Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary

GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST

Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.

Preview

• Matthew’s Genealogy

• Luke’s Genealogy

• The Relationship between the Two Records

Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)

Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv).

An examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:

1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.

2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).

3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.

4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.

5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”

From these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.

The 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.

With respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.

The third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.

The women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.

The reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.

Finally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.

The sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.

On the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.

It has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.

This is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.

Luke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)

Luke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.

1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.

3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).

Some have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.

Many have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.

As to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.

Luke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.

The Relationship between the Two Records

Even a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).

How are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.

A widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”

On the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?

A major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.

If Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.

One other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.

It is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.