Matthew Poole and continuators on Matthew 1:16

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the Husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.

How Luke cometh to make Ioseph the Son of Heli, we shall inquire (if God please) when we come to his third Chapter: But from this Verse ariseth a very Grave Question, viz. How, or wherefore, the Evangelist in deriving the Pedegree of Christ, bringeth the line down to Joseph, from whom our Saviour did not descend, being no flesh of his Flesh. Christ being the promised Messias, the Propechy, Isa. 7.14. must be, and was fulfilled in him. A Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and thou shalt call his name Emanuel. Now if Ioseph were not the true, but only the Legal or Supposed Father of Christ: What had the Evangelist to do with his Genealogy? Many Answers are given to this, some think that the Evangelist accommodateth himself to the Vulgar Opinion, they took him generally for the true and natural Son of Ioseph. They said, Is not this the Carpenters Son? But then the Holy Spirit, must have attempted to have proved a Conclusion true, from a Medium that was false, which must by no means be allowed: Besides, neither could this be Mathews design, who afterwards relateth the Mystery of our Saviours Incarnation plain enough; and tells us v. 18. That Mary was found with Child before Ioseph, and she came together, others therefore say that amongst the Iews the Genealogies of Women use not to be reckoned. How universally true that is, I cannot tell, generally it is (very probable) as being usual almost with all Nations to reckon Descents from the Males. In the present Case it is granted by most that Luke deriveth the Descent of Mary. In the present Case, it seemeth of high Concern that the Genealogy both of Ioseph and Mary should be counted: Tho our Saviours being the Messias, could not have been proved from his being the Son of Ioseph, for then he could not have been the Son of a Virgin (yet admitting the Jewish error in that Case, not knowing the Mystery of Christs Incarnation) Christ, by their own Confession was confirmed to be the Son of David, because Ioseph was so: On the other side, Luke deriving Maries Genealogy from David, and affirming Christ to be born of a Virgin espoused, confirmed him to all the World to be both the Son of David, descending from Mary a Virgin, that was a Daughter to one who was the Son of David, and also the true Messiah in whom the Propechy was fulfilled, of a Virgins conceiving and bearing a Son; so that by the reckoning of the Generation of two Persons, both of which were lineally descended from David, he was proved to be the Son of David both to the generality of the Iews, who could not deny but Ioseph was so, and to all believers both Iews and Gentiles, to whom God should give to believe the Mystery of the Incarnation by the Conception of the Holy Ghost. This to me seems a sufficient reason for the reckoning up our Saviours descent from David both by Father and Mother. Which is advantaged by considering that Ioseph was not only the reputed Father, but the legal Father of Christ, and altho his being not the Natural, but the legal Father of Christ, will not prove him the Son of David, further then to the Iews who would have him to be the Natural Son of Ioseph, yet the Genealogy reckoned from Abraham to Ioseph will prove Ioseph the Son of David (whom they judged Christs natural Father) so as they had nothing to say against that, and the other parts of this Gospel, and this Chapter indeed with the Genealogy of Mary, will prove that he was both the Son of David, and the true Messias, as a Son born of a Virgin. Whereas some say that Mary was of the Tribe of Levi, and think to prove it by her being Cousen to Elizabeth, who is expressly called a Daughter of Aaron, Luk. 1.1. Besides that Luke ch. 3. plainly proveth her of the Tribe of Iudah, and of the Family of David, the Proof is by no means sufficient, for altho the Law, Num. 36.8.9. for the avoiding of a Confusion of Inheritances, commanded them to Marry within their Tribes, yet this Law concerned not the Daughters of the Tribe of Levi, for that Tribe had no Inheritance as the rest. So as that kindred might easily be, tho Mary was not of the Tribe of Levi, but of Iudah, as indeed she was. But leaving this Question, let us come to the words of the Verse. And Iacob begat Ioseph, the Husband of Mary, that is, the espoused Husband of Mary. Espousals make a Marriage before God: The Angel afterward saith to Ioseph (but yet espoused) Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy Wife. And he was soon after the Legal, Actual Husband of Mary: Of whom was born Iesus, who was called Christ, that Person who was called Iesus by the Direction of the Angel, as we shall by and by see who was also called Christ, which as we said signifieth Anointed, and the same with Messiah. It is observed by some that the Name Christ was given to Kings of Iudah (because of their anointing) before the Captivity, but to none after, till he came who was the Christ, God by that Providence (if the Iews would have understood it) pointing out to them, that the Person was now come who was promised them under the Notion of the Messiah, Dan. 9.25 26. and whom they expected, as appeareth from Ioh. 1.41. & 4.25. and no longer to be expected.