Page:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 5.djvu/19

Rh endless or needless genealogy; it is not a vain-glorious one, as those of great men commonly are. Stemmata, quia faciunt — Of what avail are ancient pedigrees? It is like a pedigree given in evidence, to prove a title, and make out a claim; the design is to prove that our Lord Jesus is the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham, and therefore of that nation and family out of which the Messiah was to arise. Abraham and David were, in their day, the great trustees of the promise relating to the Messiah. The promise of the blessing was made to Abraham and his seed, of the dominion, to David and his seed; and they who would have an interest in Christ, as the Son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed, must be faithful, loyal subjects to him as the Son of David, by whom all the families of the earth are to be ruled. It was promised to Abraham that Christ should descend from him, (Gen. 12. 3.—22. 18.) and to David that he should descend from him; (2 Sam. 7. 12. Ps. 89. 3, &c.—132. 11.) and therefore, unless it can be proved that Jesus is a Son of David and a Son of Abraham, we cannot admit him to be the Messiah. Now this is here proved from the authentic records of the heralds' offices. The Jews were very exact in preserving their pedigrees, and there was a providence in it, for the clearing up of the descent of the Messiah from the fathers; and since his coming, that nation is so dispersed and confounded, that it is a question whether any person in the world can legally prove himself to be a son of Abraham; however, it is certain that none can prove himself to be either a son of Aaron, or a son of David, so that the priestly and kingly office must either be given up, as lost forever, or be lodged in the hands of our Lord Jesus. Christ is here first called the Son of David, because under that title he was commonly spoken of, and expected, among the Jews. They who owned him to be the Christ, called him the Son of David, ch. 15. 22.—20. 31.—21. 15. This, therefore, the Evangelist undertakes to make out, that he is not only a Son of David, but that Son of David on whose shoulders the government was to be; not only a Son of Abraham, but that Son of Abraham, who was to be the Father of many nations.

In calling Christ the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham, he shews that God is faithful to his promise, and will make good every word that he has spoken; and this, 1. Though the performance be long deferred. When God promised Abraham a Son, who should be the great Blessing of the world, perhaps he expected it should be his immediate son; but it proved to be one at the distance of forty-two generations, and about 2000 years. So long before can God foretel what shall be done, and so long after, sometimes, does God fulfil what has been promised. Note, Delays of promised mercies, though they exercise our patience, do not weaken God's promise. 2. Though it begin to be despaired of. This Son of David, and Son of Abraham, who was to be the Glory of his Father's house, was born then when the seed of Abraham was a despised people recently become tributary to the Roman yoke, and when the house of David was buried in obscurity; for Christ was to be a Root out of a dry ground. Note, God's time for the performance of his promise, is, when it labours under the greatest improbabilities.

III. The particular series of it, drawn in a direct line from Abraham downward, according to the genealogies recorded in the beginning of the books of Chronicles, (as far as those go,) and which here we see the use of.

Some particulars we may observe in this genealogy.

1. Among the ancestors of Christ, who had brethren, generally, he descended from a younger brother; such Abraham himself was, and Jacob, and Judah, and David, and Nathan, and Rhesa; to shew that the pre-eminence of Christ came not, as that of earthly princes, from the primogeniture of his ancestors, but from the will of God, who, according to the method of his providence, exalts them of low degree, and puts more abundant honour upon that part which lacked.

2. Among the sons of Jacob, beside Judah, from whom Shiloh came, notice is here taken of his brethren; Judas and his brethren. No mention is made of Ishmael, the son of Abraham, or of Esau, the son of Isaac, because they were shut out of the church; whereas all the children of Jacob were taken in, and though not fathers of Christ, were yet patriarchs of the church, (Acts 7. 8.) and therefore are mentioned in this genealogy, for the encouragement of the twelve tribes that were scattered abroad, intimating to them that they have an interest in Christ, and stand in relation to him as well as Judah.

3. Phares and Zara, the twin-sons of Judah, are likewise both named, though Phares only was Christ's ancestor, for the same reason that the brethren of Judah are taken notice of: some think because the birth of Phares and Zara had something of allegory in it. Zara put out his hand first, as the first-born but drawing it in, Phares got the birthright. The Jewish church, like Zara, reached first at the birthright, but, through unbelief, withdrawing the hand, the Gentile church, like Phares, broke forth, and went away with the birthright; and thus blindness is in part happened unto Israel, till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and then Zara shall be born—all Israel shall be saved, Rom. 11. 25, 26.

4. There are four women, and but four, named in this genealogy; two of them were originally strangers to the commonwealth of Israel, Rahab a Canaanitess, and a harlot besides, and Ruth the Moabitess; for in Jesus Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew; those that are strangers and foreigners are welcome, in Christ, to the citizenship of the saints. The other two were adultresses, Tamar and Bath-sheba; which was a further mark of humiliation put upon our Lord Jesus, that not only he descended from such, but that his descent from them is particularly remarked in his genealogy, and no veil drawn over it. He took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh, (Rom. 8. 3.) and takes even great sinners, upon their repentance, into the nearest relations to himself. Note, we ought not to upbraid people with the scandals of their ancestors; it is what they cannot help, and has been the lot of the best, even of our Master himself. David's begetting Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias, is taken notice of, (says Dr. Whitby,) to shew that that crime of David, being repented of, was so far from hindering the promise made to him, that it pleased God by this very woman to fulfil it.

5. Though divers kings are here named, yet none is expressly called a king, but David, (v. 6.) David the king; because with him the covenant of royalty was made, and to him the promise of the kingdom of the Messiah was given, who is therefore said to inherit the throne of his father David, Luke 1. 32.

6. In the pedigree of the kings of Judah, between Joram and Ozias, (v. 8.) there are three left out, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; and therefore when it is said, Joram begat Ozias, it is meant, according to the usage of the Hebrew tongue, that Ozias was lineally descended from him, as it is said to Hezekiah, that the sons which he should beget should be carried to Babylon, whereas they were removed several generations from him. It was not through mistake or forgetfulness that these three were omitted, but, probably, they were omitted in the genealogical tables that the Evangelist consulted, which yet were admitted as authentic. Some give this