Bible Commentaries

Matthew 1:1. The book of the generation— The lineage of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. Campbell. Commentators are divided with regard to this phrase; some supposing that it means, and should be rendered, the history of the life of Jesus Christ; and that it is a general preface to St. Matthew's Gospel; while others, and, I think, with greater probability, render it, An account of the lineage or genealogy, and conceive it merely as the introduction to the genealogy following. See the note on Genesis 5:1. As St. Matthew wrote for the Jews, he deduces the genealogy of Christ only from Abraham, and brings it down from him through David, to shew his title to the kingdom of Israel; while St. Luke, who wrote for the use of the Gentile converts, deduces the genealogy from Adam. See Genesis 22:18. Psalms 2 : But concerning these genealogies, and the variations in them, we will speak when we come to St. Luke, Luke 3:23. St. Matthew gives to Jesus the name of Christ, which signifies anointed, and marks out the royal, sacerdotal, and prophetical offices; answering to the name of Messiah, by which the Redeemer was always known and spoken of by the Jews. One right way of estimating things, says Dr. Heylin, (in nearly these words,) is by our want of them. If we look into ourselves, we shall find a want of Christ in all his offices; for, before some considerable proficiency is made in religion through the grace of God, men are at a distance from God, alienated from him, and incapacitated for that free access to the Creator, which, it should seem, an intelligent being might naturally hope for. Hence we want a mediator, an intercessor; in a word, a Christ, in his priestly functions. This regards our situation with respect to God. With respect to ourselves, we find a total darkness, blindness, ignorance of God, and the things of God: here we want a Christ in his prophetic office, to enlighten our minds, and teach us the whole will of God. We also find within us a strong misrule of appetites and passions, and discordant interests, blindly espoused: for these we want a Christ, in his regal office, to govern our hearts, and establish his kingdom within us. Calmet observes, that as the Jewish converts, for whom this Gospel was principally written, had no doubt of the Divinity of the Messiah, St. Matthew did not judge it necessary to dwell here upon that subject. He contents himself with giving an account of his incarnation and birth, of a virgin; not that these truths were disputed by the faithful, but because they had been gain-said by the credulous and hardened Jews. St. John, on the contrary, who wrote among the Gentiles, applied himself to set forth and make known the Divinity of the Saviour; for this was the point to which they made the strongest objections.

return to '

Matthew 1:3. Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar— It is remarkable, that only four women are mentioned in this genealogy,and all of them branded in the sacred history with a mark of infamy; Thamar for incest, Rachab forfornication, Ruth for heathenism, and Bathsheba for adultery. Perhaps the Holy Spirit designed to obviate the cavils of the Jews, who entertained low thoughts of Christ, because he was born of so mean a mother; for they could not but see the absurdity of such a prejudice, when they considered that their most illustrious heroes sprang from women, whose actions rendered them infinitely meaner than the mother of our Lord: her spotless character, and unaffected piety, were nobler ornaments than all the boasted gifts of fortune. We may just observe, that the Hebrews do not commonly mention women in their genealogies, except as here, when some particular reason obliges. He who came into the world to save sinners, and to call all men, the just and unjust, to partake of his salvation, did not disdain to have sinners numbered among his ancestors; and therefore no sinner should despair of his mercy. See Macknight and Calmet.

return to '

Matthew 1:5. Rachab— See the note on Joshua 2:1. Dr. Doddridge observes, that though it is not expressly said that this person was Rahab of Jericho, commonly called the harlot; yet there can be no room to doubt, as we know that she was contemporary with Salmon, and may conclude that she, as all the other women mentioned in this list, was a remarkable person. Now there was no other of that name, especially of this age, of whom the Evangelist could, so far as we can judge, suppose his reader to have any knowledge.

return to '

Matthew 1:6. Solomon, of her that had been, &c.— In the original it is, by her of Urias; a mode of expression common both among the Greeks and Romans. See the note on 2 Samuel 12:24.

return to '

Matthew 1:8. Joram begat Ozias— It is undeniably evident, from 2 Chron. chap. 22: and following, that three princes are here omitted. There are instances of the like omissions in other genealogies. See Ezra 7:0 where, by comparing that chapter with 1 Chronicles 6:0 it is found that five generations were left out. We may well suppose that it was by some peculiar divine direction, that the sin of Jehoram is thus animadverted upon even to the fourth generation; his intermediate descendants being thus blotted out of the records of Christ's family, and overlooked as if they had never been. See Doddridge, Beausobre and Lenfant.

return to '

Matthew 1:11. Josias begat Jechonias, &c.— Dr. Doddridge renders this verse thus, after the reading of the Bodleian and other manuscripts, notice of which is taken in the margin of our English bibles; And Josiah begat Jehoiachim and his brethren; and about the time of the Bablyonish captivity Jehoiahim begat Jechoniah: a reading, which seems absolutely necessary to keep up the number of fourteen generations. Instead of the time they were carried away, &c. in this and the next verse, we may read, the time of the trans-migration, or carrying away: and so Matthew 1:17.

return to '

Matthew 1:13. And Zorobabel begat Abiud— Among the sons of Zorobabel (which signifies a stranger in Babylon), reckoned up 1 Chronicles 3:0 there is no mention of Abiud, or his posterity; but as the Jews were very careful to keep genealogical tables of their families, St. Matthew had, in all likelihood, what he mentions here, out of some authentic genealogies preserved in the family of Joseph, whose ancestors, from Zorobabel, are likewise omitted in the genealogies extant in the Chronicles, because, in all probability, their condition was but mean and obscure.

return to '

Matthew 1:16. Jacob begat Joseph— It is a maxim among the Jews, that the family of the mother is not called a family; all their pedigrees are reckoned and deduced from the father. This is the reason why St. Matthew has here set down the genealogy of Joseph. It is also very probable, that Mary was an only daughter, and, in some degree, an heiress, and consequently obliged to marry in her own family. See Numbers 7:9. So that by giving the genealogy of Joseph, St. Matthew gives at the same time that of Mary. He is called the husband of Mary; for the names of husband and wife were given bythe Jews to persons who were only betrothed. See Genesis 29:21.Deuteronomy 22:24; Deuteronomy 22:24. Some copies, however, read, Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed. It is added at the end of this verse, who is called Christ; that is to say, who is known by that name, and is really the Christ, or the Messiah. Compare Luke 1:32; Luke 1:35. For to be called is a frequent Hebraism, to express that the person spoken of shall really and effectually be what he is there called, and actually fulfil that title. So, Mat 1:23 it is said, They shall call his name Emmanuel; which is no common appellation of Christ, but indicates his nature and office; the Deity incarnate, who by his Spirit dwells in the hearts of the faithful. See Beausobre and Lenfant, and Heylin.

Who is called Christ— What first gave rise to this term was, the ceremony of anointing, bywhich the kings and the high-priests of God's people, and sometimes the prophets, were consecrated and admitted to the exercise of their holy functions: for all these functions were accounted holy among the Israelites. As this consecration was considered as adding a sacredness to their person, it served as a guard against violence, from the respect had to religion. Its efficacy this way was remarkably exemplified in David. By this consideration principally, as he acknowledges, he was restrained from avenging himself on Saul his enemy, who sought his life, when he had it in his power to kill him. The Lord forbid, said he, that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord's anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against, him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord. 1 Samuel 24:6. The word here translated anointed is, as in other places, in Hebrew Messiah, and in the Greek of the Seventy, Christ. It was a term, therefore, in its original use, applicable to all the succession of kings and high-priests, good and bad, of the people of Israel.

But the most eminent use and application of the word is, when it is employed as the title of that Divine Personage typified and predicted from the beginning, who was to prove, in the most exalted sense, the Redeemer and Lord of God's people. He is spoken of by the prophets under several characters, and, amongst others, under this of God's anointed, the Messiah or the Christ. Those of the prophets, who seem more especiallyto have appropriated this title, formerly more common, to the Mediator of the New Covenant, were the royal prophet David, Isaiah, and Daniel. The first represents him as anointed of God King of God's heritage, the second as set apart and consecrated to be the Messenger of good tidings to the inhabitants of the earth, the third as appointed to make expiation for the sins of the people. See Psalms 2:2; Psa 105:15. 1 Chronicles 16:22.Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 61:11.Daniel 9:25-26; Daniel 9:25-26.

return to '