I was wondering if this set is much different from the previous release. I have the previous set and really value them but I am considering updating. I was wondering if anyone here knows how much of a change has been made between releases.
Thanks
There is a 60% new or revised content aspect to the updated version with some books authored by new commentators. I have both and find both helpful.
This thread has some useful info :
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/31690.aspx
Would someone who owns the Revised EBC mind posting a sample, please? If possible, I would like to see the treatment of Matthew Chapter 1.
Text and ExpositionI. PROLOGUE: THE ORIGIN AND BIRTH OF JESUS THE CHRIST (1:1–2:23)In each gospel, Jesus’ earthly ministry is preceded by an account of John the Baptist’s ministry. This formal similarity does not extend to the introductions to the Gospels. Mark 1:1 opens with a simple statement. Luke begins with a first-person preface in which he explains his purpose and methods, followed by a detailed and often poetic account of the miraculous births of John and Jesus (Lk 1:5–2:20) and a brief mention of Jesus’ boyhood trip to the temple (2:21–52). Luke reserves Jesus’ genealogy for ch. 3. John’s prologue (Jn 1:1–18) traces Jesus’ beginnings to eternity and presents the incarnation without referring to his conception and birth.In each gospel, the introduction anticipates major themes and emphases. In Matthew, the prologue (Mt 1:1–2:23) introduces such themes as the son of David, the fulfillment of prophecy, the supernatural origin of Jesus the Messiah, and the Father’s sovereign protection of his Son in order to bring him to Nazareth and accomplish the divine plan of salvation from sin (see Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew, 123–28).A. The Genealogy of Jesus (1:1–17)COMMENTARY1 The first two words of Matthew, biblos geneseōs, may be translated “record of the genealogy” (NIV), “record of the origins,” or “record of the history.” The NIV limits this title to the genealogy (1:1–17), the second could serve as a heading for the prologue (1:1–2:23), and the third as a heading for the entire gospel. The expression is found only twice in the LXX. In Genesis 2:4 it refers to the creation account (Ge 2:4–25), and in Genesis 5:1 to the ensuing genealogy. From the latter, it appears possible to follow the NIV (so also Hendriksen; McNeile; France [NICNT]), but because the noun genesis (NIV, “birth”) reappears in Matthew 1:18 (one of only five NT occurrences), it seems likely that the heading in 1:1 extends beyond the genealogy. No occurrence of the expression as a heading for a book-length document has come to light. Therefore we must discount the increasingly popular view (Davies, Setting; Gaechter; Hill; Maier) that Matthew means to refer to his entire gospel, “A record of the history of Jesus Christ.” Matthew rather intends his first two chapters to be a coherent and unified “record of the origins of Jesus Christ” (rightly, Blomberg [NAC]).The designation “Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” resonates with biblical nuances. (For “Jesus,” see comments at 1:21.) “Christ” is roughly the Greek equivalent to “Messiah” or “Anointed.” In the OT, the term could refer to a variety of people anointed for some special function: priests (Lev 4:3; 6:22), kings (1 Sa 16:13; 24:10; 2 Sa 19:21; La 4:20), and, metaphorically, the patriarchs (Ps 105:15) and the pagan king Cyrus (Isa 45:1). Already in Hannah’s prayer, “Messiah” parallels “king”: the Lord “will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed” (1 Sa 2:10). With the rising number of OT prophecies concerning King David’s line (e.g., 2 Sa 7:12–16; cf. Ps 2:2), “Messiah, or “Christ,” became the designation of a figure representing the people of God and bringing in the promised eschatological reign.In Jesus’ day, Palestine was rife with messianic expectation. Not all of it was coherent, and many Jews expected two different “Messiahs.” But Matthew’s linking of “Christ” and “son of David” leaves no doubt about what he is claiming for Jesus.In the Gospels, “Christ” is relatively rare (as compared with Paul’s epistles). More important, it almost always appears as a title, strictly equivalent to “the Messiah” (see esp. 16:16). But it was natural for Christians after the resurrection to use “Christ” as a name not less than as a title; increasingly they spoke of “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus” or simply “Christ.” Paul normally treats “Christ,” at least in part, as a name, but it is doubtful whether the titular force ever entirely disappears. Of Matthew’s approximately eighteen occurrences, all are exclusively titular except this one (1:1), probably 1:16, certainly 1:18, and possibly the variant at 16:21. The three uses of “Christ” in the prologue reflect the confessional stance from which Matthew writes. He is a committed Christian who has long since become familiar with the common way of using the word as both title and name. At the same time, it is a mark of Matthew’s concern for historical accuracy that Jesus is not so designated by his contemporaries.“Son of David” is an important designation in Matthew. Not only does David become a turning point in the genealogy (1:6, 17), but the title recurs throughout the gospel (9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15; 22:42, 45). God swore covenant love to David (Ps 89:28) and promised that one of his immediate descendants would establish the kingdom—even more, that David’s kingdom and throne would endure forever (2 Sa 7:12–16). Isaiah foresaw that a “son” would be given, a son with the most extravagant titles: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace: Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.Isaiah 9:6–7In Jesus’ day, at least some branches of popular Judaism understood “son of David” to be messianic (cf. Ps. Sol. 17:21; for a summary of the complex intertestamental evidence, see Berger, “Die königlichen Messiastraditionen,” esp. 3–9). The theme was important in early Christianity (cf. Lk 1:32, 69; Jn 7:42; Ac 13:23; Ro 1:3; Rev 22:16). God’s promises, though long delayed, had not been forgotten; Jesus and his ministry were perceived as God’s fulfillment of covenantal promises now centuries old. The tree of David, hacked off so that only a stump remained, was sprouting a new branch (Isa 11:1).Jesus is also “son of Abraham.” It could not be otherwise, given that he is son of David. Yet Abraham is mentioned for several important reasons. “Son of Abraham” may have been a recognized messianic title in some branches of Judaism (cf. T. Levi 8:15). The covenant with the Jewish people had first been made with Abraham (Ge 12:1–3; 17:7; 22:18), a connection Paul sees as basic to Christianity (Gal 3:16). More important, Genesis 22:18 had promised that through Abraham’s offspring “all nations” (panta ta ethnē, LXX) would be blessed; so with this allusion to Abraham, Matthew is preparing his readers for the final words of this offspring from Abraham—the commission to make disciples of “all nations” (Mt 28:19, panta ta ethnē). Jesus the Messiah came in fulfillment of the kingdom promises to David and of the Gentile-blessings promised to Abraham (see Mt 3:9; 8:11).2–17 Study has shown that genealogies in the Ancient Near East could serve widely diverse functions: economic, tribal, political, domestic (to show family or geographical relationships), and others (see Johnson, Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies; Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World [New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1977]; Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 64–66). The danger in such study is that Matthew’s intentions may be overridden by colorful backgrounds of doubtful relevance to the text itself. Johnson sees Matthew’s genealogy as a response to Jewish slander. H. V. Winkings (“The Nativity Stories and Docetism,” NTS 23 [1977]: 457–60) sees it as an answer to late first-century Docetism that denied the essential humanity of Jesus. One wonders whether a virgin birth would have been the best way to go about correcting the Docetists.D. E. Nineham (“The Genealogy in St. Matthew’s Gospel and Its Significance for the Study of the Gospels,” BJRL 58 [1976]: 491–544) finds in this genealogy the assurance that God is in sovereign control. Yet it is unclear how he reconciles this assurance with his conviction that the genealogy is of little historical worth. If Matthew made much of it up, then we may admire his faith that God was in control. But since Matthew’s basis was (according to Nineham) faulty, it gives the reader little incentive to share the same faith.Actually, Matthew’s chief aims in including the genealogy are hinted at in the first verse—namely, to show that Jesus Messiah is truly in the kingly line of David, heir to the messianic promises, the one who brings divine blessings to all nations. Therefore the genealogy focuses on King David (1:6) on the one hand, yet on the other hand includes Gentile women (see comments at v. 6). Many entries would touch the hearts and stir the memories of biblically literate readers, though the principal thrust of the genealogy ties together promise and fulfillment. F. F. Bruce (NBD, 459) writes, “Christ and the new covenant are securely linked to the age of the old covenant. Marcion, who wished to sever all the links binding Christianity to the Old Testament, knew what he was about when he cut the genealogy out of his edition of Luke.”For many, whatever its aims, the historical value of Matthew’s genealogy is nil. R. E. Brown (Birth of the Messiah, 505–12) bucks the tide when he cautiously affirms that Jesus sprang from the house of David. Many ancient genealogies are discounted as being of little historical value because they evidently intend to impart more than historical information (cf. esp. Wilson, Genealogy and History). To do this, however, is to fall into a false historical disjunction, for many genealogies intend to make more than historical points by referring to historical lines.Part of the historical evaluation of vv. 2–17 rests on the reliability of Matthew’s sources. The names in the first two-thirds of the genealogy are taken from the LXX (1 Ch 1–3, esp. 2:1–15; 3:5–24; Ru 4:12–22). After Zerubbabel, Matthew relies on extrabiblical sources of which we know nothing. But there is good evidence that records were kept at least till the end of the first century. Josephus (Life 6 [1]) refers to the “public registers” from which he extracts his genealogical information (see also Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.28–56 [6–10]). According to Genesis Rabbah 98:8, Rabbi Hillel was proved to be a descendant of David because a genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.19–20) cites Hegesippus to the effect that Emperor Domitian (AD 81–96) ordered all descendants of David slain. Nevertheless, two of them, when summoned, though admitting their Davidic descent, showed their calloused hands to prove they were but poor farmers. So they were let go. But the account shows that genealogical information was still available.While no twentieth-century Jew could prove he was from the tribe of Judah, let alone from the house of David, this does not appear to have been a problem in the first century, when lineage was important in gaining access to temple worship. Whether Matthew had access to the records himself or gleaned his information from intermediate sources, we cannot know from this distance; but in any case, we “have no good reason to doubt that this genealogy was transmitted in good faith” (Albright and Mann).More difficult is the question of the relation of Matthew’s genealogy to Luke’s, in particular the part from David on (cf. Lk 3:23–31). There are basic differences between the two: Matthew begins with Abraham and moves forward; Luke begins with Jesus and moves backward to Adam. Matthew traces the line through Jeconiah, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel; Luke through Neri, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel. More important, Luke 3:31 traces the line through David’s son Nathan (cf. 2 Sa 5:14), and Matthew through the kingly line of Solomon. It is often said that no reconciliation between the two genealogies is possible (so E. L. Abel, “The Genealogies of Jesus ho Christos” NTS 20 [1974]: 203–10). Nevertheless two theories are worth weighing:1. Some have argued that Luke gives Mary’s genealogy but substitutes Joseph’s name (Lk 3:23) to avoid mentioning a woman. And there is some evidence to support the notion that Mary herself was a descendant of David (cf. Lk 1:32). That Mary was related to Elizabeth, who was married to the Levite Zechariah (Lk 1:5–36), is no problem, since intermarriage between tribes was not uncommon. Indeed, Aaron’s wife may well have sprung from Judah (cf. Ex 6:23; Nu 2:3) (so CHS; Bengel, Gnomon; Luther). H. A. W. Meyer rearranges the punctuation in Luke 3:23 to read “being the son (of Joseph as was supposed) of Heli [i.e., Mary’s father], of Matthat.” But this is painfully artificial and could not easily be deduced by a reader with a text without punctuation marks or brackets, which is how the NT Greek manuscripts were first written. Few would guess simply by reading Luke that he is giving Mary’s genealogy. The theory stems, not from the text of Luke, but from the need to harmonize the two genealogies. On the face of it, both Matthew and Luke aim to give Joseph’s genealogy.2. Others have argued, more plausibly, that Luke provides Joseph’s real genealogy and Matthew the throne succession—a succession that finally jumps to Joseph’s line by default. In his commentary, David Hill offers independent Jewish evidence for a possible double line (Tg. Zec. 12:12). This hypothesis has various forms. The oldest goes back to Julius Africanus (ca. AD 225; cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1. 7), who argued that Matthew provides the natural genealogy and Luke the royal—the reverse of the modern theory (so Hill). In its modern form, the theory seems reasonable enough: where the purpose is to provide Joseph’s actual descent back to David, this could best be done by tracing the family tradition through his real father Heli, to his father Matthat, and thus back to Nathan and David (so Luke); and where the purpose is to provide the throne succession, it is natural to begin with David and work down.As most frequently presented, this theory has a serious problem (cf. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 503–4). It is normally argued that Joseph’s father in Matthew 1:16, Jacob, was a full brother of Joseph’s father mentioned in Luke 3:23, Heli; that Jacob, the royal heir, died without offspring; and that Heli married Jacob’s widow according to the laws of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5–10). (Though levirate marriages may not have been common in the first century, it is unlikely that they were completely unknown. Otherwise the question of the Sadducees [Mt 22:24–28] was phrased in irrelevant terms.) But if Jacob and Heli are to be reckoned as full brothers, then Matthan (Matthew) and Matthat (Luke) must be the same man—even though their fathers, Eleazar (Matthew) and Levi (Luke) respectively, are different. It seems artificial to appeal to a second levirate marriage. Some have therefore argued that Jacob and Heli were only half brothers, which entails a further coincidence, namely, that their mother married two men, Matthan and Matthat, with remarkably similar names. We do not know whether levirate marriage was practiced in the case of half brothers. Moreover, since the whole purpose of levirate marriage was to raise up a child in the deceased father’s name, why does Luke provide the name of the actual father?R. E. Brown judges the problems insurmountable but fails to consider the elegant solution suggested by J. Gresham Machen (Virgin Birth, 207–9) fifty years ago. If we assume that Matthat and Matthan are not the same person, there is no need to appeal to levirate marriage. The difficulty regarding the father of Matthat and the father of Matthan disappears; yet their respective sons Heli and Jacob may have been so closely related (e.g., if Heli was an heirless only son whose sister married Jacob son of Matthan) that if Heli died, Jacob’s son Joseph became his heir. Alternatively, if Matthan and Matthat are the same person (presupposing a levirate marriage one generation earlier), we “need only to suppose that Jacob [Joseph’s father according to Matthew] died without issue, so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli [Joseph’s father according to Luke], would become his heir” (p. 208).Other differences between Matthew and Luke are more amenable to obvious solutions. As for the omissions from Matthew’s genealogy and the structure of the three series of fourteen, see comments at v. 17.2 Of the twelve sons of Jacob, Judah is singled out, as his tribe bears the scepter (Ge 49:10; cf. Heb 7:14). The words “and his brothers” are not “an addition which indicates that of the several possible ancestors of the royal line Judah alone was chosen” (Hill), since that restriction was already achieved by stipulating Judah; and in no other entry (except v. 11; see comments there) are the words “and his brothers” added. The point is that, though he comes from the royal line of Judah and David, Messiah emerges within the matrix of the covenant people (cf. the reference to Judah’s brothers). Neither the half siblings of Isaac nor the descendants of Jacob’s brother, Esau, qualify as the covenant people in the OT. This allusive mention of the twelve tribes as the locus of the people of God becomes important later (cf. 8:11 with 19:28). Even the fact that there were twelve apostles is relevant.3–5 Probably Perez and Zerah (v. 3) are both mentioned because they are twins (Ge 38:27; cf. 1 Ch 2:4); Judah’s other sons receive no mention. Ruth 4:12, 18–22 trace the messianic line from Perez to David. There is some evidence that “son of Perez” was a rabbinic designation of Messiah (Str-B, 1:18), but the dating of the sources is uncertain.Tamar, wife of Judah’s son Er, is the first of four women mentioned in the genealogy (see comments at 1:6). Little is known of Hezron (Ge 46:12; 1 Ch 2:5), Ram (1 Ch 2:9), Amminadab (Mt 1:4; Ex 6:23; Nu 1:7; 1 Ch 2:10), Nahshon (Nu 2:3; 7:12; “the leader of the people of Judah,” 1 Ch 2:10), and Salmon (Mt 1:5; Ru 4:20–21; 1 Ch 2:11). Amminadab is associated with the desert wanderings in the time of Moses (Nu 1:7). Therefore, approximately four hundred years (Ge 15:13; Ex 12:40) are covered by the four generations from Perez to Amminadab. Doubtless several names have been omitted—the Greek verb translated “was the father of” (gennaō, GK 1164) does not require immediate relationship but often means something like “was the ancestor of” or “became the progenitor of.”Similarly, the line between Amminadab and David is short. More names may have been omitted. Whether such names properly fit before Boaz, so that Rahab was not the immediate mother of Boaz (just as Eve was not immediately “the mother of all the living,” Ge 3:20), or after Boaz, or both, one cannot be sure. It is almost certain, however, that the Rahab mentioned is the prostitute of Joshua 2 and 6 (see comments at 1:6). Boaz (1 Ch 2:11–12), who figures so prominently in the book of Ruth, married the Moabitess (see comments at 1:6) and sired Obed, who became the father of Jesse (Ru 4:22; 1 Ch 2:12).6 The word “King” with “David” would evoke profound nostalgia and arouse eschatological hope in first-century Jews. Matthew thus makes the royal theme explicit: King Messiah has appeared. David’s royal authority, lost at the exile, has now been regained and surpassed by “great David’s greater son” (so James Montgomery’s hymn “Hail to the Lord’s Anointed”; cf. Hill; see 2 Sa 7:12–16; Pss 89:19–29, 35–37; 132:11). David became the father of Solomon; but Solomon’s mother “had been Uriah’s wife” (cf. 2 Sa 11:27; 12:4). Bathsheba thus becomes the fourth woman to be mentioned in this genealogy.Inclusion of these four women in the Messiah’s genealogy instead of an all-male listing (which was customary)—or at least the names of such great matriarchs as Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah—shows that Matthew is conveying more than merely genealogical data. Tamar enticed her father-in-law into an incestuous relationship (Ge 38). The prostitute Rahab saved the spies and joined the Israelites (Jos 2; 6). Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 encourage us to think she abandoned her former way of life. She is certainly prominent in Jewish tradition, some of it fantastic (see A. T. Hanson, “Rahab the Harlot in Early Christian Tradition,” JSNT 1 [1978]: 53–60). Ruth, Tamar, and Rahab were aliens. Bathsheba was taken into an adulterous union with David, who committed murder to cover it up. Matthew’s peculiar way of referring to her, “Uriah’s wife,” may be an attempt to focus on the fact that Uriah was not an Israelite but a Hittite (2 Sa 11:3; 23:39). Bathsheba herself was apparently the daughter of an Israelite (1 Ch 3:5 [variant reading]), but her marriage to Uriah probably led to her being regarded as a Hittite.Several reasons have been suggested to explain the inclusion of these women. Some have pointed out that three were Gentiles and the fourth probably regarded as such (Lohmeyer; Maier; Schweizer). This goes well with the reference to Abraham (see comments at v. 1); the Jewish Messiah extends his blessings beyond Israel, even as Gentiles are included in his line. Others have noted that three of the four were involved in gross sexual sin; but it is highly doubtful that this charge can be legitimately applied to Ruth. As a Moabitess, however, she had her origins in incest (Ge 19:30–37); and Deuteronomy 23:3 banned the offspring of Moabites from the assembly of the Lord to the tenth generation. R. E. Brown (Birth of the Messiah, 71–72) discounts this interpretation of the role of the four women because in first-century Jewish piety they were largely whitewashed and revered. Yet it is not at all certain that Matthew follows his contemporaries in all this. It is important that in this same chapter Matthew introduces Jesus as the one who “will save his people from their sins” (v. 21), and this verse may imply a backward glance at some of the better-known sins of his own progenitors.A third interpretation (favored by Allen; Fenton; Filson; Green; Hill; Lohmeyer; Brown, Birth of the Messiah) holds that all four reveal something of the strange and unexpected workings of providence in preparation for the Messiah and that as such they point to Mary’s unexpected but providential conception of Jesus.There is no reason to rule out any of the above interpretations. Matthew, Jew that he is, knows how to write with an allusive touch; and readers steeped in the OT would naturally call to mind a plethora of images associated with many names in this selective genealogy.7–10 The names in these verses seem to have been taken from 1 Chronicles 3:10–14. Behind “Asa” (v. 7) lurks a difficult textual decision (see Notes). There is no obvious pattern. Wicked Rehoboam was the father of wicked Abijah, the father of the good king Asa. Asa was the father of the good king Jehoshaphat (v. 8), who sired the wicked king Joram. Good or evil, they were part of Messiah’s line; for though grace does not run in the blood, God’s providence cannot be deceived or outmaneuvered.Three names have been omitted between Joram and Uzziah: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (2 Ki 8:24; 1 Ch 3:11; 2 Ch 22:1, 11; 24:27). “Uzziah” (vv. 8–9) is equivalent to Azariah (1 Ch 3:11; cf. 2 Ki 15:13, 30 with 2 Ki 15:1). The three omissions not only secure fourteen generations in this part of the genealogy (see comments at v. 17) but are dropped because of their connection with Ahab and Jezebel, renowned for wickedness (2 Ki 8:27), and because of their connection with wicked Athaliah (2 Ki 8:26), the usurper (2 Ki 11:1–20). Two of the three were notoriously evil; all three died violently.R. E. Brown (Birth of the Messiah, 82) points out that Manasseh was even more wicked, and he is included. Therefore (with Schweizer), Brown prefers an explanation of the omissions based on a text-critical confusion between “Azariah” and “Uzziah.” This conjecture is plausible; but if it is correct, it would have to be pre-Matthean, because Matthew’s “fourteens” (see comments at 1:17) would require this omission or an equivalent. But there is no textual evidence to support the conjecture. Also, Manasseh (v. 10), though notoriously evil, repented (2 Ch 33:12–13), unlike the other three.11 Another name has been dropped. Josiah was the father of Jehoiakim (609–597 BC), who was deposed in favor of his son Jehoiachin (some manuscripts in both OT and NT have “Jeconiah” for the latter). He was deposed after a reign of only three months, and his brother Zedekiah reigned in his stead till the final deportation and destruction of the city in 587 BC (cf. 2 Ki 23:34; 24:6, 14–15; 1 Ch 3:16; Jer 27:20; 28:1). The words “and his brothers” are probably added in this instance because one of them, Zedekiah, maintained a caretaker reign until the tragedy of 587 BC; but Zedekiah is not mentioned because the royal line does not flow through him but through Jeconiah. The exile to Babylon marked the end of the reign of David’s line—a momentous event in OT history. Alternatively, “and his brothers” may refer, not to the royal brothers, but to all the Jews who went into captivity with Jeconiah (so Gundry). The locus of the people of God is thus traced from the patriarchs (“and his brothers,” Mt 1:2) to the shame of the exile, a theme to be developed later (see comments at 2:16–18).12 The final list of “fourteen” (see comments at 1:17) begins with a further mention of the exile. First Chronicles 3:17 records that Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) was the father of Shealtiel. Matthew goes on to present Shealtiel as the father of Zerubbabel, in accord with Ezra 3:2; 5:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai 1:1; 2:2, 23. The difficulty lies in 1 Chronicles 3:19, which presents Zerubbabel as the son of Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel.Several solutions have been offered, most not very convincing (cf. Machen, Virgin Birth, 206–7). Some Greek manuscripts omit Pedaiah in 1 Chronicles 3:19. But the best suggestion is a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5–10; cf. Ge 38:8–9), scarcely an embarrassment to those who have adopted the explanation above (see comments at 1:2–17) and find no other levirate marriage in the genealogy. If Shealtiel were the older brother and died childless, Pedaiah might well have married the widow to “build up his brother’s family line” (Dt 25:9). In any case, Zerubbabel himself becomes a messianic model (cf. Hag 2:20–23).13–15 The nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not otherwise known to us today. Possibly names have been omitted from this genealogical section also, but then one wonders why this third section of the genealogy appears to lack one entry (see comments at v. 17). Robert Gundry’s explanations of these names are tortured: certain names from Luke’s list “catch the evangelist’s [Matthew’s] eye,” as do names from the priestly (nonroyal) list in 1 Chronicles 6:3–14—names that then need abbreviating or changing to mask their priestly connection.16 The wording in the best reading (see Notes), reflected in the NIV, is precise. Joseph’s royal line has been traced; Joseph is the husband of Mary; Mary is the mother of Jesus. The relation between Joseph and Jesus is so far unstated. But this peculiar form of expression cries out for the explanation provided in the ensuing verses. Legally, Jesus stands in line to the throne of David; physically, he is born of a woman “found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” (v. 18). Her son is Jesus, “who is called Christ.” The Greek does not make it clear whether “Christ” is titular or not; but name or title, Jesus’ messiahship is affirmed.17 It was customary among Jewish writers to arrange genealogies according to some convenient scheme, possibly for mnemonic reasons. Strictly speaking, the Greek text speaks of “all the generations from Abraham to David … to Christ” (cf. KJV, NASB); but since the omissions are obvious to both Matthew and his readers, the expression must mean “all the generations … included in this table.” So it becomes a hint that the fourteens, here so strongly brought to the reader’s attention, are symbolic.Various arrangements of the three fourteens have been proposed. In one the first set of fourteen runs from Abraham to David, the second from Solomon to Jeconiah, and the third attains fourteen by repeating Jeconiah and running to Jesus. Hendriksen, 125–26, suggests Matthew purposely counts Jeconiah twice: first he presents Jeconiah as cursed, childless, deported (2 Ki 24:8–12; Jer 22:30), and the second time he reminds the reader that Jeconiah was subsequently released from prison and restored and became the father of many (2 Ki 25:27–30; 1 Ch 3:17–18; Jer 52:31–34)—a new man as it were. But Matthew does not mention these themes, which do not clearly fit into the main concerns of this chapter. Schweizer prefers to count from Abraham to David. Then, because David is mentioned twice, he passes from David to Josiah, the last free king; and then Jeconiah to Jesus provides a third set of fourteen, at the expense of making the central set one member short and of ignoring the small but distinct literary pause at the end of v. 11. McNeile postulates a possible loss of one name between Jeconiah and Shealtiel owing to homoeoteleuton (identical endings), but there is no textual evidence for it. Gundry thinks that Mary as well as Joseph counts for one, pointing to the two kinds of generation, legal (Joseph’s) and physical (Mary’s). No solution so far proposed seems entirely convincing, and it is difficult to rule any out.The symbolic value of the fourteens is of more significance than their precise breakdown. Herman C. Waetjen (“The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel according to Matthew,” JBL 95 [1976]: 205–30; cf. Johnson, Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, 193–94) tries to solve both problems by appealing to 2 Baruch 53–74 (usually dated ca. AD 50–70). This apocalyptic book divides history into a scheme of 12 + 2 = 14 units. Matthew, Waetjen argues, holds that just as David and Jeconiah are transitional figures in the genealogy, so also is Jesus. He is the end of the third period and simultaneously the beginning of the fourth, the inaugurated kingdom. Jesus is therefore the thirteenth and the fourteenth entries, the former a period of gloom in 2 Baruch (corresponding to the passion in Matthew) and the fourteenth opening into the new age.But this analysis will not do. Two objections are crucial: (1) It is not at all clear that one may legitimately jump from schematized time periods in apocalyptic literature to names in a genealogy (Is anything less apocalyptic than a genealogy?) just because of a common number. (2) Waetjen has “corrected” the omission in the third set of fourteen by listing Jesus twice, even though the second reference to Jesus, in his scheme, properly belongs to the inaugurated kingdom and not to the third set, which remains deficient.Schemes like those of Hendriksen that reduce the 3 × 14 pattern to 6 × 7 and then picture Jesus’ coming to inaugurate the seventh seven—the sign of perfection, the dawning of the Messianic Age (cf. 1 En. 91:12–17; 93:1–10)—stumble over the fact that Matthew has not presented his genealogy as six sevens but as three fourteens (cf. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 75). Other suggestions include those of Johnson (Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, 189–208) and Goulder (Midrash and Lection, 228–33).The simplest explanation—the one that best fits the context—observes that the numerical value of “David” in Hebrew is fourteen (see Notes). By this symbolism, Matthew points out that the promised “son of David” (1:1), the Messiah, has come. And if the third set of fourteen is short one member, perhaps it will suggest to some readers that just as God cuts short the time of distress for the sake of his elect (24:22), so also he mercifully shortens the period from the exile to Jesus the Messiah.NOTES1 For a broader grasp of the place of the Messiah in the OT, cf. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 136ff.; Illustrated Bible Dictionary [ed. Douglas], 2:987–95.3 Older EV (e.g., KJV) have the names Tamar and Hezron in the OT and Thamar and Esrom in the NT. Because English OT names are roughly transliterated from the Hebrew and English NT names are roughly transliterated from the Greek, which for many names transliterates from the Hebrew, we have these variations. The NIV rightly smoothes them out.7–8 In these verses, the best textual evidence supports Ἀσάφ (Asaph), not Ἀσά (Asa). It is transcriptionally more probable that Asaph would be changed to Asa than vice versa (for the opposite view, see Lagrange). Robert Gundry suggests that Asaph is a deliberate change by Matthew to call up images of the psalmist (Pss 50, 73–83), as “Amos” (see Notes, v. 10) calls to mind the prophet. This is too cryptic to be believable. Orthography was not as consistent in the ancient world as it is today. Josephus (Ant. 8.290–315 [12.1–6]), for instance, uses ʼΆσανος (Asanos), but in the ancient Latin translation, Asaph is presupposed. “Mary” varies in the NT between Μαρία (Maria) and Μαριάμ (Mariam). In 1 Chronicles 3:10 (LXX), most MSS read Ἀσά (Asa), but one offers Ἀσάβ (Asab; see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 1 n. 1). In short, Matthew could well be following a MS with Asaph even though Asa is quite clearly the person meant.10 The textual evidence for ʼΑμώς (Amōs) and ʼΑμών (Amōn) breaks down much as in vv. 7–8. In this case, however, there is greater diversity in the readings of LXX MSS for 1 Chronicles 3:14, on which Matthew 1:10 depends.11 The term μετοικεσία (metoikesia, “exile,” GK 3578) occurs but four times in the NT, all in this chapter (vv. 11–12, 17); but it refers (in LXX) to the Babylonian exile in 2 Kings 24:16; 1 Chronicles 5:22; Ezekiel 12:11. Βαβυλῶνος (Babylōnos, “Babylon”) is a genitive “of direction and purpose” (cf. BDF, para. 166).Eduard Schweizer’s suggestion that Jehoiakim and his son Jehoiachin have been fused into a single figure because in 2 Kings 24:6 (LXX) they are both called “Jehoiakim” explains little, since Matthew betrays a deep knowledge of the OT not likely to be confused by one versional mistransliteration; and in any case, Matthew’s term is “Jeconiah.”16 The best textual variant, supported by a spread of text types in Greek and versional witnesses and by all but one uncial, stands behind the NIV. Several Caesarean and OT witnesses prefer “Joseph, to whom was betrothed the virgin Mary who begot Jesus who is called Christ.” This is transcriptionally less likely than the first alternative, in which “the husband” of Mary might well have been thought misleading. No Greek MS supports syrs in its reading: “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called the Christ.” At first glance it seems to deny the virgin birth by ascribing paternity to Joseph; but the “begot” may have merely legal significance, since Mary is still referred to as “the virgin.” In any case, this last reading is not well attested. Peter J. Williams (Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels [Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2004], 240–44) shows convincingly that this Syriac version may itself be dependent on a misreading of an early Greek recension. The enormously complex problems of textual criticism in this verse are competently treated by Metzger, New Testament Studies, 105–13; Machen, Virgin Birth, 176–87; Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 62–64, 139; and A. Globe, “Some Doctrinal Variants in Matthew 1 and Luke 2, and the Authority of the Neutral Text,” CBQ 42 (1980): 55–72, esp. 63–65.17 In the ancient world, letters served not only as the building blocks of words but also as symbols of numbers. Hence any word had a numerical value. The use of such symbolism is known as gematria. In Hebrew, “David” is דָּוִד: (dāwid); and d = 4, w = 6 (the vowels, a later addition to the text, don’t count). Therefore “David” = dwd = 4 + 6 + 4 = 14. (This would not work in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where, with one exception [CD 7:16], the consonantal spelling of “David” is dwyd = דָּוִיד.)Carson, D. A. (2010). Matthew. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew–Mark (Revised Edition) (Vol. 9, pp. 85–95). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Thank you, Travis.
I am not checking it out tonight but Mathew and the Psalms were some of the strongest works of the EBC and I do not believe there is significant differences in the EBCR. I remember checking out several psalms and finding no more than the odd word changed and I think only one case would f that. Matthew may have got a bit of a polish but I think it remained largely the same.
-dan
I am not checking it out tonight but Mathew and the Psalms were some of the strongest works of the EBC and I do not believe there is significant differences in the EBCR. I remember checking out several psalms and finding no more than the odd word changed and I think only one case would f that. Matthew may have got a bit of a polish but I think it remained largely the same. -dan
Agreed. To be frank with you i would not call the Mathew and the Psalms volume revisions, they are basically the same material.
Thanks very much for all of the comments on this. It has given me food for though for sure :-)
I went ahead and got the Revised Edition! I started looking at it from the perspective of new authors and what new commentaries they wrote in this series. I think that put me at ease when it came to making a decision about buying it or not. So far, even though he could've done so much more, I absolutely love what I see written by Andreas Kostenberger. I hope he gets to write his own Pastoral Epistles for another series or just his own commentary on them.
I'm sure this set won't go that cheap again, unless it's included in next year's March Madness! Even the sale prices Zondervan has been having with the competition does not match this low price.
Here's to a new set added to my library! I hope those who bought benefit from it and those who are still thinking about buying it, remember, you only have a few hours left! There's always the 30 day return policy!
DAL
So far, even though he could've done so much more, I absolutely love what I see written by Andreas Kostenberger. I hope he gets to write his own Pastoral Epistles for another series or just his own commentary on them. I'm sure this set won't go that cheap again, unless it's included in next year's March Madness! Even the sale prices Zondervan has been having with the competition does not match this low price.
So far, even though he could've done so much more, I absolutely love what I see written by Andreas Kostenberger. I hope he gets to write his own Pastoral Epistles for another series or just his own commentary on them.
Darn you DAL! You talked me into pulling the trigger on this set. [8-|]
So far, even though he could've done so much more, I absolutely love what I see written by Andreas Kostenberger. I hope he gets to write his own Pastoral Epistles for another series or just his own commentary on them. I'm sure this set won't go that cheap again, unless it's included in next year's March Madness! Even the sale prices Zondervan has been having with the competition does not match this low price. Darn you DAL! You talked me into pulling the trigger on this set.
Darn you DAL! You talked me into pulling the trigger on this set.
Maybe Logos can give me a little commission for getting them a sale 👍😁👌
Maybe Logos can give me a little commission for getting them a sale 👍😁👌 DAL
Maybe they'll give you a role in the Great Commission [:D]
Maybe Logos can give me a little commission for getting them a sale 👍😁👌 DAL Maybe they'll give you a role in the Great Commission
Maybe they'll give you a role in the Great Commission
Jesus already did that 😉
I bought the REBC tonight. I have it in print, and have been wanting it in digital format for a while now, but the price was always too high. Thank God, it was the runner up in the March Madness sale - I was voting for it all the way. The $193.45 was just too good a price to pass up.[:D]
I too just broke down and picked up REBC and AYB under the wire. Considering that I've never seen either for less, they both finally made sense. Now I'm fighting off the urge to peruse; must be responsible!
