Genealogy of the Lord Jesus

Concise Bible Dictionary:

This is given in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. According to the distinctive character of Matthew in which Christ is emphatically the Messiah and Son of David, the genealogy commences with Abraham; whereas in Luke, in which Christ is displayed as the Son of Man, the list is traced up to “Adam who was the son of God.” Both lists are the same from Abraham to David; then they differ until they reach Salathiel and Zorobabel, which names are in both lists; and then they again differ. The list in Luke is much fuller, having from David to Joseph forty-one names, where Matthew has only twenty-six. Names are omitted from Matthew, and this enables the whole to be brought into the three divisions of “fourteen generations.” Ozias is placed as the son of Joram, but on consulting {vi 10373-10374}1 Chronicles 3:11-12 (where for Ozias is read Azariah, as also in 2 Kings 14:21), it will be seen that three kings are omitted, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Such omissions are found in the genealogies in the Old Testament In 2 Chronicles 22:9 Ahaziah is called the son of Jehoshaphat; whereas he was his grandson; and by comparing the generations in {vi 10458-10470}1 Chronicles 6:3-15 with {vi 12175-12179}Ezra 7:1-5 seven names will be found to be omitted in the latter.

It will be noted that in Matthew the word “begat” is used, whereas in Luke it is more indefinite. Jesus was “supposed” or “accounted” to be the son of Joseph, and “Joseph was of Heli” without the word “begat.” Again, it should be noted that by a Jewish law if a man died childless, his brother was to raise up seed to the deceased by his widow, so that a son born thus might be called the legal son of the deceased, whereas he would be the actual or lineal son of his father, the brother of the deceased. The list in Matthew is clearly the royal line; between David and Salathiel twelve kings are given, all of whom are omitted from Luke. Being the royal line it must also be the legal line.

There is more difficulty as to the genealogy in Luke: is it the lineal line of Joseph or Mary? Women are never quoted as forming a line of succession, yet Christ is spoken of as the “seed” of the woman (Gen. 3:15); “come of woman” (Gal. 4:4); “the seed of Abraham” (Heb. 2:16); “the seed of David according to flesh” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8); “the offspring of David” (Rev. 22:16). And as the Lord was not really the son of Joseph, these scriptures can only be fulfilled through His mother, who must have been a lineal descendant of David and Abraham. It is better therefore to consider that Luke gives the lineal descent of the Lord through Mary. In accordance with the above it will be seen that Matthew in speaking of the birth of the Lord frequently mentions Joseph, seldom Mary; whereas Luke frequently mentions Mary, but seldom Joseph.

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

Bible Handbook:

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 {vi 10373-10374}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 22:9 Ahaziah is called the son of Jehoshaphat, whereas he was his grandson. Compare also the pedigree in {vi 10458-10470}1 Chronicles 6:3-15 with {vi 12175-12179}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 ({vi 19479-19480;19483-19485;19873-19874}Jer. 22:24-25,28-30; 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.

It seems preferable to regard the list in Luke as the genealogy of Mary, because our Lord is said to be of the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15; Luke 1:35), made of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and to be the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16), and the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8), the offspring of David (Rev. 22:16). And as the Lord was not really the Son of Joseph, these scriptures can only be fulfilled through His mother, who must have been a lineal descendant of David, Abraham, and Adam, which are all shown in Luke, and the last not named in Matthew at all. Whereas, if Luke gives the lineal descent of Joseph, we have no account of how the scriptures quoted have been fulfilled.

There can be no doubt therefore that Matthew gives the legal and royal descent of our Lord through Joseph, and Luke the lineal descent through Mary.