Jul. Africanus (in the passage above-mentioned); the derivation, accordingly, would be this:--

This hypothesis explains the difference; the supposition, however, that Jacob and Eli had successively the same spouse, and that they were moreover step-brothers, is somewhat strained; nor can it be proved with certainty that in these marriages of duty the son was ever named after his real father; lastly, if this were the true explanation, both the genealogies would be those of Joseph, which appears to be quite out of place, since Jesus descended corporally from David and Abraham, not through Joseph, but through Mary. That step-brothers, and still more distant relations, were obliged to contract the marriage, mentioned Deut. xxv. 6, is proved by J. D. Michaelis in his Mos. Recht, vol. 2, page 200. (2.) The assumption that Mary was an heiress (ngos), and therefore compelled to marry from her own tribe (Numb. xxxvi. 5-8). The husband of an heiress [it is inferred] might [by way of compensation] enter the tribe of his wife, and thus receive, as it were, two fathers. According to this, the one genealogy would be, it is true, that of Mary; but the supposed modification of the law of the heiress, upon which here all would depend, is uncertain. At least Nehem. vii. 63 is insufficient to prove it. The hypothesis, although inadequate to the solution of this difficulty, is nevertheless very relevant to the explanation of the journey of Mary to Bethlehem (Luke ii. 4). Altogether it appears suitable that the line of David, from which the Messiah was to descend, should have closed with an heiress, who was merely to give birth to the promised everlasting heir of the throne of David. This view, therefore, of

1 Jul. Africanus omits Matthan and Levi, and appears hence to have read differently, or to have confounded the names; yet the name affects no change in the hypothesis.

2 Comp. J. D. Michaelis's Mos. Recht. vol. ii. p. 78, sqq.

Mary having been an heiress, can be combined (3) with the third hypothesis, according to which the genealogy of Mary was communicated by St Luke, and that of Joseph by St Matthew. Jesus, according to this, will appear as the descendant of David both on the father's and on the mother's side; on the part of the mother the descent had real signification, and on the part of the father it had an ostensible one. For as Jesus appeared before the world as the son of Joseph (see Matth. xiii. 55), the Jews acknowledged him as a descendant of David, for which reason even his enemies raised no doubt of his descent from David. According to this hypothesis, Eli would be the father of Mary (with which the Jewish tradition agrees; comp. Lightfoot on this passage), and if Joseph is called his son, we must here take viós as signifying son-in-law, as Ruth i. 11, 12, and elsewhere. Genealogical tables with women's names are, it is true, unusual, but an heiress would necessarily find admission; besides, the case of Mary was in itself an exception. Moreover, the real descent of Jesus from David through Mary must not be considered in any way as a mere external fact, the design of which was to fulfil the prophecies; the prophecy, on the contrary, that the Messiah would descend from Abraham and David, must be conceived as having a much deeper meaning. The appearance of the Messiah among the human race presupposed conditions and preparations, not only of a negative kind, in so far as the necessity of redemption had to be excited in the minds of men, but it presupposed likewise conditions and preparations of a positive kind, since the appearance of the Messiah (who was, so to speak, the blossoming of human nature) could not be a mere portion separated from the root. Inasmuch as a sacred stream of a higher life pervaded the entire lineage of the ancestors of our Lord, the incarnation of Christ must be considered as a fact thus prepared. The virgin who was elected mother of the Messiah, could not be suddenly born among the sinful race of man; though not without sin, yet she was the purest of the generation then existing, and her being such was her election of grace, her origin from the most holy family of the human race. As we find, in the course of the development of the human race, single generations springing up in sin and wickedness, on the other hand, there are tribes in whom the noblest germs of life are fostered and cultivated from generation to generation. Of course, it must not be supposed that those generations who, by

especial grace, were more protected against the corruption of sin, therefore required no salvation; this, on the contrary, must be considered as absolutely necessary for all men alike; but their susceptibility of redemption is greater, because, being of the truth, they hear more surely the call of God.

St Matthew, in the subsequent enumeration of the members of the genealogy, omits several of them (for example, ver. 8, between Joram and Josias, comp. 1 Chron. iii. 11; 2 Chron. xxi. 17); St Luke, on the contrary, adds (iii. 36) Cainan, who is not mentioned in the Hebrew text. This name is borrowed, no doubt, from the EXX., which St Luke, as a Greek scholar, made especial use of; the translators, however, may have adopted this name from tradition. (On such deviations of the LXX. from the original text which have been adopted by the New Testament, comp. the remarks on Luke iv. 18).

Ver. 2. Throughout the entire genealogical table, St Luke appears to report only, but herein St Matthew is likewise reflective; he divides the lines into certain classes, and adds especial remarks upon them. Of Judas he observes, that he had brothers; this he does, probably, because the ancestors of Israel, the twelve sons of Jacob, appear to him to require an especial mention. The same observation St Matthew makes of Jechoniah, (ver. 11,) in which passage, however, the expression adsλpoí (Gen.

xviii. 8,) must be received in a wider sense, of a father's brothers, because Jechoniah had no full brothers, (1 Chron. iii. 15, 16).

Ver. 3. A peculiarity, too, of the genealogy of St Matthew is, that it frequently mentions the names of women, which was indeed the case with Jewish genealogies, whenever something remarkable lent them an interest. (Comp. Surenhussii Bißλ. zaraλλ. p. 110). Tamar, (1 Mos. 38), Rahab, (Jos. 2), Ruth, Bathsheba, are mentioned by St Matthew. Tamar, Rahab,1 and Bathsheba appear to be objectionable on account of their course of life, and Ruth also as a Gentile (Moabite); that they were, nevertheless, deemed worthy to be among the ancestors of the Messiah, necessarily imparted to them an importance of a pecu

1 Whether here Rahab ógn is meant, might appear uncertain, on account of the chronology; she follows too closely on Obed and Jesse, the ancestors of David. Yet the expression ή 'Ραχάβ (with the article) clearly points to the known Rahab (the one mentioned Josh. ii.) Matth. perhaps has omitted some members.

liar kind. This, indeed, St Matthew renders yet more clear, by the significant expression, ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου, in order to hint at the wonderful and gracious dispensation of God, in the arrangement of the lineage of the Messiah. As instances of predestination and renovation through faith and repentance, and of the adoption of members belonging to Pagan tribes, among the people of God, the individuals mentioned are important even to the Jewish Rabbis. (See Wetstein's N. T. on ver. 3, comp. with Hebr. xi. 31). Had Matthew not wished to point to the dispensation of God, he would have rather mentioned in the genealogy of the Messiah the celebrated names of Sarah, Rebeccah, and Leah.

Ver. 6. David, as the main individual, who is, as it were, the centre point of the race of the Messiah, is styled emphatically, Barnes, as the type of the Messiah-king. (Ezek. xxxvii. 24, and more freq.). A similar pause is formed subsequently in ver. 11, by the μετοικεσία Βαβυλώνος = αἰχμαλωσία. The LXX uses the word roesía for (Ezek. xxxiii. 21).

Ver. 16. The term avg here corresponds with sponsus, (ver. 19); the bridegroom, according to the Jewish law, was considered already as the owner of the bride, (Gen. xxix. 21; Deut. xxii. 23, 24). Matthew expresses himself very cautiously: ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς, in order to hint at the supernatural birth of Christ; yevvv is used=rízrew (Luke i. 13). In the formula ̓Ιησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός, Χριστός clearly stands forth as the official name. Except in this phrase, St Matthew simply uses ¿ 'Inσous, or & Xgioros. It was by degrees only that the name signifying the human individuality of the Redeemer grew closely together with his official name, so that both form a whole which has ever since been adopted in the language of the church; thus we find it especially in use by the Apostle Paul. (See Gersdorf's Beiträge zur Sprachcharacteristic, p. 38, sqq. 372, sqq.) The term yoα in the phrase mentioned, has here, moreover, like zahar (see Luke i. 32), the important signification, "to be called, and to be truly." In a signification, or sense contrary to this, "to be called without being so," the expression occurs Eph. ii. 11, and Matth. xxvii. 17. This expression is often devoid of special emphasis in either sense or signification, as Matth. xxvi. 14; Mark xv. 7.

Ver. 17. St Matthew concludes his genealogical statements with a survey of the various pauses that can be discerned in the gene

rations from Abraham to Christ. He makes three such pauses, of 14 generations each,' which may be counted, however, in more than one way. The manner of counting most conformable to the purpose, seems to be the one according to which David and Josias are counted twice,* (at the end of the one, and at the beginning of the other division), and Jesus is omitted altogether. If the person itself of Jesus is to be comprised in the account, as the concluding member of the third division, David only, in that case, must be counted twice; the first method, however, seems to me preferable. It is proper not to include Jesus himself among the generations, precisely as we do when we enumerate any person's ancestors. Besides, since St Matthew, as has been observed, has omitted some names, it cannot have been his intention to press the number 14; and as little ought we to perceive in this arrangement a mere means to aid the memory; on the contrary, the Evangelist merely wishes to express, through the equal number, the internal uniformity and regularity of the development. As the whole history of the world is developed within measured periods, and as, in general, every greater or lesser whole, in the range of God's creation, is based on internal degrees of development, through which it must pass to its con

1 Whether the number fourteen has any reference to the name of David, the Hebrew letters of whose name, if counted in the Jewish manner, amount to fourteen, is difficult to decide; yet such a supposition would agree well with the tenor of the whole statement of Matthew. Besides, the number fourteen must be considered as the double of the cipher seven, a cipher which, as is known, is treated as sacred by the Holy Scriptures. The three times fourteen, accordingly, are six times seven; with the person of Christ commences the seventh seven.

2 Similar modes of counting are found likewise in other places. A simple Nasiräat lasted thirty days, a double Nasiräat, however, lasted not sixty, but fifty-nine days only, because the day occurring in the middle is not counted doubly. The Germans express a week as eight days," and the French express two weeks by "fifteen days," whereas the Germans say fourteen days.

an

3 The omission of some members can be traced back as far as to the originators of the genealogy of the family of Joseph; Matthew adopted the same as he found it, without altering it in any way; and hence his reflections thereon could accordingly refer to the form only in which it existed. Upon the truth of the reflections themselves, however, the want of some members can have no effect, in so far as the idea forming the basis of these reflections (namely, that everything contained in God's world developes or unfolds itself according to number or measure), is no less applicable to the complete than to the abbreviated or incomplete genealogy.