Smoodock's Blog

If we would compare Jesus’ genealogy in chapter one of Matthew’s Gospel to that in Luke’s, chapter three, only three names would agree from David to Jesus: Salathiel, Zorobabel and Jesus. Even Joseph’s father is different, Jacob (Matthew) and Heli (Luke). Over all, there are 28 names in Matthew’s genealogy, from David to Christ and 42 names from David to Jesus in Luke’s genealogy. Thus, we have a difference of 14 generations between the two genealogies. This has led some to believe that Luke’s genealogy is correct, and Matthew’s must be spurious. Is that a correct assessment?

Whatever we may conclude about Jesus’ true ancestry, however, the two genealogies are obviously different in the sense that the one descends from David’s son, Solomon (Matthew), while the other descends from David’s son, Nathan (Luke). Of course, the names would be different, and of course we shouldn’t expect them to have the same number of descendants. They are two entirely different lines, but knowing this doesn’t solve all the problems between Matthew and Luke. So, how can the problems between the two be resolved, if, indeed, that is possible?

If we would attach an average age for each genealogy, from David to Jesus/Christ, we would find that Matthew’s average age would be 37.14 years and Luke’s would be 24.76. Neither figure is unbelievable, and one would expect the royal line to have the greater average age, because the common line should be lower in age, due to wars. The common warrior would generally have a lower life expectancy than royalty, because royalty would usually be protected, perhaps on a hill, observing the battle, where the common man was fighting and dying.

Okay, so they are two different genealogies, but how does Joseph get two different fathers? It has been claimed that Joseph and Mary’s marriage was a levirate marriage, whereby Heli had no son. In such a case a marriage would be arranged to provide a son for Heli’s line to continue. By Mary marrying Joseph their firstborn would not only be Joseph’s son but also Heli’s son. The firstborn would inherit both genealogical lines. One would be legal, Heli to David, and the other natural, Joseph to David. The problem with this solution to the problem is, Joseph isn’t Jesus’ natural father, according to the text. Knowing this, David was promised a natural descendancy to the Messiah. This can’t occur through Joseph. In fact, this can’t occur through Solomon’s line, since it ended in Jeconiah becoming a eunuch during the Babylonian exile.

A better solution would be, yes, Mary’ and Joseph’s marriage was a levirate marriage, intending to provide a son for Heli. However, due to the fact that Mary’s pregnancy was of the Holy Spirit, not Joseph, the natural line to David goes through Heli/Nathan, and the legal line is through Joseph/Solomon. The marriage has great significance in healing the royal line, which, technically, stops with Jeconiah, who had become a eunuch, when he was exiled to Babylon.[1]

As I claimed in another study,[2] Matthew intends to show Jesus is the Messiah by dividing Jesus’ genealogy into three equal parts of 14 generations. The number 14, according to Jewish gematria, is the value of David’s name (dalet, vahv, dalet). The Hebrew is dalet (4) plus vahv (6) plus dalet (4) = 14. So, David’s descendant is the Christ. On the other hand, Luke accomplishes the same thing by placing his genealogy in chapter 3, immediately following Jesus’ baptism. There, a heavenly voice declared that Jesus was his son, implying he was the Son of God. Luke takes his genealogy back, not ending with Abraham, as Matthew’s does, but he take it all the way back to Adam (and Eve), where the Seed of the woman was promised (Genesis 3:15; cp. Luke 1:26-38). Thus, Luke points out that Jesus is the Messiah through his genealogy, just as Matthew does, but from a different perspective.

___________________________________________________________

[1] See my earlier study, The Virgin Birth Solves the Jeconiah Problem.

[2] See my earlier study, Is There Any Sense to Matthew’s Math?