St Matthew Chapter I : Verses 1-17
Contents
⮚Matt. i. 1-17 Douay-Rheims text & Latin text (Vulgate)⮚Notes⮚Endnote: harmonizing the Matthew and Luke genealogies.
👈The Tree of Jesse, Family Tree of the Virgin.
David, Gerard (peintre) Date: 1490.Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon
Matt. i. 1-17
2 Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren.
3 And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram.
4 And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon.
5 And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse.
6 And Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias.
7 And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa.
8 And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias.
9 And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias.
10 And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manasses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. 11 And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon.
12 And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel.
13 And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor.
14 And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud.
15 And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob.
16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations.
1 Liber generationis Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham. 2 Abraham genuit Isaac. Isaac autem genuit Jacob. Jacob autem genuit Judam, et fratres ejus. 3 Judas autem genuit Phares, et Zaram de Thamar. Phares autem genuit Esron. Esron autem genuit Aram. 4 Aram autem genuit Aminadab. Aminadab autem genuit Naasson. Naasson autem genuit Salmon. 5 Salmon autem genuit Booz de Rahab. Booz autem genuit Obed ex Ruth. Obed autem genuit Jesse. Jesse autem genuit David regem. 6 David autem rex genuit Salomonem ex ea quae fuit Uriae. 7 Salomon autem genuit Roboam. Roboam autem genuit Abiam. Abias autem genuit Asa. 8 Asa autem genuit Josophat. Josophat autem genuit Joram. Joram autem genuit Oziam. 9 Ozias autem genuit Joatham. Joatham autem genuit Achaz. Achaz autem genuit Ezechiam. 10 Ezechias autem genuit Manassen. Manasses autem genuit Amon. Amon autem genuit Josiam. 11 Josias autem genuit Jechoniam, et fratres ejus in transmigratione Babylonis. 12 Et post transmigrationem Babylonis : Jechonias genuit Salathiel. Salathiel autem genuit Zorobabel. 13 Zorobabel autem genuit Abiud. Abiud autem genuit Eliacim. Eliacim autem genuit Azor. 14 Azor autem genuit Sadoc. Sadoc autem genuit Achim. Achim autem genuit Eliud. 15 Eliud autem genuit Eleazar. Eleazar autem genuit Mathan. Mathan autem genuit Jacob. 16 Jacob autem genuit Joseph virum Mariae, de qua natus est Jesus, qui vocatur Christus. 17 Omnes itaque generationes ab Abraham usque ad David, generationes quatuordecim : et a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis, generationes quatuordecim : et a transmigratione Babylonis usque ad Christum, generationes quatuordecim.
Notes
1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ. A few commentators take these words as the title of the gospel, but, judging from analogous passages in the Old Testament (e.g. The book of the generation of Adam, Gen. vi.) it is more probable that they refer exclusively to the genealogy given in verses 1-17.
By a Jewish idiom any short document was called “ a book” ; thus Jeremias, speaking of a contract, says, I wrote it in a hook and sealed it (xxxii. 10).
The Jews kept their genealogies very carefully, and these family records were preserved in the Temple archives. The Jews were exact on this point for three reasons : —
1. Marriage. The Jews held aloof from all other nations, with whom intermarriage was forbidden by the Law of Moses.2. Priesthood. The priesthood was reserved to the seed of Aaron, and no man could officiate if there was a flaw in his descent, neither could a priest contract marriage with a woman who was not of pure Jewish blood.3. The Messianic promise. The Messias was to be born of the seed of Abraham, and of the royal house of David.
Note 1.— In the Old Testament genealogical rolls are numerous (see Par. ix. 1, Esdras ii.59), but in the New Testament we only find that of our Lord traced. These records were no longer of paramount importance after the birth of the Messias. The true Church was henceforth to be universal, and the priesthood was perpetuated by the Sacrament of Holy Order, and not by carnal descent.
Note 2. — St Matthew, writing for the Hebrews, commences by proving that our Lord was of pure and royal Jewish descent, and thus he establishes the true foundation of our Lord’s claim to the Messiahship.
Jesus, — i.e. Saviour. This name expresses our Lord’s mission as our Redeemer.
Jesus was a common Hebrew name, met with in varying forms ; — Josue, Jeshua, Jehoshua, Osee, Hoshea, etc. In the New Testament we also find it : Jesus that is called Justus (Col. iv. 11).
Josue was a type of our Lord, since he delivered the Israelites from their enemies, and led them into the Promised Land.
Christ, — i.e. anointed. Prophets, priests, and kings were anointed. This title is only found in the opening of the gospels (see supra, i. 1 ; St Mark i. 1 ; St John i. 17). Only once does our Lord speak of Himself as Jesus Christ : Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent (St John xvii. 3).
the son of David. The Messias was to be born of the seed of David, in accordance with the promises, — e.g. I will raise up thy seed after thee .... and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house to my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever (2 Kings vii. 12, 13). I will make his seed to endure for evermore ; and his throne as the days of heaven (Ps. lxxxviii. 30). Hence the Messias was frequently referred to as the "branch" of David (see Jer. xxiii. 5). The “son of David” was a title frequently employed. Only “ a son of David ” could be the true Messias ; and this, perhaps, explains why the Evangelist places David before Abraham. (Cf. Jesus asked them, saying: What think you of Christ ? whose son is he ? They say to him : David’s (xxii. 41, 42).
son of Abraham. The words “ son of” relate to David, since in all Hebrew genealogical trees each name relates to the one that immediately precedes it. God had especially favoured Abraham and David in announcing to each personally that the Christ should be of his seed.
Note. — In the genealogy of Christ, as given by St Matthew, note that St Matthew divides it into three parts, which embrace —
(а) From the birth of Abraham to the birth of David. B.C. 1996-1085.(b) From the birth of David to the Babylonian Captivity, B.C. 1085-588.(c) From the Captivity to the Nativity of Christ. B.C. 588-4.
Only the first and third gospels give the genealogy of Christ, and the two tables given present differences as regards —
(1) Place. (2) Method. (3) Matter.
1. Place. — St Matthew places the genealogy first, before relating the birth of Christ. St Luke places it just before the Public Life of our Lord.
2. Method. — St Matthew traces the line from ancestor to descendant. St Luke traces it from the son to the father.
3. Matter. — (a) St Matthew traces Christ’s descent from Abraham. (a) St Luke traces it back to Adam.
(b) St Matthew gives fewer generations and totally different names in two sections, i.e. from David to the Captivity, from the Captivity to Joseph. (b) St Luke gives a longer and fuller list, and does not agree with St Matthew in the two sections mentioned.
Four explanations have been given to account for these differences : —
1. St Matthew gives the real descent, St Luke the legal descent of St Joseph.
2. St Matthew gives St Joseph’s royal descent, St Luke his real descent.
3. St Matthew gives the Blessed Virgin’s descent on her mother’s side, St Luke on her father’s side.
4. St Matthew gives St Joseph’s real descent, and St Luke gives our Lady’s real descent. [See Endnote below]
2. Judas and his brethren. The twelve sons of Jacob, the patriarchs of Israel. Judas (or Juda), though not the first-born, is mentioned, because the Messias was to be born of the tribe of Juda.
The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations (Gen. xlix. 10).
3. Phares and Zara. The twin sons of Judas and Thamar.
Thamar. Women are not usually mentioned in the Jewish genealogical records.
Four other names of women occur in the genealogy of our Lord,— Rahab, Ruth, the wife of Urias (i.e. Bethsabee), and Mary the Mother of Jesus. Of these five, our Blessed Lady is the only one whose character was unsullied. Rahab and Ruth were not Jewesses.
4. Aminadab. Aaron married Aminadab’s daughter Elizabeth (see Exod. vi. 23).
Naasson. He was the prince of the house of Juda when the Israelites were delivered out of Egypt. Cf. There shall be with you the princes of the tribes .... of Juda, Naasson the son of Aminadab (Numb. i. 4, 7).
Note. — As the Israelites were in bondage in Egypt for 430 years, and as to this long period St Matthew assigns only four generations, viz. Phares, Esron, Amran, and Aminadab, we must conclude that some names are omitted. Perhaps St Matthew had in his mind God’s promise to Abraham : In the fourth generation they shall return hither (Gen. XV. 16).
5. Jesse. He is mentioned in one of the Messianic promises : There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root (Is. xi. 1).
6. David the king. Here the royal line begins, for God Himself chose David to govern His people. Only three names, viz. Booz, Obed, and Jesse, are given between Salmon and David. Now, we know that 480 years after the deliverance, and in the fourth year of his reign, Solomon built the Temple. David reigned 70 years, and the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years (480 — (40 + 70 + 4) = 366). Hence the three generations mentioned above are insufficient to cover 366 years, and St Matthew has evidently passed over some names.
8. Joram begot Ozias. St Matthew again omits some links of the chain. If we refer to 1 Par. iii. 11, 12, we find that the list stands thus : Joram, Ochozias, Joas, Amasias, Ozias. Consequently, three names are omitted in the genealogy of our Lord, viz. Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias. According to Maldonatus, “ the Evangelist did this to include all the generations to Christ in fourteen, and that these were passed over rather than others because they were sinners, and had mixed the royal blood of Judah with that of Achab. This is the opinion of St Hilary and St Jerome, and it is followed by others” (Maldonatus, Commen. on St Matt.., vol. i.).
11. Josias hegot Jechonias. Josias was the grandfather of Jechonias. It is possible that there is a' copyist’s error here, and that the passage should run ; “Josias begot Joakim, and Joakim begot Jechonias”.
12. after the transmigration, — i.e. after the “ deportation ” to Babylon, not after the “ Captivity.” The Jews were led away as captives to Babylon at three different periods — in B.C. 606, in B.C. 598, and B.C. 588. Of these three deportations, the first and second are often referred to as “ transmigrations,” whereas the third, which took place after the destruction of Jerusalem and of Solomon’s Temple, was always spoken of as “ the Captivity.”
Jechonias begot Salathiel. From the book of Jeremias we learn that Jechonias was to be childless. Cf. Thus saith the Lord : Write this man barren, a man that shall not prosper in his days : for there shall not he a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David, and have power any more in Juda (Jer. xxii. 30).
These words are generally understood as meaning that no child of Jechonias should ever prosper and rule over the temporal kingdom of Israel. Jechonias may have adopted Salathiel, and hence was only his legal father.
Salathiel hegot Zorohahel. According to 1 Par. hi. 17, Salathiel was the grandfather of Zorobabel, not his father : The sons of Jechonias were
Asir Salathiel .... Phadaia, etc . of Phadaia were horn Zorobabel and Semei. Patrizi solves the difficulty by supposing that the Zorobabel mentioned by St Matthew and St Luke (and also in 2 Esdras xii. 1 and Aggeus i. 1) is not the same as the Zorobabel mentioned in the book of Paralipomenon.
Note. — After Zorobabel we find none of the ten names given by St Matthew recorded in the Old Testament, and to cover this same interval St Luke gives eighteen generations. St Matthew, however, gives sufficient to cover the intervening years, but undoubtedly he omits certain links, probably in order to keep to his systematic arrangement of three series of fourteen generations.
17. So all the generations, etc. We should therefore expect to find forty-two generations (14 x 3), instead of which we find only forty-one. This renders it doubtful how to group the three series of names. The difficulty has been solved by taking Jechonias twice, either considering him in the first place as king, and secondly as a private individual, or taking the name as applying each time to a different person. This latter suggestion, put forward by St Augustine, and adopted by Patrizi, enables us to give the three series of fourteen (tesseradecades) complete.
Endnote. Harmonizing the genealogies of St Matthew and St Luke
St Matthew gives St Joseph’s ancestors, and St Luke gives the Blessed Virgin’s. This solution is based on the tradition that the Blessed Virgin was an heiress, and therefore obliged to marry in her own tribe. In this case, the husband inherited the titles and property of his wife, and was regarded as the legal descendant of his father-in-law. This would explain why St Joseph is called both “the son of Jacob” and “the son of Heli,” Jacob being his actual father, and Heli his legal father. It was contrary to Jewish custom to trace the genealogy through a woman ( “ Genus patris vocatur genus : genus matris non vocatur genus ” ). Modern exegetical writers favour this view (Lightfoot, Bengel, Godet, Plumptre, Lange, etc.). The table would then stand thus : —
In favour of this view we have the following arguments : —
(a) If both lists refer to St Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, then Jesus was descended from David only by a kind of legal fiction.(b) St Luke gives great prominence to the Blessed Virgin, and carefully points out Jesus as the “supposed” son of Joseph. This being the case, how could he consistently identify the ancestors of Christ only with those of His reputed father ?(c) The registers of births were carefully preserved by the Jews, and therefore it is perfectly natural (particularly in the case of the royal race of David) that in the Holy Family two genealogical documents existed, the one giving the ancestors of St Joseph, the other that of Heli (or Joachim).[There is, it is true, a tradition which gives “ Joachim ” as the father of our Blessed Lady, but the names Joachim and Heli (or Eliachim) seem interchangeable, as we see from the book of Judith, where the high-priest Elia (iv. 5 and 10) is also called Joachim (xv. 9). According to the Talmud, Heli was the father of our Lady.](d) “We should expect to have had preserved both the relationship through Joseph, the representative of the civil, national, theocratic side, and the descent through Mary, the organ of the real human relationship. Was not Jesus at once to appear and to be the son of David ? — to appear such through him whom the people regarded as His father ; to he such through her from whom He really derived His human existence ? The two affiliations answered to these two requirements ” (Godet, St Luke, p. 204).Ed. (e) St Matthew undoubtedly wrote his gospel chiefly, though not exclusively, for the Jewish converts of Palestine. His principal aim was to prove to the Jews, that Jesus was truly the Messias, since in His Person the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled, and by Him the true Messianic kingdom was inaugurated. These inferences are clearly deducible from —
1. The fact that the gospel was originally written in Aramaic.2. The primary mission of the aj)ostles to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.”3. The testimony of the earliest Christian writers.4. The internal evidence afforded by the gospel.
St Irenæus, and Origen have other references to the object and aim of St Matthew’s gospel : — ‘‘ The gospel of St Matthew was written for the Jews, who specially desired that it should be made clear that Christ was of the seed of David. St Matthew endeavours to satisfy this wish, and therefore he begins his gospel with the genealogy of Christ ” (St Irenæus, Hær., lib. hi. 9). “St Matthew wrote for the Hebrews, who expected the Messias to be of the seed of Abraham and David ” (Origen, in lib. iv.). Other patristic writers speak equally clearly on this subject : —
“ Matthew composed his gospel in the Hebrew tongue for the special use of those Jews who believed in Christ ” (St Jerome, in Matt., lib. iv.). St John Chrysostom (in Matt. Horn., i. 7) confirms the statements made by Eusebius in his history of the Church. The quotations given above suffice to shew the general trend of Catholic tradition, and to confirm its teaching.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam.
No comments:
Post a Comment