The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 18

mother. Up to tliis point the genealogies thus a verso he omitted in some very eculy in St. Matthew and St. Luke have entirely tcict. Then Jchoiachin (Jechonins) appa- necorded, but with the mention of Solomon rently had no brethren (but see 1 Ohron. iii. we come upon a vnriation, which continncs 16), whereas Jehoiakim, the son or Josiah, till tho union of the two forms of tho pedi- had two or three (1 Chron. iii. 15). To make gree in Snlathiel (Shealtiel, Revised Ver- the whole pedigree agree with the Old sion), the father of Zcrubbabcl. In Rt. Testament records some addition in this Matthow the line whioh is followed is the form wonld appear necessary; Josiah begat succession of the kings of J uclah from [.fehoiahim and his brethren, and Jehoiakim Solomon to Jehoie.chin (Jeclumicts). St. Luke l,eg<lt] .Jeclwniah about the time, etc. But mentions, after David, his son Nathan (of manuscript eviclence for this is extremely whom we find a notice in 1 Cl.iron. iii. 5; 2 slight ('!Jide Westcott and Hort,' App.,' i.). Sam. v. 14), and then passes on throngh a Yet the supposition that the name of J e- series of nineteen names, none of which is hoiakim has been omittccl removes whnt found in other parts of Scripture e.a belong- has seemecl to many another cliflfoulty. As ing to the re.ea of David. We have nothing, the list now stands, to make np the fourteen therefore, with which to compare them ; but in the third as well as in the seconcl section in number they correspond very nenrly with of the genealogy it is necessary to connt the known descendants in the line of Solo- Jehoiachin-a king whose reign lasted only mon, so that, although we cannot verify the three months (2 Kings niv. 8)-twice over. names, the list bears upon its face the He closes the second fonrteen and begins appearance of being derived from some duly the third. There is nothing like this found kept record of the pecligree of Na than, the at the other division. To substitute Je- son of David. hoiakim after Josiah wonkl avoid this repe- Ver. 8.-And J'oram begat Ozia.e (Uzziah, tition of the name of such a very insi:;nificant Revised Version). Between Joram nud person, especially as the reign of J ehoialrim Uzziah the pedigree omits three names- lasted eleven years (2 Kings xxiii. 36). Ahaziah immediately succeedecl Jomm (2 And to mention Jehoiakim as the father of Kings viii. 24 ), and was followed by his sou J ehoiaehin "at the time of the carrying Joash (2 Kings xii. 1), ond he by hie son a.way to Babylon ' woulcl be very appro- Amnziah (2 Kings xiv. 1). These were priate, whel'eas to say Josiah begat his probably lert out, that the number of gene- chilclren at that date is not so strictly correct. rations might be rcclnced to fourteen. It is It seems, then, probable that we have here ;1ot likely that St. I\Iatthow omitted them, some clerical error, which may have existed but that they were absent from the form already in the list which St. Matthew used. which he used. If we seek for a reason About the time. The preposition in the <why these precise names are omitted, we Greek means rather, "at the time." The may probably find it in the fact of their Authorized Version, however, gives the sense, being descended from Jezebel; while the for the birth of Jehoiachin must have been language of the second commandment would some years before the commencement of the suggest that to the fourth generation the Babylunish conquest, which may be said to children of that race woulcl suffer for the have begun with Nebuchadnezzar's in- sins of their pal'ents. To the Jewish com- vasion of the land in Jehoio.kim's days (2 piler of this genealogy no argumeut more Kings xxiv. 1). • forcible for the 1·cmoval of these names Ver. 12.-Jechon.ie.s begat Salsthiel ( Sheal- could have been suggested. It will be seen ticl, Rcvisecl Version). From Jer. xxii. 30 thot the word "begat" in these verses does it h11s some limes been thought that J echo- not signify always the direct succession of niah died chilclless, though the prece<ling son to father. context, which speaks of him and his seed, Ver. 11.-J'oeiaB (Josiah, Revised Version) seems hordly to warrant the supposition; begat J'eohonias (Jechoniah, Revised Vcr- but clearly the words of the prophet there eiou). Here we come upon another omis- imply that none of his descendants ehoulcl sion. Josiah was the fo.thcr of Jehoinkim, attain to u position such as was held by and he the fo.ther of Jccl..ioniah (called nlso Zerubbabel, and tho.t his fnmily shouhl Jehoiachin); see 2 Kings xxiii. 34; xxiv. 6. soon come to o.n encl. If we look at the The omission is supplied in some fow manu- genealogy in 1 Chron. iii. 17 we fiud Assir scripts ; but it may be only the case of 11 mentioned ns the son of J echoniah ( cf., how- marginal note in a previous copy having ever, Revised Version, "Jeconiah the eap- fonnd its 1n1.y into the text. There ie, how- tive "), 11ncl Salathiel ns his son; ond in the ever, something to be said in favour of its next verse Pedaiah, " brother of Salathiel, ncco1,tance. The similarity botwcen the is named a.a father of Zernbbabel. By St. unmes Jehoiakim nod Jchoiachin is very Luke (iii. 27) Snlathiel is called the son of great, espeoinlly in some of the Greek forms, Neri, and in Ezra iii. 2; v. 2; and Hag ilo that thoy might easily be confused, and i. 1 Zcrub1mbel is callecl the son of She11,l•  TllE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. [on. L 1-25..