Luke 3:24Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Thus, Joseph is referred to as the son of Jacob because, in accordance with the precepts of the Old Law, a brother is obligated to restore the lineage of his deceased sibling (as seen in Gen. 38:8, Mk. 12:9, Lk. 20:28). Therefore, while Joseph is biologically the son of one man, the law also recognizes him as the son of another. This principle ensures that the lineage of the departed continues, though the Jewish interpretation often missed the fullness of this promise, interpreting it too literally. Ultimately, a different Brother was destined to restore the lineage of those who had passed—not through earthly ties, but through a grace-filled bond. It is possible that redemption comes not through a brother in the usual sense, but through the Lord, the mediator between God and mankind, Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5), the one who granted the grace of resurrection (though there are varied interpretations of this, which we will address elsewhere).

Tracing their lineage, Elijah’s father leads back to Risei, the son of Zerubbabel, while Jacob’s father traces his line to Abiud, also a descendant of Zerubbabel, establishing the divergence into these two family lines. A similar instance can also be found in the genealogies presented by the Evangelists.

This period was marked by severe persecution and suffering inflicted by Antiochus, leading to a power struggle among the bishops, who resorted to bribery and violence against one another. As a result, Jerusalem fell into disorder and rebellion until God raised up courageous individuals from the Levitical lineage, known as the Maccabees, who fought valiantly to liberate the Jewish people from their oppressors.

Regardless, both the count of fourteen as per Matthew and the nineteen cited by Julius of Africa seem insufficient for such an extensive period of 538 years, making Luke's genealogy notably comprehensive and precise when set against this historical backdrop.

When examining Christ's genealogy presented in the Gospel of Luke alongside that in the Gospel of Matthew, notable discrepancies arise, leading to a variety of interpretations. The primary differences include: 1) In Matthew's account, Joseph’s father is Jacob, while Luke states it is Eli. 2) The parentage of Salathiel and Zerubbabel diverges between the two genealogies: Matthew lists Salathiel as the son of Jechoniah, while Luke states he is the son of Neriah; similarly, Zerubbabel's lineage differs as Matthew names Abiud and Luke identifies him as Risaiah. 3) Matthew traces Joseph's lineage back to David through Solomon, whereas Luke does so through Nathan. 4) The names from David to Salathiel and from Zerubbabel to Joseph are distinct in both genealogies, and the total number of names listed varies.

The proposed explanations for these differences include: 1) Matthew may be presenting the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke offers that of Mary, since both descended from David through different lines. However, Luke explicitly states he is tracing Joseph's genealogy as well. Additionally, genealogies typically did not follow the female line, although Mary also has Davidic roots. 2) It has been suggested that the names represent the same individuals, differing only by common Jewish custom of multiple names, yet this does not reconcile with the distinct lines traced through Solomon and Nathan. 3) A plausible explanation lies in the law of levirate marriage, where a relative would marry a childless widow to continue the family line. This means the offspring would have two fathers: one biological and one according to the law of the deceased. For instance, Matthew refers to Salathiel as the son of Jechoniah in terms of legal lineage, while Luke identifies his biological father as Neriah, who reinstated the line of Jechoniah.

From Zerubbabel, adopted by Salathiel, came Abiud and Risaiah. Matthew follows the line through Abiud, while Luke traces his from Risaiah, with both genealogical accounts leading back to distinct forebears: Solomon in Matthew and Nathan in Luke. This leads to both Jacob and Eli being regarded as fathers of Joseph: Eli, the childless son of Matthat, had his lineage restored by Jacob, who produced Joseph. Consequently, Joseph is biologically Jacob’s son and legally Eli’s.

This understanding of the genealogical discrepancies finds its roots in the writings of Julius Africanus from the second century, who learned of it from relatives of the Blessed Virgin. This explanation has gained acceptance among numerous Church fathers and educators. These genealogical applications of the law were particularly likely during challenging periods for the house of David, such as the Babylonian exile and prior to Christ's coming, when the Davidic line ceased to reign in Jerusalem.

The familial lines of David's sons, Solomon and Nathan, converge in the figure of Salathiel, who is referred to in Matthew as the son of Jechoniah and in Luke as the son of Neriah. Zerubbabel is a descendant of Salathiel, and his sons Abiud and Risaiah again present two different branches that ultimately join in the figure of Matthan, or Matthat, identified in Matthew as the son of Eleazar and in Luke as the son of Levi. Joseph, recognized as the earthly father of Jesus (Luke 3:23), appears in Matthew as the son of James, while in Luke he is referred to as the son of Elijah. The proposition that Matthew conveys Joseph's genealogy while Luke offers that of Mary reconciles some differences but raises questions, as St. Luke specifically states he is providing Joseph’s lineage. Furthermore, St. John Chrysostom notes that genealogy was typically not traced through females among the Jews, indicating a lack of emphasis on the Virgin Mary's lineage in the Gospels. However, given the Jewish law prohibiting marriage outside one's tribe (Num. 36:7), Joseph would not have been able to wed the Blessed Virgin unless she belonged to the same lineage, suggesting that by presenting Joseph's genealogy and affirming his descent from the House of David, the Evangelists also imply Mary's kinship to him. The discrepancies noted in the genealogies of Jesus, as presented by Matthew and Luke, are attributed by the Holy Fathers to the Jewish law concerning kinship (Deut. 25:5; Ruth 4:4-5; Matthew 22:24). According to this law, it was required for a brother or nearest relative of a deceased man without children to marry his widow, and the offspring from this union would be legally regarded as the deceased's children, even though biologically they were the children of the living husband. Matthan or Matthat (considered as a single individual) has dual lineage as he is listed by Matthew as a descendant of Eleazar and by Luke as a descendant of Levi, with these two origins explained as a combination of natural descent and legal inheritance. Matthan or Matthat had two sons, Jacob and Eli. It can be said, as the holy John Damascene points out, that Eli, who belonged to the lineage of Nathan, passed away without children. Consequently, his brother Jacob, from the line of Solomon, married Eli's widow to produce offspring for him, resulting in Joseph being naturally the son of Jacob, of the tribe of Solomon, while legally considered the son of Elijah, of the tribe of Nathan.