Bible Commentary (1871–1879 Edition)
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 nstore 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 uplio Ulers 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 el Tected 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. SGTiJNTON & CO.
HILLSDALE, MICH.: JEROME B. NAMES.
1879.
THE
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY COMMENTARY.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING 10
S. MATTHEW.
INTRODUCTION.
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, TREGiiLiES, &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 confidently 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 necessary 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 matter 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 Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of tlie two topics noticed, the linguistic 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
CHAPTER I.
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 fciwi
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 Krom 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 Jesc 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
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 1-12. Visit of the Magi to Jekusalem and Bethlehem. Tlie Wise Men reach Jerusalem— The Sanhedriin, 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 doubtfor 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 meless 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 themit), 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. Doultless 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 theeldersre 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 inits 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 dovn 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 lo God, 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 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 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 offering, gold, fi-i»nklueense, and myrrh—Visits were seldom paid to sovt-reijiis 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, oll'erers were persons in aflluent circumstances. That (lie 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 olhces of Christ are to be seen in these gifts ; or that tliey wore the oflerings of tliree Individuals respectively, each of them kings, tlie very names of whom tradition has handed down—all these
The Flight into Egypt. MATTHEW II. ZVie Massacre of the Innocents, already far beyond his rech on their way home, when he saw that he was mocked— are, at the best, precarious suppositions. But that the feelings of tliese devout givers are to be seen in the richness of their gifts, and that the gold, at least, would be highly serviceable to Wie parents of the blessed Babe in their unexpected journey to Egypt and stay there—tlius much at least admits of no dispute. V.l, And being warned of God in a dream tliat tliey slioiild not return to Herod, tliey departed—or
' M"as trilled with'—of th« wise men—No, Herod, thou art not mocked of the wise men, but of a Higher than they. He that sitteth in the heavens doth laugh at thee; the Lord hath thee in derision. He disappointetli the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise. He taketli the wise in their own craftiness, and the counsel of the
' witlidrew'—to tlielr own country anot Uer 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 x>ious king froward is carried headlong (Psalm 2. 4 ; Job 5. 12, 13). That blessed Babe shall die indeed, but not by thy hand. As He afterwards told that son of thine—as cunning and as unscrupulous as thyself—when the Pharisees warned Him to depart, for IJcrod would seek to kill Him—"Go ye, and tell that fox. Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures
But the Lord knew the bloody old tyrant better than to let him see their face again.
13-25. The Flight into Egypt—The Massacre at Bethlehem—The Bbturn of Joseph and Mary with THE Babe, after Herod's Death, and their Settlement at Nazareth. (==Luke 2. 39.) The Flight into Egypt, to-da^' and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following : for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13. 32, 3;3). Bitter saiire • was exceeding wroth—To be made a fool of is what none
13-15.) 13. And wlicn tliey were departed, behold, tUe angel of tlie Lord appearctli to Joseph in a dream, saying. Arise, and take tlic young child and his mother—Observe this form of expression, repeated in the next verse—another indirect hint that Joseph was no more than the Child's guardian. Indeed, personally considered, Joseph has no spiritual significance, and very like, and proud kings cannot stand. Herod burns with rage, and is like a wild bull in a net. So he sent forth a band of hired murderers, and slew all the [male] children that were in Betlilehem, and in all the coasts, oi 'environs,' thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he Itad diligently little place at all, in the Gospel history, and flee into Egypt—which, being near, as Alford says, and a Roman province independent of Herod, and much inhabited by Jews, was an easy and convenient refuge. Ah ! blessed Saviour, on what a chequered career hast Thou entered here below ! At Thy birth there was no room f<5r Thee in the Inn ; and now all Judea is too hot for Thee. How soon has the sword begun to pierce through tlie Virgin's soul (Luke 2. 35) ! How early does she taste the reception which this mysterious Child of hers is to meet with in the world! And whither is He sent? To "the house of bondage?" Well, it once was that. But Egypt was a house of refuge before it was a house of bondage, and now
'carefully'—inquired of the wise men—In this ferocious step Herod was like himself—as crafty as cruel. He takes a large sweep, not to miss Ills mark. He thinks this will surely embrace his victim. And so it had, if He had been there. But He is gone. Heaven and earth shall sooner pass away than thou slialt have that Babe into thy hands. Tlierefore, Herod, thou must be content to want Him: to All up the cup of thy bitter mortilications, already full enough—until thou die not less of a broken heart than of a loathsome and excruciating disease. Why, ask skeptics and skeptical critics, is not this massacre, if it really occurred, recorded by Josephus, who is minute enough in detailing the cruelties of Herod? To this the answer is not diillcult. If we consider how small a town Bethlehem was, it is not likely there would be many male children in it from two years old and under; and when we think of the number of fouler atrocities which Josephus has recorded of him, it is unreasonable to make anytliing of his silence on this. 17. Then was fulfilled that wliicli was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying—(Jeremiah 31. 15, from which the quotation dil Ters but verbally)—18. In Rama was there n voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not—These words, as they stand in Jeremiah, undoubtedly relate to the Babylonish captivity. Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, was buried in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem (Genesis 35. 19), where her sepulchre is still shown. She is tiguiatively represented as rising from the tomb and uttering a double lament for the loss of her childreu it has but returned to its tirst use. and he thou there until I bring tliee word ; for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him—Herod's muiderons purpose was formed ore tlie Magi set out for Bethlehem. U, When h« arose, he took the young child and his mother by night—doubtless the same night—and departed ii>to Egypt; 15. And was there until tlie death of Herod—wliich took place ucft very long after this of a horrible disease ; tlie details of which will be found in Josephus (Antiquities, 17. 6. 1, 5, 7, 8). that It might be fulfilled which was spolsen of the Lord by tlie prophet, saying (Hosua 11. 1), Out of Egypt have I called my son—Our Evangelist here quotes directly from the Hebrew, warily departing from the LXX., which renders the words, " From "Egypt have I recalled his children," meaning Israel's children. The prophet is reminding his people how dear Israel was to God in the days of his youth; how Moses was bidden to say to Pharaoh, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is myao?i, iny first-born ; and
I say unto thee. Let iny son go, tliat he may serve me ; and
-first, by a bitter captivity, and now by a bloody death. And a foul deed it was. O ye mothers of Bethlehem ! metliinks I hear you asking why your innocent babes should be the ram caught in the thicket, whilst Isaac escapes. I cannot tell you; but one thing I know, that ye shall, some of you, live to see a day when that Babe of Bethlehem shall be Himself the Ram, caught In another sort of thicket, in order that your babes may escape a worse doom than tliey now endure. And if these babes of yours be now in glory, through the dear might of that blessed Babe, will thej not deem it their honour that the tyrant's rage was exhausted upon themselves instead of their Infant Lord? 19. But when Herod was dead Miserable Herod ! Thou thoughtest thyself safe from a dreaded Rival; but it wiui He only that was safe from thee; and thou hast not long enjoyed even this fancied security. Seeoni'. 15. behold, an angel of the Lord—Our translators, soniewliat capriciously, render the same expression "the angel of the Lord," cli. 1. 20; 2. 13; and "an angel of the Lord," as here. As the same angel appears to have been employed on all tlnso high occasions—and most likely hetowiiom in Luke is given the name of " Uaif thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy first-born" (Exodus 4. 22, '23) ; how, when Pharaoh refused, God having slain all liis first-born, " called his own son out of Egypt," by a stroke of higli-lianded power and love. Viewing the words in this light, even if our Evangelist had not applied them to the recall from Egypt of God's own beloved. Only-begotten Son, tlie application would liivve been irresistil)ly made by all who have learnt to pierce beneath the surface to the deeper relations which Christ bears to His people, and both to God; and who are accustomed to trace tlie analogy of God's treatment of each respectively. 16. Then Herod, &c.—As Deborah sang of tlie mother of Sisera, "She looked out at a window, and cried through the lattice. Why is his chariot so long In coming? wliy tarry the wiieels of his chariots? Have they not sped?" so Herod wonders that his messen-
with pious zeal, are not hastening with the news ihat all Is ready to receive him as a worshipper. What
L-iin be Iceeplng them? Have they missed their way? Has any disaster befallen them ? At length his patience tM exhausted He makes his inquiries, and finds they are 8
Chrht Browjld uijuin to Galilee. MATTHEW III. Preaching of John the Bapiiat pel with the other's before him—thougli many think this a precarious inference, that it might lieftilfilled wliiili was spoken by the propliets, lie shall be called a Nazarene—better, perhaps, 'Nazarene.' Tlie best explanation of the origin of this name appears to be that which traces it to the word netzer in Isaiah 11. 1—the small twig, hrlel,"' ch. J. 19, 26—perhaps it should In every Instance except the first, he rendered " Ifie angt l." appearetU In a dream to JosepU Im Egypt, 20. Saying, Arise, and take the young cl>il<l and his mother, and go Into the land of Israel—not to the land of Judea, for he was afterward expressly warned not to settle there, nor to Galilee, for he sprout, or sucker, which the prophet there says, "sh Ull come forth from the stem (or rather ' stump') of Jesse, the branch which should fructify from his roots." The only went thither when he found it unsafe to settle in
Judea, but to "the land of Israel," in its most general sense; meaning t!ie Holy Lnnd at large—the particular province being not as yet indicated. SoJosepli and the little town of Nazareth—mentioned neither in the Old Testament nor in Josephus—was probably so called from
Virgin had, like Abraham, to "go out, not knowing whither they went," till they should receive further di-
Its Insignificance—a weak twig in contrast to a statelj' tree ; and a special contempt seemed to rest upon it—" Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (Jolm 1. 46)—over and above the general contempt in which all Galilee was held, from the number of Gentiles that settled in the upper territories of it, and, in the estimation of the Jews, debased it. Thus, in the providential arrangement by which our Lord was brought up at the Insignificant and opprobrious town called Nazareth, there was Involved, rection, for tUcy are dead which sought the young child's life—a common expression in most languages where only one is meant, who here is Herod. But the words are taken from the strikingly analogous case-In Exodus i. 19, which probably suggested the plural here; and where the command is given to Moses to return to Egypt for the same reason that the greater than Moses was now ordered to be brought back from it—the death of first, a local humiliation; next, an allusion to Isaiah's prediction of His lowly, twig-like upspringing from the branchless, dried-up stump of Jesse ; and yet further, a standing memorial of that humiliation which " tlie prophets," In a number of the most striking predictions, had attached to the Messiah.
liim who sought his life. Herod died in the seventieth year of his age, and thirty-sevenlli of his reign. 31. And he arose, and tools ll»e young child and his mother, and came into tlie land of Israel—intending, as is plain from what follows, to return to Bethlehem of Judea, there, no doubt, to rear the Infant King, as at His own royal city, until the time should come when they would expect Him to occupy Jerusalem, "the city of the Great King." 22. But when Ue heard that Archelaus did reign In Judea in the room of Ills father Herod— Archelaus succeeded to Judea, Samaria, and Idumea; but Augustus refused him the title of kini/ till it should be seen how he conducted himself; giving him only the title
CHAPTER III.
Ver. 1-12. ^Preaching and Ministry of John. (= Mark 1. 1-8 ; Luke 3. 1-18.) For the proper introduction to this section, we must go to Luke 3. 1, 2. Here, as Bengkl well observes, the curtain of the New Testament is, as it were, drawn up, and the greatest of all epochs of the Church commences. Even our Lord's own age is determined by it {v. 23). No such elaborate chronological precision Is to be found elsewhere in the New Testament, and It comes fitly from him who claims it as the peculiar recommendation of his Gospel, that 'he had traced down of Ethnctrch [Josephus, Antiquities, 17., 11, 4J. Above this, however, he never rose. The people, indeed, recognized him as his father's successor; and so it is here said that lie " reigned in the room of his father Herod." B"t, after ten years' defiance of the Jewish law and cruel tyranny, the people lodged Iieavy complaints against him, and the emperor banislied him to Vienne in Gaul, reducing Judea again to a Roman province. Then the "sceptre" clean "departed from Judah." he was afraid to go thltlier and no wonder, for the reason just mentioned, notiicithstanding—or more simply, ' but'—l>elng warned of Ciod in a dream, he turned aside-' withdrew'—into the parts of Galilee, or the Galilean parts. The whole country west of the Jordan was at this lime, as is well known, divided into three provinces—Galilee being the northern, JCDEA the southern, and Samakia the central provall things with precision from the very first' (ch. 1. 3). Here evidently commences his proper narrative. Ver. 1. " Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cassar" —not the fifteenth from his full accession on tlie death of Augustus, but from the period when he was associated with him in the government of the empire, three years earlier, about the end of the year of Rome 779, or about four years before the usual reckoning. "Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea." His proper title was Procurator, but with more than the usual powers of that office. Alter holding it for about ten years, he was summoived to Rome to answer to charges brought against him ; but era he arrived Tiberius died (A. d. 35), and soon after misera Vila Pilate committed suicide. "And Herod being tetrarcli of Galilee (see on Mark 6. 14), and his brother Philip"—a very different and very superior Philip to the one whose name was Herod Philip, n»nd whose wife, Herodias, went to live with Herod Antipas (see on Mark 6. 17j—" tetrarch of Itarea"—lying to the north-east of Palestine, and so called from Itur or Jetur, Ishmael's son (1 Chronicles 1. 31), and anciently belonging to the half-tribe of Manasseh. " and of the region of Trachonitis"—lying farther to the nortiieast, between Iturea and Damascus; a rocky district infested by robbers, and committed by Augustus to Herod the Great to keep in order, "and Lysanlas the tetrarch of Abilene"—still more to the north-east; so called, says Robinson, from Abila, eighteen miles from Damascus. Ver. 2. "Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests." The former, though deposed, retained much of his influence, and, probably, as Sagan or deputy, exercised mucli of the power of the high priesthood nlong with Caiaphas his son-in-law (John 18. 13; Acts 4.8). In David's time both Zadok and Abiathar acted as high priests (2 Samuel 15. 3.5), and it seems to have been the fixed pracince. The province of Galilee was under the Jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, the brother of Archelaus, his father having left him that and Perea, on the east side of the Jordan, as his share of the kingdom, with the title of tetrarch, which Augustus confirmed. Though crafty and licentious, according to Josephus—precisely what the Gospel history shows him to be (see on Mark 6. 14-30, and on Luke 13. 31-:io)—he was of a less cruel disposition than Archelaus; and Nazareth being a good way off from the seat o( government, and considerably secluded, it was saft;r to settle there. !i3. And lie came and dwelt im a city called Nazareth—a small town in Lower Galilee, lying In tlie territorjof the tribe of Zebulon, and about equally distant from the Mediterranean Sea on the west and the Sea of Galilee on the east. N. B.— lf, from Luke 2. 39, one would conclude that the parents of Jesus brought Him straight back to Nazareth after His presentation in the temple—as if there had been no visit of the Magi, no flight to Egj'pt, no stay there, and no purpose on returning to settle again at Bethlehem—one might, from our Evangelist's waj' of speaking here, equally conclude that the parents of our Lord had never been at Nazareth until now. Did we know exactly the sources from which the matter of each of the Gospels was drawn up, or the mode in which these were used, this apparent discrepancy would probably disappear at once. In neither case is there any Inaccuracy. At the same Hme It is dif Hcult, with these facts before us, to conoelve that either of these two Evangelists wrote his Gostice to have two (2 Kings 25. 18). "the word of God came, unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness." Such a way of speaking Is never once used when speaking o Jesus, because He was Himself The Living Word ; whereas to all merely creature-messengers of God, the word iaoy