Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

[Fake Messiah]

Yes. The genealogy is intended amongst other things to emphasise that Jesus follows the OT story.

Let's just say that Matthew and Luke gave two different genealogies which are not evidence of anything. They maybe want to correspond to Jesus story with OT, but then again they likely reflect the political allegiances of the authors.

The promise to Abraham was never meant to be just to one nation about just a patch of the Middle East. It was to humanity, about the world. The suffering servant of Isaiah, something of an interpretive mystery, turned out to be Jesus representing Israel. God's promise to return to Jerusalem, enacted in the 'Palm Sunday' events, suddenly became clear.

That's called wishful thinking.

Paul refers directly and indirectly to the OT story throughout his letters. For example, in Romans 9 he is analysing the ongoing Jew/Gentile divide by looking at both the wider story and specific OT passages. He is treating the OT much like the early acts of a play, to which the later acts must be faithful.

What Paul is doing is trying to tie mystical religions and many of the practices, such as baptism and sacred meals (probably even the mysteries of Mithras where he "introduces an image of a resurrection") with Judaism which were already in use among the mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world to draw non Jews to temples, and not Jesus from the Gospels. Like in Romans 11 I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written: 'Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.' 'And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.'

Paul seems to be talking about the coming of a future "Deliverer", but he makes no mention at all of Jesus here. If Jesus had just been here then why is Paul talking about old scriptures instead of Jesus Christ, who had just been here?

Furthermore, in Philippians 3, 20 Paul says that they are expecting a Savior from heaven, which is Jesus. He doesn't say that they are expecting him to come back again or anything like that, but that they are expecting a Savior from heaven for the first time. "But our commonwealth is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Indeed, Paul's main preoccupation in his epistles was that it was not necessary to follow the "Law" of Judaism, particularly circumcision and dietary observation, but that a "new covenant" had been established, which was based on "faith". He declares that the "promise" made by God to Abraham existed before the "law." ("If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring and heirs according to the promise.") But, honestly, who really cares? Jesus never said anything about any of this stuff, but Paul never concerns himself with Jesus' teachings; his goal is to get Gentiles into the church, and the only way that he can justify such radical action is with his faith trumps-law argument.

Please read the whole of Jeremiah 31, because Matthew is using this verse as a kind of tag for the whole thing.

You read it and you'll see there is no mention of Jesus there, nor Herod's slaughter of the innocents -- it's all in the heads of Christian readers who are using the technique of "wishful thinking".