Zara of Thamar; and Pha.es begat" | Esrom; and Esrom begat' Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;" 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed ƒ of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat & David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; a Ge.46.12. b Ru.4.19. c 1 Ch.2.10. Nu.1. 7. d Ru.4.20. c Jos.6.25. Ru.4.21. ƒ Ru.4.13. given the record. From Abraham to David the two tables are alike. Of course there is no difficulty in reconciling these two parts of the tables. The difficulty lies in that part of the genealogy from David to Christ. There they are entirely different. They are manifestly different lives. Not only are the names different, but Luke has mentioned, in this part of the genealogy, no less than 42 names, while Matthew has recorded but 27. Various ways have been proposed to explain this difficulty; and it must be admitted that none of them are perfectly satisfactory. It does not comport with the design of these Notes to enter minutely into an explanation of the perplexities of these passages. All that can be done is to suggest the various ways in which attempts have been made to explain them. 1. It is remarked that in nothing are mistakes more likely to occur than in such tables. From the similarity of names, and the various names by which the same person is often called, and from many other causes, errors would be more likely to creep into the text in genealogical tables, than in other writings. Some of the difficulties may have possibly occurred from this cause. 2. Most interpreters have supposed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. They were both descended from David, but in different lines. This solution derives some plausibility from the fact that the promise was made to David, and as Jesus was not the son of Joseph, it was important to show that Mary was also descended from him. Though this solution is plausible, and may be true, yet it wants evidence. It Ac cannot, however, be proved that this was not the design of Luke. 3. It has been said also that Joseph was the legal sor and heir of Heli, though the real son of Jacob, and thus the two lines terminated in him. This was the ancient explanation of most of the fathers, and on the whole is the most satisfactory. It was a law of the Jews, that if a man died without children, his brother should marry his widow. Thus the two lines might have been intermingled. cording to this solution, which was firs proposed by Africanus, Matthan, de. scended from Solomon, married Estha, of whom was born Jacob. After Matthan's death, Matthat being of the same tribe, but of another family, married his widow, and of this marriage Heli was born. Jacob and Heli were therefore children of the same mother. Heli dy ing without children, his brother Jacob married his widow, and begat Joseph who was thus the legal son of Heli This is agreeable to the account in the two evangelists. Matthew says that Jacob begat Joseph; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, i. e. was his legal heir, or reckoned in 'aw to be his son. This can be seen by the plan on the next page, showing the nature of the connexion. Though these solutions may not seem to be entirely satisfactory, yet there are two additional considerations which should set the matter at rest, and lead to the conclusion that the narratives are not really inconsistent. 1. No difficulty was ever found, or alleged, in regard to them, by any of the early enemies of Christianity. There is no evidence that they ever adduced them as containing a contradiction. Many of those 11 And 1 Josias begat Jechonias lathiel; and Salathiel begat Zoroand his brethren, about the time babel; ' they were carried away to Babylon; 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat a Sa1 Some read, Josias begat Jakim, and Jakim begat Jechonias. enemies were acute, learned, and able; and they show by their writings that they were not indisposed to detect all the errors that could possibly be found in the sacred narrative. Now it is to be remembered that the Jews were fully competent to show that these tables were incorrect, if they were really so; and it is clear that they were fully disposed, if possible, to do it. The fact, therefore, that it is not done is clear evidence that they thought it to be correct. The same may be said of the acute pagans who wrote against Christianity. None of them have called in question the correctness of these tables. This is full proof that, in a time when it was easy to understand these tables, they were believed to be correct. 2. The evangelists are not responsible for the correctness of these tables. They are responsible only for what was their real and professed object to do. What was that object? It was to prove to the satisfaction of the Jews, that Jesus was descended from David, and therefore that there was no argument from his ancestry that he was not the promised Messiah. Now to make this out 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and a 1 Ch.3.17,&c. b Ne.12.1. it was not necessary, nor would it have conduced to their argument, to have formed a new table of genealogy. All that could be done was, to go to the family records—to the public tables, and copy them as they were actually kept, and show that, according to the records of the nation, Jesus was descended from David. This, among the Jews, was full and decided testimony in the case. And this was doubtless done. In the same way, the records of a family among us, as they are kept by the family, are proof in courts of justice now, of the birth, names, &c., of individuals. Nor is it necessary or proper for a court to call them in question, or to attempt to correct them. So the tables here are good evidence to the only point that the writers wished to establish: that is, to show to the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was descended from David. All that can be asked now is, whether they copied the tables of those families correctly. It is clear that no man can prove that they did not so copy them, and, therefore, that no one can adduce them as an argument against the correctness of the New Testament. Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim | Abraham to David are fourteen begat Eliud; generations; and from David until 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; the carrying away into Babylon and Eleazar begat Matthan; and are fourteen generations; and from Matthan begat Jacob; the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen genera tions. 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as a Lu.1.27,&c. near for the purpose of convenient com- 17. All the generations, &c. This division of the names in their genealogy was doubtless adopted for the purpose of aiding the memory. It was common among the Jews; and other similar instances are preserved. They were destitute of other books beside the Old Testament, and had but few copies of that among them, and those chiefly in their synagogues. They would, therefore, naturally devise plans to keep up the remembrance of the principal facts in their history. One method of doing this was, to divide the tables of genealogy into portions of equal length, to be committed to memory. This greatly facilitated the remembrance of the Aminadab, names. A man who wished to commit | Naasson, to memory the names of a regiment of soldiers, would naturally divide it into companies, and platoons, and this would greatly facilitate his work. This was doubtless the reason in the case before us. And, though it is not strictly accurate, yet it was the Jewish way of keeping their records, and answered their purpose. There were three leading persons and events that nearly, or quite, divided their history into equal portions: Abraham, David, and the Babylonish captivity. From one to the other was about fourteen generations, and, by omitting a few names, it was sufficiently accurate to be made a general guide or directory in remembering their history. Salmon, -14 Second division. David, Third division. Josias, Roboam, Salathiel, Abia, Zorobabel, Asa, Abiud, Josaphat, Eliakim, Joram, Azor, Ozias, Sadoc, ¶ Carrying away into Babylon. This refers to the captivity of Jerusalem, and the removal of the Jews to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, 588 years before Christ. See 2 Chron. xxxvi. Josiah was king when these calamities began to come upon the Jews, but the exact time of the seventy years of captivity did not commence until the eleventh year of Zedekiah's reign, or 32 years after the death of Josiah. Babylon was situated on the Euphrates, and was enIn counting these divisions, however, compassed with walls which were about it will be seen that there is some diffi- 60 miles in circuit, 87 feet broad, and culty in making out the number four- 350 feet high, and the city was entered teen in each division. This may be ex- by a hundred brazen gates, 25 on each plained in the following manner. In side. It was the capital of a vasi emthe first division, Abraham is the first, pire, and the Jews remained there for and David the last, making together seventy years. See my Notes on Isaiah fourteen. In the second series, David ch. xiii. would naturally be placed first, and the fourteen was completed in Josiah, about the time of the captivity. as sufficiently ! 18. On this wise. Thus. In this manner. Espoused. Betrothed, or engaged to be married. There was his mother Mary was espoused to to make her a public example, Joseph,* before they came together, was minded" to put her away she was found with child of the privily. Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing * 5th year before the account called A. D. commonly an interval of ten or twelve months among the Jews between the contract of marriage and the celebration of the nuptials. (See Gen. xxiv. 55. Judges xiv. 8); yet such was the nature of this engagement, that unfaithfulness to each other was deemed adultery. See Deut. xxii. 25, 28. ¶ With child by the Holy Ghost. See Note, Luke i. 35. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a a De.24.1. b ver.16. specify the causes for which the divorce was made, and witnesses were also present to testify to the divorce. But in this case it seems, Joseph resolved to put her away without specifying the cause: for he was not willing to make her a public example. This is the meaning here of privately. Both to Joseph and Mary this must have been a great 19. Her husband. The word in the trial. Joseph was ardently attached to original does not imply that they were her, but her character was likely to be married. It means here the man to ruined, and he deemed it proper to sewhom she was espoused. A just parate her from him. Mary was innoman. Justice consists in rendering to cent, but Joseph was not yet satisfied every man his own. Yet this is evi- of her innocence. Yet we may learn dently not the character intended to be how to put our trust in God. He will given here of Joseph. It means that defend the innocent. Mary was in he was kind, tender, merciful; so at- danger of being exposed to shame. tached to Mary, that he was not wil- Had she been connected with a cruel, ling that she should be exposed to passionate, and violent man, she would public shame. He sought, therefore, have died in disgrace. But God had so secretly to dissolve the connexion, and ordered it that she was connected with to restore her to her friends without the a man mild, amiable, and tender; and, punishment commonly inflicted on adul-in due time, Joseph was apprized of the tery. The word just has not unfrequently this meaning of mildness, or mercy. Seel Johni. 9. Comp. C cero, De Fin. 5, 23. ¶ A public example. To expose her to public shame or infamy. Adultery has always been considered a crime of a very heinous nature. In Egypt it was punished by cutting off the nose of the adulteress; in Persia the nose and ears were cut off; in Ju- 20. He thought on these things. He dea the punishment was death by ston- did not act hastily. He did not take ing. Lev. xx. 10. Eze. xvi. 38, 40. the course which the law would have John viii. 5. This punishment was also permitted him to do, if he had been inflicted where the person was not mar-hasty, violent, or unjust. It was a case ried, but betrothed. Deut. xxii. 23, 24. deeply affecting his happiness, his chaIn this case, therefore, the regular pun-racter, and the reputation and character ishment would have been death in this painful and ignominious manner. Yet Joseph was a religious man-mild and tender; and he was not willing to complain of her to the magistrate, and expose her to death, but sought to avoid the shame, and to put her away privately. Put her away privately, The law of Moses gave the husband the power of divorce. Deut. xxiv. 1. It was customary in a bill of divorce to truth in the case, and took his faithful and beloved wife to his bosom. Thus our only aim should be to preserve a conscience void of offence, and God will guard our reputation. We may be assailed, or circumstances may be against us; but in due time God will take care to vindicate our character, and save us from ruin. of his chosen companion. -God will guide the thoughtful and the anxious. And when we have looked patiently at a perplexed subject, and know not what to do, then God, as in the case of Joseph, will interpose to lead us, and direct our way. Ps. xxv. 9. ¶ The angel of the Lord. The word angel literally means a messenger. It is applied chiefly in the scriptures to those invisible holy beings who have not fallen into dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 1 begotten. sin; who live in heaven (1 Tim. v. 21, 21. His name JESUS. The name Jesus is the same as Saviour. It is derived from the vero signifying to save. In Hebrew it is the same as Joshua. In two places in the New Testament it is used where it means Joshua, the leader of the Jews into Canaan, and in 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name 2JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. a 22 Now all this was done, that it 2 i.e. Saviour. a Ac.5.31. 13.23.38. our translation the name Joshua should have been retained. Acts vii. 45. Heb. iv. 8. It was a very common name among the Jews. He shall save. This expresses the same as the name. and on this account the name was given to him. He saves men by having dieo to redeem them; by giving the Spirit to renew them (John xvi. 7, 8); by his power in enabling them to overcome their spiritual enemies, in defending them from danger, in guiding them in the path of duty, in sustaining them in trials and in death; and he will raise them up at the last day, and exalt them to a world of purity and love. ¶ His people. Those whom the Father has given to him. The Jews were called the people of God, because he had chosen them to himself, and regarded them as his peculiar and beloved people, separate from all the nations of the earth. Christians are called the people of Christ, because it was the purpose of the Father to give them to him (Isa. liii. 11. John vi. 37); and because in due time he came to redeem them to himself. Titus ii. 14. 1 Peter i. 2. ¶ From their sins. This is the great business of Jesus in coming and dying. It is not to save men IN their sins, but FROM their sins. Sinners could not be happy in heaven. It would be a place of wretchedness to the guilty. The design of Jesus was, therefore, to save from sin; 1st, by dying to make an atonement, (Titus ii. 14); and 2d, by renewing the heart, and purifying the soul, and preparing his people for a pure and holy heaven. And from this we may learn: 1st, That Jesus had a design in coming into the world; he came to save his people—and that design will surely be accomplished. It is impossible that in any part of it he should fail. 2d. We have no evidence that we are his people, unless we are saved from the power and dominion of sin. A mere profession of being his | people will not answer. Unless we give up our sins: unless we renounce the pride, pomp, and pleasure of the |