Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri,
του ιωαναν ιωαννα του ρησα του ζοροβαβελ του σαλαθιηλ του νηρι
6 Church Fathers comment on this verse
While I advocate for Tamar and Ruth, I acknowledge that the Lord's lineage included sinners as well. To sidestep these figures, St. Luke arranged the genealogy differently and chose not to mention Ahab, Jechoniah, or Uriah's wife, aiming to portray the priestly lineage as pure.
In Matthew's account, Salathiel is referred to as the biological son of Jechoniah, while Luke designates him as the legal son of Nirius. Nirius' genealogy also connects to Nathan, who was a descendant of David, while Jechoniah's lineage goes back to Solomon, another son of David, with both eventually tracing their ancestry to David himself.
Zerubbabel, a descendant of the Davidic line, was brought from Babylon to Jerusalem alongside many fellow Jewish exiles. He held the title of Jewish prince for a total of 58 years according to Russian chronology and also 58 years in Roman records. His son, Ressa, known by the name Mossolb, reigned for 53 years in the Russian annals and 66 years in the Roman tradition, as noted by Bellarmine and Alstedius, with a reign of 46 years. John, the son of Ressa, led the Jewish people for 36 years in Russian terms and 53 years in Roman terms, with Bellarmine and Alstedius recording a 40-year leadership period.
Refer to Matthew 1:12. The claim made by Wieseler and Bleek suggesting that Zerubbabel and Salathiel, who are both referenced by the Evangelists, are distinct individuals is contradicted by the evidence that their names appear simultaneously and in the same position in both genealogies following the Babylonian exile. Therefore, these individuals are certainly not different, but rather the same.
According to Matthew, Jechoniah is identified as the father of Salathiel, while Luke traces his lineage back to Nerius. To account for this discrepancy, it can be suggested that the Evangelists not only record the direct lineage of Jesus Christ but also include forebears who are acknowledged under the principle of likeness. Support for this view can be drawn from several points. It is established that Jechoniah, as stated in the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 22:29 in the Jewish and Russian texts), had no offspring. Therefore, his son would be regarded, in accordance with the law of lineage, as the child of a close relative (in this case, Neriah) who married Jechoniah's widow, who bore no children.
A similar situation can be observed with Zerubbabel, who is described as the son of Salathiel (1 Ezra 3:2; 1 Ezra 5:2), although other accounts (1 Chronicles 3:17, 19 in the Hebrew and Russian texts) indicate he was actually the son of Phedaiah, Salathiel's brother.
The commencement of His ministry refers to the moment He was baptized, signaling the start of His sacred mission. He was “about thirty years old,” which implies he was either slightly over or under thirty (ὡσεὶ). For a more accurate timeline, it is reasonable to conclude He was just over thirty (refer to note on Luke 3:1). When it states "as they thought," it indicates the belief of the Jewish people; however, He was not truly the son of Joseph (Eph. 3:19b).
When examining the genealogies of Christ as outlined in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, significant discrepancies arise which have puzzled interpreters since ancient times. The key differences are as follows: 1) In Matthew, Joseph's father is named Jacob (Matthew 1:16), whereas in Luke, he is recorded as Eli (Luke 3:23). 2) Both genealogies list Salathiel and Zerubbabel with different paternal lineages; in Matthew, Salathiel is the son of Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12) while in Luke, he is referred to as the son of Neriah (Luke 3:27). Likewise, Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Abiud (Matthew 1:13), while Luke lists him as the son of Risaiah (Luke 3:27). 3) According to Matthew, Joseph is a descendant of David through Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7), while Luke traces his lineage through Nathan (Luke 3:31). 4) The names appearing in both genealogies from David to Salathiel (Matthew 1:7-12; Luke 3:31-27) and from Zerubbabel to Joseph (Matthew 1:13-16; Luke 3:27-23) differ, along with varying total counts of names.
Explanations for these discrepancies include: 1) It is proposed that Matthew presents the lineage of Joseph while Luke provides that of the Virgin Mary, as both descended from David albeit through different lines. However, this interpretation is contradicted by Luke’s explicit mention of Joseph's genealogy (Luke 3:23), and genealogical records typically do not include female lines, even though Mary also stemmed from David's lineage. 2) Another suggestion posits that the individuals in both genealogies are the same but known by different names, reflecting the Jewish custom of assigning multiple names to one person. This theory, however, does not align with the distinct lines traced from David through Solomon and Nathan, nor does it sufficiently address the varying numbers found within the genealogies. 3) A more plausible explanation relates to the law of leverate marriage, wherein the brother or nearest male relative of a deceased man without children would marry the widow to ensure the family line continued (refer to note on Matthew 1:12). Children resulting from this union would have two fathers: one biological and one legal. For instance, Matthew refers to Salathiel as the son (by law) of Jechoniah, the childless man, while Luke names his biological father as Neriah, who reinstated the lineage of Jechoniah.
From Zerubbabel, who was legally considered Salathiel's son, came Abiud and Risaiah. Matthew follows the line of Abiud while Luke follows that of Risaiah. Matthew’s genealogy traces back to David through Solomon, while Luke’s goes through Nathan. In each genealogy, Matthew links to Jacob and Luke to Eli, both recognized as fathers of Joseph. Specifically, Eli, the son of Matthat, died without heirs, and Jacob—his closest relative—through Eli’s widow, continued the lineage, leading to Joseph, who, thus, is the son of Jacob in the physical sense and of Eli in accordance with legal tradition.
This understanding of genealogical disparities can be traced back to Julius Africanus in the second century, who referenced accounts from relatives of the Blessed Virgin (Euseb. Church Hist. 1, 7). This interpretation has garnered acceptance among numerous church fathers and scholars. Such applications of the law of leverate marriage feasibly occurred during periods of duress for the house of David—particularly during the Babylonian Exile and preceding Christ's arrival, when David's bloodline no longer held sovereignty in Jerusalem.
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 10 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS