Genealogy of Jesus Christ

From: Bible Chronology

• 5 min. read • grade level: 10

Matt. 1	Luke 3	Matt. 1	Luke 3
ADAM		DAVID
	Seth	Solomon	Nathan
	Enos	Roboam	Mattatha
	Cainan	Abia	Menan, Melea
	Maleleel	Asa	Eliakim
	Jared	Josaphat	Joseph
	Enoch	Joram	Juda
	Methusala	Ozias	Simeon
	Lamech		Levi
	Noah	Joatham	Matthat
	Shem	Achaz	Jorim, Eliezer
	Arphaxad	Ezekias	Jose
	Cainan	Manasses	Er
	Sala	Amon	Elmodam, Cosam
	Eber	Josias	Addi
	Phalec	Jechonias	Melchi
	Ragau		Neri
	Saruch	Salathiel	Salathiel
	Nachor	ZOROBABEL
		Abiud	Rhesa
	Terah		Joanna
ABRAHAM		Eliakim	Juda
Isaac	Isaac	Azor	Joseph, Semei
Jacob	Jacob		Mattathias
Judas	Juda	Sadoc	Maath
Phares	Phares		Nagge
		Achim	Esli
Esrom	Esrom		Naum
Aram	Aram	Eliud	Amos
Aminadab	Aminadab		Mattathias
Naasson	Naasson	Eleazar	Joseph
			Janna
Salmon	Salmon	Matthan	Melchi
Booz	Booz		Levi
Obed	Obed	Jacob	Matthat, Heli
Jesse	Jesse	Joseph	Joseph
DAVID		JESUS CHRIST

The genealogies of our Lord given in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 were no doubt copied from existing registers, which were carefully preserved by the Jews. This in no way clashes with the writers being inspired and being led what to copy.

Any one comparing them will see at once that, for the same period given in both, the list in Luke is much fuller than the one in Matthew. In order to bring the list in Matthew into three “fourteen generations” some names are omitted. Thus Ozias is placed as the son of Joram, but on consulting 1 Chronicles 3:11-12¹¹Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, ¹²Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, (1 Chronicles 3:11‑12) it will be seen that three kings are here omitted, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. These kings being well known are here omitted; but this omission is not contrary to the usage of the Jews. In 2 Chronicles 22:9⁹And he sought Ahaziah: and they caught him, (for he was hid in Samaria,) and brought him to Jehu: and when they had slain him, they buried him: Because, said they, he is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought the Lord with all his heart. So the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the kingdom. (2 Chronicles 22:9) Ahaziah is called the son of Jehoshaphat, whereas he was his grandson. Compare also the pedigree in 1 Chronicles 6:3-15³And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. ⁴Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua, ⁵And Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi, ⁶And Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begat Meraioth, ⁷Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, ⁸And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz, ⁹And Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan, ¹⁰And Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest's office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:) ¹¹And Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, ¹²And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum, ¹³And Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, ¹⁴And Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak, ¹⁵And Jehozadak went into captivity, when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. (1 Chronicles 6:3‑15) with Ezra 7:1-5,¹Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, ²The son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, ³The son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, ⁴The son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, ⁵The son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest: (Ezra 7:1‑5) where seven generations will be found to be omitted.

There has been much written as to why the two lists are given in the gospels, and what is to be gathered from them. On the face of them there is this difference — that in the Gospel of Matthew, wherein Christ is emphatically the Messiah and Son of David, the genealogy stops at Abraham; whereas in Luke, where Christ is Son of Man, the list is traced up to “Adam, which was son of God.”

A reference to the well-known rule in the Jewish ritual, that if a married man died childless, his brother had to raise up seed to the deceased by the widow, will show that a son might naturally be called the son of the living man, though legally he would be son of the deceased. So that the same person may be called the son of either if the distinction between legal and lineal, or actual, be kept in view.

It will be noted that in Matthew the word begat is used, “Abraham begat Isaac,” etc. whereas in Luke it is more indefinite, “Isaac was of Abraham”: from which it has been inferred that Matthew gives the lineal descent, and Luke the legal; but this does not appear to be the case, for in Luke it is said that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph; if it were the legal list He would be the son; then, as we have seen, in one place in Matthew three kings are omitted. The list in Matthew is the royal line which must also be the legal line. In the Old Testament we find that Jechonias was to have no lineal descendant on the throne (Jer. 22:24-25,28-30; 36:30-31²⁴As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; ²⁵And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. (Jeremiah 22:24‑25)
²⁸Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? ²⁹O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. ³⁰Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. (Jeremiah 22:28‑30)
³⁰Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. ³¹And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not. (Jeremiah 36:30‑31)), and yet Salathiel is said to be begotten by him in the royal line.

From all this we gather that Matthew gives the royal and the legal (as recognized by the Jews) descent of Jesus from Abraham, and thence to David. The Jews never disputed that He was — as indeed He was often called — the Son of David.

If this is so, the question returns — What is the nature of the genealogy in Luke? It is believed by some to be the lineal descent of Joseph; by others, to be that of Mary. If the former, it would follow that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was the legal son of Jacob, but the lineal son of Heli, which would be possible according to the rule before mentioned. If Luke gives us the genealogy of Mary, it would not name her, for a woman’s name is never mentioned in the lists as a link in the succession; then Heli may have been the father of Mary and the father-in law of Joseph her husband.