《Poole’s English Annotationson the Holy Bible - Matthew》(Matthew Poole)
Commentator
Matthew Poole (1624 - 1679) was an English Nonconformist theologian.
He was born at York, the son of Francis Pole, but he spelled his name Poole, and in Latin Polus; his mother was a daughter of Alderman Toppins there. He was educated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, from 1645, under John Worthington. Having graduated B.A. at the beginning of 1649, he succeeded Anthony Tuckney, in the sequestered rectory of St Michael le Querne, then in the fifth classis of the London province, under the parliamentary system of presbyterianism. This was his only preferment. He proceeded M.A. in 1652. On 14 July 1657 he was one of eleven Cambridge graduates incorporated M.A. at Oxford on occasion of the visit of Richard Cromwell as chancellor.
Poole was a jure divino presbyterian, and an authorised defender of the views on ordination of the London provincial assembly, as formulated by William Blackmore. After the Restoration, in a sermon of 26 August 1660 before the lord mayor Sir Thomas Aleyn at St Paul's Cathedral, he made a case for simplicity of public worship. On the passing of the Uniformity Act 1662 he resigned his living, and was succeeded by R. Booker on 29 August 1662.
Perhaps the only true rival to Matthew Henry! A standard for more than 400 years, Poole's insightful commentary continues to be a trusted resource for pastors and laypeople. Offering verse-by-verse exposition, he also includes summaries for each chapter and book, questions and answers, information on cultural context, historical impact, and cross-references. Practical, readable, and applicable.
Though he occasionally preached and printed some tracts, Poole made no attempt to gather a congregation. He had a patrimony of £100 a year, on which he lived.
He was one of those who presented to the king 'a cautious and moderate thanksgiving' for the indulgence of 15 March 1672, and were offered royal bounty. Gilbert Burnet reports, on Edward Stillingfleet's authority, that Poole received for two years a pension of £50. Early in 1675 he entered with Richard Baxter into a negotiation for comprehension, promoted by John Tillotson, which came to nothing. According to Henry Sampson, Poole made provision for a nonconformist ministry and day-school at Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
In his depositions relative to the alleged Popish plot (September 1678), Titus Oates had represented Poole as marked for assassination, because of his tract (1666) on the Nullity of the Romish Faith. Poole gave some credit to this, reportedly after a scare on returning home one evening near Clerkenwell with Josiah Chorley. Poole left England, and settled at Amsterdam. Here he died on 12 October 1679 (N.S.), and was buried in a vault of the English Reformed Church, Amsterdam. His wife was buried on 11 August 1668 at St Andrew Holborn, Stillingfleet preaching the funeral sermon. He left a son, who died in 1697.
In 1654 Poole published a tract against John Biddle. In 1658 he put forward a scheme for a scholarship for university courses, for those intending to enter the ministry. The plan was approved by Worthington and Tuckney, and had the support also of John Arrowsmith, Ralph Cudworth, William Dillingham, and Benjamin Whichcote. Money was raised, and supported William Sherlock at Peterhouse. His Vox Clamantis gives his view of the ecclesiastical situation after 1662.
The work with which his name is principally associated is the Synopsis criticorum biblicorum (5 vols fol., 1669-1676), in which he summarizes the views of one hundred and fifty biblical critics. On the suggestion of William Lloyd, Poole undertook the Synopsis as a digest of biblical commentators, from 1666. It took ten years, with relaxation often at Henry Ashurst's house. The prospectus of Poole's work mustered of eight bishops and five continental scholars. A patent for the work was obtained on 14 October 1667, and the first volume was ready for the press, when difficulties were raised by Cornelius Bee, publisher of the Critici Sacri (1660); the matter was decided in Poole's favour. Rabbinical sources and Roman Catholic commentators are included; little is taken from John Calvin, nothing from Martin Luther. The book was written in Latin and is currently being translated into English by the Matthew Poole Project.
Poole also wrote English Annotations on the Holy Bible, a work which was completed by several of his Nonconformist brethren, and published in 2 vols fol. in 1683. The work was continued by others (last edition, three volumes, 1840). This work has chapter outlines which are among the best available.
00 Introduction
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW
THE ARGUMENT
The whole revelation of the will of God to the children of men is usually called The Bible, that is, The book, (for the word Bible derives from the Greek Biblov or Biblion ), with a note of eminency, being indeed the Book of books, so as Luther said well that he should wish all his books burned if he could know that men by them would be kept from reading the Scriptures. And to distinguish this from other books, we have (in the ordinary titles of our Bibles) added Holy, with respect to the authority, the matter, and end of it. This sacred book, with us Christians, is usually divided into the Old and New Testament: indeed the term Testament doth not so properly belong to the law and the prophets, as to the books of the evangelists, the Acts, and Epistles, &c. The title of New Testament in Greek is, thv diayhv apanta ; that is, the whole of the new disposition, or new law, or new covenant, or new testament. The word originally and primarily signifieth a disposition of things. In regard that, amongst men, things are ordered, or disposed, by a law, or by contract, or covenant, or by will and testament, the word hath been used to signify any of these. But in regard that until a testator be dead a testament is of no force, Christ having not come nor died before all the law and the prophets were finished, (I mean the writings containing the law, and what other holy men wrote by inspiration from God, which the Jews call the prophets, or the holy writings), it is not so proper (but that use hath now obtained) to call those writings by the name of a Testament; especially considering, that a part of them (which contained the ceremonial law) was abolished by the Testator's death, and another great part of them fulfilled in his coming and dying. The name therefore of Testament doth most properly belong to the books of the evangelists, the Acts, and Epistles, which do not only contain the new law, (so far as it is new, either in respect of the full interpretation of the mortal law, or in respect of the law concerning the worship of God under the gospel, and the government of the church), but also the new covenant, which though made with Adam, first revealed to him, Genesis 3:15, yet is more fully revealed in those books, and they are indeed the last will and testament of our blessed Lord and Saviour. These books do obviously divide themselves into the Gospels, the Acts of the apostles, the Epistles of the apostles, and the Revelation. The evangelists, or Gospels, are four, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, whose books are called the Gospels, that is, books containing the good tidings (for so the word euaggelion signifies) which was brought to all people by the coming, life, and death of Christ, the history of which, as also his resurrection and ascension into heaven, they relate. So as they are not called evangelists, as the term signifieth such an extraordinary officer as is mentioned Ephesians 4:2, such a one as Philip was, Acts 21:8, and Timothy, 2 Timothy 4:5; but as they were evangelical historiographers, writing the history, as well as publishing the mystery, of the gospel. Of these, Matthew and John were apostles, the other two only disciples to the apostles. In the account they give us of Christ, what he did, and what he said, we are not to expect either a full account of all he did or spake, (we are assured of the contrary, John 21:25) nor yet an exact account of every speech in any one sermon, or all the circumstances of any of his actions: we must conceive of them, not as exact notaries, but such who wrote from their memories (not without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). Hence it is manifest, that although they do not contradict one another, (that indeed were incompetent with the Spirit of truth, their common guide), yet one evangelist hath what another hath not, and in the same piece of his history one hath more circumstances than another: and hardly any of them relate all things in the same order of time in which they were spoke or done, but set them down as their memory did serve them, keeping to the substance, and being less careful as to circumstances; so as where more evangelists relate the same history or sermon, what all say must be taken in to complete the history or discourse, so far as the Holy Spirit thought fit Christians should be acquainted with it; which is the method I have taken in my notes upon the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Matthew was the son of Alphaeus, Mark 2:14, called also Levi: by his employment he was a publican, that is, one who gathered custom for the Romans (which sort of people were generally hated, and perhaps none of the most honest men). Christ called him from the receipt of custom to be his disciple, Matthew 9:10, Mark 2:14-15. He was sent out as one of the twelve apostles, Matthew 10:3, so as he was both an eye and ear witness of what he wrote. What became of him after Christ's ascension I cannot tell, not knowing what credit is to be given to what ecclesiastical historians say in the case who wrote three or four hundred years after. The time of his writing this Gospel is as uncertain; some say eight, some nine, some fifteen years after Christ's ascension. It hath been a question, also, whether he wrote in Hebrew or Greek: it is most probable that he (as the other evangelists) wrote it in Greek, though it hath been once or twice translated into Hebrew. Those who as to that question have a curiosity to know what is written on both sides, (not to mention other books), may read enough in Mr. Pool's Prolegomena to this Gospel in his Synopsis Criticorum. The matter of his Gospel is principally the history of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of our Saviour. The passages after his resurrection and before his ascension are most fully related by St. John. Luke more fully relates the history of his birth, and what went before it. The history of the wise men coming from the east to inquire for Christ is related by Matthew alone; so are some parables, as that of the virgins, Matthew 25:1-13, &c.
01 Chapter 1
Verse 1
Matthew CHAPTER 1 Summary
Matthew 1:1-17 The genealogy of Christ from Abraham to Joseph.
Matthew 1:18-25 The miraculous conception of Mary: Joseph's doubts are
satisfied by an angel, who declareth the name and
office of Christ: Jesus is born.
Chapter Introduction
The book of the generation signifieth no more than the writing containing the genealogy or pedigree; for the Jews called all writings books. Thus, Jeremiah 32:10,11, the evidences of apurchase are called the book. So Isaiah 1:1Mark 10:4, the writings called a bill of divorce are both in the Hebrew and the Greek called a book of divorce. Thus in ecclesiastical courts still, the term libel (which signifieth a little book) is used. So as these words are not to be looked upon as the title to the whole Gospel according to St. Matthew, but only to the following pedigree of our Saviour's ancestors.
Of Jesus Christ; of that person to whom the name of Jesus was given by the angel, as we shall hear further, Matthew 1:20,21, because he should save his people from their sins (for Jesus, as also Joshua, signifies a saviour or deliverer); and who also was the Christ, or the Messiah, prophesied of by Daniel, Daniel 9:25,26, expected by the Jews, as doth appear from John 1:41 (for Messiah and Christ denoted the same person, John 4:25); only Messiah was a Hebrew word, and Christ of Greek extraction, both signifying Anointed, and so God's designation of a person to the office of a priest, a prophet, or a king. The Christ signifieth a designation to all three.
The Son of David, the son of Abraham: not the immediate Son of either, but, by a long traduction, lineally descended from both. Abraham was long before David, but is here put after him, either because he was a king, or because the Jews expected Messiah was to be the Son of David; or because the evangelist's design was to begin the pedigree from Abraham, whom he therefore last mentions. Both are named, because both were concerned in the promise of Christ. It was made to Abraham, Genesis 12:3 22:18: and to David renewed and enlarged, Psalms 89:36,37. Hence it appeareth that the Jews looked that Christ should be the Son of David, Matthew 22:42Mark 12:35. Hence the evangelist puts David in the front. From Abraham the Jews derived themselves, they usually gloried they had Abraham to their father. The evangelist, by proving Christ to have descended from Abraham by Isaac, proveth him an Hebrew of the Hebrews, and to be descended from the seed to whom the promise was made; and by proving him the Son of David, he proves him David's righteous Branch, or Branch of righteousness, mentioned Jeremiah 23:5,6 Jer 33:15, and so to have descended from the royal family.
Verse 2
The evangelist reckoneth the genealogy of our Saviour by three periods, reckoning thrice fourteen descents. The first period began in Abraham, Genesis 21:2,3 and ended in David. The second began in Solomon, and ended in Jehoiachin. The third began with Jehoiachin, and ended in Christ. Luke (as we shall see in its place) fetcheth our Saviour’s line from Adam. From Abraham to David there is no difference between Matthew and Luke, they both reckoned up the same fourteen persons, Luke 3:32-34. But Luke repeating our Saviour’s pedigree by his mother’s side, and Matthew by his supposed father’s side, Joseph, after David they must differ, Mary descending from David’s family by his son Nathan, Joseph descending from him by Solomon. All interpreters agree that there are great difficulties about the genealogy of Christ, especially in reconciling Matthew and Luke; and the enemies of Christianity have in all times made their advantage of them, to weaken our faith as to the gospel: but Christians ought to consider,
1. That the Jews had without doubt perfect genealogies, and were more especially exact in keeping them as to the royal tribe of David, which was Judah, and the priestly tribe of Levi, that they might have a right king and high priest; and it cannot be expected that after seventeen hundred years almost we should make out genealogies as they could.
2. That they were very apt to make strifes about words and endless genealogies; as appears by the apostle’s cautioning both Timothy and Titus against it, 1 Timothy 1:41 Timothy 6:4Titus 3:9.
3. That it had been a sufficient exception against Christ if they could have proved he had not lineally descended from David.
4. That though they cavilled at Christ for many things, yet they never made any such cavil.
5. That we are forbidden strife and endless labour about genealogy. And therefore it is the most unreasonable thing imaginable for us to make such little dissatisfactions grounds for us to question or disbelieve the gospel, because we can not untie every knot we meet with in a pedigree.
But in this first period no such difficulties occur; both the evangelists are agreed, and the Old Testament agrees with both. That Abraham begat Isaac (when he was an hundred years old) we are assured by Moses, Genesis 21:2,5; that Isaac begat Jacob he also telleth us, Genesis 25:26. So also that Jacob begat Judah and his brethren, Genesis 29:35. Judah was Jacob’s third son by Leah, and that son of whom dying Jacob prophesied, That him should his brethren praise, and to him should his father’s children bow down. That the sceptre should not depart from Judah, nor the lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh came; and unto him should the gathering of the people be, Genesis 49:8-10. Though Saul, who was the first king of Israel, (given them in wrath), was of the tribe of Benjamin, 1 Samuel 9:21; yet David was of the tribe of Judah, in whose line the kingdom held unto the captivity.
And his brethren: the brethren of Judah are here mentioned, being the heads of the Jewish nation: Christ descended from Judah.
Verse 3
That Judas begat Phares and Zara (they were twins begot of Thamar his daughter-in-law), the relict of his son Er whom God slew, Genesis 38:7, appeareth from Genesis 38:27-30. That
Phares begat Ezrom appeareth from Ruth 4:181 Chronicles 2:5; and from the same texts appears also that
Ezrom begat Aram, Ruth 4:191 Chronicles 2:9, where he is called Ram. Some may possibly be offended that amongst all the ancestors of Christ there are but three women named, and all of them such as had a great stain and blot upon their reputation. This