12<\/strong>. Jechonias begat Salathiel<\/em> ] Jehoiachin had no children of his own, “write ye this man childless” (Jer 22:30<\/span>). Salathiel was the son of Neri (Luke), but heir to Jehoiachin.<\/p>\n Verse 12<\/span>. Jechonias begat Salathiel<\/B><\/I>] After Jechonias was brought to Babylon, he was put in prison by Nebuchadnezzar, where he continued till the death of this prince, and the accession of Evilmerodach<\/I>, who brought him out of prison, in which he had been detained thirty-seven years, and restored him to such favour that his throne (seat) was exalted above all the kings which were with him in Babylon: Jer 52:31-32<\/span>. But though he thus became a royal favourite, he was never restored to his kingdom. And, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, Jer 22:30<\/span>, no man of his seed sat<\/I> upon the throne of David; yet the regal line<\/I> was continued through his son Salathiel<\/I>, who died in Babylon: but Zorobabel<\/I>, his son, returned from captivity, and by him the race of David was continued, according to Matthew, by Abiud<\/I>; and, according to Luke, by Rhesa<\/I>. See on Lu 3:23<\/span>, c.<\/P> <\/P> The term carrying away to Babylon<\/I>, , from , to change a habitation<\/I>, or place of residence<\/I>, would be more properly translated by the word transportation<\/I>, which is here peculiarly appropriate: the change<\/I> was not voluntary<\/I> they were forced<\/I> away.<\/P> <\/p>\n This Jechonias 1Ch 3:17-19<\/span> is generally thought to be Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakin; he is called Jeconiah, 1Ch 3:16<\/span>, as well as Jehoiachin, 2Ch 36:8<\/span>; so also he is called Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, Jer 24:1<\/span>. That this Jechonias begat Salathiel Ezr 3:2<\/span>; 5:2<\/span>; Neh 12:1<\/span>; Hag 1:1<\/span> appeareth from 1Ch 3:17<\/span>. It is here objected that God said concerning this Jeconiah, called also Coniah, Write ye this man childless, Jer 22:30<\/span> how then did he beget Salathiel? But it is easily answered, for that verse. Jer 22:30<\/span>, will expound itself: Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah: so as that text is plainly to be understood, without a child that shall actually succeed in the crown; for the text itself supposes that he should have seed, but none that should prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah, which the Scripture, 2Ch 36:1-23<\/span> justifieth, for the king of Babylon set up Zedekiah his uncle in his stead, who was the last king in Judah, in the eleventh year of whose reign the Jews were all carried captive. This Jeconiah had eight sons, as we read, 1Ch 3:17<\/span>,18<\/span>. Salathiel is there reckoned as his second son; possibly Assir died young, or at least childless, so as the right of the crown was in Salathiel, who is the person alone here named. But how <\/P> Salathiel is here said to have begat Zorobabel is yet a greater difficulty; for, 1Ch 3:19<\/span>, it is said, The sons of Pedaiah (not of Salathiel) were, Zerubabel, and Shimei. If Zorobabel were the son of Pedaiah, how could he be the son of Salathiel? Several answers are given to this. Some think that Zorobabel, because he descended lineally from Salathiel, is called his son, which were a sufficient answer if the supposition were true, that Zorobabel were lineally descended from Salathiel: but that it is not, for according to 1Ch 3:18<\/span> Pedaiah was not the son, but the brother of Salathiel. Others think that Salathiel is here said to have begot Zorobabel, because Zorobabel succeeded him in the kingdom; but as that is a strange interpretation of the word begat, so neither was Salathiel a king, though possibly the title of the crown was in him as the great grandchild of Josiah, nor did ever Zorobabel assume the crown that we read of. Whereas others say, that there were two Zorobabels, and that this son was the adopted son of Salathiel: both these things are suggested without proof. The most probable opinion, which I perceive the best interpreters acquiesce in, is, that Salathiel dying without issue, Pedaiah his brother married his wife, according to the law of God, Deu 25:5<\/span>, and begat Zorobabel of her that had been the wife of Salathiel; and thence it is said Salathiel begat him, Pedaiah so raising up seed to his brother according to the law aforesaid. To this it is objected by some, that the law was, that the child should succeed in the name of the brother that was dead: so that if this were the sense, it should not have been, Salathiel begat Zorobabel, but Salathiel begat Salathiel. The answer to this is not difficult; for, to succeed in the name of the brother that is dead, doth not signify, to be called by the very name with which he was called, but to be denominated his son, as if begotten by him. And this is evident from Rth 4:10<\/span>, where Boaz hath these words, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren. Yet, Rth 4:21<\/span>, Boaz, having a son by Ruth, did not call his name Mahlon, by the name of his father, but Obed. <\/P> <\/p>\n 12. And after they were brought toBabylon<\/B>after the migration of Babylon. <\/P> Jechonias begat Salathiel<\/B>So1Ch 3:17<\/span>. Nor does thiscontradict Jer 22:30<\/span>, “Thussaith the Lord, Write ye this man (Coniah, or Jeconiah) childless”;for what follows explains in what sense this was meant”for noman of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David.”He was<\/I> to have seed, but no reigning<\/I> child. <\/P> and Salathiel<\/B>orShealtiel. <\/P> begat Zorobabel<\/B>SoEzr 3:2<\/span>; Neh 12:1<\/span>;Hag 1:1<\/span>. But it would appear from1Ch 3:19<\/span> that Zerubbabel wasSalathiel’s grandson, being the son of Pedaiah, whose name, for somereason unknown, is omitted.<\/P><\/p>\n And after they were brought to Babylon<\/strong>,…. Not Jechonias, but the father of Jechonias, and the Jews.<\/p>\n Jechonias begat Salathiel<\/strong>. Not Jechonias mentioned in the former verse, but his son, called Jehoiachin, 2Ki 24:6<\/span> and Coniah,<\/p>\n Jer 22:24<\/span> both which are rendered Jechonias by the Septuagint in 2Ch 36:8<\/span> and he is so called, 1Ch 3:16<\/span>. Abulpharagius c calls him Junachir, and says he is the same who in Matthew is called Juchonia; and he asserts him to be the father of Daniel the Prophet. But here a considerable difficulty arises, how he can be said to beget Salathiel, called Shealtiel, Hag 1:1<\/span> when he was pronounced “childless”, Jer 22:30<\/span>. To remove which, it may be observed, that the sentence pronounced may be considered with this tacit condition or proviso, if he repented not. Now the Jews have a tradition d that he did repent in prison, upon which the sentence was revoked; but there is no need to suppose this, though it is not an unreasonable supposition; for the sentence does not imply that he should have no children, but rather that he should, as will appear upon reading the whole; “thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah”. Besides, the Hebrew word<\/p>\n , rendered “childless”, comes from , which signifies “to make naked” or “bare” and so denotes not only such as have no children, or are bereft of them, but such as are by any providence stripped of the blessings of life, and are left bare, destitute, and unhappy, as Jechonias and his posterity were: however, the Jews have no reason to find fault with our Evangelist, since Salathiel is expressly called Jechonias’s son, 1Ch 3:17<\/span> either he was his proper natural son, or, to use their way of speaking, “the son of the kingdom” e, that is, his heir and successor in the kingdom, as some have thought; since it looks as if he was the son of Neri, Lu 3:27<\/span> though the chronicle of Jedidaeus of Alexandria f, or Philo the Jew, says, that Jechonias was called Neri, because Ner, or the lamp of David, shined in him, which had been almost extinguished.<\/p>\n And Salathiel begat Zorobabel<\/strong>. This account perfectly agrees with many passages in the Old Testament, where Zorobabel is called the son of Shealtiel or Salathiel, Ezr 3:2<\/span> Hag 1:1<\/span> which is sufficient to justify the Evangelist in this assertion. There is indeed a difficulty which as much presses the Jews as the Christians, and that is, that Zorobabel is reckoned as the son of Pedaiah, 1Ch 3:19<\/span> for the solution of which a noted Jewish commentator g observes, that<\/p>\n “in Haggai, Zachariah and Ezra, Zorobabel is called the son of Shealtiel, because he was his son’s son; for Pedaiah was the son of Shealtiel, and Zorobabel the son of Pedaiah; and do not you observe (adds he) that in many places children’s children are mentioned as children?”<\/p>\n No doubt there are many instances of this; but to me it seems that Pedaiah was not the son of Shealtiel, but his brother, 1Ch 3:17<\/span>. And I greatly suspect that Shealtiel had no children of his own, since none are mentioned; and that he adopted his brother Pedaiah’s son Zorobabel, and made him his heir and successor in the government of Judah. However, it is certain, as a genealogical writer h among the Jews observes, that he was of the son’s sons of Jechonias, king of Judah, from whom our Evangelist makes him to descend.<\/p>\n c Hist. Dynast. p. 45. Vid. Hieron. Comment. in Dan. i. fol. 264. B. d Kimchi in 1 Chron. iii. 17. & in Jer. xxii. 30. e Ib. in 1 Chron. iii. 15. f Apud Vorst. Observ. in Ganz. Chronolog. p. 310. g Kimchi in 1 Chron. iii. 19. & in Hagg. i. 1. h Juchasin, fol. 13. i.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And after they were brought to Babylon,” <\/strong>(meta de ton Metoikesian Babulonos) “Then after the deportation of or into Babylon,” after Judah was carried captive into Babylon, as described (2Ki 24:1-16<\/span>) under the reign of Jechoniah.<\/p>\n 2) “Jechonias beget Salathiel;” <\/strong>(lechonias egennesen ton Salathiel) “Jechonias begat Salathlel;” 1Ch 3:17<\/span>; twenty-ninth <\/strong>generation of the Abrahamic Faith-line of promise and of the seed of David, kingly lineage of promise, but this seed was cut off <\/strong>from “sitting upon the throne of David,” forever, Jer 22:30<\/span>. Jechoniah or Coniah was childless only in the sense of a right to “sit on David’s throne.” He was to have children, but not a reigning child.<\/p>\n 3) “And Salathiel beget Zorobabel;” <\/strong>(Salathiel de egennesen ton Zorobabel) “Thereafter Salathiel begat Zorobabel;” thirtieth <\/strong>generation of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants of promise, but keep in mind that one born of this seed line of David hereafter had no reigning right to David’s throne. Zerubabel was actually a grandson of Salathiel, it appears, being a son of Pedalah, Ezr 3:2<\/span>; Neh 11:1<\/span>; Hag 1:1<\/span>; 1Ch 3:19<\/span>. Zerubabel means “scattered in Babylon.” He was a prince of Judah, used of God to restore the worship of God, Ezr 3:1<\/span>; Neh 12:47<\/span>; Hag 1:14<\/span>; Hag 2:1<\/span>; Zec 4:6<\/span>.<\/p>\n 12. After the Babylonish exile That is, after the Jews were carried into captivity: for the Evangelist means, that the descendants of David, from being kings, then became exiles and slaves. As that captivity was a sort of destruction, it came to be wonderfully arranged by Divine providence, not only that the Jews again united in one body, but even that some vestiges of dominion remained in the family of David. For those who returned home submitted, of their own accord, to the authority of Zerubbabel. In this manner, the fragments of the royal scepter (95) lasted till the coming of Christ was at hand, agreeably to the prediction of Jacob, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come,” (Gen 49:10<\/span>.) And even during that wretched and melancholy dispersion, the nation never ceased to be illuminated by some rays of the grace of God. The Greek word μετοικεσία, which the old translator renders transmigration, and Erasmus renders exile, literally signifies a change of habitation. The meaning is, that the Jews were compelled to leave their country, and to dwell as “strangers in a land that was not theirs,” (Gen 15:13<\/span>.) <\/p>\n (95) “ Qui avoit este mis bas, et comme rompu;” — “which had been thrown down, and, as it were, broken.” <\/p>\n (12) Jechonias begat Salathiel.<\/strong>We come here into a cluster of genealogical difficulties. (1) The natural impression left by Jer. 22:30<\/span> is that Coniah (or Jechonias) died childless, or, at least, left no descendants who came to rule as Zerubbabel did; (2) In the genealogy given by St. Luke (Luk. 3:27<\/span>), Salathiel is named as the son of Neri; (3) In 1Ch. 3:17-19<\/span>, Salathiel is the son of Assir, the son of Jeconiah, and Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah, the brother of Salathiel. It is not easy to see our way through these difficulties; but the most probable solution is that Assir was the only son of Jeconiah, and died without issue before his father; that the line of Solomon thus came to an end, and that the descendants of Nathan, another son of David, took their place in the succession, and were reckoned, as by adoption, as the sons of the last survivor of the other line. The practice is, it may be noted, analogous to that which prevails among Indian princes, and in other Eastern nations. (Comp. Note on Luk. 3:23-38<\/span>.)<\/p>\n ‘And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel; and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.’<\/p>\n We now have the final list of fourteen names from the Exile to Jesus the Christ. Israel had descended to its lowest point in the Exile and the way could now begin for the raising up of the Messiah. But apart from a brief flurry under Zerubbabel (Zec 4:6-7<\/span>; Hag 2:21-23<\/span>) the names now descend into insignificance. Time passes them by. It is a time of waiting, and of hoping.<\/p>\n Jechoniah is required in the list in order to make up fourteen names. Alternately Matthew may have intended us to ignore Jechoniah and distinguish between Jesus while on earth, and Jesus risen as the Christ. His idea may have been to draw attention to Jesus the man, and then to the eschatological nature of the Christ. On the other hand Matthew may in fact not have been too concerned about the mathematics and the consistency as long as there were fourteen names on the list. He was more interested in getting over his point, which the fact that there were fourteen names in the list achieves whether the names were mentioned before or not. Perhaps he was not as pedantic as we can sometimes be. He understood what illustrations were all about. This last list disagrees with that in Luk 3:23-31<\/span>, but that is probably because Luke shows the line of actual blood descent, while Matthew shows the line of royal descent in terms of the heirs to the throne, the latter including switches to other relatives when there was no direct heir. Thus there could have been a movement from Jacob to Heli’s son, with Heli’s son Joseph having become the heir of a sonless Jacob. We must also take into account the possible effect of Levirate marriages where a brother produced an heir for his dead brother, the latter being the heir to the throne. ‘Begat’ did not necessarily indicate blood relationship. This wider use of ‘begat’ is well attested by archaeology.<\/p>\n But there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the genealogies, whatever problems we might have with them. All ancient and important Jewish families who were proud of their purity of descent maintained the genealogies of their families, and many were kept on public record. Indeed it was regularly necessary for descent to be proved in order to enjoy certain privileges, such as that of providing the wood for the altar. Josephus mentions such records and Herod the Great in fact tried to destroy some of them through jealousy because he was not a true-born Israelite. There is therefore no need to doubt that the genealogies of the house of David were carefully preserved (and there is in fact also external evidence of the fact that the genealogy of the house of David was claimed to be known by some who cited it to prove their own claims).<\/p>\n The names here in Matthew cover a period of over four hundred years. It must thus be seen as very probable, indeed certain, that Matthew omits some names in order to achieve his fourteen names, doing it in line with normal practise at the time. Compare the much larger number of names in Luke over the same period.<\/p>\n (With regard to genealogies, we may incidentally note here how the genealogical line to the throne of Scotland was remembered orally over hundreds of years in a much more primitive country than Israel, and was repeated at every coronation, because of their pride in the ancestry of their kings. It is even more likely then that this would occur in a country famed for its interest in genealogies and in its history. To ancient peoples genealogy was considered important).<\/p>\n ‘Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.’ Jacob begat Joseph, that is, Joseph succeeded to the royal line through Jacob, who may not have been his father but an heirless relative. Note that Joseph is deliberately not said to have ‘begotten’ Jesus, Who is rather said to be born of Mary. In fact as he had adopted Jesus as his heir ‘begat’ could have been used, (someone who was adopted could be described as ‘begotten’), but Matthew clearly wanted to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding. The emphasis is being laid here on His unusual birth, a ‘virgin conception and birth’ through Mary as Mat 1:19-20<\/span>; Mat 1:23<\/span>; Mat 1:25<\/span> demonstrate.<\/p>\n (The suggestion that Mary had been raped is untenable. In those days, had she been raped Joseph, in view of his position and status, would not have married her, for we know that, while revealed as a compassionate man, his original purpose, even when he thought that she had committed adultery, is made clear (Mat 1:19<\/span>). Rape would actually have been seen as even worse. So the honour of his house would have demanded at the very minimum a quiet withdrawal. There was no way in which he would have overlooked it).<\/p>\n Mat 1:12<\/span> . .] After the migration had taken place<\/em> . 1Ch 3:16<\/span> ; 2Ki 14:8<\/span> ; Joseph. Antt<\/em> . x. 9. Not to be translated “ during the exile<\/em> ” (Krebs, Kypke), which is quite opposed to the language.<\/p>\n ] change of abode, migration;<\/em> consequently here, “ the being carried away to Babylon<\/em> ,” not the sojourn in the exile itself, which would lead to an erroneous view of the . The above meaning is yielded by the Hebrew , 1Ch 5:22<\/span> ; Eze 12:11 ; 2Ki 24:16<\/span> ; Nah 3:10<\/span> . Comp. the LXX. Anthol. 7. 731 (Leon. Tar. 79). The usual word in the classics is (Plato, Legg. 8, p. 850 A), also (Plutarch. Popl. 22).<\/p>\n ] he is called in Luk 3:27<\/span> a son of Neri and a grandson of Melchi; a variation which, like many others in both genealogies, is to be acknowledged, and not put aside by the assumption of several individuals of the same name, by the presupposing of levirate relationships (Hug, Ebrard), or arbitrary attempts of any other kind. 1Ch 3:17<\/span> . When, however, in Jer 22:30<\/span> the father of Sealthiel is prophetically designated as , the prophet himself explains this in the sense that none of his descendants will sit upon the throne of David. Comp. Paulus in loc., Hitzig on Jerem. l.c. The Talmudists are more subtle, see Lightfoot in loc. Moreover, according to 1Ch 3:19<\/span> , Pedaiah is wanting here between Salathiel and Zerubbabel. Yet Zerubbabel is elsewhere also called the son of Salathiel (Ezr 3:2<\/span> ; Ezr 5:2<\/span> ; Hag 1:1<\/span> ; Luk 3:27<\/span> ), where, however, 1Ch 3:19<\/span> is to be regarded as a more exact statement. See Bertheau. Observe, moreover, that also according to 1Ch 3<\/span> . both men belong to the Solomonic line.<\/p>\n 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 12. And after they were brought to Babylon<\/strong> ] This the Evangelist inculcates, and rings often in the ears of his impious countrymen, as a notorious public judgment on a nation so incorrigibly flagitious, so unthankful for mercies, so impatient of remedies, so incapable of repentance, so obliged, so warned, so shamelessly, so lawlessly wicked, quorum maxima beneficia, flagitia, supplicia, <\/em> as the Centurists set it forth. Abused mercy turns into fury.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Jechonias begat Salathiel<\/strong> ] Neri begat him naturally, Jechonias, legally; adopting him for his child that was his nephew, 1Ch 3:17<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And Salathiel begat Zorobabel<\/strong> ] Who brought forth the head stone of the second temple with shoutings, crying, “Grace, grace unto it,”Zec 4:7<\/span>Zec 4:7<\/span> . He was a chieftain in the first year of Cyrus, Ezr 2:2<\/span> , and he lived to see the building of the temple, about the sixth year of Darius Nothus, which is a matter of a hundred years between. So he had a longer life than ordinary, which God granteth to some, because he hath something to be done by them. A short life in some cases is a blessing, 1Ki 14:13<\/span> , as grapes gathered before they be ripe are freed from the violence of the winepress; as lambs slain before they be grown escape many storms and sharp showers that others live to taste of. Some wicked live long, that they may aggravate their judgment; others die sooner, that they may hasten it. But they are blessed, that whether they live, they live unto the Lord, or whether they die, they die unto the Lord, and in the Lord, their works following them.Rom 14:8<\/span>Rom 14:8<\/span> ; Rev 14:13<\/span> . <\/p>\n 12. <\/strong> <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> .<\/strong> ] So also the genealogy in 1Ch 3:17<\/span> . When, therefore, it is denounced ( Jer 32:30 ) that Jeconiah should be ‘childless,’ this word must be understood as explained by the rest of the verse, ‘for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah.’ The LXX render this word , : but the Talmudical writers explain it according to our rendering.<\/p>\n <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> .<\/strong> ] There is no difficulty here which does not also exist in the O.T. Zerubbabel is there usually called the son of Shealtiel (Salathiel). Ezr 3:2<\/span> , &c.: Neh 12:1<\/span> ; Hag 1:1<\/span> , &c. In 1Ch 3:19<\/span> , Zerubbabel is said to have been the son of Pedaiah, brother of Salathiel. Either this may have been a different Zerubbabel, or Salathiel may, according to the law, have raised up seed to his brother.<\/p>\n Mat 1:12-15<\/span> . In the last division the genealogical table escapes our control. After Zerubbabel no name occurs in the O. T. We might have expected to find Abiud in 1Ch 3:19<\/span> , where the children of Zerubbabel are given, but Abiud is not among them. The royal family sank into obscurity. It does not follow that no pains were taken to preserve their genealogy. The priests may have been diligent in the matter, and records may have been preserved in the temple (Schanz). The Messianic hope would be a motive to carefulness. In any case we must suppose the author of the genealogy before us to give here what he found. He did not construct an imaginary list. And the list, if not guaranteed as infallibly accurate by its insertion, was such as might reasonably be expected to satisfy Hebrew readers. Amid the gloom of the night of legalism which broods over all things belonging to the period, this genealogy included, it is a comfort to think that the Messiahship of Jesus does not depend on the absolute accuracy of the genealogical tree.<\/p>\n NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 1:12-16<\/p>\n 12After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. 13Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. 14Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. 15Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.<\/p>\n Mat 1:12 “and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel” Zerubbabel was the leader of the Jews in the second return from Babylonian exile, the first return being under Sheshbazzar (cf. Ezr 1:8; Ezr 5:14). He was of the line of David (cf. Ezra 2-6). In 1Ch 3:16-19, his father is listed as Pedaiah and his grandfather as Shealtiel. Hebrew familial terms were fluid and could refer to several different categories of relatives. In this case, Shealtiel was an uncle. This confusion could be explained if Shealtiel adopted Zerubbabel after his father Pedaiah died (cf. Ezr 3:8; Ezr 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hag 1:1).<\/p>\n These two names also appear in the Lucan genealogy, but in a much later period.<\/p>\n Mat 1:13-15 The names from Zerubbabel’s son Abihud to Jacob are unknown from OT sources.<\/p>\n Mat 1:14 “Zadok” This was not the faithful priest of David’s day (cf. 2Sa 20:25; 1Ch 16:39) because Matthew’s Zadok is of the tribe of Judah, not Levi.<\/p>\n Mat 1:16 “Joseph the husband of Mary” “Begot,” which is so prominent in this listing of the other fathers, is left out! Joseph is named as the legal father and his lineage given because this was what the Jews of the first century legally required and recognized. But he was not the true biological father. Jesus was virgin born of the Spirit of God (cf. Mat 1:23-25; Luk 1:34-35).<\/p>\n “who is called the Messiah” “Christ” (NKJV) was the Greek translation of the Hebrew term Messiah (BDB 603, cf. 1Sa 2:10; 1Sa 2:35; 2Sa 22:51; Psa 2:2; 18:51; Psa 89:38; Psa 89:51; Psa 132:10; Psa 132:17; Dan 9:24-25), meaning “an anointed one.” Jesus was YHWH’s special Servant (cf. Isa 7:14; Isa 9:1-7; Isa 11:1-5; Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12), the Coming One, who would establish the new age of righteousness (cf. Isaiah 61, 65-66). See Special Topic at Mat 8:20.<\/p>\n they were brought = the carrying away, as in Mat 1:11. <\/p>\n Jechonias, Jer 22:30, does not say “no sons”; but, “no sons to sit on the throne of David”. <\/p>\n Salathiel = Shealtiel, the real son of Assir; and hence was the grandson of Jeconiah (1Ch 3:17-19), born “after” (see Mat 1:12). <\/p>\n Zorobabel. The real son of Pedaiah (1Ch 3:19), but the legal son of Salathiel (compare Deu 25:5). See Ezr 3:2; Ezr 5:2. Neh 12:1. <\/p>\n 12. . .] So also the genealogy in 1Ch 3:17. When, therefore, it is denounced (Jer 32:30) that Jeconiah should be childless, this word must be understood as explained by the rest of the verse, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. The LXX render this word , : but the Talmudical writers explain it according to our rendering.<\/p>\n . .] There is no difficulty here which does not also exist in the O.T. Zerubbabel is there usually called the son of Shealtiel (Salathiel). Ezr 3:2, &c.: Neh 12:1; Hag 1:1, &c. In 1Ch 3:19, Zerubbabel is said to have been the son of Pedaiah, brother of Salathiel. Either this may have been a different Zerubbabel, or Salathiel may, according to the law, have raised up seed to his brother.<\/p>\n Mat 1:12. , after) sc. after he had migrated to Babylon.- , but Salathiel begat Zorobabel) i.e., was the progenitor of; Pedaiah being the son of the former, and father of the latter. St Luke (Luk 3:27) mentions another Salathiel and Zorobabel, father and son, who must have lived about the same time with these.[16]<\/p>\n [16] D. Crusius explains the causes of this fact l. c. p. 369, 370, showing that the Zorobabel of Luke was a prince of Juda, and the associate () of Joshua in the restoration, whereas the Zorobabel of Matthew was a private individual.-E. B.<\/p>\n Jechonias: 2Ki 25:27, Jehoiachin, 1Ch 3:17, 1Ch 3:19-24, Jeconiah, Jer 22:24, Jer 22:28, Coniah <\/p>\n and: Ezr 3:2, Ezr 5:2, Neh 12:1, Hag 1:1, Hag 1:12, Hag 1:14, Hag 2:2, Hag 2:23, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Luk 3:27 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Ki 24:8 – Jehoiachin 2Ch 36:8 – Jehoiachin Ezr 1:11 – captivity Ezr 2:2 – Zerubbabel Neh 7:7 – Zerubbabel Jer 22:30 – Write<\/p>\n 1:12<\/p>\n Verse 12. After they were brought to Babylon. Family life was not discontinued even though the Jews were in captivity. The inspired writer is able to give us the names of lineal descendants that he wished to use in connecting the blood line from Abraham to Christ. Not all of the succeeding names are given nor was that necessary. The present verse virtually covers the 70 years of the captivity, for it was in the days of Zorobabel (Zerubbabel) that they came out of it (Ezr 3:2).<\/p>\n And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; <\/p>\n [Jechonias begat Salathiel.] That is, “a son of the kingdom,” or successor in that dignity of the house of David, whatsoever it was, which was altogether withered in the rest of the sons of Josiah, but did somewhat flourish again in him, 2Ki 25:27. And hence it is, that of all the posterity of Josiah, Jechonias only is named by St. Matthew. <\/p>\n Jechonias, in truth, was without children; Jer 22:30; and Salathiel, properly speaking, was the son of Neri, Luk 3:27; but yet Jechonias is said to beget him; not that he was truly his father, but that the other was his successor; not, indeed, in his kingly dignity, for that was now perished, but in that which now was the chief dignity among the Jews. So 1Ch 3:16; Zedekias is called the son, either of Jehoiakim, whose brother indeed he was, or of Jechonias, whose uncle he was; because he succeeded him in the kingly dignity. <\/p>\n The Lord had declared, and that not without an oath, that Jechonias should be without children. The Talmudists do so interpret “R. Judah saith, All they of whom it is said, These shall be without children; they shall have no children. And those of whom it is said, They shall die without children; they bury their children.” [Lev 20:20-21] <\/p>\n So Kimchi also upon the place; “The word (saith he) means this; That his sons shall die in his life, if he shall now have sons: but if he shall not now have sons, he never shall. But our Rabbins of blessed memory say, That he repented in prison. And they say moreover, Oh! How much doth repentance avail, which evacuates a penal edict! For it is said, ‘Write ye this man childless’: but, he repenting, this edict turned to his good,” etc. “R. Jochanan saith, His carrying away expiated. For when it is said, ‘Write this man childless,’ after the carrying away it is said, ‘The sons of Coniah, Assir his son, Shealtiel his son.’ ” These things are in Babylonian Sanhedrim, where these words are added, “Assir his son, because his mother conceived him in prison.” <\/p>\n But the words in the original (1Ch 3:17) are these…Now the sons of Jechonias bound [or imprisoned] were Shealtiel his son. Which version both the accents and the order of the words confirm… <\/p>\n Mat 1:12. The succeeding list cannot be verified, although we meet with the names of Salathiel (Shealtiel), Zerrubbabel (Ezr 3:2; Neh 12:1; Hag 1:1) in the Old Testament. In 1Ch 3:19, Zerubbabel is said to have been the son of Pedaiah, brother of Salathiel. Either this may have been a different Zerubbabel, or Salathiel may, according to the law, have raised up seed to his brother (Alford).<\/p>\n Mat 1:12. And after they were brought to Babylon After the Babylonish captivity commenced, Jechonias begat Salathiel It is here objected, that God said concerning this Jeconiah, called also Coniah, Jer 22:30, Write ye this man childless: How then did he beget Salathiel? This objection is easily answered, for that verse, (where see the note,) expounds itself: it being added, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. The expression, therefore, manifestly means, without a child that shall actually succeed in the kingdom: for the text itself supposes that he should have seed, but none that should prosper, sitting on the throne of David and ruling in Judah: which is according to the sacred history, (2 Chronicles 36.,) for the king of Babylon set up Zedekiah, his uncle, in his stead, who was the last king of Judah, in the 11th year of whose reign the Jews were carried away captive. Salathiel begat Zorobabel Here is another difficulty: for, 1Ch 3:19, we read, The sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei: now if Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, how could he be the son of Salathiel? In answer to this, let it be observed, 1st, that Salathiel might die without issue, and Pedaiah, his brother, might marry his widow, (according to the law of God, Deu 25:5,) to raise up seed to his brother. Zerubbabel, being the fruit of this marriage, would of course be called the son of Salathiel and the son of Pedaiah. Or, 2dly, there might be two persons of the name of Zerubbabel; one the son of Salathiel, and the other the son of his brother Pedaiah. This seems very likely, considering that the word Zerubbabel signifies a stranger in Babylon, a name which very probably would be given to several children born in the captivity. Be this as it may, the Zerubbabel here mentioned was that illustrious person who was the chief instrument of restoring and settling the Jewish commonwealth, on their return from captivity.<\/p>\n Most of the names in this section occur nowhere else in the Bible. Matthew probably knew them from oral tradition and or written sources.<\/p>\n "While no twentieth-century Jew could prove he was from the tribe of Judah, let alone from the house of David, that does not appear to have been a problem in the first century, when lineage was important in gaining access to temple worship." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 63.] <\/span><\/p>\n Mat 1:16 contains careful and unusual wording. Matthew was preparing for what he later explained, the virgin birth of Jesus (Mat 1:23). The phrase "who is called" (ho legomenos<\/span>) does not imply doubt about Jesus’ messiahship. It just identifies the Jesus whose genealogy preceded. This is one of Matthew’s favorite expressions in this Gospel. It announces the names of persons or places 12 times (cf. Mat 1:16; Mat 2:23; Mat 4:18; Mat 10:2; Mat 13:55; Mat 26:3; Mat 26:14; Mat 26:36; Mat 27:16-17; Mat 27:22; Mat 27:33). As this verse shows, Jesus was legally Joseph’s son even though He was virgin born by Mary.<\/p>\n And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zorobabel; 12. Jechonias begat Salathiel ] Jehoiachin had no children of his own, “write ye this man childless” (Jer 22:30). Salathiel was the son of Neri (Luke), but heir to Jehoiachin. Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Verse 12. Jechonias … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:12”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"