The Two Genealogies of Jesus
The New Testament presents two genealogies of Jesus Christ–one in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 1:1-17) and the other in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 3:23-38). These genealogies have long intrigued scholars, theologians, and lay readers alike, not only because they differ in structure and content, but also because they raise important questions about the identity and mission of Jesus as the Messiah. This article seeks to explore the reasons for the presence of two genealogies in the Bible, examine their differences, and explain how they harmonize with the broader narrative of Scripture.
Why are there two genealogies of Jesus in the Bible?
There are two genealogies of Jesus in the Bible–one in Matthew and one in Luke. This is not a contradiction but a reflection of the multifaceted nature of Jesus’ identity and mission. Each genealogy serves a distinct theological and historical purpose, rooted in the unique audience and intent of the respective Gospel writers.
Matthew, writing primarily to a Jewish audience, begins his Gospel with a genealogy that traces Jesus’ lineage from Abraham through David to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17). This genealogy is structured to emphasize Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic prophecies, particularly those concerning the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Matthew’s opening words, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1), immediately establish Jesus’ credentials as the promised Messiah of Israel.
Luke, on the other hand, writes with a broader, more universal audience in mind. His genealogy appears later in his Gospel, following Jesus’ baptism, and traces Jesus’ lineage backward from Joseph all the way to Adam, “the son of God” (Luke 3:38). This genealogy emphasizes Jesus’ solidarity with all humanity, not just the Jewish people. By linking Jesus to Adam, Luke presents him as the second Adam (see, Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:45), the one who comes to redeem all of fallen humanity.
Differences Between Matthew and Luke’s Genealogies
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ in several significant ways. First, they differ in direction. Matthew traces the lineage forward, beginning with Abraham and moving toward Jesus. Luke traces it backward, beginning with Jesus and moving back to Adam. This structural difference reflects their theological emphases: Matthew focuses on fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, while Luke emphasizes universal salvation.
Second, the names listed between David and Jesus differ almost entirely. Matthew traces the line through Solomon, David’s son by Bathsheba, while Luke traces it through Nathan, another son of David (Matthew 1:6; Luke 3:31). This divergence has led to various interpretations, the most common of which is that Matthew records the legal genealogy through Joseph, while Luke records the biological genealogy through Mary.
This view is supported by the fact that Luke’s genealogy begins with the phrase, “Jesus… being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23). The parenthetical note “as was supposed” suggests that Jesus was not biologically Joseph’s son, aligning with the virgin birth narrative (Luke 1:34-35). If Heli was Mary’s father, then Joseph would be his son-in-law, a relationship that could be described in genealogical terms as “son.” This would make Luke’s genealogy a record of Jesus’ biological descent through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy would reflect his legal descent through Joseph.
This distinction is important because Jewish law recognized legal inheritance through the father, even in cases of adoption or levirate marriage (see, Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Thus, Jesus could be the legal heir to David’s throne through Joseph, while also being a biological descendant of David through Mary.
Another notable difference is that Matthew organizes his genealogy into three sets of fourteen generations: from Abraham to David, from David to the exile in Babylon, and from the exile to Jesus (Matthew 1:17). This stylized structure may have symbolic significance. The number fourteen is twice seven, a number often associated with completeness in Scripture. Additionally, the Hebrew letters in the name “David” (???) add up to fourteen, reinforcing the messianic emphasis on Jesus as the son of David.
Luke’s genealogy, by contrast, contains seventy-seven names, a number that may symbolize completeness or perfection. The number seven is often associated with divine completeness (Genesis 2:2-3), and seventy-seven may echo the forgiveness motif in Matthew 18:22, where Jesus tells Peter to forgive “seventy-seven times.” This could subtly underscore Jesus’ role as the one who brings ultimate reconciliation between God and humanity.
Theological Significance of the Genealogies
Both genealogies affirm that Jesus is the promised Messiah, but they do so in different ways. Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ royal lineage and fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. By tracing Jesus’ descent from Abraham and David, Matthew shows that Jesus is the rightful heir to the promises made to the patriarchs. This is crucial for establishing Jesus’ messianic credentials in the eyes of a Jewish audience and his need to be born in Bethlehem.
Luke, by tracing Jesus’ lineage to Adam, presents him as the Savior of all people. This universal scope aligns with Luke’s broader themes, such as the inclusion of Gentiles, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the emphasis on prayer and compassion. By connecting Jesus to Adam, Luke also draws a parallel between the first man, who brought sin into the world, and Jesus, the new man who brings redemption (see, Romans 5:18-19).
Moreover, both genealogies affirm the virgin birth. Matthew explicitly states that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus: “Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). The Greek word for “of whom” is feminine singular, indicating that Jesus was born of Mary alone. Luke similarly notes that Jesus was “the son (as was supposed) of Joseph” (Luke 3:23), again implying that Joseph was not his biological father.
These affirmations are crucial for understanding the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus is both fully divine and fully human. He is born of a woman (Galatians 4:4), yet conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), making him uniquely qualified to mediate between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).
Conclusion
The two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are not contradictory but complementary. Each serves a distinct theological purpose and reflects the unique perspective of its author. Matthew presents Jesus as the legal heir to David’s throne, the fulfillment of Jewish messianic expectations. Luke presents Jesus as the universal Savior, the second Adam who brings redemption to all humanity.
By examining these genealogies in their historical, literary, and theological contexts, we gain a deeper appreciation for the richness of the gospel message. Jesus is not only the son of David and the son of Abraham; he is also the son of Adam and the Son of God. His identity is rooted in history, affirmed by prophecy, and revealed in the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4-5). The genealogies, far from being dry lists of names, are profound testimonies to the faithfulness of God and the unfolding of his redemptive plan through Jesus Christ.