The genealogies are placed in appendices because they are not at all essential to the message of salvation. There are a number of questions as to their authenticity. The remainder of the gospel accounts clearly are recollections of words spoken and actions taken by Jesus, though the writers were not always certain of where, when, or in what order, events occurred.
The following table is a side-by-side comparison of the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke. Converging sections are shown with a green background, and diverging sections are shown with a purple background.
| Matthew 1:1-17 | Luke 3:23-38 |
|---|---|
Nathan, Mattatha, Menan, Melea,
Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah,
Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim,
Eliezer, Jose, Er, Elmodam,
Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri,
| |
Salathiel, Zorobabel,
| |
|
Azor, Zadok,
Achim, Eliud, Eleazar,
Matthan, Jacob,
|
Rhesa, Joannan, Juda, Joseph,
Semei, Mattathias, Maath, Nagge,
Esli, Naum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph,
|
| Joseph [as was supposed], Jesus |
There has been for centuries much discussion about the striking differences in the two genealogies. One must admire the honesty of the early church leaders in deciding not to harmonize or reconcile these disparate lists.
A major observation is that Matthew's list of forebears of Jesus is aimed at first century Jews, beginning as it does with the proto-Jewish patriarch Abraham, whereas the author of Luke had all peoples in mind, as his list begins with God and Adam.
Another point: Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through David's son Solomon, whereas Luke tracks the line through David's son Nathan. It has been suggested that the writer or early editors of Luke had an aversion to Solomon because of the sin of his parents, David and Bathsheba. And it does seem to be true that the author of Luke is very concerned with Jesus' dignity. On the other hand, it is not impossible that two ways of reckoning ancestry are at work here, ways that are now not fully understood.
Luke's possible aversion to Solomon as an ancestor may have been "answered" by redactors of Matthew who seemingly inserted into the genealogy women of "low repute" who became honored in Israel's history. Tamar played the prostitute though for a proper reason; Rahab was a prostitute who earned great honor for aiding Hebrew spies; though Ruth did nothing wrong by modern standards, she was a gentile who married into Judaism – in violation of strict interpretation of Jewish custom. Matthew then mentions "the wife of Uriah," the loyal Hittite soldier whom David had had murdered in order to cover up the king's impregnation of Bathsheba. Solomon was born only after David had repented and God had forgiven him, thus regularizing a relationship that had got off to a bad start.
Commentators often mention how unusual it was for any women to be mentioned in a Jewish genealogy. So our conjecture seems valid, especially if we consider that Tamar is mentioned even though her son Zerah is not in the line of descent as reported by Matthew.
Another strong possibility is that the writer was dealing with the probable scandal of Jesus' seemingly early birth. "There was something extraordinary and irregular in the unions of those women with their partners" as there was in the circumstances of Jesus' birth, observes Raymond E. Brown in his scholarly The Birth of the Messiah (Doubleday/Image 1979).
In any case, if the aim of the genealogy writers was to establish that Jesus was a "son of David" and hence someone who could, under Jewish tradition, be a messiah, modern readers are left puzzled. Since Jesus' true Father is God, author of the virgin birth, how is Jesus of the seed of David? An answer might be that the writer of Luke, who may have interviewed Mary or someone close to her, tracked the heritage through Mary's paternal line, realizing that a virgin birth excluded Joseph's line. Why the writer of Matthew would have accepted a genealogy through Joseph and the virgin birth is not known. But, we may conjecture that the author reasoned that the child was born inside wedlock and that nothing wrong had occurred, so that there was no reason why Jesus would not have been a legitimate heir to Joseph.
We might bear in mind that one need not be a biological descendant of David in order to qualify as a "son of David." It is the spirit that counts, not the flesh. As we see in our main text, John the Baptist warned Jews not to rely on their descent from Abraham, God being able to raise up sons of Abraham from the stones on the ground.
Brown argues that in the act of naming of the boy, Joseph formally accepted the child as his son, making Joseph, under Jewish custom, the legal father, and thus entitling Jesus to be considered a descendant of David.
Table taken from Wikipedia article.
A major observation is that Matthew's list of forebears of Jesus is aimed at first century Jews, beginning as it does with the proto-Jewish patriarch Abraham, whereas the author of Luke had all peoples in mind, as his list begins with God and Adam.
Another point: Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through David's son Solomon, whereas Luke tracks the line through David's son Nathan. It has been suggested that the writer or early editors of Luke had an aversion to Solomon because of the sin of his parents, David and Bathsheba. And it does seem to be true that the author of Luke is very concerned with Jesus' dignity. On the other hand, it is not impossible that two ways of reckoning ancestry are at work here, ways that are now not fully understood.
Luke's possible aversion to Solomon as an ancestor may have been "answered" by redactors of Matthew who seemingly inserted into the genealogy women of "low repute" who became honored in Israel's history. Tamar played the prostitute though for a proper reason; Rahab was a prostitute who earned great honor for aiding Hebrew spies; though Ruth did nothing wrong by modern standards, she was a gentile who married into Judaism – in violation of strict interpretation of Jewish custom. Matthew then mentions "the wife of Uriah," the loyal Hittite soldier whom David had had murdered in order to cover up the king's impregnation of Bathsheba. Solomon was born only after David had repented and God had forgiven him, thus regularizing a relationship that had got off to a bad start.
Commentators often mention how unusual it was for any women to be mentioned in a Jewish genealogy. So our conjecture seems valid, especially if we consider that Tamar is mentioned even though her son Zerah is not in the line of descent as reported by Matthew.
Another strong possibility is that the writer was dealing with the probable scandal of Jesus' seemingly early birth. "There was something extraordinary and irregular in the unions of those women with their partners" as there was in the circumstances of Jesus' birth, observes Raymond E. Brown in his scholarly The Birth of the Messiah (Doubleday/Image 1979).
In any case, if the aim of the genealogy writers was to establish that Jesus was a "son of David" and hence someone who could, under Jewish tradition, be a messiah, modern readers are left puzzled. Since Jesus' true Father is God, author of the virgin birth, how is Jesus of the seed of David? An answer might be that the writer of Luke, who may have interviewed Mary or someone close to her, tracked the heritage through Mary's paternal line, realizing that a virgin birth excluded Joseph's line. Why the writer of Matthew would have accepted a genealogy through Joseph and the virgin birth is not known. But, we may conjecture that the author reasoned that the child was born inside wedlock and that nothing wrong had occurred, so that there was no reason why Jesus would not have been a legitimate heir to Joseph.
We might bear in mind that one need not be a biological descendant of David in order to qualify as a "son of David." It is the spirit that counts, not the flesh. As we see in our main text, John the Baptist warned Jews not to rely on their descent from Abraham, God being able to raise up sons of Abraham from the stones on the ground.
Brown argues that in the act of naming of the boy, Joseph formally accepted the child as his son, making Joseph, under Jewish custom, the legal father, and thus entitling Jesus to be considered a descendant of David.
Table taken from Wikipedia article.
