The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham:
Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυεὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ.
The Book Of
Matthew begins with: “the book of the genealogy.” Much debate has been had between whether Matthew uses this phrase as an introduction to his entire gospel document, or rather specifically for the genealogy. Faustus and Augustine had this debate (Augustine: The Anti-Manichaean Writings, The Anti-Donatist Writings , Writings in Connection with the Manichæan Controversy. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan. Faustus claims to believe the Gospel, yet refuses to accept the genealogical tables on various grounds which Augustin seeks to set aside). Faustus argues that to believe the gospel is to believe the birth of Christ as this is of Matthew’s gospel. Augustine responds by noting that the genealogy is not to be conflated with the gospel. According to Epiphanius of Salamis, he accuses the Ebionites and the Cerinthians of something similar: “For by supposedly using their same so-called Gospel according to Matthew, Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph’s seed and Mary. But these people have something else in mind. They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew’s Gospel and make its opening, ‘It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan’ and so on. This is because they maintain that Jesus is really a man, but that Christ, who descended in the form of a dove, has entered him—as we have found already in other sects and been united with him. Christ himself is from God on high, but Jesus is the offspring of a man’s seed and a woman” (The Panarion, book 1, section 2, chapter 30, 14,1, page 142 of the Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 2nd edition). There were some groups in the early church that saw the introduction of Matthew’s gospel (Matthew 1:1-2:23, or 1:1-4:16) as spurious and not belonging to Matthew’s autographical writing at all (though it seems to me, with no good reason for the claim). Other groups saw it as proper to Matthew’s writing but improper to his gospel account. Some who followed this understanding saw the introduction to Matthew as an explanation of the human man Jesus, while Matthew’s gospel begins with the story of the Christ, someone who descended upon Jesus at baptism. As Faustus says: “Matthew does not profess to give an account of the generation of the Son of God, but of the son of David.” It was argued that Mark’s gospel account begins with the gospel message of “Repent and be baptized,” and thus, Matthew’s gospel record must begin with the gospel message itself, not a genealogy.
When Matthew speaks of “the book of the origin,” is he speaking of his entire gospel record or only the genealogy? Did Matthew preface his gospel account with another book known as “The book of genealogy?” It seems to me that Matthew’s entire gospel record is “the book of the origin” of a new Genesis. Matthew’s record is not merely the gospel message but a literary work in which he explains the beginning of more than just a genealogy.
A New Genesis
Matthew begins with his account of the γενέσεως (geneseōs) of Jesus Christ. Quite literally, the *genesis* of Jesus, which means “origins.” This is the same title the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translators saw fit to name the first book of Moses, and this has been passed down to us to this day. The book telling of the origination of the universe, the Sabbath day of rest, mankind and animal, deception, sin, murder, God’s cleansing of the fallen world, the promised seed, the nation of Israel, truly, Genesis is a book of “firsts,” origins, or beginnings. Likewise, Matthew writes an introduction to his gospel narrative by playing on this concept. There has been found a *new* Genesis story in Christ. We are now to learn of a new beginning. A new creation, a new kind of rest in Christ, a new Adam, a new way out of sin, a new nation of Jew and Gentile (as seen below in the genealogy account), a new covenant. This is the first of many new creation glosses of Matthew. In the same way we once read of the genesis of man, we now read of the genesis of a new man, Jesus Christ.
The word γένεσις (genesis) is most often translated as “genealogy.” γένεσις is often used to preface a genealogical account by giving the origin of a person through their ancestry (compare Genesis 5:1 LXX). In the case of Matthew, Matthew is about to give a genealogy of the origins of Jesus Christ, as a man who is born of David and Abraham. A genealogy is a genesis, or origin, of a man and outlines his generation through the generations.
“The book of the generation of Jesus” is contrasted to Genesis 5:1: “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” Thus, Matthew makes a comparison between the old “Adam” (which literally means “man”) and the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). Matthew is also making a comparison to Genesis 2:4, “These are the generations (γενέσεως) of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” In the same way God generates the heavens and the earth, so also Jesus concludes this gospel account with: “And having come to them, Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority in heaven and on the earth has been given to Me'” (Matthew 28:18). New creation in Christ is not only limited to this reference, but in Matthew 19:28, Jesus says: “And Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I say to you that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit down upon His throne of glory, you having followed Me, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'” This “regeneration” is παλιγγενεσία (pálin, “again,” and génesis, “birth, beginning”). It is, quite literally, “Genesis again.” A new heavens, a new earth, a new creation, a new generation.
While a much more loose reference, Isaiah 53:8 says: “By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation (γενεὰν), who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?” Given that Matthew quotes from Isaiah 7 immediately following this genealogy account, and also considering that Isaiah 53, the suffering servant passage is commonly referenced and alluded to in the crucifixion story of Jesus in Matthew, this parallel may have too be on the mind of Matthew.
The topic of the divinity of Christ is immediately called to mind. If the Son of God were eternally generated from the Father, then his origination would surely, first be this. Matthew does not give any evidence or detail of Jesus having more than one generation, origination, nor does he qualify the origination in this passage to be exclusively that of his human nature. If Jesus is the eternal son of God, why does Matthew only mention his being the son of Abraham and David in this account?
Many of the church writers regarded the four gospels to correspond to the four living creatures of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 1:10 reads: “As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle” (compare also Revelation 4:7). Irenaeus states: “The third had, as it were, the face as of a man,—an evident description of His advent as a human being… Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (IRENÆUS, Against Heresies: Book III, Chapter XI). It was commonly held that Matthew’s gospel is written primarily to depict Jesus in the terms of a man to symbolize this “image of the dispensation of Christ.” The argument is that Matthew is depicting Jesus specifically as a man to illuminate this particular image from the prophet Ezekiel and his vision. Thus, the genealogy of Jesus as a man from men is specifically for this purpose. Many will argue that John’s prologue contains the divine origination of Jesus, and thus, there was no need for Matthew to do so.
However, we must admit that when Matthew wrote his gospel account, he knew nothing of John, who had not even conjured the thought to place ink to paper on the subject. Must we admit that Matthew wrote with an intentional blind-spot in which John had to fill in the gap some 20+ years later? Aquinas, quoting Pseudo-Chrysostom, stating that Matthew’s gospel, originally to the Jews, had no need to inform the Jewish Christians that the Messiah born of David would be divine. “To them [that is, the Jews,] it was unnecessary to explain the divinity which they recognized; but necessary to unfold the mystery of the Incarnation. John wrote in Greek for the Gentiles who knew nothing of a Son of God.” (Catena Aurea, Matthew 1:1, Homilies 1). Is it true that the ancient Jews expected the Messiah, born of the seed of a woman (Genesis 3:15), born of the seed of the human Abraham (Genesis 22:18), born of the seed of the man David (2 Samuel 7:12-14), would be their God? Was it truly unnecessary to state that the promised Messiah would be God? Would we also state that it was necessary for Jesus to be defined as man? In other words, it is clear that the Jews expected the Messiah to be man, necessarily born of the line of Abraham, Judah, and David. Yet, Matthew felt the need to explain this origination of Jesus as a man. What was not clear from messianic prophecy is that this man would be God. Yet, Matthew felt no need to explain this. Noting also that Mark felt no need to explain this, and neither did Luke. While Matthew is generally regarded as a “brushing up” of Mark’s gospel, the Greek being in a more eloquent style, and Matthew copying approximately 70% of what is contained in Mark, and Matthew gives a pre-baptismal narrative that Mark did not, why would we expect that Matthew thought it unnecessary to include the divinity of Jesus?
The Son of David
That the Messiah would be the son of David stood as no surprise to the orthodox Jews even of the time of Christ.
And the Pharisees having been assembled together, Jesus questioned them, saying, “What do you think concerning the Christ? Of whom is He son?” They say to Him, “Of David.” He says to them, “How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I place Your enemies as a footstool for Your feet.”’ If therefore David calls Him Lord, how is He his son?” And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day to question Him any longer.
Matthew 22:41-46
The Pharisees themselves admitted that the Christ/Messiah would be the son of David. Jesus’ response to them affirms that they are correct. “How does David in the Spirit call him Lord?” But, how did the Pharisees know the Messiah would be the son of David? “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Samuel 7:12-14a). While it is obvious that this prophecy was directly attributed in its near fulfillment to David’s son Solomon, it also contained a far fulfillment in the Messiah. This, the Jews recognized. “I will establish his kingdom forever.” It simply cannot be true that Solomon’s kingdom was established forever. While his kingdom was great and had that potential, due to the rebellion of Israel, the prophecy had to be completed in its fulfillment by the Messiah. This is seen in the burning question of the Apostles of Jesus immediately after his resurrection in Acts 1:6: “So indeed those having come together were asking Him, saying, ‘Lord, at this time are you restoring the kingdom to Israel?'” The Jews were looking to the Messiah to fulfill the promise made to David that his seed would bring a kingdom which would never be brought to ruin. Some have responded by stating that Solomon did indeed fulfill the prophecy but that the prophecy was not to end in Solomon. It does not say that “his kingdom will last forever,” but rather “the throne of his kingdom.” While Solomon died, the Messiah would step onto the throne (see Luke 1:32), and he would rule forever. Regardless, the Jews understood that the Messiah must be the son of David. The Hebrews writer quotes this passage and applies this to Jesus in Hebrews 1:5. See also the promise referenced in Psalm 89:19-37 and 132:11 to David once again. According to Paul, being “the son of David” seems to be of special relevance to the gospel (2 Timothy 2:8). “Son of David” was a commonly used title for Jesus in Matthew’s record (See Matthew 1:1, 6, 17, 20; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9, 15; 22:42, 45.)
David was a king, and therefore, his descendant would also be in line to be king. By illustrating that Jesus is the son of David, it follows that Jesus has a right to be the king of Israel.
David is a typological parallel to Jesus in a number of ways. There are very clear comparisons between David and Jesus, some noted above (Luke 1:32, Matthew 22), and others such as 1 Samuel 21:4-6 and Matthew 12:1-4, using David as an example of “what is lawful on the Sabbath?” In Revelation 3:7, Jesus holds “the key of David.” David was a “man of blood” (1 Chronicles 22:8), a man of war. Jesus is one who leads the war on God’s enemies. In the same way in which David led God’s wars through Israel, Jesus will now lead these wars from God’s throne. It is the blood of David’s hands that prevented him from being able to build the temple of God. Yet, David made the preparations for the temple (1 Chronicles 22:5). Similarly, Jesus prepared the Church of God by his ministry and laid the foundations for it. David was concerned for the Ark of the Covenant, which is where the presence (Spirit) of God resided. David’s zeal for God to have a house of his own moved David to wish to build the temple (2 Samuel 7:1-2). Similarly, it was zeal for the house of God that moved Jesus to cleanse the temple (Matthew 21:12-13). In John’s account (John 2:17), when Jesus cleanses the temple, it is said to be in fulfillment of Psalm 69:9: “For zeal for your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.” This is a Psalm said to be composed by David himself. David was born in Bethlehem, and as foretold in Micah 5:2, the Messiah would also be born in the city of David. David was a shepherd, and Jesus himself is considered to be our shepherd, who tends to us as his sheep, who know and follow his voice. In the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17), we read of David, a small boy with no training in combat, a meek shepherd boy who defeated a giant who taunted everyone. This story is a type of Jesus and how he defeated the Devil and conquered evil by the seemingly most trivial weapon; Of David, a rock and sling, of Jesus, a cross and death. David is said to have had God’s “Holy Spirit” which he was anointed with (Psalm 51:11), and it is Jesus who had been anointed by God’s Spirit at baptism (Matthew 3:16). Both David and Jesus were prophets, both kings, both sit on God’s throne, both shepherds, and both are leaders of war. It is very fitting that Matthew would include the very familiar Jewish figure of David in introducing Jesus to show parallels and similarities between them throughout the gospel record.
The son of Abraham
Abraham literally means “exalted father” or “father of a multitude.” It was the promise made to Abraham that God would grant him a seed in which all nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18, 26:4). While it was evident that this promise was immediately and firstly fulfilled in Isaac (and to a certain extent, Ishmael), the full fulfillment must be made in Christ. While Isaac was the father of a great nation, it was never through Israel that “*all* nations would be blessed.” As Paul says: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say ‘and to seeds’ as of many but ‘and to your seed’ as of One, who is Christ” (Galatians 3:16). The Phraisees and Sadducees relied on being children of Abraham for a form of transcendental grace they believed they had from the righteousness of Abraham. In other words, there was a belief that Abraham was so exceedingly righteous that his righteousness before God carried over through his children. John the Baptist says: “And do not presume to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as father.’ For I say to you that out of these stones God is able to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matthew 3:9). Through Jesus, God has made children of Abraham from stones (Galatians 3:7, 14). It is by Jesus that the seed of Abraham may bless all nations, and therefore, it is important for Matthew to begin his story of Christ and what he does in noting his connection to being a child of Abraham.
David before Abraham
It is common place to name the older of the ancestors first, then move on to those intermediary descendants. However, Matthew makes something of a remarkable move in naming “David” before “Abraham.” This is even more confusing given that Matthew goes on to give a descending genealogy, as opposed to an ascending genealogy like that of Luke. Jerome argues that this is due to the repetition that would result in the opening statement and the opening of the genealogy. This hardly seems credible. Some have argued that David signifies his royal lineage, while Abraham is his natural lineage. The HCSB notes that the genealogy actually begins with Jesus, contrary to the standard practice of a genealogy beginning with the most important and working downward, and in this way it shows the superiority of Jesus to his two most important ancestors, David, and Abraham. Yet, still, it may also be the case that Matthew wishes to illuminate the two covenants: the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic covenant. So why, then, would David be considered first and greater than Abraham? It is clear that the Jewish nation saw the residual grace of Abraham as far more important than being the offspring of David (Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8; 16:24, John 8:33, 37, 39, 53). It is because not all children of Abraham are children of David. One could be a child of Abraham and yet not a child of David. For the relevance of Jesus being “Christ/Messiah,” he must not only be a son of Abraham, but necessarily first, a son of David. Notice that Matthew says, “The is the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ.” Not only the genealogy of Jesus, but the genealogy of the Messiah. Matthew’s Jewish audience would know that in order for him to be justified in calling Jesus “the Christ,” he must be the son of David and not only Abraham. In the context of being the Messiah, David has more importance, because to be the son of David implies that you necessarily are the son of Abraham, but to be of Abraham does not necessarily imply that you are the Christ. Matthew’s strong emphasis on Jesus being “king” (given that Χριστός, Christos, literally means “anointed,” which the kings of Israel necessarily were anointed with oil and Spirit to be the kings of Israel), it must be demonstrated that Jesus has the right to be king as a descended of David. David is mentioned 5 times in this genealogical record alone. And when Jesus asks the Pharisees, “whose son is the Messiah?” their response is not Abraham, but rather, “the son of David” (Matthew 22:42).