The Divine Lamp

1:1 The book of the begetting of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Latin: Liber generationis Iseu Christi filii David filii Abraham.
Greek: biblos genesis Iesous Christo, huios Dabid, huios Abraam

The opening verse of Matthew’s Gospel is to be understood as a title. Unlike modern authors, who employ the use of a title page, or, at the very least, separate the title of their work from the text by placing it atop the page, ancient authors used other methods. Those who wrote in Greek alerted their readers to the fact that they were employing a title by several literary devices: (1) a title always stood at the head of what was being entitled; (2) a title had no verb, either explicit or implied; (3) a title never began with a definite article. Matthew 1:1, Mark 1:1, and Revelation 1:1-2 are all titles, but, unlike the last two mentioned, Matthew’s title is not given to the whole book, rather, it is used to designate the genealogy and subsequent birth narrative.

To modern man, reading a genealogical list is probably about as exciting as reading the county tax roll; but with many ancient peoples, such was not the case. Among the Jews, a persons family history is, at the same time, ones own history of God’s dealing with you and yours. Further, for certain classes of people, such as priests and royalty, genealogies were important for establishing ones claim to priestly or royal office. I have read somewhere that priests who wished to serve in the temple at Jerusalem were required to prove their heritage all the way back to Aaron; and that their wives had to prove that their Aaronic pedigree was at least five generations long. At the time of Ezra, after the end of the Babylonian exile, when the temple was being rebuilt and the priesthood reorganized, some who could not adequately prove their priestly heritage were “put from the priesthood” (Ezra 2:62).

Son of David. Though the actual genealogy begins with Abraham (vs 2) David is mentioned first in the title. No doubt this was done for added emphasis, in view of the importance of the kingdom and kingship themes in this Gospel. In this Gospel the title is used a total of 9 times in relation to Jesus, and once of St Joseph. Equivalent terms include “Messiah” (Greek, Christos= Anointed One. Used 14 times), “Emmanuel” (meaning “God is with us”. See 1:23; also 28:20), “King” (used several times in direct reference to Christ, and by allusion in some parables), “the one who is to come” (11: 3).

Son of Abraham. Abraham makes his appearance in salvation history immediately after the scattering of people and the confusion of tongues which resulted from the sin of Babel (see Gen 11). The promises to Abraham, therefore, are the beginning of God’s redemption of humanity from that situation. It is through Abraham that all the peoples of the earth will find blessing (Gen 12:3); Kings will stem forth from him (Gen 17:6), a prophecy which begins to find fulfillment in David, and is brought to fruition in our Lord, through whom we reign:

908 By his obedience unto death,⁴⁴⁴ Christ communicated to his disciples the gift of royal freedom, so that they might “by the self-abnegation of a holy life, overcome the reign of sin in themselves”:⁴⁴⁵

That man is rightly called a king who makes his own body an obedient subject and, by governing himself with suitable rigor, refuses to let his passions breed rebellion in his soul, for he exercises a kind of royal power over himself. and because he knows how to rule his own person as king, so too does he sit as its judge. He will not let himself be imprisoned by sin, or thrown headlong into wickedness.^{446 Catechism of the Catholic Church}

1:2-16 Abraham bgot Issac; and Issac begot Jacob… After the initial opening, mentioning that Abraham begot Issac, all subsequent births (except that of Jesus!) are introduced with the term “and” (and Issac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot… ect). The Greek is a primary particle (”de”, pronounced “deh”) which can be employed as either an adversative or a continuative; the latter being its usage here. By not employing it in relation to Christ’s ancestry the Evangelist hints at the uniqueness of Christ’s birth. This is further emphasized in 1:18 where the particle is used as an adversative introducing the birth narrative of Jesus. Every relationship in the genealogy is designated by the word “begot” and, after “Abraham begot Issac” with the word “de” as well; except when we come to Jesus, who, in addition to what has been said about “de”, is not said to be begotten of Joseph. This raises the question “how was Jesus born?” and, “how is he son of David?” Complicating this further is how the genealogy ends at 1:16, “And Jacob begot (Greek, egenneseu) Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born (Greek, egennethe).” Throughout the genealogy the accusative case of gennao, which is egenneseu, has been used, but with the birth of Christ the nominative case is used: “Divine intervention supplants the order of nature” (FIRE OF MERCY, Vol. 1, Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis). Finally, the “of whom Jesus was born” is feminine, thus relating the birth of Jesus to Our Lady rather than St Joseph. All of this serves to highlight the importance of the word “de” in the adversative in verse 18: ‘Now (”de”) this is how the birth of Christ came about.” It wasn’t like the other births; it was a virgin birth (see 1:16, 23, 25).

In addition to Mary, four other women are mentioned in the list. According to the Old Testament and/or Jewish tradition, the four women were all pagans. Since it was forbidden first by custom, but also by the Mosaic law, that Jewish men marry pagan women, their inclusion is thought to emphasize the theme of sin. In this regard it should also be noted that three of the woman, Rahab, Tamar, and Bathsheba (”the wife of Urriah”) were all involved in some kind of sexual sins. Furthermore, some other real stinkers are mentioned in the list; including the murderous and idolatrous king Manasseh. Perhaps all of this is to be seen as an apologetic or a polemic in support of the virgin birth. If God can maintain his promise in spite of sexual sins and murder, then he can certainly fulfill that promise through a virgin birth.

1:17 Fourteen generations…fourteen generations…fourteen generations… The division of the genealogy into 3 parts consisting of 14 generations each is clearly artificial. A comparison of this genealogy with others of the Abraham/David line shows that Matthew has purposely left out some names to achieve the symmetry. Thus, for example, between the names Jehoram and Uzziah the names of three kings: Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, are excluded. Two things should be noted here: (1) the word “begot” can be used of direct ancestors who may not be immediate ancestors; in other words, a grandfather, or a great-grandfather can be said to have begotten a grand/great-grand son; (2) Genealogies often functioned as more that merely historical records; they sometimes had symbolic value often based on numbers and structure (see the introduction to Genesis in the NEW CATHOLIC COMMENTARY ON HOLY SCRIPTURE). Various suggestions have been made as to why St Matthew divides his genealogy into three sets of fourteen. The most commonly accepted explanation is based upon Hebrew gemmetria. As in Latin, letters in the Hebrew alphabet also served as numbers. The numerical value of the consonants of David’s name (Hebrew has no vowels in its alphabet) equals 14: D=6; V=4; D=6. The fact that there are three sets of 14 generations is probably meant to convey the idea of fulness.

If one counts up the generations mentioned in the third section, one finds only thirteen, not fourteen generations; this has led some scholars to conclude that A scribal error took place very early in the copying stage of the Gospel. Others think that we are to understand that Jesus, the thirteenth generation, inaugurates the fourteenth as “the Christ;” in other words, Christians from the time of the resurrection to the second coming make up the fourteenth generation.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS