Ending Exile in Mt 1:17 and elsewhere...

A quick note:
Previously I've pointed out the 'ending of exile' as indicated in Mt 1:2-17 was considered delayed until the Messiah arrived (see here and here), and the first chart I put up last time also indicates this.
Today I noticed that at the same time that I mentioned this feature in Matthew 1 (September 2016) Brill published a book advocating that this is an importnant feature in Matthew (in their series: Novum Testamentum, Supplements): Matthew’s New David at the End of Exile: A Socio-Rhetorical Study of Scriptural Quotations by Nicholas G. Piotrowski.
I discovered this book today after noticing a new article where Piotrowski discusses the issue of 'unended exile' in which he asserts that

a growing chorus of voices is supporting, with various levels of enthusiasm, the thesis that a significant number of late Second Temple Jewish groups indeed understood themselves to be languishing in some form of exile.

Nicholas G. Piotrowski, "The Concept of Exile in Late Second Temple Judaism: A Review of Recent Scholarship, Currents in Biblical Research, vol 15, Issue 2 (Feb 2017): 214-247.

biblos and genesis

I'm still working away on the first chapter of Matthew...two brief updates:

"Produced" in Mt 1:2–16

I've recently changed my translation of egennesen (ἐγέννησεν) from "he was the father of" to "he produced" throughout the whole genealogy (verses 2–16). This better fits with the focus in Matthew 1 on how messianic heirs are produced. And specifically how Jesus was (not) produced. 

One of the things that is undercut/demoted in the Gospel of Matthew is the prerogative and authority of the earthly father so it makes sense why 'father' does not appear in Matthew chapter 1. In fact the first appearance of the Greek word for 'father' is in relation to the abominable Herod in Mt 2:22. 

Mt 1:1 Book of Genesis/Story of Origin

I've made more progress on the meaning of the first two words in Mt 1:1 namely biblos geneseos (βίβλος γενέσεως).

Both biblos and genesis are words with sacred or supernatural undertones and both words could also indicate a 'story', 'narrative', or 'history'.

Genesis was already the title for the sacred book of Genesis in Greek. And biblos was commonly used to signify a holy book/scripture/writing. (Similarly the word for 'writing' [γραφή] used in the Greek New Testament meant 'sacred writing'.)

But things get very interesting when we look at all the meanings of genesis... the Greek word genesis could refer to numerous kinds of 'being' relating to:

source-of-being (origin); 
manner-of-birth (special associated birth events); 
lot-of-existence (fortune/destiny); 
production (creating/procreating); 
becoming; 
race/family/kin; or 
a social 'generation'/age.

In other words the genesis of a person could be about a person's origin/origins (ancestors, the 'cause' of someone's being) or about someone's creating/producing (descendants, the result of someone's procreating). However, it could also be about special events related to birth or someone's whole consequential life, or someone's life purpose (destiny).

Most readings of Matthew have presumed that genesis in Mt 1:1 is not about someone's resulting life (existence) but simply about someone's history (ancestors) because of what follows it is a genealogy (verses 2-16).

But it may be a surprise to know that the Bauer-Danker lexicon/dictionary actually gives the meaning 'life' for Mt 1:1.

I too began to think that 'life of Jesus' was a radical new way of interpreting Mt 1:1 until I checked the Bauer-Danker lexicon! But why then does hardly anyone interpret genesis in Mt 1:1 as 'life' (of Jesus)?

Well the same lexicon (BDAG) also gives another meaning for genesis in Mt 1:1 (ancestral line/lineage) and this second meaning has unfortunately dominated English translations.

Note that the meaning 'life story (of Jesus)' is also due to it's combination with biblos. So the 'story' part mainly belongs to biblos. The 'life' part mainly belongs to genesis (I say mainly because there is some overlap in the functions of both words). 

We should compare the beginning of Tobit for it's use of biblos (βίβλος):

Βίβλος λόγων Τωβιτ τοῦ Τωβιηλ τοῦ Ανανιηλ...
This book tells the story of Tobit, son of Tobiel, son of Hananiel...

(Note how 'story' is implied by the word biblos, βίβλος).

And if we compare the first verse of Mark: 

Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ
Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ

we can see that both Matthew and Mark concern origins: the origin of the Gospel (Mark), and the origin of Jesus (Matthew). In this regard Matthew actually has something in common with John (origin of the Logos).

Now the word genesis appears again in Matthew in verse 18 where it answers the question: What caused his life? That is, Jesus' divine origin (conception) is revealed to Joseph who is instructed to accept the child and marry Mary.

But genesis in Mt 1:1 seems less appropriate because it does not initially answer the question What caused his life? And it does not initially answer the question What did he create/produce (descendants, new life, inauguration of the kingdom? - perhaps some of these suggestions would have to take genesis as referring only to the larger gospel narrative?). 

Probably genesis should not be translated as ancestors/genealogy or descendants (although in the larger story Jesus' true kin are produced by virtue of the person of Jesus who comes to set in motion the kingdom - but this reading would have to ignore the genealogy...perhaps that is why such a reading has never been considered..?).


What immediately follows Mt 1:1 is an account of what caused Joseph's life (ancestors). What 'produced' Joseph is explicitly not what 'produced' Jesus.

(But perhaps, in the mind of many translators, Joseph's receiving Jesus into his Davidic line legitimates genesis as 'genealogy' in Mt 1:1?)

Craig Keener notes that genesis in verse 1 expects to narrate what Jesus produced (the descendants of Jesus) since this is how it is usually used in Genesis. Keener solves the 'problem' by saying that Matthew is saying that Jesus' ancestors depend on Jesus for their existence (Jesus produced Israel?). This is an interesting line of thinking which Keener does not fully explore.

What commentators like Keener are correct in alerting us to is that the usual categories of 'genesis' might need reconsidering (part of the problem is that the New Testament lexicons only give a small sample of the meanings of genesis - Liddell-Scott has the fuller list). 

I suggest that there is (at least) one unexplored option worth considering.

When genesis appears in verse 18 it means 'conception' but not of an ordinary kind. As the BDAG lexicon says here it is "the coming into being at a specific moment" but with special reference "to circumstances under which the birth took place" (namely divine origin/divine shaping of events). So when genesis means 'birth' (as in verse 18) it really means something more than simply 'birth' it means the things and events that Jesus is 'born into' or 'born from' namely divinely so (and anyway there is a more ordinary Greek word for 'birth' namely the similar sounding γέννησις).

So I suggest that the story of the 'life' of Jesus actually includes what foretold Jesus' life. Foretelling/predicting and destiny also belong the meanings of genesis. This aspect has never been explored to my knowledge in Matthew. This seems odd given that in Matthew divine providence and fulfillment is specifically made explicit.

To try to reduce the production/generation down to cause-of-life or consequential-state-of-life has not gotten interpreters and translators very far.


Perhaps the question answered in Matthew 1 is not what is the cause (or state) of Jesus' life but what is the foretelling and destiny of Jesus' life? Biblical Israel was divinely conceived (when Abraham was called out) and it is biblical Israel that provides the foundation of its expected Messiah, according to Matthew.

I'm still figuring this out and still unsure of a good translation. Until then 'story of origin' may have to suffice (but it's a providential origin).

Translating the Genealogy in Matthew (1:2-17)

Here is an 'elaborated' translation of Mt 1:2–17 (I have added round brackets to add in what might be merely implied):

Abraham produced Isaac,
Isaac produced Jacob,
Jacob produced Judah and his brothers (that is, the twelve tribes in the time of Egypt), 
Judah produced Perez and Zara whose mother was Tamar (originally a Canaanite?),
Perez produced Ezrom,
Ezrom produced Aram,
Aram produced Aminadab,
Aminadab produced Naason,
Naason produced Salmon,
Salmon produced Boaz whose mother was Rahab (originally a Canaanite),
Boaz produced Jobed whose mother was Ruth (originally a Moabite),
Jobed produced Jessie,
Jessie produced King David.
David produced Solomon whose mother was the wife of Uriah (the Hittite),
Solomon was the father of  Rehoboam,
Rehoboam produced Abijah,
Abijah produced Asaph,
Asaph produced Josaphat,
Josaphat produced Joram,
Joram produced Uzziah,
Uzziah produced Jotham,
Jothan produced Ahaz,
Ahaz produced Hezekiah,
Hezekiah produced Manasseh,
Manasseh produced Amos,
Amos produced Josiah,
Josiah produced Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

After the exile in Babylon: Jechoniah produced Salathiel,
Salathiel produced Zerubbabel,
Zerubbabel produced Abiud,
Abiud produced Eliakim.
Eliakim produced Azor,
Azor produced Zadok,
Zadok produced Achim,
Achim produced Eliud,
Eliud produced Eleazar,
Eleazar produced Matthan,
and Matthan produced Jacob,
Jacob produced Joseph the husband of Mary the mother to whom was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.

So there are fourteen generations from Abraham to David, and from David to the Babylonian Exile fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian Exile to the Messiah fourteen generations.

I have a few comments to make on Mt 1:2-17.

Proceeding forwards in time from Abraham to David to Jesus forms a chiastic (reverse) pattern with verse 1 (Jesus, David, Abraham).

The expression used in Matthew does not follow that used for the ‘descendents of’ pattern but rather follows the pattern used in Gen 25:19 for ‘the ancestors of’ (Isaac) namely:

And these are the generations of Isaac the son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac 

καὶ αὗται αἱ γενέσεις Ισαακ τοῦ υἱοῦ Αβρααμ• Αβρααμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ισαακ.

(For this observation I must credit Basser's commentary on Matthew - I'm still relying on his earlier edition, The Mind Behind the Gospels: A Commentary to Matthew 1-14).

The simplest translation for ἐγέννησεν is perhaps '(he) generated' (which fits with verse 1's 'generations of Jesus') but still sounds a bit odd. Most English Bibles prefer to the more natural sounding '...was the father of...' which works so long as we remember that 'was father' is here a verb (to be progenitor of / progenerate) and perhaps also 'be ancestor of' as the inverse of the concept found in verse 1 (where 'son of' is really 'descendant of' or 'in the line of'). (This also allows writers to give a list of progenitors with several generations unaccounted for / skipped over).

I have highlighted an interpretation found in recent commentaries on Matthew about the four women (namely their Gentile heritage or Gentile association), but I now offer more commentary regarding Matthew's 'account of origins of Jesus Messiah' in particular regarding:

1. the threefold pattern of fourteen generations; and 
2. the probably reason for the four women the writer ('Matthew') has included.

(1) For the most satisfactory explanation of what the pattern of fourteen generations achieves we turn to Basser (and no it's not about the name David in Hebrew). Basically there are 28 generations between the 'full moon' of King David and the final appearance of the Messiah (with the lowest point of the three eras of Messianic history being the time of the Exile):

The threefold pattern of fourteen generations makes sense in relation to rabbinic traditions that speak of the cycle of the moon. … According to this scenario, both David and Jesus are at “full moon” positions in a complete fourteen/fifteen generation-repeating cycle. (pages 31-32 in Basser's full commentary or see pages 26-27 in his earlier commentary for rabbinic examples)

(2) Disappointingly none of the commentaries can satisfactorily explain the included women in the genealogy (that is, the mention of "by Tamar" "by Rahab" "by Ruth" and "by she of Uriah the Hittite")...there are an abundance of theories about this feature! The commentaries usually mention only a few of the main proposals. I won't be engaging with all the theories here...

Yes the women probably had Gentile heritage (except for Bathsheba who is only 'associated' by being the wife of Uriah the Hittite) and yes their presence does help introduce Jesus's mother (since Joseph is really only adopting Jesus into his Messianic line) ... but there are two important Matthean themes at work here of which I believe we should take notice: 

• (a) Refusal to Shame (Greater Righteousness); and  
• (b) Messianic Fulfillment.

We must understand the presumed maleness in the whole enterprise of writing an ancient genealogy - genealogies were political by nature, they concerned a public space (or 'male space') thus Matthew ascribes public status to Jesus through his (adopted) father's family line (the clan of Judah and the house of David). [see Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew].

But the genealogy is also a story of a people/nation, and these four women (Tamar; Rahab; Ruth; and the widow of Uriah) stand out as having famous roles in the historical drama of Israelite leadership/kingship.

So for example Matthew's fourth example: the mention of David's producing a son "by the wife of Uriah" recalls the story of David's shameful treatment of Bathsheba and Uriah. Here Bathsheba's name is not even mentioned (in Matthew's genealogy) so the shame is not placed on her. In other words Matthew (and his tradition) refuses to shame the woman.

Instead the focus is on David's misconduct (his abuse of power, his taking Bathsheba, his plotting the death of her husband Uriah who is faithfully out fighting [in the designated 'male' space 'outdoors'/'behaving publicly'] as a soldier in David's army [while David stays home when 'kings usually go to war' and wanders the rooftops and then takes Uriah's wife Bathsheba]. How David uses his power (treats others under him, including women) is kept out of the public eye (until the prophet Nathan says to David that the consequence will be that the very 'same evil' will be raised up by God against him in that someone else will sleep with David's own wives but this time it will be “before all Israel" and "before the eyes of this sun”  2 Sam 12:11-12). Namely the greater evil/shame this next time will involve the public eye!

At this point Matthew's genealogy wanes from its highest ('moon' of David) and readers may begin to ponder the kind of contrasts with the way the Messiah is/will be when he arrives (namely, that he arrives to counter such sin/evil and will not wield 'power over' but will treat respectfully others who have less power than himself, like women and children). This is the story anticipating a 'redemption' and 'transformation' that sits beautifully within Matthew's genealogy.

I suggest readers should test out this method of interpretation with the other mothers (e.g. at Naomi's suggestion Ruth beatifies herself and lays at the feet of Boaz one night to pursue his affections in marriage - but does he take advantage of her or shame her advances?; Is Rahab shamed for her profession or ethnicity when helping Joshua and his soldiers; Tamar is willing to die rather than shame her father-in-law after posing as a prostitute and when Judah realises what she has done and compares it to how he has treated her... what does he declare..? [see comment next post on Mt 1:18-19]). 

Neyrey admits that his encomium approach (namely the grounds for awarding honor and praise in Greco-Roman literature) "cannot settle the particular exegetical issue of whether the females are shameless or honorable."

France in his commentary acknowledges that "according to Jewish tradition, Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth were regarded as heroines" which leads to France arguing for them all being examples of Gentiles who converted to Israelites - which is semi-correct. Matthew's point would seem to be that it's precisely because the tradition has refused to shame the women which is the greater righteousness already underway - these women are accepted into a new community/people and the sinful actions surrounding the treatment of women are necessarily being addressed and transformed - in Matthew it anticipates a future redeemer (for both its people and its tradition) - this transformation is precisely what the Messiah and his new community is supposed to be about.

(b) Now this also fits Matthew's likely Messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15 regarding the expectancy that someone will overcome the curse of sin and disobedience of God's law (against eating the fruit and the discovering of shame) and this is shown to be reversed in the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 by the 'seed of the woman' (the mother of the Messiah) [see next post].

So Matthew's highlighting the Messiah's 'mothers' may ultimately stem from a Messianic reading of Genesis 3:15 anticipating the promise that the 'seed of the woman' would have victory over the powers of sin, evil and shame (after many generations of conflict). [Note similarly Jesse R. Scheumann, “Mothers of Offspring in 1 & 2 Kings: A Messianic Hope in David's Line?,” Tyndale Bulletin 65, no. 1 (2013): 37-56]

Thus both (a) and (b) account for the fifth and final woman in the Messiah's genealogy: Mary the mother of Jesus ... see next post...

(This was my 3rd post in a long series on translating the Gospel of Matthew into English, based on engaging with interpretations found in recent Greek commentaries.)