Where do you find Jesus’ birth in the Bible? The answer is the Gospels, but which ones? The two Gospels which begin with Jesus’ birth narratives are Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of Mark starts later, at Jesus’ baptism. The Gospel of John starts earlier, in the literal “beginning,” describing Jesus as being with God—and being God—from the very beginning and creating the world. But when it comes to the original “Christmas story,” we find it in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Basic Similarities and Differences
Before getting to some differences between Matthew and Luke, let’s not skip massively important similarities in these birth narratives. For example:
- God announces through an angel (Gabriel) that Mary will give birth to the long-awaited Messiah.
- Mary is a virgin when she gives birth to Jesus.
- Jesus’ conception will be miraculously done by the Holy Spirit.
- The baby is both God and human (Matthew calls him “God with us”; Luke calls him “the Son of God”).
- The baby is a descendant of King David (thus of kingly lineage).
- The baby will grow up and save his people from their sins.
In addition, both Gospels have Mary as the mother, Joseph as the legal father, and Jesus born in Bethlehem (in Judea in the south) and growing up in Nazareth (in Galilee in the north).
“Let’s not skip massively important similarities in these birth narratives.”
But there are also some differences between the accounts in Matthew and Luke. Now, please keep in mind that difference isn’t the same as contradiction. For example, I can vacation in Wisconsin one year and in Colorado the next—two facts which are different from each other but don’t contradict. Here are some of the main differences:
- In Matthew, the angel visits Joseph. In Luke, the angel visits Mary.
- In Matthew, magi visit while they live in a house. In Luke, shepherds visit the night Jesus is born, not in a house.
- In Matthew, Jesus is born in Bethlehem, they flee to Egypt, and they return to Nazareth. In Luke, Joseph and Mary start in Nazareth, they go to Bethlehem (for a census), Jesus is born in Bethlehem, and they return to Nazareth.
These differences fit well with the timing of the events. Whereas Luke writes about the night Jesus is born and the visit from the shepherds, Matthew focuses on a later event: the visit by eastern magi, when Jesus is now a “child” and the family is living in a house. Narrating the magi’s visit, it makes sense for Matthew to include the related stories of King Herod having babies in the vicinity slaughtered and of the family escaping to Egypt. While Matthew was one of Jesus’ original twelve apostles, Luke, a travel companion of Paul, also spent time in Israel where he would have “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3, NIV). This likely included the two years that Paul spent in prison in Israel (Acts 24:27), where Luke could have interviewed eyewitnesses, including Mary herself (the main featured perspective throughout Luke’s birth narrative).
Two Genealogies
However, there is one difference between Matthew and Luke that, at first glance, looks like it could be a contradiction. It involves two lists of Jesus’ ancestry, one in Matthew 1 and the other in Luke 3. Here are the main differences between these two genealogies:
- Different father of Joseph: Joseph’s father is apparently different: Jacob (Matthew) or Heli (Luke).
- Different son of David: Jesus’ lineage traces through different sons of King David: Solomon (Matthew) or Nathan (Luke)
- Reverse order: Matthew starts with Abraham and ends with Jesus, using 3 groupings of 14 names (14 from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile, 14 from the exile to Jesus). Luke starts with Jesus and moves backward all the way to Adam (77 names total).
Strange, huh? Here are a couple possible ways of navigating the tension:
#1 – Joseph’s Genealogy VS Mary’s Genealogy?
It’s helpful to remember that Luke was an accurate researcher who spent time in Israel, and it makes sense that some of this time could have been spent getting Mary’s story, since Luke is the one author who chronicles her perspective. Although the genealogy in Luke appears to be Joseph’s, one possibility is that Luke was giving us Mary’s genealogy. Here’s how the genealogy begins:
“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat . . .” (Luke 3:23-24a, NIV)
Now, let’s be candid about this: Mary isn’t even mentioned here, whereas Joseph clearly is. Thus the most natural reading is that this is Joseph’s genealogy. But there is that interesting phrase “so it was thought” or “as was supposed.” The most likely reading is that Jesus was thought to be Joseph’s son, but was really God’s (something that’s clear from the birth narrative). It’s possible it’s saying that Jesus was thought to be Joseph’s son but was really Heli’s. As in, Joseph is thrown in as a parenthetical (because Jesus seems to be his son), but Jesus was actually descended from Heli—Mary’s dad.
“It’s possible it’s saying that Jesus was thought to be Joseph’s son but was really Heli’s.”
Now, does the text say that Heli is Mary’s dad? Nope. That’s something we have to assume for this theory to work. In its favor, we ought to acknowledge that Luke 1-2 is told from Mary’s perspective, so it’s not entirely unlikely that Mary’s genealogy gets included (and, with Luke’s being an all-male genealogy, Mary is excluded). There may be reason to think that Mary (like Joseph) was a descendant of David, as her baby Jesus is described as being a descendant of David even before we are told that her fiancé (Joseph) is on board (see Luke 1:32, 1:69). In addition—and this gets technical—there’s something unique about the Greek phrase behind “of Joseph.” Whereas Heli, Matthat, etc. are introduced by “of” (tou), there’s actually no Greek “of” before Joseph. This is probably just because Joseph comes after “son” and so the “of” is already implied (“son as was supposed [of] Joseph”). But it’s also possible that leaving out the “of” makes Joseph more of a parenthetical, with Jesus’ real genealogy starting with Heli—who could possibly be Mary’s dad instead of Joseph’s.
#2 – Line of Kings VS Physical Descent
Another, probably stronger, possibility is that we’re dealing with two different kinds of genealogies. From Matthew 1:1, what do we see Matthew’s emphasis is going to be?
“This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (Matthew 1:1, NIV) 
By placing David first, Matthew is pointing us to Jesus as the Davidic king who was promised. This expression “son of David” is used throughout Matthew’s Gospel ten times. As such, it makes sense that Matthew could be giving the official genealogy that shows Jesus’ kingship. Whereas Luke’s genealogy goes through David’s son Nathan (who never became king), it’s Matthew’s genealogy that runs through the lineage of kings: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, and so on.
To get the tidy lists of 14 in Matthew’s genealogy, there are already gaps in the lists. For example, Jehoram, described by Matthew as the father of Uzziah, is actually his great grandfather (with three generations unmentioned). And when we’re dealing with an official kingly genealogy, it’s totally permissible to make further jumps, for example, from an uncle to a nephew. The pressing question in such lists isn’t who physically begot the next person—but rather who is eligible to occupy the throne.
“The pressing question in such lists isn’t who physically begot the next person—but rather who is eligible to occupy the throne.”
My friend Win Corduan, world religions expert, has also spent time studying the books 1 and 2 Chronicles (over which he has written the Holman commentaries). As someone who has studied genealogies (1 Chronicles begins with a massive genealogy!), he recommends viewing the Luke and Matthew genealogies as “apples and oranges.” Royal genealogies often skip several generations and don’t necessarily pass from father to son. While Luke, the Gentile writer concerned with showing Jesus’ solidarity with humanity, traces Jesus’ biological ancestry back to Adam, Matthew is concerned with showing Jesus’ kingly lineage through those who occupied the throne.
While that explanation doesn’t directly deal with whether Heli or Jacob was Joseph’s father, it frames the contrast in a plausible way. It may be that, as third-century Julius Africanus recounted based on a tradition apparently preserved by Jesus’ family, Heli and Jacob were actually half-brothers, one descended from David’s son Nathan, the other descended from David’s son Solomon. When Heli died childless, his half-brother Jacob carried on Heli’s line (via levirate marriage), fathering Joseph. Thus, Joseph was thought to be Heli’s son, when he was biologically Jacob’s son. We can’t know, but we can allow for such possibilities—and all the more so because of the unexpected twists and turns of ancient genealogies, especially official, kingly ones.
“While Luke, the Gentile writer concerned with showing Jesus’ solidarity with humanity, traces Jesus’ biological ancestry back to Adam, Matthew is concerned with showing Jesus’ kingly lineage through those who occupied the throne.”
Considering both birth narratives, it’s the overlaps we should find most memorable. Let these truths enter your own genealogy and reshape it:
- Jesus is God.
- Jesus is human.
- Jesus came as king to rule in glory and grace.
- Jesus came as savior to save you from your sins.
