Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: The Genius of Matthew’s Genealogy.

The more I study Matthew’s genealogy, the more impressed I am by its content and construction.

What follows can probably best be described as καινὰ καὶ παλαιά = ‘things new and old’.

Hopefully it’ll be of use to someone.

Matthew’s genealogy exhibits an array of significant numerical properties.

Consider, for instance, how it’s patterned around the number 14:

🔹 It consists of 3 groups of 14 generations.

🔹 It presents Jesus as the son of ‘David’ (1.1), whose name (דוד) has a gematrial value of 14.

🔹 It lists David—who introduces a line of 14 kings—as its 14th member.

🔹 And its purpose as a whole is to describe the fulfilment of YHWH’s promise to Abraham (‘I will make of you a great nation…’: Gen. 12.2), which has a gematrial value of 1,400.

Even the number of times Matthew employs the name ‘David’ is significant.

‘David’ occurs 3 times in Matthew’s genealogy in answer to Matthew’s 3 groups of generations, and 14 times elsewhere in Matthew in answer to Matthew’s groups of 14 generations.

No less significant is the number 42.

🔹 Matthew’s genealogy consists of 42 names, which makes Jesus the 42nd generation from Abraham.

🔹 Its most frequently repeated word is τον, which occurs a total of 42 times and has a gematrial value of 420.

🔹 And, insofar as Jesus ushers in a 7th heptad, Jesus can be taken to usher in a ‘Jubilee’ year (יובל)—a word with a gematrial value of 42.

In addition, the notion of a 42-generation list has an intrinsic harmony,

since the words ואלה תולדת/תלדות = ‘Now these are the generations’ (cp. Gen. 11.27, 25.19, 37.2 etc.) resonate strongly with the number 42 insofar as 42 = ואלה and 420 = תולדת/תלדות.

The allusions set out above are insignificant.

Matthew does not portray Jesus as an otherworldly deliverer who materialises out of thin air,

but as the summary and fulfilment of Israel’s history—the culmination of Abraham’s ‘generations’ (תולדת),

the long-awaited successor to king David (דוד),

and the one who will release Israel from bondage and usher in a new phase in her history (יובל).

——————

SHAPE

But Matthew’s genealogy is not merely an exercise in numerology; it also serves to associate Jesus with a specific shape.

Insofar as Matthew’s genealogy moves forward in groups of 14, it resembles the course of the moon.

It waxes for 14 days and wanes for 14 days.

And its wax and wane mirrors the ebb and flow of Israel’s history, as is shown below.

As can be seen, Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham.

Or, more specifically, it begins with YHWH’s *promise* to Abraham, which finds its initial fulfilment in the rise of king David.

In the aftermath of David’s reign, we expect a line of godly and successful kings to arise (in 1.6b–11);

that is to say, we expect Israel to continue on an upwards path.

But instead, with the mention of Uriah’s wife and Rehoboam,...

...Israel plunges into the era of the divided kingdoms as a line of 14 largely godless kings lead her down into exile.

And there Israel remain until, with the birth/adoption of Shealtiel—the man who undoes Jehoiachin’s curse—, a corner is turned in Israel’s history.

These events are highly significant since Jesus must tread a similar path to Israel.

Like ‘Judah and his brothers’ (1.2), Jesus will soon be relocated to Egypt (2.13),

and, at the climax of his ministry, Jesus will be borne away into ‘an exile of death’.

But the parallels between Jesus and Israel’s experiences extend further.

Just as Jehoiachin’s exile spares him from Nebuchadnezzar’s fury, so Jesus’ exile to Egypt will spare him from Herod’s.

And, just as Jehoiachin is ‘lifted up’ from prison (2 Kgs. 25), so Jesus will be lifted up from the grave and delivered from ‘the bars of Sheol’ (Jon. 2).

Like Shealtiel, then, Jesus will breathe new life into his people’s future.

And, like Shealtiel’s son (Zerubbabel), he will be associated with the transport of gold from foreign lands to Jerusalem (cp. the visit of the Magi in Matt. 2).

As can be seen, then, Matthew’s genealogy is not a literary abstraction;

on the contrary, Matthew claims to have uncovered a fundamental pattern/periodicity in Israel’s history.

Israel’s story unfolds in blocks of 14, each of which reaches a significant zenith/nadir in its 14th generation, the third of which is the birth of the Messiah.

Just as Israel traverses the wilderness in 42 discrete phases (cp. Num. 33), so she traverses the long era between Abraham and the fulfilment of his promise in 42 generations.

As such, Jesus arrives right on cue.

And the murky background from which he emerges is intimately related to his mission statement, viz. ‘to save his people from their sins’ (1.21).

The ‘sins’ envisaged in v. 21 are not merely the ways in which individual Israelites have failed to live up to the law’s demands;

they refer to the long and sin-stained history recorded in Matthew’s genealogy—a history marked out by compromised behaviour,

sexual misconduct, murder, idolatry, corrupt rulers, and, consequently, subjugation by foreign powers.

Jesus has come to deliver his people from precisely these issues.

Sin is part of Israel’s present experience because it is an integral part of her past.

And Jesus has come to offer Israel a new start.

——————

TEXTUAL FOUNDATIONS

But how authentic is the pattern portrayed in Matthew’s genealogy?

Is it grounded in historical/textual reality? Or is it merely a pattern of Matthew’s own creation?

Let’s consider each leg of Matthew’s genealogy in turn.

The first leg of Matthew’s genealogy:

Matthew’s genealogy between Abraham and David clearly isn’t his own creation.

It’s taken straight from the text of the OT (cp. 1 Chr. 2.1–15 w. Ruth 4.18–22),

where David is listed as the 14th generation from Abraham—a fact which may well have been part of the inspiration behind Matthew’s genealogy.

The final leg:

It’s difficult to say much about the final leg of Matthew’s genealogy since we know so little about the relevant historical period.

But it’s at least possible Jesus was listed as the 14th generation from the exile in genealogies (stored up in the Temple).

When Rabbi Eleazar was appointed to the Sanhedrin (in c. 80 AD), he was announced as a 10th generation descendant of Ezra (b. Berachot 27b).

And 10 generations is clearly too few to take us from c. 450 BC to 70 AD.

Might Azariah’s count of generations therefore have been based on a selective genealogy (streamlined by means of a known convention)?

And might a similarly selective genealogy have been available to Matthew, which he included (unedited) in his genealogy?

If R. Eleazar was known as a 10th generation descendant of Ezra, then Joseph could plausibly have been known as a 13th generation descendant of Jehoiachin.

The middle leg:

Finally, then, we come to Matthew’s record of Judah’s kings, which we’re able to cross-reference with a large amount of Scripture data (most notably the records of Kings and Chronicles).

On what basis, then, has Matthew abbreviated a list of 17 to 14?

More specifically, why has Matthew chosen to omit Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah from his genealogy (cp. 1 Chr. 3)?

The answer requires us to consider the specific details of these kings’ reign and their relation to the houses of Ahab and Jehu.

——————

AHAB AND JEHU

While Judah’s kings belong to a single dynasty (David’s), the kings of the northern kingdom belong to five main dynasties: those of Jeroboam, Baasha, Omri, Jehu, and Menahem.

Our present interest lies in Jehu’s.

With the rise of Ahab, a remarkable sequence of events begins to unfold in Israel’s history.

Assisted by Jezebel, Ahab ruthlessly enforces the worship of Baal in Israel (at the cost of YHWH’s prophets).

YHWH rightly, therefore, pronounces judgment on Ahab and his household.

And, sadly, the judgment of Ahab spills over onto Judah,

since Jehoshaphat chooses to ally his house with Ahab’s—an alliance cemented (at least) by the marriage of Ahab’s daughter Athaliah and Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram (cp. 2 Chr. 18.1).

Indeed, throughout the reigns of Judah’s next three kings, the worship of Baal takes root in Judah (cp. 24.7 w. 23.7),

and Judah’s king is said to ‘follow in the footsteps of Ahab’, the blame for which is laid squarely at the feet of Athaliah (cp. 21.6, 13, 22.2–3).

Judgment must therefore come upon Israel and Judah alike, which will be meted out by Jehu.

Jehu is commissioned by Elisha to bring an end to the house of Ahab and, by extension, to the worship of Baal (2 Kgs. 9.6–10 w. 10.28).

And Jehu seems only too happy to oblige.

In one of the most bloody periods of Israel’s history, he slaughters every male in the house of Ahab (2 Kgs. 9–10) as well as Jehoram’s son (Ahaziah) and no small number of Judah’s nobility (2 Chr. 22).

In return, Jehu is granted authority over Israel for four generations (2 Kgs. 10.30).

And, four generations later, Jehu’s dynasty falls, at which point YHWH restates his authorisation of Jehu’s reign (cp. 2 Kgs. 15.12).

That Jehu is given authority over Israel for four generations is significant.

First, it corresponds to YHWH’s promise to visit the iniquity of the fathers on their children up until the fourth generation (Exod. 34.7).

And, second, by analogy with Mosaic law, it can be seen as the time required to purge Judah’s royal bloodline from Ahab and Jezebel’s influence (since the children of an Edomite/Egyptian’s third generation are permitted to enter Israel’s assembly: Deut. 23.7–8).

As such, the children of Amaziah (Jehoram’s great-grandson) can be seen as fully-fledged Judahites.

Equally important for us to note is the extent of Jehu’s authority.

Jehu’s authority is not limited to the northern kingdom, but extends to all Israel,

which is a remarkable fact, but is clearly implied in the text in at least two ways.

First, YHWH is said to grant Jehu authority over ‘the people of YHWH’ (עם יהוה cp. 2 Kgs. 9.6)—a phrase only otherwise employed (in 1 Sam. to 2 Chr.) in reference to the united people of Israel (2 Sam. 1.12) and David’s authority over them (2 Sam. 6.21).

And, second, YHWH is said to grant Jehu ‘the throne of Israel’ (כסא ישראל cp. 2 Kgs. 10.30)—a phrase which is only otherwise employed in reference to the reigns of David and Solomon (2 Sam. 3.10, 1 Kgs. 2.4, 8.20, 25, 9.5, 10.9, 2 Chr. 6.10, 16, Jer. 33.17)...

...and is inherently related to YHWH’s promise to preserve David’s reign (i.e., to ‘leave him a man on the throne’).

As such, the reign of Jehu represents a highly unusual period in Judah’s history.

Israel’s northern and southern kingdoms are briefly reuinted (due to the intermarriage between Ahab and Jehoram) and are jointly given over to Jehu to be purged of the influence of Ahab and Baal.

Inherent in the text of Scripture, then, is a cogent reason for Matthew to omit the descendants of David between Jehoram and Jotham.

Matthew’s genealogy reflects the fulfilment of YHWH’s promise to preserve David’s line/authority in Judah.

Hence, when Judah is subsumed into the house of Ahab and subjugated by the dynasty of Jehu, Matthew skips straight from Jehoram to Azariah-aka-Uzziah, as shown below:

As such, Matthew’s genealogy exhibits a rather ironic harmony.

Just as the names of three women (Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth) are included in the Messianic line due to their association with divinely-favoured Judahites,

so the names of three Judahite men are excluded from the Messianic line due to their association with divinely cursed Israelites.

And, importantly, their exclusion from Judah’s history is hinted at in the ‘footers’ of their reigns recorded in the book of Chronicles:

As can be seen: once Judah allies herself with the house of Ahab, things soon start to go downhill in Judah.

Judah’s kings die more violent deaths.

And YHWH is said to be more ‘active’ in the deaths of Judah’s kings.

And, importantly, none of the kings omitted by Matthew (viz. Azariah, Joash, and Amaziah)--in contrast to their peers--are said to ‘sleep/rest with their fathers’.

As such, the Chronicler deliberately disconnects the reigns of Azariah, Joash, and Amaziah from their peers’,

just as Matthew does.

Whatever the exact reason may be, the reigns of Azariah, Joash, and Amaziah are not ‘preserved’ in Israel’s Chronicles in the same way as others.

——————

FURTHER IMPLICATIONS:

More, however, needs to be said about the present matter,

since Matthew may have further reasons for the exclusion of three particular kings from his genealogy.

Insofar as he omits to mention Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, Matthew (paradoxically) draws our attention to their reigns.

Now, why would Matthew do such a thing?

What does he want us to notice?

The answer involves the transition between Ahaziah and Joash’s reigns.

When Ahaziah accedes to the throne, Judah’s politics are in a state of flux.

Edom is on the rise, and Ahab’s son has declared war against the Syrians (2 Chr. 21–22).

Ahaziah’s counsellors advise him to join forces with Ahab, which he does.

But Ahaziah’s decision turns out to be a bad one. Less than a year later, Ahaziah is slain and dies without any sons old enough to succeed him (2 Chr. 22a).

It hence falls to Athaliah to handle affairs in Judah.

But Athaliah claims the throne for herself and promptly sentences Ahaziah’s sons to death in a bid to secure her claim (2 Chr. 22b).

Consequently, the palace is turned into a slaughter house, and Judah’s royal line is faced with extinction.

The king’s sister, however, takes Joash and hides him in the Temple until he is ready to accede to the throne himself, and the Messianic line is hence enabled to live on.

Now, does anything about the above situation ring a bell?

An Edomite in the ascendancy, a king in consort with his counsellors, and a child of royal stock in a potentially fatal situation?

It should do, since the events of Matthew 2 are predicated on a very similar situation.

As soon as Jesus is born, he finds an impostor on Judah’s throne—an Edomite named Herod who has no right to govern the Jewish people.

Just as ‘the seed of the Jewish kingdom’ is a threat to Athaliah’s power, so Jesus is a threat to Herod’s.

And hence, just as Athaliah sentences ‘the seed of the (Jewish) kingdom’ to death, so Herod sentences Bethlehem’s infants to death in a bid to secure his claim to the throne.

Joseph, however, becomes aware of Herod’s intentions and flees to Egypt with Mary and Jesus until the threat to Jesus’ life has past, and the Messianic line is hence enabled to live on.

Needless to say, the parallels between Jesus and Joash’s lives are no coincidence.

Matthew’s omission of key names in his genealogy is both deliberate and brilliant.

The same dark powers which incited Pharaoh against Israel and Athaliah against Judah will gather together against Jesus,

who will be confronted with the same threats to his existence as his predecessors.

——————

FINAL REFLECTIONS:

The fourteen-fold pattern reflected in Matthew’s genealogy has significant implications,

and, given what we’ve seen in the present note, we have reason to think it is not merely Matthew’s creation.

The first leg of Matthew’s genealogy is taken straight from the text of the OT.

Its second leg can be shown to be based on a cogent and sophisticated treatment of the relevant OT data.

And if Matthew’s genealogy is able to withstand critical scrutiny when it describes the period of Israel’s history best known to us—i.e., the days of Judah’s kings—,

then it can surely be trusted when it describes a period of history less well known to us, as it does in its third and final leg.

In sum, then, Matthew doesn’t appear to have constructed a pattern out of OT texts to suit his own purposes.

Rather, Matthew appears to have identified a pattern inherent in Israel’s history which points towards Jesus as the long-awaited fulfilment of Abraham’s promise.

THE END

P.S. For the determined, a pdf version (complete with pretty pictures):

academia.edu/41195750/