supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,' &c. And, as was the case in St Matthew's Gospel, we find all the incidental notices of the lineage of the holy family in accordance with this statement of Joseph's pedigree. Thus, Luke i. 26, 27, we read that the angel Gabriel was sent πpos παρθένον μεμνηστευμένην ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωσὴφ, ἐξ οἴκου Δαυΐδ· καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παρθένου Μαριάμ, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary?' And, in Luke ii. 4, ἀνέβη δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρέτ, εἰς τὴν Ιουδαίαν, εἰς πόλιν Δαυίδ, ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλεέμ, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυίδ, ἀπογράψασθαι σὺν Μαριὰμ τῇ μεμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ γυναικὶ κ.τ.λ. 'And Joseph also

went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judæa, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because He was of the house and lineage of David, to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.' And in consequence, as we learn from ver. 11, the child, who was the Saviour, Christ the Lord, was born in the city of David. And even as regards that passage in Luke

1 For an examination of this passage, see note A at the end of this volume.

2 St Chrysostom, and others after him, apply the words 'of the house of David' to Mary. But that they belong to Joseph is clear from their position, from the allusion to the same fact in ii. 4, from a comparison of the similar description of Zacharias, in 1.5 : ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας, ἐξ ἐφημερίας ̓Αβιά, and from the insertion οἱ τῆς παρθένου instead of αὐτῆς after the following τὸ ὄνομα, which shews that the intervening words had applied to some one else.

i. 32, which might seem most favourable to the idea of Jesus being called the son of David on His mother's account rather than Joseph's, 'Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name JESUS. He shall be great, and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David,' &c.; it must be remembered that she was actually espoused to 'a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David,' and that under that solemn contract she belonged, in virtue of her husband, to the house of David, in which (Luke i. 69) God was about to raise up a horn of Salvation, in remembrance of His Holy Covenant. It is only a following up of this same view that, in v. 41, St Luke calls Joseph and Mary 'the parents' of Jesus, and that Mary herself (v. 48) says to Jesus, 'Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.' And since Jesus was, as we know, commonly supposed by the Jews to be Joseph's son (Luke iii. 23, Matt. xiii. 55, John vi. 42, vii. 27, &c.), it is also natural to conclude that it was in virtue of Joseph's descent that they acknowledged Him to be the son of David' (Matt. xxi. 9, 15, xx. 30, 31). So that we seem to be fully justified in saying, that all the incidental notices of Jesus, as the son of David, fall in with that view which the

1 This appears strongly in Philip's speech to Nathanael, 'We have found Him of whom Moses......and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.' John i. 45, comp. 49.

2

? Had Mark vi. 3 stood alone, it might have seemed an

genealogies bear upon the face of them, viz. that he was, and was considered to be, the son and heir of David in virtue of the descent of Joseph his (reputed) father. And there is consequently not the slightest encouragement from Scripture to understand the genealogies otherwise than in their obvious meaning, as the genealogies of Joseph.

As, however, so many learned men, though entirely among the moderns, and chiefly among Protestant Divines, have embraced the theory of St Matthew's genealogy being that of Joseph, and St Luke's that of Mary', it may be well to observe that this opinion has been advocated mainly for two reasons. One, in order to explain the double line of ancestry deduced through Solomon and Nathan respectively. The other, in order to satisfy the feeling which is natural to us, that Mary's genealogy ought to have been given, and that if she was not of the seed of David, the promise that of the fruit of David's loins, God would raise up

exception. But its almost identity with Matt. xiii. 55, prevents us from considering that the omission of Joseph's name arose from their not looking upon Joseph as his father. Some MSS. and VV. read for ὁ τέκτων, ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, as in Matt. xiii. 55.

' Dr Mill (Vindication of our Lord's Genealogies, p. 182), tells us that not one of the fathers was ever tempted 'to transfer either of these genealogies from the reputed legal father to her;' and that Petrus Galatinus, in the 16th century, was apparently the first of the Roman communion who did so. He mentions Spanheim, Luther, Chemnitz, Gomar, as having advocated this view. Of commentators and writers whom I have had the opportunity of seeing, I may add, besides Gomar, Vossius, Yardley, Broughton, Kuinoël, Hug, &c.

Christ to sit upon His throne,' would not have been fulfilled, inasmuch as in no real sense could Jesus then be said to be of the seed of David.' If, then, any other explanation of the double line of ancestry can be given, which is equally satisfactory, and yet leaves both the genealogies for Joseph, and if Mary's descent from David can be supported with as much probability on this last hypothesis as on the other, then I apprehend few persons will be found who will not gladly return to the natural and primitive interpretation, which considers both St Matthew and St Luke to have traced the genealogy of Christ through Joseph, His reputed father. Certainly to any person of a plain understanding and a candid mind, and a moderate knowledge of Greek, it must be a great relief not to be forced by any stress of weather into such unsafe and unquiet harbours as the notion that ws évouero in Luke iii. 23, was intended to qualify the whole remainder of the chapter, instead of only the assertion that he was the Son of Joseph; or that we are to understand viós (in the nominative), before τοῦ Ἡλί, and before τοῦ Ματθὰτ, &c., &c., and to construe the words as signifying that Jesus (not Joseph) was the son of Heli, and that Jesus (not Heli) was the son of Matthat, and so on to the end. Instead, therefore, of arguing against these and similar violent wrestings of the text, it will be sufficient, I conceive, to propose such an interpretation as will render them unnecessary, when they will at once fall to the ground.

CHAPTER III.

The principle upon which these Genealogies are

WE

framed.

SECTION I.

E proceed then to consider our second question, viz. upon what principle are these genealogies framed, and whence does it happen that while in one the line is traced through Solomon, in the other it is traced through Nathan, and yet both pass through Salathiel and Zerubbabel. Now if we look at the genealogy of Jesus which is given by St Matthew, we shall see that sixteen of the middle generations are a succession of kings who reigned over the house of Jacob, and that after a further succession of twelve private individuals who were not kings, the list closes with the name of Him who was born King of the Jews,' and was declared on the cross to be 'Jesus the King of the Jews.' But as during the whole period that those twelve private persons lived, the royalty of the house of Judah was violently suppressed, it is natural to conclude that they are the persons who would have been kings on the throne of Judah, from generation to generation, had the

16

12.

рисовали throne of David continued to stand. In other probably

words, St Matthew gives us the succession of the heirs of David's and Solomon's throne. But as,