Jesus genealogies by Matthew and Luke are hopelessly contradictory [Answered]

There do appear to be some contradictions in these genealogies, just as there appear to be contradictions in some of the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures. But there are very reasonable answers that resolve the conflicts without having to advance any far-fetched or implausible theories. Common sense would also tell you that the followers of Jesus, who were totally dedicated to demonstrating to both Jews and Gentiles that he was truly the Messiah and Savior, would not preserve and pass on two impossibly contradictory genealogies.

In fact, this very suggestion directly contradicts the common objection that the New Testament authors rewrote the accounts of the Gospels in order to make Jesus look like he was the Messiah (see below, 5.14). The reality is that they accurately reported the story of his life and were careful to include two important genealogies in presenting the account of his ancestry and birth.

With all the objections raised against the genealogies in Matthew and Luke (see further 5.11, below), one could easily surmise that these were the Achilles’ heel of the Christian faith, an embarrassment to the Messianic credentials of Jesus. Actually, these genealogies are given pride of place in both Matthew and Luke, serving to underscore Yeshua’s Messianic qualifications.¹⁷¹

Matthew introduces his whole account with a genealogy, beginning with the words, “A record of the genealogy of Jesus [the Messiah] the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1), while Luke inserts the genealogy at a crucial point in his book (immediately after Yeshua’s immersion in water, when the Holy Spirit came upon him and the voice from heaven identified him as the Son of God, and immediately before his trial in the wilderness), tracing the Messiah’s ancestry all the way back to Adam (see Luke 3:21–4:2).

The genealogies were both strategic and informative, and Matthew and Luke preserved them for two main reasons: (1) They supported Jesus’ Messianic credentials; (2) they were true!

Nonetheless, an unbiased reading of the two accounts does raise questions, since there appears to be a number of contradictions between the two accounts, some major and some minor. Let’s look at the two lists in close proximity, in descending order (i.e., from the earliest in time to the latest, beginning with David, after which the variations begin). I will underline the key names where potential discrepancies could exist.

Matthew: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus.

Luke: David, Nathan, Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Joshua, Er, Elmadam, Cossam, Addi, Melki, Neri, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melki, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph (?), Jesus.

The most obvious difference between the genealogies is that Matthew lists twenty-six names between David and Jesus while Luke lists forty-one names, but this is not uncommon in genealogies (even in the Bible), where one list might contain more prominent names, skipping over generations (as if to say, “Tom is the ancestor of Bill,” rather than, “Tom is the father of Bill”) and the other list might contain every name. (Matthew’s complete genealogy cites forty-one names; Luke’s, seventy-one names.) As noted by professor Walter Kaiser Jr. in the Hard Sayings of the Bible,

No one has studied this phenomenon more closely than the late William Henry Green in his April 1890 article in Bibliotheca Sacra entitled “Primeval Chronology.” For example, Green demonstrates that the same high priestly line of Aaron appears in 1 Chronicles 6:3–14 and Ezra 7:1–[5], but it has twenty-two generations and names in Chronicles, while Ezra only has sixteen names.

When the two lists are placed side by side, it is clear that Ezra deliberately skipped from the eighth name to the fifteenth name, thereby abridging his list, but in a way that was legitimate within the traditions of Scripture. This is exactly what is illustrated in the lists in Matthew.

In fact, Ezra 8:1–2 abridges the list even further, seemingly implying that a great-grandson and a grandson of Aaron, along with a son of David, came up with Ezra from Babylon after the captivity! Now that is abridgment! Of course, Ezra was only indicating the most important persons for the sake of this shorter list.¹⁷²

In keeping with this, Matthew begins his book with reference to Yeshua being “the son of David” and the “son of Abraham,” where “son of” can only mean “descendant of.” It is also clear that Matthew, either for mnemonic purposes or out of symbolism with the numeric value of the name David, which is fourteen in Hebrew, chose to group his list in fourteens (see Matt. 1:17).

So, the difference in the number of names is not an issue of concern at all, especially when we realize that, in all likelihood, there would be a variation in the total number of generations over a period of centuries since not everyone would have the same life span.

What of the fact that Matthew traces Yeshua’s line through Solomon, son of David, while Luke traces him through Nathan, son of David? If these are two different genealogies, Matthew giving us the ancestry of Joseph, Yeshua’s earthly father, through Solomon, and Luke giving us the ancestry of Miriam, Yeshua’s mother, through Nathan, then there is no problem. (For the argument that the Messiah had to be a descendant of Solomon, see below, 5.11.) So this, too, presents no concern.

Things appear to be complicated, however, when we get to Shealtiel, the father of Zerubbabel. Both geneaologies list these same two names consecutively, but according to Matthew, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) is the father of Shealtiel, whereas according to Luke, Shealtiel’s father is Neri. How can this be explained? (For the argument that Yeshua is disqualified as being Messiah because he comes through the so-called cursed line of Jeconiah, see below, 5.12.)

One suggestion is that they are not the same people. Glen Miller summarizes the evidence for this:

They have different parents
They have different children.
They are descended from different sons of David.
Their chronological placements on a time line could differ by as much as a CENTURY! (depending on how the omissions in Matthew are accounted for, and on what the average age of child-bearing was).

THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON ARE THEIR NAMES!

This can hardly be a strong argument for their identity:

Zerubbabel was a common name from the early Persian period (539–331 BC), as shown by cuneiform inscriptions from Babylonia (see ZPEB, V. 1057).
The genealogies themselves have numerous names that repeat WITHIN the genealogy (e.g. Joseph, Mattathias, Judah) without being the same individuals; these names could also be common names.
The names in the genealogies are standard, common, everyday names. We have NUMEROUS people named Levi, Amos, Nahum, etc., in the OT accounts. There is just NO REASON to associate the S[healtiel] + Z[erubbabel] of Luke with the S[healtiel] + Z[erubbabel] of Matthew. (And even the pattern of S[healtiel]-followed-by-Z[erubbabel] doesn’t carry much weight—families often honored prominent people this way.)

What this means is that the S[healtiel] + Z[erubbabel] of Matthew are the S[healtiel] + Z[erubbabel] of Jeremiah, and that the S[healtiel] + Z[erubbabel] of Luke (whose genes DO reach to Jesus) are a different set, descended from Nathan and not through Solomon-thru-Jeconiah.¹⁷³

If Miller is correct—and there is no conclusive evidence that can be raised against his position, only that it is highly unlikely that two pairs of men with the same names, listed in the same consecutive order in both genealogies, refer to two different pairs of men—then there is no contradiction at all. If Miller is not correct, the matter is still easily resolved, a key hint being found in 1 Chronicles 3:17–19, which states that Pedaiah and Shealtiel were among the sons of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) and that Pedaiah was the father of Zerubbabel.

Elsewhere, however, Zerubbabel is always known as the “son of Shealtiel” (see, e.g. Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1), just as Matthew records (see Matt. 1:12). The standard answer given for this apparent contradiction within the Tanakh is that this was a case of levirate marriage (see Deut. 25:5–10; see also Gen. 38:8–9), in which “the widow of a childless man could marry his brother so that a child of the second marriage could legally be considered as the son of the deceased man in order to perpetuate his name. In a genealogy the child could be listed under his natural or his legal father.”¹⁷⁴

In the case of Zerubabbel, it would appear that his biological father was Pedaiah, the younger brother of Shealtiel who died childless. Pedaiah then married the widow of Shealtiel, in accordance with the laws of levirate marriage, and his firstborn son, Zerubabbel, was counted as the son of his deceased brother, Shealtiel, to “build up his brother’s family line” (Deut. 25:9).

What does this have to do with the possible contradiction between Matthew and Luke? If, in fact, they are referring to the same Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, with Matthew listing Jeconiah as Shealtiel’s father (in accordance with 1 Chron. 3:17) and Luke listing Shealtiel’s father as Neri, it is certainly possible that there was also a levirate marriage (or adoption) in the case of Shealtiel’s father as well, but this is only speculation and can neither be proved nor disproved.

Supporting the view, however, that Luke is speaking of a different Shealtiel and Zerubbabel than Matthew (along with Ezra, Nehemiah, and Haggai) is the fact that Luke carefully reviewed and compared his sources (Luke 1:1–4) before compiling his account and he had at his disposal at least the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3 as well as, possibly, the genealogy found in Matthew 1.

Why then deviate from these sources unless he was referring to different people, people who were not mentioned in either 1 Chronicles 3 or Matthew 1? Conversely, if they were the same people, why record their names with a different father for Shealtiel unless Luke was convinced that his records were also accurate and that it was proper to refer to both Neri and Jeconiah as the father of Shealtiel, just as the Hebrew Bible refers to both Pedaiah and Shealtiel as the father of Zerubbabel?

Lest this seem like special pleading, I remind you that the possible contradictions found in these two genealogies are less difficult to resolve than similar problems found in the Tanakh. Not surprisingly, the section in Hard Sayings of the Bible entitled “Why Don’t Bible Genealogies Always Match Up?” spends most of its time dealing with genealogical problems in the Hebrew Bible.

Even some of the most forthright biblical narratives present problems that must be carefully analyzed and interpreted lest errors in understanding arise. Consider, for example, Genesis 11:26 that states, “After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.” Kaiser notes:

It would appear that [Terah] lived 70 years and then had triplets born to him (Gen 11:26). His total life span was 205 years (Gen 11:32). However, something does not add up, for Abram left Haran after his father died (Gen 12:4; Acts 7:4), but he was only 75 years old at the time and not 135, which he should have been had the figures been intended in a way that current usage would approve!

Hence, had we added up the numbers in this part of the genealogy, we would already be 60 years in error, for the text must have meant that Terah “began having children when he was 70 years old,” but that Abram was actually born when his father was 130 and not when he was 70.

He was not the eldest son, but his name is given first because he was the most significant figure.¹⁷⁵

It appears, then, that the birth of Abram did not happen in accordance with the simplest reading of Genesis 11:26—and this is just one, minor example. More difficult is the account of Saul and David recorded in 1 Samuel. According to 1 Samuel 16:14–23, Saul requested that Jesse send his son David to him to play the harp to relieve him of the torment he was suffering and Saul became enamored with David: “Saul liked him very much, and David became one of his armor-bearers.

Then Saul sent word to Jesse, saying, ‘Allow David to remain in my service, for I am pleased with him’ ” (1 Sam. 16:21–22). Yet sometime after this, when David went out to fight against Goliath in battle, Saul had no idea who he was:

As Saul watched David going out to meet the Philistine, he said to Abner, commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is that young man?”

Abner replied, “As surely as you live, O king, I don’t know.”

The king said, “Find out whose son this young man is.”

As soon as David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul, with David still holding the Philistine’s head.

“Whose son are you, young man?” Saul asked him.

David said, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.”

1 Samuel 17:55–58

Critical scholars claim that this discrepancy reflects the fact that there were different stories about how David and Saul became connected, and a later editor weaved them together in one story. (Obviously, he didn’t do too good of a job in smoothing out the contradictions!) Some conservative scholars have suggested that Saul simply had a memory lapse, due to his ongoing mental problems.

Rashi offers a different interpretation to verse 55: “Our Rabbis said: Did he not recognize him? Is it not stated: ‘And he became his weapon bearer’ (supra [1 Sam.] 16:21)? But, (rather this is the explanation): he saw him behaving in a kingly manner.” (This is followed by further Talmudic amplification.)

Certainly, someone could accuse Rashi and the Talmudic rabbis of special pleading too, but they are simply looking for a solution to an apparent contradiction with the presupposition that the Scriptures are accurate and true. The same opportunity to resolve apparent contradictions should be given to those who take the New Testament accounts seriously as well.

In point of fact, there are far more problems to address in the genealogies found in the Hebrew Scriptures than are found here in Matthew and Luke, although, in a certain sense, the stakes are higher with the New Testament account, since it presents to us the lineage of the Messiah.

Still, traditional Jews who believe that the Tanakh is accurate must wrestle with the genealogies in, for example, 1 Chronicles, while intellectual integrity would require that we use the same standards to evaluate the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures as we use in evaluating the New Testament records. With this in mind, the comments of the conservative Old Testament scholar Carl Friedrich Keil bear repeating. Speaking of the genealogies in 1 Chronicles, he observed that

in regard to their plan and execution, these genealogies are not only unsymmetrical in the highest degree, but they are in many cases fragmentary. In the tribe of Judah, besides the descendants of David, 1 Chron 3, two quite independent genealogies of the families of Judah are given, in 1 Chron 2 and 1 Chron 4:1–23. The same is the case with the two genealogies of the Levites, the lists in 1 Chron 6 differing from those in 1 Chron 5:27–41 [6:1–15] surprisingly, in 6:16, 20, 43, 62, Levi’s eldest son being called Gershom, while in 1 Chron 6:1 and 1 Chron 23:6, and in the Pentateuch, he is called Gershon.

Besides this, there is in 1 Chron 6:35–38 a fragment containing the names of some of Aaron’s descendants, who had been already completely enumerated till the Babylonian exile in 1 Chron 5:29–41 [6:3–15]. In the genealogies of Benjamin, too, the family of Saul is twice entered, viz., in 1 Chron 8:29–40 and in 1 Chron 9:35–44. The genealogies of the remaining tribes are throughout defective in the highest degree.

Some consist merely of an enumeration of a number of heads of houses or families, with mention of their dwelling-place: as, for instance, the genealogies of Simeon, 1 Chron 4:24–43; of Reuben, Gad, half Manasseh, 1 Chron 5:1–24; and Ephraim, 1 Chron 7:28–29.

Others give only the number of men capable of bearing arms belonging to the individual fathers’-houses, as those of Issachar, Benjamin, and Asher, 1 Chron 7:2–5, 7–11, 40; and finally, of the longer genealogical lists of Judah and Benjamin, those in 1 Chron 4:1–20 and in 1 Chron 8 consist only of fragments, loosely ranged one after the other, giving us the names of a few of the posterity of individual men, whose genealogical connection with the larger divisions of these tribes is not stated.

By all this, it is satisfactorily proved that all these registers and lists have not been derived from one larger genealogical historical work, but have been drawn together from various old genealogical lists which single races and families had saved and carried with them into exile, and preserved until their return into the land of their fathers; and that the author of the Chronicle has received into his work all of these that he could obtain, whether complete or imperfect, just as he found them.

Nowhere is any trace of artificial arrangement or an amalgamation of the various lists to be found.¹⁷⁶

I would encourage any of you who still believe that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are hopelessly contradictory, despite the simple, workable solutions presented here, to resolve all the issues that arise in the comparative study of the genealogies in the Tanakh before claiming that there is no solution to the New Testament accounts. You can rest assured that by the time you get back to Matthew and Luke, you will find the few apparent contradictions quite easy to resolve.

All this being said, it is certainly ironic that the same people who often claim that the New Testament writers rewrote the story of Yeshua’s life to create the (allegedly false) impression that the events of his life corresponded to biblical prophecy (see below, 5.14) also claim that two of the principle authors—in fact, the primary “historians” of the New Testament—preserved two hopelessly contradictory and self-defeating genealogies, Matthew starting his book with his ancestral record and Luke giving a special place in his book to a lengthy genealogical record.

Added to this is the supposition that the editors and copyists carefully preserved and passed on these contradictory accounts—and not one early church leader ever thought of changing this. Now this is special pleading.¹⁷⁷

One final comment is in order, and it has to do with the question of whether there were reliable, genealogical records that could have been used to prove Davidic descent in Matthew’s day. The answer is certainly yes, as Carson explains:

After Zerubbabel, Matthew relies on extrabiblical sources of which we know nothing. But there is good evidence that records were kept at least till the end of the first century. Josephus (Life 6[1]) refers to the “public registers” from which he extracts his genealogical information (cf. also Jos. Contra Apion I, 28–56 [6–10]).

According to Genesis R 98:8, Rabbi Hillel was proved to be a descendant of David because a genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.19–20) cites Hegesippus to the effect that Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81–96) ordered all descendants of David slain. Nevertheless two of them when summoned, though admitting their Davidic descent, showed their calloused hands to prove they were but poor farmers. So they were let go. But the account shows that genealogical information was still available.¹⁷⁸

And while it is true that, even today, there are Jews who claim that they can prove their Davidic descent—something that would be necessary for a Messianic claimant—solid, genealogical proof was far more certain two thousand years ago, especially before the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of our people through the centuries, than it is today. This then, is one more reason why the New Testament accounts should be taken seriously.¹⁷⁹

¹⁷¹Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:63, rightly notes, “Actually, Matthew’s chief aims in including the genealogy are hinted at in the first verse—viz., to show that Jesus Messiah is truly in the kingly line of David, heir to the messianic promises, the one who brings divine blessings to all nations.”

¹⁷²Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 50.

¹⁷³Glen Miller, “Problems in the Genealogies of Jesus,” A Christian Thinktank, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html.

¹⁷⁴Walter L. Liefield, “Luke,” EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:861.

¹⁷⁵Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 49–50.

¹⁷⁶C. F. Keil, 1 Chronicles, in C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, trans. Andrew Harper, CD-ROM ed. (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980; Albany, OR: AGES Software, 1997), 2:49–50.

¹⁷⁷Some have argued that Paul’s exhortation in Titus 3:9 is relevant: “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.” That, however, is unlikely; cf. the commentary of William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 2000).

¹⁷⁸Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:63.

¹⁷⁹For purported DNA evidence supporting Davidic descent, see Davidic Dynasty, http://www.davidicdynasty.org/dna.php.

Brown, M. L. (2007). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 4: New Testament objections. (76). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Baker Books.