Matthew 1:1-17

Foreshadowing the Story 1 - Infancy Narrative 

Jesus, the Fulfilment of Israel – His Origins

The point of Matthew’s Infancy Narrative was not to give historical details about the early life of Jesus, whatever the historical value of the incidents he mentioned. His purpose had to do with meaning: he sought to raise the questions: Who might Jesus be? Whose son was he? How and where did he fit into God’s plan of salvation? What was his relationship to Israel? To read it simply as story would be to miss the sense of what Matthew intended to convey.

Matthew 1:1-17     The Genealogy of Jesus the Christ/Messiah  

Genealogies are of little interest to modern minds, other than perhaps people’s own family trees. But they were important to Jews. Six centuries beforehand they had experienced deportation to Babylon. Those who returned became an often-beleaguered minority amidst unbelieving, hostile neighbours. Their Hellenistic oppressors tried to force them to apostasy, in the interests of imperial security. They resisted all efforts to dilute the purity of their faith or their ethnicity. It became important for them to establish their identity and to maintain unity. Against this background, a thoroughly Jewish ancestry was seen to be vital.

Matthew chose to construct Jesus’ genealogy in such a way as to make other points as well.

Matthew’s initial concern was to plant Jesus firmly within the Jewish people. More importantly, he clearly and unequivocally claimed that Jesus was the Christ [Messiah]. It was this claim that led to the painful rift between the followers of Jesus and mainline Judaism. It was the basis of Matthew’s constant criticism of those Jews, particularly Pharisees, who would not accept Jesus as Christ/Messiah. More immediately, it was the reason why Pharisees from the local Jewish community had excluded members of Matthew’s Christian community from their synagogue.

Jewish Expectations

At the time of Jesus, the Jewish leadership had accommodated to the Roman imperial occupation of their country. They felt secure and comfortable. They feared that any change could only be for the worse. They had no expectations of any Christ/Messiah.

Many other Jews wanted change. Most of them saw their only real hope lying in a definitive apocalyptic intervention in history by God.

Some believed that this intervention would be led by an unknown future charismatic leader, especially chosen and anointed by God – a Christ/Messiah (the words "Christ" [Greek] and “Messiah” [Hebrew] mean “anointed”).

Some of these anticipated a priestly Christ/Messiah who would usher in a renewed and purified priesthood. Some awaited a prophetic figure, chosen and anointed by God.

Others hoped for a kingly Christ/Messiah, a genuine descendant of David, who would overthrow the present Roman rule and would reign with justice and integrity.

In his unfolding narrative, Matthew would show Jesus to be the Christ/Messiah of Davidic stock, who would definitively, but peacefully, usher in the re-imagined Kingdom of God.

Matthew emphasised that Jesus was descended from David (and hence a potential Christ/Messiah of the Davidic line, qualified to fill the many messianic prophecies contained in the Hebrew Scriptures).

Jesus was son of Abraham. Significantly for Matthew, God had promised that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through Abraham. The Book of Genesis showed God promising Abraham:

The Christian community understood its mission to extend to all the nations.

Matthew constructed an abbreviated version of David’s ancestors, all of whom were mentioned in the earlier Hebrew Scriptures. (Neither Isaac, Jacob nor Judah were first-born sons – God’s choices could prove surprising.)

The list of royal descendants of David, kings of the Southern Kingdom, was similarly abbreviated. Most of the kings, according to the judgments given in the Book of Kings, were of questionable character - scheming, weak and lacking faith.

Along with the twenty-eight male ancestors so far listed, Matthew mentioned four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba. All four women were foreigners (from “the nations”) and shared an irregular background with their partners. Perhaps their inclusion provided a precedent for Mary’s unique conception of Jesus and consequent pregnancy, which would have raised eyebrows in the small town of Bethlehem.

Tamar had been cheated by Judah of her right to bear a child by one his sons. Her solution was to disguise herself as a prostitute and become pregnant to Judah himself without his realising it. Rahab was a prostitute, resident in Jericho, who hid two Hebrew spies and saved them from capture. Their report facilitated the Israelite capture of Jericho. Ruth was a Moabitess who colluded in her mother-in-law’s scheme that she become Obed’s wife and have a child. Bathsheba was a Hittite. She was seduced by David into an act of adultery (willingly or otherwise). Later, David had her husband, Uriah, murdered, in the hope of concealing the adultery.

Many of the names mentioned were not recorded elsewhere.

Jesus’ Jewish background was traced back through Joseph, even though Joseph was not his biological father. Within the culture, what made a child legitimate, and hence a member of the Jewish people, was his formal acceptance by the presumed father.

Matthew chose to indicate the purpose of his abbreviations. It was so that he could list three groups of fourteen – or six groups of seven. In the culture, the number seven served to indicate perfection. With Jesus, a seventh group of seven would begin, not of blood descendants, but of disciples, among whom Matthew’s community was to be numbered. They would embody the perfection of God’s saving plan initiated centuries before with Abraham.

The Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke

It is difficult for readers today to approach the narrative of Matthew without hearing, at the same time, constant echoes of Luke’s narrative. Christmas Carols, nativity cribs and Christmas cards, homilists and numerous others have merged them into one single comprehensive narrative. Unfortunately, the distinct purpose of each of the evangelists has been lost in the process.

The stories are different, composed without either author aware of, or relying on, the other. Neither author intended to write remembered history, but to construct a narrative crafted in such a way as to give a series of insights into the significance of this Jesus whose life and teaching they would later address. Each story was based on a few meagre details contained in the community’s common memory. The rest was the product of each one’s unique creativity. 

Among the elements that they shared in common, and that, therefore, can be assumed to have been already held in the community consciousness, were the following:

• The biological mother of Jesus was Mary.
• She conceived her child before she was married, by the direct action of God.
• Her husband was Joseph, who accepted legal fatherhood of the child.
• Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
• Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
• Jesus grew up in Nazareth.

Among significant differences can be listed the following:

• According to Matthew, Mary and Joseph were living, separately, in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ conception. By the time of his birth, they were sharing a home there, where the child was born.
• There were no local heavenly phenomena when Jesus was conceived or born.
• Some years after Jesus’ birth, the family settled in Nazareth.

The tone of the two accounts is remarkably different. Luke’s is exuberant; Matthew’s is sober. Personalities abound in Luke; they are few in Matthew. The people in Luke’s account are highly articulate; Matthew gives little direct speech.

Next >> Matthew 1:18-25