Matthew and Luke use genealogies to show that Jesus descended from David, but both trace his lineage differently. For example, Matthew claims that Jesus descends from David through his son Solomon (Matt 1:6–7), while Luke says Jesus stems from another son of David, Nathan (Luke 3:31). Many other differences occur. Even Joseph, Jesus’s earthly father, is said to be the son of Jacob in one Gospel (Matt 1:16) and Heli in another (Luke 3:23).
It raises the question: what is going on here? Why would both Gospel writers argue so differently about the lineage of Jesus?
This article traces how Christians have historically explained the genealogies and concludes by offering my own judgment on the question.
A Roadmap for the Reader
This is a long article. So I want to provide a roadmap.
The discussion unfolds in three steps.
First, I examine the view that Luke records Mary’s genealogy while Matthew records Joseph’s.
Second, I turn to an alternative and historically influential explanation, articulated most clearly by John of Damascus.
Third, I show how this levirate explanation helps resolve the problem posed by Jeremiah’s curse on the royal line of David (Jer 22:30), while still affirming Jesus’s rightful kingship.
The article concludes by returning to the theological aim of the genealogies themselves. Whatever solution one finds most convincing, both Matthew and Luke use genealogy not merely to record ancestry, but to proclaim who Jesus is: the Son of David, the Son of God, and the promised Messiah.
First, Some Argue that Luke Records Mary’s Genealogy and Matthew Joseph’s
One solution is that while Matthew records Jesus’s genealogy through Joseph, Luke does so through Mary. This historical argument has precedent among some early Christians, who argued in ways that appear to assume this conclusion. However, clear articulations of this view come much later in church history.
In his On the Talmud and Hebraica, John Lightfoot (1602–1675) explains the Marian Genealogy view in this way: first, in Luke’s Gospel, it is not Joseph who is said to be the son of Heli, but Jesus. Grammatically, Jesus is the subject of all the names that follow his in the genealogy (Luke 3:23; Comm. Lk 3:23).
Hence, when Luke 3:23–24 says, “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,” it means that Jesus was the son or descendant of each person named in the list. Joseph is mentioned only because some supposed him to be the biological father of Jesus (Luke 3:23).
Lightfoot points to the final two names of the genealogy to prove his view, which read, “the son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:38). Since it would be absurd to say that Adam is the son of God in the same sense as Jesus is, and since Jesus is explicitly declared to be the Son of God in Luke 3:22, Lightfoot concludes that the genealogy concerns whose son Jesus is. Contextually, the verse directly before Luke’s genealogy ends with God the Father’s declaration, “You are my beloved Son” (Luke 3:22). So it seems obvious that the genealogy aims to prove establish Jesus’s divine sonship (Luke 3:22 with 3:38).
From this statement of Jesus’s divine sonship in Luke 3:38, Lightfoot argues:
“So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, ‘This is my Son,’ was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman. And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother’s side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God.” (Comm. Lk 3:23; cf. Gen 3:15)
In short, Jesus is the son of Heli, that is, his descendant. “Indeed,” explains Lightfoot, “in every link of this chain this still should be understood, ‘Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi’; and so of the rest” (Comm. Lk 3:23). The whole genealogy thus demonstrates Jesus’s descent through Mary’s line and focuses on his sonship, as a continuation of God’s declaration in Luke 3:22.
Lightfoot grants, however, that some may still want Joseph to be the son of Heli. If so, this remains technically true since Joseph would be Heli’s son-in-law through his marriage to Mary: “He was but his son by law, by the marriage of Joseph’s mother, not by nature and generation” (Comm. Lk 3:23). In other words, “Mary was the daughter of Heli” (Comm. Lk 3:23).
If Luke does record Mary’s genealogical line, then the difference between Luke and Matthew makes better sense. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob because Jacob is his father according to the flesh (Matt 1:16); Luke calls Jesus the son of Heli through Mary—or, if Joseph is called Heli’s son, it would mean father-in-law through marriage to Mary. That, at least, is Lightfoot’s argument.
Can this truly resolve the apparent contradictions? James Edwards warns against being too ready to accept this explanation. He writes, “The most frequent explanation of the early church was that Luke preserved Mary’s genealogy from David to Joseph, whereas Matthew preserved Joseph’s. This is a possible explanation, but there is no extant genealogy of Mary with which to verify it” (Luke, 123). Edwards further states, “If there were a satisfying resolution, we should expect the painstaking genealogists of the early church to have discovered it” (123).
But perhaps early Christians did discover another solution in their painstaking study of the genealogies. I turn to that question now.
Historical Precedent for Luke as Mary’s Genealogy
Some ancient authors appear to make similar arguments, or at least to share assumptions close to Lightfoot’s. They may have done so because of early traditions about Mary and Joseph’s family.
For example, Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403 AD) argued that Matthew chronicles Jesus’s legal genealogy through Joseph (Panarion 78.7.3) and implies that Luke outlines his genealogy through Mary. Both Joseph and Mary belong to the tribe of Judah and trace their descent to David. But Mary comes by way of David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31), while Joseph comes by way of David’s royal son Solomon (Matt 1:6–7).
We must be careful here. Epiphanius’s primary aim is to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity in service of the Incarnation, not to resolve a genealogical puzzle. Still, he strongly hints at a solution.
First, he notes that “Joseph was the brother of Cleopas, but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther” (Panarion 78.7.5). He then emphasizes Joseph’s legal relationship to Mary: “He was called her husband because of the Law” (Panarion 78.7.3; cf. Matt 1:18–25). The marriage was legal, not consummated.
Epiphanius applies this legal framework to Joseph’s relation to Jesus:
“Similarly Joseph himself is held by dispensation to be in the position of a father, though he had had no part in the fleshly generation of the Savior. Thus Luke the evangelist says of the Savior himself that he was ‘the son of Joseph, as was supposed’ (Luke 3:23), and Mary too said to him in the Gospel according to Luke, ‘Behold, your father and I have sought you sorrowing’ (Luke 2:48).” (Panarion 78.7.11–12)
If Joseph had “no part in the fleshly generation of the Savior,” then Mary necessarily did: “The incarnate Christ’s human nature was taken from Mary’s body for us” (Panarion 78.15.3; cf. Gal 4:4).
Earlier, Epiphanius affirms Matthew’s claim that Joseph was the son of Jacob (Matt 1:16). He makes no assertion that Joseph was the son of Heli according to the flesh. The implication is that he distinguishes Matthew’s genealogy from Luke’s.
Matthew narrates Joseph’s lineage as the legal father of Jesus, “by the dispensation of providence.” Luke notes that Joseph was only supposed to be Jesus’s father (Luke 3:23), while Jesus in fact derives his fleshly descent from Mary. On this reading, Luke’s genealogy must record that descent.
This conclusion is inferential, but such reasoning is typical of patristic argumentation, especially in polemical contexts.
This reading may be reinforced by Epiphanius’s acceptance of second-century tradition preserved in the Protoevangelium of James (c. 150 AD). According to this text, Mary’s parents were Joachim and Hannah. At first glance, this seems irrelevant, since Joachim and Heli are different names. Yet many proponents of the Marian-genealogy view identify the two, noting that both names contain divine elements and sound similar in Greek (Ἡλί / Ἰωακείμ). If Heli is the short form of Eliakim, then it does sound similar to Joachim. The only difference is between the divine names preceding -achim/-akim ending—El (God) or Ya/Ja (Yahweh).
If we accept such speculations, then perhaps Luke preserves an early memory of Mary’s parentage. However, this linguistic connection seems tenuous. Furthermore, Luke does not say anywhere that the genealogy recounts the line of Mary.
This is possibly why other early Christians favoured a second explanation, one that centers on levirate marriage.
Second, Some Argue that Matthew and Luke Record Two Fathers of Joseph Due to Levirate Marriage
John of Damascus (675–749 AD) articulates an ancient and widely held view that explains the genealogical differences through levirate marriage (Orthodox Faith 4.14). In this view, Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Heli (Luke 3:23) share the same mother but have different fathers.
“Jacob and Heli were born of the same mother, but Jacob was of the tribe of Solomon, while Heli was of the tribe of Nathan” (Orthodox Faith 4.14).
John does not derive this view from Scripture alone but also from received historical tradition, including the Protoevangelium of James (J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 48).
John distinguishes Joachim, Mary’s father, from Heli, Joseph’s father; he does not identify the two. He then outlines a complex genealogical account, drawing on Luke 3:24, 29, 31.
Levi, descended from Nathan, begets Melchi and Panther. Panther begets Barpanther, who begets Joachim, Mary’s father. Mathan, descended from Solomon, begets Jacob (Matt 1:15–16). When Mathan dies, Melchi marries Mathan’s widow and begets Heli.
Thus, Jacob and Heli share the same mother. Heli dies childless, and Jacob marries Heli’s widow in accordance with the law of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5–6). Joseph is therefore the biological son of Jacob but the legal son of Heli (Luke 3:23).
This principle is illustrated in Genesis 38, where Judah fails to provide Tamar with an heir through his youngest son. Tamar secures offspring by Judah himself. Judah later acknowledges, “She is more righteous than I” (Gen 38:26). The law later formalizes this principle (Deut 25:5–10) to preserve inheritance within a tribe (cf. Num 36:6).
On this reading, Joseph has two fathers: Jacob according to nature and Heli according to law. This avoids assuming that Luke’s genealogy traces Mary directly or that Heli is identical to Joachim.
John further notes that Mary must also belong to the tribe of Judah, since marriage within one’s tribe was required, and Joseph was a just man (Matt 1:19; cf. Num 36:6).
The Curse of Jeremiah and the Davidic Kingship
This levirate view also clarifies how Jesus can be a Davidic king in light of Jeremiah 22:30. God declares that none of Coniah’s offspring will sit on David’s throne (Jer 22:30). Zerubbabel later governs Judah (Hag 1:1; Ezra 5:2) but never reigns as king.
Yet Matthew traces Jesus’s genealogy through Coniah (Matt 1:11–12). Jesus enters this line legally through Joseph, but he is not a physical descendant of Coniah (Matt 1:16, 1:18–25). Thus the royal line is preserved without violating the curse.
Luke’s genealogy reinforces this by tracing Jesus’s descent through Nathan rather than Solomon (Luke 3:31). Joseph is called the son of Heli (Luke 3:23), that is, his legal father.
The Marian-genealogy view could also resolve the curse, since Luke could be tracing Jesus’s descent through Mary “according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3). Yet this requires assuming that Joseph is called Heli’s son as a son-in-law, which the text does not state explicitly.
For this reason, John of Damascus’s explanation may provide the stronger account. Both the Marian-geneology and levirate genealogy view resolve the question.
Conclusion
The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are difficult to track, but they clearly affirm that Jesus descends from David. He does so through Joseph by legal adoption (Matt 1:1–16; Luke 1:27; 2:4) and may also do so through Mary, whose Davidic descent is less explicit.
Luke emphasizes Jesus as the Son of God (Luke 3:22, 38), while Matthew emphasizes Jesus as Israel’s king (Matt 1:1). Both genealogies are selective, not exhaustive. Matthew makes that clear by listing three sets of fourteen names that have redemptive-historical significance across epochs (e.g., Matt 1:17).
Even so, the central claim remains clear: Jesus is the promised Davidic Messiah, who has come to save his people (Matt 1:21; Luke 2:11; Rom 1:3–4).
