COMMENTARY
ON
A
HARMONY OF THE
EVANGELISTS,
MATTHEW, MARK, AND
LUKE,
BY JOHN
CALVIN
TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN,
AND COLLATED WITH
THE AUTHOR'S FRENCH
VERSION,
BY THE REV. WILLIAM
PRINGLE
VOLUME
FIRST
THE
TRANSLATOR’S
PREFACE
ALL the writings of JOHN CALVIN are marked by
extraordinary vigor, learning, and judgment. Few of them are so well known as
THE INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION — a systematic treatise, which,
though written at the early age of twenty-four, was universally acknowledged to
be a production of the highest ability. Concise and luminous, powerful in
argument, scriptural, devout and practical, it has not been superseded by any
later work. But the fame which he acquired by THE INSTITUTES was fully sustained
by his expository writings, which possess at least equal claims on the attention
of divines. They contributed powerfully to diffuse the pure Gospel of Christ,
commanded the applause of all the Reformed Churches, and received even from
enemies no mean commendation. More than a century after his valuable life had
closed, they occupied a place in every theological library. The learned Matthew
Poole, in the preface to his Synopsis, apologizes for the small number of his
quotations from them, on the express ground that the Commentaries themselves, he
had every reason to believe, were in the hands of all his
readers.
This reputation, after having suffered a partial
eclipse, will soon, in all probability, regain its former brightness. The first
tendency to this improvement was discovered in a neighboring country, where the
distinguishing doctrines of Christianity had long been supplanted by a creed
little removed from infidelity. In Germany, Biblical criticism is almost a
national pursuit. That unconquerable industry which had already crowned her
scholars with laurels in Greek and Roman literature, has given them as
unquestionable a pre-eminence in the field of sacred philology. Had such rare
attainments been always consecrated to the honor of the Redeemer, every good man
would have rejoiced. Unhappily, they were but too frequently employed in
maintaining the most dangerous errors, in opposing every inspired statement
which the mind of man is unable fully to comprehend, in divesting religion of
its spiritual and heavenly character, and in undermining the whole fabric of
revealed truth. But a gracious Providence has raised up other men, whom, though
we may not feel ourselves at liberty to subscribe to all their views, we cannot
but hail as the friends of evangelical truth, and admire for their holy
fortitude in coming
to the help of the Lord,
to the help of the Lord against the mighty,
(<070523>Judges
5:23.)
At the head of this illustrious band it is almost
superfluous to name Professor Tholuck of Halle, admitted by the most competent
judges, both in Britain and on the Continent, to be one of the first biblical
scholars of the age. Having been led by his own researches, and by public
events, to examine the writings of the Reformer, he hastened to draw the
attention of his countrymen to the neglected treasures. His own Commentary on
the Epistle to the Romans afforded an opportunity which was eagerly embraced.
Not satisfied with this brief notice, he wrote an elaborate and masterly
dissertation on “The merits of Calvin as an Interpreter of the Holy
Scriptures,” a translation of which appeared shortly afterwards in the
(American) “Biblical Repository.” He superintended a handsome octavo
edition of Calvin’s Commentaries on the New Testament, printed at Berlin,
and sold at a moderate price. To another eminent interpreter he candidly awards
the honor of having led the way in this
undertaking.
f1a But he was one of the earliest to follow
in the path which had been marked out, and has labored, beyond all his
contemporaries, to make the Commentaries of Calvin more extensively known, and
more highly esteemed.
Our Author has exerted a powerful influence on all
succeeding expositors. They have found their interest in listening to his
instructions, and have been more deeply indebted to him than is generally known.
Many valuable interpretations of passages of Scripture appeared for the first
time in his writings, and have ever since been warmly approved. In other cases,
the views which had been previously held are placed by him in so strong a light
as to remove every doubt, and satisfy the most cautious inquiry. And yet the
stores, from which so much has been drawn, are far from being exhausted, nor is
their value greatly lowered by improvements which have been subsequently made.
The department of History presents an analogous case. Documents which had been
overlooked are carefully examined. Conflicting evidence is more accurately
weighed. Important transactions assume a new aspect, or, at least, are altered
in their subordinate details. Still, there are historians, in whose narrative
the great lines of truth are so powerfully drawn, that the feebler, though more
exact, delineations of other men cannot supply their place.
In the chief moral requisite for such a work Calvin
is excelled by none. He is an honest interpreter. No consideration would have
induced him to wrest the words of Scripture from their plain meaning. Those who
may question his conclusions cannot trace them to an unworthy motive. Timid
theologians will be occasionally startled by his expositions. Though they may
not absolutely impeach the soundness of his doctrine, they will tremble for the
fate of some favorite theory or ingenious argument. With such minds he has no
sympathy. He examines the Scriptures with the humility of one who inquires at
the oracle of God,
(<101623>2
Samuel 16:23,) and proclaims the reply with the faith of one who knows that the
word of the Lord is tried,
(<191830>Psalm
18:30.)
Intimately connected with this integrity of purpose
is the Catholic spirit which he constantly breathes. His labors are dedicated to
no sect, but to the cause of divine truth. If his opinions do not find equal
favor with all true Christians, they are made to feel that he addresses them as
brethren in Christ Jesus. In his eye the Church of Christ is one. He never
forgets the ties which unite all believers to each other and to their exalted
Head. Are there any whose sentiments are hardly distinguishable from those
things which are most surely believed among us,
(<420101>Luke
1:1,) and yet who associate with the name of Calvinism all that is stern
and repulsive? Let them follow the expositions of this master in Israel.
They will find the most remarkable peculiarities of his creed boldly avowed,
but accompanied by other revealed truths to which they had supposed him to be
indifferent, and by no ordinary earnestness of practical exhortation. Amidst his
severest denunciations of doctrinal error, they will not fail to discover the
same enlarged views and Christian forbearance which animated the great apostle
of the Gentiles. Rarely will they behold that sentiment more beautifully
exemplified,
Grace be to all them that
love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity,
(<490624>Ephesians
6:24.)
Learning ought not to be a prominent feature
in a work essentially popular. But the learning of Calvin manifests itself in
the most desirable manner, and adds great weight to his interpretations. Of his
acquaintance with Hebrew it is unnecessary now to speak. His familiarity with
the Greek language appears less in observations on phrases, or allusions to the
various renderings of some passages, than in a close adherence to those shades
of meaning which no translation of the Scriptures can convey. Even when he
appears to have overlooked or mistaken the words, a reference to the original,
which had been studiously kept out of view, will justify the unexpected
remark. f2a
Origen, Chrysostom, and other Greek Fathers, were
among his familiar authors. Classical writers are introduced on every proper
occasion, for illustrating a term, or a custom, or the general principles of
reasoning. Quotations are made from these writers, and from some of their
philosophical treatises, which are seldom even consulted except by those who can
read the language with considerable freedom. To say nothing of the Stagyrite,
every scholar knows, for example, that no Greek prose offers more serious
difficulties than the idiomatic, though fascinating, style of
Plato. f3a
In that minute analysis which is peculiar to modern
criticism, Calvin may have been deficient. That he wanted the skill necessary
for such investigations is not so manifest. The absence of those processes by
which he arrived at his conclusions makes it difficult to determine how far the
subtle elements of language had undergone his scrutiny. If we shall suppose him
to have neglected these matters, our astonishment must be the greater that the
deductions of recent inquirers should have been so largely anticipated.
Conjectures thrown out by Sir Isaac Newton were long afterwards verified by
experiments of extreme labor and delicacy. But Calvin speaks habitually with a
tone of confidence. We must therefore conclude that, like the shrewd remarks to
which the philosopher was pleased to give the name of conjectures, his
discoveries were reached by a shorter route, which other minds could with
difficulty follow. f4a
This extraordinary sagacity was accompanied by
another quality not less needed in an interpreter, a sound judgment, which
leaned neither to ancient usage nor to ingenious novelties, which refused to bow
to the authority of great names, and sternly rebuked the most plausible
sophistry when opposed to the plain and obvious meaning of Scripture. He took a
dispassionate and wide survey, not only of the passage immediately under
consideration, but of kindred expressions or sentiments that were found in any
of the inspired writers. It was left to the industry of later times to collect
parallels, and arrange them on the margin of our Bibles, as an invaluable aid to
interpretation. But his own perusal of the sacred volume supplied him largely
with such materials, and enabled him to draw them out with instinctive readiness
as occasion required.
As we pass along, we meet with direct quotations,
largely but appositely introduced, and tending to confirm the views which he had
adopted. Still more frequently we observe a copious use of that phraseology
which is peculiar to the sacred writers, and which falls on the pious ear with
refreshing melody. In him it rises higher than that felicitous application of
Scripture which our more elegant writers have cultivated for the purpose of
imparting a literary charm to their compositions; for those beauties came to him
unsought while he was aiming at something higher than the mere ornaments of
diction, and the language of Scripture had been so thoroughly interwoven with
his ordinary style, that he must have been frequently unconscious of its
presence. To aid the reader in discovering those allusions, the passages from
which they have been taken are generally marked. The references made by our
Author himself may be supposed to be abundant, and must have struck many persons
as a prominent feature of his writings; but in far more numerous cases, no clue
was given to his authorities, and some pains have been taken to supply the
omissions.
The Latin original has been scrupulously followed.
His own vernacular version gives us some idea of the freedom, spirit, and
elegance, with which he would have accommodated himself to the taste of the
English reader, if it had been executed in our language. But a translator is not
permitted to use the same liberties as the author, and faithfulness demands that
he shall adhere strictly to the copy which is set before him. The meaning has
been given without addition or omission, and even the structure of the sentences
has been followed, so far as that could be done without violating the purity of
English idiom. To exhibit the peculiar excellencies of such a writer, or, where
that could not be done, to find in a modern tongue a suitable equivalent, was no
easy task. His admirably concise diction, and rapid but masterly transitions,
and above all, that rare felicity of expression for which his severest judges
have given him credit, render it difficult to represent the style and manner of
so great a master of composition.
All the assistance that could be derived from our
Author’s French version has been thankfully accepted. It would have been
unwise as well as ungrateful to leave out of view so authoritative an exposition
of his meaning, or to disregard the production of one whose command of his
native tongue is acknowledged by the ablest critics to have anticipated the
elegancies of a later age. “He wrote in Latin,” says
D’Alembert, “as well as is possible in a dead language, and in
French with a purity which was extraordinary for his time. This purity, which is
to the present day admired by our skillful critics, renders his writings greatly
superior to almost all of the same age; as the works of Messieurs de Port Royal
are still distinguished on the same account from the barbarous rhapsodies of
their opponents and contemporaries.” Amidst the driest details of verbal
criticism, there are frequent glimpses of that eloquence which De Thou and other
great men regarded with admiration, and which, when aided by the living voice,
must have told powerfully on his hearers.
It must be observed, however, that the Latin and
French texts have been treated apart, as if they had not proceeded from the same
pen, and have been separated by a broad line which meets the eye of the reader.
The old translators sometimes proceeded as if they had not been aware of the
vernacular copy, and at other times blended it with the original in so strange a
manner, that they appear to follow a path of their own, while they are
faithfully tracking the Author’s footsteps. In the new translations
prepared for the CALVIN SOCIETY, care has been taken to adhere scrupulously to
the Latin text, and at the same time to give the English reader the full benefit
of those illustrations which the Author thought fit to employ in submitting the
work to the perusal of his countrymen. The French translation has been all along
collated with the original; and whenever it contained additional matter, or
removed obscurity by greater copiousness of language, or even when a striking
phrase occurred, the passages have been exhibited and translated at the bottom
of the page.
Notes, partly selected, but chiefly original,
have been added. Some are intended to illustrate a remote allusion, to prevent a
casual expression from being misunderstood, or to bring out more clearly the
Author’s meaning. Others are devoted to history, or to biblical criticism.
Those which have been written by myself, and for which I must be held
responsible, are marked. Ed. All questions of a doctrinal nature have been
excluded from these Notes. The publications of the CALVIN TRANSLATION
SOCIETY are addressed to the whole Church of Christ, and ought not to wear the
badge of any of the sections into which that Church is unhappily divided. In
every thing that relates to doctrine the Author has been left in full possession
of the field.
It will scarcely be supposed that every
interpretation contained in this work has my entire concurrence. The great
principles inculcated in the writings of Calvin have my cordial approbation;
and, indeed, I could scarcely name a writer with whose views of Divine truth I
more fully coincide. As a Commentator, ever since I became acquainted with him,
I have been accustomed to assign to him the highest rank, and to receive his
expositions with the deepest respect. My labors on this and on a former
occasion
f5aled me to examine his opinions more
closely than before, and have raised him still more highly in my estimation.
There are some points on which I feel assured that he mistook the meaning of
Scripture; but almost all of them had been little investigated in his day, and
do not appear to have been subjected to his usual severity of judgment. Many
will wonder that he should contend so earnestly for the identity of John’s
baptism with Christ’s baptism, instead of representing them to be two
distinct ordinances, instituted for separate purposes, and placed under totally
different regulations: but on this question the followers of Christ may agree to
differ. It will excite more general surprise to find the great Reformer
maintaining the right of the civil magistrate to punish heretics, and even to
inflict on them the last sentence of the law. Men far inferior to him in
learning and ability have avoided mistakes from which his powerful and
enlightened mind was not exempted. They ought to regard with admiration and
gratitude the conduct of a gracious Providence, which preserved his creed so
remarkably free from Romish errors, and enabled him to approach so closely to
the mind of the Holy Spirit.
A may be expected to resemble other works which bear
the same title. Our Author’s delight in brevity, and his extreme aversion
to repeat what he had said before, would aid the influence of other reasons for
adopting this plan, which are stated by himself towards the conclusion of The
Argument. To meet one obvious disadvantage of this arrangement, a Table of
the passages expounded, which may enable the reader easily to discover where the
exposition is to be found, becomes necessary. Such a Table, together with a list
of the passages taken from other books of Scripture which are quoted or
illustrated in this work, and a copious Index to the subjects of which it
treats, will be given in the Third volume.
The old translator of the Harmony, Eusebius Paget,
deserves to be honored by the admirers of Calvin. It was indeed to be expected
that, after the lapse of nearly three centuries, his version would be found
unsuitable to modern taste. But it is highly creditable to his scholarship, and
to his scrupulous fidelity to the original, for which his well known integrity,
and his warm attachment to the writings of the Reformer, were a sufficient
guarantee. His name has come down to us in connection with sermons and other
works, which appear to have been much esteemed, but are now little known.
“The History of the Bible, briefly collected, by way of Question and
Answer,” was one of his productions, and was printed at the end of
several of the old editions of the Bible.
This volume is adorned by a well-authenticated
likeness of the Reformer.
f6aMany will be surprised to trace the lines
of extreme old age in the countenance of one who died at the age of fifty-five.
But all his biographers agree in stating that, ere he had concluded his fortieth
year, the white locks, shrivelled features, and bent shoulders, bespoke Calvin
to be already an old man;
f7aand that long before other fifteen years
had run their course, he seemed as if threescore years and ten, or rather
fourscore years, had passed over him, and brought their usual attendants
of labor and sorrow,
(<199010>Psalm
90:10.) His friends observed with grief the forerunners of an event which, when
it arrived, they could not but mourn as the premature close of a life so highly
valued.
The quaint title-pages of two editions of the French
version, together with the “Epistle Dedicatory” of Eusebius Paget,
and a fac-simile of his title-page, immediately follow this
Preface.
It may be proper to state, in conclusion, that,
throughout this work, Calvin’s own version of THE THREE EVANGELISTS is
adopted, as nearly as the difference of the languages would allow, in preference
to our Authorized Version, which would not have rendered equal assistance to the
reader in understanding the expositions. Yet the singular coincidence between
the two Versions, interrupted chiefly by verbal differences which do not affect
the sense, lends countenance to the suggestion of an esteemed friend and
fellow-laborer, that King James’s Translators have been more deeply
indebted to the labors of Calvin than is generally believed.
W.
P.
AUCHTERARDER,
4th
January, 1845.
THE EPISTLE
DEDICATORY
TO THE OLD
TRANSLATION
TO THE RIGHT
HONORABLE
FRANCIS, EARL
OF BEDFORD,
OF THE NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER,
KNIGHT,
ONE OF THE LORDS OF HER MAJESTY’S
MOST HON. PRIVY COUNCIL;
GRACE AND PEACE FROM
GOD, WITH THE INCREASE OF THAT TRUE
HONOR WHICH
IS FROM GOD, AND LASTETH FOR EVER.
[Prefixed to the Original English Translation,
London, 1584 and 1610.]
THE choice (Right Honourable) which Luke the
Evangelist made in dedicating this History of the Gospel, which he wrote, to
that noble man Theophilus, and which that man of worthy memory, M. John Calvin,
took in dedicating these his labors to the Lords of Frankfort, driveth me to
dedicate this my small labor of translating this book into the English tongue.
And though it is but little that I have done, in comparison of the labors of the
other two, and not worth the offering to men of great estate; yet, lest that I
should seem singular in dissenting from these two singular instruments in the
Church of God, and that in one and the selfsame book I have presumed to
make bold of your Lordship’s name, hoping that your Honor will not mislike
to have it written in the forehead of this book with noble Theophilus and the
Lords of Frankfort; specially, sith that I do it in testimony of my dutiful love
to you, for the manifold grace of God in you, and benefits which I have received
from you. Men do commonly, in their Epistles, write either in the commendation
of the work, or in the praise of their patron, or in discharging of themselves
of the discredit which their enemies would lay upon them. But I crave pardon of
your Honor, if, in studying to be short, I omit these things.
For, first, the very name of THE GOSPEL OF JESUS
CHRIST and then the names of MATTHEW, MARK, and LUKE, the Evangelists, and of M.
CALVIN, the gatherer of The Harmony and the writer of The Commentary, do yield
more credit and commendation to the matter than all that I can say of it, all
the days of my life. Only this I say of M. CALVIN’S labors here, that in
my simple judgment it is one of the profitablest works for the Church that ever
he did write.
Next, for your praises, as you like not to hear them,
so I will not offend you in setting them down, nor give others occasion to
condemn me of flattery. They which have best known you say, that you began a
good course in your youth; that you witnessed a good confession in the late time
of persecution; that your constancy hath been testified by your troubles at home
and travels in foreign countries: You have continued your profession in the
midst of your dignity, lordships, and living, left by your parents, and in the
seat of government wherein our sovereign and most gracious Queen hath placed
you; not falling asleep, in security, in this so peaceable a
time.
My Lord, continue to the end, so shall you be safe. I
speak not this as if it were your own strength that hath holden you up all this
while; but meditate sometimes, I pray you, upon the seventy-first Psalm; and
pray that Lord, as David did, who kept you in your youth, that He will keep you
in your old age, now that your hair is hoar and hairs grey. And I beseech the
mighty Lord to thrust them forward which are drawn back by their youthly
affections, and to raise up them that fell away for fear of troubles, and to
waken those which in this quiet and calm time do sleep in security, or wax
wanton with the wealth of the world; that we may meet the Lord with true
humility and earnest repentance, to see if He will be intreated to continue His
mercies towards us; lest he turn his correcting rod, which he hath so oft shaken
over us, into a devouting sword to consume us.
Of myself I will say nothing. The mouths of the
wicked cannot be stopped. Their false tongues, I hope, shall teach me to walk
warily; and I have learned, I thank my God, to pass through good report and
through evil, and to commit myself and my cause to Him that judgeth
right.
The Lord of lords preserve your Honour in safety, and
multiply all spiritual blessings upon you and yours. From Kiltehampton, in
Cornwall, this 28th of, January, 1584.
The Lord’s most unworthy Minister,
lame
EUSEBIUS PAGET
THE
AUTHOR’S
EPISTLE DEDICATORY
TO
THE VERY NOBLE AND ILLUSTRIOUS
LORDS,
THE
BURGOMASTERS AND COUNCIL
OFTHE NOBLE CITY OF
FRANKFORT,
JOHN
CALVIN
IF virtuous examples were ever necessary to be held
out for imitation, in order to stimulate lazy, sluggish, or inactive persons,
the sloth, and—what is more—the indifference of this very corrupt
age makes it necessary that the greater part of men, who do not of their own
accord advance, but rather fall back, should at least be compelled by shame to
discharge their duty. All, indeed, are seen to be influenced, both in public and
in private, by a disgraceful emulation. There is not a king who does not labor
to show that he is equal to his neighbors in the address, or perseverance, or
energy, or courage, necessary for extending, by every possible method, the
bounds of his dominion. There is not a state or commonwealth that yields the
preference to others for cunning and all the arts of deception, nor a single
individual among the ranks of the ambitious who will acknowledge his inferiority
to others in wicked contrivances. In short, we would almost say that they had
entered into a silent but mutual conspiracy to challenge each other to a contest
of vices, and every man who carries wickedness to an extreme easily ruins a vast
multitude by his example; so that, amidst the general prevalence of crimes, very
few persons are to be found who exhibit a pattern of
uprightness.
For these reasons I reckon it to be the more
advantageous that those uncommon excellencies, by which eminent persons are
distinguished, should receive the commendations which they deserve, and should
be raised to an elevated situation so as to be seen at a great distance, that
the desire of imitating them may be awakened in many breasts. And this I
acknowledge, most honorable Lords, to be the principal reason why I am desirous
that this work of mine should be given to the world under the sanction of your
name. For though my undertaking will be regarded by me as having obtained a
distinguished reward, if your readiness to do good shall derive from it any
increase, yet I have had more particularly in my eye the other object which has
been mentioned, namely, that others may equal your progress, or at least may
follow the same course.
I have no intention, however, to frame a catalogue of
all the excellencies by which you are distinguished, but shall satisfy myself
for the present with mentioning, in terms of commendation, one excellence which
has bound to you myself and a great number of the servants of Christ by what may
be called a more sacred tie. It was a great matter that, more than five years
ago, when all were seized with dreadful alarm, when a fearful devastation of the
churches of Germany, and almost the destruction of the Gospel, was threatened by
the calamity which had occurred, you, on whom the first shower of darts fell,
stood firm in an open profession of the faith which was at that time extremely
odious, and steadily maintained the pure doctrine of godliness which you had
embraced, so as to make it evident that, amidst the greatest anxieties and
dangers, there is nothing which you value more highly than to fight under the
banner of Christ. But it is still more remarkable, and more worthy of being put
on record, that you not only maintain the pure worship of God among yourselves,
and faithfully endeavor to keep your fellow-citizens within the fold of Christ,
but that you collect as torn members those fragments of a dispersed church which
had been thrown out in other countries.
In the present melancholy state of affairs, it has
given me no small consolation to learn that devout worshippers of God, who had
come to you as exiles from England and from other places, were received by you
with warm hospitality; and that you not only opened your gates to them in their
wretched exile, but rendered deserved honor to the Son of God, by making his
Gospel to be distinctly heard in your city in foreign languages. A similar
instance of distinguished kindness was recently showed to the unhappy natives of
Locarno by the Council of Zurich, who not only threw open their city to
them, (when they were not permitted to worship Christ at home according to their
consciences) but even assigned to them a church for holding their religious
assemblies, and were not prevented by a diversity of language from desiring to
hear Christ talk Italian in their own city.
To return to yourselves: as soon as I heard that you
had had the kindness to allow persons who speak our language to found a church
amongst you, I considered that you had laid me under private obligations, and
resolved to take this opportunity of testifying my gratitude. For while there is
good reason for deploring the state of our nation to be such, that the
sacrilegious tyranny of Popery has made a residence in our own country to be
little else than a banishment from the kingdom of God, so, on the other hand, it
is a distinguished favor to have a habitation granted to us on a foreign soil,
where the lawful worship of God may be observed. This truly sacred
hospitality—which was rendered not to men, but rather to Christ
himself—will, I trust, add to your already prosperous condition fresh acts
of the divine kindness, and secure them to you in uninterrupted
succession.
For my own part at least, as I have just now
declared, such were my inducements to dedicate to you this work of mine. It is a
Harmony arranged out of Three Evangelists, and has been prepared by me
with the greatest fidelity and diligence. What toil I have bestowed on it would
serve no purpose to detail; and how far I have succeeded must be left to others
to decide. The readers to whom I refer are those honest, learned, and
well-disposed persons, whose desire of making progress is not retarded by a
barbarous shame at receiving instruction, and who feel an interest in the public
advantage. I do not trouble myself with mean and wicked scoundrels; and such I
call not only the hooded monks, who, in defending the tyranny of the Pope, carry
on open war with us, but those useless
dronesf1b
who, mixing with us, seize on every pretense for concealing their ignorance, and
would wish to have the light of doctrine wholly extinguished. Let them
impudently bark at me as much as they please: my reply will be always ready.
Neither divine nor human obligation subjects me to the judgment of those who
deserve the lash for their most disgraceful ignorance, as much as they deserve
the whip for their obstinate and hardened malice and insolence.
I may be allowed at least to say, without the
imputation of boasting, that I have faithfully endeavored to be of service to
the Church of God. Two years ago, John was published along with my
Commentary, which, I trust, was not without advantage. And thus like one of the
heralds,
f2bI have endeavored, to the utmost extent
that my ability allowed, to do honor to Christ riding magnificently in his royal
chariot drawn by four horses; and feel assured that candid readers, who have
derived advantage from my labors, will not be ashamed to acknowledge that the
success has, in some measure, corresponded to my wish. The evangelical history,
related by four witnesses divinely appointed, is justly compared by me to a
chariot drawn by four horses: for by this appropriate and just harmony God
appears to have expressly prepared for his Son a triumphal chariot, from which
he may make a magnificent display to the whole body of believers, and in which,
with rapid progress, he may review the world. Augustine, too, makes an apt
comparison of the Four Evangelists to trumpets, the sound of which fills every
region of the world, so that the Church, gathered from the East, and West, and
South, and North, flows into a holy unity of faith. So much the more intolerable
is the curiosity of those who, not satisfied with the heavenly heralds, obtrude
upon us, under the name of a Gospel, disgusting tales, which serve no other
purpose than to pollute the purity of faith, and to expose the name of Christ to
the sneers and ridicule of the ungodly.
With regard to yourselves, most noble Lords, as you
detest every kind of leaven, by which the native purity of the Gospel is
corrupted, and show that you have nothing more at heart than to defend and
maintain the pure doctrine, as it was delivered by Christ, I feel assured that
this production, which opens up the treasure of the Gospel, will receive your
warmest approbation, and trust that my dedication of it to you will be accepted
as a mark of my regard. Farewell, most illustrious Lords. May Christ always
direct you by his Spirit, support you by his power, defend you by his
protection, and enrich your city and commonwealth with all abundance of
blessings.
GENEVA, 1st August,
M.D.LV.
THE ARGUMENT
ON THE GOSPEL
OF JESUS CHRIST
ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, MARK, AND
LUKE
IN order to read with profit the Evangelical history,
it is of great importance to understand the meaning of the word
Gospel.
f1cWe shall thus be enabled to ascertain what
design those heavenly witnesses had in writing, and to what object the events
related by them must be referred. That their histories did not receive this name
from others, but were so denominated by the Authors, is evident from Mark, who
expressly says (1:1) that he relates the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. There is one passage in the writings of Paul, from which above all
others a clear and certain definition of the word Gospel may be obtained,
where he tells us that it . .
was promised by God in
the Scriptures, through the prophets, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the
Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the
resurrection from the dead,
(<450102>Romans
1:2-4.)
First, this passage shows that the Gospel is a
testimony of the revealed salvation, which had been formerly promised to the
Fathers in an uninterrupted succession of ages. It points out, at the same time,
a distinction between the promises which kept the hope of the people in
suspense, and this joyful message, by which God declares that he has
accomplished those things which he had formerly required them to
expect.
f2cIn the same manner he states a little
afterwards, that in the Gospel
the righteousness of God
is openly manifested, which was testified by the Law and the Prophets,
(<450321>Romans
3:21.)
The same apostle calls it, in another passage, an
Embassy by which the reconciliation of the world to God, once
accomplished by the death of Christ, is daily offered to men,
(<470520>2
Corinthians 5:20.)
Secondly, Paul means not only that Christ is the
pledge of all the blessings that God has ever promised, but that we have in him
a full and complete exhibition of them; as he elsewhere declares that all the
promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen,
(<470120>2
Corinthians 1:20.) And, indeed, the freely bestowed adoption, by which we are
made sons of God, as it proceeds from the good pleasure which the Father had
from eternity, has been revealed to us in this respect, that Christ (who alone
is the Son of God by nature) has clothed himself with our flesh, and made us his
brethren. That satisfaction by which sins are blotted out, so that we are no
longer under the curse and the sentence of, death, is to be found nowhere else
than in the sacrifice of his death. Righteousness, and salvation, and perfect
happiness, are founded on his resurrection.
The Gospel, therefore, is a public exhibition
of the Son of God manifested in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16,) to deliver a
ruined world, and to restore men from death to life. It is justly called a
good and joyful message, for it contains perfect happiness. Its
object is to commence the reign of God, and by means of our deliverance from the
corruption of the flesh, and of our renewal by the Spirit, to conduct us to the
heavenly glory. For this reason it is often called the kingdom of heaven,
and the restoration to a blessed life, which is brought to us by Christ, is
sometimes called the kingdom of God: as when Mark says that Joseph
waited for the kingdom of God,
(<411543>Mark
15:43,) he undoubtedly refers to the coming of the Messiah.
Hence it is evident that the word Gospel
applies properly to the New Testament, and that those writers are chargeable
with a want of precision,
f3cwho say that it was common to all ages,
and who suppose that the Prophets, equally with the Apostles, were ministers of
the Gospel. Widely different is the account which Christ gives us, when he says,
that
the law and the prophets
were TILL John, and that since that time the kingdom of God began to be
preached,
(<421616>Luke
16:16.)
Mark, too, as we mentioned a little ago, declares
that the preaching of John was the beginning of the Gospel,
(<430101>John
1:1.) Again, the four histories, which relate how Christ discharged the office
of Mediator, have with great propriety received this designation. As the birth,
death, and resurrection of Christ contain the whole of our salvation, and are
therefore the peculiar subject of the Gospel, the name of Evangelists
is justly and suitably applied to those who place before our eyes Christ who
has been sent by the Father, that our faith may acknowledge him to be the Author
of a blessed life.
The power and results of his coming are still more
fully expressed in other books of the New Testament. And even in this respect
John differs widely from the other three Evangelists: for he is almost wholly
occupied in explaining the power of Christ, and the advantages which we derive
from him; while they insist more fully on one point, that our Christ is that Son
of God who had been promised to be the Redeemer of the world. They interweave,
no doubt, the doctrine which relates to the office of Christ, and inform us what
is the nature of his grace, and for what purpose he has been given to us; but
they are principally employed, as I have said, in showing that in the person of
Jesus Christ has been fulfilled what God had promised from the
beginning.
f4cThey had no intention or design to abolish
by their writings the law and the prophets; as some fanatics dream that
the Old Testament is superfluous, now that the truth of heavenly wisdom has been
revealed to us by Christ and his Apostles. On the contrary, they point with the
finger to Christ, and admonish us to seek from him whatever is ascribed to him
by the law and the prophets. The full profit and advantage, therefore, to
be derived from the reading of the Gospel will only be obtained when we learn to
connect it with the ancient promises.
With regard to the three writers of the Evangelical
history, whom I undertake to expound, Matthew is sufficiently known.
Mark is generally supposed to have been the private friend and disciple
of Peter. It is even believed that he wrote the Gospel, as it was dictated to
him by Peter, and thus merely performed the office of an amanuensis or
clerk.
f5cBut on this subject we need not give
ourselves much trouble, for it is of little importance to us, provided only we
believe that he is a properly qualified and divinely appointed witness, who
committed nothing to writing, but as the Holy Spirit directed him and guided his
pen. There is no ground whatever for the statement of Jerome, that his Gospel is
an abridgment of the Gospel by Matthew. He does not everywhere adhere to the
order which Matthew observed, and from the very commencement handles the
subjects in a different manner. Some things, too, are related by him which the
other had omitted, and his narrative of the same event is sometimes more
detailed. It is more probable, in my opinion—and the nature of the case
warrants the conjecture—that he had not seen Matthew’s book when he
wrote his own; so far is he from having expressly intended to make an
abridgment.
I have the same observation to make respecting
Luke: for we will not say that the diversity which we perceive in the
three Evangelists was the object of express arrangement, but as they intended to
give an honest narrative of what they knew to be certain and undoubted, each
followed that method which he reckoned best. Now as this did not happen by
chance, but by the direction of Divine Providence, so under this diversity in
the manner of writing the Holy Spirit suggested to them an astonishing harmony,
which would almost be sufficient of itself to secure credit to them, if there
were not other and stronger evidences to support their
authority.
Luke asserts plainly enough that he is the person who
attended Paul. But it is a childish statement which Eusebius makes, that Paul is
the Author of the Gospel which bears the name of Luke, because in one passage he
mentions his
Gospel,
f6c(<550208>2
Timothy 2:8.) As if what follows did not make it clear that Paul is speaking of
his whole preaching, and not of a single book: for he adds,
for which I suffer trouble, even
to bonds,
(<550209>2
Timothy 2:9.) Now, it is certain that he was not held
guilty f7c
of having written a book, but of having administered and preached with the
living voice the doctrine of Christ. Eusebius, whose industry was great,
discovers here a singular want of judgment in collecting without discrimination
such gross absurdities. On this head I have thought it necessary to warn my
readers, that they may not be shocked at fooleries of the same description which
occur in every part of his history.
Of that method of interpretation which I have chosen
to adopt, and which it may be many persons, at first sight, will not approve, it
will be proper to give some account for the satisfaction of pious and candid
readers. First, it is beyond all dispute, that it is impossible to expound, in a
proper and successful manner, any one of the Evangelists, without comparing him
with the other two; and, accordingly, faithful and learned commentators spend a
very great portion of their labor on reconciling the narratives of the three
Evangelists. But as it frequently happens that persons of ordinary abilities
find the comparison to be no easy matter, when it is necessary to pass at every
turn from the one to the other, I thought that it might prove to be a seasonable
and useful abridgment of their labor, if I were to arrange the three histories
in one unbroken chain, or in a single picture, in which the reader may perceive
at a glance the resemblance or diversity that exists. In this way I shall leave
out nothing that has been written by any of the three Evangelists; and whatever
may be found in more than one of them will be collected into one
place.
Whether or not I have succeeded to my expectation,
the reader must decide by his own experience. So far from claiming the praise of
having brought out something new, I readily acknowledge, as becomes an honest
man, that I have adopted this method in imitation of others. Bucer, a man
of revered memory, and an eminent teacher of the Church of God, who above all
others appears to me to have labored successfully in this field, has been
especially my model. As he availed himself of the labors of the ancients who had
traveled this road before him, so my toils have been not a little alleviated by
his industry and application. Where I use the liberty of differing from him,
(which I have freely done, whenever it was necessary,) Bucer himself, if he were
still an inhabitant of the earth, would not be displeased.
COMMENTARY
ON A
HARMONY OF THE
EVANGELISTS
LUKE
1:1-4
|
LUKE
1:1-4
|
|
1. Forasmuch as many have
undertaken to compose a narrative of those things which are most surely believed
among us, 2. Even as they delivered them unto us, who from
the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having carefully examined all
things from the beginning, to write to thee in detail, most excellent
Theophilus, 4. That thou mayest acknowledge the certainty of
those things whereof thou hast been instructed.
|
LUKE is the only Evangelist who makes a preface
to his Gospel, for the purpose of explaining briefly the motive which induced
him to write. By addressing a single individual he may appear to have acted
foolishly, instead of sounding the trumpet aloud, as was his duty, and inviting
all men to believe. It appears, therefore, to be unsuitable that the doctrine
which does not peculiarly belong to one person or to another, but is common to
all, should be privately sent to his friend Theophilus. Hence some have been led
to think that Theophilus is an appellative noun, and is applied to all
godly persons on account of their love of God; but the epithet which is
joined to it is inconsistent with that opinion. Nor is there any reason for
dreading the absurdity which drove them to adopt such an expedient. For it is
not less true that Paul’s doctrine belongs to all, though some of
his Epistles were addressed to certain cities, and others to certain men. Nay,
we must acknowledge, if we take into account the state of those times, that Luke
adopted a conscientious and prudent course. There were tyrants on every hand
who, by terror and alarm, were prepared to obstruct the progress of sound
doctrine. This gave occasion to Satan and his ministers for spreading abroad the
clouds of error, by which the pure light would be obscured. Now, as the great
body of men cared little about maintaining the purity of the Gospel, and few
considered attentively the inventions of Satan or the amount of danger that
lurked under such disguises, every one who excelled others by uncommon faith, or
by extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, was the more strongly bound to do his
utmost, by care and industry, for preserving the doctrine of godliness pure and
uncontaminated from every corruption. Such persons were chosen by God to be the
sacred keepers of the law, by whom the heavenly doctrine committed to them
should be honestly handed down to posterity. With this view therefore, Luke
dedicates his Gospel to Theophilus, that he might undertake the faithful
preservation of it; and the same duty Paul enjoins and recommends to Timothy,
(<550114>2
Timothy 1:14; 3:14.)
1.
Forasmuch as
many. He assigns a reason for writing which,
one would think, ought rather to have dissuaded him from writing. To compose a
history, which had already employed many authors, was unnecessary labor, at
least if they had faithfully discharged their duty. But no accusation of
imposture, or carelessness, or any other fault, is in the slightest degree
insinuated. It looks, therefore, as if he were expressing a resolution to do
what had been already done. I reply, though he deals gently with those who had
written before him, he does not altogether approve of their labors. He does not
expressly say that they had written on matters with which they were imperfectly
acquainted, but by laying claim to certainty as to the facts, he modestly denies
their title to full and unshaken confidence. It may be objected that, if they
made false statements, they ought rather to have been severely censured. I reply
again, they may not have been deeply in fault; they may have erred more from
want of consideration than from malice; and, consequently, there would be no
necessity for greater fierceness of attack. And certainly there is reason to
believe that these were little more than historical sketches which, though
comparatively harmless at the time, would afterwards, if they had not been
promptly counteracted, have done serious injury to the faith. But it is worthy
of remark that, in applying this remedy through Luke to unnecessary writings,
God had a wonderful design in view of obtaining, by universal consent, the
rejection of others, and thus securing undivided credit to those which reflect
brightly his adorable majesty. There is the less excuse for those silly people,
by whom disgusting stories, under the name of Nicodemus, or some other person,
are, at the present day, palmed upon the world.
Are most surely believed among
us. The participle
peplhroforhme>na,
which Luke employs, denotes things fully ascertained, and which do not admit of
doubt. The old translator has repeatedly fallen into mistakes about this word,
and through that ignorance has given us a corrupted sense of some very beautiful
passages. One of these occurs in the writings of Paul, where he enjoins every
man to be fully persuaded in his own mind,
(<451405>Romans
14:5,) that conscience may not hesitate and waver, tossed to and fro
(<490414>Ephesians
4:14) by doubtful opinions. Hence, too, is derived the word
plhrofori>a,
which he erroneously renders
fullness,
while it denotes that strong conviction springing from faith, in which godly
minds safely rest. There is still, as I have said, an implied contrast; for, by
claiming for himself the authority of a faithful witness, he destroys the credit
of others who give contrary statements.
Among
us f1
has the same meaning as with
us.
f2 He appears to make faith rest on a
weak foundation, its relation to men, while it ought to rest on the Word of God
only; and certainly the full
assurance
(plhrofori>a)
of faith is ascribed to the sealing of the Spirit,
(<520105>1
Thessalonians 1:5;
<581022>Hebrews
10:22.) I reply, if the Word of God does not hold the first rank, faith will not
be satisfied with any human testimonies, but, where the inward confirmation of
the Spirit has already taken place, it allows them some weight in the historical
knowledge of facts. By historical knowledge I mean that knowledge which we
obtain respecting events, either by our own observation or by the statement of
others. For, with respect to the visible works of God, it is equally proper to
listen to eye-witnesses
as to rely on experience. Besides, those
whom Luke follows were not private authors, but were also
ministers of the
Word. By this commendation he exalts
them above the rank of human authority; for he intimates that the persons from
whom he received his information had been divinely authorized to preach the
Gospel. Hence, too, that security which he shortly afterwards mentions, and
which, if it does not rest upon God, may soon be disturbed. There is great
weight in his denominating those from whom he received his Gospel
ministers of the
Word; for on that ground believers
conclude that the witnesses are beyond all exception, as the Lawyers express it,
and cannot lawfully be set aside.
Erasmus, who has borrowed from
Virgil f3
a phrase used in his version, did not sufficiently consider the estimation
and weight due to a Divine calling. Luke does not talk in a profane style, but
enjoins us in the person of his friend Theophilus to keep in view the command of
Christ, and to hear with reverence the Son of God speaking through his Apostles.
It is a great matter that he affirms them to have been
eye-witneses,
but, by calling them
ministers,
he takes them out of the common order of men, that our faith may have its
support in heaven and not in earth. In short, Luke’s meaning is this:
“that, since thou now hast those things committed faithfully to writing
which thou hadst formerly learned by oral statements, thou mayest place a
stronger reliance on the received doctrine.” It is thus evident that God
has employed every method to prevent our faith from being suspended on the
doubtful and shifting opinions of men. There is the less room for excusing the
ingratitude of the world, which, as if it openly preferred the uncertainty
arising out of vague and unfounded reports, turns from so great a Divine favor
with loathing. But let us attend to the remarkable distinction which our Lord
has laid down, that foolish credulity may not insinuate itself under the name of
faith. Meanwhile, let us allow the world to be allured, as it deserves, by the
deceitful baits of foolish curiosity, and even to surrender itself willingly to
the delusions of Satan.
3.
Having carefully examined all
things. The old translator has it,
having followed out all
things;
f4 and the Greek verb
parakolouqei~n
is taken metaphorically from those who tread in the footsteps of others,
that nothing may escape them. So that Luke intended to express his close and
laborious investigation, just as Demosthenes employs the same word, when, in
examining an embassy against which he brings an accusation, he boasts of his
diligence to have been such, that he perceived every thing that had been done as
well as if he had been a spectator.
LUKE 1:5-13
|
LUKE
1:5-13
|
|
5. In the days of Herod, king of
Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia; and
his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all
the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7. And
they had no child, because Elisabeth was barren, and they were now both at an
advanced age. 8. And it happened, while he was discharging
the priest's office in the order of his course before God,
9. According to the custom of the priest's office, it fell to
him by lot to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10. And the whole multitude of the people were praying
without at the time of incense. 11. And an angel of the Lord
appeared to him, standing at the right hand of the altar on which the incense
was burning. 12. And Zacharias was troubled when he saw him,
and fear fell upon him. 13. But the angel said to him, Fear
not, Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard: and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee
a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
|
Luke very properly begins his Gospel with John
the Baptist, just as a person who was going to speak about the daylight would
commence with the dawn. For, like the dawn, he went before the Sun of
Righteousness, which was shortly to arise. Others also mention him, but they
bring him forward as already discharging his office. Luke secures our respect
for him, while he is yet unborn, by announcing the miracles of divine power
which took place at the earliest period of his existence, and by showing that he
had a commission from heaven to be a prophet, ere it was possible for men to
know what would be his character. His object was that John might afterwards be
heard with more profound veneration, when he should come forth invested with a
public office to exhibit the glory of Christ.
5.
In the days of
Herod. This was the son of Antipater,
whom his father elevated to the throne, and labored with such assiduity and toil
to advance, that he was afterwards surnamed Herod
the
Great. Some think that he is here
mentioned by Luke, because he was their first foreign king; and that this was a
suitable time for their deliverance, because the scepter had passed into a
different nation. But they who speak in this manner do not correctly understand
Jacob’s prophecy,
(<014910>Genesis
49:10,) in which the advent of the Messiah is promised not merely after the
royal authority had been taken from the Jews, but after it had been removed from
the tribe of Judah. The holy patriarch did not even intimate that the tribe of
Judah would be stripped of its supremacy, but that the government of the people
would steadily remain in it until Christ, in whose person its permanency would
at length be secured. When the Maccabees flourished, the tribe of Judah was
reduced nearly to a private rank; and shortly afterwards, John, the latest
leader of that race, was slain. But even at that time, its power was not
completely annihilated; for there still remained the Sanhedrim, or Council
selected out of the family and descendants of David, which possessed great
authority, and lasted till the time of Herod, who, by a shocking slaughter of
the judges, revenged the punishment formerly inflicted on himself, when he was
condemned for murder, and forced to undergo voluntary exile, in order to escape
capital punishment.
It was not, therefore, because he was of foreign
extraction, that the reign of Herod broke the scepter of the tribe of Judah,
(<014910>Genesis
49:10;) but because whatever relics of superior rank still lingered in that
tribe were entirely carried off by his robbery. That its royal dignity had
crumbled down long before, and that by slow degrees its supremacy had nearly
given way, does not imply such a discontinuance as to be at variance with
Jacob’s prophecy. For God had promised two things seemingly opposite; that
the throne of
David would be eternal,
(<198929>Psalm
89:29, 36,) and that, after it had been destroyed, he would raise up its ruins,
(<300911>Amos
9:11;) that the sway of his kingly power would be eternal, and yet that there
should come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,
(<231101>Isaiah
11:1.) Both must be fulfilled. That supremacy, therefore, which God had bestowed
on the tribe of Judah, was suffered by him to be broken down for a time, that
the attention of the people might be more strongly directed to the expectation
of Christ’s reign. But when the destruction of the Sanhedrim appeared to
have cut off the hope of believers, suddenly the Lord shone forth. Now, it
belongs to the arrangement of history to mark the date of the transaction; but
for no light reason did the word
king
mark, at the same time, the wretchedness of that period, in order to remind
the Jews, that their eyes ought now to be turned to the Messiah, if they would
sincerely keep the covenant of God.
Zacharias, of the course of
Abia. We learn from sacred history,
(<132403>1
Chronicles 24:3, 31,) that the families of the priests were arranged by David in
certain classes. In this matter David attempted nothing contrary to what the law
enjoined. God had bestowed the priesthood on Aaron and his sons,
(<022801>Exodus
28:1.) The other Levites were set apart to inferior offices,
(<040309>Numbers
3:9.) David made no change in this respect; but his object was, partly to secure
that nothing should be done in tumult and disorder, partly to oppose ambition,
and at the same time to provide that it should not be in the power of a few
persons, by taking the whole service into their own hands, to leave the greater
number unemployed at home. Now in that arrangement,
Abijah,
son of Eleazar, held the eighth rank,
(<132410>1
Chronicles 24:10.) Zacharias, therefore, belonged to the priestly family, and to
the posterity of Eleazar who had succeeded his father in the high priest’s
office,
(<042028>Numbers
20:28.) In what manner Elisabeth, who was of the daughters of Aaron, could be
Mary’s
cousin,
(v. 36,) I will explain in the proper place. It is certainly by way of
respect that Luke mentions the genealogy of Elisabeth; for Zacharias was
permitted by the law to take to wife a daughter of any private Levite. From the
equal marriage, therefore, it is evident that he was a man respected among his
own rank.
6.
And they were both righteous
before God. He awards to them a noble
testimony, not only that among men they spent holy and upright lives, but also
that they were righteous before
God. This
righteousness
Luke defines briefly by saying that they
walked in all the commandments of
God. Both ought to be carefully
observed; for, although praise is bestowed on Zacharias and Elisabeth for the
purpose of showing us that the lamp, whose light went before the Son of God, was
taken not from an obscure house, but from an illustrious sanctuary, yet their
example exhibits to us, at the same time, the rule of a devout and righteous
life. In ordering our life,
(<193723>Psalm
37:23,) therefore, our first study ought to be to approve ourselves to God; and
we know that what he chiefly requires is a sincere heart and a pure conscience.
Whoever neglects uprightness of heart, and regulates his outward life only by
obedience to the law, neglects this order. For it ought to be remembered that
the heart, and not the outward mask of works, is chiefly regarded by God, to
whom we are commanded to look. Obedience occupies the second rank; that is, no
man must frame for himself, at his own pleasure, a new form of righteousness
unsupported by the Word of God, but we must allow ourselves to be governed by
divine authority. Nor ought we to neglect this definition, that they are
righteous
who regulate their life by the
commandments
of the law; which intimates that, to the eye of God, all acts of worship are
counterfeit, and the course of human life false and unsettled, so far as they
depart from his law.
Commandments
and
ordinances
differ thus. The latter term relates strictly to exercises of piety and of
divine worship; the latter is more general, and extends both to the worship of
God and to the duties of charity. For the Hebrew word
µyqh,
which signifies statutes or decrees, is rendered by the Greek translator
dikaiw>mata,
ordinances;
and in Scripture
µyqh
usually denotes those services which the people were accustomed to perform in
the worship of God and in the profession of their faith. Now, though hypocrites,
in that respect, are very careful and exact, they do not at all resemble
Zacharias and Elisabeth. For the sincere worshippers of God, such as these two
were, do not lay hold on naked and empty ceremonies, but, eagerly bent on the
truth, they observe them in a spiritual manner. Unholy and hypocritical persons,
though they bestow assiduous toil on outward ceremonies, are yet far from
observing them as they are enjoined by the Lord, and, consequently, do but lose
their labor. In short, under these two words Luke embraces the whole
law.
But if, in keeping the law, Zacharias and Elisabeth
were blameless, they had no need of the grace of Christ; for a full observance
of the law brings life, and, where there is no transgression of it, there is no
remaining guilt. I reply, those magnificent commendations, which are bestowed on
the servants of God, must be taken with some exception. For we ought to consider
in what manner God deals with them. It is according to the covenant which he has
made with them, the first clause of which is a free reconciliation and daily
pardon, by which he forgives their sins. They are accounted
righteous
and
blameless,
because their whole life testifies that they are devoted to righteousness,
that the fear of God dwells in them, so long as they give a holy example. But as
their pious endeavors fall very far short of perfection, they cannot please God
without obtaining pardon. The righteousness which is commended in them depends
on the gracious forbearance of God, who does not reckon to them their remaining
unrighteousness. In this manner we must explain whatever expressions are applied
in Scripture to the righteousness of men, so as not to overturn the forgiveness
of sins, on which it rests as a house does on its foundation. Those who explain
it to mean that Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous by faith, simply because
they freely obtained the favor of God through the Mediator, torture and misapply
the words of Luke. With respect to the subject itself, they state a part of the
truth, but not the whole. I do own that the righteousness which is ascribed to
them ought to be regarded as obtained, not by the merit of works, but by the
grace of Christ; and yet, because the Lord has not imputed to them their sins,
he has been pleased to bestow on their holy, though imperfect life, the
appellation of
righteousness.
The folly of the Papists is easily refuted. With the righteousness of faith
they contrast this righteousness, which is ascribed to Zacharias, which
certainly springs from the former, and, therefore, must be subject, inferior,
and, to use a common expression, subordinate to it, so that there is no
collision between them. The false coloring, too which they give to a single word
is pitiful.
Ordinances,
they tell us, are called
commandments
of the law, and, therefore, they justify us. As if we asserted that true
righteousness is not laid down in the law, or complained that its instruction is
in fault for not justifying us, and not rather that it is weak through our
flesh,
(<450803>Romans
8:3.) In the commandments of God, as we have a hundred times acknowledged, life
is contained,
(<031805>Leviticus
18:5;
<401917>Matthew
19:17;) but this will be of no avail to men, who by nature were altogether
opposed to the law, and, now that they are regenerated by the Spirit of God, are
still very far from observing it in a perfect
manner.
7.
And they had no
child. By an extraordinary purpose of
God it was appointed that John should be born out of the common and ordinary
course of nature. The same thing happened with Isaac,
(<011717>Genesis
17:17;
<012101>Genesis
21:1-3,) in whom God had determined to give an uncommon and remarkable
demonstration of his favor. Elisabeth had been barren in the prime of life, and
now she is in old age, which of itself shuts up the womb. By two hinderances,
therefore, the Lord gives a twofold, surprising exhibition of his power, in
order to testify, by stretching out his hand, as it were, from heaven, that the
Prophet was sent by himself,
(<390301>Malachi
3:1;
<430106>John
1:6.) He is indeed a mortal man, born of earthly parents; but a supernatural
method, so to speak, recommends him strongly as if he had fallen from
heaven.
9.
According to the custom of
the priest’s office. The law
enjoined that incense should be offered twice every day, that is, every morning
and at even,
(<023007>Exodus
30:7, 8.) The order of courses among the priests had been appointed by David, as
we have already explained; and, consequently, what is here stated as to incense
was expressly enjoined by the law of God. The other matters had been arranged by
David,
(<132403>1
Chronicles 24:3,) that each family might have its own turn, though David
ordained nothing which was not prescribed by the law: he only pointed out a plan
by which they might individually perform the service which God had
commanded.
The word
temple
(na<ov)
is here put for the holy
place; which deserves attention, for it
sometimes includes the outer court. Now, Zacharias is spoken of as going into
the temple, which none but priests were permitted to enter. And so Luke says
that the people stood
without,
there being a great distance between them and the altar of incense; for the
altar on which the sacrifices were offered intervened. It ought to be observed
also that Luke says before
God: for whenever the priest entered
into the holy place, he went, as it were, into the presence of God, that he
might be a mediator between him and the people. For it was the will of the Lord
to have this impressed upon his people, that no mortal is allowed to have access
to heaven, without a priest going before; nay that, so long as men live on the
earth, they do not approach the heavenly throne, so as to find favor there, but
in the person of the Mediator. Now, as there were many priests, there were not
two of them permitted to discharge, at the same time, the solemn office of
intercession for the people; but they were so arranged in classes, that only one
entered the Holy Place, and thus there was but one priest at a time. The design
of the incense was to remind believers that the sweet savor of their prayers
does not ascend to heaven except through the sacrifice of the Mediator; and in
what manner those figures apply to us must be learned from the Epistle to the
Hebrews.
12.
Zacharias was
troubled. Though God does not appear to
his servants for the purpose of terrifying them, yet it is advantageous and even
necessary for them to be struck with awe,
(<193308>Psalm
33:8,) that, amidst their agitation, they may learn to give to God the glory due
unto his name,
(<192902>Psalm
29:2.) Nor does Luke relate only that Zacharias was terrified, but adds that
fear fell upon
him; intimating that he was so alarmed
as to give way to terror. The presence of God fills men with alarm, which not
only leads them to reverence, but humbles the pride of the flesh, naturally so
insolent that they never submit themselves to God until they have been overcome
by violence. Hence, too, we infer that it is only when God is absent,—or,
in other words, when they withdraw from his presence,—that they indulge in
pride and self-flattery; for if they had God as a Judge before their eyes, they
would at once and unavoidably fall prostrate. And if at the sight of an angel,
who is but a spark of the Divine light, this happened to Zacharias, on whom the
commendation of
righteousness
is bestowed, what shall become of us miserable creatures, if the majesty of
God shall overwhelm us with its brightness? We are taught by the example of the
holy fathers that those only are impressed with a lively sense of the Divine
presence who shake and tremble at beholding him, and that those are stupid and
insensible who hear his voice without
alarm.
13.
Fear not,
Zacharias. The glory of God, it ought to
be observed, is not so appalling to the saints as to swallow them up entirely
with dread, but only to cast them down from a foolish confidence, that they may
behold him with humility. As soon, therefore, as God has abased the pride of the
flesh in those who believe in him, he stretches out his hand to raise them up.
He acts differently towards the reprobate; for at whatever time they are dragged
before the tribunal of God, they are overwhelmed by absolute despair: and thus
does God justly reward their vain delights, in which they give themselves up to
the intoxicating antonness of sin. We ought, therefore, to accept this
consolation, with which the angel soothes Zacharias, that we have no reason to
fear, when God is gracious to us. For they are greatly mistaken who, in order to
enjoy peace, hide themselves from the face of God, whereas we ought to acquaint
ourselves with him and be at peace,
(<182221>Job
22:21.)
Thy prayer is
heard. Zacharias may seem to have acted
an improper part, and inconsistent with the nature of his office, if, on
entering the Holy Place in the name of all the people, he prayed as a private
man that he might obtain offspring; for, when the priest sustained a public
character, he ought, in forgetfulness as it were of himself, to offer prayers
for the general welfare of the Church. If we say that there was no absurdity in
Zacharias, after performing the chief part of the prayer, devoting the second
part of it to private meditations about himself, the reply will not be without
weight. But it is hardly probable that Zacharias did, at that time, pray to
obtain a son, of which he had despaired on account of his wife’s advanced
age; nor indeed can any precise moment be drawn from the words of the angel. I
interpret it, therefore, simply that his prayer was at length heard, which he
had poured out before God for a long period. That the desire of having children,
if it be not excessive, is consistent with piety and holiness, may be gathered
from Scripture, which assigns to it not the lowest place among the blessings of
God.
Thou shalt call his name
John. The name was given, I think, to
the Baptist in order to heighten the authority of his office.
ˆnhwhy,
(<130315>1
Chronicles 3:15,) for which the Greeks employ
jIwa>nnhv,
signifies in Hebrew the grace of
the Lord. Many suppose that the son of
Zacharias was so called, because he was beloved of God. I rather think that it
was intended to recommend not the grace which God bestowed upon him as a private
individual, but that grace which his mission would bring to all. The force and
weight of the name are increased by its date; for it was before he was born that
God inscribed on him this token of his favor.
LUKE 1:14-17
|
LUKE
1:14-17
|
|
14. And he shall be to thee joy
and exultation, and many shall rejoice on account of his birth.
15. For he shall be great before the Lord, and shall drink
neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even
from his mother's womb. 16. And many of the children of
Israel shall he bring back to the Lord their God. 17. And he
shall go before him with the spirit and power of Elijah, that he may bring back
the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of
the just, that he may make ready a people prepared for the
Lord.
|
14.
He shall be to thee
joy. The angel describes a greater joy
than what Zacharias could derive from the recent birth of a child; for he
informs him that he would have such a son as he had not even ventured to wish.
He even proceeds farther to state that the joy would not be domestic, enjoyed by
the parents alone, or confined within private walls, but shared alike by
strangers, to whom the advantage of his birth should be made known. It is as if
the angel had said that a son would be born not to Zacharias alone, but would be
the Teacher and Prophet of the whole people. The Papists have abused this
passage for the purpose of introducing a profane custom in celebrating the
birth-day of John. I pass over the disorderly scene of a procession accompanied
by dancing and leaping, and licentiousness of every description, strangely
enough employed in observing a day which they pretend to hold sacred, and even
the amusements authorized on that day taken from magical arts and diabolical
tricks, closely resembling the mysteries of the goddess Ceres. It is enough for
me, at present, to show briefly that they absurdly torture the words of the
angel to mean the annual joy of a birth-day, while the angel restricts his
commendation to that joy which all godly persons would derive from the advantage
of his instruction. They rejoiced that a prophet was born to them, by whose
ministry they were led to the hope of
salvation,
15.
For he shall be
great. He confirms what he said
about
joy, for John had been selected for a
great and extraordinary purpose. These words are not so much intended to extol
his eminent virtues as to proclaim his great and glorious office; as Christ,
when he declares that among them
that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the
Baptist,
(<401111>Matthew
11:11,) refers less to the holiness of his life than to his ministry. What
follows immediately afterwards,
he shall drink neither wine nor
strong drink, must not be understood to
mean that John’s abstemiousness was a singular virtue, but that God was
pleased to distinguish his servant by this visible token, by which the world
would acknowledge him to be a continual Nazarite. The priests too abstained from
wine and strong drink, while they were performing their duties in the temple,
(<031009>Leviticus
10:9.) The same abstinence was enjoined on the Nazarites,
(<040603>Numbers
6:3,) until their vow should be fulfilled. By a striking mark God showed that
John was dedicated to him to be a Nazarite for his whole life, as we learn was
also the case with Samson,
(<071303>Judges
13:3, 4.) But we must not on this ground imagine that the worship of God
consists in abstinence from wine, as apish copyists select some part of the
actions of the fathers for an object of imitation. Only let all practice
temperance, let those who conceive it to be injurious to drink wine abstain of
their own accord, and let those who have it not endure the want with
contentment. As to the word
si>kera,
I fully agree with those who think that, like the Hebrew word
rkç,
it denotes any sort of manufactured wine.
He shall be filled with the Holy
Ghost. These words, I think, convey
nothing more than that John would manifest such a disposition as would hold out
the hope of future greatness. By disposition I mean not such as is found even in
ungodly men, but what corresponds to the excellence of his office. The meaning
is, the power and grace of the Spirit will appear in him not only when he shall
enter upon his public employment, but even from the womb he shall excel in the
gifts of the Spirit, which will be a token and pledge of his future character.
From the
womb, means from his earliest infancy.
The power of the Spirit, I acknowledge, did operate in John, while he was yet in
his mother’s womb; but here, in my opinion, the angel meant something
else, that John, even when a child, would be brought forward to the public gaze,
accompanied by extraordinary commendation of the grace of God. As to
fullness,
there is no occasion for entering into the subtle disputations, or rather
the trifling, of the sophists; for Scripture conveys nothing more by this word
than the pre-eminent and very uncommon abundance of the gifts of the Spirit. We
know, that to Christ alone the Spirit was given without measure,
(<430334>John
3:34,)that we may draw out of his fullness,
(<430116>John
1:16 ;) while to others it is distributed according to a fixed measure,
(<461211>1
Corinthians 12:11;
<490407>Ephesians
4:7.) But those who are more plentifully endued with grace beyond the ordinary
capacity, are said to be full of the Holy Ghost. Now, as the more plentiful
influence of the Spirit was in John an extraordinary gift of God, it ought to be
observed that the Spirit is not bestowed on all from their very infancy, but
only when it pleases God. John bore from the womb a token of future rank. Saul,
while tending the herd, remained long without any mark of royalty, and, when at
length chosen to be king, was suddenly turned into another man,
(<091006>1
Samuel 10:6.) Let us learn by this example that, from the earliest infancy to
the latest old age, the operation of the Spirit in men is
free.
16.
And many of the children of
Israel shall he bring back. These words
show the shamefully dissolute conduct which then prevailed in the Church, for
those in whom conversion to God could take place must have been apostates. And
certainly corrupt doctrine, depraved morals, and disorderly government, were
such as to render it next to a miracle that a very few continued in godliness.
But if the ancient Church was so awfully dissolute, it is a frivolous pretext by
which the Papists defend their own superstitions, that it is impossible for the
Church to err, particularly since they include under this designation not the
genuine and elect children of God, but the crowd of the
ungodly.
But John appears to have more ascribed to him here
than belongs to man. For conversion to God renews men to a spiritual fife, and
therefore is not only God’s own work, but surpasses even the creation of
men. In this way ministers might seem to be made equal, and even superior, to
God viewed as Creator; since to be born again to a heavenly life is a greater
work than to be born as mortals on the earth. The answer is easy; for when the
Lord bestows so great praise on the outward doctrine, he does not separate it
from the secret influence of his Spirit. As God chooses men to be his ministers
whose services he employs for the edification of his Church, he at the same time
operates by them, through the secret influence of his Spirit, that their labors
may be efficacious and fruitful. Wherever Scripture applauds this efficacy in
the ministry of men, let us learn to attribute it to the grace of the Spirit,
without which the voice of man would have spent itself uselessly in the air.
Thus, when Paul boasts that he is a minister of the Spirit,
(<470306>2
Corinthians 3:6,) he claims nothing separately for himself, as if by his voice
he penetrated into the hearts of men, but asserts the power and grace of the
Spirit in his ministry. These expressions are worthy of remark; because Satan
labors, with amazing contrivance, to lower the effect of doctrine, in order that
the grace of the Spirit connected with it may be weakened. The outward
preaching, I acknowledge, can do nothing separately or by itself; but as it is
an instrument of divine power for our salvation, and through the grace of the
spirit an efficacious instrument,
what God hath joined together let
us not put asunder,
(<401906>Matthew
19:6.)
That the glory of conversion and faith, on the other
hand, may remain undivided with God alone, Scripture frequently reminds us that
ministers are nothing in themselves; but in such cases he compares them with
God,
that no one may wickedly steal the honor from God and convey it to them. In
short, those whom God, by the aid of the minister, converts to himself, are said
to be converted by the minister, because he is nothing more than the hand of
God; and both are expressly asserted in this passage. Of the efficacy of the
doctrine we have now said enough. That it lies not in the will and power of the
minister to bring men back to God, we conclude from this that John did not
indiscriminately bring all back, (which he would unquestionably have done, if
every thing had yielded to his wish,) but only brought those back whom it
pleased the Lord effectually to call. In a word, what is here taught by the
angel is laid down by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, that faith cometh by
hearing,
(<451017>Romans
10:17,) but that those only to whom the Lord inwardly reveals his arm
(<235301>Isaiah
53:1;
<431238>John
12:38) are so enlightened as to believe.
17.
And he shall go before
him. By these words he points out what
would be John’s office, and distinguishes him by this mark from the other
prophets, who received a certain and peculiar commission, while John was sent
for the sole object of going before Christ, as a herald before a king. Thus also
the Lord speaks by Malachi,
“Behold, I will
send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me,”
(<390301>Malachi
3:1.)
In short, the calling of John had no other design
than to secure for Christ a willing ear, and to prepare for him disciples. As to
the angel making no express mention of Christ in this passage, but declaring
John to be the usher or standard-bearer of the eternal God, we learn from it the
eternal divinity of Christ. With
the spirit and power of Elijah. By the
words spirit and
power, I understand the power or
excellency of the Spirit, with which Elijah was endued; for we must not here
indulge in a dream like that of Pythagoras, that the soul of the prophet passed
into the body of John, but the same Spirit of God, who had acted efficaciously
in Elijah, afterwards exerted a similar power and efficacy in the Baptist. The
latter term,
power,
is added, by way of exposition, to denote the kind of grace which was the
loftiest distinction of Elijah, that, furnished with heavenly power, he restored
in a wonderful manner the decayed worship of God; for such a restoration was
beyond human ability. What John undertook was not less astonishing; and,
therefore, we ought not to wonder if it was necessary for him to enjoy the same
gift.
That he may bring back the hearts
of the fathers. Here the angel points
out the chief resemblance between John and Elijah. He declares that he was sent
to collect the scattered people into the unity of faith: for to
bring back the hearts of the
fathers is to restore them from discord
to reconciliation; from which it follows, that there had been some division
which rent and tore asunder the people. We know how dreadful was the revolt of
the people in the time of Elijah, how basely they had degenerated from the
fathers, so as hardly to deserve to be reckoned the children of Abraham. Those
who were thus disunited Elijah brought into holy harmony. Such was the reunion
of parents with children, which was begun by John, and at length finished by
Christ. Accordingly, when Malachi speaks of “turning the hearts of the
fathers to the children,”
(<390405>Malachi
4:5,) he intimates that the Church would be in a state of confusion when another
Elijah should appear; and what was that state is plain enough from history, and
will more fully appear in the proper place. The doctrine of Scripture had
degenerated through countless inventions, the worship of God was corrupted by
very gross superstition, religion was divided into various sects, priests were
openly wicked and Epicureans, the people indulged in every kind of wickedness;
in short, nothing remained sound. The expression,
bring back the hearts of the
fathers to the children, is not
literally true; for it was rather the
children
who had broken the covenant and departed from the right faith of their
fathers, that needed to be
brought
back. But though the Evangelist does not
so literally express that order of
bringing
back, the meaning is abundantly obvious,
that, by the instrumentality of John, God would again unite in holy harmony
those who had previously been disunited. Both clauses occur in the prophet
Malachi, who meant nothing more than to express a mutual
agreement.
But as men frequently enter into mutual conspiracies
which drive them farther from God, the angel explains, at the same time, the
nature of that bringing
back which he predicts,
the disobedient to the wisdom of
the just. This deserves attention, that
we may not foolishly allow ourselves to be classed with ungodly men under a
false pretense of harmony. Peace is a sounding and imposing term, and, whenever
the Papists meet with it in scripture, they eagerly seize upon it for the
purpose of raising dislike against us, as if we, who are endeavoring to withdraw
the world from its base revolt, and bring it back to Christ, were the authors of
divisions. But this passage affords a fine exposure of their folly, when the
angel explains the manner of a genuine and proper conversion; and declares its
support and link to be the wisdom
of the just. Accursed then be the peace
and unity by which men agree among themselves apart from God.
By the
wisdom of the just is unquestionably
meant Faith, as, on the contrary, by the
disobedient
are meant Unbelievers. And certainly this is a remarkable encomium on faith,
by which we are instructed, that then only are we truly wise unto righteousness
when we obey the word of the Lord. The world too has its wisdom, but a perverse
and therefore destructive wisdom, which is ever pronounced to be vanity; though
the angel indirectly asserts that the shadowy wisdom, in which the children of
the world delight, is depraved and accursed before God. This is therefore a
settled point, that, with the view of becoming reconciled to each other, men
ought first to return to peace with God.
What immediately follows about
making ready a people prepared
for the Lord, agrees with that clause,
that John, as the herald of Christ, would
go
before his face,
(<390301>Malachi
3:1 ;) for the design of his preaching was to make the people attentive to hear
the instruction of Christ. The Greek participle
kateskeuasme>non,
it is true, does not so properly mean perfection as the form and adaptation by
which things are fitted for their use. This meaning will not agree ill with the
present passage. John was commissioned to fit or mould to Christ a people which,
formerly ignorant and uneducated, had never shown a desire to
learn.
LUKE 1:18-20
|
LUKE
1:18-20
|
|
18. And Zacharias said to the
angel, How shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife is at an advanced
age. 19. And the angel answering said to him, I am Gabriel,
who stand before God, and have been sent to speak to thee, and to convey to thee
these glad tidings. 20. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and
shalt not be able to speak, until the day when these things shall happen;
because thou hast not believed my words, which shall be fulfilled in their
time,
|
And Zacharias said to the
angel. Next follows the doubt of
Zacharias, and the punishment which the Lord inflicted on his unbelief. He had
prayed that he might obtain offspring, and now that it is promised, he
distrusts, as if he had forgotten his own prayers and faith. It might, at first
sight, appear harsh that God is so much offended by his reply. He brings forward
his old age as an objection. Abraham did the same; and yet his faith is so
highly applauded that Paul declares, he
“considered not his
own body now dead, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb,”
(<450419>Romans
4:19,)
but unhesitatingly relied on the truth and power of
God. Zacharias inquires how, or by what proof, he might arrive at certainty. But
Gideon was not blamed for twice asking a sign,
(<070617>Judges
6:17, 37, 39.) Nay more, we are shortly after this informed of Mary’s
objection, How shall this be,
since I know not a man? (ver.
34,) which the angel passes over as if it contained nothing wrong. How comes
it then that God punishes Zacharias so severely, as if he had been guilty of a
very heinous sin? I do acknowledge that, if the words only are considered,
either all were equally to blame, or Zacharias did nothing wrong. But as the
actions and words of men must be judged from the state of the heart, we ought
rather to abide by the judgment of God, to whom the hidden secrets of the heart
are naked and opened,
(<580413>Hebrews
4:13.)
Unquestionably, the Lord beheld in Zacharias
something worse than his words may bear, and therefore his anger was kindled
against him for throwing back with distrust the promised favor. We have no
right, indeed, to lay down a law to God which would not leave him free to punish
in one the fault which he pardons in others. But it is very evident that the
case of Zacharias was widely different from that of Abraham, or Gideon, or Mary.
This does not appear in the words; and therefore the knowledge of it must be
left to God, whose eyes pierce the depths of the heart. Thus God distinguishes
between Sarah’s laugh
(<011812>Genesis
18:12) and Abraham’s,
(<011717>Genesis
17:17,) though the one apparently does not differ from the other. The reason why
Zacharias doubted was, that, stopping at the ordinary course of nature, he
ascribed less than he ought to have done to the power of God. They take a narrow
and disparaging view of the works of God, who believe that he will do no more
than nature holds out to be probable, as if his hand were limited to our senses
or confined to earthly means. But it belongs to faith to believe that more can
be done than carnal reason admits. Zacharias had no hesitation with regard to
its being the voice of God, but as he looked too exclusively at the world, an
indirect doubt arose in his mind if what he had heard would really happen. In
that respect he did no slight injury to God, for he went so far as to reason
with himself, whether God, who had undoubtedly spoken to him, should be regarded
as worthy of credit.
At the same time, we ought to know that Zacharias was
not so unbelieving as to turn aside wholly from the faith; for there is a
general faith which embraces the promise of eternal salvation and the testimony
of a free adoption. On the other hand, when God has once received us into favor,
he gives us many special promises,—that he will feed us, will deliver us
from dangers, will vindicate our reputation, will protect our life;—and so
there is a special faith which answers particularly to each of these promises.
Thus, it will sometimes happen, that one who trusts in God for the pardon of his
sins, and for salvation, will waver on some point,—will be too much
alarmed by the dread of death, too solicitous about daily food, or too anxious
about his plans. Such was the unbelief of Zacharias; for while he held the root
and foundation of faith, he hesitated only on one point, whether God would give
to him a son. Let us know, therefore, that those who are perplexed or disturbed
by weakness on some particular occasion do not entirely depart or fall off from
the faith, and that, though the branches of faith are agitated by various
tempests, it does not give way at the root. Besides, nothing was farther from
the intention of Zacharias than to call in question the truth of a divine
promise; but while he was convinced generally that God is faithful, he was
cunningly drawn by the craft and wiles of Satan to draw a wicked distinction. It
is all the more necessary for us to keep diligent watch: for which of us shall
be secure against the snares of the devil, when we learn that a man so eminently
holy, who had all his life maintained strict watchfulness over himself, was
overtaken by them?
19. I
am
Gabriel. By these words the angel
intimates that it was not his veracity, but that of God who sent him, and whose
message he brought, that had been questioned; and so he charges Zacharias with
having offered an insult to God. To
stand before
God signifies to be ready to yield
obedience. It implies that he is not a mortal man, but a heavenly
spirits—that he did not fly hither at random, but, as became a servant of
God, had faithfully performed his duty: and hence it follows that
God,
the author of the promise, had been treated with indignity and contempt in
the person of his ambassador. Of similar import is the declaration of Christ,
“he that despiseth you
despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent
me,”
(<421016>Luke
10:16.) Although the preaching of the gospel is not brought to us from
heaven by angels, yet, since God attested by so many miracles that he was its
author, and since Christ, the Prince and Lord of angels, once published it with
his own mouth,
(<580102>Hebrews
1:2,) that he might give it a perpetual sanction, its majesty ought to make as
deep an impression upon us, as if all the angels were heard loudly proclaiming
its attestation from heaven. Nay, the apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
not satisfied with elevating the word of the gospel, which speaks by the mouth
of men, to an equality with the law brought by angels, draws an argument from
the less to the greater.
“If the word spoken
by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just
recompence of rewards”
(<580202>Hebrews
2:2,)
“of
how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath
trodden under foot the Son of
God,”
(<581029>Hebrews
10:29,)
whose “voice shakes not the earth only, but
also heaven?”
(<581226>Hebrews
12:26.) Let us learn to render to God the obedience of faith, which he values
more highly than all sacrifices.
Gabriel
means the strength, or power, or pre-eminence of God, and this name is given
to the angel on our account, to instruct us that we must not ascribe to angels
any thing of their own, for whatever excellence they possess is from God. The
Greek participle,
paresthkw<v,
(standing,)
is in the past tense, but everybody knows that the past tense of such verbs
is often taken for the present, and particularly when a continued act is
expressed. The word
eujaggeli>sasqai
(to convey glad tidings)
aggravates the crime of Zacharias; for
he was ungrateful to God, who kindly promised a joyful and desirable
event.
20.
And, behold, thou shalt be
dumb. It was suitable that this kind of
punishment should be inflicted on Zacharias, that, being dumb, he might await
the fulfillment of the promise, which, instead of interrupting it by noisy
murmurs, he ought to have heard in silence. Faith has its silence to lend an ear
to the Word of God. It has afterwards its turn to speak and to answer Amen,
according to that passage,
“I will say to
them, Thou art my people, and they shall
say,
Thou art my God,”
(<280223>Hosea
2:23.)
But as Zacharias had rashly interrupted the Word of
God, he is not allowed this favor of breaking out immediately in thanksgiving,
but is denied for a time the use of his tongue, which had been too forward. Yet
God is pleased graciously to mitigate the punishment, first, by limiting its
duration to ten months, and next by not withholding from Zacharias the favor
which he was unworthy to enjoy. With the same gentleness does he treat us every
day: for when our faith is weak, and we throw out many obstacles, the truth of
God, in continuing to flow toward us, must of necessity break through them with
a kind of violence. That is the angel’s meaning, when he reproaches
Zacharias with unbelief, and yet declares that those things which Zacharias did
not believe would be accomplished
in due time. And so Zacharias is not a
little relieved by learning that his fault has not made void the promise of God,
which will afterwards be displayed in a more remarkable manner. It does
sometimes happen that, notwithstanding the opposition made by unbelievers, the
Lord bestows and fulfils what he had promised to them. We have a remarkable
instance of this in King Ahaz, who rejected the promised safety, and yet was
delivered from his enemies,
(<230712>Isaiah
7:12.) But that resulted, without any advantage to him, in the salvation of the
chosen people. It was otherwise with Zacharias, in whom the Lord chastises, and
at the same time pardons, the weakness of faith.
LUKE 1:21-25
|
LUKE
1:21-25
|
|
21. And the people were waiting
for Zacharias, and wondered that he tarried in the temple.
22. And when he came out, he could not speak to them: and
they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he made them to
understand by signs, f5
and remained speechless.
23. And it happened, when the days of his office were
fulfilled, he departed to his own house. 24. Now after these
days Elisabeth his wife conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
25. Thus hath the Lord done to me in the days when he looked,
that he might take away my reproach among men.
|
21.
And the people were
waiting. Luke now relates that the
people were witnesses of this vision. Zacharias had tarried in the temple longer
than usual. This leads to the supposition that something uncommon has happened
to him. When he comes out, he makes known, by looks and gestures, that he has
been struck dumb. There is reason to believe, also, that there were traces of
alarm in his countenance. Hence they conclude that God has appeared to him.
True, there were few or no visions in that age, but the people remembered that
formerly, in the time of their fathers, they were of frequent occurrence. It is
not without reason, therefore, that they draw this conclusion from obvious
symptoms: for it was not an ordinary occurrence, [it was not a common accident,
but rather an astonishing work of God,
f6] that he became suddenly dumb
without disease, and after a more than ordinary delay came out of the temple in
a state of amazement. The word
temple,
as we have already mentioned, is put for the sanctuary, where the altar of
incense stood,
(<023001>Exodus
30:1.) From this place the priests, after performing their sacred functions,
were wont to go out into their own court, for the purpose of blessing the
people.
23.
When the days were
fulfilled.
Leitourgi>a
is employed by Luke to denote a charge or office, which passed, as we have
said, to each of them in regular order,
(<132403>1
Chronicles 24:3.) We are told that, when the time of his office had expired,
Zacharias returned home. Hence we conclude that, so long as the priests were
attending in their turns, they did not enter their own houses, that they might
be entirely devoted and attached to the worship of God. For this purpose
galleries were constructed around the walls of the temple, in which they had
“chambers,”
(<110605>1
Kings 6:5.) The law did not, indeed, forbid a priest to enter his house, but, as
it did not permit those who ate the show-bread to come near their wives,
(<092104>1
Samuel 21:4,) and as many persons were disposed to treat sacred things in an
irreverent manner, this was probably discovered to be a remedy, that, being
removed from all temptations, they might preserve themselves pure and clear from
every defilement. And they were not only discharged from intercourse with their
wives, but from the use of wine and every kind of intoxicating drink,
(<031009>Leviticus
10:9.) While they were commanded to change their mode of living, it was
advantageous for them not to depart from the temple, that the very sight of the
place might remind them to cultivate such purity as the Lord had enjoined. It
was proper also to withdraw every means of gratification, that they might devote
themselves more unreservedly to their office.
The Papists of the present day employ this as a
pretense for defending the tyrannical law of celibacy. They argue thus. The
priests were formerly enjoined to withdraw from their wives, while they were
engaged in religious services. Most properly is perpetual continence now
demanded from the priests, who not in their turn, but every day, offer
sacrifices; more especially since the importance of religious services is far
higher than it was under the law. But I should like to know why they do not also
abstain from wine and strong drink. For we are not at liberty to separate
commandments which God has joined, so as to keep the one half and disregard the
other. Intercourse with wives is not so expressly forbidden as the drinking of
wine,
(<264421>Ezekiel
44:21.) If, under the pretense of the law, the Pope enjoins celibacy on his
priests, why does he allow them wine? Nay, on this principle, all priests ought
to be thrown into some retired apartments of the churches, to pass their whole
life immured in prisons, and excluded from the society of women and of the
people.
It is now abundantly clear that they wickedly shelter
themselves under the law of God, to which they do not adhere. But the full
solution of the difficulty depends on the distinction between the law and the
gospel. A priest stood in the presence of God, to expiate the sins of the
people, to be, as it were, a mediator between God and men. He who sustained that
character ought to have had something peculiar about him, that he might be
distinguished from the common rank of men, and recognised as a figure of the
true Mediator. Such, too, was the design of the holy garments and the anointing.
In our day the public ministers and pastors of the church have nothing of this
description. I speak of the ministers whom Christ has appointed to feed his
flock, not of those whom the Pope commissions, as executioners rather than
priests, to murder Christ. Let us therefore rest in the decision of the Spirit,
which pronounces that “marriage is honorable in all,”
(<581304>Hebrews
13:4.)
24.
And hid
herself. This appears very strange, as
if she had been ashamed of the blessing of God. Some think that she did not,
venture to appear in public, so long as the matter was uncertain, for fear of
exposing herself to ridicule, if her expectation were disappointed. In my
opinion, she was so fully convinced of the promise made to her, that she had no
doubt of its accomplishment. When she saw a severe punishment inflicted on her
husband for “speaking unadvisedly with his lips,”
(<19A633>Psalm
106:33,) did she, for five successive months, cherish in her mind a similar
doubt? But her words show clearly that her expectation was not doubtful or
uncertain. By saying, thus hath
the Lord done to me, she expressly and
boldly affirms that his favor was ascertained. There might be two reasons for
the delay. Until this extraordinary work of God was manifest, she might hesitate
to expose it to the diversified opinions of men, for the world frequently
indulges in light, rash, and irreverent talking about the works of God. Another
reason might be that, when she was all at once discovered to be pregnant, men
might be more powerfully excited to praise God. [For, when the works of God show
themselves gradually, in process of time we make less account of them than if
the thing had been accomplished all at once, without our having ever heard of
it—Fr.] It was not, therefore, on her own account, but rather with a view
to others, that Elisabeth hid
herself.
25.
Thus hath the Lord done to
me. She extols in private the goodness
of God, until the time is fully come for making it generally known. There is
reason to believe that her husband had informed her by writing of the promised
offspring, in consequence of which she affirms with greater certainty and
freedom that God was the author of this favor. This is confirmed by the
following words, when he looked,
that he might take away my reproach; for
she assigns it as the cause of her barrenness that the favor of God had been at
that time withdrawn from her. Among earthly blessings, Scripture speaks in the
highest terms of the gift of offspring. And justly: for, if the productiveness
of the inferior animals is his blessing, the increase and fruitfulness of the
human race ought to be reckoned a much higher favor. It is no small or mean
honor, that God, who alone is entitled to be regarded as a Father, admits the
children of the dust to share with him this title. Let us, therefore, hold this
doctrine, that
“children are an
heritage of the Lord,
and the fruit
of the womb is his reward,”
(<19C703>Psalm
127:3.)
But Elisabeth looked farther; for, though barren and
old, she had conceived by a remarkable miracle, and contrary to the ordinary
course of nature.
That he might take away my
reproach. Not without reason has
barrenness been always accounted a
reproach:
for the blessing of the womb is enumerated among the signal instances of the
divine kindness. Some think that this was peculiar to the ancient people:
because Christ was to come from the seed of Abraham. But this had no reference,
except to the tribe of Judah. Others think more correctly that the
multiplication of the holy people was happy and blessed, as was said to Abraham,
“I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth,”
(<011316>Genesis
13:16;) and again,
“Tell the stars, if
thou be able to number them: so shall thy seed be,”
(<011505>Genesis
15:5.)
But we ought to connect the universal blessing, which
extends to the whole human race, with the promise made to Abraham, which is
peculiar to the church of God,
(<011315>Genesis
13:15.) Let parents learn to be thankful to God for the children which he has
given them, and let those who have no offspring acknowledge that God has humbled
them in this matter. Elisabeth speaks of it exclusively as a reproach
among
men: for it is a temporal chastisement,
from which we will suffer no loss in the kingdom of heaven.
LUKE 1:26-33
|
LUKE
1:26-33
|
|
26. Now in the sixth month the
angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27. To a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of
the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28. And
the angel, coming in to her, said, Hail, thou who hast found favor, the Lord is
with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29. But when she had
seen him, she was agitated by his address, and was considering what that
salutation would be. 30. And the angel saith to her, Fear
not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31. Behold,
thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and thou shalt
call his name JESUS. 32. He shall be great, and shall be
called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of
David his father: 33. And he shall reign over the house of
Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
|
26. Now
in the sixth
month. It was a wonderful dispensation
of the divine purpose, and far removed from the ordinary judgment of men, that
God determined to make the beginning of the generation of the herald more
illustrious than that of his own Son. The prophecy respecting John was published
in the temple and universally known: Christ is promised to a virgin in an
obscure town of Judea, and this prophecy remains buried in the breast of a young
woman. But it was proper that, even from the birth of Christ, that saying should
be fulfilled,
“it
pleased God by foolishness to save them that
believe,”
(<460121>1
Corinthians 1:21.)
The treasure of this mystery was committed by him to
a virgin in such a manner, that at length, when the proper time came, it might
be communicated to all the godly. It was, I own, a mean kind of guardianship;
but whether for trying the humility of faith, or restraining the pride of the
ungodly, it was the best adapted. Let us learn, even when the reason does not
immediately appear, to submit modestly to God, and let us not be ashamed to
receive instruction from her who carried in her womb Christ the eternal
“wisdom of God,”
(<460124>1
Corinthians 1:24.) There is nothing which we should more carefully avoid than
the proud contempt that would deprive us of the knowledge of the inestimable
secret, which God has purposely
“hid from the wise
and prudent, and revealed” to the humble
and “to
babes,”
(<421021>Luke
10:21.)
It was, I think, for the same reason that he chose
a virgin betrothed to a
man. There is no foundation for
Origen’s opinion, that he did this for the purpose of concealing from
Satan the salvation which he was preparing to bestow on men. The marriage was a
veil held out before the eyes of the world, that he who was commonly
“supposed to be the
son of Joseph”
(<420323>Luke
3:23) might at length be believed and acknowledged by the godly to be the
Son of God. Yet the entrance of Christ into the world was not destitute of
glory; for the splendor of his Godhead was manifested from the commencement by
his heavenly Father. Angels announced that
“a Savior was
born,”
(<420211>Luke
2:11;) but their voice was only heard by the shepherds, and traveled no
farther. One miracle,—everywhere published by
“the wise men who
came from the east,”
(<400201>Matthew
2:1) that they had seen a star which proclaimed the birth of the Highest
King,—may have been highly celebrated. Yet we see how God kept his Son, as
it were, in concealment, until the time of his full manifestation arrived, and
then erected for him a platform, that he might be beheld by
all.
The participle
memnhsteume>nhn,
which is employed by the Evangelist, signifies that the virgin had then been
engaged to her bridegroom, but was not yet given as a wife to her husband. For
it was customary among Jewish parents to keep their daughters some time at home,
after they had been betrothed to men; otherwise, the law relating to the
seduction of a “betrothed damsel”
(<052223>Deuteronomy
22:23) would have been unnecessary. Luke says that
Joseph was of the house of
David; for families are usually reckoned
by the names of the men; but on this point we shall speak more fully in another
place.
28.
Hail, thou who hast obtained
favor. The angel’s commission
being of an astonishing and almost incredible description, he opens it with a
commendation of the grace of God. And certainly, since our limited capacities
admit too slender a portion of knowledge for comprehending the vast greatness of
the works of God, our best remedy is, to elevate them to meditation on his
boundless grace. A conviction of the Divine goodness is the entrance of faith,
and the angel properly observes this order, that, after preparing the heart of
the virgin by meditation on the grace of God, he may enlarge it to receive an
incomprehensible mystery. For the participle
kecaritwme>nh,
which Luke employs, denotes the undeserved favor of God. This appears more
clearly from the Epistle to the Ephesians, (1:6,) where, speaking of our
reconciliation to
God,
Paul says, God “hath made us accepted
(ejcari>twsen)
in the Beloved:” that is, he has received into his favor, and embraced
with kindness, us who were formerly his enemies.
The angel adds,
the Lord is with
thee. To those on whom he has once
bestowed his love God shows himself gracious and kind, follows and
“crowns them with loving-kindness,”
(<19A304>Psalm
103:4.) Next comes the third clause, that she is
blessed among women.
Blessing is here put down as the result
and proof of the Divine kindness. The word
Blessed
does not, in my opinion, mean, Worthy of praise; but rather means, Happy.
Thus,
Paul often supplicates for believers, first “grace” and then
“peace,” (Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:2,) that is, every kind of
blessings; implying that we shall then be truly happy and rich, when we are
beloved by God, from whom all blessings proceed. But if Mary’s happiness,
righteousness, and life, flow from the undeserved love of God, if her virtues
and all her excellence are nothing more than the Divine kindness, it is the
height of absurdity to tell us that we should seek from her what she derives
from another quarter in the same manner as ourselves. With extraordinary
ignorance have the Papists, by an enchanter’s trick, changed this
salutation into a prayer, and have carried their folly so far, that their
preachers are not permitted, in the pulpit, to implore the grace of the Spirit,
except through their Hail,
Mary.
f7 But not only are these words a
simple congratulation. They unwarrantably assume an office which does not belong
to them, and which God committed to none but an angel. Their silly ambition
leads them into a second blunder, for they salute a person who is
absent.
29.
When she had seen him, she
was agitated. Luke does not say that
she was
agitated by the presence of the angel,
but by his
address. Why then does he also mention
his presence?
f8 The reason, I think, is this.
Perceiving in the angel something of heavenly glory, she was seized with sudden
dread arising out of reverence for God.
She was
agitated, because she felt that she had
received a salutation, not from a mortal man, but from an angel of God. But Luke
does not say that she was so
agitated
as to have lost recollection. On the contrary, he mentions an indication of
an attentive and composed mind; for he afterwards adds,
and was considering what that
salutation would be: that is, what was
its object, and what was its meaning. It instantly occurred to her that the
angel had not been sent for a trifling purpose. This example reminds us, first,
that we ought not to be careless observers of the works of God; and, secondly,
that our consideration of them ought to be regulated by fear and
reverence.
30.
Fear not,
Mary. He bids her lay aside fear. Let us
always remember—what arises from the weakness of the flesh—that,
whenever the feeblest ray of the Divine glory bursts upon us, we cannot avoid
being alarmed. When we become aware, in good earnest, of the presence of
God,
we cannot think of it apart from its
effects.
f9 Accordingly, as we are all amenable
to his tribunal, fear gives rise to trembling, until God manifests himself as a
Father. The holy virgin saw in her own nation such a mass of crimes, that she
had good reason for dreading heavier punishments. To remove this fear, the angel
declares that he has come to certify and announce an inestimable blessing. The
Hebrew idiom, Thou hast found
favor, is used by Luke instead of,
“God has been merciful to thee:” for a person is said to
find
favor, not when he has sought it, but
when it has been freely offered to him. Instances of this are so well known,
that it would be of no use to quote them.
31.
Behold, thou shalt conceive
in thy womb. The angel adapts his words,
first to Isaiah’s prophecy,
(<230714>Isaiah
7:14,) and next to other passages of the Prophets, with the view of affecting
more powerfully the mind of the virgin: for such prophecies were well known and
highly esteemed among the godly. At the same time, it ought to be observed that
the angel did not merely speak in private to the ear of the virgin, but brought
glad
tidings,
(eujagge>lion,)
which were shortly afterwards to be published throughout the whole world. It
was not without the purpose of God, that the agreement, between ancient
prophecies and the present message respecting the manifestation of Christ, was
so clearly pointed out. The word
conceive
is enough to set aside the dream of Marcion and Manichaeus: for it is easy
to gather from it that Mary brought forth not an ethereal body or phantom, but
the fruit which she had previously conceived in her womb.
Thou shalt call his name
Jesus. The reason of the name is given
by Matthew: for he shall save his
people from their sins,
(<400121>Matthew
1:21.) And so the name contains a promise of salvation, and points out the
object for which
Christ
was sent by the Father into the world, as he tells us that he “came
not to judge the world, but to save the world,”
(<431247>John
12:47.) Let us remember that not by the will of men, but by the command of God,
was this name given to him by the angel, that our faith may have its foundation,
not in earth, but in heaven. It is derived from the Hebrew word
[çy,
salvation, from which comes
[yçwh,
which signifies to save. It is a waste of ingenuity to contend that it differs
from the Hebrew name
[wçwhy,
(Jehoshua or Joshua.) The Rabbins everywhere write the word
Jesu;
and they do this with evident malice, that they may not bestow on Christ an
honorable name, but, on the contrary, may insinuate that he is some pretended
Jew. Their manner of writing it, accordingly, is of no more importance than the
barking of a dog. The objection that it is far beneath the dignity of the Son of
God to have a name in common with others, might equally apply to the name
Christ,
or
Anointed.
But the solution of both is easy. What was exhibited in shadow under the law
is fully and actually manifested in the Son of God; or, what was then a figure
is in him a substance. There is another objection of as little weight. They
assert that the name of Jesus is not worthy of veneration and awe, that at the
name of Jesus every knee should bow,
(<502609>Philippians
2:9, 10,) if it does not belong exclusively to the Son of God. For Paul does not
attribute to him a magical name, as if in its very syllables majesty resided,
but his language simply means that Christ has received from the Father the
highest authority, to which the whole world ought to submit. Let us then bid
adieu to such imaginations, and know, that the name
Jesus
was given to Christ, in order that believers may be instructed to seek in
him what had formerly been shadowed out under the
Law.
32.
He shall be
great. The angel had said the same thing
about John the Baptist, and yet did not intend to make him equal to Christ. But
the Baptist is great in his own class, while the greatness of Christ is
immediately explained to be such as raises him above all creatures. For to him
alone this belongs as his own peculiar prerogative to be called the Son of God.
So the apostle argues.
Unto which of the angels
said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
(<580105>Hebrews
1:5.)
Angels and kings, I admit, are sometimes dignified
with this title in Scripture; but they are denominated in common the sons of
God, on account of their high rank. But it is perfectly clear and certain, that
God distinguishes his own Son from all the others, when he thus addresses him
particularly, Thou art my Son,
(<190207>Psalm
2:7.) Christ is not confounded either with angels or with men, so as to be one
of the multitude of the sons of God; but what is given to him no other has a
right to claim. The sons of God are kings, not certainly by natural right, but
because God has bestowed on them so great an honor. Even angels have no right to
this distinction, except on account of their high rank among creatures, in
subordination to the Great Head,
(<490121>Ephesians
1:21.) We too are sons, but by adoption, which we obtain by faith; for we have
it not from nature: Christ is the only Son, the only-begotten of the Father,
(<430114>John
1:14.)
The future tense of the verb, he SHALL BE CALLED
the Son of the
Highest, is tortured by that filthy
dog f10
Servetus to prove that Christ is not the eternal Son of
God,
but began to be so considered, when he took upon him our flesh. This is an
intolerable slander. He argues that Christ was not the Son of God before he
appeared in the world clothed with flesh; because the angel says,
He shall be
called. On the contrary, I maintain, the
words of the angel mean nothing more than that he, who had been the Son of God
from eternity, would be manifested as such in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16;) for
to be
called denotes clear knowledge. There is
a wide difference between the two statements,—that Christ began to be the
Son of God, which he was not before,—and that he was manifested among men,
in order that they might know him to be the person who had been formerly
promised. Certainly, in every age God has been addressed by his people as a
Father, and hence it follows, that he had a Son in heaven, from whom and by whom
men obtained the sonship. For men take too much upon them, if they venture to
boast of being the sons of God, in any other respect than as members of the
only-begotten Son,
(<430118>John
1:18.) Certain it is, that confidence in the Son alone, as Mediator, inspired
the holy fathers with confidence to employ so honorable an address. That more
complete knowledge, of which we are now speaking, is elsewhere explained by Paul
to mean, that we are now at liberty not only to call God our Father, but boldly
to cry, Abba, Father,
(<450815>Romans
8:15;
<480406>Galatians
4:6.)
The Lord God will give unto him the
throne of his father David. We have said
that the angel borrows from the prophets the titles which he bestows on Christ,
in order that the holy virgin might more readily acknowledge him to be the
Redeemer formerly promised to the fathers. Whenever the prophets speak of the
restoration of the church, they direct all the hope of believers to the kingdom
of David, so that it became a common maxim among the Jews, that the safety of
the church would depend on the prosperous condition of that kingdom, and that
nothing was more fitting and suitable to the office of the Messiah than to raise
up anew the kingdom of David. Accordingly, the name of David is sometimes
applied to the Messiah. “They shall serve the Lord their
God, and David their king,”
(<243009>Jeremiah
30:9.) Again, “my servant David shall be a prince among them,”
(<263424>Ezekiel
34:24; 37:24.) “They shall seek the Lord their God, and David their
king,”
(<280305>Hosea
3:5.) The passages in which he is called “the son of
David” are sufficiently well known. In a word, the angel declares that in
the person of Christ would be fulfilled the prediction of Amos, “In
that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,”
(<300911>Amos
9:11.)
33.
And he shall reign over the
house of Jacob. As salvation was
promised, in a peculiar manner, to the Jews, (the covenant having been made with
their father Abraham,
<011707>Genesis
17:7,) and Christ, as Paul informs us, “was a minister of the
circumcision,”
(<451508>Romans
15:8,) the angel properly fixed his reign in that nation, as its peculiar seat
and residence. But this is in perfect accordance with other predictions, which
spread and extend the kingdom of Christ to the utmost limits of the earth. By a
new and wonderful adoption, God has admitted into the family of Jacob the
Gentiles, who formerly were strangers; though in such a manner that the Jews, as
the first-born, held a preferable rank; as it is said, “The Lord shall
send the rod of thy strength out of Zion,”
(<19B003>Psalm
110:3.) Christ’s throne was, therefore, erected among the people of
Israel, that he might thence subdue the whole world. All whom he has joined by
faith to the children of Abraham are accounted the true Israel. Though the Jews,
by their revolt, have separated themselves from the church of God, yet the Lord
will always preserve till the end some “remnants”
(<451105>Romans
11:5;) for his “calling is without repentances”
(<451129>Romans
11:29.) The body of the people is apparently cut off; but we ought to remember
the
mystery
of which Paul speaks,
(<451125>Romans
11:25,) that God will at length gather some of the Jews out of the dispersion.
Meanwhile, the church, which is scattered through the whole world, is the
spiritual house of
Jacob; for it drew its origin from
Zion.
For
ever. The angel points out the sense in
which it was so frequently predicted by the prophets that the kingdom of David
would be without end. It was only during his own reign and that of Solomon, that
it remained wealthy and powerful Rehoboam, the third successor, hardly retained
a tribe and a half. The angel now declares that, when it has been established in
the person of Christ, it will not be liable to destruction, and, to prove this,
employs the words of Daniel, (7:14,)
of his kingdom there shall be no
end.
f11 Though the meaning of the words
is, that God will for ever protect and defend the kingdom of Christ and the
church, so that it shall not perish on the earth “as long as the sun and
moon endure,”
(<197205>Psalm
72:5, 17,) yet its true perpetuity relates to the glory to come. So then,
believers follow each other in this life, by an uninterrupted succession, till
at length they are gathered together in heaven, where they shall reign without
end.
LUKE 1:34-38
|
LUKE
1:34-38
|
|
34. And Mary said to the angel,
How shall this be, since I know not a man? 35. And the angel
answering said to her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which shall be born
shall be called the Son of God. 36. And, behold, Elisabeth
thy cousin, even she hath conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth
month to her who was called barren: 37. For no word shall be
impossible with God. 38. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid
of the Lord: be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from
her.
|
34.
How shall this
be? The holy virgin appears to confine
the power of God within as narrow limits as Zacharias had formerly done; for
what is beyond the common order of nature, she concludes to be impossible. She
reasons in this manner. I know
not a man: how then can I believe that
what you tell me will happen? We ought not to give ourselves very much
trouble, f12
to acquit her of all blame. She ought immediately to have risen by faith to the
boundless power of God, which is not at all lettered to natural means, but sways
the whole world. Instead of this, she stops at the ordinary way of generation.
Still, it must be admitted that she does not hesitate or inquire in such a
manner as to lower the power of God to the level of her senses; but is only
carried away by a sudden impulse of astonishment to put this question. That she
readily embraced the promise may be concluded from this, that, though many
things presented themselves on the opposite side, she has no doubt but on one
point.
She might instantly have objected, where was that
throne of
David? for all the rank of kingly power
had been long ago set aside, and all the luster of royal descent had been
extinguished. Unquestionably, if she had formed her opinion of the matter
according to the judgment of the flesh, she would have treated as a fable what
the angel had told her. There can be no doubt that she was fully convinced of
the restoration of the church, and easily gave way to what the flesh would have
pronounced to be incredible. And then it is probable that the attention of the
public was everywhere directed at that time to the prediction of Isaiah,
in which God promises that he would raise up a rod out of the despised
stem of Jesse,
(<231101>Isaiah
11:1.) That persuasion of the kindness of God, which had been formed in the mind
of the virgin, led her to admit, in the fullest manner, that she had received a
message as to raising up anew the throne of David. If it be objected that there
was also another prediction, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
(<230714>Isaiah
7:14,) I reply, that this mystery was then very imperfectly understood. True,
the Fathers expected the birth of a King, under whose reign the people of God
would be happy and prosperous; but the manner of its accomplishment lay
concealed, as if it had been hidden by a veil. There is no wonder,
therefore, if the holy virgin puts a question on a subject hitherto unknown to
her.
The conjecture which some have drawn from these
words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and
altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing
herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy
covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God.
Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they
have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at
her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a
monastic life existed among the Jews.
We must reply, however, to another objection, that
the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no
intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is, that the
greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the
virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment. When she
is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual,
and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks
out in amazement, How shall this
be? And so God graciously forgives her,
and replies kindly and gently by the angel, because, in a devout and serious
manner, and with admiration of a divine work, she had inquired
how that would
be, which, she was convinced, went
beyond the common and ordinary course of nature. In a word, this question was
not so contrary to faith, because it arose rather from admiration than from
distrust.
35.
The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee. The angel does not explain
the manner, so as to satisfy curiosity, which there was no necessity for doing.
He only leads the virgin to contemplate the power of the Holy Spirit, and to
surrender herself silently and calmly to his guidance. The word
ejpeleu>setai,
shall come
upon, denotes that this would be an
extraordinary work, in which natural means have no place. The next clause is
added by way of exposition, and
the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee: for the Spirit may be regarded as
the essential power of God, whose energy is manifested and exerted in the entire
government of the world, as well as in miraculous events. There is an elegant
metaphor in the word
ejpiskia>sei,
overshadow.
The
power
of God, by which he guards and protects his own people, is frequently
compared in Scripture to a
shadow,
(Psalm 17:8; 57:1; 91:1.) But it appears to have another and peculiar
meaning in this passage. The operation of the Spirit would be secret, as if an
intervening cloud did not permit it to be beheld by the eyes of men. Now, as
God, in performing miracles, withholds from us the manner of his proceedings, so
what he chooses to conceal from us ought to be viewed, on our part, with
seriousness and adoration.
Therefore also the holy thing which
shall be born. This is a confirmation of
the preceding clause: for the angel shows that Christ must not be born by
ordinary generation,
f13 that he may be
holy,
and that he may be the Son of
God; that is, that in holiness and glory
he may be high above all creatures, and may not hold an ordinary rank among men.
Heretics, who imagine that he became the Son of God after his human generation,
seize on the particle
therefore
as meaning that he would be called the Son of God,
because
he was conceived in a remarkable manner by the power of the Holy Spirit. But
this is a false conclusion: for, though he was manifested to be the Son of God
in the flesh, it does not follow that he was not the Word begotten of the Father
before the ages. On the contrary, he who had been the Son of God in his eternal
Godhead, appeared also as the Son of God in human flesh. This passage not only
expresses a unity of person in Christ, but at the same time points out that, in
clothing himself with human flesh, Christ is the Son of God. As the name, Son
of
God, belonged to the divine essence of
Christ from the beginning, so now it is applied unitedly to both natures,
because the secret and heavenly manner of generation has separated him from the
ordinary rank of men. In other passages, indeed, with the view of asserting that
he is truly man, he calls himself the Son of man,
(<430527>John
5:27;) but the truth of his human nature is not inconsistent with his deriving
peculiar honor above all others from his divine generation, having been
conceived out of the ordinary way of nature by the Holy Spirit. This gives us
good reason for growing confidence, that we may venture more freely to call God
our Father, because his only Son, in order that we might have a Father in common
with him, chose to be our brother.
It ought to be observed also that Christ, because he
was conceived by a spiritual power, is called
the holy
seed. For, as it was necessary that he
should be a real man, in order that he might expiate our sins, and vanquish
death and Satan in our flesh; so was it necessary, in order to his cleansing
others, that he should be free from every spot and blemish,
(<600119>1
Peter 1:19.) Though Christ was formed of the seed of Abraham, yet he contracted
no defilement from a sinful nature; for the Spirit of God kept him pure from the
very commencement: and this was done not merely that he might abound in personal
holiness, but chiefly that he might sanctify his own people. The manner of
conception, therefore, assures us that we have a Mediator separate from sinners,
(<580726>Hebrews
7:26.)
36.
And, behold, Elisabeth thy
cousin. By an instance taken from her
own relatives, the angel encourages the faith of Mary to expect a miracle. If
neither the barrenness nor the old age of Elisabeth could prevent God from
making her a mother, there was no better reason why Mary should confine her view
within the ordinary limits of nature, when she beheld such a demonstration of
divine power in her
cousin.
He mentions expressly the
sixth month; because in the fifth month
a woman usually feels the child quicken in the womb, so that the
sixth
month removes all doubt. True, Mary
ought to have placed such a reliance on the bare word of God as to require no
support to her faith from any other quarter; but, to prevent farther hesitation,
the Lord condescends to strengthen his promise by this new aid. With equal
indulgence does he cheer and support us every day; nay, with greater indulgence,
because our faith is weaker. That we may not doubt his truth, testimonies to
confirm it are brought by him from every direction.
A question arises, how Elisabeth, who was
of the daughters of
Aaron, (ver. 5,) and Mary, who was
descended from the stock of David, could be
cousins.
This appears to be at variance with the law, which prohibited women from
marrying into a different tribe from their own,
(<043606>Numbers
36:6.) With respect to the law, if we look at its object, it forbade those
intermarriages only which might “remove inheritances from tribe to
tribe,”
(<043607>Numbers
36:7.) No such danger existed, if any woman of the tribe of Judah married a
priest, to whom an inheritance could not be conveyed. The same argument would
hold if a woman of the tribe of Levi passed into another tribe. It is possible
that the mother of the holy virgin might be descended from the family of Aaron,
and so her daughter might be
cousin
to Elisabeth.
37.
For no word shall be
impossible with God. If we choose to
take
rJh~ma,
word,
in its strict and native sense, the meaning is, that God will do what he
hath promised, for no hinderance can resist his power. The argument will be, God
hath promised, and therefore he will accomplish it; for we ought not to allege
any impossibility in opposition to his
word.
But as a
word
often means a
thing
in the idiom of the Hebrew language, (which the Evangelists followed, though
they wrote in Greek,
f14 ) we explain it more simply, that
nothing is impossible with
God. We ought always, in- deed, to hold
it as a maxim, that they wander widely from the truth who, at their pleasure,
imagine the power of God to be something beyond his
word;
for we ought always to contemplate his boundless power, that it may
strengthen our hope and confidence. But it is idle, and unprofitable, and even
dangerous, to argue what God can do unless we also take into account what he
resolves to do. The angel does here what God frequently does in Scripture,
employs a general doctrine to confirm one kind of promise. This is the true and
proper use of a general doctrine, to apply its scattered promises to the present
subject, whenever we are uneasy or distressed; for so long as they retain their
general form, they make little impression upon us. We need not wonder if Mary is
reminded by the angel of the power of God; for our distrust of it diminishes
very greatly our confidence in the promises. All acknowledge in words that God
is Almighty; but, if he promises any thing beyond what we are able to
comprehend, we remain in doubt.
f15 Whence comes this but from our
ascribing to his power nothing more than what our senses receive? Thus Paul,
commending the faith of Abraham, says, that he
“gave glory to God,
being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to
perform,”
(<450420>Romans
4:20, 21.)
In another passage, speaking of the hope of eternal
life, he sets before him the promise of God. “I know,” says
he,
“whom I have
believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed
unto him,”
(<550112>2
Timothy 1:12.)
This may seem to be a small portion of faith; for no
man, however wicked, openly denies God’s claim to be Almighty. But he who
has the power of God firmly and thoroughly fixed in his heart will easily
surmount the other obstacles which present themselves to faith. It ought to be
observed, however, that the power of God is viewed by true faith, if I may use
the expression, as
efficacious.
f16 For God is and wishes to be
acknowledged as powerful, that by the accomplishment itself he may prove his
faithfulness.
38.
Behold the handmaid of the
Lord. The holy virgin does not allow
herself to dispute any farther: and yet many things might unquestionably have
obtruded themselves, to repress that faith, and even to draw off her attention
from what was said to her by the angel. But she stops the entrance of opposing
arguments, and compels herself to obey. This is the real proof of faith, when we
restrain our minds, and, as it were, hold them captive, so that they dare not
reply this or that to God: for boldness in disputing, on the other hand, is the
mother of unbelief. These are weighty expressions,
Behold the handmaid of the
Lord: for she gives and devotes herself
unreservedly to God, that he may freely dispose of her according to his
pleasure. Unbelievers withdraw from his hand, and, as far as lies in their
power, obstruct his work: but faith presents us before God, that we may be ready
to yield obedience. But if the holy virgin was
the handmaid of the
Lord, because she yielded herself
submissively to his authority, there cannot be worse obstinacy than to fly from
him, and to refuse that obedience which he deserves and requires. In a word, as
faith alone makes us obedient servants to God, and gives us up to his power, so
unbelief makes us rebels and deserters.
Be it unto
me. This clause may be interpreted in
two ways. Either the holy virgin, leaving her former
subject,
f17 betakes herself suddenly to
prayers and supplications; or, she proceeds in the same
strain
f18 to yield and surrender herself to
God. I interpret it simply that she is convinced of the power of God, follows
cheerfully where he calls, trusts also to his promise, and not only expects, but
eagerly desires, its accomplishment. [We must also observe that she is convinced
on the word of the angel, because she knows that it proceeded from God: valuing
its credit, not with reference to him who was its messenger, but with reference
to him who was its author.
f19 ]
LUKE 1:39-45
|
LUKE
1:39-45
|
|
39. And Mary arising in those days
went into the mountainous parts
f20
with haste, into a city of Judah,
40. And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted
Elisabeth. 41. And it happened, when Elisabeth heard the
salutation of Mary, the babe started
f21
in her womb, and Elisabeth was filled with the
Holy Ghost, 42. And exclaimed with a loud voice, and said,
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord
should come to me? 44. For lo, when the voice of thy
salutation was made
f22
in my ears, the babe started for joy in my
womb. 45. And blessed is she who believed: for there shall be
a fulfillment
f23
to those things which have been told her by the
Lord.
f24
|
39.
And Mary
arising. This departure mentioned by
Luke proves that Mary’s faith was not of a transitory nature: for the
promise of God does not fade away with the presence of the angel, but is
impressed upon her mind. The
haste
indicates a sincere and strong affection. We may infer from it that the
Virgin disregarded every thing else and formed a just estimate of this grace of
God. But it may be inquired, what was her object in undertaking this journey? It
certainly was not made for the mere purpose of inquiry: for she cherished in her
heart by faith the Son of God as already conceived in her womb. Nor do I agree
with those who think that she came for the purpose of congratulating
Elisabeth.
f25 I think it more probable that her
object was, partly to increase and strengthen her faith, and partly to celebrate
the grace of God which both had received.
f26
There is no absurdity in supposing, that she sought
to confirm her faith by a view of the miracle, which had been adduced to her
with no small effect by the angel. For, though believers are satisfied with the
bare word of God, yet they do not disregard any of his works which they find to
be conducive to strengthen their faith. Mary was particularly bound to receive
the assistance which had been offered, unless she chose to reject what the Lord
had freely given to her. Besides, the mutual interview might arouse both
Elisabeth and herself to higher gratitude, as is evident from what follows. The
power of God became more remarkable and striking by taking in at one view both
favors, the very comparison of which gave no small additional luster. Luke does
not name the city in which Zacharias dwelt, but only mentions that it belonged
to the tribe of Judah, and that it was situated in a hilly district. Hence we
infer that it was farther distant than Jerusalem was from the town of
Nazareth.
41.
When Elisabeth
heard. It is natural that sudden joy, on
the part of a pregnant woman, should cause a motion of the child in her womb;
but Luke intended to express an extraordinary occurrence. No good purpose would
be served by involving ourselves in intricate questions, if the child was aware
of the presence of Christ, or felt an emotion of piety: it is enough for us that
the babe
started by a secret movement of the
Spirit. Luke does not say that the feeling belonged to the child, but rather
intimates that this part of the Divine operation took place in the mother
herself, that the babe started in
her womb. The expression, she
was filled with the Holy
Ghost, means that she was suddenly
endued with the gift of prophecy to an unusual extent: for the gifts of the
Spirit had not formerly been wanting in her, but their power then appeared more
abundant and extraordinary.
42.
Blessed art
thou. She seems to put Mary and Christ
on an equal footing, which would have been highly improper. But I cheerfully
agree with those who think that the second clause assigns the reason; for
and
often signifies
because.
Accordingly, Elisabeth affirms, that her cousin was
blessed
on account of the blessedness of her child. To carry Christ in her womb was
not Mary’s first
blessedness,
but was greatly inferior to the distinction of being born again by the
Spirit of God to a new life. Yet she is justly called
blessed,
on whom God bestowed the remarkable honor of bringing into the world his own
Son, through whom she had been spiritually renewed. And at this day, the
blessedness brought to us by Christ cannot be the subject of our praise, without
reminding us, at the same time, of the distinguished honor which God was pleased
to bestow on Mary, in making her the mother of his Only Begotten
Son.
43.
And whence is this to
me? The happy medium observed by
Elisabeth is worthy of notice. She thinks very highly of the favors bestowed by
God on Mary, and gives them just commendation, but yet does not praise them more
highly than was proper, which would have been a dishonor to God. For such is the
native depravity of the world, that there are few persons who are not chargeable
with one of these two faults. Some, delighted beyond measure with themselves,
and desirous to shine alone, enviously despise the gifts of God in their
brethren; while others praise them in so superstitious a manner as to convert
them into idols. The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to
Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the
footstool
f27 . Elisabeth, again, while she
praises her, is so far from hiding the Divine glory, that she ascribes
everything to God. And yet, though she acknowledges the superiority of Mary to
herself and to others, she does not envy her the higher distinction, but
modestly declares that she had obtained more than she deserved.
She calls Mary
the mother of her
Lord. This denotes a unity of person in
the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal
man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear
in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion,
but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name
Lord
strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,”
(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16,) who has received from the Father all power, and has been
appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may
govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the
Lord
of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is
only of “his body” that he is “the head,”
(<490122>Ephesians
1:22, 23.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to
us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,”
(<460805>1
Corinthians 8:5, 6.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she
carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is
speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something
supernatural and divine.
45.
And blessed is she that
believed. It was by a hidden movement of
the Spirit, as is evident from a former statement of Luke, that Elisabeth spoke.
The same Spirit declares that Mary is
blessed
because she
believed,
and by commending Mary’s faith, informs us generally in what the true
happiness of men consists. Mary was
blessed,
because, embracing in her heart the promise of God, she conceived and
brought forth a Savior to herself and to the whole which the Judges occupied; as
when Cicero proposes to appeal from the Senate to the popular assembly,”a
subselliis in rem deferre.” Calvin may have had in his eye such a phrase
as “imi subsellii vir,” and his meaning is fully brought out by his
own version, “sur le marchepied.” —
Ed.
world. This was peculiar to her: but as we have not a drop of righteousness,
life, or any other benefit, except so far as the Lord presents them to us in his
Word, it is faith alone that rescues us from the lowest poverty and misery, and
makes us partakers of true happiness.
There is great weight in this clause,
for there shall be a fulfillment
to those things which have been told her.
The meaning is, faith gives way to the divine promises, that they may obtain
their accomplishment in us. The truth of God certainly does not depend on the
will of men, but God remains always true,
(<450304>Romans
3:4,) though the whole world—unbelievers and liars—should attempt to
ruin his veracity. Yet, as unbelievers are unworthy to obtain the fruit of the
promises, so Scripture teaches us, that by faith alone they are powerful for our
salvation. God offers his benefits indiscriminately to all, and faith opens its
bosom f28
to receive them; while unbelief allows them to pass away, so as not to reach
us. If there had been any unbelief in Mary, that could not prevent God from
accomplishing his work in any other way which he might choose. But she is called
blessed,
because she received by faith the blessing offered to her, and opened up the
way to God for its accomplishment; while faith, on the other hand, shuts the
gate, and restrains his hand from working, that they who refuse the praise due
to its power may not feel its saving effect. We must observe also the relation
between the
word
and
faith,
from which we learn that, in the act of believing, we give our assent to God
who speaks to us, and hold for certain what he has promised to us that he will
do. The phrase, by the
Lord, is of the same import with an
expression in common use, on the
part of God; for the promise had been
brought by the angel, but proceeded from God alone. Hence we infer that, whether
God employs the ministrations of angels or of men, he wishes equal honor to be
paid to his Word as if he were visibly descending from heaven.
LUKE 1:46-50
|
LUKE
1:46-50
|
|
46. And Mary saith, My soul
magnifieth the Lord, 47. And my spirit hath
rejoiced
f29
in God my Savior.
48. Because he hath looked upon the low condition of his
handmaid: for from this time all generations shall call me blessed,
49. Because he who is mighty hath done to me
wonderful
f30
things: and holy is his name.
50. And his mercy is from generation to generation to them
that fear him.
|
Now follows a remarkable and interesting song of
the holy virgin, which plainly shows how eminent were her attainments in the
grace of the Spirit. There are three clauses in this song. First, Mary offers
solemn thanksgiving for that mercy of God which she had experienced in her own
person. Next, she celebrates in general terms God’s power and judgments.
Lastly, she applies these to the matter in hand, treating of the redemption
formerly promised, and now granted to the church.
46. My
soul
magnifieth. Here Mary testifies her
gratitude, as we have already said. But as hypocrites, for the most part, sing
the praises of God with open mouth, unaccompanied by any affection of the heart,
Mary says that she praises God from an inward feeling of the mind. And certainly
they who pronounce his glory, not from the mind, but with the tongue alone, do
nothing more than profane his holy name. The words
soul
and
spirit
are used in Scripture in various senses, but, when employed together, they
denote chiefly two faculties of the soul;
spirit
being taken for the understanding, and
soul
for the seat of the affections. To comprehend the meaning of the holy
virgin, it must be observed that what is here placed second is first in order;
for the excitement of the will of man to praise God must be preceded by a
rejoicing of the
spirit,
f31 as James says, “Is any
merry? let him sing psalms,”
(<590513>James
5:13.) Sadness and anxiety lock up the soul, and restrain the tongue from
celebrating the goodness of God. When the soul of Mary exults with joy, the
heart breaks out in praising God. It is with great propriety, in speaking of the
joy of her heart, that she gives to God the appellation of
Savior.
Till God has been recognised as a
Savior,
the minds of men are not free to indulge in true and full joy, but will
remain in doubt and anxiety. It is God’s fatherly kindness alone, and the
salvation flowing from it, that fill the soul with joy. In a word, the first
thing necessary for believers is, to be able to rejoice that they have their
salvation in God. The next ought to follow, that, having experienced God to be a
kind Father, they may “offer to him thanksgiving,”
(<195014>Psalm
50:14.) The Greek word
swth<r,
Savior,
has a more extensive signification than the Latin word
Servator;
for it means not only that he once delivers, but that he is “the
Author of eternal salvations”
(<580509>Hebrews
5:9.)
48.
Because he hath
looked. She explains the reason why the
joy of her heart was founded in God to be, that out of free grace he had looked
upon her. By calling herself
low
she disclaims all merit, and ascribes to the undeserved goodness of God
every occasion of boasting. For
tapei>nwsiv,
lowness,
does not here denote—as ignorant and uneducated men have foolishly
imagined—”submission, or modesty, or a quality of the mind,”
but signifies
“a
mean and despicable condition.”
f32 The meaning is,
“I
was unknown and despised, but that did not prevent God from deigning to cast
his eyes upon me.” But if Mary’s
lowness
is contrasted with excellence—as the matter itself and the Greek word
make abundantly plain—we see how Mary makes herself nothing, and praises
God alone. And this was not the loud cry of a pretended humility, but the plain
and honest statement of that conviction which was engraven on her mind; for she
was of no account in the eyes of the world, and her estimation of herself was
nothing more.
From this
time. She announces that this kindness
of God will be kept in remembrance throughout
all
generations. But if it is so remarkable,
that it ought to be proclaimed every where by the lips of all men, silence
regarding it would have been highly improper in Mary, on whom it was bestowed.
Now observe, that Mary makes her happiness to consist in nothing else, but in
what she acknowledges to have been bestowed upon her by
God,
and mentions as the gift of his grace. “I shall be
reckoned blessed,” she says, “through all ages.”
Was it because she sought this praise by her own power or exertion? On the
contrary, she makes mention of nothing but of the work of God. Hence we see how
widely the Papists differ from her, who idly adorn her with their empty devices,
and reckon almost as nothing the benefits which she received from
God. f33
They heap up an abundance of magnificent and very presumptuous titles, such
as, “Queen of Heaven, Star of Salvation, Gate of Life,
Sweetness, Hope, and Salvation.” Nay more, to such a pitch of insolence
and fury have they been hurried by Satan, that they give her authority over
Christ;
f34 for this is their pretty song,
“Beseech the Father, Order the
Son.”
f35 None of these modes of expression,
it is evident, proceeded from the Lord. All are disclaimed by the holy virgin in
a single word, when she makes her whole glory to consist in acts of the divine
kindness. If it was her duty to praise the name of God alone, who
had done to her wonderful
things, no room is left for the
pretended titles, which come from another quarter. Besides, nothing could be
more disrespectful to her, than to rob the Son of God of what is his own, to
clothe her with the sacrilegious plunder.
Let Papists now go, and hold us out as doing injury
to the mother of Christ, because we reject the falsehoods of men, and extol in
her nothing more than the kindness of God. Nay, what is most of all honorable to
her we grant, and those absurd worshippers
refuse.
f36 We cheerfully acknowledge her as
our teacher, and obey her instruction and commands. There certainly is no
obscurity in what she says here; but the Papists throw it aside, trample it as
it were under foot, and do all they can to destroy the credit of her
statements
f37 ? Let us remember that, in
praising both men and angels, there is a general rule laid down, to extol in
them the grace of God; as nothing is at all worthy of praise which did not
proceed from Him.
He who is mighty hath done to me
wonderful things. She informs us, that
the reason why God did not in this case employ the assistance of others was, to
make his own power more illustrious. And here we must recall what she formerly
said, that God had looked upon
her, though she was mean and despicable.
Hence it follows, that those praises of Mary are absurd and spurious which do
not altogether exalt the power and free grace of
God.
49. And
holy is his
name. This is the second part of the
song, in which the holy virgin celebrates in general terms the power, judgments,
and mercy of God. This clause must not be viewed as a part of the preceding one,
but must be read separately. Mary had extolled the grace of God, which she had
experienced in her own person. Hence she takes occasion to exclaim, that
holy is his name, and his mercy
endures throughout all generations. The
name of God is called
holy,
because it is entitled to the highest reverence; and whenever the name of
God is mentioned, it ought immediately to remind us of his adorable
majesty.
The next clause, which celebrates the perpetuity of
the Divine mercy, is taken from that solemn form of covenant,
“I
will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in
their generations, for an everlasting
covenant,”
(<011707>Genesis
17:7)
and again,
“who keepeth
covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a
thousand generations,”
(<050709>Deuteronomy
7:9.)
By these words, he not only declares, that he will
always be like himself, but expresses the favor which he continues to manifest
towards his own people after their death, loving their children, and their
children’s children, and all their posterity. Thus he followed the
posterity of Abraham with uninterrupted kindness; for, having once received
their father Abraham into favor, he had made with him “an everlasting
covenant.”
But as not all who are descended from Abraham
according to the flesh are the true children of Abraham, Mary confines the
accomplishment of the promise to the true worshippers of God, to
them that fear
him: as David also
does:
“The mercy of the
Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his
righteousness unto children’s children; to such as keep his covenant, and
to those that remember his commandments to do them,”
(<19A317>Psalm
103:17,18.)
While God promises that he will be merciful to the
children of the saints through all generations, this gives no support to the
vain confidence of hypocrites: for falsely and groundlessly do they boast of God
as their Father, who are the spurious children of the saints, and have departed
from their faith and godliness.
f38 This exception sets aside the
falsehood and arrogance of those who, while they are destitute of faith, are
puffed up with false pretenses to the favor of God. A universal covenant of
salvation had been made by God with the posterity of Abraham; but, as stones
moistened by the rain do not become soft, so the promised righteousness and
salvation are prevented from reaching unbelievers through their own hardness of
heart. Meanwhile, to maintain the truth and firmness of his, promise, God has
preserved “a seed,”
(<450929>Romans
9:29.)
Under the
fear
of the Lord is included the whole of godliness and religion, and this cannot
exist without faith. But here an objection may be urged. What avails it that God
is called merciful, if no man finds him to be so unless he deserves his favor?
For, if the mercy of God is upon
them that fear him, godliness and a good
conscience procure his grace to men, and in this way men go before his grace by
their own merits. I reply, this is a part of his mercy, that he bestows on the
children of the godly fear and reverence for his majesty. This does not point
out the commencement of his grace, as if God were idly looking down from heaven,
to see who are worthy of it. All that is intended is, to shake off the perverse
confidence of hypocrites, that they may not imagine God to be bound to them,
because they are the children of saints according to the flesh: the divine
covenant having another and very different object, that God may have always a
people in the world, by whom he is sincerely worshipped.
LUKE 1:51-55
|
LUKE
1:51-55
|
|
51. He hath done
might
f39
with his arm: he hath scattered the proud in
the thought of their heart. 52. He hath cast down the nobles
from their thrones, and hath exalted mean persons. 53. He
hath filled the hungry with good things, and hath sent the rich away empty.
54. He hath lifed up his servant Israel, so as to be mindful
of his mercy, 55. As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and
to his seed for ever.
|
51.
He hath done
might. This means, “he hath
wrought powerfully.” The
arm
of God is contrasted with every other aid: as in Isaiah, “I
looked, and there was none to help,”
(<236305>Isaiah
63:5;)
“therefore,”
says he elsewhere,
“his arm brought
salvation unto him;
and his
righteousness, it sustained him,”
(<235916>Isaiah
59:16.)
Mary therefore means: God rested satisfied with his
own power, employed no companions in the work, called none to afford him aid.
What immediately follows about
the
proud may be supposed to be added for
one of two reasons: either because
the
proud gain nothing by endeavoring, like
the giants of old, to oppose God; or, because God does not display the power of
his arm for salvation, except in the case of the
humble,
while the
proud, who arrogate much to themselves,
are thrown
down. To this relates the exhortation of
Peter,
“Humble yourselves
under the mighty hand of
God,”
(<600506>1
Peter 5:6.)
He hath
scattered
f40
the proud in the thought of
their
heart.
f41 This expression is worthy of
notice: for as their pride and ambition are outrageous, as their covetousness is
insatiable, they pile up their deliberations to form an immense heap, and, to
say all in a single word, they build the tower of Babel,
(<011109>Genesis
11:9.) Not satisfied with having made one or another foolish attempt beyond
their strength, or with their former schemes of mad presumption, they still add
to their amount. When God has for a time looked down from heaven, in silent
mockery, on their splendid preparations, he unexpectedly scatters the whole
mass: just as when a building is overturned, and its parts, which had formerly
been bound together by a strong and firm union, are widely scattered in every
direction.
52.
He hath cast down the
nobles. This translation has been
adopted, for the sake of avoiding ambiguity: for though the Greek word
duna>stai
is derived from
du>namiv,
power,
it denotes governors and eminent rulers.
f42 Many persons think that
duna>stav
is a participle. They are said by Mary to be
cast down from their
thrones, that obscure and unknown
persons may be elevated in their room; and so she ascribes to the providence and
judgments of God what ungodly men can the game of
Fortune.
f43 Let us understand, that she does
not ascribe to God a despotic power,—as if men were tossed and thrown up
and down like balls by a tyrannical authority,—but a just government,
founded on the best reasons, though they frequently escape our notice. God does
not delight in changes, or elevate in mockery to a lofty station, those whom he
has determined immediately to throw down.
f44 It is rather the depravity of men
that overturns the state of things, because nobody acknowledges that the
disposal of every one is placed in His will and power.
Those who occupy a higher station than others are not
only chargeable with disdainfully and cruelly insulting their neighbors, but act
in a daring manner towards Him to whom they owe their elevation. To instruct us
by facts, that whatever is lofty and elevated in the world is subject to God,
and that the whole world is governed by his dominion, some are exalted to high
honor, while others either come down in a gradual manner, or else fall headlong
from their thrones. Such is the cause and object of the changes which is
assigned by David, “He poureth contempt upon princes,”
(<19A739>Psalm
107:39;) and by Daniel,
“He changeth the
times and the seasons:
he removeth
kings, and setteth up kings,”
(<270221>Daniel
2:21.)
We see, indeed, how the princes of the world grow
extravagantly insolent, indulge in luxury, swell with pride, and are intoxicated
with the sweets of prosperity. If the Lord cannot tolerate such ingratitude, we
need not be surprised.
The usual consequence is, that those whom God has
raised to a high estate do not occupy it long. Again, the dazzling luster of
kings and princes so overpowers the multitude, that there are few who consider
that there is a God above. But if princes brought a scepter with them from the
womb, and if the stability of their thrones were perpetual, all acknowledgment
of God and of his providence would immediately disappear. When the Lord raises
mean persons to exalted rank, he triumphs over the pride of the world, and at
the same time encourages simplicity and modesty in his own
people.
Thus, when Mary says, that it is God who
casteth down nobles from their
thrones, and exalteth mean persons, she
teaches us, that the world does not move and revolve by a blind impulse of
Fortune, but that all the revolutions observed in it are brought about by the
Providence of God, and that those judgments, which appear to us to disturb and
overthrow the entire framework of soclety, are regulated by God with unerring
justice. This is confirmed by the following verse,
He hath filled the hungry with
good things, and hath sent the rich away
empty: for hence we infer that it is not
in themselves, but for a good reason, that God takes pleasure in these changes.
It is because the great, and rich, and powerful, lifted up by their abundance,
ascribe all the praise to themselves, and leave nothing to God. We ought
therefore to be scrupulously on our guard against being carried away by
prosperity, and against a vain satisfaction of the flesh, lest God suddenly
deprive us of what we enjoy. To such godly persons as feel poverty and almost
famine, and lift up their cry to God, no small consolation is afforded by this
doctrine, that he filleth the
hungry with good
things.
54.
He hath lifted up his servant
Israel. In this last clause the general
statements are applied by Mary to the present occasion. The meaning is, God has
now granted the salvation which he had formerly promised to the holy fathers.
And first, the verb
ajntilamza>nesqai,
to lift
up, contains an elegant
metaphor:
f45 for the state of the nation was so
fallen, that its entire restoration could not be expected on ordinary
principles. And then God is said to have
lifted up
Israel, because he stretched out his
hand, and lifted him up when lying prostrate. Religion had been polluted in
innumerable ways. The public instruction retained almost nothing pure. The
government of the Church was in the greatest confusion, and breathed nothing but
shocking barbarity. The order of civil society no longer subsisted. The great
body of the people were torn like wild beasts by the Romans and Herod. So much
the more glorious was the restoration, which a state of affairs so desperate did
not allow them to expect.
Paido<v
may here be taken either for
child
or for
servant:
but the latter signification is more appropriate.
Israel
is called, in this as in many other places, the
servant
of God, because he had been received into the family of
God.
So as to be
mindful. Mary assigns the reason why the
nation, when verging to ruin, was received by God; or rather, why God lifted it
up when already fallen. It was to give an illustration of his
mercy
in its preservation. She expressly mentions that God had
remembered
his mercy, which he might appear in some sort to have forgotten, when he
permitted his people to be so fearfully distressed and afflicted. It is
customary to ascribe affections to God, as men conclude from the event itself,
that he is offended with them, or that he is reconciled. Now, as the human mind
forms no conception of the divine mercy, except so far as it is presented and
declared in his own word, Mary directs her own attention and that of others to
the promises,
f46 and shows that, in the
accomplishment of them, God has been true and faithful. In this sense, Scripture
makes frequent mention of God’s mercy and truth,
(<330720>Micah
7:20;) because we shall never be convinced of his fatherly kindness toward us,
unless his word, by which he hath bound himself to us, be present to our
recollection, and unless it occupy, as it were, an interterm is here, as at
<442035>Acts
20:35, and often in the classical writers, used metaphorically in the sense of
to protect, support.”—Bloomfield. mediate position between us, to
link the goodness of God with our own individual salvation. By these words
Mary
shows, that the covenant which God had made with the fathers was of free
grace; for she traces the salvation promised in it to the fountain of unmixed
mercy.
Hence too we infer, that she was well acquainted with the doctrine of
Scripture. The expectation of the Messiah was at that time, indeed, very
general, but few had their faith established on so pure a knowledge of
Scripture.
55.
To Abraham and to his
seed. If you read these words in close
connection with the close of the former verse, there appears to be an improper
change of the case. Instead of tw~
jAbraa<m kai< tw~ spe>rmati, it ought to
have been
(pro<v)to<n
jAbraa<m kai< to< spe>rma,,
as he spake
TO
our
fathers, TO
Abraham
and TO
his
seed.
f47 But, in my opinion, there is no
such close connection. Mary does not merely explain who the Fathers were to whom
God spake, but extends the power and result of the promises to all his
posterity, provided they are the true seed of Abraham. Hence it follows, that
the matter now in hand is, the solemn covenant which had been made, in a
peculiar manner, with Abraham and his descendants. For other promises, which had
been given to Adam, and Noah, and others, referred indiscriminately to all
nations. As many of the children of Abraham, according to the flesh, have been
cut off by their unbelief, and have been thrown out as degenerate from the
family of Abraham, so we, who were strangers, are admitted to it by faith, and
regarded as the true seed of Abraham. Let us therefore hold that, in consequence
of God having formerly spoken to
the fathers, the grace offered to them
belongs equally to their posterity; and also, that the adoption has been
extended to all nations, so that those, who were not by nature children of
Abraham, may be his spiritual
seed.
LUKE 1:56-66
|
LUKE
1:56-66
|
|
56. And Mary abode with her about
three months, and returned to her own house. 57. And
Elisabeth's time of bringing forth was fulfilled, and she brought forth a son.
58. And her neighbors and relatives heard, that the Lord had
wonderfully exercised his mercy toward her, and they congratulated her.
59. And it happened on the eighth day, when they came to
circumcise the child, and they called him Zacharias, by the name of his father.
60. And his mother answering
said,
f48
By no means, but he shall be called John.
61. And they said to her, There is none among thy kindred who
is called by that name. 62. And they made signs to his father
how he wished him to be called. 63. And having asked for
writing tables, he wrote, saying, John is his name: and all wondered.
64. And his mouth was instantly opened, and he spake,
blessing God. 65. And fear fell upon all their neighbors, and
in all the mountainous district of Judea all these words were made known.
66. And all who had heard put them in their heart, saying,
What (or Who) shall this child be? And the hand of the Lord was with
him.
|
The amount of this narrative is, that the birth
of John was distinguished by various miracles, which gave reason to expect, that
something great and remarkable would appear in the child himself at a future
period. For the Lord determined to confer upon him from the womb remarkable
tokens, that he might not afterwards come forward, as an obscure and unknown
person, from the crowd, to discharge the office of a Prophet. First Luke
relates, that Mary remained about three months with her cousin,—or, in
other words, till the birth of the child: for it is probable that she had no
other reason for staying so long, but to enjoy the exhibition of divine grace,
which had been suggested to her by the angel for the confirmation of her
faith.
58.
And her neighbors and
relatives heard. It may admit of doubt,
whether the wonderful kindness of God was estimated by those persons from the
simple fact of her being blessed with a child, or whether they had previously
heard that an angel appeared to Zacharias, and promised to him a son. This was
certainly no ordinary divine favor, that, out of the course of nature, a barren
woman at a very advanced age had brought forth a child. It is possible that, on
this ground alone, they magnified the divine goodness. On the eighth day, from a
sense of duty or from courtesy, as is customary on such occasions, some people
assemble; but God takes occasion from it to make them witnesses and spectators
of his power and glory. There can be no doubt but the extraordinary birth
brought a greater crowd. They had reckoned it a prodigy to see an old and barren
woman suddenly become pregnant; and now that the child is born, their
astonishment is renewed and increased. We infer from the words of Luke that,
though they circumcised their children at home, they were not wont to do so
without collecting a numerous assembly: and with good reason, for it was a
common sacrament of the church, and it was not proper to administer it in a
secret or private manner.
59.
And they called him
Zacharias, by the name of his father. We
know that names were originally given to men, either from some occurrence, or
even by prophetic inspiration, to point out some secret work of God. After a
long period, when there was such a profusion of names, that it became
inconvenient to form new ones every day, people satisfied themselves with the
old and received names, and called their children by the names of their
ancestors. Thus before the father of John, there were many called Zacharias, and
perhaps they were the descendants of the
“son of
Barachias,”
(<402335>Matthew
23:35.) Use and wont, we are aware, is generally taken for law, and so these
persons contended that the prevailing custom should be observed as to the name
of the child. Though we must not imagine that there is any sacredness in names,
yet no judicious person will deny that, in this matter, believers ought to make
a godly and profitable selection. They ought to give their children such names
as may serve to instruct and admonish them, and consequently to take the names
of holy fathers—for the purpose of exciting their children to imitate
them—rather than adopt those of ungodly
persons.
60.
And his mother answering
said. It is uncertain if Elisabeth spoke
this by inspiration. But when Zacharias saw the punishment inflicted on him for
being too slow in believing, he probably informed his wife by writing what the
angel had enjoined respecting the name, (ver. 13:) otherwise he would not have
obeyed the command of God. Why this name was given to the Baptist by divine
authority, I have already explained. The relatives, though unacquainted with the
reason, are affected by the strangeness of the occurrence, particularly as they
conjecture it did not take place without
design.
64.
And his mouth was instantly
opened. God puts honor on the birth of
his prophet by restoring speech to his father: for there can be no doubt that
this benefit was delayed till that day with the express object and design of
fixing the eyes of men upon John. Zacharias
spake, blessing
God. He did so, not only for the purpose
of testifying his gratitude, but to inform his relatives and neighbors, that
this punishment had been inflicted on him, because he had been too slow to
believe: for he was not ashamed to unite with his own dishonor the praises of
the divine glory. Thus it became universally known, that the birth of the child
was not an accidental or ordinary event, but had been promised by an
announcement from heaven.
f49
65.
And fear fell upon
all. This fear mentioned by Luke
proceeded from a feeling of the divine power: for the works of God ought to be
contemplated by us with such reverence as to affect our minds with
seriousness.
f50 God does not amuse us with his
miracles, but arouses the senses of men, which he perceives to be in a dormant
state.
f51 Luke says also that the report of
those things was circulated in
all the mountainous district of Judea.
And yet many derived no advantage from the temporary impression of the power
of God: for, when John began to exercise his office as an instructor, there were
few that remembered what wonders had attended his birth. It was not merely,
however, for the sake of those who heard them, that God determined to spread
abroad the report of those events, but to establish, in all ages, the certainty
of the miracle, which was then universally known. Meanwhile, a general mirror of
human ingratitude is here placed before our eyes: for, while trifling and
frivolous occurrences remain firmly in our minds, those which ought to produce a
constant recollection of divine favors immediately fade and
disappear.
Luke does not speak of stupid men, or actual
despisers of God: for he says that they
put them in their
heart: that is, they applied eagerly to
the consideration of them. Some probably continued to remember, but the greater
part rapidly shook off the fear which they had experienced. It deserves our
notice that they were far from mistaking the design, when they interpreted the
miracles which they saw as relating to the future excellence of the child: for
such, we have said, was the design of God, that John should afterwards come
forth with the highest reputation.
And the hand of the Lord was with
him. The meaning is, that the grace of
God was strikingly visible in many respects, and showed manifestly that he was
not an ordinary person. It is a figurative mode of expression, and denotes that
the power of God was as fully manifested as if his hand had been visibly seen,
so that all readily acknowledged the presence of God.
LUKE 1:67-75
|
LUKE
1:67-75
|
|
67. And Zacharias his father was
filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying:
68. Blessed be the Lord God of israel, because he hath
visited, and hath brought redemption to his people: 69. And
he hath raised up the horn
f52
of salvation to us in the house of his servant
David, (70. As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets,
who have been from every age,
f53
) 71. Salvation from our
enemies, and from the hand of all who hated us: 72. To
perform the mercy to our fathers, and to have remembrance of his holy covenant,
73. According to the oath,
f54
which he sware to Abraham our father, to give
to us, 74. That, being delivered out of the hand of our
enemies, we may serve him without fear, 75. In holiness and
righteousness before him all the days of our life.
|
67.
Zacharias was filled with the
Holy Ghost. We have lately explained
this phrase to mean, that the servants of God received more abundantly the grace
of the Spirit, of which, at other times, they were not destitute. Thus we read,
that the Spirit was given to the prophets: not that on other occasions they
wanted it, but that the power of the Spirit was more fully exerted in them, when
the hand of God, as it were, brought them into public view, for the discharge of
their office. We must observe, therefore, the manner in which Luke connects the
two clauses: he was filled with
the Holy Ghost, and prophesied. This
implies that divine inspiration, at that time, rested upon him in an
extraordinary measure, in consequence of which he did not speak like a man or
private person, but all that he uttered was heavenly instruction. Thus also Paul
connects prophecy with the Spirit.
“Quench not the
Spirit: despise not
prophesyings,”
(<520519>1
Thessalonians 5:19, 20.)
which teaches us that to despise instruction is to
“quench”
the light of “the Spirit.” This was a remarkable instance
of the goodness of God, that not only did Zacharias recover the power of speech,
which he had not enjoyed for nine months, but his tongue became the organ of the
Holy Spirit.
68.
Blessed be the Lord
God. Zacharias commences with
thanksgiving, and in the raptures of the prophetic spirit describes the
fulfillment of the redemption formerly promised in Christ, on which the safety
and prosperity of the church depended. The reason why
the
Lord, to whose government the whole
world is subject, is here called
the God of
Israel, will more fully appear from what
follows, that to the seed of Abraham, in a peculiar manner, the Redeemer had
been promised. Since, therefore, God had deposited with one nation only his
covenant, of which Zacharias was about to speak, he properly mentions the name
of that nation, for which the grace of salvation was especially, or at all
events in the first instance, designed.
The word
ejpeske>yato,
he hath
visited, contains an implied contrast:
for the face of God had been turned away for a time from the unhappy children of
Abraham. To such a depth of calamity had they sunk, and with such a mass of
distresses were they overwhelmed, that no one entertained the thought that the
eye of God was upon them. This visitation of God, which Zacharias mentions, is
declared to be the cause and origin of redemption. The statement may be resolved
in this manner. God looked
upon
(ejpeske>yato)
his people, that he might
redeem them. Now, as those whom God
redeems must be prisoners, and as this redemption is spiritual in its nature, we
conclude from this passage, that even the holy fathers were made free from the
yoke of sin and the tyranny of death, only through the grace of Christ; for it
is said that Christ was sent as a Redeemer to the holy and elect people of God.
But it will be objected, if redemption was brought by Christ at that time when
he appeared clothed in flesh, it follows, that those believers who died before
he came into the world were “all their lifetime” slaves of sin and
death: which would be highly absurd. I reply, the power and efficacy of that
redemption, which was once exhibited in Christ, have been the same in all
ages.
69.
He hath raised up the horn of
salvation. That is, saving
power:
f55 for, when the throne of David was
cast down, and the people scattered, the hope of salvation had to all appearance
perished. Zacharias alludes to the predictions of the prophets, which hold out
that a sudden revival would take place, when the state of affairs should have
become melancholy and desperate. This mode of expression is borrowed from the
passage,
“There will I make
the horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed,”
(<19D217>Psalm
132:17.)
But if it is only in Christ that God has put forth
his power to save us, we are not at liberty to depart from that method,
if we desire to obtain salvation from God. Let it be also observed, that this
horn
brings
salvation
to believers, but terror to the ungodly, whom it scatters, or bruises and
lays prostrate.
Of his servant
David. He is so denominated, not only
because, like any one of the godly, he worshipped God, but for this other
reason, that he was his chosen servant to rule and save his people, and thus to
represent, along with his successors, the person and office of Christ. Though
there remained among the Jews, at that time, no trace of a kingdom, Zacharias,
resting on the promises of God, does not hesitate to call David the
servant
of God, in whom God gave an example of the salvation which was to
come. f56
Now that the throne of Christ is erected amongst us, that thence he may
govern us, it follows that he is actually appointed to us the author of
salvation.
70.
As he
spake. That the salvation which is said
to have been brought by Christ may not be thought doubtful on the score of
novelty, he adduces as witnesses all the
Prophets,
who, though they were raised up at different times, yet with one consent
teach, that salvation is to be expected from Christ alone. Nor was it the sole
design of Zacharias to celebrate the truth and faithfulness of God, in
performing and fulfilling what he formerly promised. His object rather was to
draw the attention of believers to the ancient predictions, that they might
embrace, with greater certainty and cheerfulness, the salvation offered to them,
of which the Prophets from the beginning had testified. When Christ comes forth
adorned,
f57 with the testimonies of all the
Prophets, our faith in him rests on a truly solid foundation.
He calls them
holy
prophets, to secure for their words
greater authority and reverence. They were not inconsiderable or ordinary
witnesses, but were of the first rank,
f58 and furnished with a public
commission, having been separated from the common people, for that purpose, by
divine authority. To inquire minutely how each of the prophets gave testimony to
Christ, would lead us into a long dissertation. Let it suffice for the present
to say, that they all uniformly make the hope of the people, that God would be
gracious to them, to rest entirely on that covenant between God and them which
was founded on Christ, and thus speak plainly enough of the future redemption,
which was manifested in Christ. To this purpose are many striking passages,
which contain no dark prophecies respecting Christ, but point him out, as it
were, with the finger. But our chief attention is due to the signature of the
divine covenant; for he that neglects this will never understand any thing in
the prophets: as the Jews wander wretchedly
f59 in reading the Scripture, in
consequence of giving their whole study to words, and wandering from the main
design.
71.
Salvation from our
enemies. Zacharias explains more clearly
the power and office of Christ. And certainly it would be of little or no
advantage to learn that Christ was given to us, unless we also knew what he
bestows. For this reason he states more fully the purpose for which the
horn of
salvation was
raised
up: that believers may obtain
salvation from their
enemies. Unquestionably, Zacharias was
well aware, that the principal war of the church of God is not with flesh and
blood, but with Satan and all his armament, by which he labors to accomplish our
everlasting ruin. Though the Church is also attacked by outward foes, and is
delivered from them by Christ, yet, as the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, it is
chiefly to Satan, the prince of this world, and all his legions, that the
present discourse relates. Our attention is also directed to the miserable
condition of men out of Christ, lying prostrate under the tyranny of the devil:
otherwise, out of his hand, out of his power, Christ would not deliver his own
people. This passage reminds us that, so long as the Church continues her
pilgrimage in the world, she lives amongst her foes, and would be exposed to
their violence, if Christ were not always at hand to grant assistance. But such
is the inestimable grace of Christ, that, though we are surrounded on every side
by enemies, we enjoy a sure and undoubted salvation. The mode of expression may
seem harsh, salvation from our
enemies; but the meaning is obvious. No
machinations or power, no wiles, no attacks will prevent our being delivered
from them and saved “in the Lord with an everlasting
salvatlon,”
(<234517>Isaiah
45:17.)
72.
To perform the
mercy. Zacharias again points out the
fountain from which redemption flowed, the
mercy
and gracious
covenant
of God. He assigns the reason why God was pleased to save his people. It was
because, being mindful of his promise, he displayed his mercy. He is said to
have remembrance of his
covenant, because there might be some
appearance of forgetfulness during that long delay, in which he allowed his
people to languish under the weight of very heavy calamities. We must carefully
attend to this order. First, God was moved by pure mercy to make a covenant with
the fathers. Secondly, He has linked the salvation of men with his own
word. f60
Thirdly, He has exhibited in Christ every blessing, so as to ratify all his
promises: as, indeed, their truth is only confirmed to us when we see their
fulfillment in Christ. Forgiveness of sins is promised in the covenant, but it
is in the blood of Christ. Righteousness is promised, but it is offered through
the atonement of Christ. Life is promised, but it must be sought only in the
death and resurrection of Christ. This too is the reason why God commanded of
old, that the book of the law should be sprinkled with the blood of the
sacrifice,
(<022408>Exodus
24:8;
<580919>Hebrews
9:19, 20.) It is also worthy of notice, that Zacharias speaks of the mercy
performed
in his own age, as extending to the fathers who were dead, and who equally
shared in its results. Hence it follows, that the grace and power of Christ are
not confined by the narrow limits of this fading life, but are everlasting; that
they are not terminated by the death of the flesh, for the soul survives the
death of the body, and the destruction of the flesh is followed by the
resurrection. As neither Abraham, nor any of the saints, could procure salvation
to himself by his own power or merits, so to all believers, whether living or
dead, the same salvation has been exhibited in
Christ.
73.
According to the
oath. There is no word in the Greek
original for the preposition
according
to: but it is a common and well
understood principle of language, that when the accusative case is put
absolutely, there is a preposition to be understood, by which it is governed.
The
oath is mentioned, for the purpose of
expressing more fully the firmness and sacredness of his truth: for such is his
gracious condescension, that he deigns to employ his name for the support of our
weakness. If his bare promises do not satisfy us, let us at least remember this
confirmation of them; and if it does not remove all doubt, we are chargeable
with heinous ingratitude to God, and insult to his holy name.
To give to
us. Zacharias does not enumerate the
several points of God’s covenant, but shows that God’s purpose, in
dealing so kindly and mercifully with his people, was to redeem
them.
74.
That being delivered out of
the hand of our enemies. His purpose
was, that, being redeemed, they might dedicate and consecrate themselves
entirely to the Author of their salvation. As the efficient cause of human
salvation was the undeserved goodness of God, so its final cause is, that, by a
godly and holy life, men may glorify his name. This deserves careful attention,
that we may remember our calling, and so learn to apply the grace of God to its
proper use. We must meditate on such declarations as these:
“God hath
not called us unto uncleanness, but unto
holiness,”
(<520407>1
Thessalonians 4:7.)
We are “redeemed with a great price,”
(<460620>1
Corinthians 6:20,) “the precious blood of Christ,”
(<600118>1
Peter 1:18,19,) not that we may serve “the lusts of the flesh,”
(<610218>2
Peter 2:18,) or indulge in unbridled licentiousness, but that Christ may reign
in us. We are admitted by adoption into the family of God, that we, on our part,
may yield obedience as children to a father. For “the kindness and
love
(filanqrwpi>a)
of God our Savior toward man,”
(<560304>Titus
3:4,) “hath appeared unto all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness
and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly,”
(<560211>Titus
2:11,12.) And so Paul, when he wishes powerfully to exhort believers to
consecrate themselves to God, “in newness of life,”
(<450604>Romans
6:4,) and, “putting off, concerning the former conversation, the old
man,”
(<490422>Ephesians
4:22,) to render to him a “reasonable service,” “beseeches
them by the mercies of God,”
(<451201>Romans
12:1.) Scripture is full of declarations of this nature, which show that we
“frustrate the grace”
(<480221>Galatians
2:21) of Christ, if we do not follow out this design.
That we may serve him without
fear. This deserves our attention: for
it implies that we cannot worship God in a proper manner without composure of
mind. Those who are ill at ease, who have an inward struggle, whether God is
favorable or hostile to them, whether he accepts or rejects their
services,—in a word, who fluctuate in uncertainty between hope and fear,
will sometimes labor anxiously in the worship of God, but never will sincerely
or honestly obey him. Alarm and dread make them turn from him with horror; and
so, if it were possible, they would desire that there were, “no
God,”
(<191401>Psalm
14:1.) But we know, that no sacrifice is acceptable to God, which is not offered
willingly, and with a cheerful heart. Before men can truly worship
God,
they must obtain peace of conscience, as David speaks, “There is
forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,”
(<19D004>Psalm
130:4:) for those to whom God has given peace are graciously invited and led to
approach him willingly and with a cheerful desire to worship him. Hence too Paul
deduces that maxim, that “whatsoever is undertaken without faith is
sin,”
(<451423>Romans
14:23.) But since God reconciles men to himself in Christ, since by his
protection he keeps them safe from all fear, since he has committed their
salvation to his own hand and guardianship, we are justly declared by Zacharias
to be delivered by his grace from fear. And so the prophets describe it as
peculiar to his reign, that,
“they shall sit
every man under his vine, and under his fig-tree, and none shall make them
afraid,”
(<330404>Micah
4:4.)
75.
In holiness and
righteousness. As the rule of a good
life has been reduced by God to two tables,
(<023118>Exodus
31:18; 34:1,) so Zacharias here declares, that we serve God in a proper manner,
when our life has been framed to
holiness and righteousness.
Holiness, beyond all question,
denotes—as even Plato knew the duties of
godliness,
f61 which relate to the first table of
the law.
Righteousness,
again, extends to all the duties of charity: for God requires nothing more
from us in the second table of the law, than to render to every one what belongs
to him. It is added, before
him, to instruct believers, that it is
not enough if their lives are decently regulated before the eyes of men, and
their hands, and feet, and whole body, restrained from every kind of open
wickedness: but they must live according to the will of God, who is not
satisfied with professions of holiness, but looks chiefly on the
heart.
Lastly, That no man may consider his duties to be at
an end, when he has worshipped God for a certain period, Zacharias declares that
men have been redeemed on the condition
f62 that they shall continue to devote
themselves to the worship of God
all the days
of their
life.
And certainly, as redemption is eternal, the remembrance of it ought never
to pass away; as God adopts men into his family for ever, their gratitude ought
not to be transitory or of short continuance; and, in a word, as “Christ
both died and rose, and revived” for them, it is proper that he should be
“Lord both of the dead and living,”
(<451409>Romans
14:9.) So Paul, in a passage which I lately quoted, enjoins us
to
“live soberly,
righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; who
gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto
himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,”
(<560212>Titus
2:12-14.)
LUKE 1:76-80
|
LUKE
1:76-80
|
|
76. And thou, child, shalt be
called the Prophet of the Highest. for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord
to prepare his ways, 77. To give knowledge of salvation to
his people by the forgiveness of their sins: 78. Through the
bowels of the mercy of our God, by which the Eastern
sky
f63
hath visited us, 79. That he
might give light to those who were sitting in darkness and the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace. 80. And the child
grew, and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his
showing unto Israel.
|
76.
And thou,
child. Zacharias again returns to
commend the grace of Christ, but does this, as it were, in the person of his
son, by describing briefly the office to which he had been appointed as an
instructor. Though in a little infant eight days old he does not yet observe
prophetical endowments, yet turning his eyes to the purpose of God, he speaks of
it as a thing already known. To
be called means here to be
considered and openly
acknowledged as the prophet of God. A
secret calling of God had already taken place. It only remained that the nature
of that calling should be manifested to men. But as the name
Prophet
is general, Zacharias, following the revelation brought to him by the angel,
affirms that he would be the usher
f64 or herald of Christ. He says,
thou shalt go before the face of
the Lord: that is, thou shalt discharge
the office of turning men by thy preaching to hear the Lord. The reason why
John, when he had nearly finished his course, affirmed that he was not a
prophet
of God, is explained by me at the proper place,
(<430121>John
1:21,) and in what manner he was
to prepare his
ways we shall afterwards
see.
77.
To give knowledge of
salvation. Zacharias now touches the
principal subject of the gospel, when he says that the
knowledge of
salvation consists in
the forgiveness of
sins. As we are all “by nature the
children of wraths”
(<490203>Ephesians
2:3,) it follows, that we are by nature condemned and ruined: and the ground of
our condemnation is, that we are chargeable with unrighteousness. There is,
therefore, no other provision for escaping eternal
death f65
but by God
“reconciling us
unto himself, not imputing our trespasses unto
us,”
(<470519>2
Corinthians 5:19.)
That this is the only righteousness which remains to
us before God, may be easily gathered from the words of Zacharias. For whence
comes salvation, but from righteousness? But if the children of God have no
other way of obtaining the
knowledge of
salvation except
through the forgiveness of
sins, it follows, that righteousness
must not be sought in any other quarter. Proud men attempt to forge and
manufacture a righteousness out of the merits of good works. True righteousness
is nothing else than the imputation of righteousness, when God, out of free
grace, acquits us from guilt. Besides, it ought to be observed that Zacharias is
not speaking of “strangers from the covenants of
promise,”
(<490212>Ephesians
2:12) but of the people of God. Hence it follows, that not only does the
commencement of righteousness depend on the
forgiveness of
sins, but it is by
imputation
f66 that believers are righteous
before God to the very end: for they cannot appear before his tribunal in any
other way than by betaking themselves daily to a free
reconciliation.
78.
Through the
bowels
f67
of
mercy. In so great a benefit Zacharias
justly extols the mercy of God, and not satisfied with merely calling it the
salvation which was brought by Christ, he employs more emphatic language, and
says that it proceeded from the very
bowels of the
mercy of God. He then tells us
metaphorically, that the great mercy of God has made the day to
give light to those who were
sitting in darkness. Oriens, in the
Latin version of this passage, is not a participle: for the Greek word is
ajnatolh>,
that is, the Eastern region, as contrasted with the West. Zacharias extols
the
mercy
of God, as manifested in dispelling the darkness of death, and restoring to
the people of God the light of life. In this way, whenever our salvation is the
subject, we ought to raise our minds to the contemplation of the divine mercy.
There appears to be an allusion to a prediction of Malachi, in which Christ is
called “the Sun of Righteousness,” and is said to “arise with
healing in his wing,”
(<390402>Malachi
4:2,) that is, to bring health in his
rays.
79.
That he might give light to
those who were sitting in darkness. As
to
light
and
darkness,
there are similar modes of expression in Isaiah: such as,
“The people that
walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the
shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined,”
(<230901>Isaiah
9:1;)
and in many other passages. These words show, that
out of Christ there is no life-giving light in the world, but every thing is
covered by the appalling darkness of death. Thus, in another passage, Isaiah
testifies that this privilege belongs peculiarly to the church
alone.
“Behold, the
darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord
shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee,”
(<236002>Isaiah
60:2.)
But how could it be said that the Israelites, on
whose hearts the Lord always shone by faith,
were sitting in the shadow of
death? I reply, the godly, who lived
under the law were surrounded on every side by the darkness of death, and beheld
at a distance, in the coming of Christ, the light that cheered and preserved
them from being overwhelmed by present death. Zacharias may have had in view the
wretched condition of his own age. But it is a general truth, that on all the
godly, who had ever lived, or who were afterwards to live, there arose in the
coming of Christ a light to impart life: for it even diffused life over the
dead. To
sit
is of the same import as to
lie:
f68 and so Isaiah enjoins the Church,
“Arise, for thy light is come,”
(<236001>Isaiah
60:1.)
To guide our
feet. By this expression Zacharias
points out, that the highest perfection of all excellence and happiness is to be
found in Christ alone. The word
Peace
might indeed be taken in its literal sense, which would not be unsuitable:
for the illumination brought by Christ tends to pacify the minds of men. But as
the Hebrew word
µwlç,
peace,
denotes every kind of prosperity, Zacharias intended, I doubt not, to
represent Christ as the author of perfect blessedness, that we may not seek the
smallest portion of happiness elsewhere, but may rest on Christ alone, from a
full conviction that in him we are entirely and completely happy. To this
purpose are those words of Isaiah,
“The sun
shall be no more thy light by day, neither for brightness shall the moon give
light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy
God thy glory,”
(<236019>Isaiah
60:19.)
But if the mere sight of his Son, while still a
child, led Zacharias to discourse in so lofty a strain respecting the grace and
power of Christ, before he was born, are not they so much the more ungrateful,
who, now that Christ has died, and risen, and ascended to heaven, and sat down
at his Father’s right hand, speak disrespectfully of him and of his power,
to which the Holy Spirit bore testimony, while he was still in his
mother’s womb? We must bear in mind what I have already mentioned, that
Zacharias spake not from himself, but that the Spirit of God directed his
tongue.
And the child
grew. This is added by Luke for
continuing the thread of the history.
First,
he mentions that John became
strong in spirit: which implies that the
great and uncommon excellence of the child gave proof that there dwelt in him a
Heavenly Spirit. Next, he tells us, that John remained unknown in the deserts
till the day of his
showing, that is, till the day on which
the Lord had pur-posed to bring him into public view. Hence we conclude, that
John, though he was fully aware of his calling, made no advances before the
appointed time, but awaited the call of God.
MATTHEW 1:1-17; LUKE
3:23-38
|
MATTHEW
1:1-17
|
LUKE
3:23-38
|
|
1. The book of the generation of
Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2. And
Abraham began Isaac. And Issac begat Jacob. And Jacob begat Judah and his
brethren. 3. And Judah begat Pharez and Zarah by Tamar. And
Pharez begat Hezron. and Hezron begat Ram. 4. And Ram begat
Amminadab. And Amminadab begat Nahshon. And Nahshon begat Salma.
5. And Salma begat Boaz by Rahab. And Boaz begat Obed by
Ruth. And Obed begat Jesse. 6. And Jesse begat David the
king. And David the king begat Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah.
7. And Solomon begat Rehoboam. And Rehoboam begat Abijah. And
Abijah begat Asa. 8. And Asa begat Jehoshaphat. And
Jehoshaphat begat Jorem. And Joram begat Uzziah. 9. And
Uzziah begat Jotham. And Jotham begat Ahaz. And Ahaz begat Hezekiah.
10. And Hezekiah begat Manasseh. And Manasseh begat Amon. And
Amon begat Josiah. 11. And Josiah begat Jeconiah and his
brethren, about the Babylonish exile. 12. And after the
Babylonish exile, Jeconiah begat Salathiel. And Salathiel begat Zerubbabel.
13. And Zerubbabel begat Abiud. And Abiud begat Eliakim. And
Eliakim begat Azor. 14. And Azor begat Zadok. And Zadok begat
Achim. And Achim begat Eliud. 15. And Eliud begat Eleazar.
And Eleazar begat Matthan. And Matthan begat Jacob. 16. And
Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called
Christ. 17. Therefore all the generations from Abraham till
David are fourteen generations; and from David till the Babylonish migration are
fourteen generations; and from the Babylonish migration till Christ are fourteen
generations.
|
23. Jesus was supposed to be the
son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, 24. Who was the son
of Matthat, who was the son of Levi, who was the son of Melchi, who was the son
of Janna, who was the son of Joseph, 25. Who was the son of
Matthias, who was the son of Amos, who was the son of Nahum, who was the son of
Esli, who was the son of Nagge, 26. Who was the son of Maath,
who was the son of Mattahtias, who was the son of Semei, who was the son of
Joseph, who was the son of Judah, 27. Who was the son of
Joanna, who was the son of Rhesa, who was the son of Zerubbabel, who was the son
of Salathiel, who was the son of Neri, 28. Who was the son of
Melchi, who was the son of Addi, who was the son of Cosam, who was the son of
Elmodam, who was the son, of Er, 29. Who was the son of of
Joses, who was the son of Eliezer, who was the son of Joriam, who was the son of
Matthat, who was the son of Levi, 30. Who was the son of
Simeon, who was the son of Judah, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of
Jonan, who was the son of Eliakim, 31. Who was the son of
Meleah, who was the son of Mainan, who was the son of Mattatha, who was the son
of Nathan, who was the son of David, 32. Who was the son of
Jesse, who was the son of Obed, who was the son of Boaz, who was the son of
Salmah, who was the son of Nahshon, 33. Who was the son of
Amminadab, who was the son of Ram, who was the son of Hezron, who was the son of
Pharez, who was the son of Judah, 34. Who was the son of
Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, who was the son of
Terah, who was the son of Nahor, 35. Who was the son of
Serug, who was the son of Reu, who was the son of Peleg, who was the son of
Heber, who was the son of Salah, 36. Who was the son of
Cainan, who was the son of Arphaxad, who was the son of Shem, who was the son of
Noah, who was the son of Lamech, 37. Who was the son of
Methuselah, who was the son of Enoch, who was the son of Jared, who was the son
of Mahalaleel, who was the son of Cainan, 38. Who was the son
of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of
God.
|
As all are not agreed about these two
genealogies, which are given by Matthew and Luke, we must first see whether both
trace the genealogy of Christ from Joseph, or whether Matthew only traces it
from Joseph, and Luke from Mary. Those who are of this latter opinion have a
plausible ground for their distinction in the diversity of the names: and
certainly, at first sight, nothing seems more improbable than that Matthew and
Luke,
who differ so widely from each other, give one and the same genealogy. For
from David to Salathiel, and again from Zerubbabel till Joseph, the names are
totally different.
Again, it is alleged, that it would have been idle to
bestow so great pains on a thing of no use, in relating a second time the
genealogy of Joseph, who after all was not the father of Christ. “Why this
repetition,” say they, “which proves nothing that contributes much
to the edification of faith? If nothing more be known than this, that Joseph was
one of the descendants and family of David, the genealogy of Christ will still
remain doubtful.” In their opinion, therefore, it would have been
superfluous that two Evangelists should apply themselves to this subject. They
excuse Matthew for laying down the ancestry of Joseph, on the ground, that he
did it for the sake of many persons, who were still of opinion that he was the
father of Christ. But it would have been foolish to hold out such an
encouragement to a dangerous error: and what follows is at total variance with
the supposition. For as soon as he comes to the close of the genealogy, Matthew
points out that Christ was conceived in the womb of the virgin, not from the
seed of Joseph, but by the secret power of the Spirit. If their argument were
good, Matthew might be charged with folly or inadvertence, in laboring to no
purpose to establish the genealogy of Joseph.
But we have not yet replied to their objection, that
the ancestry of Joseph has nothing to do with Christ. The common and well-known
reply is, that in the person of Joseph the genealogy of Mary also is included,
because the law enjoined every man to marry from his own tribe. It is objected,
on the other hand, that at almost no period had that law been observed: but the
arguments on which that assertion rests are frivolous. They quote the instance
of the eleven tribes binding themselves by an oath, that they would not give a
wife to the Benjamites,
(<072101>Judges
21:1.) If this matter, say they, had been settled by law, there would have been
no need for a new enactment. I reply, this extraordinary occurrence is
erroneously and ignorantly converted by them into a general rule: for if one
tribe had been cut off, the body of the people must have been incomplete if some
remedy had not been applied to a case of extreme necessity. We must not,
therefore, look to this passage for ascertaining the common
law.
Again, it is objected, that Mary, the mother of
Christ, was Elisabeth’s cousin, though Luke has formerly stated that she
was of the daughters of Aaron,
(<420105>Luke
1:5.) The reply is easy. The daughters of the tribe of Judah, or of any other
tribe, were at liberty to marry into the tribe of the priesthood: for they were
not prevented by that reason, which is expressed in the law, that no woman
should “remove her inheritance” to those who were of a different
tribe from her own,
(<043606>Numbers
36:6-9.) Thus, the wife of Jehoiada, the high priest, is declared by the sacred
historian to have belonged to the royal family,—
“Jehoshabeath, the
daughter of Jehoram,
the wife of
Jehoiada the priest,”
(<142211>2
Chronicles 22:11.)
It was, therefore, nothing wonderful or uncommon, if
the mother of Elisabeth were married to a priest. Should any one allege, that
this does not enable us to decide, with perfect certainty, that Mary was of the
same tribe with Joseph, because she was his wife, I grant that the bare
narrative, as it stands, would not prove it without the aid of other
circumstances.
But, in the first place, we must observe, that
the Evangelists do not speak of events known in their own age. When the ancestry
of Joseph had been carried up as far as David, every one could easily make out
the ancestry of Mary. The Evangelists, trusting to what was generally understood
in their own day, were, no doubt, less solicitous on that point: for, if any one
entertained doubts, the research was neither difficult nor
tedious.
f69 Besides, they took for granted,
that Joseph, as a man of good character and behavior, had obeyed the injunction
of the law in marrying a wife from his own tribe. That general rule would not,
indeed, be sufficient to prove Mary’s royal descent; for she might have
belonged to the tribe of Judah, and yet not have been a descendant of the family
of David.
My opinion is this. The Evangelists had in their eye
godly persons, who entered into no obstinate dispute, but in the person of
Joseph acknowledged the descent of Mary; particularly since, as we have said, no
doubt was entertained about it in that age. One matter, however, might appear
incredible, that this very poor and despised couple belonged to the posterity of
David, and to that royal seed, from which the Redeemer was to spring. If any one
inquire whether or not the genealogy traced by Matthew and Luke proves clearly
and beyond controversy that Mary was descended from the family of David, I own
that it cannot be inferred with certainty; but as the relationship between Mary
and Joseph was at that time well known, the Evangelists were more at ease on
that subject. Meanwhile, it was the design of both Evangelists to remove the
stumbling-block arising from the fact, that both Joseph and Mary were unknown,
and despised, and poor, and gave not the slightest indication of
royalty.
Again, the supposition that Luke passes by the
descent of Joseph, and relates that of Mary, is easily refuted; for he expressly
says, that Jesus was supposed to
be the son of Joseph, etc. Certainly,
neither the father nor the grandfather of Christ is mentioned, but the ancestry
of Joseph himself is carefully explained. I am well aware of the manner in which
they attempt to solve this difficulty. The word
son,
they allege, is put for
son-in-law,
and the interpretation they give to Joseph being called the son of Heli is,
that he had married Heli’s daughter. But this does not agree with the
order of nature, and is nowhere countenanced by any example in
Scripture.
If Solomon is struck out of Mary’s genealogy,
Christ will no longer be Christ; for all inquiry as to his descent is founded on
that solemn promise,
“I will set up thy
seed after thee; I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be
his father, and he shall be my
son,”
(<100712>2
Samuel 7:12-14.)
“The Lord hath
sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body
will I set upon thy
throne,”
(<19D211>Psalm
132:11.)
Solomon was, beyond controversy, the type of this
eternal King who was promised to David; nor can the promise be applied to
Christ, except in so far as its truth was shadowed out in Solomon,
(<132805>1
Chronicles 28:5.) Now if the descent is not traced to him, how, or by what
argument, shall he be proved to be “the son of David”? Whoever
expunges Solomon from Christ’s genealogy does at the same time, obliterate
and destroy those promises by which he must be acknowledged to be the son of
David. In what way Luke, tracing the line of descent from Nathan, does not
exclude Solomon, will afterwards be seen at the proper place.
Not to be too tedious, those two genealogies agree
substantially with each other, but we must attend to four points of difference.
The first is; Luke ascends by a retrograde order, from the last to the
first, while Matthew begins with the source of the genealogy. The second
is; Matthew does not carry his narrative beyond the holy and elect race of
Abraham, f70
while Luke proceeds as far as Adam. The third is; Matthew treats of his
legal descent, and allows himself to make some omissions in the line of
ancestors, choosing to assist the reader’s memory by arranging them under
three fourteens; while Luke follows the natural descent with greater exactness.
The fourth and last is; when they are speaking of the same persons, they
sometimes give them different names.
It would be superfluous to say more about the
first point of difference, for it presents no difficulty. The second
is not without a very good reason: for, as God had chosen for himself the
family of Abraham, from which the Redeemer of the world would be born, and as
the promise of salvation had been, in some sort, shut up in that family till the
coming of Christ, Matthew does not pass beyond the limits which God had
prescribed. We must attend to what Paul says,
“that Jesus Christ
was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises
made unto the fathers,”
(<451508>Romans
15:8)
with which agrees that saying of Christ,
“Salvation is of the Jews,”
(<430422>John
4:22.) Matthew, therefore, presents him to our contemplation as belonging to
that holy race, to which he had been expressly appointed. In Matthew’s
catalogue we must look at the covenant of God, by which he adopted the seed of
Abraham as his people, separating them, by a “middle wall of
partition,”
(<490214>Ephesians
2:14,) from the rest of the nations. Luke directed his view to a higher point;
for though, from the time that God had made his covenant with Abraham, a
Redeemer was promised, in a peculiar manner, to his seed, yet we know that,
since the transgression of the first man, all needed a Redeemer, and he was
accordingly appointed for the whole world. It was by a wonderful purpose of God,
that Luke exhibited Christ to us as the son of Adam, while Matthew confined him
within the single family of Abraham. For it would be of no advantage to us, that
Christ was given by the Father as “the author of eternal salvations”
(<580509>Hebrews
5:9,) unless he had been given indiscriminately to all. Besides, that saying of
the Apostle would not be true, that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
and to-day, and for ever,”
(<581308>Hebrews
13:8,) if his power and grace had not reached to all ages from the very creation
of the world. Let us know; therefore, that to the whole human race there has
been manifested and exhibited salvation through Christ; for not without reason
is he called the son of Noah, and the son of Adam. But as we must seek him in
the word of God, the Spirit wisely directs us, through another Evangelist, to
the holy race of Abraham, to whose hands the treasure of eternal life, along
with Christ, was committed for a time,
(<450301>Romans
3:1.)
We come now to the third point of difference.
Matthew and Luke unquestionably do not observe the same order; for immediately
after David the one puts Solomon, and the other, Nathan; which makes it
perfectly clear that they follow different lines. This sort of contradiction is
reconciled by good and learned interpreters in the following manner. Matthew,
departing from the natural lineage, which is followed by Luke, reckons up the
legal genealogy. I call it the legal genealogy, because the right to the
throne passed into the hands of Salathiel. Eusebius, in the first book of his
Ecclesiastical History, adopting the opinion of Africanus, prefers applying the
epithet legal to the genealogy which is traced by Luke. But it amounts to
the same thing: for he means nothing more than this, that the kingdom, which had
been established in the person of Solomon, passed in a lawful manner to
Salathiel. But it is more correct and appropriate to say, that Matthew has
exhibited the legal order: because, by naming Solomon immediately after David,
he attends, not to the persons from whom in a regular line, according to the
flesh, Christ derived his birth, but to the manner in which he was descended
from Solomon and other kings, so as to be their lawful successor, in whose hand
God would “stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever,”
(<100713>2
Samuel 7:13.)
There is probability in the opinion that, at the
death of Ahaziah, the lineal descent from Solomon was closed. As to the command
given by David — for which some persons quote the authority of Jewish
Commentators — that should the line from Solomon fail, the royal power
would pass to the descendants of Nathan, I leave it undetermined; holding this
only for certain, that the succession to the kingdom was not confused, but
regulated by fixed degrees of kindred. Now, as the sacred history relates that,
after the murder of Ahaziah, the throne was occupied, and all the seed-royal
destroyed “by his mother Athaliah,
(<121101>2
Kings 11:1,) it is more than probable that this woman, from an eager desire of
power, had perpetrated those wicked and horrible murders that she might not be
reduced to a private rank, and see the throne transferred to another. If there
had been a son of Ahaziah still alive, the grandmother would willingly have been
allowed to reign in peace, without envy or danger, under the mask of being his
tutor. When she proceeds to such enormous crimes as to draw upon herself infamy
and hatred, it is a proof of desperation arising from her being unable any
longer to keep the royal authority in her house.
As to Joash being called “the son of
Ahaziah,”
(<142211>2
Chronicles 22:11,) the reason is, that he was the nearest relative, and was
justly considered to be the true and direct heir of the crown. Not to mention
that Athaliah (if we shall suppose her to be his grandmother)would gladly have
availed herself of her relation to the child, will any person of ordinary
understanding think it probable, that an actual son of the king could be so
concealed by “Jehoiada the priest,” as not to excite the grandmother
to more diligent search? If all is carefully weighed, there will be no
hesitation in concluding, that the next heir of the crown belonged to a
different line. And this is the meaning of Jehoiada’s
words,
“Behold,
the king’s son shall reign, as the Lord hath said of the sons of
David,”
(<142303>2
Chronicles 23:3.)
He considered it to be shameful and intolerable, that
a woman, who was a stranger by blood, should violently seize the scepter, which
God had commanded to remain in the family of David.
There is no absurdity in supposing, that Luke traces
the descent of Christ from Nathan: for it is possible that the line of Solomon,
so far as relates to the succession of the throne, may have been broken off. It
may be objected, that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as the promised Messiah, if
he be not a descendant of Solomon, who was an undoubted type of Christ.
But the answer is easy. Though he was not naturally descended from Solomon,
yet he was reckoned his son by legal succession, because he was descended from
kings.
The fourth point of difference is the great
diversity of the names. Many look upon this as a great difficulty: for from
David till Joseph, with the exception of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, none of the
names are alike in the two Evangelists. The excuse commonly offered, that the
diversity arose from its being very customary among the Jews to have two names,
appears to many persons not quite satisfactory. But as we are now unacquainted
with the method, which was followed by Matthew in drawing up and arranging the
genealogy, there is no reason to wonder, if we are unable to determine how far
both of them agree or differ as to individual names. It cannot be doubted that,
after the Babylonish captivity, the same persons are mentioned under different
names. In the case of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, the same names, I think, were
purposely retained, on account of the change which had taken place in the
nation: because the royal authority was then extinguished. Even while a feeble
shadow of power remained, a striking change was visible, which warned believers,
that they ought to expect another and more excellent kingdom than that of
Solomon, which had flourished but for a short time.
It is also worthy of remark, that the additional
number in Luke’s catalogue to that of Matthew is nothing strange; for the
number of persons in the natural line of descent is usually greater than in the
legal line. Besides, Matthew chose to divide the genealogy of Christ into three
departments, and to make each department to contain fourteen persons. In this
way, he felt himself at liberty to pass by some names, which Luke could not with
propriety omit, not having restricted himself by that rule.
Thus have I discussed the genealogy of Christ, as far
as it appeared to be generally useful. If any one is
tickled
f71 by a keener curiosity, I remember
Paul’s admonition, and prefer sobriety and modesty to trifling and useless
disputes. It is a noted passage, in which he enjoins us to avoid excessive
keenness in disputing about “genealogies, as unprofitable and vain,”
(<560309>Titus
3:9.)
It now remains to inquire, lastly, why Matthew
included the whole genealogy of Christ in
three
classes, and assigned to each class
fourteen persons. Those who think that he did so, in order to aid the memory of
his readers, state a part of the reason, but not the whole. It is true, indeed,
that a catalogue, divided into three equal numbers, is more easily remembered.
But it is also evident that this division is intended to point out a threefold
condition of the nation, from the time when Christ was promised to Abraham, to
“the fullness of the time”
(<480404>Galatians
4:4) when he was “manifested in the flesh,”
(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16.) Previous to the time of David, the tribe of Judah, though it
occupied a higher rank than the other tribes, held no power. In David the royal
authority burst upon the eyes of all with unexpected splendor, and remained till
the time of Jeconiah. After that period, there still lingered in the tribe of
Judah a portion of rank and government, which sustained the expectations of the
godly till the coming of the Messiah.
1.
The book of the
generation. Some commentators give
themselves unnecessary trouble, in order to excuse Matthew for giving to his
whole history this title, which applies only to the half of a single chapter.
For this
ejpigrafh>,
or title, does not extend to the whole book of Matthew: but the word
bi>zlov,
book, is put for catalogue: as if he had said, “Here
follows the catalogue of the generation of Christ.” It is with
reference to the promise, that Christ is called
the son of David, the son of
Abraham: for God had promised to Abraham
that he would give him a seed, “in whom all the families of the earth
should be blessed,”
(<011203>Genesis
12:3.) David received a still clearer promise, that God would “stablish
the throne of his kingdom for ever,”
(<100713>2
Samuel 7:13;) that one of his posterity would be king “as long as the sun
and moon endure,”
(<197205>Psalm
72:5;) and that “his throne should be as the days of heaven,”
(<198929>Psalm
89:29.) And so it became a customary way of speaking among the Jews to call
Christ the son of
David.
2.
Jacob begat Judah and his
brethren. While Matthew passes by in
silence Ishmael, Abraham’s first-born, and Esau, who was Jacob’s
elder brother, he properly assigns a place in the genealogy to the Twelve
Patriarchs, on all of whom God had bestowed a similar favor of adoption. He
therefore intimates, that the blessing promised in Christ does not refer to the
tribe of Judah alone, but belongs equally to all the children of Jacob, whom God
gathered into his Church, while Ishmael and Esau were treated as
strangers.
f72
3.
Judah begat Pharez and Zarah
by Tamar. This was a prelude to that
emptying of himself, f73
of which Paul speaks,
(<502007>Philippians
2:7). The Son of God might have kept his descent unspotted and pure from every
reproach or mark of infamy. But he came into the world to
“empty himself, and
take upon him the form of a servant,”
(<500207>Philippians
2:7)
to be
“a worm, and no
man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people,”
(<192206>Psalm
22:6)
and at length to undergo the accursed death of the
cross. He therefore did not refuse to admit a stain into his genealogy, arising
from incestuous intercourse which took place among his ancestors. Though Tamar
was not impelled by lust to seek connection with her father-in-law, yet it was
in an unlawful manner that she attempted to revenge the injury which she had
received. Judah again intended to commit fornication, and unknowingly to
himself, met with his daughter-in-law.
f74 But the astonishing goodness of
God strove with the sin of both; so that, nevertheless, this adulterous seed
came to possess the scepter.
f75
6.
Begat David the
King. In this genealogy, the designation
of
King
is bestowed on David alone, because in his person God exhibited a type of
the future leader of his people, the Messiah. The kingly office had been
formerly held by Saul; but, as he reached it through tumult and the ungodly
wishes of the people, the lawful possession of the office is supposed to have
commenced with David, more especially in reference to the covenant of God, who
promised that “his throne should be established for ever,”
(<100716>2
Samuel 7:16.) When the people shook off the yoke of God, and unhappily and
wickedly asked a king, saying, “Give us a king to judge us,”
(<090805>1
Samuel 8:5,) Saul was granted for short time. But his kingdom was shortly
afterwards established by God, as a pledge of true prosperity, in the hand of
David. Let this expression, David
the King, be understood by us as
pointing out the prosperous condition of the people, which the Lord had
appointed.
Meanwhile, the Evangelist adds a human disgrace,
which might almost bring a stain on the glory of this divine blessing.
David the King begat Solomon by
her that had been the wife of Uriah; by
Bathsheba, whom he wickedly tore from her husband, and for the sake of enjoying
whom, he basely surrendered an innocent man to be murdered by the swords of the
enemy,
(<101115>2
Samuel 11:15.) This taint, at the commencement of the kingdom, ought to have
taught the
Jews
not to glory in the flesh. It was the design of God to show that, in
establishing this kingdom, nothing depended on human merits.
Comparing the inspired history with the succession
described by Matthew, it is evident that he has omitted three
kings.
f76 Those who say that he did so
through forgetfulness, cannot be listened to for a moment. Nor is it probable
that they were thrown out, because they were unworthy to occupy a place in the
genealogy of Christ; for the same reason would equally apply to many others, who
are indiscriminately brought forward by Matthew, along with pious and holy
persons. A more correct account is, that he resolved to confine the list of each
class to fourteen kings, and gave himself little concern in making the
selection, because he had an adequate succession of the genealogy to place
before the eyes of his readers, down to the close of the kingdom. As to there
being only thirteen in the list, it probably arose from the blunders and
carelessness of transcribers. Epiphanius, in his First Book against Heresies,
assigns this reason, that the name of Jeconiah had been twice put down, and
unlearned
f77 persons ventured to strike out the
repetition of it as superfluous; which, he tells us, ought not to have been
done, because Jehoiakim, the father of king Jehoiakim, had the name Jeconiah, in
common with his son,
(<130317>1
Chronicles 3:17;
<122415>2
Kings 24:15;
<242720>Jeremiah
27:20; 28:4.) Robert Stephens quotes a Greek manuscript, in which the name of
Jehoiakim is introduced.
f78
12.
After the Babylonish
exile. That is, after the Jews were
carried into captivity: for the Evangelist means, that the descendants of David,
from being kings, then became exiles and slaves. As that captivity was a sort of
destruction, it came to be wonderfully arranged by Divine providence, not only
that the Jews again united in one body, but even that some vestiges of dominion
remained in the family of David. For those who returned home submitted, of their
own accord, to the authority of Zerubbabel. In this manner, the fragments of the
royal scepter
f79 lasted till the coming of Christ
was at hand, agreeably to the prediction of Jacob, “The scepter shall not
depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh
come,”
(<014910>Genesis
49:10.) And even during that wretched and melancholy dispersion, the nation
never ceased to be illuminated by some rays of the grace of God. The Greek word
metoikesi>a,
which the old translator renders
transmigration,
and Erasmus renders
exile,
literally signifies a change
of habitation. The meaning is, that the
Jews were compelled to leave their country, and to dwell as “strangers in
a land that was not theirs,”
(<011513>Genesis
15:13.)
16.
.Jesus, who is called
Christ. By the surname
Christ,
Anointed, Matthew points out his office,
to inform the readers that this was not a private person, but one divinely
anointed
to perform the office of Redeemer. What that anointing was, and to what it
referred, I shall not now illustrate at great length. As to the word itself, it
is only necessary to say that, after the royal authority was abolished, it began
to be applied exclusively to Him, from whom they were taught to expect a full
recovery of the lost salvation. So long as any splendor of royalty continued in
the family of David, the kings were wont to be called
cristoi>,
anointed.
f80 But that the fearful desolation
which followed might not throw the minds of the godly into despair, it pleased
God to appropriate the name of
Messiah,
Anointed, to the Redeemer alone: as is
evident from Daniel, (9:25, 26.) The evangelical history everywhere shows that
this was an ordinary way of speaking, at the time when the Son of God was
“manifested in the
flesh,”(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16.)
MATTHEW
1:18-25
|
MATTHEW
1:18-25
|
|
18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ
was in this manner. For when his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before
they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
19. And Joseph her husband, as he was a just man, and was
unwilling to injure her reputation, intended to send her away secretly.
20. And while he was considering these things, lo, the angel
of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not
to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is by the
Holy Spirit. 21. And she shall bear a son, and thou shalt
call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.
22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a
son, and they shall call his name Immanuel: which, if one interprets it, means,
God is with us. 24. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did
as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife:
25. And knew her not, till she brought forth her first-born
son: and called his name JESUS.
|
18.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ. Matthew
does not as yet relate the place or manner of Christ’s birth, but the way
in which his heavenly generation was made known to Joseph. First, he says that
Mary was found to be with child
by the Holy Spirit. Not that this secret
work of God was generally known: but the historian mixes up, with the knowledge
of men,
f81 the power of the Spirit, which was
still unknown. He points out the time:
When she was espoused to
Joseph, and
before they came
together. So far as respects conjugal
fidelity, from the time that a young woman was betrothed to a man, she was
regarded by the Jews as his lawful wife. When a “damsel betrothed to an
husband” was convicted of being unchaste, the law condemned both of the
guilty parties as adulterers:
“the damsel,
because she cried not, being in the
city;
and the man, because he hath
humbled his neighbor’s
wife,”
(<052223>Deuteronomy
22:23, 24.)
The phrase employed by the Evangelist,
before they came
together, is either a modest appellation
for conjugal intercourse, or simply means, “before they came to dwell
together as husband and wife, and to make one home and family.” The
meaning will thus be, that the virgin had not yet been delivered by her parents
into the hands of her husband, but still remained under their
roof.
19.
As he was a just
man. Some commentators explain this to
mean, that Joseph,
because
he was a just man, determined to spare his
wife: f82
taking
justice
to be only another name for humanity, or, a gentle and merciful disposition.
But others more correctly read the two clauses as contrasted with each other:
that Joseph was a just
man, but yet that he was anxious about
the reputation of his wife. That justice, on which a commendation is here
bestowed, consisted in hatred and abhorrence of crime. Suspecting his wife of
adultery, and even convinced that she was an adulterer, he was unwilling to hold
out the encouragement of lenity to such a
crime.
f83 And certainly he is but a
pander
f84 to his wife, who connives at her
unchastity. Not only is such wickedness regarded with abhorrence by good and
honorable minds, but that winking at crime which I have mentioned is marked by
the laws with infamy.
Joseph, therefore, moved by an ardent love
of
justice, condemned the crime of which he
supposed his wife to have been guilty; while the gentleness of his disposition
prevented him from going to the utmost rigor of law. It was a moderate and
calmer method to depart privately, and remove to a distant
place.
f85 Hence we infer, that he was not of
so soft and effeminate a disposition, as to screen and promote uncleanness under
the pretense of merciful dealing: he only made some abatement from stern
justice, so as not to expose his wife to evil report. Nor ought we to have any
hesitation in believing, that his mind was restrained by a secret inspiration of
the Spirit. We know how weak jealousy is, and to what violence it hurries its
possessor. Though Joseph did not proceed to rash and headlong conduct, yet he
was wonderfully preserved from many imminent dangers, which would have sprung
out of his resolution to depart.
The same remark is applicable to Mary’s
silence. Granting that modest reserve prevented her from venturing to tell her
husband, that she was with child
by the Holy Spirit, it was not so much
by her own choice, as by the providence of God that she was restrained. Let us
suppose her to have spoken. The nature of the case made it little short of
incredible. Joseph would have thought himself ridiculed, and everybody would
have treated the matter as a laughing-stock: after which the Divine
announcement, if it had followed, would have been of less importance. The Lord
permitted his servant Joseph to be betrayed by ignorance into an erroneous
conclusion, that, by his own voice, he might bring him back to the right
path.
Yet it is proper for us to know, that this was done
more on our account than for his personal advantage: for every necessary method
was adopted by God, to prevent unfavorable suspicion from falling on the
heavenly message. When the angel approaches Joseph, who is still unacquainted
with the whole matter, wicked men have no reason to charge him with being
influenced by prejudice to listen to the voice of God. He was not overcome by
the insinuating address of his wife. His previously formed opinion was not
shaken by entreaties. He was not induced by human arguments to take the opposite
side. But, while the groundless accusation of his wife was still rankling in his
mind, God interposed between them, that we might regard Joseph as a more
competent witness, and possessing greater authority, as a messenger sent to us
from heaven. We see how God chose to employ an angel in informing his servant
Joseph, that to others he might be a heavenly herald, and that the intelligence
which he conveyed might not be borrowed from his wife, or from any
mortal.
The reason why this mystery was not immediately made
known to a greater number of persons appears to be this. It was proper that this
inestimable treasure should remain concealed, and that the knowledge of it
should be imparted to none but the children of God. Nor is it absurd to say,
that the Lord intended, as he frequently does, to put the faith and obedience of
his own people to the trial. Most certainly, if any man shall maliciously refuse
to believe and obey God in this matter, he will have abundant reason to be
satisfied with the proofs by which this article of our faith is supported. For
the same reason, the Lord permitted Mary to enter into the married state, that
under the veil of marriage, till the full time for revealing it, the heavenly
conception of the virgin might be concealed. Meanwhile, the knowledge of it was
withheld from unbelievers, as their ingratitude and malice
deserved.
20.
And while he was considering
these things. We see here how
seasonably, and, as we would say, at the very point, the Lord usually aids his
people. Hence too we infer that, when he appears not to observe our cares and
distresses, we are still under his eye. He may, indeed, hide himself, and remain
silent; but, when our patience has been subjected to the trial, he will aid us
at the time which his own wisdom has selected. How slow or late soever his
assistance may be thought to be, it is for our advantage that it is thus
delayed.
The angel of the Lord appeared to
him in a dream. This is one of two
ordinary kinds of revelations mentioned in the book of Numbers, where the Lord
thus speaks:
“If there be a
prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and
will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so. With him will I
speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speechess,”
(<041206>Numbers
12:6-8.)
But we must understand that dreams of this sort
differ widely from natural dreams; for they have a character of certainty
engraven on them, and are impressed with a divine seal, so that there is not the
slightest doubt of their truth. The dreams which men commonly have, arise either
from the thoughts of the
day,
or from their natural temperament, or from bodily indisposition, or from
similar causes: while the dreams which come from God are accompanied by the
testimony of the Spirit, which puts beyond a doubt that it is God who
speaks.
Son of David, fear
not. This exhortation shows, that Joseph
was perplexed with the fear of sharing in the criminality of his wife, by
enduring her adultery. The angel removes his suspicion of guilt, with the view
of enabling him to dwell with his wife with a safe conscience. The appellation,
Son of
David, was employed on the present
occasion, in order to elevate his mind to that lofty mystery; for he belonged to
that family, and was one of the surviving few,
f86 from whom the salvation promised
to the world could proceed. When he heard the name of
David,
from whom he was
descended,
Joseph ought to have remembered that remarkable promise of God which related
to the establishment of the kingdom, so as to acknowledge that there was nothing
new in what was now told him. The predictions of the prophets were, in effect,
brought forward by the angel, to prepare the mind of Joseph for receiving the
present favor.
21.
And thou shalt call his
name JESUS. I have already explained
briefly, but as far as was necessary, the meaning of that word. At present I
shall only add, that the words of the angel set aside the dream of those who
derive it from the essential name of God, Jehovah; for the angel expresses the
reason why the Son of God is so called,
Because he
shall SAVE
his
people; which suggests quite a different
etymology from what they have contrived. It is justly and appropriately added,
they tell us, that Christ will be the author of salvation, because he is the
Eternal God. But in vain do they attempt to escape by this subterfuge; for the
nature of the blessing which God bestows upon us is not all that is here stated.
This office was conferred upon his Son from the fact, from the command which had
been given to him by the Father, from the office with which he was invested when
he came down to us from heaven. Besides, the two words
jIhsou~v
and
hwhy,
Jesus
and
Jehovah,
agree but in two letters, and differ in all the rest; which makes it
exceedingly absurd to allege any affinity whatever between them, as if they were
but one name. Such mixtures I leave to the alchymists, or to those who closely
resemble them, the Cabalists who contrive for us those trifling and affected
refinements.
When the Son of God came to us clothed in flesh, he
received from the Father a name which plainly told for what purpose he came,
what was his power, and what we had a right to expect from him. for the name
Jesus
is derived from the Hebrew verb, in the Hiphil conjugation,
[yçwh,
which signifies to
save. In Hebrew it is pronounced
differently,
Jehoshua;
but the Evangelists, who wrote in Greek, followed the customary mode of
pronunciation; for in the writings of Moses, and in the other books of the Old
Testament, the Hebrew word
[wçwhy,
Jehoshua,
or
Joshua,
is rendered by the Greek translators
jIhsou~v,
Jesus.
But I must mention another instance of the ignorance of those who
derive—or, I would rather say, who forcibly tear—the name
Jesus
from
Jehovah.
They hold it to be in the highest degree improper that any mortal man should
share this name in common with the Son of God, and make a strange outcry that
Christ would never allow his name to be so profaned. As if the reply were not at
hand, that the name
Jesus
was quite as commonly used in those days as the name
Joshua.
Now, as it is sufficiently clear that the name
Jesus
presents to us the Son of God as the Author of salvation, let us examine
more closely the words of the angel.
He shall save his people from their
sins. The first truth taught us by these
words is, that those whom Christ is sent to save are in themselves lost. But he
is expressly called the Savior of the Church. If those whom God admits to
fellowship with himself were sunk in death and ruin till they were restored to
life by Christ, what shall we say of “strangers”
(<490212>Ephesians
2:12) who have never been illuminated by the hope of life? When salvation is
declared to be shut up in Christ, it clearly implies that the whole human race
is devoted to destruction. The cause of this destruction ought also to be
observed; for it is not unjustly, or without good reason, that the Heavenly
Judge pronounces us to be accursed. The angel declares that we have perished,
and are overwhelmed by an awful condemnation, because we stand excluded from
life by our sins. Thus we obtain a view of our corruption and depravity; for if
any man lived a perfectly holy life, he might do without Christ as a Redeemer.
But all to a man need his grace; and, therefore, it follows that they are the
slaves of sin, and are destitute of true righteousness.
Hence, too, we learn in what way or manner Christ
saves; he delivers us from sins. This deliverance consists of two parts.
Having made a complete atonement, he brings us a free pardon, which delivers us
from condemnation to death, and reconciles us to God. Again, by the sanctifying
influences of his Spirit, he frees us from the tyranny of Satan, that we may
live “unto righteousness,”
(<600224>1
Peter 2:24.) Christ is not truly acknowledged as a Savior, till, on the one
hand, we learn to receive a free pardon of our sins, and know that we are
accounted righteous before God, because we are free from guilt; and till, on the
other hand, we ask from him the Spirit of righteousness and holiness, having no
confidence whatever in our own works or power. By Christ’s
people
the angel unquestionably means the Jews, to whom he was appointed as Head
and King; but as the Gentiles were shortly afterwards to be ingrafted into the
stock of Abraham,
(<451117>Romans
11:17,) this promise of
salvation
is extended indiscriminately to all who are incorporated by faith in the
“one body”
(<461220>1
Corinthians 12:20) of the Church.
22.
Now all this was
done. It is ignorant and childish
trifling to argue, that the name
Jesus
is given to the Son of God, because he is called
Immanuel.
For Matthew does not confine this assertion to the single fact of the name,
but includes whatever is heavenly and divine in the conception of Christ; and
that is the reason why he employs the general term
all.
We must now see how appropriately the prediction of Isaiah is applied. It is
a well-known and remarkable passage,
(<230714>Isaiah
7:14,) but perverted by the Jews with their accustomed malice; though the hatred
of Christ and of truth, which they thus discover, is as blind and foolish as it
is wicked. To such a pitch of impudence have many of their Rabbins proceeded, as
to explain it in reference to King Hezekiah, who was then about fifteen years of
age. And what, I ask, must be their rage for lying, when, in order to prevent
the admission of clear light, they invert the order of nature, and shut up a
youth in his mother’s womb, that he may be born sixteen years old? But the
enemies of Christ deserve that God should strike them with a spirit of giddiness
and insensibility, should
“pour out upon them
a spirit of deep sleep and close their eyes,”
(<232910>Isaiah
29:10.)
Others apply it to a creature of their own fancy,
some unknown son of Ahaz, whose birth Isaiah predicted. But with what propriety
was he called
Immanuel,
or the land subjected to his sway, who closed his life in a private station
and without honor? for shortly afterwards the prophet tells us that this child,
whoever he was, would be ruler of the land. Equally absurd is the notion that
this passage relates to the prophet’s son. On this subject we may remark,
that Christian writers have very strangely misapprehended the prediction
contained in the next chapter, by applying it to Christ. The prophet there says,
that, instructed by a vision, he “went unto the prophetess; and she
conceived, and bare a son,” and that the child whom she bore was named by
Divine command,”Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” “Making speed to the
spoil, hasten the prey,”
(<230803>Isaiah
8:3.) All that is there described is approaching war, accompanied by fearful
desolation; which makes it very manifest that the subjects are totally
different.
Let us now, therefore, investigate the true meaning
of this passage. The city of Jerusalem is besieged. Ahaz trembles, and is almost
dead with terror. The prophet is sent to assure him that God will protect the
city. But a simple promise is not sufficient to compose his agitated mind. The
prophet is sent to him, saying,
“Ask thee a sign of
the Lord thy God;
ask it either in
the depth, or in the height
above,”
(<230711>Isaiah
7:11.)
That wicked hypocrite, concealing his unbelief,
disdains to ask a sign. The prophet rebukes him sharply, and at length
adds,
“The Lord himself
shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name
Immanuel,”
(<230714>Isaiah
7:14.)
We expound this as relating to Christ in the
following manner: “You, the whole posterity of David, as far as lies in
your power, endeavor to nullify the grace which is promised to you;” (for
the prophet expressly calls them, by way of disgrace, the house of David,
<230713>Isaiah
7:13;) “but your base infidelity will never prevent the truth of God from
proving to be victorious. God promises that the city will be preserved safe and
unhurt from its enemies. If his word is not enough, he is ready to give you the
confirmation of such a sign as you may demand. You reject both favors, and spurn
them from you; but God will remain steady to his engagement. For the promised
Redeemer will come, in whom God will show himself to be fully present to his
people.”
The Jews reply, that Isaiah would have been at
variance with everything like reason or probability, if he had given to the men
of that age a sign, which was not to be exhibited till after the lapse of nearly
eight hundred years. And then they assume the airs of haughty
triumph,
f87 as if this objection of the
Christians had originated in ignorance or thoughtlessness, and were now
forgotten and buried. But the solution, I think, is easy; provided we keep in
view that a covenant of adoption was given to the Jews, on which the other acts
of the divine kindness depended. There was then a general promise, by which God
adopted the children of Abraham as a nation, and on which were founded all the
special promises. Again, the foundation of this covenant was the Messiah. Now we
hold, that the reason for delivering the city was, that it was the sanctuary of
God, and out of it the Redeemer would come. But for this, Jerusalem would a
hundred times have perished.
Let pious readers now consider, when the royal family
had openly rejected the sign which God had offered to them, if it was not
suitable that the prophet should pass all at once to the Messiah, and address
them in this manner: “Though this age is unworthy of the deliverance of
which God has given me a promise, yet God is mindful of his covenant, and will
rescue this city from its enemies. While he grants no particular sign to testify
his grace, this one sign ought to be deemed more than sufficient to meet your
wishes. from the stock of David the Messiah will arise.” Yet it must be
observed that, when the prophet reminds unbelievers of the general covenant, it
is a sort of reproof, because they did not accept of a particular sign. I have
now, I think, proved that, when the door was shut against every kind of miracle,
the prophet made an appropriate transition to Christ, for the purpose of leading
unbelievers to reflect, that the only cause of the deliverance was the covenant
that had been made with their fathers. And by this remarkable example has God
been pleased to testify to all ages, that he followed with uninterrupted
kindness the children of Abraham, only because in Christ, and not through their
own merits, he had made with them a gracious covenant.
There is another piece of sophistry by which the Jews
endeavor to parry our argument. Immediately after the words in question, the
prophet adds:
“Before the child
shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest
shall be forsaken of both her kings,”
(<230716>Isaiah
7:16.)
Hence they infer, that the promised birth of the
child would be delayed for a very short time; otherwise, it would not agree with
the rapidly approaching change of the kingdoms, which, the prophet announeed,
would take place before that child should have passed half the period of
infancy. I reply, when Isaiah has given a sign of the future Savior, and
declared that a child will be born, who is the true Immanuel, or—to
use Paul’s language—God manifest in the flesh,
(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16,) he proceeds to speak, in general terms, of all the children of
his own time. A strong proof of this readily presents itself; for, after having
spoken of the general promise of God, he returns to the special promise, which
he had been commissioned to declare. The former passage, which relates to a
final and complete redemption, describes one particular child, to whom alone
belongs the name of God; while the latter passage, which relates to a special
benefit then close at hand, determines the time by the childhood of those who
were recently born, or would be born shortly afterwards.
Hitherto, if I mistake not, I have refuted, by strong
and conclusive arguments, the calumnies of the Jews, by which they endeavor to
prevent the glory of Christ from appearing, with resplendent luster, in this
prediction. It now remains for us to refute their sophistical reasoning about
the Hebrew word
hml[,
virgin.
f88 They wantonly persecute Matthew
for proving that Christ was born of a virgin,
f89 while the Hebrew noun merely
signifies a young
woman; and ridicule us for being led
astray by the wrong translation
f90 of a word, to believe that he was
born by the Holy Spirit, of whom the prophet asserts no more than that he would
be the son of a young woman. And, first, they display an excessive eagerness for
disputation, by laboring
f91 to prove that a word, which is
uniformly applied in Scripture to
virgins,
denotes here a young woman who had known a man. The etymology too agrees
with Matthew’s translation of the word: for it means
hiding,
f92 which expresses the modesty that
becomes a virgin.
f93 They produce a passage from the
book of Proverbs, “the way of a man with a maids,”
hml[b,
(<203019>Proverbs
30:19.) But it does not at all support their views. Solomon speaks there of a
young woman who has obtained the affections of a young man: but it does not
follow as a matter of course, that the young man has seduced the object of his
regard; or rather, the probability leans much more strongly to the other
side. f94
But granting all that they ask as to the meaning of
the word, the subject demonstrates, and compels the acknowledgment, that the
prophet is speaking of a miraculous and extraordinary birth. He exclaims that he
is bringing a sign from the Lord, and not an ordinary sign, but one superior to
every other.
The Lord himself shall
give you a sign.
Behold, a virgin
shall conceive,
(<230714>Isaiah
7:14.)
If he were only to say, that a woman would bear a
child, how ridiculous would that magnificent preface have been? Thus we see,
that the insolence of the Jews exposes not only themselves, but the sacred
mysteries of God, to scorn.
Besides, a powerful argument may be drawn from the
whole strain of the passage.
Behold, a virgin shall
conceive. Why is no mention made of a
man? It is because the prophet draws our attention to something very uncommon.
Again, the virgin is commanded to name the child.
Thou shalt call his name
Immanuel. In this respect, also, the
prophet expresses something extraordinary: for, though it is frequently related
in Scripture, that the names were given to children by their mothers, yet it was
done by the authority of the fathers. When the prophet addresses his discourse
to the virgin, he takes away from men, in respect to this child, that authority
which is conferred upon them by the order of nature. Let this, therefore, be
regarded as an established truth, that the prophet here refers to a remarkable
miracle of God, and recommends it to the attentive and devout consideration of
all the godly,—a miracle which is basely profaned by the Jews, who apply
to the ordinary method of conception what is said in reference to the secret
power of the Spirit.
23.
His name
Immanuel. The phrase,
God is with
us, is no doubt frequently employed in
Scripture to denote, that he is present with us by his assistance and grace, and
displays the power of his hand in our defense. But here we are instructed as to
the manner in which God communicates with men. For out of Christ we are
alienated from him; but through Christ we are not only received into his favor,
but are made one with him. When Paul says, that the Jews under the law were
nigh to God,
(<490217>Ephesians
2:17,) and that a deadly enmity
(<490215>Ephesians
2:15) subsisted between him and the Gentiles, he means only that, by shadows and
figures, God then gave to the people whom he had adopted the tokens of his
presence. That promise was still in force, “The Lord thy God is among
you,”
(<050721>Deuteronomy
7:21,) and, “This is my rest for ever,”
(<19D214>Psalm
132:14.) But while the familiar intercourse between God and the people depended
on a Mediator, what had not yet fully taken place was shadowed out by symbols.
His seat and residence is placed “between the Cherubim,”
(<198001>Psalm
80:1,) because the ark was the figure and visible pledge of his
glory.
But in Christ the actual presence of God with his
people, and not, as before, his shadowy presence, has been
exhibited.
f95 This is the reason, why Paul says,
that “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,”
(<510209>Colossians
2:9.) And certainly he would not be a properly qualified Mediator, if he did not
unite both natures in his person, and thus bring men into an alliance with God.
Nor is there any force in the objection, about which the Jews make a good deal
of noise, that the name of God is frequently applied to those memorials, by
which he testified that he was present with believers.
For it cannot be denied, that this name,
Immanuel,
contains an implied contrast between the presence of God, as exhibited in
Christ, with every other kind of presence, which was manifested to the ancient
people before his coming. If the reason of this name began to be actually true,
when Christ appeared in the flesh, it follows that it was not completely, but
only in part, that God was formerly united with the Fathers.
Hence arises another proof, that Christ is God
manifested in the flesh,
(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16.) He discharged, indeed, the office of Mediator from the beginning
of the world; but as this depended wholly on the latest revelation, he is justly
called Immanuel at that time, when clothed, as it were, with a new character, he
appears in public as a Priest, to atone for the sins of men by the sacrifice of
his body, to reconcile them to the Father by the price of his blood, and, in a
word, to fulfill every part of the salvation of
men. f96
The first thing which we ought to consider in this name is the divine
majesty of Christ, so as to yield to him the reverence which is due to the only
and eternal God. But we must not, at the same time, forget the fruit which God
intended that we should collect and receive from this name. For whenever we
contemplate the one person of Christ as God-man, we ought to hold it for certain
that, if we are united to Christ by faith, we possess God.
In the words,
they shall
call, there is a change of the number.
But this is not at all at variance with what I have already said. True, the
prophet addresses the virgin alone, and therefore uses the second person,
Thou shalt
call. But from the time that this name
was published, all the godly have an equal right to make this confession, that
God has given himself to us to be enjoyed in
Christ.
f97
24.
Joseph, being raised from
sleep. The ready performance, which is
here described, serves not less to attest the certainty of Joseph’s faith,
than to commend his obedience. For, if every scruple had not been removed, and
his conscience fully pacified, he would never have proceeded so cheerfully, on a
sudden change of opinion, to take
unto him his wife, whose society, he
lately thought, would pollute him.
f98 The dream must have carried some
mark of Divinity, which did not allow his mind to hesitate. Next followed the
effect of faith. Having learned the will of God, he instantly prepared himself
to obey.
25.
And knew her
not. This passage afforded the pretext
for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former
period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a
virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other
children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously
defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that
no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the
Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called
first-born;
but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a
virgin.
f99 It is said that Joseph
knew her not till she had brought
forth her first-born son: but this is
limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not
inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers.
Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from
curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an
extreme fondness for disputation.
LUKE 2:1-7
|
LUKE
2:1-7
|
|
1. Now it happened in those days,
an edict came out from Augustus Caesar, that the whole world should be
registered.
f100
2. This first
registration
f101
was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.
3. And all went to make the
return,
f102
each in his own city. 4. And
Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, into
the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the
house and lineage of David,) 5. To make the return with
Mary
f103
his betrothed wife, who was pregnant.
6. And it happened while they were there, the days of
bringing forth were fulfilled.
f104
7. And she brought forth her
first-born son, and wrapped him in bandages,
f105
and laid him in a
manger;
f106
because there was no room for them in the
inn.
|
Luke relates how it happened, that Christ was
born in the city of Bethlehem, as his mother was living at a distance from her
home, when she was approaching to her confinement. And first he sets aside the
idea of human contrivance,
f107 by saying, that Joseph and Mary
had left home, and came to that place to make the return according to their
family and tribe. If intentionally and on
purpose
f108 they had changed their residence
that Mary might bring forth her child in Bethlehem, we would have looked only at
the human beings concerned. But as they have no other design than to obey the
edict of Augustus, we readily acknowledge, that they were led like blind
persons, by the hand of God, to the place where Christ must be born. This may
appear to be accidental, as everything else, which does not proceed from a
direct human intention, is ascribed by irreligious men to Fortune. But we must
not attend merely to the events themselves. We must remember also the prediction
which was uttered by the prophet many centuries before. A comparison will
clearly show it to have been accomplished by the wonderful Providence of God,
that a registration was then enacted by Augustus Caesar, and that Joseph and
Mary set out from home, so as to arrive in Bethlehem at the very point of
time.
Thus we see that the holy servants of God, even
though they wander from their design, unconscious where they are going, still
keep the right path, because God directs their steps. Nor is the Providence of
God less wonderful in employing the mandate of a tyrant to draw Mary from home,
that the prophecy may be fulfilled. God had marked out by his prophet—as
we shall afterwards see—the place where he determined that his Son should
be born. If Mary had not been constrained to do otherwise, she would have chosen
to bring forth her child at home. Augustus orders a registration to take place
in Judea, and each person to give his name, that they may afterwards pay an
annual tax, which they were formerly accustomed to pay to God. Thus an ungodly
man takes forcible possession of that which God was accustomed to demand from
his people. It was, in effect, reducing the Jews to entire subjection, and
forbidding them to be thenceforth reckoned as the people of
God.
Matters have been brought, in this way, to the last
extremity, and the Jews appear to be cut off and alienated for ever from the
covenant of God. At that very time does God suddenly, and contrary to universal
expectation, afford a remedy. What is more, he employs that wicked tyranny for
the redemption of his people. For the governor, (or whoever was employed by
Caesar for the purpose,) while he executes the commission entrusted to him, is,
unknown to himself, God’s herald, to call Mary to the place which God had
appointed. And certainly Luke’s whole narrative may well lead believers to
acknowledge, that Christ was led by the hand of God “from his
mother’s belly,”
(<192210>Psalm
22:10.) Nor is it of small consequence
f109 to the certainty of faith to
know, that Mary was drawn suddenly, and contrary to her own intention, to
Bethlehem, that “out of it might come forth”
(<330502>Micah
5:2) the Redeemer, as he had been formerly promised.
1.
The whole
world. This figure of
speech
f110 (by which the whole is taken for
a part, or a part for the whole) was in constant use among the Roman authors,
and ought not to be reckoned harsh. That this registration might be more
tolerable and less odious, it was extended equally, I have no doubt, to all the
provinces; though the rate of taxation may have been different. I consider
this first
registration to mean, that the Jews,
being completely subdued, were then loaded with a new and unwonted yoke. Others
read it, that this registration
was first made when Cyrenius was
governor of
Syria;
f111 but there is no probability in
that view. The tax was, indeed, annual; but the registration did not take place
every year. The meaning is, that the Jews were far more heavily oppressed than
they had formerly been.
There is a diversity as to the name of the Proconsul.
Some call him
Cyrenius,
(Kurh>niov,)
and others,
Quirinus
or
Quirinius.
But there is nothing strange in this;for we know that the Greeks, when they
translate Latin names, almost always make some change in the pronunciation. But
a far greater difficulty springs up in another direction. Josephus says that,
while Archelaus was a prisoner at Vienna, (Ant. 17:13. 2,) Quirinus came as
Proconsul, with instructions to annex Judea to the province of Syria, (xviii.
1.1.) Now, historians are agreed, that Archelaus reigned nine years after the
death of his father Herod. It would therefore appear, that there was an interval
of about thirteen years between the birth of Christ and this registration; for
almost all assent to the account given by Epiphanius, that Christ was born in
the thirty-third year of Herod: that is, four years before his
death.
Another circumstance not a little perplexing is, that
the same Josephus speaks of this registration as having happened in the
thirty-seventh year after the victory at
Actium,
f112 (Ant. 18:2. 1.) If this be true,
Augustus lived, at the utmost, not more than seven years after this event; which
makes a deduction of eight or nine years from his age: for it is plain from the
third chapter of Luke’s Gospel, that he was at that time only in his
fifteenth year. But, as the age of Christ is too well known to be called in
question, it is highly probable that, in this and many other passages of
Josephus’s History, his recollection had failed him. Historians are agreed
that Quirinus was Consul nineteen years, or thereby, before the victory over
Antony, which gave Augustus the entire command of the empire: and so he must
have been sent into the province at a very advanced age. Besides, the same
Josephus enumerates four governors of Judea within eight years; while he
acknowledges that the fifth was governor for fifteen years. That was Valerius
Gratus, who was succeeded by Pontius Pilate.
Another solution may be offered. It might be found
impracticable to effect the registration immediately after the edict had been
issued: for Josephus relates, that Coponius was sent with an army to reduce the
Jews to subjection, (Ant. 18:2.2 :) from which it may easily be inferred, that
the registration was prevented, for a time, by popular tumult. The words of Luke
bear this sense, that, about the time of our Lord’s birth, an edict came
out to have the people registered, but that the registration could not take
place till after a change of the kingdom, when Judea had been annexed to another
province. This clause is accordingly added by way of correction.
This first registration was made
when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.
That is, it was then first carried into
effect. f113
But the whole question is not yet answered: for,
while Herod was king of Judea, what purpose did it serve to register a people
who paid no tribute to the Roman Empire? I reply: there is no absurdity in
supposing that Augustus, by way of accustoming the Jews to the yoke, (for their
obstinacy was abundantly well-known,) chose to have them registered, even under
the reign of Herod.
f114 Nor did Herod’s peculiar
authority as king make it inconsistent that the Jews should pay to the Roman
Empire a stipulated sum for each man under the name of a tax: for we know that
Herod, though he was called a king, held nothing more than a borrowed power, and
was little better than a slave. On what authority Eusebius states that this
registration took place by an order of the Roman Senate, I know
not.
7.
Because there was no room for
them in the inn. We see here not only
the great poverty of Joseph, but the cruel tyranny which admitted of no excuse,
but compelled Joseph to bring his wife along with him, at an inconvenient
season, when she was near the time of her delivery. Indeed, it is probable that
those who were the descendants of the royal family were treated more harshly and
disdainfully than the rest. Joseph was not so devoid of feeling as to have no
concern about his wife’s delivery. He would gladly have avoided this
necessity: but, as that is impossible, he is forced to
yield,
f115 and commends himself to God. We
see, at the same time, what sort of beginning the life of the Son of God had,
and in what cradle
f116 he was placed. Such was his
condition at his birth, because he had taken upon him our flesh for this
purpose, that he might, empty himself”
(<502007>Philippians
2:7) on our account. When he was thrown into a stable, and placed in a manger,
and a lodging refused him among men, it was that heaven might be opened to us,
not as a temporary lodging,
f117 but as our eternal country and
inheritance, and that angels might receive us into their abode.
LUKE 2:8-14
|
LUKE
2:8-14
|
|
8. And there were shepherds in the
same country abiding in the fields,
f118
and watching by night over their
flock.
f119
9. And, lo, the angel of the
Lord came upon them: and the glory
f120
of the Lord shone round about them, and they
feared with a great fear. 10. And the angel said to them,
Fear not: for, lo, I announce to you great joy, which shall be to all the
people: 11. For this day is born to you a Savior, who is
Christ the Lord, in the city of David. 12. And this shall be
a sign to you :
f121
you shall find the babe wrapped in
swaddling-bands
f122
laid in a manger: 13. And
suddenly there was present with the angel a multitude of the heavenly
host,
f123
praising God, and saying,
14. Glory in the highest
f124
to God, and on earth peace, among men
good-will. f125
|
8.
And there were
shepherds. It would have been to no
purpose that Christ was born in Bethlehem, if it had not been made known to the
world. But the method of doing so, which is described by Luke, appears to the
view of men very unsuitable. First, Christ is revealed but to a few witnesses,
and that too amidst the darkness of night. Again, though God had, at his
command, many honorable and distinguished witnesses, he passed by them, and
chose shepherds, persons of humble rank, and of no account among men. Here the
reason and wisdom of the flesh must prove to be foolishness; and we must
acknowledge, that “the foolishness of God”
(<460125>1
Corinthians 1:25) excels all the wisdom that exists, or appears to exist, in the
world. But this too was a part of the “emptying of himself,”
(<501706>Philippians
2:6:) not that any part of Christ’s glory should be taken away by it, but
that it should lie in concealment for a time. Again, as Paul reminds us, that
the gospel is mean according to the flesh, “that our faith should
stand” in the power of the Spirit, not in the
“lofty
f126 words of human wisdom,” or
in any worldly splendor,
f127
(<460204>1
Corinthians 2:4,5;) so this inestimable “treasure” has been
deposited by God, from the beginning, “in earthen vessels,”
(<470407>2
Corinthians 4:7,) that he might more fully try the obedience of our faith. If
then we desire to come to Christ, let us not be ashamed to follow those whom the
Lord, in order to cast down the pride of the world, has taken, from among the
dung f128
of cattle, to be our instructors.
9.
And, lo, the angel of the
Lord came upon them. He says, that
the glory of the
Lord
f129
shone
around the shepherds, by which they
perceived him to be an angel.
f130 For it would have been of little
avail to be told by an angel what is related by Luke, if God had not testified,
by some outward sign, that what they heard proceeded from Him. The angel
appeared, not in an ordinary form, or without majesty, but surrounded with the
brightness of heavenly glory, to affect powerfully the minds of the shepherds,
that they might receive the discourse which was addressed to them, as coming
from the mouth of God himself. Hence the
fear,
of which Luke shortly afterwards speaks, by which God usually humbles the
hearts of men, (as I have formerly explained,) and disposes them to receive his
word with reverence.
10.
Fear
not. The design of this exhortation is
to alleviate their fear. For, though it is profitable for the minds of men to be
struck with awe, that they may learn to “give unto the Lord the glory due
unto his name,”
(<192902>Psalm
29:2;) yet they have need, at the same time, of consolation, that they may not
be altogether overwhelmed. For the majesty of God could not but swallow up the
whole world, if there were not some mildness to mitigate the terror which it
brings. And so the reprobate fall down lifeless at the sight of God, because he
appears to them in no other character than that of a judge. But to revive the
minds of the shepherds, the angel declares that he was sent to them for a
different purpose, to announce to
them the mercy of God. When men hear
this single word, that God is reconciled to them, it not only raises up those
who are fallen down, but restores those who were ruined, and recalls them from
death to life.
The angel opens his discourse by saying, that he
announces great
joy; and next assigns the ground or
matter of joy, that a Savior is
born. These words show us, first, that,
until men have peace with God, and are reconciled to him through the grace of
Christ, all the joy that they experience is deceitful, and of short
duration.
f131 Ungodly men frequently indulge in
frantic and intoxicating mirth; but if there be none to make peace between them
and God, the hidden stings of conscience must produce fearful torment. Besides,
to whatever extent they may flatter themselves in luxurious indulgence, their
own lusts are so many tormentors. The commencement of solid joy is, to perceive
the fatherly love of God toward us, which alone gives tranquillity to our minds.
And this “joy,” in which, Paul tells us, “the kingdom of
God” consists, is “in the Holy Spirit,”
(<451417>Romans
14:17.) By calling it great
joy, he shows us, not only that we
ought, above all things, to rejoice in the salvation brought us by Christ, but
that this blessing is so great and boundless, as fully to compensate for all the
pains, distresses, and anxieties of the present life. Let us learn to be so
delighted with Christ alone, that the perception of his grace may overcome, and
at length remove from us, all the distresses of the
flesh. f132
Which shall be to all the
people. Though the angel addresses the
shepherds alone, yet he plainly states, that the message of salvation which he
brings is of wider extent, so that not only they, in their private capacity, may
hear it, but that others may also hear. Now let it be understood, that this joy
was common to all people, because, it was indiscriminately offered to all. For
God had promised Christ, not to one person or to another, but to the whole seed
of Abraham. If the Jews were deprived, for the most part, of the joy that was
offered to them, it arose from their unbelief; just as, at the present day, God
invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the
ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered
to all, is enjoyed by few. Although this joy is confined to a few persons, yet,
with respect to God, it is said to be common. When the angel says that this
joy shall be to all the
people, he speaks of the chosen people
only; but now that, the middle wall of partition”
(<490214>Ephesians
2:14) has been thrown down, the same message has reference to the whole human
race.
f133 For Christ proclaims peace, not
only, to them that are nigh,”but to them that are, far off,”
(<490217>Ephesians
2:17,) to “strangers”
(<490212>Ephesians
2:12) equally with citizens. But as the peculiar covenant with the Jews lasted
till the resurrection of Christ, so the angel separates them from the rest of
the nations.
11.
This day is born to
you. Here, as we lately hinted, the
angel expresses the cause of the joy.
This day is
born the Redeemer long ago promised, who
was to restore the Church of God to its proper condition. The angel does not
speak of it as a thing altogether unknown. He opens his embassy by referring to
the Law and the Prophets; for had he been addressing heathens or irreligious
persons, it would have been of no use to employ this mode of speaking:
this day is born to you a Savior,
who is Christ the Lord. For the same
reason, he mentions that he was born
in the city of
David, which could serve no purpose, but
to recall the remembrance of those promises which were universally known among
the Jews. Lastly, the angel adapted his discourse to hearers who were not
altogether unacquainted with the promised redemption. With the doctrine of the
Law and the Prophets he joined the Gospel, as emanating from the same source.
Now, since the Greek word Greek, as Cicero assures us, has a more extensive
meaning than the Latin word Servator, and as there is no Latin noun that
corresponds to it, I thought it better to employ a barbarous term, than to take
anything away from the power of Christ. And I have no doubt, that the author of
the Vulgate, and the ancient doctors of the Church, had the same
intention.
f134 Christ is called
Savior,
f135 because he bestows a complete
salvation. The pronoun to
you
f136 is very emphatic; for it would
have given no great delight to hear that the Author of salvation was
born,
unless each person believed that for himself he was born. In the same manner
Isaiah says, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given,”
(<230906>Isaiah
9:6;) and Zechariah, “Behold, thy King cometh unto thee lowly,”
(<380909>Zechariah
9:9.)
12.
And this shall be a sign to
you.
f137 The angel meets the prejudice
which might naturally hinder the faith of the shepherds; for what a mockery is
it, that he, whom God has sent to be the King, and the only Savior, is seen
lying in a manger! That the mean and despicable condition in which Christ was
might not deter the shepherds from believing in Christ, the angel tells them
beforehand what they would see. This method of proceeding, which might appear,
to the view of men, absurd and almost ridiculous, the Lord pursues toward us
every day. Sending down to us from heaven the word of the Gospel, he enjoins us
to embrace Christ crucified, and holds out to us
signs
in earthly and fading elements, which raise us to the glory of a blessed
immortality. Having promised to us spiritual righteousness, he places before our
eyes a little water: by a small portion of bread and wine, he
seals,
f138 the eternal life of the
soul.
f139 But if the stable gave no offense
whatever to the shepherds, so as to prevent them from going to Christ to obtain
salvation, or from yielding to his authority, while he was yet a child; no sign,
however mean in itself, ought to hide his glory from our view, or prevent us
from offering to him lowly adoration, now that he has ascended to heaven, and
sits at the right hand of the Father.
13.
And suddenly there was
present with the angel a multitude. An
exhibition of divine splendor had been already made in the person of a single
angel. But God determined to adorn his own Son in a still more illustrious
manner, This was done to confirm our faith as truly as that of the shepherds.
Among men, the testimony of
“two or three
witnesses”
(<401816>Matthew
18:16) is sufficient to remove all doubt. But here is a heavenly host, with
one consent and one voice bearing testimony to the Son of God. What then would
be our obstinacy, if we refused to join with the choir of angels, in singing the
praises of our salvation, which is in Christ? Hence we infer, how abominable in
the sight of God must unbelief be, which disturbs this delightful harmony
between heaven and earth. Again, we are convicted of more than brutal stupidity,
if our faith and our zeal to praise God are not inflamed by the song which the
angels, with the view of supplying us with the matter of our praise, sang in
full harmony. Still farther, by this example of heavenly melody, the Lord
intended to recommend to us the unity of faith, and to exhort us to join with
one consent in singing his praises on
earth.
14.
Glory to God in the
highest. The angels begin with
thanksgiving, or with the praises of God; for Scripture, too, everywhere reminds
us, that we were redeemed from death for this purpose, that we might testify
with the tongue, as well as by the actions of the life, our gratitude to God.
Let us remember, then, the final cause, why God reconciled us to himself through
his Only Begotten Son. It was that he might glorify his name, by revealing the
riches of his grace, and of his boundless mercy. And even now to whatever extent
any one is excited by his knowledge of grace to celebrate the glory of God, such
is the extent of proficiency in the faith of Christ. Whenever our salvation is
mentioned, we should understand that a signal has been
given,
f140 to excite us to thanksgiving and
to the praises of God.
On earth
peace. The most general reading is, that
the words, among men
good-will, should stand as a third
clause. So far as relates to the leading idea of the passage, it is of little
moment which way you read it; but the other appears to be preferable. The two
clauses, Glory to God in the
highest, and
peace on
earth, do unquestionably agree with each
other; but if you do not place
men
and
God
in marked opposition, the contrast will not fully
appear.
f141 Perhaps commentators have
mistaken the meaning of the preposition
ejn,
for it was an obscure meaning of the words to say, that there is
peace in
men; but as that word is redundant in
many passages of Scripture, it need not detain us here. However, if any one
prefer to throw it to the last clause, the meaning will be the same, as I shall
presently show.
We must now see what the angels mean by the word
peace.
They certainly do not speak of an outward peace cultivated by men with each
other; but they say, that the earth is at peace, when men have been reconciled
to God, and enjoy an inward tranquillity in their own
minds.
f142 We know that we are born
“children of wrath,”
(<490203>Ephesians
2:3,) and are by nature enemies to God; and must be distressed by fearful
apprehensions, so long as we feel that God is angry with us. A short and clear
definition of
peace
may be obtained from two opposite things,—the wrath of God and the
dread of death. It has thus a twofold reference; one to God, and another to men.
We obtain peace with God, when he begins to be gracious to us, by taking away
our guilt, and “not imputing to us our trespasses,”
(<470519>2
Corinthians 5:19;) and when we, relying on his fatherly love, address him with
full confidence, and boldly praise him for the salvation which he has promised
to us. Now though, in another passage, the life of man on earth is declared to
be a continual warfare,
f143
(<180701>Job
7:1,) and the state of the fact shows that nothing is more full of trouble than
our condition, so long as we remain in the world, yet the angels expressly say
that there is peace on
earth. This is intended to inform us
that, so long as we trust to the grace of Christ, no troubles that can arise
will prevent us from enjoying composure and serenity of mind. Let us then
remember, that faith is seated amidst the storms of temptations, amidst various
dangers, amidst violent attacks, amidst contests and fears, that our faith may
not fail or be shaken by any kind of opposition.
Among men
good-will.
f144 The Vulgate has
good-will
in the genitive case: to men
of
good-will.
f145 How that reading crept in, I know
not: but it ought certainly to be rejected, both because it is not
genuine,
f146 and because it entirely
corruptsthe meaning. Others read
good-will
in the nominative case, and still mistake its meaning. They refer
good-will
to men, as if it were an exhortation to embrace the grace of God. I
acknowledge that the peace which the Lord offers to us takes effect only when we
receive it. But as
eujdoki>a
is constantly used in Scripture in the sense of the Hebrew word
ˆwxr,
the old translator rendered it beneplacitum, or,
good-will.
This passage is not correctly understood as referring to the acceptance of
grace. The angels rather speak of it as the source of peace, and thus inform us
that peace is a free gift, and flows from the pure mercy of God. If it is
thought better to read good-will
to men, or
towards
men,
f147 it will not be inadmissible, so
far as regards the meaning: for in this way it will show the cause of
peace
to be, that God has been pleased to bestow his undeserved favor on men, with
whom he formerly was at deadly variance. If you read,
the peace of
good-will as meaning voluntary peace,
neither will I object to that interpretation. But the simpler way is to look
upon
eujfoki>a
as added, in order to inform us of the source from which our peace is
derived. f148
LUKE 2:15-21
|
LUKE
2:15-21
|
|
15. And it happened, after that
the angels departed from them into heaven, that the shepherds then talked among
themselves, Let us pass even to Bethlehem, and let us see what has happened,
which the Lord hath revealed to us. 16. And they came
hastening, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe laid in the manger.
17. And when they had seen it, they published concerning the
word which had been told them about this child. 18. And all
who heard wondered about those things which had been told them by the shepherds.
19. Now Mary kept all these words, laying them up in her
heart.
f149
20. And the shepherds
returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things which they had heard
and seen, as it had been told to them. 21. And after that
eight days were fulfilled, that the child might be circumcised, his name was
called JESUS: which had been called by the angel before he was conceived in the
womb.
|
15.
After that the angels
departed. Here is described to us the
obedience of the shepherds. The Lord had made them the witnesses of his Son to
the whole world. What he had spoken to them by his angels was efficacious, and
was not suffered to pass away. They were not plainly and expressly commanded to
come to Bethlehem; but, being sufficiently aware that such was the design of
God, they hasten to see Christ. In the same manner, we know that Christ is held
out to us, in order that our hearts may approach him by faith; and our delay in
coming admits of no excuse.
f150 But again, Luke informs us, that
the shepherds resolved to set out, immediately after the angels had departed.
This conveys an important lesson. Instead of allowing the word of God, as many
do, to pass away with the sound, we must take care that it strike its roots deep
in us, and manifest its power, as soon as the sound has died away upon our ears.
It deserves our attention, also, that the shepherds exhort one another: for it
is not enough that each of us is attentive to his own duty, if we do not give
mutual exhortations. Their obedience is still farther commended by the statement
of Luke, that they
hastened,
(ver. 16;) for we are required to show the readiness of
faith.
Which the Lord hath revealed to
us. They had only heard it from the
angel; but they intentionally and correctly say, that
the Lord had
revealed it to them; for they consider
the messenger of God to possess the same authority as if the Lord himself had
addressed them. For this reason, the Lord directs our attention to himself; that
we may not fix our view on men, and undervalue the authority of his Word. We see
also that they reckon themselves under obligation, not to neglect the treasure
which the Lord had pointed out to them; for they conclude that, immediately
after receiving this intelligence, they must go to Bethlehem to see it. In the
same manner, every one of us, according to the measure of his faith and
understanding, ought to be prepared to follow wheresoever God
calls.
16.
And found
Mary. This was a revolting sight, and
was sufficient of itself to produce an aversion to Christ. For what could be
more improbable than to believe that he was the King of the whole people, who
was deemed unworthy to be ranked with the lowest of the multitude? or to expect
the restoration of the kingdom and salvation from him, whose poverty and want
were such, that he was thrown into a stable? Yet Luke writes, that none of these
things prevented the shepherds from admiring and praising God. The glory of God
was so fully before their eyes, and reverence for his Word was so deeply
impressed upon their minds, that the elevation of their faith easily rose above
all that appeared mean or despicable in Christ.
f151 And the only reason why our faith
is either retarded or driven from the proper course, by some very trifling
obstacles, is, that we do not look steadfastly enough on God, and are easily
“tossed to and fro,”
(<490414>Ephesians
4:14.) If this one thought were entirely to occupy our minds, that we have a
certain and faithful testimony from heaven, it would be a sufficiently strong
and firm support against every kind of temptations, and will sufficiently
protect us against every little offense that might have been
taken.
17.
They published concerning the
word. It is mentioned by Luke, in
commendation of the faith of the shepherds, that they honestly delivered to
others what they had received from the Lord; and it was advantageous to all of
us that they should attest this, and should be a sort of secondary angels in
confirming our faith. Luke shows also that, in publishing what they had heard,
they were not without success.
f152 Nor can it be doubted, that the
Lord gave efficacy to what they said, that it might not be ridiculed or
despised; for the low rank of the men diminished their credit, and the
occurrence itself might be regarded as fabulous. But the Lord, who gave them
this employment, does not allow it to be fruitless.
That the Lord should adopt such a method of
proceeding as this,—should employ inconsiderable men in publishing his
Word, may not be quite so agreeable to the human mind. But it tends to humble
the pride of the flesh, and to try the obedience of faith; and therefore God
approves of it. Still, though all are astonished, no one moves a step to come to
Christ: from which we may infer, that the impression made upon them by hearing
of the power of God, was unaccompanied by any devout affection of the heart. The
design of publishing this report was not so much for their salvation, as to
render the ignorance of the whole people
inexcusable.
19.
Now Mary
kept. Mary’s diligence in
contemplating the works of God is laid before us for two reasons; first, to
inform us, that this treasure was laid up in her heart, for the purpose of being
published to others at the proper time; and, secondly, to afford to all the
godly an example for imitation. For, if we are wise, it will be the chief
employment, and the great object of our life, to consider with attention those
works of God which build up our faith.
Mary
kept all these
things. This relates to her memory.
Sumba>llein
signifies to throw
together,—to collect the several
events which agreed in proving the glory of Christ, so that they might form one
body. For Mary could not wisely estimate the collective value of all those
occurrences, except by comparing them with each
other.
20.
Glorifying and praising
God. This is another circumstance which
is fitted to be generally useful in confirming our faith. The shepherds knew
with certainty that this was a work of God. Their zeal in
glorifying and praising
God is an implied reproof of our
indolence, or rather of our ingratitude. If the cradle of
Christ
f153 had such an effect upon them, as
to make them rise from the stable and the manger to heaven, how much more
powerful ought the death and resurrection of Christ to be in raising us to God?
For Christ did not only ascend from the earth, that he might draw all things
after him; but he sits at the right hand of the Father, that, during our
pilgrimage in the world, we may meditate with our whole heart on the heavenly
life. When Luke says, that the testimony of the angel served as a rule to the
shepherds in all that they did,
f154 he points out the nature of true
godliness. For our faith is properly aided by the works of God, when it directs
everything to this end, that the truth of God, which was revealed in his word,
may be brought out with greater
clearness.
21.
That the child might be
circumcised. As to circumcision in
general, the reader may consult the Book of Genesis, (17:10.) At present, it
will be sufficient to state briefly what applies to the person of Christ. God
appointed that his Son should be circumcised, in order to subject him to the
law; for circumcision was a solemn rite, by which the Jews
were initiated into the observance of the
law. f155
Paul explains the design,
f156 when he says, that Christ
was
“made under the
law, to redeem them that were under the law,”
(<480404>Galatians
4:4,5.)
By undergoing circumcision, Christ acknowledged
himself to be the slave
f157 of the law, that he might procure
our freedom. And in this way not only was the
bondage
f158 of the law abolished by him, but
the shadow of the ceremony was applied to his own body, that it might shortly
afterwards come to an end. For though the abrogation of it depends on the death
and resurrection of Christ, yet it was a sort of prelude to it, that the Son of
God submitted to be circumcised.
His name was called
JESUS. This passage shows, that it was a
general custom among the Jews to give names to their children on the day that
they were circumcised, just as we now do at baptism. Two things are here
mentioned by the Evangelist. First, the name
Jesus
was not given to the Son of God accidentally, or by the will of men, but was
the name which the angel had brought from heaven. Secondly, Joseph and Mary
obeyed the command of God. The agreement between our faith and the word of God
lies in this, that he speaks first, and we follow, so that our faith answers to
his promises. Above all, the order of preaching the word is held up by Luke for
our commendation. Salvation through the grace of Christ, he tells us, had been
promised by God through the angel, and was proclaimed by the voice of
men.
MATTHEW 2:1-6
|
MATTHEW
2:1-6
|
|
1. Now when Jesus had been born in
Bethlehem of Judea,
f159
in the times of Herod the King, lo, Magi from
the East came to Jerusalem, 2. Saying, Where is he who is
born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the East, and have come that
we may worship him. 3. And having heard these things, Herod
the King was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4. And
having assembled all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired at
them where Christ should be born. 5. But they said to him, In
Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it has been written by the prophet:
6. And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means
the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come the
leader,
f160
who shall feed my people
Israel.
|
1.
Now when Jesus had been
born. How it came about that Jesus was
born in Bethlehem, Matthew does not say. The Spirit of God, who had appointed
the Evangelists to be his clerks,
f161 appears purposely to have
regulated their style in such a manner, that they all wrote one and the same
history, with the most perfect agreement, but in different ways. It was
intended, that the truth of God should more clearly and strikingly appear, when
it was manifest that his witnesses did not speak by a preconcerted plan, but
that each of them separately, without paying any attention to another, wrote
freely and honestly what the Holy Spirit dictated.
This is a very remarkable narrative. God brought
Magi
from Chaldea, to come to the land of Judea, for the purpose of adoring
Christ, in the stable where he lay, amidst the tokens, not of honor, but of
contempt. It was a truly wonderful purpose of God, that he caused the entrance
of his Son into the world to be attended by deep meanness, and yet bestowed upon
him illustrious ornaments, both of commendation and of other outward signs, that
our faith might be supplied with everything necessary to prove his Divine
Majesty.
A beautiful instance of real harmony, amidst apparent
contradiction, is here exhibited. A star from heaven announces that he is a
king, to whom a manger, intended for cattle, serves for a throne, because he is
refused admittance among the lowest of the people. His majesty shines in the
East, while in Judea it is so far from being acknowledged, that it is visited by
many marks of dishonor. Why is this? The heavenly Father chose to appoint the
star and the Magi as our guides, to lead directly to his Son: while he stripped
him of all earthly splendor, for the purpose of informing us that his kingdom is
spiritual. This history conveys profitable instruction, not only because God
brought the
Magi
to his Son, as the first-fruits of the Gentiles, but also because he
appointed the kingdom of his Son to receive their commendation, and that of the
star, for the confirmation of our faith; that the wicked and malignant contempt
of his nation might not render him less estimable in our eyes.
Magi
is well known to be the name given by the Persians and Chaldees to
astrologers and philosophers: and hence it may readily be conjectured that those
men came from Persia.
f162 As the Evangelist does not state
what was their number, it is better to be ignorant of it, than to affirm as
certain what is doubtful. Papists have been led into a childish error, of
supposing that they were
three
in number: because Matthew says, that they brought
gold, frankincense, and
myrrh, (verse 11.) But the historian
does not say, that each of them separately presented his own gift. He rather
says, that those three gifts were presented by them in common. That ancient
author, whoever he may be, whose imperfect Commentary on Matthew bears the name
of Chrysostom, and is reckoned among Chrysostom’s works, says that they
were fourteen. This carries as little probability as the other. It may have come
from a tradition of the Fathers, but has no solid foundation. But the most
ridiculous contrivance of the Papists on this subject is, that those men were
kings, because they found in another passage a prediction, that
the kings of Tarshish,
and of the Isles, and of Sheba,
would offer gifts to the Lord,
(<197210>Psalm
72:10.)
Ingenious workmen, truly, who, in order to present
those men in a new shape, have begun with turning the world from one side to
another: for they have changed the south and west into
the
east! Beyond all doubt, they have been
stupified by a righteous judgment of God, that all might laugh at the gross
ignorance of those who have not scrupled to adulterate “and, change the
truth of God into a lie,”
(<450125>Romans
1:25.)
The first inquiry here is: Was this
star
one of those which the Lord created in the beginning
(<010101>Genesis
1:1,16) to “garnish the heavens?”
(<182613>Job
26:13.) Secondly, Were the
magi
led by their acquaintance with astrology to conclude that it pointed out the
birth of Christ? On these points, there is no necessity for angry disputation:
but it may be inferred from the words of Matthew, that it was not a natural, but
an extraordinary star. It was not agreeable to the order of nature, that it
should disappear for a certain period, and afterwards should suddenly become
bright; nor that it should pursue a straight course towards Bethlehem, and at
length remain stationary above the house where Christ was. Not one of these
things belongs to natural stars. It is more probable that it
resembled
f163 a comet, and was seen, not in the
heaven, but in the air. Yet there is no impropriety in Matthew, who uses popular
language, calling it incorrectly a
star.
This almost decides likewise the second question: for
since astrology is undoubtedly confined within the limits of nature, its
guidance alone could not have conducted the
Magi
to Christ; so that they must have been aided by a secret revelation of the
Spirit. I do not go so far as to say, that they derived no assistance whatever
from the art: but I affirm, that this would have been of no practical advantage,
if they had not been aided by a new and extraordinary
revelation.
2.
Where is he who has been born
King? The notion of some commentators,
that he is said to have been born
King, by indirect contrast with one who
has been
made
or
created
a king, appears to me too trifling. I rather suppose the
Magi
to have simply meant, that this king had been recently born, and was still a
child, by way of distinguishing him from a king who is of age, and who holds the
reins of government: for they immediately add, that they had been drawn, not by
the fame of his exploits, or by any present exhibitions of his greatness, but by
a heavenly presage of his future reign. But if the sight of a star had so
powerful an effect on the
Magi,
woe to our insensibility, who, now that Christ the King has been revealed to
us, are so cold in our inquiries after him!
And have come that we may worship
him. The reason why the
star
had been exhibited was, to draw the
Magi
into Judea, that they might be witnesses and heralds of the new
King.
f164 So far as respects themselves,
they had not come to render to Christ such pious worship, as is due to the Son
of God, but intended to salute him, according to the Persian
custom,
f165 as a very eminent King. For their
views, with regard to him, probably went no farther, than that his power and
exalted rank would be so extraordinary as to impress all nations with just
admiration and reverence. It is even possible, that they wished to gain his
favor beforehand, that he might treat them favorably and kindly, if he should
afterwards happen to possess dominion in the
east.
3.
Herod the king was
troubled. Herod was not unacquainted
with the predictions, which promised to the Jews a King, who would restore their
distressful and ruinous affairs to a prosperous condition. He had lived from a
child among that nation, and was thoroughly acquainted with their affairs.
Besides, the report was spread everywhere, and could not be unknown to the
neighboring nations. Yet he is
troubled,
as if the matter had been new and unheard of; because he put no trust in
God, and thought it idle to rely on the promises of a Redeemer; and particularly
because, with the foolish confidence incident to proud men, he imagined that the
kingdom was secure to himself and his descendants. But though, in the
intoxication of prosperity, he was formerly accustomed to view the prophecies
with scorn, the recollection of them now aroused him to sudden alarm. For he
would not have been so strongly moved by the simple tale of the
Magi,
if he had not remembered the predictions, which he had formerly looked upon
as harmless,
f166 and of no importance. Thus, when
the Lord has permitted unbelievers to sleep, he suddenly breaks their
rest. f167
And all Jerusalem with
him. This may be explained in two ways.
Either the people were roused, in a tumultuous manner, by the novelty of the
occurrence, though the glad tidings of a king who had been born to them were
cordially welcomed. Or the people, accustomed to distresses, and rendered
callous by long endurance, dreaded a change which might introduce still greater
calamities. For they were so completely worn down, and almost wasted, by
continued wars, that their wretched and cruel bondage appeared to them not only
tolerable, but desirable, provided it were accompanied by peace. This shows how
little they had profited under God’s chastisements: for they were so
benumbed and stupified, that the promised redemption and salvation almost
stank
f168 in their nostrils. Matthew
intended, I have no doubt, to express their ingratitude, in being so entirely
broken by the long continuance of their afflictions, as to throw away the hope
and desire of the grace which had been promised to
them.
4.
Having assembled the
priests. Though deep silence prevailed
respecting Christ in the Hall of Herod, yet, as soon as the
Magi
have thrown out the mention of a
King,
predictions are remembered, which formerly lay in oblivion. Herod instantly
conjectures, that the
King,
about whom the
Magi
inquire, is the
Messiah
whom God had formerly promised,
(<270925>Daniel
9:25.) Here again it appears, that Herod is seriously alarmed, when he puts such
earnest inquiries; and no wonder. All tyrants are cowards, and their cruelty
produces stronger alarm in their own breasts than in the breasts of others.
Herod must have trembled more than others, because he perceived that he was
reigning in opposition to God.
This new investigation shows, that the contempt of
Christ, before the arrival of the
Magi,
must have been very deep. At a later period, the scribes and high priests
labored with fury to corrupt the whole of the Scripture, that they might not
give any countenance to Christ. But on the present occasion they reply honestly
out of the Scripture, and for this reason, that Christ and his Gospel have not
yet given them uneasiness. And so all ungodly persons find no difficulty in
giving their assent to God on general principles; but when the truth of God
begins to press them more closely, they throw out the venom of their
rebellion.
We have a striking instance of this, in our own day,
among the Papists. They freely own, that he is the only-begotten Son of God,
clothed with our flesh, and acknowledge the one person of God-man, as subsisting
in the two natures. But when we come to the power and office of Christ, a
contest immediately breaks out; because they will not consent to take a lower
rank, and much less to be reduced to nothing. In a word, so long as wicked men
think that it is taking nothing from themselves, they will yield to God and to
Scripture some degree of reverence. But when Christ comes into close conflict
with ambition, covetousness, pride, misplaced confidence, hypocrisy, and deceit,
they immediately forget all modesty, and break out into rage. Let us therefore
learn, that the chief cause of blindness in the enemies of truth is to be found
in their wicked affections, which change light into
darkness.
6.
And thou,
Bethlehem. The scribes quoted
faithfully, no doubt, the words of the passage in their own language, as it is
found in the prophet. But Matthew reckoned it enough to point out the passage;
and, as he wrote in Greek, he followed the ordinary reading. This passage, and
others of the same kind, readily suggest the inference, that Matthew did not
compose his Gospel in the Hebrew language. It ought always to be observed that,
whenever any proof from Scripture is quoted by the apostles, though they do not
translate word for word, and sometimes depart widely from the language, yet it
is applied correctly and appropriately to their subject. Let the reader always
consider the purpose for which passages of Scripture are brought forward by the
Evangelists, so as not to stick too closely to the particular words, but to be
satisfied with this, that the Evangelists never torture Scripture into a
different meaning, but apply it correctly in its native meaning. But while it
was their intention to supply with milk children and “novices”
(<540306>1
Timothy 3:6) in faith, who were not yet able to endure “strong
meat,”
(<580512>Hebrews
5:12,) there is nothing to prevent the children of God from making careful and
diligent inquiry into the meaning of Scripture, and thus being led to the
fountain by the taste which the apostles afford.
Let us now return to the prediction. Thus it stands
literally in the Prophet:
“And thou,
Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be
little
among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall
he
come forth to me, who is Ruler in Israel,”
(<330502>Micah
5:2.)
For
Ephratah
Matthew has put
Judah,
but the meaning is the same; for Micah only intended, by this mark, to
distinguish the Bethlehem of which he speaks, from another Bethlehem, which was
in the tribe of Zebulun. There is greater difficulty in what follows: for the
Prophet says, that Bethlehem is
little,
when reckoned among the governments of Judah, while Matthew, on the
contrary: speaks highly of its rank as one of the most distinguished:
thou art by no means the least
among the princes of Judah. This reason
has induced some commentators to read the passage in the prophet as a question,
Art thou little among the
thousands of Judah? But I rather agree
with those who think that Matthew intended, by this change of the language, to
magnify the grace of God in making an inconsiderable and unknown town the
birth-place of the highest King. Although Bethlehem received this distinguished
honor, it was of no advantage to its inhabitants, but brought upon them a
heavier destruction: for there an unworthy reception was given to the Redeemer.
For he is to be
Ruler, Matthew has put
he shall
feed,
(poimanei~)
But he has expressed both, when he says, that Christ is the
leader,
(hJgou>menov,)
and that to him is committed the office of
feeding
his people.
MATTHEW
2:7-12
|
MATTHEW
2:7-12
|
|
7. Then Herod, having secretly
called the Magii inquired at them carefully at what time the star had appeared
8. And having ordered them to go to Bethlehem, he said,
Go,inquire concerning the young child; and, when ye have found him, bring me
back information, that I also may come and worship him.
9. But they, having heard the King, departed; and, lo, the
star which they had seen in the East went before them, till, having advanced, it
stood above the place in which the child was. 10. And, when
they had seen the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.
11. And, entering the house, they found the young child with
Mary his mother, and, falling down, they worshipped him: and, having opened
their treasures, they presented to him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
12. And, warned by a heavenly intimation through a dream,
that they should not return to Herod, they departed, by another way, into their
own country.
|
7.
Then Herod, having secretly
called the Magi. The tyrant did not dare
to avow his fear and uneasiness, lest he might give fresh courage to a people,
by whom he knew that he was hated. In public, therefore, he pretends that this
matter does not concern him, but
inquires
secretly, in order to meet immediate
danger. Though a bad conscience made him timid, there can be no doubt that God
struck his mind with an unusual fear, which for a time made him incapable of
reflection, and almost deprived him of the use of reason. For nothing was more
easy than to send one of his courtiers as an escort, under the pretense of
courtesy, who would investigate the whole matter, and immediately return. Herod
certainly was a man of no ordinary address, and of great courage. It is the more
surprising that, in a case of extremity, and when the remedy is at hand, he
remains in a state of amazement, and almost dead. Let us learn, that a miracle
was effected, in rescuing the Son of God from the jaws of the lion. Not less at
the present day does God infatuate his enemies, so that a thousand schemes of
injuring and ruining his Church do not occur to their minds, and even the
opportunities which are at hand are not embraced. The trick which Herod
practiced on the
Magi,
by pretending that he also would come for the purpose of worshipping Christ,
was avoided by the Lord, as we shall see, in another way. But as Herod’s
dread of arousing the people against him deprived him of the use of his reason,
so again he is driven by such madness, that he does not hesitate or shudder at
the thought of provoking God. For he knew that, if a King were born, it was
ordained by God, that he should raise up the throne “of David, which was
fallen,”
(<300911>Amos
9:11.) He does not therefore attack men, but furiously dares to fight with God.
Two things claim our attention. He was seized with a spirit of giddiness, to
attack God; and, on the other hand, his manner of acting was childish: for his
design was frustrated, so that he was like a “blind man groping in
darkness.”
f169
9.
But they, having heard the
King, departed. It is truly an instance
of base sluggishness, that not one of the Jews offers himself as an escort to
those foreigners, to go and see the King who had been promised to their own
nation. The scribes show them the way, and point out the place where he was
born; but they allow them to depart alone: not one moves a step. They were
afraid, perhaps, of Herod’s cruelty: but it displayed wicked ingratitude
that, for the sake of the salvation which had been offered to them, they were
unwilling to undergo any risk, and cared less about the grace of God than about
the frown of a tyrant. The whole nation, I have lately showed, was so
degenerate, that they chose rather to be oppressed with the yoke of tyranny,
than to submit to any inconvenience arising from a change. If God had not
fortified the minds of the Magi by his Spirit, they might have been discouraged
by this state of things. But the ardor of their zeal is unabated; they set out
without a guide. And yet the means of confirming their faith are not wanting;
for they hear that the King, who had been pointed out to them by a star, was
long ago described, in glowing language, by divine predictions. It would seem
that the star, which hitherto guided them in the way, had lately disappeared.
The reason may easily be
conjectured.
It was, that they might make inquiry in Jerusalem about the new King, and
might thus take away all excuse from the Jews, who, after having been instructed
about the Redeemer who was sent to them, knowingly and willingly despise
him.
11.
They found the young
child. So revolting a sight might
naturally have created an additional prejudice; for Christ was so far from
having aught of royalty surrounding him, that he was in a meaner and more
despised condition than any peasant child. But they are convinced that he is
divinely appointed to be a King. This thought alone, deeply rooted in their
minds, procures their reverence. They contemplate in the purpose of God his
exalted rank, which is still concealed from outward
view.
f170 Holding it for certain, that he
will one day be different from what he now appears, they are not at all ashamed
to render to him the honors of royalty.
Their presents show whence they came: for there can
be no doubt that they brought them as the choicest productions of their country.
We are not to understand, that each of them presented his own offering, but that
the three offerings, which are mentioned by Matthew, were presented by all of
them in common. Almost all the commentators indulge in speculations about those
gifts, as denoting the kingdom, priesthood, and burial of Christ. They make
gold
the symbol of his
kingdom,—frankincense,
of his priesthoods,— and
myrrh,
of his burial. I see no solid.ground for such an opinion. It was customary,
we know, among the Persians, when they offered homage to their kings, to bring a
present
in their hands. The Magi select those three for the
produce of which Eastern countries are celebrated; just as Jacob sent into Egypt
the choicest and most esteemed productions of the soil.
“Take of the best
fruits in the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present, a little
balm, and a little honey, spices and myrrh, nuts and almonds,”
(<014311>Genesis
43:11.)
Again, in rendering homage, according to the custom
of Persia, to him whom they still regarded as an earthly King, they offered the
productions of the soil. Our duty is, to adore him in a spiritual manner: for
the lawful and reasonable worship which he demands is, that we consecrate first
ourselves, and then all that we have, to his service.
LUKE 2:22-32
|
LUKE
2:22-32
|
|
22. And after that the days of
their
f171
purification were fulfilled according to the
law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem, that they might present him to the
Lord, 23. As it is written in the Law of the Lord, Every male
opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: 24. And
that they might offer a sacrifice, according to what is said in the Law of the
Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons. 25. And,
lo, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and that man was just
and devout,
f172
waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the
Holy Spirit was upon him. 26. And he had received a
revelation
f173
from the Holy Spirit, that he would not see
death before he saw the Lord's Christ. 27. And he came by the
Spirit into the temple.
f174
And when the parents brought the young child
Jesus, that they might do according to the custom of the Law for him,
28. He also took him into his arms: and blessed God, and
said, 29. Thou now sendest thy servant away, O Lord,
according to thy word, in peace, 30. For my eyes have seen
thy salvation, 31. Which thou hast prepared before the face
of all nations: 32. A light for the enlightening of the
Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
|
22.
And after that the days were
fulfilled. On the fortieth day after the
birth,
(<031202>Leviticus
12:2,4,)the rite of purification was necessary to be performed. But Mary and
Joseph come to Jerusalem for another reason, to present Christ to the Lord,
because he was the first-born. Let us now speak first of the purification. Luke
makes it apply both to Mary and to Christ:for the pronoun
aujtw~n,
of
them,
can have no reference whatever to Joseph. But it ought not to appear
strange, that Christ, who was to be, made a curse for us on the cross,”
(<480313>Galatians
3:13,) should, for our benefit, take upon him our uncleanness with respect to
legal guilt, though he was “without blemish and without spot,”
(<600119>1
Peter 1:19.) It ought not, I say, to appear strange, if the fountain of purity,
in order to wash away our stains, chose
to
be reckoned unclean.
f175 It is a mistake to imagine that
this law of purification was merely political, and that the woman was unclean in
presence of her husband, not in presence of God. On the contrary, it placed
before the eyes of the Jews both the corruption of their nature, and the remedy
of divine grace.
This law is of itself abundantly sufficient to prove
original sin, while it contains a striking proof of the grace of God. for there
could not be a clearer demonstration of the curse pronounced on mankind than
when the Lord declared, that the child comes from its mother unclean and
polluted, and that the mother herself is consequently defiled by childbearing.
Certainly, if man were not born a sinner, if he were not by nature a child of
wrath,
(<490203>Ephesians
2:3,) if some taint of sin did not dwell in him, he would have no need of
purification. Hence it follows, that all are corrupted in Adam; for the mouth of
the Lord charges all with pollution.
It is in perfect consistency with this, that the Jews
are spoken of, in other passages, as “holy branches of a holy root,”
(<451116>Romans
11:16:) for this benefit did not properly belong to their own persons. They had
been set apart, by the privilege of adoption, as an elect people; but the
corruption, which they had by inheritance from Adam, was first in the order of
time f176
We must, therefore, distinguish between the first nature, and that special
kindness through a covenant, by which God delivers his own people from the curse
which had been pronounced on all. And the design of legal purification was to
inform the Jews, that the pollutions, which they brought with them into
the world at their birth, are washed away by the grace of God.
Hence too we ought to learn, how dreadful is the
contagion of sin, which defiles, in some measure, the lawful order of nature. I
do own that child-bearing is not unclean, and that what would otherwise be lust
changes its character, through the sacredness of the marriage relation. But
still the fountain of sin is so deep and abundant, that its constant
overflowings stain what would otherwise be
pure.
23.
As it is written in the
Law. This was another exercise of piety
which was discharged by Joseph and Mary. The Lord commanded, that all the males
should be dedicated to him, in remembrance of their deliverance; because when
the angel slew all the first-born of Egypt,
(<021229>Exodus
12:29,) he had spared the first-born of Israel.
“On the day that I
smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I hallowed unto me all the
first-born in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be:
I am the Lord”
(<040313>Numbers
3:13.)
They were afterwards permitted to redeem their
first-born at a certain price. Such was the ancient ceremony: and, as the Lord
is the common Redeemer of all,
f177 he has a right to claim us as his
own, from the least to the greatest. Nor is it without a good reason, that Luke
so frequently repeats the statement, that Joseph and Mary did what
was written in the law of the
Lord. For these words teach us, that we
must not, at our own suggestion, attempt any thing in the worship of God, but
must obediently follow what he requires in his
Word.
24.
And that they might offer a
sacrifice. This
sacrifice
belonged to the ceremony of purification; lest any one should suppose that
it was offered for the sake of redeeming the first-born. When the Evangelist
mentions a pair of turtle-doves,
or two young pigeons, he takes for
granted that his readers will understand, that Joseph and Mary were in such deep
poverty, as not to have it in their power to offer a lamb. For this exception is
expressly mentioned:
“If she be not able
to bring a lamb, then she
shall
bring two turtles, or two
young pigeons,”
(<031208>Leviticus
12:8.)
Is it objected, that the Magi had very recently
supplied them with a sufficiency of gold to make the purchase? I reply: We must
not imagine that they had such abundance of gold as to raise them suddenly from
poverty to wealth. We do not read, that their camels were laden with gold. It is
more probable that it was some small present, which they had brought solely as a
mark of respect. The law did not rigorously enjoin, that the poor should spend
their substance on a sacrifice, but drew a line of distinction between them and
the rich, as to the kind of sacrifices, and thus relieved them from burdensome
expense. There would be no impropriety in saying, that Joseph and Mary gave as
much as their circumstances allowed, though they reserved a little money to
defray the expenses of their journey and of their
household.
25.
And, lo, there was a man in
Jerusalem. The design of this narrative
is to inform us that, though nearly the whole nation was profane and
irreligious, and despised God, yet that a few worshippers of God remained, and
that Christ was known to such persons from his earliest infancy. These were
“the remnant” of whom Paul says, that they were preserved
“according to the election of grace,”
(<451105>Romans
11:5.) Within this small band lay the Church of God; though the priests and
scribes, with as much pride as falsehood, claimed for themselves the title of
the Church. The Evangelist mentions no more than two, who recognised Christ at
Jerusalem, when he was brought into the temple. These were Simeon and Anna. We
must speak first of Simeon.
As to his condition in life we are not informed: he
may have been a person of humble rank and of no reputation. Luke bestows on him
the commendation of being
just
and
devout;
and adds, that he had the gift of prophecy: for
the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Devotion and
Righteousness
related to the two tables of the law, and are the two parts of which an
upright life consists. It was a proof of his being
a devout
man, that he
waited for the consolation of
Israel: for no true worship of God can
exist without the hope of salvation, which depends on the faith of his promises,
and particularly on the restoration promised through Christ. Now, since an
expectation of this sort is commended in Simeon as an uncommon attainment, we
may conclude, that there were few in that age, who actually cherished in their
hearts the hope of redemption. All had on their lips the name of the Messiah,
and of prosperity under the reign of David: but hardly any one was to be found,
who patiently endured present afflictions, relying on the consolatory assurance,
that the redemption of the Church was at hand. As the eminence of Simeon’s
piety was manifested by its supporting his mind in the hope of the promised
salvation, so those who wish to prove themselves the children of God, will
breathe out unceasing prayers for the promised redemption. For we, “have
need of patience”
(<581036>Hebrews
10:36) till the last coming of Christ.
And the Holy Spirit was upon
him. The Evangelist does not speak of
“the Spirit of adoptions”
(<450815>Romans
8:15,) which is common to all the children of God, though not in an equal
degree, but of the peculiar gift of prophecy. This appears more clearly from the
next verse and the following one, in which it is said, that he
received a
revelation
f178
from the Holy
Spirit, and that, by the guidance of the
same Spirit, he came into the
temple. Though Simeon had no distinction
of public office, he was adorned with eminent gifts,—with piety, with a
blameless life, with faith and prophecy. Nor can it be doubted, that this divine
intimation, which he received in his individual and private capacity, was
intended generally for the confirmation of all the godly. Jesus is called
the Lord’s
Christ, because he was
anointed
f179 by the Father, and, at the
same time that he received the Spirit, received also the title, of King and
Priest. Simeon is said to have come into the temple by
the
Spirit; that is, by a secret movement
and undoubted revelation, that he might meet
Christ.
f180
29.
Thou now sendest thy servant
away. From this song it is sufficiently
evident, that Simeon looked at the Son of God with different eyes from the eyes
of flesh. For the outward beholding of Christ could have produced no feeling but
contempt, or, at least, would never have imparted such satisfaction to the mind
of the holy man, as to make him joyful and desirous to die, from having reached
the summit of his wishes. The Spirit of God enlightened his eyes by faith, to
perceive, under a mean and poor dress, the glory of the Son of God. He says,
that he would be sent away in
peace; which means, that he would die
with composure of mind, having obtained all that he desired.
But here a question arises. If he chose rather to
depart from life, was it amidst distress of mind and murmuring, as is usually
the case with those who die unwillingly, that Simeon was hurried away? I answer:
we must attend to the circumstance which is added,
according to thy
word. God had promised that Simeon would
behold his Son. He had good reason for continuing in a state of suspense, and
must have lived in some anxiety, till he obtained his expectation. This ought to
be carefully observed; for there are many who falsely and improperly plead the
example of Simeon, and boast that they would willingly die, if this or the other
thing were previously granted to them; while they allow themselves to entertain
rash wishes at their own pleasure, or to form vain expectations without the
authority of the Word of God. If Simeon had said exactly, “Now
(<101921>2
Samuel 19:21;
<250420>Lamentations
4:20,) but was afterwards restricted to “David’s son,” and
“David’s Lord,”
(<402245>Matthew
22:45,) whom Daniel emphatically calls
the Messiah, the
Anointed,
(<270925>Daniel
9:25, 26.)—Ed. I shall die with a composed and easy mind, because I have
seen the Son of God,” this expression would have indicated the weakness of
his faith; but, as he had the
word,
he might have refused to die until the coming of
Christ.
30.
For my eyes have
seen. This mode of expression is very
common in Scripture; but Simeon appears to denote expressly the bodily
appearance of Christ, as if he had said, that he now has the Son of God present
in the flesh, on whom the
eyes
of his mind had been previously fixed. By
saving
f181 I understand the matter of
salvation: for in Christ are hid all the parts of salvation and of a happy life.
Now if the sight of Christ, while he was yet a child, had so powerful an effect
on Simeon, that he approached death with cheerfulness and composure; how much
more abundant materials of lasting peace are now furnished to us, who have the
opportunity of beholding our salvation altogether completed in Christ? True,
Christ no longer dwells on earth, nor do we carry him in our arms: but his
divine majesty shines openly and brightly in the gospel, and there do “we
all,” as Paul says, “behold as in a glass the glory of the
Lord,”—not as formerly amidst the weakness of flesh, but in the
glorious power of the Spirit, which he displayed in his miracles, in the
sacrifice of his death, and in his resurrection. In a word, his absence from us
in body is of such a nature, that we are permitted to behold him sitting at the
right hand of the Father. If such a sight does not bring peace to our minds, and
make us go cheerfully to death, we are highly ungrateful to God, and hold the
honor, which he has bestowed upon us, in little
estimation.
31.
Which thou hast
prepared. By these words Simeon
intimates, that Christ had been divinely appointed, that all nations might enjoy
his grace; and that he would shortly afterwards be placed in an elevated
situation, and would draw upon him the eyes of all. Under this term he includes
all the predictions which relate: to the spread of Christ’s kingdom. But
if Simeon, when holding a little child in his arms, could stretch his mind to
the utmost boundaries of the world, and acknowledge the power of Christ to be
everywhere present, how much more magnificent ought our conceptions regarding
him to be now that he has been set up as a, “standard to the
people,”
(<234922>Isaiah
49:22,) and has revealed himself to the whole
world.
32.
A light for the revelation of
the Gentiles. Simeon now points out the
purpose for which Christ was to be exhibited by the Father before all nations.
It was that he might enlighten
the Gentiles, who had been formerly in
darkness, and might be the glory
of his people Israel. There is propriety
in the distinction here made between the
people
Israel and the
Gentiles:
for by the right of adoption the children of Abraham “were nigh”
(<490217>Ephesians
2:17) to God, while the
Gentiles,
with whom God had made no “covenants of promise,” were
“strangers” to the Church,
(<490212>Ephesians
2:12.) For this reason,
Israel
is called, in other passages, not only the son of God, but his
first-born,
(<243109>Jeremiah
31:9;) and Paul informs us, that “Jesus Christ was a minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the
fathers”
(<451508>Romans
15:8.) The preference given to
Israel
above the Gentiles is, that all without distinction may obtain salvation in
Christ.
A light for
revelation
f182 means
for enlightening the
Gentiles. Hence we infer, that men are
by nature destitute of light, till Christ, “the Sun of
Righteousness,”
(<390402>Malachi
4:2,) shine upon them. With regard to
Israel,
though God had bestowed upon him distinguished honor, yet all his glory
rests on this single article, that a Redeemer had been promised to
him.
LUKE 2:33-39
|
LUKE
2:33-39
|
|
33. And his father and mother were
wondering about those things which were spoken of him.
34. And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother, Lo,
this (child) has been set for the ruin, and for the resurrection of many in
Israel, and for a sign, which is spoken against. 35. But also
a sword shall pierce thy own soul: that the thoughts of many hearts may be
revealed. 36. And there was Anna, a prophetess, daughter of
Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher: she had advanced to a great age, and had lived
with her husband seven years from her virginity. 37. And she
was a widow of about eighty-four years, who departed not from the temple
worshipping (God) with fastings and prayer day and night.
38. And she, coming in at that hour, made acknowledgments
also to God,
f183
and spake of him to all who looked for
redemption in Jerusalem. 39. And when they had completed all
things according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own
city Nazareth.
|
33.
And his father and mother
were wondering. Luke does not say, that
they were astonished at it as a new thing, but that they contemplated with
reverence, and embraced with becoming admiration, this prediction of the Spirit
uttered by the lips of Simeon, so that they continued to make progress in the
knowledge of Christ. We learn from this example that, when we have once come to
possess a right faith, we ought to collect, on every hand, whatever may aid in
giving to it additional strength. That man has made great proficiency in the
word of God, who does not fail to admire whatever he reads or hears every day,
that contributes to his unceasing progress in
faith.
34.
And Simeon blessed
them. If you confine this to Joseph and
Mary, there will be no difficulty. But, as Luke appears to include Christ at the
same time, it might be asked, What right had Simeon to take upon him the office
of blessing Christ? “Without all contradiction,” says Paul,
“the less is blessed of the greater,”
(<580707>Hebrews
7:7.) Besides, it has the appearance of absurdity, that any mortal man should
offer prayers in behalf of the Son of God. I answer: The Apostle does not speak
there of every kind of blessing, but only of the priestly blessing: for, in
other respects, it is highly proper in men to pray for each other. Now, it is
more probable that Simeon blessed
them, as a private man and as one of the
people, than that he did so in a public character: for, as we have already said,
we nowhere read that he was a priest. But there would be no absurdity in saying,
that he prayed for the prosperity and advancement of Christ’s kingdom: for
in the book of Psalms the Spirit prescribes such a
eujlogi>a,—a
blessing of this nature to all the
godly.
“Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord; we have blessed you in the name of the
Lords”
(<19B826>Psalm
118:26.)
Lo, this has been
set. This discourse was, no doubt,
directly addressed by Simeon to Mary; but it has a general reference to all the
godly. The holy virgin needed this admonition, that she might not (as usually
happens) be lifted up by prosperous beginnings, so as to be less prepared for
enduring afflictive events. But she needed it on another account, that she might
not expect Christ to be received by the people with universal applause, but that
her mind, on the contrary, might be fortified by unshaken courage against all
hostile attacks. It was the design, at the same time, of the Spirit of God, to
lay down a general instruction for all the godly. When they see the world
opposing Christ with wicked obstinacy, they must be prepared to meet that
opposition, and to contend against it undismayed. The unbelief of the world
is—we know it—a great and serious hinderance; but it must be
conquered, if we wish to believe in Christ. There never was a state of human
society so happily constituted, that the greater part followed Christ. Those who
will enlist in the cause of Christ must learn this as one of their earliest
lessons, and must “ put on” this “armor,”
(<490611>Ephesians
6:11,) that they may be steadfast in believing on him.
It was by far the heaviest temptation, that Christ
was not acknowledged by his own countrymen, and was even ignominiously rejected
by that nation, which boasted that it was the Church of God; and, particularly,
that the priests and scribes, who held in their hands the government of the
Church, were his most determined enemies. For who would have thought, that he
was the King of those, who not only rejected him, but treated him with such
contempt and outrage?
We see, then, that a good purpose was served by
Simeon’s prediction, that Christ was
set for the ruin of many in
Israel. The meaning is, that he was
divinely appointed to cast down and destroy many. But it must be observed, that
the ruin of unbelievers results from their striking against him. This is
immediately afterwards expressed, when Simeon says that Christ is
a sign, which is spoken
against. Because unbelievers are rebels
against Christ, they clash themselves against him, and hence comes their
ruin.
This metaphor is taken from a mark shot at by
archers,
f184 as if Simeon had said, Hence we
perceive the malice of men, and even the depravity of the whole human race, that
all, as if they had made a conspiracy, rise in murmurs and rebellion against the
Son of God. The world would not display such harmony in opposing the Gospel, if
there were not a natural enmity between the Son of God and those men. The
ambition or fury of the enemies of the Gospel carries them in various
directions, faction splits them into various sects, and a wide variety of
superstitions distinguishes idolaters from each other. But while they thus
differ among themselves, they all agree in this, to oppose the Son of God. It
has been justly observed, that the opposition everywhere made to Christ is too
plain an evidence of human depravity. That the world should thus rise against
its Creator is a monstrous sight. But Scripture predicted that this would
happen, and the reason is very apparent, that men who have once been alienated
from God by sin, always fly from him. Instances of this kind, therefore, ought
not to take us by surprise; but, on the contrary, our faith, provided with this
armor, ought to be prepared to fight with the contradiction of the
world.
As God has now gathered an Israel to himself from the
whole world, and there is no longer a distinction between the Jew and the Greek,
the same thing must now happen as, we learn, happened before. Isaiah had said of
his own age,
“The
Lord will be for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offense, to both
the houses of Israel,”(
<230814>Isaiah
8:14.)
From that time, the Jews hardly ever ceased to dash
themselves against God, but the rudest shock was against Christ. The same
madness is now imitated by those who call themselves Christians; and even those,
who lay haughty claims to the first rank in the Church, frequently employ all
the power which they possess in oppressing Christ. But let us remember, all that
they gain is, to be at length crushed and “broken in pieces,”
(<230809>Isaiah
8:9.)
Under the word
ruin
the Spirit denounces the punishment of unbelievers, and thus warns us to
keep at the greatest possible distance from them; lest, by associating with
them, we become involved in the same destruction. And Christ is not the less
worthy of esteem, because, when he appears, many are ruined: for the
“savor” of the Gospel is not less “sweet” and delightful
to God,
(<470215>2
Corinthians 2:15,16,) though it is destructive to the ungodly world. Does any
one inquire, how Christ occasions the
ruin
of unbelievers, who without him were already lost? The reply is easy. Those
who voluntarily deprive themselves of the salvation which God has offered to
them, perish twice.
Ruin
implies the double punishment which awaits all unbelievers, after that they
have knowingly and wilfully opposed the Son of God.
And for the
resurrection. This consolation is
presented as a contrast with the former clause, to make it less painful to our
feelings: for, if nothing else were added, it would be melancholy to hear, that
Christ is “a stone of stumbling,” which will break and
crush, by its hardness, a great part of men. Scripture therefore reminds us of
his office, which is entirely different: for the salvation of men, which is
founded on it, is secure; as Isaiah also says, “Sanctify the
Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread; and
he shall be for a sanctuary,” or fortress of defense,
(<230813>Isaiah
8:13,14.) And Peter speaks more clearly:
“To
whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of
God and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house.
Wherefore also it is contained in Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion the
head-stone of the corner, elect, precious, and he that believeth in him shall
not be confounded. Unto you, therefore, which believe, he is precious: but unto
them who are disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is
made the head of the corner,”(1 Peter 2:4-7; Isaiah
28:16.)
That we may not be terrified by the designation
bestowed on Christ, “a stone of stumbling,” let it be instantly
recollected, on the other hand, that he is likewise called the
“corner-stone,” on which rests the salvation of all the
godly. f185
Let it be also taken into account, that the former is
accidental, while the latter is properly and strictly his office. Besides, it
deserves our notice, that Christ is not only called the support, but the
resurrection
of the godly: for the condition of men is not one in which it is safe for
them to remain. They must rise
from death, before they begin to
live.
35.
But also a sword shall pierce
thy own soul. This warning must have
contributed greatly to fortify the mind of the holy virgin, and to prevent her
from being overwhelmed with grief, when she came to those distressing struggles,
which she had to undergo. Though her faith was agitated and tormented by various
temptations, yet her sorest battle was with the cross: for Christ might appear
to be utterly destroyed. She was not overwhelmed with grief; but it would have
required a heart of stone not to be deeply wounded: for the patience of the
saints differs widely from stupidity.
That the thoughts of many hearts
may be revealed. There are some who
connect this clause with a part of the former verse, that Christ is
set for the ruin and for the
resurrection of many in Israel; and who
include in a parenthesis what we have just now explained about the
sword:
but it is better, I think, to refer it to the whole passage. The particle
that,
o[pwv
a]n, in this passage, does not strictly denote a
cause, but merely a consequence. When the light of the Gospel arises, and
persecutions immediately spring up, there is, at the same time, a disclosure of
affections of the heart, which had been hitherto concealed: for the
lurking-places of human dissimulation are so deep, that they easily remain
hidden till Christ comes.
f186 But Christ, by his light,
discloses every artifice, and unmasks hypocrisy; and to him is properly ascribed
the office of laying open the secrets of the heart. But when the cross is added
to doctrine it tries the hearts more to the quick. For those who have embraced
Christ by outward profession, often shrink from bearing the cross, and, when
they see the Church exposed to numerous calamities, easily desert their
post.
36.
And there was Anna, a
prophetess. Luke mentions not more than
two persons who received Christ; and this is intended to teach us, that whatever
belongs to God, however small it may be, ought to be preferred by us to
the whole world. The scribes and priests, no doubt, were then surrounded by
great splendor; but, as the Spirit of God, whose
presence
was not at all enjoyed by those rulers,
f187 dwelt in
Simeon
and
Anna,
those two persons are entitled to greater reverence than an immense
multitude of those whose pride is swelled by nothing but empty titles. For this
reason, the historian mentions Anna’s
age,
gives her the designation of
prophetess,
and, thirdly, bears a remarkable testimony to her piety, and to the holiness
and chastity of her life. These are the qualities that justly give to men weight
and estimation. And certainly none are led astray by the dazzling and empty
magnificence of outward show, but those who are drawn, by the vanity of their
own minds, to take pleasure in being deceived.
She had lived with her husband
seven years from her virginity. This is
intended to inform us, that she was a widow in the very prime of life. She had
married young, and shortly afterwards lost her husband; and the circumstance of
her not entering into a second marriage while she was in the rigor of her bodily
frame,
f188 is mentioned with the view of
heightening the commendation of her chastity. What follows, that
she was a widow of about
eighty-four years, may be explained in
two ways. Either that time had passed in her unmarried
state,
f189 or it was the whole period of her
life. If you reckon the
eighty-four
years as the time of her widowhood, it
will follow that she was more than a hundred years old: but I leave that matter
doubtful. The Spirit of prophecy still shone in a very few, who served as tokens
to attest the doctrine of the Law and the Jewish religion, till the coming of
Christ. In a state of society so dissolute, the elect of God needed such aids to
prevent them from being carried away.
37.
She departed not from the
temple.. This is a hyperbolical
expression; but the meaning is plain, that Anna was almost constantly in the
temple. Luke adds, that she
worshipped God with fastings and
prayers day and night. Hence we infer,
that she did not visit the temple for the mere purpose of performing the outward
service, but that she added to it the other exercises of piety. It deserves our
attention, that the same rule is not enjoined on all, and that all ought not to
be led indiscriminately to copy those performances, which are here commended in
a widow. Each person ought to make a judicious inquiry, what belongs to his own
calling. Silly ambition has filled the world with apes, from superstitious
persons seizing, with more “zeal” than “knowledges”
(<451002>Romans
10:2,) every thing that they hear praised in the saints: as if the distinction
of rank did not render a selection of employments necessary, that each person
may answer to his own calling. What is here related of
Anna,
Paul applies in a particular manner to widows,
(<540505>1
Timothy 5:5;) so that married people act a foolish part, if they regulate their
life by an unsuitable model.
But there still remains another doubt. Luke appears
to make
fastings
a part of divine
worship.
But we must observe, that of the acts which relate to worship, some are
simply required, and, as we are accustomed to say, are in themselves necessary;
while others are accessory, and have no other design than to aid the former
class. Prayers belong strictly to the worship of God. Fasting is a subordinate
aid, which is pleasing to God no farther than as it aids the earnestness and
fervency of prayer. We must hold by this rule, that the duties of men are to be
judged according as they are directed to a proper and lawful end. We must hold,
also, by this distinction, that
prayers
are a direct worship of God; while
fastings
are a part of worship only on account of their consequences. Nor is there
any reason to doubt, that the holy woman employed
fastings
as an excitement to bewail those calamities of the Church which then
existed.
38.
Made acknowledgment also to
God.
f190 The holy melody, which proceeded
from the lips of Simeon and Anna, is praised by Luke, in order that believers
may exhort each other to sing with one mouth the praises of God, and may give
mutual replies. When he says, that Anna
spake of him to all who looked
for redemption in Jerusalem, he again
points out the small number of the godly. For the substance of faith lay in this
expectation; and it is evident, that there were few who actually cherished it in
their minds.
39.
They returned to
Galilee. The departure to Egypt, I
readily acknowledge, came between those events; and the fact mentioned by Luke,
that they dwelt in their own city
Nazareth, is later, in point of time,
than the flight into Egypt, which Matthew relates,
(<400214>Matthew
2:14.) But if there was no impropriety in one Evangelist leaving out what is
related by another, there was nothing to prevent Luke from overleaping the
period which he did not intend to mention, and passing at once to the following
history. I am very far from agreeing with those who imagine that Joseph and
Mary, after having finished the sacrifice of purification, returned to
Bethlehem, to live there. Those persons are foolish enough to believe, that
Joseph had a settled abode in a place where he was so little known, that he was
unable to find a temporary lodging. Nor is it without a good reason that Luke
says, with respect both to Joseph and Mary, that
Nazareth
was their own
city. We infer from it, that he never
was an inhabitant of Bethlehem, though it was the place of his
extraction.
f191 As to the order of time, I shall
presently give a more full explanation.
MATTHEW
2:13-18
|
MATTHEW
2:13-18
|
|
13. And when they had departed,
lo, the angel of the Lord appeared in dreams to Joseph, saying, Arise, and take
the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I
have told thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14. And he, when awake, took the young child and his mother
by night, and withdrew into Egypt: 15. And was there until
the death of Herod; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord
through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my Son.
16. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the Magi,
was exceedingly enraged, and sent to slay
f192
all the children that were in Bethlehem, and
all its boundaries,
f193
from two years old and under, according to the
time which he had inquired at the Magi. 17. Then was
fulfilled what had been spoken by Jeremiah the Prophet, when he says,
18. A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, wailing, and
much weeping: Rachel bewailing her children, and refused to receive consolation,
because they are not.
|
13.
And when they had
departed. How many days elapsed from the
departure of the Magi, till Joseph was ordered to flee into Egypt, is not known,
nor is it of much importance to inquire: only it is probable that the Lord
spared Mary, till she was so far recovered from childbirth as to be able to
perform the journey. It was a wonderful purpose of God, that he chose to
preserve his Son by flight. The mind of Joseph must have been harassed by
dangerous temptations, when he came to see that there was no hope but in flight:
for in flight there was no appearance of divine protection. Besides, it was very
difficult to reconcile the statement, that he who was to be the Savior of all,
could not be preserved without the exertion of a mortal man. But, in preserving
the life of his Son, God maintained such reserve, as to give some indications of
his heavenly power, and yet not to make it so manifest as to prevent it from
being concealed under the appearance of weakness: for the full time of
glorifying Christ openly was not yet come. The angel predicts an event which was
hidden, and unknown to men. That is an evident proof of divine guidance. But the
angel orders him to defend the life of the child by flight and exile. This
belongs to the weakness of flesh, to which Christ was
subjected.
We are here taught, that God has more than one way of
preserving his own people. Sometimes he makes astonishing displays of his power;
while at other times he employs dark coverings or shadows, from which feeble
rays of it escape. This wonderful method of preserving the Son of God under the
cross teaches us, that they act improperly who prescribe to God a fixed plan of
action. Let us permit him to advance our salvation by a diversity of methods;
and let us not refuse to be humbled, that he may more abundantly display his
glory. Above all, let us never avoid the cross, by which the Son of God himself
was trained from his earliest infancy. This flight is a part of the foolishness
of the cross, but it surpasses all the wisdom of the world. That he may appear
at his own time as the Savior of Judea, he is compelled to flee from it, and is
nourished by Egypt, from which nothing but what was destructive to the Church of
God had ever proceeded. Who would not have regarded with amazement such an
unexpected work of God?
Joseph immediately complies with the injunction of
the Angel. This is another proof of the certainty of the dream: for such
promptitude of obedience plainly shows, that he had no doubt whatever, that it
was God who had enjoined him to take flight. This eager haste may wear somewhat
of the aspect of distrust: for the flight
by
night had some appearance of alarm. But
it is not difficult to frame an excuse. He saw that God had appointed a method
of safety which was low and mean: and he concludes that he is at liberty to take
flight in such a state of alarm as is commonly produced by extreme danger. Our
fear ought always to be regulated by the divine intimations. If it agrees with
them, it will not be opposed to faith.
Be thou there until I have told
thee. By these words the Angel declares,
that the life of the child will, even in future, be the object of the divine
care. Joseph needed to be thus strengthened, so as to conclude with certainty,
that God would not only conduct him in the journey, but that, during his
banishment, God would be his constant protector. And in this way God was pleased
to allay many anxieties, with which the heart of the good man must have been
perplexed, so that he enjoyed serenity of mind during his sojourn in Egypt. But
for this, not a moment would have passed without numerous temptations, when he
saw himself excluded not only from the inheritance promised by God to all his
saints,—but from the temple, from sacrifices, from a public profession of
his faiths,—and was living among the worst enemies of God, and in a deep
gulf of superstitions. He carried with him, indeed, in the person of the child,
all the blessings which the Fathers had hoped to enjoy, or which the Lord had
promised to them: but as he had not yet made such proficiency in faith, and in
the knowledge of Christ, he needed to be restrained by this injunction,
Be thou there until I have told
thee, that he might not be displeased at
languishing in banishment from his country among the
Egyptians.
15.
Out of Egypt have I called my
Son. Matthew says that a prediction was
fulfilled. Some have thought, that the intention of the prophet was different
from what is here stated, and have supposed the meaning to be, that the Jews act
foolishly in opposing and endeavoring to oppress the Son of God, because the
Father hath called him out of
Egypt. In this way, they grievously
pervert the words of the prophet,
(<281101>Hosea
11:1,) the design of which is, to establish a charge of ingratitude against the
Jews, who, from their earliest infancy, and from the commencement of their
history, had found God to be a kind and generous Father, and yet were provoking
him by fresh offenses. Beyond all question, the passage ought not to be
restricted to the person of Christ: and yet it is not tortured by Matthew, but
skilfully applied to the matter in hand.
The words of the prophet ought to be thus
interpreted: “When Israel was yet a child, I brought him out of that
wretched bondage in which he had been plunged. He was formerly like a dead man,
and Egypt served him for a grave; but I drew him out of it as from the womb, and
brought him into the light of life.” And justly does the Lord speak in
this manner; for that deliverance was a sort of birth of the nation. Then were
openly produced letters of adoption, when, by the promulgation of the law, they
became “the Lord’s portion,”
(<053209>Deuteronomy
32:9,) “a royal priesthood, and a holy nation,”
(<600209>1
Peter 2:9;) when they were separated from the other nations, and when, in short,
God “set up his tabernacle”
(<032611>Leviticus
26:11) to dwell in the midst of them. The words of the prophet import, that the
nation was rescued from Egypt as from a deep whirlpool of death. Now, what was
the redemption brought by Christ, but a resurrection from the dead, and the
commencement of a new life? The light of salvation had been almost extinguished,
when God begat the Church anew in the person of Christ. Then did the Church come
out of Egypt in its head, as the whole body had been formerly brought
out.
This analogy prevents us from thinking it strange,
that any part of Christ’s childhood was passed in Egypt. The grace and
power of God became more illustrious, and his wonderful purpose was more
distinctly seen, when light came out of darkness, and life out of hell.
Otherwise, the sense of the flesh might have broken out here in contemptuous
language, “Truly a Redeemer is to come out of
Egypt!”
f194 Matthew therefore reminds us,
that it is no strange or unwonted occurrence for God to call his Son out of that
country; and that it serves rather to confirm our faith, that, as on a former
occasion, so now again, the Church of God comes out of Egypt. There is this
difference, however, between the two cases. The whole nation was formerly shut
up in the prison of Egypt; while, in the second redemption, it was Christ, the
head of the Church alone, who was concealed there, but who carried the salvation
and life of all shut up in his own
person.
16.
Then Herod when he
saw. Matthew speaks according to what
Herod felt and thought about the matter. He believed that the Magi had deceived
him, because they did not choose to take part in his wicked cruelty. He was
rather taken in his own trickery,—in his base pretense, that he too
intended to pay homage to the new King.
Josephus makes no mention of this history. The only
writer who mentions it is Macrobius, in the Second Book of his
Saturnalia,
where, relating the jokes and taunts of Augustus, he says: When he heard
that, by Herod’s command, the children in Syria under two years of age had
been slain, and that his own son had been slain among the crowd, “I would
rather,” said he, “have been Herod’s hog than his son.”
But the authority of Matthew alone is abundantly sufficient for us. Josephus
certainly ought not to have passed over a crime so worthy of being put on
record. But there is the less reason to wonder that he says nothing about the
infants; for he passes lightly over, and expresses in obscure language, an
instance of Herod’s cruelty not less shocking, which took place about the
same time, when he put to death all the Judges, who were called the Sanhedrim,
that hardly a remnant might remain of the stock of David. It was the same dread,
I have no doubt, that impelled him to both of these murders.
There is some uncertainty about the
date.
f195 Matthew says, that they were
slain from two years old and
under, according to the time which he had inquired at the
Magi: from which we may infer that
Christ had then reached that age, or at least was not far from being two years
old. Some go farther, and conclude that Christ was about that age at the time
when the Magi came. But I contend that the one does not follow from the other.
With what terror Herod was seized when the report was widely spread about a new
king who had been borne,
f196 we have lately seen. Fear
prevented him at that time from employing a traitor, in a secret manner, to make
an investigation.
f197 There is no reason to wonder that
he was restrained, for some time, from the commission of a butchery so hateful
and shocking, particularly while the report about the arrival of the Magi was
still
recent.
It is certainly probable, that he revolved the crime in his mind, but
delayed it till a convenient opportunity should occur. It is even possible, that
he first murdered the Judges, in order to deprive the people of their leaders,
and thus to compel them to look upon the crime as one for which there was no
remedy. f198
We may now conclude it to be a frivolous argument, on
which those persons rest, who argue, that Christ was two years old when he was
worshipped by the Magi, because,
according to the time when the
star appeared, Herod slew the children
who were a little below two years old. Such persons take for granted, without
any proper ground, that the star did not appear till after that the Virgin had
brought forth her child. It is far more probable, that they had been warned
early, and that they undertook the journey close upon the time of the birth of
Christ, that they might see the child when lately born, in the cradle, or in his
mother’s lap. It is a very childish imagination that, because they came
from an unknown country, and almost from another world, they had spent about two
years on the road. The conjectures stated by
Osiander
f199 are too absurd to need
refutation.
But there is no inconsistency in the thread of the
story which I propose,—that the Magi came when the period of child-bearing
was not yet over, and inquired after
a king who had been
born, not after one who was already two
years old; that, after they had returned to their own country, Joseph fled by
night, but still in passing discharged a pious duty at Jerusalem, (for in so
populous a city, where there was a constant influx of strangers from every
quarter, he might be secure from danger;) that, after he had departed to Egypt,
Herod began to think seriously about his own danger, and the ulcer of revenge,
which he had nourished in his heart for more than a year and half, at length
broke out. The adverb
then
(to>te)
does not always denote in Scripture uninterrupted
time,
f200 but frequently occurs, when there
is a great distance between the
events.
18. A
voice was heard in
Ramah. It is certain that the prophet
describes
(<243115>Jeremiah
31:15) the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin, which took place in his time:
for he had foretold that the tribe of Judah would be cut off, to which was added
the half of the tribe of Benjamin. He puts the mourning into the mouth of
Rachel, who had been long dead. This is a personification,
(proswpopoii`a,)
which has a powerful influence in moving the affections. It was not for the
mere purpose of ornamenting his style, that Jeremiah employed rhetorical
embellishments. There was no other way of correcting the hardness and stupidity
of the living, than by arousing the dead, as it were, from their graves, to
bewail those divine chastisements, which were commonly treated with derision.
The prediction of Jeremiah having been accomplished at that time, Matthew does
not mean that it foretold what Herod would do, but that the coming of Christ
occasioned a renewal of that mourning, which had been experienced, many
centuries before, by the tribe of Benjamin.
He intended thus to meet a prejudice which might
disturb and shake pious minds. It might be supposed, that no salvation could be
expected from him, on whose account, as soon as he was born, infants were
murdered; nay more, that it was an unfavorable and disastrous omen, that the
birth of Christ kindled a stronger flame of cruelty than usually burns amidst
the most inveterate wars. But as Jeremiah promises a restoration, where a nation
has been cut off, down to their little children, so Matthew reminds his readers,
that this massacre would not prevent Christ from appearing shortly afterwards as
the Redeemer of the whole nation: for we know that the whole chapter in
Jeremiah, in which those words occur, is filled with the most delightful
consolations. Immediately after the mournful complaint, he
adds,
“Refrain thy voice
from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith
the Lord, and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is
hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to thine
own border,”
(<243116>Jeremiah
31:16, 17.)
Such was the resemblance between the former calamity
which the tribe of Benjamin had sustained, and the second calamity, which is
here recorded. Both were a prelude of the salvation which was shortly to
arrive. f201
MATTHEW
2:19-23
|
MATTHEW
2:19-23
|
|
19. But when Herod was dead, lo,
the angel of the Lord appeareth, by a dream, to Joseph in Egypt,
20. Saying, Arise, and take the child and his mother, and go
into the land of Israel: for they are dead who sought the
life
f202
, of the child. 21. And he
rose and took
f203
the child and his mother, and came into the
land of Israel. 22. But when he had heard that Archelaus was
reigning in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither:
but, warned by a heavenly communication through a dream, he withdrew into the
parts of Galilee. 23. Having come there, he dwelt in the
city
f204
which is called Nazareth, that what had been
spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, He shall be called a
Nazarene.
|
19.
But when Herod was
dead. These words show the perseverance
of Joseph’s faith. He kept his feet firm in Egypt, till he was recalled to
his native country by a command of God. We see, at the same time, that the Lord
never disappoints his own people, but renders them seasonable aid. It is
probable that Joseph returned from Egypt immediately after the death of Herod,
before Augustus Caesar had issued his decree, appointing Archelaus to be
governor of Judea. Having been declared by his father’s will to be
successor to the throne, he undertook the whole charge of the government, but
abstained from taking the title of king, saying that this depended on the will
and pleasure of Caesar. He afterwards went to Rome, and obtained confirmation;
only the name of king was refused, until he had merited it by his actions. The
governor of Galilee was Philip, a man of gentle disposition, and almost like a
private individual. Joseph complied with the suggestion of the angel, because,
under a prince who had no delight in shedding blood, and who treated his
subjects with mildness, there was less danger.
We must always bear in mind the purpose of God, in
training his Son, from the commencement, under the discipline of the cross,
because this was the way in which he was to redeem his Church. He bore our
infirmities, and was exposed to dangers and to fears, that he might deliver his
Church from them by his divine power, and might bestow upon it everlasting
peace. His danger was our safety: his fear was our confidence. Not that he ever
in his life felt alarm; but as he was surrounded, on every hand, by the fear of
Joseph and Mary, he may be justly said to have taken upon him our fears, that he
might procure for us assured confidence.
23.
He shall be called a
Nazarene. Matthew does not derive