Matthew 1:6Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

David, filled with joy on the roof of his palace, beheld Bathsheba, striking in beauty, as she bathed, and desired her, despite her being wed to another, a Hittite. In a parallel manner, Christ, in His exaltation and delight in His divinity, observed the Gentile Church—radiant in spirit yet marred by the stains of error and lacking in righteous deeds, for she was still wed to the devil. He beheld her, desired her, and chose her, even before her liberation. David gave rise to Solomon, whose name signifies “peaceful.” He was known as peaceful because his reign brought tranquility to all neighboring nations: those with whom he was at peace and those who paid him tribute. Through collaboration with various nations, he constructed a temple for God. He prefigured our peace-bringing Christ, who offers a tranquil kingdom to all nations that approach Him in faith, bestowing upon Him spiritual tribute through good works, resulting in the establishment of a living Temple for the living God composed of living stones, including not only Jews but individuals from every Gentile nation.

The Evangelist cites Rahab and Ruth to illustrate that in God’s eyes, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, nor male nor female” (Galatians 3:28); all who approach Him are united. Similar to how Rahab was saved by receiving the spies, Ruth gained honor as an ancestor of Christ by turning from her father's idols to faith in God. Likewise, the Gentile Church, having accepted the Apostles and renounced idolatry, became heirs of salvation. Mentioning Bathsheba serves to highlight the profound impact of repentance, illustrating that sincere contrition eradicates sin, making the repentant sinner appear righteous rather than guilty.

Here, the magnificence of Jesus Christ is not manifested through the nobility of His earthly lineage, but rather through the humble and sinful backgrounds of His ancestors. Tamar and Rahab were known for their immoral actions, Ruth was a foreigner, and Bathsheba was an adulteress; nonetheless, they are honored to be listed among the forebears of the world's Redeemer. How can we not marvel at His profound humility? Indeed, in the eyes of God, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female, for He graciously welcomes all who come to Him with repentant hearts. He truly arrived to call sinners to repentance, to eradicate our transgressions, coming as a Healer rather than as a Judge. Who among us has the right to brag about a lineage of noble and illustrious ancestry? As St. John Chrysostom asserts, it is entirely impossible for one's virtues or vices of ancestors to determine one's integrity or notoriety. Further, one is truly esteemed who, having been born of unkind parents, grows to be a righteous individual. Indeed, humanity has nothing to boast about.

For He did not come merely to shield us from disgrace but rather to eradicate it completely.

Christ is remarkable not only for taking on human form but also for associating with those who led immoral lives, showing no shame for our transgressions. He illustrates that all, including our ancestors, bear the weight of sin. Hence, the patriarch, the very name of the Jewish people, is shown to be a significant sinner, as declared by Tamar. Additionally, David begot Solomon by an adulterous partner. If these revered figures fell short of the law, certainly those who follow cannot claim otherwise. If even they transgressed, it affirms that all have sinned, underscoring the necessity of Christ's coming.

Consider that it is not only for minor and inconsequential reasons that the evangelist recounts the entirety of Judah’s story. He includes Ruth and Rahab for the same purpose—one being a Gentile and the other a prostitute—to illustrate that the Savior’s mission is to eradicate all of our sins; He comes as a healer, not a condemner. Thus, the Evangelist constructs a genealogy that incorporates these women, intending to humble the Jewish people through such examples and to instruct them not to think too highly of themselves."

From Salathiel, Zerubbabel emerged, and from him came two sons, Abiud and Rishai, leading to the figure of Matthan or Matthat, cited by Matthew as the son of Eleazar and by Luke as the son of Levi. Joseph, whom the Gospel of Luke designates as the adopted father of Jesus, appears as James’s son in Matthew’s account and as Elias’s son in Luke’s.

The notion that Matthew presents Joseph’s genealogy while Luke provides Mary’s has certain reconciliation merits, but is unlikely since St. Luke clearly states he is providing the genealogy of Joseph. Additionally, St. John Chrysostom points out that the Jewish tradition did not commonly record genealogy through female lines; hence, the Evangelists did not mention the lineage of the Holy Virgin. According to Jewish law, which prohibited taking wives from outside one's tribe or clan (Num. 36:7), Joseph could only be betrothed to the Blessed Virgin if She belonged to the same lineage as him. Therefore, in articulating Joseph’s ancestry—and demonstrating his descent from the House of David—the Evangelists implicitly affirm that the Virgin also hailed from the same lineage.

The differences found in the genealogies of Jesus, as presented by Matthew and Luke, are explained by the concept of kinship law among the Jews (Deut. 25:5; Ruth 4:4-5; Matthew 22:24). Under this law, a man who died childless required his brother or nearest relative to marry his widow; any children from this marriage were regarded as the deceased man's offspring, establishing dual paternity—one biological and the other legal. The Evangelist Matthew refers to Salathiel as the son (in the legal sense) of Jechoniah, who was exiled to Babylon and died without children (Jeremiah 22:30), while Luke names his biological father as Neriah, who could marry Jechoniah's widow. Matthan or Matthat, viewed as a single figure, also has a dual lineage: from Eleazar in Matthew’s account and from Levi in Luke’s. This dual heritage reflects both the natural birth and the legal adoption based on kinship law.

Matthan or Matthat had two sons, Jacob and Eli. Regarding Elias, who belongs to the line of Nathan, as noted by St. John Damascene, he died without heirs. His brother Jacob, related to the line of Solomon, married Elias’s widow and raised offspring for his brother, leading to Joseph’s lineage. Consequently, Joseph is naturally Jacob’s son of the tribe of Solomon while legally being considered Elias's son of the tribe of Nathan.