Articles
“Luke's Genealogy of Jesus”
23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Luke 3:23-38
The above might not be gripping reading to modern people but genealogies serve many important functions in ancient literature. Sometimes, they stitch the narrative together, spanning great lengths of time to connect two stories, as in Genesis. They also hold important clues about a family or an individual within the family. Such is the case here. The Gospels give us two genealogies of Jesus, one in Matthew and the other in Luke. They both have their puzzles and they are both very different from each other. Whenever there are parallel passages in the Gospels, it’s always instructive to hone in on those differences because they usually reveal details that the author wants to especially emphasize. Let’s briefly examine some of those differences between Luke’s ‘family tree’ of Jesus and Matthew’s.
First, notice the scope of Luke’s genealogy. Luke takes in seventy-seven names from Jesus back to Adam. Some see eleven groups of seven names, but I can’t detect any clear pattern or purpose behind it. As we read our way back to Adam, we get the impression that it’s all part of a long story which culminates in Jesus. Matthew’s goes back only to Abraham, emphasizing that he is Israel’s Messiah, whereas Luke’s goes back to Adam, emphasizing that he is the Savior of the whole world, Gentiles included. This fits with Luke’s primarily non-Jewish audience and focus in his Gospel account.
Second, notice the direction of the genealogy. Whereas Matthew’s reads forward from Abraham to Jesus (Mt. 1:1-17), Luke’s goes backward in history from Jesus to Adam. I’m not sure what to make of this but it’s there.
Third, notice the placement of Luke’s genealogy. Matthew puts his smack at the beginning of his account, laying out Jesus’ royal pedigree for his Jewish audience. Luke places his later, inserting it between Jesus’ baptism (Lk. 3:21-22) and his temptation (Lk. 4:1-13). In Luke, we go from connecting Jesus to Adam and then straight to his temptation by the devil. This is Luke’s subtle way of telling us to read the temptation story in light of Genesis 3. Matthew, on the other hand, writes his temptation story in such a way that we would contrast Jesus’ faithfulness with Israel’s unfaithfulness in the wilderness (Num. 14). But by mentioning Adam, Luke wants us to put Luke 4 side by side with Genesis 3.
This helps us see the temptation in a new light. In the beginning, the first Adam was tempted and failed. Here, the second ‘Adam’ is tempted and succeeds. In Genesis 3, Adam faced temptation in the abundance of the Garden. Here, Jesus faced temptation in the desolation of the wilderness. The first Adam was surrounded with provision; the second ‘Adam’ with destitution. Genesis 3 depicts the fall of man. Luke 4 reports the standing of man. Luke 4 is 1 John 3:8 illustrated: “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” That’s what Jesus is doing in the wilderness. He is beginning to reverse the effects of the fall by meeting evil head on. Jesus is showing us the new way—which was God’s original way—to be human. Jesus is showing us how to overcome temptation and trust in God. He’s proving that temptation can be overcome, but to do so, we’ve got to walk in the footsteps of Jesus.
That’s the ‘easy’ stuff about Luke’s genealogy. There are some puzzles that remain, however. Why are the names in Luke’s genealogy so different than Matthew’s? The list of names are almost in total disagreement. As stated before, Matthew and Luke both have their points to make about Jesus. Matthew traces David’s descendants via the royal line of Solomon and Judah’s kings, while Luke traces his physical descent through another little-known son of David, Nathan or Nahshon (3:31; 2 Sam. 5:14). Both lines converge at Joseph, but both lines have a different precursor to Joseph (Jacob in Mt. 1:16, Heli or Eli in Lk. 3:23). Some speculate that a second marriage is the explanation, one gives Joseph’s physical father while the other lists his legal father. But who knows?
So, there are difficulties here that seem to lack clear answers. What do we do in the face of such textual problems? One thing I’ve learned not to do is to allege that the Biblical authors were careless and made a mistake. Both Matthew and Luke have acquitted themselves over and over again as the most thoughtful and brilliant historians and theologians. They were not sloppy. When there are unanswerable questions like these, I’ve learned to assume the ignorance in mine as a twenty-first century reader and not to pontificate too much on the issue.
