Matthew 1

Division 1. (Matthew 1:1-25; Matthew 2:1-23.)The King, as promised. Naturally, therefore, we begin with the coming of the King Himself, carefully shown in connection with His genealogical title, and the prophecies that announced His higher glory. But these had also foretold His rejection by His people, which begins accordingly at once to be accomplished. The magi from the east bring Him the homage of the Gentiles, but only “trouble” Jerusalem with their loyalty to its King, and the new-born Christ is sought by Herod to be put to death. But this only carries Him to Egypt, where as the Representative of His people He begins anew their history under the eye of God. He is thus called out of it by God to fulfil His predestined course as the Branch of David, netzer, the slip or scion of the fallen house, which, growing up in an obscurity which is once more the presage of rejection, finds its suited place in Netzareth (Nazareth), - small enough to be despised of men, and yet in it all the hope, not merely of David or of Israel, but of the human race. Thus on both sides had the prophets prophesied of Him.

Matthew 1:1-25

Subdivision 1.(Matthew 1:1-25.) Identified as such. In the first subdivision we have the King identified: in the first place by His legal descent; in the second by His supernatural birth. As the King of Israel He needed the one; as the King of the Kingdom of heaven He needed the other. But the King is also in Scripture the representative-head of his people before God, and here is One whose representation of them will be surely of divine significance: it means much for Himself - it means everything for them; thus His name is called Jesus, because He shall save His people from their sins. Section 1.The Lord is introduced in a double character, - as Son of David, and as Son of Abraham. As Son of David He is King of Israel; as Son of Abraham He is not necessarily King at all; but He has a promise of widest blessing, which is on the principle of faith to all the families of the earth. It is not hindered, therefore, by Israel’s rejection of Him and the consequent delay of the Davidic Kingdom: this only affects the expression of it, not the fact; which may even find a higher expression, as it has actually found one in Christianity. Abraham is the depositary of blessing, and therefore with Abraham the genealogy begins. Since title is conveyed by the descent, the stream runs down through the centuries. We find in Luke a very different meaning conveyed by a reverse order: the stream runs back. The style and manner of Scripture have importance as well as its statements, and we may miss the matter by not attending to the manner. The genealogy is divided for us into three parts, which are specially emphasized as consisting of fourteen generations each. The fact that some links in the genealogic chain have to be omitted, in order that there may be just this number, still further shows that there must be importance in it. The number must be itself significant, and probably that of the parts as well as of the generations contained in each. In fact, the first part of the genealogy embraces both the heads of promise - both Abraham and David. The second begins at once with one in whom departure from God manifested itself, one whose heart went after other gods than the One Only God, whose special favor had been shown him. After which there is a general history of decline, three descendants of the apostate murderess, Athaliah, being blotted out of the list altogether; while the Babylonish captivity, which was the giving up of the nation as the openly acknowledged people of God, ends the story in this part. The third part has in it but one significant name, that of Zorobabel; after which the line lapses into utter obscurity. All is ruined and hopeless, save for God, till suddenly by a manifest divine intervention Jesus is born - a true resurrection, which justifies this third part as real numerical symbolism. The genealogy shows the ruin hopeless but to God, in that Joseph, the last of the line here before Christ, is shown by it to be Jeconiah’s son; and against Jeconiah prophecy had denounced (Jeremiah 22:30) that he should be (as to the throne) “childless, . . for no man of his seed should prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” The consequence was pressed, as far back as Irenaeus, that here the direct line of descent is smitten with a curse, while yet it was not deprived of the legal title: it could hand on to another, therefore, that which could be of no advantage to itself. The marriage of Joseph and Mary was, in the wisdom of God, the means of accomplishing this. The Lord’s birth from Mary made Him the real Son of David (Luke 1:32) while the marriage of His mother made Him David’s legal heir.*
The genealogy thus shows the ruin of man in the fullest way, while the grace and power of God are declared abundantly. The number 14, thus stamped upon it three times over, is certainly the number of witness (2) combined with that of completeness (7), if we interpret it by its natural factors; if on the other hand we take the dekatessares (ten-four) of the Greek, then the testing of responsible man is what is indicated; and assuredly that would be the substance of the testimony given by the genealogy all through. It is in fact the testimony of the ages up to Christ, which were the ages of human probation as characterized by that “Old Covenant,” as books of which the records have come down to us. If the common chronology be admitted, its 4,000 years of human history to its centre in the birth of Jesus is only the “ten-four” in a more emphatic way. (10^3x4), while if we apply it to the birth of him of whom our Isaac was the undoubted Antitype, it is the 100 years of Abraham’s age at which, after the utter failure of nature, the promised seed was born, multiplied by 40, the symbol of perfect probation. Thus by different pathways the same result is reached: God has stamped His meaning on all this too deep for erasure. Paul sums it up substantially for us in his declaration that, “when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6). This is the moral on man’s side of preparation for Christ: we have to be brought down, not up, to receive Him; and all God’s previous dealings with man enforce this conclusion. So much then as to the Son of David; but we have still to see Him in this genealogy also as Son of Abraham - the Isaac, therefore, whose name means “laughter;” His advent “glad tidings of great joy which shall be to all people.” In this way we shall find a feature of the register here appeal to us of which as yet we have taken no notice, but which would strike a Jew at once. The presence of women’s names in a genealogy was thoroughly exceptional. As links in the chain of descent they might be needed, as where there were different wives and it was needful to indicate from which of these a title was derived. Now in the first part here there are three women mentioned, of whom two at least cannot be on this account - Rahab and Ruth; which naturally would imply that in the case of the other - Tamar - this was not the reason either. In her case also the twin-birth of Zerah is referred to, as if to remind us of the history connected with her; as, again, in the case of Bathsheba afterwards, who is not called by her name, but as “her of Urias:” which flashes upon us a history worse than Tamar’s, both for the actors and the relationships involved. Indeed these names are not what we should expect in such a list - in a register of descent of the King of Israel - the great King foretold. They are all probably, three certainly, Gentiles; two are Canaanites - of a race under the curse. Here, then, the Abrahamic blessing begins to unfold to us: just in the most indisputable part of the genealogy, where no Jew could contest their right to a place in the ancestry of his Messiah, these women’s names are found. What a light they shed, with all their misery and wretchedness, upon His title as the Son of Abraham! But there is more than this: apart from their birth-heritage, three out of the four are marked out by the sins of their own lives. Tamar, the first of all, actually finds her place here through her sin - her place in connection with the Saviour of sinners! Is it not what we all do? is it not our first claim upon Him that we are sinners and He the Saviour of sinners? Thus we find our title, through His grace, in that which would otherwise drive us to despair, - in that which involves no labor on our part to reach, a title as to which it is not possible to deceive ourselves, which it cannot be presumption on our part to plead.

Would we take our place even with Tamar? Then Tamar’s name given here may be our encouragement - Tamar’s name as one of whom He is not ashamed! The second name is that of Rahab, drawn out of the obscurity in which in the Old Testament her later history is involved, and brought forward in strange connection with a princely family of the house of Judah. As wife of Salmon and mother of Boaz she takes her place here in the genealogy of the Lord; and we may surely say, in view of the epistle to the Hebrews, and the epistle of James, that salvation by faith is the lesson of her history. Thus we have the second great principle of the gospel proclaimed in her. Ruth is morally a very different person from Tamar and Rahab. She is a beautiful example of faith that lives and roots itself against every wind of adversity. We know her history well, for the Spirit of God has dwelt upon it at large for our edification and encouragement: against her, whatever personally she might be, stood the sentence of the law that “an Ammonite or a Moabite shall not come into the congregation of the Lord: even to their tenth generation they shall not come into the congregation of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:3). Thus she is legally excluded from the very people with whom her faith unites her. But grace is sovereign in her case as in every other. She and her children come into the congregation of the Lord. It is interesting to see that in the rigid observance of this law, David himself, only third in succession, would have been excluded, the reign of law would have excluded the saviour-king himself; so also would it have been as to his great Antitype. The only woman that remains at this end of the line is not mentioned by her name but as “her of Uriah,” her history being thus fully, if concisely indicated. In this case grace reigns, even with regard to a saint’s transgression; and this completes the gospel as we find it in the genealogy. The salvation which it brings is for sinners, by faith, apart from law, and eternal. Thus Christ as the Seed of Abraham is fully declared. Mary’s name at the end of the genealogy has another meaning: it shows us Christ as the Seed of the Woman, out of weakness manifesting strength, out of passiveness, the energy of the Overcomer, the Conqueror who with His bruised heel stamps down the serpent. The genealogy of Jesus Christ tells us, therefore, much of Him. It is more than possible that, had we only eyes to see it, every name in this list would prove itself significant, and have its own story to tell in connection with Him. But it is not mine to attempt this: yet of these so carefully numbered generations, I cannot believe there is one that is not worthy of being so cared for. If we had worked believingly in this direction, how would the work have been repaid! 2. But we are now to look at the Lord in another character, in which no genealogy can tell Him out. Here He is Son of God, the suited King of a Kingdom. greater far than that of David, though that of David is included in it. Necessarily then the fact of His divine Sonship has a large place in Matthew, by which this Gospel connects more with John than the other Synoptic Gospels do. The claim of it becomes the great and critical point in His presentation to Israel, and is that which, more than anything else, brings about His rejection. As in the case of the genealogy, however, it is still Joseph who is prominent here. We have his conflict with himself, the visit of the angel to him which dispels his doubts, his marriage and naming of the child by which he accepts it as his own. Joseph is here in all this manifestly what the genealogy makes him, the legal heir of David’s line, and the representative of its hopes and responsibilities. In Luke, the Gospel of the Manhood, it is on the other hand, and as naturally, Mary who is in the forefront, and Joseph is only outlined among the figures in the background. Mary is seen at the beginning in question, if not under reproach. The singular honor which God’s grace has conferred on her, is too great to be received unhesitatingly, even by the people of God themselves. We cannot believe for joy: the thing is too good to be true; the will to believe is not sufficient to accomplish faith. For so far is this from being credulity, that it requires all the more decisive proof, the more that for which we seek it awakens all the desire of our hearts. This is all the truth, (whatever the amount may be) contained in the strong assertion of the poet. - “There lives more faith in honest doubt, Believe me, than in half the creeds:” although the last line can scarcely express his thought accurately. Joseph here, as a righteous man, but in perplexity, thinks of a half measure: he will give her a writing of divorce without statement of the cause, and put her away. But the appearance of an angel to him in a dream resolves his doubt and changes his purpose. It is quite in character with the distance maintained in Matthew’s Gospel, that the angel appears only in a dream. It is so again with the Magi afterwards, and with Joseph himself once more, in Egypt., In Luke, on the contrary, the angel appears openly, to Zacharias as well as to: Mary. The difference does not seem founded upon a personal one, as Zacharias exhibits more unbelief than Joseph. It may be connected with the failure of David’s house, and especially of Jeconiah’s line which Joseph represents; and the blessing comes to him in a veiled form answering to this. Mary is not and could not be of Jeconiah’s line, and his connection with Jesus is only by his marriage with her. Yet grace gives him in this way a place of unspeakable blessing. The angel addresses him as son of David with the confirmatory announcement of the divine origin of the Child that is to be born, and whose work requires no less than a divine Person to perform. His name, Jesus, or Joshua (“Jehovah the Saviour”) is declared to be no mere name, or indicative of some abstract truth, or of some principle to be developed in relation to His history. Nay, Jehovah’s people are His people, and He therefore is Jehovah and Saviour, He is the full reality of His name: “He shall save His people from their sins.” Prophecy had already declared the wondrous truth as to His Person; the primal one as to the woman’s Seed had been supplemented by one more distinct which plainly referred to it and filled it out. “The virgin” of Isaiah, who was to be with child, and whose Son was to be called Emmanuel, points back to and defines what had long been a hope in the hearts of men. The woman’s Seed would indeed be that, without the co-partnership with man ordained by the Creator for the continuance of the race; and this by no mere miracle which would still leave the child to be a man merely, though of superhuman birth. No: his name Emmanuel would be the explanation of the unique fact; “God” would in Him be “with us;” which the angel’s words declare to mean “Jehovah,” come to deliver us from that which was the necessary barrier to intimacy, and in Himself to bring God and man together! And Emmanuel is distinctly in the prophecy the King of David’s line, upon whose shoulder the government should be (Isaiah 9:5-6). We see that the prophecy belongs rather to Matthew’s picture of the Lord than John’s, as we might have thought it; although evidently these come near together here. As King He is at once the Representative of His people, and “Mighty God” who as “Father of eternity”* shall settle all things upon everlasting foundations - Power alone cannot accomplish this: God must become man, the King must be crowned with thorns and be the Saviour. The whole circle of truth is needed here: the Highest must become the lowest; it is His glory: only the Highest could come down so low.
Joseph, awaked out of His sleep, does as the angel of the Lord has bidden him, and takes his wife. The divine intervention does not set aside the Creator’s ordinance, nor God put His seal upon human asceticism. Judaism, in fact, knew nothing of this dishonor done to the God of nature. The Child is born and named; and “David in spirit” once more calls his Son his Lord.