Matthew 1:17

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away--or migration.

into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon--the migration of Babylon.

unto Christ are fourteen generations--that is, the whole may be conveniently divided into three fourteens, each embracing one marked era, and each ending with a notable event, in the Israelitish annals. Such artificial aids to memory were familiar to the Jews, and much larger gaps than those here are found in some of the Old Testament genealogies. In Ezr 7:1-5 no fewer than six generations of the priesthood are omitted, as will appear by comparing it with Ch1 6:3-15. It will be observed that the last of the three divisions of fourteen appears to contain only thirteen distinct names, including Jesus as the last. LANGE thinks that this was meant as a tacit hint that Mary was to be supplied, as the thirteenth link of the last chain, as it is impossible to conceive that the Evangelist could have made any mistake in the matter. But there is a simpler way of accounting for it. As the Evangelist himself (Mat 1:17) reckons David twice--as the last of the first fourteen and the first of the second--so, if we reckon the second fourteen to end with Josiah, who was coeval with the "carrying away into captivity" (Mat 1:11), and third to begin with Jeconiah, it will be found that the last division, as well as the other two, embraces fourteen names, including that of our Lord.

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

Mat 1:17. So all the generations, &c. — “Matthew, designing to show that Jesus was the Messiah, began his genealogy at Abraham, to whom the promise was originally made, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. But the succession of Christ’s ancestors, from Abraham downward, naturally resolved itself into three classes; viz., first of private persons from Abraham to David; next of kings from David to Jehoiakim; and then of private persons from the Babylonish captivity, when an end was put to the royal dignity of our Lord’s progenitors.” For Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, was reduced to the condition of a private person, being made a captive; “and as for Salathiel and Zerubbabel, notwithstanding they had the supreme command, after their return from the captivity, they were not vested either with the titles or powers of princes, being only lieutenants of the kings of Persia. Wherefore the evangelist, thus invited by his subject, fitly distributes Christ’s ancestors into three classes, the first and last of which consisting exactly of fourteen successions, he mentions only fourteen in the middle class, though in reality it contained three more, viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. But omissions of this kind are not uncommon in the Jewish genealogies. For example, Ezr 7:3, Azariah is called the son of Meraioth, although it is evident, from 1Ch 6:7-9, that there were six descendants between them.” — Macknight. We may observe also, that God’s chosen people, in each of these several intervals, were under a different kind of government, and the end of each interval produced a great alteration in their state. In the first, they were under patriarchs, prophets, and judges; in the second, under kings; and in the third, under the Asmonæan priests and generals. The first fourteen generations brought their state to dignity and glory in the kingdom of David; the second, to disgrace and misery in the captivity of Babylon; and the third, to honour and glory again in the kingdom of Christ. The first begins with Abraham, who received the promise, and ends in David, to whom it was renewed and revealed more fully; the second begins with the building of the temple, and ends with its destruction; the third begins with their temporal captivity in Babylon, and ends with their spiritual deliverance by Christ. “When we survey such a series of generations,” says Dr. Doddridge, “it is obvious to reflect, how, like the leaves of a tree, one passeth away, and another cometh; yet the earth still abideth. And with it, the goodness of the Lord, which runs on from generation to generation, the common hope of parents and children. Of those who formerly lived upon earth, and perhaps made the most conspicuous figure among the children of men, how many are there whose names are perished with them! and how many of whom only the names are remaining! Thus are we likewise passing away! And thus shall we shortly be forgotten! Happy, if, while we are forgotten by men, we are remembered by God, and our names are found written in the book of life! There will they make a much brighter appearance than in the records of fame, or than they would do even in such a catalogue as this of those who were related to Christ according to the flesh; whose memory is here preserved, when that of many, who were once the wonder and terror of the mighty in the land of the living, is lost in perpetual oblivion.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:17 Matthew states that each period has fourteen generations, but the first and third periods list only thirteen. A legitimate Jewish and Old Testament approach would count David in both the first and second groupings and include Jesus in the third grouping. This suggests that Matthew is probably stressing the gematria (letters representing numbers): The letters in the Hebrew word dawid (“David”) also add up to fourteen. Matthew is highlighting Jesus’ credentials as the Messiah (1:1).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 1:17. Πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ, κ.τ.λ., So all the generations, etc.) An important summing up (ingens symperasma),[26] the force of which we exhibit, by the following positions.

[26] See Appendix on the figure Symperasma.—ED.

I. St Matthew introduced this clause with the most deliberate design.

The Messiah was really descended from David through Nathan: the genealogy, however, in Matthew, descends from David through Solomon to Joseph. Therefore, those who already knew that Jesus was not the Son of Joseph, paid little heed to Joseph’s pedigree; St Matthew, therefore, traces this genealogy in such a manner as to be serviceable to all who either believed that Jesus was the Son of Mary, but not of Joseph, or thought that He was the Son of Joseph also, and so to lead both classes to Christ, the Son of David.

II. St Matthew makes three fourteens. We exhibit them in the following table:

1.

Abraham.

David.

Jechoniah.

2.

Isaac.

Solomon.

Salathiel.

3.

Jacob.

Rehoboam.

Zorobabel.

4.

Judah.

Abijam.

Abiud.

5.

Pharez.

Asa.

Eliakim.

6.

Hezrom.

Jehoshaphat.

Azor.

7.

Aram.

Jehoram.

Sadoc.

8.

Aminadab.

Ahaziah.

Achin.

9.

Naasson.

Jotham.

Eliud.

10.

Salmon.

Ahaz.

Eleazar.

11.

Boaz.

Hezekiah.

Matthan.

12.

Obed.

Manasseh.

Jacob.

13.

Jesse.

Amon.

Joseph.

14.

David.

Josiah.

JESUS, who is called CHRIST.

III. St Matthew, therefore, lays down three periods.

St Luke enumerates every step, ascending even to GOD. Yet, so far from counting the steps in each period, he does not divide his genealogy into periods at all: St Matthew, however, distinguishes three periods,—the first from Abraham to David, the second from David to the captivity, the third from the captivity to Christ; and in each of these periods, as we shall presently see, he mentions fourteen steps.

IV. St Matthew reduces each period to fourteen generations.

Matthew does not mention all the ancestors of Joseph who occur in the direct line, and yet he reduces those whom he does mention to a set number. Some seek here a division into sevens; the Evangelist, however, does not mention sevens, but fourteens. Again, he does not bring these fourteens together into a sum total, for he does not say, that they amount in all to 40, 41, or 42: nor is it our business to do so. As in the reigns of the kings of Israel, the last year of the preceding is frequently reckoned as the first of the succeeding sovereign, so must we admit that St Matthew has acted on the same principle, since the fact itself leaves no doubt of the case. Thus David undoubtedly is both the last of the first fourteen, and the first of the second fourteen. He is reckoned in the first; for it would otherwise comprise only thirteen generations. He is reckoned in the second, because as the first begins inclusively from Abraham, and the third inclusively from Jechoniah, so must the second begin inclusively from David. Jechoniah, however, is not reckoned in the same manner as the last of the second fourteen, because the fourteen generations, which commence with David, are counted not to Jechoniah, but to the Babylonian captivity. Vallesius[27] (p. 454) thinks Jechoniah, as it were, a double person; you might assert that with greater correctness of David.

[27] Vallesius, or Vallès, Francis, a native of Spain, physician to Philip II. He wrote a treatise, “De iis quæ scripta sunt physice in libris sacris, sive de sacrâ philosophiâ.”—(I. B.)

V. In each case, his object was to prove that Jesus was truly called, and was, the Christ.

He proceeds in a marked manner from the name Jesus to the surname Christ, in verses 16, 17, 18; and he marks the dissimilarity in the character of the periods, and the equality in the number of the generations. That dissimilarity, and that equality, whether taken apart or together, tend to the one object of proving Jesus to be the Christ, as we shall immediately perceive.

VI. The three periods are dissimilar to each other.

If St Matthew had merely intended to compose a genealogy, he might have omitted all this Congeries[28] of names, or at any rate, have confined himself to the mention of proper names, and said, “From Abraham to David,” “from David to Jechoniah,” “from Jechoniah to Jesus.” Instead of so doing, however, after the other matters preceding, he says, “to the Captivity;” and again, “From the Captivity to Christ.” The land-mark, limit, standing-point, therefore, of the first period is David, of the second the Captivity, of the third Christ. The first period, then, is that of the Patriarchs; the second, that of the Kings; the third, for the most part, of private individuals.

[28] See Appendix on this figure. The enumeration of the parts of a Whole.—ED.

VII. This dissimilarity strikingly proves that Jesus is the Christ.

The different heads under which St Matthew reduces the three periods, show, that the time at which Jesus was born, was the time appointed for the birth of the Christ, and that Jesus Himself was the Christ. The first and the second fourteen have an illustrious commencement; the third has one, as it were, blind and nameless. Hence is clearly deduced, and brilliantly shines forth, the end and goal of the third, and all the periods, namely, the CHRIST. The first period is that of promise, for in it Abraham stands first, and David last, to each of whom the promise was given; the second is that of adumbration, by means of the Davidical sovereignty, and the fact that it is considerably shorter than either of the others, furnishes a reasonable ground for expecting that the kingdom of David, as fulfilled in Christ (see Luk 1:32), will be far more glorious hereafter, and more lasting. The third period is that of expectation. The most distinguished personages in the first period are Abraham and David, who stand respectively first and last in it. The most distinguished personage in the second period is the same David, who is now found standing first. The first name which occurs in the third period is that of Jechoniah, so called also in 1Ch 3:17, who was bound with chains, to whom no heir was promised of his throne; nay, further, against whom, as well as against his uncle and father, all other woes were denounced (Jer 22:11; Jer 22:18; Jer 22:25), so that, though he was not actually without offspring, yet, as a warning to posterity, he should be written ערירי, childless (Jer 22:28; Jer 22:30), without, that is to say, an heir to his throne; and it was with reference to these three kings that the earth was invoked thrice, “O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord” (Ibid. Jer 22:29). Hence it arises that, when stating the boundary between the second and third fourteens, St Matthew does not name Jechoniah; but, instead of so doing, mentions the Babylonian Captivity. Much additional weight accrues to this argument from the words of Jeremiah; for in the time of Moses, midway between Abraham and David, a covenant was made with the people of Israel, which was abrogated about the time of the captivity of Jechoniah.—See Jer 29:1; Jer 31:31; Heb 8:8; Heb 8:13. In the times of Abraham and David, Christ was promised; after the time of David, the Davidical sovereignty, which was overthrown at the Babylonian Captivity, did not last so long as the preceding period, that, namely, between Abraham and David. Then, indeed, it was that a new covenant was promised, the author and surety whereof should be Christ. The state, therefore, of the Jewish nation after the Captivity, could not but tend to, and end in the Christ. In the Psalms, and other predictions delivered during the time of the Kings, the sacred writers, as the march of prophecy moved onward, generally compared the present with the future; whereas, after the Babylonian Captivity, they contrasted the one with the other, whilst contemplating the future as coming nearer and nearer their own times.[29]

[29] The original runs thus: “In psalmis et in aliis prophetiis regum tempore latis sermo fere per comparationcm status prזsentis et futuri incedebat: sed post migrationem Babylonis potius per oppositionem incedit, futura prospiciens subinde propius.”—(I. B.)

VIII. St Matthew makes the three periods equal with each other.

This is evident from his repeating the number FOURTEEN three times with the utmost deliberation.—See Section IV.

IX. He makes up both the third and the second Fourteens by omitting several links in the pedigree: in the first, however, he makes no such omission.

In the second period, he, after Jehoram, passes over Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, and, after Josiah, he leaves out Jehoiakim: in the third period, after Salathiel, he omits Pedaiah. Nor, indeed, was Zorobabel the immediate father of Abihud; for, whereas his sons are Mesullam and Hananias, each of these two names differs from Abihud. Hiller enumerates nine links omitted after Zorobabel, and shows that Hodaiah and Abihud are the same individual. The descendants of David from Solomon to Hodaiah are enumerated in 1Ch 3:5; 1Ch 3:10-24. Now, since neither the second nor the third Fourteen consist in themselves of exactly fourteen generations, the first must of necessity have that number: for otherwise the number Fourteen, by which the three periods are arranged and represented as equal, would be without any foundation in fact, and the number fifteen, or some greater still, would have to be substituted for it. Fourteen generations are clearly enumerated in the Old Testament from Abraham to David.—See 1Ch 1:34; 1Ch 2:1; 1Ch 2:4-15. Whence Rabbi Bechai[30] says, that King David was the fourteenth from Abraham, according to the number of the letters of his name דוד, which make fourteen.[31] In early ages men generally became fathers at a more advanced period of life, than they did in later times. Hence it is that the first Fourteen stands on its own foundation, the second is produced by a less, the third by a greater omission. And though some generations, with which we are already acquainted from the Old Testament, are in St Matthew passed over and left to be understood, the Evangelist has not omitted in the New Testament a single generation, which was subsequent to those that are mentioned in the Old: and in the Old Testament, not a single generation is omitted. The first Fourteen, therefore, is so in fact, the second and third are so in form.

[30] Rabbi Bechai. There were two Rabbis of the name of Bechai; one flourished about 1100, the other about 1200; both were natives of Spain.—See DE ROSSI.—(I. B.)

[31] Sc. ã = 4, å = 6, ã = 4: therefore ã + å + ã = 14.—(I. B.)

X. The number of generations which St Matthew omits, accords with the numbers which both he and St Luke mention.

Between Jehoram and Abihud, St Matthew omits in all fourteen generations, see Sect IX.; and though he only mentions three Fourteens for the sake of the number of the periods from Abraham to Christ, he nevertheless implies, in accordance with his system, that there were really four.[32] In this way Matthew has by implication, from Abraham to the birth of Christ, fifty-five generations. St Luke expressly enumerates fifty-six generations to the time when Jesus was thirty years of age. They therefore agree.

[32] The words in the original are, “Omnino XIV. generationis inter Joram et Abihud prætermittit Matthæus, § ix. Concinneque ab Abraham ad Christum tessaradecadas, tribus pro numero periodorum expressis, quatuor tarmen innuit.” The meaning is, that though St Matthew mentions thrice fourteen as the number of generations, he means that there were three periods of fourteen generations, and implies, that to make up the number of actual generations, another Fourteen, or fourteen generations more, must be added, q.d. the Fourteens of generations expressly mentioned by St Matthew are periods of Fourteen ages; to make up the sum total of actual generations, the number Fourteen, which is the normal regulator of the system, must be brought into play once more. Cf. § § Sqq.—(I. B.)

XI. The equality of the Fourteens is not fulfilled in the actual number XIV., by which they are distinguished.

The Talmudists are fond of reducing the proximate numbers of different things to actual equality. Lightfoot has collected examples of this in illustration of the present passage, and they afford a satisfactory reply to the Jews, when they sneer at the Fourteens of St Matthew. He defends, however, somewhat too slackly the actual truth of the Fourteens. What James Rhenford adduces on this passage is far more to the purpose, viz., that the fifteen generations before Solomon, and the fifteen after him, were so enumerated by the Jews, as to correspond with the days of the increasing [waxing] and waning moon. But this line of argument also is somewhat weak. St Matthew did not follow any technical[33] or masoretic[34] aid to the memory, or anything else of the kind. For what great purpose could it serve to retain in the memory the names and number of these ancestors, in preference to those which are omitted, or to adopt a method never before employed in the many genealogies and other important chapters of the Old Testament, for impressing them more fully on the minds of the Jews, who retained them in their memory accurately enough of themselves. But if he had wished to secure the integrity of this enumeration by a kind of Masora, it would have been better for the purpose to have made one sum of all the generations. In the last place, it would have ill suited the grave character of an apostle and evangelist, first to enumerate the generations as suited his own convenience, and then admire the equality of the Fourteens. The number Fourteen is not mentioned for its own sake, but for the sake of something else: it is not an end, but a means to obtain an end of greater importance.

[33] Mnemonicum—subsidium,” i.e. anything resembling a memoria technica.—(I. B.)

[34] Masora means tradition. The Masoretes continued the labours of the Talmudists, whom they imitated in counting the words and letters of the Old Testament, finding imaginary mysteries in the very letters as well as words of Scripture; stating, also, such minute particulars as, which was the central word and letter of the whole, etc., etc. They have thus afforded us a guarantee for the accuracy of the Hebrew text, even though we have extant no Hebr. MS. older than the 12th century. The Masoretes flourished from the 6th to the 11th century.—ED.

XII. The Equality here intended is Chronological.

The apostles, looking back from the New to the Old Testament, have great regard to the fulness of the times; and the Jews are wont to describe the chief divisions of chronology by numbers of generations, as, for example, in Seder Olam.[35] St Matthew, therefore, skilfully propounds to the reader a Chronology under the garb of a Genealogy, combining both in this summary. The particle ΟὖΝ (therefore) has an inferential, and the article αἱ[36] (the) a relative force, indicating that those identical generations are intended, which have been just enumerated in the preceding verses. Each clause, moreover, of this verse has the word γενεαὶ (generations), both in the subject and predicate. In the subject it corresponds with the Hebrew תלדת,[37] as in Gen 25:12-13; but in the predicate it corresponds with the Hebrew דו̇ר,[38] and has a chronological force, as is evident from the addition of the numeral fourteen;—Cf. Gen 15:16. In the Greek there is an instance of Antanaclasis,[39] one Greek word performing the part of two Hebrew ones: so that we may paraphrase the verse thus—All those genealogical generations, therefore (never mind the tautology), reduced for the sake of method to fourteen, are actually fourteen chronological generations,—from Abraham to David, etc. Such being the case, we perceive a sufficient cause for St Matthew’s reducing to such numbers the genealogy, which would have been in itself much plainer without such an enumeration. Well does Chrysostom[40] say, that St Matthew enumerates generations, times, years, and lays them before the hearer as subjects for further investigation.—See Chrys. Hom. iv. on St Matthew. Let us, however, consider wherein the chronological equality consists. It does not consist in the number Fourteen which is employed in all the three periods for the sake of method; see Sect. XI.: nor in the years of generations in the Fourteens taken separately; for in the first Fourteen the generations are, for the most part, much longer than in the second and third: but it consists in the periods them selves. Consider the following scheme:—

[35] סדר עילם, a chronological work of high reputation amongst the Jews.—(I. B.)

[36] Definite Article, nominative plural, feminine.—(I. B.)

[37] הּי̇לְד̇ת f. Pl. (from the root יָלד)—(1.) generations, families, races. GESENIUS.—(I. B.)

[38] דּו̇ר m.—(1) an age, generation of men. GESENIUS.—(I. B.)

[39] See Appendix: the same word put twice, but in a twofold sense.—ED.

[40] JOHN CHRYSOSTOM was one of the most distinguished Fathers of the Ancient Church. To his wonderful eloquence he owed the name of Chrysostom, or the golden-mouthed, by which he is generally known; and his Commentaries on Scripture are replete with learning, piety, and practical power. He was born at Antioch, A.D. 354, of heathen parents. After studying rhetoric under Libanius, he embraced Christianity, and was ordained a reader in his native city. Having entered on the monastic life, he spent four years in the Desert; but, returning to Antioch, was ordained deacon in 381, and priest in 386; he became Bishop of Constantinople in 397. He died in exile in 407.—(I. B.)

ANNO MUNDI

1946 Birth of Abraham.

2016 The Promise, I. [characteristic of the first period].

2121 Death of Abraham.

2852 Birth of David.

2882 David becomes King, II. [characteristic of the second period].

2923 Death of David.

3327 Birth of Jechoniah.

3345 Jechoniah Bound, III. [characteristic of the third period].

3939 Birth of Christ.

3969 Baptism of Christ.

Now, in the first place, take the sum of the years in each Fourteen, and divide them by fourteen, which is the number of generations, and you will obtain the length of the single generations in each period: so that, in the first period, a generation will contain sixty-two, in the second, thirty-three, and in the third, forty-two years. The mean length will be about forty-six years: this, however, I will not press. Take, in the second place, which is more to the purpose, the nine hundred and twenty-three years from the promise given to Abraham till the birth of Christ, and divide them by three, which is the number of the periods: the mean length of the periods will not come up to that of the first, will exceed that of the second, but will agree admirably with that of the third. The third therefore stands as the primary period (to which the two others are subservient), between the excess of the first and the defect of the second, which mutually compensate each other. And the Evangelist has acted as geographers do, who, when wishing to express the distance between two cities, enumerate the stations interposed between them, in such a manner, that they add to one stage the paces which they take from another, and thus produce more conveniently the real total without any violence to truth. In fact, the Evangelist has done that, which every chronologer does, when he enumerates the years in his canons so as to absorb the excesses and defects of the months and days. In short, the years of the first and second period, taken together, are exactly double those of the third period. On the same principle, Moses has reduced the times of Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses, which might have exhibited more or fewer genealogical generations in this or that family, to four chronological generations, or four centuries, those years only being omitted, in which Levi, Kohath, and Amram became parents. It is difficult to represent in words the design of Moses or Matthew; nor can the interpretation of such a matter appeal, at first sight, otherwise than crude and harsh: if, however, it be frequently pondered upon, the acerbity will disappear.

XIII. The chronological equality of the three periods, is a proof that Jesus is the Christ.

There is a perpetual analogy between the periods of time, defined by Divine Wisdom; and these three most important periods correspond remarkably with each other. From the Captivity to Christ, are Fourteen generations, says St Matthew; just as Gabriel, when revealing to Daniel the seventy weeks, said, that the city should be built [“in seven weeks, and three-score and two weeks from the going forth of the commandment”] unto the Messiah the Prince.—See Dan 9:25. And St Matthew had that same system of times in his mind. The Captivity, the revelation which was vouchsafed to Daniel, the Return, the actual commencement of the Seventy Weeks, are separated by short but remarkable intervals. From that point downwards, the Seventy Weeks, throughout their long course, accompany this the last Fourteen, until Christ completes both, and the Fourteen before the Weeks. The Seventy Weeks consist of less than 560 years, as I have shown in the Ordo Temporum, and comprise about twelve generations, each of them (as we have observed in Section IX.) being about forty-six years in duration. It behoved that Christ should come within the Seventy Weeks. The expectation of Israel, therefore, could not be delayed for more than fourteen generations after the Captivity.

XIV. The dissimilarity of the three periods, and the equality of the Fourteens, when taken together, confirm this important conclusion still more, by a cumulative argument.

If any one will compare together, and combine what we have said in the Seventh and Thirteenth Sections, he will perceive that these two arguments reciprocally strengthen each other. The first and second periods were far more glorious than the third, which could not therefore fail to have the conclusion most desired, after so long a cessation of both the Promise and the Kingdom.[41]

[41] “Post tantam promissionis regnique pausam,” i.e. after the voice of prophecy had been so long silent, the royalty of David’s throne remained so long in abeyance.—(I. B.)

In the Treatise on the birth of the Lord JESUS, published A.D. 1749, by Dr S. J. Baumgarten,[42] in the name of the Academy of Halle, my Gnomon is openly assailed in three places.

[42] A Lutheran divine, historian, and philologist of the Academy of Halle; born 1706; died 1756. His works were very numerous.—(I. B.)

In the first place, after refuting the opinion of William Reading, who concluded from the right of Jesus Christ to the Jewish kingdom, that Joseph had had no sons before his birth, he says (p. 20), that I appear to maintain the same view. I however only showed (p. 10, Sec. IX.) that Jesus must have been reputed to be the first-born of Joseph, just as much as He was reputed to be his Son. I said nothing there concerning His right to the kingdom.

The second passage, which occurs soon afterwards, runs thus:—“They double and wonderfully increase the difficulty, who consider that Phaidaiah has been passed over by St Matthew, so as to make Zorobabel the grandson of Salathiel, and the great grandson of Jechoniah; a view which has found favour with many interpreters, although Phaidaiah is expressly called (1Ch 3:18-19) the brother of Salathiel, and the son of Jechoniah. This opinion, however, is far more tolerable than that put forward by Matthew Hiller, in the third chapter of his dissertation on the true meaning of the words which composed the inscription on our Lord’s Cross (Syntagmata Hermeneutica, pp. 361–363). Bengel, however, in the eighth and fourteenth pages of his Gnomon, has gone still further, declaring that the Abiud of Matthew is the same with the Hodaiah or Hodauihu mentioned in 1Ch 3:24, as the tenth from Zorobabel. By which immense leap, he has so far pleased himself, as seriously to think that Matthew has purposely and deliberately passed over an entire Fourteen, which is made up of these nine descendants of Zorobabel, of the father of the same Phaidaiah, of three descendants of Joram, and of the father of Jechoniah, and that this is not without mystery for the construction of the three periods of time, which he then computes according to his own pleasure. We will give his own words. ‘Between Jehoram and Abiud, St Matthew omits in all fourteen generations; see section IX.; and though he only mentions three fourteens for the sake of the number of the periods from Abraham to Christ, he nevertheless implies, in accordance with his system, that there were really four.’[43]

[43] See § x., and footnote.—(I. B.)

“Greatly and sadly do we fear lest the credit of Holy Scripture should be brought into danger by this fictitious systematizing,[44] a danger not to be averted by any distinction between implied or expressed meaning. Even if the Book of Chronicles expressly mentioned Abiud, this hypothesis would still be inadmissible (since many men have undoubtedly borne the same name); and it will appear utterly inexcusable to any one who carefully considers with himself, both what tortures must be employed to transform Abiud into Hodaiah, and also how very much the divine credit of the Book of Chronicles must be imperilled, if it be laid down (the only argument by which the conjecturers support their improbable opinion), that no genealogy is carried further in that book, than the genealogy of the Messiah, of which the writer of Chronicles must certainly have been ignorent without a special revelation.”

[44] “Ficta concinnitate,” alluding to Bengel’s use of the cognate adverb, “concinnè.” See § x., and footnote.—(I. B.)

What follows in the Programm[45] has nothing to do with me. To the objections quoted above, I reply:

[45] “Programm” (Programma) must not be confounded with “Programme;” it is used here in a peculiar and technical sense, and signifies, “An introductory dissertation, generally on some religious or classical subject, read by the Rector, Sub-rector, or some Professor of a German University, at the commencement of their lectures.—(I. B.)

(1.) I have computed the three periods of time, not according to my own pleasure, but from the observations which occur in the text of St Matthew. For the first and second periods are divided by “David, the King,” who, in the mere genealogy of Rth 4:22, is not called “the king:” the second and third are divided by the Babylonian Captivity, which is not a generation, but an epoch. Dr Baumgarten’s Programm itself (p. 24) does not differ much from this.

(2.) I am more doubtful now than I was formerly whether St Matthew has passed over Jehoiakim: it is certain, however, that he has passed over three generations, viz., Ahaz, Joash, and Amaziah; and my Gnomon suggests one reason, his Programm another, why the Evangelist should have passed over these three rather than any others. It ought, therefore, to be carefully considered, whether the observations which are made in that Programm against the other generations, which have also been omitted, do not bring the credit of the sacred writers into danger. The Programm also lays it down (p. 18) that six generations are omitted in Ezr 7:3.

(3.) Whether it was one man, called indiscriminately Hodaiah and Abiud, or whether two individuals are represented respectively by these names, Hiller has assuredly demonstrated that the meaning of both is the same, whose modes of eliciting the truth[46] many would find serviceable, if they would condescend to employ them.

[46] “Fidiculis,” alluding to the învidious term applied by Baumgarten to Bengel’s modes of proving the identity of Abiud and Hodaiah.—ED.

(4.) I now, however, acknowledge that Hodaiah and Abiud were distinct individuals; but I am induced to do so by the single argument, that the nearer Abiud is to Christ, the farther he must be from the ancient times of the Chronicles, and of Hodaiah himself. I have nowhere said that the genealogy of the Messiah or Joseph is carried farther in Chronicles than the other genealogies, neither have I had any cause for so saying.

(5.) The number of Fourteen generations which Hiller has specified as being omitted by St Matthew, received a certain additional appearance of probability from their accordance with the three Fourteens of generations mentioned by the Evangelist.

(6.) Where the Programm in question abruptly concludes with those words of mine concerning St Matthew, there the Gnomon goes on immediately to say, “St Luke expressly enumerates fifty-six generations from Abraham to the time when Jesus was thirty years of age. They agree, therefore.” On considering this passage, it will, I think, become evident, that the antithesis between the words “implied” and “expressed” is perfectly harmless; and that the apparent difference in the numbers of generations mentioned by the two evangelists can be satisfactorily reconciled by means of those which St Matthew has omitted.

(7.) If St Matthew has omitted rather fewer generations, this does not detract from the remainder of my explanation.

(8.) Since the Programm (p. 13) touches on the passage in Luk 3:23, we shall offer some observations also on it. In these words, ὢν, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ, τοῦ Ἡλεὶ, κ.τ.λ. (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, etc.), Baumgarten expunges the comma after ἐνομίζετο (was supposed), so as to make ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ (as was supposed the son of Joseph) a parenthesis; though the word ἐνομίζετο (was supposed) belongs rather, without any diminution of truth, to the whole genealogy, as I have shown in the present work. I remark by the way—on the passage in question, that, when our Lord is said to have been about thirty years of age, some latitude is ascribed to the year xxx. by the word ὡς (about), so that there may have been an excess, or rather a defect, of some days, without detriment to the precise number of thirty years. Baumgarten, however, in his Church History, Sec. i. p. 105, introduces some few years above thirty: a license which is quite unallowable, since in this manner the most important calculations of time which occur in the evangelists, are put entirely out of joint. Scripture records many and various ages of men, and introduces odd numbers of years, such as 21 and 29, although they approach very nearly to round numbers, such as 20 and 30. We ought not, therefore, to imagine that the most important of all, namely, the age of Jesus, can have been left in doubt.

The third passage occurs at p. 26, and runs thus:—“They who attempt to produce any other equalization or comparison of these periods, seek to serve unwisely the interests of a good cause, which is not benefited by crude and harsh fancies, such as Bengel himself confesses that his own opinion (of the chronology which he imagines to be concealed in this genealogy, and to be conducive to the exposition in his Gnomon) must appear at first sight. We at least have not experienced that which he thought would be the case, namely, that it would grow less harsh by being more frequently thought over; for though we have read it again and again at least ten times, and thought it over diligently, it has by this process become more and more repugnant to us: in fact, we are clearly convinced, that whatever is by means of arithmetical operations made out of the numbers which we meet with in the sacred history, ought not to be attributed to the sacred writers, and cannot be referred to their meaning, unless we wish to excel even Jewish ingenuity by our cabalistic sagacity.”

Others have followed and added to this censure. For at Leipsic there has appeared both a certain academical exercise and the revision of an academical exercise, in which these words are applied to me,—“He almost surpasses the fabrications of Jews and Cabalists, since he introduces his RAW fancies into the sacred chronology.” But I return to the Hallian censure. The author of that censure should take care lest the last words which I have quoted from it strike the sacred writer himself, whose meaning is placed at a far greater distance above mere accommodation to Jewish tastes than the Programm either acknowledges or permits to be acknowledged. If, however, another sufficient interpretation be given, I will willingly give up my own. It has not happened to the author of the Programm to find my opinion grew, upon consideration, less harsh: it does, however, happen to others, who weigh well my notes on Mat 1:16-17. For, in fact, I am neither the only one nor the first who have asserted that the Evangelist propounds a chronology under cover of the genealogy. I have already cited Chrysostom, at p. 30. I must add Daniel Chamier,[47] who says that thrice fourteen chronological ages are intended by the genealogical steps, which were really more numerous than those mentioned. See by all means his Panastratiæ Catholicæ, vol. iii. b. 18, ch. 2. Very lately also John Frederick Fresenius has produced a commentary on the thrice fourteen generations of Matthew 1, which not only exists in a separate form, but has also been inserted by his brother with equal advantage into his fifth pastoral collection from John D’Espagne.[48] The very Programm itself employs words which accommodate themselves to my opinion in spite of their author; for at p. 24 he says,—“By the gradual evolving of the Divine promise,[49] the complete time which had elapsed from GOD’S entering into covenant with Abraham was divided into three periods, nearly equal in length, if you reckon that length by ages of men.” He is right in employing the word Ages (Aetates); for the equality consists properly in the number of ages intimated by the number of generations expressed; whereas the actual number of generations, some of which are expressed and some omitted, is somewhat larger than that of those which are expressed. Such being the case, the numbers stated in Holy Scripture invite the diligent reader to arithmetical calculations, nor can they safely be treated with contempt where they accord with the matter under consideration. The Hebrews frequently express numbers of years by generations. Away with Jewish Ingenuity! away with Cabalistic Sagacity! Christian research will rightly endeavour, if not to attain to, at least to follow after, the sagacity of the Evangelist, mentioned in the Programm (p. 25.) It may easily be supposed that the Programm, delivered on a solemn occasion in a celebrated spot, must have found many more readers than this my explanation. I trust, however, that it may confer some little advantage on some few readers; and it is better to induce even one man to search after truth, than to estrange many from a single trace of it, however slight.

[47] A French Protestant writer of considerable ability, born in the sixteenth century.

[48] John d’Espagne lived in the 17th century.

[49] “Promissionis Divinœ Gradatione,” literally, “By the Gradation of the Divine Promise,” i.e. by the several stages of its evolution to fulfilment. He wrote, besides other works, Essay des merveilles de Dieu l’harmonie des temps, published at Geneva, 1671.—(I. B.)

He was appointed in 1612 Professor of Divinity at Montauban, and during the siege of that town by Louis XIII., was killed by a cannon-ball in 1621. He is supposed to have had great part in composing the Edict of Nantes.—(I. B.)

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

Mat_1:17. This contains the remark of the evangelist in accordance with (οὖν) this genealogical tree, contained in Mat_1:2-16. The key to the calculation, according to which the thrice-recurring fourteen links are to be enumerated, lies in Mat_1:11-12. According to Mat_1:11, Josiah begat Jechoniah at the time of the migration to Babylon; consequently Jechoniah must be included in the terminus ad quem, which is designated by ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος in Mat_1:17. The same Jechoniah, however, must just as necessarily again begin the third division, as the same begins with ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος. Jechoniah, however, who was himself begotten at the time of the migration, did not become a father until after the migration (Mat_1:12), so that he therefore belonged as begotten to the period ἕως τῆς μετοικ. Βαβυλ., but as a father to the period ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικ. Βαβυλ., standing in his relation to the epoch of the μετοικεσία as a twofold person. It is not so with David, as the latter, like every other except Jechoniah, is only named, but not brought into connection with an epoch-making event in the history, in relation to which he might appear as son and father in a twofold personality. He has therefore no right to be counted twice. According to this view, the three tesseradecades are to be thus divided,[355]

[355] Comp. Strauss, 2d ed.; Hug, Gutachten; Wieseler in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1845, p. 377; Köstlin, Urspr. d. synopt. Evang. p. 30; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 46; also Riggenbach in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1856, p. 580 f., Leb. Jes. p. 261. So early as Augustine, and at a later date, Jansen and several others, count Jechoniah twice; so also Schegg; substantially also Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, who only express themselves awkwardly in saying that the time of the Exile is placed ἐν τάξει γενεᾶς.

I. 1. Abraham; 2. Isaac; 3. Jacob; 4. Judah; 5. Perez; 6. Hezron; 7. Ram; 8. Aminadab; 9. Naasson; 10. Salma; 11. Boaz; 12. Obed; 13. Jesse; 14. David.

II. 1. Solomon; 2. Rehoboam; 3. Abijah; 4. Asa; 5. Jehoshaphat; 6. Joram; 7. Uzziah; 8. Jotham; 9. Ahaz; 10. Hezekiah; 11. Manasseh; 12. Ammon; 13. Josiah; 14. Jechoniah (ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας, Mat_1:11).

III. 1. Jechoniah (μετὰ τὴν μετοικεσίαν, Mat_1:12); 2. Salathiel; 3. Zerubbabel; 4. Abiud; 5. Eliakim; 6. Azor; 7. Zadok; 8. Achim; 9. Eliud; 10. Eleazar; 11. Matthan; 12. Jacob; 13. Joseph; 14. Jesus.

In the third division we have to notice that in any case Jesus also must be counted, because Mat_1:17 says ἕως τοῦ Χριστοῦ, in keeping with Mat_1:1, where Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is announced as the subject of the genealogy, and consequently as the last of the entire list. If Jesus were not included in the enumeration, we should then have a genealogy of Joseph, and the final terminus must have been said to be ἕως Ἰωσήφ. Certainly, according to our Gospel, no proper γενεά existed between Joseph and Jesus, a circumstance which in reality takes away from the entire genealogical tree its character as a genealogy of Jesus in the proper sense. The genealogist himself, however, guards so definitely against every misinterpretation by the words τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς, that we distinctly see that he means to carry the descent of Jesus beyond Joseph back to David and Abraham, only in so far as Joseph, being husband of the mother of Jesus, was His father, merely putatively so indeed, but by the marriage his father in the eye of the law, although not his real parent. After all this, we are neither, with Olearius, Bengel, Fritzsche, de Wette (who is followed by Strauss, 4th ed., I. p. 139), Delitzsch, Bleek, and others, to divide thus: (1) Abraham to David, (2) David to Josiah, (3) Jechoniah to Christ; nor, with Storr (Diss. in libror. hist. N. T. loca, p. 1 ff.), Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, Olshausen: (1) Abraham to David, (2) David to Josiah, (3) Josiah to Joseph; nor are we to say, with Paulus, that among the unknown links, Mat_1:13-16, one has fallen out owing to the copyists; nor, with Jerome, Gusset, Wolf, Gratz, to make Jechoniah in Mat_1:11 into Joiakim, by the insertion of which Ewald completes (see on Mat_1:11) the second tesseradecade, without counting David twice; nor, with Ebrard, Lange, Krafft, to insert Mary as an intermediate link between Joseph and Jesus, by whose marriage with Joseph, Jesus became heir to the theocratic throne. The latter is erroneous on this account, that it contradicts the text, which does not speak of succession to the theocratic throne, but of γενεαί, the condition of which is ἐγέννησε and ἐγεννήθη.

We must assume that the reason for the division into three tesseradecades was not merely to aid the memory (Michaelis, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Fritzsche), which is not sufficient to explain the emphatic and solemn prominence given to the equal number of links in the three periods, Mat_1:17; nor even the Cabbalistic number of the name David (דוד, i.e. 14; so Surenhusius, Ammon, Leben Jesu, I. p. 173), as it is not David, but Jesus, that is in question; nor a reminiscence of the forty-two encampments in the wilderness (Origen, Luther, Gfrörer, Philo, II. p. 429, after Numbers 33), which would be quite arbitrary and foreign to the subject; nor a requirement to the reader to seek out the theocratic references concealed in the genealogy (Ebrard), in doing which Matthew would, without any reason, have proposed the proper design of his genealogical tree as a mere riddle, and by his use of ἐγέννησε would have made the solution itself impossible: but that precisely from Abraham to David fourteen links appeared, which led the author to find fourteen links for the two other periods also, in which, according to Jewish idiosyncrasy, he saw something special, which contained a mystic allusion to the sytematic course of divine leading in the Messiahs genealogy, where perhaps also the attraction of holiness in the number seven (the double of which was yielded by the first period) came into play. Comp. Synops. Soh. p. 132. 18 : Ab Abrahamo usque ad Salom. quindecim sunt generationes, atque tunc luna fuit in plenilunio, a Salomone usque ad Zedekiam iterum sunt quindecim generationes, et tunc luna defecit, et Zedekiae effossi sunt oculi. See also Gen_5:3 ff; Gen_11:10 ff., where, from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to Abraham, ten links in each case are counted. It is altogether arbitrary, however, because there is no allusion to it in Matthew, when Delitzsch (in Rudelbach and Guerickes Zeitschrift, 1850, p. 587 ff.) explains the symmetry of the three tesseradecades from this, that Matthew always makes a generation from Abraham to David amount to eighty years, but each of the following to forty, and consequently has calculated 1120 + 560 + 560 years. To do so is incorrect, because γενεαί receives its designation from ἐγέννησε, it being presupposed that γενεά denotes a generation.

REMARK 1.

It is clear from πᾶσαι that the evangelist supposed that he had the genealogical tree complete, and consequently was not aware of the important omissions.

REMARK 2.

Whether Mary also was descended from David, as Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. xxiii. 45. 100, Irenaeus, iii. 21. 5, Julius Africanus, ap. Eusebium, i. 7, Tertullian, and other Fathers, as well as the Apocrypha of the N. T., e.g. Protev. Jacobi 10, de nativ. Mariae, already teach,[356] is a point upon which any evidence from the N. T. is entirely wanting, as the genealogical tree in Luke is not that of Mary. Nor can a conclusion be drawn to that effect, as is done by the Greek Fathers, from the Davidic descent of Joseph; for even if Mary had been an heiress, which, however, cannot at all be established (comp. on Luk_2:5), this would be quite a matter of indifference so far as her descent is concerned, since the law in Num_36:6 only forbade such daughters to marry into another tribe, Ewald, Alterth. p. 239 f. [E. T. p. 208], Saalschütz, M. R. p. 829 f., and in later times was no longer observed; see Delitzsch, l.c. p. 582. The Davidic descent of Mary would follow from passages such as those in Act_2:30, Rom_1:3-4, 2Ti_2:8, comp. Heb_7:14, if we were certain that the view of the supernatural generation of Jesus lay at the basis of these; Luk_1:27; Luk_1:32; Luk_1:69 prove nothing, and Luk_2:4 just as little (in answer to Wieseler, Beitr. z. Würdig. der Evang. p. 144); we might rather infer from Luk_1:36 that Mary belonged to the tribe of Levi. The Davidic descent of Jesus, however, is established as certain by the predictions of the prophets, which, in reference to so essential a mark of the Messiah, could not remain without fulfilment, as well as by the unanimous testimony of the N. T. (Rom_1:3; 2Ti_2:8; Heb_7:14; Joh_7:41; Rev_5:5; Rev_22:16), and is also confirmed by Hegesippus (in Eusebius iii. 20), according to whom, grandsons of Jude, the Lords brother, were brought, as descendants of David (ὡς ἐκ γένους ὄντας Δαυίδ), before Domitian. To doubt this descent of Jesus, and to regard it rather as a hypothesis which, as an abstraction deduced from the conception of Messiah, had attached itself to the Messianic predicate Son of David (comp. Schleiermacher, Strauss, B. Bauer, Weiss, Schenkel, Holtzmann, Eichthal), is the more unhistorical, that Jesus Himself lays down that descent as a necessary condition of Messiahship; see on Mat_22:42 ff.; besides Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 326 ff., also Weiss, bibl. Theolog. § 18, and Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 242 ff. ed. 3.

[356] In the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, on the other hand, the tribe of Levi is definitely alluded to as that to which Mary belonged. See pp. 542, 546, 654, 689. In another passage, p. 724, she is represented as a descendant of Judah. Comp. on Luk_1:36, and see Thilo, ad Cod. apocr. p. 375. Ewalds remark, that the Protevang. Jacobi leaves the tribe of Mary undetermined, is incorrect, ch. 10. b. In Thilo, p. 212, it is said: ὅτι Μαριὰμ ἐκ φυλῆς Δαβίδ ἐστι.

REMARK 3.

As the evangelist relates the divine generation of Jesus, he was therefore far removed from the need of constructing a genealogy of Joseph, and accordingly we must suppose that the genealogy was found and adopted by him (Harduin, Paulus, Olshausen, and most moderns), but was not his own composition (older view, de Wette, Delitzsch). Add to this that, as clearly appears from Luke, various genealogical trees must have been in existence, at the foundation of which, however, had originally[357] lain the view of a natural γένεσις of Jesus, although the expression of such a view had already disappeared from them, so that Mat_1:16 no longer ran Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν, and in Luk_3:23, ὡς ἐνομίζετο was already interpolated. Such anti-Ebionitic alterations in the last link of the current genealogical registers of Jesus are not to be ascribed, first, to the evangelists themselves (Strauss, Schenkel); nor is the alteration in question which occurs in Matthew to be derived from a supposed redactor who dealt freely with a fundamental gospel document of a Judaistic kind (Hilgenfeld). The expression ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστύς in Mat_1:16 rather betrays that the genealogical written source passed over into the Gospel in the shape in which it already existed; neither the author nor an editor would have written ὁ λεγόμενος (comp. Mat_1:1; Mat_1:18), or, had they made an alteration in Mat_1:16, they would not have allowed it to remain.

[357] It must be admitted that the genealogies owe their origin to the view that Josephs paternal relation was real, and that their original purpose bore that Joseph was the actual, and not merely the putative, father of Jesus, because otherwise the composition of a genealogical tree of Joseph would have been without any motive of faith. But we must also grant that the evangelists, so early as the time when they composed their works, found the genealogies with the definite statements announcing the putative paternal relationship, and by that very circumstance saw it adapted for reception without any contradiction to their belief in the divine generation of Jesus. They saw in it a demonstration of the Davidic descent of Jesus according to the male line of succession, so far as it was possible and allowable to give such in the deficiency of a human father, that is, back beyond the reputed father. The circumstance, however, that Joseph recognised Jesus as a lawful son, presented to him in a miraculous manner, although he was not his flesh and blood (Delitzsch and others), assuredly leads, in like manner, only to a γενεά which is not real.

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.

Mat 1:17 . The evangelist pauses to point out the structure of his genealogy: three parts with fourteen members each; symmetrical, 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 yourself. 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, terminating first series, 14; from David, heading second series, to the captivity as limit, i.e. , 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 concluding term of series 2, and Jeconiah himself as the first member of series 3 (Weiss-Meyer). The identical number in the three parts is of no importance in itself. It is a numerical symbol uniting three periods, and suggesting comparison in other respects, e.g. , as to different forms of government judges, kings, priests (Euthy. Zig.), theocracy, monarchy, hierarchy (Schanz), all summed up in Christ; or as to Israel’s fortunes: growth, decline, ruin redemption urgently needed.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

All those which are reckoned up in this pedigree of David’s stock, as they begat one another orderly in their degrees.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 17. Fourteen generations] See Clarke on Mt 1:11. The Jews had a sort of technical method of summing up generations in this way. In Synopsis Sohar, p. 132, n. 18, we have the following words; "From Abraham to Solomon were fifteen generations; and then the moon was at the full. From Solomon to Zedekiah were other fifteen generations; the moon was then in the wane, and Zedekiah's eyes were put out." That is, the regal state came to its zenith of light and glory in the time of Solomon; but decreased gradually, till it became nearly extinct in the days of Zedekiah. See Schoetgen.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(17) The arrangement into three triads of fourteen generations each was obviously in the nature of a memoria technica. The periods embraced by the three groups were, it may be noted, of very unequal length; and the actual omission of names in one of them, makes it possible that the others may have been treated in the same way.

(1) From the birth of Abraham to the birth of David, taking the dates supplied by the received chronology of the Old Testament. B.C. 1996-1085.

(2) From the birth of David to the Captivity. B.C. 1085-588.

(3) From the Captivity to the birth of Jesus. B.C. 588-4.

There remains the further question, how we are to reconcile the genealogy given by St. Matthew with that given by St. Luke (Luk_3:23-38). This will, it is believed, be best dealt with in a short Excursus in the Notes on that Gospel. Here it may be sufficient to note that the difference between the two is, at least, strong presumptive evidence that neither of the two Evangelists had seen the record of the other. It is otherwise hardly conceivable that the element of difficulty which these differences involve should have been introduced by one or the other without a word of explanation. Each, it may be presumed, copied a document which he found, and the two documents were drawn up on a different plan as to the ideas of succession recognised in each of them.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17. This division into three sets, each containing fourteen steps of descent, is an instance of a practice familiar to readers of Jewish antiquities. Lightfoot says, “They do so very much delight in such kind of concents, that they oftentimes screw up the strings beyond the due measure and stretch them till they crack.” Such a system necessitates the omission of steps in the descent: see notes Mat_1:8; Mat_1:13.

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.

So all the generations from Abraham,.... The Evangelist having traced the genealogy of Christ from Abraham, which he divides into "three" parts, because of the threefold state of the Jews, "first" under Patriarchs, Prophets, and Judges, "next" under Kings, and "then" under Princes and Priests, gives the sum of each part under its distinct head; "so all the generations", that is, the degrees of generation, or the persons generated from Abraham to David, both being included, "are fourteen generations"; as there were, and no more, and are as follow, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Phares, Esrom, Aram, Amminadab, Naasson, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David.

And from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations. Here David who closed the first division must be excluded this, and it must be observed, that the Evangelist does not say as before, that "all" the generations from David to the captivity were fourteen, for there were seventeen, three kings being omitted by him at once; but, the generations he thought fit to mention, in order to reduce them to a like number as before, and which were sufficient for his purpose, were fourteen; and may be reckoned in this order, Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, Ezekias, Manasses, Amon, Josias, Jechonias, or Jehoiachin.

And from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. This must be understood as before; for there might be more generations in this interval, but these were enough to answer the design of the Evangelist; and which he thought proper to mention, and may be numbered in this manner; Jechonias, or Jehoiachin, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Abiud, Ehakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Christ. This way of reckoning by generations was used by other nations as well as the Jews (u), particularly the Grecians; so (w) Pausanias says,

"From Tharypus to Pyrrhus the son of Achilles, , were fifteen generations of men.''

And Herodotus (x) speaking of those who had reigned in Babylon, says, among them were two women, one whose name was Semiramis, who reigned before the other , five generations; many other instances of the like kind might be given.

(u) Vid. Pirke Abot. c. 5. sect. 2. (w) Attica sive l. 1. c. 10. p. 19. (x) Clio. l. 1. c. 184. p. 74.

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

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Ver. 17. So all the generations, &c., are fourteen generations] For memory’ sake Matthew summeth up the genealogy of our Saviour into three fourteens ( tessaradecades): like as some of the Psalms are, for the same reason, set down in order of the alphabet. Discere voluit Socrates, nihil aliud esse quam recordari, saith Cicero (Tusc. Quest.). Magis autem Christi memiuisse debemus quam respirare (Chrysost.). The soul should be as the ark of God, the memory like the pot of manna, preserving holy truths touching him that is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

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.

So all the generations ... - This division of the names in the genealogical tables was doubtless adopted for the purpose of aiding the memory. It was common among the Jews; and other similar instances are preserved. The Jews were destitute of books besides the Old Testament, and they had but few copies of that among them, and those chiefly in their synagogues. They would therefore naturally devise plans to keep up the remembrance of the principal facts in their history. One method of doing this was to divide the tables of genealogy into portions of equal length, to be committed to memory. This greatly facilitated the remembrance of the names. A man who wished to commit to memory the names of a regiment of soldiers would naturally divide it into companies and platoons, and this would greatly facilitate his work. This was doubtless the reason in the case before us. And, though it is not strictly accurate, yet it was the Jewish way of keeping their records, and answered their purpose. There were three leading persons and events that nearly, or quite, divided their history into equal portions: Abraham, David, and the Babylonian captivity. From one to the other was about 14 generations, and by omitting a few names it was sufficiently accurate to be made a general guide or directory in recalling the principal events in their history.

In counting these divisions, however, it will be seen that there is some difficulty in making out the number 14 in each division. This may be explained in the following manner: In the first division, Abraham is the first and David the last, making 14 altogether. In the second series, David would naturally be placed first, and the 14 was completed in Josiah, about the time of the captivity, as sufficiently near for the purpose of convenient computation, 2 Chr. 35. In the third division Josiah would naturally be placed first, and the number was completed in Joseph; so that David and Josiah would be reckoned twice. This may be shown by the following table of the names:

First

Division

Second

Division

Third

Division

Abraham

David

Josias

Isaac

Solomon

Jechonias

Jacob

Roboam

Salathiel

Judas

Abia

Zorobabel

Phares

Asa

Abiud

Esrom

Josaphat

Eliakim

Aram

Joram

Azor

Aminadab

Ozias

Sadoc

Naasson

Joatham

Achim

Salmon

Achaz

Eliud

Boaz

Ezekias

Eleazar

Obed

Manasses

Matthan

Jesse

Amon

Jacob

David

Josias

Joseph

14

14

14

Carrying away into Babylon - This refers to the captivity of Jerusalem, and the removal of the Jews to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, 588 years before Christ. See 2 Chr. 36. Josiah was king when these calamities began to come upon the Jews, but the exact time of the 70 years of captivity did not commence until the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign, or 32 years after the death of Josiah. Babylon was situated on the Euphrates, and was encompassed with walls which were about 60 miles in circuit, 87 feet broad, and 350 feet high, and the city was entered by 100 brass gates - 25 on each side. It was the capital of a vast empire, and the Jews remained there for 70 years. See Barnes’ notes at Isa. 13.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The evangelist, for reasons which we cannot fathom, reduces our Saviour’s progenitors to fourteen in each period of the Jewish state; and in the first period, determining with David, there were no more. In the second, he leaveth out three kings descended from the daughter of Ahab. In the third, which was from the captivity to Christ, there were doubtless more; Luke reckoneth up twenty-four, (taking in Christ for one), and agreeth in very few with Matthew, who was forced to leave out some to keep to this number of fourteen. Nor doth Matthew speak any thing false, or contradictious to Luke, in saying there were fourteen though there were more. Besides, there might be many more progenitors of Mary than of Joseph, whose pedigree Matthew deriveth.

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

17. All the generations — The word generations, perhaps, here denotes the links in the recorded genealogical chain. This summation into three nearly equal parts is primarily made to aid the memory. At the same time it marks the three great stages of Jewish history; and shows that Christ’s coming was a great historical epoch. The three periods constitute the morning, the noonday, and the evening of the Jewish history, before Christ. The morning embraces the patriarchal, the Egyptian, and the Mosaic periods. The noonday embraces the monarchy from the glorious days of David and Solomon to its termination in Jechonias. The evening, or period of decline beginning with the captivity and the restoration, embraces the cessation of prophecy and divine communications during the second temple. During this period the Maccabees, or Asmonean princes of the priestly line, defended their country with a splendid secular heroism, and crowned her with independence, until the time of HEROD, surnamed the Great, whose wife Mariamne belonged to that illustrious line. During much of this time the High Priesthood was nearly equal in power to the ancient royalty. But the royal line of David was sunk into obscurity, and flowed along in secret like a noiseless and slender stream in a dense and silent forest. Accordingly the names in both Gospel genealogies, after the cessation of Old Testament records, are found only in the family pedigrees. They are names unknown to history. When the fullness of time came, the angel is sent to a maiden of that line residing in the insignificant and unhistorical village of Nazareth.

From Abraham to David — From Abraham to Christ was in round numbers 2,000 years. David was nearly the middle point between these two; so that from Abraham to David was about one thousand years. Yet so long were the lives of the patriarchs, that it required but fourteen generations to fill that 1,000 years; whereas to fill the second thousand, namely, from David to Christ, required twice fourteen, or twenty-eight generations.

From David until the carrying away — This period was filled by the monarchy of Israel. Of these kings, three occurring in the Old Testament are omitted by Matthew. Lightfoot has shown that omissions in genealogies often occurred. The most striking instance of such omission is found in Revelation, chap. Mat_7:5-8, where the tribe of Dan is omitted, probably on account of the idolatrous character of that tribe. It was probably for the double reason of marking the wicked character of these three kings, and to secure the mnemonic number of fourteen, that their names were omitted. Fourteen is twice the sacred number seven. Those who have traced through Scripture the many references to this sacred number seven, will not slight the idea that such a reference here exists.

Unto Christ — By counting it will be perceived that in this third period there are not fourteen generations, as mentioned by Matthew, but thirteen. But some early manuscripts of the New Testaments supply an important clause, which seems to have been omitted by the transcribers, which omission exists in the common text. The clause reads thus: Josias begat Joakim and his brethren; and Joakim begat Jechonias about the time of the first Babylonish captivity; and Jechonias begat Selathiel after they were brought to Babylon.

The supply of this clause solves every difficulty. Nor can there be a reasonable doubt that Matthew wrote these words. The authority for them in the early copies of the New Testament is respectable. But the internal argument demonstrates their genuineness. They are required by the facts of the Old Testament history, and they are required in the present passage in order to make sense.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Fourteen generations. To make the list more easy to remember, the names were so ordered that there should be the same number in each of the three divisions. Thus a means was afforded of checking the correctness of the enumeration, and the list became a sort of memoria technica. Unto Christ; better here, unto the Christ. For now begins the history which tells of this Jesus as the specially Anointed One of God, the true Messiah, of which all the previously anointed messengers had been but types and figures. The history which St. Matthew is about to give demonstrates that in Jesus were fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament which the Jews had constantly referred to the Messiah, for whose appearance the pious in Israel were ever looking.

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

So all the generations -- observe, in order to complete the three fourteens, David ends the first fourteen, and begins the second (which reaches to the captivity) and Jesus ends the third fourteen. When we survey such a series of generations, it is a natural and obvious reflection, how like the leaves of a tree one passeth away, and another cometh! Yet the earth still abideth. And with it the goodness of the Lord which runs from generation to generation, the common hope of parents and children. Of those who formerly lived upon earth, and perhaps made the most conspicuous figure, how many are there whose names are perished with them? How many, of whom only the names are remaining? Thus are we likewise passing away! And thus shall we shortly be forgotten! Happy are we, if, while we are forgotten by men, we are remembered by God! If our names, lost on earth, are at length found written in the book of life!

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Such is Matthew’s introduction to his Gospel. And in concluding this genealogy, which immediately places Jesus the Christ into the center before the minds and hearts of his readers, he gives a brief summary according to the divisions of Jewish history:

v. 17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David until the carrying away into Babylon are tour-teen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

The three periods represent, respectively, the three forms of government which the Jews had: theocracy, monarchy, hierarchy, with judges, kings, and priests at their head. But, incidentally, the same division sums up Israel’s fortunes. First came the age of slow and steady growth, with all the manifestations of the first love’s zeal and fervor toward God, culminating in the reign of David. Then came the period of slow decline and gradual disintegration, ushered in with the luxurious reign of Solomon and characterized by the continuous and losing conflict with idolatry. And lastly came the period of a restored Church with internal ruin, of a dead orthodoxy, of an insipid ritualism. If any fact stands out clearly from this contrast, it is this, that redemption was most sorely and urgently needed.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17. Are fourteen generations. There are exactly fourteen generations from Abraham to David, and two other series are made to correspond. From David to, etc. David's name is counted again to make the number fourteen. The third series begins with Jeconiah and ends with Christ.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

17. This division into three sets, each containing fourteen steps of descent, is an instance of a practice familiar to readers of Jewish antiquities. Lightfoot says, ‘They do so very much delight in such kind of concents, that they oftentimes screw up the strings beyond the due measure and stretch them till they crack.’ Such a system necessitates the omission of steps in the descent: see notes Mat 1:8; Mat 1:13.

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.

17. γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες] If we carefully observe Matthew’s arrangement, we shall have no difficulty in completing the three tesseradecades. For the first is from Abraham to David, of course inclusive. The second from David (again inclusive) to the migration; which gives no name, as before, to be included in both the second and third periods, but which is mentioned simultaneously with the begetting of Jechonias, leaving him for the third period. This last, then, takes in from Jechonias to Jesus Christ inclusive. So that the three stand thus, according to the words of this verse: (1) ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ ἕως Δαυίδ. (2) ἀπὸ Δαυὶδ ἕως τ. μετ. Βαβ., i.e. about the time when Josiah begat Jechonias. (3) ἀπὸ τ. μετ. Βαβ. (i.e. from Jechonias) ἕως τοῦ χριστοῦ. We may safely say, that the πᾶσαι does not, as Meyer, imply that Matthew intended to give the genealogy complete, and was not aware of the omissions. For why should this be so? May it not just as well be said, that having, for the convenience of his readers, reduced the genealogy to this form, he then says to them, “So then you have from Abraham to David, 14 generations, &c.?”

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

(E) 17. Therefore all the generations from Abraam to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the Captivity into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the Captivity into Babylon to the Christ are fourteen generations.] The artificial character of the genealogy is obvious from this verse. The arrangement into three will be found to be characteristic of this Gospel. The grouping into three fourteens may be due to the fact that in the Hebrew name David = דוד, there are three letters, and that the numerical value of these letters Isa_4+6+4=14. “By this means the genealogy was invested with the character of a sort of numerical acrostic on the name David” (G. H. Box, Interpreter, Jan. 1906, p. 199).

The genealogy thus constructed is no mere antiquarian attempt to discover genealogical facts. The writer is interested in the question whether Jesus was legally descended from David, and believes that this was the case. But his interest in this point arises from some other than a purely antiquarian motive. The clue to this motive is furnished by the insertion of the women. Why did the compiler think it necessary to safeguard in this manner the fact of the supernatural birth and of Mary’s innocence. The reason can hardly be any other than that these things were already the ground of anti-Christian polemic on the part of the Jews. Celsus, c. a.d. 170-180, is already acquainted with the Jewish slander that Jesus was born out of wedlock; cf. Orig. Contra Celsum, i. 28, 32, 33, 39. And we may be sure that the Christian tradition of the supernatural birth which lies behind the first and third Gospels evoked Jewish slander as soon as it became known to the Jews. For the later Jewish forms of this slander cf. Laible, Jesus Christus im Talmud; Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash; Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach Jüdischen Quellen.

1:1. Δαυείδ] So א A B C D al. The LXX. has Δαυείδ or Δαυίδ; Josephus Δαυίδης or Δαβίδης.—Ἀβραάμ] So LXX. Josephus has Ἄβραμος, Αβραάμης (once), Ἀβραάμ rarely.

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