 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— ' Mngi ' or 'Magians;' probably of the learned class who cultivated astrology and kindred sciences. Balaam's prophecy (Numbers 24. 17), and perhaps Daniel's (ch. 9. 24, «Sc.), 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 Jesvish me-
less 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 whicli was to follow, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife q. d., 'Though a dark cloud now overhangs this relationship, it is unsullied still.' for that wlkicli
Is conceived in her Is of tlie Holy Ghost. And slke shall bring fortli a son—Observe, it is not said, 'she Khali bear thee a son,' as was said to Zacharias of his wife Elizabeth' (Luke 1. 13). and thou (as his legal father) slialt call his name JESUS—from the Hebrew meaning 'Jehovah the Saviour;' in Gcetfc Jestjs—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—Tlie "He" Is here emphatic—'He it is that shall save ;' He personally, and by personal acts (as Wkb.ster and Wilkinson express
tropolis. 3. Saying, Where Is he that Is born IClng of the Jews T—From this it would seem they were not them-
it), his people—the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in the first instance; for tliey were the only people He then had. But, on the brealilng down of the middle wall of
selves Jews. (Cf. the language of the Koman governor, John 18. 33, and of the Koman soldiers, ch. 27. '29, with the very different language of the Jews themselves, ch. '27. 42,
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 s(!iise of salvation from sin (Uevelatiou 1.
&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; hut from all that la
6; Ephesians 5. 2>-'i7). '-J'-J. Now all this was done, that
it mlgiit be fulfilled wliich was spoken of «l>e Lord l>y the prophet (Isaiah 7. 1 1), saying, :i:5. Beliold, a virgin
hereisaid it is pwrhaps safest to regard itas simply a Uimluous meteor, which appeared under special laws and for
' meaning that particular vir-
' the virgiu
—it should be
Herod Troubled lecause of Christ's Birth. MATTHEW II. Tlie Wise Men Present their GifU.
a special purpose, and are come to worship him—'to do lliiii homage," as the word signifles; the nature of that homage <iepending 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 u. 11. Doul^tless these simple strangers expected all Jerusalem
divinely warned, return home by another way {v. 7-12). 7. Then Herod, when he liad privily called t(\e wise men—Herod has so far succeeded in his murderous design: he has tracked the spot were lies his victim, an unconscious babe. But lie has another point to fix—the date of His birth—without which he might still miss his mark. Tlie 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
to be full of its new-born King, and the lime, place, and tircumslances of His birth to be familiar to every one.
Little would they think tliat 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 birth-place iu some other quarter. But God overruled it to draw forth a noble testimony to the predicted birth-place of Messiah from the highest ecclesiastical authority in the nation. 3. When Herod the king Iiad Iieard 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. *. And when lie had gatliered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together The class of the "chief priest.^" included the high priest
tell him all. And now he tliinks 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, tliat he maj' follow their pious example. 8. And lie sent tliem to Betlilelieiu, and said, Go and search diligently—'search out carefully'—for the young cliild ; and when ye have found liim, bring me word again, tliat I may come .and woi'sliip Iilni also—The cunning and bloody hypocrite! Yet this royal mandate would meantime serve as a safe-conduct to the strangers. 9. Wiien they had heard the king, tliey departed— But where were ye, O Jewish ecclesiastics, ye chief priests and scribes of the people? Ye could
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 Bynagogue-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 <S'anhcdrim, the members of which, at their full complement,
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 tlie news should be blabbed, and reach the tyrant's ears, ere the Babe could be placed beyond his reach. Thus are the very errors and crinies and cold indifferences of men all overruled, and, lo, the star, which they saw iu the east—implying apparently that it had disappeared in tlie interval—went before them, and stood over wliere tlie young child was—Surely this could hardly be but by a luminous meteor, and not very high. 10. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy The language is very strong, expressing exuberant transport. H. And Avheii they were come into tlie Iiouse not the stable; for as soon as Bethlehem was emptied of
v.'ere seventy-two. That this was the council which Herod now convened is most probable, from the solemnily of the occasion ; for though theelders^re not mentioned, we find a similar omission where all three were certainly meant (cf. ch. 26. 59; 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 dcmaMd«-<l of thein—as the authorized in-
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,
terpreters of Scripture—-tvliei-e Chris*—'the Messiah' sliould be born—according to prophecy. 5. And they
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,
itaid unto him, In Betlilchem of Jnden—a prompt and involuntary testimony from the highest tribunal; which yet at length condemned Him to die. for thus it is written I>y tlie prophet (Micah 5. 2). 6. And tiiou, Bethlehem, [in] tlie land of Jndah—the ''in " being familiarly
is not noticed, as being but the head of the house, and
fell do^vn and worsliipped him—Clearly this was no
civil homage to a petty Jewish king, whom these starguided strangers came so far, and inquired so eagerly, and rejoiced with sucli 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 loGod, is in the New Testament employed seven times, and always in a religious sense of offerings to
left out, as we say, 'Lomlon, Middlesex '—art not the
Irnst among the princes of Juda for out of thee shall come a Governor, &c. This quotation, though dilfering
verbally, agrees substantially witli (he Hebrew and LXX. For says the prophet, " Tliou?{h thou be little, yet out of thee shall come the Ruler"—Miis honour more than compensating for its natural insignificance ; whilst our Evan-
gelist, 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 lliese, merely names the "princes" or heads of these
God. Beyond doubt, therefore, we are to understand the presentation of tliesc gifts by the Magi as a religious offer-
ing, gold, fi-i»nklueense, and myrrh—Visits were seldom paid to sovt-rei^jiis witliout a present (1 Kings 10. 2, &c.); cf. Psalm 72. ID, 11, lo; Isaiah GO. 8,0). "Frankincense" was an aromatic used in sacrifical otterings; " myrrh" was used in perfuming ointments. These, with the gold which they presented, seem to show that the
timilies, including the districts which they sccupied. that shall rule—or 'feed,' as In tlie margin—my people Israel—In the Old Testament, kings arc, by a beautiful
figure, styl'^d "shepherds" (E/.ekiel 31., &c.) The classical wri ters use the same figure. The pastoral rule of Jehovah and Messiah over His people Is a representation pervading all Scripture, and rioh in Import. (See Fsalm 23; Lsaiah 4i;. H; E/.ekicl 37. 24; John 10. 11; Revelation 7. 17.) That tills prophecy of Micah referred to the Messiah, whs ndmitted by the ancient Rabbins. The Wise Men, detpaM-hed to liellilehein by Jlcrod to sec tlie Babe, and bring him word, nuike a Kuligious Offering to the In/ant King, biU,