Jesus was named jesus by joseph

JESUS WAS NAMEDJESUS BY JOSEPH
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
MATTHEW 1:24-25 24 When Josephwoke up, he did
what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and
took Mary home as his wife.25 But he did not
consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a
son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
STUDYLIGHT RESOURCES
Adam Clarke Commentary
Her first - born son - Τον υιον αυτης τον πρω -οτοκον . Literally, That sonof
hers, the first-bornone. That Mary might have had other children, any person
may reasonably and piously believe;that she hadothers, many think
exceedingly probable, andthat this text is at least an indirect proof of it.
However this may be, the perpetual virginity of Mary should not be made an
article of faith. God has not made it one: indeedit can hardly bear the light of
several textsinthe Gospels.
He knew her not - Had no matrimonial intercourse withher - Till she had
brought forth that son of hers, of whom the evangelist hadbeenjust speaking,
the first-born, the eldestof the family, to whom the birthright belonged, and
who was miraculously bornbefore she knewany man, being yet in a state of
virginity. See onMatthew13:55;(note). The virginity of Mary, previously to the

birthof Christ, is an article of the utmost consequence tothe Christiansystem;
and therefore it is an article of faith:her perpetual virginity is of no
consequence;andthe learnedlabor spent toprove it has produced a mere
castle inthe air. The thing is possible;but it never has been, and never can be
proved.
He calledhis name Jesus - This name was givenby the command of God, see
Matthew1:16, andwas imposedon Christ wheneight days old; for then,
according to the Jewishlaw, he was circumcised:thus he had the name of Savior
givenwhen he first beganto shedthat blood without which there couldbe no
remissionof sins.
The goodness of God is manifested, not only in his giving his Son tosave a lost
world, but alsoin the choice of the persons whowere his progenitors:among
whom we find, First, Saints, toexcite our courage:Abraham, remarkable for his
faith; Isaac, for his obedience;and Jacob, for his fervor and constancy.
Secondly, Penitent Sinners, toexciteour confidence:suchas David, Manasses,
etc.
Thirdly, Sinners, of whose repentance andsalvationwe hear nothing;to put us
on our guard. Who can readthe account of idolatrous Solomon, who, from the
whole evidence of the sacredhistory, diedIn his sins, without trembling?
Four Women are mentionedinthis genealogy:twoof these were adulteresses,
Tamar and Bathsheba;and two were Gentiles, Rahaband Ruth, and strangers to
the covenant of promise;to teachus that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and
that, though strangers tohis people, we are not on that account excludedfrom
a salvationwhich God has designedfor all men. He is not the God of the Jews
only; he is alsothe God of the Gentiles.
The state of the royal family of David, the circumstances of the holy virginand
her spouse Joseph, the very remarkable prophecy of Isaiah, the literal and
circumstantial fulfillment of it, the names giventoour blessedLord, the
genealogical scroll of the family, etc., etc., are all so many proofs of the wisdom,
goodness, and providence of God. Every occurrence seems, at first view, tobe

abandoned to fortuitous influence, andyet the result of eachshows that God
managed the whole. These circumstances are of the greatest importance;nor
can the Christianreader reflectonthemwithout an increase of his faithand his
piety.
Albert Barnes'Notesonthe Whole Bible
Knew her not - The doctrine of the virginity of Mary before the birthof Jesus is a
doctrine of the Scriptures, andis very important to be believed. But the Bible
does not affirm that she had no childrenafterward. Indeed, all the accounts in
the New Testament leadus to suppose that she did have them. See the notes at
Matthew13:55-56. The language here evidently impliesthat she livedas the
wife of Joseph after the birthof Jesus.
Her first-bornson - Her oldest son, or the one who had the privilege of
birthright by the law. This does not of necessity imply that she hadother
children, thoughit seems probable. It was the name givento the son whichwas
born first, whether therewere others or not.
His name Jesus - This was givenby divine appointment, Matthew1:21. It was
conferreduponhim on the eighthday, at the time of his circumcision, Luke
2:21.
John Gill's Expositionof the Whole Bible
And knewher not,.... Or "but he knew her not", και answering tothe Hebrew ‫ו‬
that is, had carnal knowledge of her, or copulationwith her, thoughhis wife.
The words are an euphemism, or a modest way of expressing the conjugal act,
and is a very ancient one, see Genesis 4:1 andwhat has beenusedin nations
and languages. And this conduct of his was necessary,
till she had brought forth her firstborn;that it might be manifest not only that
she conceived, being a virgin, but alsothat she brought forth, being a virgin:for

both are signifiedinthe prophecy before related, "avirginshall conceive and
bring forth a son"; which is all one as if it had beensaid, a virginshall conceive,
and "a virgin"shall bring forth a son. The "firstborn"is that whichfirst opens
the womb of its mother, whether any follows after or not, Exodus 13:12. Christ
is calledMary's firstborn, because she hadnone before him, whether she had
any after him or not; for her perpetual virginity seems tobe no necessary article
of faith: for whenit is said,
Josephknew her not till she had brought forth, the meaning is certainthat he
knew her not before. But whether he afterwards didor not, is not somanifest,
nor is it a matter of any great importance;the word "until"may be so
understoodas referring tothe time preceding, that the contrary cannot be
affirmedof the time following, 2 Samuel 6:23 and which may be the case here,
and is indeedgenerally understoodso;and it also may be consideredas only
expressive of the intermediate time, as inMatthew5:26 as Beza observes.
Christ was "her firstborn"as he was man, and the firstbornof God, or his first
and only begotten, as the Son of God. It is further observed, that she "calledhis
name Jesus", as was foretoldto her, or orderedher by the Angel, Luke 1:31 and
to Joseph, Matthew1:21.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And knewher not till she had brought forth her first-bornson:and he calledhis
name JESUS — The word “till” does not necessarily imply that they livedona
different footing afterwards (as will be evident fromthe use of the same word
in 1 Samuel 15:35;2 Samuel 6:23;Matthew12:20);nor does the word “first-
born” decide the much-disputedquestion, whether Mary hadany childrento
Josephafter the birthof Christ;for, as Lightfoot says, “The law, in speaking of
the first-born, regardednot whether any were bornafter or no, but only that
none were bornbefore.”(See on Matthew13:55, Matthew13:56).

Robertson's WordPictures inthe NewTestament
And knewher not (και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην — kai ouk eginōskenautēn). Note
the imperfect tense, continuousor linear action. Josephlivedincontinence with
Mary till the birthof Jesus. Matthewdoes not say that Mary bore no other
childrenthanJesus. “Her firstborn”is not genuine here, but is a part of the text
in Luke 2:7. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught here. Jesus had
brothers andsisters andthe natural meaning is that they were younger children
of Joseph and Mary and not childrenof Josephby a previous marriage. So
Joseph“calledhis name Jesus”as the angel had directedandthe childwas born
in wedlock. Josephshowedthat he was an upright man in a most difficult
situation.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes
And knewher not till she had brought forth her firstbornson:and he calledhis
name JESUS.
He knew her not, till after she had brought forth — It cannot be inferredfrom
hence, that he knewher afterward:no more than it can be inferredfromthat
expression, 2 Samuel 6:23, Michal hadno childtill the day of her death, that she
had childrenafterward. Nor do the words that follow, the first-bornson, alter
the case. For there are abundance of places, whereinthe termfirst bornis used,
though there were nosubsequent children. Luke 2:7.
The FourfoldGospel
and knew her not till she had brought forth a son1:and he calledhis name
JESUS2.
And knewher not till she had brought forth a son. Romishteachers contendfor
the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that she may be regardedas an

object of worship. This doctrine cannot be provedby Scripture. But there are
weightier reasons thanthis whichforbidus to worshipher;namely, it cannot be
provenfrom Scripture either that she was "divine"or that she was "sinless".
Moreover, the fact that she enteredthe marital state at all, shows that she was
perfectly human, and comportedherself as such.
And he calledhis name JESUS. Two Old Testament heroes bore the name Jesus
under the form of Joshua. One was captainof Israel for the conquest of Canaan
(Joshua 1:1,12), the other was highpriest of Israel for rebuilding the Temple
(Zechariah6:11,12). Christwas boththe Captain of our salvationand the High
Priest of our profession.
Calvin's Commentary on the Bible
25.Andknewher not This passage affordedthe pretext for great disturbances,
which were introducedintothe Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The
inference he drewfromit was, that Mary remaineda virginno longer than till
her first birth, and that afterwards she had other childrenby her husband.
Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly andcopiously defendedMary’s perpetual
virginity. Let us rest satisfiedwiththis, that nojust and well-groundedinference
can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as towhat took place after
the birthof Christ. He is calledfirst-born;but it is for the sole purpose of
informing us that he was born of a virgin. (115) It is said that Josephknew her
not till she had brought forthher first-bornson:but this is limitedtothat very
time. What took place afterwards, the historiandoes not informus. Such is well
known to have beenthe practice of the inspiredwriters. Certainly, noman will
ever raise aquestionon this subject, except fromcuriosity;andno man will

obstinately keepupthe argument, except froman extreme fondness for
disputation.
Ver. 25. And knew her not till she brought forth]We think hardly of him that
takethto wife the widowand relict of another, that is left great withchild,
before she hath laiddown her burden;how much more in this case!Besides,
this might be part of the angel’s charge tohim, that after she had brought forth
her Son Jesus she continuedstill aVirgin, pie credimus, but it is neither articleof
our creednor principle of our religion. But that she vowedvirginity is bothfalse
and absurd. For how couldshe promise virginity toGodand marriage to Joseph?
Sure it is, the blemishwill never be wipedoff from some of the ancients, who,
to establishtheir ownidol, of I know not what virginity, have writtenmost
wickedly and most basely of marriage, which bothChrist honouredwithhis first
miracle and the Holy Ghost by overshadowing the betrothedVirgin. As for the
Papists that disgrace it, they appear hereinmore like devils thandivines. 1
Timothy 4:1. If the same God had not beenthe author of virginity andmarriage,
he had never countenancedvirginity by marriage, as he did in the VirginMary.
Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible
Matthew1:25. Andknewher not till, &c.—Some may infer from this passage,
that Mary had other childrenafterwards;but the original here only excludes the
time preceding the birth, without any consequence as tothe future. Thus
Michal had no childuntil the day of her death;2 Samuel 6:23 where the LXX has
the Greek wordεως, as in the text. Nor do the words which followin the
Evangelist alter the case;her first-bornson;for there may be a firstbornwithout
a second; and the commentators abound withinstances where the termfirst-
born is used, though there are no subsequent children. Onwhat terms Joseph
and Mary afterwards lived, is of solittle consequencetous, that I cannot but
wonder, says Dr. Doddridge, it shouldhave beenthe subject of so much debate
among Christians. The present passagesurely is clear enough, whereinthe

Evangelist, inthe plainest manner, assertsthat Josephcohabitednot withMary
till she was deliveredof her wonderful Son, who is truly the first-bornamong his
brethren, andwhich alone was of consequence for Christians tokn
Inferences.—As all our hopes dependupon the salvationpurchasedby the Lord
Jesus Christ, it is most satisfactory toobserve howconvincing the evidence is,
that he is the true Messiah, the Sonof God, and the sonof man, in whom the
prophesies of the OldTestament and the promises made to the fathers were
fulfilled.
When we survey sucha series of generations as this before us, it is obvious to
reflect, how, like the leaves of a tree, one passethaway, and another cometh;
yet the earthstill abideth, andwithit the goodness of the Lord; whichruns on
from generationtogeneration, the commonhope of parents and children. Of
those who formerly liveduponthe earth, and perhaps made the most
conspicuous figure, howmany are there whose names have perishedwith
them;how many, of whom only the name is remaining!Thus are we passing
away, and thus shall we shortly be forgotten:happy if, while we are forgotten
of men, we are rememberedby God: happy, if our names, lost on earth, are at
lengthfound writteninthe book of life.
Never was any daughter of Eve sodignifiedas the VirginMary; yet was she in
danger of falling under the imputationof one of the worst of crimes. We find
not, however, that she tormentedherself about it;but, conscious of her own
innocency, she kept her mind calm and easy, and committedher cause to him
who judgethrighteously;and, like her, those whoare careful tokeepa good
conscience, may cheerfully trust Godwiththe keeping of their goodname.
We have in Josephan excellentpatternof gentleness andprudence (Matthew
1:19.). In an affair which appeareddubious, he chose, as we shouldalways do,
rather toerr on the favourable than on the severe extreme;he was careful to
avoid any precipitate steps;andin the moments of deliberationGodinterposed,
to guide and determine his resolves. It is goodfor us tothink, to reflect on
things, as Joseph did. Were there more of deliberationinour censures and
judgments, there wouldbe more of mercy and moderationin them.

The angel appearedto Josephin a dream(Matthew1:20). Whenwe are most
quiet and composed, we are in the best frame to receive the notices of the
divine will. Extraordinary direction, like the present, is not tobe expectedby us;
but God has still methods of making known his mind in doubtful cases, by hints
of Providence, debates of conscience, advice of faithful friends, andby the study
of, and light thrown upon, his sacredword. We shouldtherefore fromeachof
these (still applying the general rules of the writtenword) take directionfrom
God in all the steps of our life, and more particularly inthe great concerns of it.
Withwhat wonder and pleasure must Josephhave receivedthe gladtidings, so
honourable to Mary, so satisfactory tohimself!Withwhat pleasure shouldwe
also receive them!For we tooare informed of Jesus, whocame to save his
people from their sins. Howimportant and glorious a salvation!BlessedJESUS!
answer thy character, in delivering us not only from sin's condemning, but from
its reigning andexisting power. May our souls bow to EMMANUEL, our
incarnate God, and gratefully adore that wonderful condescension,—Godand
man unitedinone Christ, that God and man may be for ever reconciled!
REFLECTIONS.—1st, As the OldTestament openedwiththe generationof the
heavenand the earth, the Newbegins withthe generationof Himwho, in the
fulness of time, became incarnate for man's redemptionfromthe curse he had
brought upon himself, andunder whichthe whole creationgroaned. We have
here his genealogy fromauthentic records, toprove the accomplishment of the
prophesies whichwent before concerning him, as sprung, according to the flesh,
from David and Abraham, Genesis 12:3. 2 Samuel 7:12 for whichpurpose these
genealogical tables are produced, abundantly sufficient for the convictionof
those inthat day, that Jesus was descendedfromthese patriarchs, whatever
cavils have since beenraised, or difficulties startedagainst them.
In this genealogy we may observe, (1.) That the line of descent is not always
throughthe first-born, but in many, as Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, &c. from
the younger sons. (2.) That of the four women mentioned, we have two Gentiles
and two adulteresses, whowouldseemtoadd no honour to their descendants;
but hereinwe have an intimation, that Christ's salvationwas not designedtobe

confinedto the Jewishpeople, but to be extendedtothe Gentiles also;andthat
the most guilty neednot despair, whenthey see that our Lord, in taking the
likeness of sinful flesh, humbles himself to derive his descent fromsuchas
these. (3.) Inthe genealogy there are several persons passedover;for what
reason, it is difficult, and of little import, toresolve;andthe lineal descendant,
though at the distance of three generations, is saidtobe the sonof his remote
ancestor, as in the case of Ozias. (4.) The generations are dividedintothree
fourteens, not that there were nomore persons really inthe descent, but that
the Evangelist thought fit tomentionno more. In the first, we see the family of
David rising tothe throne;in the second, a race of kings descendfromhim; in
the last, the royal family declines eventoa poor carpenter;sofading is this
world's greatness. Yet then, whentohuman viewall prospect of the kingdom's
being restored toDavid's house seemeddesperate, Jesus arose tosit onhis
father's throne, Luke 1:32.:whenGod promises, we never needdespair. (5.)
Jesus is calledChrist, or Messiah, the AnointedOne, uniting inhis personthe
threefoldoffices, towhichmenwere anointedunder the law, of prophet, priest,
and king; and all his followers are calledChristians, anhonourable title, and
most applicable to those who have indeedreceivedanunctionfrom the holy
One, and are consecratedtoGod as kings and priests throughtheir exalted
Head.
2nd, The account of the birthof Jesus follows his genealogy. Andwe have,
1. His miraculous conception. His mother Mary had beenbetrothedtoJoseph;
but before the marriage was consummatedshe was found with child, through
the wondrous operationof the Holy Ghost, who formedChrist's human nature,
that it might be pure from every spot of that corruptionwhichnaturally
descends toevery sonof Adam withhis being; and that he might thus be a Lamb
without blemish, fit for God's altar.
2. Joseph's prudent resolve. Probably Mary herself communicatedtohimthe
circumstances of her case;and though a thousand suggestions might riseupto
questionher veracity;(andto take her to his bed in sucha situationhe could
not think of, being a just man;) yet was he unwilling withal tomake her a public

example, and have her punishedwithdeathas an adulteress:her artless
relationand unaffectedsimplicity, thoughwonderful, might well have caused
him to hesitate;andwhere the shadowof a doubt remains, a just man will ever
leanto the side of mercy and charity:therefore he resolvedtoput her away
privily, as little as possible towoundher character, while duty bade him
preserve his own. Note;(1.) Though apparently the greatest injuries may be
done us, it is wise tosuppress rashanger, and deliberate before we punish. (2.)
In very dark cases, where any circumstances appear whichwill admit of a
favourable interpretation, love, whichthinkethnoevil, will gladly entertain
them.
3. The Lordrelieves Josephfromhis perplexity:while he deliberateswhat was
fit to be done for God's glory and his own peace in Mary's case, the angel of the
Lord in a dream directs himhow toact. For, when we are in doubt, yet in
simplicity desire toknowand follow the will of God, we shall be directed, if not
by an angel or a dream, yet by some word of God, or intimationof Providence.
Josephis now divertedfromhis purpose, and bidden, without hesitation, to
take to him his wife, since her conceptionis not the fruit of adultery, but of the
Holy Ghost; and the angel calls him Joseph, thouson of David, to leadhis
thoughts from this extraordinary circumstance tothe Messiahwhoshould
descendfromhim; assuring him, that this childnow conceivedis designedtobe
the very person, as the name givenhim imports;he shall be calledJesus, or the
Saviour; this being the great endof his appearing, to save his people fromtheir
sins, from the punishment, the power, and the nature of them. Note;They to
whom Jesus is become a Saviour, are distinguishedfromothers by their
holiness;every one whonameth the name of Christ must depart from iniquity,
or they are none of his; yet it is by his grace that they are enabledsoto do.
4. The accomplishment of the Scriptures hereinis observedby the Evangelist.
The prophesy of Isaiah, Isaiah 7:14 had foretold, a virginshouldconceive, and
bring forth a son, and his name be calledImmanuel, that is, God with us;which
was now fulfilled;Mary being that virgin, and God himself by the incarnation
uniting the human nature tothe divine. Jesus Christ was thus enabledto
execute the office of a Saviour, having the humanity thus unitedtohis godhead,

to offer for the sins of men: infinite worthwas therefore annexedtothis
sacrifice, arising fromthe dignity of his person;by which means God became
reconciledtous, and we who were far off were brought nighunto God. How
mysterious this union!Let us wonder, love, and adore!
5. Josephno sooner awaked, than he obeyedthe heavenly vision, whichcarried
undoubtedevidence tohis mind of its original;and in obedience tothe angel's
command, he calledthe child's name Jesus. Note;(1.) WhenGod commands, we
must obey without hesitation. (2.) Since Jesus is nowcome into the world, we
are calledupon toaccept of his salvation:for, if we neglect or despise it, how
shall we escape?
Expository Notes withPractical Observations onthe NewTestament
It is piously believed, thoughnot positively inscripture asserted,that the Virgin
had no other childbut our Savior: it is a very probable opinion, though not an
infallible article of faith, as the Church of Rome would make it: for the word
until signifies inscripture as muchas never.
So Genesis 28:15. I will not leave thee, until I have done that whichI have
promised;that is, I will never leave thee.
So the words following, Her first-bornson, do not imply that she had any child
after, but that she had none before. That childwhich first openedthe womb, is
usually in scripture calledthe first-born, thoughtherewas noother born after.
Thus Joshua 18 Machir is calledthe first-bornof Manasseh, thoughhe had no
more children. So that Christ, not only as God, but as also he was man, was the
first-bornandonly son. St. Austinexpounds and applies Ezekiel 44:2tothe
virginMary;This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall
enter by it; because the LordGod of Israel hathenteredinby it; therefore it
shall be shut. Andothers of the ancients say, that as Christ lay in a tomb, in
which none lay before or after himself. But he said, Quid post partum secutum
erat curiose none est quarendum. What the Virginwas afterwards, is of small

concernto the mystery, therefore not tobe inquiredafter. Andyet it is now
passedby some into a matter of faith, that the VirginMary was ever avirgin,
and it has beenstyledaheresy tohold the contrary;but how is it consistent
withgood divinity, tomake that an article of divine faith, which is founded on
no divine revelation. Or tomake that necessary tobe believed, which
confessedly is not containedinthe Holy scripture, let the Churchof Rome
answer.
Editor's Note:it would benefit the reader tocross-reference Mark 6:3;Galatians
1:19, etc., toput this matter torest.
Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary
25.]“ ‘non cognovit eam, doneo.’ Non sequitur, ergopost:sufficit tamen
confirmari virginitatemadpartumusque: de reliquotempore lectori æquo
relinquitur existimatio.”Bengel. Andwithregardtothe much-controverted
sense of this verse we may observe, (1) That the primâ facie impressiononthe
reader certainly is, that οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν was confinedtothe periodof time here
mentioned. (2) That there is nothing inScripture tending toremove this
impression, either ( α) by narration,—andthe very use of the term, ἀδελφοὶ
κυρίου (on which see note at ch. Matthew13:55), without qualification, shews
that the ideawas not repulsive:or ( β) by implication,—for every where inthe
N.T. marriage is spokenof in high and honourable terms;and the words of the
angel to Josephrather imply, than discountenance, sucha supposition. (3) On
the other hand, the words of this verse donot require it:the idiombeing
justifiedonthe contrary hypothesis. See reff. Onthe whole it seems tome, that
no one would ever have thought of interpreting the verse any otherwisethanin
its primâ facie meaning, except toforce it intoaccordance witha preconceived
notionof the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is characteristic, andhistorically
instructive, that the great impugner of the viewgivenabove shouldbe Jerome,
the impugner of marriage itself:andthat his opponents in its interpretation
shouldhave beenbranded as heretics by after-ages. See abrief notice of the
controversy in Milman, Hist. of LatinChristianity, i. 72 ff. As to the expression,

compare the remarkable parallel, Diog. Laert. iii. 1. 2, where he says of the
father of Plato, καθαρὰν γάμουφυλάξαι, ἕως τῆς ἀποκυήσεως, with ib. 4 (said
of Plato) ἔσχε δʼ ἀδελφοὺς ἀδείμαντον κ. γλαύκωνακ. ἀδελφὴν ποτώνην.
ἐκάλεσεν]i.e. Joseph; see Matthew1:21.
HeinrichMeyer's Critical andExegetical Commentary onthe NewTestament
Matthew1:25. ἐγίνωσκεν]He hadno sexual intercourse withher (imperfect). In
this sense ‫ידע‬ is used by the Hebrews, andγινώσκειν by the Greeks of a later
age (ofteninPlutarch);also the Latinnovi and cognosco(Justin, v. 2, xxvii. 3;
Ovid. Meta. iv. 594;comp. Caesar, de belloGallico, vi. 21 : feminae notitiam
habuisse). See WetsteinandKypke. Since Epiphanius, Jerome, Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, very many expositors have maintained, withaview
to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, but in oppositiontothe
straightforwardandimpartial character of the narrative, that Joseph, evenafter
the birthof Jesus, had no sexual intercourse withMary.(365)
But (1) from ἕως οὗ of itself noinference canbe drawn either infavour of or
against such a view, as in all statements with“until”the contextalone must
decide whether, withregardtothat whichhad not formerly occurred, it is or is
not intendedtoconvey that it afterwards took place. But (2) that it is here
conceivedas subsequently taking place, is soclear of itself toevery
unprejudicedreader fromthe ideaof the marriage arrangement, that Matthew
must have expressedthe thought, “not only until—but afterwards alsohe had
not,” if such had been his meaning. That he did not, however, meanthis is
clearly shown(3) by his use of πρωτότοκον, whichis neither equivalent to
πρῶτος καὶ ΄όνος (Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus), nor does it designate the first-
born, without assuming others bornafterwards (soformerly most expositors).
The latter meaning is untenable, because the evangelist employedπρωτότοκον
as an historian, fromthe standpoint of the time when his Gospel was
composed, and consequently couldnot have usedit had Jesus beenpresent to
his historical consciousness as the only sonof Mary. But Jesus, according to

Matthew(Matthew12:46 ff., Matthew13:55f.), had alsobrothers andsisters,
amongst whom He was the firstborn. Lucian’s remark (Demonax, 29), speaking
of Agathocles, is correct:εἰμὲν πρῶτος, οὐ μόνος· εἰ δὲ μόνος, οὐ πρῶτος. (4)
All a priori suppositions are untenable, fromwhichthe perpetual virginity of
Mary is saidto appear,—suchas that of Euth. Zigabenus:πῶς ἂν ἐπεχείρησεν, ἢ
καὶ ὅλως ἐνεθυμήθηγνῶναι τὴν συλλαβοῦσαν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ
τοιοῦτον δοχεῖον γεγενημένην;of Olshausen:“it is manifest that Joseph, after
such experiences, might withgoodreason believe that his marriage withMary
was intendedfor another purpose than that of begetting children.”Hofmann
has the correct meaning (Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 405), soalso Thiersch, Wieseler,
Bleek, Ewald, Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 153 ff., Schenkel, Keim, Kahnis, I. p. 426 f.
Comp. on the passage before us, Diogenes Laertius, 3:22, whereit is saidof
Plato’s father: ὅθεν καθαρὰν γάμου φυλάξαι ἕως τῆς ἀποκυήσεως;see also
Wetstein;Paulus, exeget. Handb. I. p. 168 f.; Strauss, I. p. 209 ff.
ἐκάλεσε]is not to be referredtoMary, sothat ἕως οὔ ἔτεκε … καὶ ἐκάλεσε
would be taken together, as Paulus, after some older interpreters, maintains,
but toJoseph, as is certainafter Matthew1:21;comp. Grotius.
Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomonof the NewTestament
Matthew1:25. καὶ, and) St Matthewsays “and,” not “but.” He took her, and
knew her not: both by the command of the angel.—οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν, ἓως
οὗ, knew her not until) It does not followfrom this ἓως (until) that he didso
afterwards. It is sufficient however, that her virginity shouldbe establishedup
to the time of her delivery. Withregardtothe remainder of her marriedlife, the
reader is left toform his own opinion. The angel did not expressly forbidJoseph
to have conjugal intercourse withher:but he perceivedsuchacommand to be
impliedby the very nature of the case.—ἓως οὗ ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν, until she
brought forth the Son) A very old Egyptianversionhas only these words,
without the additionof “her first-born:(69) according towhichreading, the
address of the angel, the declarationof the prophet, and the act of Joseph[in
naming Him as the angel directed]are expressedinwords whichexactly

correspondtogether.—sc., “She shall bring fortha son, and thoushalt call his
name Jesus,”—“She shall bring fortha Son, and they shall call his name
Jesus,”—She brought forthTON υἱὸν, THE Son, and he [Joseph](70) calledHis
name Jesus. The article TON (the) has a relative value here, andrefers to
Matthew1:21 withthe same meaning, “until she brought forth THAT Son” The
same reading is found in Codex Barberini I. (by whichname we suppose the
celebratedVaticanMS. tobe intendedinthis place), and we have assured
ourselves that beyonddoubt suchmust have been originally that of the Latin
Vulgate. For Helvidius,(71) andJerome in the commencement of his book
against him, thus quote the words of St Matthew—et noncognovit eam, donec
peperit filiumsuum, i.e., and he knewher not till she brought forthher Son; but
more commonly they quote thus donec peperit filium, i.e., until she brought
forth((72) or the) Son, without the additionof either suum(her) or
primogenitum(first-born);nor can it be argued, that they have in these
instances intendedtoabridge the text, sinceJerome inone place thus quotes
the passage in full, “Exurgens autem—accepit uxoremsuamet non cognovit
eam, donec peperit filium:et vocavit nomenejus Jesum,” i.e., But on rising from
sleep—he receivedhis wife, andknew her not until she had brought forth[the]
Son: and he calledHis name Jesus.(73)
Boththese writers, after along dispute upon this passage of St Matthew, seek
for a freshargument groundedon the appellationπρωτότοκος, first-born, not
from this passage of St Matthew, but solely fromLuke 2:7. If the Codex
Barberini I., and the Coptic versionalready mentioned, obtainedthis reading
from Greek MSS., their testimony is onthat groundof great weight:if, on the
other hand, they obtainedit from Latin sources, they greatly corroborate the
genuine reading of the very ancient Latinversion. The words αὐτῆς τὸν
πρωτότοκον, “her first-born,”appear tohave beenintroducedintoSt Matthew,
from the parallel passage inSt Luke already cited:and the very ideaof the Son
of a Virgin, implies that He must have beenthe first-borninapre-eminent and
strictly singular manner. [Suchas He is expressly declaredtobe inLuke 2:7,
Vers. Germ.]

In some passages our criticismtakes adifferent viewof matters fromwhat it did
formerly. Yet no one can fairly accuse me of inconstancy;for I do not confine
myself tothose views, whichhave gained acceptance by long usage (though I do
not reject suchassistancewhere truthrequires it):but I proceedto draw forth,
by degrees, fromtheir concealment, thosethings whichhave beenburiedout of
sight.
ἐκάλεσε, he called) i.e., Josephdidso; as we learnfrom Matthew1:21.
MatthewPoole's EnglishAnnotations onthe Holy Bible
Ver. 24,25. The will of God (as we heard) was revealedtoJosephina dream. It is
God that givethapower tosleep, and a power to awake; therefore it is said,
being raisedfrom sleep, he showedbothhis faith and obedience;his faithin the
Divine revelation, acertainty of whichhe had doubtless by some extraordinary
Divine impression, andhis obedience tothe Divine precept.
He took unto him his wife, that is, he took her unto his house, (for betrothed
virgins usedtoabide at their own friends’ houses till the consummationof the
marriage), and owned her as his wife, yet not fully using her as such, for the text
saithhe
knew her not (a modest phrase usedfrom the beginning of the world, as
appears from Genesis 4:1, toexpress the conjugal act)
till she had brought forth her firstbornSon. Some make a great stir in
determining whether he knewher afterwards, yeaor no. Some of the ancients
were stiff intheir opinionthat he did not, so are the popishwriters, andmany
protestant interpreters. Mr. CalvinI think determines best, that none will move
such a question, but suchas are unwarrantably curious;nor contendfor either
part, but such as are unreasonably quarrelsome. For as, on the one side, none
can conclude that she had more childrenfromthe word
till, further thanthey can conclude, from Psalms 110:1, that Christ shall not for
ever sit at his Father’s right hand, (the word until being a particle only exclusive

of a preceding time, not affirming the thing infuture time), nor doth the term
firstbornconclude any born afterward;so, on the other side, there are no
cogent arguments toprove that Mary had no more childrenby Joseph. We read
of the brother of our Lord, Galatians 1:19, and of his mother and his "brethren,"
Matthew12:47;andthough it be true brethrenmay signify kinsmen, according
to the Hebrewdialect, yet that it dothso inthese texts cannot be proved. The
Holy Ghost had made use of the virginfor the productionof the Messias;why
after this her womb should be shut up, and Josephtake her home to be his wife,
and not use her as suchI cannot tell, nor yet what reproach it could be toMary
or to our Saviour, marriage being God’s ordinance, and the undefiledbed
honourable:and those who think our Saviour would have beendishonouredin
any others lying in the same bed after him, seemto forget how much he
humbledhimself in lying in that bed first, andthenin a stable and a manger. We
know he knewher not till Christ was born, whether he didafterwardor no we
are willingly ignorant because Godhath not toldus.
And he calledhis name Jesus:this is added to declare his obedience tothe
command receivedby the angel. We shall meet withmore circumstances
relating tothe birthof Christ whenwe come to the two first chapters of Luke.
Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
25. Till she had brought forth her firstbornson — These words assert the
virginity of the mother of the Lord until the time of his birth. According tothe
Creed, “He was born of the virginMary.”They are also understoodby many to
imply that she was subsequently the mother of other childrenthanJesus. On
the other hand, the perpetual virginity of the blessedmother is astandard
doctrine inthe Roman Church, and is generally maintainedby the older writers
of the ChristianChurch. Withmany this opinionis mainly groundedupon what
they consider the demands of our “pious feelings.”It may be doubted, however,
whether this pious feeling is not rather ecclesiastical andsentimental than
Scriptural and truly spiritual.

The proof that Mary was the mother of subsequent children, is derived, sofar as
this passage is concerned, bothfrom the word until, and the words her
firstborn. Fromthe word until, the implicationis inferredthat her virginity
continuednot after her maternity. Andthis we apprehendis the usual sense of
the word until and its corresponding term inmost languages. Whenwe affirm a
certainstate of things until a givenpoint, we naturally imply a change after that
point. Yet not necessarily. We may intendour affirmationto cover the time
previous tothe point, without pretending toaffirm, imply, or evenknow what
took place after that point. Examples of this, quotedby BishopPearsonon the
Creed, are Genesis 28:15;Deuteronomy 34:6;1 Samuel 15:35;2 Samuel 6:23;
Matthew28:20. The conclusionof this argument therefore fairly is, I think, that
there is a decidedprobability, althoughnofull certainty, that the evangelist
meant toimply the birthof subsequent children. As tothe wordfirstborn, it is
affirmedby Pearsonand others that the wordis in the Old Testament properly
appliedto the only born. That is, it is appliedto any childwhose birthhas been
precededby no other, whether succeededby any or not. The Mosaic law
prescribedthe sanctificationof the “firstborn.”Exodus 12:2. Andthis firstborn
was still socalled, whether succeeded by subsequentchildrenor not. This is
undoubtedly true. But still it may be questionedwhether asubsequent historian
would style that childthe firstbornwhere therewas notoriously nosecond
born. The evangelist could, I think, do so only by transferring himself, as it were,
to the time of the birth, whenthe future contingency was unknown. Therefore,
the balance of the argument upon this point also leaves an implicationagainst
the perpetual virginity of the blessedmother. This questionis connectedwith
the further discussionof the questionconcerning the brethrenof the Lord.
Upon that point see our note upon Matthew13:55.
In closing our notes upon this chapter, we offer the following remarks:
1. The style of the evangelist is eminently prosaic and plain. There is not the
slightest tinge of poetry inthe whole narrative. There is nothing of the fabulous
or mythical strain. He narrates the most wonderful events without the slightest
wonder. The whole tone of the style is purely historical, as plainand level as if it
detailedthe most ordinary events of life.

2. Matthew, thus far, gives neither date nor place. The persons are named
without formal introduction. All are assumedtobe familiar to his readers. As if
writing toJewishChristians, towhomall the facts, persons, and places are well
known, he appears to write rather as if to verify and recordthanto inform.
3. In his first twochapters, Matthewsoplans his narrative as, by blending fact
withprophecy, to prove the Messiahshipof Jesus. He is careful toinform us that
these events took place for the purpose (inadditionto all their other purposes)
of fulfilling the predictionsof the prophets of the Old Testament. The New
Testament is bornof the Old. The Gospel is containedinthe law. The old
dispensationis but a preparationfor the new. He who is the true Jewis bound
to be the believing Christian.
4. Matthewgives nodates, but his mentionof historical names, suchas Herod
and Archelaus, enables us tofix, withsome approach toaccuracy, the time of
our Lord’s birth. The following extract, fromProf. Robinson’s EnglishHarmony
of the NewTestament, furnishes the beststatement uponthis point:
“The precise year of our Lord’s birthis uncertain. Several data, however, exist,
by which an approximationmay be made, sufficiently accurate toshowthat our
present Christianerais not entirely correct.
“1. According toMatthew2:1-6, Jesus was bornduring the lifetime of Herodthe
Great, and not long before his death. Heroddiedin the year of Rome (A.U.) 750
just before the passover;see Josephus, Ant., b. 17, ch. 8, sec. 1; ib., b.17, ch. 9,
sec. 3. This has beenverifiedby calculating the eclipse of the moon, which
happenedjust before his death; (Jos., Ant., b. 17, ch. 6, sec. 4. Ideler, Handb. of
Chronol., vol. ii, p. 391 sq.) If now we make an allowance of time for the
purification, the visit of the Magi, the flight intoEgypt, and the remaining there
till Herodwas dead, for all of whichnot less thansix months can well be
required, it follows that the birthof Christ cannot inany case be fixedlater than
the autumn of A.U. 749.
“2. Another note of time occurs in Luke 3:1-2, where John the Baptist is saidto
have entereduponhis ministry inthe fifteenthyear of Tiberius;and again in

Luke 3:23, where Jesus is saidtohave been‘about thirty years of age’ at his
baptism. Now if both John and Jesus, as is quite probable, enteredupontheir
ministry at the age of thirty, inaccordance withthe Levitical custom, (Numbers
4:3;Numbers 4:35;Numbers 4:39;Numbers 4:43;Numbers4:47,) thenby
reckoning back thirty years we may ascertainthe year of John’s birth, and of
course alsothat of Jesus. Augustus diedAug. 29, A.U. 767;and was succeeded
by Tiberius, whohad already beenassociatedwith himin the government for at
least twoyears, and probably three. If now we reckonfrom the deathof
Augustus, the fifteenthyear of Tiberius commencedAug. 29, A.U. 781;and
going back thirty years, we findthat John must have beenborn not earlier than
August, A.U. 751, and our Lord of course not earlier thanA.U. 752, a result
disagreeing withthat obtainedfromMatthewby three years. If, on the other
hand, we reckonfrom the time when Tiberius was admittedas co-regent of the
empire, whichis shown to have beencertainly as early as A.U. 765, and
probably inA.U. 764;thenthe fifteenthyear of Tiberius beganin A.U. 778, and
it follows that John may have beenborn in A.U. 748, and our Lordin A.U. 749. In
this way the results obtainedfromMatthewand Luke are more nearly
coincident.
“3. A thirdnote of time is derivedfromJohn 2:20 : ‘Forty and six years was this
temple inbuilding.’ Josephus says in one place that Herodbegan to buildthe
temple inthe eighteenthyear of his reign, while inanother he specifies the
fifteenthyear. (Ant., b. 15, ch. 11, sec. 1;Wars, b. 1, ch. 21, sec. 1.) He also
assigns the lengthof Herod’s reignat thirty-sevenor thirty-four years;according
as he reckons fromhis appointment by the Romans, or from the deathof
Antigoinus. (Ant., b. 17, ch. 8, sec. 1; Wars, b. 1, ch. 33, sec. 8.) Herodwas first
declaredking of Judea in A.U. 714;(Jos., Ant., b. 14, ch. 14, sec. 4, 5; Wars, b. 1,
ch. 14, see. 4;comp. Ant., b. 14, ch. 16, sec. 4. Ideler, Handb. of Chronicles,
2:390;) hence the eighteenthyear of his reign, whenHerodbegan to rebuildthe
temple, wouldcoincide withA.U. 732;and our Lord’s first passover, inthe forty-
seventhyear following, wouldfall in A.U. 779. If now our Lord at that time was
thirty and a half years of age, as is probable, this wouldcarry back the year of
his birthto the autumn of A.U. 748.

“4. Further, according toa traditionpreservedby the LatinFathers of the first
five centuries, our Lord’s deathtook place during the consulate of the two
Gemini, C. Rubellius andC. Fufius;that is, in A.U. 782, SoTertullian, Lactantius,
Augustine, etc. See Tertull. adv. Jud., sec. 8;Augustin. de Civ. Dei, 18:54.) If now
the durationof his ministry was three anda half years, then, as before, the year
of his birthwould be carriedback tothe autumn of A.U. 748.
“5. Some modern writers, taking intoaccount the abode inEgypt, and also the
‘twoyears’ of Matthew2:16, have supposedthat Jesus must have beenfrom
two tothree years oldat Herod’s death, and hence they assume that he was
born in A.U. 747. The same year, A.U. 747, is also fixedupon as the date of
Christ’s birthby those whoregardthe star inthe east as having beenthe
conjunctionof the planets Jupiter and Saturn. which occurred inthat year. So
Keppler, Munter, Ideler, Handb. of Chronol., Berlin, 1826.
“From all these data it would appear, that while our Lord’s birthcannot have
takenplace later thanA.U. 749, it may neverthelesshave occurredone or two
years earlier.
“The present Christianera, whichwas fixedby the abbot Dionysius Exiguus in
the sixthcentury, assumes the year of Christ’s birthas coincident withA.U. 754.
It follows then, fromthe preceding statements, that this our common erabegins
in any case more than four years toolate;that is, from four to five years, at the
least, after the actual birthof Christ. This erawas first usedinhistorical works
by the venerable Bede, early inthe eighthcentury;andwas not long after
introducedinpublic transactions by the Frank kings Pepinand Charlemagne.”
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the NewTestament
Matthew1:25. Knewher not. A Hebrewform for conjugal cohabitation;comp.
Luke 1:36.
A son. The words answering to ‘her ‘and ‘first-born‘are omittedby some of the
best authorities. They may, however, have beenleft out to support the doctrine

of the perpetual virginity of Mary. In Luke 2:7, the phrase is genuine beyonda
doubt. It does not of itself prove that Mary hadother children, nor does till of
necessity imply this. Yet Matthew, withthe whole history of Christ before him,
would scarcely have usedthe expression, hadhe heldthe Roman Catholic
notionof the perpetual virginity. It wouldhave beeneasy toassert that by
saying:he never knewher. Many Protestant commentatorssuppose that the
genealogy of Davidfound its endin Christ, andthat Mary could not have given
birthto childrenafter having become the mother of the Saviour of the world.
But this is a matter of sentiment rather thana convictionbased on evidence.
‘The brethrenof our Lord’ are frequently mentioned(four by name, besides
sisters), inclose connectionwithMary, andapparently as members of her
household. They are nowhere calledhis cousins, as some claim themto have
been. They were probably either the childrenof Josephby a former wife (the
view of some Greek fathers), or the childrenof Joseph and Mary (as now held
by many Protestant commentators). Tothe first viewthe genealogy of Joseph
seems an insuperable objection;for the oldest sonby the former marriage
would have beenhis legal heir, and the genealogy out of place. The question,
however, is complicatedwithother exegetical difficulties anddoctrinal
prejudices. The virginity of Mary up tothe birthof Jesus is here the main point.
The whole subject is fully discussedby Lange and Schaff in the Englisheditionof
Lange’s Commentary, Matthew, pp. 255-260.
The Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew1:25. καὶοὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν … υἱόν: absolute habitual (note the
imperfect) abstinence frommarital intercourse, the sole purposeof the
hastenedmarriage being tolegitimisethe child.—ἕως:not till then, and
afterwards? Here comes ina quæstiovexataof theology. Patristic andcatholic
authors say: not till thenand never at all, guarding the sacredness of the virgin’s
womb. ἕως does not settle the question. It is easy tocite instances of its use as
fixing a limit up to whicha specifiedevent didnot occur, whenas a matter of
fact it did not occur at all. E.g., Genesis 8:7;the ravenreturnednot till the

waters were driedup;in fact, never returned(Schanz). But the presumptionis
all the other way in the case before us. Subsequent intercourse was the natural,
if not the necessary, courseof things. If the evangelist hadfelt as the Catholics
do, he would have taken pains to prevent misunderstanding.—υἱόν:the
extendedreading (T. R.) is importedfromLuke 2:7, where there are novariants.
πρωτότοκον is not a stumbling-block tothe champions of the perpetual
virginity, because the first may be the only. Euthymius quotes in proof Isaiah
44:6 : “I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is noGod.”— καὶ
ἐκάλεσεν, he (not she) calledthe childJesus, the statement referring back tothe
command of the angel to Joseph. Wünsche says that before the Exile the
mother, after the Exile the father, gave the name to the childat circumcision
(Neue Beiträgezur Erläuterung der Evangelien, p. 11).
George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary
note on ver. 18. --- St. Jerome assures us, that St. Josephalways preservedhis
virginal chastity. It is "of faith" that nothing contrary theretoever took place
withhis chaste spouse, the blessedVirginMary. St. Josephwas givenher by
heavento be the protector of her chastity, tosecure her fromcalumnies inthe
birthof the Son of God, toassist her inher flight intoEgypt, &c. &c. We cannot
sufficiently admire the modest reserve of bothparties. Mary does not venture
to explaintoher troubledhusband the mystery of her pregnancy; and Joseph is
afraid of mentioning his uneasiness anddoubts, for fear of troubling her
delicate mindand wounding her exquisite feelings. Sogreat modesty, reserve
and silence, are sure tobe approved by heaven;and God sends an angel to
Josephin his sleep, todissipate his doubts, andto expoundto him the mystery
of the incarnation. (Haydock)
E.W. Bullinger's CompanionBible Notes
knew her. Heb, idiom, and Figure of speechMetonymy (of Adjunct) for
cohabitation. Note the imperfect tense =was not knowing. See App-132.

till., Matthew12:46-60;Matthew13:55, Matthew13:56, clearly showthat she
had sons afterwards. See the force of this word heos in Matthew28:20, "unto".
her firstbornSon. These words are quotedby Tatian (A.D. 172) and twelve of
the Fathers before cent. 4;and are containedin nearly all MSS. except the
Vatican and Sinaitic (cent. 4). All the Texts omit "her firstborn"onthis weak and
suspicious evidence. But there is noquestionabout it in Luke 2:7.
he: i.e. Joseph
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged
name JESUS.
And knewher not until she had brought forthher first-bornson. [ton (Greek
#3588) proototokon(Greek #4416). Lachmann, Tischendorf, andTregelles, on
certainly ancient, but, as we think, insufficient authority, exclude ton(Greek
#3588) proototokon(Greek #4416) fromthe text here, thoughinserting it in
Luke 2:7, where it is undisputed. Here they readsimply huiou(Greek #5207) -
'until she had brought fortha son.']
And he calledhis name JESUS. The word "until"does not necessarily imply that
they livedon a different footing afterward(as will be evident fromthe use of
the same wordin 1 Samuel 15:35;2 Samuel 6:23;Matthew12:20);nor does the
word "first-born"decide the muchdisputedquestion, whether Mary hadany
childrentoJosephafter the birthof Christ;because, as Lightfoot says, 'The law,
in speaking of the first-born, regardednot whether any were bornafter or no,
but only that none were bornbefore.'(See the notes at Matthew13:55-56.)
Remarks:
(1) Was faith ever more testedthanthe Virgin's faith, whenfor no fault of hers,
but in consequence of an act of God Himself, her conjugal relationtoJoseph
was allowedto be all but snappedasunder by a legal divorce? Yet how glorious

was the rewardwith which her constancy and patience were at lengthcrowned!
And is not this one of the great laws of God's procedure towardhis believing
people? Abrahamwas allowedto do all but sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22:1-24);the
last year of the predictedBabyloniancaptivity hadarrivedere any signs of
deliverance appeared(Daniel 9:1-2);the massacre of all the Jews in Persiahad
all but taken place (Esther 7:1-10;Esther8:1-17);Peter, under HerodAgrippa,
was all but brought forth for execution(Acts12:1-25);Paul was all but
assassinatedby a band of Jewishenemies (Acts 23:1-35);Luther all but fell a
sacrifice tothe machinations of his enemies
(1521);andso in cases innumerable since-of all whichit may be said, as in the
song of Moses "The Lord shall judge His people, and repent Himself for His
servants, whenHe seeththat theirs power is gone"(Deut shall judge His people,
and repent Himself for His servants, whenHe seeththat theirspower is gone"
(Deuteronomy 32:36).
(2) What divine wisdomwas there in the arrangement by whichour Lord was
born of a betrothedvirgin, thus effectually providing against the reproachof
illegitimacy, andsecuring for His Infancy an honourable protection!"This also
comethforthfrom the Lordof hosts, whois wonderful incounsel and excellent
in working"(Isaiah 28:29).
Ellicott's Commentary for EnglishReaders
(25) Till she had brought forthher first-bornson.—The word“firstborn” is not
found in the best MSS. The questions whichmeet us here, unprofitable as they
are, cannot be altogether passedover. What bearing have these words onthe
widespreadbelief of Christendominthe perpetual maidenhoodof Mary? On
what grounds does that belief itself rest?
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

name JESUS.
she
Exodus 13:2;22:29;Luke 2:7; Romans 8:29
and he
Luke 2:21
E.M. Zerr's Commentary on SelectedBooks of the NewTestament
Josephtook Mary into his home in fulfillment of his espousal and on the
Instructions of the angel. Knew her not is a Biblical expressionfor the intimate
relationof the sexes. The reasonJosephdid not have this relationwithMary
now was because the angel had told him that her sonwas to be born of a virgin,
which requiredthat at the time of the birthhis mother must never have had
intimate relations withaman. Till she had brought forth has to mean that after
the birthof Jesus, JosephlivedwithMary In the intimate relationof husband
and wife, else the language Is meaningless anddeceptive. It thereforeproves
that Mary did not continue to be a virgin, but livedwithher husband in the
relationshipof a wife, and her childrenby that marriage will be met within later
chapters of this book.
Matthew 1:25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matthew 1:25 is the twenty-fifth and lastverse of the first chapter of the
Gospelof Matthew in the New Testament. Josephhas awakened from a
dream in which an angelgave him instructions about the birth of Jesus. He
has takenMary into his home, completing their marriage, and this verse
explains what occurs once the couple is united.
Content[edit]
The original Koine Greek, according to Westcottand Hort, reads:
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν
υἱόν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
In the King James Versionof the Bible the text reads:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn
son and he calledhis name JESUS.
The World English Bible translates the passage as:
and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her
firstborn son. He named him Jesus.
For a collectionofother versions see BibleHub Matthew 1:25.
Analysis[edit]
This verse suggeststhat Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus'birth, and is
cited as one of the scriptural evidences for the Virgin Birth. Older and more
puritanical[neutrality is disputed] translations, such as the King James
Version, often bowdlerized this passageusing more euphemistic terms.
Modern versions almost all use the word sexual. Eugene Boring notes the
extreme level of personaldetail the author of the gospelseems to possess in
verses like this.[1]
This passageis the centre of much controversy in the debate over the
perpetual virginity of Mary. To many Protestants this verse is one of the
central reasons forrejecting the PerpetualVirginity. The author of Matthew

only states that sexualrelations did not occurprior to the birth of Jesus,
implying that they occurredafterwards. Those who support the Perpetual
Virginity argue that the passageis far vaguerin the original Greek than it is
in English. In English a negationuntil implies that the event in question did
happen afterwards. Raymond E. Brown, a Roman Catholic, states that some
scholars contendin Greek a negationuntil implies nothing about what
happens afterwards.[2]PresbyterianDavid Hill acknowledgesthatthe
wording does not absolutelydeny the PerpetualVirginity; however, he argues
that if the idea of the perpetual virginity had been current at the time the
gospelwas written then the author of Matthew would have been more
specific.[3]Boring notes that the command of the angelat Matthew 1:20 states
nothing about avoiding sexual relations either before or after the birth of
Jesus.[4]
As reported in Luke 2:21 the child would have been named eight days after
his birth at the time of the circumcision. The phrase "he called" is gender
neutral in the originalGreek. Some translate the line as "she called," whichis
somewhatmore in keeping with Luke, but which contradicts the rest of this
chapter. Mostscholars andtranslations thus have Josephas the namer.
Legally either parent could name the child. RobertH. Gundry believes that
having Josephnaming Jesus is a cleardemonstrationof Jesus'legalstatus as
his son, and thus as an heir of King David, a continuation of the argument
made by the genealogy.[5]
Matthew 1:18-25
The Faithfulness of Joseph
Dr. Philip W. McLarty
I take it you’ve noticed that the reading of the Christmas story this year is
from Matthew’s gospel. We heard Luke’s versionlast year. You may not be
aware of this, but there are actually three versions of the Christmas story.
There’s the GospelAccording to Matthew, where we getJoseph’s dream and

the wise men and the starin the East. Then there’s the GospelAccording to
Luke, where we getthe shepherds and the angels and the factthat there was
no room in the inn. And then there’s the GospelAccording to Hallmark, in
which we geta smorgasbordof all the above including the wise men, the
shepherds, a host of angels, lowing cattle and a partridge in a pear tree.
If you’d like to see a visual representationof the Hallmark version, just drive
by the house near the intersectionof Edgewoodand East16thStreets. In
addition to Santa, Frosty, Rudolph and the other reindeer, it includes Mickey,
Pluto and Donald Duck. There’s also a nativity scene, but you’ll have to look
hard to find it.
The Hallmark version is the most popular because it gives us the whole nine
yards, but it’s not true to the text. Combining Matthew and Luke is like
mixing Shakespeareand Chaucer. They’re similar, but not quite the same. So,
I prefer to take the gospels one at a time. We heard Luke’s accountlast year.
This year, our focus is on Matthew.
Besides, Iwanted to take a moment to considerthe faithfulness of Joseph. We
hear a lot about Mary, and rightly so. She was, afterall, the mother of Jesus,
the only person constantin the life of Jesus from the cradle to the grave. But
what do we know about Joseph? In all the New Testamenthe never utters a
word. Yet, he’s one of the principle figures in the Christmas drama. And so,
let’s take just a moment to give Josephhis due.
Tradition has it that Josephwas a simple man of an honorable trade: A
carpenterfrom Nazareth. Sometimes you see Sunday schoolpictures showing
him in a woodshop making furniture. But “carpenter” in Joseph’s day
referred to a wide range of trades. Josephcould have just as easilyworked
with metal or stone, as with wood. The regionalcapital, Sepphoris, was under
constructionduring this time, and it was within walking distance of Nazareth.
It’s possible that Josephwas one of the stone masons there.
In any case, craftsmenworkedwith strong shoulders and callusedhands.
They were educatedby apprenticeship. Their place was respectable but not on
one of the higher rungs of the socialladder. Rememberthe flap in the
synagogue in Nazarethwhen Jesus preachedhis first sermon? The elders

raisedtheir eyebrows and asked, “Isn’tthis the carpenter, the son of Mary,
and brother of James, Joses,Judah, and Simon?” (Mark 6:3)
Jesus’father was neither a rabbi nor a scribe nor one of the civic leaders. He
had but two qualifications to play a part in the Christmas drama – he was a
descendentof David and, for whatever reason, he was God’s choice. In this
regard, I like to think that Josephis someone with whom we can all identify –
a common man who dared to be obedient to God’s will for his life.
His place in the Christmas story, of course, is that of Mary’s husband.
According to Matthew, Josephand Mary were “betrothed,” but not yet
married. William Barclayexplains that there were three steps in a Jewish
marriage: The engagement, whichwas often arranged by the parents through
a matchmakerwhen the boy and girl were children; the betrothal, which was
a formal ratificationof the marriage-to-be, usually done a year before the
couple was married; and the wedding itself, which lasteda whole week, at
which time the marriage was consummated. During the betrothal, the couple
was legallybound to eachother so that, if the man died before the actual
wedding took place, the woman was consideredto be a widow. They were
actually referred to as husband and wife, though they refrained from having
sexualrelations.
It’s at this particular stage in their relationship that Josephlearnedthat Mary
was pregnant and, though the scripture is not specific at this point, I think it’s
safe to say he probably blew a gasket. Like any husband-to-be, Joseph
would’ve been beside himself to learn that his fiancé was pregnant. He
would’ve been angry and upset, to saythe least. After all, if Mary were
pregnant, the only explanation would’ve been that she’d been unfaithful, in
which case, he had a legalright to have her stoned to death.
It’s at this point that Josephproves his faithfulness, first to Mary and then,
more importantly, to God. According to Matthew, when Josephlearnedthat
Mary was pregnant, he was “not willing to make her a public example,
intended to put her awaysecretly.” (Matthew 1:19)
Josephwas a man of quiet strength. He was a man of integrity, true to his
convictions. Yet, he was compassionateand considerate ofothers. He found

himself in a no-win situation. He couldn’t, in goodconscience, go onwith the
wedding; yet, he couldn’t bring himself to humiliate Mary either, much less
put her to death.
Breaking off the relationship, but not making a big deal of it, seemedto be the
most honorable thing to do, and if Joseph’s part in the Christmas pageant
ended here, we could understand and respecthim as a man of faith.
But there’s more. According to Matthew, Josephhad a dream in which an
angelof the Lord appeared to him and told him that the child in Mary’s
womb was of the Holy Spirit and that he should become as a father to the
child.
Now, it’d be tempting for us, reading the story some two thousand years after
the fact– knowing the rest of the story, as it were – simply to say, “Well, there
you have it.” The angelexplained everything.
But then, we’ve all had dreams, haven’t we? And we know how bizarre and
elusive dreams can be. I don’t know many people who make major life
decisions basedupon what they think they saw or heard in a dream. Do you?
Yet, according to Matthew, Josephawokefrom his sleepand did as the angel
of the Lord commanded him. The scripture says he “took his wife to himself;
and didn’t know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son.”
(Matthew 1:25)
And then, in one further act of faithfulness and obedience to God, Joseph
publicly named the child. Matthew says simply, “he named him Jesus.” In so
doing, he claimed the child as his own and gave him the benefit of a noble
ancestry, making him a descendentof the house of David. Becauseofthe
faithfulness of Joseph, Jesus wouldhave a father and Josephwould have a
place in the drama of God’s salvation.
I had a friend years ago whose girlfriend gotpregnant. Naturally, he assumed
he was the father. But the scuttlebutt around schoolwas that she’d been
seeing other guys, and that my friend wasn’tthe father after all. Of course,
back then we didn’t have the benefit of paternity testing, so there wasn’t any
way to know for sure, but there it was enough to give him an out, if he wanted

it. He weighedthe pros and cons and decided to ask his girlfriend to marry
him. She accepted, and they gotmarried and shortly after, she gave birth to a
daughter who quickly became – and is, to this day – the apple of his eye. At
the time, the thought of getting married and becoming a parent was the
farthest thing from his mind; yet, I think he’d be the first to tell you that,
beyond all of his many accomplishments, it was in becoming a father to this
little girl that he found his true vocationin life.
When I think about my friend, I’m reminded of the faithfulness of Joseph. It
has something to do with getting your ownego out of the way and putting
others first. It’s an exercise in humility and it’s basedon a simple trust that,
by God’s grace, allthings really do work togetherfor goodfor those who love
the Lord and are calledaccording to his purposes. (Romans 8:28)
To the world, the faithfulness of Josephmay seem foolish, but to those who
are willing to follow his example and surrender their wills to the will of God,
the faithfulness of Josephis not simply a way of pleasing God; it’s a wayof
fulfilling your own life’s destiny.
I don’t know of a better way to model the faithfulness of Josephthan to start
with the prayer of Adelaide Pollardwho wrote,
“Have Thine own way, Lord, have Thine own way;
Thou art the potter, I am the clay;
mold me and make me after Thy will,
while I’m waiting, yielded and still.”
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Copyright 2010, Philip McLarty. Used by permission.
Matthew 1:25 - Mary's Firstborn Son

With Christmas approaching, many Bible-readers are likely to encounter
the variant-unit in Matthew 1:25 – The Byzantine Text says that Joseph
“knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he calledhis
name Jesus.” The Alexandrian Text says that Joseph“knew her not until she
had brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus.”
Although there are some other variant-units in this verse, let’s focus
today on this one: “had brought forth a son,” or “had brought forth her
firstborn son.” With some data derived from Jonathan Clark Borland’s
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testamentblog, we can obtain some
hard figures about the quantities involved in the support for eachvariant.
These numbers are slightly obsolete but nevertheless they indicate the
proportions involved: τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον(her firstborn son) is
supported exactlyby 1,446 MSS,and inexactly by 13 MSS;υιον (a son) is
supported exactlyby 7 MSS, and inexactly by 1 MS.
The sevenmanuscripts which support υιον include Sinaiticus (À) and
Vaticanus (B). Also listed in UBS4 is Z (035), that is, CodexDublinensis, a
palimpsest from the mid/late 500’s. According to Swanson, 1, 1582*, 33, and
788 (a member of f13) also support υιον. Borland describes this slightly
differently, including them all, along with 071vid (400’s or500’s, discoveredat
Oxyrhynchus) and 1192 (a member of f1), but qualifying Z as Zvid.
The testimony of 071 merits closerinvestigation. This was the first item
presentedin 1910 in Volume 3 of Grenfell & Hunt’s series on the
Oxyrhynchus Papyri and therein we find this acknowledgement: “The
vestiges are indecisive betweenυιον (ÀBZ, W-H.) and τονυιον αυτης τον
πρωτοτοκον(CDEKLM, T-R.), since with either reading the letters αυ would
come where they appear to do in l. 14, and there is not enough at the
beginning of l. 15 to show whether the word to which ν belongs was
abbreviated or not.” Thus 071 cannotlegitimately be regardedas a witness
for either reading. (UBS2 listed 071vidas a witness for υιον but UBS4 does
not.)

Mt. 1:25 in Codex Bezae (D)
UBS4 lists f1 and f13 as support for υιον although most members of
eachfamily display the reading τον υιοναυτης τον πρωτοτοκον;apparently
the UBS compilers assumedthat copyists have thoroughly conformed most
group-members to the Byzantine reading.
Willker provides data about the versionalevidence (see variant-unit #10
in his Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels);the Old Latin and
PalestinianAramaic are split; the Peshitta and the Vulgate and the Harklean
Syriac favor τον υιοναυτης τον πρωτοτοκον. (The Vulgate reads: “Et non
cognoscebateamdonec peperit filium suum primogenitum: et vocavit nomen
ejus Jesum.”) The Nubian version, of which only scantremains are extant,
favors τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον. The Armenian and Ethiopic versions
also favor τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον, althoughthe Old Georgian
supports υιον. The Sahidic and Bohairic versions favor υιον, the Curetonian
Syriac favors υιον, and the Sinaitic Syriac wanders off on its own with a
reading that means “to him a son,” which is an aspectof the thorough
corruption in the Sinaitic Syriac (shared, to an extent, by CodexBobbiensis)
in Matthean passagespertaining to the relationship between Josephand
Jesus. The Gothic version is a non-witness here because CodexArgenteus is
non-extant in Matthew 1:1-5:14. The Middle Egyptian manuscript (Schoyen
2650)supports υιον.
Mt. 1:25 in Codex Regius (L)
As far as patristic evidence goes, UBS4 lists only Ambrose and
Chromatius in support of υιον; however, Jerome, in Against Helvidius, in
chapters 3 and 5 (written in 383), uses the reading with υιον, and in chapter9
he appears to quote Helvidius doing so. Bengelnoticedthis, but also noticed
that Jerome, in his Commentary on Matthew (composedin 398), quotes the
complete passagewith the reading “she brought forth her firstborn son.”
UBS4 lists Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus, Didymusdub, Epiphanius (in
Panarion78:17), Chrysostom, Proclus, Jerome, and Augustine (Harmony of

the Gospels,2:5) as support for τον υιοναυτης τον πρωτοτοκον. Basilof
Caesarea (330-379)also clearlyutilized a text with τον υιοναυτης τον
πρωτοτοκονin Matthew 1:25.
The testimony of the Latin-writing author of Opus Imperfectum in
Matthaeum regarding Matthew 1:25 has been contested. This work, from the
early 400’s, (it is worth mentioning that this compositionwas edited by
Erasmus in 1530)quotes Matthew 1:25 as “Etnon cognoviteam, donec
peperit filium suum primogenitum” according to Migne’s P.G. vol. 56, col.
635, on lines 37-38 – supporting the Byzantine reading. However, in the
recentedition of Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum translated by James A.
Kellerman (in the Ancient Christian Texts series), the quotation of Mt. 1:25 is
presentedas if it agrees withthe Alexandrian reading. Howeverthe content
of what immediately follows indicates that the author read τον υιον αυτης τον
πρωτοτοκον: the author mentions the view of followers ofEunomius and
states that “he calls Christ the firstborn because we callhim firstborn whom
other siblings follow.”
Mt. 1:25 in Codex Sangallensis(Delta)
The testimony of the Diatessaronis shownin Ephrem of Syrus’
commentary on the Diatessaron;in his comments on the birth and conception
of Jesus (See CarmelMcCarthy’s Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s
Diatessaron, pages45-65),Ephrem repeatedly cites verse 25: “He lived with
her chastelyuntil she gave birth to her First-born.”
The reference in UBS4 to Didymusdub refers to De Trinitate, 3:4, where
the author (either Didymus, or someone else in Egypt in the late 300’s)states:
“It helps us to understand the terms ‘firstborn’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the
Evangeliststates that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her
first-born Son;’ for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above
all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone
else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate
virgin.” Also, in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, in
the volume on Matthew, Chromatius is presentedas quoting Matthew 1:25 in

support of τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκονin his Tractate on Matthew 3:1. In
the same volume on the same page, Chrysostomquotes Matthew 1:25 with
υιον.
Mt. 1:25 in MS 700
With the external evidence described, we now turn to internal considerations.
Metzgerexpressedthe judgment of the UBS Committee when he
dispatched the Byzantine reading in a single sentence: “The Textus Receptus,
following C D* K W Δ Π most minuscules al, inserts τόν before υιον and adds
αυτης τόν πρωτότοκον(“her firstborn son”)from Lk 2.7.” Ifthis appraisal is
correct, the words must have been inserted very early so as to appear in
witnesses as diverse as D, W, the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Diatessaron, and
087 (from the 500’s). Againstthis consideration, however, one may counter
that the reading υιον may be a natural conformation to the wording of
Matthew 1:23 (which itself quotes from Isaiah 7:14). A charge of
harmonization can be made againstthe Byzantine reading, to the effect that a
copyist reachedinto Luke to find the basis for an expansion, but a charge of
harmonization can also be made againstthe Alexandrian reading, to the effect
that a copyist reachedback two verses to find the basis for an abridgment
which yielded a tighter symmetry betweenthe prophecy (in verse 23)and its
fulfillment (in verse 25).
Mt. 1:25b in MS 490
In addition, the theory that the Byzantine reading is a harmonization to
Luke 2:7 faces anobstacle: the popularity of the doctrine of the perpetual
virginity of Mary. As one can see from Jerome’s response to Helvidius,
Luke’s reference to “her firstborn Son” was interpreted as evidence that
Mary had subsequent children – the idea being that the existence of a

firstborn implies a second-born, and thus that the individuals who are called
Jesus’brothers and sisters in the Gospels were literallythe children of Mary,
rather than Jesus’cousins, or the children of Josephfrom a previous
marriage (as some writers in the early church insisted that they were). The
proposedharmonization thus requires that a copyist deliberately made the
passagemore difficult, which goes againstthe generaltendencies of scribes.
One might say, however, “If this was such a problem, why was the
passagein Luke 2:7 left untouched?”. But if we consider data which was
unavailable to Westcottand Hort, we can see in CodexW that Luke 2:7 was
not left altogetheruntouched: although CodexW refers to Christ as “her
first-born Son” in Matthew 1:25, in Luke 2:7 (where, as Willker notes, W’s
text is predominantly Alexandrian), τόν πρωτότοκονis absent. This is a fairly
clearsymptom of a theologicalconcern. And if it could happen in part of the
early Alexandrian text-stream in Luke 2 (as seenin one Greek manuscript), it
could happen in another part of the early Alexandrian text-stream in
Matthew 1 (as seenin sevenmanuscripts).
Mt. 1:25 in MS 72
An important consideration, however, is the question: how likely is it
that both Matthew and Luke would happen to employ the five-word phrase
τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον? This is not as improbable as one might
initially assume. One might similarly ask: how likely is it that both Matthew
and Luke would happen to employ the seven-wordphrase υιον καὶ καλέσεις
τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ιησουν? Matthew has these exactwords in Mt. 1:21; Luke
has these exactwords in Lk. 1:30 – because this phrase is basedon the final
phrase of the Septuagint’s text of Isaiah7:14 (διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς
ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις
τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Εμμανουήλ.)
Two authors’ use of the same source cangive a false impression that
one author is dependent upon the other. Is there an identifiable source which
employs the phraseτονυιοναυτης τον πρωτοτοκον? No. However, itdoes not
seemimplausible that two authors could independently use the same common

words to make a connectionto to Exodus 4:22 – “Thenyou shall say to
Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn.’” (LXX: σὺ δὲ
ἐρεῖς τῷ Φαραώ· τάδε λέγει Κύριος· υἱὸς πρωτότοκός μου ᾿Ισραήλ.) An
explicit identification of Jesus as “firstborn” is consistentwith Matthew’s
treatment of Hosea 11:1: in Mt. 2:15, Matthew rejects the Septuagint’s
rendering and follows instead the Hebrew reading of Hosea 11:1 – “Out of
Egypt have I called My Son” – so as to construct a parallelbetween Israel, the
anointed people, and Jesus, the anointed Person.
Mt. 1:25 in MS 478
When one considers
(1) the second-centurysupport for τονυιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκονfrom the
Diatessaron,
(2) the wide-ranging patristic support for τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον –
from North Africa (Augustine) to Cyprus (Epiphanius) to Egypt (De
Trinitate) to Syria (Peshitta)to Constantinople (Proclus),
(3) the likelihood that early scribes couldregard τον υιον αυτης τον
πρωτοτοκονas potentially scandalous,drawing the doctrine of the perpetual
virginity of Mary into question,
(4) the evidence from Codex W that τον πρωτοτοκονwas considered
objectionable somewhere in the Alexandrian text-stream,
(5) the close proximity of Mt. 1:21, comparedto the relatively distant
proximity of Luke 2:7, rendering the former more likely to be the basis for a
harmonization,
(6) the relative scope ofsupport for the rival readings: τον υιον αυτης τον
πρωτοτοκονhas the support of approximately 99.4%of the Greek

manuscripts, drawn from members of every text-type, whereas the epicenter
of the shorter reading appears to be in Egypt, and
(7) the thematic consistencyofa description of Jesus as a firstborn son in 1:25,
echoing Exodus 4:22 (where Israel is the subject) in a way similar to the way
in which Matthew 2:15 treats Hosea 11:1,
the evidence, on balance, favors τον υιον αυτης τονπρωτοτοκονas the original
reading; the Alexandrian reading is a conformation to the wording in Mt. 1:21
and 1:23.
Postedby James Snapp Jr at 4:48 PM
Labels: Basil, Didymus, Dublinensis, Epiphanius, firstborn son,
harmonization, Helvidius, Jerome, manuscripts, Matthew 1:25, Peshitta,
prototokos, Regius, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus
3 comments:
Archepoimenfollowersaid...
James,
I am never sure why you just don't say that in every case you count the
manuscripts and leave it at that! Every article or comment on other blogs
confirms that you are a proponent of the Byzantine text, why go through all
the arguments for internal or external probability when in fact, you are
always going to choose the Byzantine reading.
Tim

December28, 2015 at9:16 AM
James E. Snapp, Jr. said...
Archepoimenfollower,
I am not an advocate ofthe Byzantine Priority view; my approachis
Equitable Eclecticism.
If you were to take the time to look at my compilations of James and Jude and
Philemon, it would be perfectly clearthat I do not always adopt the Byzantine
reading.
At points where the Alexandrian Text and the Byzantine Text disagree, the
Nestle-Alandcompilation favors Alexandrian readings about 99% of time
time. (Regarding this see the posts on the text of reasonedeclecticism). Now
let's say, just by way of illustration, that the compilers were incorrect24% of
the time, and that a better compilation would be only about 75% Alexandrian.
It would take dozens and dozens and dozens of posts to correctthat 24% -- to
undo the excessive pro-Alexandrian handicap, i.e., to fix the fence where it is
broken -- and /still/ favor the Alexandrian text very often. Right?
January 1, 2016 at12:40 PM
PastorJack said...
Thank you for this post. I beganpreaching through Matthew, and wanted to
deal as objectively as possible with what is found in modern translations in
Matthew 1:25. Given the theologicalsignificanceofthe term "firstborn" I felt

certain that you would not have neglectedthis textual issue, and after a search
of your archived posts, I was not disappointed. I had already consulted the
resources listedbelow, and was assessing the dismissals of the longer reading
in Comfort, Greenlee, Metzger, etal., prior to reading your post. It was
encouraging to see the evidence you included to add to what I had already
gathered. All this to say that I appreciate your efforts which I track via email
and Facebook.
Here are the resources I mentioned above:
John William Burgon, The Revision Revised. Three Articles Reprinted from
the Quarterly Review:I. The New Greek Text. II. The New English Version.
III. Westcottand Hort's New TextualTheory. To which is added a Reply to
Bishop Ellicott's Pamphlet in Defence ofthe Revisers and their Greek Text of
the New Testament:Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1
Timothy III. 16 (London: John Murray, 1883).
John William Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated
and Established(London: George Belland Sons, 1896).
P. W. Comfort, New TestamentTextand TranslationCommentary:
Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament
Manuscripts and How They Relate to the MajorEnglish Translations (Carol
Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008).
The Greek New TestamentAccording to the Majority Text, 2nd ed., eds. Zane
C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, et al. (Nashville: Thomas NelsonPublishers,
1985).

J. Harold Greenlee, The Text of the New Testament:From Manuscript to
Modern Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrikson Publishers, Inc., 2008;rev.
Scribes, Scrolls, and Scripture, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1985).
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:A
Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies'Greek New Testament
(third edition) (Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1971).
Bruce M. Metzger, and United Bible Societies, A TextualCommentary on the
Greek New Testament, SecondEdition a Companion Volume to the United
Bible Societies'GreekNew Testament(4th rev. ed.) (London; New York:
United Bible Societies, 1994).
Edward Miller, A Guide to the TextualCriticism of the New Testament
(London: George Bell& Sons, 1886);available as a free PDF downloadon
Holy Bible Institute at
http://www.holybibleinstitute.com/files/guidetotextualcr00mill.pdf [accessed4
MAR 2013].
Novum TestamentumGraece, eds. Eberhard and Erwin Nestle, 27thed., eds.
Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and
Bruce M. Metzger(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1898, 1993).
Maurice A. Robinsonand William G. Pierpont, The New Testamentin the
Original Greek:Byzantine Textform 2005 (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book
Publishing, 2006).

Soli Deo Gloria,
John T. "Jack"Jeffery
Pastor, Wayside GospelChapel
Greentown, PA
What does Matthew 1:25 mean? [⇑ See verse text ⇑]
This verse completes a statementbegun in the previous verse, which
highlights Joseph's remarkable faith (Matthew 1:24). While Luke's telling of
the birth of Jesus focusesonMary's experience, Matthew considers the events
from Joseph's perspective.
An honorable and God-fearing man in that culture could have quietly ended
this betrothal with a clearconscience. He was not obligated to follow through
on his commitment to marry a woman found to be pregnant by another man.
Joseph, though, decided he was obligatedafter being told the realstory of
what was going on by an angel of the Lord in a dream (Matthew 1:19–21).
Mary, still a virgin, carried"God with us," the Savior(Matthew 1:22–23).
JosephobeyedGod, likely at the costof his ownreputation—rumors about
Jesus'birth seemto have persistedduring His ministry (John 8:19; 8:41–42).
He also waived his legal rights to avoid responsibility for Mary or her child.
Instead of divorcing her or even waiting for the time of betrothal to end,
Josephimmediately took Mary home to live with him. Notonly would this
minimize any scandal, it allowedJosephto begin his work of providing for his
pregnant wife and the child Messiah.

Matthew makes clearin this verse, though, that Josephdid not have sexwith
Mary until after Jesus was born. The text uses the biblical euphemism for sex
"know." Joseph"knew her not." Matthew also does not suggestthatJoseph
never had sex with Mary, as some traditions teach. They experiencedregular
marital relations after the birth of Jesus and had severalchildren togetherin
the natural way (Matthew 13:55–57;Mark 3:31–32).
Josephalso showedthat he heard and understood God's command through
the angelin his dream by naming the baby Jesus. Jesusis derived from the
same Hebrew name from which we get "Joshua,"and means "Yahweh
saves." Yahwehis a Hebrew name for God.
https://www.bibleref.com/Matthew/1/Matthew-1-25.html
JosephThe Good Man We Forget Series
Contributed by BobMarcaurelle on Dec 3, 2019
(rate this sermon)
| 637 views
Scripture: Matthew 1:18-25
Denomination: Baptist
Summary: The New Testamentsays very little about Joseph. But when we
read betweenthe lines we se he is a remarkable servant of God, a man of
compassionand courage.

1 2 3
Next
JOSEPH- THE GOOD MAN WE FORGET
Matt. 1:18-25
Of all the characters surrounding the Christ child at Christmas, the one we
forgetthe most is Joseph. The Bible never mentions any animals in the stable.
They are the product, says Paul Harvey, of legend and logic. Yet the sheep
and cattle get more attention than Joseph. You will searchthe hymnal almost
in vain for any reference to Joseph. In art, story, song and sermon he is
pushed into the background.
Why is this? It could be his silence. Notone single word from him is recorded
in the Bible. It could be that he is found in only two Bible chapters, both
connectedwith Jesus’infancy. After this he passesfrom view. It could be he is
dwarfed by the Roman Catholic emphasis upon Mary. It could also be
because he was not the biologicalfather of Jesus. Whateverthe reason, he
should not be forgotten.
He is one of the finest characters to grace the pages of holy scripture. He was a
godly man and a goodman, hand pickedby God to be the fosterfather of His
Son. Mary’s body helped shape the body of Jesus, but Joseph’s character
helped influence the characterof Jesus.
No one placed a greaterpart in the development of a Hebrew child than his
father. Josephwas Jesus’teacher, preacherandpriest. He taught Him most of
life’s lessons. He taught Him the trade of carpentry. He taught Him the
principles of the Jewishreligion.
The Bible picture of the Jewishfather is one of rare beauty and high
responsibility. The father loves (Gen. 37:4); commands (Gen. 50:16); instructs
(Prov. 1:8); guides (Jer. 3:4); trains (Hos. 11:3); rebukes (Gen. 34:30); delights

in his son(Prov. 3:12); is pained by his son’s folly (Prov. 17:25); and is
considerate ofhis needs (Mt. 7:10).
When God wanted to picture His relation to us, He used this picture of
fatherhood. And when God wantedsomeone to teach, guide, instruct, train
and warm His Son, he chose Joseph.
The Bible sums up the characterof Josephin Matt. 1:19 when it calls him “a
righteous man.” This word, in the Bible, means far more than ”just” or
“good.” It is the dominant New Testamentword for the saved, for those who
live the right kind of lives (Matthew 5:20-23ff)because they are right with
God. (Romans 3:20-24)It really has two meanings.
It means first that He was justified or MADE RIGHT with Godthrough his
faith in the mercy of God as revealedin the Jewishsacrificialsystem. This is
imputed righteousness where God, on the basis of shed blood, declares us to
be right with Him.
Pastor, have you claimed your 14 day PRO trial?
Enter your name and email to begin. Credit card required, cancelany time.
Plus, getemail updates & offers from SermonCentral. Privacy
But is also means He LIVED RIGHT (Matthew 5:20-23ff)was made a just and
goodand righteous person by the regenerative powerof God. This is imparted
righteousness where God’s Spirit, in the new birth changes us and lives in us.
In imputed righteousness we are declaredto be the children of God and this
takes place the instant we believe. In imparted righteousness we are enabled
to act like children of God and this takes the process ofa lifetime. The
emphasis is imputed righteousnessis forgiveness orpardon. The emphasis is
imparted righteousness is fruitfulness or power. With these two ideas in mind,
look at Joseph.
J. C. Ryle says, “It doesn’tmatter how you translate it because the truly saved
person has both.”

I. HE WAS A FORGIVEN MAN
From the word “righteous” our first assertionis that Josephwas saved. He
was forgiven. His sins which were many were all washedaway. His heart
which was corrupt was cleansedand changedby the powerof God. His hope
for eternity was that he would dwell in the house of the Lord forever. We do
not know when Josephwas saved. He was probably in his middle or late
twenties when we meet him in the Bible.
Though young in years he is mature in the faith. Maybe he acceptedGodas a
boy and never knew the paths of rebellion. Maybe after a period of rebellion
he came to God in his teens. It does not matter. At some point in his life
Josephdecided by faith to give God his sins to forgive and his life to control.
How was Josephsaved?
How did he become right with God? How did he get rid of his sins and get his
name recordedin heaven? Was it because he was born a Jew, a member of
God’s chosennation? No, for the Bible makes it clearthat God has no
grandchildren.
You can be born a Baptist and a preacher’s son, but Jesus says we have to be
born again. Was it because he was naturally goodand instinctively did that
which was right? No, for the Bible says that there is “none righteous, no not
even one” (Rom. 3:10).
Joseph, like eachof us was born in sin, was by nature a child of wrath and
deserving of the just punishment of God. He was not savedbecause ofwhat he
WAS but because ofwhat he BECAME.
No, my friends, Josephwas savedas all men before and after him are saved
and that is by a willingness to turn from sin (repentance)combined with trust
and commitment to the God of the Bible. It appears that Josephdied
sometime during the Nazarethyears of Christ’s growth. He is never
mentioned againwith Christ’s mother and brothers and sisters. On the cross
Jesus gives Johnthe duty of caring for Mary (Jn. 19:26-27).
All this points to the death of Joseph. When he died he entered heaven, like
everyone else, on the merits of the sacrificialdeath of the Boy he helped raise.

In the gospelrecordMary takes her stand at the foot of the cross and takes
her place as a worshiper in the early church. She is one among the saved.
It is the same with Joseph. His strategic positiondoes not alter the fact of his
dependence upon Jesus for salvation. Both Mary and Josephnow sing:
I will sing the wondrous story/ Of the Christ who died for me.
How He left His home in glory/ Forthe cross ofCalvary.
II. HE WAS A FRUITFUL MAN
Since God never forgives a person He doesn’t change, Josephwas a goodman.
He had the fruits of godliness. This word “righteous” in the Bible is often
synonymous with goodness. Thosewho are made right with God by the shed
blood of Christ are also made into the right kind of people by the sharedlife
of Christ. His new birth issuedin a new life
Enter your name and email to begin. Credit card required, cancelany time.
1. His forgiving spiri
Look, first, at his forgiving spirit. Josephwas kind. Like his God, he was
merciful, tenderheartedand willing to forgive. Mary had hurt him like no one
else could. She had lashed his heart. This young Jewishgirl, as pure to him as
the driven snow, was the light of his life. The day she consentedto marry him
was the happiest day of his life.
Then one day the clouds beganto gather. Mary acteddifferently. Something
was troubling her. He knew nothing of the angel’s visit to her (Lk. 1:26-38), or
of the new life in her womb, placed there by the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:35). All he
knew was that behind those dark eyes, his beautiful Mary was hiding some
secretand carrying some burden. He was probably not surprised but was
certainly very sad when she told him she wanted to go awayfor awhile (Lk.
1:39).

As he saw her off, down the road to Jerusalem, where her relative Elizabeth
lives (Lk. 1:36), there must have been a lump in his throat, an ache in his
heart and mist in his eyes. He did not know what was wrong with Mary, he
only knew she was troubled.
Being a man and knowing the secretinsecurity and fear of most men, I believe
he was afraid that Mary did not love him and was thinking about their
upcoming marriage as a mistake.
The one thing I am sure that never even entered his mind was that Mary
would have sexual relations with any other man. Virginity in Jewishsociety
was an honored virtue. Sex outside of marriage was a crime againstGod and
man. Jewishgirls were known for their purity and Mary was the purest of the
pure.
Then, after three months of waiting and wondering and praying, the storm
broke. Mary came home and could no longer hide her secret. She, his wife-to-
be, the purest, sweetest, loveliestandbest human being he had ever known,
was pregnant.
We do not know if Mary told him and explained about the angel’s visit and
the nature of this holy child. We would think she would, but the Bible gives no
indication that she did. It seems that she obeyed God and trusted God to take
care.
Only those who have been through such a hurt can tell you the pain in
Joseph’s heart. This young girl had thrust a sword into his very soul. She had
betrayed him. She had takenhis love and used it to hurt him.
Josephmust have been a raging mixture of anger, grief, hate, sorrow and
shock. The question is - what would he do? He could be stern and just and
expose her publicly. But Josephtook the merciful path. With no malice and
revenge he decided to put her awayprivately. Jesus Christtaught us much
about loving. It was He who taught us and showedus how to love our enemies
and to turn the other cheek.
Now we know that everything Jesus taught us, He gotfrom his Fatherin
heaven (with a capital“F”). But who cansay that many of the things His

Father (with a capital“F”)taught him did not come through the lips and life
of His father (with a little “f”). Joseph, the merciful man, no doubt taught
Jesus much about the meaning of kindness and forgiveness.
Enter your name and email to begin. Credit card required, cancel any time.
2. His faithfulness
Once God spoke to him he not only believed, but obeyed. He took Mary for his
wife because he loved her and because it was the will of God. This was not
without its price however. In the eyes of his townspeople he was lookedupon
as either the immoral man who got Mary pregnant or the fool who married
her after her immorality with someone else.
Dr. Hobbs says:
“ He identified himself with her condition. He bore her shame as his own. The
neighbors would gossip. The stigma of fornication would fastenits stinging
fangs in Mary’s heart. But it would strike him also ... Under the lash of public
scornMary’s tender flesh would quiver. But always betweenher and the lash
stoodJoseph.” (Matthew;BroadmanPress, p. 19)
From that day forward, for all we know, Josephperformed his duty as the
husband of Mary and the father of Jesus and the six other children in that
home (Matthew 13:55 mentions four brothers and at leasttwo sisters). He
showedcourage as he escapedto Egypt with his wife and son and protected
them on the dangerous journey. He showedcommitment in being willing to
live in Egypt if this was best for his family. Joseph’s goodness reachedthe
place most of us leave it behind - in his home.
3. His self forgetfulness
Finally, Josephhere pictures a righteous person as one who steps into the
backgroundand lets all the glory go to Jesus. Here in these few verses the

light shines on Joseph. Here stands tall in mercy, faith and commitment. But,
to me, he stands tallest of all when he quietly fades awayin favor of Jesus. He
leaves Bethlehemnever to be on center stage again, contentto do the will of
God without fanfare.
What Did JosephKnow? Series
Contributed by Elmer Towns on Sep 9, 2019
(rate this sermon)
| 924 views
Scripture: Matthew 1:18-19, Matthew 1:22-25
Denomination: Baptist
Summary: Circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus.
A. WHAT DID JOSEPHKNOW? MATTHEW 1:18-19
“These are the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus. His mother
Mary was legally engagedto Josephbefore they came together. But Joseph
found out she was pregnant. Being a goodman, he decided to break the
engagementprivately, not publicly” (Matt. 1:18-19, Amplified).
1. Josephknew his name meant “the Lord added,” (Gen. 30:24).

2. Josephknew he was in the Messianic line of Abraham, Judah, and David (v.
2, 6, 16).
3. Josephproposedto Mary by the legalway (1:18).
4. Josephwas living in Nazareth(Luke 2:4), but belonged to the tribe of
Judah which lived around Bethlehem. Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2),
but grew up in Nazareth to fulfill scripture. “He shall be called a Nazarene”
(Matt. 3:23).
5. Josephwas faithful and obedient (2:13, 19, 22).
6. When facedwith embarrassmentand a problem, he didn’t panic (1:18).
How Did JosephFind Out?
1. She left abruptly, (Luke 1:39).
2. Pregnancyshows.
3. Women gossip.
4. News drifted back from Elizabeth.
5. The Holy Spirit, “She was found with child . . . Holy Spirit” (1:18).
7. Josephknew the Old Testament;he could have exposedher publicly, or
even calledfor her death (Deut. 29:25-28).
8. Josephwas olderthan Mary, and handled things in a mature way.
B. WHAT GOD WANTED JOSEPHTO KNOW: MATTHEW 1:22-23
“As he was deciding what to do, an angelof the Lord told him in a dream, ‘Do
not be afraid to marry Mary, her child was conceivedby the Holy Spirit. Call
His name Jesus, whichmeans Savior, because He will save His people from
sin.’ This fulfills the prediction of Isaiah, ‘Behold a virgin shall become
pregnant and give birth to a son. He is Emmanuel, which means God with
us’” (Matt. 1:22-23, Amplified).
1. God knows the problems you think about (v. 22).

Jesus was named jesus by joseph

Jesus was named jesus by joseph

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Jesus was named jesus by joseph

Similar a Jesus was named jesus by joseph (20)

Más de GLENN PEASE

Más de GLENN PEASE (20)

Último

Último (20)

Jesus was named jesus by joseph