Commentari biblici

Matthew 1:1. The book — That is, This is the book, the verb being elegantly omitted, according to the custom of the Hebrews, and also of the Greeks and Romans; of the generation — Or, as the Syriac expresses it, The writing, narrative, or account of the generation, or birth of Jesus, &c. The word γενεσις, indeed, here rendered generation, sometimes signifies the history of a person’s life, yet it is much more frequently used for genealogy, or birth; and it seems to be intended to be taken in this restrained sense here. Dr. Macknight renders the phrase, The table of the genealogy of Jesus: observing that the word Βιβλος, book, is used in this limited sense Mark 10:4, where a bill of divorce is so called: and Jeremiah 32:12, where a deed of conveyance is termed ספר, a book. Indeed, the Jews, and also the Greeks, called all writings books, whether short or long. Of Jesus Christ — Jesus is his proper name, given him by God, his true Father, Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:31; Luke 2:21. Christ is, as it were, a surname, descriptive of his unction to the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices. To the name Christ, that of Jesus is often superadded in the New Testament, not only that Christ might be pointed out for the Saviour, as the word Jesus signifies, but that Jesus might be shown to be the true Messiah, or Christ, in opposition to the unbelief of the Jews. The son of David, the son of Abraham — i.e., a descendant of David and Abraham; the word son, in the language of the Hebrews, being put for any descendant, however remote. Here the evangelist proposes what he is going to prove; viz, that Jesus Christ, whose history he is about to give, was the son of David and Abraham, which it was necessary he should show because the grand prophetical character of the Messiah was, that he was to spring from Abraham and David. The sense of the latter clause, indeed, the son of Abraham, is ambiguous: it may mean either that David was the son of Abraham, or, which seems the more probable sense, that Christ, who was the son of David, was also the son of Abraham. This sense accords better both with the following words, and with the design of the evangelist, which was to show, that Christ was descended from both these renowned patriarchs, and that in him was fulfilled the promises made to both. David is first named, 1. That the catalogue, to begin from Abraham, might proceed regularly, without the repetition of his name; 2. Because the memory of David was more fresh upon the minds of the Jews, and his name in greater repute than that of Abraham, especially when the discourse related to the Messiah, John 7:42; more plain and explicit promises of him being made to David, and the prophets having spoken of Christ under the name of David. Add to this, that David was both a prophet and a king, and therefore a more manifest type of the Messiah, who sustains both of these offices, as well as that of a priest. Hence those who had entertained higher conceptions of Christ than others, termed him the son of David, as appears from many passages in the gospels.

Matthew 1:2. Abraham begat Isaac — “The evangelist here opens his history with our Lord’s genealogy by Joseph, his supposed father. Luke gives another genealogy of him, thought by many to be Joseph’s also, but without foundation; for the two genealogies are entirely different, from David and downward. It is true, some have attempted to reconcile them by alleging, that they exhibit Joseph’s pedigree, the one by his natural, the other by his legal father. But, had that been the case, the natural and legal fathers would have been brothers, which it is plain they were not, Jacob, Joseph’s father in Matthew, being the son of Matthan, the son of Eleazar; whereas Eli, the father supposed to be assigned him by Luke, was the son of Matthat, a different person from Matthan, because the son of Levi.” Besides, on this supposition, we should be altogether uncertain whether our Lord’s mother, from whom alone he sprang, was a daughter of David, and consequently could not prove that he had any other relation to David than that his mother was married to one of the descendants of that prince. Let the reader judge whether this would come up to the import of the passages of Scripture, which tell us he was made of the seed of David. See Romans 1:3; Acts 2:30. But this important difficulty is easily removed by supposing that Matthew gives Joseph’s pedigree, and Luke, Mary’s. See Macknight. But, taking it for granted that Luke gives us our Lord’s real pedigree, and Matthew that of Joseph, his supposed father, it may reasonably be inquired why Matthew has done so? To this it may be answered, that he intended to remove the scruples of those who knew that the Messiah was to be the heir of David’s crown; a reason which appears the stronger, if we suppose, with the learned writer last quoted, that Matthew wrote posterior to Luke, who has given the real pedigree. For, “though Joseph was not Christ’s real father, it was directly for the evangelist’s purpose to derive his pedigree from David, and show that he was the eldest surviving branch of the posterity of that prince, because, this point established, it was well enough understood that Joseph, by marrying our Lord’s mother, after he knew that she was with child of him, adopted him for his son, and raised him both to the dignity and privileges of David’s heir. Accordingly, the genealogy is concluded in terms which imply this: Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. Joseph is not here called the father of Jesus, but the husband of his mother, Mary; and the privileges following this adoption will appear to be more essentially connected with it, if, as is probable, Joseph never had any child. For thus the regal line of David’s descendants by Solomon, failing in Joseph, his rights were properly transferred to Joseph’s adopted son, who, indeed, was of the same family, though by another branch. Matthew, therefore, has deduced our Lord’s political and royal pedigree, with a view to prove his title to the kingdom of Israel, by virtue of the rights which he acquired through his adoption; whereas Luke explains his natural descent, in the several successions of those from whom he derived his human nature. That the genealogy, not only of our Lord’s mother, but of his reputed father, should be given by the sacred historians, was wisely ordered; because the two taken together prove him to be descended of David and Abraham in every respect, and consequently that one of the most remarkable characters of the Messiah was fulfilled in him; the principal promises concerning the great personage, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed, having been made to those patriarchs, in quality of his progenitors; first to Abraham, Genesis 22:18, then to David, Psalm 132:11-12.” And accordingly Matthew begins this genealogy with a plain allusion to these promises: for he evidently intended it, not so much as an introduction to his history of Christ, as to show that, according to the flesh, he was the son of David and the son of Abraham, as it was often foretold the Messiah should be. If it be inquired whence Matthew had this genealogy, there being nothing of it to be found in Scripture, Dr. Whitby answers, “From the authentic genealogical tables kept by the Jews, of the line of David: for, it appears from the taxation, mentioned Luke 2., that they had genealogies of all their families and tribes, since all went to be taxed, every one to his own city, Matthew 1:3, and Joseph went to Bethlehem, the city of David, because he was of the house and lineage of David. And this is certain, touching the tribe of Levi, because their whole temple service, the effect of their sacrifices and expiations, depended on it. And, therefore, Josephus, being a priest, not only confidently depends on these genealogical tables for the proof of his descent, ανωθεν εξ ιερεων, in a long series from priests; but adds, that all their priests were obliged to prove, εκ των αρχαιων την διαδοχην, their succession from an ancient line; and if they could not do it, they were to be excluded from officiating as priests, and that, in whatsoever part of the world they were, they used this diligence. And again, Christ being promised as one who was to proceed out of the loins of David, and therefore called the son of David, it was absolutely necessary that the genealogy of the house and lineage of David should be preserved, that they might know that their Messiah was of the seed of David, according to the promise. Hence the apostle says to Timothy, Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead, 2 Timothy 2:8. And Eusebius, (Eccl. Hist., lib. 1. cap. 6,) from Africanus, says, according to the version of Ruffinus, ‘That all the successions of the Hebrews were kept in the secret archives of the temple, and thence they were described, εκ της Βιβλου των εμερων, from their ephemerides, by the kinsmen of our Saviour.’ It therefore, doubtless, was from these authentic records that Matthew had his genealogy, for otherwise he would have exposed himself to the cavils of the Jews. And hence the author of the epistle to the Hebrews represents it as a thing evident to the Jews, that our Lord sprang out of Judah, Hebrews 7:14.”

As to some difficulties which occur upon comparing this genealogy with that of Luke, the reader is referred to the notes on them both. We must observe, however, that if we could not satisfactorily remove some, or even any of those difficulties, it would not affect the credit of the evangelists, for it would be a sufficient vindication of them to say, that they gave Christ’s pedigree as they found it in the authentic tables, preserved among the Jews in the temple registers. Upon this subject Bishop Burnet observes, that had not this genealogy been taken with exactness out of those registers, the bare showing of them would have served to have confuted the whole. For, if those registers were clear and uncontroverted in any one thing, they were so with respect to the genealogies; since these proved both that the Jews were Abraham’s seed, and likewise ascertained their title to the lands, which, from the days of Joshua, were to pass down either to immediate descendants, or, as they failed, to collateral degrees. Now, this shows plainly, that there was a double office kept of their pedigrees; one natural, which might probably be taken when the rolls of circumcision were made up; and the other, relating to the division of the land; in which, when the collateral line came instead of the natural, then the last was dropped, as extinct, and the other remained. It being thus plain, from their constitution, that they had these two orders of tables, we are not at all concerned in the diversity of the two evangelists on this head; since they both might have copied them out from those two offices at the temple; and if they had not done it faithfully, the Jews could easily have demonstrated their error in endeavouring to prove that Jesus was entitled to that well-known character of the Messiah, that he was to be the son of David, by a false pedigree. Now since no exceptions were made at the time when the sight of the rolls must have ended the inquiry, it is plain they were faithfully copied out; nor are we now bound to answer such difficulties as seem to arise out of them, since they were not questioned at the time in which only an appeal could be made to the public registers themselves. See Burnet’s Four Discourses, p. 16.

Abraham begat Isaac, &c. — Matthew, being a Jew, brings Christ’s genealogy down from Abraham, for the comfort of the Jews, who deduced all their genealogies from him, because God had taken him and his seed into a peculiar covenant; Luke, a Gentile, and a companion of the apostle of the Gentiles, carries Christ’s pedigree upward unto Adam, for the comfort of the Gentiles, who were not lineally of the seed of Abraham. Jacob begat Judas and his brethren — The words, his brethren, are added, probably, because they were patriarchs and heads of the people from whom the Messiah was to proceed, and to show that he was related to all the tribes as well as to that of Judah, and to comfort those of the dispersion, (many of whom were not returned out of captivity, as Judah was,) in their equal interest in the blessings of the seed of Abraham. Judah is particularly named in preference to any of them, both because it was from him our Lord came, and because to him the extraordinary promise was made, that his brethren should praise and bow down to him, and that his descendants should continue a distinct tribe, with some form of government among them, till Shiloh, who was to spring from his loins, should come.

Matthew 1:3. And Judas begat Phares and Zara — Some have observed that these sons of Judah are mentioned together because they were twins born at the same time: but if this had been a reason for assigning Zara the honour of being named in this genealogy, Esau, the twin brother of Jacob, ought to have obtained it likewise. He seems rather to be mentioned to prevent any mistake. For if he had not, considering the infamy of Pharez’s birth, we might have been apt to imagine that not the Pharez whom Judah begat in incest, but another son of Judah, called Pharez, was our Lord’s progenitor, it being no uncommon thing among the Jews to have several children of the same name. Wherefore, to put the matter beyond doubt, Thamar, as well as Zara, is mentioned in the genealogy, if her name be not rather added because she was remarkable in the sacred history. This reason certainly must be assigned why three other women are named in this catalogue, viz., Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. They were all remarkable characters, and their story is particularly related in the Old Testament. This seems much more probable than the opinion of those who think they are mentioned, either because they were great sinners, to teach us that Christ came to save such, or with a view to obviate the cavils of the Jews against the mean condition of the mother of our Lord; their renowned ancestors, such as even David and Solomon, being descended of women whose quality rendered them much meaner than she was. It was, however, one degree of our Saviour’s humiliation, that he would be born of such sinners, and it certainly may encourage the vilest to come unto him, and expect salvation from him. Nor shall they be disappointed, if, in true repentance and lively faith, they turn from their sins to God.

Matthew 1:4. And Aram begat Aminadab — Of these, to Jesse, little is said in Scripture, for either they lived in slavery in Egypt, or in trouble in the wilderness, or in obscurity in Canaan before the kingdom was settled. Naasson, as we learn Numbers 1:7, was head of the house of Judah, not, as some through mistake have affirmed, when the Israelites entered Canaan, but when they were numbered and marshalled in the wilderness of Sinai, in the second year after they were come out of Egypt. Accordingly, in the catalogue given 1 Chronicles 2:10, he is termed prince of the children of Judah, where Salmon his son is called Salma.

Matthew 1:5. Salmon begat Booz of Rachab — Viz., after their settlement in Canaan. It is not exact said that this woman was Rahab of Jericho, commonly called the harlot, but it is highly probable she was; for that Rahab was contemporary with Salmon, and a remarkable person, and there was no other of that name, especially of that age, of whom the compiler of the table could possibly suppose his reader to have any knowledge. It is true she was of one of those idolatrous nations with which the Israelites were forbidden to marry. But as the reason of that prohibition was only lest they should be tempted to idolatry, it could have no force in the case of Rahab, who, before her marriage with Salmon, undoubtedly acknowledged the God of Israel for the true God, and became a proselyte of righteousness. And Booz begat Obed of Ruth — Although the son of a Moabite by an Israelitish woman was forbidden to enter into the congregation of the Lord; that is, at least was rendered incapable of being a prince in Israel, and perhaps even of being naturalized by circumcision; yet it evidently appears from this celebrated instance, Ruth being a Moabitess, that this precept was not understood as excluding the descendants of an Israelite by a Moabitish woman from any hereditary honours and privileges, otherwise the kinsman of Booz would not have wanted a much better reason than any he assigned, (Ruth 4:6,) for refusing to marry Ruth, when she became a widow. And Obed begat Jesse — Inasmuch as there were at least 300 years between Salmon and David, and only three persons are here named as intervening to fill up that space of time, viz., Booz, Obed, and Jesse, they must each of them have been about 100 years old at the birth of his son, here named, which is not to be wondered at, considering the age in which they lived. Moses, a little before their time, had lived 120 years, when his natural strength was not abated. And Caleb, at 85, was strong and fit for war. Add to this, that they were persons of eminent piety, and therefore, probably, God vouchsafed to each of them a longer life than ordinary, and continued their strength to a late period thereof.

Matthew 1:6. And Jesse begat David the king — David has the title of king given him in this genealogy, because he was the first king of his family, and because he had the kingdom entailed upon his children; in which respect he had greatly the advantage of Saul, from whose family the kingdom was taken away almost as soon as it was conferred. It is true, ten of the twelve tribes revolted from David’s grandson. Nevertheless, the promise of God remained sure, for whereas an end was soon put to the kingdom of the ten tribes, the empire of the two which adhered to David’s family was of much longer duration, not to mention that the tribe of Judah, out of which the Messiah was to spring, was one of those two that continued in their allegiance to his house. This kingdom also was a type of the kingdom of Christ, which indeed might be said to be begun by him. For to him the promise of the Messiah was made, and of his seed the Messiah was to be raised up, to possess his throne, and establish it for ever. Ezekiel 37:25. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife, &c. — In the original it is, of her of Urias; εκ της του Ουριου. Though David, in this unhappy affair, acted in a way most unworthy of his character, yet God, on his deep repentance, not only graciously forgave him, but entailed the promise on his seed by this very woman. An amazing instance this of his boundless mercy!

Matthew 1:7. And Solomon begat Roboam — From whose government ten of the tribes revolting, chose Jeroboam for their king, who, to prevent them from returning to their subjection to the house of David, introduced the worship of the golden calves, and led the whole nation into the dreadful crime of gross idolatry; a crime from which they were never totally reclaimed, and which was the chief source of their misery and ruin, bringing down the divine vengeance upon them in repeated punishments, till they were so reduced as to become an easy prey to the Assyrian monarchy.

Matthew 1:8. And Joram begat Ozias — By Ozias, Uzziah is intended, and it is certain from the history of the Kings and Chronicles that he was the son of Amaziah, 2 Chronicles 26:1; Amaziah, of Joash, ch. Matthew 24:27; Joash, of Ahaziah, ch. Matthew 22:11; and Ahaziah, of Jehoram. But, according to the language of the Hebrews, the children of children are reputed the sons or daughters, not only of their immediate parents, but of their ancestors, and these ancestors are said to beget those who are removed some generations from them. Thus Isaiah says to Hezekiah, Of thy sons which thou shalt beget shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon: which prediction was not fulfilled until the days of Jeconiah, long after the days of Hezekiah. But it will be asked, why these three in particular are left out of the catalogue? The best answer to this question seems to be, that the evangelist followed the Jewish tables in writing this list, and that he found them left out in these. But if he himself, though he found them in the tables, omitted their names, it must, as Dr. Doddridge observes, have been “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.”