If we are aware of the Old Testament tradition of “Hebrew meditative literature,” and dare to assume that the New Testament writers were familiar with this tradition, then it shouldn’t be difficult to recognize how very odd the opening of Matthew’s Gospel is, and why this shouldn’t surprise us at all. It reads: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ…” (Matthew 1:1a)

“Odd?” you say? Why, “Yes!” say I. For starters– and at the risk of looking foolish– what is a “book?” Is it a scroll? What exactly is Matthew referring to? Is it the Gospel of Matthew as a whole? If so, then why is it called the book of the genealogy of Jesus? The genealogy provided in the text doesn’t even cover the first chapter of the work! How is this then a book or scroll? Is it the case (and rather embarrassing) that the opening line of the opening book of the New Testament show signs of sloppy thinking and writing? But how can that be? Isn’t this God’s inspired text? Perhaps we need to show a little deference and respect and see if anything unfolds.

But then again, it gets “worse.”

What is the purpose of a genealogy from a biblical perspective anyways? Good question. The least one can expect from a genealogy is to demonstrate substantive connection between at least two people- the one at the beginning and the one at the end. It can always do more, but if it doesn’t do this, then how can it be a genealogy? To coin a barbarism: In what sense does it genealogize?

Unfortunately, Matthew’s genealogy goes out of its way to emphasize the ultimate disconnect between the two ends, despite suggesting otherwise at the beginning. Here’s Matthew again: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (v. 1)…. “To Abraham was born Isaac (and then verse 16)… to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus…” Oh, so Jesus is from Mary and has no substantive connection to Joseph his “father” and, therefore, Abraham? Genealogy? Hmm… We are left to ponder a bit if we choose. After all, if Matthew wanted to emphasize the physical connection between Abraham and Jesus, he could easily have traced these generations through Mary. But he doesn’t.

This is an authorial choice, so Matthew must have had a reason, a reason he leaves obscure. So there you have it: Matthew begins his work by calling his gospel a “book”— which apparently isn’t a book– about the genealogy of Jesus–which emphatically is no genealogy in any usual sense.

What is Matthew up to?

To answer this question we’ll have to consider these oddities as an invitation to go back to Matthew’s Old Testament roots, and to the book of Genesis in particular. True to the tradition of Hebrew meditative literature, we’ll see how Matthew rewards his readers for both questioning and respecting the text in their search for the truth. We’re all hopeful that such respectful questioning proves worth it.

For Your Own Musings…

1. If you’re unfamiliar with the tradition of Hebrew meditative literature, check out this short video on by the Bible Project guys. https://bibleproject.com/explore/video/bible-jewish-meditation-literature-h2r/
2. I suggest that the Bible and its authors invite a “respectful questioning” of the text as a means of unlocking their message of Truth. Do you think this is the case? If not, why not? Because it’s dangerous? Because it’s…? If you agree about this invitation, what might be some essential characteristics of pulling off what might seem like an oxymoronic activity? How do you know if you’ve gone too far or not enough in either aspect? What biblical examples might we look to for further clarity on this? How about the Serpent? Jacob? David in the Psalms? Jonah? Others?
3. Again, if we assume it’s the case that biblical authors deliberately puzzle and confuse their reader as part of their strategy, what do you think of that strategy? Why do you think it might be useful? How does such a strategy comport with your understanding of the spiritual needs of both the unredeemed and redeemed heart?