Friday, May 19, 2006

What's with all these kings? (Matthew 1)

Editor's Note: This post is part of an ongoing series about the Gospel according to Matthew. This week the subject matter is Matthew 1.

Genealogy was really important to the Jews in Jesus' day. Proving that one descended from the line of Abraham was pretty crucial if one wanted to establish one's sense of religious legitimacy. Jesus' genealogy is particularly impressive because it is an extension of the line of kings of Judah, and includes almost all of the kings which descended from David. Of course in the Old Testament it was very clear that the Messiah had to descend from this family line and Jesus being the Messiah and being in the habit of fulfilling prophesies is naturally going to be born into such a family.

This is kind of weird to me though. Jesus is the son of God; he doesn’t really need to have an impressive genealogy in order to be spiritually legitimate because he is pretty much the definition if spiritual legitimacy. I understand that it had to be that way because Jesus had to fulfill prophesies, but why did God choose to have the Old Testament predict a Messiah with a famous line of ancestors? Couldn’t God have conquered sin without so many name brand relatives? Why did he choose to do it that way?

It seems kind of against Jesus’ M.O. to have an impressive worldly resume. His parents were relatively poor working class people who lived in a really small boring town, he was born in a barn, he washes his disciples’ feet, he touches and hangs out with really gross people that most people in his day wouldn’t want to be in the vicinity of, and he just generally seems to carry around a very blue collar, humble attitude. Oh, and he laid down his life so that we could experience True Life. Why would somebody so genuinely accessible have to come from such a “spiritually elite” family line? And why does Matthew find it necessary to outline it all for us?

1 comment:

Cabe said...

I'm pretty sure its "modus operandi".

on earth he was a peasant anyways. he was the Son of God, i dont know that he needs to descend from kings to be considered humble for the way he acted. i think him simply taking human form was pretty freaking humble, and then to carry himself in humility among a people who are much less than him in absolute rank and position is really quite extraordinary. wouldn't it have been more extraordinary without the line of kings?

i think more likely it is meant to be an illustration: it shows that Jesus is a king, but then Jesus the king shows everybody how to act in the kingdom of God. if the king is this humble, we really have some work to do.

i definitely agree with garrett that it sets him apart, which is cool. and i like colin's bit about God calling his shot. ours is the God of the clutch. if he calls a shot its a sure bet, and it would have been a lot harder to prove that God made his shot if Jesus hadnt descended from pretty well known people. Jesus is only a few generations from the person (Zerubbabel, Nehemiah's buddy and the governor of Israel) most recent to him that i know of that is mentioned in the OT. This makes it much easier to trace things down to Jesus to verify all of that.

also, the line of kings of judah in Jesus' genealogy goes from David to Josiah, a significant chunk of the list.

Josiah was actually a baller. almost all of the kings between David and Josiah were really really evil, but Josiah was solid and he was deeply grieved by how far Judah had fallen. he did his best to undo all of the bad that had been done starting with Solomon. of course it was too late and they went into exile right after he died. but its notable that it was most of those names between David and Josiah who pretty much caused the exile by their ungodly leadership.