John Calvin 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)

Begat David the King In this genealogy, the designation of King is bestowed on David alone, because in his person God exhibited a type of the future leader of His people, the Messiah. The kingly office had formerly been held by Saul; but, as he reached it through tumult and the ungodly wishes of the people, the lawful possession of the office is understood to have commenced with David, particularly in reference to the covenant of God, who promised that his throne should be established for ever, (2 Samuel 7:16).

When the people shook off the yoke of God and unhappily and wickedly asked for a king, saying, Give us a king to judge us, (1 Samuel 8:5), Saul was granted for a short time. But the kingdom was shortly afterwards established by God in the hand of David as a pledge of true prosperity. This expression, David the King, should therefore be understood by us as indicating the prosperous condition of the people, which the Lord had appointed.

Meanwhile, the Evangelist adds a human disgrace, which might almost bring a stain on the glory of this divine blessing: David the King begat Solomon by her that had been the wife of Uriah; that is, by Bathsheba, whom he wickedly tore from her husband and, to enjoy whom, he basely surrendered an innocent man to be murdered by the swords of the enemy (2 Samuel 11:15). This taint at the commencement of the kingdom ought to have taught the Jews not to glory in the flesh. It was God’s design to show that, in establishing this kingdom, nothing depended on human merits.

Comparing the inspired history with the succession described by Matthew, it is evident that Matthew has omitted three kings.⁹² Those who say that he did so through forgetfulness cannot be listened to for a moment. Nor is it probable that they were excluded because they were unworthy to occupy a place in the genealogy of Christ, for the same reason would equally apply to many others whom Matthew indiscriminately included along with pious and holy persons.

A more correct account is that he resolved to confine the list of each class to fourteen kings and was little concerned in making the selection, because he had an adequate genealogical succession to present to his readers, down to the close of the kingdom.

As for there being only thirteen kings in the list, this probably arose from the blunders and carelessness of transcribers. Epiphanius, in his First Book against Heresies, assigns this reason: that the name of Jeconiah had been written down twice, and unlearned⁹³ persons ventured to strike out the repetition as superfluous. This, he tells us, ought not to have been done, because Jehoiakim, the father of King Jehoiakim, had the name Jeconiah in common with his son (1 Chronicles 3:17; 2 Kings 24:15; Jeremiah 27:20; Jeremiah 28:4). Robert Stephens quotes a Greek manuscript in which the name of Jehoiakim is introduced.⁹⁴

⁹² “Assavoir Ochozias fils de Joram, Joas, et Amazias.” — “Namely, Ahaziah son of Jehoram, Joash, and Amaziah,” (.” — “Namely, Ahaziah son of Jehoram, Joash, and Amaziah,” (2 Chronicles 22, 23, 24, 25.).)

⁹³ “Indocti;” — “;” — “quelques gens n'entendans pas le propos,” — “some peope not understanding the design.”,” — “some peope not understanding the design.”

⁹⁴ “Robert Etienne a ce propos allegue un exemplaire Grec ancien, ou il y a ainsi, Josias engendra Joacim, et Joacim engendra Jechonias.”— “Robert Stephens, with this view, quotes an ancient Greek manuscript, which runs thus: .”— “Robert Stephens, with this view, quotes an ancient Greek manuscript, which runs thus: Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah.”