Why Are Jesus’ Genealogies in Matthew and Luke Different?

ZA Blog on December 14th, 2016. Tagged under ,,,,.

ZA Blog

Books and articles that equip you for deeply biblical thinking and ministry.

why-are-jesus-genealogies-in-matthew-and-luke-different

This post is adapted from the Four Portraits, One Jesus online course, taught by Dr. Mark Strauss.

The birth narratives in both Matthew and Luke help answer the question, “Who is Jesus and where did he come from?” One of the ways each book does this is by recounting Jesus’ genealogy.

The problem is: the genealogies are different.

The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would come from the line of David. Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus that confirm he was a descendent of David—therefore, a legitimate Messiah. He was a legitimate claimant to the throne of Israel.

But they differ in an important way: Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of Nathan, another Son of David. The end result is two distinct genealogies.

How do we account for this?

Some argue that either Matthew or Luke got it wrong. They created or borrowed a genealogy in order to provide Jesus with a legitimate ancestry. Or they accuse later Christians for artificially creating a genealogy to provide Jesus with a Davidic lineage after the fact.

Yet there are three other possible explanations for the two different genealogies. Let’s explore these below.

Learn more about the Gospels.

Sign up to be notified about new videos, courses, and other valuable resources. Plus, you’ll get access to a free online course right away.

By submitting your email address, you understand that you will receive email communications from HarperCollins Christian Publishing (501 Nelson Place, Nashville, TN 37214 USA) providing information about products and services of HCCP and its affiliates. You may unsubscribe from these email communications at any time. If you have any questions, please review our Privacy Policy or email us at yourprivacy@harpercollins.com.

1. One of the genealogies is actually Mary's.

The simplest solution is that we have genealogies of both parents of Jesus—Joseph and Mary.

In this case, Luke gives us Mary’s genealogy, while Matthew gives us Joseph’s genealogy.

This makes good sense, since Luke’s birth narrative focuses on Mary. Luke tells the story from her perspective.

This proposal is sometimes linked to the judgment pronounced against the line of Solomon by Jeremiah, who prophesied that no descendant of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36:30) or his son Jechoniah (Jeremiah 22:24–30) would sit on the throne of David. Jesus avoided this judgment because he was the legal descendent—i.e. through Mary—rather than the physical descendent of David—through Joseph.

Matthew, on the other hand, follows Joseph’s side of the story. Matthew’s narrative moves through the dreams Joseph has.

One problem with this suggestion is that throughout Luke’s birth narrative, he stresses that Joseph is a descendent of David. He never mentions Mary’s Davidic descent. So, despite Luke’s emphasis on Mary in his birth narrative, it would be surprising if his genealogy is Mary's.

2. One genealogy is a royal or legal genealogy, and the other is a physical genealogy.

Another possible explanation for the two different genealogies is that Matthew presents a royal or legal genealogy, while Luke gives a physical, or actual, genealogy.

In other words, Matthew lists the official line of Davidic kings, not Jesus’ actual descendants. His point is to show that Joseph is related to that line.

In this view, Luke would be giving us the actual, physical descendants—in other words, a genealogy in the way we’re accustomed to thinking about it.

This may help provide a theological point, but it doesn’t solve the larger problem created by having two genealogies: Joseph can’t have two fathers.

3. Joseph had two fathers.

How can someone have two fathers? That’s a fair question—it’s not physically possible.

However, there are two reasons the text can actually be read this way.

First, some suggest that Mary had no brothers to carry on her father’s name at her marriage, so Heli (Joseph’s father according to Luke) adopted Joseph as his own son. This would then give Joseph two genealogies—his own genealogy and Mary’s genealogy.

Second, it’s also possible to read Joseph’s genealogy in the context of the Old Testament law of levirate marriage.

Levirate marriage is described in Deuteronomy 25:5: "If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her."

In other words, this law states that a brother of a man who died should marry his brother’s widow to produce heirs for him.

In this case, Heli—Joseph’s father according to Luke’s genealogy—and Jacob—Joseph’s father according to Luke’s genealogy—were either brothers or half-brothers. When one died, the other married his widow, producing Joseph and his offspring. This would leave Joseph with two fathers—both Heli and Jacob—one a natural father, and the other a legal father. From the text, we can’t tell which one is his natural father and which one is his legal father.

The important point is that this could explain why Joseph might have two fathers and therefore two distinct genealogies.

Learn more

You’ve heard the Christmas story a hundred times. This year, deepen your understanding.

In the Four Portraits, One Jesus online course, Dr. Mark Strauss takes a deep dive in session 13 into the story of Jesus’ birth as it’s told in Matthew and Luke.

When you sign up, you will discover:

  • Why it matters that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and not somewhere else
  • Who the magi were and where they came from
  • The evidence that Matthew and Luke are writing from historical traditions, and not just creating stories to fit a theological agenda
  • Why the “inn” Mary and Joseph were turned away from isn’t what you think it is
  • The background and historical context of Jesus birth—the Roman census, Herod’s attempt to kill the infants of Bethlehem, John the Baptist, and more

Learn more about the Gospels.

Sign up to be notified about new videos, courses, and other valuable resources. Plus, you'll get access to a free online course right away.

By submitting your email address, you understand that you will receive email communications from HarperCollins Christian Publishing (501 Nelson Place, Nashville, TN 37214 USA) providing information about products and services of HCCP and its affiliates. You may unsubscribe from these email communications at any time. If you have any questions, please review our Privacy Policy or email us at yourprivacy@harpercollins.com.
  • Abraham Joseph 8 months ago

    The article needs a correction. In the sentence, “In this case, Heli—Joseph’s father according to Luke’s genealogy—and Jacob—Joseph’s father according to Luke’s genealogy—were either brothers or half-brothers,” it should be noted that Jacob is Joseph’s father according to Matthew’s genealogy, not Luke’s. Luke has been inadvertently repeated. Good article. Thank you.

  • Jon Loewen 8 months ago

    I suggest you rethink the “two fathers” scenario. If the two fathers were brothers as you suggest, they would have identical genealogies making the explanation nonsense. If the two fathers were half brothers, then the grandfathers would have to be unrelated to have different genealogies. This is the Eusebius theory. It is an extremely weak theory because it breaks Jewish law in that the widow (grandmother) didn’t marry her deceased husband’s brother ie. grandfathers couldn’t be brothers.

  • Arthur Massey 8 months ago

    I have been trying to en-role on the Mark l. Strawss. 4 Portraits of…A FREE “Taster” course of 1 unit.
    I find that I cannot work out the user name & no caps/no gaps, create a new account. Nor any promo code. I am told I have something in a basket, but cannot continue my enrollment. I note that I have until 25th Dec., ANY help please, thanks, Arthur Massey.

  • Philip Brown 8 months ago

    The “problem” raised with the first option is not a function of what the text says, but rather of what the writer expects the text to say. I.e., “surprise” is a function of a plausibility structure and not a function of the data as it stands, because we have only one Lukan genealogy and therefore do not have sufficient data to generate a “normal” against which this genealogy could be said to deviate surprisingly.

    The text ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ, naturally makes Joseph a parenthetical element rather than a mainline element of the genealogy.

    While options 2 and 3 are possible, they require additional unverifiable assumptions, and thus should have a lower probability or likelihood.

  • Rick Johnson 8 months ago

    I have a question with respect to levirate marriage. Since David’s grandfather Obed was a descendent of Elimelech by way of a levirate type marriage (though not technically the same), why would Boaz, the physical father of Obed, appear in the royal genealogy in Matthew 1 and not Elimelech — if the royal line is determined legally rather than physically? It would seem more likely to me that the genealogy in Luke, based on this, would be the levirate genealogy.

  • Lynn Bush 8 months ago

    Thank you for offering this. I’ve had questions about his birth and little known facts surrounding it.

  • Valery 7 months ago

    It is all plausible. But where did Luke take the records for his genealogy?

  • David Halford 2 months ago

    You can never learn enough about GOD.