Matthew 1:1-25
RTNT 2021. Evidently I spent quite a bit of time looking at genealogies two years ago and learned a lot. See the January 8, 2019 post. The biggest item is David’s succession running through Solomon (Matthew) or his other son, Nathan (Luke). With that split you can get two very different and legitimate ancestries for Jesus’ birth.
And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. (v. 19) The Chronological Study Bible had a long note about this last section (today’s last eight verses). They made one point that was meaningful. They talked about “a culture that was obsessed with shame and honor”. And Joseph has to deal with that for both Mary and himself. He could shame Mary by divorcing her publicly or he could shame himself by claiming premarital relations. Neither way was good. Thankfully God interceded directly with him, sending an angel to quiet his spirit. I wonder how often God has quieted our own troubled spirits with a word from a friend or an unexpected event that turns things around for us. We need to be more aware of those “glory sightings” in our lives!
See also: January 8 / Matt. 1:1-17 and January 9 / Matt. 1:18-25 from 2019.
I looked at the genealogy too, Fred, and like you am pretty much familiar up to Zerubbabel, thanks to RTB. That’s when they come back from Babylon, and there are no more OT prophets and God seems silent for 400 years until NT events and signs. The people had stopped listening and responding? Also, I had been under the impression that Matthew does Joseph’s line, whereas Luke does Mary’s line.
Matt 1:19 jumped out at me: Joseph was choosing between his two options for Mary, divorce her or stone her, and he was picking the “kinder” way. But God jumps in and comes up with a different choice than Joseph was contemplating. What a reminder to all of us that God offers completely different and better choices, if we just listen and obey (easier said than done!).
That is so true, Debbie. I believe I get in front of God all too often and do my own little thing…
The dynamics of this social interplay became more real to Fred and me this Christmas season when we saw a beautifully done movie on television that I had never seen or heard of before called The Nativity. It realistically portrayed the relationship between Mary and Joseph, between them and the townspeople of Nazareth, and the travels they took to Bethlehem. The portrayal of Joseph was particularly touching to me—I had never really seen him in a personal way before. He always seems to be the gentle man smiling down at the infant in our nativity scenes at Christmas, but not a person who struggled and wept and felt betrayed. Highly recommended movie if you care to see it!
It is interesting to me that the culture at the time was focused solely on the lineage through the fathers. As a breeder of horses, I give the mother greater influence, as the father is simply a contributor of semen. The mother is the nurturer, and then environment influences come into play, as well. The formula for genetic influence is supposed to be 50/50, but the progeny is further influenced by nurturing (giving the maternal influence increased importance). That Mary is regarded as simply a vessel, and the paternal lineage is focused on tracing back to David, in particular, for relationship to a king, seems typical of a culture that has changed very little over the centuries. Until only very recently, societal culture has relegated women to lesser status, and that battle still rages, don’t you think? The Holy Mother is sought through prayer by those of the Catholic faith, to be an advocate for personal needs. Mary, to me, deserves greater respect for her place in the genealogy of Jesus, for her nurturing, and for the position in which she was placed, in an intolerant culture to begin with.
Thanks for that insight, Tom! My Bible study noted that there are more references to women by Luke (gospel, Acts) than much of the rest of the NT. A primary source for him was Mary. She kept many things in her heart!
Tom, you are right. The mothers need equal credit!
That said, at the time it was the father’s lineage that mattered. So tracing through Mary is a bit of a slam, isn’t it? And in Matthew 6 when Jesus is rejected in Nazareth, they are still shown to have the same old prejudices that they had when Mary got pregnant before her marriage: before they try to stone him, they ask, “Isn’t this the son of Mary …?” which is a complete insult since the usual question should have been, “Isn’t this the son of Joseph?”
And, after all, Joseph was a surrogate father…
This has been such a great discussion – so many good points. I also thought I read once that Luke traces Mary’s lineage while Matthew traces Joseph’s. I believe that in those days as well as today, a person is considered Jewish if his/her mother was Jewish. I don’t know if that plays into the lineage or not. But since Joseph was in effect a step-father, an important one of course, perhaps it made more sense to trace Mary’s lineage which also goes back to David and fulfills the prophesies. Interesting. It is also interesting that the lineage is divided into 3 sets of 14. So Jesus’ birth is the first of the next era (and what an era it turned out to be).