Why Are Jesus’ Genealogies in Matthew and Luke Different?
On Monday night, our parish council got into a heated debate on a number of issues, one of which was as follows: Q. Is it possible that Jesus was genuinely 33 years old when he died, and if so, how can we tell? We’re looking for assistance. West Pawlet is a village in the Vermont town of West Pawlet. A. Although we do not know for definite how old Jesus was when he died, it is commonly accepted that he was 33 at the time of his passing. When Jesus began his ministry, according to the Gospel of Luke, he was around thirty years old (3:23).
Once these allusions are put together, one is driven to the conclusion that Jesus was most likely 33 years old when he died.
In a hotel, there will be a civil ceremony held.
- My kid, as expected, was irritated.
- In the Irish province of Westmeath, Regarding your son’s buddy and his fiancee, I’m assuming that at least one of them is a practicing Catholic.
- For obvious reasons, non-Catholics are under no need to marry with the blessing of the Catholic Church.
- Because they are not being married by a Catholic priest or deacon, or, in the alternative, because they do not have the necessary permission from the church, their civil wedding is presumed to be invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
- In the end, that decision rests with the sensible judgment of a practicing Catholic, who has prayerfully considered a number of issues.
- It is also unquestionably preferable for the couple in issue to formalize their engagement with a civil ceremony rather than merely continuing to live together — and this may even be the first step towards their full return to adherence to Catholic tradition.
- Consider the following scenario, which takes into account the various considerations.
- Explain to him that you have some misgivings about doing so since you strongly believe that they should be married in a Catholic wedding, but that you are willing to compromise.
The ideal conclusion would be for the buddy to be reminded of his religious obligations and to decide to have the marriage blessed by the church after giving it some thought. Catholic News Service and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops retain copyright protection for the year 2018.
1. One of the genealogies is actually Mary’s.
The most straightforward explanation is that we have genealogies for both of Jesus’ parents, Joseph and Mary. In this instance, Luke provides us with Mary’s family tree, whilst Matthew provides us with Joseph’s family tree. This makes perfect sense, given that Luke’s birth tale is primarily concerned with Mary. Luke presents the narrative from the perspective of the main character. In certain circles, this suggestion is associated with Jeremiah’s judgment against the family of Solomon, who predicted that no descendant of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36:30) or his son Jechoniah (Jeremiah 22:24–30) would ever reign on the throne of David.
Matthew, on the other hand, prefers to tell the tale from Joseph’s point of view.
One difficulty with this theory is that throughout Luke’s account of Joseph’s birth, he emphasizes the fact that Joseph is a descendant of King David.
Given Luke’s emphasis on Mary in his birth myth, it would be unexpected if his genealogy is traced back to her line of descent.
2. One genealogy is a royal or legal genealogy, and the other is a physical genealogy.
According to yet another theory, the differences between the two genealogies can be explained by the fact that Matthew portrays a royal or legal genealogy while Luke presents a physical, or real, genealogy. In other words, Matthew cites the official line of Davidic rulers rather than the line of ancestors of Jesus himself. The purpose of his argument is to demonstrate that Joseph is tied to that phrase. According to this interpretation, Luke would be providing us with the names of actual, physical descendants—in other words, a genealogy in the manner in which we are accustomed to thinking about genealogy.
3. Joseph had two fathers.
How is it possible for someone to have two fathers? That is an excellent question, but the answer is no, it is not physically feasible. However, there are two reasons why the passage might be interpreted in this manner. For starters, some believe that because Mary did not have any brothers to carry on her father’s name after her marriage, Heli (Joseph’s father, according to Luke) adopted Joseph as his own son and named him after him. This would therefore provide Joseph with two genealogies—his own ancestry and Mary’s lineage—to work with.
According to Deuteronomy 25:5, a Levirate marriage is characterized as follows: “If two brothers are living together and one of them dies without leaving a son, the widow of the deceased brother is not permitted to marry outside the family.
According to the genealogy recorded by Luke, Joseph’s father Heli was either a brother or a half-brother to Jacob, who was either Joseph’s father according to Matthew’s genealogy or Heli’s father according to Luke’s genealogy.
As a result, Joseph would have two fathers: Heli and Jacob, each of whom is his natural father, and Jacob, who is his legal father.
We can’t determine from the text which of his biological fathers is his biological father and which of his legal fathers is his legal father. In this case, the crucial issue is that it may be possible to explain why Joseph may have two dads, and hence two unique genealogies.
You’ve probably heard the Christmas story a hundred times by this point. This year, work on improving your comprehension. Dr. Mark Strauss’s book Four Portraits, One Jesus: Jesus’ Birth, Childhood, and Early Ministry delves at the tale of Jesus’ birth as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as well as the story of Jesus’ childhood and early ministry. When you join up, you will learn the following:
- Why it is important that Jesus was born in Bethlehem rather than some other location
- What the magi were and where they originated from were both unknown. There is evidence to suggest that Matthew and Luke are drawing from historical traditions rather than simply inventing stories to suit their religious agendas. The reason why Mary and Joseph were sent away from the “inn” isn’t what you may expect
- The backdrop and historical setting of Jesus’ birth, including the Roman census, Herod’s effort to massacre the Bethlehem newborns, John the Baptist, and other events
Sign up for the course, which is completely free. This piece is based from Four Portraits, One Jesus: Jesus’ Birth, Childhood, and Early Ministry, a free online course taught by Dr. Mark Strauss that may be found at www.fourportraitsonejesus.com.
Why are Jesus’ genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?
QuestionAnswer There are two passages in the Bible where Jesus’ lineage is revealed: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces Jesus’ ancestors all the way back to Abraham. Luke traces Jesus’ lineage all the way back to Adam. There is, however, compelling evidence to suggest that Matthew and Luke are, in fact, tracing wholly separate lineages from one another. For example, in Matthew 1:16, Joseph’s father is identified as Jacob, yet in Luke, Joseph’s father is identified as Heli (Luke 3:23).
- (Luke 3:31).
- Some have argued that these discrepancies are proof that the Bible contains mistakes.
- It is unthinkable that Matthew and Luke could have constructed two completely incompatible genealogies for the same family.
- So much so that the mentions of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are most likely referring to separate persons with the same names.
- It would be natural for a guy called Shealtiel to name his kid Zerubbabel in honor of the well-known personalities who have those first and last names, respectively (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).
- The custom was that, when a man died without having any sons, his brother would marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name.
- Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) would be considered half-brothers in this scenario.
- In this case, Joseph would be considered the “son of Heli” in legal terms as well as the “son of Jacob” physiologically.
- Conservative Bible scholars currently have a different point of view, namely that Luke is describing Mary’s lineage whereas Matthew is recording Joseph’s history.
- Matthew and Luke are both following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father).
- Jesus is a descendant of David through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, and as such, he is entitled to be recognized as the Messiah.
According to Luke’s account, Jesus was the son of Joseph, “or so it was assumed at the time” (Luke 3:23). Questions regarding Jesus Christ (return to top of page) What is the difference between Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew and Luke?
Subscribe to the
Get our Question of the Week emailed to your inbox every weekday morning! Got Questions Ministries is a trademark of Got Questions Ministries, Inc., registered in the state of California in the year 2002. All intellectual property rights are retained. Policy Regarding Personal Information The information on this page was last updated on January 4, 2022.
Why Does Jesus Have Two Different Genealogies (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38)?
At first glance, these two chapters, both of which include genealogy of Jesus, appear to be in conflict with one another. In reality, though, they are complementary to one another. Joseph, Mary’s husband, is well shown through his family’s genealogy in Matthew 1. Matthew keeps a record of it for legal reasons. He is writing to demonstrate to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Jews’ norm in maintaining records is to trace descent down to the father, which is what he is doing in his writing.
- In addition, Joseph’s lineage is mentioned in order to stress the fact that Jesus was born to a virgin mother.
- Jechonias (Matthew 1:11-12), also known as Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24-30, was a very nasty character.
- because none of his descendants shall flourish, sitting on the throne of David, and reigning any longer in Judah” (Write this guy down as childless) (verse 30).
- Why was Jesus able to prove himself to be a descendant of David and therefore eligible to sit on the throne?
- According to Jewish tradition, Mary’s ancestors are listed under her husband’s surname rather than her own.
- In reality, since Joseph’s father is mentioned in Matthew 1:16 as being Jacob, Heli is most likely Mary’s biological father.
- In contrast to Joseph’s ancestry, there was no stumbling wall in Mary’s genealogy that prevented Jesus from ascending to the throne of David.
God praised Nathan by designating him as the ancestor of the prophesied King who would reign on David’s throne throughout eternity, in order to fulfill His promise to establish David’s throne for all eternity (Luke 1:31-33).
As long as a daughter is the sole remaining heir, she is entitled to inherit her father’s property and privileges if she marries someone from her own tribe, according to Israeli law (Numbers 27:1-8;36:6-8).
As a result of his marriage to Mary, Joseph became Heli’s heir, and with it, the right to rule on David’s kingdom, including over Judah.
It was necessary to publish both genealogies in order to show Christ’s authority to rule on David’s throne.
In addition, the genealogy provide evidence of the virgin birth: If Christ had been Joseph’s natural son, the curse on Jeconiah’s family would have been passed on to Him; but, He was not—He was the Son of God the Father, conceived by the Holy Spirit, and so was not subject to the curse.
Jesus was Mary’s son, and he was descended from the prophet Nathan. Because of Mary’s marriage to Joseph, whose genealogy reveals that he was Heli’s son-in-law, Jesus is eligible to inherit the throne of Judah.
The Genealogies of Jesus
The date of publication is April 18, 2020. Douglas Bookman, Ph.D. is the author. The New Testament contains two genealogies of Jesus of Nazareth, one in Matthew 1:1-17 and another in Luke 3:23-38. Both are found in the book of Matthew. They are extremely important to the New Testament’s argument about the person and claims of Jesus, even if these lists of names do not appear to be particularly exciting to the contemporary reader. These passages, which appear to be archaic and technical in nature, deserve close examination.
- The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy Matthew wrote his gospel in order to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth is in fact the long-awaited Messiah of Israel, as prophesied by the prophets.
- David had made a pact with Yahweh, in which He promised him that “your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:6, KJV).
- In a nutshell, the Jewish soul was animated by the hope of the coming of Messiah, but that Messiah had to be the son of David, and as such “the son of Abraham.” Priority must be given to the question of Jewish identity and hope stemming from these two great sources of inspiration.
- First and foremost, it is symmetrically organized into three sections of fourteen generations each.
- Perhaps Matthew left them out because they were the closest living descendants of Ahab and Jezebel!
Furthermore, the verb “begat” (which is translated “was the ancestor of” in the KJV) is used throughout the list, which more literally means “was the ancestor of.” Matthew has determined that the first test of a Messianic claimant (descent from David) is met by Jesus, and that he will do so in a way that can be easily memorized by the audience.
- Although it is impossible to know for certain that this was Matthew’s reasoning (and other explanations have been advanced), the notion is intriguing because it places David even more prominently at the center of this genealogy.
- On two counts, the Gospelist appears to regard those four as foreshadowing Mary, according to him: In bringing forth the Messiah 2, each of these women “took the initiative.
- As a result, these women foreshadowed Mary, who responded to the angel’s announcement with humble but anxious faith, and who bravely endured the malicious rumors about the birth of her first Son.
- The purpose of Luke’s genealogy Luke’s gospel was written for a Greek audience, and his genealogy serves that purpose.
- He therefore traces Jesus’ lineage back to “Adam, the son of God,” not only through David (3:31) and Abraham (3:34), but all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (3:38).
- Registries of births and deaths record individuals as they are born, allowing them to be traced back through time from earlier to later generations.
- Once again, Luke begins his genealogy at the beginning of Christ’s ministry rather than at the beginning of the Gospel, as is customary.
- A word needs to be said in defense of the historical veracity of the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke.
- But Josephus, a late contemporary of Jesus, says nothing of such destruction, and he publishes his own genealogy.
- Finally, if the genealogies were not accurate, or even if their accuracy was unverifiable in the first century, they certainly would have been attacked early on by unbelievers.
- But no such attempt at discrediting the genealogies appears.
RECONCILING THE TWO GENEALOGIES Reconciling the genealogies is especially difficult at one point: they are very much distinct from David to Christ, and yetthey both seem to trace the line of Jesus’ adopted father, Joseph(compare Matthew 1:16, “to Jacob was born Joseph,” and Luke 3:23, “Joseph,the sonof Eli”).
- The first is to posit that both genealogies do trace Joseph’s line, but that one follows his physical ancestry, while the other records his legal lineage.
- He argues that Joseph’s mother had been widowed without children, had married a brother of her deceased husband (levirate marriage, Deuteronomy 25:5-6), and then had borne Joseph by that second husband.
- This explanation is possible, but it rests on the hypothesis of a levirate marriage and it leaves some important questions unanswered.
- Three points are telling in defense of this approach.
- (Each name In Matthew’s genealogy also has the article.) This is compelling evidence that this name ought not be read as part of Luke’s genealogical list; rather, it is part of the parenthetical statement inserted in that verse.
- being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli.” 5 It is not Joseph who is “the son of Eli,” but Jesus.
- Luke is dealing resourcefully with a dilemma arising from the fact of Jesus’ virgin birth.
But by reason of His supernatural conception in the womb of a virgin, Jesus had no physical father.
The name of that man was evidently Eli, as recorded in Luke 3:23.
Given Luke’s focus on Mary in his telling of the nativity, it is plausible to suggest that the genealogy he inserts after that narrative is in fact that of Mary.
The first relates to Jesus’ two-fold qualification to sit on the throne of David.
Because Jesus’ adopted father, Joseph, traced his lineage to David through Solomon, Jesus inherited that prerogative (Matthew 1:17).
On the other hand, God had promised in the Davidic covenant that no one who was not of David’sseed –his physical descendant–would ever sit on that throne (Psalm 89:4).
Luke twice intimates Mary’s descent from David: first in the words of the angel to Mary (1:32), and again in recording that Mary went to register in the city of David (2:5).
But if Luke’s genealogy is not that of Mary, there is noexplicitbiblical affirmation that Jesus is physically a descendant of David.
The second ramification relates to Jeconiah, a king who is identified by Matthew as an ancestor of Joseph (1:11-12).
Jeremiah pronounced a curse upon Jeconiah, proclaiming that “no man ofseed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (22:30).
By reason of that curse, the line of David from which Joseph descended was disqualified to sit on that throne.
However, He was not the physical son of David through Joseph, but through Mary (compare the relative pronoun, “of whom,” in Matthew 1:16, which in the Greek isfeminine singular).
Rom 1:3), by reason of the virgin birth and nonparticipation in the seed of Joseph, qualifies to receive the title without coming under the curse.” 6 And so, when properly understood, these genealogies–though uninteresting and perhaps even irrelevant at first blush–become a marvelous manifestation of “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Romans 11:33).
- END NOTES 1 A.
- Robertson,Harmony of the Gospels, (New York: HarperRow, 1922), p.
- 2 Raymond E.
- 743 J.
- Van Oosterzee,Luke(Edinburgh: T.T.
- 4 Eusebius,Historia Ecclesiastica, I.7.5 See Robertson,Harmony, p.
- 6 S.
- Doug Bookmanis Professor of Old/New Testament and Bible Exposition at Shepherds Theological Seminary.
Much of his ministry in the last decade has focused on both Israel and the life of Christ. He enjoys leading numerous study trips to Israel, which includes an annual trip specifically designed for the STS students.
Why do Matthew and Luke’s genealogies contradict one another?
The genealogies given by Matthew and Luke are really two separate ones. The genealogy of Jesus is traced down to Joseph, who was the legal, but not the physical, father of Jesus, according to Matthew. Luke, on the other hand, traces Jesus’ lineage back to Mary, from whom he descended physically as well as in terms of humanity. Beautiful fulfillment of prophesy, and it genuinely bears witness to the veracity of the Bible’s claims. Through Joseph, Jesus was recognized as the legitimate heir to the kingdom while also avoiding the curse of Coniah, which had been predicted in Jeremiah 22:24-30.
- The following is a good explanation of the concerns provided by the Ryrie Study Bible: Despite the fact that Coniah had seven sons (possibly adopted; see 1 Chron.
- Accordingly, Coniah was regarded “childless” in the context of dynastic continuity.
- The genealogy of Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage back to Solomon and Jeconiah (Heb., Coniah; Matt.
- Luke traces Jesus’ bodily descent back via Mary and Nathan to David, avoiding Jeconiah’s line and properly depicting the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophesy.
- As a result, if Jesus had been born only into the line of Joseph (and hence into the line of Jeconiah), He would not have been eligible to reign on the throne of David during the Millennium.
- Bible Study Methods,Bibliology (The Written Word),Terms and Definitions are all topics that are related to this one.
Why Are Matthew’s and Luke’s Genealogies Different?
Two separate genealogies are provided by Matthew and Luke. According to Matthew, Jesus’ ancestry is traced down to Joseph, who was the legal father of Jesus but not his biological father. Jesus’ pedigree is traced back to Mary, from whom he descended physically and spiritually, according to the gospel according to Luke. Beautiful fulfillment of prophesy, and it genuinely bears witness to the veracity of the Bible’s predictions. Through Joseph, Jesus was recognized as the legitimate heir to the kingdom while also avoiding the curse of Coniah, which had been predicted in Jeremiah 22:24–30.
- The following is a good overview of the concerns presented in the Ryrie Study Bible: ” No one occupied the throne despite the fact that Coniah had seven sons (some of whom were adopted; see 1 Chron.
- Accordingly, Coniah was regarded “childless” in the context of dynastic succession.
- Using Mary and Nathan as a guide, Luke traces Jesus’ bodily descent down to David, skipping over Jeconiah’s line in the process and properly depicting the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophesy.
As previously mentioned in the commentary on Matthew 1:11, Bible Study Methods,Bibliology (The Written Word),Terms and Definitions are all topics that are related to Bible study.
- The Messiah must be the seed of Woman (Genesis 3:15)
- The Messiah must be the descendant of Abraham, through whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3)
- The Messiah must be the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15)
- The Messiah must be the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15) (2 Samuel 7) states that the Messiah must be a descendant of King David.
In this respect, Matthew’s genealogy supplies us with information on Christ’s legal lineage. Because of His names, we can see how He meets the qualifications to be David’s legitimate heir and seize the kingdom. Matthew did not want to include all of the people in the lineage, but simply those who were required to establish the relationship from Abraham to David to Christ, and he did it in groups of fourteen names each, which was likely to make memorizing easier for the audience. Despite the fact that Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son according to his lineage, he became the legal heir when Joseph married Mary and adopted Him.
- Possibly via Mary’s line, but because Matthew leaves out several names, Luke’s genealogy could be that of Joseph from a different branch.
- What we may deduce from this lineage is that the relationship extends from Adam through Judah to David to Christ and back again (called the Second Adam by Paul).
- As a result, when taken together, they demonstrate Jesus’ valid claim to David’s kingdom and his right to be called the Messiah (Yeshua).
- Doug Bookman, professor of New Testament Exposition at Shepherds Theological Seminary, and published with permission (used by permission).
A hopeless Bible contradiction? Why do Matthew and Luke give us two different genealogies for Jesus?
Matthew and Luke both offer us with information on Jesus’ lineage early in their respective Gospels. A major discrepancy exists, however, between the two albums in this case. They are diametrically opposed to one another. This, according to popular skeptical blogger Bob Seidensticker, is one of the most striking Bible inconsistencies, a discrepancy that strikes to the very heart of Christian claims and claims of authority. I’ll let Bob speak for a moment in order to assist me clarify the objection in greater detail: According to the Scriptures, the Messiah had to be descended from David (Jeremiah 33:15–17; Isaiah 9:7), and two gospels include genealogy of Jesus to support this need.
- Jacob was the father of Joseph, and Joseph was the spouse of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is referred to as “the Messiah” in the Bible (Matthew 1:16).
- was believed to be the son of Joseph, who in turn was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23).
- Even more difficult to believe is that an ordinary Joe like Joseph would have a credible record of his family history that goes back several generations.
- If being descended from David is a condition, then having a deity as a parent disqualifies you from being considered.
In any case, why would you submit the genealogy of a father from whom David’s ancestry would not be considered? Here we have the conflict of two conceptions that are mutually exclusive: Jesus is the heir to David’s throne, and Jesus is the son of God.”
A CASE OF CONFLATION
Is Bob correct in his assessment? Are these two passages utterly incompatible with one another? I’m sorry if I have to disappoint Mr. Seidensticker by providing the standard rebuttal, but I believe it is the correct response. These two accounts have been conflated by critics. The assumption that these are meant to be two different branches of the same genealogy is incorrect. The genealogy in Luke is traced back through Mary rather than through Joseph. He’s mixing up two different genealogies.
- Is this, however, the case?
- In Bob’s opinion, it is absurd to be required to provide a genealogy of the parent from whom the descent from David would not be counted.
- Luke also says that Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist was also a descendant of Aaron along with her husband Zechariah.
- See also Luke 1:30-34: And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
- He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.
Note that Mary does not say “How will this be, since I am a virgin AND not descended from David?” Moreover, in terms of inheritance, the Law teaches that if a man dies and leaves no sons but only daughters, the inheritance is passed on through the daughters and their husbands, as long as they marry within their tribe.
In Mary’s case, we read about her having only a single sister and no brothers.
Genealogy of Jesus
JESUS: SON OF DAVID, SON OF GOD.
Bob believes that there is an irreconcilable collision of concepts taking place here: that Jesus is the heir to David’s kingdom, and that Jesus is the Son of God, respectively. In any case, isn’t that exactly what was intended by the Incarnation, that Jesus is at the same time totally God and completely man? The apostle Paul definitely did not believe that these two claims were mutually exclusive: “who, in his earthly life, was a descendant of David, and who, by the Spirit of holiness, was appointed the Son of God in authority by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord,” he wrote.
The successor to David is sometimes referred to as “Mighty God.” In context, let us consider the two paragraphs as follows:”For to us a child is born, and to us a son is given, and the government will rest on his shoulders.
There will be no end to the magnificence of his government and the tranquility that it brings.
(6:6-7) (Isaiah 9:6) Aside from that, Daniel 7:13-14 teaches that the Messiah will be an exalted, heavenly figure who will be served and revered by all peoples and countries while enthroned in the celestial realm.
Similarly, in Psalm 110, we are given the same hint of a pre-existing Messianic figure.
MANY FIRST-CENTURY JEWS KNEW THEIR FAMILY TREE
Bob also points out that it’s difficult to imagine that Joseph would have a solid record of his family’s history that goes back several generations. How might they have been able to trace their ancestors back so far in time? This, I believe, is his most compelling argument, but it is also completely disconnected from the cultural background of first-century Judaism. Identifying one’s ancestral tribe was extremely important to the Jews since it allowed one to better understand one’s place in the world.
ANOTHER POSSIBLE SKEPTICAL COMPLAINT
Bob may now add one more skeptic’s response, pointing out that Matthew only goes back 28 generations, but Luke goes back 41. And it is correct. Some generations are skipped through in Matthew’s account. However, neither genealogy is required to provide us with each and every relationship from father to son, and neither genealogy is required to do so. In 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 and Ezra 7:1-5, you may observe a practice that is comparable to this one. 1 Chronicles has 22 generations that track the high priestly line, however Ezra reports only 16 generations that trace the high priestly line.
“The genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, and Abraham,” starts Matthew’s genealogy: “The genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, and Abraham.” (See Matthew 1:15) God vowed to send blessings to all nations through Abraham, and it was through Abraham that God fulfilled this promise (Genesis 12:1-3) Matthew wants us to understand that Jesus is the long-awaited seed of Abraham by establishing a link between him and Abraham.
- Rather than specifying the actual number of father-to-son generations, Matthew’s counting is intended to divide the list into three sections, each of which has 14 names.
- What is the significance of 14?
- The Hebrew name for David is “David,” and we can use this to conduct some easy math to determine his age.
- Waw, the middle letter in the word, has the numerical value of six.
Moreover, New Testament scholar Greg Mounce points out that Matthew deliberately arranges the names from Abraham to David to Christ “in groups of fourteen to coincide with the three important stages of Jewish history: the account of God’s people leading up to Israel’s greatest king; the decline of Israel, culminating in the Babylonian exile; and the restoration of God’s people with the advent of Christ.” According to NT scholar RT France, “by structuring that history into a regular framework of three groups of fourteen generations.it signifies that the time of preparation has now come to an end, and that in Jesus the time of fulfillment has begun.” Consequently, Matthew begins his gospel by emphasizing Israel’s lost splendor in her slide from David to exile, and then portrays Jesus as Israel’s new ruler (Matt 2:2–3; 21:5) and last hope (Matt 2:2–3; 21:5).
Essentially, Matthew’s narrative of Jesus’ genealogy is a summary of Israel’s history, demonstrating the country’s decline from the glory days of King David all the way down to the Babylonian exile.
(Matt 3:10, 11:21-23, 21:33-44, 23:34-36, 24:2-3, 8:11-13; Luke 3:10, 11:21-23, 21:33-44, 23:34-36, 24:2-3, 8:11-13)
JESUS’ GENEALOGIES ARE NOT IN CONFLICT
Consequently, I do not consider this to be a damning contradiction in the final analysis. Bob is unable to comprehend the fundamental intricacies of Christian philosophy (the Incarnation). He does not explicitly state that the Incarnation is a fulfillment of the prophesy in Isaiah 9, which is questionable. Bob also appears to be misinformed about the cultural environment, which, as we saw from Josephus, placed a high value on lineages and kept meticulous records of their descendants. And then he dismisses the possibility that both Mary and Joseph may be descendants of David, as well as the possibility that the gospel authors would be interested in both of their genealogies, far too quickly.
It’s because they didn’t see them in that light at the time.
They both demonstrate that Jesus is the one who conveyed the blessing of Abraham to the entire world via his death and resurrection.
Did you enjoy it?
Why are the genealogies in Matthew and Luke different? — Wesley Huff
The Old Testament said that the Messiah would be descended from the line of David, and this is what happened (2 Samuel 7:12-15, Isaiah 11:1, and Jeremiah 23:5-6). Neither Matthew (at Matthew 1) nor Luke (at Luke 3:23-38) offer genealogies of Jesus, but both do so to demonstrate that he was a descendant of David and hence, in his claim to be the real successor to the kingdom of Israel, that he was a legitimate Messiah. Each genealogy also brings to light elements that were essential to the gospel writer who wrote that particular genealogy.
- As a result of this, Matthew draws attention to Jesus’ Jewishness.
- However, while the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke are essentially identical from Abraham to David, they diverge from David to Jesus beyond that.
- Matthew and Luke are both descendants of David.
- Several skeptical scholars have pointed to this as a point of controversy or contradiction, claiming that Matthew or Luke got it incorrect; they also claim that Matthew or Luke invented or borrowed a genealogy in order to fabricate a Jesus with real ancestors.
- It is possible that these genealogies are representations of Jesus’ earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, according to one of the most straightforward explanations.
- From a practical standpoint, this makes sense because Luke’s birth narrative is centered on Mary and narrates the tale from her point of view.
- Jesus was a descendant of David via both Mary and Joseph’s lineage, making him eligible to be the Messiah in the traditional sense.
In ancient Judaism, the father was regarded as the bearer of the family name, while the son was regarded as the successor (especially which tribe one was descended from).
That is not to say that the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth were without their share of strange incidents to begin with!
The official line of Dividic rulers, rather than Matthew’s real descendants, is believed to be presented in this explanation, rather than Matthew himself.
Luke, on the other hand, would be providing us with a genuine bodily descendancy if this idea were to be correct.
It seems possible that Matthew’s genealogy was edited for symbolic reasons, at the very least.
It turns out that if we count the names, we obtain three perfect sets of fourteen names, for a total of forty-two generations from Abraham to Jesus, which explains the decision.
How? Well, in ancient Judaism, there existed a notion known as Gematria, in which letters were assigned numerical values, and this was utilized to communicate certain thoughts or concepts to the public. David’s given name, for example, appeared as follows in Hebrew:
דָּ (D)+ וִ (V) + ד (D) = 4 + 6 + 4 = 14
Jesus’ genealogy is arranged into three sets of fourteen generations, indicating the significance of David’s name’s numerological meaning while also reinforcing Jesus’ claim to be the “Son of David” (Matthew 1:20). (Matthew 1:1). It was Eusebius of Caesera who addressed the gap between Matthew and Luke by claiming that Matthew was following the biological lineage while Luke was taking into consideration an event known as “levirate marriage” (a marriage between two unmarried women) (Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History1.1.7).
- Eusebius, on the other hand, regarded Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) as two men who were married to the same lady at separate periods.
- If Heli died without leaving a son, and his (half-brother) Jacob married Heli’s widow, Heli’s son would be Joseph, according to the Biblical account.
- The problem of variations in lineages is thus resolved by this explanation, which states, among other things, that Matthew and Luke are both chronicling Joseph’s familial line, but that Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological one.
- Ultimately, we come to the same conclusion: Jesus is descended from a genealogical line that can be traced back to King David, and as such, he is a genuine Messiah as well as a legitimate claimant to the kingdom of Israel (Matthew 23:23).
You might also be interested in…
The genealogy of Jesus is split into three sets of fourteen generations, representing the significance of the numerical value associated with David’s name and, as a result, bolstering Jesus’ claim to be the “Son of David” (Matthew 1:1). It was Eusebius of Caesera who addressed the contradiction between Matthew and Luke by claiming that Matthew was following the biological lineage while Luke was taking into consideration an event known as “levirate marriage” (a marriage between two levirates) (Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History1.1.7).
Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15), according to Eusebius, were married to the same lady at separate periods.
If Heli died without leaving a son, and his (half-brother) Jacob married Heli’s widow, Heli’s son would be Joseph, according to the Bible.
The problem of variations in lineages is therefore resolved by this explanation, which states, among other things, that Matthew and Luke are both chronicling Joseph’s familial line, but that Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological one.
Ultimately, we come to the same conclusion: Jesus is descended from a genealogical line that can be traced back to King David, and as such, he is a genuine Messiah as well as a valid claimant to the throne of Israel, according to Jewish tradition.
Why is Jesus’ Genealogy Different in Matthew and Luke? — Danny Zacharias
Please have a look at this movie I recently put to YouTube, which explains why the genealogy of Jesus recorded in Matthew and Luke differs. If you loved it and believe others will as well, please spread the word on social media as well! The transcript may be seen below. More details about Matthew’s inventive counting may be found in a previous blog article of mine.
Anyone who has read the Gospels of Matthew and Luke has almost certainly noticed that they each present a distinct family tree for Jesus. If you have read the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, it is probable that you have noticed this at some time. On the surface, it appears to be a strange coincidence that Jesus’ genealogy is distinct from the rest of the Bible. It goes without saying that they cannot both be correct, do they? The first step in understanding why the two genealogies are different is to acknowledge that they both begin from separate places: Luke traces his genealogy all the way back to Adam, but Matthew only traces his genealogy back to Abraham.
Even the names of Jesus’ grandparents are not agreed upon throughout Matthew and Luke!
It is common for us to conceive of family trees as a chronological enumeration of all of our blood relatives.
Genealogies in the Bible were used to tell stories as well as explain facts.
In some cases, a genealogy would be exhaustive, as we would anticipate; in other others, it would be less exhaustive and more selective, as if the author wished for readers to concentrate on certain parts of the history that the genealogy was reminding them of.
When individuals attempt to make this type of argument, they are committing the error of holding ancient genealogies to a higher standard than they are capable of.
Matthew, on the other hand, had a tale in mind that was more detailed.
Matthew wasn’t only looking for a way to trace his ancestors.
Matthew intended to establish Jesus’ lawful rule over Israel from the very beginning of the Gospel of Matthew.
It is important to note how Matthew begins his whole book – the genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David and son of Abraham – by introducing the genealogy of Jesus Christ.
Consider the following timeline: Abraham is here; David is here; the babylonian captivity is here; Jesus is here; and so on and so forth.
Let’s put Luke’s name in here as well.
The names of the characters in these two lines are virtually indistinguishable from one another!
And, surprise, surprise, that is precisely what we discover.
Various snippets of remark.
What type of narrative does this set of annotations convey?
Furthermore, in Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Genesis 49, a promise of a future messiah is made clear to us.
When Jechoniah, also known as Jehoiachin in the Old Testament, agreed to take the penalty of the approaching army, he represented the entire country of Israel by going into exile and experiencing his punishment, and then getting reprieve from the sentence.
One well-known aspect of Matthew’s genealogy is the inclusion of women in the annotation – and it is worth noting that the naming of these women accomplishes numerous objectives at the same time.
While traditional genealogies (such as Luke’s) usually traced their roots back to men, Matthew’s brief genealogy includes women.
They and their stories remind us that even within the Old Testament, gentiles were a part of God’s story and even a member of the Davidic lineage!
Tamar’s narrative is the most soap opera-like of any character in the Bible!
Lastly, just in case we forget, Matthew reminds us of “The woman of Uriah!
As a result of all of this, the reader is prepared for the controversy surrounding Mary, a virgin lady who claims she has conceived her child via the power of the Holy Spirit!
Another factor that contributes to our understanding of Matthew’s selectivity is the method in which he organizes his sentences.
This passage raises two questions: first, why is the number 14 used?
When we arrange the names in columns of 14, we find that we are one name short of the total.
Matthew merely rounded up to the nearest whole number to highlight the number 142.
Perhaps the exile is being counted as a generation4.
In certain circles, it has been believed that Jesus was an illegitimate child, and as a result, his true father was not recognized6.
This is one of the most prevalent explanations.
Three academics, including myself, have argued in writings that David should be counted twice in the final tally.
First and foremost, it should be noted that David is the only person in the genealogy, aside from Jesus, who is given a title.
We should also keep in mind that the phrase “Son of David” has already been underlined in the opening verse of the chapter.
This is how the genealogy would be formed if we were to read Matthew 17 and count according to Matthew’s instructions.
Finally, the number 14 itself serves as the final piece of proof supporting the practice of numbering David twice.
In this situation, the Hebrew letter dalet is the fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, while the letter vav is the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
And it is in this manner that David’s name is frequently spelt in the Bible.
For this reason, the number 14 is highlighted, and it is also the reason why Matthew opted to build his genealogy in the manner that he did. He was meticulous in his selection of names in order for the structure itself to underline Jesus’ Davidic lineage as the messianic Son of David.