This discussion is perhaps the peak of all genealogical studies. It directly impacts Christians and has many resolutions with many supporters. It uses many of the concepts and considerations so far studied in other articles. To deny that Matthew and Luke have different accounts concerning Jesus’ genealogy is to deny one or both of the gospels. There are special considerations to take into account at the start of this discussion. First, it is important to see that Matthew and Luke’s genealogies have grounding in the OT. Second, they both use understood formats and sources. It is also important to recognize that both genealogies were accepted simultaneously by their contemporaries. Since both Matthew and Luke were written within thirty years of each other, it is hard to overlook that devout Christians and Apostles would have been aware of both of these documents, and yet still allowed them to circulate. Their end leads to the same goal. Therefore we can think of them like two doors leading to the same house. The door one takes may depend on which room one wishes to enter first, or which is closest. It may depend on if one is entering or exiting. Using one door does not deny the other exists. So we must not deny that they give different accounts, but look for why. When we discover reasons for each genealogy, our understanding of the text will be enhanced rather than questioned. The first part of examining the discrepancy between their genealogies is to look at context.
Matthew begins his Gospel and his section of names with “The book of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah…” This phrase, “the book of the genealogy,” is used twice in the Old Testament, and only once in an actual genealogy.[1] The corresponding genealogy is Gen 5 which lists Adam to Noah.[2] The second “book of genealogy” reference is in Neh 7:5 where Nehemiah finds the book of official Levite names and then sorts eligible candidates for temple service. Matthew also uses his genealogy to prove that Jesus has the right to begin his rule as Messiah.
Different from any other genealogy is Matthew’s employment of a stated format.[3] Matthew explains his own structure concerning number of generations. This kind of precise outline is unique. The closest connection is the seven generations from Adam to Cain’s Lamech and the seven generations from Seth to his Lamech (Gen 4-5). But the text of Genesis does not note any reason for this. Matthew on the other hand has a clear motive of setting Jesus up as king and Messiah. Matthew utilizes the basics of genealogy language, but feels free to make his own path to reach his goal.
Luke employs the style like the first part of 1 Chron 1, but uses his list closer to the way Exodus 6 does. Luke waits until Jesus begins his ministry before recalling the names of his ancestors. Like 1 Chronicles 1 he does not include any extra material but shows the direct line back to David, Abraham, Adam, and finally to God. Luke’s use of genealogy is to show Jesus’ son-ship of God both in spirit and in body. This prepares the reader for Jesus’ ministry, which begins with his fasting in the desert, much like Moses after his genealogy and exodus. Both Gospel writers use the Old Testament as a basis for structure and content. This gives precedent to apply the same rules and boundaries upon these lists as done on the OT documents.
One of the most glaring differences between any of the Gospels is between Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus. The fact that they both list radically different names and drastically different numbers cannot be overlooked. Matthew lists 41 names as compared to Luke’s 76. Much of this is due to where they begin. Matthew only begins at Abraham and Luke extends back to Adam. Even with this acknowledgment Luke lists 58 names from Abraham to Jesus. Most of these additions occur after David. Prior to David they are in tight agreement with the exceptions of Canaan and Admin the father of Aminadab, following the Septuagint reading. As soon as both genealogies reach David they split and change directions. Matthew keeps to the kings as traced through the historical accounts. Luke’s list passes through Nathan, the younger brother of Solomon. Should this be the only change, the explanation would be much simpler. But for reasons unstated, both Matthew and Luke reconverge on Shealtiel and Zerubabbaal and then split once more until ending with Joseph. Matthew makes a bigger deal of Zerubabbaal because he is associated with the Babylonian captivity, which is one of Matthew’s land marks. Luke just passes by like all the other names. Shealtiel is the son of Jeconiah according the Matthew and 1 Chronicles 3. Luke’s Neri has no Old Testament mention. There is no stated reason in the text for the difference in accounts. Both apparently trace to Joseph, the husband of Mary, the supposed father of Jesus. Matthew says Jacob begot Joseph and Luke says that Joseph was of Heli. There is much to be aware of concerning differences between the gospels. The more we factor in, the easier the resolutions actually become.
[1] There is a question as to the purpose of this heading. Some argue that the heading is inclusive of the whole work. If so, the term “genealogy” refers to the Hebrew phraseology of records about someone’s life. Others limit this phrase to the first chapter only. The implications of either interpretation is limited and does not affect the meaning of either the first chapter or the book as a whole.
[2] Notable in this passage is the statement of God creating Adam in His likeness, and therefore Adam creating Seth in his own likeness etc. Matthew keeps his focus on certain characteristics passed down to Jesus. Jesus inherits the seed fulfillment from Abraham. Jesus inherits the leadership role from Judah, and the kingship title from David.
[3] Matthew adopts language more similar to Chronicles than Genesis. Matthew does not repeat a pattern that adds information about every name but rather selects a few exceptions to briefly note. In other words, Matthew continues a straightforward simple pattern of A begot B, and B begot C. This pattern is interrupted by certain statements like: “Jacob begot Judah and his brothers…” or “David begot Solomon by Bathsheba the wife of Uriah…” The total list of variants from names are: Two times “and his brothers”, four women as mothers, and identification of breaks in Matthew’s stated structure. These variations are similar to the way Genesis 5 would remark about Enoch’s life, or how 1 Chronicles would note a family connection to a region (2:53, 4:23, 5:9, 6:65).