Category: Matt-Luke Differences

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: Conclusions

thebibleword.org

Having considered all the previously stated views, I will attempt to arrive at a sound conclusion of how to treat the Matthew-Luke discrepancy of the genealogy of Jesus. Above all, there are multiple possible explanations. None of them are fool proof, and none of them solve all the questions. Yet all are indeed possible, meaning  an absolute contradiction in the genealogies is not mandated. The actual resolution may never be known; there is no definite argument for any. What shall be presented is the most likely explanation in regards to the context of each Gospel, and the expectations about the Messiah.[1]

The context of the genealogies within the Gospels directs the readers in a particular direction. In both Gospels, Jesus is implicitly stated as coming only from Mary, and not at all from Joseph. Matthew introduces Jesus’ genealogy to show that Jesus was the heir of Abraham and David through Joseph. Since he is called the husband of Mary even before they came together, his legal position is transferred to his wife’s son as if to his own son. If, for the sake of argument, Mary was the daughter of Jacob, then the legality of his ‘title’ would not have passed to Mary but to her husband and then their son. Jesus’ right to the throne is set (the Jews were not completely aware of the implications of this). As the years pass and David’s decedents increase in number, the significance of Joseph perhaps fades. There would have been hundreds or thousands of others were just as defended from David. There is little question as to Matthew’s context; it is primarily about the kingship title.

Luke, for his part, focuses more on Mary than Matthew does. Where Joseph was a central figure in Matthew’s opening, Luke expands more on Mary and her side of the story. Nothing is said of Joseph except that he is from David (1:27 and 2:4). Luke, therefore, also identifies that Joseph is from David and that Mary was being registered with him in Bethlehem. By chapter three, Luke begins to show Jesus as both the Son of Man and the Son of God. God identifies Jesus as his son when he is baptized, Luke shows Jesus is the son of Adam who is also in his own way from God. Afterward, Satan challenges Jesus’ son-ship of God. Throughout the book there is a struggle between the people’s understanding and the reader’s point of view. The people assume and suppose that Jesus is the son of Joseph. Over and over they come back to this point as the reason why Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Luke in his genealogy stresses that Jesus is not from Joseph but from God. This context should slowly move the reader to think that Luke is not intending to bring up Joseph’s genealogy, since Jesus was never from Joseph to begin with. Why would Luke extensively research the background of a man whom Jesus was never from? This is the man Jesus was allegedly from, yet the genealogy goes back to God Himself. If Luke is trying to distance Jesus from Joseph, it does not seem as likely that he would try to show Joseph as a viable father to the messiah. Rather it is more likely in context that Luke is directing attention to Jesus’ spiritual and physical nature, both of which trace back to God.

The Hebrew writer says of Jesus that “it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah” (Heb 7:14). If both Matthew and Luke represented genealogies extending through Joseph and yet Jesus was never from Joseph, how would it have been evident to all that Jesus was from the line of Judah?  One fact can be stated upon this verse and Peters use of Psalm 132 in Acts 2: Jesus was from the line of Judah, and decedent of David. This means that Mary had to be defended from David. Mary’s ancestry to David is a necessary implication of Jesus’ descendency from him. The Gospels are not required to give Mary’s genealogy. The authors of Scripture may have left the implication as it was. But since Mary was from David, and Joseph was from David, what need would Luke have to use Joseph’s line instead of Mary’s? This question proves nothing, but adds heavy weight to the scales. I believe the context of Luke’s genealogy focuses on Mary and Jesus’ physicality, and the expectation of Scripture about the messiah was that his own flesh and blood would be David’s.

The result of the two contexts would by themselves bend the reader in the direction of Matthew showing Jesus’ right to be called king, and Luke showing Jesus’ right to be called both God and man (which cannot be shown through Joseph). Luke already established that Joseph was from David, so he would not have needed to present the genealogy for that purpose. He had previously shown that Mary was Jesus’ only earthly parent, so he may not have needed to clarify the genealogy any more than he already did. Without a reason to produce Joseph’s line, it is highly unlikely that Luke does so.

We must recognize that there are differences in the genealogies. We must pursue an explanation based on the purpose of each gospel. The Levirate and Historicity explanation do not have the factual data to support their views consistently. The Joseph solution and Mary solution agree on Matthew’s account. Luke’s account is then the one in question. The Joseph solution cannot provide any satisfactory explanation toward context and purpose. It seems to me, then, that if our explanation is to based on purpose, then the Mary view is the only one that meets this end. Therefore the most probable explanation is that Matthew presents Joseph’s line of inheritance, and Luke, not needing to reproduce Joseph’s line, produces Mary’s through her husband’s name in order to show Jesus’ own line back to David and Adam. Jesus’ blood line would have been very crucial to understand who Jesus was and where he comes from, which is the focal point of both gospels. We can rest assured about Jesus’ right to the throne, and his right to messiahship. Both gospels work together to show that Jesus is the Son of David, the ‘son of man’, and the son of God.

[1] The issues of Shealtiel to Jeconiah or Neri have been adequately dealt with in their own way. This author is open to legal vs. literal, levirate law, and in-law interpretations as equally valid contextual suggestions in that case. The most consistent option is to choose the same preference as the conclusions about Jesus’ own genealogy.

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: Expectations for the Messiah

thebibleword.org

This discussion is valuable here because Luke and Matthew were writing to an audience who had either heard about the Messiah or were still expecting the Messiah. Expectations of where he would come from influence the context or focus that Luke and Matthew may use. The expectations of the Messiah are twofold. One is from Scripture, the other from the people.

The Gospels constantly show that the people’s expectations are almost always off the mark. The expectations of Scripture on the other hand are always fulfilled in Jesus. Although the people expected the Messiah to be physically from the blood of David, one must not be too quick in dismissing this view. The Scriptures are difficult to interpret any other way. In Genesis 15, Abraham considers his chief servant to be his heir in the absence of a child. This relationship could easily have been considered an adoption in his culture. Yet, legitimate as this would have been culturally, God makes it clear that this is not what He has in mind. God states that his heir would come forth “from your own very being” in direct contradiction to a figurative sonship. This is the strongest language that could be used to show that Abraham’s own body would produce an offspring. Genesis 15 does not necessarily incorporate the ‘seed’ promise directly, but of Isaac specifically.

The matter becomes more decisive, however, when 2 Samuel 7 is considered. God makes the messianic promise to David and uses the same words, “from your very being.” If God intended for Abraham’s seed to be a direct blood line, there is no indication that this same promise to David should be thought about in any other way. Peter has the same surety of Jesus’ relation to David by quoting Psalm 132 in his first sermon in Acts 2. Peter first calls David Jesus’ patriarch and then quotes the saying, “God swore with an oath to him to seat one of his descendents on his throne.” The actual passage in Psalm 132:11 says, “the Lord has sworn to David a truth which He will not turn back: ‘Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.’” It is hard to argue in this light that the Scriptures expected anything less than the Messiah to come from David’s own body.

Now it is certainly possible that Matthew’s genealogy was purely legal succession and so did not have to coincide at all with Joseph’s actual line. If Joseph was from Shealtiel then he came next in line. The biggest problem is that if the Jews were keeping such ‘legal’ tabs on people, then why did it surprise them that Jesus was the son of the carpenter? If Joseph was next in line to the throne, then they would have had little doubts about Jesus’ Messiahship. Yet they doubted his Messiahship explicitly because he was so unknown. Matthew’s list is proof of kingship against the popular opinion. For there to be two genealogies kept in tact (one of Joseph, and one of the legal heir) would imply a greater significance to the title of King than the people gave Joseph credit for. Since they did not appear to keep such royal tabs on people, it suggests that Matthew’s may just be a humble account of the firstborn rights within the kingly line. This information was not capitalized on during Jesus’ day, which makes it less likely that it was stressed enough to present as an independent genealogy of legal rights. It may be that the last of Jacob’s line was dwindling and Joseph inherited the title by default without much ado. But I doubt based on Matthew’s context and his aptitude to complex authoring that he intended to convey a fluke of title inheritance.

The significance of the previous thought is this: why would the Jews keep a literal line of Joseph and a legal line of Joseph if they were going to culturally ignore it in the face of Jesus’ legitimacy? Logic would direct us to a conclusion that includes the Jewish expectation about the Messiah along with the scriptural view. The people behave towards Jesus and Joseph as menial lower class workers. The Matthew genealogy, then was either not produced, or not as important to the Jews as Matthew stressed to his readers. If they understood Joseph’s line to be “legal” and not literal, they may have only seen Joseph as a physical option for kingship, not a legitimate forefather to “the Messiah.” These doubts may have influenced their hesitancy in accepting Jesus.

The Jewish expectation of the messiah was very literal and physical. This physical blood line lent to their expectations of the physical kingdom. God has a knack of turning physical expectations into spiritual realities. It should not surprise us if God chose to switch gears to a spiritual light. One must keep in mind that spiritual does not necessarily mean figurative any more than figurative means “not-real.” The Messiah was very real, and is literally the king of God’s spiritual people. It turns out that God also stressed a physical descendency through David. The scriptural expectation of the Messiah’s origin was equally as physical. There was a need for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, there was a need for him to visit Egypt, and there was a need for him to be called a Nazarene. For once, the Jewish expectation was God’s as well.

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: The Levirate and Historicity Solution

thebibleword.org

So far, we have considered a Mary solution and a Joseph solution which have been proposed throughout the millennia. Another ancient argument dates to Africanus, who argues for a levirate law situation. A different article on Levirate Law can go into more detail on this subject. The basic Law states that if a man dies before he has children, his next eligible brother shall marry his widow and raise at least one child in the first brother’s name. This child would then be counted as the son of the first brother, not as the second brother’s. This is how the argument is applied to Jesus’ genealogy: if Heli and Jacob were brothers, and one died, the one left then brought up Joseph in the other’s name. It would be impossible to identify which brother was the actual father. The predominant view is that Luke traces the bloodline (actual father) while Matthew uses the inherited name (legal father). The same thought or similar thoughts could be said of the second set of names during the days of the kings. Jeconiah may have faced a time where he needed to bring up children in the name of his next of kin: Neri. Conversely, Jeconiah may have died “childless” (no actual blood children) and Neri raised up Sheiltiel with the royal name.

The advantage to this view (which is really a branch of the Joseph solution) is that where few of the other solutions have biblical precedent, this has both a law and a NT discussion to back up its credibility as an option.[1] It is a version of the legal vs. literal line and allows for both lines. The weakness of this argument is that it is factually misapplied. The Levirate law states that those who are legally obligated to this task must be brothers of the same house. If Heli and Jacob were of the same father (as opposed to half brothers through the mother) then the lines would be the same. If they were not of the same house and lineage and were operating by principle only, then the legality would be different. One of the other views must be taken past this single generation to adequately apply the Levirate Law. Beyond this, the same disadvantages of the other Joseph solutions may apply.

Some argue on a separate plane altogether. A popular trend today challenges the historicity of the genealogies. They want to show that genealogies were rarely intended to be biologically accurate. They say that ancient cultures did not always intend to record biological connections, therefore they could choose whomever they desired to pass the name through. This argument is based on research of ancient oral cultures. Much of the genealogical tradition is based on memory aid. This could significantly impact numbers of generations, sets of names, etc. Much of the purpose of those genealogies was to establish social connections with the community. Ancient society was more dependent on social interactions and neighborly connections. Genealogies may have been used in some societies to: establish links to other families that one was familiar with, establish links to a new family for the purpose of opening a new relationship, or/and confirm legitimacy and rights for heritage. Historians believe that these cultures may accomplish their goals by many means. One mean may be association of contacts rather than blood relation. One family who was closely associated with another could be grouped by genealogy. By these assumptions they would rather think that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are not intending to be a strict biological chain anyway.

The strength of this argument is that it makes any discrepancy of accounts a non-issue, since there could be near infinite ways of recording the line. It is an extended version of the royal title argument, just applied to both genealogies and to social connection instead of kingship. Its weakness, like the previous argument, lacks historical proof. As covered in the Historicity article, in order to believe that the historical data is not literal, there must be an alternative credible historical source. Since there is no indication in the text that these lines are figurative, one must have another source to indicate this. Even if most ancient genealogies were figurative, we must show by text how this impacts the genealogies of scripture and bypasses Luke’s intent as preserving ‘the exact truth’ of Jesus. Additionally, this view does not take the Jewish culture into account, nor the expectations of their messiah. The Jewish culture was fiercely nationalistic, and valued bloodline religiously. Other cultures may have valued this to certain levels, but the scriptures clearly indicate that heritage and genealogy was a focal point of culture and religion. (see sonship and purpose articles). To apply a historicity argument nullifies much of the truth on which Christianity is based. It does not fit well with any context of the passages.

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: The Joseph Solution

thebibleword.org

Rather than say that different people’s genealogies are being traced from the beginning, some prefer to stick with the most apparent meaning of the texts: that both lines do in fact go through Joseph. Counter to the linguistic concerns of the first argument, proponents of this second view would understand that Joseph is most likely the grammatical focus of both passages. To logically hold this view, one must explain the different names.

One subset of this theory is that the names of both genealogies refer to the same people under different names. As stated in the article about names, many people of this culture had several names. Perhaps one of the writers found a legal documentation of the line of Joseph while the other found the family tradition. Several names do appear to be similar. The legal names may represent family heads and would have to skip two or three generations on occasion.

A second subset could argue that all the names should belong to one single line with some or no names overlapping. Matthew already doctors his generational number, so he could just pick and choose whom to include. Luke feels free to add names from the Greek manuscripts, so he may also have variation on his part. It would be impossible to determine who was who’s son exactly since the line would be so out of order. Joseph’s own father would be either Heli or Jacob.

The third, and most common argument about the Joseph resolution goes back to the same issue in the first solution about legal verses literal lines. Luke may portray the physical lineage of Joseph while Matthew shows the legal inheritance line (often blood relation, but not necessarily. The Legal vs. family name option coincides with this). Joseph may or may not be an actual son of the kings, but has the technical right to the throne through Nathan. Matthew’s term “begat” is just the language of genealogy, and does not have to imply biological imparting (although this argument trends against the focus of the seed promise). This legal heir version of sonship may not have been uncommon in rabbinic thought. Because of this, the Christians of the time would have had no problem with the legality of Jesus’ right to the throne (since it did pass from David either way).

The second name set between Zerubbabal and David may be answered in similar terms as the above. The names that Luke provides may be the birth name of the kings and their actual sons, while Matthew uses the king title. There are more generations to fit into Luke’s time frame. One would have to recognize short generations between kings to keep the years congruent. Otherwise, it may be the same resolution as before: that Neri was a blood father, and Jeconiah was legal family head. The family title passes through Neri and his son.

The strengths and weaknesses of the above theory versions are as follows. The strength of the same persons theory is that both Matthew and Luke can provide factual content at apparent value without really having to stretch anything. The weakness is that the generations don’t line up, and it makes it difficult to synchronize how this actually would play out. It would make the authors pick and choose data at random without stated reason. Similar strengths (though not as strong) applies to the second theory. Little other advantages can be found to this solution. The greatest weakness for all is practicality. For that many generations to fit into one line would either push back the accepted time table of Israelite history, or cram all generations to an average of under twenty years. It also leaves the question of why the authors chose to do it that way and (intentionally?) avoid each other’s material.

The weakness of the last Joseph view is once again assumptions, as well as the context of Luke. The same assumptions about the first solution must be made about this second view (assumptions about who’s father is whom, the specific intention of the authors, and cultural standards). Additionally, Luke’s context, though focused on sonship, is not placed on Joseph, but on Jesus. There would be a major question why Luke would introduce Joseph’s bloodline when Jesus’ sonship is in question. This last version of the Joseph solution is the most common and is the strongest of the Joseph solutions. It makes the conflict of names disappear, and allows for Luke to trace the “exact truth” and for Matthew to trace “the King.”

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: The Mary Solution

thebibleword.org

One popular resolution to the Matthew-Luke genealogy difference is that Matthew presents the full line of Joseph and Luke presents the full line of Mary. This view can be found as early as Hilary of Poitiers in the fourth century AD [1]. We don’t really know how popular this view was before this.  There are several reasons to suggest this view. First, one must consider the genealogical format of the time. Nowhere else in scripture do we read of a genealogy from a woman. This does not mean that women did not have recorded heritage, it just means that in format, they were traced through men. In some cases where a man has only daughters, he will find a son to adopt through a daughter to carry the family name (see 1 Chronicles 2:34-41). Although the genealogy would have the man’s name, the woman was the blood relation. Since a son-in-law is just as legitimately an heir to the family, if the genealogy was through Mary, then Luke might not have used Mary’s name as a link anyway, in keeping with the custom of the day. This is different from Matthew’s use of women. Matthew never took a bloodline through the woman, but rather supplemented the woman onto the male’s line.

Additionally one can argue for a royal vs literal line difference between Matthew and Luke. The royal line is passed on to Jesus through Joseph who was the “husband of Mary” as Matthew states. Luke on his part also separates Jesus from Joseph at the start by called Jesus the “supposed” son of Joseph. This separation from Joseph makes it less likely that a physical genealogy would prove any good. Whats the use of tracing Joseph’s lineage if Jesus wasn’t from him anyway? Rather if Matthew was using a royal heir line, then Jesus receives that title as legally adopted son of Joseph, while Luke can focus on the biological seed promise.

There are some who focus on linguistics. Linguistically, since Joseph’s name is the only name in Luke’s genealogy without the reoccurring article introducing it, some say Joseph’s name should be taken out as a candidate for the genealogy itself. The article in front of Heli’s name would then identify not with “Joseph” but with “the son”. The reference to Joseph in our English format should then be in parentheses. By this reasoning one could try to show that Luke is intending to linguistically bypass Joseph and call Jesus the son of Heli. If Heli is the father of Mary, then Jesus is his son also. This resolves the two lines extending back to David.

As to the problem with Zerubbabel’s father(s), the same supporters of this current train of thought would consistently apply the same to Neri and Jeconiah. If Jeconiah was the legal father of Shealtiel (Royal title, adoption, or association), then Neri could be the actual father, or father in Law (biology still passes through mother while crown through father). Jeremiah did make a point about Jeconiah having no child who would ever sit on the throne. Luke, who may have seen this as a potential problem, decides to trace through another side of the family and still end with David.

There are strengths and flaws with every position. As for this first argument, that Luke presents Mary’s line, the biggest weakness is in the lack of information. There must be an assumption made that cannot be supported through any other scripture. Both texts appear to show that Joseph came from two men. The linguistic points are merely an interpretation of the grammar. Nothing is exclusive in the argument. This being said, similar assumptions must be made to entertain the other solutions as well. The greatest strength with the Mary view of Luke is that it provides the least friction between accounts, and allows for Jesus’ bloodline to extend back to David and Abraham, from whom God said the seed would come from their “very being.”

1 – Hilary of Poitiers, in Angelo Mai ed., Novae Patrum Bibliothecae (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1852), pp. 477-478.

Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: Understanding Differences

thebibleword.org

Before examining resolutions, there are a few more subtle differences that can impact the end conclusion. First is the consideration of Matthew and Luke’s individual use of the Old Testament history. Both Matthew and Luke refer to and take a large part of their information from the Old Testament writings. Matthew relies heavily on the Genesis and Chronicles account as it is preserved today to trace Abraham to David. Past David, both Kings and Chronicles agree on the kings of Judah and their succession. One might be surprised, then, to see that Matthew cuts out several figures along the way. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, the three kings following Joram, are all cut from Matthew’s list. In addition to names cut out are unexpected names added. Matthew lists four women in his genealogy, three of whom were certainly not Jewish. Two of the women, Bathsheba and Tamar are listed in OT genealogies. Other women are mentioned in 1 Chronicles in order to differentiate kinsman. Matthew’s mention of Bath-sheba and Tamar was likely to preserve the same reading as in the OT. His use of Rahab and Ruth are quite unexpected. Rahab is well known but her role after Jericho is never identified in the OT. Ruth is famous, and is clearly the ancestor of David as described at the end of her book. The use of these women has been debated, but none question their value to Matthew’s purpose. Matthew, by using Rahab in this way, shows that he had another source outside of the known OT text, though exactly what it is, we can only guess.

Luke also claims many sources at the beginning of his document. He, rather than overtly skipping names, adds two, of whom we know nothing else. It would appear that the most likely option for these variations regards the LXX. The names Luke adds can be found in the Greek manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible but not in the Masoretic texts we are used to reading from today. Does this affect our view of the veracity of the Old Testament Scriptures? In short, as stated in another article, the inclusion or exclusion of names in a genealogy by itself does not determine its credibility. Luke decided to include two names, and Matthew decided to drop many more. Neither made claims to complete lists, and neither did the Old Testament (Masoretic) writings. If the Greek chooses to include names based from contemporary lists, then it has the literary prerogative to do so. Its historicity is not in question, rather its legitimacy as a one to one translation, which is a separate issue.

In addition to Luke’s and Matthew’s different sources, their intentions become important. It must be stated that when comparing Mathew and Luke to each other, they cannot be judged solely by each other, but primarily to themselves. Each document was written to a different audience for a different primary goal. These goals are reflected in their genealogy’s content. Matthew focuses on the kingship of Jesus and his role as the son of David. As such, he uses the figure of 14 generations to show David as the centerpiece by repeating his name as both the last of the first set and the first of the second set. David is labeled as “the King,” which is Matthew’s transition to the second set of names. Because of the focus on kingship, Matthew uses the line of Judah’s kings through Jechoniah and Zerubabbaal on to Joseph. Luke’s purpose, as stated in 1:4, is to present the exact truth of the matter as it was passed down from the beginning. As such, it is not surprising that he uses more names in his genealogy or that he chooses to use an unknown line back to David. Between Matthew and Luke we would expect Matthew to use obscure means to support his point and for Luke to try to be more straightforward and literal in his records. Keep in mind that Matthew’s ‘less literal’ list is not in any way untrue, just utilized more thematically.

The concept of inclusion is key to understanding the resolutions for the two genealogies. For the two genealogies to be contradictory, their factual material must be proven as either false or mutually exclusive. Considering their purpose and literary style allows for different content. As long as this content is not factually false, they present no conflict with each other. The difficulty lies in judging if the content is factually plausible. The answer to resolving these passages is not in comparing them to each other, but examining each within its own context. The possibilities for understanding each account are far and wide and will be considered in following articles. The probability of these options will also be weighed.

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: Recognizing Differences

thebibleword.org

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).