before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was mindedu to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream," saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee

u Deut. 24: 1.....v Job 33: 15, 17.

Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in ner is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth 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 of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

w Acts 5: 31; 13: 23, 38.....x Isa. 7: 14.

BELOW ON NAMES OF JESUS; AND ON THE INCARNA- ful, and probably greatly attached to her despite TION SEE NOTES ON JOHN 1.

what he supposes to be her sin. Intended to
put her away privately. According to the
original he not merely thought of doing so, but
had resolved to do so. By Jewish law the husband
was final judge in all cases in which his wife was
suspected of infidelity, so far at least that he
might himself annul the marriage, provided, how-
ever, he gave her a bill of divorcement, setting
forth the reasons for his course. This must be
in writing, and by the rabbinical law was re-
quired to be given to her in the presence of at
least two witnesses-(Lightfoot). This, however,
apparently involved her in no condemnation,
since she might in that case marry again (Deut. 24 ;
1-4). But she could not be proceeded against
criminally without a trial;
criminally without a trial; in such case, if found
guilty of adultery, she was put to death by ston-

18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ. According to the chronology, which regulates our present system of dates, Jesus was born in the year of Rome 754, and in the first year of the present system of reckoning, i. e., A.D. 1. But it is now generally agreed that this places his birth some years too late. Herod died in the year of Rome 750, i. e., B.C. 4. Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod, and certainly within less than two years previous to his death (Matt. 2: 16), ¿. e., between the years of Rome 748 and 750, or between 6 and 4 B.C. The time of year of his birth is entirely unknown. There is no reason for supposing it to have occurred on the 25th of | December; that month was fixed upon for the commemoration of his birth (in the sixth century) for the purpose of drawing off heathening (Deut. 22; 22-24). Joseph proposed not to bring converts from the heathen festivities. (See Abbott's Popular Religious Dictionary, article Christmas.) In this wise, i. e., the circumstances attending his birth were as follows. Espoused. Among the ancient Jews the espousal or betrothal, answering to our modern marriage engagement, was a formal and solemn contract, almost as much so as the subsequent wedding itself. It was ratified on both sides with oaths by the parties or their representatives. After betrothal the woman was considered to a certain extent a wife; the contract could only be set aside by a solemn renunciation of it, answering to a divorce; and if, after the betrothal, the woman was guilty of infidelity, she was considered guilty of adultery, exactly as if the marriage had taken place (Ezek. 16:8; Deut. 22: 23, 24). Came together. The woman continued to live at her father's house prior to the marriage, which was completed by a public bringing of the woman to the home of her husband. Before this was accomplished, and Joseph and Mary had begun to live together as man and wife, she was found to be with child.

19. Joseph, her husband, so called, and so in some sense regarded, though they were as yet unmarried (comp. Gen. 29: 21; Deut. 22: 24). Being just, i. e., having a character such as rendered him unwilling to pass by what he deemed a fiagitious offence against good morals and the law of God; And yet not willing to make her a public example, being also kind and merci

any criminal complaint against Mary, but simply to give her a writing of divorcement under the provision of the former of these two laws, and so separate from her. On these provisions of divorce, and their bearing on the questions of marriage and divorce, we comment elsewhere (Matt. 19: 3-9).

20. Take unto thee Mary, thy wife, i. e., Take Mary to be thy wife; do not fear to complete the marriage relation begun by the betrothal. For that which, etc. For that which, etc. See on Luke 1 : 30, etc. 1:30, Jesus, same as Joshua. The name of Joshua is rendered Jesus once in Acts 7: 45, and once in Hebrews 4: 8. See below on the names of Jesus.

22, 23. Now all this was done, etc., The prophecy referred to is to be found in Isaiah 7: 14-16. About 740 B.C., Ahaz being king of Judah, an invasion was threatened by the combined armies of Syria and Israel. Ahaz was alarmed, and determined to call in aid from Assyria for his defence. God promised deliverance to Judah, and invited Ahaz to ask a sign in confirmation. This Ahaz declined to do. Isaiah then, under divine inspiration, uttered a prophecy, which is confessedly somewhat enigmatical, and which Henderson renders as follows. The reader will do well to compare this translation with that of our English Bible.

Behoid, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son;
And shall call his name Immanuel.

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which being interpreted is, Gody with us. 24 Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the

angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife :

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born2 son; and he called his name JESUS.a

...............z Ex. 13 : 2...............a Luke 2 : .

y John 1: 14.............

1.

Butter and honey shall he eat,

When he shall know to reject what is evil,
And to choose what is good.

But before the youth shall have knowledge
To reject what is evil and to choose what is good,
The land, which thou destroyest [Eng. vers. abhor-
rest], shall be forsaken by both its kings.

ed to a foreign power. This in fact occurred: for, at the time of the birth of Jesus, Herod was nominally king of the Jews, and after Herod's death, Archelaus, his son, reigned in his stead; but in the 12th year of our Lord, the very year in which he evinced his wonderful discrimination by disputing with the elders in the temple Shortly after uttering this prophecy Isaiah had (Luke 2: 42-46), Archelaus was banished, and Judea. a child by one who was, at the time of the proph- was reduced to a Roman province. The former ecy, a virgin, and the declaration was then made of these two interpretations is the more common by God (Isaiah 8:1-4) that before this son should one; the latter appears to me to consort best be able to cry, "My father and my mother," the with the original prophecy, and its divine fulfillriches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria spoil of Samariament by the birth of Jesus Christ. It seems not should be taken away before the king of Assyria | reasonable, on the one hand, to imagine, as some Isaiah 8;1-4). Ahaz carried out his contemplated plan, secured the aid of the king of Assyria, and by doing so repelled the invaders. Damascus, the capital of Syria, was taken, and Rezin was slain. Shortly after Samaria was besieged by the same Assyrian king, and Israel was carried away captive. Thus, some years before the maturity of Isaiah's son, both the allied nations, leagued against Judah, were effectually destroyed (2 Kings 16-17 : 6).

have done, that the birth of Jesus Christ was foretold by Isaiah as a sign for the purpose of assuring Ahaz of national deliverance, when, in fact, the deliverance preceded the sign over seven centuries; nor consonant with the direct declaration of Matthew that the birth of Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, if, in fact, the prophecy had only an indirect reference to it; nor does the birth of a | child, who does not appear to have been called Immanuel, by a woman who was not at the time a virgin, appear to be a real fulfillment of the prophecy; nor does it seem reasonable to suppose that God would encourage Ahaz in going on with his appeal to Assyria, a heathen ally, to whom he gave "the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord" (2 Kings 16 : 8); while it entirely accords with the circumstances of the case to understand that the prophecies of Isaiah 7: 14–16 and 8:1-4 are distinct prophecies, the latter a declaration that Judah shall be delivered speedily from Syria and Israel; the former that immediately subsequent to the birth of the long-anticipated Messiah the entire land, Israel and Judah, should be deprived of its national glory, its kings discrowned, and itself reduced to a subject province. duced to a subject province. Actual history fulfils both prophecies, if thus understood, and thus gives to this interpretation an additional confir

There are two explanations of Isaiah's prophecy. One is that he referred to the birth of his own son, Mahershalalhashbaz; that his declaration should be translated as in our Bible, "the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings ;" and that this prophecy was literally fulfilled by the destruction of Damascus and the death of Rezin, and by the destruction of Samaria and the captivity of Israel, as recorded in 2 Kings 16 and 17. According to this view Isaiah did not himself have in mind the future birth of the Messiah, though the birth of his own son, and the consequent deliverance of Israel, was itself a prophecy of a greater deliverance to come, just as the raising of the brazen serpent in the wilderness was prophetic of the crucifixion of Christ. The other view is that the prophecy of Isaiah was not intended as a sign of deliverance but was a rebuke to Ahaz for persisting in his appeal to the king of Assyria; that the proph- 24. Then Joseph took unto him his ecy should be translated as Henderson translates wife wife; perhaps so as to preclude suspicion atit in the passage quoted above; that by it God taching to her; perhaps to convince her that no declared to Ahaz that though temporary relief temporary relief suspicion lingered in his own mind. It was, at should come, yet the end of the Jewish nation all events, a strong attestation of his belief in the was not far off, and that before the Messiah, divine message. Knew her not till she had long-promised and long-expected, should come brought forth her first-born son. Certainly to years of maturity, the land which Ahaz by his there is nothing in this verse to imply the perpetwickedness corrupted and destroyed, i. e., the ual virginity of Mary. There is some doubt land of Canaan, Jehovah's land, should be for- whether the word first-born belongs here. saken of both her kings, discrowned and subject- | Alford thinks not, and suggests that it was bor

mation.

III. Herod Antipas, another son of Herod the Great, and by his father appointed tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. His illicit marriage to Herodias, wife of his half-brother Philip, was rebuked by John the Baptist; the rebuke led to the latter's execution. He was the Herod before whom our Lord was sent by Pilate during the Passion week (Luke 23: 7). For some account of his life and character see Matt. 14 : 1, note.

IV. Herod Philip I, known in the N. T. as Philip, a third son of Herod the Great, the first and lawful husband of Herodias, and the father of Salome (Matt. 14: 3, 6). He must not be confounded with the tetrarch Philip. Owing to his mother's treachery he was excluded from all share in his father's possessions and lived in a private station.

V. Herod Philip II, a fourth son of Herod the Great and made tetrarch of Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis and some parts about Jamnia. His territory lay east of Galilee and north of Perea. He was the founder of Cæsarea Philippi, and made a new city, which he called Julius, out of Bethsaida, on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. He married Salome, the daughter of Herod Philip I and Herodias. He was by far the best of the ruling sons of Herod the Great; is referred to in the N. T. only in Luke 3 : 1.

VI. Herod Agrippa I, a grandson of Herod the Great. He is the Herod mentioned in Acts 12: 1-3, 23. See notes there.

VII. Herod Agrippa II, a son of Herod Agrippa I. In A.D. 52, he was made ruler, with the title of king, of northern Palestine, the previous dominions of Philip and Lysanias. He is the Agrippa before whom Paul was tried (Acts 25: 13, 22, 23; 26: 27, 28). See notes there for life and character. There were other members of the Herodian family, but these are the only ones mentioned in the N. T.

omon's Temple; he also constructed another on Mt. Gerizim for the Samaritans and established heathen worship in Cæsarea for the Romans. By nature jealous and suspicious, a terrible distemper, which finally brought his wretched life to a more wretched end, aggravated the asperities of his temper. In succession, his wife's grandfather, his wife herself, and three of his own sons were slain by his command. His course on hearing that another "king of the Jews" was born, was quite in keeping with all that secular history records of his character. He died miserably in the 70th year of his age, and the 38th year of his reign, issuing on his death-bed a characteristic order for the massacre of the courtiers whom he had called about him in his last illness. Thus he said he should secure universal mourning at his death. The events recorded in this chapter took place near the close of his reign, probably during the last year.

There came wise men from the east. Concerning these "wise men three questions naturally call for some answer: (1) Who were they? (2) From what country did they come? (3) How should they know that the star foretold the coming of Christ?

(1.) The original expression is "Magi from the East." The term magi is that from which comes our modern word magician. Its etymology is uncertain. It is probably derived from a word (mogh, priest) found in the Zend, the ancient language in which the sacred books of the Persians were written, and is connected with a similar word (mahal, great) in the Sanscrit, from which the Latin magnus and our words major, magnify, magnificent, etc., are derived. This derivation corresponds with what is known of the magi, who were the priests and the great men, first of Media, afterwards of the Medo-Persian empire. The earliest notice, in Scripture, of The Herod here referred to is the father, this class is in Jer. 39 : 3, 13, where mention is made Herod misnamed the Great, the second son of of Rab-mag, which is probably not a proper Antipater, an Idumean, appointed procurator of name, but a compound word signifying chief Judea by Julius Cæsar, B.C. 47, and subsequently | magi, after the analogy of such words as chief receiving the title of "King of Judea " from the eunuch and chief butler. The same class is reRoman Senate. He possessed energy of char-ferred to in Jeremiah 50: 35, where our English acter, but an unscrupulous ambition, and was remorselessly cruel. He was made governor of Galilee at the early age of fifteen, and distinguished himself by his campaign against the brigands who infested the mountains. He transferred his allegiance without scruple from Cassius to Antony, and from Antony to Cæsar, as in succession they sécured the possession of the political power of Rome. By Antony's influence he was made king of Judea, and on Antony's fall was confirmed in his position by Cæsar. He rebuilt the temple in great magnificence in Jerusalem, which is consequently known in history as Herod's Temple, to distinguish it from Sol

version entitles them "wise men." But the most frequent references to them are in the book of Daniel. To this class Nebuchadnezzar appealed in vain for the exposition of his dream (Dan. 2: 1-13), and Belshazzar for the interpretation of the handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5: 1-9). Daniel himself seems to have been in some measure identified with them, intercedes to save them from death (Dan. 2: 24), and accepts the office of the "master of the magicians (Dan. 5: 11), which was probably that of Rab-Mag or ChiefMagi. The origin of this class is involved in obscurity. It is believed, however, to have originally existed in the Chaldean empire, to have