Matthew 1

“THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW”

Chapter One Matthew begins his gospel with the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph. Thus he shows the royal lineage of Jesus from David, one of the first things required to convince a Jewish audience that Jesus qualified to be the Messiah (Matthew 1:1-17; cf. Matthew 22:41-42). The birth of Jesus is then described, with the announcement of the angel to Joseph, and the protection of her virginity until His birth (Matthew 1:18-25).

POINTS TO PONDER

• The genealogy, comparing it with the one in Luke’ s gospel

• The prophecies of Isaiah and the angel regarding the virgin birth

• The significance of the names given to the child born of Mary

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- The genealogy of Jesus Christ - Matthew 1:1-17- The birth of Jesus Christ - Matthew 1:18-25
2. Whose genealogy is given by Matthew? (Matthew 1:1)

• Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham

3. What four women are included in this genealogy? (Matthew 1:3 Matthew 1:5-6)

• Tamar
• Rahab
• Ruth
• The wife (Bathsheba) of Uriah

4. What was the initial relationship between Joseph and Mary? (Matthew 1:18)

• Betrothed (engaged)

5. When and how did Mary become pregnant? (Matthew 1:18)

• Before she and Joseph came together
• From the Holy Spirit (cf. Luke 1:26-35)

6. What two names would be given the child, and what do they mean?(Matthew 1:21-23)

• Jesus (savior); Immanuel (God with us)

7. What scripture in the OT was fulfilled by the virgin birth of Christ?(Matthew 1:22-23)

• That written by Isaiah in Isaiah 7:14

8. How long did Joseph wait until he knew Mary as his wife? (Matthew 1:25)

• Until she had given birth to her son (Jesus)

Matthew 1:1-25 Matthew 1

THE AND BIRTH OF CHRIST; THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

Matthew 1:1-17 This genealogy is quite unlike that in Luke 3:1-38. Labored efforts to reconcile the two generally lead to suppositions concerning Levirate marriages in which the issue had two fathers (the legal and the actual), and also to various renditions of the same name, and other devices pressed into service for the purpose of achieving a “harmony”! Perhaps the best, and certainly the simplest, reconciliation of these two lists is to view Matthew’s account as the ancestry of Joseph, and Luke’s genealogy as the record of Mary’s ancestry. Two separate genealogies of Jesus Christ are absolutely necessary in the establishment of the Christ, first as the blood descendant of David, and secondly, as the legal heir to the royal throne of the Hebrews. Matthew shows Christ as the legal heir to the throne by tracing his ancestry down through the royal line of the kings of Israel.

Luke’s genealogy is utterly different, because it is not concerned with title to a throne but with the blood ancestry of Jesus. The only real difficulty in this view is the statement in Luke 3:23 that Joseph is the “son of Heli.” R. A. Torrey stated that “Joseph’s name is introduced into this place instead of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband. Heli was Joseph’s father-in-law; and so Joseph was called “the son of Heli.” While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, he was, according to the flesh, actually the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16).[11] This type of double entry was not confusing to the Jews, for a woman’s name did not usually stand in the tables of genealogy. The term “son” as used in such tables actually had three different meanings: (1) son by actual birth; (2) son-in-law; and (3) son by creation, as in the case of Adam (Luke 3:38).

There is no evidence that the names Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in the two lists refer to the same individuals. It would be just as reasonable to suppose that the two Eliakims refer to the same man. The Jews, as do all peoples, used the same names over and over. There are two each of the following names in the Luke account of the 76 generations from Christ to Adam: Cainan, Matthat, Melchi, Levi, Joseph, Mattathias, and Jesus!

The two genealogies of Jesus also clear up another point. The prophecy in Jeremiah 22:30 forbade any descendant of Jechoniah ever to sit upon the throne of David. Therefore, if Jesus had actually been the literal fleshly descendant of “Coniah,” as he was called, it would have countermanded his claim upon the throne due to the prophecy, Joseph, Jesus’ foster father, however, could lawfully transfer his right to the throne to his legal son, Jesus Christ! Thus, Jesus was the legal son with right to the throne of David through Jechoniah, and he was the literal blood-son of David through Nathan, the ancestor of Mary, Jesus’ mother. How marvelous are the ways of the Lord. Again, from Torrey, “As we study these two genealogies, we find that so far from constituting a reason for doubting the accuracy of the Bible, they are rather a confirmation of the minutest accuracy of that Book … We need no longer stumble over the fact of there being two genealogies, but discover and rejoice in the deep meaning of the fact that there are two."[12]

[11] R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907), p. 102.

[12] Ibid., p. 103.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1) The book of the generation. The true meaning of this appears in a glance at various renditions in some of the versions and translations: “The book of the origin of Jesus Christ”[13] (Catholic); “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ” (RSV);[14] “Register of the lineage of Jesus Christ” (Emphatic Diaglott);[15] “The ancestry of Jesus Christ” (Goodspeed);[16] “The family tree of Jesus Christ” (Williams);[17] “The birth roll of Christ” (Moffatt).[18]

The son of David. Jesus was the literal son of David through Mary, a descendant of Nathan, one of David’s sons, as in Luke’s genealogy. Jesus was the legal son and heir of David through King Solomon as in Matthew’s genealogy. He was also the antitypical son of David in that many parallels exist between the life of our Lord and that of King David. Both were born in Bethlehem. David’s struggle with Goliath answers to Christ’s struggle with Satan.

In both cases, it was the enemy’s own weapon which was used to destroy him (Hebrews 2:14). Both David and Christ were sent by their father with a message to the brethren. Both were rejected. David was, in a sense, a mediator between the of Israel and the Philistines; Christ is the one Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). Matthew considered it of great importance to identify Jesus Christ as the Son of David, a popular designation for the Messiah; and he does so in the very first verse of his gospel.

The son of Abraham. Jesus was the “son of Abraham” in the following senses: (1) He was the “seed” of promise (Galatians 3:16). (2) He was the legal son and heir through Isaac, son of the free woman, as distinguished from Ishmael, son of the slave woman. (3) He was literally descended from Abraham through Mary and her ancestors. (4) He was the antitype of Isaac. As in the case of David, there are also sharp contrasts between the life of Abraham and that of Christ. Abraham gave up his wife to Abimelech in order to procure his own safety, or so he thought; but Jesus gave himself up to die for his bride, the church (Genesis 20:2 and Ephesians 5:25).

[13] Roman Catholic Testament.

[14] Revised Standard Version.

[15] Emphatic Diaglott.

[16] Goodspeed, New Testament in Modern Speech.

[17] Williams, The New Testament.

[18] Moffatt, The New Testament.

Verse 3 Of Tamar. Tamar’s name in the Old Testament (Genesis 38:1-30) is remembered for her having been twice the daughter-in-law of Judah, and later, by means of a deception, his wife also. It was with reference to her that Onan refused to raise up seed to his brother; and the Roman Catholic superstition concerning birth control is founded on this incident in the life of Onan and Tamar. Paul Blanchard’s comment on this is:

Onan, not wishing to give his brother credit for paternity under the system of Jewish law, “spilled” his seed on the ground, whereupon “God slew him also.” If this story has any moral, it is that all men who refuse to marry their brothers’ widows should be killed. Indeed, that was the moral of the original story, since the Levirate law laid down the rule for the Jews that a man inheriting his brother’s cattle and lands should also cohabit with his deceased brother’s wife or wives and raise a direct heir for his brother’s property. Onan’s primary sin was the defiance of a property law of ancient Jews, a law that was abandoned at least 2,000 years ago! … Catholic theologians, lacking any Scriptural authority for their extreme position on birth control, have taken this ancient story of Onan, distorted its meaning by declaring that Jehovah slew Onan for his “coitus interruptus,” and inflated this “interpretation” into a whole system of social hygiene for the 20th Century.[19]

ENDNOTE: [19] Paul Blanchard, American Freedom and Catholic Power (Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press), pp. 138-139.

Verse 4 Ram. This is the same as “Arni” (Luke 3:33). Also, it should be noted that several names are possibly omitted from this list of generations from Abraham to David. McGarvey pointed out that from the appearance of Rahab in the line, “There are 366 years for the time between this event and the birth of David?[20] Obviously, therefore, only the most noted of intervening ancestors are given in the tables. This was, of course, a procedure well known to the Jews and fully acceptable to them in every way. Even the enemies of Christianity never disputed these genealogies during the times when they were available as public records of the Jews.

ENDNOTE: [20] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Nashville, Tennessee: The Gospel Advocate Company), p. 16.

Verse 5 Rahab … Ruth. Rahab is identified with the woman of that name who was a harlot on the walls of Jericho (Joshua 2:1). Ruth appears in Scripture as one of the sweetest and truest of womankind ever to live upon the earth. She, like Rahab, was a Gentile. The Book of Ruth recounts her remarkable story.

Verse 6 … wife of Uriah. It is a marvel, in the providence of God, that this guilty and unfortunate wife of Uriah the Hittite should have found a place in the Lord’s ancestry; however, her first child was not permitted to live. David’s sin with her constitutes one of the saddest events in the Old Testament. Like the two women in Matthew 1:5, she was presumably a Gentile.

Verse 7 And Joram begat Uzziah. Here are skipped some names in the ancestry, as will be seen by a glance at 2 Kings 8:26 ff. This was a common practice of the keepers of genealogical records in those days. Verse 17 Fourteen generations. This is an artificial grouping of the names to make possible their easier retention by the memory. It will be noted that Jechoniah is counted twice, being the end of the second grouping and also the beginning of the third and final grouping. McGarvey’s view is typical of many. He said, “Matthew, seeing there were just 14 names in the preceding division, desired for the sake of aiding the memory, to have the same number in the next one."[21] Matthew had Scriptural precedent for this, to say nothing of his inspiration. Ezra, in giving his own genealogy, omits six names in a single group. This will appear in a comparison of Ezr 7:1-2 with 1 Chronicles 6:6-11.

ENDNOTE: [21] Ibid., p. 16.

Verse 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. The Virgin Birth: Christ was born of Mary without the aid of the natural processes of generation. This is a prominent and essential teaching of the Christian religion. To give up the doctrine of the virgin birth is to sacrifice the integrity of the gospel authors, the convictions of the apostolic church, and the entire premise of supernatural religion as revealed in the Holy Bible. Apart from Jesus Christ, the virgin birth seems difficult to believe; however, considered with reference to his own blessed Person, the miracle of his birth appears less as a marvel and more as a necessity. The great miracle of the New Testament is not the virgin birth, or walking on the water, or the resurrection of Christ, but JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF! The phenomenon of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, not only admits but demands just such an entry into this world of human life as that revealed in the virgin birth. “The Word” (John 1:1) has existed from all eternity, but the marvel is that he should consent to become a man at all, not that he should pass through the processes of conception and birth as well.

Furthermore, in normal procreation, the union of a man and a woman always produces a NEW LIFE. Christ’s life was not new but had existed from before the beginning of the creation.

In truth, it can hardly be imagined just HOW God could enter the world of human life in any other way than that depicted in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ conception in the womb of the virgin Mary is not more wonderful, really, than any other conception; it is merely different. In fact, it is unique; but it was not more difficult on the part of God for this to happen than for any other baby to he born. Wonderful benefits accrue to mankind as a result of the virgin birth. His birth accomplished the following: (1) It honored and elevated womanhood to a place of dignity, honor, and respect, hitherto unknown on earth. (2) It virtually destroyed infanticide by revealing the sanctity of embryonic life. (3) It has emphasized absolute chastity as one of the highest virtues in both men and women. (4) It has glorified motherhood as a state of purity and honor every whit as righteous and desirable as virginity. Concerning the infancy of Jesus Christ, Spurgeon said:

Is he not rightly called Wonderful? Infinite and an infant! Eternal, yet born of a woman! Almighty, and yet hanging on a woman’s breast! Supporting the universe, yet needing to be carried on a mother’s arm! King of Angels, and yet the reputed son of Joseph! Heir of all things, and yet the carpenter’s despised son! Wonderful art thou, O Jesus! And that shall be thy name forever?[22]

Betrothed … before they came together. In those times, betrothal was legally equivalent to marriage, and adultery during the period of waiting was punishable by death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). That this law was still practiced in the day of Christ is shown by John 8:5.

By the Holy Spirit. Matthew leaves no room for misunderstanding of this important point. Mary’s conception was the work of the Holy Spirit of God and must therefore be understood as the most holy and sacred occurrence that can possibly be imagined!

ENDNOTE: [22] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sermons, Volume 5 (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company), p. 20.

Verse 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. As Joseph thought on these things, his desire was to show mercy to one who appeared, in his eyes, to be guilty of sin. The noble character of Joseph who desired to shield Mary under those circumstances is most commendable. He was of a different kind from those in the present day who delight to expose what they fancy to be the sins of others. In Joseph was fulfilled the word of the Lord which declares that “He that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter” (Proverbs 11:13).

Verse 20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. An angel of the Lord This is perhaps the same angel whose name is given in Luke 1:19; Luke 1:26; if so, he is Gabriel. The existence of angels affords no difficulty for Christians. The Scriptures abound with the deeds of angels. Angels announced the birth of Christ, ministered to Jesus in the wilderness of temptations, strengthened him in the garden of Gethsemane, and escorted him to glory. Angels appeared and spoke at his resurrection (Matthew 28:5), at his ascension (Acts 1:11), to Cornelius (Acts 10:3), to Philip (Acts 8:26), and to Peter (Acts 12:7). The scholarly Robert Milligan summarizes the functions of angels as follows: (1) to frustrate the wiles of Satan (Jude 1:1-16); (2) to punish wicked men (Genesis 19:1-26; 2 Kings 19:35; Acts 12:23); (3) to preside over the councils of princes and governments (Daniel 10:20-21; Daniel 11:1; Daniel 12:1); (4) to aid providentially in bringing men to repentance (Acts 10:1-8); (5) to take care of living saints (Hebrews 1:14; 2 Kings 6:15-23; Psalms 34:7; Psalms 91:11; Daniel 3:25-28; Daniel 6:22; Matthew 18:10; Acts 5:19; Acts 12:7); (6) to comfort dying saints and to bear their souls home to glory (Luke 16:22).[23] To Milligan’s six works assigned to angels, we may add a seventh if we include the work of angels in keeping God’s “little book,” the New Testament, available or “open” to humanity (Revelation 10:1-11).

ENDNOTE: [23] Robert Milligan, Commentary on Hebrews (Nashville: World Vision Publishing Company), pp. 73-74.

Verse 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. This was not an unusual name among the Jews, the name appearing both as Jesus and as Joshua. The word “Christ” means Messiah; hence, in the confession of faith, the believer affirms that he believes that “Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God,” as did Peter in Matthew 16:16. In all ordinary cases, parents do not name their children before they are born, seeing that the question of their sex is not determined until after birth; however, an angel of the Lord announced Jesus’ name along with the news of his conception!

Verse 22 Now all this came to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. The question of whether Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) fully understood this as applying to the virgin birth of Christ is irrelevant. God’s great prophets did not always know the true meaning of the words God gave them. Peter did not know the full meaning of what he prophesied on Pentecost (Acts 2:38-39); and a miracle was required later (Acts 10:1-48) to convince Peter that the Gentiles should be permitted entry into the church. See 1 Peter 1:11-12. In this verse, Matthew uses for the first time an expression found ten times in his gospel and nowhere else in the New Testament, “that it might be fulfilled, etc.” That the virgin birth is clearly included in Isaiah’s prophecy is certain. Matthew declares it IN.

The fact that the rabbis and Pharisees had overlooked it is only an indication of spiritual blindness on their part. This beautiful prophecy not only reveals the virgin birth but also sets forth the dual nature of Christ. His name means “God with us!” but his diet is that of a man, “butter and honey”; Here, then, is the GOD-MAN in prophecy!

Verse 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth a son; and he called his name JESUS. This verse has a bearing on the so-called doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary’s virginity BEFORE the birth of Christ is a valid Christian doctrine, bearing the seal of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of the apostles, and Christ, and commending itself to the redeemed of all ages; but her so-called virginity AFTER the birth of Christ is a monstrous superstition, without Scriptural sanction, indeed opposed to the New Testament, and refuted by several urgent considerations both practical and theological. It is here stated that Joseph knew her not “till” she had brought forth a son. This implies that the relationship of Joseph to his wife Mary, after the birth of Christ, was altogether that of any normal husband and wife. Indeed, how else should the other sons of Mary have been born? Matthew 13:55 gives the names of four of Jesus’ brothers and even mentions his sisters.

It is no refutation of these facts to quibble about other possible uses of the word “till” or the word “brothers”! The mere fact that a word CAN have other meanings does not prove that it DOES have any other meaning than the obvious and ordinary meaning implicit in the terse language of Matthew’s gospel. Catholic commentaries, and even the footnotes in their New Testament, cast eager reflections against the ordinary meaning of these passages; but, concerning all such insinuations against the truth, men need only to remember that God’s word is not vitiated by such quibbles.

As reflecting further light on the question of Mary’s virginity, whether perpetual or not, the statement in Luke 2:7 is also pertinent. “She brought forth her son, etc.” This terminology also suggests that Mary bore other sons, otherwise Christ should have been called her “only” son. The sacred Scriptures make the truth quite plain. Christ is called the “only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18) and the “firstborn son” of Mary! (Luke 2:7). It takes a very unskilled and naive student of the Bible to suppose that the Holy Spirit actually meant that Christ was the “only begotten son of Mary” as well as the “only begotten of the Father”; and that the Holy Spirit merely used the wrong word in referring to him as the “firstborn” of Mary!

The entire superstition regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary is actually founded on a misunderstanding, a groundless assumption, namely, that the perpetual virginity of Mary, even if it could be proved, would add the slightest luster to the crown of Mary’s glory. It would do no such thing. The Bible does not elevate virginity as a state above Christian motherhood. To suppose Mary’s virginity throughout her life would be to suppose that she defrauded Joseph her husband, contrary to the conjugal duty owed to him (1 Corinthians 7:2-3). We cannot believe that Mary did this. A Christian mother is every whit as holy as any virgin, perpetual or not.

For hos, no celibate, male or female, can compare with Christian parents. As Paul expressed it, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4 KJV). Then why pretend that the marriage bed IS defiled and strive to “protect” the virgin Mary from such man-imputed defilement? Commentary By J.W. McGarvey On Matthew One Genealogy of Jesus, Matthew 1:1-17 Title of the List, 11. The book.—The expression with which this narrative opens—“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ”—is not the title of the entire narrative, for as such it would be inadequate; but it is the title of the genealogical list which follows. (See a similar use of the word book, Genesis 5:1.) The title shows both the nature of the list and its object. It is the genealogy of Jesus, and its object is to show that He is “son of David, son of Abraham.” God had promised to each of these patriarchs that the Christ should be of his offspring, and Matthew shows by this list that Jesus is the offspring of both. The term book is without the article in the original, and should have the indefinite article in English. It is not called the book, as if there were no other, but a book. Another, differing materially from this, is preserved in the third chapter of Luke.

the generation.—The Greek term rendered generation (γένεσις) has here the unusual sense of genealogy. It designates the line of ancestry through which the fleshly nature of Jesus was generated. (Comp. Romans 1:3, in the original.)

First Division, Matthew 1:2-6. (Luke 3:31-34) 2. Abraham begat.—In pursuance of the object indicated in the title, Matthew proceeds first to reproduce from the Old Testament records the line of descent from Abraham to David. This he may have taken either from the list given in 1 Chronicles 1:34 to 1 Chronicles 2:15, or from the original history of the persons found in Genesis and Ruth. (See Genesis 21:1-3; Genesis 25:21-26; Genesis 19:35; Genesis 38:29; Rth 4:18-21.)

3. of Thamar.—Contrary to the usual custom of omitting names of females from genealogical tables, Matthew here mentions Tamar as the mother of Pharez, and, in verse 5, Ruth, as the mother of Obed. He also states the fact, nowhere else mentioned in the Scriptures, that Salmon begat Booz of Rachab— that is, as understood by the commentators in general, of Rahab the harlot. (Comp. Joshua 2:1-21; Joshua 6:22-25.) These three females, together with Bathsheba (verse 6), are mentioned because of remarkable peculiarities in their history. The Gentile origin of Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; the singular incest of the first (Genesis 38:12-26); the depraved life but subsequent remarkable faith of the second (Joshua 2:8-11; Hebrews 11:31); and the virtues of the third, so remarkable for one of heathen education, combined to render them objects of especial interest to the Jews when remembered as maternal ancestors of David and his royal offspring. It was equally worthy of note that Bathsheba, the guilty and unfortunate wife of Uriah (2 Samuel 11, 12.), became, in the mysterious workings of God’s providence, the mother of the heirs of David’s throne. That all of these women were among the maternal ancestors of Jesus, was equally worthy of notice, and is in keeping with his mission as the Savior of both Jews and Gentiles, and of the most sinful in both classes who can be brought to repentance.

5, 6. Salmon… David.—Commentators have long noted the singular circumstance that David is named as the fourth in descent from Salmon the husband of Rahab, although the time between the mention of Rahab and the birth of David Isaiah 366 years. The time is ascertained by the following calculation: From the departure out of Egypt to the founding of Solomon’s temple was 480 years. (1 Kings. 6:1.) Counting back from this event to the birth of David, we have four years of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings. 6:1.), the forty years of David’s reign (1 Kings. 2:11), and the thirty years of David’s life before he came to the throne (2 Samuel 5:4)— making an aggregate of seventy-four years to be deducted from the 480, and leaving 406. From this number we again subtract the forty years between the exode and Rahab’s appearance in the history, which leaves 366 years for the time between this event and the birth of David. Now if we suppose that Salmon took Rahab to wife during the same year in which she was delivered from the destruction of Jericho, and that Boaz was born the following year, we have 365 years to divide between three generations. This would require, on the supposition of a division about equal, that Boaz should have been 122 years old at the birth of Obed, Obed 122 at the birth of Jesse, and Jesse 121 at the birth of David.

These figures are altogether improbable, unions we suppose a providence even more remarkable than that connected with the birth of Isaac when his father was 100 years old— a supposition not to be adopted in the absence of indubitable proof. Some writers, to avoid the difficulty involved in these figures, have suggested that the Rahab here mentioned may have been some other than the harlot of Jericho; but this affects not the case materially, for Salmon, being son of Nahshon, captain of the tribe of Judah at the beginning of the forty years of wandering (Numbers 1:7), must have been cotemporary with Rahab of Jericho; and if the Rahab of our text is a different woman, still the birth of her son Boaz must have occurred not much later than the time above mentioned. We think there is no reason to doubt the opinion of the best recent commentators, that some names are omitted in this place, the more noted ones alone being retained. This opinion becomes a necessity if, as is not unlikely, it be found that the true chronology of this period is that given by Paul in Acts 13:18-20. He makes it 450 years from the entrance into Canaan to the reign of Saul, and Saul’s reign commenced ten years before the birth of David. (Acts 13:21. Compare 2 Samuel 5:4.) This gives 460 years, instead of 366, between Rahab and David, all of which must be divided as above— making Boaz, Obed, and Jesse each 153½ years old at the birth of his son, unless we suppose some of the generations to have been omitted.

If such omissions have occurred, they were made by the author of the book of Ruth. The bearing of omissions on the correctness of genealogies is considered below under verses 8 and 11.

Second Division, Matthew 1:6-11. (Luke 3:27-31)The names in this division of the list are derived from the history of the persons as given in the two books of Kings and Second Chronicles, or from the list in 1 Chronicles 3:10-19. We know not that the Jews had any other records which could have furnished the information; and if they had, the Scriptures would still be naturally preferred by Matthew as being more accessible and more authoritative.

8. Joram begat Ozias.—Between Joram and Ozias, called in the Old Testament Uzziah and Azariah, Matthew omits three names which are in the text from which he copied. These are: Ahaziah, son and successor of Joram (2 Chronicles 22:1); Joash, son and successor of Ahaziah (22:11; 24:1); and Amaziah, son and successor of Joash (24:27). Thus Uzziah, here said to have been begotten by Joram, was actual son of Amaziah, and was in the fourth generation of descent from Joram.

This omission gives rise to three important inquiries: First. Does it vitiate the list? Second. How can it be true that Joram begat Uzziah? Third. Why was the omission made? We will discuss these questions in their order.

First. If it had been Matthew’s object to give a full list of the ancestry of Jesus, or if his object had required a full list, the omission would certainly impair the value of the list given, and would tend to shake our confidence in his accuracy. But neither of these suppositions is true. Matthew’s object was logical rather than historical Desiring to prove Jesus to be a son of David, he uses the history of David’s posterity exclusively with reference to this purpose. Now, in order to prove a man a descendant of a certain other, it is not always necessary to name all of the intervening persons in the line. If I could show, for example, by authentic records, that my grandfather was a grandson of Christopher Columbus, I would thereby prove my own lineal descent from the great discoverer, even though I should not be able to furnish the other two names in the list.

Or if the entire line of descent were published in the history of my country, I would be at liberty, in stating my proof, to mention my connection with any one or more of the names, leaving my reader to test my accuracy, if he chose to do so, by means of the published records. This is Matthew’s case. In proving that Jesus descended from David, it is immaterial how many names he omits, provided those which he gives are correct: for the list from which he copied is three times repeated in the Jewish Scriptures, and the means of testing his accuracy were in the possession of every synagogue throughout the world. Any Jew who desired to see whether the names in this division of the list actually belonged to it, had only to open his own Bible, whether written in Hebrew or in Greek, and read for himself.

Second. As to the statement that Joram begat Uzziah, if we judge according to our own use of the term begat, we must pronounce it untrue. But the language of every nation and of every period must be understood in the light of its own peculiar usages. Now, it so happens that genealogical terms were used by the Jews in a much wider sense than by ourselves. For example, in describing Jacob’s family at the time of going into Egypt, Moses names the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Leah, and then says: “These be the sons of Leah which she bore to Jacob in Padan-Aram.” (Genesis 46:8-15.) Here the term sons is used to include persons of the second and third generations of descendants, and Leah is said to have borne persons who were actually borne by her daughters-in-law and the wives of her grandsons. These terms are used again in the same sense concerning the offspring of Zilpah, of Rachel, and of Bilhah (18, 22, 25).

Again, in the twenty-sixth verse of the same chapter, it is said of the same offspring, “All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which come out of his loins, all the souls were three-score and six.” Here all are said to have come out of Jacob’s loins, another mode of saying that he begat them, although grandsons and great grandsons are included. These are the most striking examples of the kind which I have been able to find in the Scriptures, but there are many others which show that all the terms expressive of kindred were used by the Hebrews in a wider sense than by us.

For example, Laban calls Jacob his brother, whereas we would call him his nephew (Genesis 29:15); Jacob calls Abraham his father, whereas we would call him his grandfather (32:9); Mephibosheth, the grandson of Saul, is called his son (2 Samuel 19:24; comp. 9:6); and Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, and granddaughter of Omri, is called the daughter of Omri (2 Chronicles 21:6; comp. 22:2). Such examples abound in the Old Testament, and are familiar to every careful student of the Scriptures. They originated from the sparsity of words in the Hebrew language, requiring that one word should serve a variety of purposes. The language had no such compound terms as grandson, granddaughter, etc., but used the simple terms son and daughter, leaving the reader to gather from the context the exact relationship. In like manner, as we have seen above, a woman was said to bear all who descended from her, and a man to beget all who descended from him. It is a singular circumstance, that although we have discarded this extended use of the word beget, we have never found a single word to substitute for it, but have to employ a periphrasis, and say a certain one was the progenitor or the ancestor of another. Matthew speaks strictly in accordance with the usage of his own nation, then, when he says, “Joram begat Uzziah;” and the statement is strictly true in the sense which he attaches to the term begat.

Third. Having thus far considered those objections to the omission which arise from a peculiar use of terms, and from a failure to notice the author’s exact purpose in giving the genealogy, we proceed next to inquire as to his object in making the omission. It certainly must have been made intentionally; for it is scarcely possible, leaving his inspiration out of view, that Matthew could have accidentally omitted three names in one group; and if he had done so, it is equally unlikely that the mistake would have remained uncorrected. Both friend and foe, so far as the Jewish Scriptures were known, would have detected the error, and have demanded a correction. It is equally certain that Matthew was not prompted to the omission by a desire to deceive, or by any other evil motive. He had no motive for deception, seeing that his object as regards the claims of Christ could have been secured as well, to say the least, by retaining the names as by omitting them; and even if he had had this, or any other evil motive, the omission was too easily detected to be ventured upon for an improper purpose.

It is also a fact that he had a precedent for such omissions in his own Bible: for Ezra, in giving his own genealogy as proof of his descent from Aaron, omits six names in a single group. (Ezekiel 7:1-3; comp. 1 Chronicles 6:6-11.) The candid reader will now acquit Matthew of the slightest suspicion of having omitted these names in order to gain any improper advantage, or because he was not aware of their existence. Why, then, did he omit them?

The only answer we can give to this question is one which must appear somewhat inadequate to the modern mind, because we have been so differently educated, or rather because we have not been at all educated on the subject of genealogies. It is this: Seeing there were just fourteen names in the preceding division, that from Abraham to David, he desired, for the sake of aiding the memory, to have the same number in this division. By leaving out the three which we have been considering, and one yet to be mentioned (verse 11), he secured the requisite number. The importance of adopting all innocent devices to aid the memory is realized when we remember that the only means of learning the Scriptures which the masses enjoyed in that age was hearing them read in public. Moreover, the disciples had constant use in their disputations with the Jews for the genealogy of Jesus, and this furnished a special call for some aid to the memory in this case. If it be objected to this, that such a purpose could not justify a mode of writing which would puzzle Bible readers of subsequent ages, we reply that none are puzzled who approach the subject aright, and that God has seen fit to so construct the Bible as to call forth the best efforts of its readers in seeking to understand some of its parts. That he is wise in doing so is seen in the fact that such efforts are highly beneficial to those who make them, securing a blessing to every diligent student of the Bible which well repays him for all his toil.

11. Josias begat Jechonias.—Between Josiah and Jechoniah Matthew omits another name, that of Jehoiakim. When Josiah was slain in battle at Megiddo, the people elected his son Jehoahaz to be his successor, but Pharaoh-necho, who had then overrun Judea, removed him and put his brother Eliakim on the throne, changing his name to Jehoiakim. Jechoniah was the son and successor of Jehoiakim, and consequently was grandson to Josiah. (See 2 Kings 23:29-31; 2 Kings 24:6.) All that we have said above in reference to the omissions in verse 8 is applicable to this omission.

and his brethren.—These were probably not brethren of Jechonias, in our sense of the term, but the kindred of the young king, called in the text of 2 Kings his “princes,” and here called his brethren in that broad sense of the term peculiar to Hebrew usage. (See 2 Kings 24:12.)

Third Division, Matthew 1:12-16. (Luke 3:23-27)Only three of the names in this division of the list are found in the Old Testament, viz: Jechoniah, Salathiel, and Zerubbabel. This is because the Old Testament history terminated in the days of Zerubbabel, who was a cotemporary of Nehemiah, the latest historical writer of that Testament. True, there are a few items of history in Nehemiah’s book reaching down to a later period, but they were appended by a later hand, e. g., Nehemiah 12:22. It is also true that five sons of Zerubbabel are mentioned in 1 Chin. 19, 20, but Abiud, the son mentioned in this list, is not among them, unless he appears there under a different name. He was more likely a younger son, born after the latest additions to the list in Chronicles. All of Matthew’s list, therefore, from Abiud to the immediate ancestors of Joseph, who were known to Matthew without the aid of written records, was derived from records made subsequent to the close of Old Testament history.

If we suppose that Jacob, the father of Joseph, was known to Matthew, the number which he derived from such records was eight, including Abiud and the seven between him and Jacob. That such records were kept is attested by Josephus, himself an enemy of Christ and therefore not to be suspected of manufacturing history to support the Christian Scriptures. In the first section of his autobiography, after tracing his ancestry back to his grandfather’s father, he says: “Thus have I set down the genealogy of my family as I found it described in the public records.” He further asserts in his book against Appian (B. i. 8, 7), “We have the names of our high priests from father to son, set down in our records for the interval of two thousand years;” and still further, he says that when a priest proposed to marry, in order to be sure that his intended wife is of pure Jewish blood, “he is to make a scrutiny, and take his wife’s genealogy from the ancient tables, and procure many witnesses to it.” This shows that not only the priestly family, but other families kept their genealogies; for if not, how could the priest trace the ancestry of any woman whom he might wish to marry? The necessity for keeping such tables grew out of the Mosaic law of inheritance, which transmitted landed estates from father to son throughout all generations, and which, even when lands were sold, restored them to the original owner every fiftieth year. (See Numbers 27:1-11; Numbers 36:1-12; Leviticus 25:23-28.) Joseph, indeed, was in the very act of continuing his family record when Jesus was born; for the journey from Nazareth was for the purpose of enrolment, not of taxation. (See Luke 2:4-5.) The public record in our own country of all marriages, and in Great Britain of both marriages and births, as also the private records kept in family Bibles, are modern substitutes for the ancient Jewish custom.

12. Jechonias begat Salathiel.—Jechoniah was on the throne at the time of the captivity, and in predicting his captivity the prophet Jeremiah used these words: “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, or ruling any more in Judah.” (Jeremiah 22:30.) Some have supposed from this that there is a contradiction between Jeremiah and Matthew. An attempt has been made to reconcile them by supposing that Neri, mentioned in Luke’s list as father of Salathiel, was his actual father, and that Matthew calls him the son of Jechoniah because Neri took Jechoniah’s widow, according to a provision of the law. and raised up seed i to his brother. But this is a labored attempt to remove a difficulty which has no real existence. Jeremiah does not say that Jechoniah should be literally childless, but he says, “Write this man childless,” and then explains by the statement, “for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling any more in Judah.” He was to be childless only in the sense of having no son to succeed him on the throne. It should also be observed that Matthew is not alone responsible for the statement that Jechoniah begat Salathiel, for the same statement is made by the author of Chronicles, who was, doubtless, Ezra, a cotemporary of both Salathiel and Zerubbabel. (1 Chronicles 3:17.)

Salathiel begat Zorobabel.—In 1 Chronicles 3:19, Zerubbabel is represented as the son of Pedaiah, and not of Salathiel, as Matthew here has it; but Ezra and Nehemiah both agree with Matthew; and their statements occur in historical passages which are not so liable to corruption through mistakes of transcribers, as are genealogical tables like that in Chronicles. (See Ezekiel 3:2; Nehemiah 12:1.) Luke also follows these two writers instead of Chronicles. (Luke 3:27.) This uniform agreement of all the parallel passages renders it almost certain that the passage in Chronicles has undergone an accidental change by the hands of transcribers, Pedaiah having been written in the place of Salathiel. The present reading of Chronicles is also that of the Septuagint version, made two hundred and eighty years before Christ which shows that the reading is quite an ancient one.

13. Zorobabel begat Abiud —As above stated, the name of Abiud is not given in the Old Testament, although five other sons of Zerubbabel are mentioned. Some writers have conjectured that Abiud is another name for some one of these, but the greater probability is that he was a younger son. At any rate, Matthew must have had a sufficient reason for giving us Abiud, seeing that either of the names mentioned in Chronicles would have suited him as well if it had been the true name.

The Divisions Stated, Matthew 1:1717. fourteen generations.—We have already considered the list in three divisions, because Matthew himself so divides it in this verse. The divisions are not arbitrary, but altogether natural. The persons in the first, from Abraham to David, were Patriarchs, David being the first in the entire line who was both a patriarch and a king. (See Acts 2:29.) Those of the second were all kings, successors of David, Jechoniah being the last king of Judah in the direct line of descent from David, although his brother Zedekiah reigned eleven years after he and the chief part of the royal family had been carried into captivity. (2 Kings 24:15-18.) Those of the third division were all heirs of David’s throne, but none of them reigned except Jesus, who now sits on David’s throne according to the promise. (See Acts 15:15-17; Acts 2:29-35.) The manner in which Matthew counts fourteen in each division is somewhat singular. The first actually contains fourteen names. The second is made to contain fourteen, as we have seen above, by omitting four names. The third contains only thirteen new names, but is made to count fourteen by repeating, as the first of this division, the name of Jechoniah, which was the last of the second division.

This is apparent to any one who will take the trouble to count. It deceives no one, because it lies on the very surface of the text; but it shows once more how careful Matthew was to have an even count in the divisions of his list. This circumstance also shows that there are no omissions in the last division; for if the actual number of generations had been fourteen or more, there would have been no occasion to repeat the name of Jechoniah.

Before closing our remarks on the genealogy it is proper to say something of the great difference between the forms of proper names in the Old Testament and in the New. This difference forces itself on the attention of the reader here more than anywhere else in the New Testament. The difference arises from three distinct causes: First, from the loss of certain letters by Hebrew names in passing through the Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written. The Greek has no h nor j, and it usually terminates masculine proper names with an s; so that Hebrew names with the former letters in them must be spelt in Greek without them, and those terminating in h, which is a very common Hebrew termination, must have h changed to s. Thus, Rehoboam becomes Roboam, Hezekiah becomes Ezekias; Elijah, Elias etc. Second, the Hebrews were much given to contraction of proper names: thus, Jehoshaphat is contracted into Josaphat, Jehoram into Joram, Azariah into Uzziah.

This last name furnishes an example of the co-working of both these causes. Originally Azariah, it became by contraction Uzziah, and then, by the peculiar mode of spelling in Greek, it became Ozias, as in verses 8 and 9 above. Third, all living languages undergo some changes of pronunciation, and subsequent changes of spelling to suit the new pronunciation. Some of these differences are doubtless to be accounted for in this way, e. g., Salathiel, of Chronicles and Matthew, is Shealtiel in Ezra and Nehemiah; while Zerubbabel, of all these Old Testament writers, is Zorobabel in Matthew and Luke. Matthew’s chief object is to prove the Messiahship and the divinity of Jesus, and every section of the narrative has some bearing on this question. His object in the genealogy, as the superscription sufficiently indicates (verse 1), is to show that Jesus is of the right lineage to be the Messiah. God had promised with an oath to David that he would raise up from his offspring the Messiah to sit on his throne. (Psalms 89:3-4.) This was well understood by both the friends and the foes of Jesus. (See Matthew 22:42.) The section shows that Jesus possessed this characteristic of the promised Messiah. It does not prove him to be of the blood of David; for the blood line, according to Matthew’s own showing in the latter part of this chapter, did not pass from Joseph to Jesus; but Jesus was born to Mary after her marriage with Joseph, and consequently, he was Joseph’s lawful heir, and inherited the throne through him. The argument does not prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but only that he is of the right lineage. It establishes one of the facts necessary to the proof of the Messiahship.

Luke’s genealogy supplements Matthew’s by showing that Jesus, on his mother’s side, inherited the blood of David; but Luke does not follow the line of kings, and consequently he proves nothing as regards the inheritance of the throne, Thus we see that by a line of ancestry which brought Jesus no inheritance he received the blood of David, and by a line which established no blood connection he inherited the throne of David. We can but admire the providence which first brought about this striking coincidence and then caused it to be recorded in so singular a manner by two independent historians.

Birth of Jesus, Matthew 1:18-25 Joseph’s Trouble, Matthew 1:18-2318. found with child.— Matthew’s narrative is here elliptical. He omits the account of the angel’s visit to Mary, and of her immediate departure out of Galilee into Judea, where she remained three months with Elisabeth. (Luke 1:26-56.) It was doubtless very soon after her return into Galilee that her pregnancy was discovered by her relatives and by Joseph. Matthew does not mean by the statement, “she was found with child by the Holy Spirit,” that her friends knew it to be from the Holy Spirit, for the next verse shows that Joseph knew it not.

19. to put her away.—Supposing that Mary had committed adultery, Joseph at once resolved to put her away; but he hesitated whether to expose her publicly or to put her away privately. According to the law a public exposure would have subjected her to the penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:23-24); but although, “being a just man,” one who favored the execution of justice, he thought, of this course, he was unwilling to make a public example of her, so he resolved to take advantage of another statute which allowed an unconditional and unexplained separation at the will of the husband. (Deuteronomy 24:1.)

Birth of Jesus, Matthew 1:18-25 Joseph’s Trouble, Matthew 1:18-23 Matthew 1:18. found with child.—Matthew’s narrative is here elliptical. He omits the account of the angel’s visit to Mary, and of her immediate departure out of Galilee into Judea, where she remained three months with Elisabeth. (Luke 1:26-56.) It was doubtless very soon after her return into Galilee that her pregnancy was discovered by her relatives and by Joseph. Matthew does not mean by the statement, “she was found with child by the Holy Spirit,” that her friends knew it to be from the Holy Spirit, for the next verse shows that Joseph knew it not.

Matthew 1:19. to put her away.—Supposing that Mary had committed adultery, Joseph at once resolved to put her away; but he hesitated whether to expose her publicly or to put her away privately. According to the law a public exposure would have subjected her to the penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:23-24); but although, “being a just man,” one who favored the execution of justice, he thought, of this course, he was unwilling to make a public example of her, so he resolved to take advantage of another statute which allowed an unconditional and unexplained separation at the will of the husband. (Deuteronomy 24:1.)

Matthew 1:20-21. appeared to him in a dream.—How those dreams in which God or angels communicated with the dreamers were distinguishable from those in which there was only an appearance of such visitations, is nowhere declared in the Scriptures. Certain it is, however, that God, who causes such visitations, can make the dreamer know their reality. The statement of the angel confirmed the story which Mary, no doubt, had already related, but which Joseph had regarded as incredible. thy wife.—Mary is called the wife of Joseph, although the marriage had not been consummated, because she virtually sustained this relation to him, and was regarded as his wife in the eyes of the law. Jesus.—The word means savior, and points to the chief purpose of the incarnation. Little did Joseph then realize what was meant by the statement, “he shall save his people from their sins.”

Matthew 1:22-23. that it might be fulfilled.—The words here quoted from Isaiah are part of a prediction addressed to King Ahaz, concerning a threatened invasion of his territory by the kings of Israel and Syria. (Isaiah 7:10-16; Isaiah 8:11-14.) All of it was fulfilled within a few years except what is here quoted— that a virgin should conceive and bring forth a son, and that his name should be called Emmanuel. When the people of Isaiah’s time saw the fulfillment of part of the prediction they should have looked forward with confidence to the fulfillment of the remainder; and so should the succeeding generations of the Jews down to the time of Jesus. Had they done so they would have been more ready to believe the story here recited by Matthew.

The Marriage Consummated and the Child Born, Matthew 1:24-25. (Luke 2:1-7) Matthew 1:24. took unto him his wife.—Joseph seems to have made no delay in obeying the voice of the angel; consequently the marriage occurred some months previous to the birth of the child. To marry a woman in Mary’s condition must have subjected Joseph to much obloquy. Mary’s explanation of her conception had already been discredited; and when Joseph excused himself for marrying her by telling of the visit and command of the angel, he had the appearance of inventing the story as an excuse for marrying a fallen woman. Under this cloud of ill fame the holy couple must have lived until the miracles attendant on the birth of the child confirmed their story, and the works of his life demonstrated that he was, as Mary had affirmed from the beginning, the actual Son of God.

Matthew 1:25. knew her not.—The statement that Joseph knew not Mary (sexually) until she brought forth a son, implies that he did know her after this. The Romish assumption that Mary always remained a virgin, is inconsistent with what is here implied, and is unsupported by any other passage of Scripture. The reader should observe, however, that the term firstborn before son, which has been used to prove that Mary had other sons after Jesus, has been thrown out by the critics. It was probably interpolated to emphasize the fact of Mary’s previous virginity.

Argument of Section 2In this section Matthew exhibits the fact that Jesus was actually born the Son of God, and that this was in fulfillment of a prediction long previously made by Isaiah. That the prediction had been in existence ever since the reign of Ahaz, was a fact well known to the Jews, both believers and unbelievers. It was equally well known that although Emmanuel was not the personal name of Jesus, he had claimed to be Emmanuel (God with us), and had demonstrated the claim both by the acts of his life and his resurrection from the dead. This part of the prediction, then, was certainly fulfilled in him, and the proof of this contains the proof that the other part was likewise fulfilled; for if we inquire how a being could come into this world at once unquestionably the Son of God and the Son of man, we find no other way in which the event could occur than by his being born of a virgin through the miraculous power of God, as declared by Matthew. Thus our historian, with his mind directed to the compound proposition first affirmed by Peter, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, proves in his first section that he is of the right lineage to be the Christ, and in the second that he is the actual Son of God.

Questions byE.M. Zerr For Matthew 11. Name the two principal subjects of chapter one.2. What book is mentioned?3. Whose son is Jesus Christ?4. How the son of these two ?5.

Who are the “ brethren” of verse two?6. Whose wife had Thamor been?7. Give the Old Testament form of Booz.8. And of Eaehab.9. Where may we read of Euth prior to this?10. Who was the son of Jesse?11.

What was his official position?12. State the son of David.13. Who was his mother?14. Tell who was Solomon’ s son.15. Give the 0. T. form.16.

Who was Ezekias?17. Also Josias?18. At what time was his son bom?19. Who was the son of Jacob?20. He was husband of whom?21. Of her was born whom?22.

How many generation from Abraham to Christ?23. Which are counted twice?24. How many were kings of Judah?25. In what sense was Joseph husband of Mary?26. Of whom was Mary with child?27. What kind of man was Joseph?28.

He was not willing to do what?29. What did he propose to do?30. To what law was he aiming to conform?31. Tell what he thought of the situation.32. While thinking, who spoke to him?33. In what manner did he appear?34.

Whose 6on did he call Joseph?35. Harmonize this with 16th verse. .36. What was Joseph told to do?37. State the explanation he was given.38. Tell what prediction was given him.39. And what orders he was given.40.

Why was such name to be given ?41. All this was done for what end?42. What prophet is quoted?43. State the unusual thing predicted.44. Give the meaning of Emmanuel.45. Tell what Joseph then did.46. 46 Did they at this time live as husband and wife?47.

For how long did this attitude continue ?48. When the child was born who named him ?49. Why him instead of Mary?50. What indicates she would have other children ?

Matthew 1:1

1:1 Verse 1. The word book is from the Greek word BIBLOS and Is defined by Thayer, “A written book, a roll or scroll.” Generation is from GENESIS which Thayer defines, “used of bIrth, nativity,” Book of the generation. This phrase is commented on by the same author as follows: “A book of one’s lineage. in which his ancestry or his progeny [ancestors from whom he is a descendant] are enumerated.” David; Abraham, etc. Matthew wrote his book for the special benefit of the Jews and this is the reason he did not go any farther back than to Abraham. He was the first patriarch to whom the promise ,of the Messiah was made and their interest in Him would hence not include any earlier ancestors. After Abraham the most important man in the ancestry of Christ was David, so tbe record makes mention of him. Tbe word for book means generally any written document. but in this place it applies only as a title tor tbe family history or the ancestors or Christ which will include verses 1 through 17 (See Matthew 1:1-17).

Matthew 1:2

1:2 Verse 2. Abraham had more than one son but the promised seed was to come through his son Isaac (Genesis 21:12; Romans 9:7), hence Matthew goes from Abraham to Isaac in the record. Isaac also had more than one son and it was stipulated that Jacob was the one through whom the line was to go (Genesis 25:23; Romans 9:12-13) thus the author goes from Isaac to Jacob in his tracing of the blood line. Jacob also had many sons who figure in an important manner in the history, but only one of them (Judah, here called Judas) could be used in the blood line, so the significant wording is Judas and his brethren. This idea of singling out the particular one in each family was observed all down the line. I have gone into de­tail in this verse to set forth the sub­ject, and such details will not need to be repeated in all of the following verses.

Matthew 1:3

1:3 Verse 3. Thamar is called Tamar in Genesis and she was the daughter-in-law of Judah. The account of how she became the mother of his sons is in Genesis 38.

Matthew 1:4

1:4 Verse 4. Aram is in the form of Ram in the^Old Testament account.

Matthew 1:5

1:5 Verse 5. Booz is Boaz in the account found in the Old Testament. His mother Kachab is called Rahab in Joshua 6:25; she was the woman in Jericho. This verse names two women who were connected with the blood line of Christ (Rachab and Ruth) who were not direct descendants of Abra­ham. However, this should not con­fuse us because it was customary in ancient times to ignore the daughters in the family registers. But these women were so outstanding in their parts of the great drama that the in­spired writer gives them special men­tion.

Matthew 1:6

1:6 Verse 6. Here the record takes on an additional phase of Importance. In the days of Samuel the prophet the people of Israel clamored for a king in order to he like the nations around them. The Lord was displeased with their request but suffered them to have a king. The first one was Sjiul of the tribe of Benjamin, but he was so un­righteous that God took the throne from him and his family and even shut out that tribe from the royal line. The throne was then given to the tribe of Judah which had possession of the kingdom in Jerusalem until the Baby­lonian captivity.

David was the first man to occupy the throne from that tribe, hence the words David the king. All of the rest to be named in the blood line were kings also but the fact will not be mentioned. This special notice was given to David because be was the first man to be in both the royal and blood lines. And in having such a place in the history of Israel he became the most important type of Christ as king, hence the various refer­ences to Him as sitting on the throne of his father David. The term “ father” refers to the blood line and the term “throne” refers to the royal line. The mother of Solomon is referred to but not named as were Rachab and Ruth.

No reason is given in the Scriptures for this variation in the mention of persons. It is worth considering, how­ever, that of the many wives that David had, this one was the mother of both Solomon and Nathan (1 Chron­icles 3:5). The significance of this is in the fact that both of these sons of David were direct ancestors of Christ; Solomon’ s line coming down to Joseph, the (foster) father, and Nathan’ s coming down to tell the father of Mary. Hence, the two blood streams from David coming through the two sons who were full brothers, were brought together by the marriage of Joseph and Mary.

Matthew 1:7

1:7 Verse 7. Roboam Is Rehoboam In the Old Testament and Abia is Abijam.

Matthew 1:8

1:8 Verse 8. Joshaphat is Jehoshaphat, Joram is Jehoram, and Ozias is Uzziah in the O.T.

Matthew 1:9

1:9 Verse 9. Joatham is Jotham, Achaz is Ahaz and Ezelcias is Hezekiah for­merly.

Matthew 1:10

1:10 Verse 10. Mamasses is spelled Manasseh and Josias is the same as Josiah.

Matthew 1:11

1:11 Verse 11. Jechonias has three dif­ferent forms in the Old Testament but the one generally used is Jeholachia. He was not the last temporal king that the people of Israel ever bad; there was one more (Zedekiah). But while he was a son of Josiah, he had been placed on the throne in Jeru­salem by the king of Babylon . having deposed Jeholachia and taken him to Babylon as a cap­tive. But the blood line remained with him, hence the present verse words: Jechonias and his brethren. Also, the words about the time they were carried away to Babylon are explained by the facts just mentioned in this para­graph.

Matthew 1:12

1:12 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 (Ezra 3:2).

Matthew 1:13-15

3-15 Verses 13-15. This paragraph covers the space of over four centuries, from the return after the captivity to the time of Jacob, father of Joseph. It is evident that not all of the men in the blood line are named, but only enough of them to show the connection of the list as that would affect the ancestry of Jesus.

Matthew 1:16

1:16 Verse 16. The use of the term “be­gat” Is not used here because Joseph was only the foster father of Jesus. But the verse states that he was the husband of Mary in order to show how the two blood streams from David were Joined. Husband is from aseb which Is the only word for “ husband” in the New Testament. It is so ren­dered 50 times and by “man” 156 times. The word cannot hence be known to designate a married man except by the connection in which it is found. Jesus who is called Christ. The specific meaning of the first word is “ saviour” and the last is defined “ anointed.” The force of the combined title Is “Saviour and King.”

Matthew 1:17

1:17 Verse 17. Generations is from genea and Thayer’ s definition at this place is, “ The several ranks In the natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy.” The three sets of 14 gen­erations are so arranged for the sake of uniformity as an aid to the memory. There are several names omitted and a man may be said to have begotten a person when it really means a genera­tion or more later. This manner of speaking was done before this; for in­stance. in Daniel 5:18 Belshazzar is spoken of as the son of Nebuchad­nezzar whereas he was his grandson. The count of the generations is based on the ones named in the chapter. By strict count there are 40 instead of 42 as the three sets of 14 would require; this is because David and Jechonias are each counted twice.

Matthew 1:18

1:18 Verse 18. The meaning of espousal as compared with marriage will be considered at verse 20. Before they came together means before they be­gan living together as husband and wife. Found with child should be con­sidered separately from the words of the Holy Ghost. Joseph did not know that her condition was produced by a miracle but thought she had been im­pure. The Inspired writer adds the italicized words for the information of the reader. The meaning of the clause is as if It said “ she was found with child (which later proved to be by the Holy Ghost).”

Matthew 1:19

1:19 Verse 19. Being a just man denotes that Joseph was kind and considerate, yet was conscientious and unwilling to ignore the moral law. Because of this he planned to put her away which means to break the engagement. He had such a personal regard for her that he did not want to expose her to public disgrace, yet he did not think it would be right to live with her.

Matthew 1:20

1:20 Verse 20. While Joseph was ponder­ing, the subject the angel of the Lord appeared and explained the situation. He further advised him to proceed with their plans because Mary was pure from all wrong. She is here called his wife and In Luke 2:5 she is called’his “espoused wife.” All this is because In Biblical times an espousal was regarded as binding, as to the obligation, as the actual marriage.

Matthew 1:21

1:21 Verse 21. The angel not only told Joseph the cause of Mary’ s condition, but even told him what to call the child when born. Proper names in ancient times usually had some spe­cific meaning, hence the name Jesus, meaning “ Saviour,’’ was to be given to this son to be born of Mary, be­cause he was designed to save his people from sin.

Matthew 1:22

1:22 Verse 22. The Information was also given Joseph that what was happen­ing was in fulfillment of prophecy, all of which would meet his approval be­cause he was a believer of the inspired word.

Matthew 1:23

1:23 Verse 23. The angel then quoted the prophecy to which he had referred which is in Isaiah 7:14, The thing of special Importance is that the child was to be born of a virgin, an event that could not occur by the laws of natural reproduction alone. God with us. This signifies that since the body of this child was both divine and hu­man, it meant that It would be virtually the presence of God with man, hence he was to be called by the name of Emmanuel which has that meaning.

Matthew 1:24

1:24 Verse 24. Did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him denotes that what follows in this verse and the next will be in obedience to the command of the angel. Raised from sleep Is explained by the fact that In ancient times God used various means in communicating His will to the people (Hebrews 1:1) and one of them was by dreams. After the dream bad delivered the desired information to Joseph, it was time for him to arise out of sleep and proceed with the program pointed out by the angel.

Matthew 1:25

1:25 Verse 25, Joseph took Mary into his home in fulfillment of his espousal and on the Instructions of the angel. Knew her not is a Biblical expression for the intimate relation of the sexes. The reason Joseph did not have this relation with Mary now was because the angel had told him that her son was to be born of a virgin, which re­quired that at the time of the birth his mother must never have had inti­mate relations with a man. Till she had brought forth has to mean that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph lived with Mary In the intimate relation of husband and wife, else the language Is meaningless and deceptive. It there­fore proves that Mary did not continue to be a virgin, but lived with her hus­band in the relationship of a wife, and her children by that marriage will be met with in later chapters of this book.