Mark didn’t care about Jesus’ pedigree. John talks about Christ’s role
before and in creation. Luke (3:23-38) links Jesus through a clean patrilineal
succession to the Davidic dynasty, the tribe of Judah, the house of Jacob
(Israel), and through Adam all the way to God. That’s as good a pedigree as you
can get.
But what does Matthew do? He punctures Luke’s neat, all-male genealogy
with four women from the Old Testament. And what kind of women! Matthew
refers his readers to a number of Biblical stories that have caused headaches
for Sunday school teachers ever since.
First, Matthew refers to Tamar, whose story in Genesis 38
provides one of the most puzzling Biblical treatments of sexual, conjugal and
family ethics. Then, he mentions the Canaanite prostitute Rahab (Joshua
2). Interpreters throughout the centuries have marvelled why the first Israelites
entering the Promised Land went straight to a brothel. Ruth appears to
be a more traditional role model in terms of “family values.” However, she was
a Moabite. In the Hebrew tradition, the origin of Moab is linked to alcoholic
excess and incest (Genesis 19). In Ezra and Nehemiah, marriages to
Moabite women are denounced as a sin against the God of Israel (Ezra 9-10).
Finally, Mathew refers to a mother whose name he feels needs no mention:
“the wife of Uriah” (another foreigner: a Hittite. Her son’s continued
attraction to Hittite women is a cause of God’s wrath and the downfall of the
Davidic dynasty (1 Kings 11). Bathsheba’s story is remembered as a dark
stain on the reputation of King David, and a question mark over the legitimacy
of his son Solomon.
So what is Matthew’s intention when he “peppers” Jesus’ genealogy with
references to scandalous Biblical narratives that would seem to cause
embarrassment rather than pride to the followers of this new king, the Christ?
Why does Matthew put “scandal” at the beginning of his Advent story?
In all four gospels, Jesus is explicit about the scandal he is causing
(e.g. Lk 7:23 or Jn 6:61). His gospel is and remains a slap in the face of the
morally pure (the Pharisees and their followers), the ritually pure (the
Sadducees and the other beneficiaries of the Temple economy), and the
ethnically pure (the Zealots and their fellow nationalists). Paul takes this up
and develops it almost into a “theology of scandal” (Rom 9:32ff; 1 Co 1:23; Gal
5:11). So does Peter (1 Pe 2:8).
For us, Matthew’s genealogy may serve as a healthy reminder that amidst
all the candle-lit sweetness of our Advent traditions we do not lose sight of
the scandal of the incarnation, the shocking ways by which God breaks into
history and is present in the messiness of human life. Anonymous
No comments:
Post a Comment