2.01 Reading Notes on Matthew 1

Matthew 1

1) Jesus’ geneaology

It’s common knowledge that the genealogy of Jesus in Matt 1 is different from that in Luke 3.  It’s presumed that since in Luke 3:23 the phrase is “he was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph” that the genealogy given in one chapter is in fact Mary’s genealogy, probably in the Luke account.  Of course, critics say it’s just a flat out contradiction.

However, in Luke the text seems to indicate Heli was Joseph’s father anyway.  It doesn’t say Heli is Mary’s father and it would be weird to describe Heli as Joseph’s father if he really was Mary’s.  You might do it the other way around where the woman, marrying the man, might consider her father in law her father but not this way.  We still know Mary was descended from David because Rom 1:3 says his human nature was descended from David, suggesting at least biological descent.

I found a different explanation on a catholic site, by a guy named James Akin.  It’s actually very clever and interesting and if you have the chance worth reading.

“http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm”

The genealogies for Joseph are in fact different, except for two points of possible overlap.  The first is Shealthiel and Zerubbabel his son.  In Matthew his father is Jeconiah.  In Luke it’s Neri.  You can read more, but we know from Jer 22:30 that Jeconiah wouldn’t have a descendant to sit on the throne.  To carry on his line, probably the next closest relative would have been Neri, from Nathan’s line (not Solomon’s).  Shealthiel apparently was childless too (cf. 1 Chron 3:17-19) so Pedaiah his brother sires his “son” by Shealthiel’s wife according to Hebrew law (so the family line doesn’t die out), and so Zerubbabel is born!  So Matthew describes Jeconiah’s legal sons, while Luke describes the biological sons.  The lineage is traced through two different sons (Abiud in Matthew, Rhesa in Luke) until they converge with Joseph.  A historian fills in the gaps.  Joseph’s grandfathers were Matthan and Melchi who apparently married the same woman.  Heli was Melchi’s son who died childless.  His half-brother Jacob bears a son in Heli’s name, named Joseph.  Here Luke, Paul’s secretary, records the legal descent while Matthew recorded the biological descent.  Joseph marries Mary, a biological descendant of David also, and Jesus is both biologically and legally/adoptively a son of David.  Complex, but it has a lot of explanatory power.  I prefer it to the idea that Luke is describing Mary’s genealogy which is what MacArthur and many others believe.  Of course, this theory relies heavily on that historian providing the link between Melchi and Matthan. The diagram below does not account for this latter question.

2) I like that Joseph is described as a righteous man and because of that, didn’t want to expose Mary to public disgrace or even execution as an adulteress when he found her to be pregnant during their betrothal.  It means that a righteous person doesn’t always have to push for justice to be done but can be merciful.  In fact, I think it’s because we know God is perfectly just that we don’t have to be.  It’s not up to us to execute perfect justice even if we could.  We can let things go.  Justice will be done by God – ensuring that the cosmic scales are balanced is his job not ours – and he also created a way to forgive.  We have no calling, nor any need to go about with a terrible crusade to force every evil to be punished, even if wisdom tells us to run a civilized society in general this must be done.  But there’s room for mercy and trusting God.  And mercy is a mark of a righteous man, by Joseph’s account.

3) I wrote about this years ago, but it is interesting that in Matt.1:22, Matthew says that naming the baby “Jesus”/Yeshua (God Saves), was done to fulfill the prophecy that another baby was to be named Immanuel, which means “God with us.”  The criticism is often given that Jesus was never called Immanuel, but here Matthew specifically states that it’s a description, and calling the baby “God Saves” fulfills it entirely.  I’ve had a lot of questions regarding the attribution of Isaiah 7 and 8 to Jesus.  It’s a very interesting study.