Matthew 1

Well, it's been a long time since I did this - a verse by verse commentary on my reading of the Bible - but it feels like, with 2018 upon us and Penny and I being here in Namibia, it's a good time to kick it off again. I still promise nothing other than my own scintillating wit and opinion. Starting with Matthew because it's actually one of only two books of the NT that I haven't done one of these for. That's not surprising - the NT is shorter, more accessible, and was easier and more relevant to read when I was younger.

v1

I find it interesting first off that the NIV doesn't use a comma between "Jesus the Messiah" and "the son of David". The KJV and NASB both do. Probably not much to read into that. What does strike me is that this is the very first verse of the gospel, and it pulls no punches: Jesus is the Messiah. To say he's a son of Abraham doesn't say much beyond that he's a Jew really; to say he's the son of David puts him in a kingly line, and not just by being from the tribe of Judah, but actually being in the line of the best king. It's a big claim.

v2

There's Judah right there.

v3

I'll be honest, while some of these names stand out, many of them are pretty boring. Tamar isn't though: one of the women that is mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. I'm not doing Genesis, so I won't go into her story here (although it is amazing), but she is one of the most righteous people in Genesis, so while perhaps interesting that she is mentioned, maybe not super surprising because she's well-known and a picture of righteousness. We don't know Tamar's background, but given Judah married a Canaanite woman, it's probable that he got Canaanite wives for his kids too.

v4

Nahshon is the leader of the tribe of Judah during the Numbers period. This genealogy is really the same as the one from the end of Ruth - unsurprising, given that...

v5

Two women named in the same verse! So woman number two is Rahab, another picture of great faithfulness and faith. These women really know how to step it up. Is it really that Rahab? I mean, Rahab was right at the beginning of the conquest. But there's several generations before you get to David, so I think it works. What this means is that Rahab married an Israelite, Salmon (funny name) - David's line has another non-Jewish mother! I don't think it's so big a deal, as there are plenty of stories of people taking non-Jewish wives (even though it's frowned upon by God; Rahab is an exception to that anyway, as she gets naturalised by God through the killing of Ai).

Ruth is the third woman mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. Famous for having a whole book written about her, like Esther. Again, another gentile mother! But with a story like hers, why wouldn't you claim such a heritage.

v6

And of course now we get to David. The mention of David brings forth all the ideas of the greatest king of Israel, and then is immediately dashed by the fact that Solomon's mother is mentioned - not by name, interestingly, but rather "Uriah's wife" to remind us all that David wasn't all that and a bag of potato chips. Speaking of non-Jewish mothers, there's no mention of Bathsheba's heritage, but her husband was a Hittite.

v7-11

And now we get the list of kings of Judah. That's a pretty sorry list. Good kings are rare, bad kings are so frequent that I can't even remember all the bad things they're known for. It's a royal line, absolutely, but when you read those names you remember that these guys leave a lot to be desired. Josiah is my favourite king, because his story is a story of God's faithfulness even in the midst of judgment. But then comes those words: "exile to Babylon".

v12

These names we don't know so well. Zerubbabel we know as the leader of the exiles in their return (I still remember that story of the whole bible thing where the guy used the mnemonic of 'za-rubber-ball' - I don't remember much else except that Herah dies, awww).

v13-14

This Zadok isn't the famous one; he was a Levite priest during the time of David. There's also a scribe called Zadok post exile, but he's also not this Zadok.

v15

This isn't the famous Eleazar either; he's one of Aaron's sons. There's another one in Ezra; it's not him either.

v16

And here's the big shebang: Joseph,  Jesus' dad, comes from the line of David. And people make a big fuss about how Joseph isn't Jesus' real dad, but I think that's kind of the point of the whole thing. Joseph adopts Jesus, and inheritance and lineage is passed on just as strongly to an adopted child as it is to a fruit-of-your-loins kid. This adoption is, I've always thought, a picture of God's adoption of us. Besides, as we've just seen, the human line is pretty crappy anyway. Being able to draw your lineage as "me, son of God, who has done all that great stuff you've read about" is much more impressive.

We also have the mention of Mary, which makes it clear that she is Jesus' mum, and the lineage draws no other connection to Jesus bar that Joseph was married to her. This is clearly different to the rest of the genealogy; we don't have all the names of the mothers for everyone else (Ruth, Rahab, Tamar and Bathsheba notwithstanding). Mary is, so I'm told, a good Jewish girl though.

v17

What's the significance of the three 14s? Well, three is of course a number of completeness (I always think of the Trinity); seven is the number of God, and 14 is that doubled. Are there people missing from this genealogy? Probably, I've no idea, I didn't count (that's what scholars say though). The numbering gives structure and order, and the point is that God, as a god of order, has ordained this. Maybe. I mean, there are actually only 41 generations in total if you count them, so the three 14s that Matthew is talking about are fanciful. It's interesting that Matthew didn't make up one though; the hardest one to edit would be the most recent one of course, because it's the most accurate and well-remembered. So he just works with it.