The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 20

the name wne nagmentod when given to the BUggcsted by God. Joseph at onco ac~cpte fa moue successor of Moses, sceN um b. xiii. Hi.) the communication e.nd takes Mary l101ne, Who ii oe.lled Christ. The evnngelist here avoiding, however, a.II co.use for tl ,e su pp<Jsi- a.Hudes merely to the well-known fact thnt Jesus we.e co.lied by this nnme. The Bigni- tion that the child was, after all, of human ficnaoe of the word, which is e. tre.nsle.tion origin. of the Hebrew Me&Biah, is "nnointed," e.nd Ver, 18.-Now the birth (ver. 1, n0te). in the Old Teetnment it is given to priests r(,,.,,,,IT,s ("generation") nf the received (na Lev. iv. 3, 5, Hl), to n king e.ppointed text refers to the causo.tive act, the true by Jehovall (I Sam. xxiv. 6, 10; 2 Sam. roe.din~ (-;lv<!Tn) to the birth itself (cf. xix. 21), also to King Cyrus (Isa. xiv. 1), and Luke 1. 14). Of 1esus Christ was on this to some unnamed representative of Jehove.h wise. The Revised Version margin says, (1 Sam. ii. 10). H was subsequently applied "Borne ancient authorities read, 'of the to Jesus botli in the Greek form e.nd in the Christ,'" t.nt perhaps the rea,ling, "of Hebrew (John i. 41; iv. 25). It must, how- Christ Jesns" (H [Origenj), is even r,r cl'er- ever, be noticed ('•ide Dishop Westcott, Add. e.ble, as in no good manuscript of the New Note on 1 John v. 1) that it was not e. Testament iJ! the article elsewhere prefixed characteristic title of the promised Snviour to" Jesus Christ," o.nd the easy reaclin;,-," of in the Old Testament, and was not even the Christ," would hardly provoke altera- epecifico.lly applied to him, unless, perhaps, tion, while it might easily arise from assimi- in Dan. ix. 25, 26-e. paase.go of which the lation to thil preceding "unto the Christ" interpretntioa is very doubtful. of Tcr. 17 (cf. Dr. Hort, in Westcott and Ver.17.-Fourteen genere.tions. To me.ke Hort, • Appendix.' Biahop Westcott, how- the list more ensy to remember, the names ever, sc~ms to prefer the reading, "of the were so ordered that there should be tile Christ," and ao distinctly Irenreu,, iii. same number in ea.eh of the three divisions. 16). If the reading, "of Cl.inst J csus," Tilus a. means was e.il'orded of checking the be e.ccepted, the evangelist purposely re- con-ectness of the enumeration, and the list peats his phre.ee of ver. 17, and then became a sort of memoria technica. Unto identifies him with the historic Person. Christ; better here, unto the Chri&t. For now When 8.11. The Revised Version omits " as" begins the history which tells of this Jesus as because obsolete; cf. "what time as." Eis the specie.Uy Anointed One of God, the true mother Mary was espo11Bed to Joseph; /,ad. l\Iessiab, of which a.II the previously anointed been betrothed (Revised Version), the tense messengers h~d been but types ancl figures. clearly showing that the bctrotl,al had '.l.'he history which St. Matthew is about to already taken place. B<.:trothal was and give demonstrates that in Jesus were ful- 18 with the Semitic races e. much mo~e filled the prophecies of the Old Testament formal matter than with us, and as binding which the Jews bad constantly referred to as mnrrie.ge ~ of. Dent. xxii. 23, 24 ; cf. also the Messiah, for wllose e.ppenre.uce the pious the worda"of the angel, "Mary thy wife" in lel'llel were ever looking. (ver. 20). Before they co.me together; in- Vere. 18-25.-JESUe TIIE CamST BY cluding, probably, both the home-bringing (ver. 24) and the consummation (rnr. 25), DIVINE OntGIN. Recorded by Matthew only. She was found (<vp<V11), Although Cureton The frequent sillliiill'ity of !11nguage found (' Corp. Ign.,' p. 271) shows that tile in Luke i. 26-35 ( vide ' Syuopticon ') 18 Aramaic equivalent is used in the sense of probably due to the fact that J oecph and " became," and wishes to see this weaker Mary not unnaturally fell into tue way of mcaniug in s"nral passages of the Greek using the same words to express two mes- Testament (includiug, nppareutly, the present), the references that lie gives sages of similar import. (Rom. vii. 10; 2 Cur. v. 3; xi. 12) do not Tho object of this po.ragre.ph is to show justify us iu giving np tho stronger nnd that Messiah wns in origin not of man but more usuul sense. On ~•~always inl'Dlv- of God. This fact was accepted evon by his ing more or less prom inenlly~ J!!ea ,of _a, reputed father Joseph, who was only con- surprise, of. Dishop Lightfoot on Gal. 1i.•17. ~ t h e reverent silence with whicll a vinced of it nftcr a specie.I communication whole stage of the history is passed over. by an angel in a dream; giving llim the With child of the Holy Ghost ( be flv<vµ«,-os fo.cts of the case, e.ud foretelling thu.t II son 'A-;lou; of. ver. 20, with~ut_tb~_11,rticle in 1,oth would be born, and that this Son would be Q..llcSCS), According to tne usual intl'rprda- tho ,1xpected Saviour; and o.Iso showing from tion of these words, "tiio lloly Cl 110,t" refers to the Third Person of the Triuity, prophcey that such uni,,n of God w:th man and "of" (<,c) is used bccauso Lhe n~ent -wa.s uo uaheurd-of supposition, but the ful- can bo regnrd"cl ns the iluwc,linte source filment and complclion of nnric·nt thought (f?f, 2 Cor. ii. 2). llu{ the questions suggest  6 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TC:1 ST, MATTHEW. [err. 1. 1-2~.