Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

182 Matthew I. 24, 25.
also, in translating nsnp^ {tlioiL shalt call, 2d pers. sing, fem.) Ly
KaXtaovaij they shall call.
Ver. 24, 25.—Joseph was in every thing obedient to the divine
command, believed in the purity of his wife, took her to himself, and
gave the child, after his birth, the appointed name. But the Evan-
o-elist adds a remark worthy of notice, in the words, ovic ijivodantv
avr^v to)g ov treice tov vlbv avrTj^ rbv -npuiToroKov^ he Jcneio her not
until she bore, &c. It is unnecessary to prove, that in these words
jLVi^aKeiv = si;, to hioiu, is used of connubial connexion ; the only
question is, whether the meaning of the word is, that it did not take
place in Joseph's marriage at all, or merely that it did not previous
to the birth of Jesus ? The words suggest, atfirst sight, the latter,
particularly t'wf ov, until, and TrpojToroiiogj first-horn. The former
appears to suppose connubial intercourse after the birth of Jesus ;
the latter seems to say that Mary had several children. As, however,
it is not probable, from the Gospel-history, that Mary had other
children (see note on Matth. xiii. 55, for a more particular account),
no coujlusion can be drawn from the word TrpuroToiwg to compel us
to suppose, that afterwards connubial intercourse between Joseph
and Mary took place. The term is merely equivalent to I'sa or
Bh'n—it:i3 in Hebrew, which may signify either the first among others,
or the 07ily child, n'.sa is the first son, preceding the birth of any
daughter : for him the mother must offer the sacrifices for the first-
born, while as yet entirely ignorant whether she would have other
children. (It should be particularly noticed also, that the expression
is TTQcoTOToicog avr-q g, WEB. first-born. The term has, of course, quite
a different meaning in the phrases, irQuroroKog iv -noXXoIg ddeXrpolg, first-
born among many brethren (Rom. viii. 29), e/c rCjv veKpCJv^from the
dead (Eev. i. 5), Tzdorjg inioEUig, of every creature (Col. i. 15). So
also in Heb. i. 6, where the term stands alone. (See the Commentary
on these passages.) The formula t'wf ov, until, = ^s-^? does not neces-
sarily assert, that what is said not to have taken place before a certain
time, did happen after it. In the Old Testament, this is proved by
such passages as Gen. viii. 7, 2 Sam. vi. 23. In the New Testament,
indeed, none of the passages quoted in proof are quite conclusive
—
e.g.,
Matth. xxii. 44 (compared with 1 Cor. xv. 28), Matth. v. 26, xviii. 30.
But it is in the very nature of the particle, that it does not necessarily
affirm that what had not taken place up to a certain point of time,
has taken place since. All depends on the circumstances and relations.
(If we were to say, we waited till midnight, but no one came, that does
not imply, that after midnight some one came ; it means, no one came
at all.)* We must say, therefore, that from this passage no conclusion
* But to say that no one came until midnight, would naturally imply that some one
came after midnight. The moral consideration alleged against Mary's having other children
than Jesus, viz., that it was fitting that the Messiah should terminate his line, cannot
have much weight against positive grounds. On this principle, why did Mary marry
at all ? Why did Providence select a virgin who was actually betrothed ?— [K.