Movatterモバイル変換

Luke 1:27-38
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's namewas Mary…

of the.

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Job 14:4
Who can bring a cleanthing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 15:14
Whatis man, that he should be clean? andhe which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

His mother Mary was pledged in marriage to Joseph:
Mary's betrothal to Joseph was a formal engagement, legally binding in Jewish culture, akin to marriage but without cohabitation. This period was significant in Jewish customs, often lasting about a year, during which the couple was considered husband and wife, though they did not live together. Joseph, a descendant of David, connects Jesus to the royal lineage, fulfilling prophecies like2 Samuel 7:12-16.

but before they came together:
This phrase indicates that Mary and Joseph had not yet consummated their marriage, highlighting the miraculous nature of Jesus' conception. The emphasis on their abstinence underscores the divine intervention in Jesus' birth, maintaining Mary's virginity as prophesied inIsaiah 7:14.

she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit:
Mary's pregnancy by the Holy Spirit signifies the miraculous and divine origin of Jesus, affirming His identity as the Son of God. This conception fulfills the prophecy of a virgin birth and establishes Jesus' dual nature as fully God and fully man. The Holy Spirit's role in the conception underscores the Trinitarian involvement in the incarnation, a foundational doctrine in Christian theology.

• Matthew opens the account by anchoring what follows in real history, not legend.

• The phrase is a bridge from the genealogy (Matthew 1:1–17), showing that the promised Messiah now steps onto the stage.

•John 1:14 affirms the same truth: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

•Galatians 4:4 echoes the timing—“When the fullness of time had come, God sent His Son.”

• “Pledged” describes a legally binding betrothal, stronger than modern engagement; breaking it required a formal divorce (Matthew 1:19).

•Luke 1:27 identifies Mary as “a virgin pledged to a man named Joseph.”

• Joseph, “a descendant of David” (Matthew 1:20; cf.2 Samuel 7:12–16), gives Jesus legal right to David’s throne.

• God’s choice of humble, godly parents highlights His grace—seeLuke 1:46–55 for Mary’s heart of worship.

• Scripture stresses that Mary and Joseph had not consummated the marriage.

•Hebrews 13:4 upholds marital purity, underscoring the significance of this detail.

• This timing removes any doubt: Jesus’ conception is divine, not human.

• Mary’s pregnancy became evident, placing her in a vulnerable position socially and legally (Deuteronomy 22:23–24).

•Luke 1:39–45 narrates Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, where the unborn John leaped for joy—affirming the child’s divine origin.

• God often works in ways that appear impossible, reminding us He specializes in the miraculous (Genesis 18:14).

• This line reveals the core miracle: Jesus was conceived supernaturally.

•Luke 1:34–35 records the angel’s words: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you… so the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God.”

•Isaiah 7:14 foretold, “Behold, the virgin will conceive and bear a son.”

• The Spirit’s role safeguards both Jesus’ deity and His sinless humanity (2 Corinthians 5:21;John 3:6).

Matthew 1:18 sets the stage for Jesus’ birth by emphasizing five key truths: the historical reality of His arrival, the integrity of Mary and Joseph’s betrothal, the untouched purity of their relationship, the evident yet surprising pregnancy, and the Holy Spirit’s direct involvement. Together these elements affirm that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, the promised Messiah entering history exactly as foretold.

(1) whetherΠνεῦμα Ἅγιον is here used in a strictly Christian or in a pre-Christian sense? and

(2) if the latter, what was this pre-Christian sense? As to (1), it may be argued that the evangelist himself, writing long after Pentecost, and recording sayings taught among Christians only alter Pentecost, would naturally wish his words to be understood in a Christian sense; and hence thatΠνεῦμα Ἅγιον here has at least that comparatively developed doctrine of the Personality of the Holy Ghost which we find indicated in the New Testament;e.g.Matthew 28:19;2 Corinthians 13:13;John 14-16. It may, however, be justly replied that the words are in themselves rather a record of the feelings of Joseph and Mary about the Incarnation, and are merely a translation of the phraseRuah-hakodesh (or its Aramaic equivalent,Ruah Kudsha) , which they themselves used; and that hence its true meaning here must be rather sought in the meaning of the Semitic phrase in pre-Christian times. In other words,ΠνεῦμαἍγιον here means neither more nor less thanRuah-hakodesh meant on the lips of a godly and instructed Jew before the teaching of Christ, and especially before Pentecost.

(2) What was this pre-Christian sense? What did Ruah-hakodesh mean? To answer this fully would be to compile a treatise on one of the most difficult and disputed points of Old Testament and early Jewish theology. But a cursory comparison of passages in the Old Testament and the pre-Christian writings seems to show that, though there are many places which quite fall in with the Trinitarian view, and which are often marked by strong personification of the Spirit (e.g.Isaiah 63:10-14; cf. further App. A. in Dr. Sharpe's 'The Tree of Life,' Cambridge, 1889), religious Jews did not understand byRuah-hakodesh a permanent and distinct hypostasis in the Deity, but rather the Deity itself in relation to the world as the Source and Maintenance of its life (Job 33:4;Psalm 104:30;Job 34:14;Psalm 139:7;Isaiah 63:10; cf. Wisd. 1:7 Wisd. 12:1), in contrast to the Deity absolutely and as the object of worship. Pre-Christian thought, that is to say, used the term "Holy Spirit" as designating the One God in a certain relation to the world, not as designating a permanent and real distinction in the Godhead. If this be so, we must understand the phrase here to mean that Christ was conceived of God (not of any Person in the Godhead) in contrast to man. We may, perhaps, even give toἐκ its fullest meaning of" origin" (cfJohn 1:13,οὐκ ἐξαἱμάτων...ἀλλ ἐκ Θεοῦ). The phrase as a whole thus only insists that the Child was by origin Divine. It will be noticed thatLuke 1:35 is then closely parallel, "the Holy Ghost" (Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον) there apparently connoting an outpouring of life; "the power of the Most High" (δύναμις ὑψίστου), an outpouring of strength. Dorner ('System.,' 3:343; cf. 162, etc.) says that the expression in our text is "the less precise ancient Christian designation of the Divine Essence generally, out of which (de quo) Christ has come. To the Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian sense is only to be ascribed, according to the Scriptures, first, the internal preparation of humanity for the Divine Incarnation, and, secondly, after theUnio the animation of the humanity of Christ by the Divine power issuing from the Logos." The passage in Martensen's 'Dogmatics,' § 139, so well known for its latter part, apparently agrees with this: "He is born not of the will of a man, nor of the will of the flesh; but the holy will of the Creator took the place of the will of man and of the will of the flesh, - that is, the creating Spirit, who was in the beginning, fulfilled the function of the plastic principle. He was born of the Virgin Mary, the chosen woman in the chosen people. It was the task of Israel to provide, not, as has been often said, Christ himself, but the mother of the Lord; to develop the susceptibility for Christ to a point when it might be able to manifest itself as the pro-foundest unity of nature and spirit - a unity which found expression in the pure virgin. In her the pious aspirations of Israel and of mankind, their faith in the promises, are centred; she is the purest point in history and in nature, and she, therefore, becomes the appointed medium for the new creation." Observe that the Greek Creeds (σαρκωθέντα [γεννηθέντα, Marcellus]ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίουκαὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου) , by not inserting the article (contrast afterwardsκαὶ εἰς τὸΠςεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον) , probably intended only to reproduce St. Matthew's language. The Latin could not fail to be ambiguous (deSpiritu Sancto) . If, however, we divest ourselves of considerations directly derived from exegesis, and, turning to the theological side, ask which Person of the Blessed Trinity, in fact, prepared Mary for the Incarnation of the Second Person, we must undoubtedly answer that it was the Third Person. For this is his peculiar function, uniting alike the Persons in the Godhead and also the Godhead to creation (cf. Dorner, 'System.,' 1:425,437; 4:159, etc.).

Parallel Commentaries ...