Bible Commentaries
Matthew 1

Verses 1-17

PART FIRST

Jesus comes into this world, as the Messiah of the true Theocracy, to fulfil the Old Covenant. He remains unknown to and unrecognized by the outward and secular Theocracy of His day. Rejected and cast out by His own, He undertakes secretly His first Messianic pilgrimage into Egypt. But He is glorified and attested by God.

_____________
FIRST SECTION
PROPHETIC TYPES OF THE MESSIAH, IN THE GENEALOGY OF THE MESSIAH

Matthew 1:1-17 (Luke 3:23-38)

Contents:—1. Superscription.—2. Fundamental Idea.—3. The Three Divisions of the Genealogy.—4. Number of the Generations

1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2Abraham begat Isaac;

Isaac begat Jacob;
Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3 Judas begat Phares and Zara—

of Thamar;

Phares begat Esrom;
Esrom begat Aram;

4 Aram begat Aminadab;

Aminadab begat Naasson;
Naasson begat Salmon;

5 Salmon begat Booz—

of Rachab;

Booz begat Obed—

of Ruth;

Obed begat Jesse;

6 Jesse begat David the king; David the king1 begat Solomon—

of her that had been the wife of Urias,

7 Solomon begat Roboam;

Roboam begat Abia;
Abia begat Asa;

8 Asa begat Josaphat;

Josaphat begat Joram;
Joram begat Ozias;

9 Ozias begat Joatham;

Joatham begat Achaz;
Achaz begat Ezekias;

10 Ezekias begat Manasses;

Manasses begat Amon;
Amon begat Josias;

11 Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away (μετοικεσία) to Babylon;

12 And after they were brought to Babylon—

Jechonias begat Salathiel;
Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13 Zorobabel begat Abiud;

Abiud begat Eliakim;
Eliakim begat Azor;

14 Azor begat Sadoc;

Sadoc begat Achim;
Achim begat Eliud;

15 Eliud begat Eleazar;

Eleazar begat Matthan;
Matthan begat Jacob;

16 Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ [the Messiah].2

17So all the generations from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations; and from David, until the carrying away into Babylon, are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ, are fourteen generations.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Matthew 1:1. The expression βίβλος γενέσεως might be rendered, book of the nativity, and hence be applied in a more extended sense to the whole Gospel. But it may also mean genealogy, genealogical table, pedigree; and this is the simplest and most obvious meaning. It is supported, 1) by the analogy of Genesis 5:1 (Sept.); 2) by the reference in Matthew 1:18, τοῦ δὲΧριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις, and in Matthew 2:1, τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθεντος.

Jesus, Joshua, יְהוֹשׁוּצַ (Exodus 24:13; Numbers 13:16), or יֵשׁוּצַ—as the name was written after the Babylonish captivity (Nehemiah 7:7)—God is helper, or deliverer.

Christ, Χριστός, מָשִׁיחַ, anointed: the official designation of priests, Leviticus 4:3; Leviticus 5:16; Psalms 105:15;—of kings, 1Sa 24:6; 1 Samuel 24:10; Psalms 2:2; Daniel 9:25-26. In 1 Kings 19:16 we also read of anointing to the prophetic office. The inspired teaching of the prophets led Israel to look for salvation in and through a personal Messiah, who, although represented in the first place as the anointed King of the stock of David, was also invested with the attributes of perfect Prophet and of High Priest.

Matthew 1:2-16. From the expression “Jacob begat Joseph,” Matthew 1:16, we gather that we have here the genealogy of Joseph, and not that of Mary. But why should the Evangelist present this genealogy to his readers? Joseph was descended from David through the legitimate royal line of the house of David; and it was necessary to show that Jesus, the adoptive son of Joseph, was the legal heir to the throne of David. But this line of descent was, in the most important respect, also the line of Mary, though she was descended from David through another branch (Luke 1:27; Romans 1:3). In Joseph’s line of descent, the grand characteristics which distinguish the line of Jesus appear in the most striking manner; viz., its spiritual nobility, its humiliations and consecrations in the progress of history, its glorious elevation, and its tragic reverses. It was necessary that even in His line of descent the Lord should be marked out as the chosen sacrificial Lamb of Israel and of the world.

The line of descent, as traced by Matthew, presents various difficulties.—First, in the way of omissions. The table gives Rahab as the great-grandmother of David. Yet she lived about 400, or, more precisely, 366 years before David was born. “This difficulty,” remarks de Wette, “is connected with the statement in Ruth 4:20, according to which the line between David and Nahshon is represented as consisting of only four generations.” Besides, in the second division of the genealogy, the names of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are omitted, which, according to 1 Chronicles 3:11-12, must be inserted between Joram and Ozias; also the name of Jehoiakim, which, according to 2 Kings 24:6; 2 Chronicles 36:8, should come in between Josiah and Jeconiah or Jehoiachin. These omissions were evidently made with the view of reducing the generations from David to the Babylonish captivity to fourteen. But for this Matthew must have had a sufficient reason. According to some critics, the arrangement of the genealogical table was designed merely to aid the memory. Others have imagined that it bore reference to certain cabalistic ideas. W. Hoffmann explainsthe discrepancy (das Leben Jesu, etc., Stuttgart, 1836) by the supposition that there was some confusion in the genealogical table which Matthew used. According to Ebrard (Evangelienkritik, p. 199), the descendants of the heathen Jezebel to the fourth generation were omitted, in strict accordance with the Decalogue. Thus Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were left out. Jehoiakim also was omitted, because, in reference to the Theocracy, he and Jehoiachin really formed but one link in the great chain, and the first was the less worthy of commemoration. But none of the above suggestions supplies a valid reason for the omissions. The true explanation appears to be, that all the individuals omitted by the Evangelist had, in one respect or another, no claim to be regarded as separate and distinct links in the theocratic chain. Ahaziah was a mere puppet in the hand of his mother Athaliah, daughter of Ahaz, king of Israel. Joash deserved the title of sovereign merely so long as he continued under the guidance of Jehoiada the priest, who was the king’s son-in-law. After the death of Jehoiada, he yielded entirely to the influence of a godless court. It is remarkable that Jehoiada was buried in the tomb of the kings, but not Joash (2 Chronicles 24:16). In accordance with an express prophetic declaration, Amaziah was destroyed on account of his impenitence—according to the Sept.—by God (2 Chronicles 25:16; 2 Chronicles 25:27). Jehoiakim was forcibly made king of Judah by the king of Egypt (2 Chronicles 36:4). Similarly Zedekiah was left out, as having been merely a creature of the king of Babylon, and also because, as brother of Jehoiachin, he formed no new link between Jehoiachin and Salathiel. Assir also is passed over, because no political importance attaches to his life, which was passed in the Babylonish captivity. (Comp. W. Hoffmann, l. c., p. 152; K. Hofmanu, Weissagung und Erfüllung, ii. 37.)

Further, it will be noticed that the third division contains only thirteen generations, counting Joseph as the twelfth, and adding Jesus as the thirteenth. By this Matthew evidently intended to indicate that the name of Mary was here to be inserted in the genealogy; for in so important a matter he could not have made a mistake. Nor can we admit the supposition that he counted the name of Jechoniah twice,—the second time as anew founding the Messianic line after the Babylonish captivity. At any rate, the Evangelist wished to lay emphasis on the fact, that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus. Accordingly, there is a sudden break in the natural order of the genealogy: Abraham begat etc., Jacob begat Joseph; and an expression is introduced which forcibly points to the circumstance that Jesus was born of a virgin.
Another point claims our attention. According to Jewish law, a stain attached to each of the four females—Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba—introduced by Matthew into the genealogy. But we can scarcely infer from this circumstance, with Starke, that they are specially mentioned in order to show that Christ was not ashamed of poor sinners, since He derived from such His human nature, and had received them as His own people; for it is beyond question that Jesus was conceived by Mary without any taint of sin. It was rather the object of the Evangelist to point out to his Jewish readers a higher righteousness than that external and ceremonial sanctity which the Pharisees extolled. No doubt Thamar conceived Phares, knowing that she committed incest; while Judah, although not aware who she was, was guilty of fornication. Still, it was under the impulse of faith, though fanatical and sadly misdirected, that Thamar took that strange and sinful step. She was resolved, at all hazards, to become one of the mothers of God’s chosen race. By faith, Thamar rose over the guilt of incest, and Rahab over her former degradation of being a heathen and a harlot. By her heroic faith, Ruth, though pure and unblamable, yet a heathen, attained such distinction, that one of the books in the Old Testament canon bears her name; while Bathsheba, David’s accomplice in adultery, became the partner of his penitence and his throne.
In the arrangement and division of the genealogical tree of Jesus, Matthew was undoubtedly influenced by the Old Testament symbolism of numbers. The grand general arrangement into three groups (patriarchs, kings, and persons of royal extraction) presents an ascending and descending line. In the first fourteen generations there is a gradual ascent (in a secular point of view), culminating in royalty. The second series consists of a line of royal personages, gradually inclining downwards. The third begins during the Babylonish captivity, and forms a descending line, which finally terminates in Joseph the carpenter. Still, the main point in this arrangement is the number three. Three is the grand spiritual number. In spite of the sins and the apostasy of some of the representatives of David, that line always continued specially set apart by God and for God, constituting a hereditary spiritual nobility in the midst of the people of Israel, and of the world at large. In it the hereditary blessing of Abraham was more and more concentrated,—both the blessing of the promise and the blessing of faith. Each of these three groups was again subdivided into a series of fourteen—twice seven. The number seven denotes the full development of nature up to its consecration and transfiguration. Two is the number of contrast—of sex, of life. Accordingly, the number fourteen would indicate that the development of a genealogical line had reached its completion. The number three, on the other hand, denotes the perfect elevation of this perfect natural development of nature into the sphere of spiritual consecration. Hence the forty-two generations point to the spiritual consecration of the theocratic line culminating in Him who was full of the Holy Ghost. On the same principle, the Israelites wandered for forty years (a round number for forty-two) through the wilderness, and had in all forty-two encampments. Thus, in reference both to time and space, the old race had to pass as it were through forty-two stages before a new race (in the symbolical sense) sprang up.

We can here but briefly discuss the relation between the genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew, and the same as given by Luke. So far as their arrangement is concerned, we notice, that while the first genealogy descends from the progenitor, the second ascends from the last scion; and that, while Matthew begins with Abraham, Luke goes beyond the father of the faithful to Adam, the first progenitor of the human race, and to God its Creator. Again, so far as the contents of the two tables are concerned, we find that from David downwards the names are for the most part different, and manifestly constitute two different lines, which coincide only in the names of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Matthew’s line passes from David to Solomon, while that of Luke passes from David to his son Nathan. In Matthew’s line, the parent of the foster-father of Jesus is called Jacob, while in that of Luke he is designated Eli. The same discrepancy extends over the whole table,—always assuming that the apparent coincidence of the two lines in Zorobabel and Salathiel is simply due to similarity of names. From the earliest period, various explanations of this difficulty have been suggested. At first it was supposed that, by a marriage according to the law of Levirate (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), the two lines had converged in one link. Julius Africanus (according to Eusebius, E. H. I. 7) suggested that Eli died childless, that Jacob espoused his widow, and was the real father of Joseph. But then, according to the law, Eli alone would in that case have been mentioned as the father of Joseph (Deuteronomy 25:6). Ambrosius reversed the above hypothesis: Eli, he supposed, was the real, and Jacob the nominal father. But in that case the same difficulty recurs. Other hypotheses are even less plausible. The view most commonly adopted is that of Helvicus (see Winer’s Real-Wörterb. art. Jesus), according to which, Luke is supposed to furnish the maternal genealogy; so that the Eli mentioned in Luke 3:23 was the father of Mary, and, as father-in-law of Joseph, was called his father. The objection of Winer, that in such case Luke would not have employed the termsτοῦ Ἠλί, may be met by a reference to the similar expression τοῦ Θεοῦ, where, of course, it could not be intended to represent God as the natural Father of Adam. The objection, that the Jews were not in the habit of keeping genealogical record of females, does not apply here, as Jesus had no natural father. Besides, down to Eli, the genealogy given is that of males. Lastly, so far as the propriety of the thing was concerned, Luke also inserts the name of Joseph, as being in the eye of the law the father of Jesus. This hypothesis has been adopted by many modern expositors, as Bengel, Heumann, Paulus, Kuinoel, Wieseler, W. Hoffmann (Leben Jesu, p. 148).3 It was in accordance with the general plan of Luke’s Gospel to follow up the genealogical line beyond Abraham to Adam and God, so as to present the Lord both as the Son of man and at the same time the Son of God, and for the same reason, to trace the actual lineage of Jesus, and consequently that of his mother Mary; while Matthew in this respect also represented the theocratic and legal point of view.

Proofs and parallel passages:—Jesus, Luke 1:31. Christ, Leviticus 4:5; Leviticus 4:16, etc.; in the New Testament everywhere. Jesus Christ, John 20:31, and in many other places. Son of David, Psalms 132:11; Isaiah 11:1; Acts 13:23; Jeremiah 23:5; Romans 1:3; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 21:9; Matthew 22:42. Abraham, Genesis 12:3; Gen 22:18; 2 Samuel 7:12; Galatians 3:16, etc., etc. Isaac, Genesis 21:2-3; Romans 9:7; Romans 9:9. Jacob, Genesis 25:26. Judah, Genesis 29:35; Genesis 49:10; Hebrews 7:14. Pharez and Zarah, Genesis 38:29-30. Hezron (Esrom), 1 Chronicles 2:4-5. Aram or Ram, Ruth 4:19 (Hezron’s first-born son omitted, 1 Chronicles 2:9). Aminadab, 1 Chronicles 2:10. Naashon, Exodus 6:23. Salmon, 1 Chronicles 2:11; Ruth 4:20. Rahab, Joshua 2:1; Joshua 6:23-24. Boaz, Obed, Ruth 4:13; Ruth 4:17. Obed, Jesse, Ruth 4:22; 1Ch 2:12; 1 Samuel 20:27; 1 Kings 12:16. Jesse, David, 1 Chronicles 2:15. Solomon, 2 Samuel 12:24. Roboam, Rehoboam, 1 Kings 11:43. Abia, Asa, 1 Kings 15:2; 1 Kings 15:8. Josaphat, 2 Chronicles 16, 17. Joram, 2 Kings 8:16; 2 Chronicles 21:1. Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, 2 Kings 8:24; 2 Kings 11:2; 2 Kings 12:21; 1 Chronicles 3:11. Ozias (or Azariah), 2 Kings 14:21. Joatham, 2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chronicles 26:23. Ahaz, 2 Kings 15:38; 2 Chronicles 27:9. Ezekias (Hezekiah), 2 Kings 16:20; 2 Chronicles 28:27. Manasses, 2 Kings 20:21. Amon, 2 Kings 21:18. Josias, 2 Kings 21:24. Jechonias, Jehoiakim, 2 Kings 23:35. The Babylonish captivity (2 Kings 25:0; 2 Chronicles 36:0). “ἐπί notat tempus non stricte tantum sed cum latitudine,” just as Jechonias and his brothers were not born at one and the same time. On three different occasions, within a short period, portions of the people were carried away,—first, during the reign of Jehoiakim, then under that of Jehoiachin, and, lastly, under Zedekiah. But the Evangelist speaks of the three events as of one, because the captivity began under the first of these princes, was extended under the second, and completed under the third.—Salathiel, (Pedaiah), Zorobabel, 1 Chronicles 3:18-19. Abiud (Hananiah), 1 Chronicles 3:19. Abiud, Eliakim, etc., Jewish tradition (Temple registers).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Even as original sin has tainted all mankind from the womb, so, and much more, has our race participated in the riches of Divine grace. Hence, in the history of the world, the hereditary curse and the hereditary blessing have always appeared side by side—in Cain and Abel, in Ham and Shem, in the case of the heathen world and of Abraham. Not only has the curse bad a blessing for its counterpart, but on each successive occasion the blessing has widened and increased. The blessing of Shem surpassed that of Japheth; the blessing of Judah, that of his brethren; and the blessing of David, that of all Judah and Israel beside. This contrast of blessing and curse led to that between the religion of faith and heathenism. Not that the hereditary blessing of Abraham remained wholly unimpaired by the curse that flowed from Adam’s guilt. Hence it was necessary that Christ should die on the cross, though the covenant-blessing centered in Him. Still, this influence of transmitted sin could not destroy either the blessing of personal faith or the hereditary blessing of Abraham; and now that all promises have been fulfilled in Christ, the curse of original sin is, in the case of believers, not only removed, but transformed into blessing.
2. Abraham was told, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” It was not said, “In thy oral tradition,” or “In thy written records.” According to the notions of many, the New Testament should have begun with a list of the books of the Old Testament. Instead of this, however, it begins with a genealogical tree. Through Abraham’s faith the blessing had descended in his seed as an heirloom. Antipædobaptists overlook this mystery, otherwise they would see more meaning in the admission of infants into the visible Church.
3. Down to David, Joseph’s line of descent was the same as that of Mary. It then diverged into two branches. While, however, the royal line terminated in the pious carpenter, Joseph, the line of Nathan, who, though one of David’s sons, never ascended the throne, was selected to comprehend the chosen mother of the Lord. In general, the greatest number of the humiliations of the royal house occurred in Joseph’s line. In it the godless kings appear in contrast to the pious. Doubtless, it was so ordered that the affliction and obscurity of the house of David should serve to restore its spiritual glory.
4. Even among the ancestors of Jesus, the blessing and the promised salvation was transmitted through the righteousness which is by faith, as distinguished from legal righteousness. This appears not only from the lives of Abraham and David, the fathers of the faithful, and from the pious sovereigns among their descendants, but also from the ancestresses of Jesus, Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, specially mentioned by the Evangelist.
5. A sacred pedigree—which may be regarded as symbolizing the real import of noble descent and hereditary nobility, whether Christian or national—conferred not personal holiness on the Jewish monarchs. Spirituality was the attainment of the individual, not the quality of the race, and in every case the combined result of Divine grace and human freedom. Still less could we suppose that the sacredness of the pedigree ultimately manifested itself in the advent of Christ Himself. Christ sprung from the fathers according to the flesh: this was His only connection with them through Mary. According to the Spirit, He was the Son of God, and, as such, the new and perfect manifestation of the Divine Being, the second Adam, the Lord from heaven.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The genealogical table of Jesus, considered as the first New Testament testimony about Him. As a testimony, 1. to His human nature; 2. to His hereditary right; 3. to His Divine character and mission.—The genealogical tree of Jesus a kind of law and gospel for all other genealogical trees, from the lowliest to the highest.—The genealogy of increasing life compared with that of decreasing life, Gen. v.—Christ’s human extraction viewed in the light of His Divine origin (John 1:0): His human descent is based on the Divine, and serves to reveal it.—Contest between the hereditary blessing of Abraham and the hereditary curse of his race.—The hereditary blessing of Abraham in its bearing upon the question of infant baptism.—The family—its import at all times in connection with the kingdom of heaven.—The pious family amidst the storms of the world and of time. 1. It may sink, but not perish.4 2. It endures, because it resists. 3. Its apparent extinction is its glorification.—The sacred birth of Christ and the second birth of man in their agreement and their difference.—Jesus Christ the sum and substance of all religion. 1. Jesus, the man; Christ, His Divine calling and qualification. 2. Jesus, the Hebrew name specially intended for His own people; Christ, the sacred name indicating His designation for the whole world. 3 Jesus, the one Redeemer; Christ, the Mediator of the triune covenant. Or, 1. Jesus as the Christ; 2. the Christ as Jesus.—Jesus Christ the Son of David. 1. The Son of the shepherd of Bethlehem; 2. the Son of the persecuted fugitive in the cave of Adullam; 3. the Son of the warrior and conqueror, the prince of Zion.—Christ the Son of David. 1. In reference to His appearance in the flesh, the last scion of His race, dying on the cross. 2. In reference to His heavenly character, the Prince of the kings of the earth. Or, 1. The end of the Old Testament kingdom; 2. the beginning and the head of the New Testament heavenly kingdom.—Jesus Christ the Son of Abraham. 1. The Finisher of faith; 2. the Fulfiller of the promise.—Jesus the antitype of Abraham in his relation to the world. Abraham, in nascent faith, must go out from the world; Christ, in the fulness of the blessing of faith, enters into it.—Jesus, the Son of Abraham, the seal of God’s covenant-truth.—Jesus Christ, as the Son of Abraham, the great witness of God’s covenant-faithfulness. 1. In Him was fully revealed the promise which had been given to Abraham. 2. In Him was this promise gloriously fulfilled. 3. In Him it was renewed and glorified.—Christ the Son of Abraham and of David, or the spiritual transfiguration both of the pilgrim’s tent and of the throne.—Christ the Son of Abraham and of David, or the Finisher of faith: 1. of faith in the promise; 2. of faith in sovereign grace.—How the advent of Christ was preparing throughout the whole course of antiquity: 1. By means of the house of David; 2. by means of the race of Abraham; 3. by the whole course of events in the world.—The root out of a dry ground.—Known to, and fixed by, the Lord is every hour and event in His kingdom.—The vicissitude of glory and obscurity in the history of the kingdom of God. Christ appeared, not in the days of Israel’s power and glory, but in the days of their humiliation.—The share which the royal line of Solomon had in giving birth to Christ. 1. How infinitely it receded behind the lineage of Mary; 2. yet how at the same time it symbolizes the protection extended by the State to the Church.—The Lord’s humiliation and exaltation prefigured in His genealogical tree.—In His ancestors Jesus has lived through the whole extent of the world’s previous history.—The history of the ancestors of Jesus shows that the life of each successive individual was preserved as by a miracle.—Jesus the sacred heir of the ancient world. 1. As heir of the blessing, He is the Prophet of the world. 2. As heir of the sufferings entailed by the curse. He is its atoning High Priest. 3. As heir of the promise, He is its King.—Jesus Christ the end of the world, and the beginning of the world.—Jesus Christ the closing of the old, and the commencement of the new dispensation.—Abraham and Mary as the beginning and the end of the old covenant.—Jesus, the Son of Mary: 1. the affinity; 2. the contrast.

Braune:—Jesus Christ, the second Adam—God’s grace is constantly renewed through the line of generations.—All sorts of men, kings, heroes, shepherds, mechanics, heathens, sinners, prophets, poets, sages are among the ancestors of Christ, and become poorer and obscurer as they approach Christ.

ADDENDA

BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

The Sinaitic Manuscript of the Bible, which Professor Tischendorf rescued from the obscurity of the Convent of St Catharine on Mount Sinai, and carefully edited in two editions in 1862 and 1863,* two years after the issue of the third edition of Dr. Lange’s Commentary on Matthew, has been carefully compared in preparing the American edition of this work from Chapter 8 to the close of the Gospel of Matthew. I thought I was the first to do so, but just before I finished the last pages of this volume, I found that Bäumlein, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John,** and Meyer, in the fifth edition of his Commentary on Matthew, both of which appeared in 1864, had preceded me, at least in print. No critical scholar can ignore this manuscript hereafter. For it is the only complete, and perhaps the oldest of all the uncial codices of the Bible, or at least of the same age and authority as the celebrated Vatican Codex (which is traced by some to the middle of the fourth century), and far better edited by the German Protestant Professor, Tischendorf, than the latter was by the Italian Cardinal, Angelo Mai. In the absence of a simpler mark agreed upon by critics (the proposed designation by the Hebrew א has not yet been adopted, and is justly objected to by Tregelles and others on the ground of typographical inconvenience), I introduce it always as Cod. Sin., and I find that Dr. Meyer in the fifth edition does the same. As I could not procure a copy of the printed edition of this Codex till I had finished the first seven chapters, I now complete the critical part of the work by adding its more important readings in the first seven chapters where they differ from the textus receptus, on which the authorized English, as well as all the older Protestant Versions of the Greek Testament are substantially based.

*Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, sive Novum Testamentum cum Epistola Barnabœ et Fragmentis Pastoris (Hermæ). Ex Codice Sinaitico auspiciis Alexandri II., omnium Russiarum imperatoris, ex tenebris protracto orbique litterarum tradito accurate descripsit Ænotheus Friderious Constantinus Tischendorf, theol. et phil. Dr., etc. etc. Lipsiæ, 1863. The text is arranged in four columns and covers 148 folios; the learned Prolegomena of the editor 81 folios. There is besides a magnificent photo-lithographed fac-simile edition of the whole Sinaitic Bible, published at the expense of the Emperor of Russia, in 4 volumes (3 for the Old and 1 for the New Testament, the latter in 148 folios), under the title: Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Auspiciis augustissimis imperatoris Alexandri II. ed. Const. Tischendorf. Petropoli, 1862. A copy of this rare edition I have also consulted occasionally, in the Astor Library of New York. For fuller information on this important Codex (in the words of Tischendorf: “omnium codicum uncialium solus integer omniumque antiquissimus”), we must refer the reader to the ample Prolegomena of Tischendorf, also to an article of Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. vii. (1864), p. 74 ff. (who is disposed to assign it to a somewhat later age), and to Scrivener’s treatise, which I have not seen.

**Hengstenberg, in his Commentary on John, concluded in 1863, pays no attention whatever to this Codex, and is very defective in a critical point of view

Matthew 1:6.—Cod. Sin. omits the second ὁβασιλεύς, the king, after David. See Commentary, Crit. Note 1 on p. 48.

Footnotes:

[1] Matthew 1:6.—[The title ὁ βασιλεύς, the king, is repeated in the textus receptus with the majority of MSS. and retained by Meyer, Wordsworth, Lange, but omitted by some of the oldest MSS. and versions, and in the critical editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford (in his fourth ed.). The repetition may be defended on the ground of emphasis as giving a clue to the design of this genealogy and showing the kingship of Christ, the heir of the whole theocracy. Dr. Wordsworth makes use of the textus receptus as an argument for his view of the relation of the two genealogies: “The genealogy of St. Matthew is Christ’s official succession to David as a king (see Matthew 1:6, where David is twice called ὁ βασιλεύς). That of St. Luke is the derivation of his origin from David as a man,—hence he traces the Lord’s pedigree further backward, even to the first man, Adam, the father of the human race.” Dr. W., following the fathers, regards both genealogies as the pedigrees of Joseph, not of Mary.—P. S.]

[2][The authorized English version of the Greek Testament after the latest standard edition of the American Bible Society (New York, 1862), is made the basis of this Commentary, and all occasional corrections are included in brackets (see the Preface). But in this section which contains the genealogy of Christ, I have deviated from the rule and conformed to the new German version of Lange in three points: 1, in the order and arrangement, with the view to bring out more clearly the three divisions or periods of Christ’s ancestry; 2, in omitting the oft repeated and unnecessary and (for the Greek δέ) between the members of the pedigree; 3, in italicizing the female ancestry of Christ, Matthew 1:3; Matthew 1:5-6; comp. Comment, p. 49. Italics then do not indicate here additions to the Greek text, as in the Common Version, which, in this genealogy, only supplies the words: “that had been the wife,” Matthew 1:6. As regards the spelling of proper nouns I have (in the text, not in the notes) adhered to the C. V., although in a revision of the English Bible (which is in no way attempted in this Commentary) uniformity in the spelling should undoubtedly be aimed at as much as possible, and Hebrew names should, as a rule, be conformed to the Hebrew, Greek names to the Greek spelling. Thus in this genealogy Judah should be substituted for Judas, Phares for Phares, Hezron for Esrom, Ram for Aram, Nahshon for Naasson, Boast for Booz, Rahab for Rachab, Uriah for Urias, Rehoboam for Roboam, Jehoshaphat for Josaphat, Uzziah for Ozias, Jotham for Joatham, Ahaz for Achaz, Hezekiah for Ezekias. Josiah for Josias, Jeconiah for Jechonias, Zerubbabel for Zorobabel, Zadoc for Sadoc. Comp. the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries; Dr. Geo. Campbell’s translation of the four Gospels with preliminary dissertations, Lond. 1834, Diss. xii. Pt. Matthew 3:10-14; and Dr. T. J. Conant’s “Revised Version of Matthew,” New York, 1860, p. 2.—P. S.]

[3][For another and a remarkably ingenious explanation of the two genealogies, we refer the reader to Lord Arthur C. Hervey’s article, “Genealogy of Jesus Christ,” in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, i. p. 666. This is not the place to enter into details of his theory: suffice it to say. that, according to Lord Hervey, both the genealogies (in Matthew and Luke) are those of Joseph. The genealogy of St. Matthew is “Joseph’s genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David; i.e., it exhibits the successive heirs of the kingdom, ending with Christ as Joseph’s reputed son. St. Luke’s is Joseph’s private genealogy, exhibiting his real birth, as David’s son, and thus showing why he was heir to Solomon’s crown.” Lord Hervey farther suggests, “that Salathiel, of the house of Nathan, became heir to David’s throne on the failure of Solomon’s line in Jechonias, and that as such he and his descendants were transferred, as ‘sons of Jeconiah,’ to the royal genealogical table, according to the principle of the Jewish law, laid down Numbers 27:8-11.” On the same principle, the other divergences of the two genealogies are explained, till we reach Matthan, who had two sons, Jacob and Hell. The elder of these, Jacob, whose daughter Mary was mother of the Lord, dying without male issue, the succession to the throne of David now devolved on Joseph, the son of Hell.—The Edinb. Translator.]

[4][German: “Es kann sinken, aber nicht versinken;” It may go down, but not go out. Mr. Edersheim translates: “It may sink, but not utterly.” The word-play in the next sentence: “Es besteht, well es widersteht,” might be rendered: “It stands because it withstands,” comp. Ephesians 6:13.—P. S.]

Verses 18-25

SECOND SECTION
JESUS, AS MIRACULOUSLY CONCEIVED BY HIS MOTHER IN FAITH, OR IN THE MYSTERY OF HIS INCARNATION, IS NOT RECOGNIZED EVEN BY THE LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID (JOSEPH), TILL ATTESTED BY AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN.

Matthew 1:18-25 (Luke 1:26-33)

Contents:—The tragical situation of the two betrothed descendants of David at their first appearance in history. Mary, pregnant by the power of the Holy Ghost, misunderstood and doubted by her betrothed. Joseph’s intention of privately putting her away. The mother and child vindicated from dishonor by Divine intervention. Joseph’s faith. Ancient prophecy. The name: Jesus.

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When5 as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away [by divorce] privily. 20But while he thought on these things, behold, the [an] 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. 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins. 22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23Behold, 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 (Isaiah 7:0.). 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn6 son: and he called His name Jesus.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Matthew 1:18. The Evangelist commences his narrative at the period when Mary’s pregnancy had become matter of certainty, about the time of her return from visiting Elisabeth.

The reading γένεσις is much better established in Matthew 1:18 than γέννησις, and clearly more appropriate, as the event in question was not properly a γεννησις [begetting].

Of the Holy Ghost.—The notion of begetting is completely excluded by that of the Holy Ghost. The secret influence of the Spirit is more minutely described in Luke 1:35.

Matthew 1:19. Joseph being a just man (lit. being just).—The word just has been falsely interpreted as kind, tender-hearted. To have acted upon his suspicion in reference to Mary as if it had been matter of certainty, would have been not merely unkind, but unjust. Such conduct would have been all the more inexcusable, since Mary had informed him not only of the fact of her pregnancy, but likewise of its cause. Joseph was unable to share her faith; but neither could he bring his mind entirely to disbelieve her account. This struggle of doubt and of suspicion with his feelings of generosity and of previous high esteem for Mary, influenced the decision at which he arrived. He resolved not to accuse her publicly (the reading παραδειγματίσαι is an explanation of δειγματίσαι); that is, not to dismiss her by a bill of divorce, which would have stigmatized her as an adulteress, but to dismiss her privately by a bill of divorce without assigning any reason for it. Thus her disgrace would at least not become matter of notoriety, although, of course, suspicion would attach to her; at any rate, her child might still be regarded as the son of Joseph. By this conduct he would unquestionably have taken upon himself a portion of her ignominy. He might be considered a hardhearted man, who turned away a noble woman unjustly. Those circumstances-afford an insight into the inward struggle which both experienced. On the bill of divorce, comp. Deuteronomy 24:1-3; Matthew 19:8.

Matthew 1:20. The Angel of the Lord that appeared to him in a vision when sleeping, was the angel of the Lord in the peculiar and historical sense of that term—the Angel of the Lord, Genesis 16:7; Genesis 16:9, and in other passages; or the Angel of the presence, Exodus 32:34; Exodus 33:14; Isaiah 63:9; or the Angel of the covenant, Malachi 3:1. The angel Gabriel (hero of God), who, according to Luke 1:0, delivered the messages relating to the birth of Christ, was probably only a more definite manifestation of the Angel of the Lord (Daniel 8:16; Daniel 9:21). The angel of Christ’s incarnation must, in this case, be carefully distinguished from later angelic apparitions. (See the author’s Leben Jesu, ii. B. 1, 41.)

In a dream.—It is worthy of remark that the Joseph of the New Testament, like the Joseph of the Old Testament, uniformly received his revelations in dreams. This particular form of revelation may have been chosen, 1. because his spiritual life was imperfectly developed; 2. because of his spiritual sincerity and simplicity of heart.

Mary thy wife.—Among the Jews the betrothed bore the title of wife.

Of the Holy Ghost.—Both the descent of Jesus and His mission were revealed long before His actual appearance on earth. His birth, His name, and His work were equally from the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:22-23. On the Messianic application of Isaiah 7:14, consult the commentaries. It must, however, be observed that the Evangelist Matthew uses the expression, “was fulfilled,” ἐπληρώθη, in reference not merely to the fulfilling of conscious verbal predictions, but also to that of typical prophecies. In the passage before us the reference is probably to a typical prophecy. The virgin (עַלְמָה) presented to Ahaz as a sign, was a type of the holy Virgin for the following reasons: 1) her future pregnancy and her giving birth to a son were announced even before her marriage had actually taken place; 2) the highest and strongest kind of faith was called into exercise in connection with this child, by which it obtained the name of Immanuel, and became the sign of approaching deliverance in a season of peculiar trial; 3) the name Immanuel was verified in the God-Man; 4) all these circumstances served to render the birth of this child peculiarly sacred, and to connect it with the future of Israel; thus strikingly prefiguring the advent of the holy child, the Hope of Israel.

Matthew 1:24-25. Joseph believed in consequence of the Divine intimation he had received in a dream, and forthwith married Mary, with all the Jewish marriage ceremonies, from a regard to her reputation. But he did not consummate the marriage till Mary had given birth to her first-born. From the expression, first-born, Matthew 5:25, it must not, however, be inferred that Mary subsequently bore other children. An only child was also designated first-born. The term merely implied that this was the child which had opened the womb (Genesis 27:19; Genesis 27:32; Exodus 13:2). That Jesus had no actual brother according to the flesh, will appear on closer consideration of the real extraction of the so-called brothers of the Lord. They were the sons of Alphæus, Joseph’s brother, and of Mary, the wife of Alphæus, the sister-in-law (not the sister) of the mother of the Lord. (See the author’s dissertation in his “History of the Apost. Age,” i. p. 189; and his article, Jacobus, der Bruder des Herrn, in Herzog’s “Real-Encycl.”)7 The expression, “brethren (brothers) of the Lord,” has been taken in its literal sense by the Antidicomarianites in the ancient Church, and by many modern Protestant theologians; while the Roman Catholic Church, since the times of the Collyridians, of Epiphanius, Ambrose, etc., has gone to the opposite extreme of maintaining that Joseph and Mary never lived together on terms of husband and wife. (Meyer, in his Commentary, hastily ascribes the same view to Olshausen, Lange, von Berlepsch. Our text indicates the opposite.)8

DOCRTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. If it may be said of Abraham, that his faith brought [Germ.: hineingeglaubt] the word of the Lord as a word of promise into the world, it may, in the same way, be said of Mary, that her faith brought the incarnation of the Word into the world. And as the faith of Abraham was the connecting link by which the Divine blessing attached itself to his seed according to the promise, so Mary, by her strong and living faith, conceived, through the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Saviour of the world. The faith of Abraham established a connection between physical birth and spiritual regeneration; but, in the inspired faith of Mary, birth and regeneration have become actually one,—nay, the birth of Christ was regeneration not merely in a passive, but also in an active sense. It was creative regeneration—sinlessness, which became the efficient cause of the regeneration of men; sinlessness redeeming from sin. Those who hold that Christ derived from Mary our sinful nature, which became transformed into sinlessness by His unswerving holiness till death, argue as if regeneration were the goal of Christianity, whereas it is its commencement. In this respect they, as well as the Baptists, come very far short of Abraham’s faith. Abraham had not merely, like Melchisedec, faith as an individual, but also as the head of a family; and this faith comprehended his house and his posterity. He believed in the sanctification of nature, in the consecration of birth, and in the spiritual exaltation of natural descent by reception into the household of God. In Mary, the divine inspiration of faith went along with her conception as virgin mother; and hence, in her Son, the eternal Logos was united to human nature. (For a discussion on the miraculous birth, see Lange’s Leben Jesu, vol. ii. p. 66.)

2. The unutterably tragical situation of the Virgin, misunderstood and deserted by her betrothed, presents a striking type of the future history of her Son, when denied and abandoned by men, even his disciples. Similarly, however, her vindication by the angel of the Lord prefigures Christ’s glorification. Mary forsaken by her husband was a type of Christ’s loneliness in Gethsemane and on the cross.
3. The expression, “an angel of the Lord,” is subsequently explained by the introduction of the definite article—the angel of the Lord—connecting it with the whole Christology of the Old Testament.

4. In the same way, the announcement of the angel of the Lord is connected with the Bible doctrine of the Trinity; and that of the name Jesus with the doctrine of redemption.

5. The relation between dreams and other forms of divine revelation, is to be gathered from the doc trine of visions, and of their different forms.

6. In the passage which refers to the fulfilment of the prediction, contained in Isaiah 7:14, we must properly appreciate the spirit of Old Testament prophecy generally, the New Testament explanation of its various statements, and, lastly, the difference between typical and verbal prophecy.

7. In examining the passage, “and he knew her not,” etc., we must make a vast difference between the question whether Joseph and Mary lived together on terms of conjugal intercourse, and the inquiry whether Mary had afterwards other sons.

HOMILETICAL AND PRATICAL

The trials of Jesus’ mother when disowned and forsaken, prefigured His own trials when denied and deserted: 1. In both cases the cause was the same—faith. 2. The import was the same—elevation above the world. 3. The issue was the same—glory. 4. Lastly, the effect was the same—the awakening of faith.—The mother and the Song of Song of Solomon 1:0. The great similarity between them. 2. The infinite difference.—The share female character has had in promoting the kingdom of God, 1. in its extension; 2. in its limitation.—Mary a model of unshaken confidence in God.—Committing oneself to the Lord leads to success even in the world.—On the connection between mistrust and unbelief.—How the entertaining of generous sentiments may become the means of preserving our faith.—An honest doubter will obtain light.—The first New Testament narrative commends to us a holy consideration for woman.—High regard for the honor and reputation of woman.—Justice must ever be allied to gentleness.—The infinite blessing which rewarded Joseph’s self-denial.—The manifestation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, concentrated in the birth of Christ.—The Holy Spirit introduced the Son into the world; and the Son, the Holy Spirit .—Symbolical lessons of the creative action of the Holy Spirit in the birth of Christ. 1. It points back to the creation of the world (Genesis 1:2), and to the creation of man. (The breath of God, Genesis 2:7.) 2. It points forward to the creation of the Church, and the founding of the heavenly city of God (Acts 2:0).—The miraculous birth of Christ viewed in the light of the miraculous birth of Adam.—The miraculous birth of Jesus as the regeneration of man.—Import of the name Jesus (the Redeemer) in connection with salvation: 1. A seal and assurance of the mode of redemption. 2. A proclamation of the fact of redemption. 3. A celebration of His work of redemption.—Joshua a type of Jesus: 1. As the hero of the achievements of faith, who followed upon Moses the lawgiver; 2. as champion in the strength of the Lord; 3. as the leader of the people from the desert to Canaan.—Redemption from sin and deliverance from sin are inseparable.—“The people” of Jesus, and they alone, are the saved. 1. We must belong to His people (listen to awakening grace) in order to obtain salvation. 2. We must be in a state of salvation (surrender ourselves to converting grace) in order wholly to belong to His people.—The people of Jesus a wonderful people of the “wonderful” King. 1. They are one in Christ, and yet diffused among all nations. 2. This people existed before it appeared (the elect), and appeared before it existed (the typical people of God under the Old Covenant). 3. They suffer with Christ, until, to appearance, they perish, and yet triumph with Christ throughout all eternity.

Jesus as Immanuel.—Jesus as the first-born in every respect (Colossians 1:15-18).—Gossner:—True love finds a way between jealousy and insensibility.—God forsakes none who confide in him.—Braune:—Divine interposition saves.—(Galatians 4:5.)

ADDENDA

BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

The Sinaitic Manuscript of the Bible, which Professor Tischendorf rescued from the obscurity of the Convent of St Catharine on Mount Sinai, and carefully edited in two editions in 1862 and 1863,* two years after the issue of the third edition of Dr. Lange’s Commentary on Matthew, has been carefully compared in preparing the American edition of this work from Chapter 8 to the close of the Gospel of Matthew. I thought I was the first to do so, but just before I finished the last pages of this volume, I found that Bäumlein, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John,** and Meyer, in the fifth edition of his Commentary on Matthew, both of which appeared in 1864, had preceded me, at least in print. No critical scholar can ignore this manuscript hereafter. For it is the only complete, and perhaps the oldest of all the uncial codices of the Bible, or at least of the same age and authority as the celebrated Vatican Codex (which is traced by some to the middle of the fourth century), and far better edited by the German Protestant Professor, Tischendorf, than the latter was by the Italian Cardinal, Angelo Mai. In the absence of a simpler mark agreed upon by critics (the proposed designation by the Hebrew א has not yet been adopted, and is justly objected to by Tregelles and others on the ground of typographical inconvenience), I introduce it always as Cod. Sin., and I find that Dr. Meyer in the fifth edition does the same. As I could not procure a copy of the printed edition of this Codex till I had finished the first seven chapters, I now complete the critical part of the work by adding its more important readings in the first seven chapters where they differ from the textus receptus, on which the authorized English, as well as all the older Protestant Versions of the Greek Testament are substantially based.

*Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, sive Novum Testamentum cum Epistola Barnabœ et Fragmentis Pastoris (Hermæ). Ex Codice Sinaitico auspiciis Alexandri II., omnium Russiarum imperatoris, ex tenebris protracto orbique litterarum tradito accurate descripsit Ænotheus Friderious Constantinus Tischendorf, theol. et phil. Dr., etc. etc. Lipsiæ, 1863. The text is arranged in four columns and covers 148 folios; the learned Prolegomena of the editor 81 folios. There is besides a magnificent photo-lithographed fac-simile edition of the whole Sinaitic Bible, published at the expense of the Emperor of Russia, in 4 volumes (3 for the Old and 1 for the New Testament, the latter in 148 folios), under the title: Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Auspiciis augustissimis imperatoris Alexandri II. ed. Const. Tischendorf. Petropoli, 1862. A copy of this rare edition I have also consulted occasionally, in the Astor Library of New York. For fuller information on this important Codex (in the words of Tischendorf: “omnium codicum uncialium solus integer omniumque antiquissimus”), we must refer the reader to the ample Prolegomena of Tischendorf, also to an article of Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. vii. (1864), p. 74 ff. (who is disposed to assign it to a somewhat later age), and to Scrivener’s treatise, which I have not seen.

**Hengstenberg, in his Commentary on John, concluded in 1863, pays no attention whatever to this Codex, and is very defective in a critical point of view

Matthew 1:18.—Cod. Sin. sustains γένεσις, birth, nativity (B., C., P., S., Z., etc., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford) for the lect. rec. γέννησις, which may easily have arisen from ἐγέννησε and ἐγεννήθη, and as appearing to suit the connection better (partus modus), comp. Meyer, in the fifth ed., p. 43. But Christ’s origin was not properly a begetting, engendering, γέννησις (from γεννάω); and hence γένεσις is preferable both for internal and external reasons. Comp. Luke 1:14 : ἐπὶ τῇ γενέσει αὐτοῦ, which is better supported there than γεννήσει.

Matthew 1:19.—Cod. Sin.: δειγματισαι for the lect. rec. παραδει γματίσαι; the παρα in Cod. Sin. being “punctis notatum rursus deletis,” as Tischendorf remarks, Proleg. p. 42, which I found to be correct on inspection of the fac-simile edition in the Astor Library. The sense, however, is not altered, since both δειγματίζω (only once, Colossians 2:15) and παραδειγματιζω (twice, Matthew 1:19 and Hebrews 6:6) mean to make a show or example of one, to put to shame. Lachmann, Tischendorf (ed. septima critica major, 1859), Alford (4th ed. of 1859), and Meyer (5th ed., but omitting to notice the original reading of Cod. Sin.) read δειγματίσαι on the authority of B., Z., and scholia of Origen and Eusebius.

Matthew 1:25.—Cod. Sin. reads simply: ετεκεν υιον, instead of the lect. rec.: ἔτεκω τὸν υἱὸν αὑτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, and here sustains the testimony of Codd. B., Z., etc., and the modern critical editions. The omission of πρωτότοκον is much easier accounted for, on doctrinal grounds, than its insertion, and cannot affect the controversy concerning the question of the brothers of Christ, since πρωτότοκος is genuine in Luke 2:7, where there is no variation of reading. On the other hand, the term does not necessarily prove that Mary had children after Jesus. Comp. Crit. Note 2, on p. 52, and the remark of Jerome, quoted in Tischendorf’s crit. apparatus (Exodus 7:0. p. 4).

Footnotes:

[5] Matthew 1:18.—Lit.: “For when,” μνηστευθείσης γάρ.

[6] Matthew 1:25.—[πρωτότοκον, in Matthew 1:25. is omitted in Codd. Sin. and Vat., in the old Egyptian versions, Hilar., Ambros., Greg., Hieron., and in the critical editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford. Lange in his version retains it, and Meyer defends it. It may have been inserted from Luke 2:7; but the omission may also be easily explained from superstitious veneration of the Blessed Virgin, as necessarily implying her perpetual virginity, which the term “first born” seemed to disprove.—P. S.]

[7][Compare also, on the other hand, the article Jacobus in Winer’s Real-Wörterbuch. i. p. 525 sqq., and P. Schaff: “Das Verhaltniss des Jacobus Alphœi zu Jacobus dem Bruder des Herrn,” Berlin, 1841.—Trsl.]

[8][In this sentence, which is omitted in the Edinb. transt., Lange means to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, as held by the Roman Church, and attributed to him by Meyer. Lange admits the reality of the marriage of Joseph and Mary and their cohabitation after the birth of Jesus, but, like Olshausen, he considers it i compatible with the dignity of Mary as the mother of the Saviour of the world, to have given birth to ordinary children of man. He also holds that Christ must be the last in the royal line of David and could have no successor or rival. But this reasoning is dogmatic, not exegetical. On the force of the ἑως οὗ in this connection, compare Meyer’s and Add. Alexunder’s remarks on Matthew 1:25.—P. S.]