vco^
03
,4 576
THE
^m of prince
fyoLOt
'GICAL S-*"
GOSPEL
ACCOKDING TO
MATTHEW.
EXPLAINED BY
JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDER.
NEW YORK:
CHARLES SCRIBNER, 124 GRAND STREET.
1861.
Ekteeed, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by
CHAELES SCRIBNEE,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
JOHN F. TROW,
PRINTER, STEREOTYPER, AND ELGCTKOTYFHE,
50 Greene Street, New York.
PREFACE.
This volume presents the last work on which the pen of Dr. Alexander was engaged.
It is complete as a commentary to the close of Chap- ter XVI., and then, as though the author anticipated the approaching interruption of his earthly labours, it finds a quasi-completion in an analysis of the concluding chapters.
It may be of interest to the reader to know, that at the commencement of his analysis of Chapter XVII., the manuscript of Dr. Alexander contains this memorandum : " Resumed after five weeks' confinement and inaction, January 3d, 1860 ; " and that day by day pursuing the work, he records in his journal, "Wednesday, January 18th, Finished the Analysis of Matthew/' and " 20th, Kead over my Analysis of Matthew xvii.-xxvin./' — just a week and a day before his death.
Of course not only is the volume deficient in the notes upon these concluding chapters, but also in the General Introduction, similar to that of his work on Mark, which he designed to have furnished.
iv PKEFAOE.
It remains only to state, that as it was Dr. Alex- ander's desire to make the commentary on Matthew complete in itself, without reference to that on Mark, wherever parallel passages occur, he has in general simply transferred the notes in full from the latter volume, making only the necessary alterations to adapt them to the text of Matthew.
S. D. A. New Yoek, December, 1860.
THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
MATTHEW.
CHAPTEE I.
I^ pursuance of his purpose to demonstrate the Messiahship of Jesus by showing the exact correspondence of his life to the prophecies and types of the Old Testament, Matthew begins by tracing his descent, not only from David the first and greatest of the theocratic kings, but from Abraham the Father of the Faithful and the founder of the ancient church or chosen people. This important fact is established, not by mere assertion or historical narration, bat by a technical and formal genealogy or pedigree, exhibiting our Lord's descent, not merely in the general but in detail, throughout the three great periods of the history of Israel (1-17). Having thus shown, as if by documentary evidence, from whom he was descended, the evangelist records the cir- cumstances which preceded the Nativity itself, with particular refer- ence to the difficulties springing from his mother's marriage and the mode of their solution (18-25).
1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
The two first words are to be read in close connection as forming one compound title, generation-book, descent-booTc, corresponding to the modern phrase, genealogical table, or to the one word pedigree, when used to denote, not the extraction or descent itself, but the written record or certification of it, The word translated book (/3i/3Xo?) has in Greek a much wider usage, being applied to any writing, and orig- inally signifying one of the most ancient kinds of "writing material, to wit, the inner bark of the papyrus plant, from which is derived our 1
2 MATTHEW 1,1.2.
paper, although made of an entirely different substance. As here used it is nearly equivalent to document in modern English, or to paper, as denoting not the mere material but the writing, especially when it is official or authoritative, or important in relation to some special case or business, as for instance the " papers" in a suit at law. The other word (yeveaecos) in classical Greek means generation, in the proper sense of creation or procreation, but in Hellenistic usage birth (as in v. 18 below) or lineage, extraction, as in this verse. It is the genitive case of the name {Genesis) given in the Septuagint version to the first book of Moses, as containing the Origines of human history. There is no grammatical ellipsis to be here supplied, (this is) the oooJc (Tyndale), so as to form a complete sentence. It is rather a title or inscription, either of the whole book ; or, as some suppose, of the two first chap- ters, which contain the history of our Saviour's infancy ; or of the first alone, which contains his genealogy and birth ; or, as most interpreters are now agreed, of the genealogy alone (vs. 1-17). It may then be regarded as the original inscription of the pedigree, belonging to it in the register from which some suppose it to have been transcribed. This sup- position, though unnecessary, is by no means inconsistent with the in- spiration of the record, since the introduction or adoption even of a human composition by divine authority imparts to it the same infalli- bility which it would have if written by immediate divine suggestion. As a positive argument in favour of this supposition it may be alleged, that the entire structure of the genealogy is not what might have been expected in the opening of a history, but resembles rather a document prefixed to it. on which the writer then proceeds to comment, as a sort of text or theme, or from which he sets out as the starting-point of his whole narrative. This peculiar relation of the genealogy to the history in Matthew's Gospel is made still more striking by comparing it with Luke's, which is wrought into the texture of his narrative, so as to form an integral and inseparable part of it. (See Luke 3, 23-38.) Je- sus Christ is here used not as a mere personal designation or proper name, although it had become so when this book was written, but with distinct reference to the meaning of both titles, and to the claim which they involve, that he to whom they are applied was the promised Sa- viour (see below, on v. 21) and Messiah, or Anointed Prophet Priest and King of Israel (see below, on v. 16). Even regarded as a title or inscription, this first sentence is equivalent to a formal declaration of our Lord's Messiahship, as the truth to be established in the following history, beginning with his lineal descent from Abraham and David, in default of which all other proofs would be unavailing. Son is here used in the wider sense of lineal descendant. (See below, on v. 20, and compare Luke 1, 5. 13, 1G. 19. 9.) Son of David was among the most familiar designations of the Messiah in the dialect of the contemporary Jews. (See below, on 9, 27. 12. 23. 15, 22. 20. 30. 21, 9. 15. 22, 42. and compare Rom. 1, 3. llev. 5, 5. 22, 16.) Son of Abraham may be con- strued with the nearest antecedent (David), but agrees more probably with the remoter (Jesus Christ), whose descent from both the Patriarchs (or founders of the royal race) is here asserted.
MATTHEW 1,2.3.4. 3
2. Abraham begat Isaac ; and Isaac begat Jacob ; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren.
The form of expression here used and throughout the table (eyewrjac) is a literal translation of the one employed in Jewish genealogies, hfa) the oldest specimens of which are those contained in Genesis (4, 18), particularly that in the fifth chapter ; where we have substantially the same title or inscription as in this case, " the book of the generations of Adam" (Gen. 5, 1), and the same technical formula (begat), denoting not so much an act as a relation, and meaning simply that he was his father. A trace of the same genealogical usage may be found in Ps. 2, 7, where the words, " This day have I begotten thee," do not fix the date of the Messiah's sonship as beginning in time, but express a filial relation which existed from eternity. What is here affirmed is that Abraham was the father or progenitor of Isaac, Isaac of Jacob, Jacob of Judah, and so on, to the end of the whole pedigree. Judas, the Greek form of the Hebrew Judah (Jehudah), here distinguished from his brethren (or brothers), the other sons of Jacob, as the one from whose line the Messiah was to spring. (See below, on 2, C, and com- pare Gen. 49, 10. Heb. 7, 14. Rev. 5, 5), though the rest were entitled to be named, at least collectively, as being Patriarchs or founders of the twelve tribes (compare Acts 7, 8. 9), each of which possessed a sort of royal dignity, and all of which together constituted the Theo- cracy or chosen people. (Compare Ps. 122. 4. Acts 26, 7.) As if he had said, ' Jacob was the father of the twelve, to whom the tribes of our theocracy trace their origin, and among these of Judah, who was the lineal progenitor of Christ himself, as shown in the detailed ge- nealogy which follows.'
3. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar ; and Phares begat Esrorn ; and Esrom begat Aram.
In the original narrative (Gen. 38, 29. 30), these names are written Pharez, Zarah, and Tamar. Of (out of, from, by) Thamar, the daugh- ter-in-law of Judah (Gen. 38, 6). As this was an incestuous connec- tion, and intentionally so on Tamar's part, it seems extraordinary that it should be prominent in the genealogy of Christ. But this only serves to prove the genuineness of the genealogy itself, as the same thing is apparent in the Jewish books, which undertake to account for it by representing the sins of Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba, as virtuous acts committed under the divine direction. But this solution is not only morally detestable, but far less probable on other grounds, than that which supposes these names to be introduced to humble Jewish pride and illustrate the divine sovereignty in choosing K base things of the world, and things which are despised .... that no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor. 1,29). Esrom and Aram, called in David's genealogy appended to the book of Ruth (4, 19), Hezron (com- pare 1 Chron. 2, 5) and Earn, which last may be only a contracted form of Aram (compare Job 32, 2, with Genesis 22, 21).
4 MATTHEW 1, 4.5. 0.
4. And Aram begat Aminadab ; and Aminadab begat Naasson ; and Naasson begat Salmon.
These names occur also in Ruth 4, 20, with a slight difference of orthography, (Amminadab and Nahshon.') The latter was a brother of the wife of Aaron (Ex. G, 23) and the hereditary chief of Judah in the wilderness (Num. 2, 3. 10, 14.)
5. And Salmon begat Booz of Kachab ; and Booz be- gat Obed of Kuth ; and Obed begat Jesse.
In 1 Chr. 2, 11, Salmon is called Salma (Salmdh), as another per- son is, in the same chapter (vs. 51-54). Booz is the Boaz of the Old Testament (Ruth 2, 1. 4, 21), and might have been conformed to it as Jesse (Jessai) is, in the translation. Of Radial), of JSuth, the same form of expression as in v. 3 and there explained. There is no reason to doubt the identity of the former with the Rahab of the book of Joshua (2, 1. G, 23. 25), which agrees well with the chronology, as Salmon, the son of Nahshon, was a man of mature age at the fall of Jericho. The difficulty which arises from the length of the interval, is not peculiar to this table, but common to it and the one in Ruth, which may also be abridged by the omission of some less important names (see below, on v. 17), as the verb (begat) does not necessarily denote immediate succession, but the genealogical relation of progeni- tor and descendant, like the nouns son, and daughter. (See above, on v. 1, and compare the passages there cited.)
6. And Jesse begat David the king ; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias.
David the ling, by way of eminence, not only as the first but as the best and greatest of the theocratic sovereigns, who represented the Mes- siah's royalty and as it were kept his throne for him till he came (com- pare Ezck. 21, 27). The reign of Saul, although divinely authorized, was not theocratical but secular, designed to teach the people by experiment the natural effect of having a king like the other nations. (See 1 Sam. 8, 5. 20.) The reigns that followed, not excepting that of Solomon, are treated in the history as mere continuations of the reign of David, filling up the interval between him and the Great Deliverer, of whose Messianic royalty he was the constituted type and representative. This special relation between Christ and David is implied in the com- parative frequency with which the latter is referred to in the later Scriptures, and his name sometimes applied to the Messiah himself (Ezek. 34, 23. 24. 87, 24. 25), while Solomon is never named in prophecy, and very seldom in the New Testament, and even then rather with disparagement than honour (see be-low, on G, 29. 12,42). These comparisons will throw light on the emphasis with which the evangelist (or genealogist) twice in this one sentence speaks of JUavid
M ATT HEW 1,0-10. 5
the Icing. This repetition fit the same time indicates that David was the close of one and the beginning of another cycle in the history of Israel. The theocracy which culminated in him begins to decline even under his successor. From Abraham to David all moves upwards, and from David to the Advent downwards. All idea of intrinsic merit, even in the man thus highly honoured, as a ground of the divine choice, is excluded by the mention of Bathsheba, suggesting the great complex crime of David's life, and the providential judgments which avenged it, but without disturbing his position as an instrument in God's hand and a type of the Messiah. This is the fourth female name introduced among our Lord's progenitors (see above, on vs. 3, 5), one of the four being of heathen origin, and the other three remembered chiefly for their sins. This remarkable fact may be connected with our Lord's vicarious subjection to reproach and his official share in the dishonour brought upon our race by sin. A more exact translation of the last words would be, from (or bij) the (wife) of Uriah. (See the original history in 2 Sam. xi. xii.
7. And Solomon begat Koboani ; and Boboam begat Abia ; and Abia begat Asa.
Boboam and Abia are the Bckoboam and Abijam or Abijah of the Old Testament. (See 1 Kings 11,43. 14, 31. 2 Chr. 12,10. 13,1.) They are named here only as connecting links in the chain of genealo- gical succession.
8. And Asa begat Josapliat ; and Josaphat begat Jo- ram ; and Joram begat Ozias.
Josaphat and Ozias, called in the Hebrew Jehoshaphat and Uzziah. (See 1 Kings 22, 41. 2 Kings 15, 13.) Between Joram and Uzziah three kings are omitted, namely, Ahaziah (2 Kings 9, 29), Joash (2 Kings 12, 1), and Amaziah (2 Kings 14, 1). These omissions were no doubt intended to reduce the genealogy to the uniform limits mentioned in v. 17 below; and these particular kings may have been chosen as descendants of Jezebel, and as such representatives of the cor- ruption wrought in Judah by alliance with Israel, and especially by intermarriage with the family of Ahab. This is far more probable than that the choice of names to be omitted was entirely arbitrary ; but even this is less incredible than that the omission was an ignorant or inadvertent one, either on the part of the evangelist or on that of the original genealogist from whom this genealogy was borrowed (see above, on v. 1).
9. 10. And Ozias begat Joatham ; and Joatham begat Acliaz ; and Achaz begat Ezekias ; and Ezekias begat Ma- nasses; and Manasses begat Anion ; and Amon begat Josias.
In these two verses there are no omissions but the royal gene-
6 MATTHEW 1,9. 10. 11.
alogy is given without interruption. Joatham, Achaz, and Ezehias, are the Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of the Old Testament, where they follow each other in the same order. (See 2 Kings 15, 32. 16, 1. 18, 1, and compare 2 Chr. 27, 1. 28, 1. 29, 1.) Manasses (Manasseh), Anion (in one or two of the oldest copies, Amos), and Josias (Josiah), are the next three kings in the original history. (See 1 Kings 21, 1. 19. 22, 1, and compare 2 Chr. 33, 1. 19. 34, 1.)
11. And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
The omission of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah and the father of Je- lioiachin or Jeconiah (2 Kings 23, 34. 24, 6. 2 Chr. 36, 4. 8), has been variously explained. Some suppose Jeconiah to be the Greek form both of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin ; but this is at variance both with Hebrew and Septua^int usage. (Compare 2 Kings 24, 6. 12. 15. 25, 27. Ezek. 1, 2. with Esth. 2, 6. Jer. 24, 1. 27, 20. 28, 4, and both with Jer. 22, 24. 28. 37, 1, where the name is still further contracted to Coniah.) This objection applies no less to the supposition that Jeco- niah means Jehoiakim in this verse and Jehoiachin in the next, which would moreover be at variance with the context, as the name of each progenitor, except the first, is twice inserted. Still less admissible is the assumption of an ignorant or inadvertent error in confounding the two names, which are less alike in Greek and Hebrew than in English, and could hardly be confounded in a formal genealogy. More probable than either is the supposition of an error in transcription from the same cause, as nothing is more common when two words are alike than the unintentional omission of one. And we find accordingly, in several uncial manuscripts and ancient versions, Josiah oegat JehoiaJcim and Jehoiakim oegat Jeconiah and Ms orethren. This is rejected by the critics as a mere interpolation, because wanting in the oldest manu- scripts now extant, which however are at least four hundred j^ears later than the date of composition. It is also objected that Jeconiah had no brothers, or at least not more than one (1 Chron. 3, 16. 2 Chron. 36, 10.) This objection may be met by still another explana- tion, which supposes Jehoiakim to be omitted as the king by whose fault the monarchy was overthrown and the national independence lost (2 Kings 24, 4. 10), and the orethren of Jehoiachin (or Jeconiah) to de- note the contemporary race who went with him into exile. (Compare the use of the word 'orethren in Ex. 2, 11. 4, 18. Num. 20, 3. Acts 3, 22. 7, 23.) The principal objection to this last assumption is the vague and unusual sense which it puts upon the verb oegat. But any sup- position seems more credible than that of a gross blunder, either on the part of the evangelist or on that of his genealogical authority, and of its passing unobserved until the time of Porphyry, who wrote against the Scriptures in the latter part of the third century. Aoout the time they were carried away is a correct but needless paraphrase of three Greek words (eVl ttjs /xeroiKecrtV) literally meaning on (or at) the mi- gration. The preposition (eVQ is explained by some as meaning tow-
MATTHEW 1,11-16. 7
ards or just before ; but its usage elsewhere in construction with the same case rather requires the sense of about or at. (See Heb. 1, 1. 2 Pet. 3, 3, and compare Mark 2, 26. Luke 3, 2. 4, 27. Rom. 1, 10.) The genitive {of Babylon) can hardly denote motion to a place, but rather means belonging to it, as we say the Babylonian exile or cap- tivity, in speaking of the national condition, or the Babylonian depor- tation, of the act or event which caused it.
12. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jecho- nias begat Salathiel ; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel.
After the migration of Babylon, or Babylonian exile, i. e. after it happened or began, not after it was ended, as the Greek word does not signifj'- the state or condition of the people there, but their removal thither, as in the preceding verse. It is therefore neither necessary nor admissible to give the preposition {^ra) here the sense of in or during, which is contrary to usage. The English version {after they were brought to Babylon) conveys the sense but not the form of the original. The divine declaration, that Jeconiah should be childless, means that he should have no immediate successor on the throne, as explained in the context of the prophecy itself (Jer. 22, 30.) Salathiel, the Greek form of the Hebrew Shealtiel, is repeatedly named in the Old Testament also as the father of Zorobabel {Zerubbabel, Ezra 3, 2. 8. Hagg. 1, 1), but in 1 Chr. 3, 19 as his uncle, which may either relate to a different person, like the two Zcdekiahs in vs. 15. 16 of the same chapter, or to an adoption, or to a leviratic marriage of the kind pre- scribed in Deut. 25, 5. The Salathiel and Zorobabel of Luke 3, 27 can hardly be identical with those here mentioned.
13-15. And Zorobabel begat Abiud ; and Abiud be- gat Eliakim ; and Eliakiro. begat Azor ; and Azor begat Sadoc ; and Sadoc begat Achim ; and Achim begat Eliud ; and Eliud begat Eleazar ; and Eleazar begat Matthan ; and Matthan begat Jacob.
As these nine names belong to the interval between the Old and New Testament, we have no means of verifying or comparing them, but every reason to believe that they were found in the public archives of the tribe of Judah or the private genealogy of the family of Joseph. The number of generations corresponds sufficiently to that of years in- cluded in the interval referred to. If there is any disproportion, the excess is on the side last mentioned, and may be readily explained by the assumption that a few names are omitted, as in other parts of this same table. (See above, on v. 8, and below, on v. 17.)
16. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
8 MATTHEW 1,16.17.
This conclusion of the genealogy shows whose it is, namely Jo- seph's ; and at the same time why it is recorded, namely, because he was the husband of Mary ; and also why her husband;s pedigree has any historical interest or value, namely, because she was the mother of Messiah. As if it had been said, • Since Jesus was the Son of Mary, and Mary the lawful wife of Joseph, and Joseph the lineal descendant of David, therefore Jesus was himself the heir of David, by legal right, as shown in the preceding table, no less than by natural descent, as ap- pears from his mother's genealogy recorded elsewhere,' i. e. in Luke 3, 23-31. The Hell, there named as the father of Joseph, may have been so by adoption or by legal substitution (see above, on v. 12), but was more probably his father-in-law, i. e. the father of Mary herself, who is said to be so called in some Jewish books. Jesus called the Christ, or more exactly still, the (one) called Christ, is not, as some imagine, a suggestion of doubt (equivalent to saying, the reputed or alleged Mes- siah), nor on the other hand, a strong asseveration of the fact (so called because he was so, a use of the Greek verb now denied by the highest philological authorities); but a simple statement that he bore this title at the date of the history or genealogy, and was thereby distin- guished from all those who shared with him the name of Jesus (or Joshua), which was one in common use among the Jews. The Christ has here its primary and full sense as an official title, and not its sec- ondary and attenuated meaning as a personal or proper name (see above, on v. 1). Was lorn, the same verb that is used throughout the genealogical table in its active form (begat), but is applied, in Clas- sical as well as Hellenistic usage, to both parents.
17. So all the generations from Abraham to David (are) fourteen generations ; and from David until the car- rying away into Babylon (are) fourteen generations ; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ (are) fourteen generations.
So, literally, then or therefore, a connective particle, referring back to the preceding genealogy, and summing up its statements, as an in- troduction to the history which follows. As if he had said : ' You see then from this table, that there are fourteen generations,' &c. This cannot mean that there were really, in point of fact, just fourteen gener- ations in the several intervals here mentioned ; for we know from the Old Testament, that four names are omitted in the second period, and have reason to believe that others may be wanting in the third. (See above, on vs. 8. 13.) It rather means the contrary, to wit, that al- though there were more generations in the actual succession, only four- teen are here given, for the sake of uniformity, in each of the three periods. So far from being a mistake or an intentional misrepresenta- tion, neither of which can be imagined even in a skilful genealogist, much less in an inspired evangelist, it is really a caution to the reader against falling into the very mistake which some would charge upon
MATTHEW 1,17. 9
the writer. As if he had said : ' Let it be observed that this is not a complete list of all the generations between Abraham and Christ but that some names are omitted, so as to leave fourteen in each great divi- sion of the history of Israel.' All the generations, if extended to the whole verse, may then be understood to mean all that are here grven ; but if restricted to the first clause, which is a more probable construc- tion, it may have its strict sense (absolutely all) and give a reason for selecting fourteen as the measure of the periods, namely, that there were really just fourteen generations in the first, and that the others were assimilated to it, either by the genealogist from whom the pedi- gree was borrowed, or by the evangelist himself. But how are the names to be distributed and reckoned, so as to leave fourteen in each division ? The solution of this problem may be varied by counting David and Josiah once or twice, and by including or excluding Christ himself and his mother in the third division. But this only shows that the precise enumeration of the names is not the main thing, but their equal distribution, and that this must be determined by the real number in the first division, which remains the same in all these dif- ferent arrangements. It is also evident that if the three fourteens can be made out in so many different ways, the writer cannot be mistaken in affirming their existence, although we may not be able to determine which mode of calculation he intended. But it still remains to be con- sidered why he thus divided them at all. Some say that this was a customary formula appended to the ancient genealogies, designed to aid the memory, and here retained by the evangelist without change, as a part of the original document which he is quoting. Others sup- pose a mystical allusion to the name of David, the letters of which in Hebrew (th) when summed up according to their numerical value, make fourteen (4-f-6-}-4) ; or to the forty-two stations of the Israelites in the wilderness ; or to the scriptural use of seven as a sacred num- ber. Besides these mnemonical and mystical solutions, there is a chro- nological one, namel}7, that the periods are equal in years though not in generations, and two of the great cycles having been completed, he who was born at the close of the third must be the Christ. The only other supposition that need be stated is, that the writer's purpose was to draw attention to the three great periods in the history of Israel as the chosen people, one extending from Abraham as its great progenitor to David its first theocratical sovereign ; another to the downfall of the monarchy and loss of the national independence ; and a third from this disaster to the advent of Messiah. To this periodology attention would be drawn by the very effort to arrange the periods and the choice of methods in so doing. Thus understood, the verse may be paraphrased as follows : ' The foregoing table is divided into three parts, the first of which embraces fourteen generations, and the other two are here assimilated to it, by omitting a few names, in order to make prominent the three great eras in the history of Israel, marked and divided by the calling of Abraham, the reign of David, the Babylonian exile, and the birth of Christ, the end to which the previous succession pointed.' 1*
10 M A T T HEW 1, 18.
18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise : When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Had tho preceding pedigree been that of a mere man, it would have ended as it began with the usual genealogical formula, Joseph begat Jesus. But as this was not the fact, the true relation between them is distinctly stated in v. 16, namely, that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, though the husband of his mother. To this negative statement the evangelist now adds a positive statement of his real generation, connected yet contrasted with the previous genealogy by the connective (pi), which has here its proper sense of but, or on the contrary. This connection of the sentences is weakened and obscured in the translation hy the use of now instead of but, as well as by prefix- ing it to Jesus Christ, which in the Greek is rendered prominent by standing first. As if he had said : ' All these, from Isaac (v. 2) to Joseph (v. 16), followed one another in the natural sequence of or- dinary generation ; Jesus Christ, on the contrary, was born in a manner wholly different,' which the writer then goes on to describe (in vs. 18-25). Some of the modern critics omit Jesus, upon very doubtful manuscript authority, but with the supposed advantage of reserving the proper name or personal designation until after its prescription by the angel has been stated (in v. 21). But the name has been already mentioned twice (in vs. 1. 16), and cannot therefore be withheld as unknown to the reader. Birth, or rather generation, including also the conception. The Greek word in the common text is the noun (yewrjais) corre- sponding to the verb (iyevprjae), which is repeated nearly forty times in the preceding context (vs. 2-16). The oldest manuscripts and latest critics have a different though kindred form (yeWo-ts) of wider import, and which really includes the other, as the specific sense of birth or generation is involved in the generic one of origin, production. In either case there is a verbal reference to what precedes which can- not be preserved in a translation. If the latter reading (yeuecns) be preferred, the allusion is to v. 1, where the genitive case of the same name occurs. As if he had said : Such is the book of the Messiah's generation, or his whole descent ; but his immediate generation was, as follows : If the other (yevpr/o-is) be retained, the allusion is to the repeated use of the cognate verb (eyevvrja-e) already mentioned. As if he had said : One of these begat another, in the natural and ordi- nary way ; but the Messiah was begotten in a different manner. On this wise, or in modern English, in this manner, but in Greek a single word (ourcos), meaning simply thus (or so), and here equivalent to our phrase, as follows. For {yap), omitted in the version, unless it is included in the phrase when as, is here equivalent in force to namely, or that is to say, but really refers to something not expressed. As if he had said : and the origin referred to was entirely unlike that of all the persons previously mentioned, for, &c. When as, another
MATTHEW 1,18.19. 11
obsolete expression, analogous to whereas, which is still in use, but here a mere periphrasis for a participial construction, his mother Mary having been espoused, i. e. before the discovery here mentioned, as implied in the past participle {\xvr](TTev&eia-T)s.) The Greek verb strictly means to court or woo, but in the passive form to be engaged, betrothed (as in the Septuagint version of Deut. 22, 23. 25. 27. 28, compared with the active voice in Deut. 20, 7.) There are frequent allusions in the Old Testament to the marriage vow as a religious contract (Prov. 2, 17. Ezek. 16, 8. Mai. 2, 14), but the first men- tion of a written bond occurs in the Apocrypha (Tob. 2, 14.) Ac- cording to the later Jewish books, the bride continued in her father's house for some time after her espousals. Before implies nothing as to what took place afterwards. Compare the use of the same phrase (ttP\v fj) in Mark 14, 30. Luke 2,26. 22,34. Acts 2, 20. 25, 16. Came tog ether, cohabited as man and wife, either in the wider or the stricter sense, more probably the former, which includes the other, before he had even brought her home (see below, on v. 25.) Was found, not simply was, a Hebrew idiom alleged by some inter- preters, but now rejected by the best authorities, nor does it mean detected, or discovered, against Mary's will ; but simply became knoion to herself, and probably through her to others, or at least to Joseph, her betrothed husband. With child, literally having in {the) womb, an idiomatic phrase occurring also in v. 23, 24, 19. Luke 1, 31. 1 Th. 5, 3. Rev. 12, 2, and often in the Septuagint version (c. g. Gen. 16, 4. 5. 11. 38, 24. 25.) Of, from, or by, as the source and the efficient cause. (See below, on v. 20, and compare John 3, 6.) Ghost, the Saxon word for Spirit, still retained in German (Geist) and the cognate languages, but in modern English only used in this phrase, and in reference to the apparition of departed spirits, though it may be still traced in its rare but genuine derivative, ghostly, i. e. spiritual or religious. The whole phrase Holy Spirit does not signify an influence or power, but a person as in many other places, even where the article, as here, is omitted.* The indefinite form may have been adopted for the very reason that the phrase had become a personal or proper name.
19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just (man), and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Joseph, however (5e), or on his part, as the other and apparently the injured party in this grave transaction. Just may be taken either in the strict sense of rendering to every one his due (suum cuique), or in the wider sense of good (as Horace uses cequus), including mercy
* See below, v. 20. 3,11, and compare Mark 1,8. Luke 1,15.35.41.07. 2, 25. 3, 16. 4, 1. 11, 13. John 1, 33. 7, 3CJ. 20, 22. Acts 1, 2. 5. 2, 4. 4, 8. 31. 6, 3. 5. 7, 55. 8, 3. 9, 17. 10, 38. 11, 16. 24. 13, 52. 19, 2. 3. Rom. 5, 5. 9, 1. 14, 17. 15. 13. 16. 1 Cor. 2, 13. 12, 3. 2 Cor. 6, 6. 1 Th. 1, 6. 2 Tim. 1, 14. Tit. 3, 5. Heb. 2, 4. 6, 4. 1 Pet. 1, 12. 2 Pet. 1, 21. Jude 20.
12 M A T T II E W 1, 19. 20.
and compassion no less than rigid conscientiousness and honesty. In the former case, the whole phrase, just and not willing, will mean, just and (yet) not loilling, i. e. too just to retain her but too kind to expose her. In the other case the sense is, just and (therefore) not willing. The first construction is the simplest and requires no de- parture from the ordinary usage of the word just. Willing is not an adjective in Greek, but the participle of the verb to will. What is de- nied, therefore, is not a mere disposition, which he may have felt, but a volition or decided act of will, to which he could not bring himself. To make an exa?)iple of her, by divulging her supposed offence, or making it the subject of judicial process. (Wiclif : he was rightful and would not 'publish her. Tyndale: a perfect man.) He was inclined, not he positively wished, still less was determined, both which expres- sions are too strong for the original verb (ifiovKi^rj.) Put her away, discharge, or free her. a term often applied elsewhere to divorce (see below, on 5, 31. 32. 19, 3. 7. 8. 9), but here used in the sense of a more private and informal separation. According to Philo and Maimonides, a betrothed woman possessed all the rights of a wife, and could only be repudiated with the same formalities. Primly, in modern English, privately or secretly, i. e. without judicial forms, by mere repudiation as prescribed in the Mosaic law (Deut. 24, 1), not without a written instrument, but without undue publicity, and pos- sibly without specification of the cause. This shows that the last words of the verse preceding are the evangelist's own statement of the real cause, and not a part of what was found (ivpibrj) or discovered at the time in question.
20. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife ; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
While he thought, in Greek an absolute construction, he revolving (pondering, considering) these things. The original verb denotes an intellectual act, but with an implication of strong feeling (as in 9, 4. below.) These things, those related in the two preceding verses, with particular reference to the purpose mentioned in v. 19. Angel originally signifies a messenger (as in Luke 7, 24. 9, 52. James 2, 25), but is specially applied in scripture to the " minister- ing spirits" (Heb. 1, 14) sent forth to announce and execute the will of God. Angel of Jehovah is a title often given in the Old Testament to the second person of the Godhead ; but this meaning would be here irrelevant. The angel sent may have been Gabriel, as in Luke 1, 19. 2G ; but it is not here asserted. Appeared is in the Greek a passive form originally meaning was revealed (or rendered visible), but con- stantly employed as a deponent verb.* By dream (kut ovap) an ana-
* See below, 2,7.13.19. 6,5. 16,13. 0,33.13,26. 23,27.28. 24,27.30.
MATTHEW 1,20.21. 13
logons expression to oy day, by night, and perhaps like them indica- tive of time, but commonly explained as a description of the mode of the divine communication. The Greek noun is used in the classics absolutely as an adverb, and by Homer is contrasted with another which denotes a waking vision (Svap and (virap.) Son of David, not a pleonastic or superfluous expression, but one intended to remind him of his own descent and consequent relation to the Messiah, and perhaps thereby to make him the more willing to complete his marriage. The use of the nominative for the vocative is common not only in the Hellenistic but the Classical Greek writers. Fear not, either to do wrong or to incur injury. To take to thyself, into thy company, a frequent sense of the Greek verb (irapakapfiaveiv), 2, 13-21. 4, 5. 8. 12,45. 17,1. 18,16. 20,17. 26,37. 27,27, and with special reference to marriage in Herodotus and Xenophon. Mariam (or Miriam), the original form of the Hebrew name, but only used by Matthew and Luke in the beginning of their Gospels.* TJiy wife, not merely in antici- pation, but de facto and dejure. (See above, on v. 19.) Of the Holy Ghost, as in v. 18 (compare acts 5, 39. Rom. 2, 29.)
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus : for he shall save his people from their sins.
It is a slight but significant difference between this and the similar assurance made to Zecharias (Luke 1, 13), that the pronoun (to thee) is omitted here, because our Lord was to be brought forth not to Jo- seph but to God. The second verb (thou shalt call) is neither an im- perative future, as in the commandments, nor a mere prediction (thou wilt call), but something intermediate between them (thou art to call), implying both futurity and divine appointment. The naming of chil- dren is ascribed in Scripture to both parents (compare Gen. 29, 32-35. 35, 18, with Exodus 2, 22), and to Joseph here as the husband of Mary and the legal father of her offspring (see above, on v. 16). The name itself (Jesus) is the Greek form of the Hebrew Joshua, which may be variously analyzed, but always with the same essential meaning, that of Saviour or Salvation, and with reference to Jehovah as its author. (See Num. 13, 8. 16. 1 Chr. 7, 27. Neh. 8, 17.) This idea, suggested by its very etymology, is distinctly expressed in the remainder of the verse. The verb translated save means strictly to preserve or keep safe, but is secondarily applied to active rescue or deliverance from evil, whether natural or moral, being equally appropriate to bodily healing and to spiritual renovation. His people would be naturally understood by Joseph as referring to the chosen race, the family of Israel, not as a state or nation merely, but as a church or spiritual corporation, and as such including all who should believe in Christ as the ap- pointed Saviour. From their sins, not merely from the punishment which they deserved and the effects which they produced, but from
* Luke 1, 27. 30. 34. 33. 39. 46. 56. 2. 5. 16. 19. 34.
14 MATTHEW 1, 21.22.
the guilt and turpitude of sin itself. The word here used is properly a negative description of moral evil, as a failure or short-coming, from a verb which primarily means to aim wrong or to miss the mark. But as this deficiency or failure has respect precisely to what man owes and what God requires, it becomes in usage one of the strongest and most positive expressions for sin as a want of conformity to the law of God. This description of Christ's mission as a moral and religious, not a secular and civil one, affords a key to his whole history as well as a sufficient refutation of the silly notion, that the salvation here ascribed to him (and in Luke 1, 68. 71. 74) is emancipation from the yoke of Roman bondage, and the restoration of their former independence.
22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet ; saying.
Here again, as in v. 18, the word translated now is the usual con- nective (6V) corresponding to our and or out, and continuing the sen- tence without interruption from the verse preceding. This construction raises a presumption that the words which follow are those of the same speaker, namely, of the angel, a presumption which can only be destroyed by something in the words themselves forbidding it. But instead of this, they rather strengthen and conform it. The ex- pression all this, or retaining the exact form of the Greek phrase, this whole {matter), i.e. the betrothal and conception of Mary, is more natural if uttered by the angel at the time than if added by the evangelist long after. The verb too is in the perfect tense and properly means has (noio) come to £>«ss (or happened), and not, did come to pass (or happen) at some former time. This distinction between the perfect and the aorist is clearly marked, not only in the theory of the Greek verb and the practice of the classical Greek writers, but also in the usage of the New Testament where the perfect tense of this verb occurs more than sixty times, and with a few exceptions (such as Matt. 25, G. Rom. 16.7. Gal. 3,17. 1 Thess. 2,1. 1 Tim. 2, 14. Heb. 7, 16), some of which are doubtful, not only may but must be rendered by our perfect to express its full force, although rarely so translated (as in Acts 4, 16. Rom. 6, 5. 11, 25), being usually rendered by the simple past tense or the present passive.* The same thing is true of the participial, infinitive, and pluperfect forms,f and of some places where the oldest copies have a different reading (e. g. Matt. 19,8. 24,21. John 6, 25. 12,30. 14,22. Rom. 7, 13. Gal. 3, 24). That the two tenses are not simply convertible in either language, may be seen from Rev. 16, 17. 21, 6, where it is done means it has come to pass, and could not be exchanged for it was done, it happened, or it came to pass, without destroying, or at least obscuring the sense of the expres-
* See Mark 5, 33. 9, 21. 13, 19. 14, 4. Luke 14, 22. John 1, 15. 27. 30. 5, 14. Acts 4, 21. 22. Rom. 2, 25. 11,5. 1 Cor. 9, 22. 13,1. 5,17. 12,11. Gal. 4, 16. Heb. 3,14. 5, 11. 12. 12, 8. Jas. 2, 10. 2 Pet. 2, 20.
+ Mark 5, 14. Luke 2, 15. 8,34-35.56. 10,36. 24,12. John 6,17. 12,29. Acts 5,7. 13, 12. Gal. 3,17. 1 Tim. 5,9. 2,18. Heb. 7,20-23. 11, 3. 1 John 2, 18.
MATTHEW 1,22. 15
sion. Such being the settled usage of the form here used, as sig- nifying, not what happened once (eyevero), but what has happened now (yeyove), it may be added to the phrase before it {all this) as a further reason for regarding these as the words of the angel, and not of the historian. The conclusion thus reached is confirmed not only by the authority of Chrysostom and other Greek interpreters, to whom the nice distinction of the tenses must have been familiar, but also by the parallel cases in 21, 4. 26, 56 below, where the construction is precisely similar. Fulfilled, a verb originally meaning filled full, in the physical or proper sense (as in 13, 48. Luke 3, 5. John 12, 3. Acts 2, 2), and often applied figuratively to internal states or exercises,* and to comple- tion or completeness, especially in reference to time.j but also to the full performance of a promise or an obligation,]: and to the accomplishment or verification of a prophecy, as here and often elsewhere3 but especially in Matthew's Gospel. § That it might be fulfilled is the strict (and ac- cording to the highest modern philological authorities the only) sense of the original expression, as denoting purpose or deliberate intention. But besides this telle use (as the grammarians call it) of the Greek con- junction (tra), some contend for an ecbatic use, denoting not design, but mere result or consequence, however unforeseen or accidental. As ex- amples of this latter use are cited John 9, 2. Rom. 5, 20. 11, 11, and the case before us, with the many others like it, where the sense will then be, so that it was fulfilled. As the other sense, however, is at once the proper and the common one, the best interpreters consider it as doubly entitled to the preference in this case. It does not mean, however, that the prediction was the cause of the event, which some make an objection to the telle explanation, but that the event was necessary to the execution of the divine purpose as expressed in the prediction which was spoken, literally, the (thing) spoken, not merely written, but originally uttered viva voce. Of the Lord by the prophet, or as it might be rendered more explicitly and more agreeably to modern usage, by the Lord (as the prime agent or the ultimate author of the revelation) through the prophet (as the instrumental agent or the organ of communication). The prophet is Isaiah, as expressed in one old manuscript (the Codex Bezse), in whose writings the quota- tion is still extant (see Isai. 7, 14), and of whose divine legation we have here inspired if not angelic attestation. This is the first appear- ance of a feature characterizing this whole gospel, namely the express quotation of Old Testament predictions which had been fulfilled in the life of Christ.
* See Luke 2, 40. John 3, 20. 15, 11. 16, G. 24. 17, 13. Acts 2, 28. 5, 3. 13, 52. Rom. 1,29. 15,13.14. 2 Cor. 7,4. Eph. 3, 19. 5,18. Phil. 1,11. Col. 1, 9. 2lim. 1, 4. 1 John 1, 4. 2 John 12. , „ nn an n
t See 23, 32. Mark 1,15. Luke 7, 1. 9,31. 21,24. John 7,8. Acts 7,23. 30.9, 23. 12. 25. 13, 25. 14, 26. 19, 21. 24, 27. Rev. 6, 11.
% See 3, 15. 5, 17. Luke 1, 20. Rom. 8, 4. 13, 8. 2 Cor. 10, 6. Gal. 5, 14. Col. 1,25. 4,17. Jas. 2,23. M .. _. -„
§ See below, 2, 15. 17. 23. 4, 14. 8, 17. 12, 17. 13, 35. 21, 4. 20, 54. 56. 27, 9. 35.
16 M A T THE W 1, 23.
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel ; which being interpreted is, God with us.
The quotation is made almost precisely in the terms of the Septua- gint version. One of the two variations (e£ei for X^yjrerai) exists only in relation to the Vatican text of the Seventy, the Alexandrian agree- ing with the text of Matthew. This difference is merely one of form, without the least effect upon the meaning. The other variation (icaXeo-ovcn for KaXeaeis) is of more significance, though really of little moment, as it merely substitutes the indefinite expression, they shall call, equivalent to shall be called (compare Luke 12, 20) for the definite address to the mother (thou shalt call), which is itself most probably a substitute for the third person (she shall call) of the Hebrew text.* The essential point is the act of naming, not the person who performed it. Another variation, both of the Septuagint and Gospel, from the -pre- cise form of the Hebrew text, is the substitution of the future (shall con- ceive or oe with child) for the present, as implied though not expressed in the original construction, which is participial or adjective, not verbal. Behold, the virgin pregnant (or with child), as if actually present to the prophet's senses. But this too is a merely formal difference, the words confessedly relating to the future, whether proximate or distant. The Hebrew word translated virgin (nap^ivos) is not the usual equivalent of these Greek and English terms, but one which properly denotes a girl, maiden, or young woman, and is so rendered by the other ancient Greek translators (veuves). Some suppose this difference in the old Greek versions to be connected with a different interpretation of the passage ; but the two are really equivalent, as the Hebrew word (n^br) is always applied elsewhere to unmarried women, f and as the stronger terms, in Hebrew (n^irc), Greek (jrapZevos), Latin (yirgo), are occasionally used of wives and mothers ',% so that the idea of a virgin is as strongly expressed here as it could be. A virgin greatly weakens the original expression, which is definite in Greek (rj TrapZevos) as well as Hebrew (rrabrn), and denotes the (particu- lar) virgin in whom the prediction wras especially verified. Lo (or behold), as usual, introduces something novel, unexpected, and surprising. The name in this case is descriptive, and was not to be actually borne in real life, as Jesus was. They shall call, i. e. they shall have cause or occasion, so to call him ; he shall be en- titled to the name Immanuel. God wit7i ua has both a lower and a higher sense, sometimes denoting a gracious or providential pres- ence and protection, § but in this case an essential and personal divine manifestation. Interpreted, translated out of Hebrew into
* (ns-ip) as in Lev- 25> 2L Ps. US, 23. Gen. S3, 11 ; but compare Gen. 1G, 11, when/ the same form is undoubtedly the second person.
+ See Gen. 24,43. Ex. 2, 8. Ps. 03, 26. Prov. 30,19. Song Sol. 1,3. 6,8. % See Joel 1, 8. Homer II. 2, 514. Virgil Eel. 6, 47. ^En. 1, 4fJ3. § See Josh. 1,5. Ps. 46,7. 11. 89,25. Jer.l, S. Isai. 43, 21.
MATTHEW 1,23.24.25. 17
Greek (Tyndale : by interpretation, Granmcr : which, if a man in- terpret it, is as much as to say), which some regard as a proof that Matthew was originally written in the latter language ; but although this is probable for other reasons (see above, the general introduction p. 1), it does not follow necessarily from this clause which might have been inserted by the Greek translator. The application of this prophecy to Christ is not a mere accommodation, meaning that the words, orig- inally used in one sense and in reference to one subject, might now be repeated in another sense and of another subject ; for this does not satisfy the strong terms of the passage {all this happened that it might be fulfilled), nor would such a fanciful coincidence have been alleged with so much emphasis by Matthew, still less by the Angel. The only sense that can be reasonably put upon the words is, that the mirac- ulous conception of Messiah was predicted by Isaiah in the words here quoted. This essential meaning is not affected by the question whether the prediction was a mediate or immediate, a twofold or ex- clusive one ; that is to say, whether it was first fulfilled in the natural birth of a child soon after it was uttered, and the subsequent deliverance of Judah from invasion, but again fulfilled, and in a higher sense, in the nativity of Christ ; or whether it related only to the latter, and pre- sented it to Ahaz as a pledge that the chosen people could not be de- stroyed until Messiah came. Both these opinions are maintained by eminent interpreters, whose arguments, however, belong rather to the exposition of Isaiah than of Matthew. His authoritative exposition of the prophecy extends no further than the fact of its fulfilment in the miraculous conception of the Saviour.
24. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife.
This verse records the execution of the order sent to Joseph through the Angel, in a form very common both in Homer and the Scriptures, i. e. by repeating the terms of the command from v. 20, in the same sense that was there explained. His wife (like thy wife in the verse referred to) may either simply designate the person {her icho was Ms wife), or have the more emphatic sense of as (or for) his wife. The former construction is more natural, especially in this case, where Mary is not named, and is commonly adopted by the best interpreters. Had bidden is in Greek a verb originally meaning to arrange, amry, and specially applied, as a military term, to the posting or stationing of troops, but also employed by the best Attic writers in the secondary sense of enjoining any thing on a person, or (without an accusative, as here) commanding him.
25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son : and he called his name Jesus.
18 MATTHEW 1,25.
This verse has been the subject of dispute for ages, not as to what it expresses, but as to what it implies. The question is not what the words directly mean, but what is the inference to be drawn from them. Knew her not, as his wife, cohabited with her only in the pri- mary but wider sense of the expression, as denoting residence to- gether. The remainder of the verse seems to limit this negation to the time which intervened between the divine communication made to Joseph and the birth of Christ. From this it is now inferred by some interpreters that after that event other children were born to Joseph and Mary, and that these are mentioned in the sequel as the brothers and sisters of our Lord.* This is supposed to be necessa- rily implied in Matthew's use both of the particle {until) and of the adjective (first-lorn).^ But these implications, although plausible, arc not necessary or certain. Until, and its equivalents in other lan- guages ("15. eW, donee), affirm and deny nothing beyond the terminus ad quern which they are used to designate, but leave the rest to be dis- covered in some other way. The Greek interpreters assert this to be the usage of the word employed in this case (eas), and refer for proof to Gen. 8, 7 and Ps. 110, 1, to which others have added Isai. 42, 3, as quoted in Matt. 12, 20, where the meaning cannot be that after he has sent forth judgment unto victory he will begin to bruise the broken reed and quench the smoking flax. So too in 1 Tim. 4, 13, Paul cannot mean to say that after he comes Timothy must cease to read, exhort, and teach. Nor is the contrary affirmed in either case, but simply left to be determined by the context or the nature of the case. These examples are sufficient to establish the position, that the inference in question from the use of the word till, however natural, is not conclusive ; or in other words, that this expression cannot prove the fact of subsequent cohabitation in the face of cogent reasons for disputing it. As to the word first-born, the mistake lies in making it a popular expression, to be interpreted by common usage, whereas it is a technical term of the Mosaic law, and as such familiar to the Jews of that day both in Greek and Hebrew, being constantly em- ployed in the Septuagint version, to translate the Hebrew term ap- plied to the firstling both of man and beast, but by way of eminence to the human child by which the womb was opened, or the woman first became a mother. Such children were devoted to God, partly in commemoration of the Hebrew first-born being spared when those of Egypt were destroyed.^ Can it be supposed that the destroying angel on that memorable night passed by those Egyptian families in which there was a single child ; or that the law for the redemption of the first-born was suspended till a second child was born ? If not, the legal epithet first-lorn included not only the eldest but also only chil-
* See ch. 12, 46. 13, 55. John 7, 3. 1 Cor. 15, 7. Gal. 1, 19.
t Wiclif and Cranmer: first-begotten. Tyndale : first son. Genera and Rheims : first-bom.
X See Ex. 4, 22. 23. 11, 5. 12, 12. 20. 13, 2. 13. 15. 22, 29. 34, 20. Lev. 27, 20. Num. 3, 12. 13. 40-51. 8, 16-18. 18, 15-17. 33, 4. Dcut. 15, 19, and compare Neh. 10, 36. Ps. 77, 56. 104, 36. 134, 8. 135, 10.
MATTHEW 2, I. 19
dren, and its constant use in this extended application in the law not only might but must have made it perfectly intelligible as applied to Jesus though he were the sole child of his mother. It is not true, therefore, as is frequently alleged by modern writers, that the use of either of these terms by Matthew necessarily implies the birth of other children. Equally groundless is the common allegation that no other inference would ever have been thought of, but for a superstitious reverence for the Virgin Mary, and an ascetic over-estimate of virgin- ity as a holier state than that of marriage. Entirely apart from such corruptions and anterior to their appearance, there was a strong ground for believing the virginity of our Lord's mother to have been perpet- ual, afforded by the obvious consideration, that the same reasons which required it before his birth might possibly at least require it after- wards. This analogy is not at all dependent on the nature of those reasons, which to us may be inscrutable, but simply on the fact of their existence. If, /or any reason, it would not have been becoming or expedient that the woman chosen to be the mother of our Lord should sustain the same relation to any other child before his birth, why was it any more becoming or expedient after he was born ? This view of the matter may at least induce us to suspend our judgment on this delicate and interesting question, without any fear of popish or ascetic superstition, till the history itself shall furnish further data for a definite conclusion. (See below, on 10, 3. 12, 47. 13, 55. 28, 10.) In the mean time, all that this verse necessarily imports is that her virginity remained unimpaired, if not forever, yet at least till she be- came a mother, which is the essential fact expressed by the phrase, orought forth her first-born s^, just as the corresponding term (begat) in the preceding genealogy denotes the analogous relation of paterni- ty. (See above, on v. 2.) The omission of the word (-rrpcoToroKou) from which this whole discussion has arisen, in the oldest extant man- uscript (the Codex Vaticanus) and in the old Egyptian versions, though regarded by the latest critics as a sufficient reason for expun- ging it, may be a mere attempt of the transcribers and translators to cut the knot which they despaired of loosing.
GHAPTEE II.
Ix farther prosecution of his purpose to demonstrate the Messiahship of Jesus, Matthew now relates his recognition by representatives of the Gentile world, closely connected, both in prophecy and history, with his birth in Bethlehem, and with his escape from the murderous designs of Herod, by being carried into Egypt, his return thence, and his subsequent residence in Nazareth, all which the Evangelist exhib- its as the fulfilment of Old Testament predictions. The contents of
20 MATTHEW 2, 1.
this chapter have peculiar interest, not only on their own account, but also as affording the most striking illustration of the plan on which this Gospel is constructed, and of its distinctive character, as being not a mere history but a historical argument in favour of our Lord's Messiahship.
1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the clays of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.
The actual nativity of Christ is only recorded incidentally by Mat- thew, in the last verse of the preceding chapter, and again in this verse, as an event which had already taken place. A detailed account of the time, place, and other circumstances, is supplied by Luke (2, 1-20). The connective particle (oV) makes this as a direct continuation of the narrative in ch. 1. ' He knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born son, and when he was brought forth,' &c. Jesus having 'been 'produced, i. e. conceived and born, both which ideas are included in the meaning of the Greek verb, and its corresponding noun (see above, on 1, 2. 18). Bethlehem (the house of bread), an ancient town belonging to the tribe of Judah, and as such distin- guished from another of the same name in the tribe of Zebulon (Josh. 19, 15). It is still in existence, about six miles south or south-west of Jerusalem. Though not a town of large size or political import- ance, it was early famous as the residence of Jesse and the birth-place of David. (1 Sam. 16, 1. 17, 58. Luke 1, 11. John 7, 42.) Herod, commonly surnamed the Great, was the son of Antipater, an Idumean and the confidential counsellor of the last of the Maccabees or Has- monean princes, who reigned in Judea from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 175) to the Roman conquest (B. C. 53). Herod, at a very early age, was governor of Galilee, but having taken refuge from his enemies at Rome, there enjoyed the favour of Mark Anthony and Octavian (afterwards Augustus) and by order of the Senate was crowned king of the Jews at the Capitol. With the aid of the Roman General Sosius, he obtained possession of his kingdom and reignod thirty-seven years, with great talent and success as a secular ruler, but with great severity and jealousy towards all competitors and rivals, not excepting his own children and the Hasmonean family with which he intermarried. Hence he is chargeable with acts of extreme cruelty, including the murder of his wife and three sons. His ruling passion was the love of architectural embellishment, which he indulged by rebuilding and beautifying many towns in Palestine and elsewhere, but especially by the renovation of the temple (see below, on 24, 1, and compare John 2, 20). The days is an indefinite expression appli- cable to his whole life or his long reign, but here applied to its conclu- sion. What is here recorded must, however, have occurred at least forty days before his death, as we know from Josephus that his last forty days were spent, not at Jerusalem, but at Jericho and the baths
MATTHEW 2,1.2. 21
of Callirhoe. Behold, as usual, implies that their coming was un- loosed for and surprising (see above, on 1, 23). Came is in Greek a verb without exact equivalent in English, strictly meaning became near (or present), but of course implying previous arrival. Wise m en is Tyn- dale's vague translation of Magi or Magians, a word used by Herod- otus to signify the learned tribe or caste among the ancient Medians or Persians, whose cultivation of astrology and other occult sciences gave rise to the derivative terms magic, magical, magician. A trace of this usage may be found in the phrase Rab-mag (chief magician) as the title of an officer or courtier at the camp of Babylon (Jer. 39, 3), perhaps the same place which was occupied by Daniel (2, 48). The word is here used without any implication of unlawful or disreputable practices. Wiclif translates it astromyens (astronomers), and the Rhemish version sages. That the providential representatives of heathendom were chosen from this class, may imply the existence of some old tradition, perhaps connected with the record or the memory of astronomical phenomena. (See below, upon the next verse.) The word translated east means originally rise or rising, and is elsewhere coupled with the sun (as in Rev. 7, 2. 16, 12), but here denotes that quarter of the heavens or the earth. The form is plural, as in 8, 11. 24, 27 below, where the term is also used in a vague but local sense. It cannot therefore be determined from the word itself whether these Magi came from Persia, Arabia, Babylonia, or some still remoter coun- try. An old ecclesiastical tradition makes them three in number (from the three gifts mentioned in v. II) and the representatives of as many countries. Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar, are the names attached to them by this tradition, which also makes them kings of their respective countries. Hence " The Three Kings," is among the most familiar popular traditions of the old world, even on the signs of shops and taverns. From the east is construed by the best inter- preters, not with the verb but with the noun, toise men from the east, i. e. originating or belonging there. Jerusalem (here Hlerosolyma), anciently called Salem (Gen. 14, 18. Ps. 76, 2, and Jehus (Judg. 19, 10. 11), in an elevated situation nearly midway between the Mediter- ranean and the Dead Sea, conquered by David from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5, 6-9), and thenceforth the political capital of Israel and seat of the theocracy. Having been destroyed at the Babylonian conquest (2 Kings 25, 8-10), it was rebuilt at the Restoration (Nch. 2, 5. 3, 1-32), and retained its metropolitan pre-eminence under Herod and the Romans. To this well-known centre the wise men from the cast would of course resort in the first instance.
2. Saying, Where is lie that is born King of the Jews ? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
This verse assigns the reason of their visit, as given by themselves {saying). They assume the fact of his nativity as certain, and the
22 MATTHEW 2,2.
time as known already (see below, on v. 7), and merely inquire for the place, as something not revealed or ascertainable from astronomi- cal phenomena. The (one) born, already, as the past participle (rcxfcis from the verb used in 1, 25), denotes. The Geneva Bible follows the Peshito in construing the words thus, that Icing of (the) Jews that is torn. But the common version (which is Tyn dale's) agrees better with the form of the original. King of the Jeios, the title applied to the Messiah in the New Testament by Gentiles (see below, 27, 29. 37, and compare John 18, 33), while the Jews themselves called him King of Israel (see below, 27, 42, and compare John 1, 50. 12, 13.) After the downfall of the kingdom of the ten tribes, and particularly after the return from exile, the whole nation being merged in Judah, the name Jew became a general one, especially with foreigners, and is applied in the New Testament, not only to the people of Judea in the strict sense, but to those of Galilee, in reference both to their religion and their national descent (as in Luke 7, 3. John 2, G. Acts 10, 28, and elsewhere). As the throne of David had been vacant now for ages, the inquiry of the wise men had respect not to the actual sov- ereign, who was not an Israelite at all, but to the hereditary rightful sovereign who had just been born. This meaning of the question will account for the effect which it produced according to the next verse. Have seen, or more exactly, saw, i. e. on a particular occasion and some time ago. Even if they came no further than from Babylonia, they may have been as long upon the road as Ezra and his colony, to wit, four months (see Ezr. 7, 9) ; but this is quite uncertain and was not intended to be made known by this narrative. His star, i. e. one relating or belonging to him, either by a special revelation, or accord- ing to the principles of their astronomy, which partook no doubt of what we call astrology, i. e. prognostication of the future from the relative positions of the heavenly bodies. Their conclusions may however have been drawn from real astronomical phenomena, inter- preted according to some old tradition, perhaps, that of Balaam (Num. 24, 17), or Daniel's prediction of the seventy weeks (Dan. 9, 24), both of which were probably preserved in the east, or at least in Babylonia. Star is in Greek a word applied to any luminary in the heavens, whether fixed star, planet, comet or meteor, all which have been sup- posed by different interpreters to be intended here. More than one eminent astronomer has understood it as referring to a remarkable conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn in the sign of Pisces, which is said to have occurred three times in the year 747 after the building of Rome. The first of these conjunctions may have been ob- served in Babylonia and the last in Judea (see below, on v. 9). The star may then denote the conjunction itself, which is not inconsistent with the vague use of the Greek word, or the appearance of a new star, in the strict sense by which the conjunction may have been accompa- nied, as it was (according to Kepler) in the year 1G04. By a sin- gular coincidence Abarbanel, a famous Jewish writer of the fifteenth century, without alluding to the cases just referred to, speaks of a similar conjunction in the same sign of the Zodiac as having pre-
MATTHEW 2,2. 23
ceded the birth of Moses, and as having been repeated in his own day, (A. D. 1463), from which he infers that the Messiah was about to appear. The concurrence is in this case so remarkable, and the explanation recommended by such high scientific authority, that it would probably have been universally adopted, but for the foregone conclusion, in the minds of many, that the birth of Christ took place in a different year. But that assumption is so doubtful, and the views of the best writers so discordant, that it can scarcely be allowed to decide the question uow before us, but may rather be de- cided by it. This astronomical solution is, at all events, both from its scientific character and from the high authority on which it rests, more satisfactory than the assumption of a transient meteor, a comet, or a purely miraculous appearance, which would here be less impress- ive than a natural phenomenon, coincident with such a juncture in the moral world, and showing both to be under the same infinitely power- ful and wise control. This hypothesis moreover agrees best with the traditional devotion of the wise men of the East (i. e. of Babylonia and the adjacent regions watered by the Tigris and Euphrates) to astron- omy, which would naturally lead them to observe such unusual ap- pearances and perhaps to compare them with others of the same kind, preserved by the tradition of their science, and connected with previous critical conjunctures in the history of Israel, from which they might, erroneously or otherwise, infer that what they now saw was a premo- nition of the advent of that great deliverer, for whom, according to two Roman historians, the whole East had long been looking.* This is a testimony too explicit and unqualified to be explained away, as some modern sceptics have attempted, as a mere misapprehension or tran- scription of a passage in Josephus, where he disingenuously represents the Messianic prophecies of Scripture as pointing to "Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor, on the death of Vitellius, by the army under his command in Palestine. What is most important, after all, how- ever, is to distinguish even the most plausible conjectures from the simple statement of the wise men in the text, that they had seen what they regarded as his star, i. e. a heavenly phenomenon relating to him. In the east may be construed either with the subject or the object of the verb, ice (while still) in the east saw his star, or, we saw his star (appearing) in the east, an ambiguity of syntax which leaves it doubt- ful in what part of the heavens they beheld it. Some interpreters evade the solution of this question by giving the Greek noun {avarohrj) its primary sense of rise or rising (see above, on v. 1), which it has in one place (Luke 1, 78), though translated dayspring. The principal objection to this explanation is the want of any reason for referring to the rise any more than to the culmination of the star. Are come, or more exactly, came, that is, just now, or lately, which is substantially the meaning of the common version. Worship, a Greek verb which orig-
* Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo tem- pore Judasa profecti rerum potirentur (Sueton. Vespas. IV.) Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum Uteris contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens, profecti Judsca rerum potirentur {Tacit. Annal V. 13).
24 MATTHEW 2,3.4.
inally means to kiss the hand, the garments, or the ground before one, as an oriental method of expressing the profoundest reverence, and therefore specially applied to the act of doing homage to a Sovereign, which in ancient times, and in the east especially, was seldom free from some idolatrous ascription of divine honours even to a human being. There is therefore the less reason for explaining the word here of purely civil reverence or homage, to perform which could not well be the sole object of these Magi in their journey from the east, which would have been wholly out of place upon the part of Herod (see be- low, on v. 8). The meaning, therefore, must be that they came to do reverence and homage to a new-born child, as the Messiah, the long- expected Icing of the Jews, the benefits of v/hosc reign were to extend to other nations also.
3. When Herod the king had heard (these things), he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
The effect of this unexpected visit and inquiry was such as might have been expected. And hearing {it, or this, or these things), Herod the Icing, da facto, as distinguished from the king de jure, who had just been born. Troubled, disturbed, agitated, with jealous fear of a competitor, which is known to have been one of Herod's weaknesses, and one which seems to have continued with him till his death, as such infirmities often do, even when rendered most irrational by age or other circumstances. All Jerusalem, a natural and common figure for its whole population, which occurs again in 3, 5 below. With him may mean in sj^mpathy with him, but more probably denotes mere co- incidence of time and place. The causes of the agitation cannot have been perfectly identical. While Herod trembled for his throne, the people would naturally dread his violence, or the troubles incident to any revolution, or, as some suppose, the evils which were expected to precede the reign of the Messiah and were proverbially called his
4. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
That Herod understood their question as relating to the birth of the Messiah, now appears from the mode in which he answered it, not by a mere declaration of his own, but by appealing to the highest author- ity in all such matters. Chief priests the plural of the word else- where rendered High Priest (see below 2G, 3. 51. 57. 58. G2. G3. G5), and denoting in the singular the hereditary head of the family of Aaron and of the sacerdotal tribe of Levi. Although this office could be held by only one person at a time according to the law of Moses, the Romans had usurped the power of appointing and displacing the High Priest at pleasure, so that there were often several who had enjoyed the dignity. These some suppose to be the chief priests men-
MATTHEW 2,4.5. 25
tioned in the Gospels. Others understand the term to designate the heads of the twenty-four courses into which the priesthood was di- vided by David (1 Chr. 24, 3-18), or the natural heads of the families descended from Aaron; or such priests as were members of the Sanhe- drim, either by elective or hereditary right, equal perhaps in number to the Scribes and Elders, who had seats in the same body, i. e. twenty-four of each class, making seventy-two in all, a number bor- rowed from the seventy elders who assisted Moses in the wilderness (Numb. 11,16.24), and of whom this body may have claimed to be successors, though it probably originated in the exile. The scribes were the successors of Ezra, as conservators of the Old Testament canon, and as this office required a critical acquaintance with the text of scripture, the same persons would of course be its professional expounders. The name may have primarily signified their office as transcribers of the law, or it may be derived directly from the word meaning Scriptures, and denote a scripturist, or one employed about the sacred volume. Scribes of the people does not mean private unofficial scribes, but, on the contrary, national or public scribes, those who held the office, not for private advantage but for the general benefit and service. ' All the chief priests and scribes cannot, of course, be strictly understood, since they were scattered through the country, but must either mean all who were accessible, all then present in Jerusalem, or all who were members of the Sanhedrim. Most in- terpreters prefer the latter supposition, and regard this as a formal meeting of the Sanhedrim itself. The third class which composed it is not mentioned ; but it is a common usage to describe the Sanhe- drim by naming two of its component orders.* Or the scribes and priests may be particularly mentioned as the proper arbiters of such a question. Christ, the Christ, the Messiah, the anointed (see above, on 1, 1). Should be bom, or more exactl}-, is born as an abstract proposition, without reference to time, so as to leave it undetermined whether the event had actually taken place or was still future. (For a similar use of the indefinite present, see 1 Cor. 15, 35. John 7, 42.)
5. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea : for thus it is written by the prophet.
This is the reply of the chief priests and the scribes to Herod's question, returned no doubt by the whole body through their official representatives, and not promiscuously by the individual members. The answer seems to have been given without any hesitation, as a matter perfectly well understood and settled by divine authority. By or through (as in 1, 22) the prophet, too well known to Herod and the other Jewish hearers to require specification. (See Micah 5, 1. 2, where the passage is still extant.) For assigns the reason of their prompt decided answer, and imparts to it a meaning or an emphasis
* Compare 16, 21. 26, 3. 59, with 20, 18. 27, 1.
2
26 MATTHEW 2, 5. 6.
equivalent to that expressed by our phrase "of course." Tims may either mean as follows, or more probably, as just said, referring to the immediately foregoing designation of the place of the Messiah's birth. As if they had said : where should he be born except at Bethlehem, the place expressly fixed by God himself speaking through his inspired prophet. It is written, more exactly, lias leen written, the perfect tense suggesting the additional idea of its having been not only uttered long ago, but ever since on record and awaiting its fulfilment.
6. And thou Bethlehem, (in) the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda : for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
The retention of the particle at the beginning shows that this was meant to be a formal quotation, not a mere allusion or a paraphrase. Thou, or as for thee, in reference to what immediately precedes, not here, but in the original connection (Mic. 5, 1). Instead of Ephrath (or Ephrata), an old name of Bethlehem (Gen. 48, 7), which distinguished it from Bethlehem in Zebulon (Josh. 19, 15), the evangelist or the scribes themselves distinguished it still more expressly by the phrase land {of) Judah. Some suppose land to be here used for town or city, as it sometimes is in the Septuagint version. Others take it in a wider although still restricted sense, as including both the town and the sur- rounding district. (See below, on v. 10.) But the simplest explana- tion is that which makes it an elliptical expression meaning (in) the land of Judah, just as we add the name of the state to that of the town (e. g. Princeton, New Jersey). Not the least, or more emphat- ically, not at all (or not oy any means) the least. This peculiar form of speech suggests a sort of contrast or antithesis, as if it had been said, ' thou art not the least after all,' or, ' as thou wast of old described,' implying that both accounts were just, and that while it was the least in one sense, it was not the least, cr (by a natural litotes or meiosis) was the greatest in another. This furnishes a key to the apparent disagreement between Micah and Matthew, and removes the necessity of charging the supposed inaccuracy on the Sanhedrim, whose words the evangelist reports without correction. Besides the extreme im- probability of such an error or perversion, on the part of such a body, on so public and important an occasion, its retention would be utterly at variance with the plan of this evangelist, whose gospel is constructed on the very principle of choosing such events as proved or exemplified the fulfilment of prophecy, a design which could not have been pro- moted by the record of a false 'citation. The variation was no doubt intentional and meant to be a sort of gloss or comment on the obscure language of the prophet little to ue among (i.e. too little to be named or reckoned among) the thousands of Judah, i. e. the divisions of the tribe (as in Judges G, 15. 1 Sam. 10, 19). It is, to say the least, a sin- gular coincidence, that Bethlehem is not named among the cities of Judah in the Hebrew text of Josh. 15, 59, although inserted with ten
MATTHEW 2, G. 27
others by the Greek translators, who to make the text and context uniform, subjoin the summary "eleven cities with their villages." This is now regarded, by the highest critical authorities, as one of many instances in which these old translators sought to rectify the errors and supply the omissions of the Hebrew text, as they considered them. To say nothing of the other ten, the absence of Bethlehem from the official list is in striking agreement with its external insignificance as testified by all tradition, and explicitly asserted by the prophet in the passage quoted. The greatness here set off against it is entirely moral, and arises from the fact that Messiah was to be a native of this other- wise obscure and unimportant place. It is not to be overlooked, how- ever, that this contrast had already been partially presented in the type, though it could only be completed in the antitype. David, the first and greatest of the theocratic sovereigns, and the most honoured representative of the Messiah as a king before he actually came, was born and spent his early life at Bethlehem. That the two things were connected, not only in the divine purpose, but in the popular belief and expectation, may be gathered from John 7, 42, compared with Luke 2, 4. 11, and with the original history in the sixteenth chapter of First Samuel. Princes, leaders, governors (10, 18. 27, 2. 11. 14. 15. 23. 27. 28, 14), are put for the original term thousands (Sept. X&iao-iv), by a sort of personification in which the heads of families represent the families themselves and the places of their residence. There is no need therefore of explaining the Greek word {^yefioaiv) as an adjective agreeing with a noun understood and meaning chief (totem or cities), which is moreover not sustained by usage. Still less admissible is a change in the Hebrew text, or rather in its pointing, so as to read chiefs (•>§*>») instead of thousands (^sbs). This is not only needless and gratuitous, but inconsistent with the usage of the former word (qsfejA which does not mean a chief in general, but a duke of Edom, the distinctive term happily employed in the English version of Gen. 3G. 15-43. 1 Chr. 1, 51-54, the only place where the word occurs, except a few times in the later prophets (Jer. 13, 21. Zech. 9, 7. 12, 5. 6.), when the primitive usage may have been corrupted, or perhaps alluded to by way of contrast (e. g. in Zech. 9, 7, ' like an Edomitish chief in Judah1). For introduces or assigns the reason why the same place could be least and not least among the thousands of Judah. Out of thee shall come may have the strict sense of local derivation and progression, or the figurative one of birth and genealogical extraction, which is a com- mon one in Hebrew. (See Gen. 17, 6. 46, 2G. Isai. 39, 7, and compare Ileb. 7, 5.) That the relation thus described is not immediate but re- mote, i. e. not birth at Bethlehem but mere descent from ancestors who lived there, is a figment invented by the later Jews to justify their application of the passage to Zerubbabel, who was no doubt born in Babylonia. (See Ezra 2, 1. 2.) The obvious meaning of the word is that Bethlehem itself considered as a place, was to be magnified by giving birth to an illustrious personage, who is then described in the remainder of the sentence. A governor, chief, leader, not the word translated princes in the first clause, but of kindred origin, the cssen-
28 MATT II E W 2, 6
tial idea being in both cases that of leading, taking the lead, acting as a leader. As the other is a noun (r^yeuwv) answering to leader, so this is properly a participle (/jyovfxevos) and denotes a leading {man or per- son), although variously rendered elsewhere * One of the oldest ver- sions (the Peshito) uses ling for both words. The general descrip- tion is then specified by indicating where and among whom he was to be a leader. Rule is in the margin of the English Bible feed, neither of which conveys the full force of the Greek verb (iroi(iavei)j derived from a noun (noi^v) meaning shepherd, and itself denoting the whole office of a shepherd, which includes not only feeding but protection and con- trol. Both in the literal and figurative usage of the term, the first of these ideas sometimes predominates (as in John 21, 1G. Jude 12. Rev. 7, 17), sometimes the other (as in Rev. 2, 27. 12.5. 19, 15), sometimes both are meant to be included (as in Luke 17, 17. Acts 20,28. 1 Cor. 9. 7. 1 Pet. 5. 2). The figurative representation of civil rulers, and es- pecially of kings, as shepherds, is natural and common in the classics, as appears from the favourite Homeric phrase, ;; shepherds of the people," from Xenophon's explicit affirmation of the likeness, and from the saying of Tiberius preserved by Suetonius, and worthy of a better origin, that the part of a good shepherd is to feed his flock, not to devour it. The same application of the term occurs in Scripture, even where the Eng- lish reader may suppose a reference to spiritual functions only, as the
is not formally contained in the original, though rcallv involved in the first words of Micah 5, 4 (he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God). These words imply that the ruler, who was to come forth from Bethlehem, was not to be a secular chief merely, but to wield a sacred and divine au- thority, which, with the words in, Israel (Mic. 5, 2), correspond in sub- stance to the last clause of the verse before us, notwithstanding the omission of the words to (or for) me, i. e. for my service and by my authority, which are sufficiently implied in the expression who shall rule my people Israel, i. e. the old theocracy or Jewish Church. As the question put by Herod to the Sanhedrim had reference only to the place of the Messiah's birth, they quote only what relates to this point and the identification of his person, omitting what is said of his eter- nal generation (in the last clause of Micah 5, 2) and the allusion to his mother (in the next verse), although both these are most interesting and important features of the passage as a Messianic prophecy, and both would naturally be suggested to a Jewish hearer by the formal quotation even of a part.
7. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise
* E. g. chief (Luke 22, 20. Acts 14, 12. 15, 22), governor (Acts 7, 10), them that have the rule (Heb. 18, 7. 17. 24.)
t Jer. 2,8. 3,15. 10,21. 12,10. 22,22. 23,1.4. 25,34. 50,0. Mic. 5,5. Nah. 3,18. Ezek. 34, 2. 8. 10. Zech. 10,3. 11,3.5.8.
MATTHEW 2,7. 29
men, inquired of them diligently what time the star ap- peared.
The prompt and authoritative answer of the Sanhedrim to Herod's question (in v. 4) would naturally lead him to inquire whether this prediction had been really fulfilled; or whether there was any recent birth at Bethlehem, on the ground of which the fact of such fulfilment could be plausibly asserted. In order to determine this important point, he seeks to know on what grounds these astronomers believed the event, so long expected both bjr Jews and Gentiles (sec above, on v. 2). to have taken place. They had already given as a reason for their coming the appearance of a star, which they connected, in their science or their superstition, with the birth of a great personage among the Jews, to whom though Gentiles, they had come to render civil homage, if not religious worship. Then, i. e. after the response re- corded in v. G. and no doubt immediately, the Greek word (ro7e), which is one of Matthew's favorite expressions, sometimes denoting even sim- ultaneous actions or occurrences (see below, on v. 1G). Privily, pri- vately, or rather secretly, a word sometimes applied to any thing in- sensible or imperceptible, but commonly denoting, in the best Greek usage, fraudulent or treacherous concealment. Calling or having called, does not necessarily denote a peremptory summons, but in this connection rather a courteous invitation to a private conference, the se- crecy relating to all but the Magians themselves, who might consider themselves honoured by this private audience. The motive for con- cealment may have been a wish to avoid further popular excitement before he had discovered all the facts; or it may no less naturally be referred to that instinctive fondness for concealment, which belongs to men of jealous and suspicious temper, or of treacherous intentions, even where there is no rational occasion or necessity for secret meas- ures. We have then a striking instance of verisimilitude, which could not have occurred to a fictitious writer, for the very reason that the act was the result, not of reasoning or calculation, but of a spontaneous impulse. Inquired diligently, not the phrase so rendered in v. 16, but a single Greek word (^p^coo-e), meaning to render accurate, or do ex- actly, and applied in usage to arrangement, information. inquir}r, and many other acts of which exactness, accuracy, or precision may be predicated. The idea of diligence, or industry, derived by all the Eng- lish versions from the Vulgate {diligcnter did/cil). is entirely foreign from the meaning of the Greek word and its cognate forms both here and elsewhere.* Of them, from them, as the only source of informa- tion upon this point. The literal translation of the last clause is, the time of the appearing star. As the word translated time is one ap- plied to periods rather than to fixed points (compare Acts 1, 7), the question may have been not when the star was seen first, but how long it had been seen since, which implies that it had remained visible (but
* See below, on v. 16, and compare Lukel, 3. Acts IS, 25. 20. 22, 0. 23, 15. 20. 21, 22. 26, 5. Eph. 5, 15. 1 Thess. 5, 2.
30 MATTHEW 2,7. 8.
see below, on v. 0). Appeared, or retaining the original form, appear- ing, is a Greek participle now adopted as an English noun, phenome- non, appearance, or rather something that appears. The idea of rarity or strangeness forms no part of the essential meaning. Herod's mo- tive for making this inquiry was not to consult his own astrologers, as some suppose, in reference to the birth of which he had just heard, but rather to arrange the murderous design by which he hoped to render it innocuous.
8. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go, and search diligently for the young child ; and when ye have found (him), bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
The construction is the participial one so common in this context, and so constantly resolved by our translators into the past tense, send- ing them to Bethlehem, he said* So too in the next clause, going, or having gone, or journeyed, as the Greek verb commonly denotes not mere motion but departure to a distance. The participle is not pleo- nastic, nor conditional (if ye should go), but a substantive part of the command or exhortation, pointing out a necessary means to the pro- posed end of exact investigation. This is of no importance here, but may throw light upon another instance of the same construction (see below, on 28, 19). Diligently, thoroughly, exactly, an adverb corre- sponding to the verb in the preceding verse. Search, a verb which originally means to verify or ascertain as true (e'ra£a> from eYeo's), here used in a compounded form (7£erao-are) suggesting the additional idea of searching out, extracting or eliciting the truth in difficult and doubt- ful cases. The same verb is applied to persons in the sense of close or strict examination (see below, on 10, 11, and compare John 21, 12), and is used in the Septuagint version of Deut. 19, 18 with the same adverb as in this case (uKpifius). Search for, though essentially cor- rect, is not the precise sense of the Greek phrase, which means rather to examine (or inquire of) others with respect to the child (nepl rou 7rai8iov), i. e. not only to discover his person, or find where he was, but also to learn all about him. Young child is in Greek a single word (jraiblov), explained by some to mean a suckling, as distinguished from a new-born babe ({3pe(po$), and a boy or lad (7rni's) ; but that such terms are to some extent convertible, is clear from Luke 18, 15-17, where two of them are actually interchanged. When is not as in the pre- ceding clauses, introduced by the translators, but a literal translation of the Greek {enav SV), which sometimes indicates a slight antithesis (see Luke 11, 22. 34), but here suggests only a contingency, like our whenever, i. e. whether sooner or later. Found, as the result of the search just commanded, and perhaps implying doubt as to the issue.
* See above, 1, 18. 20. 2, 1. 3. 7, in all which places when, or while, represents a participle in the original.
MATTHEW 2,8.9. 31
Bring {me) word again, in Greek a single but compounded verb, mean- ing sometimes simply to announce (as in 8, 33. 12, 18. 14. 12. 28, 8. 10. 11). but sometimes more specifically, to report or carry back news (as in 11, 4. Luke 14, 21. Acts 5, 22. 12, 26). which additional idea may however be suggested by the context, as in this case, where the word again is not in the original, but Herod must of course be un- derstood as bidding them to come back or return, in order to commu- nicate the fruit of their inquiries, /and also, separated in the ver- sion, stand together in the Greek, or rather form a single word («dyco) and might be translated I too, i. e. as well as you and others. Whether worship be here taken in its civil or religious sense (see above, on v. 2), it cannot be supposed that Herod really intended either to adore the child or do him homage, but his words must be either hypocriti- cal, intended to conceal his murderous intentions, or ironical, express- ive of his scorn and spite towards his infant rival. Here again, we are not to assume too much of a rational and settled purpose, but must make allowance for unreasoning suggestions of strong passion or inveterate affection. (See above, on v. 7.) Come and worship is another resolution of the Greek participial construction, which appears to have been foreign from the English idiom in the daj-s of King James, or at least" of Tyndale, from whom all these unnecessary changes have been borrowed. Even the most fastidious ear and taste would probably take no offence now at the literal translation, so that I too coming may adore him.
9. When they had heard the king, they departed ; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
But they, on their part {ol 8e), having heard the Icing, waiting of course till he had ended his instructions, as recorded in the verse pre- ceding. Departed, set out on their journey, or resumed it, from Jeru- salem to Bethlehem. Lo, behold, introduces something new and unex- pected, like our own phrase, " strange to say," &c. The star, lumina- ry, heavenly phenomenon, whatever it may have been (see above, on v. 2). Saw may be either the imperfect tense implying a repeated or continued vision, or the aorist, denoting that they saw it at a certain time, or on one particular occasion. Went before them, a Greek verb which originally means to lead forth or bring forward (as in Acts 12, 6. 16, 30. 25, 26), but in common usage, to lead the way, precede, or go before, whether the object be implied (as in 21. 9. Mark 6, 45. 1 Tim. 5, 24. Heb. 7, 18), or expressed (as in 14, 22.' 21, 31. Mark 10, 32, and here). It does not necessarily denote in this place, that a lu- minous appearance moved in front of them until they reached the house. It may mean merely that the star was visible before them as they went towards Bethlehem. So too the statement, that it stood over where, or above {the place in) which, the child was, is a natural
32 MATTHEW 2,9.10.11.
expression of the fact that as they journeyed towards it, the star was visible in that part of the heavens. This explanation is entirely con- sistent with the use of the word came (or coming), which at most can only denote change of place or relative position, since they last ob- served it. It is not said, nor intended, that the star pointed out the house, which is not even mentioned, and which was no doubt ascer- tained, as in all such cases, by inquiry. Josephus in like manner speaks of a star as standing over the city of Jerusalem before its downfall. The miraculous, in either case, is represented as belonging to the star itself, and not to its position over the place indicated. The oldest manuscripts and latest editors have a passive form (eWci^) which strictly means, was placed (or stationed), but is equivalent in usage to the common reading (earrj) stood.
10. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with ex- ceeding great joy.
And (or out, omitted in the version) seeing (or having seen, re- solved, as usual, into token they saw) the star, implying, it should seem, that they had not beheld it during their long journey. Or the refer- ence may be to its new position as described in the preceding verse. Seeing the star (in this apparent station), they rejoiced a great joy — very (or exceedingly). This collocation of the words gives great force to the intensive adverb which stands last in Greek. The combina- tion of the cognate verb and noun {rejoiced a joy) is not a peculiar Hebrew idiom, as sometimes represented, but is found occasionally in the classical and modern writers. It is slightly different in form from the construction with the dative (sec John 3, 29. 1 Thess. 3, 9), though translated in the same wa}r. (Compare 1 Kings 1, 40, and the marginal translation of Jonah 4, 6.) The common version coincides with the Rhemish. Wiclif has, full great joy ; Tyndale, marvellously glad; Cranmer, exceeding glad; and the Geneva Bible, exceeding great gladness. This extreme joy was most natural, not only in relation to the object of their search, but to the truth of their calculations and conclusions, in which they would naturally feel an intellectual and scientific pride.
11. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him : and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frank- incense, and myrrh.
Coming (or having come) into the house, where the holy family was then residing. This does not necessarily imply their permanent abode at Bethlehem, as the house might be merely one in which they had temporary lodgings (see below, on v. 23). Saw, or according to
MATTHEW 2,11. S3
some ancient copies, found, with apparent reference to the words of Herod in v. 8. The (young) child with Mary his mother, not the Madonna and her child, as in the Romish Mariolaty, and the artis- tical tradition founded on it. The same incidental mention and sub- ordinate position of the Virgin may be noted in vs. 13. 14. 20. 21. Falling (down) worshipped him, the same verb that is used to express civil homage in the Septuagint version of Gen. 42, 6. 43, 25, and both combined in that of 2 Sam. 1, 2, unless we assume that all such homage in the ancient east included a religious or idolatrous devotion, like that paid to the emperors of Rome and China. At all events, the homage here described implied that they who paid it recognized the child as something more than "king of the Jews." Opening (or having) opened their treasures, which may either mean their costly wares or their vessels which contained them, as the Greek word, from which ours is derived, is applied not only to the contents (as in 6, 19-21. 13, 44. 19, 21. 2 Cor. 4, 7), but also to the receptacle, whether fixed or portable. (See 12, 25. 13, 52, and compare the wooden treasure (%-qa-avpov £v\ivov) of Josephus. It is an old but fanciful opinion, that these three gifts were presented to the infant Jesus in as many different characters, gold as a king, incense as a God, and myrrh as a sufferer. Another notion of the same kind, is that the three gifts were presented by as many magi, who were therefore three in number, representing three countries of which these were the pro- ducts, while a further combination with the prophes}7- in Ps. 72, 10. Isai. CO, 6, led to the conclusion that the three were kings of their re- spective countries. Hence arose the legend of the Three Kings, one of the most fixed and familiar in the popular traditions of the old world, though without foundation in the narrative before us, which is silent both as to the rank and number of the magi, and describes the gifts as a collective or promiscuous offering from all together. The gifts themselves were valuable products of the cast, but not con- fined to single countries, and are here combined, like those in Gen. 43, 11, as a suitable present to a recognised superior, before whom, according to an ancient oriental usage, mentioned by Seneca and other classics, the inferior must not appear empty-handed. (Compare 1 Sam. 9, 7. 8.) Incense, in its widest sense, is any sacrificial burning, but is specially applied to aromatic fumigation, as an act of worship. The Greek word here denotes one of the substances so used, an odorif- erous transparent gum distilling from a tree in Arabia. In the classics this word (ki^avos) means the tree and a derivative form (XifiavwTos) the gum ; but in the Greek of the New Testament, the latter means a censer (Rev. 8, 3), and the former is applied to the gum itself (Rev. 18, 13). Myrrh in Greek Smyrna, which appears elsewhere as the name of a city in Asia Minor (Rev. 1, 11. 2, 8). As an appellative it also signifies an aromatic gum, exuding from a thorn- bush in Arabia, extremely bitter, and employed by the ancients both as a spice and a perfume. (See Mark 15. 23. John 19, 39, and compare the Septuagint version of Ps. 45, 9. Song Sol. 3, 0. 5, 5.) 2*
34 MATTHEW 2,12.13.
12. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
Here the Greek participial construction is retained. Showing that it was avoided in the previous context only as a matter of taste, and not because it would have been a violation of the English idiom (see above, on v. 8). Being learned of God, in Greek a single word, originally meaning to deal or transact business, more particularly that of a pecuniary nature {xPrHJ-aTLCco from xpfaaTa) ; then to negotiate, or confer on state affairs ; and then, to give an answer after such nego- tiation, in which sense it is used by Demosthenes and Xenophon. By a further elevation and extension of the meaning, it is applied to the responses of the oracles, and in the Scriptures to Divine com- munications, especially those made to individuals. The sense of warn- ing is required by the context here as it is in Heb. 8,5. 11, 7. 12, 25, but probably without the implication of a previous prayer or consulta- tion as in Acts 10, 25, and in the Vulgate here (rcsponso accepto). For a still farther deviation from the primary sense, see Acts 11,26 and Rom. 7, 3. By dream (kcit ovap), as in 1, 20.* JSfot to turn bach, or retrace their steps, an absolute or reflexive use of the verb also found in Plato, and in Heb. 11, 15. Acts 18,21, where it is construed with the same proposition. They departed, not the verb so rendered in v. 9 (and go in v. 8), but one suggesting the additional idea of withdrawal or retreat, being the verbal root or theme of anchorite. Besides the verse given here (and in 4, 12. 14, 13. 15, 21. 27, 5. John 6; 15), it is variously rendered, give place (i. e. make room, 9, 24), turned aside (v. 22 below), withdrew himself '(12, 15), icent aside (Acts 23, 19. 20,31). It here implies not the mere act of departure or re- moval, but escape from danger as the motive. By (or through, omit- ted in the version) another way, different from that by which they came ; perhaps a more direct one since they visited Jerusalem, not be- cause it lay in the way, but because it was the capital, at which they would of course expect to find the new-born king, or at least to obtain news of him. Into their own place (xo>pav, a kindred form to the preced- ing verb), land, territory, region, country, 4, 1G. 8, 28. Luke 21, 21. John 4, 35), not that subject or belonging to them, as its sovereigns (see above, on v. 11), but simply that of their nativity or residence. Whether this was Persia, Babylonia, or Arabia is not revealed and cannot be determined by conjecture. (See above, on v. 1.)
13. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee
* According to Wiclif, the whole phrase means to take an answer in
MATTHEW 2,13. 35
into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word : for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Another participial construction, but resolved as usual into the past tense with ichen. They having retreated (or withdrawn), the same verb that was used in the preceding verse and there explained. The next clause is repeated from 1, 20, but with the substitution of the narra- tive or graphic present (appeareth) for the past tense {appeared). This mode of revelation or divine communication seems to be the lowest mentioned in the sacred history, being confined in that before us to the Magi, Joseph, and the wife of Pilate (see below, on 27, 19, and compare 20, 13. 31.24). In the Old Testament, it seems at times to characterize the revelations of false prophets as distinguished from the true (as in Deut. 13, 1. Jer. 23, 25. 27, 9. 29, 8. Zech. lo, 2), once those of lower prophets as compared with Moses (Numb. 12. 6). We find it also in the case of Solomon (1 Kings 3,5) and Daniel (7, 1), who, al- though inspired men, were not official prophets. The verb translated arise originally means to raise or lift up (as in 12, 11), then to rouse from sleep (as in 8, 25), and by a natural figure from the sleep of death (10, 8. 11, 5). The strict sense of the passive form here used is, being roused, awakened, i. e. not when you awake as usual in the morning, but at once, immediately, without delay. Take (to thyself, or with thee, in thy compan}^), the verb translated take unto thee in 1, 20, and took unto him in 1, 24. The (young) child and his mother, nearly though not precisely the same phrase with that in v. 11. Flee, a stronger term than that in the first clause of the preceding verse, and one expressing still more fully the necessity of haste and the existence of danger. Egypt, the nearest point of which was probably not more than sixty miles from Bethlehem. That country, although subject to the Romans, was beyond the reach of Herod, and was extensively inhabited by Jews, whose fathers had been settled there by one of the first Ptolemies or Greek kings of Egypt. It was here that the re- ligion and philosophy of Greeks and Jews were first brought into con- tact, the Old Testament translated into Greek, and the Platonising Judaism of Philo and his school invented. So numerous were these Egyptian Jews, that a temple was erected for them under the priest- hood of Onias (B.C. 150), which detracted in some measure from the exclusive claims of the legitimate sanctuary at Jerusalem. Near the site of this Egyptian temple, at a place called Metacea, an old tradition fixed the place of our Lord's temporary residence. Besides the reasons just suggested for selecting Egypt as the place of his retreat, there was another of more moment, which is afterwards expressly mentioned (see below, on v. 15). Be thou (continue or remain) there till I tell thee (otherwise or further), or till I say to thee (what thou shalt do). This is the literal translation of the words corresponding to Tyndale's para- phrase, until I bring thee word. Will seek, or is about to seek, the first verb (/ze'XX«) having no equivalent in English, and denoting mere futurity, but with more distinctness than the future tense. Seek has here its proper sense of search or look for, with a view to the discovery
36 MAT T H E W 2, 13. 14. 15.
of his home or hiding-place. To destroy, or (for the purpose) of de- stroying, an idiom sometimes represented as a Hebraism, but found also in the best Greek writers. Him, literally, it, the word translated young child being of the neuter gender.
14. When lie arose, lie took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.
This verse simply states the execution of the order in the one be- fore it, which was even more prompt than the English version seems to represent it. When lie arose might seem to mean that he waited till his ordinary time of rising ; whereas the literal translation is, being aroused, or having risen, i. e. instantly, without dek}r. This idea is moreover suggested by the phrase at night, or in (the) night, which would be unmeaning iif he waited till the morning. Departed is the verb already twice used in relation to the retreat of the wise men, and denoting something less than flight, but something more than mere de- parture. (See above, on vs. 12. 13.)
15. And was there until the death of Herod : that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my Son.
This verse describes Joseph as passively no less than actively obe- dient to the words of the angel. He not only went into Egypt, but remained there (teas there), a correlative expression to the one in v. 31 (be there). Till the death, literally end, i. e. end of life, a term occur- ring only here in the New Testament, but used in the Septuagint ver- sion (Gen. 27,2) and the best Greek writers as an euphemism for death. That of Herod took place in the spring of 750 U. C, the year being fixed by an eclipse of the moon about the same time, which, ac- according to the highest astronomical authorities, could not have oc- curred in any other year within a reasonable compass. The physical cause of Herod's death, according to Josephus, was a loathsome and most painful malady. That it might be fulfilled, the same formula es- sentially with that in 1,22, but without the emphatic preface, all this happened. The words here quoted are still extant in Hos. 11, 1, and more exactly rendered here than in the Septuagint version, which, instead of my son, reads his children. But the first person was cor- rectly given in the other old Greek versions of Aquila, S vmmachus, and Theodotion. Between the extreme of making this a case of mere ac- commodation, and that of making the original passage an exclusive prophecy of Christ, the most satisfactory interpretation is the one which supposes an intended typical relation between the history of Is- rael and that of the Messiah, as the Body and the Head. This sig- nificant analogy, which may be readily traced in the later sufferings and temptations of both parties is also'visible in the commencement of their several careers. As the national existence of Israel began with
MATTHEW 2, 15. 16. 37
the exodus from Egypt, so the early life of the great antitype sets out from the same point of departure. The same thing would be true es- sentially if Bengel's exposition were the true one. From the land of Egypt (i. e. ever since he dwelt there) I have called (him) my son. Compare Exodus 4, 22. 23. Hos. 12, 9. 13. 4.)
16. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, accord- ing to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
Having related the escape to Egypt and the residence there, Mat- thew now returns to Herod and describes the effect produced upon him by the failure of the Magi to return as he had ordered or requested (see above, on v. 8). It agrees remarkably with Herod's character, as known to us from other sources, that he is here described as acting not from politic nor even from malignant motives merely, but also from a sense of injured dignity and wounded pride. His cruelties in- deed, atrocious as they were, appear to have been prompted not so much by natural blood-thirstiness as by a jealous and suspicious tem- per, especially in reference to rivalry or competition. In this respect a parallel might easily be drawn between his downward course from bad to worse and that of Saul in his jealous enmity of David, but with this advantage on the part of Saul, that he was jealous in behalf of his own children, whereas Herod, with a sort of insane sellishness, com- mitted his worst cruelties upon his own sons, which gave rise to the famous witticism of Augustus, that he would rather be Herod's hog (in allusion to the Jewish abstinence from swine's flesh) than his son, a still more pointed sarcasm if, as some suppose, it was pronounced in Greek and with a play upon the likeness of the words denoting hog (vs) and son (vios). By a singular anachronism. Macrobius, a Roman writer of the fourth century, confounds this saying and the act by which it was occasioned with the prominent massacre recorded in the verse before us, as if Herod's own son was among the children slain at this time, whereas he Avas put to death after he had reached maturity. Matthew's narrative is also in acordance with the general teaching of experience, that few important actions, whether good or bad, are prompted by a single unmixed motive. This accounts for the di- versity with which historians explain the same facts, and for the mystery overhanging the whole subject of historical causes and ef- fects, where the result depends on human agency. Seeing, perceiv- ing, that is, inferring from the non-appearance of the Magi, on their homeward route from Bethlehem (see above, on v. 12). Mocked is in Greek a compound verb derived from a noun meaning child, and itself denoting childish sport or play, but also used by the classical writers in the secondary sense of fooling, duping, and by the
38 MATTHEW 2,16.
Hellenists in that of scoffing or derisive insult, being thus applied to the cruel derision of our Lord before his crucifixion.* The idea here is not that of mere deception, i. e. breach of promise or disappointment of his expectation (Wiclif, deceived), but that of contemptuous slight or insult, as expressed in the common version, mocJced of (\. e. by) the wise men. Even the Rhemish version (deluded) really includes the no- tion of derision, although lost in modern English usage. Exceeding wroth, in modern English, very angry, or more exactly, very (much) enraged, as the last word is in Greek a passive verb, derived from a noun meaning passion, and particularly that of anger.f The remainder of the verse describes the acts to which this fury prompted him. Sending forth, commissioning, the verb from which apostle is derived. It is here used absolutely or intransitively, as in 14, 85. 27, 10 below. There is no need, therefore, of supposing a grammatical ellipsis and supplying messengers or men of tear (as Cranmer does). Sleio, a Greek verb strictly meaning to take up or take away (as in Heb. 10. 9), but commonly employed, like our despatch or make away with, as a sort of euphemism for the act of killing. Except in this place and the one just cited, it is used exclusively by Luke, occurring in his two books twenty times, and always in the secondary sense of slaying or destroy- ing. The Rhemish version renders it too strongly, murdered, which, though true in fact, is not necessarily included in the import of the word itself. Children, i. e. male children (Geneva), men-children (Rheims), the sense being limited to one sex by the masculine adjec- tive and article (irdvras tovs) and by the usage of the Greek noun (7raISas), which is the nearest equivalent to our word boy, and like it sometimes used both for son and servant. (See below, on 8, G. 12, 18. 14, 2. 17, 18.) Coasts, confined in modern English to the maritime borders of a country, but of old denoting boundaries in general, and in Scripture sometimes the territory bounded or enclosed between them 4 It may here mean either the immediate outskirts (suburbs) or the dis- trict dependent upon Bethlehem as its chief town. In either case, the tract intended must have been a small one (see above, on v. C). From two years old, in Greek an adjective (dierovs) meaning biennial (or of two years), and agreeing with some noun understood, such as time (from the age of two years), or child (from the boy of two years). or used abstractly, as in the Vulgate version (a bimatu). § And under, a comparative form of the adverb (kiitcc), down (see below,
* Sec below, on 20, 19. 27, 20. 81,41, also Mark 15, 20. Luke 23, 11, and com- pare the use of the derivative nouns mockery and mocker in lleb. 11, 36, 2 Pet. 3,3. Jude IS.
t See Luke 4, 23. Acts 19,28 (compare 12, 20). Rom. 2, 8. 2 Cor. 12, 20. Gal. 5,20. Eph. 4, 81. Col. 3, 8. Heb. 11,27, and the Book of Kevclation passim. Ex- ceeding in old English is an adverb, and is so used to translate the same Greek word (\lav) in 4, 8. 8, 28, below, while in 27, 14, it is rendered greatly.
X Sec below, on 8,34. 15,21, and compare Ex. 10,14.19. Dcut. 2, 4. 16,4- 19,3.
§ It occurs only here in the New Testament, but cognate forms and similar constructions may be found in thcSeptuagint version (e. g. 1 Chr. 27, 23. 2 Chr. 31, 16. Ezra 3, 8), as well as the Apocrypha (2 Mac. 10, 3), and even in Herodotus.
MATTHEW 2,10. 17. 39
on 4, 6. 20, 51), and here denoting lower down not in reference to space but time, i. e. under or oelow the age just mentioned. Wiclif has within, i. e. within the limits just denned. Diligently inquired, in Greek a single word, the same that was employed above in v. 7 and there explained (Vulg. exquisierat). This does not im- ply that Jesus was just two years old at this time, but rather that he was not, as appears from the word under. In the former case, it would be hard to account for the long delay of the wise men cither in beginning or in finishing their journey. The true sense is that two j^ears was the maximum or highest age consistent with the statements of the Magi, while the real age was no doubt far below it. That the tyrant should allow himself margin in this devilish infanticide, and choose rather to destroy too many than too few, is in perfect keeping with his sanguinary habits, when influenced by jealousy or hatred. The silence of Josephus with respect to this slaughter of the innocents, as it is beautifully called in the traditions of the early church, has been made a ground of cavil by some modern sceptics. But the difficulty, if it be one, is not only purely negative as founded on the silence of a single writer, but susceptible of easy explanation from the obvious consideration, that the male children under two years, in so small a town as Bethlehem (see above, on v. G), or even in the tract of which it was the centre, must have been very few, and that the interest im- parted to the massacre by its connection with the infant Saviour would be wholly wanting to a Jewish writer, who could view it only as a small drop in the bloody stream of Herod's cruelties. On the other hand, the truth of the occurrence here related is confirmed by its anal- ogy to one which Josephus does record among the last acts of this jealous tyrant, namely, his command that a number of the chief men should be put to death as soon as he expired, in order that there might be mourning, or at least no rejoicing, at his own departure.* The mo- tive of the massacre, as we have seen was partly politic and partly passionate. While this appeared to be the only way in which a feared and hated rival could be reached, it seemed at the same time to gratify the tyrant's proud and bestial resentment. This agreement between Matthew and Josephus, as to Herod's character, even in relating wholly different events, is the more remarkable because he appears here only for a moment as it were before his final disappearance from the field of action, thus affording a strong though incidental proof of authenticity.
17. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by- Jeremy the prophet, saying,
This too was the fulfilment of a prophecy still extant in the He- brew Scriptures (Jer. 31, 15). The formula of reference is not so-
* The truth of this too has been called in question, but with as little reason as the other, and the sceptical critics are constrained to own that both events are perfectly in keeping with the life and character of Herod, and at least serve to illustrate the Italian proverb, se non vero ben trovato.
40 MATTHEW 2, 17. 18.
strong as that in 1, 22, nor even as that in v. 13 above. The expres- sion here is not, that it might he fulfilled, but simply that it was ful- filled. Hence some infer that this is a case of mere accommodation or a new application of words originally uttered in relation to a subject altogether different. But the difference of form is not such as to Avar- rant this distinction, since a mere accommodation is not more at va- riance with the statement of design or purpose (that it might be ful- filled) than it is with the positive assertion of the fact (then it icas fulfilled). The question whether the fulfilment was a real or ficti- tious one must be determined, not b}' the prefatory formula, but by the meaning of the prophecy itself and by its correspondence with the facts which are said to have fulfilled it.
18. In Kama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachael weeping (for) her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
The original passage, by a fine poetical personification, represents the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (Gen. 30, 24. 35, 18) as mourn- ing over the captivity of Israel at Ramah, where Nebuzaradan, the captain of the Babylonian guard, appears to have assembled the exiles, as a sort of rendezvous, before they actually left the country (Jer. 40, 1). The name Ramah properly means high, and is so understood here by Wiclif (on high) and Tyndale (on the hills). It is commonly agreed, however, that it here denotes a particular place, namely, Iiamah in Benjamin near Judah, so called from its elevated site, five or six miles north of Jerusalem, between Gibeah and Bethel (Judges 19, 13). It is now called Erram and is not to be confounded with another Ramah, the birth -pla~e and residence of the prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 1. 19. 2, 11. 7, 17). Rachel, though not the mother of Judah, was buried near Bethlehem (Gen. 35, 1C. 19). where her grave is still shown, and is therefore not inappropriately introduced in this place as renewing her old lamentation over this new calamity occurring near her resting- place. She may even be conceived of as rising from her tomb, dis- turbed in her long rest by this new and strange catastrophe. It is not however merely this poetical conception that is here embodied, but a real affinity between the cases. The point of resemblance may be that in cither case the temporary suffering was the precursor of a joy- ful future. As the Babylonish exile was soon followed by the Resto- ration (see Jer. 31, 16-40) so the massacre at Bethlehem was followed by the ministry of Christ and his salvation. The quotation varies somewhat from the Septuagint version. Rachel may be construed with a verb before or after (was heard or refused) but more naturally as an independent nominative. Lamentation, weeping, and mourn- ing, may be either explained as synonyms, cr as denoting articulate, inarticulate, and silent sorrow. The first of the three is omitted in several manuscripts and versions. Would not, was not willing, did
M A T T H E W 2, 18. 19. 20. 41
not choose, refused. Are not, or as it is more fully expressed both m Greek and English, are no more, i. e. no longer living. The force of this description would be greatly heightened by the recollection of the circumstances which attended lxachel's own death (Gen. 35, 1G-2U).
19. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
But (or and) Herod having ended (his life). This elliptical use of the verb, the only one which occurs in the New Testament (see be- low, 9, 18. 15, 4. 22, 25), is also found in the best Greek writers from Herodotus to Xenophon (compare the cognate noun in v. 15 above). As this event, according to Josephus, took place about the Passover, and was preceded by an eclipse of the moon, astronomers are able, by these data, to define the year, viz., 750 after the building of Rome, and four years earlier than the vulgar idea of the birth of Christ, which was introduced by Dionysius Exiguus more than five hundred j'ears after the nativity itself. This error, which is now universally admit- ted, although its exact extent is still disputed, has had no effect, as Bossuet well observes, upon the mutual relation or the chronological succession of events, or the correctness of men's views respecting them. (Sec above, on v. 2.) Lo, behold, or strange to say (as in vs. 1. 9. 13). In Egypt, where he had been ordered to remain till this time (see above, on v. 13), where the same form of expression is em- ployed, except a slight change in the order of the words.
20. Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel : for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
The first clause agrees exactly with the second of v. 13, till we come to the word flee, which is exchanged for go, or rather journey, set out (see above, on v. 9), because what is here described was not a flight but a return home. Land (of) Israel, without the article, pre- cisely similar in this respect, though not in case or syntax, to land (of) Judah in v. G above. The phrase here signifies the whole coun- try, two of the provinces or parts of which arc there distinguished in the next verse. The general name is derived from the inhabitants, like the older designation land of Canaan, which however is com- monly restricted to the country west of Jordan,* and is supposed by some to be a physical description of it as lowlands, and in contrast with the highlands of Libanus and Syria. Palestine is properly the Greek form of Philistia, denoting strictly the south-western portion, f but extended by the Komans, and in modern usage, to the entire land
* See Gen. 12, 5. G. 37, 1. 50, 13. Ps. 105, 11. 12. Ezek. 16, 3, and compare Num. 33,51. Josh. 22, 9. 11. .
t See Ex. 15, 14. Isai. 14, 10. 21, and compare the Septuagint version ol 1 s. 60.8. 87,4. 103,0.
42 MATTHEW 2,20.21.22.
of Israel. Are dead, or more exactly, have died. i. e. since you came away, the perfect to be strictly understood as usual (see above, on 1 22). The plural form, those seeking (i. e. those who once or lately sought), has been variously explained as referring to Herod and his counsellors as agents, or to Herod and his son Antipatcr, who resem- bled him in cruelty, and had still more reason to be jealous of a rival, though eventually put to death five days before his father. Others regard it as a majestatic plural, often used by kings in speaking of themselves, but wholly inappropriate as applied to Ilcrod by an angel. A more palpable hypothesis is that of a generic plural, sometimes used in reference to a single object.* Somewhat different from this is the indefinite plural, supposed to be exemplified in Luke 12, £0. 16. 9. and in Ex. 14, 19, which appears to be alluded to, if not direct!}'' quoted, in the verse before us, and may therefore have determined its peculiar form. Upon any of these suppositions, the essential fact is still the death of Herod himself. Young child, in Greek a single word, but a diminutive in form, the same that is employed above in vs. 8. 11. 13. 14. Life, a word which properly denotes the vital principle or living substance, and is therefore sometimes used to distinguish the sold from the body (as in 10, 28. and perhaps in Luke 12, 20), but is here and elsewhere properly translated life.]
21. And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
This is the simple execution of the order in the verse preceding, and exactly similar in form to v. 14 above, excepting that by night is here omitted, there being no necessity for hasty flight in this case, and that retired into Egypt is exchanged for came into {the) land (of) Is- rael, the same phrase that occurred just before (in v. 20) and was there explained. The indefinite form in both cases might be repre- sented in English by the idiomatic combination, Israel-land.
22. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither : notwithstanding, "being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee ;
But hearing, on the way, or after his arrival in the land of Israel. Archelaus, the eldest son of Ilcrod the Great, by his Samaritan wife Matthace, to whom he bequeathed his crown and ro}Tal title, but Au- gustus only partially confirmed the will, confining his dominions to Judea, Idumea, and Samaria, and requiring him to bear the title eth- narch till he should prove himself worthy to be called a king.
* The examples usually cited being Matt. 2G, 8 (compared with John 12, 24) and 27,44 (compared with Luke 23, 39), together with the less striking cases found by some in 9, 8. 12, 4. 21, 27. 24, 26. Acts 7, 42. 13, 40. 1(3, 1(5.
t See below, on G, 25. 20, 2S, and compare Acts 20, 10. Rom. 11, 3.
M A T. T II E W 2, 22. 43
After reigning eight or nine years he was summoned to Rome to an- swer charges of oppression and cruelty, and afterwards banished to Vienne in Gaul. I) id reign, literally, reigns, is reigning, the form of expression which would have been used by Joseph himself, or by those who told him of the fact. There is no need of taking the verb reign in a diluted sense, as it may here have reference to the time im- mediately succeeding Herod's death, before his will was broken and his successor's title changed, at which time, as we learn from Josephus, Archelaus was congratulated as already reigning (fjdrj fiaariXevovTa). In (or rather over) Judea, the received text (eVi) being retained by the latest critics, and having the same sense as in Rev. 5, 10, where the construction is the same, and in Luke 1, 33. 19, 24. 27. In the room (Tyndale's version) is in Greek a preposition (ami) often ren- dered/^?', but really denoting either substitution or retaliation.* Was afraid, a passive verb, was frightened, or alarmed, which is the origi- nal import also of the English word (affrayed), the noun derived from which and still in use (affray)., though popularly used of any fight, denotes in law, according to Blackstone, only one which alarms the vicinage. The passive form could not be retained here in the version, because our idiom does not allow it to be construed with an infinitive. The explanation of the words as meaning that he did go, but with fear, is wholly at variance with usage, and directly reverses the true sense of the expression. To go, or more exactly, to go aivay, implying that his natural course would have been to go elsewhere, which agrees ex- actly with Luke's account of Mary's previous residence at Nazareth. (See Luke 1,26. 2,4.) Thither, literally there, an interchange of prepositions equally familiar to the Greek and English idiom, though commonly expunged in our translation.! Notwithstanding (T}'ndale's version) is in Greek the usual connective (Se), and is here little stronger than our and. Warned of God in a dream, the same words that were used above in v. 12, and there explained. Warned must here be understood as meaning admonished or instructed with authorit}r. Tamed aside (Tyndale's version) is the verb rendered departed in vs. 12. 14, but in all three places meaning retired, retreated, with an im- plication of escape from danger. Parts of Galilee, not portions of that province, but that part of the country so called.^ Galilee, a He- brew word which originally means a ring (as in Esth. 1, C. Song Sol. 5. 14) or circle, and like the latter term is applied to geographical di- visions, being sometimes rendered (in the plural) coasts (Joel 3, 4) and borders (Josh. 13, 2), but commonly applied as a proper name (Galilee) to the northernmost province of the land of Israel, as di- vided by the Syrians and Romans, tying between Phenicia and Sama- ria, the Jordan and the Mediterranean.^ The remoteness of this dis-
* See below, 5, 38. 20, 23, and compare Luke 11, 11. Rom. 12, 17. 1 Th. 5, 15. Heb. 12, 2. 16. 1 Pet. 3, 9.
t See the original of Jno. 18, 3. Lu. 24, 28. Jas. 3,4. Deut. 1,37. 4, 42.
% Compare the local use of the same plural noun in Acts 2, lu. 20, 2, and also in 15, 21. 16, 13 below, and Acts 19, 1, where it is translated coasts, in the sense before explained. (See above, on v. 16.)
§ See Josh. 20,7. 21,32. 1 Kings 9, 11. 2 Kings 15, 29.
41 MATTHEW 2,22.23.
irict from Jerusalem and its proximity to the heathen, perhaps with some mixture of the population, as expressed in the name Galilee of the nations or the Gentiles (Tsai. 9, 1. Matt. 4, 15), seem to have low- ered it in Jewish estimation (John 7, 41. 52), although the Galileans professed the same religion and frequented the same sacred places (John 4, 45. 7, 2. 11, 50).
23. And he came and dwelt in a city called Naza- reth : that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets., He shall be called a Nazarene.
Having stated why he took up his abode in Galilee and not in Judea, Matthew now explains the choice of a particular locality within the first-named province. Coming, or having come, is not a pleonasm or superfluous expression, but a distinct statement of his arrival in the province, followed by his settlement in Nazareth. As if he had said, for these reasons he came to Galilee and not Judea, and having come he dwelt, or rather settled, took up his abode. The Greek verb docs not of itself denote either permanent or temporary residence, but rather the act of settling or beginning to reside, as in 4, 13. 12, 45. Luke 11, 26. Acts 2, 5. 7, 2. 4, whether the subsequent abode be temporary (as in Heb. 11, 9) or permanent (as in Acts 0, 32. 17, 20, and often in the Book of Revelation.) In, literally into, a famil- iar idiom where previous motion is implied though not expressed.* A city, in the wide sense, or a town, in its proper English acceptation, as including villages and cities, both which terms arc applied in the New Testament to Bethlehem. (Compare Luke 2,4.11 with John 7, 42.) The indefinite expression {a town or city) implies that it was not a place universally well known like Jerusalem or even Bethlehem. There is no doubt, however, as to its identity, since it has been visited by travellers and pilgrims almost without interruption from the time of Christ until the present day. It is situated on the northern edge of the great central plain of Jezreel or Esdraelon, into which it opens through a narrow pass in the wall of hills b}' which it is surrounded. The name Nazareth seems to be an Aramaic form(n><-i:£D) of a Hebrew word (^!£2) meaning a shoot or twig, and applied by Isaiah (11,1) to the Messiah as a shoot from the prostrate trunk or stem of Jesse, i. e. to his birth from the royal family of Judah in its humble and re- duced estate. This coincidence of name, as well as the obscurity of Naza- reth itself and the general contempt for Galilee at large, established an association between our Lord's humiliation and his residence at this place, so that various predictions of his low condition were fulfill- ed in his being called a Nazarcne. This is, on the whole, more sat- isfactory than any other explanation of this difficult and doubtful passage. That which supposes an allusion to the Nazaritic vow of the
* Compare Mark 1,39. 2,1. 13, 9.1G. Luke 11, 7. 21.37. John 9, 7. Acts 7,4. 8,39.40. 18,21. 21,12.13. 23,11.
MATTHE W 2, 23. 45
Old Testament (see Numbers 6, 1-21) ; or to Samson in particular as one of that class (Judg. 13, 5), and a type of Christ, is at variance with our Lord's mode of life, which was not that of a Nazarite (see below, on 11, 19), and with the usual orthography of that word in the Septuagint version. Still less admissible is the reference, assumed by some, to another Hebrew word which means a crown, or the sup- position of some early writers that the passage quoted has been lost from the Hebrew text by negligence or expunged by fraud, both which contingencies are utterly forbidden by the care with which that text has been preserved and guarded both before and since the time of Christ. On the other hand, if we admit a reference to various pre- dictions of our Lord's humiliation with particular allusion to his birth from the humbled house of David, as foretold by Isaiah (11, 1), this accounts both for the plural and indefinite form (the prophets), and for the stress laid upon the local name, which is identical with that applied to the Messiah in the particular prediction just referred to. This was not the fortuitous result, but the providential purpose of Christ's res- idence at Nazareth. The meaning is not that Joseph so designed it, but that God so willed it. The formula of reference is the same with that emplo}-ed in v. 15, there explained. He shall be called, not merely in the sense of being entitled to be so called (see above, on 1, 23), but in that of actuall}- hearing the name here imposed in real life, as we know the Saviour to have done, though the fulfilment of this prophecy is rendered less clear to the English reader by the constant substitution of the paraphrase Jesus of Nazareth, which occurs only twice in the original (John 1,46. Acts 10,28) for the exact phrase elsewhere used, Jesus the Kazarene. Even in the mouth of the Apostles and of Christ himself, this phrase has reference to its original derisive im- port, Jesus of Nazareth, i. e. whom you have treated with contempt by that name.* This explanation of the purpose for which Joseph was led to take up his abode at Nazareth, is perfectly consistent with the fact of his previous residence at that place as alleged by Luke (1, 27. 2, 4. 39. 51). That it was not before mentioned arises from the peculiar plan of this first gospel, the grand design of which is to demonstrate the Messiahship of Jesus, and which introduces only such historical events as have a bearing on this purpose, which the early residence of Joseph and Mary at Nazareth had not.
* Sec John 1,45.46. 18,5.7. 10,19. Acts 2, 22. 0,6. 4,10. 6,14. 10,38. 22, 8. 26,9.
46 MATTHEW 3,1.
CHAPTEK III.
Havixg recorded the genealogy and birth of Christ, with the events which led to his residence at Nazareth, the evangelist now proceeds to describe his public ministry, beginning, however, with that of John the Baptist, which preceded it and introduced it. Omitting, as already known, or unimportant for his special purpose, the early his- tory of John himself, Matthew introduces him abruptly at the begins ning of his public work, with an exact specification of its scene (1) and subject (2), its relation to prophecy (3) and to the habits of the ancient prophets (4), its effect upon the people (5. G), and a specimen of John's fidelity and earnestness in dealing with all classes (7). exhort- ing them to reformation (8), warning them against false confidence (9) and impending judgments (10) and defining his position as a baptizer with respect to his superior who was to follow (11), and whose coming must be cither saving or destructive to the souls of those who heard him (12). To this description of John's ministry in gen- eral is added a particular account of his principal official act, which also forms a natural transition to the ministry of Christ himself (13- 17). This was his own baptism, as to which we are informed of the localities (13), of John's refusal (14), of our Lord's reply and John's compliance (15), and of the divine recognition of our Lord as the Mes- siah, addressed both to the eye (1G) and to the ear (17) of the spectators. This view of the narrative contained in the third chapter will suffice to show that it is in its proper place, between the account of his nativity and infancy that goes before, and that of his temptation and the opening of his ministry that follows.
1. In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea.
Li those days, an indefinite expression, used not only in the Scrip- tures (as in Ex. 2,11. Isai. 38, 1), but by the best Creek and Latin writers (as Herodotus, Virgil, and Livy), in reference cither to a period of a few days (as in Acts 1, 15), or of many years, as in the case be- fore us. where there is a blank of nearly thirty years (see Luke 3, 2. 23), filled elsewhere only by a single incident (Luke 2, 42-52), and that removed from what is here recorded by an interval of eighteen years. This protracted period of private discipline and preparation in the life both of Christ and his forerunner, is in striking contrast with our own impatience even under the most hurried superficial pro- cesses of education. The reference of those days to the Saviours res- idence in Nazareth, although not necessarily included in the meaning of that vague phrase, is true in fact, and with the continuative par- ticle (8«) serves to connect what is here said with the immediately preceding context (2, 23). It is also in accordance with the usage of
MATTHEW 3,1. 47
the phrase itself, which, even when most indefinite, always has respect to something previously mentioned. In those days, i. e. while he was still resident at Nazaretli. The corrupted or apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews, as we learn from Epiphanius, had here the full but false speci- fication, " in the days of Herod the king," from which some ground- Icssly suppose the clause before us to have been abridged, without re- gard to its inaccuracy. That the phrase (in those days) cannot mean at the precise time mentioned in 2, 23, is plain from what follows and from a comparison of Luke's more exact chronological specifications (3, 1. 2. 23), which may be used to illustrate the narrative before us, but are not to be incorporated with it, because not included in the plan and purpose of Matthew's Gospel. Came is in Greek the graphic present, comes, arrives, or, retaining the precise sense of the compound verb, becomes near, at hand, or present. The same form is common in the Septuagint version, and another of the same verb is applied in the Apocrypha (1 Mace. 4, 4G) to the future or prospective appearance of a Prophet in Israel, after the long suspension of the office. In like manner it is used of Christ's appearance (Heb. 9, 11), and here of John the Baptist, not as a private person, but a preacher and baptiz- er. John, a Hebrew name, the etymology of which suggests the idea of divine grace or favour. The circumstances of its imposition, with the other incidents of John's conception and nativity, omitted here by Matthew, because not essential to his argument in proof of the Mes- siahship of Jesus, are detailed with great particularity by Luke (1, 5- 25. 57-G6), as necessary parts of a methodical biography or history. The Baptist (or Baptizer), a definite description, presupposing some acquaintance with his name, as that of a historical person on the part of the original readers. Some of the older writers understood him to be so called simply as the person who baptized our Saviour, John the Baptizer (of Jesus). But this, although the most important and most honourable act of his official life, is only one out of the many that entitled him to bear the name in question, which describes him, not by that one act, but by the rite which distinguished his ministry from all before it, and is, therefore, sometimes used to designate it as a whole.* Preaching, a verb so rendered more than fifty times in our version, but four times publish (Mark 5,20. 7,36. 11,10. Luke 8, 39), and twice proclaim (Luke 12,3. Rev. 5,2). It properly denotes the act of a public crier, or a herald, announcing or proclaiming some- thing by authority. This primary and strict sense of the term must not be superseded by the technical and modern usage of the word preaching, as applied to formal and official religious teaching. In this sense, it is probable that neither John nor the Apostles preached, while Christ was with them (see below, on 10, 7.) It is at least not the main act here ascribed to John, which is rather that of announ- cing, giving notice, that the long-expected advent of the Messiah was at last approaching or arrived, as expressed more fully in the next verse. Wilderness, like the corresponding word in Hebrew, does not
* See below on 21, 25, and compare Acts 1, 22. 10, 37. 18, 25. 19, 3. 4.
48 MATTHEW 3,1.2.
necessarily or always signify a sandy desert, nor even an unbroken forest, but merely the uncultivated land as distinguished from that under tillage, but consisting often of rich pastures, and inhabited, though not so densely as the other portions. Hence we read of men residing, and of towns or cities, in the wilderness. (See Josh. 15, 61. G2. Judg. 1, 16. 1 Sam. 25, 1. 2). The first two passages just cited, and the title of Ps. 63, mention the wilderness of Judah, or, as it is here called, Judea (see above, on 2, 1. 6). This cannot mean the coun- try, as distinguished from the towns or cities, of that province, which is altogether contrary to usage. Nor does it mean that John was traversing the less frequented portions of the country. The ministry here spoken of was stationary, and the wilderness must therefore bo a definite locality. It does not mean, however, the great desert stretching from Tekoa to the Persian Gulf, which could not have been called the desert of Judea simply because it begins or ends there, but denotes specifically that part of Judea itself which is adjacent to the Dead Sea and the Jordan, without any very definite limits, as none such probablv existed. Josephus, in describing the course of the Jor- dan from the lake of Genessaret to the Dead Sea, speaks of it as tra- versing much desert territory {ttcX\i]v dvufxcTpovpeuos epr]p.iav). This relates to the upper or external valley of the Jordan, while the inner or immediate bed has always been luxuriantly fertile. It was not merely optional or accidental, but a material part of John's commis- sion, that he should make his appearance as a herald and forerunner far from the ordinary haunts of men, and instead of seeking them should be sought by them. In this respect he symbolized or repre- sented the segregation of the Jewish church from other nations under the restrictive institutions of the old econonvy.
2. And saying, Repent ye ; for the "kingdom of heaven is at hand.
This verse gives the subject or substance of John's preaching, in his own words, not as uttered upon any one occasion, much less as re- peated without change on all occasions, but as a summary and sample of his constant proclamation or announcement. And saying is a di- rect continuation of the sentence from the verse preceding, preaching and saying, i.e. proclaiming by (or in the act of) saying (what imme- diately follows). This, though sometimes represented as a Hebrew idiom, is a simple and natural expression equally at home in any language. Repent, a Greek verb properly denoting afterthought, reflection, and then change of mind, including both the judgment and the feelings, upon moral subjects, with particular reference to one's own character and conduct, with an implication of improvement or reform in both. Evangelical repentance is not mere amendment nor mere sorrow for sin, but comprehends them both. The latter is expressed by a distinct Greek verb, which is used to denote even the remorse of Judas (see below, on 27, 3). The repentance to which John the Baptist called the Jews was a total reformation of both heart and life, as an im-
MATTHEW 3,2.3. 49
mediate preparation for the advent of Messiah. The same necessity is urged not only in the prophecies (especially in Mai. 4, 5. 6), but also in the later Jewish books, and particularly in the saying, that when Is- rael repents a single day, the Messiah will immediately appear. The kingdom of heaven is a favourite expression in this gospel, parallel and equivalent to kingdom of God in the others.* It appears to be derived from the prophecies of Daniel, where it is applied to the kingdom which God himself was to erect upon the ruins of the four great em- pires, the successive rise and fall of which are so explicitly foretold in that book. This final and everlasting reign is that of the Messiah, both in its inception and its consummation, one of which is sometimes prominent, sometimes the other. Heaven (or heavens), in this phrase, is not put for God himself (as some explain the same word elsewhere), nor for a state of perfect blessedness hereafter (as it sometimes does mean), but for that heavenly condition of society or of the church, which was to commence at Christ's first advent and to be completed at the second. Is at hand, literally, has approached (or come near) i. e. lately and in consequence of recent changes, namely, the concep- tion, birth, and adolescence of Messiah. The idea is not that his reign was once near but is so no longer, nor that it is now near and has al- ways been so, but the intermediate notion that it has lately become nearer than it ever was before.
3. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Some regard these as the words of John himself, who is certainly represented elsewhere (John 1, 23) as applying the same prediction to his own ministry. There is no objection to this construction from the use of the demonstrative pronoun {this), which would then be pre- cisely the same as in John 6, 50. 58. But most interpreters suppose the citation to be made by the evangelist, as in the parallel accounts (Mark 1, 3. Luke 3, 4). For assigns the reason of his uttering the words in the preceding verse, to wit, because he was the herald fore- ordained to do so. This, the person just described as so proclaiming. It is not necessarily implied that the prediction was fulfilled in John alone, but merely that he was the last in the succession of forerunners, and in some respects the greatest (see below, on 11,11). The use made of the prophecy is not an " elegant accommodation," but an au- thoritative exposition of its true sense and a legitimate application to its real subject. The present tense (is) does not show these to be the words of John, or necessarily refer to the preceding verb (has come near or approached). It may just as well have reference to the present (comes, appears) in v. 1, or to the general fact of John's position in
* See below, on 5,3. 19.20. 10,7. 11,11.12, and compare Mark 1,14. 15. 4, 11. 9, 1, &c.
3
50 MATTHEW 3,3.
the scheme of prophecy and history. The {one) spoTcen of or mentioned ty, (as in 2, 17), or, according to the Syriac version and the latest critics, through (as in 1, 22. 2, 5. 15), i. e. by his instrumental agency, or through him as a medium or an organ of communication. The prophet Isaiah, not a certain prophet so called, but the well-known and illustrious prophet of that name. The passage quoted is still ex- tant in the Hebrew text (Isai. 40, 3) and in the Septuagint version, from which it is here taken with little variation. Saying might seem in English to agree with this ; but there is no such ambiguity in the original, where the form of the word shows that it agrees with the prophet Isaiah, all these words being in the genitive singular mascu- line. The voice, or, more exactly, a voice, may be construed with a verb understood, (there is) a voice, or a voice (is heard) ; but it is rather an abrupt exclamation or ejaculation, as if he had said, ' Hark, a voice,' perhaps with the additional idea of a long-continued previous si- lence. John is supposed by some, perhaps too fancifully, to be called a voice, i. e. a transient, momentary utterance, as contrasted with the Word, or permanent revealer of the Father who came after him (John 1, 1. 8). It may also be an undue refinement, though a pleasing one, to sup- pose that he is here represented as a voice, because his life was vocal no less than his lips, the whole man being as it were a sermon. Of (one) crying is the Rhemish translation of a word (fiodovros) variously ren- dered in the older English versions, of him that crieth (Geneva Bible), of a erwr (Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer). In Greek it is the participle of a verb which means to cry aloud, and is especially applied to the roaring or bellowing of certain animals, and therefore used, as some suppose, to signify the vehemence and harshness of John's ministra- tions. The original construction in Isaiah seems to be a voice crying ; but the genitive construction, here adopted frpm the Septuagint, con- veys substantially the same idea. In the desert is connected by the Hebrew accents with what follows (in the wilderness, Prepare, &c), and the same construction is here possible, though not so natural as that which couples it with voice and crying.* But they both amount to the same thing, what is formally expressed in one case, being really im- plied or incidentally suggested in the other. If the command was ut- tered in the desert, it was in order to its being there obeyed or carried into execution (Bengel : iibi vox ioi auditores), as if it had been said, ' Here prepare,' &c. The wilderness primarily meant in the original prediction is a metaphorical or moral one, to wit, the spiritual desola- tion of the church or chosen people, through which God is represented as returning to them, a common figure in the Scriptures for the resto- ration of his favour or his gracious presence, after any interruption caused by sin. The twofold allusion, assumed by most interpreters, to the restoration from the Babylonish exile, and to the ancient oriental usage of opening and clearing roads before armies on the march or sov- ereigns upon journeys, is by no means certain or necessary. The latter is no peculiar local usage, but one which may be practised anywhere
* For a similar departure from the Masoretic accents, compare Ileb, 3, 7.
MATTHEW 3,3. 51
in case of need.* The former rests upon a dubious assumption as to the connection between the thirty-ninth and fortieth chapters of Isaiah, and is countenanced by no explicit reference to Babylon, or to the cap- tivity there, in the text or context. The terms of the prophecy may be applied to any reconciliation between Jehovah and his people, but are especially appropriate to that which was expected to accompany the advent of Messiah and the change of dispensations. When the " ful- ness of the time" for those events was come (Gal. 4, 4), the moral con- dition of the Jews might well be represented as a wilderness or desert, through which the way of their returning God must be prepared anew. But while this was the primary and full sense of the prophecy, which could only be morally accomplished, the literal fulfilment of its terms by John's actual appearance in a wilderness, seemed both to identify him as its subject and to prepare the minds of men for its fulfilment in a higher and more spiritual sense. Examples of the same twofold ac- complishment, intended to secure the same end, are by no means un- known to the history of Christ himself, and more particularly of his passion.f At the same time John's appearance, not in the temple or the synagogue or even in the streets of the Holy City, but in an ac- cessible though somewhat distant solitude, enhanced his fitness as a living symbol of the law. in its contrast with the Gospel, as explained above (on v. 1). Prepare, in the original prediction, means a particu- lar mode of preparation, namely, the removal of obstructions, corre- sponding to the English clear, in reference both to roads and houses.^ The obstructions here meant, being of a moral kind, could only be re- moved by reformation or repentance (see above, on v. 1), or as one of the Greek commentators beautifully phrases it, by gathering from the surface of the desert the thorns of passion and the stones pf sin. The Lord, not the Lord Jesus Christ, at least exclusively, but as in the orig- inal prophecy, Jehovah, the peculiar name of God considered as the national and covenanted God of Israel (see Ex. G, 3), a name represented in the Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament by the phrase (6 xvpws) the Lord, denoting sovereignty. The second person of the Godhead is. however, not excluded, since it is in Christ, not only by him as an instrument, but in him as a person, that God reconciles the world unto himself (2 Cor. 5, 19), or, exchanging apostolic for prophetic forms, returns to his forsaken people. Straight may be op- posed either to obliquity of course (as in Acts 9, 11), or to unevenness of surface, which last is the meaning in Isaiah, as appears from the next verse (40, 4). omitted here but introduced by Luke (3, 5), and ex- hibiting the ways as rectified or made straight (Wiclif, right) by the levelling of mountains and the filling up of valleys, a description also
* It is described by Diodorus in tbe case of Semiramis, by Suetonius in that of Caligula, and by Strabo, Justin, Plutarch, and Josephus, in more general terms.
+ See below, on 21, 4. 1G. 27, 9. 34. 35.
% Compare the use of the same Hebrew verb in Gen. 24, 31. Lev. 14, 36. Isai. 57, 14. 62, 10. Mai. 3, 1.
52 MATTHEW 3,3.4.
found in classical poetry* Paths, in Greek a noun (rpl(3ovs) derived from the verb (Tplfioo) to rub, and therefore strictty meaning ways worn by the feet. In the Greek of the Scriptures it occurs, besides this place and the parallels, only in Gen. 49, 17. 1 Sam. 6, 12. But the corresponding Hebrew word denotes a highway or an artificial cause- way, thrown up above the level of the land through which it passes.
4. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins ; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
The same John seems equivalent in English to the said (or the aforesaid) John; but the literal translation is, and John himself, perhaps employed as a transition from the prophecy to the fulfilment. As if he had said, * the John thus described in prophecy, when he ac- tually came himself (or in fact), had his dress,'' &c. This last phrase denotes more than that he had a dress of the kind described, suggest- ing the additional idea that his dress was a peculiar or distinctive one. Haiment is in Greek a noun peculiar to the Hellenistic dialect, but derived from a verb used in the classics. Of cameVs hair, literally, from hairs of a camel, the preposition (u7ro) indicating the source and the material. The reference is not to camel's skin with the hair, which would be too heavy, and has never been in use for clothing, although Clement of Rome, in his epistle, adds it to the sheepskins and goat- skins of Heb. 11, 37. Nor is the stuff meant camlet, i. e. the fine cloth made in the east of camel's hair, much less the woollen imitation of it made in Europe, but a coarse sackcloth made of the long shaggy hair of the camel, which it sheds every year. Such cloth has always been extensively used in the east, both for tents and clothing, especially among the poor, and as a sign of mourning, being generally black in co'our (Rev. G, 12). It seems to have been used as a proverbial des- ignation of the cheapest and coarsest kind of dress. Thus Josephus says that Herod used to threaten the ladies of his court, when they offended him, that he would force them to wear hair-cloth. The garb of John the Baptist, here described, was not worn merely from frugality, or in contempt of fashionable finery, like that of Cato as described by Lucan.f but in imitation of the ancient prophets, who are commonly supposed to have been distinguished by a rough (or hairy) garment (Zech. 14, 3), or rather of Elijah in particular, who is de- scribed in the Old Testament (2 Kings 1, 8) as an hairy man (Sept. dvr](j 8ci(xvs), or more exactly, a ptossessor (i. e. wearer) of hair (mean- ing hair-cloth, as above). The epithet hairy is not only as appro- priate to his dress as to his person, but its reference to the former
* At vos, qua venit, subsidite montes,
Et faciles curvis vallibus estc via; ! — Ovid.
t Hirtam membra super Romani more Quiritio Induxisse togam. — Pharsal. 2, 386-7.
MATTHEW 3,4. 53
agrees better with the mention of the leathern girdle which imme- diately follows it in that case, as it does in this. As the words of Zechariah above cited are the only intimation that the prophets were distinguished by an official dress, and as Ahaziah, upon hearing the description above quoted (2 Kings 1,8), appears to have recognized it, not as the prophetical costume, but as the dress of a particular prophet, it is on the whole most likely that Elijah wore it, not merely ex officio as a prophet, but for some special reason growing out of his own prophetic ministry as a Reprover and Reformer in the apostate kingdom of the ten tribes (1 Kings 18, 21. 19, 14). It may then have been a kind of mourning for the sin and the impending ruin of his people, which is much more likely than the supposition that it indicated an ascetic life, of which we find no trace in the prophetic history. Now John the Baptist's ministry not only bore a strong resemblance to that of Elijah, but is expressly represented by the Angel who an- nounced his birth as a continuation or renewal of it (Luke 1, 17), and had been so represented in the last prophetic utterance of the Old Testament (Mai. 4, 5. G), as expounded and applied by Christ himself (sec below, on 11, 14. 17, 10-13). The dress of John ma}*- therefore be regarded, like his preaching in a literal desert (see above, on v. 3), as an outward coincidence intended to identify him as the subject of an ancient prophecy and the successor of an ancient prophet, while the prophecy itself had a wider scope and a more complete fulfilment, not in his external habits merely, but in the whole purpose of his ministry to reconcile the fathers and the children, i. c. to bring back the chosen people to the spirit and the practice of the old theocracy, so far as this was absolutely necessary as a moral preparation for [Messiah's advent. (See above, on v. 1.) This view of John's rela- tion to Elijah is by no means inconsistent with the supposition, that his coarse dress and food had also a practical use as an example to the penitent, as well as a symbolical significance as representing the austerity aud rigour of the law in its demands upon those who were subjected to it.* The girdle, worn to bind the flowing oriental dress together, being necessary to all active movement, is a natural and com- mon figure both for energy and preparation.! But in this case, as in that of Elijah (2 Kings 1,8), the emphasis is not so much on girdle as on leathern. The important fact is not that John the Baptist wore a girdle, which was no doubt true of all his neighbours and acquain- tances, both male and female, but that this universal article of dress, instead of being costly in material or decoration, was composed, not even of what we call leather, but most probably of undressed hide, an idea not so readily suggested by the authorized as by the older ver- sions {of a shin). Such a girdle was in keeping with his shirt of hair- cloth, and his whole dress with the coarse and frugal fare described in the remainder of the verse. His meat, not flesh or animal food,
* A rabbinical tradition represents Elijah as arrayed in sheepskins, and to this, as the usual prophetical costume, some suppose an allusion in our Lord s denunciation of wolves in sheep's clothing (see below, on 7, 15).
t See 2 Sam. 22, 40. Ps. 65, 6. 93, 1. Prov. 31, 17. Isai. 45, 5. John 21, 18.
54 MATTHEW 3,4.5.
which is the meaning of the word in modern English, but Ms food in general, by which term it is rendered twice (Acts 14, 17. James 2, 15), but always elsewhere meat. The change of usage as to the word is remarkably exemplified in the phrase meat-offer 'ing ', which is em- ployed by our translators to describe precisely that kind of oblation into which meat (in its modern sense) could never enter.* Locusts, an insect of the grasshopper family, exceedingly destructive in the east, but allowed to be eaten by the law of Moses (Lev. 11, 22), and ac- tually so used among many nations, both in earlier and later times. From some mistaken notion as to such food, and in strange oblivion of the legal grant just cited, some of the older writers tried, by arbi- trary change of reading or by forced interpretation of the common text, to change those locusts into crabs or fishes, wild pears, nuts, cakes, or the boughs and leaves of trees. One of the strangest grounds of this gratuitous perversion was that John had not time or means to cook the locusts in the desert, which, however, is a very simple process, and continually practised by the Bedouins and other dwellers in the desert. Others, with more plausibility, but still without sufficient reason or necessity, explain icilcl honey to mean a sweet gum which distils from certain trees or shrubs, and is supposed to be so called in a few doubt- ful passages of ancient writers. The necessity of all such explanations is precluded by the clear and frequent mention, both in Scripture and the classics, of honey, in the strict sense, as produced by wild or un- hived bees, and therefore found in trees and rocks, and situations still more unexpected. f It may have been in reference to these wild spontaneous products, rather than those secured by human care and labour, that the Holy Land was said to flow with milk and honey 4 The fare of John the Baptist here described was not the ordinary diet of the country, as distinguished from the luxury of towns and cities, but one of more than usual simplicity and abstinence, and although not miraculously furnished, yet resembling Elijah's (1 Kings 17,0. 18, G) in its difference from that in ordinary use. In consequence of this abstemious mode of life, our Lord himself describes John as neither eating nor drinking^ in comparison with his own less rigid practice (sec below, on 11.18). That it was not, even upon John's part, mere ascetic rigour, but commemorative and symbolical imitation, is apparent from the fact that he does not appear to have enforced this mode of life on others. Even the frequent fasts of his disciples seem to have been borrowed from the Pharisees and not from John (see below, on 9, 14).
5. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Juclea, and all the region round about Jordan.
* Sec Lev. 2,1. 5,13. 6,14 14,10. Num. 7,13. 15,6. 1 Chr. 21,23.
t See Deut. 32, 13. Judg. 14, 5. 1 Sum. 14, 25. Ps. 81, 6.
t Ex. 3, 8. 17. 13, 5. 33,3. Joscphus also speaks of the region about Jericho as fed with honey (x^'pa peXiT&rpoQos), which would hardly be said of that pro- duced by domesticated bees.
MATTHEW 3,5. 6. 55
Then, at the same time that is mentioned in the foregoing context, i. e. while John was thus living and thus preaching,. Or°the sense may be, after he had made his first appearance, as described in v. 1. Went out (or forth) from their homes into the wilderness. Jerusalem is put for its population by a natural and common figure also used by Cicero.* All Judea, i. e. ail the rest of it, besides the capital and holy city. (Compare the frequent combination, Judali and Jerusalem, Isai. 1, 1. 2. 1. 3, 1). The country round about Jordan may be either a particular specification of the general terms just used (all Judea and especially that part about the Jordan), or an extension of the previous description (all Judea and those parts of the other provinces which are adjacent to the Jordan), so as to include a part of Galilee, Samaria, Perca, and Gaulonitis, all which had their points or lines of contact with the river. The phrase however is most probably indefinite and popular, denoting an indefinite but well-known region, not a technical expression of political or physical geography. Some would restrict it to a particular district called in the Old Testament the Plain of Jordan (Gen. 13, 10. 11. 1 Kings 7, 4G. 2 Chr. 4, 17), or to the whole bed of that river, either from its source or from its leaving lake Gennesaret to its entrance into the Dead Sea, a tract now called by the inhabitants El Ghor {the Valley). The all in these two clauses is explained by some as a hyperbole for most or many, such as they suppose to be ex- emplified in 4, 18. 24. 10, 22. Mark 1, 37. Luke 7, 20. John 12, 32. Acts 4, 21, and elsewhere. But in all such cases there is more danger of attenuation than exaggeration, and in that before us we have rea- son to believe that the strong expressions of the text were literally true, or at least that a very large proportion of the whole population were drawn forth into the wilderness, by what they had heard of John the Baptist's early history and his peculiar mode of life, as well as by his earnest appeals to the conscience, which in every age have had a strange fascination, even for those whom they condemn or force to sit in judgment on themselves. From all this it is probable that John for some time, the precise length of which cannot now be determined, was an object of general curiosity, and even universally acknowledged as a messenger from God. (See below, on 11, 7-15. 21, 23-27.)
6. And were baptized of liim in Jordan, confessing their sins.
The sentence is continued, without interruption or a change of sub- ject, from the verse preceding, they went out and, icere baptized. The imperfect tense of both verbs shows that this concourse was not merely once for all, on some particular occasion, but repeated and continued for a length of time not here determined nor recorded elsewhere. The act or rite here mentioned is the one from which John derived his title Baptist or Baptizcr (see above, on v. 1). Baptism is neither washing nor immersion simply, but symbolical or ceremonial washing, such as
4
* Mihi ipsa Roma obviara procederc visa est. — Oeatio in Pisoxem.
56 MATTHEW 3,C.
the Mosaic law prescribed, as a sign of moral renovation, and connected with the sacrificial rites of expiation, to denote the intimate connec- tion between atonement and sanctification. It was from these familiar and significant ablutions that John's baptism was derived, and not from the practice of baptizing proselytes, the antiquity of which, as a distinct rite, is disputed, since it is not mentioned by Philo or Jose- phus, and first appears in the Gemara or later portion of the Babylo- nish Talmud. If realty as ancient as the time of Christ, it was no doubt one of the traditional additions to the law made by the Phari- sees, like the tithing of garden-herbs and the baptism of beds and cups. (See below, on 23, 23, and compare Mark 7, 4.) The extravagant im- portance afterwards attached to this rite in the case of proselytes, so as even to make it more essential than circumcision itself, and neces- sary to the validity and value of that ordinance, confirms the view just taken of its origin. The stress laid by the same traditional authori- ties on total immersion as essential to this baptism savours also of the oral law, and may perhaps have some connection with a similar con- fusion of the essence and the mode in Christian baptisms. In the written lav/ of Moses, on the other hand, as in the primitive or apos- tolic practice of the Christian church, the essence of symbolical or ceremonial washing was the application of the purifying element. Some modern writers have carried this perversion so far as to denj'- the reference to cleansing altogether, and to make the dipping or immer- sion every thing, as symbolizing burying, death, depravity, or condem- nation. There is far more truth, though not unmixed with fancy, in another modern notion, that John first excommunicated the whole people as unclean before God, and then on their profession of repentance purified them by his baptism. We may at least be certain that this rite was recognized by those who underwent it as a new form or modifica- tion of the purifying rites with which they were familiar, as appointed symbols of repentance and regeneration. As to the mode, the very doubt which overhangs it shows it to be unessential, and the doubt it- self does not admit of an etymological solution. Even admitting that the word ~baptize originally means to dip or plunge, and that the first converts were in fact immersed — both which are doubtful and disputed points — it no more follows that this mode of washing was essential to the rite, than that every elder must be an old man, or that the Lord's supper can be lawfully administered onty in the evening. The river Jordan is the only considerable stream of Palestine, rising near the base of Mount Ilermon, flowing southward in a double bed or valley with a deep and rapid current, through the lakes of Merom and Tiberias, into the Dead Sea. Recent surveys and measurements have shown that the valley of the Jordan, with its lakes, is much below the level of the Mediterranean. This famous river formed the eastern limit of the province of Judca, and was probably the nearest water to the des- ert tract where John had made his first appearance. It was on ac- count of this contiguity, and for the accommodation of the crowds at- tending him (John 3, 23), that John baptized there, and not for the convenience of immersion. They submitted to John's baptism, not
M A T T HEW 3, 6. 7. 57
as an unmeaning form, but at the same time confessing their sins, the Greek verb being an intensive compound, which denotes the act of free and full confession or acknowledgment. This, which is prescribed as a condition, although not a meritorious ground of pardon (Prov. 28, 13. 1 John 1, 9), and was therefore required even under the Mo- saic law (Lev. 5, 5. 1G, 21. 20, 40. Num. 5, 7), is at the same time one of the best tokens of repentance. The confession in the case before us, was neither public nor auricular, but personal and private. Whether it was general or particular, and uniform or various in dif- ferent cases, are questions which we have no means of certainly deter- mining. As John's whole ministry was only introductory to that of Christ, and his baptism not immediately effectual, but only for (or with a view to) the remission of sins, as Mark (1, 4) and Luke (3, 3) ex- press it, it is possible, though not to be insisted on as certain, that the confession here referred to was a general acknowledgment of personal and national defection from the principles and practice of the old econ- onvy, to which the people must be brought back, as an indispensable condition or prerequisite of the Messiah's advent. See above, on v. 4, and compare Mai. 4, 5. 6 (in the Hebrew text 3, 23. 24), where this change is ascribed to the instrumental agency of Elijah, i. c. John himself (see below, on 17, 10-13).
7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sad- ducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, 0 genera- tion of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ?
We learn from this verse, that the concourse to John's ministry and baptism was not confined to either of the great religious sects, or rather schools, into which the Jewish church was then divided ; and that John reproved and warned them both with impartial faithfulness, without respect of persons or of parties. The Pharisees and Sadducees differed, not only as to certain doctrines and the observance of the oral law, but also in their national and patriotic feelings, and their disposition to assimilation with the Gentiles. The name Pharisee, though otherwise explained by some, most probably means Separatist, not in the modern sense of schismatic, nor in allusion to mere personal austerity and strict- ness, as distinguishing a few ascetics from the masses of the people, but rather as defining the position which they occupied in reference to other nations, by insisting upon every thing peculiar and distinctive, and af- fecting even to exaggerate the difference between the Gentiles and themselves. This, which was at first, i. e. after the return from exile, when these divisions are first traceable in historj', and even later, under the first Maccabees or Hasmonean princes, the true national and theo- cratic spirit, by degrees became corrupt, losing sight of the great end for which the old economy existed, and worshipping "the law, not only that of Moses, but its traditional accretions called the Oral Law, as a system to be valued for its own sake, and designed to be perpetual. The opposi- 3*
58 MATTHEW 3,7.
tion to this school or party arose chiefly from the Sadducees, a name of doubtful origin, derived by the early Christian writers from the Hebrew word for righteous fp^xY but by the Jewish books from a proper name of kindred origin (piix) Zado\ said to be that of the original founder. At first, they seem to have objected merely to the narrow nationality of their opponents, and to have aimed at smoothing down, as far as possi- ble without abandoning their own religion, the points of difference be- tween Jews and Gentiles, so as to reconcile the faith of Moses with the Greek philosophy and civilization, and renouncing or suppressing what- ever appeared most offensive or absurd to the cultivated heathen. But this dangerous process of assimilation could not be carried far without rejecting matters more essential ; and we find accordingly, that the Sadducees, before the time of our Lord's public ministry, had abjured, not only the Oral Law or Pharisaical tradition, but the doctrine of the resurrection and of separate or disembodied spirits, no doubt on the pretext of their not being expressly taught in the Old Testament.* This liberal or latitudinarian party was composed, according to Jo- sephus, of persons in the more refined and educated classes, while the Pharisees included the great body of the people. For between these schools or parties the whole nation was divided, unless we except a third, called by Josephus the Essenes, and described as an ascetic class, inhabiting the desert near the Dead Sea, and leading a life not unlike that of the later Christian monks. The absence of all reference to this class in the Gospels is explained by some, upon the' ground that they were merged in the vast multitude of those who followed John the Baptist and our Lord himself. But as they are not mentioned here and elsewhere, where the other schools and parties are referred to, it is probable that what Josephus tells us of the Essenes is only true of a temporary association, growing out of transitory local causes, and with- out a permanent distinctive character, like that of the two great bodies named by Matthew in the verse before us. If the Essenes. however, had a permanent and organized existence, they were no doubt entitled to the appellation of a sect, in the ordinary sense of that expression, as implying a distinct organization and a separate worship. But for that very reason it is not at all appropriate, though commonly applied, to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who, notwithstanding their diversities of doctrine and of practice, were professors of the same faith, and, so far as now appears, joined in the same worship. Their mutual relation may be therefore more exactly represented by the word schools or^w- ties, the one suggesting difference of doctrine, and the other that of discipline or practice. The mutual relation of these parties in the Jewish church and state (which were inseparably blended) was anal- ogous to that of Whigs and Tories, or of High and Low Church, for the last two hundred years, in England ; each obtaining the ascendancy in turn, or at the same time sharing it between them. Such vicissi- tudes and rivalries may be distinctly traced in the history of the Has-
* See below, on 22, 23, and compare Acts 23, 8. 1 Cor. 15, 12.
MATTHEW 3,7. 59
monean dynasty before the Koman conquest, as for instance in the fact, that Alexander Jannceus charged his widow on his death-bed, as the guardian of her sons and regent during their minorit}^, to transfer her political connections from the Sadducees, with whom he had him- self been acting, to the Pharisees, as being not only the more numerous and powerful, but also the more national and patriotic party. From all these facts it will be seen that the Pharisees and Sadducees are here named, not as select classes, large or small, distinct from the body of the people, but as the two great schools or parties, into which that body was itself divided, so that many refers rather to the aggregate number, which is there described by its component parts. As if he had said, ' seeing a great multitude, consisting both of Pharisees and Sad- ducees.' From this it also follows, that when Luke (3, 7) represents John as uttering the same words to the crowds or multitudes (7-019 oxXols), there is no mistake in either statement, nor the least incon- sistency between them, nor the slightest need of forced constructions, as, for instance, that he spoke to the Pharisees and Sadducees before the people, or at the former although to the latter, but a twofold yet harmonious statement of the simple fact, that the crowds who came out were both Pharisees and Sadducees. To Ms baptism, i. e. both to wit- ness and receive it, not merely to the place of its administration. The sense of opposition or hostility (against his baptism) is at variance both with usage and the context. To both these parties, so unlike and even opposite in character and spirit, and little accustomed to be thus con- founded, John addressed himself in terms of undistinguishing severity. Generation is in Greek a plural, and is so translated by Wiclif and in the Geneva Bible, both of which have generacionns. The plural may have reference either to variety of species or to multitude of individuals. The word itself denotes any product, whether animal (as here) or vege- table (as in 26, 29, below, and in Luke 12, 18). It is commonly trans- lated fruit, which has the same double use in English. (Besides the passages just cited, see Mark 14, 25. Luke 3, 7. 22, 18. 2 Cor. 9, 10.) Generation occurs only here and in the parallels (12, 34. 23, 33. Luke 3, 7). The Bhemish version has a more poetical expression, but equiva- lent in import, vipers'' brood, i. e. offspring or progeny of vipers. As a mere expression of abhorrence or contempt, this language would be un- accountable, if not unworthy of the man who used it. If the notion thus conveyed were that of craft or cunning, the form would still be a surprising one. The only satisfactory solution is afforded by assum- ing an allusion to the protevangelium or first promise of a Saviour after the Fall (see Gen. 3, 15), in which the seed of the woman, i. e. Christ and his people, are contrasted with the seed of the serpent, or the devil and his followers, both men and demons, throughout all ages, as com- posing two antagonistic powers, which were to be long at war, with various fluctuations and vicissitudes of fortune, including temporary partial advantages on one side, but an ultimate and total triumph on the other. This prediction gives complexion to all later history, which is really the record of its gradual fulfilment. This war of ages was now approaching to its crisis or catastrophe. The heads of the two
CO MATTHEW 3,7.8.
parties were about to be brought into personal collision.* In the mean time the forerunner of the conqueror denounces the great body of the people who came forth to hear him. and especially the leaders of the two great parties into which they were divided, as belonging to the hostile army. The mere change of expression, from seed of the serpent to brood of vipers, is entirely insufficient to outweigh the his- torical and other arguments in favour of this explanation, which con- verts a harsh and almost passionate vituperation into a solemn and im- pressive recollection of a prophecy coeval with the fall of man and interwoven with the whole course of his subsequent experience. Who hath ^earned you, or retaining the strict sense of the aorist, who did warn you, or who learned you, i. e. just now. or before you came out hither? The Greek verb, elsewhere rendered forewarn (Luke 12, 5), shew (Luke G, 47. Acts 9, 16. 20, 35), originally means to show secretly or partially, both which ideas are suggested by the particle (vno) with which it is compounded, and may therefore be expressed by our phrase, to give a glimpse of any thing. Here (as in some of the pas- sages just cited) it denotes a slight intimation or suggestion, as distin- guished from a full disclosure. ' Who has given you a hint of the im- pending danger?' The infinitive which follows may be variously construed, as denoting either the necessity of flight or possibility of rescue. ' Who has shown you that you must flee ? ' ' Who has shown you that you can escape ? ' In either case, the words express surprise ; on the former supposition, at their having been alarmed ; on the latter, at their venturing to hope. The first is probably the natural impression made on most unbiassed readers, though the other is pre- ferred by some interpreters, and one even understands the words to mean, that if they had been warned, they would no doubt have fled. The wrath, i. e. the manifestation of God's anger against sin and his determination to punish it.f To come, in Greek an active participle, coming, or about to be, the verb denoting mere futurity and having no equivalent in English (see above, on 2, 13). The coming wrath is an expression elsewhere used by Paul (1 Thess. 1, 10), and in the same sense, namely that of future and impending judgments, without speci- fication of their form or nature.
8. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance :
Bring forth, literally, make, i. e. produce or bear (Rhem. yield). The same use of the verb occurs in Gen. 1, 11, and 7, 17. 18. 21, 43 below. Fruits, or, according to the critics, fruit, in the singular num- ber, but without a change of meaning. Meet, the word so rendered Acts 26, 20. 1 Cor. 1G, 4. 2 Th. 1, 3, and due {reward) in Luke 23, 41, but usually worthy, which would have been better here. Fruits worthy of repentance, i. c. such effects as it may justly be expected to
* See below, on 4, 1, and compare John 12, 31. 14, 80. 1G, 11.
t Lev. 10, 6. Num. 1, 53. Deut. 0,7. Josh. 9, 20. 2 Kings 23, 20. I Chr. 27, 24. 2Chr. 19,2. Ezra 5, 12. Neh. 13,13. Job 21, 20. Isai. 54,8. Jer. 21,5. Hab. 3,2. Zech. 7, 2. Rom. 2, 5. Eph. 2, 3. 1 Th. 5, 9. Rev. 6, 16.
MATTHEW 3,8.9. 61
produce. The margin of the English Bible has answerable to amend- ment of life. The Peshito, or old Syriac. has conversion. Therefore, because you have been warned, or because you have come forth to be baptized, professing your repentance, which includes at least the pur- pose of reformation, act accordingly. As this is not a continuation of the figure in v. 7 {generation of mpers\ but an introduction to the one in v. 9 {trees), fruit is to be taken in a vegetable not an animal sense, though appropriate to both (see above, on v. 7), and therefore furnishing a natural transition from the one to the other.
9. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to (our) father ; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abra- ham.
Think not to say is explained by some as a mere pleonasm, mean- ing nothing more than say not, as the same verb used in Mark 10, 42, is omitted in the parallel passage (20, 25 below). Others run into the opposite extreme of making it mean wish (Vulg. ne velitis), begin (Luther), presume (Geneva), delight (Rhemish), none of which ideas is suggested by the Greek verb. It simply means, do not even think of saying, as expressed by Tyndale's paraphrastic version {see that ye once think not to say), and a little differently in Cranmer's (be not of such mind that ye would say). The act prohibited is not simply that of speaking, but of thinking or intending so to speak. In yourselves, or as it is expressed in Hebrew, in your hearts (see Ps. 4, 6. 10, 6. 14, 1), i. e. secretly and mentally, not vocally or audibly, implying that they might be disposed to think, what they would not care to utter upon this occasion. (As a) father, founder, or progenitor, we have Abraham, a proud boast afterwards expressly uttered by the Jews in opposition to our Lord himself (See John 8, 33. 37. 39). What was then denied by him, and by John the Baptist in the case before us, was not the fact of their descent from Abraham, which was notoriously true, but their reliance upon that fact, as securing the divine favour, irrespective of their character and conduct. This arrogant and im- pious reliance, which was secretly or openly cherished by the Jews of that day, found expression afterwards in maxims, some of which are still preserved in the rabbinical tradition, for example that of the Bereshith Rabbah, that Abraham sits at the gate of hell, and suffers no one of his circumcised descendants to go down there. For assigns a reason why they should not entertain this national hereditary trust, viz., because it presupposed that God was bound to that one race as his chosen people, and could not, if he would, reject them. In oppo- sition to this wicked and absurd illusion he assures them, in a tone almost ironical, that if they perished, God was able to supply their place, and that from the most unpromising and unexpected quarters. Of (out of, from among) these stones, not a figure for the Gentiles as worshippers of stocks and stones ; nor in allusion to the monumental
62 MATTHEW 3,9.10.
stones of Gilgal ; but a simple designation of the loose stones lying on the surface of the ground, to which the Baptist may have pointed as he spoke. There is no need of supposing an allusion to the stony soil of the Arabian desert, from which one part of it derives its name (Arabia Petrcea), as wilderness does not necessarily denote a barren waste (see above, on v. 1). The expression would be natural in any situation where loose stones happened to be lying around. They are mentioned at all as the least obvious and likely source of such supply, and therefore necessarily implying an immediate divine agency in its production. The same idea might have been expressed in general terms, but with far less emphasis, by saying, ' If all the natural de- scendants of the Patriarch were swept away, God could supply their place at once from any quarter even the least promising.'* There is a possible though not a necessary reference to Isai. 51, 1. It matters little as to John's essential meaning, whether children to (or for) Abraham be understood of natural or spiritual offspring. If the former, the assertion is, that God could easily renew the Jewish race, in case of its perdition ; if the other, that he could as easily substitute a better. On either supposition, the vocation of the Gentiles, although not expressly represented by the stones, is tacitly implied as possible. Raise up, or retaining the original import of the Greek verb (see above, on 2, 13. 14. 20, 21) arouse, awaken from inanimate existence into life.f I say unto you, with emphasis on both pronouns, as in 5, 28 below, and often elsewhere. ' Whatever you may say to me or to 3'ourselves about your proud prerogatives as natural descendants of the faithful Abraham, the Friend of God, I tell you in return that God has no need of your services, but with the same ease that he made j^ou or Abraham or Adam, can convert the very stones beneath your feet into worthier sons of Abraham than you are.'
10. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees : therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and thrown into the fire.
And now also, not at some period remotely or indefinitely future, but already, even while I speak, the judgment is impending.:]: The axe, which in Homer always means a battle-axe, but in the later clas- sics, as with us, an instrument for felling trees, is here a figure for di- vine judgments, possibly suggested by the reference to fruit in the preceding verse. Is laid, literally lies, is tying, as the original verb is a deponent one. The passive form, cmplo}red in the translation, seems to mean that some one is now laying (or applying) it to the tree, i. c. actually felling it ; whereas the neuter form of the original may possi-
* For a similar strong figure, very differently applied by Christ himself, see Luke 19, 40.
t Compare the application of the verb raise vp to human generation in Gen. SS, 8. and in 22, 24 below.
% But also, or but even (8e aai) is a favorite combination of Luke's (3, 9. 12. 14. 8,36. 16,1. 18,1. 9.16. 23,38.
MATTHEW 3,10. 63
bly have been intended to convey the idea of its lying there as yet in- active, in immediate proximity (at, close to, irpos) and ready to be used at any moment. This is indeed all that the words necessarily denote, although more may be implied or suggested by the context. Upon this point depends another question as to the precise sense of the rooty which may either mean the bottom of the tree, at which the axe is lying in readiness for future use, or the radical and vital portion of the tree, to which it is already actively applied, with a view to its complete excision, or as that idea is expressed in prophecy, with refer- ence to this very period and these very judgments, so as to leave nei- ther root nor branch (Mai. 4. 1. Hebrew text, 3, 19). The essential meaning, upon either supposition, is that of imminent complete de- struction. The combination of the singular and plural {root and trees) may have no separate significance, or may specifically signify the com- mon root of all the trees, with reference perhaps to the national de- pendence or descent from Abraham, as cherished by his individual de- scendants. The trees of this verse, corresponding to the fruits of that before it, must of course denote those from whom fruit was expected and required, namely, those to whom John the Baptist was now speak- ing, the crowds who came forth to his baptism and consisted both of Pharisees and Sadducees. Therefore., because the axe is laid there for the very purpose. Bringing forth, literally, making, i. e. yielding or producing, as in v. 8. Good fruit, there described as fruit meet for (answerable to, or worthy of) repentance, but here by its intrinsic quality as good, both in the sense of right or acceptable to God, and that of salutary, useful, to the doer and to others. Is cut doicn, not is commonly or generally cut down, as a matter of course, which is forbidden by the preceding therefore, but now, in this case, upon this occasion, at this time, or as it might be expressed in the English of the present day, is oeing cut down, as something actually passing, accord- ing to one sense of the verb lies, as explained above ; but if the other be preferred, the present may be used to represent a certain and prox- imate futurity (is cut down, i. e. sure and just about to be so). Hewn dozen, so translated in the parallel passage (Luke 3, 9) and in 7, 19 below, but twice cut down (Luke 13, 7. 9), and thrice cut of (18, 8. Rom. 11, 22. 2 Cor. 11, 12), and once hindered (1 Pet. 3, 7), means strictly cut out, and is so translated in a single instance (Rom. 11, 24). It is here used to denote, not the mere felling, but the complete exci- sion of the tree, i. e. its being cut up by the root. (See below, on 13, 29. 15, 13, and compare Luke 17, G. Jude 12, in all which places the idea of eradication is expressed, but without that of cutting). Is cast (or thrown), not in general, but now, the present having the same sense as in the verb immediately preceding, rendered more emphatic, in the Greek, by its position at the end of the whole sentence (into fire is cast). Into fire, (not the fire), an indefinite description of the ele- ment made use of to consume the tree, and representing, as a figure, the wrath of God, already mentioned (in v. 7), or its ruinous effect, upon the unforgiven sinner (compare Heb. 12, 29).
64 MATTHEW 3,11.
11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance : but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and (with) fire.
But though John uttered these severe denunciations, it was not in his own name, or by his own authority. He was only a forerunner, not a principal. The very rite which he administered was only em- blematical of something to be actually done by his superior, between whom and himself there was a greater disparity than that between a master and his meanest slave. A contrast or antithesis is indicated by the very structure of the sentence, which is balanced, in the usual Greek manner, by the corresponding particles, indeed (fxev) and hut (Se), equivalent, when thus combined, to our expressions, ' on the one hand and the other.' The first introduces a description of himself and his own ministry, the second that of his superior or principal. Indeed, or it is true, a sort of concession or acknowledgment that they were right in thinking him a messenger from God, commissioned to baptize with water, literally, in icater, as the element or fluid, which no more implies immersion than our common phrases to rinse or wash in water. But though both were to baptize, it was in a manner and with an effect immeasurably different, a difference corresponding to the infinite disparity between them as to rank and nature. The sum of what is here said is, that John's whole ministry was relative, pro- spective, and preparatory ; that he was not a principal but a depend- ent j further removed from his superior in rank than the humblest domestic from his master ; and that the same disparity existed between the ministry and acts of the two parties. John did indeed bap- tize them for (or with a view to) repentance ; but even this he only did as a forerunner, The {one) heMnd me coming seems to presup- pose their knowledge of the fact, that he was to be followed by an- other, though they might not be aware of the precise relation which the two sustained to one another. Mightier, more powerful implying not only a diversity of rank but also of efficiency and actual perform- ance. The first of these ideas is then stated still more strongly and distinctly. The difference was not merely that of first and second, but of master and servant ; nay, it was still more marked and distant. For the meanest slave might bring or carry his master's sandals : but this humblest of all services, as rendered to John's master, was too great an honour even for the man whom all Judea and Jerusalem had come forth to honour. Worthy, or as the Greek word strictly means, sufficient, i. e. good enough. Shoes, literally, undcrhindings. i. e. sandals, soles of wood or leather, fastened by a strap, particularly mentioned in another form of this repeated declaration, which has been preserved by Mark (1, 7). To hear, or carry, with particular reference, as some suppose, to a journey or the bath. To an oriental audience words could hardly have expressed the idea of disparity in a stronger or a more revolting manner. That John should have "made
MATTHEW 3,11. 65
such a profession of his own inferiority, not once but often, in the presence of the people, and at the height of his own popularity, im- plies a disposition, on the part of others, to rest in him as the expected Saviour ; his own clear view of the subordinate relation which he bore to Christ ; and his sincere and humble resolution to maintain it, even in the face of popular applause and admiration, and amidst the most enticing opportunities of self-aggrandizement. What was thus true of the persons was no less true of the acts which they performed and the effects which they produced. If John was less, compared with Christ, than the lowest slave compared with his own master, what he did, even by divine authority and as our Lord's legitimate forerunner, must be proportionately less than what his principal would do, as to intrinsic worth and power. He shall baptize you in holy spirit, or (the) Holy Spirit; for although the article is not expressed in either of the Gospels, the constant use of this phrase to denote a divine per- son has almost rendered it a proper name, and as such not requiring to be made definite by any prefix, like a common noun. The antithesis is then not only between water and spirit but between dead matter and a divine person, an infinite disparity. Now this extreme incalculable difference seems to be predicated of baptism as administered by John and Christ. But Jesus baptized only by the hands of his disciples (John 4, 2), and this was no less water-baptism than that administered by John. The contrast, therefore, cannot be between John's baptism as performed with water, and that of Christ (or his disciples) as per- formed without it. Nor can it be intended to contrast Christ's bap- tism, as attended by a spiritual influence, with John's as unattended by it ; for the latter is proved to be essentially identical with Chris- tian baptism by its source, its effects, and its reception by our Lord himself. There are still two ways in which the comparison may be explained, and each of which has had its advocates. The first sup- poses the antithesis to be, not between the baptism of John and that of Christ, which were essentially the same, but simply between the administering persons. ' I baptize you in water, not without mean- ing and effect, but an effect dependent on a higher power ; he will bap- tize }'ou in the same way and with the same effect, but in the exercise of an inherent power, that of his own spirit.' This construction, though it yields a good sense and conveys a certain truth, is not so natural and obvious as another, which supposes no allusion to the out- ward rite of Christian baptism at all, but a comparison between that rite, as John performed it, and the gift of spiritual influences, figura- tively called a baptism, as the same term is applied to suffering (see below, on 20, 22. 23). The meaning then is, ' I indeed bathe your bo- dies in water, not without divine authoritjr or spiritual effect ; but he whose way I am preparing is so far superior, both in power and of- fice, that he will bathe your souls in the effusion of the Holy Spirit.' And as this divine influence is always described in the Old Testa- ment either as unction or effusion, and the figurative baptism must correspond in form to the literal, we have here an incidental proof that the primitive baptism was not exclusively or necessarily immersion.
66 MATTHEWS, 11. 12.
With fire, not the fire of divine wrath, as in v. 10, but the powerful and purifying influences of the Spirit so described elsewhere. (See Isai. 4,4. 64, 2. Jer. 5, 14. Mai. 3, 2. Acts 2, 3.)
12. Whose fan (is) in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable Are.
To the figure of a fruitless tree cut down and burnt (in v. 10), John now adds that of chair destroyed in the same way. but with dis- tinct reference to the saved as well as lost, the former being represent- ed by the corn or wheat, the latter by the chatT, straw, or stubble, separated from it. Fan, or winnowing instrument, whatever may have been its form, whether that of a shovel or a fork, with which the grain was thrown up to be cleansed by the wind. (Is) in his hand, i. e. in readiness for use, or just about to be employed. Or without supply- ing any verb, we may explain the phrase as a descriptive one, analo- gous to sword in hand, and others like it. The axe could only rep- resent one part of the judicial process, the excision of the wicked, while the fan suggests both, as its very use was to separate the wheat and chalT, in order to the preservation of the one and the destruc- tion of the other. And (being thus armed or equipped) he will (certainly, or is just about to) cleanse thoroughly, in Greek a single word meaning to cleanse through and through, or from one end to the other. Floor, not in the usual or wide sense, but in the specific one of threshing-floor, as the corresponding Hebrew word is sometimes rendered (see for example Gen. 50, 10. 11, where both forms are used to represent precisely the same word in the original). The oriental threshing-floor is not a floor at all, in our customary sense of the ex- pression, but a hard flat piece of ground, on which the grain is either threshed with sledges or the feet of cattle, or exposed to the wind, to which last method there is here allusion.* To cleanse the floor is either to cleanse the grain upon it by removing all impurities, or to cleanse the floor itself by the removal of the grain thus purified, in which case these words are descriptive of the end of the whole pro- cess. Gather, collect, or bring together, first from its dispersion, at the harvest, and then from its mixture with the chaff and other ref- use, at the winnowing or threshing. His wheat, or his own wheat, that belonging to him, which implies its value, while the chaff belongs to no one, because worthless. Garner, granary, in Greek depository, or the place where any thing is laid up for safe-keeping. From this word, through the Latin, comes apothecary, and the word itself (Apothele) is used in German to denote a druggist's shop or store. Its specific application to a barn or granary is in accordance with the classical usage, though Herodotus applies it to the thing deposited, a twofold usage similar to that of store in English. It might here be not inaccurately rendered store-house. The remaining clause presents
* See Deut. 25, 4. 2 Sam. 24, 22. 1 Chr. 21, 23. Isai. 23, 27. 2S. 41, 15.
the contrast under the same figurative form. But (while he thus secures his wheat in the appropriate place) the chaff (or whatever is not nutritive and therefore valuable) he will bum up, literally, hum down, both denoting entire consumption, but the latter being applicable in our idiom, which differs from the Greek in this point, only to houses, or to something which the fire reduces and disorganizes as well as destroys. With fire unquenchable, or more exactly unquenched, i. e. never quenched or put out, which amounts to the same thing, as the fact that it is not quenched implies that its extinction is impossible. The Greek word is a favourite with Homer, but most frequently ap- plied in a figurative sense to what is endless or unceasing, such as fame or laughter, and by iEschylus even to the ceaseless flow of ocean. The word itself has now been anglicized (asbestus) to denote natural or artificial substances considered incombustible, whereas it really de- scribes them as perpetually burning. (Compare Mark 9. 43.45, where the same Greek word is paraphrased, that never shall be quenched?) With a freedom in the use of figures which is characterestic of the Scriptures, the same persons who in v. 10 are consumed as trees are here consumed as chaff, while the careful preservation of the wheat represents the destination of the saved.* In most other instances, the prominent idea is that of chaff scattered by the wind, to which is here superadded that of burning, both which agencies, as some suppose, were often visibly connected at the threshing-floor, the wind to sepa- rate the chaff and fire to destroy it.
13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
The transition from John's ministry to that of Christ is furnished by the baptism of our Lord himself, as the most important act of the former, and an immediate preparation for the latter. At the same time, it afforded the most striking confirmation of what John himself had taught as to his own inferiority (see above, on v. 11), by an ex- press divine recognition of our Lord as the Messiah. Bat this was not the only nor perhaps the chief end of our Lord's subjection to this ceremonial form. Though without sins of his own to be repented of, confessed, or pardoned, he identified himself by this act with his people whom he came to save from sin (see above, on 1, 21), and gave them an assurance of that great deliverance ; f avowed his own sub- jection to the law as the expression of his Father's will (see below, on v. 15) ; and put honour upon John as a divinely inspired prophet and his own forerunner. An ingenious living writer supposes an allusion to the cleansing rites required by the ceremonial law not only in the
* For similar images applied to the same or kindred subjects compare Job 21, IS. 39, 12. Ps. 1, 47 35, 5, Isai. 5, 24. 17, 13. 20, 5. 41, 15. Jer. 23, 28. Dan. 2, 35. Hos. 13, 3. Zeph. 2. 2. Mai. 4, 1 (in Hebrew 3, 10).
t Sic enim baptizatus- est, ut circumcisus est, ut purificatus in templo cum matre, utflagellatus,ut cruciiixus; nobis hcec omnia passus est, non sibi. — Erasmus.
63 MATTHEW 3,13.14.
case of personal impurity, but in that of even accidental contact with the unclean.* Then, or in those days (Mark 1, 9), i. c. while John was thus preaching and baptizing, without any intimation of the length of his ministry, which cannot, however, have been very long. The conclusion reached by highly probable, though not entirely con- clusive combinations, is, that from John's public appearance to his death was a period of about three years, at least one half of which was spent in prison. (See below, on 14, 1-12.) Cometh, the same word that is used above (in v. 17) to describe John's own appearance as a preacher and baptizer In this place, as in that, it strictly signifies arrival, but perhaps with the accessory idea of a sudden unexpected coming for- ward into public view, for he was not baptized in secret or alone, but in the presence, if not in the company of others. (Compare Luke 3, 21.) From Galilee, that is to say, from Nazareth in Galilee (Mark 1, 9), where Joseph and Mary lived before the birth of Christ (Luke 1, 20. 27), and where they again took up their abode on their return from Egypt. (See above, on 2,22.23, and compare Luke 2,39.51.) To the Jordan (as the place, and) to John (as the person), a distinction marked in Greek by