Recently I wrote a paper reconciling the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. For those interested, this is that paper.

In 1955 my grandfather took over the position of manager of Shackelford Funeral Directors in Savannah, Tennessee, a business that his grandfather had begun in 1926 and one that my family still owns today. He was a fixture in Savannah and Hardin County and especially at the funeral home until 2003 when his dementia became so severe that he could not remember things that had happened from one minute to the next. Mini strokes had damaged the portion of his brain controlling blood pressure so that every time he would stand his blood pressure would drop to terribly dangerous levels. Needless to say, the people of Hardin County believed the funeral home would fall apart without my grandfather there to see that everything was running smoothly. In 2004, I graduated college and moved back to Savannah to begin work at the same funeral home. Please understand, I look like my grandfather, act like my grandfather, walk and run like my grandfather, and my mother says I even think like my grandfather. When people find themselves in a situation where they have to deal with us, they are often somewhat relieved when they learn that I am “Bob’s grandson” and the first member of the fifth generation of family members in the funeral business. To these people, heredity matters. Whether I deserve it or not, my lineage gives me a certain amount of credibility with people before they even get to know me or deal with me on a personal level. The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both included fairly detailed genealogies of Jesus in their writings for probably that very reason: to give even more credibility to the man claiming to be the Messiah, the Savior not only of Israel but all humanity(Green 188). Of course, their stakes were much higher and would require more than four or five generations back. While the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both include genealogies of Jesus in order to achieve a similar goal, they approach the task differently—using different methods and even different information—and these differences have evoked much study, thought, and discussion almost from very early on. By looking at some characteristics of each genealogy individually, contrasting them, and looking at some of the possible explanations for these differences, we will attempt to reconcile these two variations of the genealogy of Jesus.

One interesting point regarding Matthew’s genealogy is simply in its placement within the greater work. By placing the genealogy as the very first item of the book, Matthew’s author makes very clear the fact that he wants everyone reading to know exactly who Jesus is and where He came from. In fact, the first verse of the book of Matthew seems to lay the foundation for the book as a whole and seems to act as its theme from the beginning: “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham,” as translated in the New International Version. Matthew lets everyone know, with absolutely no hesitation, that Jesus stems from Abraham—something immediately impressive to a Jewish audience. Matthew’s author makes clear the importance of Jesus’ lineage simply by its placement (“Genealogy” 254).

There is more, however, to this genealogy than simply to establish a good reputation for Jesus because of His family heritage. The fact that Jesus was of the line of David, and even further of Abraham, was essential in establishing Him as the Messiah—the Savior that Israel had been expecting for generations. Matthew’s genealogy is dripping with Jewish history and emphases. One such emphasis is King David who appears five throughout the genealogical account and is the only king who the author describes as “the king” even though there are a number of others included. Also, the three equal parts of Matthew’s genealogy seem to parallel with the rule of David: the first his rise to power, the second his fall, and the third his humble restoration by God’s promise of the Savior ranking among his descendants. The evangelist wants to make clear that Jesus does not simply come from good people—He is the Messiah (“Genealogy” 255).

Matthew’s author shows his readers something in the structure of his genealogy that he finds very important: symmetry. In this genealogy, the evangelist systematically lays out Jesus’ lineage in three groups of fourteen generations each. Some believe this grouping was nothing more than a learning device for the readers’ easy memorization. Others believe that maybe the divisions have apocalyptic implications—that there is an order to the events of history and history has led to the time of the Savior (“Genealogy” 254). Whatever his reason for the divisions and groups, the author was very deliberate in his structuring.

One thing that has had casual readers and scholars alike puzzled about the three fourteens is that the third group of fourteen names actually only includes thirteen names, and while Matthew obviously intentionally omitted some names, perhaps specifically to set his genealogy as three groups of fourteen, it seems odd that he would leave out a name causing him to come up one short (“Genealogy” 254). One explanation for the shortage is that the author counted Mary among those named in the third group, but that would lead to the counting of Mary and Joseph which does not follow the pattern of including husband and wife duos withing the genealogy. Another possibility is that he intended for Jesus to hold the thirteenth position and for the resurrected Christ to be the fourteenth. A more probable explanation, however, is one that actually begins at the end of the second group at the mention of the Babylonian exile. The author specifies at the end of the second group that Josiah fathered Jeconiah and his brothers. A look at I Chronicles 3:15-16 shows that Josiah was actually the grandfather of Jeconiah and the father of Jehoikim. Understanding that Matthew’s author was free to skip generations if he felt it necessary, the mention of the brothers seems to suggest that the second group originally ended with Jehoikim rather than omitting him in favor of Jeconiah. Also, the fact that I Chronicles 3:15 mentions Jehoikim’s having two brothers, and I Chronicles 3:16 only mentions Jeconiah’s having one brother, seem to further the argument for Jehoikim finalizing the second group. If the second group, therefore, originally ended with Jehoikim, and the third group began with his son, Jeconiah, then that would bring the total of the third group to fourteen including Jesus (Hagner 5-6).

Another interesting aspect to Matthew’s genealogy is the mention of four women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba by inference), aside from Mary, and the implications of their inclusion by the Jewish author. Women were not forbidden from Jewish genealogies, but their presence was uncommon (“Genealogy” 255), and none of the four would have seemed morally or ethnically attractive by Jewish standards (Bruce1122) which has led many to attempt to give reason or interpretation to their presence in the lineage of Jesus. For instance, Jerome suggested that these four women were all known sinners and were included to show the need for Jesus as Savior of mankind. This theory relies on the assumption that Ruth was somehow immoral, an assumption that is not upheld by scripture. Luther believed that the four women were included because they were foreigners to the nation of Israel and foreshadowed the role Jesus would play not only in the lives of the Jews but of all people for all eternity. R. E. Brown asserts that the four women foreshadow Mary’s role as the scandalous “unwed mother” by their own questionable relationships with the men in their lives. M. D. Johnson puts forth a much simpler explanation—these women had actually become glorified by the end of the first century BCE even by the Pharisees; therefore, including them in the genealogy was one more way to show the messianic nature of Jesus (“Genealogy” 255-56).

Much like Matthew, the placement of Luke’s genealogy within his version of the gospel story is very interesting and telling as well. Luke places his genealogy in the third chapter of his gospel, following much discussion of John the Baptist who, up until the last half of chapter three, seems to steal the show from the eventual protagonist, Jesus. By placing the genealogy where he did, Luke is delivering a message similar to Matthew’s: Jesus is the Messiah and the most important person not only in the gospel but who will ever exist, even greater than John the Baptist (Green 189).

At the very beginning Luke makes a point that he does not want his readers to miss, and he does it with one simple, small phrase: “as was thought” (Green 189). He uses this phrase as a qualifier relating to Jesus’ connection to Joseph. By saying that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, Luke could be asserting that he does not trust accuracy of the genealogy that he was presenting. However, a better explanation that seems more likely based on Joseph’s response upon discovering that Mary was pregnant is that Luke understood that Joseph would serve as the earthly father of Jesus even though he was not His physical father, leaving no room for doubt as to who occupied the role of Jesus’ real father as well as avoiding any misunderstanding of the first two chapters of Luke’s gospel (“Joseph, Husband of Mary”).

Unlike the Gospel of Matthew, which focused more on a strictly Jewish audience and therefore traced Jesus’ lineage back to Abraham, Luke’s gospel goes even further tracing Jesus back all the way to Adam and then to God Himself. Interestingly, the genealogy that links Jesus directly to God immediately follows a voice from heaven referring to Jesus as “my beloved son” and precedes Jesus’ temptation by Satan in which the devil himself asks on more than one occasion if Jesus is actually the son of God. It is worth noting that in Luke’s gospel there are only two groups who refer to Jesus as the son of God, and those are angelic figures in Luke 1:32, 35 and demonic figures in Luke 4:41; 8: 28 even including Satan in Luke 4:3, 9. Luke somehow emphasizes the humanity of Jesus by showing readers His earthly ties and, at the same time, His divinity and relationship to God (“Genealogy” 256-57).

In addition to portraying Jesus as both the son of Adam and the son of God, Luke also shows his readers the universality of Jesus’ ministry and saving capabilities. Especially when interpreted in conjunction with the Acts of the Apostles, it becomes clear to readers of Luke’s gospel that the author is very concerned with the inclusiveness of Jesus’ ministry. The Jews were the people who God used to get His message to the world originally, and now that Jesus has completed His work on this earth, that message is available to all peoples in all eras until the end of time. Luke makes it clear that while not everyone will be saved, salvation is available to all (“Genealogy” 257).

In comparing these genealogies, one can take a couple of different approaches. First the reader can compare the two genealogies to their potential Old Testament sources. When looking at the Old Testament sources for the genealogies presented in Matthew and Luke, it is immediately apparent that both contain several variations when it comes to the names and their spellings as well as questions regarding who some of the people even are. As for the spellings, there is a fairly simple solution. Most scholars attribute the variations in spelling to differences in the translation and transliteration processes. When translating a name from Hebrew to English, especially with a little Greek in between, inevitably the end result will contain some errors in spelling. Even the identities of some of those listed in the genealogies raise questions. Many in Luke’s genealogy cannot be found in any biblical records. For example, upon comparing the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, readers come across Zerubbabel and Shealtiel in both and would assume that they are the same people in both accounts. However, a closer look at the listings brings about questions regarding their identities. Luke, in his account, traces the lineage of Jesus through Nathan, son of David and brother of Solomon while Matthew’s author traces the lineage of Jesus through Solomon (Nettlehorst 169). Therefore, the Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are likely different people in each account (“Genealogy” 258).

Second, the reader can compare the differing genealogies directly to one another which can lead to all kinds of questions and has done so for many years. The fact is that the genealogies simply do not match up. Luke traces back to Adam while Matthew stops at Abraham, but even within the portions that overlap between the two—Abraham to Jesus—the names differ significantly. To start, Luke mentions fifty-six names from Abraham to Jesus while Matthew only mentions forty-two, and Luke mentions seventy-seven names in total as compared to Matthew’s previously mentioned forty-two. The problem is, there is no clear answer as to why the two genealogies differ, but plenty of people have done their best to develop theories and possible explanations (“Genealogy” 258).

Julius Africanus believed that both genealogies present Jesus as falling in line to be the rightful king of the Jews but did so in different ways. He asserted that Matthew gave the natural lineage of Joseph, father of Jesus, and Luke gave us the legal lineage of Joseph. He claims that Jacob and Eli (Heli) were brothers born of the same mother but different fathers, Eli died with no children, and, according to levirate law, Jacob took his widow to raise a child in the name of his deceased brother. Therefore, Joseph’s natural father was Jacob (presented in Matthew) but was Eli’s legal heir (presented in Luke). Unfortunately, this theory relies on too many coincidences to be a plausible solution, so many modern scholars reversed the roles making Matthew the genealogy presenting the legal lineage and Luke the genealogy presenting the natural lineage, but where this solution falls flat is that it seems to contradict Matthew’s use of the word begat which would seem to indicate biological relation (“Genealogy” 258).

Annius of Viterbo, and then Martin Luther after him, claimed that Matthew presented the line of Joseph while Luke presented the line of Mary. This position suggests that Mary was the heir to Eli whose estate, therefore, would have gone to her husband Joseph which would explain the use of the phrase “as was thought” regarding Jesus’ relation to Joseph and then to Heli. The problem with this solution is that Luke never mentions Mary, though does specifically mention Joseph, especially since he focuses on Mary for the infancy narrative of Jesus (“Genealogy” 258).

Tertullian, as well as some modern scholars, asserts that Matthew shows the line of Mary and Luke shows the line of Joseph. This solution also fails to take the use of the term begat in Matthew into consideration in relation to Joseph and Jesus. H. A. Blair has suggested that Matthew 1:16 be changed so that it reads “Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph begat Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called the Christ.” The problem is that there is no support in the text for that kind of change (“Genealogy” 258).

Lord A. Hervey suggests that Matthew gives Jesus’ legal lineage showing Him as the true heir to the throne of Israel and that Luke gives the actual, physical line from David to Jesus. This solution might be correct, but it depends on a lot of assumptions such as Jesus physically descending from Nathan, and there is no way of knowing whether those assumptions are, or even could be, true—much less serve as an explanation of the differences in the given genealogies (Nettelhorst 171).

Yet another possible explanation, this one by R. P. Nettelhorst, claims that the genealogy presented in Luke runs through Joseph’s father and that the genealogy presented in Matthew runs through Joseph’s maternal grandfather, since those writing Jewish genealogies were under no obligation to list everyone which means that Matthew’s author could have omitted Joseph’s mother. He also claims that the inclusion of the four women could imply that it was actually the genealogy of a woman (Nettelhorst 171-72). However, the inclusion of the four women could also contradict this point, since, if Matthew’s author were going to include those women, it seems as though he would include the woman who causes the change in direction from that of a normal Jewish genealogy.

The fact is, Bible scholars, students, and casual readers may never have enough information to completely reconcile the differences in the genealogies presented in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. We may never know why Luke uses Nathan and Matthew uses Solomon or why Matthew includes the women and Luke excludes them or if the Zerubbabels and Shealtiels mentioned are the same people in their respective genealogies or if they are different and appear together by coincidence. All theories from here to the end of time may be build on conjectures, assumptions, and (educated) guesses, but we as students of the Bible must always take the information we do have and use it as best we can, and we can never become so caught up in the apparent discrepancies that we miss what the genealogies are obviously trying to tell us: Jesus was a man, but also the son of God, who fulfilled prophecy, arrived just as God promised He would, accomplished the messianic duties, and saved all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles.

Works Cited

“Genealogy.” The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992. 253-58. Print.

Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1997. Print.

Hagner, Donald A. Word Bible Commentary. Vol. 33A. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Print.

“Joseph, Husband of Mary.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. CD-ROM. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems Inc., 1994.

Nettelhorst, R. P. “The Genealogy of Jesus.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31.2 (1988): 169-172. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.

Bruce, F. F., H. L. Ellison, and G. C. D. Howley, eds. New International Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979. Print.

Questions developed by Laura Rector (Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary) for the election year. It’s not exhaustive, but it’s a pretty good list.

1. Do I only seek out viewpoints that reinforce my own or do I try to give all arguments a fair hearing?
2. Do I find myself cheering for candidates who stoop to vitriolic attacks on others? 
3. Do I myself respond in vitriolic ways to others who express beliefs that are different from mine? 
4. Do I respect freedom of religion enough not to attack the faith of those with whom I disagree? Or question their relationship with God? 
5. Am I willing to pray for leaders from all parties, not just my own? 
6. When presented with a negative mass email or social network note/status about someone, do I verify the facts or simply pass on attacks? 
7. Do I let myself be controlled by fear rather than concrete policies and actions and a trust in God’s sovereignty? 
8. Am I willing to rebuke my party if they stoop to racism, unfair stereotypes of a gender, or stereotypes of people based on income and call them to a better way? 
9. Am I unwilling to admit there is anything wrong with the group to whom I’m loyal? Or can I fairly criticize them as an insider? 
10. Am I unwilling to admit there might be anything good in the other party or acknowledge their accomplishments? 
11. Do I seek to influence others with fear, threats, or putting others down (rather than criticizing actual policies and ideas in a rational way)? 
12. Am I willing to worship with someone who disagrees with my politics and treat them with respect and kindness? 
13. When I see someone with whom I disagree politically, am I willing to step in when another Christian attacks them and ask them to treat them more kindly in disagreement? 
14. Am I willing to say, “OK, we disagree about this, but let’s find some common ground that we do agree about and start our solutions from there”? 
15. Am I willing to admit I’m wrong and reverse my positions if needed? 
16. Do I seek out and read Scripture when forming my political agenda or do I arrive with preconceived notions? 
17. Is my support of this policy helping the poor or marginalized? Am I seeking to protect widows, orphans, and the aliens as Scripture commands? Is it taking care of creation? Is it respecting humanity’s imago Dei? 
18. Am I willing to apologize when my passions get the better of me or alienate people from Jesus? 
19. Do I place all blame for anything bad on one group and all hope for anything good on the other? Have I made my party an idol? 
20. Do I find myself making excuses and saying, “But they do it?” or “I’m not as bad as …..” and trying to rationalize away what my conscience might be telling me as I read and pray over these questions?