Charles Ellicott Commentary Luke 3:1

"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene," — Luke 3:1 (ASV)

The difficulty presented here allows for at least three explanations:

1. Joseph may have been the son of Jacob by birth and of Heli by adoption, or vice versa.

2. Jacob and Heli may have been half-brothers—sons of the same mother but by different fathers, Matthan and Matthat. Alternatively, these two names may be different forms of the name of the same person. In this scenario, one of the two brothers may have died without children, and the other married his widow to raise up children for his brother.

   On either of these first two assumptions, both genealogies give Joseph’s descent. This would be sufficient, as St. Matthew’s record shows, to place the Son of Mary in the position of the heir of the house of David.

   However, this theory (encompassing the first two explanations) requires us to account for the fact that two different genealogies were treasured in Joseph's family. The explanation commonly offered is natural enough: St. Matthew, it is said, gives the line of kingly succession—the names of those who were, one after another, the heirs of the royal house. St. Luke, in contrast, gives that of Joseph’s natural parentage, descending from David as the parent stock but through the line of Nathan, and taking by adoption its place in the royal line when that had failed. The fact that from David to Salathiel, St. Matthew gives us the line of kings, and St. Luke that of those who were outside the line, supports this hypothesis to some extent.

3. A third and, as it seems to the present writer, more probable view is that we have here the genealogy not of Joseph, but of Mary. The words “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” are a parenthesis, and the first link is Jesus (the heir, and in that sense, son, of Heli).

   On this hypothesis, the Virgin, as well as Joseph, was of the house and lineage of David. Our Lord was then literally, as well as by adoption, of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3)—on the mother’s side through the line of Nathan, and on the reputed father’s side through that of Solomon.

   This view has at least the merit of giving a sufficient reason for the appearance of the two different genealogies. Furthermore, as we have seen in the Introduction, everything points to the conclusion that the materials for the first three chapters of St. Luke’s Gospel came to him through the company of devout women who gathered around the mother of Jesus. If so, what is more natural than that they should have preserved and passed on to him the document on which she rested her claim to be of David’s lineage?