The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

Question

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true?

Answer 1

The genealogy in Matthew is actually the genealogy of Joseph. The genealogy in Luke is that of Mary.

There are several reasons for this. Matthew is a book written to Jews to prove Jesus' deity and position as Messiah. It was through the Virgin birth that this would be done. Therefore important to show that Mary too descended through the line of David.

Luke is a book written to a different audience. The genealogy there is to show that Jesus is the right heir of David.

Two parents... two genealogies.

Also... and this is the best part...

God announced very early that His plan for redemption involved the Messiah being brought forth from the tribe of Judah, and specifically from the line of David. The succession of subsequent kings proved to be, with only a few exceptions, a dismal chain. As the succeeding kings of Judah went from bad to worse, we eventually encounter Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin), upon whom God pronounces a " blood curse" : "Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."(Jeremiah 22:30)

This curse created a rather grim and perplexing paradox: the Messiah had to come from the royal line, yet now there was a "blood curse" on that very line of descent! (I always visualize a celebration in the councils of Satan on that day. But then I imagine God turning to His angels, saying, "Watch this one!")

The Solution

The answer emerges in the differing genealogies of Jesus Christ recorded in the gospels. Matthew, as a Levi, focuses his gospel on the Messiahship of Jesus and presents Him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Thus, Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham (as any Jew would) through David, then through Solomon (the . royal. line) to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus.

On the other hand, Luke, as a physician, focuses on the humanity of Jesus and presents Him as the Son of Man. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David -- and his genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Answer 2

Curiously enough, these genealogies have often been cited as proof that Jesus could not possibly have been the messiah. But let's look more closely at what the genealogies are SUPPOSED to be describing.

Matthew's genealogy is that of Jesus through Joseph. But it has problems. The first problem is that he mentions women (four of them), and women are NEVER mentioned according to the strict rules of such things at the time. Another problem is that it contains Jeconiah. According to Jeremiah 22:30, no descendant of Jeconiah can ever possibly be the messiah.

Some of these problems have elegant solutions. For example, some believe that Matthew mentions the genealogy in the traditional way as a segue to the real story. In other words, he shows the ancestry which would normally preclude Jesus from being the messiah, but then goes on to the virgin birth to explain why it's all still okay. For me, at least, that explanation seems pretty reasonable.

But it leaves another question of what Jesus' ancestry REALLY is then. And apparently I'm not the only one who wondered this, because Luke sees fit to supply it in his account. The interesting thing about Luke's genealogy is one that may get lost in translation. In the Greek, he refers to all of the ancestors with the article 'the'. All of them but one... Joseph. So he is descended from THE David, but Joseph just gets a mention. This is in keeping with strict tradition of only mentioning men. To mention a WIFE instead of a husband, you use the husband's name, but no definite article.

Luke's genealogy, however, does also have a serious problem. It does not show Jesus to be descended from Solomon, but instead from his brother Nathan. Yet we know from other verses that the messiah MUST be an heir of Solomon. To make matters worse, two of the people in Luke's genealogy are ALSO descendants of Jeconiah (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel).

The only resolutions I've ever heard of to this are that maybe there's another secret line that nobody mentions that fixes everything, or that maybe all the prophesies which seem so obviously to refer to Solomon instead refer to someone else. Neither seems particularly satisfying to me.

Hope that helps!

Answer 3

There are a couple of reasons that are likely: In the Ancient Near-East (ANE) both a tracing through gentic heirship and dynastic heirship would be considered legitimate. If this is the case Luke's genealogy would be genetic and definitely traced through Joshep. He tracks it all the way back to Adam, connecting Jesus witht he entire human race. Luke was writing for a largely Gentile (Non-Jewish) audience while Matthew had a mostly Jewish audience in mind. Matthew's audience would be aware of God's promises to Abraham while Luke's may not. Matthew would be emphasising the fact that Jesus was fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham.
Also in the ANE family trees weren't always as detailed as our's and sometime's only listed significant ancestors. Matthew may have been tracing it through Mary even though it seems it was through Joseph, but this again would be considered valid as Joseph as son-in-law to Eli would be considered his son.
There is a lot more speculation, including why Matthew may have legitimately have left people out to provide a sense of balance with numbers that a Jewish audience would have appreciated. All these theories and the one's have not delved into take the cultural context of the writer and intended audience into account. Remember, they may not have imagined people reading their works 2000 years later like they read the Torah (Jewish Old Testament)

(I also just read the previous answer and indeed it would be legitimate to trace the family back in that manner considering Jewish Levitcal law, found in Leviticus)

Answer 4

Matthew - written to the Jews - traces the lineage from Abraham to Mary - custom of the Mother

Luke - written to the World - traces the father image through Adam - the first man

both had David as a common ancestor - TRUE !

Answer 5

Luke's geneaolgy of Jesus is through Mary, not through Joseph. Sadly, the vast majority of Bibles translated into English do not make this clear at all; the confusion rests in the Greek text.

Here's a great article that will explain this interesting issue to you in full:

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/5_6/genealogy

Peace.

Answer 6

Jesus was related to David through both Mary and Joseph (his adopted father) solidifying his claim to christship.

Answer 7

Have you noticed they are names of men?

They put names of husband instead of wife.

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.

Answer 8

Because Adam is the first off all men. Every man is related to Adam. Just as every women is related to Eve. Joseph can be related to both Adam and Abraham.

Answer 9

One is through Mary, one through Joseph. They are both descended from David, but through different sons.

Answer 10

Matthew is the genolgy of Jospeh

Luke is the genolgy of Mary

The only man that can trace his roots to Adam and God