Genealogies and Their Function

Even a casual investigation of Matthew’s genealogy (Matt 1:1-17) shows that his concern is not to fastidiously reproduce a hereditary list or offer a precise record for drawing Jesus’ family tree. While the lineage from Abraham to David might seem relatively straightforward, several generations are collapsed into a few names elsewhere, e.g. in the succession of kings. And, it is worth pointing out that this telescoping of the genealogy can be checked against the Old Testament. Unless we are ready to label Matthew as either a careless author or a dimwit, our first inclination ought to be to ask what Matthew is doing with this genealogy. And if Matthew has in mind something other than a strict ancestry.com project, we should allow him the space to make his point, since it is his prerogative to present Jesus’ origin story as he sees fit. Besides that, his genealogy is consistent with the use of genealogies in the Old Testament. So, then, the balance of this reflection takes up these two ideas: 1) Matthew has a specific point that he’d like to make, and 2) Matthew has precedent for making his point by way of genealogy.

On the first idea, a comparison between this genealogy and the one found in Luke will reveal a handful of significant variations that cannot be easily explained. This is the first step in recognizing that Matthew is not merely making a list of names but making a point. Nevertheless, the comparison with Luke forces us to consider the options for why these two genealogies for the same person could be different. One viable option is that Matthew is tracing royal succession while Luke is tracing biological succession. Thus, once Matthew gets to King David, he follows the royal line through Solomon rather than the (possibly) biological line of Nathan. Does this then mean that Matthew’s genealogy is all art and no science, as it were? Not necessarily. Two considerations work against such a view: 1) genealogies aren’t merely lists of names but windows into personal and national stories (more on that below) and 2) life is often not so neat and tidy as a linear step from father to son. After all, this genealogy of Jesus is traced through Joseph, who is only the adoptive father of Jesus (a lot of theology hangs on that observation). These two considerations do not solve all the challenges in harmonizing Matthew and Luke’s genealogies, but it does help us to appreciate that when we take authorial intention, the form of genealogies, and the messiness of life into view, we are not left hopeless in the endeavor.

Turning to the second idea, one scholar argues that many of the genealogies in Genesis, which follow a fairly rigid form but also depart from that form at significant points, “function as compressed tellings of the history that stands behind them.”[1] Since we know that Matthew knew his Hebrew Bible based on the number of Old Testament texts that he notes are fulfilled by Jesus, it is reasonable to suppose that Matthew was taking a page out of Genesis’ genealogical strategy to tell a long history in a compressed way through a chain of significant ancestors leading to Jesus, the Messiah.

Moreover, the enumeration of generations (Matt 1:17) seems to take a page out of the book of apocalyptic literature. One scholar notes that “the practice of enumerating the past through certain images … is a common apocalyptic technique whereby authors attempt to espouse a philosophy of history,” in particular a philosophy of history that structures a seemingly disordered series of events.[2] And, it is fair to say that the exile of God’s people to Babylon was an apparently disordering event, since it appeared to disrupt the promises to both Abraham and David. That Matthew spends time relating the exile to Abraham, David, and then Jesus suggests that his compressed telling of history has a specific goal, namely that God has been superintending all of the history of redemption up to the point of the birth of Jesus, the Messiah, for the sake of making good on his promises. In that sense, the whole genealogy is pregnant with meaning and is consistent with the larger program of Matthew’s gospel to present Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfillment of Scripture.

What all of this means is that when we encounter Matthew’s genealogy, we should approach it as a window into Matthew’s world and also his intentions. We should let the stories be told, so that we might learn from them the truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of David, son of Abraham, son of God, who is the yes to all of God’s promises. And our response should be a hearty Amen.

[1] John Nolland, “Genealogical Annotation in Genesis as Background for the Matthean Genealogy of Jesus,” Tyndale Bulletin 47.1 (1996): 121.

[2] Nicholas G Piotrowski, “‘After the Deportation’: Observations in Matthew’s Apocalyptic Genealogy,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 25.2 (2015): 199.