The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 19

tie!. The~o are nll the details we h~Ye, it may be that Jo.cob died without children, and lo decide on bow they are related to and Heli, 1110.rryinq hie widow according to each other ie ,•ery difficult. We mny, per- the Jewish usage, llrcame by her the fo.ther haps, be right in supposing the,t Pedaie.h, of Joseph, who hence would ho co.lied the brother of Shooltiel, having died, his Jocob's son, thot the elder brother's line eon Z,•rubbabel wae adopted by Shealticl. might not dio out. Tho points noticed We must then suppose that, the roynl line above in respect of these rnrying pedigrees through Solomon having ended, and Jecho- ECem to be nil those on which anything niah's only child, Assir (if be ever existed, needs to be said with the view of comparing .ride st1pra), having left no issue, the line them. Thoir vo.i-iety stonds o.s a coustnnt of D,wid is taken up through the family of evidence of the independence of tho two the other eon, Nathan, and tho.t from him evangelists. Hnd either of them been con- descended Neri, the father of Shealtiel, who scious of tho existence of the other's work, it takes the place of Jechoniah's issue, which is inconceivable that ho would have mnde hos altogether lniled. no effort to adjust the pedigree, for whioh Ver. 13.-And Zorobe.bel (Zen,bbabel, Re- he would posseBB menus now lost for ever. villCd Version) begat Abiud. Here the two 'flicy both design to give us the descent of lines of pedi£ree in St. Matthew e.nd St. Joseph from Do.vid, this being who.t a Jew Luke seem to sepe.ro.te, and not to converge would most regard. The descent of Mary age.in till we come to Me.tthan ( or 1tlatthe.t), from David is nowhere definitely mentioned the grandfather of Joseph, which name is in the Gospels, but tllat Jesus wo.s sprung common to both. The llishop of Bath e.nd from De.vid on tile mother's side too we are Welle he.s shown some rC:1Bon for Bllpposing warranted in concluding from the words of that Rhc•a, mentioned in SL Lnke as Ze- the angel to llfnry (Luke i. ll2), "his rubho.bel's son, is merely a title signifying father David'' (cf. also Delitzsch, 'Mees. •• a chief," and also for identifying Ho.na- Proph.,' § 17). But though we ought not ninh, who is called a eon of Zerubbabel (1 to spend vain labour in attempting to recon- Chron. iiL 19), with Joanna, who follows cile these two genealogies of Joseph, we ca.n RhesR in St. Lnke (iii. 27), and there sec, from who.t we know of Jewish customs, being some relation between the Juda of grounds enough for understanding how these St. Luke and the Ahi-ud (i.e. fathrr of variations came to exist. The eame Jew, Juda) given as Zerobbabel's son in St. we fiud, wo.s often known under two no.mes; Mr..tthew. Except in thl·Se few po.rticulars, of this we have several examples in the lists the two lines show no connexion of names, of the twelve apostles. It is possible, there- and it seems likely that the family of David fore, that m these two pedigrees there mo.y had fullen into low estate for several gene- have Leen more points of union than we are rations before the birth of Christ. able to detect. 'l'hen the rule, before alluded Ver. 15.-ElellZILl' begat Matthan. St. to, by which a man took the childless widow Luke makes Matthat (or Matthau; tl.Je of his deceased brother for his wife and names a.re from the so.me root, o.nd in some raised seed uuto his brother, may also have texts a.re identical), to be the son of Levi. led to much confusion of names, which we TLis is probably the actual fact. St. Luke have now no means of unravelling. The ISOCDJS to have traced the geneo.logy from evangelists drew each his own list from ZcrubLo.bel through e. yoUDger son, St. some e.uthen tic source, accessible to others Matthew through o.n elder. .lint the elder beside themselves, and thi, record of which line failing, Matthau, the son of Levi, of could be verified when the Gospels were set the younger bro.nch. becomes heir to, and is forth. This should satisfy us that those we called son of, Eleazo.r, of the senior line. have received were held by the Jews soon As the promise of the Messiah was to the after Christ's time to be truthful records, e.nd house of David, and this was known to that each established from e. Jewish point of every Jew, we need not be surprised t.o find view the descent of the putative fo.ther of the families descended from that king pre- Jeans from King David, 0t whom was bom f!er'l'ing most careful records of every branch .Jesus, '.l'his name, which, through Jeahua., iB of the family. the Greek form of Joahua (for which, indeed, Ver. 16.-And 1acob bega,t 1oseph, the it stands in the Authorized Version of Ach husband ot Kary. St. Luke calls Joseph vii. 45 and Heh. iv. 8), signifies "Jehovo.h is •• the son of Heli." There a.re two ways iu help," and was not an uncommon name whi,•h these differing sl.e.tements may be among the Jews, though given with marked mado to accord. The two sons of llaithan significance o.t this time (sec ver. 21 ). We were Jacob the elder, and Hell the younger. find, according to the btst te_xte, that i? It may be that Mary we.s the only chilcl of Luke iii. 29 this name occurs 1n the pedi- ,Jacob, and Joseph the son of Iieli. 'l'hen gree of Joseph (where the Authorized Ver- by marriage with his cousin, Joseph would sion has Jose), and the Revised Version hoe l!e<-JJme JacoL's son aa well Wl lieli'a. Or adopted tbat readin,G' (Of Ute way in whicli ou. 1. 1-26.J TIIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST, :IIIATTIIEW. 5