de ('she shall bring
forth ... and thou shalt call: she had brought forth ... and he
called'), and the birth itself is in verse 25 recorded mainly in its
bearing on Joseph's marital relations. Could such a perspective in the
narrative be conceived of from any other point of view than Joseph's?

We do not enter on the controversy as to whether that 'till' and the
expression 'first-born' shut us up to the conclusion that Joseph and Mary
had children. The words are not decisive, and probably opinions will
always differ on the point. Mediaevally-minded persons will reject with
horror the notion that Jesus had brethren in the proper sense of the
word, while those who believe that the perfect woman is a happy wife and
mother, will not feel that it detracts from Mary's sacredness, nor from
her purity, to believe that she had other children than 'her first-born
Son'.

THE NAME ABOVE EVERY NAME

'... Thou shalt call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people
from their sins'.--MATT. 1. 21.

I. THE historical associations of the name.

It was a very common Jewish name, and of course was given in memory of
the great leader who brought the hosts of Israel to rest in the promised
land.

There is no sharper contrast conceivable than between Joshua and Jesus.
The contrast and the parallel are both most significant.

(a) The contrast.

Joshua is perhaps one of the least interesting of the Old Testament men;
a mere soldier, fit for the fierce work which he had to do, rough and
hard, ready and prompt, of an iron will and a brave heart. The one
exhortation given him when he comes to the leadership is 'be strong and
of a good courage,' and that seems to have been the main virtue of his
character. The task he had to do was a bloody one, and thoroughly he did
it. The difficulties that have been found in the extermination of the
Canaanites may be met by considerations of the changed atmosphere
between then and now, and of their moral putrescence. But no explanation
can make the deed other than terrible, or the man that did it other than
fierce and stern. No traits of chivalrous generosity are told of him,
nothing that softens the dreadfulness of war. He showed no touch of pity
or compunction, no lofty, statesmanlike qualities, nothing constructive;
he was simply a rough soldier, with an iron hand and an iron heel, who
burned and slew and settled down his men in the land they had
devastated.

The very sharpness of the