1. In Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph’s father is identified as Jacob, whereas in Luke’s, he is Eli. 2. Both genealogies present divergent parentage and offspring for Salathiel and Zerubbabel. Matthew represents Salathiel as the son of Jechoniah, while Luke lists him as the son of Neriah. Likewise, Zerubbabel is designated Abiud in Matthew’s account and Risaiah in Luke’s. 3. In terms of royal lineage, Matthew traces Joseph’s ancestry through David’s son Solomon, whereas Luke’s lineage extends through Nathan. 4. The names in the genealogies from David to Salathiel and from Zerubbabel to Joseph differ in both accounts, and the number of names is not identical.
Various theories have been proposed to account for these inconsistencies:
1. One theory suggests that Matthew outlines Joseph’s lineage while Luke details Mary’s, as both are descendant from David through different branches. However, Luke explicitly indicates he traces Joseph’s genealogy as well. Additionally, it was generally uncommon to document genealogies through female lines, despite Mary’s Davidic descent. 2. Another explanation posits that the individuals listed in both genealogies are the same but with differing names due to the Jewish tradition of multiple names for one person. This theory, however, conflicts with the clear distinction between the genealogies tracing through Solomon and Nathan, and the varying numbers of ancestors listed. 3. A widely accepted interpretation hinges on the law of levirate marriage, which mandated that a brother or nearest relative of a childless deceased man marry his widow to perpetuate the family lineage. Consequently, children from such unions would have dual identity, one physical and one legal. In this context, Matthew labels Salathiel as the son of Jechoniah in accordance with this law, while Luke designates Neriah as his biological father, who reinstated the lineage of Jechoniah.
From Zerubbabel, who was adopted by Salathiel, came Abiud and Risaiah. Matthew’s genealogy follows through Abiud, while Luke traces through Risaiah; Matthew continues from David through Solomon, while Luke moves through Nathan. Both genealogies lead to Jacob and Eli, recognized as Joseph’s paternal ancestors. Eli, being childless, had his lineage restored by Jacob, the next of kin, resulting in Joseph being, in essence, Jacob’s son by birth and Eli’s son by legal custom.
In conclusion, this interpretation of the genealogical discrepancies can be traced back to the writings of Julius Africanus in the second century, which he obtained from the relatives of the Blessed Virgin. This explanation is highly regarded and has found acceptance among numerous Church Fathers and theologians. There were undoubtedly times when the law of levirate marriage was applied within David's lineage, particularly during the Babylonian exile and prior to Christ’s advent, when David’s lineage was not publicly acknowledged in Jerusalem.
THEOSIS