The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 21

themselves: (I) wbeth<'r nv.vµm •A-y,ov is HolyGhost" (nv•iiµa" A-y,ov) theroapp11rcntlyl here need inn etrictly Christ;nn or in a pre- connoting an outpouring of life; "the Christinn sen8c? and (2) if the latter, what power of the lllost lligh" (B6v1t1us ~fla·.-ou),I 'l'l"ns this prc-Christi1rn sense? As to (1), it nn outpouring of strength. Dorner(' System.,'/ may be srgued thnt the evangelist himself, iii. 343; cf. 162, etc-.) says that the expres- writing long after Pentecost, and recording sion in our text is " the less preoiso ancient s3yings taught among Christio.n! only after Christian designation of the Divine Essenoe Pentecost, would nalurolly wish his words gcnerolly, out of which (de quo) Christ he.a to be understood in a Christian sense; and come. To the Holy Spirit in the Trinito.rio.n hence that nv•iiµa • A-y,ov hero has at least sense is only to bo ascribed, according to the that comparntivelr devclope<I doctdne of Scriptures, first, the intcl'Dal preparation of the Personality of the Holy Ghost which we humanity for the Divine Inoe.rnntion, and, find indicated in the New Testament; e.g. secondly, o.fter. the U11io the animation of eh. xxnii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 13; John xiv.- ~he ~nrunnity of Christ by the Divine power xn. It may, however, be justly replied that 1ssmng from the Logos." The po.ssnge in the words nre in themselves rather a record l\larteusen's • Dogma.ties,' § 139, so well of the feelings of Joseph and lllnry about k:1own f?r its lo.t~er pnrt, nppe.rently o.greee the Incarus.tion, and are merely a transla- mth this: "He 1s born not of the will of tion of the phrs.se Ruah-h~d,Jsh (or its a mnn, nor of the will of the flesh ; but the Aramaic equivalent, Ruah Kudsha), which holy will of the Creator took the place of they themsclrns used; a1id •that hence its the will of man and of the will of the flcsh,- trne meaning here must be rather sought in that is, the creating Spirit, who was in the the meaning of the Semitic phrase in pre- beginning, fulfilled the function of the Chriatian times. In other words, nvwµa plastic principle. He Wl\8 born of the Virgin • A-,,ov here means neither more nor less than Mary, the chosen woman in the chosen Bual_i-ha~odesh meant on the lips of a godly people. It was the task of Israel to provide, and instrncted Jew before the teaching of not, ns has been -often so.id, Christ himself, Christ, and especially before Pentecost. (2) bnt the mother of the Lord; to develop the What was this pre-Christian sense? What susceptibility for Christ to a point when it did Ruah-haltodesh mean? To a.newer this might be able to manifest itself as the pro- fully would be to compile a treatise on one fonndest unity of nature and spirit-a unity of the most di.fficnlt and disputed points of which found expression in the pure virgin. Old Testament and early Jewish theology. In her the pious aspirations of Israel and of But a cnrsory comparison of passages in mankind, their faith in the promises,_ are the Old Testament and the pre-Christian centred; she is the purest point in history writings seems to show that, thongh there and in nature, and she, therefore, becomes are many places which quite fall in with the appointed medium for the new creation." the Trinitarian view, and which are often Observe that the Greek Creeds (<Tap,cr,i9lvia marked by strong personification of the [-,•w119lv.-a, Marcellus] be nv,6µaTo• 'A-ylov Spirit (e.g. Isa. lxiii. 10-14-; cf. fnrther ,cal Map/as .-ij, nmp9lvov), by not inserting App. A. in Dr. Sharpe's 'The Tree of the article ( contrast afterwards ,cal el, .-b Life,' Ce.mbridge, 1889), religions Jews did nniiµa TO dA-y,ov), probably intended only to not understand by Rua!,-halrodesl, o. per- reproduce St. Matthcw's le.ngnage. The manent and distinct hypostasie in the Deity, Latin could not fail to be ambiguous (do bnt rather the Deity itself in relation to the Bpiritu Sando). If, however, we divest world as the Source and Maintenance of its ourselves of considerations directly derived life (Job xxxi.ii. 4; Ps. civ. 30; Job x:niv. from exegesis, and, turning to the theologi- 14; Pa. cxniL 7; Isa. lxili. 10 ; of. Wi.ad. cal side, ask which Person of the Blessed i. 7; xii. 1), in contrast to the Deity abso- Trinity, in fact, prepared Mary for the Incar- lutely m::d as the object of worship. Pre- nation of the Second Person, we must un- Christian thought, that is to sa.y, used the doubtedly answer the.t it was the Third term "Holy Spirit" as designating the One Person. For this is hie peculiar function, God in a certain relation to the world, not uniting alike the Persons in the Godhead ..e designating a permanent and real dis- and also the Godhead to creation (cf. tinction in the Godhead. If this be so, we Dorner, ' System.,' i. 425,437 ; iv. 159, etc.), must understand the i:,hraee here to mean Ver. 19.-Then Joseph her husband; and that Christ was conceived of God (not of (Revised Veraion). The thought is slightly BDy Person in the Godhead) in contrast to ndversative (Iii); though this was "of the man. We may, perhaps, even give to l,c its Holy Ghost,'' yet Joseph was a.bout to put fullest meaning of " origin" ( cf. John i. 13, her away. Being a just mo.n; ri9hteous OUIC •t wµa:rr,iv ... CJA11.' fK 0eoii). The phrase (Revised Version); i.e. who strove to conform as a whole thue only insists tl,at the Child to the Divine precepts manifested for him wes by origin Divine. It will bo noticed in the Law (c-f. Luke i. 6; ii. 25), And not dio.t Luk!: i. 35 is then cloacly pamllel," the willing ; i.e. "and yet not wishing," though on. I. 1-25.] 'rHE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 7