Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Matthew 1:8

Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary

Matthew 1:8

Expositor's Bible Commentary
Expositor's Bible Commentary

Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary

Matthew 1:8

SCRIPTURE

"and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;" — Matthew 1:8 (ASV)

There is no obvious pattern to the kings mentioned here: wicked Rehoboam was the father of wicked Abijah, the father of the good king Asa. Asa was the father of another good king, Jehoshaphat, who sired the wicked king Joram. Good or evil, they were part of Messiah’s line; for though grace does not run in the blood, God’s providence cannot be deceived or outmaneuvered.

Three names have been omitted between Joram and Uzziah: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. The three omissions not only secure fourteen generations in this part of the genealogy but are dropped possibly because of their connection with Ahab and Jezebel, renowned for wickedness (2 Kings 8:27), and because of their connection with wicked Athaliah (2 Kings 8:26; 2 Kings 11:1–20). Manasseh (v.10), though notoriously evil, repented (2 Chronicles 33:10–13), and he is included.

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).