Introduction To Matthew

The Gospel writers had their own individual prospective on the events they witnessed in the life of Jesus. Each had a specific purpose in mind in writing his individual account.  John emphasizes Jesus’ divinity, Luke demonstrates His humanity, Mark portrays Jesus as the suffering servant.  But Matthew presents Jesus as the Jewish Messiah—the rightful, but rejected, heir to the Jewish throne.  Matthew details Messiah’s legal claim to the throne by first presenting Messiah's genealogy, then His credentials and proofs in the form of literally fulfilled prophecy.  

Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham the father of the promised nation, and concludes with Joseph--which he describes as Mary's husband, but which he specifically does NOT say was Jesus' father.  In verse 1:16 Matthew states that Joseph was "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus...."  The gender of the Greek word for "whom" in this verse is feminine--so "of whom" refers exclusively to Mary.  After presenting Jesus' genealogy, Matthew immediately precedes to the virgin birth.

Two most interesting things:  1) Matthew included four women in the genealogy; 2) Jesus could NOT possibly assume David's throne based upon Matthew's genealogy alone!

Four Women

That any woman was mentioned within that male-dominated Jewish culture is remarkable in itself.  I've heard there was a Jewish expression that goes, "God, I thank you I was not born a Gentile, a woman, or a dog." Mentioning four women in this important genealogy is simply amazing.  However, who these women were is more amazing still!

These are NOT ancestors most Jews would have wanted to even acknowledge.  Hey, you want to be King of the Jews, but two of your relatives are Gentiles?  Two ancestors were prostitutes, and one committed adultery?  Matthew doesn't even bother explaining why he included these tidbits many Jews would probably have rather forgotten about.  Walvoord's commentary is the only book I found even speculating on a reason:  He suggested Matthew was laying the ground work for  establishing "...Mary as the culmination of the line and also to put Jewish pride in its place for having falsely accused Mary." [Matthew--Thy Kingdom Come, John F. Walvoord]

How Well Can Matthew Count?

Matthew also seems to have a problem counting.  He groups his genealogy into three groups of fourteen:  Abraham to David, David to the Babylonian deportation, and deportation to Christ.  He obviously did this deliberately, because he omitted several names to do so. (This was no real problem to his original audience because they were familiar with the Old Testament (1 Chronicles 3:11-12) that doesn't skip any of the names Matthew omitted.)  Matthew also includes some names mentioned nowhere in the Old Testament records--but these could have been found in family registers available at the time, so that's not a big problem either.  

Why Matthew intentionally grouped his listing into three sections of 14 names each totally eludes me. However, the problem comes when you count the names.  I only count 41 names total, and you can divide that by three and derive your own conclusions.  I only come up with 13 names in his last group--even counting Jesus himself.  Matthew must have counted David twice for some reason.

Comparison with Luke's Genealogy

Regardless of the strained and abbreviated grouping, many people have had problems reconciling Matthew's account of Jesus' genealogy with Luke's genealogy of Jesus. This problem is only compounded by the lack of dates, and the alternate spellings.  Since there are obvious differences, some have concluded that one (or both) must be inaccurate. Others have worked long and hard to reconcile these seemingly divergent accounts. Of course, the largest group of believers don't know or don't care that a problem exists, but I believe there's a much simpler explanation.

Comparing Matthew to Luke, you can see that they're not very close at all. Matthew stops at Abraham while Luke continues all the way back to the very first human, Adam (remember? Matthew's presents Jesus as the Jewish Messiah--a true son of Abraham and legal descendent of David; Luke wants to demonstrate Jesus' true humanity). The genealogies are thankfully the same between Abraham and David; however, between David and Jesus there is no similarity except Joseph. I believe there is a very good reason for this: Matthew is tracing Jesus' legal linage through His legal father, Joseph; Luke lists His bloodline through his natural mother, Mary. 

How To Get Around God's Curse

Even with four questionable ladies in his family tree, Jesus might still have had a valid claim to David's throne based upon this Scripture:

Jeremiah 23:3-6 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Unfortunately, there was a big obstacle to overcome:  This line of descendents could never become king!  They were all cursed by God starting with the King variously called Jeconiah, Coniah, or Jehoiachin [2 Kings 24:6,8,15; 25:27; 2 Chr 36:9; Est 2:6; Jer 22:24; 24:1; 28:4;29:2; 52:31]

Jeremiah 22:24-30 As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; and I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. But to the land where-unto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? Is he a vessel wherin is no pleasure? Wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for NO MAN OF HIS SEED SHALL PROSPER, SITTING UPON THE THRONE OF DAVID, AND RULING ANY MORE IN JUDAH.

Jeremiah 37:1 And king Zedekiah the son of Josiah reigned instead of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, whom Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah.

Joseph was the son of Jacob by birth; he was the son of Eli (Heli) by marriage!

So, how can David's descendent (the righteous Branch) reign on his father's throne when that bloodline was cursed? The solution is so obvious it's often missed. This isn't really Jesus' bloodline!  Although Jesus' legal right to the throne was gained through his legal father (Joseph) and Solomon back to King David, Jesus was also a blood relative to King David through Mary and David's other son Nathan.  Jesus' bloodline ONLY goes through Mary!  That's why Luke traces Jesus' genealogy through Mary back through Nathan. 

The only real difficulty with this interpretation of Luke's account is that (in keeping with the custom of generally ignoring women) he doesn't include any women in his genealogy--not even Jesus' own mother.  Instead, he substitutes her husband's name--Joseph--being head of the family!   His name was simply inserted in place of Mary's by convention.  Since Luke nowhere specifies this is Mary's genealogy, some have argued it is not.  Others believe it's a divergent account of Joseph's genealogy--proving Biblical error.  However, it's much easier to accept that Matthew presents Jesus' legal claim to the throne through Joseph's line, while Luke presents Jesus' blood right to the throne through Mary. 

This is the most straightforward explanation. It establishes Messiah's royal rights while circumventing the curse, and it enforces the idea that Jesus had no biological father (i.e., If Joseph had actually been his natural father Jesus would have been cursed from ever becoming King).  It allows for a literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecies concerning the "first coming" of the Messiah, and it substantiates historical-grammatical interpretation for interpreting other Old Testament and New Testament prophecies which concern his "second coming."