Christmas is approaching and we will once again relive the birth of Jesus. Looking back at the accounts of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke, one particular question proves difficult to understand: Why do the genealogies of Jesus presented by the two evangelists not match? In the past, I read various explanations, but none of them fully convinced me. However, this year, I came across one that made sense to me, proposed by a French rabbi from the first half of the 19th century who converted to Catholicism after a profound intellectual conversion: Paul Drach. He concluded that the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew is that of Joseph, while the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke is that of the Virgin Mary. This aligns with the fact that Saint Matthew writes from Joseph’s perspective (he is the one who describes Joseph’s dreams), while Saint Luke provides us with Mary’s perspective (twice noting that she kept these things in her heart). However, Drach reasons this conclusion differently.
Saint Matthew says: “Abraham became the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers…” After continuing in this manner, he concludes the lineage: “…and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.” In this sequence, moving from top to bottom, each link is connected by the term “became the father of” referring to the next name mentioned.
Holy Family, Jerusalem
Saint Luke, on the other hand, works from the bottom up, beginning with: “When Jesus began his ministry, he was about thirty years of age. He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi…” and ending with: “…the son of Adam, the son of God.” (Luke 3:23, 38, USCCB). Drach highlights that, when this formula was used in a Hebrew context, it did not necessarily mean that each person was the immediate son of the one listed before, instead, the focus was on the idea that the individual whose genealogy is being presented is considered a “son” of each named ancestor, as in the phrase “son of David.” Therefore, Drach understood that Joseph was not the son of Heli, but rather that Jesus was the son of both Joseph and Heli, with Heli being on Mary’s side—that is, Mary’s father. In other words, this would be Jesus’ genealogy through his mother, but to maintain the formal male lineage, Joseph is mentioned with the introduction (“as was thought”), providing the key to understanding that what follows is not his genealogy but rather Jesus’ through the Virgin’s father. This solution preserves the name Matthew gives for Joseph’s father, Jacob, while understanding Heli as Joseph’s father-in-law.
Traditionally, the name of the Virgin’s father is considered to be Joachim and not Heli, but this has several solutions. On one hand, the name Joachim (Joiakim) is not mentioned in the Gospels, appearing only in an apocryphal book, and on the other hand, it was common for some individuals to have two names, like Levi – Matthew or Nathanael – Bartholomew. Additionally, among the names derived from Joiakim is Eliakim, which, when shortened, becomes Eli (or Heli): both names mean “God raises up” or “God establishes.” As a final argument, Drach cites a passage from the Talmud mentioning the mother of Jesus, where she is referred to as “Mary, daughter of Heli,” corroborating that the genealogy presented by Luke is that of Jesus through His mother.
St. Joseph and the Child Jesus, Jerusalem
Father Joaquín Paniello, priest