# Matthew's genealogy 1:1-16



## piupau (Feb 10, 2011)

Hello. I came with this idea and I would like to know what you think about it.

Matthews genealogy in 1:1-16 includes king called Jechonias. And as we know jer. 22:30 says that no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David. And as we know Jesus is sitting there right now. So, we have a problemo.

Obviously the Matthew's (considering Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel) motive to this Joseph's genealogy was to prove that Jesus wasn't seed of Jechonia because Joseph wasn't his father.

(Assuming I am going to right direction.) Usually it is said in genealogies like man gave birth to child (Abraham begat Isaac and Isaac begat Jacob etc..) but there is 5 deviation (5 women) mentioned to given birth. First one is Tamar who was married with Er but gave child to Judah. Second is whore Rahab and according to jews law she had numerious former husbands due her's profession nonetheless she gave child to Salmon. Third is Ruth who was formerly married with Mahlon but after widowed get married again with boas and gave him child. Fourth is Batseba, Urias wife who gave child to David. So four of these didn't give child to their husband (atleast to first one).

And last but not least is Mary who was married with Joseph but gave child to God! So didn't give child to his husband either.

Ok. So is this by accident or are those five women mentioned purposely by Matthew because they gave children to somebody else than their husbands like Mary did? I just found this idea a really fascinating one, and if I would have heard it from preacher I would have bought it but now I kind a found it myself it felt pretty unconfident.... So, what do you think about it? What's the reason of those women mentioned in the text?


----------



## baron (Feb 10, 2011)

piupau said:


> Matthews genealogy in 1:1-16 includes king called Jechonias. And as we know jer. 22:30 says that no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David. And as we know Jesus is sitting there right now. So, we have a problemo.



The answer to this as I was told is that is why we have Luke's genealogy. Luke 3:31 in Mary's line is through Nathan, which was the son of David. 

So Jesus still is able to sit on the throne of David. Hopefuly some one can explain it better than I did.


----------



## jambo (Feb 10, 2011)

piupau said:


> Matthews genealogy in 1:1-16 includes king called Jechonias. And as we know jer. 22:30 says that no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David. And as we know Jesus is sitting there right now. So, we have a problemo.



I don't see a problem. None of his descendants occupied the throne. Zedekiah who succeeded him was his uncle. I would see Jer 22.20 as referring to the role of physical reign.



piupau said:


> Ok. So is this by accident or are those five women mentioned purposely by Matthew because they gave children to somebody else than their husbands like Mary did? I just found this idea a really fascinating one, and if I would have heard it from preacher I would have bought it but now I kind a found it myself it felt pretty unconfident.... So, what do you think about it? What's the reason of those women mentioned in the text?



All those who are mentioned as in the genealogy are to show a number of things. First of all it shows his humanity and human ancestry: he was a real person, a real human. Secondly it shows the range of characters, Jews and Gentiles, saints and sinners the very type of people Jesus came to redeem.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 10, 2011)

Certainly, one of the things Matthew is doing in the geneology is to point out that Jesus is a King, descended from a line of great kings. But even a cursory reading of Matthew shows that Jesus is also _unlike_ those other kings in many ways. He's a far greater and different sort of King than they were.

So you don't have to worry that (gasp!) Jesus is a descendant of Jechoniah, who's not supposed to have any descendant sitting on Israel's throne. The throne Jesus sits on is so far superior to the one Jechoniah's descendants were banned from that it really isn't the same thing at all.

Let Matthew make his point that Jesus is a King, the ultimate Son of David, and don't get sidetracked reading a lot more into the kingship aspects of the geneology.


----------



## piupau (Feb 11, 2011)

jambo said:


> I don't see a problem. None of his descendants occupied the throne. Zedekiah who succeeded him was his uncle. I would see Jer 22.20 as referring to the role of physical reign.


 
Well. Obviosule Jesus would have been Jechonia's descendant if he would have been seed of Joseph, but he wasn't! So there ain't problem in Jer. 22:30 even if it would have referred to spiritual reign.



jambo said:


> All those who are mentioned as in the genealogy are to show a number of things. First of all it shows his humanity and human ancestry: he was a real person, a real human. Secondly it shows the range of characters, Jews and Gentiles, saints and sinners the very type of people Jesus came to redeem.



Well. Genealogy full of men would prove to jews thast Jesus' was a real person. Every jew knew many of the persons mentioned in the genealogy. So it was obvious he had saint and sinner ancestors. Matthew obviously pick just some women to mention, not all of them. 

I am asking here: What is the function of those chosen women in the genealogies. He left some great women outside. I don't buy it, that Matthew would just randomly picked up some women to mention.

I just gave one idea that none of women he mentions had children with their first husband. So didn't Mary because Holy Spirit begetted her. So could that be answer?


----------



## Jack K (Feb 11, 2011)

piupau said:


> Obviosule Jesus would have been Jechonia's descendant if he would have been seed of Joseph, but he wasn't! So there ain't problem in Jer. 22:30 even if it would have referred to spiritual reign.



I think you run into problems if you say Jesus wasn't a true descendant of the people Matthew lists. There's no hint in Matthew that this is somehow not a true geneology. They are all Jesus ancestors legally, because Joseph married Jesus' mother, even though we realize they aren't his ancestors biologically. Matthew is saying, "These are Jesus' ancestors." If we think, "but they really are not," then we fail to listen to Matthew.





piupau said:


> I am asking here: What is the function of those chosen women in the genealogies. He left some great women outside. I don't buy it, that Matthew would just randomly picked up some women to mention.
> 
> I just gave one idea that none of women he mentions had children with their first husband. So didn't Mary because Holy Spirit begetted her. So could that be answer?



Many have suggested Matthew picked those women to include some Gentile ancestry, in sticking with his theme that it is time for all nations to be blessed through the Son of Abraham. Others say Matthew picked women with sinful associations, in keeping with the theme that Jesus will save his people from their sins. Or maybe he picked women with questionable or scorn-worthy pasts, fitting the way Jesus "was a Nazarene," despised and rejected.

Your theory makes some sense to me, too. We know Jesus faced some rejection due to his ordinary, humble upbringing. The fact that Mary was unwed at his conception could only have made Jesus seem even less legitimate. Perhaps Matthew is trying to show that unusual marriage/childbearing situations are sometimes a part of God's great plan, and in fact are a part of the heritage of Israel's greatest kings.


----------



## piupau (Feb 11, 2011)

Jack K said:


> I think you run into problems if you say Jesus wasn't a true descendant of the people Matthew lists. There's no hint in Matthew that this is somehow not a true geneology. They are all Jesus ancestors legally, because Joseph married Jesus' mother, even though we realize they aren't his ancestors biologically. Matthew is saying, "These are Jesus' ancestors." If we think, "but they really are not," then we fail to listen to Matthew.


 
Well. That might be but I am not convinced yet. Firstly, Matthew doesn't list Jechonias' father Jehoiakim. Question: why? Because it ain't necessary. Why Jechonias then is so important? Because none of his descendant should not be sitting in throne of David. So Matthew is actually saying here: This king ain't related to Jechonias. Secondly, Judah fathered Perez by Tamar... Boaz fathered Obed by Ruth... Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab etc... But when it comes to Jesus, Mary and Joseph the situation is totally differently described: Joseph, the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus. It doesn't relate Joseph to Jesus anyhow. It relates Joseph just to Mary.


----------

