Matthew and Luke, genealogy of Christ

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

TERRY
Hi Michael

You ask why the two different accounts here is your answer.  In the first
chapter of Matthew we find the genealogy of Jesus running from Abraham
forward. At Luke chapter 3 is a genealogy back to "Adam, son of God." 
Jesus'
genealogy is the only one given in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Part of
his genealogy appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 to 3, running from Adam
through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined 
give
the line from Adam to David.
The latter three lists (Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles, and Luke) agree fully
from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences as to certain names, such 
as
Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37.

 The question arises: Why does Matthew leave out some names that are
contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove
one's genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of
descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 
7:1-5,
omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1
Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these
ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with
Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not
every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham
and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could
consult alongside the official public records. The lists made by both
Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews 
of
that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees
were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible
argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never 
challenged
these genealogies. If either Matthew's or Luke's genealogy of Jesus had 
been
in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to
prove it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had ready access
to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.
The same is true regarding the first-century pagan enemies of 
Christianity,
many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have
pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were
unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan
enemies attacked Christians on this point.
Also, both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all 
they
needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it
was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy 
from
the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of
David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one's
descent.  Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not 
detract
from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely,
presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus
the Messiah.
Problems in Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus. Matthew divides the genealogy 
from
Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. (Mt 1:17) 
This
division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the 
names
we find that they total 41, rather than 42. One suggestion as to how they
may be counted is as follows: By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then
using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the 
last;
finally, by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah 
(Jehoiachin)
and ending with Jesus. Notice that Matthew repeats the name David as the
last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he 
repeats
the expression "the deportation to Babylon," which he links with Josiah 
and
his sons.-Mt 1:17.
Again Matthew may have copied his list exactly from the public register 
that
he used, or he may have purposely left out some links with a view to 
aiding
memory. However, a suggestion as to the omission here of three kings of
David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) is that Jehoram married
wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel, thereby
bringing this God-condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. 
(1Ki
21:20-26; 2Ki 8:25-27) Naming Jehoram as first in the wicked alliance,
Matthew omits the names of the next three kings to the fourth generation,
Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, the fruits of the alliance
Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Mt 1:12), and
this coincides with other references. (Ezr 3:2; Ne 12:1; Hag 1:14; Lu 
3:27)
However, at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is referred to as the son of
Pedaiah. Evidently Zerubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal
son of Shealtiel by reason of brother-in-law marriage; or possibly, after
Zerubbabel's father Pedaiah died, Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel 
as
his son and therefore became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.
A Problem in Luke's Genealogy of Jesus. Available manuscript copies of 
Luke
list a second "Cainan," between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Lu 
3:35,
36; compare Ge 10:24; 11:12; 1Ch 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be 
a
copyist's error. In the Hebrew Scriptures, "Cainan" is not found in this
relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the
Samaritan texts, nor is it in any of the Targums or versions except the
Greek Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier
copies of the Septuagint, because Josephus, who usually follows the
Septuagint, lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades. Early
writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome rejected the second
"Cainan" in copies of Luke's account as an interpolation. Why do the
genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as
compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced 
the
line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu
3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing
Jesus' natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus' legal right 
to
the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was 
legally
Jesus' father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus'
actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. 
Matthew
departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to 
Jesus,
saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus
was born, who is called Christ." (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say
'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary, of
whom Jesus was born." Luke is even more pointed when, after showing 
earlier
that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: 
"Jesus
. . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli."-Lu 3:23.
Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, 
Luke's
genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David
through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given 
by
Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text 
in
detail leads us in this way to admit-1. That the genealogical register of
Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation 
of
Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the
document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view 
than
the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and
why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did
not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among
the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother.  Actually
each genealogy (Matthew's table and Luke's) shows descent from David,
through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the 
lists
of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan,
they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This 
can
be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah;
perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri's son-in-law,
thus being called the "son of Neri." It is possible as well that Neri had 
no
sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his "son" for that reason also.
Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned
as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.
Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud,
the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not 
actual
sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law.
Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew's and Luke's 
genealogies
of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be
because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly
also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in
the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already
present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by 
the
Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke.
We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse
together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of 
God
and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin
girl Mary, of David's line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in
the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive 
father
Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by 
hostile
Jews that Jesus' birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of 
the
circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name 
and
royal lineage refutes such slander.  I hope this answers you question but 
I
have my doubts.

• Previous message: The Flood
• Next message: Matthew and Luke, genealogy of Christ
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]