ANN010

The two genealogies of the Messiah Jesus

The article discusses the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, which are essential for establishing his messianic identity. Matthew emphasizes Joseph’s royal heritage, while Luke extends back to Adam through Mary, highlighting Jesus’ universal mission.

28 min genealogy Jesus Messiah Matthew Luke 19 verses 8 books

Further information

You can consult:

Introduction

Nowadays, genealogical research remains mainly a pastime for retired people. It arouses interest only for the family that is the subject of the research. However, this was not the case in the 1st century in Israel. Indeed, a person’s ancestry gave them, or did not give them, a position in Jewish society.

Certain positions, closely linked to religion or to the monarchy, depended directly on a person’s lineage. Thus, some individuals went so far as to spend a considerable sum to acquire a fictitious genealogy, in order to obtain a higher social status.

Indeed, only those descended from the tribe of Levi were authorized to carry out religious duties, while the kingship was reserved for the descendants of the tribe of Judah.

A notable example is that of King Herod the Great, who was never recognized by the Jews, because he did not have the royal ancestry necessary to hold that office.

Every Jewish family kept documents proving its origins, which were regarded as precious items.

Here we become aware of the importance of legitimizing one’s ancestry in order to serve as a priest.

It was imperative that Jesus descend from the tribe of Judah, and therefore from David, in order to lay claim to the title of Messiah.

Matthew and Luke both present to us the genealogy of Jesus, the Messiah. However, their differences raise problems. How can we explain this?

I. The two genealogies of the Messiah Jesus

Here are the two genealogies of the Gospels, those of Matthew and of Luke. They have given rise to many debates and interpretations.

Joseph, just like Mary, therefore holds family documents that are handed down from generation to generation. It is possible that Mary retrieved her papers from an older brother or a sister at a later time, and then showed them to Luke.

Indeed, it was neither Matthew nor Luke who carried out the precise research into the names of the ancestors, but the families of that time often possessed this kind of document, similar to a family record book today in France.

We are going to study the differences in the names in order to understand the reasons that led Luke to write a second list, even though he already knew Matthew’s.

II. The genealogy recorded by Matthew

Matthew, addressing the Jews, had to comply with an imperative Jewish rule: to record the genealogy of Jesus in order to prove that he could lay claim to the title of Messiah and king. We notice that Matthew does not begin his genealogy in the ordinary way, but begins with Abraham and lists the entire line of descent down to David.

These two figures, well known to all the Jews, are the reason for this list of names. Matthew had access to a precious document: the genealogy of Joseph, which demonstrates his royal descent.

This type of papyrus was carefully kept by families, handed down from generation to generation and updated regularly.

Matthew therefore gives us the ancestry of the legal father, Joseph, which is in keeping with Jewish principles. Legally, even though Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, by taking Mary, his betrothed, into his home, he confirms two principles: first, Mary officially becomes his wife, and second, the child she is carrying is automatically considered to be his own.

The many religious opponents of Jesus, during his lifetime, never allude to his miraculous birth, which allows us to imagine that Matthew is the first to disclose this exceptional fact.

Luke confirms this hypothesis by writing in his list of names: “as was supposed, the son of Joseph”. Nathanael regards Jesus as coming from Nazareth John 1.46. For the people of his time, the Messiah Jesus is a Nazarene, the son of Joseph.

According to the Jewish law then in force, Joseph therefore confers on this child all the rights attached to his lineage. Matthew’s aim is clear: from the very beginning of his genealogy, he indicates that the Messiah Jesus is a son of Abraham, therefore a Jew, and a son of David, a descendant of Judah, therefore a potential king.

Let us not forget the covenants made with these two men. The first, between God and Abraham Genesis 12.1-7 and Genesis 15.1-7, speaks of a descendant who will bring a great blessing to all the peoples of the earth, and the second, with David 2 Samuel 7.16 and 2 Chronicles 6.16, specifies that this line of descent will be royal.

It is therefore necessary that the Messiah be, as the Jews rightly observed, a descendant of these two men in order to fit into the fulfillment of these two covenants, that of Abraham and that of David.

This reasoning of Matthew appears obvious and well understood by all the Jews of his time, to whom he is writing.

However, what about the non-Jews, who are unaware of these laws?

Luke’s discovery provides an answer to this question. We notice that, unlike Luke, Matthew does not trace the ancestry of Jesus back to God, because that would be hard for a Jew to understand.

We remember how brutal the reaction of the was when the Messiah Jesus presented himself as the Son of God Matthew 26.62-68.

For the Jews, God has no son!

III. The genealogy recorded by Luke

Luke proceeds as we would today to establish a genealogy, starting from the “de cujus” in order to record the ancestors. He therefore begins with Jesus and goes back through the generations, whereas Matthew did the opposite, starting with Abraham and arriving, at the end, at the main character, Jesus.

Luke’s genealogy differs from Matthew’s. Some have indeed tried to alter the names to demonstrate that the two lists, Luke’s and Matthew’s, are one, but the result has proved disappointing and above all unacceptable, in the face of the precision of the text.

We do not even consider the hypothesis of errors, which would be an insult to the intelligence of the two authors. Luke knew Matthew’s writings!

Genealogy held a very important place among the Jews and was the subject of thorough study. Such errors are simply inconceivable and above all inadmissible for the Jews as a whole.

The only possibility that remains is that this genealogy is that of Mary and not that of Joseph.

Luke notes that the Messiah Jesus was, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. The exact word should have been “son-in-law of Heli” in this case. That word does not exist in Greek, so Luke uses the term son, because of his marriage to Mary.

Heli is therefore the father of Mary and the father-in-law of Joseph.

A maternal genealogy remains highly unusual, but the birth of Jesus without the involvement of a man is also unique and not very easy to explain, we must admit. Luke knew that a maternal genealogy was never studied, but he was faced with a dilemma.

How is one to understand the origins of the Messiah Jesus?

Let us not forget his training as a physician, which without any doubt strongly influences his account.

For Luke, the only solution is to specify the ancestry of the biological mother, Mary. This is why he states: “as was supposed, the son of Joseph”. This is indeed the only logic acceptable to all these non-Jews.

We notice that the miraculous birth of Jesus was not known during his lifetime and that everyone considered him to be the son of Joseph.

We may nevertheless ask ourselves the following question: why did Luke not directly give Mary’s name in this particular case?

That would have been simpler and would have made the text easier to understand. We must not forget the position of women in society at that time. Even the disciples themselves were shocked to see Jesus, the Messiah, speaking to this woman, a John 4.27.

When we mentioned that the maternal genealogy was not common at the time, we should have specified that, in reality, it was not accepted.

If Luke had specified that the line of descent he presented was that of Mary, many readers would simply have rejected it without thinking and would not have continued their study. By proceeding as he did, Luke shocks no one and relates the truth.

We realize why Matthew, in his writing, recorded the lineage of the Messiah Jesus. He was addressing Jews who attached great importance to the origins of a person laying claim to a title.

However, what purpose does Luke have when he addresses converted pagans, who in general do not take the same interest in a person’s ancestry?

Luke realizes that when non-Jews read Matthew’s text, they will not understand why Joseph, a stranger, is mentioned in the birth of Jesus. These subtleties of Jewish law are unknown to all these converted pagans. As a result, Matthew’s demonstration may seem misleading.

It is then that Mary provides the solution by presenting documents proving her descent. Luke consults them and discovers that Mary is also of royal lineage, just like Joseph. Thus, Jesus can legitimately lay claim to the title of Messiah and King of the Jews, because royal blood flows in his veins through his mother, Mary.

Luke therefore develops another demonstration, understandable to all non-Jews. Luke’s genealogy is therefore addressed to non-Jews or converted pagans. Without naming Mary, he begins with Jesus the son of Joseph, then goes back up to David, the only king mentioned, then to Abraham, who is the father of believers, and finally to Adam, who is the father of all humanity, and even to God the great Creator.

Thus, Jesus is the Son of God. This genealogy of Luke is made up of eleven series of seven names (11 x 7 = 77). It is certainly no coincidence that Luke mentions 77 names; this number is highly symbolic and evokes perfection.

IV. Comparison of the two lists

We are going to take up the two genealogies again in order to compare the lists of names.

Note 1: Luke states: “He was, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli”. In the case of a genealogy of Mary, as we suppose, Joseph is Heli’s son-in-law and not his son as recorded by Luke. The term son frequently stood in for that of son-in-law, since the latter has no precise equivalent in Greek. We have replaced the name of Joseph with that of Mary, who is not named in Luke’s text.

Note 2: we have set Luke’s list in the same direction as Matthew’s in order to compare them more easily. We have also removed the whole part after David that Matthew does not cite.

Note 3: Matthew and Luke both record Abraham, the father of believers

Joseph’s contemporaries knew the name of his father, and are not surprised by the expression used by Luke.

In examining these two genealogies, we can observe similarities. Indeed, the same names are mentioned several times, particularly in the section from Abraham to David, which is identical in both cases.

However, we are also compelled to acknowledge that there are serious differences, which lead us to a more in-depth analysis.

Matthew cites the descendants of Solomon, the second son of David with Bathsheba, whereas Luke mentions Nathan, the third of David’s four sons with Bathsheba. From that point on, the two lines naturally diverge.

It is impossible for the same person to descend from two different lines unless it happens through a marriage and the adoption of the wife’s lineage. This option is hard to accept, which leads us to think that there were two distinct individuals.

We know that, for the Jews of that time, genealogy was regarded as an exact and precise science. As we have already pointed out, some individuals altered their ancestry at great expense in order to obtain a better status in society, but this concerned mainly wealthy people and remained exceptional.

It is therefore unthinkable that Matthew or Luke made a mistake or attempted any kind of adaptation. Indeed, the purpose of these genealogies is simply to demonstrate that Jesus can lay claim, by his ancestry, to the status of Messiah or King of the Jews.

An inaccuracy, quickly detected, would have classed Jesus as an impostor. The whole argument of Matthew’s account would collapse in that case.

We must not overlook the fact that the religious leaders, who ruled the country and were strongly opposed to this new doctrine, certainly did not fail to verify the credibility of these claims in their research. Indeed, even though Matthew had not yet written his genealogy, the Messiah Jesus was often called son of David, which did not fail to challenge his opponents Matthew 12.23.

This wording appears 22 times in the Gospels.
How can we explain the differences between the information given by Matthew and that given by Luke?

The most fitting answer, and now the most widely recognized, is that Matthew presents to us the genealogy of Joseph, the legal father, whereas Luke describes that of Mary, the biological mother.

V. How many people are there in Matthew’s genealogy?

How many individuals are there in this genealogy?

Is it 42 (3X14), as Matthew says, or 41, as he writes it?

Matthew summarized his list and brought out three groups of 14 people. Indeed, we do have 14 names in the period running from Abraham to David.

There are also 14 names for the period from David to the deportation, but there are only 13 names, not 14, in the period after the deportation up to Christ.

We are therefore obliged to add the name of Mary, whom Matthew mentions, in order to reach 14 names.

Thus, Matthew inserted Mary into his genealogy, which visibly concerns Joseph, because he already knew the extraordinary circumstances of the conception of the Child Jesus and did not want to be misunderstood by naming only Joseph.

Indeed, the child cannot be both the son of Joseph and that of the Holy Spirit.

It is to avoid this contradiction that Matthew includes Mary in his genealogy of Joseph, although in theory there is no reason to name her.

It appears that he did not record all the names of this line, but only the main ones in his eyes, in order to make memorization easier. The numbers chosen, three times 14 (2X7), remain significant for a Jew.

VI. Why does Matthew name 4 women in his list before Mary?

Women are, as a general rule, not mentioned in a Jewish genealogy, but Matthew’s list overturns this rule.

He does not do so without reason, for in acting this way, he takes the same position as the Messiah Jesus, who likewise did not hesitate to transgress the Jewish rules separating men and women. He spoke directly to a woman on several occasions. The status of women began to change.

It is undeniable that these women did not enjoy an excellent reputation! The first, Tamar (Matthew 1.1), prostituted herself (Genesis 38.13-30). The second, Rahab (Matthew 1.3), was a former prostitute (Joshua 2.1). The case of the third seems different, Ruth (Matthew 1.5), a foreigner, a former pagan (Ruth 1.4) who seduced Boaz, and the last, Bathsheba (Matthew 1.4), was an adulterous woman (2 Samuel 11.1-5).

These women, in contact with Jewish law and above all with the one God, changed and thus joined the prestigious lineage of the Messiah Jesus. If we examine the lives of the men mentioned, we are also very far from perfection. We can cite one example, Judah with Tamar, whom he takes for a prostitute and with whom he had twin sons, Perez and Zerah (Genesis 38.12-30).

The list of the men is therefore no better than that of the women. We are confronted with an enumeration of names, very human, which reflects the sinful nature of the men and women who make up humanity.

Matthew’s choice to name these four women shows that in this new structure, the Church, there must not be, as in the Jewish society of the time, any difference between man and woman, but that all are equal and have access to the same salvation.

VII. Mary’s parents

Galatians 3.28 (King James Version) :
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
King James Version (1769), domaine public — texte : eBible.org

We concluded, from the study of the genealogies in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, that Mary’s ancestry is linked to Heli. However, Catholic tradition names Anne and Joachim as her parents, raising the question: Heli or Joachim, who is the true father of Mary?

In examining the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, we deduced that these authors refer to two distinct lines, those of Joseph and of Mary. We have set aside the hypothesis of errors these evangelists. Thus, Heli appears to be the father of Mary, according to the direct interpretation of Luke’s biblical text.

Apocryphal works such as the Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, although popular in the Catholic, Orthodox and even Islamic traditions, lack any historical foundation and appear to be the fruit of their authors’ imagination, aiming to give Mary an extraordinary history.

These accounts, influenced by the story of Hannah and Elkanah 1 Samuel 1.1, create a miraculous biography for Mary, bringing her out of anonymity. The Qur’an itself draws on these , as shown by the Surah Al-Imran.

As for the identification of Joachim with Imran or a variant of Heli, this is a hypothesis that does not command unanimity among scholars.

In summary, despite the traditions and the apocryphal accounts, we lack reliable historical data to confirm Mary’s ancestry with certainty. The genealogy presented by Luke, identifying Heli as the father of Mary, remains the most plausible in the biblical context.

Conclusion

We cannot explore this subject further within the framework of our present study. However, we observe and understand the pragmatism of the authors of the Gospels, in particular Matthew and Luke, who adapted their writings to their respective audiences.

Their differing approaches are not contradictory, but rather complementary. According to our analysis, Matthew focuses on the line of Joseph while Luke addresses the ancestry of Mary. This interpretation will be the foundation of our future studies on Mary.

Luke’s presentation of Heli as the father of Mary does not necessarily contradict the Catholic or Islamic traditions. It is possible that the names Joachim and Imran are variants of the Hebrew Heli, although this hypothesis does not command unanimity among scholars.

Matthew and Luke converge on the same essential conclusion: Jesus is the Messiah and the King of the Jews. This statement is indisputable, regardless of the discussions about the genealogy, because both of them legally grant him the right to claim these titles of great importance.