« PreviousContinue »
consequently cannot prove that he had any other relation to David, than that his mother was married to one of the descendents of that prince. Let the reader judge whether this fully comes up to the import of the passages of scripture, which tell us, he was made of the seed of David, Rom. i. 3. and that according to the flesh he was raised of the fruit of his loins, Acts ii. 30. Upon the whole, this important difficulty may be removed more hap pily, by supposing that Matthew gives Joseph's pedigree, and Luke Mary's. For the words of the latter evangelist, properly pointed and translated, run thus. 3. And Jesus himself, when he began his ministry was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli. He was the son of Joseph by common report, but in reality the son of Heli by his mother, who was Heli's daughter. We have a parallel example, Gen. xxxvi. 2. where Aholibamah's pedigree is thus deduced. Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon. For since it appears from ver. 24, 25. that Anah was the son, not the daughter of Zibeon, it is undeniable that Moses calls Aholibamah the daughter both of Anah and of Zibeon, as Luke calls Jesus the son both of Joseph and of Heli. And as Aholibamah is properly called the daughter of Zibeon, because she was his grand-daughter, so Jesus is fitly called the son of Heli because he was his grand-son. In the mean time, the common pointing and construction of the passage may be retained, consistently with the opinion I am contending for; because, though the words Son of Heli should be referred to Joseph, they may imply no more but that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law, his son by marriage with his daughter Mary. The ancient Jews and Christians understood this passage in the one or other of these senses; for the Talmudists commonly call Mary by the name of Heli's daughter.
That Matthew should have deduced our Lord's pedigree, by enumerating the ancestors of Joseph who was not his real father, may be accounted for on the supposition, that he wrote posterior to Luke who has given his real pedigree, and that he intended to remove the scruples of those who knew that Messiah was to be the heir of David's crown. In this view, though Joseph was not Christ's real father, it was directly for the Evangelist's purpose to derive his pedigree from David, and shew that he was the eldest surviving branch of the posterity of that prince; because this point established, it was well enough understood that Joseph by marrying our Lord's mother, after he knew she was with child of him, adopted him for his son, and raised him both to the dignity and privileges of David's heir. Accordingly, the genealogy is concluded in terms which imply this: Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus. Joseph is not called the father of Jesus, but the husband of his
mother Mary. To conclude, the privileges following this adoption will appear to be more essentially connected with it, if as is probable Joseph never had any child. For thus, the regal line of David's descendents by Solomon failing in Joseph, his rights were properly transferred to Jesus his adopted son, who indeed was of the same family, though by another branch. Matthew therefore has deduced our Lord's political and royal pedigree, with a view to prove his title to the kingdom of Israel, by virtue of the rights which he acquired through his adoption; whereas Luke explains his natural descent, in the several successions of those from whom he derived his human nature.
Our Lord's genealogy given by Luke, will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history is attended to. It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah, and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptations of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ's genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ's miraculous conception in the womb of his mother, carries his genealogy up to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution. of mankind by the seed of the woman.
That the genealogy, not only of our Lord's mother, but of his reputed father, should have been given by the sacred historians, was wisely ordered; because the two taken together prove him to be descended of David and Abraham in every respect, and consequently that one of the most remarkable characters of the Messiah was fulfilled in him; the principal promises concerning the great personage, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed, having been made to those patriarchs in quality of his progenitors; first to Abraham, Gen. xxii. 18. then to David, Psal. cxxxii. 11, 12. Accordingly, in plain allusion to these promises, Matthew begins his genealogy of Jesus as follows: 1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son
• Ver. 1. The book of the generation.] Bichos yevisews, the table of the genealogy. We have the word Bos used in this limited sense, Mark x. 4. where a bill of divorse is called Bißλ0s, and Jer. xxxii. 12. where a deed of conveyance is called a Book Sepher. It seems both the Hebrews and the Greeks, by the word Book, understood any kind of writing, whether short or long. Though yes, in other passages, hath the signification of the Hebrew Toldoth, which sometimes comprehends the whole actions of a man's life, it is used here in its proper meaning. For the Evangelist did VOL. I. U u
of David, the son of Abraham. 2. Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and ↑ Jacob begat Judas and his brethren. 3. t And Judas begat Pharez, and Zara || of Thamar, and Pharez begat Esram, and Esram begat Aram. 4. And Aram begat Aminadab, and Aminadab begat Naason, and Naason begat Sal5. And Salmon begat Booz of § Rachab, and Booz begat Obed
not design this as the general title of his work, but of this particular part of it only. Grotius therefore has well translated the phrase descriptio origi nis, agreeably to the use of the word yes in Greek authors.
* Ibid. Of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham.] Here the Evangelist proposes what he is going to prove; namely, that Jesus Christ, whose history he is about to give, was the son of David and Abraham. His care in this point was altogether necessary. For it was the grand pro phetical character of Messiah, that he was to spring from Abraham and David.
† Ver. 2. Jacob begat Judas and his brethren.] The brethren of Judas are mentioned in this genealogy, because, though they were not Messiah's progenitors, they were on an equal footing with Judas, in respect of religious privileges. To them belonged the promises, and their posterity had the law given to them. It was otherwise with Ishmael and Esau, though the one was the son of Abrahanı, and the other of Isaac. They, and their posterity, were expressly excluded from the privileges of the covenant, for which reason they are not mentioned in Messiah's genealogy.
Ver. 3. Judas begat Pharez and Zara.] Zarah is mentioned, not because he was the twin brother of Pharez, our Lord's progenitor, for if that had been a reason for assigning him this honour, Esau, the twin brother of Jacob, ought to have obtained it likewise. But he is mentioned to prevent any mistake. For unless Zara had been spoken of, considering the infamy of Pharez's birth, we might have been apt to imagine, that not the Pharez whom Judas begat in incest, but another son of Judas, called Pharez, was our Lord's progenitor; it being no uncommon thing among the Jews to have several children of the same name. Wherefore, to put the matter beyond doubt, Thamar, as well as Zarah, is mentioned in the genealogy.It is for a like reason, that in this genealogy, when Solomon is spoken of, his mother, Bathsheba, is mentioned, not by her own name, but by her re lation to her former husband: ver, 6. David the king begat Solomon of ber that was the quife of Uriah.
| Ibid. Of Thamar.] It is remarkable that only four women are mentioned in this genealogy, and that all of them are branded in the history with a mark of infamy: viz. Thamar for incest, Rahab for fornication, Ruth for heathenism, and Bathsheba for adultery. Perhaps the Holy Spi rit designed to obviate the cavils of the Jews, who entertained low thoughts of Christ, because he was born of so mean a mother. For they could not but see the absurdity of such a prejudice, when they considered that their most illustrious heroes sprang from women, whose manners ren dered them infinitely meaner than our Lord's mother, to whom her spot. less character and unaffected piety, were nobler ornaments than all the boasted gifts of fortune.
Ver. 5. Theophylact was of opinion, that Rahab, mentioned in this genealogy, was not the harlot of Jericho, spoken of in the Jewish history, and applauded by the Apostles Paul and James, on account of her extraordinary faith; and his opinion has been embraced by several modern commentators, for the following reasons: 1. Because her name is written differently by the LXX. and by the Apostles, viz. Raab, not Rachab, as in Matthew 2. In every passage where Rahab of Jericho is mentioned, she
Obed of Ruth, and Obed begat Jesse. 6. And * Jesse begat David the king, and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias. 7. And Solomon begat Roboam, and Roboam begat Abia, and Abia begat Asa. 8. And Asa begat Josaphat, and Josaphat begat Joram, and Joram begat Ozias. 9. And Ozias begat Joatham, and Joatham begat Achaz, and Achaz begat Ezekias. 10. And Ezekias begat Manasses, and Manasses begat Amon, and Amon begat Josias. 11. And + Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, § about the time they were carried away to Babylon. 12. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias
is distinguished by the epithet of the Harlot: whereas, the woman mentioned in the genealogy has no such name given her: 3. Because the Israel ites were expressly discharged from entering into affinity with any of the nations who inhabited Canaan, (Deut. vii. 1.) 4. On supposition that Ra. hab of Jericho was the mother of Booz and wife of Salmon, she must have born Booz when she was eighty years old, a thing not very probable in that age of the world, when the period of human life was so much shorten. ed.-But to the 1st and 2d arguments it is replied, that nothing can be concluded with certainty from the orthography of the name, nor from the epithet of Harlot; such differences occurring often in histories both sacred and profane. To the 3d, the answer is, that Rahab, though originally a heathen, may have been a proselyte, as Ruth the Moabitess whom Booz married, and Maachah the daughter of the king of Geshur, whom David married, are supposed to have been. To the 4th argument it is replied, that Booz may have been not Salmon's immediate son by Rahab, but his grandson, or great grandson; unless the expression in the genealogy is thought too particular to admit of this interpretation. Salmon begat Booz of Rabab, implying an immediate generation, as the following member certainly does, and Booz begat Obed of Ruth.
Ver. 6. Jesse begat David the king.] In the genealogy, David has the title of King given him, because he was the first king of his family, and because he had the kingdom entailed upon his children; in which respect, he had greatly the advantage of Saul, from whose family the kingdom was taken away almost as soon as it was conferred. It is true, ten of the twelve tribes revolted from Rehoboam, David's grandson. Nevertheless, the promise of God remained sure; for an end was soon put to the kingdom of the ten tribes. Whereas, the empire of the two tribes was of a much longer duration, not to mention that the tribe of Judah, out of which Messiah was to spring, was one of the two that continued their allegiance to David's family.
+ Ver. 11. Josias begat Fechonias.] This is Jehojakim the immediate son of Josias, called Jechonias, not by Matthew only, but by the author also of 3 Esdras i. 34. That he was a different person from Jechonias, mentioned ver. 12. see proved in the note on that verse.
‡ Ibid. And his brethren.] The brethren of Jechonias or Jehojakim are mentioned in the genealogy, because all of them, except Shallum, filled the throne, though Jechonias alone had the right, being the elder brother. This is plain from 2 Kings xxiii. 31-36. where we are told that Jehoahaz, who reigned before Jehojakim or Jechonias, was twenty-three years and three months old at his death; whereas his brother Jehejakim, who succeeded him in the kingdom, was at his accession twenty-five years old. It is plain, therefore, that Jehojakim was older than Jehoahaz, oy a year and nine months.
Ibid. About the time they were carried away to Babylon.] There were
* Jechonias begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begat Zorobabel. 13. And Zorababel begat Abiud, and Abiud begat Eliakim, and Eliakim begat Azor. 14. And Azor begat Sadoc, and Sadoc begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud. 15. And Eliud begat Eleazar, and Eleazar begat Matthan, and Matthan begat Jacob.
two transportations to Babylon of the tribes which composed the kingdom of Judah. The first happened in the eighth year of the reign of Jehojakin, the son of Jehojakim. For Jehojakin delivered up the city to Nebuchadnezzar, and by treaty agreed to go with the Chaldeans to Babylon, and to carry with him his trained soldiers and smiths, 2 Kings xxiv. 12. The second transportation happened in the eleventh year of the reign of Zedekiah, when the city was taken by storm, and all the people made prisoners of war and carried off. The seventy years of the captivity were dated from the first transportation, Ezek. xl. 1. Hence it is properly called μετοικεσία, and the other αιχμαλωσία, though the propriety of the names is not always preserved in scripture. It is of the first transportation that the Evangelist speaks in the genealogy.
• Ver. 12.] Jechonias, mentioned in verse 12. of the genealogy, must be a different persons from Jechonias in the 11th verse, because otherwise the number of fourteen generations will not be complete in the last class, even though the reading taken notice of in the margin of the English Bibles were adopted: a blunder that no author whatever can be supposed to have committed. Jechonias, verse 11. is Jebojokim, called Eliakim before his accession to the throne, and the son of Josiah; but Fechonias in the 12th is Jehojakin, called also Fechoniah the son of Jehojakim. What confirms this remark is, that not the evangelist only, but the LXX. and Josephus, have given these two kings one common name. Nay, in the scripture itself Jehojakin is called Jehojakim. For (Dan. i. 1.) Nebu hadnezzar is said, in the third year of the reign of Jehojakim king of Judah, to have come in person to the siege of Jerusalem, which was begun some time before by his lieutenants, 2 Kings xxii. 8,-11. In ver. 2. of Daniel, it is said, the Lord gave Jehojakim king of Judah into his hand; and from ver. 3. it appears that the children of Israel, the royal family, and the princes, had been brought captives by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. These particulars, compared with 2 Kings xxiv. 12,-16. clearly prove that Jehojakim in Daniel is Jebojakin, in the eighth year of whose reign Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, after a siege of about seven years, (2 Kings xxiv. 8,-12) and carried the Jews away to Babylon.-It may be objected, indeed, that Daniel, one of the captives, is said to have interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the second year of his reign, (Dan. ii. 1, 25.) Notwithstanding, in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, which was the fourth year of Jehojakim the immediate son of Josiah, Jeremiah foretold the captivity as an event at some considerable distance; but the answer is easy. Jeremiah, chap. xxv. 1. speaks of the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's joint government with his father; whereas, Dan. ii. 1, 25. the second year of his sole empire after his father's death is described. It is true, throughout the whole genealogy, except in this instance, every person is twice mentioned, being represent ed as the son of the precedent, and the father of the subsequent branch. Yet this particularity is not without example: for in the account of Jonathan's posterity, (1 Chron. ix. 41.) there is an omission of a branch of the descent, perfectly similar to that under consideration, but which is supplied by the translators, from ch. viii. 35. Wherefore, if the branch omitted in Matthew was so supplied, the genealogy would run thus, ver. 11. And Jo• sias begat Fechonias and his brethren, about the time they avere carried away to Babylon. And Jechonias begat Jechonias. 12. And after they were brought