Printable Version

1. Why do you think Matthew chose to begin his Gospel with a long list of names rather than jumping straight into the story of Jesus' birth?

2. Why do you think Matthew specifically names Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba?

3. Many of these women were non-Israelites (Gentiles) or had "messy" backgrounds involving scandal or suffering. What does their inclusion teach us about the type of people Jesus came to save?

4. How can the fact that God used "unlikely" and "broken" people to bring the Messiah into the world encourage us in our own lives today?

5. This list includes both faithful heroes and wicked kings. How does this highlight God's ability to keep His promises even when human leaders fail?

6. If you were to write out your own "spiritual genealogy" (the people who influenced your faith), who would be on it?

In this section I will provide the discussion questions and some notes that should be able to help along the discussion. Please do not let my notes rule your discussion, but allow your own thoughts and the thoughts of your people direct and guide the discussion along. It’s okay to go down rabbit holes and get off topic. It’s also okay to skip over questions or alter them. These are just questions to help stimulate everyone to not only discuss, but truly understand the scriptures.

1. Why do you think Matthew chose to begin his Gospel with a long list of names rather than jumping straight into the story of Jesus' birth?

   1. This sets up Jesus as the proper King of the Jews and as a proper Son of David, which in turn fulfills promises and prophecies about the messiah.

   2. This genealogy also sets up the context in which to understand Jesus. He comes from a royal bloodline but his family hasn’t been in power for a good while now. Jesus is a Jew of the tribe of Judah.

2. Why do you think Matthew specifically names Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba?

   1. These are all well known Old Testament stories for one, names that even many modern readers recognize

   2. All of these women were gentiles, and most of them had sin and injustice rooted in their stories. This may not be the most flattering mention for the men associated with them like Judah who had children with his daughter in law, and David who had children with the wife of another man (a man that he also had killed).

3. Many of these women were non-Israelites (Gentiles) or had "messy" backgrounds involving scandal or suffering. What does their inclusion teach us about the type of people Jesus came to save?

   1. Jesus isn’t here for those with perfect pedigrees and perfect looking lives

4. How can the fact that God used "unlikely" and "broken" people to bring the Messiah into the world encourage us in our own lives today?

   1. We don’t have to be perfect to follow Christ. We follow him because He makes us good, not because we are inherently good.

5. This list includes both faithful heroes and wicked kings. How does this highlight God's ability to keep His promises even when human leaders fail?

   1. Despite the unfaithfulness of those who came before Christ, God still brought forth the Messiah through the line of David, through the line of Abraham. 

6. If you were to write out your own "spiritual genealogy" (the people who influenced your faith), who would be on it?

Introduction

Hey everyone, this is the first session’s Teacher’s Guide, focusing on Matthew 1:1-17. This guide is designed to be paired with a Facilitator’s Guide and some Participant Handouts as apart of a discipleship group. This guide is primarily to add in some extra teaching to help understand the passage that you are going to discuss this week. 

Matthew is where I wanted to start because It’s nature as a gospel make it a centerpiece of scripture and our faith. The entirety of scripture points towards Christ, so we need to get His story straight before we dive into anything else. Thus I chose a gospel.

Once we finish Matthew then we will likely move onto Genesis, and start hitting some highlights throughout the Old Testament before skipping back over to the New Testament. It’s going to be slow going, with some topical stuff mixed in, but over a few years I do want to cover the entirety of scripture.

Also so you know all of the information presented here is not solely my own understanding nor is the original language studied by me personally. All of my sources will be given a simple intext citation with just author and page number, the full citations will be in a corresponding bibliography. Please feel free to follow up with my sources if you desire more context and understanding.

Background of Matthew

Matthew is a book seemingly primarily composed for a church primarily composed of Jews. There a multiple cues that point towards the author being a Jewish Christian and that Jewish Christians formed a large portion of this gospel’s intended audience. (France, 19) Some of those cues would be things like how Matthew’s greek has a distinctly semitic touch, (France, 20) the inclusion of untranslated Aramaic terms like raka or korbanas, (France, 20) and the fact that jewish customs are mentioned in this gospel but never explained as if the reader should already be familiar with them. (France, 20) A good example of this would be hand-washing traditions, which are just mentioned in passing in Matthew 15:2 but in Mark 7:3-4 are given a proper explanation for a gentile reader. (France, 20)

Tradition would suggest that Matthew was the first gospel written, though most scholars today do not hold with that opinion (France, 18) and would rather point out Mark as the first written, which could really be its own lesson so I’ll skip out on those details for now. Most Modern Scholars would date this gospel within the last twenty years of the first century: i.e. after 80 AD (France, 30). Though of course this isn’t entirely conclusive and there are some holes in it, like the inclusion of teaching on temple tax in 17:24-27 would be completely lost on an audience living after 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the temple and really most of Jerusalem (France, 32). Now of course this is all relative for two reasons. One is that a large piece of the dates suggested are relative to the dates of the other gospels and tied up in when each one was written, and so if Mark was written in 65 AD as some would put it, and if Mark was written first, then Matthew would have to be after such (France, 30). Yet others would date differently, such another date put forth is based on the gospel of Luke being written in 63 AD and that Luke used Matthew as a primary source (perhaps instead of Mark) and so Matthew had to be written before then if that theory is true (France, 33).

All of this sounds confusing, mainly because it kind of is. In our modern day we seek to set a hard date on things, any book published today will have a copyright page with a publication year. This is something that wasn't really established until as late as the 18th century. So our inability to really settle on a year within the first century is not surprising because publication dates were just not a common practice in the first century nor would they be for the next almost 2,000 years.

In terms of authorship, it is difficult to truly pin to Matthew as tradition would put it, something that is not entirely unique to Matthew nor the other gospels. Much like the others, there is no statement of self identification (France, 35), and the name Matthew is one that we have added later on and was not in the original text. For reference in books like Romans Paul opens up with in Romans 1:1 with “Paul, a bondservant of Christ” (NASB 95), yet none of the gospels have this kind of identification of the writer. 

Excluding tradition, that can be a little muddled, and looking purely at the characteristics of the gospel and what they suggest about the author, we can see something clearly written by a Jewish Christian (France, 35). The author is clearly familiar with scribal traditions, Rabbinic debate (France, 35). The author is also clearly rather proficient in writing Greek, especially compared to the more shoddy Greek of Mark (France, 35). Matthew, also known as Levi, would fit the description of the author, but so would most of Jesus’ disciples (France, 35).

So what could point to it being particularly Matthew? First is that as a Tax Collector Matthew would have to be very fluent in Greek because of his job, not just because it was the trade language (France, 36). Also some of the events that are unique to this gospel do include a fair amount about money and tax collectors, things that Matthew, a former tax collector, would be particularly interested in (France, 36).

The other name given for Matthew, Levi, may also be taken not as a personal name, but a tribal one (France, 36). In other words, the name Levi may be simply a reference to Matthew being of the tribe of Levi, and Levites being particularly set aside for priesthood, it would explain this gospel author’s particular acquaintance with the religious world (France, 36). Additionally Matthew as a Levite Tax collector would have been particularly disdained by his more priestly kinsmen, and thus the focus in this gospel on Jesus’ conflict with the religious leaders may particularly resonate for someone like Matthew (France, 36).

Now of course this all assumes the entire gospel was written by entirely one person, which is itself an assumption. It is also possible that a major contributor to the content of this gospel is Matthew and other things may be added in from other sources, like the gospel of Mark if Mark was indeed written first (France, 37). Either way it seems reasonable that Matthew could easily be at least a contributor to the majority of this information of this gospel, and I will be referring to Matthew as the author of this gospel going forward.

Long story short, this is a gospel with Matthew either as the author or as a major contributor of information. It was written in the later half of the first century, and is primarily written for Jewish Christians of the first century.

The Genealogy | Matthew 1:1-17

So our gospel here starts with what seems rather boring to us modern readers. It is something we don’t care much about, but is included because it was vitally important to the audience of the day (France, 76). This is not to say that we should overlook or skip over this section, however. Much like many parts of scripture, this innocuous genealogy actually holds quite a bit of depth.

First is that this genealogy serves as a justification for Jesus’ claim to the title “King of the Jews,” because he comes from the line of David. Jesus is descended from Kings, and so his claim to the Kingship is a valid one. He isn’t just some dude vying for power, but he is actual royalty, though his family’s current status might not fit a royal lifestyle, but of course this is all post exile and post Judea being conquered by Babylon, Persia, Alexander the Great and his successors, and then finally Rome before Jesus comes.  The point is that Jesus belongs to the royal line of David, and thus his claims to be a son of David and to be the King of the Jews is a justified one considering his bloodline.

Justifications are all well and good, but they don’t mean a whole whole lot. Yet Justification would be important to include in at least a footnote either way because it helps establish where Jesus comes from. Yet there is something interesting to behold in this genealogy that is rather particular amongst other genealogies of the day. Unlike what one would expect, this is not a nice and cleanly polished genealogy. For this just look at the women mentioned.

Women being in a genealogy is not wholly unprecedented (France, 78), in fact we see both Tamar and Bathsheba mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:7 and 3:5 respectively.  What is a bit striking here is that all four women mentioned are specifically non-jews. Tamar was a Canaanite, Bathsheba was a Hittite, Ruth was a Moabite, and Rahab is a Canaanite (France, 79). All of these are connected so some kind of injustice and/or sin having been committed along Jesus’ bloodline. 

Tamar was the daughter in law of Judah, if you look back at Genesis 38 you see a woman whose husband died before she could have children. This was Judah’s firstborn son too, worsening this issue. So to abide by the custom and law of the day, Judah commands that his other grown son go and take Tamar as a wife so that she would be provided for and be able to have children that would take care of her as she got older. Yet Judah’s other son refuses to give her children and then dies. So Judah takes in Tamar and promises her his younger son when he gets of age, but fails to follow through on his Promise. So Tamar dresses up like a prostitute and lies with Judah himself, finally having children. She was done dirty by Judah and his sons, and Matthew made sure to remind his readers of this.

Ruth’s story is the least egregious of the four. She was widowed and instead of being provided for by the person responsible for taking her in, she is instead provided for and eventually married to by Boaz. There is some injustice done here, but it is not the primary concern of Ruth’s story, making this probably the only vaguely positive story we are reminded of by the mention of a woman in this genealogy. 

Next is Rahab, who was not of the tribe of Israel, nor was among those who had come out of Egypt and wandered in the wilderness. No she was a prostitute in Jericho before she helped out the spies and essentially betrayed her city in favor of the conquering Israelites. This little fact of her previously being a prostitute is something quite often overlooked but very important for Matthew’s message here.

The last is truly the most egregious of the four. Matthew specifically includes “Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.” (Mt 1:6) In this Matthew intentionally reminds us that Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba was added to David’s wives by sinful means. If you remember he first committed adultery with her, and then had her husband, Uriah, killed in order to marry her and cover up his ill deeds with even sin. This all makes David out to be an adulterer and a murderer. 

All of this leads to one inevitable conclusion. Jesus has the bloodline, he has the pedigree, but that bloodline is tainted with sin. Jesus’ family wasn’t perfect, he didn’t come from a line of a bunch of perfect people. This is to set up Jesus’ entire reason for incarnation, to solve the sin issue. Lest we forget, Jesus took on our sins upon that cross, he became cursed so that we could be made clean. In this purpose He is born into a family of sinners, so that he could wash us clean of our sins.

Conclusion

Matthew features Jesus as a stark contrast against the religious elites of the day. Throughout this gospel Jesus repeatedly corrects scribes and Pharisees, perhaps most harshly in chapter 23 where He gives them woes like a Prophet before rebellious Israel. They are painted out to be stubbornly opposed to God throughout this gospel, and the most unfortunate part of this is that many Christians today have more in common with those religious elites than they do with Jesus. 

Jesus’ genealogy itself besmirches the purity of the elites. The Jews in Jesus’ day are the remnant of the tribe of Judah, the same Judah who had children by way of his daughter in law. Jesus himself comes from a line of kings, a line originating with a murder and adulterer. Just because God has granted someone a high position, doesn’t mean that they should be assumed to be superior. Jesus focuses his attention on the fringes of society, the beggars and the outcasts, even the sinners and tax collectors like Matthew. To those of higher status, Jesus often acts as a corrector rather than a comforter. 

Much like the Pharisees many of us have been very fine tuned on the details and miss the bigger picture. We make sure we are there every Sunday perfectly on time if not early. We make sure we go to Wednesday night bible study. We make sure our Ts are crossed and our Is are dotted. Yet when it comes to the poor and needy just around the corner from the church building, we have no association nor compassion for them. Much like the Pharisees we “tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Mt 23:22). 

This also isn’t to say that I myself am not guilty of these things, I very much am indicted along with you. I am guilty of making sure everything looks right on the outside but being the complete opposite on the inside. I’m not the only one that is guilty of this, nor am I the only one guilty of being more concerned with church attendance than I am with those in my community with very real needs.

Bibliography

France, R. T. Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, vol. 1. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985.