Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

A. Matthew gives the properly Messianic genealogy from Solomon through our Lord as legal heir of Joseph, for without it promise had failed and He had lacked the legal title. Luke gives His real line as Son of man, and Son of God here below, through Mary, not down from Abraham and David, but up to Adam and God. Mary, as the Talmud allows, was Heli's daughter; "being, as was supposed, son of Joseph," is the true parenthesis, and not part of the genealogical line.

The two Greek words with which this Gospel begins are "Biblos geneseos," the book of the generation, which corresponds to a similar Old Testament expression frequently found in the Scriptures (Genesis 6:9., etc.) The very beginning of this Gospel shows clearly that this is the Jewish Gospel. The question of genealogy is an all important one for the Jew. The genealogy which appears in the Gospel of Luke does not stand there in the beginning, but it comes in with the third chapter, after the account of the Saviour's birth, and the ministry of the forerunner, and when He begins His public ministry. In the Gospel of Luke He is the Son of man, and not as in Matthew, the King. In Luke it is a going backward clear to Adam, while in the genealogy in Matthew it is the opposite; not like in Luke, beginning with His earthly name, Jesus, but beginning with Abraham, it goes forward till the end is reached in Joseph, the husband of Mary. The first verse in Matthew may be termed a superscription for the genealogy which follows, Book of generation of Jesus Christ, "Son of David, Son of Abraham." How truly He is all that, is now to be established, Son of David, because a King is promised to rule in righteousness upon the throne of His father David; but in a larger sense, Seed of Abraham, through whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed, and the nations to receive spiritual blessings. How incorrect it would have been if it had said, Book of generation of Jesus Christ, Son of Abraham, Son of David. That would have been the rendering by man, but the Holy Spirit puts David here before Abraham, though in the genealogy itself Abraham is the head, the first one. Jesus Christ is first the Son of David, and as such He is to be presented to the nation Israel , as King, and to be rejected by them. He is after that in the wider sense the One through whom the promises of blessing in Abraham to the nations are to be fulfilled. How clearly this proves the verbal inspiration! Indeed, if there is no verbal inspiration there is no inspiration at all.

It is not rarely the case that readers of the New Testament have asked themselves why all these names appear in the first chapter. We have answered many questions and have written numerous letters during the last eight years in answer to inquiries from the Jews on account of the genealogy, as it appears here, and the apparent contradictions and discrepancies between Matthew and Luke. Many a Jew has come and asked, Why must a man have two genealogies, and which is the right one? When the Jew takes the New Testament and opens it with Matthew, he finds himself upon familiar ground. It is the first question with him, if Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, Son of David, it must be proven by a genealogy. Does the New Testament, in the genealogies in Matthew and in Luke, prove this? is the important question the Jew asks. We have often asked the Jewish inquirer, Supposing Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah, not the Son of David, then you would expect the coming of a Messiah who is a Son of David, born in Bethlehem; how could that coming Messiah prove that he is really the Son of David, when your genealogical registers have been lost centuries ago? Others, too, have had difficulty on account of these two genealogies. We will state the case and what they teach in a few words.

In the genealogy of Matthew Jesus Christ is shown to be the King legally; in the Gospel of Luke we have His genealogy as the Son of Man, and as such linked with the whole race. The genealogy in Matthew proves that Joseph is a descendant of David through the house of Solomon. The one in the Gospel of Luke proves that Mary, the virgin, is likewise a descendant of David, but not through the house of Solomon; she is connected with David through the house of Nathan. The Messiah was to be born of a virgin, one who must be a descendant of David. But a woman has no right to the throne. As the son of the virgin alone He could not have a legal right to the throne. For this reason to make the One begotten in her of the Holy Ghost, the rightful heir to the throne of David in the eyes of the nation, the virgin had to be the wife of a man who had a perfect, unchallenged right to the throne. Now the genealogy in Matthew shows that Joseph is a son of David, and thus entitled to the throne, therefore Jesus is legally in this way heir to the throne. He is the legal descendant and heir of David through Joseph, but never Joseph's Son. He was supposed by the people to be the Son of Joseph. "And Jesus Himself, when He began to teach, was about thirty years of age; being, as was supposed, the Son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23). "And they said, Is not this the Son of Joseph?" (Luke 4:22). His claim as being truly the Son of David was therefore never disputed. Now if He had been the Son of Joseph according to the flesh, He would never be and could never be our Saviour. The 51st Psalm would then have found an application. "I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." On the other hand, if He had been the Son of Mary, without she being legally the wife of a Son of David, the Jews would have rejected His claim from the very outset. We see then that legally He was the Son of Joseph; in His humanity, He is the Son of Mary, and then one step higher, as we read in the closing verses, He is the Son of God. The two genealogies show Him as King -- Son of man and Son of God -- as the One born of Mary, but begotten in her of the Holy Ghost.

It is familiarly known that Matthew and Luke furnish two distinct pedigrees from David, the latter Nathan's line, the former Solomon's, which was the elder and of course, Jewishly, the more important branch. As was usual in legal genealogies, the line of the husband is given by Matthew, who for the same reason records the supernatural dreams of Joseph; whereas in Luke, Mary is everywhere the more prominent personage of the two, and accordingly, as showing the source of His human nature, the genealogy here given is that of His mother. (NOTE) — Hence, it is said by Luke, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, κ. τ. λ. that is, reputedly, or in the eye of the law, son of Joseph, but in fact, Mary's, as had been carefully shown in the preceding chapters. Thus, it is plain that there is nothing contradictory in these various accounts: nay, that each is as and where it ought to be, and is found in that Gospel whose character demands it, and there only. The Messianic descent of Matthew would be out of place in Luke, as the last Adam genealogy of Luke would not suit the historian who speaks emphatically of the Messiah, His relation to the Jews, His rejection, and consequently the transition to a new dispensation, which was to go on in mystery and patience, before the Son of Man returns to establish it in manifestation and power; of which last phase the prophets had treated. Luke, on the other hand, was inspired to develop the great principles of God's grace towards man, and the broader moral grounds which they assume; and this is so true that in the body of his Gospel events are grouped in their moral connections, not in their chronological sequence, save where this is required for the truth of the narrative.

Luke, on the other hand, after describing the events leading to and connected with the birth of the Lord Jesus, then gives a genealogy from the reverse viewpoint (Ch.3:23-38), from Jesus back to Adam and God. In this case the genealogy is totally different as dating from David to Christ, for the line is through Nathan, David's son, rather than through Solomon. But it appears evident that, though Joseph is mentioned in verse 23, the line is that of Mary, of whom Jesus Was actually born. For Luke emphasizes the reality of the Manhood of Christ, therefore the actual line is important in this case. Luke also, a Gentile, wrote to a Gentile, and therefore: shows the Lord's connection with all mankind, not only Israel.

The Genealogy. — Whose line is it that Luke gives us, Joseph's or Mary's? From very ancient times it has been held that he gives us the genealogy of Joseph, as does also his brother evangelist Matthew. Africanus, who lived in the third century, quoted by Eusebius, maintained this, and endeavoured to explain it. Some moderns have viewed it as the genealogy of Mary. There are difficulties in accepting either of these conclusions as indubitably correct. We may be sure, however, Luke has made no mistake in that which he presented to Theophilus, having, as he has given us to understand, verified what he wrote (Luke 1:3). But as yet no one has been able successfully to settle the question. There, then, we must leave it. The Lord's Davidic descent is unquestionable, whichever view be adopted. Peter affirmed it (Acts 2:30), and Paul also (Acts 13:23; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8), and the Lord Himself declared it (Matt. 22:45; Mark 12:37; Luke 20:41; Rev. 22:16). And the angel Gabriel's words to the Virgin (Luke 1:32), and Zacharias in his song (1:69), both speak of it, though knowing, certainly the former, doubtless the latter, that Joseph was not the real father of the child about to be born. The Virgin's child was really David's seed. If the genealogy be that of Mary, of course it proves it. If it be not, it does not deny it. We have referred to Africanus as an early advocate for the genealogy being that of Joseph; it is only right to add that the Talmud, according to Lightfoot, declares that Mary was the daughter of Eli, which favours of course the view that Luke gives us her descent. Looking at the context, one would incline to the view that it is Mary's genealogy. For in Matthew, who gives Joseph's line, Joseph is prominent throughout. Our historian has presented us with that which may be called the acts of Mary. It would, therefore, be quite in keeping with this, that the genealogy should be hers, not Joseph's. But this seems one of those questions for the solution of which we must yet wait.

Luke 1:35 recurs substantially to the Authorised Version, save "is begotten" for "shall be born"; "of thee" being generally given up here. The Revised Version is awkward and improbable. 70 "of old" is weak. — Luke 2:37, as there is an article in the Greek, cannot claim it in idiomatic English for one more than the other. 37, "for" or "unto" is a slender question. Important points, as in 2, 14, 22, 38, are passed by in silence. — Luke 3:14 seems as little happy in the American suggestion as in the Revised Version. "Harass none, nor accuse falsely" leaves the sense less restrained than either. In 20 the question of "to" or "above" is not much. But it seems strange that both the English Committee and the Americans have failed to observe that the true arrangement in 23 is to treat not as Wieseler ὡς ἐν. τ. Ἰ, but the two preceding words ὡυ ὡός also, as parenthetical and not part of the genealogy but a collateral remark before it begins. In the proper genealogical line "son" is not expressed; here it is, with the qualification in the strictest accordance with truth. The Lord was legally Joseph's son, and only so; He was really of Mary, whom even the Talmud attests as daughter of Heli. Luke therefore gives the natural line, which exactly suits his general scope, but would not prove Jesus to be the Messiah; whereas Matthew traces down from Absalom and David to Joseph, which was the Solomon branch with full legal title to Messiahship for the Jews, and this equally in its true place. The words would thus run: "And Jesus himself was at his outset about thirty years old (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph), of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi," etc. It is not Joseph, who is here traced from Heli, but our Lord — of course through His mother. Matthew had already explicitly declared that Jacob, not Heli, begat Joseph; Heli not being of Solomon but of Nathan, and therefore unable to give the true succession to the throne of David according to Jehovah's oath. The Lord's title was complete legally, because Mary was espoused to Joseph, who was in the true Solomonic line. Jesus was the Son of God supremely, Mary's son really, and Joseph's legally; all of which must unite in the true Messiah exclusively. For according to scripture He must be God and Son of God, He must be man born of a virgin as none other ever was, and Son of David not merely from Nathan but from Solomon; and this text, rightly divided and understood, helps to clear the truth in an important way.

*The true way of taking Luke 3:23 is: "And Jesus himself, when he began, was about thirty years old (being, as was supposed, son of Joseph); of Eli, of Matthat, of Levi, etc." Mary was, as even the Talmud admits, daughter of Eli in descent from Nathan. "Being, as was supposed, Joseph's son" is the correct parenthesis. It is natural that Satan should seek to set in opposition two genealogies, Joseph's and Mary's, which are in fact distinct, yet are both necessary for the truth. The mistake of most has been through viewing the allusion to Joseph not as parenthetical which it evidently is, but as the starting point of the line which really begins with Eli, Mary's father.

Really, He was Son of Mary, and Son of God, but God devised a way by which His legal right to the throne of David should be indisputable. By Jewish law, from the moment Joseph was espoused to Mary, she was looked upon as legally his wife, and any fruit of the womb was regarded as his. Thus, therefore, Jesus belonged by legal right to Joseph, and was regarded as his Son. Luke gives the Lord's genealogy through Mary, because Luke's object is to present Him as Son of Man.

But let us look for a little at the remaining view given us of our Lord Jesus in this chapter. Joseph is made very prominent. The genealogy itself is that of Joseph, not of Mary. On the other hand, Mary is the principal figure of the two in Luke, and there it is, I believe, her genealogy. Why is this? It was of necessity, for a Jew, that Jesus should be the heir of Joseph. The reason is that Joseph was the direct lineal descendant of the royal branch of David's house. There were two lines that came down unbroken to those days — the house of Solomon and the house of Nathan. Mary was the representative of Nathan's family, as Joseph was of Solomon's. If Mary had been mentioned without her connection with her husband, there would not have been a legal right to the throne of David. It was necessary that the Messiah should be born, not merely of a virgin, nor of a virgin daughter of David, but of one legally united to Joseph, i.e., in the eye of the law, really his wife. This is carefully recorded here for the special instruction of Israel; for an intelligent Jew would at once have asked that question, and everything must be fenced round with holy jealousy. Let people calumniate as they might, Mary must be espoused to Joseph; else the Lord Jesus would not have a proper title to the throne of David, and therefore the stress here is not laid upon Mary but upon Joseph, because the law would have always maintained the claim of Joseph. On the other hand, had Joseph been the real father, there could have been no Saviour at all. As it is, the wonder of divine wisdom shines most conspicuously, making Him legally the son of Joseph, really the son of Mary, who in the truth of His nature is the Son of God. And all three met and merged in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He must be the undisputed heir of Joseph according to the law, and Joseph was espoused to Mary. The child must be born before Joseph ever lived with Mary as his wife, and this we are carefully shown here.

The Lord's genealogy given in these verses proceeds back to Adam. The genealogy of Matthew 1 begins with Abraham and comes forward to Joseph and Christ. Matthew gives the kingly line, so there the official title of Christ to the throne of Israel is established. This is through Joseph who was not actually in the line of the Lord Jesus at all. Though verse 23 speaks of Christ as supposedly the son of Joseph, yet the line is manifestly that of Mary, for Joseph had a different father, Jacob (Mt.1:16). Both lines go back to David. Luke, however, giving the actual genealogy, goes back to Adam to emphasize the reality of the Manhood of the Lord Jesus and to remind us that man as such proceeded-from God (v.38).