Old Testament genealogies
Readers today would find a book that began with a long genealogy somewhat strange, even off-putting. But there are Old Testament books whose opening chapters are almost entirely genealogy, for example First Chronicles.[i] Perhaps this is why the church father Papias called Matthew’s style “Jewish.”
The first 9 chapters of First Chronicles contain a series of genealogies, which lead up to Saul, Israel’s first king in chapter 10, but reach their climax in chapter 11 and following, where David is introduced as the culmination of Israel's quest for a king after God’s own heart. In much the same way, Matthew uses this genealogy to introduce Jesus as the greatest "son of David" and the ultimate fulfillment of God’s plan to save his people from their sins.
This Davidic focus of Joseph’s genealogy is reinforced by Matthew’s calling attention to the number 14 in the names (Mt 1:17). For the numerical value of the name David, arrived at by totaling the values of each letter in the Hebrew, is 14.
The genealogy contains the names of men and women, of Jews and Gentiles, and of faithful worshipers of God and unfaithful people. Jewish genealogies were mostly patrilineal, but exceptions existed at least in giving the parentage of a woman or her descendants (but not her ancestors beyond parents), see Gen 11:29; 22:20-24; 35:22-26; 1 Chron 2:18-21, 24, 34, 46-49; 7:24.[ii] Why this assemblage?
The simplest suggestion is that the gospel Jesus brought and Matthew was here proclaiming would break down the barriers between (1) men and women, (2) Jews and Gentiles, and (3) the respectable and the unrespectable members of society.[iii] In Matthew’s narratives we will see men and women coming to Jesus for healing, forgiveness and to become disciples. We will see Jews and Gentiles doing so. And we will see apparently pious ones like John the Baptist and probably Peter, James and John, and we see “sinners” like the tax collector Matthew.
Matthew doesn’t claim that this genealogy shows that Jesus somehow “inherited” faith and virtue from his ancestors, but that the checkered history of faithful and unfaithful Israelites and their kings was “fulfilled” by Jesus in two different but complementary ways. All that was faithful in Israel’s past was fulfilled in the life of perfectly obedient, perfectly faithful Jesus. And all that was unfaithful in Israel’s past was atoned for in the sacrificial death of Jesus. Joseph’s foster child was to bear the name “Jesus,” because “he will save his people from their sins.” Jesus’ people are sinners, but they are also sinners who like Abraham and David look to the forgiving God in faith.
Son of Abraham
Keep in mind that Matthew introduces this genealogy—and the book as a whole—by calling Jesus—not just “son of David”—but “son of David, son of Abraham” (Mt 1:1). Jesus did not “inherit” in a genetic way either the goodness or badness of his listed ancestors. But by singling out two in particular—Abraham and David—at the outset, Matthew does seem to be saying that Jesus was the “son” of each of these in regard to either his role or his character, or even both. And I would like to suggest that in both cases Jesus can be “son of” the man by showing similarity to that man himself and being the beneficiary of God's promises to that man and his "seed" (or "son").
Matthew wants to suggest by the twin patronymic “son of David, son of Abraham” and by the genealogy, that—quite apart from DNA, because Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father—Jesus “inherits” (in the sense that he "mirrors") both Abraham and David in such a way as to prove by his actions that he was their son. Remember what Jesus once said to his opponents about how you can tell whose father a person has?
I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.’” 39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the things your own father does.” … 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:37-44 NIV)
Like father, like son! Abraham was famous for walking by faith in God’s promises. Jesus was not only the “seed” of Abraham through whom the nations would be blessed, but he was also a perfect model of all that was noble and good about Abraham himself.
But in the second sense Jesus was like Abraham’s literal son Isaac in Genesis 22. In that chapter God commanded Abraham to offer up his only son Isaac on an altar on Moriah. Abraham showed his intense love for God by being willing to do this, although God stopped him before he could slay his son. It was a test of Abraham’s love. But it was also a test of Isaac’s obedience and faith. Jesus was both Abraham by his faith and obedience, and he was Isaac by willing to be put to death as a sacrifice for our sins.
A third way in which Matthew may see Jesus as the “son of Abraham” is that the promise to Abraham that all the nations will be blessed through him and through his “seed” finds its fulfillment in Jesus who was the “seed” of Abraham. This may be the weakest of the interpretations, since Matthew doesn’t use the word “seed” here, as Paul will later.
“I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12:2-3 NIV)
[God said to Abraham], “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you … 18 and through your ‘seed’ all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” (Genesis 22:16-18)
Son of David
If we follow the same line of the double inference of the word “son of” in the case of David, Jesus is the true “son of David” in the sense that his life often bore striking similarities to the life of David.
David similar to Jesus
As David’s son, Jesus was not just a descendant like all the others in the genealogy. He—more than any other human in history—brought to full flower all that was good in the historical David. We will see in coming weeks how many of the things that happened to David or that David did are repeated in a more elevated level in Jesus’ experience. Jesus was the culmination of Israel's monarchic history, the fulfillment of all the kings who had gone before, and the embodiment of Israel's hope. But he was also the realization of the ideal, of which David was an imperfect representative. Let us now just briefly see some of the ways that David as king prefigures Jesus.
He was also the son of David through Joseph’s line as the one to fulfill the promises God made to David in 2 Samuel 7. Matthew is telling us that Jesus is the “son of David” intended in God’s covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7. Jesus—by virtue of Joseph being his adoptive father—was in line to legally be king of Israel in David’s line.
This is why Matthew’s use of the genealogy is unlikely to be simply an argument for Jesus’ right to David’s earthly throne. Keep in mind that, when Jesus proclaimed to his countrymen that "the kingdom of God is at hand," and himself by implication as their king, he didn’t recite his foster-father’s genealogy to buttress this claim!
If being David’s “son” implied being like David, how does Matthew see Jesus to be like David?
King without need of genealogy
Like David before him, his kingship was due to God’s election and anointing, not to having kings as his ancestors. In retrospect, we can see in the final blessing on his sons by Jacob (Gen 49:10), that the “scepter” would not depart from Judah. But there was no indication in the historical books from Joshua down to David that Israel understood that the king had to be from the tribe of Judah. In fact God through Samuel first chose Saul who was from the tribe of Benjamin. So David’s claim to kingship was not genealogical, but based on God’s sovereign choice of him as indicated by the anointing through Samuel. Similarly, Jesus’ kingship is due to God’s choosing him and his anointing by the Holy Spirit. In Matthew’s report of Jesus’ baptism by John a dove (representing the Holy Spirit and God’s anointing) descended on Jesus from heaven, and a voice indicated his election with the words: “This is my Son, the beloved/chosen one, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3:16-17). This—not his genealogy—authenticated him as God’s king, just as the same things authenticated David.
An anointed king who slew Goliath
Later in Matthew, Jesus was accused of being able to expel demons because he had a pact with the Prince of Demons, Beelzebub. In reply he pointed out that this would mean that Satan’s house was divided against itself. Instead, he observed, one has to first bind that strong man and only after that plunder his house (Mt 12:22-30). The meaning of Jesus’ statement becomes clear when we see how Matthew and Luke (Mt 4:1-11; Lk 4:1-13) show Jesus victorious over Satan, who is “the Strong Man,” before he began his public ministry in Galilee, where he cast out many demons. Consider the parallel in David’s life. David’s first test, after he was anointed by Samuel, was his duel with Goliath, the Philistine champion. Goliath was more than just a strong Philistine warrior. As their champion he represented them. The text in 1 Samuel 16 makes it quite clear: David represented the army of Israel, and Goliath that of the Philistines. Their one-on-one combat took the place of a full battle between the two armies. The outcome of the duel would determine the outcome of the nations in combat. In that sense, after David defeated and killed the Philistine “Strong Man”, his subsequent victories over their armies were simply a mopping up operation: the outcome was already decided.
An anointed king unrecognized, going about doing good
Readers of 1 Samuel together with the inner circle of Jesse’s family are privy to God’s secret anointing of David. But the nation as a whole is unaware of it and only gradually becomes aware of his fitness. His fitness is shown by the risks he took, exposing his whereabouts to the murderous Saul hot in his pursuit, just in order to help his own people defend themselves against the Philistines (for example, see 1 Samuel 23).
Similarly, readers of the gospels together with Jesus’ own family and his small circle of disciples are aware that he is the Messiah, Israel’s promised king. But the nation as a whole does not know this, and only gradually becomes aware of his fitness. They become so, because—in spite of the criticisms generated by his miraculous healings, exorcisms, and teachings (for example, see Matthew 12)—Jesus persisted in doing so— "he went about doing good" (Peter's summary of his life in Acts 10:34-43).
An anointed king persecuted to death, refusing to use force to defend himself
Although David knew that he was Yahweh’s anointed, he awaited God’s own time for his kingship to be realized. Although he was persecuted by the man in power, Saul, even unto death, he refused to take up arms against Saul or to use force to gain the throne, even when his men claimed that God had given Saul into his hands in order to kill him (see 1 Samuel 24). Similarly, Jesus refused to defend himself physically when he was arrested in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:47-56).
And before that, he refused to gain the kingdom that was rightfully his without waiting on God to give it to him. How does Matthew show this anywhere in his gospel you can think of? Where was he offered the kingdom on terms he would not accept?
Matthew (4:8-10) and Luke (4:5-8) make that clear in their accounts of his testing by Satan, where one of the offers was all of the kingdoms of this world, if he would only bow and worship Satan, which of course he refused to do.
As in the case of the literal "son of Abraham," Isaac, so in the case of the literal "son of David," Solomon, Jesus showed striking similarities. Like Solomon, Jesus was wise. As Solomon composed most of the proverbs and parables in the Book of Proverbs, so Jesus uttered profound wisdom to his hearers, often in the form of parables (Matthew 13).
A Perfect Introduction to Matthew's Narrative
We couldn't ask for a better introduction to Matthew's narrative about Jesus than this. We have been tipped off right at the beginning of the story to what we should look for in it. We should look for Jesus as a Man of Faith, a King who is known by his inner circle but rejected by most of his countrymen, who goes about doing good and healing, who will be persecuted and whose death will be plotted and carried out, but who will (like Isaac) voluntarily submit, trusting his loving Father, and who will prevail, becoming the Victor over the Strong Man Satan, and purging the sins of his people. Matthew has mined the riches of the Old Testament story to identify many figures whose virtues—much magnified—were fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah.
[i] Also Genesis. The genealogies in the Book of Genesis connect the periods of the earliest history of Mankind down to Abraham. The short genealogy in the opening chapter of the Book of Exodus connects Jacob’s story (including Joseph) with the time of Moses’ birth and the exodus. Other OT genealogies also serve to connect the descendants with their past. But perhaps the closest parallel to Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus is found in First Chronicles.
[ii] The women in Jesus’ genealogy may have been given only to specify how the line descended when the husband had more than one wife. This was certainly true in the case of David and might have been the case with Boaz and with Rahab’s husband.
[iii] Of the many other suggestions—all of which have seeming exceptions—the other plausible one is that they are all Gentiles who had joined Israel, and are therefore converts to Israel’s faith. There is slight evidence for this for all of them—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba—but it is strongest with Rahab who betrayed her city of Jericho to enable Israel to enter the land, and Ruth who left her homeland Moab in order for Naomi’s God to become her own God. This fits Matthew’s emphasis on the openness of the gospel to the gentiles, but it doesn’t explain why all four are gentile women, not just loyal male converts. It also presumes that Uriah the Hittite could not have married an Israelite girl name Bathsheba.
No comments:
Post a Comment