The Genealogy of Jesus

BOLD Things to notice
* Notes on the Greek text
† Textual Issue

Discussion

Genealogical records held an important status in the ancient world and many cultures maintained them. During the time of Jesus it was common for both public and private records to be maintained for various legal reasons including gaining access to the temple.(1) As such, both Luke and Matthew would have been able to obtain the genealogical records for Jesus, and the inclusion of these records in their Gospels should not be a surprise.

The genealogies in the Gospels present the student of Scripture with many interesting questions and problems. First and foremost is the question: Why are they so different? From Abraham to David the genealogies agree. After David the names are different until they get to Joseph and Jesus. Often the two genealogies are written off as having little historical value because of this difference, but there would have been no reason for Matthew or Luke to "invent" a genealogy. Since genealogical records were considered to be very important and were maintained as public records, had these been forged, the opponents of Christianity would have pointed this out and discredited them.

If they are both correct, this still leaves the question as to why they are different. There are two main theories that have been put forth to account for this. Perhaps the most common is that the genealogy in Matthew is the legal genealogy through Joseph, whereas the genealogy in Luke is the natural genealogy through Mary. But why would Luke trace the genealogy through Mary? Possibly, since he was writing to a Gentile audience, Luke would have wanted to trace Jesus’ actual (natural) genealogy. (Both Matthew and Luke are careful to point out that Joseph was not Jesus’ real father). Another possibility is that Mary’s father (Heli) had no sons. If this was the case, Heli may have been Joseph’s foster father (See Num. 27:1-11). That Luke was not giving Joseph’s genealogy may be indicated by the phase "as was supposed" and the lack of a definite article (the word "the") before his name. This would also fit in with Luke’s emphasis throughout his Gospel on the important role played by women.

The biggest problem with this theory is that while there are hints that the genealogy may be Mary’s, a straight reading of Luke without benefit of Matthew’s genealogy, would lead to the conclusion that it is the genealogy of Joseph. It is possible that it was generally known that Mary’s father was Heli, and that Luke did not feel a need to state this directly. The Jewish Talmud does mention a Mary whose father was Eli.(2) In addition, some early Christian sources give the name of Mary’s father as Joachim from which Luke could have derived the name Heli.(3)

The second theory proposes that the genealogies in both Matthew and Luke are of Joseph. The genealogy in Luke is Joseph’s natural genealogy, while the genealogy in Matthew represents the succession to the throne. That Matthew is presenting the legal succession to the throne fits in well with the overall theme of his Gospel: that Jesus is the Messiah. It also might explain why he groups the names as he does and skips over people (although skipping several generations in a genealogical list was not uncommon).(4) In verse six, David is listed as "David the king," and one explanation for the three groups of fourteen is that the numerical value of "David" is fourteen.(5) The succession to the throne of Israel would have had little meaning to Gentile readers, so Luke gives us Joseph’s natural genealogy showing him to be a descendant of Adam, of whom we are all descendants.

While this theory is easier to derive from the text, it does have some problems. The main problem with this theory is accounting for how the succession jumped from Jacob to Joseph when Joseph was the son of Heli. While it is impossible to say for certain exactly how this happened, Figure 1 shows that there are many ways in which this can be accounted for.

As for the missing names in the genealogy, this was not an uncommon practice.(6) Matthew skips over the three kings (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah) between Joram and Uzziah. By doing this Matthew was able to obtain the fourteen names for his grouping. D. A. Carson suggests that these kings may have been dropped "because of their connection with Ahab and Jezebel, renowned for wickedness (2 Kings 8:27), and because of their connection with wicked Athaliah (2 Kings 8:26), the usurper (2 Kings 11:1-20). Two of the three were notoriously evil; all three died violently."(7)

Luke, on the other hand, has an additional name (Cainan) between Arphaxad and Shelah when compared with the genealogy listed in Genesis 11:12. This is most likely a textual problem in Genesis list. The Septuagint (an early Greek translation of the Old Testament which dates from about 250 B.C.) does contain this name in Genesis while the Masoetic texts does not. (The Masorites began coping the OT around A.D. 500.)

Many possible explainations have been put forth to account for only thirteen names being listed in Matthew’s final group of "fourteen." One is that Jeconiah should be counted as part of both the second and third groups because he ruled before the exile and then was released. Other suggestions are that both Mary and Joseph should be counted, or that possibly there is a textual problem with the second occurrence of Jeconiah. D. A. Carson suggests t the omission was intentional, possibly to show that "God cuts short the time of distress for the sake of his elect (Matt 24:22)".(8)

Since the genealogical records were lost (most likely during the revolts against Rome in A.D. 64-70 and A.D. 132-135) we will probably never be able to settle some of these issues with any real certainty. The problem is not that these accounts cannot be reconciled, but that there are many possibilities to choose from, and we do not have enough information to decide which one is correct.

As for things to notice, look over the sections that are in bold type. Matthew is thought to have written to a Jewish audience and Luke to Gentiles. Ask yourself if this fits the additional comments Matthew makes. Does it help explain the order and starting and ending points of the two lists? Why does Luke place his genealogy between the Baptism of Jesus and the Temptation? As we said, the purpose here is not to give all the answers, but to encourage a deeper study of God’s Word.

There is one other item of interest: the genealogical records were lost during the Jewish revolt in the first century. If the Messiah had not come before this, there would be no way for him to demonstrate that he was a descendant of David, as the Scriptures claim He would be.

Figure 1

Possible Line of Succession

Footnotes

1 Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Walter A. Elwell, s.v. Genealogy Vol. 1 pg. 846

2 Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels,(Downers Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity, 1987) pg., 150 footnote 4

3 Blomberg, Historical, pg. 150 footnote 4

4 Baker Encyclopedia, s.v. Genealogy, Vol. 1, pg. 845

5 D. A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984) pg. 69

6 Baker Encyclopedia, s.v. Genealogy, Vol. 1, pg. 846

7 Carson, Matthew, pg. 67

8 Carson, Matthew, pg. 69