Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Bengel Commentary - Matthew 1:16 - 1:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat 1:16. Τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, the husband of Mary) This turn of the genealogical line is evidently singular;[18] and in this place, therefore, I must advance and substantiate several important assertions.
[18] ‘Singularis.’ i.e., unique.-(I. B.)
I. Messias or Christ is the Son of David.
This is admitted by all.-See Mat 22:42, and Act 2:30.
II. Even in their genealogies both Matthew and Luke teach that Jesus is the Christ.
This is clear from Mat 1:16, and Luk 3:22.
III. At the time when Matthew and Luke wrote the descent of Jesus from David had been placed beyond doubt.
Both Matthew and Luke wrote before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, when the full genealogy of the house of David, preserved in the public records, was easily accessible to all: and our Lord’s adversaries did not ever make any objection, when Jesus was so frequently hailed as the Son of David.
IV. The genealogy in St Matthew from Abraham, and that in St Luke from the creation of man, to Joseph the husband of Mary, is deduced, not through mothers but fathers, and those natural fathers.
This is evident in the case of all those ancestors, whose names St Matthew and St Luke repeat from the Old Testament. Wherefore it is not said, whether Ruth had been the wife of Mahlon or Chilion; but Obed is simply said to be the son of his real father Boaz by Ruth [though his legal father was Mahlon.-See Rth 4:10, etc.] From Abraham to David the same ancestors are evidently mentioned by both Matthew and Luke; so that there can be no doubt but that both Evangelists intend not mothers but fathers, and those, fathers by nature, from David to Joseph. Thus, in the books of Kings and Chronicles, as often soever as the mother of a king is mentioned alone, it is a sign that he whom her son is said to have immediately succeeded was his natural father.
V. The genealogy in Matthew from Solomon, and that in Luke from Nathan, is brought down to Joseph, not with the same, but with a different view [respectu, relation, regard.]
This is clear from the preceding section.
VI. Jesus Christ was the Son of Mary, but not of her husband Joseph.
This is evident from Mat 1:16.
VII. It was necessary that the genealogy of Mary should be drawn out.
Without the genealogy of Mary, the descent of Jesus from David could not be proved, as follows from what has just been said.
VIII. Joseph was for some time reputed to be the father of the Lord Jesus.
The mystery of the Redeemer’s birth from a virgin was not made known at once, but by degrees; and, in the meanwhile, the honourable title of marriage was required as a veil for that mystery. Jesus, therefore, was believed to be the Son of Joseph, for instance, after His baptism, by Philip (Joh 1:45); in the time of His public preaching, by the inhabitants of Nazareth (Luk 4:22; Mat 13:55), and only a year before His Passion by the Jews (Joh 6:42). Many still clung to this opinion even after our Lord’s Ascension, and up to the time, therefore, when, a few years subsequently to that event, St Matthew wrote his gospel.
IX. It was therefore necessary that the genealogy of Joseph also should in the meanwhile exist.
It was necessary that all those who believed Jesus to be the Son of Joseph, should be convinced that Joseph was descended from David. Otherwise they could not have acknowledged Jesus to be the Son of David, and consequently could not acknowledge Him to be the Christ. When therefore the angel first appeared to Joseph, and commanded him to take unto him his wife, he called him (Mat 1:20) the son of David: because, forsooth, the Son of Mary would for a time have to bear that name as if derived from Joseph. In like manner, not only was Jesus in truth the first-born (Luk 2:7; Luk 2:23) of His mother, but it behoved also that He should be reputed to be the first-born of Joseph: those, therefore, who are called the brethren of Jesus, were His first cousins, not His half-brothers. It is needless to attempt, as some have done, to prove the consanguinity of Joseph and Mary from their marriage: for even if David be their nearest common ancestor, St Matthew’s object is attained. St Matthew then has traced the genealogy of Joseph, but still so as to do no violence to truth: for he does not say that Jesus is the Son of Joseph, but he does say that He was the Son of Mary; and in this very sixteenth verse he intimates, that this genealogy of Joseph, which had its use for a time, would afterwards become obsolete. Mary’s descent from David was equally well known at that time, as appears from St Luke.
X. Either Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary, and Luke that of Joseph; or Matthew that of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary.
This clearly follows from the preceding sections.
XI. The genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph; in Luke, that of Mary.
St Matthew traces the line of descent from Abraham to Jacob: he expressly states that Jacob begat Joseph, and expressly calls Joseph the husband of Mary. Joseph therefore is regarded throughout this genealogy as the descendant of those who are enumerated, not on Mary’s account, but on his own. Matthew, indeed, expressly contradistinguishes Joseph from Mary as the son of Jacob; but in St Luke, by a less strict mode of expression, Heli (Luk 3:23) is simply placed after Joseph. Since, then, Joseph is described in Matthew as actually the son of Jacob, St Luke cannot mean to represent him as actually the son of Heli. The only alternative which remains, therefore, is to conclude that he is the son of Heli, not in his own person, but by virtue of another, and that other his wife. Mary, then, is the daughter of Heli. The Jewish writers mention a certain מרים בת עלי, Mary, the daughter of Heli, whom they describe as suffering extreme torments in the infernal regions.-See Light-foot[19] on Luk 3:23, and Wolfius[20] on Mat 1:20. St Luke does not, however, name Mary in his genealogy; for it would have sounded ill, especially to Jewish ears, had he written “Jesus was the Son of Mary, the daughter of Heli, the son of Matthat,” etc.-on which account he names the husband of Mary, but that in such a manner that all may be able to understand (from the whole of his first and second chapters), that the name of Mary’s husband stands for that of Mary herself.
[19] John Lightfoot, D.D. Born in Staffordshire, 1602. Educated at Christ Church, Cambridge. One of the Assembly of Divines during the Commonwealth. In 1648 was made Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, and served the office of Vice-Chancellor: and died in 1675. He excelled in rabbinical learning.-(I. B.)
[20] John Christopher Wolfius, a learned Lutheran divine, pastor and Professor of Oriental Languages at Hamburgh. Born 1683. Died 1739. Author of Bibliotheca Hebræa, Curæ Philologicæ et Criticæ in Novum Testamentum.-(I. B.)
XII. That in St Luke is the primary, that in St Matthew the secondary genealogy.
When a genealogy is traced through female as well as male ancestors, any descent may be deduced in many ways from one root; whereas a pedigree, traced simply from father to son, must of necessity consist only of a single line. In the genealogy, however, of Jesus Christ, Mary, His mother, is reckoned with His male ancestors, by a claim of incomparable precedence. In an ordinary pedigree ancestors are far more important than ancestresses. Mary, however, enters this genealogy with a peculiar and unrivalled claim, above that of every ancestor whatever of the whole human race; for whatever Jesus derived from the stock of man-of Abraham, or of David-that He derived entirely from His mother. This is the One Seed of Woman without Man. Other children owe their birth partly to their father, partly to their mother. The genealogy of Mary, therefore, which is given in St Luke, is the primary one. Nor can that of Joseph, in St Matthew, be considered otherwise than secondary, and merely employed for the time, until all should become fully convinced, that Jesus was the Son of Mary, but not of Joseph. St Matthew mentions Jechoniah, although he is passed by in the primary genealogy.-See Jer 22:30; and cf. Luk 1:32-33.
XIII. Whatever difficulty yet remains regarding this whole matter, so far from weakening, should even confirm our faith.
The stock of David had, in the time of Jesus of Nazareth, dwindled down to so small a number (see Rev 22:16), that on this ground also the appellation “Son of David” was used by Antonomasia[21] for “The Messiah.” And that family consisted so exclusively of Jesus and His relatives, that any one who knew Him to belong to it could not fail, even without the light of faith, to acknowledge Him as the Messiah, since the period foretold by the prophets for His manifestation had already arrived, and none of our Lord’s relations could be compared with Himself. Our Lord’s descent, therefore, from the race of David, as well as His birth at Bethlehem, were less publicly known; nay, rather He was in some degree veiled, as it were, by the name of Nazarene, that faith might not lose its price.[22]-See Joh 7:27; Joh 7:41-42. And thus men, having been first induced on other grounds to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, concluded, on the same grounds, that He must be the Son of David.-See Mat 12:23. The necessary public documents, however, were in existence, whence it came to pass, that the chief priests, though employing every means against our Lord, never questioned His descent from David. Nay, even the Romans received much information concerning the Davidical descent of Jesus.-See Luk 2:4. Of old the facility with which His descent could be traced, showed Jesus to be the Son of David: now the very difficulty of so doing (caused as it is by the destruction of Jerusalem, and all the public records which it contained), affords a proof, against the Jews at least, that the Messiah must long since have come. Should they acknowledge any other as the Messiah, they must ascertain his descent from David in precisely the same manner that we do that of Jesus of Nazareth. As light, however, advanced, the aspect of the question has not a little changed. Jesus was called, on various occasions, “The Son of David,” by the multitude (ch. Mat 12:23, Mat 21:9), by children (Mat 21:15), by the blind men (Mat 9:27, Mat 20:30), by the woman of Canaan (Mat 15:22): but He never declared to His disciples that He was the Son of David, and they, in their professions of faith, called Him, not “The Son of David,” but “The Son of God;” He invited, also, those who called Him the Son of David, to advance further.-See Mat 21:42-43, and Mat 9:28. In the first instance our Lord’s descent from David was rather a ground of faith, afterwards it became rather an obstacle to faith. No difficulty can now be a hinderance to them that believe.-See 2Co 5:16. Jesus is the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.[23]
[21] The substitution of an appellative designation for a proper name.-ED. See explanation of technical terms in Appendix.-(I. B.)
[22] “Ut pretium fidei maneret.” Faith was allowed to remain attended with seeming difficulties, at the cost of surmounting which, men were appointed to attain to it.-ED.
[23] Rev 22:16.-(I. B.)
XIV. Matthew and Luke combine ulterior objects and advantages with the genealogy.
If the Evangelists had merely wished to show that Mary and also Joseph were descended from David, it would have been sufficient for their purpose, had they, taking the genealogies as they exist in the Old Testament for granted, commenced at the point where these conclude, namely, with Zorobabel, or at any rate with David himself, and traced the line through Nathan or Solomon down to Jesus Christ. St Matthew, however, begins further off, viz. with Abraham, and descends through David and Solomon. St Luke, on the other hand, ascends to Nathan and David, and thence beyond Abraham to the first origin of the human race. Each of them, therefore, must have had at the same time a further object in view.
St Luke, as is evident at first sight, makes a full recapitulation[24] and summary of the lineage of the whole human race, and exhibits with that lineage the Saviour’s consanguinity to all Gentiles, as well as Jews: St Matthew, writing to the Hebrews, begins with Abraham, thus reminding them of the promise which had been made to that Patriarch. Again, St Luke simply enumerates the whole series, through more than seventy steps, without addition or comment: whereas St Matthew, besides several remarkable observations which he introduces in particular cases concerning the wives and brothers of those whom he mentions, and the Babylonian Captivity, divides the whole series into three periods; and, as we shall presently consider, enumerates in each of these periods fourteen generations. And hence, also, we perceive the convenience of the descent in Matthew, and the ascent in Luke: for in this manner the former was enabled more conveniently to introduce those observations and divisions; the latter, to avoid the stricter word ἐγέννησε, begat, and take advantage of the formula ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as was supposed, and in an exquisite manner to conclude the whole series with God.-ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός, who is called Christ) St Matthew is dealing with the Jewish reader, who is to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ, by such means as His genealogy. And accordingly he here and there [throughout his Gospel] expresses and establishes what the other Evangelists take for granted. The force of the name Christ recalls especially the promise given to David concerning the Kingdom of the Messiah: and the force of the name Jesus recalls especially the promise given to Abraham concerning the Blessing.[25]
[24] See explanation of technical terms in voc. ANAKEPHALAESOSIS. The word is used by Quintilian.-(I. B.)
[25] The Greek Χριστός, and the Hebrew משיח, means Anointed, i.e., King. Jesus is the proper name of our Lord: [the] Christ is a surname [cognomen], implying His office. The ancients were expecting the Christ, before the birth of Jesus: when Jesus had been born, a demonstrative proof was given that this very Jesus is the Christ; and when that demonstration of His being the Christ was subsequently made more widely known, the appellation, Jesus Christ, became the prevalent one.-Vers. Germ.