Daily Readings

Praise. He alludes to his name, his martial prowess, and dominion over all his brethren; who should be all called Jews, and submit to his sway. Some explain all this of Jesus Christ; others refer the first part of the prophecy to Juda. (Haydock)

A lion's whelp, &c. This blessing of Juda foretelleth the strength of his tribe, the fertility of his inheritance, and principally that the sceptre, and legislative power, should not be utterly taken away from his race till about the time of the coming of Christ: as in effect it never was: which is a demonstration against the modern Jews, that the Messias is long since come; for the sceptre has long since been utterly taken away from Juda. (Challoner) --- This none can deny. Juda is compared to a lion, which was the emblem of his royal dignity, and was borne in the standards of that tribe. --- To the prey. Hebrew, "from the prey." He proceeds from victory to victory. He couches, ready to fall upon his prey; and, retiring to the mountains, is still eager to renew the attack. (Calmet) --- Read the history of David and of Solomon, who, both in peace and war, were a terror to the surrounding nations.

The sceptre. Almost every word in this verse has been explained in a different manner. But all the ancient Jews agree with Christians, that it contains a prediction of the Messias, and points out the period of his coming. Whether this was verified when Herod, a foreigner, got possession of the throne, and was acknowledged by the Jews, just about the time of our Saviour's nativity, as most of the fathers suppose; or it only took its full effect when Agrippa II lost all his power, the temple and the city were laid in ruins, and the whole nation dispersed for ever, it is not perhaps so easy to determine. In either supposition, the Messias has long since come. Jacob foretels, either that Christ would make his appearance as soon as the Jews should fall under a foreign yoke, and in this sense he was born about the 37th year of Herod the great --- or he should come just before the kingdom of Juda should have an end, which took place in the 70th year of the Christian era, or about 37 years after the public appearance and death of our Saviour. The sceptre shall not depart irrevocably from the Jews; over whom the tribe of Juda had always the greatest authority in appointing the princes, when they were not selected from the tribe itself, or from his thigh; till the Messias, who has been expected so long, shall come and gather all nations into his Church. Then the designs of Providence, in watching over the Jews, being accomplished, their republic shall be dissolved, because they have shed his blood, instead of acknowledging his celestial beauty, ver. 12. The evident signs of decay in the kingdom of the Jews, were sufficient to excite the attention of all to look for the Messias; and we read, both in St. John iv. 25, in Tacitus, and Suetonius, that his appearance was fully expected about that time. The sceptre is the emblem of sovereign, though not always independent, power. Juda and his posterity were always at the head of their brethren. They marched first in the wilderness; two of the judges were of this tribe. But their chief glory began with David, whose posterity the whole nation obeyed, till Jeroboam tore away the ten tribes. Still the tribe of Benjamin and the Levites adhered to Juda. During the captivity there were judges admitted to superintend over their brethren; and King Joakim was raised to high authority. The rulers who came into power after the return of the Jews, were either of this tribe, at least by the mother's side, or were chosen and recognized by the tribe of Juda. Even Herod, in this sense, might be considered as a Jewish king, though a foreigner, as well as a Thracian might be counted a Roman emperor, without any diminution of the imperial authority of Rome. Perhaps, indeed, he was an usurper, till the nation acknowledged his authority two years after the birth of Christ. (Philo, de Temp. ii; Josephus, Antiquities xvii. 3.) "Herod was the first foreign king admitted by the Jews." (St. Augustine, City of God xviii. 45.) If, therefore, no stranger was to be acknowledged by the nation, till He came, who was to establish a spiritual and everlasting kingdom, the moment was arrived, when the Jews submitted to Herod, and Christ had actually been born two years. --- From Juda, or from that tribe; for Jacob gave peculiar blessings to each; (ver. 28) and hence the fathers gather, that the Messias should spring from Juda. --- Ruler from his thigh, lineally descended from him, or acknowledged at least by his posterity, as all the legal princes were till the coming of Christ. --- Mechokek might also signify a teacher or scribe expounding the law of Moses, which subsisted for the same period; but this is more probably a farther explication of the sceptre, &c. (Calmet) --- Till had ci, which words being joined together, are always taken in this sense. (Helvicus.) --- Sent. Schiloach (or Ssolue) seems to have been in St. Jerome's copy, though we now read Shiloh (or Ssole) "to whom" the authority belongs; Septuagint, "to whom all things are reserved; or till the things arrive, which are laid up for him. (Calmet) --- Expectation, or congregation of nations, as Aggeus afterwards foretold, ii. 8. If we examine all the plausible explications which have been given to this verse, we shall find that they all tend to convey the same truth. "The sceptre (ssebet, rod, crook, power or tribe) shall not depart (cease, be taken off) from Juda, (the tribe or the Jews) nor a leader (scribe, lawyer, or legislator) from his thigh, (between his feet, or from his banners) till He, who shall be sent, (shio, the pacific, his son, to whom it is, or the things are, reserved) arrive; and Him shall the nations expect, (and obey) to Him they shall look up (and be gathered). Whom will the Jews point out to whom all these characters agree, except our divine Lord, whom they also must one day adore? (Haydock)

1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befal you in the last days. 2 Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father. 3 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: 4 Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.

Here is, I. The preface to the prophecy, in which, 1. The congregation is called together ( v. 2 ): Gather yourselves together; let them all be sent for from their several employments, to see their father die, and to hear his dying words. It was a comfort to Jacob, now that he was dying, to see all his children about him, and none missing, though he had sometimes thought himself bereaved. It was of use to them to attend him in his last moments, that they might learn of him how to die, as well as how to live: what he said to each he said in the hearing of all the rest; for we may profit by the reproofs, counsels, and comforts, that are principally intended for others. His calling upon them once and again to gather together intimated both a precept to them to unite in love, (to keep together, not to mingle with the Egyptians, not to forsake the assembling of themselves together,) and a prediction that they should not be separated from each other, as Abraham's sons and Isaac's were, but should be incorporated, and all make one people. 2. A general idea is given of the intended discourse ( v. 1 ): That I may tell you that which shall befal you (not your persons, but your posterity) in the latter days; this prediction would be of use to those that came after them, for the confirming of their faith and the guiding of their way, on their return to Canaan, and their settlement there. We cannot tell our children what shall befal them or their families in this world; but we can tell them, from the word of God, what will befal them in the last day of all, according as they conduct themselves in this world. 3. Attention is demanded ( v. 2 ): " Hearken to Israel your father; let Israel, that has prevailed with God, prevail with you." Note, Children must diligently hearken to what their godly parents say, particularly when they are dying. Hear, you children, the instruction of a father, which carries with it both authority and affection, Prov. iv. 1 .

8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee. 9 Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? 10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. 11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: 12 His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.

10. until Shiloh come-- Shiloh--this obscure word is variously interpreted to mean "the sent" ( Joh 17:3 ), "the seed" ( Is 11:1 ), the "peaceable or prosperous one" ( Ep 2:14 )--that is, the Messiah ( Is 11:10 ; Ro 15:12 ); and when He should come, "the tribe of Judah should no longer boast either an independent king or a judge of their own" [Calvin]. The Jews have been for eighteen centuries without a ruler and without a judge since Shiloh came, and "to Him the gathering of the people has been."

Ge 49:14 , 15 . Issachar--

1. "For Salomon" indeed this Psalm's title is fore-noted: but things are spoken of therein which could not apply to that Salomon king of Israel after the flesh, according to those things which holy Scripture speaketh concerning him: but they can most pertinently apply to the Lord Christ. Whence it is perceived, that the very word Salomon is used in a figurative sense, so that in him Christ is to be taken. For Salomon is interpreted peace-maker: and on this account such a word to Him most truly and excellently doth apply, through Whom, the Mediator, having received remission of sins, we that were enemies are reconciled to God. For "when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." The Same is Himself that Peace-maker....Since then we have found out the true Salomon, that is, the true Peace-maker: next let us observe what the Psalm doth teach concerning Him.

2. "O God, Thy judgment to the King give Thou, and Thy justice to the King's Son"

(ver. 1). The Lord Himself in the Gospel saith, "The Father judgeth not any one, but all judgment He hath given to the Son:" this is then, "O God, Thy judgment to the King give Thou." He that is King is also the Son of the King: because God the Father also is certainly King. Thus it hath been written, that the King made a marriage for His Son. But after the manner of Scripture the same thing is repeated. For that which he hath said in, "Thy judgment;" the same he hath otherwise expressed in, "Thy justice:" and that which he hath said in, "the King," the same he hath otherwise expressed in, "to the King's Son."...But these repetitions do much commend the divine sayings, whether the same words, or whether in other words the same sense be repeated: and they are mostly found in the Psalms, and in the kind of discourse whereby the mind's affection is to be awakened.

3. Next there followeth, "To judge Thy people in justice, and Thy poor in judgment"

(ver. 2). For what purpose the royal Father gave to the royal Son His judgment and His justice is sufficiently shown when he saith, "To judge Thy people in justice;" that is, for the purpose of judging Thy people. Such an idiom is found in Salomon: "The Proverbs of Salomon, son of David, to know wisdom and discipline:" that is, the Proverbs of Salomon, for the purpose of knowing wisdom and discipline. So, "Thy judgment give Thou, to judge Thy people:" that is, "Thy judgment" give Thou for the purpose of judging Thy people. But that which he saith before in, "Thy people," the same he saith afterwards in, "Thy poor:" and that which he saith before in, "in justice;" the same afterward in, "in judgment:" according to that manner of repetition. Whereby indeed he showeth, that the people of God ought to be poor, that is, not proud, but humble. For, "blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." In which poverty even blessed Job was poor even before he had lost those great earthly riches. Which thing for this reason I thought should be mentioned, because there are certain persons who are more ready to distribute all their goods to the poor, than themselves to become the poor of God. For they are puffed up with boasting wherein they think their living well should be ascribed to themselves, not to the grace of God: and therefore now they do not even live well, however great the good works which they seem to do....

4. But seeing that he hath changed the order of the words (though he had first said, "O God, Thy judgment to the King give Thou, and Thy justice to the King's Son," putting judgment first, then justice), and hath put justice first, then judgment, saying, "To judge Thy people in justice, and Thy poor in judgment:" he doth more clearly show that he hath called judgment justice, proving that there is no difference made by the order in which the word is placed, because it signifieth the same thing. For it is usual to say "wrong judgment" of that which is unjust: but justice iniquitous or unjust we are not wont to speak of. For if wrong and unjust it be; no longer must it be called justice. Again, by putting down judgment and repeating it under the name of justice, or by putting down justice and repeating it under the name of judgment, he clearly showeth that he specially nameth that judgment which is wont to be put instead of justice, that is, that which cannot be understood of giving an evil judgment. For in the place where He saith, "Judge not according to persons, but right judgment judge ye;" He showeth that there may be a wrong judgment, when He saith, "right judgment judge ye:" lastly, the one He doth forbid, the other He doth enjoin. But when without any addition He speaketh of judgment, He would at once have just judgment to be understood: as is that which He saith, "Ye forsake the weightier matters of the Law, mercy and judgment." That also which Jeremiah saith is, "making his riches not with judgment." He saith not, making his riches by wrong or unjust judgment, or not with judgment right or just, but not with judgment: calling not anything judgment but what is right and just.

5. "Let the mountains bear peace to the people, and the hills justice"

(ver. 3). The mountains are the greater, the hills the less. These are without doubt those which another Psalm hath, "little with great." For those mountains did exult like rams, and those hills like lambs of the sheep, at the departure of Israel out of Egypt, that is, at the deliverance of the people of God from this world's servitude. Those then that are eminent in the Church for passing sanctity, are the mountains, who are meet to teach other men also, by so speaking as that they may be faithfully taught, by so living as that they may imitate them to their profit: but the hills are they that follow the excellence of the former by their own obedience. Why then "the mountains peace: and the hills justice"? Would there perchance have been no difference, even if it had been said thus, Let the mountains bear justice to the people and the hills peace? For to both justice, and to both peace is necessary: and it may be that under another name justice herself may have been called peace. For this is true peace, not such as unjust men make among them. Or rather with a distinction not to be overlooked must that be understood which he saith, "the mountains peace, and the hills justice"? For men excelling in the Church ought to counsel for peace with watchful care; lest for the sake of their own distinctions by acting proudly they make schisms and dissever the bond of union. But let the hills so follow them by imitation and obedience, that they prefer Christ to them: lest being led astray by the empty authority of evil mountains (for they seem to excel), they tear themselves away from the Unity of Christ....

6. Thus also most pertinently may be understood, "let the mountains bear peace to the people," namely, that we understand the peace to consist in the reconciliation whereby we are reconciled to God: for the mountains receive this for His people...."Let the mountains, therefore, receive peace for the people, and the hills justice:" so that in this manner, both being at one, there may come to pass that which hath been written, "justice and peace have kissed one another." But that which other copies have, "let the mountains receive peace for the people, and let the hills:" I think must be understood of all sorts of preaching of Gospel peace, whether those that go before, or those that follow after. But in these copies this followeth, "in justice He shall judge the poor of the people." But those copies are more approved of which have that which we have expounded above, "let the mountains bear peace to the people, and the hills justice." But some have, "to Thy people;" some have not to "Thy," but only "to the people."

7. "He shall judge the poor of the people, and shall save the sons of the poor"

(ver. 4). The poor and the sons of the poor seem to me to be the very same, as the same city is Sion and the daughter of Sion. But if it is to be understood with a distinction, the poor we take to be the mountains, but the sons of the poor the hills: for instance, Prophets and Apostles, the poor, but the sons of them, that is, those that profit under their authority, the sons of the poor. But that which hath been said above, "shall judge;" and afterwards, "shall save;" is as it were a sort of exposition in what manner He shall judge. For to this end He shall judge, that He may save, that is, may sever from those that are to be destroyed and condemned, those to whom He giveth "salvation ready to be revealed at the" last time. For by such men to Him is said, "Destroy not with ungodly men my soul:" and, "Judge Thou me, O God, and sever my cause from the nation unholy." We must observe also that he saith not, He shall judge the poor people, but, "the poor of the people." For above when he had said, "to judge Thy people in justice and Thy poor in judgment," the same he called the people of God as His poor, that is, only the good and those that belong to the right hand side. But because in this world those for the right and those for the left feed together, who, like lambs and goats at the last are to be put asunder; the whole, as it is mingled together, he hath called by the name of the People. And because even here he putteth judgment in a good sense, that is, for the purpose of saving: therefore he saith, "He shall judge the poor of the people," that is, shall sever for salvation those that are poor among the people. "And He shall humble the false-accuser." No false-accuser can be more suitably recognised here than the devil. False accusation is his business. "Doth Job worship God gratis?" But the Lord Jesus doth humble him, by His grace aiding His own, in order that they may worship God gratis, that is, may take delight in the Lord. He humbled him also thus; because when in Him the devil, that is, the prince of this world, had found nothing, he slew Him by the false accusations of the Jews, whom the false-accuser made use of as his vessels, working in the sons of unbelief. ...

8. "And He shall endure to the sun," or, "shall endure with the sun"

(ver. 7). The expression tollatur some have interpreted by "be taken away," but others by "be exalted," translating one Greek word, which is there used, ?ntanairethe, just as each of them thought good. But they who have said, "be removed," and they who have said, "be taken away," do not so very much differ. For by the expression, "be removed," custom doth teach us that there should be rather implied, that a thing is taken away and is no more, than that it is raised to a higher place: but "be taken away" can be understood in no other way at all, than that a thing is destroyed: that is, it is no more: but by "be exalted," only that it is raised to a higher place. Which indeed when it is put in a bad sense is wont to signify pride: as is the passage, "In thy wisdom be not exalted." But in a good sense it belongeth to a more exceeding honour, as, for instance, when anything is being raised; as is, "In the nights exalt ye your hands unto holy places, and bless ye the Lord." Here then if we have understood the expression, "be removed," what will be, "until the moon be removed," but that it be so dealt with that it be no more? For perchance he willed this also to be perceived, that mortality is to be no longer, "when the last enemy shall be destroyed, death:" so that abundance of peace may be brought down so far as that nothing may withstand the felicity of the blessed from the infirmity of mortality: which will come to pass in that age, of which we have the faithful promise of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, concerning which it is said, "There shall arise in His days justice and abundance of peace:" until, death being utterly overcome and destroyed, all mortality be consumed. But if under the term moon, not the mortality of the flesh through which the Church is now passing, but the Church Herself in general hath been signified, which is to endure for everlasting, being delivered from this mortality, thus must be taken the expression, "There shall arise in His days justice and abundance of peace, until the moon be exalted;" as though it were said, There shall arise in His days justice, to conquer the contradiction and rebellion of the flesh, and whereby there may be made a peace so increasing and abundant, until the moon be exalted, that is, until the Church be lifted up, through the glory of the Resurrection to reign with Him, who went before Her in this glory, the first-born of the dead, that He might sit at the right hand of the Father; thus with the sun enduring before the moon, in the place whereunto hereafter was to be exalted the moon also.

11. "And He shall be Lord from sea even unto sea, and from the river even unto the ends of the round world"

(ver. 8): He to wit concerning whom he had said, "There shall arise in His days justice and abundance of peace, until the moon be exalted." If the Church here is properly signified under the term moon, in continuation he showed how widely that same Church He was going to spread abroad, when He added, "and He shall be Lord from sea even unto sea." For the land is encircled by a great sea which is called the Ocean: from which there floweth in some small part in the midst of the lands, and maketh those seas known to us, which are frequented by ships. Again, in "from sea even unto sea" He hath said, that from any one end of the earth even unto any other end, He would be Lord, whose name and power in the whole world were to be preached and to prevail exceedingly. To which, that there might not be understood in any other manner, "from sea even unto sea:" He immediately added, "and from the river even unto the ends of the round world." Therefore that which He saith in "even unto the ends of the round world," the same He had said before in "from sea even unto sea." But in that which now He saith, "from the river," He hath evidently expressed that He willed Christ to publish at length His power from that place from whence also He began to choose His disciples, to wit from the river Jordan, where upon the Lord, on His baptism, when the Holy Ghost descended, there sounded a voice from Heaven, "This is My beloved Son." From this place then His doctrine and the authority of the heavenly ministry setting out, is enlarged even unto the ends of the round world, when there is preached the Gospel of the kingdom in the whole world, for a testimony unto all nations: and then shall come the end.

12. "In His presence shall fall down the Ethiopians, and His enemies shall lick the earth"

(ver. 17). By the sun times are signified. Therefore for everlasting endureth the name of Him. For eternity doth precede times, and is not bounded by time. "And there shall be blessed in Him all the tribes of the earth." For in Him is fulfilled that which hath been promised to Abraham. "For He saith not, In seeds, as though in many; but as though in one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ." But to Abraham is said, "In thy Seed shall be blessed all the tribes of the earth." And not the sons of the flesh but the sons of promise are counted in the Seed. "All nations shall magnify Him." As if in explanation there is repeated that which above hath been said. For because they shall be blessed in Him, they shall magnify Him; not of themselves making Him to be great, that of Himself is great, but by praising and confessing Him to be great. For thus we magnify God: thus also we say, "Hallowed be Thy name," which is indeed always holy.

20. "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath done wonderful things alone"

Psalm. Some copies add, "of David." But the Hebrew has only Lishlomo, "to Solomon;" (St. Jerome; Haydock) or, composed by Solomon. The former sense is more generally adopted, (Berthier) though the Chaldean and Eusebius look upon the latter as most plausible. David, however, seems to have written this last most beautiful piece, when he placed his son upon the throne; (3 Kings i. 47.) and being transported with a divine enthusiasm, he described the reign of the Messias, (Calmet) to whom alone many of the passages can be applied, (St. Augustine; Worthington) as the Jews, Chaldean, Kimchi, &c., confess, though they will not allow Jesus to be the Christ, ver. 5, 11, 17. (Calmet)

Son. Solomon, (Berthier) or Cyrus, (Pr. disc.) or the Messias. Most blessed Trinity, enable the Son of man, or of David, to judge the world. (Worthington) (Isaias x. 3., and John v. 22.) --- Judgment. Equity is the duty of governors, as obedience is that of subjects. Solomon acts with the greatest sagacity, 1 Paralipomenon xxii. 10., and xxix. 23., and 2 Paralipomenon i. 10. The psalmist inculcates the obligation of defending the rights of the poor, who are under God's protection. To him even judges and monarchs must give an account, Deuteronomy i. 17., and 2 Paralipomenon xix. 6.

Justice. These blessings shall be so common; (Psalm xxxv. 6., and Joel iii. 18.) or, let princes pursue the paths of justice and peace, Micheas vi. 1. Solomon was to enjoy a perpetual peace, (1 Paralipomenon xxii. 9.) as he was a figure of Jesus Christ, who has procured a more solid one for us, Ephesians ii. 14., John xiv. 27., and Isaias lii. 7. (Calmet) --- Hebrew has "by righteousness," as this is the source of true peace, Romans xiv. 17. These virtues are publicly enforced in the Church, as from a mountain, Isaias ii. 2. (Berthier) --- Christ, the rock, (Haydock) and his ministers, the hills, preach reconciliation. (Worthington)

Oppressor. Literally, "calumniator." Christ has chained down the devil, the accuser of our brethren, Apocalypse xii. 10., and xx. 2. (Menochius) --- He hath taken away his spoils, (John viii. 44.) and undertaken the defence of the humble, Isaias xi. 4. Solomon was also the reverse of those wicked princes, who received bribes, and neglect the poor, Isaias i. 23. (Calmet)

Justice. Hebrew, "the just," who appear most under a good king, being animated by his example. (Haydock) --- Away. Chaldean, "till those who adore the moon be exterminated." This idolatry pervaded almost all the east. Solomon's reign was very peaceable, 3 Kings iv. 25. But this was only a feeble representation of the peace which Christ should bring. At his birth, the whole world was at peace. Angels proclaimed it to all the earth, Luke ii. 14., and Isaias ii. 4. (Calmet) --- It is certain, that the internal peace of Solomon's reign did not continue to the end, (Haydock) much less till the moon should be taken away. (Berthier)

To sea. Solomon ruled from the Mediterranean, Red, and Indian Seas, to the Persian Gulf, and the Euphrates, having al Arabia tributary to him, (Haydock) and the countries as far as Syria; so that he enjoyed all that had been promised by God, Genesis xv. 18., Numbers xxxiv. 3., and 2 Paralipomenon ix. 26., and 3 Kings iv. 24. --- The earth, denotes this kingdom. (St. Jerome in Isaias xiii. 4.) But if we explain it of Christ, his Church has no limits. In spite of the corruption of the world, she still asserts her title of Catholic. (Calmet) --- She is universal, both as to time and place, and always visible, ver. 15. (Worthington) --- Her divine head began to propagate this kingdom, after he had been baptized in the river Jordan, (Berthier) as the Fathers agree. This unlimited dominion was promised, (Psalm ii. 7.; Calmet) and the prophet Zachary, (Zacharias ix.) seems to quote this passage, when speaking of the Messias alone; so that it is best to understand it in this sense, as the Septuagint have done, by Greek: oikoumenes. (Berthier) (Isaias ix. 6.)

Continueth. Protestants marginal note, "shall be as a son, to continue his father's name for ever." The Messias is the eternal son of God. Hebrew yinnin, (Keri.) might be rendered (Haydock) filiabitur, (Montanus) if this word were Latin. The ancient Jews considered this as one of the titles of the Messias. Chaldean, "before the sun was, his name was prepared." (Berthier) --- This is the third time that the glory of Christ is pronounced eternal, ver. 5., and 7. (Haydock) --- He is for ever blessed: but we cannot think of Solomon, without remembering his almost incredible fall. (Calmet) --- Blessed. This was spoken only of the Messias, (Berthier) who is the cause of salvation to all the elect. None are saved who do not continue in Him, (Menochius) by faith and good works.

1 Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king's son.

This verse is a prayer for the king, even the king's son.

I. We may apply it to Solomon: Give him thy judgments, O God! and thy righteousness; make him a man, a king; make him a good man, a good king. 1. It is the prayer of a father for his child, a dying blessing, such as the patriarchs bequeathed to their children. The best thing we can ask of God for our children is that God will give them wisdom and grace to know and do their duty; that is better than gold. Solomon learned to pray for himself as his father had prayed for him, not that God would give him riches and honour, but a wise and understanding heart. It was a comfort to David that his own son was to be his successor, but more so that he was likely to be both judicious and righteous. David had given him a good education ( Prov. iv. 3 ), had taught him good judgment and righteous, yet that would not do unless God gave him his judgments. Parents cannot give grace to their children, but may by prayer bring them to the God of grace, and shall not seek him in vain, for their prayer shall either be answered or it shall return with comfort into their own bosom. 2. It is the prayer of a king for his successor. David had executed judgment and justice during his reign, and now he prays that his son might do so too. Such a concern as this we should have for posterity, desiring and endeavouring that those who come after us may do God more and better service in their day than we have done in ours. Those have little love either to God or man, and are of a very narrow selfish spirit, who care not what becomes of the world and the church when they are gone. 3. It is the prayer of subjects for their king. It should seem, David penned this psalm for the use of the people, that they, in singing, might pray for Solomon. Those who would live quiet and peaceable lives must pray for kings and all in authority, that God would give them his judgments and righteousness.

2 He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment. 3 The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness. 4 He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor. 5 They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations. 6 He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: as showers that water the earth. 7 In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth. 8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. 9 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust. 10 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. 11 Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him. 12 For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. 13 He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy. 14 He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight. 15 And he shall live, and to him shall be given of the gold of Sheba: prayer also shall be made for him continually; and daily shall he be praised. 16 There shall be a handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains; the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon: and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. 17 His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.

This is a prophecy of the prosperity and perpetuity of the kingdom of Christ under the shadow of the reign of Solomon. It comes in, 1. As a plea to enforce the prayer: "Lord, give him thy judgments and thy righteousness, and then he shall judge thy people with righteousness, and so shall answer the end of his elevation, v. 2 . Give him thy grace, and then thy people, committed to his charge, will have the benefit of it." Because God loved Israel, he made him king over them to do judgment and justice, 2 Chron. ix. 8 . We may in faith wrestle with God for that grace which we have reason to think will be of common advantage to his church. 2. As an answer of peace to the prayer. As by the prayer of faith we return answers to God's promises of mercy, so by the promises of mercy God returns answers to our prayers of faith. That this prophecy must refer to the kingdom of the Messiah is plain, because there are many passages in it which cannot be applied to the reign of Solomon. There was indeed a great deal of righteousness and peace, at first, in the administration of his government; but, before the end of his reign, there were both trouble and unrighteousness. The kingdom here spoken of is to last as long as the sun, but Solomon's was soon extinct. Therefore even the Jewish expositors understand it of the kingdom of the Messiah.

Let us observe the many great and precious promises here made, which were to have their full accomplishment only in the kingdom of Christ; and yet some of them were in part fulfilled in Solomon's reign.

I. That it should be a righteous government ( v. 2 ): He shall judge thy people with righteousness. Compare Isa. xi. 4 . All the laws of Christ's kingdom are consonant to the eternal rules of equity; the chancery it erects to relieve against the rigours of the broken law is indeed a court of equity; and against the sentence of his last judgment there will lie no exception. The peace of his kingdom shall be supported by righteousness ( v. 3 ); for then only is the peace like a river, when the righteousness is as the waves of the sea. The world will be judged in righteousness, Acts xvii. 31 .

II. That it should be a peaceable government: The mountains shall bring peace, and the little hills ( v. 3 ); that is (says Dr. Hammond), both the superior and the inferior courts of judicature in Solomon's kingdom. There shall be abundance of peace, v. 7 . Solomon's name signifies peaceable, and such was his reign; for in it Israel enjoyed the victories of the foregoing reign and preserved the tranquillity and repose of that reign. But peace is, in a special manner, the glory of Christ's kingdom; for, as far as it prevails, it reconciles men to God, to themselves, and to one another, and slays all enmities; for he is our peace.

III. That the poor and needy should be, in a particular manner, taken under the protection of this government: He shall judge thy poor, v. 2 . Those are God's poor that are impoverished by keeping a good conscience, and those shall be provided for with a distinguishing care, shall be judged for with judgment, with a particular cognizance taken of their case and a particular vengeance taken for their wrongs. The poor of the people, and the children of the needy, he will be sure so to judge as to save, v. 4 . This is insisted upon again ( v. 12, 13 ), intimating that Christ will be sure to carry his cause on behalf of his injured poor. He will deliver the needy that lie at the mercy of their oppressors, the poor also, both because they have no helper and it is for his honour to help them and because they cry unto him and he has promised, in answer to their prayers, to help them; they by prayer commit themselves unto him, Ps. x. 14 . He will spare the needy that throw themselves on his mercy, and will not be rigorous and severe with them; he will save their souls, and that is all they desire. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Christ is the poor man's King.

IV. That proud oppressors shall be reckoned with: He shall break them in pieces ( v. 4 ), shall take away their power to hurt, and punish them for all the mischief they have done. This is the office of a good king, Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos—To spare the vanquished and debase the proud. The devil is the great oppressor, whom Christ will break in pieces and of whose kingdom he will be the destruction. With the breath of his mouth shall he slay that wicked one ( Isa. xi. 4 ), and shall deliver the souls of his people from deceit and violence, v. 14 . He shall save from the power of Satan, both as an old serpent working by deceit to ensnare them and as a roaring lion working by violence to terrify and devour them. So precious shall their blood be unto him that not a drop of it shall be shed, by the deceit or violence of Satan or his instruments, without being reckoned for. Christ is a King, who, though he calls his subjects sometimes to resist unto blood for him, yet is not prodigal of their blood, nor will ever have it parted with but upon a valuable consideration to his glory and theirs, and the filling up of the measure of their enemies' iniquity.

V. That religion shall flourish under Christ's government ( v. 5 ): They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure. Solomon indeed built the temple, and the fear and worship of God were well kept up, for some time, under his government, but it did not last long; this therefore must point at Christ's kingdom, all the subjects of which are brought to and kept in the fear of God; for the Christian religion has a direct tendency to, and a powerful influence upon, the support and advancement of natural religion. Faith in Christ will set up, and keep up, the fear of God; and therefore this is the everlasting gospel that is preached, Fear God, and give honour to him, Rev. xiv. 7 . And, as Christ's government promotes devotion towards God, so it promotes both justice and charity among men ( v. 7 ): In his days shall the righteous flourish; righteousness shall be practised, and those that practise righteousness shall be preferred. Righteousness shall abound and be in reputation, shall command and be in power. The law of Christ, written in the heart, disposes men to be honest and just, and to render to all their due; it likewise disposes men to live in love, and so it produces abundance of peace and beats swords into ploughshares. Both holiness and love shall be perpetual in Christ's kingdom, and shall never go to decay, for the subjects of it shall fear God as long as the sun and moon endure; Christianity, in the profession of it, having got footing in the world, shall keep its ground till the end of time, and having, in the power of it, got footing in the heart, it will continue there till, by death, the sun, and the moon, and the stars (that is, the bodily senses) are darkened. Through all the changes of the world, and all the changes of life, Christ's kingdom will support itself; and, if the fear of God continue as long as the sun and moon, abundance of peace will. The peace of the church, the peace of the soul, shall run parallel with its purity and piety, and last as long as these last.

VI. That Christ's government shall be very comfortable to all his faithful loving subjects ( v. 6 ): He shall, by the graces and comforts of his Spirit, come down like rain upon the mown grass; not on that which is cut down, but that which is left growing, that it may spring again, though it was beheaded. The gospel of Christ distils as the rain, which softens the ground that was hard, moistens that which was dry, and so makes it green and fruitful, Isa. lv. 10 . Let our hearts drink in the rain, Heb. vi. 7 .

VII. That Christ's kingdom shall be extended very far, and greatly enlarged; considering,

1. The extent of his territories ( v. 8 ): He shall have dominion from sea to sea (from the South Sea to the North, or from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean) and from the river Euphrates, or Nile, to the ends of the earth. Solomon's dominion was very large ( 1 Kings iv. 21 ), according to the promise, Gen. xv. 18 . But no sea, no river, is named, that it might, by these proverbial expressions, intimate the universal monarchy of the Lord Jesus. His gospel has been, or shall be, preached to all nations ( Matt. xxiv. 14 ), and the kingdoms of the world shall become his kingdoms ( Rev. xi. 15 ) when the fulness of the Gentiles shall be brought in. His territories shall be extended to those countries, (1.) That were strangers to him: Those that dwell in the wilderness, out of all high roads, that seldom hear news, shall hear the glad tidings of the Redeemer and redemption by him, shall bow before him, shall believe in him, accept of him, worship him, and take his yoke upon them. Before the Lord Jesus we must all either bow or break; if we break, we are ruined—if we bow, we are certainly made for ever. (2.) That were enemies to him, and had fought against him: They shall lick the dust; they shall be brought down and laid in the dust, shall bite the ground for vexation, and be so hunger-bitten that they shall be glad of dust, the serpent's meat ( Gen. iii. 15 ), for of his seed they are; and over whom shall not he rule, when his enemies themselves are thus humbled and brought low?

2. The dignity of his tributaries. He shall not only reign over those that dwell in the wilderness, the peasants and cottagers, but over those that dwell in the palaces ( v. 10 ): The kings of Tarshish, and of the isles, that lie most remote from Israel and are the isles of the Gentiles ( Gen. x. 5 ), shall bring presents to him as their sovereign Lord, by and under whom they hold their crowns and all their crown lands. They shall court his favour, and make an interest in him, that they may hear his wisdom. This was literally fulfilled in Solomon (for all the kings of the earth sought the wisdom of Solomon, and brought every man his present, 2 Chron. ix. 23, 24 ), and in Christ too, when the wise men of the east, who probably were men of the first rank in their own country, came to worship him and brought him presents, Matt. ii. 11 . They shall present themselves to him; that is the best present we can bring to Christ, and without that no other present is acceptable, Rom. xii. 1 . They shall offer gifts, spiritual sacrifices of prayer and praise, offer them to Christ as their God, on Christ as their altar, which sanctifies every gift. Their conversion to God is called the offering up, or sacrificing, of the Gentiles, Rom. xv. 16 . Yea, all kings shall, sooner or later, fall down before him, either to do their duty to him or to receive their doom from him, v. 11 . They shall fall before him, either as his willing subjects or as his conquered captives, as suppliants for his mercy or expectants of his judgment. And, when the kings submit, the people come in of course: All nations shall serve him; all shall be invited into his service; some of all nations shall come into it, and in every nation incense shall be offered to him and a pure offering, Mal. i. 11 ; Rev. vii. 9 .

VIII. That he shall be honoured and beloved by all his subjects ( v. 15 ): He shall live; his subjects shall desire his life ( O king! live for ever ) and with good reason; for he has said, Because I live, you shall live also; and of him it is witnessed that he liveth, ever liveth, making intercession, Heb. vii. 8 , 25 . He shall live, and live prosperously; and, 1. Presents shall be made to him. Though he shall be able to live without them, for he needs neither the gifts nor the services of any, yet to him shall be given of the gold of Sheba —gold, the best of metals, gold of Sheba, which probably was the finest gold; for he that is best must be served with the best. Those that have abundance of the wealth of this world, that have gold at command, must give it to Christ, must serve him with it, do good with it. Honour the Lord with thy substance. 2. Prayers shall be made for him, and that continually. The people prayed for Solomon, and that helped to make him and his reign so great a blessing to them. It is the duty of subjects to make prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, for kings and all in authority, not in compliment to them, as is too often done, but in concern for the public welfare. But how is this applied to Christ? He needs not our prayers, nor can have any benefit by them. But the Old-Testament saints prayed for his coming, prayed continually for it; for they called him, He that should come. And now that he has come we must pray for the success of his gospel and the advancement of his kingdom, which he calls praying for him (Hosanna to the Son of David, prosperity to his reign), and we must pray for his second coming. It may be read, Prayer shall be made through him, or for his sake; whatsoever we ask of the Father shall be in his name and in dependence upon his intercession. 3. Praises shall be made of him, and high encomiums given of his wisdom, justice, and goodness: Daily shall he be praised. By praying daily in his name we give him honour. Subjects ought to speak well of the government that is a blessing to them; and much more ought all Christians to praise Jesus Christ, daily to praise him; for they owe their all to him, and to him they lie under the highest obligations.

IX. That under his government there shall be a wonderful increase both of meat and mouths, both of the fruits of the earth in the country and of the people inhabiting the cities, v. 16 . 1. The country shall grow rich. Sow but a handful of corn on the top of the mountains, whence one would expect but little, and yet the fruit of it shall shake like Lebanon; it shall come up like a wood, so thick, and tall, and strong, like the cedars of Lebanon. Even upon the tops of the mountains the earth shall bring forth by handfuls; that is an expression of great plenty ( Gen. xli. 47 ), as the grass upon the house top is said to be that wherewith the mower fills not his hand. This is applicable to the wonderful productions of the seed of the gospel in the days of the Messiah. A handful of that seed, sown in the mountainous and barren soil of the Gentile world, produced a wonderful harvest gathered in to Christ, fruit that shook like Lebanon. The fields were white to the harvest, John iv. 35 ; Matt. ix. 37 . The grain of mustard-seed grew up to a great tree. 2. The towns shall grow populous: Those of the city shall flourish like grass, for number, for verdure. The gospel church, the city of God among men, shall have all the marks of prosperity, many shall be added to it, and those that are shall be happy in it.

1. Give the king, &c.-- a prayer which is equivalent to a prediction.

judgments-- the acts, and (figuratively) the principles of a right government ( Joh 5:22 ; 9:39 ).

righteousness-- qualifications for conducting such a government.

king's son-- same person as a king--a very proper title for Christ, as such in both natures.

2, &c. The effects of such a government by one thus endowed are detailed.

thy people ... and thy poor-- or, "meek," the pious subjects of his government.

3. As mountains and hills are not usually productive, they are here selected to show the abundance of peace, being represented as

bringing-- or, literally, "bearing" it as a produce.

by righteousness-- that is, by means of his eminently just and good methods of ruling.

4. That peace, including prosperity, as an eminent characteristic of Christ's reign ( Is 2:4 ; Is 9:6 ; 11:9 ), will be illustrated in the security provided for the helpless and needy, and the punishment inflicted on oppressors, whose power to injure or mar the peace of others will be destroyed (compare Is 65:25 ; Zec 9:10 ).

children of the needy-- for the needy (compare sons of strangers, Psa 18:45 [Margin]).

8. The foreign nations mentioned ( Psa 72:9 , 10 ) could not be included in the limits, if designed to indicate the boundaries of Solomon's kingdom. The terms, though derived from those used ( Ex 23:31 ; De 11:24 ) to denote the possessions of Israel, must have a wider sense. Thus, "ends of the earth" is never used of Palestine, but always of the world (compare Margin).

17. His name-- or, "glorious perfections."

as long as the sun-- (Compare Psa 72:5 ).

men shall be blessed-- ( Ge 12:3 ; 18:18 ).

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.

’The face of a man’ (in Ezekiel’s vision) signifies Matthew, who accordingly opens his Gospel with the human genealogy of Christ.

By this exordium he shews that it is the birth of Christ according to the flesh that he has undertaken to narrate.

, Hom. in Matt., Hom. i: Matthew wrote for the Jews, and in Hebrew (ed. note: It seems to be the general witness of antiquity that there was a Hebrew copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel, whether written before or after the Greek. This Hebrew copy was interpolated by the Ebionites.); to them it was unnecessary to explain the divinity which they recognized; but necessary to unfold the mystery of the Incarnation. John wrote in Greek for the Gentiles who knew nothing of a Son of God. They required therefore to be told first, that the Son of God was God, then that this Deity was incarnate.

Though the genealogy occupies only a small part of the volume, he yet begins thus, "The book of the generation." For it is the manner of the Hebrews to name their books from that with which they open; as Genesis.

The full expression would be "This is the book of the generation;" but this is a usual ellipse; e.g. "The vision of Isaiah," for, ’This is the vision.’

"Generation," he says in the singular number, though there be many here given in succession, as it is for the sake of the one generation of Christ that the rest are here introduced.

Or he therefore entitles it, "The book of the generation," because this is the sum of the whole dispensation, the root of all its blessings; viz. that God become man; for this once effected, all other things followed of course.

He says, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ," because he knew it was written, ’The book of the generation of Adam.’ He begins thus then, that he may oppose book to book, the new Adam to the old Adam, for by the one were all things restored which had been corrupted by the other.

We read in Isaiah, "Who shall declare His generation?" [ Isa 53:8 ] But it does not follow that the Evangelist contradicts the Prophet, or undertakes what he declares impossible; for Isaiah is speaking of the generation of the Divine nature; St. Matthew of the incarnation of the human.

And do not consider this genealogy a small thing to hear: for truly it is a marvellous thing that God should descend to be born of a woman, and to have as His ancestors David and Abraham.

Though any affirm that the prophet (Isaiah) does speak of His human generation, we need not answer to his enquiry, "Who shall declare it?" - "No man;" but, "Very few;" because Matthew and Luke have.

By saying, "of Jesus Christ," he expresses both the kingly and priestly office to be in Him, for Jesus, who first bore this name, was after Moses, the first who was leader of the children of Israel; and Aaron, anointed by the mystical ointment, was the first priest under the Law.

What God conferred on those, who, by the anointing of oil were consecrated as kings or priests, this the Holy Spirit conferred on the Man Christ; adding moreover a purification. The Holy Spirit cleansed that which taken of the Virgin Mary was exalted into the Body of the Saviour, and this is that anointing of the Body of the Saviour’s flesh whence He was called Christ. (ed. note: This passage is from a work commonly ascribed to Hilary the Deacon. The Fathers bear out its doctrine; e.g. "Since the flesh is not holy in itself, therefore it was sanctified even in Christ, the Word which dwelt in it, through the Holy Ghost, sanctifying His own Temple, and changing it into the energy of His own Nature. For therefore is Christ’s Body understood to be both holy and hallowing, as being made a Temple of the Word united to it bodily, as Paul says." Cyril Alex. lib. v. in Joann. p. 992. In like manner, Gregory of Nazianzus speaks of "The Father of the True and really Anointed (Christ), whom He has anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows, anointing the manhood with the Godhead, so as to make both one." Orat. 5. fin)

Because the impious craft of the Jews denied that Jesus was born of the seed of David, he adds, "The son of David, the son of Abraham."

But why would it not have been enough to name one of them, David alone, or Abraham alone? Because the promise had been made to both of Christ to be born of their seed. To Abraham, "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." [ Gen 22:18 ] To David, "Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy seat." [ Psa 137:11 ]

He therefore calls Christ the Son of both, to shew that in Him was fulfilled the promise to both. Also because Christ was to have three dignities; King, Prophet, Priest; but Abraham was prophet and priest; priest, as God says to him in Genesis, "Take an heifer;" [ Gen 15:9 ] Prophet, as the Lord said to Abimelech concerning him, "He is a prophet, and shall pray for thee." [ Gen 20:7 ] David was king and prophet, but not priest.

Thus He is expressly called the son of both, that the threefold dignity of His forefathers might be recognized by hereditary right in Christ.

He therefore names specially two authors of His birth - one who received the promise concerning the kindreds of the people, the other who obtained the oracle concerning the generation of Christ; and though he is later in order of succession is yet first named, inasmuch as it is greater to have received the promise concerning Christ than concerning the Church, which is through Christ; for greater is He who saves than that which is saved.

The order of the names is inverted, but of necessity; for had he written Abraham first, and David afterwards, he would have to repeat Abraham again to preserve the series of the genealogy.

Another reason is that royal dignity is above natural, though Abraham was first in time, yet David is honour.

But since from this title it appears that the whole book is concerning Jesus Christ, it is necessary first to know what we must think concerning Him; for so shall be better explained what this book relates of Him.

Cerinthus then and Ebion made Jesus Christ only man; Paul of Samosata, following them, asserted Christ not to have had an existence from eternity, but to have begun to be from His birth of the Virgin Mary; he also thought Him nothing more than man. This heresy was afterwards confirmed by Photinus.

The Apostle John, seeing long before by the Holy Spirit this man’s madness, rouses him from his deep sleep of error by the preaching of his voice, saying, "In the beginning was the Word." [ Joh 1:1 ]

He therefore, who in the beginning was with God, could not in this last time take the beginning of His being from man. He says further, (let Photinus hear his words,) "Father, glorify Me with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was." [ Joh 17:5 ]

Saith the Apostle of the Only-begotten, "Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God." [ Phi 2:6 ]

Who then is this who is in the form of God? or how emptied He Himself, and humbled Himself to the likeness of man? If the abovementioned heretics dividing Christ into two parts, i.e. the Man and the Word, affirm that it was the Man that was emptied of glory, they must first shew what form and equality with the Father are understood to be, and did exist, which might suffer any manner of emptying.

But there is no creature, in its own proper nature, equal with the Father; how then can any creature be said to be emptied? or from what eminence to descend to become man? Or how can he be understood to have taken upon Him, as though He had not at first, the form of a servant?

But, they say, the Word being equal with the Father dwelt in Man born of a woman, and this is the emptying. I hear the Son truly saying to the Holy Apostles, "If any man love Me, he will keep My saying, and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him." [ Joh 14:23 ]

Hear how He saith that He and the Father will dwell in them that love Him. Do you then suppose that we shall grant that He is there emptied of His glory, and has taken upon Him the form of a servant, when He makes His abode in the hearts of them that love Him? Or the Holy Spirit, does He fulfil an assumption of human flesh when He dwells in our hearts?

But not to mention all arguments, let us bring forward that one to which all arguments point, that, for one who was God to assume a lowly guise both has an obvious use, and is an adaptation and in nothing contradicts the course of nature. But for one who is man to speak things divine and supernatural is the highest presumption; for though a king may humble himself a common soldier may not take on him the state of an emperor. So, if He were God made man, all lowly things have place; but if mere man, high things have none.

Sabellius they say was a disciple of Noctus, who taught that the same Christ was one and the same Father and Holy Spirit.

The audaciousness of this most insane error I will curb by the authority of the heavenly testimonies, and demonstrate the distinct personality of the proper substance of the Son. I shall not produce things which are liable to be explained away as agreeable to the assumption of human nature; but shall offer such passages as all will allow to be decisive in proof of His divine nature.

In Genesis we find God saying, "Let Us make man in Our own Image." By this plural number shewing, that there was some other person to whom He spoke. Had He been one, He would have been said to have made Him in His own Image, but there is another; and He is said to have made man in the Image of that other.

But even a body taken of spiritual, or ethereal, or clayey substance, had He willed to change into the true and very quality of human flesh, who will deny His power to do this? The Manichaeans said that the Lord Jesus Christ was a phantasm, and could not be born of the womb of a woman. But if the body of Christ was a phantasm, He was a deceiver, and if a deceiver, then He was not the truth. But Christ is the Truth; therefore His Body was not a phantasm.

And as the opening both of this Gospel, and of that according to Luke, manifestly proves Christ’s birth of a woman, and hence His real humanity, they reject the beginning of both these Gospels.

Faustus affirms, that "the Gospel both begins, and begins to be so called, from the preaching of Christ, in which He no where affirms Himself to have been born of men. (ed. note: The Ebionites, as well as the Manichees, rejected the beginning of St. Matthew, vid. Epiphan. II arr. xxx. 23. And the Marcionites the beginning of St. Luke. Epiph. Haer. xlii, 11. But what exact portion they rejected is doubtful.)

Nay, so far is this genealogy from being part of the Gospel, that the writer does not venture so to entitle it; beginning, ’The book of the generation,’ not ’The book of the Gospel.’ Mark again, who cared not to write of the generation, but only of the preaching of the Son of God, which is properly The Gospel, begins thus accordingly, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." Thus then, all that we read in Matthew before the words, "Jesus began to preach the Gospel of the kingdom," [ Matt 4:14 ] is a part of the genealogy, not of the Gospel. I therefore betook myself to Mark and John, with whose prefaces I had good reason to be satisfied, as they introduce neither David, nor Mary, nor Joseph."

To which Augustine replies, What will he say then to the Apostle’s words, "Remember the resurrection of Jesus Christ of the seed of David according to my Gospel." [ 2Ti 2:2 ] But the Gospel of the Apostle Paul was likewise that of the other Apostles, and of all the faithful, as he says, "Whether I, or they, thus have we preached the Gospel."

The Arians will not have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be of one and the same substance, nature, and existence; but that the Son is a creature of the Father, and Holy Spirit a creature of a creature, i.e. created by the Son; further, they think that Christ took the flesh without a soul.

I know not what benefit the person of the Mediator has conferred upon us, if He redeemed not our better part, but took upon Him our flesh only, which without the soul cannot have consciousness of the benefit. But if Christ came to save that which had perished, the whole man had perished, and therefore needs a Saviour; Christ then in coming saves the whole man, taking on Him both soul and body.

Should they say that He spoke thus in parables, we have at hand proofs from the Evangelists themselves, who in relating His actions, bear witness as to the reality of His body, so of His soul, by mention of passions which cannot be without a soul; as when they say, "Jesus wondered, was angry," and others of like kind.

The Apollinarians also as the Arians affirmed that Christ had taken the human flesh without the soul (margin note: Id. de Haeres. 55]). But overthrown on this point by the weight of Scripture proof, they then said that part which is the rational soul of man was wanting to the soul of Christ, and that its place was filled by the Word itself.

But if it be so, then we must believe that the Word of God took on Him the nature of some brute with a human shape and appearance. But even concerning the nature of Christ’s body, there are some who have so far swerved from the right faith, as to say, that the flesh and the Word were of one and the same substance, most perversely insisting on that expression, The Word was made flesh; which they interpret that some portion of the Word was changed into flesh, not that He took to Him flesh of the flesh of the Virgin. (ed. note: Some of the Apollinarians thus hold. vid. Nyssen. vol. ii, p. 694. A.Theodor. Eranist. p. 174. ed. Schulz. The same doctrine was afterwards ascribed to the Eutychians, vid. Vigil. Taps. in Eutych. iv. Theod. Haer. iv. 13)

We account those persons mad who have suspected that so much as the shadow of change could take place in the nature of the Divine Word; it abides what it ever was, neither is nor can be changed.

We do not speak of Christ as man in such a sort as to allow that any thing was wanting to Him, which it is certain pertains to human nature, whether soul, or rational mind, or flesh, and flesh such as was taken of the Woman, not gained by a change or conversion of the Word into flesh.

These three several errors, that thrice false heresy of the Apollinarists has brought forward. Eutyches also chose out this third dogma of Apollinaris, which denying the verity of the human body and soul, maintained that our Lord Jesus Christ was wholly and entirely of one nature, as though the Divine Word had changed itself into flesh and soul, and as though the conception, birth, growth, and such like, had been undergone by that Divine Essence, which was incapable of any such changes with the very and true flesh; for such as is the nature of the Only-begotten, such is the nature of the Father, and such is the nature of the Holy Ghost, both impassible and eternal.

But if to avoid being driven to the conclusion that the Godhead could feel suffering and death, he departs from the corruption of Apollinaris, and should still dare to affirm the nature of the incarnate Word, that is of the Word and the flesh, to be the same, he clearly falls into the insane notions of Manichaeus and Marcion, and believes that the Lord Jesus Christ did all His actions with a false appearance, that His body was not a human body, but a phantasm, which imposed on the eyes of the beholders.

Id. Ep. 35 ad Julian) to pronounce as an episcopal decision, that in Christ before His incarnation were two natures, but after His incarnation only one, it behoved that he should have been urgently pressed to give the reason of this his belief.

suppose that in using such language he supposed the soul which the Saviour took, to have had its abode in heaven before it was born of the Virgin Mary (ed. note, e: This opinion, which involves Nestorianism, the opposite error to Eutychianism or Monophysitism, is imputed to Eutyches by Flavian, ap. Leon. Ep. xxii. 3. Ephraem, Antioch, ap Phot. p. 805. Leont. de Sectis 7 init).

This Catholic hearts and ears endure not, for that the Lord when He came down from heaven shewed nothing of the condition of human nature, nor did He take on Him any soul that had existed before, nor any flesh that was not taken of the flesh of His mother. Thus what was justly condemned in Origen (ed. note, f: Vid. Origen in Joan. t. i. n. 37. t. xx. n. 17. Patriarch. ii. 6. n. 4. ix. Cels. i. 32, 33), must needs be rebuked in Eutyches, to wit, that our souls before they were placed in our bodies had actions not only wonderful but various.

These heresies therefore the Apostles overthrow in the opening of their Gospels, as Matthew in relating how He derived His descent from the kings of the Jews proves Him to have been truly man and to have had true flesh.

Likewise Luke, when he describes the priestly stock and person; Mark when he says, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God;" and John when he says, "In the beginning was the Word;" both shew Him to have been before all ages God, with God the Father.

Abraham began Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren.

Matthew, by beginning with Christ’s genealogy, shews that he has undertaken to relate Christ’s birth according to the flesh. But Luke, as rather describing Him as a Priest for the atonement of sin, gives Christ’s genealogy not in the beginning of his Gospel, but at His baptism, when John bare that testimony, "Lo, He that taketh away the sins of the world." [ Joh 1:29 ]

In the genealogy of Matthew is figured to us the taking on Him of our sins by the Lord Christ: in the genealogy of Luke, the taking away of our sins by the same; hence Matthew gives them in a descending, Luke in an ascending, series. But Matthew, describing Christ’s human generation in descending order, begins his enumeration with Abraham.

For Abraham was the first who deserved the witness of faith; "He believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." It behoved therefore that he should be set forth as the first in the line of descent, who was the first to deserve the promise of the restoration of the Church, "In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." And it is again brought to a period in David, for that Jesus should be called his Son; hence to him is preserved the privilege, that from him should come the beginning of the Lord’s genealogy.

Matthew then, desiring to preserve in memory the lineage of the Lord’s humanity through the succession of His parents, begins with Abraham, saying, "Abraham begat Isaac." Why does he not mention Ismael, his first-born? And again, "Isaac began Jacob;" why does he not speak of Esau his first-born? Because through them he could not have come down to David.

Yet he names all the brethren of Judah with him in the lineage. Ismael and Esau had not remained in the worship of the true God; but the brethren of Judah were reckoned in God’s people.

Or, he names all the twelve Patriarchs that he may lower that pride which is drawn from a line of noble ancestry. For many of these were born of maidservants, and yet were Patriarchs and heads of tribes.

But Judah is the only one mentioned by name, and that because the Lord was descended from him only. But in each of the Patriarchs we must note not their history only, but the allegorical and moral meaning to be drawn from them; allegory, in seeing whom each of the Fathers foreshewed; moral instruction in that through each one of the Fathers some virtue may be edified in us either through the signification of his name, or through his example. (ed. note: Origen considered that there were three senses of Scripture, the literal or historical, the moral, and the mystical or spiritual, corresponding to the three parts of man, body, and soul, and spirit. Hom. in Lev. ii, 5, de Princio iv, p. 168. By the moral sense is meant, as the name implies, a practical application of the text; by mystical one which interprets it of the invisible and the spiritual world.)

Abraham is in many respects a figure of Christ, and chiefly in his name, which is interpreted the Father of many nations, and Christ is Father of many believers. Abraham moreover went out from his own kindred, and abode in a strange land; in like manner Christ, leaving the Jewish nation, went by His preachers throughout the Gentiles.

Isaac is interpreted, ’laughter,’ but the laughter of the saints is not the foolish convulsion of the lips, but the rational joy of the heart, which was the mystery of Christ. For as he was granted to his parents in their extreme age to their great joy, that it might be known that he was not the child of nature, but of grace, thus Christ also in this last time came of a Jewish mother to be the joy of the whole earth; the one of a virgin, the other of a woman past the age, both contrary to the expectation of nature.

Jacob is interpreted, ’supplanter,’ and it is said of Christ, "Thou hast cast down beneath Me them that rose up against Me." [ Psa 18:43 ]

Our Jacob in like manner begot the twelve Apostles in the Spirit, not in the flesh; in word, not in blood. Judah is interpreted, ’confessor,’ for he was a type of Christ who was to be the confessor of His Father, as He spake, "I confess to Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth."

Morally; Abraham signifies to us the virtue of faith in Christ, as an example himself, as it is said of him, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto Him for righteousness." Isaac may represent hope; for Isaac is interpreted, ’laughter,’ as he was the joy of his parents; and hope is our joy, making us to hope for eternal blessings and to joy in them. "Abraham begat Isaac," and faith begets hope. Jacob signifies, ’love,’ for love embraces two lives; active in the love of our neighbour, contemplative in the love of God; the active is signified by Leah, the contemplative by Rachel. For Leah is interpreted ’labouring,’ (ed. note, h: Leah full of labour, Jerom. de nomin. Hebr. from to weary one’s self.) for she is active in labour; Rachel ’having seen the beginning,’ (ed. note, i: Rachel, in ewe, (as Gen 31:38 , etc.) Jerom. ibid. who also gives the interpretation in the text, from and because by the contemplative, the beginning, that is God, is seen. Jacob is born of two parents, as love is born of faith and hope; for what we believe, we both hope for and love.)

And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king.

Passing over the other sons of Jacob, the Evangelist follows the family of Judah, saying But Judah begat Phares and Zara of Thamar.

Neither was Judah himself a first-born, nor of these two sons was either his first-born; he had already had three before them. So that he keeps in that line of descent, by which he shall arrive at David, and from him whither he purposed.

It should be noted, that none of the holy women are taken into the Savior’s genealogy, but rather such as Scripture has condemned, that He who came for sinners being born of sinners might so put away the sins of all; thus Ruth the Moabitess follows among the rest,

But Luke has avoided the mention of these, that he might set forth the series of the priestly race immaculate, But the plan of St. Matthew did not exclude the righteousness of natural reason; for when he wrote in his Gospel, that He who should take on Him the sins of all, was born in the flesh, was subject to wrongs and pain, he did not think it any detraction from His holiness that He did not refuse the further humiliation of a sinful parentage. Nor, again, would it shame the Church to be gathered from among sinners, when the Lord Himself was born of sinners; and, lastly, that the benefits of redemption might have their beginning with his own forefathers: and that none might imagine that a stain in the blood was any hindrance to virtue, nor again any pride themselves insolently on nobility of birth.

Beside this, it shows that all are equally liable to sin; for here is Thamar accusing Judah of incest, and David begat Solomon with a woman with whom he had committed adultery. But if the Law was not fulfilled by these great ones, neither could it be by their less great posterity, and so all have sinned, and the presence of Christ is become necessary.

Observe that Matthew does not name both without a meaning for though the object of his writing only required the mention of Phares, yet in the twins a mystery is signified; namely the double life of the nations, one by the Law, the other by Faith.

By Zarah is denoted the people of the Jews, which first appeared in the light of faith, coming out of the dark womb of the world, and was therefore marked with the scarlet thread of the circumciser, for all supposed they were to be God’s people; but the Law was set before their face as it had been a wall or hedge. Thus the Jews were hindered by the Law, but in the times of Christ’s coming the hedge of the Law was broken down that was between Jew and Gentiles, as the Apostle speaks, Breaking down the middle wall of partition; and thus it fell out that time Gentiles, who were signified by Phares, as soon as the Law was broken through the Christ’s commandments, first entered into the faith, and after followed the Jews.

Judah begat Phares and Zarah before he went into Egypt, whither they both accompanied their father. In Egypt, Phares begat Esrom; amad Esrom begat Aram; Arami begat Aminadab; Aminadab begat Naasson; and then Moses led them out of Egypt. Naasson was head of a tribe of Judah under Moses in the desert, where he began Salmon; and this Salmon it was who, as prince of the tribe of Judah, entered the hand of promise with Joshua.

But as we believe that the names of these Fathers were given for some special reason under the providence of God, it follows, but Naasson begat Salmon. This Salmon after his father’s death entered the promised land with Joshua as prince of the tribe of Judah. He took a wife of the name of Rahab. This Rahab is said to have been that Rahab the harlot of Jericho who entertained the spies of the children of Israel, and hid them safely. For Salmon being noble among the children of Israel, inasmuch as he was of the tribe of Judah, and son of the prince thereof, beheld Rahab so ennobled through her great faith, that she was worthy whom he should take to wife. Salmon is interpreted ’receive a vessel ,’ perhaps as if invited in God’s providence by his very name to receive Rahab a vessel of election.

This Salmon in the promised land begat Booz of this Rahab. Booz begat Obeth of Ruth.

How Booz took to wife a Moabitess whose name was Ruth, I thought it needless to tell, Seeing the Scripture concerning them is open to all. We need but say thus much, that Ruth married Booz for the reward of her faith, for that she had cast off the gods of her forefathers, and had chosen the living God. And Booz received her to wife for reward of his faith, that from such sanctified wed-lock might be descended a kingly race.

But how did Ruth who was an alien marry a man that was a Jew? and wherefore in Christ’s genealogy did His Evangelist so much as mention a union, which in the eye of the law was bastard? Thus the Savior’s birth of a parentage not admitted by the law appears to us monstrous, until we attend to that declaration of the Apostle, The Law was not given for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. For this woman who was an alien, a Moabitess, a nation with whom the Mosaic Law forbade all intermarriage, and shut them totally out of the Church, how did she enter into the Church, unless that she were holy and unstained in her life above the Law? Therefore she was exempt from this restriction of the Law, and deserved to be numbered in the Lord’s lineage, chosen from the kindred of her mind, not of her body. To us she is a great example, for that in her was prefigured the entrance into the Lord’s Church of all of us who are gathered out of the Gentiles.

Ruth the Moabitess fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, Send forth, O Lord, the Lamb that shall rule over the earth, out of the rock of the desert to the mount of the daughter of Sion.

Jesse, the father of David, two names, being more frequently called Isaiah, but the Prophet says, There shall come a rod from the stem of Jesse; therefore to show that this prophecy was fulfilled in Mary and Christ, the Evangelist puts Jesse.

It is asked, why this epithet King is thus given by the holy Evangelist to David alone? Because he was the first king in the tribe of Judah. Christ Himself is Phares ’time divider,’ as it is written, You shall divide the sheep from the goats; He is Zaram, ’the east,’ Lo the man, the east is His name; He is Esrom, ’an arrow,’ He has set me as a polished shaft.’

Or following another interpretation, according to the abundance of grace, and the width of love. He is ’Aram the chosen’, according to that, Behold my Servant whom I have chosen. He is Amninadab, that is ’willing’ in that he says, . I will freely sacrifice to You. Also He is Naasson, i.e. ’augury’ as he knows the past, the present , and the future; or, ’like a serpent,’ according to that, Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. He is Salmon, i.e. ’that feels’, as He said, I feel that power is gone forth out of me.

Christ himself espouses Rahab, i.e. the Gentile Church; for Rehab is interpreted either ’hunger,’ or ’breadth,’ or ’might;’ for the Church of the Gentiles hungers and thirsts after righteousness, and converts philosophers and kings by the might of her doctrine. Ruth is interpreted either ’seeing’ or ’hastening,’ and denotes the Church which in purity of heart sees God, and hastens to the prize of the heavenly call;

Christ is also Booz, because He is strength, for when I am lifted up, I will draw all men to Me. He is Obeth, ’a servant,’ for, the Son of man came not to be ministered to but to minister. He is Jesse, or ’burnt,’ for, I am come to send fire on earth. He is David, ’mighty in arm,’ for, the Lord is great and powerful; ’desirable,’ for, He shall come, the Desire of all nations; ’beautiful to behold’; according to that, Beautiful in form before the sons of men.

Let us now see what virtues they be which these fathers edify in us; for faith, hope, and charity are the foundation of all virtues; those that follow are like additions over and above them. Judah is interpreted ’confession,’ of which there are two kinds, confession of faith, and of sin. If then, after we be endowed with the three forementioned virtues, we sin, confession not of faith only but of sin is needful for us. Phares is interpreted ’division,’ Zamar ’the east,’ and Thamar ’bitterness.’ Thus Confession begets separation from vice, the rise of virtue, and the bitterness of repentance. After Phares follows Esron, ’an arrow,’ for when one is separated from vice and secular pursuits, he should become a dart wherewith to slay by preaching the vices of others. Aram is interpreted ’elect’ or ’lofty,’ for as soon as one is detached from this world, and profits for another, he must needs be held to be elect of God, famous among men, high in virtue. Naasson is ’augury,’ but this augury is of heaven, not of earth. It is that of which Joseph boasted when he said, You have taken away the cup of my Lord, where with He is wont to divine. The cup is the divine Scripture wherein is the draught of wisdom; by this the wise man divines, since in it he sees things future, that is, heavenly things. Next is Salomon, ’that perceives,’ for he who studies divine Scripture becomes perceiving, that is, he discerns by the taste of reason, good from bad, sweet from bitter. Next is Booz, that is ’brave,’ for who is well taught in Scripture becomes brave to endure all adversity.

This brave one is the son of Rahab, that is, of the Church; for Rahab signifies ’breadth’ Church of the Gentiles was called from all quarters of the earth, it is called ’breadth’

Then follows Obeth, i.e. ’servitude,’ for which none is fit but he who is strong; and this servitude is begotten of Ruth, that is ’ haste,’ for it is necessary for a slave to be quick, not slow.

They who look to wealth and not temper, to beauty and not faith, and require in a wife such endowments as are required in harlots, will not beget sons obedient to their parents or to God, but rebellious to both; that their children may be punishment of their ungodly wedlock. Obeth begat Jesse that is ’refreshment,’ for whoever is subject to God and his parents, begets such children as prove his ’refreshment’

Or Jesse may be interpreted ’ incense .’ For it we serve God in love and fear, there will be a devotion is the heart, which in the heat and desire of the heart offers the sweetest incense to God. But when one has become a fit servant, and a sacrifice of incense to God, it follows that he becomes David, (i.e. ’of a strong hand,’) who fought mightily against his enemies, and made the Idumeans tributary. In like manner ought he to subdue carnal men to God by teaching and example.

David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; and Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; and Asa begat Josaphat.

The Evangelist has now finished the first fourteen generations, and is come to the second, which consists of royal personages, and therefore beginning with David, who was the first king in the tribe of Judah, he calls him "David the king."

Since in Matthew’s genealogy is shewed forth the taking on Him by Christ of our sins, therefore he descends from David to Solomon, in whose mother David had sinned. Luke ascends to David through Nathan, for through Nathan the prophet of God punished David’s sin; because Luke’s genealogy is to shew the putting away of our sins.

That is it, must be said, through a prophet of the same name, for it was not Nathan the son of David who reproved him, but a prophet of the same name.

Let us enquire why Matthew does not mention Bathsheba by name as he does the other women. Because the others, though deserving of much blame, were yet commendable for many virtues. But Bathsheba was not only consenting in the adultery, but in the murder of her husband, hence her name is not introduced in the Lord’s genealogy.

Besides, he does not name Bathsheba, that, by naming Urias, he may recall to memory that great wickedness which she was guilty of towards him.

But the holy David is the more excellent in this, that he confessed himself to be but man, and neglected not to wash out with the tears of repentance the sin of which he had been guilty, in so taking away Urias’ wife. Herein shewing us that none ought to trust in his own strength, for we have a mighty adversary whom we cannot overcome without God’s aid. And you will commonly observe very heavy sins befalling to the share of illustrious men, that they may not from their other excellent virtues be thought more than men, but that you may see that as men they yield to temptation.

Solomon is interpreted, ’peace-maker,’ because having subdued all the nations round about, and made them tributary, he had a peaceful reign. Roboam in interpreted, ’by a multitude of people,’ for multitude is the mother of sedition; for where many are joined in a crime, that is commonly unpunishable. But a limit in numbers is the mistress of good order.

And Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; and Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

In the fourth book of Kings we read, that Ochoezias was the son of Joram. On his death, Josabeth, sister of Ochozias and daughter of Joram, took Joash, her brother’s son, and preserved him from the slaughter of the royal seed by Athalias. To Joash succeeded his son Amasias; after him his son Azarias, who is called Ozias; after him his son Joathiam. Thus you see according to historical truth there were three intervening kings, who are omitted by the Evangelist. Joram, moreover, begot not Ozias, but Ochozias, and the rest as we have related. But because it was the purpose of the Evangelist to make each of the three periods consist of fourteen generations, and because Joram had connected himself with Jezebel’s most impious race, therefore his posterity to the third generation is omitted in tracing time lineage of the holy birth.

Thus the stain of the Gentile alliance being purged, the royal race is again taken up in the fourth following generation.

What the Holy Spirit testified through the Prophet, saying, that He would cut off every male from the house of Ahab, and Jezebel, that Jehu the son of Nausi fulfilled, and received the promise that his children to the fourth generation should sit on time throne of Israel. As great a blessing then as was given upon the house of Ahab, so great a curse was given on the house of Joram, because of the wicked daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, that his sons to the fourth generation should be cut out of the number of the Kings. Thus his sin descended on his posterity as it had been written, I will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation. Thus see how dangerous it is to marry with the seed of the ungodly.

Or, Ochozias, Joash, and Amasias, were excluded from time number, because their wickedness was continuous and without interval. For Solomon was suffered to hold the kingdom for his father’s deserts, Roboam for his son’s. But these three doing evil successively were excluded. This then is an example how a race is cut off when wickedness is shown therein in perpetual succession. And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Ezekias.

This Ezekias was he to whom, when he had no children , it was said, Set your house in order, for you shall die. He wept, not from desire of longer life, for he knew that Solomon had thereby pleased God, that he had not asked the length of days; but he wept, for he feared that God’s promise should not be fulfilled, when himself, being in the line of David of whom Christ should come, was without children. And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manassas begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias.

But the order in the Book of Kings is different, thus namely; Josias begot Eliakim; afterwards called Joakim; Joakim begot Jechonias. But Joakim is not reckoned among the Kings in the genealogy, because God’s people had not set him on the throne, but Pharaoh by his might. For if it were just that only for their intermixture with time race of Ahab, three kings should be shut out of the number in the genealogy, was it not just that Joakim should be likewise shut out, whom Pharaoh had set up as king by hostile force? And thus Jechonias, who is the son of Joakim, and the grandson of Josiah, is reckoned among the kings as the son of Josiah, in place of his father who is omitted.

Otherwise, we may consider the first Jeconias to be the same as Joakim, and the second to be the son not the father, the one being spelled with k and m, the second by ch and n. This distinction has been confounded both by Greeks and Latins, by the fault of writers and the lapse of time.

That there were two kings of the name of Joakim, is clear from the Book of Kings. And Joakim slept with his fathers:, and Joachin his son reigned in his stead. This son is the same whom Jeremiah calls Jeconias. And rightly did St. Matthew purpose to differ from the Prophet, because he sought to show therein the great abundance of the Lord’s mercies. For the Lord did not seek among men nobility of race, but suitably chose to be born of captives and of sinners, as He came to preach remission of sin to the captives. The Evangelist therefore did not conceal either of these; but rather showed them both, inasmuch as both were called Jeconias.

But it may be asked, why the Evangelist says they were born in the carrying away, when they were born before the carrying away. He says this because they were born for this Purpose, that they should be led captive, from the dominion of the whole nation, for their own and others’ sins. And because God foreknew that they were to be carried away captive, therefore he says, they were born in the carrying away to Babylon. But of those whom the holy Evangelist places together in the Lord’s genealogy it should be known, that they were alike in good or ill fame. Judas and his brethren were notable for good, in like manner Pimares and Zara, Jechonias andhis brethren, were notable for evil.

Mystically, David is Christ, who overcame Golias, that is, the Devil. Urias, i.e. God is my light, is the Devil who says, I will be like the Highest. To Him the Church was married, when Christ on the Throne of the majesty of His Father loved her, and having made her beautiful, united her to Himself in wedlock. Or Urias is the Jewish nation who through the Law boasted of their light, from them Christ took away the Law, having taught it to speak of Himself. Bersabee is ’the well of satiety,’ that is, the abundance of spiritual grace.

Bersabee is interpreted ’ the seventh well,’ or ’the well of the oath;’ by which is signified the grant of baptism, in which is given the gift of the sevenfold Spirit, and the oath against the Devil is made. Christ is also Solomon, i.e. the peaceful, according to that of the Apostle, He is our peace. Roboam is, ’ the breadth of the people,’ according to that, Many shall come from the East and from the West.

Or; ’the might of the people,’ because he quickly converts the people to the faith.

He is also Abias, that is, ’the Lord Father,’ according to that, One is your Father who is in heaven. And again, You call me Master and Lord. He is also Asa, that is, ’lifting up’; according to that, Who takes away the sins of the world. He is also Josaphat, that is, ’judging,’ for, The Father has committed all judgment to the Son. He is also Joram, that is, ’lofty,’ according to that, No man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven. He is also Ozias, that is, ’ the Lord’s strength,’ for, The Lord is my strength and my praise. He is also Jotham that is, ’completed,’ or ’perfected,’ for Christ is the end of the Law. He is also Ahaz, that is, ’ turning,’ according to that, Be you turned to Me.

Or, ’embracing’ because None knows the Father but the Son.

He is also Ezekias, that is, ’the strong Lord,’ or, ’the Lord shall comfort;’ according to that, Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. He is also Manasses, that is, ’forgetful,’ or, ’ forgotten,’ according to that, I will not remember your sins any more. He is also Aaron , that is, ’faithful,’ according to that, The Lord is faithful in all His words. He is also Josias, that is, ’the incense of the Lord ,’ as, And being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly.

And that incense signifies prayer, the Psalmist witnesses, saying, Let my prayer come up as incense before You. Or, ’The salvation of the Lord,’ according to that, My salvation is forever.

He is Jechonias, that is, ’ preparing’, or ’the Lord’s preparation,’ according to that, If I shall depart, I will also prepare a place for you.

Morally; after David follows Solomon, which is interpreted, ’peaceful.’ For one then becomes peaceful, when unlawful motions being composed, and being as it were already set in the everlasting rest, he serves God, and turns others to Him. Then follows Roboam, that is ’the breadth of the people.’ For when there is no longer any thing to overcome within himself, it is necessary for a man to look abroad to others, and to draw with him the people of God to heavenly things. Next is Abias, that is, ’ the Lord Father’; for these things premised, He may proclaim Himself the Son of God, and then He will be Asa, that is, ’raising up,’ and will ascend to His Father from virtue to virtue: and He will become Josaphat, that is, ’judging,’ for He will judge others, and will be judged of none. Thus he becomes Joram, that is, ’lofty,’ as it were dwelling on high; and is made Oziah, that is, ’ the strong One of the Lord,’ as attributing all his strength to God, and persevering in his path. Then follows Jotham, that is, ’perfect,’ for he grows daily to greater perfection. And thus he becomes Ahaz, that is, ’embracing,’ for by obedience knowledge is increased according to that, They have proclaimed the worship of the Lord, and have understood His doings. Then follows Ezekias, that is, ’the Lord is strong,’ because he understands that God is strong, amid so turning to His love, he becomes Manasses ’forgetful,’ because he gives up as forgotten all worldly things; and is made thereby Amon, that is ’ faithful,’ for he who despises all temporal things, defrauds no man of his goods. Thus he is made Josias, that is, ’in certain hope of the Lord’s salvation;’ for Josias is interpreted ’ the salvation of the Lord.’

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob.

After the carrying away, he sets Jeconiah again, as now become a private person.

Of whom Jeremiah speaks. Write this man dethroned; for there shall not spring of his seed one sitting on the throne of David. How is this said of the Prophet, that none of the seed of Jeconias should reign? For if Christ reigned, and Christ was of the seed of Jeconiah, then the Prophet has spoken falsely. But it is not there declared that there shall be none of the seed of Jeconiah, and so Christ is of his seed; and that Christ did reign, is not in contradiction to the prophecy; for He did not reign with worldly honors, as He said, My kingdom is not of this world.

Concerning Salathiel, we have read nothing either good or bad, but we suppose him to have been a holy man, and in the captivity to have consistently besought God in behalf of afflicted Israel, and that hence he was named Salathiel, ’time petition of God’ Salathiel begot Zorobabel, which is interpreted, ’flowing postponed,’ or, ’of the confusion,’ or here, ’the doctor of Babylon." I have read, but know not whether it be true, that both the priestly line and the royal line were united in Zorobabel; and that it was through him that the children of Israel returned into their own country. For that in a disputation held between three, of which Zorobabel was one, each defending his own opinion, Zorobabel’s sentence that Truth was the strongest thing, prevailed; and that for this Darius granted him that the children of Israel return to their country; and therefore after this providence of God, he was rightly called Zorobabel, ’time doctor of Babylon.’ For what doctrine is greater than to show that Truth is the mistress of all things?

But this seems to contradict the genealogy which is read in Chronicles. For there it is said, that Jeconias begot Salathiel and Phadaias, and Phadaias begot Zorobabel, and Zorobabel Mosollah, Ananias, and Salomith their sister. But we know that many parts of the Chronicles have been corrupted by time, and error of transcribers. Hence come many and controverted questions of genealogies which the Apostle bids us avoid. Or it may be said, that Salathiel and Phadaias are the same man under two different names. Or that Salathiel anti Phadaias were brothers, and both had sons of the same name, and that the writer of the history followed the genealogy of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel. From Abiud down to Joseph, no history is found in the Chronicles; but we read that the Hebrews had many other annals, which were called the Words of the Days, of which much was burned by Herod, who was a foreigner, in order to confound the descent of the royal line. And perhaps Joseph had read in them the names of his ancestors, or knew them from some other source. And thus the Evangelist could learn the succession of this genealogy. It should be noted, that the first Jeconiah is called the resurrection of the Lord, the second, the preparation of the Lord. Both are very applicable to the Lord Christ, who declares, I am the resurrection, and the life; and I go to Prepare a place for you. Salathiel, i.e. the Lord is my ’petition’ is suitable to Him who said, Holy Father, keep them whom You have given Me.

He is also Zorobabel, that is, ’ the master of confusion,’ according to that, Your Master eats with publicans and sinners. He is Abiud that is, ’He is my Father,’ according to that, I and the Father are One. He is also Eliacin, that is, ’God the Reviver,’ according to that, I will revive him again in the last day. He is also Azor, that is, ’aided,’ according to that He who sent Me is with Me. He is also Sadoch, that is; ’the just,’ or, ’ the justified,’ according to that, He was delivered, the just for the unjust. He is also Achim, that is ’ my brother is he,’ according to that, Who so does the will of My Father, he is My brother. He is also Eliud, that is; ’He is my God,’ according to that, My Lord, and my God.

He is also Eleazar, i.e. ’God is my helper,’ as in the seventeenth Psalm, My God, my helper. He is also Mathan, that is, ’giving,’ or, ’given,’ for, He gave gifts for men; and, God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.

He is also Jacob, ’that supplants,’ for not only has He supplanted the evil, but has given His power to His faithful people; as, Behold I have given you power to tread upon serpents. He is also Joseph , that is, ’adding,’ according to that, I came that they might have life, and that they might have it abundantly.

But let us see what moral signification these names contain. After Jeconias, which means ’the preparation of the Lord,’ follows Salathiel, i.e. ’God is my petition for he who is rightly prepared, prays not but of God. Again he becomes Zorobabel, ’the master of Babylon,’ that is, the men of time earth, whom He makes to know concerning God, that He is their Father, which is signified in Abiud. Then that people rise again from their vices, whence follow Eliacim, ’the resurrection;’ and thence rise to good work which is Azor, and becomes Sadoch, i.e. ’righteous;’ and then they are taught the love of their neighbor. He is my brother, which is signified in Achim; and through love to God he says of Him, ’My God,’ which Eliud signifies. Then follows Eleazar, i.e. ’God is my helper;’ he recognizes God his helper. But whereto he tends is shown in Matthan, which is interpreted ’gift,’ or ’giving;’ for he looks to God as his benefactor; and as he wrestled with and overcame his vice in the beginning, so he does in the end of life, which belongs to Jacob, and thus he reaches Joseph, that is,’ The increase of virtues.

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

In the last place, after all the patriarchs, he sets down Joseph the husband of Mary, for whose sake all the rest are introduced, saying, "But Jacob begot Joseph."

This passage is objected to us by the Emperor Julian in his Discrepancy of the Evangelists. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, Luke makes him the son of Heli. He did not know the Scripture manner, one was his father by nature, the other by law. For we know that God commanded by Moses, that if a brother or near kinsman died without children, another should take his wife, to raise up seed to his brother or kinsman. [ Deut 25 ]

In his Epist. ad Aristidem, vid. Reuth Reliqu. vol. ii, p. 114. Africanus), and Eusebius of Caesarea, have disputed more fully.

For Matthan and Melchi at different periods had each a son by one and the same wife Jesca. Matthan, who traced through Solomon, first had her, and died leaving one son, Jacob by name. As the Law forbade not a widow, either dismissed from her husband, or after the death of her husband, to be married to another, so Melchi, who traced through Matthan, being of the same tribe but of another race, took this widow to his wife, and begat Heli his son.

Thus shall we find Jacob and Heli, though of a different race, yet by the same mother, to have been brethren. One of whom, namely Jacob, after Heli his brother was deceased without issue, married his wife, and begat on her the third, Joseph, by nature indeed and reason his own son. Whereupon also it is written, "And Jacob begat Joseph." But by the Law, he was the son of Heli; for Jacob, being his brother, raised up seed to him.

Thus the genealogy, both as recited by Matthew, and by Luke, stands right and true; Matthew saying, "And Jacob begot Joseph;" Luke saying, "Which was the son, as it was supposed, (for he adds this withal,) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Melchi."

Nor could he have more significantly or properly expressed that way of generation according to the Law, which was made by a certain adoption that had respect to the dead, carefully leaving out the word "begetting" throughout even to the end.

He is more properly called his son, by whom he was adopted, than had he been said to have been begotten of him of whose flesh he was not born. Wherefore Matthew, in saying, "Abraham begot Isaac," and continuing the same phrase throughout down to "Jacob begot Joseph," sufficiently declares that he gives the father according to the order of nature, so as that we must hold Joseph to have been begotten, not adopted, by Jacob. Though even if Luke had used the word, "begotten," we need not have thought it any serious objection; for it is not absurd to say of an adopted son that he is begotten, not after the flesh, but by affection.

Neither does this lack good authority; nor has it been suddenly devised by us for this purpose. For the kinsmen of our Saviour according to the flesh, either out of desire to shew forth this their so great nobility of stock, or simply for the truth’s sake, have delivered it unto us.

And suitably does Luke, who relates Christ’s ancestry not in the opening of his Gospel, but at his baptism, follow the line of adoption, as thus more clearly pointing Him out as the Priest that should make atonement for sin. For by adoption we are made the sons of God, by believing in the Son of God. But by the descent according to the flesh which Matthew follows, we rather see that the Son of God was for us made man.

Luke sufficiently shews that he called Joseph the son of Heli, because he was adopted by Heli, by his calling Adam the son of God, which he was by grace, as he was set in Paradise, though he lost it afterwards by sinning.

Having gone through all the ancestry, and ended in Joseph, he adds, "The husband of Mary," thereby declaring that is was for her sake that he was included in the genealogy.

The Son of God was born of human flesh, that is of Mary, and not by man after the way of nature, as Ebion says; and accordingly it is significantly added, "Of her Jesus was born."

This is said against Valentinus, who taught that Christ took nothing of the Virgin Mary, but passed through her as through a channel or pipe.

Wherefore it pleased Him to take flesh of the womb of a woman, is known in His own secret counsels; whether that He might confer honour on both sexes alike, by taking the form of a man, and being born of a woman, or from some other reason which I would not hastily pronounce on.

What God conveyed by the anointing of oil to those who were anointed to be kings, this the Holy Spirit conveyed upon the man Christ, adding thereto the expiation; wherefore when born He was called Christ; and thus it proceeds, "who is called Christ."

It was not lawful that he should think to separate himself from Mary for this, that she brought forth Christ as yet a Virgin. And herein may the faithful gather, that if they be married, and preserve strict continence on both sides, yet may their wedlock hold with union of love only, without carnal; for here they see that it is possible that a son be born without carnal embrace.

In Christ’s parents was accomplished every good benefit of marriage, fidelity, progeny, and a sacrament. The progeny we see in the Lord Himself; fidelity, for there was no adultery; sacrament, for there was no divorce.

The attentive reader may ask, Seeing Joseph was not the father of the Lord and Saviour, how does his genealogy traced down to him in order pertain to the Lord? We will answer, first, that it is not the practice of Scripture to follow the female line in its genealogies; secondly, that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, and that he was thence compelled to take her to wife as a kinsman, and they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being come of one stock.

Also, the line of descent ought to be brought down to Joseph, that in wedlock no wrong might be done to the male sex, as the more worthy, providing only nothing was taken away from the truth; because Mary was of the seed of David.

Hence then we believe that Mary was in the line of David; namely, because we believe the Scripture which affirms two things, both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that He should be conceived of Mary not by knowledge of man, but as yet a virgin.

Herein we must beware of the error of Nestorius, who thus speaks; "When Divine Scripture is to speak either of the birth of Christ which is of the Virgin Mary, or His death, it is never seen to put God, but either, Christ, or Son, or Lord; since these three are significative of the two natures, sometimes of this, sometimes of that, and sometimes of both this and that together. And here is a testimony to this, ’Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.’ For God the Word needed not a second birth of a woman."

But not one was the Son of God, and another the son of a man; but the same Christ was the son of both God and man. And as in one man, the soul is one and the body is another, so in the mediator between God and man, the Son of God was one, and the son of man another; yet of both together was one Christ the Lord. Two in distinction of substance, one in unity of Person.

But the heretic objects; "how can you teach Him to have been born in time whom you say was before coeternal with His Father? For birth is as it were a motion of a thing not in being, before it be born, bringing about this, that by benefit of birth it come into being. Whence it is concluded, that He who was in being cannot be born; if He could be born He was not in being."

) Let us imagine, as many will have it, that the universe has a general soul, which by some unspeakable motion gives life to all seeds, so as that itself is not mixed up with the things it produces. When this then passes forth into the womb to form passible matter to its own uses, it makes one with itself the person of that thing which it is clear has not the same substance.

And thus, the soul being active and the matter passive, of two substances is made one man, the soul and the flesh being distinct; thus it is that our confession is, that that soul is born of the womb which in coming to the womb we say conferred life on the thing conceived. He, I say, is said to be born of His mother, who shaped to Himself a body out of her, in which He might be born; not as though before He was born, His mother might, as far as pertained to Him, not have been in being. In like manner, yea in a manner yet more incomprehensible and sublime, the Son of God was born, by taking on Him perfect manhood of his Mother. He who by his singular almighty power is the cause of their being born to all things that are born.

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

Having enumerated the generations from Abraham to Christ, he divides them into three divisions of fourteen generations, because three times at the end of fourteen generations the state of the people of the Jews was changed. From Abraham to David they were under Judges; from David to the carrying away into Babylon under Kings; from the carrying away to Christ under the High Priests.

like as ever at the end of fourteen generations the state of men has changed, so there being fourteen generations completed from the carrying away to Christ, it must needs be that the state of men be changed by Christ. And so since Christ all the Gentiles have been made under one Christ Judge, King, and Priest. And for that Judges, Kings, and Priests prefigured Christ’s dignity, their beginnings were always in a type of Christ; the first of the Judges was Joshua the son of Nave; the first of the Kings, David; the first of the Priests, Jesus son of Josedech. That this was typical of Christ none doubts.

Or he divided the whole genealogy into three parts to shew that not even by the change of their government were they made better, but under Judges, Kings, High Priests, and Priests, held the same evil course. For which cause also he mentions the captivity in Babylon, shewing that neither by this were they corrected. But the going down into Egypt is not mentioned, because they were not still in terror of the Egyptians as they were of the Assyrians or Parthians; and because that was a remote, but this a recent event; and because they had not been carried thither for sin as they had to Babylon.

Let us not think this is to be overlooked, that though there were seventeen Kings of Judaea between David and Jeconiah, Matthew only recounts fourteen. We must observe that there might be many more successions to the throne than generations of men; for some may live longer and beget children later; or might be altogether without seed; thence the number of Kings and of generations would not coincide.

Or we may say that there are three Kings overlooked, as was said above.

Again, from Jeconiah to Joseph are computed twelve generations; yet he afterwards calls these also fourteen. But if you look attentively, you will be able to discover the method by which fourteen are reckoned here. Twelve are reckoned including Joseph, and Christ is the thirteenth; and history declares that there were two Joakims, that is two Jeconiahs, father and son. The Evangelist has not passed over either of these, but has named them both. Thus, adding the younger Jeconiah, fourteen generations are computed.

Or, the same Jeconiah is counted twice in the Gospel, once before the carrying away, and again after the carrying away. For this Jeconiah being one person had two different conditions; before the carrying away he was King, as being made King by the people of God; but he became a private man at the carrying away; hence he is reckoned once among the Kings before the carrying away; and after the carrying away once among private men. Aug., de Cons. Evan, ii, 4: Or, one of Christ’s forefathers is counted twice, because in him, Jeconiah to wit, there was made a passing off to strange nations since he was carried to Babylon. Wherever a series turns out of the right line to go in any other direction there is an angle made, and that part that is in the angle is reckoned twice. Thus here is a figure of Christ, who passes from the circumcision to the uncircumcision, and is made a cornerstone.

He made fourteen generations, because the ten denotes the Decalogue, and the four the four books of the Gospel; whence this shews the agreement of the Law and the Gospel. And he put the fourteen three times over, that he might shew that the perfection of law, prophecy, and grace, consists in the faith of the Holy Trinity.

Or in this number is signified the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit. The number is made up of seven, doubled, to shew that the grace of the Holy Spirit is needed both for soul and body to salvation.

Also the genealogy is divided into three portions of fourteen thus. The first from Abraham to David, so as that David is included in it; the second from David to the carrying away, in which David is not included, but the carrying away is included; the third is from the carrying away to Christ, in which if we say that Jeconiah is included, then the carrying away is included. In the first are denoted the men before the Law, in which you will find some of the men of the Law of nature, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all as far as Solomon.

In the second are denoted the men under the Law; for all who are included in it were under the Law.

In the third are found the men of grace; for it is finished in Christ, who was the giver of grace; and because in it was the deliverance from Babylon, signifying the deliverance from captivity that was made by Christ.

After having divided the whole into three periods of fourteen generations, he does not sum them all up and say, The sum of the whole is forty and two; because one of those fathers, that is Jeconiah, is reckoned twice; so that they do not amount to forty-two, as three times fourteen does, but because one is reckoned twice over, there are only forty-one generations.

Matthew therefore, whose purpose was to draw out Christ’s kingly character, counts forty successions in the genealogy exclusive of Christ. This number denotes the time for which we must be governed by Christ in this world, according to that painful discipline which is signified by the iron rod of which it is written in the Psalms, "Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron."

That this number should denote this our temporal life, a reason offers at hand, in this, that the seasons of the year are four, and that the world itself is bounded by four sides, the east, the west, the north, and the south. But forty contains ten four times. Moreover, ten itself is made up by a number proceeding from one to four.

Or, the ten refers to the decalogue, the four to this life present, which passes through four seasons; or by the ten is meant the Old Testament, by the four the New.

But if any, maintaining that it is not the same Jeconiah, but two different persons, make the number forty and two, we then shall say that the Holy Church is signified; for this number is the product of seven, and six; (for six times seven make forty-two;) the six denotes labour, and the seven rest.

The first English Testament, divided into verses, was that printed at Geneva, by Conrad Badius, in the year 1557. (Haydock) --- "The book of the Generation," is not referred to the whole gospel, but to the beginning, as in Genesis v. "This is the book of the generation of Adam." (Estius) --- The book of the[1] Generation, i.e. the generation or pedigree, which is here set down in the first sixteen verses. In the style of the Scriptures any short schedule or roll is called a book, as the bill or short writing of a divorce, is called a little book. (Matthew v. 31.) (Witham) --- Jesus, in Hebrew Jesuah, is the proper name of Him, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who was also the Son of God, "a name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb." (Luke ii.) It signifies Saviour, "because he was to save his people from their sins." He was also called Christ, which signifies anointed; for though in the Old Testament kings, priests, and prophets were anointed, and though many were then designated by the name of Jesus, properly, and by an invariable custom of the New Testament, that person is exclusively signified, who, on account of the union of the divine and human nature, was anointed by the Holy Ghost above all his fellows. (Psalm xliv. and Hebrews i. 9.) Whence in this turn the hypostasis is understood, in which the two natures, the divine and human meet. (Estius)

Liber Generationis. Greek: Biblos geneseos. So Genesis ver. 1. Hic est liber generationis Adam, Greek: Biblos, &c.

He begins with Abraham, the father of the faithful, because to him the promise was made, that all generations should be blessed in his seed. (Theophylactus)

See Genesis xxxviii, ver. 6. & dein. and Zera of Thamar, her daughter-in-law. (Haydock)

See Josue. chap. ii. & dein. We nowhere else find the marriage of Salmon with Rahab; but this event might have been known by tradition, the truth of which the divinely inspired evangelist here confirms. (Bible de Vence) Rahab was a debauched woman, preserved in the pillage of Jericho, where she had been born. In this genealogy only four women are mentioned, of which two are Gentiles, and two adulteresses. Here the greatest sinners may find grounds for confidence in the mercies of Jesus Christ, and hopes of pardon, when they observed how the Lord of life and glory, to cure our pride, not only humbled himself by taking upon himself the likeness of sinful flesh, but by deriving his descent from sinners, and inspiring the holy evangelist to record the same to all posterity. (Haydock)

Extract from St. John Chrysostom's first Homil. upon the first chapter of St. Matthew: "How, you say, does it appear that Christ descended from David? For if he be born not of man, but of a virgin, concerning whose genealogy nothing is said, how shall we know that he is of the family of David? We have here two difficulties to explain. Why is the genealogy of the Virgin passed over in silence, and why is Joseph's mentioned, as Christ did not descend from him? ... How shall we know that the Virgin is descended from David? Hear the words of the Almighty addressed to the archangel Gabriel: 'Go to a virgin espoused to a man, whose name is Joseph, of the house and family of David.' What could you wish plainer that this, when you hear that the Virgin is of the family of David? Hence it also appears that Joseph was of the same house, for there was a law which commanded them not to marry any one but of the same tribe. ... But whether these words, of the house and family of David, be applied to the Virgin or to Joseph, the argument is equally strong. For if he was of the family of David, he did not take a wife but out of the same tribe, from which he had descended. Perhaps you will say he transgressed this law. But the evangelist has prevented such a suspicion, by testifying beforehand that Joseph was a just man. Beware how you attach crime to him, whose virtue is thus publicly acknowledged. ... It was not the custom among the Hebrews to keep the genealogies of women. The evangelist conformed to this custom, that he might not at the very beginning of the gospel offend by transgressing ancient rites, and introducing novelty."

Joram begot Ozias, three generations are omitted, as we find 2 Paraliponenon xxii; for there, Joram begot Ochozias, and Ochozias begot Joas, and Joas begot Amazias, and Amazias begot Ozias. This omission is not material, the design of St. Matthew being only to shew the Jews that Jesus, their Messias, was of the family of David; and he is equally the son, or the descendent of David, though the said three generations be left out: for Ozias may be called the son of Joram, though Joram was his great-grandfather. (Witham) --- It is thought that St. Matthew omitted these three kings, Ochozias, Joas, and Amazias, to preserve the distribution of his genealogy into three parts, each of fourteen generations; and, perhaps, also on account of their impiety, or rather on account of the sentence pronounced against the house of Achab, from which they were descended by their mother Athalia. (3 Kings xxi. 21.) (Calmet)

Josias begot[2] Jechonias, &c. The genealogy of Christ, as it appears by the 17th verse, is divided by the evangelist into thrice fourteen generations, and so it is to contain 42 persons. The first class of fourteen begins with Abraham, and ends with David. The second class begins with Solomon, and ends with Jechonias. The third class is supposed to begin with Salathiel, and to end, says St. Jerome, with our Saviour Christ. But thus we shall only find in the third class thirteen generations, and in all only forty-one, instead of forty-two. Not to mention in these short notes other interpretations, the conjecture of St. Epiphanius seems to most probable, that we are to understand two Jechonias's, the father and the son, who had the same name. So that the true reading should be, Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren, and Jechonias begot Jechonias, and Jechonias begot Salathiel. Thus Jechonias named in the 12th verse is not the same, but the son of him that was named in the 11th verse; and from Jechonias the son, begins the third class, and so Christ himself will be the last or 14th person in that last series or class. There are several difficulties about reconciling this genealogy in St. Matthew with that in St. Luke, chap. iii. But without insisting on all the particulars in these short notes, I hope it may suffice to take notice, that no one can reasonably doubt that both the evangelists copied out the genealogical tables, as they were then extant, and carefully preserved by the Jews, and especially by those families that were of the tribe of Juda, and of the family of David, of which the Messias was to be born. For if the evangelists had neither falsified, or made any mistake as to these genealogies, the Jews undoubtedly would have objected this against their gospels, which they never did. (Witham) --- The difficulties here are: 1. Why does St. Matthew give the genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary? 2. How is it inferred that Jesus is descended from David and Solomon, because Joseph is the son of David? 3. How can Joseph have two men for his father, Jacob of the race of Solomon, and Heli of the race of Nathan? To the 1st it is generally answered, that it was not customary with the Jews to draw out the genealogies of women; to the 2nd, that Jesus being the son of Joseph, either by adoption, or simply as the son of Mary his wife, he entered by that circumstance into all the rights of the family of Joseph; moreover, Mary was of the same tribe and family of Joseph, and thus the heir of the branch of Solomon marrying with the heiress of the branch of Nathan, the rights of the two families united in Joseph and Mary, were transmitted through them to Jesus, their son and heir; to the 3rd, that Jacob was the father of Joseph according to nature, and Heli his father according to law; or that Joseph was the son of the latter by adoption, and of the former by nature. (Haydock) --- In the transmigration, [3] transportation to Babylon; i.e. about the time the Jews were carried away captives to Babylon. For Josias died before their transportation. See 4 Kings xxiv. (Witham) --- Some think we are to read: Josias begot Joakim and his brethren; and Joakim begot Joachim, or Jechonias. Jechonias was son to Joakim, and grandson to Josias. The brothers of Jechonias are not known, but those of Joakim are known. (1 Paralipomenon iii. 15, 16.) Besides this reading give the number 14. (Haydock) --- St. Jerome says that Jechonias, the son of Josias, is a different person from Jechonias who begot Salathiel, for the latter was son of the former; see Paralipomenon iii. where it is said that Zorobabel was son of Phadaia; but Phadaia is the same as Salatheil. (Estius) --- Mat. Polus affirms that every one the least conversant in Jewish story, must know that several genealogies which appear to contradict each other, do not in reality. (Synop. Crit. ver. 4, p. 12.)

See St. Epiphanius hær. vi. pag. 21. Edit. Petav. Greek: epeide tines &c.

In transmigratione, Greek: epi tes metoikesias, i.e. circa tempus transmigrationis.

By the text of the first book of Paralipomenon iii. 17, 19. it appears that Zorobabel was grandson to Salathiel. In comparing the present genealogy with that of St. Luke, (chap. iii.) we find that in this last part St. Matthew has suppressed many generations, to bring the list to the number 14; for there are a greater number from Zorobabel to Jesus Christ in St. Luke, but in a different branch. (Bible de Vence) --- The evangelist was well aware that the suppressed names could be easily supplied from the Jewish records; and that every person could reply most satisfactorily to any objection on that head, who was the least acquainted with the Jewish tables. In the first fourteen of these generations, we see the family of David rising to the throne; in the second, a race of kings descending from him; in the last, the royal family descending to a poor carpenter. Yet, when every human appearance of restoring the kingdom to David's house was at an end, Jesus arose to sit on his father's throne, (Luke i. 32.) and of his kingdom there shall be no end. (Haydock)

The husband of Mary. The evangelist gives us rather the pedigree of St. Joseph, than that of the blessed Virgin, to conform to the custom of the Hebrews, who in their genealogies took no notice of women: but as they near akin, the pedigree of the one sheweth that of the other. (Challoner) --- Joseph the husband of Mary.[3] So he is again called, ver. 19: but in ver. 18, we read, when Mary his mother was espoused to Joseph. These different expressions of being husband, and being espoused, have occasioned different interpretations. Some think that Joseph and the blessed Virgin were truly married at the time of Christ's conception: others, that they were only then espoused, or engaged by a promise to marry afterwards. St. Jerome says, when you hear the name of husband, do not from thence imagine them to be married, but remember the custom of the Scriptures, according to which, they who are espoused only, are called husband and wives. (Witham) --- That Jesus, who is called Christ, was of the seed of David, is also evident, as St. Augustine affirms from various texts of the holy Scriptures, as in the epistle to the Romans, where St. Paul, (chap. i.) speaking of the Son of God, says, who was made to Him of the seed of David, according to the flesh. See also the promises made to David, 2 Kings vii. Psalms lxxxviii. and cxxxi. and spoken of Solomon, as a figure of Jesus Christ. (Estius)

Joseph virum Mariæ, Greek: ton anera Marias. And Ver. 19, vir ejus, Greek: aner autes. But Ver. 18, Greek: mnesteutheises, desponsata, Greek: mnesteuomai, is not properly the same as Greek: gamein.

ver. 1-17 . II. An account of the circumstances of his birth, so far as was requisite to show that he was born of a virgin,

The author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on Mt 9:9 . Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers-- that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.

For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is in every case placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews-- who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as Hug observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, Fosdick's translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand" ( Mt 24:15 )--a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on Lu 1:1 ) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, Tillemont, Townson, Owen, Birks, Tregelles. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of Irenæus [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day" ( Mt 27:8 ); "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" ( Mt 28:15 ), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision.

We have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against.

But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by Grotius, Michaelis (and his translator), Marsh, Townson, Campbell, Olshausen, Creswell, Meyer, Ebrard, Lange, Davidson, Cureton, Tregelles, Webster and Wilkinson, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31.

But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a tittle of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles-- in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. Michaelis tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and Davidson and Cureton among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original.

Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by Guericks, Olshausen, Thiersch, Townson, Tregelles, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.

It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of Dean Alford, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."

One argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of Hug (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and Roberts ("Discussions of the Gospels," &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language-- so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke ( Lu 1:1-4 ) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, Hug, Fritzsche, Credner, De Wette, Stuart, Da Costa, Fairbairn, Roberts.

On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics-- whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by Credner [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by Da Costa in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur.

1. The book of the generation-- an expression purely Jewish; meaning, "table of the genealogy." In Ge 5:1 the same expression occurs in this sense. We have here, then, the title, not of this whole Gospel of Matthew, but only of the first seventeen verses.

of Jesus Christ-- For the meaning of these glorious words, see on Mt 1:16 ; Mt 1:21 . "Jesus," the name given to our Lord at His circumcision ( Lu 2:21 ), was that by which He was familiarly known while on earth. The word "Christ"--though applied to Him as a proper name by the angel who announced His birth to the shepherds ( Lu 2:11 ), and once or twice used in this sense by our Lord Himself ( Mt 23:8 , 10 ; Mr 9:41 )--only began to be so used by others about the very close of His earthly career ( Mt 26:68 ; 27:17 ). The full form, "Jesus Christ," though once used by Himself in His Intercessory Prayer ( Joh 17:3 ), was never used by others till after His ascension and the formation of churches in His name. Its use, then, in the opening words of this Gospel (and in Mt 1:17 , 18 ) is in the style of the late period when our Evangelist wrote, rather than of the events he was going to record.

the son of David, the son of Abraham-- As Abraham was the first from whose family it was predicted that Messiah should spring ( Ge 22:18 ), so David was the last. To a Jewish reader, accordingly, these behooved to be the two great starting-points of any true genealogy of the promised Messiah; and thus this opening verse, as it stamps the first Gospel as one peculiarly Jewish, would at once tend to conciliate the writer's people. From the nearest of those two fathers came that familiar name of the promised Messiah, "the son of David" ( Lu 20:41 ), which was applied to Jesus, either in devout acknowledgment of His rightful claim to it ( Mt 9:27 ; 20:31 ), or in the way of insinuating inquiry whether such were the case (see on Joh 4:29 ; Mt 12:23 ).

2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren-- Only the fourth son of Jacob is here named, as it was from his loins that Messiah was to spring ( Ge 49:10 ).

3-6. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4. And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 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 of Urias-- Four women are here introduced; two of them Gentiles by birth--Rachab and Ruth; and three of them with a blot at their names in the Old Testament--Thamar, Rachab, and Bath-sheba. This feature in the present genealogy--herein differing from that given by Luke--comes well from him who styles himself in his list of the Twelve, what none of the other lists do, "Matthew the publican"; as if thereby to hold forth, at the very outset, the unsearchable riches of that grace which could not only fetch in "them that are afar off," but teach down even to "publicans and harlots," and raise them to "sit with the princes of his people." David is here twice emphatically styled "David the king," as not only the first of that royal line from which Messiah was to descend, but the one king of all that line from which the throne that Messiah was to occupy took its name--"the throne of David." The angel Gabriel, in announcing Him to His virgin-mother, calls it "the throne of David His father," sinking all the intermediate kings of that line, as having no importance save as links to connect the first and the last king of Israel as father and son. It will be observed that Rachab is here represented as the great-grandmother of David (see Ru 4:20-22 ; 1Ch 2:11-15 )--a thing not beyond possibility indeed, but extremely improbable, there being about four centuries between them. There can hardly be a doubt that one or two intermediate links are omitted.

7-8. And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8. And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias-- or Uzziah. Three kings are here omitted--Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah ( 1Ch 3:11 , 12 ). Some omissions behooved to be made, to compress the whole into three fourteens ( Mt 1:17 ). The reason why these, rather than other names, are omitted, must be sought in religious considerations--either in the connection of those kings with the house of Ahab (as Lightfoot, Ebrard, and Alford view it); in their slender right to be regarded as true links in the theocratic chain (as Lange takes it); or in some similar disqualification.

11. And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren-- Jeconiah was Josiah's grandson, being the son of Jehoiakim, Josiah's second son ( 1Ch 3:15 ); but Jehoiakim might well be sunk in such a catalogue, being a mere puppet in the hands of the king of Egypt ( 2Ch 36:4 ). The "brethren" of Jechonias here evidently mean his uncles--the chief of whom, Mattaniah or Zedekiah, who came to the throne ( 2Ki 24:17 ), is, in 2Ch 36:10 , as well as here, called "his brother."

about the time they were carried away to Babylon-- literally, "of their migration," for the Jews avoided the word "captivity" as too bitter a recollection, and our Evangelist studiously respects the national feeling.

12. And after they were brought to Babylon-- after the migration of Babylon.

Jechonias begat Salathiel-- So 1Ch 3:17 . Nor does this contradict Jr 22:30 , "Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man (Coniah, or Jeconiah) childless"; for what follows explains in what sense this was meant--"for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David." He was to have seed, but no reigning child.

and Salathiel-- or Shealtiel.

begat Zorobabel-- So Ezr 3:2 ; Ne 12:1 ; Hag 1:1 . But it would appear from 1Ch 3:19 that Zerubbabel was Salathiel's grandson, being the son of Pedaiah, whose name, for some reason unknown, is omitted.

13-15. And Zorobabel begat Abiud, &c.-- None of these names are found in the Old Testament; but they were doubtless taken from the public or family registers, which the Jews carefully kept, and their accuracy was never challenged.

16. And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus-- From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned. See on Mt 1:20 .

who is called Christ-- signifying "anointed." It is applied in the Old Testament to the kings ( 1Sa 24:6 , 10 ); to the priests ( Le 4:5 , 16 , &c.); and to the prophets ( 1Ki 19:16 )--these all being anointed with oil, the symbol of the needful spiritual gifts to consecrate them to their respective offices; and it was applied, in its most sublime and comprehensive sense, to the promised Deliverer, inasmuch as He was to be consecrated to an office embracing all three by the immeasurable anointing of the Holy Ghost ( Is 61:1 ; compare Joh 3:34 ).

17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away-- or migration.

into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon-- the migration of Babylon.

unto Christ are fourteen generations-- that is, the whole may be conveniently divided into three fourteens, each embracing one marked era, and each ending with a notable event, in the Israelitish annals. Such artificial aids to memory were familiar to the Jews, and much larger gaps than those here are found in some of the Old Testament genealogies. In Ezr 7:1-5 no fewer than six generations of the priesthood are omitted, as will appear by comparing it with 1Ch 6:3-15 . It will be observed that the last of the three divisions of fourteen appears to contain only thirteen distinct names, including Jesus as the last. Lange thinks that this was meant as a tacit hint that Mary was to be supplied, as the thirteenth link of the last chain, as it is impossible to conceive that the Evangelist could have made any mistake in the matter. But there is a simpler way of accounting for it. As the Evangelist himself ( Mt 1:17 ) reckons David twice--as the last of the first fourteen and the first of the second--so, if we reckon the second fourteen to end with Josiah, who was coeval with the "carrying away into captivity" ( Mt 1:11 ), and third to begin with Jeconiah, it will be found that the last division, as well as the other two, embraces fourteen names, including that of our Lord.