Matthew's Genealogy

If you've been at Shepherd of the Valley over the last several weeks, you've heard me talk about the great stories we read from Matthew's genealogy.  If you're not familiar with this, go ahead and get your Bible open to Matthew chapter 1.  This is the first book in the New Testament, and in the first chapter we get a story that most readers (let's be honest) usually skim at best.  It's the record of historical genealogy from Abraham leading up to Jesus.
Now, in church we talked about why Matthew would do a such a thing.  From a theological standpoint, this line of ancestry shows that Jesus comes from the line of King David and before that even, from Abraham.  So, Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies we see in the Old Testament about being the Messiah, the Savior.  In order to be the Messiah, Jesus' heritage matters, and so Matthew makes that case.
We also talked about, however, the spiritual side of this genealogy.  I stole a line from another great preacher that Matthew wrote this genealogy, and included all the names that he did, because they are "The point of the story."  The people listed in this ancestry were sinners and outsiders, just like Matthew was himself.  They prove the point of why Jesus came - that He came for sinners and outsiders.  He came to offer grace and forgiveness and wholeness to all.  That's a pretty cool message.
But Matthew's genealogy offers a couple of tough questions for the serious student.  One - it's different from the genealogy written in Luke 3.  How can that be?  And two, possibly of greater concern, if Joseph wasn't Jesus' "real" dad, then why does his ancestry matter?  Shouldn't the genealogy trace Jesus' heritage through Mary, since she at least is related to Jesus by blood?
Two good questions.  And, I'm not sure if you'll find the answers satisfactory.  There are many possible answers as to why the two genealogies are different.  One answer says that the genealogies follow different lines back to David, certainly very possible in such a tight-knit and inter-married community.  Some say that Luke does trace the lineage back through Mary, hence the difference and an answer to both questions.  Most scholars actually don't find evidence for either of these possible answers, but that doesn't mean you can't find truth in them.
As to Joseph not being Jesus' "real" father, I'll admit my perspective on that has changed a bit now that I'm an adoptive dad myself.  Because that's what Joseph is with Jesus, he's His adoptive dad.  And just as I would defy anyone to tell me that I'm not Sage's "real" dad I bet Joseph felt just as fiercely paternal towards Jesus.  Blood doesn't make you someones parent, Love does.  Something I think God understands fully as He uses adoptive language throughout the Bible in terms of how He sees us - His adoptive children.  Since God looks at us that way, what a perfect image for Joseph and Jesus.
But, again, if you're a strict student of things, I don't know that any of these answers truly satisfy.  Which bring us to our last point.  The thing is - the early Christian church apparently wasn't bothered by this at all.  After all, they could all read just as well as us.  They saw the same Gospels that we read today, they saw the same issues.  And we have no record of the early church struggling with these issues.  Our two big questions didn't appear to make their list of things to worry about.  It's hard for us, we want so much certitude from the Bible that, honestly, the Bible isn't all that interested in providing.  I guess that's why they call it Faith. 
For Matthew, the point of the genealogy is much more important than any problems with it being "right" or "wrong".  Matthew knew where Jesus came from, and why He came.  That's what mattered.  And the challenge to us is, are we able to see that as well?

Don't go to church, Be the Church!

Bill