nily of David. It was important to trace Adam to tors. ulstern mist icent le of stors. wned ien of Lord gh his t they it as of 3 to be iotism, the ge ch. iii.) h. No caused I various explain of diffi.. t. Many Old Tes1 2d, the appear in From only has xvi that there Nor d of the such times such Epi and P 63, ab suppo clear Jerusa but thi been gospel Comp ing be have, testim opiniol to othe In a has be had no Mat was a ix. 9, 1 rates, the ap city ca Howev and the out goo H d CHAPTER I. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and HE book of the generation of Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacobƒ be TJesus Christ, the son of Da- gat Judas and his brethren; 1. The book of the generation. This is the proper title of the chapter. It is the same as to say, 'the account of the ancestry or family, or the genealogical table of Jesus Christ.' The phrase is common in Jewish writings. Compare Gen. v. 1. "This is the book of the generations of Adam," i. e. the genealogical table of the family or descendants of Adam. See also Gen. vi. 9. The Jews, moreover, as we do, kept such tables of their own families, and it is probable that this was copied from the record of the family of Joseph. Jesus. See ver. 21. Christ. The word Christ is a Greek word, signifying anointed. The Hebrew word signifying the same is Messiah. Hence, Jesus is called either the Messiah, or the Christ, meaning the same thing. The Jews speak of the Messiah; Christians speak of him as the Christ. Anciently, when kings and priests were set apart to their office, they were anointed with oil. Lev. iv. 3; .vi. 20. Ex. xxviii. 41; xxix. 7. 1 Sam. ix. 16; xv. 1. 2 Sam. xxiii. 1. To anoint, therefore, means often the same as to consecrate, or set apart to any office. Thence those thus set apart are said to be anointed, or the anointed of God. It is for this reason that the name is given to the Lord Jesus. Dan. ix. 24. He was set apart by God to be the King, and High-priest, and Prophet of his people. Anointing with oil, was, moreover, supposed to be emblematic of the influences of the Holy Spirit; and as God gave him the Spirit without measure, (John iii. 34,) so he is called peculiarly the Anointed of God. The Son of David. The word son among the Jews had a great variety of significations. It means literally a son; then a grandson; a descendant; an adopted son; a disciple, or one who is an object of tender affection-one who is to us as In this place it means a descendint of David; or one who was of the fanily of David. It was important to trace i son. g 3 And Judas begat Phares and d Ge.21.2-5. e Ge.25.26. ƒ Ge.29.35,&c. g Ge.38.29,30,&c. the genealogy of Jesus up to David, because the promise had been made that the Messiah should be of his family, and all the Jews expected it would be so.. It would be impossible, therefore, to convince a Jew that Jesus was the Messiah, unless it could be shown that he was descended from David. See Jer. xxiii. 5. Ps. cxxxii. 10, 11; compared with Acts xiii. 23, and John vii. 42. The Son of Abraham. The descendant of Abraham. The promise was made to Abraham also. See Gen. xii. 3; xxi. 12; compare Heb. xi. 13. Gal. iii. 16. The Jews expected that the Messiah would be descended from him; and it was important, therefore, to trace the genealogy up to him also. Though Jesus was of humble birth, yet he was descended from most illustrious ancestors. Abraham, the father of the faithful→ "the beauteous model of an eastern prince," and David, the sweet psalmist of Israel, the conqueror, the magnificent and victorious leader of the people of God, were both among his ancestors. From these two persons, the most emi nent for piety, and the most renowned for their excellencies of all the men of antiquity, sacred or profane, the Lord Jesus was descended; and though his birth and life were humble, yet they who regard an illustrious descent as of value, may find here all that is to be admired in piety, purity, patriotism, splendor, dignity, and renown. ge 2-16. These verses contain the nealogy of Jesus. Luke also (ch. iii.) gives a genealogy of the Messiah. No two passages of scripture have caused more difficulty than these, and various attempts have been made to explain them. There are two sources of diffi culty in these catalogues. 1st. Many names that are found in the Old Testament are here omitted; and 2d, the tables of Matthew and Luke appear in many points to be different. From Adam to Abraham Luke only has Zara of Thamar; and Pha.es begat " Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; d 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; a Ge.46.12. b Ru.4.19. c 1 Ch.2.10. Nu.1. 7. d Ru.4.20. e Jos.6.25. Ru.4.21. f Ru.4.13. given the record. From Abraham to David the two tables are alike. Of course there is no difficulty in reconciling these two parts of the tables. The difficulty lies in that part of the genealogy from David to Christ. There they are entirely different. They are manifestly different lives. Not only are the names different, but Luke has mentioned, in this part of the genealogy, no less than 42 names, while Matthew has recorded but 27. Ac cannot, however, be proved that this was not the design of Luke. 3. It has been said also that Joseph was the legal sor and heir of Heli, though the real son of Jacob, and thus the two lines terminated in him. This was the ancient explana tion of most of the fathers, and on the whole is the most satisfactory. It was a law of the Jews, that if a man died without children, his brother should marry his widow. Thus the two lines might have been intermingled. cording to this solution, which was firs proposed by Africanus, Matthan, de. scended from Solomon, married Estha, of whom was born Jacob. After Mat than's death, Matthat being of the same tribe, but of another family, married his widow, and of this marriage Heli was born. Jacob and Heli were therefore children of the same mother. Heli dy ing without children, his brother Jacob married his widow, and begat Joseph who was thus the legal son of Heli. This is agreeable to the account in the two evangelists. Matthew says that Jacob begat Joseph; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, i. e. was his legal heir, or reckoned in law to be his son. This can be seen by the plan on the next page, showing the nature of the connexion. Various ways have been proposed to explain this difficulty; and it must be admitted that none of them are perfectly satisfactory. It does not comport with the design of these Notes to enter minutely into an explanation of the perplexities of these passages. All that can be done is to suggest the various ways in which attempts have been made to explain them. 1. It is remarked that in nothing are mistakes more likely to occur than in such tables. From the similarity of names, and the various names by which the same person is often called, and from many other causes, errors would be more likely to creep into the text in genealogical tables, than in other writings. Some of the difficulties may have possibly occurred from this cause. 2. Most interpreters have supposed that Matthew Though these solutions may not seem gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke to be entirely satisfactory, yet there are that of Mary. They were both descend- two additional considerations which ed from David, but in different lines. should set the matter at rest, and lead This solution derives some plausibility to the conclusion that the narratives are from the fact that the promise was made not really inconsistent. 1. No difficulty to David, and as Jesus was not the son was ever found, or alleged, in regard of Joseph, it was important to show that to them, by any of the early enemies Mary was also descended from him. of Christianity. There is no evidence Though this solution is plausible, and that they ever adduced them as conmay be true, yet it wants evidence, Ittaining a contradiction. Many of those 1 11 And Josias begat Jechonias lathiel; and Salathiel begat Zoroand his brethren, about the time babel;" they were carried away to Babylon; 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begata Sa1 Some read, Josias begat Jakim, and Jakim begat Jechonias. 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and a 1 Ch.3.17,&c. b Ne.12.1. enemies were acute, learned, and able; it was not necessary, nor would it have and they show by their writings that conduced to their argument, to have they were not indisposed to detect all formed a new table of genealogy. All the errors that could possibly be found that could be done was, to go to the in the sacred narrative. Now it is to family records—to the public tables, and be remembered that the Jews were fully copy them as they were actually kept, competent to show that these tables and show that, according to the records were incorrect, if they were really so; of the nation, Jesus was descended from and it is clear that they were fully dis- David. This, among the Jews, was posed, if possible, to do it. The fact, full and decided testimony in the case. therefore, that it is not done is clear And this was doubtless done. In the ovidence that they thought it to be cor- same way, the records of a family among rect. The same may be said of the us, as they are kept by the family, are acute pagans who wrote against Christ-proof in courts of justice now, of the ianity. None of them have called in birth, names, &c., of individuals. Nor question the correctness of these tables. is it necessary or proper for a court to This is full proof that, in a time when call them in question, or to attempt to it was easy to understand these tables, correct them. So the tables here are they were believed to be correct. 2. The evangelists are not responsible for the correctness of these tables. They are responsible only for what was their real and professed object to do. What was that object? It was to prove to the satisfaction of the Jews, that Jesus was descended from David, and therefore that there was no argument from his ancestry that he was not the promised Messiah. Now to make this out good evidence to the only point that the writers wished to establish: that is, to show to the Jews that Jesus of Naza reth was descended from David. All that can be asked now is, whether they copied the tables of those families correctly. It is clear that no man can prove that they did not so copy them, and, therefore, that no one can adduce them as an argument against the cor rectness of the New Testament. |