Holy Bible

The book of the generation. Matthew 1:1-15 The lessons of Christ's genealogy G. Brooks. 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. )

Benson Commentary Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Matthew 1:1 . The book — That is, This is the book, the verb being elegantly omitted, according to the custom of the Hebrews, and also of the Greeks and Romans; of the generation — Or, as the Syriac expresses it, The writing, narrative, or account of the generation, or birth of Jesus, &c. The word ??????? , 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 ?????? , book, is used in this limited sense Mark 10:4 , where a bill of divorce is so called: and Jeremiah 32:12 , where a deed of conveyance is termed ??? , a book. Indeed, the Jews, and also the Greeks, called all writings books, whether short or long. Of Jesus Christ — Jesus is his proper name, given him by God, his true Father, Matthew 1:21 ; Luke 1:31 ; Luke 2:21 . Christ is, as it were, a surname, descriptive of his unction to the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices. To the name Christ, that of Jesus is often superadded in the New Testament, not only that Christ might be pointed out for the Saviour, as the word Jesus signifies, but that Jesus might be shown to be the true Messiah, or Christ, in opposition to the unbelief of the Jews. The son of David, the son of Abraham — i.e., a descendant of David and Abraham; the word son, in the language of the Hebrews, being put for any descendant, however remote. Here the evangelist proposes what he is going to prove; viz, that Jesus Christ, whose history he is about to give, was the son of David and Abraham, which it was necessary he should show because the grand prophetical character of the Messiah was, that he was to spring from Abraham and David. The sense of the latter clause, indeed, the son of Abraham, is ambiguous: it may mean either that David was the son of Abraham, or, which seems the more probable sense, that Christ, who was the son of David, was also the son of Abraham. This sense accords better both with the following words, and with the design of the evangelist, which was to show, that Christ was descended from both these renowned patriarchs, and that in him was fulfilled the promises made to both. David is first named, 1. That the catalogue, to begin from Abraham, might proceed regularly, without the repetition of his name; 2. Because the memory of David was more fresh upon the minds of the Jews, and his name in greater repute than that of Abraham, especially when the discourse related to the Messiah, John 7:42 ; more plain and explicit promises of him being made to David, and the prophets having spoken of Christ under the name of David. Add to this, that David was both a prophet and a king, and therefore a more manifest type of the Messiah, who sustains both of these offices, as well as that of a priest. Hence those who had entertained higher conceptions of Christ than others, termed him the son of David, as appears from many passages in the gospels. Matthew 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; Matthew 1:2 . Abraham begat Isaac — “The evangelist here opens his history with our Lord’s genealogy by Joseph, his supposed father. Luke gives another genealogy of him, thought by many to be Joseph’s also, but without foundation; for the two genealogies are entirely different, from David and downward. It is true, some have attempted to reconcile them by alleging, that they exhibit Joseph’s pedigree, the one by his natural, the other by his legal father. But, had that been the case, the natural and legal fathers would have been brothers, which it is plain they were not, Jacob, Joseph’s father in Matthew, being the son of Matthan, the son of Eleazar; whereas Eli, the father supposed to be assigned him by Luke, was the son of Matthat, a different person from Matthan, because the son of Levi.” Besides, on this supposition, we should be altogether uncertain whether our Lord’s mother, from whom alone he sprang, was a daughter of David, and consequently could not prove that he had any other relation to David than that his mother was married to one of the descendants of that prince. Let the reader judge whether this would come up to the import of the passages of Scripture, which tell us he was made of the seed of David. See Romans 1:3 ; Acts 2:30 . But this important difficulty is easily removed by supposing that Matthew gives Joseph’s pedigree, and Luke, Mary’s. See Macknight. But, taking it for granted that Luke gives us our Lord’s real pedigree, and Matthew that of Joseph, his supposed father, it may reasonably be inquired why Matthew has done so? To this it may be answered, that he intended to remove the scruples of those who knew that the Messiah was to be the heir of David’s crown; a reason which appears the stronger, if we suppose, with the learned writer last quoted, that Matthew wrote posterior to Luke, who has given the real pedigree. For, “though Joseph was not Christ’s real father, it was directly for the evangelist’s purpose to derive his pedigree from David, and show that he was the eldest surviving branch of the posterity of that prince, because, this point established, it was well enough understood that Joseph, by marrying our Lord’s mother, after he knew that she was with child of him, adopted him for his son, and raised him both to the dignity and privileges of David’s heir. Accordingly, the genealogy is concluded in terms which imply this: Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. Joseph is not here called the father of Jesus, but the husband of his mother, Mary; and the privileges following this adoption will appear to be more essentially connected with it, if, as is probable, Joseph never had any child. For thus the regal line of David’s descendants by Solomon, failing in Joseph, his rights were properly transferred to Joseph’s adopted son, who, indeed, was of the same family, though by another branch. Matthew, therefore, has deduced our Lord’s political and royal pedigree, with a view to prove his title to the kingdom of Israel, by virtue of the rights which he acquired through his adoption; whereas Luke explains his natural descent, in the several successions of those from whom he derived his human nature. That the genealogy, not only of our Lord’s mother, but of his reputed father, should be given by the sacred historians, was wisely ordered; because the two taken together prove him to be descended of David and Abraham in every respect, and consequently that one of the most remarkable characters of the Messiah was fulfilled in him; the principal promises concerning the great personage, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed, having been made to those patriarchs, in quality of his progenitors; first to Abraham, Genesis 22:18 , then to David, Psalm 132:11-12 .” And accordingly Matthew begins this genealogy with a plain allusion to these promises: for he evidently intended it, not so much as an introduction to his history of Christ, as to show that, according to the flesh, he was the son of David and the son of Abraham, as it was often foretold the Messiah should be. If it be inquired whence Matthew had this genealogy, there being nothing of it to be found in Scripture, Dr. Whitby answers, “From the authentic genealogical tables kept by the Jews, of the line of David: for, it appears from the taxation, mentioned Luke 2., that they had genealogies of all their families and tribes, since all went to be taxed, every one to his own city, Matthew 1:3 , and Joseph went to Bethlehem, the city of David, because he was of the house and lineage of David. And this is certain, touching the tribe of Levi, because their whole temple service, the effect of their sacrifices and expiations, depended on it. And, therefore, Josephus, being a priest, not only confidently depends on these genealogical tables for the proof of his descent, ?????? ?? ?????? , in a long series from priests; but adds, that all their priests were obliged to prove, ?? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? , their succession from an ancient line; and if they could not do it, they were to be excluded from officiating as priests, and that, in whatsoever part of the world they were, they used this diligence. And again, Christ being promised as one who was to proceed out of the loins of David, and therefore called the son of David, it was absolutely necessary that the genealogy of the house and lineage of David should be preserved, that they might know that their Messiah was of the seed of David, according to the promise. Hence the apostle says to Timothy, Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead, 2 Timothy 2:8 . And Eusebius, ( Eccl. Hist., lib. 1. cap. 6,) from Africanus, says, according to the version of Ruffinus, ‘That all the successions of the Hebrews were kept in the secret archives of the temple, and thence they were described, ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? , from their ephemerides, by the kinsmen of our Saviour.’ It therefore, doubtless, was from these authentic records that Matthew had his genealogy, for otherwise he would have exposed himself to the cavils of the Jews. And hence the author of the epistle to the Hebrews represents it as a thing evident to the Jews, that our Lord sprang out of Judah, Hebrews 7:14 .” As to some difficulties which occur upon comparing this genealogy with that of Luke, the reader is referred to the notes on them both. We must observe, however, that if we could not satisfactorily remove some, or even any of those difficulties, it would not affect the credit of the evangelists, for it would be a sufficient vindication of them to say, that they gave Christ’s pedigree as they found it in the authentic tables, preserved among the Jews in the temple registers. Upon this subject Bishop Burnet observes, that had not this genealogy been taken with exactness out of those registers, the bare showing of them would have served to have confuted the whole. For, if those registers were clear and uncontroverted in any one thing, they were so with respect to the genealogies; since these proved both that the Jews were Abraham’s seed, and likewise ascertained their title to the lands, which, from the days of Joshua, were to pass down either to immediate descendants, or, as they failed, to collateral degrees. Now, this shows plainly, that there was a double office kept of their pedigrees; one natural, which might probably be taken when the rolls of circumcision were made up; and the other, relating to the division of the land; in which, when the collateral line came instead of the natural, then the last was dropped, as extinct, and the other remained. It being thus plain, from their constitution, that they had these two orders of tables, we are not at all concerned in the diversity of the two evangelists on this head; since they both might have copied them out from those two offices at the temple; and if they had not done it faithfully, the Jews could easily have demonstrated their error in endeavouring to prove that Jesus was entitled to that well-known character of the Messiah, that he was to be the son of David, by a false pedigree. Now since no exceptions were made at the time when the sight of the rolls must have ended the inquiry, it is plain they were faithfully copied out; nor are we now bound to answer such difficulties as seem to arise out of them, since they were not questioned at the time in which only an appeal could be made to the public registers themselves. See Burnet’s Four Discourses, p. 16. Abraham begat Isaac, &c. — Matthew, being a Jew, brings Christ’s genealogy down from Abraham, for the comfort of the Jews, who deduced all their genealogies from him, because God had taken him and his seed into a peculiar covenant; Luke, a Gentile, and a companion of the apostle of the Gentiles, carries Christ’s pedigree upward unto Adam, for the comfort of the Gentiles, who were not lineally of the seed of Abraham. Jacob begat Judas and his brethren — The words, his brethren, are added, probably, because they were patriarchs and heads of the people from whom the Messiah was to proceed, and to show that he was related to all the tribes as well as to that of Judah, and to comfort those of the dispersion, (many of whom were not returned out of captivity, as Judah was,) in their equal interest in the blessings of the seed of Abraham. Judah is particularly named in preference to any of them, both because it was from him our Lord came, and because to him the extraordinary promise was made, that his brethren should praise and bow down to him, and that his descendants should continue a distinct tribe, with some form of government among them, till Shiloh, who was to spring from his loins, should come. Matthew 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; Matthew 1:3 . And Judas begat Phares and Zara — Some have observed that these sons of Judah are mentioned together because they were twins born at the same time: but if this had been a reason for assigning Zara the honour of being named in this genealogy, Esau, the twin brother of Jacob, ought to have obtained it likewise. He seems rather to be mentioned to prevent any mistake. For if he had not, considering the infamy of Pharez’s birth, we might have been apt to imagine that not the Pharez whom Judah begat in incest, but another son of Judah, called Pharez, was our Lord’s progenitor, it being no uncommon thing among the Jews to have several children of the same name. Wherefore, to put the matter beyond doubt, Thamar, as well as Zara, is mentioned in the genealogy, if her name be not rather added because she was remarkable in the sacred history. This reason certainly must be assigned why three other women are named in this catalogue, viz., Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. They were all remarkable characters, and their story is particularly related in the Old Testament. This seems much more probable than the opinion of those who think they are mentioned, either because they were great sinners, to teach us that Christ came to save such, or with a view to obviate the cavils of the Jews against the mean condition of the mother of our Lord; their renowned ancestors, such as even David and Solomon, being descended of women whose quality rendered them much meaner than she was. It was, however, one degree of our Saviour’s humiliation, that he would be born of such sinners, and it certainly may encourage the vilest to come unto him, and expect salvation from him. Nor shall they be disappointed, if, in true repentance and lively faith, they turn from their sins to God. Matthew 1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; Matthew 1:4 . And Aram begat Aminadab — Of these, to Jesse, little is said in Scripture, for either they lived in slavery in Egypt, or in trouble in the wilderness, or in obscurity in Canaan before the kingdom was settled. Naasson, as we learn Numbers 1:7 , was head of the house of Judah, not, as some through mistake have affirmed, when the Israelites entered Canaan, but when they were numbered and marshalled in the wilderness of Sinai, in the second year after they were come out of Egypt. Accordingly, in the catalogue given 1 Chronicles 2:10 , he is termed prince of the children of Judah, where Salmon his son is called Salma. Matthew 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; Matthew 1:5 . Salmon begat Booz of Rachab — Viz., after their settlement in Canaan. It is not exact said that this woman was Rahab of Jericho, commonly called the harlot, but it is highly probable she was; for that Rahab was contemporary with Salmon, and a remarkable person, and there was no other of that name, especially of that age, of whom the compiler of the table could possibly suppose his reader to have any knowledge. It is true she was of one of those idolatrous nations with which the Israelites were forbidden to marry. But as the reason of that prohibition was only lest they should be tempted to idolatry, it could have no force in the case of Rahab, who, before her marriage with Salmon, undoubtedly acknowledged the God of Israel for the true God, and became a proselyte of righteousness. And Booz begat Obed of Ruth — Although the son of a Moabite by an Israelitish woman was forbidden to enter into the congregation of the Lord; that is, at least was rendered incapable of being a prince in Israel, and perhaps even of being naturalized by circumcision; yet it evidently appears from this celebrated instance, Ruth being a Moabitess, that this precept was not understood as excluding the descendants of an Israelite by a Moabitish woman from any hereditary honours and privileges, otherwise the kinsman of Booz would not have wanted a much better reason than any he assigned, ( Ruth 4:6 ,) for refusing to marry Ruth, when she became a widow. And Obed begat Jesse — Inasmuch as there were at least 300 years between Salmon and David, and only three persons are here named as intervening to fill up that space of time, viz., Booz, Obed, and Jesse, they must each of them have been about 100 years old at the birth of his son, here named, which is not to be wondered at, considering the age in which they lived. Moses, a little before their time, had lived 120 years, when his natural strength was not abated. And Caleb, at 85, was strong and fit for war. Add to this, that they were persons of eminent piety, and therefore, probably, God vouchsafed to each of them a longer life than ordinary, and continued their strength to a late period thereof. Matthew 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; Matthew 1:6 . And Jesse begat David the king — David has the title of king given him in this genealogy, because he was the first king of his family, and because he had the kingdom entailed upon his children; in which respect he had greatly the advantage of Saul, from whose family the kingdom was taken away almost as soon as it was conferred. It is true, ten of the twelve tribes revolted from David’s grandson. Nevertheless, the promise of God remained sure, for whereas an end was soon put to the kingdom of the ten tribes, the empire of the two which adhered to David’s family was of much longer duration, not to mention that the tribe of Judah, out of which the Messiah was to spring, was one of those two that continued in their allegiance to his house. This kingdom also was a type of the kingdom of Christ, which indeed might be said to be begun by him. For to him the promise of the Messiah was made, and of his seed the Messiah was to be raised up, to possess his throne, and establish it for ever. Ezekiel 37:25 . And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife, &c. — In the original it is, of her of Urias; ?? ??? ??? ?????? . Though David, in this unhappy affair, acted in a way most unworthy of his character, yet God, on his deep repentance, not only graciously forgave him, but entailed the promise on his seed by this very woman. An amazing instance this of his boundless mercy! Matthew 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; Matthew 1:7 . And Solomon begat Roboam — From whose government ten of the tribes revolting, chose Jeroboam for their king, who, to prevent them from returning to their subjection to the house of David, introduced the worship of the golden calves, and led the whole nation into the dreadful crime of gross idolatry; a crime from which they were never totally reclaimed, and which was the chief source of their misery and ruin, bringing down the divine vengeance upon them in repeated punishments, till they were so reduced as to become an easy prey to the Assyrian monarchy. Matthew 1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; Matthew 1:8 . And Joram begat Ozias — By Ozias, Uzziah is intended, and it is certain from the history of the Kings and Chronicles that he was the son of Amaziah, 2 Chronicles 26:1 ; Amaziah, of Joash, ch. Matthew 24:27 ; Joash, of Ahaziah, ch. Matthew 22:11 ; and Ahaziah, of Jehoram. But, according to the language of the Hebrews, the children of children are reputed the sons or daughters, not only of their immediate parents, but of their ancestors, and these ancestors are said to beget those who are removed some generations from them. Thus Isaiah says to Hezekiah, Of thy sons which thou shalt beget shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon: which prediction was not fulfilled until the days of Jeconiah, long after the days of Hezekiah. But it will be asked, why these three in particular are left out of the catalogue? The best answer to this question seems to be, that the evangelist followed the Jewish tables in writing this list, and that he found them left out in these. But if he himself, though he found them in the tables, omitted their names, it must, as Dr. Doddridge observes, have been “by some peculiar divine direction, that the sin of Jehoram is thus animadverted upon, even to the fourth generation, his intermediate descendants being thus blotted out of the records of Christ’s family, and overlooked as if they had never been.” Matthew 1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; Matthew 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; Matthew 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: Matthew 1:11 . Josias begat Jechonias — According to the Bodleian and other MSS., (of which notice is taken in the margin of our Bibles,) we must read Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jechoniah. And this indeed seems absolutely necessary to keep up the number of fourteen generations; unless we suppose, with Dr. Whitby, that the Jechoniah here is a different person from that Jechoniah mentioned in the next verse, which seems a very unreasonable supposition, since it is certain that throughout this whole table each person is mentioned twice, first as the son of the preceding, and then as the father of the following. And his brethren — Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, who were both kings of Judah, the former the predecessor to Jehoiakim, and the latter the successor of his son Jehoiachin. Of the history of these persons see the notes on 2 Kings 23:30-31 ; and 2 Kings 24:1-20 ; and 2 Kings 25:1-7 . About the time they were carried away to Babylon — There were two transportations to Babylon of the tribes which composed the kingdom of Judah. The first happened in the eighth year of the reign of Jehoiachin the son of Jehoiakim. For Jehoiachin delivered up the city to Nebuchadnezzar, and, by treaty, agreed to go with the Chaldeans to Babylon, at which time the princes and the mighty men, even 10,000 captives, with all the craftsmen and smiths, were carried away to Babylon. 2 Kings 24:12-16 . The second transportation happened in the 11th 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, here properly called ?????????? , a removal or migration: and it is of this that the evangelist speaks in this genealogy: the other is more properly termed ?????????? , a being taken and carried away captive. Matthew 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; Matthew 1:12 . And after they were brought to Babylon — After the Babylonish captivity commenced, Jechonias begat Salathiel — It is here objected, that God said concerning this Jeconiah, called also Coniah, Jeremiah 22:30 , Write ye this man childless: How then did he beget Salathiel? This objection is easily answered, for that verse, (where see the note,) expounds itself: it being added, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. The expression, therefore, manifestly means, without a child that shall actually succeed in the kingdom: for the text itself supposes that he should have seed, but none that should prosper, sitting on the throne of David and ruling in Judah: which is according to the sacred history, (2 Chronicles 36.,) for the king of Babylon set up Zedekiah, his uncle, in his stead, who was the last king of Judah, in the 11th year of whose reign the Jews were carried away captive. Salathiel begat Zorobabel — Here is another difficulty: for, 1 Chronicles 3:19 , we read, The sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei: now if Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, how could he be the son of Salathiel? In answer to this, let it be observed, 1st, that Salathiel might die without issue, and Pedaiah, his brother, might marry his widow, (according to the law of God, Deuteronomy 25:5 ,) to raise up seed to his brother. Zerubbabel, being the fruit of this marriage, would of course be called the son of Salathiel and the son of Pedaiah. Or, 2dly, there might be two persons of the name of Zerubbabel; one the son of Salathiel, and the other the son of his brother Pedaiah. This seems very likely, considering that the word Zerubbabel signifies a stranger in Babylon, a name which very probably would be given to several children born in the captivity. Be this as it may, the Zerubbabel here mentioned was that illustrious person who was the chief instrument of restoring and settling the Jewish commonwealth, on their return from captivity. Matthew 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; Matthew 1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; Matthew 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Matthew 1:16 . Jacob begat Joseph — It is evident that Joseph was properly the son of Jacob, and only the son-in-law of Eli: Luke 3:23 . See note on Matthew 1:2 . Though Joseph was not the true father of Christ, yet Christ’s pedigree was reckoned by him, because he had no other father as man, and Joseph was his supposed father, being the husband of Mary, his mother; and the mother being transplanted into her husband’s family, the child must go for one of that family. And therefore Joseph’s family was to be set down, lest, if it had not been known, the Jews should have taken occasion to reject Christ on that account, for it was generally received among them that Jesus was the son of the carpenter, Matthew 13:55 ; the son of Joseph, John 6:42 . If, therefore, Joseph had not been acknowledged to have been of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David, they would undoubtedly have considered this as a strong objection to Christ’s pretences of being the Messiah. Hence the Divine Wisdom was pleased to direct this apostle to remove that stumbling-block. Let it be observed, further, that “it was a received rule among the Jews, that the family of the mother is not called a family; all their pedigrees being reckoned and deduced from the father. This is the reason why Matthew has here set down the genealogy of Joseph; and thus Jesus Christ is the son of David, because Joseph’s marriage with Mary gave to Jesus a right to all the privileges which a child, that is born of strange parents, was entitled to by adoption, and which were granted by law to the posterity of a man who had married his brother’s widow. It is, moreover, very probable, that Mary was an only daughter, and an heiress, and consequently obliged to marry in her own family. See Numbers 36:7-9 . So that by giving the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gives at the same time that of Mary. He is called the husband of Mary; for the names of husband and wife were given by the Jews to persons who were only betrothed. See Genesis 29:21 ; Deuteronomy 22:24 . Some copies, however, read, Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed.” Of whom was born Jesus — This is elegantly said, for he was the seed of the woman, not of the man. Who is called Christ — i. e., Who is known by that name, and is really the Christ, or, the anointed one. Matthew adds this that he may distinguish the Saviour from others, who, either then or before, might have been called Jesus. Among the Hebrews, those who were raised, by the singular providence of God, to eminent dignities, were termed ??????? , Messiahs, or, anointed persons, even though, strictly speaking, they had not been anointed with oil, as Abraham and Isaac, Psalm 105:15 ; Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1 ; and the king of Tyre, Ezekiel 28:14 . Much more those who, by an unction, were consecrated to any particular office, as their prophets, high priests, and kings, had that appellation given them. In particular their kings, as long as royalty remained in the family of David, were called Christs, or, anointed ones. But after the destruction of the kingdom, this name, as appears from Daniel 9:25-26 , began to be referred to one Redeemer, whom the Jews, encouraged by the predictions of the prophets, and especially of the last named, Daniel, looked for from God, to be their chief ruler and teacher, John 4:25 ; and by whom a perfect reparation of the breach was expected to be made. That super-eminent and singular Christ, Jesus professed himself to be, and both he and his disciples assigned, as a reason of the appellation, that he was furnished with power manifestly extraordinary and unparalleled, as well for the declaring and confirming his heavenly doctrine, as for the executing of all his other offices. See Luke 4:18 ; John 3:34 ; Acts 4:27 ; and Acts 10:36 ; Acts 10:38 . As all the offices mentioned above, the prophetic, the priestly, the kingly, were to meet in him, and to be sustained by him in an infinitely higher degree than they were by any persons under the Jewish dispensation, who were no more than types of him, so he is represented as anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, Hebrews 1:9 . He is immeasurably filled with the Holy Ghost, even as to his human nature, and most completely qualified for sustaining every office and character in which we need him. Are we ignorant of God and of divine things? He is a teacher come from God, a prophet like, nay, superior to Moses, and him we are to hear on pain of eternal destruction. He is the truth, and wisdom, and word of God: yea, the light of the world, and they that believe in him shall not abide in darkness, but shall have the light of life. Have we sinned and come short of the glory of God? Are we guilty before God, and subject to his just judgment? He is the high priest of our profession, a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek, a priest possessed of an unchangeable priesthood, and who, by one offering of himself, once made, hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified; having put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and ever living to make intercession for us. Are we the servants of sin, and therefore the subjects of Satan, captivated by his power, and held under his dominion? Does this present world tyrannise over us, and the law in our members war against the law of our mind and lead us captive to the law of sin that is in our members? And are we subject also to the law of death, and in bondage to the fear of it? He is exalted a prince and a saviour; is a king set upon the holy hill of Zion; and as to this office, also, the Spirit of the Lord God is upon him, because the Lord hath anointed him to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord; — to deliver us from this present evil world; — to make us free from the law of sin and death; — to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; — and to deliver them, who, through fear of death, were all their life long subject to bondage. Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Matthew 1:17 . So all the generations, &c. — “Matthew, designing to show that Jesus was the Messiah, began his genealogy at Abraham, to whom the promise was originally made, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. But the succession o

Expositor's Bible Commentary Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Chapter 1 The Coming of the Christ - Matthew 1:1-25 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. { Matthew 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 Hebrews 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. The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.