Difficult Passages

A Pastoral Reference
All Entries
19 Gospels

The Differing Genealogies of Jesus

Matt 1:1–17; Luke 3:23–38

The Difficulty

Matthew and Luke both provide genealogies of Jesus, but they diverge significantly. Matthew traces the line from Abraham through David and Solomon to Joseph. Luke traces it from Joseph back through David but via Nathan (a different son of David), all the way to Adam. From David to Joseph, the names are almost entirely different. Matthew has 28 generations from David to Jesus; Luke has 43. Matthew’s genealogy includes four women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba) — all with irregular sexual or ethnic backgrounds. Luke’s has none. If both trace Joseph’s lineage, how can they differ so dramatically?

Responses

Matthew = Joseph’s Line, Luke = Mary’s Line

Tradition: Conservative / Popular Summary: Matthew gives Joseph’s legal genealogy; Luke gives Mary’s biological ancestry.

This is the most popular harmonization, proposed by Annius of Viterbo (15th century) and widely adopted. Since Luke says Jesus was “the son, so it was thought, of Joseph” (3:23), the parenthetical remark signals that the genealogy actually traces Mary’s line. “Heli” in Luke 3:23 is Mary’s father; Joseph became Heli’s legal son through marriage. This explains why the lines diverge after David — Joseph and Mary were both Davidic descendants through different branches.

Strengths

  • Explains the divergence neatly
  • Both evangelists affirm Davidic descent
  • The “so it was thought” parenthetical in Luke does create some distance from Joseph

Weaknesses

  • Luke never mentions Mary in the genealogy
  • Ancient genealogies traced male lines; a matrilineal genealogy would be unprecedented
  • There’s no ancient support for this reading before the late medieval period
  • The text says Joseph, not Mary

Further Reading

  • Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP, 2007), ch. 6
  • Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50 (Baker Exegetical, 1994), on Luke 3:23–38
  • I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (NIGTC, 1978), on the genealogy

Tradition: Patristic / Ancient Summary: One genealogy traces biological descent, the other legal descent through levirate marriage.

Julius Africanus (c. 225 AD) proposed that Matthan (Matthew’s list) and Matthat (Luke’s list) married the same woman successively. Their sons — Jacob (Matthew) and Heli (Luke) — were half-brothers. When Heli died childless, Jacob married his widow (levirate marriage, per Deut 25:5–6), producing Joseph. Thus Joseph was biologically the son of Jacob (Matthew’s line) and legally the son of Heli (Luke’s line). This is the oldest harmonization and was widely accepted in the early church.

Strengths

  • Ancient pedigree — Africanus is a serious early church historian
  • Levirate marriage is a real biblical institution
  • Explains how both genealogies can be Joseph’s line

Weaknesses

  • Requires a specific and unverifiable levirate marriage scenario
  • The names still diverge for dozens of generations between David and Joseph — levirate marriage only explains the last generation
  • The theory has been called “ingenious but improbable”

Further Reading

  • Julius Africanus, Letter to Aristides (c. 225 AD) — preserved in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica I.7
  • Eusebius, Church History I.7 — presents Africanus’s solution
  • Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (T&T Clark, 1990) — on Davidic genealogies in early Christianity

Theological / Literary Genealogies

Tradition: Mainline / Academic Summary: The genealogies are not meant as historical records but as theological statements about who Jesus is.

Many scholars (Raymond Brown, Marshall Johnson, Amy-Jill Levine) argue that ancient genealogies were theological documents, not birth certificates. Matthew structures his genealogy in three groups of 14 (= the numerical value of David’s name in Hebrew), emphasizing Jesus as the Davidic messiah and the culmination of Israel’s history. Luke traces Jesus back to Adam, emphasizing his universal significance as savior of all humanity. Matthew includes four women with irregular backgrounds to foreshadow God’s inclusion of outsiders. The genealogies answer theological questions (“Who is Jesus?”) rather than historical ones (“Who were his ancestors?”).

Strengths

  • Explains the differences as intentional theological choices rather than errors
  • The numerical structure in Matthew (3 x 14) is clearly deliberate and requires selective inclusion/omission
  • Consistent with how ancient genealogies actually functioned

Weaknesses

  • Can sound like “the genealogies aren’t real”
  • For many Christians, Jesus’ Davidic descent is a historical claim, not just a theological one
  • If the genealogies are constructed, what else in the narrative is constructed?

Further Reading

  • Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Doubleday, 1993), ch. 3 — the most thorough treatment of both genealogies
  • Marshall Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies (Cambridge, 1969) — the standard academic study
  • Amy-Jill Levine, “Matthew’s Genealogy of Grace,” in A Feminist Companion to Matthew (Sheffield, 2001)
  • Robert Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale, 1977) — on ANE genealogical practices