And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. Matthew 1:16

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)
You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen) (Click here for part II), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen) (Click here for part II).

“And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom birthed Jesus, being called the Christ” (CG).

The previous verse ended with, “and Matthan begot Jacob.” The genealogy of Jesus now continues with, “And Jacob begot Joseph.”

The name Joseph has a dual meaning. It is derived from yasaph, to add. However, it is also connected to asaph, to take away or remove. Both were on the mind of Rachel when she bore Joseph –

“Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. 23 And she conceived and bore a son, and said, ‘God has taken away [asaph] my reproach.’ 24 So she called his name Joseph, and said, ‘The Lord shall add [yasaph] to me another son.’” Genesis 30:22-24

Thus, the name means Increaser, or He Shall Add. But it has a secondary intended meaning of Remover, or He Shall Take Away. This Joseph recorded in Matthew is begotten of Jacob, his natural father. Joseph is the husband of Mary. It is through Joseph, the father, that the right to the kingly line of David is established.

Both Matthew and Luke acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ. However, the genealogy of Luke does not read the same as Matthew. Rather, it says, “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…” (Luke 3:23).

This seems to throw a monkey wrench into Jesus’ lineage. However, Luke 1 & 2, establish that Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus. Rather, Jesus was begotten of God as indicated in Luke 1 –

“And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’” Luke 1:35

Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies were compiled before the destruction of the temple. Therefore, what was recorded was verifiable at that time. With this in mind, Bengel provides a list of assertions to be considered. The details of the explanations for these assertions are quite extensive but are necessary to obtain a right understanding of what is going on in the two genealogies.

Only the key points will be included. Any removal of content is without providing ellipses, and so for a more thorough understanding of Bengel’s comments, such as verse references and citations, refer to his commentary –

———————————————

I. Messias or Christ is the Son of David.

This is admitted by all.

II. Even in their genealogies both Matthew and Luke teach that Jesus is the Christ.

This is clear from Matthew 1:16, and Luke 3:22.

III. At the time when Matthew and Luke wrote the descent of Jesus from David had been placed beyond doubt.

Both Matthew and Luke wrote before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, when the full genealogy of the house of David, preserved in the public records, was easily accessible to all: and our Lord’s adversaries did not ever make any objection, when Jesus was so frequently hailed as the Son of David.

IV. The genealogy in St Matthew from Abraham, and that in St Luke from the creation of man, to Joseph the husband of Mary, is deduced, not through mothers but fathers, and those natural fathers.

This is evident in the case of all those ancestors, whose names St Matthew and St Luke repeat from the Old Testament. Wherefore it is not said, whether Ruth had been the wife of Mahlon or Chilion; but Obed is simply said to be the son of his real father Boaz by Ruth [though his legal father was Mahlon.] From Abraham to David the same ancestors are evidently mentioned by both Matthew and Luke; so that there can be no doubt but that both Evangelists intend not mothers but fathers, and those, fathers by nature, from David to Joseph. Thus, in the books of Kings and Chronicles, as often soever as the mother of a king is mentioned alone, it is a sign that he whom her son is said to have immediately succeeded was his natural father.

V. The genealogy in Matthew from Solomon, and that in Luke from Nathan, is brought down to Joseph, not with the same, but with a different view[respectu, relation, regard.]

This is clear from the preceding section.

VI. Jesus Christ was the Son of Mary, but not of her husband Joseph.

This is evident from Matthew 1:16.

VII. It was necessary that the genealogy of Mary should be drawn out.

Without the genealogy of Mary, the descent of Jesus from David could not be proved, as follows from what has just been said.

VIII. Joseph was for some time reputed to be the father of the Lord Jesus.

The mystery of the Redeemer’s birth from a virgin was not made known at once, but by degrees; and, in the meanwhile, the honourable title of marriage was required as a veil for that mystery. Jesus, therefore, was believed to be the Son of Joseph, for instance, after His baptism, by Philip (John 1:45); in the time of His public preaching, by the inhabitants of Nazareth (Luke 4:22; Matthew 13:55), and only a year before His Passion by the Jews (John 6:42). Many still clung to this opinion even after our Lord’s Ascension, and up to the time, therefore, when, a few years subsequently to that event, St Matthew wrote his gospel.

IX. It was therefore necessary that the genealogy of Joseph also should in the meanwhile exist.

It was necessary that all those who believed Jesus to be the Son of Joseph, should be convinced that Joseph was descended from David. Otherwise they could not have acknowledged Jesus to be the Son of David, and consequently could not acknowledge Him to be the Christ. When therefore the angel first appeared to Joseph, and commanded him to take unto him his wife, he called him (Matthew 1:20) the Song of Solomon of David: because, forsooth, the Son of Mary would for a time have to bear that name as if derived from Joseph. In like manner, not only was Jesus in truth the first-born (Luke 2:7; Luke 2:23) of His mother, but it behoved also that He should be reputed to be the first-born of Joseph: those, therefore, who are called the brethren of Jesus, were His first cousins, not His half-brothers. It is needless to attempt, as some have done, to prove the consanguinity of Joseph and Mary from their marriage: for even if David be their nearest common ancestor, St Matthew’s object is attained. St Matthew then has traced the genealogy of Joseph, but still so as to do no violence to truth: for he does not say that Jesus is the Son of Joseph, but he does say that He was the Son of Mary; and in this very sixteenth verse he intimates, that this genealogy of Joseph, which had its use for a time, would afterwards become obsolete. Mary’s descent from David was equally well known at that time, as appears from St Luke.

X. Either Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary, and Luke that of Joseph; or Matthew that of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary.

This clearly follows from the preceding sections.