Luke 3:23Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He suggests that if one struggles to believe in the second Adam's seedless birth, they should reflect on the first Adam, who was created by God without seed, and thereby refrain from disbelief.

Some question why Matthew refers to Joseph as the son of Jacob while Luke cites him as the son of Eli. They argue that it seems impossible for one individual to have two fathers. The explanation offered is that Jacob and Eli were half-brothers with different parents. After Eli’s passing, his wife became the companion of Jacob so that she could bear children, thus Joseph is regarded as the biological son of Jacob and the son of Eli according to the Law. Jacob was indeed his father by nature, while Eli’s fatherhood came through legal obligation. The Law mandated that a brother of a deceased man without children should marry his widow, and any offspring from this union would be recognized as the child of the deceased (Deuteronomy 25:5, 6), even though biologically, they belong to the living brother. Consequently, the accounts of the evangelists are consistent and do not contradict each other. Matthew presents Joseph’s biological lineage, while Luke conveys his legal lineage through Eli, both affirming that the Lord came to redeem nature and fulfill the requirements of the Law.

Since Luke clarifies that Christ was born not of Joseph but of the virgin Mary, the reason he refers to Joseph as His father may be understood as acknowledging Joseph's role not through a physical union, but through a marital bond. Thus, Joseph can be seen as the father of Christ, who came from his wife, more fittingly than if He had been adopted from elsewhere. Therefore, it is evident that the phrase "as thought to be the son of Joseph" reflects the beliefs of those who assumed He was born like any other human.

Thus, while Joseph is recognized as Jacob’s son, the law attributes it to Elijah. One evangelist, Matthew, emphasizes natural lineage, while another, Luke, highlights legal lineage. Therefore, do not allow yourself to disrupt the harmonious agreement of the Evangelists. The hymns are sacramental. The genealogy of Christ.

Firstly, one should not be perplexed by the statement that He was considered the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23). While that was the common belief, in truth, He was not Joseph's son by nature. This perception arose because He was born of Mary, who was espoused to Joseph (cf. Matt. 1:18). It was indeed asked of Him, “Is this not the carpenter’s son?” (Matt. 13:55). We have previously elaborated on why the Lord chose to be born of a virgin, the significance of His birth from a betrothed woman, and the timing of His birth during the census. Now, it is fitting to explain why Joseph, a carpenter, was designated as His earthly father. In portraying Joseph as a carpenter, the Lord illustrates that His true Father is the Creator of all, as stated: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). Though human and divine cannot be compared, the analogy remains apt, as God, like a master carpenter, skillfully shapes our souls with fire and spirit, rooting out our iniquities, and swiftly addressing those lacking righteousness (cf. Matthew 3:10, Luke 3:9). He discerns where to prune what is excessive, where to nurture growth, and seeks to soften hardened hearts with the Spirit's flame, preparing humanity for diverse ministries through various means.

Why is Joseph's genealogy provided rather than Mary's, given that Mary bore Christ through the Holy Spirit (cf. Mt. 1:20, Lk. 1:35) and that Joseph had no role in His birth? This question might arise if not for the understanding that Scripture consistently conveys genealogy through the male lineage. Consider the genealogy of Judah's offspring: Phares begot Esrom, who begot Aram, and so forth, all the way to David (Matt. 1:3-6). The focus is on the man, representing the dignity of his lineage within governance and leadership. To neglect the male line while addressing the woman's genealogy would imply that the One for whom all nations were to proclaim had no father.

Furthermore, let us examine another passage of Scripture where genealogy is outlined differently, which reveals the absence of contradiction among the evangelists as they adhere to ancient customs. It states, “There was a man from Arat, his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeremiel, the son of Eli, the son of Hosea” (1 Kings 1:1). Therefore, according to traditional practice, genealogy is traced from fathers to sons and vice versa, consistently portraying lineage through the male line. We should not be surprised that Matthew begins with Abraham and continues to Joseph, while Luke traces back to Adam and God. It is essential to note Joseph's lineage; being born of Mary, Christ conformed to worldly customs, especially since Joseph's lineage encompasses Mary’s.

As a righteous man (see Matthew 1:19), Joseph would surely have chosen a spouse from his own tribe and lineage, adhering to the law. It is written, “Every one of the children of Israel shall be bound to the inheritance of his fathers' tribe” (Num. 36:7) and “every daughter that inherits an inheritance in the tribes of the children of Israel shall be a wife to one of the people of her father's tribe” (Num. 36:8). During the census, Joseph, being from the house and lineage of David, came to register with Mary (see Luke 2:4). By registering together, it indicates her belonging to the same tribe and lineage.

Mary's relative is Elizabeth, highlighting that all Jews share the same heritage, as the Apostle states: “I wish I myself were anathema for my brethren who are my kinsmen according to the flesh, that is, Israelites” (Rom. 9:3-4). Thus, Mary and Elizabeth are closely related as Israelites from the tribe of Judah. It is noted that Mary is of the tribe of Judah, while for Elizabeth, it is written: “But when Mary arose in those days, she went with haste into the hill country, into the city of Judah, and entered the house of Zechariah” (Luke 1:39-40). If Elizabeth resided in the city of Judah, she belonged to the tribe of Judah, and was part of the priestly lineage, which God has claimed as His own (cf. Deut. 18:2, 6).

How wonderfully crafted it is that one gave birth to the forerunner of Christ, while the other bore Christ Himself, one conceived by the Holy Spirit and the other prophesying under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Both, bonded by divine kinship in God, shared physical ties as well! If, according to the holy Apostle, every wife is under her husband (see Eph. 5:23), and by divine ordinance, two become one flesh (Gen. 2:24), how could those united in body and spirit be regarding each other as distant relatives? Additionally, the angel Gabriel foretold that the Lord would grant Him the throne of David, His father (Luke 1:32), further demonstrating that Mary also descended from David's line. Furthermore, we understand that the order in which the generations are presented in the genealogy is immaterial, as the lineage can be traced in both directions.

As Jesus commenced his public ministry, He was around thirty years old. At thirty, the Lord manifests His purpose, subtly revealing truths about Himself through this significant age. The number thirty, understood in a spiritual context, symbolizes the Lord as the Creator and Sustainer of time, nature, and the rational beings that transcend the natural world. The Lord governs time through the number seven, as time consists of seven elements; He governs nature through the number five, as that which is natural can be understood through five senses; and He oversees intelligible beings through the number eight, indicating their existence surpasses temporal measurements. Moreover, the Lord provides for humanity through the number ten; the sacred tithe in commandments guides people toward prosperity, and the name of the Incarnate Lord begins with this very letter. Adding the numbers five, seven, eight, and ten yields thirty. Those who recognize the profound nature of following the Lord our Guide are aware of the significance behind His revelation at the age of thirty, already prepared to declare the Gospel of the Kingdom. When He, in a manner akin to visible reality, created a world of virtues through His active omniscience—without altering the trajectory of His soul’s experience through contrasts for a designated period; when, through contemplation, He fully grasped the understanding of intellectual truths and was therefore prepared to impart that wisdom to others—then God the Word, appearing in human form and having reached the spiritual milestone of thirty years, showcases both His gifts and His impact on others.

The Lord’s role as Sustainer is illustrated through the number ten, associated with the Ten Commandments that guide humanity toward righteousness, along with the fact that the initiating letter of the Lord’s human name is iota. Therefore, when summing seven, five, eight, and ten, one arrives at the number thirty, which symbolically encapsulates these concepts.

His appearance marked the beginning of His revelation to humanity through signs and teachings. He was regarded as the Son of Joseph, as was commonly believed by the Jews, although, in truth, He was not Joseph's biological son. The Evangelist, having mentioned Joseph, traces back to Joseph's father, grandfather, and further back to his ancestors until reaching Adam. This lineage is referenced in the introduction to Matthew's genealogy, which asserts: "Son of David, Son of Abraham," where one may seek to understand the variance in genealogical accounts.

There is a mention of Elijah. Joseph is referred to as the son of Elijah. The differing designations of Joseph as the son of Jacob by Matthew and the son of Eli by Luke arise from the fact that Eli died without children. Consequently, Jacob, as Eli’s half-brother, legally took Eli’s wife and became the father of Joseph. Thus, by law, Joseph is considered Eli's son, while by nature, he belongs to Jacob's line. Matthew portrays Joseph's lineage according to his biological descent, while Luke does so according to legal standing, both of which lead back to David.

This truth has been made known not through questionable genealogies, but through the voices of the prophets and patriarchs. Therefore, there is no need to delve into speculative interpretations that attempt to derive Jesus' priesthood and kingship from these mixed genealogies. If genealogical evidence were necessary for affirming Jesus' priestly role, it could have been easily provided, especially since the priestly lineage of Levi intermingled with the royal lineage of Judah through familial unions.

It is inconceivable that the evangelists could have fabricated these accounts or presented fanciful tales as truth, for they were undoubtedly aware of Jesus' descent from the royal line of David, a descendant of the tribe of Judah. Prophets such as Nathan, Solomon, and David arose from different tribes, while priests could only originate from Levi. Consequently, any effort by the evangelists to distort their genealogical records would have proven incoherent and ineffective. Thus, the Church must reject interpretations of the Lord's genealogies that suggest deceit in Christ’s teachings, as such falsehoods could never serve the glory of God.

Recall the apostle's words as he confidently preached Christ's resurrection, expressing the depth of his conviction: "But if Christ is not risen, our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain. Moreover we would also be false witnesses for God.” If even the apostle, devoted to glorifying God, was apprehensive about misrepresenting such a significant event, how much more should we guard against distorting the truth with erroneous arguments. If Christ’s genealogies were untrue and intended solely to validate His role as King and Priest, the Word of God would be reduced to mere fabrications, undermining the credibility of Jesus’ ministry and failing to glorify God. Deceit cannot bring about God’s glory, and divine judgment may fall upon those who prioritize symbolic interpretations of genealogies over the truth, as they propagate falsehoods in place of reality.

It is our responsibility to illuminate the fallacy of such views, guiding others away from erroneous beliefs. To this end, I will outline the authentic history of the Gospel genealogies. The Gospels present varying genealogies of Jesus because the Jewish tradition maintained records through both natural descent and legal succession. If a family patriarch passed away, his brother might marry the widow, fathering children considered the deceased man's own. This practice was known as "restoring the seed." Thus, genealogical records could reflect both biological fathers and legally recognized fathers. Consequently, one man might have multiple fathers in genealogy, where some children would be recognized as his own, while others would be attributed to his deceased brother's family, all stemming from a hope in the enduring legacy of one's name, particularly given the incomplete understanding of resurrection and immortality.

The evangelists accurately recorded Jesus’ genealogies, with one reflecting natural lineage and the other legal standing. Among our Lord’s earthly ancestors, the lines descending from both Solomon and Nathan intermingled through these familial practices. As such, both genealogies possess historical authenticity, ultimately tracing back to Joseph and presiding over their namesakes with fidelity. To exemplify this, we see a familial overlap within the genealogies presented in Matthew and Luke. For instance, in Matthew’s account, Joseph descends from David via Solomon, where the name Matthan appears before James and Joseph. Conversely, in Luke, the lineage moves through Nathan, with Matthat begetting Elijah, who, in turn, is linked to Joseph. Here we see the duality of Joseph’s paternity, acknowledged as a son of both legal and natural lineages.

To reconcile this, Eli and Jacob must be brothers, consistent with the law of seed restoration. Questions may arise regarding how Eli and Jacob share fraternity from different family lines and the roles of Matthat and Matthan. Matthan, from Solomon's line, married Esther and fathered Jacob before passing. Jewish law allowed widows to remarry, hence Matthan's union with Esther produced Elijah. This made Jacob and Elijah half-brothers, with Elijah marrying but dying childless. Jacob thus married Elijah’s widow, fathering Joseph, who was naturally Jacob’s son but legally recognized as Elijah’s. Consequently, Matthew records “Jacob begat Joseph,” while Luke states that Jesus was regarded as “the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,” illustrating a genealogy framed around Jewish law rather than mere bloodlines.

The narrative presented is not unsubstantiated conjecture or unverifiable hypothesis. I have learned from the descendants of our Savior's earthly relatives—whether to elevate truth or themselves, their accounts have proven truthful. Historical accounts reflect that during the Seleucid era, Idumean bandits attacked Ascalon, capturing how the son of a priest faced adversity but later became influential. This man, Antipater, navigated political waters to secure his lineage through tumult and ultimately facilitated the rise of Herod, whose descendants continued to exert power in their regions.

Why mention these details? Because, until recent times, Jewish genealogies were meticulously documented in state records, including those from Gentile converts such as Ruth or Tselek. Recognizing his own non-royal status, Herod sought to obliterate these records, attempting to seize legitimacy without challenge. However, numerous families independently maintained their ancestral records, deriving some from official archives. Those connected to kings David and Solomon took pride in their lineage. Among these, many were related to our Lord, providing their genealogies to the evangelists, corroborating them against available chronicles.

While my reasoning may invite skepticism, it remains the most credible explanation available—the truth will always find resonance among those discerning and seeking answers. Even in the absence of corroborating testimonies, this exposition clarifies the apparent discrepancies in the genealogies. In all cases, the Gospels remain steadfast in their truthfulness. Matthan, tracing back to Solomon, bore James, who died, prompting his widow to marry Matthat of Nathan’s line, leading to Elijah’s birth. After Elijah’s childless demise, Jacob preserved his line, resulting in Joseph—legally Elijah’s son while naturally Jacob’s. Thus, the genealogical lines of Nathan and Solomon converge, offering insight into the Gospels' differing accounts.

Thus, Jacob took his brother's wife and fathered the holy Joseph, who was espoused to Mary. As previously mentioned, Joseph was regarded both as the natural son of Jacob and as the legal son of Elijah. This is why Saint Luke, the Evangelist, in his account of Christ's genealogy, identified Elijah as Joseph's father, stating that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, the son of Elias, the son of Matthat, using Elijah's name in place of Jacob.

The levirate law dictated that if a husband passed away without children, his surviving brother was obliged to marry the widow to ensure the continuation of his deceased brother's lineage. This custom, documented by Moses in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), was common among various Eastern cultures, including the Persians, Indians, Afghans, Druzes, and many Caucasian tribes. Under levirate marriage, the children born from this union were deemed to be the offspring of the deceased brother, intended to restore his legacy.

This juncture naturally presents an opportune moment for the evangelist to present His genealogy. A parallel can be drawn to the writer of Exodus, who introduced Moses' lineage at the commencement of his divine calling as the liberator of the Israelites from Egyptian captivity (Ex. 6:4-26).

As St. Luke stands at the threshold of a new era, he succinctly surveys the past, providing an abbreviated account of ancient humanity's history, if one may consider this a historical synopsis. There are three primary theories that attempt to reconcile the apparent discrepancies between him and Matthew. The earliest of these posits that the differences arise from the law of levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), a concept known to Julius Africanus in the third century. He noted that "the names of the generations of Israel were counted either by nature or by law," where a brother could father children with his deceased brother’s wife. Consequently, in Christ’s genealogy, some are truly heirs of their fathers, while others were considered children by legal designation. The lines from Solomon and Nathan intertwine due to the efforts to honor the childless through subsequent marriages and the preservation of lineage, allowing for individuals to justifiably be identified as the offspring of different fathers, either biological or otherwise.

For instance, the differing accounts of Salathiel as either the son of Jechoniah in Matthew or the son of Neriah in Luke can be explained; upon Jechoniah's death without heirs (1 Chronicles 3:17 and Jeremiah 22:30), his widow became the wife of Neriah, a descendant of David, producing Salathiel—physically a son of Neriah, yet legally recognized as Jechoniah's son. Julius Africanus presented this harmonious understanding, not simply as a theory but as evidence drawn from the testimonies of Christ’s earthly relatives. He grounded this explanation in the prevailing laws and customs of the time, bolstered by numerous instances found in the Old Testament, which provided clarity and simplicity of rationale, thereby garnering acceptance among early interpreters.

Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that Julius Africanus did not deem this method of explanation wholly conclusive. He concluded, “Whether it was thus or not, it is clear that it would be challenging to find a more satisfactory solution to the genealogies than that relayed to me.” Another reconciliation approach, somewhat more recent, is grounded in the law of inheritance (Numbers 36:8-9; 1 Chronicles 2:21-22; Nehemiah 7:63); if a man married a deceased father's daughter, he was counted among that father's descendants. This suggests that Salathiel, being the son of Neriah and marrying Jechoniah’s daughter, was included in Jechoniah's lineage and thus viewed as Neriah’s child by birth yet Jechoniah’s by law. However, as noted by Olshausen, this explanation doesn’t directly address the genealogical conflicts within the Gospels but perhaps offers insight into Mary’s journey to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4).

More recently, a widely accepted interpretation emerges, differing from its predecessors in clarity and comprehensiveness. This view holds that Matthew outlines Joseph's genealogy while Luke presents Mary’s—or more specifically, her father Eli's lineage. Should this assumption hold true, it follows that the necessity for distinct genealogies for distinct individuals, namely Joseph and Mary, is evident. The basis for this understanding is embedded in the text itself, particularly in the phrase indicating Jesus was considered the son of Joseph, inferring that Joseph was not His biological father. This assertion implies that Luke intended to provide the genealogy of Mary, whose father was traditionally identified as Eli or Joachim in ecclesiastical sources.

Moreover, the evidence for this proposition is not solely due to the designation of Joseph in Luke’s account as the supposed father of Jesus, as Matthew expresses in 1:18-20; it is further established by the absence of the article “the” before Joseph’s name in the original text, contrasting with its presence in Matthew’s genealogy. This singular omission suggests that Luke did not view Joseph as a necessary figure in the genealogy but rather commenced with Elijah, signifying a deliberate emphasis on Mary’s lineage.

If Elijah is not contextually linked to Joseph, the interpretation of how Elijah’s name relates to the preceding names becomes crucial. Various grammatical constructions in the genealogy suggest that Elijah is indeed distinct, necessitating the understanding that Luke is laying out Mary’s lineage, thus bestowing significance upon Elijah within the genealogy of Christ. The traditional customs of genealogical representation frequently omitted maternal names, as ancient societies favored paternal lineage, reinforcing the historical practice of identifying a grandson by his grandfather's name rather than his mother’s.

The Talmud also refers to Mary as the daughter of Elijah, which, if reflective of Luke's account, accentuates the consistency between the two sources. Consequently, the premise becomes that Luke is tracing the ancestry of Mary or her father Eli, establishing an unbroken line linking Jesus to David through both His presumed father and mother. St. Augustine opines that Mary’s connection to Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron's priestly line, suggests familial relations that transcended tribal boundaries, as they likely originated from a shared ancestry with the tribe of Judah. This stipulation aligns with Jewish customs whereby Mary’s betrothal to Joseph necessitated a shared lineage, thereby affirming Joseph’s role in Jesus’s heritage.

Turning to Luke's genealogy of Jesus Christ (3:23-38), the introduction at verse 23 transitions from the baptism narrative: “And Jesus Himself, as He began His ministry, was about thirty years old, being thought to be the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” It’s essential to unpack this passage, particularly the expressions “began” and “was.” The initial terms cannot logically be fused into one phrase, as “was” connects with the phrase indicating His age of thirty years. Notably, thirty was a significant age when Jewish Levites commenced their service (Numbers 4:3, 23) and when young Greek men began participating in civic duties. The term for "was" illustrates a notable point of consideration, as it stands somewhat independently, reinforcing the idea that St. Luke utilized it to facilitate the transition from the baptism event to the genealogy, which should be understood as initiated with Elijah, not Joseph, indicating that the reference to Joseph could be omitted without detracting from the overall genealogical context.

Given that the 37th year of Herod's reign would align with the year 750, astronomical evidence shows that the lunar eclipse occurred on the night of March 13-14, 750, while Jewish Passover was observed on April 12 of that same year. From this, it can be inferred that Herod, the king of the Jews, died at the start of April 750, suggesting that Jesus Christ was born before 750.

To establish a more precise year for Christ’s birth, we can consider the following details: a) Luke the Evangelist records that Jesus was baptized by John during the fifteenth year of Emperor Tiberius's reign, noting that Jesus was around thirty years old at that time (Luke 3:1, 23). Tiberius became co-emperor with Augustus two years before Augustus's death in January 765, making the fifteenth year of Tiberius's reign commence in January 779. Thus, if Jesus was approximately thirty years old then, His birth likely occurred between 748 and 749 at the earliest; and b) all four Evangelists agree that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, coinciding with Passover. Astronomical calculations indicate that the year 783 was the only year in that period when Passover, always celebrated on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, fell on Friday, April 7. If Jesus was thirty-four at His crucifixion, His birth would be in 748, while if He was thirty-three, His birth would be recorded in 749 from the foundation of Rome. Consequently, some scholars advocate for the year 748 as Jesus’s birth year, while others prefer 749. Thus, the chronological assertion by Dionysius is behind a more precise timeline by at least five and at most six years.

The second interpretation posits that the Evangelists not only list the direct forebears of Jesus Christ but also those who were lawfully recognized as his ancestors according to the customs of inheritance.

To address the variation in the names of Joseph's father, scholars often reference the customary legal practices. Julius Africanus, a third-century writer who recorded traditions from Jesus’s relatives, recounts (as noted by Eusebius) that Estha, Matthan’s wife, descended from Zerubbabel through Abiud (as noted in Matthew 1:13, 15) and later married Melchiah, a descendant of Risai, Zerubbabel’s son (as found in Luke 3:24, 27). They had a son named Eli, who died without children. Consequently, Jacob, another son of Estha by Matthan, married his brother's widow, leading to the birth of Joseph. Hence, while Joseph was naturally the son of Jacob, according to Jewish law, he was regarded as Eli’s son.

Some interpreters believe that Luke presents Jesus's lineage through His mother, while Matthew offers it through Joseph as Jesus's presumed father. A potential objection to this view is that it was uncommon for Jews to record a woman’s genealogy; nonetheless, Luke may have included Mary's ancestry, naming her father as Eli. Tradition and various Apocryphal texts identify Mary’s parents as Joachim and Anna; notably, the name Joachim can be seen as synonymous with Eliakim (4 Kings 23:34), which in shortened form relates to Eli/Ilius. Interestingly, the Talmud acknowledges Mary as the daughter of Elijah. Furthermore, Luke’s text can be read as supporting this perspective: “Jesus, who was thought to be the son of Joseph, was actually the son of Eli” can imply that Joseph is referred to as Elijah's son through his marriage to Mary, Elijah's only daughter.

In existing Greek manuscripts and translations of the New Testament, two names, Matthanus and Levi, appear between Elijah and Melchiah; however, Africanus and Eusebius regard Elijah as Melchiah’s son. Thus, the inference may be that the names Matthanus and Levi were added to the text to be consistent with earlier verses. St. Irenaeus notes in his work that there are 72 generations from Adam to Christ (with other lists proposing a more likely total of 75), which aligns with the accounts provided by Africanus and Eusebius.

The primary discrepancies are as follows: 1) In Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph’s father is identified as Jacob (Matt. 1:16), whereas in Luke’s, he is named Eli (Luke 3:23). 2) The genealogies show Salathiel and Zerubbabel having different lineages. In Matthew, Salathiel is the son of Jechoniah (Matt. 1:12), while Luke states he is the son of Neriah (Luke 3:27). Similarly, Zerubbabel’s lineage differs as he is recorded as the son of Abiud in Matthew (Matt. 1:13) and Risaiah in Luke (Luke 3:27). 3) Matthew’s account traces Joseph’s descent from David through Solomon (Matt. 1:6, 7), while Luke does so through Nathan (Luke 3:31). 4) A comparison of both genealogies reveals varying names from David to Salathiel (Matt. 1:7-12; Luke 3:31-27) and from Zerubbabel to Joseph (Matt. 1:13-16; Luke 3:27-23), with differing totals as well.

The explanations for these variations have been offered as follows: 1) Matthew records the lineage of Joseph, while Luke chronicles that of Mary, as both descended from David but through different descendants. However, this is challenged by Luke’s explicit statement tracing the genealogy of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Moreover, maintaining female lineages in genealogies was not customary, although it is established that Mary descended from David. (2) Some suggest that the individuals in both genealogies are identical but bear different names due to a common Jewish practice of assigning multiple names to the same person. Yet, this theory does not align with the genealogical evidence, distinguishing one line from David through Solomon and the other through Nathan as separate entities, nor with the discrepancy in their totals. (3) A compelling explanation arises from the law of inheritance, which dictated that the brother or closest relative of a deceased man without children would marry his widow to continue the family line (see note on Matt. 1:12). The offspring of such unions had two paternal associations: one by biology and the other by law. Hence, Matthew identifies Salathiel as the son (by law) of Jechoniah, the childless one, whereas Luke acknowledges his biological father, Neriah, who revived the lineage of Jechoniah.

Salathiel then adopted Zerubbabel, leading to the births of Abiud and Risai. Matthew's genealogy follows Abiud, while Luke's corresponds to Risai. The former lineage extends from David through Solomon, while the latter traces through Nathan. Accordingly, Matthew ultimately connects to Jacob, while Luke connects to Eli, both recognized as the fathers of Joseph. In this regard, Eli, the son of Matthat, died without children; Jacob, also a son of Matthat and Eli’s kinsman, married Eli’s widow, thus restoring the family line resulting in Joseph, who is accordingly, by descent, the son of Jacob and, by legal terms, the son of Eli. A succinct outline of this genealogy in review appears as follows: David | Solomon --------- Nathan | | Jechoniah---- wife of both-----Neriah (childless) (revived the lineage) | Salathiel | Zerubbabel | Abiud --------- Risai | | Jacob---- wife of both------Eli (revived the lineage) (childless) | Joseph, the betrothed

This interpretation of the genealogical differences was first noted by the second-century scholar Julius Africanus, communicated to him by relatives of the Blessed Virgin (ref. Eusebius, Church Hist. 1, 7). This assessment appears to be the most credible and has garnered acceptance among many Church fathers and teachers. Instances of practical application of this law of lineage restoration were likely during challenging periods for the house of David, notably during the Babylonian exile and prior to Christ’s arrival, when the Davidic lineage no longer reigned in Jerusalem.