Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Matthew 1:6

"and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah;" — Matthew 1:6 (ASV)

The word “King” with “David” would evoke profound nostalgia and arouse eschatological hope in first-century Jews. Matthew thus makes the royal theme explicit: King Messiah has appeared. David’s royal authority, lost at the Exile, has now been regained and surpassed by “great David’s greater son.” David became the father of Solomon; but Solomon’s mother “had been Uriah’s wife” (cf. 2 Samuel 11:27; 12:4). Bathsheba thus becomes the fourth woman to be mentioned in this genealogy.

Inclusion of these four women in the Messiah’s genealogy instead of an all- male listing, especially with the exclusion of names of such great matriarchs as Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah, shows that Matthew is conveying more than merely genealogical data. Tamar enticed her father-in-law into an incestuous relationship (Genesis 38). The prostitute Rahab saved the spies and joined the Israelites (Joshua 2, 5; cf. Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). Ruth, Tamar, and Rahab were aliens. Bathsheba was taken into an adulterous union with David, who committed murder to cover it up. Matthew’s peculiar way of referring to her, “Uriah’s wife,” may be an attempt to focus on the fact that Uriah was not an Israelite but a Hittite (2 Samuel 11:3; 2 Samuel 23:39).

Several reasons have been suggested to explain the inclusion of these women, all of which are valid. (1) Some have pointed out that at least three were Gentiles. This goes well with the reference to Abraham (cf. on 1:1); the Jewish Messiah extends his blessings beyond Israel, even as Gentiles are included in his line. (2) Others have noted that three of the four were involved in gross sexual sin and that later in this same chapter Matthew introduces Jesus as the one who “will save his people from their sins” (1:21); this verse may imply a backward glance at some of the better-known sins of his own progenitors. (3) Still others hold that all four reveal something of the strange and unexpected workings of Providence in preparation for the Messiah and that as such they point to Mary’s unexpected but providential conception of Jesus.

Matthew’s chief aims in including the genealogy are hinted at in the first verse—namely, to show that Jesus Messiah is truly in the kingly line of David, heir to the messianic promises, the one who brings divine blessings to all nations. Therefore the genealogy focuses on King David (1:6) on the one hand, yet on the other hand includes Gentile women. Many entries would touch the hearts and stir the memories of biblically literate readers, though the principal thrust of Matthew’s genealogy ties together promise and fulfillment.

The names in the first two-thirds of the genealogy are taken from the LXX (1 Chronicles 1–3, esp. 2:1–15; 3:5–24; cf. Ruth 4:12–22). After Zerubbabel, Matthew relies on extrabiblical sources of which we know nothing. But there is good evidence that records were kept at least till the end of the first century.

More difficult is the question of the relation of Matthew’s genealogy to Luke’s, in particular the part from David on (for a description of the differences between Mt 1:2–17 and Lk 3:23-31, as well as attempts at a solution, see comments on Lk 3:23–38).