Untitled Sermon

Matthew 1:1–17 ESV

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

Already in Hannah’s prayer “Messiah” parallels “king”: the Lord “will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed” (1 Sam 2:10). With the rising number of OT prophecies concerning King David’s line (e.g., 2 Sam 7:12–16; cf. Ps 2:2; 105:15), “Messiah, or “Christ,” became the designation of a figure representing the people of God and bringing in the promised eschatological reign.1

1 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 61.

“Son of David” is an important designation in Matthew. Not only does David become a turning point in the genealogy (1:6, 17), but the title recurs throughout the Gospel (9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15; 22:42, 45). God swore covenant love to David (Ps 89:29) and promised that one of his immediate descendants would establish the kingdom—even more, that David’s kingdom and throne would endure forever (2 Sam 7:12–16). Isaiah foresaw that a “son” would be given, a son with the most extravagant titles: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace: “Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this” (Isa 9:6–7).1

1 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 62.

“Son of Abraham” may have been a recognized messianic title in some branches of Judaism (cf. T Levi 8:15). The covenant with the Jewish people had first been made with Abraham (Gen 12:1–3; 17:7; 22:18), a connection Paul sees as basic to Christianity (Gal 3:16). More important, Genesis 22:18 had promised that through Abraham’s offspring “all nations” (panta ta ethnē, LXX) would be blessed; so with this allusion to Abraham, Matthew is preparing his readers for the final words of this offspring from Abraham—the commission to make disciples of “all nations” (Mt 28:19, panta ta ethnē). Jesus the Messiah came in fulfillment of the kingdom promises to David and of the Gentile-blessings promises to Abraham (cf. also Matt 3:9; 8:11).1

1 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 62.

Matthew’s chief aims in including the genealogy are hinted at in the first verse—viz., to show that Jesus Messiah is truly in the kingly line of David, heir to the messianic promises, the one who brings divine blessings to all nations. Therefore the genealogy focuses on King David (1:6) on the one hand, yet on the other hand includes Gentile women (see below). Many entries would touch the hearts and stir the memories of biblically literate readers, though the principal thrust of the genealogy ties together promise and fulfillment.1

1 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 63.

The simplest explanation—the one that best fits the context—observes that the numerical value of “David” in Hebrew is fourteen (cf. Notes). By this symbolism Matthew points out that the promised “son of David” (1:1), the Messiah, has come. And if the third set of fourteen is short one member, perhaps it will suggest to some readers that just as God cuts short the time of distress for the sake of his elect (24:22), so also he mercifully shortens the period from the Exile to Jesus the Messiah.1

1 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 69.

Running throughout this Gospel is the thought that God is working his purpose out and that one way in which that purpose is to be discerned is the manner in which what God has inspired his prophets to say can be seen to have been fulfilled in the life and teaching of Jesus.1

1 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 3.

Matthew is interested in the way Gentiles were drawn in to follow Jesus. We do not find here the universalism of Paul or of Luke, but there is an insistence that Gentiles have their place in the divine scheme of things, and specifically in receiving the teaching and the help of Jesus. Thus Matthew reports the coming of the Magi to see the infant Jesus, he centers much of what he has to say on “Galilee of the Gentiles,” and he recounts stories like that of the healing of the centurion’s slave and of the daughter of the Canaanite woman.1

1 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 6.

Matthew is saying, then, that his book is the story of Jesus Christ. He does not use the full name Jesus Christ very often; indeed, this is the only place where it certainly occurs in this Gospel (it is read by many MSS in v. 18 and 16:21, but in each case omitted by others). Matthew probably saw it as appropriate in the heading of his book. His normal custom is to use the personal name Jesus, which he does 150 times (Mark has this name 81 times, Luke 89, and John 237). We should perhaps notice that he uses the term only in narrative; no one in this Gospel addresses Jesus by his name. Matthew uses Christ only 17 times (Mark 7, Luke 12, and John 19). The word is, of course, a title; it means “anointed” and is the Greek way of referring to “Messiah.” The title was used so often by Christians that in time it came to be a proper name, but Matthew’s sparing use of it probably reflects the fact that this was not the case in Jesus’ lifetime.1

1 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 19.

He goes on to speak of Jesus as the son of David; he was of royal descent. Matthew uses the name of the great king 17 times, which is more than in any other book of the New Testament (next is Luke with 13).1

1 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 20.

It is unusual, though not unexampled (see 1 Chron. 2:4; 3:5), to find names of women in a genealogy, but here we have four. In Jewish writings it is not uncommon to find four women singled out for special mention: Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. But Matthew’s four—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba—are probably all Gentiles; and since Ruth was a Moabitess, we should not overlook the fact that to the tenth generation a Moabite was not to be admitted to the congregation (Deut. 23:3). Three of the four are of morally dubious reputation. Matthew is surely saying that the gospel is for all people, not Jews only, and that the gospel is for sinners. It is a sinful world, and Matthew is writing about grace. Stendahl thinks the mention of these women is a preparation for the “holy irregularity” of the virgin birth.1

1 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 23.

When he comes to David, Matthew adds the king; this is where kingship is attained in the line he is tracing. Now Matthew is very interested in kingship and uses the word “king” 22 times, more than any other book in the New Testament. He uses it in a variety of ways, referring to King Herod, the king in a parable, and the Son of man as King on Judgment Day. Here he is making it clear that there is royalty in Jesus’ line so that he is rightly called “King of the Jews” (2:2; 27:11, 29, 37, 42).1

1 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 24.

The book of the genealogy (biblos geneseōs) would remind a Jewish reader of Genesis 2:4; 5:1, where the same phrase is used in the Greek Old Testament. (The similar phrase ‘these are the generations [geneseis] of’ occurs also in Gen. 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27, etc. introducing both formal genealogies and narratives.) Matthew’s use of genesis would therefore suggest that the coming of Jesus is a new beginning, a new creation.1

1 R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 78.

Who is this Jesus, and where does he come from? So chapters 1–2 explain his origin, and 3:1–4:16 outlines his preparation immediately before he appeared in public.In all this, Matthew is primarily concerned to show Jesus as the one in whom the hopes of the Old Testament find their fulfilment. Six times in these chapters we find the formula ‘This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet’ or the like, introducing the ‘formula-quotations’ (see pp. 42–44) which are a special feature of Matthew’s Gospel; and the quotations so introduced do not relate to specific things which Jesus did, but to more general characteristics, his name and birth (1:22–23) and the geographical location of his birth, childhood and ministry (2:5–6, 15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16). Matthew thus demonstrates that the overall framework of Jesus’ preparation for his ministry corresponds to the pattern laid down in the Old Testament. Moreover, as the commentary will make clear, every section of these chapters, whether it includes a formula-quotation or not, is heavily weighted to showing the correspondence of Jesus’ preparation to the Old Testament pattern.1

1 R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 73–74.

Alongside this very striking concentration on introducing Jesus as the fulfilment of the Old Testament runs a higher note: Jesus is the Son of God. This, one of the main themes of Matthew’s Gospel as a whole, is clearly implied by his stress on the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (1:18, 20), and by the name Immanuel, ‘God with us’ (1:23), and becomes explicit in 2:15 and 3:17, from which it is taken up to become the central theme of the testing of Jesus in 4:1–11.1

1 R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 74.

The subject-matter of these chapters is, as the heading indicates, the beginning of Jesus’ life. But a better description of their aim and contents would be ‘scriptural proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus’.1

1 R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 74.

The very deliberate scriptural orientation of Matthew in these chapters is seen when they are compared with the infancy narratives of Luke (1–2). Luke tells delightful stories, with living characters, in whom he is clearly interested for their own sake. He sets the scene for Jesus’ life in the history and expectations of the Jewish people, provides a sketch of his family background, and gives us such meagre information as we possess on his growth as a child. Matthew, by contrast, provides merely the basic facts of Jesus’ birth, the visit of the Magi, and his family’s geographical movements, only so far as is needed to show the historical application of his chosen scriptural texts. Even the visit of the Magi, Matthew’s most elaborate story, is in fact, as we shall see, carefully related to bring out the theme of Jesus’ fulfilment of prophecy. His striking emphasis on geographical locations in chapter 2 leads in each case directly to an appropriate Old Testament text.1

1 R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 74–75.

David, however, is the central figure throughout the genealogy. When one adds up the numerical values of the Hebrew consonants in his name (DVD), one arrives at the number fourteen (4+6+4). This gematria, as ancient Hebrew numerical equivalents to words are termed, probably accounts for the centrality of the number fourteen in Matthew’s genealogy. Each of the three sections contains fourteen generations (v. 17), and David’s name itself is the fourteenth entry.1

1 Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 53.

“Christ” is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Meshiach (Messiah), meaning Anointed One. There was a great diversity of Jewish messianic expectation in the first century and previous eras, but one common thread involved liberation of Israel from its enemies. “Son of David” points to the Messiah’s necessary lineage and royal role (see 2 Sam 7:11b–16). The classic intertestamental illustration of the messianic Son of David appears in Pss Sol 17:21–18:7—a righteous warrior-king who establishes God’s rule in Israel. “Son of Abraham” traces Jesus’ lineage back to the founding father of the nation of Israel, thus ensuring his Jewish pedigree from the earliest stage of his people’s history. But echoes are probably also to be heard here of God’s promises to Abraham that his offspring would bless all the peoples of the earth (Gen 12:1–3). “Son of Abraham” also carried messianic overtones as well in at least some intertestamental Jewish circles (e.g., T. Levi 8:15).1

1 Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 52–53.

At any rate, the report is also appropriate for Matthew as biographer: there is little doubt that Jesus’ family historically stemmed from Davidic lineage. All clear early Christian sources attest it (e.g., Rom 1:3); Hegesippus reports a Palestinian tradition in which Roman authorities interrogated Jesus’ brother’s grandsons for Davidic descent (Euseb. H.E. 3.20); Julius Africanus attests Jesus’ relatives claiming Davidic descent (Letter to Aristides); and, probably more significantly, non-Christian Jewish polemicists never bothered to try to refute it (Jeremias 1969: 291). Jesus’ relatives known in the early church seem to have raised no objection to the claim of their family’s background (Brown 1977: 507). Thus Matthew opens and closes the genealogy with a title for Jesus significant but rare in his Gospel: “Jesus Christ” (1:1, 18; against Fenton 1977: 42).1

1 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 75.

Modern scholars more frequently argue that Matthew provides the legal line of royal inheritance; but those who wish can connect this lineage with Luke’s physical line by means of two adoptions. The best alternative to harmonizing the lists is to suggest that Matthew emphasizes the nature of Jesus’ lineage as royalty rather than trying to formulate a biologically precise list (contrast possibly Luke), to which he did not have access.1

1 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 75–76.

Matthew especially follows the listing in Chronicles where possible (Gundry 1982: 14–15; Jeremias 1969: 280n.26). Yet many commentators on the Greek text of Matthew note that he makes a few theologically significant adjustments to Chronicles: Asa and Amon become the more righteous Israelite figures Asaph (the psalmist, 1 Chron 25:1; superscriptions in Ps 50; 73–83) and Amos (the prophet). Just as Matthew traces Jesus’ line from David’s royal house via Solomon (cf. 12:42; contrast Lk 3:31), by subtle midrashic allusions he connects Jesus to priestly and prophetic threads in Israel’s history.1

1 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 76–77.

Matthew makes this point clear in the opening words of his genealogy: the “book of the genesis of Jesus Christ” (1:1). That Matthew starts with Jesus’ earliest ancestors and proceeds to his latest ancestors fits Old Testament (rather than Luke’s and Greek) genealogies (Aune 1987: 121), but Matthew’s use of “the book of the generations of” contrasts starkly with the use of that phrase in Old Testament genealogies. Most scholars agree that Matthew’s phrase depends here on the expression in the genealogies of Genesis (e.g., Allen 1977: 1; Meeks 1986: 140; Johnson 1988: 186). Yet genealogies like those in Genesis typically list a person’s descendants after this phrase, rather than a person’s ancestors (Gen 5:1; 10:1). Matthew’s point here is profound: so much is Jesus the focal point of history that his ancestors depend on him for their meaning. In other words, God sovereignly directed the history of Israel and preserved the Davidic line because of his plan to send Jesus (Gundry 1982: 10, 13; Patte 1987: 18).1

1 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 77–78.

Had Matthew merely meant to evoke the history of Israel in a general way, one would have expected him to have named the matriarchs of Israel: Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel. Instead he names four women whose primary common link is their Gentile ancestry: Tamar of Canaan, Rahab of Jericho (whom Matthew weaves into the Old Testament line here), Ruth the Moabitess, and the ex-wife of Uriah the Hittite.20 Indeed, most Jewish tradition subsequent to the Old Testament amplifies the record of their Gentile character (e.g., Gen. Rab. 50:10; 85:6; 88:7; cf. Zakowitch 1975; Jeremias 1958: 13–14; Johnson 1988: 167–70; Bamberger 1968: 193–95). Thus, for instance, Ps-Philo (9:5) praises Tamar’s refusal to return to the Gentiles, and the Testament of Judah (10:6), against the natural reading of Genesis, manages to deny that Tamar is Canaanite while allowing her to remain a Gentile.1

1 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 78–79.

  The crux of Matthew’s opening line is the second word, γένεσις. Most commentaries and versions translate it as ‘genealogy’, thereby implying that its function is solely to introduce Mt 1:2–17, the table of the ancestors of Jesus. But it is also possible to render γένεσις as ‘origin’ and thus construe 1:1 as introducing 1:2–25 or 1:2–2:23 or even 1:2–4:16. Yet a third option is to interpret 1:1 as being in the first instance the title for the entire gospel (so Jerome), in which case the the word must mean either ‘history’ or ‘genesis’ (= ‘new creation’). The view taken here is that, with qualifications, this last alternative is the most probable. The pertinent considerations are these:

(1) βίβλος γενέσεως is hardly an obvious title for a table of progenitors. The phrase occurs only twice in the LXX, at Gen 2:4 and 5:1. In 5:1 it translates sēper tôlědōt and is followed by a list of descendants (those of Adam), not (as in Matthew) by a list of ancestors. And in 2:4 (where the Hebrew is simply tôlědôt) the words are not even connected with a genealogy; instead they serve either to conclude the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth in 1:1–2:3 (so most modern commentators) or to open the story of the creation of man and woman in Gen 2 (so the LXX). Further, αὗται αἱ γενέσεις, not βίβλος γενέσεως, is the expression most often used in the LXX to preface genealogies;7 and while in Genesis genealogies are named after the first entry, this cannot be the case in Matthew.

(2) Not only is βίβλος γενέσεως associated with narrative material in Gen 2:4 (the creation account of P or J), but this is also the case in 5:1 (cf. 6:9). Gen 5:1–32 contains more than genealogical materials. It recounts in addition the creation of Adam and Eve, the ages of the ancients, and the taking up of Enoch. So for those acquainted with the Greek version of Genesis, βίβλος γενέσεως would likely have brought to mind more than the genealogical table of Adam. It would probably have sent thoughts back to the primeval history in general. This in turn suggests that Matthew might have opened his gospel as he did in order to draw a parallel between one beginning and another beginning, between the creation of the cosmos and Adam and Eve on the one hand and the new creation brought by the Messiah on the other.

(3) This proposal gains support from a third consideration, namely, that elsewhere the NT sees the coming of Jesus as the counterpart of the creation account narrated in Genesis. Paul, for instance, speaks more than once of a ‘new creation’ (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15), and he likens his Lord to a ‘last Adam’ (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:42–50). In addition, special notice should be taken of the prologue of John’s gospel (1:1–18), which clearly opens the story of Jesus by setting it against the background of the Genesis creation story (ἀρχῇ = běrēʾšît; on Mk 1:1 see below).

(4) The title of the first book of the OT in the LXX had already been fixed as ‘Genesis’ by the time of Matthew. Not only do the earliest mss. of the LXX have Γένεσις, but Justin (ca. 100–ca. 165; see Dial. 20:1), Origen (ca. 185–ca. 254; see Orat. 23:3; Eusebius, H.E. 6:25), Melito of Sardis (d. ca. 190; see Eusebius, H.E. 4:26), and the author of Audet’s so-called ‘Hebrew-Aramaic list of Books of the Old Testament’ (from the end of the second century a.d.) knew the book by this name. The NT moreover supplies evidence that at least some of the LXX titles were already current in the first century; see, for example, Acts 1:20 (ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν); 13:33; Lk 20:42; and perhaps Rom 9:25 and Acts 2:16 (contrast L. Proph. Mal. 3). But the decisive datum comes from Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 b.c.—ca. a.d. 50). Three times the Alexandrian exegete refers to the first book of Moses as ‘Genesis’ (Poster C. 127; Abr. 1; Aet. mund. 19). Indeed, in Aet. mund. 19 he asserts that Moses himself gave the book its name.

That Γένεσις had already before Matthew’s time become the standard title of the Greek Torah’s first book is obviously rather important for the interpretation of Mt 1:1—perhaps even as important as the occurrences of βίβλος γενέσεως in Gen 2:4 and 5:1. Genesis was a βίβλος, and its name was Γένεσις. One is therefore led to ask whether the introductory use of βίβλος γενέσεως would not have caused Matthew’s readers to think of the Torah’s first book and to anticipate that some sort of ‘new genesis’, a genesis of Jesus Christ would follow. It is difficult to think otherwise. By opening his gospel with another book’s title, Matthew almost certainly intended to set up the story of Jesus as a counterpart to the story of Genesis. Beyond this, since ‘Genesis’ already stood as the title of a particular well-known book, Matthew’s appropriation of that word to commence his work seemingly implies a parallel, that is, titular, usage.

(5) If Mt 1:1 be for the moment left aside, it may be said that, throughout the NT, βίβλος means nothing save ‘book’ (cf. BAGD, s.v.). And as for the patristic period, Lampe’s lexicon (s.v.) offers only two meanings for the word: ‘papyrus’ and ‘book’. Now because neither Mt 1:2–17 nor even Mt 1:2–2:23 or 1:2–4:16 could plausibly be labelled a ‘book’, the βίβλος of 1:1 most naturally encompasses the gospel as a whole.

(6) The question of whether 1:1 is a general title should take into account this consideration: it was a custom in the prophetic, didactic, and apocalyptic writings of Judaism to open with an independent titular sentence announcing the content of the work. Illustrations include the following: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Hosea, Amos, Joel, Nahum, Tobit, Baruch, the Community Rule, the War Rule, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jubilees, 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch (in some mss.), the Testament of Job, and the Apocalypse of Abraham. Even more telling than this, however, is the introductory use of sēper or βίβλος or βιβλίον in ancient Jewish and Christian literature. Consider these texts:

a. Nahum 1:1: ‘An oracle concerning Nineveh. Book (sēper/βιβλίον) of the vision of Nahum of Elkosh’.

b. Tobit 1:1: ‘Book (sēper/βίβλος) of the acts [or: words] of Tobit the son of Tobiel, son of Ananiel, son of Aduel, son of Gabael, of the descendants of Asiel and the tribe of Naphtali …’.

c. Baruch 1:1: ‘These are the words of the book (βιβλίου) which Baruch the son of Neraiah, son of Mahseiah, son of Zedekiah, son of Hasadiah, son of Hilkiah, wrote in Babylon …’.

d. T. Job 1:1: ‘Book (βίβλος) of Job, who is called Jobab’.

e. Apoc. Abraham, title: ‘The book (sēper?) of the revelation of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Roog (Reu), the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared (Ared)’.

f. 2 Esdras 1:1–3: ‘The second book of the prophet Ezra the son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub, son of Ahijah, son of Phinehas, son of Eli, son of Amariah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth, son of Arna, son of Uzzi, son of Borith, son of Abishua, son of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi, who was a captive in the country of the Medes in the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians’.

g. Sepher Ha-Razim, preface: ‘This is a book (sēper), from the Books of the Mysteries, which was given to Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mehallalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, by Raziel the angel in the year when he came into the ark (but) before his entrance’.

Beyond a common use of sēper or βίβλος or βιβλίον it is noteworthy that several of these openings have an anarthrous βίβλος or βιβλίον (a, b, d) and further that in five out of seven instances a υἱός-formula follows the first mention of the author or subject (b, c, e, f, g). Now because Mt 1:1 likewise opens with an anarthrous βίβλος which is immediately followed by a υἱός-formula and then a genealogy, the texts cited offer firm support for understanding 1:1 as a general title. When the first evangelist began his book with βίβλος, he was evidently following custom.

(7) Judaism conceived of the eschatological redemption and renewal as a new beginning. Not only would the last redeemer (Messiah) be as the first (Moses) but, for the rest, the world would once again be ‘as it was in the beginning’ (cf. 4 Ezra 7:30; Barn. 6). Matthew was manifestly familiar with this aspect of eschatology (note 19:28: παλιγγενεσία), and he saw the coming of Jesus in its light. In Mt 19:3–9, Jesus directs his followers back to Gen 1 and 2 and tells them that divorce is (except for the cause of πορνεία) adultery. Thus he announces a return to the initial order of things. Then at the baptism (in 3:16), the Spirit of God descends as a dove to the waters of the Jordan, which is probably intended to bring to mind the picture of Gen 1:2, where the Spirit of God ‘hovers’ or ‘broods’ over the face of the waters. And in 8:23–7 Jesus calms the raging sea, thereby showing himself to have the power of the majestic king of creation who, according to the OT, rules the chaotic waves (Job 38:8–11; Ps 89:9; 104:5–7; Prov 8:27–8; Jer 5:22; cf. Gen 1:1–2). Again, in 1:18 and 20 the rôle of the Holy Spirit just may hark back to its activity at the creation: as the Spirit originally moved over material things to bring forth life, so, in the latter days, has it moved once more—this time over a virgin’s womb—to bring something new into the world. Note must also be taken of Mt 2:15, according to which the Son of God, like Israel, went down to Egypt and returned therefrom to Palestine, and of those places where Jesus is painted with Mosaic colours (see on 2:16–18 (Herod and the infants); 5:1–2 (Jesus on the mountain); and 17:2–9 (the Transfiguration)); for in the Jewish mind the Exodus was linked with the act of creation. Passages such as these, taken together, demonstrate that an interpretation of Mt 1:1 in terms of a ‘new creation’ does not place upon that verse an idea foreign to Matthew.

The confluence of the seven points just made constitutes a formidable case for reading 1:1 as a general title: ‘Book of the New Genesis wrought by Jesus Christ son of David, son of Abraham’.1

1 W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 149–153.