Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:2
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
These verses contain the genealogy of Jesus. Luke also Luke 3 gives a genealogy of the Messiah. No two passages of Scripture have caused more difficulty than these, and various attempts have been made to explain them. There are two sources of difficulty in these catalogues.
- Many names that are found in the Old Testament are here omitted; and,
- The tables of Matthew and Luke appear in many points to be different.
From Adam to Abraham Matthew has mentioned no names, and Luke only has given the record. From Abraham to David the two tables are alike. Of course there is no difficulty in reconciling these two parts of the tables. The difficulty lies in that part of the genealogy from David to Christ. There they are entirely different. They are manifestly different lines. Not only are the names different, but Luke has mentioned, in this part of the genealogy, no less than 42 names, while Matthew has recorded only 27 names.
Various ways have been proposed to explain this difficulty, but it must be admitted that none of them is perfectly satisfactory. It does not comport with the design of these notes to enter minutely into an explanation of the perplexities of these passages. All that can be done is to suggest the various ways in which attempts have been made to explain them.
1. It is remarked that in nothing are mistakes more likely to occur than in such tables. From the similarity of names, and the different names by which the same person is often called, and from many other causes, errors would be more likely to creep into genealogical tables than in other writings. Some of the difficulties may have possibly occurred from this cause.
2. Most interpreters have supposed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. They were both descended from David, but in different lines. This solution derives some plausibility from the fact that the promise was made to David, and as Jesus was not the son of Joseph, it was important to show that Mary was also descended from him. But though this solution is plausible, and may be true, yet it wants evidence. It cannot, however, be proved that this was not the design of Luke.
3. It has been said also that Joseph was the legal son and heir of Heli, though the real son of Jacob, and that thus the two lines terminated in him. This was the explanation suggested by most of the Christian fathers, and on the whole is the most satisfactory. It was a law of the Jews that if a man died without children, his brother should marry his widow. Thus the two lines might have been intermingled, According to this solution, which was first proposed by Africanus, Matthan, descended from Solomon, married Estha, of whom was born Jacob. After Matthans death, Matthat being of the same tribe, but of another family, married his widow, and of this marriage Heli was born. Jacob and Heli were therefore children of the same mother. Heli dying without children, his brother Jacob married his widow, and begat Joseph, who was thus the legal son of Heli. This is agreeable to the account in the two evangelists. Matthew says that Jacob begat Joseph; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, i. e., was his legal heir, or was reckoned in law to be his son. This can be seen by the plan on the next page, showing the nature of the connection.
Though these solutions may not seem to be entirely satisfactory, yet there are two additional considerations which should set the matter at rest, and lead to the conclusion that the narratives are not really inconsistent.
1. No difficulty was ever found, or alleged, in regard to them, by any of the early enemies of Christianity. There is no evidence that they ever adduced them as containing a contradiction. Many of those enemies were acute, learned, and able; and they show by their writings that they were not indisposed to detect all the errors that could possibly be found in the sacred narrative. Now it is to be remembered that the Jews were fully competent to show that these tables were incorrect, if they were really so; and it is clear that they were fully disposed, if possible, to do it. The fact, therefore, that it is not done, is clear evidence that they thought it to be correct. The same may be said of the acute pagans who wrote against Christianity. None of them have called in question the correctness of these tables. This is full proof that, in a time when it was easy to understand these tables, they were believed to be correct.
2. The evangelists are not responsible for the correctness of these tables. They are responsible only for what was their real and professed object to do. What was that object? It was to prove to the satisfaction of the Jews that Jesus was descended from David, and therefore that there was no argument from his ancestry that he was not the promised Messiah. Now to make this out, it was not necessary, nor would it have conduced to their argument, to have formed a new table of genealogy. All that could be done was to go to the family records – to the public tables, and copy them as they were actually kept, and show that, according to the records of the nation, Jesus was descended from David. This, among the Jews, would be full and decided testimony in the case. And this was doubtless done. In the same way, the records of a family among us, as they are kept by the family, are proof in courts of justice now of the birth, names, etc., of individuals. Nor is it necessary or proper for a court to call them in question or to attempt to correct them. So, the tables here are good evidence to the only point that the writers wished to establish: that is, to show to the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was descended from David. The only inquiry which can now be fairly made is whether they copied those tables correctly. It is clear that no man can prove that they did not so copy them, and therefore that no one can adduce them as an argument against the correctness of the New Testament.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. Abraham begat Isaac] In this genealogy, those persons only, among the ancestors of Christ, which formed the direct line, as specified: hence no mention is made of Ishmael, the son of Abraham, nor of Esau, the son of Isaac; and of all the twelve patriarchs, or sons of Jacob, Judah alone is mentioned.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The evangelist reckoneth the genealogy of our Saviour by three periods, reckoning thrice fourteen descents. The first period began in Abraham, Gen 21:2,3 and ended in David. The second began in Solomon, and ended in Jehoiachin. The third began with Jehoiachin, and ended in Christ. Luke (as we shall see in its place) fetcheth our Saviours line from Adam. From Abraham to David there is no difference between Matthew and Luke, they both reckoned up the same fourteen persons, Luk 3:32-34. But Luke repeating our Saviours pedigree by his mothers side, and Matthew by his supposed fathers side, Joseph, after David they must differ, Mary descending from Davids family by his son Nathan, Joseph descending from him by Solomon. All interpreters agree that there are great difficulties about the genealogy of Christ, especially in reconciling Matthew and Luke; and the enemies of Christianity have in all times made their advantage of them, to weaken our faith as to the gospel: but Christians ought to consider,
1. That the Jews had without doubt perfect genealogies, and were more especially exact in keeping them as to the royal tribe of David, which was Judah, and the priestly tribe of Levi, that they might have a right king and high priest; and it cannot be expected that after seventeen hundred years almost we should make out genealogies as they could.
2. That they were very apt to make strifes about words and endless genealogies; as appears by the apostles cautioning both Timothy and Titus against it, 1Ti 1:4; 1Ti 6:4; Tit 3:9.
3. That it had been a sufficient exception against Christ if they could have proved he had not lineally descended from David.
4. That though they cavilled at Christ for many things, yet they never made any such cavil.
5. That we are forbidden strife and endless labour about genealogy. And therefore it is the most unreasonable thing imaginable for us to make such little dissatisfactions grounds for us to question or disbelieve the gospel, because we can not untie every knot we meet with in a pedigree.
But in this first period no such difficulties occur; both the evangelists are agreed, and the Old Testament agrees with both. That Abraham begat Isaac (when he was an hundred years old) we are assured by Moses, Gen 21:2,5; that Isaac begat Jacob he also telleth us, Gen 25:26. So also that Jacob begat Judah and his brethren, Gen 29:35. Judah was Jacobs third son by Leah, and that son of whom dying Jacob prophesied, That him should his brethren praise, and to him should his fathers children bow down. That the sceptre should not depart from Judah, nor the lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh came; and unto him should the gathering of the people be, Gen 49:8-10. Though Saul, who was the first king of Israel, (given them in wrath), was of the tribe of Benjamin, 1Sa 9:21; yet David was of the tribe of Judah, in whose line the kingdom held unto the captivity.
And his brethren: the brethren of Judah are here mentioned, being the heads of the Jewish nation: Christ descended from Judah.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaacbegat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethrenOnly thefourth son of Jacob is here named, as it was from his loins thatMessiah was to spring (Ge 49:10).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Abraham begat Isaac,…. The descent of Christ from Abraham is in the line of Isaac; Abraham begat Ishmael before Isaac, and others after him, but they are not mentioned; because the Messiah was not to spring from any of them, but from Isaac, of whom it is said, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called”, Ge 21:12 and who, as he was a progenitor, so an eminent type of Christ; being Abraham’s only beloved son; and particularly in the binding, sacrifice and deliverance of him.
Isaac begat Jacob. The genealogy of Christ proceeds from Isaac, in the line of Jacob. Isaac begat Esau, as well as Jacob, and they two were twins, but one was loved, and the other hated; wherefore no mention is made of Esau, he had no concern in the Messiah, nor was he to spring from him, but from Jacob, or Israel, by whose name he is sometimes called, Isa 49:3
Jacob begat Judas and his brethren. The lineage of Christ is carried on from Jacob in the line of Judah; the reason of which is, because it was particularly prophesied that the Messiah, Shiloh, the prince and chief ruler, should be of him, Ge 49:10 1Ch 5:2. And it is evident beyond all contradiction, that our Lord sprung from his tribe, Heb 7:14. The reason why the brethren of Judah, who were eleven in number, are mentioned, when the brethren of Isaac and Jacob are not, is, because though the Messiah did not spring from them, yet the promise of him was made to the twelve tribes, who all expected him, and to whom he was sent, and came. These made but one body of men, and therefore, though the Messiah came from the tribe of Judah, yet he is said to be of them all, Ro 9:4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Begat (). This word comes, like some of the early chapters of Genesis, with regularity through verse 16, until the birth of Jesus is reached when there is a sudden change. The word itself does not always mean immediate parentage, but merely direct descent. In verse 16 we have “Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ” ( ). The article occurs here each time with the object of “begat,” but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (1:6) and Joseph the husband of Mary (1:16) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (1:2) and of both Phares and Zara (1:3) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give verse 16 as above save the Ferrar Group of minuscules which are supported by the Sinaitic Syriac Version. Because of this fact Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates, deliberately prints his text “Jacob begat Jesus” ( ). But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Mt 1:18-25. Hence it is clear that “begat” here in 1:16 must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in 1:18-25. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of Studies in the Text of the New Testament. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in 1:16. The spelling of these Hebrew names in English is usually according to the Hebrew form, not the Greek. In the Greek itself the Hebrew spelling is often observed in violation of the Greek rules for the ending of words with no consonants save n,r,s. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Abraham begat Isaac,” (Abraam egennesen ton Isaac) “Abraham begat Isaac”, first seed, natural seed, of Abrahamic Faith-line promise, or the first generation after and of Abraham, in the primary or priority order of three triads of fourteen generations each, making forty-two generations from Abraham to Christ through this genealogical record,
Mat 1:17; Gen 21:1-5; Gen 25:19; Luk 3:34.
2) “And Isaac begat Jacob,” (de Isaak egennesen ton lakob) “Then Isaac begat Jacob,” second generation of Faith-line promise to Abraham, Luk 1:34; Gen 25:19-26. Though the younger twin brother of Esau, Jacob was the Divinely revealed chosen one through whose family lineage the Messiah was to come.
3) “And Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;” (lakob de egennesen ton loudan kai tous Adelphous auto) “Then Jacob begat Judas;” third generation of the Faith-line promise to Abraham, “and his brothers,” eleven brothers in number. These twelve sons of Jacob came to be known as heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. Only Judas, (Gk. name) the fourth son of Jacob’s twelve sons, is here given because he was chosen to be the seed of Jacob from whom Jesus Christ was to come, Gen 49:8-10; Luk 1:33-34.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. Jacob begat Judah and his brethren While Matthew passes by in silence Ishmael, Abraham’s first-born, and Esau, who was Jacob’s elder brother, he properly assigns a place in the genealogy to the Twelve Patriarchs, on all of whom God had bestowed a similar favor of adoption. He therefore intimates, that the blessing promised in Christ does not refer to the tribe of Judah alone, but belongs equally to all the children of Jacob, whom God gathered into his Church, while Ishmael and Esau were treated as strangers. (88)
(88) “ Quum essent extranei.” — “ En lieu qu’Ismael et Esau en avoyent este rejettez et bannis comme estrangers.” — “Whereas Ishmael and Esau were thrown out and banished from it as strangers.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) The omission of the names of Ishmael and Esau is explained by the fact, that they were not only not in the line of succession, but were outside the covenant with AbrahamIn Isaac shall thy seed be called (Gen. 21:12); and Esau had forfeited both the birth-right and the blessing. The brethren of Judah are named, on the other hand, because all who were descended from them had an equal interest in the Messiah.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Begat Isaac His birth is given Gen 21:2. Jacob Gen 25:26. Judas and his brethren Genesis 29.
And his brethren At several points in the genealogy there are individual matters added, not forming an essential part of the lineage. Such are the clauses and his brethren in this verse; and Zara of Thamar in the third verse; of Rachab in the fifth verse; the king in the sixth verse; and of her that had been the wife of Urias in the same verse. Profound reasons have been sought for these additions, somewhat unnecessarily, by commentators. If we may suppose Matthew to have copied the home genealogy in the family of Joseph, these incidents may easily be supposed to have been freely inserted as interesting allusions to popular points or characters in Jewish sacred history. Certainly no genealogy of that day could have suggested more points of interesting reminiscence than that of this son of David, and putative father of the Messiah. The only difficulty is with the clause concerning Rachab, who, as some have thought, could not, upon chronological grounds, have been identical with the Rahab of Jericho, if she were the wife of Salmon.
But Alford well says; “Those very grounds completely tally with their identity. For Naashon (the father of Salmon) offered his offering at the setting up of the tabernacle (Num 7:12) thirty-nine years before the taking of Jericho. So that Salmon would be of mature age at or soon after that event; at which time Rahab was probably young, as her father and mother were living (Jos 6:23.) Nor is it any objection that Achan, the fourth in descent from Judah by Zara, is contemporary with Salmon, the sixth of the other branch, since the generations in the line of Zara average sixty-nine years, and those in the line of Pharez forty-nine; both within the limits of probability. The difficulty of the interval of 366 years between Rahab and David does not belong to this passage only, but equally to Rth 4:21-22; and is by no means insuperable, especially when the extreme old age of Jesse, implied in 1Sa 17:12, is considered.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brothers.’
Matthew then begins his seemingly long and detailed genealogy, but before we switch off we should notice that for Israel each name, especially here and in the middle section, was pregnant with history. These were not just names in a list but leaders and kings of the past who had had their own effect on Israel’s history for good or bad, a history which is revealed throughout the Old Testament. Every name would have a meaning. Indeed in this very verse we have the names of those who led to the founding of God’s people Israel. And yet their being in the list, and not at the end of it, is the indication that they did not finally achieve the hope of Israel, the establishing of God’s everlasting Kingly Rule. Abraham is the source, but otherwise they are but steps on the way.
Having commenced with Abraham, in whom the new purposes of God began after man’s opening rebellions against God (Genesis 1-11), the genealogy follows with the major patriarchs, and the first indication of an important stage in the list is indicated by Judah ‘and his brothers’. Thus we have an emphasis, first on Jesus’ begetting by Abraham, with whom it all began, and then an emphasis on His begetting directly from the tribe of Judah, while at the same time being linked with the whole twelve tribes of Israel. It was to the tribe of Judah that the sceptre and ruler’s rod was promised, and it was from the tribe of Judah that the mysterious ‘Shiloh’ was to come to whom the peoples would gather (Gen 49:10-12). Thus Jesus was in line to fulfil the promises. But there is also an emphasis here on His being a true son of Israel as descended from the joint patriarchs of the twelve tribes.
‘And his brothers.’ This connects Jesus with all the tribes of Israel. He is related to them all and has come on behalf of all, for they are all the seed of Abraham through the chosen line (Gen 17:16; Gen 17:19; Gen 17:21). ‘The twelve tribes’ are later stressed in Matthew (Mat 19:28; compare also Luk 22:30; Act 26:7; Jas 1:1; Rev 21:12). That is why there are to be twelve Apostles (Mat 19:28). It is a reminder that the Messiah does not stand alone. He comes on behalf of His people, through whom His purposes will achieved. We can compare how both the coming Servant in Isaiah, and the coming Son of Man in Daniel are both individual and corporate figures. Jesus and His true people are one. And even the King is seen as in a sense the very ‘centre of being’ of His people (Lam 4:20).
The genealogy that follows contains known gaps. This is because names have been deliberately omitted. This was not unusual in a genealogy. It was quite normal to omit names which were not seen as important, especially when, in this case, there was a special reason for it, the making up of fourteen names. The same is probably true of the lists of names in Genesis 5, 11, although in that case the names were limited to ten in order to indicate a full span.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Pre-History (Genealogy) Of Jesus The Messiah (1:2-16).
The genealogy of Jesus now follows being in reverse order to Mat 1:1. Mat 1:1 refers from Jesus the Messiah back to His sources in David and Abraham, while Mat 1:2-16 are in chronological order, referring forward from Abraham and revealing the onflowing of sacred history. Abraham is followed by Judah, from whom the sceptre will come (Gen 49:10), is followed by David ‘the King’, is followed by ‘Jesus the Messiah (Christ)’, but with the Exile introduced as another focal point. This comes in with a jarring note emphasising to us that not all goes smoothly, because of man’s waywardness. And all this will then be amplified in what follows, for:
Mat 1:18 to Mat 2:8 refers to a miraculous birth to the house of David of the heir to the Davidic throne, from the house of Judah (Mat 2:6).
Mat 2:1-12 introduces the King of the Jews (Mat 2:2) from the house of ‘David the King’ to whom the nations come to pay homage in the form of the Magi (Mat 2:11).
Mat 2:13-23 parallels the previous going into Exile, and speaks of the exile of Jesus (Mat 2:13-15), and His subsequent return from Egypt (Mat 2:19-23), from which, in His Son, God will now give the final deliverance that has been awaited by the faithful for so long.
Mat 3:1-17 parallels the mention of the coming of Jesus the Messiah, God’s beloved Son, in chapter 1, Who as Messiah receives the Holy Spirit on behalf of His people, so that He might drench them with the Holy Spirit in accordance with the words of the prophets (Isa 44:1-5; Joe 2:28-29).
Without chapter 3 the full significance of His coming as described in Mat 1:1-17, and amplified in what follows, would tail off without being completed. The introductory explanation of the genealogy would be incomplete. Thus the three chapters are clearly to be seen as a unity.
Chapter 4 then reveals the commencement of the career of the Anointed One. As such He goes into the wilderness, as Israel had before Him, and there He too, like Israel, is tested as to whether He will prove faithful to God and His word. And there too He is called on to determine what His choices must be for the future (Mat 4:1-11). Having triumphed from both viewpoints, this then results in His emerging as God’s true light in preparation for His revelation as the Coming One Who is to have worldwide dominion (Mat 4:12-17 with Isa 6:2-7), and the nature of how this will be achieved is indicated in terms of His coming as a light in the darkness (Mat 4:16), a light which will come through the proclamation of the Good News. It results initially in a call to Israel to repent (Mat 4:17), in a calling of disciples who are to become ‘fishers of men’ in order to win men to Him (Mat 4:17-22) and by the commencement of His own powerful preaching and healing ministry (Mat 4:23-25). He is revealed by this as having come, not in order to conquer by force of arms or by crude politics, nor as having come to succeed by compromising with the world, but as having come in order to both succeed and conquer by proclaiming God’s truth to the nations and calling men to the Kingly Rule of Heaven. This Kingly Rule of Heaven, God’s present transforming Rule over the hearts of His true people, which will culminate in the everlasting glorious Kingdom, will take a prominent place from now on.
So having commenced with Abraham, and having connected Jesus firmly with Israel’s past, Matthew sets Him firmly on the road to the fulfilment of His purpose, which is to bring back Israel to Him; to be a light to both Israel and the Gentiles (Gen 12:3; Isa 42:6; Isa 49:6); and to establish the Kingly Rule of Heaven, through His word (and through the words of His disciples).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The evangelist now offers the genealogy proper:
v. 2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
v. 3. and Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
v. 4. and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
v. 5. and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
v. 6. and Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
v. 7. and Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
v. 8. and Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
v. 9. and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
v. 10. and Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
v. 11. and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon;
v. 12. a nd after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zerubbabel;
v. 13. and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
v. 14. and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
v. 15. and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
v. 16. and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. In three sections of fourteen members each the progenitors of Joseph are tabulated, reaching back to Abraham, the father of the faithful. No person ever born into this world could boast, in a direct line, a more elevated or illustrious ancestry than Jesus Christ. The kingly, the priestly, the prophetic offices were represented in this list in all their glory and splendor. “The holy Matthew writes his Gospel in a most masterly manner and makes three distinctions of the fathers of whom Christ sprang forth, fourteen patriarchs, fourteen kings, and fourteen princes. There are three times fourteen persons, as Matthew himself names them; from Abraham to David, both included, are fourteen persons or members; from David to the Babylonian captivity, again fourteen members;… and from the Babylonian captivity to Christ there are also fourteen members.”
A careful comparison of the list as here given and the account found in the Old Testament. 2Ch 22:1-12; 2Ch 23:1-21; 2Ch 24:1-27; 2Ch 25:1-28; 2Ch 26:1-23 shows that Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah followed after Joram, before Uzziah. The explanation for this difference is found in the fact that the word begat in Old Testament genealogical tables is sometimes used in a wider sense, as here, when it is said of Uzziah’s great-great-grandfather that he begat Uzziah. The omission of the three kings was of no consequence to the evangelist’s argument, which was to show the legal descent of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus, and therefore of Jesus Himself, in an uninterrupted line from David, and consequently from Abraham. “What need is there of many words? Matthew himself shows sufficiently that he did not want to enumerate the generations with Jewish strictness, and so excite doubtfulness. For almost after the manner of a Jew he makes three times fourteen members of fathers, kings, and princes, but with deliberate knowledge he omits three members of the second section, as though he would say: The genealogical tables are indeed not to be despised, but herein lies the chief thing that Christ is promised through the generations of Abraham and David.”
Another difficulty is in verse 11, where Josias is named as the father of Jechonias, whereas he was the grandfather, 1Ch 3:14-16. The solution is found either by reference to the explanation above, showing that Matthew made use of a deliberate contraction, since the Jews were in the habit of extending the appellation “father” also to the grandparent; or we may adopt the marginal reading, which is based upon some Greek manuscripts: “Josias begat Jakim, and Jakim begat Jechonias. ” This would also yield the fourteenth member of this section, unless we include Jesus in this group. In a similar manner, though Jechonias had no brethren mentioned in Scriptures, his father had, and it is by no means unusual to find more remote relatives spoken of in this manner, Gen 28:13; Gen 31:42; Gen 14:14; Gen 24:27; Gen 29:15. “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.”
Another significant fact: Only four women are mentioned in the tables, and of these two were originally members of Gentile nations, Rachab and Ruth, and two were adulteresses, Thamar and Bathsheba. Note, also, that the last is not mentioned by name, the reference being both delicate and reproachful. “Of the kings and princes which Matthew enumerates, there were a few very bad knaves, as we read in the Book of Kings; yet God permits them to be entered as though they were so worthy that He should have wanted to be born of them. He also” has no pious woman described: the four women that are mentioned here were all considered knaves and impious by the people, and regarded as evil women, as Thamar, who with Judas, her husband’s father, begat Phares and Zara, as is written Gen 38:18; Rachab is called a knave or harlot, Jos 2:1; Ruth was a Gentile woman, Rth 1:4: though she was pious in honor, since one reads nothing evil of her, yet because she was a heathen, she was despised as a dog by the Jews and regarded as unworthy before the world; Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, was an adulteress before David took her in marriage and begat Solomon with her, 2Sa 11:4. All of which, beyond doubt, is enumerated for the reason that we should see how God desired to present to all sinners a mirror that Christ was sent to sinners and wanted to be born of sinners; yea, the greater the sinners, the greater the refuge they should have with the merciful God, Priest, and King, who is our Brother, in whom, and in none other besides, we may fulfill the Law and receive God’s grace. For this He came from heaven and desires no more from us but only this, that we let Him be our God, Priest, and King. hen all shall be right and plain; through Him alone we become children of God and heirs of heaven.”
The table of Matthew ends with the words,
v. 16 a: And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary. This fact, and the further circumstance that Luke, chapter 3, has an altogether different list of ancestors of Jesus, must be considered proof positive that we have in Matthew the genealogy of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. The aim of the evangelist therefore undoubtedly was to set forth Jesus as the legal son of Joseph, Mary’s husband, at His birth, and as such the proper heir of David’s throne. Joseph was, before the law, father of Jesus. All his rights and privileges, by reason of his birth and ancestry, were by law transferred to his son. As long as he lived, Joseph continued in his role as the legal paternal ancestor of Jesus, Mat 13:35; Joh 6:42. In this way the name and position of Jesus, especially during His ministry, were put above reproach, Deu 23:2, and His claim as to being the heir of David’s line was placed on a sound basis, even in the eyes of the sticklers for legal form.
Note the careful phraseology used by Matthew in this sentence,
v. 16: Mary, of whom was born Jesus. Not from them both, as natural parents, after the usual manner of procreation, was the Savior begotten, but of Mary only, thus placing the event which Matthew is about to relate entirely outside of the course of nature, beyond the plane of human understanding. Jesus is her son’s name, after the great work which He came into the world to perform, the salvation of mankind. And He is called the Christ, which has precisely the same meaning as the Hebrew Messiah: the Anointed of God. It was His official title according to His threefold office, as the legitimate descendant of David, which the genealogy showed Him to be. He alone is rightly, above all His fellows after the flesh, called the Christ; He is King of kings and Lord of lords: the great King, who governs the entire universe with His almighty power and reigns in the hearts of His followers with His benign mercy; He is the Prophet greater than Moses, with a message of truth and love and grace divine for all men; He is the great High Priest, who in His own body and by the shedding of His holy, precious blood made full atonement for the sins of the entire world.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 1:2-3 . . . .] “Promissiones fuere in familia Israelis,” Bengel.
Mat 1:3 . These twin sons of Judah were illegitimate, Gen 38:16-30 . The Jews were inclined to find a good side to the transgressions of their ancestors, and alleged here, e.g. , that Thamar entertained the idea of becoming an ancestress of kings and prophets. See Wetstein and Fritzsche. The reason why Thamar is here brought forward, as well as Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba in Mat 1:5-6 (for , Euth. Zigabenus), is not “ ut tacitae Judaeorum objectioni occurreretur ,” Wetstein; for the reproach of illegitimate birth was not raised against Jesus in the apostolic age, nor probably before the second century (see Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr . I. p. 526 f.), and would be very indelicately referred to by the naming of these women; nor the point of view of exactness (Fritzsche), which would not explain why these women and no others were mentioned; least of all the tendency to cast into the shade the Jewish genealogical tree (Hilgenfeld). In keeping with the whole design of the genealogical register, which must terminate in the wonderful one who is born of woman , that reason cannot, without arbitrariness, be found save in this, that the women named entered in an extraordinary manner into the mission of continuing the genealogy onwards to the future Messiah, and might thereby appear to the genealogist and the evangelist as typi Mariae (Paulus, de Wette, Ebrard; comp. Grotius on Mat 1:3 ), and in so doing the historical stains which cleaved to them (to Ruth also, in so far as she was a Moabitess) were not merely fully compensated by the glorious approval which they found precisely in the light in which their history was regarded by the nation (Heb 11:31 ; Jas 2:25 ), but far outweighed and even exalted to extraordinary honours. See the numerous Rabbinical passages, relating especially to Thamar, Rahab, and Ruth, in Wetstein in loc ., and on Heb 11:31 . Olshausen is too indefinite: “in order to point to the marvellous gracious leading of God in the ordering of the line of the Messiah.” Luther and some of the Fathers drag in here what lies very remote: because Christ interested Himself in sinners; Lange, more remote still, “in order to point to the righteousness which comes, not from external holiness, but from faith;” and Delitzsch (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschrift , 1850, p. 575 f.), “because the sinless birth of Mary was prepared throughout by sin .”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
There would be nothing particularly necessary for me to detain the Reader with in going over this pedigree of names, more than to mark the correctness, if the mere pedigree was all. But there is somewhat more worth noticing in this genealogy: and I venture to believe, that God the Holy Ghost did intend that the Church should make other observations upon the record here given, and therefore I beg to point them out as they strike me.
In the first place, I desire the Reader not to overlook the pointed reference in every name here mentioned to the Lord Jesus Christ. Abraham had many sons beside Isaac, but none are noticed but him. And the reason is plain. The promise in the charter of grace was, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And hence to all the other Sons of Abraham; the Ishmaels, and the Esaus, of every generation, there is no respect. Amo 3:2 .
Secondly, In this pedigree we find many of the characters whose lives gave evident proof, that though by nature they were in the ancestry of CHRIST, yet in grace they had no relation to him. Not to enter into many particular proofs, it may be observed, that Roboam, (or Rehoboam,) Abia, and Jechonias, are marked in Scripture under peculiar tokens of divine displeasure. 1Ki 12:15 ; 1Ki 15:3 ; 2Ki 24:9 ; Jer 22:24 , etc. Now the Reader ought to make due remarks upon these circumstances, in proof that grace is not hereditary. It descends not from father to son. Yea, on the contrary we are told, that they which are sons of God, are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Joh 1:12-13 . And what a sweet thought to a child of God is the consideration, that from our union with CHRIST, as it was with the LORD JESUS when upon earth; so will it be with his people in heaven: Whosoever (said Jesus) shall do the will of my FATHER which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother! Mat 12:50 .
Thirdly. It is remarkable in this pedigree of the Lord Jesus that there are four names recorded in the female line; and three of them, in point of moral characters, are spoken of as exceptionable. Thamar is she with whom Judas committed incest. Gen 38:13-30 . Rachab (or Rahab) the harlot. Jos 2:1 ; Heb 11:31 ; Jas 2:25 . And Bathsheba, with whom David committed adultery. 2Sa 11:3-4 . Let the Reader pause over this view. We know that CHRIST was made sin for us, who knew no sin. And he was also made a curse for us. And he was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. See 2Co 5:21 ; Gal 3:13 ; Rom 8:3 . All these things are explained to us in the Causes and reasons for the wonderful appointment. But was it needful also, that his holy, spotless nature should come through such channels of sin, and uncleanness? Was it absolutely necessary that He who was separate from sinners, and. made higher than the heavens, should be thus manifested to his Church by such ancestry? Reader! Ponder well the subject! And do not overlook in it the unequalled humility of the SON of God!
Fourthly. I beg to detain the Reader with one observation more on this pedigree of JESUS. We find Rahab and Ruth, in this genealogy of CHRIST. Now both these women were Gentiles. Rahab, of Jericho; and Ruth, of Moab. And yet are here incorporated with Israel, and from this union after the flesh CHRIST came. Was this to show, that though with Israel was deposited the promises, yet the Church of JESUS should be made of both Jew and Gentile? And, as in after ages, when redemption-work was finished, and the middle wall of partition taken down, both should be brought into one fold; yet before all this, yea, before the coming of Christ, the alliance of JESUS with his Gentile Church, as well as with the Jewish, should be shown and proved by such an union as CHRIST after the flesh, arising out of both? Reader! Ponder this well also, for it is blessed. See Isa 49:6 ; Gal 3:28 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
Ver. 2. Abraham begat Isaac ] The fruit, not more of his flesh than of his faith, a whence he is said to be “born after the spirit,”Gal 4:29Gal 4:29 .
Isaac begat Jacob ] After twenty years’ expectance, and many a hearty prayer put up therewhile, Gen 25:21 . b So Adam lived “an hundred and twenty years ere he begat Seth;” whom God set as another seed instead of Abel,Gen 5:3Gen 5:3 ; cf. Gen 4:25 , when Cain’s family flourished and grew great in the earth. God usually stays so long that he hardly finds faith, Luk 18:8 , till men have done expecting, and then he doth things that they look not for, Isa 64:3 . Wait therefore upon him who waits to be gracious; and know this, that he is a God of judgement, Isa 30:18 , that is, a wise God, one that chooseth his times, and knows best when to deal forth his favours. See Isa 49:8 ; cf.Psa 69:13Psa 69:13 . Everything is beautiful in its season, saith Solomon, Ecc 3:11 .
Jacob begat Judah and his brethren ] Brethren in iniquity (the most of them), a part of their father’s punishment, for that three-fold lie in a breath, Gen 27:19-20 . Reuben was the beginning of his strength, “excelling in dignity and power,” Gen 49:3 , that is (saith the Chaldee Paraphrast), in the principality and the priesthood. Both which he forfeited by his foul offence; the former to Judah, the latter to Levi. Howbeit, upon his return to God (though disinherited of the birthright, yet) he had this honour of an elder brother, that he was first provided for. But Judah was he “whom his brethren should praise” (saith Jacob), in allusion to his name and in reference to his privilege, Gen 49:8 ; for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah ( ), Heb 7:14 , that branch from on high ( ), Luk 1:78 , that Shiloh, which some interpret His son (R. David). Others (Tranquillator, Salvator), the Prosperer, Pacificator, Safe Maker, &c. c Others, the son of her secundines, d which is the tunicle e that wrappeth the child in the womb.
a Vere fuit Isaac beatae senectutis et emeritae fidei filius. Bucholcer.
b The Hebrew word is, “to frequent and multiply prayer.”
c Tranquillator, Salvator, a themate Salah, unde Shalvah, tranquillitas. Unde etiam Lat. Salvere, Salvus, Salvare. Amama.
d The placenta and other adjuncts of a foetus extruded from the womb after the expulsion of the foetus in parturition; the afterbirth. D
e A membrane enclosing a bodily organ, D
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2. . . ] These additions probably indicate that Matt. did not take his genealogy from any family or public documents, but constructed it himself. Cf. also Grot., ‘Obiter Matthus Christum ut cognatum omnibus Israelitis commendat.’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 1:2-16 . The genealogy divides into three parts: from Abraham to David (Mat 1:2-6 a); from David to the captivity (Mat 1:6-11 ); from the captivity to Christ. On closer inspection it turns out to be not so dry as it at first appeared. There are touches here and there which import into it an ethical significance, suggesting the idea that it is the work not of a dry-as-dust Jewish genealogist, but of the evangelist; or at least worked over by him in a Christian spirit, if the skeleton was given to his hand. To note these is the chief interest of non-Rabbinical exegesis.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 1:2-6 a. . This is not necessary to the genealogical line, but added to say by the way that He who belonged to the tribe of Judah belonged also to all the tribes of Israel. (Weiss, Matthusevang.).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 1:2-6 a
2Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron the father of Ram. 4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. 5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. 6Jesse was the father of David the king.
Mat 1:2 “Judah” Judah was one of Jacob’s children (cf. Gen 49:10; Deu 33:7). Mat 1:2-6 follow the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1-3 in a limited sense.
Mat 1:3 “Perez and Zerah” Perez and Zerah were twins (cf. Gen 38:27-30). The Messianic line came through Perez. This section of the genealogy (Mat 1:3-5) follows Rth 4:18-22.
“Tamar” Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law who became pregnant by him (cf. Gen 38:12 ff). It was very unusual to include women in Jewish genealogical lists. Several are included here in Matthew to emphasize that the lineage of the Messiah was not based on nationality or meritorious effort. Three of the women listed-Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth-were Gentiles and the fourth, Bathsheba, was married to a Hittite. The Gentiles, even women, are included for an inclusive theological impact!
Mat 1:5 “Rahab” Rahab was the Canaanite prostitute who helped the spies (cf. Jos 2:13; Jos 6:17; Jos 6:23; Jos 6:25). In Jewish and Christian tradition Rahab was an example of the power of repentance (cf. Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25).
“Ruth” Ruth was a Moabitess (cf. Ruth 1). Moabites were forbidden from entering the congregation of Israel (cf. Deu 23:3).
She exemplified the faith of Gentiles and women and God’s inclusive love. She was the grandmother of King David.
Mat 1:6 “who had been the wife of Uriah” This referred to Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon (cf. 2 Samuel 11, 12), who, like Rahab and Ruth, was not Jewish.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Abraham.Gen 21:2, Gen 21:3. Rom 9:7, Rom 9:9.
begat. Greek. gennao. When used of the father = to beget or engender; and when used of the mother it means to bring forth into the world; but it has not the intermediate sense, to conceive. In verses: Mat 1:2-16 it is translated begat, and should be so in verses: Mat 1:16 and Mat 1:20 also. In Mat 1:1 the noun genesis means birth.
Jacob. Gen 25:26.
Judas = Judah. Gen 29:35; Gen 49:10.
and his brethren. Because the promise was restricted to the house of Judah; not extended to the whole house of Abraham or of Isaac.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2. . .] These additions probably indicate that Matt. did not take his genealogy from any family or public documents, but constructed it himself. Cf. also Grot., Obiter Matthus Christum ut cognatum omnibus Israelitis commendat.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 1:2. , Abraham) St Matthew, in enumerating our Lords ancestors, adopts the order of descent (though he employs that of ascent in Mat 1:1), and begins also from Abraham, instead of Adam, not however to the exclusion of the Gentiles (cf. Mat 28:19), since in Abraham all nations are made blessed.- , and his brethren) These words are not added in the case of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, though they also had brethren, but only in that of Judah: for the promises were restricted to the family of Israel.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Abraham: Gen 21:2-5, Jos 24:2, Jos 24:3, 1Ch 1:28, Isa 51:2, Luk 3:34, Act 7:8, Rom 9:7-9, Heb 11:11, Heb 11:17, Heb 11:18
Isaac begat: Gen 25:26, Jos 24:4, 1Ch 1:34, Isa 41:8, Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3, Rom 9:10-13
Jacob begat: Gen 29:32-35, Gen 30:5-20, Gen 35:16-19, Gen 46:8-27, Gen 49:8-12, Exo 1:2-5, 1Ch 2:1-8, 1Ch 5:1, 1Ch 5:2, Luk 3:33, Luk 3:34, Act 7:8, Heb 7:14, Rev 7:5, Juda
Reciprocal: Gen 21:3 – General Gen 25:19 – Abraham Gen 29:35 – called Num 1:7 – Nahshon
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:2
Verse 2. Abraham had more than one son but the promised seed was to come through his son Isaac (Gen 21:12; Rom 9:7), hence Matthew goes from Abraham to Isaac in the record. Isaac also had more than one son and it was stipulated that Jacob was the one through whom the line was to go (Gen 25:23; Rom 9:12-13) thus the author goes from Isaac to Jacob in his tracing of the blood line. Jacob also had many sons who figure in an important manner in the history, but only one of them (Judah, here called Judas) could be used in the blood line, so the significant wording is Judas and his brethren. This idea of singling out the particular one in each family was observed all down the line. I have gone into detail in this verse to set forth the subject, and such details will not need to be repeated in all of the following verses.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[Judas.] In Hebrew, Jehudah. Which word not only the Greeks, for want of the letter “h” in the middle of a word, but the Jews themselves, do contract into Judah; which occurs infinite times in the Jerusalem Talmud. The same person who is called R. Jose Bi R. Jehudah; in the next line is called R. Jose Bi R. Judah…
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 1:2. Abraham begat Isaac. Begat, repeated throughout, makes prominent the idea of a living connection and succession.
Judah, the direct ancestor, is named; his brethren are added, to indicate the connection with the whole covenant nation.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Both the Evangelists, St. Matthew and St. Luke, make mention of our Savior’s pedigree; the former by his reputed father’s side, the latter by his mother’s side: the design of both was to present us with a general draught of our Lord’s pedigree and descent, and not to be strict and accurate in enumerating every individual person. This should teach us, not to be over curious in scanning the parts of this genealogy, much less capaciously to object against it. For if the evangelists were not critical and exact in composing this genealogy, why should we show ourselves so in examining of it?
Rather let us attend to the design of the Holy Ghost in writing of it, which was twofold; first, For the honor of our Savior, as man, showing who were his noble and royal progenitors according to the flesh.
Secondly, For the confirmation of our faith, touching the reality of our Redeemer’s incarnation. The scripture making mention of all his progenitors, from the first man Adam to his reputed father Joseph, will not suffer us to doubt either of the truth of his human nature, or of the certainty of his being the promised Messiah.
Learn hence, That he wisdom of God hath taken all necessary care, and used all needful means for satisfying the minds of all unprejudiced persons, touching the reality of Christ’s human nature, and the certainty of his being the promised Messiah; for both these ends is our Savior’s genealogy and descent recorded in the holy scriptures.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 1:2. Abraham begat Isaac The evangelist here opens his history with our Lords genealogy by Joseph, his supposed father. Luke gives another genealogy of him, thought by many to be Josephs 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 Josephs 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, Josephs 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 Lords 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 Rom 1:3; Act 2:30. But this important difficulty is easily removed by supposing that Matthew gives Josephs pedigree, and Luke, Marys. See Macknight. But, taking it for granted that Luke gives us our Lords 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 Davids 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 Christs real father, it was directly for the evangelists 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 Lords 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 Davids 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 Davids descendants by Solomon, failing in Joseph, his rights were properly transferred to Josephs adopted son, who, indeed, was of the same family, though by another branch. Matthew, therefore, has deduced our Lords 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 Lords 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, Gen 22:18, then to David, Psa 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, Mat 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, 2Ti 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, Heb 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 Christs 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 Abrahams 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 Burnets Four Discourses, p. 16.
Abraham begat Isaac, &c. Matthew, being a Jew, brings Christs 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 Christs 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
In tracing Jesus’ genealogy, why did Matthew begin with Abraham rather than with Adam, as Luke did? Matthew wanted to show Jesus’ Jewish heritage, and to do this he only needed to go back as far as Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. Significantly, Matthew called him Abraham rather than Abram. The longer name connotes the covenant privileges that God made to Abraham when He changed his name.
The writer separated Judah and his brothers (Mat 1:2) because the messianic promise of rulership went to Judah alone (Gen 49:10). This allusion to the 12 tribes of Israel provides another clue that Matthew’s interests were strongly royal (cf. Mat 8:11; Mat 19:28).
Matthew also mentioned Perez’s brother (Mat 1:3) perhaps because he was his twin. But he probably did so because Perez was a key figure in both the Old Testament genealogies (Ruth 4; 1 Chronicles 4) and in Jewish tradition.
"Jewish tradition traced the royal line to Perez (Ruth iv. 12, 18ff.), and ’son of Perez’ is a Rabb[inic]. expression for the Messiah." [Note: A. H. M’Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, p. 1.]
The inclusion of Tamar (Mat 1:3), Rahab (v.5), and Ruth (Mat 1:5) as well as Bathsheba (Mat 1:6 b) is unusual because the Jews traced their heritage through their male ancestors (until the Middle Ages). Matthew’s mention of each of these women reveals his emphases.
"Of the four mentioned two-Rahab and Ruth-are foreigners, and three-Tamar, Rahab and Bathsheba-were stained with sin." [Note: A. Carr, The Gospel According To St. Matthew, p. 81.]
"Of these four, two (Tamar and Rahab) were Canaanites, one (Ruth) a Moabite, and one (Bathsheba) presumably a Hittite. Surely they exemplify the principle of the sovereign grace of God, who not only is able to use the foreign (and perhaps even the disreputable) to accomplish his eternal purposes, but even seems to delight in doing so." [Note: Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, p. 188. See also idem, "The Book . . .," p. 138.]
The writer had several purposes for including these women. First, he showed that Jesus came to include sinners in the family of God by seeking and saving the lost (cf. Mat 1:21). [Note: A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, s.v. "Genealogies of Jesus Christ," by P. M. Barnard, 1:638.] Second, their inclusion shows the universal character of Jesus’ ministry and kingdom. [Note: Edwin D. Freed, "The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987):3-19.] After the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah, God opened the doors of the church to Gentiles equally with Jews. Matthew’s Gospel records the beginning of this change. Third, reference to these women prepares the reader for the significant role Mary will play in the messianic line though, of course, she was neither a great sinner nor a foreigner. [Note: Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp. 64-74.] All five women became partakers in the messianic line through strange and unexpected divine providence. Matthew may have mentioned these women to disarm criticism by showing that God countenanced irregular marital unions in Messiah’s legal ancestry. [Note: M’Neile, p. 5; M. D. Johnson, The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies, pp. 176-79.]
"The word ’King’ with ’David’ [Mat 1:6 a] would evoke profound nostalgia and arouse eschatological hope in first-century Jews. Matthew thus makes the royal theme explicit: King Messiah has appeared. David’s royal authority, lost at the Exile, has now been regained and surpassed by ’great David’s greater son’ . . ." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 66.]
"The addition of the title, the king, marks the end of this period of waiting, and points forward to Jesus, the Son of David, the Christ, the King of the Jews." [Note: J. C. Fenton, Saint Matthew, p. 38.]
A fourth reason was apparently to highlight four Old Testament stories that illustrate a common point. That point is that in each case a Gentile showed extraordinary faith in contrast to Jews, who were greatly lacking in their faith. [Note: John C. Hutchison, "Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew’s Genealogy," Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):152-64.]
"The allusions to these stories accomplish four theological purposes.
"First, they demonstrate God’s providential hand in preserving Messiah’s line, even in apostate times. This naturally led to Matthew’s account of the virgin conception, through which God brought the Messiah into the world.
"Second, they demonstrate God’s heart for godly Gentiles and the significant role of their faith at crucial times in Israel’s history.
"Third, they demonstrate the importance of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants in understanding Messiah’s mission, with a focus on faith and obedience, not a racial line.
"Fourth, they call Matthew’s readers to repentance and humility, and to accepting Gentiles into the body of Christ, thereby affirming an important theme of Matthew’s Gospel." [Note: Ibid., p. 164.]