Can you really explain the difference in the two geneaologies of Jesus?

Question

In the first chapter of Matthew and the third of Luke, we have family histories for Jesus.

To be methodical, we must go verse by verse, pick a logical starting point, and deal with the fact that one reads forward in time (Matthew) while the other traces backwards.

I think it makes most sense to start at the focal point of Jesus' parents...

Careful reading of Matt 1:16 indicates that the Matthew list is intended to be through Joseph's family descent. The Jews, not believing Jesus was born without assistance of a human father, would look to this list as an indication of his legitimacy at birth. The implication is that the other list is of Mary's family line, but Luke 3:23 does not actually state this, again referring to Joseph. There are no other Bible verses that state the parentage of either Joseph or Mary, nor are the grandfathers (Jacob and Heli) mentioned anywhere else.

Even a casual glance shows the accounts to be highly different. Are they wrong?

Answer 1

Apologists try to have it both ways by saying that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, and then without any warrant whatever in the text, they proclaim the mismatch between genealogies is because one is Mary's and the other Joseph's. Henry Morris, the insufferable fraud quoted above, is the absolute monarch of slippery bullshit when confronted with these utterly incontrovertible errors. As you can see, he simply pulls comments like "It should be understood to mean "son-in-law", when the text says nothing of the kind. He simply makes this crap up as it suits his need.

The apologists also overlook the fact that since both "inerrant" genealogies purport to be genealogies of Joseph's, one descending from Nathan and the other from Solomon, since Joseph is in fact not the father of Jesus, Jesus is not of the line of David, and thus not the Messiah. So to explain this away, they claim one genealogy is that of Mary, and so Jesus is descended from David through her, but as you point out, that is not what the "inerrant" text actually reads.

I have found that inerrantists can commit isogesis (reading into the text what is not there) whenever necessary to support their delusion of verbatim inspiration. So, though your argument is completely valid, your argument will be ignored or dismissed in an act of utter and transparent hypocrisy by these people who insist they have the god-breathed truth in their possession, despite that they repeatedly demonstrate that truth is the one thing they refuse to hear.

Answer 2

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary's genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

"Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.' thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

Answer 3

These are two verses of the SAME MESSIAH. Reading 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, they King comes unto thee: His Just and having Salvation (Yeshu); lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***... This is Jesus. He fulfilled this Messianic Prophesy Luke19:30+ 14:4 And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, that isa before Jerusalem on the East and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst therefore toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And this verse should be compared with Revelation14 When Jesus is the on Mt.Zion with 144,000 Israelites... and Chapter19, when Jesus returns and defeats the beast & false prophets and judges the nations. This happens before the Millennium Reign of Christ. Jesus is the King of Peace, but He is also Returning as King of Kings & Lord of Lords. And things aren't going to be pretty for the antichrists.

Answer 4

The National Graphic Channel tried to cover this issue. I recorded it, but haven't watched it in a while, and am not sure Iwached all of it. If the channel has the series for order, I suggest doing so. I belive it's in two parts.

I'm trying to find the video, not successful yet. I might have recorded it from the Discovery Times Channel.

Still can't find it. That blasted Jesus tomb story keeps coming up in my searches.

Answer 5

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.
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.

Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote:
“This study of the text in detail leads us to admit
1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus;
2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary.
Why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Answer 6

Not only that but they both disagree with Chronicles. The claims by some Bible Believers that one of the genealogies is Mary's or Joseph's Mother's fall flat on their faces from the basic reading of the text.

Answer 7

Joseph and Mary both are descents of Davidic lineage. People who have argued about this fact from Matthew's accounts have put their questions to more learned than I,
if you really want more information:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140623.htm

Answer 8

Genealogy was not traced through the mother but in Christ situation it had to be as he had no physical Father therefore the name of Joesph is substituted he is the husband of Mary so rightfully his name was used. The Bible covered both Christ' lawful earthly Father's genealogy and his Mothers line so to prove in both ways he was born in the house of David.
Christ was born legally to the house of David through his legal Father Joseph and a biological heir of David through Mary....So to answer the question Christ was born in the house of David obviously.

Answer 9

Look into a geneology or anthology of the catholic saints. mary had a mother...depends on what faith you follow. A person of Jewish faith wouldnt consider either because their religious doctrine stops at the end of what we consider the old testement and therefor does not consider the geneologyof jesus.

Answer 10

There is an explanantion, but it is rather long. May I suggest a reading of Adam Clark Commentary on the subject.
Adam Clark Commentary on Studylight.org