Why does Matthew claim there were fourteen generations between David and Jesus?

Question

And then Luke has many more - 41 generations?

The names in the genealogies are also different.

Which one was lying? Isn't lying a sin? What sort of sin is lying in a sacred text? Lying about the "Son of God"?




The Bible is the unlitimate proof of the non-existence of God.

Mike P - sorry, you should reread them. Both refer to Joseph. It is the genealogy of esus through Joseph in both cases. Luke 2 and Matthew 1.

How could both Joseph and Mary be related to David?

And Matthew clearly states that the father of Joseph was Jacob while Luke tells us it was someone called Heli!

Who is lying?

Diane D have you read Luke 23?

Here it states

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli,

How does that refer to Mary?

People get real here.

LUKE 23 IS CLEARLY STATING JOSEPH NOT MARY!!!!!!

Answer 1

I've heard that one is supposedly Mary's genealogy, but both clearly say that they were Joseph's lineage.

Answer 2

The descendants of the Davidic royal line are given in 1 Chronicles 3v17~18, Shealtiel was the father of Pedaiah who was the father of Zerubbabel. Matthew gets the lineage OK, but skips a generation here and there (because 'son of' means 'descended from') in order to get his desired number of generations at 14, (I've no idea why).
The genealogy in Luke cannot be for the same person as described in Matthew's, because the two lineages are descended from two different sons of David. Matthew gives Christ's lineage through king Solomon son of David and Luke gives the lineage of someone else through Nathan son of David.
It is known from the Syriac gospel of Luke that Mary was also descended from David, so the supposition is that Luke 3v23 is corrupt and the following lineage may be Maryam's (Mary's), not Christ's as it now reads. This is just an idea, more research is needed.
The bible shows that it is an ancient text which requires some more scholarship to recover the text. Errors like this easily creep into ancient texts due to holes in manuscript pages etc.

Answer 3

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.

Edit: the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon - to Jesus through adoption - (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”

Edit2: The use of the term 'son' was often used in the sense of a 'descendant' or a head of a household's relative living under the same roof. An example of this in the Hebrew Bible would be Manasseh, who was described in Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14 and 1st Kings 4:13 as the 'son' of Jair. However, it is revealed in 1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15 that he is actually the distant son-in-law of Jair. Thus calling Jesus the 'son of Joseph' could be interpreted to mean Jesus was a member of Joseph's household without being a biological son - or that Joseph is the son-in-law to Heli, which is the most common acceptance.

Answer 4

Mary and Joseph were both descendants of King David. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph. Luke is the line from Mary. Do a little research of the wording in Verse 23 of Luke chapter three. You will see that it doesn't clearly say Joseph son of Heli. But says Jesus with a reference to not really being Joseph's son the son of Heli. I'm sure the Greek would be even more clear.
The number of generations would vary because of the ages of people when having children. For example my Grandmother was born in 1889. I was born in 1968. That's three generations. For other families having children younger they could have four or even five generations in that time period.

Blessings on you! It's great to examine. Just be open to truth when you find it.

Penster, remember that the Bible was written from an 'Eastern and Hebrew' perspective. Sometimes in order to understand the way things are said and what is meant you need to step outside of your Western American thinking. When the passage says 'was the son so it was thought of Joseph,' It was saying in our tradition we trace genealogy through the father, but Joseph wasn't the Father so here is the father's genealogy through the one he is the son of. But of course we don't list her because genealogy is through the father.

Answer 5

Matthew say 28 generation, Luke say 41, both give ancestry of Joseph, if Joseph not Jesus father, Jesus not Messiah. matthew and Luke give differnt father of Joseph. Someone say Mary descend from David, Jews patriarchs, not use women ancestry. I'm sure some believers try to excuse this obvious contradiction, they want beileve religion, not care for truth. Matthew say Jesus born when Herod king, he die 4BC, say Joseph live Bethlehem. Luke say Jesus born in Quirinius cnsus, he become governor of area 6 or 7AD, say Joseph live Nazareth, go bethlehem for census. Many more contradictions in Bible tales about Jesus. No one can explain them really, I'm sure some believers try, they only show Jesus not really exist when say illogical things.

Answer 6

Drivel. The claim to Jesus' throne as the King of the Jews is much less important than the message he brings for the WHOLE WORLD.

Bothering with this kind of thing only gets in the way of his message of redemption.

This ridiculous arguing over passages that eventually mean nothing to a gentile is what turns so many people off about Evangelicals.

The heredity claim was for the Jews and most of them chose not to buy it so why bother with it.

It is meaningless to Gentiles who are concerned with how he lived and what he had to say. (not all the prophets of the old testament or the laws that he fulfilled and there-by made invalid)

I hope that any Jews reading this do not take this the wrong way because this is pointed at the so called "Bible Believing" Christians who can not see the forest through the trees.

Answer 7

Both the writers of Matthew and Luke were basically copying and expanding the gospel of Mark to suit the needs of their own congregations at the time they lived. Matthew about 75-80 CE, Luke 110-130 CE. It is also possible Luke had no knowledge of Matthew's gospel hence felt free to elaborate as he felt fit.

Answer 8

Christians are always being told to educate ourselves on secular issues and then we are suppose to respond to a question like this. Hey, try educating yourself by studying that which you claim to know something about. If you do you might find your answer.

Answer 9

This is ignorance in its finest.

Matthew is referring to the genealogy through Joseph.
Luke is referring to the genealogy through Mary

Answer 10

Depends on which bible you are reading...of course we could be just as intelligent as you and accept the notion that Columbus was the first European to find the "New World"...all other evidence would be a lie wouldn't it...