Matthew 1 commentary

MATTHEW 1 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah
[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham:
BARNES, "The book of the generation - This is the proper title of the chapter. It
is the same as to say, “the account of the ancestry or family, or the genealogical table of
Jesus Christ.” The phrase is common in Jewish writings. Compare Gen_5:1. “This is the
book of the generations of Adam,” i. e., the genealogical table of the family or
descendants of Adam. See also Gen_6:9. The Jews, moreover, as we do, kept such tables
of their own families. and it is probable that this was copied from the record of the
family of Joseph.
Jesus - See the notes at Mat_1:21.
Christ - The word “Christ” is a Greek word, Χριστός Christos, signifying “anointed.”
The Hebrew word, ‫משׁיח‬ mâshı̂yach, signifying the same is “Messiah.” Hence, Jesus is
called either the Messiah, or the Christ, meaning the same thing. The Jews speak of the
Messiah; Christians speak of him as the Christ. In ancient times, when kings and priests
were set apart to their office, they were anointed with oil, Lev_4:3; Lev_6:20; Exo_
28:41; Exo_29:7; 1Sa_9:16; 1Sa_15:1; 2Sa_23:1. To anoint, therefore, means often the
same as to consecrate, or to set apart to an office. Hence, those thus set apart are said to
be anointed, or to be the anointed of God. It is for this reason that the name is given to
the Lord Jesus. Compare the notes at Dan_9:24. He was set apart by God to be the King,
and High Priest, and Prophet of his people. Anointing with oil was, moreover, supposed
to be emblematic of the influences of the Holy Spirit; and since God gave him the Spirit
without measure Joh_3:34, so he is especially called “the Anointed of God.”
The Son of David - The word “son” among the Jews had a great variety of
significations. It means literally a son; then a grandson; a descendant: an adopted son; a
disciple, or one who is an object of tender affection one who is to us as a son. In this
place it means a descendant of David; or one who was of the family of David. It was
important to trace the genealogy of Jesus up to David, because the promise had been
made that the Messiah should be of his family, and all the Jews expected that it would be
so. It would be impossible, therefore, to convince a Jew that Jesus was the Messiah,
unless it could be shown that he was descended from David. See Jer_23:5; Psa_132:10-
11, compared with Act_13:23, and Joh_7:42.
The son of Abraham - The descendant of Abraham. The promise was made to
Abraham also. See Gen_12:3; Gen_21:12; compare Heb_11:13; Gal_3:16. The Jews
expected that the Messiah would be descended from him; and it was important,
therefore, to trace the genealogy up to him also. Though Jesus was of humble birth, yet

he was descended from most illustrious ancestors. Abraham, the father of the faithful -
“the beauteous model of an Eastern prince,” and David, the sweet psalmist of Israel, the
conqueror, the magnificent and victorious leader of the people of God, were both among
his ancestors. From these two persons, the most eminent for piety, and the most
renowned for their excellencies of all the people of antiquity, sacred or profane, the Lord
Jesus was descended; and though his birth and life were humble, yet they who regard an
illustrious descent as of value, may find here all that is to be admired in piety, purity,
patriotism, splendor, dignity, and renown.
CLARKE, "The book of the generation - This is the proper title of the chapter. It
is the same as to say, “the account of the ancestry or family, or the genealogical table of
Jesus Christ.” The phrase is common in Jewish writings. Compare Gen_5:1. “This is the
book of the generations of Adam,” i. e., the genealogical table of the family or
descendants of Adam. See also Gen_6:9. The Jews, moreover, as we do, kept such tables
of their own families. and it is probable that this was copied from the record of the
family of Joseph.
Jesus - See the notes at Mat_1:21.
Christ - The word “Christ” is a Greek word, Χριστός Christos, signifying “anointed.”
The Hebrew word, ‫משׁיח‬ mâshı̂yach, signifying the same is “Messiah.” Hence, Jesus is
called either the Messiah, or the Christ, meaning the same thing. The Jews speak of the
Messiah; Christians speak of him as the Christ. In ancient times, when kings and priests
were set apart to their office, they were anointed with oil, Lev_4:3; Lev_6:20; Exo_
28:41; Exo_29:7; 1Sa_9:16; 1Sa_15:1; 2Sa_23:1. To anoint, therefore, means often the
same as to consecrate, or to set apart to an office. Hence, those thus set apart are said to
be anointed, or to be the anointed of God. It is for this reason that the name is given to
the Lord Jesus. Compare the notes at Dan_9:24. He was set apart by God to be the King,
and High Priest, and Prophet of his people. Anointing with oil was, moreover, supposed
to be emblematic of the influences of the Holy Spirit; and since God gave him the Spirit
without measure Joh_3:34, so he is especially called “the Anointed of God.”
The Son of David - The word “son” among the Jews had a great variety of
significations. It means literally a son; then a grandson; a descendant: an adopted son; a
disciple, or one who is an object of tender affection one who is to us as a son. In this
place it means a descendant of David; or one who was of the family of David. It was
important to trace the genealogy of Jesus up to David, because the promise had been
made that the Messiah should be of his family, and all the Jews expected that it would be
so. It would be impossible, therefore, to convince a Jew that Jesus was the Messiah,
unless it could be shown that he was descended from David. See Jer_23:5; Psa_132:10-
11, compared with Act_13:23, and Joh_7:42.
The son of Abraham - The descendant of Abraham. The promise was made to
Abraham also. See Gen_12:3; Gen_21:12; compare Heb_11:13; Gal_3:16. The Jews
expected that the Messiah would be descended from him; and it was important,
therefore, to trace the genealogy up to him also. Though Jesus was of humble birth, yet
he was descended from most illustrious ancestors. Abraham, the father of the faithful -
“the beauteous model of an Eastern prince,” and David, the sweet psalmist of Israel, the
conqueror, the magnificent and victorious leader of the people of God, were both among
his ancestors. From these two persons, the most eminent for piety, and the most

renowned for their excellencies of all the people of antiquity, sacred or profane, the Lord
Jesus was descended; and though his birth and life were humble, yet they who regard an
illustrious descent as of value, may find here all that is to be admired in piety, purity,
patriotism, splendor, dignity, and renown.
GILL, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,.... This is the genuine title of
the book, which was put to it by the Evangelist himself; for the former seems to be done
by another hand. This book is an account, not of the divine, but human generation of
Christ; and not merely of his birth, which lies in a very little compass; nor of his
genealogy, which is contained in this chapter; but also of his whole life and actions, of
what was said, done, and suffered by him. It is an Hebrew way of speaking, much like
that in Gen_5:1 and which the Septuagint render by the same phrase as here; and as that
was the book of the generation of the first Adam; this is the book of the generation of the
second Adam. The Jews call their blasphemous history of the life of Jesus, ‫ספר‬‫תולדות‬‫ישו‬
"The book of the generations of Jesus" (o). This account of Christ begins with the name
of the Messiah, well known to the Jews,
the son of David; not only to the Scribes and Pharisees, the more learned part of the
nation, but to the common people, even to persons of the meanest rank and figure
among them. See Mat_9:27. Nothing is more common in the Jewish writings, than for ‫בן‬
‫דוד‬ "the son of David" to stand alone for the Messiah; it would be endless to cite or refer
to all the testimonies of this kind; only take the following (p),
"R. Jochanan says, in the generation in which ‫בן‬‫דוד‬ "the son of David" comes, the
disciples of the wise men shall be lessened, and the rest, their eyes shall fail with grief
and sorrow, and many calamities and severe decrees shall be renewed; when the first
visitation is gone, a second will hasten to come. It is a tradition of the Rabbins (about)
the week (of years) in which ‫בן‬‫דוד‬ "the son of David" comes, that in the first year this
scripture will be fulfilled, Amo_4:7. "I will rain upon one city", &c. in the second, arrows
of famine will be sent forth; in the third there will be a great famine, and men, women
and children, holy men and men of business will die, and the law will be forgotten by
those who learn it; in the fourth there will be plenty and not plenty; in the fifth there will
be great plenty, and they shall eat and drink and rejoice, and the law shall return to them
that learn it; in the sixth there will be voices (or thunders;) in the seventh there will be
wars; and in the going out of the seventh ‫בן‬‫דוד‬ the "son of David" comes. The tradition of
R. Judah says, In the generation in which ‫בן‬‫דוד‬ "the son of David" comes, the house of
the congregation (the school or synagogue) shall become a brothel house, Galilee shall
be destroyed, and Gabalene shall become desolate; and the men of Gabul (or the border)
shall go about from city to city, and shall find no mercy; and the wisdom of the scribes
shall stink; and they that are afraid to sin shall be despised; and the face of that
generation shall be as the face of a dog, and truth shall fail, as it is said, Isa_59:15 --The
tradition of R. Nehorai says, In the generation in which ‫בן‬‫דוד‬ "the son of David" comes,
young men shall make ashamed the faces of old men, and old men shall stand before
young men, the daughter shall rise up against her mother, and the daughter-in-law

against her mother-in-law; nor will a son reverence his father. The tradition of R.
Nehemiah says, In the generation in which ‫בן‬‫דוד‬ "the son of David" comes, impudence
will increase, and the honourable will deal wickedly, and the whole kingdom will return
to the opinion of the Sadducees, and there will be no reproof. --It is a tradition of the
Rabbins, that ‫בן‬‫דוד‬ "the son of David" will not come, until traitorous practices are
increased, or the disciples are lessened or until the smallest piece of money fails from the
purse, or until redemption is despaired of.''
In which passage, besides the proof for which it is cited, may be observed, how exactly
the description of the age of the Messiah, as given by the Jews themselves, agrees with
the generation in which Jesus the true Messiah came; who as he was promised to David,
and it was expected he should descend from him, so he did according to the flesh; God
raised him up of his seed, Rom_1:3 it follows,
The son of Abraham. Abraham was the first to whom a particular promise was made,
that the Messiah should spring from, Gen_22:18. The first promise in Gen_3:15 only
signified that he should be the seed of the woman; and it would have been sufficient for
the fulfilment of it, if he had been born of any woman, in whatsoever nation, tribe, or
family; but by the promise made to Abraham he was to descend from him, as Jesus did;
who took upon him the seed of Abraham, Heb_2:16 or assumed an human nature which
sprung from him, and is therefore truly the son of Abraham. The reason why Christ is
first called the son of David, and then the son of Abraham, is partly because the former
was a more known name of the Messiah; and partly that the transition to the genealogy
of Christ might be more easy and natural, beginning with Abraham, whom the Jews call
(q) ‫ראש‬‫היחס‬ the "head of the genealogy", and the root and foundation of it, as Matthew
here makes him to be; wherefore a Jew cannot be displeased with the Evangelist for
beginning the genealogy of our Lord at, Abraham.
HENRY, "Concerning this genealogy of our Saviour, observe,
I. The title of it. It is the book (or the account, as the Hebrew word sepher, a book,
sometimes signifies) of the generation of Jesus Christ, of his ancestors according to the
flesh; or, It is the narrative of his birth. It is Biblos Geneseōs - a book of Genesis. The Old
Testament begins with the book of the generation of the world, and it is its glory that it
does so; but the glory of the New Testament herein excelleth, that it begins with the book
of the generation of him that made the world. As God, his outgoings were of old, from
everlasting (Mic_5:2), and none can declare that generation; but, as man, he was sent
forth in the fulness of time, born of a woman, and it is that generation which is here
declared.
II. The principal intention of it. It is not an endless or needless genealogy; it is not a
vain-glorious one, as those of great men commonly are. Stemmata, quid faciunt? - Of
what avail are ancient pedigrees? It is like a pedigree given in evidence, to prove a title,
and make out a claim; the design is to prove that our Lord Jesus is the son of David, and
the son of Abraham, and therefore of that nation and family out of which the Messiah
was to arise. Abraham and David were, in their day, the great trustees of the promise
relating to the Messiah. The promise of the blessing was made to Abraham and his
seed, of the dominion to David and his seed; and they who would have an interest in
Christ, as the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed,

must be faithful, loyal subjects to him as the son of David, by whom all the families of
the earth are to be ruled. It was promised to Abraham that Christ should descend from
him (Gen_12:3; Gen_22:18), and to David that he should descend from him (2Sa_7:12;
Psa_89:3, etc.; Psa_132:11); and therefore, unless it can be proved that Jesus is a son of
David, and a son of Abraham, we cannot admit him to be the Messiah. Now this is here
proved from the authentic records of the heralds' offices. The Jews were very exact in
preserving their pedigrees, and there was a providence in it, for the clearing up of the
descent of the Messiah from the fathers; and since his coming that nation is so dispersed
and confounded that it is a question whether any person in the world can legally prove
himself to be a son of Abraham; however, it is certain that none can prove himself to
either a son of Aaron or a son of David, so that the priestly and kingly office must either
be given up, as lost for ever, or be lodged in the hands of our Lord Jesus. Christ is here
first called the son of David, because under that title he was commonly spoken of, and
expected, among the Jews. They who owned him to be the Christ, called him the son of
David, Mat_15:22; Mat_20:31; Mat_21:15. Thus, therefore, the evangelist undertakes to
make out, that he is not only a son of David, but that son of David on whose shoulders
the government was to be; not only a son of Abraham, but that son of Abraham who
was to be the father of many nations.
In calling Christ the son of David, and the son of Abraham, he shows that God is faithful
to his promise, and will make good every word that he has spoken; and this. 1. Though
the performance be long deferred. When God promised Abraham a son, who should be
the great blessing of the world, perhaps he expected it should be his immediate son; but
it proved to be one at the distance of forty-two generations, and about 2000 years: so
long before can God foretel what shall be done, and so long after, sometimes, does God
fulfil what has been promised. Note, Delays of promised mercies, though they exercise
our patience, do not weaken God's promise. 2. Though it begin to be despaired of. This
son of David, and son of Abraham, who was to be the glory of his Father's house, was
born when the seed of Abraham was a despised people, recently become tributary to the
Roman yoke, and when the house of David was buried in obscurity; for Christ was to be
a root out of a dry ground. Note, God's time for the performance of his promises is
when it labours under the greatest improbabilities.
JAMISON, "Mat_1:1-17. Genealogy of Christ. ( = Luk_3:23-38).
The book of the generation — an expression purely Jewish; meaning, “table of the
genealogy.” In Gen_5:1 the same expression occurs in this sense. We have here, then, the
title, not of this whole Gospel of Matthew, but only of the first seventeen verses.
of Jesus Christ — For the meaning of these glorious words, see on Mat_1:16; see on
Mat_1:21. “Jesus,” the name given to our Lord at His circumcision (Luk_2:21), was that
by which He was familiarly known while on earth. The word “Christ” - though applied to
Him as a proper name by the angel who announced His birth to the shepherds (Luk_
2:11), and once or twice used in this sense by our Lord Himself (Mat_23:8, Mat_23:10;
Mar_9:41) - only began to be so used by others about the very close of His earthly career
(Mat_26:68; Mat_27:17). The full form, “Jesus Christ,” though once used by Himself in
His Intercessory Prayer (Joh_17:3), was never used by others till after His ascension and
the formation of churches in His name. Its use, then, in the opening words of this Gospel

(and in Mat_1:17, Mat_1:18) is in the style of the late period when our Evangelist wrote,
rather than of the events he was going to record.
the son of David, the son of Abraham — As Abraham was the first from whose
family it was predicted that Messiah should spring (Gen_22:18), so David was the last.
To a Jewish reader, accordingly, these behooved to be the two great starting-points of
any true genealogy of the promised Messiah; and thus this opening verse, as it stamps
the first Gospel as one peculiarly Jewish, would at once tend to conciliate the writer’s
people. From the nearest of those two fathers came that familiar name of the promised
Messiah, “the son of David” (Luk_20:41), which was applied to Jesus, either in devout
acknowledgment of His rightful claim to it (Mat_9:27; Mat_20:31), or in the way of
insinuating inquiry whether such were the case (see on Joh_4:29; Mat_12:23).
HAWKER, "The Gospel opens with the relation of the genealogy of Christ after the
flesh. We have an account of the miraculous conception: CHRIST’S birth and name.
Mat_1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of
Abraham.
There is somewhat very striking and particular in this opening of the Gospel. The Old
Testament begins with the account of the Creation. The New Testament begins with the
account of Him, by whom all things were created. Heb_1:1-2. The great design of this
pedigree concerning CHRIST after the flesh, is to prove Christ’s lineal descent from
Abraham. For unless this be proved, the evidence that Christ is the promised seed,
would be wanting. For to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not to
seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed which is CHRIST. Compare Gal_3:16
with Gen_12:3 and Gen_22:18. Hence, therefore, the importance of this pedigree is
evident. And the correctness of the one here given, is striking. I beg the Reader to
observe it with a suitableness equal to its consequence. Perhaps it were a thing
impossible in any other instance, but in the genealogy of Christ, to find among all the
pedigrees of the Jews, from the days of our LORD to this hour, a correct genealogy of
any one house, or tribe, or family, even for fourteen generations together: whereas in
this of CHRIST, we have three times fourteen. What can more decidedly manifest the
overruling providence and watchfulness of God!
SBC, "Note some points in the genealogy of our Lord.
I. Amongst those whom St. Matthew records as the ancestors of Christ according to the
flesh, there are only four female names introduced, and they are precisely those four
which a merely human historian, anxious to throw in everything which might seem to be
to the honour of Christ, and to omit everything which might seem to detract from that
honour, would have been desirous to have passed over in silence. The persons whose
names are given are Thamar, Rahab, Ruth (a Moabitess), and Bathsheba. One thing is
clear, that there was no thought in St. Matthew’s mind of throwing any false lights upon
his Lord’s history and character; and another thought might have been in his mind,
which led him to set down these names,—the wonderful manner in which God brings
His own purposes about by means which seem at first sight to be as little conducive to
them as possible, how through the apparent confusion of history, blotted by human sin,
the thread of His providence remained unbroken, and connected him to whom the
promises were made with Him who was the promised seed.
II. Jesus is declared by St. Matthew to be the Son of David, and therefore a member of
the royal tribe of Judah, not of the priestly tribe of Levi. Christ came as a priest, but

more particularly He came as a king; that which He preached from the first was a
kingdom.
III. The genealogies both of St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the descent of our Lord, not
through Mary His mother, but through Joseph, His reputed father. The lineage of
Joseph would be legally the lineage of Jesus, his reputed Son, and on that account the
Evangelists could not well have done otherwise than give his pedigree and not that of
Mary; and yet it cannot but appear remarkable, that the lineage of our Lord should be in
fact no lineage at all, that, like His type Melchisedec, He should be without descent. The
great fact in the lineage of Christ is not that He was the Son of David, but that He was
the Son of man.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 3rd series, p. 183.
EBC, "THE COMING OF THE CHRIST
THE New Testament opens appropriately with the four Gospels; for, though in their
present form they are all later in date than some of the Epistles, their substance was the
basis of all apostolic preaching and writing. As the Pentateuch to the Old Testament, so
is the fourfold Evangel to the New.
That there should be a manifold presentation of the great facts which lie at the
foundation of our faith and hope, was both to be expected and desired. The Gospel of
Jesus Christ, as proclaimed by the first preachers of it, while in substance always the
same, would be varied in form, and in number and in variety of details, according to the
individuality of the speaker, the kind of audience before him, and the special object he
might have in view at the time. Before any form of presentation had been crystallised,
there would therefore be an indefinite number of Gospels, each "according to" the
individual preacher of "Christ and Him crucified." It is, therefore a marvellous proof of
the guidance and control of the Divine Spirit that out of these numerous oral Gospels
there should emerge four, each perfect in itself, and together affording, as with the all-
round completeness of sculpture, a life-like representation of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is
manifestly of great advantage to have these several portraits of our Lord, permitting us
to see Him from different points of view, and with varying arrangements of light and
shade; all the more that, while three of them set forth in abundant variety of detail that
which is more external, -the face, the features, the form, all the expression of that
wondrous Life, -the fourth, appropriately called on that account "the Gospel of the heart
of Jesus," unveils more especially the hidden riches of His inner Life. But, besides this, a
manifold Gospel was needed, in order to meet the wants of man in the many-sidedness
of his development. As the heavenly "city lieth four square," with gates on the east, and
the west, and the north, and the south, to admit strangers coming from all points of the
compass; so must there be in the presentation of the Gospel an open door for all
mankind. How this great purpose is attained by the fourfold Gospel with which the New
Testament opens can be readily shown; and even a brief statement of it may serve a
useful purpose as introductory to our study of that which is known as the First Gospel.
The inscription over the cross was in three languages: Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. These
languages represented the three great civilizations which were the final outcome of
ancient history-the Jewish, the Roman, the Greek. These three were not like so many
nations selected at random, but stood for three leading types of humanity. The Jew was
the man of the past. He could claim Moses and the prophets; he had Abraham for his
father; his records went back to the Genesis of all things. He represented ancient

prerogative and privilege, the conservatism of the East. The Roman was the man of the
present. He was master of the world. He represented power, prowess, and. victory; and
while serving himself heir to the culture which came from the shores of the Aegean Sea,
he had combined with it the rude strength and restless activity of the barbarian and
Scythian of the North. The Greek was the man of the future. He had lost his political
empire, but still retained an empire in the world of thought. He represented humanity,
and the ideal, and all the promise which was afterwards to be realised in the culture of
the nations of the West. The Jew was the man of tradition, the Roman the man of
energy, the Greek the man of thought. Turning now to the Gospels, we find the wants of
each of these three types provided for in a wondrous way. St. Matthew addresses himself
especially to the Jew with his Gospel of fulfillment, St. Mark to the Roman with "his brief
and terse narrative of a three years’ campaign," St. Luke to the Greek with that all-
pervading spirit of humanity and catholicity which is so characteristic of his Evangel;
while for those who have been gathered from among the Jews and Romans and Greeks-a
people who are now no longer Jews or Greeks, but are "all one in Christ Jesus," prepared
to receive and appreciate the deeper things of Christ-there is a fourth Gospel, issued at a
later date, with characteristics specially adapted to them the mature work of the then
venerable John, the apostle of the Christian.
It is manifest that for every reason the Gospel of St. Matthew should occupy the
foremost place. "To the Jew first" is the natural order, whether we consider the claims of
"the fathers," or the necessity of making it clear that the new covenant was closely linked
to the old. "Salvation is of the Jews"; the Christ of God, though the Saviour of the world,
had been in a very special sense "the Hope of Israel," and therefore it is appropriate that
He should be represented first from the standpoint of that nation. We have, accordingly,
in this Gospel, a faithful setting forth of Christ as He presented Himself to the mind and
heart of a devout Jew, "an Israelite indeed, in whom was no guile," rejoicing to find in
Him One who fulfilled ancient prophecy and promise, realised the true ideal of the
kingdom of God, and substantiated His claim to be Himself the divine Saviour-King for
whom the nation and the world had waited long.
The opening words of this Gospel suggest that we are at the genesis of the New
Testament, the genesis not of the heavens and the earth, but of Him who was to make for
us "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." The Old Testament
opens with the thought, "Behold I make all things"; the New Testament with that which
amounts to the promise, "Behold I make all things new." It begins with the advent of
"the Second Man, the Lord from Heaven." That He was indeed a "Second Man," and not
merely one of the many that have sprung from the first man, will presently appear; but
first it must be made clear that He is man indeed, "bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh";
and therefore the inspired historian begins with His historic genealogy. True to his
object, however, he does not trace back our Lord’s descent, as does St. Luke, to the first
man, but contents himself with that which is especially interesting to the Jew, setting
Him forth as "the son of David, the son of Abraham." There is another difference
between the genealogies, of a more serious kind, which has been the occasion of much
difficulty; but which also seems to find readiest explanation in the different object each
Evangelist had in view. St. Luke, writing for the Gentile, is careful to give the natural
descent, while St. Matthew, writing for the Jew, sets forth that line of descent-diverging
from the other after the time of David-which made it clear to the Jew that He was the
rightful heir to the kingdom. The object of the one is to set Him forth as the Son of Man;
of the other to proclaim Him King of Israel.
St. Matthew gives the genealogy in three great epochs or stages, which, veiled in the
Authorised Version by the verse division, are clearly exhibited to the eye in the

paragraphs of the Revised Version, and which are summed up and made emphatic at the
close of the genealogical tree. (Mat_1:17) The first is from Abraham to David; the second
from David to the captivity in Babylon; the third from the captivity to Christ. If we
glance at these, we shall find that they represent three great stages in the development of
the Old Testament promises which find their fulfillment in the Messiah.
"To Abraham and to his seed were the promises made." As given to Abraham himself,
the promise ran thus: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." As made
to David, it indicated that the blessing to the nations should come through a king of his
line. These were the two great promises to Israel. There were many others; but these
stand out from the rest as constituting the mission and the hope of Israel. Now, after
long waiting, both are to be fulfilled in Christ. He is the chosen Seed in Whom all nations
shall be blessed. He is the Son of David, who is to sit upon His throne for ever, and reign,
not over Israel alone, but over men, as "Prince of Peace" and "King of Glory." But what
has the captivity in Babylon to do with it? Very much; as a little reflection will show.
The captivity in Babylon, as is well known, was followed by two great results:
(1) it cured the people of idolatry for ever, so that, while politically the kingdom had
passed away, in reality, and according to the spirit, it was then for the first time
constituted as a kingdom of God. Till then, though politically separate from the Gentile
nations, spiritually Israel had become as one of them; for what else than a heathen
nation was the northern kingdom in the days of Ahab or the southern kingdom in the
time of Ahaz? But after the captivity, though as a nation shattered into fragments,
spiritually Israel became and continued to be one.
(2) The other great result of the captivity was the Dispersion. Only a small remnant of
the people came back to Palestine. Ten of the tribes passed out of sight, and but a
fraction of the other two returned. The rest remained in Babylon, or were scattered
abroad among the nations of the earth. Thus the Jews in their dispersion formed, as it
were, a Church throughout the ancient world, -their eyes ever turned in love and longing
to the Temple at Jerusalem, while their homes and their business were among the
Gentiles-in the world, but not of it; the prototype of the future Church of Christ, and the
soil out of which it should afterwards spring. Thus out of the captivity in Babylon
sprang, first, the spiritual as distinguished from the political kingdom, and, next, the
world-wide as distinguished from the merely national Church. Clearly, then, the
Babylonish captivity was not only a most important historical event, but also a stage in
the grand preparation for the Advent of the Messiah. The original promise made to
Abraham, that in his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed, was shown in
the time of David to be a promise which should find its fulfillment in the coming of a
king; and as the king after God’s heart was foreshadowed in David, so the kingdom after
the Divine purpose was foreshadowed in the condition of the people of God after the
captivity in Babylon, purified from idolatry, scattered abroad among the nations, with
their innumerable synagogues (prototypes of our churches) and their peculiarities of
faith and life and worship. Abraham was called out of Babylon to be a witness for God
and the coming Christ; and, after the long training of centuries, his descendants were
taken back to Babylon, to scatter from that world-centre the seed of the coming kingdom
of God. Thus it comes to pass that in Christ and His kingdom we see the culmination of
that wonderful history which has for its great stages of progress Abraham, David, the
Captivity, Christ.
So much for the earthly origin of the Man Christ Jesus; but His heavenly descent must
also be told; and with what exquisite simplicity and delicacy is this done. There is no
attempt to make the words correspond with the greatness of the facts. As simple and

transparent as clear glass, they allow the facts to speak for themselves. So it is all the way
through this Evangel. What a contrast here to the spurious Gospels afterwards
produced, when men had nothing to tell, and so must put in their own poor fictions,
piously intending sometimes to add lustre to the too simple story of the Infancy, but only
with the effect of degrading it in the eyes of all men of taste and judgment. But here there
is no need of fiction, no need even of rhetoric or sentiment. The fact itself is so great that
the more simply it is told the better. The Holy One of Israel came into the world with no
tinsel of earthly pomp; and in strict harmony with His mode of entrance, the story of His
birth is told with like simplicity. The Sun of Righteousness rises like the natural sun, in
silence; and in this Gospel, as in all the others, passes on to its setting through the
heaven of the Evangelist’s thought, which stands, like that other heaven, "majestic in its
own simplicity."
The story of the Incarnation is often represented as incredible; but if those who so
regard it would only reflect on that doctrine of heredity which the science of recent years
has brought into such prominence, if they would only consider what is involved in the
obvious truth that, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," they would see that it was
not only natural but necessary that the birth of Jesus Christ should be "on this wise."
Inasmuch as "the first man is of the earth, earthy," "the Second Man" must be "of
heaven," or He will be no Second Man at all; He will be sinful and earthy like all the
others. But all that is needful is met in the manner so chastely and beautifully set forth
by our Evangelist, in words which, angelic in their tone and like the blue of heaven in
their purity, so well become the angel of the Lord.
Some wonder that nothing is said here of Nazareth and what took place there, and of the
journey to Bethlehem; and there are those who are fain even to find some inconsistency,
with the third Gospel in this omission, as if there were any need to wonder at omissions
in a story which tells of the first year on one page and the thirtieth on the next! These
Gospels are not biographies. They are memorials, put together for a special purpose, to
set forth this Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour of the world. And the special object, as
we have seen, of St. Matthew is to set Him forth as the Messiah of Israel. In accordance
with this object we have His birth told in such a way as to bring into prominence those
facts only in which the Evangelist specially recognised a fulfillment of Old Testament
prophecy. Here again the names give us the main thoughts. Just as Abraham, David,
Babylon, suggest the main object of the genealogy, so the names Emmanuel, Jesus,
suggest the main object of the record of His birth. "All this was done that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet."
The first name mentioned is "Jesus." To understand it as St. Matthew did, we must bear
in mind that it is the old historic name Joshua, and that the first thought of the Hebrew
mind would be, Here is One who shall fulfil all that was typified in the life and work of
the two Old Testament heroes who bore that name, so full of hopeful significance. The
first Joshua was Israel’s captain on the occasion of their first settlement in the Land of
Promise after the bondage in Egypt; the second Joshua was Israel’s high priest at their
second settlement in the land after the bondage in Babylon. Both were thus associated
with great deliverances; but neither the one nor the other had given the rest of full
salvation to the people of God; (see Heb_4:8) what they had done had only been to
procure for them political freedom and a land they could call their own, - a picture in the
earthly sphere of what the Coming One was to accomplish in the spiritual sphere. The
salvation from Egypt and from Babylon were both but types of the great salvation from
sin which was to come through the Christ of God. These or such as these must have been
the thoughts in the mind of Joseph when he heard the angel’s words: "Thou shalt call

His name Joshua; for it is He that shall save His people from their sins."
Joseph, though a poor carpenter of Nazareth, was a true son of David, one of those who
waited for the salvation of Israel, who had welcomed the truth set forth by Daniel, that
the coming kingdom was to be a kingdom of the saints of the Most High, -not of political
adventurers, as was the idea of the corrupt Judaism of the time; so he was prepared to
welcome the truth that the coming Saviour was One who should deliver, not from the
rule of Rome, but from the guilt and power and death of Sin.
As the name Joshua, or Jesus, came from the earliest times of Israel’s national history,
the name Emmanuel came from its latest, even out of the dark days of King Ahaz, when
the hope of the people was directed to the birth of a Child who should bear this name.
Some have thought it enough to show that there was a fulfillment of this hope in the
time of Ahaz, to make it evident that St. Matthew was mistaken in finding its fulfillment
in Christ; but this idea, like so many others of the same kind, is founded on ignorance of
the relation of the Old Testament history to the New Testament times. We have seen that
though Joshua of the early times and his successor of the same name did each a work of
his own, yet both of them were in relation to the future but prototypes of the Great
Joshua who was to come. In the same way exactly, if there was, as we believe, a
deliverance in the time of Ahaz, to which the prophet primarily referred, it was, as in so
many other cases, but a picture of the greater one in which the gracious purpose of God,
manifested in all these partial deliverances, was to be "fulfilled," i.e., filled to the full. The
idea in the name "Emmanuel" was not a new one even in the time of King Ahaz. "I will be
with you"; "Certainly I will be with you"; "Fear not, for I am with you,"-such words of
gracious promise had been echoed and re-echoed all down the course of the history of
the people of God, before they were enshrined in the name prophetically used by Isaiah
in the days of King Ahaz; and they were finally embodied, incarnated, in the Child born
at Bethlehem in the fulness of the time, to Whom especially belongs that name of highest
hope, "Emmanuel," "God with us."
If, now, we look at these two names, we shall see that they not only point to a fulfillment,
in the largest sense, of Old Testament prophecy, but to the fulfillment of that which we
all need most-the satisfaction of our deepest wants and longings. "God is light"; sin is
darkness. With God is the fountain of life; "sin when it is finished bringeth forth death."
Here shines the star of hope; there lies the abyss of despair. Now, without Christ we are
tied to sin, separated from God. Sin is near; God is far. That is our curse. Therefore what
we need is God brought near and sin taken away-the very blessings guaranteed in these
two precious names of our Lord. As Emmanuel, He brings God near to us, near in His
own incarnate person, near in His loving life, near in His perfect sympathy, near in His
perpetual presence, according to the promise, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world." As Jesus, He saves us from our sins. How he does it is set forth in the
sequel of the Gospel, culminating in the sacrifice of the cross, "to finish the
transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to
bring in everlasting righteousness." For He has not only to bring God down to us, but
also to lift us up to God; and while the incarnation effects the one, the atonement,
followed by the work of the Holy Spirit, is necessary to secure the other. He touches
man, the creature, at his cradle; He reaches down to man, the sinner, at His cross-the
end of His descent to us, the beginning of our ascent with Him to God. There we meet
Him and, saved from sin, we know Him as our Jesus; and reconciled to God, we have
Him with us as Emmanuel, God with us, always with us, with us throughout all life’s
changes, with us in death’s agony, with us in the life to come, to guide us into all its
wisdom and honour and riches and glory and blessing.

BARCLAY 1-17, "It might seem to a modern reader that Matthew chose an extraordinary
way in which to begin his gospel; and it might seem daunting to present right at the
beginning a long list of names to wade through. But to a Jew this was the most natural,
and the most interesting, and indeed the most essential way to begin the story of any
man's life.
The Jews were exceedingly interested in genealogies. Matthew calls this the book of the
generation (biblos - Greek #976; geneseos - Greek #1078) of Jesus Christ. That to the
Jews was a common phrase; and it means the record of a man's lineage, with a few
explanatory sentences, where such comment was necessary. In the Old Testament we
frequently find lists of the generations of famous men (Genesis 5:1; Genesis 10:1;
Genesis 11:10; Genesis 11:27). When Josephus, the great Jewish historian, wrote his own
autobiography, he began it with his own pedigree, which, he tells us, he found in the
public records.
The reason for this interest in pedigrees was that the Jews set the greatest possible store
on purity of lineage. If in any man there was the slightest admixture of foreign blood, he
lost his right to be called a Jew, and a member of the people of God. A priest, for
instance, was bound to produce an unbroken record of his pedigree stretching back to
Aaron; and, if he married, the woman he married must produce her pedigree for at least
five generations back. When Ezra was reorganizing the worship of God, after the people
returned from exile, and was setting the priesthood to function again, the children of
Habaiah, the children of Koz, and the children of Barzillai were debarred from office,
and were labelled as polluted because "These sought their registration among those
enrolled in the genealogies, but they were not found there" (Ezra 2:62).
These genealogical records were actually kept by the Sanhedrin. Herod the Great was
always despised by the pure-blooded Jews because he was half an Edomite; and we can
see the importance that even Herod attached to these genealogies from the fact that he
had the official registers destroyed, so that no one could prove a purer pedigree than his
own. This may seem to us an uninteresting passage, but to the Jew it would be a most
impressive matter that the pedigree of Jesus could be traced back to Abraham.
It is further to be noted that this pedigree is most carefully arranged. It is arranged in
three groups of fourteen people each. It is in fact what is technically known as a
mnemonic, that is to say a thing so arranged that it is easy to memorize. It is always to be
remembered that the gospels were written hundreds of years before there was any such
thing as a printed book. Very few people would be able to own actual copies of them; and
so, if they wished to possess them, they would be compelled to memorize them. This
pedigree, therefore, is arranged in such a way that it is easy to memorize. It is meant to
prove that Jesus was the son of David, and is so arranged as to make it easy for people to
carry it in their memories.
THE THREE STAGES (Matthew 1:1-17 continued)

There is something symbolic of the whole of human life in the way in which this pedigree
is arranged. It is arranged in three sections, and the three sections are based on three
great stages in Jewish history.
The first section takes the history down to David. David was the man who welded Israel
into a nation, and made the Jews a power in the world. The first section takes the story
down to the rise of Israel's greatest king.
The second section takes the story down to the exile to Babylon. It is the section which
tells of the nation's shame, and tragedy, and disaster.
The third section takes the story down to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was the person who
liberated men from their slavery, who rescued them from their disaster, and in whom
the tragedy was turned into triumph.
These three sections stand for three stages in the spiritual history of mankind.
(i) Man was born for greatness. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God
He created him" (Genesis 1:27). God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness" (Genesis 1:26). Man was created in the image of God. God's dream for man was
a dream of greatness. Man was designed for fellowship with God. He was created that he
might be nothing less than kin to God. As Cicero, the Roman thinker, saw it, "The only
difference between man and God is in point of time." Man was essentially man born to
be king.
(ii) Man lost his greatness. Instead of being the servant of God, man became the slave of
sin. As G. K. Chesterton said, 6. whatever else is true of man, man is not what he was
meant to be." He used his free-will to defy and to disobey God, rather than to enter into
friendship and fellowship with him. Left to himself man had frustrated the design and
plan of God in His creation.
(iii) Man can regain his greatness. Even then God did not abandon man to himself and to
his own devices. God did not allow man to be destroyed by his own folly. The end of the
story was not left to be tragedy. Into this world God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, that he
might rescue man from the morass of sin in which he had lost himself, and liberate him
from the chains of sin with which he had bound himself so that through him man might
regain the fellowship with God which he had lost.
In his genealogy Matthew shows us the royalty of kingship gained; the tragedy of
freedom lost; the glory of liberty restored. And that, in the mercy of God, is the story of
mankind, and of each individual man.

THE REALIZATION OF MEN'S DREAMS (Matthew 1:1-17 continued)
This passage stresses two special things about Jesus.
(i) It stresses the fact that he was the son of David. It was, indeed, mainly to prove this
that the genealogy was composed. The New Testament stresses this again and again.
Peter states it in the first recorded sermon of the Christian Church (Acts 2:29-36). Paul
speaks of Jesus Christ descended from David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3). The
writer of the Pastoral Epistles urges men to remember that Jesus Christ, descended from
David, was raised from the dead (2 Timothy 2:8). The writer of the Revelation hears the
Risen Christ say: "I am the root and the offspring of David" (Revelation 22:16).
Repeatedly Jesus is so addressed in the gospel story. After the healing of the blind and
dumb man, the people exclaim, "Can this be the son of David?" (Matthew 12:23). The
woman of Tyre and Sidon, who wished for Jesus' help for her daughter, calls him: "Son
of David" (Matthew 15:22). The blind men cry out to Jesus as son of David (Matthew
20:30-31). It is as son of David that the crowds greet Jesus when he enters Jerusalem for
the last time (Matthew 21:9; Matthew 21:15).
There is something of great significance here. It is clear that it was the crowd, the
common people, the ordinary folk, who addressed Jesus as son of David. The Jews were
a waiting people. They never forgot, and never could forget, that they were the chosen
people of God. Although their history was one long series of disasters, although at this
very time they were a subject people, they never forgot their destiny. And it was the
dream of the common people that into this world would come a descendant of David
who would lead them to the glory which they believed to be theirs by right.
That is to say, Jesus is the answer to the dreams of men. It is true that so often men do
not see it so. They see the answer to their dreams in power, in wealth, in material plenty,
and in the realization of the ambitions which they cherish. But if ever men's dreams of
peace and loveliness, and greatness and satisfaction, are to be realized, they can find
their realization only in Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ and the life he offers is the answer to the dreams of men. In the old Joseph
story there is a text which goes far beyond the story itself. When Joseph was in prison,
Pharaoh's chief butler and chief baker were prisoners along with him. They had their
dreams, and their dreams troubled them, and their bewildered cry is, "We have had
dreams, and there is no one to interpret them" (Genesis 40:8). Because man is man,
because he is a child of eternity, man is always haunted by his dream; and the only way
to the realization of it lies in Jesus Christ.
(ii) This passage also stresses that Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy. In him the
message of the prophets came true. We tend nowadays to make very little of prophecy.
We are not really interested, for the most part, in searching for sayings in the Old

Testament which are fulfilled in the New Testament. But prophecy does contain this
great and eternal truth, that in this universe there is purpose and design and that God is
meaning and willing certain things to happen.
J. H. Withers quotes a saying from Gerald Healy's play, The Black Stranger. The scene is
in Ireland, in the terrible days of famine in the mid-nineteenth century. For want of
something better to do, and for lack of some other solution, the government had set men
to digging roads to no purpose and to no destination. Michael finds out about this and
comes home one day, and says in poignant wonder to his father, "They're makin' roads
that lead to nowhere."
If we believe in prophecy that is what we can never say. History can never be a road that
leads to nowhere. We may not use prophecy in the same way as our fathers did, but at
the back of the fact of prophecy lies the eternal fact that life and the world are not on the
way to nowhere, but on the way to the goal of God.
NOT THE RIGHTEOUS, BUT SINNERS (Matthew 1:1-17 continued)
By far the most amazing thing about this pedigree is the names of the women who
appear in it.
It is not normal to find the names of women in Jewish pedigrees at all. The woman had
no legal rights; she was regarded, not as a person, but as a thing. She was merely the
possession of her father or of her husband, and in his disposal to do with as he liked. In
the regular form of morning prayer the Jew thanked God that he had not made him a
Gentile, a slave, or a woman. The very existence of these names in any pedigree at all is a
most surprising and extraordinary phenomenon.
But when we look at who these women were, and at what they did, the matter becomes
even more amazing. Rachab, or as the Old Testament calls her, Rahab, was a harlot of
Jericho (Joshua 2:1-7). Ruth was not even a Jewess; she was a Moabitess (Ruth 1:4), and
does not the law itself lay it down, "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of
the Lord; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly
of the Lord for ever" (Deuteronomy 23:3)? Ruth belonged to an alien and a hated people.
Tamar was a deliberate seducer and an adulteress (Genesis 38:1-30 ). Bathsheba, the
mother of Solomon, was the woman whom David seduced from Uriah, her husband,
with an unforgivable cruelty (2 Samuel 11:1-27; 2 Samuel 12:1-31). If Matthew had
ransacked the pages of the Old Testament for improbable candidates he could not have
discovered four more incredible ancestors for Jesus Christ. But, surely, there is
something very lovely in this. Here, at the very beginning, Matthew shows us in symbol
the essence of the gospel of God in Jesus Christ, for here he shows us the barriers going
down.
(i) The barrier between Jew and Gentile is down. Rahab, the woman of Jericho, and
Ruth, the woman of Moab, find their place within the pedigree of Jesus Christ. Already
the great truth is there that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Here, at the very

beginning, there is the universalism of the gospel and of the love of God.
(ii) The barriers between male and female are down. In no ordinary pedigree would the
name of any woman be found; but such names are found in Jesus' pedigree. The old
contempt is gone; and men and women stand equally dear to God, and equally important
to his purposes.
(iii) The barrier between saint and sinner is down. Somehow God can use for his
purposes, and fit into his scheme of things, those who have sinned greatly. "I came" said
Jesus, "not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:13).
Here at the very beginning of the gospel we are given a hint of the all-embracing width of
the love of God. God can find his servants amongst those from whom the respectable
orthodox would shudder away in horror.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 1-15, "The book of the generation.
The lessons of Christ’s genealogy
1. It is a proof of the reality of Christ’s humanity.
2. It suggests the relation of Christ’s work to the whole human race.
3. It marks the importance of the birth of Christ as a historical epoch. Let it remind
us also
(1) Of the shortness of human life;
(2) Of the subserviency of persons of every class and character to the purposes of
God’s moral government. (G. Brooks.)
The double use of genealogies
1. A profane use for ostentation.
2. A holy use
(1) For the observing of judicial laws;
(2) For the distinguishing the church from those without;
(3) For the setting forth the pedigree of the Messiah, lest it should be thought
that he were some obscure or secret person. (R. Ward.)
The old and new in Jesus
The first record is the book of the generation of Jesus Christ. What does this signify?
1. A man’s beginnings, a man’s ancestors, have something to do with both his
character and his life.

2. Christ was the sacred heir of all the ancient world.
3. The genealogy reminds us how all the past was preparing for Jesus.
4. But more than all, the generations of Jesus Christ show us the birth of the new
world, and the new time, and the new institutions, which are to end in the perfect
glory of the Father and the perfect blessedness of the race. (W. H. Davison.)
The genealogy of Christ
1. There is much in good lineage.
2. Sin has tainted the blood of the best races of men, and frequently makes itself
manifest.
3. God’s grace can flow through very crooked human channels.
4. No man stands alone.
Lessons of Christ’s genealogy
1. This table of our Lord’s genealogy, inserted in the beginning of the gospel, invests
the book with an air of naturalness and reality, which probably nothing else could
have done so well. No man writing fiction would have ventured to preface it with a
dry list of obscure names.
2. It connects Jesus and His teachings with all God’s revelations and promises which
had been given before. It binds up, as in one sheaf, all generations of the church in
one uniform moral system.
3. The Lord’s ancestral roll serves to identify Him in closer connection and sympathy
with the race whom, as their God, lie came to redeem.
4. The account of those who were Christ’s ancestry before His first advent suggest
the anxious inquiry, whether our names are written in the Book of Life as members
of His spiritual family. (J. B. Owen, M. A.)
Very man
1. He is a man.
2. He is a Jew.
3. He is a king.
(1) God’s purpose is to bless by a man;
(2) To teach by a man;
(3) To judge by a man;
(4) To rule by a man;
(5) To link earth and heaven together by a man. (Dr. Bonar.)
The text appears at first sight like a valley of dry bones without any life or fertility, or a

rugged pass that leads to green pastures. Nevertheless, there are important lessons in it
respecting the human race and its relation to the Lord Jesus Christ.
I. It shows the common origin of the race. St. Luke traces the ancestry of Jesus to Adam-
the head of the race.
II. The physical connection of the race. Having sprung from a common head, there must
be a physical connection between the various members.
(1) War seems doubly barbarous and unnatural.
(2) Men ought to sympathize with and promote one another’s welfare apart from
Christianity, etc.
III. The common saviour of the race
IV. The moral distinction of the race. What a mixture of good and bad there is in the
genealogy! (W. Edwards.)
ELLICOTT, “(1) Nothing can be inferred directly from St. Matthew’s phrase “till she had brought
forth” as to what followed after the birth. The writer’s purpose is obviously to emphasise the absence of
all that might interfere with the absolutely supernatural character of the birth itself. (2) Nothing can be
inferred with certainty from the mention of our Lord’s “brethren” in Matthew 12:46 (see Note there), and
elsewhere. They may have been children of Joseph by a former marriage, or by what was known as a
levirate marriage with the widow of a deceased brother, under the law of Deuteronomy 25:5,Matthew
22:24, or children by adoption, or cousins included under the general name of brethren. (3) The fact
that the mother of our Lord found a home with the beloved disciple (John 19:27) and not with any of
the “brethren” points, as far as it goes, to their not being her own children, but it does not go far
enough to warrant any positive assertion. Scripture therefore supplies no data for any decision on
either side, nor does any tradition that can really be called primitive. The reverence for virginity as
compared with marriage in the patristic and mediæval Church made the “ever-virgin” to be one of the
received titles of the mother of the Lord. The reaction of natural feeling against that reverence led men
in earlier and later times to assert the opposite. Every commentator is influenced consciously or
unconsciously by his leanings in this or that direction. And so the matter must rest.
BENSON,” . 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 senseMark 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.
CALVIN, "As all are not agreed about these two genealogies, which are given by Matthew and
Luke, we must first see whether both trace the genealogy of Christ from Joseph, or whether
Matthew only traces it from Joseph, and Luke from Mary. Those who are of this latter opinion
have a plausible ground for their distinction in the diversity of the names: and certainly, at first
sight, nothing seems more improbable than that Matthew and Luke, who differ so widely from
each other, give one and the same genealogy. For from David to Salathiel, and again from
Zerubbabel till Joseph, the names are totally different.
Again, it is alleged, that it would have been idle to bestow so great pains on a thing of no use, in
relating a second time the genealogy of Joseph, who after all was not the father of Christ. “Why
this repetition,” say they, “which proves nothing that contributes much to the edification of faith? If
nothing more be known than this, that Joseph was one of the descendants and family of David,
the genealogy of Christ will still remain doubtful.” In their opinion, therefore, it would have been
superfluous that two Evangelists should apply themselves to this subject. They excuse Matthew
for laying down the ancestry of Joseph, on the ground, that he did it for the sake of many persons,
who were still of opinion that he was the father of Christ. But it would have been foolish to hold out
such an encouragement to a dangerous error: and what follows is at total variance with the
supposition. For as soon as he comes to the close of the genealogy, Matthew points out that
Christ was conceived in the womb of the virgin, not from the seed of Joseph, but by the secret
power of the Spirit. If their argument were good, Matthew might be charged with folly or
inadvertence, in laboring to no purpose to establish the genealogy of Joseph.
But we have not yet replied to their objection, that the ancestry of Joseph has nothing to do with
Christ. The common and well-known reply is, that in the person of Joseph the genealogy of Mary
also is included, because the law enjoined every man to marry from his own tribe. It is objected,
on the other hand, that at almost no period had that law been observed: but the arguments on
which that assertion rests are frivolous. They quote the instance of the eleven tribes binding
themselves by an oath, that they would not give a wife to the Benjamites, (Jude 21:1.) If this
matter, say they, had been settled by law, there would have been no need for a new enactment. I
reply, this extraordinary occurrence is erroneously and ignorantly converted by them into a general
rule: for if one tribe had been cut off, the body of the people must have been incomplete if some
remedy had not been applied to a case of extreme necessity. We must not, therefore, look to this
passage for ascertaining the common law.
Again, it is objected, that Mary, the mother of Christ, was Elisabeth’s cousin, though Luke has
formerly stated that she was of the daughters of Aaron, (Luke 1:5.) The reply is easy. The
daughters of the tribe of Judah, or of any other tribe, were at liberty to marry into the tribe of the
priesthood: for they were not prevented by that reason, which is expressed in the law, that no
woman should “remove her inheritance” to those who were of a different tribe from her own,
(Numbers 36:6.) Thus, the wife of Jehoiada, the high priest, is declared by the sacred historian to
have belonged to the royal family, —
“Jehoshabeath, the daughter of Jehoram,
the wife of Jehoiada the priest,”
(2 Chronicles 22:11.)
It was, therefore, nothing wonderful or uncommon, if the mother of Elisabeth were married to a
priest. Should any one allege, that this does not enable us to decide, with perfect certainty, that
Mary was of the same tribe with Joseph, because she was his wife, I grant that the bare narrative,
as it stands, would not prove it without the aid of other circumstances.
But, in the first place, we must observe, that the Evangelists do not speak of events known in their

own age. When the ancestry of Joseph had been carried up as far as David, every one could
easily make out the ancestry of Mary. The Evangelists, trusting to what was generally understood
in their own day, were, no doubt, less solicitous on that point: for, if any one entertained doubts,
the research was neither difficult nor tedious. (85) Besides, they took for granted, that Joseph, as
a man of good character and behavior, had obeyed the injunction of the law in marrying a wife
from his own tribe. That general rule would not, indeed, be sufficient to prove Mary’s royal
descent; for she might have belonged to the tribe of Judah, and yet not have been a descendant
of the family of David.
My opinion is this. The Evangelists had in their eye godly persons, who entered into no obstinate
dispute, but in the person of Joseph acknowledged the descent of Mary; particularly since, as we
have said, no doubt was entertained about it in that age. One matter, however, might appear
incredible, that this very poor and despised couple belonged to the posterity of David, and to that
royal seed, from which the Redeemer was to spring. If any one inquire whether or not the
genealogy traced by Matthew and Luke proves clearly and beyond controversy that Mary was
descended from the family of David, I own that it cannot be inferred with certainty; but as the
relationship between Mary and Joseph was at that time well known, the Evangelists were more at
ease on that subject. Meanwhile, it was the design of both Evangelists to remove the stumbling-
block arising from the fact, that both Joseph and Mary were unknown, and despised, and poor,
and gave not the slightest indication of royalty.
Again, the supposition that Luke passes by the descent of Joseph, and relates that of Mary, is
easily refuted; for he expressly says, that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph,
etc. Certainly, neither the father nor the grandfather of Christ is mentioned, but the ancestry of
Joseph himself is carefully explained. I am well aware of the manner in which they attempt to
solve this difficulty. The word son, they allege, is put for son-in-law, and the interpretation they
give to Joseph being called the son of Heli is, that he had married Heli’s daughter. But this does
not agree with the order of nature, and is nowhere countenanced by any example in Scripture.
If Solomon is struck out of Mary’s genealogy, Christ will no longer be Christ; for all inquiry as to his
descent is founded on that solemn promise,
“I will set up thy seed after thee; I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his
father, and he shall be my son,”
(2 Samuel 7:12.)
“The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I
set upon thy throne,”
(Psalms 132:11.)
Solomon was, beyond controversy, the type of this eternal King who was promised to David; nor
can the promise be applied to Christ, except in so far as its truth was shadowed out in Solomon,
(1 Chronicles 28:5.) Now if the descent is not traced to him, how, or by what argument, shall he be
proved to be “the son of David”? Whoever expunges Solomon from Christ’s genealogy does at
the same time, obliterate and destroy those promises by which he must be acknowledged to be
the son of David. In what way Luke, tracing the line of descent from Nathan, does not exclude
Solomon, will afterwards be seen at the proper place.
Not to be too tedious, those two genealogies agree substantially with each other, but we must
attend to four points of difference. The first is; Luke ascends by a retrograde order, from the last
to the first, while Matthew begins with the source of the genealogy. The second is; Matthew does
not carry his narrative beyond the holy and elect race of Abraham, (86) while Luke proceeds as far
as Adam. The third is; Matthew treats of his legal descent, and allows himself to make some
omissions in the line of ancestors, choosing to assist the reader’s memory by arranging them
under three fourteens; while Luke follows the natural descent with greater exactness. The fourth
and last is; when they are speaking of the same persons, they sometimes give them different
names.
It would be superfluous to say more about the first point of difference, for it presents no difficulty.
Thesecond is not without a very good reason: for, as God had chosen for himself the family of
Abraham, from which the Redeemer of the world would be born, and as the promise of salvation

had been, in some sort, shut up in that family till the coming of Christ, Matthew does not pass
beyond the limits which God had prescribed. We must attend to what Paul says,
“that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the
promises made unto the fathers,”
(Romans 15:8)
with which agrees that saying of Christ, “Salvation is of the Jews,” (John 4:22.) Matthew,
therefore, presents him to our contemplation as belonging to that holy race, to which he had been
expressly appointed. In Matthew’s catalogue we must look at the covenant of God, by which he
adopted the seed of Abraham as his people, separating them, by a “middle wall of partition,”
(Ephesians 2:14,) from the rest of the nations. Luke directed his view to a higher point; for though,
from the time that God had made his covenant with Abraham, a Redeemer was promised, in a
peculiar manner, to his seed, yet we know that, since the transgression of the first man, all
needed a Redeemer, and he was accordingly appointed for the whole world. It was by a wonderful
purpose of God, that Luke exhibited Christ to us as the son of Adam, while Matthew confined him
within the single family of Abraham. For it would be of no advantage to us, that Christ was given
by the Father as “the author of eternal salvations” (Hebrews 5:9,) unless he had been given
indiscriminately to all. Besides, that saying of the Apostle would not be true, that “Jesus Christ is
the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,” (Hebrews 13:8,) if his power and grace had not
reached to all ages from the very creation of the world. Let us know; therefore, that to the whole
human race there has been manifested and exhibited salvation through Christ; for not without
reason is he called the son of Noah, and the son of Adam. But as we must seek him in the word
of God, the Spirit wisely directs us, through another Evangelist, to the holy race of Abraham, to
whose hands the treasure of eternal life, along with Christ, was committed for a time, (Romans
3:1.)
We come now to the third point of difference. Matthew and Luke unquestionably do not observe
the same order; for immediately after David the one puts Solomon, and the other, Nathan; which
makes it perfectly clear that they follow different lines. This sort of contradiction is reconciled by
good and learned interpreters in the following manner. Matthew, departing from the natural
lineage, which is followed by Luke, reckons up the legal genealogy. I call it the legal genealogy,
because the right to the throne passed into the hands of Salathiel. Eusebius, in the first book of
his Ecclesiastical History, adopting the opinion of Africanus, prefers applying the epithet legal to
the genealogy which is traced by Luke. But it amounts to the same thing: for he means nothing
more than this, that the kingdom, which had been established in the person of Solomon, passed
in a lawful manner to Salathiel. But it is more correct and appropriate to say, that Matthew has
exhibited the legal order: because, by naming Solomon immediately after David, he attends, not to
the persons from whom in a regular line, according to the flesh, Christ derived his birth, but to the
manner in which he was descended from Solomon and other kings, so as to be their lawful
successor, in whose hand God would “stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever,” (2 Samuel
7:13.)
There is probability in the opinion that, at the death of Ahaziah, the lineal descent from Solomon
was closed. As to the command given by David — for which some persons quote the authority of
Jewish Commentators — that should the line from Solomon fail, the royal power would pass to the
descendants of Nathan, I leave it undetermined; holding this only for certain, that the succession
to the kingdom was not confused, but regulated by fixed degrees of kindred. Now, as the sacred
history relates that, after the murder of Ahaziah, the throne was occupied, and all the seed-royal
destroyed “by his mother Athaliah, (2 Kings 11:1,) it is more than probable that this woman, from
an eager desire of power, had perpetrated those wicked and horrible murders that she might not
be reduced to a private rank, and see the throne transferred to another. If there had been a son of
Ahaziah still alive, the grandmother would willingly have been allowed to reign in peace, without
envy or danger, under the mask of being his tutor. When she proceeds to such enormous crimes
as to draw upon herself infamy and hatred, it is a proof of desperation arising from her being
unable any longer to keep the royal authority in her house.
As to Joash being called “the son of Ahaziah,” (2 Chronicles 22:11,) the reason is, that he was the
nearest relative, and was justly considered to be the true and direct heir of the crown. Not to
mention that Athaliah (if we shall suppose her to be his grandmother) would gladly have availed

herself of her relation to the child, will any person of ordinary understanding think it probable, that
an actual son of the king could be so concealed by “Jehoiada the priest,” as not to excite the
grandmother to more diligent search? If all is carefully weighed, there will be no hesitation in
concluding, that the next heir of the crown belonged to a different line. And this is the meaning of
Jehoiada’s words,
“ Behold, the king’s son shall reign, as the Lord hath said of the sons of David,”
(2 Chronicles 23:3.)
He considered it to be shameful and intolerable, that a woman, who was a stranger by blood,
should violently seize the scepter, which God had commanded to remain in the family of David.
There is no absurdity in supposing, that Luke traces the descent of Christ from Nathan: for it is
possible that the line of Solomon, so far as relates to the succession of the throne, may have
been broken off. It may be objected, that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as the promised
Messiah, if he be not a descendant of Solomon, who was an undoubted type of Christ But the
answer is easy. Though he was not naturally descended from Solomon, yet he was reckoned his
son by legal succession, because he was descended from kings.
The fourth point of difference is the great diversity of the names. Many look upon this as a great
difficulty: for from David till Joseph, with the exception of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, none of the
names are alike in the two Evangelists. The excuse commonly offered, that the diversity arose
from its being very customary among the Jews to have two names, appears to many persons not
quite satisfactory. But as we are now unacquainted with the method, which was followed by
Matthew in drawing up and arranging the genealogy, there is no reason to wonder, if we are
unable to determine how far both of them agree or differ as to individual names. It cannot be
doubted that, after the Babylonish captivity, the same persons are mentioned under different
names. In the case of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, the same names, I think, were purposely
retained, on account of the change which had taken place in the nation: because the royal
authority was then extinguished. Even while a feeble shadow of power remained, a striking
change was visible, which warned believers, that they ought to expect another and more excellent
kingdom than that of Solomon, which had flourished but for a short time.
It is also worthy of remark, that the additional number in Luke’s catalogue to that of Matthew is
nothing strange; for the number of persons in the natural line of descent is usually greater than in
the legal line. Besides, Matthew chose to divide the genealogy of Christ into three departments,
and to make each department to contain fourteen persons. In this way, he felt himself at liberty to
pass by some names, which Luke could not with propriety omit, not having restricted himself by
that rule.
Thus have I discussed the genealogy of Christ, as far as it appeared to be generally useful. If any
one is tickled (87) by a keener curiosity, I remember Paul’s admonition, and prefer sobriety and
modesty to trifling and useless disputes. It is a noted passage, in which he enjoins us to avoid
excessive keenness in disputing about “genealogies, as unprofitable and vain,” (Titus 3:9.)
It now remains to inquire, lastly, why Matthew included the whole genealogy of Christ in three
classes, and assigned to each class fourteen persons. Those who think that he did so, in order to
aid the memory of his readers, state a part of the reason, but not the whole. It is true, indeed, that
a catalogue, divided into three equal numbers, is more easily remembered. But it is also evident
that this division is intended to point out a threefold condition of the nation, from the time when
Christ was promised to Abraham, to “the fullness of the time” (Galatians 4:4) when he was
“manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16.) Previous to the time of David, the tribe of Judah,
though it occupied a higher rank than the other tribes, held no power. In David the royal authority
burst upon the eyes of all with unexpected splendor, and remained till the time of Jeconiah. After
that period, there still lingered in the tribe of Judah a portion of rank and government, which
sustained the expectations of the godly till the coming of the Messiah.
1.The book of the generation Some commentators give themselves unnecessary trouble, in order
to excuse Matthew for giving to his whole history this title, which applies only to the half of a single
chapter. For this ἐπιγραφή, or title, does not extend to the whole book of Matthew: but the
word βίβλος , book,is put for catalogue: as if he had said, “Here follows the catalogue of the

generation of Christ.” It is with reference to the promise, that Christ is called the son of David, the
son of Abraham: for God had promised to Abraham that he would give him a seed, “in whom all
the families of the earth should be blessed,” (Genesis 12:3.) David received a still clearer promise,
that God would “stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever,” (2 Samuel 7:13;) that one of his
posterity would be king “as long as the sun and moon endure,” (Psalms 72:5;) and that “his throne
should be as the days of heaven,” (Psalms 89:29.) And so it became a customary way of
speaking among the Jews to call Christ the son of David
COFFMAN, "Matthew 1:1-17
This genealogy is quite unlike that in Luke 3. Labored efforts to reconcile the two generally lead to
suppositions concerning Levirate marriages in which the issue had two fathers (the legal and the
actual), and also to various renditions of the same name, and other devices pressed into service
for the purpose of achieving a "harmony"! Perhaps the best, and certainly the simplest,
reconciliation of these two lists is to view Matthew's account as the ancestry of Joseph, and
Luke's genealogy as the record of Mary's ancestry. Two separate genealogies of Jesus Christ are
absolutely necessary in the establishment of the Christ, first as the blood descendant of David,
and secondly, as the legal heir to the royal throne of the Hebrews. Matthew shows Christ as the
legal heir to the throne by tracing his ancestry down through the royal line of the kings of Israel.
Luke's genealogy is utterly different, because it is not concerned with title to a throne but with the
blood ancestry of Jesus. The only real difficulty in this view is the statement in Luke 3:23 that
Joseph is the "son of Heli." R. A. Torrey stated that "Joseph's name is introduced into this place
instead of Mary's, he being Mary's husband. Heli was Joseph's father-in-law; and so Joseph was
called "the son of Heli." While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, he was, according to the flesh,
actually the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16).[11] This type of double entry was not confusing to the
Jews, for a woman's name did not usually stand in the tables of genealogy. The term "son" as
used in such tables actually had three different meanings: (1) son by actual birth; (2) son-in-law;
and (3) son by creation, as in the case of Adam (Luke 3:38).
There is no evidence that the names Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in the two lists refer to the same
individuals. It would be just as reasonable to suppose that the two Eliakims refer to the same
man. The Jews, as do all peoples, used the same names over and over. There are two each of
the following names in the Luke account of the 76 generations from Christ to Adam: Cainan,
Matthat, Melchi, Levi, Joseph, Mattathias, and Jesus!
The two genealogies of Jesus also clear up another point. The prophecy in Jeremiah 22:30
forbade any descendant of Jechoniah ever to sit upon the throne of David. Therefore, if Jesus had
actually been the literal fleshly descendant of "Coniah," as he was called, it would have
countermanded his claim upon the throne due to the prophecy, Joseph, Jesus' foster father,
however, could lawfully transfer his right to the throne to his legal son, Jesus Christ! Thus, Jesus
was the legal son with right to the throne of David through Jechoniah, and he was the literal blood-
son of David through Nathan, the ancestor of Mary, Jesus' mother. How marvelous are the ways
of the Lord. Again, from Torrey, "As we study these two genealogies, we find that so far from
constituting a reason for doubting the accuracy of the Bible, they are rather a confirmation of the
minutest accuracy of that Book ... We need no longer stumble over the fact of there being two
genealogies, but discover and rejoice in the deep meaning of the fact that there are two."[12]
[11] R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company,
1907), p. 102.

[12] Ibid., p. 103.
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1)
The book of the generation. The true meaning of this appears in a glance at various renditions in
some of the versions and translations: "The book of the origin of Jesus Christ"[13] (Catholic); "The
book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ" (RSV);[14] "Register of the lineage of Jesus Christ"
(Emphatic Diaglott);[15] "The ancestry of Jesus Christ" (Goodspeed);[16] "The family tree of
Jesus Christ" (Williams);[17] "The birth roll of Christ" (Moffatt).[18]
The son of David. Jesus was the literal son of David through Mary, a descendant of Nathan, one
of David's sons, as in Luke's genealogy. Jesus was the legal son and heir of David through King
Solomon as in Matthew's genealogy. He was also the antitypical son of David in that many
parallels exist between the life of our Lord and that of King David. Both were born in Bethlehem.
David's struggle with Goliath answers to Christ's struggle with Satan. In both cases, it was the
enemy's own weapon which was used to destroy him (Hebrews 2:14). Both David and Christ were
sent by their father with a message to the brethren. Both were rejected. David was, in a sense, a
mediator between the lines of Israel and the Philistines; Christ is the one Mediator between God
and man (1 Timothy 2:5). Matthew considered it of great importance to identify Jesus Christ as
the Son of David, a popular designation for the Messiah; and he does so in the very first verse of
his gospel.
The son of Abraham. Jesus was the "son of Abraham" in the following senses: (1) He was the
"seed" of promise (Galatians 3:16). (2) He was the legal son and heir through Isaac, son of the
free woman, as distinguished from Ishmael, son of the slave woman. (3) He was literally
descended from Abraham through Mary and her ancestors. (4) He was the antitype of Isaac. As in
the case of David, there are also sharp contrasts between the life of Abraham and that of Christ.
Abraham gave up his wife to Abimelech in order to procure his own safety, or so he thought; but
Jesus gave himself up to die for his bride, the church (Genesis 20:2 and Ephesians 5:25).
[13] Roman Catholic Testament.
[14] Revised Standard Version.
[15] Emphatic Diaglott.
[16] Goodspeed, New Testament in Modern Speech.
[17] Williams, The New Testament.
[18] Moffatt, The New Testament.
LIGHTFOOT, "[The book of the generation of Jesus Christ.] Ten stocks came out of Babylon: 1.
Priests. 2. Levites. 3. Israelites. 4. Common persons, as to the priesthood: such whose fathers,
indeed, were sprung from priests, but their mothers unfit to be admitted to the priests' marriage-
bed. 5. Proselytes. 6. Liberti, or servants set free. 7. Nothi: such as were born in wedlock; but that

which was unlawful. 8. Nethinims. 9. Bastards: such as came of a certain mother, but of an
uncertain father. 10. Such as were gathered up out of the streets, whose fathers and mothers
were uncertain.
A defiled generation indeed! and, therefore, brought up out of Babylon in this common sink,
according to the opinion of the Hebrews, that the whole Jewish seed still remaining there might
not be polluted by it. For Ezra went not up out of Babylon, until he had rendered it pure as flour.
They are the words of the Babylonian Gemara, which the Gloss explains thus; "He left not any
there that were illegitimate in any respect, but the priests and Levites only, and Israelites of a pure
and undefiled stock. Therefore, he brought up with him these ten kinds of pedigrees, that these
might not be mingled with those, when there remained now no more a Sanhedrim there, which
might take care of that matter. Therefore he brought them to Jerusalem, where care might be
taken by the Sanhedrim fixed there, that the legitimate might not marry with the illegitimate."
Let us think of these things a little while we are upon our entrance into the Gospel-history:
I. How great a cloud of obscurity could not but arise to the people concerning the original of Christ,
even from the very return out of Babylon, when they either certainly saw, or certainly believed that
they saw, a purer spring of Jewish blood there than in the land of Israel itself!
II. How great a care ought there to be in the families of pure blood, to preserve themselves
untouched and clean from this impure sink; and to lay up among themselves genealogical scrolls
from generation to generation as faithful witnesses and lasting monuments of their legitimate
stock and free blood!
Hear a complaint and a story in this case: "R. Jochanan said, By the Temple, it is in our hand to
discover who are not of pure blood in the land of Israel: but what shall I do, when the chief men of
this generation lie hid?" (that is, when they are not of pure blood, and yet we must not declare so
much openly concerning them). "He was of the same opinion with R. Isaac, who said, A family (of
the polluted blood) that lies hid, let it lie hid. Abai also saith, We have learned this also by tradition,
That there was a certain family called the family of Beth-zeripha, beyond Jordan, and a son of
Zion removed it away." (The Gloss is, Some eminent man, by a public proclamation, declared it
impure.) "But he caused another which was such" [that is, impure] "to come near. and there was
another which the wise men would not manifest."
III. When it especially lay upon the Sanhedrim, settled at Jerusalem to preserve pure families, as
much as in them lay, pure still; and when they prescribed canons of preserving the legitimation of
the people (which you may see in those things that follow at the place alleged), there was some
necessity to lay up public records of pedigrees with them: whence it might be known what family
was pure, and what defiled. Hence that of Simon Ben Azzai deserves our notice: "I saw (saith he)
a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem, in which it was thus written; 'N., a bastard of a strange wife.'"
Observe, that even a bastard was written in their public books of genealogy, that he might be
known to be a bastard, and that the purer families might take heed of the defilement of his seed.
Let that also be noted: "They found a book of genealogy at Jerusalem, in which it was thus written;
'Hillel was sprung from David. Ben Jatsaph from Asaph. Ben Tsitsith Hacceseth from Abner. Ben
Cobisin from Achab,'" &c. And the records of the genealogies smell of those things which are
mentioned in the text of the Misna concerning 'wood-carrying': "The priests' and people's times of
wood-carrying were nine: on the first day of the month Nisan, for the sons of Erach, the sons of
Judah: the twentieth day of Tammuz, for the sons of David, the son of Judah: the fifth day of Ab,
for the sons of Parosh, the son of Judah: the seventh of the same month for the sons of Jonadab
the son of Rechab: the tenth of the same for the sons of Senaah, the son of Benjamin," &c.

It is, therefore, easy to guess whence Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this
genealogy, and Luke the first forty names of his; namely, from the genealogical scrolls at that time
well enough known, and laid up in the public repositories, and in the private also. And it was
necessary, indeed, in so noble and sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired
into by the Jewish people as the lineage of the Messiah would be, that the evangelists should
deliver a truth, not only that could not be gainsaid, but also that might be proved and established
from certain and undoubted rolls of ancestors.
[Of Jesus Christ.] That the name of Jesus is so often added to the name of Christ in the New
Testament, is not only that thereby Christ might be pointed out for the Saviour, which the name
Jesus signifies; but also, that Jesus might be pointed out for true Christ: against the unbelief of the
Jews, who though they acknowledged a certain Messiah, or Christ, yet they stiffly denied that
Jesus of Nazareth was he. This observation takes place in numberless places of the New
Testament; Acts 2:36, 8:35; 1 Corinthians 16:22; 1 John 2:22, 4:15, &c.
[The Son of David.] That is, "the true Messias." For by no more ordinary and more proper name
did the Jewish nation point out the Messiah than by The Son of David. See Matthew 12:23, 21:9,
22:42; Luke 18:38; and everywhere in the Talmudic writings, but especially in Bab. Sanhedrim:
where it is also discussed, What kind of times those should be when the Son of David should
come.
The things which are devised by the Jews concerning Messiah Ben Joseph (which the Targum
upon Canticles 4:5 calls 'Messiah Ben Ephraim') are therefore devised, to comply with their
giddiness and loss of judgment in their opinion of the Messiah. For, since they despised the true
Messiah, who came in the time fore-allotted by the prophets, and crucified him; they still expect I
know not what chimerical one, concerning whom they have no certain opinion: whether he shall
be one, or two; whether he shall arise from among the living, or from the dead; whether he shall
come in the clouds of heaven, or sitting upon an ass, &c.: they expect a Son of David; but they
know not whom, they know not when.
COKE, "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.
BURKITT, "That is, the descent of Jesus Christ, who was, according to the flesh, the Son of David
and the Son of Abraham, is on this wise. And his genealogy from Abraham down to his reputed
father, was thus:
Here note, That our Evangelist designing to write a narrative of our Savior's life, begins with his
pedigree and genealogy, and shews whom he descended from, namely, from David and
Abraham.
Where Observe, 1. That David is named before Abraham, because he being a king, an illustrious
type of the Messiah, the Jews expected, and do to this day expect, that the son of David shall
reign over them; and that they should enjoy a temporal kingdom by him.
Observe 2. The names given to our blessed Savior, Jesus and Christ; Jesus is his Hebrew name,
and signifies a Savior; Christ is his Greek name, and signifies anointed: from whence some do
infer an intimation and encouragement, that both Hebrews and Greeks, both Jews and Gentiles,
may alike come unto Christ for life and Salvation, he being the common Savior of both; according
to that of He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole
world. 1 John 2:2
CONSTABLE, "This verse is obviously a title, but is it a title of the whole Gospel, a title for the
prologue (chs. 1-2), or a title for the genealogy that follows (Matthew 1:1-17)? Probably it refers to
the genealogy. There is no other ancient Near Eastern book-length document extant that uses the
expression biblos geneseos (book or record of the generation) as its title. [Note: Carson,
"Matthew," p. 61.] While the noun genesis (birth) occurs again in Matthew 1:18, there it introduces
the birth narrative of Jesus. In the Septuagint the same phrase, biblos geneseos, occurs in
Genesis 2:4; Genesis 5:1 where in each case a narrative follows it, as here. Genealogies are
quite common in the Old Testament, of course, and the presence of one here introduces a Jewish
flavor to Matthew's Gospel immediately.
"Each use of the formula [in the Bible] introduces a new stage in the development of God's
purpose in the propagation of the Seed through which He planned to effect redemption." [Note:
Merrill C. Tenney, The Genius of the Gospels, p. 52.]
The last Old Testament messianic use of this phrase is in Ruth 4:18, where the genealogy ends
with David. Matthew reviewed David's genealogy and extended it to Jesus.
"The plan which God inaugurated in the creation of man is to be completed by the Man, Christ
Jesus." [Note: Toussaint, p. 36.]
This is the genealogy of Jesus Christ. The name Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name
Joshua, and it means "Yahweh is salvation" (yehoshua, the long form) or "Yahweh saves"
(Yeshua, the short form). The two major Joshuas in the Old Testament both anticipated Jesus

Matthew 1 commentary

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie Matthew 1 commentary

Ähnlich wie Matthew 1 commentary (20)

Mehr von GLENN PEASE

Mehr von GLENN PEASE (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Matthew 1 commentary