Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ιούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ. Ιούδας δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Φαρὲς καὶ τὸν Ζαρὰ “ἐκ τῆς Θάμαρ:
Gol, Wr apes δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ἐσρώμ' ᾿Εσρὼμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Αράμ.
So might Jesus be a Christ, though not descended from David. St. Paul writes (Gal. iii, 29): “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham's seed". So might we say: If Jesus was fit to be the Christ in point of spiritual equipment, then was He of the seed of David. There is no clear evidence in the Gospels that Jesus Him- self set value on Davidic descent; there are some things that seem to point the other way: ¢.g., the question, '' Who is my mother?” (Matt. xii. 45 ; Mk. iii. 33), and the other, “ What think ye of the Christ, whose son is He?” (Matt. xxii. 42, et par.). There is reason to believe that, like St. Paul, He would argue from the spiritual to the genealogical, not vice versd: not Christ use from David, but from David, at least ideally, because Christ on oth-r higher grounds.
Ver. 1. βίβλος κ.τ.λ. How much does this heading cover : the whole Gospel, the two first chapters, the whole of the first chapter, or only i. 1-17? All these views have been held. The first by Euthy. Zigab., who argued: the birth of the God-man was the important point, and involved all the rest; therefore the title covers the whole history named from the most important part (ἀπὸ τοῦ κνριωτέρον μα . Some moderns (Ebrard Keil, etc.) have defended the view on the ground that the correspond- ing title in O. T. (Gen. vi. 9; xi. 27, etc.) denotes not merely a genealogical list, but a history of the persons whose genealogy is given. Thus the expression is taken to ae un ολο Mallon}. Christ (liber de vita Christi, Maldon.).
ainst the second view and the third
eiss-Meyer remarks that at i. 18 a new beginning is made, while ii. r runs on as if continuing the same story. The most probable and most erally accepted opinion is that of Calvin, Beza, and Grotius that the expression applies only toi. 1-17. (Non est haec inscriptio totius libri, sed particulae primae quae velut extra corpus historiae prominet. Grotius.)
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Christ here is not an appellative but a proper name, in accord- ance with the usage of the Apostolic age. In the body of the evangelistic his- tory the word is not thus used ; only in the introductory parts. (Vide Mk. i, t; John i. 17.)
facie, impolitic, reminding of a
vlot Δ., vlot A. Of David first, because with his name was associated the more specific promise of a Messianic king; of Abraham also, because he was the patriarch of the race and first recipient of the promise. The genealogy goes no further back, because the Gospel is written for the Jews. Euthy. Zig. suggests that David is placed first because he was the better known, as the less remote, as oe es prophet and a renowned king. ( τοῦ γνωριµωτέ μᾶλλον vos, ἐπὶ τὸν walatdeaie’ ἀνῆλθεν.) The word νἱοῦ in both cases applies to Christ. It can refer gram- matically to David, as many take it, but th. other reference is demanded by the fact that νετ. 1 forms the superscription of the following genealogy. So Weiss-
a hag
v. 2-16. The geneal divides into three parts: from Abraham to David (vv. 2-6a); from David to the cap- tivity (vv. 6b-11); from the captivity to Christ. On closer inspection it turns out to be not so dry as it at first
There are touches here and there which import into it an ethical significance, suggesting the idea that it is the work not of a dry-as-dust Jewish genealogist, but of the evangelist ; or at least worked over by him in a Christian spirit, if the skeleton was given to his To note these is the chief interest of non- Rabbinical exegesis.