SECTION II

the genealogy of the king of the Jews

(Mat 1:1-27)

Jesus was the son of the Virgin Mary, the foster-son and adopted son of Joseph. Yet the Evangelist does not give us the genealogy of Mary, but that of Joseph.¹ Consequently Jesus is introduced into New Testament history as the son of Joseph; first, because Joseph was descended from David through the legitimate royal line of the house of David (through Rehoboam and Solomon), and it was necessary that Jesus should appear as the lawful heir of the throne of David; and also because Mary was of the same line as Joseph, and therefore the essential signification of his lineage could be also attributed to that of Mary. Thus in the consecrations, the nobility, the adversities, and the tragic course of Joseph’s line, we see the main characteristics of the line of Jesus Himself, according to His human descent. The line of Jesus traced by Matthew is arranged in a significant form. This remark applies first of all to his announcement of his subject: ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.’ He gives this solemn introduction to the genealogical table with an allusion to the generations of Adam (Gen 5:1), or even to the very beginning of Genesis, inasmuch as he gives us the book of the genesis of Jesus Christ.² It may be subject of surprise that the New Testament, the book most full of life, begins with a genealogical tree. But a genealogical tree, notwithstanding its sapless appearance, is something more than a green tree in the wood; it is a tree of human life. There is a typical nobility which may, in its real substance, at times appear as more or less ignoble, or even degenerate. There is also a true nobility in human life, consisting in purer and richer veins or hereditary characteristics. For example, who does not acknowledge the nobility of Caucasian blood? There are noble lineages of all kinds—lines in which a more refined spirit, a purer character, or a deeper mind, continues to be inherited. But there has been only one line in which the characteristic of holy longing for the Lord’s salvation was, through continual consecrations of the Spirit of God, inherited with increasing power, until the consecrated Virgin came who was able to bear the Saviour of the world. This line proceeded from Abraham, through Jacob, Judah, and David, down to the Virgin Mary. It is indicated by Joseph’s genealogy. For the spirit of sanctification in Israel was not limited to a single branch of the stem of Judah or of the house of David. So, when the Evangelist connects the life of Jesus with the Old Testament by His legal genealogy, he directs our attention to the golden thread of consecrations of life which runs through the people of the Old Covenant. Christ is the Heir of all the blessing of Abraham and of humanity. But He is also the Heir of all the historical curse which, on account of sin, lies upon the house of David, upon Israel, and upon the whole human race. The Evangelist makes both the blessing and curse appear, in the pregnant manner in which he presents Christ’s genealogical tree, dividing the whole line into three times fourteen generations. The following are the first fourteen members; 1. Abraham; 2. Isaac; 3. Jacob; 4. Judah (and his brethren); 5. Pharez (and Zarah his brother); 6. Hezrom; 7. Aram; 8. Aminadab; 9. Nahshon; 10. Salmon; 11. Boaz; 12. Obed; 13. Jesse; 14. David the king. This is evidently an ascending line which reaches its climax in David. In general, the Evangelist names only the fathers, and not the mothers, in the line of ancestry. But in this section he makes three exceptions, by citing Tamar as the mother of Pharez (and of Zarah), Rahab as the mother of Boaz,³ and Ruth as the mother of Obed. Judah begat Pharez and Zarah of Tamar, his widowed daughter-in-law, without knowing who she was, while she knew him well; thus he consciously committed fornication, and she incest. Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab, who had been a heathen harlot in Jericho. Boaz begat Obed of Ruth, the heathen Moabitess. That the Evangelist purposely inserts only the names of women which cause surprise on first consideration, is proved by the circumstance, that in the next section he moreover mentions, and that very graphically, Bathsheba as the mother of Solomon: David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah. Why has he made these observations? Doubtless to point out to the Pharisees and their followers that there is a higher righteousness than that of external Jewish sanctity. Tamar committed incest when she became a mother in Israel; but she was unquestionably impelled by an almost fanatically enthusiastic and faith-like reverence for the theocratic in the house of Judah to seek, and at last with sinful cunning, to be again connected with that mysterious house, so full of promise. Rahab, by faith on God’s glory in the people of Israel, and by casting in her lot with that people, became, from a heathen harlot, a mother in Israel; and Ruth the Moabitess left her own people, and adhered to Israel with such heroic love and faith, that even one of the books of the Old Testament canon is distinguished by her name. Finally, David’s transgression with Bathsheba was forgiven, through deep repentance, visitation, and atonement. Thus all these cases show, that not the righteousness of works or of descent, but that of faith, ruled and availed in the heart of Israelite life, even in the earlier members of the race. Yet they also betray the dark trait which runs through the consecrated line, showing that the primeval curse continued to descend, even through the house of David, in the very depths of its life.

This dark side appears more distinctly in the history of the second fourteen members. 1. Solomon; 2. Rehoboam; 3. Abijah; 4. Asa; 5. Jehoshaphat; 6. Joram; 7. Uzziah; 8. Jotham; 9. Ahaz; 10. Hezekiah; 11. Manasseh; 12. Amon; 13. Josiah; 14. Jeconiah (and his brethren),⁴ who was carried away in the Babylonian captivity. This is evidently a royal line with a downward tendency, and at last it seems to have sunk into decline in heathen exile and servitude. It has given rise to much discussion, that the Evangelist has omitted in this section the names of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which (according to 1Ch 3:11-12), come in between Joram and Uzziah, and also the name of Jehoiakim, which (2Ki 24:6; 2Ch 36:8) comes between Josiah and Jeconiah or Jehoiachin. These omissions have been variously explained.⁵ It is clear that Matthew intentionally reduces this section also to fourteen generations; but he must have had good ground for omitting some names in order to reduce the number to fourteen, and they are the following. It was probably their want of theocratic legitimacy which made him omit the names of those referred to in a genealogical table which rested on the idea of theocratic legitimacy. This is very clear in the case of Jehoiakim: he was forcibly made king of Judah by the king of Egypt (2Ch 36:4).⁶ Ahaziah was a mere puppet under the tutelage of his mother Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, king of Israel, and on this ground Matthew could omit him. Of Joash it may be observed, that he was made king only by the influence of Jehoiada the priest, the former king’s son-in-law, and was always under his guidance so long as he lived; and that after his death Joash became the mere tool of a godless court, went quickly to ruin, and was not buried in the sepulchre of the kings, in which, however, Jehoiada was buried (2Ch 24:16). In accordance with the express declaration of a prophet, Amaziah was, on account of his idolatry and impenitence, destroyed by God (2Ch 25:16, 2Ch 25:27). For those acquainted with history, these omissions gave indication of the violent disorders by which the line was shaken. But this became most evident in the great visitation of the Babylonish captivity.

The third line, which extends from the Babylonish captivity to Christ, has also something significant. If, as the representation given demands, we begin the reckoning with Salathiel, the third fourteen members can be made out only by so understanding the conclusion—Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ—that Mary must be included in the list of members. Thus,—1. Salathiel; 2. Zerubbabel; 3. Abiud; 4. Eliakim; 5. Azor; 6. Sadoc; 7. Achim; 8. Eliud; 9. Eleazar; 10. Matthan; 11. Jacob; 12. Joseph; 13. Mary; 14. Jesus. We cannot suppose that Matthew would go wrong in his reckoning when earnestly engaged in a work of such importance and deep thought. Equally inadmissible is the idea, that he counted Jeconiah twice, the second time as founding anew the Messianic line, which seemed to have perished in the Babylonish captivity. By the plan he gives of the genealogical tree, the Evangelist evidently compels the reader to include Mary in the list of members, unless indeed he meant, by immediate transition from Joseph to Christ, to favour the error that Jesus descended from Joseph.⁷ This misunderstanding instantly disappears, when we observe that he does not continue with the usual formula, Jacob begat Joseph, Joseph begat, &c., but suddenly changes it for an expression which plainly points to the birth of Jesus from the Virgin. This third division of the line appears as running through the concealment of deep humiliation; but at last, after having, in the carpenter, reached its lowest point, it suddenly rises, at least in the spiritual sense, by disclosing in the holy Virgin and her Son the fulfilment of all its substantial nobility. The number seven symbolizes the complete development of nature. Two is the number of life, of contrast, of sex. Consequently the number fourteen is the number indicating the complete development of a genealogical line. But three is the number of the Spirit. Accordingly, the enumeration of three times fourteen members denotes the perfect unfolding of the theocratic lineal succession, or the complete substantial development of a stem which has been impenetrated by consecrations of the Spirit until it is made fit to become an organ for the man of the Spirit.⁸ The genealogy of Christ may, in a certain respect, be considered as the briefest epitome of the Old Testament. It sets forth the very kernel and the highest pure product of the Old Testament development. For, properly speaking, the pure product of the Old Covenant is not so much the prophetic word concerning Christ, as the personal appearance of Christ Himself. In a general way, we can look upon all Scripture as the biography of Christ, for His life is the sum and substance of the Bible, and therefore also the principle of its exposition. Yet, when we look at the Old Testament by itself in this point of view, it appears to us as the introduction to the New Testament, or the introduction to the life of Jesus. On this ground we can see, in the genealogy which Matthew gives us, a short resumé of the Old Testament in its essential signification. The genealogy of Christ is the golden thread which runs through the whole. Matthew, therefore, has elaborately composed this genealogy with the scrupulous diligence and thoughtfulness of the highest reverence for the Lord, the hero of this genealogical tree. This labour teaches us to estimate duly the significance of genealogical trees in general; for, as many a noble tree of human life may, by the curse of sin, be changed into a thorn-bush, so, on the other hand, many a wild tree can, by the blessing of the Spirit, become gradually ennobled; and this is a fact that should not be lost sight of.

Thus the genealogy of Christ presents to us in brief the advent of Christ, which extends through the whole Old Covenant. But it is plain, from what has been already said, that something else must be referred to here than merely the advent of Christ as represented by the Scriptures. To every spiritual movement in human writings generally there must be a corresponding spiritual movement in the very foundation of human life itself; and so in particular a substantial advent of Christ must have run through the blood and life of the fathers parallel to the advent of Him in the writings of the Old Testament.

Those who see hereditary sin making its appearance in Cain must, in reason, behold the hereditary blessing in Abel. And as they know of the curse of Ham, they must likewise know of the blessing of Shem. They must reflect on the emphasis with which it is said that the nations shall be blessed through the seed of Abraham; that the root of Jesse, the Son of David, by birth the true King of the Jews, is set for salvation to the people of Israel and to the Gentiles.

In human life nature and spirit stand in the most intimate mutual relation, and a mysterious interweaving of the two is always going on. Moral evil is first of all spiritual ruin, but it also shakes human nature. It can constantly insinuate itself and penetrate into the very recesses of the substance of man. The doctrine of the curse, the doctrine of original sin, rests upon this truth.

But is it to be believed that spiritual ruin could lay hold of and impenetrate the substance of man as God has created it, and that the divine life of the Spirit was not still more capable of this? If any one would maintain that, he must assume that human nature originally, and in its very substance, bears affinity to the evil and not to the good. There are, however, representations which incline to this view, and even pretend that they are the representations of the Church’s view, while in reality they are nothing better than the residuary workings of Manichæism. The reverse is the case: human nature in itself proceeds from the hand, yea, from the breath of God, and is therefore much more penetrable for the Spirit of God than for sin, much more fitted for consecration than for desecration. There must therefore be a hereditary blessing to oppose to the great hereditary curse, and which, from its essential preponderance, overcomes the curse, and changes it into salvation.

This hereditary blessing has assumed in Christ human form. The human life of Christ is the fruit of thousands of consecrations of human nature under the influence of the Spirit. The line of Seth was first of all separated from that of Cain, then the line of Shem from that of Ham and of Japhet; further on, Abraham was individually separated from the fellowship of his people. Then in his faith the word of God, as the living germ of true righteousness or of divine humanity, becomes a possession of mankind, and in the first place, of his seed. And now additional consecrations follow. Isaac, the well-mannered, the son of the noblest future laughter, is distinguished from the hasty laugher, the mocker, Ishmael, the wild son of the desert; Jacob, the man of deep thought and earnest longings, who wrestled with God, from the dull-minded Esau; the stem of Judah, the lion, from the weaker stems; David, the divinely inspired, from his stately but less receptive brethren. From this line proceeds finally the Virgin, the consecrated heroine of humanity. Human longing for salvation has in her attained to devotedness to God’s salvation with all the natural freshness of a virgin life, and all the ardour of the purest bridal feelings. Her son is Christ, the hereditary blessing of mankind in human form, in the personal appearance of a man. But because in His life He was the substantial heir of all the blessing of mankind, He became in His historical life, i.e., as to His connection with mankind, and in His lot, the heir of all their curse.

There is a hereditary curse which proceeds from Adam in his fall, and, through the historical connection in which men stand, embraces all mankind. The hereditary blessing of men appears as a counterpoise to it. That curse increases wherever it is sanctioned by new iniquity and fresh acts of sin; it decreases wherever the streaming forth of the blessing counteracts it. It may be increasingly lightened in the substance of individual men; this, however, will show itself by its falling, in its historical form as suffering, so much the more heavily upon these men.

There are on earth thousands of separate streams of the curse; substantial tragedies. God visits the misdeeds of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation (Exo 25:2).⁹ In the third and fourth generation the particular case of a single human line may come to its catastrophe, just because of the decided appearance of the blessing counteracting the curse. A noble grandson expiates the crimes of his grandfather, and by his historical succumbing hastens on the atonement of the long-continued curse; but only conditionally, for there can be absolute atonement only when the whole concentrated curse of the world is removed.

There are in the world’s history thousands of single streams of the blessing by which God shows mercy unto them who love Him and keep His commandments, even unto thousands (thus far beyond the third and fourth generation, until the whole stem is properly trained) (Exo 20:6). It is well worthy of observation, that the announcement of the curse, and also of the blessing, is subjoined to the second commandment. The offence which has the curse as its consequence arises with the making and honouring of images; while, on the other hand, from love to God proceeds that attachment to His name and commandments, which is followed by the blessing. Every single stream of blessing of this kind must more and more encounter the opposing and disturbing influence of the whole curse of the world exerting its efforts against it. But from its heavenly nature it cannot be again annihilated.

Thus, on the one hand, there is no individual curse which would not be breathed upon by the blessing of mankind. Hence the breathing of peace at the conclusion of the tragedy. But, on the other hand, there is no single blessing which would not, from its historical connection, be swallowed up in the curse of Adam; hence the great fightings, trials, and sufferings of the righteous. Thirdly, and lastly, there can be no single combat between corresponding powers of curse and of blessing in which the curse does not obtain an apparent advantage outwardly, while inwardly the blessing gains the real victory, and thereby changes the curse into a blessing. And the fulfilment of the blessing is made perceptible when the fulness of the blessing of Abraham and of mankind has become entirely one with the substance of a man, or rather has come to manifestation in that substance. This fact is presented to us in the person of Christ. In His nature no residuum of the curse remains.¹⁰ He was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin.¹¹ But just because He was in His substance the concentrated blessing of mankind, their concentrated curse also fell upon Him in His historical lot. We might designate the historical connection in which He stood to humanity as the umbilical cord which connected Him with the curse of the world. Through His historical relation, duty, and faithfulness, He became the One who was the substantial Heir of the world’s blessing, and the historical heir of the world’s curse. His death, therefore, was the glorification of all tragedy in the fulfilment of all priesthood. He submitted to the curse in His lot, and seemed to sink under the load. But He overcame it in His spirit; and now the world’s curse was swallowed up in the blessing of Abraham, and changed into the salvation of mankind.

World-embracing as were the spirit and the love of Christ, equally world-embracing was His personality. And world-embracing as this was, equally world-embracing were also His destination, His sufferings, and the efficacy of His sufferings—the atonement. But it was a world-embracing atonement not only as to extension, but also as to depth and intensity, and therefore it was the perfect, eternal reconciliation.

By founding His Church, Christ has made this perfected blessing the [hereditary blessing of mankind. Its sign and seal is holy baptism; the finest, tenderest, and most heartfelt expression of it is infant baptism. Infant baptism contains an acknowledgment that man has already in his stem received a consecration, and also that he is an heir of the curse; and that therefore a tragic course of life stands before him, which, through community in the death and life of Christ, shall be transformed into a priestly course of life.

───♦───

Notes

1. On the relation between the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, comp. Thiersch, Versuch, 138 et seq.

2. On the remaining quite irremoveable obscurities in the genealogy before us, comp. W. Hoffman, 153, 154.

1) 'Jacob begat Joseph,' ver. 16

2) The expression βίβλος γενέσεως seems, at all events, to refer only to the genealogy of Jesus, yet not exclusively to its historical, but also to its mystic side: hence the full name Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and hence the transition, ver. 18, τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν.

3) The statement, that Rahab was the mother of David's great-grandfather, makes a difficulty, as she 'lived at the time of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, 400 years before David, or more properly, 366 years before his birth' (W. Hoffman). De Wette remarks, 'This difficulty is connected with the limiting of the generations between Nahshon and David to four, which occurs Ruth iv. 20.'

4) It is evident from 1 Chron. iii. 16, that Jeconiah had a brother named Zedekiah, who is to be distinguished from king Zedekiah (his uncle). Comp. Ebrard, 153. But in this passage (in Matthew) reference is doubtless made to his brethren in the wider sense—his companions in exile.

5) Some have thought that the arrangement of the genealogical table was simply to aid the memory; others, that it bore reference to cabbalistic ideas. W. Hoffman supposes that the ground lies in the confusion in the genealogical tables used by Matthew. Ebrard (152) thinks that it was in accordance with the Decalogue to omit the descendants of the heathen Jezebel to the fourth generation, and that for this reason Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were left out, as was also Jehoiakim, because he and Jehoiachin formed only one member in reference to the theocracy, and the first was the less worthy of the two.

6) The same holds good in regard to the line of Zedekiah. He became king as the creature of the king of Babylon. Besides, he forms no connecting link between Jehoiachin and Salathiel, so there needs nothing be said (with Ebrard) about the omission of his name. This Zedekiah was brother of Jehoiakim, uncle of Jeconiah, according to Jer. xxxvii. 1, 2 Kings xxiv. 17, with which also 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10 agrees. But if Zedekiah is here called the brother of Jehoiachin, it is evident from the circumstance that he was much older than Jeconiah (21 years against 8), that he is here designated his brother only in the wider sense. Assir, on the other hand, the father of Salathiel (1 Chron. iii. 17), although in the real genealogical succession, was passed over because he died in the Babylonish captivity without attaining to any importance. Comp., on the other side, W. Hoffman, 152; K. Hoffman, ii. 37.

7) It appears from a quotation by Ebrard (152), that this hypothesis proposed by me had been already proposed. Ebrard defends it against Strauss s objections. At all events, a legitimate genealogy had, in this case, to pass from Joseph to Mary, and through her to Jesus, for He succeeded to the hereditary rights of Joseph, not as Joseph s son, but as Mary s son.

8) Hence the Israelites, too, had to wander 40 years (a round number for 42) in the wilderness until an entirely new and more consecrated race had grown up. Thus the 42 encampments of Israel in the wilderness are also to be taken into consideration here; yet the Evangelist did not construct his table with reference to those encampments, but because he understood the significance of the theocratic numbers.

9) Those who cannot appreciate this mild theocratic representation of a fearful historical fact, can readily find the strongest and gloomiest representations of the same fact in Greek poetry, very significant; e.g., this passage in the Antigone of Sophocles: 'Happy are they whose lot has never tasted woe! for those whose house the gods have once shaken are followed by the curse to the latest offspring.' [Lines 580-2; the words are, γενεᾶς ἐπὶ πλῆθος, which Wunder translates, 'usque ad expletam gentem.'—ED.]

10) Those who suppose a certain obscuration in the bodily nature of Christ, which they designate either as sinfulness or as (positive) mortality, or else as a certain peculiarity and weakness, do violence to the dogma of the birth of Christ from the Virgin in its very heart. They often arrive at this conclusion because they set out with the supposition that Christ did not attain to the fully ideal human condition until His glorification. But in this they forget that even the first pure man must have been destined to pass from the first stage of life into a second. One must really suppose that from the very commencement a mysterious historical pressure weighed upon the pure life of Christ.

11) The birth from the Virgin denotes not merely a physical, but, still more, an ethical fact. Mary remained from beginning to end the virgin-mother.