Matthew 1:6

David the king (τὸν Δαυεὶδ τὸν βασιλέα, "the David, the king") Both words are thus emphasized: the David from whom Christ, if he were the Messiah, must have descended; the king with whom the Messiah's genealogy entered upon the kingly dignity. In this genealogy, where the generations are divided symmetrically into three sets of fourteen, the evangelist seems to connect the last of each set with a critical epoch in the history of Israel: the first reaching from the origin of the race to the commencement of the monarchy ("David the king"); the second, from the commencement of the monarchy to the captivity in Babylon; the third and last, from the captivity to the coming of "the Christ." The same emphatic or demonstrative use of the article occurs with the name of Joseph (Matthew 1:16), marking his peculiar relation to Jesus as the husband of Mary: the Joseph, the husband of Mary.

6 . David the king ] A special hint of Christ the King, of whom David was the type. It is at this point that St Luke’s genealogy branches off. According to natural descent Joseph was a descendant of Nathan , not of Solomon . The genealogies meet again in the names of Zorobabel and Salathiel. See below, Matthew 1:12 .

Matthew 1:6 . And Jesse begat David the king — David has the title of king given him in this genealogy, because he was the first king of his family, and because he had the kingdom entailed upon his children; in which respect he had greatly the advantage of Saul, from whose family the kingdom was taken away almost as soon as it was conferred. It is true, ten of the twelve tribes revolted from David’s grandson. Nevertheless, the promise of God remained sure, for whereas an end was soon put to the kingdom of the ten tribes, the empire of the two which adhered to David’s family was of much longer duration, not to mention that the tribe of Judah, out of which the Messiah was to spring, was one of those two that continued in their allegiance to his house. This kingdom also was a type of the kingdom of Christ, which indeed might be said to be begun by him. For to him the promise of the Messiah was made, and of his seed the Messiah was to be raised up, to possess his throne, and establish it for ever. Ezekiel 37:25 . And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife, &c. — In the original it is, of her of Urias; εκ της του Ουριου . Though David, in this unhappy affair, acted in a way most unworthy of his character, yet God, on his deep repentance, not only graciously forgave him, but entailed the promise on his seed by this very woman. An amazing instance this of his boundless mercy!

Matthew 1:6-10 , 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 ( Matthew 1:8 ), 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 intentional omission—a wish to bring out the number fourteen ( Matthew 1:17 ) 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 omissions, e.g. , Ahaz and Manasseh, who, were as great offenders as any. One can, 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 hypothesis 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 would be to make sure that no name appeared that did not belong to the line. He can hardly have imagined that his list was complete from beginning to end.

Thus Nahshon ( Matthew 1:4 ) was the head of the tribe of Judah at the Exodus ( Numbers 1:7 ), yet between Hezron and him only two names occur—four names for 400 years. Each name or generation represents a century, in accordance with Genesis 15:13-16 . The genealogist may have had this passage in view, but he must have known that the actual succession embraced more links than four ( vide Schanz on Matthew 1:4 ). The hypothesis of inadvertence or error in consulting the text of the O. T., favoured by some modern commentators, is not to be summarily negatived on the ground of an a priori theory of inerrancy. It is possible that in reading 1 Chronicles 3:11 in the Sept[1] the eye leapt from Ὀχοζίας to Ὀζίας , and so led to omission of it and the two following names. ( Ἀζαρίας , not Ὀζίας , is the reading in Sept[2], but Weiss assumes that the latter, Azariah’s original name, must have stood in the copy used by the constructor of the genealogy.) The explanation, however, is conjectural. No certainty, indeed, is attainable on the matter. As a curiosity in the history of exegesis may be mentioned Chrysostom’s mode of dealing with this point. Having propounded several problems regarding the genealogy, the omission of the three kings included, he leaves this one unsolved on the plea that he must not explain everything to his hearers lest they become listless ( ἵνα μὴ ἀναπέσητε , Hom. iv.). Schanz praises the prudence of the sly Greek orator. [1] Septuagint. [2] Septuagint.

(6) The wife of Urias.—Once again we have the mention of a woman who at least played a memorable part in the history of Israel. As this is the last of such names in the genealogy, it may be well to deal with the question whether any special purpose can be traced in the selection, beyond that of noting points of interest. Nothing can carry us beyond probable conjectures; but, within those limits, it is at least suggestive that all the names are those of women who, either as of heathen origin (Bathsheba, like her husband, was probably a Hittite), or by personal guilt, were as those whom the strict judgment of the Pharisee excluded from his fellowship. St. Matthew may have meant men to draw the inference that, as these women were not excluded from the honour of being in the Messiah’s line of ancestry, so others like them would not be shut out from fellowship with His kingdom.

3-6. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4. And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5. And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6. And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her of Urias—Four women are here introduced; two of them Gentiles by birth—Rachab and Ruth; and three of them with a blot at their names in the Old Testament—Thamar, Rachab, and Bath-sheba. This feature in the present genealogy—herein differing from that given by Luke—comes well from him who styles himself in his list of the Twelve, what none of the other lists do, "Matthew the publican"; as if thereby to hold forth, at the very outset, the unsearchable riches of that grace which could not only fetch in "them that are afar off," but teach down even to "publicans and harlots," and raise them to "sit with the princes of his people." David is here twice emphatically styled "David the king," as not only the first of that royal line from which Messiah was to descend, but the one king of all that line from which the throne that Messiah was to occupy took its name—"the throne of David." The angel Gabriel, in announcing Him to His virgin-mother, calls it "the throne of David His father," sinking all the intermediate kings of that line, as having no importance save as links to connect the first and the last king of Israel as father and son.

It will be observed that Rachab is here represented as the great-grandmother of David (see Ru 4:20-22; 1Ch 2:11-15)—a thing not beyond possibility indeed, but extremely improbable, there being about four centuries between them. There can hardly be a doubt that one or two intermediate links are omitted.

Matthew 1:6 . Δαυὶδ δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς , but David the King ) The appellation ὁ βασιλεὺς ( the King ), has been omitted by some early editors, but wrongly.[8] The kingship of David is twice mentioned here, as is the Babylonian captivity afterwards. The same title is understood, though not expressed, after the names of Solomon and his successors, as far as Matthew 1:11 . David is, however, called especially the King , not only because he is the first king mentioned in this pedigree, but also because his throne is promised to the Messiah.—See Luke 1:32 . [8] B, the best MSS. of Vulg., the Memph. and Theb. and Syr. Versions omit ὁ βασιλεύς . But Δac agree with Rec. Text and Beng. in retaining the words.—ED.

Matthew 1:6 . Τὸν Δαυεὶδ τὸν βασιλέα ] Although an apposition with the article follows the proper name, yet Δαυείδ also takes the article, not for the sake of uniformity with the preceding name (de Wette), but in order to designate David demonstratively, as already marked out in Matthew 1:1 . In Matthew 1:16 , also, the article before Ἰωσήφ , which is accompanied by an apposition, has, in keeping with the deep significance of his paternal relation to Jesus, demonstrative power (Kühner, II. p. 520). The τὸν βασιλέα also, and the subsequent emphatic repetition of ὁ βασιλεύς , are a distinction for David, with whom the Messiah’s genealogy entered upon the kingly dignity. τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου ] Such methods of expression by the simple genitive suppose the nature of the relationship in question to be known , as here it is that of wife . Comp. Hectoris Andromache, Luther’s Katharina , and the like. See Kühner, II. p. 285 f. Winer, p. 178 [E. T. p. 237].

Ver. 5,6. This agreeth with Ruth 4:22 1 Samuel 16:1,13 . Here now ariseth the first difficulty we meet with in this genealogy, and it rather an appearance of a difficulty than a real one. Salmon being the son of Aminadab, who was the prince of the children of Judah in Moses’s time, Salmon cannot be imagined to have lived later than in the times of Joshua. Boaz seemeth to have lived in Eli’s time, which (if chronologers count right) was three hundred years after: here are but four men named to take up these years, Salmon, Booz, Obed, Jesse. Answer. The world according to chronologers, wanted but five of two thousand five hundred years old, when the Israelites (under the conduct of Joshua) entered into Canaan: we will suppose Salmon to have then been a young man. Eli is by them said to have lived about the two thousand eight hundred and tenth. So that the distance is three hundred and fifteen years. David is said to have been born in the two thousand eight hundred and sixtieth. So as from Salmon to David are three hundred and sixty-five years. Admit Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse to have each of them lived a hundred years, or upward, in admitting this, if we consider the age and vigour of persons in that age of the world. Moses (though a man spent with travels and battles) lived one hundred and twenty years, Deu 34:7 . Caleb at eighty-five years was strong and as fit for war as ever, Joshua 4:11,12 .