Unabridged Commentary Critical and Explanatory on Matthew (Robert Jamieson)

《Unabridged Commentary Critical and Explanatory on Matthew》(Robert Jamieson)

Commentator

At a time when the theological winds seem to change direction on a daily basis, the Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible is a welcome breath of fresh air from conservative and orthodox teachers of the Christian faith. This commentary has been a bestseller since its original publication in 1871 due to its scholarly rigor and devotional value. Robert Jamieson (1802-1880), Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown(1803-1897) have crafted a detailed, yet not overly technical, commentary of the Bible that holds to the historic teachings of orthodox Christianity. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible is based on a detailed exegesis of the scriptures in the original languages and is a "must have" for those who are interested in a deeper appreciation of the Biblical text

Published in 1878, this is the unabridged version of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary. This version includes the Greek and Hebrew words, along with double the content of the abridged version. Most online versions of JFB are abridged and include only a fraction of what the authors said!

It is worth noting that in the printed version, errors in spelling, punctuation, numbering, cross references have followed throughout the printing history of this one-volume edition of the Commentary. This electronic edition, then, may represent the first corrected edition.

00 Introduction

THE author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels, and other apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.

For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is "in every case" placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as HUG observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, FOSDICK'S translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand" ( Matthew 24:15 divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, TILLEMONT, TOWNSON, OWEN, BIRKS, TREGELLES. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of IREN

01 Chapter 1

Verse 1

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

The book of the generation - an expression purely Jewish; meaning, 'Table of the genealogy.' In Genesis 5:1 the same expression occurs in this sense [ towl

Verse 2

Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren. Only the fourth son of Jacob is here named, as it was from his loins that Messiah was to spring (Genesis 49:10).

Verse 3

And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

Verse 4

And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminabab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

Verse 5

And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

Verse 6

And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her of Urias. [The words, "that had been the wife," introduced by our translators, only weaken the delicate brevity of our Evangelist - ek (Greek #1537) tees (Greek #3588) tou (Greek #3588) Ouriou (Greek #3774)]. Four women are here introduced: two of them Gentiles by birth-Rahab and Ruth; and three of them with a blot at them names in the Old Testament-Thamar, Rahab, and Bath-sheba. This feature in the print genealogy-herein differing from that given by Luke-comes well from him who styles himself in his list of the Twelve, what none of the other lists do, "Matthew the publican;" as if thereby to hold forth, at the very outset, the unsearchable riches of that grace which could not only fetch in "them that are afar off," but reach down even to "publicans and harlots," and raise them to "sit with the princes of his people." David is here twice emphatically called "David the king" (for the Manuscript authority against the repetition is insufficient), as not only the first of that royal line from which Messiah was to descend, but the one king of all that line from which the throne that Messiah was to occupy took its name - "the throne of David." The angel Gabriel, in announcing Him to His virgin-mother, calls it "the throne of David His father," sinking all the intermediate kings of that line, as having no importance except as links to connect the first and the last king of Israel as father and son. It will be observed that Rahab is here represented as the great-great-grandmother of David (see Ruth 4:20-22; and 1 Chronicles 2:11-15) - a thing not beyond possibility indeed, but extremely improbably, there being about four centuries between them. There can hardly be a doubt that one or two intermediate links are omitted. (See the notes at Matthew 1:17, and Remarks 1 and 2 at the end of this section.)

Verse 7

And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

Verse 8

And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias (or Uzziah). Three kings are here omitted-Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (1 Chronicles 3:11-12). Some omissions behoved to be made, to compress the whole into three fourteens (Matthew 1:17). The reason why these, rather than other names, are omitted must be sought in religious considerations-either in the connection of those kings with the house of Ahab (as Lightfoot, Ebrard, and Alford view it); in their slender right to be regarded as true links in the theocratic chain (as Lange takes it); or in some similar disqualification.

Verse 9

And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Bzekias;

Verse 10

And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

Verse 11

And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren. Jechoniah was Josiah's grandson, being the son of Jehoiakim, Josiah's second son (1 Chronicles 3:15); but Jehoiakim might well be sunk in such a catalogue, being a mere puppet in the hands of the king of Egypt (2 Chronicles 36:4). The "brethren" of Jechonias here evidently mean his uncles-the chief of whom, Mattaniah or Zedekiah, who came to the throne (2 Kings 24:17), is, in 2 Chronicles 36:10, called "his brother," as well as here.

About the time they were carried away to Babylon , [ epi (Greek #1909) tees (Greek #3588) metoikesias (Greek #3350)] - literally, 'of their migration,' for the Jews avoided the word 'captivity' [aichmaloosia] as too bitter a recollection, and our Evangelist studiously respects the national feeling.

Verse 12

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

And after they were brought to ('after the migration of') Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel. So 1 Chronicles 3:17. Nor does this contradict Jeremiah 22:30, "Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man (Coniah, or Jechoniah) childless;" for what follows explains in what sense this was meant - "for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David." He was to have seed, but no reigning child.

And Salathiel (or Shealtiel) begat Zorobabel. So Ezra 3:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai 1:1. But it would appear from 1 Chronicles 3:19 that Zerubbabel was Salathiel's grandson, being the son of Pedaiah, whose name, for some reason unknown, is omitted.

Verses 13-15

And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

And Zorobabel begat Abiud ... None of these names are found in the Old Testament; but they were doubtless taken from the public or family registers, which the Jews carefully kept, and their accuracy was never challenged.

Verse 16

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned. See the note at Matthew 1:20.

Who is called Christ , [ Christos (Greek #5547)] - from the Hebrew [ maashiyach (Hebrew #4899)], both signifying 'anointed.' It is applied in the Old Testament to the kings (1 Samuel 24:6; 1 Samuel 24:10); to the priests (Leviticus 4:5; Leviticus 4:16, etc); and to the prophets (1 Kings 19:16) - these all being anointed with oil, the symbol of the needful spiritual gifts, to consecrate them to their respective offices; and it was applied, in its most sublime and comprehensive sense, to the promised Deliverer, inasmuch as He was to be consecrated to an office embracing all three by the immeasurable anointing of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 61:1; compare John 3:34).

Verse 17

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away (or migration) into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into ('the migration of') Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. That is, the whole may be conveniently divided into three fourteens, each embracing one marked era, and each ending with a notable event, in the Israelite annals. Such artificial aids to memory were familiar to the Jews, and much larger gaps than those here are found in some of the Old Testament genealogies. In Ezra 7:1-5 no fewer than six generations of the priesthood are omitted, as will appear by comparing it with 1 Chronicles 6:3-15. It will be observed that the last of the three divisions of fourteen appears to contain only thirteen distinct names, including Jesus as the last. Lange thinks that this was meant as a tacit hint that Mary was to be supplied, as the thirteenth link of this last chain, as it is impossible to conceive that the Evangelist could have made any mistake in the matter. But there is a simpler way of accounting for it. As the Evangelist himself (Matthew 1:17) reckons David twice-as the last of the first fourteen and the first of the second-so, if we reckon the second fourteen to end with Josiah, who was coeval with the "carrying away into captivity" (Matthew 1:11), and the third to begin with Jechoniah, it will be found that this last division, as well as the other two, embraces fourteen names, including that of our Lord.