Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:3
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Tamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
3. Thamar ] St Matthew also differs from St Luke in naming women in the genealogy. Of the four mentioned two Rahab and Ruth are foreigners, and three Thamar, Rahab and Bathsheba were stained with sin. The purpose of the Evangelist in recording their names may be to shew that He who came to save “that which was lost,” the Friend of sinners, does not scorn such descent.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 3. Phares and Zara] The remarkable history of these twins may be seen, Gen. 38: Some of the ancients were of opinion, that the evangelist refers to the mystery of the youngest being preferred to the eldest, as prefiguring the exaltation of the Christian Church over the synagogue. Concerning the women whose names are recorded in this genealogy, see the note at the end of the chapter.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
That Judas begat Phares and Zara (they were twins begot of Thamar his daughter-in-law), the relict of his son Er whom God slew, Gen 38:7, appeareth from Gen 38:27-30. That
Phares begat Ezrom appeareth from Rth 4:18; 1Ch 2:5; and from the same texts appears also that
Ezrom begat Aram, Rth 4:19; 1Ch 2:9, where he is called Ram. Some may possibly be offended that amongst all the ancestors of Christ there are but three women named, and all of them such as had a great stain and blot upon their reputation. This
Thamar, the mother of Phares and Zara, was blotted with incest, and Phares was one of the children begot in that incest. Rahab also is mentioned, Mat 1:5, whom the Scripture calleth an harlot, Jos 2:1; and Bathsheba was stained with adultery. But we ought to consider:
1. That (abating original corruption, which we indeed all derive from our parents) no man derives any intrinsic badness from the vice of his parents, though he may derive a blot upon his honour and reputation from it.
2. That this was one degree of our Saviours humiliation.
3. That it was no way incongruous, that He who came into the world to die for great sinners, should be born of some that were such.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3-6. And Judas begat Phares and Zaraof Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4. And Arambegat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;5. And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; andObed begat Jesse; 6. And Jesse begat David the king; and David theking begat Solomon of her of UriasFour women are hereintroduced; two of them Gentiles by birthRachab and Ruth;and three of them with a blot at their names in the OldTestamentThamar, Rachab, and Bath-sheba. Thisfeature in the present genealogyherein differing from that givenby Lukecomes well from him who styles himself in his list of theTwelve, what none of the other lists do, “Matthew thepublican“; as if thereby to hold forth, at the very outset,the unsearchable riches of that grace which could not only fetch in”them that are afar off,” but teach down even to “publicansand harlots,” and raise them to “sit with the princes ofhis people.” David is here twice emphatically styled “Davidthe king,” as not only the first of that royal line from whichMessiah was to descend, but the one king of all that line from whichthe throne that Messiah was to occupy took its name”thethrone of David.” The angel Gabriel, in announcing Him to Hisvirgin-mother, calls it “the throne of David His father,”sinking all the intermediate kings of that line, as having noimportance save as links to connect the first and the last king ofIsrael as father and son. It will be observed that Rachab is hererepresented as the great-grandmother of David (see Rth 4:20-22;1Ch 2:11-15) a thing notbeyond possibility indeed, but extremely improbable, there beingabout four centuries between them. There can hardly be a doubt thatone or two intermediate links are omitted.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar,…. The genealogical account of Christ goes on from Judah in the line of Phares, with whom Zara is mentioned; not because they were twins, for so were Jacob and Esau, and yet the latter is taken no notice of; but it may be because of what happened at their birth, see
Ge 38:28. But the line of the Messiah was in Phares, and very rightly is he put in the genealogy of Christ, the Jews themselves being witnesses; who expressly say, that “the Messiah comes from him.” These two are said to be begotten of Thamar, daughter-in-law to Judah; who, though she was a Canaanitish woman, has the honour to be named in the genealogy of Christ, who came to save Gentiles as well as Jews: nor can the Jews reproach our Evangelist for putting her into the account; since they themselves frequently acknowledge that the Messiah was to spring from her: they say, r
“there are two women from whom come David the king, and Solomon, and the king Messiah; and these two are Thamar and Ruth.”
Jonathan Ben Uzziel on Ge 38:6 says, that Thamar was the daughter of Shem the great.
And Phares begat Esrom; called Hezron, Ru 4:18 where the same phrase is used as here. He had another son called Hamul, 1Ch 2:5 but the account proceeds from Phares, in the line of Esrom.
And Esrom begat Aram; called Ram in Ru 4:18 where the same way of speaking is used as here. Esrom also besides him begat Jerahmeel, Chelubai, or Caleb, and Segub, 1Ch 2:9 but these are not in the line. Elihu, who conversed with Job, is said to be of the kindred of Ram, Job 32:2 whether the same with Ram or Aram, may be inquired.
r Shemot Rabba, sect. 30. fol. 131. 4. Caphtor, fol. 122. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “And Judas begat Phares and Zara,” (loudas de egennesen ton Phares) “Then Judas begat Phares;” The name means “breach,” Gen 38:29; Gen 46:12. Fourth generation of Faith-line of Abraham. (kai ton Zara) “And the twin brother Zara;” His name means “sunrise”, Gen 38:30. Note Matthew traces the history from father to son, while Luke traces the history from son to father, back to Adam. One is descending “begat” and the other ascending “was the son of.”
2) “Of Thamar;” (ek tes Thamar) “Out of, from Thamar;” Gk. equivalent of Tamar which means “a palm tree,” Gen 36:6. It was she who bear twins to Judah, after she had married his two sons Er and Onan, both of whom were slain of the Lord because of their wickedness, Gen 38:6-30.
3) “And Phares begat Esrom;” (Phares de egennesen ton Esrom) “Then Phares began Esrom;” fifth generation of the Faith-line of promise to Abraham. The name Esrom is the same as Hezron and means “an enclosed wall,” Gen 46:12.
4) “And Esrorn begat Aram;” (Esrom de egennesen ton Aram) “Then Esrom begat the man Aram;” sixth generation of the Faith-line of the Abrahamic promise, Luk 3:33. The name means “height” and is first used in Gen 10:22.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
3. Judah begat Pharez and Zarah by Tamar This was a prelude to that emptying of himself, (89) of which Paul speaks, (Phi 2:7). The Son of God might have kept his descent unspotted and pure from every reproach or mark of infamy. But he came into the world to
“
empty himself, and take upon him the form of a servant,” (Phi 2:7)
to be
“
a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people,” (Psa 22:6)
and at length to undergo the accursed death of the cross. He therefore did not refuse to admit a stain into his genealogy, arising from incestuous intercourse which took place among his ancestors. Though Tamar was not impelled by lust to seek connection with her father-in-law, yet it was in an unlawful manner that she attempted to revenge the injury which she had received. Judah again intended to commit fornication, and unknowingly to himself, met with his daughter-in-law. (90) But the astonishing goodness of God strove with the sin of both; so that, nevertheless, this adulterous seed came to possess the scepter. (91)
(89) ᾿Αλλ ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἐχένωσε, — but he emptied himself. Such is the literal import of the words which are rendered in the English version, But made himself of no reputation. — Ed.
(90) “ In nurum suam incidit.” — “ Judas a commis sa meschancete avec sa bru, pensant que ce fust une autre.” — “Judah committed his wickedness with his daughter-in-law, supposing her to be a different person”
(91) “ Afin que neantmoins ceste semence bastarde vint a avoir un jour en main le scepter Royal.” — “So that nevertheless this bastard seed came to have one day in its hand the Royal scepter.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) Thamar.The occurrence of the names of women in genealogies was the exception rather than the rule among the Jews; but there are instances enough in the Old Testament (e.g., Keturah, Gen. 25:1; the wives of Esau, Gen. 36:10; Timna, Gen. 36:22; Mehetabel, Gen. 36:39; Azubah, the wife of Caleb, 1Ch. 2:18; Achsa, his daughter, 1Ch. 2:49; and many others) to make the insertion of such names here quite natural, even without assuming any distinct purpose. It was enough that the women were historically notable. In the case of Thamar there were precedents enough for such an honourable mention. In the days of Ruth she was as much the heroine of the tribe of Judah as Rachel and Leah were of all Israel, and her name came into the formula of nuptial benediction (Rth. 4:12). It appears also in the genealogies of 1Ch. 2:4. It would appear from the language of the Talmud as if the Jews looked on her strange and to us revolting history with quite other feelings. To them she was as one who, at the risk of shame, and, it might be, death, had preserved the line of Judah from destruction, and therefore was counted worthy to be the mother of kings and prophets. The mention of Zara, though not in the line of succession, follows the precedent of 1Ch. 2:47.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Phares and Zara Gen 38:27. From Pharez to David the genealogy is furnished in Rth 4:18-22.
We present a comparative catalogue of the names in Matthew, and the Old Testament:
MATTHEW GEN . 5, 10, 11, and Ruth 4 1 CHR . 1, 2, 3. Abraham Abram3 Abraham Isaac Isaac Jacob Israel Judas Judah Phares Pharez Esrom Hezron Hezron Aram Ram Ram Aminadab Amminadab Amminadab Naason Nahshon Nahshon Salmon Salmon Salma Booz Boaz Boaz Obed Obed Obed Jesse Jesse Jesse David, 14 David David, 14 Solomon Solomon Roboam Rehoboam Abia Abia Asa Asa Josaphat Jehosaphat Joram Joram Ahazia Joash Amaziah Ozias David Azariah Joatham Jotham Achaz Ahaz Ezekias Hezekiah Manasses Manasseh Amon Amon Josias Josiah , 14 Jehoiakim Jechonias Jeconiah Salathiel Salathiel & Pedaiah Zorobabel Zerubbabel Hananiah Pelatiah & Rephaiah Arnan Abiud Obadiah Eliakim Shechaniah Shemaiah Neariah Azor Elioenai & Azrikam Johanan & Anani Sadoc Acheim Elioud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Jesus, 14 See an excellent article by Dr. Strong, in the Methodist Quarterly Review, October, 1852, for an investigation of these genealogies.
By comparing these lists, it will be seen that there are three names, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which occur in the Old Testament, (namely, in Chronicles,) which are omitted in Matthew in making out the second of his three fourteens in Mat 1:17. If these were reckoned, the number would be seventeen. Upon this, we shall remark in our note on that verse.
In the article to which we have referred, Dr. Strong compares the genealogy of Matthew (which we might call the home family tree of Joseph) with those of Luke and Chronicles, in the third fourteen; he finds farther omissions in it; and after elaborately showing the fair agreement of names between the three catalogues of this fourteen, he makes the following statement:
“As the list in the Chronicles ends here, bringing down the lineage some nine generations after Zerubbabel, under whom the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity, that is, to about B.C. 280, we have only the surprisingly short period of about two centuries and a half preceding Christ’s immediate parentage, during which his whole descent is not vouched for by the sacred archives of the Jewish nation.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram; and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king.
This next group leads down from Judah to ‘David the King’. As the ones who follow David are also kings, this specific designation of David as ‘the king’ is clearly intended to highlight David and to reveal him as the fountainhead of kingship. It is also to bring out the contrast of ‘David the King’ with ‘Jesus the Messiah’ (Mat 1:16, compare Mat 22:42-45). A greater than David was to be seen as then having come, finally arising in the name of David’s house. Furthermore ‘David the King’ is in great contrast to ‘Jehoiachin’ who heads up in the next section, but is given no title. He had lost his kingship. This was only to be restored at the coming of Jesus the Messiah.
Note the mention of Tamar (Gen 38:1-30), Rahab (Jos 2:1 ff) and Ruth. This is unusual because women’s names do not usually appear in a genealogy. It is possibly significant that Rahab and Ruth were both Gentiles (and even more significantly a Canaanite and a Moabite, both ‘rejected’ races), and Tamar might well also have been, while Rahab and Tamar were also both connected with doubtful sexual behaviour. But each of them, who were not so originally, did became true Israelites by adoption, and all of them revealed their fierce loyalty to God’s people. Thus it may be intended that David be seen as having come of combined Israelite/Gentile blood (but truly converted blood), and as having a ‘tainted’ ancestry, illustrating the fact that Jesus had come to save His people from their sins (Mat 1:21; Mat 1:24), and that that included David. David was not the perfect man that Jesus was. Yet David could be declared to be a man whose heart was acceptable to God (1Sa 16:7), demonstrating by this a welcome within the purposes of a merciful God of both Jews and Gentiles, and of the tainted and forgiven, once their hearts are right before Him, for they too were summed up in David.
However the significance of these names must surely also be seen as including the fact that they expressed the faithfulness of their bearers. Tamar went to extreme lengths in order to produce an heir for her dead husband, which was her right and her duty (Judah admits that his was the greater sin). Rahab sacrificed everything in order to help Israel in their battle against Jericho, establishing her life among them (Jos 6:25). Ruth’s faithfulness to Naomi was proverbial so as to produce seed to her deceased husband. Each was concerned with the preservation of Israel. Thus the mention of them together in the first section (the threefoldness indicating completeness) may very much have had this faithfulness to God’s purposes in mind, and there can be no doubt that most Jews would have honoured these names. They would have seen them as only adding distinction to the list. A further distinction is that they reveal the particular and unique activity of God at work in producing David the King.
The ‘wife of Uriah’ stands alone and unnamed in the second section. Her mention is not seen as adding distinction to the list. Her unfaithfulness resulted in the murder of her husband, and because of her sin her name is seen as ‘cut off’. Her presence in the genealogy helps to explain why the Exile finally followed. It was in fact her son who began the deterioration which resulted in the final collapse of the monarchy. Those in this second section are not noted for their faithfulness to God. Some stood out but even the best failed in the end.
But womanhood is restored in the third section in the mention of Mary of whom was born Jesus. Here pure womanhood is central in the production of the Messiah.
So the idea in the end is that God can take all kinds of materials in the bringing about of His purposes, and can in the process bring about His will. After all, apart from Jesus, every person in the list was a sinner, but it reveals that a gracious God can bring about His purposes through sinners, especially forgiven sinners.
However, probably the main purpose of the inclusion of the women is to remind us that God brings about His purposes in unusual ways. It indicates that we need not therefore be surprised when the Messiah Himself is born in an unusual way. Matthew may have been intending to counter the suggestion that Jesus’ inheritance from Joseph was irregular in view of the unusual birth, by indicating that it would not be the only irregularity in the lineage of David, which abounded in such irregularities, including the presence of Canaanites, and a Moabitess (see Deu 23:3). It is stressing that in spiritual matters nothing is straightforward.
For details of the genealogy as a whole see Rth 4:18-22; 1Ch 2:3-15. We have shown the names here as ‘modernised’, not as shown in the Greek text where they are ‘Hellenised’, but thereby less discernible to us. Greek transliterations were in fact varied (as often were Hebrew originals. Names were flexible and altered freely in order to convey ideas). Nahshon is described as ‘a prince of the sons of Judah’ in 1Ch 2:10, suggesting his outstanding prominence and importance, and was the prince who led forward the tribe of Judah at the Exodus (Num 1:7). Salmon married Rahab, while Boaz, who is mentioned in Rth 2:1 as a ‘prominent’ man, later married Ruth. Unimportant names have been omitted as is common in genealogies.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 1:3. Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar It is remarkable, that only four women are mentioned in this genealogy,and all of them branded in the sacred history with a mark of infamy; Thamar for incest, Rachab forfornication, Ruth for heathenism, and Bathsheba for adultery. Perhaps the Holy Spirit designed to obviate the cavils of the Jews, who entertained low thoughts of Christ, because he was born of so mean a mother; for they could not but see the absurdity of such a prejudice, when they considered that their most illustrious heroes sprang from women, whose actions rendered them infinitely meaner than the mother of our Lord: her spotless character, and unaffected piety, were nobler ornaments than all the boasted gifts of fortune. We may just observe, that the Hebrews do not commonly mention women in their genealogies, except as here, when some particular reason obliges. He who came into the world to save sinners, and to call all men, the just and unjust, to partake of his salvation, did not disdain to have sinners numbered among his ancestors; and therefore no sinner should despair of his mercy. See Macknight and Calmet.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
Ver. 3. And Judah begat Phares and Zarah ] Jerome is deceived, that deriveth the pedigree of the Pharisees from this Phares. They took their name either of Pharash, to expound as interpreters of the law, Rom 2:18 ; or of Pharas, to separate with a-“Stand further off, for I am holier than thou.” Josephus saith, that the Pharisees seemed to outstrip all others both in height of holiness and depth of learning: , . B. J. i. 4. As for Pharos, he was a breachmaker (whence also he had his name, Gen 38:29 ). He violently took the first birthright, and became both a father of the Messiah and a type. For Christ by his strength broke the power of death and hell; he broke down also the partition wall that was between the Jews and Gentiles, who when they shall be fully born, then shall the Jews, typified by Zarah, who thrust forth the hand first, as those that, willing to be justified by their works, and thinking to regenerate themselves, had the scarlet thread of the law’s condemnation bound upon their hands, which therefore they drew back and fell from God, -then shall they, I say, come forth again, Rom 11:11-12 ; Rom 11:25-26 .
Of Thamar ] A Canaanitess, but probably a proselyte. The Jews say she was Melchisedec’s daughter, the high priest, and was therefore to be burned, Lev 21:9 . But this may well pass for a Jewish fable: howbeit, that Melchisedec was a Canaanite, but a most righteous king and priest of the most high God, and was therefore not molested or meddled with by Kedarlaomer and his accomplices, I judge not unlikely. This Thamar, out of desire, partly of revenge, and partly of issue, fell into the sin of incest. Rahab was a harlot, Bathsheba an adulteress: yet all these grandmothers to our Saviour; who, because he needed not to be ennobled by his stock, so neither was disparaged by his progenitors, but took flesh of these greatest sinners to show that we cannot commit more than he can remit; and that by his purity he washeth off all our spots, like as the sun wasteth and wipeth away all the ill vapours of the earth and air.
And Phares begat Esrom ] When he was about fourteen years of age, the year before they went down to Egypt, say some: others view it otherwise. (Pareus in Gen.; Funccius in Chronol. Com., Anno 2273.) Let him that readeth understand as he can. Christ (the Arch-Prophet), when he comes again, shall teach us all things.
Esrom begat Aram ] While they sojourned in the land of Egypt; a miserable home, where was nothing but bondage and tyranny. And yet in reference to it, Moses (who was likewise born there) calls his son Gershom, or a stranger there, because born in Midian. The sons of Ephraim, about the birth of Moses, sought to break prison before God’s delivery: but this proved a great mischief to themselves, and no small heart break to their aged father, 1Ch 7:21-22 Psa 78:9 . Besides that, it gave occasion, likely, to that cruel edict of Pharaoh: “Let us deal wisely” (St Stephen saith sophistically, subtilly, , Act 7:19 ), “lest they multiply and join also to our enemies, and fight against us” (as now they have fought against the Gittites, their own enemies, who detained from them the promised land, till their sins were full), and “so get them up out of the land,” as lately they had essayed to do. “Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens,”Exo 1:11Exo 1:11 , and to keep them from spawning so fast, after the manner of fishes (as the word imports), which multiply beyond measure. But God turned their wisdom into folly; they took a wrong course. For who knows not that your labouring men have the most and the strongest children? And notwithstanding this new Pharaoh’s craft and cruelty,
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3. ] These children of Judah were not born in marriage: see Gen 28:16-22 . Both the sons are named, probably as recalling the incident connected with their birth. The reason for the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba) being mentioned, has been variously assigned: by Wets [2] ., ut tacit Judorum objectioni occurreretur : by Fritzsche, for the sake of minute accuracy . It most probably is that given by Maldonatus: ‘Prtermisit Evangelista quod ordinarium erat, quod autem singulare et dubium exposuit.’ There may be something also in that suggested by Grotius: ‘Mulieres in hoc sensu obiter pauc nominantur, extraneo ortiaut criminibus nobiles, quarum historia ad vocationem idololatrarum et criminosorum per Christi evangelium proludit:’ as also in De Wette’s view, that they serve as types of the mother of our Lord, and are consequently named in the course of the genealogy, as she is at the end of it.
[2] Wetstein.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 1:3 . : Zerah added to Perez the continuator of the line, to suggest that it was by a special providence that the latter was first born (Gen 38:27-30 ). The evangelist is on the outlook for the unusual or preternatural in history as prelude to the crowning marvel of the virgin birth (Gradus futurus ad credendum partum e virgine. Grot.). . Mention of the mother wholly unnecessary and unusual from a genealogical point of view, and in this case one would say, prim facie , impolitic, reminding of a hardly readable story (Gen 38:13-26 ). It is the first of four references to mothers in the ancestry of Jesus, concerning whom one might have expected the genealogy to observe discreet silence: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba; three of them sinful women, and one, Ruth, a foreigner. Why are they mentioned? By way of defence against sinister misconstruction of the birth of Jesus? So Wetstein: Ut tacit Judaeorum objectioni occurreretur. Doubtless there is a mental reference to that birth under some aspect, but it is not likely that the evangelist would condescend to apologise before the bar of unbelief, even though he might find means of doing so in the Jewish habit of glorying over the misdeeds of ancestors (Wetstein). Much more probable is the opinion of the Fathers, who found in these names a foreshadowing of the gracious character of the Gospel of Jesus, as it were the Gospel in the genealogy . Schanz follows the Fathers, except that he thinks they have over-emphasised the sinful element. He finds in the mention of the four women a hint of God’s grace in Christ to the sinful and miserable : Rahab and Bathsheba representing the one, Tamar and Ruth the other. This view commends itself to many interpreters both Catholic and Protestant. Others prefer to bring the four cases under the category of the extraordinary exemplified by the case of Perez and Zerah. These women all became mothers in the line of Christ’s ancestry by special providence (Weiss-Meyer). Doubtless this is at least part of the moral. Nicholson ( New Comm. ) thinks that the introduction of Tamar and Ruth is sufficiently explained by Rth 4:11-12 , viewed as Messianic; of Rahab by her connection with the earlier Jesus (Joshua), and of Bathsheba because she was the mother of a second line culminating in Christ, as Ruth of a first culminating in David.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Phares and Zara. Hebrew Pharez and Zarah. Twins. Gen 38:29, Gen 38:30.
Thamar. Gen 38:11-30. The first of four women in this genealogy. The other three were Rahab, Mat 1:5; Ruth, Mat 1:5; Bathsheba, Mat 1:6. Note the Introversion: Hebrew, Gentile; Gentile, Hebrew: showing the condescension of Christ in taking our nature.
Esrom. Hebrew Hezron. 1Ch 2:4, 1Ch 2:6.
Aramaean Hebrew Ram. Rth 4:19. 1Ch 2:11.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3.] These children of Judah were not born in marriage: see Gen 28:16-22. Both the sons are named, probably as recalling the incident connected with their birth. The reason for the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba) being mentioned, has been variously assigned: by Wets[2]., ut tacit Judorum objectioni occurreretur: by Fritzsche, for the sake of minute accuracy. It most probably is that given by Maldonatus: Prtermisit Evangelista quod ordinarium erat, quod autem singulare et dubium exposuit. There may be something also in that suggested by Grotius: Mulieres in hoc sensu obiter pauc nominantur, extraneo ortiaut criminibus nobiles, quarum historia ad vocationem idololatrarum et criminosorum per Christi evangelium proludit: as also in De Wettes view, that they serve as types of the mother of our Lord, and are consequently named in the course of the genealogy, as she is at the end of it.
[2] Wetstein.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 1:3. , and Zara) the twin-brother of Pharez.- , of Thamar) St Matthew, in the course of his genealogy, makes mention of women who were joined to the race of Abraham by any peculiar circumstance. Thamar ought to have become the wife of Shelah (see Gen 38:11; Gen 38:26), and Judah became by her the father of Pharez and Zara: Rahab, though a Canaanitess, became the wife of Salmon: Ruth was a Moabitess, yet Boaz married her. The wife of Uriah became the wife of David.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Judas: Gen 38:27, Gen 38:29, Gen 38:30, Gen 46:12, Judah, Pharez, Zarah, Num 26:20, Num 26:21, 1Ch 2:3, 1Ch 2:4, Zerah, 1Ch 9:6
Thamar: Gen 38:6, Gen 38:11, Gen 38:24-26, Tamar
and Phares: Gen 46:12, Num 26:21, Rth 4:18, 1Ch 2:5, 1Ch 4:1, Hezron, Luk 3:33
Aram: Rth 4:19, 1Ch 2:9, Ram
Reciprocal: Rth 4:12 – whom Neh 11:4 – Perez Neh 11:24 – Zerah Luk 3:32 – was the son of Jesse Heb 7:14 – sprang
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:3
Verse 3. Thamar is called Tamar in Genesis and she was the daughter-in-law of Judah. The account of how she became the mother of his sons is in Genesis 38.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 1:3. Tamar, a heathen woman, guilty of intentional incest. The Jews and some commentators seek to excuse her, but the stain must be admitted. The mention of this name not only proves the correctness of the genealogy, but tends to humble Jewish pride and exalt the grace of God.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 1:3. And Judas begat Phares and Zara Some have observed that these sons of Judah are mentioned together because they were twins born at the same time: but if this had been a reason for assigning Zara the honour of being named in this genealogy, Esau, the twin brother of Jacob, ought to have obtained it likewise. He seems rather to be mentioned to prevent any mistake. For if he had not, considering the infamy of Pharezs birth, we might have been apt to imagine that not the Pharez whom Judah begat in incest, but another son of Judah, called Pharez, was our Lords progenitor, it being no uncommon thing among the Jews to have several children of the same name. Wherefore, to put the matter beyond doubt, Thamar, as well as Zara, is mentioned in the genealogy, if her name be not rather added because she was remarkable in the sacred history. This reason certainly must be assigned why three other women are named in this catalogue, viz., Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. They were all remarkable characters, and their story is particularly related in the Old Testament. This seems much more probable than the opinion of those who think they are mentioned, either because they were great sinners, to teach us that Christ came to save such, or with a view to obviate the cavils of the Jews against the mean condition of the mother of our Lord; their renowned ancestors, such as even David and Solomon, being descended of women whose quality rendered them much meaner than she was. It was, however, one degree of our Saviours humiliation, that he would be born of such sinners, and it certainly may encourage the vilest to come unto him, and expect salvation from him. Nor shall they be disappointed, if, in true repentance and lively faith, they turn from their sins to God.