תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

years, at the least, after the actual birth of Christ. This era was first used in historical works by the Venerable Bede, early in the eighth century; and was not long after introduced in public transactions by the Frank kings Pepin and Charlemagne.

In respect to the time of the year when Jesus was born, there is still less certainty. John the Baptist would seem to have entered upon his ministry in the spring; perhaps when the multitudes were collected in Jerusalem at the Passover. The crowds which followed him imply that it was not winter. The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, probably six months later, would then have occurred in autumn. It could not well have been in the winter, for John was still followed by crowds; nor does a winter seem to have intervened. If now we may assume, as is most probable, that John entered on his office when he had completed his thirtieth year; then the time of his birth was also the spring; and that of our Lord, six months later, was the autumn. Archbishop Newcome, referring to Lardner, has the following remark: "Jesus was born, says Lardner, between the middle of August and the middle of November, A. U. 748 or 749. We will take the mean time, October 1." See Lardner's Works, Vol. I. p. 370, 372. Lond. 1835.-There is, on this point, no valid tradition. According to the earliest accounts, the sixth of January, or Epiphany, was celebrated by the eastern churches. in the third and fourth centuries, as the festival of the birth and baptism of Jesus; Cassian. Collat. X. c. 2. In the western churches, after the middle of the fourth century, the twenty-fifth of December (Christmas) began to be kept as the festival of Christ's nativity; this day having been fixed upon, partly at least, as being the then current winter solstice. Thus, as late as the time of pope Leo the Great, (ob. 461,) there were many in Rome, "by whom this day of solemnity was regarded as honourable, not so much on account of the nativity of Christ, as because of the rising of the new sun, as they called it." Leon. Magn. Serm. XXI. c. 6. See the Church Hist. of Neander, Vol. I; also that of Gieseler, Vol. I. The observance of this latter festival (Christmas) spread into the East; while that of the Epiphany, as the baptismal day, was adopted in the West.

§ 10. The visit of the Magi at Bethlehem naturally follows the presentation in the temple; since, after the jealousy of Herod had been once roused, this public presentation could not well have taken place. Joseph and Mary return from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, distant five English miles, where they had now been detained for nearly two months. Luke indeed does not allude to this return (2, 39); but neither does he mention the flight into Egypt.

§ 13. The genealogy in Luke is inverted, for the sake of more convenient comparison. The words "which was the son," so often repeated in the English Version, is an addition by the translators merely to fill out the connection.

I. In the genealogy given by Matthew, considered by itself, some difficulties present themselves.

1. There is some diversity among commentators in making out the three divisions, each of fourteen generations, v. 17. It is, however, obvious, that the first division begins with Abraham and ends with David. But does the second begin with David, or with Solomon? Assuredly with the former; because, just as the first begins from Abraham, so the second also is said to begin from

David. The first extends to David, and includes him; the second extends until the carrying away into Babylon, i. e. to an epoch and not to a person; and therefore the persons who are mentioned as coeval with this epoch (about the time of the carrying away, v. 11), are not reckoned before it. After the epoch the enumeration begins again with Jechoniah, and ends with Jesus. In this way the three divisions are made out thus:

1. Abraham.
2. Isaac.

3. Jacob.

4. Judah.
5. Phares.
6. Esrom.
7. Aram.
8. Aminadab.
9. Naasson.
10. Salmon.
11. Boaz.

12. Obed.

13. Jesse.

14. David.

1. David.
2. Solomon.

3. Roboam.

4. Abiah.

5. Asa.

6. Josaphat.
7. Joram.

8. Uzziah (Ozias).
9. Jotham.
10. Ahaz.
11. Hezekiah.
12. Manasseh.
13. Amon.
14. Josiah.

1. Jechoniah.
2. Salathiel.
3. Zorobabel.
4. Abiud.
5. Eliakim.
6. Azor.

7. Sadoc.
8. Achim.
9. Eliud.
10. Eleazar.
11. Matthan.
12. Jacob.
13. Joseph.
14. Jesus.

2. Another difficulty arises from the fact, that between Joram and Ozias, in v. 8, three names of Jewish kings are omitted, viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; see 2 K. 8, 25 and 2 Chr. 22, 1.-2 K. 11, 2. 21 and 2 Chr. 22, 11.—2 K. 12, 21. 14, 1 and 2 Chr. 24, 27. Further, between Josiah and Jechoniah in v. 11, the name of Jehoiakim is also omitted; 2 K. 23, 34. 2 Chr. 36, 4. comp. 1 Chr. 3, 15. 16. If these four names are to be reckoned, then the second division, instead of fourteen generations, will contain eighteen, in contradiction to v. 17. To avoid this difficulty, Newcoine and some others have regarded v. 17 as a mere gloss," a marginal note taken into the text." This indeed is in itself possible; yet all the external testimony of manuscripts and versions is in favour of the genuineness of that verse. It is better therefore to regard these names as having been customarily omitted in the current genealogical tables, from which Matthew copied. Such omissions of particular generations did sometimes actually occur, "because they were wicked and impious," according to the Rabbins; see Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on Matth. 1, 8. A striking example of an omission of this kind, apparently without any such reason, is found in Ezra 7, 1-5, compared with 1 Chr. 6, 3-15. This latter passage contains the lineal descent of the high priests from Aaron to the captivity; while Ezra, in the place cited, in tracing back his own genealogy through the very same line of descent, omits at least six generations. The two accounts stand thus:

[blocks in formation]

A similar omission is necessarily implied in the genealogy of David, as given Ruth 4, 20-22. 1 Chr. 2, 10-12. Matth. 1, 5. 6. Salmon was cotemporary with the capture of Jericho by Joshua, and married Rahab. But from that time until David, an interval of at least four hundred and fifty years (Acts 13, 20), there intervened, according to the list, only four generations, averaging of course more than one hundred years to each. But the highest average in point of fact is three generations to a century; and if reckoned by the eldest song they are usually shorter, or three generations for every seventy-five or eighty years. See Sir I. Newton's Chronol. p. 53. Lond. 1728.

We may therefore rest in the necessary conclusion, that as our Lord's regular descent from David was always asserted, and was never denied even by the Jews; so Matthew, in tracing this admitted descent, appealed to genealogical tables, which were public and acknowledged in the family and tribe from which Christ sprang. He could not indeed do otherwise. How much stress was laid by the Jews upon lineage in general, and how much care and attention were bestowed upon such tables, is well known. See Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on Matth. 1, 1. In the N. T. also, see Phil. 3, 4. 5. II. Other questions of some difficulty present themselves, when we compare ogether the two genealogies.

1. Both tables at first view purport to give the lineage of our Lord through Joseph. But Joseph cannot have been the son by natural descent of both Jacob and Heli (Eli), Matth. 1, 16. Luke 3, 23. Only one of the tables therefore can give his true lineage by generation. This is done apparently in that of Matthew; because, beginning at Abraham, it proceeds by natural descent, as we know from history, until after the exile; and then continues on in the same mode of expression until Joseph. Here the phrase is changed; and it is no longer Joseph who "begat" Jesus, but Joseph "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ."

2. To whom then does the genealogy in Luke chiefly relate? If in any way to Joseph, as the language purports, then it must be because he in some way bore the legal relation of son to ideli, either by adoption or by marriage. If the former simply, it is difficult to comprehend, why, along with his true personal lineage as traced by Matthew up through the royal line of Jewish kings to David, there should be given also another subordinate genealogy, not personally his own, and running back through a different and inferior line to the same great ancestor If, on the other hand, as is most probable, this relation to Heli came by marriage with his daughter, so that Joseph was truly his son-in-law (comp. Ruth 1, 8. 11. 12); then it follows, that the genealogy in Luke is in fact that of Mary the mother of Jesus. This being so, we can perceive a sufficient reason, why this genealogy should be thus given, viz. in order to show definitely, that Jesus was in the most full and perfect sense a descendant of David; not only by law in the royal line of kings through his reputed father, but also in fact by direct personal descent through his mother.

That Mary, like Joseph, was a descendant of David, is not indeed elsewhere expressly said in the New Testament. Yet a very strong presumption to that effect is to be drawn from the address of the angel in Luke 1, 32; as also from the language of Luke 2, 5, where Joseph, as one of the posterity of David, is said to have gone up to Bethlehem to enrol himself with Mary his espoused wife for this is the meaning of the Greek. The ground and circumstances of Mary's

enrolment mast obviously have been the same as in the case of Joseph himself. Whether all this arose from her having been an only child and heiress, as some suppose, so that she was espoused to Joseph in accordance with Num. 36, 8. 9, it is not necessary here to inquire.

It is indeed objected, that it was not customary among the Jews to trace back descent through the female line, i. e. on the mother's side. There are however examples to show that this was sometimes done; and in the case of Jesus, as we have seen, there was a sufficient reason for it. Thus in 1 Chr. 2, 22, Jair is enumerated among the posterity of Judah by regular descent. But the grandfather of Jair had married the daughter of Machir, one of the heads of Manasseh, 1 Chr. 2, 21. 7, 14; and therefore, in Num. 32, 40. 41, Jair is called the son (descendant) of Manasseh. In like manner, in Ezra 2, 61 and Neh. 7, 63, a certain family is spoken of as "the children of Barzillai ;" because their ancestor "took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name."

3. A question is raised as to the identity, in the two genealogies, of the Salathiel and Zorobabel named as father and son, Matth. 1, 12. Luke 3, 27. The Zorobabel of Matthew is no doubt the chief, who led back the first band of captives from Babylon, and rebuilt the temple, Ezra c. 2-6. He is also called the son of Salathiel in Ezra 3, 2. Neh. 12, 1. Hagg. 1, 1. 2, 2. 23. Were then the Salathiel and Zorobabel of Luke the same persons? Those who assume this, must rest solely on the identity of the names; for there is no other possible evidence to prove, either that they were cotemporary, or that they were not different persons. On the other hand, there are one or two considerations, of some force, which go to show that they were probably not the same persons.

First, if Salathiel and Zorobabel are indeed the same in both genealogies, then Salathiel, who according to Matthew was the son of Jechoniah by natural descent, must have been called the son of Neri in Luke either from adoption or marriage. In that case, his connection with David through Nathan, as given by Luke, was not his own personal genealogy. It is difficult therefore to see, why Luke, after tracing back the descent of Jesus to Salathiel, should abandon the true personal lineage in the royal line of kings, and turn aside again to a merely collateral and humbler line. If the mother of Jesus was in fact descended from the Zorobabel and Salathiel of Matthew, she, like them, was descended also from David through the royal line. Why rob her of this dignity, and ascribe to her only a descent through an inferior lineage?

Again, the mere identity of names under these circumstances, affords no proof; for nothing is more common in Scripture, even among cotemporaries. Thus we have two Ezras; one in Neh. 12, 1. 13. 33; from whom Ezra the scribe is expressly distinguished in v. 36. We have likewise two Nehemiahs; one who went up with Zorobabel, Ezra 2, 2; and the other the governor who went later to Jerusalem, Neh. 2, 9 sq. So too, as cotemporaries, Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, and Joram Jehoram) son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; 2 K. 8, 16. comp. v. 23. 24. Also, Joash king of Judah and Joash king of Israel; 2 K. 13, 9. 10. Further we find in succession among the descendants of Cain the following names: Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, Lamech, Gen. 4, 17. 18; and later among the descendants of Seth these similar ones: Enoch Methuselah, Lamech, Gen. 5, 21-25.

Various artificial theories of inheritances and intermarriages have at differ

ent times been proposed, in order to explain and harmonize the two genealo. gies. But in the view here taken all these become unnecessary. See Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on Luke 3, 23.

PART II.

ANNOUNCEMENT AND INTRODUCTION OF OUR LORD'S PUBLIC MIN

ISTRY.

§§ 14-20.

§ 14. For the time when John the Baptist entered upon his public ministry, see Note on § 7. p. 169.-On Matth. 3, 11 and the parallel passages, see the next Note.

§ 15. For the time of our Lord's baptism, see Note on $7.-We may here, once for all, make a remark upon the difference of the words from heaven, as quoted Matth. 3, 17 and the parallel passages. A like difference is seen in the four copies of the title on the cross, Matth. 27, 37. Mark 15, 26. Luke 23, 38. John 19, 19. And still more, in the solemn words of our Lord at the institution of the cup, Matth. 26, 28. Mark 14, 24. Luke 22, 20. 1 Cor. 11, 25. Similar varieties of expression in the different reports of the same language are found in the following passages, as well as very many others: Matth 3, 11. Mark 1, 7. Luke 3, 16. John 1, 27.- Matth. 9, 11. Mark 5, 16. Luke 5, 30.-Matth. 15, 27. Mark 7, 28.-Matth. 16, 6-9. Mark 8, 17-19-Matth. 20, 33. Mark 10, 51. Luke 18, 41.-Matth. 21, 9. Mark 11, 9. Luke 19, 38.-Matth. 26, 39. Mark 14, 36. Luke 22, 42.-Matth 28, 5. 6. Mark 16, 6. Luke 24, 5. 6.—All these examples go only to show, that where the Evangelists profess to record the expressions used by our Lord and others, they usually give them according to the sense, and not according to the letter; and this must be regarded as a general principle of interpretation in the Gospels and elsewhere.

§ 16. That the temptation of Jesus took place directly after his baptism, appears from the word "immediately" in Mark 1, 12; and also from a comparison of John 1, 29. 35. 44.-According to Mark and Luke, Jesus was subjected to temptation during the forty days. Matthew and Luke specify three instances of temptation, but in a different order. One of these apparently must have occurred at the end of the forty days. The order of Matthew is perhaps the most natural of the two; though, as the accounts were probably derived from the recital of our Lord himself, given at various times, in his intercourse with his disciples, the true order may have been different from either.

§ 18. In v. 21 the Baptist declares that he was not Elias; meaning that he was not Elias risen from the dead. In Matth. 17, 12 Jesus says that "Elias is come already;" meaning that John had come "in the spirit and power of 1 lias;" Luke 1, 17.

In v. 33, John the Baptist says he knew not Jesus; though in Matth. 3, 14

« הקודםהמשך »