Matthew 1

Chap. I. ver. 1. The book of the generation] It has been the subject of much discussion among interpreters, whether these words form the title of the whole Gospel, and are to be understood to mean “a history of all that relates to Jesus Christ, His pedigree, birth, actions, death,” &c. or whether they merely form the title of the genealogy with which the Gospel begins. Our translators, by rendering the words “the book of the generation,” seem to apply the title to the whole of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Edit.

— of Jesus Christ,] Jesus signifies “Saviour;” and Christ, having the same sense as Messiah, signifies “anointed.” See notes at chap. i. 21; John i. 41.

— son of David, the son of Abraham.] These two ancestors of Jesus Christ are particularly mentioned, because to them the promises of the Messiah had been especially made; to Abraham, that of a son “in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed,” Gen. xxii. 18; and to David, of a son whose reign should be eternal, 2 Sam. vii. 12, 13. The Jews expected the accomplishment of these promises in the person of the

— Judas and his brethren.] The brethren of Judas seem here to be mentioned, as being heirs of the promise, and heads of that people whence the Messiah was to spring; also to shew that all the tribes, though not returned from the captivity, had an equal interest in the blessing promised to the seed of Abraham. Dr. Whitby.

— of the Holy Ghost.] The Third Person in the blessed Trinity. See notes at John xiv. 16; xv. 26.

Matthew 1:2

2. Abraham begat Isaac; &c.] By opening his Gospel with this genealogy, the Evangelist, besides proving to the Jews that Christ, according to the prophecies and promises made concerning Him, was legally de-

Published by the Union for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Department of Queen of London 1838.

The genealogy of Christ from Abraham to Joseph. Rachah; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

Matthew 1:9

9. — and Joram begat Ozias;] Ozias, or Uzziah, 2 Kings xv. 32. Here three kings are omitted between Joram and Ozias, namely, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which last was the father of Ozias or Uzziah. The probable reason for this omission is the curse which was twice denounced against the house of Ahab, (1 Kings xii. 21; 2 Kings ix. 8,) to which these princes belonged, since this curse was to take place until the third generation. It is certain that the Jews frequently omitted names in their genealogies and records, especially on account of wickedness or idolatry. Thus five descents from Mersioth are omitted, Ezra vii. compared with 1 Chron. vi.: and the whole tribe of Dan is passed over, Rev. vii. Dr. Wall, Dr. Whitby.

Matthew 1:11

11. — Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren.] Josias had three sons who sat on the throne of Judah: 1st, Jehoahas, a younger son, whom the people elected after the father’s death. 2nd, Jehoiakim, (here called Jechonias,) called also Eliakim, placed on the throne on the removal of his younger brother, 2 Kings xxii. 31—36. 3rd, Zedekiah, who succeeded to the throne after some interval, 2 Kings xxiv. 15, 17. The Jechonias mentioned in the next verse is a different person, being Jehoiachin, the son of the former Jehoiakim. He succeeded his father, and was soon removed to Babylon. The two names in Hebrew are extremely similar in sound and import. Dr. Whitby, Dr. Wells.

Matthew 1:16

16. — Joseph the husband of Mary.] The betrothed husband of Mary: see ver. 18. The titles of husband

and wife are given in Scripture to persons who are only betrothed. Thus Rachel is called the wife of Jacob, Gen. xxix. 21. See also Deut. xxii. 24. Beausobre. Thus it appears that St. Matthew traces the genealogy through Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, and the husband of Mary. The reason is, that he was writing for the Jews, and tracing His legal descent from David; which legal descent was always reckoned in the male line, and was therefore properly traced through the husband of His mother. See note at Luke iii. 23. Publick registers of the tribe of Judah, and of the other tribes that adhered to it, were reserved even during the captivity and subsequent to it, as may be collected from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah: also from St. Luke’s informing his readers that Anna was “of the tribe of Aser,” and St. Paul’s, that he himself was “of the tribe of Benjamin.” From one of these, no doubt, St. Matthew copied the latter part of his genealogy, as St. Luke did from another the beginning of his, each having then the civil records of the Jews to vouch for them. Dr. Lightfoot.

If it be objected, that we lay too much stress on a supposed accommodation to the Jews in commending the Messiah to them by this genealogy, when the Evangelist knew that Joseph was only the reputed father of our Lord, the answer is, 1st, that, as foster-father, it was something to prove Joseph to be of the lineage of David, and therefore not exceptionable to the Jews; and 2dly, that, by knowing this, it necessarily followed, as the Jews well understood, that Mary also, of whom Christ came according to the flesh, was of the same lineage, for the daughters of Israel were not permitted to marry out of their own tribe; at least, if this practice were not universal, as it is denied by some learned men to have been, yet it was so far usual as to form a presumptive evidence, which could only be set aside by proof to the contrary; and in the case of Mary, this was particularly enjoined according to the law laid down concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, which obtained in all such cases afterwards. The case of Mary and her sister, who had no brother, was exactly similar to this. See Numb. xxxvi. 6—9. Archdeacon Pott.

Matthew 1:17

17. So all the generations—are fourteen generations:] It was customary with the Jews, for the convenience of memory, to reduce numbers in genealogies, &c. to the same quantities. Accordingly St. Matthew here, or the genealogist whom he copied, has brought the pedigree of our Saviour into three regular classes by omissions

B 2 Joseph’s doubts are satisfied.

The Fifth Year before the Common Account called Anno Domini, in Luke 1. 27.

generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Matthew 1:18

18. Now the birth of Jesus &c.] It will be observed, that, according to the chronological notice given in the margin, the birth of our Saviour is stated to have taken place “in the fifth year” before the era which is vulgarly assigned for that event, and from which the dates of our years are usually reckoned. The fact is, that the practice of dating from the birth of Christ did not begin in the early times of Christianity, and was not generally adopted among Christians, till about A. D. 730; and it is now the universal opinion of learned men, that, at its first adoption, an error of about four years was made in fixing the era from which the dates are computed. Edit.

— was espoused to Joseph.] It was usual for some space to intervene, generally a year or six months, between the espousals and the nuptials, Deut. xx. 7. Beausolee. No woman in Israel was married, unless she had been first espoused. Dr. Lightfoot.

— she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.] The miraculous conception of our Lord, here announced, is the foundation of the whole distinction between the character of Christ in the condition of a man, and that of any other Prophet. Had the conception of Jesus been in the natural way, had He been the fruit of Mary’s marriage with her husband, His intercourse with the Deity would have been of no other kind than the nature of any other man might equally have admitted; an intercourse of no higher kind than the Prophets enjoyed, when their minds were enlightened by the extraordinary influence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Scriptures however speak a truth very different from this. They tell us, that the same God who “spake in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son,” (Heb. i. 1.) evidently establishing a distinction between the two characters of a Prophet of God, and of the Son of God; and lest the superiority of the Son should be deemed a mere superiority of the office to which He was appointed, we are told that the Son is higher than the angels, being the effulgence of God’s glory, “the express image of His person,” “the God whose throne is for ever and ever,” (Heb. i. 3, &c.) and this high dignity of the Son is alleged as a motive for religious obedience to His commands and for reliance on His promises. It is this indeed which gives such authority to His precepts, and such certainly to His whole doctrine, as render faith in Him the first duty of religion. Had

Matthew 1:19

19. — being a just man.] Being a merciful pious man. Dr. Hammond. The word, translated “just,” admits two senses: the first is “just” in the strictest acceptance, attentive to the rules of equity in our dealings; the second is, “righteous” in the most extensive sense, including every essential part of a good character. Dr. Campbell.

— to put her away privily.] The publick punishment for adultery was stoning, Deut. xxii. 23, 24. Joseph being a just man, that is, according to the style of Scripture, a good, a charitable man, found it was more agreeable to justice to treat an offending person with the easiest sentence, (See Deut. xxiv. 1.) than to put things to extremity. According he purposed to put his spouse away privily, that he might preserve her reputation. In so doing he was a pattern of charity, and reads to us a rule for our deportment towards erring and lapsed persons, that we should treat them with meekness, and pity, and fear; not hastening their shame, nor provoking their spirit, nor making their reformation desperate by harsh treatment. Bp. J. Taylor.

Matthew 1:20

20. — to take unto thee Mary thy wife.] That is, to be married to her according to the Jewish manner of celebrating marriage then in use. She is here called his wife, as he was called her husband, ver. 19. See Deut. xxii, xxiii, xxiv. Bp. Pearce.

Matthew 1:21

21. — his name JESUS.] This name, of Hebrew derivation, signifies “The Saviour,” and eminently belongs to Him who is “the Saviour of the world,” by delivering us both from the power and from the punishment of sin, and putting us in the way of attaining everlasting salvation. Abp. Wake.

Matthew 1:22

22. — that it might be fulfilled &c.] The meaning is, not that the prophecy was the cause or reason why the thing was done, but that the thing done was the means or way, whereby the prophecy was fulfilled and shewn to be true. The phrase is sometimes to be understood, as expressing not the design, but the event only. Bp. Mann.

— which was spoken — by the prophet.] Of this complex prophecy, Isai. vii. 10—16, the Evangelist cites only that part which relates to the miraculous conception and birth of Christ, and is addressed in the plural to the house of David, to assure them of their preservation, inasmuch as the promise made to their