Matthew 1:6

Mat 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. Eze 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!

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

Mat 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 Mat 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 Luk 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.

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

Mat_1:6. 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 Mat_1:1. In Mat_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 Messiahs 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, Luthers Katharina, and the like. See Kühner, II. p. 285 f. Winer, p. 178 [E. T. p. 237].

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 1:6-10 , 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 (Mat 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 (Mat 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 (Mat 1:4 ) was the head of the tribe of Judah at the Exodus (Num 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 Gen 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 Mat 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 1Ch 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.

Mat 1:6 a. τὸν Δαβὶδ τὸν βασιλέα , David the King , the title being added to distinguish him from the rest. It serves the same purpose as if David had been written in large letters. At length we arrive at the great royal name! The materials for the first part of the genealogy are taken from Rth 4:18-22 , and 1Ch 2:5-15 .

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

(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.

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

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, Mat_1:12.

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 Jesse begat David the king,.... The descent of the Messiah runs in the line of David, the youngest of Jesse's sons, who was despised by his brethren, and overlooked and neglected by his father; but God chose him, and anointed him to be king, and set him on the throne of Israel; hence he is called "David the king"; as also because he was the first king that was of the tribe of Judah, and in the genealogy of Christ, and was an eminent type of the king Messiah, who is sometimes called by the same name, Eze 34:24 and who was to be his son, as Jesus is, and also right heir to his throne and kingdom.

And David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; which was Bathsheba, though not named; either because she was well known, or because of the sin she had been guilty of, which would easily be revived by mentioning her name: our translators have rightly supplied, "that had been", and not as the Vulgate Latin, which supplies it, "that was the wife of Urias", for Solomon was begotten of her, not while she was the wife of Uriah, but when she was the wife of David.

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

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

Ver. 6. And Jesse begat David the king] But that was not his chief title: he gloried more in styling himself the servant of the Lord, Psa 36:1, tit. So Theodosius esteemed it a greater honour that he was membrum Christi member of Christ than Caput Imperii, head of the empire. Numa etiam του θεου υπηρεσιαν βασιλευειν existimabat. Numa held the service of God the highest honour. (Plut. in Vit.)

David the king begat Solomon] Whom Bellarmine reckoneth for a reprobate: but (besides that he was God’s corculum, little heart, and by him called Jedediah) he calleth himself in his sacred retractations, Coheleth; which being interpreted the Preacher, is a word of the feminine termination, and by some rendered aggregata, where understanding the substantive anima, they conclude herehence that he was renewed by repentance and reunited to the Church.

Of her that had been the wife of Uriah] His best children he had by this wife: the fruit of humiliation doubtless. ( Peccatum tametsi non bonum, tamen in bonum. Aug.) The barren women’s children are observed to have been the best, as Isaac, Samuel, John Baptist, &c., for like reason.

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.

Extract from St. John Chrysostom’s first Homil. upon the first chapter of St. Matthew: "How, you say, does it appear that Christ descended from David? For if he be born not of man, but of a virgin, concerning whose genealogy nothing is said, how shall we know that he is of the family of David? We have here two difficulties to explain. Why is the genealogy of the Virgin passed over in silence, and why is Joseph’s mentioned, as Christ did not descend from him? ... How shall we know that the Virgin is descended from David? Hear the words of the Almighty addressed to the archangel Gabriel: ’Go to a virgin espoused to a man, whose name is Joseph, of the house and family of David.’ What could you wish plainer that this, when you hear that the Virgin is of the family of David? Hence it also appears that Joseph was of the same house, for there was a law which commanded them not to marry any one but of the same tribe. ... But whether these words, of the house and family of David, be applied to the Virgin or to Joseph, the argument is equally strong. For if he was of the family of David, he did not take a wife but out of the same tribe, from which he had descended. Perhaps you will say he transgressed this law. But the evangelist has prevented such a suspicion, by testifying beforehand that Joseph was a just man. Beware how you attach crime to him, whose virtue is thus publicly acknowledged. ... It was not the custom among the Hebrews to keep the genealogies of women. The evangelist conformed to this custom, that he might not at the very beginning of the gospel offend by transgressing ancient rites, and introducing novelty."

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

David the king. The mention of David"s royal position seems made here because at this point the line of the Messiah first becomes connected with the royal house. At the time when Saul was made king the people chose to have him in opposition to the Divine will; but giving them next as king a man after his own heart, God uses the offence of his people so that it shall become a channel of blessing, and from this king Christ himself shall be born. Of her that had been the wife of Urias. It is not easy to see why Bathsheba is spoken of thus indirectly, as her own name was certainly better known, and is more frequently mentioned in the Old Testament than Uriah"s. The phrase seems to call attention most pointedly to David"s sin. and that too in a sentence where his kingly dignity has just been markedly emphasized. The way in which God dealt with David and his sin is very parallel to that in which he dealt with the Israelites after their choice of Saul. David"s first child, like the Israelites" first king, finds not God"s blessing; but the second child is the pledge of peace with God (Solomon) is Jedidiah, "the beloved of the Lord," as David the second king was the man after God"s own heart. She that had been the wife of Uriah, after David"s repentance becomes Solomon"s mother. Up to this point the genealogies in St. Matthew and St. Luke have entirely accorded, but with the mention of Solomon we come upon a variation, which continues till the union of the two forms of the pedigree in Salathiel (Shealtiel, Revised Version), the father of Zerubbabel. In St. Matthew the line which is followed is the succession of the kings of Judah from Solomon to Jehoiachin (Jechonias). St. Luke mentions, after David, his son Nathan, (of whom we find a notice in 1Ch_3:5 2Sa_5:14) and then passes on through a series of nineteen names, none of which is found in other parts of Scripture as belonging to the race of David. We have nothing, therefore, with which to compare them; but in number they correspond very nearly with the known descendants in the line of Solomon, so that, although we cannot verify the names, the list bears upon its face the appearance of being derived from some duly kept record of the pedigree of Nathan, the son of David.

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

David the king -- particularly mentioned under this character, because his throne is given to the Messiah.

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

6. David the king. The greatest of line from Abraham to Christ, so exalted that one of the titles of the Messiah was “the Son of David.” Of Uriah. The mother of Solomon is referred to, not by name, but as the wife of Uriah. Uriah was a Hittite, a Gentile, and his wife may have been also. She was certainly a partner of David in the greatest guilt of his life.

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.

6. Δαυεὶδ τὸν βασιλέα. A special hint of Christ the king, of whom David was the type.

ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου. For the omission of γυναικὸς cp. ‘Hectoris Andromache,’ Æn. III. 319: such ellipse is natural where there would be no difficulty in supplying the missing word.

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, Mat 1:12.

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.

6. τῆς τοῦ Οὐ.] This construction, which is not properly elliptical, but possessive (Grotius compares ‘Hectoris Andromache,’ Virg.,—Meyer, Luther’s Katharina, and Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 160, Διὸς Ἄρτεμις,—Ζηνὸς Ἀπόλλων Plut. de Pyth. or. p. 402,—Ἱππίου Ἀρχεδίκην Thuc. vi. 59, &c.), occurs in the Gospels to designate various relations: see reff.

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

(E) 6. And Jessai begat David the king.] The insertion of “the king,” which was perhaps suggested by ἐβασίλευσεν, 1Ch 3:4 or by Rth 4:22 LXX. A, marks the close of the first division of the genealogy. At this point the family obtained royal power. Δαυείδ is the Septuagintal form. For τὸν βασιλέα, cf. also Jos. Ant. v. ix. 4:—“From Obed came Jessai, and from him David the king (ὁ βασιλεύσας), and left the sovereignty to his sons for twenty-one generations. I thought it necessary to recount the history of Ruth, because I wished to show the power of God, that He can advance even the ignoble to splendid dignity; such as that to which He brought David, though born of such parents.”

6, 7. And David begat Solomon from the wife of Uriah; and Solomon begat Roboam.] 1Ch 3:5, 1Ch 3:10.—Σολομῶνα] The LXX. A B has Σαλωμών, Luc. Σαλομών, Josephus Σολομών. Ῥοβοόμ is the Septuagintal form.—ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρείου] Perhaps suggested to the editor by 1Ch 3:5. For the insertion of a woman’s name, see on v. 1. Οὐρείου is the Septuagintal form.

6. Σολομῶνα] LXX. has Σαλωμών, Σαλομών, Σαλωμώ, Σολομών (A). In 1Ch 3:5 Σαλωμών, Luc. Σαλομών, Josephus Σολομών.—Οὐρείου] B Ox.

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

David the king [τον δαυειδ τον βασιλεα , "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 of 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 (ver. 16), marking his peculiar relation to Jesus as the husband of Mary : the Joseph, the husband of Mary.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.