MATTHEW 1:1-19 AND LUKE 3:23-38
Does it really matter?
How many of you have been tempted to skip over this portion of the New Testament? Does it really matter what the Savior's lineage was? Well, to the Jews of that era it mattered a great deal. You see, it had been prophesied that their King would be descended from Abraham through the tribe of Judah, and that He would be of the house of David. Anyone claiming to be the Messiah, who did not fit this criteria, would not have been recognized as such.
How many of you have been tempted to skip over this portion of the New Testament? Does it really matter what the Savior's lineage was? Well, to the Jews of that era it mattered a great deal. You see, it had been prophesied that their King would be descended from Abraham through the tribe of Judah, and that He would be of the house of David. Anyone claiming to be the Messiah, who did not fit this criteria, would not have been recognized as such.
Why give the lineage of Joseph?
What reasons did Matthew and Luke have for considering the ancestry of Joseph to be relevant, when the Lord's literal parents were actually God the Father and Mary? What of the lineage of Mary, and thus her son, Jesus? Why does the lineage given in Luke differ so greatly from Matthew's, if both are the lineage of Joseph?
So many theories...
I got bogged down for several hours trying to decipher the various schools of thought on this matter. It appears that the general consensus is that one lineage was Joseph's and the other Mary's. However, ideas even differ as to which is which. Rather than compare and contrast the varying theories in depth here, which I feel unqualified to do, I will discuss the one I found to be the most fascinating. Ultimately, though, what is really important in all of this is that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Both lineages show direct descent from Abraham through King David, as was required. The difference is only that one follows the lineage through Solomon and the other through Nathan, both of whom were sons of David.
Was Mary's father also named Joseph?
Elliot's Commentary for English Readers ➚ suggests the following about Mary: “The omission of any mention of her parents suggests the idea of orphanhood, possibly under the guardianship of Joseph. The non-appearance of Joseph in the records of our Lord’s ministry, makes it probable that he died in the interval between the visit to the Temple of Luke 2:42 and the preaching of the Baptist, and that he was older than Mary. Both were poor; Joseph worked as a carpenter (Matthew 13:55), Mary offered the cheaper sacrifice of “two young pigeons” (Luke 2:24). They had no house at Bethlehem (Luke 2:7)." Mary being an orphan when she was betrothed to Joseph is something I hadn't really considered, and I thought it deserved mention in this context.
Whether or not she was an orphan, we do know that she was the mother of the Lord. It would seem, though it went against Jewish tradition to give the genealogy of a woman, that her lineage would merit being recorded in order to show that Jesus was of the correct lineage of be the Messiah. Regardless of when her parents died, who was Mary's father? Was his name Joseph, as was her husband's?
Within this theory, the lineage given in Matthew 1 is that of Mary, not her husband. If this is the case, the lineage clearly shows that Jesus was descended directly from David, and back through Abraham, as was prophesied. I found something very interesting when learning about this idea. Part of the conclusion drawn comes from the ancient text itself. In Matthew 1 verses 16 and 19, the word translated as "husband" can mean other things, indicating that there might have been two men by the name of Joseph, one Mary's father (verse 16) and one her husband (verse 19).
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband (Greek: aner, meaning adult male, usually translated as husband) (Aramaic: gavra, meaning mighty man, father or husband) of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16)
"Then Joseph her husband (Greek: aner, meaning adult male) (Aramaic: bala, meaning man or husband), being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." (Matthew 1:19)
Matthew is the most "Jewish" of the four gospels, and many scholars believe it was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then translated to Greek. This is possible, given Matthew's background. During the translation into Greek the meaning could have become "husband" in verse 16 rather than "father". Notice that in Aramaic the word used in verse 16, possibly distinguishing that, anciently, it was understand that these were two different men, was not the same as in verse 19. However, in Greek the same word was used in both verses, suggesting that some meaning was lost in translation.
If translated more literally from Aramaic, verse 16 could read "And Jacob begat Joseph the father of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." This makes enough sense to merit some consideration, and allows the lineage in Matthew to continue its 14 generation pattern which Matthew described, adding the missing generation of Mary's father. . It is also interesting that the lineage listed in Matthew mentions several women, something not traditionally done at that time, whereas the lineage in Luke (possibly actually of Joseph, Mary's husband) does not. This may, possibly, give more merit to this lineage being Mary's. (Truth or Tradition ➚)
Something else to remember when trying to figure all this out is that there was no Greek word for "son-in-law". Therefore a genealogy could mention "son of" when it really means "son-in-law of".
 |
| Joseph and Mary Photo source ➚ |
So many theories...
I got bogged down for several hours trying to decipher the various schools of thought on this matter. It appears that the general consensus is that one lineage was Joseph's and the other Mary's. However, ideas even differ as to which is which. Rather than compare and contrast the varying theories in depth here, which I feel unqualified to do, I will discuss the one I found to be the most fascinating. Ultimately, though, what is really important in all of this is that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Both lineages show direct descent from Abraham through King David, as was required. The difference is only that one follows the lineage through Solomon and the other through Nathan, both of whom were sons of David.
Was Mary's father also named Joseph?
Elliot's Commentary for English Readers ➚ suggests the following about Mary: “The omission of any mention of her parents suggests the idea of orphanhood, possibly under the guardianship of Joseph. The non-appearance of Joseph in the records of our Lord’s ministry, makes it probable that he died in the interval between the visit to the Temple of Luke 2:42 and the preaching of the Baptist, and that he was older than Mary. Both were poor; Joseph worked as a carpenter (Matthew 13:55), Mary offered the cheaper sacrifice of “two young pigeons” (Luke 2:24). They had no house at Bethlehem (Luke 2:7)." Mary being an orphan when she was betrothed to Joseph is something I hadn't really considered, and I thought it deserved mention in this context.
Whether or not she was an orphan, we do know that she was the mother of the Lord. It would seem, though it went against Jewish tradition to give the genealogy of a woman, that her lineage would merit being recorded in order to show that Jesus was of the correct lineage of be the Messiah. Regardless of when her parents died, who was Mary's father? Was his name Joseph, as was her husband's?
Within this theory, the lineage given in Matthew 1 is that of Mary, not her husband. If this is the case, the lineage clearly shows that Jesus was descended directly from David, and back through Abraham, as was prophesied. I found something very interesting when learning about this idea. Part of the conclusion drawn comes from the ancient text itself. In Matthew 1 verses 16 and 19, the word translated as "husband" can mean other things, indicating that there might have been two men by the name of Joseph, one Mary's father (verse 16) and one her husband (verse 19).
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband (Greek: aner, meaning adult male, usually translated as husband) (Aramaic: gavra, meaning mighty man, father or husband) of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16)
"Then Joseph her husband (Greek: aner, meaning adult male) (Aramaic: bala, meaning man or husband), being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." (Matthew 1:19)
Matthew is the most "Jewish" of the four gospels, and many scholars believe it was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then translated to Greek. This is possible, given Matthew's background. During the translation into Greek the meaning could have become "husband" in verse 16 rather than "father". Notice that in Aramaic the word used in verse 16, possibly distinguishing that, anciently, it was understand that these were two different men, was not the same as in verse 19. However, in Greek the same word was used in both verses, suggesting that some meaning was lost in translation.
If translated more literally from Aramaic, verse 16 could read "And Jacob begat Joseph the father of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." This makes enough sense to merit some consideration, and allows the lineage in Matthew to continue its 14 generation pattern which Matthew described, adding the missing generation of Mary's father. . It is also interesting that the lineage listed in Matthew mentions several women, something not traditionally done at that time, whereas the lineage in Luke (possibly actually of Joseph, Mary's husband) does not. This may, possibly, give more merit to this lineage being Mary's. (Truth or Tradition ➚)
Something else to remember when trying to figure all this out is that there was no Greek word for "son-in-law". Therefore a genealogy could mention "son of" when it really means "son-in-law of".
Comparison of the two lineages
Both show direct descendant lineage through Abraham and King David, but by different sons of David.| Matthew 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 generations: 1) ABRAHAM 2) Isaac 3) Jacob 4) Judas/Judah 5) Phares/Perez 6) Esrom (mother, Thamar) 7) Aram 8) Aminadab 9) Naasson/Nahshon 10) Salmon 11) Booz/Boaz 12) Obed (mother, Rahab) 13) Jesse (mother, Ruth) 14) DAVID (king ca. 1010-970 BC) 14 generations: 1) Solomon (king ca. 970-931 BC) 2) Roboam (king ca. 931-915 BC) (mother - wife of Urias) 3) Abia/Abijam (king ca. 915-911 BC) 4) Asa (king ca. 911-870 BC) 5) Josaphet/Jehoshaphat (king ca. 870-849 BC) 6) Joram/Jerhoram (king ca. 849-842 BC) 7) Ozias/Uzziah (king ca. 783-742 BC) 8) Joatham/Jotham (king ca. 750-735 BC) 9) Achaz (king ca. 735-715 BC) 10) Ezekias/Hezekiah (king ca. 716-697 BC) 11) Manasses/Manasseh king ca. 697-643 BC) 12) Amon (king ca. 643-640 BC) 13) Josias/Josiah (king ca. 640-609 BC) 14) Jechonias (cursed) BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY 14 generations: 1) Salathiel/Shealtiel 2) Zorobabel/Zerubbabel (grandfather's curse lifted) 3) Abiud 4) Eliakim 5) Azor 6) Sadoc/Zadok 7) Achim 8) Eliud 9) Eleazer 10) Matthan 11) Jacob 12) Joseph 13) Mary? 14) JESUS |
Luke 3 Adam Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Lamech Noe Sem Arphaxad Cainan Sala Heber Phalec Ragau Saruch Nachor Thara ABRAHAM Isaac Jacob Juda/Judah Phares/Perez Esrom Aram Aminadab Naasson/Nahshon Salmon Booz/Boaz Obed Jesse DAVID (king ca. 1010-970 BC) Nathan Mattath Menan Melea Eliakim Jonan Joseph Juda Simeon Levi Matthat Jorim Eliezer Jose Er Elmodam Cosam Addi Melchi Neri Shealtiel Zerubbabel Rhesa Joanan Joda Josech Semein Mattathias Maath Naggai Esli Nahum Amos Mattathias Joseph Jannae Melchi Levi Matthat Heli Joseph JESUS (adopted) |
Matthew was categorizing the lineage by major historical time periods. Because records and books were scarce among the people, it was tradition to divide up genealogy into portions of equal length to more easily commit them to memory. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible ➚) Keep in mind that the lineage Matthew listed was abbreviated; there are missing generations here and there. Possibly, this was to keep with the 14 generation pattern.
14 generations of growth:
Abraham to David
- Oversaw by patriarchs, prophets and judges
- Covers the life of Abraham, to whom the promise was given, through David, to whom the promise was renewed more fully
14 generations of decline:
David to the carrying away of the Jews from Jerusalem to Babylon, the extremely well-fortified capital of a vast empire
- Ruled by kings
- Covers the time from the building of the temple to its destruction
14 generations from ruin to redemption:
Babylonian captivity to the birth of Jesus Christ
- Under the rule of the Asmonaean priests and generals
- Began with temporal captivity, with its disgrace and misery, and ended with spiritual deliverance
I find it interesting that these multiples were chosen. Clearly, these generations were categorized by periods in history, and this allowed Matthew to memorize them more easily, but is the number fourteen significant? Perhaps it has something to do with the number seven being a symbol of completeness and perfection (spiritual and physical), used 860 times throughout the Bible. 14 is a multiple of 7. The 7th day is hallowed as the Sabbath. The Bible was originally divided into 7 major sections (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings/Psalms, the Gospels and Acts, the General Epistles, the Epistles of Paul and the Book of Revelation). There were originally 49 books (a multiple of 7), demonstrating the perfection of the Word of God. Whether it is relevant or purely coincidental, it is something to consider.
Conclusion
Whether Matthew gave the genealogy of Mary, while Luke gave Joseph's, or vice versa, I am fully confident in stating that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah. Though the various theories are fascinating, we could split hairs or debate these theories all day long. What it really boils down to is that we know that Jesus is the Lord. I believe that the intention of Matthew and Luke, in recording these lineages, was simply to show the Jews that Jesus fit all of the criteria outlined to qualify Him for being the Lord and Savior, according to the ancient prophecies.
Conclusion
Whether Matthew gave the genealogy of Mary, while Luke gave Joseph's, or vice versa, I am fully confident in stating that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah. Though the various theories are fascinating, we could split hairs or debate these theories all day long. What it really boils down to is that we know that Jesus is the Lord. I believe that the intention of Matthew and Luke, in recording these lineages, was simply to show the Jews that Jesus fit all of the criteria outlined to qualify Him for being the Lord and Savior, according to the ancient prophecies.