Text and Exposition
I. PROLOGUE: THE ORIGIN AND BIRTH OF JESUS THE CHRIST (1:1â2:23)
In each gospel, Jesusâ earthly ministry is preceded by an account of John the Baptistâs ministry. This formal similarity does not extend to the introductions to the Gospels. Mark 1:1 opens with a simple statement. Luke begins with a first-person preface in which he explains his purpose and methods, followed by a detailed and often poetic account of the miraculous births of John and Jesus (Lk 1:5â2:20) and a brief mention of Jesusâ boyhood trip to the temple (2:21â52). Luke reserves Jesusâ genealogy for ch. 3. Johnâs prologue (Jn 1:1â18) traces Jesusâ beginnings to eternity and presents the incarnation without referring to his conception and birth.
In each gospel, the introduction anticipates major themes and emphases. In Matthew, the prologue (Mt 1:1â2:23) introduces such themes as the son of David, the fulfillment of prophecy, the supernatural origin of Jesus the Messiah, and the Fatherâs sovereign protection of his Son in order to bring him to Nazareth and accomplish the divine plan of salvation from sin (see Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew, 123â28).
A. The Genealogy of Jesus (1:1â17)
1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriahâs wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.
COMMENTARY
1 The first two words of Matthew, biblos geneseĆs, may be translated ârecord of the genealogyâ (NIV), ârecord of the origins,â or ârecord of the history.â The NIV limits this title to the genealogy (1:1â17), the second could serve as a heading for the prologue (1:1â2:23), and the third as a heading for the entire gospel. The expression is found only twice in the LXX. In Genesis 2:4 it refers to the creation account (Ge 2:4â25), and in Genesis 5:1 to the ensuing genealogy. From the latter, it appears possible to follow the NIV (so also Hendriksen; McNeile; France [NICNT]), but because the noun genesis (NIV, âbirthâ) reappears in Matthew 1:18 (one of only five NT occurrences), it seems likely that the heading in 1:1 extends beyond the genealogy. No occurrence of the expression as a heading for a book-length document has come to light. Therefore we must discount the increasingly popular view (Davies, Setting; Gaechter; Hill; Maier) that Matthew means to refer to his entire gospel, âA record of the history of Jesus Christ.â Matthew rather intends his first two chapters to be a coherent and unified ârecord of the origins of Jesus Christâ (rightly, Blomberg [NAC]).
The designation âJesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abrahamâ resonates with biblical nuances. (For âJesus,â see comments at 1:21.) âChristâ is roughly the Greek equivalent to âMessiahâ or âAnointed.â In the OT, the term could refer to a variety of people anointed for some special function: priests (Lev 4:3; 6:22), kings (1Sa 16:13; 24:10; 2Sa 19:21; La 4:20), and, metaphorically, the patriarchs (Ps 105:15) and the pagan king Cyrus (Isa 45:1). Already in Hannahâs prayer, âMessiahâ parallels âkingâ: the Lord âwill give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointedâ (1Sa 2:10). With the rising number of OT prophecies concerning King Davidâs line (e.g., 2Sa 7:12â16; cf. Ps 2:2), âMessiah, or âChrist,â became the designation of a figure representing the people of God and bringing in the promised eschatological reign.
In Jesusâ day, Palestine was rife with messianic expectation. Not all of it was coherent, and many Jews expected two different âMessiahs.â But Matthewâs linking of âChristâ and âson of Davidâ leaves no doubt about what he is claiming for Jesus.
In the Gospels, âChristâ is relatively rare (as compared with Paulâs epistles). More important, it almost always appears as a title, strictly equivalent to âthe Messiahâ (see esp. 16:16). But it was natural for Christians after the resurrection to use âChristâ as a name not less than as a title; increasingly they spoke of âJesus Christâ or âChrist Jesusâ or simply âChrist.â Paul normally treats âChrist,â at least in part, as a name, but it is doubtful whether the titular force ever entirely disappears. Of Matthewâs approximately eighteen occurrences, all are exclusively titular except this one (1:1), probably 1:16, certainly 1:18, and possibly the variant at 16:21. The three uses of âChristâ in the prologue reflect the confessional stance from which Matthew writes. He is a committed Christian who has long since become familiar with the common way of using the word as both title and name. At the same time, it is a mark of Matthewâs concern for historical accuracy that Jesus is not so designated by his contemporaries.
âSon of Davidâ is an important designation in Matthew. Not only does David become a turning point in the genealogy (1:6, 17), but the title recurs throughout the gospel (9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30â31; 21:9, 15; 22:42, 45). God swore covenant love to David (Ps 89:28) and promised that one of his immediate descendants would establish the kingdomâeven more, that Davidâs kingdom and throne would endure forever (2Sa 7:12â16). Isaiah foresaw that a âsonâ would be given, a son with the most extravagant titles:
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace:
Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on Davidâs throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.
Isaiah 9:6â7
In Jesusâ day, at least some branches of popular Judaism understood âson of Davidâ to be messianic (cf. Ps. Sol. 17:21; for a summary of the complex intertestamental evidence, see Berger, âDie königlichen Messiastraditionen,â esp. 3â9). The theme was important in early Christianity (cf. Lk 1:32, 69; Jn 7:42; Ac 13:23; Ro 1:3; Rev 22:16). Godâs promises, though long delayed, had not been forgotten; Jesus and his ministry were perceived as Godâs fulfillment of covenantal promises now centuries old. The tree of David, hacked off so that only a stump remained, was sprouting a new branch (Isa 11:1).
Jesus is also âson of Abraham.â It could not be otherwise, given that he is son of David. Yet Abraham is mentioned for several important reasons. âSon of Abrahamâ may have been a recognized messianic title in some branches of Judaism (cf. T. Levi 8:15). The covenant with the Jewish people had first been made with Abraham (Ge 12:1â3; 17:7; 22:18), a connection Paul sees as basic to Christianity (Gal 3:16). More important, Genesis 22:18 had promised that through Abrahamâs offspring âall nationsâ (panta ta ethnÄ, LXX) would be blessed; so with this allusion to Abraham, Matthew is preparing his readers for the final words of this offspring from Abrahamâthe commission to make disciples of âall nationsâ (Mt 28:19, panta ta ethnÄ). Jesus the Messiah came in fulfillment of the kingdom promises to David and of the Gentile-blessings promised to Abraham (see Mt 3:9; 8:11).
2â17 Study has shown that genealogies in the Ancient Near East could serve widely diverse functions: economic, tribal, political, domestic (to show family or geographical relationships), and others (see Johnson, Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies; Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World [New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1977]; Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 64â66). The danger in such study is that Matthewâs intentions may be overridden by colorful backgrounds of doubtful relevance to the text itself. Johnson sees Matthewâs genealogy as a response to Jewish slander. H. V. Winkings (âThe Nativity Stories and Docetism,â NTS 23 [1977]: 457â60) sees it as an answer to late first-century Docetism that denied the essential humanity of Jesus. One wonders whether a virgin birth would have been the best way to go about correcting the Docetists.
D. E. Nineham (âThe Genealogy in St. Matthewâs Gospel and Its Significance for the Study of the Gospels,â BJRL 58 [1976]: 491â544) finds in this genealogy the assurance that God is in sovereign control. Yet it is unclear how he reconciles this assurance with his conviction that the genealogy is of little historical worth. If Matthew made much of it up, then we may admire his faith that God was in control. But since Matthewâs basis was (according to Nineham) faulty, it gives the reader little incentive to share the same faith.
Actually, Matthewâs chief aims in including the genealogy are hinted at in the first verseânamely, to show that Jesus Messiah is truly in the kingly line of David, heir to the messianic promises, the one who brings divine blessings to all nations. Therefore the genealogy focuses on King David (1:6) on the one hand, yet on the other hand includes Gentile women (see comments at v.6). Many entries would touch the hearts and stir the memories of biblically literate readers, though the principal thrust of the genealogy ties together promise and fulfillment. F. F. Bruce (NBD, 459) writes, âChrist and the new covenant are securely linked to the age of the old covenant. Marcion, who wished to sever all the links binding Christianity to the Old Testament, knew what he was about when he cut the genealogy out of his edition of Luke.â
For many, whatever its aims, the historical value of Matthewâs genealogy is nil. R. E. Brown (Birth of the Messiah, 505â12) bucks the tide when he cautiously affirms that Jesus sprang from the house of David. Many ancient genealogies are discounted as being of little historical value because they evidently intend to impart more than historical information (cf. esp. Wilson, Genealogy and History). To do this, however, is to fall into a false historical disjunction, for many genealogies intend to make more than historical points by referring to historical lines.
Part of the historical evaluation of vv.2â17 rests on the reliability of Matthewâs sources. The names in the first two-thirds of the genealogy are taken from the LXX (1Ch 1â3, esp. 2:1â15; 3:5â24; Ru 4:12â22). After Zerubbabel, Matthew relies on extrabiblical sources of which we know nothing. But there is good evidence that records were kept at least till the end of the first century. Josephus (Life 6 [1]) refers to the âpublic registersâ from which he extracts his genealogical information (see also Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.28â56 [6â10]). According to Genesis Rabbah 98:8, Rabbi Hillel was proved to be a descendant of David because a genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.19â20) cites Hegesippus to the effect that Emperor Domitian (AD 81â96) ordered all descendants of David slain. Nevertheless, two of them, when summoned, though admitting their Davidic descent, showed their calloused hands to prove they were but poor farmers. So they were let go. But the account shows that genealogical information was still available.
While no twentieth-century Jew could prove he was from the tr...