The Genealogies of Christ — Two Genealogies

This is the first post summarising (with some additions) a discussion in the comments of an earlier post from two years ago (which I’ve just reposted).  The comments delved into some of the interesting features of the genealogies of Christ recorded in Matthew and Luke.

Why Two Genealogies?

There are two genealogies (lines of descent) of Christ in the New Testament, one in Matthew 1 and the other in Luke 3, and they are different.  Most Bible scholars believe the Luke record gives the descent of Mary, the mother of Jesus, while the Matthew account gives the descent of Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus.

Psalm 132:11

The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

In general, Biblical genealogies focus on the father, but the above verse makes Mary’s descent vital.  Because Jesus was virgin-born, Mary had to be physically descended from David to fulfill that prophecy.  On the other hand, the genealogy of Joseph mattered because the legal right to the throne passed from father to son.  When Joseph took Jesus as his adoptive son, Jesus inherited a claim to the throne.  So the lines of both Joseph and Mary were important to Jesus’ claim as Messiah, a physical descendant of David, and the legal king of Israel.

Jewish writers of the time were very willing to say anything they could to attack the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah.  If they could have claimed that He was not of the royal line, or that there was someone with a better claim to be the heir of David, they would have been quick to say so.  That charge was never made.

Similarly, if Mary had not been descended from David, they would have said, “Don’t you remember Psalm 132?  If you claim that He was born of a virgin, then He must not have really been descended from David.”  That accusation was never made, either.  The fact that the Jews never challenged the descent of Christ on either front shows the value of both genealogies — and it is also a tacit admission by the Jews of the time that the records of Matthew and Luke were correct.

Luke’s Genealogy — Mary

Luke 3:23 “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”

Though the Bible doesn’t specifically tell us, there are reasons to believe the genealogy in Luke 3 is the descent of Mary.

  • Luke repeatedly stresses Christ’s humanity, which He inherited from His human mother, so we would expect Luke to give Mary’s lineage.
  • Luke takes the descent back to Adam, emphasising physical lineage, which again fits with the idea that Luke is tracing Mary’s ancestry.
  • Luke’s lineage gives a non-royal line after David, through his son Nathan.  No one in this line ever ruled as a king.  Luke is not giving a legal royal line, which is the only real reason to give Joseph’s ancestry, so this is almost certainly not the line of Joseph.
  • Mary is much more prominent in Luke than in the other Gospels, so it is not surprising to find Mary’s line recorded here.
  • Luke says Joseph was “of Heli” (“the son” is supplied by the translators, thus it is in italics). This would normally mean he was the son or grandson of Heli, but could also mean he was the son in law of Heli.  Note that it says Jesus was “supposed to be the son of Joseph” and “the son” is not in italics — it is in the original Greek.  So Luke specifically used the word “son” in this verse, but left it out for the rest of the lineage.  The contrast makes sense if, when he came to Heli, he left it out because he was the father-in-law of Joseph, and then just continued the pattern.

Thus, almost certainly, Heli is Mary’s father, Joseph’s father-in-law, and Luke gives her descent from David’s son Nathan, who never reigned as a king.

Matthew’s Genealogy — Joseph

Matthew 1:17

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Though the Bible doesn’t specifically say so, there are reasons to believe the line recorded in Matthew 1 is that of Joseph.

  • Matthew is strongly focused on identifying Christ as the rightful King of the Jews.  He would want to show Jesus’ legal right to the throne — through Joseph.
  • The genealogy in Matthew 1 is the royal line as recorded several times in the Old Testament.
  • Matthew uses “begat” which implies that Jacob the son of Matthan truly was the father of Joseph, not the father-in-law (or he could have been Joseph’s grandfather, sometimes “begat” is used of descendants one or more generations removed).
  • The term “Son of David” is emphasised — the title of Messiah that stresses His royal descent.
  • The genealogy is divided into three groups of fourteen which highlight aspects of the royal lineage.  I believe there is a real reason for Matthew 1:17 (more on this later).

Thus, there is good reason to believe that Matthew records the descent of Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, through whom He inherited the legal right to rule as Messiah, the King of the Jews.

We’ll take a brief look at some of the distinctive features of the two genealogies.

The Women in Matthew

Matthew mentions four women, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba.  Tamar had a major role in one of the most sordid accounts in Scripture, in Genesis 38.  Rahab was a foreign prostitute who believed in the Lord and became a part of Israel.  Ruth’s husband failed to trust the Lord in a famine, and married a foreigner — but when he died, Ruth chose to remain with her Israelite mother-in-law, and then married an ancestor of Messiah.  Bathsheba committed adultery with David (and Matthew reminds us by calling her the one who had been the wife of Uriah).

Perhaps these four women are mentioned to drive home the fact that Jesus was not just a King, He was also a Saviour.  The whole history of mankind, even of God’s chosen people, was full of sin, unbelief, immorality, and other kinds of ugliness.  Yet, God still did not reject His people, even using some of these sins to bring the Messiah — because He was the solution to sin:

Matthew 1:21

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The Omitted Kings

Matthew 1:8

And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

Matthew left some kings out of his genealogy.  I Chronicles 3:11-12 tells us that between Joram and Ozias (Uzziah), there were Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.  In verse 11, Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah and father of Jechoniah, is left out.  It seems likely that there are other gaps in the genealogy as well.

Matthew clearly left names out so there would be three groups of fourteen.  The reason must have been to highlight the dividing points between the groups.  Obviously, to be the King of the Jews, Jesus must be descended from Abraham.  To be the King, He must be descended from David.  The purpose of drawing attention to the Babylonian exile is less obvious, but as I said, we’ll look at that later.

“Which was the son of God”

Luke 3:38

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Though Luke traces the lineage all the way back to Adam, emphasising the shared humanity of Christ with all of his readers, he doesn’t actually stop with Adam.  The genealogy is preceded by a statement of the Father from heaven, that Jesus is His beloved Son.

This chapter, and the following, have many references to Jesus working by the power of the Holy Spirit, something we don’t see again in Luke after these chapters (see Luke’s Early Chapters — Key Concepts).  But we also have several references to the Father.  The entire Trinity is in view in these two chapters, as Luke, the writer who stressed the humanity of Christ, took two chapters to ensure that His deity and His relation to the Father, and to the Holy Spirit, was understood.

By extending this genealogy back beyond Adam, to God, Luke makes it part of that same theme.  Jesus is the divine Son of God, born of a virgin, conceived by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, and He is also a human son of God, a descendant from the first man, who was God’s offspring by creation.  This genealogy emphasising His humanity nevertheless connects that humanity back to the Father, as well.

Next: Zerubbabel and the Genealogies of Christ

The Genealogies of Christ — Menu Summary Page with links to other articles

About Jon Gleason

Former Pastor of Free Baptist Church of Glenrothes
This entry was posted in Rightly Dividing and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Genealogies of Christ — Two Genealogies

  1. The problem with all this is that it doesn’t work — Matthew and Luke are both genealogies of Joseph. The modern hoops theologians go through to fix an apparent contraction in the genealogies overlook the real case that Eusebius explained 1700 years ago!

    Heli and Jacob were stepbrothers with the same mother, Estha. Matthan (descended from Solomon) was her first husband and had Jacob, and Melchi (descended from Nathan) was her second husband and bore Heli. Heli died childless, and under the Levirate marriage laws Jacob took Heli’s wife and had Joseph. Ergo, Joseph was the biological son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli.

    Matthew uses the term “begot” for Joseph’s physical descent. Luke doesn’t use that term, rather he just says “the son of.”

    Eusebius cited historical information for these details.

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Hello, Glen. I zapped you an email, sorry for the delay on this.

      Eusebius was repeating what Africanus had suggested, but there’s no evidence for it.

      Besides the reasons I’ve given above for viewing Luke’s record as the lineage of Mary, there’s some Biblical precedent. Jair is called Manasseh’s son, but actually he wasn’t, he was the grandson of Manasseh’s daughter (Num 32:41; Deut 3:14; I Chron 2:21-23). So there’s plenty of room for an unnamed maternal link (in this case, Mary).

      We can’t know for sure, can we? Nor do we really need to. It’s an interesting study and I believe there is some value in seeing that surface contradictions can be easily reconciled, in this case there being more than one possible reconciliation. On balance, I’m of the view the evidence is better for what I’ve outlined above, but if I’m wrong, no doubt the Lord will correct me in glory if not before!

      • I just think it is the explanation which makes the best sense.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        It solves most of the problems, I’ll grant you that. It leaves one significant hole.

        Messiah was to be of the fruit of David’s body. That could only be the case if Mary was descended from David, and if she were not, Jesus’ enemies would have said so. Instead, they claimed He was born of fornication (John 8:41). That was a weak argument for them to make if they could have claimed He wasn’t physically of David’s line, but that was never argued.

        So based on both the Scriptures (Psalm 132, Luke 1:31-32) and the silence of His enemies I think it is a safe conclusion that Mary was also descended from David. And since Old Testament prophecy makes a point of that, it would hardly be surprising if the New Testament were to show how it is fulfilled by giving her line of descent. That’s not really explained if this isn’t Mary’s line.

        One thing is for sure — when Luke and Matthew wrote, everyone knew the answer to this one. They had the records. No one said, ‘Oh, these books can’t be truly of God because they contradict each other.’ Everyone at the time knew what these two genealogies were.
        Luke almost certainly had Matthew’s Gospel (note Luke 1:1) and knew about Matthew’s genealogy, and chose to give a different one. The Holy Spirit knew about both of these genealogies and chose to give us both of them.

        Some day we’ll know. Perhaps walking along the streets of gold we’ll look back and laugh that we were both wrong!

  2. LeEric S Marvin says:

    There may be a translation error in Matthew 1:16 which when corrected makes Joseph Father of Mary instead of Husband. Consider the two links:

    With the above revelation, I am now going with Matthew as Mary’s lineage and Luke as Joseph’s lineage, at

    • Jon Gleason says:

      This teaching is based on several errors. For one, it ignores the usual Jewish method of counting, which is inclusive. When it says from Abraham to David is 14 generations, it includes both of them. When it says from David to the carrying away to Babylon is 14 generations, it includes David in that 14 as well. But it doesn’t use a person as the end point of this 14, it includes an event, the captivity, so unlike David who was counted twice, neither Josiah nor Jeconiah are counted twice.

      This is not novel, this is the usual Jewish way of counting.

      This teaching also assumes that the Bible that Christians have used for many, many centuries is not accurate. Ultimately, it relies on a speculative teaching which isn’t found in the Scripture at all, that the real inspired text of Matthew was in Hebrew and that God didn’t bother to preserve it. I’m not interested in theories that rely on such assumptions. You are, of course, free to assume that Matthew is Mary’s lineage, but I find it totally unpersuasive for the reasons I’ve given and others.

  3. gmx0 says:

    I don’t believe it is Rahab in Matthew. Rahab is always spelled Rahab without a C in the entire New Testament except in that one place, where it becomes RaChab. There are difficulties with the entire timing to have Rahab in there.
    Some interesting things that would explain why Rachab and not Rahab:
    This is actually a mention of Rechab, a man, not Rahab. This fits the time. Rachel also has an influence, as Rechab and Eprahtah (Bethlehem) is connected.

    • Jon Gleason says:

      It’s an interesting idea. Several problems with it:
      1. Variations in spelling can happen in the NT with OT names. See Noe and Noah, which are obviously talking about the same person. The same thing happens with a Babylonian name in the OT, Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzar.
      2. It’s clearly not Rechab, the Greek spelling uses the letter alpha so it is Rachab.
      3. Rachab is actually a closer reflection of the Hebrew pronunciation of her name.
      4. It doesn’t make sense to have it say “X begat Y of Z” when Z is a man, and in the other cases where you see that construction, Z is the mother.

      So I don’t think Rechab works, nor does the idea it is a man (and where’s Rechab elsewhere in Scripture?). That leaves the timing problem. And I don’t think it’s a problem. We already know there are generations not recorded, skipped, in this list. If we say Salmon begat Someone of Rachab, and Someone begat Someone #2, and Someone #2 begat Boaz, and just accept that the genealogy has been trimmed, you solve the timing problem. So I don’t see a real issue here.

      But I appreciate your comment. It made me think. I just don’t find the argument persuasive in this case.

Comments welcome! (but please check the comment policy)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s