Jesus’s genealogy, in 𝘓𝘶𝘬𝘦.

Luke 3.23-38.

The second of Christ Jesus’s two different, contradictory-looking genealogies in the New Testament, is found in the gospel of Luke, right after Jesus’s baptism, right before Jesus’s temptation.

It’s an odd place to squeeze the genealogy in. Y’might notice 1 Chronicles begins with genealogy, and goes through it for whole chapters till it finally gets to Israeli history. Likewise Matthew begins with genealogy. But Luke likely tucked it here because Jesus had just been adopted—in the Roman sense of the Father formally declaring him his Son—so now Jesus’s ancestry comes into play.

And the Luke list goes back farther than Matthew. The other gospel only wanted to establish Jesus is King David ben Jesse’s heir, plus the spiritual heir (as well as literal descendant) of Abraham ben Terah. Those things would be important to Matthew’s readers, and because Matthew includes lots of biblical proof texts which Jesus fulfilled, most Christians assume Matthew was writing his gospel to Jews, who’d care about that stuff. Thing is, everybody cares about that stuff—if we care about the continuity between Old and New Testaments; if we care that Jesus is the legitimately prophesied Messiah. Yep, even gentiles care about the proof texts.

But Luke was likely writing to Romans like himself, and in ancient Roman culture, they didn’t care about whether you were descended from kings; Romans took pride in the fact they regularly overthrew kings. They cared about whether you were descended from gods.

And that is why Jesus’s genealogy in Luke goes all the way back. Luke is showing his readers Jesus wasn’t simply declared the Son of God by God himself; he’s a descendant of God. He has godhood in his bloodline.

Says so in his genealogy:

Luke 3.23-38 KWL

23Jesus himself is starting round his 30th year.

He’s legally the son of Joseph bar Ili—

24bar Maddát, bar Leví,

bar Malkhí, bar Yannaí, bar Joseph,

25bar Mattityáhu, bar Amos,

bar Nahum, bar Heslí, bar Naggaí,

26bar Mákhat, bar Mattityáhu,

bar Shimí, bar Yoshí, bar Yodáh,

27bar Yochanán, bar Reishá,

bar Zerubbabel, bar Shaltiél, bar Nerí,

28bar Malkhí, bar Adí,

bar Kosám, bar Elmadán, bar Er,

29bar Yeshúa, bar Eleázar,

bar Yorím, bar Mattát, bar Leví,

30bar Shimón, bar Judah,

bar Joseph, bar Jonám, bar Elyakím,

31bar Maláh, bar Manáh,

bar Mattatáh, bar Nathan, bar David,

32bar Jesse, bar Obed,

bar Boaz, bar Sheláh, bar Nakhshón,

33bar Amminadáv, bar Admín, bar Arní,

bar Hechrón, bar Pérech, bar Judah,

34bar Jacob, bar Isaac,

bar Abraham, bar Térakh, bar Nakhór,

35bar Serúg, bar Reú,

bar Péleg, bar Éver, bar Sheláh,

36bar Keïnán, bar Arfakhšád,

bar Shem, bar Noah, bar Lémekh,

37bar Metušelákh, bar Enoch,

bar Yéred, bar Mahalalél, bar Keïnán,

38bar Enósh, bar Šet,

bar Adam, bar God.

His legal lineage.

Throughout this genealogy I had to add the word ܒܪ/bar, “son of” or “descendant of,” because all the Greek text had was τοῦ/tu, “of.” Literally we got “Joseph of Ili, of Maddát, of Leví, of Malkhí,” etc. Luke was just listing ancestors. Whether these are literal fathers, or prominent ancestors, we can’t say for certain unless there’s an Old Testament story about these particular fathers and sons. And for many of them, there’s not. So that means they could be grandfathers, great-grandfathers, or have a whole bunch of less-relevant ancestors skipped. That’s just how they did genealogies back then: If you did nothing of note, sometimes you weren’t remembered.

Many Christians claim this passage is actually Mary’s lineage. Based on what? Based largely on tradition. People were told this was Mary’s lineage, as opposed to Joseph’s in Matthew. I heard this all my life. It was a quick ’n dirty explanation for why Matthew and Luke have different genealogies: “One’s Joseph’s, and one’s Mary’s.

Nevermind the fact Mary isn’t named in the Luke genealogy at all; nevermind the fact both genealogies are worded so as to make you think they both belong to Joseph.

Yeah I know; you’re gonna point me to the way the KJV translates verse 23:

Luke 3.23 KJV

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…

“As was supposed” is an obvious indication Jesus isn’t really the son of Joseph, right? People only thought he was Joseph the carpenter’s son, Mt 13.55 and didn’t know he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Lk 1.35

Except that’s an inaccurate interpretation. The word-root of ἐνομίζετο/enomídzeto, “he was being regarded,” is νόμος/nómos, “law.” He wasn’t casually or culturally assumed to be Joseph’s son; he was legally regarded Joseph’s son, because Joseph had adopted him. Jesus isn’t Joseph’s biological son; he’s Joseph’s adoptive son. As valid and legal a son as if Joseph were his biological father.

Native Greek-speakers wouldn’t have thought Jesus was only presumed to be Joseph’s son by people who didn’t know the whole story. They would’ve known (because Luke doesn’t tell Joseph’s story; Matthew does), this means Jesus is Joseph’s legal son. Somewhere back there, Joseph adopted him. When Mary, talking with Jesus, calls Joseph “your father,” Lk 2.48 it’s because Joseph is his father.

As Joseph’s adoptive son, Jesus is Joseph’s heir, and Joseph’s genealogy is now Jesus’s genealogy. He has a right to the land of Joseph’s ancestors. He has a right to the blessings Israel made upon his son, Judah, from whom Joseph was descended. He has a claim to the throne of his ancestor David; a way better claim than Caesar Tiberius did. Some of those ancestors did great things, and he can learn from their example and do likewise. (And some of those ancestors did stupid things, and he can learn from their example and not do likewise.)

Sextus Juilus Africanus likely took this word enomídzeto and ran with it, and claimed the Luke genealogy is Jesus’s legal genealogy—these were all the men who adopted Jesus’s ancestors into their families. If you want his biological genealogy (well, Joseph’s biological genealogy) you gotta read Matthew, and there you’ll see all the kings of Jerusalem from whom Joseph was descended. Africanus said he heard this from Jesus’s family… and maybe there’s some truth behind it. Still, it means both genealogies are Joseph’s; neither are Mary’s.

Well. Biological or not, Joseph’s legally descended from God. Same as Caesar Tiberius claimed for himself: Tiberius was the adopted son of Caesar Augustus, Augustus was the adopted son of Caesar Julius, and Julius claimed he was descended from the mythological hero Aeneas of Troy, the son of Aphrodite/Venus, the daughter of Zeus/Jupiter. The Caesar family pointed to this claim on a regular basis, and claimed it meant they were meant to rule; they were demigods. They were divine.

Well, Jesus is no demigod. He is God. But if you wanna impress Greco-Roman pagans who want you to be descended from God, Jesus is definitely

Thing is, Jesus’s genealogy includes two guys that are in every human’s bloodline: Noah and Adam. Which means we all have godhood in our bloodline. Jn 10.34 But shh; pagan readers don’t need to know that right now.