Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward

by Damien F. Mackey “For those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue, contained in his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that many commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies.”. Monsignor John McCarthy Here I am interested only in Matthew 1:7-11, referring to the Kings of Judah. Previously, while I had always been loathe to relinquish the two mighty kings of Judah, Joash and Amaziah (who are not listed), I had acquiesced in the face of good scholarly arguments urging for an understanding of what Matthew himself was trying to tell us. And so I had written as follows on Matthew’s Genealogy, with deference especially to the excellent scholar Monsignor John McCarthy of Sedes Sapientiae (the Vatican): …. [Here firstly quoting Bernard Sadler, “The Structure of Matthew - The structure Saint Matthew gave his gospel” (Sydney, 2013): http://www.structureofmatthew.com/The%20Structure%20of%20Matthew.pdf Understanding the structure of the gospel and how Matthew ordered the various parts to each other and to the whole is important, because unless this structure is correctly understood what Matthew is saying is likely to be misunderstood. Understanding the gospel‘s structure will not prevent readers or commentators making errors of interpretation but misunderstanding the structure certainly will not help. The purpose of this book is threefold: to explain the basic structure Matthew used composing his gospel; to present outlines showing how this basic structure is found throughout the gospel; and to provide a gospel text laid out using those structures. Basic structure Now, contrary to modern perceptions, early Greek versions do show the structure — but not the way modern readers expect. Matthew wrote his gospel in paragraphs grouped into larger symmetrical units called chiasms. A chiasm is a passage of several paragraphs (or other units) so written that the last paragraph of the chiasm is linked to the first paragraph, the second-last paragraph is linked to the second paragraph, and so on. It is the linking of paragraphs this way that binds them together as a chiasm. A chiasm usually has a freestanding central paragraph about which the others are arrayed. Chiasm is the only structure Matthew used in his gospel. The linking of the paragraphs of a chiasm is done by parallelism. Parallelism consists in the repetition of words or phrases. A differently inflected form of a word may be used and occasionally a synonym is used; for example, Matthew uses the word treasures in 6:19 and repeats it in 7:6 as pearls. Sometimes two words are repeated in reverse order to produce what is called inverted parallelism. There are other kinds of chiasms and other uses of parallelism in Hebrew literature but here we are considering only those Matthew used to shape his gospel. …. Wise words indeed by Bernard Sadler (RIP). I next proceeded to: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus Christ Question: What does Saint Matthew have to say about Our Lord‘s Genealogy? A merely superficial reading of this text (Matthew 1:6-17) will not suffice to unravel its profound meaning. According to Monsignor John McCarthy, in his Introduction to “The Historical Meaning of the Forty-two Generations in Matthew 1:17” (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt13.html): For those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue, contained in his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that many commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies. …. [End of quote] In my comment on this, I showed my reluctance to have certain major kings missing from this genealogy: Deep study is indeed required to grasp the logic of it all, because it appears that Matthew has, within his neat triple arrangement of “fourteen generations” (1:17): “Thus 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 Messiah” completely dumped four kings of Judah whose history is written in Kings and Chronicles. Those familiar with the sequence of the kings of Judah as recorded in Kings and Chronicles will be struck by the fact that Matthew 1 is missing these: Ahaziah; Joash (Jehoash); and Amaziah, three virtually successive kings - Matthew understandably omits the usurping Queen Athaliah before Joash - and later, Jehoiakim. Four in all! …. What is going on here? Was Saint Matthew the Evangelist mathematically deficient, somewhat like the schoolboy whose ‘sum of all fears’ is actually the fear of all sums? Even a mathematical dope, however, can probably manage to ‘doctor’ basic figures in order to arrive at a pre-determined number! Monsignor McCarthy, when discussing Fr. Raymond Brown’s attempted resolution of this textual difficulty, begins by asking the same question: Could Matthew count? Raymond Brown, reading Matthew's genealogy from the viewpoint of a modern reader, does not plainly see fourteen generations in each of the three sets of names, but by using ingenuity he can "salvage Matthew's reputation as a mathematician." He cautions, for one thing, that we should not expect too much logic in Matthew's reasoning, since omissions are frequently made in tribal genealogies "for reasons that do not seem logical to the Western scientific mind" (pp. 82-84). …. [End of quotes] On the face of things - or, as Monsignor McCarthy puts it – “reading Matthew's genealogy from the viewpoint of a modern reader” - what Saint Matthew may seem to have done would be like, say, a horse owner whose nag had come fourth in the Melbourne Cup, who later decided to re-write the story by completely ignoring any reference to the first three winners (trifecta), so that his horse now came in ‘first’. We however, believing the Scriptures to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, cannot simply leave it at that: a supposed problem of the sacred writer’s own making. Though this is apparently where the more liberally-minded commentators are prepared to leave matters in the case of a scriptural difficulty that it is beyond their wisdom to solve; thereby, as Monsignor McCarthy writes with reference to Fr. Brown, leaving things “in a very precarious state” (see below). … with Fr. Brown, there is a failure to attempt to “salvage” the sacred text. Rightly, therefore, does Monsignor McCarthy proceed to suggest: Brown's reasoning leaves a big problem. In the light of the deficiencies that he sees in Matthew's counting, how can one seriously believe that Matthew really shows by his 3 x 14 pattern that "God planned from the beginning and with precision the Messiah's origins" …? What kind of precision is this? And what could the number fourteen seriously mean in the message of Matthew? Brown believes that for Matthew fourteen was, indeed, "the magic number" … but he cannot surmise what that number was supposed to mean. He knows of no special symbolism attached to the number fourteen, and, therefore, he cannot grasp at all the point that Matthew is trying to make. So, rather than "salvage" Matthew's reputation as a theologian, Brown leaves Matthew's theology of 3 x 14 generations in a very precarious state. [End of quote] Monsignor McCarthy will, like Bernard Sadler above, seek to determine what Matthew himself is saying. Thus: Let us look at the plain message of the text of Mt 1:17 Contrary to what Fr. Brown had imagined: ― Matthew is not plainly saying that there were fourteen immediate biological generations in each period. In fact, when in his opening verse Matthew speaks of Jesus as "Son of David, son of Abraham," he is setting up a definition of terms which enlarges the notion of a generation. The Evangelist’s ways are not our ways - not how we might operate in a modern context. Accordingly, Monsignor McCarthy will allow Matthew to speak for himself: Just as Matthew can use the word 'son' to mean any descendant in the direct line, so can he use the word 'begot' to mean any ancestor in the direct line. Therefore, he does not err in saying in the second set of names that "Joram [Jehoram] begot Oziah [Uzziah]" (Mt 1:8), even though there were three immediate biological generations in between. Matthew is saying that there were fourteen undisqualified generations in each period of time, and his point has force as long as there is a discernible reason for omitting some of the immediate generations in keeping with the purpose of his writing. [End of quote] This brings us to that exceedingly interesting matter of the “discernible reason for omitting some of the immediate generations”. For, how to justify bundling out of a genealogical list two such mighty Judaean kings as Jehoash [Joash] and Amaziah? Between them they occupied the throne of Jerusalem for about three quarters of a century! Well, say some liberals, Matthew was using faulty king lists. No, say some conservatives, those omitted kings of Judah were very evil, and that is why Matthew had chosen to ignore them. But, can that really be the case? 2 Kings 12:2: ― “[Jehoash] did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him”. 2 Kings 14:3: ― “[Amaziah] did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but not as his father David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash”. Why, then, does Matthew’s Genealogy include the likes of Jehoram (Joram), and Ahaz (Achaz), for instance, about whom Kings and Chronicles have nothing whatsoever favourable to say? 2 Chronicles 21:6 – “[Jehoram] followed the ways of the kings of Israel, as Ahab’s family had done, because his wife was Ahab’s daughter. So he did what the Lord considered evil”. 2 Kings 16:2-4 ― “Unlike David his father, [Ahaz] did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God. He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites”. Monsignor John McCarthy, wisely basing himself upon the [Church] Fathers, seems to have come up with a plausible explanation for why these particular kings were omitted from the genealogy, and why the name of the wicked Jehoram, for instance, was genealogically preserved: Regarding the second set of "fourteen" generations, we read that "Joram begot Oziah" (Mt 1:18). But we know that Joram was actually the great-great-grandfather of Oziah, because Oziah is another name for Azariah (cf. 2 Chr 26:1; 2 Kg [4 Kg] 14:21), and in 1 Chr 3:11-12 we read: "and Joram begot Ochoziah, from whom sprang Joas[h], and his son Amasiah begot Azariah." Hence, Matthew omits the generations of Ochoziah, Joas, and Amasiah from his list, and the judgments given in the Old Testament upon these people may tell us why. St. Jerome … sees a reason in the fact that Joram married Athalia, the daughter of Jezebel of Sidon, who drew him deeper and deeper into the practices of idolatry, and that the three generations of sons succeeding him continued in the worship of idols. In the very first of the Ten Commandments given by God through Moses on Mount Sinai it was stated: "Thou shalt not have foreign gods before me. ... Thou shalt not adore or serve them. I am the Lord thy God, powerful and jealous, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation of those that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands to those that love me and keep my commandments" (Ex 20:3-6). Now Solomon was a sinner and an idolater (1 Kg f3 Kg] 11: 7-8), but he had a good man for his father and was therefore not punished in his own generation (1 Kg [3 Kg] 11:12). St. Augustine … points out that the same was true of Joram, who had Josaphat for his father, and therefore did not have his name removed from Matthew's genealogy (cf. 2 Chr 21:7). St. John Chrysostom … adds the further reason that the Lord had ordered the house of Ahab to be extirpated from the face of the earth (2 Kg [4 Kg] 9:8), and the three kings eliminated by Matthew were, as descendants of Athalia, of the seed of Ahab. Jehu eradicated the worship of Baal from Israel, but he did not forsake the golden calves in Bethel and Dan. Nevertheless, the Lord said to him: "Because you have diligently performed what was right and pleasing in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab in keeping with everything that was in my heart, your children shall sit upon the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation (2 Kg [4 Kg] 10:28-31). So it is interesting to note that while these generations of Jehu were inserted into the royal lineage of Israel, the three generations of Ahab were taken out of the genealogy of Jesus by the judgment of God through the inspired pen of St. Matthew. [End of quote] According to the revision that I have undertaken, though, there is no reason for major kings like Joash [Jehoash] and Amaziah to be dumped. (I can accept, perhaps, that the ephemeral and idolatrous Ahaziah, son of queen Athaliah, might be bypassed). Nor have Joash and Amaziah been dumped, for I find them in their alter egos, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. The King Joash, who would ultimately murder the holy prophet Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was the same as the King Uzziah who would, for a time, come under the spiritual influence of that Zechariah, “who instructed him in the fear of God” (cf. 2 Chronicles 24:22; 26:5). Similarly, the seemingly missing King Jehoiakim can be found in his alter ego, Manasseh: Manasseh - Jehoiakim (7) Manasseh - Jehoiakim | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So far, I have explained that some apparently missing kings (except for Ahaziah?) are not actually missing from Matthew’s genealogical list. But, then, another problem presents itself according to my revision. There are duplicated kings as well in Matthew’s list as we currently have it. Thus: Potentially Abijah is Asa (common mother, Maacah); Hezekiah is certainly Josiah; and Amon is certainly Jeconiah. For an explanation of each of these three sets, see e.g. my articles, respectively: Maacah mother of Abijah, Asa (5) Maacah mother of Abijah, Asa | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (5) Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu and: King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) (5) King Amon's descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu When this revision is brought into effect, then we do not end up with the requisite fourteen kings. How many kings does this give us? Including David, whom some don’t, we get only twelve kings: 1. David; 2. Solomon; 3. Rehoboam; 4. Asa (Abijah); 5. Jehoshaphat; 6. Jehoram; 7. Uzziah (Joash); 8. Jotham (Amaziah); 9. Ahaz; 10. Hezekiah (Josiah); 11. Manasseh (Jehoiakim); 12. Amon (Jehoiachin). Or thirteen if my Abijah = Asa is rejected. May I be so bold as to ask if verse 17: “Thus 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 Messiah”, which occurs only once, may be a neat mathematical gloss that was not actually part of the original text? An artificial construct, perhaps? After all, what vital significance did the number “fourteen” have in the Bible, anyway?