Vv. 2-Ga. καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ. This is not necessary to the genealogical line, but added to say by the way that He who belonged to the tribe of Judah belonged also to all the tribes of Israel. (Weiss, Mattha ν) ον oiVenrgi τὸν Φαρὲς καὶ ‘av Bane Zerah added to Perez the continuator of the line, to suggest that it was by a special provi- dence that the latter was first born (Gen. xxxviii. 27-30). The evangelist is on the outlook for the unusual or preternatural in history as prelude to the crowning marvel of the virgin birth (Gradus futurus ad credendum partum e virgine. Grot.).—éx τῆς Odpap. Mention of the mother wholly unnecessary and un- usual from a genealogical point of view, and in this case one would say, primd dly readable (Gen. xxxviii. 13-26). It is the first of four references to mothers
3—10.
4. “Apap δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾽Αμιναδάβ -
᾽Αμιναδὰβ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν
Ναασσών ' Ναασσὼν δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαλμών. 5. Σαλμὼν δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Boot ἐκ τῆς Ῥαχάβ ' Βοὸζ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ‘QBS ἐκ τῆς ‘Poud - "QBS δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ιεσσαί: 6. ᾿Ιεσσαὶ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Δαβὶδ
τὸν βασιλέα.
Δαβὶδ δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς 1
ἐγέννησε τὸν Σολομῶντα * ἐκ
τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου: 7. Σολομὼν δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ῥοβοάμ: “PoBodp δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾽Αβιά: ᾽Αβιὰ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ασά: 8. “Acad δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωσαφάτ" ᾿Ιωσαφὰτ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωράμ: ᾿Ιωρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Οζίαν: 9. Ὀζίας δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωάθαμ: ἸἸωάθαμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν "Axal- “Ayal δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Εζεκίαν: 10. Ἐεκίας
1ο βασιλευς omitted in ΜΒ, found in C™.. Σολοµωνα in BCL and most uncials.
*So in A.
in the ancestry of Jesus, concerning whom one might have expected the genealogy to observe discreet silence: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba; three of them sinful wemen, and one, Ruth, a foreigner. Why --ε they mentioned? By way of deferce against sinister mis- construction of the birth of Jesus? So Wetstein: Ut tacitz Judaeorum objec- tioni occurreretur. Doubtless there is a mental reference to that birth under some aspect, but it is not likely that the evan- gelist would condescend to apologise before the bar of unbelief, even though he might find means of doing so in the Jewish habit of glorying over the mis- deeds of ancestors (Wetstein). Much more probable is the opinion of the Fathers, who found in these names a foreshadowing of the gracious character of the Gospel of Jesus, as it were the Gospel in the genealogy. Schanz follows the Fathers, except that he thinks they have over-emphasised the sinful element. He finds in the mention of the four women a hint of God’s grace in Christ to the sinful and miserable: Rahab and Bathsheba representing the one, Tamar and Ruth the other. This view com- mends itself to many interpreters both Catholic and Protestant. Others prefer to bring the four cases under the cate- gory of the extraordinary exemplified by the case of Perez and Zerah. These women all became mothers in the line of Christ’s ancestry by special providence (Weiss-Meyer). Doubtless this is at least part of the moral. Nicholson (New Comm.) thinks that the introduction of Tamar and Ruth is sufficiently explained by Ruth iv. 11, 12, viewed as Messianic; of Rahab by her connection with the earlier Jesus (Joshua), and of Bathsheba
Most modern editors omit.
because she was the mother of a second line culminating in Christ, as Ruth of a first culminating in David.—Ver. δα. τὸν Δαβὶδ τὸν βασιλέα, David the King, the title being added to distinguish him from the rest. It serves the same pur- pose as if David had been written in large letters. At length we arrive at the great roy2l name! The materials for the first part of the genealogy are taken from Ruth iv. 18-22, and 1 Chron. ii. 5-15.
Vv. 6b-10, ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου, vide above. The chief feature in this second division of the genealogical table is the omission of three kings between Joram and Uzziah (ver. 8), viz., Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah. How is the omission to be explained? By inadvertence, or by intention, and if the latter, in what view ? Jerome favoured the second alternative, and suggested two reasons for the inten- tional omission—a wish to bring out the number fourteen (ver. £7) in the second part of the genealogy, and a desire to brand the kings passed over with the stamp of theocratic illegality. In effect, manipulation with a presentable excuse. But the excuse would justify other omis- sions, ¢.g., Ahaz and Manasseh, who, were as great offendersas any. Onecan, indeed, imagine the evangelist desiring to exemplify the severity of the Gospel as well as its grace in the construction of the list—to say in effect: God resisteth the proud, but He giveth grace to the lowly, and even the low. The hypo- thesis of manipulation in the interest of symbolic numbers can stand on its own basis without any pretext. It is not to be supposed that the evangelist was at all concerned to make sure that no link in the line was omitted. His one concern