Luke 3:23
The Genealogies in Matthew and Luke
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The Genealogies in Matthew and Luke
Matt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23b-38
Both Matthew and Luke give a genealogical list for the descent of
Jesus. When these are compared, differences and difficulties appear
immediately. The most obvious difference is that Matthew's list
begins with Abraham and descends to Jesus, whereas Luke's list
begins with Jesus and ascends to Adam, the son of God. This in
itself presents no difficulty; but when comparing, it is quite
another matter. Of course only Luke gives the generations from
Adam to Abraham, and the lists of progenitors between Abraham
and David as given by Matthew and Luke are nearly identical. No
problem comes until we compare the two versions of the succession
from David to Jesus:
Matthew's list Luke's list (in inverse order)
David David
Solomon Nathan
Rehoboam Mattatha
Abijah Menna
Asa Melea
Jehoshaphat Eliakim
Jehoram Jonam
Uzziah Joseph
Jotham Judah
Ahaz Simeon
Hezekiah Levi
Manasseh Matthat
Amon Jorim
Josiah Eliezer
Jeconiah Joshua
Shealtiel............ Er
Zerubbabel........ . Elmadam
Abiud . . Cosam
Eliakim . . Addi
Azor ? ? Melki
Zakok . . Neri
Akim . ............Shealtiel
Eliud ...............Zerubbabel
Eleazar Rhesa
Matthan Joanan
Jacob Joda
Joseph (husband of Mary) Josech
Jesus Semein
Mattathias
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melki
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus ("the son, so it was
thought, of Joseph")
For students of a harmony of the gospels the above comparison
presents two problems; the difference in the number of generations
and the dissimilarity of names. How can the two genealogies be
harmonized without sacrificing the historical integrity of either?
Recent critical studies have generally regarded past attempts at
harmonization as just so much frustrated effort. Both H.C. Waetjen
and M.D. Johnson summarily dismiss past efforts to preserve full
historical authenticity as unconvincing, strained, and beside the
point. In any event, it is said, historicity will not effect
significantly the reader's existential response or understanding
of New Testament theology. Instead, each genealogy must be understood
individually and theologically in relation to the gospel in which
it appears and the thought of the evangelist that is intended to
express. The content and structure of each supposedly is arbitrary
to suit the evangelist's purpose. What those specific purposes were
need not occupy our attention here, for the analyses of scholars
such as Waetjen and Johnson follow the assumptions and methodology
of much recent New Testament critical scholarship. Their analyses
will be no better than their assumptions and methodology. And the
fundamental question of the historical reliability of the genealogies
cannot be bypassed in so a cavalier a fashion. Consequently we turn
our attention to the problems of harmonizing the two lists of Jesus'
ancestral descent.
The first problem, the difference in the number of generations, is
the easier to resolve. Although it is true that Matthew lists
twenty-six progenitors between David and Jesus, compared with Luke's
forty, two factors must be kept in mind. First, it is not uncommon
for the generations in one line of descent to increase more rapidly
than in another. Second, and more important, in Jewish thinking son
might mean "grandson," or, even more generally, "descendant" (as
"Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," Matt. 1:1).
Similarly, begat (rendered by the patter "'X' [was] the father of
'Y'" in the New International Version, Matt. 1:2-16) does not
necessarily mean "was the actual (that is, immediate) father of"
but instead may simply indicate real descent. Just the fact that
Matthew casts his list in the form of three groups of fourteen
generations suggests this was a convenient though arbitrary
arrangement from which some generations may have been omitted. In
fact, it can be shown that Matthew's list has omissions (cf. 2
Kings 8:24; 1 Chron. 3:11; 2 Chron. 22:1,11; 24:27; 2 Kings 23:34;
24:6). Omission of generations in biblical genealogies is not
unique to this case, and Jews are known to have done it freely.
The purpose of a genealogy was not to account for every generation,
but to establish the fact of an undoubted succession, including
especially the more prominent ancestors.
The second problem is more difficult to resolve. In the two lists
of succession, between David and Joseph all the names are different
except Shealtiel and Zerabbabel (connected in the list by dotted
lines). How is this to be accounted for? Some exegetes unnecessarily
despair of finding an adequate solution or even suggest the lists
are in error. Others see them as redactional devices by which the
writers sought to fulfill their theological purposes in writing.
But among the attempts to harmonize the genealogies with each other,
four proposals deserve consideration.
1. Julius Africanus (d. A.D. 240) suggested that Matthew gives the
genealogy of Joseph through his actual father, Jacob, but Luke
gives Joseph's genealogy through his legal father, Heli. In this
view, Heli died childless. His half-brother, Jacob, who had the same
mother but a different father, married Heli's widow and by her had
Joseph. Known as levirate marriage, this action meant that physically
Joseph was the son of Jacob and legally the son of Heli. Jacob was
the descendant of David through David's son Solomon, and Heli was
the descendant of David through David's son Nathan. Thus, by both
legal and physical lineage Joseph had a rightful claim to the
Davidic throne and so would his legal (but not physical) son Jesus.
Matthew gives Joseph's physical lineage, Luke his legal lineage.
2. In his classic work, The Virgin Birth of Christ, J. Gresham Machen
argued for the view that Matthew gives the legal descent of Joseph
whereas for the most part (he does allow for levirate marriage or
transfer of lineage to a collateral line in Joseph's physical line),
Luke gives the physical descent. Although the physical and legal
lines are reversed, the purpose is still to establish Joseph's
rightful claim to the Davidic throne. This view holds that
Solomon's line failed in Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) (Jer. 22:30). But
when the kingly line through Solomon became extinct, the living
member of the collateral line of Nathan (Shealtiel, Matt. 1:23,
cf. Luke 3:27) inherited the title to the throne. Thus, Maechen
asserts, Matthew is tracing the legal heirship to the throne from
David, through Solomon, through Jeconiah, with transfer to a
collateral line at the point. Luke traces the physical descent
(with a possibility of jumps to a collateral line or levirate
marriages) to David through Nathan. Matthew starts with the
question, Who is the heir to David's throne? Luke starts with
the question, Who is Joseph's father?
A large number of scholars have preferred some form of this
view, including A. Hervey, Theodor Zahn, Vincent Taylor, and
Brooke F. Westcott.
3. A third view suggests that the apparent conflict between the
two genealogies of Joseph results from mistakenly assuming
Luke is intending to give Joseph's genealogy. Instead it should
be understood as Mary's genealogy. Joseph's name stands in for
Mary's by virtue of the fact that he had become son or heir of
Heli (Mary's father) by his marriage to her. This view holds
that Heli died with no sons, and that Mary became his heiress
(Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-12). The first of these passages seems to
provide for the preservation of the name of the man who dies
with daughters but no sons. In the case of Heli and his daughter,
Mary, this could have been accomplished by Joseph's becoming
identified with Mary's family. Joseph would be included in
the family genealogy, although the genealogy is really Mary's.
Thus the genealogies of Matthew and Luke diverge from David
on because Matthew traces the Davidic descent of Joseph, and
Luke the Davidic descent of Mary (with Joseph's name standing in).
Each of the three proposals discussed thus far would resolve the
apparent conflict between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Each
also appears to be within the realm of reasonable possibility. It must
be pointed out that all three, however, rely upon conjecture that is
possible but far from certain. In the first two views one must appeal
to levirate marriages or collateral lines to resolve difficulties. The
third view rests on the conjecture that Joseph takes Mary's place in
the genealogy. In addition, the first must explain why Luke rather
than Matthew is interested in the legal lineage of Joseph. Both the
first and second views must explain why Luke, in light of his apparent
interest in and close association with Mary, would be concerned with
Joseph's genealogy at all. Interested as he was in Jesus's humanity,
birth, and childhood, why would Luke give the genealogy of the man who
was Jesus' legal but not physical father? These questions are not
unanswerable, but they do leave the field open for a view less
dependent on conjecture, one that does not raise these questions.
4. There is such a view. Like the third proposed solution, this
fourth view understands the genealogy in Luke really to be Mary's,
but for different reasons. Here Heli is understood to be the
progenitor of Mary, not of Joseph. Joseph is not properly part
of the genealogy, and is mentioned only parenthetically,
Luke 3:23 should then read "Jesus ... was the son (so it was
thought, of Joseph) of Heli." The support for this view is
impressive.
a. Placing the phrase "so it was thought, of Joseph" in
parentheses, and thus in effect removing it from the
genealogy, is grammatically justified. In the Greek text
Joseph's name occurs with the Greek definite article
prefixed; every other name in the series has the article.
By this device Joseph's name is shown to be not properly
a part of the genealogy. Jesus was only thought to be his
son. This would make Jesus the son (that is, grandson or
descendant) of Heli, Mary's progenitor, and is consistent
with Luke's account of Jesus' conception, which makes clear
that Joseph was not his physical father (Luke 1:26-39).
b. This view allows the most natural meaning of begat to stand.
In other words, begat refers to actual physical descent
rather than to jumps to collateral lines.
c. Matthew's interest in Jesus' relation to the Old Testament and
the Messianic kingdom makes it appropriate that he give Joseph's
really descent from David through Solomon - a descent that is
also Jesus' legal descent - and thus gives him legal claim to
the Davidic throne.
d. Because Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his solidarity
with the human race, and the universality of salvation, it is
fitting that Luke show his humanity by recording his human
descent through his human parent, Mary. His pedigree is then
traced back to Adam.
e. The objection that Mary's name is not in Luke's version needs
only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish
genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to
custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews
never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that
this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth.
How else could the physical descent of one who had no human
father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a
creative departure from customary genealogical lists by
starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors
rather than starting at some point in the past and descending
to Jesus.
f. This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding
Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph's ancestor and David's descendant
through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the
Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally
promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal
representative of that line of descent for which eternal
perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron.
24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and
no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne
(Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through
whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne
properly should be traced. Solomon's throne had already
been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah
will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that
throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be
fulfilled?
First, notice that Jeremiah's account neither indicates
Jeconiah would have no seed, nor does is say Jeconiah's line
has had its legal claim to the throne removed by his sin. The
legal claim to the throne remains with Jeconiah's line, and
Matthew records that descent down to Joseph. In 1:16, Matthew
preserves the virgin birth of Jesus and at the same time makes
clear that Jesus does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah.
He breaks the pattern and carefully avoids saying that Joseph
(a descendant of Jeconiah) begat Instead he refers to "Joseph,
the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." In the
English translation the antecedent of "whom" is ambiguous.
But in the Greek text, "whom" is feminine singular in form
and can refer only to Mary who was not a descendant of
Jeconiah. As to human parentage, Jesus was born of Mary alone,
through Joseph his legal father. As Jesus' legal father,
Joseph's legal claim passed to Jesus. But because Jesus was
not actually Jeconiah's seed, although of actual Davidic
descent through Mary, descendant of Nathan, Jesus escaped
the curse on Jeconiah's seed pronounced in Jeremiah (22:30.
Thus the problem is resolved.
What we have then are two different genealogies of two people.
Probably even the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew and Luke are
different persons. This view does not depend on conjecture, rests
with evidence within the texts themselves, fits the purposes of the
evangelists, and easily resolves the problem surrounding Jeconiah.
Of this view L.M. Sweet appropriately wrote, "Its simplicity and
felicitous adjustment to the whole complex situation is precisely
its recommendation."
Although it is not, strictly speaking, a harmonistic problem, one
other difficulty of lesser significance found in Matthew's record
of Josephs's genealogy needs discussion here. In 1:17, Matthew
divides the generations from Abraham to Christ into three groups of
fourteen generations; from Abraham to David, from David to the
deportation of Babylon, and from the deportation to Christ. In part,
this was likely a device used by Matthew to aid memory; it does not
imply that he mentioned every progenitor. At least five names are
omitted: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, and Eliakim. As
previously stated, this procedure was not unusual and presents no
real problem.
With three groups of fourteen generations, however, one does expect
to find forty two different names. But there are only forty-one.
Although one set has only thirteen different names, the problem is
only apparent. Matthew does not speak of forty-two different names
but of three groups of fourteen generations, which he divides for
himself. David's name concludes the first set and stands first in
the second set (cf. 1:17). In other words, David is counted twice
and is thus given special prominence in the genealogy that shows
Jesus' Davidic throne rights through his legal father, Joseph.
Another means used for increasing the focus on David is the title
assigned to him in Matthew 1:6. He is called King David, and is
the only person in the genealogy to whom a title is given. Possibly
the Davidic emphasis is even further enhanced by the number 14.
The sum of the numerical value of the Hebrew letters in the name
David is 14. To the modern reader this might seem overly subtle,
but it was not necessarily so in ancient Semitic thought. The
numerical value of David's name, however, is not necessary to the
resolution of this problem. Again, alleged discrepancies between
and in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are shown to be
more apparent than real. Reasonable solutions to the problems exist
and even throw further light on the text.
---
Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With
Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus, 1969
pp. 139-256.
Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1930.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "The Genealogy
of Jesus Christ," L. M. Sweet.
Waetjen, Herman C. "The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel according
to Matthew," Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 205-230.
--
Contributed by jloucks@netcom.com (Jim Loucks)
Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.
This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.
A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.
This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.
The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).
(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)
The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke
One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003).
When one places the two genealogical lists side by side, several factors become immediately apparent that combine to dispel the appearance of conflict.
First, Matthew reported the lineage of Christ only back to Abraham; Luke traced it all the way back to Adam. Second, Matthew used the expression “begat;” Luke used the expression “son of,” which results in his list being a complete reversal of Matthew’s. Third, the two genealogical lines parallel each other from Abraham to David. Fourth, beginning with David, Matthew traced the paternal line of descent through Solomon; Luke traced the maternal line through Solomon’s brother, Nathan.
A fifth factor that must be recognized is that the two lines (paternal and maternal) link together in the intermarriage of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. But the linkage separates again in the two sons of Zerubbabel—Rhesa and Abiud. Sixth, the two lines come together once again for a final time in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Joseph was the end of the paternal line, while Mary was the last of the maternal line as the daughter of Heli.
The reason Joseph is said to be the “son” of Heli (Mary’s father) brings forth a seventh consideration: the Jewish use of “son.” Hebrews used the word in at least five distinct senses: (1) in the sense used today of a one-generation offspring; (2) in the sense of a descendant, whether a grandson or a more remote descendant many generations previous, e.g., Matthew 1:1; 21:9; 22:42 (“begat” had this same flexibility in application); (3) as a son-in-law (the Jews had no word to express this concept and so just used “son”—e.g., 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17); (4) in accordance with the Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; cf. Matthew 22:24-26), a deceased man would have a son through a surrogate father who legally married the deceased man’s widow (e.g., Ruth 2:20; 3:9,12; 4:3-5); and (5) in the sense of a step-son who took on the legal status of his step-father—the relationship sustained by Jesus to Joseph (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42).
Notice carefully that Joseph was a direct-line, blood descendant of David and, therefore, of David’s throne. Here is the precise purpose of Matthew’s genealogy: it demonstrated Jesus’ legal right to inherit the throne of David—a necessary prerequisite to authenticating His Messianic claim. However, an equally critical credential was His blood/physical descent from David—a point that could not be established through Joseph since “after His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). This feature of Christ’s Messiahship was established through His mother Mary, who was also a blood descendant of David (Luke 1:30-32). Both the blood of David and the throne of David were necessary variables to qualify and authenticate Jesus as the Messiah.
Once again, the Bible’s intricate complexities shine forth to dispel the critic’s accusations, while simultaneously demonstrating its own infallible representations. The more one delves into its intricacies and plummets its intriguing depths, the more one is driven to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible is, indeed, the Book of books—the inspired Word of God.
Who Was Joseph’s Father in Jesus’ Genealogy?
# Who Was Joseph’s Father in Jesus’ Genealogy?
In his book The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, skeptic Dennis McKinsey confidently asserts that the “contradictory” genealogies found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 open up “a Pandora’s box that apologists would just as soon remained closed forever.”1 One “contradiction” he cited revolves around the father of Joseph.2 Whereas Matthew 1:16 states that “Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ,” Luke 3:23 says, “Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.” How is it that Joseph could be the son of both Jacob and Heli? Is this a contradiction that Christian apologists prefer to keep under lock and key as McKinsey suggests? Not at all.
Admittedly, on the surface, the two statements may appear contradictory. However, there actually is a very simple explanation for the differences in the two verses: Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, while Luke presents the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, Mary. Thus, Jacob is Joseph’s father (in Matthew 1:16), while Heli is Mary’s (in Luke 3:23).
How can this be? Luke does not say that Mary is the offspring of Heli; rather, “Joseph” is “the son of Heli.” What logical, biblically sound explanation leads to the rational conclusion that Luke 3 is the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, Mary? Consider the following seven points.
First, the two genealogies are totally different from the time of David to Jesus. It’s not merely that two different “grandfathers” of Jesus are listed—all the names given for the preceding 1,000 years before Christ are different (except in the case of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel, where there likely was intermarriage among the two families, or else they were different people who wore the same names). Joseph descended from David’s son, Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7), while Mary descended from David’s son, Nathan (Luke 3:31).
Second, Matthew and Luke were writing to different audiences: Matthew to the Jews and Luke to the Greeks. From the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel account, he focused on Jesus’ connection to Abraham and David, from whom the Old Testament repeatedly prophesied that the Messiah would come. Luke, on the other hand, writing to a broader audience, took the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam (the father of all mankind) and to God (the Creator of all mankind).
Third, though writing to a wider audience, Luke follows the Jewish tradition of only mentioning males in a line of descent. David Roper noted: “Women might be mentioned incidentally (Mt. 1:3,5), but the lines of descent were through men…. A]s a rule, Jews did not include women in genealogies.”[3 What’s more, according to Adam Clarke, “whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.”4 Thus, Luke gives a fleshly genealogy of the virgin-born Jesus (Luke 1:26-38; 2:1-7) through His mother, Mary, though designated by her husband’s name.
Fourth, the terms “son” and “daughter” are used in Scripture in a wide variety of ways. “Son” may mean (among other things) son by actual birth, grandson (Genesis 29:5; cf. 24:24,29), descendant (Matthew 1:1), step son (Matthew 13:55; Luke 4:22), as well as son-in-law (1 Samuel 18:27; cf. 24:16).5 Likewise, in addition to the ordinary usage of the word, Bible writers used the term “daughter” to designate daughter-in-law (Ruth 2:2), female descendant (Luke 1:5; 13:16), the women of a particular place taken collectively (Luke 23:28), women in general (Proverbs 31:29), etc.6 In short, in different senses, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were all “of Heli.”
Fifth, Matthew tells of the coming and arrival of Jesus from Joseph’s perspective, while Luke writes from Mary’s point of view. Give serious attention to the following narratives of Matthew and Luke and consider how different their overall frame of references are:
- From Matthew (1:18-2:1a):
> Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king…
- From Luke (1:26-49,56; 2:7,17b-19):
> Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.” Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
>
> Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.”
>
> And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; for behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name….” And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her house….
>
> And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths….
>
> [T]hey [the shepherds] made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.
Given the Gospel writers’ stark differences in perspectives of the accounts of the coming and arrival of Jesus—with Matthew’s clear focus on Joseph and Luke’s heavy attention on Mary—it was perfectly natural for Matthew to give the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph and Luke through Mary.
Sixth, the Greek article tou (“the”) is absent before Joseph’s name in Luke’s genealogy of Christ. Yet, as Frederic Godet correctly highlighted, the word occurs before every one of the other names in the genealogy (e.g., the Heli, the Matthat…the Adam, the God).7 Godet also noted: “In the genealogy of Matthew, the article ton8 is put in the same way before each proper name, which clearly proves that it was the ordinary form in vogue in this kind of document.”9 Thus, “t]his want of the article [in Luke’s genealogy—EL] puts the name Joseph outside the genealogical series properly so called, and assigns to it a peculiar position.”[10 Perhaps such peculiarity is a heavy hint of this genealogy being through Jesus’ maternal grandfather (Heli), and not Joseph.
Finally, “If Luke were presenting Joseph’s genealogy,” Lenski logically argues, “it would according to his own statement be the genealogy only of the supposed father of Jesus, and of what value would such a genealogy be? No man could find a reference to the legal relation of Joseph to Jesus in hos enomizeto”11 (“as was supposed”).12 Furthermore, Roper suggests, “The phrase ‘being, as supposed, the son of Joseph’ should probably be thought of as parenthetical, with the words son of Eli or Heli—EL] referring to Jesus, not Joseph.”[13 Thus, as A.T. Robertson concluded, “Jesus would…be Heli’s grandson, an allowable meaning of ‘son.’”14 In fact, not only should
The New Testament Greek manuscripts lack parentheses in Luke 3:23, just as they lack parentheses and all other sorts of punctation throughout (which English Bible translators have added in attempts at greater clarity). Though “as was supposed” is undoubtedly a parenthetical expression, it makes better sense if such includes Joseph [“(as was supposed of Joseph)”]. Had this fuller expression been made parenthetical long ago, fewer individuals might have had difficulties seeing Mary’s ancestry in Luke’s genealogy of Christ.
In conclusion, it is perfectly logical to argue that Luke did not trace Jesus’ legal lineage from Joseph back to David and Abraham (as did Matthew). Rather, he traced the physical bloodline of His virgin mother (not his stepfather) back to David, Abraham, and Adam. Such a logically possible explanation exonerates Luke and Matthew of any error in their penning of Jesus’ genealogies.
Luke 3:23—Why does Luke present a different ancestral tree for Jesus than the one in Matthew?
Luke 3:23
—Why does Luke present a different ancestral tree for Jesus than the one in Matthew?
Problem:
Jesus has a different grandfather here in
Luke 3:23
(Heli) than He does in
Matthew 1:16
(Jacob). Which one is the right one?
Solution:
This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors, one traced through His
legal
father, Joseph and the other through His
actual
mother, Mary. Matthew gives the
official
line, since he addresses Jesus’ genealogy to Jewish concerns for the Jewish Messiah’s credentials which required that Messiah come from the seed of Abraham and the line of David (cf.
Matt. 1:1
). Luke, with a broader
Greek
audience in view, addresses himself to their interest in Jesus as the
Perfect Man
(which was the quest of Greek thought). Thus, he traces Jesus back to the first man, Adam (
Luke 3:38
).
That Matthew gives Jesus’ paternal genealogy and Luke his maternal genealogy is further supported by several facts. First of all, while both lines trace Christ to David, each is through a different son of David. Matthew traces Jesus through Joseph (his
legal father
) to David’s son,
Solomon
the king, by whom Christ rightfully inherited the throne of David (cf.
2 Sam. 7:12ff
). Luke’s purpose, on the other hand, is to show Christ as an actual human. So he traces Christ to David’s son,
Nathan,
through his
actual mother,
Mary, through whom He can rightfully claim to be fully human, the redeemer of humanity.
Further, Luke does not say that he is giving Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was “as was supposed” (
Luke 3:23
) the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary. Also, that Luke would record Mary’s genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his emphasis on women in his Gospel which has been called “the Gospel for Women.”
Finally, the fact that the two genealogies have some names in common (such as Shealtiel and Zerubbabel,
Matt. 1:12
; cf.
Luke 3:27
) does not prove they are the same genealogy for two reasons. One, these are not uncommon names. Further, even the same genealogy (Luke’s) has a repeat of the names Joseph and Judah (
3:26
,
30
).
The two genealogies can be summarized as follows:
Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?
Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem – they are different. Luke’s genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew’s genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David’s sons: Nathan (Mary’s side?) and Solomon (Joseph’s side). There are differences of opinion with two main options being offered. The first is that one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
> "The second thing is that this genealogy differs in significant ways from the genealogy in Matthew. Why? Most Bible scholars believe that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary (who was also of the royal Davidic line), while Matthew traces the family of Joseph. Thus by both His mother and His earthly father, Jesus had a right to the throne of Israel." (Richards, L., & Richards, L. O. (1987). The teacher’s commentary. Includes index. (650). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.)
> "Luke paused from his narrative to give Christ’s genealogy. While Matthew traced Christ’s lineage through Joseph, his legal father (see Matt. 1:1–17), Luke traced it through Mary, beginning with Mary’s father, Heli. (Men in ancient times often regarded their sons-in-law as their own sons.) The lineages of Mary and Joseph converge at King David (compare 3:31 with Matt. 1:6)." (Willmington, H. L. (1997). Willmington’s Bible handbook (582). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.)
> "Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph—here His real, there His reputed line—explain the statement about Joseph, that he was "the son of Heli," to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11, 12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported." (Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Lk 3:23). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
Some critics may not accept this explanation, and it is not without its problems.
> "The theory that Luke really gives us the family tree of Mary rather than of Joseph is improbable. The theory with the least difficulties is that Matthew gives the descendants of David down the royal line (i.e. who was heir to the throne at any given time), but Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph belonged." (Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st-century edition (4th ed.) (Lk 3:23–38). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.)
The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and the other of Joseph – even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary genealogy was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.
I find it difficult to accept that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies. They must have understood what the historical/cultural context was and had no problem with it. Even though we cannot ascertain at this time a precise explanation does not mean one isn't forthcoming. After all, archaeological discoveries clear up Bible "difficulties" on a regular basis. But, back to our discussion.
Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backward to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage – that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
Another historic Christian explanation, dating back to the early Church fathers such as Julius Africanus and St. John of Damascus, involves the law of Levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). According to this tradition, Jacob (Matthew's account) and Heli (Luke's account) were half-brothers. When Heli died childless, Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph. Thus, Joseph was the natural son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli, maintaining the royal lineage through both legal and natural descent.