Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:6
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah;
6. David the king ] A special hint of Christ the King, of whom David was the type.
It is at this point that St Luke’s genealogy branches off. According to natural descent Joseph was a descendant of Nathan, not of Solomon. The genealogies meet again in the names of Zorobabel and Salathiel. See below, Mat 1:12.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And Jesse begat David the king,…. The descent of the Messiah runs in the line of David, the youngest of Jesse’s sons, who was despised by his brethren, and overlooked and neglected by his father; but God chose him, and anointed him to be king, and set him on the throne of Israel; hence he is called “David the king”; as also because he was the first king that was of the tribe of Judah, and in the genealogy of Christ, and was an eminent type of the king Messiah, who is sometimes called by the same name,
Eze 34:24 and who was to be his son, as Jesus is, and also right heir to his throne and kingdom.
And David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; which was Bathsheba, though not named; either because she was well known, or because of the sin she had been guilty of, which would easily be revived by mentioning her name: our translators have rightly supplied, “that had been”, and not as the Vulgate Latin, which supplies it, “that was the wife of Urias”, for Solomon was begotten of her, not while she was the wife of Uriah, but when she was the wife of David.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
David the king [ , “the David, the king “]. Both words are thus emphasized : the David from whom Christ, if he were the Messiah, must have descended; the king with whom the Messiah ‘s genealogy entered upon the kingly dignity. In this genealogy, where the generations are divided symmetrically into three sets of fourteen, the evangelist seems to connect the last of each set with a critical epoch in the history of Israel : the first reaching from the origin of the race to the commencement of the monarchy (” David the king “); the second, from the commencement of the monarchy to the captivity of Babylon; the third and last, from the captivity to the coming of” the Christ. ” The same emphatic or demonstrative use of the article occurs with the name of Joseph (ver. 16), marking his peculiar relation to Jesus as the husband of Mary : the Joseph, the husband of Mary.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And Jesse begat David the king;” (lessai de egennesen ton David ton Basilea) “Then Jesse begat David who was the king;” thirteenth generation of the Abrahamic Faith-line promise, or the fourteenth generation, including Abraham, to whom the promise was first given, Gen 12:1-3; Mat 1:17; and the kingly lineage through David to the Messiah was given, 1Sa 7-11-16. The first fourteen generations from Abraham to David covered 1,000 years.
2) “And David the king begat Solomon,” (David de egennesen ton Salornona) “Then David begat Solomon,” fifteenth generation of the Faith-line of the Abrahamic covenant promise, hereafter, also confirmed in the Davidic kingly lineage covenant, joined with and coming out of the Abrahamic covenant. The kingly lineage of David through Solomon was cut off forever through Coniah, so that Jesus was born the heir of David, as the seed of woman, through the line of David’s son, Nathan, Mat 1:11; Jer 22:24-30; Ga 4:45.
3) “Of her that had been the wife of Urlas;” (ek tes tou Ourlou) “Out of or from her, the one who had been the wife of Uriah;” whose name was Bathsheba, which means “of the oath;” She was both the wife of another man and an Hittite, two things that made more grave David’s sin with her, 2Sa 11:2-27. The name David means “beloved,” The name Solomon means “peaceable,” 2Sa 5:14.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6. Begat David the King In this genealogy, the designation of King is bestowed on David alone, because in his person God exhibited a type of the future leader of his people, the Messiah. The kingly office had been formerly held by Saul; but, as he reached it through tumult and the ungodly wishes of the people, the lawful possession of the office is supposed to have commenced with David, more especially in reference to the covenant of God, who promised that “his throne should be established for ever,” (2Sa 7:16.) When the people shook off the yoke of God, and unhappily and wickedly asked a king, saying, “Give us a king to judge us,” (1Sa 8:5,) Saul was granted for short time. But his kingdom was shortly afterwards established by God, as a pledge of true prosperity, in the hand of David. Let this expression, David the King, be understood by us as pointing out the prosperous condition of the people, which the Lord had appointed.
Meanwhile, the Evangelist adds a human disgrace, which might almost bring a stain on the glory of this divine blessing. David the King begat Solomon by her that had been the wife of Uriah; by Bathsheba, whom he wickedly tore from her husband, and for the sake of enjoying whom, he basely surrendered an innocent man to be murdered by the swords of the enemy, (2Sa 11:15.) This taint, at the commencement of the kingdom, ought to have taught the Jews not to glory in the flesh. It was the design of God to show that, in establishing this kingdom, nothing depended on human merits.
Comparing the inspired history with the succession described by Matthew, it is evident that he has omitted three kings. (92) Those who say that he did so through forgetfulness, cannot be listened to for a moment. Nor is it probable that they were thrown out, because they were unworthy to occupy a place in the genealogy of Christ; for the same reason would equally apply to many others, who are indiscriminately brought forward by Matthew, along with pious and holy persons. A more correct account is, that he resolved to confine the list of each class to fourteen kings, and gave himself little concern in making the selection, because he had an adequate succession of the genealogy to place before the eyes of his readers, down to the close of the kingdom. As to there being only thirteen in the list, it probably arose from the blunders and carelessness of transcribers. Epiphanius, in his First Book against Heresies, assigns this reason, that the name of Jeconiah had been twice put down, and unlearned (93) persons ventured to strike out the repetition of it as superfluous; which, he tells us, ought not to have been done, because Jehoiakim, the father of king Jehoiakim, had the name Jeconiah, in common with his son, (1Ch 3:17; 2Kg 24:15; Jer 27:20.) Robert Stephens quotes a Greek manuscript, in which the name of Jehoiakim is introduced. (94)
(92) “ Assavoir Ochozias fils de Joram, Joas, et Amazias.” — “Namely, Ahaziah son of Jehoram, Joash, and Amaziah,” (2Ch 22:1.)
(93) “ Indocti;” — “ quelques gens n’entendans pas le propos,” — “some peope not understanding the design.”
(94) “ Robert Etienne a ce propos allegue un exemplaire Grec ancien, ou il y a ainsi, Josias engendra Joacim, et Joacim engendra Jechonias.”— “Robert Stephens, with this view, quotes an ancient Greek manuscript, which runs thus: Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) The wife of Urias.Once again we have the mention of a woman who at least played a memorable part in the history of Israel. As this is the last of such names in the genealogy, it may be well to deal with the question whether any special purpose can be traced in the selection, beyond that of noting points of interest. Nothing can carry us beyond probable conjectures; but, within those limits, it is at least suggestive that all the names are those of women who, either as of heathen origin (Bathsheba, like her husband, was probably a Hittite), or by personal guilt, were as those whom the strict judgment of the Pharisee excluded from his fellowship. St. Matthew may have meant men to draw the inference that, as these women were not excluded from the honour of being in the Messiahs line of ancestry, so others like them would not be shut out from fellowship with His kingdom.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 1:6-11 ‘And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah; and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah; and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah; and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah; and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.’
This next section of the genealogy shows the royal line from David to Jechoniah, with omissions (see 1 Chronicles 3). Their lives are described in some detail in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Some think that the omissions of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah arise from the curse placed on the house of Ahab in 1Ki 21:21-24 ; 1Ki 21:29, with it being seen as covering three generations until it was purged, for the house of Judah were associated with the house of Ahab at that time by marriage. Ahaziah was the son of Ahab’s daughter, and followed in Ahab’s ways (2Ki 8:26-27) and was therefore implicated in the curse. All three kings who are omitted (both good and bad) met a violent end and were slain by conspirators. The kings that are, however, mentioned in the list also make up both good and bad, so that there is no distinction on those grounds. The connection with Ahab seems to be the significant factor.
When we come to the time of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin the name ‘Yoakim’ (Jechoniah) was used in Greek and in LXX for both Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin. ‘And his brothers’ may suggest that the former is intended, but Matthew may in fact have intended both kings to be read in here, with the description ‘brothers’ indicating ‘relatives’ and intended to cover Jehoiakim’s different relatives who were associated with the throne over the period (thus including Jehoiachin his son and Zedekiah his brother, who both reigned, the latter at the same time as the former who was then in exile), and thus covering the final complicated situation of kingship over that period of three progressive exiles, with the new Jechoniah then seen as taking up from the old in the third part of the genealogy, for the name(s) ‘Jechoniah’ is/are needed in both lists to make up the fourteen, and he would not want to say ‘Jechoniah begat Jechoniah’ (i.e. that Jechoniah was Jechoniah’s heir). This would explain the mention of ‘his brothers’ in this case, for, unlike in the case of Judah, there is no real reason otherwise for mentioning Jehoiakim’s ‘brothers’. We should note that here in this middle section of the list there is the clear indication that this is a genealogy depicting heirs to the throne rather than actual direct descent.
Note the mention of ‘the wife of Uriah’, and the deliberate non-mention of her name (which differentiates her to some extent from the other three). The non-mention of her name, plus the link with her murdered husband, may suggest here a disapproving reference. Omission of names often indicates disapproval (compare the omission of Simon in Deuteronomy 33 after the sin at Baal-peor). The line was thus to be seen as not whiter than white. And yet she had no doubt sought and found forgiveness, as David also had (Psalms 51). We are reminded by this that the descent includes those who had been involved in deep sin. In the end even David was to be seen as marred, something which the mention of his adulterous wife and the man he murdered emphasises. This was indeed one reason why Jesus had to be born of a virgin. It is doubtful if the fact that Uriah was a Hittite is in mind here, otherwise Matthew would have mentioned the fact. Indeed it seems probable that Uriah was seen as a fully acclimatised proselyte, along with many of David’s mighty men, and was also possibly descended from one. But ‘the wife of Uriah’ was both the cause of David’s partial decline, and the mother of the king who started so promisingly and ended up totally discredited, something which led on to the division of Israel into two parts, and the final decline of both of those parts which resulted finally in the Exile.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 1:6. Solomon, of her that had been, &c. In the original it is, by her of Urias; a mode of expression common both among the Greeks and Romans. See the note on 2Sa 12:24.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 1:6 . ] Although an apposition with the article follows the proper name, yet also takes the article, not for the sake of uniformity with the preceding name (de Wette), but in order to designate David demonstratively, as already marked out in Mat 1:1 . In Mat 1:16 , also, the article before , which is accompanied by an apposition, has, in keeping with the deep significance of his paternal relation to Jesus, demonstrative power (Khner, II. p. 520).
The also, and the subsequent emphatic repetition of , are a distinction for David, with whom the Messiah’s genealogy entered upon the kingly dignity.
] Such methods of expression by the simple genitive suppose the nature of the relationship in question to be known , as here it is that of wife . Comp. Hectoris Andromache, Luther’s Katharina , and the like. See Khner, II. p. 285 f. Winer, p. 178 [E. T. p. 237].
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
Ver. 6. And Jesse begat David the king ] But that was not his chief title: he gloried more in styling himself the servant of the Lord, Psa 36:1 , tit. So Theodosius esteemed it a greater honour that he was membrum Christi member of Christ than Caput Imperii, head of the empire. Numa etiam existimabat. Numa held the service of God the highest honour. (Plut. in Vit.)
David the king begat Solomon ] Whom Bellarmine reckoneth for a reprobate: but (besides that he was God’s corculum, little heart, and by him called Jedediah) he calleth himself in his sacred retractations, Coheleth; which being interpreted the Preacher, is a word of the feminine termination, and by some rendered aggregata, where understanding the substantive anima, they conclude herehence that he was renewed by repentance and reunited to the Church.
Of her that had been the wife of Uriah ] His best children he had by this wife: the fruit of humiliation doubtless. ( Peccatum tametsi non bonum, tamen in bonum. Aug.) The barren women’s children are observed to have been the best, as Isaac, Samuel, John Baptist, &c., for like reason.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6. . ] This construction, which is not properly elliptical, but possessive (Grotius compares ‘Hectoris Andromache,’ Virg., Meyer, Luther’s Katharina , and Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 160, , Plut. de Pyth. or. p. 402, Thuc. vi. 59, &c.), occurs in the Gospels to designate various relations: see reff.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 1:6-10 , , vide above. The chief feature in this second division of the genealogical table is the omission of three kings between Joram and Uzziah (Mat 1:8 ), viz. , Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah. How is the omission to be explained? By inadvertence, or by intention, and if the latter, in what view? Jerome favoured the second alternative, and suggested two reasons for the intentional omission a wish to bring out the number fourteen (Mat 1:17 ) in the second part of the genealogy, and a desire to brand the kings passed over with the stamp of theocratic illegality . In effect, manipulation with a presentable excuse. But the excuse would justify other omissions, e.g. , Ahaz and Manasseh, who, were as great offenders as any. One can, indeed, imagine the evangelist desiring to exemplify the severity of the Gospel as well as its grace in the construction of the list to say in effect: God resisteth the proud, but He giveth grace to the lowly, and even the low. The hypothesis of manipulation in the interest of symbolic numbers can stand on its own basis without any pretext. It is not to be supposed that the evangelist was at all concerned to make sure that no link in the line was omitted. His one concern would be to make sure that no name appeared that did not belong to the line. He can hardly have imagined that his list was complete from beginning to end. Thus Nahshon (Mat 1:4 ) was the head of the tribe of Judah at the Exodus (Num 1:7 ), yet between Hezron and him only two names occur four names for 400 years. Each name or generation represents a century, in accordance with Gen 15:13-16 . The genealogist may have had this passage in view, but he must have known that the actual succession embraced more links than four ( vide Schanz on Mat 1:4 ). The hypothesis of inadvertence or error in consulting the text of the O. T., favoured by some modern commentators, is not to be summarily negatived on the ground of an a priori theory of inerrancy. It is possible that in reading 1Ch 3:11 in the Sept [1] the eye leapt from to , and so led to omission of it and the two following names. ( , not , is the reading in Sept [2] , but Weiss assumes that the latter, Azariah’s original name, must have stood in the copy used by the constructor of the genealogy.) The explanation, however, is conjectural. No certainty, indeed, is attainable on the matter. As a curiosity in the history of exegesis may be mentioned Chrysostom’s mode of dealing with this point. Having propounded several problems regarding the genealogy, the omission of the three kings included, he leaves this one unsolved on the plea that he must not explain everything to his hearers lest they become listless ( , Hom. iv.). Schanz praises the prudence of the sly Greek orator.
[1] Septuagint.
[2] Septuagint.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 1:6 a. , David the King , the title being added to distinguish him from the rest. It serves the same purpose as if David had been written in large letters. At length we arrive at the great royal name! The materials for the first part of the genealogy are taken from Rth 4:18-22 , and 1Ch 2:5-15 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 1:6-11
6bDavid was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. 7Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa. 8Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. 9Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. 10Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah. 11 Josiah was the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
Mat 1:7-11 This section (with some differences) follows 1Ch 3:10-15.
Mat 1:7
NASB, NKJV,
TEV, NJB”Asa”
NRSV”Asaph”
This Judean king was named Asa in 1Ki 15:9 and 1Ch 3:10. “Asa” is found in MSS L and W and fits the context. The early uncial Greek manuscripts , B, and C surprisingly have “Asaph.” This was the name of a choir director of David (cf. Psalms 50, 73, 83). Most textual critics assume that this is an ancient copyist error, or just a variant spelling of the name of the king.
Mat 1:8 Three Judean kings between Joram and Uzziah are omitted (1) Ahaziah (cf. 2 Kings 8, 9; 2 Chronicles 22); (2) Joash (cf. 2Ki 11:2; 2Ki 12:19-21; 2 Chronicles 24); and (3) Amaziah (cf. 2 Kings 14; 2 Chronicles 25).
The reason for their omission is uncertain. Two theories are: (1) Joram was married to and influenced by his wife, Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel and, therefore, his sin of idolatry was transmitted to the third generation (cf. Deu 5:9) or (2) Matthew is structuring the genealogy into three sections of 14 ancestors each (Mat 1:17). This would be the middle section.
Mat 1:9 “Uzziah was born to Jotham” In 2Ki 15:1-7 and 1Ch 3:12 Uzziah is called Azariah. He was a godly king who was struck with leprosy because he offered a sacrifice in a wrong manner.
Mat 1:10 “Hezekiah” Hezekiah was one of the five godly kings of Judah (Asa, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Hezekiah, and Josiah). His life is recorded in 2 Kings 18-20, 2 Chronicles 29-32, and Isaiah 36-39.
“Manasseh” He was the son of Hezekiah. Manasseh was reputed to be the most evil king in Judah’s history (cf. 2Ki 21:2-7). He also reigned the longest, fifty-five years (cf. 2 Kings 21; 2 Chronicles 33).
“Amon” He was the son of Manasseh and father of Josiah (cf. 2Ki 21:18-19; 2Ki 21:23-25; 1Ch 3:14; 2Ch 33:20-25). Some early uncial Greek manuscripts, , Bc, and C, have the name, “Amos.” This manuscript problem is much like Mat 1:7.
“Josiah” Another godly king of Judah, Josiah was eight years old when he became king (cf. 2 Kings 22-23; 2 Chronicles 34, 35). Many scholars believe that the righteous father, the wicked son of the righteous father, and the righteous son of the wicked father in Ezekiel (cf. Eze 18:5-18) were direct references to Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah.
Mat 1:11 “Jeconiah” He was also called Coniah (cf. Jer 22:24) and Jehoiachin (cf. 2 Kings 24-25). The next to last Davidic king before the Babylonian captivity, Jeconiah was either 8 years old when he ascended the throne (cf. 2Ch 36:9) or 18 years old (cf. 2Ki 24:8) and reigned only three months (cf. 1Ch 3:16-17; Jer 24:1; Jer 29:2). Ezekiel dates his prophecies from the year of this king’s exile by Nebuchadnezzar II in 597 B.C. (cf. Eze 1:1-2; Eze 8:1; Eze 20:1; Eze 24:1; Eze 26:1; Eze 29:1; Eze 30:20; Eze 31:1; Eze 32:1; Eze 32:17; Eze 33:21; Eze 40:1).
“deportation to Babylon” This deportation occurred under Nebuchadnezzar II. Jerusalem was captured by the army of Babylon several times-in 605, 597, 586, and 582 B.C. Several different deportations occurred.
1. deportation of Daniel and his three friends in 605 B.C.
2. the deportation of Jehoiachin, Ezekiel, and ten thousand soldiers and craftsmen in 597 B.C. (cf. 1 Kgs. Mat 24:10-17)
3. the deportation of most of the remaining population (the city of Jerusalem was destroyed) in 587/586 B.C., 2 Kings 25
4. the final invasion and deportation of Judah in 582 B.C. in retaliation for the killing of Nebuchadnezzar’s appointed governor, Gedeliah, and his Babylonian honor guard
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
David the king. Rth 4:22. This addition to the name of David is because of the object of Matthew’s Gospel. See the Structure on p. 1305. Luk 1:32.
the king. Omitted by all the critical Greek texts enumerated and named in App-94.
Solomon. 2Sa 12:24. The line in Matthew is the regal line through Solomon, exhausted in Joseph. The line in Luke is the legal line through Nathan, an elder brother (2Sa 5:14), exhausted in Mary. If Christ be not risen, therefore, all prophecies must fail.
her, &c. See note on Thamar, Mat 1:3.
Urias = Uriah (2Sa 12:24).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
6. .] This construction, which is not properly elliptical, but possessive (Grotius compares Hectoris Andromache, Virg.,-Meyer, Luthers Katharina, and Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 160, ,- Plut. de Pyth. or. p. 402,- Thuc. vi. 59, &c.), occurs in the Gospels to designate various relations: see reff.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 1:6. , but David the King) The appellation (the King), has been omitted by some early editors, but wrongly.[8] The kingship of David is twice mentioned here, as is the Babylonian captivity afterwards. The same title is understood, though not expressed, after the names of Solomon and his successors, as far as Mat 1:11. David is, however, called especially the King, not only because he is the first king mentioned in this pedigree, but also because his throne is promised to the Messiah.-See Luk 1:32.
[8] B, the best MSS. of Vulg., the Memph. and Theb. and Syr. Versions omit . But ac agree with Rec. Text and Beng. in retaining the words.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Jesse: Rth 4:22, 1Sa 16:1, 1Sa 16:11-13, 1Sa 17:12, 1Sa 17:58, 1Sa 20:30, 1Sa 20:31, 1Sa 22:8, 2Sa 23:1, 1Ch 2:15, Psa 72:20, Isa 11:1, Act 13:22, Act 13:23
Solomon: 2Sa 12:24, 2Sa 12:25, 1Ch 3:5, 1Ch 14:4, 1Ch 28:5
her: 2Sa 11:3, 2Sa 11:26, 2Sa 11:27, 1Ki 1:11-17, 1Ki 1:28-31, 1Ki 15:5, Rom 8:3
Urias: 2Sa 23:39, 1Ch 11:41, Uriah
Reciprocal: Gen 17:6 – kings 2Sa 5:14 – Solomon Pro 6:33 – and his Rom 1:3 – which
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:6
Verse 6. Here the record takes on an additional phase of Importance. In the days of Samuel the prophet the people of Israel clamored for a king in order to he like the nations around them. The Lord was displeased with their request but suffered them to have a king. The first one was Sjiul of the tribe of Benjamin, but he was so unrighteous that God took the throne from him and his family and even shut out that tribe from the royal line. The throne was then given to the tribe of Judah which had possession of the kingdom in Jerusalem until the Babylonian captivity. David was the first man to occupy the throne from that tribe, hence the words David the king. All of the rest to be named in the blood line were kings also but the fact will not be mentioned. This special notice was given to David because be was the first man to be in both the royal and blood lines. And in having such a place in the history of Israel he became the most important type of Christ as king, hence the various references to Him as sitting on the throne of his father David. The term father” refers to the blood line and the term “throne refers to the royal line. The mother of Solomon is referred to but not named as were Rachab and Ruth. No reason is given in the Scriptures for this variation in the mention of persons. It is worth considering, however, that of the many wives that David had, this one was the mother of both Solomon and Nathan (1 Chronicles 3:5). The significance of this is in the fact that both of these sons of David were direct ancestors of Christ; Solomons line coming down to Joseph, the (foster) father, and Nathans coming down to tell the father of Mary. Hence, the two blood streams from David coming through the two sons who were full brothers, were brought together by the marriage of Joseph and Mary.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 1:6. David the king. Emphatic as the culminating name of an ascending series. Even here pride is humbled; the wife of a heathen is mentioned, Davids partner in the deepest guilt of his life, but also in his most profound penitence (Psalms 51).
The wife of Uriah. Her that had been the wife seems to gloss over the guilt.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 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 Davids 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 Davids 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. Eze 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!
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Matthew did not refer to Solomon or the other kings of Israel as kings. Probably he wanted to focus attention on David and on Jesus as the fulfillment of the promises God gave to David. Solomon did not fulfill these promises.
The writer’s reference to Bathsheba is unusual (Mat 1:6 b). It draws attention to the heinousness of David’s sin. Perhaps he wanted to stress that Uriah was not an Israelite but a Hittite (2Sa 11:3; 2Sa 23:39). Evidently Bathsheba was the daughter of an Israelite (cf. 1Ch 3:5), but the Jews would have regarded her as a Hittite since she married Uriah.
Five kings do not appear where we would expect to find them. Three are absent between Joram and Uzziah: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (Mat 1:8), and two are lacking between Josiah and Jehoiachin, namely, Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim. As we shall note below (Mat 1:17), Matthew deliberately constructed his genealogy in three groups of 14 names. Why did he omit reference to these five kings? The first three were especially wicked. They all had connections with Ahab, Jezebel, and Athaliah. Moreover all of them experienced violent deaths. The second two were also evil, and Jehoiakim’s reign was very short, only three months. Matthew did not sanitize his genealogy completely, however, as his references to Tamar, Rahab, and David’s sin indicate.
"This man [Jehoiachin] is called Coniah in Jer 22:24-30, where a curse is pronounced upon him. There it is predicted that none of his seed should prosper sitting upon David’s throne. Had our Lord been the natural son of Joseph, who was descended from Jeconiah, He could never reign in power and righteousness because of the curse. But Christ came through Mary’s line, not Joseph’s. As the adopted son of Joseph, the curse upon Coniah’s seed did not affect Him." [Note: The New Scofield Reference Bible, pp. 991-92.]
Jehoiachin’s brothers (Mat 1:11), Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, also ruled over Judah. Zedekiah’s reign lasted 11 years, but he was a puppet of the Babylonians. The royal line passed through Jehoiachin.
"There is pathos in this second allusion to brotherhood [cf. Mat 1:2]. ’Judah and his brethren,’ partakers in the promise (also in the sojourn in Egypt); ’Jeconiah and his brethren,’ the generation of the promise eclipsed." [Note: A. B. Bruce, "The Synoptic Gospels," in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:64.]