NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part II

Verse 6: “Jesse was the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon. (His mother was Uriah’s wife.)” The original Greek here is much more provocative than some English translators have permitted. True, by the time Solomon was conceived and born to David and Bathsheba, her former husband Uriah was dead and King David had legally married her. Most translators try desperately to impress that fact by indicating the legality of their union with such interjections as Uriah’s “widow”; “former wife,” etc. But the Greek simply says “her of Uriah,” thereby implying that even legal marriage had not been able to cover David’s sin of adultery and the staged murder of her husband. It must be noted that David already had more than one wife, now he was taking another man’s wife after talking her into having sexual relations with him, even though she protested. The Jews were not silent on this subject: “What are David’s two sins? That of Uriah and his illegal census of Israel. But there is a third one? That of Bathsheba? For that of Bathsheba he was punished, as it is written: ‘For the ewe he will pay fourfold.’¹ What were the four punishments? The death of Bathsheba’s first child, the death of David’s son Amnon, the misfortune of David’s daughter Tamar, and David’s son Absalom’s death.”² This provides a point of validity in the Scripture: even though the author was tracing the human lineage of the pure Son of God, he did not, nor was he persuaded to pass over this sordid point in David’s life. His imperfect heritage made Christ the perfect answer to the problems of all peoples.

Verses 7-8: “Solomon was the father of Rehoboam. Rehoboam was the father of Abijah. Abijah was the father of Asa. Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat was the father of Jehoram. Jehoram was the father of Ozias.” The author is doing an admirable job in showing that Jesus was the only one in this accepted lineage of the Messiah by the Jews, who could possibly qualify as the true Anointed One. It has been pointed out that the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament used by the United Bible Society in their Greek text says: “Abijah moreover begat Asaph.” However, the majority of Greek versions have “Abijah begat Asa,” showing the different ways Bible characters were referred to. The same goes for one Rabbi in the Mishnah who is referred to as “Jose” in one place and “Joseph” in another. Then we come to Ozias, because he is elsewhere referred to as Uzziah,³ and also identified as Azariah in Scripture.⁴ Furthermore, he was the great-great-grandson of Jehoram, because between them came sons Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.⁵ Some believe the writer may have done this because these kings were ineligible to be in the Messiah’s lineage because of the curse upon Ahab’s family, into which Jehoram married. For many scholars, the omission of these three kings does not affect what the author is attempting to do, and that is to show that Jesus, the true Messiah, is of the family of David. Even Jewish chroniclers would have no reason to complain, since in Ezra⁶ there are six generations omitted in one instance.⁷ Such omissions were mentioned: “Gentile Sages explained: there were some generations missing, unmentioned in the Scripture between them. Perhaps they received this knowledge from the Sages of Israel and it stands to reason. We see this too in the lineage of Ezra; seven generations are missing from Ahitub I until Ahitub II in the book of Ezra,⁸ but they are mentioned in Chronicles⁹ But here is a difficulty: the missing generations in David’s lineage are not mentioned anywhere, as opposed to the Ezra’s lineage.”¹⁰ Therefore, to put Ozias directly after Jehoram (or Joram) was done here in like manner, as we have seen with Hezekiah.¹¹ It would be hard to fault the record keepers back in those ancient days, since the sons of Jacob ended up in Egypt for over 400 years, then were exiled from the Promised Land for 70 years, and finally driven out completely in 70 AD. Also, with many of these men having more than one wife, in addition to concubines, keeping track of all their descendants was a chore. However, the Holy Spirit in His wisdom inspired Matthew to record those that mattered the most in tying Jesus to David and Abraham.

Verses 9-12: “Ozias was the father of Jotham. Jotham was the father of Ahaz. Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah. Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh. Manasseh was the father of Amon. Amon was the father of Josiah. Josiah was the grandfather of Jehoiachin and his brothers, who lived during the time that the people were taken away to Babylon. After they were taken to Babylon: Jehoiachin was the father of Shealtiel. Shealtiel was the grandfather of Zerubbabel.” The son of Manasseh is recorded in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, Greek text as “Amos.” However, we also find him listed as “Amon,”¹² as do all the other Greek texts. What happened after the Jews were carried off into Babylon in 586 B.C., no doubt caused a disruption in the keeping of genealogies. Yet the record reads, “This is a list of Jehoiachin’s children after Jehoiachin became a prisoner in Babylon: His children were Shealtiel, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.”¹³ The Hebrew actually has, “Y’khonyah (Jehoiachin), also called Asir.”¹⁴ Jewish scholars explain that the word “asir” actually means, “one imprisoned, because he had been in prison, as we see by what was recorded in the King’s Record:¹⁵ “Later, Evil Merodach became the king of Babylon. He let King Jehoiachin of Judah out of prison.”¹⁶ Jehoiachin was only 18 years old when he became king, and his rule lasted only 3 months.¹⁷ And we find out why in Jeremiah.¹⁸ Then we notice that the writer skips over Shealtiel’s son and goes directly to the grandson, Zerubbabel. We also find that Shealtiel had a brother named, Pedaiah, and that Pedaiah is the father of Zerubbabel.¹⁹ However, elsewhere we read: “Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and the priests with him, along with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, and the people with him, built the altar of the God of Israel.”²⁰ According to British theologian and commentator John Gill, Jews explain: “…in Haggai, Zachariah and Ezra, Zerubbabel is called the son of Shealtiel, because he was his son’s son; for Pedaiah was the son of Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah; and…in many places children’s children are mentioned as children?”²¹ Gill goes on to say, “No doubt there are many instances of this; but to me it seems that Pedaiah was not the son of Shealtiel, but his brother. And I greatly suspect that Shealtiel had no children of his own, since none are mentioned; and that he adopted his brother Pedaiah’s son Zerubbabel, and made him his heir and successor in the government of Judah. However, it is certain, as one genealogical writer among the Jews observes, that he was of the son’s sons of Jechonias, king of Judah, from whom our Evangelist makes him to descend”.²² By this we can clearly see how important it was for the Jews to make sure they got the genealogy right. And in this case, again no one on either side argues against the Messiah being a descendant of David. But in Matthew’s case it was his intent to prove beyond doubt that Jesus of Nazareth surely qualified.

Verses 13-16: “Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud. Abiud was the father of Eliakim. Eliakim was the father of Azor. Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Achim. Achim was the father of Eliud. Eliud was the father of Eleazar. Eleazar was the father of Matthan. Matthan was the father of Jacob. Jacob was the father of Joseph.” It is notable that Jewish critics of this genealogy have not mounted any credible opposition to the list provided here in Matthew. This would then suggest that the writer was not making this up on his own, but was actually taking the information available from genealogical tables available among the Jews in his day. For instance, we are told that one Rabbi reported: “I found a roll of genealogical records in Jerusalem and therein was written…”²³ This confirmed what was written some 200 years earlier.”²⁴ Also the Jews tell us: “A book of genealogies was found in Jerusalem, wherein it was stated that Hillel was a descendant of King David.”²⁵ So these things were not hidden, and since we are familiar with Matthew’s expertise as a tax accountant, he would probably knew just where to look. And by the same token, had the Jews wanted to prove the writer wrong, they could have easily accessed the records themselves to do so. In fact, those who did could find no fault with it.