The New Testament includes two genealogies of Jesus of Nazareth, one in Matthew 1:1-17, and another in Luke 3:23-38. Together, they present Jesus as descended from Abraham and David, while explaining His place within Israel’s royal history and His genuine humanity.
Matthew’s genealogy primarily establishes that Jesus of Nazareth is the long-awaited Messiah, the “son of David” and the “son of Abraham.” Luke’s genealogy traces Jesus’ lineage back through David and Abraham to Adam, the son of God, emphasizing that Jesus is truly man and that the Messiah belongs not to Israel alone, but to the whole world of sinners.
Why Jesus’ genealogy matters
Although the modern reader may find these lists of names less than scintillating, they are in fact supremely important to the argument of the New Testament concerning the person and claims of Jesus. These seemingly archaic and technical passages deserve careful study.
Matthew penned his gospel in order to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the long-awaited Messiah of Israel. To the Jewish mind, one question would have to be answered before such a proposition could be pursued any further: “Is this Jesus a descendant of the house of David?”
Thus Matthew begins his telling of Jesus’ life with the bold affirmation: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1). This is where any claim to Messianic identity must begin.
The Davidic covenant and the royal Messiah
Yahweh had cut a covenant in which He had promised David, “your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:6, KJV). For generations, Israel had rejoiced in the hope that God had promised to “build up [David’s] throne to all generations” (Psalm 89:4).
Indeed, they had been taught that as they ascended toward the temple to worship they should remember that promise, singing with the psalmist, “The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; He will not turn from it; of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne” (Psalm 132:11).
In short, the hope of Messiah animated the Jewish soul, but that Messiah must be the son of David, and as such “the son of Abraham.” The issue of descent from these two great fountains of Jewish identity and hope is paramount.
It is necessary that Jesus is a descendent of both David and Solomon because of the covenant God made with both those kings (2 Sam 7:12-13; 1 Kings 9:5). John 7:4, Acts 13:22-33 (written by Luke!), Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8, and Revelation 22:16 all indicate that Jesus is the offspring of David, thus placing Him clearly in the royal lineage.
The Greek word for offspring is “sperma,” from which we get the English, sperm. Romans 1:3 even adds the phrase, “in the flesh,” to describe Jesus’ descent from David.
Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus
The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy
Strictly speaking, the purpose of this genealogy is to prove to Jewish readers that Jesus of Nazareth as the seed of Abraham and the son of David was the long-awaited Messiah. The genealogy further teaches us that Christ entered the stream of humanity for all people - Jews and Gentiles alike.
The Creator became incarnate. He fully took on flesh, made Himself of no reputation, and humbled Himself, submitting to the death of the cross (Phil. 2:7-8). The mystery is that He took on human flesh and human nature and yet did not sin.
Matthew’s three-part structure
Though in many ways a standard Hebrew genealogy, this passage is peculiar on at least two counts. First, it is arranged symmetrically; three sections of fourteen generations each. This rather artificial structure is clearly intended as “an easy help to the memory.”
But in order to achieve this symmetry, Matthew counts one name twice (Jehoiachin), while omitting others-most clearly the three generations of kings after J[eh]oram (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, compare 1 Chronicles 3:10-12).
Perhaps Matthew omitted these because they were the most immediate descendants of Ahab and Jezebel! At any rate, such omission does not compromise the integrity of the genealogy; such a list is intended to demonstrate descent, not to be an exhaustive listing of names.
Further, the verb used throughout the list (translated “begat” in the KJV) more literally means “was the ancestor of.” Matthew has determined to demonstrate that Jesus does fulfill the first test of a Messianic claimant (descent from David), and to do so in a way that could be easily memorized.
Indeed, some have argued that the number fourteen was suggested by the numerical equivalent of David’s name (D:4 + V:6 + D:4 = 14). Although it is impossible to be certain that this was Matthew’s rationale (and other explanations have been suggested), the idea is intriguing as it places David even more dramatically at the heart of this genealogy.
The women named in Matthew’s genealogy
Second, Matthew’s genealogy is unusual in that it references four Old Testament women-Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (though not by name). The Gospelist seems to regard those four as anticipating Mary on two counts.
- each of these women “showed initiative . and so came to be considered the instrument of God’s providence” in bringing forth the Messiah;
- there was something unusual about each woman’s relationship to her husband-a narrative element which was irregular or even scandalous, but necessary to perpetuate the line of Messiah.
Thus did these women foreshadow Mary, who responded in humble but anxious faith to the angelic announcement, and who nobly endured the malicious rumors concerning the birth of her first Son.
Depravity is clearly evident in the genealogy of Matthew 1. Christ’s forefathers were deeply fallen descendants of Adam. If the genealogy listed only such heroes of faith as Abraham or King Asa, we might say, “What a noble ancestry!”
But the genealogy of Jesus also includes Judah and Tamar, Rahab the harlot, David and Bathsheba, Joram and Manasseh. The Holy Spirit wants us to know that Jesus’ family history includes wicked men, prostitutes, and other notorious sinners.
The sinless Lord of glory was willing to descend from notably sinful forebears. The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to include Judah, Tamar, Rahab, Bathsheba, and Manasseh in Jesus’ genealogy. He could have left their names out.
After all, this list is not complete; several names, including at least three kings, are missing. The undesirables in Jesus’ ancestry are included to show us that no sinner is beyond the saving reach of Jesus.
Ruth, Moabite ancestry, and Naamah the Ammonite
Matthew’s genealogy goes from David (descended from the Moabite Ruth) to Solomon to Rehoboam (whose mother is Naamah, the Ammonite), while Luke’s goes from David to Nathan and doesn’t mention Rehoboam.
By implication then, he had not only Hebrew blood, but also Moabite and Ammonite blood. Without a doubt, Jesus was raised in a family with Moabite and Ammonite blood in their veins.
Given that, perhaps there is only little evidence that Jesus had Rehoboam’s blood in his veins, but there is copious evidence that He had David’s.
Luke’s genealogy of Jesus
The purpose of Luke’s genealogy
Luke penned his gospel for a Greek audience. His concern was to demonstrate the genuine humanity of Jesus, to establish for his readers the truth of Jesus’ claim to be the “Son of Man.”
Therefore his genealogy traces the lineage of Jesus not only to David (3:31) and Abraham (3:34), but all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (3:38).
This is unusual, but by this means Luke’s proves that Jesus is truly man, and thus that “the Messiah belongs not to Israel alone, but to the whole world of sinners.”
Luke’s reverse order
Luke’s genealogy is almost startling in that he inverts the standard order, beginning with Jesus and working backwards in time to Adam. Official registers list persons as they are born, and thus descend in time from earlier to later generations.
This is clear indication that Luke’s genealogy is his own work, drawn from public documents, but crafted to place emphasis on the individual at the beginning of the list, Jesus.
Again, Luke places his genealogy at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, rather than at the beginning of the Gospel. Not until the Messiah has been anointed by the Spirit (3:22) does the drama of Messiah’s ministry commence, and this is Luke’s focus.
Compare Moses’ pedigree, recorded not in connection with his birth, but at the beginning of his public ministry, in Exodus 6:14-37.
Matthew and Luke compared
| Feature | Matthew | Luke |
|---|---|---|
| Reference | Matthew 1:1-17 | Luke 3:23-38 |
| Direction | From Abraham and David toward Jesus | From Jesus backward to Adam |
| Main emphasis | Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, son of David and son of Abraham | Jesus’ genuine humanity and universal relation to humanity |
| Royal line from David | David to Solomon | David to Nathan |
| Women mentioned | Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba | No women are named in the genealogy |
| Final ancestor | Abraham | Adam, the son of God |
Historical evidence for the genealogies
A word needs to be said in defense of the historical veracity of the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke. The fourth century historian Eusebius states that the genealogies of distinguished Jews were burned in the time of Herod in order to hide the “base origins” of that monarch, and some have argued on that basis that there were no records extant in the days of Jesus.
But Josephus, a late contemporary of Jesus, says nothing of such destruction, and he publishes his own genealogy. Further, the “taxing” of Luke 2:2 would have been unfeasible if there were no public records.
Finally, if the genealogies were not accurate, or even if their accuracy was unverifiable in the first century, they certainly would have been attacked early on by unbelievers.
Those unbelievers knew that if Jesus’ claim to Davidic and/or Abrahamic ancestry could be disproved, He would be demonstrated to be just another false Messiah. But no such attempt at discrediting the genealogies appears.
This is powerful testimony to the demonstrable veracity of these documents.
Why the genealogies differ
The genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are different. Matthew’s goes from David (descended from the Moabite Ruth) to Solomon to Rehoboam (whose mother is Naamah, the Ammonite), while Luke’s goes from David to Nathan and doesn’t mention Rehoboam.
Previously I was taught that one is the lineage of Mary, the other of Joseph. Tertullian believed Matthew’s to be of Mary and Luke’s to be of Joseph, while Luther believed Matthew’s to be of Joseph and Luke’s of Mary.
The apparent difficulty is that both genealogies seem to trace the line of Jesus’ adopted father, Joseph, while differing substantially from David to Christ. Matthew 1:16 says, “to Jacob was born Joseph,” and Luke 3:23 says, “Joseph, the son of Eli.”
The legal-and-natural descent proposal
Bible believers have suggested two basic approaches to solving this dilemma. The first is to posit that both genealogies do trace Joseph’s line, but that one follows his physical ancestry, while the other records his legal lineage.
The earliest proponent of this approach is Eusebius, who observes that even in the fourth century there were many uninformed opinions as to how to deal with this apparent conflict.
He argues that Joseph’s mother had been widowed without children, had married a brother of her deceased husband (levirate marriage, Deuteronomy 25:5-6), and then had borne Joseph by that second husband.
Thus, Joseph was the legal son of Eli (the first husband), but the natural son of Jacob (his mother’s second husband).
This explanation is possible, but it rests on the hypothesis of a levirate marriage and it leaves some important questions unanswered.
The Mary-and-Joseph proposal
A much stronger case can be made for the approach that acknowledges Matthew’s genealogy as that of Joseph, but argues that in Luke we have the genealogy of Jesus’ physical mother, Mary.
Three points are telling in defense of this approach. First, the name “Joseph” in Luke 3:23 is the only name in the list without the definite article. Each name in Matthew’s genealogy also has the article.
This is compelling evidence that this name ought not be read as part of Luke’s genealogical list; rather, it is part of the parenthetical statement inserted in that verse.
Thus, the verse should read, “Jesus Himself . being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli.” It is not Joseph who is “the son of Eli,” but Jesus. Eli is best identified as the father of Mary.
Luke is dealing resourcefully with a dilemma arising from the fact of Jesus’ virgin birth. Descent was not to be traced through a man’s mother, but through his father. But by reason of His supernatural conception in the womb of a virgin, Jesus had no physical father.
Thus, His physical genealogy had to be traced through his nearest male relative, His maternal grandfather. The name of that man was evidently Eli, as recorded in Luke 3:23.
Second, Luke has already given significant attention to Mary in the first two chapters of his Gospel (1:26-35; 2:19, 51) -this in contrast to Matthew’s nativity narrative, which mentions Mary only as the wife of Joseph.
Given Luke’s focus on Mary in his telling of the nativity, it is plausible to suggest that the genealogy he inserts after that narrative is in fact that of Mary.
Jesus’ physical descent from David
On the one hand, Solomon was the son of David to whom the throne had been promised (2 Samuel 12:25), and thus the legal authority to occupy that throne must descend through him.
Because Jesus’ adopted father, Joseph, traced his lineage to David through Solomon, Jesus inherited that prerogative (Matthew 1:17).
On the other hand, God had promised in the Davidic covenant that no one who was not of David’s seed-his physical descendant-would ever sit on that throne (Psalm 89:4).
Luke twice intimates Mary’s descent from David: first in the words of the angel to Mary (1:32), and again in recording that Mary went to register in the city of David (2:5).
But if Luke’s genealogy is not that of Mary, there is no explicit biblical affirmation that Jesus is physically a descendant of David.
Given the central place of the Davidic covenant in the fabric of Messianic expectation woven in the Old Testament, it is certainly reasonable to expect just such an affirmation-indeed, to find it in the genealogy recorded by Luke.
Was Jesus adopted by Joseph into Joseph’s Davidic ancestry or did Jesus have David’s blood in His veins by Mary’s ancestry? I believe both.
Joseph, Jeconiah, and the royal curse
The second ramification relates to Jeconiah, a king who is identified by Matthew as an ancestor of Joseph (1:11-12). Jeremiah pronounced a curse upon Jeconiah, proclaiming that “no man of [Jeconiah’s] seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (22:30).
By reason of that curse, the line of David from which Joseph descended was disqualified to sit on that throne. Had Jesus been the physical son of Joseph, He would have inherited that curse.
However, He was not the physical son of David through Joseph, but through Mary. “Jesus, genuinely a son of David through Mary according to the flesh (cf. Rom 1:3), by reason of the virgin birth and nonparticipation in the seed of Joseph, qualifies to receive the title without coming under the curse.”
Jesus’ ancestry and human nature
Matthew’s genealogy is a family tree of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God incarnated as the Son of Man. Matthew wrote his gospel primarily to the Jews.
As a covenant document, Matthew’s genealogy reveals the faithfulness of God in keeping His promises from generation to generation to Abraham and his seed, to Judah and his tribe, to David and his house, to the Hebrews bowed down under the yoke of bondage in Egypt, to the children of Israel dwelling in the land of promise, to the Jews languishing in captivity, and even to sinners of the Gentiles by nature.
Likewise, it reveals God’s mercy “unto all, and upon all them that believe,” no matter how weak their faith may have been, or how greatly they have sinned against God, or how late in time they came to repentance and faith.
A study of all the names in this genealogy confirms the Gospel promise that “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21).
Even if He didn’t have David’s and Rehoboam’s blood in His veins, Jesus, while sinless, is still naturally descended from sinners. He is God in the flesh, fully God and fully man.
He loved us enough to become one of us and take on a sinful ancestry, yet without sin. Christ became like us in all things but sin.
His name is Immanuel, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). He was and is God the Son from eternity past, at every point in His earthly ministry, and unto eternity future.
He was God even as He hung on the accursed cross and was broken as our substitute and atoning sacrifice. Having taken our sins upon Himself, He became a curse for us, and endured our punishment, so He is God for us.
Having taken our nature upon Himself and having lived in the world as we must live, tempted at all points as we are, He is God with us. He understands and knows us; He humbled Himself so completely that He became both our Savior and our elder brother.
The theological meaning of Jesus’ family tree
Christ’s genealogical register is a record of our guilt, our shame, our lost state, our origin, our humiliation. It raises the question, who can break the terrible cycle of sin? “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24).
Thanks be to God, Jesus broke the repeating cycle of human sin by identifying with and saving wretched sinners like us. Jesus is not ashamed to have Rahab or Manasseh or any other sinners in His family tree.
Likewise, He is not ashamed to receive us into His family. Out of love He rescues us, makes us holy and acceptable in God’s sight, renews and transforms us, and will never let us fall away again and be lost to Him.
“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15). Graciously He offers Himself to us and asks of us no more than that we believe in Him and seek Him with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind.
And so, when properly understood, these genealogies-though uninteresting and perhaps even irrelevant at first blush-become a marvelous manifestation of “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Romans 11:33).
