Thanks for the comprehensive commentary (as usual). You brought up some very important points that had not been mentioned (such as gematria). Thanks for taking the time to do this brother!

First, the genealogy is recapping the history of Israel through her kings. Jesus is depicted, in Matthew, as the true Israel. Matthew is recapping her history.

Second, genealogies also stand in the OT has summaries of redemptive history that are listed before a new epoch begins. Matthew is saying, “A new epoch in the covenant community has begun.” He says this to a people who believed the glory had departed from the Temple.

Third, Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience. A very genealogically conscious audience.

They could read 1 Kings just as well as our atheist. Indeed, they could read it in the original. They knew their way around the OT genealogies. This was, after all, a tribal society and covenant community based on God’s covenant to Abraham and his seed, as well as a dynastic priesthood. They hated Herod because Herod was a usurper—an Idumean, which made him an Edomite, which made him kin to Esau, the outcast. They were looking forward to a restoration of the Davidic kingship.

Matthew is establishing the fact that Jesus is that king.

Fourth, he is king by “adoption” of the rightful heir, Joseph, which prefigures the Church, who are “kings and priests” by adoption.

Fifth, Matthew is making use of a literary convention known as gematria. The numerological arrangement of genealogies goes all the way back to Genesis, where you have ten generations from Adam to Noah (Gen 5), and ten generations from Shem to Abraham (Gen 11), as well as ten generations from Perez to David (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chron 2:5,9-15). For a numerological arrangement based on multiples of seven, cf. Gen 46:8-27.

The obvious way to achieve numerical symmetry is to skip over various descendents. Indeed, if you think about it, gaps are the rule rather than the exception.

The stereotypical formula is: A begat B, B begat C, C begat D, and so on. Notice the singular form. But most fathers in fact had more than one son.

In Scripture, there’s a principle of theological legitimacy as well as genetic legitimacy. An apostate son is not a legitimate heir. His name and progeny may disappear from the family tree (e.g. Dan; Cain). The firstborn may be mentioned, but sometimes Scripture overrides primogeniture in favor of a younger son.

And Jesus is thusly depicted as, unlike some in the list who had to be included and yet fell into sin, the sinless King who never apostatized and never sinned.

Sixth, Driving the numerology is an overruling concern with tracing out the lineage of the seed of promise. Cf. “Seed,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, T. Alexander & B. Rosner, eds. (IVP 2000), 769-774. Matthew is signaling the fulfillment of that promise.

So the messianic motif is driving the numerology. As such, Matthew’s practice is sanctioned by venerable Biblical precedent.

That, to answer “Renaissance’s” question is why Matthew includes the genealogy.

It is disappointing the Sunday literature omitted this discussion, for this would be a prime place to teach the people about these issues and to equip them to deal with people like Renaissance. It also sets the stage for the whole of Matthew, for these basic themes will repeat themselves in Matthew’s Gospel.

Very well stated.

The first word of the NT brings to bear every word of the OT and brings us to an understanding of who Jesus is in historical context. I fear that so often Jesus is abstracted and then selectively studied. I would add that not only is the genealogy foundation to the gospel of Matthew, it is foundational to our understanding of who Jesus is.

Furthermore, this genealogy is a wonderful survey of the Old Testament–Starting with Abraham, the Father of the Jewish people, moving through the Pentateuch, then the conquest of the Land, the period of the Judges, the major Kings and the United Kingdom, then the Divided Kingdom with its good and bad kings, then the Babylonian captivity, the return to the Land, and the 400 silent years. What Sunday School class could not benefit from such an overview?

Lastly, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (II Timothy 3:16-17). ALL Scripture. Every verse, every word, every name in every genealogy. They’re all there for a reason, and we ignore them to our detriment.

I hope that the Sunday School curriculum planners will modify their curriculum and include this *foundation* of the Gospel of Matthew.

Carol Blair
Longview, TX

I enjoyed our conversation and fellowship with 3 yr. olds yesterday. It’s been a long time since I busted the move on “This Little Light of Mine.”

Your comment is spot on my friend, and thank you for the reading recommendations!

Thanks for the pointer about Founders Ministries Sunday School Helps. For those of you wanting to see the Founders’ Commentary on this past Sunday’s lesson, go to:

http://founders.org/ss/explore/090207.htm

I just read your recent comment which happened to find its way into the moderation pool. Your comment is simply way over the top, and I cannot allow that level of rhetoric and vitriol on my blog. Being a strong atheist does not excuse you from being inaccurate. Perhaps you would like to consider “hijacking” someone else’s blog. Thanks again for visiting.

Thank you for commenting on my blog. Through a brief perusal of your website, I can understand why you would consider Joseph irrelevant to Jesus and that Matthew did not write Matthew. That is a consistent assertion for someone who is an atheist.

Everyone here comes to the discussion with control beliefs or apriori convictions. Christians not only believe in God, but we also believe that the Bible is inspired by God through human authors. Joseph is incredibly significant because he showed himself a gracious and compassionate man, having found his soon-to-be wife pregnant. He could have made a public spectacle out of her, accusing her of being unfaithful to him, but he didn’t. Rather, he listened to the voice of the angel and did as he was told. Sure, he was not “in the loop” so to speak because he did not impregnate Mary, but his role is significant nonetheless. His example of obedience in faith, courage in the midst of public scrutiny, and compassion/grace towards his wife should lead us to praise God for such a man.

Having attempted to answer your questions, I hope that you have here to better understand why we believe what we believe. It is my hope that perhaps through your visit of this blog you would encounter sinners who love Jesus and desire to share him with others (including you). At the top right side of my blog is the number “2″. If you have time, please consider checking out that presentation as it explains who Jesus is and why He came.

Thanks again for visiting.