Luke 3:31Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

It is crucial to declare the temporality of the generations since the beginning, to recognize the fleeting nature of noble figures like Levi, Judah, and Simeon, as well as David and the grand kings of history. Even the womb of the blessed Virgin, though it bore the truth, is obscured by deceptive shadows and clouds. It is necessary to proclaim that blood has diminished, swept away like dust by the wind; the bones are now weak and flowing, the intricate network of swift veins has perished, and the gentle breezes have scattered and the storm has rendered in vain everything that was achieved.

Furthermore, the promise made to David pertains to him and is generally divided into two parts: one part refers to the continuation of David’s lineage through Solomon to inherit the throne (2 Sam. 7:12-16), while the other speaks to the advent of the Messiah, encompassing David and his descendants.

When examining the genealogies presented in Luke and Matthew (Matt. 1:1-16), notable discrepancies arise, leading to considerable debate among scholars since ancient times. The primary distinctions are as follows: 1) In Matthew, Joseph's father is identified as Jacob (Matt. 1:16), while in Luke, it is Eli (Luke 3:23). 2) The lineage of Salathiel and Zerubbabel diverges; Matthew lists Salathiel as the son of Jechoniah (Matt. 1:12), whereas Luke states he is the son of Neriah (Luke 3:27). For Zerubbabel, Matthew names his son Abiud (Matt. 1:13), while Luke refers to him as Risaiah (Luke 3:27). 3) Matthew's genealogy links Joseph, the betrothed, to David through Solomon (Matt. 1:6-7), in contrast to Luke, who connects him through Nathan (Luke 3:31). 4) Furthermore, the names listed 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) differ in both accounts, and the respective counts of names are not uniform.

Various interpretations have been proposed to reconcile these differences. One theory posits that Matthew presents the genealogy of Joseph while Luke provides that of Mary, as both descended from David but through distinct lines. This theory, however, encounters obstacles, particularly since Luke explicitly states he traces both genealogies through Joseph (Luke 3:23). Additionally, it was uncommon to maintain genealogies through maternal lines, although it is affirmed that Mary also came from David's lineage. Another suggestion is that the individuals listed are the same but are referred to by different names due to a Jewish custom of using multiple names for a single person. However, this idea conflicts with the genealogies' explicit indications that one line descends from David through Solomon and the other through Nathan, confirming they are separate individuals.

A more compelling explanation emerges from the law of leveret marriage, which dictates that the brother or nearest relative of a childless deceased man should marry the widow to preserve the family line (see note on Matthew 1:12). The children from this union would have two paternal figures: one biologically and the other legally. Consequently, Matthew refers to Salathiel as the son (in accordance with the law) of Jechoniah, who died without children, while Luke designates Neriah as his biological father, who reestablished Jechoniah's lineage. From Zerubbabel, who was adopted by Salathiel, came Abiud and Risaiah; Matthew traces through the former while Luke through the latter, reflecting how Matthew descends from David through Solomon and Luke through Nathan. The genealogies converge on Jacob and Eli, both acknowledged as Joseph's fathers. Eli passed away without children, leading to Jacob, his nearest relative, marrying his widow and fathering Joseph, rendering Joseph the son of Jacob by birth and the son of Eli by law.

This interpretation of the genealogical differences originates from the second-century historian Julius Africanus, who received insights from the surviving relatives of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Eusebius, Church History 1.7). This explanation remains one of the most widely accepted among various Church Fathers and theologians, with instances of this law likely applied during challenging times for the house of David—particularly during the Babylonian exile and prior to Christ's arrival, when David's lineage ceased to reign in Jerusalem.