A Look at Jesus’ Family Tree
Have you given much thought to your ancestry or the roots of your family tree lately? Probably not during the past few days or weeks. But chances are, if you’re typical of most people, you or someone in your family has done some genealogical research during the past ten or fifteen years.
Many books, articles, and Internet sites are available to help us delve into our genealogical records and identify the famous, the infamous, and the merely obscure people of our ancestries. For a small but dedicated number of people, this activity has become an all-consuming obsession that helps them fill a psychological void in their lives or build up their self-esteem. But for most of us, it is little more than a nice curiosity or at best simply a recreation. And it can be an expensive activity if you travel back to your hometown to look up records and obituaries concerning your family members.
The Importance of Genealogies to the Jews
To the Jews of Bible times, however, genealogies were extremely important. Interest in such matters went beyond the realm of curiosity, recreation, meeting psychological needs, or even consideration of family identity and religious solidarity (which we see with present-day groups such as the Mormons). There were four major reasons that accurate and complete genealogies were so critical to the ancient Jews. And as you’ll see in this chapter, two such genealogies were important to the story of Jesus’ birth.
First, ancestry determined one’s claim on land, based on the original tribal allocation of the land of Palestine. When the Israelites first settled in the Promised Land, God divided it into parcels for each tribe (Num. 26:52–56).
Second, ancestry determined claims to the right of inheritance. If a person claimed he had a right to property, servants, an estate, crops, or other material possessions, the validity of such claims was determined by the genealogies of those involved. For example, in Ruth 3–4, ancestry allowed for the transfer of property.
Third, ancestry in Israel established the basis of taxation. When Mary and Joseph went to be taxed in Luke 2, they traveled to Bethlehem because that was the hometown of David, and they were of the house and line of David. They were aware of their lineage because certainly their parents and other older relatives would have described how their family heritage went all the way back to King David. And though they were young, Mary and Joseph loved God and Scripture and surely knew what the prophets wrote concerning Messiah’s relationship to the line of David. Based on that knowledge of Scripture and their family’s genealogical records, which were kept in Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph made the journey to receive their tax assessment.
Last, and most important, any claim to the priesthood or royalty had to be verified by genealogy. In Ezra 2:61–63, for example, a number of men were excluded from the priesthood when the records did not verify their claims. Likewise, any claim to be king (and ultimately, Messiah) would be rejected if the one making the assertion could not prove he had direct lineage from the great king David himself.
Therefore, in the theocracy of Israel—a kingdom ruled by God, with its legal statutes outlined in Scripture and led by God-ordained priests and kings—genealogies were very critical. That’s why the Jews kept careful, accurate, and fastidious genealogical records. The genealogies of Jesus Christ in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke reflect those characteristics. The writers’ use of such records demonstrates not only that the Holy Spirit guided them, but also that they had access to actual, verifiable public records that proved the true and accurate genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus’ genealogy makes a crucial contribution to His credentials as Messiah. If He is to be verified as the King, David’s greater Son who will rule, He must have Davidic lineage.
The Two Genealogies of Jesus
The New Testament contains two lists that outline for us the genealogy of Christ. Matthew records his in Matthew 1:1–17, and Luke presents his in Luke 3:23–38. The apostle Matthew included his genealogy as the first part of his chronological account of the life of Jesus. By contrast, Luke waited until the end of the third chapter of his Gospel to include a genealogy of Jesus. He placed it between the accounts of Jesus’ baptism and His Temptation as a key element of establishing the Messiah’s credentials. There are also other differences between the two genealogies that are worth examining briefly.
The Differences in the Lists
First of all, the two genealogies take different chronological views of Jesus’ family tree. Luke goes from the present to the past, beginning with Jesus’ grandfather and going all the way back to Adam and God. Matthew, however, approaches matters in the opposite fashion. He goes from the past to the present, starting with Abraham and ending with Jesus.
Here are the two separate, but equally inspired and valid, versions of the genealogy of our Lord. Notice some of the differences as you read the two lists consecutively:
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:
Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram. Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon. Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David the king.
David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah. Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa. Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah. Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah. Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah. Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor. Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud. Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:1–17)
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:23–38; italics inserted by nkjv translators)
I believe Luke’s method gives his genealogy more of a dramatic element than Matthew’s. By starting at the present and working back to the past, the beloved physician turned historian and theologian offers us a sense of wonder and excitement as we try to anticipate how far back his genealogy of Jesus will take us.
Matthew’s list, on the other hand, is much more predictable as it starts with Abraham and traces the Messiah’s line forward to Jesus. Matthew’s goal in his list was to satisfy the Jews’ concern about Messiah’s legality. Judaism began with Abraham, the father of the nation of Israel. Therefore, it was only necessary to prove Messiah’s credentials to the Jews by tracing His line from Abraham, through David, right down to Jesus. That’s more specific than Luke’s universal approach, which shows how Christ the Son of Man and Son of God links with all humanity clear back to Adam and finally to God Himself.
Between the two records there are also some differences in the names. First, Luke traces Jesus’ line back to David through Nathan (3:31), David’s third son born to Bathsheba. But Matthew traces Jesus’ line back to David through Solomon (1:6), David’s first son born to Bathsheba. Second, Luke identifies Jesus’ grandfather as Heli (3:23), whereas Matthew says that His grandfather was a man named Jacob (1:16). Finally, there are major differences in the genealogies going from David to Christ. Whereas the lists of names are identical from David to Abraham, the two are completely different when you work your way from David to the Lord Jesus.
Explaining the Differences in the Lists
It’s amazing that people often struggle to explain the differences in the two genealogies. But it’s not really that difficult, and there is certainly no problem with having two genealogies for Jesus. In Matthew, the genealogy is paternal, going through Jesus’ earthly father, Joseph; and Joseph’s father, Jacob; back to David. In Luke, the genealogy is maternal, going through Jesus’ mother, Mary; and Mary’s father, Heli; back to David.
When you look at the genealogies this way, the reason for the differences is clear. Everyone has two genealogies—one paternal and one maternal. And Jesus, like everyone, had a paternal and maternal grandfather. So essentially Jesus’ family tree, in exhibiting certain basic differences, follows the pattern of every human genealogy. That is the simplest way to account for the discrepancies in the names.
The necessity to establish His legal right to the throne of David is another very important reason the two Gospel writers gave us two different forms of Jesus’ family tree. And that legal right came through the father; therefore, Matthew’s paternal genealogy proved that Jesus came from a line that proceeded from David through Solomon. That proof is true even though Jesus was not the human son of Joseph. Because Joseph married Mary, the mother of Jesus, he became the legal father of Jesus. As a result, Jesus received from Joseph the full legal right to the throne of David.
Luke’s maternal genealogy further solidifies Jesus’ claim to the throne of David by proving that He has the blood of David in His veins because of His mother, Mary. So, either way, Jesus is a genuine, legitimate descendant of King David.
The Messiah is king legally through Joseph and naturally through Mary. His scriptural credentials are thorough, clear, and irrefutable. From every perspective, we can crown Jesus King of kings and Lord of lords.
Critical Reactions to the Lists
The two genealogical lists have certainly been the unfair targets of doubt, questioning, and disbelief during the past two centuries by so-called scholarly critics of the Gospels. And that has been true for all portions of Scripture. But any in-depth discussion of such matters is outside the scope and purpose of this book. However, I do find it interesting how Jesus’ contemporary critics and opponents among the Jewish leaders responded to what His genealogies concluded.
The Pharisees, Sadducees, high priests—and all the enemies of Christ—sought to discredit Him as their Messiah. The thought that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of plain folks like Joseph and Mary, was their Messiah was offensive to them, and that’s why they ultimately had Him killed.
That’s why Jesus’ foes did everything possible to dishonor Him and disqualify Him from His Messianic claim. And it’s certainly reasonable to assume that, soon after the Lord made that claim, the Jewish leaders scrambled to find the official scroll containing His genealogical information. They would have had to make just a short trip south of Jerusalem to the town of Bethlehem, where the lineages and tax records for the line of David were kept. Once they got hold of those records, they could have determined rather quickly if Joseph and Mary’s ancestry really was Davidic. And discovering that Jesus didn’t actually belong to the line of David would have been all His opponents needed to discredit Him as Messiah. Even though Jesus did numerous miracles, preached and taught persuasively, and claimed to be sent from the Father, discovering that He was not an ancestor of David would have been enough to disprove His Messianic claim.
However, it’s striking that a study of the entire New Testament does not once report anyone claiming that Jesus didn’t come from David. As much as Jesus’ enemies may have wanted to make His ancestry an issue, they never did. That’s because the records supported His claim to be the Son of David. So there was never an official denial that Jesus was from the Davidic line. In fact, here is what the crowds exclaimed during the Passover season just before Jesus’ death, when He made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (the day we commonly call Palm Sunday): “‘Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” Hosanna in the highest!’” (Matt. 21:9). There was simply no denying our Lord’s rightful ancestry and position of highest honor.
Highlights of Luke’s Genealogy
Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ family tree, using the names of His maternal line, contains several fascinating details and highlights. First of all, the opening verse of the genealogy includes the significant expression, “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (3:23). That is a way of saying that Jesus was not actually the son of Joseph and therefore by implication that He was the son of Mary. Luke used “(as was supposed) the son of Joseph” to conform to the classic genealogical style of referring solely to male relatives. He wanted to maintain that format for his readers, and yet, by this implicit reference to Mary, he emphasized that his genealogy would follow the maternal line. All of that counters any erroneous notion that Jesus’ genealogy could only be paternal to be valid. But just as important, by indicating that Jesus was not the physical son of Joseph, Luke is once again affirming the Savior’s virgin conception and birth.
Another distinctive of Luke’s genealogical format is worthy of mention. If you look at Luke 3:23–38 in a copy of the New King James Version of the Bible (or the nkjv quotation of that passage earlier in our chapter), you’ll notice that in front of all the names but one, “the son” is italicized. That means the Greek text omitted all those occurrences. Only before Joseph’s name does “son” appear in the original. But why did Luke structure his genealogy that way?
The answer is not that complicated. Luke wanted to separate Joseph’s name from the rest of the genealogy. Actually verse 23 should more literally read like this: “Jesus Himself, the son of Joseph (as was supposed), began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being of Heli.” This rendering allowed the original readers to jump directly from Jesus to His earthly grandfather, Heli, the father of Mary. Thus Luke maintained, as he preferred, the classic male-names-only format to the genealogy and still underscored that the genealogy was truly Mary’s.
Luke’s version of Jesus’ family tree contains another interesting feature: Many of the names are unfamiliar to us. From Heli back to Nathan, the only names we recognize or know anything about from elsewhere in Scripture are Zerubbabel and Shealtiel, two leaders of the Jews who returned from the Exile in Babylon. The other names were common Hebrew names in ancient times, and we can trust that they belong in the genealogy as the actual names of Jesus and Mary’s forebears. However, the Holy Spirit did not deem it necessary for us to know anything about the individuals. Only in the section from David to Adam do we find predominantly familiar names that we can also find recorded in the Old Testament.
The final question you may be inclined to ask in view of Luke’s detailed genealogy is, “So why all of this?” The answer is simple. A general awareness of the details of Christ’s genealogy helps us appreciate the God-ordained credentials for the person of our Lord and Savior. Four basic elements of Luke’s genealogy summarize those credentials.
First and most important, Luke asserts that Jesus is the Son of God (3:38). Adam was the original son of God by creation, and he fully bore the divine image unmarred, unspoiled, unpolluted, and uncorrupted until he fell into sin. When that happened, the initial image of God in humanity was shattered, and every one of Adam’s descendants has been stained by his original sin and born with a corrupted image of God. But Jesus came into the world fully pleasing to God, as the kind of man Adam once was—sinless, bearing an absolutely perfect image of the Father, and obeying His will in every respect. As God said in Luke 3:22, “‘You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.’”
Second, Luke’s genealogy makes it clear that Jesus is a Son of Adam. While on earth, He was fully human. And just like His followers, He was tempted, troubled, persecuted, hated, reviled, and subjected to all the normal difficulties of life (Heb. 4:15). Like Adam, Christ descended from a higher plane to a lower plane; but unlike Adam, He descended into obedience, not disobedience (Phil. 2:5–8). Nevertheless, He was every bit of what Adam was—fully human, fully attached to the earth as the Son of Man. And Jesus was also firmly connected to heaven as the Son of God. Thus, Luke affirms that Jesus in His incarnation was at the same time fully God and fully man—the Son of God as to His deity and the Son of Adam as to His humanity.
Last, Luke’s genealogy attests to a third and fourth truth about the person of Jesus. Ethnically, He was the Son of Abraham. That is, He was and is the promised Seed. When God made a promise to Abraham, it was to a Seed: “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). Christ is the promised Seed who will bring about all the Abrahamic blessings. And, as we have already discussed, concerning royalty Christ is the Son of David. He is the promised King who will usher in the glory of all the Davidic promise.
The family tree of Jesus Christ consists of far more than two lists of ancient Hebrew names. It is also much more than boring paternal and maternal lists of Jesus’ earthly ancestors. It is a wonderful testimony to God’s grace and to His Son’s earthly ministry. Jesus was born the friend of sinners, as He stated in his admonishment to the Jewish leaders: “‘I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance’” (Luke 5:32). The Messiah presented in the genealogies is truly the Lord of grace.[1]
[1] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2001). God in the manger: the miraculous birth of Christ (pp. 15–24). Nashville, TN: W Pub. Group.
Indeed, the FBI has a great deal to answer for and in a better world would be stripped of its counterintelligence functions and more.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 