01.13. The Two Genealogies Of Christ...

Section First. The Two Genealogies Of Christ, Given Respectively By The Evangelists Matthew And Luke.

THERE are several marked and characteristic differences between the two genealogical tables presented by the Evangelists of the human ancestry of our Lord—differences that from a very early period have occasioned embarrassment to interpreters, and have often been pronounced inexplicable discrepancies. Nor is it only in the things in which they differ that they have given rise to trouble and dispute; but a still more perplexing circumstance, if possible, has been found, in a matter on which they are, at least, apparently agreed; namely, that it is with Joseph, not with Mary, that the genealogical descent of Jesus is formally connected. What renders this the more remarkable is, that the two Evangelists, who thus agree in dropping the name of Mary from any ostensible or direct connexion with the descent from David and Abraham, are precisely those, who expressly record the miraculous conception of Jesus, and so provide an explicit testimony to the fact, that He was strictly the Son only of Mary, and not of Joseph. There can be no doubt that this is, in some respects, the greater difficulty adhering to these tables, since it touches the point of our Lord’s title to the name and office of Messiah. It is, therefore, the point to which our attention shall be primarily directed, yet so as not to neglect the others, which are also of considerable interest and importance.

I. Here we observe at the outset, that there are certain preliminary considerations, which ought, in all fairness, to be borne in mind, and which, apart from all minutiæ belonging to the construction of the genealogies, go far to determine the chief historical question. It is certain, for example, that up till the period of our Lord’s birth, and even after His death, genealogical registers were kept in Judea, both publicly and privately; so that ample materials must have existed for investigating all that concerned the lineage of Jesus. This fact, like most others in Gospel history, has been questioned, chiefly on the ground of a statement of Julius Africanus, who wrote, in the earlier part of the third century, a chronicon, of which a fragment on this subject has been preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. i. 7.) Africanus there reports, that Herod, conscious of the infelicity of his birth, and anxious to prevent the possibility of detecting it, burned the public family registers, “imagining that he should then appear noble, when no one could derive from the public monuments the evidence of a descent from the patriarchs, or the proselytes, and the mixed multitude that was called georæ.” On what grounds this statement was made, nothing is known; nor does it appear, that Africanus himself had any great confidence in its historical correctness; for he introduces the narrative as delivered by the descendants of those who were the kinsmen of Jesus, “either for the purpose of display [in respect to their own pedigree,] or for simply declaring the truth;” and at the close introduces the qualifying clause, “Whether the matter actually stood thus or not” (εἴτʼ οὖν ὃτως, εἴτʼ ἄλλως ἔχει.) The story must be held to be, if not entirely fabulous, at least a great exaggeration of some lawless proceedings on the part of Herod or his abettors. Josephus is altogether silent respecting any such destructive measures, which, if they had actually occurred to the extent described, could scarcely have been practicable: more than that, he expressly testifies, that he took the materials of the abstract he gave of his own family descent from those same public registers (δέλτοις δημοσίοις ἀναγεγραμμένην εὐρον, Vit. i. 1,) and at a period considerably later than that of the birth of Christ. The reference, too, of the Apostle Paul once and again to genealogies, as matters with which certain Jewish teachers were wont needlessly to entangle themselves and others (1 Timothy 1:4; Titus 3:14,) is a sufficient proof of the plentiful existence of such documents. And so also is the reference made to them in the Protevangelium of James, which, though a spurious production, is yet of very great antiquity. There can, therefore, be no reasonable doubt of the late existence of registers, or genealogical tables, public as well as private; and the means must have been accessible to all, who had a mind to examine the point, for determining whether Jesus was really of the house and lineage of David. Nor can we doubt, from the nature and intensity of the opposition made to Him, that, if the evidence on this point had not been known to be of the most conclusive kind, the defect would certainly have been discovered, and pressed to the prejudice of His claims. If His title to a Davidic origin was not impugned, the reason could only be, that it was incapable of being gainsayed.

It is further to be borne in mind, that both Christ’s title to be regarded as the Son of David, and the evangelical testimony in favour of that title, by no means rests exclusively, or even principally, upon the preservation in the Gospels of the two Genealogies. There is much evidence besides upon, the subject, and evidence of a more patent and obtrusive kind. In the annunciation of His birth to the Virgin, it was declared, that the throne of His father David should be given to Him—implying, that simply as born of her, He stood connected with the throne and family of David. During the course of His public ministry, He allowed Himself to be openly addressed as the Son of David (Matthew 9:27; Matthew 15:22)—again implying both what He Himself claimed, and what was commonly believed respecting Him. On the day of Pentecost, St. Peter proclaimed to the assembled thousands, that God had raised Him up of the fruit of David’s loins, to sit upon his throne (Acts 2:30;) and in several passages St. Paul represents Him as having been the seed of David, according to the flesh (Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Acts 13:23.) Finally, in the Apocalypse He is designated “the root and offspring of David” (Revelation 22:16.) Most plain, therefore, it is, that neither our Lord Himself, nor His immediate followers, made any secret of His strict and proper relationship to the house of David—itself a conclusive proof, that it had a solid ground to rest upon, and could challenge the fullest scrutiny. The very objections urged against Him may be cited as evidence; for, while they occasionally grazed the border of this important point, they never actually struck upon it, and so yielded a virtual testimony in its support. It was perfectly understood, that if He was the Son of David, and the heir to his throne, He behooved to be born at Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5; John 7:42;) and on this account the objection was raised against Jesus, that He was a Galilean, and came forth from Nazareth, whence nothing good in the spiritual sphere might be looked for (John 1:46; John 7:52;) but it never took the form of an allegation laid, or even a suspicion uttered, against His connexion by birth with the house of David. This is the more remarkable, as His residence from childhood in Galilee gave His adversaries a prima facie ground to question it; doubts could scarcely fail to be stirred in many minds on the subject; and that these doubts did not find any audible utterance or assume a tangible form, can only be accounted for by the conclusive evidence which existed of His royal parentage.

Still further, the report of Hegesippus concerning the relatives of Jesus in a subsequent generation, furnishes a collateral proof, as it clearly indicates the general and settled belief of the time. He states, as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Ecclesiastes 3:20) that the grandchildren of Judas, the brother of Jesus, were accused to the Emperor Domitian, and brought before him for examination, because of their reputed connexion with the royal line of David; but that when Domitian ascertained their humble circumstances, and the spiritual nature of the kingdom they ascribed to Jesus Christ, he despised them and sent them away. It thus appears, that amid all the circumstances that had become known concerning Christ down to the close of the first century—the claims put forth on the part of His followers, and the objections or surmises raised on the part of His adversaries—the belief of His personal relationship to the house of David remained unshaken. The fact, therefore, of our Lord’s real descent from David must be held as certain, whatever difficulties concerning it may hang around the two genealogical tables. The subject of inquiry in respect to them narrows itself to the point, how they can be made to appear consistent with the truth of things, and not in antagonism with each other. There are certain palpable differences between them, which are fitted to suggest the idea of their having been drawn up on somewhat different principles; and the thought very naturally suggests itself, that if these could only be ascertained, a satisfactory explanation would be found of the diversities subsisting between them.

II. Is this diversity of principle in the construction of the two genealogies to be sought—as regards the main point at issue—in the one evangelist presenting the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph the reputed and legal father, and the other through Mary the only real parent, according to the flesh? If this were a practicable mode—exegetically considered—of understanding what is written, it would, no doubt, present a comparatively natural and easy solution of the greater differences. But so far is it from appearing on the face of the language, that it seems never so much as to have occurred to the earlier writers, who had their minds specially directed to the subject. With one consent they referred both genealogies to Joseph, and appear to have been little troubled by the absence of any specific mention of the lineage of Mary. Africanus, who made the subject a matter of very careful investigation, makes no allusion to this point, as tending to create in his mind any embarrassment. Jerome, indeed, refers to it; but thinks it enough to say, that Joseph’s relation to the tribe of Judah and the house of David determined also Mary’s, since by the law people were obliged to marry from among their own tribe: (Qurerat diligens lector et dicat: Quum Joseph non sit pater Domini Salvatoris, quid pertinet ad Dominum generationis ordo deductus usque ad Joseph? Cui respondebimus primum, non esse consuetudinem Scripturarum, ut mulierum in generationibus ordo texatur. Deinde, ex una tribu fuisse Joseph et Mariam; unde ex Lege earn accipere cogebatur ut propinquam—In Matthew 1:18.)—although he could scarcely be ignorant, that however customary this might be, there is no express enactment upon the subject; and, indeed, in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad, the legislation actually made proceeded upon the usual liberty of the females to marry into any tribe, and prescribed a limit in their case, and cases of a similar kind, only for the sake of perpetuating the inheritance. When there was nothing peculiar in this respect, it was perfectly allowable, and not uncommon, for the husband to belong to one tribe and the wife to another. In the Gospel age, also, when remnants of all the tribes were thrown together, such intermarriages would naturally be more frequent. Augustine, the contemporary of Jerome, goes, somewhat singularly, into the opposite extreme; and while of opinion that Mary must have had some connexion (he does not state what) with the house of David, he is rather disposed to lay stress upon her relationship to Elizabeth, and her connexion with the house of Aaron; for, he says, “it must be held most firmly, that the flesh of Christ was propagated from both stems, that alike of the kings and of the priests, the personages in whom among the Hebrews was figured that mystic unction (namely, chrism,) whence the name of Christ beams forth, so long before also pre-intimated by that most evident sign. (Firmissime tenendum est carnem Christ! ex utroque genere propagatam, et regum scilicet et sacerdotum, in quibus personis apud ilium populum Hebræorum etiam mystica unctio figurabatur, id est, chrisma, unde Cbristi nomen elucet, tanto ante etiam ilia evidentissima significatione prænuntiatum. De Consensu Evang. ii. 2.) Chrysostom, in his second homily on St. Matthew, reverts to Jerome’s mode of explanation, and puts it in a still stronger form. He says, “not only was it not lawful to marry from another tribe, but not even from another family (οὐδὲ ἀπὸ πατριᾶς ἑτέρας;) that is,” he adds, “kindred (συγγενέας.”) This is the chief explanation he gives, although he also points to the words used by the angel Gabriel, of whom it is said, that he was sent to “a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David”—understanding the latter expression, “of the house of David,” to refer, not to Joseph the immediate, but to Mary the remote, antecedent; in which he is not followed by the better class of interpreters. He indicates no doubt, however, any more than the other writers of early times, that both genealogies bore respect to the ancestry of Joseph. This general agreement, for so long a time, as to the fact of Joseph’s lineage being exhibited in both tables—the absence of any idea, that either of them did, or by possibility might be understood, to trace the descent of Mary, undoubtedly affords a strong presumption against the idea itself, as proceeding on a too subtle or somewhat forced interpretation of the text. It was only about the period of the Reformation that the opinion seems to have been distinctly brought out and advocated, of Mary’s genealogy being given in Luke, and Joseph’s in Matthew—the one for the satisfaction of the Jews, who, in matters of this description, made account only of males; and the other for the satisfaction of mankind in general, who might seek to know the lineage of Jesus, not through his reputed or legal father, but through his one real earthly parent. Calvin refers to it as a view which had its known advocates in his day, but rejects it as untenable; and, though it has since numbered many learned names on its side—those, among others, of Osiander, Calov, Spanheim, Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Paulus, Kuinoel yet it must be held to be without any just foundation in the text, and even to do violence to its plain import. The view is based on the words of the Evangelist Luke, when introducing the subject of the genealogy, “And Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age when beginning (viz. His ministry,) being, as was supposed, the Son of Joseph, who was the son of Eli,” etc. (ὤν, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς ̓Ιωσὴφ τοῦ ̔Ηλι.) But the words, taken in their natural and obvious sense, connect Jesus with Joseph as his reputed father, and then this Joseph with Heli, as his father. The native import and bearing of the ὡς ἐνομίζετο, was precisely given by Euthymius, ἑς ἐδόκει τοῖς ̓Ιουδαίοις ὡς γάρ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐ͂χεν, ὀ̓κ ἧν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ—in the common reckoning of the Jews He was Joseph’s Son, but He was not so in reality. The latter idea, however, was only implied, not distinctly stated, in the Evangelist’s expression. If the meaning had been: the Son, as was supposed, of Joseph, but in reality of Eli, that is Eli’s grandson (through Mary the daughter of Eli,)—the passage would have required to run (as justly stated by Meyer,) ἔς, ὡς ἐνομίζετο ὑιὸς ̓Ιωσὴφ ὄντως δὲ Μαρίας, τοῦ Ηλι, or something similar. It is possible enough, and may even be deemed probable, that the genealogies of Mary and Joseph coincided at a comparatively near point, but this can only be matter of probable conjecture, or, at most, natural inference; for, as regards the genealogy itself of St. Luke, we have no direct notice of Mary’s pedigree, but only of Joseph’s. To our view, the silence regarding Mary in the genealogical tables, and the stress that is laid in the Gospels upon Joseph’s connexion with the house of David, certainly seems strange. It appears to imply, that the Davidic descent of Joseph somehow carried that of Christ along with it; for the genealogies are produced as evidence of that very point. In much the same way, Joseph, when meditating the repudiation of the Virgin, is addressed by the angel in terms that make special reference to his royal descent,—“Joseph, thou son of David” (Matthew 1:20;) and, again, when the reason is assigned for the journey to Bethlehem, which led to the birth of Jesus there, it was because, not Mary, but Joseph, was of the house and lineage of David (Luke 2:4.) How is this to be explained? Does the termination of Joseph’s genealogy really involve and carry along with it that of Mary’s and Christ’s? So Augustine perceived, and in a profound remark expressed, when commenting on the designation of Joseph and Mary by St. Luke as the parents of Jesus. “Since, therefore, says he, “the Evangelist himself relates that Christ was born, not from intercourse with Joseph, but of Mary, as a virgin, whence should he call him (Joseph) His father—unless we rightly understand, both that he was the husband of Mary, without carnal intercourse, by the bond simply of the marriage-tie; and that he was on this account also Christ’s father, Christ being born of his wife, in a manner far more intimate than if He had been adopted from another family? And on this ground,” he adds, “even if anyone should be able to prove that Mary had no blood-relationship to David, it was competent to hold Christ to be the Son of David, for the very same reason that Joseph was entitled to be called His father.” (Cum igitur ipse narret, non ex concubitu Joseph, sed ex Maria virgine natum Christum; unde eum patrem ejus appellat, nisi quia et virum Mariæ recte intelligimus sine commixtione carnis, ipsa copulatione conjugii; et ob hoc etiam Christi patrem multo conjunctius, qui ex ejus conjuge natus sit, quam si esset aliunde adoptatus? Ac per hoc, etiam si demonstrare aliquis posset, Mariam ex David nullam consanguinitatis originem ducere, sat erat secundum istam rationem accipere Christum filium David, qua ratione etiam Joseph pater ejus recte appellatus est. De Consensu Evang. ii. 1.) This view, though not formally referred to Augustine, has been taken up and ably expounded by Delitzsch, in an article on the genealogies in Rudelbach’s Zeitschrift for 1850, p. 581, sq. He holds that, in consequence of the Divine revelation made to Joseph, and his entire acquiescence in the arrangements announced to him, Jesus was really the fruit of his marriage, and, as such, his Son. Joseph acknowledged and owned the child, not, indeed, as begotten of his body, but as a sacred gift, which God had most wonderfully granted to him through his wife. In all cases children are God’s gifts; but this child was so in the most peculiar sense, there being an exclusion of human agency, and the direct intervention of the Divine. Now, if Jesus was the Son of Joseph, in his married relation, for the same reason also He was the Son of David; for He was born to a descendant of the house of David—was conceived and born of a virgin, who, simply from her espousals to Joseph, was already introduced into the house of David, and, within that house, as Joseph’s spouse, brought forth her child. So the Evangelist Matthew contemplated the matter; for, according to the law and the established convictions of Israel, all depended upon Joseph’s descent from David, not upon Mary’s; and, by virtue simply of his relation to Joseph, Jesus was born in the house of David, was therefore the child of a Davidic person, and so was justly held to have sprung out of the house of David.

Such is the view of Delitzsch, which is undoubtedly in accordance with Jewish notions on the subject, and rests upon a solid basis of truth; since Mary, before the birth of the child, had actually, and by Divine ordination, become the spouse of Joseph, so that what was hers, through her became also her husband’s. Yet, as God’s work is ever perfect—not in design and nature merely, but in the way and manner also of its accomplishment—so doubtless it was here. We have the best reasons for supposing that the relationship of Mary, immediately to Joseph, and remotely to the house of David, was such, and so well known, that the genealogy of the one, at a point comparatively near, was understood to be the genealogy also of the other. This relationship on Mary’s part seems plainly taken for granted by the angel, who announced the conception and birth of the child, when he said, “And the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David,”—an announcement that was made to her before her marriage to Joseph, before she could be sure of such a marriage ever being consummated, and so implying that, simply as born of her, through the power of the Holy Ghost, the child should stand in a filial relation to David. The statements in other parts of Scripture, designating Christ as, beyond dispute, of the seed of David, are also to be taken into account; so that, if the genealogies do not of themselves establish the personal relation of Mary to the house of David, they may be said to involve it; since, when viewed in connexion with the entire representation of the sacred writers, they seem to proceed on the ground of a common interest in this respect belonging to Joseph and Mary, and to Jesus through them. Certain other probabilities will also present themselves as we proceed.

III. But, meanwhile, difficulties start up from the ground we have already won. For, if the two genealogical tables are both those of Joseph’s proper pedigree, how should they differ—at so many points from each other differ, even in respect to the immediate father of Joseph—and differ so regularly in the latter divisions, that between David and Christ they present only two names in common? This is a difficulty, which has long exercised the ingenuity of interpreters, and has given rise to a variety of schemes. It would occupy a considerable time to recount all these, and could serve no valuable purpose.

We shall simply state what we deem to be the correct explanation of the matter—prefacing it however by a few considerations, which ought to be kept in view by those who would arrive at right conclusions on the subject. The first is, that in these, as in genealogical tables generally, there may be several diversities without any actual incorrectness. This holds of such tables generally, and arises from the diversity of names sometimes borne by individuals mentioned in them, and from various circumstances and relations occurring to alter in some respect the natural course of descent, and thereby leaving room for one genealogist departing from the exact route or nomenclature of another. It is perfectly well known, by those who are at all acquainted with Jewish genealogies, how much this is the case; and the reference of the apostle to disputes in his day about endless genealogies (1 Timothy 1:4; Titus 3:9,) clearly implies, that the circumstances just noticed were wont to involve considerable diversity in details, not readily settled or explained. It may well be expected, therefore, especially at this distance of time, that there should be points of divergence in the two tables before us, either altogether inexplicable now, or admitting of explanation only by the help of suppositions which can at most be considered only as probable. A more full and intimate knowledge of the particulars might have made all perfectly plain.

Another consideration to be kept in mind is, that whatever precise form the genealogical tables might assume—whether they traced the lineage in an ascending or a descending order—whether each successive generation is presented to our view as begotten by the preceding, or as standing to this in the relation of a son to a father—in either case alike the table is to be regarded as possessing the same character; and the same allowances or qualifications that may have to be made in the one case, are also quite allowable in the other. Mistakes and false theories have arisen from the neglect of this consideration. It was thus, indeed, that Julius Africanus was misled, and became the instrument of misleading many others regarding the principles on which the two tables were constructed, by supposing that the phrase in Matthew, such a one begat such another, is of a stricter kind than the phrase in Luke, such a one was the son of another; he was of opinion that the former always denoted a natural connexion as of parent and child, while the latter might include other connexions—sons by adoption, or by marriage, or by legal standing, as the case might be. In realty, however, the Hebrews observed no distinction of the kind; they were accustomed to use both forms of expression in the same way; and the one as well as the other was sometimes applied to denote, not descendants by actual procreation, but the next of kin, or descendants in the wider sense. The table itself in Matthew’s Gospel affords conclusive evidence of this; for it has “Joram begat Ozias,” or Uzziah, although we know for certain that three links of the chain are there dropt out, and that Joram begat Ahaziah, then Ahaziah Jehoash, and Jehoash Uzziah. As a proof of the freedom sometimes used in such cases, we may point to the statements in Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5, where Jacob is himself included among those that came out of his loins; (See, for example, the Jewish Commentator Raphall, on Genesis 46:26, who, after referring to the opinions of other Jewish authorities, and showing how the 66 persons said to have come out of Jacob’s loins were made up (32 by Leah, 16 by Zilpah, 11 by Rachel, 7 by Bilhah,) thus sums up: “Now, as the family of Leah is said to consist of 33, though only 32 are enumerated, and as the former number would give us 67 persons (which the Septuagint actually has,) whereas the text expressly declares, that the number of those who proceeded from Jacob’s loins were 66, and no more: And as, moreover, the only members of Jacob’s family whom the text mentions as being in Egypt were three, namely, Joseph, and his two sons; and as these three, with the 66 above named, are only 69, whereas the text declares, that all the persons of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were 70; and as Jacob must, of course, be considered as a member of his own house, it follows, that the 70th person who came, can have been no other than Jacob himself. And if this be so, then the 33d person numbered with, but not among, the descendants of Leah, can also have been no other than Jacob; for if it had been any other person, the total number of Jacob’s house would have been 71—contrary to the text, since Jacob can in no wise be excluded from his own house.”) and to Genesis 10:13-14, “Canaan begat Sidon, his first born, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite,” etc.,—where evidently whole races are said to have been begotten by the person who was no further related to them than that he was their common progenitor. We even occasionally find cities or districts associated in the same way with an individual as their parent; thus in 1 Chronicles 2:50, “Shobal the father of Kirjath-jearim, Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Beth-Gader.” And not only did the Levirate law afford occasions of pretty frequent occurrence, when a person must have had children reckoned to him that were not strictly his own, but women also for example, Sarah and Rachel—are represented as speaking of the possibility of obtaining children born to them through their handmaids (Genesis 16:2; Genesis 30:3.)

Such being the case, there is plainly nothing in the way of our holding, that the table of Matthew may, equally with that of Luke, admit of relationships being introduced not of the nearest degree; nor, further, any thing, so far as form is concerned, to render the position untenable, that in the one we may have the succession in the strictly royal line, the legal heirs to the throne of David (Matthew’s,) and in the other (Luke’s) the succession of our Lord’s real parentage up to David. So that, were this view to be accepted, we should have Christ’s legal right to the kingdom established, by the list in the one table; and by that of the other, the direct chain which connected Him with the person of David. This is substantially the view that was adopted by Calvin, though not originated; for he refers to some as preceding him in the same view. It was first, however, fully brought out, and vindicated against the errors involved in the current belief, by Grotius. In opposition to that belief, which owed its general prevalence to the authority of Africanus—the belief that in St. Matthew we have the natural, and in Luke the legal, descent—Grotius remarks, “For myself, guided, if I mistake not, by very clear, and not fanciful grounds, I am fully convinced, that Matthew has respect to the legal succession. For he recounts those who obtained the kingdom without the intermixture of a private name. Then Jechonias, he says, begot Salathiel. But it was not doubtfully intimated by Jeremiah, under the command of God, that Jechoniah, on account of his sins, should die without children (Matthew 22:30.) Wherefore, since Luke assigns Neri as the father of the same Salathiel, a private man, while Matthew gives Jechoniah, the most obvious inference is, that Luke has respect to the right of consanguinity, Matthew to the right of succession, and especially the right to the throne—which right, since Jechoniah died without issue, devolved, by legitimate order, upon Salathiel, the head of the family of Nathan. For among the sons of David Nathan came next to Solomon.” This view has lately been taken up, and at great length, as well as in a most judicious and scholarly manner, wrought out by Lord Arthur Hervey, in a separate volume. The work as a whole is deserving of careful perusal. On this particular part of the subject he reasons somewhat as follows:—First of all, since St. Matthew’s table gives the royal successions, as far as they go, one can scarcely conceive why another table should have been given, unless it were that the actual parent age of Joseph did not properly coincide with that. If Joseph’s direct ancestors, and Solomon’s direct successors, had run in one line, there had been no need for another line; since, having already the most honourable line of descent, there could have been no inducement to make out an inferior one. But, on the supposition that a failure took place in Solomon’s line, and that the offspring of Nathan (the next son of David) then came to be the legal heirs to the throne, another table was required to show, along with the succession to the inheritance, the real parentage throughout. A second consideration is derived from the prophecy of Jeremiah already noticed, in which it was declared concerning Jehoiakim, “He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David,” (Jeremiah 36:30;) and again, of Jehoiachin or Jechoniah, the son, who was dethroned after being for a few months acknowledged king, “Write ye this man childless, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” After such explicit declarations, it is not conceivable that these men should yet have been the parents of a seed, out of which was at last to spring the ultimate possessor of David’s throne. A third consideration is supplied by the names found in both tables immediately after Jehoiachin. It was precisely there that the lineal descent from Solomon was broken; and there, accordingly, the two tables again coincide; for the next two generations the names Salathiel and Zerubabel occur alike in both tables—brought in, we may reasonably suppose, from Nathan’s line, to supply the place of Solomon’s, when it became defunct, and so are connected with Solomon’s line by Matthew, but with Nathan’s by Luke. So that, the line being traced by one Evangelist through Solomon, by the other through Nathan, the double object is served, of showing Christ to be at once David’s son and Solomon’s heir, the latter being the type of Christ as David’s immediate son and heir. And thus also the genealogy of the one Evangelist supplements that of the other, by showing the validity of the right of succession as traced by Matthew, since Joseph was Solomon’s heir only by being Nathan’s descendant. A collateral confirmation is obtained for this view in certain double genealogies which occur in the Old Testament Scriptures; the one having respect to the parentage, the other to the inheritance. One of the most remarkable of these is that of Jair, who, in 1 Chronicles 2:1-55, has his genealogy ranked with the house of Judah, being the son of Segub, the son of Hezron, the son of Pharez, the son of Judah. By Moses, however, he is always called the son of Manasseh (Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy 3:14-15;) and is represented as having come to the possession of a number of small towns in Gilead, which he called Havoth- Jair, i.e., the towns of Jair. A notice in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 2:22-23, explains the discrepancy. We there learn that Hezron, his grandfather, in his old age married the daughter of Machir, the son of Manasseh, who bare him Segub, and that Segub begat Jair; while Ashur, another son by the same marriage, had his inheritance in Judah. So that Jair, by his real parentage, was a descendant of Judah; though, in respect to his inheritance, and no doubt in the reckoning of the public registers, he was of the tribe of Manasseh. Another example is found in the case of Caleb, who, in the earlier records, is always called the son of Jephunneh, (Numbers 13:6; Numbers 14:6, etc.,) and is reckoned of the tribe of Judah; while yet, it would seem, he did not originally and properly belong to that tribe: for, in Joshua 14:14, he is called “Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite” and in Joshua 15:30, it is said that Joshua “gave him a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the Lord to Joshua.” If he had by birth belonged to that tribe, there should have been no need for a special commandment appointing his inheritance to be given out of what felHo that tribe; this would have happened to him as a matter of course; and both, therefore, on this account, and from his being called a Kenezite, we are led to infer, that, not by birth, but by adoption, he had his place and portion fixed in the tribe of Judah. But, in order to this, he must be reckoned to some particular family of that tribe; and accordingly, in the public genealogy given in 1 Chronicles 2:18-20, the paternity of Jephunneh is dropt, and that of Hezron, the son of Pharez, the son of Judah, put in its stead: “And Caleb, the son of Hezron, begat children of Azubah, his wife, and of Jerioth,” etc. It is probable that one or other of these wives belonged to the family of Hezron, and that Caleb became, by marriage, connected with it; while afterwards, on account of his steady faith and resolute behaviour, he had the honour conferred on him of a special allotment in the tribe of Judah. We have thus the interesting fact brought out, through these comparatively dry details, that Caleb was originally a stranger, probably a native of Egypt, or an Arab of the Desert, but that he joined himself to the Lord’s people, and was not only counted of the seed of Jacob, but became one of the most distinguished heads of its chief tribe. A still further proof in support of the principles supposed to be involved in the construction of the two tables, as to the points now under consideration, is found in the recurrence of certain names in both of them during the period subsequent to the captivity. In St. Luke’s list the name of Nathan’s son is Matthata, (Luke 3:31;) another son, in the eleventh generation, was called Matthat, (Luke 3:29;) and, between Salathiel and Joseph, the name of Matthias occurs twice, (Luke 3:25-26,) and that of Matthat once, ( Luke 3:24;) all but different modifications of the original name Nathan, (from נָתַן, he gave,) and so affording internal evidence of the genealogy being really that of Nathan’s line. In the other table, we find Matthan, (the same person, in all probability, as Luke’s Matthat,) in the third generation before Joseph; and, at the same time, several names taken with little alteration from the royal household of former times—Eliakim, Zadok (Zedekiah,) Achim, (an abbreviation of Jehoiachim;) as if, while the line age in this part was really that of Nathan, there was an effort to keep up the connexion with the latter days of the elder branch, the line of royal succession down to the period of the exile. The descendants of Nathan, who afterwards stepped into their place in the genealogy, though not in the kingdom, seemed, by the very names they assumed, to be conscious of their peculiar relationship to Solomon’s house, and desirous of indicating their claim to the throne. This is all quite natural; and it affords a very probable explanation at once of the agreements and the differences between the two genealogical tables. Now it only requires one or two very natural suppositions to bring the closing parts of the tables into correspondence; for, on the supposition that the Matthan of St. Matthew is the same with the Matthat of St. Luke, (of which there can be little doubt,) then Jacob the son of Matthan, in Matthew, and Heli, the son of Matthat, in Luke, must, in fact, have been brothers—sons of the same father. And if Jacob had no sons, but only daughters, and Joseph, Heli’s son, married one of these—perfectly natural suppositions—then he became (on the principle of Matthew’s table) also Jacob’s son, and the lineal heir of the throne, as Jacob had been. It only requires that we make the further supposition—no ways extraordinary or unreasonable of that daughter being the Virgin Mary, in order to meet all the demands of the case; for thereby the principle of each table would be preserved: and Mary and Joseph being, in that case, first cousins, and cousins in that line which had the right of succession to the throne, the birth of our Lord was in every respect complete, whether viewed in respect to consanguinity or to relationship to the throne. The whole ordering of the matter exhibits a conjunction of circumstances which it was worthy of the Divine oversight to accomplish, and which yet might, in the common course of events, have readily come about.

It may be added, that the last circumstance in the series of suppositions now mentioned—the marriage of Joseph and Mary, as of two cousins, the one the son of Heli, the other the daughter of Jacob, dying without sons—perfectly accords with Jewish practice; as appears alone from the case of Jair marrying into the tribe of Manasseh, and thenceforth taking rank in that tribe; and still more, from the case of Zelophehad’s five daughters, who married their five cousins, and retained their inheritance. It was the constant aim of the Jews to make inheritance and blood-relationship, as far as possible, go together. And it could not seem otherwise than natural and proper, that the daughter of the nearest heir to the throne of David, should be espoused to the next heir. Nor is it undeserving of notice—as, at least, negatively favouring the supposition respecting Mary—that, while we read of a sister, we never hear of a brother belonging to her; excepting Joseph, female relatives alone are mentioned. So that, in the supposed circumstances of the case, there is nothing that even appears to conflict with the facts of gospel history; every thing seems rather to be in natural and fitting agreement with them.

IV. The few remaining peculiarities in the two tables are of comparatively little importance, and need not detain us long.

(1.) The existence of a second Cainan in only one of the tables—in that of Luke (Luke 3:36)—between Sala and Arphaxad—is one of these minor difficulties. In the corresponding genealogy of our Hebrew Bibles, the name is not found. The only Cainan that appears in the early Hebrew records belongs to the ante-diluvian period; and it is still a matter of dispute how the second Cainan has originated—whether it had somehow been dropt from the Hebrew text, or had been unwarrantably inserted into the Greek. It is found in all the copies extant of the Septuagint, except the Vatican; but the Septuagint itself omits it in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1:1-54; and it is wanting in the Samaritan, Pentateuch, and seems not to have been known to Josephus, Berosus, Eupolemus, Polyhistor; nor does it even appear to have been in the copies of the Septuagint used by Theophilus of Antioch in the second century, by Africanus in the third, or by Eusebius in the fourth. Jerome, too, in his comments on that part of Genesis, omits all mention of Cainan, though he has annotations on the precise verse, where the name of Cainan is now found. Augustine, however, had the name in his copy both of the Septuagint and of St. Luke. The probability seems to lie decidedly against the original existence of the name of Cainan in the genealogy, either in the Old or the New Testament tables. But the precise time or occasion of its introduction can be matter only of conjecture. Possibly, it may have originated in some mystical notions about numbers, which often had a considerable influence in the form given to genealogies. Bochart was of opinion, it probably arose from some clerical oversight in the transcription of the table in Luke, and was thence transferred to the Septuagint; but the common opinion rather leans to the view of its having first appeared in the Septuagint; certainty, however, is unattainable. Bochart’s statements on the subject are worth consulting—Phaleg, l. ii. c. 13.

(2.) A peculiarity of a minor kind also belongs to the other table, and one, in respect to which we can have no difficulty in perceiving the influence of numbers. It is the division into three tesseradecades. For the purpose of securing the three fourteens certain names are omitted in the second division—Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah—which would have unduly swelled the number, if they had been inserted. And closely connected with the same point is a peculiarity in respect to Josiah, who is said to have “begot Jeconias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon,” (Matthew 1:11.) It is scarcely possible to doubt, that some corruption must have crept into the text here; for, in reality, Josiah begot Jehoiakim, not Jeconias; and the birth of Jehoiakim took place a considerable time before the exile. But Jehoiakim begat Jeconias much about that period; and the natural supposition is, that the original text here must have had Jehoiakim as the son of Josiah, and then Jeconias as the son of Jehoiakim. The two might very readily have been run together by a copyist, as, in one form of them, the names differed only in a single letter:—Jehoiakim being written ̓Ιωακειμ, and Jeconias ̓Ιωαχειμ. A scribe might quite naturally take these for but one name, and so leave out Jehoiakim. This view is strengthened by the consideration, that unless we take in Jehoiakim, as well as Jeconias, we want one to complete the fourteen of this middle division; at least, it can only be made out by the somewhat awkward expedient of including the name of David at the beginning of this division, as well as at the close of the preceding one. If this really had required to be done, one does not see why the evangelist should have omitted three names together in order to shorten the list; it had been a much simpler expedient to leave out only two. And on each account the probability is very great, that Jehoiakim has been dropt from the text in the manner just stated. In regard, however, to the general characteristic of the division of the entire table into so many fourteens; and the adoption of certain abbreviations to effect this, it has the support of a very common practice among the Jews. Schottgen has produced from the Synopsis of Sohar a genealogy constructed in a quite similar manner to the one before us: “From Abraham to Solomon there are 15 generations, and at that time the moon was full; from Solomon to Zedekiah there are again 15 generations, and at that time the moon was down, and Zedekiah’s eyes were put out.” Lightfoot also produces on Matthew 1 several artificially framed genealogies. The number 14 was here, doubtless, fixed on as the basis of the arrangement, and made to rule each period: because, in the first period, that from Abraham to David, it comprehends the entire number of links, when both Abraham and David are included. No higher number, therefore, could have been assumed; and in this fact we discover the most natural reason for the ground of the arrangement. In the preceding remarks we have touched on every thing that is likely to create difficulty in connexion with the two genealogies. For various other points of a collateral kind, or of antiquarian interest, and occasionally bearing on peculiarities in the Old Testament chronology, we refer again to the volume of Lord A. Hervey, which will be found well deserving of a careful perusal from those, who are desirous of prosecuting the subject into its minuter details.