researching theology . celebrating diversity

Subversive Elements In The Genealogy In Matthew

By Welwood L. Anderson B.A., B.Ed., B.Th (Hons.), Dip. T.

1. Note that the genealogy begins and ends with references to Abraham, David and The Messiah (vs.1 and 17), who frame the whole roll call.
   
2.  The naming of women in the genealogy subverts the usual custom that emphasies the male lineage. Is it significant that the role of women is important in the first section of the genealogy, is absent from the second section and finally appears again in naming Mary?  Is the intent to signal something about Mary, herself, or her son? 
3. If Jechoniah = Jehoiakin (2 Kgs 24:6), then only Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2Kgs 23:35-24:7) are omitted from the line of Judaean kings. Are these kings implied in the reference to "Jechoniah and his brothers"? (See 2 Kgs 24:6; 1 Chr. 3:16; and Luke 3:23-38). 
4. Matthew has clearly corrupted the genealogy after the reign of Josiah. It seems to tumble into an inconsequential (or meaningless) roll call. 
5. The use of the phrase, "and his brothers", found in vv. 2 and 11, seems to link Judah and Jechoniah. 
6. Tamar was a Canaanite woman, wife of Judah's son, Er, and the woman with whom Onan "spilled his seed upon the ground."  The story of Tamar (Gen. 38:6-30) and Judah, involves victimisation, breaking of the Levirate marriage customs, trickery and the unusual birth story of Perez and his twin, Zerah. The story points to the Canaanite origins of the line of Judah, and hence of Jesus. 
7. Linking Jechoniah (or Jehoiakin) and his brothers, to the Exile recalls that it was from among the people of Judah that exiles were sent to Babylon. Jesus' lineage comes by way of the restoration from Babylon (or from those who remained in "Judah" following the captivity, if one accepts that not all of the people were taken as captives to Babylon). There were concerns for ethnic purity during the restoration period and following it (again, referencing those who had broken custom). Is that concern relevant here? 
8. Salathiel may be another form of the name Shealtiel. IChr 3:16-19 traces Zerubbabel's descent through Pediah and not Shealtiel \ Salathiel, in contradiction of Ezra 3:2. 
9. Lk 3:27 gives Zerubbabel's descent through Shealtiel (which means "I asked of God"). In listing Shealtiel as Zerubbabel's father, Matthew and Luke follow Ezra 3:2 and not 1Chr. 3:16-19.
   
10. The persons mentioned from Abiud to Jacob are otherwise unknown in Scripture. 
11. It is not stated that Joseph is the father of Jesus. He is named as Mary's husband, only. This naming is similar to the naming of Solomon's mother, Bathsheba, as 'the wife of Uriah'.  What do we make of this?
    
12. The three sections of the genealogy can be seen as the rise to David, the fall into Exile and the rise to the Messiah. 
13. The apparent contrivance of the genealogy into three sets of fourteen generations (almost), is probably a play upon the sum of the numerical value in the letters of David's name.
    
14. However, there is not a strict application of this structure.  In the last set there are only thirteen generations. Assuming Matthew can count, does he subvert his own numerological scheme?

Putting All This Together

1. to set a subversive tone for what is to follow, in the Gospel, perhaps to introduce Jesus as the paramount subversive one, named The Messiah and as being of Abraham and of David. 
2. to point to significant women in the faith-history of Israel, perhaps to subvert patriarchy.
   
3. to break down barriers of resistance to Gentile inclusion into the Christian community, by pointing up Jewish history and the involvement of Gentiles within it, at key points of survival, e.g. Tamar, Rahab, exile and restoration. 
4. to counter or subvert the concerns of some Jews for purity of race, culture and religion. The five women mentioned all produce male heirs in an irregular way.  Continuance and salvation come "from the outside".
5. to point to a Gentile mission or the possibility of Gentile inclusivity within the kingdom of God. The first four women mentioned, are foreigners, outsiders. See Matt. 8:5-13; 15:21-28; 27:54; 28:16-20. 
6. to counter questions regarding Jesus' own origins as Mary's son.  Does the genealogy strive to make the point that just as the line of Judah has dubious stock, it still gives rise to David, God's Anointed?  And, just as the House of David declines into Exile and confusion, God still brings forth Jesus, God's Anointed.  This is by way of another woman, who, like Tamar, Rahab and Ruth, rises from adversity to significance. Jesus, himself, rises from the adversity of arrest and death to resurrection and glory. Or are there other suggestions countered here, with reference to Mary's son?
7. to point up a picture of hope and triumph over adversity (Roman occupation) for all Israel. Jewish readers or hearers of the genealogy would surely notice the discrepancies. Is the genealogy, then, an encoded message of hope or a challenge?  It proclaims hope for the "outcasts" of its own time of origin, and for the "outcasts" of our own time.  It challenges us to realise that God not only brings in the "outcasts" through Jesus Christ but also challenges us to recognise that God still works in that way today.

Interpreting the Genealogy in Matthew.

The legal role of Gentiles, in Matthew's genealogy is a lesson in point here. The four matriarchs, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba are all classed as Gentile women, whose sons, Perez, Boaz, Obed and Solomon, respectfully, are not true Jews, if the understanding in the tannaitic ruling is imposed. (Robert Gundry, Matthew. p.15. Bathsheba was of Jewish birth, as the daughter of Ammiel. Her status as a Gentile results from her marriage to Uriah the Hittite. All four women are thus Gentile.) The presence of Gentile women, in the genealogy, in contrast to the usual inclusion of the matriarchs, Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah, points to the role of Gentile women in Jewish history. When read with the catch phrases, "Judah and his brothers" (Matt.1:2c), and "Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon" (Matt.1:11b), it is feasible that Matthew is reminding the Jews that judgement and mercy is associated with these names. This raises consideration for just inclusion of women in Christian life, through the openness of mercy and justice, in following the example of Jesus and asking the question, "Who are my brothers and sisters?"

Rahab is shown among the significant people of Jewish history and the naming of her speaks for the possibility of faith among other Gentiles and outcasts. However, her presence is significant from the point of view of tensions over Gentile women and the loss of ethic and cultic identity.  Prejudices relating to Gentile women as licentious or as "menstruants from birth" compound the concern.  In this way the roll call of Israelite faithful, in Hebrews, corresponds to the genealogy in Matthew. It names origins as well as giving examples of demarcation or departure points of faith and experience.   Faith becomes a critical concern in deciding inclusivity than does origin or status.
 
Questions of religious and ethnic identity thus became pressure points forcing ethnic separation.

It is debatable as to whether Judaism was an actively proselytising religion in the early first century. (Schiffman, ibid. p. 122)  However, Matthew points to new possibilities of Gentile involvement. The stories of the Magi, the healing of the centurion's son, the Canaanite woman with a sick daughter, and the guards and centurion at the crucifixion, all recognise and accept Jesus. In this, Matthew, presents a challenge to participation by outsiders, but remains soberly rabbinic. (W. D. Davies, "The Jewish Sources of Matthew's Messianism." In Charlesworth, (ed.) The Messiah: Developments in Early Judaism and Christianity. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992.) p.511.)  The texts that stress universalism can be understood as raising the consciousness of Matthew's Jewish-Christian community regarding the manner of approach to outsiders, even as he preserves ethnic particularity. (Ibid.) Perhaps in this, Matthew is speaking for his own community, that is seen as "deviant" and isolated from the larger Jewish community by the leaders. It is a minority, reforming voice, speaking against power brokers, in his concern for the "lost sheep of the house of Israel". For the sake of the "sheep" attention must be given to those outside the fold.

In Matthew 15:21-28, the image of Canaanite women stands over and against the "lost sheep of the house of Israel", holding in tension the pressure between embracing Gentiles and women and accepting the relational consequences. (Elaine, Wainwright, Towards a Feminist Critical Reading of the Gospel of Matthew. p.225.) M.Nid. 4.1 held Gentile women to be "menstruants from the cradle". Thus, relational values of ritual purity are raised along side questions of inclusivity of the Gospel. For example, Rahab provides an image of outsiders being helpful to patriarchal society, that needs to be overcome. Andrew Overman sees in the Matthean community a "nascent formative Judaism", (Overman, Church and Community in Crisis, p. 42. ) beginning the process of building new identity and re-affirming traditional roots.

Like Isaiah 56, the image is of the nations gathering to Israel. In Matthew, faith and movement towards Jesus, in recognition of Jesus' status and authority as Lord, are identified as points of contact from which the possibility of reform may follow. This reform clearly speaks for the inclusion of women, gentiles amd other "ourcasts".  However, as the significant Gentiles in the Gospel narrative are shown as becoming neither disciples nor further followers of Jesus, beyond their one encounter, Matthew leaves the possibility of Gentile inclusivity within the rule of God, as an open challenge to discipleship. To accept Gentiles as an integral part of the reign of God, leads to questions of overcoming the inner stumbling blocks of the community, itself. In this way, the genealogy and stories that deal with outsiders, served to instruct Matthew's community and Israel, perhaps attempting to shame them to greater faith and into doing Jesus' will (Mt 7:21-23).

"In relation to Jesus (and to the Matthean group) it seems clear that he sees himself and his group as part of Israel and that he hopes to attract members of the larger Jewish community to his form of Judaism, just as Jesus did." (Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, p.197)

With respect to conversion to Judaism, the requirements of the Halakah were no different than those throughout out the Second Temple period, which were, acceptance of Torah, circumcision for males, immersion and sacrificial offering. (Saldarini, ibid. p.122.) It is in crossing boundaries and in inviting possible challenges to the above rules of conversion, that Matthew's Gospel reflects the seeds of schism. Being born a Jew or converting to Judaism set rules that preceded or were developed contemporaneously with Christian beginnings. Thus Matthew contains subversive elements that cross prevailing barriers of race, history and religion to define a new significance for Jesus.  Tamar, Ruth, Rahab and 'the wife of Uriah' are the persons mentioned.

An application of this parenetic example to our own time applies pressure to those points of exclusion that some Christians apply toward others. It raises the question whether modern marks of distinction, such as those based on sexuality, are appropriate barriers to inclusivity and participation. Are homosexual persons excluded from participation and are they to "convert" to being something other than themselves? The evangelical principle within Matthew is one of acceptance. The "good news" is that outsiders are included and that those who assume to be "insiders" may be the excluded ones, in so far as they do not exibit the inclusivity that is of Christ Jesus and the Gospel. ,Matthew's Gospel presents a subversive Christ as the One who accepts outsiders as insiders, without marks of distinction and an expectation for them to be other than themselves.

Was Jesus illegitimate?
While Matthew is unclear on this point, the references to Tamar, Rahab and 'the wife of Uriah' all suggest sexual impropriety.   Is Mary to be understood as implicated in the same way?  References to Jesus in the Talmud compiled in the Tannaitic period (1st century BCE -2nd century CE) preserve some traditions implicating Jesus through the sexual impropriety of his mother. Sanhedrin 64a and Shabbat 104b cite Jesus's illegitimate birth under the name Ben Pantera or ben Pandeira,  naming Jesus a mamzer, a child of fornication, in which Mary, allegedly, had an affair with a Roman soldier named Pantera or Pantheras.  These references form part of a polemic against Christianity and date from after the period of separation of Judaism and Christianity.  A similar anti-Christian polemic by Celsus (c. 180 CE) names anonymous, Jewish sources of the late second century.  Does Matthew record a very early occurence of a similar polemic and attempt to discredit it by naming similar stories in the Jewish past history?

The name ‘ben Pantera’ (son of Pantera) refers to an alleged affair between Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera or Pantheras and that Jesus was the resulting child.  Various attempts to explain the name hold that ‘Panteras’ is a deliberate play on the Greek word for virgin, "parthenos", or that the name may derive from ‘Panthera’, which is Latin for Panther, or from ‘Pantheras’, which is Greek for Panther.  The word "panther" was used as a metaphor for sexual licentiousness and hence is a coded polemic against Jesus and His mother.

Does Matthew's genealogy attempt to take the sting out of an earlier polemic against Jesus?  Does the genealogy do more than signal Gentile particpation in the church and point beyond circumstances of birth to make the point that while the line of Judah has dubious stock, it still gaves rise to David, God's Anointed.  Similarly, just as the House of David declines into Exile and confusion, God still brings forth Jesus, God's Anointed.  This is by way of another woman, who, like Tamar, Rahab and Ruth, rises from adversity to significance.  Jesus, himself, rises from the adversity of arrest and death to resurrection and glory.  Is there a suggestion that the parentage of Jesus is unusual and that he also arises from social adversity?  I am not referencing a divine connection here (although Matthew does in the birth narrative) but raise the probability of there being a Gentile connection to the person of Jesus, just as there was to Perez, Zerah, Boaz, Obed and Solomon. 

When approached from this direction, the narrative of the conception and birth of Jesus takes on a new meaning, in which the divine parentage of Jesus signals that God still brings forth Jesus, Messiah, against all adversity of origin and status.  Through faith, followers of Jesus may also transcend adversity of origin or status and become children of God.  Later in the Gospel, the Evangelist makes his point:

In this is the message of the genealogy.

Kloppenborg, John S., Q Parallels.  (Polebridge Press, Sonoma, 1988)

Luz, U., Matthew 1-7: A Commentary. Translated by Wilhelm C. Linss. (Augsburg Press, Mineapolis, 1989.)

Overman, Andrew J., Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to Matthew. (Trinity Press International , Valley Forge, Pa., 1996.)

Overman, Andrew J., Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of Matthean Community (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1990.)

Elaine, Wainwright, Towards a Feminist Critical Reading of the Gospel of Matthew. (De Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1991.)

Saldarini, Anthony J., Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community: Studies in the History of Judaism; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).

Schiffman, Lawrence H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran, (Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1994.)

 Theissen, Gerd, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition.   
 (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1991).

Other Matthean subversives include:

1. The role of the Magi (Matt. 2:1-12) as Gentile bearers of faith and witnesses to Christ and 'kingdom'. They are not "kings" but may be eunuchs or "queens" to give it a modern spin!
2. The centurion and his "son" or slave, Gk: pais (Matt. 8:5-13). Is this centurion another Gentile "eunuch from birth" (see Matt. 19:12)?
   
3. The Canaanite woman and her daughter (Matt. 15:21-28). Is she a Gentile whore, like Rahab, bearing significant witness to the reign of God, or a lesbian concerned for her "daughter", and therefore a female parallel to the centurion of Matt. 8:5-13?
4. The "eunuchs from birth" of Matt. 19:10-12. Who are these people? Do modern "gay" folks fit this description?  
5. The centurion and guards at the crucifixion (Matt. 27:54); the extreme "outsiders" have an insight beyond that of the self-considered insiders.
6. Simon of Cyrene- another Gentile enlisted to help Jesus. (Mat. 27:32)
7. The faithful women at the crucifixion (Matt. 27:56; no male disciples are mentioned; have they fled? Only women and "outsiders" witnessed the crucifixion which was itself at a place outside the city.)
8. And, of course, Jesus himself subverts all messianic expectations; dies as an outcast, and in shame; and subverts all expectation in resurrection.

  Jesus, A Defacto Eunuch?

  A Pushy Woman and Other Outcasts

An Exegesis of Matthew 15:21-28.
A stroy of one crossing barriers of distinction.

A Faith Greater Than Israel.

Literary criticism and exegesis of Matthew 8:5-13.
Uncovering same-sex relationships in  the Gospel.