Two Genealogies of Christ
Sceptics of all ages have urged the impossibility of reconciling the difficulties in the two accounts of the descent of Jesus. Even Alford says it is impossible to reconcile them. But certainly several possible explanations have been suggested. The chief difficulties will be discussed.
1. In Matthew’s list several discrepancies are pointed out.
(a) It is objected that Matthew is mistaken in making three sets of fourteen each. There are only forty-one names, and this would leave one set with only thirteen. But does Matthew say he has mentioned forty-two names? He does say (Matthew 1:17) that there are three sets of fourteen and divides them for us himself- “So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from David unto the Christ fourteen generations.” The points of division are David and the captivity; in the one case a man, in the other an event. He counts David in each of the first two sets, although Jechoniah is counted only once. David was the connecting link between the patriarchal line and the royal line. But he does not say “from David to Jechoniah” but “from David to the carrying away unto Babylon,” and Josiah is the last name he counts before that event. And so the first name after this same event is Jechoniah.. Thus Matthew deliberately counts David into two places to give symmetry to the division which made an easy help to the memory.
(b) The omissions in Matthew’s list have occasioned some trouble. These omissions are after Joram, the names of Ahaziah, Joash., Amaziah, and after Josiah, those of Jehoiakim and Eliakiml (2 Kings 8:24, 1 Chronicles 3:11, 2 Chronicles 22:1, 11, 24:27, 2 Kings 23:34, 24:6). But such omissions were very common in the Old Testament genealogies. See 2 Chronicles 22:9. .Here “son of Jehoshaphat” means “grandson of Jehoshaphat.” So in Matthew 1:1 Jesus is called the son of David, the son of Abraham. A direct line of descent is all it is designed to express. This is all that the term “begat” necessarily means here. It is a real descent. Whatever omissions were made for various reasons would not invalidate the line. The fact that Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah were the sons of Ahab and Jezebel would be sufficient ground for omitting them.
(c) Matthew mentions four women in his list, which is contrary to Jewish custom, viz. Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah.2 But none are counted in the lists of fourteen, and each one has something remarkable in her case. Three were guilty of gross sin, and one, Ruth, was of Gentile origin3 and deserved mention for that reason.4 This circumstance would seem to indicate that Matthew did not simply copy the genealogical history of Joseph. He did this, omitting what suited his purpose and adding likewise remarks of his own. His record is thus reliable and yet made a part of his own story.
2. A comparison of the lists of Matthew and Luke.
If no list had been given by Luke, no further explanations would be necessary. But Luke not only gives a list, but one radically different from Matthew’s, and in inverse order. Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to Jesus; Luke begins with Jesus and concludes with Adam [the son of God]. Several explanations are offered to remove the apparent contradiction.
(a) As early as Julius Africanus it was suggested that the two lines had united in accordance with the law of Levirate marriage. By this theory, Heli and Jacob being stepbrothers, Jacob married Heli’s widow and was the real father of Joseph. Thus both genealogies would be the descent of Joseph, one the real, the other the legal. It is argued that Jechoniah’s children were born in captivity and so, being slaves, lost both his royal dignity and his legal status. Stress is laid upon the word “begat” to show that Matthew’s descent must be the natural pedigree of Joseph, and upon the use of the expression “son (as was supposed) of Joseph * “ Hence both Joseph’s real and legal standing are shown, for by Luke7s account he had an undisputed legal title to descend from David. ‘his is certainly possible, although it rests on the hypothesis of the Levirate marriage.
(b) Lord Arthur Hervey, in his volume on the Genealogies of Our Lord, and in Smiths Dictionary, argues that Matthew gives Josephs legal descent as successor to the throne of David. According to this theory Solomon’s line failed in Jechoniah (Jeremiah 22:30) and Shealtiel of Matthew’s line took his place. Luke’s account, on the other hand, gives Joseph’s real parentage. Matthew’s Matthan and Luke’s Mattathias are identified as one, and the law of Levirate marriage comes into service with Jacob and Heli. This explanation has received favor with such writers as Mill, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott, Westcott, Fairbairn. McNeile (on Matthew) considers this the “only possible!’ view. The chief objection seems to be the most natural meaning of “begat,” implying direct descent, and the necessity for two suppositions, one about Shealtiel and another about Jacob and Heli. It is even fairly probable that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew and Luke are different persons.
THE MOST PLAUSIBLE SOLUTION
The most plausible solution yet suggested makes Matthew give the real descent of Joseph, and Luke the real descent of Mary. Several arguments of more or less weight can be adduced for this hypothesis.
(1) The most natural meaning of “begat” in Matthew is preserved. Jesus goes through David’s royal line and so fulfills prophecy. It is not elsewhere stated that Mary was of Davidic descent, although presumptive evidence exists in the language of the angel (Luke 1:32) and the enrollment of Mary (Luke 2:5).
(2) The use of Joseph without the article, while it is used with every other name in the list. “The absence of the article puts the name outside of the genealogical series properly so-called” – Godet. This would seem to indicate that Joseph belonged to the parenthesis, “as was supposed” It would read thus, “being (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli.’ Luke had already clearly stated the manner of Christ’s birth, so that no one would think he was the son of Joseph.
(3) It would seem proper that Matthew should give the legal descent of Jesus, since he wrote chiefly for Jews. This, of course, could only be through Joseph.
(4) And it would seem equally fitting that Luke should give the real genealogy of Jesus, since he was writing for all. And this could come only through Mary. If it is objected that a woman’s genealogy is never given, it may be replied that women are mentioned for special reasons in Matthew’s list, though not counted, and that Mary’s name is not mentioned in that list. The genealogy goes back to her father either by skipping her as suggested above and making son mean the grandson of Heli, or by allowing Joseph to stand in her place in the list, as he would have to do anyhow. On the whole, then, this theory seems the most plausible and pleasing.
– A. T Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels, 1922
1 Jehoiakim and Eliakim are two names for the same person (2 Kings 23:34).
2 Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:3).
3 Rahab was also a Gentile living in Jericho at the time of its fall.
4 Each of these women rose above the stigma of their past to become a mother in the genealogy of the Messiah.