"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 _enroll himself with Mary his espoused wife_. The ground and circ.u.mstances of Mary's enrolment must 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. See Michaelis 'Commentaries on the Laws of Moses,' Part II. -- 78.

"It is indeed objected, that it was not customary among the Jews to trace back descent through the female line, that is, 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 Mana.s.seh, 1 Chr. 2, 21. 7, 14; and therefore in Num. 32, 40. 41, Jair is called the son (descendant) of Mana.s.seh. 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 ident.i.ty, 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. Neb. 12, 1. Hagg. 1, 1. 2, 2. 23. Were then the Salathiel and Zorobabel of Luke the same persons? Those who a.s.sume this, must rest solely on the ident.i.ty of the names; for there is no other possible evidence to prove, either that they were contemporary, 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 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? See Spanheim Dubia Evangel. I.

p. 108, sq.

"Again, the mere ident.i.ty of names under these circ.u.mstances, affords no proof; for nothing is more common even among contemporaries. 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 contemporaries, Joram son of Ahab, king of Israel, and Joram (Jehoram,) son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah; 2 K. 8, 16, coll. 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, Methusalah, Lamech, Gen. 5, 21-25." See Dr. Robinson's Greek Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 183-187.

102 Mal. iii. 1; Is. xl. 3.

103 In the New Testament, the same word is used for _the high priests_, and the chief priests, who were the heads of the twenty-four courses. So that the two persons whom the Roman governor considered as the chief of the priests, and whose names stood as such in those public registers which seem here referred to, may be intended. An irregularity had arisen out of the confusion of the times: and the ruler or prince under the Romans, though a chief priest, was a distinct person from the high priest: Annas being the one, and Caiaphas the other. Scott, _in loc._ See also Campbell, _in loc._

104 Is. xl. 3, seq.

105 Deut. viii. 3.

106 Deut. vi. 16.

107 Ps. xci. 11.

108 Deut. vi. 13.

109 There is a seeming discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, in the order of the temptations; but Luke does not affirm the order; whereas Matthew uses particles, in v. 2 and 8, which seem to fix it as he has written. NEWCOME.

110 John means that he was not really Elias risen from the dead. But when Jesus says, (Matth. xvii. 12, and xi. 14,) that Elias was come already, he means that John had appeared _in the spirit and power of Elias_. Luke i. 17. Thus likewise, John here denies that he is one of the ancient prophets again appearing on earth: see Luke ix 19; with which our Lord's a.s.sertion that he was an eminent prophet, Luke vii. 28, seems perfectly consistent. Newcome.

111 Is. xl. 3.

112 Kings and princes very often changed the names of those who held offices under them, particularly when they first attracted their notice and were taken into their employ; and when subsequently they were elevated to some new station, and crowned with additional honours. Gen. xli. 45; and xvii. 5; and x.x.xii. 28; and x.x.xv. 10; 2 Kin. xxiii. 34, 35; and xxiv. 17; Dan. i. 6. Hence a name (_a new name_) occurs topically, as a token of honour, in Phil. ii. 9; Heb.

i. 4; Rev. ii. 17. See also Mark iii. 17. Jahn's Archaeol. -- 164.

_ 113 Nathanael_. This apostle is supposed to be the same with _Bartholomew_, of whom John says nothing; and the others make no mention of _Nathanael_. This seems to have been his proper name; since the name of _Bartholomew_ is not a proper name, but only signifies _the son of Ptolomy_. _Nathanael_ is also ranked among the Apostles to whom Jesus showed himself. _John_ xxi. 2-4. A. Clarke, _in loc_.

114 Gen. xxviii. 12.

115 Ps. lxix. 9.

116 Numb. xxi. 8, seq.

117 Is. ix. 1.

118 Is. lxi. 1, and lviii. 6.

119 This word denotes only a subordinate officer, who attended the minister and obeyed his orders in what concerned the more servile part of the work. Among other things he had charge of the sacred books, and delivered them to those to whom he was commanded by his superiors to deliver them. After the reading was over, he deposited them in their proper place. CAMPBELL, _in loc_.

120 The service of the synagogue consisted of reading the scriptures, prayer, and preaching. The posture in which the latter was performed, whether in the synagogue or elsewhere, (see _Matth_. v.

1; _Luke_ v. 3,) was sitting. Accordingly when our Saviour had read the portion of scripture, in the synagogue at Nazareth, of which he was a member, having been brought up in that city, and then, instead of retiring to his place, _sat down_ in the desk or pulpit, it is said "the eyes of all that were present were fastened upon him,"

because they perceived, by this posture, that he was about to preach to them. See also Acts xiii. 14, 15. JENNINGS, Ant. 375.

121 1 Kings xvii. 1, 9.

122 2 Kings v. 14.

123 The accuracy of this description is attested by travellers, to this day. See ROBINSON'S Travels in Palestine, vol. iii., pp. 186, 187.

124 Matthew says that the disciples were called by Christ while walking by the sea, because that calling followed the walk by the sea. "We say that a thing was done by one walking in this or that place, because he took such a walk, whether he who did the act was then walking, or sitting or standing." Spanb. dub. lxxii. v. 2. This remark reconciles "_walking_," Matth. iv. 18 with "_stood_," Luke v.

1. A like remark may be made with respect to the pa.s.sages placed parallel to Luke v. 6. Jesus is concisely represented as if he had at first seen Peter and Andrew casting a net into the sea, because they were employed thus in consequence of the interview.

Luke does not deny that more than Simon were seen, nor does he affirm that Simon was seen. Indeed our Lord is said to have seen two ships by the lake. The calling of others beside Simon not only is not denied by Luke, but is sufficiently indicated in v. 11. The words of Matthew (v. 21) "going on from thence," are not to be understood as implying a great distance, but as relating to the neighbouring sh.o.r.e. Matthew relates the princ.i.p.al fact, the calling and the following; Luke has the accompanying circ.u.mstances. And there is a remarkable harmony between them. Matthew records the repairing of their nets by the fishermen; Luke shows how they became broken,-by the great draught they had taken. What is related by Luke, is not denied by Matthew, but omitted only. Nothing, indeed, is more common than to find the omission of some supplied by the other Evangelists. NEWCOME.

125 The death of Zebedee is nowhere mentioned in the gospels; yet an undesigned coincidence, and proof of the veracity of the Evangelists, is evident by comparing this place with others, in which his death is tacitly alluded to. Thus, in Chap. viii. 21, it is related that "another of his _disciples_ said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and _bury my father_;" and in Chap. xx. 20, it is said, "Then came to him the _mother of Zebedee's children_ with her sons, worshipping him," &c. See also Chap. xxvii. 55. BLUNT, Veracity of the Gospels, Sec. I. 2. See note on Mark vi. 3; Post, -- 55.

126 There is no inconsistency between this place and the last clause of Luke iv. 35. The word translated _torn_, signifies to move, agitate, convulse. It occurs only twice in the Septuagint. In 2. Sam. xxii.

8, the Hebrew signifies to be shaken, _ut in terrae motu_. In Jer.

iv. 19, it is applied to commotion of mind. Here, the demoniac was violently agitated; but the agitation left no lasting bad effect; he was restored to perfect health and soundness. NEWCOME.

127 Is. liii. 4.

128 This clause may be rendered "when the day was coming on," and thus be reconciled with the words of Mark, who says it was a great while before day, namely, before broad day-light. SCOTT, _in loc_

129 "The miraculous cure of the leprosy was thought by the Jews to be characteristic of the Messiah; and therefore there was peculiar reason for enjoining this man silence." _Benson's Life of Christ_, p. 340. NEWCOME. For the consequences of a premature full manifestation of himself as the Messiah, by awakening the jealousy of the Roman government, might, humanly speaking, have impeded his ministry. Yet there was great propriety in the private exhibition, to the priesthood, of full proof that he was the Messiah; after which, their obstinacy in rejecting him was inexcusable. In this, and divers other instances, our Lord manifested his intent not to be generally known to the Jews as their Messiah, till the consummation of his ministry. A general announcement of his divine character at the outset would have been productive of no good; on the contrary it would have excited the malice of the Scribes, Pharisees and Herodians against him; would have favoured the conceit of the Jews that he was to be their temporal king; would have awakened the jealousy of the Roman government; and in the natural course of things, would have prevented him from giving the many miraculous proofs which he gave of his ministry, and thus laying solid foundations for faith in his divine mission; would have exposed him and his religion to the charge of ostentation, vanity, and love of power and display; and would have deprived the world of that example which he gave, of meekness, humility and patient suffering and self-denial. According to human experience, an early a.s.sumption of regal splendour, supported by the miracles he wrought, would have been successful, and carried him to the throne instead of the cross; but it would have deprived the world of the great object of his mission. A sufficient number were enlightened to attest his miracles and proclaim his religion, and enough were left in their ignorance, to condemn and crucify him. See A. CLARKE, and SCOTT, _in loc_.

130 Lev. xiv. 2, seq.

131 When a Jew became a Roman citizen, he usually a.s.sumed a Roman name.

It is therefore supposed that Levi was the original Hebrew, and Matthew the a.s.sumed Roman name of this evangelist. STOWE'S Introd.

120. See also, HARMER'S Obs. vol. iv. p. 330; Obs. 94.

132 It is observable that though John speaks of this pool or bath as existing at the time he wrote, which was upwards of sixty years after the crucifixion, yet he speaks of the efficacy of its waters in the past tense, as something which had long ceased. This may account for the silence of Josephus concerning it; whether we suppose it to have been really a miraculous virtue, existing only in the time of our Saviour; or merely a groundless belief of the populace.

133 Spanheim, dub. evang. ii. 185, doubts how the latter part of this verse is reconcilable with Matthew iii. 17, and the parallel verses.

But the voice from heaven was not G.o.d's _immediate_ voice; but uttered at his command, and in his person. See Deut. iv. 33; Ex. xx.

1, 2; Comp. Hebr. ii. 2; Gal. iii. 19; Acts vii. 53. NEWCOME.

134 Deut. xxiii. 25.

135 The act of plucking the ears of corn by the hand, in another's field, was expressly permitted, by the law of Moses, Deut. xxiii.

23; but it was considered so far a species of reaping as to be servile work, and therefore not lawful to be done on the Sabbath.

CAMPBELL, _in loc_. See ROBINSON'S Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. 2, pp. 192, 201, that this custom is still in use.

136 Hos. vi. 6.

137 It appears from 1 Sam. xxi. 1, that Abimelech was the high priest at the time referred to; but Abiathar his son was the _chief_ priest under him, and probably superintended the tabernacle and its stated concerns. Abimelech was soon after slain; and Abiathar succeeded him in that office, and continued in it about forty years, until after the death of David. This circ.u.mstance, and his great eminence, above his father, may account for the use of his name rather than his father's, as ill.u.s.trating the times of David and Saul. See SCOTT, _in loc_.

138 Numb. xxviii. 9, 10; xviii. 19.