Genealogy of Yeshua (Jesus)
in Matthew and Luke

by Harvey Block
(2023/07/28)

Matthew traces the lineage of Jesus from Abraham down to Jesus.

Luke traces the lineage of Jesus back to Adam and God (in reverse order).

The overlapping portion from Abraham to Jesus, given in both accounts, is broken into two sections
a) from Abraham to David, and
b) from David to Jesus.
This can be seen from two facts. Matthew 1:1 (KJV) says "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And the fact that the lineage of the two lists (Matt and Luke) is in agreement from Abraham to David, but not from David to Jesus.

The Problem

Both accounts, in most versions, appear to trace the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, his "adoptive", "legal", or "supposed" father. This is a problem because the lineage from Joseph back to David has two very different versions. It is impossible for any person to have more than one biological paternal lineage. You, for example have exactly one and only one biological father. Your father had only one biological father, and so on. So how could Jesus have two different paternal lineages?

Differing Attempts to Resolve the Problem

Some scholars have suggested that the "Levirate law" is involved. The Levirate law says that if a man's brother dies childless, then the man must marry his deceased brother's wife to raise up seed to his brother. (Deut. 25:5-10).

An example of this explanation may be found in an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding "Heli the father of Joseph." It says:

Heli the Father of Joseph

Heli (Gr. HELEI — Luke 3:23) is evidently the same name as the preceding. In Luke he is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matt., I, 16, Jacob was Joseph's father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow "shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother" (Deuteronomy 25:5). The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deuteronomy 25:6). Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent. (Cf. Maas, "The Gosp. acc. to S. Matt.", i, 16.) Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who wrote a learned work on the "Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus Christ", thinks that Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob's brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.

Here it is suggested that Joseph's "legal father," Jacob, died childless and Joseph's uncle Heli became his biological father. But that only pushes the question back one generation. How can two brothers have two biological fathers, unless the Levirate law is in effect again, which is impossible because if the two brothers are from the two fathers, then it is evident that neither father "died childless." But even if you could assume that the Levirate law was somehow involved, it cannot begin to explain the two long lists of different fathers going back to David. Or this Levirate law is broken and the mother marries outside of the family. This "explanation" abounds with problems.

3:23-38 There are several differences between Luke's genealogy and Matthew's (1:2-16). Matthew begins with Abraham (the father of the Jewish people), while Luke traces the line in reverse order and goes back to Adam, showing Jesus' relationship to the whole human race (see note on 2:31). From Abraham to David, the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are almost the same, but from David on they are different. Some scholars suggest that this is because Matthew traces the legal descent of the house of David using only heirs to the thrown, while Luke traces the complete line of Joseph to David.

The note continues with:

A more likely explanation, however, is that Matthew follows the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father), while Luke emphasizes that of Mary (Jesus' blood relative). Although tracing a lineage through the mother's side is unusual, so was the virgin birth. Luke's explanation here that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought", (v. 23), brings to mind his explicit virgin birth statement (1:34-35) and suggest the importance of Mary's role in Jesus' genealogy.

I will later discuss the logic of these two views.

Another Problem

Matthew further breaks the lineage from David to Jesus into two, for a total of three groups of fourteen generations each, as stated in Matt. 1:17,

"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

Although there is some debate about generations being skipped in order to bring the numbers each to fourteen, there is another problem that is more clearly apparent. Simply counting all the generations gives only 41, but 3 times 14 is 42 generations; there is one missing. Taking them by groups, counting from Abraham to David including both is 14 names, from Solomon to Jeconiah is 14, but from Shealtiel to Jesus is only 13. So the missing generation seems to be in the third group. Some have suggested that David is counted twice, but that would be irregular; why not also count Jeconiah twice, as also being a carryover of two sections? But that would give 14,15,14, still not right. And if you count David twice (since he is mentioned twice in v. 17) then we would have 14, 15, 13. It would seem that the only way to get it to be 14, 14, 14 is to count Jeconiah twice but David only once. But Jeconiah is not even mentioned in v 17, whereas David is mentioned twice.

Comparing the genealogy list in 1 Chronicles 3, you find that there are three names after Uzziah, who is also known as Ahaziah, not included in Matthew's list, Joash, Amaziah and Azariah. If you include the three skipped generations, then you would have 14, 17, 13. This would only add to the problem. The skipped generations will not be discussed in this paper, though there is an interesting explanation for it.

[Note: (Added 2014/05/01) At the original writing of this article back in 2008, I wrote the above paragraph, making reference to the explanation of the three missing names. Unfortunately, I have lost track of the interesting explanation of this problem.]

Another seeming difficulty is that Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel appear in both lists. Although it is possible for two different paternal lines to join at an earlier time, as in David, it is not possible for any paternal lineage to diverge into two distinct paternal lines. In order for Shealtiel's line in Matthew's account to end up at David's son Solomon, and Shealtiel's line in Luke's account to end up at David's son Nathan, there must be two different Shealtiels. There must also be two different Zerubbabels, whose fathers happen to be two men both named Shealtiel. This should not be surprising, as there are numerous names that appear more than once in these lists (Jacob, Joseph, Mattathias, Judah and others).

Discussion of Attempts to Resolve the Problem

According to the note in the NIV quoted above, there are two differing views given by "modern scholarship" for how to understand this problem.

First, that both lists trace the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, but,

Matthew traces the legal descent of the house of David using only heirs to the thrown, while Luke traces the complete line of Joseph to David.

If this were true, we should expect that all the names in this part of Matthews list would be a subset of the names in Luke's list, in the same order. But this is far from the case.

And second:

A more likely explanation, however, is that Matthew follows the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father), while Luke emphasizes that of Mary (Jesus' blood relative). Although tracing a lineage through the mother's side is unusual, so was the virgin birth. Luke's explanation here that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought", (v. 23), brings to mind his explicit virgin birth statement (1:34-35) and suggest the importance of Mary's role in Jesus' genealogy.

This at least seems to get closer to making sense that the two lists are indeed different.

But if Luke's list is the genealogy through Mary, why is she not even mentioned in Luke 3:23:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,...

And the account goes back to David's son Nathan, rather than Solomon through whom the seed was promised.

And if the list in Matthew is supposed to be the genealogy through Joseph, why does it say in Matthew 1:16:

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

This shows that Jesus was "born" (carried) of Mary and not "begotten" of Joseph. All babies are "begotten" of men and "born" of women, with the exception of Jesus who was "begotten" of God and "born" of the woman Mary.

But most significantly since the blood line for the Christ was to be through David's son Solomon, How can this line come down through Solomon and end in Mary's husband Joseph who had no biological connection with Jesus whatsoever.

It would seem that somehow the NIV note has the two sides exactly backwards.

There is no hint of a real solution to these problems to be found in any Greek manuscript or English translation from the Greek that I am aware of.

Genealogy of Yeshua (Jesus) in Matthew and Luke

	in Matthew		in Luke
		1	God
		2	Adam
		3	Seth
		4	Enosh
		5	Kenan
		6	Mahalalel
		7*	Jared
		8	Enoch
		9	Methuselah
		10	Lamech
		11	Noah
		12	Shem
		13	Arphaxad
		14*	Cainan
		15	Shelah
		16	Eber
		17	Peleg
		18	Reu
		19	Serug
		20	Nahor
		21*	Terah
1	Abraham	22	Abraham
2	Isaac	23	Isaac
3	Jacob	24	Jacob
4	Judah	25	Judah
5	Perez	26	Perez
6	Hezron	27	Hezron
7*	Ram	28*	Ram
8	Amminadab	29	Amminadab
9	Nahshon	30	Nahshon
10	Salmon	31	Salmon
11	Boaz	32	Boaz
12	Obed	33	Obed
13	Jesse	34	Jesse
14*	David	35*	David
1	Solomon	36	Nathan
2	Rehoboam	37	Mattatha
3	Abijah	38	Menna
4	Asa	39	Melea
5	Jehoshaphat	40	Eliakim
6	Jehoram	41	Jonam
7*	Uzziah # ///	42*	Joseph
8	Jotham	43	Judah
9	Ahaz	44	Simeon
10	Hezekiah	45	Levi
11	Manasseh	46	Matthat
12	Amon	47	Jorim
13	Josiah	48	Eliezer
14*	Jeconiah	49*	Joshua
1	Shealtiel	50	Er
2	Zerubbabel	51	Elmadam
3	Abiud	52	Cosam
4	Eliakim	53	Addi
5	Azor	54	Melki
6	Zadok	55	Neri
7*	Akim	56*	Shealtiel
8	Eliud	57	Zerubbabel
9	Eleazar	58	Rhesa
10	Matthan	59	Joanan
11	Jacob	60	Joda
12	Joseph, Mary	61	Josech
?	?	62	Semein
14*	Jesus*	63*	Mattathias
		64	Maath
		65	Naggai
		66	Esli
		67	Nahum
		68	Amos
		69	Mattathias
		70*	Joseph
		71	Jannai
		72	Melki
		73	Levi
		74	Matthat
		75	Heli
		76	Joseph
		77*	Jesus

* Designates generations that are multiples of 7.

# There are three generations missing after Uzziah.

Resolution

The majority of modern scholars assume that the New Testament was written in Greek. Some scholars, however, believe that at least some of the New Testament books were originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, but that there have not remained any manuscripts from those original languages. So apparently the best we have is the Greek.

There are however many thousands of differences among the existing Greek manuscripts. The various manuscripts can be generally grouped into several "text types". There are four "text types" that are understood to include the great majority of manuscripts and fragments of the Greek text. They are the Western, Antiochian (Byzantine), "Caesarean" and Alexandrian text types. There are many variations between these manuscripts on every single page of the New Testament. The study of these manuscript differences is called "Textual Criticism". The goal of textual criticism is to attempt to determine which of these variant readings most likely represents the original autograph (the writing of the original author). "Textual critics" should not be confused with the so called "Higher Critics", whose goal is, apparently, to discredit the divine origin of the scriptural texts.

In recent years, however, another "witness" to the original writings has come to light. It is the Aramaic bible, known as the Peshitta. The Peshitta has largely been ignored by Western scholarship for various reasons. The Peshitta, however, contains new insight into problems that have found no resolution in the Greek manuscripts.

The next page is the literal interlinear version of the Peshitta for Matthew 1:16 as translated by Paul Younan, taken from the Internet. (Note: The website that this was from no longer exists.)

The explanation which follows is largely from the work of Paul Younan and Glenn David Bauscher, to whom I am indebted.

The word "husband" in v. 16 of most English versions is here translated as "kinsman" from the Aramaic word "Gbra". Footnote 1, at the bottom of the page, says:

1. Gbra literally means 'Protective Male.' It is unclear whether the text refers to Maryam's father or to her husband.

All Greek versions, as far as I know, have the word "andra" which means either man (male) or husband. "the man of Mary" would mean her husband, i.e. "Mary's man". "Andra" would not normally be understood as "father" to a Greek speaking person.

The Aramaic Peshitta, on the other hand, has "Gbra" which can be understood to mean either father, husband or male guardian, etc.

By understanding this word to mean "father" we have a very clean solution to both problems. First, the genealogy in Matthew is then clearly the lineage through Mary and the genealogy in Luke is through Jesus' adoptive (or supposed) father, just as it says. And second, Joseph and Mary are two generations not one. This gives the full 14, 14 and 14 generations.

So are there two different Josephs?

Yes, "Joseph son of Jacob", Mary's father, and "Joseph son of Heli", her husband. In fact Joseph is the most common name in the genealogy lists of Jesus, and occurs three times in Luke's list.

And so the note in the NIV Study Bible does have the two genealogies reversed. And all these problems are fully resolved by the correct translation of just one word.

NOTE: Aramaic is read right to left, so the English above is also read in that order. But where there is more than one English word above a single Aramaic word, the group is read left to right. And the four names transliterated from Aramaic are indeed Jacob, Joseph, Mary and Jesus.
So verse 16 is read as;

"Yaqub fathered Yosep the kinsman ₁ of Maryam from whom was born Yeshua who is called the Messiah".

Interesting Ramifications

In Matthew, Yeshua came as the King: Genealogy of the royal line of King David by blood.
In Mark, Yeshua lived as a Servant: No genealogy for servants.
In Luke, Yeshua is "the son of Man": Genealogy of man, by his adoptive father back to Adam.
In John, Yeshua is "the son of God": John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Matthew

The gospel according to Matthew is known as the gospel of the Kingdom, with it's many parables of "the Kingdom of the Heavens is like ...". It is only right that Yeshua be shown as the blood descendant of David, through Solomon, not Nathan, and on down through all the kings of Judah, the southern kingdom. This must be through Mary, not Joseph, because God promised to David that he would forever have a son, by blood—"from his loins", that would sit on his throne. As it says in many places:

29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, (Acts 2:29-30)

11 The Lord has sworn in truth to David; He will not turn from it: “I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body. 12 If your sons will keep My covenant And My testimony which I shall teach them, Their sons also shall sit upon your throne forevermore.” (Psalms 132:11-12)

1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, (Romans 1:1-3)

17 “For thus says the Lord: ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; 18 nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.’” (Jeremiah 33:17-18)

4 However the Lord God of Israel chose me above all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever, for He has chosen Judah to be the ruler. And of the house of Judah, the house of my father, and among the sons of my father, He was pleased with me to make me king over all Israel. 5 And of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons) He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. 6 Now He said to me, ‘It is your son Solomon who shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Father. 7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom forever, if he is steadfast to observe My commandments and My judgments, as it is this day.’ 8 Now therefore, in the sight of all Israel, the assembly of the Lord, and in the hearing of our God, be careful to seek out all the commandments of the Lord your God, that you may possess this good land, and leave it as an inheritance for your children after you forever. (1 Chronicles 28:4-7)

18 But the Lord said to my father David, ‘Whereas it was in your heart to build a temple for My name, you did well that it was in your heart. 19 Nevertheless you shall not build the temple, but your son who will come from your body, he shall build the temple for My name.’ (1 Kings 8:18-19)

8 But the Lord said to my father David, ‘Whereas it was in your heart to build a temple for My name, you did well in that it was in your heart. 9 Nevertheless you shall not build the temple, but your son who will come from your body, he shall build the temple for My name.’ (2 Chronicles 6:8-9).

So clearly Yeshua must be a blood son of David, most likely through Solomon, not through Nathan.

Luke

Once the genealogy in Matthew is properly understood, then the genealogy in Luke's gospel becomes completely clear and straightforward. Yeshua was adopted by Joseph, Mary's husband, as a man, a descendant of Adam.

Isn't it interesting that He was adopted as a son into the genealogy of a man, and we may be adopted into God's family as sons of God?

Yeshua (Jesus) as Prophet, Priest and King

God had established through the blessing of Jacob, Israel, upon his sons, that royalty would be in the house of Judah forever:

8 “Judah, you are he whom your brothers shall praise; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies;
Your father’s children shall bow down before you.
9 Judah is a lion’s whelp;
From the prey, my son, you have gone up.
He bows down, he lies down as a lion;
And as a lion, who shall rouse him?
10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
Nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
Until Shiloh comes;
And to Him shall be the obedience of the people.
11 Binding his donkey to the vine,
And his donkey’s colt to the choice vine,
He washed his garments in wine,
And his clothes in the blood of grapes.
12 His eyes are darker than wine,
And his teeth whiter than milk.
(Genesis 49:8-12)

So a king must be of the line of Judah.

But, God had established the line of priests in the house of Levi. Moses and Aaron and all the priests who took care of the service of the Tabernacle, Temple and sacrifices were of the tribe of Levi. No one but the Levites could enter into the Most Holy Place in the Temple.

18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. (Genesis 14:18)

4 The Lord has sworn And will not relent, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalm 110:4)

13 Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, And shall sit and rule on His throne; So He shall be a priest on His throne, And the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’ (Zechariah 6:13)

God, on the other hand, called people from many sectors to be Prophets. But Moses was a prophet of Levi. And regarding Moses, God said:

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, (Deuteronomy 18:15)

For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. (Acts 3:22)

“This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear.’ (Acts 7:37)

So, the Messiah had also to be a Prophet of the tribe of Levi, as Moses was.

When Mary was pregnant with Jesus, she went to visit her relative Elizabeth who was of the tribe of Levi:

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. (Luke 1:5)

And continuing in verse 35:

35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”

38 Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

39 Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, 40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.” (Luke 1:35-45)

Now, Elizabeth was the wife of Zechariah the priest of the lineage of Levi, and a priest could not marry outside of the tribe of Levi. Therefore Elizabeth had to be of the tribe of Levi, and since she was a relative of Mary, it is most probable that it was Mary's mother that was of the tribe of Levi.

Mary's father is a son of Judah in the royal line, and Mary's mother was a Levite in the priestly line. So the royal line through David and Solomon, and the priestly line of Levi came together, by blood, in Mary the mother of Yeshua. And a prophet can be from any tribe. But, "the Prophet" to come had to be of the brethren of Moses, a Levite. Therefore Yeshua (Jesus) is fully the Prophet, the Priest and the King.