Who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda,
του μααθ του ματταθιου του σεμει σεμεει του ιωσηφ του ιουδα
3 Church Fathers comment on this verse
Judas, known as Hyrcanus, was the first to bear this name and was years old: Russ.-14, Rom.-14. Alstedius estimates his age at 31. During this time, Alexander the Great triumphed over Darius. Joseph reigned for first years: Russ.-7, Rome.-7. Alexander the Great became the singular sovereign. Semei Abner led the Jews for years: Russ.-11, Rome.-11. Mataphius, called Eli, was years: Russ.-12, Rom.-12. Maath Asar reigned for years: Russ.-9, Rom.-9.
The individuals listed in the initial section of the genealogy, spanning from Elijah to Neriah and marking the conclusion of the Babylonian exile, total twenty-one according to the Gospel of Luke. In contrast, Julius of Africa counts nineteen, having excluded Matthatha and Levi, who Luke places between Elijah and Melchiah. To explain this discrepancy, some suggest that Julius may have mistakenly altered his recollection, while others propose that the Gospel copy he consulted lacked the names of Matthatha and Levi. Regardless, both Matthew’s count of fourteen and Julius's tally of nineteen fall short for such an extensive timeline of 538 years, making Luke's genealogy particularly comprehensive and precise during this period.
Initiating His ministry began with His baptism, marking the commencement of His sacred mission. He was approximately thirty years old, with the term suggesting he was either slightly older or younger. More precise chronological assessments indicate that He was likely just over thirty years old. The phrase "as they thought" reflects the common Jewish assumption that He was Joseph's son, although in truth, He was not (Eph. 3:19).
In the genealogies of Christ in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, we observe notable discrepancies which have puzzled scholars throughout history, giving rise to various interpretations. The primary points of difference include: firstly, in Matthew's lineage, Joseph's father is identified as Jacob (Matt. 1:16), whereas in Luke's version, it is Eli (Luke 3:23). Secondly, the paternal lineage of Salathiel and Zerubbabel differs between the two accounts; Matthew claims Salathiel is the son of Jechoniah (Matt. 1:12), while Luke states he is the son of Neriah (Luke 3:27), and similarly, their descendants diverge with Matthew listing Abiud as Zerubbabel's son (Matt. 1:13), while Luke names Risaiah (Luke 3:27).
Thirdly, the genealogies differ regarding Joseph's descent from David: Matthew traces it through Solomon (Matt. 1:6-7), while Luke traces it through Nathan (Luke 3:31). Furthermore, the names and the number of individuals listed between David and Salathiel (Matt. 1:7-12, Luke 3:31-27) and between Zerubbabel and Joseph (Matt. 1:13-16, Luke 3:27-23) do not align in either sequence or quantity.
Several explanations arise for these discrepancies: one suggests that Matthew provides the genealogy for Joseph, while Luke offers that of Mary, both being descendants of David through different lines. However, this conflicts with Luke’s explicit reference to tracing Joseph's lineage as well (v. 23), and it was uncommon to maintain genealogies along the maternal line, despite Mary's Davidic heritage. Another proposition is that both genealogies refer to the same individuals, albeit with varied names, reflecting the Jewish tradition of multiple names for the same person. Yet this argument fails to account for the distinct lines from David and the differing counts of individuals in both genealogies.
A more plausible explanation relates to the law of levirate marriage, which stipulates that a brother or nearest kin of a childless deceased man should marry his widow to preserve the family line (cf. note on Matt. 1:12). Children from this union would be perceived as having dual paternal identities: one biological and the other, legal. Thus, Matthew names Salathiel as the son of Jechoniah (the childless), according to the law, while Luke identifies his biological father as Neriah, who carried on Jechoniah’s line. Zerubbabel, the adopted son of Salathiel, fathered Abiud and Risaiah, with Matthew tracing descent from the former and Luke from the latter. This distinction extends back to their respective lines from David, with Matthew establishing lineage through Solomon and Luke through Nathan, leading to their identification of Jacob and Eli as Joseph’s fathers: Eli, who died childless, had Jacob, his nearest relative, restore his line through marriage to his widow, resulting in the birth of Joseph, who was biologically Jacob’s son, yet legally Eli’s.
This genealogical interpretation originated with Julius Africanus in the second century, who purportedly obtained it from relatives of the Virgin Mary (Eusebius, Church History 1.7). This rationale is considered the most credible and has gained acceptance among numerous Church fathers and theologians. Such applications of levirate marriage laws might have been common during periods of scarcity for the house of David, particularly during the Babylonian exile and leading up to Christ's coming, when the Davidic lineage had ceased reigning in Jerusalem.
Greek text, 10 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS