Lange Commentary - Matthew 1:18 - 1:25

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Matthew 1:18 - 1:25


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

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.

Mat_1:18-25 (Luk_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: When 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.). 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 firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat_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 ãÝíåóéò is much better established in Mat_1:18 than ãÝííçóéò , and clearly more appropriate, as the event in question was not properly a ãåííçóéò [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 Luk_1:35.

Mat_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 ðáñáäåéãìáôßóáé is an explanation of äåéãìáôßóáé ); 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. Deu_24:1-3; Mat_19:8.

Mat_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, Gen_16:7; Gen_16:9, and in other passages; or the Angel of the presence, Exo_32:34; Exo_33:14; Isa_63:9; or the Angel of the covenant, Mal_3:1. The angel Gabriel (hero of God), who, according to Luke 1, delivered the messages relating to the birth of Christ, was probably only a more definite manifestation of the Angel of the Lord (Dan_8:16; Dan_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.

Mat_1:22-23. On the Messianic application of Isa_7:14, consult the commentaries. It must, however, be observed that the Evangelist Matthew uses the expression, “was fulfilled,” ἐðëçñþèç , 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 ( òַìְîָä ) 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.

Mat_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, Mat_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 (Gen_27:19; Gen_27:32; Exo_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.”) 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.)

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 Isa_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 Solomon 1. 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 (Gen_1:2), and to the creation of man. (The breath of God, Gen_2:7.) 2. It points forward to the creation of the Church, and the founding of the heavenly city of God (Acts 2).—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 (Col_1:15-18).—Gossner:—True love finds a way between jealousy and insensibility.—God forsakes none who confide in him.—Braune:—Divine interposition saves.—(Gal_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 à 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

Mat_1:18.—Cod. Sin. sustains ãÝíåóéò , birth, nativity (B., C., P., S., Z., etc., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford) for the lect. rec. ãÝííçóéò , which may easily have arisen from ἐãÝííçóå and ἐãåííÞèç , 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, ãÝííçóéò (from ãåííÜù ); and hence ãÝíåóéò is preferable both for internal and external reasons. Comp. Luk_1:14 : ἐðὶ ôῇ ãåíÝóåé áὐôïῦ , which is better supported there than ãåííÞóåé .

Mat_1:19.—Cod. Sin.: äåéãìáôéóáé for the lect. rec. ðáñáäåé ãìáôßóáé ; the ðáñá 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 äåéãìáôßæù (only once, Col_2:15) and ðáñáäåéãìáôéæù (twice, Mat_1:19 and Heb_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 äåéãìáôßóáé on the authority of B., Z., and scholia of Origen and Eusebius.

Mat_1:25.—Cod. Sin. reads simply: åôåêåí õéïí , instead of the lect. rec.: ἔôåêù ôὸí õἱὸí áὑôῆò ôὸí ðñùôüôïêïí , and here sustains the testimony of Codd. B., Z., etc., and the modern critical editions. The omission of ðñùôüôïêïí 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 ðñùôüôïêïò is genuine in Luk_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 (ed. 7. p. 4).

Footnotes:

Mat_1:18.—Lit.: “For when,” ìíçóôåõèåßóçò ãÜñ .

Mat_1:25.—[ ðñùôüôïêïí , in Mat_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 Luk_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.]

[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.]

[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 ἑùò ïὗ in this connection, compare Meyer’s and Add. Alexunder’s remarks on Mat_1:25.—P. S.]