88 Luke ii. 1. _a decree_. This decree was issued eleven years before it was carried into effect, the delay having been procured by Herod.

This fact reconciles the evangelist with the Roman historians, from whom it appears that Cyrenius was not governor when the decree was issued, though he held that office when the census was taken and the tax a.s.sessed. See TOWNSEND, _in loc._

89 Gen. xvii. 12; Lev. xii. 3.

90 Ex. xiii. 2; Numb. viii. 16, 17.

91 Lev. xii. 6, 8.

92 Is. viii. 14.

93 Matth. ii. 3, _he was troubled_. According to Josephus, Herod was always in fear for the stability of his throne, and anxious to pry into futurity to discover whether it was likely to endure. Thus, when advanced to regal power, he sent for Manahem, an Essene, who had predicted of him when a boy that he would be a king, to inquire of him how long he should reign. JOSEPH. Ant. xv. -- 5. BLUNT, Veracity, &c. -- ii. 2.

94 Mic. v. 2.

95 Hos. xi. 1.

96 Jer. x.x.xi. 15, and xl. 1.

97 Matth. ii. 22, _he was afraid_. The naked statement of this fact, without explanation, is a mark of the sincerity of the evangelist, for the value of which we are indebted to Josephus, who relates, (Ant. b. 17, ch. 9, -- 3,) an instance of savage cruelty in Archelaus, immediately on his coming to the throne, in causing three thousand persons to be butchered in cold blood, at the first pa.s.sover after Herod's death. Such an act, committed under such circ.u.mstances, must have been rapidly made known abroad, and inspired all persons with horror. Well, therefore, might Joseph fear to return. But Matthew's incidental allusion to the cause, is characteristic of a man intent only upon the statement of the main facts, and regardless of appearances or explanations. BLUNT, Veracity, &c. -- ii. 3.

98 Is. xi. 1, and liii. 2; Zech. vi. 12; Rev. v. 5.

99 Luke ii. 42; _twelve years old_. Jewish children were not obliged to the observances of the ceremonial law, until they attained to years of discretion, which, in males, was fixed by common consent at twelve years. On arriving at this age, they were taken to Jerusalem at the pa.s.sover, of which they thenceforth partic.i.p.ated, as "sons of commandment," being fully initiated into the doctrines and ceremonies of the Jewish church, probably after examination by the doctors. This accounts for the circ.u.mstance of his being found among them, both hearing, and asking them questions. STACKHOUSE, Hist. N.

T. ch. i.; BLOOMFIELD, _in loc_.

100 Luke ii. 44; _in the company_. All who came, not only from the same city, but from the same canton or district, made one company. They carried necessaries along with them, and tents for their lodging at night. Such companies they now call _caravans_, and in several places have houses fitted up for their reception, called _caravanseries_. This account of their manner of travelling furnishes a ready answer to the question, How could Joseph and Mary make a day's journey, without discovering, before night, that Jesus was not in the company? In the day-time, we may reasonably presume, the travellers would mingle with different parties of their friends and acquaintance; but in the evening, when they were about to encamp, every one would join the family to which he belonged.

CAMPBELL, _in loc_.

101 The Genealogy of Jesus, as given by Luke, is here inverted for the sake of more convenient comparison with that given by Matthew.

The apparent discrepancies in these accounts are reconciled by Dr.

Robinson, in the following manner:

"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? a.s.suredly with the former; because, just as the first begins _apo Abraham_, so the second also is said to begin _apo David_. The first extends _heos David_, and includes him; the second extends to an epoch and not to a person; and therefore the persons who are mentioned as coeval with this epoch 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. Naa.s.son.

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. Mana.s.seh.

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 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, Newcome 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 ma.n.u.scripts 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, 'propteres quod malae essent et impiae,' according to R. Sal. Jarchi; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb.

in 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 pa.s.sage 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. 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 contemporary 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 sons 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 a.s.serted, 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.

in Matth. 1, 1. Comp. Phil. 3, 4, 5.

"II. Other questions of some difficulty present themselves, when we compare together 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 Joseph 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 the Christ.'

See Augustine, de Consensu Evangel. II. 5.

"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 Heli, 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.