Matthew 1:13

Mat 1:13. Ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἀβιοὺδ, begat Abiud) This is the same as Hodaiah,[17] who was in like manner descended from Zorobabel, through several intervening ancestors (see 1Ch 3:19; 1Ch 3:24), as Hiller explains in his Syntagmata, pp. 361, sqq., where he shows, that the Jews acknowledged the genealogy in the said passage of Chronicles to be that of the Messiah: nor, indeed, was it necessary that any other genealogy should have been carried further down there than that of the Messiah. There can, therefore, be no doubt but that the passage in question was particularly well known to the Jews; and there was, consequently, the less need that St Matthew should repeat it in extenso. In this generation, then, concludes the scripture of the Old Testament. The remainder of the genealogy was supplied by St Matthew from trustworthy documents of a later date, and, no doubt, of a public character.

[17] Or Hodajah, as in Bengel.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_1:13. None of the members of the genealogy after Zerubbabel, whose son Abiud is not named in 1Ch_3:19 f. along with the others, occurs in the O. T. The family of David had already fallen into a humble position. But even after the exile, the preservation and, relatively, the restoration of the genealogies remained a subject of national, especially priestly, concern; comp. Joseph, c. Apion. This concern could not but be only all the more lively and active in reference to the house of David, with which the expectation of the Messiah was always connected.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And Zorobabel begat Abiud, &c.--None of these names are found in the Old Testament; but they were doubtless taken from the public or family registers, which the Jews carefully kept, and their accuracy was never challenged.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

13. Zorobabel begat Abiud] Here a step is omitted, Abiud—the Hodaiah of 1Ch_3:24—being the grandson of Zerubbabel. Rhesa, who is named as Zerubbabel’s son (Luk_3:27), is a title: the text in Luke should run, “which was the son of Rhesa Zorobabel.” The Juda of Luke is the same as Abiud.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And Zorobabel begat Abiud,.... The children of Zorobabel are said in Ch1 3:19, to be Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister, but no mention is made of Abiud: he seems to be the same with Meshullam the eldest son, who might have two names; nor is this unlikely, since it was usual, especially about the time of the Babylonish captivity, for men to have more names than one, as may be observed in Daniel and others, Dan 1:7 where they went by one, and in Judea by another.

And Abiud begat Eliakim, &c. From hence to the 16th verse the genealogy is carried down to Joseph, the husband of Mary; which account must be taken from the genealogical tables of the Jews, to which recourse might be had, and with which it agrees; or otherwise the Jews would have cavilled at it; but I do not find any objections made by them to it. That there were genealogical books or tables kept by the Jews is certain, from the following instances (i);

"Simeon ben Azzai says, I found in Jerusalem, , "a volume of genealogies", and there was written in it, &c.''

Again (k), says R. Levi,

"they found a "volume of genealogies" in Jerusalem, and there was written in it that Hillell came from David; Ben Jarzaph from Asaph; Ben Tzitzith Hacceseth from Abner; Ben Cobesin from Ahab; Ben Calba Shebuah from Caleb; R. Jannai from Eli; R. Chayah Rabba from the children of Shephatiah, the son of Abital; R. Jose be Rabbi Chelphetha from the children of Jonadab, the son of Rechab; and R. Nehemiah from Nehemiah the Tirshathite.''

Once more (l), says R. Chana bar Chanma, when the holy blessed God causes his

"Shechinah to dwell, he does not cause it to dwell but upon families, "which are genealogized" in Israel.''

Now if Matthew's account had not been true, it might easily have been refuted by these records. The author of the old (m) Nizzachon takes notice of the close of this genealogy, but finds no fault with it; only that it is carried down to Joseph, and not to Mary; which may be accounted for by a rule of their own (n), "the mother's family is not called a family", whereas the father's is. It is very remarkable that the Jewish Targum (o) traces the descent of the Messiah from the family of David in the line of Zorobabel, as Matthew does; and reckons the same number of generations, wanting one, from Zorobabel to the Messiah, as the Evangelist does, from Zorobabel to Jesus; according to Matthew, the genealogy stands thus, Zorobabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus; and according to the Targum the order is this,

"Zorobabel, Hananiah, Jesaiah, Rephaiah, Arnon, Obadiah, Shecaniah, Shemnigh, Neariah, Elioenai, Anani; this is the king Messiah, who is to be revealed.''

The difference of names may be accounted for by their having two names, as before observed. This is a full proof, that, according to the Jews own account, and expectation, the Messiah must be come many years and ages ago.

(i) T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 49. 2. (k) T. Hieros. Taanith, fol. 68. 1. B. Rabba, sect. 98. fol. 85. 3. (l) T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 70. 9. (m) P. 186. (n) T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 54. 2. Bava Bathra, fol. 109. 2. & 110. 2. Bereshit Rabba, fol. 6. 1. Jucbasin, fol. 55. 2. (o) In 1 Chron. iii. 24. Vid. Beckii Not. in ib. p. 56, 57.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

Ver. 13. And Zorobabel begat Abiud] St Luke saith, Rhesa: hence the diversity of number and names. Matthew descends by the posterity of Abiud; Luke, of Rhesa, down to Joseph.

And Abiud begat Eliakim, and Eliakim begat Azor, &c.] These lived in those calamitous times of the people of God after the Captivity, and were not kings and captains, as being held under by other nations; but law givers they were, as Jacob prophesied, and principal men among that people, "till Shiloh came," Gen 49:10.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here are divers objections made to this last part of the genealogy, and in a great measure caused from the difference between Matthew and Luke; but I shall not attempt any reconciliation of those differences till I come to Luk 3:23-38. There is no Abiud reckoned amongst the sons of Zorobabel, 1Ch 3:19,20; and for the others named, we have no certain account of them in any part of the holy writ. From the time of Jehoiakim were above five hundred years to the birth of Christ, of which seventy were spent in the captivity of Babylon. Zorobabel was alive at the end of the captivity, Ezr 5:2, and, as it appears, the ruler of the Jews, though not under the title and style of king. For Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, and Jacob, though we have no mention of them in any canonical books of holy writ but only this, yet Matthew’s credit in the church of God ought to out weigh any other writings, pretending any thing contrary to what he saith; we are therefore obliged to believe they all lineally descended from David, but, living in a private state and condition, and holy writ not extending its history beyond Zorobabel’s time, (the time when the Jews came out of Babylon), it is no wonder that we have no better means than we have from holy writ to know their lineal descent from the royal family. That Matthew in what he wrote was guided by the unerring Spirit, and that he had rolls of pedigrees which we want, we have reason to believe. This is enough for us Christians, who own the books of the New as well as the Old Testament to be wrote by persons Divinely inspired; so, as to them, we have nothing to do but to reconcile Matthew and Luke, both whom we own to have had the same infallible inspiration and direction. If Jews or pagans argue from any other topic than this, it is enough to tell them, that the Jews kept exact genealogies, and more especially as to the descents in the tribes of Judah and Levi, that they might never be at loss as to the Messiah, whom they expected as the Son of David, nor yet as to the true high priest. Though these records and rolls of genealogy be now lost, yet we have no reason to believe they were so in Matthew’s time; of which genealogies (as to this part) doubtless what Matthew saith was but a copy, directed by that Holy Spirit by which he was inspired.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And Zorobabel (Zerubbabel, Revised Version) begat Abiad. Here the two lines of pedigree in St. Matthew and St. Luke seem tc separate, and not to converge again till we come to Matthan (or Matthat), the grandfather of Joseph, which name is common to both. The Bishop of Bath and Wells has shown some reason for supposing that Rhesa, mentioned in St. Luke as Zerubbabel"s son, is merely a title signifying "a chief," and also for identifying Hananiah, who is called a son of Zerubbabel, (1Ch_3:19) with Joanna, who follows Rhesa in St. Luke, (Luk_3:27) and there being some relation between the Juda of St. Luke and the Abiud (i.e. father of Juda) given as Zerubbabel"s son in St. Matthew. Except in these few particulars, the two lines show no connexion of names, and it seems likely that the family of David had fallen into low estate for several generations before the birth of Christ.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13. Ζοροβάβελ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀβιούδ. Here a step is omitted, Abiud—the Hodaiah of 1Ch 3:24—being the grandson of Zerubbabel. Rhesa, who is named as Zerubbabel’s son (Luk 3:27), is conjectured to be a title (Rhesa or Rosh = a Prince): in that case the text in Luke should run, ‘which was the son of Rhesa Zorobabel.’ The Juda of Luke is the same as Abiud.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13. Ζοροβ.… Ἀβιούδ] Abiud is not mentioned as a son of the Zerubbabel in 1Ch_3.

Lord A. Hervey, p. 122 ff., has made it probable that Abiud is identical with the Hodaiah of 1Ch 3:24, and the Juda of Luk 3:26. Dr. Mill (p. 178, note) mentions this conjecture, but does not adopt it. The objection, that thus the first generation after Zerubbabel would be omitted, need not have much weight, after the omission of three generations in the last tesseradecade. I cannot but recommend to the student the perusal of Lord A. Hervey’s work. Whether or not we may be inclined to adopt his conjectures on so intricate and uncertain a subject as the reconciling of the genealogies, too much praise cannot be given to the spirit of combined Christian reverence and enlightened critical courage in which it is treated throughout.

On the comparison of this genealogy with that given in Luke, see notes, Luk 3:23-38.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(E) 13, 14. And Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadok; and Sadok begat Acheim; and Acheim begat Eliud.]

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.