JESUS'S GENEALOGY

The genealogy of Jesus is given in two different listings; one in Matt 1:1-17 and the other in Lk 3:23-38. These genealogies tempt us to think that we can thus trace in some details the biographical lineage of our Saviour. Unfortunately, this can't be done. The reasons have to do with the different functions that genealogies play in different settings. To appreciate this, let us begin with a comparison of the two genealogies of Jesus found in the Gospels. Then we can look at the genealogies on their own before we conclude with some pertinent remarks.

A Comparison of the Genealogies

The differences between the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke quickly become apparent when we set them side by side (we have also included below what may be gathered from the Old Testament):1

From the table we observe the following differences:

1. Matthew's is a much shorter list than Luke's; 41 in Matthew versus 77 (or 79 if Admin and Arni are included) in Luke, according to our table.

2. Matthew begins with Abraham, whereas Luke starts (or ends, depending on which direction we trace the lineage) with God.

3. After David, Matthew traces the genealogy through Solomon, while Luke traces it through Nathan. From that point onwards they parallel each other only in Shealtiel, Zerubabbel, and then Joseph and Jesus.

4. Where the names can be traced back to the Old Testament, Matthew tends to follow the Hebrew text while Luke seems to have followed the Septuagint (Cainan, e.g., is found in the Septuagint but not the Hebrew Bible).

Other differences not obvious from the table, but that are clear from the biblical texts, include the following:

5. Matthew begins with Abraham and ends with Joseph & Jesus, whereas Luke reverses the order, beginning with Jesus & Joseph and ends with Adam & God.

6. Matthew sets the genealogy right at the beginning of his Gospel, setting it in the context of Jesus' nativity; Luke, on the other hand, locates his genealogy at the end of his third chapter, within the context of Jesus' baptism, temptation, and initiation into the ministry.

7. Matthew's genealogy is styled after the formula "A was the father of B, B was the father of C," (literally, "A begot B, B begot C"). Luke, on the other hand, uses the "son of" formula; "A was the son of B, B was the son of C."

8. Whereas all the names in Luke's list are men's, Matthew includes four women - Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, & "Uriah's wife" - in his.

Now that we have observed some of the differences between the two genealogies, let us turn to look at each in turn.

Matthew's Genealogy

The genealogy of Jesus occupies an introductory place in Matthew's Gospel, so that the opening sentence of the genealogy—An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham—also serves like a title to the entire Gospel. Having listed Jesus' lineage, Matthew also notes how he had organized his genealogy (1:17):

Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Mt 1:1-17 may be reframed like this:

genealogy of Jesus Christ . . . David . . . Abraham. (v1)

[fourteen generations from] Abraham . . .David. (vv2-6a)

[fourteen generations from] David . . .exile. (vv6b-11)

[fourteen generations from] exile . . . Jesus who is called Christ. (vv12-16)

generation from Abraham to David . . . the Christ. (v17)

Matthew begins with Christ → David → Abraham in v1 and book-ends the genealogy of 3x14 fathers (vv2-16) by reversing the order, Abraham → David → Christ in v17. A number of suggestions have been made to explain why Matthew organized his material thus. Some think that the three panels of fourteen fathers was a mnemonic device to aid remembering. Others think that Matthew used fourteen because it is the value of David's Hebrew name (dwd; d=4, w=6, and d=4). Whatever may be the answer—and there is no way ever to be certain this side of eternity—Matthew was clearly not interested in providing us with a strictly historical-biographical portrait of Jesus. This is clear from a comparison of his listing with the list of Davidic kings in 2 Chr 3:11-16; Matthew omits Ahaziah, Johoash and Amaziah who were kings between Jehoram and Uzziah, and Eliakim between Josiah and Jeconiah.3 When Matthew, therefore, says "D was the father of E," he was sometimes saying in fact "D was the grand-father (or great grand-father) of E."

What then may be surmised about Matthew's use of a genealogy such as he had formulated it? The fact that the title "Son of David" appears more frequently in Matthew than any of the other Gospels4 suggests that understanding Jesus as the heir of David and the fulfillment of the 'messianic' promises from God to the king was crucial to his Gospel. In specific regards to the genealogy, D. S. Huffman provides this insightful proposal:

The three parts of Matthew's genealogy can be viewed in terms of the house of David: the first group being its origin and rise to power, the second group being its decay and downfall, the third group being its quiet restoration by the promised "Son of David." The "king" theme is obvious in Matthew's infancy narrative in 2:1-12 . . . Jesus was the fulfillment of the messianic expectation of Israel, and Matthew's genealogy presents his ancestral credentials. Indeed, in reporting the genealogy of "Jesus Christ," Matthew makes the title "Messiah" (Greek: christos) part of Jesus' name (Mt 1:1). 5

Luke's Genealogy

In contrast to Matthew, Luke sets his genealogy within the context of Jesus' ministry rather than his birth. Furthermore, Luke's seems at first sight to lack the kind of literary artistry we find in Matthew. This, however, is misleading. Observes John Nolland,

Joseph occurs at the beginning and at the end of a set of seven names (Luke 3:23-24) while Mattathias occurs at the beginning and end of the following set (vv25-26). A second occurrence of the name Jesus (v29) is midway on the list between Jesus (v23) and Abraham (v34), with four-times-seven names before and four-times-seven names after. Reversing the list, starting with Adam, and dividing the genealogy into sets of seven, places the following key figures in the seventh position: Enoch (v37), Abraham (v34), David (v31), Joseph (v30), Jesus (v29), Joseph (v24), Jesus (v23). 6

What might be the significance of these observations, if there is any, no one at the moment seem to be able to discern. The location of the genealogy, however, suggests much. Luke's genealogy is sandwiched between the account of Jesus' baptism, the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, and the voice of divine approval that Jesus is God's Son whom God loves and is well pleased (3:21-22) and the account of Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, being tempted by the devil to prove that he is the Son of God (4:1-13). By ending (or beginning, depending on which direction we read it) the genealogy with God, Luke makes the point that however things are put, Jesus is the Son of God and acts from that reality.

By tracing the human lineage back to God, Luke may also be making the point that, ultimately, the human race is irremovably and all-inclusively embedded in a matrix with God, a matrix disrupted by human sin, and Jesus is the Son of God who brings salvation from that disrupture. Huffman makes the following observation:

What is clear in Luke-Acts is that the Evangelist saw all peoples—Jews and Gentiles—as invited into a relationship with God through Jesus. The Jews were the vehicle by which God brought the savior of all humanity into the world. Luke's point is not that all of humanity will be saved, but that salvation is equally offered to all of humanity. By placing this all-inclusive genealogy at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, Luke indicates that the benefits of Jesus' ministry will be available to all . . . 7

Resolving the Two Genealogies of Jesus

Having appreciated the different purposes to which Matthew and Luke put their genealogies of Jesus, the question remain whether the differences between the two may be resolved.

The first recorded attempt to do this seems to have come from Africanus (Julius Africanus Sextus), a Christian scholar who lived in the latter half of the 2^nd Cent and the first quarter of the 3^rd. According to Africanus the divergence arose from Jacob and Eli (item 76 in the table above), whom he proposed were uterine brothers (i.e., having the same mother but different fathers), and Jacob had married Eli's widow and from that union Joseph (father of Jesus) was born. Joseph was, therefore, the biological son of Jacob, but according to the rites of levirate marriage, was reckoned to be the the son of Eli. Matthew lists, therefore, the biological lineage of Joseph while Luke lists Joseph's lineage as reckoned according to levirate customs.

Another proposal seeks the resolve the puzzle by rooting on the contrast in Lk 3:23: "He [Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph and [grand-]son of Eli." This contrast, it is claimed, signals that Eli should be understood as Mary's father and the genealogy as actually Mary's.

Yet another proposal suggests that Mary, having no (surviving) brothers, became heiress to her line. When she married, Joseph was adopted by her father Eli as his own son. According to this proposal, Matthew lists Joseph's ancestry by birth while Luke by adoption.

What then are we to think of these proposals? Interesting as they are, the only proper thing that can be said is that all of them are speculative and none can claim certainty beyond a dissatisfactory "perhaps". Huffman's conclusion provides wise counsel on the matter:

A final solution to the intricate issues involved in comparing the two lists may never be found, but enough is known to show that the apparent discrepancies are not insoluble. The most important things to learn from these genealogies are not the names of Jesus' grandfathers (Jacob or Eli or both), but that he is the messianic king by God's providential working (Matthew) and that he is God's agent, offering all the world salvation (Luke).8

The most important thing to learn from these genealogies is that . . .

Jesus is the messianic king by God's providential working (Matthew) and . . .

he is God's agent, offering all the world salvation (Luke).

If you wish to further pursue the subject, here is an article that may interest you (the article is fully comprehensible despite the foreign words):

R. Larry Overstreet, "Difficulties of New Testament Genealogies," Grace Theological Journal 2.2 (1981):303-326.
Pdf N 6-7 (Open on Phone)

Low Chai Hok, ©Alberith, 2013