Matthew 1:1-17

CRITICAL NOTES

Matthew 1:1.—A title, and might be appropriately rendered, genealogy of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham (Morison). Refers, strictly speaking, not to the whole Gospel of St. Matthew, but to the genealogical table in Matthew 1:2. The book of the generation.—An essentially Hebrew formula. See Genesis 5:1; Genesis 10:1; Genesis 11:10. The LXX. translate Genesis 5:1 by the phrase used here, βίβλος γενέσεως. The pedigree extracted from the public archives, which were carefully preserved and placed under the special care of the Sanhedrin. The genealogy, an answer to the question which would be asked by every Jew of any one who claimed to be the Messiah, “Is he of the house of David?” for by no name was the Messiah more frequently spoken of by Jews and by foreigners, and designated in the Talmud, than by that of the son of David (Carr). See Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:30; Matthew 21:9; Matthew 22:42. Son of David.—See above. Son of Abraham.—Not a specially Messianic title. A brother to all. See Genesis 22:18; Luke 19:9; Hebrews 2:16. Cf. also Galatians 3:16.

THE GENEALOGIES IN ST. MATTHEW’S AND ST. LUKE’S GOSPELS

1. Both trace Joseph’s descent. But see on Matthew 1:16.

2. St. Matthew proves that Jesus is the Son of David and of Abraham; St. Luke, true to the scope of his Gospel, traces the pedigree from the common father of Jew and Gentile.
3. St. Matthew traces the royal succession, St. Luke the family lineage. This accounts for many variations in names.

4. This genealogy descends from father to son, and is, therefore, probably the most exact transcript of the original document. St. Luke ascends from son to father.

5. St. Matthew also differs from St. Luke in naming women in the genealogy (Carr). THE OMISSIONS.—The true explanation appears to be, that all the individuals omitted by the Evangelist had, in one respect or another, no claim to be regarded as separate and distinct links in the theocratic chain (Lange).

Matthew 1:3. Thamar.—It was enough that the women were historically notable. It would appear, from the language of the Talmud, as if the Jews looked on Thamar’s strange and, to us, revolting history with quite other feelings. To them she was as one who, at the risk of shame and it might be death, bad preserved the line of Judah from destruction, and “therefore was counted worthy to be the mother of kings and prophets” (Plumptre).

Matthew 1:5. Salmon … Rachab (Rahab).—The Old Testament records are silent as to the marriage of Salmon with the “harlot” of Jericho. Hence Matthew must have had access to other genealogical records or sources of information.

Matthew 1:8. Joram begat Ozias (Uzziah).—Three omissions, viz. Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah. Motive apparently simply the desire to bring the names in each period into which the genealogy is divided to the arbitrary standard of fourteen. “A begat B” not to be taken literally, but simply as an expression of the fact of succession, with or without intermediate links (ibid.).

Matthew 1:11. Carried away.—Literally, “of their migration,” for the Jews avoided the word “captivity” as too bitter a recollection, and our Evangelist studiously respects the national feeling (Brown).

Matthew 1:12. Jechonias—Jechonias the Second, son of Jechonias the First. Jehoiachin the son of Jehoiakim (Morison) begat Salathiel (Shealtiel). Cf. Jeremiah 22:30 (Coniah = Jehoiachin), Luke 3:27; 1 Chronicles 3:17. A cluster of genealogical difficulties. Various solutions suggested. Dr. Plumptre says: “The most probable solution is that Assir was the only son of Jeconiah, and died without issue before his father; that the line of Solomon thus came to an end, and that the son of Neri, a descendant of Nathan, another son of David (2 Samuel 5:14; 1 Chronicles 3:5; Luke 3:27; Luke 3:31) took their place in the succession, and was reckoned, as by adoption, as the son of the last survivor of the other line. The practice is, it may be noted, analogous to that which prevails among Indian princes and in other Eastern nations.”

Matthew 1:13. Zorobabel begat Abiud.—None of the names that come after that of Zerubbabel are recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures. They were doubtless taken from the public or family registers, which the Jews carefully kept, and their accuracy was never challenged. The royal family had got sadly reduced and crushed, indeed, into the deepest poverty. The Messiah, when He appeared, was like a rod, or shoot, or sucker from a lowly “stump”— Isaiah 11:1 (Brown and Morison).

Matthew 1:16. Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.—Joseph, the legal father, of our Lord. In Luke, Joseph is said to be the son of Heli, and from Heli the line of ancestry is traced upward to Nathan, son of David, instead of to Solomon. Thus an apparent discrepancy. Several methods of conciliation. Dr. Morison favours a view which commanded the suffrages of the great body of the Fathers. Set forth in a monograph by Julius Africanus (third century). He supposes that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers. Their respective fathers, Matthan and Melchi, married successively the same woman, named Estha. Matthan, having first married her, begat Jacob. Having died, his widow was married by Melchi, and Heli was born. Heli married, but died without issue; and his brother, Jacob, married the widow, and had by her a son, Joseph, who was truly his own son by nature, but also the son of Heli by law. Africanus says that this theory was in accordance with a tradition which was handed down in the line of the Saviour’s relatives, and that it was in all respects a satisfactory solution of the apparent difficulty. Dr. Morison adds, “We have no doubt, at the same time, that Mary was a near relative of Joseph, and a royal heiress, so that Joseph’s lineage was in reality, in its essential elements, her lineage.” Christ.—Here, as in Matthew 1:1, a proper name, not an appellative—the Christ (Morison).

Matthew 1:17. Fourteen generations.—In the arrangement and division of the genealogical tree Matthew was undoubtedly influenced by the Old Testament symbolism of numbers (Lange). Partitioned for facility of remembrance. There is a natural basis for the trichotomy. The first fourteen comprises the age of the patriarchs and judges, the spring-time of the Jewish people. The second comprises the age of the kings, the summer season and the autumn of the nation. The third comprises the period of Jewish decadence, the winter-time of their political existence (Morison). Dr. Morison gives the three fourteens as follows:

1. From Abraham to David.
2. From Solomon to Jechonias I.
3. From Jechonias II. to Jesus. Christ = the Christ.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 1:1

A distinguished lineage.—A leading characteristic of St. Matthew’s Gospel is that it presents Christ to us as a “sign.” The word “behold,” in fact, in one form or another, is constantly to be found in its pages; more often, in proportion, than in any of the others. These opening verses of the Gospel are found to conform to this rule. They set before us what we are first to “look” at in the story it tells us. From what lineage, from what family, did the Man it speaks about spring? From a lineage distinguished—

1. As being remarkably extended.

2. Singularly select.

3. Highly significant.

I. Remarkably extended.—Its mere length, to begin with, is obviously unusual. Not many men can go back through a list of progenitors containing some fifty names, and covering some fifteen hundred years. This length strikes us the more also in this case because it is given “at length,” as it were, name after name being reported to us nearly all the way through. Also, because it is broken up into three different groups. It is like having to clamber up three flights of stairs to the top of a tower. Alike, the mind and the limbs are impressed by the task. Also, the many vicissitudes thus pointed to are of a very unusual description. How many and great were those connected with the first of these groups—even all those of which we read between the call of Abraham and the going down into Egypt, and between the going down into Egypt and the settlement in Canaan, and between the settlement in Canaan and the final establishment of the kingdom! Also, how many those found in the long but much chequered splendours of the subsequent group! And how many, again, in the long and trying obscurity of the third! So long a genealogy of a clearly traceable kind is in any case a remarkable thing. It is still more remarkable in a line passing through such hazards as these.

II. Singularly select.—The names inserted in this genealogy are such as to teach us this, on the one hand. Many of them at once point to others set aside for their sakes. Thus it is, e.g., that the name of Isaac (Matthew 1:2) points us to Ishmael, and the name of Jacob (ibid.) to Esau, and the name of Judah (ibid.) to those of his brethren (Genesis 29:35), and the name of David (Matthew 1:6) to those of his brethren (1 Samuel 16), and the name of Solomon in like manner (1 Chronicles 28:5). This kind of principle, in fact, is almost pointed to all the way through. First one nation, then one tribe, then one family, then one branch of it only. With equal emphasis, on the other hand, even if with some obscurity also, the names omitted teach much the same thing. We cannot exactly say, e.g. why the names of three different kings of Judah, viz. those of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, are left out of this list. But the fact that, though they were notoriously in the line which is here being traced, they were thus deliberately not reckoned as of it, points our thoughts the same way. It shows, evidently, that things were not taken here just as they came, but that there was a choice, rather, and that a very decided choice, though we may not know why. And it shows, therefore, that here also this genealogy of Jesus was a thing much by itself.

III. Highly significant.—Highly significant, in the first instance, because of its most prominent names. A comparison of Matthew 1:1; Matthew 1:6; Matthew 1:17, shows these names to be those of Abraham and David. The Old Testament story also shows us in what special way it was that both these men had surpassed all other men in the past, viz. in the degree of their promised intimacy with the coming Hope of the world. (See Genesis 22:18; Psalms 72; Psalms 89) We see, therefore, what this genealogy comes to on the question of names. It connects this “Jesus” with those two men who were to be the principal ancestors of the Christ. Hardly less significant is it, next, in the question of epochs. Two of these are seen prominent in the catalogue before us. The epoch of the setting up of the kingdom of Israel under “David the king” (Matthew 1:6) is one. The epoch of its overthrow but not total obliteration at the “carrying away to Babylon” (Matthew 1:11; Matthew 1:17) is the other. We see, therefore, on this point also to what this genealogy comes. It is a description, first, of the setting up of a particular kingdom or dynasty; of the way in which that kingdom was prepared for by one set of “fourteen generations”; and of the way in which it was preserved afterwards during another fourteen. It is a description, next, of the overthrow of that kingdom and yet of the preservation of the line of its kings for other “fourteen generations.” In other words, it shows of this “Jesus” that He belonged to the family which was still in possession of a claim to that throne. Lastly, this genealogy is hardly less significant as to the question of time. When time is measured, as the Evangelist measures it here, how critical and hopeful is the look of the time which closes this list. Fourteen generations from the first promise to Abraham to a repetition of it—to a closer repetition of it—to David. Fourteen generations from this to its restoration to life, as it were. Fourteen more, therefore, to a season of further hope and remembrance—perhaps of actual fulfilment! Just then it is that this “Jesus” appears.

Altogether, therefore, see how fit a “beginning” is the beginning in hand. How many significances it shows us, meeting together in the appearing of this Jesus! The line by which He has come, its changeful character, the description given of it, the chief names it speaks of, the principal epochs it points to, the season it ends with, all bid us fix our eyes upon Him as the probable Hope of the world. “Is not this the Christ?” So it is that what we read here, as it were, constrains us to ask! Could any beginning, if we think of it, have well attempted any more? Could any beginning, on the other hand, have accomplished it better?

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Matthew 1:1. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

The genealogy of Christ.—These chronicles have a mission. As no star is useless in the heavens, and as every atom has been created for a purpose, so God would not devote seventeen verses of His book to a pedigree, without a purpose. We learn from this genealogy:—

I. God’s fidelity to His promise.—God had promised Abraham that in him should all the families of the earth be blessed, and here we read of its fulfilment.

II. The eternal God never works hurriedly.—Scientists say that the earth existed ten millions of years before any life came into existence upon it. And God took two thousand years before He gave His Son to the world.

III. The human race is very closely inter-related.—Mankind is one family, and every war that occurs is a family strife.

IV. The universality of death.—Forty-two generations pass before us, and sink into the grave.

V. The all-inclusiveness of Christ’s mission.—Christ touched all sorts of people in this pedigree, in order that He might save all sorts of people.

VI. The marvellous way in which God overrules evil in order to give due prominence to Christ.—Who but God could have produced a perfect man out of such a pedigree?—J. Ossian Davies.

The genealogical table—its moral suggestions.—

I. The solemn succession of the race.—The representatives of forty generations appear before us and pass away. Men depart, man remains. The world can do without us. This fact serves—

1. To reprove worldliness.

2. To inculcate humility.

II. The physical connexion of the race.—Each of these generations springs from the preceding one as grain from grain. This unity—

1. Demands the spirit of brotherhood.

2. Helps to explain the transmission of moral character.

3. Enables each generation to help its successors.

III. The moral difference of the race.—In this list we recognise some men of distinguished goodness and some pre-eminent for wickedness. There is a power lodged in each man’s bosom to prevent the combined influence of all past generations from moulding his character.

IV. The partial history of the race.—Of these forty generations we have for the most but little more than the mention of the name of an individual of each. Who knows the history of one of a generation?

V. The common Redeemer of the race.—God redeems man by man.—D. Thomas, D.D.

Matthew 1:17. The Divine regulation of time.—

1. Though not one of us can be in the family line of Christ, yet all may be spiritually related to Him.

2. The tumultuous generations bring the peaceful Christ.—Joseph Parker, D.D.