How do Christians explain Jesus' two genealogies?

Question

The 1 in luke is different than the 1 in matthew.

I've heard that possibly one was Mary's, the other was Joseph's but I just read that most scholars dismiss this theory and it only became popular in the 1500s.

What's another explanation?

sunestauromai (συνεσ…What do you mean? Any sites I could check out?

Answer 1

There is no explination. The 2 parent theory is complete bunk. It is more proof the bible is the word of man.

Answer 2

Biological and Legal

Neither works for Mary since the indication from scripture is that she is a Levite (like her cousin Elizabeth), rather than being from the tribe of Judah.

"As Luke introduces his genealogy, he gives the age of Jesus at the start of his ministry as being about thirty (3:23). He also notes that Jesus was “thought” to be the son of Joseph, reaffirming his earlier assertions about the miraculous birth through Mary. Despite this qualification, legal paternity was still the source of ancient ancestry, so it is likely the line is Joseph’s. It is this distinction that makes Luke’s line a “legal” line."
--NIV Application Commentary

Answer 3

In ancient cultures, a genealogy was not equivalent to our modern family tree. It was sufficient to establish lineage not every branch. Furthermore, if you wanted to establish that someone was a descendant of David, a descendant of Abraham you could do so easily (Matthew's genealogy). But, if you wanted to establish that someone was a descendant of David, a descendant of Adam you could equally do so (Luke's genealogy). Matthew wanted to demonstrate to Jews that Jesus was the awaited Jewish Messiah. Luke wanted to establish to Gentiles (non-Jews) that Jesus was the Savior for all people because He was a descendant of Adam as all humans are (Jewish or non-Jewish). Finally, consider David, he had numerous wives with whom he had numerous sons... only one of those became king after David, Solomon. Solomon had three hundred wives with whom he had more sons than could be counted. They were all David's children, David's grandchildren, David's great-grandchildren and so on. The same goes for Adam. The genealogy just depends on what the author was trying to demonstrate.

Answer 4

That's the only explanation I know. Every Christian scholar I've ever talked to agrees with it. I suppose non-Christians will find any excuse not to believe the Bible. The only other explanation I can think of is that one of these men was mistaken. I don't think that's true though. I believe Matthew gave Joseph's genealogy while Luke gave Mary's.

Answer 5

I take it to mean a) Jesus' geneaology wasn't THAT important at the time, and b) the contradiction proves that the Gospels were NOT written as a conspiracy between men, therefore the places where they DO agree are that much more important.

OMG!!! A CONTRADICTION in the Bible!!! HORRORS!!!!!!
Not that it's a matter of terrible importance. I may ask about it sometime in the next... oh... 10 000 years or so.

[edit] Cool. No need to ask now thanks to DavidM. So not EVERY mother-in-law is a problem!

Answer 6

The Catholic church celebrates Joachim and Anna as Mary's parents.

Someone explained the two lineages thusly: Joseph was an orphan. When he was adopted, he "inherited" his step-father's lineage. But he was also the son of Heli.

Answer 7

Matthew gave Jesus' 'legal' genealogy and Luke gave his physical genealogy.

Answer 8

Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture, Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3, verses 23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). What is the explanation for these differences?

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regards to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

Another explanation is that Matthew is tracing the primary lineage while Luke is taking into account the occurrences of "levirite marriage." If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man's brother to marry his wife and have a son who would carry on the man's name. While possible, this view is unlikely as every generation from David to Jesus would have had a "levirite marriage" in order to account for the differences in every generation. This is highly unlikely.

With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for "son-in-law," and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

Answer 9

The other explanation is that the books of Matthew and Luke were compiled separately and then not changed.

If anything these two accounts show that in early Christianity the concept of Jesus being immaculately conceived did not exist, and that they did believe that Joseph was Jesus' biological father.

Answer 10

Most scholars do dismiss this. Both versions clearly state they are Joseph's geneologies, not one is Joseph's and one is Mary's.

Answer 11

One was Mary's and the others was Joseph"s to point out that Jesus was the true heir to the throne of David's.