V. 1. ff. This is the book of the birth of Jesus Christ, who is the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac 2c.
I have been asked to add a few words to the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, so that the book, which is now already printed, would not immediately come out so mutilated at first sight. And since the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters, as it is believed, have been treated by me extensively enough (and, according to my judgment, more extensively than I was willing to), only these first four chapters would require a little arrangement. But neither my time nor my will allows me to grant this even to the brothers; however, in order to do something, I have only wanted to add this one thing to the beginning of the first chapter.
2. to the first. The genealogical registers themselves have been prepared by others with sufficient care, and in addition to Philo and the ancients, one has Philipp Melanchthon and Johann Brenz in their tables. From these one can take if one has to teach the people something about this matter. For a completely accurate account of all genealogies St. Paul even forbade, let alone would have wanted to teach, since he calls them questions "which have no end" [1 Tim. 1, 4.] and "useless" [Tit. 3, 9.].
It was enough for the evangelists to show in a rough and comprehensible way that Christ came from Abraham and David. For they look more to the promises of God than to an extremely precise calculation of the individual members. But Christ was promised, not to Nahor or Haran, the brothers of Abraham, but to Abraham alone. Furthermore, he was not promised to the priestly tribe or to any other, but only to David and the royal tribe, so that the Holy Spirit might teach that the Levitical priesthood
would not last beyond Christ, who was to be a priest from another tribe, namely David, as the epistle to the Hebrews gloriously explains.
4 Therefore it is enough to know from this genealogy that Christ came from the tribe of David, the son of Abraham. If this is established, then the endless argument about the descent of the sexes and all lineages is in vain. For if this is taken as a basis, that Christ, the King and Priest, comes from the tribe of Judah, then the Levitical priesthood is fundamentally overthrown, and everything that the Jews boast about their Levitical priesthood is false, as if it were eternal, because Christ, the King and Priest, even if he should still come (as they falsely assume), would nevertheless abolish their Levitical priesthood 1) and take its place, because it is written [Ps. 110, 4.]: "You are a priest forever."
Therefore Matthew wanted to teach the Jews immediately in the beginning that their worship and priesthood and kingdom had ceased, by introducing immediately that this man, Jesus of Nazareth (who had come without doubt, since they not only knew it, but also crucified him), was the Christian, namely the son of David, the son of Abraham. Certainly the Jews could not deny that Jesus was this man from the tribe of David, the son of Abraham. Because Matthew presupposes this, also from their own genealogical registers, quite certainly. But he insists that this Jesus is the Christ they expected as the promised one.
6) Therefore, even though the evangelists did not make gender registers, they would have been
1) Instead of toleret in the Wittenberg is to be read with the Jena tolleret.
But that was certain with the Jews that Jesus was from the tribe of David, the son of Abraham. But they wanted to observe the custom of the people as well as possible, so that it would not seem as if they disregarded the genealogical registers or considered them completely wrong and thus despised the reputation of the books of the holy scriptures, the Kings and Mosis, in which, as one can see, such genealogical registers are described with diligence.
Therefore he only mentions these two fathers, Abraham and David, since only to these two the promise of Christ happened to this people [Gen. 22:18, 2 Sam. 7:12]. For the fact that the same Christ is promised to Adam through the seed of a woman, this promise is outside of this people and the seed of Abraham, and therefore would not have moved this people. Therefore Matthew insists on the promises of Abraham and David, because he directs his attention only to this people, so that he would like to bring them as heirs of the promise [Gal. 3, 29.] in a sweet way to accept the Christ promised to them [Rom. 9, 4.] and to believe that this was the Jesus, whom they had crucified.
But Lucas, who goes further and wants to make Christ common to all nations, as it were, leads his lineage up to Adam, to whom the first promise of Christ was made to all nations, not only to the seed of Abraham. As Matthew wants to prove that Christ came for the Jews according to the promise made to Abraham and David, so Lucas wants to show that the same Christ does not belong to the Jews alone (as they, blinded by hatred and envy, think), but also to Adam himself and his seed, that is, to all peoples in the whole world, which all the prophets proclaim afterwards, and also the promise itself, made to Abraham, explains sufficiently, as it says [Gen. 22, 18.], "By thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." What is excluded here? All nations are included. This alone is excluded, that not Abraham shall be blessed through the seed of all nations, but, on the contrary, all nations through the seed of Abraham. "Is not God also of the Gentiles
GOd? Or is he alone the GOt of the Jews?" Rom. 3, 29.
(9) What need is there of many words? Matthew himself shows sufficiently that he did not want to enumerate the generations with Jewish strictness and thus cause doubts. For almost in Jewish manner (quasi Judaeus) he makes three times fourteen [members] of fathers, kings and princes, but with premeditation and knowingly omits three members in the second division, as if he wanted to say: The genealogical registers are not to be despised, but therein lies the main thing, that Christ is promised through the families of Abraham and David. On the other hand, Lucas deliberately uses other names for the kings and princes, 1) as if he wanted to indicate that Christ does not belong to this people and single family (nominis proprii), but to the whole human family. But this is hiebon enough, since it edifies little and always gives rise to new disputes.
10 Secondly. In this genealogical register, it should be noted that St. Jerome indicates that it is full of teaching and instruction, namely, that Christ wanted to be born through sinners, because he had come to make sinners blessed. For he himself makes this German proverb come true in his genealogy: He that hath not whoredoms and knaves in his generation 2c., for there are introduced into the same the patriarch Judah, a fornicator, and his sons begotten in fornication, Perez and Zerah; likewise the adulteress Bathsheba and the exceedingly wicked king Joram, yet in such a manner that it may be known that they thereafter repented and did not persist in their sins. For though Solomon sprang from Bathsheba, who was once an adulteress, yet when she bore Solomon she was not an adulteress. For the son who was conceived in adultery had died, and she was now married to the king. Therefore, those who call Solomon Manser, that is, a bastard, write in an ungodly and inconsistent way. For
He was not begotten while Uriah was still alive, but after the king had married her. However, so that God would still show that he hated adultery, he did not have the line of his family led by Solomon, but by his brother Nathan.
(11) It is a comfort that Christ is not ashamed to have sinners among his fathers and forefathers, and yet has no pleasure in persistent sinners. It does not condemn that one has sinned, but if one does not repent, that condemns.