who is expressly called the brother in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10, and 2 Kings xxiv. 17, instead of the uncle of Jechoniah, are appro priately mentioned after Jechoniah as his brothers.1 — litl rys /j.£roixsffia$, about the time of the migration2) The preposition IT/, which is contrasted with ^tra (after) in the twelfth verse, is also employed sometimes to denote the immediate sequence of that, during or about the time of which something else takes place. — See Gnomon on Mark ii. 26. The Hebrew prsefix 2 has the same force in Gen. x. 25. The birth of Jechoniah was followed immediately by the removal to Babylon, — which is called by the LXX. both atfoixsala, (the emigration), and fAsroixeffia, (the migra tion, immigration, or sojourning) ; the former with reference to Palestine, the latter with reference to Babylon. — Eaj3uXuvo$, of Babylon) i.e. to, or into Babylon. In like manner odb$ A/'y in Jer. ii. 18, signifies the way into Egypt.
12. {jura, after) sc. after he had migrated to Babylon. — S/j^X os sy'ewqfft rbv Zopo/3«/3fX, but Salathiel begat Zorobabel) i.e., was the progenitor of ; Pedaiah being the son of the former, and father of the latter. St Luke (iii. 27) mentions another Sala thiel and Zorobabel, father and son, who must have lived about the same time with these.3
13. 'Ey'ewrise rbv ' Aftioiid, begat Abiud) This is the same as Hodaiah,4 who was in like manner descended from Zorobabel, through several intervening ancestors (see 1 Chron. iii. 19, 24), as Hiller explains in his Syntagmata, pp. 361, sqq., where he shows, that the Jews acknowledged the genealogy in the said passage of Chronicles to be that of the Messiah : nor, indeed, was it necessary that any other genealogy should have been carried further down there than that of the Messiah. There can, therefore, be no doubt but that the passage in question was
1 Irencem, 218, writes, "Ante hunc Joachim (Joseph enim Joachim et Jechonise filius ostenditnr, quemadmodum et Matthseus generationem ejus exponit)." So M Cod. Reg. Paris of 9th century, and U Cod. Venetus of same date, in opposition to the ancient authorities, insert ' lua,x.t[p. — ED.
2 sc. to Babylon.— (T. B.)
3 D. Crusius explains the causes of this fact 1. c. p. 369, 370, showing that the Zorobabel of Luke was a prince of Juda, and the associate (ai/gv/ov) of Joshua in the restoration, whereas the Zorobabel of Matthew was a private individual. — E. B.
4 Or Hodajah, as in Bengel.