Think of this as a supplement to Sunday’s sermon on Matthew 1:1-17. I won’t have time to discuss important questions that some of you might have when reading this genealogy. Namely:
1: Why is Matthew’s Genealogy Different to Luke’s?
2: Why is Matthew’s Genealogy Incomplete?
So how do we answer these questions?
1: Why is Matthew’s Genealogy Different to Luke’s?
Let’s take the first one – why is Matthew’s Genealogy Different to Luke’s in Luke 3:23-38, or to put it another way – more provocatively – why do they contradict each other in certain places?
Well first of all, we need to be aware that as a Jew Matthew follows the traditional Jewish way of writing a genealogy by starting from the past and moving forwards, while Luke as a Greek follows the traditional Greek way of writing a genealogy by starting from the present and moving backwards. Secondly, Luke seeks to follow Jesus’ family tree right back to Adam, while Matthew is content at following it back as far as Abraham. These two differences are not controversial but worth mentioning.
But what about the fundamental differences? For example, why does Luke say Jesus’ ancestry came from David’s son Nathan while Matthew indicates Solomon? Or more obvious than that, why does Luke indicate Joseph’s father as Heli while Matthew says it is Jacob? Are these contradictions?
There are two main explanations for these differences:
#1: Luke traces Mary’s Family Tree and Matthew traces Joseph’s Family Tree. This is argued by some scholars and might be true,[1] but the problem with this is that Luke states his family tree starts with Joseph so I am not too keen on that suggestion.
#2: The more likely suggestion which I favour is that Luke is interested in Jesus’ natural family tree, his physical genealogy – while Matthew seeks to trace the royal line of succession to stress that Jesus really is the king![2] The Messiah! The anointed one! So Nathan would be Jesus’ physical ancestor but Nathan’s brother Solomon, still within the family of David, is the royal successor, the heir to the throne of David. And Jesus is placed in the royal line as the royal successor, rather than simply the physical blood line of Nathan.
Add to this the Jewish tradition of Levirate marriages found in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 which stipulated the practice that if the eldest son died without children his brother would marry the widow and the first son she bears will ‘carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel’ (v6), and we begin to see why there might be some major differences. So for example, it is conceivable that Heli was Jesus blood father in Luke 3:23 but Jacob was his older brother and legally Jesus carries on the name of Jacob. It is speculation but it does account for potential differences.
We also have to be aware that the answer to the second question also helps us understand why there are differences too.
2: Why is Matthew’s Genealogy Incomplete?
Although it might go against the grain of our modern sensibilities of being exact, the answer to the second question is a little easier, even if figuring out the details is still difficult. For example, between Jehoram and Uzziah (v8) Matthew misses out 3 kings, and between Perez and Amminadab in v3-4, 400 years are covered in 3 generations. He’s doing this deliberately as can be seen in v17 when he clearly states: ‘Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah’.
But wait on a minute. If you count the names on the last list of 14 there are only 13 generations! That’s because Jeconiah is mentioned at the end of the second list and the beginning of the third list. So, do you count him twice? There are various theories to try and answer this irregularity, but perhaps a more plausible one is that David is mentioned twice in v6 as the bridge between the first set of fourteen and the second set. Therefore, it is more likely we are meant to count his name twice to emphasise the whole thrust of this genealogy, and Jeconiah once at the beginning of the third list.
This is because Matthew’s aim is more theological than historical, although by the nature of the family tree he is showing Jesus as a real historical figure. But his main aim is to show Jesus is the promised Messiah. He does this by using the ancient Jewish device known as Gematria which was like a hidden code that brought out extra significance and symbolism. This is because Hebrew letters were assigned particular numeric values. David in Hebrew is D-W-D which equate to 4-6-4 which adds up to 14. Matthew omits names and crafts his genealogy to tell everyone that Jesus really is the Son of David – the promised Messiah! (v1; v17). The deliberate editing of a family tree might seem strange to us, but it was not uncommon to emphasise certain names and omit others to make a certain point.
On top of this, the Greek word for ‘father of’ does not have to mean direct father, it can mean a distant ancestor or be more symbolic.[3] We can see this when from David’s line onwards Matthew records 27 generations and Luke 42 generations.[4] Matthew is trying to make a specific point by tracing Jesus’ family tree – he’s saying: yes Jesus is historical – this isn’t a fairy-tale – but Jesus is also different – in fact he is the promised king of Israel! The king has come!
[1] See Boice, The Gospel of Matthew Vol 1, p. 17.
[2] I think this goes back to J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ.
[3] See D. A Carson, Matthew vol 1 – The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 65.
[4] R.T. France, Matthew TNTC, p. 79.
