What Scripture says
Matthew and Luke both give a genealogy of Jesus:
- Matthew 1:1–17 starts with Abraham and works forward to Jesus, through David and Solomon and the kings of Judah, to “Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born” (Matthew 1:16, ESV). It is arranged in three groups of fourteen generations (Matthew 1:17).
- Luke 3:23–38 starts with Jesus and works backward, through David’s son Nathan (not Solomon), all the way to “Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:38). Jesus was “the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23).
What the evidence says
Scripture
Where they differ
| Section | Matthew | Luke |
|---|---|---|
| Abraham to David | Mostly the same names | Mostly the same names |
| David to the exile | Solomon and the kings of Judah | Nathan and his descendants |
| Joseph’s father | Jacob | Heli |
The two lists overlap briefly at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, around the time of the exile, then separate again.
Matthew’s design
Matthew’s list is shaped for a purpose:
- Three sets of fourteen. To reach fourteen, Matthew omits some names: he skips three kings between Joram and Uzziah (compare 1 Chronicles 3:11–12). Ancient genealogies often skipped generations; “father of” could mean “ancestor of”.
- Fourteen may point to David: the Hebrew letters of David’s name (D-V-D) add up to 14.
- Women. Matthew includes four women besides Mary: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and “the wife of Uriah” (Bathsheba). Several were foreigners, and all had irregular stories, which may anticipate Mary’s unusual pregnancy and Jesus’ mission to all nations.
Luke’s design
Luke traces Jesus back to Adam, “the son of God”, which fits his emphasis on Jesus as Saviour of all humanity. He places the genealogy right after Jesus’ baptism, when God calls him “my beloved Son” (Luke 3:22).
History
Proposed explanations
1. Joseph’s line and Mary’s line. Matthew gives Joseph’s line; Luke gives Mary’s line. On this view, “Heli” was Mary’s father, and Joseph is listed as his son-in-law. Luke’s phrase “as was supposed” might signal that Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ biological father. This view is popular, and goes back at least to the 15th century (Annius of Viterbo). But Luke’s Greek most naturally reads as Joseph’s line, and ancient genealogies rarely traced descent through women.
2. Legal and biological lines. Both trace Joseph’s ancestry. One gives his legal line and the other his biological line. This is the oldest explanation, from Julius Africanus (early 3rd century), who claimed it came from Jesus’ relatives. Under levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5–6), if a man died childless, his brother married the widow, and their son was legally the dead man’s heir. Africanus proposed that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers; Heli died childless, Jacob married his widow, and Joseph was biologically Jacob’s son but legally Heli’s.
3. Royal succession and descent. Matthew traces the royal line of succession (who held the right to David’s throne), while Luke traces the actual descent.
4. Theological, not historical. Many critical scholars think the genealogies were constructed for theological purposes and can’t be fully harmonized.
The curse on Jeconiah
Matthew includes Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), a king of whom Jeremiah said “none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David” (Jeremiah 22:30). Some argue Luke’s line, through Nathan rather than Solomon and Jeconiah, avoids this problem: Jesus is Joseph’s legal heir through Matthew’s line, but not his biological descendant.
Context
Jewish families kept genealogical records, especially families of priests and those claiming royal descent. Josephus gives his own priestly genealogy from public records (Life 1). Eusebius records that relatives of Jesus, called the desposynoi, were known in the early church, and that the emperor Domitian questioned Jesus’ relatives about their descent from David.
Where they meet
The genealogies serve different purposes, and both claim Jesus is a descendant of David, a claim no early opponent seems to have disputed (see Romans 1:3). Christians propose different harmonies; none is certain.
What’s still open
Which explanation is correct, or whether a combination applies.
Bottom line
Common views: one traces Joseph’s line and one Mary’s, or one is the legal line and the other the biological line. This is rated Debated.