On Luke and Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus

A Jewish Rabbi in our neighborhood is passing out DVD's of a debate between himself and a Christian teacher (who will remain nameless).  In the video,  Rabbi Mizrachi boasts of asking numerous Christian leaders and pastors why there are two separate accounts of the family tree of Jesus and has never been given an answer.  Two things surprised me about this.  First, he didn't say no one gave him a good answer, he said no one has even given an answer.  I found that hard to believe.  Second, the Christian teacher he was debating did not give him an answer.  That was a bit troubling.

Since then, a few other people asked me the same question, and two of them had watched the video.  So, I'd like to offer a brief answer.  If you want to get into more detail (and survey the of related questions in the minutia) you can review the reading material below.

Let me state the question simply.  Why are the family trees given by Luke and Matthew different?

Quick answer-Matthew traces Jesus' family tree through Mary, Luke traces Jesus family tree through Joseph.  That was not too hard!  Through Mary we get Jesus' blood right to the throne of David, through Joseph, we get Jesus' legal right to the throne of David.  Both are important in order to have a Virgin-born, (Son of Man, Son of God) Messiah.  This question of family tree does not weaken but strengthens Jesus' right to the Davidic throne.

If you are not someone trying to refute Christianity, that answer is sufficient.  For those of you trying to refute Christianity, I feel sorry for you.  And I hope the few words given below help your brain with this problem a bit.  That being said, I'm sorry your heart refuses to believe in Jesus.  He is your Savior, Messiah, and the link back to worship that is soul satisfying.  He is the reason you were made, and until you submit your life under Him, things just won't work right.  You were not made to live your life apart from Him.  Picture yourself trying to nail down a slate roof using thumb-tacks and a high-heel shoe (a pink stiletto if more imagery helps); it's just not going to work.  You are not using these items in the way there were made to be used.  Your life won't work either because you are not using life the way you were made to use it.

Let me summarize the answer before moving on to make a few clarifications.  It is clear that the two accounts are different.  We don't try to hide that, nor did the early church.  They are not intended to be identical.  Luke takes his ancestral account of Jesus all the way back to Adam.  Matthew takes us from Abraham up to Jesus.  Luke charts Jesus' blood right to the throne of David through Mary, Matthew charts Jesus' legal right through Joseph.

Now, let me go into a little more detail through making three observations.

1.  Matthew's account is suggestive, not comprehensive.  He picks out the names in the genealogy that are noteworthy, framing a 14 by 14 by 14, memorable family tree.

This is not unusual in genealogical records because the language (Hebrew and Greek) is a little slippery when recording genealogies.  You can use the same phrase to refer to someones ancestor or to their dad.  "Son of" is equal to "ancestor of."  Case and point - Matthew 1:1 

"The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1).

That is a very shortened genealogy.  Just as there are obvious deletions in the genealogy of Matthew 1:1, there are obvious deletions in Matthew's list in verses 2-16.  Matthew's goal is not to give comprehensive family tree, but to communicate a couple truths from a certain branch of Jesus' lineage.  He is not being exhaustive but suggestive.[1]  

Let me throw out a possibility.  He includes four Gentile women in the genealogy.  Matthew soon develops the story of Joseph wrestling with what to do with his espoused wife who is now pregnant (and he had no part in it).  What will he do? 

It is interesting that Matthew shows how in Joseph's family tree there are several women who might have been accused of immorality - some of them without warrant.  Each of these women could have been considered immoral in the court of public opinion and yet accepted by God in significant ways (Tamar, Ruth, Rahab, and Bathsheba).  That thought is extremely important when considering the topic in just a few verses.  What will Joseph do to this lady who is accused of immorality?  Will he pursue what he knows to be true by God, or cower to what others may think he should do in the court of public opinion?  Perhaps he is choosing these names/this line to introduce the Virgin Birth through Mary.

I personally believe this is the purpose of Matthew's genealogy beyond just showing that Jesus came from David (Although that is why it is here too).  I may be wrong on that.  But I know that it is clear that Matthew uses a selective biography and is not trying to be comprehensive, nor does he need to be according to the rules of the day.  My apologies to my family members who are meticulous in recording our family tree back a hundred generations complete with pictures and shoe sizes...  Back then the standards for an accurate family tree were different than they are today.

2.  Luke's account goes through Mary.   Joseph's name is mentioned as a parenthetical comment before the beginning of the genealogical record.

It may not appear this way because of the limitations of our translations.  The Luke account just give a definite article (the) and the next name, a definite article (the) and the next name in the family tree, and so on and so on for the next 76 names.  So, my family tree would be recorded by Luke in this way -  the Asher of the Tim of the Thomas, of the...  You get the picture.  (This is why it is difficult to know whether father or ancestor is being used, it could be either.) 

With that in mind, there is a noted exception in Luke's record.  The definite article does not proceed Joseph's name in verse 23 but only precedes Eli.  This gives us warrant to consider Eli as the first name in the family tree.  The comment about Joseph is a parenthetical thought, not the beginning of the family tree.  Luke accounts the virgin birth this way - Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph, but in all actuality Mary's son (by blood).  Since there is no blood father, the grandfather, Eli, is mentioned next (Mary's dad). So the Greek reads of the Eli (tou/ VHli.).  The whole verse could be translated this way:

When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph) the son of Eli, 

3.  Shealtiel and Zerubbable are common names.

There is one other question that comes up here that I think is insignificant, but others bring it up so I'll mention it.  None of the names between David and Joseph's family tree and David and Mary's family tree correspond except for two, Shealtiel and Zerubbable.  These names were common ones and easily could appear in two separate family trees. 

I believe the answer I have summarized here is the best and least complex.  That being said there are other equally plausible views.  If you'd like to view the others, read the few below.  Many commentators deal with the issue in summary, but these three go into good detail.

 

·     Darrell Bock on Luke (Baker, pgs. 918-923) - He gives 6 common views.  Also, he does not agree with the view I have summarized above, which is helpful.

·     Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections, Volume 4 (Baker, pgs. 76-83).  Although Brown does not survey the different possibilities, he gives a clear answer and does so specifically with reference to questions from an unbelieving Jewish perspective.

·     Thomas Gundry in his Harmony of the Gospels (Harper, pgs. 313-319).  Gundry surveys four different solutions.  I was convinced of his conclusion and summarized his view above.

---

[1] For an example of the same thing in Tanach, compare 1Chronicles 26:24 with Exodus 2:22 where son of encompasses hundreds of years of family tree data.