• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Matthew and Luke's Differing Genealogies

mnh84647

Member
Jun 22, 2017
9
16
29
Chatsworth
✟23,394.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm not sure if I posted this in the right forum. However, I'm somewhat new to really studying Scripture, and there's a lot I still don't understand.

Something I'm confused about lately is Matthew and Luke's differing genealogies of Christ. What happens after King David..? Thank you for any help!!

MATTHEW'S GENEALOGY
(From Abraham to Jesus)

Matthew 1:1-17

Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez (whose mother was Tamar)
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz (whose mother was Rahab)
Obed (whose mother was Ruth)
Jesse
David
Solomon (whose mother was Bathsheba)
Rehoboam
Abijah
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Johoram
Uzziah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah
Jeconiah
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Zadok
Achim
Eliud
Eleazer
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph (the husband of Mary)
Jesus

LUKE'S GENEALOGY
(From Adam to Jesus*)

Luke 3:23-37

Adam
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalaleel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
Cainan
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez
Hezron
Ram**
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menna
Melea
Eliakim
Jonam
Joseph
Judah
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Joshua
Er
Elmadam
Cosam
Addi
Melki
Neri
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Rhesa
Joanan
Joda
Josech
Semein
Mattathias
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melki
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus
 

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

What we have here are two genealogies. The one through Joseph (the legal lineage) is via Solomon and one through Mary (the biological lineage) is via David's other son Nathan...in Judaism the adopted son is as a real son and inherits the double portion. This is the first explanation and the most widely accepted.

According to this position, Christ's lineage in the flesh through Nathan makes Him a son of David that is heir to the throne because Solomon's line was cut off because of the abject idolatry though his sons that brought Israel and Judah to captivity...

The more rare but actually an early tradition says “According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heil’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,915
17,131
Canada
✟287,108.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This link might be of interest (remembering that commentaries - unlike Scripture - are not inspired) : Luke 3:23 Commentaries: When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
 
Reactions: mnh84647
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hello mnh84647.

These two accounts, Matthew and Luke, the authors of which are obviously using two different sources for their genealogy. What could be a simpler answer?

One theory offered to explain this difference after King David, is that one lineage is paternal and the other is maternal. Genealogy in Israel was never recorded according to maternal descent.

Matthew omits the names of three evil kings, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah. So Matthew's genealogy is much shorter than Luke's.

What I like about these differences is that these two gospel accounts are not synoptic.
Which provides a more powerful confirmation of the life and death of Jesus Christ.
These four gospel letters are four independent accounts, the more the better.

When I started reading the gospels I never noticed the differences, your on the ball I must say.
 
Reactions: mnh84647
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,787
14,239
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,426,821.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Both genealogies are Joseph's. Joseph's fathers are brothers with the same mother but different fathers. One was born before losing his father and the other was born after his mother remarried. The older brother married but died before producing an heir so his younger brother, in accordance with the law, raised up seed with his brother's widow. Joseph thus was born, the biological son of one of the brothers and the legal son of the other.
 
Reactions: Shane R
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hello prodromos.

The two accounts, Matthew and Luke, differ after King David, your way off the mark.
 
Upvote 0

Saint JOHN

Active Member
May 5, 2017
183
71
60
Adelaide
✟35,848.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
What we have here are two genealogies. The one through Joseph (the legal lineage) is via Solomon and one through Mary (the biological lineage) is via David's other son Nathan...in Judaism the adopted son is as a real son and inherits the double portion. This is the first explanation and the most widely accepted.

According to this position, Christ's lineage in the flesh through Nathan makes Him a son of David that is heir to the throne because Solomon's line was cut off because of the abject idolatry though his sons that brought Israel and Judah to captivity...

YES SIR..! Josephs line was marred by bad kings..etc so through Mary line..spot on.
 
Reactions: mnh84647
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hello St John.

Sounds reasonable, I may look into that explanation, thanks.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,787
14,239
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,426,821.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Hello prodromos.

The two accounts, Matthew and Luke, differ after King David, your way off the mark.
I don't think you have read my post carefully enough.
Matthew traces Joseph's lineage through Solomon, ending with Matthan, Jacob and Joseph
Luke traces his lineage through Nathan, ending with Matthat, Heli and Joseph.
Heli and Jacob had the same mother, who had been widowed after the birth of her first son, remarried and had another son, so Heli and Jacob are brothers even though they have different fathers, one descended from David through Solomon and the other descended from David through Nathan. One of them married, but died before producing an heir, so his brother raised up seed for him in accordance with the law. Thus Joseph was the biological son of one of the brothers, but the legal son of the deceased brother.

Those who claim Luke's Gospel is giving Mary's genealogy are stepping way beyond Scripture. Nowhere does it give the slightest suggestion that Luke is giving the genealogy of anyone but Joseph. It is a recent tradition created to try and harmonise the two Gospels due to not knowing the understanding passed down by the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I do not buy the "mary" genealogy theory as it violates the plain meaning of the text.

2 things to keep in mind: Jews in foriegn cultures often have 2 or 3 names (Saul and Paul were both names given to the apostle at birth). And there was always the issue of adoption - rather common in mid eastern cultures. It is entirely possible that one is the adopted (probably Matthew) lineage while the natural lineage is shown in the other one.
 
Reactions: Shane R
Upvote 0

WebersHome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 7, 2017
2,140
460
Oregon
✟390,843.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
-
Much, if not all, of the confusion about the two genealogies can be blamed on the translators.

The koiné Greek manuscripts contain no punctuation of any kind; none. So the punctuation we see in English translations is selected and positioned arbitrarily; i.e. solely at the discretion (and quite possibly the bias) of the translators.

For example; consider the KJV rendering below:

Luke 3:23 . . And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, etc, etc.

Every stitch of punctuation in that sentence was selected and placed in their respective locations arbitrarily; and what you see above makes it look like Christ's genealogy in Luke follows Joseph's line; when actually what you're looking at is the line of Mary's father Heli. Joseph's father was a man named Jacob. (Matt 1:16)

Here's a much, much better arbitrary version of Luke 3:23.

"And Jesus himself (assumed Joseph's son) began to be about thirty years of age; being the son of Heli, etc, etc."

Seeing as how Mary conceived without the assistance of a man, then the nearest paternal male in Jesus' line is Heli; which is doubtless why Luke took that direction.


NOTE: Jacob set a rather odd precedent back in the book of Genesis by adopting his own two grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim; thus giving them tribal positions equal in rank to the original twelve boys (Gen 48:5-7). Jacob did that in order to add two sons to Rachel's brood.

His motive for adopting Manasseh and Ephraim was in sympathy for his deceased wife being cut off during her child bearing years, which subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own. Manasseh and Ephraim brought Rachel's total up to six, two boys of her own, two by her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.

This obscure bit of patriarchal prerogative has managed to evade the notice of modern Jewry as evidenced by their stubborn rejection of Christ as a valid candidate for David's throne on the basis that the boy didn't descend from Solomon biologically. By demanding a strictly biological connection to Solomon, they have effectively locked themselves into perpetual error; and have impudently, and shamefully, taken it upon themselves to overrule Jacob's precedent.

How do I know that Joseph adopted Mary's baby? Easy Peasy.

The Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream and ordered him to take part in naming Mary's child.

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt 1:21)

Joseph obeyed.

"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)

A child's name in those days wasn't chipped into stone until its father agreed. For example; John the Baptist's dad Zacharias was ordered to give his impending child the name of John.

"The angel said to him: your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John." (Luke 1:13-14)

And later on, "John" wasn't accepted until Zacharias gave his consent.

"So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias. His mother answered and said: No; he shall be called John. But they said to her: There is no one among your relatives who is called by this name. So they made signs to his father-- what he would have him called. And he asked for a writing tablet, and wrote, saying: His name is John." (Luke 1:59-63)

Thus, by participating in the naming of Mary's baby, Joseph as much as declared himself to be its father.

"Isn't this Joseph's son? they asked." (Luke 4:22)

By law; he sure was. In point of fact, according to Luke 2:21 and Luke 2:27, Mary and Joseph stood together as parents when her baby was given the name Jesus. Luke identified them as Jesus' parents again at Luke 2:41 and Luke 2:48.

It was necessary that God instruct Joseph to follow Jacob's precedent in order to place Mary's baby in line for Solomon's throne because David's crown never passes down through Solomon's female descendants; no, only his males. Though Jesus is biologically connected to David via Heli and his daughter Mary, they are biologically connected to Solomon's brother Nathan; which, as far as the Davidic dynasty is concerned, isn't a valid path to the throne.

/
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,787
14,239
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,426,821.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
What qualifications do you have which gives you the authority to render judgement on the quality of the very qualified translators of the vaious English New Testaments.
What bias could Protestant translators have to render Luke's genealogy such that it would apparently conflict with Matthew's?
On what basis do you claim the punctuation was placed arbitrarily in the English translation? At what level have you studied translation theory?
and what you see above makes it look like Christ's genealogy in Luke follows Joseph's line; when actually what you're looking at is the line of Mary's father Heli.
From what source did you find the name of Mary's father? The only other documents from that period state that Mary's parents were Ioachim and Anna.
Joseph's father was a man named Jacob. (Matt 1:16)
Joseph's other father was Heli.
Here's a much, much better arbitrary version of Luke 3:23.

"And Jesus himself (assumed Joseph's son) began to be about thirty years of age; being the son of Heli, etc, etc."
How many years have you been doing Greek translation? What level are you qualified at? In other words how can you justify your opinion that your translation is much better than the efforts of the highly qualified and experienced men involved in the New Testament translations we have today?
 
Reactions: Doug Melven
Upvote 0

WebersHome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 7, 2017
2,140
460
Oregon
✟390,843.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
-
What qualifications do you have which gives you the authority to render judgement on the quality of the very qualified translators of the vaious English New Testaments.

I don't usually respond to ad hominems, but yours is so common as to require addressing from time to time.

I'm 73 years old. I've been an ongoing student of the Bible since 1968 via lectures, seminars, sermons, Sunday school classes, radio Bible programs, and the authors of numerous books; Jewish authors and Christian authors.

That's 49 years of ongoing Bible instruction from quite a variety of competent sources. How many years of competent Bible instruction do you have under your belt? Not too many I'd guess seeing as how your profile states your age as only 51. Judging from your rather indignant reaction to post #11, I'd say you have some catching up to do.

/
 
Upvote 0

WebersHome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 7, 2017
2,140
460
Oregon
✟390,843.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
-
There's always been a question as to why Jesus was adopted into Solomon's genealogy instead of born into it.

One of the common reasons given is a man named Jeconiah; a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or Coniah. (Matt 1:11)

He was a very bad king of the Davidic dynasty; so bad that God black-listed his posterity. Here's the text of the curse.

Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said the Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be found acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the throne of David and to rule again in Judah.

It's a widely held belief that the curse on Jeconiah is far reaching and would've effected Jesus' tenure on David's throne had he been biologically related to that king. At first glance it does appear that way. But the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse was relatively brief; not extending beyond the period of the divided kingdom.

Thus, the curse on Coniah's offspring was limited to the time of his family's jurisdiction in Judah. So it was in effect only during the days of the divided kingdom with Judah in the south and Samaria in the north. That condition came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery. However, when Messiah reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate all of Eretz Israel. So the curse does not apply to him.

Ezek 37:21-22 . .You shall declare to them: Thus said the Lord God: I am going to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them a single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one king shall be king of them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms.

Jer 23:5-6 . . See, a time is coming-- declares the Lord-- when I will raise up a true branch of David’s line. He shall reign as king and shall prosper, and he shall do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah shall be delivered and Israel shall dwell secure. And this is the name by which he shall be called: "The Lord is our Vindicator."

Some Bible students, unable to discern between Judah and Samaria in the divided kingdom, feel that there are many lines from Solomon that don't go through Jeconiah and one of those could produce a king just as well and avoid the curse. No, it can't go through another line. The right to sit on David's throne is a Divinely inherited privilege passed down from father to son; and it certainly does not make side trips to uncles nor retrace its steps to follow other siblings.

There's really no need for a detour because if we compare Coniah's tenure to his grandson's Zerubbabel, it is easy to see that the curse was already gone by the time the 70 years of captivity were over. Much of the terminology God used in deposing Jeconiah was repeated to bless and empower Zerubbabel.

Coniah's Curse: "As surely as I live," declares the Lord, "even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. (Jer 22:24)

Zerubbabel's Blessing: "On that day,' declares the Lord Almighty, 'I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,' declares the Lord, 'and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the Lord Almighty." (Hag 2:23)

Zerubbabel was the last of Solomon's line listed in the Old Testament. And it was through him that the second Temple was constructed-- all with Divine blessing.

Zech 4:6-10 . .Then he explained to me as follows: “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit--said the Lord of Hosts. Whoever you are, O great mountain in the path of Zerubbabel, turn into level ground! For he shall produce that excellent stone; it shall be greeted with shouts of "Beautiful! Beautiful!"

. . . And the word of the Lord came to me: “Zerubbabel’s hands have founded this House and Zerubbabel’s hands shall complete it. Then you shall know that it was the Lord of Hosts who sent me to you. Does anyone scorn a day of small beginnings? When they see the stone of distinction in the hand of Zerubbabel, they shall rejoice.

David, the progenitor of the Davidic dynasty, wasn't permitted to build a Temple.

1Chrn 22:7-8 . . David said to Solomon, “My son, I wanted to build a House for the name of the Lord my God. But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and fought great battles; you shall not build a House for My name for you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight.

So Zerubbabel was, in all practicality, a holier man than his grandfather David; and certainly without question far more holy than Coniah. Only two royals of the house of David have built Temples for God: Solomon and Zerubbabel. It will be most interesting to see who builds the next one.

Since Zerubbabel is the last of Solomon's line in the Old Testament, and also the last ruler in Israel to be blessed in such an unusual manner, he is without question the final Biblical milepost pointing the way to Messiah. Anyone claiming messiahship now, must be shown to be related to Zerubbabel-- any old descendant of Solomon just won't do. Messianic candidates have to be descendants of Zerubbabel.


OBJECTION: Zerubbabel, who led the Babylonian Jewish exiles back to the Holy Land, did not ascend the throne. Rather, Jeconiah's uncle succeeded him (2Kgs 24:17), proving that the line is not forced to continue through Jeconiah.

RESPONSE: Mattaniah's appointment was political. He didn't actually succeed Jeconiah by birth-right, nor by inheritance, nor through Divine channels. Jeconiah's uncle was awarded the post by a foreign potentate: the king of Babylon.

2Kgs 24:17 . . The king of Babylon appointed Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, king in his place, changing his name to Zedekiah.


OBJECTION: There is no need to prove the curse was short term because it wouldn't effect Jesus anyway since Joseph wasn't his biological father.

RESPONSE: Adopted children have all the rights and privileges of children born in the home, including a right to inherit just as if they were biological kin. Therefore, since Jesus was Joseph's legal son by law, then Jesus would have inherited any, and all, curses that may have filtered down from Mr. Jeconiah right along with David's throne; just as if the lad had been a child born in the home.

/
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,787
14,239
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,426,821.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't usually respond to ad hominems, but yours is so common as to require addressing from time to time.

I did not attack your person in any way, I simply asked how you were qualified to make the claims you did, seeing as the placement of punctuation in a translation is anything but arbitrary. The only rule in punctuation is to accurately convey the meaning of the text which is what the translators of our English Bibles have done. Whether it made sense to them is secondary to accuracy.
What you have done is punctuate to give the meaning you (or whoever told you) wish to convey, which is not true to the meaning of the Greek.
So can I take it that you are not a translator of Koine Greek, and you are simply repeating what someone else told you? Is that accurate? Do you remember who told you what you posted above and whether they were qualified to make such a statement?
How many years of competent Bible instruction do you have under your belt? Not too many I'd guess seeing as how your profile states your age as only 51.
Now who's resorting to ad-hominem?
Judging from your rather indignant reaction to post #11, I'd say you have some catching up to do.
I'm sorry if my post came off as indignant as it wasn't intended to be. Tone can be difficult to convey when posting text messages. I asked what I did because I work with translators (though I am not one myself) and I spent 12 years in Greece working alongside some of the top linguists in Greece. Add to that the fact that the Church in Greece reads the Scriptures in their native tongue (there is no translation issue for them), and they have never understood the verse in Luke as you interpreted it. Thus with my background and experience, albiet two decades shorter than yours, I know for a fact that what you claimed is flat out wrong. Perhaps I could have responded in a less confronting manner, but the facts are what they are nonetheless.
I hope our Lord God grants you many more years.
 
Upvote 0

WebersHome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 7, 2017
2,140
460
Oregon
✟390,843.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
-
So can I take it that you are not a translator of Koine Greek, and you are simply repeating what someone else told you?

Not all of us have either the time, the intellect, or the resources to attend schools like Dallas Theological Seminary. and thank God we don't have to seeing as how according to Eph 4:11-14 Christ has supplied his body with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

In other words; when people are self-taught, then they aren't taught at all; and they're failing to take advantage of Christ's gifts to his body; which in the long run, stunts their growth and thwarts their unity in Christ's body.

To put this in perspective: I have no formal training in the field of cosmology. But Neil deGrasse Tyson does. When I watched him on NetFlix recently, I learned things about physics from a competent instructor. So when I repeat the things I learned from Mr Tyson, I know what I'm talking about though I myself am not an authority on the subject of cosmology nor have any formal training in the field.

In a nutshell; it isn't necessary for me to go to school to study koiné Greek when there are already so many pastors and teachers out there who've already gone to the trouble and are more than willing to share their knowledge with John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer; thus us commoners benefit from their expertise. And that is exactly how Christ prefers it.

In other words: it is Christ's will that the members of his body work together instead of attempting to function independently because we can't all be teachers and we can't all be pastors. The Spirit won't allow it. (1Cor 12:11-31)




Koiné Greek ceased to be a "native tongue" in Greece a very long time ago.


what you claimed is flat out wrong.

You really ought to be a little more circumspect with your choice of words lest the hapless day arrive when you are forced to eat them.

/
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark51

Newbie
Site Supporter
Nov 11, 2014
495
97
74
✟134,056.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Considering Matthew’s account, this record considers the paternal linage from Solomon to Joseph (Jesus’ foster father) to identify Jesus as a legal heir. Luke’s account considers the maternal linage from Nathan (David’s other son) to Heli (Mary’s father) to identify Jesus’ blood line. Ancient sentiment/traditions did not reconcile the mention of mothers as a genealogical link. Fathers without sons would consider a son-in-law as a “son” for the purposes as a legal heir. Therefore, Joseph was considered the son of Heli since he was married to Mary. Compare Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23. This in no way invalidates the prophecy that Jesus would come from the linage of David and most important being the son of Almighty God.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,606
29,175
Pacific Northwest
✟815,991.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I think the most likely explanation is that Matthew and Luke have different focuses and their genealogies reflect this. Matthew's genealogy seems to fit his general theme in trying to illustrate how Jesus is the Messiah. Luke, perhaps, is simply trying to be as historically accurate as possible--though the themes in Luke's Gospel tend to focus on Jesus as healer; Luke's Gospel noticeably emphasizes Jesus as the One who is for the poor, the weary, and the sick--Jesus' humanity is strongly emphasized throughout. Luke also, noticeably, traces Jesus all the way back to Adam, while Matthew only traces Jesus back to Abraham. Matthew emphasizes Jesus as the promised Messiah; Luke emphasizes Jesus as the Great Physician.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0