Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 1

1. Nothing can be inferred directly from St. Matthew’s phrase “till she had brought forth” regarding what followed the birth. The writer’s purpose is clearly to emphasize the absence of anything that might interfere with the absolutely supernatural character of the birth itself.

2. Nothing can be inferred with certainty from the mention of our Lord’s “brethren” in Matthew 12:46 (see note there) and elsewhere. They may have been children of Joseph from a previous marriage, from what was known as a levirate marriage with a deceased brother’s widow (under the law of Deuteronomy 25:5 and Matthew 22:24), or they may have been adopted children or cousins included under the general term “brethren.”

3. The fact that our Lord’s mother found a home with the beloved disciple (John 19:27) and not with any of the “brethren” suggests, as far as it goes, that they were not her own children. However, this evidence is not strong enough to warrant any positive assertion.

Scripture, therefore, supplies no data for a decision on either side, nor does any truly primitive tradition. The reverence for virginity over marriage in the patristic and medieval Church led to “the ever-virgin” becoming one of the accepted titles for the Lord’s mother.

In reaction, a natural feeling against this reverence led people in both earlier and later times to assert the opposite view. Every commentator is influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by their leanings in one direction or another. And so the matter must rest.

The omission of the names of Ishmael and Esau is explained by the fact that they were not in the line of succession and were outside the covenant with Abraham—In Isaac shall thy seed be called (Genesis 21:12); and Esau had forfeited both the birthright and the blessing. The brothers of Judah are named, on the other hand, because all who were descended from them had an equal interest in the Messiah.

Tamar — The inclusion of women's names in genealogies was the exception rather than the rule among the Jews. However, there are enough instances in the Old Testament (for example, Keturah, Genesis 25:1; the wives of Esau, Genesis 36:10; Timnah, Genesis 36:22; Mehetabel, Genesis 36:39; Azubah, the wife of Caleb, 1 Chronicles 2:18; Achsah, his daughter, 1 Chronicles 2:49; and many others) to make their inclusion here seem quite natural, even without assuming a specific purpose. It was enough that the women were historically notable.

In Tamar’s case, there were enough precedents for such an honorable mention. In the time of Ruth, she was as much the heroine of the tribe of Judah as Rachel and Leah were of all Israel, and her name was included in the formula of nuptial blessing (Ruth 4:12). Her name also appears in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 2:4. It appears from the language of the Talmud that the Jews viewed her strange history—which is revolting to us—with very different feelings. To them, she was someone who, at the risk of shame and possibly even death, had preserved the line of Judah from destruction, and was therefore “considered worthy to be the mother of kings and prophets.” The mention of Zerah, though not in the line of succession, follows the precedent of 1 Chronicles 2:47.

Naasson, or Nahshon, the brother of Elisheba, Aaron’s wife, was the “prince (or captain) of the children” of Judah at the time of the Exodus (Numbers 1:7; Numbers 2:3; 1 Chronicles 2:10). A Jewish legend made him the first to enter the waters of the Red Sea.

Rahab — The Old Testament records are silent regarding the marriage of Salmon with the harlot of Jericho. When those records were compiled, it was probably considered a stain rather than an honor, but the fact may have been preserved in the traditions of the house of David. It has been conjectured that Salmon may have been one of the two unnamed spies whose lives Rahab saved when he was doing the work that Caleb had done before him. The mention of Rahab in James 2:25 and Hebrews 11:31 shows that her fame had grown by the time St. Matthew wrote. The Talmudic legends, curiously enough, count eight prophets among her descendants—including Jeremiah and Baruch—but not anyone from the line of David. Assuming the probable connection between St. Matthew and St. James (as shown in the Introduction to this Gospel), the mention of Rahab by both is an interesting coincidence.

Booz — The succession is the same as in Ruth 4:21. The new fact of Salmon’s marriage explains several features of that history: the readiness with which Naomi's sons married two Moabite women, the absence of any repugnance to such a union on the part of Boaz, and perhaps the reference to Tamar in the blessing of Ruth 4:12. Salmon seems to have been the first of his house to own land at Bethlehem (1 Chronicles 2:54), gaining it partly through his adoption into the family of Caleb.