THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT TO THE DAVIDIC COVENANT IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES

In Gen 12:1-3, the Lord tells Abraham, “I will make you a great nation,” and “I will make your name great.” In 2 Sam 7:9 the promise to “make your name great” is extended directly to David. The promise to establish the Jewish nation is repeated, “I will also appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again” (2 Sam 7:9-10).

The Davidic covenant is an expansion of God’s covenant with Abraham. It is, however, more than simply an expression of the blessings promised to Abraham. The Davidic covenant is the means by which the Abrahamic blessings are fulfilled. “In other words,” writes Blaising and Bock, “The final fulfillment of Abrahamic blessing in the Promised Land will take place under the rulership of a Davidic King.”³⁰ Psalm 72 confirms that the Davidic king has become the mediator of covenant blessings to the nation. Under his just administration, the Jewish people experience prosperity and live securely in the land. The psalm, however, also indicates that the king is the mediator of covenant blessings to the Gentile nations. He blesses those nations that bless him: “All nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed” (Ps 72:17).³¹

The ideal language of Psalm 72 makes it clear that ultimate fulfillment of the covenant must await the eschatological reign of King-Messiah. Under his administration, the blessings promised to Abraham and mediated through the Davidic king will be realized in their totality and Israel will dwell securely in the land of promise. The eschatological Son of David will also mediate God’s promise to bless all the nations of the earth. The Gentile nations will be converted and will experience the blessings of everlasting justice, equity, and peace. At that time, the Gentile nations will be joined with Israel as the eschatological people of God (Zech 2:10-16) and together they celebrate the messianic Feast of Sukkot (Zech 14:14-16).³² It is in this sense that “Son of Abraham” refers to the salvation of the Gentiles. The presence of Abraham in the genealogy does not, as Bauer suggests, allude to the salvation of Gentiles who replace unbelieving Israel.³³

Lastly, we observe Jer 33:20-22 where God’s eternal covenant with Abraham is linked to 2 Sam 7:12-13 and God’s covenant with David. In this passage promises made to Abraham and his offspring are ascribed to David and his descendants. The Lord affirms that a descendant of David will sit upon the throne forever and declares that David’s offspring shall be like the host of heaven that cannot be counted and the sand of the sea that cannot be measured (Jer 33:22). The key point here is that the Abrahamic covenant has been restructured into a political covenant in which the blessings of the first covenant are mediated through monarchial structure of the second.³⁴

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT TO THE DAVIDIC COVENANT IN JUDAISM

The Targum to Psalm 89:3-4 also establishes a link between God’s covenant with David and his covenant with Abraham. In Ps 89:3-4 God refers to the Davidic covenant as an oath he has sworn to David: “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant: I will establish your seed forever and build up your throne from generation to generation.” The Targum interprets verse 3 in light of God’s covenant with both Abraham and David: “I made a covenant with Abraham my chosen; I confirmed it with David my servant. . . .”³⁵

The sectarians clearly awaited the coming of a Davidic Messiah who would bring about the restoration of Israel. In our discussion about the function of the Son of David title, we saw that the sectarians also related the eschatological kingdom to God’s covenant with Abraham. To be precise, the sectarians considered themselves to be the eschatological remnant and the true heirs of God’s covenant with Abraham and Israel (4Q393 [Communal Confession] 3:6-7). It is reasonable to assume that Matthew shared a similar conviction about his community and their identity as the true heirs of God’s covenant with Abraham. Indeed, it is for this reason, that Yeshua warns the Pharisees and scribes against trusting in their ethnic status to deliver them from the coming judgment.

With the possible exception of Testament of Levi 8:15, we find no evidence that “Son of Abraham” functioned as a messianic title in Judaism. In Matthew, the term occurs only in verse 1. Why then does Matthew use this title? First, as we have suggested, he uses the title because Abraham represents the foundation covenant upon which all of God’s promises to Israel are based. Despite the fact

33 See Bauer, “The Genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel,” 466.34 See Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 168.35 See the edition edited by Paul de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice (Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967),

Israel’s leaders presumed upon their status as Abraham’s offspring, Abraham was nevertheless the father of Israel and the one to whom God had sworn his covenant loyalty. Secondly, Matthew uses the title to stress Yeshua’s flesh and blood connection to the Jewish people.³⁶ On the one hand, he does stress that only Yeshua’s followers are the true heirs of God’s covenant promises. On the other, however, he affirms that Yeshua is indeed a “son of Abraham.” The term implies that he is a physical descendant of Abraham. More specifically, it means that Yeshua is ethnically and racially Jewish. Moreover, as a “true Son of Abraham,” he is qualified to fulfill the Son of David’s messianic mission. Lastly, Matthew uses Son of Abraham to remind the reader that Yeshua is the descendant of Abraham, “the father of many nations” (cf. Gen 12:3; 1 Macc 12:19-21).³⁷ However, he redeems the Gentiles not by rejecting Israel, but by fulfilling his task of bringing about Israel’s eschatological restoration.

MATTHEW 1:2-17:THE GENEALOGY OF YESHUA THE KING

In this section, we will examine the three-fold structure of Yeshua’s genealogy in Matt 1:2-17 and suggest that it provides the reader with a template for interpreting Matthew’s theology of

52. For this translation, see Edward M. Cook, The Psalms Targum: An English Translation [on-line]; accessed 17 July, 2003, available from www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/pss/tg_ps_index.htm; Internet.

36See W. D Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 1:158.

37 Ibid.

38It is beyond the scope of this study to mention or fully address the many important questions that arise regarding this pericope. These include such subjects as 1. the relationship of bibloß genesewı to the genealogy and the gospel as a whole; 2. the purpose of the five women in the genealogy; 3. the lack of symmetry in the 3 x 14 structure and the problem of only thirteen names in the final group of fourteen; and 4. disagreements between Matthew and Luke’s genealogy. For a detailed discussion of these and other issues, see the following: M. D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With Special Reference to the Genealogies of Jesus, SNTS 8, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 139-228; Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, rev. ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 66-94; David R. Bauer, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, JSNTS 31(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988); idem, “The Literary Function of the Genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel,” SBLSP (1990): 451-68; Douglas Huffman, “Genealogy,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scott McKnight, and I. Howard Marshal (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 253-59; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1: 149-60; Hagner, Matthew 1-13; 1-12; Herman Waetjen, “Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel According to Matthew,” JBL 95 (1976): 205-30; R. P. Nettelhorst, “The Genealogy of Jesus,” JETS 31 (1988): 169-72; R. Larry Overstreet, “Difficulties of New Testament

Israel.³⁸ The genealogy is composed of three units of fourteen generations each and is designed to demonstrate that Yeshua is the true Son of David and the legitimate heir to the Davidic throne. The genealogy is however more than simply a list of names authenticating Yeshua’s royal credentials. It provides the hermeneutical key with which we are to interpret Israel’s past, present and future history. And, even more importantly, it provides us with a paradigm with which we are to interpret Matthew’s Gospel as a whole.

To validate these claims, we will now examine the actual structure of Matthew 1:2-17. Matthew 1:1 forms a chiasm with the genealogy in which the names “Yeshua,” “David,” and “Abraham” are repeated in reverse order in verses. 2, 6 and 16. This chiastic structure may be illustrated as follows:

Yeshua (1:1)

David (1:1)

Abraham (1:1)

Abraham (1:2)

David (1:6)

Yeshua (1:16)

The purpose of this chiasm is twofold. First, Matthew wishes readers to understand that Israel’s history is bound up in, and derives its ultimate meaning from, Yeshua the Messiah. Bauer correctly writes that:

As the high point of culmination toward which all of Israel’s history has been moving, Jesus Christ gives meaning and significance to history. This implies that the meaning of Israel’s history is ultimately incomprehensible outside of Jesus the Christ as he is presented in Matthews’ Gospel.³⁹

Matthew’s Christological interpretation of Israel’s history provides us with the hermeneutic by which we are to interpret the fulfillment citations that occur throughout the gospel. Texts like Isa 9:1, Mic 5:2, Hos11:1 and Zech12:10 find their ultimate fulfillment in Yeshua the Messiah. Does Matthew’s Christological reading of

Genealogies,” GTJ 2 (1981): 303-26; W. Barnes Tatum, “Origin of Jesus Messiah (Matt 1:1, 18a): Matthew’s Use of the Infancy Traditions,” JBL 96 (1977): 523-35; John C. Hutchinson, “Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew’s Genealogy,” BSac 158 (2001): 152-64.

39 Bauer, “The Genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel,” 457-58.

these texts resignify their meaning and does his application of these texts to Yeshua, as some have suggested, mean that their fulfillment has been spiritualized and they no longer apply to Israel on a national and political level?⁴⁰ Many scholars, of course, answer this question in the affirmative and insist that the meaning of these texts has been exhausted in the life and ministry of Yeshua. An argument such as this reveals a basic failure to understand the intertextual function of these texts of the Hebrew Bible.

Matthew’s Christological interpretation of these and other Hebrew Scripture texts is grounded in the presupposition that God is fulfilling his covenant promise of rest for the nation and an everlasting throne. Matthew’s Christological hermeneutic is complimentary rather than supersessionist.⁴¹ His Christological interpretation of history does not imply that he views God’s covenant with the nation as nullified or superceded. Yeshua fulfills Hebrew Scripture texts not in replacement of Israel but rather on behalf of Israel.

This brings us to the second purpose of the genealogy’s chiastic structure. Matthew’s identification of Yeshua as the Son of David and the Son of Abraham gives rise to a complex of ideas concerning the fulfillment of covenant promise. Matthew wishes his readers to understand that Yeshua is the Messiah—the King of Israel, the one in whom God’s promises to David and Abraham are now realized. He has come to restore the nation and establish his kingdom forever. While each name in the chiasm has individual significance, Matthew presents them together as a theological package. He does not intend for “Son of David” and “Son of Abraham” to be interpreted separately.

The genealogy is composed of three units of fourteen generations each in verses 2-16 with a summary statement in verse 17. The summary statement divides the genealogy as follows:

40 See, for example, France, “Old Testament Prophecy and the Future of Israel,” 55-58; Menninger,

Israel and the Church, 71-74. 41 See Darrell L. Bock, “Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Three Central Issues in

Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed.

Herbert W. Bateman, IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999). Regarding a complementary hermeneutic

Bock writes, “According to this approach, the New Testament does introduce change and advance;

it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In make complementary additions, however, it

1. From Abraham to David (1:2-6a)
2. From David to the exile (1:6b-11)
3. From the exile to Yeshua the Messiah (12-16)

The genealogy proper, however, is not as symmetrical as the summary statement seems to suggest.⁴² Indeed, Matthew’s list of names appears to be one short of the necessary forty-two needed to create three groups of fourteen names each. Uri Yoseph, who writes on the anti-missionary Web site, Messiah Truth, is dismissive of Matthew’s genealogy for this reason.⁴³ However, even Matthew’s advocates have struggled to explain Matthew’s three-fold division of names. The solution to this problem resides in understanding the genealogy’s asymmetric structure. Because he is the genealogy’s key figure, David’s name appears twice in the genealogy. Although the name appears twice, it is counted only once as the last name of the first group of names. Matthew repeats David’s name in the second group but he does not count it a second time.

Jeconiah’s name also appears to be counted twice, but this is actually not the case. Jeconiah’s regnal name (the name ascribed to a sovereign during his king) is Jehoiachin (cf. I Chr 3:16; 2 Kgs 24:8). However, in the LXX he shares the same name as his father, Jehoiakim (Iwakim, cf. LXX 2 Kngs 23:36; 24:8). Expecting symmetry with David’s name (which ends the first group and begins the second) and confused by the LXX’s use of Iwakim, a scribe may have deliberately changed Jehoiakim to Jeconiah.⁴⁴ Alternatively, Matthew may have deliberately taken advantage of the fact that the “alert reader” would recall that Jeconiah “is also known as Jehoiakim, and that this other name is a name which he shared with his father.”⁴⁵ Nolland writes:

does not jettison old promises. The enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise (90, italics his).

42Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 5. Hagner provides a detailed and valuable discussion of the genealogy’s structure.

43 Uri Yosef, “Genealogical Scams and Flimflams,” http://messiahtruth.com/genealogy.html.

“Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brothers” is a statement that clearly reaches the genealogist’s goal here in Jechoniah, while at the same time insisting that the Babylonian exile came just one generation beyond Josiah. In the statement “Jeconiah” is first and foremost himself, but secondarily a cipher for the father with whom he shares a name. The genealogist has contained his account of the period from David to the exile within fourteen generations and has provided us with a rich texture of allusion to the salvation history of which his genealogy is a brief summary.⁴⁶

Recognizing the genealogy’s asymmetric structure described

above, we may represent the names contained in each of the three

groups as follows:⁴⁷

44Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 6.

45John Nolland, “Jechoniah and His Brothers (Matthew 1:11),” BBR 7 (1997): 176.

46 Ibid.

47In an attempt to discredit the Brit Chadashah evidence, Uri Yoseph constructs a table which compares the genealogy of David listed in 1 Chron 3: 5-24 with the genealogies of Yeshua recorded in Matthew 1: 1-16 and Luke 3: 23-31 (Table IV. A-1,Genealogical Scams and Flimflams). Yosef lines up the genealogies in straight linear fashion in order to make a name by name comparison of the three genealogies but he omits the first group of names from the table because all

clear symmetry, the summary statement of verse 17 makes it clear that Matthew attaches symbolic value to the number fourteen and the division of Israel’s history into three groups of fourteen generations each.⁴⁸ David is spelled susin Hebrew. When the numeric value of each Hebrew letter in the name is added up, we arrive at the number fourteen: d (4) + w (6) + d (4) = sus(14). This word play between the name David and the number fourteen is a gematria used by Matthew to emphasize the theme of God’s covenant with David and its fulfillment in Yeshua, the ultimate Son of David.

Matthew has deliberately omitted names from the genealogy in order to arrive at the number fourteen. The purpose of the genealogy is clearly theological rather than chronological or historical. Its division of Israel’s history into three major groups of fourteen generations each strongly suggests that Matthew wishes his readers to

three genealogies are in agreement to this juncture. This results in a disruption of the Matthew

understand that God’s covenant with David is the template through which the nation’s history is to be interpreted. From Matthew’s perspective, the whole of Israel’s history is about God’s covenant with David.

The first group of fourteen begins with Abraham as a reminder of the origin of God’s covenant faithfulness and concludes with “David the King” (vv. 2-6a). Matthew reminds his readers that God made David king of Israel and established his dynasty in fulfillment of His covenant with Abraham. However, more is in view here than simply this, for David’s rise to power was not simply one event among many, but the climactic moment in Israel’s history to which each prior event was but prologue. Each male figure in the second group of fourteen ruled over Israel as king but David alone is identified as such in Matthew 1:6a. In a statement pregnant with meaning, Matthew declares, “And to Jesse was born David the King” (ton Dauid ton basilea). In addition to this, David is the fourteenth name in the first group of fourteen, producing yet another play on the 14/DVD fulfillment theme. The fulfillment of God’s promise to make David king over all Israel is thus the climactic event of the first group of fourteen.

The second group of fourteen represents the next major period of Israel’s history: the collapse of the House of David and the national disaster of judgment and exile into Babylon (Matt 1:6b-11). Just as David concluded the first group of fourteen, he begins the second (again reinforcing the centrality of David to Matthew’s interpretation of history). This time, however, David’s presence in genealogy reminds the reader of infidelity and covenant disobedience. Matthew omits David’s royal title and refers to Bathsheba only by circumlocution (Matt 1:6b). Despite his sinful actions, David’s greatness was unmatched by his successors. Although interrupted by brief periods of righteousness, a succession of kings led the nation into covenant disobedience, apostasy and ruin. That downward trend continued until the fall of the kingdom under the reign of Jeconiah. The House of David collapsed and the people of Israel were removed from the Land and deported to Babylon. From the temporal vantage point of human history, the Lord’s promise of rest for the nation and an everlasting throne appears to have been overturned. The deportation to Babylon (thı metoikesiaß Babulw◊noß) is thus the climactic event of the second group of fourteen (Matt 1:11).

The third group of fourteen brings Israel’s history to an even greater climax however with the coming of the Messiah (Matt 1:12-16). This section begins with the phrase “after the deportation to Babylon” (meta de thn metoikesian Babulwnoı) in verse 12 and concludes with the birth of “Yeshua, who is called Messiah” (Ihsouı o legomenoß cristoß) in verse 16. Matthew’s goal is to suggest to his readers that Yeshua has brought an end to exile and begun the process of Israel’s eschatological restoration.

Many scholars are persuaded that the church replaces Israel as the new people of God in Matthew’s Gospel and for this reason, this assertion will be greeted with skepticism if not outright rejection. Nevertheless, the text does seem to suggest that Yeshua’s coming occurs in fulfillment of God’s eschatological promise to reverse the punishment of the exile (Isa 11:12) and to restore the fallen tent of David (Amos 9:11).

The exile is clearly of theological importance to Matthew. The

genealogy’s
3 x 14 structure and the gematria (based on the name David) which it is intended to evoke.

48David L. Turner, Matthew, ECNT, forthcoming.

49P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968); Craig A. Evans, “Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott, SupJSJ 56 (Brill: Leiden, 1997), 299-328; Thomas R. Hatina, “Exile,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Craig A Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 348-51; Jacob Neusner, “Exile and Return as the History of Judaism,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, vol. 10, ed. Jacob Neusner, Studies in the History of Judaism 142 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 145-60; Shemaryahu Talmon, “‘Exile’ and ‘Restoration’ in the Conceptual World of Ancient Judaism,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott, SupJSJ 72 (Brill: Leiden, 2001), 107-46.

50Elliott, Survivors, 75, 360, 370-71, 381.

51 In addition to the fact that he twice refers to the exile by name in 1:11-12, each of the fulfillment citations contained in Matt 1:18-4:16 alludes to the exile at some level. Matthew’s use of Jer 31:15 in 2:16-18 generates a particularly strong allusion to Israel’s return from the Babylonian exile.

52N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 268-71; idem, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 126-29, 363 ff., 445 ff.; see also Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 77-100.

53Maurice Casey, “Where Wright Is Wrong: A Critical Review of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God,” JSNT 69 (1998): 95-103; Luke Timothy Johnson, “A Historiographical Response to

deportation to Babylon is the one historical event referred to by name in the genealogy. This fact alone seems to suggest that Matthew has organized Israel’s history according to Deuteronomic pattern of sin-exile-restoration (Deut 27-32). Within the framework of this paradigm, covenant obedience yields blessing and security in the land while covenant disobedience results in judgment and exile. Most scholars agree that this S-E-R pattern functions as a basic paradigm of history in the literature of Second Temple Judaism.⁴⁹ Others, however, have challenged the axiomatic assumption that restoration and return to the land is a unilateral and unconditional guarantee made to the nation as whole.⁵⁰

Matthew appears to share the view of many groups within Judaism who believed the exile to still be in effect on a spiritual level.⁵¹ Despite a return to the land, Israel remained in a state of spiritual estrangement from God because of ongoing covenant disobedience. N. T. Wright contends that a “return-from-exile” theme undergirds the teachings of Yeshua and the gospels as a whole.⁵² The academic community has enthusiastically embraced Wright’s thesis, but he is not without his critics. Several scholars have challenged his assertion that most Jews considered themselves to be living in a state of ongoing exile. On an even more fundamental level, a number of scholars have suggested that Wright’s use of exile as an overarching paradigm is inadequate.⁵³

These criticisms are valid and we must approach Wright’s thesis with great caution. Having said this, however, we must acknowledge that Wright’s assessment of the genealogy’s impact upon Matthew’s readers is surely correct. His assertions about the exile are a matter of debate and he misinterprets the genealogy’s structure. Nevertheless, Wright’s assessment of the genealogy’s impact upon Matthew’s readers is in our opinion on the mark:

As we saw, most Jews of the Second-Temple period regarded themselves as still in exile, still suffering the results of Israel’s age-old sin. Until the great day of redemption dawned, Israel was still ‘in her sins,’ still

Wright’s Jesus,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 206-24; Mark A. Seifrid, “Blind Alleys in the Controversy Over the Paul of History,” TynBul 45 (1994): 86-92.

in need of rescue. The genealogy then says to Matthew’s careful reader that the long story of Abraham’s people will come to its fulfillment, its seventh seven, with a new David, who will rescue his people from their exile, that is, ‘save his people from their sins.’ When Matthew says precisely this in 1:18-21 we should not be surprised.⁵⁴

Again, we must approach Wright’s remarks with caution. Despite some astute observations about the genealogy, he nevertheless spiritualizes the restoration of Israel and reduces the language of prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Moreover, Wright argues that Yeshua rejects the traditional symbols and institutions of Israel—land, family, Torah, and Temple—and radically redefines them.⁵⁵ If we follow Wright’s thesis to its conclusion, Matthew’s “careful (Jewish) reader” would find little consolation in what the author has to say.

Despite some very legitimate reservations concerning the misuse of the exile motif, the language of exile does appear to play an important part in Matthew’s theology.⁵⁶ In addition to the two explicit references to metoikesia in the genealogy (1:11, 12), Matthew’s use of Isa 7:14 (1:23) and Isa 8:23/9:1 (4:15, 16) establishes an intertextual link with Isa 7-9 in which the threat of exile and the promise of restoration clearly emerge. Still further, Matthew’s use of Jer 31:15 in 2:16-18 seems to suggest the coming of Yeshua has at last brought Israel’s exile to an end. According to Matthew, the slaughter of the Bethlehem innocents fulfills Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the weeping of Rachael over the Babylonian exiles.

We must conclude therefore that the exile is indeed of theological importance to Matthew, but it remains a matter of debate as to precisely in what way it is important or how it fits into Matthew’s overall theological structure. An overemphasis on exile can over

54Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 386.

55 Ibid., 224-35.

56 Wright’s misuse of the exile motif shall be discussed in the final section of this chapter.

57 Bauer, “The Genealogy of Matthew,” 457-48. Despite his careful analysis of its chiastic structure, Bauer wrongly concludes that the genealogy (in conjunction with the missionary commissioning) indicates a shift “in the people of God from Israel to the Church” (458).

58Turner, Matthew, forthcoming.

shadow Matthew’s real interest for he wishes his reader to understand that the coming of Yeshua signals more than just the end of exile but the beginning of Israel’s eschatological restoration. The phrases Ihsou Cristou (1:1) and Ihsouı o legomenoß cristoı

(1:16) form a bracket around the genealogy and imply that from Matthew’s perspective, Israel’s history is “ultimately incomprehensible” outside of Yeshua the Messiah.⁵⁷ The Messiah was by definition the restorer of Israel. Thus restoration—not exile—represents the climax of Matthew’s genealogy. While Yeshua fulfilled his messianic mission in a way few in Israel expected—as a suffering servant rather than a conquering warrior—he never renounced his identity as king of the Jews (Matt 27:11). As Turner observes, “Messianic hope was tied to Israel’s longing for God’s eschatological vindication and Israel’s freedom from Gentile domination.” ⁵⁸ While his identity as the messianic Son of David involved more than many of Yeshua’s contemporaries understood or expected, it surely did not involve less.

In summary, Matthew’s readers would recognize in the 3 x 14 structure of the genealogy a concise review of Israel’s history set within the framework of judgment and restoration. At the same time, they would recognize the overarching backdrop of God’s covenant with David. The following diagram provides a simple but dramatic visualization of the genealogy’s theological message:⁵⁹

59Turner makes a similar proposal but labels the final section of the diagram as “Purpose” referring to the fact that in the final group of fourteen “Matthew traces the faithful purpose of God in fulfilling His promise despite the rebellion of His people” (Matthew, forthcoming); see also Frederick Dale Bruner, The Christbook: Matthew 1-12 (Dallas: Word, 1987), 4.

60 Herman C. Waetjen, “The Genealogy As the Key to the Gospel According to Matthew,” JBL 95 (1976): 205-30. 61 Ibid., 212. 62 K. Bornhäuser, Die Geburts-und Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1930),

Our interpretation of Matthew’s genealogy has the advantage of cohering with the Tanakh’s eschatological expectations concerning promise, judgment, and restoration. A number of other scholars have proposed alternative schemes to explain the genealogy’s 3 x 14 structure. Waetjen, appealing to the Messianic Apocalypse of 2 Baruch 53-74, asserts that Matthew actually divides history into four ages of history.⁶⁰ He argues that in the third division of the genealogy, a second numerical scheme is at work similar to the 12

+ 2 (14 epochs) pattern of history that occurs in 2 Baruch. Waetjen contends that while the genealogy is divided into three periods a forth one is actually implied. Yeshua brings about the end of the third epoch of history, while simultaneously inaugurating the fourth.⁶¹

Because seven is a highly symbolic number in the Scriptures, several scholars reduce the genealogy’s 3 x 14 structure to a 6 x 7 pattern.⁶² In this schema, Yeshua’s advent inaugurates the seventh seven, “the climax of history” and “the dawning of the Messianic Age” (see 1 Enoch 91:12-17; 93:1-10). Hagner, while he stops short of offering an outright endorsement of this schematization, clearly favors it. He writes,

16-20; Austin Marsden Farrer, Saint Matthew and Saint Mark (Westminster: Dacre Press,

117

We are unable conclusively to discern Matthew’s intent in the 3 x 14 structure. It seems likely that there is significance in the veiled notion of multiple sevens. The fact that Matthew uses three “fourteens rather than six “sevens,” is possibly the result of the form of the genealogical list he used or (if Matthew composed the list) because the two key turning points of David and the Babylonian exile facilitated such a division.⁶³

Hagner dismisses as mere coincidence the fact that David’s name and the number fourteen are equivalent in Hebrew. The multiple sevens interpretation is a tenuous one at best, a fact which he himself appears to recognize. At the end of the day, he simply concludes that we cannot discern with certainty the intent that lies behind Matthew’s 3 x 14 structure.

The various attempts to reconfigure Matthew’s 3 x 14 structure are unconvincing and should be abandoned. There is simply no reason to conclude that Matthew organized the genealogy on a 6 x 7 scheme when he explicitly states that the genealogy is based on a 3 x 14 pattern. The fact that the number seven frequently occurs elsewhere in Matthew does not override what is unambiguously stated in 1:17. Moreover, the fact that Matthew makes explicit reference to David five times in the span of seventeen verses, and indirectly three times vis-à-vis the 14 = susgematria (and a fourth time if we count the fact that “David the King” is the fourteenth name in the first group of fourteen). The sheer frequency of these patterns and motifs compels us to believe that they are neither coincidental nor unimportant to Matthew’s overall theology.

The place of David in Matthew’s theology is often overlooked or relegated to a place of lesser importance. As a general rule, those who see in the genealogy no overarching emphasis upon the Davidic covenant, shift the genealogy’s focus away from Israel and to the Gentiles, finding the genealogy’s interpretation in its details (i.e., the Gentile women) rather than its overall structure. This issue is an important one because arguments such as those described above gradually diminish the Son of David’s relationship to the nation and redefine his messianic mission. He ceases to be the Davidic Messiah-King of Israel and becomes simply the “Therapeutic Son of David.” Whatever else Matthew has to say about Yeshua’s Davidic mission, his presentation of Yeshua in the genealogy as Messiah who restores the nation of Israel must be allowed to stand.

To sum up: Matthew has composed a genealogy of Yeshua that is theological rather than historical in nature. The genealogy’s 3 x 14 structure provides a gematria which Matthew uses to emphasize the fact that Yeshua has come in fulfillment of God’s covenant with David—a covenant in which He promised rest for the nation and an everlasting throne for David. In addition to this fact, Matthew mentions David’s name five times in the span of seventeen verses. The significance of this emphasis upon David would not have been lost upon Matthew’s readers: Yeshua is the Messiah-King who has come to restore the House of David.

At the same time, however, Matthew has organized the genealogy according to the deuteronomic pattern of sin-exile-restoration. exile was a graphic reminder that covenant blessings could be forfeited due to apostasy and unbelief. On the one hand, Matthew draws attention to the fact that Yeshua has come to restore the nation in fulfillment of God’s covenant with David. On the other hand, however, he refers to the exile as a powerful reminder that restoration occurs as a result of covenant obedience. In weaving these themes together, Matthew simultaneously shows Yeshua to be the one in whom the Jewish people must believe as an act of covenant obedience and the one through whom God has begun the eschatological restoration of Israel. With this basic understanding of Matt 1:2-17, we are at last ready to synthesize our findings concerning the Son of David as the Messiah of the elect remnant and Matthew’s use of the genealogy’s to present Yeshua as the Messiah who restores the nation of Israel.

1954), 189; Edgar J. Goodspeed, Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist (Philadelphia: John Winston, 1959), 25; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), xx; Bauer, “The Genealogy in Matthew,” 463.

63Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 7.

64See Elliott’s discussion on this subject, Survivors, 370-71.

65Marius Reiser, Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 313; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 95-98, 113; R. A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 211; Martin

REMNANT AND RESTORATION THEMES IN MATTHEW 1:1-17

Two basic facts have emerged from our study of Matt 1:1-17 which suggest that remnant and restoration function as a paradigm for Matthew’s theology of Israel. First, remnant and restoration are implied by Matthew’s use of the title “Son of David” (1:1). Implicit in Matthew’s identification of Yeshua as the Son of David is the conviction that he is the Messiah of the elect remnant, the true heirs of God’s covenant promises.

As even our very brief study of the literature of Second Temple Judaism revealed, covenant promises were interpreted as applying exclusively to “the faithful” within Israel. On an individual level, restoration was neither unilateral nor unconditional and was dependent upon membership in the elect community.⁶⁴ Matthew’s readers, like the readers of Pesher Psalms (4QpPs^a) 2:4-5, 4QCommunal Confession 3:6-7, and Pss Sol 17:1-4, understood that the promise of national restoration applied only to the faithful remnant. More importantly, they understood that the remnant consisted of those who had embraced Yeshua as the Messiah of Israel, the Son of David.

The concept of the remnant is a core component of Matthew’s theology of Israel. Of course, this assertion is not without its critics. More than a few scholars reject the idea that any such doctrine exists in either the teaching of Yeshua or the gospel itself.⁶⁵ These individuals are mistaken on a very basic level, however, for the doc

Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, trans. J. C. G. Greig (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1981), 59-60; R. W. Huebsch, “The Understanding and Significance of the ‘Remnant’ in Qumran Literature” (Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 1981), 349; Rudolf Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom, trans. John Murray (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), 99-100.

66 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:180 67 Menninger, Israel and the Church, As we might expect, Menninger fails to take seriously the question of what it means for Yeshua to be the Son of David/King of Israel. He is cognizant of the genealogy’s 3 x 14 structure and Matthew’s use of gematria to emphasize David’s name but fails to explore or appreciate the ramifications of these issues (74-78). At the same time, he is cognizant of what Cristoı and Son of David would have meant in the context of first-century Judaism (i.e., national restoration and deliverance from oppression) but rejects the political connotations of these terms as inappropriate. He labors (ineffectively in our opinion) to explain why these terms have been stripped of their national and political implications. Moreover, Menninger fails to recognize that within the thought world of both the Bible and first century Judaism, the concept of

trine of the remnant is fundamental to Matthew’s theology of Israel; a fact confirmed by his use of biblical texts that evoke or include the remnant, his use of remnant terminology, and his emphasis upon the theme of eschatological judgment and preservation of the righteous. Consequently, Matthew’s identification of Yeshua as the Son of David implies that he is the Messiah of the elect remnant.

Matthew’s identification of Yeshua as the Son of David provides the reader with the first component of a larger theological paradigm. The second component of that paradigm is found in the genealogy’s deuteronomic structure of exile and restoration. The first group of fourteen begins with Abraham and ends with the establishment of the Davidic monarchy (2-6a). The second group of fourteen begins with David and ends with the beginning of exile (6b-11). The third group of fourteen begins with the exile and comes to a dramatic climax with the coming of Yeshua (12-16). Matthew’s readers naturally understood themselves to be members of the final group of fourteen (for they were of course contemporaries of Joseph, Mary and Yeshua, cf. Matthew 13:55). And even more importantly, Matthew’s readers would have understood from the genealogy’s structure that Yeshua’s coming signals the beginning of Israel’s eschatological restoration.⁶⁶

The genealogy’s dramatic conclusion provides us with the second component of Matthew’s theological paradigm: restoration. While much can be said about the genealogy’s details, it is essential that we recognize the most basic function of reviewing the Davidic empire’s inauguration, collapse, and climactic restoration. In his study of Israel and the church in Matthew’s Gospel, Menninger fails to appreciate the significance of the genealogy beyond the fact it establishes Yeshua’s credentials as the royal Son of David and

spiritual deliverance is inextricably linked to the hope of physical deliverance. Menninger downplays the national significance of these terms but nevertheless recognizes that the concept of “Jesus as King (ruling over his people) is an important theme for the first evangelist.” Employing a hermeneutic of supersessionism, he simply transfers the language of Yeshua’s kinship from Israel to the church (81-93).

68 Mark E. Rapinchuk, “The End of the Exile: A Neglected Aspect of Matthean Christological Typology” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity International University, 1996), 123-46.

69 Rapinchuk attempts to grapple with the fact that allusions to exile and restoration cannot be

Messiah.⁶⁷ Rapinchuk endeavors to survey the exile theme in Matthew but pays little attention to the genealogy and appears unimpressed by the fact the genealogy is the one place in which the term metoikesia actually occurs.⁶⁸ Because of this fact, Rapinchuk’s exegesis of Matt 1:21-23 is atomistic. The angel’s dramatic declaration is divorced from its context and the implications of such phrases as “God with us” and “he will save his people from their sins” are redefined.⁶⁹ Matthew’s theological overview of history—a history that culminates in Yeshua’s coming to restore the fallen House of David—fails to shape his exegesis and “the end of exile” becomes a theological abstraction. Menninger and Rapinchuk fail to appreciate the genealogy’s important theological function and as a result, its emphasis upon the theme of Israel’s restoration.

For Matthew, however, Israel’s restoration is not a theological abstraction. The birth of Yeshua the Messiah implies that the eschatological restoration of Israel has begun. Unfortunately, however, many people in Israel will reject his messiahship and perish in judgment. The divine blessings of restoration apply only to those who recognize Yeshua to be the Son of David, the Messiah-King of Israel. Because of this conviction, Matthew invites his reader to ponder Yeshua’s Davidic sonship and consider where they stand in relationship to the faithful remnant.

Matthew’s identification of Yeshua as the Son of David has the twofold function of verifying Yeshua’s messianic identity and marking out the remnant status of his followers. This in turn provides the reader with the knowledge of how to interpret the genealogy’s 3 x14 Deuteronomic structure. National, as well as spiritual restoration applies only to the elect remnant. They alone are the true heirs of covenant promise.

CONCLUSION

We suggested that the titles “Son of David” and “Son of Abraham” have the twofold function of identifying Yeshua as the Messiah of the elect and confirming his followers to be faithful remnant of Israel. We then suggested that Matthew uses the genealogy’s 3 x 14 structure to present Yeshua as the Davidic Messiah-King who has come to inaugurate the eschatological restoration of Israel. Lastly, we argued that Matthew weaves the themes of remnant and restoration together in the genealogy to suggest that Yeshua has come in fulfillment of God’s promise to restore the faithful remnant of Israel.

Matthew’s version of the genealogy is a theological grid through which he wishes his reader to interpret the life and mission of the Yeshua the Messiah. The genealogy signals the alert reader that God has brought an end to the nation’s spiritual exile by raising up Yeshua to reign over the House of David as Israel’s Messiah-King.