How do you explain the "jesus bloodline" bible problems?

Question

Matthew (ch. 1) and Luke (ch. 3) both list lineages for jesus back to King David, in an attempt to show jesus fulfilled the prophecy that the messiah would come from the house of David.
BUT...Matthew has him coming through Solomon (son of David) after 27 generations, Luke through Nathran (son of David) after 37 generations. The two lineages are almost completely different. Which one is right and which is wrong? They can't BOTH be right...
And besides, if Joseph isn't jesus' father by blood, what difference does Joesph's lineage make? Mary was NOT from the house of David, and jesus would only have her "blood" if she conceived through god...
How do you explain these contradictions in the bible?

Edit: both lineages explicity state they are JOSEPH'S lineage, not Mary's. No christians have a real answer to this???!!!

Answer 1

To Jinenglish: In those days, the society was so patriarchal, they did not follow the bloodline of females - they were inconsequential. So, that excuse of one bloodline being from Mary is a lie, passed on by Christians in an effort to cover the facts - this is an obvious contradiction. And, as pointed out, if Joseph wasnt Jesus' actual father/sperm donor, then his lineage would not count either. Excuses excuses...

Answer 2

Correct, both Luke and Matthew state that they are giving Joseph's lineage.

Matthew skips over some people. That was a dumb idea, wasn't it?

Luke is giving Mary's lineage, but the decision to give Mary's lineage without mentioning Mary is... well, uninspired!

In a sense, then, both Matthew and Luke are wrong. They both messed up.

Answer 3

This a example how punctuation can be misleading. there should not be a comma after Joseph Luke 3:23 if anything a period. Luke chapter 1 thur 3 is about Jesus,Mary and John the Baptist. Ask God to help us to rightfully divide the words of truth and not men grammar marks. It is Mary bloodline. Studies for The Holy One truths and approval

Answer 4

The right of inheritance is through the father's line.
Joseph claimed Jesus as his son (he did not say that he was the natural father, Joseph was Jesus' adoptive father. And through Joseph Jesus was in-titled to the Kingship through Joseph.

If a child is born is a family where the mother is a Jew and the father is not (God) than the child is considered a Jew because the mother is the main influence. Lukes' list is for Mary (even she was of the line of David).

Answer 5

They aren't contradictions. Matthew's genealogy is Joseph's. Luke's genealogy is Mary's. Joseph's line starts with Abraham and descends through David . Mary's line start's with her father and ascends through David back to Adam, and God. For Jesus to be recognized by the Jews as being of royal lineage, He had to be of David's line on both sides. So actually, they are both right.

Answer 6

you have to take the culture of the time into account - women did not have ANY rights so therefore did not matter. The lineage of Jesus is traced through his earthly father - Joseph. (the other lineage is Mary's showing biologically connected to David)

Think of it this way, if someone is adopted, they still call the man who raised them their father, right?

Answer 7

Good conversation, but you gotta read it more carefully. There is no contradiction as the passage in Matthew is talking about fathers and the passage in Luke is talking about sons. David IS THE FATHER of solomon. And in Luke it states that Nathan was one of David's sons.

Answer 8

Why are there two genealogies of Jesus?

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were un aware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

Answer 9

Simple ...its not true to begin with,the Bible was written by Men and based on text handed down through the centuries ,distorted and sorted out then sensored by the Vatacin ,jubilees for example ,why was it left out, how did Adam And Eve create a family? Eziekiel..Hmmm! makes you wonder what is fact these days!

Answer 10

one shows Jesus' lineage through Joseph, while the other shows it through Mary.