Setting The Stage Series

Let me address the issue of whether this is Mary’s genealogy or whether it is possible that what Luke presents is something entirely different. Arnold Fruchtenbaum has performed yeoman’s service in detailing why Luke’s account presents Mary’s genealogy. [2] Fruchtenbaum notes that the Talmud itself refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli.

Again, note how the genealogy begins: “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,” etc. This is the manner in which most modern translations begin this particular genealogy. Joseph was not Jesus’ father, but he was commonly supposed to have been His father. Though Jesus was assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was actually descended through Heli. Jewish custom did not common give the mother’s name on genealogies; it was not uncommon for the son-in-law to be listed in a wife’s genealogy.

The third argument Fruchtenbaum presents is an argument from viewpoint. Levi writes from Joseph’s viewpoint as becomes obvious as we read the remainder of the account of Jesus’ birth. Mary’s role in the Matthean account is passive, whereas she is key to the Lukan account. Matthew records the angelic annunciation to Joseph and the account of how the angel warned Joseph to flee from Bethlehem before Herod’s soldiers carried out their mass slaughter. Thus, Joseph is emphasised throughout Matthew’s account and the genealogy given is Joseph’s.

Now, turn again to the text and consider Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus the Messiah. What is essential to learn from Levi’s genealogy is that Jesus has a valid claim to the throne of David through his lineage, but in appealing to that particular genealogy, He is disqualified from pressing that claim. This is not some sort of stultiloquy to make such divergent claims.

Before we tease out the reason that Levi’s genealogy disqualifies Jesus as rightful claimant to the throne, though the Lukan genealogy establishes Jesus as rightful claimant to David’s throne, we need to establish what these two divergent genealogies have told us. In these two genealogies, we are provided with four specific titles that are applied to Jesus of Nazareth. He is called the “Son of David.” Matthew’s Gospel begins with this affirmation, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David…” [MATTHEW 1:1]. Matthew immediately names Jesus as “the son of Abraham” [MATTHEW 1:1b]. Luke identifies Jesus of Nazareth as “the son of Adam” and as “the Son of God” [LUKE 3:38].

Fruchtenbaum notes that “by calling Jesus the ‘son of David,’” we are to understand that He is a king through Mary. By identifying Jesus as the “son of Abraham,” we are to understand that He is recognised as a Jew. Thirdly, when Jesus is called “the son of Adam,” we are to understand that He is truly a man. Finally, when the genealogies identify Jesus of Nazareth as “the Son of God,” we know that Jesus is God. Therefore, these genealogies provide a necessary and fourfold portrait of the Messianic King. Jesus of Nazareth is the Jewish God-Man King.