Published on April 29, 2026 | 30 min read
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ: Dynastic Succession and Biological Lineage in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38
Keywords: Genealogy. Jesus Christ. Matthew. Luke. Davidic Succession. Levirate. Christology.
Abstract
The Gospels of Matthew (1:1-16) and Luke (3:23-38) present genealogies of Jesus Christ that diverge entirely from King David onward: Matthew follows the line of Solomon; Luke, the line of Nathan. Traditional harmonization attempts - Julius Africanus's levirate hypothesis and the attribution of Luke's genealogy to Mary - prove insufficient both textually and historically. This article develops J. Gresham Machen's proposal (1930) that Matthew records the legal-royal succession of the house of David to Joseph, while Luke traces the biological ancestral lineage. The article analyzes: (a) the semantic range of the Greek terms γεννάω and υἱός; (b) the omissions in Matthew 1:8 between Joram and Uzziah, interpreted in light of an Omride dynastic infiltration hypothesis; (c) the post-exilic gap of approximately 270 years in Matthew's line, with eleven names unattested in the Old Testament; (d) the legal institutions of levirate and go'el as mechanisms of dynastic continuity; and (e) the numerological structures of the genealogies in relation to the apocalyptic literature of Daniel and Revelation.
Introduction
The existence of two genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament constitutes one of the oldest exegetical problems in Christian literature. Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 present lists that agree only in the segment from Abraham to David; from that point onward they diverge entirely. Matthew follows the descending line of Solomon, the hereditary heir to the Davidic throne; Luke follows the line of Nathan, another son of David and Bathsheba who did not reign. This bifurcation produces two entirely distinct repertoires of names between David and Joseph, the legal father of Jesus.
Scholarly discussion has historically identified three main harmonization approaches. The first, proposed by Julius Africanus around 220 CE and preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea, invokes the Jewish legal institution of levirate marriage to explain Joseph's dual paternity in both lists. The second, dominant in contemporary popular exegesis, attributes Matthew's genealogy to Joseph and Luke's to Mary. The third, systematically developed by J. Gresham Machen in 1930, maintains that Matthew records the legal dynastic succession and Luke the biological ancestral lineage.
This article examines the textual, biblical, and extra-biblical evidence for each of these proposals. It concludes that neither the levirate hypothesis nor the attribution of Luke's genealogy to Mary finds sufficient support in the primary sources, and develops the third proposal through an examination of the genealogical omissions in Matthew - particularly the gap between Joram and Uzziah - and the post-exilic gap of approximately 270 years. Within this analysis, a historical hypothesis is presented regarding Omride dynastic infiltration into the house of David as the determining factor behind the omissions in Matthew 1:8.
The analysis is based on the Greek texts of NA28 (Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition) and the Hebrew texts of the BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), with reference to the parallel narratives of 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles.
Textual Analysis
The term γεννάω in Matthew 1:1-16
Matthew's genealogy systematically employs the verb γεννάω (gennáō) in the active construction X ἐγέννησεν τὸν Y ("X begat Y"). The BDAG records for γεννάω the primary sense of "to be the father of, to beget", but equally documents an extended use in which the verb may denote descent in a juridical or dynastic sense, without necessarily implying direct biological generation.
Matthew's own text demonstrates this extended usage: in 1:8, Joram is presented as the father (ἐγέννησεν) of Uzziah, omitting three intermediate generations documented in the historical books - Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25), Joash (2 Kgs 11:2), and Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:1). This omission is structural, serving the threefold scheme of fourteen generations announced by the evangelist in 1:17.
The closing verse of Matthew's genealogy is hermeneutically decisive:
Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός.
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16, NA28)
The evangelist does not write "Joseph begat Jesus". The chain of γεννάω ends with Joseph; a relative construction (ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη) explicitly redirects biological generation to Mary. Joseph is qualified as τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας (the husband of Mary), not as the father of Jesus. Matthew's genealogy is the legal genealogy of Joseph - and by extension, Jesus's legal title - not the biological genealogy of Mary.
The term υἱός in Luke 3:23-38
Luke structures his genealogy differently: beginning with Jesus and ascending in reverse order, he employs the construction τοῦ + genitive ("of, son of") throughout the list. The term υἱός (huiós) shares with the Hebrew בֵּן (ben) the same broad semantic range: it may denote biological son, grandson, remote descendant, or member of a lineage.
Luke anticipates, in verse 23, the fundamental qualification: ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσήφ - "being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph". The phrase ὡς ἐνομίζετο ("as was supposed") is an explicit marker distinguishing legal paternity from Jesus's actual biological origin. The genealogical chain that follows Joseph ascends through Eli - not through Mary - and contains no grammatical construction that would redirect the list toward her.
No textual indicator in Luke 3:23-38 points to Mary as the subject of the genealogy. Mary's name does not appear in the passage. The hypothesis that Luke records Mary's genealogy is an inference external to the text, unsupported by the Greek syntax.
Mary's Lineage: Biblical Evidence
Mary's ancestral origin is frequently presupposed in discussions of the genealogies, but is rarely examined on the basis of primary sources. The New Testament contains no explicit statement that Mary was a descendant of David. The genealogical argument that invokes her as the subject of Luke 3 therefore rests on an undemonstrated premise.
The only biblical data available regarding Mary's ancestry points in a different direction. Luke 1:5 identifies Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, as a descendant of Aaron (ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρών) and wife of Zechariah, a priest of the division of Abijah (cf. 1 Chr 24:10). Luke 1:36 describes Elizabeth as συγγενίς of Mary - a term denoting blood kinship, not mere social proximity. If Elizabeth was Aaronite by direct lineage and a blood relative of Mary, the most immediate inference is that Mary shared, fully or partially, in that Levitical descent.
This datum reinforces the conclusion of Section 2.2: attributing to Mary the Davidic genealogy of Luke 3 not only lacks syntactic support in the text, but is also in tension with the only biblical evidence available regarding her ancestry.
The Patristic Tradition and Julius Africanus
The Church Fathers of the early centuries wrote about Mary in mariological, christological, and anti-gnostic contexts, but offered no systematic solution to the genealogical divergence. Their treatment of the gospels was largely paraphrastic, without directly addressing the discrepancy between the two lists from David onward.
The earliest known systematic treatment is that of Julius Africanus (†c. 240 CE), in his Letter to Aristides, preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea in the Historia Ecclesiastica I.7.1-17. Africanus's solution invokes the levirate institution: Matthan (father of Jacob in Matthew) and Melchi (father of Eli in Luke) would have married the same woman in succession. Matthan's son Jacob would be the half-brother of Melchi's son Eli. When Eli died without children, Jacob would have married his widow and fathered Joseph - so that Joseph would be biologically the son of Jacob (Matthew) and legally the son of Eli (Luke).
The levirate hypothesis faces considerable exegetical and historical difficulties. Jacques-Paul Migne, in editing the patristic texts that transmit it, acknowledged its weaknesses, though he accepted the premise that Mary was biologically of Davidic descent. The central problems are: (a) the hypothesis treats Luke's genealogy as belonging to Joseph, whereas the Lukan text attributes the list to Jesus via Joseph, introducing no levirate as an explanatory factor; (b) it does not explain why Luke would trace Joseph's legal paternity through Eli rather than simply recording his biological father Jacob; (c) the divergence between the lists is far more extensive than a single levirate bifurcation point could explain, since the names differ throughout the entire post-Davidic series.
The Proposal of J. Gresham Machen
J. Gresham Machen, in his 1930 study on the virgin birth, devoted Chapter IX to the analysis of the genealogies. Machen rejects Africanus's levirate hypothesis on exegetical grounds and equally refuses the direct attribution of Luke's genealogy to Mary, citing the absence of textual support.
Machen's proposal is that both genealogies belong to Joseph, but record distinct aspects of his lineage: Matthew traces the line of royal dynastic succession of the house of David, while Luke traces the biological ancestral lineage. The two lines coincide from Abraham to David and bifurcate afterward, resulting in two immediate ancestors of Joseph: Jacob (Matthew) and Eli (Luke).
To explain how Joseph could technically have two fathers, Machen proposes that Eli was Jacob's nephew - the son of a sister of Jacob - so that, Jacob having no direct male heir, the dynastic right passed to his nephew by a mechanism analogous to that of the go'el. Eli would be Joseph's biological father and Jacob the legal ancestor from whom Joseph inherited the right to the Davidic throne. This proposal is adopted and developed here, with particular attention to the historical implications of the omissions in Matthew 1:8 and the generational gap in the post-exilic period.
Royal Succession and Biological Lineage in Matthew and Luke
The Royal Lineage from David to the Babylonian Exile
Matthew explicitly introduces the genealogy as "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David" (Matt 1:1), signaling its dynastic orientation. The names from Solomon to Jeconiah are verifiable in 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles. The line of David through Nathan in Luke (Luke 3:31) is equally verifiable in the Old Testament sources.
The calculated generational average for the pre-exilic period is approximately 25 years per generation, consistent with demographic data from the ancient world and with the computable biblical genealogies. Table 1 presents the kings of Judah in Matthew's line with their chronological data:
Table 1 - Royal Lineage from David to Jeconiah (Matthew 1:6-11)
| Name in Chronicles/Kings | Name in Matthew 1 | Est. Birth | Reign and Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| David | Δαυίδ | ~1040 BCE | ~1010-970 BCE (died c. age 70) |
| Solomon | Σολομῶν | ~990 BCE | 970-930 BCE |
| Rehoboam | Ῥοβοάμ | ~971 BCE | 930-913 BCE (aged 41 at accession) |
| Abijah | Ἀβιά | ~950 BCE | 913-911 BCE (3-year reign) |
| Asa | Ἀσάφ * | ~935 BCE | 911-870 BCE (41-year reign) |
| Jehoshaphat | Ἰωσαφάτ | ~905 BCE | 870-848 BCE (aged 35 at accession) |
| Jehoram | Ἰωράμ | ~880 BCE | 848-841 BCE (aged 32 at accession; died aged 40) |
| Ahaziah [omitted] | - | ~863 BCE | 841 BCE (1 year; aged 22/42 at accession) ** |
| Athaliah [omitted] | - | ~880 BCE | 841-835 BCE (usurper; 6 years) |
| Joash [omitted] | - | ~842 BCE | 835-796 BCE |
| Amaziah [omitted] | - | ~821 BCE | 796-767 BCE |
| Uzziah/Azariah | Ὀζίας | ~783 BCE | 767-740 BCE (aged 16 at accession) |
| Jotham | Ἰωαθάμ | ~765 BCE | 740-732 BCE |
| Ahaz | Ἄχαζ | ~752 BCE | 732-716 BCE |
| Hezekiah | Ἑζεκίας | ~741 BCE | 716-687 BCE |
| Manasseh | Μανασσῆς | ~699 BCE | 687-642 BCE |
| Amon | Ἀμώς | ~664 BCE | 642-640 BCE |
| Josiah | Ἰωσίας | ~648 BCE | 640-609 BCE |
| Jehoahaz [omitted] | - | ~632 BCE | 609 BCE (3 months; deported to Egypt by Neco) |
| Jehoiakim [omitted] | - | ~634 BCE | 609-598 BCE |
| Jeconiah/Jehoiachin | Ἰεχονίας | ~616 BCE | 598-597 BCE (exiled to Babylon; Jer 22:30) |
| Zedekiah [omitted] | - | ~618 BCE | 597-586 BCE (uncle of Jeconiah; last king) |
* Asa appears as Ἀσάφ in some manuscripts of Matthew, probably a scribal confusion with Asaph (cf. Ps 73:1 LXX). ** The discrepancy between 2 Kgs 8:26 (22 years) and 2 Chr 22:2 (42 years) is discussed in Section 6.3.
The generational average from David (~1040 BCE) to Shealtiel (~597 BCE) - spanning 15 generations - is approximately 30 years per generation, internally consistent with the attested accession ages and regnal periods.
The Post-Exilic Problem: The 267-Year Gap
The generational problem becomes evident in the post-exilic segment of Matthew. Applying the 30-year generational average to the period between Zerubbabel and Joseph reveals a structural gap:
Table 2 - Post-Exilic Period in Matthew 1:12-16
| Name in Chronicles | Name in Matthew 1 | Est. Birth | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shealtiel | Σαλαθιήλ | ~597 BCE | Exiled in Babylon (1 Chr 3:17) |
| Zerubbabel | Ζοροβαβέλ | ~567 BCE | Governor of Judah (~538-520 BCE) |
| - | Ἀβιούδ (Abiud) | ~537 BCE | No parallel in OT |
| - | Ἐλιακείμ (Eliakim) | ~507 BCE | No parallel in OT |
| - | Ἀζώρ (Azor) | ~477 BCE | No parallel in OT |
| - | Σαδώκ (Zadok) | ~447 BCE | No parallel in OT |
| - | Ἀχείμ (Achim) | ~417 BCE | No parallel in OT |
| - | Ἐλιούδ (Eliud) | ~387 BCE | No parallel in OT |
| - | Ἐλεάζαρ (Eleazar) | ~357 BCE | No parallel in OT |
| - | Ματθάν (Matthan) | ~327 BCE | No parallel in OT |
| - | Ἰακώβ (Jacob) | ~297 BCE | No parallel in OT |
| [Gap: ~267 years] | - | - | Interval between Jacob (~297 BCE) and Joseph (~30 BCE) |
| - | Ἰωσήφ (Joseph) | ~30 BCE | Husband of Mary (Matt 1:16) |
The gap between Jacob (~297 BCE) and Joseph (~30 BCE) is approximately 267 years, with only a single generation separating the two. For Jacob to have been contemporary with Eli - Joseph's biological father in Luke - would require an average interval of approximately 55 years per generation across the eleven post-exilic names: arithmetically improbable and biologically exceptional as a recurring pattern. This discrepancy indicates that some branch of the royal line became extinct, with the right being transmitted by lateral succession before reaching Joseph.
The Omride Infiltration and the Clandestine Preservation of the Davidic Lineage
Jehoshaphat: The Last Uncontested Davidide
Until the reign of Jehoshaphat (870-848 BCE), the royal succession of Judah had traversed five generations without systematic fratricide, without challenge to dynastic legitimacy, and without external interference in the line of succession. Judah's pattern contrasted sharply with that of the northern kingdom, where coups and dynastic exterminations were recurrent from Jeroboam onward. The sole prior exception in Judah was Solomon, who executed Adonijah for a documented specific conspiracy (1 Kgs 2:22-25) and Shimei for violation of an explicit agreement (1 Kgs 2:42-46). Jehoshaphat represents the last point of full Davidic stability before the dynastic rupture.
Jehoram, Athaliah, and the Extermination of the Davidic Brothers
Jehoshaphat sealed a political alliance with the northern kingdom through the marriage of his son Jehoram to Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (2 Kgs 8:18; 2 Chr 21:6). This marriage introduced into the royal house of Judah a bearer of the Omride dynastic bloodline with her own political agenda. The Hebrew text is explicit:
wayyēlek bedereḵ malḵê Yiśrāʾēl kaʾăšer ʿāśû bêt ʾAḥʾāb
"and he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab" (2 Chr 21:6)
Immediately upon ascending to the throne, with no narrative pretext recorded in the text, Jehoram executed all his brothers:
wayyaharōg ʾet-kol-ʾeḥāyw beḥāreb
"and he slew all his brothers with the sword" (2 Chr 21:4)
This act is without precedent in the 162 years of Davidic history prior to Jehoram. The rupture has no plausible internal explanation in the text other than that doubts existed regarding the succession. A preemptive elimination project targeting legitimate bearers of Davidic blood in the collateral line is the most economical reading. The Omride motivation is coherent: the heir Ahaziah could be challenged in the legitimacy of his Davidic claim by opponents invoking Jehoram's brothers as alternatives of purer blood.
Ahaziah: Questions of Biological Filiation
2 Chronicles 22:2 records that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he ascended the throne; 2 Kings 8:26 cites 22 years. Jehoram, his supposed father, died at age 40 (he acceded at 32 and reigned 8 years; cf. 2 Kgs 8:17). A son of 42 from a father who died at 40 is arithmetically impossible. Most commentators attribute the discrepancy to a scribal error, supported by the LXX, which reads 22 years in both passages. The age of 22 is also problematic: Jehoram would have fathered his youngest son at only 18 years, plausible for a firstborn but unusual as the youngest of at least three older brothers.
An alternative hypothesis is that Ahaziah may not be the biological son of Jehoram, but was incorporated into the dynastic lineage by adoption or as a son of Athaliah by another paternity. Three textual data points are relevant:
(a) 2 Chronicles 21:17 records that Arab and Philistine raiders captured all of Jehoram's sons with the exception of the youngest, Jehoahaz. The names Ahaziah (ʾAḥazyāhû, "Yah has held") and Jehoahaz (Yəhôʾāḥāz, "Yah has held") are regarded by several exegetes as referring to the same individual. If correct, Ahaziah would be Jehoram's youngest son, which aggravates the chronological inconsistency of his generation.
(b) In 2 Kings 10:13-14, Jehu kills 42 "brothers of Ahaziah" who were traveling to greet him and Athaliah. Jehu had been anointed by Elisha to exterminate the house of Omri. Jehoram had already eliminated his own Davidic brothers; Arabs and Philistines had taken others. The presence of 42 "brothers" of Ahaziah is more coherent with members of the house of Omri than with surviving Davidic descendants of Jehoshaphat.
(c) After the death of Ahaziah, Athaliah proceeded to the systematic elimination of the entire royal seed:
wattəʾabbēd ʾet kol-zeraʿ hammamlaḵâ
"and she destroyed all the royal seed" (2 Kgs 11:1)
The verb ʾibbēd in the Piel denotes complete and intentional action. A political operator of Athaliah's sophistication, who governed Judah for six years with sufficient stability, would have verified the results of the purge. These three events in sequence produced the effective extinction of the visible Davidic line, making it necessary for a Jehoshaphatic descendant to have been preserved outside the palace structure in order that the promise of 2 Samuel 7 not be annulled.
Uzziah: The Recognized Davidic Restoration
The formula for Uzziah's accession is a significant textual anomaly:
wayyiqḥû kol-ʿam Yehûdâ ʾet-ʿAzaryâ
"and all the people of Judah took Azariah" (2 Kgs 14:21)
The verb lāqaḥ ("to take") in the active form of popular selection is not the standard formula of automatic succession used in other cases of direct inheritance in Judah (compare the terminology of 1 Kgs 14:20; 15:28; 16:10). Uzziah was 16 years old at accession, which may indicate he was not integrated into the immediate palace structure (his father Amaziah would have fathered him at age 38).
It is possible that Uzziah represented a Jehoshaphatic descendant preserved outside the palace during Athaliah's period of domination, recognized and acclaimed by the people precisely because the internal dynastic line was compromised by the three-generation Omride parenthesis (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah). Under this hypothesis, Matthew skips the Omride parenthesis because, from the perspective of legitimate Davidic succession, that period would not count as a recognizable dynastic line.
The Curse of Jeconiah
Jeconiah, despite the prophetic curse of Jeremiah 22:30 - "write this man down as childless... none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David" - remains in Matthew's line because he is the last bearer of the legal right to the throne before the exile. It is upon this legal right that Matthew's genealogy of Joseph is constructed, not upon biological lineage. The post-exilic prophet Zechariah explicitly distinguishes the "house of David" from the "house of Nathan" as separate and recognizable lineages:
"the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart." (Zech 12:12)
The separate mention of the "house of Nathan" - distinct from the "house of David" - confirms that Nathan's lineage was recognized as an independent genealogical entity in Second Temple Judaism. Luke traces precisely this line.
Jewish Law: Levirate and Go'el as Mechanisms of Dynastic Continuity
Jewish law provided two legal institutions relevant to understanding dynastic continuity in cases of extinction of direct descendants. The first is levirate marriage (yibbûm, יִבּוּם): if a man died without sons, the widow was obligated to marry the nearest surviving brother-in-law (yābām, יָבָם), in order to raise up offspring for the deceased that would perpetuate his name and inheritance in Israel.
The second institution is that of the go'el (גֹּאֵל), literally "the one who redeems": the nearest blood relative was responsible for redeeming alienated family property and, in narrative contexts, for marrying the widow to preserve hereditary continuity. The Book of Ruth illustrates both institutions: Boaz, as go'el, redeems the possession of Naomi's husband and marries Ruth, producing the lineage that culminates in David.
Both levirate and the go'el operate within the broad semantic range of the term בֵּן (ben) in Jewish culture, which may denote biological son, legal son, grandson, remote descendant, or member of a group. Matthew's genealogy demonstrates this breadth by applying γεννάω to relationships that include lateral succession and the transmission of dynastic right through the go'el.
These legal institutions provide the juridical framework within which the post-exilic generational gap in Matthew may be interpreted: the extinction of some branch of the royal line between Jacob and Joseph would not necessarily have interrupted the dynastic right, provided a near kinsman existed to receive the role of legal heir. Matthew's genealogy would record the bearer of that legal right in each generation - not necessarily the direct biological descendant.
Numerological Observations
Matthew explicitly organizes his genealogy into three groups of fourteen generations (Matt 1:17): from Abraham to David, from David to the Babylonian exile, and from the exile to Christ. The number 14 carries numerological significance in Hebrew - the name David (דוד) has a gematric value of 4+6+4 = 14 -, structuring the genealogy as an eschatological narrative of Davidic fulfillment.
Luke, subjected to the same numerological analysis, yields two significant figures: 42 generations from David to Jesus and 77 generations from Adam to Jesus (Table 4). The number 42 recurs in biblical apocalyptic literature as a marker of periods of tribulation or dominion. Table 3 summarizes the occurrences:
Table 3 - Apocalyptic Numbers in Daniel and Revelation
| Expression | Reference | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 2,300 evenings and mornings | Dan 8:14 | Restoration of the sanctuary (~76.7 months) |
| 1,290 days | Dan 12:11 | Abomination of desolation |
| 42 months | Rev 11:2 | Holy city trampled by the nations |
| 1,260 days | Rev 11:3 | Prophesying of the two witnesses |
| 1,260 days | Rev 12:6 | Woman in the wilderness |
| 42 months | Rev 13:5 | Dominion of the beast |
The expression "evenings and mornings" (ʿereb wābōqer) in Daniel 8:14 is the same used in Genesis 1 for the days of creation, prior to the creation of the luminaries. The purification of the sanctuary referenced in Daniel 8:14 finds its typological counterpart in the redemptive work of Jesus, which constitutes the ultimate reason for the existence of both genealogies.
The number 77 - generations from Adam to Jesus in Luke - has a typological parallel in Genesis 4:24, where Lamech, a descendant of Cain, invokes retribution seventy-seven times. Luke's genealogy, in positioning Jesus as the 77th descendant of Adam, possibly functions as a typological response to Lamech's cycle of vengeance: where Lamech invoked unlimited retribution, Jesus embodies reconciliation.
Conclusion
The analysis of the genealogies of Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 reveals that none of the traditional harmonization hypotheses - Julius Africanus's levirate or the attribution of Luke's genealogy to Mary - finds sufficient textual support. The levirate hypothesis does not account for the full extent of the divergence between the two lists; the attribution to Mary has no basis in Luke 3's Greek syntax nor in any explicit biblical or patristic source.
J. Gresham Machen's proposal, developed here, offers a more coherent solution: Matthew records the succession of the legal right to the Davidic throne, transmitted by Jewish juridical mechanisms such as levirate and the go'el; while Luke records the biological ancestral lineage of Joseph through the line of Nathan. The two genealogies converge in Joseph not because he has two biological fathers, but because the legal lineage and the biological lineage unite in his person.
The Omride infiltration hypothesis, presented here as an extension of the analysis, offers a historically plausible explanation for the omissions in Matthew 1:8 between Jehoram and Uzziah, and confirms that there may be a genealogical leap from Jacob to Joseph: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah belonged to a period in which the Davidic legitimacy of the palace line was compromised by the dynastic parenthesis initiated by Jehoram's marriage to Athaliah and culminated in Athaliah's purge in 2 Kings 11:1. Uzziah would represent the point of Davidic restoration recognized by the people, as suggested by the popular acclamation formula of 2 Kings 14:21.
The post-exilic gap of approximately 270 years in Matthew, with eleven names unverifiable in the Old Testament, is best understood as a record of bearers of the legal dynastic right by mechanisms of juridical transfer (go'el, adoption, lateral succession) rather than as an unbroken chain of biological generation.
The distinction between the two houses - that of Solomon (Matthew) and that of Nathan (Luke) - was recognized in Second Temple Judaism, as Zechariah 12:12 attests. The incarnation, on this reading, simultaneously satisfies two messianic requirements: Jesus belonged biologically to the house of Nathan (Davidic biological lineage through Luke) and was the legal heir to the Davidic throne through the line of Solomon via Joseph (Matthew). By not being Joseph's biological son, Jesus is not subject to the curse of Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:30; by being his legal son, he inherits the royal title.
Appendix A: Comparative Table of the Genealogies
Table 4 - Comparative Genealogies: Luke 3:23-38 x Matthew 1:1-16
| # | Luke 3:23-38 | Matthew 1:1-16 | #↓ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) | Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) | 77 |
| 2 | Ἰωσήφ (Joseph) | Ἰωσήφ (Joseph) | 76 |
| 3 | Ἡλί (Eli) | Ἰακώβ (Jacob) | 75 |
| 4 | Μαθθάτ (Matthat) | Ματθάν (Matthan) | 74 |
| 5 | Λευί (Levi) | Ἐλεάζαρ (Eleazar) | 73 |
| 6 | Μελχί (Melchi) | Ἐλιούδ (Eliud) | 72 |
| 7 | Ἰαννά (Jannai) | Ἀχείμ (Achim) | 71 |
| 8 | Ἰωσήφ (Joseph) | Σαδώκ (Zadok) | 70 |
| 9 | Ματταθίας (Mattathias) | Ἀζώρ (Azor) | 69 |
| 10 | Ἀμώς (Amos) | Ἐλιακείμ (Eliakim) | 68 |
| 11 | Ναούμ (Nahum) | Ἀβιούδ (Abiud) | 67 |
| 12 | Ἐσλί (Esli) | Ζοροβαβέλ (Zerubbabel) | 66 |
| 13 | Ναγγαί (Naggai) | Σαλαθιήλ (Shealtiel) | 65 |
| 14 | Μαάθ (Maath) | Ἰεχονίας (Jeconiah) | 64 |
| 15 | Ματταθίας (Mattathias) | Ἰωσίας (Josiah) | 63 |
| 16 | Σεμεΐν (Semein) | Ἀμώς (Amon) | 62 |
| 17 | Ἰωσήχ (Josech) | Μανασσῆς (Manasseh) | 61 |
| 18 | Ἰωδά (Joda) | Ἑζεκίας (Hezekiah) | 60 |
| 19 | Ἰωανάν (Joanan) | Ἄχαζ (Ahaz) | 59 |
| 20 | Ῥησά (Rhesa) | Ἰωαθάμ (Jotham) | 58 |
| 21 | Ζοροβαβέλ (Zerubbabel) | Ὀζίας (Uzziah) | 57 |
| 22 | Σαλαθιήλ (Shealtiel) | Ἰωράμ (Joram) | 56 |
| 23 | Νηρί (Neri) | Ἰωσαφάτ (Jehoshaphat) | 55 |
| 24 | Μελχί (Melchi) | Ἀσάφ (Asa) | 54 |
| 25 | Ἀδδί (Addi) | Ἀβιά (Abijah) | 53 |
| 26 | Κωσάμ (Cosam) | Ῥοβοάμ (Rehoboam) | 52 |
| 27 | Ἐλμαδάμ (Elmadam) | Σολομῶν (Solomon) | 51 |
| 28 | Ἤρ (Er) | Δαυίδ (David) | 50 |
| 29 | Ἰησοῦς (Joshua) | Ἰεσσαί (Jesse) | 49 |
| 30 | Ἐλιέζερ (Eliezer) | Ἰωβήδ (Obed) | 48 |
| 31 | Ἰωρείμ (Jorim) | Βοόζ (Boaz) | 47 |
| 32 | Μαθθάτ (Matthat) | Σαλμών (Salmon) | 46 |
| 33 | Λευί (Levi) | Ναασσών (Nahshon) | 45 |
| 34 | Συμεών (Simeon) | Ἀμιναδάβ (Amminadab) | 44 |
| 35 | Ἰούδα (Judah) | Ἀράμ (Ram) | 43 |
| 36 | Ἰωσήφ (Joseph) | Ἑσρώμ (Hezron) | 42 |
| 37 | Ἰωνάμ (Jonam) | Φαρές (Perez) | 41 |
| 38 | Ἐλιακείμ (Eliakim) | Ἰούδα (Judah) | 40 |
| 39 | Μελεά (Melea) | Ἰακώβ (Jacob) | 39 |
| 40 | Μαινάν (Menna) | Ἰσαάκ (Isaac) | 38 |
| 41 | Ματταθά (Mattatha) | Ἀβραάμ (Abraham) | 37 |
| 42 | Ναθάμ (Nathan) | - | 36 |
| 43 | Δαυίδ (David) | - | 35 |
| 44 | Ἰεσσαί (Jesse) | - | 34 |
| 45 | Ἰωβήδ (Obed) | - | 33 |
| 46 | Βοόζ (Boaz) | - | 32 |
| 47 | Σαλά (Sala) | - | 31 |
| 48 | Ναασσών (Nahshon) | - | 30 |
| 49 | Ἀμιναδάβ (Amminadab) | - | 29 |
| 50 | Ἀδμείν (Admin) | - | 28 |
| 51 | Ἀρνί (Arni) | - | 27 |
| 52 | Ἑσρώμ (Hezron) | - | 26 |
| 53 | Φαρές (Perez) | - | 25 |
| 54 | Ἰούδα (Judah) | - | 24 |
| 55 | Ἰακώβ (Jacob) | - | 23 |
| 56 | Ἰσαάκ (Isaac) | - | 22 |
| 57 | Ἀβραάμ (Abraham) | - | 21 |
| 58 | Θάρα (Terah) | - | 20 |
| 59 | Ναχώρ (Nahor) | - | 19 |
| 60 | Σερούχ (Serug) | - | 18 |
| 61 | Ῥαγαύ (Reu) | - | 17 |
| 62 | Φάλεκ (Peleg) | - | 16 |
| 63 | Ἔβερ (Eber) | - | 15 |
| 64 | Σαλά (Shelah) | - | 14 |
| 65 | Καϊνάμ (Cainan) | - | 13 |
| 66 | Ἀρφαξάδ (Arphaxad) | - | 12 |
| 67 | Σήμ (Shem) | - | 11 |
| 68 | Νῶε (Noah) | - | 10 |
| 69 | Λάμεχ (Lamech) | - | 9 |
| 70 | Μαθουσάλα (Methuselah) | - | 8 |
| 71 | Ἑνώχ (Enoch) | - | 7 |
| 72 | Ἰάρετ (Jared) | - | 6 |
| 73 | Μαλελεήλ (Mahalaleel) | - | 5 |
| 74 | Καϊνάμ (Cainan) | - | 4 |
| 75 | Ἐνώς (Enos) | - | 3 |
| 76 | Σήθ (Seth) | - | 2 |
| 77 | Ἀδάμ (Adam) | - | 1 |
References
BAUER, Walter; DANKER, Frederick William; ARNDT, William F.; GINGRICH, F. Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
BROWN, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday, 1977.
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA. Historia Ecclesiastica. Introduction par Gustave Bardy. SC 31. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1952.
GELDENHUYS, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951.
JOHNSON, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
KOEHLER, Ludwig; BAUMGARTNER, Walter; STAMM, Johann Jakob. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT). Leiden: Brill, 2001.
MACHEN, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1930.
MIGNE, Jacques-Paul (ed.). Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca. Paris: Garnier Frères, 1857-1866. vol. 10.
MORRIS, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
NESTLE, Eberhard; ALAND, Kurt et al. (eds.). Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.
WALTKE, Bruce K.; O'CONNOR, Michael P. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
WILSON, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.
Did you enjoy this article? Share it with others: