Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

“But why is He conceived not of a Virgin merely, but of a Virgin espoused? First, that by the descent of Joseph, Mary’s family might be made known; secondly, that she might not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress; thirdly, that in her flight into Egypt she might have the comfort of a husband. The Martyr Ignatius (vid. Ign. ad Eph. 19.) adds yet a fourth reason, namely, that his birth might be hid from the Devil, looking for Him to be born of a wife and not of a virgin.”

“(De Nupt. et Concup. i. 12.) There was no carnal knowledge in this wedlock, because in sinful flesh this could not be without carnal desire which came of sin, and which He would be without, who was to be without sin; and that hence He might teach us that all flesh which is born of sexual union is sinful flesh, seeing that Flesh alone was without sin, which was not so born.”

“(Epist. ad Monach. Egypt. [Ep. p. 7.]) What will any one see in the Blessed Virgin more than in other mothers, if she be not the mother of God, but of Christ, or the Lord, as Nestorius says? For it would not be absurd should any one please to name the mother of any anointed person, the mother of Christ. Yet she alone and more than they is called the Holy Virgin, and the mother of Christ. For she bare not a simple man as ye say, but rather the Word incarnate, and made man of God the Father. But perhaps you say, Tell me, do you think the Virgin was made the mother of His divinity? To this also we say, that the Word was born of the very substance of God Himself, and without beginning of time always coexisted with the Father. But in these last times when He was made flesh, that is united to flesh, having a rational soul, He is said to be born of a woman after the flesh. Yet is this sacrament in a manner brought out like to birth among us; for the mothers of earthly children impart to their nature that flesh that is to be perfected by degrees in the human form; but God sends the life into the animal. But though these are mothers only of the earthly bodies, yet when they bear children, they are said to bear the whole animal, and not a part of it only. Such do we see to have been done in the birth of Emmanuel; the Word of God was born of the substance of His Father; but because He took on Him flesh, making it His own, it is necessary to confess that He was born of a woman according to the flesh. Where seeing He is truly God, how shall any one doubt to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God?”

“(Serm. 148.) If you are not confounded when you hear of the birth of God, let not His conception disturb you, seeing the pure virginity of the mother removes all that might shock human reverence. And what offence against our awe and reverence is there, when the Deity entered into union with purity that was always dear to Him, where an Angel is mediator, faith is bridemaid, where chastity is the giving away, virtue the gift, conscience the judge, God the cause; where the conception is inviolateness, the birth virginity, and the mother a virginq.”

“"And she shall bring forth a son." Here he foretells the service that Joseph will render to the child now born, and he does three things: first he foretells the Virgin's childbearing; second he shows in advance the service to be rendered by Joseph himself to the child, when he says "and you shall call his name"; third he discloses the name imposed upon the child himself, when he says "Jesus." He says therefore "she shall bring forth." Thus she conceived of the Holy Spirit indeed first, but she shall bring forth a son. He does not say "to you," because he himself did not beget the child. In Luke 1:13 it was said to Zachary: "your wife shall bear you a son," because Zachary himself begot him. Or he does not say "to you" for this reason, that it may be shown that he was born for all: not only to you, or to her, shall she bring forth a son, but to the whole world; Luke 2:10: "behold, I announce to you a great joy, for there is born to you this day a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David," and so on. But because Joseph could say: thus she herself conceived of the Holy Spirit, and shall bring forth a son, what then is this to me? In nothing am I necessary to him. Therefore he adds Joseph's own service: "you shall call his name." It was the custom among the Hebrews, and is so today, that on the eighth day they circumcised the child, and then imposed a name upon him; and this was done through Joseph: hence in this work he was the minister. Hence it is said to him "you shall call"; it is not said "you shall impose," because it is already imposed upon him; Isaiah 62:2: "a new name shall be called to you, which the mouth of the Lord has named." "Jesus" — this is the name imposed by God. And he gives the reason: "for he himself shall make his people safe," whom he acquired for himself by his own blood, that is, his people. Daniel 9:26 it is said: "the people shall not be his, who is about to deny him"; hence it is the people of the Lord through faith; 1 Peter 2:9: "you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of acquisition." "From their sins." In the book of Judges it is frequently said that such and such a one saved Israel: but from whom? From carnal enemies; but here, from sins, by remitting sins, which belongs to God alone. Luke 5:24: "but that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins." Note that here Nestorius is confounded, who said that those things which belong to God, such as being from eternity, being omnipotent, or the like, do not belong to that man. Behold, that same man, who was born of the Virgin, who is called Jesus, he himself shall make his people safe from their sins. Hence, since no one can forgive sins except God alone, it must be said that this man is God, and that the things which belong to God most truly belong to him. The Evangelist had said beforehand that the mother of God was found to have in her womb one conceived of the Holy Spirit, and this he proved above through angelic revelation; here he proves it through the foretelling of prophecy; hence he says: "all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet." And it must be known that this clause can be introduced here in two ways. Chrysostom holds that the Angel said all this and introduced the prophecy. And the reason is that he, lest what he was foretelling should seem new, wished to show at once that it had been foretold of old; Isaiah 48:3: "who has already made what is to come," according to another translation. Others say, and I believe it is better, that this, namely "all this was done," etc., are the words of the Evangelist. For there the words of the Angel end: "and he himself shall make [his people] safe," and so on. And the Evangelist introduces them for three reasons. First, that he might show that the Old Testament is about Christ; Acts 10:43: "to him all the prophets give testimony, that all who believe in him receive remission of sins through his name." Second, that they might more easily believe Christ: John 5:46: "if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me." Third, to show the conformity of the Old and New Testament; Colossians 2:17: "which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's." But so that it may be known what is contained in this prophecy, it must be known that the Angel announces three things. First he said "that which is born in her," etc.; second, "she shall bring forth a son"; third, "his name shall be called Jesus." These are contained in order in the prophecy. And the first he proves by what is said, "behold the virgin"; second, by "and she shall bring forth"; third, by "and shall be called." Therefore it was of the Holy Spirit that she conceived through virginity. And this is what is said in the prophecy, "behold a virgin shall conceive"; Isaiah 35:2: "budding it shall bud forth, and shall rejoice with joy, and praising," and so on. Likewise the virgin shall bring forth a son, because in bringing forth her virginity was in no way harmed; Isaiah 11:1: "a rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from its root," and so on. Christ indeed is the flower. Therefore her virginity was in no way harmed. There follows: "and his name shall be called Emmanuel." But it is asked, why does this not agree with the words of the Angel, who says "and he shall be called Jesus"? It must be said that this promise was made to the Jews, who from the coming of Christ would have salvation. And "Jesus" is interpreted "savior," which is the same as Emmanuel, "God with us." For God is with us in four ways: through the assumption of nature, John 1:14: "the Word was made flesh"; through conformity of nature, since he is like in all things, Philippians 2:7: "made in the likeness of men, and found in habit as a man"; through bodily conversation, Baruch 3:38: "afterward he was seen upon the earth, and conversed with men"; through spiritual conversation, below, at the end, [Matthew] 28:20: "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." But it must be asked, concerning the letter, why the Evangelist does not use the same words as the prophet, but uses the name Jesus. It must be said that he spoke by the same Spirit. Yet Jerome says that the Evangelist therefore said "would have," because he was already speaking of the fact as accomplished. Likewise it must be asked, why in Isaiah it is said "and he shall be called," but here it is said "and they shall call." Jerome says that here it is said "they shall call," because what the Angels first called by announcing, Luke 2:21, afterward the apostles called by preaching and magnifying; "that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow," etc., Philippians 2:10. "Which is interpreted, God with us." But it is asked, who appended this interpretation to the prophecy, "God with us" — the prophet, or the Evangelist? And it seems that it was not the Evangelist, because he did not need this, since he wrote in Hebrew. But it must be said, in one way, that because Emmanuel is a composite name, therefore the Evangelist interpreted it even though writing in Hebrew. Or it must be said that he who first translated from the Hebrew provided the interpretation. And it must be noted that in the Gloss it is said that there is a threefold species of prophecy, namely of predestination, of foreknowledge, and of threat; and they differ. For prophecy is called the foretelling of those things which are far off, that is, of future things; but of future things, some are such that God alone does them; some indeed, although God does them, nevertheless come about through us and through other creatures as well; and some are such that God does them in no way at all, as evils. The foretelling of those things which God alone does is called the prophecy of predestination, as the conceiving of the virgin; hence that saying, Isaiah 7:14: "behold a virgin shall conceive," is a prophecy of predestination. But those things which come about from secondary causes can be considered in two ways. First, according as they are in the foreknowledge of God — for example concerning Lazarus; for if someone were to consider the natural causes, he would say that he would never rise, and he would speak truly: although nevertheless he was to be raised according to the order of divine foreknowledge. Therefore when prophecy is a foretelling according as it is in the divine foreknowledge, it is always fulfilled; but when according to the order of lower causes, not always, as is clear in Isaiah 38:1, when Isaiah said to Hezekiah: "set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live," and so on. But does prophecy impose necessity on foreknowledge? And it must be said that it does not; because prophecy is a certain sign of divine foreknowledge, which does not impose necessity on the things foreknown, because it considers future things in their presentness. For whatever is done is present to God, because his gaze extends to every time; for if I see something present, my gaze does not impose necessity, just as when I see someone sitting. And in this way we have understood these prophecies which are introduced in this book. For it must be considered that there have been three errors. One is that of the Manichees, who say that in the whole Old Testament no prophecy about Christ is found: and whatever is brought in from the Old into the New Testament is entirely due to corruption. Against which, Romans 1:1: "Paul, a servant of Christ, called an apostle, set apart unto the Gospel of God, which he had promised before through his prophets," and so on. And that he speaks of the prophecies of the Jews is clear below, at chapter 9:5 [Romans 9:5]: "whose are the fathers, of whom is Christ according to the flesh," and so on. The other was that of Theodore, who said that none of the things which are brought in from the Old Testament are, according to the letter, about Christ, but are adapted, just as when they bring in that line of Virgil, "such things he recalled hanging, and remained fixed" — for this is adapted to Christ; and then that phrase "that it might be fulfilled" ought to be expounded thus, as if the Evangelist were saying: "and this can be adapted." Against which, Luke, the last chapter, 44 [Luke 24:44]: "all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms concerning me." And it must be known that in the Old Testament there are some things which are referred to Christ, and are said of him alone, as that saying, "behold a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and bring forth a son," Isaiah 7:14; and that saying, Psalm 21:2 [Psalm 22:2]: "God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me?" and so on. And if anyone were to posit another literal sense, he would be a heretic, and the heresy has been condemned. But because not only the words of the Old Testament, but also the deeds signify concerning Christ, sometimes certain things are said according to the letter about certain others, but are referred to Christ, insofar as those others bear the figure of Christ, as it is said of Solomon: "and he shall have dominion from sea to sea," etc.; for this was not fulfilled in him. The third error was that of the Jews. It must be known, however, that the Jews especially object against this authority, because in the Hebrew it does not have "virgin," but "alma," which is the same as "young girl." Hence, according to the letter, these things are not said of Christ but of Emmanuel, or, according to others, of a certain son of Isaiah. But Jerome objects against these; and that it could not have been said of the son of Isaiah is proved, because he was already born when this was said. Likewise, no one is found to have been famous at that time who was called Emmanuel. Likewise, it is not a sign that a young woman should give birth. Hence Jerome says that "alma" is an equivocal word, and signifies sometimes age, sometimes "hidden," and then it signifies a virgin diligently kept; and thus it signifies here. Likewise the Jews object that this was given as a sign. Isaiah 7:3: "two kings shall come against Achaz," etc., and he promised that they would be freed from these by giving this sign to Achaz. But it must be said that he gave this sign not only to Achaz, but also to the house of David, because he says, "hear then, O house of David"; as if the prophet were saying: the Lord will help you against this king, because he himself will do much greater things, since there will be liberation not only of him, but of the whole world. But let us return to the letter. "All this was done." But against this: the Angel had said many things beforehand, namely that "that which is born in her," etc., "she shall bring forth," etc., and again, "he shall be called," and so on. But this had not all yet been done. But it must be said, in one way, according to Rabanus, that "all this was done," etc., is referred to past deeds — that the Angel appeared to the Virgin, and spoke those words — and "all this was done" for the preserving of the Virgin, so that the word "that" is taken causally. Or it is referred to the things which he had foretold; and it can be called "wholly done" on account of predestination. Or it must be said that the Evangelist was writing when it had all already been done; and therefore it refers to that. Hence the word "that" is taken consecutively, because God did not will to become incarnate for this reason, that the prophecy might be fulfilled, as though the Old Testament were more worthy than the New; but this, that Christ should become incarnate, followed upon the prophecy.”

“The mystery of Christ's incarnation is to be adored, not pried into. If we know not the way of the Spirit in the formation of common persons, nor how the bones are formed in the womb of any one that is with child (Ecc 11:5), much less do we know how the blessed Jesus was formed in the womb of the blessed virgin. When David admires how he himself was made in secret, and curiously wrought (Psa 139:13-16), perhaps he speaks in the spirit of Christ's incarnation. Some circumstances attending the birth of Christ we find here which are not in Luke, though it is more largely recorded here. Here we have, I. Mary's espousal to Joseph. Mary, the mother of our Lord, was espoused to Joseph, not completely married, but contracted; a purpose of marriage solemnly declared in words de futuro - that regarding the future, and a promise of it made if God permit. We read of a man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her, Deu 20:7. Christ was born of a virgin, but a betrothed virgin, 1. To put respect upon the marriage state, and to recommend it as honourable among all, against that doctrine of devils which forbids to marry, and places perfection in the single state. Who more highly favoured than Mary was in her espousals? 2. To save the credit of the blessed virgin, which otherwise would have been exposed. It was fit that her conception should be protected by a marriage, and so justified in the eye of the world. One of the ancients says, It was better it should be asked, Is not this the son of a carpenter? than, Is not this the son of a harlot? 3. That the blessed virgin might have one to be the guide of her youth, the companion of her solitude and travels, a partner in her cares, and a help meet for her. Some think that Joseph was now a widower, and that those who are called the brethren of Christ (Mat 13:55), were Joseph's children by a former wife. This is the conjecture of many of the ancients. Joseph was just man, she a virtuous woman. Those who are believers should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers: but let those who are religious choose to marry with those who are so, as they expect the comfort of the relation, and God's blessing upon them in it. We may also learn, from this example, that it is good to enter into the married state with deliberation, and not hastily - to preface the nuptials with a contract. It is better to take time to consider before than to find time to repent after. II. Her pregnancy of the promised seed; before they came together, she was found with child, which really was of the Holy Ghost. The marriage was deferred so long after the contract that she appeared to be with child before the time came for the solemnizing of the marriage, though she was contracted before she conceived. Probably, it was after her return from her cousin Elizabeth, with whom she continued three months (Luk 1:56), that she was perceived by Joseph to be with child, and did not herself deny it. Note, Those in whom Christ is formed will show it: it will be found to be a work of God which he will own. Now we may well imagine, what a perplexity this might justly occasion to the blessed virgin. She herself knew the divine original of this conception; but how could she prove it? She would be dealt with as a harlot. Note, After great and high advancements, lest we should be puffed up with them, we must expect something or other to humble us, some reproach, as a thorn in the flesh, nay, as a sword in the bones. Never was any daughter of Eve so dignified as the Virgin Mary was, and yet in danger of falling under the imputation of one of the worse crimes; yet we do not find that she tormented herself about it; but, being conscious of her own innocence, she kept her mind calm and easy, and committed her cause to him that judgeth righteously. Note, those who take care to keep a good conscience may cheerfully trust God with the keeping of their good names, and have reason to hope that he will clear up, not only their integrity, but their honour, as the sun at noon day. III. Joseph's perplexity, and his care what to do in this case. We may well imagine what a great trouble and disappointment it was to him to find one he had such an opinion of, and value for, come under the suspicion of such a heinous crime. Is this Mary? He began to think, "How may we be deceived in those we think best of! How may we be disappointed in what we expect most from!" He is loth to believe so ill a thing of one whom he believed to be so good a woman; and yet the matter, as it is too bad to be excused, is also too plain to be denied. What a struggle does this occasion in his breast between that jealousy which is the rage of man, and is cruel as the grave, on the one hand, and that affection which he has for Mary on the other! Observe, 1. The extremity which he studied to avoid. He was not willing to make her a public example. He might have done so; for, by the law, a betrothed virgin, if she played the harlot, was to be stoned to death, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24. But he was not willing to take the advantage of the law against her; if she be guilty, yet it is not known, nor shall it be known from him. How different was the spirit which Joseph displayed from that of Judah, who in a similar case hastily passed that severe sentence, Bring her forth and let her be burnt! Gen 38:24. How good it is to think on things, as Joseph did here! Were there more of deliberation in our censures and judgments, there would be more of mercy and moderation in them. Bringing her to punishment is here called making her a public example; which shows what is the end to be aimed at in punishment - the giving of warning to others: it is in terrorem - that all about may hear and fear. Smite the scorner, and the simple will beware. Some persons of a rigorous temper would blame Joseph for his clemency: but it is here spoken of to his praise; because he was a just man, therefore he was not willing to expose her. He was a religious, good man; and therefore inclined to be merciful as God is, and to forgive as one that was forgiven. In the case of the betrothed damsel, if she were defiled in the field, the law charitably supposed that she cried out (Deu 22:26), and she was not to be punished. Some charitable construction or other Joseph will put upon this matter; and herein he is a just man, tender of the good name of one who never before had done anything to blemish it. Note, It becomes us, in many cases, to be gentle towards those that come under suspicion of having offended, to hope the best concerning them, and make the best of that which at first appears bad, in hopes that it may prove better. Summum just summa injuria - The rigour of the law is (sometimes) the height of injustice. That court of conscience which moderates the rigour of the law we call a court of equity. Those who are found faulty were perhaps overtaken in the fault, and are therefore to be restored with the spirit of meekness; and threatening, even when just, must be moderated. 2. The expedient he found out for avoiding this extremity. He was minded to put her away privily, that is, to give a bill of divorce into her hand before two witnesses, and so to hush up the matter among themselves. Being a just man, that is, a strict observer of the law, he would not proceed to marry her, but resolved to put her away; and yet, in tenderness for her, determined to do it as privately as possible. Note, The necessary censures of those who have offended ought to be managed without noise. The words of the wise are heard in quiet. Christ himself shall not strive nor cry. Christian love and Christian prudence will hide a multitude of sins, and great ones, as far as may be done without having fellowship with them. IV. Joseph's discharge from this perplexity by an express sent from heaven, Mat 1:20, Mat 1:21. While he thought on these things and knew not what to determine, God graciously directed him what to do, and made him easy. Note, Those who would have direction from God must think on things themselves, and consult with themselves. It is the thoughtful, not the unthinking, whom God will guide. When he was at a loss, and had carried the matter as far as he could in his own thoughts, then God came in with advice. Note, God's time to come in with instruction to his people is when they are nonplussed and at a stand. God's comforts most delight the soul in the multitude of its perplexed thoughts. The message was sent to Joseph by an angel of the Lord, probably the same angel that brought Mary the tidings of the conception - the angel Gabriel. Now the intercourse with heaven, by angels, with which the patriarchs had been dignified, but which had been long disused, begins to be revived; for, when the First-begotten is to be brought into the world, the angels are ordered to attend his motions. How far God may now, in an invisible way, make use of the ministration of angels, for extricating his people out of their straits, we cannot say; but this we are sure of, they are all ministering spirits for their good. This angel appeared to Joseph in a dream when he was asleep, as God sometimes spoke unto the fathers. When we are most quiet and composed we are in the best frame to receive the notices of the divine will. The Spirit moves on the calm waters. This dream, no doubt, carried its own evidence along with it that it was of God, and not the production of a vain fancy. Now, 1. Joseph is here directed to proceed in his intended marriage. The angel calls him, Joseph, thou son of David; he puts him in mind of his relation to David, that he might be prepared to receive this surprising intelligence of his relation to the Messiah, who, every one knew, was to be a descendant from David. Sometimes, when great honours devolve upon those who have small estates, they care not for accepting them, but are willing to drop them; it was therefore requisite to put this poor carpenter in mind of his high birth: "Value thyself. Joseph, thou art that son of David through whom the line of the Messiah is to be drawn." We may thus say to every true believer, "Fear not, thou son of Abraham, thou child of God; forget not the dignity of thy birth, thy new birth." Fear not to take Mary for thy wife; so it may be read. Joseph, suspecting she was with child by whoredom, was afraid of taking her, lest he should bring upon himself either guilt or reproach. No, saith God, Fear not; the matter is not so. Perhaps Mary had told him that she was with child by the Holy Ghost, and he might have heard what Elizabeth said to her (Luk 1:43), when she called her the mother of her Lord; and, if so, he was afraid of presumption in marrying one so much above him. But, from whatever cause his fears arose, they were all silenced with this word, Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. Note, It is a great mercy to be delivered from our fears, and to have our doubts resolved, so as to proceed in our affairs with satisfaction. 2. He is here informed concerning that holy thing with which his espoused wife was now pregnant. That which is conceived in her is of a divine original. He is so far from being in danger of sharing in an impurity by marrying her, that he will thereby share in the highest dignity he is capable of. Two things he is told, (1.) That she had conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost; not by the power of nature. The Holy Spirit, who produced the world, now produced the Saviour of the world, and prepared him a body, as was promised him, when he said, Lo, I come, Heb 10:5. Hence he is said to be made of a woman (Gal 4:4), and yet to be that second Adam that is the Lord from heaven, Co1 15:47. He is the Son of God, and yet so far partakes of the substance of his mother as to be called the fruit of her womb, Luk 1:42. It was requisite that is conception should be otherwise than by ordinary generation, that so, so though he partook of the human nature, yet he might escape the corruption and pollution of it, and not be conceived and shapen in iniquity. Histories tell us of some who vainly pretended to have conceived by a divine power, as the mother of Alexander; but none ever really did so, except the mother of our Lord. His name in this, as in other things, is Wonderful. We do not read that the virgin Mary did herself proclaim the honour done to her; but she hid it in her heart, and therefore God sent an angel to attest it. Those who seek not their own glory shall have the honour that comes from God; it is reserved for the humble. (2.) That she should bring forth the Saviour of the world (Mat 1:21). She shall bring forth a Son; what he shall be is intimated, [1.] In the name that should be given to her Son: Thou shalt call his name Jesus, a Saviour. Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the Greek. Joshua is called Jesus (Act 7:45; Heb 4:8), from the Seventy. There were two of that name under the Old Testament, who were both illustrious types of Christ, Joshua who was Israel's captain at their first settlement in Canaan, and Joshua who was their high priest at their second settlement after the captivity, Zac 6:11, Zac 6:12. Christ is our Joshua; both the Captain of our salvation, and the High Priest of our profession, and, in both, our Saviour - a Joshua who comes in the stead of Moses, and does that for us which the law could not do, in that it was weak. Joshua had been called Hosea, but Moses prefixed the first syllable of the name Jehovah, and so made it Jehoshua (Num 13:16), to intimate that the Messiah, who was to bear that name, should be Jehovah; he is therefore able to save to the uttermost, neither is there salvation in any other. [2.] In the reason of that name: For he shall save his people from their sins; not the nation of the Jews only (he came to his own, and they received him not), but all who were given him by the Father's choice, and all who had given themselves to him by their own. He is a king who protects his subjects, and, as the judges of Israel of old, works salvation for them. Note, those whom Christ saves he saves from their sins; from the guilt of sin by the merit of his death, from the dominion of sin by the Spirit of his grace. In saving them from sin, he saves them from wrath and the curse, and all misery here and hereafter. Christ came to save his people, not in their sins, but from their sins; to purchase for them, not a liberty to sin, but a liberty from sins, to redeem them from all iniquity (Tit 2:14); and so to redeem them from among men (Rev 14:4) to himself, who is separate from sinners. So that those who leave their sins, and give up themselves to Christ as his people, are interested in the Saviour, and the great salvation which he has wrought out, Rom 11:26. V. The fulfilling of the scripture in all this. This evangelist, writing among the Jews, more frequently observes this than any other of the evangelists. Here the Old Testament prophecies had their accomplishment in our Lord Jesus, by which it appears that this was he that should come, and we are to look for no other; for this was he to whom all the prophets bore witness. Now the scripture that was fulfilled in the birth of Christ was that promise of a sign which God gave to king Ahaz (Isa 7:14), Behold a virgin shall conceive; where the prophet, encouraging the people of God to hope for the promised deliverance from Sennacherib's invasion, directs them to look forward to the Messiah, who was to come of the people of the Jews, and the house of David; whence it was easy to infer, that though that people and that house were afflicted, yet neither the one nor the other could be abandoned to ruin, so long as God had such an honour, such a blessing, in reserve for them. The deliverances which God wrought for the Old Testament church were types and figures of the great salvation by Christ; and, if God will do the greater, he will not fail to do the less. The prophecy here quoted is justly ushered in with a Behold, which commands both attention and admiration; for we have here the mystery of godliness, which is, without controversy, great, that God was manifested in the flesh. 1. The sign given is that the Messiah shall be born of a virgin. A virgin shall conceive, and, by her, he shall be manifested in the flesh. The word Almah signifies a virgin in the strictest sense, such as Mary professes herself to be (Luk 1:34), I know not a man; nor had it been any such wonderful sign as it was intended for, if it had been otherwise. It was intimated from the beginning that the Messiah should be born of a virgin, when it was said that he should be the seed of the woman; so the seed of the woman as not to be the seed of any man. Christ was born of a virgin not only because his birth was to be supernatural, and altogether extraordinary, but because it was to be spotless, and pure, and without any stain of sin. Christ would be born, not of an empress or queen, for he appeared not in outward pomp or splendour, but of a virgin, to teach us spiritual purity, to die to all the delights of sense, and so to keep ourselves unspotted from the world and the flesh that we may be presented chaste virgins to Christ. 2. The truth proved by this sign is, that he is the Son of God, and the Mediator between God and man: for they shall call his name Immanuel; that is, he shall be Immanuel; and when it is said, He shall be called, it is meant, he shall be, the Lord our righteousness. Immanuel signifies God with us; a mysterious name, but very precious; God incarnate among us, and so God reconcilable to us, at peace with us, and taking us into covenant and communion with himself. The people of the Jews had God with them, in types and shadows, dwelling between the cherubim; but never so as when the Word was made flesh - that was the blessed Shechinah. What a happy step is hereby taken toward the settling of a peace and correspondence between God and man, that the two natures are thus brought together in the person of the Mediator! by this he became an unexceptionable referee, a days-man, fit to lay his hand upon them both, since he partakes of the nature of both. Behold, in this, the deepest mystery, and the richest mercy, that ever was. By the light of nature, we see God as a God above us; by the light of the law, we see him as a God against us; but by the light of the gospel, we see him as Immanuel, God with us, in our own nature, and (which is more) in our interest. Herein the Redeemer commended his love. With Christ's name, Immanuel, we may compare the name given to the gospel church (Eze 48:35). Jehovah Shammah - The Lord is there; the Lord of hosts is with us. Nor is it improper to say that the prophecy which foretold that he should be called Immanuel was fulfilled, in the design and intention of it, when he was called Jesus; for if he had not been Immanuel - God with us, he could not have been Jesus - a Saviour; and herein consists the salvation he wrought out, in the bringing of God and man together; this was what he designed, to bring God to be with us, which is our great happiness, and to bring us to be with God, which is our great duty. VI. Joseph's obedience to the divine precept (Mat 1:24). Being raised from sleep by the impression which the dream made upon him, he did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, though it was contrary to his former sentiments and intentions; he took unto him his wife; he did is speedily, without delay, and cheerfully, without dispute; he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. Extraordinary direction like this we are not now to expect; but God has still ways of making known his mind in doubtful cases, by hints of providence, debates of conscience, and advice of faithful friends; by each of these, applying the general rules of the written word, we should, therefore, in all the steps of our life, particularly the great turns of it, such as this of Joseph's, take direction from God, and we shall find it safe and comfortable to do as he bids us. VII. The accomplishment of the divine promise (Mat 1:25). She brought forth her first-born son. The circumstances of it are more largely related, Luk 2:1, etc. Note, That which is conceived of the Holy Ghost never proves abortive, but will certainly be brought forth in its season. What is of the will of the flesh, and of the will of man, often miscarries; but, if Christ be formed in the soul, God himself has begun the good work which he will perform; what is conceived in grace will no doubt be brought forth in glory. It is here further observed, 1. That Joseph, though he solemnized the marriage with Mary, his espoused wife, kept at a distance from her while she was with child of this Holy thing; he knew her not till she had brought him forth. Much has been said concerning the perpetual virginity of our Lord: Jerome was very angry with Helvidius for denying it. It is certain that it cannot be proved from scripture. Dr. Whitby inclines to think that when it is said, Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born, it is intimated that, afterwards, the reason ceasing, he lived with her, according to the law, Exo 21:10. 2. That Christ was the first-born; and so he might be called though his mother had not any other children after him, according to the language of scripture. Nor is it without a mystery that Christ is called her first-born, for he is the first-born of every creature, that is, the Heir of all things; and he is the first-born among many brethren, that in all things he may have the pre-eminence. 3. That Joseph called his name Jesus, according to the direction given him. God having appointed him to be the Saviour, which was intimated in his giving him the name Jesus, we must accept of him to be our Saviour, and, in concurrence with that appointment, we must call him Jesus, our Saviour.”

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ,.... The Evangelist having finished the genealogy of Christ, proceeds to give an account of his birth, which includes both his conception and bringing forth; and which he says was on this wise, so, "after this manner", and which was very wonderful and astonishing; when as, for his mother Mary was found with child, not of man, no, not of Joseph her husband; Christ had no real father as man, Joseph was only, as was supposed, his father; but of the Holy Ghost, according to Luk 1:35. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee", &c. and this was done that the human nature of Christ might be clear of original pollution; that so being the immediate produce of the Holy Ghost and without sin, it might be fit for union with the Son of God, and for the office of Mediator he had undertook. When Mary is said to be found with child, the meaning is, it appeared by evident signs, it was observed by Joseph particularly, who might know not only that she was with child, but with child of the Holy Ghost; by conversation with her, who might relate to him what passed between the Angel and her, Luk 1:28 though it looks as if as yet he did not know this, or at least was not fully satisfied about it; since he had a mind to have put her away, before he was assured of the truth of it, by the appearance of an angel to him. Now Mary's being with child, and its being known, were facts, at the time when she was espoused to Joseph, and thereby the outward credit both of Mary and Jesus were secured; for had this appeared before the espousals, the Jews would have fixed a brand of infamy on them both; and both the espousals and her being found with child, were before they came together; that is, before they cohabited together as man and wife, before he brought her home to his own house and bed. The espousals were before they thus came together. It was usual with the Jews first to espouse or betroth, and then to marry, or rather consummate the marriage, by bringing the woman home to her husband's house, between which there was some space of time. The account and manner of betrothing is given by Maimonides (y) in the following words. "Before the giving of the law, if a man met a woman in the street, if he would, he might take her, and bring her into his house and marry her between him and herself, and she became his wife; but when the law was given, the Israelites were commanded, that if a man would take a woman he should obtain her before witnesses, and after that she should be his wife, according to Deu 22:13 and these takings are an affirmative command of the law, and are called "espousals" or "betrothings" in every place; and a woman who is obtained in such a way is called "espoused" or "betrothed"; and when a woman is obtained, and becomes "espoused", although she is not yet "married, nor has entered into her husband's house", yet she is a man's wife.'' And such a distinction between a married woman and a betrothed virgin, which was Mary's case, may be observed in Deu 22:22 moreover, her being found or appearing to be with child, was "before they came together"; which it is likely, as Dr. Lightfoot (z) observes, was about three months from her conception, when she was returned from her cousin Elizabeth. It is probable that as soon as she was espoused to Joseph, or quickly after, she went and paid her visit to Elizabeth, with whom she stayed about three months, and then returned home, Luk 1:56. Upon her return home, she appears to be with child, with which she had gone three months, a proper time for the discovery of such a matter, Gen 38:24 and which is assigned by the Jewish doctors for this purpose. In the Misna (a) such a case as this is put, "If two men should espouse two women, and at the time of their entrance into the bride chamber, the one should be taken for the other--they separate them for three months, because they may prove with child;'' that is, as Bartenora observes upon it, "they separate them that they may not return to their husbands; and that if they should be with child, they may distinguish between a legitimate and an illegitimate offspring; and that the children which they may bring forth may not be ascribed to the wrong persons.'' Now Mary being gone three months from the time of her espousals to Joseph, and he and she not being yet come together, it was a clear case, that the child she was gone three months with, was none of his; hence it follows, (y) Hilchot. Ishot. c. 1. sect. 1, 2, 3. (z) In loc. (a) Yebamot, c. 3. sect. 10.”

“The account of the birth of Jesus Christ follows his genealogy. From these words, “before they came together,” Helvidius and others have started objections, which have been answered long ago by St. Jerome, where he shews in many examples from Scripture, that the words before and until do not signify what happened afterwards; for that point is left indefinite, but only what was done before, or not done. Thus when it is said, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool, Psalm cix, by no means signifies, that after the subjection of his enemies, the Son of God is no longer to sit at the right hand of his Father. In common conversation, when we say that a man died before he reached his 30th year, we do not mean that he afterwards attained it. Or, should we say that Helvidius died before he did penance, we cannot mean that he afterwards did penance: the same conclusion should be deduced from the words, “before they came together,” the end being accomplished by the power of the operation of the Holy Ghost, without their going together. If we should advance, that such a man was cured before he went to a physician, the natural inference would be, that he did not go to a physician at all. Thus also in the language of Scripture, the word first-begotten does not mean after whom others were born, but before whom no one was born, whether there were further issue or not. And the reason is, because the law required that a sacrifice should be offered for the first-born, and that he should be redeemed very soon after his birth; nor did it allow the parents to wait and see if any other son should be born. (Estius) — True and perfect marriage, and continual living in the same, without knowing each other. (St. Augustine, lib. ii. Consen. Evang. chap. i.) (Bristow)”

“BIRTH OF CHRIST. (Mat 1:18-25) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise--or, "thus." When as his mother Mary was espoused--rather, "betrothed." to Joseph, before they came together, she was found--discovered to be. with child of the Holy Ghost--It was, of course, the fact only that was discovered; the explanation of the fact here given is the Evangelist's own. That the Holy Ghost is a living conscious Person is plainly implied here, and is elsewhere clearly taught (Act 5:3-4, &c.): and that, in the unity of the Godhead, He is distinct both from the Father and the Son, is taught with equal distinctness (Mat 28:19; Co2 13:14). On the miraculous conception of our Lord, see on Luk 1:35.”

“Having said above, And Jacob begat Joseph, to whom Mary being espoused bare Jesus; that none who heard should suppose that His birth was as that of any of the forementioned fathers, he cuts off the thread of his narrative, saying, But Christ’s generation was thus. As though he were to say, The generation of all these fathers was as I have related it; but Christ’s was not so, but as follows, His mother Mary being espoused.”

“(in App. 122 et al.) Christ was also born of a pure virgin, because it was not holy that virtue should be born of pleasure, chastity of self-indulgence, incorruption of corruption. Nor could He come from heaven but after some new manner, who came to destroy the ancient empire of death. Therefore she received the crown of virginity who bare the King of chastity. Farther, our Lord sought out for Himself a virgin abode, wherein to be received, that He might shew us that God ought to be borne in a chaste body. Therefore He that wrote on tables of stone without an iron pen, the same wrought in Mary by the Holy Spirit; She was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”

“For, as a not incredible account relates, Joseph was absent when the things were done which Luke writes. For it is not easy to suppose that the Angel came to Mary and said those words, and Mary made her answer when Joseph was present. And even if we suppose thus much to have been possible, yet it could not be that she should have gone into the hill country, and abode there three months when Joseph was present, because he must needs have enquired the causes of her departure and long stay. And so when after so many months he returned from abroad, he found her manifestly with child.”