Luke 3:24-38

Matthew traced Joseph’s line back to David through Joseph’s father Jacob and David’s son Solomon. Luke traced Joseph’s line back to David through Joseph’s father Eli (or Heli, NIV) and David’s son Nathan. Is there a mistake in the text, is one of these genealogies really the genealogy of Mary rather than Joseph, or did Joseph have two fathers?

The two lines of Joseph proceed back through two entirely different sets of names. Therefore there does not seem to be an error in the text regarding the name of Joseph’s father. Luke did not even mention Mary in his genealogy, and Matthew seems clearly to have been describing Joseph’s ancestors (Matthew 1:16). Consequently it appears unlikely that one of the genealogies is Mary’s. As strange as it may seem, Joseph appears to have had two fathers.

One solution to this problem is that the custom of levirate marriage in the ancient Near East permitted the widow of a childless man to marry his (unmarried) brother. It was common to consider a child of the second marriage as the legal son of the deceased man to perpetuate that man’s name. In genealogies the ancients sometimes listed such a child as the son of his real father but at other times as the son of his legal father. This may be the solution to the problem of Joseph’s fathers. It is a very old explanation that the third century church father Africanus advocated. [Note: The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, 1:7.] Evidently either Jacob or Eli (Heli) was Joseph’s real father, and the other man was his legal father. This may also be the solution to the problem of Shealtiel’s two fathers (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). This is only an adequate explanation, however, if Jacob and Eli were half-brothers, specifically the sons of the same mother but not the same father. Jacob’s father was Matthan and his grandfather was Eleazar whereas Eli’s father was Matthat and his grandfather was Levi.

Another solution is that Matthew provided a list of incumbents (actual or potential) to the Davidic throne, and Luke listed Joseph’s physical father and forefathers. [Note: Machen, p. 209; The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," by F. F. Bruce.] I prefer this view. According to this view Matthew showed that Jesus had a legitimate right to rule as Messiah since He was in the royal line through His legal guardian Joseph. Luke showed that Jesus was a real blood descendant of David. Yet Luke had already showed in chapters 1 and 2 that Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph. Advocates of this view point out that Luke was careful to state that Jesus was only supposedly the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23). However if He was not the physical son of Joseph what is the point of tracing Joseph’s ancestors to prove Jesus’ humanity? This criticism applies to the former view too. Probably in the eyes of Greeks Jesus’ connection with Adam through Joseph would have been adequately convincing.

Another view is that the genealogy is Joseph’s, but Luke did not mean that Joseph was Jesus’ physical father.

"In the eye of the law Jesus was the heir of Joseph; and therefore it is Joseph’s descent which is of importance." [Note: Plummer, p. 103.]

Yet the purpose of the genealogy seems to be to trace Jesus back to the first man to prove that He was a real son of Adam.

The obvious problem with the view that Luke recorded Mary’s genealogy, a fourth view, is that he did not refer to Mary but wrote that his genealogy was Joseph’s. Advocates of this view explained the lack of reference to Mary this way. It was not customary among the Romans or the Jews to include the name of a woman in such a list. [Note: Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, p. 151; Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel, pp. 218-21.] Nevertheless Matthew mentioned four women in his genealogy, and Luke showed more interest in women than any of the other evangelists. [Note: See Tannehill, 1:132-39.] It seems unlikely that he would have refrained from using Mary’s name if he meant that this genealogy was hers.

Most of the scholars are not dogmatic about the solution to this problem.

"It is only right, therefore, to admit that the problem caused by the existence of the two genealogies is insoluble with the evidence presently at our disposal." [Note: Marshall, The Gospel . . ., p. 159. Cf. Morris, p. 101.]

From David to Abraham (Luke 3:32-34), Luke’s list parallels Matthew’s quite closely (Matthew 1:2-6). The list from Abraham to Adam (Luke 3:34-38) is very similar to the one in Genesis 11:10-26 (cf. Genesis 5:1-32; 1 Chronicles 1:1-26). [Note: For a study of the differences and several ways of reconciling them, see M. S. Mills, "A Comparison of the Genesis and Lukan Genealogies (The Case for Cainan)" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978).]

The presence of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in the lists of both Solomon and Nathan’s descendants is another problem (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). King Jeconiah, a descendant of Solomon, may have adopted Shealtiel, a descendant of Nathan and Zerubbabel’s father, into his line (cf. 1 Chronicles 3:17; Jeremiah 22:30). Then Zerubbabel’s descendants continued the two lines of Solomon and Nathan, one branch of the family perpetuating the legal line of Solomon and the other the bloodline of Nathan. [Note: See Plummer, p. 104.] Another possibility is that there were two sets of fathers and sons named Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, one set in Joseph’s legal line and the other in his bloodline.