21  The Messiah’s  Royal Lineage  (Luke 3:23–38)

When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (3:23–38)

There is a rising interest today in genealogy, as people attempt to trace their ancestry and uncover the famous and infamous in their family trees. For most it is purely recreational, a hobby motivated by simple curiosity. Some, however, do it out of a desire to bring meaning to their disconnected lives and build their sense of self-esteem. It makes them feel better about themselves to know that even if they are not significant, they are connected to someone who was.

In pursuit of their ancestors, people pore over census data, obituaries, and other historical records. Some even travel to the hometowns or countries of their forefathers to do research, making genealogy an expensive hobby for them. Others, such as Mormons, have a religious motive for tracking their genealogies, spending vast sums of money and time researching their ancestors so they can be baptized by proxy for them. That is a prerequisite for the spirits of the dead to enter the celestial kingdom, the highest level of heaven in their cultic pseudo-theology.

Genealogies were legitimately critical to the people of Israel. First, ancestry determined the original division of the land of Canaan among the twelve tribes (cf. Num. 26:53–55). Second, ancestry also established the right of inheritance to property and all that went with it (servants, crops, buildings, etc.). Third, ancestry formed the basis of the principle of kinsman redemption. If a poor man was forced to sell his property, one of his near relatives was to purchase it (Lev. 25:25; cf. Ruth 4:1–6). Fourth, ancestry played a role in taxation. Thus Joseph and Mary had to return to Joseph’s ancestral city of Bethlehem to register for the census (cf. the exposition of 2:4 in chapter 12 of this volume). Fifth, ancestry determined one’s eligibility to serve as a priest (cf. Ezra 2:61–62). Last, and most important, any claim to be king or Messiah would have to be backed up by the genealogical records.

Genealogies play a significant role in Scripture by rooting the biblical account in history. Because of their importance, the Jews kept very careful genealogical records, which survived until the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple in A.D. 70. In fact, the genealogies recorded by both Matthew and Luke are likely based on those public records, which were still in existence when they wrote. In addition to the official public records, many families undoubtedly kept private genealogical records. The Old Testament contains numerous genealogies (e.g., Gen. 4; 5; 10; 11; 1 Chron. 1–9). The New Testament also alludes to the availability of genealogical records. For example, Anna is identified as a member of the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36), Barnabas as a member of the tribe of Levi (Acts 4:36 [cf. Luke 10:32]), and Paul as a member of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5). Also, as noted above, Joseph knew that he had to go to Bethlehem for the census “because he was of the house and family of David” (Luke 2:4).

Because of the significance of genealogies in the ancient world, Luke’s readers would have understood why he included the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It was an essential credential for one claiming to be the Messiah to be a descendant of David. Luke has already given several credentials that establish irrefutably that Jesus is the Messiah. The account of John the Baptist’s miraculous birth to an elderly, barren couple introduced His prophesied forerunner (Luke 1:17; cf. Isa. 40:3–4; Mal. 3:1). Then the angel Gabriel announced to a young virgin named Mary that she was to be the mother of the Messiah (Luke 1:31–33). When Mary visited her older relative Elizabeth, John the Baptist’s mother, “Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?’” (vv. 41–43). Her husband, Zacharias, also filled with the Holy Spirit (v. 67), prophesied that John the Baptist would be Jesus’ forerunner. The angels who announced His birth to the shepherds (2:8–11) testified that Jesus was Savior, Messiah, and Lord (v. 11). Two righteous and godly individuals, Simeon and Anna, also added their testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, the one who would bring salvation to Israel (2:25–38). In 3:1–18, Luke recorded John the Baptist’s testimony to Jesus (see especially vv. 15–17). Then at His baptism, the Holy Spirit and God the Father gave the ultimate affirmation that Jesus is the Son of God, and thus the Messiah and the Savior of the world.

The genealogies of Jesus recorded by Matthew and Luke prove that He was not a self-appointed Messiah; a misguided reformer caught up in popular acclaim who began to have delusions of grandeur. Nor was He merely a good teacher of morality and ethics, or a revolutionary out to overthrow Rome’s rule. His genealogies, tracing His ancestry back through David and Abraham to Adam and ultimately to God Himself, show that Jesus was Israel’s rightful king.

A comparison of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke reveals marked differences. Some reflect the writers’ different purposes. Matthew placed his genealogy at the beginning of his gospel where it fits chronologically into the life of Christ. Luke, however, inserted Christ’s genealogy later in the context of His messianic credentials (see the discussion above). There are no women in Luke’s genealogy, while Matthew includes five (counting Mary). Luke’s genealogy goes from the present to the past; Matthew’s from the past to the present. Thus Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham and moves forward in time, while Luke’s begins with Jesus and moves backward in time to Adam. Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham, while the first name (chronologically) in Luke’s is Adam. The different starting points in their genealogies reflect the different purposes of the two Gospel writers. Matthew wrote primarily to the Jewish people, so it was natural for him to begin with Abraham, the father of the nation of Israel. Luke’s approach was more universal. He was concerned to present Jesus as the Son of Man, and demonstrate His solidarity with the entire human race. Therefore, he took Christ’s genealogy all the way back to Adam. Matthew’s emphasis on Joseph (Matt. 1:16, 18, 19, 20, 24; 2:13, 14, 19–21) and Luke’s on Mary (Luke 1:27, 30–56; 2:5, 16, 19, 34) in the early chapters of their gospels also reflects their complementary strategies.

Luke’s genealogy, therefore, was longer than Matthew’s, containing seventy-seven names as opposed to forty-two names in Matthew’s genealogy. Neither genealogy was intended to be exhaustive, but rather both are compressed or abridged. Matthew’s genealogy contains three groups of fourteen names, which was evidently done to make it easier to memorize. (It should be noted that the term “father” in Matthew’s genealogy does not necessarily denote a father-son relationship; it can be used in the more general sense of “ancestor.” See for example Matthew 1:5; several generations must have elapsed between Salmon, the husband of Rahab, who lived during the Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua, and Boaz, who lived much later during the period of the judges. Note also verse 1 where Jesus is referred to as the son [i.e., descendant] of David and Abraham.) Luke’s genealogy also skips generations. The repeated term son does not appear in the Greek text; in each pair of names the first named individual is merely said to be a descendant in some sense of the second one (cf. also v. 38; Adam obviously was not the son of God in a physical sense).

Other differences are more significant. Luke identifies Jesus’ grandfather as Eli, while Matthew calls him Jacob. Luke traces Jesus’ ancestry through David’s son Nathan, while Matthew traces it through his son Solomon. Finally, while the names from Abraham to David are identical in both genealogies (except that Matthew skips Admin), all but two of the names from David to Joseph are different. Two possible explanations for those differences have been proposed.

Some hold that both genealogies are Joseph’s, noting that Mary’s name does not appear in Luke’s genealogy and that the Jews traced ancestry through the father’s genealogy, not the mother’s (but as Leon Morris points out, “We have no information as to how a genealogy would be reckoned when there was no human father. The case is unique” [The Gospel According to St. Luke, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 100]). They explain Jesus’ different grandfathers (Eli in Luke and Jacob in Matthew), as well as the different names from David to Joseph, by invoking the principle of levirate marriage (Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5–7; Ruth 4:10). According to this view, Eli and Jacob were half brothers, having the same mother, but different fathers. One of the two died childless, and the surviving brother married his widow. That would make Joseph the biological son of the surviving brother, and the legal son of the deceased.

Though plausible, that view is based largely on utterly unprovable conjecture (that Eli and Jacob were half brothers, and that a levirate marriage took place). A far better explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy and Luke Mary’s (Luke omitted her name in deference to Jewish custom). The two different names given for Jesus’ grandfather actually refer to two different men, Joseph’s father, and Mary’s father. The differences in the names from David to Joseph are also to be expected, since the genealogies are those of two different people. Mary traced her ancestry through Nathan, while Joseph traced his through Solomon. This view is also consistent with the purposes of the two writers, as noted above. Matthew’s desire to prove Jesus’ legal claim to the throne of David led him to include Joseph’s genealogy. Luke addressed a broader, largely Gentile audience and thus gave Jesus’ actual, physical descent through Mary. Finally, this view explains how Jesus could legitimately be Israel’s king despite being a descendant of Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11). Jesus was the legal, but not physical, descendant of Jeconiah through Joseph. That avoided the curse that the Lord pronounced on Jeconiah, that none of his descendants would ever be king (Jer. 22:24–30). (For further evidence that Luke presents Mary’s genealogy, see Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels [Chicago: Moody, 1978], appendix 9.)

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke establish beyond doubt that Jesus was a descendant of David. Not even His bitter enemies among the Jewish leaders denied that. They surely would have rejected His messianic claims out of hand had He not been, and silenced the crowds who enthusiastically cried out at the triumphal entry, “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matt. 21:9). But the genealogical records, which they undoubtedly carefully checked, provided irrefutable proof of Jesus’ Davidic descent.

The remainder of this chapter will focus on four highlights from this passage: the start of Jesus’ ministry, the supposition of His ancestry, the similarity of two of His ancestors, and the significance of four names from His genealogy.

THE START OF JESUS’ MINISTRY

When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, (3:23a)

Except for the incident at the temple when He was twelve (2:41–51), Jesus had spent His life up to this point in obscurity. He grew up in the small village of Nazareth, living in subjection to His parents and working with his father (cf. Matt. 13:55 with Mark 6:3). Jesus began His public ministry at His baptism (cf. Acts 1:21–22; 10:37–38), at which point He was about thirty years of age. That was a customary age for men of God to begin their ministries. Ezekiel began his prophetic ministry at age thirty (Ezek. 1:1). Joseph was also thirty years old when he became the prime minister of Egypt (Gen. 41:46), and David was thirty when he ascended to Israel’s throne (2 Sam. 5:4). Thirty was also the age at which the priests began to serve (Num. 4:3, 35, 39, 43, 47; 1 Chron. 23:3). Jesus thus began His public ministry at an age that people would consider appropriate.

THE SUPPOSITION OF JESUS’ ANCESTRY

being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, (3:23b)

This brief phrase is of profound theological significance. It was commonly supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, understandably so since as far as most people knew, Jesus was just one of Joseph and Mary’s children (cf. Matt. 13:54–56). But that supposition was incorrect, and He was physically only the son of Mary. That affirms the reality of His virgin conception and birth (see the exposition of 1:34–38 in chapter 5 of this volume). The Greek text makes it clear that Joseph is not part of Luke’s genealogy. All the other names are preceded by the definite article tou, but Joseph is not, thus indicating that the mention of his name is parenthetical. The phrase could be more accurately rendered, “Jesus … being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Eli;” that is, the grandson of Eli through Mary. This is another compelling reason for viewing Luke’s genealogy as Mary’s. How could this be Joseph’s genealogy when Luke’s grammar makes it clear that Joseph was not part of it? Further, as R. C. H. Lenski points out,

THE SIMILARITY OF TWO ANCESTORS

Zerubbabel … Shealtiel (3:27)

The names from Eli (v. 23) to Rhesa (v. 27) and from Neri (v. 27) to Mattatha (v. 31) do not appear anywhere else in Scripture. All that can be said of them is that they were common Jewish names of the time. The names of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel sandwiched in between are known; in fact, they are the only two names after David’s time that are common to both the genealogies of Luke and Matthew. It is possible that the names refer to different individuals, and that there was a father named Shealtiel and a son named Zerubbabel in both genealogies. Or a levirate marriage may account for their presence in both genealogies. Zerubbabel himself may have been the child of a levirate marriage, since 1 Chronicles 3:19 lists Pedaiah as his father, while the Old Testament elsewhere calls him the son of Shealtiel (e.g., Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1), the brother of Pedaiah (1 Chron. 3:17–18). Similarly, Luke refers to Neri as the father of Shealtiel, while 1 Chronicles 3:17 lists Jeconiah as his father. Again, this is either another case of levirate marriage, or adoption.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FOUR NAMES

Four names in the genealogy sum up the person of Jesus Christ. As a son of God (v. 38b) by creation, Adam bore His image unspoiled, unpolluted, and uncorrupted until he fell into sin. That sin marred the image of God, so that none of Adam’s descendants were true sons of God in the same manner that he had been before he sinned. Jesus in His humanity, however, was a man as Adam had been before the fall; sinless, and perfectly bearing the image of God. Moreover, Jesus was the Son of God in His deity, being of the same essence as the Father (Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9).

As the son of Adam (v. 38b), Jesus was fully human, and because of that “we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).

As the son of Abraham (v. 34), Jesus is the seed promised to the patriarch (Gal. 3:16), in whom the promised blessings of the Abrahamic covenant will be realized.

Finally, as the son of David (v. 31), Jesus “will reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15; cf. Luke 1:33).

His royal ancestry, confirmed by both of His parents’ genealogies, is yet another proof of Jesus’ messianic credentials.