The Generation of God With Us (Matthew 1:1-25)

(1) Sermon Script

Introduction: An engagement on the edge

Engagements are hard times. If you do engagement Jesus’ way, you have all the stress of being married with few of the benefits. So for the months of your engagement, you quickly develop survival skills. Negotiation skills for example. They keep you from becoming an outlaw to the inlaws. Yes, the puce causage will be fine, OK, we’ll keep Uncle Rupert and Aunt Gladioli as far away from them as possible, hopefully they won’t make a scene again. Then a degree in event management and financial planning. For what else is a wedding, reception, honeymoon, and a new home. We’ll take on a crash course in marriage education. Meeting the minister, a relationship survey, good luck for the next 60 years. All the while fanning the flame of the fledgling relationship with your future spouse. It is a miracle anyone ever ends up married! 

But can it survive an unexpected pregnancy? Well, it depends. It used to be that the unexpected pregnancy meant the engagement would be shorter. They had to make sure the child was born within wedlock. Shot gun weddings, they were called.

But that rarely happens now. Try before you buy is the norm now for marriage. Most people getting married are already in a de facto marriage. Many already have children. And often, the woman is behind the push to get married. She wants security.

But now the unexpected pregnancy now may actually delay the marriage. Let’s just get over having the baby. Then we’ll think about getting married. In the end, many people never get around to getting married.

This might be the modern Aussie way. It might be the Home and Away way. But it’s definitely not the Jesus’ way. It’s Aussie, but it’s not Christian.

Our society’s has a topsy turvy wrong way round way of getting married. But even in our society, can the engagement survive when the fiance’s not the father? Will the man marry her when all the evidence suggests couldn’t even be faithful till the wedding day? I don’t think so.

Well, these are the facts of the first Christmas. We have a young girl, Mary, newly engaged, and unexpectedly pregnant. And the fiancé, is not the father. 

Jesus’ Genesis: Descended from Abraham and David 

Our reading was the first 25 verses of Matthew’s gospel. And the first 17 verses of that was Jesus’ family tree. Now, to us it reads a bit like the telephone book. But it has a really important purpose.

We all know that family trees matter. For example, it’s a fair guess that you aren’t a billionaire. I’m not a billionaire. But James Packer is a billionaire. What’s the difference between you and I and James. Family tree. James is descended from Kerry Packer. So he inherits Kerry’s billions, and we don’t. In Lord of the Rings, Only the heir of Elendil can wield the sword that was reforged and claim the kingship of Gondor.

Jesus’ family tree also matters. Because God has made precious promises in the Old Testament. That’s why Matthew’s very first words are: 

A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1 NIV) 

The Son of David was the Messiah, the Christ. He would be the King who would rule the entire world (Psalm 2). The Son of Abraham would bring blessing and forgiveness to the whole world (Genesis 12:1-3, Gal 3:8, 16).

It’s fascinating that Aussies love it if they had a forefather on the first fleet. “My great great great great great grandfather was a petty thief”. He travelled out here for stealing a loaf of bread. And he survived, and now look. It appeals to our anti-authoritarian bias, and the myth of the Aussie Battler. They don’t mind being tarred with the same brush as their forebears.

Well, Jesus doesn’t mind being associated with immigrants of dubious character, either. It comes out particularly when we look at the ladies mentioned. There are only four ladies mentioned in the list. Because as is now, the Royal line is generally traced through the Sons. But each of these women, great grandma’s to Jesus, were a little unusual. First of all, each were originally gentiles. They weren’t Israelites to begin with, yet they become part of the saving line. Tamar was a Canaanite, Rahab was a Canaanite from Jericho, Ruth a Moabitess, Bathsheba probably a Hittite. This reminds us that Jesus came to save people from every nation. But we also know that each one was a little suspect, a little unorthodox, a little irregular in their way of life, the way they got their husbands, or the way they had children. 

Tamar was the first (verse 3; Genesis 38). Judah wrongly deprived her of children, but she remedied it by dressing up as a prostitute and tricking Judah into getting her pregnant. Like Mary, she was pregnant out of wedlock – though it was different, as we shall see. Yet, here is Tamar, with her children, in Jesus family tree. For Jesus is not ashamed to be associated with sinners. 

Rahab is the second lady mentioned (verse 5; Joshua 2,6; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). If it is the same Rahab as the one mentioned in Joshua, she was a prostitute who hid the Israelite spies. But she found mercy and joined God’s people. And again, Jesus was reckoned among the sinners.

The third was Ruth the Moabite (verse 5; Ruth). Even though the Moabites were not allowed to join God’s people, Ruth’s faithfulness to her Jewish mother-in-law Naomi brought her under the protection of Israel’s God. The book of Ruth tells the story of how Naomi plays match maker. She goes down to the threshing floor and lies at Boaz feet. And though unorthodox, it was effective. Boaz does not take advantage of her, but does it properly and marries her. The mention of righteous Boaz prepares us for another righteous Israelite, Joseph. 

The fourth is Bathsheba. She was married to Uriah, but was seduced by King David. But God forgave their sin, and from their marriage came Solomon. Here is God bringing good things out of evil. And again, Jesus identifies with the sinners he came to save. 

But while Jesus identifies with sinners, he is not born as the result of sin. Matthew was very careful to say that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. Joseph is Jesus’ adopted father, or step father. Chapter 1 verse 16: 

And Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (NIV)

Joseph is said to be the husband of Mary, not the father of Jesus. He is not the natural father of Jesus.

And so this raises the question: Who’s the Father? 

Who’s the father? 

Now, even in our society, when the question ‘Who’s the Father?’ is asked, we know something has gone wrong. We can bet there is a young girl in trouble. We can bet there is an angry set of parents. And there should be a worried young man somewhere having a think about himself.

Here is a problem we often face in our society. But in this case, there are some important differences. This is an unexpected pregnancy. But in another sense it was expected long before. It was unexpected but not unwanted. This pregnancy was very much wanted.

For what we see here is a virgin birth. Joseph had nothing to do with it. Mary acquiesced to no man. Rather, God has been busy. Busy bringing the birth of an unusual child in an unusual way to fulfil his promises to humanity. Let me read verses 18-19 again: 

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. (NIV)

Who’s the Father? Joseph knows at least one thing, ‘Well it’s not me!’ And Joseph doesn’t think the relationship can survive this. How can it? Mary, it seems, has betrayed him even before she walked down the aisle.

But Joseph is righteous. He doesn’t save it up, let Mary walk down the aisle, and then when he is asked for his consent, says “I will NOT, she is a two timing rat”. No, he doesn’t want to publish the sin, and humiliate the women he loves. He wants to deal with the matter, secretly, quietly, not exposing the wrong doer.

How do you go when you think you have been wronged? Do you deal with it quietly, like this righteous man. Or do you want to expose the one you think has wronged you to public disgrace. I’ll get him. 

He who covers over an offense promotes love, but whoever repeats the matter separates close friends (Proverbs 17:9 NIV)

That is Joseph. He wants to cover over the offence. But, in the days before paternity tests and DNA, there came confirmation that would settle all Joseph’s fears. Verse 20: 

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (NIV)

You’ve got a good woman here Joseph. Take her home as your wife. For there is no one else. The child in her is ‘from the Holy Spirit’. Here is a different child. Conceived not in the normal way, through sexual union. But miraculously, through the power of God.

Star Wars number 1 actually rips off the idea of a birth with no human father. Anakin Skywalker has no father, but is conceived by the Midicloreans. And all of this is saying ‘Watch this space!’ Here is the one who will bring balance to the force. We will watch your career with great interest. Do you know what it is? But there are also a couple of other questions that you expect when you are expecting. The first one is ‘Do you know what it is?’ Is it a boy or a girl? This question has only come in with the ultra sound. It used to be ‘What do you want?’ Now it’s ‘Do you know, or is it a surprise?’. Well, in the days before Ultra sounds, you only knew on the day what you got. Except for Joseph and Mary. Verse 21: She will give birth to a son…  Mary knew should could go out and get blue jump suits.

What will you call him? The other question you expect when you are expecting is ‘What will you call him?’ Some parents keep the name of their unborn child secret. But not the name of the child of Mary and Joseph. His name needs to be known far and wide, by every human who has ever lived.

The angel gives the boy baby a name, and a title. Both tell us who this special child is and what he means for those who are expecting him. Verses 21 to 23 again: 

She will give birth to a son and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” – which means, “God with us”. (NIV)

His name is Jesus. It is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Joshua”. But the name has one meaning: You see it in footnote ‘a’ in our church bibles… “Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the LORD Saves. The LORD saves. Yahweh saves. God saves. 

But this raises questions for us. God Saves. Who does he save? And why do they need saving? What do they need to be saved from. Can’t they save themselves? And what does Jesus have to do with all this?

The answer to these questions is found in verse 21 again. You are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. This baby, named Joshua or Jesus, will save. God saves because Jesus saves. And he saves his people. Those whom God has known before the foundation of the world. Those who are waiting for God, those who trust in him and turn in repentance to him. 

And he saves them from their sins. Those things we do and don’t do and think and say. Those things that are against God’s word and will. Those things we do that break God’s commands and his heart.

For his people have their sins. And when the Angel says we need to be saved from our sins, it is a way of saying we need to be saved from the punishment that our sins deserve. We need to be saved from an angry God who hates our sins. God has prepared the punishment of hell for sin. A horrible and eternal separation from God, described by Jesus as unquenchable fire. That’s ‘he will save his people from their sins’ means. We have sins. And we need someone to take the punishment for our sins.

Jesus will save his people from their sins. But he won’t do it from the manger. He will do it from the cross. It is by his bloody death and glorious resurrection that he will save his people from their sins.

Friends, it is not baby Jesus who saves. That’s why we must not continue to picture Jesus as a baby. No, it was 33 year old Jesus, full grown, powerful, commander of legions of angels, he is the saviour. For 33 year old Jesus chose naked helplessness once again. He exchanges the manger for the Cross. By dying, Jesus offers us free forgiveness when we trust in him and turn to him. By rising, Jesus defeated death and rose as ruler of the universe. Right now Jesus is with his real Father, God, in heaven. And one day, Jesus will return and bring his new Kingdom and new world.

But there is more to say about this Jesus. He is not just saviour. He is also LORD. He Yahweh, Jehovah. He is Immanuel. This title means, God with Us. Jesus is God in the flesh. God who pitched his tent amongst us for a short time. Jesus is God. That’s what the creed means when it calls Jesus, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, of one being with the Father, through him all things were made. That’s why we worship Jesus. 

Jesus by name, Jesus by nature. Jesus is savior and God. This Christmas, don’t let Jesus just a religious name to you. Let him be what he actually came to be, your savior, who rescues you from sin and hell and God’s anger. Let him be your God, for whom you live and worship. And you can do this by praying a prayer with me. We’ll do this now. 

Let’s pray.

(2) Appendix on Matthew's Genealogy

Comment and Harmonization

Matthew’s stylized and selective genealogy gives a schematic (v 17) and skeletal salvation-history from Abraham to Jesus. His additions and subtractions make subtle theological points. Like all Bible genealogies, it traces descent through the father. The word for ‘book’ (v 1) here denotes a written record, here the genealogy. Establishing Jesus’ descent from Abraham and David (vv 1, 17) shows him a legitimate heir in the line of Israel’s forefather and the chosen Davidic dynasty, that he is coming ‘serpent crusher’ and Christ promised in the Old Testament. His inheritance from Solomon’s line shows him “born king of the Jews” (Matt 2:2; 27:11, 29, 37). Matthew divides his genealogy into three: the patriarchal period; the kings and monarchy, and the post-exilic period.

Matthew’s genealogy of the ‘patriarchs’ from Abraham to David (vv 2-6), is substantially that provided by 1 Chronicles 1:28-32; 2:1-15 LXX; Ruth 4:18-22. Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ Hebrew roots: contrast Luke 3:38, showing Jesus’ origins from Adam. Matthew (and Luke) almost certainly omit some generations during Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and the time of the Judges. Such omissions have been termed ‘telescoping’. However, the inclusion by name of the matriarchs Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth (all gentiles) shows both Jesus’ gentile origins and that he is the saviour for all nations. The naming of Rahab and the thinly-veiled reference to David’s adultery (“the wife of Uriah”: v 6, 2 Samuel 11-12) foreshadows that Jesus came from and for sinners, both normal and notorious. We need a Christ greater than David.

By choosing the name ‘Aram’ (v 3), Matthew follows the LXX rather than the MT of 1 Chronicles 2:9-10 (cf. Ruth 4:19 LXX, which also spells it with an alpha) in asserting that Hezron begat four sons not three, and the fourth, Aram, not the second, Ram, was the father of Aminadab. A Levirate marriage would explain this: Ram died, and Aram his brother fathered children for him. That Ram’s eldest brother Jerameel’s firstborn was also called ‘Ram’ (1 Chron 2:25, 27), supports this. If so, then the MT gives the legal or Levirate line, maintaining the late Ram’s line, and the LXX and Matthew witness to the biological line of ‘Aram’.

           Matthew next records the ‘royal’ line of succession from the high point of King Solomon to the low point of Babylonian exile (vv 6-11). His list for this period bears similarities with 1 Chronicles 3:1-17 LXX. Matthew has some differences in naming: for example, ‘Azariah’ is also called “Uzziah”: compare v 8 with 1 Chron 3:11 LXX; Uzziah is his name in 2 Kings 15:1ff, and in 2 Chronicles 26. Different names and spellings for names are not unusual, especially for kings, who had both regnal and private names, both of which being transmitted over centuries and across different languages. Perhaps more significantly, Matthew calls Asa, “Asaph” (compare v 8 with 1 Chron 3:10 LXX), and Amon, “Amos” (compare v 10 with 1 Chron 3:14 LXX): these renderings may subtly suggest that Jesus is the fulfillment of the hope expressed in the Psalms (‘Asaph’) and the prophets (‘Amos’).

Moreover, Matthew skips over several kings in two places in this section of the genealogy. The verb gennaō that the ESV renders “[was] the father of” is in fact much broader and includes the reproduction of issue down the generations and not just immediately ‘fathering’ (compare use the phrase “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”: v 1). Stylistically, this ‘telescoping’ of the generations, effectively skipping one or more, allows Matthew’s schematisation based around ‘fourteen’.

The first omission in this section is where Joram (=Jehoram) is given as ‘fathering’ or ‘begetting’ “Uzziah” (=Azariah: v 8), thus skipping over the reigns of Ahaziah, his mother Athaliah, Ahaziah’s son Joash (=Jehoash), and Joash’s son Amaziah (1 Chron 3:11-12). These three king were not only descendants of David but also lineal descendants of Israel’s paganizing king Ahab, because King Joram of Judah had married Ahab’s evil daughter Athaliah (2 Kings 8:18-19, 26-27). All four in this line (including Athalia, who herself reigned over Judah 6 years) sooner or later proved themselves evil when compared to Jehosaphat their forefather and Uzziah their descendant. By omitting these three kings and Athaliah, Matthew has applied to the line of Judah Yahweh’s words to Jehu regarding Ahab’s line in Israel, that Jehu’s line would rule, and thus Ahab’s line be excluded, to “the fourth generation” (2 Kings 10:30; Exod 20:5; 1 Kings 21:21-29)[1].

The second omission is that Matthew skips all Josiah’s sons, naming only Josiah’s grandson Jechoniah (=Jehoiachin, Coniah), the firstborn son of Josiah’s second son Jehoiakim (compare 1 Chron 3:14-17). This again skips a generation—bringing this second ‘third’ of the genealogy to fourteen generations. In this way Matthew alludes to the complex and rapid changes in reign during Jerusalem’s fall and the deportation: that time is marked by the descendant of Josiah who would have significance for the decree of return, Jechoniah (vv 11-12; 2 Kings 25:27-30)[2].

The final third of Matthew’s genealogy, for the ‘post-exilic’ period, tracks the Davidic line from Shealtiel and his son Zerubabbel to Jacob and his son Joseph, Mary’s husband.

For Matthew, Joseph cannot be Jesus’ biological father. Matthew avoids saying that Joseph begat Jesus— he is only “the husband of Mary” (v 16). The virgin birth requires another form of ‘fatherhood’ for Joseph (vv 18-25): Joseph adopted Jesus, shown by his own and the common recognition of Jesus as, humanly speaking, his son, (Luke 2:33; 48; John 6:42).

How can such a genealogy show the fulfillment of the promise to David, whereby the eternal Davidic king “shall come from [David’s] body” (2 Sam 7:12, 16)? The ancient view is that Mary’s genealogy is implied in Joseph’s. The New Testament testifies to Mary’s own Davidic ancestry (Rom 1:3; Luke 1:32, 69; 2 Tim 2:8)—which from ancient times was traced through Mary’s father Joachim in the Nathan-David line, though she was also of priestly-Kohathite heritage through her mother Anne (compare Luke 1:5, 36)[3]. There is a tendency in the Torah to promote marriages within family, clan, and tribal boundaries to preserve social homogeneity and ancestral land holdings (e.g.. Genesis 24; 28:6-9; Numbers 36). Thus, the patrilineal genealogies assume both Mary and Joseph’s Davidic ancestry. The marriage of Aaronic priests with the daughters of Judah in the kingly line had long and honoured precedent (Exod 6:23; 2 Chron 22:10-12).

A comparison of Matthew’s genealogy with Luke’s (Luke 3:23-38) reveals several differences: beside being in reverse order, the lines diverge after David: Matthew traces the ‘royal’ line through Solomon, but Luke through Solomon’s full-brother, Nathan. More strangely, Matthew and Luke’s account of Jesus’ lineage briefly merge once again with Shealtiel and Zerubabel (Matt 1:12-13; Luke 3:27), only to diverge thereafter till the generation prior to Joseph, who is described as both “the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23) and has “Jacob” as his “father” (Matt 1:16). And Matthew gives much fewer names than Luke, suggesting that he has, again, ‘telescoped’ the genealogy by omitting some generations.

The earliest extant explanation for these features, by Julius Africanus (c. AD 160-c. 240) and followed by Eusebius (c. AD 260-c. 340)[4], relies on the practice of Levirate marriage codified in the torah: a brother (or near-relative) would marry a dead brother’s widow who died childless to maintain the dead brother’s name through offspring (Deut 25:5-10). This provided practical support for the widow and ensured ancestral land stays within the clan. A woman would then marry consecutively a man and his brother (Matt 22:24), and the issue from that second marriage might thereafter be considered either from a biological viewpoint (i.e., from the actual father, e.g., Ruth 4:21) or the legal (the dead brother for whom the son is reckoned). Using their logic, as Bede did, ‘Matthan’ (Matt 1:15) from the line of Solomon, married ‘Estha’ (a woman first mentioned by Africanus in the extant literature) and begat Jacob and died. Then ‘Matthat’[5] (Luke 3:24) of the line of Nathan married this same widow Estha and begat Heli: both Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers born of Estha to different fathers. In the subsequent generation, a Levirate marriage is posited: Jacob married his brother Heli’s widow, who died childless, and begat Joseph, who could be reckoned the son of Heli, though he was biologically the child of Jacob.

Levirate marriage or adoption could explain Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appearing in both the Solomon-Jacob and Nathan-Heli lines of the house of David. The tragedy of exile meant that Israel’s widows were more numerous than the sand of the seas (Jer 15: 8), desperately in need of a husband to take away their disgrace (Isa 4:1). Grievous anguish had come upon “the mothers of young men” (Jer 15:8-9) from the sword. King Jechoniah was made captive: at least some of his sons were killed, made eunuchs, or otherwise left no heirs (2 Kings 20:18; Isa 39:7; Dan 1:3-7).[6] In such a situation, Jechoniah in Babylon (Matt 1:12) might have married the widow of Neri of the David-Nathan line (Luke 3:27) to raise offspring for Neri; or Jechoniah could have adopted Neri’s son, Shealtiel, having lost his own, and thus obtaining a descendant of David as his legal heir. This later scenario might be particularly appropriate since Jeremiah prophesied that ‘Coniah’ would be counted as “childless” (Jer 22:24-30). At some point thereafter, Jechoniah (=Coniah) presumably had no biological issue in the royal line or who survived to continue his line, fulfilling Jeremiah’s words, “for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah” (v 30)[7].

In this later case (Jeconiah adopting Shealthiel who was biologically Neri’s son), Shealtiel was then biologically from the David-Nathan lines (explaining Luke’s genealogy), though he counted as the son of Jeconiah in so far as the succession of kings is concerned. Matthew’s verb gennaõ in that circumstance would refer to Jeconiah adopting Shealtiel, who then was (on this theory) biologically the issue of Neri (Luke 3:27). In this situation, Jeconiah would have begotten Shealtiel by ‘adoption’, in an analogous way to Yahweh the suzerain adopting David as his vassal (Psalm 2:7, Hebrewיָלַד, LXX, gennaõ). Nevertheless, in both the scenarios, Shealtiel is either the legal or biological descendant of both the David-Nathan and David-Solomon lines.

Zerubbabel is also named as the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother (1 Chron 3:19) as well as Shealtiel (e.g., Matt 1:12; Hag 1:1).[8] This difficulty might likewise be accounted for through Levirate marriage: one brother raising Zerubbabel for the other after his death.  Nevertheless, while Zerubabel is recorded in the Old Testament as having seven sons (1 Chron 3:19-20), neither Matthew nor Luke’s genealogy give Zerubabel’s offspring with those names: Matthew mentions ‘Abiud’ (v 13); Luke, ‘Rhesa’ (Luke 3:27). Resha (Luke 3) might be ‘Meshullam’ (1 Chron 3:19).

Another popular suggestion, deriving from the 15th century AD, a version of which was preferred by Luther, is that Heli was Mary’s father: perhaps Heli adopted Joseph, perhaps because Mary was an only child. Luke’s genealogy would then be, in effect, biological and Mary’s patrilineal line, though Mary is not actually named, while Matthew’s is that of Joseph, and which cannot be biological at its crucial point. However, while popular, this solution face the problem that Luke’s genealogy represents itself as being of Joseph, and such an explanation emerged in the extant literature only around in the fifteenth century: it was not countenanced in the earliest extant commentators, and the traditions communicated about Mary’s family in church history, which held that Mary’s mother was Anna and her father was Joachim, begotten of Barpanther, begotten of Panther the brother of Matthat the son of Levi of the line of Nathan.

This likewise also renders the suggestion that the Shealtiel and Zerubabel mentioned by Luke are different to the governor and his father mentioned by Matthew. It is not unusual for famous names to be reappropriated in subsequent generations, but it is likely that the theory of Levirate marriage is the better solution.

[1] Wyatt Graham, Why Does Matthew Skip Three Names in the Genealogy of Jesus? - The Gospel Coalition | Canada, December 8, 2019 accessed 9 March 2025; J Nolland, Matthew: NIGTC (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2005), 80 fn 62.

[2] Nolland, 83-4.

[3] John of Damascus (650 – 754), An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith [De Fide Orthodoxa], Book 4 Chapter 14.

[4] Julius Africanus, ‘The Epistle to Aristides’, fragments 1-6 at https://ccel.org/ccel/juliusafricanus/extant_fragments/anf06.v.vii.html; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 1 Chapter 7 at https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201.iii.vi.vii.html.

[5] Both Eusebius and Africanus err in asserting that ‘Melchi’ rather than ‘Matthat’ (Luke 3:24) is “third from the end” in Luke’s genealogy. Both are followed but appropriately corrected by Bede on Luke chapter 3 (J-P Migne, PL 92: col 361-2 (1862) at https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecur92mign/patrologiaecur92mign. See Nancy S Dawson, All The Genealogies of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2023), 409, 413. Dawson mistakenly regards Eusebius as correcting Africanus, who Eusebius uncritically follows.

[6] Nancy S Dawson, All The Genealogies of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2023), 191.

[7] A ration tablet has been unearthed indicating that Jeconiah had five sons who were provided with oil rations. But it is possible that Jeconiah’s biological issue stopped with them. See http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Babylonian_Ration_List:_King_Jehoiakhin_in_Exile%2C_592/1_BCE, accessed 22 April 2025.

[8] Nancy S Dawson, All The Genealogies of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2023), 192.

Fragments of Julius Africanus (c. 160-240), Letter to Aristides

https://documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0175-0250,_Julius_Africanus,_The_Epistle_to_Aristides_%5bSchaff%5d,_EN.pdf 

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260/265–339), Church History, Book 1, Chapter 7

CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book I (Eusebius) 

Chapter 7. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ.

1. Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he gives the account which he had received from tradition in these words:

2. For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law — according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated —

3. whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.

4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.

5. But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begot Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.

6. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.

7. Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begot children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.

8. By Estha then (for this was the woman's name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begot Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her as before said, and begot a son Eli.

9. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter's wife and begot by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: 'Jacob begot Joseph.' Matthew 1:6 But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.

10. Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: 'Jacob begot Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: 'Who was the son, as was supposed' (for this he also adds), 'of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression 'he begot' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.

11. For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account: Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.

12. And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.

13. But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.

14. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.

15. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth. And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begot Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begot Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.

17. Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.

Augustine, Retractions

Nb: Augustine further expounds his own explanation by following Africanus but cites Melchi not Matthat. Asserts Jacob, not Heli, was the biological father of Joseph. 

(ET) Meredith Freedman Eller, The Retractions of Saint Augustine (1946) at The Retractationes of Saint Augustine : Eller, Meredith Freeman, 1912- tr : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.

[224] 

2. Accordingly, in the third book when I explain the question how Joseph could have two fathers, I certainly said: "Because he was begotten of one, and adopted by the other; [fn 3] but I ought also to have mentioned the kind of adoption; for what I said sounds as if another living father adopted him. Now the law relating to death also referred to adopting sons, ordering that, after the death of the brother without sons, “the brother marry the  wife and raise[225] offspring from her to his dead brother.”[fn 4] This explanation really answers with less confusion the question concerning two fathers of one man. Now the brothers were born of the same mother, about which this case had to do; as the one who was called Eli died, the other married his wife; this latter was  Jacob, by whom, according to the narrative of Matthew,  Joseph was begotten; [fn 5] but he (Jacob) was begotten  for his uterine brother, whose son Luke says Joseph was; [fn 6]  Joseph was not begotten at all by Jacob, but legally adopted. This was discovered among the writings of  those who had written concerning this circumstance immediately after the ascension of our Lord.[fn 7] For  Julius Africanus[fn 8] gives even the name of this same woman who bore Jacob, the father of Joseph by her first  husband Mathan, who was the father of Jacob and the  grandfather of Joseph, according to Matthew; and who by her second husband Melchi bore Heli, of whom Joseph was the adopted  son. I had [226] certainly not yet read this when I answered Faustus, but, nevertheless, I could not doubt that it was possible for it to happen by means of adoption that one man might have two fathers.

[fn 3:] Ibid., III,  3.  A rather  clever  bit  of  reasoning  on the  part  of  St. Augustine  to  reconcile  the  conflicting  genealogy of  Matthew  1:16  and  Luke  3:23;  in  the  former,  Joseph’s father  is  Jacob,  and,  in  the  latter,  Eli,  (vide  Augustine, Sermo  LI,  xvii,  27).  This  idea  was  not  original  with  Augustine (vide  post,  pp.  225-226,  n.  8).

[fn 4] Deuteronomy  25:5,  6;  Matthew  22:24;  Mark  12:19; Luke  20:28.  Vide  Augustine,  Quaestiones  in  Heptateuch, V, 46.

[fn 5]  Matthew  1:16.

[fn 6]  Luke  3:23.

[fn 7] Augustine  does  not  give  us  their  names.

[fn 8] Epistula  ad  Aristidem.  III,  9-14  (MPG,  X,  p.  52f). Cf. Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuch, loc. cit . Eusebius has given us extracts of this letter of Julius, which was the first to attempt to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between St. Matthew and St. Luke in the genealogy of Christ by a reference to the Jewish law which compelled a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother, if the latter died without issue. Julius was a Christian historian of the third century. He was born at Aelia in Palestine, but lived a great part of his life at Nicopolis, the ancient Emmaus, which had been restored largely because of Julius’ efforts. Harnack (op. cit. , p. 1114) maintains that this problem had been troubling ecclesiastical exegetes from the second century on.

[fn 9] Augustine also refers to this question of the genealogy of Jesus in Retractationes, II, xxxviii, 3, post , p. 238; xlii, 3, post, p. 250; Ixxxi, 6, post, pp. 336-337. Lagrange (loc. cit .) says that this resolution of the difficulty “n'etait pas sans vraisemblance ;” [it was not without likelihood] perhaps, but it sounds very fanciful.

Bede, Commentary on Luke's Gospel

ET Google Translate: Venerable Bede on Luke Chapter 3 in J-P Migne, PL 92: col 361-2 (1862).

Nb: Bede corrects Melchi to Mathat in the David-Nathan-Heli line as the one Africanus should have mentioned as 'Third from the end'.