A HARMONIZED
EXPOSITION
OF THE
FOUR GOSPELS
REV. A. E. BREEN, Ph.D., D. D,
AUTHOR OF
A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO HOLY SCRIPTURE
A DIARY OF MY LIFE IN THE HOLY LAND
4
N . J/-
\ IN
^ v <*"V^ ^RnVisED EDITION
, VOLUME I
(A / /
\ REVISED DITI
"For the priest s lips should keep knowledge, and they should
seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of
hosts. * Mai. II. 7.
ROCHESTER, N. Y.
JOHN P. SMITH PRINTING COMPANY
1908
APR 2 1 1952
/
J;
Rochester, N. Y., February j,
Preface
to Second Edition
When the author published the first edition of the present
work, it was never contemplated that there should be a second
edition. For that reason the first edition consisted of two
thousand copies, and it was supposed that many of these
would be among the author s effects at his death.
But the success of the work was beyond hope. The
edition was exhausted in the spring of 1907, and the Author
was urged to publish a new edition.
Believing that the re -publication of the work will aid
Christ s cause, the author takes up the heavy task of revising it.
The general plan of the work is preserved. The Greek
texts of the Four Gospels are arranged in the form of a harmony.
A literal English translation accompanies the Greek text, and
is arranged in the same way. By such method of arrangement
the life of Christ, his words and deeds, become one connected
narrative, and the statements of every Evangelist become
fuller and clearer, being supplemented by the parallel passages
of the others. Every important variant is given in the critical
examination of the text, and the authorities are discussed.
On the text thus harmonized is built what the author
hopes will prove a clear and comprehensive Commentary.
Every question legitimately arising out of the Gospel narrative
is treated at length. But while the author s aim has been to
give a critical commentary, special attention has been given to
adapt the book to pulpit use. Hence the moral application of
the events, words, and deeds is made a main feature of the
w r ork.
S
It has been the author s principal aim to search out the
literal sense of every passage, to ascertain the full significance
of every element in the life of the Redeemer. But inasmuch as
that divine life is not chronicled as a mere historical event, but
as the perfect exemplar of every human life, moral reflections
are drawn from every word and event in the Gospel narrative.
In the treatment of Hebrew names of the Old Testament,
the plan, in general, has been to render them in the Commentary
in accord with the Masoretic text, but in the translation of the
Greek text of the New Testament, out of reverence for the
original text, these names are generally rendered in conformity
with the Greek.
The progress of Scriptural science during the last decade
has made necessary a thorough revision, and this has been
attempted by conservative methods.
Without doubt the author s aim has been higher than the
accomplishment, but he sends forth his book with the hope that
it will be of some service in the great cause of religion.
A. E. BREEN.
ROCHESTER, N. Y.,
Feast of the Circumcision of Christ, 1908.
CONTENTS
OF THE FIRST VOLUME
PAGES.
INTRODUCTORY T 34
LUKE I. 14.
St. Luke s Preamble 35 39
JOHN I. i 18.
The Eternal Generation of the Word The Word was made flesh
The W itness of J ohn 3 9~ 7 1
MATT. I. 117; LUKE III. 2338.
The two Genealogies of Jesus 7 l I0 3
LUKE I. 525.
The Vision of Zachary The Birth of John the Baptist 103123
MATT. I. 18; LUKE I. 2627.
The Birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary 123130
LUKE I. 2838.
The Annunciation 130148
LUKE I. 3945.
The Visitation - 148154
LUKE I. 4656.
The Magnificat 154164
LUKE I. 5766.
The Birth, Circumcision, and Naming of John the Baptist-
Circumcision among other nations The restoration of
Zachary s power of speech l6 4 J 7 2
LUKE I. 6780.
The Canticle of Zachary The dwelling of John the Baptist in the
wilderness 172184
MATT. I. 1925.
Perplexity of Joseph as evidences of the Blessed Virgin s preg
nancyThe Vision of the Angel The Angel s declaration of
the Divinity of the Virgin s Child Isaiah s Prophecy The
Obedience of Joseph His Continency i$4 205
LUKE II. 17.
The Census of Quirinius The Journey of Mary and Joseph to
Bethlehem The Birth of Jesus in the Manger 205 221
LUKE II. 820.
The Apparition of the Angel to the Shepherds The Message of
the Angel Glory to God in the Highest The Shepherds go
to Bethlehem and find Jesus in the Manger 222 23 i
LUKE II. 2139.
The Circumcision of Jesus The Purification in the Temple The
Prophecy of Simeon The Prophecy of Anna The Return
of the Holy Family to Nazareth 231 240
MATT. II. i 12.
The Visit of the Magi Herod s Perturbation and Wicked Design
The Wondrous Star The Adoration of Jesus by the Magi
The Dream of the Magi - 2 4o 258
MATT. II. 1323.
The Flight into Egypt The Slaughter of the Infants of Beth
lehem The Prophecy of Jeremiah The Return from Egypt 258 27 8
LUKE II. 4052.
The Presentation of the Child Jesus in the Temple Christ with
the Doctors The Finding in the Temple The Boyhood of
Jesus 279 295
MATT. III. 112; MARK I. i 8; LUKE III. i 18.
The Preaching of John in the Wilderness - 295 331
MATT. III. 1317; MARK I. 911; LUKE III. 2122.
The Baptism of Christ 331 33 8
MATT. IV. i ii ; MARK I. 1213; LUKE IV. 113.
The Fasting and Temptation of Christ 338 358
JOHN I. 19-51.
The Testimony of John the Baptist to the Embassy of the Phari
sees The Calling of John the Evangelist, Andrew, and
Simon 358 380
JOHN II. i ii.
The Marriage in Cana The Miracle of the Water made Wine 380 392
JOHN II. 1225.
The Expulsion of the Merchants and Money-Changers from the
Temple The Prediction of the Crucifixion - 392 405
JOHN III. i 21.
Jesus and Nicodemus Baptism - 406 431
JOHN III. 2236.
John baptizes at ^Enon His Disciples complain of Jesus Ascend
ency John s Answer .; 43 1 445
MATT. IV. 12; MARK I. 1415; LUKE III. 1920.
The Imprisonment of John the Baptist 445 449
LUKE IV. 14; JOHN IV. 13.
Jesus departs for Galilee 449 45 2
JOHN IV. 442.
Jesus and the Samaritan Woman The Beginning of Faith in
Samaria 45 2 4$ 7
JOHN IV. 4345-
The Arrival of Jesus in Galilee 487 489
JOHN IV. 4654.
The Healing of the Son of the King s Officer at Capharnaum 489 496
LUKE IV. 1530.
Jesus in the Synagogue at Nazareth The Prophecy of Isaiah
The Jews attempt to stone Jesus 49 6 5 2 4
MATT. IV. 1317.
Jesus fixes his Domicile at Capharnaum The Prophecy of Isaiah 5 24 52 7
MATT. IV. 1822; MARK I. 1620; LUKE V. i n.
The Discourse from the Boat of Simon on Lake Gennesaret The
Miraculous Draught of Fishes The Calling of James and
John 5 2 7537
MARK I. 2128; LUKE IV. 3137.
The Cure of the Demonized Man in the Synagogue at Capharnaum 537 550
MATT. VIII. 1415; MARK I. 2931; LUKE IV. 3839-
The Healing of Simon s Mother-in Law 55 555
MATT. VIII. 1617; MARK I. 32 34; LUKE IV. 40 41-
The Healing of the Sick at Capharnaum 555 563
MATT. IV. 2325; MARK I. 3539; LUKE IV. 4244.
The Teaching of Jesus in the Synagogues of Galilee 563 572
MATT. VIII. 2 4; MARK I. 40 45; LUKE V. 12 16.
The Healing of the Leper 57 2 5 8 4
MATT. IX. i8; MARK II. 112; LUKE V. 1726.
The Healing of the Palsied Man let down through the Roof at
Capharnaum 584 612
MATT. IX. 9; MARK II. 1314; LUKE V. 2728.
The Calling of Matthew 612 617
MATT. IX. io 13; MARK II. 1517; LUKE V. 2932.
The Banquet in the House of Levi 617 628
MATT. IX. 14 17; MARK II. 1822; LUKE V. 33 39.
The Objections of the Pharisees The Response of Jesus 628 645
JOHN V. I 16.
The Healing of the Sick Man at the Pool of Bethesda 645 667
JOHN V. 1747.
The divine Personality of Christ His relation to the Father - 667 710
INTRODUCTION
The present work is designed to be an exposition of the
Four Gospels. We feel assured that the general reader of this
book will take it up not to study the introductory matter but to
find the sense of the word of God. We have found in our own
experience that it is very agreeable in reading a book to be lead
as soon as possible into "medias res." As the patrimony of
science grows, the necessity of drawing accurately the lines of
demarcation between the different departments becomes
greater. Therefore, we believe that the study of the Scriptures
will be benefited if the Introduction to Holy Scripture and the
Exposition of Holy Scripture be treated f in separate volumes.
In the introductory matter of the present volume we shall
therefore limit ourselves to a brief treatment of some of the
principal facts relating to the Four Gospels.
It is a w T ell evidenced fact that from the earliest times of
the Christian era the Four Gospels existed in the Church of
Christ, and were received as divine Scripture.
"What," says Irenaeus, , if the Apostles had not left us the
Scriptures? Would it not be necessary to follow the traditions
of those to whom they committed the Churches? Verily this
method many barbarous nations adopt, who believe in Christ
without ink and paper, having the law of salvation written in
their hearts by the Spirit, and faithfully holding to the old
tradition, believing in one God, etc." [Irenasus, Migne 7,
8 55-l Again: "The tradition of the Apostles, manifested in
the whole world, may be learned in every Church by those who
wish to know the truth, and we can enumerate the bishops
constituted by the Apostles and their successors even to our
day." [Irenasus, Migne, 7, 848.]
(1) Gosp. I
2 INTRODUCTION
Out of the abundant historical data available to prove the
genuine origin of the Gospels we select two of representative
men. St. Irenfeus in the Third Book of his Treatise against
Heresy has the following convincing testimony :
"So great is the certitude of the Gospels that the heretics
themselves render testimony to them, and every heretic that
comes forth strives to prove his doctrine from them. For the
Ebionites, who use only the Gospel of Matthew, are confuted
by it, that their presumption concerning the Lord is not well
founded. Marcion, who mutilates St. Luke, by that which he
retains of it, is shown to be a blasphemer against the Lord.
Those who separate Jesus from Christ, and who, selecting the
Gospel of St. Mark, say that Christ remained impassible, and
that Jesus suffered, if they read it with the love of truth can be
corrected of their error. The Valentinians, who exclusively
use the Gospel of John for the ostentation of their unions, are
by it shown to be false in every thing, as we have shown in the
first book. Since therefore, our opponents render testimony
for us, and use these (Gospels), our demonstration regarding
them is shown to be true and firm. For the Church receives
neither more in number nor fewer in number than these Gos
pels. For in the world in which we live, there are four great
regions ; and there are four principal winds ; and the Church is
spread over the whole earth ; and the pillar and ground of the
Church [I. Tim. III. 15] is the Gospel, and the spirit of life;
therefore it follows that the Church has four columns blowing
forth in all directions incorruption and vivifying men. From
which it is manifest that the divine Architect of all things, the
Word, who is borne upon the Cherubim, and rules all things,
who was made manifest to men, gave us the fourfold Gospel,
which is actuated by one Spirit." Continuing, he applies the
vision of Ezekiel to the four Evangelists, which interpretation
has continued in the Church since that time. The conclusion
of Irenseus is better than his reasoning. His mysticism avails
naught, but his conclusion is independent of it. The con
clusion was the faith of the Church of his time, which he strove
to illustrate. We could add nothing to this testimony by an-
ducing the numberless quotations of the Gospels in the works
of Irenasus. It is sufficient in itself to establish the status of
INTRODUCTION 2
the Gospels in the Church of Gaul of the second century. Ire-
nasus was a disciple of the disciples of St. John. The voice of
Apostolic times is perpetuated by them to him. He speaks
in the tone of a man who was sure of his point, knowing that he
had back of him the faith of the Catholic Church. The Church
from the Apostolic times received four Gospels, and only four.
Origen s testimonies are equally clear and convincing:
"The Church has four Gospels; heresy has many
Only four Gospels are approved, out of which, as representing
our Law and Saviour, dogmas are to be proven In all
these we admit naught else than is admitted by the Church,
that only four Gospels are to be received."
Again in a testimony quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles.
VI. 25, Origen says:
"As I have understood from tradition, respecting the four
Gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole
Church of God throughout the world ; the first is written ac
cording^ tp_ Matthew, thejBarrie J^^J^s_^n^_ajDjiV4^ajn J _but
afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it
for the Jewish converts, wrote it in Hebrew. The second is
according to Mark, who composed it, as Peter explained to him,
whom he also acknowledges as his son in his general Epistle,
saying, The elect church in Babylon, salutes you, as also Mark
my son. And the third, according to Luke, the Gospel com
mended by Paul, which was written for the converts from the
Gentiles, and last of all the Gospel according to John."
These men may be fairly taken as exponents of the belief
of their age, and, in fact, we find their testimonies corroborated
by many other witnesses, going back even to those who were
taught by the Apostles themselves. For a fuller treatment of
this matter we refer the reader to our General Introduction.
A point of some importance in relation to the first Gospel
is the determination of the original language in which it was
written. The earliest witness of this fact is Papias who de
clares "that Matthew wrote the oracles, ra Actym, (of the
Lord) in Hebrew, and each one interpreted them as he was
able." This testimony must refer to the Gospel of Matthew,
and was always thus understood by the old writers. [See Funk,
Patres Apost. and Schanz, Matthasus.]
4 INTRODUCTION
Origen, Irenseus, Eusebius, and in fact all the Fathers
declare the same fact. However, we do not believe that the
Hebraic origin of Matthew s Gospel is as certain as his author
ship of the same. The authorship is an important and princi
pal truth; the question of the original tongue is a detail. In
fact, it is a matter of very little importance whether Matthew
wrote in Hebrew or Greek. More than due prominence has
been given to the question since the rise of protestantism. In
rejecting the deuterocanonical books the protestants had em
ployed the argument that the original text of an inspired book
could not be lost. Hence in the case of Matthew, to be consis
tent, they were forced to hold to the theory of the original Greek
text. Catholics, in their eagerness to overthrow every posi
tion of the protestants, have given too much importance to the
question. There are more data for the Hebrew original than
for the Greek original ; but the question can not be satisfactorily
decided.
In patristic documents, wherever the question is noticed,
it is asserted that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. Richard Simon,
Mill, Michaelis, Marsh, Eichhorn, Storr, Olshausen, Comely,
Knabenbauer, Kaulen, Meyer and nearly all the present Catho
lic commentators defend the Hebrew original of Matthew.
Among those who stand for a Greek original we find Eras
mus, Cajetan, Calvin, LeClerc, Fabricius, Lightfoot, Wet stein,
Paulus, Lardner, Thiersch, Hey, Hales, Hug, De Wette, Moses
Stuart, Fritzsche, Credner, Bengel, Masch, Schubert, Kiel, and
others. -
The intrinsic reasons certainly favor a Greek exemplar.
After the ascendancy of the Greek Empire of Alexander the
Great, Greek became well known injudasa. The second Book
of Maccabees, though written by a Palestinian Jew, was written
in Greek. The Providence of God contemplated the conver
sion of the civilized world largely through the medium of the
Greek language.
The Epistle to the Hebrews, though especially addressed
to the Hebrews by a man who gloried in being a Hebrew of He
brews, was written in Greek. The present text of Matthew
bears no intrinsic evidence of being a translation. It is quoted
in Greek as early as St. Mark and St. Luke. It contains Greek
INTRODUCTION 5
idioms, and even plays upon words. And finally, it is hard to
conceive that such a production as the Hebrew text of the First
Gospel should have disappeared so completely from the earth
that no man has left any record of ever having seen it. It is
true that all these arguments can be answered; but they, at
least, render the question doubtful.
The next point that demands a brief notice is to determine
the object of the several Gospels, and for whom they were
destined.
External and internal evidence establishes the fact that
Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, to prove that Jesus was
the Messiah promised in the Law and Prophets. On this point
the Fathers and writers of antiquity are unanimous. There is
not a dissenting voice.
The internal evidence also is strong. St. Matthew em
phasizes every element in the words and deeds of Christ wherein
there is evidence that Jesus was the Messiah. Matthew also
uses the quotations from the Old Testament in such a way as to
evince that he is directing his discourse to men conversant with
the Old Law. The life of Jesus is shown to be in conformity
with prophetic prediction, and the reader is continually re
minded that the events took place "that the Scriptures might
be fulfilled." In the course of the commentary attention will
be called to the elements that prove that the first Gospel was
destined for Jewish readers.
It is equally well proven by extrinsic and intrinsic data
that Mark gives in his Gospel a compendium of Peter s oral
preaching, and that he destined it for gentile Christians. In
fact, with the exception of Chrysostom, the early writers are
unanimous in asserting that Mark, who was closely associated
with Peter in Apostolic work, wrote the Gospel at Rome for
the gentile Christians. The testimony of Papias as recorded
by Eusebius is as follows :
"And John the Presbyter also said this, Mark being the
interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with
great accuracy, but not however, in the order in which it was
spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed
our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter,
who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not tc
6 INTRODUCTION
give a history of our Lord s discourses: wherefore Mark has
not erred in any thing, by writing some things as he has re
corded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not
to pass by any thing that he heard, or to state any thing falsely
in these accounts." [Eusebius Hist. Ecc. III. 39.]
The testimony of Clement of Alexandria corroborates that
of Papias : "When Peter had proclaimed the word publicly at
Rome, and declared the Gospel, under the influence of the
Spirit ; as there was a great number present, they requested
Mark, who had followed him from afar, and remembered well
what he had said, to reduce these things to writing, and that
after composing the Gospel he gave it to those who requested it
of him. Which, when Peter understood, he directly neither
hindered nor encouraged it. But John, last of all, perceiving
that what had reference to the body in the Gospel of our Sa
viour, was sufficiently detailed, and being encouraged by his
familiar friends, and urged by the Spirit, he wrote a spiritual
Gospel." [Eusebius Hist. Eccles. VI. 14.]
Jerome also declares that "Mark the disciple and inter
preter of Peter, being asked at Rome by the brethren, wrote a
short Gospel according to that which he had heard from Peter."
The other Fathers and writers of antiquity concur. Let Origen
be heard as the oracle of the tradition of the first two centuries :
"We have received by tradition that the second Gospel is of
Mark who consigned to writing what Peter expounded to him."
The intrinsic evidence is convincing that Mark epitomizes
the general teaching of a man who addressed gentiles. The
Gospel begins with the baptism of John, in accord with Peter s
outline in Acts X. 37 et seqq. The proofs of Jesus divinity
are not sought from the fulfillment of prophecy but from Jesus
power over demons, and over all the powers of nature as evinced
in His miracles. Indeed the Gospel has been called "the Gospel
of miracles."
St. Mark omits everything that demanded for its force a
knowledge of the Mosaic Law or of Jewish institutions. On
the other hand, he brings out minutely the elements that were
apt to move a pagan world. The minute attention to details
and the vivid description of events in which Peter was a chief
actor corroborate the thesis that Mark wrote what he received
INTRODUCTION 7
from the eye-witness Peter. Hence we believe it to be a well
proven historical fact that Mark wrote a compendium of the
doctrines preached by Peter, and delivered it to the gentile
Christians.
The general scope of the Gospel of Luke is given in the
preamble of his Gospel. Though the Gospel was immediately
addressed to Theophilus, it contains a general design applicable
to the whole class of which Theophilus was a representative.
The great scope of the Gospel was to give an orderly account of
the words and deeds of Jesus, to afford greater certainty to those
who had been taught these truths by oral preaching. We
find in Luke therefore the best order of events, and the eviden
tial force of the data is presented by him in a masterly way.
What Mark was to St. Peter, Luke was to St. Paul. We
find abundant evidence of this in the testimonies of the early
ages. From Muratori s Canon we apprehend that Luke is the
author of the Third Gospel ; that the physician Luke wrote it
after the ascension of Our Lord; that Luke was a companion
and pupil (juris studiosus) of St. Paul; that Luke wrote the
Gospel in his own name, though from Paul s data (ex opinione) ;
that Luke had not seen the Lord in the flesh, and wrote after
diligent research (prout assequi potuit) ; and that he began his
Gospel with the nativity of John the Baptist. This is the ex
act history of the Third Gospel. Eusebius also in his history
bears witness to the same truth : "But Luke, who was born at
Antioch, and by profession a physician, being for the most part
connected with Paul, and familiarly acquainted with the rest
of the apostles, has left us in two inspired books, the institutes
of that spiritual healing art which he obtained from them.
One of these is his Gospel, in which he testifies that he has re
corded, as those who were from the beginning eye-witnesses,
and ministers of the world, delivered to him, whom also, he
says, he has in all things followed. The other is his Acts of the
Apostles, which he composed, not from what he had heard
from others, but from what he had seen. It is also said that
Paul usually referred to his Gospel, whenever, in his Epistles,
he spoke of some particular Gospel of his own saying, accord
ing to my Gospel. [Euseb. Hist. Eccles. III. 4.]
8 INTRODUCTION
This fact being established, it follows by logical sequence
that the Gospel of Luke was destined for those to whom Paul
preached. Now we find in Paul the grandest exponent of the
universality of the New Covenant. The motto of Paul was
that "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, to every
one that belie veth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
[Rom. I. 16.] And again: "There can be neither Jew nor
Greek .... for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." [Gal. III. 28.]
The Gospel of Luke is written for this universal scope. Cole
ridge says well: "We consider St. Matthew as addressing
himself primarily to the Hebrew Christians, and St. Mark as
turning to the direct converts from heathenism. We may
look upon St. Luke as the Evangelist of the Church as already
more or less formed out of the coalescence of both bodies, or,
in particular, as the Evangelist of the Churches, in which the
Jewish element had been more or less absorbed by the larger
influx of gentiles, great numbers of whom had passed through
the proselytism before they embraced the faith." [Coleridge,
the Life of Our Life, Preface.]
There is internal evidence also in the Gospel itself that it
was destined for the aforesaid universal scope. With extreme
delicacy Luke modifies certain statements of the Lord which
might offend the gentiles. He omits others which might be
taken in an unfavorable sense by the gentiles. Thus Matthew
records that in their first going forth the Apostles were for
bidden to "go in the way of the gentiles." Luke suppressed
this statement. In like manner Luke also omits the history of
the Canaanite woman [Math. XV. 21-28] for the reason that
the gentiles might misunderstand the words : "I was not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Often in the
discourses of the Lord as related by Matthew, the gentile is
taken as a synonym for a godless man. Luke modifies this
statement and substitutes "sinner" for "gentile." Other evi
dences will be illustrated in the course of the commentary. A
most striking proof of our thesis is the fact that the wonderful
description of the call of the gentiles portrayed in the parable
of the Prodigal Son is only found in Luke.
But it would be an error to believe that the Gospel were
only destined for Ethnico-Christians. The accurate descrip-
INTRODUCTION 9
tion of the infancy of our Lord and much of the data of the
first two chapters of Luke clearly prove that the writer appealed
to Jewish as well as to Ethnic minds. Wherefore, the Gospel
of Luke has rightly been called the Gospel of the universality
of the mercy of God.
Every careful reader of the Gospel is aware that the
general plan of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is the
same. They deal largely with the Galilean period of our Lord s
labours, and with few exceptions we find that these three
record the same discourses and miracles. St. John pursues an
entirely different plan. He deals chiefly with the Judaean period
of Jesus life, and omits much of the data of the aforesaid three.
For this cause Matthew, Mark, and Luke are rightly termed
the synoptic writers.
In examining the three synoptic Gospels we find in them
great points of agreement, and again certain data proper to
every several one, or to two of them in contradistinction to the
third. This evident fact has led men to inquire concerning
the causes of the affinity and of the diversity therein existing.
This question received little or no notice from the old
writers ; but in our century it is made a leading question. It
is treated by Patrizi, De Evan. I. p. 73; Messmer, Introduc. p.
15; A. Mayer, Einl. p. 1 1 ; Reithmayr, Einl. p. 346 ; Valroger,
Introduc. II. p. 21; Bacuez, Manuel Biblique I. p. 68; Kaulen,
Einl. 3rd Ed., p. 443; Schegg, Evang. passim ; Schanz, Evang.
passim; Knabenbauer, Com. in Marc. p. 17; and Comely, In
troduc. III. p. 170.
By comparing the three synoptists we find that only
Matthew and Luke record the events of the infancy of Jesus
and his genealogy; but the genealogy, as given by Matthew, is
substantially different from that traced by Luke. All three
record the preaching of John Baptist and the temptation of
Jesus by Satan, but Mark is very brief in describing the temp
tation. There is a slight difference between Matthew and Luke
in the order of the temptations.
The great events of the Lord s teaching in Galilee are
narrated by all three, but every one has some matter omitted
by the others. The Sermon on the Mount is given in extenso by
Matthew ; Luke condenses it, and Mark omits it entirely.
io INTRODUCTION
Only Luke records ex professo the journeys of Jesus to
Jerusalem, and his operations in Judaea. All three record the
labors of Jesus beyond the Jordan, but here again every one
has something proper to himself.
The events of the days immediately preceding the Cruci
fixion are recorded by the three synoptists, but Matthew has
inserted some discourses of the Lord omitted by the others.
In the remaining events of the Gospel-narrative there is a
great general agreement in the three synoptic Gospels, but
every one has something proper to himself.
From these observations we come to the following con
clusions. Matthew s Gospel consists of 1,072 verses, and of
these 330 are proper to Matthew.
Mark s Gospel contains 677 verses, and of these 68 are
proper to Mark.
There are 1,152 verses in Luke s Gospel, and of these 541
are proper to Luke.
There is in the synoptists rarely a verbal agreement, but
usually the agreement is in the substance of the event or dis
course narrated.
The question is now to determine what specific causes
operated to effect the points of resemblance and the points of
divergency of the three synoptists.
The first attempt to explain the fact was made by Le Clerc
and Eichhorn. They endeavored to explain the points of
similarity by supposing that there existed in the beginning
certain written data both in Aramaic and Greek, and that these
formed the common founts of the several Gospels. The points
of divergency would result from the free use which the writers
made of these data. According to Eichhorn and his followers
these original data existed as a proioevangelium and many recen
sions of the same. According to Schleiermacher they existed
as scattered Aramaic and Greek fragments.
For the reason that this system essays to solve a historical
question without a particle of historical evidence it has justly
fallen into oblivion.
The second system essays to explain the similarity of the
three Evangelists by the theory that the later writers drew
from the preceding. The advocates of this theory claim for
INTRODUCTION n
it the authority of St. Augustine who [De Cons. Evan. I. 2]
calls Mark "pedisequus et breviator Matthaei." But it is clear
that the import of Augustine s words is that the data of Mat
thew existed in Mark in a compendious form.
It is not agreed among the patrons of this opinion who
wrote the First Gospel. That form of this opinion which has
the most Catholic support asserts that Matthew wrote first in
Aramaic ; Mark followed and drew from him ; and Luke came
in the third place, and drew from both.
The second form of the opinion differs from the first only
in inverting the order of Mark and Luke. For this the author
ity of Clement of Alexandria is invoked.
The third form places Mark in the first place, and then
becomes Protean in hypotheses as to the origin of the other
two. It has neither proofs nor probability.
The third system assigns as the cause of the resemblance
existing among the three synoptists the unity of source of the
three, inasmuch as all three relied on the oral tradition of the
same events and discourses. That this system is in the main
the true one is beyond doubt. It agrees with all the early
witnesses ; it explains every fact ; and it is in accordance with
intrinsic evidence in the Gospels. All the testimonies before
cited concerning the origin of the different Gospels confirm
this theory. It explains every fact. The writers agree in
substance in the narration of the same facts and discourses,
and when they differ it is owing to the different scope which
they severally propose to themselves. In fact, St. Luke evi
dently refers to this point in the preamble of his Gospel.
At the same time we believe that Mark had read St.
Matthew s Gospel before writing, and that Luke had read
both Matthew and Mark. But this reading was only a factor
together with the great means of the oral tradition in storing
the minds of Mark and Luke, and when they wrote they con
templated an independent work.
The genuineness of the Apostle John s authorship of the
Fourth Gospel is well attested. The testimonies before ad
duced are clear and conclusive. Moreover, St. Irenasus de
clares [Contra Haer. III. i] that "afterwards John the disciple
of the Lord, who reclined upon the Lord s breast, published a
12 INTRODUCTION
Gospel, while he dwelt in Ephesus in Asia." The testimony of
Muratori s Fragment attests the same fact. Tertullian and
Clement of Alexandria testify the same. The latter witness
declares as follows : "John, the latest of the Evangelists, seeing
that in the Gospels of the others those things which pertain to
the body of Christ had been treated of, being inspired by the
Holy Ghost, he wrote at the request of his friends a Spiritual
Gospel."
An examination of the data of tradition will disclose many
more testimonies of like tenor.
The proving force of the available testimonies respecting
the Apostle John s authorship of the Fourth Gospel is such that
all reasonable doubt in regard to it is excluded. It is accepted
by all Catholic writers, and by most of the protestants and
Rationalists, as for example Liicke, Bleek, Bunsen, Ebrard,
Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Meyer, Lechler, Weiss, Luthardt,
Godet, Beyschlag, Zahn, Franke, Olshausen, Thiersch, Norton,
Baumgarten, Alford, Wordsworth, Alexander, Maurice, Astie,
Tischendorf, Thenius, Fischer, Uhlhorn, Riggenbach, Oosterzee,
De Pressense", Hutton, Schaff, Milligan, Liddon, Leates, Wace,
McClellan, Lias, Murphy, Ezra Abbot, Charteris, Plummer,
Reynolds, Lightfoot, Salmon, Sanday, Westcott, Carl Miiller,
B. Bruckner, Gess, Kahnis, Schnedermann, Leuschner, Paul
Ewald, Grau, Ritschl, Lobstein, Kaftan, Resch, Koehler and
Watldns.
Beginning with the year 1900, a movement has been gain
ing force which directly opposes itself to the Johannine author
ship of the Fourth Gospel. In 1901 appeared the "Einleitung
in das N. Test." of Prof. Jiilicher of Marburg. In the same year
appeared the II. Vol. of the Encyclopedia Biblica, containing a
long article on "John, Son of Zebedee" by Schmiedel of Zurich,
and a monograph on the Fourth Gospel by M. Jean Reville of
Paris. These were followed by Loisy s "Le Quatrieme evan-
gile" which is now in the Index of Prohibited Books. These
works assail the traditional view of John s authorship, and
insist that the author is unknown, and that he stood in no
direct relation to the Apostle. Among the modern works
which defend John s authorship may be mentioned Ezra Ab
bot s "Critical Essays" 1888; Zahn s Einleitung in das N. Test.
INTRODUCTION 13
1899; Watkin s Modern Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1890;
Weiss Einleitung in das N. Test. 1897; Das Johannes-Evan.
gelium, 1892 ; Beyschlag s "Zur Johanneischen Frage," (Gotha,
1876), Neutest. Theologie (Halle 1891), Leben Jesu (Halle,
1893); Luthardt s Kurzgefasster Kommentar; Mgr. Batiffol s
Six lemons sur les evangiles (Paris, 1897); Abbe Jacquier s
Histoire des livres des N. T. (Paris, 1903); Pere Calmes
Commentary (Paris and Rome, 1904); Dr. Stanton s "The
Gospels as Historical Documents"; Dr. James Drummond s
"The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel";
and Dr. William Sanday s "The Criticism of the Fourth
Gospel."
In the last mentioned work Dr. Sanday quotes and ap
proves the following excellent testimony of Prof, von Dobschiitz :
"That the (Fourth ) Gospel not only shows a good knowledge
of Palestinian localities, but also a thoroughly Jewish stamp
in thought and expression is one of the truths rightly empha
sized by conservative theology which critical theology is already,
though reluctantly, making up its mind to admit; the
Hellenism of the Fourth Gospel, together with its unity, be
longs to those only too frequent preconceived opinions, on the
critical side, too, which are all the more obstinately maintained
the more unfounded they are." (Probleme d. Apost. Zeitalt-
ers p. 92.)
The mitigated form of the opinion which denies the apos
tolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel, ascribes it to "the be
loved disciple," whom they believe not to be identical with the
Apostle John, though a disciple of Jesus. Such view is pro
posed by Hugo Delff (Die Geschichte d. R. Jesus V. Naz.
Husum, 1889) ; Bousset (Offenbarung p. 46).
Harnack and Schurer ascribe the Gospel to John the Pres
byter, whom they believe to be a disciple of the Apostle John;
Dobschiitz agrees with Delff in denying the apostolic author
ship, and makes its author a native of Jerusalem, afterwards
called John of Ephesus. He also denies the unity of the Gospel.
The destructive process however has been carried out with
great brutality by Wendt (Lehre Jesu 1886) and Briggs (Gen.
Introd. 1899). The arbitrary methods of these attempts moved
Sanday to declare: "I would undertake to show that the
14 INTRODUCTION
distinctive features of the Gospel are just as plentiful in the
passages excised as in those that are retained." [Op. cit. p. 23.]
There are few questions of Holy Scripture where the methods
and conclusions of the critics have been so arbitrary and false
as on the question of the Fourth Gospel. As it is the most
spiritual of the Gospels, and most forcibly proclaims the Divin
ity of Christ, and the supernatural character of religion, it
encounters the special opposition of the advocates of a re
duced Christianity.
The arguments which support the authenticity of the
Fourth Gospel are both intrinsic and extrinsic. Thus Dr.
Mac Rory presents this argument :
"i. The author himself tells us [XXI. 20, 24,] that he is
the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast
at supper. Now according to all the Fathers, the disciple
whom Jesus loved, etc., was St. John. Moreover, the three
most favored disciples were Peter, James and John. They
alone were permitted to be present at the raising to life of the
daughter of Jairus [Mark V. 37], at the transfiguration [Matt.
XVII. i, and at the agony in the garden [Matt. XXVI. 3.]
But Peter cannot be the writer of our Gospel, from whom he
is explicitly distinguished [John XXI. 20] ; nor James the
Greater, for, in the opinion of all, he had been beheaded by
Herod Agrippa I. [Acts XII. 2] many years before our Gospel
was written.
"2. While the Apostle John plays an important part in
the other Gospels, he is not named even once in the Fourth
Gospel. If we had only it, we should not know that there was
an Apostle of that name. The fair inference then is, that he
himself being the writer, suppressed his own name through
modesty. Moreover, while the other Evangelists are accus
tomed, when they speak of John the Baptist, to distinguish
him from John the Apostle, our author, again through modesty,
ignores the Apostle, and refers nineteen different times to the
Baptist as John without any distinguishing appellative.
"3. The style is just such as we should expect from St.
John; the Greek purer than that of the other Gospels, because
of the author s long sojourn in Asia Minor, yet not untinged by
Hebraisms because of his earlier life spent in Palestine.
INTRODUCTION 15
"4. The whole Gospel points to its author as one who
was intimately acquainted with Palestine and its customs, and
who had lived and moved among the events he describes.
Thus the journey from Cana to Capharnaum is rightly described
as a descent (John IV. 47, 51); the author is acquainted with
the pools of Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem (John V. 2, IX.
7), with the position of the brook of Cedron in relation to Jeru
salem and the Mount of Olives (John XVIII. i), and with the
distance of Bethany from the Holy City (XL 18).
"Among the Jewish customs he refers to the manner of
purification before meals (John II. 6), and to their avoidance
of intercourse with Samaritans (IV. 9), and hints at the objec
tion of their teachers to speak publicly with women. (John IV.
27) He shows, too, that he is familiar, not merely with Jewish
festivals, but also with their peculiar solemnities (John VII. 2,
37), and the time of their occurrence." (X. 22.) (Dr. Mac-
Rory, The Gospel of St. John, 1897).
Dr. Sanday after cautiously reviewing the internal evi
dence, comes to this conclusion: "One broad conclusion seems
to stand out from the evidence, internal as well as external.
The author was an eye-witness, an Apostolic man either in
the wider sense of the word Apostle or in the narrower. So
much seems to me to be assured; but round that broad con
clusion there arises a cluster of questions to which I cannot give
a simple and categorical answer.
"I take it to be a fundamental element in the question
that in several places (especially XIX. 35, XXI. 24; cf. I. 14;
I. John I. 1-3), the Gospel itself lays claim to first-hand author
ity. This is a different matter from ordinary pseudonymous
writing. The direct and strong assertions that the Gospel
makes are either true or they are a deliberate untruth. Be
tween these alternatives I have no hesitation in choosing. I
do not think that we should have the right to make so grave
an imputation as that implied in the second on anything but
the clearest necessity, But the first alternative appears to
me to be confirmed by a multitude of particulars: first, by a
number of places in which the author of the Gospel seems to
write from a standpoint within the Apostolic circle, or in
which he gives expression to experiences like those of
i 6 INTRODUCTION
an Apostle; and secondly by the very marked extent to
which the narrative of the Gospel corresponds in its
details to the real conditions of the time and place in which its
scene is laid, conditions which rapidly changed and passed
away.
"This constitutes the internal argument for the authentic
character of the Gospel. It is met and, as I conceive, strongly
corroborated by the nature of the external evidence." [Criti
cism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 236, 237.]
In dealing with questions of this nature, we should not be
expected to rest our case only on the evidence of specific texts :
it lies in the whole structure and spirit of the Gospel. The
beloved disciple and Apostle John in multifarious ways reveals
himself in the course of his narrative. In no place is it better
revealed than in the narrative of the events of the last days of
Christ s life ; for St. John took a greater part in those events
than any other of the disciples.
It is a clearly proven fact that one and the same person
wrote the Fourth Gospel and the I. Epist. of St. John. Euse-
bius Hist. Eccl. III. 39) relates of Papias: "The same Papias
uses testimonies taken from the first Epistle of St. John." St.
Polycarp (To the Philippians 7) quotes I. John IV. 2, 3. St.
Irenseus (Against Heresies III. 16) quotes the epistle as of
John: "As John the disciple of the Lord confirms saying:
These things are written, etc. (John XX. 21.) Wherefore
also in his epistle he thus testifies to us: Little children, it is
the last hour. " (I. John II. 18) The testimony of Muratori s
Fragment is too well known to be quoted. Tertullian (Migne
II. 173): "Now let us see whom the Apostles saw, that St.
John declares: That which we saw; that which w<e have
heard, etc." (I. John I. i). Clement of Alex. (Strom. I
15): "John in his greater epistle seems to teach the difference
among sins: If any man see his brother sinning, etc." (I.
John V. 1 6, 17.) Without assuming it as absolutely proven
that the Gospel and Epistle are of the same author, certainly
the preponderance of proof is for the affirmative. Renan,
Koestlin, Jiilicher, Wrede, Wernle, and others admit the iden
tity. Accepting in its proper degree of probability the identity,
the following reasoning of Sanday (op. cit. pp. 76, 77) is
relevant :
INTRODUCTION i 7
"The prima facie view of this passage undoubtedly is that
the writer is speaking as one of a group of eye-witnesses. But
there are two ways in which this inference is turned aside.
"i. Harnack* and some others take it as referring not
to bodily but to mystical vision.
"2. Others, again, think of the writer as speaking in the
name of a whole generation, or of Christians generally.
"In regard to the first of these explanations we note that
the word Oeaa-Oai is used twenty-two times in all the New
Testament, including the present passage; and in every one of
bodily and not of mental or spiritual vision. And whatever
sense we may put upon seeing or hearing, it is difficult to ex
plain such a strong expression as that which . . . our hands
have handled/ w r here the writer seems to go out of his way to
exclude any ambiguity in any other sense than of physical
handling.
"In regard to the second explanation we observe that there
is a contrast between we and you, between teachers and
taught. The teachers are in any case a small body; and they
seem to rest their authority, or at least the impulse to teach,
on the desire to communicate to others what they had them
selves experienced. I have therefore little doubt that the
prima facie view of the passage is the right one. The writer
speaks of himself as a member of a small group, like that of the
Apostles, but a group that may include all who had really seen
the Lord and \vho afterwards took up the work of witnessing
to Him."
In the extrinsic proofs we find first that the Fourth Gospel
was known to the Apostolic Fathers and employed by them.
They did not mention its author, for such \vas not their cus
tom in quoting Holy Scripture. Clement of Rome [I. Epist.
on Virg. VI.] speaks of "John who reclined upon the breast of
our Divine Lord, whom the Lord greatly loved." [Cf. John,
XXI. 20.] In the same epistle VIII. he says: "That which
is born of flesh is flesh ; he who is of the earth is of the earth,
and speaksof the earth, and smacks of the earth." [John III. 6,
31.] And again, ibid. XIII., Clement quotes the exact words
^Chronologic, etc., p. 676.
(2) Gosp. I
i 8 INTRODUCTION
of John VI. 27. In his Second Epistle to Virgins, XV. he
writes: "It is written of Our Lord Jesus Christ that his dis
ciples coming and seeing Him near a fountain talking alone with
the Samaritan woman, they wondered that he spake with the
woman." [John IV. 27.] Clement quotes John XX. 17 in the
same chapter of this letter. There are less explicit references
to the Fourth Gospel in Hermas, Pastor Simil. IX. 12, compared
with John X. 7-9, XIV. 6, and Ignatius, Epist. to Philad. VII.
compared with John III. 8, and his Epist. to Romans VIII.
compared with John VI. 33-56. Justin the Martyr [Apol. I.
61] quotes John III. 3, 4. Tatian, the disciple of Justin, placed
the Gospel of John in his Diatessaron, and quotes John I. 5.
[Orat. against the Greeks.] Theophilus of Antioch (To Auto-
lycus II. 22) has this testimony: "These things the Holy
Scriptures teach us, and they that are inspired of the Holy
Ghost, of which number John says : In the beginning was the
Word. " [John I. i.]
The finest testimony of the second century is that of Ire-
naeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was the
disciple of John himself.
In his work "Against Heresies", III. i : "Afterwards
John, the disciple of the Lord, who reclined upon his bosom,
wrote his Gospel while dwelling at Ephesus." In the same
work, II. 22-5, Irenaeus speaks of "all the ancients w T ho had
assembled in Asia to John the disciple of the Lord." Again
III. II. i : "Thus he begins in the teaching which is according
to the Gospel: In the beginning was the Word. Ibidem,
he declares that "the Valentinians freely use the Gospel ac
cording to John."
A heretic of the second century who mingled opinions of
his own with Gnostic and Valentinian heresies, thus writes to
Flora: "Moreover (the Saviour) declared the world to be
made through himself: all things were made through him, and
without him was made nothing. By which words the Apostle
(John) refutes the false wisdom of lying men. [Epiph. Heresy
XXXIII. 3.]
Basilides [Philosoph. VII. 22]: "And this is declared in
the Gospels: He was the true light that enlighteneth every
man that cometh into this world. " [John I. 27.]
INTRODUCTION 19
Origen, as we have seen, clearly proclaims the Fourth
Gospel to be of John, and lest we should be doubtful of the
identity of this John he adds: "What shall we say of him
who reclined upon the breast of Jesus, I mean John? who has
left one Gospel, in which he confesses that he could write so
many that the whole world could not contain them. He also
wrote the Apocalypse, commanded as he was, to conceal, and
not to write, the voices of the seven thunders. He has also left
an Epistle consisting of very few lines; suppose, also, that a
second and third are from him, for not all agree that they are
genuine, but both together do not contain a hundred lines."
[Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. VI. 25.] The following testimonies
from Eusebius are corroborative of what has preceded :
"In this persecution, it is handed down by tradition, that
the apostle and evangelist John, who was yet living, in con
sequence of his testimony to the divine word, was condemned
to dwell on the island of Patmos." [Hist. Eccl. III. XVII.]
"About this time also, the beloved disciple of Jesus, John
the apostle and evangelist, still surviving, governed the churches
in Asia, after his return from exile on the island, and the death
of Domitian. But that he was still living until this time, it may
suffice to prove, by the testimony of two witnesses. These, as
maintaining sound doctrine in the church, may surely be re
garded as worthy of all credit: and such were Irenasus and
Clement of Alexandria. Of these, the former, in the second
book against heresies, writes in the following manner: And
all the presbyters of Asia, that had conferred with John, the
disciple of our Lord, testify that John had delivered it to them ;
for he continued with them until the times of Trajan. And
in the third book of the same work, he shows the same thing in
the following words: But the church in Ephesus also, which
had been founded by Paul, and where John continued to abide
until the times of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the apostolic
tradition. " [Ibid. III. XXIII.]
"The other followers of our Lord were also not ignorant
of such things, as the twelve apostles, and the seventy, to
gether with many others ; yet of all the disciples, Matthew and
John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments,
and even they, tradition says, undertook it from necessity.
20 INTRODUCTION
Matthew also having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew,
when on the point of going also to other nations, committed
it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want
of his presence to them, by his writings. But after Mark and
Luke had already published their Gospels, they say, that John
who during all this time was proclaiming the Gospel without
writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occa
sion. The three Gospels previously written, having been dis
tributed among all, and also handed to him, they say that he
admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth; but that
there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the
things done by Christ, among the first of His deeds, and at the
commencement of the Gospel. And this was the truth. For
it is evident that the other three evangelists only wrote the
deeds of our Lord for one year after the imprisonment of John
the Baptist, and intimated this in the very beginning of their
history. For after the fasting of forty days, and the conse
quent temptation, Matthew indeed specifies the time of his
history, in these words : But hearing that John was delivered
up, he returned from Judaea into Galilee. Mark in like man
ner writes : But after John was delivered up, Jesus came into
Galilee. And Luke, before he commenced the deeds of Jesus,
in much the same way designates the time saying, Herod thus
added, yet this wickedness above all he had committed, and
that he shut up John in prison. For these reasons the Apostle
John, it is said, being entreated to undertake it, wrote the
account of the time not recorded by the former evangelists,
and the deeds done by the Saviour, which they have passed by,
(for these were the events that occurred before the imprison
ment of John), and this very fact is intimated by him, when he
says, "this beginning of miracles Jesus made ; and then pro
ceeds to make mention of the Baptist, in the midst of our Lord s
deeds, as John was at the time baptizing at ^Enon near Salim.
he plainly also shows this in the words : John was not yet cast
into prison. The apostle, therefore, in his Gospel, gives the
deeds of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the
other three evangelists mention the circumstances after that
event. One who attends to these circumstances, can no longer
entertain the opinion, that the Gospels are at variance with
INTRODUCTION 21
each other, as the Gospel of John embraces the first events
of Christ, but the others, the history that took place at the
latter part of the time. It is probable, therefore, that for these
reasons John has passed by in silence the genealogy of our Lord,
because it was written by Matthew and Luke, but that he
commenced with the doctrine of the divinity, as a part reserved
for him, by the divine Spirit, as if for a superior. Let this suffice
to be said respecting the Gospel of John." [Ibid. III. XXIV.]
In the letter of Polycrates to Pope Victor we read this tes
timony: "For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which
shall rise again in the day of the Lord s appearing, in which
he will come with glory from heaven, and will raise up all the
saints ; Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hiera-
polis, and his two aged virgin daughters. His other daughter
also, who having lived under the influence of the Holy Ghost,
now likewise rests in Ephesus. Moreover, John who rested
upon the bosom of our Lord ; who also was a priest, and bore
the sacerdotal plate (TO TrerdXov}, * both a martyr and
teacher. He is buried in Ephesus; also Polycarp of Smyrna,
both bishop and martyr." . . . "And when the blessed Poly-
carp went to Rome, in the time of Anicetus, and they had a
little difference among themselves likewise respecting other
matters, they immediately were reconciled, not disputing much
with one another on this head. For neither could Anicetus
persuade Polycarp not to observe it, because he had always
observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of
the apostles, with whom he associated." [Ibid. V. XXIV.]
In Eccl. Hist. VI. XIV. Eusebius produces a testimony
from Clement of Alexandria: But John, last of all, perceiving
that what had reference to the body in the Gospel of our Sav
iour, was sufficiently detailed, and being encouraged by his
familiar friends, and urged by the spirit, he wrote a spiritual
Gospel."
Tertullian [Against Marcion IV. 2] declares that "of the
apostles, Matthew and John testify unto us."
*The sacerdotal plate here mentioned, is not to be understood of the
Jewish priesthood, for John had no connexion with that. It is probable
that he, with others, wore a badge like this, as the priests of a better
covenant.
22 INTRODUCTION
These testimonies are not weakened by the following
statement of Eusebius regarding Papias:
"We may mention as an instance what Ignatius has said
in the epistles we have cited, and Clement in that universally
received by all, which he wrote in the name of the church at
Rome to that of Corinth. In which, after giving many senti
ments taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also, liter
ally quoting the words, he most clearly shows that this \vork
is by no means a late production. Whence it is probable that
this was also numbered with the other writings of the Apostles.
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his
country; some say that the Evangelist Luke, others that
Clement, translated the epistle. Which also appears more like
the truth, as the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews
preserve the same features of style and phraseology, and
because the sentiments in both these works are not very
different.
"There are said to be five books of Papias, which bear the
title Interpretation of Our Lord s Declarations. Irenasus also
makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in
the following terms : These things are attested by Papias, who
was John s hearer and the associate of Polycarp, an ancient
writer, w r ho mentions them in the fourth book of his works.
For he has written a work in five books. So far Irenaeus.
But Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, by no
means asserts that he was a hearer and an eye-witness of the
holy apostles, but informs us that he received the doctrines of
faith from their intimate friends, which he states in the follow
ing words: But I shall not regret to subjoin to my interpre
tations, also for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time
accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I
have received it from the elders, and have recorded it in order to
give additional confirmation to the truth, by my testimony.
For I have never, like many, delighted to hear those that tell
many things, but those that teach the truth, neither those that
record foreign precepts, but those that are given from the Lord,
to our faith, and that came from the truth itself. But if I met
with any one who had been a follower of the elders any where,
I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the
INTRODUCTION 23
elders. What was said by Andrew, Peter or Philip; what
by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples
of our Lord; what was said by Aristion, and the presbyter
John, disciple of the Lord ; for I do not think that I derived so
much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that
are still surviving. Where it is also proper to observe the name
of John is twice mentioned. The former of which he mentions
with Peter and James and Matthew, and the other apostles;
evidently meaning the evangelist. But in a separate point of
his discourse he ranks the other John, with the rest not in
cluded, in the number of apostles, placing Aristion before him.
He distinguishes him plainly by the name of presbyter. So that
it is here proved that the statement of those is true, who assert
there were two of the same name in Asia, that there were also
two tombs in Ephesus, and that both are called John s even to
this day; which it is particularly necessary to observe. For it
is probable that the second, if it be not allowed that it was the
first, saw the revelation ascribed to John. And the same
Papias, of whom \ve now speak, professes to have received the
declarations of the apostles from those that were in company
with them, and says also that he was a hearer of Aristion and
the presbyter John. For as he has often mentioned them by
name, he also gives their statements in his own works. . . .
The same historian also gives other accounts, which he says he
adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise
certain strange parables of our Lord, and of his doctrine and
some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there
would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that
there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth ;
which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were
authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding cor
rectly those matters which they propounded mystically in their
representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension,
as is evident from his discourses ; yet he was the cause why most
of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of the man, were
carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus,
or any other that adopted such sentiments. He has also in
serted in his work other accounts given by the above mentioned
Aristion, respecting our Lord, as also the traditions of the pres-
24 INTRODUCTION
byter John, to which referring those that are desirous of learn
ing them, we shall now subjoin to the extracts from him, al
ready given, a tradition which he sets forth concerning Mark,
who wrote the Gospel, in the following words : And John the
presbyter also said this, Mark being the interpreter of Peter
whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy. " [Hist.
Ecc. III. 39.]
This obscure reference to the second John is all that tra
dition contains concerning him. The language of Papias is
obscure and indefinite. Eusebius leaves to this John a doubt
ful existence ; but he clearly denies to him the authorship of the
Fourth Gospel. Whether or not John the Divine, distinct from
John the Apostle, existed does not come into our present ques
tion, since no testimony of antiquity connects his name with
the Fourth Gospel.
The opponents of John s authorship oppose to this convinc
ing evidence fanciful and arbitrary assertions. Weizsaecker
[Apostoliches Zeitalter, p. 537] finds the principal argument
to be that the doctrine of the Logos could never have been
promulgated by a man who had conversed with the man Jesus.
In this style of argument a man closes his eyes to all external
evidence, and coins an argument out of his own rationalistic
prepossession. He hates the supernatural, therefore he must
attribute his own state of mind to St. John. There have been
others who have refused to believe in the divinity of Jesus
Christ, for the reason that he was a man and dwelt among us.
Holtzmann (Einleitung p. 446) agrees with Weizsaecker that
it is a psychological enigma that a man should predicate the
transcendental doctrine of the Logos of a man whom he saw in
daily life, and whose popular discourses he heard. Christianity
is founded on mysteries, and they who refuse to believe in
mysteries must turn to violent theories to explain the great
facts on which our faith is based. We pass over the exegetical
difficulties for these will be dealt with in the commentary of
the text.
The adversaries urge that Polycarp, Ignatius, and Papias
and Justin maintain silence concerning John. To a part of this
objection, Dr. Dru.mmond answers thus :
INTRODUCTION 25
"But why, then, it may be asked, has Justin not quoted
the Fourth Gospel at least as often as the other three ? I can
not tell, any more than I can tell why he has never named the
supposed authors of his Memoirs, or has mentioned only one
of the parables, or made no reference to the Apostle Paul, or
nowhere quoted the Apocalypse, though he believed it to be
an apostolic and prophetical work. His silence may be due
to pure accident, or the book may have seemed less adapted
to his apologetic purposes; but considering how many things
there are about which he is silent, we cannot admit that the
argumentum a silentio possesses in this case any validity." . . .
"An instructive instance of the danger of arguing from
what is not told is furnished by Theophilus of Antioch. He
does not mention the names of the writers of the Gospels, ex
cept John ; he does not tell us anything about any of them ; he
says nothing about the origin or the date of the Gospels them
selves, or about their use in the Church. He quotes from them
extremely little, though he quotes copiously from the Old
Testament. But most singular of all, in a defence of Chris
tianity he tells us nothing about Christ Himself; if I am not
mistaken, he does not so much as name Him or allude to Him ;
and, if the supposition were not absurd, it might be argued
with great plausibility that he cannot have known anything
about Him. For he undertakes to explain the origin of the
word Christian ; but there is not a word about Christ, and his
conclusion is ^/iet? TOVTOV eivercev ica\ov/jie0a on ^piofieda eXaiov
0eou [Ad Autol. I. 12.] In the following chapter, when he
would establish the doctrine of the resurrection, you could
not imagine that he had heard of the resurrection of Christ ;
and instead of referring to this, he has recourse to the
changing seasons, the fortune of seeds, the dying and the
reappearance of the moon, and the recovery from illness.
We may learn from these curious facts that it is not correct
to say that a writer knows nothing of certain things, simply
because he had not occasion to refer to them in his only extant
writing: or even because he does not mention them when his
subject would seem naturally to lead him to do so."
Only the merest fragments exist of Papias, hence the
argument of silence in these avails nothing. Ignatius clearly
26 INTRODUCTION
indicates that he knew the Fourth Gospel in the citation that
we have given from him. Concerning his silence Bishop
Light foot [Apostolic Fathers I. II., 404] speaks thus: "No
little difficulty has been occasioned by the fact that the writer,
addressing the Ephesians ( 12), adverts to their connection
with St. Paul, but is silent about their connection with St.
John. As I have explained in the notes [II. p. 64], there was a
special reason why St. Paul should be mentioned, which did
not apply to St. John. It is as one who, like Ignatius himself,
had been received by the Ephesians on his way to Rome and
to martyrdom, that the Apostle of the gentiles is singled out
for mention."
We have given a clear reference to John s Gospel in the
Apologia of Justin.
The objection that the Gospel of St. John is a de
velopment of St. Paul s theology deserves no notice.
The objection that the author of the Fourth Gospel always
speaks of the beloved disciple in the third person, instead of
being an objection, is of a proof of our thesis. It is a singular
fact that John the Apostle is not mentioned by name in the
Fourth Gospel. With that grand humility which he had
learned from his divine Master St. John conceals his identity,
and suppresses what egotism would have accentuated. An
instance of this is thus poetically pointed out by Sanday [op.
cit. pp. 82, 83].
"When w y e take the last two paragraphs of the first chap
ter of the Gospel [I. 35-51], I think we shall feel as though
we were being introduced to a little circle of neighbors and ac
quaintances. Two friends, one of whom is called Andrew, and
the other is unnamed, are interested in what they have seen
of Jesus and in what the Baptist had said about Him, and they
ask leave to join Him. They remain for some hours in His
company; and it is clear that their interest is not diminished.
Andrew finds his brother Simon, and he too is brought up and
introduced. Jesus Himself takes the initiative in inviting a
fourth, Philip. We are told expressly that Philip was from the
same city as the two before named; and he in turn finds and
introduces his friend Nathanael. There is just one of the five
whose name is not given. He is the silent spectator in the
background. What if it were he to whom we owe the story?"
INTRODUCTION 2 7
In 1862, Nolte [Tub. Ouartalsch. p. 453] published a
testimony from Papias alleged by George Hamartolus, a writer
of the ninth century. More recently De Boor (Texte und
Untersuch. V. 2. p. 170) discovered a fragment of the same
nature. The import of these testimonies is that St. John was
slain by the Jews. If these testimonies are genuine, which is
very doubtful, they prove nothing against our thesis, since
they do not state that he was slain in Palestine at the time that
his brother was slain by Herod Antipas. If he were slain by
the Jews, it was at Ephesus many years later.
Dr. Sanday [op. cit. p. 80-82] thus answers another
difficulty :
The Gospel closes with a scene in which the writer refers
in his usual oblique way to himself. I cannot think that there
is any real reason for the assumption, which is so often and so
confidently made, that the last chapter is an appendix written
after the author was dead. On this point, again, I entirely
agree with Dr. Drummond. It is surely conceivable that the
aged disciple, feeling death stealing upon him, might point
out that no words of Jesus justified the expectation which had
arisen among some of his devoted friends. The complete
identity of thought and style, and the way in which this last
chapter is dovetailed into the preceding ( This is now the third
time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples ; compare at
the beginning of the Gospel the counting up of the first Galilean
miracles, II. n, IV. 54), seem to prove that the last chapter is
by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel.
"But at the very end another hand does take up the pen;
and this time the writer speaks in the name of a plurality:
This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and
wrote these things : and we know that his witness is true . [XXI.
24.] The critics w r ho assert that the Gospel is not the work of
an eye-witness, and even those who say that the last chapter
was not written by the author of the whole, wantonly accuse
these last words of untruth. That is another of the methods
of modern criticism that seem to me sorely in need of reforming.
I hope that a time may come when it will be considered as
wrong to libel the dead as it is to libel the living.
28 INTRODUCTION
"I accept, then, this last verse as weighty testimony to the
autoptic character of the Gospel. It is easy to see that the two
concluding verses are added on the occasion of its publication
by those who published it. They, as it were, endorse the wit
ness which it had borne to itself."
The Church s recent pronouncements on this question are
very positive. The following is the official text of a decision
of the Biblical Commission, which decision has the sanction of
the Pope :
"Propositis sequentibus dubiis Commissio Pontificia de
Re Biblica sequenti modo respondit :
"Dubium I. Utrum ex constanti, universal! ac solemni
Ecclesiae traditione iam a saeculo II decurrente, prout maxime
eruitur: a) ex SS. Patrum, scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, imo
etiam haereticorum, testimoniis et allusionibus, quae, cum ab
Apostolorum discipulis vel primis successoribus derivasse
oportuerit, necessario nexu cum ipsa libri origine cohaerent;
6) ex recepto semper et ubique nomine auctoris quarti Evan-
gelii in canone et catalogis sacrorum Librorum; c} ex eorum-
dem Librorum vetustissimis manuscriptis codicibus et in varia
idiomata versionibus; d) ex publico usu liturgico inde ab Ec
clesiae primordiis toto orbe obtinente ; praescindendo ab argu-
mento theologico, tarn solido argumento historico demon-
stretur Joannem Apostolum et non alium quarti Evangelii
auctorem esse agnoscendum, ut rationes a criticis in oppo-
situm adductae hanc traditionem nullatenus infirment?
"Resp. Affirmative.
Dubium II. Utrum etiam rationes internae quae eruun-
tur ex textu quarti Evangelii seiunctim considerate, ex scrib-
entis testimonio et Evangelii ipsius cum I. Epistola loannis
Apostoli manifesta cognatione, censendae sint confirmare
traditionem quae eidem Apostolo quartum Evangelium
indubitanter attribuit? Et utrum difficultates quae ex colla-
tione ipsius Evangelii cum aliis tribus desumuntur, habita prae
oculis diversitate temporis, scopi et auditorum pro quibus vel
contra quos auctor scripsit, solvi rationabiliter possint, prout
SS. Patres et exegetae catholici passim praestiterunt ?
"Resp. Affirmative ad utramque partem.
INTRODUCTION 29
"Dubinin III. Utrum, non obstante praxi quae a primis
temporibus in universa Ecclesia constantissime viguit, ar-
guendi ex quarto Evangelio tamquam ex documento proprie
historico, considerata nihilominus indole peculiar! eiusdem
Evangelii, et intentione auctoris manifesta illustrandi et vin-
dicandi Christi divinitatem ex ipsis factis et sermonibus Domini,
dici possit facta narrata in quarto Evangelio esse totaliter vel
ex parte conficta ad hoc ut sint allegoriae vel symbola doc-
trinalia, sermones vero Domini non proprie et vere esse ipsius
Domini sermones, sed compositiones theologicas scriptoris,
licet in ore Domini positas?
"Res p. Negative.
"Die autem 29 Maii ann. 1907, in Audientia ambobus Rmis.
Consultoribus ab Actis benigne concessa, Sanctissimus prae-
dicta Responsa rata habuit ac publici iuris fieri mandavit.
FULCRANUS VlGOUROUX, P. S. S.
LAURENTIUS JANSSENS, O. S. B.
Consultores ab Actis."
In conclusion we call attention to the sixteenth paragraph
of the Syllabus delivered by Pius X. on July 17, 1907: "The
narrations of John are not real history but a mystic contem
plation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel
are theological meditations on the mystery of salvation, and are
devoid of historical veracity." This proposition is condemned
in its entire text.
The great scope of the Fourth Gospel is clearly stated by
its author in the twentieth chapter, thirty-first verse : - but
these things are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in
His name."
The author wrote his Gospel to prove that the man Jesus
who had taught the people in Judaea and Galilee, who had
wrought great miracles, and w r ho was crucified, was the Mes
siah of prophecy, the true consubstantial Son of God, and that
faith in him was the groundwork of salvation.
John analyzes more deeply than the others the concept of
the divinity of Christ. He enters more deeply into the mystery
of the Incarnation. He begins by the wonderful description of
30 INTRODUCTION
the generation of the .Word. In the course of his Gospel he
makes much of every word and every deed that was effective
to prove that Jesus was the consubstantial Son of God. He
alone relates the strong testimony of John the Baptist, pro
claiming that Jesus was the Son of God. John is most careful
to record every testimony wherein Jesus proclaimed himself the
Son of God. It is in John X. 30, that we find the wonderful
testimony : "I and the Father are one. "
The great design of the author runs through the entire
Gospel, wherefore truthfully did Origen declare: "None of
the Evangelists has so clearly manifested the divinity of Jesus
as John, who records Jesus as saying: I am the light of the
world ; I am the way, the truth, and the life ; I am the resurrec
tion; I am the gate; I am the good shepherd . . . . We are
bold, therefore, to say that the Gospels are the most excellent
of all the Scriptures, and the Gospel of John is the most excel
lent of the Gospels, whose sense no man can penetrate except
him who has reclined upon the breast of Jesus, and who has
received from Jesus Mary, that she should become his mother. "
[Orig. in Joh. I. 6.]
It becomes evident by the reading of the Gospel of St.
John that he was conversant with the synoptic Gospels, and
presupposes a knowledge of the same in his readers. The
whole plan and tenor of the Gospel reveals this. No one un
acquainted with the data of the synoptists could get an ade
quate idea of Christ s Incarnation, birth, life and death from
John alone. He omits everything connected with the nativity
and early life of Jesus, and with one grand sentence passes from
the eternal generation of the Word to the testimony of John
the Baptist at the baptism of Christ. And throughout the
work it is evident that John is speaking a higher, more spiritual
message to the adult Christians. The testimony of Clement
of Alexandria already adduced bears witness to this fact, and
the other old writers concur.
To understand more fully the purpose which St. John
wished to accomplish in writing his Gospel, let us take a rapid
survey of the religious aspect of the civilized world of his day.
The Jews had in large part rejected Christ and were using all
methods of persuasion and crafty devices to destroy Christ s
INTRODUCTION 31
cause. Christianity was yet in its formative stage ; much was
yet obscure and a great danger menaced those early Christians
from the cunning arguments of the Jews.
There had arisen also the several branches of the Gnostic
heresy, all of which were more or less tinged with the Judaizing
errors.
One of these principal errors was the system of the Ebion-
ites. Of this system Eusebius speaks thus:
"These are properly called Ebionites by the ancients, as
those who cherished low and mean opinions of Christ. For
they considered him a plain and common man, and justified
only by his advances in virtue, and that he was born of the
Virgin Mary by natural generation. With them the observ
ance of the law was altogether necessary, as if they could not be
saved only by faith in Christ and a corresponding life. Others
however, besides these, but of the same name, indeed avoided
the absurdity of the opinions maintained by the former, not
denying that the Lord was born of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost,
and yet in like manner, not acknowledging his pre-existence,
though he was God, the Word and wisdom, they turned aside
into the same irreligion, as with the former they evinced great
zeal to observe the ritual service of the law. These, indeed
thought in the first place that all the Epistles of the Apostle
ought to be rejected, calling him an apostate from the law;
and moreover, only using the Gospel according to the He
brews, they esteem the others as of but little value. They also
observe the Sabbath and other discipline of the Jews, just
like them, but on the other hand, they also celebrate the Lord s
days very much like us, in commemoration of His resurrection.
Whence, in consequence of such a course, they have also re
ceived their epithet, the name of Ebionites, exhibiting the
poverty of their intellect. For it is thus that the Hebrew calls
a poor man." [Euseb. Hist. Eccles. III. 27.]
Another celebrated error of the time was the heresy of
Cerinthus. This is described by Eusebius as follows :
"About the same time, we have understood, appeared
Cerinthus, the leader of another heresy. Caius, whose words
we quoted above, in The Disputation attributed to him, writes
thus respecting him: But Cerinthus, by means of revelations
32 INTRODUCTION
which he pretended were written by a great Apostle, also falsely
pretended to wonderful things, as if they were showed him by
angels, asserting, that after the resurrection there would be an
earthly kingdom of Christ, and that the flesh, i. e. men, again
inhabiting Jerusalem, would be subject to desires and pleasures.
Being also an enemy of the divine Scriptures, with a view to
deceive men, he said that there would be a space of a thousand
years for celebrating nuptial festivals. Dionysius also, who
obtained the Episcopate of Alexandria in our day, in the second
book On Promises, where he says some things as if received
by ancient tradition, makes mention of the same man, in these
words : But it is highly probable that Cerinthus, the same that
established the heresy that bears his name, designedly affixed
the name (of John) to his own forgery. For one of the doc
trines that he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly
kingdom. And as he \vas a voluptuary, and altogether sensual,
he conjectured that it would consist in those things that he
craved, in the gratification of appetite and lust ; i. e. in eating,
drinking, and marrying, or in such things whereby he sup
posed these sensual pleasures might be presented in more de
cent expressions; viz. in festivals, sacrifices, and the slaying of
victims. [Euseb. Hist. Eccles. III. 28].
A more detailed account of the same heresy is given by
Irenasus: "John, the disciple of the Lord, in proclaiming his
doctrines wished, by the promulgation of his Gospel, to extir
pate the error that had been disseminated among men by
Cerinthus and before him by the Nicolaitae, w r ho are an offshoot
of that which is falsely called knowledge (yixScm). John wrote
that he might confute these and prove that there is one God
who made all things by his Word. Whereas these heretics say
that the Creator is distinct from the Father of the Lord, and
that Christ, is a superior nature and that Jesus was the Son of
the Creator. They say that Christ was impassible, and that he
descended into Jesus the Creator s Son, and afterwards re
turned to his source (TrX^pw/ia). They say that the First
Cause was only-begotten, and that the Word is the true son of
the only-begotten one. They say that the creation of which
we form a part was not made by the first God, but by a power
far inferior, and having no communication with the invisible
INTRODUCTION 33
and ineffable things. Wherefore the disciple of the Lord, wish
ing to extirpate all these errors, and establish a rule of truth in
the Church, proclaimed that there is one God Almighty who
made all things, visible and invisible, by his Word, and that by
his Word through whom he made the universe, through the
same he wrought salvation for men, and thus he begins: In
the beginning was the Word. " [St. Iren. Contra. Haer. III. 9.]
Of the sect of the Nicolaitae we know but little, but it is
highly probable that they embodied in their doctrine the funda
mental errors of Gnosticism. Now the cardinal position of
Gnosticism was that Jesus was distinct from and inferior to the
Christ, and that Christ an impassible being dwelt in the man
Jesus for a time and then abandoned him. Against the Gnostic
system John has explicitly written in his Epistles: "Who is the
liar but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ. [I. Jo. II. 22.]
And again: "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit
that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God,
and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and
this is the Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh;
and now it is in the world already." [I. Jo. IV. 2, 3.]
It was the belief of many Fathers that John wrote his
Gospel directly against these same errors. Thus Jerome testi
fies: "Last of all John, being asked by the bishops of Asia,
wrote his Gospel against Cerinthus and other heretics, and
especially against the Ebionites, who say that Christ existed
not before his conception by Mary, and hence John was obliged
to narrate the eternal generation of the Word." [De Vir. 111.
IX.]
Now it is certain that the refutation of all these errors was
contemplated by the author of the Fourth Gospel, yet we do
not believe the leading purpose of the Evangelist to have been
the refutation of the same. There is a complete absence of
polemical tone in the Gospel. Its plan is large; it addresses
itself to believers, and the various errors of these heretics are
not once mentioned. Wherefore we believe that the Evangel
ist conceived the design of teaching the faithful the deeper
truths relating to the divinity and coequal sonship of Jesus
that they might be thereby safeguarded against the Gnostic
pest, and the arguments of the Jews, and every other error that
(3) Gosp. I
34 INTRODUCTION
might arise against the Incarnation. His object, therefore,
was to give to the faithful such a broad and eep insight into
the truth of the divinity of Christ that they might withstand
any opponent. We believe therefore that he destined his
Gospel for the instruction of all men.
An Exposition of the Four Gospels
LUKE I. i 4 .
i. Exec8f}xep xoXXol exe^sf-
prjaav avaTa^aaOat Siiftiqaiv xepl
TWV xexXY)po<popY][ji.va>v ev TJJUV xpay-
2. Ka6co<; xaplBoaav r^tv ol
dx dp^fj? auT^xTai xat uxY]petat
yevo^evot TOU
3. "EBo^e xd^ot, xapri
]x6Tt avtoOev x
cot ypd^at, xpa
1 . Forasmuch as many have
taken in hand to set forth in
order a narration of these things
which have been fully proven
and believed among us,
2. According as they deliv
ered them unto us who from
the beginning were eye-wit
nesses and ministers of the
word ;
3. It seemed good to me
also, having diligently acquired
knowledge of all things from the
very first, to write unto thee in
order, most excellent The-
ophilus,
4. That thou mayest know
the certainty of those things
wherein thou hast been in
structed.
These lines constitute the preamble of Luke. In them he
gives first the causes which led him to write his Gospel, and
secondly, he gives the general plan and aim of the same. In
the first place therefore, there had been many attempts to set
in order the Gospel narrative. We shall first endeavor to see
whom Luke understands by the "many" who had attempted
to do what Luke here essays to accomplish.
4. "Iva ixcyvax; xept wv
Xoywv TYJV da^d
(35)
36 LUKE I. i 4
Maldonatus understands by the "many" Matthew and
Mark. Patrizi rejects this position, and we believe that inter
nal evidence favors Patrizi.
In the first place, we can not believe that Luke would
designate two as many, TroXXoi. Again, Luke seems to infer
that he is writing for an existing need, and that therefore the
efforts of those who had tried to order the events of Christ s
life had failed to accomplish that for which they strove. Now,
Luke could hardly speak thus of the Gospels of Matthew and
Mark. Patrizi argues from the verb eTrexeipyaav used by Luke
that the efforts of the TroXXot had been fruitless. ETrt^etpea)
radically means to put one s hand to any enterprise, and, of it
self, it leaves the issue uncertain.
We believe that Luke recognized an existing need for his
work, and by this prefatory remark, as it were, asks the
benevolence of the reader for the effort that he was about to
make. The natural sense of the words conveys this: "Many
have endeavored to do this thing, I also thought it good for me
to try." Again Luke says that the TroXXcu and he also en
deavored to order the narrative according to what those who
had been eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word had handed
down. Now, Matthew did not order his Gospel from what
eye-witnesses handed down, but from what he in person saw,
and from events in which he was a factor. Since Luke then
makes the TroXXot like himself dependent on the tradition of the
Apostles, he cannot include in the term Matthew, and conse
quently Mark would not of himself satisfy the import of TTO\\OL.
Now it is evident to all that Luke would not rank Mark with
uninspired writers. Therefore, we believe that it is clearly
evident that Luke did not designate Matthew and Mark by the
TroXXot mentioned in his proem. It is also evident that Luke
inveighs not against those who had attempted what he was
minded to try ; hence the Apocryphal Gospels cannot be here
understood. Luke speaks of his attempt as a writing; he does
not say that those who had tried before him had written. We
believe, then, that he spoke of a general movement among the
early Christians, of whom he had knowledge, to induce a his
torical and logical order into the Gospel narrative. This move
ment would work both by writing and by oral discourse. These
LUKE I. i 4 37
writings were not inspired, and have either perished or are
lying in obscurity. Luke seems to be in full sympathy with
the movement, and, for that reason, sets out to write his Gospel
to satisfy the need that had compelled others to set on this
movement. We have departed from the Vulgate in the ver
sion of the 7r\rjpo(j)opecD of this verse. By weighing the radical
signification of the word, and its present context, we are per
suaded that Luke wished to express thereby the objective
certainty of the data of the Gospel which had begotten full
faith in himself and his co-religionists to whom he spoke. He,
therefore, sets out to put in order those things of which they
were fully convinced. It was not to be a communication of a
new and unheard-of message, but the ordering of accepted facts
and truths.
In the second verse Luke gives the fount whence he and
his predecessors drew these data. This fount was the oral
teaching of the Apostles, the agency that was first founded by
Christ, and which perse veringiii the Church to -day is paramount,
and uses the Scriptures as a subordinate means to teach infal
lible truth. The entire second verse modifies the clause, "to
set forth in order" etc. Luke thereby gives the sources of the
knowledge which he and others were endeavoring to order.
Luke adduces two qualifications of these sources to show
that they are worthy of credence. First, those who handed
down the things were ai/roTr-rot,, eye-witnesses and subordinate
co-laborers virriperai, in the events. Ao yo? here means the whole
of the things set forth in the narration. Presupposing their
veracity, which their office as chosen legates of God evinced,
those who had been eye-witnesses and actors in these great
things could demand credence for their narration.
In the third verse Luke sets forth his purpose to write in
order the things learned from the Apostles. The KCLI of this
verse indicates that Luke intends to prosecute the same plan of
action as his predecessors, to put into order the Gospel narration.
This purpose of Luke is clearly discernible in his Gospel. In
it the right order of the events is preserved much better than in
the others. In view of this, some have termed Matthew the
preacher; Mark, the chronicler, and Luke, the historian. Tak
ing the facts of the Gospel from the before mentioned source,
38 LUKE I. i 4
he examined them with critical acumen, and induced into them
a logical and chronological order. The force of the Greek
vd^icoTi imparts that careful study of the events
v, a princ-ipio, going back even to the conception of the
precursor, John the Baptist. This diligent examination of all
things relating to the subject forces us to admit that the Gos
pels of Matthew and Mark were examined by Luke. We be
lieve then that Luke had for data these Gospels together with
the oral preaching of the Apostles, in a word, the oral and writ
ten data of his time.
Concerning the identity of Theophilus, opinions are dis
cordant. Some maintain that by this name was signified any
Christian, since etymologically eo <iXo5 would signify a lover
of God. Others again, believe that such name was employed
by Luke to represent some particular church ; while the third
opinion holds that by such name Luke designated some in
dividual to whom the Gospel was dedicated. We believe that
the third opinion is best founded.
It ill comports with the dignity of the theme of Luke s
Gospel to conceive it being addressed to a fictitious person, or
to a class personified in a name indicative of their chief quality.
No examples of such address are found in the other writers of
either testament. That St. Francis de Sales has thus dedicated
"Philothea" forms no proof, as the usages of his day permitted
this. By such a strange unheard-of mode of dedication Luke
would have aroused an admiration not compatible with his
design. Again, the eVi 0eToi>, Kpantrre^ would be out of place,
were Luke not addressing a known individual. Such epithet
denoted exalted official station, or nobility in social rank.
Such address to an indefinite Christian would be aimless.
Finally, there is in the whole dedication an air of personal
address, conveying clearly the impression that the author is
speaking to a known individual. Who Theophilus was, it is
impossible to say. His relations to Luke must have been close,
since both Luke s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles are
dedicated to him. Most probably he was a gentile of high
station converted by the oral teaching of the Apostles. To con
firm Theophilus faith and establish the greater certainty of
its data, Luke wrote. Such disorder may have crept into the
JOHN I. i 39
Gospel narration, for the reason that the Apostles in teaching
and in writing paid small heed to the order of events, but gave
themselves to the teaching of the great truths of Christianity.
Luke now sees the need of bringing more order into the account,
which had already been taught Theophilus.
We now pass to the sublime proem of John, the descrip
tion of the eternal generation of the Word.
JOHN I. i.
i. In the beginning was the i. Ev ap^yj -qv 6 Xoyoc;, *ac 6
Word, and the Word was with A6yoq fy xpb? TOV 0ebv, xal sb<;
God, and the Word was God. YJV 6
By this first sentence, John shows plainly that he has set
out to prove that Jesus, the Man of Galilee is Christ, the Son
of God. Now as sonship of God could be taken in different
senses, John expounds the natural incommunicable eternal
sonship of Christ. Diverging opinions exist concerning the
sense of the ev apxy. Cyril and Origen understand by this
apxn the Eternal Father, and they believe that John wished
to convey by such expression the primal source in the Father
whence sprang the Son. Such exegesis is also favored by later
Thomists. We believe such opinion to be erroneous and sub
versive of the plan of the Evangelist. In the first place, if
John wished to convey such idea, he would not have used such
a harsh expression. God is the &pxn of all things; but to
designate God thus, without any explanation, is a harsh, diffi
cult expression. We believe that, had he wished to convey
such thought, he would have said ev ea> or ev rfj liarpi
was the Word. Again, certainly he uses ev apxy in the
second verse in the same sense as in the first. Now, if we give
to it in this second verse the sense set down by Origen, it would
be equivalent to saying: "This was in God with God," which
is a plain absurdity. We place then, as a certain opinion, that
the ev apxy refers to duration. The Gnostic heresy asserted
that Jesus was not before his incarnation. To refute their
position, John goes back to the beginning of things, and sets
forth the existence of the Word before time was. John s
40 JOHN I. i
intention is to proclaim by this first clause the eternity of the
Word. Now eternity can neither be adequately conceived
nor described by a finite intelligence. This being so, John
makes the best effort that human speech will permit to describe
the infinite, preexisting life of the Word. The term apx^j
does not mark a definite point taken as a terminus a quo from
which time the Word, which had not existed before it, began to
exist. It is simply the projecting of the existence of the Word
back into the boundless duration of eternity. It is not the
position of a point where existence began, but the negation of
any point where non-existence could be predicated. This con
cept is strengthened by the use of the imperfect rjv which
signifies continuance of duration. The Word had a begin
ning, but not a temporal beginning. The Word had a beginning
of origin in being begotten of the Father, but this genesis was
co-eternal with the essence of God, hence John rightly refutes
any position of a point when the Word was not. The apx-n here
then has not the signification that Moses gave to it in Genesis.
There it meant simply that definite point at which time began.
Here it means the negation of any point at which the eternal
duration of the Son of God could not be predicated of him.
Thus we can say with perfect orthodoxy that God was from the
beginning, meaning by the beginning the human mode of desig
nating eternal preexisting duration. If John meant to fix
a period at which the Word began, he could not have used the
imperfect tense r\v. Such tense of the verb signifies pre-ex
isting duration. Hence, John says in effect : "Go back to the
indefinite conceivable ages ; exhaust the intellect in going back
and going back, and you see always at every point the Word
pre-existing, co-eternally existing." The Nicene Council made
use of this classical text to prove the co-eternity of the Word
against the Arians who defended this formula: "Erat quando
non erat." The application of this text by the Council to
establish the eternity of the Word serves as an authentic in
terpretation for us.
No other writer of the New Testament save John desig
nates the Son of God as the Actyo?, the Word. The reasons
for this are evident. No other writer ex professo describes the
generation of the essential Son of, God, and hence such term did
JOHN I. i 41
not come within their scope. In the days of John, the Platonic
philosophy had filled men s minds with ideal creations. The
philosophy of Plato made the essences of all things separate
from matter. Now the Gnostics, making use of this trend of
thought attacked the divine sonship of Jesus. The world had
need hence to know, as far as it is given to man to know,
something of this intellectual act by which the Eternal Father
begot the Son. Hence the Holy Ghost moved John to out
line the mode of birth of the only-begotten Son of God. Man,
who derives his ideas of sonship from the carnal process of
procreation, needed some clearer concept of the generation
of God s Eternal Son. The Platonic philosophy had paved
the way for men to understand this truth. And as John was
to describe the generation of the Son, no other term would
convey that concept as forcibly as Ao 7o?.
From an analogy between things human and things divine
we may gain, by introspection into our own intellectual pro
cesses, some knowledge of the act of the Deity, that begot the
Word.
When we form an idea in our minds of anything, we gen
erate an exact ideal counterpart of the thing in our intellect.
That creation is accidental in us, and adds nothing to the
creatures of the universe. That image of the thing existing in
the intellect is called the verbum mentale. Now God from all
eternity comprehended his essence, and formed an adequate
idea thereof. That idea exactly corresponds in everything to
his essence, and is a subsistent individual. This is the Aoyos,
the Son of God, indistinct in nature, because it is simply the
very nature of God as by God comprehended ; distinct in per
son, because the idea is subsistent. Neither is the Word the
intellect of the Father. That faculty is identical with the
essential nature of God, and is equally and indivisibly possessed
by the three divine persons, but the Word is the fruit of the
divine intellect informed? by the essence of God. Lactantius,
Tertullian and others understood by the Logos the externalized
word of God and thus translated it "Sermo." Thus also it is
translated in the Persian version. This is evidently an erron
eous concept. The Son of God is not the spoken word, but the
internal, intellectual, subsistent image of the comprehended
42 JOHN I. i
divine essence. Such concept formed the basis of the objec
tion of Arius : Multa verba loquitur Deus ; quodnani igitur ex
istis verbis Filium et Verbum unigenitum Patris esse dicimus?"
In our concept, in which we make the generation of the
Word to be the internal, intellectual act by which God forms
in His mind an adequate subsistent image of His own divine
essence, we can plainly see that there could be but one genera
tion in God. The Word was the fruit of the one necessary intel
lection by which God comprehended his essence, and caused
to emanate therefrom an exact subsistent image, and such act
can be but one.
The old heretics objected that it was a contradiction in
terms to say that the Son proceeded from the Father, and yet
was co-eternal with the Father ; for they said, being preceded
action, and therefore the Father must have existed previously
to the act of generation of the Son. St. Augustine responded
by appealing to the example of fire. "If," he says, "there
were an eternal fire, its splendor would also be eternal, although
proceeding from the fire, as a property. In like manner a bush
overhanging a fountain, if it were eternal, would have an eternal
shadow in the water. " If the material sun in the heavens were
eternal, its emanating light would be eternal. There is a prior
ity of causality but not of time in such cases ; and so in God, the
Father and the Word are co-eternal, although the Word pro
ceeded from the Father.
It is interesting to observe the approaches of the pagan
philosophers to the mystery of the Trinity. Thus, for instance,
Plato and others designated the Father as vow, the mind,
and the Son as \dyos, the offspring of the mind. The saying
of Plato is celebrated: "Monas genuit monadem, et in se
reflexit ardorem," which nearly corresponds to the Christian
formula of the Trinity. The Father begat the Son, and the
subsistent act of love existing between Father and Son is the
Holy Spirit.
In the opening clause John sets forth two things, the
eternity of the Word, and the Word s mode of being. The
first is conveyed by the eV a/o%?}, the second by the term Ao yo?,
which essentially points to emanation from some intellectual
principle. He next proceeds to set forth the union between
JOHN I. i
43
this eternal emanation and its begetting principle: The
Word was with God . There is clearly conveyed in this phrase
the separate personality of the Eternal Father and the Eternal
Word, since, if the Word was with the Father, he must have
been individually distinct from him. This passage refutes
the Sebellians, since it would be absurd to say that the Word,
if it were personally identical with the Father, was with God.
Again, the phrase signifies the eternal union of the Son and the
Father. God here does not signify the divine essence but only
the person of the Father.
And the Word was God. Here is signified, as a principal
and main import, the consubstantiality of the Son with the
Father. This was one of the classic texts against the Arians.
These asserted that in the one eternal person of God there were
intellection and love, but that God became the Father only
from the time that he produced his external Word as his first
creature and through him the other creatures of the universe.
Arius might have sought authority for his heresy in a possible
perverse interpretation of the preceding words. He might
have said that the Word began in the beginning, and was with
God but was not God. But this last clause precludes such
opinion, and establishes the consubstantiality of the Son of
God, against which the Arian heresy waged a long and terrible
conflict. Although in the juxtaposition of the words eo ?, is
placed first, Ao ^o? is the subject of the sentence, and eo <?
the predicate. Patrizi strenuously asserts that God here
denotes the person of the Son. He argues that, as in the pre
ceding clause eo? must have a personal signification, John
could not have here changed its import. He attempts also to
establish that God, signifying the divine essence, can not be
predicated of the Son. This we must consider as erroneous.
It is absurd to say that John to suit the exigencies of his sub
lime narration could not have given to these terms that signifi
cation which comported best with his design, even though such
would cause an abrupt change in the sense of those terms.
Patrizi s second argument is dogmatic. He asserts that, if we
make @eo <? the predicate and give it the signification of the
divine nature, since such divine nature is indivisible, it would
follow that the Word was the entire divine nature. This con-
44 JOHN I. 2
elusion he characterizes as absurd. We admit the conclusion
and believe that it is consonant with the dogmatic truth of the
divinity of Christ. Certain it is that in Christ was the divinity.
Now that divinity is essentially indivisible, the whole divinity
was in him ; therefore, there is an identity between the Word
and the divine nature. How the same indivisible nature can be
wholly; in three distinct persons is the mystery of the Trinity.
Had Patrizi characterized his conclusion as mysterious, we
would have been at one with him; but we reject his imputa
tion that the proposition is absurd. We hold then, as a cer
tain opinion that God here signifies the divine nature, and
that John wishes to teach us the consubstantiality of the Son
by telling us that He was the same divine nature with the
Father. Our opinion is strengthened by the omission of the
article before eo<? in the Greek text. In the preceding
clause, where @eo? means a certain divine person, it is pre
ceded by the article. The omission of such article manifests
that such term signifies a nature. In fact, John wishes in this
phrase to preclude the belief that there were two Gods. The
preceding two clauses had established two separate subsis
tences, one of which had been generated from the other. Now
to prevent one from passing from this personal distinction
to an essential distinction, he asserts that the Word is the same
divine nature as the Father, in the one undivided, indivisible
Deity.
JOHN I. 2
2. The same was in the 2. Oy-rog YJV sv zp /ji r.chq TGV
beginning with God. 0eov.
This verse is a resume of the three propositions of the first
verse. In it he says in substance: "this being that I have
characterized as the Actyo? of God the Father, and whom I
assert to be the essential Deity was from all eternity with the
Father."
Maldonatus believes that this verse contains a sort of con
clusion confirmatory of the first two propositions of the first
verse, deduced from the third proposition of the same verse.
That is, from the fact that the Word was God, it follows that
from the beginning it was with God. That such deduction is
JOHN I. 3 45
legitimate we do not deny, but it is highly probable that such
particular syllogism never entered John s mind. As we are
apt to recapitulate important truths for more complete effect,
so John sums up the data of the first verse in this concise
proposition.
JOHN I. 3.
3. All things were made by 3. Hawa 81 ateou syeveTo,
him; and without him was not xal x w P S a ^ou eysveio oucs Iv, 8
made anything that was made. yeyovev.
The "nihil" of the Vulgate weakly renders the ovSe ev of
the Greek. The Syriac has it: "Sine ipso ne unum quidem
fuit quidquid fuit." The Aethiopian: "Absque illo non fuit
quidquam quod factum est."
The Ndvra comprises the universe of creatures. The
Macedonians extended this term to include the Holy Ghost
also, because John speaks without restriction. Such position
te frivolous, for, by such reasoning, the Father also could be
included, which is absurd; also the Udv-ra is limited in the
succeeding words to all created things.
John does not say that the Word created all things, but
that the Father created all things through him. The eternal
Father by that infinite intellectual conception generated the
Word. In the Word, he conceived all the ideas which are the
essences of things as they pre-exist in the mind of God. The
Word, then, is the ratio per quam Deus creat. The Word does
not operate as a mere instrumental cause, but as a formal,
efficient cause. The Son is the actuating principle of the divine
intellect, and through the personality of the Son the essence of
God formed the archetypal ideas, which; by receiving being
from the omnipotent will working in harmony with the divine
intellect; became the ectypal world. As the spiritual soul of
man understands through the faculty of intellect, so analogi
cally the essence of God created through the Word. We can
perform no human act without conceiving in the mind the ideal
exemplar of that act; so the divine nature formed the ideal
essences of things in his eternal Word, and then gave them
being by His almighty fiat.
46 JOHN I. 3
The creative power coming from the divine nature, one
and the same in all three persons, and acting through the Word
made all things.
The second clause is exclusive in sense, and intensifies the
absolute part held by the Word in the production of things.
A great diversity of opinion exists in regard to the punctuation.
Origen, Cyril, Augustine, Rupert, Albert us Magnus, Thomas
Aq., Bona venture, Salmeron and Barradius place the full stop
after the ov8e ev, and join the following clause to the fourth
verse. Wordsworth declares that nearly all the Greek codices
follow this mode of punctuation. Westcott and Hort adopt
it in their critical edition of the New Testament. Against
this reading, and in favor of the now common reading we have
the authority of Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Nonnus, Theo
dore of Mopsuesta, Leontius, Euthymius, Elias of Crete, and
of the Latins, Ambrose. Maldonatus, Colury, Comely and
Knabenbauer defend this reading. The Revised Version of
Oxford accepts it. St. John Chrysostom ascribes the first read
ing to the Eunomians and Macedonians, heretics. Since ex
trinsic authority is so divided, we must rely on intrinsic evi
dences for a judgment. The opinion of Augustine and the
others cited would make the fourth verse read: "That which
was made was life in him, and the life was the light of men."
There are other manipulations of the verse, as for instance :
"That which was made, in it was life," etc. This is a harsh
hyperbaton, and obscures the sense. This mode of pnnctua-
tion leads to an absurdity. The word "life" must have the
same signification as it occurs twice in the verse; for, as they
stand, a relation of identity is clearly indicated between them.
St. John first tells the fount of life in the Word, and then
declares its effect on men. It is quite impossible therefore to
declare that "That which was made" was this life. It is a
forced and false interpretation which came into Christian
thought from the Platonic philosophy.
The o yeyovev is added to emphasize the conception of
the creation of all things by the Word. It makes a fuller sense.
The Manichaeans based upon a heretical exegesis of this verse
their error of the two opposed creative principles. They under
stood by the "nihil" corruptible things composed of matter,
JOHN I. 4 47
which according to them are essentially evil, which tend to
chaos whence they arose, and which were created not by the
Word but by the demon. The Manichaean heresy is not any
longer a force in the world. Their erroneous exegesis of this
verse is clearly refuted by the Greek text, where for "nihil" we
have oiiSe ev "non unum."
St. Augustine, while rejecting the error of the Manichaeans,
falls into a similar error. He interprets nihil to be sin, which
is not an ens but a negation of entity, and therefore, TO
nihil is not created by the Word but by the bad will of man.
This opinion is evidently false, and also is overthrown by the
Greek text. The proper mode of punctuation also prevents
these false opinions; for the "nihil" is a weak translation of the
ovSe ev, in which the ev is the antecedent of the o 7670761;
which completes the sentence.
JOHN I. 4.
4. In him was life; and the 4. Ev ainw CWTJ YJV, xai -q t;wY)
life was the light of men. TJV TO <pwq TWV av6pwxwv.
What John says here of the Word, Christ said of himself:
"I am the resurrection and the life."- -Jo. XI. 25. Among all
the Creator s works there is nothing so grand as life. There
are two kinds of life, the natural, animal life that man has in
common with the brutes, and the spiritual, eternal life that the
elect participate from God. God is the First Cause of both
lives. John, however, speaks here of a peculiar relation that
the Word had to one or the other of these lives. Many Fathers
and exegetists apply these words of John to the natural life of
man. Among others, Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril and Theo-
phylactus. According to them John places the life of the Word
as the cause whence the vital principle of animate things came.
We can see no probability in this opinion. It would be the
most languid tautology to again say here what was already
comprehended in the proposition: "All things were made by
him." Again, if such were John s sense, he would have pred
icated of this life not the light of men but the life of men. We
consider then that John meant here that the Word was the
fount in \vhich in fulness resided and whence emanated the
48 JOHN I. 4
supernatural life, the vital principle of the soul s eternal life.
John wishes to say that, as all things in the natural order
came through the Word, so also, in the supernatural order, the
life of grace and the life of glory come from him. This explan
ation of the verse is based on many proofs. In many places
do the Scriptures speak of the Word as the life, and always in
relation to the eternal life. Certainly, when Christ calls him
self the resurrection and the life, he has reference to eternal
life. In the First Epistle of John, Cap. I. i : "And the life
was made manifest, and we have seen, and we testify and an
nounce to you the eternal life which was with the Fathej and
has appeared to us." Ibid. V. 1 1 : "And this is the testimony
that God has given us eternal life. And this life was in his Son.
He who has the Son has life ; who has not the Son has not life.
Ibid. V. 20 : "And we know that the Son of God has come and
has given to us understanding, that we might know the true
God, and might be in his true Son. This is the true God and
eternal life." In Chapter XVII. verse 3 of his Gospel, John
says: "And this eternal life that they know thee, the only
true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ." Hence w r e
say that John had in mind that fount of life to which the psalm
ist adverted: "For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy
light shall we see light." Ps. XXXVI. 9. [Vulgate XXXV.
io.]
That life then that constitutes the basic principle of the
soul s supernatural life here in this embryonic stage of our
existence, and which informs the souls of the elect and unites
them to God in eternal felicity resided as in a fount in the Son,
and thence proceeded to vitalize the souls of men. That life
was the light of men. God created the world through the Word :
he illuminated it by the same agency. This illumination is not
the natural light of reason, which also, as pertaining to the
natural order of creation, would be included in the before
mentioned HdvTa. It is the spiritual illumination of the soul
by which the soul is able to adhere to God here, and by which
the soul will see God as he is in Heaven. This clause thus
explained follows naturally on our exegesis of the foregoing
clause. This illumination is not predicated as an effect of
the life, but identically as the life itself, because it is identi-
JOHN I. 5 49
cal with the participation of supernatural life in the soul. The
just enjoy the inchoate state of this life and illumination here
on earth ; the elect enjoy its fulness in Heaven. In this passage
John fixes his attention on the participation of these here ; in
other parts of his works he treats of their perfect fruition in
Heaven. All the supernatural creation in man is based on the
power of the Word. This should bring man into a close re
lation with the fount of life and light.
JOHN I. 5.
5. And the light shineth in 5. Kai 70 <pu<; Iv ifi cxoTta
darkness; and the darkness ap- <pa(vsi, xac r t axoTta aikb ou xa-ul-
prehended it not. Xa6sv.
As by light is here meant a spiritual creation, the super
natural illumination of the soul, so by darkness is meant its
opposite in the same order, spiritual darkness. By darkness
here he means godless men in whose souls reigns spiritual dark
ness. It is an emphatic figure by which a property of a class is
personified as the class itself. This shining of the light in the
darkness refers to the primordial perpetual influx of the Word
upon the souls of men before the Incarnation, going back to the
beginning. God never abandoned the world. God s light was
always striving to illuminate the darkened souls of men. It is
of the nature of light to dispel darkness. So John heightens
the marvelotis obstinacy of mankind by saying that the light
of the Word could not illumine the sin-darkened souls of men.
The "apprehended" corresponds to the /careXa/Sev of the
Greek, which Vatablus translates "apprehend erunt." To re
ceive the full force of the truth, we must bear in mind that John
means by darkness the spiritually opaque souls of men in whom
God had no part. An opaque body can be conceived to be
come luminous by receiving light from a luminous body. Now
the the defect of this reception in the opaque souls of men is here
pointed to by John. Such concept must have sunk deeply into
his soul. He repeats it, and gives its cause in the third chapter.
The world became godless not because there was no light, but
because they refused the proffered light. From creation s
dawn, the Word sent an influx of supernatural light into the
50 JOHN I. 5
world, but still the world turned away from Yahveh to the
idolatrous worship of false gods, and to the perpetration of
crime. These words imply not an absolute universality.
Small was the number of the faithful, but still there was always
a remnant. The prevalence however of godlessness anteced
ently to the Incarnation was sufficient to justify those awful
words, of John. Do we wonder? The brightness of that
light has been intensified a countless fold by the Incarnation,
and yet how few are they who receive the light !
We are apt to look upon that great sentence as an arraign
ment of the men of former time, and not as personally applic
able to us. All the great truths are more or less thus removed
from us. A reflection on death is presented to us: uncon
sciously we look upon it as it concerns another. The warm
life within us makes death seem so far off. The value of eter
nity is prized by us above the things of time ; but we do not
move in the direction of the "better things." And so here we
do not realize our part in that sad rebuke. God loves man
with an infinite eternal love. He has dealt with man in in
finite love and mercy. Greater love no man hath than that
he lay down his life for his friend, and the Son of God died for
us. It was an infinite sacrifice manifesting infinite love. And
yet how little men are concemed with the thought that God so
loves them. The light shines, but the darkness remains. In
multifarious ways God has delivered his saving teaching to the
world : it is not difficult to find the truths of salvation. Within
the heart the Holy Ghost is operating, and without, divinely
instituted and divinely aided and protected teaching agencies
proclaim salvation, and show the way to eternal life. But man
turns aside, and enslaves himself to the world and to his pas
sions. Pride makes men to follow their own vain conceptions
rather than the voice of God. Men demand a religion that
flatters their pride. Intoxicated with the mad rush of the
world s life they lose sight of the brevity of human life. A cold
independent spirit of \vorldliness is dominant. The intima
tions of the approaching end come, but they awaken no realiza
tion. God is forgotten, and the world prevails.
JOHN I. 57 5 i
JOHN I. 6.
6. There was a man sent 6. EyevsTo avGpwTroq dxejTa),-
from God, whose name was ^Ivo? ^apa 0coii, ovo^a auTco
John. IwavvY]?.
The Evangelist s intent is not presently to take up the
consideration of John the Baptist ; he will speak of him at the
completion of the proem. The mention of him here seems to
be a digression from the main theme. Some have believed that
the Evangelist aimed to crush the heresy of those who rejected
Christ and professed to follow John the Baptist. By giving the
Baptist his true place in the plan of Redemption, the Evangel
ist overthrew this error. Certain it is that John the Baptist
found it necessary forcibly to deny that he was the Messiah,
to prevent such misconception. This opinion has some prob
ability. Without rejecting it we think to find other reasons
for the introduction of this allusion to the Baptist in this place.
In the first place, it might be that the Evangelist intended to
speak of the Baptist at this place, but, in establishing the
difference between Christ and him, he is led away again into a
lengthy description of the relations between the Word and men,
which extends even to the eighteenth verse. Such digressions
are common in all inspired writers, and seem to be a natural
resultant of the powerful influence under which they wrote.
This opinion seems to me most reasonable. Others think that
the Baptist is here mentioned on account of the force of his
testimony. This opinion conflicts not with the second; for,
whenever he would mention the Baptist, it would be on ac
count of his testimony. John the Baptist came into the world
with a divine commission, sent by God. In virtue of that
delegation he could demand faith in his words. The object of
his coming is manifested in the seventh verse.
JOHN I. 7.
7. This man came for a wit- 7. Ou-roq rjXOev e?q jxaptupcav,
ness, to bear witness of the Yva ^apTupiqq] xept TOU qxorbq, Yva
light, that all men might be- zavreq ztJTSuawac 81 CCUTOU.
lieve through him.
It is inexplicable why the Vulgate should translate here by
lumen the Greek <&&gt;<?, which it has, in the preceding chapters
uniformly translated by lux.
52 JOHN I. 7
God was about to draw nearer to the earth, to send more
light into it, and he sent John to prepare the way. A great
and unexpected event is apt to have better effect upon the
minds of men if they have been prepared for it by fitting prepar
ation. It was in accord with the wisdom of God to send this
herald to announce to men the Saviour, to fix their attention
upon His advent, and to prepare their souls by penance for His
light. John had a mission from God, and, therefore, demanded
credence to the witness that he bore. Both before and after
Christ s manifestation at his baptism, John testified that the
Messiah was come. Never did man perform a commission of
God more faithfully than did John the Baptist. We shall see
later in the course of the Gospels the witness that John bore to
the Christ. John the Baptist spoke not of the Messiah as a
light, but since his witness was to the Son of God who was the
light of the world, equivalently be bore witness to the light.
The Evangelist seems to say, the light was in the world and the
world was not impressed by it. Hence God decreed to come
closer to the world, to intensify his illumining power by the
Incarnation, and he sent the precursor to awaken men to the
great event that God had wrought among them. The design
of God was that all might accept the testimony of John and
be prepared to receive the Christ.
Though the Baptist delivered his oral communication to
the Jews, his testimony was for all men. It had the same
universality as has the Gospel. It is one of the proofs of the
true character of Jesus Christ. He spoke to the Jews; but his
words have reached us. They form a part of the proof of
Christianity. He had the qualities of a true witness, and God
employed him as a witness of eternal truth that all men might
believe.
Many have not believed. Shall we say then that God s
will was frustrated? No ; God owed it to his own veracity and
fidelity to send John. The consecutive events in God s eter
nal plan unfold themselves in divine harmony ; nor, are they
rendered vain by man s non-cooperation. Neither can we say
that John was negligent in his mission ; the approbation of John
by Christ himself shows how faithfully he had labored to break
down the stubborn infidelity of Israel.
JOHN I. 8-9 53
JOHN I. 8.
8. He was not the light, but 8. Oux. v^v Ixscvo? TO 96)?,
was to bear witness of the light. Yva nap T upifo] zspi TOU 90)76 q
There was a danger that some might believe that the
Baptist was himself the Messiah. The Evangelist, to preclude
this error, assigns to John and to Christ their proper place in
the great design of God.
JOHN I. 9.
9. There was a true light 9. T Hv TO 90)? TO <*XYj8ivbv, o
that enlighteneth every man quits . zavTa avGpcoxov Ip^o^svov
that cometh into the world. zlq TOV XOCTJJLOV.
The repetition of the article before the a\j]Qivov marks this
term with special emphasis, implying that it is applicable to the
Word in a sense not shared by any other agent. As epxapevov
can modify either avdpwirov or <?, this verse could be
translated: "There was a true light which, coming into this
world, enlighteneth every man." This version was followed
by many of the older commentators. However, we can not
see its basis of intrinsic probability. The expression, to come
into the world, predicated of the Son of God always means the
Incarnation. Now it is evident that John has not yet begun to
speak of the entrance of the Word into the world in the In
carnation, but is speaking of the primordial influx that the Son
of God always exercised upon the souls of men. We follow
then the version of the Vulgate, which is in conformity with the
other versions, excepting the Arabic, which translates the
epXP^evov as a future participle, and refers it to </><<?. In
conformity with what we have before laid down, we understand
by this illumination, not the natural light of reason, but the
supernatural light in men s souls.
The Word is called by excellence the true light to mark
his absoluteness in this order. Every ray of supernatural
light that shines in men s souls must come from that essential
light. There are other lights, but only by participation from
him. He is self-luminous and all-illuminating by essence.
True light stands in opposition to both false light and partici
pated light. It marks the one essential fount whence eman
ate thejrays of supernatural light that enable the soul to see to
54 JOHN I. 9
follow God. A universality of effect is ascribed to the light of
the Word that illumines every man that comes into the world.
St. Augustine in his antipelagianic combat, restricted this
universality to mean that the Word illumined some of every
race. It is evident that such sense was not read out of the
Scriptures, but read into them. St. John asserts a real and
emphatic universality of this effect. We see objectively that
not all men are illumined by this uncreated light. John has
told us in a preceding verse that the darkness did not receive
this light. There is no contradiction here. John marks here
two things, unity of source of supernatural illumination and
universality of extent of the same. Hence, in the first place,
his words mean that no man can be illumined immediately
from any other source. Every man that receives light, receives
it from the Word, The Prophets were lights, the Apostles were
lights, St. John the Baptist was a light, the teachers in the
Church are lights, but only by participation. The Word is the
light of lights, the one essential source whence all must draw
light. Again, God illumines every man as far as regards the
placing of a sufficient cause. No man who remains in spiritual
darkness does so because God gives him no light. No matter
how strong the rays of the sun, they will not enter through the
closed window. If men close the windows of their souls the
light of the Word does not shine in, not through its own defect,
but through the obstruction of the creature. John only as
serted the universality of the causative agency of the light,
and, in such sense, it admits no restriction. But how T can this
illumination take place in the savage and in him who knows not
God ? We ans\ver that these things pertain to the extraordin
ary economy of God, of which he has told us nothing. There
must be some possible relation between every rational creature
and its Creator, and so, even in these, the Word would be
the connecting link between God and man. The use of the
present tense, "enlighteneth," imports that the illumina
tion of the Word always was, and always will be exercised upon
man.
JOHN I. 10 55
JOHN I. 10.
10. He was in the world, 10. Ev TW y.o^w r,v, xat 6
and the world was made by v.6^oq Si* askou lylvs-co, xal 6
him, and the world knew him /.oc^xog auTov oux. eyvw.
not.
Here John fixes the imputability of the godlessness of
man. It was no stranger that the world did not know; it was
its Creator ; it was he who was in the world from the beginning.
As Ao 70? is masculine, the two pronouns here in Greek are in
the masculine gender. The Latin interpreter of the Vulgate
has translated them literally paying no heed that their ante
cedent in Latin is the neuter "Verbum." Maldonatus refers
the "in mundo erat" to the Incarnation, that the Word was in
the world after the assumption of our human nature, and the
world knew him not. We reject this opinion for many reasons.
Certain it is that John is here laying down motives to condemn
the world s ingratitude for its treatment of the Son of God.
Now the Incarnation was in one respect a local event, and none
could be blamed for not recognizing the Incarnate Word during
his sojourn on earth except those who came w r ithin the im
mediate influence of the Christ. The great world outside of
Palestine could only be reproached for rejecting the Christ
after the motives of credibility had been made known to it.
This was after the Resurrection of Christ. Hence the only ones
that these words would aptly apply to in the opinion of Mal
donatus would be the Jews, but of these John speaks in the
following member of the sentence. Again, John seems to pro
ceed here by a climax from the first rejection of the Incarnate
Word by the whole world to the particular rejection of the In
carnate Word by the Jews. We believe then that the clause:
"He was in the world," corresponds to the sentence: "There
was a true light that enlighteneth every man that cometh into
this world." It was the presence of the Word of God in the
world from the beginning. It marks the part that the Word ap
propriates to himself in the omnipresence of God.
John adds another motive why the world should have
known the Word, the world had been made by him. By these
words the Evangelist does not wish to appropriate creation to
the Word as one from whom it came, but as one through whom
56 JOHN I. 10 -n
it came. Creation is always appropriated to the omnipotent
Father, but the divine conception of the universe which by an
act of God s will became a reality was conceived in the Word.
This brought the world into such a close relation with the Word
that John marvels that even with the presence of the Son of
God from the beginning in the world that He had created, the
world turned away from Him, and became oblivious of Him.
In the words of St. Paul : "For seeing that in the wisdom
of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it w r as
God s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to
save them that believe." [I. Corinth. I. 21.]
The coming of Christ into this world greatly increased the
evidence of religion to men. This increases the wonder that
God is neglected, and that men turn away from God to sin in a
world wherein the Son of God dwelt among us, and died for us
to seal the testimony of His love. Infinitely sad is the awful
tragedy of man s irreligion.
John, in unison with St. Paul, blames the world for not
recognizing the Creator from the evidences of design in the
world. Certain it is that a right use of man s natural reason
will lead a man to the recognition of a creative intelligence
back of the universe. Some few did arrive at such truth, but
John is here speaking of the great mass of humanity who re
mained for ages in oblivion of God. In this verse, John changes
the signification of the term world ; in the last clause it means
humanity.
JOHN I. n.
ii. He came unto his own, n. Eiq 7a t ota i^X9sv xai ot
and his own received him not. totoi auTov ou z
The native nervous force and beauty of the original are
adequately reproduced in the English translation. It is a
grand pathetic arraignment of the Jewish people. The Greek
terms i&ia and 18101 here used denote a special relation
existing between the Word and those thus designated. Thus
after the death of Christ, John is said to have received the
Mother of God et? TO, t8ia. Now some, and among them Corne
lius a Lapide, refer these words to the whole world that was
God s own by many titles. They would have them intensify
JOHN I. ii 57
the preceding verse. We reject this; for, in the first place, it
would be a languid tautology. Moreover, certainly this sen
tence refers to the advent of the Incarnate Word. Now it
would not be true that the whole world rejected the Incarnate
Word. The spirit of the world rejected and rejects him, but the
generous harvest of the gentile world disproves any such exe
gesis of the words of John. The world before the Incarnation
became oblivious of God, but after the Incarnation God soon
had multitudes in every clime that did not reject his Christ.
Hence, we refer this sentence to apply to the Jews. They were
constituted "a peculiar people unto God." [Deut. XIV. 2.]
Hence the Son of God at least might expect a welcome from
his own chosen people. And they rejected him. He does not
say they did not know him ; because the Jews, in rejecting the
Son of God, impugned the kno\vn truth. The Evangelist brings
to a climax man s ingratitude in the fact that even Christ s
own chosen people did not receive him. On the side of God
stand creation, illumination; on the side of man stand oblivion
and godlessness in the great world, and the rejection of God by
his own chosen people. The few Jews who did receive Christ
would not be sufficient to break the universality of this proposi
tion.
The chosen people of the Old Law was the Lord s own
people by many titles, but they \vere never so closely bound to
him as are the children of the New Covenant. The Christian
people are bought by Christ s blood, sealed by his baptism, and
fed with his body and blood. History repeats itself, and the
rejection of Christ by Israel is verified again, and Christ is
rejected by his own, not in equal degree as a great popular
movement, but by individuals. Every Christian w r ho does not
put on Jesus Christ and follow him, can rightly apply to him
self the words of St. John: "He came to his own and his own
received him not." They apply to every Christian in whose
thoughts and affections Christ has not his proper part. He
comes to man upon the altars of the living God in the sacrifice
of the Mass; he conies in the tabernacles where he waits for
worship and love ; he comes in spiritual visitations to the soul.
And oft it is verified that his own receive him not. In the
Blessed Sacrament of the altar he is present in the churches,
58 JOHN I. 12 13
but the number is not great of those who enter there to wor
ship, and to give utterance to love of him. Sunday comes and
many temples are filled with his own, but the service of too
many of these is perfunctory. Men s souls are growing strange
to Christ, because they have become gross in following after
the things of this world.
JOHN I. 12-13.
12. But as many as received 12. v Cboi SI IXaSov CCUTOV,
him, to them he gave power to ECWX.SV aikolq l^oujfav Texva OsoG
become the sons of God, to yevscQat, Tolq xtJTSuouacv zlq TO
them who believe in his name; ovo^xa aikou.
13. Who are born not of 13. 0? oux, ! al^aTwv, oiiBe Ix.
blood, nor of the will of the OsAr^xroq aapxo?, ouol ex. OSAY]-
flesh, nor of the will of man, [xaToq dvBpb?, dXX ex Osou
but of God. e
To illustrate still more strongly man s ingratitude the
Evangelist sets forth what God offered to the world in his
Christ whom they rejected. This great benefaction was son-
ship of God. The force of the e%ova-ia, here is that of a right, a
dignity, a privilege. Some have endeavored to see in this word
the position of man s free will as a co-operative agent in this
sonship of God. Such opinion must be based on the Latin
text potestas. The Greek egovata means more an authoritative
right, and comports not well with such opinion. Of course the
co-operation of free will is a truth of Scripture, and therefore
this verse can not be against it, but we believe that the Evang
elist did not have in mind the question of free will in writing
this line, but only the great dignity of sonship of God con
ferred on man by the Incarnation. John has followed a
chronological order in the events of God s dealing with the
world. First was the godlessness preceding the Incarnation;
then the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews, and now he
speaks of that growing church that even in his day had its
goodly numbers who believed in the name of Jesus. There is
an air of cheerfulness breathing forth from this verse, as though
in the dismal account of man s relations to God, this fact had
burst forth an oasis in the desert. God receives much ingrati
tude in the world to-day, but still he never received from the
JOHN I. 1213 59
world before the Incarnation the glory that it has yielded him
since. The greatness of the sonship of God conferred on many
by God through the Incarnation is too great for human con
ception. By the hypostatic union Christ brought humanity
closer to God than it could have been in any other way. This
sonship is called adoptive in contradistinction to the natural
essential sonship of God. The term adoptive however is not
adequate to express that relation. It might better be termed
ineffable. Were it merely adoptive, nothing would have
accrued to us more than to those of the Old Law who were
also called adoptive children. Now it is certain that our son-
ship is something more than theirs. Christ is the essential Son
of God, and he is our blood-brother. Hence we have a natural
brotherhood with Christ, and through this a sonship of God.
This sonship does not make us share essentially the divine
nature, as the human nature of Christ is not confused with the
divine nature. In fact, our sonship of God is not natural, nor
merely adoptive, but ineffable. It is a joint mystery with the
mystery of the Incarnation, depending on it and like to it. If
this sonship of the Christian were merely adoptive, it would
consist in a mere extrinsic relation. Such is not true Our
sonship places something real and intrinsic in man. It is such
a close union between God and man that St. Peter calls it a
participation of the divine nature: "Whereby are given unto
us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these ye
may be made partakers of the divine nature, having escaped
the corruption that is in the world through lust." [II. Peter
I. 4-1
Sonship implies birth. Hence John manifests here the
generation of the sons of God, and draws a strong antithesis
between the birth of the sons of God and the birth of the sons
of men. To show the excellence of the spiritual birth, he
shows forth in detail the vileness of the carnal birth. Com
parisons aid the mind of man to form a just concept of any
thing. In the first place, carnal generation proceeds through
the blood of the agents by the power of the seminal principle.
This principle is a secretion from the blood, and hence is com
monly confounded with the blood in description of carnal
generation. The use of the plural aipd-rwv here does not refer
60 JOHN I. 12 13
to the agents in generation, but is simply a Hebraism in which
blood, as going out from its source, is commonly in the plural
number. Thus in Genesis IV. 10: " the voice of thy broth
er s blood, TpHN W ?1p, crieth to me from the ground."
This first clause has reference to the corruptible matter
whence is composed the body in carnal birth. The "will of
the flesh" refers to the lowest agency that operates in carnal
generation, that is the desire of the flesh for its gratification.
This also is excluded in these spiritual births of which John
speaks. There are many divergent opinions respecting the
specific concept that John wished to convey by the "will of
man." Natalis Alexander and Calmet believe that by such
phrase John meant human adoption, which has its origin in the
institutions of men here signified by the will of man. This
opinion is certainly wrong. Rosenmiiller holds that the will
of the flesh and the will of man are not fundamentally different.
Cornelius a Lapide also holds that the will of man simply ex
plains more fully what is meant by the will of the flesh. " We
must know that the use of avSpo? makes the phrase only
applicable to the male agent in generation. I believe that St.
John is here enumerating the different factors that have part
in carnal generation. First there is the material cause, the
seed designated by John as the blood. Then there is the un
reasonable concupiscence of the carnal members. This is in
dependent of the reason of man and, as we have said, is the
lowest element in carnal generation. Then there is the will
of man, the highest element in carnal generation, moving a
man to perpetuate his species by begetting issue. This last
is signified by the will of man. It is referred to the male agent
as the active principle in generation, and the one who as the
head of the family longs to perpetuate his line by children.
Now these three agencies co-operate in carnal birth. They are
of God s own institution, and the Evangelist is not condemning
them. He is only by comparison showing the excellence of the
spiritual birth over the carnal birth. There are grades of
being by God s ordinance in nature. They are all good in their
separate spheres. Still one may bring out in strong relief a
higher grade of being by comparison with a lower grade, with
out condemning the latter in its proper place and function. So
JOHN I. 14 61
John, to tell man that there is something better than matter,
compares material and spiritual genesis. Some believe also
that John aimed this at the Jews who gloried in carnal birth
from Abraham. John makes little of carnal descent to show
them that the thing God prized was spiritual birth.
JOHN I. 14.
14. And the Word was made 14. Keel 6 Aoyoq aap lysvsTo,
flesh and dwelt among us, and xai hy.r t vu3t=v Iv rjaTv, xal I6sa-
we beheld his glory, the glory cra^sGa TTJV co^av auToO, Soqav we
as of the only begotten of the (xo^oyevouq ^apa Tempos, xX^c
Father, full of grace and truth. xdpiToq xal XYj0e(a?.
In this wondrous sentence John comes down with the
Word from Heaven, and begins his earthly career. The world
possesses no greater truth than this, "the Word was made
flesh." It unites Heaven and earth, God and man in the per
son of Jesus. The mystery of the Incarnation was never
couched in better terms. That sentence has served as the
criterion of orthodoxy.
In the subject of the sentence is the divinity in the Word
which he has declared in the most absolute terms to be God ;
in the predicate is humanity, passible, corruptible humanity,
and the union of these two terms in the identity of the person is
marked by the verb "was made." All that went before was
simply a preparation for this grand declaration, the basic truth
of the New Law. By flesh John means real individual human
nature. Such use is frequent in the Scriptures. Thus it is used
Deut.V. 26; Judith VII. 16; Ps. LIV. 5 [Vulg. LV. 5]; Ps. LIII.
3 [Vulg. LIV. 3]; Eccli. I. 10 ; Isa. XL. 5-6; Jerem. XXV. 31 ;
Ezek. XX. 48; Math. XXIV. 22; Mark XIII. 20; Luke III.
6; Acts II. 17; Rom. III. 20. I believe that John had a par
ticular reason for employing the term here. The designation
of humanity by the term flesh has special reference to its cor
ruptible phase. John here declares in substance that the
Word did not assume humanity in its glorified form, but a
mortal corruptible body like to ours in everything but the in
herited taint of man s primal guilt. This sentence has always
been the Church s safeguard against any heresy that attacks the
Incarnation. All the dogmatic truths relative to that mystery
62 JOHN I. 14
are founded on this one. In virtue of it, exists the communica
tion of idioms by which we may truly say that God was cruci
fied ; that God was born of Mary ; that the Son of Mary was
God, etc.
Some heresies fall by the term used in the subject of the
proposition; and some fall by the predicate.
By the enunciation that the Word became incarnate,
Sabellius and the Patripassiani are refuted who held that in the
Incarnation the one God in one person assumed humanity. In
the predicating of flesh of the Word is refuted that numerous
horde of heresies which attacked the verity of Christ s human
nature. This proposition then stands as an eternal immovable
verity, and on it is built the edifice of our faith in Christ. The
error of Eutyches, that in Christ human nature was sublimed
into the divinity, falls; for such assertion is not compatible
with the truth that the Word was made flesh, wherein is assert
ed a real sharing by the Son of God of our passible, corruptible
humanity. In the system of Eutyches, the Incarnation, Pas
sion and Resurrection of Christ would have been mere mockery.
How could Christ call all men to witness if there were any pain
like his if his humanity had been sublimed into an impassible
divine nature ? The great heresy of Nestorious also falls by the
same proposition; for if there be two personalities in Christ, it
would be false to say that the Word became flesh. The propo
sition of John demands that there be a personal identity be
tween the subject and the predicate. We have already refuted
the Eutychian identity of nature; there only remains the
identity of person.
Apollinaris and the Docetas taught that Christ s body was
of celestial origin or else only apparent. These also are routed
by this master truth of John, "the Word was made flesh." The
Gnostics, John s especial adversaries, are fully refuted by this
proposition. Their system was that in Jesus, the Son of God
resided by special immanence. John says not that the Word
was in the flesh, but was the flesh, so that the members of Jesus
body were the flesh of God. John argues not. Speaking in the
Spirit of God, he simply says: "The Word was made flesh" ;
this w r as enough.
JOHN I. 14 63
"And dwelt among us." The Incarnation was not one
sole event. The Word did not simply come to earth, effect a
union with man, and return thence; he dwelt among us, and
shared with man man s earthly lot. Many have thought to
see, in the Greek eo-tcijvcoo-ev, a reference to the transient dwelling
of Christ here upon earth. In fact, O-KTJVOVV radically means
"tentorium tendere, tabernaculum figere." But long before
the time of St. John, this verb was employed to signify the act
of dwelling in any form in a place. In this sense Xenophon
uses it Anab. 5. 5. 7: "o-Krjvovv ev rat? ot/ctW." St.
Chrysostom and Cyril have adopted a strange interpretation of
these words. They believe that they modify the concept enun
ciated in the preceding proposition. They affirm that to pre
clude the error that the divine nature was changed into human
nature, John modifies the preceding assertion by this explana
tion. They interpret "among us" to mean in human flesh, and
the Evangelist s mind to be that the divinity dwelt as in a tent
in our humanity. [Homilies on St. John.] Although this
opinion finds favor with Patrizi, in our judgment, it is certainly
wrong. Such words in the mouth of Cerinthus would have
been taken as the concentration of his heresy. In the first
place, it is a violence to the plain words of the text. If such
had been John s meaning, he could not have concealed it more
adroitly. Again if the "among us" meant humanity, then
Christ would not have assumed an individual humanity but
universal humanity, and the Incarnation would be a mere
special immanence of the Word in all humanity. This would
be the worst of heresies. Moreover, the hypostatic union is
everlasting, and it would be erroneously characterized as a
transient indwelling. I believe then that the Evangelist is
simply here stating the fulfillment of the prophecy of Baruch
III. 38: "Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed
with men."
It is the statement of that wondrous truth that the Son of
God shared with us the vicissitudes of his earthly life through
infancy, childhood, youth, and mature manhood. Neither is
this a truth of small moment. Christ came to be our model, as
well as our Redeemer, and man will find much in the contem
plation of that life lived on earth to make his own life like
64 JOHN I. 14
thereunto. It intensifies the sympathy between Christ and
man to know that Christ trod all the painful paths that mortals
must tread. He helps by his example, as well as by his word,
and it comforts combating humanity to know that the Leader
asks man to do only what he has done first. I believe at the
same time that, by use of this term rather than ot/ee/, John
wished to portray that Christ taught us by his mode of life on
earth that our life here is but transitory, "that we have not
here an abiding city, but we seek one that is to come." This
life is a mere pilgrimage, a wandering through the desert for
every man ; it could not have been less for Christ. Christ
showed forth in his life that this life is but a novitiate opening
into the fulness of life beyond. The dwelling of the Hebrews in
tents in the desert w r as typical of the transitory character of
this life. We have only pitched our tents here for a brief
period. It is the verity of the sharing w r ith us by Christ of this
phase of our existence that the Evangelist wishes to bring out.
"And we have seen his glory." John, as an eye-witness
of all the miracles of Christ, could thus write. He had seen
him still the storm ; he had seen him heal the sick ; he had seen
him give life to the dead; he had seen him transfigured on
the mount ; he had seen him in his glorified humanity after his
resurrection ; and, finally, he had seen him ascend into Heaven.
Such an eye-witness could bear testimony of the glory of the
Word.
To understand properly the sense of the phrase : the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father, " we must determine
the exact force of the <w? of the Greek text. ft<? is a particle
derived from 05, and marks a relation between two things.
It may denote the relation of similarity between two things. It
is thus used in the Apocalypse VIII. 8: " w? opo<? peya
as it were, a great mountain." Such use of it is frequent in
the Scriptures. It may also mark the relation of a fitting
quality, or essential property to a subject. Thus it is used in
many passages of the Scriptures. To instance one place, it is
so used in Rom. VI. 13 : "a\Xa Trapao-rrjo aTe eavrovs TW e&&gt;
&&gt;<? e/c veKpwv gwvras." In this sense St. John uses the a>?
in this passage. It does not mark a similarity between the
witnessed glory of Christ and that of the only begotten Son
JOHN I. 14 6 5
of the Father, but sets forth the glory witnessed by the Evan
gelist as an essential property manifesting that the Man of
Galilee was the Son of God.
John is the only one of the Evangelists who calls Jesus the
only begotten. As he penetrated deeper into the mystery of
the eternal generation of the Word, he seems to wish to bring
out that there could be but one such generation. God could
not beget another Son. As the intellectual faculty in man is
one, so in God the intellectual generation of the Word in whom
he sees everything is one. One eternal original principle, the
Almighty Father; one eternal act of the divine intellect, the
Subsistent Word ; one eternal act of the divine will, the
Subsistent Love such is the Trinity. John here adds his own
ocular testimony to establish the divine sonship of Jesus. He
himself had seen a glory that manifested Jesus to be the only
begotten of the Father. I believe he had especial reference to
the transfiguration and to the events following the Resurrec
tion, when even the matter-of-fact Thomas was forced to ac
knowledge Jesus as the Son of God.
Erasmus and Cajetan join the next clause, "full of grace
and truth," to the following verse and apply it to John Baptist.
Their principal argument is that in the Greek the 7r\<>jpw, is in
the nominative case, whereas did it refer to the Word, it should
be in the genitive case. It is another evidence where the fixing
of the attention upon the mere material text leads to gross
absurdities. All the versions agree with the Vulgate in re
ferring this qualifying clause to the Word. To refer such words
to John the Baptist would be ridiculous . Such words fit only the
person of Jesus. Again, if the clause were to modify the per
son of John Baptist it would come after his name, not precede
in such an unnatural way. The best refutation of their opinion
is to explain the use of the nominative case. This is cleared up
by inclosing in parenthesis a certain parenthetical clause used
in the verse of John.
The verse should be punctuated thus: "And the Word
was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have seen his
glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace
and truth. Thus the ir\^p^ rightly agrees in case with the
subject of the verse which it modifies.
14) Gosp. I
66 JOHN I. 15 16
We have now to see what specific concept the Evangelist
wished to convey in declaring the \dyos full of grace and
truth. Grace, xapis, may mean outward grace of person,
loveliness. It is evident that this is not what St. John means.
Again it may mean the good-will and favor of any agent, and
when applied to God, the favor of God. This is the predom
inant use of this word in the New Testament, to mean the favor
of God. The Evangelist wishes to state that his relations with
Christ on earth, while he was dwelling among men, convinced
him that God was in him, and with him ; that he was full of the
favor of God. The explanation of the "truth" is easier. Christ
said of himself that he was the truth. The world needed
many lessons when Christ came. He taught the world the
truths of God. In him was the fulness of truth which was to
save the world. He who had conversed intimately with the
Master of all truth for years, who had heard many things which
have not been writ down for us, could say of his teacher that
he was full of truth. What is there in the patrimony of the
science of man comparable to the least of these truths ? Mary
was also declared full of the good-will and favor of God, but
not as Christ was full. He was full as the fountain from
which Mary and all of us receive whatever of favor of God we
enjoy.
JOHN I. 1516.
15. John bare witness of 15. Iwctvr^ {jiapTupei irepl
him, and cried, saying: This autou, xac xixpayev Xlywv, Oikoc;
was he of whom I spake: He YJV ov elzov, dxiaw ^.ou epy^evos
that shall come after me, was ly-xpoaOlv ^ou ylyovcv, ore rcpwTO^
begotten before me, for he was ^0 u ^v.
before me.
1 6. For of his fulness have 16. "Chi ex 70 G zXfjpw^aToq
all we received, and grace for KUTOU r^slq Tcavcsq IXaSo^sv, /.at
race. ^ v avtl
The first textual variant of importance in the Greek of
John s Gospel occurs in the sixteenth verse, In ^, B. C*, D,
L, X, and 33 this verse is introduced by the conjunction on.
This reading is approved by Origen, Hippolyte, Eusebius, Epi-
JOHN I. 15 16 67
phanius, Cyril and Hilary. For the "et" of the Vulgate stand
Augustine and the Coptic, Armenian and Ethiopia versions.
We feel assured that the reading cm is the correct one.
The fifteenth verse is identically repeated in the thirtieth
verse ; therefore, we defer its exegesis to that place. The
fulness of the grace of Christ is a diffusive fulness. It
emanates from him as from a fount, and flows into all his mem
bers. Our right relation with him is a necessary condition
that we may enjoy the favor of God, which rests in him in
infinite degree, and through him goes out and diffuses itself
in all the members of the great brotherhood of Christ. We are
absolutely dependent on Christ for everything. All justifica
tion that ever was wrought in the world was either through
his forseen or actual merits. He bought the souls of men, and
they are his, and all they receive comes to them in virtue of
his infinite merits. These are mysterious truths; we can but
faintly comprehend them in this phase of our existence.
The phrase "grace for grace" has vexed the minds of many
commentators. No consensus of opinion exists concerning it.
Suarez interpreted it to intensify the degree of grace received.
In his opinion, it stood for grace upon grace, in successive
augmentation. The Greek ami is adversative, and can not
admit of such interpretation. The opinion of Maldonatus is
equally untenable. He believes that the phrase means that
different ones receive different degrees of grace. It is evident
that this is foreign to the intent of the Evangelist. In St.
Augustine s opinion St. John meant that we would receive the
grace of eternal life in Heaven in succession to the gratia
viatoris here on earth. This opinion might have some prob
ability, were it not that John asserts the event as an accom
plished fact, "we have received," while the obtaining of eternal
life is a future event.
The opinion of Cornelius a Lapide is worthy of notice. He
believes the meaning of the phrase to be that we receive
graces corresponding to the graces of Christ. That is, for all
the wealth of grace that Christ possesses in himself, we as his
brothers receive similar graces, differing in degree, but corre
sponding in nature and effect.
68 JOHN I. 17
We believe with Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Euthy-
mius, Jansenius, Ribera, Patrizi, Curci and others that the Evan
gelist means simply the succession of the new and perfect econ
omy in the place of the old. The covenant given to Moses
was a grace; it was a mark of God s favor by which he united
the chosen people to himself by solemn treaty. He bound him
self to favor them, to protect them, to be their God. Now
this was a grace, a favor of God. With Christ came a more
perfect covenant, founded upon a grander, broader and better
basis, a covenant that was the most perfect mode of God s
relations to man. This was the grand and perfect grace that
we have received through Christ in place of, ami, the first
imperfect grace given through Moses.
JOHN I. 17.
17. For the Law was given 17. "Ori 6 VOJAO? eta Mwualws
by Moses, grace and truth came IS60T), V) y.aptq y.al T) dX^Gs-.a oia
by Jesus Christ. Tqcou Xpia-roO IflvsTO.
This verse is in plain confirmation of our exegesis of the
preceding verse. John wishes simply to show what benefits
have accrued to us in the substitution of the perfect grace for
the first imperfect one. That which was in the preceding
verse called a grace is here called a Law, because the chief
characteristic of the Old Law was that it loaded men with
mandates, and gave no power to fulfill them. It was not a
life-giving covenant. There is a mystery in the giving of the
Old Law. But of this we may be certain that it was not a
covenant according to the heart of God. Israel forced upon
itself that strange and complex system of religious enactments.
Now the New Covenant is that in which God glories. It is his
last and best treaty with man, and unlike the Old Law, it gives
grace from itself. Its head is the fount of all grace, and from
him course through the Church rivers of grace. The grace
given to those who lived under the first dispensation came not
from any inherent divine energy in that law, but from the
foreseen merits of Christ.
St. John also places in antithesis the truth of Christ and
the law of Moses. Now as the law of Moses was also a crea
tion of God, it must have been true. Therefore the antithesis
JOHN I. 18 69
can not be here between truth and falsity. The Evangelist
contrasts not truth to falsity, but the truth and reality of the
antitype to the adumbration of the type. The whole structure
of the Old Law simply adumbrated the reality and truth of the
perfect economy. The comparison between the economy of
Christ and that of Moses is like that of substance to shadow,
or rather to foreshadow. The energy of grace of the sub
stance was not found in the foreshadow.
JOHN I. 18.
1 8. No man hath seen God 18. ebv oiSSst? ewpaxsv
at any time; the only begotten XWTCOTE: jjLovoyevrjq 0sb<;, 6 wv siq
Son who is in the bosom of the TOV xoXxov TOU icaTpbq, exetvoq
Father, he hath expounded the l^qyipaTO
message.
In the eighteenth verse we find the reading /j,ovoyevr)<; Oeo?
in &$, B, C*, L, and 33 ; and it is approved by the Coptic, Syriac
and Ethiopic versions, and by several Fathers. A, C 3 , et al.,
have the reading novoyevfy v/o ?. This latter reading is ap
proved by Tischendorf , and by most of the Fathers. It is fol
lowed by the Vetus Itala, and by the Vulgate and Armenian
versions. Though strongly favoring the reading of B, as the
case is doubtful, we have allowed the common reading to re
main in the English.
Many difficulties beset this verse. It is difficult to estab
lish its nexus with the preceding. In the preceding verse, John
has set forth the pre-eminence of the New Covenant over the
Old. The Jews exalted Moses over Christ, and it is possible
that the present verse may have been a refutation of their
objection based on Numbers XII. 6-8 : "If there be a prophet
among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a
vision, and will speak to him in a dream. My servant Moses
is not so, who is faithful in all my house. With him will I speak
mouth to mouth; not in an enigma or a similitude but in a
vision shall he see the Lord."
The Jews might have said: "No prophet, not even the
Messiah, is like to Moses who spoke to God face to face." And
John answers: "No man ever saw God." There is a seeming
contradiction here between the Old and New Testaments. Job,
70 JOHN I. 18
Jacob, Moses, Eliah and Isaiah are said to have seen God, while
the Evangelist asserts that no one ever saw him. The truths
of the New Testament are clearer than those of the Old. In this
seeming contradiction, we shall first establish the certain dog
matic truth from the New Testament, and then make the pas
sages of the Old accord thereto. John repeats in his First
Epistle IV. 12, what he says here: "No man has seen God at
any time." St. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy, VI. 16,
corroborates the truth : " whom no man hath seen, nor can
see," etc.
These clear passages establish the truth that no mortal
has ever seen God. Those manifestations of God spoken of in
the Old Testament were miraculous visions by which God made
known his presence to man, or they were apparitions of angels,
who represented Yahveh and spoke in his name, or they were
ecstatic psychological effects in which God impressed on the
mind intellectual creations. Any celestial being who spoke
in God s name was termed by the Hebrews Yahveh. A slight
difficulty arises from the passage in Numbers, quoted above, in
which Yahveh seems to contrast the mode of his manifestations
to Moses to the ordinary mode of communication. A close
examination of the text, however, reveals that in it is simply
stated that God spoke familiarly to Moses, using no visions or
enigmas. As he was the law-giver, it was necessary that God
should show him plainly what he wished of him in the conduct
of his chosen people. The greater clearness of manifestation
regarded not the seeing of the essence of God, but the substance
of God s communication. God s message to Moses was not
involved in the attendant obscurity of prophecy, but was as a
man conversing with his friend. It is quite probable that this
divine commission was delivered out of a cloud of God s ma
jesty, and, therefore, although God through no intermediary
made known his mind to Moses, the divine essence of God was
veiled.
Having established a harmony between the two testa
ments, we now submit another opinion for the sequence of this
verse upon the preceding. It is certain that the knowledge of
God among men was greatly increased by the public life and
teachings of the Son of God. The existence of God, mono-
MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38 71
theistic worship, and the future state of man s soul were
revealed in the Old Law, but the perfection of God s mercy, the
necessity of grace, the trinity of God, the love of neighbor ; in
a word, the perfection of man s relations with God were estab
lished only by Jesus. This truth forms the proem of Paul s
Epistle to the Hebrews: "God, who at sundry times and in
divers manners spoke in time past unto the Fathers by the
Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son."
John evidently wishes to present the same truth. He had in
the preceding verses spoken of Jesus as one who knew the essence
of God. He now gives his warrant for what he has said, and
what he will say : "I have not seen God ; no man has ever seen
him, but the Son who is in the bosom of the Father has mani
fested the things that I give to the world." The phrase, "who
is in the bosom of the Father," is added to show the close re
lation that exists between the Son and the Father, and the
consequent full knowledge that the Son has of the nature of the
Godhead. It also manifests a relation that makes identical
the essence of the Son and the Father.
We pass now to the genealogy of Christ given by Matthew
I. 1-17 and by Luke III. 23-38.
MATT. I. 1-17. LUKE III. 23-38.
i. BE6Xoi; ysveaewq Irjaou 23. Kcct auTo<; YJV 6 Iiqaoug
u ulou AaulB ulou A6pad^. dp^o^evoq was! ITWV TpcdxovTa, wv
ulbq, wq Ivo[a.f^TO, Iwafj^, TOU HXet
TOU
2. ASpaa^eYevvTqaevTov Iaadbc, 24. Tou Aeuel TOU MeX/el TOU
laaax, Be lyewTqasv TOV Iaxa>6, lavvat TOU
Ia/,w6 Be eyevvrjcev TOV loucav xal
3. louBaq Bl lylvyqasv TOV 25. Tou Marra0(ou TOU
4>ap<; xal TOV Zap! Ix. TTJ<; a^ap, TOU Naou^ TOU EaXd TOU Nayyal,
<J>apg c! ey!vvf]av TOV
B! Iyvvr]av TOV
4. Apa^x B! yvyr]!jv TOV 26. Tou MaaO TOU MaTTa6(oL>
A^tvaBd^, A^tvaBa^ Bs i-{ivvr t cev TOU Se^tv TOU Iwar^ TOU
TOV
72 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
5. SaXjAwv os eyevvYjaev TOV 27. Tou Iwavav TOU Prjaa
Boeq ex. TYJ<; Paxa$, Boe? Be eyev- TOU Zopo6a6eX TOU SaXa0tT)X TOU
vrjcrev TOV Iw6YjO ex TYJ<; Pou0, NT] pel,
I(i)Sr]B Be eyevvrjaev TOV lesaaf,
6. lesjat Be eyevvr^ev TOV 28. Tou MeX /el TOJ
AauelB TOV ^>ajt}vla. AauelS Se TOU Kwcra-^ TOJ EX^xaSa^ TOU "Hp,
eylvvYjjev TOV SoXo^wva ex. Trj<; TOU
Oupfou,
7. SoXojxwv Be eyevvYjaev TOV 29. ToO lYjaou TOU EXteH.ep
Po6oa{JL, Po6oa^. Be eyevviqaev TOV TOJ Iwpsljx TOU MaGOai TOU Aeuel
A6ia, A6ta Be eyevvrjaev TOV
8. Aaacp Be eyevvYjaev TOV 30. Tou Su^xewv TOU louBa
cpaT, Iwcra^aT Be eyevvvjaev TOV TOU I(oaY]cp TOU lovav TOU
^jL, Iwpoc^ Be IyevvY]iev TOV x,etjJL,
9. Ot;(a? Be eyevvrjaev TOV 3I . Tou MeXei TOU Mevva TOU
Iwa6a^, Iwci6aix Be eyevvY]aev TOV MaTTa6a TOU NaGav, TOU Aauelo,
"A^cx^, "A^a^ Be eyevvYjaev TOV
Euexfav,
10. E^exfa? Be eyevvr^ev TOV 32. Tou lejjal TOU Iw6rjB TOU
Mava<J<rr), Mavaaa^? Be eyevvrjaev Bob? TOU SaXjxwv TOU
TOV Ajxwq, A^w<; Be eyevvTjjev
TOV Iwjefav,
11. IwiTeiai; Be eyevvrjaev TOV 33. Tou AB jXelv (
Iey w ovfav y.ot.1 TOU<; aBeX^ou? OCUTOU TOU Apvet ( Apay.) TOU Espwv TOU
exl TT^q ^JLeTotxeafaq Ba6uXa>vo<;. ^apeq TOU louBa,
12. MeTa TT]V lASTOtxeatav 34. Tou Iaxo$ TOU laaax TOU
Ba6uXwvo<; lexoviaq eyevvrjaev TOV A6paa|x TOU 0apa TOU Nay v wp,
SeXoc6tr]A, 2eXa6tY]X Be lyevvYjcev
TOV Zopo6a5eX,
13. Zopo6d6eX Be eyevvTjaev TOV 35. Tou Sepoir/ TOU Payau
A6touB, A6touB Be IyevvY]aev TOV TOU $aXex TOU "E6ep TOU SaXa,
EXtaxe:^, EXtaxsljJL Be eyevviqaev
TOV
MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
73
14. A^wp Bl lygvvrjcjEv TOV 36. Tou Ka tvoc^. TOU
SaBwx, Sa8o>x Be lyevvYjasv TOV TOU S^yi TOU Nws TOU
Be lyevvrjasv TOV
15. EXtouo BE lylvvYjaEv TOV 37. Tou MaOouaaXa TOU Evwy^
EXeatap, EXeaLocp BE lyevvYjCEv TOU laps : TOU MaXsAsr;X TOU
TOV Ma60av, Ma60av Bl lyevv^crsv Katvav,
TOV
1 6. Iaxw6 Bl lylvvr ; jv TOV 38. Tou Evcoq TOU 2Y]9 TOU
cojr,9 TOV avBpa TT]? Mapfa?, e^ fjq Acajx TOU sou.
6 Ir]aou<; Xeyo^evoq
17. Ilaaai ouv at yEvsa
<; AauelS yeveat
al dzb TYJ<; ix
ysvsat SsxaTlaaaps?, xai
TOU Xptc7TO T u ysvsat BxaTj-
1. The book of the genera- 23. And Jesus himself was
tion of Jesus Christ, the son of beginning (his public life), being
David, the son of Abraham. about thirty years of age, being,
as was supposed, the son of
Joseph, who was of Heli, who
was of Matthat,
2. Abraham begot Isaac. 24. Who was of Levi, who
And Isaac begot Jacob. And was of Melchi, who was of Jan-
Jacob begot Judas and his breth- nai, who was of Joseph,
ren.
3. And Judas begot Perez 25. Who was of Mattathias,
and Zerah of Thamar. And Perez who was of Amos, who was of
begot Esron. And Esron begot Nahum, who was of Esli, who
Aram. was of Naggai,
4. And Aram begot Amin- 26. Who was of Maath, who
adab. And Aminadab begot was of Mattathias, who was of
Nahshon. And Nahshon begot Semei, who was of Josech, who
Salmon. was of Juda,
74 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
5. And Salmon begot Boaz 27. Who was of Joanna, who
of Rahab. And Boaz begot was of Resa, who was of Zorob-
Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot abel, who was of Salathiel, who
Yeshai. And Yeshai begot Da- wasofNeri,
vid the King.
6. And David the King begot 28. Who was of Melchi, who
Solomon of her that had been was of Addi, who was of Cosam,
the wife of Uriah. who was of Elmodam, who was
of Er,
7. And Solomon begot Ro- 29. Who was of Jesus, who
boam. And Roboam begot Abia. was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim,
And Abia begot Asa. who was of Matthat, who was of
Levi,
8. And Asa begot Josaphat. 30. Who was of Simeon, who
And Josaphat begot Joram. And was of Juda, who was of Joseph,
Joram begot Ozias. who was of Jonan, who was of
Eliakim,
9. And Ozias begot Joatham. 31. Who was of Melea, who
And Jotham begot Achaz. And was of Menna, who was of Mat-
Achaz begot Ezekias. atha, who was of Nathan, who
was of David,
10. And Ezekias begot Man- 32. Who was of Yeshai, who
asses. And Manasses begot was of Obed, who was of Boaz,
Amon. And Amon begot Josias. who was of Salmon, who was of
Nahshon,
11. And Josias begot Jec- 33- Who was of Aminadab,
onias and his brethren at the who was of Aram, who was of
time of the transmigration to Esron, who was of Perez, who
Babylon. was of Juda,
12. And after the transmi- 34- Who was of Jacob, who
gration to Babylon, Jeconias was of Isaac, who was of Abra-
begot Salathiel. And Salathiel ham, who was of Thare, who was
begot Zorobabel. of Nachor,
13. And Zorobabel begot 35- Who was of Serug, who
Abiud. And Abiud begot Elia- was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg
kim. And Eliakim begot Azor. who was of Heber, who was of
Sala,
MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 2338 75
14. And Azor begot Sadoc. 36. Who was of Cainan, who
And Sadoc begot Achim. And was of Arphaxad, who was of
Achim begot Eliud. Sem, who was of Noe, who was
of Lamech.
15. And Eliud begot Elea- 37. Who was of Mathusala,
zar. And Eleazar begot Mat- who was of Henoch, who was of
than. AndMatthan begot Jacob. Jared, who was of Malaleel, who
was of Cainan,
1 6. And Jacob begot Joseph, 3 g. Who was of Enos, who
the husband of Mary, of whom was o f Seth, who was of Adam
was born Jesus, who is called w ho was of God.
Christ.
17. So all the generations
from Abraham to David are
fourteen generations; and from
David to the transmigration into
Babylon are fourteen genera
tions: and from the transmigra
tion into Babylon to Christ are
fourteen generations.
In Matt, verse 6 /3acri\eu5 is not added in the second sen
tence in K, B, F, g, k, and the versions. It is omitted by
Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort. In Luke, III. 26, we ac
cept the reading Josech on the authority of the best Greek
codices and of the best codices of the Vulgate. The codices
A, X, A, A, II, the Vulgate, Gothic, both Syriac, and Ethio
pian versions have Iwaij^. Codex D omits Cainan.
From the earliest times in the Christian era the divergency
between the genealogy of Christ as set forth by Matthew, and
as set forth by Luke has puzzled men s minds. These two
accounts have difficulties when taken singly and when com
pared with each other. Matthew proposed as the scope of his
genealogical table to show that the promise of Yahveh had
been maintained to Abraham and to David. To Abraham it
had been said that in his seed all nations should be blessed.
Of David the Lord had said: "Once have I sworn by my
holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure
forever, and his throne as the sun before me." Ps. LXXXIX.
35-36. [Vulgate LXXXVIII.l The Jews expected that the
76 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
Messiah would be the son of David, and through David be from
the blood of Abraham. Matthew traces the genealogy of the
Christ through this line to fill these prophecies and expecta
tions. Luke, on the other hand, writing for the universal scope
that actuated Paul s preaching, traces the Redeemer back to
the parent of the human race, to show the verification of that
primal prophecy made in Eden: "And I will put enmity
between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her
seed; her seed shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his
heel." Gen. III. 15. Hence, in tracing the genealogy of
Christ from Adam to Abraham, Luke is alone, and in that nar
rative there is but one difficulty, concerning which much has
been written.
By inspection of the two texts we notice that Matthew
begins at the most remote antecedent. Luke begins with the
Christ and proceeds analytically to Adam, marking the relation
of sonship by the genitive of the article prefixed to the same
case of the parent. Matthew terms his account the /3t73Xo?
7ez/eb-e&&gt;9, of Christ. Some have thought that by the term
/3ift\o<? Matthew designated the whole Gospel. Such opinion
is erroneous, since only the first chapter deals with the yeveo-is.
The word yevea-is here evidently means human birth, imply
ing, at the same time, a history of ancestral descent.
Matthew called this history a *")CD> /3t/3Xo?, in accordance
with the Hebrew usage, in which every written document is
called a book. Hence the terms fii/3\os yevea-ew applies
only to the history of Christ s human birth narrated in the first
chapter. Concerning the name Jesus, we shall speak later in
the chapter. The name Christ is the Greek %pio-ro ?, the
anointed, from %pw, to anoint with oil. It is the exact
equivalent of the Hebrew H^ Df the anointed, from HC^ D/
- T - T
to anoint. When God gave any commission, or conferred any
favor regal or priestly on any one in Israel, he caused such a one
to be anointed with oil as a sign of his elevation. Such anoint
ing was emblematic of the outpouring of the grace of the Holy
Ghost by which such a one was guided and aided in the execu
tion of the functions of his office. The Son of God, in whom
the plentitude of the Divinity substantially rested, was by
MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38 77
excellence the anointed, to whom the Father had given the
supreme priestly and kingly power in the universe.
In designating Jesus as the son of David, the son of Abra
ham, Matthew marks out the two grand termini of his genea
logical table. Abraham was the founder of the race; David,
the founder of the great kingdom that had been promised to
the patriarchs. To both repeated promises of the Messiah had
been made. With Grotius and Calmet, we believe that the
words, "son of Abraham," should be joined not to David but to
Jesus Christ. They do not directly import David s Abrahamic
sonship, but the Redeemer s carnal descent from Abraham s
seed.
If we enumerate Abraham and Christ, all the names in
Matthew s genealogical table are forty-two. In Luke, from
Adam to Christ inclusively, are seventy-six names. Some of
the Fathers have made Luke s number seventy-seven by con-
numerating the name of God.
We state here as a first principle that it is not necessary for
the correctness of any genealogical table that all the successive
members should be enumerated. Lacunae may happen and in
no wise affect the correctness of the table, provided the stream
of blood descent is not interrupted. It is like following the
course of a river by land. We may depart for greater or less
intervals from the stream; it imports nothing, provided, in
going back, we are made certain that it is the same stream.
We are not busied to know every portion of the stream but its
source. So in these genealogies, and especially in the genealogy
of Christ, we seek nothing of the intermediate members, ex
cept to lead us to the source.
The first real difficulty that presents itself in the genealogy
of Christ is that in Luke s table. In the thirty-sixth verse
Cainan is placed as the son of Arphaxad. Now in the original
Hebrew of Genesis, XI. 13, and I. Chron. I. 18, no mention is
made of Cainan, but Salah is given as the son of Arphaxad.
The Samaritan Codex agrees with the original Hebrew. The
Septuagint inserts the name of Cainan between Arphaxad and
Salah. This point has been made the subject of endless in
quiry and conjecture. Some have held that the Cainan was an
interpolation in the Septuagint, and that Luke, writing for the
78 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
Greek world, traced the line of Christ s descent conformably
to the text of Scripture that the Greek tongue made use of,
not adverting to the correctness of the Septuagint s table.
St. Jerome, Cajetan, Jansenius and Hummelaur reject
Cainan from the table, but they fail to explain the presence of
the name in Luke. That an interpolation of this kind could
creep into a version of Scripture made by uninspired agents,
we are fully prepared to believe. Errors of greater magnitude
are present in the Vulgate, which has the highest sanction of the
Church. But that Luke should ignorantly embody this error in
his Gospel, in which he professes to treat all things with great
accuracy, we can not believe. Such error is incompatible with
inspiration. Nor can it be doubted that Luke originally wrote
Cainan in this place. All the codices except D uniformly agree
in the reading as we have placed it above. Usually the omis
sion of a member in a genealogical line imports no error. Such
omissions occur all through the Old Testament, and it is cer
tain that Matthew has omitted several. But in the case in
question, the absence of Cainan in the Hebrew must be due to a
corruption of the text. Thus it reads: "And Arphaxad lived
thirty-five years, and begot Salah. And Arphaxad lived after
he begot Salah four hundred and three years and begot sons
and daughters. And Salah lived thirty years, and begot He-
ber." Gen. XI. 12-14. Such precise and detailed account
leaves no room for the theory of the intentional omission of a
member. The Samaritan Codex, the Peshito, and other early
versions are in accord with the Hebrew original. The reasons
are weighty against the presence of Cainan in the line, but the
stern necessity of defending Luke from error forces us to be
lieve that, in the many vicissitudes through which the Hebrew
text has passed, at a very remote date the accidental error of
the omission of this name came into the text of Genesis. The
Septuagint reads as follows: "And Arphaxad lived a hundred
and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan, And Arphaxad lived
after he begot Cainan three hundred years and begot sons and
daughters, and he died, and Cainan lived a hundred and
thirty years and begot Salah, And Cainan lived three hundred
and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and he
died."
MATT. I. 1 17. LUKE III. 23 38 79
Some have judged that the fact that the Septuagint at
tributes the same number of years to Cainan and to Salah is an
evidence that its text is corrupt. But the argument may well
be retorted. An identical number of years of life of two patri
archs could well be verified, and the fact that the number of
years of life is identical may be the reason that the copyist
dropped one name out of his list in copying the Hebrew text.
Melchior Canus believes that Moses purposely omitted
Cainan, and that Luke inserted him for "the Spirit of God, for a
reason hid from us, moved Moses to omit one in the series of
patriarchs" [De Loc. Theol. II. 18.]
Prat believes it to be an "implicit citation" where Luke
quotes the Septuagint without vouching for its authority. [La
Bible et 1 Histoire p. 50.]
Pesch [De Insp. Sac. Script, p. 547] does not condemn this
opinion, though he argues that Cainan is the true reading. He
says: "If Luke wrote Cainan, he thus wrote because he was
persuaded that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. Therefore
unless he is the son of Arphaxad Luke being inspired has writ
ten an error. For a man who writes : Joseph who was of
Heli, who was of Mathat etc., and afterward continues : Who
was of Sala, who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, ob
jectively asserts with equal truth that Cainan was the son of
Arphaxad and father of Sala, as that Heli was the son of Mat-
that and father of Joseph. But if he could err in one member
of the series of the genealogy he could err in many, and thus the
inerrancy of Scripture would fail. . . . Therefore it seems to
me that we must hold one of two things : either Luke did not
write Cainan, or if he wrote thus Cainan is to be inserted."
Hoberg [Die Genesis, p. 120] believes that the presence
of Cainan in Luke is an error of the copyist, and that it came
from Luke into the Septuagint.
It seems to us that the manner in which Luke draws up
his genealogical table to prove that Christ descended from the
sources which prophecy had assigned as his origin, makes it
impossible that Luke should have inserted a spurious member
in the series. Whether he drew his list from the Septuagint,
or from the public records he makes the statement his own, and
gives it the certitude of the affirmation of an inspired agent.
8o MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
It is not difficult to suppose that in the Massoretic text an
error of that kind should have crept in. Errors of omission are
more frequently found than errors of interpolation. The
silence of ancient writers concerning Cainan is merely negative
and has been exaggerated, for St. Epiphanius, who is often
cited against us, often speaks of Cainan, and declares him to be
the son of Arphaxad and father of Salah. [Heresy LXVI. 83 ;
Lib. Ancor. 59, 114, Migne torn. 42 and 43.]
The entire chronology of the Septuagint in the history of
the patriarchs differs from the Hebrew.
From Abraham to David the genealogies of Matthew and
Luke in substance agree. Matthew adverts to certain events
connected with the persons of the table, for the reason that,
writing for the Jewish people, these well known events made
the narrative more vivid, and appealed to the spirit of that very
national people. Thus while Luke only speaks of the sonship
of Judah from Jacob, Matthew speaks of the brothers of Judah,
the other eleven sons of Jacob who were the founders of the
Israelitic people. In like way, Matthew adverts to the forni
cation of Judah with Thamar, his daughter-in-law, whence
sprang Perez and Zerah. Gen. XXXVIII. 6-30. The strata
gem of Thamar by which, after being deprived of issue by the
death of Her and the sin of Onan, she conceived the twins
Perez and Zerah was famous among the Jews, and Matthew
adds to the vividness of his account by the present mention of
that event. In the genealogy of Joseph four women are men
tioned by Matthew: Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba.
Harduin assigns as a reason of this that they were all aliens.
It is doubtful whether Bathsheba was such; and if this were
Matthew s scope, he should have mentioned Roboam s mother
Naamah who was an Ammonitess. I. Kings, XIV. 21. This
opinion is evidently untenable. Jerome believes that only the
impious women are mentioned in Christ s genealogy, since,
coming to save sinners, he deigned to spring from sinners.
This was also the opinion of Origen. This opinion has still
poorer foundation. Thamar s action, considering the customs
of that time, may be defended. We find no evidence of Ruth s
sin in Scripture. She is rather the type of a faithful, beautiful
woman. The imputability of Bathsheba s sin was not very
MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38 81
great on her part, since she only obeyed her king, whom she,
doubtless, thought could do no wrong. Again, if it were Mat
thew s aim to bring into relief the great sinners in the female
line of Christ s genealogy, he could not pass over Athalia, the
wife of Joram, and mother of Ahaziah the most impious of
women. [II. Kings, VIII. 18-26; XI. 1-3.]. He could not pass
over Maacha, the wife of Abiah, mother of Asa, who was the
leader in the rites of Priapus in his grove which she had con
secrated. [I. Kings, XV. 13.] Hence it is evident that the
just reason of the mention of these women is that an unusual
event is connected with them, well known in Jewish history.
The next point of difficulty in the genealogy of Matthew
is the union of Salmon and Rahab. The father of Salmon was
Nahshon of the tribe of Judah, one of the leaders in the Exodus.
[Num. I. 7.] At the expiration of the forty years of Exodus,
when the Israelites entered Palestine, Salmon, the son of Nah
shon, would be of a marriageable age. Now the Harlot of Jericho,
Rahab, harbored the spies sent by Joshua to explore the city,
and, for that reason, was spared and afterward dwelt in Israel.
[Jos. VI. 25.] It is evidently this woman whom Salmon took
to wife, and of whom he begot Boaz. The remarkable faith
of this woman and her signal benefit conferred on the Hebrews
made her famous in Israel. She is the only Rahab that Jewish
history recognizes, and the time accords well, as she and
Salmon must have been contemporaries. From the fall of
Jericho to the birth of David, according to the chronology of
the Book of Judges the interval was not less than 470 years.
Now according to Matthew and Luke this interval must be
covered by the four generations of Boaz, Obed, Yeshai and
David, which would necessitate that these should have be
gotten issue long after they were centenarians. Such begetting
would comport with the physical condition of the earlier patri
archs, but not with the physical condition of man after Abra
ham who finds it difficult to believe that a son will be born to
him when a centenarian : "Shall a child be born to him that is
a hundred years old?" [Gen. XVIII. 17.] Some have en
deavored to solve this difficulty by denying that the Rahab of
the Evangelists and the harlot of Jericho were one and the
same person. Thus Origen [Horn. XXVIII. in Luc.] :
(5) Gosp. I
82 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 2338
Rahab qua? unde sumpta est scire nequeo." This opinion is
also held by Andreas Masius, Harduin, and Rosenmiiller. As
we have said above, the fame of the harlot was the reason of
her insertion here. Hebrew history knows no other Rahab,
and, furthermore, to reject the Rahab of Jericho does not
solve the difficulty, since Salmon must have wedded some one
in the days of Rahab. The theory of Harduin is especially
weak. In order to bring the times of Salmon, son of Nahshon,
down to more recent times than the siege of Jericho, he supposes
that Nahshon was a boy of twelve when setting out for Egypt,
and that he begot Salmon in his seventy-second year, two years
after the fall of Jericho. This would bring the marriage of
Salmon more than fifty years closer to the birth of David.
Many things in this arbitrary assumption are repugnant to cer
tain data. In the first place, Nahshon is mentioned in Numbers
as chief of a tribe, which chief tancy could not be held by any
one under twenty. [Num. I. 2-18.]
Again, we know that only Joshua and Caleb of all those
who set out from Egypt with Moses entered the promised land.
Therefore Nahshon fell in the desert. [Num. XIV. 29, 30;
XXVI. 64, 65 ; XXX. 10-13.]
Others endeavor to solve the difficulty by appealing to the
chronology of I. Kings VI. i, in which the whole time inter
vening between the Exodus and the building of the temple
in the third year of the reign of Solomon is placed as 480 years.
Taking from this number the three years of Solomon before the
construction of the temple, the seventy years of David s life
[II. Sam. V. 4.] and the forty years of the Exodus, there will
remain 367 years. But even if this be right, in order to dis
tribute the 367 years in four generations every one would have
to beget issue after the age of ninety, or some one or ones at a
more advanced age, both of which are incredible in the ordi
nary course of events. The genealogical table from Nahshon
to David appears in I. Chronicles, II. 1-15, and in Ruth, IV.
18-22, and in both places it accords with Matthew.
In examining this difficulty we must know that the chron
ology of the Bible, and in general the numerals in the Bible,
have suffered accidental corruption. St. Jerome complained of
the utter confusion of the numerals of the Book of Judges.
MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 2338 83
The interval that elapsed between the Exodus and the build
ing of the temple is uncertain. Many believe that some of
the periods mentioned in the Book of Judges are not to be
reckoned successively but synchronistically. This would
shorten the interval so that it will agree with I. (III.) Kings,
VI. i. This is not said to the intent to accept that number as
true. It is uncertain ; but if it were proven true the chronology
of Judges could be brought into harmony with it. The text of
Acts, XIII. 20, is also uncertain; and hence we can not appeal
to it to determine the length of this period.
But granting the uncertainty of the chronology of all the
texts, it still seems a longer interval than could be well covered
by four generations. Hence we believe that Matthew omitted
some members from his genealogical series. He has certainly
in other places omitted certain members of the series; and
such theory receives corroboration from the contemporaneous
generations of Levi. Eleazar and Ithamar the priests, sons of
Aaron, who performed the priestly functions in the desert were
contemporaries and of the same generation as Nahshon, chief
of the tribe of Judah. [I. Chron. VI. 1-8.] Again, Zadok of the
line of Levi was a contemporary of David. [I. Chron. XV. n.]
Now from Eleazar to Zadok there are nine generations : Elea
zar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Ama-
riah, Ahitub, Zadok; while from Nahshon to David there are
given in Matthew but six: Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed,
Yeshai, David.
In the genealogy by Matthew we find it affirmed that
Joram begat Uzziah. This same Uzziah is mentioned in
II. Chron. XXVI. i , and he is placed to be the son of Amaziah.
He is again mentioned in II. Kings XV., where he is called
Azariah. In I. Chron. III. 10-12, we read: "And Solomon s
son, was Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his
son, Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah
his son, Azariah his son." This Azariah is one of the many in
stances in Hebrew where a man bore two names. In giving his
genealogy, it is evident that Matthew has omitted Ahaziah,
Joash, and Amaziah. We believe that Matthew had no specific
aim in omitting these three, but he simply shortened the way
84 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
in such manner from Abraham to Christ without obscuring the
evidence of Christ s descent through the royal line of Judah s
kings.
A difficulty affecting both Old Testament and the New is
in relation to Hezekiah the son of Ahaz whom Matthew places
in his genealogy. Now, according to II. Kings, XVI. 2.
Ahaz was twenty years of age when he began to reign, and he
reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. This would make the
years of his life 36. His son Hezekiah succeeded him, who was
25 years of age when he began to reign. II. Kings, XVIII. 2.
Now from this it results that Ahaz must have begotten
Hezekiah when he was only in his twelfth year. This has
moved Poussines, Zaccaria and others to deny to Ahaz the
natural paternity of Hezekiah. Poussines believes that he was
his son by adoption. This opinion is absurd, since adoption
was an unknown thing among the Hebrews. We believe then
that Ahaz at the early age of twelve begot Hezekiah. In East
ern climes, where puberty is reached at an early date, such an
event would not be unusual. St. Jerome relates the case of a
boy of ten years becoming a father. Joram was 40 years of
age when he died, [II. Kings, VIII. 17,] and his son Ahaziah who
succeeded him was 22, [II. Kings, VIII. 26,] hence begotten in
his father s eighteenth year. Josiah was 39 years of age when
he was slain in battle. -[II. Kings, XXII. i.] After an in
terval of three months Joakim succeeds him, who, though his
second son, was 25 years of age, and consequently begotten not
later than the i4th year of his father s age. [II. Kings, XXII.
36.] By making the 20 years of Ahaz s age when he began to
reign full years, and, in like manner, the 16 years of his reign;
and by placing Hezekiah in his not completed 2 5th year, Ahaz
would be in his i3th year, at which time procreation of issue
would not be unusual in that climate. We must also take
cognizance that many errors have crept into the numbers of the
Old Testament, and if our solution seems violent and improb
able, one may appeal to the accidental corruption of the num
erals in the text.
A difficulty arises out of the account of ihe idolatry of
Ahaz, II. Chron. XXVIII. 3 : "Moreover, he burnt incense in
the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the
MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38 85
fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord
had cast out before the children of Israel." The difficulty is
founded in the supposition that if he burnt his children, he
would be deprived of a successor. To answer this, some assert
that this impious rite was not a human sacrifice, but only a
passing through fire. This opinion is certainly wrong. Jose-
phus, who knew the traditions of his people well, asserts in the
XII. chap, of IX. Book of Jewish Antiquities that Ahaz offered
his son as a burnt offering. Wherever the rite is spoken of in*
Scripture, it means a human sacrifice. Jewish history recog
nizes no mere passing through fire in the heathen rites, in the
awful valley of Hinnom, but it does record that infants were
burnt there in honor of Moloch. It is evident, therefore that,
Ahaz did really cremate his son to Moloch, but this did not de
prive him of male issue. In the first place the deed of Ahaz is
mentioned in the II. Book of Kings, XVI. 3, and there mention
is made of only one son. Although in Chronicles the plural is
used, we believe that it means only the one son whom he thus
offered. In fact, the Syriac has the singular form in the passage
in Chronicles. And again, even though he cremated more than
one, it is not for that reason to be believed that he burned them
all. It was only in his fierce idolatry and with a desire to win
the favor of the god Moloch that he did this ; hence he would
not deprive himself of his line of succession. Hence the fact
that Ahaz offered one or more of his sons to Moloch does not
interfere with the line of his succession.
In the nth verse of the ist chapter, Matthew says Josias
begot Jeconias. Here is another evident omission of a mem
ber in the genealogical series. Strange and confusing are the
explanations given of this passage of Scripture. Without at
tempting to reconcile the divergent opinions, we propose what
we consider a certain opinion concerning this text. In the first
place, this Jeconiah who is by Matthew declared to be be
gotten of Tosiah is in Hebrew called !T^- He is the r^liT
T: T : I T :
Jehoiachin, mentioned in II. Chron. XXXVI. 8, 9. By com
paring the Hebrew text of the two names, it will be found that
the only difference existing between them is in the placing of the
component syllable j-p, which in one case is placed before
86 MATT. I. i -17. LUKE III. 23 38
the element |3\ while in the other it follows it. The names
are identical in signification, both being composed of i"p, the
name of Israel s Deity, and 73" 1 from j O, to strengthen. This
Jehoiachin was begotten of Eliakim also called Jehoiakim.
Eliakim or Jehoiakim was the second son of Josiah. He began
to reign at the age of eight years, and after a reign of three
months and ten days was taken captive to Babylon.
We find additional proof that the Jeconias of Matthew is
the son of Jehoiakim in I. Chron. III. 15-17: "And the sons
of Josiah were the first-born Johanan, the second Jehoiakim,
the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. And the sons of
Jehoiakim ; Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. And the sons
of Jeconiah, Assir, Shealtiel his son, Malchiram also, and
Pedaiah and Shenazzar, Jecamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah."
Patrizi and others have insisted on this passage to deny
that the Jeconias of Matthew is the same as the Jehoiachin of
II. Chron. XXXVI. 8, 9, and the Jeconiah of I. Chron. III.
15,16. They argue that Matthew speaks of brothers of Jeco
nias: "Josias begot Jeconias and his brethren." Now aside
from the passage in I. Chron. III. 15, 16, no brothers of Jeco
niah are ever mentioned. In relation to this passage they say
that even if Zedekiah were the brother of Jeconiah it would not
justify the plural "brethren" of Matthew. .But most of all,
they insist that the Hebrew of the verse makes Zedekiah not
the brother but the son of Jeconiah. They refer the sonship
signified by ^D not to the remote antecedent Jehoiakim but
to the nearest Jeconiah. That the Hebrew could express the
sense they wish, we do not deny; but that it must necessarily,
and that in the present instance it does so mean, we deny. In
the first place, in the verses immediately following [I. Chron.
III. 17, 1 8] the sons of Jeconiah are given in full, and no
mention is made of Zedekiah among them.
How, we ask, could any writer, Hebrew, Greek or barbar
ian, write after this manner: "The sons of Jehoiakim were
Jeconiah whose son was Zedekiah, and the sons of Jechoniah
were Assir, Shealtiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jeca
miah, Hoshama and Nedabiah"? Aside from the fact that
Zedekiah is not in the enumeration, no rational writer would
MATT. I. 1-17. LUKE III. 2338 87
violently insert one son in the preceding verse, when, in the
very next verse, he was going to give the whole issue. Patrizi
saw the force of this argument, and strove to set it aside by a
linguistic subtlety. We notice that in the passage in question
the first son mentioned of Jeconiah is called Assir *)DN. Now
TDK from 1DN, to bind, means vinctus, bound, and is so
used in Isaiah XLII. 7. Hence Patrizi makes Assir not a
proper name but an epithet of Jeconiah after his captivity, and
thus he would translate the seventeenth and eighteenth verses of
I. Chron. chapter III. 1 7 : "The children of the captive Jeconiah
were Shealtiel," etc. Hence he says that Zedekiah his first son,
mentioned according to him in the preceding verse, is not men
tioned in the enumeration of Jeconiah s children, because in
this place are only mentioned those whom he begat in captiv
ity. No version supports his hypothesis. Patrizi could not
have adverted to the age of Jeconiah when he was led captive
to Babylon. According to him, Jeconiah begot Zedekiah be
fore his captivity, and the Hebrew writer, as it were, divided
his children into two classes, Zedekiah who was born before
Jeconiah s captivity, and those in the seventeenth and eigh
teenth verses born in captivity. But according to II. Chron.
XXXVI. 9, Jeconiah was only a little more than eight years
of age when he was made captive by Nabuchadnezzar. If he
had already begotten a son, taking into account the natural
period of gestation, Jeconiah must have become a father when
he was not older than seven years. Such infantile precocity
we are not willing to accept. We maintain then that the
Jeconiah, who closes the series in Matthew ending with the
transmigration is Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim and grandson
of Josiah.
According to I. Chron. III. 16, Jeconiah had a brother
named Zedekiah but his place in history is obscure, for when
Jeconiah was taken captive to Babylon it was his uncle Zede
kiah who was made king in his stead. We believe therefore
that the "brethren" of Jeconiah are his uncles who were taken
into captivity with him. Joahaz preceded him on the throne,
and Zedekiah followed him, and both were transported to
Babylon. Hence they are associated with Jeconiah their
88 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
nephew in the exile. The designation of those of the second
degree of kindred by the term brother is not a new thing in
Scripture; it is the uniform usage of both Testaments. In
fact.Zedekiah who is clearly declared in II. Kings X. XIV. 1 7, to
be the paternal uncle of Jeconiah is in II. Chron. XXXVI. 10,
placed as the brother of the same Jeconiah or Jehoiachin.
It is perfectly true to say that Josiah begat Jeconiah and
his brothers, because he begat him by a mediate generation,
them, by an immediate generation. The phase "at the trans
migration into Babylon" does not mean that they were begot
ten during the transmigration. Such would be false. It is
simply an epithet of those scions of the royal house to show
that they were the captive heirs to David s throne. It would
correspond to the English phrase: "Those of the Babylonian
captivity."
There is a difficulty found in the Old Testament regarding
Jehoiachin s age. According to II. Kings, XXIV. 8, he
was eighteen when he began to reign, w r hile in II. Chron.
XXXVI. 9, he is said to have mounted the throne at eight
years of age. One text must be corrupt; most probably the
former.
A difficulty arises in regard to Jehoiakim out of a prophecy
of Jeremiah XXXVI. 30: "Therefore thus saith the Lord of
Jehoiakim, king of Judah: He shall have none to sit upon the
throne of David." But Jeconiah sat on the throne of David
and Jechoniah is in Matthew, the son of Jehoiakim. Hitzig
believes that the prophecy is refuted by the fact. In II. Kings
XXIV. 8, it is stated that Jeconiah reigned three months in
Jerusalem, and was thence taken captive. Now this brief abor
tive reign could not be said to be to sit on the throne of David.
Jeremiah is prophesying the Captivity that came upon Jehoia
kim and his issue, and the fact that during the siege of Jerusa
lem by the Chaldeans, Jeconiah and his mother were in Jerusa
lem for three months does not conflict with Jeremiah s words.
The time was so short that it counted for naught ; and the con
ditions of the siege made him already a captive. Jeremiah s
words preclude any considerable duration of a reign properly
so called.
MATT. I. 117. LUKE III. 2338 89
There arises another difficulty from Jeremiah s words in
the XXII. Chapter, 3oth verse. There the prophet, speaking
of Jeconiah says: "Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man
childless, are/cvov, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for
no man of his seed shall succeed to sit upon the throne of
David, and rule any more in Judah." But according to Mat
thew Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, and in I. Chron.
III. 17, i8,heis placed as father of Shealtiel and seven others.
The difficulty arises from a too literal acceptance of the
impassioned discourse of Jeremiah. In his prophecy, the sec
ond clause explains the first. "Proclaim," he says, "the man
childless," not that he begets no children, but that "none of his
line shall sit on the throne of David." The line of kings ends
absolutely in Jeconiah. In the restoration of Judah, it had
no kings, and it was a vassal of Persia. The glory of David s
earthly kingdom was over forever, till the spiritual restora
tion of it by the Messiah, David s seed. Neither is it against
the tenor of the prophecy that Christ, who sat upon the throne
of David, was of Jeconiah, because the prophet here speaks of
the earthly throne of David, and Christ s kingdom was not of
this earth. The prophet, then, speaks of the absolute and
final cessation of the line of kings in Jeconiah, which he empha
sizes by calling the man childless.
The next difficulty that meets us is in relation to the son-
ship of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Matthew makes Shealtiel
the son of Jeconiah. Luke, on the other hand, makes Shealtiel
the son of Neri. The only mention of a Neri in the Scripture,
besides this one, is of the father of Baruch. To remove the
discrepancy between the Evangelists, some have invoked the
law of the levirate. As we must say more of this later, we will
describe it here. It is promulgated in Deut. XXV. 5, 6: "If
brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son,
the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger ;
her husband s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him
to wife, and perform the duty of a husband s brother unto her.
And it shall be that the first-born which she beareth, shall
succeed in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name
be not blotted out of Israel."
QO MATT. I. i 17 LUKE III. 23 38
By the term brother here was meant the nearest of kin in
a collateral line, and the levirate bound equally the nearest of
kin through the different degrees. The object of this law was
that the inheritance might remain in the different families,
and, hence, the son begotten of the union of the sister-in-law
with the levir was heir to the possessions of the defunct brother.
It was to avoid this law of succession that Onan, brother of
Her and levir of Thamar, wrought the abominable crime of
onanism, for which he was stricken with death. [Gen. XXX.
VIII. 8, 9.] In order that this law should come into
effect, the brother must have died avraw, childless. Again,
the first and only the first son born of the levirate union was
constituted the heir of the defunct brother. This is the law
that men appeal to in the paternity of Shealtiel attributed by
Luke to Neri, by Matthew to Jeconiah. Jeconiah, they say,
married the widow of the defunct Neri, and the son thence
born Shealtiel is by Matthew, who followed the blood line,
referred to Jeconiah ; while by Luke, who follows the legal line,
that son is ascribed to Neri, whose inheritance he received.
We cannot admit this application of the levirate law. In
the first place, there is no example in Scripture where in a
genealogical table a son of a levir is ascribed to the defunct
brother. Examples of the opposite are at hand. For in
stance, wherever the posterity of Boaz is mentioned, Obed,
whom he begot of Ruth, whom he married in accordance with
the levirate law, is not given as the son of Ruth s defunct child
less husband Mahalon but is always ascribed to Boaz. The son
of such a marriage was only considered a son of the defunct
kinsman in his legal right of succession, and in the legal propa
gation of the family in order that families should not die out ;
but in a genealogy one deals with blood descent. It would be
farcical to make a genealogical table, and introduce therein
legal sons. Josephus, who was conversant with the customs
and laws of his race, thus speaks of the effects of the levirate,
Antiq. Bk. IV. C. VIII. 23: "If a woman s husband die, and
leave her without children, let his brother marry her, and let
him call the son that is born to him by his brother s name, and
educate him as the heir of his inheritance; for this procedure,
will be for the benefit of the public, because thereby families
MATT. I. 117. LUKE III. 23 38 91
will not fail, and the estate will continue among the kindred."
The son then of the levitate union was the son of the defunct
brother only by a "fictio juris. 1 Julius Africanus was the first
to introduce the legal sonship of the levirate law into the
genealogical tables. Many have followed him, moved by the
seeming necessity that this was the only means of reconciling
Matthew and Luke. They seem never to have adverted to the
fact that both Matthew and Luke reject this mode of reckoning
lineage by uniformly ascribing to Boaz, Obed, who was begotten
of Ruth by the levirate law, and who by the fictio juris belonged
to Mahalon. An additional reason for rejecting this widely
received absurdity in the present case of Jeconiah is the fact
that kings were prohibited from following the levirate law. In
the Mischna, in the Tract De Synedriis, Cap. II. 2: "Rex
calceum non tradit, neque alii id faciunt ob uxorem ejus ; jure
leviratus nullam ducit, neque conjux ejus nubit." Jeconiah
would thus be prohibited by the institutions of his people from
marrying his brother s wife. We believe therefore that the
Shealtiel of Matthew is the son of Jeconiah by blood issue.
We are persuaded that the Shealtiel of Luke is a different
individual from the Shealtiel of Matthew and Chronicles.
Luke s account from David to Christ descends from David s
son Nathan, while Matthew proceeds from Solomon. Now
setting aside the absurd theory of the legal sonship, it is im
possible that Nathan s male issue should become identical with
the Solomonic line in Shealtiel. To assert the distinction of
these two individuals, we have simply to admit that two in
dividuals in Israel s history bore the same name. Those who
contend that the Shealtiel of Luke is the same as the Shealtiel
of Matthew adduce the fact that Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel of
Matthew, is also given as the son of the Shealtiel of Luke. This
is not an insuperable difficulty. Zerubbabel was prominent in
Jewish history at the period of their emancipation from the
Babylonian captivity ; hence, the Shealtiel of Luke proud that
he himself bore the same name as the celebrated captain s
father, called his son by the name of Israel s chief in her return.
There is a conflict also between I. Chron. III. 19, and
Matthew, I. 12. Chronicles makes Zerubbabel the son of Peda-
iah, the brother of Shealtiel. Many varying opinions have
92 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
been advanced for the solution of this difficulty. Schanz and
Comely appeal to the levirate law, by which Pedaiah married
the widow of Shealtiel and of her begot Zerubbabel. Besides
laboring under the absurdities already enumerated in relation
to the levirate, this opinion has the additional defect that thus
Matthew, who, they maintain, built up the natural generation
of Christ, would in this case have given the legal sonship of
Zerubbabel, a thing incredible in any writer. Knabenbauer
believes that a textual error has crept into the Chronicles by
which the paternity of Zerubbabel is falsely attributed to
Pedaiah instead of Shealtiel. All must admit that the text
of Chronicles has suffered more by the vicissitudes of time than
any other book of the Old Testament.
In order that we may have a clear understanding of the
question, we must distinguish issue from issue. We say then
that the chief who led Israel back from captivity was Zerub
babel the son of Shealtiel by blood descent. He is called the
son of Shealtiel in nine places in the Old Testament: I. Ezra
III. 2; Ibid. 8; Ibid. V. 2; II. Ezra XII. i; Haggai, I. 12-14;
Ibid. II. 23; Haggai, I. i; Ibid. II. 2. However it might be
for others to ascribe the levirate son to the defunct brother, it
would be ridiculous in the solemn words of prophecy in which
Haggai thus addresses Zerubbabel: "Speak now to Zerub
babel the son of Shealtiel, etc. We believe that the Zorobabel
of Matthew is this same chief, son of Shealtiel. The Zorobabel
of Luke has already been proven to be another individual.
Now we may solve the difficulty arising out of I. Chron.
III. 19, in two ways. We may hold with Knabenbauer that a
textual error has crept into the text of Chronicles, whereby
Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel is falsely attributed to Pedaiah,
or we may say that the Zerubbabel of Chronicles was the cousin
of the Zorobabel of Matthew. An example of two brothers
having sons bearing the same name ought to surprise no one.
Against this theory a weighty objection is aimed, that it seems
incredible that the writer of Chronicles would pass over the
genealogy of the great chief of the return, and give the descent
of his obscurer cousin. In answer, it can be said that the
writer of Chronicles did not propose to give a detailed account
of all the data of Israel s history. That writer, who was most
MATT, I. 117. LUKE III. 2338 93
probably Ezra, wrote for a particular scope, and as there is in
his work no mention of the great events effected under Zerub-
babel so there is no mention of that Zerubbabel s lineage.
Omissions of important matter occur in all the Holy Books.
A strong reason in favor of the second opinion is that in Mat
thew the whole line of Zorobabel s posterity, beginning with
Abiud, is different from the posterity of the Zerubbabel of
Chronicles.
It should cause no surprise that the genealogical line
should continue uninterrupted through the Captivity. The
condition of the Hebrews in Babylon was more that of colon
ists than slaves. In fact, after the edict of restoration by
Cyrus, many of them preferred to remain at Babylon. We
know that in the thirty-seventh year of the Captivity Evil
Merodach, then reigning in Babylon, relaxed the captivity of
Jeconiah, and spoke to him kindly, and placed his throne above
all the kings that were with him at Babylon. In fact, it seems
that the condition of those captive kings was a mere
vassalage, allowing all the personal liberty accorded to royal
prisoners of state. Such captivity would not interfere with
domestic relations. We give no thought to reconcile the
different descendents of the Zorobabel of Matthew and Luke,
since we have already established that they are two distinct
individuals.
In Chapter I. 17, Matthew divides his genealogies into
three fourleens, one extending from Abraham to David; the
second from David to the Captivity; and the third from the
Captivity to Christ. This also has been made the subject of
much discussion. In the first place, it is certain that Matthew
omits several generations in every period, hence how can he
say that the generations between two epochs were fourteen?
Aside from the instance already given of the omission of the
three kings, certain evidence of such omission is found in the
fact that, while Matthew, from David to Christ, enumerates only
twenty-eight generations, Luke places in the same interval
forty-two.
It is certain that Matthew does not mean that the real
number of generations between these epochs was fourteen.
Such would certainly be false. He simply divides up the
94 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
generations which he thought good to give into fourteens, per
haps for convenience of memory. It was as if he would say:
"I will mark the lines from Abraham to David, and from
David to the Captivity, and from the Captivity to Christ, every
one by fourteen landmarks, so that men may be enabled to
examine the records and see that Christ is from Abraham and
David." Perhaps Matthew, in order to have always this num
ber, purposely omitted some members, especially since those
he gave were fully sufficient to trace the line.
In our opinion, Jeconiah closes the second period and
opens the last. This is denied by Patrizi and others, but they
adduce no valid reasons for their opinion. They would have
the first Jeconiah one of the sons of Josiah, and they are not
agreed whom. They thus constitute two Jeconiahs. This
arbitrary position falls by the fact alone that thus there would
be a lacuna in Matthew s line that would induce uncertainty ;
for we could not be certain of whence the second Jeconiah
descended. Now, although Matthew may omit at times, it is
never where we cannot go back to the parent in the direct line.
He could omit kings where the records of the Jews made it
easy to trace the line through the omitted members, but Jewish
history knows no other Jeconiah of the Babylonian period ex
cept Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim, grandson of Josiah. If the
second Jeconiah be not he, a lacuna is introduced in the line
which would break the thread.
They bring against us a difficulty which results from the
identity of the two Jeconiahs. If there be but one Jeconiah,
he is the last member in the second fourteen; hence they say,
he should not enter as a member in the last series ; but if we
exclude him from the ultimate fourteen, there remain but thir
teen members including Christ.
Many solutions have been proposed for this difficulty,
but the simplest and best seems to be the following. Matthew
is not enumerating all the members between Abraham and
Christ, but simply arranging those he gives in series of fourteen.
Now, in that arrangement, since Jeconiah closed an epoch and
opened another, he is placed twice in the enumeration. The
reason that the same does not happen with David is that the
succession there is not broken by any great event, whereas in
MATT. I. 117. LUKE III. 2338 95
the case of Jeconiah, the Captivity gave him a sort of double
function in the series, that of closing the line of kings in the
Captivity, and of opening the line of progenitors of Christ after
such event. Had Matthew said: "From David to Jeconiah
there are fourteen generations," the account could not stand.
But he says: "From David to the Captivity are fourteen
generations; and from the Captivity to Christ are fourteen
generations."
These statements are strictly true and assign a twofold
place in the enumeration to Jeconiah. The transmigration
itself is made to stand as a member in the computation, and
gives to Jeconiah a sort of double personality, as the one who
marks the fall of the royal house in entering the Captivity, and
the one who continues, after such event, the line which led
down to Christ.
There is a certain Jewish coloring in this mode of dividing
the members in four tee us. Augustine and others see a mystery
in the number fourteen. Such opinion was a result of the
mystic exegesis of the time. We can see no other reason
than a mere wish to aid the memory, and please Jewish taste.
We come now to the cardinal difficulty of the whole ques
tion. Matthew and Luke, taking as a point of divergency
David s issue, proceed by two distinct lines down to Christ.
Matthew starting from Solomon, proceeds through the line cf
kings to Joseph the husband of Mary. Luke begins with
David s son Nathan, and proceeds through an obscure line to
Heli, and then an uncertainty arises in tracing Christ s origin
from Heli. Nearly all the members mentioned by Luke be
tween Nathan and Christ are persons unknow r n in the other
Scriptures. Some believe that the two lines converge and
unite in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, but we have already re
jected this opinion. The nucleus of the whole difficulty con
sists in this that Matthew makes the father of Joseph Jacob,
and then traces the antecedent lineage back to Solomon, while
Luke traces the origin of Jesus from Mary and Joseph through
one Heli, and then goes back through the line of Heli s progen
itors to Nathan. This difficulty moved Dean Alford [1810-
1871] in his edition of the Greek Testament to avow that : "It
is quite beside the purpose of the present commentary to
96 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
reconcile these two genealogies. It has never been accom
plished, and every endeavor to do it has violated either in
genuousness or common sense." Without essaying to examine
all the opinions bearing upon this vexed text, we shall only
mention the two leading ones. The first opinion has been
famous since the times of Julius Africanus its inventor. Nearly
all the Fathers and old scriptural writers adopted his hypo
thesis. It must without doubt, be called an opinio communis-
siina among Catholic exegetists. It does not in equal degree
prevail among protestant interpreters, and the later Catholic
writers are not so concordant in its acceptation. The opinion
of Africanus is totally based on the levirate. No author of
prominence lias ever denied that Matthew wrote down the real
blood line. His use of the verb begot alone would substantiate
this. Again, Matthew wishes to prove that the prophecy has
been fulfilled which proclaimed that Christ should spring from
the seed of Abraham and David, which necessitates real, natural
procreation. This opinion is corroborated by our opinion
above, that nothing less than blood descent can be placed in
any genealogical table. Applying the levirate law upon this
basis, they suppose that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers,
born of Estha, who had been successively married to Matthan
and Melchi. We can do no better here than to quote from
Africanus own words in his Epistle to Aristides: "Matthan
and Melchi, having married in succession the same woman, had
children who were brothers by the same mother, as the law r did
not prohibit a widow, whether she became such by divorce or
by the death of her husband, to marry again. Matthan, there
fore, who traces his lineage from Solomon, first had Jacob by
Estha, for this is her name as handed down by tradition. Mat
than dying, and Melchi, who traces his descent from Nathan,
though he was of the same tribe but of another family, having
as beforesaid, married her, had a son Heli. Thus then we shall
find the two of different families, Jacob and Heli, brothers by
the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, on the death of his
brother, marrying his (brother s) widow, became the father of
a third, viz. Joseph, his son both by nature and calculation.
Wherefore it is written : Jacob begot Joseph. But, accord
ing to the Law, he was the son of Heli," for Jacob being his
MATT. I. 117. LUKE III. 23 38 97
brother, raised up seed to him, having Joseph, according to
nature, belonging to himself, but by the Law, to Heli."
Africanus claims to have received this from the relatives of
Christ. Eusebius, who preserves for us the testimony, says of
it: "Although it be not supported by testimony, we have
nothing better to advance, either better or more consistent
with truth."
To say nothing of other things, this theory fails, because
the levirate law only applied to a brother s widow, who had
no son [Deut. XXV. 6]; it cannot therefore apply to Esther.
Again, how could Luke profess to write with accuracy
when he mixes legal and natural sonships in his line?
The levirate son of Ruth by Boaz is by him ascribed to
Boaz, not to Mahalon, to whom he belonged, if he recognizes
legal sonship in his table. Again, Matthew, a Jew writing for
Jews who alone understood this mode of descent, discards it;
while Luke, writing for the universal Christian world, in which
gentiles must hold the greater part, traces the Christ from
Adam by a mode of descent w r hich was foreign to their cus
toms and which they could not understand. Moreover, if
both Matthew and Luke describe the genealogy of Joseph , we
are not made certain by their statements that a drop of Abra
ham s or David s blood was in the Redeemer. Joseph was not
a factor in his conception, and we can only establish Mary s
kinship to Joseph by collateral arguments, which often do not
surpass the sphere of conjecture. Finally, Luke says plainly
that Jesus was the putative son of Joseph, hence if he gives the
genealogy of Joseph, he would establish that Jesus was only the
putative son of David, Abraham, and all others in the list, a
thing which he scarcely aimed at. It has ahvays seemed
strange to me that St. Luke should go over the very same
ground as Matthew, and differ from him in bringing in the
weak legal sonship, which could count nothing in real lineal
descent. As a gentile, he would not attach much importance
to this legal ordinance, and the great gentile world were not ex
pected to become conversant with the old dead ordinances of
the imperfect code, before they could know how Christ came
from Adam through Abraham and David. There is something
so Jewish about the levirate that, to make their theory plaus-
(6) Gosp. I.
98 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 2338
ible, they would have to make it adopted by Matthew, which
is impossible from the very words of that Evangelist. An
other opinion that merits passing mention is that of those who
make the Evangelist term Joseph the son of Heli inasmuch as
he had married his daughter Mary. Examples of such loose
use of affinity for consanguinity are not wanting in Scripture,
but they never occur in genealogical tables, and would be
especially out of place in the genealogy of Christ. Lord Her-
vey s opinion that Matthew referred the royal line, in which
no strict attention was paid to blood issue, but only to the right
of succession, is evidently absurd.
We place then as our opinion on this passage that Luke
sets forth the real blood descent of Jesus through Mary, and
that consequently Luke s line is the line of Mary s ancestors.
This opinion has been defended among others by Galatin us,
Genebrard, Jansenius, Lightfoot, Lucas Brugensis, Vossius,
Toynard, and Calmet.
In this we make Heli the father of Mary the Mother of
Christ. But here there arises a difficulty. The parents of
Mary were Joakim and Anna. That Joakim was the father
of Mary rests on tradition alone, and a fact of such nature can
not be rendered certain by tradition. But we may satisfy this
difficulty without disturbing this venerable tradition. Heli
may be a shortened form of Eliakim which is convertible with
Joakim, as is clear from Judith IV. 5, 7, n, cfr, Judith XV. 9.
Patrizi opposes, and says that, though Eliakim and Joakim are
convertible, not so Heli and Eliakim; for Heli is written V?y,
while Eliakim is written D^p^N. This objection proves
nothing. The only evidence that Patrizi has that the Eli of
Luke corresponds to the i^g, of the Hebrew is the fact that the
Greek term H\et has the rough breathing in some texts. It
is evident that this is not conclusive. Breathings and accents
are the work of uninspired agents, and came into the codices
many centuries after they were written, and if the argument
proved anything, it would prove against Patrizi ; for the Vatican
Codex, the Polyglott of Walton, the received text, and other
authorities have the smooth breathing, HXet, which is the
Greek transliteration of i?N, a contraction of D^
MATT. I. 117. LUKE III. 2338 99
In the Chagigah of Jerusalem, fol. 77, 4, it is narrated that
a certain Jew saw in a vision the pain of the damned ; among
other things he saw "Mary the daughter of Heli in darkness."
It seems quite probable that the Mother of Jesus is here con
templated. The Rabbis are accustomed to revile her in their
obscure writings. If this be their meaning here, it would
prove that Jewish tradition held Heli to be the father of the
Mother of God.
Petrus Galatinus testifies that the Rabbi Judas Sanctus
gave answer to the consul Antoninus that the maternal grand
father of the Messiah was Eli or Jehoiakim. According to the
same Galatinus the Rabbi Nechoniah-ben-Kanah wrote of
Mary s descent: "Erat quidem puella in Bethlehem Judah
nomine Maria filia Jehoiakim Eli." These testimonies stand
ing alone would avail little, but taken as corroborative of a
truth already established they have some weight.
We come now to a closer examination of the text of Luke.
Had Luke said: "Heli begot Joseph," we should never have
advanced our theory. We reproduce the original text and the
exact translation of the Greek of this passage. "Kal
Ia>o-?7(/> rov HXei, TOW Mar^ar," etc. "And he, Jesus, was
beginning his (public life), being about thirty years of age, being
the son, as it was thought, of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat," etc.
According to our opponents, the Greek genitive of the article
before Heli marks the paternity of Joseph ; and so on through
the series son is referred to father by such genitive. This we
deny. We believe that the genitive of this article before Heli
marks simply the sonship of Jesus from him, and all through
the series not the origin of one of the members from the other,
but the origin of Jesus himself from all these members is marked
by the genitives. In other words, the antecedent of the rela
tive made use of by the Vulgate and the Douay Version is not
the precedent factor but Jesus, with whose sonship the verse
starts. It is evident that such exegesis is made necessary by
the very words of the Evangelist himself. The clause &&gt;<? IVO/JLL-
ero can only modify Joseph, or else the genealogical table
is absurd, giving a series of members who by the express declar
ation of the writer had no influx in the blood of Jesus. Now
TOO MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 23 38
unless the relation of Jesus to Heli is more real than his rela
tion to Joseph, the o>9 evo^i^ero must needs qualify the whole
series. Another argument in favor of this hypothesis is that,
when it traces the sonship of Jesus back to God, it is much more
fitting to say that Jesus was of God, since he was of God by real
natural sonship. In the other mode of computation, when we
reach Adam, we must make an abrupt change from sonship to
creation. A clear precedent for such way of tracing genealogy
is found in Genesis XXXVI. 2, where Oholibamah is declared
to be the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite.
Now from Genesis XXX VI. 24, 25 we know that Anah was a male;
consequently Moses has here traced genealogy through tw r o
generations in the manner that Luke has traced the line through
many generations. We believe then that Luke simply here
declares that Jesus was the putative son of Joseph, but the real
son of Eli and of Matthat and so on, till he asserts that he was
the son of God.
Neither is there need to introduce here a harsh parenthesis
including &&gt;<? evo^i^ero Iaa-r)(f>. Blood lineage flows down
in two streams which form a confluence in the composite prin
ciple of generation, the matrimonial union. In tracing the
source of the effect of this composite cause the going back pro
ceeds in genealogies upon the line of the male element, because
he is the active factor in generation, and his blood is principal
in the issue. Now Luke wishes to trace the blood of Jesus,
whose issue from the union of Joseph and Mary was miraculous,
and stands alone in the history of the universe. He had already
spoken of Mary s virginal parturition, I. 35 ; he opens the pres
ent verse with Joseph s reputed paternity, and then wishes to
follow the stream of blood back to its primal source. In fol
lowing this stream of blood he can not follow the male line;
there was no male line, he had already excluded it; hence he
proceeds by the line of Mary s blood. Mary was of David s
line by David s son Nathan. It was good that in the accurate
account that Luke promised in the preamble to give, that we
should know the real blood line of the Messiah from David ; he
has given it to us through Mary.
But they say: "If Luke wished to give us Mary s line,
why did he not say so clearly, and not employ language that
MATT. I. 117. LUKE III. 2338 101
has deceived many?" We believe that Luke s account is more
skilful and more beautiful by the omission of Mary s name here
in the line. He has consulted that delicacy with which the
Scriptures always invest Mary, by speaking in terms so that it
might easily be gleaned that the line of Mary s blood was in
tended, without making her a member with these men here
enumerated. He has with consummate art done two things.
He has, in accord with the Jewish custom, only enumerated
male members, and, at the same time, has given the real lineal
descent of the Christ. He refers him to his reputed father,
and tells the mystery, and then in the next degree passes to the
real line of blood, a transition rendered necessary by the very
miraculous conception of the Messiah.
It is certain that Luke s contemporaries understood him
perfectly. No question was ever made of the descent of the
Christ until the time of Julian the Apostate. Writing in that
age, when Mary herself was still living, and when the memory
of her descent was still in men s mind, no danger of deception
was incurred. That men should differ on a critical point of
this nature in the course of time, ought to surprise no one.
Such is the fate of many passages in the Inspired Waitings, and
certainly their authors wrote to be understood. Why did St.
Paul write in such a way as to call forth from St. Peter himself
the declaration that there were many things in him hard to be
understood ? These passages were understood by their writers ;
they did not foresee our difficulty. I believe that Luke artis
tically endeavored to write a genealogy that should contain
only male members and yet give the blood descent, and that
he has accomplished it.
Two objections are here brought against us. If Luke gives
the real genealogy, why did Matthew write ? We answer that
it was the design of God that both his foster father and his
mother should be of David s line. It would have been an
anomaly not in harmony with the divine plan if, even though
Mary was of the blood of David, Joseph, her real spouse and
Christ s reputed father, should be of another stock. Now
since Jesus was born in a legitimate wedlock between. Mary and
Joseph, it was right and true for Matthew to give the Messiah s
paternal ancestors to show the design of God in choosing
102 MATT. I. i 17. LUKE III. 2338
Joseph of David s race to be his father. We hold it to be true,
however, that, had not Mary descended from David s seed, the
prophecy made to David that the Christ should spring from his
seed would not be fulfilled. But since, by the direct provi
dence of God, she was of the direct lineal descent from David,
which verified the prophecy, it was fitting that Matthew should
give the paternal line, and Luke the maternal line, so that
Christ s David ic descent should be in every way evidenced.
There is nothing farcical about Matthew s table; Christ
was not born in an adulterous union, but in a legitimate wed
lock. Hence men who might not make a study of the mode in
which the foetus is formed in the womb had a right to know
the genealogy of his reputed father, that, thus recognizing
Christ as David s son, they might receive him as the Messiah.
Luke, who is studying great accuracy, supplements the genealogy
in Matthew by the genealogy of Christ s mother, who gave of
the substance of her body for the formation of his body. The
genealogy of Joseph, though perfectly right and true for Mat
thew, would have been farcical for Luke, after having advised
us beforehand that Joseph was only the reputed father ; for, by
that very phrase he gives evidence that he made the critical
study of the formation of Jesus body; and hence he gives us
his real blood line back through David to Adam.
A final objection they advance against us is that thus
Christ would not be Solomon s son, which they seem to think
necessary from the promises made to Solomon. We answer
that their theory in establishing both genealogies as those of
Joseph does not confirm the Solomonic origin of Christ. They,
after all, stop at this that Joseph came of Solomon, although
legally the son of Nathan. Moreover, there is no place in
Scripture where the Messiah is promised to spring of Solomon s
blood, as was promised to David. They cite many passages of
Scripture, II. Sam. VIII. 11-16; I. Chron. XXVIII. 4, 5; Ps.
LXX. [Vulgate LXXI.]. The real import of these passages is
that Solomon, in the splendor of his glory wrought by God s
blessing, should be a material type of the spiritual glory of
Christ s Kingdom, and of that glory that Christ received in
entering his kingdom after the Resurrection. Solomon s rela
tions to Christ were those of the type to the antitype, not of
LUKE I. 5 103
the father to the son. We believe, therefore, that the harmon
ious concordance of Matthew and Luke demands that we recog
nize in Matthew the paternal line, and in Luke the maternal.
LUKE I. 5.
5. There was, in the days of 5. Eylvsio ev -rat?
Herod the king of Judsea, a cer- HptoBou ^aatXswq rr]<;
tain priest named Zacharias of Espsuq aq ovo^cm Z<r/<xp:a<;, i%
the course of Abia: and his wife ecpYj^epfaq A6ia: xcu yuvrj GCUTIO ix.
was of the daughters of Aaron, TWV 0jyai:pwv Aapwv, -/.at TO
and her name was Elizabeth. ovo^cc auTf]
It was the usual mode of fixing the date of a historical
event, to locate it under the reigning sovereign. So Luke fixes
the date of the birth of John by placing it in the reign of Herod,
king of Judasa. The Herod here mentioned was the son of the
wealthy and influential Idumean Antipater or Antipas, and his
Idumean wife, Cypros. Antipater cultivated the friendship
of the Romans and also of the Arabs. Through the influence
of his father, Herod at first received the government of Galilee.
Being of an ambitious turn of mind, and aided by his father s
wealth, he soon rose to eminence. Upon the succession of
Mark Antony to the Empire of Rome, Herod advanced his in
terests with him by large presents of gold. He finally went to
Rome, and by giving large sums of money, obtained the king
dom of Judaea from Antony and Octavius Cassar. History has
no record of a more cruel monster. His life is a series of mur
ders, which comprises his wives and his own children. He was a
very active man, and has been called great on account of his
achievements. He restored the Zerubbabeliari Temple on a
magnificent scale. This was the temple which figures in the
times of our Lord. Some further repairs were made on it also
at a later date. The date of Herod s death is placed in the
spring of the year 750 from the building of Rome. The birth
of Christ according to Patrizi, is placed in the winter of the year
747, A. U. C.; and since John s conception preceded the con
ception of Christ by six months, with sufficient accuracy we
could locate the date of the event here mentioned in the spring
of 746, A. U. C.
104 LUKE I. 5
Zachary is called a ie/?eu9 TW, a certain priest. Some
have asserted that he was a high priest. Such was the opinion
of Chrysostom, who based his opinion on the nature of the
priestly function performed here by Zachary. This opinion is
certainly erroneous. We find in no place mention of Zachary
among the high priests. Josephus enumerates the high priests
of this time, and no mention is made of Zachary. Again, the
high priest was never called o iepevs but always apxiepevs .
[The reading of the received Greek text, Act. V. 24, is evidently
erroneous.] Moreover, that Zachary was one of many, is im
plied by the addition of TI?, a certain one, which could not
be said of the high priest. Finally, it is against all the data of
history to assert that there were many contemporaneous high
priests, of whom one succeeded another in turn, as is plainly
said here of Zachary.
We hold then that Zachary was one of the ordinary priests
of the class of Abiah, one of the twenty-four orders of Aaronic
priests that had been constituted by David.
We must know that to Aaron alone and to his posterity
was given the priesthood. The whole tribe of Levi were chosen
for service in the temple, hence they were called Levites ; but of
these the line of Aaron alone was chosen for the priesthood.
Aaron had four sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.
Nadab and Abihu for their idolatry were stricken with death
by God in Mt. Sinai, and left no issue ; hence the whole line of
priests descended through Eleazar and Ithamar. [i. Chron.
XXIV. 1-3.] In the times of David these families were repre
sented, that of Eleazar by Zadok, and that of Ithamar by
Achimelech the son of Abiathar. David gave to these and
their posterity the headship over their respective families, and
divided all the other priests into twenty-four classes, of which
sixteen were of the family of Eleazar and eight of the family of
Ithamar. The eighth class of these twenty-four orders was
that of Abiah to which Zachary belonged. Such division of the
priests endured even down to the destruction of Hebrew polity
by the Romans. These twenty-four orders of priests minis
tered in the temple successively, every order for a week, and
this is what Luke means by saying that Zachary w r as of the
course of Abiah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron.
LUKE I. 6 7 105
There was no law that the priests should only marry the daugh
ters of Aaron. Luke seems to bring out this detail to ennoble
the origin of John. He may have had in mind also to show that
Christ chose his precursor from the most noble parentage in
their nation. Luke is describing an important historical per
sonage, and wishes to give accurate data of his origin, that men
might know whence he was.
LUKE I. 6-7.
6. And they were both 6. TIjav ol oixatot ajjupfo
righteous before God, walking in IVGCVTIOV TOJ 0soQ, xopeuo^evcu
all the commandments and or- zajatq -ralq IvToXatq xal
dinances of the Lord blameless. TOJ Kupiou ajxs^icToi.
7. And they had no child, 7. Kal oiix fjv aikoiq TSXVOV,
because that Elizabeth was bar- xaOo-u YJV EXstaaoei a-usTpa, xal
ren ; and they both were well ad- a^cpo-repoc ^po6s6T)x,<k<; Iv Talq
vanced in their days. r,^epai<; auTwv f,aav.
Mark begins his Gospel with the Baptist s preaching;
Matthew goes back to the conception of Jesus ; Luke goes back
still farther to the conception of John the Baptist. The mir
aculous birth of John is narrated since it gave weight to his
testimony of the Christ ; it attested that he was a man sent from
God.
As agents to co-operate with himself in the execution of
his great designs, God chooses persons who are according to his
own heart. It would be incongruous that the wicked should
participate in the work of God in such a way. When Zachary
and Elizabeth are called righteous, it refers not to any specific
virtue alone but to the possession of all the virtues. Such is
the Scriptural use of the word. The signification of the phrase
"before God" has in this place its usual Scriptural signification.
That is, it manifests the reality of the attribute which it quali
fies. That which is so before God is in very truth so. When
the Evangelist thus qualifies the righteousness of those pious
consorts, he establishes that their virtues were not seeming, but
those which could bear the scrutiny of God. The next clause
shows forth their careful thought and careful submissive atten
tion to the obligations of a religious life, and their unswerving
perseverance therein. The term "ordinances" employed here
io6 LUKE I. 6 7
by Luke does not mean anything specifically different from the
"commandments." but in accordance with the usage of Greek
writers, it is used as a word of synonymous import to strengthen
the force of "commandments." The Alexandrians render
by SucaiajftaTa the Hebrew D^pH- Luke took the term from
the Greek Scriptures. Neither is the term a poor rendering of
the Hebrew. The divine statutes are acts of justice, which
would be the first signification of SucaiM/Mara. Luke uses the
two synonymous words to comprehend all man s religious obli
gations. The a/ie/u/TTjot, poorly rendered by the sine querela
of the Vulgate, has reference to the freedom from anything that
might be the just motive of reprehension. Zachary and Eliza
beth were human, and subject to human frailty, but they were
blameless in regard to any grave defect that would cause a re
buke from the Almighty. Calvin denied that any one can lead
a blameless life. If we accept blameless in the sense of abso
lute exemption from every venial defect, it is true that such
sinlessness was never found in any creature save only the Blessed
Virgin Mary. Of course, the created humanity of Christ is
exempt from sin, but its hypostatic union takes it out of the
category here spoken of. But the Scripture here speaks of
exemption from any crime. This is possible, and many are
thus blameless.
Among the Hebrews, the greatest affliction was to be
childless. In the designs of God he wished to attract men s
minds to John by the miracle of his conception. For this
reason, by the providence of God, Elizabeth was barren. Had
God given her a miraculous fecundity in the age when women
are fruitful, the miracle would not have impressed men so
much. The operation of God would be hid from the world in
such case, since they would have attributed such an event in a
woman s fruitful age to natural causes. Hence God defers her
issue, till the natural powers of conception cease by old age,
that the world might recognize in this fact the miraculous
exercise of the power of God.
The miraculous conception of John was a preparatory
miracle in proof of the greater miracle of the virginal concep
tion of Christ.
LUKE I. 8 10 107
LUKE I. 8-10.
8. And it came to pass, that, 8. EysveTO Be Iv TU> l
while he executed the priest s auibv Iv Tfl Ta^ei ir\q
office before God in the order of auTou Ivavic TOJ sou,
his course,
9. According to the custom 9. Kaia TO e0o<; TYJ?
of the priest s office, his lot was IXa^c ToG Gu^taaac etaeXOwv scq TOV
to burn incense, having gone vabv ToG Kupiou.
into the sanctuary of the Lord.
10. And the whole multitude 10. KGC! xav TO xXfjOo? rjv TOU
of the people were praying with- XaoG xpoaeir/ojjLsvov s^w Tfl wpa ToG
out at the hour of incense.
Since in even-- order of priesthood, there were many priests,
the ways of service and the kind of service to be performed in
the temple were determined by lot to the several priests. The
Greek word tyrjfjiepia, literally a daily course, does not refer
to the weekly course of the priests of Abiah s order, but to the
day in that course assigned by lot to Zachary. When the week
of one of the orders of the priests arrived, it was determined by
lot what days the several priests should serve, and what should
be their function. The "before God" refers here to the pres
ence of God in the Holy of Holies of the temple, before which
Zachary s priestly function was performed.
The ceremony of offering incense here assigned to Zachary
is described in Chapter XXX. of Exodus. The altar of incense
was a square, being a cubit in length and a cubit in width. It
was two cubits high, and stood in the temple immediately in
front of the veil which enclosed the Holy of Holies. The
priests of Aaron s line burned sweet smelling incense thereon
every morning and evening, which rite was emblematic of
prayer, which as a sweet incense ascends to God. From the
function which Zachary performed, some endeavor to glean that
he was a high priest. Thus Ambrose, Augustine, and Bede.
The Herodian temple was a vast quadrangular enclosure, within
which were four other enclosures. Into the great outer court
both Jews and gentiles might enter. The next court was also
quadrangular, separated from the first by a stone wall, upon
which was an inscription forbidding any foreigner to enter
io8 LUKE I. 8 10
under pain of death. Into this only Jews, both men and women,
entered. The third enclosure within this was not allowed to
the women. Within this was the court of the priests, where
stood the altar of holocausts and the altar of incense. Within
this was the Holy of Holies, into which only the high priest
entered once a year on the day of atonement. Now those who
argue that Zachary was the high priest, locate the place of his
priestly function in the Holy of Holies. They make the time
to be the day of atonement. Many things disprove this opinion.
Zachary could not be said to have obtained by lot to burn
incense, if he were high priest. Again, if the date were the day
of atonement, the daily course could not have been determined
by lot. But, most of all, the altar of incense was not in the
Holy of Holies but in the court of the priests in front of the
veil of the temple. As this is the cardinal point of the whole
difficulty, they insist on placing the altar of incense in the Holy
of Holies. For this opinion they seek confirmation in the
Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, IX. 3, 4: "And after the
second veil, the tabernacle, which is called the Holy of Holies;
having a golden censer, etc." Paul terms the thuribulum a
OvfuaTijpiov. Josephus in speaking of the altar of incense
designates it by the same term. Hence they say the authority
of Paul is that the altar of incense was in the Holy of Holies,
and as none could enter there save the high priest, Zachary
must have been a high priest. Now that the altar of incense
was not in the Holy of Holies rests on the surest data. Josephus
in Antiq. III. VI. 8, clearly places it in the main temple before
the veil of the Holy of Holies. It is certain that in this im
portant detail the construction of the temple always followed
the description given to Moses. We find in Exodus, XXX. 1-6,
the following: "And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense
upon. . . . And thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the
ark of the covenant, before the mercy-seat that is over the
covenant, where I will meet with thee." Moses obeyed this
mandate. "And he put the golden altar in the tabernacle of
the covenant before the veil." Ibid. XL. 26.
As the location of the golden altar of incense is thus cer
tainly placed without the Holy of Holies, we must endeavor
to make Paul s words agree with this certain data. Comely
LUKE I. 8 -10
adopts Ribera s solution of the difficulty. Ribera asserts that
Paul speaks of the altar of incense, and that it actually stood
without in the court of the priests, before the veil of the Holy
of Holies, but that it could be said that the Holy of Holies had
it, since it pertained especially thereto, being immediately in
front of its veil ; just as an altar may be said to have a missal,
even though it be not actually upon the altar. The weakness
of this opinion must be evident to all. St. Paul in Hebrews,
IX. 3, 4, is plainly speaking of things that were actually
in the Holy of Holies. Moreover, the altar of incense stand
ing out in front of the Holy of Holies no more pertained
to the Holy of Holies than the table of loaves of proposi
tion, and the seven -branched candlestick. We must look
for some better way of reconciling Paul with the rest of the
Scriptures.
In the first place, wherever the altar of incense is spoken
of in the Greek Scriptures, it is not called dv^iaT-rjpiov which
Paul uses, but Bva-iaa-njpiov, the term which Luke employs
here. We say then that the BvfjaaTtjpiov of the Epistle to the
Hebrews is not the Ovaiaa-T^ptov, the altar of incense, but a
golden portable censer, which the high priest bore into the Holy
of Holies, offering incense when he entered there once a year.
This censer is described in Lev. XVI. 12. No one used it but
the high priest, and it belonged exclusively to the Holy of
Holies. So clear is this that one must marvel that men have
thought otherwise. The only signification of Ovfjuarripiov which
is used by Paul, in both profane and Scriptural Greek is only a
censer, while 6va-iao-Ttjptov invariably means an altar. The
isolated passage of Josephus is of little worth against such evi
dence. We conclude then that Zachary was one of the ordi
nary priests ; that he was offering sacrifice of incense on the
altar of incense in the temple, in the court of the priests, into
which none but the priests could enter. The people were
without the enclosure, as the tenth verse states. The time of
offering incense was at a fixed hour, morning and evening, and
the people came to the temple to offer at the same time their
morning and evening prayers. [Levit. XVI. 17.]
no LUKE I. ii 25
LUKE I. 11-25.
ii. And there appeared to n. "Q^Oy) oe auTw ayyeXo?
him an angel of the Lord, stand- Kuptou, kvtuq ex Se^twv TOU
ing on the right side of the altar GuacocaTqpEou TOU
of incense.
12. And Zachary seeing him 12. Kal eTapdx6Y)
was troubled, and fear fell upon J8wv, xa! ?66oq exexeaev ex aihdv.
him.
13. But the angel said unto
him: Fear not, Zachary, for thy
prayer is heard; and thy wife
Elizabeth shall bear thee a son,
and thou shalt call his name
John.
14. And thou shalt have joy
and gladness, and many shall re
joice at his birth.
15. For he shall be great in
the sight of the Lord; and shall
drink no wine nor strong drink,
and he shall be filled with the
Holy Ghost even from his auTou,
mother s womb.
1 6. And many of the chil- 16. Ka! xoXXou? TWV ulwv
dren of Israel shall he convert IjparjX IxcjTpe^ec ex! Kuptov TOV
to the Lord their God. 0sbv auTwv.
17. And he shall go before 17. Ka! a fob? xpoeXeuaeTat
him in the spirit and power of evwxtov auToQ ev xveujxaTt xa!
13. Elxev Be xpbq auTov 6
ayyeXoq, MY] <po6oG, Za^apta, Stdit
etjrjxouaOr; TQ Seyjatq aou, xa! TJ yuvrj
aou I^jXetja&ST yevvT]aei u!6v aot,
xal y.aXI(jet<; TO ovo^xa au-rou Iwdv-
rjv.
14. Kac ej7at X a P^ ao[ x>a
dyaXXfaatq, xat xoXXol ex! Tyj
yeve^et autou y v api]crovTczt.
15. "Ecr^ac yap ixeyaq evwxiov
70 Kupfou, xai olvov xca afxepa
ou jxT] x(f), xa! Hveu^aTOi; dyc ou
^aeTat ITI Ix xoiXfaq
Eliah to turn the hearts of the
HXeia,
fathers unto the children, and xaTepwv ex! Texva, xa! axei6et<; ev
the disobedient to the wisdom of cppovYjse . Stxafwv,
the just, to make ready a people Xabv x
prepared for the Lord.
Kupfw
1 8. And Zachary said unto 18. Ka! elxev Za^apfaq xpbq
the angel: Whereby shall I TOV ayyeXov, KaTa T(
know this? for I am an old man, TOUTO; eyw yap sfyii
and my wife well advanced in
her days.
xa! fj yuviQ y -ou xpo6e6ir]xula ev Tal<;
LUKE I. ii
2 5
in
19. And the angel answering,
said unto him: I am Gabriel, who
stand before God, and am sent to
speak unto thee, and to bring
thee these good tidings.
20. And behold thou shalt be
dumb, and not able to speak un
til the day wherein these things
shall come to pass, because thou
hast not believed my words
which shall be fulfilled in their
season.
21. And the people were
waiting for Zachary, and they
wondered that he tarried in the
temple.
22. And when he came out,
he could not speak unto them:
and they perceived that he had
seen a vision in the temple: and
he made signs unto them and
remained dumb.
23. And it came to pass that,
as soon as the days of his minis
tration were fulfilled he departed
to his own house.
24. And after these days, his
wife Elizabeth conceived; and
she hid herself five months,
saying:
25. Thus hath the Lord done
unto me in the days wherein he
hath looked upon me, to take
away my reproach among men.
19. Kal xoxpi0el<; 6 a
elxev auTw, Eyco efyu FaSpujX 6
icapeffnqx&s Ivwxtov TOU sou, xal
dxeaTaXrjv XaXfjaat xpbq are, xal
suayyeXtaaaOat aoi tauTa.
20. Kal (Sou, eayj crttoxwv xal
^Y] Buvd[xevoq XaXrjaat, cfypt rjq
iQ^epaq yevr]Tat Tauta, dv0 wv oux
Ixt oTeuaaq -rot? Xoyotq JJLOU, oYtcve?
siq TOV xatpbv aurcov.
21. Kal -^v 6 Xabq
TOV Za/apfav, xac IGau^a^ov ev
y v pov(^stv sv TW vaw auTov.
22. E^sXOwv 8s oux
XaXfjaat auToT?, xal Ixlyvwtrav o-a
dxiaafav ewpaxsv ev TW vaw, xal
auToq ^v Btaveuwv autolq, xal 8ts-
fJLSVSV
23. Kal lyevsTo w
at ly^epat T^? Xenroupyfa?
etc; TOV oTxov au-rou.
24. Meta 8e TauTaq Tac
<JUv!Xa6ev EXetaaSeT TQ yuvr] atitou,
xal xeptlxpu6sv eauT?)V fJLiiva<; xlvie,
Xlyouaa,
25. "OTt OUTWC; jjLot XSXOC YJXSV
6 Kuptoq, ev T]jjLpat<; a!<; exet8ev
dcpsXelv ovstBo? jxou Iv av0pwxot<;.
It is natural for our human nature to experience the sensa
tion of fear when brought face to face with the supernatural.
But for Zachary there was another basis for his fear. The truth
that no man may see God with mortal eye and live was deeply
impressed on the Jewish mind. Zachary shared the belief of his
ii2 LUKE I. ii 25
race. Now they considered every celestial apparition as equiva
lent in effect with Yahveh, and, hence, feared the dissolution of
soul and body from any such vision. So great was the marvel
that any one should live after any such vision, that Hagar s
fount was called the fount of the living and seeing, to mark the
great miracle that Hagar lived after the vision of the angel.
The angel allays Zachary s fears by addressing him in a
familiar way by his own name, and by announcing to him joy
ful tidings.
There has been some divergency of opinions as to what the
prayer of Zachary was that had been heard by God. Many
have maintained that it was the prayer for offspring. They
base such opinion on the fact that, in the following discourse of
the angel, the theme is exclusively the birth of Zachary s son.
This opinion is looked upon with favor by Cornelius a Lapide.
The greater part of exegetists reject this opinion for the follow
ing reasons. They say that it would be incredible that Zachary
in his old age, when his consort had passed the time of fecund
ity, should pray for offspring, and his incredulity shows, they
say, that he no longer expected this, and one does not pray for
the impossible. These authors maintain that Zachary s prayer
was for the salvation of Israel, and for the coming of the Mes
siah, and that the angel here announces that the first act in the
drama was about to begin.
Certain it is that Zachary as priest prayed for the people.
As a faithful man, he doubtless longed and prayed for the Re
deemer, but, in this present instance, we believe that the angel
has reference to the particular deprecation of the holy man, that
the curse of sterility might be averted from his house. In the
first place, the words of the angel directly manifest such. He
tells him that his entreating is granted, by describing the birth
and characteristics of his offspring.
As the strength of the opposing opinion consists in the
difficulties that it alleges, ours will gain strength by their solu
tion. They say that it is not likely that Zachary prayed for
offspring, at a time when its natural impossibility rendered him
incredulous even to the voice of an angel. We answer that it
is not necessary that Zachary at that very time prayed for
such event. It suffices that he some time prayed for offspring,
LUKE I. ii 25
and the fulfillment of that request, deferred by God for his own
reasons, is announced to him at this time. It is certain that
Zachary had grown old in petitioning Heaven for this great bless
ing, and now the angel announces its fulfillment. Hence the
slowness of Zachary is explained. It is a known fact that the
minds of men are slow to be influenced by the supernatural. A
certain torpor coming from the flesh invades the souls of all men
in some degree. Zachary did not absolutely refuse to believe ;
he simply wished for more certainty. It was an announcement
too great to be suddenly comprehended, and he asked for ad
ditional evidence. Probably, as our opponents assert, he had
already ceased to hope for the fulfillment of his prayers, and it
took an extraordinary cause to awaken in him a realization that
the angel spoke in the name of Yahveh. It is characteristic of
even those who believe to want greater tangible security than
God ordinarily concedes. In the words of a well-known writer,
each client of a bank wants to count his gold; each believer
wants to realize all its reasons ; to have them in his hand, and
before his eyes. So Zachary wished for greater signs of the
miraculous event announced to him. In the days preceding
the Incarnation, the supernatural had greater difficulty in im
pressing men s souls than now. Abraham and Sarah laughed
in doubt, when apprised of a similar event.
God often manifests one s destiny in the name which he
puts upon one. So here the name given to the son of Zachary
betokened his relations with Yahveh. John, Greek I(adwr)<; , is
the Hebrew pHV from the apocopated n1i""P and pn>
gratiosus fuit. It literally signified Yahveh is gracious. By
this name, the angel marked two things: that in John s birth
Yahveh had been gracious with his parents, and also that his
birth was the prelude to the great grace of Redemption now
at hand.
The joy and gladness mark something more than the com
mon joy felt at the birth of a child. They mark the lustre shed
on the parents of this w ondrous youth by his great life and mis
sion. They may not have lived to see their child usher in the
Messiah, but the prerogatives given this youth, which must
have been discernible in his tenderest years, must have glad-
(7) Gosp. I
ii4 LUKE I. ii 25
ened the hearts of those parents, who plainly saw that God
was with their son. The birth of John was a glad event, and
caused rejoicing in many different ways. In the first- place,
he event was unusual, and attracted great attention by its evi
dently miraculous character. The social status of Zachary and
Elizabeth was in honor, and their friends were numerous. These
rejoiced at the marvellous birth. But again, the knowledge of
the event spread in Israel, and many rejoiced that God had
visited his people in giving them this child of promise. Israel
rejoiced, and looked forward to some great manifestation of
God s mercy towards them in the birth of this child.- All this
is signified in Gabriel s prediction that many shall rejoice at
John s birth.
The epithet of "great before God" indicated that the great
ness of John s life would be that which Yahveh would approve.
It would be true greatness, which consists in accomplishing the
things which God reputes great. The world calls men great
who deluge the world with blood. God s angel calls great a
ragged hermit of the desert, whose life was sacrificed to gratify
the whim of a dancing girl. The eternal conflict between God s
way of judging and the world s way of judging is discernible in
the life of this man.
The a-itcepa, which we render strong drink, is the *O? of
the Hebrews. From the root "O^ , to be drunk, it" signified
an intoxicant of some nature in contradistinction to r<\ wine.
Much uncertainty exists concerning the exact nature of the
12^ - Some believe that it signified old wine. Aben Esra
affirmed that it was a strong liquor made from honey and dates,
or from wheat or barley. Kimchi says that it is manufactured
of fruits. St. Jerome, speaking of this drink says: "In the
Hebrew language, every drink that intoxicates is called sikera,
whether it be that made of corn, or from the juice of apples, or
when beans are decocted into a sweet barbarous potion, or
w r hen dates are pressed into a liquor, or when from boiled fruit
a thick colored juice is made." It probably comprised every
fermented liquor outside of wine.
The priests in the temple abstained from wine during the
time of their actual ministry. [Lev. X. 9.] The Nazirites
LUKE I. ii 25
abstained from it during the time of their vows. [Num. VI. 3.]
The abstention from wine was taken as an evidence of sanctity.
John s perpetual abstention, both predicted and commanded by
the angel, showed forth the total consecration of his whole life
to God. The angel predicts that John will be full of the Holy
Spirit, to show the intensity of the influence of Heaven that will
operate in his whole life. It is not the place here to speak of
the harmony of free will with this special influence of God s
grace. We do not know either the mind of God, or the soul
of man well enough to settle absolutely this question, but we
can see that a being, who comprehends all time in the eternal
instant of eternity, can give any influx of grace that he wills
into the soul of man without destroying his free will.
There needs be no difficulty in the fact that the infant
Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost at an age when he was
unconscious of it. All baptized infants become temples of the
Holy Ghost before the age of reason. God loved and protected
John in his infancy with a special love and protection, some
what after the manner in which he dealt with the Blessed Virgin
Mary. Some difference of opinion exists concerning the exact
point at which to place the special sanctification of John by
the Holy Ghost. The Syriac, Arabic and Persian versions trans
late the passage : "Replebitur Spiritu Sancto adhuc existens
in utero matris suae." The Greek en l/c /coi\.ia<; /ZT/T/JO? avrov will
permit such version. The Fathers generally locate the point
of sanctification of John to be while he was yet in his mother s
womb. Paul uses a similar expression in Gal. I. 15, where it is
certain that he means the first moment of rational conception.
The Fathers generally place the date of John s sanctification to
be the moment, when, at the voice of the Virgin Mary, the
infant John leaped in the womb of Elizabeth his mother. Cer
tainly such marvelous phenomenon indicated something un
usual, and nothing more fitting can be assigned as its cause
than that, at the voice of the Mother of God, who was then in
her period of gestation of the Redeemer, the precursor, in
virtue of the foreseen merits of Jesus, was cleansed from Adam s
guilt. This opinion is morally certain, and we fully adopt it.
St. Augustine opposes it on the ground that cleansing from
n6 LUKE I. ii 25
original sin is a being born again ; but, he says, in order to be
born again, real birth must have preceded. This is nothing.
Spiritual birth in all save Mary is subsequent to carnal
birth, but carnal birth in this sense signifies merely the concep
tion in the womb. Forsooth, in Augustine s opinion, if one
were taken from the mother by the Caesarian section, he could
not be baptized. The Church has sufficiently condemned such
opinion by ordering the foetus to be baptized, if attainable, at
any stage of its development. We hold then that John in his
mother s womb was sanctified and cleansed from the hereditary
taint of Adam s guilt, and that God ever thence protected him
by a special providence, and shaped his life for his great work.
The "Lord God" of the sixteenth verse is not specifically
the Incarnate Word, but it is Yahveh the God of Israel, with
out allusion to any of the three persons. It refers to the great
mission of -penitential baptism preached by John to Israel.
This prophecy was literally fulfilled. Multitudes went out to
be baptized in the Jordan, and certainly he did revive the
Yahvistic worship in Israel. In fact, the people never ceased
to revere John. The Jewish people, in the days of John, were
not idolaters ; but a great remissness had invaded them. They
had almost lost sight of the deeper spiritual element in religion.
The priesthood was corrupt, and the teachers were hypocrites.
John cried out in the midst of this religious decadence for them
to do penance, and many heeded his call. This is the plain
import of this prophetic verse.
Some have understood by the "Lord God" Christ ; and they
derive thence an argument for the divinity of Christ, who is
called God by John. That such can not be the sense, is evident
from the fact that John s preaching was more efficacious in
arousing the old faith in Yahveh than it was in leading them
to Christ. Again, if the angel had meant the person of the Son
here, he would have spoken more plainly.
In the seventeenth verse the angel quotes from Malachi
IV. 5, 6 : "Behold, I will send you Eliah the prophet before the
coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he
shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the
heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite
the earth with a curse.
LUKE I. ii 25 117
This prophecy will be literally fulfilled in the coming on
earth of Eliah the prophet, who was taken from earth in a
chariot of fire. He will prepare the world for the second
advent of Christ, as is plainly here indicated. So plain is the
import of these prophetic words that we wonder that, among
Catholics, Reinke, Lucas Burgensis, Arias Montanus, Braun,
Bergier, Jahn, Scholz, Ackerman and Dereser assert that Mala-
chi is prophesying solely of John the Baptist, and deny that
there is any future coming of Eliah. Such opinion was rightly
called by Bellarmine heretical, or at least bordering on heresy.
The angel applies the prophecy to the Baptist, because he was
the Eliah of the first coming. He fulfilled for Christ in his first
coming what the Tishbite will effect for the second, hence he
was even called by Christ Eliah, though he taught them also
that the old prophet would come before the last day.
By saying that John the Baptist would precede the Lord
in the spirit and power, Suz/a/ii<?, of Eliah, the angel asserts that
there will be a resemblance in mode of life, actuating motives,
characteristics, and effects between the Baptist and Eliah.
Now it seems evident from Holy Writ that Eliah will be in his
return to earth like to that which he was as the stern prophet of
Israel. There is no more austere figure in the Old Testament
than Eliah stern, uncompromising, mortified, ardent as fire
for the worship of Yahveh, unworldly, Eliah was most like to
the apostle of penance. They both dwelt in the desert, both
were clothed in a garment of camel s hair. They spared no
wicked one. Eliah combated the royal house of Ahab, and slew
the priests of Baal. John Baptist reproved the monster
Herod, and denounced in scathing terms the strongest sect in
Israel. John Baptist also came in the power of Eliah, by which
is signified that intense energy and power of the man s words
and his potent influence upon men. The son of Sirach, speak
ing of Eliah, [Eccli. XLVIII. i.].says : "And Eliah the prophet
arose as a fire, and his word burnt like a torch." Alone he
challenged four hundred and fifty priests of Baal to essay
whose God was the mightier. This impetuous zeal for good,
and fearless attack of evil characterized them both. It will,
doubtless, distinguish the old prophet at his second coming.
The real import of the following clause is that both John Baptist
u8 LUKE I. ii 25
and Eliah will improve the moral status of the world in their
respective times. To express this the angel uses one part of the
strange expression found in Malachi : " to turn the hearts of
the fathers to the children." Some have understood that this
was equivalent to the phrase : to convert the hearts of the
fathers together with the children," and they interpreted it to
mean universal Israel, both old and young. The textual struc
ture of the sentence will not permit this sense, and it would be
most languid. Others believe that it places this one domestic
virtue of peace for the improved state of morality to be wrought
by John. This is also weak. The Fathers here mentioned are
the founders of the Jewish people, the Patriarchs, who were
faithful to Yahveh. The Jewish people had degenerated from
the old faith of their forefathers, and this degeneracy could be
said to have alienated the hearts of their forefathers from them.
From the fact that the tenor of the people s life was no longer
the tenor of the lives of the founders of the race, the hearts of
the children of Israel here called "the children" could be said
to be alienated from their fathers. John s mission was to recall
Israel to the old fidelity of their fathers, and, by that means, to
break down this alienation. He was to make of Israel such sons
that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would not be ashamed of them ;
this could well be said to be the conversion of the hearts of the
fathers towards the children. He was to arouse in the Jewish
people an emulation of the fidelity of their forefathers ; this is
the converting of the hearts of the children to their fathers.
John s mission was to lead the Jews to Christ.
The angel characterizes those with whom John was des
tined to work as a-Tratfefc, literally unmanageable, stiff-necked.
Never did epithet better fit a subject. The record of Israel in
the Old Law and in the New is a record of stiff-necked rebellion
against Yahveh. Their perverse, obstinate refusal to receive
the Christ springs from that same characteristic trait. These
John was to lead to the wisdom of the just. The wisdom here
spoken of, the (frpovrjcrts, of the Greeks, signifies the practical
wisdom displayed in the right ordering of human life. It is the
intellectual basis of the whole structure of the Christian life.
Human acts demand an intellectual basis. No man can order
his life aright without this higher wisdom. It is a characteris-
LUKE I. 1125 119
tic defect of Christian life of our day that it is not thoughtful
enough. The words of Jeremiah are appropriate to our own
day [XII. 1 1] : With desolation is all the land made desolate,
because there is no one who considereth in his heart." These
are busy days, and many interests absorb men s thoughts, and
often those who claim to believe and to be Christians, live
like pagans six days of the week, and then play Christian for
the smallest portion of time into which they can crowd the
precept of hearing mass on Sundays. There is no glory for
God in such a life. Such lives are blanks, deserts, unproductive
of anything worthy of Heaven. Such lives fail because they
have no intellectual basis. Such lives are aimless, purposeless.
Hence the apathy, the coldness, the hopelessness of many lives.
The wisdom of the righteous is a creation of the soul illu
mined by the Holy Ghost, and is attainable by the humblest in
tellect. It intensifies the realization of the aim of human life,
the destiny of man, the worth of merit; in a word, it makes a
live issue of the questions of the soul. It goes with a man out
into his daily life. It makes him work like a Christian, trade
like a Christian, converse like a Christian, in a word, live like a
Christian. It makes a live issue of religion, teaches a man
that there are things better than gold and land and stocks.
The last clause of the seventeenth verse makes known that
John s mission was to make the people ready for the Saviour s
coming. The translators of the Vulgate must have read here
KaTripTia jjievov where we have in our Greek codices Karea-Kevacr-
pevov. Th5 genuineness of our Greek reading can not be
questioned; hence we translate this participle "prepared,"
instead of the perfectum of the Vulgate. The divergence is
slight.
The words of Zacharyin the "eighteenth verse do not convey
an absolute unbelief, but a certain tardiness to believe. Abra
ham, the model of believers, used similar words in a like instance.
[Gen. XV. 8.] When a doubt is held concerning the existence of
God, or concerning his attributes, or concerning the destiny of
man, it is mainly derogatory to the Almighty, and gravely
reprehensible. But when there is question of some personal
dealing between God and the creature, and the dull senses of
man can not suddenly realize that the omnipotent God is going
120 LUKE I. ii 25
to show forth such an exercise of power, the doubt is only an
evidence of the difficulty of the natural to seize the super
natural. Such doubts do not offend God in great degree.
The natural is so real, and the supernatural so far removed
from our daily lives, that when brought face to face with these
unseen realities, we hesitate, and ask for all the tangible evi
dence that we can get. We believe; but who of us would not
wish that God might give more confirmation to many things
which we see only dimly here ? So Zachary , not in incredulity,
but, as it were, doubting himself more than God, asked for a
sign of confirmation of the event, which, according to his own
words, was naturally impossible.
The angel adduces as a warrant for the truth of his message
his character and his mission. The name Gabriel is composed
of the Hebrew words "D:) and *?N, ^fcjTHJl Robur Dei, the
power of God. The angels are not christened in Heaven, but
receive names when they enter into relations with mortals.
These names indicate the special quality which characterizes
them in their mission. The giving of the name is for the bene
fit of the minds of men, who have need of such mode of desig
nation. Gabriel is the spirit chosen of God to announce to man
events which demand the exercise of the omnipotence of God,
hence his name.
Besides the present instance Gabriel announced to Daniel
VIII. 16; IX. 21, the vicissitudes of Christianity, and to the
Blessed Virgin Mary her virginal conception. When Gabriel
says he stands before the throne of God, he simply manifests in
a mode easily perceivable to man that he ministers to the Al
mighty. The figure is taken from the custom of sovereigns of
those days whose chief ministers came before the royal throne
to receive the mandates of the king. It is readily seen that it is
vain to inquire what order Gabriel holds among the seven
spirits who stand before the throne, or whether he" is of the
seraphim or cherubim. We have not entered Heaven yet,
nor do we know much of its essential nature.
Zachary had asked a sign, and he was accorded cne by the
angel, that he should be mute until the birth of the promised
offspring. This event filled a twofold object. It gave to
LUKE I. ii 25 121
Zachary the sign that he had demanded, and it served as a
slight punishment for his slowness to realize the truth an
nounced by the angel. There is a certain fitness here between
the punishment and the offense. Although directly the term
O-KDTTMV here used imports only the state of being mute,
still, from the context, as we shall see later, it appears that
Zachary was struck with deafness also. This dumbness and
deafness was emblematic of the tardiness of the spiritual sense
of his soul to receive the great truth announced to him. The
clogging of the avenues of the outer senses reminded him that
he had obstructed the avenues of the soul, which let in the
truths of the higher order. The repetition of emphasis: "thou
shalt be dumb, and not able to speak," must not be considered
a tautology here. Any solemn discourse admits of such a
repetition. It was almost always used in earnest or impas
sioned discourse in Hebrew.
The function that Zachary performed in the temple was a
daily one, and occupied a certain space of time well-known to
the people. At his coming forth from the court of the priests
the priest was wont to bless the people. As Zachary prolonged
his time within the temple, it naturally became a subject of
wonderment to the assemblage awaiting his blessing without.
Had his interview with the angel been limited to what is writ
ten here, it could have caused no perceptible delay. We must
conclude that we have only the briefest account of the sub
stance of the event; that many details have not been written.
The logical order of facts is not here well preserved in the
twentieth verse. A feeling of wonderment had seized upon
the multitudes through the unusual tarrying of the priest
within. The consternation and awe reflected in the counte
nance of Zachary, his inability to address them, as was the
custom, and the signs which he made gave evidence to the
people of the supernatural phenomenon. The ingenuousness
of the writers of the New Testament appears in this fact, as
in many others. If Luke were writing myths, multitudes yet
living when his Gospel appeared could have convicted him of
mendacity. It is a strong proof of the veracity of the New
Testament that the contemporaneous Jews, who hated Christ,
dared not declare any part of the Gospel narrative false.
122
LUKE I. ii 25
The priests of the different orders dwelt in their own cities
throughout the land, and every week the order assigned came
to Jerusalem and dwelt there in proper quarters near the
temple, and, at the close of the weekly function, every one
returned to his own home.
Although the conception of John was miraculous in a
certain respect, still it came about through seminal propaga
tion. Hence, Elizabeth s conception is placed after the return
of Zachary from the temple. Many causes have been assigned
for the five months seclusion of Elizabeth. Rosenmuller and
Reuss hold that she thus secluded herself, because she was not
thoroughly convinced of her pregnancy. Such an opinion
manifests an ignorance of nature as well as of Scripture. No
woman could be ignorant of her pregnancy for that period, and
Elizabeth could not have praised God for having taken away
her opprobrium, if she doubted of its fulfillment. The most of
Catholic interpreters assert that this seclusion arose from a
delicate sense of womanly modesty, and that, as they say, she
concealed the certain evidence of her sexual intercourse as long
as was possible. Though almost universally accepted, we can
not accept this opinion. Though conception would be known
to the woman herself, no discernible evidence to the public
would appear during that time. Would it not be strange, if
Elizabeth did this through a feeling of shame, that she should
hide herself when the public evidences were absent, and go
forth as soon as she could not conceal such fact? Would it
not be more reasonable that she should avoid the public during
the last months of her pregnancy, as womanly modesty impels
woman to do in our own day? Finally, in that day, when
maternity was held as the greatest honor of woman, would this
false shame of Elizabeth be reasonable? For these weighty
reasons we must depart from the tor r ens doctorum in the
explanation of this fact. We believe that the twenty-fifth
verse gives the true reason for the retirement of Elizabeth.
God had taken away her opprobrium before the eyes of men,
and, therefore, she could not shrink from the public recognition
of such honorable event. It is too grave an imputation against
the Jews of that day to say that Elizabeth feared that, at the
knowledge of her condition, they would descend to an improper
MATT. I. 18; LUKE I. 26 27 123
consideration of its natual rcauses. In fact, the Evangelist
gives the real cause in the words that she utters. She retired
from the world to return thanks to God for having taken away
her opprobrium. Silence and retirement from the world are
the circumstances in which the best communion with God can
be held. Elizabeth, upon receiving this great and miraculous
demonstration of Yahveh s goodness, consecrated five months
to seclusion and prayer in thanksgiving therefor.
MATT. I. 1 8. LUKE I. 26-27.
18. Tou BE XptaToQ Iiqaou T) 26. Ev Be TCO H.TQV> TU> sx-cy
oikwq Y]v, txvY)aTeu6e(crr]c; ITJS axssrcaXif] 6 ayyeXoc; Fa&pnjX a^b
auToO Mapias TW Iwartf, TOJ 0eoD s(? xoXcv TTJ? raXiXaiaq
xptv cuveXOetv auTOuq cJplGf] sv 73 ovo^xa Nataph,
yaaTpt ly^ouaa I/, rive j fj.a coi; Av- - 1 - 27. Hpbg icapGlvov [J,s r t xvr i c7 :c i j-
^evr]v dvBpl w ovo^a Iwcrf ( cp, 1^ oTxou
AaucfB, /.at TO ovo ^a Tr ( q ^apGsvou
Maptajji.
1 8. Now the birth of Jesus 26. And in the sixth month,
Christ was in this wise : When the Angel Gabriel was sent from
his mother was betrothed God into a city of Galilee,
to Joseph, before they came named Nazareth,
together, she was found with 27. To a virgin betrothed to
Child of the Holy Ghost. a man whose name was Joseph,
of the house of David, and the
virgin s name was Mary.
In the 1 8th verse of Matthew we find the reading I^o-oO
XptcrroS in N, C, E, K, L, M, P, S, U, V, Z, T, A, H, et al.
This reading is followed by the Sahidic, Coptic, Peshitto.
Philoxenian, Armenian and Ethiopian versions. It is adopted
by Tischendorf. The two terms are transposed in B. Some
authorities of minor weight omit the term Ii?<rov.
In the same verse the reading yevea-i^ is found in N, B,
C, P, S, Z, A, et al. The reading yeWow is found in E, K,
L, M, V, F, n, et al. Tischendorf approves the former
reading; it is followed by the Vulgate, and we adopt it as
morally certain.
Matthew omits the Annunciation and the details con
nected therewith, and connects the espousal of Mary with
the visible signs of her pregnancy.
124 MATT. I. 18; LUKE I. 26 27
In these parallel passages, the first thing that merits
attention is Mary s name. It is the Hebrew Lp"1?p, Miriam.
Multifarious explanations have been given of the signification
of this name. Some have derived it from the participle in
hiphil of HfcO to see, and Q" 1 , the illumination of the sea, hence
- T T
stella mar is, the star of the sea. Others derive it from Q^ and
T
"HD, bitter: others, from fcOft the Syriac for lady. The futility
of these conjectures is apparent to all. It is quite evident
that neither Mary s greatness, nor any characteristic of her
life, nor any quality of her soul can be discerned in her name,
which was a common one among Hebrew women. It very
probably, like all Hebrew names, had some signification in
its origin, but this is not discernible by us. The Church in
celebrating the feast of her name, adverts not to this trifle
of the name s signification, but simply honors Mary by a
feast in a way that may appeal to human hearts. Such feast
does not extol the literal meaning of that name, but celebrates
the honor that Mary shed upon that name.
The next point to determine is what is meant by the sixth
month here mentioned by Luke. It is, without doubt, the
sixth month of Elizabeth s gestation of John Baptist, hence
we know that the conception of the Precursor preceded that
of Christ by about six months. The clause in Luke "of the
house of David", although it could be referred to Mary, most
probably qualifies Joseph its nearest antecedent. Concerning
the specific concept of ^e^v^crrevfjiev^v, espoused, many opin
ions exist. The signification of this word in profane writers
is that of a thing promised, hence in this instance it would
mean bethrothed. Now many of the Fathers and other
Scriptural w T riters give to this word in this place the signifi
cation of married. They think that the honor of the Blessed
Virgin Mary demands this, since it would not save her honor
if she conceived while being merely betrothed.
This is the opinion of Maldonatus, Jansenius, Sylveira
and others. This opinion is in direct contradiction to the
Gospel itself. The motive of the opinion is the necessity of
saving Mary s honor among those who knew not of the vir
ginal conception.
MATT. I. 18; LUKE I. 2627 125
The nature of a betrothal among the Jews was different
from its nature with us. Maimonides [Apud Lightfoot,
Hor. Heb. p. 185] declares thus: "After the Law was given
it was commanded the Israelites, that if a man wished to
take a wife, he must receive her first before witnesses, and
thereafter she shall be his wife .... In many places
a man betroths a wife, but takes her not to himself until after
a space of time. To this Deuteronomy [XX. 7] alludes:
"what man is there who hath betrothed a wife, and hath
not taken her?"
The betrothed woman was considered as the wife of the
man from the moment of the betrothal: "If there be a damsel
that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find
her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both
out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with
stones that they die ; the damsel, because she cried not, being
in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neigh
bor s wife : so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of
thee." [Deut. XXII. 23-24.]
Maimonides confirms this [rWN, Chap. I.]: "In three
ways a woman is betrothed, by money, by writing, or by carnal
intercourse. The one thus betrothed, though not yet taken
to wife, nor brought into the husband s house, nevertheless
she is his wife. "
The later Jewish doctors endeavored to restrain the
betrothed from carnal intercourse by forbidding it, and
appointing a fine ; but they never declared it against the law
of Moses; neither did they judge it fornication. [Vide apud
Selden, Uxar. Heb. LIL, i, 2, 3.]
We see therefore that from the fact that Mary was
betrothed to Joseph her honor was perfectly saved.
The espousals were a solemn contract concerning a
marriage. They were made before witnesses, and had for
object the union of the parties, and from the day of the espou
sals the marriage was looked upon as a settled thing, and
the woman received the name of wife, although she had not
yet entered the habitation of her husband. The aforesaid
husband could not repudiate his betrothed, without giving
her a bill of divorce, and in case of fornication, the betrothed
126 MATT. I. 18; LUKE I. 26 27
was treated as an adulteress. When the day of the nuptials
arrived, the bridegroom ordered a banquet to be prepared
at his house, and being dressed in festive garments, accom
panied by young men of his own age, in the midst of joyous
songs and the sound of musical instruments, he went to the
house of the bride, who clothed herself in brilliant attire,
put on a crown, and was thus escorted by maidens of her own
age to the house of the bridegroom. This ceremony was a
mere social custom. It added nothing to the intrinsic nature
of the marriage contract. It could be dispensed with at the
will of the parties. The legality of the contract was established
by the formal espousals. Now the very nature of the case
gives evidence that usually the consummation of matrimony
was subsequent to the social ceremony. But still no imputa
tion could be cast upon the honor of the woman whose child
was conceived after the espousals. So in Mary s case: her
honor before the people was saved by her betrothal ; her honor
before St. Joseph was saved by a direct communication from
Heaven.
Various reasons have been assigned for the Redeemer s
birth from one legitimately united in marriage rather than
from an unmarried virgin. In the first place, it was not in
the designs of God that the miraculous birth of the Messiah
should be known at that time. Again, it was due to the honor
of Mary thus to protect her honor and good name ; for to those
who would be slow to believe that such a miracle had been
wrought, conception by an unespoused virgin could serve as a
basis to impugn her character. Moreover, Mary needed the
help and protection of her virgin consort in the rearing of the
divine Child. St. Jerome adduces from Ignatius Martyr
another reason, namely, that thus the virginal conception of
the Messiah was concealed from the Devil. The utter futility
of such reason is apparent. Certainly the Devil knew the
very import of Gabriel s message; he knew Mary s virginity;
he knew the message of the angels to the shepherds ; the devils
whom Christ drove out of the energumens knew him, and
proclaimed him. Hence, why should God adopt such means
to hide from Satan the mode of the birth of Christ? St.
Ignatius opinions on demonology were somewhat extravagant.
MATT. I. 18; LUKE I. 2627 127
The next member in this parallel passage that claims our
attention is the clause: -she was found with child of the
Holy Ghost." The clause is obscured by its brevity. It
clearly asserts two things: first, that there appeared evident
signs of pregnancy; and, secondly, that the cause of this
pregnancy was the Holy Ghost. But those who saw Mary s
pregnancy did not then know its cause as the statement
might seem to import. At this time only Mary knew the
miracle of her conception.
It is a fundamental position of Catholic theology, that all
the actions of God exercised upon objects outside of his divine
essence are common to the three persons of the Blessed Trinity.
But certain of these same works are appropriated to the
different individual persons, on account of some analogy that
the works bear to the property of the person. Now, therefore,
the divine power which caused the conception of the Son of
God in the womb of the Virgin Mary is thus appropriated to
the Holy Ghost. St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica, Part
Third, Question 32, Art. I., gives four reasons why this work
is appropriated. The main reason seems to be that the Holy
Ghost is the fecundating principle of the universe. As Christ s
conception was a work of divine fecundation, the Holy Ghost
supplied what was required that Mary should conceive.
In relation to the signification of o-weXOetv, theologians
array themselves in two different schools. It is certain that
evident signs of Mary s pregnancy appeared before some fact
signified by the crwt-Xffelv. The force of the member, " she
was found with child," imports not that there was any
investigation to ascertain such fact. Such a thing would be
preposterous. The proposition simply means that her con
dition became recognizable by those of her circle of friends and
relations. In this point the opinion of St. Jerome is especially
objectionable. It is certain that Mary s condition caused
no surprise to any one but Joseph. She was his wife, andoio
one but him knew that they had abstained from carnal inter
course. Now here Jerome says: "Non ab alio inventa est
nisi a Joseph, qui pene licentia maritali futurag uxoris omnia
noverat. " -Horn, in Festum St. Joseph, XIX Martii. This
would signify that Joseph ascertained this fact, in a manner
128 MATT. I. iS; LUKE I. 26 27
only warranted by conjugal rights. Such opinion is incom
patible with the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. No man
can defend this opinion. The condition of the Blessed Virgin
became apparent to Joseph as it did to others from the
evident natural signs that accompany gestation.
The time when Mary s pregnancy was observed is generally
placed a little more than three months after the Annunciation.
She visited Elizabeth immediately after the Annunciation, and
found Elizabeth in her sixth month of pregnancy. She most
probably remained with her until after the birth of John the
Baptist, and then in the fourth month of her own pregnancy
returned to St. Joseph. In the apocryphal "Gospel of the
Nativity of Mary" we read: "The customary espousals being
made, Joseph went to Bethlehem to prepare his house and to
prepare for the wedding. But Mary the virgin of the Lord
. returned to her home in Galilee. In these days,
that is soon after her return to Galilee, the Angel Gabriel was
sent to her by the Lord to announce to her the conception
of the Lord and other things . . . Joseph therefore
coming back from Judaea into Galilee intended to take his
betrothed virgin to wife; for now three months had passed
and the fourth was in course from the time of the betrothal. "
It was generally accepted by the Jews that a woman s
pregnancy could be attested after three months. Thus
Genesis XXXVIII., 24: "And it came to pass about three
months after, that it was toldjudah, saying Thamar thy daugh
ter-in-law hath played the harlot; and moreover, behold she
is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, "Bring her
forth, and let her be burnt. "
Thus Maimonides (Gerushin II.): "A divorced woman
or a widow shall not be betrothed or marry until after ninety
days, that it may be known whether she be pregnant, and
whether her child be of the first husband, or of the second."
The fact that Maimonides cautions against a betrothal at such
time shows that he contemplated a possible pregnancy after
betrothal.
In relation to the signification of the a-vv\6dv many,
among whom Salmeron, Calmet, Lamy, Patrizi, Schegg,
Reischl, Schanz, Pillion, Keil, Weiss, Knabenbauer, and
MATT. I. 18; LUKE I. 26 27 129
Curci, declare its signification to be that of habitation in the
same domicile, and they believe that by it Matthew informs
us that Mary s pregnancy became evident before the solemniz
ation of her nuptials, when she went to live in Joseph s house.
These writers also quite generally assert that the espousals
were equivalent to marriage. Though based upon good extrin
sic authority, we can not adopt this opinion. In the first place
the signification of a-wep^o/iai is to come together, to meet,
to have dealings or intercourse with. The verb always signifies
an individual event, never a permanent state or condition
of being. Hence it would not well express the state of individ
ual domestic life. Again, the defenders of this opinion
assert that the conjugal rights could be exercised by the
betrothed before solemnization of the nuptials. Hence the
Evangelist would say nothing, by telling us that Mary was
pregnant before they came together, since such fact could
legitimately and naturally happen after her espousals.
Wherefore we must give to the term awekOelv a different
signification. If it were against the laws and customs regard
ing matrimony to consummate it before its solemn celebration,
then Mary would be considered an adulteress, being evidently
pregnant before her entrance into her husband s house.
Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Paschasius, Theophilus,
Euthymius, Maldonatus, Barradius, Tostatus, Jansenius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Sylveira, Sa, Estius, and Menocchi main
tain the signification of awe\6dv in this place to be sexual
intercourse. This opinion we. embrace. In the first place
it accords with the basic meaning of the verb, which even
with profane writers is a euphemism for coition. Moreover,
it clearly gives the reason for Joseph s wonderment. There
had been no carnal union beween them, and yet Mary was
gravid. Again, Mary s fame was thus saved, for, as it hap
pened when she was in her husband s possession, no one but
Joseph knew the absence of the natural factor.
By saying that the event happened before they came
together, the Evangelist does not mean to imply that St.
Joseph at any time intended to consummate his holy union
with the Blessed Virgin Mary. It simply conveys his surprise
that his virgin spouse had already conceived, without his
(8) Gosp. I.
130 LUKE I. 28
co-operation. Neither does it imply that after her delivery-
such carnal intercourse existed. That Mary always remained
a virgin, rests solely on the authority of the Church. Helvidius,
the heretic, blasphemed that by this phrase the holy writer
affirmed that the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph used
matrimony after her delivery. This heretic insists especially
on the use of the conjunction "before." He says in effect
that by excluding such act before the birth of Christ, the Evan
gelist admits it afterward. St. Jerome, in refuting this
arbitrary assumption, make Helvidius himself ridiculous.
"If I should say," he writes, "that Helvidius did not do
penance before he was damned, it would not signify that such
event took place afterward. " The only point in Helvidius
argument that weighs anything is, that if carnal intercourse
never took place between the mother of Christ and her consort,
there would be no use of the temporal conjunction. We answer
that the use of the conjunction forcibly brings out the fact
of virginal conception, which the Evangelist has in view
in this place. He is not writing the history of Joseph s and
Mary s lives, but describing the great miracle of the conception
of Christ.
We must now follow the narrative of Luke alone, as he
alone has described for us the Visitation and the Hail Mary.
LUKE I. 28.
28. And the angel being 28. Kcd etaeXOwv icpb<; aurrjv
come in, said unto her: Hail, elzs, Xalpe, xs^aptitojjLevT), 6 Kupcoq
full of grace: the Lord is with ^eia aou, (suXoyir];jiVY) au Iv 711-
thee: blessed art thou among vac(v.)
women.
In the twenty-eighth verse of Luke the clause inclosed in
brackets in our edition of the]Greek text is not found in fc<, B,
and L, and is not found in the Coptic nor the Syro-Hexaplar
versions. It is rejected by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort. It
is found in A, C, D, X, F, A, A, II, et al. It is also found
in the Old Italian version, in the Peshitto, the Philoxenian,
Ethiopian and Gothic versions, and we therefore believe
that the passage belongs to the authentic text of Luke.
LUKE I. 28 131
The expression "being come in," denotes that the
Annunciation took place within the Blessed Virgin Mary s
dwelling. More definite determination of place and time is
not given us. As the angel addressed Mary in her own tongue,
he most probably saluted her in the customary Hebrew
salutation 7P Dl/ 1 ^ , peace to thee. The expression is thus
ITT
rendered by the Syriac. There is nothing strange in this
portion of the angelical salutation. It is a simple expression
of good will; and could be addressed to any one who was
in favor with God. Mary s prerogatives begin to come out in
the following clause, " full of grace. " The Greek KexapiTvpevr),
perfect passive participle of %a/?tTo o>, means literally to be
highly favored. Heretics have endeavored to wrest the angel s
words to signify that Mary was richly endowed with natural
endowments. In another context such explanation would
stand, but not here. In the New Testament the signification
of %a>5, the root of the term in question, is the favor of God.
Hence the angel declares Mary highly favored by the favor
of God. John declares Jesus full of this favor of God. Aside
from him, no creature was ever made equal to Mary in this
grace. Now such favor is not a mere barren complacency of
the Divinity in the creature ; it is a Deific influx, which draws
the soul to a close union with God. The salutation of the
highest angel in Heaven is worshipful when directed to Mary.
Gabriel bows in reverence, as he beholds that purest, most
favored temple of the incarnate God.
Catholics and protestants are divided in regard to the
sense of Ke-xa^^}, which we render by "full of grace."
Protestants render it "highly favored," and consider it the
proclamation of a mere extrinsic goodwill which God bore to
Mary. The only other place in the New Testament where
the verb xapnw is used is in Ephesians, I. 6: ev y exaphaxrev
77/id? ev TV jyaTTwevy, " wherein he hath made us accepted
in the Beloved." It is evident from an inspection of this
passage, that the term means an effect in the soul wrought
by a principle which vivifies it with spiritual life, and renders
it acceptable to God. Relying upon the Scripture, the analogy
of faith, and the teaching of the infallible Church, Catholics
hold that such condition results from a spiritual creation by
132 LUKE I. 28
God in the soul, which is an entity, existing in the sanctified
soul, raising it to a closer union with God. This quality we
call grace, and by the assertion that Mary was full of it, the
intense degree of her grace is signified. Her degree of grace
was above that ever given to any other mere creature. As
the pious Suarez rightly expresses it, God loved the Blessed
Virgin Mary more than the whole Church, more than all men
and angels together. Nothing can be excessive when applied
to Mary, except to make her equal to God.
The proposition "the Lord is with thee," is not optative
but declarative. It is a common Scriptural expression, and
simply corroborates the preceding. It was the opinion of St.
Bernard and St. Thomas, III. Q. XXX. 4, that the angel
referred here to the Incarnation, that the Lord was with her,
being incarnated in her womb. This is evidently false, since
the angel is not speaking of a future event, and, at that time
the Incarnation had not yet taken place. This expression is
addressed to Abraham by Abimelech, Gen. XXII. 22. God
promises such fact to Abraham, Gen. XXVI. 3, and again
ibid. 24. The men of Gerar apply it to Isaac, ibid. 28. God
promises such fact to Jacob, Gen. XXXI. 3, and again Gen.
XLVI. 4. He assures Moses of such fact, Exod. III. 12, again
ibid. XVIII. 18, 19. Moses asserts in Deut. II. 7 that God had
been with the people for forty years. In Deut. XX. i, Moses
assures the people that God will be with them. He gives
Joshua the same assurance, Deut. XXXI. 8. Yahveh prom
ises Joshua, Josh. I. 5, that he will be with him, as he was
with Moses. The same expression is frequent in the Prophets
and in all the Holy Books. In the Acts, XVIII. 9, 10, the
Lord bids Paul fear nothing, for he is with him. The expres
sion simply imports the special providence of God, by which
he especially protects, elevates, strengthens, loves, and blesses.
It imports a great degree of God s protecting care , and of the
influx of his special providence. The expression is always given
to those whom God selects as agents in any great work, and
it is the pledge of his co-operation. The Blessed Virgin was
chosen for the greatest of works, that of the maternity of God,
and the angel gives her here the pledge of God on which to rely.
LUKE I. 28 I33
The proposition, "blessed art thou among women," is a
purely Hebrew idiom. The Hebrew language has no degree
of comparison. They, therefore, make use of expressions like
the present to signify degrees of excellence, or of any quality
attributed to a subject. So, in the present instance," it is the
intent of the angel to affirm to Mary the superlative degree of
benediction. The same expression is said of Jael who slew
Sisera, Jud. V. 24. Uzziah, the prince of Israel, thus addresses
Judith after her taking off of Holofernes, Judith XIII. 23:
" daughter, blessed art thou by the Lord the most high God
above all women upon the earth."
The dignity of Mary it too great for human thought; it is
too great for human words. The angel selected the strongest
expression in Mary s language to convey the knowledge of the
greatest benefaction ever made to man. In truth, Mary
surpasses every created thing in the blessing that she received
in being selected as the mother of God. These words first
spoken by Gabriel have been resounding through the world
ever since. There is no prayer more on the lips of the faithful
than the Hail Mary. Protestants inveigh against Catholic
devotion for the place it gives to the Hail Mary. And yet, at
least for the first part, Catholics have a good teacher. It ought
to be evident to every fair-minded man that it is right to
address Mary in the way that God s highest angel addressed
her. In honoring Mary, in at least this first part of the
Angelical Salutation, we are simply repeating what God him
self, by his chosen legate first ordered said. Verily there are
no protestant angels. An angel would freeze in the coldness
of protestant atmosphere.
LUKE I. 29.
29. And she was troubled 29. II ck Id TW Aoyw ScsTa-
at his saying, and revolved in por/Or] xal cteXovlusTO ^o-raxb? euj
her mind what manner of salu- 6 djTra-ijLoq OJTOC.
tation this should be.
We have rendered this verse in conformity with the
excellent authority of the Greek Codices fc, B, D, L, X, and
other authorities. The addition of ISovcra, found in some
minor authorities, gave rise to the various translations of this
verse.
134 LUKE I. 28
Much that is extravagant has been written concerning
this verse. St. Ambrose assigns as the motive of Mary s
fear the appearance of Gabriel in the semblance of the male sex.
He moralizes thence on this example for virgins. One consid
eration alone refutes this extravagant idea. The very fact that
Mary must have recognized that Gabriel was an angel of God
would dispel from Mary s mind all thought of his sex. Again,
as the vision could not have occurred in such a way as to
violate the privacy of Mary s life, such fear of man would not
be an evidence of purity. Those who know least of sin are
least suspicious. Mary s real cause for perturbation is the
common shock that the natural feels in coming in contact
with the supernatural. Mary in all her matchless purity and
grace was, during the period of her earthly life, one of us in the
natural properties of human life. She trembled with awe
at the celestial vision, because she was not an unnatural
woman, but a daughter, though unstained, of Eve, with a
woman s natural feelings. Some think they can not exalt
Mary without denaturalizing her. This is all wrong. It is
not an essential of human nature to be a sinner. Mary had
all that we have, except the taint of sin. Not being an
Amazon, she felt a woman s timidity at the unusual sight,
and at the marvelous words. Even the great Toleti goes into
an extravagance here. Taking the old Aristotelian idea that
fear was a passion, and that Mary had no passions, he makes
this fear of Mary a propassion, voluntarily assumed by the
Blessed Virgin. This is an absurdity. This womanly timidity
is not a defect ; it is simply an evidence that Mary was human.
It is easy to conceive how Mary was troubled to hear herself
addressed in such words by such a messenger. A humble
Jewish maiden, of low social station, poor, whose world had
been only the green slopes of humble Nazareth and her poor
hovel, hears herself saluted by an angel in terms that betokened
that she \vas a great personage with God. Naturally she
was puzzled to know how these words could be addressed
to her. There is an evidence of strength and womanly gravity
in Mary s silent pondering of the angel s message. She is
troubled, but yet composed and thoughtful. What a fitting
LUKE I. 30-33 i 35
quality of mind to receive a manifestation of the divine will
silence and thoughtf ulness !
LUKE I. 30-33.
30. And the angel said unto 30. Kai ekev 6 aYyeXos afrqj,
her: Fear not, Mary; for thou MTJ 9060 u Mapid^., eupe<; yap
hast found grace with God. xapoc TO> @eu>.
31. And behold, thou shalt 31. Kal (Sou, auXX-r^fl ev ya-
conceive in thy womb, and cnpl, xal TS^ ulbv, X.GU xaXeaeiq TO
bring forth a son, and thou Bvo^a KUTOU ItjooOv.
shalt call his name Jesus.
32. He shall be great, and 32. OUTOS eaTai [xeyaq, x,al ulbq
shall be called the Son of the u<j>(<nou xXT)9r ; aTa[, xal Swaet auT(p
Most High; and the Lord God Kupioq 6 0ebq TOV Opovov AauslB
shall give him the throne of TOU xaTpbq auroQ, xal
his father David. Ixl TOV olxov laxw^ e(? TOU<;
33. And he shall reign over 33. Kat TYJ? ^aatXefaq
the house of Jacob for ever, o6x eVrat TeXoq.
and of his kingdom there shall
be no end.
There is a wondrous naturalness and simplicity in Luke s
account of the Annunciation. We are actually transported
to the scene, and made to witness the event itself.
The angel first dispels Mary s fears by announcing to her
that she is acceptable to God.
The phrase "thou hast found grace, " is a pure Hebraism.
It is a common expression in the Old Testament to express
the goodwill and favour of one agent towards another. Of
itself it would not manifest any singular prerogative of Mary
over any other one with whom God was pleased; but, in fact,
we know that it does express a degree of the divine love never
given to any other creature. And yet what had Mary done
to merit such love? God s love for Mary was not mere caprice.
To be sure, God s preventive grace, and his co-operating grace,
had been given in large measure to her, but she had not been
an inert agent, dragged to her height of perfection, without
contributing aught thereto. And yet her life was uneventful;
she had not impressed her age. The great world was quite
oblivious of her. There is one great truth illustrated by
136 LUKE I. 3033
Mary s life that one does not need startle the world by great
deeds to please God. God judges not as man. The things
that the world prizes are set at naught by God. One upward
soaring of Mary s soul to her Creator availed more in his
appreciation than all the great deeds chronicled in the records
of men. There is a practical lesson in Mary s life for all.
Most lives must be commonplace and uneventful. Sometimes,
instead of making use of present opportunities in the unevent
ful life that is our portion, we sigh for a broader sphere of
action in which to serve God. No doubt God sometimes calls
chosen souls to a broader field, but these are isolated cases.
The great mass of humanity must labor and strive in the
ordinary, uneventful spheres of human life. Mary s life
teaches us that the highest sanctity can be achieved in the
lowest, meanest walk of life. The devils can do great deeds;
we can not equal them. God cares not for such. There is a
path to Heaven from the lowest, dingiest place where human
life drags out its brief span from eternity to eternity. God asks
not of man brilliant, dazzling achievements; he asks what
Mary gave him, the love of a pure heart; this every one can
give. Sanctity consists in doing the little deeds well and
in loving God.
After allaying Mary s fears, the angel makes known the
main import of his message: "Thou shalt conceive in thy
womb." As conception does not naturally take place other
than in the womb, the phrase, " in thy womb, " is not added to
explain the place of the conception, but for emphasis, to
strengthen the marvelous concept that the Son of God would
come into this world by a real though virginal conception.
The prediction by the angel of the name Jesus for Mary s
son signified the role of his life as it had been set down in the
designs of God. The name Jesus is the Hebrew J^)^, a
contraction of JJ^ liT, from the Hiphil form JPJ^In [he saved,
salvum fecit,] and the name of God |"p, literally meaning
Yahveh will save, Yahveh is salvation. In this prophetic
name, the angel outlines the program of the Messiah s life.
The aim and work of his life was to save the world. This is in
accordance with scriptural usage, in which often God manifests
LUKE I. 3033 I37
his designs to be accomplished by some agent in the name
given such a one.
It is the most common Scriptural usage to declare what a
man will be by saying he will be called such. In predicting
the greatness of Mary s son the angel evidently points to his
greatness as man. He adverts to his great work, the redemp
tion of the world which he wrought as a man. He refers to
the renown that his public life acquired for him. The v
[Most High] .corresponds to the )V6j? of the Hebrew from
[he ascended]. It was an epithet of Yahveh, and often stood
by itself to signify the God of Israel.
This passage rightly establishes the divinity of the Son of
God. Had the angel meant only adoptive sonship his words
would have been absurd. It would need no angel to predict
that a child should be what every true Israelite gloried to be.
Again, the great events in the conception of Jesus would be a
farce, if he were not the natural Son of God.
Mary s Davidic origin appears clearly in the angel s mes
sage. Evidently there is no thought or mention of Joseph
either on the part of Mary or Gabriel. In fact, both Mary and
Gabriel explicitly exclude all intervention of man. Now the
speech of Gabriel thus delivered would be unintelligible to
Mary, were she not of David s line.
The declaration of Gabriel concerning the restoration of
the throne of David by the Messiah is in accord with many
prophetic declarations of the Old Law. After the time of
David and the magnificent promises made to him, the Mes
siah s descent from Abraham is lost sight of, and the attention
of prophets and people concentrate on his Davidic origin.
The events of David s life and the subsequent glory of his king
dom made him a fit type of Christ. The Jews, interpreting
these prophecies in a carnal sense, looked for a Messiah who
should be of David s carnal descent, and should restore
David s decadent kingdom to a great and enduring glory. But
these words refer solely to the spiritual kingdom of Christ of
which David s was but a type. The eternal Father gave to
Christ as man after his resurrection supreme dominion over all
things. This is the verification of the angel s promise to
138 LUKE I. 34
Mary. The house of Jacob of the next clause means the uni
versality of the elect. The house of Jacob as a type signified
the chosen people of the Old Law. Now this chosen people
was a type of the chosen universality of the elect. Christ is
the king of that people, and his reign with them is eternal. As
the phrase D^lj?/ in s<zculum,is sometimes used in Scripture to
signify a long period which finally might end, the thirty -third
verse is added: "And of his kingdom there shall be no end, "
to fix the concept of absolute eternity. Nothing could be
stronger than that the duration of a thing should have no
end, and, by this phrase, the angel announced the absolute
eternity of the reign of Christ with the just in Heaven.
LUKE I. 34.
34. Then said Mary unto 34. Elxev Be Maptajx xpbq TOV
the angel: How shall this be, ayye^ov, Hwq ecnai TOUTO, licel
seeing I know not man? otvBpa ou ytvcoax-w;
The expression, " to know man, " is a euphemism to signify
carnal intercourse with man.
The explanation of these wondrous words according to the
common opinion of Catholic theologians, is as follows : In the
first place, they deny that Mary s words denote any lack of
faith. She is not doubting, but asking for guidance of the
legate of the Most High. A mighty and unexpected event was
to come into her life, and she sought from Gabriel the knowl
edge necessary that she might adequately co-operate with the
Almighty.
Mary knew that God had accepted her offering of herself
to him as a virgin. This close union of her pure soul with God
gave to her life an angelic character. Now thrae comes from
God a manifestation of his will that was according to nature s
law incompatible with Mary s virginal state. On the one hand
she loved her virginal state that united her closely to God:
on the other hand she eagerly longed to do the will of God : and
now God made known to her that she is to be a mother.
Though, de facto, \Lsaiah spoke of a virginal conception in his
great prophecy, it is quite certain that this circumstance of the
Incarnation was not known in Israel. Hence Mary could not
of herself know that by the fact that she was to bear the
LUKE I. 34 139
Messiah she was to conceive as a virgin. There is an air of
calm dignity in this response of Mary to the angel that marks
the incomparable qualities of soul with which the Mother of
God was endowed.
A world of mystery invests Mary s response to the angel.
She was betrothed to a man, and that betrothal rendered law
ful the conjugal rights. Had there been nothing unusual in
her betrothal, the annunciation of the angel would have in
dicated that she was to co-operate in the natural way with
the designs of God, and thus become a mother. And yet she,
a betrothed virgin, alleges in effect that, even to fulfill the
angel s message, she can not know man. We approach this
question with certain reverential awe. Earth does not possess
a biography of the wonderful life of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
A certain veil of mystery hangs over that life, and we wish
not to peer too closely into it. But the exigencies of the
question move us to some investigation.
By the direct action of God, Mary was conceived immac
ulate, and destined for perpetual virginity. Though a mem
ber of our common humanity, Mary, in a certain sense, lived
in a world of her own. Her immaculate conception placed her
moral estate in the condition of Adam before the fall. We do
not believe that Mary was often favored by the vision of angels,
but we do believe that her union with God was intensely close.
There was in her whole nature a grand moral elevation, an
angelic purity. Her life was impressed by the Holy Ghost in a
special manner, and wondrous inspirations from Heaven came
into her soul. Now in that mysterious communion of Mary s
soul with Heaven, her whole life was fashioned for her great
work. The purity of her nature naturally drew her to conse
crate herself to God in virginity, and we are persuaded that in
his mysterious ways God signified to Mary that it was his will
that she should serve him in that state. Some pious writers
call this Mary s vow. But I believe that it was more than a
vow. She was so close to Heaven, and received so much of the
divine grace, that her whole nature expanded in an estate like
that of an angel, and thus all the propensities of her nature
drew her to the state of 4 virginity. We do not know the mode
of the communication made from God to Mary, but we firmly
J 4Q LUKE I. 34
believe that Mary knew from her earliest years that it was
God s will that she should preserve inviolate her virginity.
With an obedience never equalled by any other mere creature
she accepted that divine will.
Of St. Joseph we know less than of Mary. Not one of his
words is recorded in the Scriptures. We know that he was a
righteous man, and that he, of all the men of Israel, was chosen
to be the foster father of Jesus. The nature of the office which
God destined him to fill moves us to believe that he was a man
unlike the rest of men ; a man of finer, purer, holier nature than
bhe generality of the sons of men. We believe also that there
were in his life strange, wonderful inspirations of Heaven, and
that the holy union with Mary was brought about by the direct
influence of God working in these two holy lives.
We hold that in entering into this union with Joseph,
there never was the intention in Mary s mind to consummate
the matrimony. Such intention would not be compatible with
the virginity of the Mother of God. Such a design would in a
measure rob her of the virginity of the soul, which is the inform
ing principle of the virginity of the body. And moreover such
intention is precluded by Mary s response to the angel.
Here the leading question arises, Why did Mary enter into
the married state, when its use was contrary to the virginity to
which she was consecrated? Some endeavor to explain this
by the law for female heirs promulgated in Numbers XXXVI.
Zelophehad had only daughters. He was of the tribe of
Manasseh, and if his daughters were married to men from
other tribes, their patrimony would pass from the tribe of
Manasseh ; and this would eventually bring confusion in Israel.
Hence a law was passed to provide for such cases. This law
is promulgated in the eighth verse of the same chapter: "And
every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of
the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of a family of the
tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every
man the inheritance of his fathers."
Now the advocates of the aforesaid opinion apply this law to
Mary, whom they suppose to have been an heiress without
brothers. Hence to keep the inheritance in her tribe, she
married Joseph her kinsman. Patrizi insists on this position
to prove that Mary was of David s line.
LUKE I. 35 I 4 I
We cannot accept his reasoning. Both the words and the
object of the law of Numbers are fulfilled if the female heir
married any man of her tribe ; hence Mary could have married
any man of Judah s tribe and fulfilled the law. Patrizi thinks
to prove from the expression : " shall be wife to one of a fam
ily of the tribe of her father, " that the female heir must wed
her relative. That such opinion is false, is proven from the
insertion of HCDD, tribe. The writer does not say that the
daughter must marry one of the family of her father, but one of
a family of the tribe of her father. The liberty of choice was
restricted within tribal limits. Moreover, it has always
seemed strange to us to call the Blessed Virgin an heiress, when
she was so poor that she and Joseph could not procure the lamb
established by statute in Israel for the purification of a child-
bearing woman, and had to avail themselves of the offering
of the poor, a pair of doves or two young pigeons. Finally,
although Hebrew customs expected a woman to marry, yet
there was no law compelling her to do so, and in the event that
an inheriting daughter remained single, she would possess her
inheritance in her own right. The law of Numbers simply
ordained that if such a woman be married, it shall be within
the limits of her own tribe. On these grounds, we cannot
admit that Mary became the spouse of Joseph to save any
inheritance. Neither do we think a valid proof is found here
for Mary s Davidic descent, which is clearly proven from other
sources, as we have already seen.
I believe therefore that the motive which impelled Mary
and Joseph to enter this strange union was the inspiration of
the Holy Ghost. The exact mode in which it was made known
is not revealed to us. I believe also that at the time of their
espousals it was known and covenanted by both that they
should lead virgin lives.
r
LUKE I. 35-
35. And the angel answer- 35. Kal dicoxpiOelq 6 ayYeXo?
ing said unto her: The Holy ekev aihfj, HveQ^a "Ayiov IxeXeu-
Ghost shall come upon thee, c-sToct ITU as, x.al Suva^tq 6
142 LUKE I. 35
and the power of the Most High ibatmcbsc aot, Bcb xat TO
shall overshadow thee. And ayiov xXTjO^aeTat Ylbq eou.
therefore also the holy being
which shall be born of thee,
shall be called the Son of God.
The angel s response absolutely excludes the operation of
man in Christ s conception, and attributes to the Holy Ghost
the fecundation of Mary. The reason that this effect is appro
priated to the Holy Spirit has been given above. The Holy
Trinity always was present in Mary, but here this coming down
of the Holy Ghost into her expresses the miraculous divine
operation by which she should conceive without the operation
of man.
The use of the neuter TO ^ewca^evov ayiov has attracted the
attention of some interpreters. Some have thought that by
such neuter the Evangelist aimed to teach that the personality
of the Son of Mary was not born of her, but came of God. The
masculine pronoun denotes personality. Were such the fact,
then the Church would err in her creed, for we daily profess
faith in Jesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary. She is
not the mother of the mere humanity of Christ. To assert that
only his humanity was born of her would be the heresy of
Nestorius. Hence the above mentioned opinion is both vain
and dangerous. No good truth is ever attained when we try
to get out of a text more than is in it. The expression in the
Evangelist plainly means that the foetus which shall be born of
Mary shall be called the Son of God. He could have used the
masculine gender and conveyed the same concept.
The term Sio, therefore, of the thirty-fifth verse denotes
a causal sequence between the sentence that it introduces and
some preceding data. Christ was not the Son of God simply
because he was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy
Ghost, without the aid of man. Such agencies could operate
and produce only a mere man. Moreover, Christ could have
been conceived in the natural way and still have been the Son
of God. Hence the angel can not mean to base Christ s son-
ship of God on his miraculous conception. Christ is not the
Son of God because he was born of Mary by a virginal concep
tion, but because he was the Son of God, a virginal conception
LUKE I. 35 143
was chosen by him as a fitting mode of entrance into the world.
The 810 thus denotes a causality in the order of cognition.
The virginal conception, the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost,
and, in fact, all the events verified in our Lord s birth are
motives to cause in us faith in the divinity of Christ. Again
the Sio denotes a real causal sequence de facto. Although
Christ could have chosen many other ways to assume human
nature, de facto he chose this one. Hence, de facto, the foetus
conceived in Mary s womb was the Son of God, because the
operation of the Trinity, here appropriated to the Holy Ghost,
united that foetus to the pre-existing person of the Son in the
first moment of its existence. There were not two moments;
but the very first instant that the foetus began to exist as a
human individual it was the Son of God.
Various reasons have been assigned why Christ wished to
be born of a virgin. Without rejecting what pious writers
have written on this subject we select two reasons as the most
potent. Although theologians vary concerning the mode of
the traduction of original sin in mankind, all agree that the
basic cause through which such traduction is wrought, is the
"via seminalis" in which the foetus is conceived. Ever since
the fall of mankind, there is a disorder in the union of the two
principles of generation, and, in some way, the root of the
taint of original sin is rooted in seminal conception. Now
Christ, in whom personal guilt could have no place, avoided
the infected mode of man s procreation. He, who came to
satisfy for the universal obligation of mankind, decreed not to
incur the taint that he had come to destroy. The second
motive we find in the exaltedness and sanctity with which
virginity invests woman. He, who had come to teach man
that virginity is the most exalted state, could not permit his
mother to be deprived of the noblest prerogative of woman.
A mysterious reason also, which our dull senses can not fathom
here, might be found in the fact that the divine paternity of
the Omnipotent Father permitted not that his Son should have
a human paternity on earth.
i 4 4 LUKE I. 3637
LUKE T. 36-37.
36. And behold thy kins- 36. Kal toou, EXecaaSsT Y) auy-
woman Elizabeth, she also hath yevr,<; aou, xat aurr] <juve(XY)<pev utbv
conceived a son in her old age; ev 7^ pet CCIJTYJ<;, xat oOTO? p]v IXTO?
and this is the sixth month ea-rtv aurfl rjj xaXouy-evy) GTS! pa,
with her who is called barren,
37. Utt OUT, aouvaTiQcrei xapa
37. Because with God noth- TO Q Q x ^ v p^^
ing shall be impossible.
We have before established that Mary was of the tribe of
Judah and house of David. Elizabeth has been declared by
Luke to be of the daughters of Aaron, consequently the tribe
of Levi. Hence the consanguinity between Mary and Eliza
beth can not be on the paternal side. As it was a common
thing for the men of one tribe to seek wives in another, and as
there was nothing in Israel s laws or usages against it, we can
readily explain the degree of kindred between Mary and Eliza
beth. Epiphanius states, Hser. 78 (58), that the royal line and
priestly lines exclusively intermarried. I can not find any
other authority for such assertion. But if a woman of Mary s
kindred married a male relative of Elizabeth, or vice versa,
their consanguinity is immediately explained.
If Mary s mother were Elizabeth s sister the kinship here
stated would be established.
The statement of the English versions of the Bible, that
Elizabeth was the cousin of Mary rests on no Scriptural author
ity. The Greek term a-vyjev>j<f is generic, meaning simply a
kinswoman. The great disparity in their ages leads me to
believe that their consanguinity was not that of cousins, but
perhaps that of aunt and niece.
We know from the angel s annunciation that Mary hitherto
knew naught of the conception of John the Baptist. Elizabeth
had secluded herself up to that time, and means of communica
tion were such that the event, happening in one of the small
villages in the mountains of Judaea, could easily be kept from
the knowledge of Mary, who dwelt at Nazareth.
The " sixth month " means the sixth month of Elizabeth s
pregnancy.
LUKE I. 3637 145
Any incredulity that would be in the least degree a defect
we reject from Mary. We demand for her the highest per
fection in faith, as in every other virtue. But Mary was a
human being. She had not been reared in Heaven, but in
lowly Nazareth. Consequently, as the stupendous divine plan
unfolded itself before her, she must have experienced a certain
inability to grasp at once the great design. This is not a defect,
but an evidence that she was human. To aid her in compre
hending her great destiny, Gabriel corroborates his first declar
ation by the tidings of the pregnancy of her kinswoman.
Such miraculous event was an evidence that God was able to
work in her, as he had wrought in Elizabeth. We hold that
Mary was always absolutely sinless. But we do not hold that
every element of perfectibility in Mary s nature was brought to
its highest degree of perfection in an instant. Her sinless
being expanded itself, and grew to the highest perfection ever
reached by a creature. There never was a time when she was
not perfect; but she was more perfect when she stood on
Calvary than when she listened to the angel s message. Like
the healthiest rosebud, she blossomed into the fairest rose that
ever gladdened God s universe. Her nature, that shrank back
a little in wonderment, not doubt, at Nazareth at the awful,
incomprehensible declaration of the angel, would not feel that
difficulty in seizing the supernatural on Calvary. Her wonder
ful life with her divine Son had schooled her so that she barely
touched the earth. Mary always acknowledged the omni
potence of God. Gabriel was not teaching her an unknown
truth, when he says that nothing shall be impossible with God.
He was simply recalling this well known truth to aid her to
grasp the great event which was to come into her life. No
human intellect could realize suddenly in all its fulness so
sudden and so great an event. Our eyes may be perfect, but if
a light of exceeding great brightness flash suddenly out of dark
ness upon them they are momentarily dazzled by the sudden
transition. So with Mary; she stood amazed, awe-struck at
the thought that she should be the mother of God. And
Gabriel, giving her time to realize the import of his words,
tempers the difficulty of the natural to seize the supernatural
by the announcement of the miracle of Elizabeth s pregnancy,
and the reminder that the power of God can do all things.
(9) Gosp. I
146 LUKE I. 38
The extension of God s power to vrav pfjua, omne verbum,
has been rightly taken by theologians as the limit of God s
action. The pfi^a is the equivalent of the Hebrew ""1D"1, res i
T T
anything conceivable. The omnipotence of God extends itself
to everything that does not involve a contradiction. Now
everything that does not involve a contradiction is aptly com
prised in the term ""QT PW -, verbum. God can not per-
T T
petrate moral evil, he can not destroy himself, because such
concepts involve a contradiction.
LUKE I. 38.
38. And Mary said: Be- 38. Ekev II Maputy., iBou T]
hold the handmaid of the Lord, oojXr) Kupt ou, ylvotTO ^.ot xocTa TO
be it done unto me according P^a sou, xal aTOjXOsv arc auTY]<;
to thy word. And the angel d avv^Xo?.
departed from her.
The great design has fully entered Mary s soul. In this
wondrous sentence she gives her consent. There is something
so grand and noble in this response of Mary that we recognize
in it an evidence of the greatness of soul of the Mother of God.
She, in substance, says: "God is my Creator; he has absolute
dominion over me. The most absolute title of possession
exercised by creatures is nothing compared to the title of
possession that Yahveh has over me, over my soul, my being.
And, with a submissive will, I offer myself as his servant. Let
his will, in this wondrous design that you unfold, be done in
me." It is safe to say that excepting Christ s created will,
never did human will link itself to the divine will so perfectly
as is manifested in Mary s proposition. Mary first expresses
absolute conformity to the will of her Lord. Some further find
in it an expression of longing and desire. In fact, it could
scarce be otherwise. How could the most perfect of all God s
creatures not eagerly wish for the salvation of Israel, now
promised through her? These wondrous words of Mary should
be reflected in our words and deeds. Let a man say often in
the intensity of faith: " Behold the servant of the Lord, let it
be done to me according to thy Word." It betokens an
abandonment of self into the almighty power of God, which is
LUKE I. 38 147
worshipful to God and elevating to the creature. Mary s
words here are far different from the tone of worldly people.
No sentence was ever uttered by human lips so unworldly, so
simple, so sublime. It is better than the voice of an angel ; it is
the voice of the queen of angels.
It is the opinion of Fathers and theologians that, at these
words of Mary in which she manifested her consent, the Son of
God in that same instant became man in her womb. There
seems to be a fitness in placing the event at that instant. The
preliminaries were concluded ; Mary was ready ; the perfection
of the event could not be well placed at another time.
Theologians often enlarge on the great interests that were
at stake while Mary pondered before giving her consent.
They say the fate of humanity hung in the balance, awaiting
Mary s consent. I could never embrace this opinion. The
decree to redeem the world was an absolute decree, not depend
ing on any condition. In the eternal prevision of God, when
he foresaw Mary s cooperation, and therefore chose her, he
foresaw her consent, and therefore, though she gave it freely,
she could not have denied it, for God had foreseen all the events
in the whole drama, and things free and contingent in their
natures were certain in his eternal comprehension of time.
Hence, I believe nothing accrues to Mary by this impossible
hypothesis.
The theologians, who hold that the rational soul comes not
into the foetus till at such point of its development, when the
organs are fit to perform the functions of organic life, make an
exception in the case of Christ. They unanimously assert that
the information of the foetus by the rational soul of Christ took
place in the first instant of his conception. They reconcile
this with their opinions of the successive grades of life by
appealing to a miracle. By divine power, they say, the foetus
was in an instant brought to that degree of development when
it is fit to receive the rational soul. The theologians who hold
that the moment that conception takes place the foetus
becomes informed with the soul, which is the one principle of
every grade of life, find no such difficulty in their theory.
Neither is it necessary, in this opinion, to induce the miraculous
development of the foetus in Christ s conception. In their
148 LUKE I. 3945
opinion Christ s conception was only miraculous in the exclus
ion of the male principle. In the mode of his formation in the
womb they make it identical with the common law of mankind,
that the fcetus is informed by the principle of rational life at
conception, although the soul can not exercise its faculties of
mind till the organs are developed, and even then the expand
ing of the reasoning power is gradual, not reaching perfection
till the period of adolescence. The latter opinion recommends
itself to me. First, because in this opinion miracles are not
multiplied; and, secondly, because it seems to accord better
with the Biblical narration. The external evidences of Mary s
pregnancy did not appear till at a time when by natural devel
opment the foetus would be fully organized. Now if by mirac
ulous power the foetus was perfected in an instant, these signs
would be evident immediately after the Annunciation. It is
hard to conceive of the spiritual soul of man resident in a shape
less mass of animal excretion. It is one of the wonders of
nature, wonderful in all, most wonderful in man.
The angel departed as at Mary s consent the Incarnation
was wrought. His mission had attained its object.
LUKE I. 39-45
39. And Mary rising up in 39. Avacrraaa Se Mapca^ ev
those days, went into the hillr talq -fyjipaiq Tathacq exopsuOY]
country with haste, into a city rf)v dpecvrjv ^ETOC axouBYJq, e!q xoXtv
of Judah. loiiSa.
40. And she entered into 40. Kat elcrijXOsv el? TOV olxov
the house of Zachary, and sa- Zaxptou, xai iqaxcbaTO TYJV EXei-
luted Elizabeth. cra6eT.
41. And it came to pass 41. Koci eylveTO wq TJXOUCEV TOV
that, when Elizabeth heard the daxacr^bv Tijq Mapla? T) EXetaa6er,
salutation of Mary, the infant eaxiprqaev TO Ppapo? ev r?} xoiXc a
leaped in her womb ; and Eliza- aihijs, xai
beth was filled with the Holy Ayiou TQ
Ghost.
42. And she spoke out with 42. Kat ave<p(ovr]5sv
a loud voice and said: Blessed ^eyaXf), xai elxev, EuXofiri^evTQ au
art thou among women, and ev yuvat^vxal euXoYY]ixevo<; 6 xapxb?
blessed is the fruit of thy womb. rrj<; xotX(a? aou.
LUKE I. 3945 149
43. And whence is this to 43. Keel x66ev ^.ot TOUTO, "va
me, that the mother of my Lord e X6f) TQ ^TTJP ioO Kupfou [JLOU xpb<;
should come to me? i^i.
44. For behold, as soon as 44. iBou yap, dx; eysveio -q
the voice of thy salutation cpwvY] TOU daxoca^ou aou et? ia and
sounded in my ears, the infant yiou, icrxtprqaev Iv dyaXXcdaec TO
in my womb leaped for joy. ^pecpoq Iv Tfl xotXfoc ;xou.
45. And blessed is she that 45. Kal ^cocapfa V) xiaTeu
hath believed, because there o-rc ej-rca TeXefwatq ToT<;
shall be a fulfilment of those vot? aurfj xapd Kupfou.
things which were told her
from the Lord.
From Hebron northward to the plain of Esdraelon,
extends a chain of mountains, rising at times to between 2,000
and 3,000 feet above the level of the sea. Southward of Sama
ria these were called the Mountains of Judasa. On the western
side of this chain the land begins to rise at a distance of about
fifteen miles from the Mediterranean, culminating on the line
of Jerusalem, and then sloping down to the Jordan and the
Dead sea, which lie at a depression of over 1,300 feet below the
level of the sea. As Nazareth was on a slight elevation above
the Plain of Esdraelon, Judsea lying to the southward could be
rightly termed the mountains. Into what city of this tract
Mary went we can not determine with certainty. Patrizi
vainly conjectures that it was Juttah, mentioned in Joshua
XV. 55. Others believe that it was Hebron. Both opinions
are of no worth, for if Luke wished to designate a particular
city, he would have called it by its proper name. He has left
it indefinite, and we can not ever precisely locate this city.
The Franciscans have a church and hospice to the southwest
about five miles from Jerusalem. The place is called by the
Arabs Ain Karim, and by the Christians St. John s in the
Mountains. It is in a picturesque, mountainous region, and
tradition places here the house of Zachary and the place of the
composing of the Magnificat. The Franciscans have built
many sanctuaries in convenient places, and stoutly claim to
have located these on the true sites of the great events in the
Gospel narrative. There is little certainty that these sane-
150 LUKE I. 3945
tuaries are on the original sites of the events which they com
memorate. Ain Karim is a possible site of the Visitation,
but nothing more.
Luke considered the specification of this probably very
small village a detail of such small importance that he passed
it by in a general way. Interest in the detail grows in our day,
when pilgrims would wish to venerate the spot where the
Magnificat was composed It was some little town of Judaea,
and, in defect of certainty, we may venerate the Franciscan
sanctuary. The motive of Mary s haste in going to see Eliza
beth was her eagerness to felicitate her on her blessing of
offspring, and also to be of use to her in her confinement.
A journey from Nazareth to the mountains of Judasa
would occupy several days. It is quite certain that Joseph did
not accompany Mary in this journey, for had he been present at
the interview between Mary and Elizabeth, he would have
known that his virgin spouse was to be the Mother of God,
and, consequently, he would not have been troubled at the
evidence of her pregnancy. The reason that such a detail as
the friendly salutation of one relative by another is given by
Luke is the great miracle that was wrought in this salutation.
The providence of God brought it about that this visit,
which Mary made to congratulate and aid her kinswoman,
should result in a miraculous proof of Mary s motherhood of
God.
Rationalists and unbelievers have tried to explain the
phenomenon of John s leaping in his mother s womb by natural
causes. After six months of gestation they consider the foetus
capable of exercising such act, especially when the mother is
greatly moved by anything. This would make the whole
account ridiculous. How could Elizabeth, filled with the Holy
Ghost, ascribe to the miraculous effect of Mary s voice a purely
natural phenomenon? At such period of development the
foetus is merely passive in its existence, and naturally shows
no such evidences of active, energetic life. We recognize in
this fact a purely miraculous event. It was one of the many
proofs that the Redeemer gave the world of his divinity. He
could not ask the world to believe in him as God, unless he
proved that he was God. So, even before his birth, he began
to establish the proofs of his divinity.
LUKE I. 3945 151
A perplexed question arises here to determine whether or
not that leaping of John was a rational act. Origen, Ambrose,
Theophylactus, Euthymius, Chrysostom, Bernard, and others
defend that John by supernatural acceleration was endowed
with the use of reason, that he might recognize the Christ then
conceived in his mother s womb. Origen and Ambrose contend
that this use of reason was permanent with John, while others
believe that it was transient only for the event. Of course,
the use of reason is always radically in the soul, and one of the
greatest marvels of nature is the evolution of that spiritual
soul in man, which first is not discernible in the young of man,
but which gradually unfolds until mind is evidenced. We
know by faith that the soul of man is not produced from the
potentiality of matter. The soul comes into being by immedi
ate creation ; but it would seem that this spiritual substance
itself also evolved and grew to the perfection of its being, with
the developing body. Toleti and Suarez hold that John,
though gifted with this use of reason in the mother s womb,
was deprived of it at birth, and only acquired it again, when by
natural development he had attained the age of reason. There
is something so complicated, so unlikely in all these opinions,
that we gladly embrace the opinion of Augustine, who declares
that the leaping of John was not a rational act. That it was
miraculous, all Catholics agree; but we deny that John was
conscious of the miraculous action which he wrought. The
designs of God were attained without endowing John with the
use of reason at this time. We believe fully that John was at
that moment cleansed from original sin. We believe that his
bounding signified joy that the Redeemer had come to take
away the world s sin, which Redemption he then received. It
was emblematic of the joy of the world at the conception of its
Redeemer. But we see no need to induce this other great
miracle of either a permanent or transient use of reason in an
unborn foetus. Jacob and Esau contending in Rebekah s
w^omb signified the contention of Israel and Edom, and the
ascendancy of Israel, but they were unconscious of it. In
their birth, the grasping of Esau s heel by Jacob prefigured the
supplantation of Esau by Jacob, although they were uncon-
152 LUKE I. 3945
scions of it. Gen. XXV. 22. Again Balaam s ass spoke
words of reason, and we are not to suppose that a rational soul
was given the beast at that time.
We place, then, as morally certain that John, as an instru
ment in the hands of God, wrought this action, prophetic in
significance, though he was not yet endowed with the use of
reason. The filling of Elizabeth with the Holy Ghost was not
the sanctifying grace, of which, however, she was not deprived.
It was an ecstatic impulse of prophecy, by which she recog
nized Mary s divine maternity, and uttered prophetic declar
ations of her in the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. This inspir
ation was also a providential element in the data upon which
Christ based his claim to the sonship of God.
So vehement was the impulse of the Holy Ghost that
Elizabeth cried out with a loud voice the inspired truth which
the Spirit placed in her mouth. In the first part of her exclam
ation, she repeats the words of Gabriel in his annunciation.
The phrase : " blessed is the fruit of thy womb, " was a com
mon form of benediction among the Hebrews. Thus in Deut.
XXVIII. 4, it is placed among the benedictions that should
follow a faithful observance of the Yahvistic law. Of itself it
could be applied to any pregnant woman, but certain it is that
it never was predicated of any woman in the sense that the
inspired Elizabeth applied it to Mary. By the power of the
Holy Ghost, Elizabeth became apprised of the inexpressible
dignity of the mother of God. Human speech was unable fitly
to eulogize the fruit of Mary s womb, hence the inspired agent
applied to him an expression according to the genius of her
language that conveyed, as well as she might, her inspired
thought.
On the authority of this inspired agent, rests the Church s
warrant for the second part of the prayer that is never out of
the mouths of her children. The Spirit who placed it first in
Elizabeth s mouth, has placed it in the mouth of the Church.
There have been those who assailed the Church for this prayer.
If Catholics err in this prayer, they err with the Angel Gabriel
and the Holy Ghost.
No word had been spoken by Mary of the child that she
was carrying. By the illumination of the Holy Ghost, Eliza-
LUKE I. 3945 T 53
beth was made aware that Mary had conceived the Son of God,
and she acknowledges her unworthiness that one so exalted
should deign to visit her. Had there been one element of
worldliness in Mary, she might have felt above her old station
in life, and removed from her simple relatives by the matchless
prerogative of motherhood of God. But had there been pres
ent that element, Mary would not have been mother of God.
Excepting Christ himself, never being trod this earth less
worldly, more heavenly than Mary. Heaven does not, can
not come close to worldly souls.
Elizabeth is here the oracle of the Holy Ghost, and her
words are the words of God himself. Nestorius is condemned
by her words, for she calls Mary the Mother of Yahveh the God
of Israel.
The voice of Mary wrought this great miracle, because she
was the mother of God. All her prerogatives are in prepara
tion for that great function, or they result therefrom. This
wondrous power and dignity is not transient; but, founded in
that divine maternity, it remains forever. Under the omni
potent Father, there is only one in Heaven that can say to
Christ: "Thou art my son. " Motherhood has been honored
in Mary : Christian mothers may well take her for their model.
Humanity has been honored in Mary. God loves the human
race more because of Mary. That voice, tender and sweet,
has wrought greater marvels than the leaping of the unborn
infant. That voice pleading in Heaven for human souls
works its greatest effects. The verse has already been ex
plained, except that in it Elizabeth makes us aware that the
leaping of the child in her womb was not the natural move
ment of the foetus, but a miraculous demonstration of great
On the authority of all the Greek codices and of the Syriac
version, I have departed somewhat in the forty-fifth verse
from the Vulgate reading. In the Vulgate the address is di
rectly to Mary; while, in the Greek, it is in the third person.
Mary is in every case the object of the import of the words ;
but it is evident from the text that Elizabeth in the im
passioned speech of prophecy addresses her in the third per
son. vSuch forms of address are common in every language.
154 LUKE I. 46 56
According to the Vulgate, which our English translation
reproduces, Elizabeth assigns as the reason of Mary s happiness
the certain fulfilment of the things spoken to her by the angel ;
that is, that she were blessed because such fulfilment would
surely come. Others translate the passage: "Blessed is she
that hath believed that there shall be a fulfilment, " etc. The
Greek original will justify both versions. From intrinsic
reasons we are persuaded that the translation which we have
given in the text is the correct one. God was pleased with
Mary s ready faith in his message to her. The Spirit of God
through Elizabeth testifies his satisfaction at Mary s faith, and
again corroborates the certainty of the fulfilment. Mary was
then blessed in believing, because -her faith, foreseen by God,
moved him to select her for the greatest dignity ever conferred
on created being. And having thus selected her, the fulfilment
of the promise was absolute. One of Mary s greatest perfec
tions was her docility and absolute faith in God, which breathes
forth in her response to the angel: "Behold the handmaid
of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word. " Yah-
veh wished for the assent of Mary s mind to co-operate with
him in the Incarnation. The fulness of Mary s faith and her
docility to the designs of God were grateful to God, and by his
inspired agent he manifests that he is well pleased with Mary
for her full faith.
LUKE I. 46-56.
46. And Mary said: My 4 6. Rat ekev Maptajx, Meya-
soul doth magnify the Lord, Xuvet V) fyuyfi ^xou TOV Kuptov.
47. And my spirit hath re- 47. Kat i/jyaXXfacev TO xveG^d
joiced in God my Saviour. p.ou Ixt TW ew TW awTfjpf [JLOU.
48. For he hath regarded 48. "Git IxsSXe^ev iiti TTJV
the low estate of his handmaid: Taxetvwatv ir t q SouXiqq auToti, (Sou
for behold, from henceforth all yap axo TOU vQv .[xaxaptouac v [xe
generations shall call me blessed. xaaat at yeveat.
49. For he that is mighty 49. "Git exotirjalv jxot ixeyaXa
hath done great things to me; 6 BUVOCTOI;, x.al aytov TO ovo^xa auiou.
and holy is his name.
50. And his mercy is from 50. Kat TO eXeoq autou et?
generation to generation, to yeveaq /.at ysvsaq -:ot<; 9060 uneven;
them that fear him. autov.
LUKE I. 46 56
5 1 . He hath showed strength
in his arm; he hath scattered
the proud in the conceit of their
hearts.
52. He hath put down
princes from their thrones, and
hath exalted them of low de
gree.
53. He hath filled the hun
gry with good things, and the
rich he hath sent empty away.
54. He hath helped his ser
vant Israel, in remembrance of
his mercy.
55. As he spoke to our
fathers, to Abraham and to his
seed forever.
56. And Mary abode with
her about three months, and
returned to her own house.
51. Exofiqaev xpirroq Iv ^poc-
^fovt OCUTOJ, Siecxipictcrev uxeprjcpa-
vouq ciavoia xapBta? auTwv.
52. Ka6clXsv
ovtov, y.al u ^waev TOCX
53.
6wv, xal ji
Xev xsvoii?.
54. Av
evIxX-rjaev aya-
STo- laparjX
IXeouq.
55. KaGwq IXdXiqaev xpb<; TOU<;
TJIJ.WV, Tto A6paajx xat T(j>
auToG Eiq TOV auijva.
56. "E^etvsv Be Mapta^ auv
jvaq Tpelq, xal uxeaTpe^ev
TOV oTxOV aUTYjC.
It was the Spirit of God which also moved Mary to burst
forth in this sublime canticle. It contains more of Mary s
words than we possess elsewhere in the entire Scripture. It
resembles in some respects the canticle of Hannah the mother
of Samuel, I. Sam. II. i. It bears also some resemblance to
the Psalms. Some have endeavored to diminish the excellence
of the canticle by alleging that it is not original ; they have even
charged Mary with plagiarism. The blessed Virgin did not
invent a new language in order to express the lofty sentiments
of her soul. The Hebrew language was moulded in a Yah-
vistic mould. The worship of Israel s God so impressed itself
on the whole life and thought of the people that certain
expressions became, as it were, consecrated to extol some
special attribute of God, or express recognition of received
benefits. This being the case, the Mother of God, adopting
with maidenly simplicity the forms of expression of her people,
gave utterance to a canticle, which bears upon it the eternal
impress of Mary s soul. Its parts are found elsewhere, but
considered in its entirety, it is second only to the words of
156 LUKE I. 46 56
Mary s son. In the canticle, Mary completely hides her part
in the great event, and projects all the mighty work into the
power of God. Without a thought of her own co-operation in
the great work, she throws the whole event on God in ecstatic
praise. By the use of "my soul" instead of the personal
pronoun, the concept is intensified. It shows that the realiza
tion of God s omnipotence had penetrated her very being.
Every power of her inmost soul was quivering in rapturous
contemplation of the Incarnation, the greatest of God s works.
The words are similar to those of Hannah the mother of
Samuel, but the feelings which these words describe are
above the feelings of Hannah as Christ is above Samuel.
In the first verse, there is a specimen of Hebrew poetic
parallelism in which a thought is strengthened by associating
with it another cognate thought, with a slight variation in form
of expression. The meaning of "my spirit" in the second
member of the parallelism is the same as "my soul," but the
form of expression is more graceful by this slight change. The
whole phrase is Hebraic. The perfect "hath rejoiced" is used
instead of the present tense, in accordance with the Hebrew
idiom, in which that which has begun, and yet endures is
expressed by the past tense, which is not the tense of an action
merely past, but of an action yet enduring or unfinished.
Mary means by the crcorrjpi pov to signify the God of Israel
often called by David o-w-rrip. This epithet is based on the Re
demption, and is especially applicable to Mary, who realizes that
the long expected salvation of Israel is now wrought through
her. The r/yaXXiaa-e "hath rejoiced" expresses intense
joy, intense emotion of soul. It was almost the beatific vision
for that moment. We can never realize the wondrous soul-
communion of Mary with God. Our nature, infected with
its hereditary taint, is weighed down and circumscribed from
these lofty thoughts. But Mary was in condition as though
Adam had never sinned. The obscuration of the intellect, the
weakness of the will, the proneness to evil, which are the
effects of our original sin, were not in her. Her spirit soared
to Heaven untrammeled, and rested in God. Holy Writ has
recorded few words of Mary, but every one is worthy of that
exalted woman, to whom we accord prerogatives above those of
anv other creature.
LUKE I. 4666 157
The forty-eighth verse contains the cause of Mary s exult
ation. Origen, Augustine, Bede, Bernard, and others interpret
the TOTretWo-w of this verse to signify the virtue of humility.
As the word itself can admit of such signification, we must be
guided in determining its precise import by the context.
Humility is a moral virtue. Now if Mary ascribed to herself
such virtue, it would savor somewhat of self-praise, and would
ill fit the lips of the Mother of God. On this ground alone, we
reject such signification. We believe that it here signifies her
low estate. Though the royal blood of David flowed in her
veins, "she was poor and unknown. The greatness of any
conferred favor is heightened by the lowness of station of the
recipient. The favor of God to us appears more marked, when
we feel that we have nothing to offer commensurate with such
favor. The supreme Lord of all creatures passed by all the
great ones of the earth, and came to despised Nazareth, and
conferred on this poor maiden a favor that our minds can not
comprehend. Such an evidence of special love of God for
Mary enraptures her, and she projects herself into the infinite
ocean of God s love. She eliminates self completely from the
great design. She brings into relief the greatness of God s
power and his love for her by contrasting the greatness of the
event with the lowness of her station. Mary rejoiced in her
maternity for two causes. First, because it was the deliver
ance of her people ; and, secondly, because it was a great mani
festation of God s special love of her. To exalt Mary, it is not
necessary to divest her of all that is human. Human nature
desires to be loved, and Mary was enraptured by the certain
knowledge that God loved her so that he chose her to give his
Son to earth. Now it is true humility not to glory in humility.
Hence we can not embrace the opinion that makes Mary
adduce here a moral perfection of her being as the object to
which God had regard. The whole spirit of the verse is spoiled ,
and Mary is made vainglorious by such signification.
Many see in the second clause of this verse a prophecy of
the enduring veneration that Mary receives from all genera
tions. We admit that Mary could have prophesied such
truth ; for it is true, and will always remain true. But we can
not recognize such to be the concept of the Virgin. The
i5 8 LUKE I. 46 56
phrase is a Hebrew expression to portray graphically some
good fortune come to one. Thus it is used in Gen. XXX. 13 ;
Prov. XXXI. 28 ; Cant. VI. 8 ; and particularly Malachi II. 12.,
where, to describe the benedictions that will follow Israel s
faithful observance of the Yahvistic law, Yahveh says: "And
all nations shall call you blessed . " Wherefore we believe
that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not in this text prophesy her
future honor and glory among men, but extolled the blessed
ness of her lot, in the customary idiom of her people. This
is especially important, because oft Catholics adduce this text
to defend the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and they
achieve nothing thereby. The original Greek term accords
with our opinion. MaKapifa never means to venerate as a holy
being; it means to esteem and proclaim happy. The verse
aptly manifests that Mary realized the great prerogative that
had been given her.
There is a characteristic Hebrew coloring throughout the
whole canticle. The hiding by the blessed Virgin Mary of her
own personality behind the power of God is beautiful in the
forty-ninth verse. The designation of God by the name of
6 SwoTcfc, the powerful, is apt in celebrating the great work of
the Incarnation. God did many great things to Mary, but as
they were all in virtue of her maternity of the Son of God, this
is what she has in mind in celebrating the Creator s power as
shown forth inher. St. Thomas in the XXV. Art. of istPart,
ad sextum, hesitates not to say that the motherhood of God
given to Mary has a certain infinite dignity, and that God
could not give to any creature a greater dignity, because, as
there can be nothing greater than God, so there can be no dig
nity conferrable on a creature greater than the maternity of
God. This opinion we embrace in toto.
Protestants have chosen to regard Mary as a mere instru
mental cause through which Christ came into the world with
out conferring anything on her through whom he came. If
such were the truth, Mary s words here would be false. We
assume as certain that she speaks here in the Spirit of God.
Any one admitting the inspiration of Holy Writ will admit
Mary s inspiration. Now she does not say that God has done
great things through her, but to her. Although she ascribes
LUKE I. 46 56 159
nothing as coming to herself from herself, she asserts plainly
that great things have come to her from God. She recognizes
that her own personality is the object of a mighty action, con
sequently, the maternity of Mary must have affected her as a
personal prerogative, raising her in the scale of being, to justify
the assertion that the great things were done to her. The
clause " and holy is his name " is a rapturous burst of gratitude
at the contemplation of God s benefits to her.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the fiftieth verse, begins to
take a larger view of God and his attributes, and departs from
his personal dealing with her to proclaim his attitude towards
all mankind. The phrase, "from generation to generation," is
a Hebrew idiom In signify the enduring duration of anything.
The e\eo<? stands for the Hebrew "1DH which is a far more
comprehensive term than e Xeo? of the Greek. IDH signifies
benignitas, beneficentia, misericordia: it includes in its significa
tion every beneficent thing that God does for us. Mary makes
this beneficence of God everlasting, since it is as eternal as his
own essence. The love of man for man, or man for God may
wane and die, but God s beneficence is absolutely eternal.
The clause " to them that fear him," gives the condition
requisite in the creature for such exercise of divine benignity.
God wishes rather to be loved than feared. This fear here is
the reverential recognition of the Creator and his attributes,
which in this period of man s existence includes a certain awe
and emotion of the soul which we call fear. The just man fears
God in the sense that, in .sobriety and thought fulness, recog
nizing God s power, he fears to do anything that would dis
please God. This fear is not opposed to love, but it is opposed
to that flippant bravado, which, not penetrating to the fixed
relations between God and man, recks not of God or of his
attributes. God wishes every one to come close to him, and
we can not come close to him without feeling a worshipful awe
which, in defect of a better term, we call fear. The eternal
endurance of God s mercy and beneficence could not be hid
from Mary s great soul. In the dismal instability and change
of everything in man s life, man longs for something changeless,
something to trust infinitely : he finds it only in God. As God
160 LUKE I. 46 56
was, he is, he shall be. The^Blessed Virgin Mary by an an
tithesis, contrasting God s dealings with the impious, brings in
to relief God s omnipotence. There is a double metaphor in
the first clause. The arm is often metaphorically used to sig
nify power. As it is the agency by which the power of the
body is applied to objects, by an easy figure, it passes to signi
fy power itself. By the metaphor of anthropomorphism this
agency of man s strength is attributed to God to signify to our
minds his power. Anthropomorphism is the natural result of
the limitations of man s thought and speech. It robs God of
nothing, and it assists our minds to represent the purely spirit
ual nature of God in the semblance of a man. The phrase, "in
his arm," is a pure Hebraism, in which the ablative of agent
is governed by 3
The "proud in the conceit of their hearts" are those who
have thrown off proper subjection to God and have established
their own will and pleasure as their law. Such condition of
mind is often generated by wealth or authority. It has various
degrees proceeding up to satanic rebellion against God. Exam
ples of God s dealings with such oft appear in Israel s history.
Thus he dealt with Pharaoh, with Goliath, with the hosts of
Sennacherib, with Holofernes, with Belshazzar, with Antiochus
IV. It was customary for the Hebrews, when proclaiming the
Creator s might, to recall the many demonstrations of it that
he had wrought in their favor. God often routed the proud
foes of Israel, and broke their power. There is nothing vindic
tive in this declaration. It is just and honorable to God to
rejoice in what he has done. The chief intent here is to show
forth the attributes of God by contrasting his attitude and
deeds towards these two different classes of his creatures.
Eastern people always invested their rulers with a semi-
divine prerogative of power. Their reverence for a monarch
can scarcely be understood by people whom republican ideas
have divested of all respect for authority. With the Jews, it
was a usual mode of extolling the power of God to make it
supreme above kings and rulers. In this wondrous parallelism
Mary proclaims Yahveh s power by contrasting its exercise
upon the worldly mighty who resist him, and upon the faithful
LUKE I. 46 56 161
humble who trust in his providence. Examples of his dealing
with princes are found in his dealings with Saul, with Nebu
chadnezzar, with Haman, and with Antiochus IV. Examples
of his exaltation of the humble are more numerous. Thus he
took David from his flocks to make him king. Thus he over
threw by David Goliath who had held in fear the whole army
of Saul. He took Moses from keeping the sheep of Yithro to
make him his lawgiver. The burden of Mary s song is simply
that the proud, wordly powerful are as nothing in the hand of
God ; and that the man who recognizes in truthful subjection
the Creator s power has an infinite resource on which to draw.
Although certain specific demonstrations of Yahveh s power
might have been in Mary s mind in this utterance, the truth
finds greater application in the quiet, unperceived ordering of
the fate of high and low by God. The destinies of the universe
are in his hands, and the mighty fall and the humble rise by a
providence that orders all things fortiter et suaviter. The pos
session of great power is not in itself antagonistic to God.
David possessed great power, Charlemagne possessed great
power. Those to whom the words of Mary apply are those who
trust in their worldly might, rejecting God s law. Mary s
mind centers not on the objects upon which this power is exer
cised, but upon the power of God itself, which could best be
glorified to a Jewish mind by asserting its absolute supremacy
over kingly power, which they revered as mighty on earth.
Mary must have included herself in those whom God has
exalted.
The preceding contrast is between the mighty and the
low; the next is between the rich and the needy. The trend
of the fifty -third verse is not socialistic. The mere possession";
of wealth does not excite the wrath of God, and poverty is not >
in itself, unless it be voluntary, a virtue. Again, we find thatj
notwithstanding this verse, the rich grow richer, and transmit
by inheritance vast estates, and the poor grow poorer, and
many are hungry, and there is no miraculous equalization of
possessions. Neither is the present verse the outcome of any
social discontent occasioned by the communistic ideas of the
plebeians. The verse must be understood in a moral sense.
It proclaims in a concrete form that God s providence watches
(10) Gosp. I.
162 LUKE I. 46 56
over the needy, and that the rich man who is inflated by his
possessions and oblivious of God needs expect naught of God.
It is in conformity with the parable of Lazarus and Dives.
God exercises this special providence in manifold hidden ways,
not always by evident miracles. It is strictly true that the
virtuous poor who make use of natural means to maintain
themselves, and appeal to the providence of God, always
watching over the affairs of men, are heard, and, if it be for
their best interests, are relieved. This provident care of the
poor by God at times has been exercised in a. miraculous way.
Israel itself was thus fed for forty years. It is also true that
the man blinded and hardened by the greed for gold receives
little of God s favors. God may not despoil him of his posses
sions, but the verse gives God s attitude towards him. Again,
God s best gifts are not given on earth, and this is especially
true in the New Law. In the great day of retribution unto all
men, God will have more for those who had least of earth s
goods than for those who made the possession of wealth the
aim of their being. We say finally then that the main drift of
the verse is to assert that God is favorable to the virtuous poor,
and repels the proud, selfish rich.
The avreXaftero of the fifty-fourth verse signifies, to raise up
from a decadent state and give aid. Mary recognizes that her
son has come to redeem her people, and she naturally glories in
the fact. Israel is called the TTCU? of the Lord because he
was Yahveh s firstborn. The force of the ^vi]cr6r^va^ is poorly
expressed in the Vulgate. It is the Greek infinitive of purpose,
and marks the motive which impelled God to raise up Israel.
So our English version would be more correct, did it render
the passage : " He hath helped Israel his servant, that he might
be mindful of his mercy." He wrought thus for Israel, that
he might show himself mindful of his mercy. The verse is
strengthened and completed by the following verse.
The Greek of the fifty-fifth verse gives cause for differing
judgments. The sense of the verse seems to demand that
"Abraham and his seed" should be in apposition to "our
fathers," but this seems to be prevented by the fact that
"Abraham and his seed" are in the dative case, while "our
fathers" is in the accusative, governed by 717309. Such use of
LUKE I. 46 56 163
cases would accord with Hebrew usage, but it is against the
genius of the Greek language. Moved by this, some consider
the clause: "As he spoke to our fathers" parenthetical, and
they make the two datives " Abraham and his seed " datives of
agent, the object of God s mercy. As such arrangement of
the words makes the passage rough and obscure, I prefer to
recognize in the passage a Hebraism permissible to even the
classical Greek writer Luke, since he was reproducing a purely
Hebrew document.
" Forever" refers to the seed of Abraham. God made an
evelasting covenant with Abraham and his seed, and Mary-
recognizes, in the conception of her son, God s fidelity to that
promise made to Abraham and his seed. For ages the fulfil
ment of that promise had been deferred. Many patriarchs
and prophets had gone down to the grave with an unsatisfied
longing to see the salvation of Israel. Mary recognizes that
the long looked for event is come, and through her. God,
albeit foreknowing Israel s rejection of the Christ, sent him,
that he might keep faith with Abraham and the fathers of
Israel to whom he had promised a Messiah.
We hold that Mary remained with Elizabeth till her
delivery. Some have denied this for futile reasons, such as,
for instance, that it was unfitting that a virgin should be
present at the birth of a child. The natural mode of genera
tion existed in man s primal innocence, and there is nothing
unchaste about it, Our corrupt minds have invested it with
an impure element, which by nature it does not possess.
Mary s mind knew naught of this property of fallen nature,
and for her the birth of the precursor had only in it the won
drous demonstration of Yahveh s power. Those who oppose
us rely on the fact that as Mary went to visit Elizabeth in the
sixth month, and remained about three months the nine
months of Elizabeth s gestation would not be completed.
We answer that the <w?, " about" signifies either a slight defi
ciency or a slight excess, and in the present instance it means
an excess of some part of a month. After Elizabeth s deliv
ery, Mary returned to her paternal home at Nazareth. Al
though the birth of the Baptist is narrated by Luke after
Mary s return home, it certainly took place during her stay
164
LUKE I. 57 66
with Elizabeth. Luke finished his account of Mary s part in
the event, before taking up the other theme. Chronology has
but a secondary place in the Scriptures. The details of events
are often grouped together, without strict heed to chrono
logical order.
LUKE I. 5766.
57. Now Elizabeth s time
was fulfilled that she should be
57. Tfj Be EXeccdSeT k-
o y w pdvo<; TOU TexeTv aurrjv,
delivered, and she brought forth eyevvrjaev ulov.
a son,
58. And her neighbors and
kinsfolk heard that the Lord
had showed great mercy to
wards her, and they congratu
lated her.
59. And it came to pass
that on the eighth day they
came to circumcise the child,
and they called him by his
father s name Zachary.
60. And his mother answer
ing said: Not so, but he shall
be called John.
61. And they said unto her:
There is none of thy kindred
that is called by this name.
62. And they made signs to
his father how he would have
him called.
63. And having asked for a
writing-tablet, he wrote say
ing: John is his name. And
they all wondered.
64. And immediately his
mouth was opened, and his
tongue was loosed, and he spoke,
praising God.
58. Kal fjxouaav ol xeptotx.cn
xal o! auyyevelq auTYJq, cm
e^eyaXuvev Kiipio? TO e Xeo<; auiou
JJIST auT7)<;, xal auveyatpov auTfl.
59. Kal lyeveTO ev Tfj ify-epa
if) 6yB6f) TjXOov TcepiTejjLeiv Tb
xaiBEov, v.a.1 IxaXouv au^b, Ixt
TO) 6v6^aTt TOU xaTpb?
Zay_ap(av.
60. Kal axoxptOstaa r\
elxsv, OuyJ, dXXa
61. Kal elxov xpbq auTTjv, OTI
ouBefq effTtv ex TT)<; auyyevsfaq aou,
oq xaXelTat TW ovojxaTi TOUTW.
62. Eveveuov BeTW xaTpl auTou,
TC av OeXot xaXelaOat CCUTO.
63. Kal
eypa^ev Xeywv, Io)dvr]<; laTtv (TO)
ovo^a auTou, xal eOautJLaaav xdvTeq.
64. Avewy^Y) e TO aTo
xapaypfj^a xal ^ yXcoaaa
xal eXaXec euXoywv TOV @eov.
LUKE I. 5766 165
65. And fear came on all 65. Kat lylvsTo Ixl
that dwelt round about them; <p66o<; TOU<; xspiotxoDvTa? CCUTOU<;,
and all these things were noised xal Iv 0X7) Tfl dpEivfl if^q louBaia?
abroad throughout all the hill- SteXaXslTO xvdvza TOC pr^ata TaiJTa.
country of Judaea.
66. And all they that heard 66. Kal lOevro xdviec ot dxou-
them laid them up in their aavreq Iv if) xapBfoc eauiwv XeyovTeq,
hearts, saying: What manner T( apa TO xacBi ov TOUTO ecrrai; xal
of child shall this be? For the yap X P Kupfou TJV JI.ET auTou.
hand of the Lord was with him.
In the fifty-eighth verse, Gabriel s prophecy, that many
should rejoice in the child s birth, is partially fulfilled. It was
an event which clearly manifested an extraordinary grace of
God to Elizabeth, and gave evidence that God had visited his
people. This joy was a part of that joy which Israel and
the nations of the earth should feel at the opening of the new
era of which John was the herald.
It has been erroneously believed by many that circum
cision was a rite which was performed in the temple. Christian
art has accepted such belief in the delineation of such event.
That such was not the truth, is evident from the present pass
age. Elizabeth is present at the action, and she would not be
allowed in the temple eight days after her delivery. The rite
of circumcision was performed at home, and the kinsfolk and
neighbors were wont to be present on the occasion, as is here
stated.
Circumcision was commanded by God to be given on the
eighth day, and it was one of the works that it was lawful to
perform on the Sabbath. The period of eight days was estab
lished so that the infant might acquire sufficient strength to
endure the wound. Although this rite was given to Israel as
an emblem of the true faith, Patrizi contends that such usage
prevailed among the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians,
Syrians and others. St. Jerome declares that the Egyptians,
Idumeans, Ammonites, Moabites, and all the Saracens are
circumcised.
Circumcision is in universal usage with the Muhammadans :
this rite they received from the descendants of Abraham.
It seems quite certain that the Ammonites and Moabites prac-
1 66 LUKE I. 57 66
tised the rite of circumcision; but this is also traced back to
Abraham. John Hyrcanus introduced the rite of circum
cision among the Edomites. [Josephus, Ant. XIII. IX. I.]
From Ishmael it came into many of the Arab tribes. Some
assert that it has penetrated among most of the tribes of
Africa and into the Islands of Australasia.
Of circumcision Herodotus [II. 104] speaks as follows:
"The Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians are the only
nations who from the first have practised circumcision. For
the Phoenicians and the Syrians in Palestine acknowledge that
they learned it from the Egyptians; and the Syrians about
Thermodon and the river Parthenius, with their neighbors, the
Macrones, confess that they very lately learned the same cus
tom from the Colchians, and these are the only nations that
are circumcised, and thus appear evidently to act in the same
manner as the Egyptians. But of the Egyptians and Ethio
pians, I am unable to say which learned it from the other,
for it is evidently a very ancient custom. And this appears
to me a strong proof that the Phoenicians learned this practice
from the Egyptians for all the Phoenicians who have any com
merce with Greece no longer imitate the Egyptians in this
usage, but abstain from circumcising their children. " Flavius
Josephus establishes the untrustworthiness of Herodotus
statement. "He (Herodotus) says that the Ethiopians
learned circumcision from the Egyptians, adding that the
Phoenicians and Syrians that live in Palestine confess that they
learned it from the Egyptians. Yet it is evident that no other
of the Syrians who live in Palestine, besides us alone, are cir
cumcised. " [Antiq. VIII. X. 3.]
Herodotus mingles in his history ridiculous fables, exag
gerations, and falsehoods of all kinds. His utter lack of truth
fulness has been demonstrated by Lancelotti Impostures de
VHistoire Ancienne; and by Guerin du Rocher, VHistoire des
Fabuleuoc.
If we except the Egyptians there is no evidence that any
other people practised circumcision before the time of Abra
ham.
In regard to Egypt there are some evidences that circum
cision was practised at least in some cases as far back as the
LUKE I. 57 -66 167
fifth dynasty, according to Maspero, 3950-3700 B. C. Others
place the fifth dynasty nearly a thousand years nearer our
era. Chabas [Revue Archeologique Vol. III. pag. 298-300]
reproduces from a design the scene of the circumcision of a
child between six and twelve years old. This was found in the
little temple of Khons, at Karnack. It is supposed to be of
the fifth dynasty. Since then some mummies have been
found who are said to bear evidences of circumcision. This
argument is weakened by the fact that some of the gods are
represented in the same manner. The ithyphallic god Min is
usually thus represented. It might well be considered the
Egyptian conception of the fulness of virile power.
In February of 1906 I requested the Rev. M. Slattery of
the African Fathers to gather what evidence he could from the
monuments of Egypt regarding circumcision. Father Slattery
at once consulted Mr. G. Maspero, Director of the Museum in
Cairo, and one of the first living Egyptologists. Mr. Maspero,
kindly expressed his views in the following letter :
CAIRO,
May 10, 1906,
MONSIEUR :
There." formerly
existed at Karnak
a bas-relief repre
senting the cir
cumcision of an
infant. It was
copied by Prisse d
Avennes, and after
that it disap
peared. Chabas
(Oevres Di verses,
torn. II. p. 260).
published it after
a design by Prisse
d Avennes.
The scene is of
j> io . ff%/a<^^<^S^ >vy"** /f the Twe tieth
/ ( / Dynasty.
i68
LUKE I. 57 66
e*i.
CUL.
ton.
.
(/
y
/
i&- vt
//
c
7
KL&rtt
Another exam
ple of circumcision
was discovered in
1899, in a tomb at
Sakkarah near the
Pyramid of King
Teti. This is still
in place; and al
though situated in
an obsctire part of
the tomb, one
may easily visit it.
It is of the Fifth
Dynasty.
Another statue
in the Museum at
Cairo. (No. 92,
Guide to the Cairo
Museum, V. ed. p.
55) is represented
nude and circum
cised, a proof that
circumcision was
in use from the
Fifth Dynasty.
The artist has
brought out in
strong relief the
mutilation. There
are other monu
ments ; but let
these suffice.
I beg to remark
that circumcision
was not in general
use in Egypt. It
seems to have
been practiced
only by certain
classes of priests )
or in certain relig
ious royal circles.
I myself have veri
fied that the Phar
aohs of the Eigh
teenth, Nineteenth
and Twentieth
LUKE I. 57 66 169
^Accept, dear
Sir, the expression
of my special es-
t eem.
G MASPERO -
The statue to which Maspero refers is of the priest
Ansakha, and of it Maspero declares in the aforesaid Guide,
that as regards the circumcision it is almost unique among the
monuments of the oldest period of Egyptian art.
Conceding the most that can be demanded of the few
isolated representatives of circumcision in Egypt, it appears
only as a rare usage of certain classes. There is no proof that
it was by them considered as a religious rite. Indeed Herodo
tus (11.37) declares that the Egyptians practise circumcision
for the sake Of cleanness. Hygienic reasons may also have
entered as a cause of the practice. That such a practice was
recognized by any people as clean or hygienic would be favor
able to its being selected by God as a religious ordinance to
signify moral cleanness. The evidence seems to indicate that
its practice with the Egyptians was very restricted. Maspero
(Renan, Hist, du Peuple d Israel) admits that many of the
royal mummies bear no trace of it.
The generation that entered Chanaan under Joshua were
born in the desert. Circumcision had been neglected in the
exodus. After passing the Jordan the whole multitude was
circumcised, and the state of uncircumcision is called by Yah-
veh "the reproach of Egypt." This could be for no other
cause than that the Egyptians were uncircumcised.
In the Prophet Jeremiah, IX. 25-26, we find the following :
" Behold, thejiays^come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all
1 70 LUKE I. 57 66
the circumcised with the uncircumcised ; Egypt and Judah, and
Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are
in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness; for all
nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are
uncircumcised in the heart. "
The only rational explanation of this text is that Israel,
which is circumcised in the flesh, but not in the heart, will be
punished with the nations of Moab, Ammon, Edom, and
Egypt which are not circumcised.
In the prophecy of Ezekiel XXXII. 32, it is said of Pha
raoh: " and he shall be laid in the midst of the uncircum
cised, with them that are slain by the sword. Even Pharaoh
and all his multitude, saith the Lord God." The uncircum
cised among whom Pharaoh shall be laid are the slaughtered
Egyptians, and it is evident that the Prophet makes him one of
them.
As the infant Baptist was the only child of the aged con
sorts, the relatives wished to honor Zachary by placing on the
child the name of the father. The words of the Scripture mani
fest a counsel of those who from nearness of kin might believe
that it was their privilege to name the child. The custom of
giving the name in circumcision was an old one, and gave rise to
the Christian usage of naming the child at its baptism.
No account is taken of Zachary in the whole affair, since
his condition rendered communion with him very difficult.
The will of God made known to Zachary by the angel must
have also been made known to Elizabeth. It is evident that
in insisting on the name commanded by the angel, she is actu
ated by some certain knowledge of Gabriel s bidding. Now
there are two ways in which she could have come at this knowl
edge. She could have received a communication from Heaven,
or Zachary could have written for her the angel s bidding.
Owing to the defect of the evidence it is impossible to decide
in which of these ways the event took place. What is clearly
revealed is that Elizabeth gave her child his name in obedience
to Heaven s will. The faith of the pious Elizabeth appears in
her insisting, against the wishes of all her kindred, that the
child shall bear the name given him by Gabriel in the Temple.
LUKE I. 5766 i; 1
The sixty-first verse contains the words of Elizabeth s rel
atives who have an intimate knowledge of the things that per
tain to her line, to the gens. Although the name John was
usual among the Hebrews, it results from this passage that
there was no such name among the gens of Zachary or Eliza
beth. Those who opposed Elizabeth s will attributed to ca
price the placing of such name on the child. It is evident that
there was a certain conflict of opinions in the determination of
the name, and they appealed to Zachary as the authoritative
head of the family to settle the point at issue.
Certain evidence is furnished us by the sixty-second verse
that Zachary was both deaf and dumb. Had he been only
dumb, they would not need to make known their mind to him
by signs ; and also, had he been able to hear the discussion, he
would have manifested by writing his determination to obey
the commands of Gabriel in the naming of the child.
There is an air of decision in the response of Zachary that
cut off further controversy. The response indicates that the
naming had already been done; he was named by the angel.
The surprise of the assemblage was occasioned by the consent
of Zachary and Elizabeth in the strange name, especially since
they detected, in their determination to have such name given,
that there was something back of it more than a mere human
wish. Their minds were filled with wonderment at all the
events in the strange birth, and now they inwardly resolve that
some supernatural agency is at work in placing the name.
We have before stated that Zachary s loss of the faculties
of speech and hearing was both a sign from Heaven and a
slight punishment for his slowness to believe the angel s mes
sage. The angel had promised that it would endure till the
birth of the promised child, and yet we find it enduring eight
days after such event. The angel had commanded that the
child be named John. Zachary s fidelity to this bidding of the
angel was tested somewhat by the attempts of the relatives to
place another name. His faithful execution of this mandate
of the angel obtains the release from the punishment which his
hesitation in faith brought upon him, and it was fitting that the
state induced by his weakness should last till he had shown
fidelity to the last requirement of the angel. Some critics have
172 LUKE I. 67 80
noted that the avew^drj though applicable to the mouth can not
be predicated of the tongue, hence Vatablus in his Sacred
Critics would insert Bir)p0pd>0r) after <y\wcro-a avrov. This is
absurd. There is a Semitic coloring all through this account
by Luke. Now the Semitic language speaks more directly to
the mind than to the ear, and this zeugma needs not be bridged
over by any term in order that the mind may perceive that the
opening of the mouth and tongue means the removal of that
which obstructed tbe organs of speech.
We may rightly infer that Zachary s deafness ceased at
the same moment. The immediate cessation of the impedi
ment upon the declaration of his will in the naming of the child
manifests that his liberation came in virtue of his fidelity in
executing the commands of the angel. It would be natural
that a religious man, such as was Zachary, would, as the verse
states, after such remarkable demonstration of God s power,
consecrate to the praise of Yahveh the first use of his regained
faculties.
At the majesty of God even the angels tremble. Theirs is
not the trembling of painful terror, but of worshipful awe.
Creatures of earth, then, must feel a certain awe and rever
ence when God, by any unusual demonstration, gives evidence
that he is near. The miraculous regaining of Zachary s facul
ties evidenced that the Creator was showing forth his power
in this child, and it impressed all with that emotion composed
of awe, reverence, and fear, that we feel at the drawing near of
the supernatural in any form. Considering the nature of man,
it is not strange that an event of this kind was spread abroad
through all the mountains of Judeea. The " hand of the Lord "
is a strong concrete way of saying that the power of God had
been markedly manifested in the birth and circumcision of this
child, and they rightly took these things into serious reflection
as presaging some great events in John s life.
LUKE I. 6780
67. And Zachary his father 67. Kal Zcr/ap:a<; 6 xaTYjp
was filled with the Holy Ghost, auToG I^X^aOr] liveu^aToq Ayfou,
and he prophesied, saying: xocl IxpocpVJTe jaev Xeywv,
LUKE I. 67 80
68. Blessed be the Lord the
God of Israel, because he hath
visited and wrought redemption
for his people:
69. And he hath raised up
a horn of salvation for us, in the
house of David his servant,
70. As he spoke by the
mouth of his holy prophets, who
are from the beginning:
7 1 . That we should be saved
from our enemies, and from the
hand of all that hate us;
72. To show mercy to our
fathers, and to remember his
holy covenant;
73. The oath which he swore
to Abraham our father, that he
would grant unto us,
74. That we being delivered
out of the hand of our enemies,
should serve him without fear,
75. In holiness and right
eousness before him all our
days.
76. And thou, child, shalt
be called the prophet of the
Most High ; for thou shalt go be
fore the face of the Lord to
prepare his ways. ;
77. To give knowledge of
salvation unto his people, in the
remission of their sins,
78. Because of the heart of
mercy of our God; whereby the
Dayspring from on high shall
visit us,
68. EuXoyqTOi; Kupco? 6 0eb<;
TOJ IcrpxrjX, oit exeax.et|iaTO xocl
IxotYjijcV Xuirptosiv TW Xaw auiou,
69. Kal Yjyscpev xepa<; awnqpf
, ev oTxw AauelS xGuSoq au
70. Ka0:.)<; lAGCAYjaev Bta cn6-
Toq TWV ccytcov era atwvoq xpo-
71.
xsd ex,
OUVTWV
XCZVTWV TO>V
72. rioiYjaac IXsoq [XTa TWV
^tJLWV, X.3CC
73. "Opxov ov w^iocrev xpo?
ASpaajjL TOV xatepa TQJJLWV, TOU
Souvai
74. A^oScoq Ix xetpbq 1^0 pwv
pucj0vua<;
75. Ev oaioTTjTt xal
evwxtov auToQ xacaq -ra<;
76. Kal au Be, xcaotov, xpocp-
TQTY]q u^faTou /.AYjGrjcrr] : xpoxopeujfl
yap Ivtoxtov Kupfou, eioc^dbac
65ou<;
77. ToD SoDvat yvwjiv aa)TY]pfa<;
W Xaw auTou ev acpeaec d
Acd
ev olq
IXeou? 0eou
174 LUKE I. 67 80
79. To enlighten them that 79. E^tcpavat ToTq iv ax<ket
sit in darkness and in the shad- xal axca OavaTou xa0Y)^voi<;, TOU
dow of death, to guide our feet xorreuOuvat TOJ^ TCOOOCI; r^wv sec;
into the way of peace. 6Bbv scp-qvr]?.
80. And the child grew, and 80. To os zaiotov t)C^avev, xal
waxed strong in spirit, and was expatiate JTO icveiijxatt, xal YJV ev
in the deserts until the day of xalq ep^on;, ewq rj^lpaq dvacsf^sax;
his manifestation to Israel. auToD xpoq TOV IcjcaifA.
In the seventy-fourth verse, the reading e-xOpwv ^tov is
found in A, C, D, R, T, A, A, n, et al. It is followed by the
Old Italian, Vulgate, Syriac, Armenian, ^Ethiopian and Gothic
Versions and by the Diatessaron of Tatian. It is endorsed by
Cyril of Alexandria and Origen. A, B, L, i, 13, and 69 omit
the pronoun r\p<*v. Though the pronoun may not have been
expressed in the original of Luke, it is evidently implied, and
its expression enhances the clearness of the proposition.
In verse seventy-fifth E, H, M, S, F, A, et al. insert
7% &)r)<? before r)p&v. Their authority is insufficient to make
it a probable reading.
A more important variant is found in the seventy-sixth
verse, where the reading evu>Tnov Kv/atov is found in ^ and B.
This reading is also adopted by Origen, Tischendorf, Westcott
and Hort. All the other authorities stand for the reading
Trpo TT/JOOTCOTTOU Kvpiov, and we are persuaded that it is the cor
rect reading.
The most important variant of the whole passage occurs in
the seventy -eighth verse in which emcr/ce^erai is found in ^*,
B and L. This reading is followed by the Coptic and Peshitto
versions and by the Diatessaron of Tatian. The other auth
orities have eVeo-/ce\/>"aTo, which reading also Tischendorf ap
proves.
The prophecy of Zachary differed in nature from mere
inspiration. He was rapt by the Holy Ghost into an ecstatic
state, in which he was aided by the divine power to utter truths
in whose conception the natural faculties had little or no part.
Yahveh was called the God of Israel, not to imply that
there were other gods, from whom he was contradistinguished,
but to denote that the Jewish people was peculiarly related to
him as his chosen people. It was also a mode of designating
LUKE I. 67 80 175
the true God in contradistinction to the false gods, not existing
in reriiw natura, but in the estimation of the idolatrous world.
God is said to visit an individual or a people, when he
vouchsafes to such individual or people either an extraor
dinary effect of beneficent power or punitive justice. As the
appearance of John was the first act in the drama of Redemp
tion, Zachary, by the prophetic spirit, recognized that the
promised Redemption by the Messiah was at hand. Although
the Redemption was intended for all men, the prophet adverts
first in this place to its character as fulfilling the promises made
to Israel. Salvation was first offered to Israel.
The Hebrew people were sprung from a family of shep
herds, the twelve sons of Jacob. Hence it is natural that
many of the expressions of their language should be taken from
the pastoral life.
As horned animals have in their horns their defensive
strength, the term "horn" passed to signify power in general,
or rather the central source in which resides the strength of
anything, and whence it emanates. In the present phrase,
then, the horn of salvation means the powerful source and
center of salvation. It is certain that this appellation applies
directly to Christ, who is the absolute and sole source of all
salvation, and also powerful to establish the eternal title to
salvation for every man. God raised up this powerful source
of salvation in the house of David his servant, inasmuch as
Christ was of David s blood descent. Redemption is consid
ered here as accomplished, because the work had begun, and,
in the impassioned discourse of prophecy, it could be said to be
wrought. God is said to have wrought the redemption of his
people, inasmuch as he placed a title of redemption sufficient
for the whole world, of which every man might avail himself
One of the greatest evidences of Christ s divinity was the
fulfilment of the prophecies that had been made concerning
him. So Peter bases his argument in Acts, III. 25, on the
same ground. The prophets were special friends of God.
Although there are records of impious men who prophesied,
still those properly called prophets were men according to his
heart, to whom he entrusted the deliverance of his truths to
God s people. They are said to be of old because they go back
176 LUKE I. 67 80
to the origin of the Hebrew people. They are more numerous,
beginning with Samuel, and continuing down to the close of
prophecy in Malachi. First, scattered declarations of a
Messianic nature appear in them ; but as time progresses, the
Messiah assumes more and more of a reality, till Isaiah and
Jeremiah speak of him with a clearness approximating that of
the Gospel itself.
In the seventieth verse there seems to be an allusion to
the long time that Israel awaited the coming of the Messiah.
We cannot assign reasons for this long waiting. It was one of
the things depending solely on the will of God, and God has not
seen fit to tell us his reasons for the centuries during which the
world waited for its Redeemer. Some refer the verse to what
precedes and some to what follows. We prefer to refer it to
both the preceding and the following. Zachary adduces the
prophets of old as authority for the great event which he
recognizes in the birth of his son; and then continuing, he
brings forth other things which shall be accomplished by the
same event, which things also rested on a prophetic basis.
The seventy-first verse contains a parallelism common in He
brew poetry and prophecy. The second clause is simply a repe
tition of the thought of the first. The verse contains some
event which God has promised through prophecy. God had
promised Israel liberation from her enemies. The later Jews
interpreted these promises of an earthly liberation from the
national foes of Israel, and fondly sought in them the presage
of Israel s national greatness. If such be their import, then
the prophecy has miscarried. Neither can they apply to the
liberation of the Church from temporal foes. Christ promised
the Church not liberation and security, but martyrdom, hatred,
and persecution till the end of time. We maintain therefore
that these words have no temporal application. They apply
only to the soul in its combat with its spiritual foes. The
reason that this sense of the words of Holy Writ does not move
us more is that we allow to things of time too much preponder
ance in our lives. We live and think as though the most
important part of our being were the body of flesh. The more
unworldly a man becomes, the more real becomes the world of
spirit, where alone man shall live the life of man.
LUKE I. 67 80 177
Before the Redemption the reign of Satan held a terrible
domination over man. The Redemption broke this empire,
and freed man by the vicarious atonement, and this is the sal
vation which Zachary proclaims has come in conformity to that
which had been prophesied of old. The effects which the
Redemption has wrought in man s spiritual relations with God
can not be but dimly understood in this life. The Redemption
effected more for man than we can ever see in this life. The
salvation thus wrought is in every man s power to obtain, but,
de facto, these words apply only to the elect, that is the salva
tion offered to all, is only, de facto, of avail to the elect.
The two infinitives of the Greek text of the seventy -second
verse are infinitives of purpose, and state the purpose of the
event which was prophesied, and which has come. The holy
covenant was the treaty made to Abraham, and confirmed to
the other patriarchs of Israel concerning the Messiah and his
reign. The coming of the Christ is called the showing of mercy,
because it was the merciful solving of the world s obligation.
The fidelity of God to his promises is celebrated by Zachary in
the fact that, after so many long ages, he was mindful of the
promise made of old to the founders of his people.
It would give too much of a local and particular character
to the Redemption to make its motive consist alone in the ful
filment of the promises made to Israel. Yahveh was not a
local God, but the God of the universe. Patrizi moved by
such considerations denies that "our fathers" is the indirect
object of "to perform mercy." We admit that God has a
universal scope in the mission of his Son. At the same time,
the general redemption of the world assumed a peculiar char
acter for Israel. Without conflicting with the general and
more comprehensive design, he came to Israel as a carnal son of
Abraham, as the heir of David s throne. He came in virtue of
promises and treaties made between Yahveh and the Jewish
race. Hence the Messiah could rightly say, even as he foresaw
the myriads of converted pagans forming the great body of his
Church, that he had not come except for the lost sheep of Israel.
The great universal design of God included the particular
design regarding Israel, and the prophet here, influenced by the
traditions of his race, gives greater prominence to that char-
(11) Gosp. I
178 LUKE I. 67 80
acter of the Messiah which related to his own people. More
over, the calling of the Gentiles was always considered in Scrip -
ture as an ingrafting of this scion into the trunk of Abraham.
Hence the salvation of all these peoples can in this sense be
considered a part of the promise made to Abraham. In this
sense the pact made to the fathers of Israel would constitute
the entire purpose of the Redemption.
A difficulty arises concerning the syntax of the noun
"oath" of the seventy-third verse. It is in the objective case in
the Greek, and at first sight, it is difficult to see what
governs it in such a case. Passing over the many opinions
which have been advanced in solution, we deem the
most probable solution to place it in apposition with the
"holy covenant," the object of pvt]a6r\vai. One objection
against this solution is that it should in such case be in the
genitive case to agree with its antecedent in apposi
tion. This is easily solved by admitting the Semitic coloring
in the phrase. The idiom of the Hebrew language would
readily admit such use of cases in apposition. The Syriac
favors this opinion since it places the said oath in the genitive
case.
The oath to which Zachary alludes is that made to
Abraham, Gen. XXII. 15-18: "And the angel of the Lord
called unto Abraham out of Heaven the second time and said :
"By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast
done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son :
that in blessing, I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will
multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which
is upon the sea-shore ; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies ; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed ; because thou hast obeyed my voice. "
The veracity of God needs not in itself to be confirmed by
an oath. Every declaration of God is absolute and unfailing.
But God comes down to man s mode of thinking, and deigns to
give to man that assurance which men find in an oath. By this
he impresses more deeply on their minds the certainty of the
great promise which was the only star of hope through the long
dark night of the world s waiting for the Redeemer.
LUKE I. 67 80 179
The fulfilment of the declaration contained in verses
seventy-four and seventy-five is verified in the spiritual estate
of man. The Redemption broke the power of Satan, and
liberated man out of the hands of demons. Redeemed man is
free and secure in the power of Christ.
There is no conflict between what is here stated of the
security of man s life and what we experience and what
inspired writers have written of the eternal combat that the
powers of darkness wage against man s soul. Man s security is
not a spiritual inertia. It results from his spiritual union with
Christ, and if we by active endeavor preserve that union, all
adverse powers are unavailing to ruin us. God may well say
that the Redemption has made man secure and without fear,
since it loosed the actual possession of Satan, and estab
lished an everlasting refuge where no hostile power can harm
us. Outside that refuge which is Christ there is danger and
there is death ; within it there is absolute security and no fear.
Reasonable fear arises when there is some agency that can
absolutely work us evil. There are not enough powers in the
universe all working together to effect the destruction of a man
who clings to Christ.
In virtue of Christ s triumph over those foes, he says to us
in John XVI. 33 : " In the world ye shall have tribulation, but
be of good cheer ; I have overcome.the world. " There is need
of vigilance and strength in combating, but still we rest on the
absolute assurance that the only way in which we might be
overcome would be by defection from Christ; and certainly
Zachary s canticle proclaims no security for those who fall away
from the Messiah. In the seventv-fifth verse the tenor of a
j
true Christian life is aptly described. The "holiness" and
"righteousness" are synonyms to signify the same concept,
the moral integrity and holiness of life which God exacts from
the redeemed. It is a beautiful description of human life. To
live always in the presence of God ; to recognize his immanence
in our souls ; to live in righteousness and holiness, not " sinning
when we have a mind, and then alternating with a feverish
short lived penitence when we are tired of sinning, " but all our
days keeping such a tenor of life, that when the end comes,
the Lord may be able to say: "Well done, thou good and
faithful servant."
180 LUKE I. 67 80
Zachary next directs his attention to his son, and apos
trophizes him, delineating his role in history. In calling him a
prophet, he uses the term in its fundamental meaning, in which
prophet meant a legate of God. John was a legate sent to
execute the most important commission. Zachary by inspira
tion sets forth the program of John s life, that of preparation
for the coming of the Lord.
The seventy-seventh verse contains the nature of the pre
paration that John was delegated to make. This verse re
ceives some explanation from John s own words in his
ministry. The central truth of all his teaching was:
Do penance, for the kingdom of God is at hand.
John is the first factor in effecting the great transition from
the external worship to the internal, spiritual worship of
the New Law. John taught Israel the knowledge of salva
tion in establishing the great truth that the service of
Yahveh no longer should consist in the burning of holocausts,
but in the internal purging of the soul, which should effect the
remission of sins in this way. The penance and change of
heart that John inculcated prepared men to receive the Christ in
whom they received the remission of sins. The baptism of
John did not remit sins, but it was the initial act for those to
whom John preached, by which they entered into the New
Covenant by which all sins are forgiven in virtue of the merits
of Christ. The clause, therefore, "in the remission of their
sins," qualifies the term "salvation." The salvation, of
which John gave knowledge, was salvation by the remission of
sins, and John s baptism wrought not this effect but prepared
the people for it.
In the seventy-eighth verse the strongest expression is
employed to bring out the concept of the great mercy of God
shown to man in the Redemption. But the genius of our lan
guage is such that it can not reproduce the original strength
of this expression. The Hebrew mind conceived the bowels as
the seat of the emotion of mercy. The Greek writers of the
Scriptures adopted this idea and rendered OH I of the Hebrew
by a-TrXdryxya. Hence, to denote a degree of mercy that moves
the whole interior of man, they use the expression, "bowels of
mercy. " Such would be the literal translation of the expres-
LUKE I. 67 80 181
sion which is by analogy here applied to God. Thus it is
rendered by the Rhemish version and the Vulgate. It is to be
regretted that we have no corresponding equivalent in our
language for this term. The literal translation is opposed to
the genius of our language, and calls up no direct idea in the
English mind. Hence, we have thought well to temper the
crudity of such expression by a slight departure from the mere
letter of the original .
The "Dayspring" of this verse corresponds to the Greek
avaroXij, which means a rising of any of the heavenly bodies.
The Syriac translates it Splendor ex alto. The Septuagint
often rendered by avaroXrj the HOI? f the Hebrew, which
properly means a germ-. Thus it renders Zach. III. 8; VI. 12.
Hence some have thought that this also should be rendered
"germen ex alto." Whatever be the sense of the aforesaid
prophetical passages, certainly the present term likens Christ
by a metaphor to the rising sun. In Malachi, IV. 2, it is said
of Christ : " But unto you that fear my name, shall the Sun of
righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go
forth, and gambol as calves of the stall." As the material
sun, coming forth in the heavens, dispels the darkness of the
night, so Christ, coming from Heaven, by the illumination of
his Redemption, teaching, and grace, dispels the spiritual dark
ness of the soul ; hence he rightly calls himself the light of the
world. The seventy -ninth verse has a close nexus with the pre
ceding. It contains the effect of the Dayspring, the sun of jus
tice. The " shadow of death " is a common Hebrew phrase to
signify the most dense darkness. All connected with death sav
ors of darkness. Thus Virgil spoke of death, /Eneid Lib. X.,
in aeternam clauduntur lumina noctem. " The eyes close
from the light in death, and the body goes down into the dark
silent tomb. Hence to intensify the idea of darkness they
called it the shadow of death. By such term they did not
signify any created thing existing in rerum natura, but a crea
tion of the mind, horrid and repulsive. The two terms, " dark
ness and the shadow of death," are taken together, mutually
strengthening each other, to signify the one concept of intense
darkness. This intense darkness describes a condition of the
182 LUKE I. 67 80
world preceding the Incarnation. Of course, it must be
referred to the moral order. It denoted the ignorance of God
and of salvation, which reigned everywhere. The whole
human race was enveloped in the darkest moral night. The
Jewish people were no exception to this condition. It was a
time of great religious decadence in Israel. False teachers had
travestied Yahveh s law. Sects had arisen who even denied
the immortality of the soul and the resurrection. A few
remained faithful to Yahveh s law; but yet how feeble was the
light afforded by this law compared to the clear light of the
Gospel? Man s destiny was, even for the believing Jew,
wrapped in obscurity. The words of Zachary are applicable
to the whole world, but it is most probable that he applied
them only to his own people, since he includes himself in the
subject of his discourse in the following clause. Although by
the " darkness and shadow of death " Zachary meant primarily
the ignorance and oblivion of God, the crimes of godless man
kind are implied. The effect Christ was destined to work was
a moral illumination. He was to dispel the encircling gloom,
and give to man the truth and the light to receive the truths.
These mighty effects which Christ works in every soul that
receives him are not discernible to our dull senses, and are often
considered as far-off issues, misty and dim. They are live
issues in Heaven, and the closer a man comes to Heaven, the
more do they impress him. It is true that the beneficent
illumination of the Messiah had but little effect in Israel. That
people even to-day remain in moral darkness and blindness of
soul. But the prophecy only speaks of the influence of the
Sun of justice considered in itself. He does not at this place
advert to its blasted effect through the rejection of the Messiah.
The way of peace is the way which leads to peace. Peace is
here used for felicity. It includes the inchoate state of man s
happiness here, consisting in the union of the soul with God in
this our pilgrimage, and it includes the eternal perfect intuitive
union in Heaven. This clause contains in one simple proposi
tion the end of the Incarnation, and, in fact, of every thing that
God ever did for man. That way lies open before every man.
Christ has illumined us, and taught us the way. He wills that
we should walk in it. He gives aid that man may walk in it,
LUKE I. 67 80 183
and those whom Christ knows and who know Christ are walk
ing in it. It ends in Heaven, and the steps by which we prog
ress in it are the good deeds of a Christian life. The "spirit"
of the eightieth verse here signifies the soul of John, which, in
measure as the body grew and waxed strong, expanded it
self, and gave evidence of both natural and supernatural
vigor.
Whenever God chooses one for any extraordinary min
istry, he gives graces fitting and adequate to the proper execu
tion of such work. Hence the greater the work to do, the
greater the divine influence given him who is chosen to do it.
John was chosen for a mighty work, to be the greatest of the
prophets ; hence, the Holy Ghost was with him from his pre
natal state. Under the Spirit s influence, the physical powers
of both body and soul unfolded themselves by a healthy
growth, and the Spirit of God infused into the soul in its
stages of development virtues fitting the various stages of
development.
Every uninhabited tract of land is called in Scriptural
language a desert. It is difficult to locate where, in the many
wild tracts of country of Palestine, John spent his years of
preparation. The Franciscans show a tract of country west of
Bethlehem which they call the desert of St. John. It seems
however to be a desert made to order to be near the Franciscan
hospice on the supposed site of John s birth. Many legends
exist concerning the infancy of St. John. Baronius seems to
have accepted the opinions of Nicephorus and Cedrenus, who
claim that Elizabeth, fearing the wrath of Herod, hid John in a
cave, when he was but little more than eight months old, and
that, she dying forty days later, the child was nursed by angels.
Origen approves this opinion. This opinion is unworthy of
credence. Although the Gospel does not distinctly state the
fact, in describing the development of John s boyhood, it sup
poses that such period of his life was passed in his father s
house. At what exact period of his life he entered the desert,
I am unable to say, but it seems to me evident that it was not
till at such time when his bodily and mental powers were suffi
ciently developed that he could freely choose such seclusion
from men, and sustain its difficulties. There is no need of
184 MATH. I. 19 25
multiplying miracles by sending this infant into the desert
before the natural evolution of his reason, or the development
of his bodily powers, to be reared in the fabulous manner set
forth in the aforesaid opinion.
From the time that he went into the desert till the Spirit
of God moved him to proclaim the baptism of penance, he
withdrew absolutely from men. How wonderful are the ways
of God ! How long and dreary was the wait to which he sub
jected his chosen servant! Jesus was at Nazareth, and John
in the desert, both awaiting the great event ; and yet no com
munion existed between them. For John tells us that he
knew not the Christ till the Spirit of God descended upon him.
It seems that this was so ordered in the providence of God, that
men might not say that there was any collusion between them.
God shows us, in calling John into the solitude to spend the
best years of his life in preparation for his mission, the worth of
silence and withdrawal from society in the soul s life. He
shows us also, that to become great before God, the soul needs
only God. We may not suppose that John was so inhuman
that he never longed through those long years for the sight of
human face, or for communion with his fellow man. But he
sacrificed these tender longings to fidelity. The Lord had
spoken, and such men as John never falter or calculate when
the Lord speaks. Excepting Jesus and Mary, there is no
greater example of fidelity to God s will in history. He stands
there in the midst of a corrupt, hypocritical generation, a giant,
stern and uncompromising. He saw his duty, and observed
it through a life which would cause even the bravest of us to
shudder. There was no attention to personal interests in
John s life; no smoothing things down to suit our natural
craving for ease. The words of such a man would naturally
force conviction.
MATH. I. 19-25.
19. Then Joseph, her hus- 19. Iwar^cp dk 6 dvTjp
band, being a just man, and not oty.aio? tov xxl ^r, OeXwv
willing publicly to expose her, BeiY^adsai s&ouXeu0iq
was minded to put her away a^oAGcjac aurr,v.
privately.
MATH. I. 19 25
20. TauTa ok auTO J
OlvTO?, !8ou ayyeXoq Kup:ou
ovap ecpavt] auTO) Xeywv:
ulbq AauetS, ^T) cpo6Y]0fj<; TrapaXa6eTv
Mapfav TTJV yuvalxa aou: TO yap sv
a Urfj ysvvrjOev Ix IIveujjiaTOi; ICTIV
Aylou.
21. TlqsTai Se ulbv xal xaXeae .?
TO ovojxa auTou lY]soOv: au-ub*; yap
TOV Aabv auToQ axb TWV
22. TOJTO 8s oXov vlyovsv t va
TipwOr) TO prjOsv Jzb K jptou Sta
20. But while he thought
on these things, behold, an angel
of the Lord appeared unto him
in a vision in sleep, saying:
Joseph, son of David, fear not
to take unto thee Mary thy
wife : for that which is conceived
in her is of the Holy Ghost,
2 1 . And she shall bring forth
a son, and thou shalt call his
name Jesus: for he shall save
his people from their sins.
22. Now all this was done
that it might be fulfilled which
the Lord spoke by the prophet,
saying ;
23. Behold, a virgin shall
be with child, and shall bring
forth a son, and they shall call
his name Emmanuel, which
being interpreted, is God
with us.
24. And Joseph, having
arisen from sleep, did as the an
gel of the Lord had bidden him,
and took unto him his wife.
25. And he knew her not
till she had brought forth her
first-born son: and he called
his name Jesus.
There is a variant of some importance in the nineteenth
verse of Matthew. B, Z, i, and some recensions of K have
8eijfjiaTi<Tai. This reading is defended by Tischendorf, West-
cott and Hort, and we have adopted it in our translation.
C, E, K, L, M, P, S, U, V, r, A, II, fc*, N c , et al. have
23. Icoj TJ ^apOsvos ev
^et xal TSteTai utbv xal xaX
O ovo ^a auTou E^jxavouiQA, o laTtv
6
24. EyepOelq cs 6 Icojr]cp arcb
TOJ UTCVO J SxotTjaev w<; -^pojlTa^sv
auTW 6 ayyeXoc; K jpfou xat zape-
Xa&ev TT]v yuvalxa auToO.
25. Kal oux lyfvwaxev aurrjv
eo)^ oil STEXSV ulov, xal IxaXeaev TO
In the twenty-fifth verse ^, B, Z, i, and 33 omit roy irpco-
TOTOKOV. This reading is followed by the Bohairic, Sahidic,
Curetonian Syriac, and is endorsed by Tischendorf, Westcott
1 86 MATT I. 19 25.
and Hort. C, D, E, K, L, M, S, U, V, T, A, II, et al. have
TOV irpcoTOTOKov. This reading is also followed by the other
Syriac versions, by the Armenian and Ethiopian versions, and
by many Fathers. In Luke II. 7, the reading TOV TrpaTOTo/cov
stands without a variant.
Joseph is called Mary s avijp, husband, and she is called his
wife in virtue of the espousals, which as we have said, consti
tuted the real marriage contract, and gave the right to its con
summation.
The next point in the verse that draws our attention is the
epithet of just, Si /ouo?, given to Joseph. Some have held that
this signified the clemency and mercy of Joseph, which impelled
him to deal most leniently with Mary. We recognize in the
term a more comprehensive signification, comprising moral
integrity and virtue in its broadest sense. A just man in
Scripture is a man endowed with all the virtues. In such a
righteous man lenity would also find place. There is an inter
dependence among the virtues, and rightly does the Scripture
make it result from Joseph s righteousness that he wished to
show mercy to his spouse.
Some, accepting the reading Trapa^eL^^a-riaat, interpret it
to signify to defame, to proclaim one s crime abroad to the
public. The reading Se^aTto-at should be retained, meaning to
denounce to the authorities, and manifest the cause whence he
asked a solution from her. The Law provided a legal proce
dure in the case of doubtful adultery, and it was most probably
this open public denunciation that Joseph shrank from.
Num. V. 1 2 et seqq. But in accordance with the Law, and the
traditions of his people, he was bound to separate himself from
an adulteress. Some have held that this thought of Joseph to
put away Mary arose from reverence for her, when he recog
nized that she had conceived by the Holy Ghost. The improb
ability of such an opinion results from the angel s admonition
afterwards made to him. Others have held that Joseph enter
tained a suspicion of adultery against Mary. Thus St. Am
brose, St. Augustine, and, of commentators, Cajetan, Jan-
senius, Estius, Maldonatus, Schanz and Pillion. This opinion
has in it something so injurious to Mary, and supposes in
in Joseph such little knowledge of her virtue that we dismiss
MATT. I. 19 25 187
it immediately. We hold with Jerome, St. Paschasius, Sal-
meron, St. Bernardine of Sienna, and, of moderns, Cornelius a
Lapide, Sylveira, Tirini, Menocchi, Calmet, and Knabenbauer,
that Joseph s mind was in a state of utter mystery. He had
not been visited by any angel to bring to him the annunciation
of the conception of Jesus. Two things irreconcilable were
combating in his mind, and preventing the formation of any
judgment. On the one side was the angelic purity of his spouse.
He had betrothed her with full knowledge of her design to pre
serve inviolate this perfection of her being. Everything about
her spoke of Heaven and of virtue. How could any one come
under the influence of Mary as closely as Joseph did, and not be
impressed forever by the godlike element that invested her
whole life? Mary brought Heaven with her where she went,
and the influence that she had on one who was privileged to
live so close to her as Joseph, would render any such suspicion
impossible. The sanctity of Mary must have impressed Jo
seph that she was in a certain sense a superior being. On the
other hand was the inexplicable event of her pregnancy. His
mind was baffled ; but I believe that not for a moment did the
possibility of an adulterous liaison enter his mind. I am not
inclined either to hold with many writers that he revolved in
his mind possible causes for Mary s conception, such as violence
offered her, or the operation of demons. I believe that Joseph
absolutely suspended judgment. He had come to regard his
spouse with a worshipful veneration ; in her life had come an
event which he could not understand, and prudently and
justly he decided to do that which seemed best in that juncture
of things, to quietly release her from her bond to him. The
a,7ro\va-ai refers solely to the solving of the bond of their union,
which in an unconsummated union among the Hebrews was a
matter not difficult to execute by the mutual consent of the
contracting parties. Some, retaining the usual signification
of the Vulgate dimittere, have advanced various conjectures
concerning the mode of separation. Some believe that Joseph
was to leave the domicile for a far-off region ; others that he was
to send Mary home. These conjectures are foreign to the
sense of avroAucrcu which refers solely to the dissolution of the
bond of marriage. Whatever Joseph meditated concerning
1 88 MATH. I. 19 25
the future after such solution, is not written, and we know not
enough of their circumstances to advance any probable theory.
It is evident, from the account, that Mary had made no
explanation to Joseph of her miraculous conception. We have
now to seek causes for such silence. This is one of the mys
teries of her life, and we may not hope to see it clearly. Some
have held that it was a delicate sense of reserve and modesty
that prevented Mary from manifesting to Joseph the great
event that had come into her life. The objection to this
opinion is that in consequences so grave, and in fact, injurious
to St. Joseph, such reserve would be unreasonable and unjust
to him to whom she had plighted her faith. Hence, we believe
that Mary s action was prompted by a sense of duty to God.
She had received from God a gift far surpassing any other
possible gift to man. From the moment of the Annunciation
Mary leaves the zone of common mortals to come closer to
Heaven. We are far from representing Joseph as a stolid,
meanly endowed individual, but we cannot make him equal to
Mary. She was to remain in poverty and sorrow, but the
substantial bond between her and the Son of God brought into
her soul much of the influence of Heaven. The trust that had
been given her was sacred ; it was not to be babbled abroad to
the world. The time had not come to give to the world at
large the knowledge of the wondrous event. She was mindful
of Raphael s counsel to Tobias XII. 8 : " For it is good to hide
the secret of the king. " She felt that an event of such nature
must be kept in sacred silence till God wished to manifest it in
his own good time. Mary was a woman of faith. She threw
herself totally on the power of God in this difficult juncture of
things. Certainly the position was a difficult one. First, we
must certainly believe that the tenderest, purest love existed
between Mary and Joseph. The purer persons are, the
stronger will be their love. It must have occasioned intense
anguish to both during that interval. Joseph was wracked by
the inexplicable event, and Mary was tortured by the inability
to declare her innocence. And yet she believed that the thing
confided to her was too sacred to be manifested, and she threw
her care on God, and waited. This silence of Mary is highly
honorable to her. It betokens faith, fidelity to trust, and that
calm, thoughtful firmness characteristic of great souls.
MATH. I. 19 25 189
Although I see no necessity of admitting a direct inspir
ation of the Holy Ghost to Mary to maintain silence, still I
believe that this event happened in this manner, and was
written with a providential purpose. We see in all the miracu
lous events which God works a certain safeguarding against the
imputation of fraud. God deals with man in a fair, open way,
and performs his works in a manner that they will bear any
man s investigation. We shall see the presence of this element
in the works upon which Christ based his claim to be equal to
his father. Now had Mary and Joseph taken up their abode
together as man and wife, men might have suspected some
collusion between them in ascribing to miraculous agency the
conception of the child. The plain matter of fact disturbance
of mind of Joseph dispels all idea of any fraudulent design on
the part of Mary and Joseph. It was also a trial of Mary s
faith to allow her to be menaced by that which she dreaded
most, a blot on her honor. It was a preparation for Calvary,
where she was to stand and suffer in witnessing her Son slowly
die.
We can not determine how long the suspense lasted which
Mary and Joseph had to endure from the miraculous concep
tion. Evidently God sent his angel before Joseph could carry
into effect the counsel that he was forming to loose Mary from
her bond to him.
Divergent opinions exist to explain the mode of the vision
to Joseph. Some hold that the whole event was simply a
creation in the ideal order, that there was no real substantial
person of the angel present, but that the impression was
imprinted on the internal sense by God. Such modes of vision
were frequent in prophecy. The whole event unfolded itself in
the ideal order by the power of God, and so vividly impressed
the internal sense that the prophets afterwards reproduced in
word and writing the impressions received. But the words of
the Evangelist make the presence of the substantial angel so
real that we can not accept the aforesaid opinion. Hence we
believe that while the bodily senses of Joseph were inactive
in sleep, the Angel of God made himself directly perceivable to
the intellect, and that the words are those of a real celestial
intelligence speaking directly to the intellect of Joseph, with-
1 90 MATT. I. 19 25
out sensible media. Had it been a mere dream-vision, a pure,
creationof the ideal order, the Evangelist would not so clear
ly have said that an angel appeared. He would have said
that Joseph saw a vision of an angel, or in some way he would
have softened the force of the expression.
In the great religious and political decadence in Israel, the
honor of the Davidic line would receive slight consideration.
It is plain from the angel s words that Joseph had not yet
taken Mary into his own house. The angel calls her his wife
in virtue of the espousals, which contained the essence of the
marriage contract. As Mary and Joseph were poor, and also
exceptional personages, it is probable that Mary was taken into
Joseph s house without any festive celebration.
We find no mention of any difficulty on the part of Joseph
to believe the declaration of the angel. I am of a mind that
the influence of Heaven apparent in Mary s whole life pre
pared Joseph to receive such truth.
The first member of the twenty-first verse has been ex
plained in Luke I. 31. The second member gives a reason for
the name to be given the child. He was called Jesus, which
signifies" Yah veh is salvation" or "Yahveh will save," be
cause he would save his people. The comprehension of the
terms "his people" is universal in one sense, while it has a
particular application to Israel, as we have already explained.
The interest that the Divinity takes in the affairs of man
comes out strongly in this name of the Messiah . He could have
chosen many names indicative of his mighty attributes, but he
chose one that would primarily indicate his mercy and love
for man. The name chosen by God for his Son gives the
motive of his life. Christ spent his whole life in achieving
man s salvation; man spends a very little of his own life in
availing himself of the fruits of Christ s life. The doubt of
Joseph becomes a motive of credibility in the virginal concep
tion. He who would naturally be most affected by anything
dishonorable in his spouse, and who was even forming the pro
ject to loose her by divorce, would not become so completely
reconciled, were there not certain data to prove that his virgin
spouse had kept faith with him.
MATT. I. 1925 191
The twenty-second and twenty-third verses contain a
conclusion which Matthew draws from the event. The pro
phecy therein referred to is a celebrated prophecy of Isaiah
VII. 14: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign.
Behold a virgin with child, and bringing forth a son, and
thou (O virgin) shalt call his name ^ UJ3JJ- Butter, (or the
fat of milk) and honey shall he be eating at the time that he
knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before
the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good,
the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be made
desolate."
The phrase, "that it might be fulfilled, " which oft occurs
in the new Testament does not imply that the main object of
God in bringing about certain events was the fulfilment of a
prophecy made concerning them. In the mind of God, who
was the main Author of both the event and the prophecy, the
foreseeing of the event preceded in the order of causal depend
ence, and then God moved his prophets to predict events which
in his eternal comprehension of all time he foreknew would
inevitably come into effect. This is well expressed by Chrys-
ostom: "These things were not wrought because they were
predicted ; but on the contrary, because they were absolutely
to be, therefore were they predicted." The prophecy is not
the cause of the event, but the event is the cause of the proph
ecy. God had determined to send his son by a virginal concep
tion before Isaiah s prophecy was contemplated. God
would have sent him by that mode, if Isaiah had never proph
esied. God does not first inspire the prophecy, and then order
the event for its fulfilment. He first either foresees or pre
ordains the event, and then moves the prophet to utter such
prophecy that will be fulfilled in the event.
In the original the prophet Isaiah directly addresses the
Virgin herself, announcing to her that her child shall be Imman-
uel, which signifies: "God with us." This is proven by the
form PliOp, which is the feminine gender, and second person
T)T
of the verb &OD- There is no substantial discrepancy between
-I T
this form and the Ka\ecrovo-iv of Matthew. The substantial
truth manifested in both cases is that the Virgin s child shall be
192 MATH I. 19 25
Immanuel. In neither place is there a command expressed to
give to the child such name. The simple truth is emphatically
asserted in both places that the child shall be and be recog
nized to be Immanuel. In prophetic declarations no heed is
paid to the detail, hence the slight discrepancy in detail makes
in nowise against the main prophetic truth. The writers of the
new Testament very often quote not the words but the sense of
the Old Testament. They are content to reproduce the sub
stantial truth. The second person feminine of Isaiah would
be rough and ambiguous in a quotation ; so that the variation
in the detail induces greater clearness. The question is not
definitely decided whether Matthew s original was written in
Syro-Chaldaic or Greek. If he wrote in Syro-Chaldaic the
translation of the proper name Immanuel must be the work of
the Greek translator. If, however, we hold that Matthew
wrote in Greek, the interpretation of the name is most natural.
Another slight textual difference is in the use of the future
tenses of verbs here in Matthew for the adjective Hli"!, preg
nant, and the participle rn/V- The prophet projects
himself into the ideal order, and sees in that order the whole
event unfold itself before him as a present reality. As the
fulfilment in the order of objective entity was a future event,
the Evangelist in his quotation adverts to its future character.
The historic circumstances in which the prophecy was
uttered were briefly these. The impious Ahaz was reigning in
the kingdom of Judah; King Pekah, of the northern kingdom
of Israel, had made a league with Rezin, King of Damascus,
and the allied forces of Pekah and Rezin moved down upon the
kingdom of Judah. They overcame Ahaz in a great battle,
and swore to destroy the royal house of David of which Ahaz
was an unworthy scion. In this juncture of things Isaiah was
sent to Ahaz to assure him that God would not allow the
extinction of the royal house of David.
"Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet
Ahaz, thou, and Shear- jashub thy son, at the end of the con
duit of the upper pool, in the high way of the fuller s field ; and
say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither let
thine heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking fire-
MATT. I. 19 25 193
brands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria, and of the son of
Remaliah. Because Syria hath counselled evil against thee,
Ephraim also, and the son of Remaliah, saying, Let us go up
against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for
us, and set up a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeel ;
thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it
come to pass. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head
of Damascus is Rezin : and within threescore and five years
shall Ephraim be broken in pieces, that it be not a people;
and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria
is Remaliah s son, If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not
be established.
And the Lord spake again, unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a
sign of the Lord thy God ; ask it either in the depth, or in the
height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I
tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David ;
is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my
God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
behold, a virgin is with child, and beareth a son, and shall call
his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, when he
knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good, for before the
child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the
land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken. The
LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon
thy father s house, days that have not come from the day that
Ephraim departed from Judah ; even the king of Assyria."
The prophet projects himself into the ideal order and sees
unfold before him the event as a present reality.
Celebrated is the controversy concerning the signification
of the HD^n rendered in Greek by TrapOevos and by the
Vulgate " virgo. " The Jews were the first to deny the sense of
virgin given to this term. Buxtorf renders the term by
" adolescentula, puella , virgo. It seems to have corresponded
to our English term girl. It occurs in the Old Testament in the
following places, Gen. XXIV. 43; Exod. II. 8; Ps. LXVIII.
[LXIX.] 26 ; Prov. XXX. 19 ; Cant. I. 3 ; VI. 8, and the present
instance. That the term in these places never means a married
woman, all, even Jews, admit, but they deny the proper signifi-
(12) Gosp I
194 MATT. I. 19 25
cation of virginity to the term in the present case The specific
term for a virgin in Hebrew is n^rQ- which term implies
that the woman has reached a marriageable age, and is yet
intact. It carries with it no idea of youthfulness, but simply
implies the integrity of the body. HD7JJ primarily refers
to the youthful condition, but, consequently, implies the
integrity of the body, and can never be used of any one joined
in wedlock. Many have been the conjectures concerning the
etymology of this word. We are disposed to hold with Knab-
enbauer that nothing certain may be gleaned from these con
jectures, and that the signification of the term can only be
gained from its use. The Jews unanimously deny that the
idea of virginity is contained in the term. This opinion has its
origin in the hatred of the Messiah. The older Jews, who made
the Septuagint translation of Isaiah, understood the term to
signify a virgin, and rendered it by 7ra/o$eVo?. Aquila, Sym-
machus, and Theodotion render it by veavis, a young woman,
a maiden. There would be nothing to reprehend in this trans
lation, were it not that they thereby wished to deny that the
signification of TrapOevos could be ascribed to the term. Isaiah
used the more generic term HO 7^ instead of the more
specific H^irQ perhaps for the very reason that a certain
obscurity was intended ; and Matthew has cleared up whatever
is vague in the term used by Isaiah, by authentically interpret
ing that the maiden of Isaiah will be a virgin. The term used
by Isaiah was especially fitting, since, in fact, Immanuel was
conceived by a youthful maiden, who had never consorted with
man. There was no particular need that Isaiah should in such
place insist on the specific term n^nD, as no one but a hater
of the Christ would believe that Christ should spring of a forni-
carious union, or from a fornicarious woman, and even with the
Jews, the virginity implied in nD/^ could only be elimin
ated by fornication, for it never means a woman with whom
marriage has been consummated. In a word, we may say that
n^inD means a virgin woman of any age, with special refer
ence to the integrity of the body, and is especially used when
MATT. I. 1925 195
such condition is to be placed in strong contrast to carnal
union; while HTDp^ * s a WOI "d f wider import, including
virginity, and especially implying the youthful period just
succeeding girlhood, when the maiden is in her father s house,
awaiting to be given in marriage. Isaiah exactly conveyed
Mary s condition. Though espoused, she was yet in her pater
nal home, and her marriage was not consummated, nor to be
consummated.
Concerning the signification of Almah Jerome in his com
mentary on this text declares: "As far as I can remember, I
have never found Almah used in the sense of a married woman,
but always in the sense of a virgin, and of a young virgin, for a
virgin may also be old. Now (the Almah of Isaiah) is young,
not a child, but fit for marriage. Let the Jews point out a
passage of Scripture where Almah means merely a young girl
not a virgin. "
The prefixing of the article j"j to the term in Isaiah implies
a certain determination. The discourse is not of an indefinite
virgin not before thought of, but of the virgin foreknown in the
counsels of God, and spoken of in God s first promise of a
Redeemer.
I am not of one mind with those who say that were it not
a virgin who brought forth the Christ, there would be nothing
portentous in this event, which is by the prophet called a sign.
The portentous character of the event consisted in the proph
etic ecstacy, in which the prophet saw as a present reality in the
ideal order the birth of Immanuel and the overthrow of Pekah
and Resin.
The prophet s words do not convey any command to call
the child by the actual name of Immanuel. It is simply an
assertion of his character. Its literal meaning, "God with
us," plainly points to the divinity of the Virgin s child. He
will be God with us, because he will participate of our humanity,
and converse with men on earth. At this point, another
medley of warring opinions arises concerning the prophecy.
Many Jews refer the Almah to the wife of Ahaz, and the son
to Hezekiah his son and successor. This opinion is absolutely
groundless. Ahaz reigned sixteen years, and was succeeded by
196 MATT. I. 19 25
his son Hezekiah who was twenty-five years of age at his acces
sion to the throne ; hence he was already advanced in his boyhood
when the prophecy was uttered. An opinion advanced by
Aben Esra, R. Solomon (Jarchi) and many rationalists, among
whom are Gesenius, Hitzig, Olshausen, and Grotius, holds that
the proposition finds its first application in the wife of Isaiah.
Whether the one already wedded, or a virgin to be wedded,
they do not define. Certain Catholics have adopted, in part
at least, this opinion. Isaiah they say, had two sons born to
his prophetess wife. These sons bore prophetic names. They
now believe that another son is spoken of, who shall be a type
of the Christ. Others believe that the vision, as regarded the
times of Ahaz, was merely symbolic ; that it related in its first
application to no virgin or child existing in rerum natura ; but
that it only represented by this phenomenon of the ideal order
that Samaria would be laid waste before the time that a child
presently conceived could come to the use of reason. For such
opinions stand such men as Richard Simon, Lamy, Calmet,
Schegg and Pillion. There is a great deal of vagueness and
uncertainty in all their opinions. We place here as a sure
position that this prophecy refers in nowise to any type, but
has its sole and total fulfilment in the Virgin Mary and her son
Christ. That the prophecy relates absolutely to Christ has
been authentically interpreted for us by Matthew. Now the
preceding application to any type is unnecessary, injurious to
the main intent of the passage, and impossible. In the first
place the purpose of Isaiah is best gained by excluding any
typical applications. Certain it is that the real cause for
which Yahveh permitted not the extinction of David s royal
line was that the Messiah might be born of Judah, as was
promised. Yahveh visited their crimes with terrible ven
geance, but he would not allow the total overthrow of the
Yahvistic worship till the coming of the Messiah. Therefore
in applying this prophecy to the Messiah, the cause of the
prophecy is given. Moreover, we shall see later on, that
although the event was distant more than seven centuries, it
served as a sign of an event which was shortly to happen.
The application of the prophecy to any type enfeebles it ; first,
MATT. I. 19 25 197
because the pregnant and conceiving HDyJ? can only apply
to the Virgin Mary; second, because the name Immanuel in
the sense that the prophet meant it can only apply to Christ.
In the eighth verse of the eighth chapter, Isaiah addresses an
apostrophe to the Immanuel that shows that he means the
Christ and no one else. The greatest argument in our favor
is that the reason which constrained those to admit a type can
be fully explained without any type. They say that the
prophecy of Isaiah was vouchsafed as a sign to Ahaz, therefore
there must have been some type which should serve for its
partial verification during the lifetime of that king. To
answer this weighty objection, we must recollect that the
prophet is projected into the ideal order, in which he prescinds
from time, and sees unfold before his intellect events often
centuries distant. So it is in the present instance. Isaiah
in a vision sees the virgin mother of Immanuel bearing her
son, for whom Yahveh had decreed to save from extirpation
the house of David. Now he takes the birth of this child
as a present fact upon which to construct a measure of time
till Samaria shall be made desolate. He says in effect: "I
see the virgin mother of Immanuel bearing her child. And
it is signified to me that before this child, whose birth in my
prophecy is a present fact in the ideal order, shall reach the
age at which boys naturally have the use of reason, Samaria,
that thou abhorrest shall no longer be the camping ground of
the two kings, but shall be laid waste." Thus the prophecy
which was literally fulfilled in the birth of Immanuel many
centuries later, became a symbol of the approaching fall of
the northern kingdom. Thus the sign became of vast impor
tance to Ahaz, for it made known to him that, sometime
within the space of time naturally comprised within the
interval bounded by the birth and the use of reason of a child,
his enemies should be routed, and the hated land of Samaria
laid waste. At what age the Hebrews located the power in a
child to know evil from good we know not ; but, at all events,
Ahaz was informed by Isaiah that within a few years at most
Samaria would be destroyed. For Ahaz the symbolic force
was most applicable ; for us the literal sense is most important.
The prophecy is in a sense complex. As a symbolic creation,
198 MATT. I. 19 25
it points to an approaching event, and determines with suf
ficient clearness the nearness of the event. But that which
was a symbol of the approaching overthrow of Samaria finds
its only literal fulfilment in the birth of Immanuel. It is
evident that the fall of Samaria was only connected with
the birth of the child inasmuch as such birth was an ideal
symbol, and in its symbolic sense it was a present event in
the ideal order of the prophecy. Now the prophet deter
mines a time within which that devastation shall be accom
plished. He sees the birth of the virgin s child as a present
reality in the ideal order. He takes that birth as a terminus
from which to compute time, and he declares that at the
time that the child has reached the age of discernment between
good and evil the land will be laid waste, and consequently
he shall then be eating of the foods which in prophetic sym
bolic language indicate the state of devastation of a land.
The literal fulfilment then of that which depended upon it
inasmuch as it was a symbol, was wrought shortly after its
utterance. Ahaz collected the gold and silver which he
found in the temple and in the royal treasury, and sent gifts
to the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser and besought his
aid against the coalition of Israel and Damascus. The
Assyrian consented, and assembling a mighty host moved
against Resin and Pekah. He overcame the King of Damas
cus, slew him, and took his subjects into captivity. He
overthrew Pekah, and transported a great part of Israel into
bondage. Pekah was soon afterwards slain by Hoshea (728-
720) the last of Israel s kings. Under him Shalmaneser
completed the devastation of the Kingdom of Israel. Al
though this is the only part of the prophecy that has direct
reference to the Gospel narrative, we deem is good to unite
herewith the explanation of the fifteenth verse.
The first point to explain is what is understood by the
eating of the butter and honey. The Hebrew term n^DH
T : v
which the Vulgate renders by Butyrum, properly means
pinguedo lactis. Now this may exist as cream, butter or
cheese, and all three significations are at times denoted by it.
In the present instance it most probably denotes the cream
of the milk. A host of interpreters have understood by this.
MATT. I. 19 -25 199
verse that the Messiah in being fed on these species of food
gives evidence of his humanity. They say that these were the
usual articles of infantile food, and Christ, by partaking of
them in his tender years, gives proof that he is one of us, nur
tured as we are. For this opinion stand Jerome, Cyril, Euse-
bius, Chrysostom, Basil, Sanchez, Cornelius a Lapide, Patrizi
and others. The absurdity of such an opinion is readily
discoverable. The conception in the womb and birth from
the woman were a better evidence of the reality of human
nature than the foods that he ate. The angel Raphael in
Tobias ate of the foods which sustained Tobias in his journey,
and it could not be taken as an evidence that he had assumed
human nature The belief that such foods were the usual
nourishment of infants with the Jews rests on no good author
ity. Finally, such opinion contradicts the twenty-second
verse, in which the reason of the eating of the cream and the
honey is plainly given : "And it shall come to pass in that
day that a man shall nourish a young cow and two sheep; and
it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they
shall give that he shall eat butter: for butter and honey
shall every one eat that is left in the land. And it shall
come to pass in that day that every place shall be, where
there were a thousand vines at a thousand pieces of silver,
it shall even be for briers and thorns." [Isaiah VII. 21-23.]
We believe then that by such term the prophet wished to
signify the universal devastation of the northern kingdom.
So complete will be this devastation, that the populous cities
will be pasture fields and resorts for the wild bees. In all
prophetic declarations, to seize their real import, the mind
must prescind from the details. We are not to ask, who owns
the cows, or question whether a diet of cream and honey
would be palatable food. The main idea of the prophet is
that Samaria will be depopulated, and her populous cities
be made like to pasture fields. The image is bold, but it is not
an unusual boldness with the Hebrew prophets. Not alone
will the land be devastated, but from the lack of those who
till the soil, it shall form vast pasture fields. The main thought
is not the presence of cattle, but the depopulated, untilled
condition of the land. To intensify the vastness of the deso-
2oo MATT. I. 19 25
lation, he says that men may choose the cream of the milk.
Here again we must prescind from the detail, and grasp the
prophetic truth, that the land lying unbilled could afford
pasture to many more cattle than would suffice for the few
survivors in the land. And also, though the cattle and sheep
be few, the population will be so small, that these few will
give so much milk, that the remnants of the people may
choose the richest part of its abundance.
Having determined the most probable signification of the
eating of the butter or cream and honey, we may now endeavor
to investigate how this is predicable of the Messiah. The Vul
gate reading makes the knowledge of good and evil depend on
the eating as a result. Knabenbauer defends this opinion, and
declares the sense to be that Immanuel will lead a mortified
life in poverty, that he may be the better able to reject the
false goods of his world, and elect the better things. He be
lieves that there is in the passage an implied reproof of Ahaz,
who, in the luxury of the royal palace, rejected good, and
chose evil. We can not accept this opinion. It seems far
fetched and languid. It seems ridiculous to make Immanuel s
perfection in the moral order depend on the poverty of his life.
Again, such a description of poverty is only relevant in the
times succeeding a hostile invasion. It would be absurd to
describe the poverty of the Holy Family in such a bold figure.
In fact, the figure is meaningless unless referred to the de
population immediately succeeding the laying waste of popu
lous cities by armies. Finally, it breaks the connection with
the following verse wherein the knowledge of good and
evil in the virgin s son is taken as a temporal clause to define
when some certain event should happen. Hence we have
rendered the passage according to the literal Hebrew. We
consider the expression as a temporal clause marking the limit
before which the destruction of Samaria will happen. It
intensifies the nearness of Samaria s fall, because from the
fact that the child shall be nourished in his tenderest years
by such food, it imports that the Assyrian invasion shall
have laid the land waste in his childhood. The following
verse explains and corroborates this opinion, since it gives the
reason why he shall be nourished by such food. It shall be
MATT. I. 19 25 201
thus with him, because, before he knows good from evil, the
land shall be laid waste. Now we believe that this part of
the prophecy was primarily and mainly symbolic. Hence
its principal fulfilment was the devastation of Israel which
followed. Such a mingling of literal and symbolic declara
tions is not uncommon in prophecy, in which a certain ob
scurity always by right prevails. We would vainly look for
the fulfilment of this part of the prophecy in Immanuel s
life. The mode of rearing of the virgin s child is a mere sym
bol here, and as such, expects no literal fulfilment in rerum
natura. I can only discover in it a symbol to be totally ful
filled in the fall of Israel. In the ideal order the prophet
sees that wondrous child being fed on that food which de
noted the devastation of the land. Inasmuch as in the order
of symbols, in which sense alone it pertained to Ahaz, the
birth of the child was at hand; the manner of his feeding
made known to Ahaz the proximate ruin of Samaria; the
quality of the child s food denotes the totality of the devas
tation. In both these aspects, the prophecy is purely sym
bolic, and expects no corresponding truth in rentm natura.
But the main substance of the prophecy, Immanuel and his
virgin mother, is a literal prediction of the birth of the Christ,
and finds its only fulfilment in such fact. We have before
stated that the prophetic declaration that he shall be called
Immanuel is not a command to give the child such a name,
but is the expression of a fact, that the Word will be made
flesh, and dwell among us.
The prophecy of Isaiah deals with symbolical actions,
and with symbolical entities. But in among these symbolic
entities enter, veiled in mystery, the Virgin and her Child.
The Child plays a symbolic role, without ceasing to be a real
entity foreseen so many centuries before His human birth. As
a very young child, he eats butter and honey to indicate the
devastation of the land. This is purely symbolic. He bears
the name of Immanuel (Immanu-El, God with us), to show
that the enemies can not destroy the house of David ; but in the
real order of being he is Immanuel, because he was God dwell
ing among men.
2O2 MATT. I. ig 25
The birth of Immanuel is not promised to Ahaz as a sign ;
the plural pronoun employed shows that the sign is promised
to the house of David. The house of David persevered even
to the real birth of Christ.
In the ideal order of being the birth of Immanuel serves
as a measure of time to indicate the destruction of Damascus
and of the northern kingdom of Israel. Such event will happen
within that period of time comprised between a child s birth
and use of reason.
In the Eighth Chapter of Isaiah is related a symbolic vis
ion of another child begotten by Isaiah of a prophetess. This
indicates a son to be born to Isaiah by the natural mode of
generation. His wife is called a prophetess either because she
also was given prophetic power, or because she was the wife of
a prophet.
Isaiah is bidden to give to this son the name Maher-Shalal-
hash-baz, that is, "Hasten the spoil ; the booty speedeth." This
name of Isaiah s son predicted the spoliation of the land.
Like Immanuel, Isaiah s son also marks the time of an event.
"For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My Fath-
er,and, My Mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sa
maria shall be carried away before the King of Assyria."
[Is. viii: 4.]
The prophet looks out through the vista of the future, and
sees Tiglath-pileser coming down in dreadful destruction upon
the northern kingdom, and then sweeping down upon Judah;
and the prophet turns to the Virgin s Son in an apostrophe,
and declares: "And the stretching out of his (Assyria s)
wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel."
[Is. viii. 8.]
The thought of the Messiah (Immanuel) runs all through
the prophecy. In viii. 14, 15, Isaiah describes what he will
be for both Israel and Judah . This part of the prophecy has
been authentically interpreted for us by St. Paul, Rom. ix. 33.
Again: Matthew, iv. 15-16, authentically explains the
history of Immanuel as related by Isaiah, ix. i, 2.
In the sixth and seventh verses of Chapter Ninth, Isaiah
rejoices in the birth of Immanuel contemplated by him as a
MATT. I. 19 25 203
present event. He describes his character, and brings out
clearly his Divine nature.
The whole context of Isaiah leaves no doubt that in
Immanuel he contemplates the Messiah. He conies as a sign
to the house of David, because his incarnation is the greatest
of miracles. He was the reason why God permitted not the
destruction of David s house, and therefore comes to Isaiah in
prophetic vision at this crisis in Judah s history. Isaiah had
come to assure Ahaz in the name of God that the enemy should
not destroy the house of David. Ahaz turned away in unbe
lief. Isaiah then declares that God will give a sign to the
house of David. The appearance of that sign in the real order
of being is the Incarnation of Christ ; it is presented to Isaiah
in the ideal order as a symbolic entity to give him assurance
that for Immanuel s sake the house of David shall be spared.
As the first event in saving that house was the turning back of
Damascus and Israel, the prophet takes a measure of time from
the symbolic vision to tell when the foes of Judah will be
repulsed.
One might object, that although Yahveh predicted the
fall of Israel, it did not come about through his agency; for
Ahaz would have naught from Yahveh, but sought the aid of
the idolatrous Assyrian. We answer that Yahveh used
Tiglath-pileser as the instrument of his wrath. Hence the
event was subject to God s providence, though wrought by one
who did not recognize him. The twenty-fourth verse mani
fests the readiness of Joseph s compliance with the angel s
bidding.
Authorities are about equally divided between the rejec
tion and retention of the term firstborn, TrpwrdroKov, in the
twenty-fourth verse. Of the four great codices the Vatican
and Sinaitic omit it, and Tischendorf , Westcott and Hort also
reject it. In an exegetical point of view, this makes slight
difference, since the term with no variant occurs in Luke II.
7. Hence such designation of Mary s son has a scriptural
basis, even though it may not have been written here in
Matthew s Gospel.
204 MATT. I. 19 25
Only Catholics give to Mary her proper place in the great
event of man s redemption; hence in the affair of Mary s pre
rogatives it is the Catholic Church against the field. The
adversaries of Mary and the adversaries of the Catholic Church
admit that the Evangelist here excludes carnal intercourse
between Mary and Joseph antecedently to the birth of Christ,
but many of them have claimed that the words of Matthew
imply such use of marriage after such event. First, they say,
that by the exclusion of the conjugal act up to a certain definite
point, Matthew implies that such abstention ended there ; and
secondly, Christ is called not the only child, but the firstborn.
In relation to the first point, the bare words of the Evan
gelist leave the question intact. The conjugal act after the
birth of Christ is neither implied nor denied. This results
from the scope of the Evangelist. He is not writing the history
of Mary s life, but the mode in which Christ came into the
world, and his sole aim here is to demonstrate that Christ came
not by the carnal copula. It is mere cavil to say that the
exclusion of a usual event up to a certain time implies that it
occurred afterward. It merely excludes what precedes, and
leaves indefinite what follows. Neither have they aught of
proof in the use of firstborn. St. Jerome has solved this ques
tion for all time when he said: " Primogenitus est non tantum
post quern et alii: sed ante quern nullus. " In Scripture the
child who opened the womb was called the firstborn from this
fact, and not to contradistinguish it from subsequent issue.
Such child was consecrated to the Lord, Exod. XXXIV. 19, 20
Num. XVIII. 15. Hence there is an exact propriety in this
term here, which implies the obligation of Mary and Joseph to
offer the child in the temple to Yahveh. In itself, the term
leaves indefinite whether other children were born after him.
Although we have no explicit classic Scriptural text for the
permanence of Mary s virginity after the birth of Jesus, the
proofs for it from Scripture and Tradition are cumulative. As
it was a truth personally affecting Mary herself, and not
directly connected with the salvific truths, it was not revealed
with equal clearness. Nevertheless, any man who receives in
their fulness the great truths explicitly revealed in Scripture,
will not fail to embrace this also. The Fathers quite unani-
LUKE II. i 7 205
mously interpret the celebrated passage of Ezekiel in this sense.
The prophecy runs thus : " Then he brought me back the way
of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the
east ; and it was shut. Then said the Lord unto me : This gate
shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in
by it ; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it,
therefore it shall be shut. It is for the prince, " etc. Knaben-
bauer, while denying that this prophecy either literally or
typically applies primarily to Mary s womb, admits that by
logical deduction such application can be legitimately made,
inasmuch as the sanctity of the Lord, which is here represented
by Ezekiel, in a purely symbolic vision, as consecrating the
door of the temple through which the Lord passed, would cer
tainly consecrate and preserve forever inviolate the virgin who
bore him. Again, the events preceding the birth of Christ
warrant this. If Joseph, before he knew that Immanuel was
to be born of Mary, entered into the holy union that we have
before described ; if he abstained from the use of the union in
the days preceding the angel s message ; who could think that
after the very fact that she had brought forth the Son of God,
he should feel less reverence for this temple of the Trinity?
God had sufficiently manifested his design that Mary should
forever remain a virgin, and souls like Mary and Joseph do not
despise such a clear manifestation of the will of God. The
mind of a man who has any reverence for Jesus naturally fills
with horror at the bare thought that Mary ever ceased to be
the virgin mother of Jesus. The subsequent events of the
Gospel clearly indicate that Jesus was her only child, and this
truth is safe in the keeping of God s Church.
LUKE II. 17.
1. And it came to pass in i. EyeveTO oe ev lodq T)^epat<;
those days, that there went out !x.e(vcu<;, e^fjXOev ooy^a xapa
a decree from Caesar Augustus, Kaiaapoq AufouaTou axof paqjeaOca
that a census should be made of xaaav TTJV olxou^evrjv.
the whole world.
2. This census was first 2 AUTTJ dcxoypa^T) xpava) lyeveTO
made when Quirinius was gov- TQYS^OVSUOVTCK; TT)? Supfaq
ernor of Syria. vt ou.
2O6
LUKE II. i 7
Kcu Ixopeuovto icdcvTeq
, exaoTO? e!<; TTJV EOCUTOU
4. Av6rj CE XGCC I(D<TYj9 aicb
Tfjq FaAiAafaq, x ToXewq Nata-
PET, e!<; TTJV loucafav, eiq
AauelB rJT .? xaAslTca
Bia TO elvat auibv s oTxou xat
AauelB,
5.
^VTjaTU^.VTj
auv Mapiajx
oiltTf] l
6.
EylvTO
EXEC, Iz
TW
at
elvat
TOU
3. And all went to be en
rolled, every one into his own
city.
4. And Joseph also went up
from Galilee, out of the city of
Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the
city of David, which is called
Bethlehem, because he was
of the house and lineage of
David,
5. To be enrolled with Mary,
his espoused wife, who was with
child.
6. And it came to pass, that
while they were there, her days
were accomplished that she
should be delivered.
7. And she brought forth
her firstborn son, and wrapped
him in swaddling clothes, and
laid him in a manger; because
there was no room for them in
the inn.
It is evident that the~whole world here means the Roman
world. Octavius, the nephew of Julius Caesar, surnamed
Augustus Caesar, according to the most probable opinion, was
born in the year 691, A. U. C., sixty-three years before the birth
of Christ. On the tragic death of his uncle, Julius Caesar, he
united himself with Mark Antony, and overcame the Repub
licans led by Brutus and Cassius, and established with Lepidus
the triumvirate. The cruelties of the triumvirate were hor
rible. Three hundred senators and 2,000 Roman equites were
massacred. Being skilful and cruel, Augustus soon gained an
ascendency over Lepidus and Antony. In the year 31 B. C.
he overcame Antony at Actium, and became sole master of the
-vast Roman world. He established a monarchical form of
government twenty-seven years B. C. Then followed a great
peace, and in this peace Christ was born.
7. Kat ETEXEV 10V UtOV
70V XpCOTOTOXOV, Xl ECTXaD Tf
au7Gv, xal dvlxXivsv auTbv EV cpccTVf)
$1671 oux TJV au7oT<; 76x0? Iv T(J
LUKE II. i 7 207
We recognize in the bloody, tyrannical Augustus an agent
to effect the designs of God. Alexander the Great brought the
known world under the Greek influence, and gave it the Greek
language as the medium of thought. The Romans reduced
this vast extent of territory to peace, without changing its
language. Thus was accomplished two conditions favorable
to the evangelization of the world, peace and a uniform lan
guage. God did not cause Cassar s cruelty, but availed him
self of his strong arm to hold the world in peace, that men s
minds, not being intent on war, might open to receive the
truths of the Gospel. The purpose of this census of Augustus
was to fix the capitation tax, and regulate the tribute of Judaea.
This design of Augustus became a providential factor in the
life of Christ, for it gave an authentic record in the Roman
archives that Christ was born in Bethlehem. It is probable
that the pregnancy of Mary was entered in the records of the
census.
The whole account is beset by difficulties. First, our ad
versaries declare that under Augustus no general census of
the Roman world took place. This is based especially on the
silence of profane sources. At Ancyra there is a monument
which contains what might be called the testament of Augus
tus. In this it is stated that Augustus executed three censuses
of the Roman people, but no mention is made of a general
enrolment of the whole world. The adversaries of the Gospel
adduce also the silence of Tacitus, Suetonius, Dion Cassius,
and Flavius Josephus. The assurance that they feel in this
denial is well expressed by Reuss who affirms: "It is estab
lished, that in the reign of Augustus there was no general enrol
ment of all the Empire.
In the first place, the account of Luke bears on it the
stamp of credibility. An author who studied accuracy in his
account could scarcely be expected to misstate a public fact
which was of such recent occurrence, and which could be
investigated by all his contemporaries. In the dating of
such an important event, no man should be expected to
err in a fact the memory of which must have been in all
men s minds at the time. The monument of Ancyra shows
that Augustus was given to works of this kind. A docu-
208 LUKE II. i 7
ment of such nature could not be expected to contain all
that the Emperor did, and in limiting itself to the cen
sus of the Roman citizens, it brings into relief that which
the Romans considered most honorable. But we have a direct
testimony preserved for us by the very historians mentioned,
which establishes beyond a doubt the enrolment decree by
Augustus. At his death Augustus left an inventory of the
Empire which Tiberius caused to be read in the senate. Tacitus
speaks of this as follows : "In this were enumerated all the
resources of the Empire; how many citizens and allies were
under arms; how many were the fleets; how many the king
doms; the provinces; what were the tributes and rents; all
which Augustus had written with his own hand. This instru
ment could not have been executed without the enrolment of
which vSt. Luke speaks. Justin the Martyr, a native of Pales
tine in the second century, in his Apology which he addressed
to the Emperor and Roman senate boldly declares: "That
Christ was born at Bethlehem, ye may learn from the tables of
the census which were made under Quirinius the Roman gover
nor in Syria. Would a man of his great intellectual power
have spoken thus, without sufficient data, to those who had in
their possession these very documents? Our adversaries vainly
insist that such a census could not have been made in the time
of Herod, who enjoyed the title of a king. They believe that
it was only after the defection of Herod s son Archelaus, that
Judsea was made a Roman province, and tribute exacted.
This is mere cavil. The Romans left to Herod an empty title,
but their absolute power over the land is evinced in the fact
that even the domestic affairs of Herod s family were subject
to the Romans. In fact, Josephus himself narrates, Antiq.
XVI. IX. 3, that Augustus, being angry with Herod, wrote him
that, whereas formerly he had held him as a friend, he should
now consider him as his subject. The Romans exercised su
preme power over the allied kings. The investiture or the de
position of the king depended on the will of the Roman Emper
or. Thus Augustus deposed Archelaus, Herod s son ; Caligula
deposed Ptolemy, king of Mauritania (Dion Cassius LXIX.
LUKE II. i 7 209
25), Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, (Tacitus II. 42), and
Rhescuporis, king of Thrace (Tacitus II. 67). Judasawas sub
jected to tribute by Pompey, and never relieved of it.
In Antiq. Jud. XVII. 6, Josephus declares that, "When the
whole nation of the Jews had taken the oath to obey Caesar and
help his cause, more than six thousand Pharisees refused to
take the oath, and were mulcted. This clearly shows that the
independence of Herod was an empty name. The Romans
were the real rulers, and to them tribute was paid. Would the
Romans in such case refrain from asking tribute, for the exac
tion of which they are noted in history? The testimony of
Aethicus Ister, a writer of the fourth century is important in this
connection. In his work Cosmographia, quoted by Vigouroux,
[Le N. T. et les Decouvertes Archeologiques,] he says: "Julius
Caesar, author of the bissextile year, a man profoundly initiated
into things divine and human, decreed in his consulship the
census of the entire globe, or to speak more accurately, of the
Roman world, and confided the work to men of superior ability.
In the execution of this decree, Zenodochus measured the
Orient during the space of 21 years, 5 months and 9 days, com
puting from the consulate of Julius Caesar and M. Antony to
the third consulate of Augustus the colleague of Crassus ; The-
odotus measured the North within the space of 29 years, 8
months, and 10 days, computing from the same consulate of
Julius Caesar and M. Antony up to the tenth consulate of
Augustus. Polyclitus measured the South during the space of
32 years, i month, and 10 days, computing from the same con
sulate of Julius Caesar up to that of Saturnus and Cinna. This
work was accomplished during the space of 3 2 years and pre
sented to the Roman senate. According to this text, as the
beginning of the enrolment is the year 44 B. C., the year of the
assassination of Julius Caesar, the most of the work would take
place under Augustus, who was sole head of the Empire from
the year 29 B. C.
The elder Pliny, H. N. III. 3, 14, declares that under Augus
tus " the whole world was laid open for the inspection of the
world. This must relate to the enrolment.
Frontin produces a testimony from an unknown writer
testifying that one Balbus in the times of Augustus registered
(13) Gosp I
sio LUKE II. i 7
the descriptions and measurements of all the provinces and all
the cities, and published the agrarian law of all the provinces.
Cassiodorus (1562), prime minister of Theodoric the Great,
on the occasion of a lawsuit between two Roman citizens,
bears the following testimony to the census of Augustus : "In
the times of Augustus the Roman world was divided into
demains, and described in a census for the purpose of deter
mining for every one the extent of his estate, on the basis of
which he should pay his part of the tribute.
Suidas a Greek writer of the tenth century on the term ATTO-
Vpa(f>ri has the following testimony. "Augustus, having become
sole master, chose twenty men distinguished for integrity and
probity, and sent them through all the earth subject to him,
to make a census of persons and goods, in order to apportion
justly the contributions which should be paid into the public
treasury. This was the first census. That which had preceded
was a sort of spoliation of the rich, as though the state regarded
the possession of property as a public crime." Again, in his
article on Augustus: "When the Emperor Augustus wished
to know the number of those who inhabited the Roman Em
pire, he caused them to be enumerated individually."
Orosius, a writer of the first half of the fifth century testi
fies: "Then, for the first time, the same Caesar (Augustus)
ordered that a census be taken of all the provinces, and that
all the inhabitants be numbered."
Tertullian declares against Marcion: "The census of
Augustus which the Roman archives preserve is a faithful wit
ness of the Lord s nativity."
The defect of an explicit declaration in Tacitus is not sur
prising, since he began his annals from the reign of Tiberius.
Suetonius and Dion Cassius omit many other deeds of note of
Augustus.
Vigouroux reproduces the Claudian table, and other docu
ments which prove that the census of Augustus was executed
in other provinces such as Gaul, which is an indirect proof that
it also took place in Syria.
Hence it seems that the census of Augustus can not be
reasonably doubted.
LUKE II. i 7 211
We who are aided in our belief by the faith of the great
body of Christians for centuries are not wont to be readily
impressed by the importance of the relation of the census to
Joseph and Mary. It furnished to a world, which needed strong
motives to accept a religion so adverse to what it had formerly
worshiped, a public testimony that Christ was born in Beth
lehem, in accordance with the prophecy of Micah, and that he
was of the house of David.
The birth of Christ furnishes a striking proof that the free
acts of agents are foreseen in their inevitable event in the mind
of God. The prophecy had gone forth that Jesus should be
born in Bethlehem. Mary s delivery was approaching, and
she was at Nazareth. But the decree of Augustus obliges
Mary and Joseph to go to the little village of David, where they
arrive but a few hours before her delivery.
It is a common belief that Mary experienced no pain in her
delivery. Therefore, it is quite probable that she experienced
not the illness that a pregnant woman usually feels at such a
time. The event that brought Mary to Bethlehem was not
ordered to fulfill the prophecy, but the prophecy was uttered,
because such event was foreseen. The inevitable connection
between the prophecy and the event arises from the infallibility
of the foreknowledge of God. We must here remark that for
the fulfilment of this prophecy, it was neccessary that the
Christ should be actually born in Bethlehem. The prophecy
does not merely assert that the Messiah should spring from
some one of that village, but that he should come forth from
the city itself. Hence it is evident that the priests and
scribes rightly interpreted the prophecy.
The Vulgate erroneously connects Quirinius with the cen
sus as the agent by whom it was executed. Such is by no
means the fact. The Greek text only connects him with it in
the relation of time. It was put into execution in the time that
he was governor of Syria. Whether the actual agents of the
census were subject to him is not stated in the Gospel.
The enrolment is called the first for two reasons. It was
the first general enrolment of the world ever executed, and it
was the first for Judasa. The name Quirinius has been
changed to Cyrinus in passing through the Greek tongue. As
212 LUKE II. 17
that language has no equivalent for the "Qu" of the Latins,
they employ K, and the name was written by Luke Kvprjviov.
The Vulgate interpreter represented the KaTnra by C, as is
usual in Greek names.
The difficulties of the Rationalists are redoubled against
the second verse. Basing themselves on Flavius Josephus
alone, they contend that the census of Judaea took place ten
years after Herod s death, when Archelaus his son was exiled.
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius is mentioned by Tacitus and
other historians of the Augustan age, and his name appears in
some lapidary inscriptions. From profane history we are cer
tain that he was consul with Messala in the year 741 A. U. C.
After his consulate, at a date not determined by profane his
torians he was sent into Asia, and subdued the warlike Homon-
ades who inhabited the region of Mt. Taurus in Cilicia. He
obtained a triumph at Rome. His death is placed about the
year 21 of our era. Although all agree that he was legate of
Syria, only Josephus fixes the date. In Bk. XVIII. of Antiq.
of Jews, Chap. I., first paragraph, he speaks of the census made
by Quirinius. In the Second Chapter, first paragraph, he fixes
the date of the census after the death of Archelaus in the thir
ty-seventh year after the battle of Actium, hence in the sixth
year of the Christian era. Both Luke and Josephus agree in a
census of the Jewish people under Quirinius, but the discrep
ancy in time constitutes one of the most difficult objections
against the Gospels. In the Acts of the Apostles V. 37, Luke
again speaks of a census in such a way that it is evident that
it was a celebrated event in Jewish history. Many have been
the efforts to reconcile Luke and Josephus. Among the most
probable solutions are the following.
An opinion first proposed by Card. Noris, and afterward
adopted by Patrizi and others, maintains that the census
mentioned by St. Luke as the first enrolment was different
from the one mentioned by Josephus. They believe that dur
ing the first census Quirinius was not the ordinary legate of
Syria, but sent with extraordinary power simply to take charge
of this first census. Hence- they say that Josephus passed
over this first enrolment, and only spoke of the second, when
Quirinius was made ordinary legate of Syria.
LUKE II. i 7 213
A second opinion, first proposed by Herwart, thence fol
lowed by Olshausen, Tholuch, Lange, Krabbe, Lichtenstein,
Wieseler, Ewald, Walton, and others gives to the irpcarrj an
adverbial sense, and translates the passage : " Before Quirinius
was governor of Syria. Such explanation is forced, and is
now generally abandoned. Comely adopts the theory of
Zumpt. By a study of coins and medals, and by skilful con
jectures, Zumpt of Berlin has constructed the following table
of the Legates of Syria : Saturninus, 746 A. U. C. ; Varus, 748 ;
Quirinius 750; Lollius, 753; Censorius, 756; L. Volusius Satur
ninus, 758 ; Quirinius (second time), 760 ; Creticus, 764. Hence
they claim that in his first presidency occurred the census of
Luke, while the second, mentioned by Josephus, took place,
when he was a second time legate. Various data are alleged in
proof that Quirinius was twice legate of Syria. A lacuna exists
in the series, which forms a basis for a conjecture that Quirinius
must be the missing factor. Again there is preserved in the
Museum of the Lateran in Rome a lapidary inscription found
in 1764 at Tivoli. It is mutilated and the name of the person
to whom the stone was inscribed is wanting. It only speaks
of some one \vho during the Empire of Augustus obtained Syria
for the second time. This opinion is sustained by Sanclemente,
De Rossi, Bergman, Henzen, Gerlach, Aberle, Mommsen, Des
sau, Liebenam, Zumpt, Vigouroux and Comely. In this
opinion Quirinius in his first term of office made the enrolment
of which Luke speaks, before the death of Herod. The second
census was after the exile of Archelaus, and of this Josephus
speaks. They believe that the first census had not for a direct
object the imposition of the tax; and hence it created no dis
sension ; while the second was made memorable by the popular
uprising of Judas the Galilean, and therefore it finds place in
Josephus history.
We must first remark that there is great uncertainty in
the historical data and the chronology of this period. Formerly
it was a generally received opinion on the authority of Denis
Exiguus that the Christian era began the year 754 A. U. C. It
is now generally conceded that the Christ was born about the
year 747 or 748 A. U. C., hence the birth of Christ is really
five or six years too late in our mode of computing. The
214 LUKE II. i 7
best computation places Herod s death in the year 750 A. U.
C., and Christ must have been at least two years of age at such
event. We have a reasonable historic certainty that Quinti-
lius Varus was governor of Syria immediately after Herod s
death. Thus Tacitus, Lib. V. Historiarum, Chap. 9: "After
the death of Herod, without awaiting Caesar s will, one Simon
usurped the name of king This man was punished by Q. Varus
the governor of Syria. Josephus in various places in his
works, and especially in Antiq. of the Jews, Bk. XVII. Chap. 2,
declares that Varus .came to be governor of Syria some time
before Herod s death. That he remained in power for a con
siderable time after Herod s death is evidenced by many
testimonies of Josephus. Repeatedly in Bk. XVII. of the
Antiq. there is mention of Varus, who in conjunction with one
Sabinus administered the affairs of Syria during a great part of
the reign of Archelaus. [Bk. XVII. X. i, 2, 9, 10; XI. i.j
Moreover Zumpt affirms that there is a lacuna in Josephus
list of Syrian presidents after the presidency of Varus into
which he would insert Quirinius. Now Zumpt s table
places Quirinius presidency immediately after the death of
Herod. Hence there is a seeming contradiction here between
profane sources.
In the eleventh paragraph of the Life of Josephus he,
Josephus, speaks thus: "But now when the king was ac
quainted with Varus design which was to cut off the Jews of
Ccesarea, being many thousands, with their wives and children,
and all in one day, he called to him Equiculus Modius and sent
him to be Varus successor." Again in the thirty-fifth para
graph, he says: "When Philip had been informed that Varus
was put out of his government by King Agrippa, and that Mo
dius Equiculus, a man that was his old friend and companion,
was come to succeed him, he wrote to him ." Josephus sole
mention of Quirinius occurs in the closing verse of the XVII.
book and the opening chapter of the XVIII. book, where he
states that Quirinius was sent to impose the tax on Judaea, and
complete the confiscation of the exiled Archelaus property.
It can not be denied that a great difficulty confronts us. Yet
it is constituted by the fact that certain men are readier to
believe any profane source than an inspired writer. Every
LUKE II. i 7 215
presumption is in favor of Luke. He had no motive is mis
stating the fact. It was a thing which he must have examined
with his wonted diligence. It was a fact easy to ascertain.
Might it not be that Quirinius was supreme in control of
Syria and that Saturninus, and after him Varus, was subordi
nate to him?
It is attested by competent authorities that Syria was one
of the provinces of the Roman Empire that was under the
administration of men of the consular rank. So firmly estab
lished was this that Suetonius charges it as an evidence of
negligence in Tiberius that "per aliquot annos Hispaniam et
Syriam sine consularibus legatis habuerit. " Suet. Tib. 41.
Now it rests on good authority that Varus was not a man of the
consular rank.
Again when Justin designates Quirinius as the first gover
nor of Syria in his Apology he can not mean first in time, for all
admit that many had preceded him in that post; it signified
that he was the first in dignity, supreme in command of all Syria.
In this manner also Justin and Tertullian are reconciled.
Tertullian, Contra Marcion. IV. 19, testifies: "Sed et census
constat actos sub Augusto tune in Judaea per Sentium Satur-
ninum apud quos genus ejus (Jesus) inquirere potuissent."
The census was made while Quirinius was consular legate in
Syria, but it was under the supervision of Saturninus the sub
ordinate of Quirinius. In the XVI. Book of Antiq. IX. i,
Josephus speaks of Saturninus and Volumnius as presidents
of Syria. Now it would contradict all the data of Roman
history to place two consular legates of equal authority in the
province of Syria. One must have been subordinate to the
other, or they may have exercised power in separate provinces
under a general head. Mommsen brings forth from Dion
Cassius a law of Augustus, that no governor of a Roman prov
ince should hold office less than three years or more than five
years. It is doubtful if such law ever existed, and if such be
the fact, this law was changed at the will of the emperor, for
Josephus testifies that Gratus and Pontius Pilate were the only
procurators appointed during the space of twenty-two years.
Again in the Wars of The Jews XXVII. 2, Josephus makes one
Pedanius president with Saturninus, while Volumnius is procu-
216 LUKE II. i 7
ator. Now it is evident among all these different officials
there is ample place for Quirinius in the time mentioned by
St. Luke. In the Life of Josephus, one hundred and
eleventh paragraph, he affirms that Varus was procurator
of the kingdom ; there must have been at the same time a
consular legate, and he must have been Quirinius. Again
in the same paragraph, as we have stated, King Agrippa,
Herod s grandson, who held the title of king under the
Romans, removed Varus and appointed his successor. Could
this be done to a Roman consular legate whose jurisdic
tion extended through all Syria, while Agrippa governed only
a tetrarchy? In Josephus (Wars of The Jews, II. VIII. i)
Coponius is mentioned as having the power of life and death
over the Jews, and yet it appears that he was, even according
to Josephus XVIII. I. i, subordinate to Quirinius. Hence we
place Quirinius as consular legate of Syria in the time preceding
Herod s death , and believe that others mentioned by Josephus
were subject to him. In fact, there would be no absolute
difficulty in placing his presidency before that of Saturninus,
as the predecessor of that man is not clearly given by Josephus.
Such opinion, it is true, w r ould place the birth of Christ several
years before the Christian era, since the presidency of Quir
inius and birth of Christ must have been contemporaneous
events ; but it is certain that Christ s birth must in every case
antedate the year commonly received, and none can say with
certainty how far to thrust the event back.
Our chief point is gained, when we show that there is
nothing definite in Josephus that can be alleged against the
truth of the Gospel of Luke. The fact alleged by Josephus
of the sedition under Quirinius may be explained that Quir
inius held supreme control from before the death of Herod even
after the banishment of Archelaus, and that at this particular
time a disturbance arose not from a census, but from the actual
gathering of the taxes on the basis of the former census. The
Jews had enjoyed some sort of autonomy under Herod and
Archelaus. After Archelaus exile they were reduced to a
mere Roman province, and this it was that occasioned their
uprising under this man. No candid judge of history would
assert that the Jews had been exempt from tribute under Herod
LUKE II. i 7 217
and Archelaus. Jerusalem was made tributary to the Romans
by Pompey, Josephus XVI. 4, 4, and never shook off that yoke.
Finally it might be that the registration spoken of in St.
Luke was a preparatory measure in contemplation of a tribute
census. The real census may have been made later, and Luke
may have grouped it here with this preparation for it. Our point
is gained when we show that there is a possible solution of the
difficulty.
We have defended the passage in the Gospel thus far,
always supposing the accuracy of Josephus history. Now
that Josephus data are often erroneous, all must admit. In
Antiq. X. XI. 2, he makes Evil Merodach reign eighteen
years; the cuneiform incriptions make the number two years.
Again according to him Neriglissor is the son of Evil Mero
dach, and reigns forty years; according to the inscriptions, he
is his brother-in-law, and reigns three years. Moreover, evi-
ences of inaccuracy are found in the account of Quirinius itself.
In Bk. XVII. Chap. XIII. i, of Antiq. he mentions that Arche
laus deprived Joazer, the son of Boethus, of the high priest
hood, and placed Eleazar in his place. But in Bk. XVIII. i, i,
this Joazer is mentioned as being high priest during the ex
action of the tribute by Quirinius, and Josephus affirms that
he moved the people to pay the tribute peacefully. In Bk.
XVIII. Chap. II. i, Quirinius himself is represented as de
posing the high priest Joazer. Hence we conclude that the
census of Quirinius as mentioned by Luke can not be brought
into doubt by data so uncertain as those which they glean
from Josephus.
It was a Roman Law that the census of every one should
be taken in one s own city. This rests on many testimonies
from profane sources. Velleius II. 15, declares that the Roman
citizens were obliged to return from the provinces into Italy to
be registered in the census. Livy XLII. 10, adduces a decree
of L. Posthumus commanding that all shall be registered in the
census in their own cities.
Some have believed that Joseph was obliged to go to
Bethlehem for the reason that he had landed estates there.
The futility of such opinion results from the fact that the Holy
Family were obliged to seek refuge in the stable. A proprietor
2 i8 LUKE II. i 7
of land would have been able to make a better shift for his
pregnant wife. In the Justinian code Lib. L. XV. it is estab
lished : " Qui agrum in alia civitate habet, in ea civitate profi-
teri debet in qua ager est . " This law was modified in its appli
cations to the Jews. Among a people where tribal and sub-
tribal distinctions were so closely drawn, it was found advan
tageous for the Romans to follow the Jewish mode of making
a census. Hence all were obliged to go to their tribal
centers. Whether or not Joseph were born in Bethlehem,
can not be definitely decided. At all events, it was his ances
tral city, and to comply with the requirements of the census,
he was obliged to go thither.
Various reasons why Mary accompanied Joseph have been
given. Some say it was because she was of the house of David.
Such opinion, besides other weaknesses, supposes that the
Roman law would force a husband and wife to go to different
cities for the census if they were of different tribes . The account
plainly implies that Mary s going to Bethlehem was pursuant
to some law. We can not accept the opinion that assigns the
cause of Mary s journey, to be wifely companionship. Had
Joseph s design been merely to present himself in Bethlehem
for the official registration, and then return to Nazareth, cer
tainly Alary, being so near her delivery, would not have under
taken the journey. Unlike the Jewish census proper, the
Roman census included the women. Thus Livy, Book III. 3 :
"Censa civium capita 104,214 praeter orbos orbasque." The
specific exclusion of the widows implies the registration of the
other women. The Pandects of the Roman Empire make
special reference to the enumeration of the women in the cen
sus of Syria: "yEtatem in censendo significare necesse est,
quia quibusdam aetas tribuit ne tribute onerentur, veluti in
Syriis a quatuordecim annis masculi, a duodecim fcemina3 usque
ad sexagesimum (quintum) annum tribute capitis obligantur."
As the decree of Augustus regarded the "tributum capitis,"
Mary was obliged by it, and as the Roman law merged the
personality of the wife into that of the husband, she would
have been obliged to enter her name at Bethlehem, even
if she were not of the house of David. Now it seems to us that
two possible causes may be assigned for Mary s journey with
LUKE II. i 7 219
Joseph to Bethlehem, i. It may have been that the law
obliged the women to be personally present in the tribal centers
during the time of registration. We know but little of these
details of the Roman law as it was applied in the provinces.
2. It may have been that the law of Augustus obliged the
Jews to take up a domicile in these centres for a greater or less
length of time. In fact, we find that even after the birth of
Christ, the Holy Family abode at Bethlehem for a period
which we believe to be more than a year. And even after their
return from Egypt, they would have returned thither, were
they not dissuaded through fear of Archelaus. It may be
possible therefore that family reasons were combined with
legal obligations in their journey to Bethlehem and abode there.
The Gospels are not a biography of Joseph and Mary, nor even
of Christ. Their object is simply to teach men the knowledge
of Redemption by Christ, and the things necessarily connected
therewith.
It is remarkable here that Luke speaks of Mary still as
^e/jLv^arevfj-evt], though certainly at this time the solemnization
of their marrage had preceded. We must know that the
solemnization of the marriage was a mere social event, and
effected nothing in the essential nature of the contract. The
essential contracts were made in the espousals. Now, as the
consummation of marriage had not taken place, Luke wishes to
signify that essentially all that had passed between them was
the contract of espousals.
It is not stated in the Gospel how long after the arrival at
Bethlehem Mary s delivery took place ; but, from the fact that
they were in the stable, it seems probable that they arrived
late in the evening, and that the birth of Christ took place that
same night. The sixth verse clearly imports that Mary carried
the Child during the natural period of gestation.
The exact sense of the ea-Trapydvcaaev, "fasciis involvere,"
can scarcely be understood by an English reader. It expresses
the mode of clothing of an infant which prevailed among ancient
people, and which still prevails in Italy and other countries of
Europe. A long band is adjusted to the child s body, and is
wound around him till it envelopes the whole body excepting
the head and arms. The Revised version expresses it well,
220 LUKE II. i 7
"wrapped in swaddling clothes. " It is not without design that
Luke uses this expression here, and repeats it later in the chap
ter. Nothing in nature appears more helpless than a newborn
infant thus clothed. If the Babe of Bethlehem were clothed
with raiment whiter than snow, as in the Transfiguration
on the Mount, and surrounded by a glory brighter than the sun,
it would seem less difficult to recognize his majesty; but the
world is bidden recognize its Creator in a helpless new-born babe,
wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying on a little straw.
If ever our minds are directed towards the great men of the
world, we are at once impressed by the thought of their
great distance from us. We feel that we have no place in their
thoughts, that they care nothing for us. Even when they are
interested in the cause of humanity, and are working for the
betterment of man, we feel that they regard humanity as a unit ;
and for us this is a sort of cold generality. And if the Son of
God came in station high up among the princes of the earth, the
poor, and ignorant, and lowly might shrink away from him, and
feel that his thoughts and interests were far off from their com
mon lot. This would be fatal to the Redeemer s plan. It
would prevent that warm personal relation that he wishes to
exist between himself and every individual soul. Therefore,
on a pallet of straw, in a stable, veiling the majesty of his Di
vinity under the gentle form of a babe, he invites all men to
come to him.
There is no other place in the Gospel where God s ways
seem so different from our ways. In his life there is an inde
scribable majesty that surrounds his central figure in the Gospel.
It is easy to recognize God in him who stills the tempest, heals
the sick, and raises the dead. Even in his passion and death
on Calvary, the awful dignity of his Divinity comes out in his
words, in his patience, in his words on the cross, in the gloom
that fell upon the earth, in the earthquake, and the opening of
the tombs. But at Bethlehem all is absent; the full extent of
his emptying himself of his glory appears here.
It seems very probable that the stable where the Holy
Family took shelter was attached to the inn. The (f)drvrj
(manger) was chosen as the resting place for the Babe, for the
fact that there was in it straw upon which he could be laid. The
LUKE II. i 7 221
refusal to give lodgment to the Holy Family in the inn has been
explained by many, that there were many there, brought thither
by the decree of Augustus. This opinion does not exclude
another greater reason based on the fact that Joseph and Mary
belonged to a rank in society for which in many places there is
no room. They were poor ; and people given to selfish interests
are always ready to close the door to such. In choosing to be
born in a stable, Christ has given us an everlasting testimonial
of the value that he puts on the things of this earth. Virtue
and love of God are better in a stable on straw than worldliness
in a palace in gold and silks. He who had come into the world
to teach men to despise the perishable goods of this world could
choose no better mode of entry. And yet the example and the
teachings of the Son of God born in a stable are unable to make
men love Mammon less and his associates. The example of
some noted personage in dress or social etiquette often is suffi
cient to fashion the manners of a whole nation. But the exam
ple of the Son of God suffices not to make poverty fashionable.
One of the great lessons that men should learn from the birth of
Jesus in the stable is to set a just estimate on temporal goods.
But the lesson is hard to receive. The poor are sullen, restless,
and discontented; the rich grasp for more; and few love the
stable and the straw because Christ chose them.
The treatment that the Holy Family received on the night
of the birth of Christ is a fit specimen of what Christ has received
ever since in business and social life. There is no room for God
in business ; men are too busy to think of God. There is no room
for God in society. Religion is such a tame, tiresome theme.
The world is one great Bethlehem. It harbors a God, but only
in the humble heart of those who lead exceptional lives, and
march not with the surging, thoughtless throng of humanity.
The human heart may also be likened to Bethlehem. Many a
time and oft the God who loves man has sought entrance into
that heart and found that there was no room for him there.
There is room for Mammon, room for pleasure, room even for
Satan, but none for its Creator. And if he be admitted, how
much room has he ? The heart in which the love of God is not
the main issue, is a Bethlehem where Christ is not in a post
of honor, but in a stable.
222
LUKE II. 8 20
LUKE II. 8-20
8. And there were in the 8. Kcct zoi^evsq Vjaav Iv rf)
same country shepherds abiding ^wpa TJ) aikfl, aypauXouvcei; xal
in the field, and keeping watch cpuXdaaovTeq <puXax.a<; TYJ<; vux-rbq
by night over their flock. Ixc TY)V TCOI^VYJV CCUTUW.
g. And an angel of the Lord
stood by them, and the glory
of the Lord shone round about
them, and they feared with a
great fear.
10. And the angel said unto
them: Fear not: for behold,
I bring you good tidings of
great joy, which shall be to all
the people.
11. For unto you is born
this day in the city of David a
Saviour who is Christ the Lord.
12. And this shall be the
sign unto you; - Ye shall find
a babe wrapped in swaddling
clothes, and lying in a manger.
13. And suddenly there was
with the angel a multitude of
the heavenly host praising God,
and saying.
14. Glory to God in the
highest, and on earth peace
among men of (God s) good will.
15. And it came to pass, as
the angels were gone away from
them into Heaven, the shep
herds said one to another: Let
us now go even unto Bethlehem,
and see this thing which is
come to pass, which the Lord
hath made known unto us.
9. Koct $YfeXo<; Kupfou Ixe
, /.at co^a Kupiou xepieXa^e
, X.GU l^oSYjOYjjav cpoSov ^.lyav.
10. Kal efcev auTotq 6 ayyeXo?,
MY) cpo6ela6e : (Sou yap
ecnac
11. "Chi eTr/Or] ujjuv GT,apov
awTrjp, o? saTtv XpidTb? Kiipto?,
Iv TCoXs: Acxusfc.
12. Kat TOUTO ujjuv OTQ^etov:
supTjaeTS 6pecpoq lazapyavw^evov xac
XSIJJLSVOV SV 9TVY).
13. Kal !Ha:9VY;<; lyevs^o auv
TW dyylXfo zXf]Oos axpa^iaq oupa-
vtou, aivouvTcov vov 0ov, x.al
Xeyoviwv,
14.
T:
6a ev u^fa^ot;; @0), xai
Iv avOpwzoK; uBox.(a<;.
15. Ka: lyeve^o, ox; a
ax aj^cov E(<; TOV oupavbv o! ayyXot,
ol xot^lv<; IXdXouv xpoq aXXr^Xou*;,
or wq BrOX xa!
TO pfjjJLa TOIJTO TO yyovbc;,
o 6 Kupcoq yvwptav r;|xTv.
LUKE II. 8 20
223
17. iBovTeq os efvwpcaav ice pi
ToO pr^aTOS TOU XaXY]0!vto<; auToT<;
xepl TOU xaiBfou TOUTOU.
1 8. Kal xavTe<; ol axouaavTeq
IGaujJiaaav ice pi TWV Xa)aqOevT<i)v
uicb TWV Tcot^Ivwv Tupbt; auiouc;.
H Be
19
auvTi]p . TOC
ev
Mapta|j. icavca
(Taura) au^x-
xapofa auTf)<;.
20. Kal uicearpe^av ol icot^eveq,
xal afvoOvce? TOV Qebv
exl xaatv o!q Tjxouaav xal sIBov,
xaGox; IXaXrjOT) xpoq
16. And they came with 16. Kdl YJXOav axeuaavTei;, xal
haste, and found Mary and dveupav TTJV TS Maptd^x xal TOV
Joseph, and the babe lying in Idxjf ( cp, xal TO ^pe<po<; xefjxevov ev
the manger. Tfl
17. And having seen, they
made known abroad the word
which was told them concerning
the child.
1 8. And all who heard won
dered at those things which
were told them by the shep
herds.
19. But Mary kept all these
things, pondering them in her
heart.
20. And the shepherds re
turned, glorifying and praising
God for all the things that they
had heard and seen, as it was
told unto them.
In the ninth verse fr$, B, L, and Z omit ISov after Kai. This
reading is also endorsed by the Gothic, Sahidic, Peshitto, Ar
menian, and Ethiopian versions.
In Verse 1 2 nearly all the codices except B and Z insert
the article TO before a-rj/melov.
The most important .variant appears in the fourteenth
verse. In codices A and D, we find the reading evSo/clas. In B a
second hand has written evSoKia. In Codex ^ the final ? has
been erased. The reading evSotcias is followed by the Old
Italian and Vulgate versions and by Cyril, Irenasus, Origen,
Athanasius and Augustine. The codices L, P, F, A, A, Z et al.,
have evSoKia. This reading is followed by the Coptic, Syriac,
Armenian and Ethiopian versions.
Some of the finest pasture land in all Syria is circumjacent
to Bethlehem. In this lovely land shepherds were keeping their
flocks on the night of Christ s birth. They had divided the
night into several watches, and certain ones were on guard at
the particular hour when the Christ was born.
224 LUKE II. 8 20
For a description of Bethlehem and its sanctuaries, I refer
the reader to my work, A Diary of My Life in The Holy Land.
As God intended this vision to be a witness of the birth
of his Son in Bethlehem, he wrought it in such a way that it
strongly impressed those to whom it was given. Hence the
great brightness shining upon the shepherds was a manifesta
tion of God s glory, that the shepherds might feel the majesty
of God, and be assured that the child in the manger was Yah-
veh s son, veiling his power in that wondrous way. No man
can see the majesty of God and live; and for this cause this
partial splendor struck fear and awe into the breasts of those
simple men. The Gospel clearly imports that the angel
appeared substantially before them. The great light signified
that he spoke in Yahveh s name.
In choosing the shepherds of Bethlehem as witnesses of the
authenticity of his birth, Christ adhered to his original design
of teaching the world that its valuation of temporal goods and
honors is wrong. The world s basis of showing honor is not
founded on the intrinsic goodness of man, but on his posses
sions or some other extrinsic adjunct. Had Christ chosen the
learned doctors, or the men of power and wealth in his nation,
it would appear an approbation of the world s line of action in
such matters. No one else would be as much at home in the
stable as the poor, simple shepherd. It was another act in the
condescension of Christ, who came down to the lowest grade of
human life that he might the more efficaciously teach men how
to live. There is a wondrous majesty in the birth at Bethle
hem. It would be obscured and weakened by the changing of
one factor. There is no majesty in selfish ease. Not in
attending to personal comforts, but in renouncing them, is man
great. And so, from his birth in the manger to his deathbed
on the hard wood of the cross, Christ takes the lead in the
renunciation of selfish interests and comforts. Again, had
Christ come among men in a higher social station, the poor and
the unhonored might say: " He thinks not of us ; every one on
earth elbows us aside, and now even Christ has confirmed by
his course of action that they who have money are the best.
In a word, the equilibrium of human life had been disturbed by
man s adoration of Mammon. Christ endeavors to recall it to
LUKE II. 8 20 225
the harmonious order wished by God, by honoring poverty in
his birth. Hence the virtuous poor are the nobility of Christ.
The terrified shepherds needed the comforting reassurance
of the angel before they could rationally co-operate with God s
designs in this event. The universality of the Redemption
appears in the fact that the angel proclaims that the joy will be
for all people. The English Catholic translation might lead
one into the error that the angel spoke only of the Messiah s
relations to the Jewish people. The Syriac renders it, "the
whole world, " and that the universality of salvation is therein
proclaimed, may be regarded as certain. It was a motive of
joy for the shepherds, for Israel, and for the world, that the
longed-for Deliverer had come. These simple shepherds knew
but little philosophy, but they shared Israel s longing for the
Messiah, and could rejoice in the great event. The defect with
us is that we do not appropriate these events personally to
ourselves. Full oft we are apt to look at them as mere historic
events. Too seldom in our lives do we feel deep movings of
joy that the world is redeemed. There is not enough spiritual
activity in our souls to expand them to feel sufficiently these
mighty truths. It may not be doubted that God rejoices at the
grateful recognition by man, of what he has done for man. If
a man were condemned to death, or to solitary confinement for
life, and were then released by the sacrifice of a friend, he would
feel intense joy for his rescue, and deep gratitude for his deliv
erer. And man was condemned to eternal death, and to eternal
solitary confinement, and was thence rescued by the drama
with whose first act we are dealing, and his dull senses are but
little aroused thereat.
Bethlehem was called the city of David; first, because it
was situated in David s tribe, and secondly, because it was the
city of his birth. The fame of David reflected a lustre upon his
native city, and it w r as commonly termed thereafter the city of
David.
It is evident that the angel wishes that the shepherds go
in search of the child, and that he is giving them a distinguish
ing sign by which they may know him. Not by a halo of
glory surrounding him ; not by the presence of angels adoring
him ; but by the swaddling bands and his couch in the man-
(14) Gosp. I
226 LUKE II. 8 20
ger s straw. He was the only new-born babe in Bethlehem that
night that abode in a manger. The meanest babe in Bethle
hem had a better place than the Son of God. It is certainly an
erroneous conception to place visible angels in the stable of
Christ s nativity. The Gospel narrative clearly excludes their
visible presence. It is true that myriads of invisible angels
hovered around the incarnate Word, but he had thrown off the
glory that this visible presence would afford. In this there is a
contrast between the vision of the shepherds and the scene in
the stable. The glory of God there revealed, and the visible
presence of the angels, mark the Divinity of the child, and the
glory that he emptied himself of ; the squalor of the stable, and
the straw manifest the form of the slave that he assumed, and
the degree of his exinanition to which he descended to heal
man. Without drawing upon our imagination, we can repre
sent to our minds the privations of the Holy Family in the
stable that night. The stable must have been damp and dark,
and unprovided with any of the conveniences of human life.
The Babe lay on the straw in the manger: where did Mary
sleep? They had journeyed, and were weary and hungry; did
they have food? It must have been scanty and poor. Men
needed to be taught not to set their hearts on the goods of this
world, and the stable of Bethlehem teaches the lesson.
In the thirteenth verse, the Greek idiom is apparent in
the fact that the plurals alvovvrwv and \<ydvra)v qualify 7r\r)0o<?
which, though singular in form, is plural in sense.
The phrase, "the heavenly host," Q^ft& n fcOVJ, occurs in
more than fifteen other places in the Holy Scriptures. It
generally means the stars of the firmament, which were made
an object of the idolatrous worship that had infected the Jews.
Luke takes the phrase out of its idolatrous signification, and
applies it to the angelic host. The appearance of the multitude
of Heaven s army, after the communication had been made to
the shepherds, was opportune. Had they appeared in the
beginning, the shock would have unfitted the minds of the
shepherds to receive the commission entrusted to them. Their
appearance afterwards corroborated the evidence that the,
event was from God, and showed the great importance that
LUKE II. 8 20 227
Heaven attached to the event. Regarding the meaning of the
angel s words a great discrepancy exists among Codices,
Fathers, and Commentators. The first point of variance is in
determining whether the proclamation be optative or declara
tive. We would say that the words are half optative, half
declaratory. The first words: "Glory to God in the highest,"
express the angelic recognition of this greatest work of God
and their praise therefor. The phrase, "in the highest,"
praises God by fixing his throne in the highest Heaven, in the
empyrean. Its main import is simply to exalt God above
every other thing conceivable. An angel speaking to man of
God must speak in terms that man s intellect can understand.
The Jewish mind formed some idea of the excellence of God by
exalting his throne above the cloud -heaven, and the sidereal
heaven, into the empyrean. The second member of the decla
ration is more declarative than optative. The words convey
the spirit of the event. They announce not the mere wish of
the angel, but the wish and design of God, and authoritative
ly declare that the event that has been wrought is of such a
nature that it will produce such result.
A grave textual variant occurs concerning the term eu8o-
Ktas. The Vulgate has adopted the reading ei)So/a a<?, and the
Roman Catholic translation follows the Vulgate.
Regarding the exegesis of this verse opinions are divergent.
An opinion of some importance, adopts the reading of the Vul
gate, and interprets the evSoKia, the "good will" to signify
the proper disposition of the souls of men, by which thy are
disposed to co-operate with God s grace. In other words, they
make the "good will" a quality of the soul of man instead of
an act of God s will. In such opinion the angel only an
nounces his tidings of peace to the well disposed of men. This
opinion has no intrinsic probability. Nowhere in the New
Testament is evSoicia used to signify the state or condition
of man s will in relation to God, but always it denotes
God s gracious will toward man. Moreover, this sense of
the phrase restricts the message to a certain class, and
robs it of its grand comprehensive mercy. Christ died
for all men, and he sent a message of peace to all men.
Wherefore we consider it morally certain that the e
228 LUKE II. 8 20
the "good will" signifies God s merciful will by which he
restored the world to its lost inheritance through the merits
of the Babe whose birth the angel announces. In this sense,
it makes no essential difference whether we put the term
in the nominative or genitive case. It always means the
announcement that God has by the giving of his Son shown
mercy to the world. It is the proclaiming of God s good will to
man, not the predestining decree, but the grand, comprehensive
decree of mercy which moved the Father to send his Son to
redeem the world. The good will of God as it proceeds from
God is universal, for he wishes all men to be saved. That will
is thwarted in the reprobate, not by any defect in the gracious
good will of God but through the voluntary defection of man s
own will. In every sense, therefore, the message of peace was
to all men. If one adopts the reading of the Vulgate, he must
admit that men are called men of good will for the reason
that God, being reconciled by the offering of his Son, pours
out his gracious good will upon man.
The peace on earth refers not so much to external peace,
but to the peace that reigns in the souls of men who are in a
right relation to God. The man in whose soul the spiritual
creation of God reigns is at peace in the midst of war and
anarchy ; yea, even if the universe were shivered, he fails not,
for he is not anchored on the drifting sands of time. The
evSoKia then means the good will of God to all men, which was
evidenced by the sending of Jesus, and, therefore, it was fitting
that at his birth such significance of the event should be
made known to man.
It was God s design that these shepherds should go and
witness the place of the birth of his Son, and suaviter and fortiter
he brought it about that they went. The sign by which they
were to know the Christ was that he was laid in a manger. It
was a sufficient means of identification, for no other babe was
thus housed, and couched that night. Here again we must
observe that the placing of Jesus by Mary in the manger being
foreseen was taken as the sign for the shepherds that he was
the Saviour. A detail in the narration has been omitted.
Doubtless there were many stables in Bethlehem, and we are
not informed how the shepherds were led to the particular
LUKE II. 8 20 229
stable in which Christ was laid. Here again we are left in the
realms of conjecture. It seems to us most probable that the
Gospel contains only a brief account of the angel s message,
and that he plainly gave indication of the particular stable,
that they might straightway find it.
In the translation of eyvapia-av, we depart from the Vulgate
reading. Tvtopi^ta has the basic signification of to manifest, to
make known. In a secondary sense it may mean to under
stand or ascertain the truth of a thing. Thus in Philippians
Paul uses it to indicate that he can not formulate a definite
judgment, that he cannot manifest to his own mind the real
tendency of his soul. The context in the present passage
favors our reading, for in the succeeding verse there are nar
rated certain effects that resulted from the spreading abroad of
the marvelous events witnessed by the shepherds. If we
followed the Vulgate reading we should simply see in the term
the certification of the angel s message. Such a detail would
not justify its chronicling. The angel s message needed no
corroboration. Whereas, defending the classical signification
of "jvwp %a>, a strong and logical concept is added to the narra
tion. The shepherds, on seeing the Babe in the straw, narrated
first to Mary and Joseph their wondrous vision. Thence going
forth, they made known to all whom they met the vision of the
night. The Syriac and Persian versions translate the term as
we have done. The term thus translated also shows the design
of God in summoning them as witnesses to the birth of his Son.
They were to bear witness to the veracity of the birth in the
stable, and they did so. It must have resulted that the whole
country about Bethlehem was soon filled with the report of a
babe born in a stable in Bethlehem, and of a vision seen by
shepherds.
Again in the eighteenth verse we depart from the Vulgate,
in expunging the "et. " The received reading of the Vulgate
seems to signify that there were two motives of wonderment in
the people, the birth in the stable, and the vision of the shep
herds. But as these two things would naturally be combined in
the shepherds narration, it seems that this "et" has no place
here. It does not occur in the Greek, nor in the other great
versions.
230 LUKE II. 8 20
In this verse Luke departs from chronological order, in
order to bring the effect of the shepherds proclamation nearer
to the cause. The shepherds found only the Holy Family
present in the stable at their entrance. Now it would be
ridiculous to understand by the "all who heard" only Mary
and Joseph. Luke then is speaking of the effect of the narra
tion on the people, to whom in going forth the shepherds made
known the event.
There is an antithesis in the nineteenth verse drawn between
Mary and the multitudes who heard and wondered. A strange
wonderful event had been made known to the people of Beth
lehem, a manifestation of God s power had come to them,
and caused a feeling of wonder. The narrative seems to imply
that the feeling of wonder then passed from their minds. But
with Mary it was different. She was a factor in a series of
events whose full importance she did not understand. One thing
she knew that the Lord God was the author of these events,
and with an exemplary trust, she waited in silence for each
new act. Those events sank deeper into her soul than into the
souls of the other dwellers at Bethlehem. They could not pass
from her mind. Mary was a spiritual soul, and between such
souls and God there is a communion not to be made known to
the world, nor understood by it. In her wondrous inner life,
Mary treasured up these data, and pondered upon them. She
did what perfect souls always do, linked her soul with God in
the interior communion with him. She pondered and com
pared succeeding events with preceding ones. The wondrous
events at the scene of the visitation confirmed the events at
Nazareth ; the events at Bethlehem added a further confirma
tion. The opinion is well founded that Mary gave to Luke
some of the data of his Gospel. Who but Mary could have
given the data of the Annunciation? of the vision of St. Joseph?
of this very description of herself here given? It seems quite
certain then that Luke, in seeking material for his Gospel, made
use of the things that Mary had kept in her heart.
The shepherds first heard the wondrous tidings from the
angel ; they went up to Bethlehem and saw the verification of
what had been said to them. A thing so unusual needed this
ocular demonstration before it obtained full and absolute
LUKE II. 21 39
231
credence with the shepherds. When this was attained, they
could do no less than give glory to God who had thus clearly
manifested his works. The order of the event itself and of its
narration is evidently intended to win men s faith.
LUKE II
21. And when eight days
were accomplished that the
child should be circumcised,
his name was called Jesus,
which was so named by the
angel before he was conceived
in the womb.
22. And when the days of
their purification according to
the Law of Moses were accom
plished, they brought him to
Jerusalem to present him to the
Lord,
23. As it is written in the
law of the Lord: Every male
that openeth the womb shall be
called holy to the Lord;
24. And to offer a sacrifice
according to that which is said
in the law of the Lord, a pair
of turtle doves, or two young
pigeons.
25. And behold, there was
a man in Jerusalem, whose
name was Simeon; and the
same man was just and devout,
waiting for the consolation of
Israel, and the Holy Ghost was
upon him.
26. And it had been revealed
to him by the Holy Ghost that
he should not see death before
he had seen the Lord s Christ.
. 21-39.
21. Kal OT
6xT(i> TOU xeptTe^etv auTov xat
exXVjGT) TO ovo^xa auToO Iiqcrouq, TO
xXY]Oev uxb TOU avyeXou xpb TOU
auTov ev TYI xotXfa.
22. Kal foe eTrX^aOfjCrav at
Yj^ipat xaOapu^iou auTWv, xaTa
TOV vo^.ov Mwufflax;,
auTov si? IepocbXuu;a, Tc
23. KaOox; fEfpaTiTGu Iv
Kupfoy, "Cki xav apaev ctavolyov
aytov TO> Kupfw
24. Kal TOJ Souvai Ouat av, xaTa
TO stp^^.lvov ev TO) v6[xo) Kuptou,
ZeQvog Tfj^ovcov r/ ouo voaaoii?
25. Kal tBoj, avOpwTCOi; f;v ev
IspouaaXr]^, w ovo;j.a Su^xewv, xal
6 avOpwTioq OJTO<; otxaioq xal eu-
TOU IcrparjX, xal IIveO(xa -QV "Aytov
ie
26. Kal -^v auTW
6zb TOJJ
TOU
Aylou, p-T) t Selv OavaTov icplv
av "Sf) TOV XptCTbv Kupt ou.
232
LUKE II. 21 39
27. And he came in the
Spirit into the temple. And
when the parents brought in
the child Jesus, to do for him
after the custom of the law,
28. He also took him into
his arms, and blessed God, and
said:
29. Now, O Lord, thou let-
test thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word:
30. For mine eyes have seen
thy salvation,
31. Which thou hast pre
pared before the face of all
peoples ;
32. A light to enlighten the
Gentiles, and the glory of thy
people Israel.
33. And his father and
mother wondered at the things
which were spoken concerning
him.
34. And Simeon blessed
them, and said unto Mary his
mother: Behold this child is
set for the fall and the rising
up of many in Israel, and for a
sign which shall be contradicted:
35. And thy own soul, a
sword shall pierce, that out of
many hearts thoughts may be
revealed.
36. And there was one Anna,
a prophetess, the daughter of
Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser;
she was far advanced in years,
and had lived with her husband
seven years from her virginity;
27. Kal YJXOev ev TO)
ecq TO lepov, xal ev TW ei
Touq yovelq TO xatBfov, lY]aouv,
ToG Tcoifjaai auTOug xaTa TO etOto
txevov ToO vo^ou xepl auTou.
28. Kal auTbq eBe^aTO auTO<;
etc; Tac; ayxdXaq xal euXoyrjaev TOV
0eov xal elxev:
29. Niiv dxoXueiq TOV BouXov
cou, BsaxoTa, xaTa TO p fj^a aou,
ev eiiv:
30. "OTI e!Bov ol o^OaX^of
COL),
31. "0 TQTo!^aaa<; xaTa xpo-
cro)xov xavTwv TIOV Xawv :
32. 4>ax; ecq dxoxaXu^tv lOvwv,
xal Bo^av Xaou cou
33. Kal TJV 6 xaTT]p auTou xal TQ
QTY]p Gau^d^ovTeq exl TO!<; XaXou-
epl
34. Kal euXoy^aev auTouq
Suji.ed)v, xal elxev xpb<; Mapia^i TTJV
^,Y]Tepa auTou, I8ou OUTO<;
ecq xTwatv xal avaaraatv
ev TO) IapaY]X, xal e!q
35. Kal aou auTYjc; TTJV
SteXsuaeTat pojxcpata, oxw<; av
axoxaXu90(I)aiv ex xoXXwv xapBtwv
36. Kal Y]V "Avva
, ex
jxeTa dvBpbq ITT] SXTOC dxb
xapGevefaq auTYiq.
LUKE II. 21 39
2 33
37. And she had been a 37. Kal aim] ^pa lax; ITWV
widow for about four-score and dySo^x-ovta Teaadpaw, r, oux. d<p(-
four years, who departed not a-rccTo TOU tepoO, vrjcnsfacc; xat
from the temple, worshipping Seifceatv Xa-rpeuouaa vux-ra xac
with fastings and supplications
night and day.
38. And coming up at that 38. Kai a urn rf\ to pa
very hour, she gave thanks like- avGu^oXoyetTo TU sqj xal IXdXet
wise unto God, and spoke of xepc a!koO xaatv iol<; xpojSe/ojJul-
him to all them that looked for votqXuTpwatv lepouaaX 1 ^.
the redemption of Jerusalem.
39. And when they had 39. Kal uX eTeXejav xdvia ta
performed all things according x^a TOV VO;JLOV Kuptou exiatpe^av
to the law of the Lord, they dc, TYJV TaXtXacav, etc; xoXiv eauTwv
returned into Galilee, to their Na^apeT.
own city Nazareth.
In Matt. I. 15, we explained the name and the naming of
Jesus. As a male child born of a Jewish mother, he naturally
came under the universal Mosaic law of circumcision. Christ
came not to subvert any law. He wished not to abrogate
violently the existing institutions, but to perfect them, and
in an orderly manner merge them into the perfect Law. The
circumcision of Christ is one more evidence that the Saviour
lowered himself to man s condition, and shirked nothing that
man was asked to do. It was not yet time to abrogate the
circumcision of the body in favor of the circumcision of the
heart ; so that for this, and for the other statutes of the Old Law
we find the Saviour to manifest the greatest reverence.
In the original Greek text of the twenty-second verse we
find that the term "purification, is referred to a plural pro
noun. This plural Greek term must comprise more than the
Virgin Mary. Some hold that St. Joseph is therein included, as
having a joint obligation in the purification, as the reputed
father of the Lord. This we can not admit. The Mosaic Law
under which they were acting, contemplated not the Father.
The best opinion is that the plural Greek term refers to the
mother and child, being used in designating a period after
which both were to present themselves in the temple ; she for
234 LUKE II. 21 39
purification, he for consecration to the Lord. The law regard
ing the purification of a child-bearing woman is contained in
Lev. XII. 2-8:
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman
have conceived seed, and borne a man child, then she shall be
unclean seven days ; as in the days of the separation for her
sickness shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the
flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then
continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days ;
she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary,
until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a
maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her
separation : and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying
threescore and six days. And when the days of her purifying
are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb
of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, pr a
turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of
the congregation, unto the priest : and he shall offer it before
the Lord, and make atonement for her; and she shall be
cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her
that hath borne a male or a female. And if she be not able to
bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtledoves, or two young
pigeons, the one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin
offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and
she shall be clean.
By adding the seven days of the first separation and the
thirty-three days of the second separation, we obtain the forty
days mentioned by Luke. This was the period for a woman
who had borne a male child ; for a female child the period was
eighty days. Some have believed the Blessed Virgin Mary to
have been exempt from this law, which only speaks of the
woman who "having received seed" shall bear a child. We
believe that these look at the wording of the law in a wrong
light. It was evidently intended to comprise the universality
of child-bearing women, although worded to accommodate
itself to what takes place in the order of nature. The object
of the law was the bearing of children ; the aforesaid clause is
only accidental. The real cause that would exempt Mary was
the fact that she incurred no taint of child-birth in a virginal
LUKE II. 2139 235
conception, and therefore needed no purification. But this was
unknown, and so she in reverence submitted herself to a rite
which had been ordained by God. In this visit to the temple
Mary fulfilled two obligations; first, that of her purification,
and, second, that of consecrating her first-born to the Lord.
The law of the offering of the firstborn is contained in various
places in the Old Testament, especially in Exodus XIII. 2:
" Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatever openeth
the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast :
it is mine.
The effect of this decree was that the firstborn of Israel s
sons would have constituted the priesthood, but by a subse
quent decree, Num. VIII. 16, Yahveh received the tribe of Levi
in place of the firstborn, leaving for such only the obligation
of being offered in the temple. The phrase, "opening the
womb, applied to the firstborn, contemplates such foetus
as opening a way for subsequent births in going forth from
the womb. Neither is it apposite to deny that this law could
apply to Christ who came forth without lesion of the virgin s
womb. No law can comprehend miracles, and the object of
the law was not the mode of birth, but the birth itself; hence,
as a firstborn, Christ was subject to the law.
The ordinary offering for a woman after childbirth,
according to the law of Moses, Lev. XII. 6, was a young pigeon
or a turtledove as a sin-offering, and. a male yearling lamb as
a holocaust. An exception was made in the law in favor of the
poor. It was this provision in favor of the poor, that Mary
availed herself of. She who bore the sacred relation of mother
to the sovereign Lord of all things could not afford one little
lamb for a holocaust for her divine Son. He through whom
were created all the lambs of Judasa, yea all the creatures of
earth and Heaven, was born in condition so poor that an
offering of one lamb could not be made at the purification of
his Virgin Mother.
A great example is given to all men in the poverty which
Jesus voluntarily embraced. What he did is the law of per
fection, and those follow closest in his steps who practice a like
spirit of renunciation. Poverty which is the result of lack of
thrift, vagrancy, or extravagance, is no virtue; but the spirit
236 LUKE II. 21 39
of detachment from the goods of this world is the law of
perfection.
Some believe Simeon to have been the son of Hillel and
father of Gamaliel, but such opinions are merely conjectures,
and of no scientific value. Certain that he was a man known
to the people to be of holy life. The Messiah is here called the
consolation of Israel, conformably to the prophetic declarations
that he is come to comfort them that mourn. The great
sanctity of Simeon s life is adduced as the cause why God
vouchsafed to him the great favor that he should behold the
Lord ere he died.
Simeon was led by an impulse of the Holy Ghost working
within him to come into the temple. The narrative clearly
expresses a design of God put into effect towards this just man,
who had grown old longing for the coming of the Redeemer.
It was by the light of the same Holy Spirit that this holy old
man recognized the Messiah in this suckling babe. In Simeon
is given a great example of the favors that God is disposed to
grant to those who are faithful, just, and pious. Simeon speaks
in his canticle as though he had been waiting in this life only
for that vision. It is given; his life s work is over; the
promise of the Lord is maintained. In the sweetness of the
embrace of the Messiah, earth lost its interest ; the divine child
brought so much of the influence of Heaven with him that
the old man longs to be dissolved and to put on immortality.
A strong conviction of immortality must have animated one
who thus reposefully closes his eyes to earth, and asks to be
transferred to eternity.
The testimony of the thirtieth verse should have moved
the Jews to believe. The old man s life was known to them.
They knew that the Spirit of God moved such a one, and he
gives a clear emphatic declaration that the long expected
Messiah was in his arms. Verily the Lord spared not motives
of credibility to faithless Israel. In the thirtieth and thirty-
first verses the universality of salvation is proclaimed.
The relation which the Messiah was to bear to the Gentiles
was that of redemption and enlightenment. They were with
out the knowledge of the true God, and it was a most decisive
point in their history when the Christ sent the light of his
LUKE II. 21 39 237
Gospel into the darkness of paganism. Israel was not ignor
ant of the true God; and the Messiah going forth from their
race was their glory. True, it is a glory that they scorned and
rejected, but still in absolute truth he was their glory, and
Simeon speaks of what the Redeemer in se was to them. Paul
frequently endeavors to arouse the children of Israel to a just
appreciation of their true glory as the race whence came Christ
according to the flesh.
Our translation of the thirty -third verse is based on the
authority of codices N, B, D, and L. Such reading is also
endorsed by Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril, and it is found
in many versions. The King James version renders the verse :
" And Joseph and his mother marvelled " etc. For such trans
lation protestants have the authority of the uncial codices A,
F, G, H, K, M, S, U,V, T, A, A, H, and also of the Gothic, and
Syriac versions and of several manuscripts of the Vetus Itala.
It is quite evident that this reading originated out of an
idea that Joseph could not rightly be called the father of the
Christ. As these codices largely belong to the same family of
codices, their authority can not be made equal to the great
codices which bear the reading which we have adopted. The
appellation of father here given to St. Joseph does not import
paternity, but only that the Christ was legimately born in the
wedlock of Joseph and Mary.
Mary and Joseph both knew that the Babe was the Son of
God, the promised Redeemer, but the greatness of the truth in
all its extent was too great for their comprehension. Hence
they could do no less than wonder at the prophetic utterances
of Simeon concerning the future of the child .
The address of Simeon s discourse to Mary shows the
greater part that she took and was to take in the redemption of
the world. The words of Simeon plainly declare the repro
bation of the Jews through their rejection of Christ. That
Christ should result in the ruin of many in Israel is clearly
foretold in Isaiah VIII. 14, 15: "And he shall be a sancti-
fication. But for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence
to the two houses of Israel, and for a snare and a ruin to the
238 LUKE II. 21 -39
inhabitants of Jerusalem. And very many of them shall
stumble, and fall, and be broken in pieces, and shall be snared,
and taken.
When it is said that the child would be set for the fall of
many in Israel, there is not signified that the decree of Heaven
was to produce such effect, but simply the inevitable effect was
prophesied which was to result from the voluntary opposition
of the Jews to the Messiah. He came to save, his influence
in se was salvific, but the abuse of this proffered salvation re
sulted in the greater condemnation of the many in Israel who
rejected him. Both the dark and the bright side of the
Saviour s mission are given. The Redemption was not devoid
of all fruit in Israel. The "rising up," avda-raais, here spoken
of, is the positive effect of the Redeemer s influence which was
not thwarted in its operation by Israel s malice. It was salva
tion, the new life, to effect which the influence of the Saviour
always tended. Simeon simply predicts the two contrary
effects which will result from the same cause, inasmuch as it is
modified by the acts of the second agent. As the beneficent
light of the sun brings life and vigor to the healthy plant, while
it burns and destroys the plant which has a canker in the root,
so the influence of the Messiah, who came that men might have
life, was perverted to become an agency of greater reprobation
to those w r ho rejected him. In designating the Saviour as a
sign which shall be contradicted, the language is figurative.
He is called a sign, marking him as a conspicuous exponent of
principles, attracting to his standard those who follow him, and
being made the point of attack of those who oppose him. It
makes him a center, around which assemble the hosts of his
followers, and against which are massed the hordes of his
adversaries. Finally, it finds an apt application in the ages of
Christianity through which the name of Christ was the symbol
that divided the civilized world into two great divisions, of
those who were with him and those who were against him.
The prophesied contradiction to Christ is by no means to be
limited to the Jews. It comprehends the whole series, starting
with his public life and only to culminate when the number of
the elect shall be filled.
LUKE II. 2139 2 39
The wording of Simeon s prophecy to Mary in the thirty-
fifth verse excludes its fulfilment in corporal affliction. It evi
dently applies to an intense degree of mental anguish. The
original term Sie\eva-eTai, [to penetrate through] imports a great
intensity of suffering. The verification of this prophecy should
not be sought in one specific event in Mary s life. It extended
over her whole life. So intimately were those lives linked to
gether that every physical suffering of Jesus became Mary s
greater mental suffering. The essence of suffering is in the
mind, and it can be safely said that no mere mortal ever suf
fered as did Mary. To understand her suffering, we must
needs know her love. In her, the purest natural love that hu
man breasts can feel was multiplied a myriad fold by the fact
that her son was the Eternal God, and this she knew. The
human mind can not comprehend the sympathy that existed
between these two lives in the events of the life and passion of
Our Lord . The culmination of her grief was his death on the
cross and the desolation that succeeded. Mary s love partic
ipated of infinity and eternity, and made her who had come
closest to Jesus in his love, come closest to him in participation
of his sufferngs.
The clause, "that out of many hearts thoughts may be
revealed " does not mark the purpose of the piercing of Mary s
soul. It is to be connected with all that goes before in Simeon s
prophecy, and denotes the purpose of the scheme of Redemp
tion. Christ came to prove the hearts of men. That which
had characterized the ages preceding him was an ignorance of
God and of the way that leads to life. This ignorance was on
ly partially relieved by the Yahvistic law. In such a state the
goodness and the evil of men s hearts were in a state of poten
tiality. By the comprehension of the human will God knew
the heart disposed to evil and the heart disposed to good, but
in the light of the Gospel men were tried, and thus it was made
known who were of a good heart and who of evil. The light of
the Gospel manifested the secret malice of men s hearts. The
hypocrisy of the Pharisees was laid bare, the true worshipers
of God were recognized; in a word, Christ presenting to man
the perfect law applied a crucial test to discern the elect from
240 MATT. II. i 12
the reprobate. The light of the Gospel shone upon the very
souls of men and made evident both the pure metal and the
dross.
The designation of the father and the tribe of Anna is
given to distinguish the woman from any other. As she was a
witness by the Holy Ghost of the Saviour, it was necessary that
her personality should be fully and precisely determined.
The enumeration of her merits is given to show why men should
believe what such a one would say. The short space of her
married life is set down to show the continency of the woman,
who, though widowed at such a youthful age, remained a widow
to her extreme old age. Some have held that there is only here
predicated of Anna a great assiduity in frequenting the temple,
but not a permanent habitation therein. The opinion is more
probable which sustains that Anna had entered the ranks of the
women of whom mention is made in Ex. XXXVIII. 8 ; I. Sam.
II. 22; and that she had consecrated her whole life to the
service of God in the temple. The coming up of Anna at this
special moment was the effect of the impulse of the Holy Spirit.
What she said, though not recorded, was certainly a testimony
of the Messianic character of the child.
MATTHEW II. 1-12.
i. Now when Jesus was i. Toii Be Lqaou yevvrj
born in Bethlehem of Juda, in Iv BTjOXes^ Tfjq louBafa
the days of Herod the king, rj^epcat; HpwSou TOU
behold, there came wise men (Sou jjiayoc azb dvaToXwv Tu
from the East to Jerusalem, OVTO ef<;
2. Saying: Where is he 2. Aeyovce*; , xou SGTIV 6 Te^0sl<;
that is born king of the Jews? ^aaiXeuq TWV louBafwv; e c Soyiev
For we have seen his star in the yap auToG TOV daTepa ev Tf] dvaToXT)
East, and are come to worship /.at T]X6o^ev Trpoaxuvrjaat auTG>.
him.
3. And Herod the king hav- 3. Ax.ou<ra<; SI 6 g>ajtXeu<;
ing heard this was troubled, and HptoBf]? eTapaxOf] xal xaaa lepo-
all Jerusalem with him. aoXupia y-e-r auTOu.
4. And having assembled 4. Kal auvaYaywv xavTaq TO us
together all the chief priests and apy^tepslq xat ypa^aTsIq TOU Xaou
MATT. II. i 12
241
the scribes of the people, he
inquired of them where the
Christ should be born.
5. And they said unto him:
In Bethlehem, of Juda, for
thus it is written by the
prophet:
6. And thou Bethlehem,
land of Judah, art not the least
among the princes of Judah:
for out of thee shall come a
leader that shall rule my people
Israel.
7. Then Herod having pri
vately called the wise men,
inquired diligently of them the
time of the appearance of the
star.
8. And sending them into
Bethlehem, he said: Go and
search diligently for the child,
and when ye have found him,
bring me word again, that I also
may come and worship him.
9. And they, having heard
the king, went their way; and
behold, the star which they had
seen in the East went before
them, until it came and stood
over where the child was.
10. And seeing the star, they
rejoiced with exceeding great
joy.
11. And when they were
come into the house, they saw
the child with Mary his mother,
and falling down, they wor
shiped him: and opening their
treasures they presented unto
him gifts, gold, frankincense and
myrrh.
IxuvOdveTO zap auwv, xou 6
q yevvaTat.
5. 01 oe elxav a<JT<I>, ev Bt)0-
l^ TY]<; louoafaq, OUTGX; yap
yeypaxTac 8ia TOU xpocpYJTOu:
6. Kal au, BfjOXee^ yf) Iou3a,
ouSa^wq IXayjcmj e! ev TOC<; fiye^oatv
louBa, ex crou yap e^eXeu
o<; OCTK; xot^avel TOV
TOV
7. TOTS Hpa>ET]<; XaOpa xaXI-
aa<; -coijc; ixdyouq Tjy,pf6wcev xap
TOV xpovov ToQ (patvo^evou
8. Kal xe^6a? auiou^ e!?
B^OXee^ elxev, xopeuOevueq I^T-
aa^e dx.pi6cl)? xept TOU xaiBfou, ixav
ol eupfjTS, dxayyeiXaTe jxot oxax;
xdyo) IXOiov xpoaxuvi]a(i) auTW.
9. O! Bs d/.ouaavTe<; TOU faai-
Xew<; ixopeu6T)aav, xal tBou 6 da^p
ov elBovl ev^ T n f dvaioX-n xpof^ev
auTOuq eox; 4X6 wv laTdO-r) exdvto o5
fV TO xatBEov.
10.
Be TOV dtrtepa kyb.-
ii. Kal IX66vTe<; eiq TTJV otxfav
e!Sov TO xatoiov ^eTa Maptaq T^<;
jxT)Tpb<; auToO, y.al xeaovTe? xpoae-
xuvrjaav auTW, xal dvoi^avTe? TOU<;
Bwpa, ypuaov xal XE6avov xal a^xup-
vav.
(15) Gosp. I.
242 MATT. II. i 12
12. And being warned by 12. Kal ^pr^cmaOevTe*; xa-r
God in a dream that they should ovap ^Y] avaxa^ai xpbq HpeoT)v,
not return to Herod, they went 8t aXXy]? 600 u ave^wpYjaav et<; rr]v
back by another way into their ycopav GCUTXOV.
own country.
The name Magi seems to have originated among the
peoples beyond the Tigris. The older writers made Zoroaster
their founder ; but as nothing certain is known of Zoroaster, we
shall not spend any time in weighing these different opinions.
Among the Persians the Magi were men versed in philosophy,
the occult sciences, and especially in astrology. The wise men
also and philosophers of the Arabs were called Magi. In
determining the country whence the Magi came to adore Christ,
opinions widely differ. Some of the older writers conjectured
that they were from Arabia, founding their opinion on their
gifts which were most likely the products of their own country.
Now Arabia was famous for its incense and myrrh. Arabia
was especially famous even with the Romans for its incense.
The greater weight of authority, however, assigns Persia as the
home of the Magi. That such men existed among the Persians,
can not be doubted ; the very name is Persian in origin. In the
early representations in Christian art, the headdress of the
Magi is Persian. The nature of the gifts causes no difficulty.
These were the products of Persia as well as Arabia. They
were the things held most precious in those days, and hence
could have been offered as a gift, even though Persia obtained
them from other countries by commerce. Strabo testifies that
many assert that the best incense is found in Persia. [Strabo.
L. XVI. 782.] When Matthew designates them as coming from
the East, he specifies no particular place. Such term signified
all the vast portion of the earth towards the rising sun. It will
always remain uncertain whence they came, but, Persia seems
the most probable place. It is a mere creation of art to repre
sent one of them as black. They may have all been black or all
white, but as they most probably were of the same country, a
difference in color seems scarcely admissible.
The number three seems the traditional number of the
Magi. The basis, however, of the tradition seems to be very
weak. It is not found in the works of any writer who goes back
MATT. II. 112 243
near enough to their epoch to merit any credence. In fact, in
such a detail the Fathers are of no worth. It seems quite cer
tain that in the turbulent times that succeeded that event, the
detail of the number of the Magi was lost sight of, and we have
only the conjectures of men who can know no more of it than
we do. In certain representations of the adoration of the Magi
we find two, in others four, and even six. The older Syrians
placed the number of the Magi to be twelve . The number three
seems to have originated in the threefold number of the gifts
that they offered. It was commonly believed that one brought
gold, another incense, and the third myrrh. This also is with
out warrant. It seems more probable that all, whatever their
number, brought some of all these precious gifts. We are dis
posed to believe that they were in number more than three.
Men in those days, setting out on such a journey, usually col
lected themselves into caravans of several persons. We are
not aware who first designated the Magi by proper names.
Traces of these names are found in the ninth century ; and after
the twelfth, they are quite common. Caspar, Balthasar, and
Melchior are the names given them. It can not be doubted
that these names are the pure invention of some one. A more
important question now presents itself, to determine whether
or not the Magi were kings. The vulgar opinion of our day
invests them with the regal dignity. Our children are taught
by word and by rude representations that they were kings,
and yet this opinion is devoid of any foundation, and is rightly
rejected by Patrizi, Knabenbauer and others. In the first
place, the people of the East of that day invested a king with
a sort of sanctity. Now had the travellers from the East been
kings, Matthew would certainly have told us so. It was his
design to show the Jews the honor that was paid the Messiah
by the distinguished men of other lands. He would not, there
fore, have omitted to mention the regal dignity of these, were
they in that grade. He calls them Magi, and only Magi, and
this alone excludes the character of kings. Nay more, as they
most probably came from the same country, they could not
have all been kings. An objection is made that the fulfilment of
the prophecy which the Church appropriates to the Epiphany
would not be verified , were the Magi not kings. This prophecy
244 LUKE II. 40 52
is taken from the LXXII. Ps. (Vulg. LXXI.) and reads thus:
"The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents*
the kings of Sheba-and Seba shall offer gifts. "
Upon examination, this very text becomes an argument
against the kingly character of the Magi. In the first place,
had this visit fulfilled that prophecy, Matthew would have told
us so. He never omits an occasion to point to events in the
life of the Messiah which fulfilled prophecy, and he would not
have left this important event go unnoticed. The words of
that psalm relate primarily to Solomon; to the extension of
his kingdom, so that the kings of Arabia and the far East paid
him tribute. Of course, Solomon was a type of Christ, and the
words mean in a typical sense the universal spread of the king
dom of the Christ, but the adoration of the Magi as a specific
event is not contemplated in them in either their literal or
typical sense. It is only, then, by a species of accomodation
that the Church applies this text to the Epiphany. In the early
representations of the Magi in the catacombs and basilicas they
always appear with the Persian headdress, never with the
insignia of royalty. Hence we conclude that it is erroneous to
give the character of kings to the Magi.
A discrepancy exists between the Greek and the Latin of
the Vulgate in this first verse. The Greek codices quite
generally have rrjf lovSaia?, corresponding to Latin Judaea
which was corrected by Jerome to Juda. He declares that
the loi/Sata is an error of the coypists, and that he believed
that the Evangelist wrote lovSa. The difference between
Judah and Judaea is this : Judah designated the posterity of
Judah, one of the sons of Jacob, and also their tribal territory.
Judaea was a word of later formation . It seems to have signi
fied a territorial division which succeeded to the overthrow of
the ancient landmarks of the tribes of Israel and Judah in their
respective captivities. In the captivity it designated the land of
the Jews, and was applied to the country which was reclaimed
by the Jews after the restoration under Cyrus. This in
cluded the tribal territories of Judah, Benjamin, Dan and
Simeon. Later however the term extended its signification
often to the whole of Palestine, and frequently in the Gospels
all Palestine is thus designated. Notwithstanding this general
MATT. II. i 12 245
signification, the term had a specific import designating the
province of Palestine south of Samaria extending from the Jor
dan to the sea. Now we are inclined to think with St. Jerome
that Matthew wrote in his original nTIJT which either the
Greek translator or the first copyists translated by Judaea. At
all events, the specific territorial division of the tribe of Judah
is thereby signified. Christ was to come of Judah, in conform
ity with the prophecy of Jacob, and Matthew s intention is to
show that Bethlehem was of that tribe. Inasmuch as Bethle
hem was an obscure village, and there was another Bethlehem
in Galilee, it was necessary to designate the Bethlehem of the
Nativity by adding the tribal territory in which it was located.
We see in every fact and detail of the Incarnation the voluntary
self-abasement of the Son of God. He is conceived in the womb
of one of the poorest maidens in poor despised Nazareth;
he is born in the obscure village of Bethlehem, the least of the
villages of the tribe of Judah ; and in his birth he is deprived of
even the shelter of the wretched hamlets of that mean village.
He, by whom the silver and the gold were created, is denied the
shelter of the hovel of Bethlehem ; he who holds the universe in
the hollow of his hand, must seek shelter in a stable, and lie on
the straw.
We next turn our attention to the wondrous star that
made known to the Magi the new-born king of the Jews. It is
useless to wade through the maze of opinions that have been
advanced on the nature of .this star. The data of the Gospel
are few and simple. Upon these we must build our opinion,
and in this we are aided little by the conjectures of others. In
the first place, we cannot admit that this star was one of the
heavenly bodies that by any certain conjunction appeared in
the heavens at that time. We wish by this declaration to
exclude meteors, fixed stars, and planets. This we hold certain
from the words of the Evangelist. In the ninth verse we read :
" and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went
before them, till it came and stood over where the child was. "
Now is it impossible that any heavenly body having its orbit or
place in the ccelum stellatum should act in a manner to justify
these words. That the star might be said to precede them, it
246 MATT. II. i 12
must have been close enough to the earth that by its course it
could guide them onward. Again, its motion must have been
a real moving southward from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and it
must have been so close to the earth that the body could be
discerned as really moving from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.
These things are impossible in the ordinary heavenly bodies.
The nearest of the heavenly bodies to this earth is her satellite
the moon. Now it would be impossible, to guide a man from
Jerusalem to Bethlehem by the sensible movement of the moon
without taking it out of its orbit. But one will say: "Could not
he who created the heavenly bodies command them at will? "
Assuredly; but in that case they would cease to be ordinary
heavenly bodies; and, as miracles are not to be multiplied
without necessity, we believe that there was a wiser way than
to command one of the stars of heaven to leave its fixed place
to guide men to the Redeemer at Bethlehem. That which final
ly and conclusively excludes the theory that the star of Bethle
hem, was one of the ordinary heavenly bodies is the declaration
of Matthew, that it stood over where the chlid was. Therefore
it must have been so close to the earth that in stopping it
distinguished the particular habitation of the Holy Family.
Now let us look at this matter in a practical way. Let us
represent to ourselves that w r e are seeking a certain habitation
in some small village, and that God should deign to show us
thither by a star. We can readily see how close that star must
be to the object of our search. A star must be close to the
earth to point a village; closer still, to distinguish a certain
dwelling in that village. Resting on these sure foundations,
we believe that the Star of Bethlehem was a created light of
great brightness, called into being by the omnipotence of God
for this express purpose ; that the whole visit of the Magi was
directly ordered by God; and that this light obeyed the bid
ding of its Creator in moving at such a distance from the earth
that it was a sure guide to the Wise Men of the East to find
the child at Bethlehem. A strange question now arises con
cerning this star. W r as it visible by day as well as by night?
Was the journey to Bethlehem undertaken by day or by night?
To this we can give no positive answer. We conjecture how
ever that it was only visible by night, since the appearence of
MATT. II. i 12 247
so strange a phenomenon by day would have aroused a com
motion among the people that Matthew would have mentioned.
Bethlehem is about six English miles south of Jerusalem.
We believe that the Magi set out at early eventide from Jerusa
lem ; that as they neared Bethlehem, the darkness fell, and the
stars came out, and the star of the Messiah appeared close to
the earth, moving towards the village, where it stood close over
the low roof of the temporary home of Jesus, Mary, and
Joseph.
We next take up to consider the place where the Magi first
saw the star. The phrase "in the East" has been referred by
some to the " we have seen, " as though it marked the place in
the heavens where the star first appeared to them. This we
dismiss at once as improbable. It would be absurd to suppose
that a luminary that betokened an event that happened in
Judaea, which to them was the western world, should appear in
the eastern hemisphere of the sky. Naturally the star would
appear over that portion of the earth towards which they were
moved to journey. We believe then the phrase " in the East "
establishes the location of the subjects who saw, and we believe
that it designates the place where the Magi were when they
saw the star. We think it probable that the star appeared first
high in the heavens, shining with great brilliancy in the direc
tion of Judaea. The Magi were thus moved to journey to Jerusa
lem, the great center of the Jews. The situation in the heavens
of the star in its first appearance was different from that which
it assumed when leading them to the house at Bethlehem. It
must first have appeared high in the heavens; otherwise it
would have been invisible to the distant Magi. As its sole
function was to guide them to the Messiah, its course was di
rected accordingly. As to the time of its appearance, every
thing points to the very night of the birth. On that night the
Omnipotent Father announced the temporal birth of his Son to
the shepherds, representatives of the Jews, by angels ; to the
Magi, representatives of the Gentiles, he sent a star, symbol
ical of that light which should spread abroad by the Gospel to
the people who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death.
A question of considerable importance now arises to deter
mine how from the appearance of the star the Magi arrived
248 MATT. II. i 12
at the conclusion that it indicated the birth of a king of the
Jews. Very difficult it is to give response to this question.
To answer it, some have recourse to the prophecy of Balaam,
Num. XXIV. 17: " there shall come a Star out of Israel,
and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the chil
dren of Sheth. They believe that this prophecy was known
in the East, and that, at the appearance of the star, the learned
Magi rightly judged that a king had been born in Jacob. In
extrinsic authority this opinion is strong. It is defended by Ori-
gen, Ambrose, Jerome, Rhabanus Maurus, Paschasius, Bede,
Euthemius, Theophylactus, Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas,
Tostatus, Dionysius the Carthusian, Maldonatus, Jansenius
of Ghent, Cornelius a Lapide, Lamy, etc. Its improbability
is evidenced by many things. In the first place, it demands a
greater knowledge of the sacred books of the Jews than the
pagans of that remote day could well have of them. Again,
the prophecy in no way related to the material star of Bethle
hem. It referred to Christ, and would have been equally ful
filled had no material star appeared. Moreover, the certainty
manifested in the words of the Magi is greater than could have
resulted from the data of the prophecy. Finally, if their
knowledge was based upon of the prophecy, why is not some
mention made of it either by, themselves or by St. Matthew?
A second opinion, advanced by Knabenbauer, is that from
the captive Jews, the prophecies of Daniel, the Greek version of
the Scriptures, and the Sibylline oracles, the knowledge of the
expected Messiah had been made known in the East. This
opinion has less than the other in its support. In the first
place, granting such a knowledge to the Magi, how should they
know that the star appearing in the heavens made known his
birth ? Nowhere in the Holy Books did God promise that such
should be the portent of the birth of Immanuel. A greater
knowledge of the Holy Books was spread through Judaea and
Egypt, and in other lands where the Jews were dispersed, and
\vhy was not some other ones guided to Jerusalem by the
heavenly phenomenon? Much more reasonable is the opinion
of St. Augustine, St. Leo and St. Chrysostom. As they are
all equally explicit let us hear Augustine, Serm. CCCLXXIV. :
"Why did they come? Because they saw a mysterious star.
MATT. II. i n 249
And how did they know it to be the star of Christ? They
could see the star; but could it speak and say to them: I am
the star of Christ ? Without doubt, therefore, not thus, but by
some revelation it was made known to them. . . They
saw a marvelous star. They wondered. They inquired, with
out doubt, of what significance was the new and wondrous
sign, and they learned by means of angels, or by some revela
tion of God.
The very fact that they were Magi, men given to the study
of the stars, seems to point that they received their knowledge
of the new-born king from astrology. Now we know that
astrology in itself, as determining the destinies of men and
events of history, is vain and worthless. Therefore, if such
science points out any event, it must be by the co-operation of
an intellectual agent working through it. So it was with the
Sibyls and oracles. The demons manifested things that came
within the limits of their knowledge through these agencies.
We believe firmly then that some intellectual cause working
through astrology revealed to the Magi the birth at Bethlehem.
But who was this cause? Was it the demons thus permitted
by God to give testimony of the King of the Jews, as they
afterwards did of his Divinity, when they were driven out of the
energumens? There would be nothing absurd in this opinion.
Without approving the superstition of astrology, God could
allow the demons to make known things, which in his provi
dence he wished men to know. The Witch of Endor by magic
art raised the spirit of Samuel at the request of Saul. This
could not have been without the permission of God. St Augus
tine seemed to think that God s angels interiorly taught the
Magi the signification of the new star. Even in this view God
would, in a certain sense, have made use of astrology to con
duct the Magi to Christ. In a word, we may safely say that
God in some way brought it about that astrology made known
to the Magi of the East the birth of the King of the Jews.
Another question which arises out of the narration is
whether or not the star was visible to the Magi in their journey
towards Jerusalem. Maldonatus affirms that the star served
as a guide to the Magi in their journey westward. This seems
to us very improbable. The Magi, being come to Jeru-
250
MATT. II. i 12
salem, declare that they had seen the star of the new-born king
in the East, and had come to adore him. These words become
meaningless, if the star was in constant view in the journey to
Jerusalem. Again, Matthew speaks of the star going before
them, as they neared Bethlehem. This would not be well said,
had it gone before them in the whole journey. Finally, the
ninth verse apodictically precludes the vision of the star in the
journey to Jerusalem. This verse clearly states that the star
which they had seen in the East, and which had been lost to
view in their journey to Jerusalem, now broke on their vision to
guide them to the habitation of the Christ. This is confirmed
in the tenth verse, where it is stated that: "Seeing the star,
they rejoiced with a great joy. " That is, the reappearance of
the star, which, long before appearing in the East, had moved
them on their journey, now caused them joy as betokening that
the object of their search was near at hand. Such seems also
conformable to the wise designs of God. A star of great bright
ness had appeared over Judaea. By the aid of their science they
learned that there had been born a king to the Jews. They
set out for Jerusalem the center, thinking that once there they
will find him whose birth the star augured. There was no need
of the continual appearance of the star. Sufficient data had
been given to guide them to Jerusalem, and it was in the design
of Providence that they should go to Jerusalem. The Messiah
was to be of the Jews, and therefore in the chief city of the Jews
men should seek him. Again, in the visit of the Magi a great
proof was given to Judah that the Messiah had come. God
sent into the very center of their social and religious life a testi
mony that the humble Babe of Bethlehem received the homage
of the learned and mighty from distant lands.
We see in this visit of the Magi first to Jerusalem how the
natural ways of men accomplish the designs of God. It was
natural that the Magi should seek the king of the Jews in the
city of Jerusalem, the center of Jewish life, and by this was
accomplished the decree of Heaven, for the causes above men
tioned. When, at length, they set out for Bethlehem, it was
necessary that the star should appear again to distinguish the
particular habitation of the Christ, and this was done.
MATT. II. i 12 251
Herod the Great was an Idumean, who had obtained the
kingdom by intrigue and bribery, and who held it from the
Romans by largesses of gold. He trembled at the announce
ment that a king had been born of the Jews. Interpreting the
kingdom of the Messiah in that carnal sense, common to the
Jews of his time, he feared that this king would wrest from him
the scepter of his tyrannical power. He understood perfectly
that this king was the Messiah, as his action in assembling the
priests and scribes manifested that he doubted not that it was
the Messiah whose star the Magi had seen. He did not under
stand rightly the Messiah s mission, but this he must have
known, that he was of God. But crime had crushed out of his
heart all reverence of God. Perhaps even the belief in the
Almighty had died out of that criminal heart. At all events,
his thoughts at the news are both disturbing and bloody. He
looked on the new-born king only as a rival, who might thrust
him from his regal seat, and murder entered into his plans. In
asserting that all Jerusalem was troubled with Herod, Matthew
implies a participation in his alarm. There is no evidence of
any popular joy that the Christ is born. Religious decadence
had proceeded so far with the Jews that the real supernatural
nature of the Messiah was lost sight of. They looked only at
the political significance of the event. Some doubtless hailed
the advent of Israel s king with satisfaction, thinking that
soon Israel would be restored to her pristine splendor, as in the
days of Solomon; others, perhaps, took part with Herod in his
opposition. Nothing betokens the sentiments of heart that the
Messiah should have awakened in the hearts of his people.
Already we see evidences that "he came unto his own, and his
own received him not."
It is not easy to determine just what Matthew means by
the "chief priests" ap^epeZ?. Patrizi, De Evangeliis, Lib. III.
Diss. XIX., clearly establishes that among the Jews the high
priest was one, and held office for life unless deposed. Hence
the chief priests can not mean several high priests. It is true
that the polity of the Jews had drifted away from its old tra
ditions, and there was much disorder in the priesthood ; still as
the words of Matthew seem to imply a considerable number, it
can not be restricted to those who were properly called high
252 MATT. II. i 12
priests. Omitting many opinions that have been advanced on
the subject, we believe the most probable opinion to be, that
either they were the heads of the twenty-four families, into
which the priests of Aaron s line were divided in that day [Luke
I. 8], or they may have been an order or rank of the priests that
came into vogue in those later days, into which rank only those
held in especial esteem for age, wisdom, or social station, were
admitted. At all events, it signifies the chief ones among the
priests. The scribes Q"HSiD occupied among the Jews a posi
tion similar to that of the Notarii among the Romans. The
whole life of the Jewish people, social, civil, and religious, was
ordered according to the Mosaic Law. The scribes were the
lawyers of the people. Their function required an intimate
knowledge of the law ; hence they are here called in consulta
tion with the priests by Herod.
There is no hesitancy in the answer of the priests and
scribes. They well knew that the Christ was to be bom in
Bethlehem. The prophecy which they adduce is found in
Micah V. 2. The original Micah reads thus: "But thou,
Bethlehem Ephrathah, art little among the thousands of Ju-
dah : out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler
in Israel, and his going forth is from the beginning, from the
days of eternity. "
Many attempts have been made to explain the discrepancy
between Micah and Matthew. The prophet calls Bethlehem
" little, " while the Evangelist asserts the exact contrary. Some
have tried to give forced meaning to the terms. Others have
placed a mark of interrogation after the first member of the
sentence in Micah. Patrizi, following John Chrysostom and
Jerome, asserts that the priests and scribes erroneously quoted
the prophecy, and that the Evangelist simply relates their words
without approving their error. All these attempts seem vio
lent, and are unnecessary for the harmony of the two sacred
writers. We hold, therefore, that the prophecy was correctly
adduced by the priests and scribes, and that Matthew brings it
forward as one of the data for the Messianic character of the
Babe of Bethlehem. We shall first, therefore, endeavor to
glean the real meaning of the prophet, and then pass to consider
its sense in Matthew.
MATT. II. i 12 253
First, therefore, we hold that the sentence of the prophet is
not interrogative but declaratory in form, and though it seems
at variance with Matthew, it means the same. The prophet is
drawing an antithesis. He is heightening the glory of Bethle
hem by contrasting it with its humble rank. Micah s prophecy
is equivalent to the following: "Thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah
art reputed by men to be of low rank among the thousands of
Judah. But thou art not so, for out of thee shall come forth he
who shall be the ruler of Israel. Now it is probable that
Matthew did not attend to the exact words of the priests and
scribes. How could he have known their exact phraseology?
But, knowing that they brought the authority of Micah to
substantiate the birth of Christ in Bethlehem, he quoted the
prophecy freely, giving us its real import, though differing in
words. Micah wishes to extol Bethlehem in his prophecy. In
this design, he contrasts its political and numerical weakness
with the great glory that should accrue to it from the birth of
the Christ. The leading thought is that it was great, though
seeming humble. The first clause serves only to intensify this
leading thought. Matthew changes somewhat the wording of
this subordinate clause, so that the leading thought shall
become simple, more unified. We can illustrate this by an
example. If a man, meeting St. Francis, while he was yet on
earth, should have said: "Verily thou art the poorest of men,
and thou possessest an infinite treasure" ; and another should
say: "Verily thou art not poor: thou possessest an infinite
treasure, " both these men would have said the same thing in
different words. There is in both a contrast between the
seeming condition and the real condition. So it is with Micah
in the hands of Matthew. The Evangelist draws the conclu
sion from the implied premises, and lays special stress on
Bethlehem s real greatness which was hidden beneath its
mean and humble condition. The prophet, by asserting the
mean condition which Bethlehem had in the estimation of
men, as a preface to the declaration that it should be the
birthplace of Immanuel, really by contrast asserts its great
ness. Matthew in simpler phrase asserts the same. The
signification of the phrase, "little among the thousands of Ju
dah is that the little village was not of importance enough to
254 MATT. II. i 12
be considered one of Judah s cities, and have a chief, and sort of
corporate government. A thousand inhabitants was a round
number often used indefinitely. Here it signifies that number
of inhabitants requisite to form a village under its local chief.
The Greek text of Matthew has ev rot? rjye/jLoaiv. This may be
accounted for that the village assembling its inhabitants is
personified as a leader assembling his men.
In the original prophecy the divinity of the Messiah is
clearly declared: " his going forth is from the beginning,
from the days of eternity. " This clearly refers to the eternal
generation of the Word from the Father.
Herod now meditates the murder of the infant, and pro
ceeds with a murderer s stealthiness and secrecy. He wishes
to exterminate the Christ before he becomes known to the
people. The city of Jerusalem is aroused, and he wishes to
remove his supposed rival, before they can have time to realize
the wondrous event, or go over to the new-born king. His
reason for inquiring concerning the exact date of the apparition
of the star, was that he might thus ascertain how old the child
was at that present time. It is clear that he was then making
the plans of the terrible massacre that he afterwards wrought.
Herod is cautious to conceal his real design from the Magi.
He recognizes that they are seeking Christ to honor him, and
his own horrible plot must be cloaked under the same pretext.
The clause : " sending them into Bethlehem, " signifies more
than a mere command to go to that village. Taken in its
context, it signifies an actual journey to the village, undertaken
in conformity with Herod s mandate. Had they, after leaving
Herod, journeyed to another place, the Evangelist would have
told us such an important detail. We hold then for certain
that the Magi found the Christ in Bethlehem. Were it not so,
the whole narrative would become absurd, the prophecy would
lose its point, and Matthew s words would become misleading.
We say this here to preclude an opinion, with which we shall
deal later, which places the Epiphany at Nazareth.
Several questions arise out of the eleventh verse. In the
first place, the error of the opinion which places the adoration
of the Magi in the stable is clearly proven. Matthew clearly
says that they entered a human habitation, eXdovTes els T^V olxtav.
MATT. II. i 12 255
Though forced by the approaching night to seek shelter in a
stable on the night of the Nativity of Christ, it is absurd to
suppose that the Holy Family remained there for any con
siderable length of time afterwards. However humble it was,
at least they were sheltered in a human habitation at the date
of the adoration of the Magi.
It is not by accident that the name of Mary is mentioned
here. She was associated with her divine Son in this great
honor, as she has ever been in the adoration of the universal
Church. She participated in that honor, for the honor of the
son is reflected upon the mother.
A slight textual divergence exists here between the Greek
text and the Latin Vulgate. All the Greek codices have el8ov,
" they saw ; " where the Latin Vulgate has " invenerunt. " All
the old versions agree with the Greek, and we feel persuaded
that it is the true reading, but the meaning in both readings is
substantially the same. An opinion quite generally adopted
by the Fathers asserts that the Magi recognized the Divinity of
the Christ. This does not mean that they clearly understood
the hypostatic union and mission of Redemption, but they
certainly did recognize that the Babe of Bethlehem was not of
common worldly origin. This is evidenced by many things.
The miraculous star, together with the knowledge that they
had received from some supernatural source concerning its
signification betokened that it was not a common mortal that
was born. Again, they would not have set out from that
distant country to see a babe who was merely to be a ruler of a
people whose political importance was so slight. Moreover, no
marks or accompaniments of royalty surround the Babe. No
courtiers watch at his couch, no pages wait on him; they see
him in a poor mean habitation at Bethlehem, and yet they pay
him all the honors of a king. Finally, the knowledge they
received at Jerusalem, corroborated by the reappearance of the
star, taught them that the Babe was of divine origin. We can
go no further. It remains uncertain, and no search will make
us know, whether or not they recognized that he was the Son of
the Eternal God, sent in a hypostatic union to redeem man.
Were I to manifest my own opinion, I should hold that their
knowledge was vague as to the real nature and mission of the
256 MATT. II. i 12
Messiah. That they believed him to be a being of divine
origin, may not well be doubted, but we are not informed
whence they could have received the full knowledge of the
mystery of the Incarnation. Of course, God in some miracu
lous way could have taught them the nature and mission of
Christ ; but we know naught of this. While we fully recognize
that the Magi held the Child to be of divine origin, we do not
rest such belief on the adoration of him by the Magi. The Latin
translates by " adoraverunt " the TrpocreKv^aav from irpooicvveiv
the Greek equivalent of the J-pnn /"! f the Hebrew. This
term in Hebrew signifies the prostration of the body, which
Orientals offered to kings and superiors. Such reverence given
to mere men is recorded in many places of the Old Testament :
Gen. XXVII. 29 ; XXXIII. 3 ; VI. 7 ; XXXVII. 7 ; XLII. 6, etc.
Hence the term of itself does not import divine adoration.
However, as we already hold that the Magi believed the child
to be of divine origin, this act was, in fact, divine adoration.
We can say truthfully that they adored him because he was
recognized to be of divine origin; but the inference would be
wrong, that because they exhibited to him this prostration,
therefore he was recognized in his Divinity. Equally futile
seem the arguments sought from the nature of the gifts offered
by the Magi. Knabenbauer and others hold that the Magi
recognized the Divinity of Christ since they offered incense to
him, which was only offered to God. Many of the Fathers
see in the gift of gold the recognition of his regal character;
in the frankincense, a recognition of his Divinity; and in the
myrrh a recognition that he was mortal man, and must die.
It is one thing to believe a thing, and another to believe to find
in everything arguments to prove it. We believe that the Magi
recognized in some measure at least the Divinity of the Child,
but we can see no argument for such truth in the nature of the
different gifts brought by them. In the first place, if incense
were offered him as a religious ceremony, that is, burnt in his
honor, the act could be rightly called latria, but no such thing
was done. The Magi, following the custom of their times,
going to visit a king, brought with them presents of the things
which the men of those nations appreciated most; and they
MATT. II. i 12 257
gave them to the new-born king. Gold has always been prized
in the commerce of mankind ; the frankincense is a gum which
on burning yields aromatic fumes. The fine qualities of this
gum, known to the ancient Orientals, are unknown in modern
commerce. The chief uses of this gum were in religious ser
vices, but inasmuch as all Eastern nations thus honored their
divinities, it was very precious, and considered a fitting gift
for a king. Of myrrh we know less. It seems to have been
an aromatic gum resin used in making ointments for the body,
and for embalming. The finer kinds of it were very precious.
The etiquette of the times demanded that one visiting a king
should bring him presents, and these were the most precious
articles of commerce, and therefore selected as the Magi s gift
to Christ. As it was to be a regal gift, there must have been
a considerable quantity of these gifts, and their value must have
been considerable. The Gospel narrative is silent as to what
use was made of these presents. Everything seems to indicate
that they were accepted, by Christ. The frankincense and the
myrrh may have been sold, and their price, together with the
gold, may have supported the Holy Family in their flight to
Egypt and their sojourn there. At all events, we cannot
believe that this gift raised the Holy Family from a condition
of poverty, since the subsequent life of the Christ reveals that
his life was spent in that station of life in which he had volun
tarily been born.
Divine Providence intervened to frustrate the plans of
Herod. The Redeemer s hour was not yet come. How weak
are the designs of poor puny man who dares to machinate
against the Almighty God! How often man mistakes the
forbearance of God in not showing forth his power as an
evidence of man s own importance!
Herod was ready upon receipt of the intelligence of the
Magi, to proceed to Bethlehem, and take off the child. God,
either by an angel, or a direct communication from himself
through the medium of a dream, moved them to defeat the
project of Herod.
With this going back to their country the Magi pass out
of history. Concerning their subsequent history, neither the
Gospels nor any other authentic data tell us aught. Did they
(16) Gosp I
258 MATT. II. 13 23
believe with a divine faith in Christ the Redeemer? Did they
afterwards receive the Gospel and baptism from some Apostle?
We can not answer. A supposititious work which appeared in
Spain in the sixteenth century, under the name of the Chronicon
of Dexter, the bishop of Barcelona, under Theodosus the Great,
contains the martyrdom of the three Magi. The testimony
appears in the form of a martyrology and reads thus: "In
Arabia Felix, in the city of Sessania of the Adrurneti, the
martyrdom of the holy kings, the three Magi, Gaspar, Balthas-
sar, and Melchior who adored Christ. " This testimony is a
Spanish legend, and merits no credence. However, a tradition
existed that the Magi were martyred for the faith, and that
their bodies were first venerated at Constantinople ; thence they
were transferred to Milan. When Barbarossa overthrew Milan,
these bodies were taken to the great Dome of Cologne, and there
they are venerated to-day. It is not in our mind to either deny
or approve this belief. But certain it is, that it is in no way
made a part of Catholic faith.
MATTHEW II. 13-23
13. And when they were 13. AvaxwpiqaavTtov 8s
departed, behold the angel of el? TYJV ^wpav aikwv, coou
the Lord appeareth to Joseph Kupc ou xore ovap ItpavY) TU>
in a vision in sleep saying: Xeywv, eyspOeli; xapaXa6s TO xoci&ov
Arise and take the child and xal TYJV ^TjTlpa OCUTOU xal 9sQy dq
his mother, and flee into Egypt, Atyuxiov xal TaOi exs! ewq av
and be thou there until I bring w, piXXei yap Hpu>CY]<; ^TS
thee word; for Herod will seek xatSiov TOU d-juoXeaat auTO.
the child to destroy him.
14. And he arose, and took 14. Se eyepGelq
the child and his mother by TO xatBcov xal TYJV jxYjiepa
night and departed into Egypt; VUXTCX; xal avs^wp^aev dq
15. And he was there until 15. Kal ^v exet ewe; TY]<;
the death of Herod: that it TeAeurr)<; HptoSou, Yva xXigpcoGfj TO
might be fulfilled which the pvjOev uxb Kuplou Sia TOU xpo^^Tou
Lord spoke by the prophet, Xeyovuoq, e^ AfyuxTOu IxaXeaa TOV
saying: Out of Egypt have I ulov JA.OU.
called my son.
MATT. II. 1323
259
1 6. Then Herod, perceiving
that he was mocked by the
wise men, was exceeding angry,
and sent forth, and slew all the
male children that were in
Bethlehem, and in all the
borders thereof, from two years
old and under, according to the
time which he had diligently
inquired of the wise men.
17. Then was fulfilled that
which was spoken by Jeremiah
the prophet, saying:
1 8. A voice in Ramah was
heard, weeping and great lamen-
tation, Rachel weeping for her
children; and she would not
be comforted, because they are
not.
1 6. TOTE HpCOCTjq tOWV b*Tt
h) uxb TCOV ^ayoj
Xcav xal axoaT ( Xa<; dveTXev
TOO? xacoaq Touq Iv BY]6Xe^ *al
ev xaatv TO!<; opfotq auTYJq dxb Ste-
TOU<; xal xaTtDTepo) XOCTOC TOV ^ovov
ov TJxpt 6a)CTev xapa TO>V jxaytov.
I7 . TOTS ixXr)pco0r) TO pY)6ev
| v
xal dSupy.bc; xoXuq,
xXafousa TOC Texva auTf)<; xal oux
^OeXsv xapaxXY]Oi)vat OTI oux etafv.
19- But when Herod was I9 . TeXeurrfcavToq 8e TOU
dead, behold, an angel of the HptoBou, (Sou afYeXoq Kuptou
Lord appeareth in a vision in <paEvTai xaT 7 ovap TW Itoxfyp iv
sleep to Joseph in Egypt, saying: AfyikT<p Xeywv:
20. Arise, and take the child
and his mother, and go into
the land of Israel, for they
are dead who sought the life
of the child.
20. EyepOslq xapdXa6e TO
xac5!ov xal TYJV [XTjTepa auToQ xal
xopeuou dq ^r\v lapai^X, Te6vi]xaaiv
yap o! ^TQToQvTe*; TT]V <J>uyj]v TOU
xatBtou.
21. And he arose, and took 2 i. Be eyepOelq xapeXaSe
the child and his mother, and T b xatSEov xal TT]V ^Y}Tepa
xal etafjXGev dq yrjv
came into the land of Israel.
22. But having heard that
Archelaus reigned in Judasa in
the room of Ms father Herod,
he was afraid to go thither, and
being warned by God in a
vision in sleep, he retired into
the parts of Galilee:
22. Axouaaq 61 UTI
^aatXeusi TTJ<; louSataq OIVT! TOU
xaTpbq auTou HpcoSou lcpo6i]OY) sxel
dxeXGetv, xpT)^Ti<i6el<; Bs xaT* ovap
dv7topr]av e(q Ta ^Ipr) T^q FaXt-
Xafaq.
260 MATT. II. 1323
23. And he came, and dwelt 23. Kal IX9: ov xaTcpxiqasv elq
in a city called Nazareth, that xoXtv Xeyo^Eviqv Na^aper OTCOX;
it might be fulfilled which was xXTjpwOj} TO ptjOsv 5toc TU>V xpo^YjTwv,
spoken by the prophets: He OTI Na Cwpaloq xX^OrjaeTat.
shall be called a Nazarene.
A question of some importance now arises to determine
when to locate the visit of the Magi in the events of Christ s
infancy. The opinion of St. Augustine was that the adoration
of the Magi took place on the thirteenth day after the Nativity.
This opinion is also defended by St. Thomas, Tostatus, Maldo-
natus, Jansenius, Baradius, and a Lapide. Suarez calls it the
common opinion. The tradition of the Church evidenced in
her liturgy seems to be in conformity with this opinion, and yet
the objections to it render it absolutely impossible. In
the first place, Luke informs us that Mary presented herself in
the temple for purification according to the law of Moses. [ Luke
II. 22.] That law commanded that the mother of a male child
should present herself in the temple forty days after her
delivery. Neither may we believe that the purification was
delayed, for Luke tells us that when those days were finished,
the purification took place. Certainly had grave reasons
necessitated its delay, he would not speak thus. Had it been
delayed, the law would in a measure have been broken, and
Luke s language would lose all significance. We must believe
then that the Holy Family were in Jerusalem forty days after
the birth of Jesus. This alone excludes absolutely that the
adoration of the Magi took place before the purification. At
whatever date we place it before the purification, there would
not be sufficient time for the Holy Family to journey to Egypt,
await there the death of Herod, and return again within forty
days. The words of the angel signify that the exile in Egypt
shall occupy some considerable time. As it was a fact directly
under the guidance of divine Providence who foresees the future
as the present, the flight to that distant land would not have
been moved were it to be for only a few days. Commentators
differ much concerning the chronology of that time. Patrizi
defends that Herod died in the year 750 A. U. C., and by his
calculation, Christ would have remained in Egypt a little over
MATT. II. 13 23 261
two years. Others extend it to seven, and even to eight years.
All is uncertain; but evidently the period could not be less
than two years. Hence we conclude that the opinion that
placed the adoration of the Magi on the thirteenth day after the
Nativity, or, in fact, any time before the purification is devoid
of any probability. In placing it after the purification we are
met by a serious difficulty from Luke. It seems to result from
his narration that after the purification the Holy Family
returned to Nazareth. Thus he writes, II. 39: "And when
they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,
they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. " Hence
it would result that the adoration should take place in Nazareth
contrary to what we have deduced from Matthew s description
of the event. Many things have been written on this vexed
question. Patrizi believes that the adoration did really take
place at Nazareth. As this is plainly against the account
by St. Matthew, we can not accept it. Among the given
other solutions, two only merit consideration. First, that the
adoration took place after the purification, we consider a cer
tain opinion. We have only therefore to reconcile such event
with the account of Luke, and locate its probable date. Tatian,
Eusebius, Epiphanius and St. Jerome are of the opinion that
the adoration of the Magi was some time after the presentation.
The Christian art of the first ages seems to substantiate such
opinion. For in the adoration of the shepherds, the old images
represent a baby ; while in the adoration of the Magi, the Christ
appears as a child of some years growth. To reconcile this
opinion with Luke, Comely believes that, after the purification,
the Holy Family first went to Nazareth, and then, having
settled their affairs, they returned to Bethlehem, where they
were visited by the Magi. That the flight took place from
Bethlehem, is confirmed from the fact that, in returning from
Egypt, they first are minded to go to Bethlehem, and only think
of Nazareth after the admonition of the angel. This certainly
shows that the home that they had left in their hurried flight
was at Bethlehem. Comely s opinion is probable, and affords a
good solution of the difficulty. It places a lacuna in the account
of Luke in the second chapter, between the thirty -ninth and
fortieth verse, and inserts therein the entire second chapter
262 MATT. II. 13 23
of Matthew. Such lacunae are common in all the Evangelists.
According to Comely St. Luke wishing to treat of the boyhood
of Christ immediately following his presentation in the temple,
omits the flight into Egypt and the slaughter of the innocents,
and passes from the presentation to the life at Nazareth. We
prefer to place this lacuna in Luke in the thirty -ninth verse it
self. We would place the whole second chapter of Matthew
after the first member: "When they had performed all things
according to the law of the Lord, " and before the second mem
ber: they returned into Galilee, to their own city
Nazareth." The "when" here does not, indeed, seem to
signify the immediate succession of one event upon another.
It simply marks the transition of Luke from the description of
the purification to the life of Nazareth. He simply says that
the life at Nazareth was subsequent to the fulfilment of the law
in the temple. Such mode of expression is not surprising in
the Evangelists, who paid small heed to chronology. The
chronology of the Testament did not save the world. It was
the saving truths that were important, and these they connect
in a general way without critical attention to fixing of time.
The sentence of Luke therefore is equivalent to this : They
performed all things according to the law, and returned to
Galilee. Luke connects two events without attention to the
intermediate events, concerning which he did not wish to speak.
This opinion has this in its favor over that of Cornely, that,
while the lacuna is no more violent here than where he places
it, the journey to Nazareth and return to Bethlehem is spared.
In the fifteenth verse we see that Joseph as the head of the
family is informed of the impending danger, and bidden flee.
A man less according to the heart of God than Joseph might
have complained, and lost faith in God s promises, from the
fact that the marvelous child who was of the Holy Ghost, and
who was to save Israel, is forced to flee for his life. But Joseph
was a man that obeyed God without questioning. Before
him lay the hardships of travel into an unknown country, and
the privations of exile, but the Lord had spoken, and he did
not reason why. How many would have said:- "Can not
God avert this danger without sending us into this far country ?"
Not so with him who was chosen to be the custodian of the
MATT. II. 13 23 263
Christ. The reasons why Christ chose to submit to this flight
must be of those which moved him to accept all the other
humiliations; which moved him to lay aside his power, and
submit to man s cruelty to save man.
Bethlehem is distant about six English miles from
Jerusalem. Now certainly the commotion at Jerusalem would
have moved many to go to see the wondrous child, had there
been time. The narrative seems to imply that the greatest
haste was used in the flight. It seems impossible that a day
intervened between the coming of the Magi to Jerusalem and
the flight to Egypt. Herod would not wait that long without
moving. We believe that the order of events was as follows :
The Magi arrived at Bethlehem at evening. After the adora
tion they sought repose, and received the communication in a
dream not to return to Herod. Moved by this, they arose and
hurriedly set out, arid by another route before the night was
far spent. Then Joseph is warned, and also sets out on the
same night very soon after the departure of the Magi. The
preparation for the departure of the Holy Family was not
impeded by attention to their possessions; they had little to
take with them in their journey. Some Fathers have recog
nized the Providence of God in providing by the gifts of the
Magi the means to support the Holy Family in their journey.
God keeps from Joseph the length of his sojourn in Egypt: he
was told enough for his guidance, and the rest of the future was
veiled from his eyes. Concerning the prophecy that is fufilled
in the return from Egypt, Fathers and commentators are not of
one mind. The prophecy is taken from Hosea XI. i, and in
the original reads thus :
" Israel was my child, and I loved him, and called my son
out of Egypt." To understand this prophecy, we shall first
explain its literal signification, as it appears in Hosea, and then
pass to its typical signification, as it is used by Matthew. In
the first place, there is a discrepancy here between the Septua-
gint and the Hebrew of Hosea. In the translation of the Sep-
tuagint it is : " Out of Egypt I have called my sons." Matthew
evidently follows the Hebrew . Jerome , coming to this passage ,
when making the Vulgate from the original Hebrew, trium
phantly challenges his detractors to find the passage quoted
264 MATT. II. 13 23
by Matthew in the Greek Scriptures. A feeble attempt might
be made to find the quotation in Num. XXIII. 22, but an ex
amination of the two passages must point to Hosea, especially
as Matthew speaks of the w r ord of a prophet. We must either
suppose a critical error on the part of the Seventy, or a subse
quent error brought into the text by those who copied or
amended the text. The literal signification of this prophecy
applies to the bondage of Israel in Egypt. God declares there
by that he loved Israel with a peculiar love, because Israel was
bound to his service by the solemn treaty of Abraham ; hence,
Israel enjoyed a special providence of God. As a resultant of
that peculiar love, God brought Israel out of bondage, and this
is mentioned in the second clause, wherein Israel is called the
son of God. This appellation of Israel is not confined to Hosea.
In Exod. IV. 23; Is. I. 2; Jer. III. 14; XXXI. 20, Israel is
called the son of God. The literal sense of Hosea is clear, but
difficulty arises in applying these words to Christ. Eusebius,
Tostatus, and others have denied that the last clause of the
prophet s words applied in their literal sense to Israel. They
contended that the prophecy related solely to Christ. This
opinion has now become quite obsolete, as it does violence to
the words of the prophet.
From other precedents, and from internal evidence it
seems that, rigorously speaking, in such citations of prophecy
by writers of the New Testament, all that is contemplated is
that an event is recorded whose nature corresponds to the
prophetical declaration. The greater number of prophecies
quoted contemplate exclusively the future event which the
New Testament writer records . Others may refer primarily
to some event in the past history of Israel, and the later writer
may refer some other event to the prophecy, from the marked
similarity between the two events. This does not weaken
the prophetical proofs of the Messiah; for every prophecy
must be examined to find how clearly it refers to him, and some
refer exclusively to him. In fact, here the sojourn of Jesus
in Egypt and his coming thence may have been contemplated
in the original prophecy as its greater fulfilment. In language,
which, in its first intention, referred to the Exodus of Israel,
MATT. II. 13 23 265
Hosea inspired by the Holy Ghost may have veiled the more
important truth here referred to the Messiah. Israel thus
becomes a type of the Messiah.
In our " Introduction" we have illustrated the force of the
typical signification of Scripture. It is real, and in the inten
tion of the original writer, who applies his words to both the
type and the antitype. Only God can thus use language; for
only he who comprehends the future can thus make present
things and events signify things and events yet to be. Innu
merable types exist in the Old Testament, which received their
fulfilment in Christ. Matthew rightly declares that the words
of Hosea were fulfilled in Christ, for their typical sense was
principal. We repeat what we said in former chapters, that
the dwelling of Christ in Egypt, and the coming up out of it
were not ordered by Providence simply to fulfill the prophecy.
The certainty, therefore, of the event rested on the inerrancy
of God s prescience.
The proximity of Bethlehem rendered it easy for Herod to
ascertain that the Magi had frustrated his design. From the
description that Josephus gives of this monster, we can easily
imagine the transports of rage that this intelligence caused him.
It was not to be expected that reason should guide his counsels
in such a mood. There is perhaps no parallel in history to the
cruelty of Herod. No murder can compare in cruelty to that
of an innocent babe, helpless and inoffending; and yet this
monster wreaks an indiscriminate slaughter of all the male
babes of Bethlehem in a blind rage, thinking thus to cut off the
Christ. There is a great defect of reason in his action. If the
coming of the Christ was believed by him, reason would have
told him that a being who was heralded in the distant countries
of the East by the portents of the sky would be saved by divine
agency from his power. But impiety and crime and his present
rage dethroned reason in this monster. When giving thought
to the examination of the lives of certain great criminals, we
wonder that these men do share with us in our common human
ity. It seems strange that a man can put off all pity, stifle
the voice of conscience, and defy even the Almighty.
Unbelievers have impugned the account of the slaughter of
the innocents from the silence of contemporary historians.
266 MATT. II. 1323
Josephus, who wrote the events of Herod s reign, makes no
mention of it. In fact, Matthew is the only one of the Evangel
ists, the only writer in the world, who gives us this account.
In relation to Josephus, we are warranted by the critics of
history in asserting that his silence is only a negative argument,
which proves no fact of history. Josephus was not minded
to write the biography of Herod. He necessarily omitted
many things which he considered of minor importance. He
only makes a slight mention of the Christ, and Christ as a
historical personage can not be doubted by any reasonable man.
The slaughter of the babes in an obscure village had no great
political importance. Christianity has given to this event an
importance which it possessed neither for the Jews, nor for the
Romans for whom Josephus wrote. Among the terrible deeds
of Herod it would be considered simply a freak of cruelty,
possessing no special importance, and well omitted in a history
that must in small compass include the events of many ages.
We next pass to consider the fixing of the age-limit within
which this slaughter was wrought. Matthew informs us that
the satellites of Herod slew all the babes of two years and under,
according to the time of the star. Without examining the
many sentences that are advanced on this point, we shall plain
ly set forth what we believe to be the sense of the Evangelist.
We believe first then that Herod wished to include in the
slaughter all the babes that had been born within two years
inclusively, dating back from that present time. We do not
believe that the satellites were of a mind to take an accurate
census of these babes. It was a general limitation to regulate
their action, and those men used to blood, and accustomed to
execute the terrible mandates of Herod, would rather increase
than diminish the number. We are given a general indication
here also of the date of the adoration of the Magi. In the first
place, we firmly hold that the star appeared to the Magi at the
birth of Christ in Bethlehem. While a great light shone round
the shepherds in the fields of Bethlehem, the star of the Magi
flashed into those remote lands, and betokened the good tidings
to those representatives of the gentile world. Now unless
Herod w r ere assured that the appearance of the star was con
temporaneous with the birth of Christ, there would be no sense
MATT. II. 13 23 267
in his regulating his decree of slaughter by the time that he
had diligently inquired of the Magi. Therefore as he ; acting
on that data, included all the babes of two years of age and
under, the star must have appeared about two years before the
adoration of the Magi, that is, Christ must have been about two
years old when adored by the Magi at Bethlehem. We say
about two years, for Herod may have extended the time a few
months back of the appearance of the star for greater precau
tion . But then why include the younger babes ? We answer :
Herod was not a man to spare a little human blood, when he
thought its shedding brought him greater security. He per
haps reasoned thus : Nearly two years ago this star appeared .
Its appearance could not certainly have been subsequent to the
birth of Christ. Therefore if I make the age limit extend
backwards two years, I shall certainly comprise the Christ from
that side. Now perhaps this star preceeded in time the birth of
the Christ ; perhaps it was an omen sent some time before the
event. To be sure, I will extend the slaughter to all the babes
from that sure backward limit down to the babe even now bom.
Thus he thought to take off the Christ in the doomed number.
We believe, therefore, that it is a certain opinion which places
the Christ as verging towards two years, when the adoration of
the Magi took place. Reasons for the time that intervened
between the vision of the star and the Magi s journey are
evident. On seeing the new star, they began to seek for its
significance. Perhaps considerable time was spent in consul
tation with the learned astrologers of the country, as to the
meaning of the star. Then there was the preparation for the
journey, the deliberations and the time actually consumed in
the journey. It is easy to see how in these various ways the
stated period of time was spent. Concerning the number of the
children slain, nothing certain exists. Some have placed the
number at 144,000 because the Church appropriates to the
feast of the Holy Innocents that portion of the Apocalypse
wherein St. John sees that number of the slain. As only the
male children were slain, this opinion would suppose that in a
little over a year, there had been in Bethlehem 288,000 births, a
number that could not have been verified in the births of all
Palestine for many years. And yet Bethlehem was a poor,
268 MATT. II. 13 23
insignificant village not worthy to be ranked among Judah s
municipalities. Later writers, taking into account the small -
ness of Bethlehem, place the number at twelve or fifteen chil
dren, or, at most, twenty. Thus Knabenbauer, following
Edersheim. Although the order of Herod comprised the
environs of Bethlehem, this would not augment the number
greatly. There would be but a few scattered habitations in the
immediate neighborhood. If a similar edict were put into
execution in some of our thriving villages it would not comprise
more than twenty babes. The small number of the slain is
another reason why Josephus has passed over this fact. We
possess one curious testimony of this slaughter, which is only
valuable as an indirect witness. Macrobius a pagan writer of
the fourth century in his Saturnales, II. 4, has the following:
"When Augustus Caesar heard that Herod s own son was
among those whom he caused to be slain in Syria of the age of
two years and under, he exclaimed : It were better be Herod s
pig than his son. This testimony is a curious medley of
falsehood and truth. In the first place, it is absurd to suppose
that Herod s son was among the slaughtered babes of Bethle
hem. The remark of Augustus was most probably made
upon receiving intelligence that Herod had put to death his
sons Alexander and Aristobulus. Macrobius confounds the
two events, but it is valuable to us indirectly. As he was
ignorant of the Scriptures, and drew none of his data from a
Christian source, he gives evidence that the slaughter of the
babes by Herod was a fact known in state circles at Rome.
The prophecy quoted in the seventeenth and eighteenth
verses is taken from Jeremiah, XXXI. 15, and reads thus in the
original: "Thus saith the Lord: A voice is heard in Ramah,
lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her child
ren; she refused to be comforted for her children, because they
are not." Jerome, in his eagerness to translate the proper
names occurring in the Hebrew, translated the " in Ramah" by
" in excelso" and thus it stands in the Vulgate. It is true that
Ramah from root Q^H may mean an elevation of land, but it
also meant a village in the tribe of Benjamin, northward of
Jerusalem, near Bethel, which was probably thus named from
the elevation of its site. Now w r e believe that Jeremiah spoke
MATT. II. 13 23 269
of the village of Ramah in the quoted prophecy. To bear us
out in this, the historic circumstances in which the prophecy
was uttered, warrant such interpretation. This argument we
shall develop in treating of the meaning of the passage. Again,
the text of Matthew is opposed to the translation of Jerome.
All the old versions have the passage: "A voice in Ramah."
Hence we add this to the many other places where Jerome has
erroneously translated proper names of Scripture. We next
pass to consider the origin and meaning tof the passage.
Ramah was the place where Nebuzaradan the Babylonian
general assembled the captives of the kingdom of Judah, to
conduct them to Babylon. Jeremiah predicted this sorrowful
assembling of Judah s sons in the pathetic words of this
prophecy, and represented Rachel the common mother of the
Jews as weeping for her sons, who are to depart from their
home and country. The reasons for selecting Rachel as the
mother weeping for her sons are many. In the first place
Rachel was the first love of Jacob, the father of the twelve tri
bal heads. She was the maiden destined by Providence for his
wife, and, although Jacob was also wedded to her sister Lea,
still Rachel was the most loved. Of her was descended Joseph,
the saviour of his people, the type of the Christ. Although but
the real mother of two of the twelve sons of Jacob, Joseph and
Benjamin, the Scriptures seem to consider her as the mother of
the Judean race. Of Joseph, Rachel s son, were descended
Ephraim and Menasseh, the most powerful tribal chiefs in
Israel. As the center of the northern kingdom was in the tribal
territory of Ephraim, that tribe in Scripture represents the
whole northern kingdom. Thus in Jeremiah XXXI. 18, 20,
all Israel is personified in Ephraim. The prophecy quoted
from Jeremiah by Matthew relates directly to the Babylonian
captivity in which Judah was taken captive, but Rachel s grief
finds a motive in both captivities. As the common mother of
the Jewish people, as the real mother of Ephraim, and Men
asseh of the northern kingdom, and of Benjamin wherein was
Jerusalem in the southern kingdom, as the bride destined by
God for Jacob, she is aptly represented as bewailing the two
great captivities of her children. First she saw all Israel s sons
led away in the Assyrian captivity ; and now she sees Judah a
270 MATT. II 13 23
captive, as it were, the completion of the destruction of her
race. Though Israel and Judah were divided between each
other, they were both dear to her, and the faithful remnants of
both kingdoms were equally dear to Yahveh.
The meaning of the original prophecy is thus made clear,
but in explaining Matthew s use of it, more difficulty exists.
Little that is satisfactory exists in the abundant mass that has
been written on this theme. Examination of these opinions
would only result in confusion. Hence we take up the proph
ecy itself, and advance that which we judge most reasonable.
The important point to determine is how these words, spoken
by Jeremiah of the Babylonian captivity can apply to the
slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem. Many make this appli
cation by appealing to the literal and the typical sense. They
say that the words, literally fulfilled in the days of Jeremiah,
typically denote the slaughter of the Innocents. But this
seems improbable. In order that one event be a type of
another, there must be greater similarity between the events.
It is easy to see that the paschal lamb is a type of Christ ; that
Abel also is a type of Christ, and Isaac a type of the Crucifixion.
It is easy to see how the Hebrews coming out of Egypt were a
type of the return of the Holy Family. But between the
Babylonian exile and the execution of Herod s infanticide no
similarity exists. Knabenbauer endeavors to recognize this
similarity in the following manner. He declares that the lam
entation of Rachel expressed in Jeremiah was over the violation
of the treaty of Israel with Yahveh, and over the fall of the
people and their expulsion from Palestine. Now the fact that
Herod, with the consent of the people, seeks to kill the Christ
is held by the learned author to be a greater infraction of God s
covenant. And the rejection and persecution of the Christ
which began with this act of Herod resulted in a greater ruin of
the people, and excluded them from the New Alliance. In
such mode of explaining prophecy, Jeremiah s words would
be better fulfilled by the Crucifixion. To have any point at all,
the actual shedding of the blood of the babes must constitute
the central element in the fulfilment. Jansenius, Maldonatus,
Calmet and Lamy hold that Matthew employs the prophecy
in an accommodated sense. We feel obliged to temper some-
MATT. II. 13 23 271
what this theory. There seems possible a mean between literal
fulfilment and mere accommodation. In the original prophecy
the sorrow of Israel over the unhappy event of the captivity,
and over the slain in the war that precedes is figuratively repre
sented as the grief of the mother of the Judaean race. Matthew
records another event which occasioned a public mourning in
Judah over the slain, and with perfect truth Rachel could again
be said to weep. Now from the fact that the slaughter of the
babes was similar to that event to which the prophecy first
applied, Matthew applies to it the same prophecy. It is as
though he declared: "Then again were fulfilled conditions
which caused a weeping in Judah like unto that of old heard in
Ramah . Whether the Spirit of God contemplated both events
in the inspiration of the original prophecy is not revealed.
The words fit both events. They found their first fulfilment
in the Babylonian captivity ; their second in the slaying of the
babes. The first fulfilment was not a type of the second, but
a part of the complete fulfilment. Such use of prophecy is
not uncommon. There is an element of obscurity in prophecy
directly willed by God, and although Jeremiah s words in their
complete fulfilment could not be understood by the contem
poraries of Jeremiah, their sense is clear after the event has
come to pass. There are still some points to clear up in this
application. The first point is the designation of place. Ra
mah, as we before stated, is in the tribe of Benjamin about
five miles north of Jerusalem, while Bethlehem lies a little
more than five miles to the southward of Jerusalem. Hence
it is obscure how the wailing of the mothers of Bethlehem which
Jeremiah describes as the lament of Rachel should be heard in
Ramah. Many curious explanations of this have been given.
Some rely on Jerome s erroneous translation, and thus eliminate
the designation of any place. Others endeavor to create a
Ramah somewhere near Bethlehem. Both opinions are false.
There is no Ramah near to Bethlehem ; and even if there were,
it would not be designated in the prophecy of Jeremiah. This
description of place is a mere detail, and in no way enters into
the substance of the prophecy. It was applicable only to the
first fulfilment ; it has no place in the second ; nor is thereby the
prophecy weakened. The substance of the prophecy is that
272 MATT. II. 13 23
Rachel personified as the common mother of the Jews bewailed
in inconsolable grief the unhappy lot of her children, which is
fulfilled in both cases. The detail of place only applies to the
first. Some object that not aptly could Bethlehem s babes be
called the sons of Rachel, since Bethlehem was in the tribe of
Judah, the son of Leah.
Some explain this from the fact that Rachel s tomb is
near Bethlehem. In Genesis XXXV. 16-21 the inspired writer
tells us that Jacob set out from Bethel for Ephrath. That
when there was yet some way to come to Ephrath, Rachel
died giving birth to Benjamin. Jacob "buried her in the way
to Ephrath, the same is Bethlehem. And Jacob set up a pillar
on Rachel s grave unto this day."
A little way out from Bethlehem by the wayside there is a
little white mosque, the traditional tomb of Rachel. There
are no positive proofs that this site is authentic ; but it is a
possible site. Though the Rationalists have endeavored to
locate the tomb of Rachel north of Jerusalem, the evidence
seems to determine its site near Bethlehem.
Now some believe that the prophet adverted to the site of
this tomb, and thus represented the mother of the Jewish race
weeping over her slaughtered babes.
This opinion does not recommend itself. In the poetic
figure Rachel is not by her tomb, but in Ramah. Moreover,
the being who weeps is really the Jewish people personified in
Rachel. Hence the tomb has no bearing on the issue. In the
slaughter of the infant boys of Bethlehem, the Jewish people
was stricken, and its grief is represented in poetic prophecy as
the weeping of the mother of the race.
As we before stated, it is impossible accurately to fix the
length of the so j ourn in Egypt . We are inclined to favor the esti
mate of two years. The manner of death of Herod was hor
rible. Thus Josephus speaks of it in "Wars of the Jews/ Bk. I.
XXXIII. "After this, the distemper seized upon his whole
body, and greatly disordered all his parts with various symp
toms ; for there was a great fever upon him, and an intolerable
itching over all the surface of his body, and continual pains in
his colon, and dropsical tumors about his feet, and an inflam
mation of the abdomen, and a putrefaction of his privy mem-
MATT. II. 13 23 273
her, that produced worms. Besides which, he had a difficulty
of breathing upon him, and could not breathe but when he sat
upright, and had a convulsion of all his members, insomuch
that the diviners said, those diseases were a punishment upon
him for what he had done to the Rabbins. ... So he for a
little while revived, and had a desire to live ; but presently after
he was overborne by his pains, and was disordered by want of
food, and a convulsive cough, he endeavored to prevent a
natural death ; so he took an apple and asked for a knife, for he
used to pare apples and eat them ; he then looked round about
to see that there was nobody to hinder him, and lifted up his
right hand as if he would stab himself; but Achiabus, his first
cousin, came running to him, and held his hand, and hindered
him from so doing ; on which occasion a very great lamentation
was made in the palace, as if the king was expiring. As soon
as ever Antipater heard that, he took courage, and with joy in
his looks, besought his keepers, for a sum of money, to loose
him and let him go ; but the principal keeper of the prison did
not only obstruct him in that his intention, but ran and told the
king what his design was ; hereupon the king cried out louder
than his distemper would well bear, and immediately sent
some of his guards and slew Antipater ; he also gave orders to
have him buried at Hyrcanium, and altered his testament
again, and therein made Archelaus, his eldest son, and the
brother of Antipas, his successor, and made Antipas tetrarch.
So Herod having survived the slaughter of his son five
days, died having reigned thirty-four years, since he had caused
Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his kingdom : but thirty-
seven years since he had been made king by the Romans. "
We are taught that by the things in which a man sins, by
the same shall he be punished. The vengeance of God upon
Herod began in this life. He had been a monster of gluttony
and lust, and the horrible disease that infected his vitals and
genital parts was a specific punishment for the sins committed
by these members.
The angel uses the plural for the singular, for after an
nouncing the death of Herod, he says : " they are dead who
sought the life of the child. "
(17) Gosp I
274 MATT. II. 13 23
It was the design of the Most High that Christ should pass
his life in Palestine, hence, he so co-operates with natural
events that in his appointed time the Holy Family returned
thither. The Fathers rightly commend the prompt obedience
of Joseph in returning as soon as the will of God was made
known to him. Israel is not used here as a specific designation
of the northern kingdom to distinguish it from Judah, but it is
used in the first signification of the term, an appellation
of Jacob s race after his wrestling with the Angel. [Gen.
XXXII. 28.]
The narrative seems to imply that Joseph ascertained from
natural sources that Archelaus had succeeded his father in
Judaea. As he neared the frontiers of Judaea, coming north
ward from Egypt, such fact would be of easy intelligence. He
is perturbed by this, naturally supposing that his return to
Bethlehem would soon be made known to Herod s terrible son.
And he prudently judged that the same motives would move
Archelaus as had actuated his father Herod, in desiring the
taking off of the child. In this anxiety of mind, the communi
cation came again from Heaven, and told him whither to go.
The whole event was designed and regulated by divine Provi
dence, working its inevitable purposes in mysterious ways.
The reasons which moved Joseph to withdraw to Nazareth,
when returing from Egypt, reveal themselves from the follow
ing considerations. Nazareth was a little mountain village
removed nearly a hundred miles from Jerusalem, and having
little importance in the Judaean world, and little communica
tion therewith. The return of Joseph, Mary, and the child, after
some years absence, would create little surprise there, and
tidings of the wonderful child would be less likely to reach his
enemies. All Palestine was at that time in a state of religious
and political anarchy, and little heed would be paid to the poor
artisan who took up his humble abode in Nazareth. The
events of the Christmas night in Bethlehem were either unheard
of by them or forgotten. Manifestations of the supernatural
had been no uncommon thing with the Jews, and they made
little lasting effect. That Joseph had great reason to fear
Archelaus, is warranted by the history of this man s char
acter. Archelaus, soon after his father s obsequies were
MATT. II. 13 23 275
over, slew 3,000 Jews at their sacrifices. [Josephus, War, Bk.
II. i.] He was repeatedly accused by the Jews to Caesar for
his cruelties, and his barbarity increased to that extent that
finally he was banished to Vienna, a city of Gaul, in the ninth
year of his government. We must also note some other politi
cal changes that took place in Judaea after Herod s death. He
had been king over all Palestine, and in his will made Arche-
laus his oldest son his successor, subject to Caesar s approbation.
As he had in a previous testament bequeathed the kingdom to
his second son Herod Antipas, this latter contended at Rome
before Caesar for the power against Archelaus. After some
deliberation, Caesar divided the kingdom of Herod among his
three sons Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Philip. One half he
gave to Archelaus under the title of Ethnarch. His portion
included Judaea proper, Idumea, and Samaria. Perea and
Galilee w r ere under Herod Antipas, while Philip had Batanea,
Trachonitis and Hauran. Patrizi believes that the return
from Egypt was while Archelaus was temporarily in power,
before this division by Cassar, and for that reason the Holy
Family would be safe in Galilee where none of Herod s sons
had yet come. This opinion is rendered improbable by the
very words of the Evangelist: "But hearing that Archelaus
reigned in Judaea in the room of Herod his father, " etc. It is
evident that Judaea is used in its particular sense for the prov
ince south of Samaria. Hence the Evangelist plainly implies
that Archelaus reigned there, and not in Galilee. This was only
verified after the settlement by Caesar, hence we must place
the return from Egypt after the division of Herod s kingdom
among his sons. We have given one reason why the Holy
Family would be safer in Nazareth. Another may be sought
in the milder disposition of Antipas. To be sure, he it was
who beheaded John Baptist ; but still he was not so bloody as
Archelaus.
The enemies of the Gospels seek cause to accuse them
of error tha.t Matthew makes Archelaus /3aat\vetv [reign] in
Judaea, whereas he never had the title of king. But it is evident
that Matthew by such predicate does not especially imply
kingly power, but only the exercise of that power which by the
Romans was left to Archelaus
276 MATT. II, 13 23
All Galilee was despised by the Jews of Jerusalem, and one
of the meanest cities in it w T as Nazareth, It is situated about
twenty miles westward, from the lake of Gennesaret, in a fertile
hilly region overlooking the great plain of Esdraelon. The
design of God was that Jesus should grow to manhood in this
despised village, of which the Jews held the adage that nothing
good could come of Nazareth. The fear which Joseph enter
tained of the cruel Archelaus helped fulfill a decree of Heaven.
A great difficulty arises out of this verse. The Evangelist
plainly says that by the dwelling of the Christ in Nazareth
there was fulfilled a prophetic utterance : " He shall be called
a Nazarene." As the reading "by the prophets" is morally
certain, we notice that Matthew points to no particular passage
of Scripture, but the difficulty consists in this that no such
prophecy exists in the Old Testament. One opinion advanced
to solve this difficulty, though evidently wrong, has obtained
with very many. It consists in confounding Na&wpaio?, a
Nazarene, and vaip, a Nazirite. A Nazirite was a person, male
or female, consecrated to God by solemn vow, and addicted to a
life of special holiness. This vow was sometimes made by
parents for their children. It could be for a special length of
time or for life. The signification of.^]J from root *l]J,is one
T ~T
who separates himself, and abstains from certain things. The
Nazirite was unshorn and unshaven; he drank no wine or
other spiritous beverage, and was held to certain other ritual
observances. The law regulating them is contained in Num.
VI. Now in Judges XIII. 3 and 7 the angel declares to the
mother of Samson : " The boy shall be a Nazirite (^173) of God
T
from his inf anc}^. The opinion of which I have spoken applies
this text to Christ. To Samson, they say, it applied in its
literal sense ; to Christ in the typical sense. That Christ led the
abstemious life of a Nazirite, one might admit, though it is
doubtful that he observed the Nazirite vow. Had he done so,
it could not be for life, for he took wine with his disciples.
But the falsity of this opinion appears from many proofs.
Matthew evidently declares that the prophecy was fulfilled,
because Christ dwelt in Nazareth. Now had the prophecy,
to which Matthew referred, been concerning the appellation
MATT. II. 1323 277
of a Nazirite, it would be immaterial where he dwelt. The
prophecy that he was to be called a Nazirite would no more be
fulfilled by his dwelling in Nazareth than though he dwelt in
Jericho. Matthew evidently says that, by this domicile in
Nazareth, there was fulfilled a prophecy which predicted that
Christ would be called a Nazarene, a citizen of Nazareth. We
have no hesitation in pronouncing as false the translation of
the English text which renders this passage: "He shall be
called a Nazirite." The revised edition of Oxford version ren
ders the passage: "He shall be called a Nazarene." This is
undoubtedly the true translation.
Another opinion similar to the first is thus expressed : The
Nazirites, they say, were men of mortified, saintly lives, and
Christ was such, and as such was predicted in prophecy; hence,
they say, that in general, without designating any one, Matthew
makes Christ fulfill these predictions. This opinion differs
from the other only in this that it avoids the absurdity of ap
plying what was said of Samson by an angel, as though uttered
by a prophet of Christ. It however falls by the line of argu
ment that we have already maintained ; for Matthew is speak
ing of a prophecy that was specially fulfilled from the very fact
that Christ had his domicile in Nazareth, and was called a
resident of that city.
More ingenious is the opinion of Patrizi, followed by
Knabenbauer. In Isaiah XI. Christ is called a ^jj, a rod:
"And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Yeshai,
and a branch shall grow out of his roots." Now they deduce
the name of the village of Nazareth from the same root, given
it from the luxuriant verdure, flowers, and shrubbery which
greatly abounded there They believe that it was by divine
Providence that Christ, in adolescence and manhood, should be
reared in a village whose name came from the predicate
attributed to him by Isaiah. Although such derivation of the
name of Nazareth seems very probable, we can by no means
admit this explanation of the text of Matthew. Such a proph
ecy would have no signification. Moreover, Matthew seems
to state that some event had been predicted in the life of the
Messiah which the residence at Nazareth verified. Now the
278 MATT. II. 13 23
assertion that Christ would be a shoot from Yeshai was fulfilled
by his birth from Mary, one of David s line, but not by his habi
tation at Nazareth. That a prophecy be fulfilled, something
must happen which, did it not happen, the prophecy would
have erred. Now can any reasonable man believe that the
prediction that the Christ should spring from David s stock
would have erred, had the Holy Family not gone to live in
Nazareth? Moreover, Isaiah did not say that the Christ should
be called a Nazarene, which plainly and solely denotes origin or
residence in Nazareth. In fact, there is not a probable element
in this opinion. It does violence to language, and, in the end,
means nothing. The Jews despised Christ because he was of
Nazareth, and Matthew adduces this prophecy to show that his
residence in Nazareth had been foretold by the prophets, and
was therefore of voluntary origin. Hence we believe that
Matthew in this passage quotes from prophecies no longer
extant in the deposit of Scriptures. For this opinion we have
the great authority of Chrysostom, Theophylactus and Euthe-
mius. Other examples of such quotations by writers of the
New Testament exist. Jude, I. 14, quotes from the prophecy
of Henoch, which is not among the books of our Canon. Again
the same Apostle in the ninth verse of his epistle adduces a fact
that could only have been learned from some historical data
which we do not possess. We do not determine whether this
prophetic data existed in Matthew s day in writing, or pre
served in the traditions of the people. It must have been
well known to the people, as he appeals to it there as a thing
known to all. We believe therefore that either in writing or
tradition of that day there was a prophecy that Christ should
be called a Nazarene, a native of Nazareth, that Matthew ad
verted to this prophecy, in marking the fulfilment of it in the
domicile at Nazareth. That such data should no longer be
known, needs not surprise us. Many other things of a like
nature have not been preserved.
To continue the order of events in our Lord s life we must
now pass to Luke II. 40-52.
LUKE II. 40 52
LUKE II. 40-52.
279
40. And the child grew, and
waxed strong, full of wisdom;
and the grace of God was upon
him.
41. And his parents went
every year to Jerusalem at the
solemn day of the Pasch.
42. And when he was
twelve years old, they went up
to Jerusalem after the custom
of the feast,
43. And having fulfilled the
days, as they returned, the
child Jesus tarried behind in
Jerusalem, and his parents knew
it not.
44. But thinking him to be
in the company, they came
a day s journey, and sought him
among their kinsfolk and ac
quaintance.
45. And when they found
him not, they turned back again
into Jerusalem, seeking him.
46. And it came to pass,
that after three days they found
him in the temple, sitting in
the midst of the doctors, hear
ing them and asking them ques
tions.
47. And all that heard him
were astonished at his under
standing and his answers.
48. And when they saw him,
they wondered; and his mother
said unto him: Son, why hast
thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought
thee sorrowing.
40. To 6c xaiofov Tju^avev
xal IxparaiouTO xXTjpou[J.evov aoq>(a<;,
xal yapic sou inv Ix auTO.
41
Keel Ixopsuovio oi yovel?
auTou y.a-r TO<; eiq lepouaaXf^
rf) soprr) TOO Hacj^a.
42. Kal OTE IflvsTO ITWV 5w-
osxa ava6aiv6"vTG>v auiwv xa-ca TO
43.
Kal TsXcUosavTwv TOC? TQ;J.S-
sv T(T) ijTioaTplcpscv OCUTOLX;,
yev Irjaouq 6 xaiq Iv Ispou-
, y.at oOx. lvwaav ol
44. No^iaavTeq 8e auTov elva 1 .
iv T^ cuvoofa, r^XOov rj-^spas 68bv,
xal dveti]TOUv au-ubv Iv TO!? auyye-
vltTtv y.at TO!? yvtostotq.
45. Kal ^JLTJ jp6vT<;
jav sis IspouoaX 1 ?)^, iva
46. Kal
Tpstg supov a
IO^LSVOV sv ^.
xal dy.ouov:a
sTO ;j.7a r/^spac;
Iv T(j> tpw, xaOe-
TWV 8toa(jxd)s(i)v,
v %al
47.
E^tatavto os
Sc; auiou) Ixl
TUOCVTSI; (oi
TTJ auveasc
x,a
48. Kal tBdvTeg auTov I
jjav, y.at elxsv xpbq auTOV TQ
ioij, Tlxvov, TI IxoiTjaa
^ax; !5o j 6 xaTT aou
280 LUKE II. 40 52.
49. And he said unto them: 49. Kal elxsv xpbq autou<;:
How is it that ye sought me? T: ore e^q-rsiis jj.e; oux. YJCSITS OTC ev
did ye not know that I must TOU; TOU zaTpo<; ^ou 5 si elvaf JJLS;
be about my Father s business?
50. And they understood 50. Kal aikol ou suvY)xav TO
not the word that he spoke pfj^a 8 IXaXrjaev atkotg.
unto them.
51. And he went down with SI . Kal xaTe6Y] ^ST auiwv, xal
them, and came to Nazareth; ^X0ev el? Na^aplr, nal ^v 6icoTa<y<j6-
and was subject to them. And ^evo<; aui:ol<;, xal t) ^rrjp au-rou
his mother kept all these words Bcet^pe . xav-ra Ta p-r^ara ev tfl
in her heart. y.xpSfa
52. And Jesus increased in 52. Kal Ifjaouq xpolxozirev T ji
wisdom and stature, and grace c<xp!a y,al TqXtxfa, x.al y^r. T:apa
with God and men. sw y,al av
Concerning the textual criticism of the passage we observe
that the phrase ew \epovcra\r)n [in Jerusalem] is omitted in the
forty-second verse in N, B, D, L; in several cursive MSS., and
in the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Peshitto versions. Its addition,
even though of a later hand, simply makes explicit what was
clearly implied. There is also a variant in the forty-third
verse. The last member of this is rendered "Joseph and his
mother knew not of it," in the King James version. It has for
authority A, C, X, T, A, A, II, the Peshitto and Ethiopian
versions, and some other minor authorities. We follow in our
translation the authority of N, B, D, L, the Sahidic, Bohairic,
Coptic and Harkeleian Syriac versions, and of several cursive
MSS. In the fortieth verse the reading Uve v/jian is added to
e/cpaTaiovTo in A, X, F, A, A, II, and in some other authorities.
This reading is also followed by the Syriac and Ethiopian
versions, and by the King James version.
The declaration that the child grew and waxed strong
denotes the healthy development of the child s body. It was
the will of God that the Messiah should be physically a perfect
man, hence his childhood is characterized by health and vigor
ous development. "Full of wisdom" imports the perfect de
velopment of the human intellect under the divine influence
LUKE II. 40 52 281
The Incarnation is a mystery. Every element about it is a
mystery, The harmonious co-operation of the human intellect
of Christ with the in created wisdom of his Divinity is also a
mystery. The hypostatic union left to Christ s humanity its
perfect nature. It was not sublimed into the higher factor in
the union, but yet the Divinity gave to the humanity a power
whose limitations we can not fix. So we can not fully under
stand what influence the Divinity had in Christ s knowl
edge. The individual Babe lying on the straw at Bethlehem
knew everything, because the individual was God, but how the
human intellect expanded in its union with the Divinity is
veiled from us, and no search will make us know. The wonder
ful knowledge of the child was infinite, as coming from the
Divinity ; finite, as infused into the human faculty, for as the
human intellect preserved its unchanged nature, it could not
exercise an infinite act, and therefore the knowledge as pro
ceeding from his human intellect was finite.
The declaration that the grace of God was in him needs no
explanation. The fulness of the Divinity, hypostatically united
to the humanity, invested the humanity, which was visible to
men, with a divine sweetness, an air of Heaven. The law
existed in Exodus XXXIV. 23, and in Deut., XVI. 16, that
every adult male of the Jews should appear before the Lord in
the temple three times in the year; namely, at the feast of
weeks, at the feast of tabernacles, and the Pasch. Although
women were not held by this law, still it w T as customary that
they should go, at least, at the Pasch. The Evangelist only
mentions the journey to Jerusalem to the yearly Pasch, as he
is going to describe something that happened at the Paschal
feast, but it seems logical to infer that Joseph, at least, went to
Jerusalem on the other feasts also.
The great accuracy in the fulfilment of the Mosaic law that
we always discern in the actions of Mary and Joseph shows how
strong was the spirit of religion within them. Maldonatus and
others of great authority believe that the Christ accompanied
Mary and Joseph every year in their journey to the temple, and
that this time is particularly noticed, because, on this occasion,
he did not return with them. We reject this opinion, for had it
been thus, the Evangelist would have made mention of the
282 LUKE II. 40-52
Child when speaking of the yearly journeys that his parents
were accustomed to make. The opinion of Patrizi, Knaben-
bauer, Schanz, and others is more tenable, which makes this
the first time that the Child accompanied them in their
Paschal journey.
In the teaching of the Rabbis the child at twelve was
considered mature. He was then initiated in fasting and the
precepts of the Law. Thus Maimonides, the Talmud ist, speaks
of the youth of twelve years : " Males of twelve complete years
fast the whole day according to the institutions of the sages, to
train them in the way of the ten commandments. " This was
the first step in initiation in the observance of the ritual pre
cepts. At puberty, which was generally placed at thirteen
years, boys were held to all the precepts of the Law. Thus in
the Talmud Maimonides speaks: "Boys of twelve years and
one day, if they have attained to their puberty, are held to all
the precepts in the same manner as adults. " Childhood
ended with the Jews at twelve years.
In the Mishna, Tract. Chetubb. fol. 50, we read: "Let a
man deal tenderly with his son until his twelfth year, but after
that, let the boy enter the life of a man." That is, he was
from that age to begin the life of a man, to observe the Law,
and learn an art.
The Pasch opened at evening on the fourteenth day of the
month of Abib, which corresponds to our March. It continued
for seven days, and these are the days that Mary and Joseph
are said here to have completed . It was allowed to depart on
the third day, which is warranted by the fact that the two disci
ples, who met Christ as they were returning to Emmaus, de
parted on the third day after the Pasch. Knabenbauer believes
that Mary and Joseph began their return to Nazareth on the
third day of the feast of the Pasch. This seems improbable as
Luke expressly states that they completed the days of the feast,
and also they were accompanied by a caravan on their return
journey. It is certain that the child Christ remained in Jerusa
lem, and kept such fact from his parents, not from chance or
accident but by Divine counsel. His answer to his mother
shows that the fact was designed. In seeking causes for this
action we are impeded by the limitations of our intellects.
LUKE II. 40-52 283
It is difficult for our minds to comprehend the motives that
actuated the God -man. My investigation leads me to ascribe
to the action of Christ the following causes. In the first place
it was a proof of his Divinity, and that his wisdom was of God.
The remarkable wisdom that Jesus showed on this occasion
clearly demonstrated that it had a divine source. Such wisdom
in a boy of his age could not exist except by miracle. It was
the first great lesson that he gave to the world that the things
of God are above every other consideration. Ties of blood,
family interests, the dearest things that man holds on earth
must be set aside when they conflict with the interests of God.
When the advancement of God s cause demands immediate
action, a man has no right to stop to adjust even the dearest
interests. Christ loved his mother more than all the court of
Heaven and the elect of earth, and yet he willingly caused
her the pain of this cruel separation in order to work for the
interests of God. It is probable that the Rabbis asked the
Child some questions at this his first initiation in the temple.
The great wisdom that he manifested elicited more questions,
and more answers, The Rabbis wondered, and prolonged the
conference. The Child, burning with zeal to spread the right
knowledge of God in the world, entered deeper and deeper into
the realms of divine wisdom. Mary and Joseph withdrew from
the temple, and joined the caravan going northward, but Jesus
remained, all on fire to open the hidden treasures of divine
wisdom. Darkness drew on, and the conference is broken only
to be renewed on the following day. The hypostatic union did
not denaturalize the humanity of Christ. He had a human
heart like ours, only unstained by sin, and in that human heart
was the great design of the \vorld s redemption ; the zeal to open
the kingdom of God was burning him up, as it is said: "For
the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up ; and the reproaches of
them that reproach thee are fallen upon me. " Ps. LXIX. 9
(Vulg. LXVIII. 10). And when the opportune moment came,
oblivious of aught else, he poured forth the wisdom with which
he was filled. He foresaw that some good could be accomp
lished then and there that delay would hinder. What he ac
complished in that wonderful conference, only he knows. We
know only what he has told us, that he was doing the works of
his father.
284 . LUKE II. 40 52
The omission by Christ to inform his parents of his action
intensifies the central truth. When a man is really seeking to
promote God s glory, it absorbs all his energies. It leaves no
room for calculating and adjusting minor issues. But did he
not foresee the pain that his unexplained absence would cause
Mary and Joseph? Surely; but he loved them too much to
exclude them from an association in the sorrows of his own life.
He demanded of them the sacrifice of that sorrow, to teach
mankind in what rank the interests of God should be held. As
Mary was to be closest to him in Heaven, she was to drink
deeply of the chalice which he drank.
In such a large body of travellers a boy of that age could
without observation pass the day in the company of friends
and neighbors. When, however, night was come, and the body
made a halt, then the absence of the Child was discovered, and
search was made for him. What that night and the following
day and night must have been to Mary and Joseph, no pen can
describe. As Archelaus reigned nine years before his banish
ment, we believe that he was reigning in Judaea at this time.
The Magi s visit and the wondrous events of Bethlehem had
been forgotten, so that the presence of the Holy Family in the
temple was not observed by the tyrant, but certainly Mary,
who forgot none of these things, must have been filled with
apprehension and dread.
The three days must be counted from their first departure
from Jerusalem. One day was spent in the journey homeward,
another in returning to Jerusalem, and on the third day they
found him in the temple. It was a custom that any man who
desired might seek information from the doctors of the Law in
the temple. Christ here appeared as a disciple, wishing to
discourse with the doctors on things divine. It was inevitable
that his greater wisdom should shine forth in this conference,
and, had the doctors been actuated by honest motives, that
Divine wisdom would have led them where it desired to lead
all men, to a knowledge of Redemption.
The world has been deprived of that wondrous discourse
in the temple. We know not what was said, but we know that
the discourse of Christ was replete with the divine wisdom that
is in the discourses preserved to us. It may have been that
LUKE II. 40 52 285
Christ also wished this discourse to be a proof of his hypostatic
union. Had he shown no signs of Divinity in his youth, some
might have been led into the gnostic error that the spirit of
God only came into Jesus at his baptism. The narrative of
Luke clearly shows that he was divine in his birth, divine in
his boyhood, and divine in his manhood.
In the forty-eighth verse it is clearly declared of Mary and
Joseph that on seeing Jesus in the temple, they wondered.
Various causes for this wondering of Mary and Joseph have been
assigned. It is easy to see why the Rabbis were moved with
amazement at the manifestations of divine wisdom in a boy of
that age. But why should Mary and Joseph wonder? Did
not they know that he was the Son of the Most High ? That
he was Immanuel, the Redeemer? Verily this they knew,
and yet they wondered to see their humble child in the grand
temple, surrounded by the great doctors, all with their eyes
fixed on him ; the whole assembly rapt in wonderment, listening
to the words of the divine Child standing there calm and beau
tiful, discoursing of his Heavenly Father, of Redemption;
showing them that the time for the fulfilment of the Messianic
promises was at hand, and preparing them for his public life.
As the sun sends the aurora, the harbinger of the dawn, before
his coming, so Jesus in this discourse in the temple wished to
arouse the teachers of Israel to an expectancy of the Messiah,
so that they would be the readier to receive him, when he
should begin his public life. To understand how the amaze
ment of Mary and Joseph was compatible with their knowledge
of the Divinity of their son, we may be helped by an example.
We all believe in the real presence of Christ in the Blessed
Sacrament, but if we should enter a church, and see hosts of
angels hovering about the tabernacle, would we not wonder?
We knew they were there, but they were invisible. So it was
with the parents of Jesus. They knew that he was the Son of
God, but yet, when visible manifestations of his Divinity
gleamed forth, they were moved by the natural emotions of
human nature.
That Mary should be the one to address him, comports
well with her function as mother. Her love was greater, her
relation closer, her reserve less. In order to sanctify Mary we
286 LUKE II. 40 52
need not rob her of the emotions of a true mother. These she
felt, and they moved her to burst forth in this complaining
address. In Mary there is strength, but no mannishness; in
her was the perfection of womanliness, the love, the tenderness,
the pity of a mother. In Joseph we find a noble specimen of
true manhood. He regarded the divine Child and his virgin
mother as superior beings, whom he was chosen to protect.
Compared with that of the mother, his office was a minor one.
In all the Scriptures there is not recorded one of Joseph s words.
He appears as a silent, faithful guardian of Jesus and Mary the
chief actors in the drama of Redemption.
Some have thought that the words of Mary contain a
reproof. This was the opinion of St. Bonaventure. This we
cannot accept. The reverence that Mary had for her divine
Son suffers not such interpretation. They contain a question
emanating from a soul in which was a love greater than any
other mother ever felt, and this soul was racked by fear and
sorrow at the separation. They are an evidence of the intensity
of her love, and the intensity of her sorrow. Sorrowing love
does not stop to adjust phrases of speech. There is in her words
an evidence of the perfection of Mary. The wealth of a
mother s love is discernible in them. There is in them no cold
reserve, no calculating. The very complaining tone of them is
an evidence of love. God who complains of nothing but the
lack of his creatures love could not be less pleased with a love
so intense that it complains of this absence in words that have
the semblance of chiding. The ingenuousness of the Evangel
ist also appears in this passage, for the natural mother is there
depicted, without effort to invest her with heroic qualities. A
mother s love too great for reserve is more acceptable to God
than a stoic s unfeeling fortitude. It is worthy of note that
Mary prefers Joseph before herself in speaking of their sorrow
ful quest. Here w r e see the greatness of Mary, who gives to
Joseph the precedence of honor as the head of the family,
though she \vas the great factor in the Incarnation. Maldona-
tus, Toleti and Cornelius a Lapide believe that Mary s words
were addressed to Jesus after leaving the assembly of doctors.
This we cannot accept. There is an evidence that these words
are an outburst of motherly feeling at the first meeting with her
LUKE II. 4052 287
Son. Moreover, the response of Jesus contains a proof of his
Divinity that it was good for the Rabbis to hear.
The reasons which Christ alleges for his action have been
explained above. In the first place, the words of Christ evi
dently contain no blame for his parents action. They acted as
loving parents, and Christ blamed them not for loving him.
When these words were uttered, there was a suavity in the tone
and a tempering of love in the accents, so that they consoled
Mary and Joseph. Christ s words contain the objective truth
of the matter. Judged in the cold objective truth of the matter,
in the light of his divine intelligence, the quest of Mary and
Joseph was unreasonable. He was the Son of God, with the
cause of the world s Redemption in his hands. Could they
have looked at it in its objective truth, from his standpoint,
they would have known that he had remained at Jerusalem to
execute some great design. He does not blame them that they
had not this knowledge, but earnestly teaches them the lesson
that they must subordinate their claims to the interests of his
Heavenly Father. The form of question used by Jesus only
gives greater emphasis to the great truth that Christ wished to
teach. He was contrasting the great objective order of things,
as he saw it, with their narrower knowledge, and gently leading
them into the deeper truth beyond. Some commentators
have understood by the ev TO?? rou Harpos /JLOV, the temple.
Although the Greek terms would in another context justify
such interpretation, we think it improbable here. Christ did
very little of his work in the temple, and such sense given to the
text enervates it. What he did signify by it was the eternal
interests of God which in another place he calls his food. He
was exemplifying the great truth which he was to teach to man,
that everything is secondary to the interests of God.
We recognize in the words of Christ his first testimony of
his Divinity. He calls God his natural father, thereby demon
strating a unity of essence with the eternal God. Christ
introduced a new mode of addressing God. Up to that time
Israel did not address God as father. He was the God of
Abraham, Yahveh, but the tender appellation of father was
not given him. Christ in virtue of his essential sonship, always
288 LUKE II. 40 52
addresses him as Father, and as he has conferred in an ineffable
way that sonship upon us, he taught us to call God, Father.
Through veneration for the mother of God, some have
thought to exclude her from those who did not understand the
words of Christ. If we thought that such defect of under
standing denoted a defect in Mary, we should hold with them.
We would not believe even in the face of any human evidence
that there was aught of defect in the Blessed Virgin Mary.
But we cannot see how her failure to comprehend the words of
Christ reveals any defect. We therefore believe that the
subject of the sentence in the fiftieth verse is Mary and Joseph.
The context plainly warrants this. Christ addressed his words
to his parents, and then immediately the Evangelist declares
that they did not understand them. In this we have the
extrinsic authority of all the best commentators. Salmeron,
Maldonatus, Toleti, Lucas of Bruges, Calmet, and a Lapide. In
this conjunction, the words of Toleti are apposite: " It is not
unfitting to affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not under
stand all mysteries from the beginning. In the same manner
that she grew in grace and charity, thus also did she grow in
faith, not as regards the certitude and firmness, because she
always firmly believed, but she grew in faith as regards a
certain dilation and a certain extension, because she knew
many things in the course of time which she did not previously
know." She knew the mystery of the Incarnation but dimly
before the public life of our Lord. Up to the finding in the
temple all that Mary had hitherto heard of such event was
the few words of the angel. Our Lord chose not to be a prodigy
in his babyhood and childhood. He was naught more in
outward appearance than an angelic child. In the course of
nature, he acquired speech, but he did not make use of this
speech to impart suddenly to his mother the grand system of
the New Law. She was to learn this with him in his public
life and on the way to Calvary. At the foot of the cross her
education was complete. She believed that her child was the
Son of God , because the envoy of the Most High had told her
so. She believed it, and could not understand it. The grand
grasp of that mystery displayed by St. John in his description
of the eternal generation of the Word she did not yet possess.
LUKE II. 40 -52 289
Hence we see plainly why she did not comprehend the enig
matic words of Christ in the temple. For we believe that his
words were intentionally enigmatic, like the enigmas of
prophecy, not intended to be understood then, but to be
cleared up when he should declare: "I and the Father are
one."
The words of Christ here contain his eternal generation,
his mission, the great design of his life, all things that we see
clearly, since we live in the light of the Gospel, but which were
then but dimly outlined in prophecy, which needed the Mes
siah s clear teaching to open. Then, again, in contrasting
his high mission with the claims that parental love had upon
him, Our Lord centered the contrast on the word Father, which
also puzzled Mary and Joseph. She spoke to him of his father s
anxiety and sorrow, and he tells her that he was about his
Father s business. This expression, while it intensified the
contrast, heightened the obscurity. It is clear to us in the
afterlight of Christ s teaching; it was clear to Mary before
the consummation.
The fifty -first and fifty-second verses contain all that is
written of eighteen years of Christ s life. In this portion of
his life Christ has taught us the dignity of the Christian family,
the excellence of filial obedience. The family has well been
called the everlasting granite on which is founded human
society. Purify the family, and you purify society. Christian
ize the family, and you Christianize society. It might have
seemed to some from the action of the Child Christ in the tem
ple that he set aside filial obedience. The fidelity with which
the inspired writer brings out the subjection of Christ to his
parents shows that the episode in the temple was in harmony
with all the virtues of his perfect life. There is an example
here that no youth can neglect who would lead a good life.
Full oft in these days, when the spirit of veneration and re
spect is well nigh cancelled from men s breasts, the child eman
cipates himself from parental authority at an early age. The
parents are considered unprogressive, lacking in intellectuality,
perhaps poor, uninteresting; and small consideration is shown
them. No such youth can rightly call himself a follower of the
Son of God, who, though he knew all things, was subject to
(18) Gosp. I
290 LUKE II. 40 52
Mary and Joseph in that lowly home in little despised Nazareth.
One design of the Redemption was to teach men how to live.
Man has certain obligations befitting every period of his life.
During adolescence, the duties of human life are largely re
ducible to that cardinal virtue, filial obedience. Hence the
Holy Ghost gives us in this one glimpse of the hidden life of
Jesus a lesson of guidance for youth. The veil falls again on
that wondrous life. We have been taught in that one great
lesson our main duty during one period of life. When Christ
again comes forth on the public stage of life, it will be to teach
us the duties of mature manhood. There is no period of our
lives wherein we may not turn to the great Exemplar for ex
ample ; he has dignified the duties of every stage of our life by
his own perfect observance.
Mary was made a chief factor in the enacting of mighty
mysteries that she could not comprehend, But every event
left an indelible impress on her thoughtful soul. One mystery
succeeded another in the wondrous life of her child. She
locked every event and every word in her heart, and awaited
God s o\vn time to manifest them. What a volume of Christian
perfection is contained in that one line? If we would only
imitate her, when the ways of God are inscrutable : store them
in our hearts and wait !
The Vulgate renders here by " astas the Greek term fai/cta.
Like many other terms of Greek origin, it contains more in its
signification than can be adequately expressed by one word in
either Latin or English. It does not mean simply the duration
of a man s life. Were such its only signification, the term in
Luke would have no signification. It would be naught in the
life of a man to say that he grew in age as he lived. But the
Greek term signifies the evolution of the whole being, which
comes with age. For such cause, the Syriac gives it here the
signification of stature. But even this is inadequate. It means
the healthy development of the human system.
A grave theological question now arises concerning the
progress of Christ in knowledge and grace. We shall deal first
with his progress in knowledge. The knowledge of Christ is
rightly divided by theologians into beatific knowledge, infused
knowledge, and acquired knowledge. The beatific knowledge
LUKE II. 40 52 291
is the knowledge that results from the intuitive contemplation
by the soul of the essence of God. Now by the very fact of the
hypostatic union, the soul of Christ from the moment of its
creation was endowed with the most perfect intuitive vision
of God. This truth is based on the very nature of the Incar
nation itself ; it is the consensus of tradition ; it is the teaching
of the Church.
By that knowledge Christ saw all that God sees by
the scientia visionis. That is, he knew all things that ever
have had, or ever will have being. This knowledge was not
absolutely infinite, for creation does not exhaust the creative
power, nor does it exhaust the imitability of the divine essence.
The soul of Christ did not know in God all that God knows
by the scientia simplicis intelligent-ice; for that, it would have to
comprehend God; and this being an infinite act, it cannot be
exercised by a finite subject. Therefore, while the soul of
Christ did not comprehend the infinite intelligibility of God, it
was endowed with a certain infinite knowledge from the fact
that it knew all the acts of all creatures, who, existing from
now forth for all eternity, are in a certain degree infinite. The
doctrine that we here advance is sustained by St. Thomas,
Summa Theol. Par. III. Q. X. Art. 2. There St. Thomas
proves the doctrine by the following consideration : "Every
beatified creature sees all things in God that pertain to its state.
Now Christ as man is made head of all God s creatures, there
fore everything that ever will have being is subject to Christ,
and must come under his knowledge."
The second species of knowledge that we recognize in
Christ is the infused knowledge, that is, the knowledge that by
a direct illumination God infused into his soul. This differs
from the beatific knowledge, which has for its object the essence
of God, whereas the object of the infused knowledge is the
essence of things in themselves. That Christ had such infused
knowledge is certain. The text of Isaiah is by St. Thomas
alleged to prove it. Is. XI. 2: "And the Spirit of the Lord
shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of counsel and power, the spirit of knowledge and the
fear of the Lord."
292 LUKE II. 4052
By this knowledge Christ knew all things pertaining to
the order of nature, that is, he knew all things naturally know-
able, past, present, and future. This is the common teaching
of theologians, and is founded on the perfection of Christ s
human nature. In the words of St. Thomas, both the natural
and obediential potentialities of his intellect were reduced to
act ; hence all things that can be known either by research or
revelation of God were known by him. Therefore Christ
knew by infused knowledge all the free acts of creatures, past,
present, and to come. Concerning the past and present actions
of free agents, there is no difficulty. It pertained to his office
as universal judge to know these, and God revealed them to
him. But in relation to the future free acts, there is difficulty
to conceive how Christ obtained this knowledge. In fact,
it is difficult to see how even God himself knows the future
judgments and acts of free agents, and when we endow the
human soul of Christ with such knowledge, greater difficulty
arises. Yet theologians are quite uniform in ascribing this
knowledge to the Christ, and it seems to be fitting to his per
fection as universal judge and Lord of all things. The school
men explain the mode of the infusion of this knowledge in
different ways. The best explanation seems to be that Christ
knew this as man by a direct revelation from God. That is, he
did not see by divine illumination these acts in their objective
entity, for it seems probable that a created agent could not be
brought to such perfection that it could see future free acts in
their objective essence. But it is not impossible to conceive
that God, who in his eternity comprehends all time, and sees
these, should reveal them to the soul of Christ. This knowledge
would not be faith in Christ, for he was brought into such rela
tion to the Divinity that he saw this revelation as evident.
Theologians exclude from the mind of Christ faith, for he had
evidence which excludes faith. The revelation of God to
Christ was made so evident to Christ that it excluded faith,
and produced certitude. It included all the free acts of crea
tures, seen by God in themselves by his supercomprehension of
time, and revealed to Christ by evident revelation.
Christ by infused knowledge knew all supernatural created
things, and all the mysteries of grace. We found this assertion
LUKE II. 40 52 293
on the perfection of Christ s humanity, and on the teachings of
theologians. There seems to be no difficulty in conceiving
such perfection in Christ. Although these entia are of the
supernatural order, they are of finite nature, and hence can be
comprehended by a finite intelligence. Christ by this knowl
edge did not see God by intuition ; for such vision, he had need
of the beatific vision, a knowledge specifically differing from
the infused knowledge. Suarez and others denied that Christ
by infused knowledge knew the mystery of the Trinity. But
we believe firmly that by such knowledge he comprehended
that mystery, for it would be an anomaly that one person of the
Trinity should not know fully as man the nature of his own
person, which knowledge would necessitate a knowledge of the
Trinity.
A question now arises regarding the acquired knowledge
of Christ. It is the common teaching of theologians that in
Christ the organs which the soul of man makes use of in intel
lection developed according to the ordinary course of nature.
Therefore the question arises, as the organs of thought devel
oped, what did Christ acquire as other men acquire in the un
folding of reason? The question is difficult as we have already
laid down that by the action of God Christ knew at the moment
of the creation of his soul, all that a finite intelligence can ever
know. We must then assert as a primal position that Christ
in the exercise of his faculties did not essentially increase his
erudition. For this would suppose preceding nescience, which
we cannot admit in Christ. Without entering into the dispute
concerning the species of Christ s knowledge, we may safely
say that Christ obtained through the use of his faculties as they
expanded themselves an experimental knowledge, which we
may aptly term acquired knowledge. Not that it augmented
the essential knowledge of things, but by his senses and intellect
he learned these truths that he had known by infused knowl
edge in another way. For example he knew by infused
knowledge that Mary loved him, but in his experience he felt
her love, and learned it another way. This experimental
knowledge did not add to the essential store of his knowledge,
and yet it was acquired by a real exercise of his powers. Noth
ing was inert in Christ. All his faculties were perfectly devel-
294 LUKE II. 40 52
oped, and were exercised upon their proper objects. We
believe then that the organs of Christ developed naturally;
that, as they developed, by their aid his soul, already full of the
infused knowledge of all things, learned the truths that came
under human observation by the natural mode ; he knew them
before by infused knowledge ; he knows them again by another
mode in the exercise of his natural powers.
We now consider what progress in knowledge Luke speaks
of here. To lie brief, we do not believe he means the progress
in acquired knowledge, for this was not an essential progress in
vScience. We believe then, that as the Christ advanced in age,
he allowed more and more of the infinite treasures of wisdom to
shine forth ; that his words reflected more of the knowledge of
all things that was in him, and his works were more and more
prudent; for by a divine harmony he fitted his words and
actions to the different stages of his life. He knew all the
mysteries of grace and all things knowable both natural and
supernatural as a babe on the straw, but he did not deliver the
sermon on the mount or teach the Lord s Prayer till mature life.
We believe that Luke refers here to the successive degrees of
wisdom in word and work that Jesus manifested in the suc
cessive stages of his life.
In the modern general tendency towards reducing the
supernatural element in religion, the doctrine of Christ s knowl
edge is made the object of an effort to exaggerate the human
limitations of Christ. In the non-Catholic world the most
common opinion is to assert a real ignorance in Christ. In the
Catholic world of thought there is a tendency among those
who are aptly styled "modernists" to admit certain limitations
in knowledge in Christ. The mystery is deep, and it is folly
to assert anything of those depths of mystery except what God
has revealed either through the Scriptures or through the
Church. It is far better to draw back in reverence at the
inscrutable depths of these mysteries than rashly to formulate
theories concerning them. What is necessary for us to know
has been revealed. We know that Christ was true God and true
man ; but how that mystery was consummated we can not know.
No perfect knowledge of how the finite human was united
with the infinite Divine in the person of Christ is vouchsafed to-
MATT. III. i 12 ; MARK I. i 8 295
men. But in that Divine Being we believe that it is wiser and
holier to tend to exclude from Christ limitations which are
an imperfection of our nature. No man knows the exact
nature of Christ s knowledge. It is involved in the mystery
of the incarnation. There stand the two eternal truths: he
was God, equal to his Father; he was man like us in all things
save sin. The Deity in him lost none of its essential attributes ;
and the humanity in him preserved its true nature. The
humanity was influenced by the Divinity, but not changed in
nature. At times we see more of the manifestation of the
Divine; at other times more of the human. St. Luke speaks
here of the development of the human nature of Christ. To
try to penetrate further into that mystery is a vain effort.
This also explains adequately the progress that Christ is
said to have made in grace. No augmentation of the habitual
grace can be predicated of Christ. He was full of grace from
the beginning; but as he advanced in age, he multiplied deeds
of virtue and kindness which more and more revealed to men
the richness of the favor of God which was his in virtue of the
hypostatic union. Again as every action of Christ was meri
torious, in a certain way it increased his grace, for as no such
action should go without its reward, the accumulation of
merit by Christ s acts added to his grace. This might be
called an accidental increase. We hold then with St. Thomas
that, as the greatest union with God is the hypostatic union,
so the grace that resulted from that could not be essentially
increased, since everything that could pertain to grace was
possessed by Christ from the beginning; but, as the glory of
God cannot be increased essentially, but accidentally it is
increased by the virtues and praises of the elect, so the
meritorious actions of Christ may well be said to have added
in such way to the grace that he received from his Father.
MATT. III. 1-12. MARK I. 1-8.
i. Ev Be -uaiq Tj^epaK; Ixsivatq i. Apyjj TOJ etiayyeXfou Irpou
tveTcx . Icoavvrj? 6 &aTC7ijrrj<; XpicrroO, jlou 0soj.
sv rf] ipr^w rrjq lou-
296
MATT. III. i 12 ; MARK I. i i
2. Alywv, MeTavoet-e, rjyytxev
yap r) 6aaiXela TU>V oupavwv.
3. OUTO<; yap l<mv 6 pTjOelq Bca
Haalou TOU xpo9Y) ro!j XeyovToq,
>oci>vTO<; ev Tfl IpYj^w, ITOI-
TY)v 6Bbv Kupiou, euGefaq
T<X<; Tpf6ou<; auToG.
4. AuTbc; Be 6 Ia>dvvY)<; el^ev
TO evSu^xa auxoD czicb tpty^wv xa^x-
T^Xou xal ^WVYJV SepixarfvTQV ice pi
TT]V Offt^UV aUTOU, 1] TpO^T] "QV
auiou dxpEBec; xal jxeXt aypiov.
5. TOTS l^TCOpUTO xpbq auTOv
lepoadXu^ia xai xaaa ^ louSafa
xal xaaa -Q zpfxwpo<; TOU
lopSdvou:
2. Ka6b> yeypaxTat ev TW
Haata TW icpo^^Tfj: I8ou, dxo-
CTeXXw TOV ayyeXov ^ou xpb xpo-
ccoxou aou, o<; xaTaaxeudaet TY)V
6B6v aou.
3. (ov) o>vTO<; ev
TTJV 6Bbv Kupfou:
xotetTe Taq Tp(6ou<; au
4. EyeveTO Iwavvrji; 6
v ev TY) epi]^(p, XYjpuaawv ^
5. Kal l^exopeueTO xpbq
xaaa TQ louBafa ywpa, xal ot lepo-
aoXu^elTai xdvTeq, xal e
ux auTou ev TW lopBavf) x
6. Kal sSaiuTi^ovTO ev TW lop-
flic auToG l^oxo-
aafwv xal aaSSouxalwv py v o^vou<;
Ixl Tb ^dTCTKj^xa elxev auToI?,
jxaTa extBvwv, Tt? uxeBet^ev u^
<puyelv dxb TY
8.
9. Kal ^Yj Bo^TQ-re Xeyetv ev
eauToI<; : IlaTepa eyo^ev Tbv
A6pad^, Xeyw yap u^xlv cm BuvaTat
6 @eb<; ex TWV X(6wv TOUTWV eyelpat
Texva TO)
10. "HBr] Be T} a^t vTf) xpbq TY)V
^av TWV BevBpwv xelTat, xav o5v
6. Kal YJV 6 IwdvvYji; IvBeBu-
JJLEVO? TpEyaq xa^Xou, xal ^WVYJV
BepixaTivr]v xepl TYJV QJ^UV auToO,
xal eaOwv dxpfBaq xal |xeXt ayptov.
7. Kal ixTQpu(j<jev Xeywv, "Ep-
yeTat 6 tayupOTepdc; jxou 6xEco>,
o5 oux et^xl lxavb<; xu^ac; Xuaat Tbv
TWV uxoBY]^aT(ov auTou.
u^ag
8. Eyo> !
Be
Aytw.
MATT. III. i 12 ; MARK I. i I
297
SevSpov JIT) xotoOv xapxbv xaXbv
xal et? xup
11. fw jxev ijjjiaq axr/i) v
etq jxeTavotav, 6 Se oxcato JAOU
ta^upOTepoi; [xou
ou oux ei^l cxavbq -ra
auToq u jXaq fiaxTcaec 4v
Aytw xal xupc.
12. OtJ TO XT JOV SV 7fj
xal otaxaOaptsc TT]V a
xal auvaqst TOV <T!TOV auToO
e!<; I:T]V axoG^xr^v auToD, TO Bs
ay_upov xceraxauaet xupl dtjSeaTaj,
1. In those days cometh
John- the Baptist, preaching in
the wilderness of Judaea,
2. Saying: Repent ye; for
the kingdom of Heaven is at
hand.
3. For this is he that was
spoken of by Isaias the prophet,
saying: The voice of one cry
ing in the wilderness: Prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make
straight his paths,
4. And the same John had
his raiment of camel s hair, and
a leathern girdle about his
loins; and his food was locusts
and wild honey.
5. Then went out to him
Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and
all the region round about the
Jordan ,
1. The beginning of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son
of God.
2. As it is written in Isaias
the prophet: Behold, I send
my angel before thy face, who
shall prepare the way before
thee:
3. The voice of one crying
in the wilderness: Prepare ye
the way of the Lord, make
straight his paths.
4. John did baptize in the
wilderness, and preach the bap
tism of repentance unto the
remission of sins.
5. And there went out to
him all the land of Judaea, and
all they of Jerusalem, and were
baptized by him in the river
Jordan, confessing their sins.
298
MATT. III. i 12 ; MARK I. i i
6. And were baptized by
him in the river Jordan, con
fessing their sins.
7. And seeing many of the
Pharisees and Sadducees com
ing to his baptism, he said
unto them: Ye brood of vipers,
who hath warned you to flee
from the wrath to come
8. Bring forth therefore
fruit befitting repentance.
9. And think not to say
within yourselves: We have
Abraham for our father; for I
say unto you that God is able
of these stones to raise up
children unto Abraham.
10. For now the axe is laid
unto the root of the trees.
Therefore every tree which
bringeth not forth good fruit
is cut down and cast into the
fire.
11. I indeed baptize you
with water unto repentance;
but he that cometh after me
is mightier than I, whose shoes
I am not worthy to bear; he
shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost and with fire.
12. And his winnowing
shovel is in his hand, and he
will thoroughly purge his
threshing floor, and gather his
wheat into the granary, but
the chaff he will burn with un
quenchable fire.
6. And John was clothed
with camel s hair, and with a
leathern girdle about his lions,
and he ate locusts and wild
honey.
7. And he preached, saying:
There cometh after me one
mightier than I, the latchet
of whose shoes I am not worthy
to stoop down and loose.
8. I have baptized you with
water, but he shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost.
LUKE III. i 1 8
LUKE III. 1-18
299
1. Now in the fifteenth year
of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of
Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch
of Galilee, and his brother Philip
tetrarch of Ituraea and of the re
gion of Trachonitis, and Lysa-
nias the tetrarch of Abilene,
2. Annas and Caiaphas being
the high priests, the word of God
came unto John the son of Zach-
ary in the wilderness.
3. And he came into all the
country about the Jordan,
preaching the baptism of repent
ance unto the remission of sins,
4. As it is written in the,
book of the words of Isaias the
prophet: The voice of one crying
in the wilderness : Prepare ye the
way of the Lord, make straight
his paths.
5. Every valley shall be
filled, and every mountain and
hill shall be brought low ; and the
crooked shall be made straight
and the rough ways plain;
YJC;
Ev Tt XVT
Tc6ep(ou Kat aapoc;,
IIovTc ou HctXaTou
louSataq, xat TTpapxoGvrog
FaXtXataq TIpwoou,
G dcSsXqpou ainou TT
iTOUpataq xat
7/opac, xat Ausavtoj rrj<; A5tXr)vf,c
"Avva xa
@ou ir.
2. Eicl dp^tp{i)q
Ka cacpa, lylvETO
Iwavvrv TOV
Kal ^X6ev ziq zaaav
lopBavou, xiqpuaawv
^etavofa? ei? aqjsa
4. Qq yly pax-cat Iv ^t 6Xw Xo-
ycov Haatou TOU icpo^TOU
^owvro? Iv if) Ip^to : E
TTJV 6Bov Kuptou, uOt a<; X
5 aja cpapay z
xal xav opo? xat (souvb? T
<i7at, xat EGTat TOC axoXta eiq u6tac,
xat at Tpay_tat
6. And all flesh shall see the
salvation of God.
7. Then said he to the multi
tudes that came forth to be
baptized by him: Ye brood of
vipers, who hath warned you to
flee from the wrath to come?
6. Kat od^Eiat xaaa cap TO
TOU @EOU.
xxopsuo-
6x auiou :
7. "EXeyv ouv T
JJLSVOK; o^Xot? ^axT
-:a ly^tovwv,
9 jYeTv axb T
300
LUKE III. i 18
8. Bring forth, therefore,
fruits befitting repentance, and
begin not to say within your
selves: We have Abraham for
our father; for I say unto you
that God is able of these stones
to raise up children unto Abra
ham.
9. For now the axe is laid to
the root of the trees: every tree
therefore that bringeth not forth
good fruit is cut down and cast
into the fire.
10. And the multitudes asked
him, saying: What therefore,
ought we do?
11. He answered and said
unto them: He that hath two
coats let him give to him that
hath none ; and he that hath food
let him do in like manner.
12. Then came also publi
cans to be baptized, and said
unto him: Master, what ought
we do?
13. And he said unto them:
Exact no more than that which
is appointed you.
14. And the soldiers also
asked him, saying: And w r hat
ought we do ? And he said unto
them: Do violence to no man,
neither accuse any man falsely,
and be content with your pay.
15. And as the people were
in expectation, and all mused in
their hearts of John, whether he
were the Christ or not ;
8. Ilonpaie ouv afyouq xapxouq
TTJ<; ^CTavotac;, xal ^.T] fipljiQcOe Xdyeiv
ev eauToTq: IlaTepa e^o^ev Tbv
A6pad^, Xeyw yap ujxlv, OTC Buvaiac
6 @eb<; Ix T(i>v XtOwv TOUTWV eyelpat
9. "Hof] Be xal 13 a^cVrj xpbq TTJV
pl^av TCOV BevBpiov xeliat, xav ouv
BevBpov ^T] xotouv xapxbv xaXbv
!xx6xTiac xal elq xup
10. Kac err) pa>TCi>v auTbv ot o
T( ouv
ii. AxoxptOelq Be e Xeyev au-
TO!<;: e^tov Buo ^frwvaq ^
TO) JXT] I^OVTI, xal 6 e^cov
oyiotax; zotetTW.
12.
T HX6ov Be xal -re^wvai
, xal elxov zpb<;
T(
13. Be elzev xpb<;
Mir]Bev xXeov xapa TO BtaTe
14.
xa
Ttov Be auibv xal
Xeyovre?: T(
?; xal elxev
, ^Y]8e auxocpav-
, xal dpxelaOe TO!<; ^wvtoiq
U^JLCOV.
15. IlpoaSoxamo<; Be TOU Xaou,
xal BtaXoyt^oixevwv xavTtov ev Tat<;
xapBtat? atkwv ice pi TOU Iwdvvou,
auToq e tVj 6
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 301
16. John answered, saying 16. AxexpfvaTO Xeywv xaaiv
unto all: I indeed baptize you 6 Iwdvvqq: Eyw ^xev uBaTt (3axT(t,G>
with water; but one mightier u[xa?, epyeTai oe 6 b^upOTepOi; pou,
than I cometh, the latchet of ou oux. ef^xl txavbq Xuaat TOV -c^avTa
whose shoes I am not worthy TO>V uxoSiqiAdTtov GCUTOU, auToq ujiac
to loose: he shall baptize you (tax-n aet ev Hveu^aTt Aytw xal
with the Holy Ghost and with xupt.
fire.
17. And his winnowing shov- 17. O6 TO XT uov ev Tfl "/etpl
el is in his hand, thoroughly Sca/.aOapsa TYJV aXwva auiou, xal
to purge his threshing floor, and juvayayelv TOV CTCTOV elq TTJV dxo-
he will gather the wheat into his Gi^x^v auTOU, TO Be ay^upov
granary, but the chaff he will sec xup: da6eaT(o.
burn with unquenchable fire.
18. And many other things 18. IloXXa ^.ev QJV xat
in his exhortation preached he xapczxaXwv euT]yyeXt^TO TOV Xao v.
unto the people.
In the text of Matthew in the sixth verse we adopt the
reading ev rq> lop&dvrj Horary on the authority of ^, B, C*,
M, A, and many other codices. This reading is endorsed by
Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and is followed by all the
great ancient versions. The term no-rapy is omitted by C 3 D,
E, K, L, M, S, U, V, T, A, n, and by the Vulgate.
In the seventh verse we add the pronoun avrov to the eVl
TO /Sd-n-THTpa on the authority of N", C, D, E, K, L, M, S, U, V,
r, A, n, against N* and B.
In the first verse of Mark we adopt the reading, vlov eoO
on the authority of the great majority of the Greek codices.
It is true that some of the Fathers omitted these terms, and
Tischendorf omitted them in his eighth edition of the New
Testament. Westcott and Hort assign them a place in the
margin. Wet stein and Lachman retain them, and so do most
Catholic interpreters. Their omission by Origen, Basil, Ire-
naeus, Epiphanius, Jerome and others arises, most probably,
from the fact that they quoted the verse loosely from memory,
not attending to its critical reading. Their retention comports
well with the design of Mark, which was to prove to the Gentiles
that Jesus was the Son of God .
302 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18
Knabenbauer does not consider this first verse of Mark a
complete sentence, but joins it with the following verse. In
this he has the authority among others of Maldonatus, a Lapide,
Menocchi, Tirini, Calmet, Bisping and Schanz. It is a critical
question of slight importance, and without attacking their
position, we prefer to see in the verse something complete in it
self, forming the inscription of the Gospel. Among others,
Jansenius, Schegg, Pillion, Keil, Weiss, and Cornely support
this view.
In the second verse of Mark we adopt the reading, " ev TCO
HoWa. This reading is found in &$, B, D, L, A, and some
cursive MSS. It is followed by the Peshitto, Philoxenian,
Coptic and Vulgate translations, and by Origen and many
Fathers: Jerome rejected this reading (Ad Math. III. 3), but
afterwards endorsed it. (Ad. Malach. III. i ; and in Epist. L.
VII. 9.) The reading "ey rrpo^ral^ is found in A, E, P, G,
H, K, M, P, S, U,V, P, n. It is followed by Grotius and by the
Ethiopian and protestant versions. In the same verse the
phrase efnrpoaOev aov is not found in ^, B, D, K, L, P, 36, and
102. It is not found in many codices of the old Italian version,
and of the Vulgate, neither in the Syriac and Ethiopian versions,
nor in the writings of Origen and Irenaeus. It is found in
A, F, A, II 2 , and in the greater number of the codices of the
Italian and Vulgate versions. Jerome, as is his wont, rejects
it in one place (Ad Malach.), and adopts it in another (Epist.
L. VII. 9).
In the fourth verse, we adopt the reading of /ecu before
Kijpva-crcav on the authority of ^, A, D, L, P, A, and many
other codices, versions and critics against B, 33, 73, 102 and
Westcott and Hort.
In the seventeenth verse of the text of Luke we adopt the
reading 8iaica6apat, on the authority of ^*, B, Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort. Such reading is followed by the Coptic
and Armenian versions.
As the narrative is substantially the same in these three
Evangelists we shall first reconcile one critical point in Mark,
and then comment the text of Luke, which is fuller than the
others. The second and third verses of Mark contain a double
quotation from prophetical Scripture. The first quotation:
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 303
" Behold I will send my angel, and he shall prepare the way
before me," is taken from Malachi III. i. The entire third
verse is taken from Isaiah XL. 3. Now the difficulty arises
from the fact that Mark includes these both under the one head
as a prophecy from Isaiah. Various have been the attempts to
explain this difficulty. Jerome asserted that the text was here
corrupt, and finally gave up, and confessed his inability to solve
it. Now to us the solution seems most simple. The mind of
Mark had centered on the great prophecy of Isaiah concerning
John, the voice in the wilderness. That is the central thought
dominant in all three Evangelists. This classic prophecy
outlined John s life, and when men sought from himself who he
was, he declared that he was the verification of this prophecy.
But the quotation from Malachi is taken as a mere preface to
introduce this leading thought; it is subordinate, a mere
adjunct, and Mark freely used these divine words without
naming their source as an introduction to the main central
thought, which he took from Isaiah. The Evangelists were
careless of technicalities. They were concerned with the
central truth of the message of salvation. The Gospels present
few difficulties to a man who brings to their perusal the same
dispositions which w r ere in those who wrote them.
Luke s first care is to mark the exact date of the beginning
of the mission of John. He does this according to the custom
of the time by stating who were ruling in Rome and in the
vassal Judcea. A vast amount has been written concerning
these dates, but as it all consists in conjectures, it is wearisome
and unprofitable. It is safe to say that not in profane or sacred
history of that time is there a date of which we are morally
certain ; there is always a margin of some years of uncertainty.
The best we may do is to locate the event in a period covering
four or five, or even ten years. So it is here, and we shall dis
miss all thought of fixing the month and the day of this event.
The probable date of Augustus death is the year 767 A. U. C.
Tiberius his adopted son succeeded him, and in the fifteenth
year of his reign the preaching of John began. Those who
delight to revel in chronological probabilities and improbabili
ties may consult Patrizi on this point. [De. Evang. Lib. III.
Diss. XXXVIII. et seqq.]
304 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18
When in the tenth year of Archelaus reign he was banished,
Judaea was made a Roman province administered by a procur
ator. The first procurator was Coponius, the fifth was Pontius
Pilate, who administered it for ten years from 26 to 36 A. D.
In the division of Herod s kingdom, Herod Antipas
obtained Galilee and Perea, and held them till the year
39, A. D.
The original signification of tetrarchy was the fourth part
of a kingdom divided under different rulers. In time it passed
to signify any division of a divided government.
Philip and Herod Antipas were not born of the same
mother. Herod the Great had nine wives. Philip was born of
Cleopatra of Jerusalem, while Malthace, a Samaritan woman,
was the mother of Antipas. Trachonitis was the territory
extending from the southeastern boundary of the Lake of
Gennesaret northeast to Damascus and eastward to the desert.
Iturasa is an ill-defined region. It lay north of Trachonitis, and
was sometimes confounded with it. Josephus, Antiq. XVII. 4,
tells us that Philip s government included Batanea, Trachonitis
as well as Hauran, and a part of the house of Zenodorus, by
which term he signified Abilene. Rationalists accuse Luke of
error from the fact that Josephus has never mentioned Iturasa
among the possessions of Philip. This is mere cavil. Luke
more accurately comprised under Trachonitis and Iturasa the
provinces that Josephus classes under other heads. In accur
acy as a historian, for natural reasons, Luke is to be pre
ferred to Josephus. This latter has fallen into numberless open
errors.
The tetrarchy Abilene was a tract of country lying north of
Damascus and east of the mountains of Lebanon, in what is
known as the Anti-Libanus. Concerning this Lysanias,
which Luke makes tetrarch of this region, thus wrote Strauss
in ,,)a ^eben 3efu,,: " Luke makes reign thirty years after the
birth of Christ one Lysanias who had been slain certainly thirty
years before such birth; it is a slight error of sixty years."
In Antiq. XIV. VII. 4, Josephus speaks of a certain Ptolemy,
who was ruler of Chalcis under Mt. Libanus, and in the XV.
Book, IV. i, he affirms that Lysanias the son of this Ptolemy
was slain by Mark Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra.
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 305
This Lysanias Strauss confounds with the Lysanias of Luke,
hence the discrepancy. We shall straightway show that they
are not the same individual. The founder of the little dynasty
of Lysanias was Ptolemy son of Menneus, a sheikh of nomad
Arabs who lived by pillage in the environs of Damascus. He
grew in power, though hated and opposed by neighboring
rulers, and finally we find him mentioned as we have said by
Josephus as king of Chalcis. Pompey ravaged his territories,
but accepting a thousand talents from him, left him in posses
sion of his lands. [Antiq. XIV. 3,2.] He was succeded by his
son Lysanias [Antiq. XIV. 13, 3], and it is this man that
Strauss indentifies with the Lysanias of Luke. This Lysanias
was succeeded by his son Zenodorus. Augustus, according to
Josephus [Antiq. XV. 10, 1-3], first took the greater part of
this man s territory from him, and gave it to Herod, and when
Zenodorus died, Josephus seems to imply that Augustus gave
all his land to Herod.
At this point all historical data cease, with the sole
exception of Luke s assertion regarding Lysanias. Vigouroux
reproduces a Greek inscription found in 1737 by Pococke in the
ruins of Abila the central city of Abilene. It is found in the
Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum published by Bockl and Franz
in Berlin in 1853, T. III. No. 4521. The proof that we would
draw from this inscription is that there is mention of a tetrarch
Lysanias who ruled in Abilene under "august" Emperors.
The inscription opens: "Saluti Dominorum August orum,"
and in its body mentions a contemporaneous Lysanias the
tetrarch. Now before the time of Tiberius Caesar, there were
never two of the imperial line bearing the name of "august. "
Such appellation began with Livia the wife of Augustus and
her son Tiberius after the death of Augustus. This is a con
vincing proof that Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene in the
times mentioned by Luke. This is confirmed by an inscrip
tion found in the first half of this century at Baalbeck a city
which once belonged to the realm of the Lysanias. (See
Vigouroux, 1. c.) The drift of the inscription is that the son
of Zenodorus was called Lysanias, and his son was also called
Lysanias. That is, the family persevered under this name at
least for three generations. But the best proof of Luke s
(19) Gosp. I.
306 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18
account comes from the works of Josephus. In Antiq. XX. 7, i
he says: "Felix the procurator under Claudius bestowed on
Agrippa II. the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanea, and added
thereto Trachonitis with Abilene which last had been the
tetrarchy of Lysanias; but he took from him Chalcis." From
this testimony we argue as follows : Had the dynasty founded
by Ptolemy Menneus ended with his son, Josephus would not
have designated this province as the tetrarchy of Lysanias.
It is evident that he speaks of the ruler of that province who
immediately preceded Agrippa II. Again, Josephus distin
guishes Chalcis from Abilene, the tetrarchy of Lysanias. Now
the Lysanias of Strauss had as the chief part of his possessions
Chalcis. It evidently results from Josephus account that
Lysanias was a contemporary of Philip, and his tetrarchy to
gether with the lands of Philip were given to Agrippa II. It
seems probable that the reason that Luke mentioned the ruler
of Abilene was that on Zenodorus death all his lands were
given to Herod the Great. Hence in the partition of Herod s
lands after his death, Caesar restored a part of the old realm of
Ptolemy Menneus to Lysanias the surviving scion, who held it
as a vassal of Rome. Luke wished to state who were ruling in
the kingdom which had once all been under the scepter of
Herod the Great, and which at the date of Luke s writing was
ruled by Agrippa II. the grandson of Herod.
After designating the civil rulers, he marks those who
were at the head of religious affairs, Annas and Caiaphas. A
difficult question arises here to determine how these two are
mentioned as high priests. According to the law of Moses, the
high priest was constituted for life. In that age, however of
degeneracy, the Romans removed and constituted high priests
at will. Herod the Great, constituted eight high priests;
Achelaus, three. Annas the son of Seth was appointed high
priest by Ouirinius about the sixth year of the Christian era.
He held such office for about nine years. Valerius Gratus
deposed him, and after a series of three changes, he appointed
Joseph Caiaphas the son-in-law of Annas high priest, who held
such dignity from the year 18 to the year 36 of the Christian
era. Caiaphas was therefore the official high priest at the time
mentioned here bv Luke, and at the crucifixion of our Lord.
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 307
Nevertheless the authority of Annas was greater than that of
Caiaphas. Annas lived to see all five of his sons attain to the
post of high priest. It seemed to have degenerated under the
Romans to a political appointment, and Annas though not
actually the appointed one, really was greatest in authority
during the priesthood of his sons, and especially during the
term of office of the weak, venal Caiaphas. The difficulty that
commentators find in the mention of two high priests reigning
at the same time proceeds from the fact that they would
regulate the polity of those degenerate times according to the
Law of Moses. Now the main fact for us to establish here is
that Annas and Caiaphas were associated in the high priesthood
which seems the most probable of things. The old Mosaic law
of the succession of the high priests had been shattered.
Bribery and flattery obtained that coveted post from the
Romans. Annas was powerful with the Jews. His weak son-
in-law was in the post. What was more reasonable than that
the powerful old Annas would be associated with him? Espe
cially as he had once been high priest and knew that in virtue of
Moses Law his tenure of office should be for life. Now as to
the mode that Annas and Caiaphas managed the functions
between them, many different opinions exist. This is acci
dental, for Luke s account is clear, once we establish an associa
tion in the high priesthood between these two men. Some
believe that they alternated year by year in the exercise of the
functions of the priesthood; others think that one was the
president in the Sanhedrin, the other the officiating high priest.
At all events, we shall see in the subsequent events that
Caiaphas deferred to the judgment of his powerful father-in-law
fn the momentous questions that came before him concerning
the Christ.
In describing the mission of John, Luke uses the accus
tomed formula for the calling of the prophets, for John was a
prophet, the greatest of the prophets. The wilderness in which
John prepared for his grand mission seems to have been the
tract of Judaea lying on the western bank of the Jordan north
of the Dead Sea. It was called a wilderness in the Scriptural use
of this term, that is a tract of uninhabited country. At what
time John entered the desert, we are not told. We believe that
308 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18
it was after he came to the full use of reason. He remained
there till his thirtieth year, as the customs of his people forbade,
a man to teach till he had attained his thirtieth year. It seems
that John was called to the life in the wilderness by the direct
communication of God. We believe that when he entered
the desert he knew his mission. First, he was to prepare him
self for his great work, and then he was to prepare the people
for the reception of the Messiah. All the prophets in a certain
sense prepared the people for the Messiah, but John completed
the ultimate preparation.. In the life of John in the desert we
see the difference between the ways of God and the world. The
spirit of this world loves the shock and excitement of social
contact, the conveniences and comforts of life. The influence
of the Spirit of God is always weakened by these, and often
obliterated. The soul grows and waxes strong in solitude.
Not every man can seek the solitude as John did, but every
man, to lead a Christian life, must at times withdraw where he
can hear only God s voice in his soul. In our days, when the
world has become dangerously practical, small heed is paid to
this interior life with God, and hence results so much mere
nominal Catholicity. The great questions which concern the
destiny of man, his duties, his dangers, are profound. Some
knowledge of them is necessary to Christian action. This
knowledge can not be incidentally obtained as a side issue in
the unceasing scramble for existence and the plunge for wealth.
There is a great lack of reflection in our days With truth can
we say in the words of Jeremiah XII. n : "All the earth is
made desolate because there is no one who thinks in his heart.
The Gospel clearly declares that there was a particular
summons come from God to John in the wilderness at the
appointed time for him to begin his mission of preaching and
baptizing. As the wilderness of St. John was most probably
lying on the west bank of the Jordan, to exercise his active
mission he had only to traverse northward and southward the
two banks of the Jordan. News of such an event soon spread
among the people. Such an event was fitting to the modes and
customs of the people. The reasons that moved John not to
penetrate into the centers of population on his mission were
twofold. Fir st, as a great factor in his preaching was to be the
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 309
baptism, emblematic of the effect that the Redeemer was to
accomplish, the taking away of the world s sin, the river
afforded the best means to administer this rite. Secondly, the
people going forth out of the ordinary avenues of life were
removed from the disturbing elements of their ordinary life, and
were better disposed thereby to receive the message of John.
His penitential life also appeared to better advantage, and it is
easy to detect the wisdom of God in the event. We have
before explained in the exegesis of Luke I. 77, that the baptism
of John did not by intrinsic power take away sin. It was not a
sacrament: it only signified an effect that was to be wrought
by Christ the reality, for whom it was a preparation. John s
baptism was the initial act in a great event whose fulness would
take away sins. Hitherto the ritualistic observances had no
intrinsic effect, They only kept Israel from idolatry, and kept
alive something of the Yahvistic worship till the perfection
came. Now the baptism of John was the transition from the
old to the new. As it was only an initial act in the entering
into the new dispensation, its effect was not the complete
remission of sins, but only the disposition for such effect. The
soul that was penitent, as John exhorted, and received his
baptism, was in a fit disposition to receive the full remission
through Christ. When Isaiah calls John a voice crying in the
wilderness, he sums up John s mission, and the place where it
was to be fulfilled. It was foreseen and foreordered that John
should preach in the actual wilderness. In their hatred of
monasticism the old heretics tried to distort this text to make
John inhabit his home which was in the suburbs of a city.
Such an attempt is too absurd to need refutation. We deem
the remark of Maldonatus worthy of note, that no follower of
Calvin or Luther ever wore haircloth. All the teachers of
the law of God plainly manifest by word and by example
that mortification of the flesh is an essential element in the
religion of God, and only the Catholic Church clings to that
truth, and puts it into practice in the daily life of her children.
In these days of selfish love of ease, when material comfort
is the god of the world, men may shirk this essential element
in the Christian life, but it lives in the life of the Church, and
must ever be one of the agencies by which she sanctifies man.
310 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18
The reasons that moved God to send John as a precursor
of the Christ are manifest. It is difficult to move men out of
old grooves of thought and action. Christ was to effect a
thorough perfection of the religion of the Jews. This would
necessitate the laying aside of old traditions, a complete change
of thought from the externals of the old cult to the spiritual
nature of the new. Now better results might justly be expected
in this work, if men were prepared by a herald. He was to
arouse to new life the old expectation of the Messiah, and also
refine their carnal conceptions of a worldly powerful Messiah.
Finally, it was the custom among those nations for a king
going to visit any of his provinces to send a herald to proclaim
his coming and prepare the people for his reception. Christ
the king of kings, coming to visit his creatures, sends John his
precursor to prepare his way. This preparation was not to
consist of magnificent tournaments of military nor of splendid
games and festivities. Such preparation was for the kings of
this world. The preparation for the King of Heaven was
repentance, a change of heart.
To understand fully the sense of the fifth verse of Luke,
let us contemplate a landscape rendered very difficult of
passage by steep, rugged mountains, deep ravines and gulches.
The view is severe and forbidding. A tortuous narrow path
winds around the mountain crags, now rising in a steep and
dangerous ascent up the mountain side, now plunging down
into the bed of the ravine. It would be natural for the mind of
one contemplating such a stretch of land to associate the idea
of difficulty with the idea of the passage of a body through
such land. Now let us conceive that by some adequate power
the whole surface of the land becomes changed, so that it
spreads itself out in a beautiful plain, traversed by level roads,
where no obstacle obstructs the passage of a body. Then with
Isaiah and Luke let us pass from the literal to the metaphorical
sense, and apply the figurative speech to the moral world.
The knowledge of truth and of the salvation of the Redeemer
was shut out from the world by moral barriers of various na
ture. These barriers rendered the moral world of man s soul
as inaccessible to ideas of religious truth as did the aforesaid
inequalities of the land obstruct the natural passage of man.
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 311
Now it was ordained that the teaching of Jesus should over
come these mighty obstacles, and change the whole moral
aspect of the world, and St. John calls upon the world to pre
pare for that great event. Looking forward with prophetic
vision to the redemption of all mankind, and the universal
spread of Christ s kingdom, Isaiah cries out that a way shall be
prepared in every land, for the universal King Immanuel will
visit all flesh: and St. John declares that now the prophecy is
fulfilled and he is the herald of that king. Although St. John s
preparatory baptism in actual deed was local, still he calls upon
humanity for a universal preparation. "Every valley shall be
filled and every hill laid low, and all flesh shall see the salvation
of God." He announces a transition to a broader, better coven
ant of mercy wrought by Jesus, in which God s chosen people
are not restricted to the race of Abraham, but are called of all
who believe in the Lord Jesus. The metaphor is perfect. The
saving knowledge of Christ is to traverse the world, and the
effect of his redemption is to operate in the souls of all men.
There are parts of the physical world where man has never
penetrated ; but there are no parts of that moral world that
Isaiah contemplated into which the message of Jesus has not
intrinsic power to enter. The sense therefore of the passage
announces the universal spread of the kingdom of Heaven.
Now this great kingdom is to be founded in the souls of men.
To be sure, as man is a composite being of body and spirit, and
has need of senses in his soul s action, there will be an external
social organization to this kingdom also. We repudiate the
protestant heresy of the invisible church of the predestined,
existing only in the hearts of men. The kingdom of Heaven is
founded as a social body, having an organized regimen, but the
essence of the realm, and that for which the external organiza
tion is founded, is the reign of Christ in men s souls. The vital
element of that realm is the religious principal lying unseen in
the hearts of good men, silently working and tending towards
the consummation of the kingdom of Heaven in eternity.
The kingdom of Heaven that John Baptist declared approach
ing comprises many things. It comprises the whole economy
of salvation of the New Law with its different elements. It
includes the external, socially organized body of the Church
312 MATT. III. i-i2;MARK I. i-8;LuKE III. 1-18
founded by Christ ; it comprises the new creation of grace in the
souls of men ; it includes all those who have availed themselves
of Christ, and have been incorporated in his mystic body by
baptism ; it finds its consummation and ultimate perfection in
the eternal life of the elect with Christ in Heaven. Now it is
evident that only those in whose souls energizes the living
force of divine grace are really loyal subjects of this realm.
These are the ones whom Christ declares that he knows, and
that they know him. Thus in different passages of the Scrip
tures reference is sometimes made to one stage or element of
this kingdom of Heaven, and sometimes to another. As used
here by St. Matthew, it signifies especially the Church in slain
via, not excluding the Church in Heaven the ultimate end of all
Christ s labors. It is to be remarked that Matthew most
frequently makes use of the expression " Kingdom of Heaven. "
He does this by design. The Jews waited for an earthly king
dom. The supernatural aspirations of the people were almost
obliterated. They were prepared to receive a Messiah who
would exempt them from the foreigner s tyranny, and make
them powerful . The drift of Matthew s teaching is to disabuse
them of this erroneous conception of the Christ, and awaken
an interest in the spiritual character of Christ s kingdom.
There is an eternal conflict between the material and super
natural orders in man. They act on his soul like two opposite
forces. Heaven invites him to ascend ; earth draws him down.
The motives of earth are sensible, perceptible to the carnal man ;
the motives of the supernatural are spiritual, only perceptible
by faith. As faith grows weak, the upward aspiring of man s
soul relaxes, and the reign of matter is confirmed. The prepon
derance of the natural obtains with the many in our own days ;
it had obtained almost totally in Israel. If Christ had given
exemption from death, assurance of wealth, and the other
things that man covets here on earth, he would have drawn
Israel, yea, the whole world to his standard. He places before
man goods of an infinitely higher nature, and obtains at most,
but a half-hearted following, and this only from the few. And
the reason is the difficulty of the supernatural to work in fallen
man.
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 313
Now as the essence of Christ s kingdom is the spiritual
creation in men s souls, the real import of Isaiah s prophetic
words quoted by the Evangelist must be the removing of the
obstacles which in the moral order hinder the building up of
such reign in the souls of men. It is a beautiful metaphor which
likens Christ s entry into the souls of men to the coming of a
king to visit his provinces. And like to the making level and
straight the roads, which people of those days were wont to
make for the reception of a worldly ruler, was to be the spiritual
road-making, that the reign of Christ might enter in and have
place in the souls of men. It is easy to understand in what
these obstacles and tortuosities consisted. The mountains of
sin were to be leveled ; the valleys of the lust of the flesh and
the lust of the world, in which the souls of men had engulfed
themselves were to be filled up ; the crooked ways of injustice
were to be straightened, and the roughnesses of oppression of
one s neighbor and selfish greed were to be made plain. When
such preparation precedes, the Holy Ghost comes into a soul,
and it becomes the temple of the Holy Trinity, it belongs fully
to the reign of Christ.
Many commentators make these future tenses equivalent
to imperatives. While admitting an imperative element in
them, we do not restrict their import to a mere imperative sense.
The future of the Hebrew was often wider in its comprehension
than oiir imperative. They contain an exhortation of God, a
wish of God, a design of God, which will be realized in some
degree. Hence they contain a design as well as a command.
Therefore in the last future, "all flesh shall see the salvation of
God" the design of God, presently to be realized, is the sole
import. "All flesh" imports the universality of mankind. It
is one of the strongest declarations of the Old Testament of the
universality of the New Covenant. It is easy to see how the
name of the Baptist became inseparably attached to the name
of John. Its signification was "the baptizer," and it marked
John as the minister of the new rite, which he preached and
administered.
The Evangelists are intent to bring out John s penitential
life. He is in the wilderness, deprived of the society of his
fellowmen. and the comforts of home ; his raiment is the coarse
314 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. i-8;LuKE in. 1-18
unspun hair of the camel, which had been braided into the
coarsest of fabrics; his girdle was a strip of rawhide. It was
the direct design of God that John should practise this penance.
Or rather, in God s foreknowledge a man was chosen who would
follow 7 with free will the calling of the Holy Ghost in this
penitential life. It was fitting that he who was to preach the
penitential preparation for Christ s coming should exemplify
in his own life the doctrine that he taught. No man could
point at John and say: "Physician, heal thyself." John
never asked of the crowds that assembled on the banks of
the Jordan the penance that he practised. There is an analogy
of heavenly origin between the life of the Precursor and the
life of Christ. Christ, absolutely sinless in conception and in
life, suffered most of all for sin; and John, sanctified in his
mother s womb, set men an example of penance that none
might surpass. Certain it is that the mode of life of John
added weight to his words. He is perhaps the sternest type of
penance in the Old Law, and it needed his stern example and
his terrible words to win back that stiff-necked people to the
ways of God. The example of John inspired by the Holy
Ghost is another striking proof of the value that Gal places
upon the things for which men are daily selling their souls.
As in raiment, so in food, the Baptist practised penance.
Concerning the genus of food here designated by locusts and
wild honey, opinions differ. Some have believed the locusts to
be a species of fruit of wild trees. Others held them to be nuts
or herbs. That these opinions are erroneous, results from the
examination of the Greek text.
They are by all the codices termed a/a^iSe?. Now the
tt/cpt? of the Greeks w r as an insect locust commonly called
by us grasshoppers. Palestine abounds in these, and the name
is frequent in the Holy Books. Bochart mentions ten dif
ferent names by which this animal was known to the Hebrews.
They often overspread whole sections, and destroyed vegeta
tion . That the Orientals were accustomed to eat these insects
rests on the surest authority. In Lev. XI. 22, Moses permits
their use to the Hebrews in the clearest terms : " These of them
ye may eat the H2*lK a f ter i ts kind, and the J^D after
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 315
its kind, and the ^jin after its kind, and the ^JH after
: - T T
its kind." There is some uncertainty as to the exact species of
winged leaping insect here mentioned, but all agree that the
locust is included in the genus. It is highly probable that by
the four terms the holy text designates four varieties of acridian
insects. The Talmudists teach that there are here designated
four classes of locusts. The Arabs also were accustomed to eat
the locust. Thus writes Russel in "Natural History of Aleppo,"
page 62: "It may not be amiss to mention that the Arabs
eat this locust when fresh, and also salt them as a delicacy. "
The same is confirmed by Niebuhr. Farskal declares that the
Bedawin of Egypt roast the locusts on coals, and then divesting
them of their wings and legs, eat them with avidity. He has
witnessed, he says, women and children hunting these. They
passed a thread through the throat of the insect and collected
one hundred on a string which they sold in the market for half
a choma. Pliny, Nat. Hist. Lib. VI. 30, writes. "A part of
the Ethiopians subsist entirely on locusts, which they salt and
smoke for the year s victuals. " Bochart essays to prove that
the use of the grasshopper as food was known to the Greeks.
[Hieroz. P. II. Lib. IV. Cap. VII.] Venerable Bede, De Locis
Sanctis, Cap. XIV., declares that he was informed by the holy
Bishop Archulphus, " that the locusts caught in the grass, being
cooked in oil furnished food for the poor. " The difficulty that
we have in recognizing these insects as John s food springs from
the disgust which we feel at such article of food . But we must
acknowledge that customs and environment regulate this taste,
and that it differs in different peoples. We loathe the snail as
an article of food; it is a delicacy with the Italians. Hence,
we believe that the locusts of St. John were acrididae. The
Oriental locust was larger than the species known in the
Western world.
Concerning the wild honey, there is also a diversity of
opinions. Some believe that it was the deposit of wild bees in
crevices of the rocks and in the hollows of trees. Others under
stand by the pe\i ayptov a sweet gum that exudes from the
trunks of the trees of Syria. For this opinion we have Pascha-
sius from the ranks of the Fathers, who thus declares: "The
316 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. i-8;LuKE III. 1-18
honey for his food was not taken from the hives of bees but from
the trunks of the wild trees." In I. Sam. XII. 26, we read:
"And when the people were come into the wood, behold the
honey dropped ; but no man put his hand to his mouth ; for the
people feared the oath. " It is uncertain whether this was
the gum of trees or honey of bees dropping from the hollows.
Jansensius, Maldonatus, a Lapide, Sylveira, Calmet, Grimm,
Pillion and. Keil believe that John s food was the honey of
bees.
Lesetre in Vigouroux s Dictionairre de la Bible also con
tends that the honey eaten by St. John was the honey of bees.
Jansenius, Maldonatus, Corn, a Lapide, Sylveira, Calmet,
Grimm, Pillion and Keil explain the term here employed to be
the edible gum of trees. Knabenbauer believes that the honey
of bees ill fits John s penitential character, but this is scarcely
a fact, since in the devastation of a land the honey of the wild
bees is represented as the food of the poor remnants of the
people. It seems therefore that the terms used by the Evan
gelist are applicable to both the honey of wild bees, and to the
gum of trees, and that in defect of more explicit information
we can not say which was intended. The greater degree of
probability exists for the honey of bees.
John conducted his mission of preaching and baptism on
both banks of the Jordan, northward from the Dead Sea toward
the Lake of Gennesaret. No prophet had appeared in Israel
since the days of the restoration under Nehemiah. Hence the
appearance of this new prophet on the banks of the Jordan
attracted all the people to see and hear him. It is probable
that the greater part of the Jews of the specific geographical
division known as Judasa, and also those who inhabited the
old realm of the ten tribes assembled to hear John and receive
his baptism.
The baptism of John was not an essential element in the
New Law. It was only a symbol to represent a coming reality.
The lotions of the Jews had up to that time given only a legal
purification. John, in calling his baptism the baptism of
penance, marks the beginning of the internal and spiritual
service of God. His baptism emblemized the great taking away
of the world s sin by the Lamb of God, and the penance which
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 317
he demanded indicated that the external material sin-offerings
were over, and that Yahveh now asked for the sin-offering of a
contrite and humble heart. As John s mission was not an
essential element of the new ceremony, it remained local in
character. It was only an introduction of Christ to the world.
The confession of sin which the Jews made in the baptism
of lohn was not a mere acknowledgment that they were
, j j r
sinners. The Greek term e!;ofj,o\o>yov/j.voi, predicated, or every
one whom John baptized, means, at least, some specific
enumeration and manifestation of sins. If the term meant only
the general acknowledgment that they were sinners, it would
not be brought out in such prominence by the Evangelist as
something new and remarkable. We hold it then to have been
a general public specific confession of sins committed. It is
the general voice of tradition that sins were not forgiven by the
baptism of John. The penance which he called forth worked
ex opere operantis, and prepared the souls for the remission of
sins by the Redeemer.
The viper was considered by the Jews as the most venom
ous of reptiles. In terming the Pharisees and Sadducees a
brood of vipers, he uses a Hebrew idiom to express that they
are vipers themselves. Their snake -like characters is intensi
fied by the expression, implying, as it were, that they have
increased the poisonous malice of their forefathers transmitted
to them by hereditary right. Christ will afterwards tell these
same sects that they have filled the cup of malice of their fore
fathers. In likening these powerful sects to the viper, John
illustrates their poisonous influence on the people, and their
stealthy, crafty way by which they insinuated themselves into
the high places, and seduced the people of God. Some com
mentators speak much of one Hillel and his school of the cen
tury in which Christ was born ; and also of Schammai his oppo
nent. Hillel advocated the following of the spirit of the Law,
while Schammai held all to the letter. Some have believed
that hence arose the Pharisees. This is uncertain. The prob
able etymology of the term Pharisee is from ?*) [he
expounded] as they explained the Law. This was their vaunt,
that they explained and strictly kept the law. Josephus, him-
318 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18
self a Pharisee, speaks of the sect as they appeared to the peo
ple, Antiq. XVIII. i, 3: "Now for the Pharisees they live
meanly, and despise delicacies in diet, and they follow the dic
tates of reason . . .on account of which doctrines they are able
greatly to persuade the body of the people, and whatsoever
they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, the people
perform them according to their direction ; insomuch that the
cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire
virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their
discourses also. " Again, Antiq. XIII. 10, 6 : "What I would
explain is this that the Pharisees have delivered to the people
a great many observances received from tradition, which are
not written in the Law of Moses ; and for that reason it is that
the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those
observances to be obligatory which are in the written word,
but are not to observe what are derived from the traditions of
our forefathers. And concerning these things it is that great
disputes have arisen among them , while the Sadducees are able
to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace
obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on
their side." The crime of the Pharisee was to affect a strict
observance of the law, and multiplying its precepts, impose
them on the blinded multitude. They travestied Yahveh s
law, and in their hearts were faithless hypocrites. A boastful
external semblance of religion gave them prestige, and
honor, and emolument with the people. The great spirit of
the law was obscured by them. They occupied their time in
the material details of Moses Law, and blinded the people,
and crushed out of them the real religious principle. What a
power they wielded with the people may be known from what
Josephus says of them. They were powerful popular leaders,
and swayed the masses as they willed. The Sadducees \vere
a less powerful sect, though more select and exclusive. Some
derive the name from H Hy who flourished under Ptolemy
I T
Soter. Others derive it from p^y, [it is just] meaning those
who professed great righteousness. All is uncertain. The
fundamental doctrine of the Sadducees was the denial of the
immortality of the soul. Thus Josephus describes them,
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 319
Antiq. XVIII. i, 4: "But the doctrine of the Sadducees
is this, that souls die with the bodies ; nor do they regard the
observation of anything besides what the Law enjoins them;
. . . but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by
those of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost
nothing themselves; for when they become magistrates, they
addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the
multitude would not otherwise bear them." Although the
doctrine of the Sadducees was terrible, they were less hypo
critical than the Pharisees. They w r ere not so numerous
nor so popular, although many of the rich were in their ranks.
These sects arose after the Exile. The Pharisees were the
false teachers, who poisoned the religious thought of the people.
Hence John s terrible invective against them. Now it can
not be that the motive of these sectaries in coming to John was
an honest one. We believe that hypocrisy drove them to
acknowledge John, lest they might lose their hold on the people.
This is evident from the following considerations. No matter
what a man s life had been, be he never so great a sinner, if he
sought by penance to become reconciled, the faithful herald of
God would never address to him such language. That bitter
taunt, that terrible denunciation would be uttered by no one
who spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to one who was
honestly contrite. John detected their hypocrisy in coming to
the baptism, and boldly unmasked them before the people. He
wished to take from that poor deluded people the yoke that
these hypocrites laid upon them . Moreover, John s very words
show plainly that he knew their hypocrisy in coming. The
words: " who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to
come?" are ironical, and are equivalent to these: "Ye
hypocrites, who claim to have the keys of the Law of Moses,
who claim to be the teachers of mankind, w r ho affect to observe
every precept of the law, can it be possible that you acknowledge
that the wrath of God awaits you, for your falseness and crimes?
Do you verily lay aside your mask of hypocrisy, and acknowl
edge your baseness and your sins ? Can it be possible that any
one has wrought such effect in your treacherous, dishonest
souls? Yea, verily I know your motive, it is but the continua
tion of your hypocrisy." The continuation of his address to
320 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. i-8;LuKE III. 1-18
them confirms this opinion : " If ye would have me believe that
ye are fleeing from the wrath of God, change your lives.
Show by your actions that ye are honest with God. Show by
actions that repentance has excluded hypocrisy from your
souls. "
One of the false assumptions of the Jews which, doubtless,
they had been taught by the Pharisees, was a vain trust in their
carnal lineage from Abraham. This vaunt has always pre
vailed with them, and appears in the Talmud. In Sanhedrin
fol. 90, i, we read: "All Israel shall have part in the future
life." Again in Bereshith R. 18, 7 : " In the future life Abra
ham will sit by the gates of Gehenna, and will not permit any
circumcised Israelite to descend thither. Rabbi Akiba held
that no Jew shall suffer more than twelve months in the future
life. They were proud and haughty with God himself, and
considered Heaven as their due, as their inheritance, by
hereditary right through Abraham. It was this arrogance and
trust in their own justice that precluded the softening influence
of the Holy Ghost from their hearts ; that caused them to reject
Christ, because he would not flatter their national pride and
false trust. To repel this arrogant and false trust of the Jews,
John points to the stones of the wilderness and declares : " God
has not need of you to build up that innumerable posterity that
he hath promised to Abraham. From these very lifeless stones
he can create other beings to succeed into your place as heirs of
Abraham." The language of John is figurative. Nothing in
nature is more remote from life than a stone. To illustrate the
omnipotence of God, John takes this which to human agents
seems most difficult, to show that nothing is difficult to God.
He hath not need of man, much less of the particular race
of the Jews. His glory suffers in naught by man s unfaith
fulness. Not to increase his essential glory, but to diffuse
his goodness did he create man. For that purpose does he
operate to save man. Not to induce them to believe that
the creative power of God was to be exerted on the stones of
the desert to change them into rational beings, did John
discourse thus, but to show them the absoluteness of God s
omnipotence ; to show them that he hath need of no man ; to
show them the futility of their arrogant presumption. In
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 321
speaking of the wrath to come, the dark side of man s destiny
is brought out. It is a fearful thought to consider that man is
separated by only a few years from that awful destiny, the
wrath that knows no end ; to see multitudes rushing on thought
lessly to that dread destiny. And to deaden the gnawing of
conscience, against the clearest declaration of God, they clamor
and cry out that there is no hell, there is no wrath to come.
The figurative language of the tenth verse is difficult to
understand. The drift of John s discourse is plainly that, in
dealing with man in the New Law, God would not be moved by
his lineage, but by the qualities of his soul. But the difficulty
is to see the exact force of the figure. It may be explained thus :
The Jewish people was likened to an orchard of trees, and the
Gentiles to another orchard. God was the husbandman.
Idolatry had excluded him from the Gentile orchard, but he had
labored to keep the orchard of the Jews in some measure under
cultivation till the shoot from the root of Yeshai should come.
Many times he had pruned that orchard by the afflictions of
war and captivities. He had sent upon it the rain of prophecy,
and the sunshine of his protecting care, when they were hard
pressed by enemies. Many a tree of that orchard of evil root
had been spared, not because it was of value, but because it was
in that orchard which God had decreed to keep under his
protection till the Christ should come. In this way God had
wrought favors to many an Israelite, not because he was worthy
of them, but because he was of that race that was to be protect
ed till the Christ should spring from them. Israel expected a
continuance of this mode of action. They expected to be still
favored, because they were the lineage of Abraham. They
considered that they still were the favored orchard of God, but
John thrusts them from this position. " No more, " he declares,
" shall ye receive favors of God for mere external reasons. No
more can ye say: God will save Israel, and I am an Israelite,
and hence will be saved by my Abrahamic origin. John
tells them that external reasons no longer avail with God. A
change has come in his dealings with man. He will not now
deal with them as an orchard, but as individual trees, not as a
race but as individuals. He is now to sort the souls of men ; to
examine each individual tree, without respect to the orchard in
(20) Gosp I
322 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18
which it is placed. God was to pass through both orchards
examining the inner nature of every tree, and the tree whose
fruit was evil was to be rejected by God. This rejection by
God is symbolized by the laying of the axe to the root of the
tree. As the quality of the tree, and not the orchard in which
it grew, was to be considered by the husbandman, and as he
was to cut out and eradicate the tree of evil fruit, so in the
constitution of the new spiritual covenant of God, the qualities
of the souls of men, not their racial prerogatives, were to be
now considered, and he whose soul was found wanting in the
scrutiny of God was to be rejected. There is no allusion here
to the last judgment, but simply the change in God s mode of
dealing with man is forcibly brought out, and the inner spiritual
character of Christ s kingdom is contrasted with the weak,
imperfect, material dispensation of Israel.
From the tenth to the sixteenth verse Luke speaks of John s
effect upon the different classes of people. Luke is the only
one of the Evangelists who has related this portion of John s
life. There is great honesty in the tone of the question ad
dressed to John by the common people. There is a suavity
also in John s response, very unlike his cutting rebuke to the
Pharisees. These had come there in the height of intellectual
pride, expecting perhaps to receive distinction from John. No
man ever sought and found God in the spirit in which these
sectaries came. But the populace were moved to penance by
John s preaching, and they sought God with honest heart.
And therefore, hearing John declare that men must show by the
practical actions of their lives the fruits of the interior penance,
they asked in simplicity what they were to do. John in answer
sums up in the one great precept of love and of mercy the
whole science of the Christian life. A differentiating element
of the New Law was its compendious character. The Old Law
was spread out into a complex system of ritual precepts, while
the law of Christ was simple and spiritual : Love God and thy
neighbor. No\v as the love of neighbor, proceeding from a
religious motive, presupposes the love of God, and is built
thereon, the essence of the New Law is frequently concentrated
in the great precept of Love of Neighbor. As the Scriptures
were only written for those who brought to their perusal the
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 323
same spirit in which they were written, there is no attention to
technicalities in their construction. They deliver the message
of salvation to the one who seeks it with honesty of purpose
and docility of heart. Perhaps in no other relation of God to
the creature are the words more forcibly fulfilled: "He hath
filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he hath sent
away empty. " Now John, taking the love of neighbor as the
fulfilment of the law, reduces it to two concrete facts. It
was customary for Scriptural writers to represent man s mate
rial needs as food and raiment. In Biblical lands such was true.
The expressions of writers savor of their environment. The
truth is universal; the basis of the figure is Oriental. To
inculcate forcibly the great virtues of mercy and charity, he bids
them give of their superfluous to the naked and to the hungry.
John s Master, later on, will declare that, in the final judgment,
he will know those that are his by these same virtues. The
language of John, though simple, is accurate. By the desig
nation of the two tunics he fixes the obligation upon the super
fluous of man s goods.
It w r as not in John s mind, by enumerating two tunics, to
limit man to the possession of one coat ; neither, in speaking of
this garment, does he make this the specific object of man s
charity. The tunic was a loose outer garment closed at the
shoulders, usually provided with sleeves, and reaching nearly
to the ground. It was usually girt at the waist by a girdle, and
is the most universal of civilized garments. John represents in
this garment clothes in general, and in the possession of two of
them, that abundance out of which man must do charity. A
man might have but one tunic or coat, and yet from the abun
dance of possessions be obliged by the precept of John. We are
not to regard the detail of the proposition but the spirit. And
the spirit of John s words is : " Let him who hath give to him
who hath not. " The tunic and the food are taken to render
the language concrete, and more effectual upon the simple
people. The virtue of charity has a degree where it is of pre
cept, and a degree where it is only of counsel. This is the case
with every virtue. John did not mark the limits of the degrees
of this virtue. Neither shall we. Such is the duty of moralists.
John spoke of the virtue in all its comprehensiveness as one of
324 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18
the surest fruits of a change of heart ; as one of the surest evi
dences that one is serving God. The selfish hardening of the
human heart, excluding the tender softenings of pity, mercy,
and love, represses the influence of God, and makes man s
heart a material desert. Once infuse the gentle rain of charity
into that heart, and the desert blooms, and the reign of matter
gives place to the reign of Christ.
In those days the men considered most removed from the
influence of God were the publicans and the soldiers. Hence
we may realize the efficacy of John s preaching when even these
came to him, and asked him the conditions of salvation. John
who was aided by the Holy Ghost to read the motives of men,
shows by his treatment of those that their repentance was real.
The publicans were the common tax-gathers. The mode
usually put in force in raising these taxes was the following:
Very often the taxes were farmed out to one who purchased for
a stated sum the taxes of a province, subject to his own col
lection. He in turn employed a number of deputies who
exacted this tribute from the individuals. Now in this actual
collection of the taxes great abuses often occurred. Extortions
were frequent, as the central government of Rome was far away,
arid her representatives in Judaea were almost always open to a
bribe. The tax collectors \vere doubly hateful to the Jews.
First on account of their avarice and fraud ; and secondly,
because they exacted a tax that every Jew felt to be the unjust
sign of Judaea s bondage to the foreigner.
In rendering John s answer to the publicans, we depart
from the Vulgate reading in its version of the Tr/oao-o-ere. The
first meaning of Trpaa-a-elv is to do, to execute ; and this sense the
Vulgate has adopted in rendering it faciatis. But the word has
a peculiar meaning when used in the context in which Luke
has used it ; namely, to exact a tax. Now it seems here that
this is the sense in which Luke used it. It is hard to see the
point of John s discourse, if we render the term according to the
Vulgate, whereas, by rendering it in the sense of " to exact " the
capital vice of the tax collectors is aimed at. Their crime was
the extortion of unjust and exorbitant taxes in the name of the
government. John shows his prudence in the Christian life by
adapting his teaching to the nature of every one s sphere of life.
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 325
He knew that the publicans were often dishonest in exacting
the public taxes, hence he aims his teaching to eliminate the
peculiar vices of this class of men whom he was addressing.
There is great wisdom in this. It was no generality, but a
specific precept which applied to the main work of their every
day life. So it is in the cultivation of every soul. Spiritual
wisdom is to take thought to avoid the vices and defects
peculiar to each particular state of life. An aimless, pointless,
drift toward generalities avails little in perfecting the soul.
A man desirous to serve God should set out with a definite aim
to avoid the vices peculiar to his state of life, and to acquire
the virtues fitting thereto. Human society demands that men
spend their lives in different pursuits. Now sanctity does not
consist in longing to do something that never comes in the
range of the duties of one s ordinary life, but in doing well the
ordinary things of our particular sphere. In clear and beauti
ful terms St. Paul proclaims the necessity of an aim in our
spiritual life; "I therefore so run as not uncertainly; I so box
as not beating the air. " I. Cor. IX. 25.
In the next verse John gives special precepts adapted to
those engaged in the military profession. One of the crimes of
the soldiery of that period \vas to harass the citizens, and extort
money from them to secure immunity from the oppression of
their arms. Another was a series of blackmail. By threats of
denunciation to the officers of the government, they also ex
torted money from the citizens. The soldiers were often of a
turbulent, rapacious character, and coveted more than their
wages, hence they were ever ready to seize by violence property,
wherever occasion was offered. John points out these specific
crimes peculiar to them, to be avoided. The very fact that
these are forbidden directs the practice of the contrary virtues.
The words of St. John addressed to the soldiers, "be content
with your pay, " could be inculcated with profit in the minds of
our erring and discontented laborers, who have filled the land
with misery, and wrecked numberless homes by strikes and
labor agitations of the most unjust nature.
The. eleventh verse of Matthew follows very abruptly, and
without nexus on the preceding narrative. We believe that St.
Luke in the fifteenth verse supplies the nexus, and that
326 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. i-8;LuKE III. 1-18
Matthew has omitted the opinion of the people, which was the
occasion of John s declaration.
John s life had favorably impressed the people. He was
rejected by the sectaries, whose hypocrisy he had unmasked,
but the common people were with him. They regarded him as
a great prophet, and now an opinion invaded them that perhaps
he might be the Christ. Accuracy in religious thought no
longer prevailed in Judaea. Had they examined accurately, they
would have become aware that John could not be the Christ.
His genealogy did not fit the Messianic prophecy. But the}
had not known much of the life of this strange man. During
his long sojourn in the desert Zachary s son had been forgotten,
and when now he appeared in the noble sublimity of his
penitential life, and spoke in God s name, they conceived such
an exalted opinion of him that they wondered and waited in
expectation that he would declare himself the Messiah. Opin
ions differ regarding the mode in which John became aware of
the mind of the people. Some hold that such was made
known to him by an embassy sent to him. Others believe
that he was aided by the power of God to divine their thoughts.
The most probable opinion is that the state of the people s
mind became manifest by their discourses concerning John,
which straightway came to his ears, and drew forth the em
phatic statement that he was not the Christ.
John makes use of this good opportunity to prepare the
people for the reception of the Christ. He takes the popular
esteem that the people had of him as a basis whence to exalt
the Christ. He does not draw a real comparison. The real
exaltedness and excellency of Christ over every man is incom
parable. His comparison then is only to aid their minds
to form a just conception of the Messiah. In this sense he
places in contrast the personality of the Redeemer and his own
personality, the effect of the Redeemer, and the effect of his
own mission; and then, by a powerful figure, he exalts the
excellency of the Son of God above his own dignity or power.
The most menial service that one could do for another was
considered that of putting on the sandals. Hence John, in
declaring that he was not worthy to perform this service for
Christ, extols the excellence of Christ in a manner at once simple
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 327
and sublime. Such language, so simple and concrete, should
have had great effect upon the people. It was as though he
said: "Ye see in me certain virtues; ye are struck by my
words, and the thought enters your souls, is not this perhaps
the Christ? Behold, Christ is so much greater than I that I am
not worthy to perform the most menial service for him. There
is a slight textual discrepancy between Matthew and the other
two synoptists in the details of this declaration of John. Where
Matthew has "whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, " Luke
and Mark have : " the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy
to loose." Matthew s language is based on the usage that
prevailed in that day among the Jews. When entering a sacred
place, they removed their sandals, conformably to the command
given to Moses, Exod. III. 5 ; Joshua, V. 15. Now the men of
high social rank had a servant who removed the sandals, and
carried them till they were to be again placed on the master s
feet. This was considered the most abject service that any
menial was called to do. Matthew founds his proposition on
this usage, as it would be easily understood by the Hebrews, for
whom he wrote. Mark and Luke modify the expression slightly
to adapt it to Greek ears. They all reproduce the substance of
John s words; they are careless about the minute detail. It is
useless to conjecture what the exact words of John were.
John s words furnish us one of the most noble examples in the
history of mankind of a man endeavoring to hide his own
personal part in a great work and give all the glory to Christ
and Christ s eternal Father. Truth ruled him in his estimate of
others, and in his estimate of himself. He believed what he
said, and his words are absolutely true. No man, no saint, is
worthy to be associated with Christ even in the most abject
ministration. All the baseness and self-seeking of our natures
were purged out of John s noble nature. In him no vile hun
gering after man s applause, or man s goods. He seems more
like an angel than a man, and in his life shows us to what
perfection prayer and detachment from the world may lead a
man. In the wilderness, in solitude, in the fruitful source of
great thought, he had solved the problem of human life, and he
issued forth to diffuse into the minds of his fellowmen the
truths with which he was animated. There is an intensity
328 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18
in John the Baptist which likens him to Eliah, to whom even
by the Holy Ghost he has been compared. In the same sense
as we have stated above, John compares the efficacy of his
ministry with the spiritual effect of Christ on the soul. As
Matthew says, John baptized with water unto penance. The
rite of baptism of the Baptist was merely to signify the internal
washing of the soul by penance. It had no life-giving power.
Concerning the baptism of John, we have the following defini
tion of the Council of Trent: "If any man shall say that
the baptism of John had the same efficacy as the baptism of
Christ, let him be anathema." When, therefore, the baptism of
John is said to be et<> afao-iv dfAaprttov, the proposition signifies
that the remission of sins is not a present effect but a future
reality for which the baptism of John was ordered as a prepar
ative measure. John manifests by this that his baptism did
not penetrate to the souls of men, but had only the efficacy of
water, although a sign of penance. But the baptism of Christ
has the efficacy to penetrate, to wash the inmost souls of men
from filth and the stain of sins, because it washes in the Holy
Ghost who penetrates our spirits, and cleanses them and
changes them and elevates them to the love of God and the love
of things divine. It is a beautiful metaphor to liken the
spiritual operation of the Holy Ghost in man s soul to the action
of water upon the body. Sin is moral filth, and as the wash
ing of water takes away the body suncleanness, so the cleansing
power of the Holy Ghost washes away the soul s filth and
resulting stain. For this reason it was chosen by Christ as the
matter of the sacrament of his baptism, that it might show to
the senses of man the effect that the power of God by means of
baptism operates in the soul.
In declaring that Christ would baptize with the Holy
Ghost and with fire, John has not in mind merely the baptism
instituted by Christ. Nor has he in mind only the descent of
the Holy Ghost sent by Christ upon the Apostles on Pentecost.
His words have a wider signification, including these two events
and many others. They signify every communication of the
Holy Spirit and divine grace that is given by Christ. When
he speaks of a baptism of fire, the language is figurative. Fire
is taken to signify that penetrating efficacy of the power of the
MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18 329
Holy Ghost which energizes in the soul of the sanctified man.
Now the appearance of the tongues of fire that appeared above
the heads of the Apostles at their reception of the Holy Ghost
on Pentecost was a pure symbol of the inner power and vigor
which the indwelling Holy Spirit gave to those men. That
which occurred on Pentecost to the Apostles is wrought in an
invisible way in every soul that is incorporated into the mystic
body of Christ. That same spirit and the energy symbolized
by that fire is given by Christ to every sanctified soul. And it
is to this effect that John adverts. Our relations to the Holy
Ghost are different now from what they were before the
glorification of Christ. In virtue of his merits, and by the
brotherhood which he has conferred upon us, we receive an
influxus of the Holy Spirit, which had never been given to man
before, and never would have been given, were it not for the
Incarnation of Christ. The words of John, therefore, include
the effect of baptism; they include Pentecost and much more.
They establish the whole essential nature of the New Law, and
are verified continually in the outpouring of the vital principle
from Christ the head into all the members. There is also in
the words of John an evidence of Christ s consubstantiality
with the Father. In declaring that Christ will baptize them
with the Holy Ghost, he evidently signifies that Christ has an
essential part in the sending of that Spirit, that the sanctifying
Spirit proceeds from him as well as from the Father.
Fire is the most active agent known to man, hence it is
chosen as a symbol of the power of the Spirit of God in man s
soul.
John has first spoken of Christ as Sanctifier; he now speaks
of him as Judge. By a beautiful and forcible figure he declares
to them the separation that Christ will make of the elect from
the reprobate.
The right understanding of this metaphor necessitates
some knowledge of the mode of threshing and winnowing the
corn practised by the Hebrews. As the people of Syria are
unprogressive, the same mode exists there to-day. The thresh
ing is accomplished by the feet of oxen that are driven round
and round on the circular threshing floor of hardened earth.
When the grain has been thus beaten from the straw, the straw
330 MATT. III. 1-12; MARK I. 1-8; LUKE III. 1-18
is removed, and a wooden fork adapted to this purpose is used
to throw the grain up against the wind, which blows away the
chaff. When the coarser chaff and broken straw are thus
removed, a wooden shovel is used in the same manner to effect
the final winnowing, and there results in the center of the
threshing floor a heap of winnowed, grain. Now the words of
John draw a metaphor from this winnowing. The Scriptural
metaphors are always founded upon scenes and events in the
common life of the people, and from this have much of their
great beauty and force. The TTT-VOV is the winnowing fork or
shovel. The Syriac translated by Walton renders it pala, a
shovel. It signifies the instrument of wood, which was used to
throw the grain up in the air against the wind. Although there
were two or three kinds of this instrument they all bore the
same generic name in Hebrew fn ft from j-j 1 -^ to scatter to
v : TT
the wind. The most apt equivalent of this in English is a
winnowing shovel. The simple figure is very expressive. The
whole world is considered as the harvest field of God, seeded by
God s habitual grace, and watered by all the actual graces and
influences from Heaven which God pours out upon the souls of
men. The sickle of death is sent into that field in God s
appointed time. Upon the threshing floor of God are gathered
all the men of the earth, bearing the harvest of their deeds of
good grain or chaff. The flail of God descends upon the
sheaves, and then begins the winnowing of God s awful
judgment. In that terrible scrutiny the good grain is deposited
on God s floor, to be gathered into the eternal granaries of
Heaven. While the wind of God s wrath seizes the chaff,
the broken straw, and the worthless kernels, and hurtles them
on and on into endless, hopeless Hell. The terrible side of man s
destiny is brought out with great intensity. There is no issue
so important for man as his moral responsibility to God, and the
certain judgment of his deeds that shall be wrought at the
close of his short life. The absoluteness and truth of God s
judgment are well brought out by the figure of the winnowing.
As the chaff is powerless in the face of the blast, so in that
dread hour there is no refuge. Only the good grain of solid
virtue can withstand that dreadful ordeal. Only that is
MATT. III. 13 17 ; MARK I. 9 n
331
valuable to God; the rest is worthless, swept away forever
into that dreadful pit of fire, where those who enter eternally
despair.
In the characterization of this fire as acr/Seo-ro?, the eternity
of Hell s duration is directly brought out. This faithless and
incredulous age refuses to believe in the eternity of Hell. Hell
cannot be defended on natural reasons. We believe it through
faith alone. Wherever there is mention made in Scripture of
the destiny of the reprobate, some term implying unending
duration is applied. From this it evidently appears that the
Holy Ghost would repeatedly inculcate in man s mind this
awful truth by the clearest, most forcible, and oft repeated
language. When illumined by the divine light, we shall see
God as he is, then we shall know r the harmony between God s
mercy, love, and justice, in constituting eternal punishment.
Upon that threshing floor we must stand ; in that winnowing
we must be tried. Shall our portion be with the garnered
grain or with the worthless chaff? This great question claims
more of man s time and thought than it receives in
our da.
MATT. III. 13-17.
13. TOTS xapayc vsTat 6 Ir^oGq
axb TY)q FaXiXafa? ext Tbv IopBdviQV
xpbq TOV IwavvTQV TOJ (3axTta6Y]vat
ux auTOU.
14. O os SiexwXusv auibv
: Eyw xpstav I /w 6xb aou
t, xat au Ip^f] xpog ^JLS;
MARK I. 9-11
9. EyevsTO sv Ixecvatq talc
Tq^ipatq, YjXOev Iqaouq axo NafyxpsT
TTJ<; raXtAaia?, xat ISaxTtaOr) stc
TOV lopSaviqv uxb Iwavvou.
15. xoxp .ss os
slxsv aOTw: "Acpsq aptt, OUTW yap
xpezov sjTtv fj^tv xAYjpwaat xaaav
5txato<jiivY)v TOTS a^trjcrtv auTOV.
16. BaxTtaOslq Bs 6 Ir^ouq
suOix; av!6Yj axb TOU jBaToq, xat
tBou livswy.Gr^av ot oupavot y.al slosv
IlvsLi^a 0eou xaT6atvov wist xspt-
10. Kat su6u<; avaSatvwv Ix T
?, s!5sv a /t^o^svouq TOU? o
pavou?, xat TO Ilvsu^a wq xe
xaT6atvov et<; auTOV.
332 MATT. III. 13-17; MARK I. 9-11; LUKE III. 21-22
17. Kat tBou cpwvY) ex. TU>V ou-
pavwv Xeyouaa: OUTOC; IJTI d ulo?
aou 6 dyaTrrjToq ev w euSoy.iqja.
13. Then cometh Jesus from
Galilee to the Jordan unto John,
to be baptized by him.
14. But John restrained him,
saying: I have need to be bap
tized by thee, and comest thou
to me ?
15. And Jesus answering
said unto him: Suffer it to be so
now; for thus it becometh us to
fulfill all righteousness. Then
he suffered him.
1 6. And Jesus being bap
tized, came up straightway out
of the water: and lo, the heavens
were opened unto him, and he
saw the Spirit of God descending
as a dove and coming upon him:
1 7 . And lo, a voice out of the
heavens saying: This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased.
ii. Kcu cptoVY) eyeveTO ex. TOOV
oupavwv: Su el 6 uloq JJLOU 6 dyaxv)-
TOC;, ev aol eiiS(5xYjaa.
9. And it came to pass in
those days, that Jesus came
from Nazareth of Galilee, and
was baptized by John in the
Jordan.
10. And straightway coming
up out of the water, he saw the
heavens opened, and the Spirit
like a dove descending upon him.
ii. And there came a voice
out of the heavens saying: Thou
art my beloved Son, in thee I
am well pleased.
LUKE III. 21-22.
2 1 . Now when all the people
were baptized, it came to pass
that Jesus also being baptized,
and praying, the heaven was
opened,
22. And the Holy Ghost
descended in bodily shape like
a dove upon him, and a voice
came from Heaven, saying:
Thou art my beloved Son, in thee
I am well pleased.
21. EyeveTO Se ev T<J>
axavTa TOV Xafcv, xal Lrjaou
xat Tcpoaeu^ojxivou,
OV oupavov,
22. Kal x,a-;a6fjvc TO IIveL^a TO
"Aytov cwyiaTtxw e c Bst (Lx; xepiorepav
eV aiJTOv, X.GU <pa>v?]V e oupavoo
yeveaOat: 2u el 6 uloq ^.ou 6 aya-
ev aol euB6x.Taa.
MATT. III. 13-17; MARK I. 9-11; LUKE III. 21-22 333
In these parallel passages there is no variant worthy of
mention in the text of Luke. In Mark we only notice that the
Vulgate adds in the tenth verse "et manentem, which is not
found in any Greek authority. In the text of Matthew, in the
fourteenth verse, Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort endorse the
text of Codex B, which omits the name Icodwrjs , and sub
stitutes therefor the relative pronoun. ^* also supports this
reading. But the great weight of authority favors the reading
which we adopt in the version. In like manner the same auth
orities omit the pronoun in the dative case in the sixteenth
verse, which we retain on the evidence of the other authorities.
The eighteenth verse of Luke declares that the great body
of John s discourses to the people was not chronicled. So it is
with all the teachers of the New Law. Only the chief events
and chief points of their life and preaching are given to us.
The message of salvation is given briefly, compendiously; the
rest has been allowed to pass from our knowledge. For
chronological order, we omit here the nineteenth and twentieth
verses of Luke, reserving them for a later place in the narrative.
As Mark and Luke contain but a compendium of Matthew, we
shall base our exegesis upon the fuller account of Matthew.
Christ, following the divine plan, went down from Naza
reth to receive the baptism of John. There is a harmony in the
series of events. First, John by his preaching and by his bap
tism prepares the people for the coming of the Messiah, and
awakens a great expectation of him in the minds of the people.
Then, when all is ready, when Jesus has arrived at the age when
the thought of the country considered that a man was mature
enough to teach, he goes down to receive John s baptism and
thus begin his public life. The term SieKmXvev marks John s
extreme unwillingness to administer the ceremony of baptism
to Christ. It is evident that John recognized the Son of God
as he approached him. By the reception of John s baptism the
people acknowledge that they are sinners, and that John is
a superior speaking in God s name, whom they are bound to
obey. John, recognizing that neither of these had place in
Christ, was unwilling that Christ should submit to his baptism.
Illumined by the Holy Ghost to discern the immaculate
sanctity of Christ s humanity, he knew that he needed not his
334
MATT. III. 13-17; MARK I. 9-11; LUKE III. 21-22
baptism to symbolize the washing away of his sins. It seemed
incongruous that he, an inferior, should administer this pre
paratory rite to him who was by his own intrinsic power to
work the effect in the souls of men of which the first baptism
was but the symbol. " I, " he says, " can confer naught upon
you, but you, from whom comes every element in man s
salvation, shouldst rather confer upon me thy baptism, which
has power to quicken the souls of men into spiritual life. " It
is a humble and truthful declaration of an honest man stand
ing face to face with his God.
A great difficulty arises out of this passage, when compared
with John s own description of it, Jo. I. 33, 34: "And I knew
him not : but he who sent me to baptize with water, the same
said unto me : Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descend
ing and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizeth with
the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bore witness that this is the
Son of God." It is clearly declared here that Jesus was not
known to John. John must have known that he was some
where in Judaea, preparing to come after him, but he had never
seen his face. These two individuals were related by blood,
destined to be associated in the greatest work the world ever
saw or can see, and yet, they had never seen each other. It is
another evidence that no attention is paid to ties of blood when
God s work is to be done. John, at a very early age, withdrew
from social life into the solitude of the wilderness. So the divine
impulse guiding him bade. No man could say that there had
been collusion between the Christ and his precursor; no man
could say that his witness to the Christ was a move in a scheme.
Jesus remained, and grew to manhood in the ordinary envir
onments of human life, to teach us how to live, to teach us
the sanctity of the family, the dignity of labor, the value of
poverty. But the seeming contradiction lies in this, that,
whereas Matthew clearly declares that John recognized the
Messiah, as he approached, seeking baptism, John seems to
imply that it was only by the subsequent event of the descent
of the visible Holy Ghost that he recognized him. Even in
Augustine s time this question agitated men s minds, although
we find no fitting solution of it in patristic literature. Cajetan
believed that we are forced therebv to admit that the Holv
MATT. III. 13-17; MARK I. 9-11; LUKE III. 21-22 335
Ghost descended upon Christ even before his baptism, but
this contradicts the express words of all three synoptic writers.
We hold first therefore that Jesus was by face unknown to the
Baptist. We hold that John knew of his presence in the world,
and knew that he was to come upon the scene after the prepar
ation. He had been told in a communication from Heaven
that, when the Messiah should appear, he should see the descent
of the Holy Ghost in visible form upon him. AVhen therefore
the Redeemer approached, John enlightened by that same Holy
Spirit, recognized him to be the Son of God, and the descent of
the dove was wrought subsequently, not so much to corrobo
rate John s faith as to confirm those who were to hear John s
words. There is thus no contradiction. The sense of the
Baptist s w r ords, as related by the Evangelist John, is that he
knew not Christ before the event of his baptism, that he had
received word from Heaven that in that baptism the Spirit of
God should come down upon the Christ. He does not declare
that he did not know him before the portent from Heaven.
Simply taking the baptism with all its elements as one event
in which he is to recognize the Christ, he points to that element
which would be most potent to confirm the faith of his hearers.
Christ does not deny the truth of John s words. He could
not deceive the people by disclaiming the dignity which befitted
the Christ, but he calmly gives expression to his will, and
John immediately consents. The signification of the "all
righteousness" which Christ declares, he must fulfill is the
observance of the positive precepts of the law of God. Now
these positive precepts existed in the Law of Moses, in the
messages of the prophets, and comprised the latest prophetic
message to Israel by the mouth of John himself. We observe
in the life of Jesus the most exact fulfilment of all the ritual
precepts. They were the law of God, the best that had been
thus far given, and Christ revered those enactments of his
Father, which he was destined to merge into a better covenant.
Therefore he showed by his own example the reverence he had
for the baptism of John, and by this act set the seal of his
approbation upon it.
It has seemed to many that, though exempt from personal
guilt, Christ by this baptism acknowledged that vicariously he
336 MATT. III. 13-17; MARK I. 9-11; LUKE III. 21-22
was held for the world s sin. This seems to us improbable
since there was nothing of a specific atoning character in the
act. But we recognize a reason for the reception of John s
baptism, that it might appear that Jesus exempted himself
not from anything which God asked men to do. Moreover,
John s baptism was the embryo of the future baptism of Christ.
It had not yet the intrinsic life of the sacrament of baptism, but
was the initial ordinance, which Christ was afterward to elevate
to the dignity and power of a sacrament. It is the opinion of
St. Thomas, P. III. Q. LXVI. Art. II., that the baptism of John,
was raised to the dignity of a sacrament in the baptism of Jesus
although its necessity did not become incumbent on men till
after the promulgation of the New Law. For this he quotes
Augustine as saying: "From the moment that Christ was
baptized, the water washes away the sins of all men." This
opinion is also followed by Suarez. Others deny this, and
assign other times. The question will always remain in doubt
from defect of positive data, but, at all events, Christ, in his
reception of the preparative rite, conferred an honor upon
it, having in mind either its present or future elevation to
a sacrament. The chief reason of this baptism is, however, the
one assigned by Christ himself, his reverence for the existing
ordinances of God.
As the Evangelist speaks of the Lord s going up and out of
the water, it is evident that his baptism was by immersion.
Luke is the only one who speaks of the Lord s prayer at this
occasion. As a perfect man, a man who taught us by example
as well as byword, Christ would not let this important action
be wrought unaccompanied by prayer. Prayer is the chief
nourisher in the soul s Kfe. All important actions in the Lord s
life were accompanied by prayer. He has taught us the value
of prayer ; that it should hold first rank among all man s ac
tions. Men do not do well that which they esteem lightly.
To pray well, one must recognize the value of prayer, and to do
this, one will be helped by the Redeemer s example.
Some have endeavored to assign some special signification
to the evOvs of the sixteenth verse. Schanz and Fillion, follow
ing Euthemius, maintain that the people remained in the water
while they confessed their sins, but as Christ had no sins to
MATT. III. 13-17; MARK I. 9-11; LUKE III. 21-22 337
confess, he immediately ascended out of the water. This seems
absurd, I believe that the adverb has no special signification
except to mark the declaration of the Father from Heaven
made immediately after the baptism. In the descent of the
Holy Ghost upon him and the voice from Heaven, we have the
clearest witness of God to the Divinity of Christ. The
coming of the Holy Ghost upon him was a manifestation of the
plenitude of the Divinity that dwelt essentially in him. God
declares that he is his own Son, the object of his infinite love.
Here again a slight discrepancy exists among Matthew, Mark
and Luke. The two latter refer the words as directly addressed
by the Father to the Son, while Matthew addresses them
directly to the people witnessing the event. The difference is
only in detail, but we are inclined to believe that the account
of Mark and Luke is more accurate. Direct address to the
Son would be more forcible.
When they say that the heavens were opened, they speak
according to the custom of the language of their time. It is
not here stated that the firmament is a solid body, which
opened at the passage of the dove. But they simply use the
manner of speech as it existed, to express that in the heavens a
great splendor appeared, which seemed to lead the sense of
vision far beyond its ordinary range into the infinite distance be
yond. Out of that splendor a snow white dove floated down,
and as it came upon Jesus, it seemed to pass into him. It must
have been also that the person of the Redeemer was enveloped
by that splendor from heaven. This manifestation was for us.
The plenitude of the Divinity always dwelt in Jesus, but as it
is important for us to believe this truth, he gave us this evidence
that he was the Son of God. It is^evident that this was no
material dove, but a mode of being by which the Spirit of God
made himself discernible to the senses of man. The dove has
always been considered the type of purity and love. As it is^a
creature of the air, it represents spirituality, and thus in it is
represented that the Holy Ghost is a spirit, a spirit of love, a
spirit of pure love.
Some believe that the subject of elSev is John, and that the
Evangelist is pointing to the promise made to John that he
should see such vision. The structure of the verse however
(21) Gosp I
338
MATT. IV. i n ; MARK I. 12
clearly makes Christ the subject, and implies that the Baptist
also saw the vision. The words " from heaven apply to Christ
as man. The omnipotent Father, looking down upon the first
man and his progeny, declares that he repents having made
man. Here, looking down upon the new Adam, the head of the
new creation of God, he declares that he is well pleased in him.
As the first man drew all his posterity into the condemnation of
his guilt, so Christ the Regenerator draws under this good will
of God all those who are united to him, and who receive of his
vital influx; so that these words from heaven are in their
proper measure addressed to those who are members of Christ.
MATT. IV. i-n.
i. TOTE
eprj^ov uxb TOU HvcU^a
cr0fjvca iJxb TOU BiacoXou.
xecpa-
2. Ka! VY)C7Tuaac; f^epaq Teaaa-
pdxovTa xa! VUXT<; TeaaapaxovTa
ucTepov execvaaev.
3. Kat xpoaeX6tov 6 xetpa^wv
slxev auTOKet ucbq si TOU @eou, ecxe
"va ol XcOoi ouTOt apTot yevcovTat.
4. 8e axoxptOstq elxsv: Fe-
Oux ex apTW ^ovw
6 avOpwxoq, dXX ex! xavTt
Ixxopeuo^evw Sta dTO^aTO*;
@eou.
5. ToTe xapaXa^Bavet auTbv 6
StdSoXo? etq TTJV ayt av xoXtv x.at
ijTTQaev autbv ex! TO xTepuytov TOU
lepou,
6. Ka! Xeyet auTto: Et ulbq
e! TOU eou, ^dXe ceauTOv xaTto :
yeypaxTat yap OTC Tolq dyyeXotq
auTOu evTeXelTat xsp! <rou, y,a! ex!
^ecptov dpoualv ae JJLTQ xoTe xpoax6(|if]<;
xpb<; Xt Oov TOV x68a aou.
MARK I.
12-13.
12. Ka! euOuq TO Ilveu ^a auTbv
ex6dXXet eiq TY
13. Ka! TQV ev T
pdxovTa f^epaq, xetpa^o^evoq uxb
TOU HaTavd, xa! ^v jxeTa TWV GYjplwv,
xa! oc ayyeXot BtiQxovouv auTtjx
MATT IV. i n; MARK I.
UTto 6 iTjcToOq: IldXtv
12 13
339
7. "E<pt] a
yeypaiiTat: Oux, Ix-mpaasn; TOV
Kuptov TOV 0sov sou.
8. ridXtv ^apaXa^.6dvet ccu-rov
6 StdSoXoo; eiq opoq u^rjXov Xtav xat
Betxvuctv aJTO) Tcacraq T<;
TOU xoa^xou xal TTJV 86qav
9. Kal slzsv auT(I>: Taij^a: cot
Swaw, lav zscrwv z
10. TOTS Xeyst GCUTW 6
Ticaye Sa^ava, yeypaxroa yap:
Kuptov TOV Beov aou xpoaxuvi^ast?
%ac auTW ^.ovw A
ii. TOTE a^i Tjatv auTbv 6 ia-
60X0? xat tSou ayyeXoi xpoa^XOov
xal otTjxovouv auTw.
1. Then was Jesus led up by
the Spirit into the wilderness to
be tempted by the devil.
2. And when he had fasted
forty days and forty nights,
afterward he was hungry.
3. And the tempter coming
said to him: If thou be the Son
of God, command that these
stones be made bread.
4. But he answered and said:
It is written: Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God.
5. Then the devil taketh
him up into the holy city, and
set him on the pinnacle of the
temple,
12. And immediately the
Spirit driveth him into the
wilderness.
1 3 . And he was in the wilder
ness forty days, tempted by
Satan, and he was with the wild
beasts, and angels ministered
unto him.
340 LUKE IV. i 13
6. And saith to him: If
thou be the Son of God, cast thy
self down, for it is written: He
shall give his angels charge over
thee, and in their hands they
shall bear thee up, lest at any
time thou dash thy foot against
a stone.
7. Jesus said unto him: It is
written again: Thou shalt not
tempt the Lord thy God.
8. Again the devil taketh
him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and showeth him all
the kingdoms of the world and
the glory of them ;
9. And he said unto him:
All these things will I give thee ,
if thou wilt fall down and adore
me.
10. Then saith Jesus unto
him: Begone, Satan; for it is
written: Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and him only
shalt thou serve.
11. Then the devil leaveth
him; and behold, angels came
and ministered unto him.
LUKE IV. 113
1. And Jesus, being full o.f x . I^aou? 51 icX^pT)*; Evetj-
the Holy Ghost, returned from ^aToq Ayfou uxlc-u pe^ev dxb TOU
the Jordan, and was led by the lopSovou xal -rjyeTO Iv TW IIveu^aTt
Spirit into the wilderness, | v 77) ep^co,
2. During forty days being 2. HixepaqTeacapaxovia, xei pa-
tempted by the devil. And in ^oixevoq uxb TOU 8ta6<5Xou: xal oux
those days he did eat nothing: e^ayev ouBev Iv talc, ^lpai<; Ixei-
and when they were ended, he vatq: xal auvreXeaGstuwv auTcbv
was hungry. sxetvaaev.
LUKE IV. i 13
3. ETxev 8e auT<J> 6
Et nebs el TOU Qeou, e(xe TG> X(0o)
TOUT <p Yva ys"vT]Tac apio<;.
4. Kal dxexp(6T] xpbq auTOv 6
: PeypaxTai, BTI QJX Ix
^6v(o i^aeTai 6 avOpcoxo?,
exl xavTt pi^ocTt 0eoii).
5. Kat dvayaywv aikbv ISc
TW xdtciaq
ev
6. Kal slxev aiiiw 6
Sol Bwcjo) TTJV l?oua(av T
axaaav xal TT)V S6^av au-rwv:
xat a> ^ v
3. And the devil said unto
him: If thou be the Son of God,
command this stone that it be
made bread.
4. And Jesus answered unto
him: It is written: That man
shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word of God.
5. And the devil, taking him
up into a high mountain, showed
unto him all the kingdoms of the
world in a moment of time,
6. And said to him: To thee
will I give all this power and the
glory of them ; for it is delivered
unto me, and to whomsoever I
will, I give it.
7. If thou therefore wilt
worship me, all shall be thine.
8. And Jesus answered and
said unto him: It is written:
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy
God, and him only shalt thou
serve.
9. And he brought him to
Jerusalem, and set him on the
pinnacle of the temple, and said
unto him: If thou be the Son of
God, cast thyself down -[from
hence.
10. For it is written: He 10. PeypaxTat yap, b ^t TO!<;
shall give his angels charge over dyyeXois auToii evTeXetTat xepi
thee to keep thee; aou, TO 5 Sta<puXd^at ae:
7. Hu ouv lav xpoaxuv^qr)? lva>-
xtov IJJLOU, eaTai aou xaja.
8. Kal axoxpiOetq auT(o slxsv
I-rjaout;; FlypaxTai, Kuptov TOV 0eov
cou, xpoaxuvi^aet*;, xat auT
"Hyayev 8s auTbv et q lepou-
xal IjTigaev exl TO XTSpuytov
TOU lepou, xat elxev auTw: Ei uibq
el TOU @eou, ^dXe aeauTOv ev
1 1 . And in their hands they
shall bear thee up, lest at any
time thou dash thy foot against
a stone.
ii. Kal OTI ex! ^ecpoiv apoualv
ae, jx^xoTe xpo<7x66f]<; xpb^ A(6ov TOV
x68a aou.
342
MATT. IV. I-II;MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-18
12. And Jesus answering, 12. Kcu &icoxpi6el<; elzsv
said unto him: It is said: Thou 6 TqaoOq, OTI e ipY)T<xt: Oux.
shalt not tempt the Lord thy Ixxstpdcaeiq Kiiptov TOV sov crou.
God.
13. And when the devil had 13. Kat auvrsAlaaq XOVTQ: xei-
ended all the temptation, he paa^xbv 6 StdSoXog dcTuecrrr) ax auiou
departed from him for a season. ofypi xaipou.
There are no important variants in the texts of Matthew
and Mark. In the text of Luke the first important variant
occurs in the fourth verse. The phrase, "but by every word of
God, " is not found in ^, B, and L. It is rejected by Tischen-
dorf, Westcott and Hort, and is not followed by the Sahidic,
Coptic, and Lewisian Syriac. It is found in A,D,r,A,A, II,
and many other codices, and also in the old Italian, Vulgate,
Syriac, Gothic, and Armenian versions. Its status is doubtful,
but, at all events, its sense is legitimate, as the phrase is found
in that context in Matthew. In the fifth verse the designation
of place, " into a high mountain " is not found in B, and L,
nor in the Sahidic version. Whether or not it was written in
the original text, is uncertain, but the accuracy of the desig
nation is sufficiently guaranteed by Matthew. In the best
Greek codices, the devil is not expressed as the subject of the
verbs in the fifth verse, but is expressed in the sixth verse. For
greater clearness, we have reversed the order, and we express
the subject in the fifth verse. Our translation of the second
verse rests on the clear evidence of the Greek texts of Luke and
Mark. The exact mode in which Satan dealt with Jesus during
the forty days is not revealed to us. It seems that Satan made
trial of the Redeemer s moral strength in various ways dur
ing the forty days fast, and out of these the Evangelists have
chronicled the three greater temptations.
The compendious character of Mark s Gospel is well
illustrated here, where he abridges into two brief lines the whole
narrative, and yet he mentions a detail omitted by the other
two, that Christ in his fasting was with the wild beasts. Of the
three, Luke is the more minute in description. Great mysteries
underlie this narration of the temptation of Christ.
Christ was led by the Holy Spirit into the desert. He who
had come to teach us the mode of the perfect life could not neg-
MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13 343
lect the valuable lesson of the withdrawal from the world in
silence and contemplation of God. It is good for man to with
draw from the noise and tumult of our noisy everyday life, to
think of the great questions of God and human destiny. Man
is a forgetful being, and when engrossed by issues of this life, he
is in danger of forgetting that he has a soul. Too often when
the body with its sensible faculties is in the midst of the shock of
social contact, and the whirl and hum, and never-ending strife
of the world, the soul is in a desert, the great moral desert of
selfishness and baseness. There the immortal spirit of man
becomes dwarfed and stunted, its fine impulses blunted by the
bonds of matter, a chained Prometheus struggling to be free.
Now the Redeemer, whose Gospel was both spoken and acted,
has taught us in his desert-fast that to unfetter the soul we
must break the bonds of matter, and allow it to breathe the air
of Heaven in silence and contemplation of God. In being led
into the desert by the Spirit of God, Christ has taught us the
value of the docility of the heart in following the impulses of
the Holy Spirit. There is a special signification also in placing
this event after his baptism. He was always full of the Holy
Ghost, but in stating that the Holy Ghost came upon him in
baptism, and thence guided him into the desert, he teaches us
that man by baptism becomes a temple of the Spirit of God,
that thenceforth he is to be ruled and guided by the inspirations
of that Spirit residing in his soul. How valuable it would be
if a man were really in earnest to follow the movings of that
immanent Spirit ! If he would oft withdraw into the recesses
of his own soul, and listen to that voice! Although the voice
of God, it can not be heard amid the contending strife of
material issues.
It results from the narrative that it was the design of God
that Christ should be tempted by the devil. Christ exempted
himself from nothing that comes to mortal lot. Now among
the sorrows of man is temptation; hence Christ would also
subject himself to this, that he might he made like to his
brothers in all things save sin. Christ was the new Adam, the
founder of the new order of things. The first Adam was
tempted and fell, and drew all his posterity with him in the
taint of his primal guilt. The new Adam also "met the
344 MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13
tempter in grim battle, and set him at naught, till he yielded
and fled. " As he fought and vanquished the spirit of evil, so
may we by the power communicated by him to us. The
Redeemer also has taught us the prevalence of the evil agency
that operates upon the soul of man. A belief in the devil, and
a recognition of the influence that he bears upon human life is
very useful to man. The incredulity of our age has excluded
even a belief in Satan. Finally, the example of Christ s
temptation is cheering to us. It is encouraging to know that
the tempter who spared not the Son of God will not spare us.
The spirit of evil is called by the Hebrews ? }]?, the
adversary of man s salvation. By the Greeks he is often called
&a/3oXo<?, the calumniator, the one who seeks causes to im
peach the souls of men before God. By the Evangelists he is
here called 6 7m/>aW, he who tempts. By these designations
we are taught that the very nature of Satan is bent to accom
plish man s spiritual ruin. He is confirmed in evil, and in
hatred of God. All the energies of his nature are aimed at
hatred of God and man. The fulness of the reasons of his
hatred of man are shrouded in mystery. The Fathers however
assign one to be envy that man was taken to fill the places in
Heaven vacated by the fallen angels. Another would be
rivalry of Christ, to build up an opposite reign, and thus to
assert his demoniacal power.
The number forty is the mystic number in Scripture for
fasting and preparation for great works. Moses was forty days
fasting on Mt. Sinai where he wrote the law of Yahveh,
Exod. XXXV. 28. Again when he asked for the second
tables of the Law he fasted forty days and forty nights, Deut.
IX. 1 8. It rained forty days in the Deluge ; for forty years the
Hebrews were in the desert. Eliah fasted forty days and forty
nights in his journey to Mt. Horeb. For forty days Christ
remained with his disciples after his resurrection. It seems to
have been chosen as the fitting number to express a considerable
period of time, whether in days or years. Christ also preserved
this sanctioned and traditional number in his fast. The
mention of the nights also in the period is to prevent the belief
that Christ took food at nightfall, as was the custom with
MATT. IV. I-II;MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13 345
the Jews in their ordinary fasts. The Son of God in his
humanity passed this period in contemplation of God, in
recommending to his Father the great work of Redemption
and the founding of the Church. It is the opinion of some
Fathers and theologians that Christ passed this period in such
an ecstasy that he felt not the pangs of hunger. This they
believe to be warranted by the words of the Evangelist Mark :
" afterwards he was hungry," and in Luke : "When they were
ended, he was hungry." Suarez even characterizes as
temerarious the opinion advanced by Cajetan, that he suffered
hunger all these days. Notwithstanding these weighty
authorities to the contrary, we feel constrained to hold with
Cajetan in this important opinion. It seems indeed that to
exempt Christ from the common lot of our human nature in
this fast, robs the account of all its beauty and value. With
few exceptions, Christ emptied himself of his glory as God in
his life as man, and shared the common lot of mortals with us.
In his fast and in his temptation he appears as intensely human.
He was to ask us to fast and mortify the flesh, and he must
needs set us an example. Now the exemplary character of this
fast is greatly enfeebled, if we make it a mere ecstasy, exempt
from the necessities and pains of our mortal life. Who of us
would not be willing to fast forty days, if he might in that time
be rapt in the vision of God ? It was to go before us in teaching
us to bear the gnawing pain of hunger, that the great Teacher
underwent this fast, and it seems to give a false coloring to
the whole narrative to say- that it was a painless ecstasy.
We consider the opinion also dangerous. A step further would
place the crucifixion as a painless ecstasy, which it would be
impious to assert. And the basis of this opinion is so frail.
They say that the Evangelists only assert the pressure of hunger
after the fast. In thus saying, the inspired writers do not deny
the existence of hunger during the forty days, but only call
attention to the state of his physical nature, when the devil
moved against him the temptation to follow what a great writer
has called the earth -given mandate : " Eat thou, and be filled. "
The Evangelists also wish to convey that at this point the
intensity of his hunger was extreme. It is as though they
would say: " After he had sustained the prolonged agony of
346 MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; LUKE III. 1-13
privation of food for forty days, his hunger was intense, when
the Tempter moved against him that temptation he deemed
most effective at that time. " Moreover, it seems that the Re
deemer wished to prove by this hunger that he experienced the
real feelings of the assumed humanity. Christ appears here as
the champion of humanity. In the first great contest, man had
succumbed, and had been led into slavery. Christ appears as
the second champion, and assuming the true nature of a man,
meets the adversary in single combat, and routs him, and
breaks the chains of man s bondage. This necessitates that
the suffering should be real. We are willing to admit that the
union of Christ s human soul with God alienated him somewhat
from the perception of pain felt by the senses. But what we
cannot accept is, that this was an ecstasy in which the sensible
man was passive. We believe that he allowed a real combat
between the natural craving of hunger and the higher aspirations
of the soul, and that the nobler element did not predominate
without the feeling of pain experienced in the members of the
body. Whether in an abnormal condition the human body can
naturally endure for such a period without nourishment, we are
not prepared to say. But it can be affirmed that no man in
active health, and drawing upon his system to supply the ner\ T e
power for active, healthy life can live naturally for that period
without food. We believe then that the humanity of Christ
was sustained by the power of God, but that it was not ex
empted by this power from experiencing the cravings of hunger.
From the example of Christ arose the Lenten fast in the
Church. Lent dates back to the time of the Apostles, and is
founded on Apostolic traditions. Origen speaks of it in his
Tenth Homily on Leviticus as something well known. In the
Apostolical Constitutions, V. 13, it is formally mentioned; St.
Jerome in his XLI. Epist. 13, [Ad Marcellam] declares that
Christians keep the Lenten fast according to the Apostolical
traditions. Such fast brings the Christian into close personal
relation with Christ s sufferings, and is a sure evidence that he is
being conformed to Christ, who through many sufferings
entered into his kingdom, It aids a man, in keeping this fast,
to know that the suffering one endures has been sanctified by
being first borne bv Christ. It would weaken it much to know
MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; I^UKE III. 1-13 347
that Christ in his fast left the plane of poor, weak humanity,
and passed the fast in an ecstasy of contemplation.
There is a great mystery in the fact that Satan here essays
to tempt the Son of God. Had he known that the man Jesus
was the co-equal Son of God, he would have known the futility
of the attempt. It must have been then that Satan s knowl
edge of the Incarnation was not very clear. Things divine are
not as clear in Hell as they are in Heaven . Most probably he
had only an obscure intelligence of the great truth, and this led
him to test Christ s virtue.
The narratives of the inspired writers plainly evince that
Satan came in visible form, to tempt the Son of God, most
probably, in the form of a man. The humanity of Christ,
exempt from original guilt, free from the incentive of sin, could
not be tempted from within. He felt none of the combat aris
ing from the disordered inclination of the lower faculties,
because there was in him the harmony of original jus
tice in its most perfect degree. Hence the only tempta
tions that could be moved against him were from with
out. Skilfully adapting the temptation to the character
of the agent upon whom he was working, Satan invites him
to an arbitrary use of his divine pow T er; he invites him to
set aside the wise laws of nature in a spirit of pride, and
turn the stones of the desert into loaves of bread. Matthew
has the plural; Luke, the singular: it is a difference in detail,
and leaves us in doubt which Satan really said. There is
a certain fitness in the proposition of the Tempter. A stone is
proverbially taken as the exemplification of qualities opposite
to those of bread. Satan endeavors to flatter the supposed
vanity of the mysterious man before him by professing to
believe that he could do that which only omnipotence coulrl
effect. There is a natural inclination in man to wish that
others should recognize the excellence that is within him.
This the devil knew, and so essays to move Jesus to show forth
the power that is in him. He invites him to show forth that
he is the Son of God by this miracle. Satan had heard the
voice from heaven at the baptism, but he did not understand
fully the mystery of the Incarnation. He saw 7 a man emaciated
by hunger, in outward appearance bearing none of the majesty
348 MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; LUKE III. 1-13
of God, and he moved against him the temptation which he
deemed most opportune to have weight with such a one.
Some have considered this temptation a representative of
the great temptation of gluttony. They would have us
understand that Christ allowed Satan to move against him the
temptation of gluttony, that we might recognize his exemplary
action in resisting this capital vice. This seems improbable.
We fully recognize that Christ s combat with the Tempter was
for our instruction and exhortation, but it does not seem that
this temptation is reducible to the head of gluttony. Had
* Christ procured bread and satisfied his hunger, after the comple
tion of his fast, there would be no wrong in such action. The
defect was in the mode that Satan suggested. He strove to
incite Christ to a vain, arbitrary use of his power, to a proud
manifestation of his excellence ; hence the temptation is more
properly reducible to the head of pride. What we should
especially observe in the nature of these temptations is that
Satan takes into account the different characters of individuals
and their environment, and brings against them the influences
that he believes will have most effect in every particular case.
The laborer will be tempted by drunkenness and unfaithfulness
in his work; the merchant, by commercial dishonesty; the
scholar by intellectual pride; the priest, by avarice and lust.
Christ does not deny that he is the Son of God. Such
denial would be false. He does not assert it, for Satan does not
seek it with a right motive. Humility does not compel a man
to utter things which he does not believe. Humility is truth,
and is compatible with a consciousness of the possession of cer
tain powers and attainments whether natural or supernatural.
But it moves a man to recognize God as the source whence they
come, and to refuse to arrogate to one s self the glory which
rightly belongs to God.
Christ repulses the temptation of Satan by a quotation
from Deut. VIII., 3. When the Israelites were about to enter
the Promised Land, Moses delivered to them three great
discourses which make up the Book of Deuteronomy. In these
he reviews the signal favors that Israel had received from God,
and in this relation brings forth the verse in question. In the
Hebrew it reads thus: "And he humbled thee, and suffered
MATT. IV. i -II;MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13 349
thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest
not, neither did your fathers know; that he might make thee
know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God doth man live. "
The dignity and sacredness of the inspired word of God
are shown by our Lord s use of this passage. He, who as God
had the infinite knowledge of the Godhead, and as man had all
knowledge possible to be given to created intelligence, finds no
better truth to repel Satan than these words written by a mere
man, but acting under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
Among other useful lessons that the great Teacher has taught
us, is reverence for the Scriptures of God. It is evident that
bread is here taken in its widest signification for the ordinary
food of man.
Some commentators maintain the sense of Christ s words
here to be that the whole life of man is not sustained by the
things that merely aliment the body; that the highest form
of man s life is nourished by the observance of God s com
mandments, that the soul s life is maintained by the faithful
observance of the Law of God. Although this proposition
enunciates a truth, it does not seem to be relevant here. The
context warrants that the words are quoted from Deuteronomy
in the sense in which Moses first uttered them. Now the truth
that Moses conveyed by them was that the Israelites, when
destitute of the ordinary means of sustenance in the wilderness,
were fed by a strange unknown food from Heaven, that they
should recognize that the Providence of God is not limited to
the use of ordinary food in preserving the life of his creature ;
but can and does supply, by interposition of miraculous power,
when the ordinary means fail, those who trust in his Providence.
Christ, in the same sense, says to the Tempter: " I came into
this wilderness by the direct moving of the Spirit of God. In
such action, I threw myself for my protection and sustenance
on the Providence of my Father who bade me come hither.
Thou seest me now a man straitened by hunger and destitute of
all natural means to supply my wants, and thou counselest me
to an arbitrary use of my power. But I declare to you that I
am not minded to distrust the Providence which still allows me
to suffer. I have fixed an eternal, unfailing trust in that
350 MATT. IV. I-II;MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13
Providence which fed Israel by miraculous food in the desert,
and which needs not the ordinary food of man to preserve the
life which he gave."
This grand truth well fits the Son of God . And this truth
is for man s guidance. It is easy to follow the Providence of
God, when it leads through pleasant paths. But if a chastening
hand is heavy upon us, then begin grumblings, discontents;
then full oft it would be easy to draw us away from the total
trust in the Providence of God. Christ has taught us to trust
to the end, even through affliction and temptation.
Matthew and Luke do not agree in the order of the second
and third temptation. That which is second in Matthew is
third and last in Luke, and vice versa. Luke seems to give
evidence in his text that he is careless of the order of succession
of events while the conjunctions in Matthew imply the fixing
of a stated order ; hence we follow the order as indicated by
Matthew. In the second temptation, Satan conducts Jesus to
the pinnacle of the temple, and endeavors to persuade him to
cast himself down. Many divergent opinions exist concerning
this second temptation. Cyprian (De Jejunio et Tent. Christi)
taught that the temptations of Christ were like the symbolic
actions of the prophets ; that the events only took place in the
ideal order, and hence that there was no real corresponding
external action. This is rightly rejected by the best com
mentators. In such prophetic ecstasies the human agent
was merely passive. Now Christ, as the protagonist of every
Christian resisting temptation, must have undergone a real
temptation, acted and perceived in the real order of things,
where the faculties were in the normal state, and the will free.
In such state take place our temptations, and in such state he
has given us his example. Again the very words of the
Evangelists exclude any symbolic actions. They are the plain
narration of a fact verified in the real order of things. Finally,
it would be absurd that Satan should tempt a man to cast
himself down from a high place in a vision. If man consented,
what would be wrought ? A man s actions in such a state would
not be imputable to him. We believe then that it is a certain
truth that all these temptations were events in the objective
order.
MATT. IV. I-II;MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13 351
But now arises the question, how was Christ taken by
vSatan to Jerusalem, and placed on the pinnacle of the temple?
Some have held that Satan merely impelled him to go to
Jerusalem, and that he accompanied him in his journey thither.
Such is the opinion of Euthymius and Maldonatus. This
opinion is by Knabenbauer called ridiculous, and is most
assuredly false. The Greek word 7rapa\a/*ftdi>a, used by Mat
thew, signifies a seizing and a carrying. It is confirmed by the
term eo-Trjere, signifying a placing. We hold then that Satan by
diabolic agency, under permission from God, transported Christ
bodily, and placed him upon the outer margin of the roof of the
temple. We believe that Christ was not visible to mortal eyes
in this passage to the summit of the temple. It was in some
way ordered by the Providence of God that the prodigious
event was not seen by man . We should not shrink from such
a recognition of Satan s agency. He recognized in Christ one
who had undertaken to wrest man from his thraldom, and he
moved against him all the power by him possessed. And God
allowed this grim battle to show us a noble type of our human
ity combating the powers of evil. It draws closer the bonds
of sympathy between Christ and his tempted brethren, that
we know in the bitterness of our trials that he has felt by
actual experience the highest degree of man s temptation. The
Hebrew coloring appears in the designation of Jerusalem as the
holy city. For the Jew it was by excellence the holy city, the
holiest place in all the world, the city chosen by God as the
center of his worship and the site of his temple.
The portion of the temple where Christ was placed is called
by the Evangelists the Trrepvyiov , literally the little wing of the
temple. It seems to have been a projecting margin of the roof,
furnished with a balustrade to prevent one from toppling over.
It must be borne in mind that the tops of edifices in Oriental
architecture are flat and adapted for walking thereon. The
projection of this roof of the temple was called a -jnepvyiov from
its resemblance to the expanded wing of a bird. From
Josephus we receive information of the altitude whence Satan
tempted Christ to cast himself down. In Lib. XV. XI. 5, of
Antiq. he says: "The highest elevation of the royal cloister
stood on a height, insomuch that if any one looked down from
352 MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13
the top of the battlements, or down both these altitudes, he
would be giddy, while his sight could not reach to such an im
mense depth. "
Divine Providence seems to have ordered that the great
height of the temple was chosen as the place of this temptation,
instead of a natural precipice. The event was to be written for
posterity, and therefore a site was chosen whose altitude was
well known to the Jews, and by which posterity might obtain a
ready idea of the full nature of the temptation.
This second temptation also was aimed to induce the
Messiah to give a vain, presumptuous exhibition of his power.
This was also the artifice of Satan, to find out if Jesus were the
real Son of God whom he knew long ago in Heaven, and who
he knew from God s denunciation in Eden would one day crush
him.
Satan had been repulsed by a truth of Holy Scripture.
He now endeavors to found a temptation on the very Scriptures
themselves. Christ had manifested in his first temptation
absolute trust in Divine Providence. Lucifer now moves him
to give a specific evidence of his trust in God and God s
promises by casting himself from the great height.
In Ps. XCI. ii-i2 (Vulgate XC.) the Lord has made this
sublime promise to man : " For he shall give his angels charge
over thee to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up
in their hands, lest thou dash thy feet against a stone. " Against
the evidence of the Hebrew text of the Psalm and the Greek
text of the Evangelists, the Vulgate renders the verb in the first
proposition in the past tense, thereby weakening the force and
beauty of the text.
In these sublime verses, the ministry of angels is assured to
man in the dangers and needs of this life. We become oblivious
of these ministering spirits, because they come not within the
range of our senses. Many events are going on round about us
in the spiritual w r orld that we think not of. Angels are com
bating demons in our defense. Sentinels of God are watching
to ward off every danger. This is one of the texts upon which
Catholics found their belief in the guardian angels.
Satan distorts the passage to induce Christ to address to
God a proud, presumptuous demand for miraculous power.
MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13 353
The temptation included two specific grades of malice. First,
presumption on God, and secondly, a vain seeking for recog
nition of one s excellence. It might seem at first glance that
this presumption was not a usual temptation of man. Upon
reflection however we find that in some degree it infects many.
Whenever we address a petition to God in such a spirit that we
would in any degree lose faith in his Providence if he grant
not our prayers, we are in a measure tempting God. Whenever
we seek to know reasons for God s action that in his wisdom he
has not wished to manifest, we are tempting God.
Moreover, there was in this suggestion of Satan the
temptation to diffidence in God. It was as though Christ
would force God to give an evidence by miraculous sensible
demonstration of the truth of his promise. But Christ s trust
in his Father was absolute, and needed not nor demanded this
sign. He repels the rash suggestion of the Tempter again by
the Scripture of God. The threefold repulse of Satan, which
Christ wrought by the written w r ord of God, manifests that no
malign influence can affect a man who is anchored on these
saving truths. God has not revealed all to man in the present
life, but he has furnished him with truths amply sufficient for
man s guidance, and these written truths have an intrinsic
power to move the heart of man that no other words can ever
have. The response of Christ shows the animus of the temptation
still more. He quotes the sixteenth verse of VI. Chap, of Deut.
wherein Moses bids Israel not tempt the Lord, as they had
tempted him in the desert : " Ye shall not tempt the Lord your
God, as ye tempted him in Massah. " The temptation spoken
of is described in Exod. XVII. The people under Moses lead
ership were without water, and they clamored against God and
Moses, saying: " Is God among us or not? " Hence the place
was called Massah, that is, temptation. Now it is plain that
the sin of Israel was diffidence in the Providence of God, in their
thirst. They demanded as the price of their belief that Yahveh
should by an exercise of his power relieve their thirst, not in
his own time, but in their time. Christ quotes the passage in
the tenor in which it was written. He says in effect to Satan :
"Thou biddest me make my trust in God dependent on his
exercise of miraculous power, to please vainglory ; but I declare
(22) Gosp. I
354 MATT. IV. I-II;MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13
that my trust is not conditional. As the protagonist of human
ity, I am come to show man that God is to be trusted absolutely,
even though he ask the holocaust of every joy, the sacrifice of
all man holds dear. " The pagans admired a man so tenacious
of purpose that, though the heavens fell, he would be still
unmoved. God hath regard for a man who can say with St.
Paul, "that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,
nor things present, nor things future, nor pow r ers, nor height,
nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us
from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. How
few retain the fulness of faith and trust in God through sorrow,
poverty, interior desolation, and infirmity?
Satan now transports Christ in the same manner as before
to the summit of a mountain, to tempt him by worldly ambi
tion. It is vain to question what mountain was the site of this
combat with Satan. St. Helena built a temple on the summit
of the traditional mount of the forty days fast, to commemo
rate the event. Mt. Hermon is the highest mountain in Syria,
but it was far northward from the land of Christ s life and
labors. We have no data to fix the site.
Different opinions exist concerning the mode by which
Satan showed to Christ the kingdoms of the world, Maldona-
tus and others hold that Satan did not actually represent to the
corporal eyes of Christ the different kingdoms of the world, but
simply from the mountain top pointed to the different portions
of the then known world, and discoursed of their opulence and
power. Even were this the mode, it would not be amiss to
locate the event on the mountain top, for from such elevation
the representation would be more forcible, and the imagination
would be aided. The opinion of the rationalistic protestants,
which makes the kingdoms of the world include only the
divisions of Syria, merits no consideration. The world of
Scriptural writers, especially of Mark and Luke means the
Roman world, the whole civilized world of that time. It is
probable that Satan s representation included only this.
Maldonatus opinion is especially rendered improbable by the
phrase employed by Luke : " In a moment of time. Such a
phrase clearly imports an unusual mode of the event, wrought
by diabolic agency. Now if he simply, in an oratorical mode,
MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13 355
pointed to the site of the kingdoms of that time, it would
require no more than human agency, and the phrase would be
irrelevant. \Ye believe then that by Satanic agency the Temp
ter caused to come before Christ s eyes sensible representations
of the principal kingdoms of the world . This is warranted also
by the fact that Luke says that Satan showed to Christ the
glory of these kingdoms, which implies a sensible demonstra
tion of such element. It does not extend Satan s power be
yond proper limits, to place such phenomena within its scope.
God deprived him not of the power that he has by virtue of his
angelic nature, and by infernal art he was able to offer to the
eyes of Christ a sensible representation of the power and glory
of the kingdoms of the world. The "moment of time" of
Luke then means that by Satanic agency the Tempter caused
to pass in rapid review before the eyes of Christ the realms of
the earth.
In the third temptation a climax is reached in Satan s
efforts; it is the most powerful of all. He, doubtless, remem
bered that by that same persuasion he had drawn the hosts
of angels who massed themselves under his standard long
ago in Heaven to place his throne above that of the Most
High. Hence even though he recognizes that Christ is of
celestial origin, he hesitates not to move against him that
incentive that had been effectual with the angels who fell. He
knew that the Messiah was destined to be a great king, and
he thought that he might enter into his designs with the evil
suggestion of vast power.
Luke apprises us that Satan declared that the kingdoms of
the earth were in his power to give to whom he would. In this
Satan lied no uncommon thing w T ith him. He lied when he
tempted our first parents; he is the father of lies. The Provi
dence of God in a general way watches over civil government,
which is of his ordering. The destinies of nations are in God s
hands, all power is not from Satan, but from God. Satan is
called the prince of the world, not that he hath power to
shape the destinies of nations, but that he is the prince of
the vices of the world, he is the chief of that current of thought,
antagonistic to God and to the spiritual life, which is often
called the world. It is true that many by Satan s suggestions
356 MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13
have placed themselves in seats of power. It is true that the
prevailing tendency of the state has often been favorable to
Satan s interests, but this is only by the permission of an all-
ruling Providence, who is powerful to draw good from the evil
acts of the free will of man. Satan s promises are all fallacious.
The mind of man cannot be moved by evil as such. Satan must
cloak his suggestion in the specious garb of something that the
appetite of man craves, in order to move the will. And with
stealthy artifice, and mendacious promises, he draws his poor
dupes away from the service of their Creator to endless, hope
less woe. He does not ask in our days for adoration. He
accomplishes most in this materialistic age by keeping himself
well hid. He would have the whole supernatural die out of
men s souls. But he receives equivalent adoration from all
those poor souls who constitute the soul s aim in aught save
God. We see in this third temptation the animus of Satan s
career of temptation. Actuated by the eternal hate of God and
of Heaven, he is striving to build up a realm in opposition to
Christ. Not understanding fully the nature of the Incarnation,
Satan was perplexed by the appearance of the Son of God.
From the data given, he knew that he was a man sent by God
to inaugurate a new epoch in the life of mankind. He knew
that his Satanic power was now menaced by an agency un
known before, and he moves against this Champion of man
kind temptations greater than we are ever called to bear.
The specific motives of this temptation were ambition, the
love of power, and avarice; agencies that have a mighty
influence on the mind of man. The pages of history are filled
with the names of those who bartered their souls for a measure
of what the Tempter here offered Christ. Men undergo toil and
pain that if ordered aright would obtain them everlasting glory
in the highest ranks of the saints of God, to attain to posts of
power among men, and full oft have sunk into deepest hell,
w r hile the mirage of worldly greatness passed forever from them.
The religion of Buddha has this truth in it, that it terms all
those who waste their energies on material issues, fools. We
may truly Christianize this sentiment by saying that an
unspiritual man is a fool.
MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-13 357
In all of his temptations, Christ has not revealed to Satan
his true nature ; there is in his responses no proud assertion of
the possession of excellence. As the protagonist of tempted
humanity, he shows us the means of defeating Satan; not by
relying on self, but by a most reverential observance of God s
law, and an absolute trust in God s providence. The passage of
Scripture that the Lord quotes in his third temptation is found
in Deut. VI. 13 : " Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve
him, and shalt swear by his name. Christ quotes the sense,
not the mere words. The insertion of the "only" brings out
the sense of the original more fully. God is asking for man s
reverence and worship, absolute and entire, which excludes
every other being. The Scriptural force of the ^"Vfl, [thou
T
shalt fear] is also well brought out. It means here that
reverential awe of the Supreme Being, which recognizes the
majesty of God, which recognizes the infinite distance between
man and his Creator. It is not the fear that repels, but the
acknowledgment of a mighty power, and the realization of a
great obligation whose infraction is feared. God asks of man a
reverential, true acknowledgment of his majesty and author
ity. In our present state, where the will is convertible to evil
and to good, this awe always includes a certain amount of fear;
not the fear that makes man a moral coward, but the fear
that elevates man s nature, that fosters moderation and wis
dom in man s important relations to God.
By the enunciation of this eternal verity, Christ routed the
demon. In him that leading truth of human life was realized in
all its intensity. Satan s arts are bootless against a man in
whose thoughtful soul this great truth has chief place. St.
Luke tells us that at the close of the series of temptations the
devil withdrew from Christ for a season." Schegg would
have us understand by this, that it excludes all future
attempts on the part of Satan. He is alone in this opinion.
It seems more probable that it signifies a lull in the infernal
combat waged against Christ by the arch-tempter. Satan
withdrew for a time, and again came against Jesus, in the
same manner that he directs his attacks on all mankind.
Matthew informs us that after his victory over Satan, angels
358 MATT. IV. i-n; MARK I. 12-13; LUKE IV. 1-1.
came and ministered to him. Christ was God and man. It
is necessary that we should believe in his two natures; so he
gives us among the evidences of his human nature, occas-
sional glimpses of his Divinity. In the fasting, the hunger, the
temptations, we see the true man ; in the subsequent ministry of
angels, we see the Lord of the universe receiving the worship
befitting him as God. Moreover, it shows that Heaven is not
oblivious of man in his temptations. And to the valiant
combatant there comes a time of peace, when the influence of
Heaven succeeds to the influence of hell, and God whispers in
the soul : " Well done. " Satan is not allowed to always tempt
and harass man. When the athlete of Christ, strong in faith,
has overcome by the power of God which strengthens him,
peace comes to the soul, and Heaven draws nearer.
JOHN I. 10-28.
1 9. And this is the testimony
of John, when the Jews sent
unto him from Jerusalem priests
and Levites to ask him: Who
art thou?
20. And he confessed, and
denied not; and he confessed:
I am not the Christ.
21. And they asked him:
What then? Art thou Elias?
And he saith: I am. not. Art
thou the prophet? And he
answered: No.
22. They said therefore unto
him: Who art thou? that we may
give answer to them that sent
us, What sayest thou of thy
self?
23. He said: I am the voice
of one crying in the wilderness:
Make straight the way of the
Lord as said the prophet Isaias.
19. Kcu au iT) eailv Y) ixapiupta
TO loxivvoii, OTE dcic^oretXav
at/rbv 01 Iou8atoi e
ispsi<; xal AeuefTaq, Vva spamqawcftv
auTOv, Hu itq si;
20.
Kai
xa oux
o-ct sw
oux etyi
21. Kal TjpWTYjaav ainov:Tt ouv;
s el; KOCI Xlyst: Oux st ^c.
C si ju; xal aTCexpfGr): O5.
OLIV
22. Elxav
"va axo xpiaiv Bw^sv TO!?
c: T( Xsyeti; xepi
Tts el;
23. ^ : y) cpcov-]
sv Tf) spiQjxw: EuOuvaTS TTJV o8bv
Kupfou, xotGdic; slxev Haataq 6
JOHN I. 1928 359
24. And they that were sent 24. Kat a^c^aXixlvoi rjcav e%
were of the Pharisees. TUV 4>apiaa(o>v.
25. And they asked him, 25. Kat tjpu-njcav aihbv, xal
and said unto him: Why then slxav a tew: Ti oiiv (iawcfliei?, e?
baptizest thou, if thou be not ju oux el 6 Xpia-rbc, ous HXe(a?,
the Christ nor Elias, nor the oiiBe 6 -jcpo^-ci)? ;
prophet?
26. John answered them, 26. Azr/.ptOirj aj-:ol<; 6 Icoav-
saying: I baptize with water: VYJS, Xeywv, Eyw ^CCTCT^W iv uBaic:
but there standeth one among ^eaoq uyttov STT^XSI, Sv O^sl; oO/.
you whom ye know not : oi8<ne.
27. He shall come after me, 27. Oztsw JJLOU Ipy v 6ixVOs, (o;
the latchet of whose shoe I am e^TtpocrGev jxou vsyovev) ou oux st;xl
not worthy to loose. iyw a^toq Yva AU<JW auroij TOV
28. These things were done 28. Taiha iv BrjOavta sylvsTo
in Bethania, beyond the Jordan, Tcepav TO J lopBavou, OTUOU TJV 6
where John was baptizing. Iwdvvr^ pazTu.wv.
In the twenty-sixth verse we have departed from the Vul
gate in rendering the a-Tr/vei, by the present tense "standeth."
Sr^/cet is formed from the perfect ea-rrjica, from root IO-TIJIU,
and is always used in a present tense. The context also de
mands a present tense. John means to say that, in the midst
of the people of Judasa, was the Christ who had not yet been
publicly manifested.
In the twenty-seventh verse, the clause 6? eiwrpo<r6ev
fjiov yeyovev, is omitted by N, B, C*, L, and some cursive MSS.
Origen and other Fathers omitted it ; Tischendorf and Hort
omit it, and we feel persuaded that it is an interpolation.
In the twenty-eighth verse the common Greek reading is
faOavia. This is followed by the most of the versions
and Fathers. C 2 , K, T, U, A, II and some minuscule codices
have ftrjOafiapd. The palimpsest Sinaitic Syriac and Cure-
ton s Syriac are the only versions which receive the latter read
ing. Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, and Chrysostom also accept it.
The preponderating weight of authority for the reading
"Bethany" moves us to believe that Bethabara is one of
Origen s rash corrections, and that it was approved by the cited
authorities on account of Origen s authority. Thus he declares :
360 JOHN I. 19 28
"We are persuaded that it is not Bethany but Bethabara that
should be read " (Comment, in Joan. h. 1.) Also St. Chrysostom
(Horn. XVII. in Joan.) : " Some codices say, Bethabara and
it is the most probable, because there is no Bethany beyond
the Jordan, but only one near Jerusalem. "
St. Epiphanius (Adv. Ha3r. lib. II. Hasr. 51): "These
things were done at Bethabara; in others Bethany ."
Eusebius and St. Jerome (De Situ et Norn. Heb.) recognize
only Bethabara.
The opinion was advanced by Riess (Bibel-Atlas) that the
Greek text is a transliteration of the Hebrew J^TJ, renter,
uterus. By doing violence to all the laws of etymology they
force from this term the meaning of a valley ; hence accord
ing to this opinion, John designates the valley of the Jordan.
Men are asked to believe that instead of the simple designation
"valley of the Jordan" the Evangelist has employed this
strange transliteration never again found in any Evangelist.
The improbability of the aforesaid opinion is heightened by the
consideration that St. John s evident purpose is to designate
some particular place : had he wished to designate a region he
would have employed the article with the name.
There are therefore left but two probable opinions. From
intrinsic and extrinsic evidence it seems that " Bethany" is the
more probable reading. It is located across the Jordan to
distinguish it from the Bethany near Jerusalem. Even as far
back as the days of Origen the site of the trans-Jordanic
Bethany was unknown ; but that is not surprising considering
the circumstances of time and place. Many other Biblical
places have fallen into the same oblivion.
In 1 88 1 a little southeast of Jericho was discovered a
large square ruin. From its mosaics and its crosses it is rightly
supposed that it was a large Greek church dating from before
the Crusades. The Arabs call it Quasr el-Jahoud, the castle of
the Jews : the Christians call it Deir Mar-Hanna, St. John s Con
vent. It seems quite certain that it was built to commemorate
our Lord s baptism.
The Gospel of St. John places the Marriage at Cana three
days after the baptism of Christ; and the distance from the
JOHN I. 1928 3 6i
traditional place of the baptism is greater than could be
accomplished in three days. Hence we feel constrained to
locate the place of the baptism at a place on the east bank
of the Jordan farther north, but the site has not been identified.
It seems quite certain that the events here chronicled by
John took place after the baptism of Christ. Certain Pharisees
and Sadducees had come to John before that event, but not as a
deleggtiOTi_ft^nthe_SaiAednni. The people were all flocking
to John, and the central authority at Jerusalem, called the
Sanhedrim, which claimed the right to regulate all religious
matters, now sends official representatives to demand of John
by what authority he spoke. They sent men high in author
ity, priests and Levites, for they were forced to recognize the
ever-increasing influence of the Baptist. There seems to
to be in the words of these men a certain proud con
sciousness of the authority in which they were clad ; while in
John s answering words, there is the ring of a noble humility.
Behold this scene on the banks of the Jordan! There
stand the members of this embassy, arrayed in their rich robes
of office, and their phylacteries, captious, deceitful, proud;
and before them the Baptist clad in his shaggy tunic of hair,
enveloping his fleshless limbs, with naught to lend majesty to
his presence save the flash of his eye, which mirrored forth a
soul sublimed in God. They were representatives of the men
of this world; he, of the men of God. The majesty of their
presence depended on the insignia of their office; his on the
God -like dispositions of the soul.
It is quite probable that the people had sought of the
Sanhedrim whether John were the Christ, hence this official
embassy. The Baptist in his answer shows that he is apprised
of the erroneous conception of the people. It would be a fatal
error, if the people take him for the Christ ; hence his first care
is to dispel this error. To the Baptist had been committed a
duty, a sacred trust ; and with singleness of aim, and stead
fastness of purpose does he work the accomplishment of that
design. He can be moved by neither honors nor fear. John
was a man with free will like ours, and the fidelity that he has
shown in his life s work can be proposed as an example of
perfection toward which we may move.
362 JOHN I. 19 28
In Malachi IV. 5, it is written: "Behold, I will send
you Eliah the prophet, before the coming of the great and
dreadful day of the Lord. "
In its literal signification, this prophecy applies to the send
ing of Eliah as a herald, in the days before the second coming
of the Lord. The Pharisees, confounding the two events, now
conjecture that perhaps the Baptist is Eliah, come to prepare
for the great coming of the Messiah. John was the type of
Eliah, but he was not Eliah in their sense, so that he summarily
denies also this hypothesis. They then advance the third
hypothesis, was he the prophet? From the presence of the
definite article here, 6 Trpo^r^, many believe that the question
of the delegates of the Sanhedrim referred not to a prophet in
general, but to that particular prophet which they expected,
pursuant to the declaration of Moses, Deut. XVIII. 15 : "The
Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst
of thy brethren, like unto me ; unto him ye shall hearken. "
The sense of this passage of Deuteronomy includes two things.
First, there is therein promised to Israel a series of prophets,
who shall succeed to Moses the lawgiver in managing the affairs
of Israel ; and secondly, the passage refers also to Christ, the
great prophet, the second lawgiver.
In the text of Deut. it is evident that the principal author
of the Holy Scriptures contemplated the series of the prophets
and also the Messiah. But the Pharisees had not clear ideas
concerning the nature of this great prophet. After John had
expressly denied that he w r as the Messiah, they ask if he be that
great prophet. The definite article will not permit us to ap
ply their words to a prophet in general: they must apply to
that particular prophet for which Israel had long waited.
The Phrisees evidently are in doubt whether the long prom
ised prophet is to be the Messiah Evidence of Israel s ex
pectation of the great prophet is furnished in I.Maccab. XIV
41. Hence John emphatically declares that he is not the
prophet : he was sent to prepare for the prophet. It is evi
dent that John perceived that these men came not out of an
honest desire to know the truth. They were captious in spirit,
and dishonest in purpose ; and he speaks to them, not in the
manner of one who would instruct honest truth -seekers, but of
JOHN I. 19 28. 363
one who would repulse equivocating demagogues. They are
baffled at the third response, and appealing to the authority of
those who sent them, they address a direct appeal to him in the
name of authority. The Baptist, in his response, puts aside his
own personality. He puts into relief the great religious move
ment which he inaugurated ; he says nothing of himself. His
whole aim is to shift the people s attachment from himself, and
fix it on the Christ. What did it profit them to know who he
was? He could not save them. He was only concerned to
guide the thoughts of the people to him in whom alone there
are salvation, life, and resurrection. There is in John no self-
seeking, no pride. Man is an imitative animal, and is aided in
his course of action by the actions of others. Christ is the great
model of every Christian, but yet we can associate with him
those great names that were not born to die. From John we
may receive lessons in stern, unflinching fidelity to duty, in re
nunciation of all that this paltry world has to offer, in strong
and fearless denunciation of wrong wherever found, in the ex
altation of the spirit over the flesh. He stands there in the
midst of a corrupt generation, looking with noble disdain on
the inanity of all things worldly, a giant of truth among venal
hypocrites, verily a man sent by God, speaking and acting, as
it behooves a man who speaks in God s name. In him no self-
interest, but intense God s interest; a noble evidence of the
possibilities of our nature that await our development.
The Evangelist calls particular attention to the fact that
those who were sent were Pharisees. His motive seems to be
to show us the animus of their interrogatory of the Baptist.
They affected great learning and great authority, and they
arrogated to themselves the right to force the Baptist to show
his credentials, They evidently are not seeking the truth but
hoping to entrap the man who had unmasked their hypocrisy.
John Baptist, setting at naught their captious bickerings, bids
them lose sight of him. and fix their eyes on the one for whom
he is preparing. He says in effect: "Why stand ye here
disputing of me? I am nothing, my baptism is nothing.
There is now among you one whom ye, though priests of Israel,
know not, seek him . This movement is not mine ; it is Christ s.
He is here among you." There is a stern reproof in the clause,
364 JOHN I. 2934.
"whom ye know not," It is as though he would say: "Ye
call yourselves the teachers of Israel, and yet ye ignore the
great fulfilment of the prophecies of the Christ, and waste your
time in cavil, instead of leading the people to their Redemption."
The phrase : o<? e^TrpoaOev pov yeyovev. of the twenty-seventh
verse is not found in the MSS. of Sinai or the Vatican. It is
in the Peshitto, the Alexandrian, and other good codices, but its
status is very doubtful. Very probably it was inserted here
to make the verse accord with the fifteenth verse. Many com
mentators find in it the declaration by John of Christ s priority
of dignity. We can not accept this. "EfjiTrpoaOev never has that
signification. The passage merely refers to the priority of du
ration of the Christ, and marks the eternity which as God was
his in the Godhead. The Baptist by the contrast in the propo
sition draws attention to the fact, that although as man Christ
should enter the theatre of action after himself, nevertheless,
his origin as God was eternal. The yeyovev in this context
refers to the etenial generation of the Word.
It is easy to believe that truth sits upon the lips of such
men as John, and with an intensity unequaled in the Gospels,
has he testified of the Messiah. The people of Israel can not
say that their rejection of the Messiah was not imputable.
John the Evangelist is careful to note the Baptist s
testimony, since it was powerful against the gnostic heresies,
which he had in mind to combat.
JOHN I. 29-34.
29. The next day John seeth 29. Tfj Ixaupiov ^Xlxet tbv
Jesus coming to him, and saith: Irjaouv Ip^o^svov xpb<; aikbv, xal
Behold, the Lamb of God, who Xlyst: "ISe 6 a^vbq TOU 6eo6, 6
taketh away the sin of the world. aTpwv TTJV ajxapitav tou xoa^ou.
30. This is he of whom I 30. Ourdq sort uxep ou lyw
said: After me cometh a man elxov: Oxiaw JJLOU ep^STat dvY)p,
who was begotten before me; oq e^xpoaOev yiou yeyovev, OTI xpo>-
for he was before me. TO<; JJLOU ^v.
31. And I knew him not: but 31. Kayw oux flSecv octhov:
that he should be made manifest aXX Vva (pavepwOTJ T(p laporfjX, 8t<2c
to Israel, therefore am I come TOLITO ^XOov lyo) ev u&att {taxT^wv.
baptizing with water.
JOHN I. 2934.
365
32. And John bore witness,
saying: I saw the Spirit descend-
ing from Heaven like a dove,
and it abode upon him.
33. And I knew him not:
but he who sent me to baptize
with water, the same said unto
me: Upon whom thou shalt see
the Spirit descending, and re-
maining on him, the same is he
who baptizeth with the Holy
Ghost.
34. And I saw and bore wit-
ness that this is the Son of God.
32. Kal l^ap-rupTjaev 6
Xeywv, OTI TeOea^ou TO ITvsG^a xata-
Batvov ox; xspiaTepav l oupavou,
xal ejxeivev ez au-rov.
33. Kayw oux ^8eiv aik6v:
dXV 6 xe^a? jxe ^axTt^eiv ev uBaic,
Ixelvd? ^xot el-rcev: E<p ov av t Bflq
TO Hveu^a xaiaBalvov xal ^xevov ETC
aikbv, wi6q ICTIV 6 ^cnat^cov Iv
Atc.
Kayo) iwpaxa, xal
OTC ouToq lartv 6 y
34.
TOU
The prominence that the Evangelist gives to the testimony
of the Baptist shows how important he considers it as a cre
dential of the Christ. Before the coming of Christ, John bent
all his energies to prepare the people for such event; after
Christ s manifestation, he is equally solicitous to draw the
people to the present reality. There is such a ring of truth in
this narrative that no one with an honest heart can read this
testimony without becoming convinced that the man baptized
by the Baptist in the Jordan was the Son of God. A mighty
truth given to a careless world! A truth having an absolute,
all important personal interest for every individual, and yet
a dull, cold, materalistic generation treats it as a far-off, merely
historical account, whose relation moves not the heart.
It seems probable that after his fast, Jesus came down out
of the wilderness to visit John, and to receive this additional
testimony before beginning his public career. The term lamb
here addressed to Christ by the Baptist is pregnant with great
meaning. It declared the meek, gentle, innocent character of
the Messiah, which has been described by the prophets: " He
is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her
shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth."- Is. LIII. 7.
" But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter,
and I knew not that they had devised devices against me."-
Jerem. XI. 19. The lamb is rightly chosen in Scriptural
366 JOHN I. 29 34.
language as the personification of innocence and gentleness,
two leading characteristics of the Christ. In calling him the
Lamb of God, direct testimony is given to his divine nature.
Moreover, there is in the appellation a direct allusion to his
character as the great paschal lamb, who, by offering him
self as a holocaust, would atone for the world s sin. In using
the singular rr)v a/uapTiay, the Baptist had in mind primarily
original sin, that which closed Heaven, and made
man an alien from God. The character of Christ as universal
mediator between God and sinful man is contained in the
words, but yet they establish that the vicarious atonement was
primarily ordered to the taking away of the primal guilt of
mankind. By the use of the present "taketh," John does not
so much assert a fact as he affirms a native inherent power
in the Christ to accomplish such fact. As we say fire burns,
without adverting to any particular actual combustion, so John
affirmed of Christ the power and the design to destroy the
world s sin.
There is a world of meaning in that wondrous sentence, one
of the most beautiful in the Bible. Mankind had waited for
thousands of years for those words. A long list of generations
had gone down to the grave with their hopes to hear these
words unsatisfied. A throb of exultation must have surged
through the Baptist s heart, as he pointed to the fulfilment of
the world s hopes. What a decisive event in the history of
mankind, when John introduced upon the stage him, who broke
the soul s thraldom, and took away the curse of death!
In the thirtieth verse, the Evangelist reproduces the testi
mony of John that he already mentioned in the fifteenth verse.
The Baptist recalls to their minds that, before the baptism of
Christ, while he was preaching a penitential preparation, he had
told them of one that was to come after him, greater than he.
He was to come after John, because the great movement of
Christ s preaching was to succeed to that of John. John s
work was done when he ushered Christ upon the scene.
The Arians abused the second clause of this verse, "e//,-
TrpocrOev IJLOV yeyovev" to establish that the Son of God was a
creature. What is made, they argued, is a creature, and John
says that Christ was made before him. To avoid this difficultv,
JOHN I. 3542.
3 6 7
some have given to the phrase the sense of a priority of dignity,
and translate it, "who was preferred before me." This does
violence to the text, and Patrizi justly observes that epTrpoadev
is never used to signify priority of dignity. The phrase clearly
imports the pre-existence of Christ in eternity. No real diffi
culty arises out of the yeyovev, as yiyvofjiai here is used in the
sense of to be begotten, and there is asserted simply the eter
nal pre-existence of the Son of God, who in his assumed human
nature appeared in public life after John the Baptist. The rest
of the account has been previously explained. The witness of
John to the Divinity of the Christ leaves no doubt. His words
are intense, plain, and true.
JOHN I. 35-42.
3 5 . Again the next day after,
John was standing, and two of
his disciples ;
36. And looking upon Jesus
as he walked, he saith: Behold,
the Lamb of God!
37. And the two disciples
heard him speak, and they fol
lowed Jesus.
38. And Jesus turned, and
saw them following, and saith
unto them: What seek ye?
They said unto him, Rabbi,
(which is to say, being inter
preted, Master) where dwellest
thou?
39. He saith unto them:
Come and see. They came
therefore and saw where he
dwelt, and abode with him that
day: it was about the tenth hour.
35.
Tyj szauptov xaXtv sc
xac Ix TWV !j.aOr)TWv
Suo.
36.
Kal
oGvu, eyec:
q TW
"IBs 6
SOL).
37. Kat YJxouciav oc Suo
ainoG XaXoOvro^, xat
TOO LqjoG.
38. Stpafet? 8s 6
Osa-aasvoc; a tiro us axoXouGoGnaq,
Tt LJJTSCTS; Ot 8e
Pa66st, (8 Xeye-:at
ov, A .BdjxaXs,) xoG
xa:
sfrav
39. Aeyst auTOcq : "Ep/sciOsxat
saOe. T HX6av ouv xat sISav T.Q J
vsc, xal xap ajTW !rj.eivav TTJV
IpaV SXiCVTQV, Wpa TQV (i)^ SsxaTT].
40. One of the two who 40. T Hv Avoplaq,
heard John speak, and followed St^wvo; nitpou, etg EX TWV Suo TWV
him, was Andrew, Simon Peter s axouaavrwv zapa lojavvoj, xa 5 . axo-
brother.
368 JOHN I. 35 42.
41. He first findeth his own 41. Euptaxsi OUTOI; zpcnoc;
brother Simon, and saith unto aBsX<pbv TOV t Btov St ^wvcc, xat
him: We have found the Messiah auTO>: Eupiqx.a^sv TOV Meadav (8
which is, being interpreted, the sort ^sGsp^veuo^evov, XptaTO?).
Christ.
42. And he brought him to 42. "Hyaysv auibv xpb<; TOV
Jesus. And when Jesus beheld I-qaouv. E^6Xe^a<; auTO)6 I^aou<;
him, he said: Thou art Simon elxev: 2u el 2(ixwv 6 uibq Itoovvou,
the son of John: thou shalt be au x-ATjO-qofl Kf]<pa<; (8 IpjxiqveusTai
called Cephas, which is by inter- IleTpoq).
pretation, a rock.
It is evident that John did not intend his Gospel for
Hebrews. Every Hebrew word is interpreted into its Greek
equivalent. Writing for the Christians of Asia Minor this
interpretation was necessary for the clearness of the narrative.
We see in this account the transition from John to Christ. The
Baptist is ever throwing his influence with his Master; he is
anxious to attach his following to Christ ; hence he moves two
of his disciples to follow the Messiah.
We must know that it was the custom with people of
antiquity that any celebrated philosopher, or celebrated
expounder of religious issues would gather about him a follow
ing of disciples. The human mind in those days had great
reverence for a teacher, and men readily associated them
selves with a recognized master of any great system. Men s
minds were not taken up then with material issues. Existence
for them did not signify the ceaseless strife and engrossing
toil to satisfy capricious and multiplied needs. Men in those
days built no railroads, steamships, nor electric apparatus,
but they gave more thought to questions of the soul. They
had time to think, and readily associated themselves with one
whom they recognized as a leader in thought. Thus the
prophets in Israel had their disciples ; the philosophers of Greece
had their clients, and John Baptist had drawn to him certain
ones who wished to drink more deeply of the clear fount of
truth that resided in him. He endeavors now to transfer those
to the great Master, and by the present declaration succeeds in
the case of two, The phrase, "Lamb of God," is a favorite
expression with John Baptist. It expresses so beautifully the
JOHN I. 3542. 369
characteristics of the Redeemer, who saved the world, not by
the exercise of power, but by lamb-like submission to suffering,
and the cruelest of deaths. John the Evangelist seems to have
received from the Baptist this love of the expression. He is
the only one of the Evangelists who employs it, and in his
Apocalypse Christ appears almost solely in this form.
Jesus came upon the scene here mentioned by design. He
was seeking laborers, and it was his inner working in their
hearts that moved these two to follow him. He allows their
free will to act in electing to follow him for some time, before
he recognizes them, and draws them closer to himself. Such is
the order of events in the following of Christ. First his
preventive grace is infused into the soul, inviting and strength
ening to follow its invitation ; then if the will consents, and
elects to follow the Lord, a sanctifying grace is given in con
junction with the proper disposition, so that in man s salvation
there is something of man s own and something of grace,
in such order that the first stimulus of grace must precede
the beginning of righteousness.
By the mild question addressed to the two disciples, Christ
placed himself at their disposition. He places himself at the
disposition of every one who seeks him.
Every man can consider the question of Christ, " What
seek ye?" as addressed to himself. What art thou seeking?
Whither is thy life tending? Art thou seeking to be taught by
him? To know him more fully? To know where he is? To
be with him? To lean and -withered age comes the mighty
question : What hast thou sought? Thy cheeks are bloodless
and wrinkled, thine eyes are sunken, thy step is faltering, thy
grasp palsied, thy hair is gray; the present order of things is
fading a\vay. What hast thou sought in that life that is now
passing? One of two answers must be given. One must say:
" I sought to fill the void in my heart with goods of this world,
and in disappointment I lay down to die, confessing that my
life is a failure, and I must go empty handed before my Crea
tor." Another is able to say ; "I sought the kingdom of God
and his righteousness. I labored to spend my life in well doing,
and now, with unfailing trust, I look forward to immortality
with Christ whom I loved and served. " The time to think
(23) Gosp I.
37 JOHN I. 3542.
with which class we shall cast our lot is not when actual old
age draws on, but in the springtime of life when the seed for
the harvest must be sown.
The title ^ ") or ^^"^ from root ^^) "1, multum fuit, is a
. - _ T
common title among the Jews, given to doctors and teachers,
being an acknowledgment of much learning possessed by them.
The disciples in thus addressing Jesus profess that they
acknowledge him as a teacher. In asking where he dwelt,
they signified that they wished to know where to find him,
so that they might confer with him, and learn his wondrous
system.
It was the tenth hour. The Hebrews divided the period
from sunrise to sunset into twelve equal divisions which differed
in length in correspondence with the different seasons of the
year, being longest at the summer solstice, and shortest at the
winter solstice, The tenth hour meant simply two points before
sunset. Although the day was thus far spent, Christ invites
the two disciples to his habitation, and spends the remainder of
the day in discoursing to them. We find no basis for the
opinion that makes the disciples spend the night also with
Christ. We know not where this habitation of Christ was, nor
what it was. It seems to us that it must have been after the
manner of an anchorite s cell in the desert. After his baptism
and his fast, Jesus had not yet returned to Galilee, and the
narrative seems to imply that he was in a temporary abode
there in the wilderness near the Jordan. We see no reason for
believing that he had yet changed the place where he sought
shelter for the night during his fast.
It is firmly established by the fourth verse that Andrew
was the brother of Peter, and that he had been a disciple of
John Baptist before he followed Christ. Of the other disciple,
the Evangelist says nothing. Out of the many opinions
concerning the personality of this second disciple, we choose the
one that makes him the Evangelist John himself. The whole
description of the events succeeding the baptism in the Fourth
Gospel shows that they were written by an eye-witness. The
adoption of the favorite phrases of the Baptist manifests
that he who writes here held close relations with the precursor;
JOHN I. 3542. 371
and the minute description of the event here narrated could not
be written by one who was not a factor in the same. John
the Evangelist loves to conceal his personality, and when forced
to speak of himself, does it in such a way that his identity is
veiled.
In the forty-first verse there is a great discrepancy among
the codices. The principal Greek codices have eu/atWet O&TO?
TrpftiTo?. This reading is adopted by the Syriac and Arabic trans
lations. The Codex of the Vatican reads TT/JWTOI/, and the Vul
gate follows such reading. As we consider Trpwro? the only true
reading, we shall explain only the sense of such reading. It seems
indeed quite probable that the interview with Christ had. made
a great impression on these two men, and that they both deter
mined to go in quest of Peter, to make known to him the won
drous news. They seem to have parted in their search of Peter,
and Andrew found him first. It seems a slight detail to us, but
it was a living reality to the Evangelist, who remembered that
his whole being was moved by the wonderful event immedi
ately preceding. The whole event was ordered by Providence.
The Redeemer was reading the hearts of men, and choosing
those whom he had decreed to place in the apostolate. Al
though Andrew professes faith in the Messiah, still it was not a
full, confirmed faith. He was yet to learn what the Messiah
really signified. His ideas of the Messiah were yet somewhat
carnal and narrow. His faith grew in his association with Jesus,
but still he needed the vivifying power of pentecostal fire before
he could go forth to teach the word of God to every creature.
As Peter approaches, Jesus fixes upon him his mild yet pene
trating gaze, and then manifests that he has a supernatural
knowledge by telling him his name and his lineage. In order to
attract men to his standard Christ must show forth some of
the supernatural powers within him; hence in this place he
evidences that he has a knowledge of things independently
of natural phenomena.
Some take the name of the father of Peter for the Hebrew
H.3V, a dove, and translate the passage: "Thou art Simon,
T
the son of the dove." This is certainly erroneous. In the
XXI. Chapter, sixteenth verse, Christ calls Peter
372 JOHN I. 3542.
[Simon Son of John.] It is evident then that the Jona of
the first chapter is a shortened form of f^n T- ^ T special sig-
ITT
nification is given to the patronymic of Peter. Christ simply
wished to show Peter that he knew all about him.
Our principal concern is with the last clause of this verse.
Therein "Christ predicts the placing on Simon of a name sym
bolical of a certain great function, which he was to exercise
in the Christian dispensation. The term K?7</>a? is not of Greek
origin, but the reproduction in Greek letters of the Chaldaic
KD O- The fundamental signification of this term is Trerpz, a
T "
rock, especially the bed rock as found laid bare in the mountain,
or in ledges by the sea. In classic Greek a distinction was
made between Trerpa and TreVpo?. The latter meant properly a
detached portion of rock. The term suffers a slight loss of
force in its Greek version, but the full significance that Christ
wished to convey appears in the original fc$^ It seems quite
T
evident that John wishes to put the force of the original into
TreT/009. John may have judged that the form Trerpos would be
more appropriate as the cognomen of the prince of the Apostles.
The Lord s intent is evidently not to change Simon s name,
but to add to his name a surname taken from a natural object
to which in a metaphorical sense he was made like in the office
conferred upon him by the Lord.
The greatness of the office signified by this surname of
Simon brought it about that rapidly the surname prevailed in
the designation of the man, till soon he became exclusively
known by the surname of Iler-po?, w r hence comes our English
term Peter. It seems also that St. John in the present passage
intends to give the etymological signification of fcSD^ID, which
is a rock.
In prescience therefore Jesus tells Simon that he shall be a
rock. Now this could not signify any natural quality of
fortitude possessed by Peter. By natural disposition, Peter
seems to have been impulsive, but lacking in fortitude. He
quailed and denied Christ in the face of remote danger. More
over, in placing on one a name, God never indicates thereby
the possession of certain traits of character ; but the expression
of a decree, that the person was to be, in the design of God,
JOHN I. 43 51.
43. Tf) exaupiov TqGeXiqasv eqeX-
0ecv eiq TTJV PaXcXacav, xac eupiaxec
<I>!Xcxxov, xal Xlyet aika> 6 IrjaoGq:
AxoXouOsc jxoj.
44. T Hv 1 6 4>(Xcxxo<; axo
tSa, ex. TTJ<; xdXeax; AvSpeou
xa
what the name symbolized. Such was the signification of the
naming of Abraham, Sara, Israel, John the Baptist, and
Jesus Christ. The term therefore signified that Simon was to
be by divine power a rock, a firm immovable rock, in some
great design of God. We shall see later on, when the prediction
is put into effect, what that design of Christ really was.
JOHN I. 43-51-
43. The day following Jesus
was minded to go forth into Gal
ilee, and he findeth Philip, and
saith unto him: Follow me.
44. Now Philip was from
Bethsaida, the city of Andrew
and Peter
45. Philip findeth Nathanael
and saith unto him: We have
found him, of whom Moses in the
Law, and the Prophets did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son
of Joseph.
46. And Nathanael said unto
him: Can there any good thing
come out of Nazareth? Philip
saith unto him: Come and see.
47. Jesus saw Nathanael
coming to him, and saith of him:
Behold an Israelite indeed, in
whom is no guile !
48. Nathanael saith unto
him: Whence knowest thou me?
Jesus answered and said unto
him: Before Philip called thee,
when thou wast under the fig
tree, I saw thee.
49. Nathanael answered
him: Rabbi, thou art the Son
of God; thou art King of Israel.
45. Euptaxsc 4>cXtxxO(; TOV Na-
6avar)X, xac Xeyet au-rco: *Ov
eypa^ev Mwiiafjc; Iv TO> vo^w xal
o! xpoqjfJTat, e5pt]xa^ev, IiqaoGv
ulbv ToG Iwcrf;? TOV dxb
46. Kal elxcv au-rw
Ex Na^aps-u Suva-rat TC dyaObv elvat ;
Xeysi a j-rw 4>(Xtxxo^: "Ep/ou xal
T8e.
47. EIBcV 6 Iirjaouc; TOV NaGa-
varjX ep^ojxevov xpb<; auTbv, xal
Xlyet xspc autou: "IBs aXrjOaK
, ev (I) S6Xb<; oux eaicv.
48. Alyst auTW NaOavarjX,
IIoOsv \LZ ytvwaxetq; dxexp{0Y] lt]-
aoGq xat elxev auTw: II pb TOU as
4>(Xtxxov 9wvriciac, b vra 6xb TY;V
aux^v c!B6v as.
49. AxsxptOt] auTO Na0avaT]X:
PaS6s(, CTIJ el d ulbq nroG 0soG, jo
eu? e! ToG I
374 JOHN I. 43 51.
50. Jesus answered and said 50. ATcexptOYj I-rjaou*; xat etzev
unto him, Because I said unto XUTW: "Oil slzov aoi, OTI elSov se
thee, I saw thee under the fig JZOXGCTIO ~r t q TUXYJC, ztsTeuei<;;
tree, believest thou? thou shalt ^si^w TOUTWV 0673.
see greater things than these.
51. And he saith unto him: 51. Keel Aeyet auT(I>: Ajx-rjv
Verily, verily, I say unto you, a^v Xeyo u[xtv, 6^sa6s TOV oupavov
Ye shall see heaven opened, and dvewyoTa, xat TOU<; dyyeXouq TOU
the angels of God ascending and sou dva6at vov7a<; xat xaToc6avcv-
descending upon the Son of man. -ja? sat TOV utbv TOU dv6pu>xou.
The object for which Christ had come down to the Jordan
was accomplished, and now he prepares to return to Galilee,
and in such return, he meets Philip. Bethsaida, the home of
Philip, Andrew, and Peter, was on the shore of the lake of
Gennesaret, a little southward of Capharnaum. It is now a
desolate ruin, and not even a Bedawy s hut marks it as the
abode of man. In the present narrative, the Evangelist appears
in the role of an accurate historian. He details accurately
names, dates, places, and circumstances. In affirming that
Christ wished to go up into Galilee, he 1 is chronicling Christ s
own expression of such a design, heard by himself, an ear- wit
ness. Philip was a townsman of Peter and Andrew, living on
the banks of the Lake of Gennesaret, and was engaged in fishing
in the waters of the lake. Some believe that he had been
advised by Peter and Andrew of the appearance of the Messiah,
and thus was not surprised by his summons to follow him. We
see small probability in this. It seems that the readiness with
which Philip followed the Redeemer s call resulted from the
magnetism of Christ s personality. The greatness of soul with
in a man impresses us, if we are thrown within its influence,
even though his words be few. Christ had read the heart of
Philip, and had chosen him for his Apostle, and the majesty of
the Divinity in Jesus irresistibly drew this man to follow him.
Nathaniel was a friend of Philip, and in the design of God, he
was also to be called. Christ makes use of the friendship exist
ing between these two men to work out a design of Heaven.
Natural causes are always thus managed by God. Although
these men were not doctors of the law, they knew that the Mes
siah had been predicted in the Law and the Prophets. The
JOHN I. 43 51. 375
most classical places in the Law and Prophets upon which the
mission of Christ rests are the following: Gen. III. 15; XII.
3; XVIII. 18; XXII. 18; Num. XXIV. 17; XLIX. 10; Deut.
XVIII. 15; Dan. VII. 13-28; IX. 24-27; Jerem. XXIII. 5-7;
XXXIII. 15-16; Isaiah VII. 14-1 6; Mich. V. 2.
The sense of Philip s words is : "We have found that Jesus
the son of Joseph of Nazareth is the Messiah of whom Moses and
the Prophets wrote." He spoke according to the vulgar
apprehension of the Saviour s birth. He was not yet taught
the mystery of the virginal conception. Although Jesus was
not born in Nazareth, his long domicile in this village placed
on him the name of a Nazarene.
Nazareth was an ignoble village of small proportions and
barbarous customs. So low was the degree of culture in
the despised place that it became an aphorism with the Jews
that naught of good could come out of Nazareth. Hence
with Nathanael the credibility of Philip s statement is weak
ened by the mention of Christ s domicile. This slowness to
receive the message was not imputable to Nathanael. The
motives of faith had not yet been sufficiently placed before
him. It was not by chance that Christ was called of Nazareth.
In self-abasement, he chose the lowest degree in place of birth,
in place of residence, in social station of parents, in the mode of
his life, and in the mode of his death. In thus emptying him
self, he has taught man that pride is not a trifle. That mighty
element in human life that repels the influence of God, that
assertion of self, that exaltation of one s own knowledge, that
fondness that the world may recognize our actions, are the
manifestations of the monster pride, which Christ by word and
example strove to destroy.
Philip, who had felt the magnetic influence of the Saviour,
waits not to argue. Without answering Nathanael s objec
tions, he again invites him to come and see for himself.
An important moral sense may be rightly drawn from this
action of Philip. In spreading the reign of Christ in men s
souls, we can only bring them under the influence of Christ.
We can convert no souls. The conversion of a soul is the
bringing into being of a new creation within man. This is
the work of God. The most we can do is to induce a man to
3?6 JOHN I. 4351.
place himself under the influence of God. In this work, then,
one should not lose sight of the chief factor in its execution.
A man can not be converted by appealing to his sense of
honor, or patriotism. Such motives swayed the pagan. It
must be by implanting in his soul the supernatural seed of
grace, and this is God s work, which we can only help as
disposing causes.
The name of Israel was the chief glory of the People ot
God. When Jacob was returning from Mesopotamia, after
his sojourn there in the house of Laban, Rachel s brother, an
angel appeared to him by night, with whom he wrestled till
morn . To prove the reality of the apparition, that Jacob might
not believe that it had been a mere vision of the night, the
angel touched the femoral muscle which withered in the thigh
of Jacob, causing a consequent lameness. Jacob still clung to
his celestial antagonist, and would not dismiss him till he had
received from him a blessing. On this account the angel
bestowed on Jacob the name of Israel, from *V|? or *n&r and
7K> literally, "he who contends for supremacy, and obtains
the victory over God. "
The Hebrews designated as J# any celestial being.
The angel with whom Jacob wrestled was thus called God, and
as Jacob forced from him a blessing, he was called the one who
had wrestled with God and obtained the mastery. The reasons
underlying this event are many. It was a striking evidence
of the supernatural, and may have been designed to keep the
realization of that order before Jacob and his descendents.
Again it symbolized the invincible character of the chosen
people while they remained faithful to Yahveh. He pledged
himself to fight their battles, and as the angel here
says: "If thou hast been strong against God, how much
more shalt thou prevail against men?" This seems to be the
leading signification of the event, to show to Abraham s
posterity the powerful protection of Yahveh, which they were
to enjoy. No power could overcome them, not even that of an
angel, while they preserved this treaty with Yahveh.
We find an evidence of Jacob s faith also in his wrestling.
It is probable that Jacob did not know who his combatant
JOHN I. 4351- 377
was at first, and was impelled to struggle with him from the
instinct of self-preservation. But when he is apprised of his
celestial nature, he detains him till he obtained a blessing.
This wish to receive a blessing betokens a high valuation of
supernatural goods, which is characteristic of men of faith.
In declaring that Nathanael was a true Israelite, Christ
bestows a high approbation upon him. It was equivalent to
saying: " Behold a worthy descendent of the founders of the
chosen people ; behold a man whose heart is right before God. "
By the exercise of divine power, Christ read the heart of this
man, and testified of the rectitude of his life.
Although the words of Christ were not addressed directly
to Nathanael, he heard them, and wondered whence this
unknown man could have such intimate knowledge of him. It
was not yet clear to him that Christ had read his inmost soul.
Another might have told him. The next response of Jesus
convinced him that, not only could he read the hidden things of
the heart, but even knew the most secret actions, performed in
seclusion away from human gaze. Christ resorted to this
manifestation of omniscience to prove his Divinity to Philip.
Jesus asked him to believe that he was the Son of God, and mira
cles were his credentials. Nathanael is won by this, and makes
a profession of faith. Though he calls Jesus the Son of God,
it is quite evident that he did not yet understand the mystery
of the consubstantiality of the Son. The Jews were intensely
attached to the dogma of the divine unity, and it required
much teaching to bring them to a right conception of the
Trinity. Nathanael simply confessed that Jesus was the
Messiah. Son of God was not a precise appellation, and
he used it in a vague sense. We can see in Nathanael the
aspirations of Israel that the Messiah should be a king. How
rude and imperfect was yet the faith of this man !
By divine power, a prophet could have done all that Jesus
did in relation to Nathanael, and still not have been the
Messiah. But we must bear in mind that Jesus claimed to be
the Messiah, and based his claim on miraculous power; hence
Nathanael proclaims that he is what he professes to be, the Son
of God. The omniscience of the Saviour, who read the hearts
of men while on earth, and who knew their most secret actions,
37 8 JOHN I. 43 51.
is not restricted now that he is in Heaven; neither does he
take less interest in human affairs. He is reading hearts now,
and happy they of whom he can say, "Behold a man in whom
there is no guile." A man should frequently turn his eyes into
his very soul, and see if its scrutiny would elicit from the
Saviour such a favorable judgment.
This single-minded, honest man, moved by this one
manifestation of divine power, believed. Of course, it was not
yet a tried and tested faith. It needed the confirmation of the
Holy Ghost before it burst into its fullest life ; but it was all
that the Saviour could expect at that juncture. Nathanael s
faith condemns the incredulity of the Jews and others who
reject Christ. There is light enough in the world to illumine
every man, and if a man is in darkness, it is because he chooses
the darkness rather than the light.
In the fiftieth verse, the Lord addresses his words to all the
Apostles. Commentators are not agreed concerning the event
therein predicted. Much has been written concerning the
passage, which would be useless to adduce here. The context
seems to demand that Christ is comparing some greater
manifestation of his Divinity with the event that moved
Nathanael to believe. Therefore it must have been some event
that came under the senses of the Apostles, of a nature to win
their faith. Some have placed it in some outpouring of Heaven
upon the Redeemer during his mortal life. This seems im
probable. The angels that appeared to him at the termination
of the fast were seen by no one, and this event had passed. On
the Mount no angels appeared, but only Moses and Eliah. In
the garden of Gethsemane, an angel appeared, but the Lord was
alone ; it was the hour of his humiliation, not of his glorification.
Had there been other manifestations of angels from Heaven,
the Evangelists would not have omitted such important factors
in proving the Divinity of the Messiah. Some believe that no
special event is therein predicted, but that simply the close
communion between Christ and Heaven is affirmed. This
we reject, because such unseen communion would not be a
proof to Nathanael or to any one else. Hence we believe that
Christ predicts in these words the events of his ascension into
Heaven. In that event, the full glory of his Divinity shone
JOHN I. 43 51. 379
forth, and although the succinct narrative of it in the Gospels
says naught of angels, it seems reasonable to believe that
angels came from Heaven to receive the glorified humanity
of Christ at his ascension. The heavens opened in the mode
mentioned in the baptism of Christ, and surrounded by the
heavenly host, he soared into the empyrean. Augustine and
the older commentators did not admit Nathanael among the
Apostles. Maldonatus follows their opinion. The later
commentators are almost unanimous in placing an identity
between Nathanael and Bartholomew. Bartholomew seems to
be a patronymic from the Aramaic Bar and Tholmai, "son of
Tholmai" ; and they say that the man s real name was Nathanael,
by which he is always known to St. John, while the synoptists
always designate him by his patronymic Bartholomew. The
name of Nathanael does not appear in Matthew, Luke, or Mark,
while Bartholomew is never mentioned by John. We believe
then that the opinion which indemnifies Nathanael and Barthol
omew as one of the Apostles, admits of no reasonable doubt.
In the XXI. Chapter of John, 1-2, Nathanael is associated
with Simon and the other Apostles, when the risen Lord
appeared to them.
Moreover, the event described here by John seems to point
to the calling of an Apostle. The testimony of the Lord
concerning his goodness of heart is greater than in the case of
any of the other Apostles, and his faith is more ready. Christ
unites him with the other Apostles in predicting the manifest
ation of his Divinity. The synoptic writers usually unite Philip
and Bartholomew in the Apostolic group. This has rightly been
taken by exegetists to signify the friendship existing between
these men. Now that same friendship induced Philip to call
Nathanael to the Christ. Finally, if Nathanael be not Barthol
omew, the calling of Bartholomew is omitted from the Gospels.
But it would seem incongruous that the calling of Nathanael,
being in the supposition not an Apostle, should be so accurately
described, while the calling of Bartholomew the Apostle is
not mentioned. Hence we believe that Nathanael bar-Thol-
mai is the Bartholomew of the synoptists. Under the name
of Bartholomew, he is in the group at Pentecost, Acts, I. 13,
and then the veil of silence falls upon his life. We have legends
3 8
JOHN II. i -ii.
but nothing authentic of his subsequent life. Eusebius, H. E.
V. 10, affirms that St. Pantsenus, having penetrated to the
Indies, found there the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, which
had been brought thither by Bartholomew the evangelizer of
these peoples. Jerome gives faith to this account, and repeats
it as his own. It is imposible to mark the exact country here
designated as the Indies. The ancients thus denominated all
the lands of the Orient beyond the confines of the Roman and
Parthian Empires. A legend exists that he penetrated to
Albanopolis in Armenia, where he converted Polymius the king
of Armenia. Here the legend exists in two forms. One form
maintains that he was beheaded ; another, that he was flayed
alive by order of Astyages, brother of Polymius the king.
This latter form appears in the Roman Breviary. In Christian
art, he is sometimes represented holding his flayed skin in his
hands. His body is believed to be in a church dedicated to
him on an island in the Tiber at Rome. All these legends
have poor historical foundation, and frequently contradict
themselves.
JOHN II. i-n.
i. And the third day there
was a marriage in Cana of
Galilee; and the mother of
Jesus was there:
i. And both Jesus was
called, and his disciples, to the
marriage.
3. And when the wine failed,
the mother of Jesus said unto
him: They have no wine.
4. And Jesus saith unto her:
Woman, what is to me, and
to thee? my hour is not yet
come.
5. His mother saith unto
the servants: Whatsoever he
saith unto vou, do it.
1. Kat Tfj TptTfl T);jipa ya^o;;
lyeveio Iv Kavot ITJ<; FaXtXatas, xal
TJV r) H/iynqp TOU Trjaou exst.
2. ExX^Or, xac d IiQaoOs xac oc
jJia6Y]Ta! a food elq TOV ya^xov.
3. Kat JoTeprpavToq oTvou, Xeyst
(] JAT/TTJP TOU Lqaou izpbq a;rtov:
Olvov oux. ! y_ouatv.
4. Kat Xeyec auTfj 6 If]JOLi<;:
T( Ijxot xat aol, yuvat; OUTW ^xec
TQ wpa jxou.
5. Kal Xeysi r^ ^TTQP au-roQ T0t<;
Staxovotq: V TI av Xlyy] LKJ.TV,
JOHN II. i ii
6. T Haav Be exel Xi6ivai
eq xcaa TOV xaOapia^xbv TO>V
xsc^jisvai, ^wpouaai dva [
Suo T) TpsTc.
Aeysi aikotq 6
TS TOC? uBpia?
syejAiaav auTag sax; ava>.
38i
u8pai
lou-
y.a
6. And there were set there
six waterpots of stone, after
the manner of the purifying of
the Jews, containing two or
three metretse apiece.
7. Jesus saith unto them:
Fill the \vaterpots with water.
And they filled them up to the
brim.
8. And he saith unto them:
Draw out now, and bear unto
the ruler of the feast. And
they bore it.
9. When the ruler of the
feast had tasted the water that
was made wine, and knew not
whence it was (but the serv
ants who drew the water knew) ,
the ruler of the feast calleth
the bridegroom,
10. And saith unto him:
Every man first setteth forth
good wine; and when men have
well drunk, then that which
is worse: but thou hast kept
the good wine until now.
11. This beginning of mira
cles did Jesus in Cana of
Galilee, and manifested forth
his glory; and his disciples be
lieved in him. jxaOfjTai CCJTOJ.
Concerning the point from which time must be reckoned
to make this the third day, opinions differ. Some make it the
third day from the day of the testimony of John. Others
reckon from the arrival of Jesus in Galilee. Others again make
it the third day of the week. It is a small and uncertain detail.
Cana is designated as being in Galilee to^ distinguish it
from other villages of the same name. John is accurate in the
details, since he is giving the history of an event on which he
vuv, xai <ppTS T
Oc Bs Tvexav.
9. ? s yeuaa^o
xXtvo? TO uSwp olvov
oflx TjSet TC<50ev eorfv, o! Bs Stdxovot
^Sstaav ol YJVTX^XOTSC TO u Bwp, qjwvsl
TOV vuj^pfov 6 dp-/tTf(x)avo<;,
10. Kal Xeyet auT w :ria<; avOpw-
TTOs; i:pWTOv TOV xaXbv olvov TC OTJCKV
xat OTCCV ^sOuaOcoctv, TOV IXdjaw, au
TST^pr/x.ac TOV xaXbv olvov sax; SOTI.
ii. TauTTV ^o(T(jev d
6 iTjaouq Iv Kava TTJ<;
tXalaq, xal ecpavepwaev TYJV Sd^av
, xat IxtaTsuaav si? auTOv 01
382 JOHN II. i IT.
rests a proof of the Divinity of Jesus. The site of Gana of
Galilee is uncertain, The modern Kefr Kenna distant less
than an hour s ride from Nazareth is the more probable site.
The Franciscans and Schismatic Greeks have sanctuaries
here. There is another possible site called Khurbet Kana,
about eight miles north of Nazareth.
It is evident that the Saviour went to the marriage with
the design of taking advantage of this social event to show
forth his claim to be the Messiah . Therefore it was so ordered
that his disciples were also there. These were not the days
of exclusiveness in society, and perhaps more came to the
marriage feast than were expected, and the wine failed. It is
easy to imagine what embarrassment this would cause the
host. Mary s relations to the contracting parties must have
been more than those of mere neighbor, as they came to her
in their distress. It seems probable that she was related to
them by ties of blood. As there is no mention of Joseph in the
event, it is the commonly received opinion that he had at that
time departed this life. In all the subsequent history, Mary
is alone in her relations with Jesus. Men have wondered
concerning the motive which led Mary to address this remark
to Jesus. Without hesitation, we believe the motive to be that
she believed in his omnipotence, and knew that, if he willed,
he could supply the defect. This is further proven by the fact
that, even after having received what to our poor minds seems
a repulse, she trusted still that he would provide wine.
The response of Jesus to his mother on this occasion has
puzzled many. Some have found a difficulty in the term
"woman," given by Christ to his divine mother. Such an
objection is frivolous. In the Syro-Chaldaic tongue, which
Jesus spoke, this was the customary manner of address to any
woman, and manifested no want of respect. In judging of
such remote events, we can not take for a criterion our social
code ; we must clothe such events with the circumstances and
social customs of the time, paying heed also to the idioms of
the language in which they were first chronicled. As there
exists no radical difference between the Syro-Chaldaic and
Hebrew, we may justly turn to the latter as a basic text in
examining these idioms. Christ on the cross, in commending
JOHN II. i ii. 383
his mother to the kind offices of St. John, addresses her in the
usual form of Hebrew address: "Woman, behold thy son."
Thus he addresses the weeping Magdalene at his tomb:
"Woman, at what weepest thou?" No man can believe that
the Lord would use anything but the kindest form of address
to a woman who was weeping through the purest love of him.
The Hebrew tongue knew no form of address more honorable
than, "O woman."
A point far more difficult to explain lies in the expres
sion : " What is to me and to thee ?
The expression was an idiom, and the cardinal point is to
determine what exact shade of meaning it was intended to
convey in the language in which it first had origin. We first
find the idiom in Judges XI. 12. When the king of Ammon
was preparing to invade the lands of the people of Israel, Jeph-
thah sends an embassy to him demanding : Tpl 1 7 HE ? " The
"TT
expression is an idiom, and no other language representing the
mere words conveys the idiomatic sense. The mere words are
adequately rendered in Greek by : " TV e^ol xal croi ? " and in
Latin by: "Quid mihi et tibi?" but this expression in Greek
and Latin fails to produce the idea that was produced by the
original in the Hebrew mind. Idioms always suffer by
translation.
The modern versions differ much in reproducing this phrase.
The German of d Allioli renders the phrase as it occurs in
St. John by: ,,2Betb, nw8 liabe idj mit btr $u fdjaffen?" which
might be rendered in English by : " Woman, what have I to do
with thee?" The French is: "Femme, qu y a-t-il entre vous et
moi?" which is identical with the Italian: "Donna, che vi
ha tra te e me ? The English equivalent of the French and
Italian would be : " Woman, what is there between thee and
me?" The Rheims-Douay version renders the passage:
"Woman, what is that to me and to thee?" This translation
is certainly wrong. No such sense is ever found in this idio
matic expression. The insertion of the pronoun "that" is
purely gratuitous and unwarranted. The only sense which
could result from such translation would be that Christ were
admonishing his mother that the failure of the wine were no
384 JOHN II. i ii.
affair of theirs. This selfish indifference to the needs of others
could never be truthfully predicated of the Incarnate Word.
The act of Mary, in sympathizing with these good people, was
certainly charitable and good, and could not receive such a cold
repulse from the humanity-loving Lord. In his revision of the
Catholic version, Challoner rendered the passage : " Woman,
what is to me and to thee?" It is evident that Challoner s
version, of all the modern versions, is the only correct one. It
reproduces literally the original text. Although St. John wrote
in Greek, the passage is a pure Hebraism, and hence the
Hebrew may be considered as the only original of the idiom.
Dr. Challoner s version labors under the disadvantage that,
owing to the strangeness of the idiom, it conveys no clear idea
to our minds. It is a pure Hebrew idiom clothed in English
words.
All such phrases have a great general signification, which
becomes modified by the context in its different applications.
We believe therefore, as a fundamental position, that the phrase
expresses disapprobation of some action or line of conduct
which another is practising towards the speaker. The phrase
may thus be used towards enemies and friends. When em
ployed towards enemies it might contain an indignant protest
against some action ; while, when employed towards friends, it
would indicate that some action proposed or executed were
either ill-advised or importunate. It depends on the context,
whether an indignant expostulation or a calm friendly remon
strance be conveyed. We must in every case lose sight of the
specific import of the words, as the phrase was a general intro
ductory remark, merely indicating some objection against a
proposed line of conduct. Hence we consider erroneous the
translation of Augustine, Lucas of Bruges, Toleti and Patrizi
who render it : " Mulier, quid mini tecum commune est ?
It results in consequence that the French and Italian
versions founded on their opinions, are wrong. Our Lord is not
questioning Mary s relations to him, but proposing an objection
to what she asks, which objection entirely prescinded from her
relation of mother to him. Hence it results that those have
erred who see in these words some blame of Mary. St. Athan-
asius, St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine are of this number.
JOHN II. i ii 385
St. Chrysostom enumerates three reasons why Mary was
reprehended by her divine Son. i. Because she wished,
in virtue of her maternal right, to bid her Son work the miracle.
2. Because she bided not the proper time for the miracle.
3. Because she sought through vainglory that the miracle of
her Son might in some way be attributed to her. Augustine
adduces the first of these reasons. We prefer to hold with the
Church, whose belief is proposed in the twenty-third canon of
the sixtieth session of the Council of Trent: "If any one shall
say . . . that a man can in his whole life avoid all sins, even
venial, unless by the special privilege of God, as the Church
holds concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, let him he anathe
ma. " We reject then the imputation of the least taint of venial
sin from Mary. Maldonatus and Toleti find in the words a
simulated reprehension for our instruction, teaching us that, in
the things that pertain to Christ s Heavenly Father, ties of
blood do not enter. This is an approach to the truth, and will
be rendered more precise in the course of our treatise.
The basic signification that we have given to the phrase is
warranted by its use in the Old Testament. It occurs in
Judges XL 12, I. (III.) Kings XVII. 18; II. (IV.) Kings III.
13; II. Samuel XVI. 10; II. Chronicles XXXV. 21. In no
case is there a question of relations existing between the parties,
but it simply asks a reason why an agent should act in a certain
manner. In the New Testament, Math. VIII. 29; Luke VIII.
28, the demons ask in the same terms why Christ casts them
out of the bodies of the possessed. Everything indicates that
it was a very common idiom, to express that an action were
unjust, displeasing, or importunate to the speaker.
Having therefore settled that there is no repulse of Mary,
or slight upon her maternal bond in the words, we next proceed
to examine upon what was founded the obi ection which the
words certainly contain. The full extent of Mary s relations
with Jesus, man in the present life may not know. How much
she shared of the thoughts and designs of the God-man is barred
from our sense. But it is a certain truth that in the present
instance Mary knew that her divine Son, by appealing to his
almighty power, could supply the defect, and that after his
response, she knew that he would do so. Now the reasons of
(24) Gosp. I.
386 JOHN II. i n.
the Saviour s objection seem to be reducible to two. First, the
Redeemer wished to teach the world that his miracles were to
be performed for no private end or emolument, nor for advan
tage of social acquaintances or friends, but to prove that the Son
and the Father were one in nature and in power. Had Christ
for a mere social motive called into action his almighty power,
and changed the water into wine, his action would have been a
vain, arbitrary use of his divine power. Mary s request seems
to rest upon that motive, and hence the words of Christ are
apposite to show forth that not for the mere private benefit of
these friends was the miracle wrought. But did Mary have in
view any ulterior motive in asking this favor of Jesus, more
than the relief of their friends? We think not. Was her
conduct therefore in some respects defective? No. She was
not to blame for being human ; she was not to blame for not
knowing as much as her divine Son. Her action was moved
by purest sympathy for the embarrassed friends, and by that
absolute, unreserved trust which she had in her divine Son. It
was a saintly action, and increased her merit. At the same
time, Christ, in according her the request, taught the world
that only inasmuch as he united in this event the higher motive
of showing forth his Divinity, did he accord the request. He
uses the idiom which indicates disapprobation of an action, to
show that, if the action were done for the sole motive which
seemed to underlie the request, it would be ill-advised ; and he
unites the other motive to show that he used his power for
ends worthy of the Son of God. In his words and action in
this instance, Christ unites two things. He demonstrates by
his words that his miracle-working should be a part and factor
in the great drama of Redemption, not for private benefit nor
done in the interest of his family and friends. He spoke plainly,
so that the world could not mistake the great motive of the
miracle. In the second place, in granting Mary s request, he
has shown how he combined his love for her with the plan of the
Redemption. Christ also shows us in this exemplary action of
Mary that her faith in him had that holy persistency in it that
characterizes all true believers. He did not need to try her
faith, but we needed that he should show us that Mary s trust
endured, even though she seemed to have obtained nothing by
JOHN II. i-i i. 387
her first petition. What a world of trust is in the plain words :
"They have no wine!" As if distrustful of her own wisdom,
she does not ask outright, but quietly lays the distress before
Jesus with an infinite trust. He will know what to do, and
what he does will be good.
Much difficulty has existed concerning the second clause of
Christ s response: "My hour is not yet come." Christ s
meaning is that the time had not yet come for him to enter
upon his career of miracle-working and public teaching.
Frequently he calls his hour the time of his passion, but here
the context demands that we understand it of his life of
miracles and teaching, by which be proved himself the Son of
God.
In his commentary on St. John, Knabenbauer believes
that the second member of Jesus sentence should be under
stood as an interrogative sentence, "has not my hour come?"
He cites Tatian and Gregory of Nyssa for this. There is
scarcely any opinion so absurd that we can not find some
authority for it. Knabenbauer thus understands the Lord
to advise his mother to take no thought for the wine, for his
hour was come, and consequently he would supply the need.
It is vexatious even to notice such an improbable opinion.
It gives a strange, unnatural character to the whole account.
It is contrary to the whole context and contrary to the laws of
the Greek language. There would be no fitness between
such a response and Mary s request. Let one reflect a moment
on the incongruity: the mother of Jesus delicately places
before her divine Son their friends embarrassment, and he
answers : "What is to me and to thee ? has not my hour come ?"
There is no fit connection of ideas in such hypothesis.
Still more absurd is the theory proposed by M. Bourlier
(Revue Biblique, Juillet 1897) that Jesus meant that the wine
was not yet sufficiently exhausted to demand his miracle. It
is true that St. Chrysostom favored such explanation, but yet
it seems disproven by the fact that Mary bids the servants
prepare immediately for the miracle. Besides, the declaration
of Mary expresses a present urgent need, and therefore if
Christ referred to the apt time for the miracle his hour was
then come.
388 JOHN II. i n.
Moreover this opinion makes the words of Christ trivial,
and unbecoming the character of the Son of God.
We are helped to an understanding of the present event
by studying another parallel event in the life of our Lord. In
Matt. XV. 21-28, we read of a Canaanitish woman who be
sought the Lord to heal her demonized daughter. The Lord
at first seems not to hear her. When the Apostles speak con
cerning her, Jesus declares that he was not sent but to the
house of Israel. Even when the woman persists and kneels at
his feet he at first seems to repulse her, but her faith persists
and he heals her daughter.
Is there a contradiction between his words and his action ?
He declares that he is not sent to her, and yet he grants her
request. What entered here to move him to that which he at
first seems to decline? Faith: "O woman, great is thy faith:
be it done to thee even as thou wilt. " Let us transport our
selves in thought to the marriage of Cana. Mary comes to
Jesus, and confides to him the state of affairs. lie lovingly
seems to decline. The deep mysterious tenderness of Jesus
words filled Mary s soul with certainty. Her faith revealed
itself in her action in bidding the servants do whatever Jesus
commanded. We shall not say that Jesus tested Man- s
faith : that faith was too perfect to need a test ; but he illus
trated the virtue of persevering faith by his mother s great
example.
When he says that his hour was not yet come, he asserts
a fact borne out by John s statement in the eleventh verse
that this was the beginning of Jesus miracles. He simply
therefore urges against the implied request that he had not yet
entered upon his career of working miracles and preaching.
He had been publicly proclaimed by the Baptist; but the
manifestation of his glory in proof of his Divinity began with
this miracle. He does not say that he may not begin then;
he simply says that up to that time he had not begun such
career. Jesus motive in thus seeming to decline was to teach
us the necessity and the power of persevering faith. He found
in the Canaanite woman a noble example of that faith which
persists through a test ; he found in Mary the most perfect of
all examples to teach us the same great lesson.
JOHN II. i ii. 389
We find our Lord continually testing the faith of those
nearest to him: his motive was to perfect the virtue. On
the lake in the storm Jesus sleeps until the Apostles cry out
to him in despair; when Martha and Mary send him word
that their brother is sick he allows the man to die; when he
reached Emmaus with the two disciples he made as though
he would go further, that the disciples might constrain him to
abide with them. And so in the present instance Jesus by
a seeming refusal, gives to his mother the occasion of
showing unto us the perfection of her faith. He had not yet
begun his miracles, but moved by Mary s faith, he began them
there. If there still remains an element of mystery in the
account, we must know that we may not hope fully to compre
hend the words and deeds of Jesus ; for he is the Son of God.
The law of belief and conduct is clearly revealed; but many
mysteries remain.
The Christian s trust in Mary rests on the sure foundation
of her power of intercession with Jesus, and the miracle of Cana
confirms the power of that intercession. We see in this event
as in the other miracles of Christ, an unwillingness to seek
any vainglory by an arbitrary use of his power. He is the
perfect man, too God-like to be proud. He allows himself to
be forced by love and faith to perform this miracle, in which
his first reluctance clearly shows that he sought not thereby
the praises of men. To be sure, he so ordered it that there
should be witnesses, but not through pride, but that the world
might believe in him, and thus receive eternal life. Providence
co-operated with Mary s petition, and that which she obtained
by an absolute faith resulted in the first great manifestation
of Christ s divine power. Her action in bidding the ministers
execute Christ s orders shows the persistency of her petition,
which forced, so to speak, her divine Son to grant it.
In following out the details of the miracle, we find in every
element that Christ wished this miracle to be incontestable.
In the first place, the water is not changed into wine in some
cellar, where it would be less open to critical examination; but
the great water-pots are chosen, where the Jews performed
their accustomed ablutions, that all might testify that good
wine now existed wherein before was naught but water. More-
JOHN II. i n.
over, the quantity of the wine precludes all fraud, and heightens
the stupendous character of the work. The /^erprjr^ was a
Greek measure of liquids, concerning whose size opinions
differ. The Attic and Macedonian /JierprjT^ contained about
40 litres or 10 3^ United States gallons. Now if we place the
capacity of the water-pots to be two and one half metre tes,
the whole quantity of miraculous wine is 157^ gallons.
The great quantity of the wine shows forth the magnitude
of the miracle. Had there been a small quantity, men might
have been skeptical, but the mode of the change of the sub
stance, and the quantity of the water made wine, leaves no
ground for suspicion of fraud.
The next detail also adds to the credibility of the event.
The servants of the feast were bidden fill the water-pots with
water. Hence, they could testify that the very water which
they put in with their own hands came out as wine. Moreover,
they filled them even to the brim. Hence, their contents were
all water, and no possibility existed that there might have been
a quantity of wine poured into them afterwards to give to the
mixture the appearance and taste of wine. Christ does not
approach the vessels, or do aught to them. His omnipotent
power needed not a physical contact to work the miraculous
effect. Nature obeyed the act of his will.
It was a custom in Oriental lands to select one of the invited
guests to be master of the feast. This was the apxnpiKXivos,
literally the president of the triclinium or couch, on which the
guests reclined along three sides of the table. As soon as the
water-pots have been filled, Jesus bids the servants draw out,
and carry to the master of the feast. The immediate change,
evidenced in this that they obtained wine where but a moment
ago by every sense they knew only water to be, heightened the
credibility of the miracle. Moreover, the fact that the master
of the feast was ignorant whence the wine had come, prevented
any collusion on his part. The testimony that he bore to the
excellence of the wine was the ingenuous expression of a man
who knew the quality of the article in question. It was fitting
that the results of the miracle should be wine of the first order,
and John has carefully recorded a testimony heard by himself
that it was so. There are two factors in the ninth verse to be
JOHN II. i ii. 391
specially noted. The favorable opinion of the master of the
feast, who knew nothing of the miracle, could rest on naught
but the intrinsic excellence of the wine; and the servants
stand as witnesses that this same wine had been made by Christ
out of the water of the water-pots. The address of the master
of the feast was somewhat after the manner of a toast, and was
addressed before all the guests to the host who formed one of
the assembly. There is no mystical signification in these words.
It was an Oriental expression of a fact. The fact was that the
miraculous wine was good, and the practised taste of the master
of the feast recognized that goodness, and gave expression to
his knowledge in these apt words. It was a rhetorical presen
tation of a fact, highly complimentary to the person addressed,
as is usual with Orientals. It must have been a custom among
them, that after the company were cloyed with wine, when
from copious drinking they would be less able to distinguish
good from inferior wine, the finer gave place to the ordinary
wines. This serves as a basis for a beautiful contrast by which
the generosity of the host and the quality of the wine are
equally brought out. He says in effect: "You have out
done all other hosts. Like them you gave good wine in the
beginning. Surpassing them, you have given better wine at the
end of the feast." The narrative is simply intended as a clear,
precise, credible document, to prove Christ s Divinity, and such
it is. There seems to be no authority in the account for the
opinion which claims to see in this presence of Christ at the
marriage feast of Cana his approbation of Christian marriage.
Later on, we shall witness Christ s elevation of the natural
contract of matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament. One
moral reflection might justly be made from the quality of the
wine : the Lord never gives to man a poor gift ; all his gifts are
excellent.
This last verse illustrates still more clearly the response of
Christ to Mary: " My hour is not yet come. It shows that
he meant not that there was a fixed moment, before which he
could not exert his omnipotence, but that he had freely decreed
to remain in obscurity, till he should begin his career of miracles
to establish proof of his Divinity. Out of love for Mary, and in
virture of her faith, he began that career then and there, and in
392
JOHN II. 12 25
according her request, allowed her to give to the world an
example of her faith, which persisted in an absolute trust, even
though his mysterious words seemed at first unfavorable.
While he did what she asked, he taught the world that he
worked not the miracle for any personal or private end, but by
it began that series of deeds, in virtue of which he asks a world s
faith in his consubstantial Divinity. It was one of those sub
lime lessons in that school where he taught his disciples the
science of the new life that men receive through him. This was
the first in that series of miracles which begot real and potent
conviction in those who witnessed them. On these convictions,
the Church was built, and in the power of these convictions
heathenism was swept away and abolished.
JOHN II. 12-25.
12. After this he went down
to Capharnaum, he, and his
mother, and his brethren, and
his disciples; and they con
tinued there not many days.
13. And the passover of the
Jews was at hand, and Jesus
went up to Jersualem.
14. And found in the temple
those that sold oxen and sheep
and doves, and the changers of
money sitting:
15. And when he had made
a scourge of small cords, he
drove them all out of the
temple, both the sheep and the
oxen; and he poured out the
changers money, and over
threw the tables.
1 6. And he said unto them
that sold doves: Take these
things hence ; make not my
Father s house a house of mer
chandise.
12. sTa TOUTO
vaou^., atnbc xal i
xal ot aSeXtpol xal 01
OCUTOU, xal exec e^ecvav ou
13. Kal iyyuq YJV TO Haa^a TWV
tav, xal dveSir] zlq lepocrbXujJLa
14. Kal e jpov ev TW Ispw TOU^
zoAouvTaq (ioaq xal xpoSaia xat
xspmspaq, xal TOU? xsp^
15. Kal Ttonpaq cppayeXXtov
ex c/otviQv, xavra<; se6aXev ex TOJ
tcpou, Ta TC xp66aia xal TOU<; ^6a<;
xal TWV xoXXu6icrrwv e^l/eev -ra
ira, xal Taq Tpaxe^aq
1 6. Kal Totq Ta<; xepta-repa^
xwXoujtv eliuev : "A pate rauTa eVreu-
6ev: JJL-Q xotelTe TOV olxov TOU icaTpoc
jxou olxov l^xoptou.
JOHN II. 1225
393
17. And his disciples remem
bered that it was written: The
zeal of thy house shall eat me
up.
1 8. Then answered the Jews
and said unto him: what sign
showest thou unto us, seeing
that thou doest these things?
19. Jesus answered and said
unto them: Destroy this tem
ple, and in three days I will
raise it up.
20. Then said the Jews:
Forty and six years was this
temple in building, and wilt
thou rear it up in three days?
21. But he spoke of the
temple of his body.
22. When therefore he was
risen from the dead, his dis
ciples remembered that he had
said this unto them; and they
believed the Scripture, and the
word which Jesus had said.
23. Now when he was in
Jerusalem at the passover, in
the feast day, many believed
in his name, when they saw
the miracles which he did.
24. But Jesus did not trust
himself unto them, because he
knew all men,
25. And because he needed
not that any should testify of
man ; for he knew what was in
man.
17. ^vipYjaav ot
TOU, OTI ysypa^evov esilv : ,fjXoc
TOU o t xou aou xaTa<pdyeTa( jXe.
1 8. Aicexp(6ir)crav ouv ol lou-
BaTot xal elxav OCUTGJ: Tt
Seixvuetq T^IV, OTI TGCUT z
19. AzsxpcOr] lY]aou<; xal elxev
auTOiq: AuaaTs Tbv vabv TOUTOV, xat
(Iv) Tpialv Tj^epatq eyepw auTOV.
20. Elxav oiiv oc
Teffaapdxovta xat 1^ IT eat v o
Ix-qOT] 6 vabq ouToq, xai au Iv Tptatv
lyspclc; CCUTOV;
21. Exetvo? 81 IXsyev icepl TOU
i; OCUTOU.
22. "OTS ouv T^yepOr) ex vexpwv,
ejxv^aOrjaav ol ^aOrjTal auToG OTI
TOUTO IXeyev, xat ^rcfareuaav T]j
i, xat TW Xoyw a> elrev 6
23. Qq 8s ^v ev TOtq IspocoXu-
ev TOJ Haa^a* Iv Tfj eopTf),
zoXXot Izc jTcuaav e!<; TO ovo^a
auTou, OewpouvTeq UTOU TO: c^jxela
a Iftotei.
24. AUTOC; 8e 6 IrjaoOi; oux
eTct aTeuev auTOv auToI?, 8ca T^ au
yivwaxecv xavT<;,
25. Kat OTI ou xP et av
Tva Tt? ^.apTupiQqp xepl TOU dvOpco-
TCOU: auTO? yap lyivwaxev T( T^V Iv
In the days of the Lord, Capharnaum was a flourishing
citv situated on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesaret, on
394 JOHN II. 12 25
the confines of the tribes of Naphtali on the north and Zebulun
on the south. It was on the direct road that led down to the
sea, and the Saviour chose it for the scene of many of his
greatest miracles. He fixed his domicile there for a considerable
portion of his public life, and it was called his city. This
action of the Lord was most probably based upon the fact that
it was a center whence the knowledge of his miracles would
spread to many.
An old objection against Mary s perpetual virginity was
based on the fact that the brethren of the Lord are mentioned
in the Scripture. This is now generally abandoned, as all
recognize that all collateral kinship was thus designated. In
fact, the parents are sometimes given in the New Testament
of those that are called the brethren of the Lord, showing con
clusively that they were not of the first degree of kindred
with him. What the object of this first sojourn in Caphar-
naum was, we can not say. Mary accompanied her divine Son,
for she was to be intimately associated with the Man of Sorrows.
It seems that from this time forth Christ was without a home
on earth, and Mary shared his privation.
None of the synoptic writers mention this journey to
Jerusalem. In fact, while John mentions five of these journeys,
the synoptic writers mention only one, the last Pasch, when he
was taken and put to death. We find then that in establishing
the chronology of the public life of the Lord, John is the better
historian. This is caused by the fact that Matthew, the only
other eye-witness, was not with the Lord at this time. John
was with him from the beginning, and wrote the series of the
events as he had witnessed them. According then to this
chronology, we place this as the first public Pasch of the Lord.
From this point date the three years of his public life, which
culminate in his death.
To fill the obligation binding every male Jew who had
come to man s estate, Christ went to the Paschal feast at
Jerusalem. At Jerusalem he found occasion to give another
proof of his Divinity, while at the same time giving us a sublime
lesson concerning mercenary motives in the things of God.
The Jews were obliged to appear before the Lord at the
great Paschal feast, and offer a sacrifice. Those living in the
JOHN II. 1225 395
distant portions of Palestine could not drive the victim the long
distance, hence they brought with them money, and bought at
Jerusalem the animal for sacrifice. The chief victims of the
sacrifice were the oxen, the sheep, and the doves for the
sacrifices of the poor. Jerome believes that the priests
themselves had engaged in the traffic in these animals. This is
improbable. Had priests been in the commerce, the Evangel
ist would have told us so. It seems more credible that
certain ones of the people had obtained by bribes such privi
leges from the venal hirelings who kept the temple of God. At
first sight, it seems strange that the animals should be found in
the temple, as here stated by John. We must know that the
entire enclosure was called the temple. The outer wall was a
square having 225 metres on every side. This in round num
bers would enclose an area of nearly thirteen acres. This vast
court was called the Court of the Gentiles. The temple proper
was built within this court, and occupied only a small portion
of the area. See illustrated description of the Temple in "A
Diary of My Life in the Holy Land." Now it was in the great
outer court that the sellers of the victims and the money
changers had their post.
To any one who has journeyed in the East, the money
changer is a familiar figure. In little dingy booths by the side
of the streets they sit, and change the French and English gold
into the vile Turkish small coin of the country. Woe to the
traveller who is not practised in the just conditions of this
change ! It is a strange fact that we may not in the banks at
Jerusalem exchange European gold for Turkish small coin, but
must go to the street money-changers. There seems to be a
compact between the bankers and these men. Now it must
have been somewhat similiar in the times of Christ. The dis
tant Jew coming to Jerusalem had need of a money changer.
Perhaps it was to change the Roman coin into that which could
be given to the temple, or to furnish small coin for large. At
all events, it was a lucrative calling, attractive to the Jew.
There was nothing illegitimate in this business in itself; but
the wrong consisted in bringing it into the sacred precincts of
the temple. There was the whole city outside for traffic, but
this place God had set apart for his worship. The greed of
396 JOHN II. 12 25
man even penetrated to profane this holy place, and the relig
ious calm that should reign there was broken by the clink of the
money and the hum and bustle of business. They had brought
the market place and the bank into the temple of God. Men
were taking advantage of a people s religious convictions to
enrich themselves. John must have been with Jesus in the
execution of this work; the description is plainly the work of
an eyewitness. The Saviour enters within the great court s
outer wall, which was supposed to separate from the profane
world the place where Yahveh s glory dwelt. And he sees that
Mammon had usurped the place of his Heavenly Father; that
the sacrificial worship of God had become a traffic ; that instead
of man s heart being softened by the religious air of the place,
it was still more hardened by the shock of the grasping greed of
the cattle dealers and money-changers. Throngs w r ere coming
there to sell cattle instead of to worship the God of Israel, and
the spirit of religion was being stifled by the thirst for gold.
As Jesus surveys the sad scene, he is moved by a righteous
indignation. It is a mark of a noble nature to be moved with
indignation against wrong. Sanctity does not consist in list
less passivity. Had the wrong only affected him personally
he would have said naught. When they spat upon, reviled him,
wounded him, and crucified him, he answered naught. He
sought not his own interest or vindication. But here the honor
of God was at stake, and holy wrath moved every fibre of his
grand manhood. His wrath did not move him to anything
unreasonable, it was only the expression of the intensity of his
veneration for the temple of God. His action is exemplary for
us. It is not wrong to feel disgust and indignation against evil
deeds. When we see a home wrecked by a besotted husband or
brother, it is not wrong to feel a deep sense of indignation
against the perpetrator, and to give expression to it in words
and deeds. Noble natures must feel this holy wrath ; it is a sign
of their love of the opposite virtue, and their hatred of the vice.
But the feeling must be divested of all personal revenge ; there
must be no vindictiveness in it.
On the authority of the Greek text, we have departed
somewhat from the received English reading in our version of
the fifteenth verse. From our literal translation of the Greek
JOHN II. 12 25 397
text it is clear that the scourge of cords was not used upon the
dealers but only on the beasts. It does not result that the
cattle dealers were expelled from the temple. It was not
wrong for them to be there, but it was wrong that their traffic
should be there. There seems to be something repugnant in
the thought that the Redeemer even in his wrath should beat
with cords these men. We believe that the Saviour never
struck any man. It seems then that, seeing the cattle and the
sheep in the holy enclosure, he seized some of the small cords of
twisted rushes, with which, perhaps, the animals had been tied,
and uniting them into a scourge, he drove the beasts from the
enclosure. There was a fitness in using such a means in driv
ing the beasts ; they obey a man more readily when he has
some whip in his hand ; it seems incongruous to imagine Christ
with such a scourge beating men. The cattle dealers, of
course, went out of the temple ; not under the lash, but to care
for their beasts.
Jesus comes next to the tables of the money-changers, and
overturns them, and scatters the money upon the pavement.
The action well illustrates the noble scorn of the Christ for the
object of man s sordid avarice. What shame must not the
priests have felt to see the disdain of the Redeemer for the
Mammon of iniquity, for which they were selling the very honor
of God himself? What a sense of our baseness and littleness it
awakens in our own hearts, to think that perhaps we may also
think more of a few "rascal counters" than of the glory of
God, and of the honor of his house, or of the salvation of souls? "
Nearby were the venders of doves sitting beside the cages
in which the doves were detained. The Saviour could only
thrust these forth by carrying out the cages. This action it
was unfitting that he should then and there do. Though never
shirking humiliations, he preserved a certain decorum in his
humiliations. So he addresses the sellers of the doves in a tone
of authority, and bids them bear hence the object of their traffic.
In his words to these venders of doves, he manifests the real
motive of his indignation. It was that the temple of God
should be made a house of traffic. Self interest moves him
naught in the affair. Conformably to the prophetic words of
the Psalmist [Ps. LXIX. 9] the zeal for the right worship of
39 8 JOHN II. 12 25
God absorbed all other interests in his heart. It is easy to see
the noble character of the incarnate God in the whole event.
The noble indignation, the scorn for the money-changers gold,
the purity of motive, all show forth the divine Exemplar of all
perfect men. Throughout his whole life, Christ was moved by
one mighty impulse. The present is one instance where the
Psalmist s words are true; it was not the only one. They
are verified in every act of his life. As man sharing with us
our common humanity, he sought but one great interest, the
glory of Yahveh. When that honor was assailed, a noble,
chivalrous indignation moved him to repair it. There is given
to posterity in the event the grand lesson that the temple of
God is for the worship of God. When a commercial spirit
creeps into the worship of God, it comes under the ban of this
declaration of Christ. Whenever men hear from the pulpit
aught else than the word of God, the pulpit is being prostituted.
The pulpit is not a place to talk politics, or discuss social topics,
or to air one s opinions. It is the holy place, from which the
people should receive the eternal truths of God in the best
manner that a man may present them. Again, the people
should not feel that in their relations with the man who is set
apart to stand in the holiest place on earth, that they are dealing
with a cold commercial agent the motive of whose actions is
self-interest. The changed customs of our times permit not
that the sellers of the victims and the money-changers carry on
their traffic in the temples of God; but there are other ways of
making God s house a house of traffic. How pitiable to see a
man who is chosen to be Christ s ambassador more eager to
filch from the people their money than to lead them to Heaven !
Such a man may not be downright bad ; but O, how far from the
noble self-renunciation of Christ! Very unfavorably he com
pares with that follower of Christ who could say : Acts XX.
33 : "I have not coveted any man s silver, gold, or apparel, as
ye yourselves know ; that as for the things that were needful
for me, and for them that were with me, these hands have
furnished." Every man should be deeply penetrated by a
feeling of reverence for the house of God ; but especially he who
has the care of God s interests in that holy place.
JOHN II. 1225 399
It was not without an exercise of divine power that the
Saviour wrought this work of clearing the temple. He was
alone, a stranger; they were many and influential in Jerusalem.
It was his Divinity that asserted itself in the fact, and made him
irresistible. Besides this, the justice of his course of action
made them shrink from opposing him. An evil-doer is always
a coward. True bravery is incompatible with crime. A
criminal may have desperation; he may have bravado; but
the consciousness of guilt prevents true courage. These
traffickers slunk away in shame from the temple which they had
dishonored.
Christ had vindicated to himself the authority of a prophet
in clearing the temple, and now certain Jews, most probably.
Scribes and Pharisees, approach him, and in a bombastic way
ask him for his authority. His zeal for the temple brought into
an unfavorable contrast their baseness and avarice. There was
nothing in the work that they could blame ; hence they stand
on a technicality. If he be a prophet, let him prove his mission
by a miracle. They were jealous of any encroachment on their
power, and they sought to entrap him in this. Not believing
him endo\ved with divine power, they hope that he would be
forced to admit that he had no mission from God, and they
would say he had no right to meddle and assume so much
authority in the temple. Their dishonesty is evident. They
dared not say the work was bad, but they hoped to repulse him
by demanding his credentials as a prophet. They resemble
certain ones who are more solicitous to guard their authority
from any infraction, than to build up the kingdom of God. It
does not avail that some soul has been saved who was perishing
under their neglect or injustice. Once invade their jurisdiction,
or their rights, and there is no more question of what may be
the nature of the work done. It is a usurpation, and the
perpetrator must suffer. They seem to think that they have
drawn lines upon the inhabitable globe, and have divided it up
among themselves, as their own. Jurisdiction is good, parish
limits are good, but the mean, jealous, petty insisting on parish
rights and jurisdiction, when they prevent good, is the spirit of
the Pharisees who here demanded of Christ his credentials.
Ascertain if the work be good, and if so, then bless it in God s
400 JOHN II. 12 -25
name, and rejoice that the sum total of virtue is being aug
mented. Any man worthy to call himself a follower of Christ
will rejoice like Paul that Christ is being preached, instead
of stickling for his miserable rights or perquisites. A worker
of good will not disorganize a parish, or do injustice to the
regular pastor of souls. What a shame then to find men
favoring legislation to make the blessed, merciful sacrament of
penance odious, simply for mercenary interests! Nor does it
suffice to allege that churches must be built and supported.
God cares more for souls than for marble and gold ; and if to
build grand edifices we must sacrifice the souls of men then let
the magnificence go.
Christ s answer to the Jews is prophetic, and was to them
shrouded in mystery : " Destroy this temple, and in three days
I will build it up again. Some think that the Lord in saying
these words placed his hand on his breast to designate that it
was the temple of his body of which he spoke. This seems very
improbable. It seems that Jesus was unwilling to concede to
these dishonest men anything that would gratify their vanity.
Therefore he couched his words in the mysterious terms of a
prophecy, which they could not then understand.
Taking the words of Christ in their literal sense, the
Pharisees attack their credibility upon the ground of the
vastness of the enterprise, which demanded the labors of all
Judaea for forty-six years. In fixing the epoch of these forty
six years much difficulty is found by exegetists. The temple
was first built by Solomon, but not of that can they speak,
since it was razed by Nebuzaradan the general of Nebuchad
nezzar. It was again rebuilt after the return conceded by
Cyrus. Extensive repairs were wrought upon it by Herod
the Great. Josephus describes this work of Herod as a com
plete rebuilding, Antiq. XV. n, saying that he employed ten
thousand workmen thereon. He also declares that the work
was completed in a year and six months. He adds in the same
place that Herod built the cloisters and outer enclosures in
eight years. It is quite certain that Herod s work could not be
called a building of the temple : it was at most only a restoring,
and Josephus shows his usual inaccuracy in speaking of it.
JOHN II. 12 25 401
Many modern exegetists refer the period here designated
by the Jews to the time required for the restoration of the
Herodian temple. To reconcile such opinion with Josephus
plain statement that the temple proper was finished in a year
and a half, and that the whole time of Herod s repairs could not
have been more than nine years and a half, they say that cer
tain parts of the work were carried on even up to the time
of the Lord, and that, as the temple was begun in the eighteenth
year of Herod s reign, and he reigned thirty-seven years, the
whole time elapsed since the beginning of Herod s building to
the time of the present discourse of Christ would be forty -six
years. The chronological basis of this opinion could stand, but
the data are arbitrary and false. In the first place, Herod s re
pairs, though extensive, could not be called properly a building
of the temple. Again, there is no evidence that these repairs
were continued down to the time of Christ s discourse, but there
are positive data that they were completed by Herod in a short
time as Josephus states. It does not suffice to say that Agrippa
II. made certain restorations also. This was an independent
work of Agrippa, and not the final completion of work begun
by Herod. Finally, the Jews speak of the building of the tem
ple as something past and completed. Had they wished to
speak of a work yet in progress they would not have used the
past tense of the verb. We therefore hold that the building of
the temple here spoken of by the Jews was the building of the
Zerubbabelian temple, after the return from the Babylonian
Captivity, That event is described in the I. Book of Ezra.
This opinion is also beset by difficulties. First, Joseph asserts
that the Zerubbabelian temple was completed in seven years,
XI. IV. 7. This is false. It contradicts the books of Ezra,
and is like many other statements of the erratic Jewish his
torian. A more serious difficulty results from the chronology
of the Book of Ezra. According to the usual analysis of the
book, the exiles returned and began to rebuild the temple in
the first year of Cyrus reign, 536 B. C. They were frequently
interrupted by enemies, and did not bring the work to a close
till 516 B. C. under Darius Hystaspis. Some endeavor to
make Josephus declaration credible by assuming that he
counts not the years when the work ceased through hindrance
(25) Gosp I *
4O2 JOHN II. 12 25
but only the years spent in the actual work. Even this
seems very improbable ; but, at all events, it no longer enters
as an objection in our present investigation, since it is evident
that the Jews are speaking of the whole period during which
the work continued.
By comparing the books of Ezra and Nehemiah it seems
that the completion of the Zerubbabelian temple must be
placed much later than the year 516 B. C.
The chronology of the Book of Ezra depends on the order
of succession of the Persian monarchs and the lengths of
their respective reigns. The greatest uncertainty exists
in the determination of these, as also in the ascertaining
of the Persian sovereigns under whom the important events of
Jewish history of the time took place. The right place to treat
such question is in a critical introduction to the Book of Ezra.
Hence for the present, we say there is nothing in the positive
available data that prevents us from ascribing the period of
forty-six years to the building of the Zerubbabelian temple.
There is much that moves us to embrace this opinion. The
Jews always spoke of the temple even down to recent times as
the second temple, showing clearly that they did not recognize
the restoration by Herod the Great as the building of the
edifice. Hence we conclude that the Jews here spoke of the
Zerubbabelian temple, and we must make the chronology of
Ezra agree with such opinion.
The Jews remembered the words of Christ uttered on this
occasion, and brought them forth as a testimony of blasphemy
against him when they condemned him to death. They had a
sort of national pride in their temple. It was an evidence of
their prerogatives over the other nations of the earth, and pride
moved them to revere it. Their veneration for it was one of
the mere external elements of their religion. It did not make
them better; it did not spiritualize them. It merely aroused
them to a bitter spirit of revenge, if anyone should say aught
against the temple. Christ here used words which were
ambiguous, and whose ambiguity he directly willed. He was
dealing with hypocrites, who were not seeking the truth, but
seeking to entrap him. It is a striking fact that when men of
this character sought a miracle of him he always offered them
JOHN II. 12 25 403
the miracle of his Resurrection. To instance an example, in
Matt. XII. 39, to the Pharisees who sought a sign, Christ
responded : " An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign,
and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the
Prophet Jonas. For as Jonas was three days and three nights
in the whale s belly ; so shall the son of man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth."
Hence we say that Christ here took occasion to utter in
mysterious words the prophecy of his death, burial, and
resurrection. In conformity with his divine plan, he uttered it
in words that were not understood at that time by any man, not
even by his disciples. They proved an enigma to the hypo
critical Pharisees, and perplexed their blindness; they had
their value, as Christ intended, in confirming the faith of his
disciples, when they were cleared up by the event itself. It
was as though Christ said to them : " Ye seek a sign. Behold,
I will give you the greatest sign. But now, ye are incredulous
and dishonest, and harden your hearts against me. Therefore
ye can not understand my ways nor my words. But ye will
tear asunder this temple in which the Divinity resides in
hypostatic union. Ye will cause the separation of death
between this temple and the soul that animates it; and the
third day I shall restore it in the glory of its immortality. If ye
are incredulous in my preceding works, believe, at least, that.
I am now in the period of my sufferings. Many are scandalized
to see a man stricken by God for sin, a man in low station in
life, calling himself the Son of God. And many there are that
waver now, who will be confirmed by the restoration of this
temple. It shall be the climax of my works, by which I ask for
man s faith. It ye believe not in me then, ye will not believe
the evident truth."
It fact, there is nothing that so clearly proves Christ s
Divinity as his Resurrection. The phase of his life of suffering
and abjection proves that he was man ; his Resurrection proves
that he is God. The Apostles themselves wavered till they saw
the risen Lord, and then even a doubting Thomas became a
lion. The Lord here therefore with infinite wisdom, to the
Jews who sought a sign, prophesied the greatest sign that he
ever gave the world. His words were hidden then, as he
JOHN II. 12 25
wished them to be. They begot faith in the hearts of his
disciples, when they compared the prophetic words with the
event which was afterwards verified.
The Paschal festivity endured through seven days, and at
this time a vast concourse of Jews were assembled at Jerusalem
to fulfill the precept of the Law. Christ found this a good
occasion to deliver his message. The people had come thither
not for any commercial or political motive. They were there
through religion, and Christ made use of the fitness of the event
to proclaim himself the Messiah. No man has written for us
the miracles that Christ wrought on this occasion other than
the expulsion of the venders from the temple. Many things
that he did and said are not preserved to us, but enough is
preserved to demand man s faith, and make incredulity impu-
table to those at whose disposal the message of Christ has
been placed. The Evangelist plays on the verb TrurTeveiv.
In drawing the antithesis between their attitude towards him
and his attitude towards them, he uses this word in the affirm
ative sense of them, and in a negative sense of Christ, to
show his lack of faith in them. This distrust of them arose
from his intimate knowledge of their souls. It is a proof
of his Divinity, at the same time that it is a reason for his
course of action. Only in being equal to the Creator of the
hearts of man, could he possess that divine knowledge by which
he knew not only man s present thoughts, but his leanings, and
his future thoughts. The Evangelist corroborates this testi
mony by asserting in the twenty-fifth verse that Jesus had
need of no testimony of any man to know what was in man. As
St. Cyril rightly remarks, only of God can it be predicated
that he is Kap^io^/vwaT^.
In saying that Christ trusted himself not to them, John
signified that he preserved a certain reserve with them. He
did not take them into his confidence, nor place himself in their
power. He did not call them, as he called his Apostles, friends.
He did not open up his heart to them. And yet they believed.
True, they believed, but it was a fickle, inconstant faith. The
best degree of faith is not that which is elicited by the force of
miracles. This may be a mere superficial opinion, having
nothing of the calm, enduring conviction which is begotten
JOHN II. 12 25 405
in the thoughtful soul by the internal working of the Holy
Ghost in a soul docile, and well disposed. Christ, by his
comprehension of the human heart, saw the shallowness of the
faith of these men. If their faith were to be always fed
with miracles, it would endure. These men had seen wonder
ful works of God, and for the present, while the admiration
was fresh in their minds, they were willing to accept him.
They had not become spiritual men ; they were swayed by the
things that moved the senses. Such faith as that would never
follow the Lord to Calvary. It had naught of that patient
constancy in it which says to the Lord : "I ask not for miracles,
I only ask to know thy will, and help to do it ; I will await for
thine own good time for thy manifestation."
The Lord himself bears witness to the excellence of this
calm, enduring faith over that which asks for miracles, and
believes only by the force of miracles. For he said : " Because
thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed. Blessed are
they who have not seen, and have believed." Christ knew that
these fickle men would abandon him, if interest for them were
in such abandonment. It was a faith that would shrink at the
first arduous trial ; it was a faith of which Christ could not ask
a sacrifice ; it was a faith that had not penetrated the inner man,
had not become the first issue of life. Such faith is easily
scandalized. Such faith halts and falters, and asks for more
proofs than in the present economy are vouchsafed to man.
There is much of such faith in the world to-day. It seeks
occasion on every pretext to justify the non-observance of the
obligations of the Christian, and it dies easily.
As Christ read those hearts long ago in Judaea, so he reads
our hearts. Would he trust himself to us? It seems indeed
that one of the great sorrows of Jesus was the consciousness of
the falseness and fickleness of man, whom he loved. Is our
faith an absolute, unquestioning, total trust in God? ready to go
through the desert of spiritual desolation? ready to receive
with resignation the refusal of everything that we ever asked
for? ready to believe, when we cannot understand? willing to
labor and to wait, till the dimness of our earthly vision be
transformed into the fulness of the intuitive vision of God?
To such Christ trusts himself.
406
JOHN III. i 21
JOHN III. 1-2 1.
1. There was a man of the
Pharisees, named Nicodemus,
a ruler of the Jews:
2. The same came to Jesus
by night, and said unto him:
Rabbi, we know that thou
art a teacher come from God;
for no man can do these mira
cles that thou doest, except
God be with him.
3. Jesus answered and said
unto him: Verily, verily, I
say unto thee: Except a man
be born from above, he cannot
see the kingdom of God.
4. Nicodemus saith unto
him: How can a man be born
when he is old? can he enter
a second time into his mother s
womb, and be born?
5. Jesus answered: Verily.
verily, I say unto thee: Ex
cept a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God.
6. That which is born of
the flesh is flesh; and that
which is born of the Spirit is
spirit.
7. Marvel not that I said
unto thee: Ye must be born
from above.
8. The wind bloweth where
it listeth, and thou hearest the
voice thereof, but knowest not
whence it cometh, and whither
it goeth: so is every one that
it born of the Spirit.
i. TIv Be
4>aptaa(o)v,
Tti>v louBat wv.
ex. icbv
auT<7>,
2. OuToq TjXOev xpbq atnbv
vuxtb<;, xal elzev auto): Pa66e(,
o cBajxev 811 aitb eou eXr;Xu6a<;
BcBdaxaXoc;: ooBelq yap BuvaTat.
rauTa TOC arjiJieTa xotetv a au xotetc,
eav |XT) fl 6 @ebq ^.ei auTod.
3. A^exptOr] Ir t aouc, xal slzsv
auTw: AJJLTJV, d^v Xeyw aot: Eav
JJUQ TIC; YevvrjG-n avcoOev, ou BuvaTat
(Belv TTJV ^aatXstav TOU 0eoj.
4. Aeyei Tcpbi; auTbv
Buvaiai avOpw-rcoq
yepwv (i )v; JXTJ BuvaTac siq TT]V xoi-
TJav TTj<; ^.rjTpbt; auTOU Beurepov
etaeXOsIv xal Yevv^Oiivat ;
5. AzexptO-r) 6 lY]aou<; : A^T]>,
d^XTjv Aeyw aot: Eav JJLTQ Ttq yev-
vrjOf) e^ uBaToq xat nveupicn:o<;, ou
Buvaiat siasXOelv etq -rr/v ^aatXsfav
TOU 0OU.
6. To Y7vvY] tXevov ex tfjs aap-
xb? cap? scrnv, xal TO yeyevvrj^evov
ex TOU nveuxaToq zveujj-a: ecitv.
MT]
otc etxov aot
avwOev.
7.
Aei
8. To TcveO^a oicou OeXet
xal TTJV ipcovTjv aikou axouetq, d
oux oIBaq TcoOev ep/e-uat xal
uxayet: OUTW? eaTlv xaq 6
uivoc; ex TOU
JOHN III. i 21
407
9. Nicodemus answered and
said unto him: How can these
things be ?
10. Jesus answered and said
unto him: Art thou a teacher
of Israel, and knowest not these
things?
11. Verily, verily, I say unto
thee : We speak that which we
do know, and testify that which
we have seen; and ye receive
not our witness.
12. If I have told you
earthly things, and ye believe
not, how shall ye believe, if I
tell you heavenly things?
13. And no man hath as
cended into Heaven, but he
that came down -from Heaven,
even the Son of man, who is
in heaven.
14. And as Moses lifted up
the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of man
be lifted up;
15. That whosoever be-
lieveth in him, should not per
ish, but have eternal life.
1 6. For God so loved the
world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.
17. For God sent not his
Son into the world to judge
the world; but that the world
through him might be saved.
18. He that believeth in him
is not judged; but he that be-
9. Axexpt Or) Ntx.6B-Qjj.oc; xal
slxev auT<I>: Owe BuvaTat TauTa
ysveaOat ;
10. AxexptOrj Lqaouc xat etxev
2u el 6 BtSaaxaXoc TOU
, xat TauTa ou ytvwaxetc;
ii. jj/qv jXTjv yo) aoi, OTI
oi Sajxev XaXoujxev, xat o etopaxajJiev
(jLapTUpou^ev, xat TYJV
ou Xajx6aveTe.
12. E! Ta eTctyeta elrcov ujj.lv,
xat ou xtaTeusTe, -rcax;, eav e tTcw ujj-Tv
Ta Ixoupavta, xtCTrsuusTe;
13. Kat ouBets ava6e6Y]xev eiq
TOV oupavbv, st ;XT] 6 ex TOU oupavou
xaTa6ac, 6 utb<; TOU avOpwxou (6
wv ev TO) oupavw.)
14. Kat xa6a><;
cev TOV 6 ipiv ev ij\ epr ( jj.w,
u^to6f)vai Bet TOV utbvToiJ a
15. "Iva xaq 6 xiareuwv etc
auTOv (JJ.T) dzoXtjTat, aXAa) ly^y)
^WTjv atwvtov.
16. OUTWC yap TQyaxTjcev 6 @ebc
TOV XOajJLOV, 0)C7Te TOV UtOV TOV [JLOVO-
yevf; e Bwxev, Yva xa? 6 xtJTeuwv etq
a UTOV JJ.Y) axo X-rjTat, aXXa s yj) uwf^v
auov.ov.
17. Ou yap axeciTStAsv 6 @ebc
TOV uibv etc TOV xoajxov Tvaxp(vy) TOV
xoajxov, aXX YVY] co)6fi 6 XOJ^JLOC Bt
auTOu.
1 8. xtaTeuwv etc auTOv ou
xpt vcTat: 6 ^r] xtaTsutov TJBr] xsxpi-
408 JOHN III. i 21
lieveth not is judged already, Tatj g Tt ^ xeic (oTeuxsv etq TO o
because he hath not believed T0 [j ^ovoyevou? ucoG TOU @eoG.
in the name of the only be
gotten Son of God.
19. And this is the judg- 19. AUTYJ 8s la-rev Y] xptatq, OTI
ment, that light is come into T b <pwq !X^Xu6ev E(<; TOV xou^ov, xat
the world, and men loved dark- iqyaTCYjaav ot avGpwxoc ^xaXXov TO
ness rather than light, because crxoToq, Y) TO <po><;: YJV yap
their deeds were evil. xovYjpa TOC Ipya.
20. For every one that doeth 20. Ha? yap 6 <paGXa
evil hateth the light, and com- yuaslTo ipwq, xal oiix sp/eTat xpbq TO
eth not to the light, lest his deeds q>wq, Yva [XT] IXeyyjJfj Ta epya auTou.
should be reproved.
21. But he that doeth truth 21. 8e xotwv TTJV dXT)6etav
cometh to the light, that his Ip^eTac xpbt; TO y&q, Tva ^avepwOfj
deeds may be made manifest, aikou TOC epya, OTC Iv @eo> lartv
that they are wrought in God.
In the thirteenth verse of the Greek text, the clause en
closed in parentheses is not found in ^, B, L, T, and 33. It
is also omitted by the Ethiopian version, and by Origen.
The clause enclosed in parentheses in the fifteenth verse
is absent from fc<, B, L, T, and some other authorities.
Among those who had seen the miracles of Jesus at the
Paschal time was Nicodemus. He was a Pharisee, but evi
dently did not participate in their hypocrisy and hatred of
Christ ; for, moved by what he had already seen, he seeks out
Christ, to be taught more fully the great truths of his message.
St. John calls him a prince of the Jews. The basis of the
later aristocracy, that arose in Judaea after the Captivity, we
know not. It seems probable that wealth and high social
station conferred on a man the denomination of prince. It
seems quite probable that John described this man so accurately
in order to give prominence to his testimony of the Christ.
He came by night to avoid the persecution of his sect which
was averse to the Christ. John has only given us certain
passages of that conference, but they contain the substance of
what was said. Nicodemus shows himself an honest man, in
whose heart the first embryo of faith had been generated. He
had not yet the moral courage to sacrifice his social station
JOHN III. i 21 409
among the Jews and follow Christ openly; but timidly, and
stealthily, he seeks to be taught by him. Such faith is not
so grand as the heroism of St. Paul, but the Saviour had regard
for even these first awakenings of the soul, and he helped the
man to a fuller realization of the spiritual kingdom, which he
had come to build up. Nicodemus only recognized Jesus as a
mere man, though yet aprophet. His spiritual perception was
weak, his conceptions carnal. The great work in Christian
izing a man is to divest his soul of the fetters of matter, and
bring him into a right relation with the spiritual order of things.
The spiritual order can not be seized by the senses ; it can not
be seized by the soul till it be purified from the predominance
of the material world. Our Lord propounds to this rude soul
the grand basal truth of the spiritual birth.
In Scripture the alternation of the different speakers in a
dialogue is usually marked by the phrase, "he answered and
said, " and the phrase does not imply that a question precedes.
The repetition of "verily" marks a special emphasis, and
shows that the truth about to be enunciated is an important
one. John, the most faithful biographer of Jesus, uses this
formula more than the others. He was with the Lord long
before Matthew was called, and through his close relations
with Jesus, reproduced those familiar expressions that he
had heard so often.
A difference of opinion exists among exegetists concerning
the translation of the Greek avwOev, which the Vulgate renders
" denuo. " The Greek term in its first classical sense is derived
from av(o, and is an adverb of place, signifying from above, on
high, etc. In a secondary sense, it is sometimes used as an
adverb of time, meaning from the beginning. No clear refer
ence can be found where it signifies denuo. Now among
the fathers Cyril and Theophylactus gave to this term the
signification of "from Heaven. The greater number of
Fathers and interpreters explain it as an adverb of time. The
Syriac version thus renders it . However, we elect to follow the
opinion of Cyril in this matter. It seems to give more energy
to the expression, and marks the contrast more strongly
between the generation of the flesh and the generation of the
religious principle in man. The new birth is from above, from
410 JOHN III. i 21
God, in its origin; and this the Saviour wished to impress on
Nicodemus. The same adverb is used frequently to signify
" from above, " that is, from Heaven, from God. In Jo. III. 31,
it occurs in the sense of "from above" : " He who cometh from
above, (avwOev) is above all." Again in John XIX. n : "Thou
wouldst have no power against me, unless it were given thee
from above, avwdev. " It is frequent in the other writers of the
New Testament in the same sense. The adherents of the op
posite opinion object, and say that Nicodemus understood the
Redeemer to speak of a second birth, and it is evident that
in this, at least, he caught Christ s meaning aright. We
answer that in placing in man a birth from on high, he plainly
implies that it is a new birth. He declares that man must
be born from above. This imports the obligation of a second
birth, and sets forth its celestial origin and spiritual nature.
Hence our opinion contains all that is contained in the com
monly received reading, and more. It imports a new birth, and
describes the nature of that birth. The phrase, "can not see
the kingdom of God" is equivalent to saying that one can not
become a citizen of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of
God here is used in its broadest acceptation, and Christ speaks
of that citizenship, which being possessed by man in the present
life, entitles man to a fruition of the highest form of that
citizenship in Heaven. Birth is the source of life. To have
spiritual life, we must have spiritual birth. This is the foun
dation of the New Law.
Nicodemus mind is tied to the gross material order. He
seems inaccessible to any idea of a spiritual order. Birth to him
meant the coming forth from the womb. To explain to the
Redeemer the difficulty he felt in accepting this truth, he
pictures the most impossible mode of second birth, that an old
man should be born again as he understood it. We marvel at
the stolidity of this man and at the coarseness of his percep
tions. But Christ found most men equally removed from the
spiritual order. The Apostles were but little better till they
were quickened by the Pentecostal fire. The knowledge of the
spiritual order came with Christ. Till that time, the spiritual
perception had lain dormant in man. A vague knowledge of
Yahveh existed in Israel, but their worship of him was carnal.
JOHN III. i 21 411
In their rude sense, Yahveh was a being that delighted in clouds
of incense and burning holocausts. They could not penetrate
to the spiritual creations of which these were mere symbols.
The ease with which we realize the spiritual order conies from
the fact that we live in the full light of the Gospel. And in our
days of light, men engrossed in material issues become obliv
ious of the world of spirit. This leads to much superficiality
in religious observances. Many a man goes through life nomin
ally a Catholic, without ever realizing what it is to be a Catholic.
He is Catholic by custom. He was brought to the bap
tismal font when an infant, and thus became allied to the social
organization of the Church. Perhaps in youth, when under the
guidance of parents and tutors, he fulfilled the routine duties of
Catholicity. But then the reason was not fully developed, and
what he did was as much the act of the parent or tutor as his
own. When he enters fully on man s estate, then begins the
period of starvation of the spirit. There is no communion
between his soul and Heaven. His soul never looks up to
heaven, his eyes are riveted on the earth. The spiritual side of
his life is a far-off issue, it has no interest for him. It goes so
far at times that a spiritual Heaven loses all attractiveness for
him, and no longer becomes an incentive to Christian action.
His soul is not thoughtful, nor invested by a religious calm.
The things of God are unintelligible and uninteresting to him.
Yea, even the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the whole system
of the New Law appear to him foolishness. To an unspiritual
man there is much in the deposit of faith that appears vain and
absurd, and this is the best proof of the genuineness of our faith ;
for, as Paul says : " The natural man receiveth not the things
that are of the Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness to him, and
he cannot know them, because they are spiritually examined. "
I. Cor. II. 14. This spiritual oblivion in a greater or less degree
has invaded the greater part of our population. It is hard to
save an unspiritual man ; and even if he escapes reprobation, his
is still a wasted life. To Nicodemus rude objection, our Lord
repeats with greater emphasis and greater precision his pre
ceding statement. This dogmatic text makes known to
us the necessity and nature of baptism. In the first place, we
must establish that the Lord there speaks of a baptism by real
412 JOHN III. i 21
natural water. For Catholics this is not an open question.
The Council of Trent, Sess. VII. Can. II. De Baptismo, thus
defines: " If any man shall say that real, natural water be not
necessary in baptism ; and shall thus distort the words of Jesus
Christ : Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost,
etc., to a metaphorical sense, let him be anathema. "
Many protestants who deny baptism to be a saving
ordinance maintain that the Lord spoke of water in a meta
phorical sense. They base such assertion on the fact that water
is used in divers places in Scripture in a metaphorical sense;
and also on the fact that John Baptist spoke of a baptism in
the Holy Ghost and fire, where fire is certainly used in a meta
phorical sense. In refutation of this objection, many Catholics
insist on the structure of the expression. Water is joined to the
Holy Ghost by the copula indicating the same sense in both
agents ; and as the Holy Spirit is taken in a real sense, so must
the preceding term be understood. It is true that water
sometimes is used metaphorically to signify tribulation, but
the true sense is revealed by the light of Christ s positive
teaching and practice. He himself imposed on his disciples the
precept of baptizing with water all nations. His disciples
baptized with water under his personal supervision. The
teachers of the New Law who carried on his work in the years
immediately succeeding his Ascension, baptized with water.
The one passage from Acts VIII. 36-38 would sufficiently
establish this truth: "And as they went on their way, they
came to a certain water and the Eunuch saith : See, here is
water, what hindereth me from being baptized ? And Philip
said: If thou believest with thy whole heart, thou mayest.
And he answering said : I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son
of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And
they both went into the water, Philip and the Eunuch, and he
baptized him. " This is a classical text to prove that Christ
spoke of a baptism by natural water. Thus it was understood
by his Apostles and disciples; thus it was understood by his
Church ; and thus it has ever been practised by her.
It is evident that the words of Christ taken in the light of
all these associated truths cannot refer to a metaphorical sense
of water, but must refer to the natural element.
JOHN III. i 21 413
We find also that the words contain a precept binding on
every rational creature. It is not our intention here to explain
the extraordinary economy of God, which is applied to those
who know not Christ. We know only of his ordinary economy.
We are taught that Christ made baptism a necessary condition
of salvation to every man. This results from the words of the
proposition. It is a universal proposition, formulated in precise
and clear words. The words either lay down the universal plan
of salvation, or they say nothing. It is true, however, that the
new birth by the Holy Ghost is wider in its application than
the baptism by water. It is as though the Lord said: "Un
less a man be born again by the spiritual birth through the
Holy Ghost, which is ordinarily effected through the sacra
mental rite of baptism by water, he cannot enter the kingdom
of Heaven. " The new birth is absolutely universal; the bap
tism by water is only universal in the ordinary economy.
Therefore salvation may be accomplished without the actual
baptism by water, as, for instance, by desire and by martyrdom.
But it cannot be effected without the new birth through the
Holy Ghost. God has not absolutely limited his power to the
sacraments. Hence, while these words contain a universal
proposition, they suffer the co-existence of God s extraordinary
economy for those who have never received this message. We
are far from saying that these are equal in another economy to
baptized Christians. We simply know nothing of their destiny,
or the basis of God s dealings with them.
In applying this doctrine to infants, we have only the
tradition and practice of the Church to guide us. Infant bap
tism has no clear Scriptural text in its support. In the first ages
it was not common. We receive it on the sole authority of the
Church. As regards the fate of those infants who die without
baptism, our cognition is meagre and uncertain. There exists
a decree of the oecumenical Council of Florence which estab
lishes: "The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin,
or in only original sin descend at once into hell, but are punished
in unequal degrees of punishment. " Theologians find in
this the settlement of the fate of unbaptized infants, under
the head of those who depart with the sole taint of original
sin. The truth is certainly therein contained that any
414 JOHN III. i 21
creature appearing before God with the sole taint of original
sin on his soul is adjudged to hell. In fact, the consensus of
particular councils, Fathers and theologians is concordant
that the unbaptized infant goes to hell. The mystery of the
doctrine is included in the mystery of the doctrine of original
sin. However, there have been theologians of no mean ability
who have maintained the possibility of salvation of unbaptized
infants. Principal among these are John Gerson, Gabriel Biel
and Cajetan. As the three agree in substance, we shall set
forth the opinion as it was advanced by Gerson in his second
sermon on the nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. "God,"
he says, " has not so bound his merciful salvation to ordinary
laws and sacraments that he could not, without prejudice to his
law, sanctify by his baptism of grace, or by the power of the
Holy Ghost, the unborn infant/ He admonishes mothers
"that they earnestly pray to God, to the angels and saints, that,
if the infant in their womb is to die before he receives the grace
of baptism by water, the Lord Jesus Christ, the great high priest,
may mercifully deign to sanctify it by the preventive baptism
of the Holy Ghost. "Who knows, he declares, " If God will
not perhaps give ear? Who can not devoutly hope that God
will never despise the prayer of the humble, and those who
hope in him ? Gabriel Biel adopts the opinion of Gerson, and
adds that it seems in accord with God s mercy to provide some
means of salvation for those who are perishing through no
actual personal guilt. This opinion has never been formally
condemned by the Catholic Church. It is not a tenet of the
Pelagian heresy ; for unlike that heresy, it admits the universal
existence of original sin, and simply places the infant in the
extraordinary economy of God, about which we know nothing.
Of course, the authority of Augustine and the particular
councils that were celebrated in Africa under him are against
even this position. But Augustine is not the Church, and those
councils were not oecumenical. Neither is it against the
decree of the Council of Florence; for Gerson and others
admitted that original sin was sufficient to damn the soul ; but
they simply said that God might act through his extraordinary
economy in favor of these, being moved by the faith and prayer
of the mother. Neither do they assert this as a positive posi-
JOHN III. i 21 415
tion, but as a mere possibility. It results in merely this that
the unbaptized infants may come under the extraordinary
economy of God, and, consequently, of his dealings with them
we know nothing.
Cajetan s opinion is found in the old editions of his Com
mentary on the Summa Theol. III. q. 68. art i ad 2 : "In a
case of necessity for the salvation of infants baptism vowed by
the parents seems sufficient, especially if the vow be accom
panied by some exterior sign. . . . And thus the infant is
saved by baptism received by the parents vow, when it is im
possible to baptize it with water." He exhorts parents to
offer the dying child to God in the name of the Trinity.
Pius V. ordered this opinion to be expunged from Cajetan s
Commentary, and recently a work which endeavored to renew
the opinion of Cajetan was placed in the Index of Prohibited
Books; but the question is not absolutely defined. It is the
farthest stretch of hope conceded to us in this sad question.
We can see no reason why such a prayer of the mother be not
good and pleasing to the Father of mercies.
The third truth contained in the proposition of the Savi
our is the nature of Baptism. It is a new birth, a new spiritual
creation in man. This is the foundation of the whole new
alliance. Now the Redeemer has willed to bind this great
effect to the rite of baptism by water. Not that such rite is a
mere symbol, indicative of the internal purification of the soul
by sin, but because it is such a symbol, and, at the same time,
an instrumental agency effecting by intrinsic power that which
it symbolizes. The Saviour does not ignore Nicodemus
objection, and in his response, setting forth the nature of
baptism, he clearly teaches him that he is not speaking of
carnal but of spiritual birth, which shall be effected by the
power of the Spirit of God working through the rite of baptism
by water. Man is composed of matter and spirit, and depends
on his senses to come into relation with the outside world.
Sensible phenomena affect his mind more readily than mere
spiritual realities, hence the Saviour chose a fitting rite to which
essentially to attach this regenerative agency. Of course, the
effect is radically wrought by the power of God, but this very
power is by the will of Christ imparted to the rite itself, so that
416 JOHN III. i 21
the rite becomes an instrumental cause, having in itself such
efficacy.
Continuing his instruction, the Saviour uses comparisons
and illustrations that even the rude mind of Nicodemus could
not fail to comprehend. The whole aim of his discourse is to
prove that the way to Heaven for man consists in his spiritual-
ization. When the Redeemer spoke of birth, the mind of
the Pharisee had rested on carnal birth. It seemed unable to
rise above such consideration. The spiritual order was a
strange new idea, not readily apprehended. And to aid his
struggling mind to apprehend the great truth, Jesus informs
him that there are two orders having their births and corre
sponding natures. Man is of kin to the beasts by his body;
he is of kin to God by his spirit. Carnal generation can not
bring into being the spirit of man ; it must come directly from
God. Neither is its life and well-being affected by the agencies
upon which is dependent the body of man. It is a divine
creation, of celestial origin. The world in which it moves is
the invisible world; the atmosphere that gives it life is the
spiritual atmosphere of Heaven. The agencies that regene
rate it and foster it are spiritual. Its new birth is not an event
in the carnal order, but a divine influx of energy from the
Spirit of God. Between the order of corruptible nature here
represented by "flesh" and the order of the spirit there is
an abyss. The two orders act upon man as two opposite forces.
The one tends to draw man down to the plane of the brute, to
degradation and the wreck of his destiny ; the other force is
upward, purifying him more and more at every degree, infusing
into him more and more of the divine vigor as he mounts,
nobilifying his nature, and making it more like to God. And
as man mounts, the eyes of his soul are opened, and he is filled
with the spirit of spiritual intelligence to understand better the
things of God. Man is forever acted on by those contrary forces,
and it imports much which obtains the mastery. The very
existence of this spiritual order can only be seized by repressing
the overweening influence of the material order, and by
reflecting in thoughtful religious calm. It is very valuable to
man to have an intense realization of the spiritual order. One
of the most deadly agencies to work the extinction of this order
JOHN III. i 21 417
in man is the lust of the flesh. That blunting of the moral
nature of man, and hardening of his heart, which result from
sins of the flesh, make man an alien from the spiritual order,
and work the damnation of the greatest number of the
reprobate.
To illustrate the existence of the unseen spiritual order,
the Saviour takes a simile from nature. Great divergencies of
opinions exist as to what the Saviour meant by the term
"spirit" of the eighth verse. It is -jrvevpa in Greek, whose
first signification is the wind, then the breath, and finally the
principle of life in man, manifested by the breath. Then it
passed to signify spiritual natures, such as the soul of man, the
angels, and God himself; and it is especially used to contrast
the pure intellectual natures with the gross material natures.
Now many of the Fathers and older interpreters understood by
TTvevf^a here the Spirit of God, invisible to us, working effects
in the souls of men of which we can only be aware by that most
secret inner consciousness of our spiritual perception. And he
works in whom he wills, and we are ignorant of the motives
regulating his choice. This opinion is thus forcibly enunciated
by Corluy (De Evang. St. Jo.): "The Holy Spirit, according
to his gracious will, works in men, and his voice, that is, the
effect of his operation, as for instance in the prophets, you hear;
but his entrance into souls, and his going forth thence you
can not preceive. And thus it is with every one who is born
by spiritual regeneration. " All this is true, but does not seem
to be the basis of the present simile.
Foremost of the Fathers who have advocated the opposite
opinion are Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylactus, and Euthymius.
It is the common opinion among the later exegetists. This
opinion maintains that the Lord compares the Spirit of God and
his action on the soul to the wind. This opinion we adopt as
morally certain. The aim of the Redeemer is to aid Nicodemus
to comprehend the unseen spiritual order and its effects on the
souls of men, and in this he uses a comparison from nature.
The opponents of this opinion object that the term Trvevpa
occurs again in the same verse, where it evidently means the
Spirit of God, and that it seems unreasonable to hold that the
Lord would change the sense of the term in the same proposi-
(26) Gosp. I.
418 JOHN III. i ^i
tion. We believe that this word-playing was directly intended
by Christ to heighten the force of the simile. The wind of
Heaven is a fitting symbol of the Spirit of God. It permeates
all nature ; is invisible, subtle, and only cognizable by its effects.
In saying that the wind blew where it listed, the Saviour calls
attention to its ethereal, light, active, swift-moving nature,
in which it resembles spiritual agencies. Though it be material
yet it is not of such gross materiality as the denser bodies,
which are held down by their inertia. Nothing could be
more apt than this simile in dealing with a rude man like
Nicodemus. Even the Holy Ghost himself on Pentecost chose
to make his presence known by a mighty wind. The wind
is an unseen power, gentle at times, as the zephyrs that blow
at evening ; and again mighty, lashing the sea into a foam,
and causing the great pines of the forest to groan aghast;
a fit image to convey to men s minds the invisible power of the
Spirit of God. The Hebrews were children of nature. Their
life had not been cramped into a superficial mold, as is the case
with us. Hence the words of the Saviour readily called up
images of things verified in their own experience. In speaking
of the voice of the wind which we hear, the thought is very
beautiful. Perhaps as they were speaking, the night wind
arose sighing in the distance, and moaning swept the plain, and
then died away in the distance. We have often ourselves
listened to the gentle whispering of the zephyrs at eventide
and seemed to discern voices in them. We have listened to the
far-off roaring of the tempest, gathering its power down by the
horizon. We have felt its shock, and listened to its receding
rumble as it died away down towards the opposite horizon. It
seemed like a wanderer, and no man knows whence it comes
nor whither it goes. And with all the boast of science, we
know but little more. By its effects w r e become conscious of an
invisible power, and this is the basis on which Christ founds
his simile in likening it to the Spirit of God. In drawing the
comparison, Christ seems to liken the person regenerated by
the Holy Ghost to the wind. In Scriptural comparisons there is
no evidence of legal exactness in adjusting the members. The
real comparison is between the unseen agencies working in the
soul of the regenerated man and one of the invisible forces of
JOHN III. i 21 419
nature. In his new birth, man is acted on by an invisible
power, not discernible by any sense. It is only cognizable by
the inner consciousness of man, by what St. Paul calls the
Spirit s witness to our spirit.
As the spiritual order more and more unfolded itself before
Nicodemus mind, a sense of bewilderment came upon him. It
is difficult for a man bound down by terrene considerations to
seize the supernatural. The Saviour had led the Jew into the
unknown spirit world, whose nature and causes were far re
moved from any previous creation of his mind. He seems
to have been honest and impelled by a wish for salvation, and
he is a good example of the state of religious thought in Judaea
at the coming of Christ. Nicodemus exemplifies the distance
between the two orders, as they are apprehended by man,
and the difficulty man has to realize the world of spirit, and its
spiritual issues.
Some think to find a rebuke in the tenth verse in the
Saviour s words to this Pharisee. Certainly in Jesus words
there is a just reflection on the state of religious thought in
Israel. One of the mighty causes that kept Israel from ac
knowledging Christ was a proud presumption that they
possessed the right worship of Yahveh. Nicodemus may have
shared the popular ideas of his countrymen, and the Saviour
wishes to show him his need to be taught by himself. There is
in the words of the Saviour a certain unfavorable reflection, but
it is aimed against the Jewish people. It w r as imputable to their
carnal minds that the spiritual element in religion had been
obscured, and had died out of religious thought. And to show
the sad state of religion among that people, Christ declares that
even the teachers of the people knew naught of the spiritual
world. Nicodemus is thus not blamed as though he were de
ficient in the religious thought of his time, but as jointly re
sponsible with all his co-religionists. The decadence of the sub
stance of all religion among the Jews is illustrated by his ignor
ance. To be sure, there was not that diffusion of the knowledge
of the spiritual order in the Old Law as exists with us. But
there was enough given in the Law and Prophets to bring them
the realization of the spiritual nature of God, and the nature of
his action in man s soul. Hence in their relations to Christ,
420 JOHN III. i 21
they were reprehensible for two things. First, for their ignor
ance of the spiritual order; and secondly, for their refusal to
acknowledge this ignorance, and their refusal to be taught
of this order by God. Christ wishes to loose Nicodemus
hold on the Jewish covenant that he might the more readily
embrace the covenant of grace.
In the eleventh verse, the Lord takes Nicodemus as a rep
resentative of the Jewish race, and addresses to him words that
only find their fulfilment when applied to the whole people.
This is evident from the plural verb: "our testimony ye
do not receive. "
A question of some importance arises here to determine
why Christ makes use of the plural form " our " in this sentence.
We believe that this form of expression signifies that Christ
associated with himself the other persons of the Trinity in the
testimony delivered to man. All three persons concur in
bearing witness to the message delivered by Christ, and the
Jews rejected the witness of the Trinity.
Christ had spoken to Nicodemus of an invisible order of
things, of spiritual agencies and effects which he was called to
believe, although he could not apprehend them by any sense.
He now gives his warrant for asking such belief. He contrasts
his cognition of the spiritual order with ours, and declares that
to him that order is open and plain. They are not hidden
realities to him, but visible and essentially comprehended by
his omniscience. The spiritual order was infinitely more open
and visible to Christ than the sensible is to us, and hence he
would have Nicodemus know that he was not speaking of
things that were dim and inaccessible to himself, as they are
to mortals. He had come on earth to teach man of an order in
which he had lived, and which was known to him by the
knowledge of comprehension. It was another assertion that he
was God, and equal to God in knowledge. For this reason man
was called to believe things that he could not understand. It
was equivalent to say to Nicodemus : " It is true, you can not
comprehend these things, but not thereby are you exempt from
the obligation to receive them. I understand them, and my
testimony is the warrant for your belief. And although I have
proven and shall prove that I am of God, your countrymen will
not receive my testimony. "
JOHN III. i 21 421
Full oft when man finds it hard to believe, instead of
placing the defect in the limited capacity of his own intellect
he seems to blame the realities themselves. Nothing is more
subversive of faith. That docility of heart so necessary to
admit the action of God on the soul can not exist, unless a man
recognize that the inaccessibility to the spiritual order lies in
his own weakness. This is not the period of man s intuitive
knowledge ; and moreover, the effects of the hereditary taint of
sin have obscured man s intellect and weakened the force of
the spiritual in him. Man is not to blame for not being able
to adequately comprehend the spiritual order, but he is to blame
for not recognizing that the defect lies in himself, and he is to
blame for not humbly asking from God for illumination and
help to believe. The whole supernatural order was spread out
open before the mental vision of Christ as he spoke the twelfth
verse. All those grand truths of which we can gain, at most,
only occasional glimpses were to him perfectly comprehended ;
and as he looked forth upon weak man he reflected how
difficult it would be to impart even a small portion of those
truths to man. We have often felt in our own experience how
hopeless the task seemed, when we endeavored to instil into
some dull mind some high conception, or fine argument. So
here and elsewhere Christ has signified that it is impossible to
give to the dull minds of men the richness of the world of
thought that was within him. The poverty of our spiritual
knowledge does not import that there be not spiritual truths to
be known ; but that our minds are weak, and the order of our
cognitions infinitely below the order of God s cognition. If
man would only recognize this, and not deny the existence of
realities above the compass of his reason, Christianity would
reclaim those w r ho are led away by the force of agnosticism.
Some uncertainty exists as to what the Lord signified by
the "earthly things" of the twelfth verse. What are those
"earthly things" of which he had spoken? Some understand
by such term the external rite of baptism. This seems improb
able. Nicodemus did not find difficulty in this rite: it was in
receiving the doctrine of the new birth that he labored. Now
this certainly could not be called an earthly thing by him who
is earnestly endeavoring to bring out its spiritual character.
422 JOHN III. i 21
Passing over the minute examination of all the various opinions
advanced upon this text, we believe that the Lord characterizes
as " earthly things " the comparison that he had drawn from the
wind. He had illustrated by that comparison a spiritual truth
by comparing it to a force operating in the natural order, and
Nicodemus seemed to stumble at even this. Here again
Nicodemus is taken as a representative of his race. There was
no injustice in this; for, in the first place, he reflected the
thought of his people ; and moreover the Lord knew them all.
After-events corroborated the truth of his reflection. They
proved themselves inveterately inaccessible to spiritual ideas.
If the Pharisee could not rise to the truth illustrated by the
wind, how could he have understood the grand system of
spiritual truths concerning God and human destiny? These
were the things that Christ did not tell man, because man
could not hear them.
The thirteenth verse seems at first sight enigmatic. The
Saviour made use of enigmatical expressions to fix the atten
tion of the people on himself. Such expressions were invested
with a certain air of mystery, and this filled the people with
more awe for the speaker. With weak minds there is danger of
divine things becoming too common. With a rude people the
aphorism has place : " Omne ignotum pro magnifico. " Hence
the Saviour couched his teachings often in mysterious terms, to
penetrate which required reflection and serious thought. It
well fits deep religious ideas to involve them in terms which
require meditation and close attention to penetrate. Jesus
did not wish to render difficult man s search after his meaning.
The message is always simple, and attainable by a fitting effort ;
but he has placed even in the words themselves a certain
element of that mystery that must always accompany the
things of God. Undoubtedly he did this, because the message
would be more effective in this form. The pondering over the
beautiful truths not hidden, but religiously veiled by the sacred
diction, leads a man up from this low plane of life, and throws
him into that religious mood in which his soul is most tractable
to religious movements. The things of God must not be
spoken of too vulgarly ; a certain air of secrecy and mystery is
their proper environment.
JOHN III. i 21 423
The nexus of the thirteenth verse with the preceding does
not at first sight appear. Its sense however is a continuation
of the same train of thought. In asserting that no one has as
cended into Heaven except him who descended from Heaven,
the sense is that no man knows Heaven s secrets but himself.
It is as though he said: "I speak to you of a knowledge of
heavenly things too sublime for your comprehension, and I
have a right so to speak. For no man has ever ascended to ex
plore the things of Heaven. But I, who have come down from
Heaven, know these things, and there is no other source of
whom ye may know these things except from me. Hence
the ascending into Heaven refers to no specific event in the
life of Christ. It is simply the denial that any one has ever
penetrated into Heaven to acquire the knowledge which Christ
has in virtue of the fact that it is his dwelling place whence he
came down.
In the last clause of the thirteenth verse he enunciates the
truth that, though he had come down from Heaven, he was still
in his Divinity in Heaven. This mystery is too vast for our
comprehension, but we accept it on the testimony of Christ and
the Church, that while the Divinity was hypostatically united
to Christ s human nature on earth, it was also in Heaven; for
the Incarnation wrought no essential change in the Trinity.
The descent from Heaven imported therefore only the beginning
of Christ as man.
In pondering over the words of the Saviour, how real
becomes the existence of that state of being which we call
Heaven? He seems like a celestial pilot, come out from
the shore of Heaven, boarding humanity s tempest-tossed
ship, who, while he guides the helm, fills the worn and fainting
mariners with certain hope of the city on the shore. And
to induce them to put their trust in him, lie assures them that
no man has ever entered that harbor except himself; he knows
the passage thither and the city itself, for it is his home.
Christ wished that man should concentrate all his trust in
him; and when reason failed, he wished that man should
accept God s truths on his testimony, for he spoke of that
which he knew, and which no other man could know. There
is no other way but this. Faith has not for its basis the
424 JOHN III. i 21
natural credibility of the truths believed, but the authority
of a veracious God, who sent his Son to teach us and to
save us.
Christ has now led Nicodemus to that point where he
deems it good to propose the central truth of the New Covenant,
the vicarious atonement of the Crucifixion. Man s dependence
on Christ is absolute. All men must fix their faith and trust in
him. And he must be crucified for them. He proposes this
great truth in the mysterious words of prophecy. They were
enigmatical to Nicodemus then ; they were intended to be so.
They awoke in his soul a feeling of awe, a trust in the wondrous
being before him, a desire to know more of him. When he
stood beside the dead Christ, whom he with Joseph of Arima-
thea embalmed, he remembered these words, and their mean
ing was then plain. Jo. XIX. 39.
The fact to which the Lord refers is narrated in Numbers
XXI. 8-9. The people were tired of the manna, and rebelled
against God and Moses. Thereupon Yahveh sent upon them
fiery serpents, whose bite caused the death of many. They
turned to the Lord in their distress, and then it was that Moses
at the command of God made a brazen serpent, and elevated it
in the sight of the people, and the bitten who gazed upon it
were healed. This serpent was a symbol of the atoning sacrifice
of the Crucifixion. The efficacy of this symbol to heal the
wounded Israelites was founded in the will of Yahveh, who
chose to link his power to this symbol, that man might recog
nize in it a type of the reality in it prefigured, which healed
the world from the bite of death of the serpent in Eden. God
elects to teach man great truths by types and symbols, and the
brazen serpent is a striking type of the Crucifixion. In the
first place, it is a serpent that heals the bites of serpents. So in
the atonement, a man heals the deadly wound inflicted on his
posterity by the first man. And we believe that God had this
in mind in ordering the symbol to be made in form like a
serpent. Again, the serpent of brass had no virus, no bite, and
cured the bites of the other serpents; so in the atonement, a
sinless man cures the infection caused by sinful man. The
serpent of brass is elevated so that all may see it ; the Son of
Man is elevated on the cross. All who fixed their eyes on the
JOHN III. i 21 425
elevated serpent were healed; all who fix the eyes of their
faith on the Crucified are healed of their iniquities.
The full effect of man s salvation is here predicated of faith
in Christ, since it is the basis of the whole system of Christianity,
and, if possessed, will bring with it love and the keeping of the
commandments. Faith in Christ imports the acceptance of the
whole system of Christ, of receiving him and his teachings : it
is not a mere belief in his personality. If a man believe in
Christ, he will obey him when he says : "If thou wilt enter
into life, keep the Commandments. " The old heresy of
justification by faith alone is effete now, and needs no
refutation.
There was an obscurity in Christ s words; the Lord did
not wish that their full import should be known till the con
summation of Calvary. In the sixteenth verse is given the
great fundamental motive principle underlying God s dealings
with man. What a difference it manifests between the God of
the Christians, and the deities to which a pagan world paid
homage ! They were cold, capricious, cruel. Our God is a being
of love. It is not easy to comprehend in our small minds what
it is to be loved by God. The Redeemer is not content with the
mere affirmation of the existence of such love ; he illustrates its
degree. The greatness of the sacrifice which one makes for the
loved object demonstrates the intensity of the love. Now the
human love for an only son is great. What then must have
been the love of the Omnipotent Father for his only-begotten
Son ? And yet he gave him ; sent him to suffer and to die for
man. Mystery of mysteries ! God, surrounded by the mighty
seraphim and cherubim and the myriad hosts of Heaven, longs
for the love of man ; and sends forth not an angel, but his own
and only Son to save man ! The Hebrews were wont to hear of
God as the Almighty Yahveh, the God of armies, the God of
power, before whom the mountains were said to flee. But the
right conception of the love of God came only with Jesus.
And yet men go through life oblivious of this love. And of
this ingratitude, and this lack of corresponding love, the Creator
complains.
The following reflections may truthfully be made upon
this sentence. God s love is not only directed towards the
426 III. JOHN i 21
whole human race considered as one object of his regard;
but it is a particularizing love, in which each individual is the
object of the entire love, as well as all taken collectively. Such
a truth should move the deepest depths of a man s soul. If we
were given a vision of God, and he came to us surrounded by
myriads of angels, and descended from his throne, and came
and stood by us, and said : "I love thee, O my creature, I love
thee with an infinite love," earth would possess no more at
traction for us. It would arouse a hunger for God in the heart
that would never be appeased till the beatific vision filled its
longings. And yet he has done all this. He sent his Son from
his equal throne in Heaven to tell poor sinful man that God so
loved him that he, God s Son, was sent to die for him. No
man can doubt the intensity of a love which is proven by the
death of the Son of God himself. No being who loves is
content with any requital save love. And God asks of man his
love. The love which is rooted in passion, or which springs
from any carnal motive, is not always subject to the reason.
But our love of God is the appreciative love of the reason, and
is always in man s free disposal. God asks of man, then,
something that every man can give. In the absolute possibil
ity of things, man can do nothing better than love God. It is
the soul of man s higher life ; it is the well-spring of action of
all virtue. It was the guiding element in the lives of the
martyrs, virgins, and of all the saints. It lightens every toil,
takes away the ennui of life, nerves to heroic action, and
infuses into the soul a foretaste of Heaven, even in this life.
Christ s place in the plan of salvation is clearly brought
out in this and in the following verses. He is absolute, sole,
universal, efficacious Mediator. There is no possible way to
Heaven except through Christ. He asks the whole world to fix
its total trust in him, and promises as the effect eternal life.
How grand and sure and hopeful is man s destiny considered
in union with Christ? How unreasonable is that pessimism
and despair which have entered in many souls? These consider
ations should beget a sharp distinction between the tenor of
our thoughts and the drift of the thought of the w r orld. As
our destiny is Heaven, so should our thoughts be heavenly,
and the love of God should be reflected in all we think, and say
JOHN III. i -2i 427
and do. If God had asked something arduous, something
beyond our powers, we might repine, and say that the way to
Heaven were too hard. But he has asked that of which every
heart is capable, love. To love God, no great science is
necessary, no great achievements are demanded. The high and
the low, the learned and the ignorant, rich and poor, can love,
and love is all.
The sense of "to judge" in the seventeenth verse, and
throughout this passage, is to condemn, to pass sentence of
conviction on any one. The truth of this verse is plain and
trite to us. It was not in indignation at the sins of man that
the Omnipotent Father sent his Son to punish sinful man. His
first coming was totally merciful in character. In these words
he exhorts all mankind not to be deterred by the consciousness
of guilt, but to come to him for mercy. It is a great mystery
that the world is so oblivious of these truths. He, by whose
fiat the whole court of Heaven, the universe with its mighty
powers, rose into being, deigns to plead with man to accept the
proffered gift of salvation. Man may truthfully make within
himself this reflection : " The salvation of my soul is an event in
which God and I are interested. God has shown his interest
in such event by sending his Son to die forme. Is my interest
in the same event commensurate?" Two other truths result
from this passage. First, the Incarnation was wrought in con
sequence of man s fall, and would not otherwise have been
given. For it is clearly stated that the motive of Christ scorn
ing was to redeem and save the world . The unity of source of
salvation is placed in Christ.
It is not difficult to understand the import of the Saviour s
words in the eighteenth verse, if we give to the verb " to judge "
the sense of to condemn. The Saviour is giving the outlines of
his philosophy. He begins by the foundation, faith. This
faith embraces Christ and his teachings. He invites man to
base everything on him. Were ever greater words spoken to
man ? In the midst of man s travail and sorrow, in the midst of
unrest and affliction, through the religious uncertainty of our
times comes that deathless voice : " Who believeth in me is not
judged." Here a man may repose safely. Jesus takes us
not from the combat ; it is his will that we battle for Heaven.
428 JOHN III. i 21
But we find a sure source of hope and strength in the almighty
power of our divine Friend, who has fittingly testified of his
love for man. It is consoling, even in an earthly sense, to have
a friend that is powerful ; one on whom a man could securely
depend in danger and dire need. There is no one so powerful
as the Son of God, and no one who loves man as he loves. By
this does the love of God differ from all other loves, that he
can be trusted infinitely. All fear of change, of deception, is
absolutely excluded. It is all-sufficient, because it rests upon
infinite power, and the creature can reposefully rest upon that
sure foundation, and fear naught. But a man may say, the
love of Christ takes away no pain. He allows me to plod my
weary way through life, unrefreshed by any peace or happiness.
This is the ciy of a doubting heart. In mercy, he sacrifices
your present, which is transitory, to your future which is like
his own existence, eternal. It is the office of love to give the
greatest benefits to the loved object, and thus does Christ when
he sends chastening sorrow. It is an honor and a mark of
great regard that Christ calls one to be closely associated with
him in a participation of sufferings. Was not Paul loved by
God? And he was buffetted by the angel of Satan, a homeless
wanderer on earth, in peril and in pain, scourged, imprisoned,
and put to death. And is not Christ s own loved Mother called
the Mother of Sorrows ? He has testified by Calvary how much
he loves you ; be willing to testify by something the offering of
your love. There is one joy that the Saviour allows his friends ;
it is the supernatural joy of the spirit, the joy that is rooted in
the consciousness of well-doing. This joy lighted up the paths
of the saints, and turned to roses the thorns with which they
were strewn. Unlike earthly j oys it fears no change ; it is like
Heaven itself, immutable, everlasting.
The Redeemer places also here the effect of his rejection ;
it is condemnation. To show the intimate nexus between the
cause and effect he says : "Ipso facto that ye reject me, who
am the only begotten Son of God, the sole source of salvation,
ye are condemned." The condemnation of the world is not
directly willed by Christ; it is wrought by man s rejection of
him, by that divine faculty, free will. The words of Christ
contain a dilemma which proves that he condemns no man.
JOHN III. i 21 429
Either a man believes in Christ, or he does not. The man who
believes in him, arises by that act from the state of condem
nation. The man who does not believe, by that act remains
in his damnation, and not by any act of Christ. In the words
of Augustine: "The physician is sent to the sick. Those
who receive him are healed: those who receive him not die;
not on account of the physician, but by their own disease. "
These words should bind close the ties between Christ and us.
They should move a man to say with Paul: " I live now, not
I, but Christ liveth in me. He is the life of our life, and should
be the center of our thoughts.
In the nineteenth verse, the Saviour explains the cause of
his rejection by the many. He speaks metaphorically, and calls
himself the light, and calls sin darkness. It was not through
defect of the light that men found not salvation through Christ.
It was because their hearts were evil, and they were attached to
their sins. That which was true then is true to-clay. Men do
not come to Christ, because it would necessitate the sacrifice of
something to which they are attached. Sin is called moral
darkness, because it obscures the intellect of man; because it
blinds his soul to take the apparent for the real good ; because
it blunts the finer sensibilities of man, and makes him love the
low vile things of earth ; because it is opposed to the light of
God s truth, and loves to hide its shame in the dark. Men
closed their eyes to the teachings of Christ, because they
were contrary to their leanings, their desires, their tastes. This
is what the Saviour calls the judgment, that is the basis of the
condemnation of the world. It was the condemnation which
the love of God could not avert, even by the Crucifixion of his
Son ; for men rejected him and his merciful message.
In the closing clause of the nineteenth verse, the Saviour
gives a specific reason why men rejected the light. This is
more fully evolved in the twentieth verse. The words
contain in the first place a characterization of the falseness
of the Pharisees, but as they enunciate a general truth,
they are applicable to similar conditions of men s minds
in all times. The chief factor in the hatred of Christ, mani
fested by the priests and Pharisees, which finally compassed
his death, was his detection of their baseness and hypocrisy.
430 JOHN III. i 21
Christ explains the attitude of the Pharisees towards him
self as a deduction from a general truth verified in the mo
tives that govern man s action. The iniquitous man looks
with evil eye upon the man who reads his false heart. The
hatred thus engendered is intensified, if one discloses to the
world the secret stores of malice of that heart. Many a poor
man has been crushed by a powerful man s hatred, because of
knowledge of things which feared the light of day. A wicked
man, usurping a place in the esteem of the people which is not
his due, will direct his energies to remove any troublesome
agent who may have penetrated the mask which screened the
foul interior. This is verified in all the walks of life. The
servant is no longer " persona grata " to the master or mistress,
if possessed of knowledge w r hich endangers an assumed respect
ability. The employee is no longer considered useful to the
employer, whose dishonest methods he has discovered. It is
dangerous for the soldier to know aught of the general s
debauchery or drunkenness. And the truth is quite natural.
Such knowledge is a continual menace, and a continual rebuke.
All this is increased when a reformer sets to work to lay bare the
secret crimes that are preying on society. He is met in the
outset by the hate and opposition of those whom he would
reform; and if they can crush him, they will. Such attitude
manifests a high degree of malice; it is the characteristic of
men who have in large part lost the moral sense; of men
hardened in malice, who shrink from any man s gaze into the
heart. The biting of the sense of shame, which cannot be fully
extinguished, all turns to hatred of the man who opens up
their lives to the light. These were the causes that produced
that fierce hatred which could only be satisfied by blood. So
it has ever been with reformers, and so it will never be.
Virtue and truth are opposed to vice and falsity. The
man whose heart is right fears not any man s gaze.
The phrase, "to do the truth," has a wide import. The
peripatetic philosophers rightly placed that the true and the
good are convertible terms. The Saviour here enunciates one
of those comprehensive truths, that only one who had his
intimate knowledge of the human heart could express. This
truth is applicable to man in all his conditions ; it is the expres-
JOHN III. 22 36 431
sion of man s inner conscience. The man that does truth
is the man who endeavors to be what he seems. In him there
reigns not the falsity of a double life. The dictates of his
conscience are his law of action. He is not endeavoring to
cloak over with a fair exterior the corruption within . He fears
not that any man gaze into his heart, for he has naught to hide.
In saying that such a man comes to the light, that his works
may be made manifest, the Saviour means not that such a one
loves the approbation of men, but that he fears not the scrutiny
of his heart. He feels the consciousness of having done right;
he feels that right-minded absence of fear which characterizes
the righteous man. In saying that the works of such a one are
done in God, he simply says that they are virtuous. All virtue
is done according to God, which is expressed by the Semitic
idiom, in God. The Saviour is not speaking exclusively of
works wrought through divine grace, and meritorious "de
condigno" of Heaven ; but of virtue in its widest signification.
He spoke especially of that honesty of heart which is a charac
teristic note of good men. These doers of truth receive
Christ readily ; they received readily his legates who carried on
his work after him. They receive him readily to-day ; they are
the chosen souls whom he calls his own.
The Saviour has here placed in contrast the elements and
causes that repulsed him, and those that received him. The
truth is spoken for all time. Moral courage is always a
characteristic of good men. Not that they arrogate to them
selves perfection in the face of God, but they are willing
to submit their hearts to God, and be taught by him. The
false heart fears disclosure and hates a reformer, because it
wishes to continue and thrive in its iniquity ; the true-hearted
man welcomes investigation, and favors the reformers, be
cause he has the moral courage of a mind conscious of right.
JOHN III. 22-36.
22. After these things came 22. MSTOC Tauira ^XOev 6 Ir r
Jesus and his disciples into the sou? xal oi ^.aOrjTal OCUTOU e!<; tr^t
land of Judaea: and there he louSafav yYJv, x.al exec BceT?i5ev
tarried with them, and bap- ^LET CCUTWV y.al
tized.
43 2
JOHN III. 22 36
23. And John also was
baptizing in ^non near to
Salim, because there was much
water there; and they came
and were baptized.
24. For John was not yet
cast into prison.
25. Then there arose a
question between some of
John s disciples and a Jew
about purifying.
26. And they came unto
John , and said unto him : Rabbi ,
he that w_as with thee _beyond
the Jordan, to whom thou hast
borne witness, behold, the same
baptize_th, and all men come
to himT~
23.
T Hv 8s xat 6 Ia)dvvY)<;
iv ev Atvwv iyyuq TOU HaXsijA
OTI u SaTa xoXXa rjv Ixet: xat xape-
ytvovTO xat IBaxTtuovTO.
24. Ou xw yap Y;V
ctC TY]V
25. EylveTO o5v
cwv ^xaOr^wv Iwdvvou
Sat ou xspi y.aOapiajxou.
ex.
^a lou-
26. Kat i^XOov zpbc; TOV Iwdv-
VT]V y.al elxov OCUT(J>: Pa66e(, 8q TQV
fisia aou xspav TOU lopSdvou, w o>u
[jLs^apTUp^xaq, Y8s, OUTO? ^axTt^et
xcu xdvirec epy_ov:ac xpb? auT(5v.
27. John answered and said: 27,
IwdvvY)? xat
A man can receive nothing, slxev: Ou Suva-rat avOptoxoq Xa^6d-
except it be given him from V etv ou8ev, lav iu) fj SsSo^lvov auTw
Heaven.
28. Ye yourselves bear me
witness, that I said: I am not
the Christ, but, that I am sent
before him.
29. He that hath the bride
is the bridegroom: but the
friend of the bridegroom, who
standeth and heareth him, re-
joiceth greatly because of the
bridegroom s voice: this my
joy therefore is fulfilled.
30. He must increase, but
I must decrease.
31. He that cometh from
above is above all: he that is
of the earth is of the earth,
Ix TOU oupavou.
28. AuTol upLelq yi.oi
OTt elxov lyco: Oux sly.1 lyw 6 Xpia-
Trbq, dXX OTI dxecTaXij-evoq et^xt
exstvou.
29. ey^tov TYJV
suTtv: 6 8s 9tXoc TOJ vu^cpc ou, 6
ea-r^xcbq xat dxouwv auTOu, y.apa
yatpst Sta T7]v <po)vr]v TOU vu^i<ptou:
auTT^ ouv TQ x a p^ "0
30. ExsTvov Set au^dvstv, qxe
8s IXaTToOdOat.
31. ava>0v ipydjJLvo<; Ixdvw
aTt v: 6 >v dx TT]<; y^<; sx
sort xat ex TTJ? yf]? XaXst:
JOHN III. 22 36
433
and of the earth he speaketh:
he that cometh from Heaven is
above all.
32. What he hath seen and
heard, of that he testifieth;
and no man receiveth his testi
mony.
33. He that hath received
his testimony hath affixed his
seal that God is true.
34. For he whom God hath
sent speaketh the words of God:
for God giveth not the Spirit
by measure.
35. The Father loveth the
Son, and hath given all things
into his hand.
36. He that belie veth in
the Son hath eternal life; but
he that believeth not the Son
shall not see life; but the wrath
of God abideth on him.
o ex. TOJ oupavou e
ravTtov eorfv.
exavto
32. "0 iwpaxev xal Tjxouaev,
Toiho ^.apTUpel: xat TTJV
OCUTOU ouSel? Xajji6avet.
33. Xa6tov ainou 7Y)
ccv oil
SffTtV.
34. "Ov yap aTceaieiXev 6 0ebq,
T pr^o^a TOU @eou XaXsI: ou yap
EX ixe-rpou SIBoxriv TO Hveu^a.
35. zaT7]p dyaxa TOV uibv,
xat xav-ra BIBwxev ev ^ ^etpl auTOU.
36. ^taTU(ov st? ibv ulbv
jv aiwviov: 6 8e axetGwv i(j)
or/. o^eT
0soQ xlvt .
OCUTOV.
As the preceding events had takenjplace in Jerusalem, it has
perplexed many to know how the Christ could be said to come
thereafter into Judasa. The most probable solution is that this
coming into Judasa signified the going out from Jerusalem into
the surrounding country of Judaea. Judaea is here evidently
taken as the political division that had belonged to the southern
kingdom before the Babylonian captivity. It seems true that
the Lord moved about through this province with his disciples
in evangelical work.
A question of some moment arises from John s assertion
here that Jesus in this time was baptizing. The first point to
settle is, what was the character of this baptism? Was it the
preparatory baptism, like that of St. John? or was it the
sacramental baptism, as it exists to-day? Maldonatus, Corne
lius a Lapide, and many modern commentators hold the latter
opinion. They hold that it would be incongruous that Jesus
should administer a baptism that was only a type of the
(27) Gosp I
434 JOHN III. 2236
reality, when he himself the reality had already come. Both
the writers named consider the opposite opinion erroneous.
Notwithstanding their grave authority, we are forced to believe
that Christ had not yet established his sacramental baptism,
and that consequently this baptism was but a mere symbol of
the cleansing of the soul, which Jesus demanded as a preparation
for his reception. In support of this opinion we have St. Leo
the Great, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Theophylactus, Rupert
(fii35), and it is adopted by Pere Didon in his work "Jesus
Christ. " To build up this opinion, we first deny that this bap
tism here spoken of by John was administered personally by
Jesus. To be sure, he was the head of the movement, and it
was done under his authority, but the Evangelist John explains
himself more fully in the second verse of the IV. Chapter, where
he says that Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his dis
ciples. Hence there would be nothing incongruous in admitting
that his disciples were, at his bidding, propagating the work
of preparation, w r hich John had already begun, and was still
carrying on. But on the other hand, it would seem unfitting, if
the real sacrament of baptism had already been instituted, that
John should still continue its mere symbolic foreshadowing.
The fact that it was not the sacramental baptism would
sufficiently explain why the Lord administered it not with his
own hands. It would not be fitting that he in person should
administer a rite which was a mere symbol. Another strong
evidence that this baptism was not yet a sacrament is that the
world was not yet sufficiently taught the great truths of the
Christian dispensation to receive the sacrament. Baptism is the
seal of faith, and requires in the recipient a full faith in the
mysteries of the Christian dispensation. To be sure, on the
authority of the Church, we administer baptism to infants, on
the warrant of the faith of the Church ; but a man may not
baptize an adult who does not understand and believe the chief
mysteries of our faith. Now the men of that period as yet
knew but little of the Messiah and his truths. The faint light
of the dawn was breaking in some souls, but there was much
darkness yet to be dispelled before they could be said to believe
with a full faith in Jesus Christ. Even the Apostles themselves
as yet knew but little of their Master. They knew naught yet
JOHN III. 22- -36 435
of his Resurrection, of the founding of his Church, of the
vicarious Atonement, of grace, of the sacraments. Men in
that stage of development were not fit candidates for sacramen
tal baptism. The symbol endured yet ; for the fulness of the
reality could not yet supersede it. The baptism of John brought
men closer to Christ, so that he might prepare them for the
perfect baptism. Moreover, the signification and efficacy of
baptism is founded in the death and resurrection of Christ.
Paul declares : " Know ye not all that we who are baptized in
Christ Jesus, are baptized into his death? For we are buried
together with him by baptism unto death: that as Christ is
risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may
walk in newness of life." Rom. VI. 3-4. Now as the death
and resurrection of Christ are the great exemplar of our spirit
ual burial and resurrection, it was fitting that baptism be not
instituted till those realities which it signified could be taught
the people. Finally, it was promised by St. John, and verified
in the events of the life of the Church, that the baptism of
Christ should give the Holy Ghost. Now the Evangelist John
positively asserts that the Holy Ghost was only given after the
Lord s glorification. In the VII. Chapter, 39, he affirms : "the
Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."
Baptism demanded a belief in the risen Lord, and was accom
panied by the coming of the Holy Ghost into the soul which
event was subsequent to the Ascension of the Lord. We
believe, therefore, that the baptism of Christ was instituted
during those forty days that Christ spent on earth after his
resurrection. We believe that the Apostles received the com
mission to administer it, and the form to be employed in the
solemn words of Christ: "Going forth therefore teach ye all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "Matt. XXVIII. 19. It seems
that they did not execute this commission till they had received
the confirming power of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. It is
vain to inquire of the form used by the disciples in the first
baptism. As it was not a sacrament, they may not have used
any form. Certain it is that the form of our baptism was not
given till after the resurrection, as Matthew records. yEnon
seems to have been the Aramic plural fiyj? from the Hebrew
436 JOHN III. 22 36
root r*y, a fount, and the name was derived from the copious
springs. The Syriac versions consider it a compound from r>y
and the apocopated n^V a. dove, meaning the fount of the dove.
T
At all events, the name was derived from the presence of water
there, and as the baptism of John was by immersion, it was for
this reason chosen as the center of his ministry.
The exact site of this place cannot be fixed with certainty.
To aid in its designation, John adds that it was close to the
larger place Salim. According to Jerome both these places
were down near the Jordan, not far from Bethsan, which was,
after its invasion by the Scythians, called Scythopolis. He
affirms that Salim was afterward called Salumnias. Many
archaeologists locate ^non in the trans- Jordanic region.
To reconcile this statement of John with his previous
statement, I. 28, that John was baptizing in Bethania, across
the Jordan, we have only to suppose that John had moved his
base of operations. For it is evident from this account that he
made use not of the Jordan in this baptism, as he had done in
Bethania, but of the copious waters of the springs of ^non.
The twenty-fourth verse is thrown in to show that John
has filled out the historical lacuna in the life of the Baptist, as
it appears in the other three synoptic writers. They place the
imprisonment of John Baptist immediately following the bap
tism of Christ, and his withdrawal into the desert ; whereas
from John we know that all during the Lord s sojourn in
Nazareth and Capharnaum, and during his first labors in
Judaea, after the expulsion of the merchants and money
changers from the temple, John was continuing his work down
in the valley of the Jordan.
In the twenty-fifth verse, the best Greek codices have the
singular /iera louScuou, where the Vulgate has the plural. The
singular seems to be the true reading, but the discrepancy is of
no practical importance. The real nature of the event seems to
have been, that a certain Jew, who had received the baptism of
the disciples of Jesus, or who certainly had heard of it, moved
the question of its greater excellence against the disciples of
John. This aroused a certain spirit of rivalry in them, and they
upheld the honor of their chief. There was much of human
JOHN III. 22 36 437
weakness in this action of the disciples of John. Human
weakness craves human honor ; and their pride was touched by
the ascendancy that Christ was gaining over their school.
They would wish to be disciples of a man whom all Israel
recognized as a great teacher; they sought that the honor of
their master should be reflected upon them. Their religion
was merely superficial, and almost solely regarded the earthly
phase of religious movements. They come and lay the
whole question before the Baptist. It is evident from the way
that they speak of Christ, that they had not realized or
acknowledged his real character. The great defect of Israel
seems to have been that they were bound to the present order
of things. They seemed incapable of raising their eyes to
Heaven. But this is the defect of humanity in all times, the
remoteness of the supernatural, and the lack of response to its
movings in the human soul. John had rendered a testimony to
Jesus in his baptism that left no doubt that he was the being
for whom he was preparing. He had repeatedly cried out that
Jesus was the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the grand central
figure toward which John s preparation tended ; and still, as the
movement of John merged itself into that of Christ, these stolid
creatures took it ill that the people flocked to Christ. We find
it hard to explain such slowness to believe in the disciples of
John, and yet a greater absurdity is verified in our days. After
centuries of Christ s teachings, we find that men, yea the greater
number of men have small faith in Christ. The explanation
lies in the natural difficulty that the soul bound up in flesh and
blood finds in its course heavenward.
In their interview with their master, the disciples of John
locate Bethania, where the events connected with Christ s
baptism took place, in the trans-Jordanic region. Hence ^Enon,
where John was then baptizing, must have been in the cis-
Jordanic region. It is well for those who travel through the
Holy Land to be furnished with this knowledge, to prevent
deception by those who show a convenient place on the western
bank of the Jordan as the place of the baptism of Christ.
In his answers, the Baptist evinces the very opposite tenor
of thought from that which actuated his disciples. He declares
that his glory is only a reflected glory, having its essential
438 JOHN III. 2236
source in Heaven. He mildly and skilfully strikes at the root
of their false pride. Their contention arose from the fact that,
they separated John s great religious movement from its source.
They concentrated their thoughts on the glory of the creature,
and were attracted to him somewhat by the participation of his
earthly fame. John renounces this falsely attributed glory, and
establishes the eternal harmony between the First Cause and
second agents. At the same time, John intends the application
of this truth to Jesus. Heaven and Jesus are one and the same
thing. For he was God, and Heaven in this place means God,
the center and cause of Heaven. In fact, full oft in Scriptural
language, by Heaven is signified the Trinity, especially con
sidered in its beneficent relations to man. John thus acknowl
edges that all that greatness which they saw in him had come
to him from Jesus himself. It was as though he would say :
" Envy not nor oppose the ascendency of him of whom ye
speak. Know that all that I am, all that I have done, is
given me by him. Rejoice in his glory, for on him do I, and
all men depend for all that we receive." To oppose the
ascendency of Jesus would be as though the moon would envy
the sun for shining, whence itself receives the light. It is a
beautiful religious thought to recognize everything as coming
from God. Such a thought is pleasing to God, because it is
true, and because it is an exercise of gratitude, one of the
noblest of virtues. If men always recognized this truth, there
would be no pride, no envy, no contention. A man thus minded
is nobly careless of the world s appreciation of his worth and
the honors of men. The consciousness that he is what he is
before God is all-sufficient.
John disclaims the responsibility for the error of his
disciples. He shows them plainly that their present attitude
arose from a false conception of what he himself was. He
recalls to their minds his solemn testimony to the Divinity of
Jesus in the trans-Jordanic region. Every word of John more
and more establishes the absurdity of their contention. He
shows them that his movement in which they take such interest
logically led to Christ, since John himself was only a herald
sent to prepare for his coming. His ow r n work would be
abortive, did it not lead to Christ. To explain the difficulty
JOHN III. 22 36 439
that John found in enlisting men under the leadership of Christ,
we must remember that to follow Christ, even while he was on
earth, required faith and spirituality, two rare gifts of the soul.
John Baptist refined and purified men, but he left them on
earth ; Christ lifted men into Heaven, and therefore encount
ered the clinging grasp of mortals on this world of ours. The
spirituality of man s nature expands and rises only by much
thought and toil and combat with the flesh, and Christ appeals
only to spiritual natures.
John illustrates his place in the new order of things, which
had been inaugurated, by appealing to a well-known social
usage of that people. Courtship was not carried on among
nations of antiquity as with us. The groom was represented in
this important affair by a confidential friend whom Greeks
term the Trapavv^ios. Selden, Lightfoot, and Schoetgen
discourse at length on what the Rabbis have written in the
Talmud concerning the functions of the Trapavvp&os. Much of
this seems to us rabbinic fable, immoral, and against the
native, inborn sense of modesty in man. We can never believe
that St. John alludes to any customs as indecent as those with
which the Talmudists invest the contract and consummation of
marriage. Rejecting then these extravagant statements, we
can safely say that the Trapavvufyw sought out the bride for the
groom, attended to the settlement of the dowry, watched over
her personal safety in conducting her to the bridegroom, and
assumed the responsibility of the wedding banquet. John uses
a metaphor drawn from this custom to show what were his
relations to Christ. Christ is the bridegroom, and the chosen
people of the New Law, the Church, is the bride. John is the
Trapavv/jifaos, who was sent before to bring the bride to her
spouse. Now it is evident that the faithful Trapavvpfaos,
although he appears in the foreground, and speaks with
authority, acts only as a delegate. The real actor is the
bridegroom, who comes upon the scene at the marriage festivity,
and claims as his own the bride. All the honor and all the joy
of the jrapavv/j.faos is in being allowed to participate with the
bridegroom. How absurd it would be for the irapavv^ios to
murmur, because the bridegroom was graciously received by
the bride, when this was the object of his labors? John, at the
440 JOHN III. 22 36
same time, gives us the state of his own feelings. The
ascendency of Christ, far from engendering a feeling of envy,
filled his great heart with joy, the fulness of joy. He wished
for nothing else. He recognized that his true greatness
consisted not in usurping the honor of his divine Master, but in
being allowed to participate in his essential glory, to know that
he had been faithful as the trusted friend of the bridegroom.
Some strive to ascertain what John means by the voice of the
bridegroom, heard by the Trapavv/jifaos , in its application to
Christ. This is vain. In comparisons, the individual details
must not be dwelt upon. He simply means to say that as the
Trapavvfjifaos feels his heart expand at the sound of the voice of
the loved friend expressing his joy, so his own magnanimous
soul thrilled with mighty joy at the very account that had
caused the disciples jealous discomfort. John was psycholo
gist enough to know that the voice of a being whom we love fills
our heart with joy; he appeals to this fact of human con
sciousness to illustrate the joyful emotions which Jesus favor
with the people caused him.
The thirtieth verse contains a prophecy, and expresses
John s complete satisfaction at the ascendency of the Messiah.
The movement in which he had been the central figure was to
merge itself and be absorbed in the perfect reality of which it
had been an antecedent foreshadowing. He knew what Christ
was, and what he himself was. The aurora which sheds over
the earth the first gray light of dawn is absorbed and disappears
in the full light of the sun. It is not destroyed, nor rudely
thrust aside, but merges itself into that source, through partici-
tation of which it was light, and in which it has existence. And
so with the Baptist. He had come to tell the world that the
light was coming, and when it came, he gradually receded from
the scene, leaving there one who never recedes thence, who re
mains there forever, the world s Mediator with God, the center
of the world s hopes, sole source of redemption and of life. It
is evident that the predicating of decrease in John, and increase
in Christ, refers to their characters as actors in the drama of
salvation. What was more fitting than that the herald should
leave the scene, when the chief actor appeared thereon ? John
saw with prophetic vision the whole grand future of Christianity
JOHN III. 2236 44I
around its center, Christ. He saw it, and was glad. If the
Baptist looked only at the earthly phase of his life, there might
have been some motive of envy in the growing fame of Christ.
But he was a spiritual man. He knew that this is not the
place for the reward of virtue, that God glorifies not here his
saints. His heart bounded with joy to think that he was to
fade from earth through chains and death, to be a herald of the
Redeemer s host of martyrs in Heaven, and to find there man s
true glory, the participation in the Summum Bonum. As he
recognized fully the Divinity of the Saviour, the only way in
which he could have felt envy at Christ s ascendency over him
would be by a pride which would assail the very nature of God
himself. Such pride would be Satanic, and could not be felt
by such a perfect man as John the Baptist. He recognized that
man can be naught but an essentially dependent being, and that
man s true glory consists in the participation of God ; and its
augmentation, in simply coming closer to God and receiving
more of his influence.
The disciples of John had tacitly compared Christ and
their master, and felt envy that their master s influence was
waning before Christ. John here tells them the real propor
tion between Christ and himself. It is as Heaven is to earth.
The language of John is not a hyperbole ; it is the sober truth.
He considered himself as a mere man, abstracting from any
divine influence ; and, thus considering, he says truly that he
is a mere creature of earth. The limit of man s cognition, if
kept to himself, would be restricted to this natural order of
things. It is true that by the light of reason man could come
to a certain partial knowledge of the First Cause ; but the deep
insight into Heaven that Christ has given us would not be
attainable. For this reason John says that he who is of the
earth speaks of the earth. John is speaking of himself here,
and pointing to the weakness of man considered as man, when
compared to Christ the Son of God. The world in which man
moves, and of which he has cognition, is this little world of
ours ; the world in which Christ moves, and whence he came,
is Heaven. From this, John wishes to deduce the infinitely
greater scope of Christ s knowledge and the excellence of his
nature. Man in himself considered is a little being, and the
442 JOHN III. 22 36
more he shrinks into himself in selfish egotism, the smaller
he becomes. Man s greatness consists in admitting the deific
influence, which is wrought here by grace; in Heaven, by the
beatific vision. This was a thought that could be seized
even by the rude listeners of John. Man is influenced by his
origin and environment; and the lower these, the lower the
character of the man s thoughts. Our origin is earth, our
environment is earth; hence our thoughts are of this earth.
But Christ s origin is in Heaven, his environment is Heaven;
and hence what an absurdity that the disciples of John
should dispute with him for the ascendency? It was a power
ful way to assert Christ s superiority from the fact that he
came forth from the bosom of his Eternal God, while John was
a creature of the earth. John s words are especially applicable
to what he himself would be, if he looked only on his earthly
career as they did; for John s words describe man as he is
when in contrast with God. It is valuable to recognize the
superiority of Heaven over earth. It is the being satisfied
with the present order of things that blunt s man s aspirations,
and destroys supernatural ambition.
The sense of the thirty-second verse differs not from the
declaration of Christ himself, as it appears in the eleventh verse.
Our cognition of Heaven is dim, but Christ came to earth with
the fulness of Heaven s knowledge. He had been eye-witness,
and ear-witness of all the things of God. And he came to
earth to impart that portion of this knowledge to man which
it was good for man to know. He attested the genuineness
of his mission by the almighty power of God himself ; and yet
men turned aw r ay from him. The incredulity here depicted
is especially the incredulity of Israel. The motive that was
attracting multitudes to Christ at this time was not faith. It
was a sort of curiosity, a love to see some of his miracles.
There were a few that were right minded, and in whom faith
was growing, but the bulk of Israel was incredulous, and
remained incredulous, and these justified John s remark.
The meaning of ea-^pdyiaev in the thirty-third verse is to at
test by a seal. It is a strong metaphor to declare that to re
ceive the testimony of Christ is equivalent to receive the testi
mony of God. That which a man attests bv his seal has his full
JOHN III. 22 36 443
approbation. John says in substance: "Christ has brought
from Heaven a certain message to man. The formal motive
for the credibility of that message is the veracity of God.
Man s faith in this message is asked on this condition: "If
thou believest in the truthfulness of God, accept this testi
mony. " And man by receiving it, attests in a solemn way
that he does believe in God. John was dealing with people
who trusted in the veracity of the one true God. He starts
with this conceded truth to tell them that to receive the testi
mony of Christ was the best and most solemn way to profess
belief in the veracity of God. The verse continues the same
thought.
The Jews saw the man Jesus, in outward seeming a
member of our common humanity. It was not a little thing
to bring them to realize that this man was the mighty Yahveh
whose face no man could see and live. By many and various
presentations of this truth, Christ and the other teachers of
the New Law strove to bring Israel to accept it. Every word,
every new presentation of the great truth, brought a new
conception of Christ into men s minds, or confirmed their
preceding knowledge. This is what John is laboring to es
tablish here. If they will only believe Jesus words, all will
be accomplished; and to move them to this, he tells them
that the words that he speaks are the words of God himself.
These words, he says, are not those of a mere man, subject
to man s limitations, but of God s own Son, sent from Heaven
to speak the words of the Trinity.
These words may seem commonplace to us. We have
never known what it was to think of God without Christ.
With the first conceptions of God, came to us the knowledge
of the Trinity, and the idea of the Redeemer. But in those
clays the conception was new to the Jews. It required much
argument, and much insistence to unfold the Christ of pro
phecy, and present him in his clear, true character to their
minds. The last clause of this verse simply means that Christ
has not a limited participation of the divine nature. It is
evident from the context that the proposition applies only
to Christ . To draw them closer to Christ, he tells them what
relation Christ bears to the Eternal Father. Christ is not a
444 JOHN III. 22 36
mere legate having delegated powers, to speak in the name of
God, as an inferior delivering an authentic message. Christ
comes with the plenitude of the divine nature, and, conse
quently the plenitude of power. They had never conceived
such a grand conception of the Messiah. By repetitions and
all the force of human speech, the legates of God in the New
Law have striven to bring the world to a realization of the
equality of Christ with his Father.
By degrees John elevates the glory of the Messiah. The
words of the thirty-fifth verse relate to Christ as man. Not only
is he equal to God the Father, as is declared in the preceding
verse, but the Father has given into his hands as man the ab
solute government of the universe. He is not describing solely
the love existing between the Father and his co-equal Son in the
Trinity, but the relations that exist between God and the man
Jesus, whom they saw living among them. He represents it in
a concrete way that all might understand it. A loving father
having an only and well -beloved son places him at the head of
all his affairs. God has bound the world to himself through
the Messiah. He will only deal with the world through its
Redeemer. No man may set aside Christ, and hope to see God.
The Church has recognized this truth, and addresses all her
supplications to God through Christ. It is of great importance
for man to know what Christ s place is in the economy of
salvation; to know how absolutely man is dependent on him
for everything.
The thirty- fifth verse set forth Jesus relations to the Eter
nal Father ; the thirty-sixth verse establishes what ought to be
our relations to the Christ. As he is the absolute and sole Gov
ernor of the universe in all things natural and spiritual, it fol
lows that our salvation must absolutely depend on him. There
was in the Jewish mind this thought : "We hold fast to Yahveh,
but this son of the artisan of Nazareth we can not receive. "
John directly attacks this. God has given the universe to
Jesus ; he stands between God and man. In him, and him alone,
is there hope of life. This conception of the Saviour as sole
mediator between God and man should be ever in our minds.
Our whole lives should be bound up in him. Not as a far-off
historical personage should he inhabit our thoughts, but as a
MATT. IV. 12; MARK I. 14 15. 445
near, personal friend. The realization that on our relations
with him depends the entire destiny of our being should bring
him near to us in everything. Nothing should be thought of so
often ; no one appealed to so often. Our lives should crystallize
around him, and take into themselves all of his divine character
that is possible. He should be the center of everything. In
fact, it should be the one great thing of Christian life to repro
duce in one s self Christ. A mere thoughtless faith contents
not Christ. Many think they have faith because they deny no
dogma. But often the fact is that they do not think enough of
such matters to formulate a denial. This is mere lifeless form
alism. Christ demands a central place in man s thoughts, cor
responding to the place that is his in virtue of the Redemption
of the world. His influence must permeate the whole being
of man, absorb all his desires, all his love, all his hopes. This
is what Paul calls putting on Jesus Christ.
There is no conception of Heaven that can so forcibly
move man as that of eternal life. Man loves life. We cling to
life; we shrink from its opposite. This is a favorite idea of
St. John, immortality, endless life. A world of meaning is
embodied in the term eternal life. Two grand concepts are
united, eternity and life. How man loves even this wretched
mortal life, with its diseases, its sorrows, its continual decay,
its hardships ? What would not man do, if by so doing he could
prolong forever this earthly existence? Assure man of health,
wealth ; banish pain, disease, and death ; and give him the
possession of some being whom he loves, and he would undergo
therefor a hundred years on the rack. And Christ assures man,
on the authority of the truth of God, of endless life, and the
possession of things which the mind of man can not conceive,
and man remains cold and unmoved. The secret is that Heaven
can only be seen by faith, and can only be loved by the
spiritual element in man, and both are often weak in these evil
days.
MATT. IV. 12. MARK. I. 14-15.
12. Axouaaq Se OTI 6 IwavvY];; 14. Kat ^.STCC ib TCapaBo6i}va .
-peS66r] dve/wpTjcsv ziq TT)V PaXt- TOV IwavvrjV, TjXOev 6 Irjaou? dq TTJV
Aafav. FaXcXafccv, y.TQpusawv TO euayyeXtov
TOU SOU,
446 MATT. IV. 12; MARK I. 14 15; LUKE III. 19-20
15. Ka! Xlytov,
6 xatpbq xa! YJYycxev V) ^aaiXeca
@ou: jJLTavoetT, xa!
EV T
12. Now when Jesus had
heard that John was delivered
up, he withdrew into Galilee;
14- Now after that John
was delivered up, Jesus came
into Galilee, preaching the Gos
pel of the kingdom of God,
15. And saying: The time
is fulfilled, and the kingdom
of God is at hand: repent ye,
and believe in the Gospel.
LUKE. III. 19-20.
19. 81 Hp(oBY]q 6
xep
TOU d8sX-
<j>ou auToO, xa! xsp! xdvTO.>v o>v sxoc-
qjEV xovfjpwv 6 Hpw8T]<;,
20. IIpoae0Y)xev xal TOUTO ex!
xauiv, xotTExXetaEV -rbv IwavviQv sv
19. But Herod the tetrarch,
being reproved by him for
Herodias his brother s wife, and
for all the evil things which
Herod had done,
20. Added yet this above
all, that he shut up John in
prison.
In the nineteenth verse of Luke, we find the name of
Herod Antipas brother, " <&i\iTnrov \ in Codices A, C, K, X.
II, et al. This reading is also followed by the Syriac versions,
by the Coptic and Ethiopian versions, and by the Diatessaron
of Tatian. It was most certainly interpolated into the text
of Luke from Matt. XIV. 3 and Mark VI. 7.
The full account of Herod s dealings with John will be
recounted in a later chapter. We deal here only with the fact
of Herodias as narrated by Luke. Herodias was the grand
daughter of Herod the Great, being the daughter of Aristo-
bulus his son by Mariamne. This Aristobulus was strangled
at the command of his father for having conspired against him .
According to Flavius Josephus [Antiq. XVIII. i, i,] this
Herodias was espoused to her uncle, Herod the Great s son
by Mariamne, and this son was also called Herod. In Chap,
XVIII. V. i, Josephus describes how Herod Antipas fell in
love with Herodias at Rome, where she was living with her
MATT. IV. 12; MARK I. 14 15; LUKE III. 19 20 447
husband. He proposed marriage to her, and was accepted
on condition that he should divorce Aretas daughter, his pres
ent wife. This was done, and she became Antipas wife. Now
a seeming discrepancy exists between Josephus and Mark, who
in VI. 17, declares that Herodias was the wife of Philip. That
her husband could not have been Philip the tetrarch, results
from the consideration that the tetrarch was the son of Cleo
patra of Jerusalem, while, as we have before stated. Herod,
her husband s mother was Mariamne the daughter of Simon
the high priest. This prevents the hypothesis that Philip the
tetrarch may have borne the name of Herod also, and be under
the latter name mentioned by Josephus as Herodias husband.
The only reasonable explanation of this passage is that this
Herod, son of Mariamne the daughter of Simon, the high priest,
was also called Philip, and is under that name mentioned by
Mark. Herod seems to have been a generic name for Herod
the Great s sons, which was coupled with some other distinctive
appellation. On account of the complicity of Mariamne, this
Herod s mother, in a plot to take off Herod the Great, Herod
her son, whom we shall now designate Herod Philip, was
blotted out of his father s testament. [Josephus War. I.
XXX. 7 .] He comes not into prominence in the subsequent
history of the Herodian gens. It is easy to see how the beauti
ful, fiery, imperious Herodias readily consented to leave her
obscure, disinherited lord to become the bride of the second
tetrarch in Syria. She held the laws of the Jews in contempt,
and was envious and ambitious. Josephus bears witness to her
incestuous adultery with Herod Antipas. Thus he speaks of
her in Antiq. XVIII. 5-4: "But Herodias was married to
Herod (Philip) the son of Herod the Great, who was born of
Mariamne, the daughter of Simon, the high priest, who
(Herodias) had a daughter Salome ; after whose birth, Herodias
took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and
divorced herself from her husband while he was yet alive, and
was married to Herod (Antipas) her husband s brother by
the father s side, who was tetrarch of Galilee." In Antiq.
XVIII. 7, Josephus relates that her ambition impelled her to
induce Antipas to come to Rome, whither she came with him,
to oppose the growing ascendency of Agrippa her brother.
448 MATT. IV. 12: MARK i. 14 15; LUKE III. 19 20
Agrippa sent messengers and presents to Rome at the same time,
and Caligula favored the cause of Agrippa. He took away the
government from Antipas, and gave it to Agrippa. He also
deprived both Herod and Herodias of their wealth, and
banished them to Lyon in Gaul.
The marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias is forbidden
in Leviticus XVIII. 16: "Thou shalt not uncover the
nakedness of thy brother s wife, for it is the nakedness of thy
brother." That is to say, that as the man and wife are one
flesh, union with a brother s wife was in a certain manner
incest with the brother himself. Again in the twentieth chap
ter, twenty-first verse, of Leviticus the law is reiterated: " He
that marrieth his brother s wife doth an unlawful thing; he
hath uncovered his brother s nakedness; they shall be child
less." This is not opposed to the Levirate law; for in the ap
plication of that law, two conditions were to be verified.
First and chiefly, the brother must be dead, by which the
woman is free, and secondly, she must be without children
from her first husband. Now both these conditions were want
ing in the present incestuous union. Herod Philip was living,
and Herodias had a child by him. Of course, the chief con
dition making it lawful was the death of the first brother;
hence on this head the Baptist reprehended Antipas.
Luke also makes mention of many other evil things on
account of which John rebuked the tetrarch. In character he
seems to have heen indolent and lustful. Our Lord calls him a
fox. Such a man could not be shielded by his power and
wealth from the Baptist. John regarded naught but the
qualities of the souls of men. The vain pomp and glory of
the world had neither power to enlist his seeking, turn to nor
aside his just rebuke. Neither could fear stop his mouth, when
evil was to be attacked. It is only the just man that can be
valiant. As the spiritual element in John developed, and
gained the ascendency over the law of the members, he grew
in fortitude and that noble disregard for his own advantages or
personal safety. The closer the soul approaches to God, the
more it will hate evil and despise the acts by which evil cloaks
itself. John was moved by a noble indignation to see this
wicked man intrenched in his evil power, outraging the most
LUKE IV. 14; JOHN IV. i 3 449
essential laws of God, and setting an example of scandal to all
his subjects. Too oft the possession of power makes a man
oblivious that he himself is subject to a higher power. But for
John the declaration of Holy Writ was a reality: "For to
him that is little, mercy is granted; but the mighty shall be
mightily tormented. For God will not accept any man s
person; neither will he stand in awe of any man s greatness;
for he hath made the little and the great, and he hath equally
care for all. But a greater punishment is ready for the more
mighty." Wisdom VI. 7-9. John spoke in the name and in
the spirit of this same God, and fitly represented God. An
exemplary deduction from this passage in our own lives would
be to dare to do right. Let not the fear of man, nor the desire
of human favor, nor the love of personal advantage prevent
us from doing our whole duty. A man who calculates in
the fulfilment of duty, whether it is going to result in his own
private advantage, becomes a mere mercenary; and a mercen
ary can never accomplish anything great. Virtue should not
expect its reward here ; it is too great for earthly compensation.
John s action also illustrates with what a power religion and
justice invest the soul of man. Verily, nothing is great but
God and the God-like.
We cannot say where John met Herod. Some believe that
the rebuke was not administered to Herod personally, but only
spoken of him to the people. It seems much more probable
that the Baptist met him face to face, being perhaps summoned
to his palace on account of his great fame. It seems probable
also that coupled with the anger at his rebuke was the fear lest
John should alienate the people from him, which moved Herod
to imprison him.
LUKE IV. 14. JOHN IV. 13.
14. Kat uxeuTpe^ev 6 Ir,aou<; i. Q? ouv Ivyw 6 Kupto? STC
ev Tfl Buva^xei TOU Hveu^aTOs efq YJy.ouaav ot <api<7cuoc, OTC
TTJV FaXiXaiav: xat <PTQ^T] lf)X0ev xXstovaq [xa0T]Ta<; -rcotet xcd
xa0 %\t}q TYjq xept^copou xepl OEUTOU. ^
2. (KatTOtye If]<jou<; a tab? oux.
, aXV 01 ^aGr^al aikou),
(28) Gosp. I.
450 LUKE IV. 14; JOHN IV. i 3
3. Afijxev TTJV louSafav xal
axfjXOsv xaXtv si? TYJV FaXtXafav.
14. And Jesus returned in i. When therefore the Lord
the power of the Spirit into knew how the Pharisees had
Galilee: and there went out a heard that Jesus was making
fame of him through all the and baptizing more disciples
region round about. than John,
2. (Though Jesus himself
baptized not, but his disciples),
3. He left Judaea, and de
parted again into Galilee.
In the events succeeding the temptation, just enough is
given by the synoptists to join events of greater prominence
together; the Evangelist John fills in the lacunae. Luke
informs us that the return of Jesus to Galilee was moved by the
Spirit. It shows us that the whole life of Jesus was shaped and
guided by the indwelling Holy Ghost, whose inspirations Jesus
always obeyed. And this was to teach man the part that the
Spirit of God should play in human life. How few are those
who recognize the Spirit of God as a real directing agency in
their lives ? In most lives, the Holy Spirit would have to work
a miracle to make himself heard, and even then, he would often
receive a doubtful service.
Many writers believe that at the time that Jesus made this
northward journey, John Baptist was already thrown into
prison. This seems indeed improbable, and as it affects the
Lord s motive of going, we shall state what seems the order of
events. As soon as the Lord became aware of the reports of
the Pharisees, he withdrew from Judaea, going northward
through Samaria. He remained two days in Samaria; hence
at his arrival in Galilee, the Baptist had been imprisoned. The
reasons for this line of conduct are evident, The Pharisees
were stirring up dissension between his followers and those of
the Baptist. Jesus presence in Judaea augmented this discord ;
for the wily hypocrites made use of his growing fame to stir up
envy among the disciples of John. Thus a strife was stirred up
in the operations of two men who were of one mind, and intent
on one great object. The Pharisaic element was most powerful
LUKE IV. 14; JOHN IV. i 3 451
in Jerusalem. The center of religious worship had attracted
them thither ; hence their opposition was most powerful in and
about Jerusalem; and as they well nigh neutralized his efforts,
the Lord deemed it more useful to tra 
