The Genealogy of Jesus – Two Fathers for Joseph
Possible Explanation of Why Gospels of Matthew and Luke Don't Match
Aug 16, 2009
As discussed in a previous article, the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke both have a genealogy for Jesus Christ, but that these two genealogies do not match. They are not all that close, except that each begins with Joseph. (Figure 1 shows the difference.) Both gospels indicate that Jesus’ birth was miraculous, and that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father.
The Levirate Father was a Jewish Tradition
In the Jewish world of that time, there was concern about a man’s legal inheritance. It seems that often a man would marry a woman, but die before he had fathered any children. The custom was for the deceased man’s brother to marry the widow. The first child born from that marriage would be considered the legal heir and descendant of the deceased man, even though he was the biological son of the man’s brother.
This practice was the basis for the question the Sadducees asked Jesus about a man dying childless and his brother marrying his widow, as recorded in Matthew 22:23-33. It has its basis in Deuteronomy 25:5-6: “If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.” [NIV]
Many scholars, beginning with Julius Africanus in the fourth century, believe this was the situation with Joseph. Matthew says he was the son of Jacob. Luke says he was the son of Heli. Both of these statement cannot be true, unless one is his legal father, and one his biological father. Both of these men have been proposed for both positions: legal father and biological father. No evidence exists outside of scripture that can be used to prove this theory.
Inclusions and Omissions in Matthew’s Account May be Significant Clues
Matthew’s gospel tells the story of Jesus’ birth from the point of view of Joseph, while Luke tells it from the point of view of Mary. Matthew appears to be concerned with symbolism in the ancestry he lists. He divides the descendants from Abraham to David, to the exile to Babylon and to Joseph into three groups of fourteen; this is the topic of special mention. But he includes only forty-one names. King David’s name is used twice.
In addition, to arrive at fourteen names on the genealogy chart from David until the point where the Jews were exiled to Babylon, Matthew’s genealogy leaves out the names of four kings mentioned in the Old Testament: Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim. These three kings are well documented in the books of 2nd Kings and 2nd Chronicles. Matthew’s omission seems to be significant: He is showing a symbolic, legal inheritance for Jesus as an heir to the throne of David, rather than showing an exact genealogy that includes each direct ancestor in the paternal line.
Matthew would have had a precedent for such a genealogy in the annals of the patriarchs found in the book of Genesis. Scholars generally agree that the line of descent from Adam to Abraham includes gaps. The words in the original language that are now translated “father of” or “son of” or “fathered” should be understood to designated an ancestor-descendant relationship, not necessarily a direct father-son relationship. So sometimes “father of” might mean “ancestor of.”
Matthew Shows the Most Direct Royal Line for Jesus
The ancestral line given in Matthew comes through David’s son Solomon, whereas, in Luke, it comes through David’s son Nathan. Solomon was the son who became king. This would seem to confirm that Matthew was concerned with showing a kingly descent for Jesus. Nathan’s descendants would also be heirs to David’s throne, but more distantly than for Solomon’s descendants.
Much of Matthew’s gospel is involved in symbolism and descriptions and discussions of interest most to a Jewish reader. It would be natural for him to write Jesus’ ancestry through his royal line. Luke, who wrote primarily for Gentile readers, would not be as concerned with these things. Both the Levirate marriage and the royal line are valid theories as to how Matthew and Luke can be so different in the ancestry of Jesus, and yet both give truthful information. Both theories rely on Joseph having had different legal and biological fathers.
Source: A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ, by Dr. A.T. Robertson, 1922 (1950 reprint used).
 |
 |
 |
