Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her,
του μελχι του αδδι του κωσαμ του ελμωδαμ του ηρ
2 Church Fathers comment on this verse
Following the era between the Babylonian captivity and David, Luke records a total of nineteen generations (3:28-31). In contrast, Matthew provides a list of only fourteen for this same time frame. However, it is important to note that Matthew excludes three kings during this interval; therefore, Luke’s count of nineteen serves as additional evidence of the distinctive thoroughness and precision of his genealogical account.
Commencing His ministry refers to the moment He was baptized, marking the beginning of His solemn service. "About thirty years" indicates that He was approximately thirty years old, which implies he may have been slightly more or slightly less than that age. For precise chronological clarity, it's reasonable to assume He was a bit over thirty (see note on Luke 3:1). The phrase "as they thought" reflects a common Jewish assumption, although He was not truly the son of Joseph (Eph. 3:19b).
The mention of "Son of Joseph," Elias, and others points to the discrepancies found when comparing the genealogies of Christ in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (Matt. 1:1-16). Several differences complicate the understanding of these genealogies, leading to various interpretations. Notable distinctions include: 1) In Matthew's account, Joseph's father is Jacob (Matt. 1:16), while in Luke's, it is Eli (Luke 3:23). 2) Salathiel and Zerubbabel have different paternal lines in both genealogies. According to Matthew, Salathiel is the son of Jechoniah (Matt. 1:12), while Luke records him as the son of Neriah (Luke 3:27). Matthew lists Abiud as Zerubbabel's son (Matt. 1:13), whereas Luke names him Risaiah (Luke 3:27). 3) Matthew highlights that Joseph descends from David through Solomon (Matt. 1:6-7), while Luke traces his lineage through Nathan (Luke 3:31). 4) The names in their respective genealogies differ 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 varying numbers of ancestors listed in each genealogy.
Explanations for these differences have emerged over time: 1) Some argue that Matthew presents the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke outlines that of the Virgin Mary, as both are descended from David through separate lines. However, Luke explicitly mentions he is tracing Joseph's lineage (Luke 3:23), and it was not customary to maintain genealogical records through the maternal line, despite Mary's Davidic ancestry. 2) Another assumption suggests that the individuals are identical but with different names, owing to the practice of multiple names within Jewish customs. This theory contradicts the clear distinctions between the genealogies that identify one as descending through Solomon and the other through Nathan, revealing them to be separate individuals. 3) A plausible explanation for these discrepancies pertains to the Jewish practice of levirate marriage, where a brother or close relative of a childless deceased man would marry the widow to continue the family name (see note on Matt. 1:12). The offspring born from such unions effectively had dual paternities, one biological and the other legal. Thus, Matthew refers to Salathiel as the legal son of Jechoniah, while Luke names Neriah as his biological father, who reinstated the lineage of the childless Jechoniah. From Zerubbabel, who was adopted by Salathiel, came Abiud and Risai, with Matthew tracing the descent through Abiud and Luke through Risai, paralleling their different paths from David via Solomon and Nathan respectively. These genealogies culminate with Jacob and Eli as the respective fathers of Joseph the betrothed: Eli, son of Matthat, died childless, and Jacob, his nearest relative, restored the lineage through his widow, leading to the birth of Joseph, who thus is biologically Jacob's son while legally considered Eli's.
This interpretation of the genealogical differences traces back to the second-century writer Julius Africanus, who learned it from living relatives of the Blessed Virgin (Euseb. Church Hist. 1, 7). It stands as a widely accepted understanding among many church fathers and teachers. Instances of this levirate practice likely occurred during periods of hardship for David's lineage, particularly during the Babylonian exile and leading up to Christ's arrival, when the house of David no longer held power in Jerusalem.
Greek text, 10 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS