Vv. 12-15. In the last division the
6 5
* tov ᾿Αβιούδ: ᾿Αβιοὺὸ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ἐλιακείμ’ ᾿Ἐλιακεὶμ δὲ
ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾽Αζώρ: 14. ᾽Αζὼρ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαδώκ: Σαδὼκ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Αχείμ.: ᾿Αχεὶμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ελιούδ” 15. Ελιοὺδ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ελεάζαρ: ᾿Ελεάζαρ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ματθάν" Ματθὰν δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ιακώβ: 16. ᾿Ιακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ιωσήφ, { same ex-
τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἣς ἐγεννήθη *’Inoods ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. 17. Πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ ᾽Αβραὰμ ἕως Δαβίδ, γενεαὶ δεκατέσ- σαρες" καὶ ἀπὸ Δαβὶδ ἕως τῆς µετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος, γενεαὶ
genealogical table escapes our control. After Zerubbabel no name occurs in the O. T. We might have expected to find Abiud in 1 Chron. iii. το, where the children of Zerubbabel are given, but Abiud is not among them. The royal family sank into obscurity. It does not follow that no pains were taken to pre- serve their genealogy. The priests may have been diligent in the matter, and re- cords may have been preserved in the temple (Schanz). The Messianic hope would be a motive to carefulness. In any case we must suppose the author of the genealogy before us to give here what he found. He did not construct an imaginary list. And the list, if not guar- anteed as infallibly accurate by its inser- tion, was such as might reasonably be expected to satisfy Hebrew readers. Amid the gloom of the night of leguiism which broods over all things belonging to the period, this genealogy included, it is a comfort to think that the Messiahship of Jesus does not depend on the absolute accuracy of the genealogical tree.
Ver. 16. “laxoB... τὸν ᾿Ιωσὴφ: the genealogy ends with Foseph. It is then presumably his, not Mary’s. But for apologetic or dogmatic considerations, no one would ever have thought of doubting this. What creates perplexity is that Joseph, while called the husband (τὸν ἄνδρα) of Mary, is not represented as the father of Jesus. There is no ἐγέννησε in this case, though some sup- pose that there was originally, as the genealogy came from the hand of some Jewish Christian, who regarded Jesus as the Son of Joseph (Holtzmann in Η. Ο.). The S‘naitic Syriac Codex has “ Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Vir- gin, begat Jesus,” but it does not alter the story otherwise to correspond with Joseph’s paternity. Therefore Joseph can only have been the legal father of Jesus. But, it is argued, that is not enough to satisfy the presupposition of the whole N. T., υἱ5., that Jesus was the
5
pression In XxvVii. 17, 22
(“* Jesus called the Christ’)
actual son of David (κατὰ σάρκα, Rom. i. 3); therefore the genealogy must be that of Mary (Nosgen). This conclusion can be reconciled with the other alternative by the assumption that Mary was of the same tribe and family as Joseph, so that the genealogy was common to both. This was the patristic view. The fact
‘may have been so, but it is not indicated
by the evangelist. His aim, undoubtedly, is to set forth Jesus as the legitimate son of Joseph, Mary’s husband, at His birth, and therefore the proper heir of David’s throne.—é€& ἣς ἐγεννήθη “I. The peculiar manner of expression is a hint that something out of the usual course had happened, and prepares for the following explanation: ὁ λεγόμενο Χριστός; not implying doubt, but suggesting that the claim of Jesus to the title Christ was valid if He were a legitimate descendant of David, as the genealogy showed Hin to be.
Ver. 17. The evangelist pauses to point. out the structure of his genealogy: three parts with fourteen members each ; sym- metrical, memorable; πᾶσαι does not imply, as Meyer and Weiss think, that in the opinion of the evangelist no links. are omitted. He speaks simply of what lies under the eye. There they are, fourteen in each, count and satisfy your- self. But the counting turns out not to- be so easy, and has given rise to great divergence of opinion. The division naturally suggested by the words of the text is: from Abraham to David, termi- nating first series, 14; from David, head- ing second series, to the captivity as limit, z.¢., to Josiah, 14; from the captivity represented by Jeconiah to Christ, included as final term, 14. So- Bengel and De Wette. If objection be taken to counting David twice, the brethren of Jeconiah, that is, his uncles,. may be taken as representing the con- cluding term of series 2, and Jeconiah, himself as the first member of series 3. (Weiss-Meyer). The identical number