These study notes go with the sermon on Matthew 1:1, the launch of a verse-by-verse series on the Gospel of Matthew. They have six movements. First is who Matthew was and the basic facts about the book: author, date, place, language and audience. Second is the historical world Matthew wrote into. Third is the canonical context. Fourth is the exegesis of verse 1, phrase by phrase. Fifth is what the verse promises about the rest of the Gospel. Sixth is a set of devotional thoughts from Spurgeon.
Movement One: Who Was Matthew, and What Do We Know About the Book?
The man. Matthew is not the main subject of his own Gospel, and he keeps himself in the background. Wiersbe observes that nowhere in the four Gospels is a single recorded word of Matthew's own speech, yet he gives us the words and works of Jesus. Most of what we know about him comes from a few verses.
The NavPress study notes sum up the biography. He was also called Levi and was the son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14). He worked at the toll house in Capernaum, either directly for Herod Antipas or under someone who held the tax contract for the district. After Jesus called him he gave a great banquet in his house (Luke 5:29). He is listed among the Twelve, and he appears last in Acts chapter 1, verse 13, in the upper room. Beyond that, NavPress says, we know almost nothing.
Constable adds a geographical detail. The tax office in Matthew 9:9 was probably a room near the border between the territories of Philip and Herod Antipas, where Matthew collected customs and excise taxes.
Wiersbe fills in the social weight of the job. Tax collectors were seen as traitors to their nation because they "sold themselves" to Rome. They were seen as thieves because each bought the right to collect and kept the surplus. They were seen as religiously suspect because of constant contact with Gentiles. Jesus reflected the popular view when He lumped publicans together with harlots and sinners.
Wiersbe also says Matthew was a native of Capernaum, a city Jesus later rebuked. He was probably a well-known businessman there, and following Jesus cost him income and friends. Then Wiersbe offers a line from Alexander Whyte of Edinburgh: when Matthew left his job to follow Christ, he brought his pen with him. The Spirit was recruiting the author of the first Gospel at a tax table.
The name itself needs care. Constable says Matthew means "Gift of God" or "Faithful." Wiersbe says the name apparently commemorated his conversion and call. Carson and Moo take the plainer view. "Matthew" and "Levi" are most economically explained as two Semitic names for one man, like Simon and Cephas. They weigh and decline two alternatives. One is that an unknown author borrowed the name of a little-known apostle. The other is that "Matthew the Levite" was garbled into "Levi."
The authorship evidence. Constable lays out the external and internal evidence. Externally, the earliest copies carry the title "according to Matthew," and several early fathers name him as author, including Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen. Constable adds a shrewd observation. We might have expected a more prominent apostle such as Peter or James to be credited with the first Gospel. That the church credited Matthew strengthens the likelihood that he really wrote it.
The NavPress notes say the heading "according to Matthew" was probably affixed no later than about AD 125, and that there is no evidence the Gospel ever circulated without it. Internally, Constable argues that a Roman tax official had to write capably and keep careful records. He notes this Gospel has more references to money, and to more kinds of money, than the others. He also notes that Matthew modestly calls his banquet "dining" (Matthew 9:10), while Luke calls it "a big reception."
Carson and Moo are more cautious about those "internal" details. They say that several Matthean financial parables show no insider's knowledge of the customs system. They call the theory that Matthew served as a kind of shorthand secretary for the disciples "plausible enough, but completely without hard evidence." They accept that a customs official would have been fluent in Aramaic and Greek, which fits a Greek Gospel that draws on Semitic sources. They also note that only this Gospel calls him "Matthew the tax collector" (10:3). On the assumption of apostolic authorship, that is best read as gentle self-deprecation, an allusive expression of gratitude for the freedom of grace.
The Papias problem. The earliest external testimony is Papias, who says Matthew put the "oracles" (logia) in order "in the Hebrew dialect," and everyone interpreted them as best he could. Here the commentators divide.
Constable thinks the best solution is that Matthew wrote Aramaic notes, which God did not inspire and which are lost. He then composed the inspired Greek Gospel from those notes. He adds that many competent scholars believe Matthew wrote in Greek originally, mainly because of his facility with the language. He also points out that no other Aramaic book has turned up that would support an Aramaic original.
Carson and Moo survey the options. Logia might mean a sayings source like "Q." It might mean a collection of Old Testament proof texts. It might mean Semitic literary style, which is Kürzinger and Gundry's view. Or it might mean the substance of the Gospel itself, words and deeds together. They find the last most natural. Papias uses the same term for Mark's collection of things "said or done" by the Lord, so Matthew was composing a Gospel. They conclude that Papias was probably wrong about a Semitic original. They add that authors can err on one point without erring on all, and that Papias may have confused our Matthew with the "Gospel according to the Hebrews." They also say plainly that at one level very little hangs on authorship. Neither the Gospel's meaning nor its authority changes much if the author was not an apostle, though the interpretive matrix does.
The date. This is an open question. The positions among the commentators are:
- Constable argues for before AD 70. The references to Jerusalem and the Sadducees assume the city and the Sadducees still exist. He considers a date between AD 40 and 70 very probable, while noting that most scholars favor a date after 70.
- Carson and Moo work through the arguments for a late date and judge that, on balance, the evidence suggests Matthew was published before AD 70, but not long before. They note that the temple tax story (17:24–27) reads most naturally before 70. After 70 the tax went to the temple of Jupiter in Rome, and Matthew would hardly have included it without comment.
- The NavPress notes cite Hiebert at AD 66–68, Carson with "perhaps the sixties," and Nixon with a wide range of 65 to 110.
- Keener argues for a later date. He thinks Matthew's engagement with the Pharisees, his rabbinic-style Jewish worldview, and his probable use of Mark all point after 70. He guesses the late 70s, while conceding that arguments for a pre-70 date merit more consideration than they usually get.
- Copeland's outline notes that Irenaeus ties it to the time when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and calls a pre-70 date feasible to many.
The Gospel was written within roughly a generation of the resurrection, by the first century at the latest. All sides agree on that.
Place and audience. Carson and Moo say that Syria, perhaps Antioch, is the most likely place of origin, though nothing of importance hangs on it. Keener also prefers a Syro-Palestinian urban setting, probably Antioch, but admits no evidence limits it there. Constable says the Judean setting is entirely possible and calls the other proposals guesses.
On audience, Carson and Moo say the book's Jewish features make it hard to imagine a predominantly Gentile audience. The NavPress notes summarize the consensus. It was written primarily for a Jewish audience, both as a defense against unbelieving Jews and as a tool to deepen believers' devotion to the Messiah. The Christ-Centered Exposition sample chapter draws the pastoral point. Those readers included Jews who already trusted Jesus and were losing families, possessions and safety because of it, and Jews who were still contemplating Him.
Genre. Constable says the Gospels are probably most like Greco-Roman biographies, though they combine teaching and action in a preaching-oriented work unlike anything else in the ancient world. Keener shows how well Matthew's opening fits that genre. Ancient biographers often began with ancestry, sometimes opening with it, to praise the subject by evoking his predecessors. So a genealogy was a recognizable biographical opening, and Matthew uses it to do far more than the genre required.
Movement Two: The Historical Context
Why a genealogy mattered in Jesus' world. A modern listener thinks a genealogy is a boring way to start a book. France says plainly that to the Jewish world, genealogies were a matter of importance, as the Old Testament's many genealogies show. Stewart gathers the Old Testament evidence. Land was allotted by tribe and family. Property transfer sometimes required proof of lineage (Ruth 3 and 4). Only David's descendants could sit on Judah's throne. After the exile, would-be priests who could not find their registration were excluded as unclean (Ezra 2:62).
Barclay and Green add first-century color. Josephus began his autobiography with his pedigree. The rabbi Hillel was gratified to trace his line to David. The Sanhedrin kept genealogical records. Herod the Great, half Jew and half Edomite, was embarrassed that he was not in the official lists and ordered the registers destroyed so nobody could claim a purer pedigree.
Keener's background commentary notes that partial genealogies, especially priestly ones, were kept in the temple. After AD 70 anyone could claim Davidic descent, but the claim for Jesus was made before 70, when it could still have been checked (Romans 1:3). In his big commentary Keener adds that Hegesippus reports Roman authorities questioning Jesus' relatives about Davidic descent. He also notes that non-Christian Jewish polemicists never bothered to refute the claim.
The political and religious world. Walton's intertestamental lessons supply the narrative. After the Maccabean revolt came the Hasmonean dynasty, and the Pharisees and Sadducees emerged under John Hyrcanus. Hyrcanus forcibly circumcised the Idumaeans, the Edomites, which Walton calls ironic, since from them came the Herods. The Hasmonean line collapsed in civil war. Pompey brought Palestine under Rome in 63 BC and gave prominence to the Idumaean Antipater, the father of Herod the Great.
Herod the Great was an outsider who was never really accepted by his Jewish subjects. He rebuilt the temple yet also built gymnasiums and amphitheaters, symbols of Roman culture that the Jews despised. He was paranoid and killed members of his own family. Walton ties this directly to Matthew 2 and the slaughter of the infants.
When Matthew opens with "son of David," he is opening in a land ruled by an Edomite usurper under Roman authority. Spurgeon makes the same connection in his comment on chapter 2, verse 1. Jesus was born in the days of "another king, of Edomite stock, who had usurped the throne of David." A genealogy of the true heir lands very differently in that setting.
Messianic expectation. Blomberg warns that there was great diversity in first-century Jewish messianic hopes, but a common thread was the liberation of Israel from its enemies. His classic example is the warrior-king of the Psalms of Solomon 17. Morris points out that David was a mighty warrior, so "Son of David" would have suggested a conquering Messiah who destroys Israel's enemies. He suggests this military association may explain why the early Christians used the title sparingly. Barclay adds that it was especially the common people who cried "Son of David." They were a waiting people who never forgot their destiny as God's chosen nation.
The church's situation. Carson and Moo describe a setting of tension and overlap. Matthew wants to woo Jews and stabilize new Jewish converts, while others, especially more conservative leaders, opposed this upstart faith. Matthew was also trying to distinguish what happened during Jesus' ministry, when He was sent to Israel and the disciples were forbidden to go beyond it, from what is happening in Matthew's own day with the Great Commission. That explains why a Gospel so Jewish in its first verse ends by sending disciples to all nations.
Movement Three: The Canonical Context
The first page of the New Testament. Wiersbe's chapter on Matthew is the most usable treatment here. He says the Holy Spirit used Matthew for three tasks. He was the bridge-builder who introduced a new book, the New Testament. He was the biographer who introduced a new King. And he was the believer who introduced a new people, the church.
Wiersbe's key image is this. If a Bible reader jumped from Malachi into Mark, or Acts, or Romans, he would be bewildered. Matthew is the bridge out of the Old Testament and into the New. Constable repeats the line in his "Distinctive Features" section.
Matthew comes first, whatever the order in which the Gospels were written, because it fits so naturally at the join. Its first verse is made from Old Testament bricks.
Genesis at the threshold. Wiersbe reads Matthew 1:1 against Genesis 5:1, "the book of the generations of Adam." The Old Testament is the history of the Adam family, a sad history in which you meet sin and sinners on every page. In Genesis 5 the refrain "and he died" tolls like a funeral bell. The New Testament opens with "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ." Jesus is the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), and the emphasis falls on birth, not death.
Cereghin's commentary quotes a similar observation in a footnote. Genesis 5 has "and he died" about every third verse, teaching that "in Adam all die." Matthew 1 records no deaths, illustrating that "in Christ shall all be made alive." This is a homiletical observation rather than an exegetical claim about Matthew's intent. Cereghin and the writer he quotes are KJV-oriented, and Cereghin explicitly disclaims any use for the Septuagint.
Fulfillment as Matthew's signature. Wiersbe says "fulfilled" is a key word in Matthew, used about fifteen times, and he counts at least 129 quotations or allusions to the Old Testament. Constable cites UBS counts of 54 direct citations and 262 allusions, and Scroggie's tally of 129. He says Matthew refers to Isaiah more than any other evangelist, and that Psalms, Deuteronomy and Isaiah are the most cited books, spanning the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Barclay says Matthew's primary and deliberate purpose is to show how Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus, so as to compel the Jews to admit He was the Messiah.
Blomberg notes that chapters 1 and 2 quote the Old Testament five times (1:23; 2:6, 15, 18, 23), and that these chapters are shaped by three unifying themes. One is fulfillment of Scripture. The second is who Jesus is and the key locations of His origin. The third is the contrast between the illegitimate King Herod and the legitimate King Jesus. Stewart adds that Matthew's opening chapters also stress Jesus as Son of God, and that Jesus is presented as the true Israel.
Comparing the four Gospel openings. The Christ-Centered Exposition sample chapter offers a usable summary. John opens with the Word who was God. Luke traces Jesus back to Adam in ascending order. Mark skips genealogy and drives toward the Servant who gives His life as a ransom. Matthew opens with the Sovereign King from David's line, legally traced from Abraham. The author calls this an oversimplification, and it is. But it gives a congregation a map for the whole series.
The shape of the Gospel. The Christ-Centered Exposition chapter says that after each of five key teaching sections Matthew gives a summary statement such as "when Jesus had finished." Wiersbe lays out the alternation of narrative and teaching, with transition statements at 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1 and 26:1. Barclay names the five blocks: the Sermon on the Mount, the duties of the Kingdom's leaders, the parables of the Kingdom, greatness and forgiveness, and the coming of the King. Wiersbe's outline of the book sets out the Revelation of the King (1–10), the Rebellion against Him (11–13), His Retirement (14–20), His Rejection (21–27), and His Resurrection (28). Constable says about 60 percent of the book is Jesus' teaching, though Matthew presents Him as a doer as well as a teacher.
Commentators disagree about the structure. Leithart opens his article by noting that scholars have reached no consensus. He lists chiastic proposals, narrative-plot analyses and the popular Bacon five-book scheme, and he offers his own typological reading, in which Jesus replays Israel's history.
Matthew's bookends. The Gospel begins with a Jewish genealogy and ends with "make disciples of all nations" (28:19). Morris points out that the idea of universal blessing appears at the end of the Gospel as well as the beginning, and he ties the opening "son of Abraham" to Genesis 12:3 and to 28:19. Keener says the four Gentile women in the genealogy, the magi in chapter 2, and the commission in 28:19 form one thread, so that the Gentiles were never an afterthought in God's plan. Wiersbe says Matthew is the only Gospel writer who uses the word "church" (16:18; 18:17), and that his book helped Jew and Gentile believers find unity. Barclay agrees on the word "church."
Movement Four: Exegesis of Matthew 1:1
The verse reads, in the ESV, "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Mangum notes that the Greek has no verb and no definite articles. It is an incipit, an opening heading, and it introduces the book generally and the prologue more specifically. I will take it phrase by phrase.
"The book of the genealogy": biblos geneseos
Biblos is the ordinary word for a book or scroll. Morris notes that later it was especially used of a sacred, venerable book, which makes it a fitting word for what Matthew was writing. Genesis is the word genesis, which means origin, birth, or genealogy. The lexical range is wide, which is why translations vary: "genealogy," "record of the origin," "book of the genesis," and Morris's "story."
The question that divides commentators is what this heading governs. Stewart lists five options. Whole Gospel. Chapters 1:1 through 4:16. Chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 1 only. Verses 1 through 17 only. He thinks the first or last is best. Here is who holds what.
A heading for the whole Gospel. Morris argues for this. He notes the word biblos is not used for a short section. He finds it curious to have a heading for the first half-chapter and none for the book. He follows Zahn's "Book of the History of Jesus Christ" and Beare's remark that it conveys the story of the new creation. Stewart notes that the argument from biblos is that the Gospel is presented almost as Scripture.
A heading for chapters 1 and 2. Blomberg prefers this. He says genesis is not a natural description of the whole book. It reappears in 1:18 for Jesus' conception, and in the Septuagint comparable phrases refer to both genealogies and the narrative that follows, but not to entire books, as in Genesis 5:1 introducing the material through 9:29. Keener's commentary similarly notes Genesis genealogies introduce more than names.
A heading for the genealogy only. Calvin held this view. He says some commentators give themselves unnecessary trouble to excuse Matthew for putting this title on a half-chapter. The title does not extend to the whole book, and biblos is put for catalogue. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary agrees. It is the "table of the genealogy," the title not of the whole Gospel but of the first seventeen verses. Constable agrees too. He notes that no other ancient Near Eastern book-length document uses this expression as a title, that genesis recurs in 1:18 to introduce the birth narrative, and that in Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 a narrative follows the phrase, as here.
A middle path. France says its primary function is to frame the genealogy together with verse 17. But as in Genesis, it may be intended to introduce the following narrative too, as far as 1:25, 2:23, or even 4:16. He considers the "whole Gospel" view less plausible.
Blomberg and France's middle path is the most defensible exegetically. But even those who restrict it to the genealogy agree on the Genesis echo and its meaning.
The Genesis echo. France says the phrase would remind a Jewish reader of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 in the Greek Old Testament. He concludes that the coming of Jesus is a new beginning, a new creation. Stewart says that on both occasions in Genesis the phrase mentions the creation of the universe and of man, so Matthew may be introducing Jesus as the One who ushers in a new era for mankind and the world. He notes evidence that genesis was already a title for the book of Genesis in the Septuagint. Keener's background commentary says Greek readers often called Genesis "the book of generations." Cereghin, who has no use for the Septuagint, still hears Genesis 5:1 as the "matchmeet" of this verse.
A twist Keener catches. In Genesis, a genealogy is named for the first person listed. The "generations of Adam" list Adam's descendants. Matthew names his genealogy for the person in whom it ends, Jesus Christ. Keener's commentary draws out the theology. So much is Jesus the focal point of history that His ancestors depend on Him for their meaning. God sovereignly directed Israel's history and preserved the Davidic line because of His plan to send Jesus. Stewart observes the same shift in emphasis, from the first name to the last.
Chrysostom's take. He asks why Matthew calls it the book of Jesus' "generation" when the book contains the whole dispensation. His answer is that this is the sum of the whole dispensation, "an origin and root of all our blessings." As Moses called his book the book of heaven and earth although it covers everything between, so Matthew names his book from the greatest thing done. That God should become man is beyond hope and expectation, and everything else follows from it. He calls the genealogy the "vestibule" of the Gospel, and he urges his hearers to enter it in reverent silence, as one would for the reading of the king's letters.
"Of Jesus"
Constable and Stewart note that Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, Yeshua, meaning "Yahweh is salvation" or "Yahweh saves." Constable adds it was a very common Jewish name, given to priests, generals, prophets and ordinary people. The Christ-Centered Exposition writer connects this with the angel's word to Joseph in 1:21, and with Joshua leading God's people into the land. Jesus is the leader who takes sinful people into eternal life. Chrysostom makes the Joshua typology explicit. That Joshua led into the land of promise, this Jesus into heaven. That Joshua came after Moses died, this Jesus after the law ceased.
Matthew's usage is distinctive. Morris says Jesus is Matthew's normal name for Him, used about 150 times, and used only in narrative, never in direct address. Constable suggests Matthew reserves the name for himself to align his point of view with Jesus'.
"Christ": Christos
Morris explains that Christ is a title meaning "anointed," the Greek way of saying Messiah. It became a proper name later, but Matthew's sparing use, about 17 times, probably reflects that this had not yet happened in Jesus' lifetime. Here it surely has messianic significance. Stewart notes this is the only place for certain where Matthew uses the full name "Jesus Christ," since 1:18 and 16:21 have textual variants. Morris says the same. Keener adds that Matthew opens and closes the genealogy with this title, in 1:1 and 1:18.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown offers an interesting angle. The full form "Jesus Christ" was not used by others during Jesus' earthly ministry. Its use in the opening verse reflects the later period when Matthew wrote. Blomberg says there was great diversity in messianic expectation, with a common thread of liberation from enemies. Stewart adds that Jesus was anointed as prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15), priest (Psalm 110:4) and king (Psalm 2:6), and that the Old Testament pictured Messiah as the woman's seed, Abraham's descendant, from Judah, from David's house.
The Christ-Centered Exposition writer gives a one-line corrective for any congregation: "Christ" is not Jesus' last name.
"The son of David"
This is the royal title, and it comes first, before Abraham. Why? Chrysostom's answer is that David was fresher in memory, more in the mouths of all. The Jews said, "Does not Christ come of the seed of David?" and nobody said "Son of Abraham." David was famous for his kingship and for the nearness of his time. Matthew starts from the better-known name and runs back to the father.
The covenant background is rich. Mangum lists the Davidic texts that stand behind the title: 2 Samuel 7:12–16, 1 Chronicles 17, Psalms 89 and 132, Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 23, 30 and 33, and Ezekiel 34 and 37. The Christ-Centered Exposition chapter walks through them. 2 Samuel 7 promised David two things: a continual seed and an honored son on the throne, with "forever" repeated again and again in that chapter. It then reads Isaiah 9, Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 37, and notes that Ezekiel speaks of David as king even while the people are in exile. The point it draws is that to a people who had longed for generations for a Davidic Messiah, the genealogy is announcing the arrival of the King.
Calvin says it became a customary way for Jews to call Christ the son of David, because David received a still clearer promise of an everlasting throne.
Morris notes that Matthew uses "David" 17 times, more than any other New Testament book, and "son of David" 9 times (one referring to Joseph in 1:20). He observes Matthew uses it most often when people appeal to Jesus for help (9:27; 15:22; 20:30–31), and also in the triumphal entry (21:9, 15). Barclay adds the New Testament-wide witness: Peter's first sermon (Acts 2), Paul in Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8, and Revelation 22:16.
Is Davidic sonship historical? Keener says there is little doubt Jesus' family historically stemmed from Davidic lineage, citing the early Christian sources, Hegesippus, Julius Africanus, and the fact that Jewish opponents never contested it.
Legal or physical? This is where the commentators divide, and it matters because Matthew 1:16 says "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." France reads Matthew as the "official" line of succession to the throne, while Luke records Joseph's actual physical genealogy. He dismisses the idea that Luke gives Mary's line, since Luke says he is giving Joseph's, and ancient genealogies were not traced through women. He also notes the Greek pronoun "of whom" is unambiguously feminine. The Bible Knowledge Commentary says the same about "of whom." It sees Matthew giving the legal line through Joseph, and Luke the physical line through Mary. Wiersbe and Cereghin likewise present Luke as Mary's line. Keener notes that Luther suggested this, but his grammatical evidence is not compelling. Keener says modern scholars more often argue Matthew gives the legal line, and that Africanus harmonized the lists through levirate marriages. Blomberg says knowing which solution is more likely is probably impossible without new evidence.
A Jeremiah problem. The Bible Knowledge Commentary raises the problem of Jeconiah, about whom Jeremiah said "record this man as if childless." It argues that the legal line through Joseph passes through Jeconiah, so Jesus could occupy the throne by legal right without being Jeconiah's physical descendant.
"The son of Abraham"
Keener's background commentary says "son of Abraham" was applied to Jewish people generally, so Matthew begins by reminding us that Jesus is Jewish. His big commentary adds a sharper point. It is the "son of David" title that performs the messianic function, while "son of Abraham" refers to the status Jewish people saw for themselves. It also evokes the promise to Abraham and Israel's history. Later narratives portray Jesus as Israel's representative, the epitome of its history (2:15; 4:2). So He is the heir of Abraham par excellence, who can communicate Abraham's promised blessings.
Blomberg hears more. "Son of Abraham" guarantees Jewish pedigree, and echoes of Genesis 12:1–3 are probably heard, where Abraham's offspring would bless all peoples. He notes that "son of Abraham" carried messianic overtones in at least some Jewish circles. He concludes that already in this title verse the key themes of chapters 1 and 2 are presented in a nutshell: Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's hopes and also the one who will extend God's blessings to Gentiles.
Morris cites Tasker's remark that Abraham is the one to whom the divine promises were first given, with whom sacred history may be said to have begun. He adds that Christians were especially fond of Abraham as the classic example of faith, and that Matthew's combination of David and Abraham draws attention to two strands of Jesus' Hebrew ancestry. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary notes that Abraham was the first from whose family Messiah was predicted to spring (Genesis 22:18), and David the last.
Calvin points out that the genealogy includes the twelve patriarchs through "Judah and his brothers," and takes this to show that the blessing in Christ belongs to all of Jacob's children whom God gathered into His Church, not to Judah alone. France reads "his brothers" as showing Jesus' solidarity with the twelve patriarchs of Israel.
How the three names structure what follows. France notes that verses 1 and 17 together frame the genealogy by highlighting Abraham, David and Christ. Blomberg says all three titles from verse 1 reappear as central elements in the genealogy. Green says the genealogy is designed to make three names stand out: Abraham, David and Jesus. Mangum says the same about verse 17 repeating Abraham, David and Christ from the incipit.
Movement Five: What Verse 1 Promises About the Rest of the Gospel
Verse 1 is a thesis statement in miniature. Weber says it well. The first verse of the first book of the New Testament sums up the culmination of the entire Old Testament, and it holds the seeds from which the New Testament plan will grow. He adds that Matthew's central message and purpose is that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, the restorer of God's kingdom and the redeemer of His people.
Here are the promises verse 1 makes, each of which the series will cash out.
First, a Jesus who saves. The name will be explained in 1:21: He will save His people from their sins. Green connects this to Psalm 130:8 and sees an Old Testament statement about God applied to Jesus.
Second, a King who comes with credentials. Wiersbe says that if a man claims to be a king, the public asks for proof. What is his background? Who pays him homage? Matthew answers with the birth account. Barclay says "Matthew's dominating idea is that of Jesus as King," and he traces it through the Gospel: the magi seeking the King of the Jews, the triumphal entry, Pilate, the cross's inscription, the "But I say to you" of the Sermon on the Mount, and finally "All authority has been given to me." Spurgeon's whole commentary is organized this way. Chapter after chapter in his table of contents is titled "The King..." or "Our King...".
Third, a kingdom that crosses boundaries. The four women in the genealogy are the next verses' demonstration. Here the commentators disagree on why Matthew includes them.
Keener argues that all four are linked by Gentile ancestry: Tamar of Canaan, Rahab of Jericho, Ruth the Moabitess and Bathsheba the wife of a Hittite. He says Matthew was pointing to the Gentile mission, since if he merely wanted to evoke Israel's history he would have named Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and Rachel. Keener considers the "irregular birth" view possible but less convincing.
France agrees that probably all four were non-Jews, and also notes that in each case there were at least suspicions of marital irregularity, so they form a precedent for Jesus' birth to an unmarried mother. Green lines up the same facts and adds that Matthew breaks down three barriers at once: between men and women, between Gentile and Jew, and between good people and bad people.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary says Matthew may have wanted to emphasize that God's choices are all of grace, and perhaps to put Jewish pride in its place. Cereghin makes a pointed remark. It would be Matthew the publican who included these fallen women, "as if he could sympathize with such people." That is homiletical speculation, but a moving one given what we know of Matthew.
Calvin's comment on Tamar and Bathsheba reads like a short sermon. The Son of God might have kept His descent unspotted, but He came to empty Himself. Bathsheba's story, he says, should have taught the Jews not to glory in the flesh.
Fourth, a Messiah who fulfills prophecy. This is the Gospel's signature, as shown in Movement Three.
Fifth, a God who really enters history. Green says the genealogy sets Jesus in the context of what God had been doing from the earliest days, and that the climax of God's work through the centuries is Jesus. Keener says Jesus was not an afterthought to Judaism but the goal to which Israel's remembered history pointed.
Sixth, and deepest, a God who comes personally. Green says the genealogy prepares us for the appearance of the most important birth in history, and the child is Immanuel, "God is with us." He notes Matthew says in the first chapter what the whole Gospel will unpack: God has come among His people in person to rescue them. Stewart notes Jesus is actually God Himself who became a man.
The 14s and the gematria. The numerical value of the Hebrew letters of David (D-W-D, 4+6+4) is fourteen. Blomberg, France, Barclay, the Bible Knowledge Commentary and Green hold this. Keener says it may be questionable, and perhaps fourteen was simply Matthew's average estimate, chosen for ease of memorization. Calvin thought the memory-aid explanation true but incomplete, because the three groups also mark the nation's threefold condition. France and Blomberg observe the groups actually contain 13, 14 and 13 names depending on how you count. Blomberg points to ancient inclusive and exclusive counting, and France says the point is theological rather than statistical. Mangum says Matthew was evidently counting creatively.
Movement Six: Devotional Thoughts from Spurgeon
Spurgeon's comment on verse 1 is short, but it opens the whole of his commentary.
The King and the loyalty he demands. Spurgeon says verse 1 gives "a clue to the special drift" of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit moved Matthew to write of Jesus as King, "the son of David." As "the son of Abraham," He reigns specially over the true seed of Abraham. Then his comment turns into prayer: "Lord Jesus, make us each one to call Thee, 'My God and King!'" As we read this Gospel of the Kingdom, may we be full of loyal obedience and pay Him humble homage. Thou art both a King and a King's Son.
Don't skip the names. Spurgeon next anticipates the congregation's reaction to a string of names. We might fancy it would yield little spiritual food, but "we may not think lightly of any line of the inspired volume." The Spirit sets before us the family tree of the "King of the Jews." The marvel is condescension: He who "was in the beginning with God" should have a genealogy. So let us read each line "with adoring gratitude that we have a King who is one with us in our nature, in ties of blood with sinners one." That quoted phrase is borrowed from a hymn line, and Spurgeon sets it in his own text.
God's sovereign choice. On verse 2, Spurgeon says the line ran not in Ishmael, the offspring of the flesh, but in Isaac, born after the promise, and in elect Jacob and not the firstborn Esau. We are to observe and admire the sovereignty of God. And since nothing is said of a priesthood in Judah, His priesthood is "not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life," yet He comes from Judah's royal tribe, for He is King.
The Sinner's Friend. At verses 3 and 4, Spurgeon notes the dash of unclean blood through Judah's sin with Tamar, and breaks into prayer: "O Lord, thou art the sinner's Friend!" At verse 5, with Rahab the Canaanite and Ruth the Moabitess, he says Gentile blood mingled with the Hebrew strain, "Our King has come to break down the partition wall. As Gentiles, we rejoice in this." Jesus is akin to the fallen and the lowly, and will show love to the poorest and most obscure: "I, too, may have part and lot in Him."
David and Bathsheba. At verses 6 to 9 he says "well may our hearts melt." The fruit of their unholy union died, but after repentance she who "had been the wife of Uria" became David's wife and Solomon's mother. The grace is signal, and the kinship with fallen humanity in our Lord is marked. "We will not pry into the mystery of the incarnation, but we must wonder at the condescending grace which appointed our Lord such a pedigree."
Manasseh and the chief of sinners. At verse 10 Spurgeon says the line was of kings of mixed character, some "as bad as bad could be." Three are left out entirely, and that shows how little can be made of being born of the will of man or the will of the flesh: "salvation was not of blood, nor of birth." Especially, to have Manasseh among Christ's ancestors hints that in the line which comes after Him there would be "some of the chief of sinners who would be miracles of mercy."
The captives. At verse 11, Spurgeon says poor captives and those bound with the fetters of sin may see some like themselves in this ancestry. They are "prisoners of hope, now that the Christ is born of a race which was once 'carried away to Babylon.'"
The obscure and the poor man's King. At verses 12 to 16, Spurgeon notes that with one or two exceptions these are persons of little or no note, and the later ones altogether obscure. Our Lord was "a root out of dry ground." He set small store by earthly greatness and came to a family of low estate. "He is the poor man's King. He will not disdain any of us though our father's house be little in Israel." Then comes the wonder surpassing all wonders: the Word by whom all things were made was made flesh and dwelt among us. He says our hearts would "anoint with sweet perfume of love and praise the blessed head of Him 'who is called Christ,' the Anointed One."
Learning the pedigree. On verse 17 Spurgeon says the Spirit led Matthew to adopt a rough and simple method, three fourteens, to help weak memories. We should make ourselves familiar with our Lord's pedigree and think much of His being born into the world. Specially we should see that He was literally of the house of David and seed of Abraham, because many Old Testament prophecies pointed to this. "He is truly the Messiah, the Prince, which was to come."
The contrast with every other king. Spurgeon's opening to 1:18 draws out why the genealogy needs the birth account. A word or two sufficed to describe the birth of all the kings in the list, but for our Lord "there is much more to be said." It is a deep, mysterious subject, "fitter for reverent faith than for speculative curiosity."
Worshiping the one who became our brother. Spurgeon closes the chapter by leaving the wonderful passage "worshipping the Son of God, who condescended to be born the Son of man. Thus our God became our brother, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. The nearer He comes to us, the more humbly let us adore Him. The more true the kinship of our King, the more enthusiastically let us crown Him Lord of all!"
"Son of David" as a cry for mercy. Elsewhere Spurgeon shows how the title works in the rest of the Gospel. Of the blind men in chapter 9, he says even the blind could see that He was a King's Son. As Son of David, He is entreated to show mercy according to His royal nature. Of the Canaanite woman, he says she was a Gentile "of the worst sort," yet "like Hiram, of Tyre, she knew the name of David, but she went further, for she had faith in David's Son." Of the two blind men in chapter 20, he writes: "The Son of David still lives and still opens the eyes of the blind. He still hears the humble prayer of those who know their blindness and their poverty."
The multitudes and the fickle crowd. On the triumphal entry, Spurgeon says the people prepared a royal welcome for the Son of David, probably dreaming of an earthly kingdom. He adds the sober remark, "how soon this gleam of sunlight gave place to black darkness. The day of palms was closely followed by the day of crucifixion." That is a useful warning for a series that will end at the cross: shouting "Son of David" is not the same as following Him.
The question of questions. On Matthew 22:41–46, Spurgeon says Jesus pressed on the Pharisees "the question of questions, 'What think ye of Christ?'" They knew Messiah would be David's son, but would not confess that He had a divine origin as well. If David called Him Lord, how is He his son? "The Christ must be something more than mere man." Verse 1 tells you whose Son He is. The Gospel will press the question of whose Lord He is.
A word about loyalty. Spurgeon says of Jesus' reign in chapter 20 that "Loyal subjects are ever ready to support their sovereign. Our King reigns by right divine and cannot do wrong," and he echoes the line about David that "Whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. Let this be true of David's Son and His people."