KJV: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
YLT: And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit,
Darby: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was thus: His mother, Mary, that is, having been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.
ASV: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
| Τοῦ | - |
|
Parse: Article, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| δὲ | Now |
|
Parse: Conjunction Root: δέ Sense: but, moreover, and, etc. |
|
| Ἰησοῦ | of Jesus |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: Ἰησοῦς Sense: Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses’ successor. |
|
| Χριστοῦ | Christ |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: Χριστός Sense: Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God. |
|
| γένεσις | birth |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Feminine Singular Root: γένεσις Sense: source, origin. |
|
| οὕτως | thus |
|
Parse: Adverb Root: οὕτως Sense: in this manner, thus, so. |
|
| ἦν | came about |
|
Parse: Verb, Imperfect Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: εἰμί Sense: to be, to exist, to happen, to be present. |
|
| μνηστευθείσης | Having been pledged |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Participle Passive, Genitive Feminine Singular Root: μνηστεύω Sense: to woo her and ask her in marriage. |
|
| μητρὸς | mother |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Feminine Singular Root: μήτηρ Sense: a mother. |
|
| αὐτοῦ | of Him |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular Root: αὐτός Sense: himself, herself, themselves, itself. |
|
| Μαρίας | Mary |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Feminine Singular Root: Μαρία Sense: Mary the mother of Jesus. |
|
| τῷ | - |
|
Parse: Article, Dative Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| Ἰωσήφ | to Joseph |
|
Parse: Noun, Dative Masculine Singular Root: Ἰωσήφ Sense: the patriarch, the eleventh son of Jacob. |
|
| πρὶν | before |
|
Parse: Adverb Root: πρίν Sense: before, formerly. |
|
| ἢ | rather |
|
Parse: Conjunction Root: ἤ Sense: either, or, than. |
|
| συνελθεῖν | coming together |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Infinitive Active Root: συνέρχομαι Sense: to come together. |
|
| αὐτοὺς | of them |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Accusative Masculine 3rd Person Plural Root: αὐτός Sense: himself, herself, themselves, itself. |
|
| εὑρέθη | she was found |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Indicative Passive, 3rd Person Singular Root: εὑρίσκω Sense: to come upon, hit upon, to meet with. |
|
| γαστρὶ | womb |
|
Parse: Noun, Dative Feminine Singular Root: γαστήρ Sense: the belly. |
|
| ἔχουσα | having [a child] |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Participle Active, Nominative Feminine Singular Root: ἔχω Sense: to have, i.e. to hold. |
|
| ἐκ | out of |
|
Parse: Preposition Root: ἐκ Sense: out of, from, by, away from. |
|
| πνεύματος | [the] Spirit |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Neuter Singular Root: πνεῦμα Sense: a movement of air (a gentle blast. |
|
| ἁγίου | Holy |
|
Parse: Adjective, Genitive Neuter Singular Root: ἅγιος Sense: most holy thing, a saint. |
|
Greek Commentary for Matthew 1:18
In the Greek Jesus Christ comes before birth as the important matter after Matthew 1:16. It is not certain whether “Jesus” is here a part of the text as it is absent in the old Syriac and the Old Latin while the Washington Codex has only “Christ.” The Vatican Codex has “Christ Jesus.” But it is plain that the story of the birth of Jesus Christ is to be told briefly as follows, “on this wise” “It is in fact the word Genesis. The evangelist is about to describe, not the genesis of the heaven and the earth, but the genesis of Him who made the heaven and the earth, and who will yet make a new heaven and a new earth” (Morison). [source]
Matthew proceeds to explain his statement in Matthew 1:16 which implied that Joseph, though the legal father of Jesus in the royal line, was not the actual father of Mary‘s Son. Betrothal with the Jews was a serious matter, not lightly entered into and not lightly broken. The man who betrothed a maiden was legally husband (Genesis 29:21; Deuteronomy 22:23.) and “an informal cancelling of betrothal was impossible” (McNeile). Though they did not live together as husband and wife till actual marriage, breach of faithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punished with death. The New Testament in Braid Scots actually has “mairry‘t till Joseph” for “betrothed to Joseph.” Matthew uses the genitive absolute construction here, a very common Greek idiom.Of the Holy Ghost (ek pneumatos hagiou). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She “was found with child” (heurethē en gastri echousa). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philemon 2:5-11; and involved in Colossians 1:15-19) and by John (John 1:14; John 17:5). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though John 1:14 seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world‘s Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God‘s will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. John 3:16 is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us. [source]
The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She “was found with child” This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philemon 2:5-11; and involved in Colossians 1:15-19) and by John (John 1:14; John 17:5). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though John 1:14 seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world‘s Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God‘s will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. John 3:16 is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us. [source]
The narrative implies a distinction between betrothal and marriage. From the moment of her betrothal a woman was treated as if actually married. The union could be dissolved only by regular divorce. Breach of faithfulness was regarded as adultery, and was punishable with death (Deuteronomy 22:23, Deuteronomy 22:24), and the woman's property became virtually that of her betrothed, unless he had expressly renounced it; but, even in that ease, he was her natural heir. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Matthew 1:18
This word comes, like some of the early chapters of Genesis, with regularity through Matthew 1:16, until the birth of Jesus is reached when there is a sudden change. The word itself does not always mean immediate parentage, but merely direct descent. In Matthew 1:16 we have “Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ” The article occurs here each time with the object of “begat,” but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (Matthew 1:6) and Joseph the husband of Mary (Matthew 1:16) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (Matthew 1:2) and of both Phares and Zara (Matthew 1:3) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give Matthew 1:16 as above save the Ferrar Group of minuscules which are supported by the Sinaitic Syriac Version. Because of this fact Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates, deliberately prints his text “Jacob begat Jesus ” But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:18-25. Hence it is clear that “begat” here in Matthew 1:16 must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in Matthew 1:18-25. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of Studies in the Text of the New Testament. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in Matthew 1:16. The spelling of these Hebrew names in English is usually according to the Hebrew form, not the Greek. In the Greek itself the Hebrew spelling is often observed in violation of the Greek rules for the ending of words with no consonants save n, r, s. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails. [source]
Not merely betrothed. See Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25; also see on Matthew 1:18. [source]
Classic Greek idiom after a negative to have subjunctive as here (only example in the N.T.) or the optative after past tense as in Acts 25:16 (subjunctive changed to optative in indirect discourse). Elsewhere in the N.T. the infinitive follows πριν prin as in Matthew 1:18. [source]
The words “to teach” are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version “began to be about thirty years of age,” is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies “to teach” Tyndale has it right “Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne.” Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God‘s prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more.Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus, see notes on Matthew 1:1-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to “Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). Matthew employs the word “begot” each time, while Luke has the article του tou repeating υιου huiou (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that “Jacob begat Joseph” while Luke calls “Joseph the son of Heli.” There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase “as was supposed” His own narrative in Luke 1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, υιος huios must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses “begat” for descent, so does Luke employ “son” in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:18-25 that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds “the Son of God” after Adam (Luke 3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception. [source]
For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus, see notes on Matthew 1:1-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to “Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). Matthew employs the word “begot” each time, while Luke has the article του tou repeating υιου huiou (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that “Jacob begat Joseph” while Luke calls “Joseph the son of Heli.” There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase “as was supposed” His own narrative in Luke 1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, υιος huios must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses “begat” for descent, so does Luke employ “son” in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:18-25 that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds “the Son of God” after Adam (Luke 3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception. [source]
Ολετρος Olethros old word from ολλυμι ollumi to destroy. See also 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Αιπνιδιος Aiphnidios old adjective akin to απνω aphnō and in N.T. only here and Luke 21:34 where Westcott and Hort spell it επνιδιος ephnidios Cometh upon them (αυτοις επισταται autois epistatai). Unaspirated form instead of the usual επισταται ephistatai (present middle indicative) from επιστημι ephistēmi perhaps due to confusion with επισταμαι epistamai As travail upon a woman with child Earlier form ωδις ōdis for birth-pang used also by Jesus (Mark 13:8; Matthew 24:8). Technical phrase for pregnancy, to the one who has it in belly (cf. Matthew 1:18 of Mary). They shall in no wise escape (ου μη εκπυγωσιν ou mē ekphugōsin). Strong negative like that in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ου μη ou mē (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive. [source]
Earlier form ωδις ōdis for birth-pang used also by Jesus (Mark 13:8; Matthew 24:8). Technical phrase for pregnancy, to the one who has it in belly (cf. Matthew 1:18 of Mary). They shall in no wise escape (ου μη εκπυγωσιν ou mē ekphugōsin). Strong negative like that in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ου μη ou mē (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive. [source]
(cf. Matthew 1:18 of Mary). They shall in no wise escape (ου μη εκπυγωσιν ou mē ekphugōsin). Strong negative like that in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ου μη ou mē (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive. [source]
A very obscure passage. Τροχός , (only here in New Testament), from τρέχω , to run, applies generally to anything round or circular which runs or rolls, as a wheel or sphere. Hence, often a wheel. Used of the circuit of fortifications and of circles or zones of land or sea. From the radical sense, to run, comes the meaning course, as the course of the sun; and from this a place for running, a race-course. Γενέσεως rendered nature, means origin, beginning, birth, manner of birth, production, and is used by Plato for the creation, or the sum of created things. It also means a race, and a generation or age. In the New Testament it occurs but twice outside of this epistle, viz., at Matthew 1:1, “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ,” where the meaning is origin or birth; the birth-book of Jesus Christ. The other passage is Matthew 1:18, according to the best texts, also meaning birth. In James 1:23, as we have seen, πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως , is the face of his birth. We may then safely translate τροχός by wheel; and as birth is the meaning of γένεσις in every New-Testament passage where it occurs, we may give it the preference here and render the wheel of birth - i.e., the wheel which is set in motion at birth and runs on to the close of life. It is thus a figurative description of human life. So Anacreon:“The chariot-wheel, like life, runs rolling round,”Tertullian says: “The whole revolving wheel of existence bears witness to the resurrection of the dead.” The Rev., which gives nature, puts birth in margin. This revolving wheel is kindled by the tongue, and rolls on in destructive blaze. The image is justified by the fact. The tongue works the chief mischief, kindles the most baleful fires in the course of life. [source]
“The face of his birth” (origin, lineage, nativity). For this use of εν εσοπτρωι genesis see James 3:6; Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:13.In a mirror (εισ οπτω en esoptrōi). Old word (from κατοπτριζομαι eisoptō) in N.T. only here and 1 Corinthians 13:12. The mirrors of the ancients were not of glass, but of polished metal (of silver or usually of copper and tin). See katoptrizomai in 2 Corinthians 3:18. [source]
A difficult phrase, impossible to understand according to Ropes as it stands. If the comma is put after πυρ pur instead of after αδικιας adikias then the phrase may be the predicate with κατισταται kathistatai (present passive indicative of κατιστημι kathistēmi “is constituted,” or the present middle “presents itself”). Even so, κοσμος kosmos remains a difficulty, whether it means the “ornament” (1 Peter 3:3) or “evil world” (James 1:27) or just “world” in the sense of widespread power for evil. The genitive αδικιας adikias is probably descriptive (or qualitative). Clearly James means to say that the tongue can play havoc in the members of the human body.Which defileth the whole body (η σπιλουσα ολον το σωμα hē spilousa holon to sōma). Present active participle of σπιλοω spiloō late Koiné, verb, to stain from σπιλος spilos (spot, also late word, in N.T. only in Ephesians 5:27; 2 Peter 2:13), in N.T. only here and Judges 1:23. Cf. James 1:27 ασπιλον aspilon (unspotted).Setteth on fire Present active participle of πλογιζω phlogizō old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from πλοχ phlox (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See αναπτει anaptei (James 3:5).The wheel of nature (τον τροχον γενεσεως ton trochon geneseōs). Old word for wheel (from τρεχω trechō to run), only here in N.T. “One of the hardest passages in the Bible” (Hort). To what does τροχον trochon refer? For γενεσεως geneseōs see note on James 1:23 apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests “the wheel of birth” (cf. Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:18). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or κυκλος kuklos cycle, in place of τροχος trochos), but either in a physiological or a philosophical sense. James may have caught the metaphor from the current use, but certainly he has no such Orphic or Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, “the unending round of death and rebirth” (Ropes). The wheel of life may be considered either in motion or standing still, though setting on fire implies motion. There is no reference to the zodiac.And is set on fire by hell Present passive participle of πλογιζω phlogizō giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with γεεννα gehenna see Matthew 5:22. [source]
Present active participle of πλογιζω phlogizō old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from πλοχ phlox (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See αναπτει anaptei (James 3:5).The wheel of nature (τον τροχον γενεσεως ton trochon geneseōs). Old word for wheel (from τρεχω trechō to run), only here in N.T. “One of the hardest passages in the Bible” (Hort). To what does τροχον trochon refer? For γενεσεως geneseōs see note on James 1:23 apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests “the wheel of birth” (cf. Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:18). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or κυκλος kuklos cycle, in place of τροχος trochos), but either in a physiological or a philosophical sense. James may have caught the metaphor from the current use, but certainly he has no such Orphic or Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, “the unending round of death and rebirth” (Ropes). The wheel of life may be considered either in motion or standing still, though setting on fire implies motion. There is no reference to the zodiac.And is set on fire by hell Present passive participle of πλογιζω phlogizō giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with γεεννα gehenna see Matthew 5:22. [source]
Old word for wheel (from τρεχω trechō to run), only here in N.T. “One of the hardest passages in the Bible” (Hort). To what does τροχον trochon refer? For γενεσεως geneseōs see note on James 1:23 apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests “the wheel of birth” (cf. Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:18). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or κυκλος kuklos cycle, in place of τροχος trochos), but either in a physiological or a philosophical sense. James may have caught the metaphor from the current use, but certainly he has no such Orphic or Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, “the unending round of death and rebirth” (Ropes). The wheel of life may be considered either in motion or standing still, though setting on fire implies motion. There is no reference to the zodiac. [source]
Perhaps εστιν estin to be supplied or the participle used as a finite verb as in Revelation 10:2. This is the technical idiom for pregnancy as in Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:23, etc. [source]