Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Bengel Commentary - Matthew 1:17 - 1:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 præsentis 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. ד = 4, ו = 6, ד = 4: therefore ד + ו + ד = 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.)